SF Commission greenlights Lurie’s controversial permitting software deal

A city commission on Thursday cleared a key hurdle for Mayor Daniel Lurie‘s beleaguered permitting overhaul, voting 4-1 to allow San Francisco to continue its lucrative — and controversial — contract with software firm OpenGov. The Civil Service Commission’s vote authorizes the city to contract out IT work to OpenGov, the SF-based tech firm that Lurie’s office hired last summer to modernize the city’s outdated permitting system, bypassing a competitive bid process and sparking allegations of favoritism. The approval came after a grueling two-hour meeting, during which the Planning Department leadership defended its admittedly rough implementation of the new permitting software. Meanwhile, city IT employees, represented by the union IFPTE Local 21, attacked the software as riddled with security holes and called it a “black box” the city could neither improve nor modify. The Civil Service Commission cleared the path for OpenGov, but with strings attached: City leaders agreed to include a labor intermediary in the program to ensure worker protection and remain in talks with IFPTE Local 21 to smooth the software’s implementation. The Planning Department must report back to the commission every six months. The commissioners’ decision knocks down a key roadblock in the way of Lurie’s $6.5 million contract for professional services with OpenGov. The city is planning to spend an additional $22 million in OpenGov licensing fees over the next five years, with the option of a one-year extension. The OpenGov contract is still subject to a vote by the Board of Supervisors. Commissioner Adam Wood cast the lone dissenting vote. He said the implementation of OpenGov was obviously “half-baked” and “rushed.” The commission’s vote comes on the heels of an investigation by The Standard, published last month, into the contract. Multiple former OpenGov employees and current city workers said the company knew it would not meet benchmarks laid out by the mayor’s office and that the software is missing key features. Lurie is betting heavily on OpenGov’s implementation — it’s the centerpiece of his PermitSF plan to revitalize San Francisco’s archaic way of processing the public’s paperwork. In the meeting, Sarah Dennis Phillips, the executive director of the Planning Department, told the Civil Service Commission that the transition to OpenGov isn’t just crucial to meeting the city’s goals of accelerating housing permit approvals; it’s also part of building the city’s tax base. “We’re midstream in our economic recovery,” Phillips said. “We don’t want permits to hold up our jobs or small businesses.” Roughly a dozen union members showed up to the meeting with signs that read, “Protect public services. No contracting out.” Lurie’s office referred The Standard to Office of Small Business spokesperson Michelle Reynolds for comment. “We are looking forward to continuing the vital work to modernize San Francisco’s permitting, in close partnership with city staff whose hard work every day makes it possible,” Reynolds said. We’ve made strong progress and the Civil Service Commission’s approval is an important step towards even more.” That staff was less than happy with OpenGov’s software. IFPTE staff representative Emily Wallace alleged in the meeting that San Franciscans’ data may be left vulnerable. In the meeting, she said the software’s framework reached “end of life” in 2022, raising security issues. Wallace alleged that city workers who spoke out against PermitSF in meetings — where feedback was solicited — were pulled off the work in retaliation, causing a “chilling effect” on staff. “They were told ‘you have too much information, and it threatens to undermine what we are trying to do,’” Wallace claimed. “They were moved.” Planning Department leadership defended their personnel assignments, saying the task of assigning them was complex and ongoing. Last month, ex-SF Planning employee Michael Christensen alleged intimidation by project leaders’ objections to OpenGov’s implementation and said that Liz Watty, one of the managers of PermitSF, asked him to report colleagues who spoke critically of the project. The city denied Christensen’s claims. Lurie began PermitSF in February 2025 and chose OpenGov as the software to lead that effort later that summer. The mayor’s office did not seek a competing bid for the technology, and city staff had preferred another company over OpenGov, raising issues with its apparent lack of features and high cost. A $5.9 million deal was signed with OpenGov in October. Lurie also has connections to OpenGov: The company’s founders donated tens of thousands of dollars to his former nonprofit, Tipping Point Community. Katherine August-deWilde, a major donor to Tipping Point who leads one of the mayor’s business groups, Partnership for San Francisco, was an adviser to OpenGov when the city signed the deal with the company. Lurie and his family also held investments in OpenGov through a firm headed by another Tipping Point donor. In response to the revelations, Supervisor Jackie Fielder called for an investigation into how OpenGov was chosen. The report found the OpenGov selection process “did not violate city requirements,” although it could not be assured that an unfair advantage was not given to bidders for the permit reform contract, because a lack of transparency made it hard to tell. The mayor’s office has denied any favoritism in the deal and claimed that OpenGov was the only software company capable of meeting its aggressive implementation deadlines. Lurie had given the city until February 2026 to create a new, OpenGov-powered software. But the city has not met its deadlines. The city’s contract with OpenGov promised 15 permit types by March. By last month, less than half were available on the new PermitSF platform. In the meeting, Civil Service Commissioner Vitus Leung pressed the Planning Department on OpenGov’s myriad delays. Watty denied OpenGov had any culpability. “The delays are not due to the vendor,” she said. “The delays are due to the city.”

FBI probe scrambles District 2 race

Since 2023, Power Play has delivered scoops and expert political insight to your inbox. Beginning Sunday, May 24, we are moving the newsletter to a subscriber-only format. We love this politics-obsessed audience and appreciate the many of you who already subscribe to The Standard. For the outliers, please consider subscribing to continue receiving Power Play’s must-read exclusives, analyses, and fun tidbits from the team, as well as the rest of our reporting at The Standard. The FBI isn’t enough — San Francisco should also investigate the allegedly corrupt appointment of Supervisor Stephen Sherrill . At least, that’s the opinion of former Supervisor Aaron Peskin , who called on the Inspector General, Alexandra Shepard , to jump into the fray in a formal letter sent Friday, which Power Play obtained. The possible investigation is threatening to throw the June District 2 supervisors race into disarray, as Sherrill fights to keep his office from rival candidate Lori Brooke , a community advocate. Peskin’s missive was sent before The Standard reported that the FBI had begun calling people to ask about Sherrill’s appointment process, which was allegedly given to him by former Mayor London Breed in hopes that Sherrill’s former employer, billionaire Democratic donor Michael Bloomberg, would help Breed in a time of dire financial need. “The conduct described involves a sitting supervisor,” Peskin wrote, “whose appointment is alleged to have been made not in the public interest, but as a personal favor to a billionaire donor in exchange for the prospect of private employment.” Sherrill is still on the ballot to retain his seat as supervisor of District 2, including the Marina, Cow Hollow, and Pacific Heights, Peskin added. He’s no mere bystander: Peskin reportedly has ties to Brooke, Sherrill’s electoral opponent , and he also crossed swords with Breed as both sought the Mayor’s Office. Those caveats aside, Peskin authored the 2024 ballot measure that created the Inspector General’s office which may give him some insight into which cases they’re likely to take up. Voters approved creating the new investigative office in response to a seemingly never-ending series of corruption scandals that began with the indictment of former public works director Mohammed Nuru in 2020 (who, coincidentally, we hear is out of jail as of this month. The Federal Inmate database shows him in a reentry halfway house in Sacramento). Before she became inspector general, Shepard was one of the prosecutors who successfully landed Nuru in the slammer. “The voters of San Francisco passed Proposition C because they understood that City Hall cannot be trusted to investigate itself,” Peskin added. “That proposition is being tested right now. I am confident you will act on it.” The City Controller’s Office, which oversees the Inspector General, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Breed called the accusations insulting to her accomplishments and character. Sherrill’s campaign called the allegations the “lies of a disgruntled ex-staffer with an axe to grind,” referring to Conor Johnston, one of Breed’s closest allies of over a decade, who came forward publicly to cast doubt on the appointment. “I am only surprised it took Aaron Peskin this long to attach his name to one of these attacks publicly,” said Sherrill. “My opponent’s campaign is Peskin’s operation from top to bottom, which means a vote for Lori is a vote for Aaron Peskin and the politics of the past. This is what that side reaches for when they have no record to run on, and none of it will distract me from delivering for the constituents of District 2.” — Joe Fitzgerald Rodriguez, Gabriel Greschler, Han Li Got tips? Send to us at powerplay@sfstandard.com . GOVTECH BRAWL : It’s no surprise that Mayor Daniel Lurie and the public-sector unions have been at odds over budgets and layoffs: He’s a business-friendly mayor who has promised to overhaul the city’s bureaucracy. But what nobody expected was a brawl over … software procurement. PermitSF, a signature initiative of the mayor to make it easier to obtain permits, was under heavy scrutiny this week after The Standard published an investigation into OpenGov, the software controversially chosen to modernize the system. On Friday, another bombshell dropped when a former SF Planning staffer alleged intimidation over objections to the project. While misgivings about the project have stemmed from former OpenGov employees and current city staffers, the unions have qualms of their own. A showdown is coming Monday, when the Civil Service Commission will consider a $28.5 million renewal of the OpenGov contract. The commissioners already pushed back a hearing on the matter by two weeks after concerns that the city did not properly notify them of a public-sector union’s criticism of the contract. That union, IFPTE Local 21, the second-largest public-sector labor group at City Hall, after SEIU, argues that the OpenGov software is designed to exclude city staff. There will also likely be supporters of the project making an appearance; staff members of the Planning Department filed letters to the Civil Service Commission urging approval of the OpenGov contract extension. In response to the controversy this week, the Mayor’s office has defended the project, asserting that it has shown signs of making permitting easier. There is also the possibility that skepticism about PermitSF spreads to the Board of Supervisors. On Wednesday, in response to The Standard’s investigation, Supervisor Connie Chan grilled department heads over the status of the project. If the union is able to impede Lurie’s OpenGov project at Monday’s hearing, it will be a victory for the labor group as it enters summer budget negotiations, a fight that’s about to catch fire . And for Lurie, it would be a big speed bump on his eagerness to shake things up at City Hall. — Gabe Greschler MR. LURIE GOES TO SACRAMENTO: Gov. Gavin Newsom was once mayor of San Francisco, but that doesn’t guarantee the city any special treatment come budget season. In his proposed budget, revealed Thursday, Newsom slashed by half funding for the Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention program to local governments. He’s also asking cities to kick in their own local funds to compel the state to match. In San Francisco, the funding supports 1,000 shelter beds. Losing half the state dollars means losing half of those beds, Power Play is told. A request from the San Francisco government for Newsom to backfill funding for Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital fell on deaf ears, too. The hospital will lose vital state reimbursements when offering care to the estimated 45,000 people who will lose insurance due to changes from President Donald Trump ’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The California Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems asked for $500 million in the budget to shore up hospitals for similar reasons statewide. Lurie supported an additional ask of $270 million to hire 2,000 workers who help people determine health care eligibility to help the newly uninsured get care, as well as SNAP benefits. Newsom didn’t bite. The hits come as San Francisco already faces a $643 million deficit. Lurie is hoping to bring some of that “Let’s go, San Francisco” energy to Sacramento on Monday to lobby state lawmakers to restore those funds. He’s scheduled to meet with leaders in both houses, including Senate President pro Tempore Monique Limón , Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas , and budget chairs Sen. John Laird and Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel . The Standard found in a data analysis that there are fewer tents on the streets than in recent years, but finding homes for the most desperate is taking longer and longer, every day. — Joe Fitzgerald Rodriguez COLLECTING DUST: If you’re anything like this Power Play writer, your ballot is beneath a stack of mail in a random drawer of your entryway table. We’re not alone in our procrastination. With only 15 days until the June 2 primary, just 4% of California’s 23 million registered voters had returned, according to data guru Paul Mitchell ’s ballot tracker . Mitchell acknowledged that turnout has been “low” but anticipates that about 35% of voters statewide will cast ballots, roughly on par with 2022 levels . What’s most interesting so far, he said, is that while Democratic turnout is consistent with the 2022 primary, “Republican turnout is up by about double.” Mitchell said that increase is likely due to a waning sentiment among Republicans that voting by mail is a scam, an idea driven by Trump and other GOP leaders in recent years. “People are getting back to their old voting practices,” he said. Roughly 25,000 San Franciscans have voted by mail, per the Elections Department numbers, about 5% of registered voters. More than 46% of San Francisco voters cast ballots in 2022 . It’s no secret that it’s much more difficult to drive voter turnout for primary contests than for general elections, when races have (typically) boiled down to two candidates. But there are a couple of critical races in June that, in theory, would pique voter interest: the governor’s race, which remains wide open, along with local races like the battle to replace Rep. Nancy Pelosi in Congress, along with two special supervisor races and four ballot measures, including two competing initiatives. Sure, there’s time left to cull through candidate statements and newspaper endorsements. And maybe this crowd needs no persuading for an “I Voted” sticker. But let’s get to it, shall we? — Hannah Wiley

Lurie promised a permitting overhaul. Its builders say it was troubled from the start

Soon after Mayor Daniel Lurie took office in January 2025, he set out to solve a problem that affects nearly every San Francisco resident and business: the nightmare of getting a permit. Lurie’s effort to overhaul the permitting system, a tangled mess of antiquated software and arcane procedures that has long been the bane of the city’s homeowners, contractors, business owners, and tradespeople, culminated last summer with the announcement of a $5.9 million contract for a San Francisco-based tech company called OpenGov. The promise: a hassle-free, one-stop, online shop that Lurie branded “ PermitSF .” OpenGov’s contract with the city, signed in October, did not come without controversy. The Standard reported that a majority of city staffers preferred a different software, claiming OpenGov lacked necessary features. Additionally, the company was found to have eyebrow-raising links to Lurie and some of his circle. The mayor’s office denied any favoritism, insisting that OpenGov was the only company capable of meeting the city’s aggressive timeline for launching PermitSF. Lurie had given the city until February 2026 to get some form of new system working. But the high-stakes project has been beset with extensive delays and concerns over key deficiencies in OpenGov’s software, according to documents obtained by The Standard and interviews with five former OpenGov employees and current city staffers. The delays in implementing the new permitting system should come as no surprise, the former OpenGov employees say: From the beginning of the city’s expedited, no-bid contracting process, the company harbored doubts about the city’s timeline. The former staffers said delays were almost a certainty, as OpenGov had never undertaken such a large or complex project. Are you a City Hall employee? We’d love to get in touch. Email powerplay@sfstandard.com. According to the contract signed by the city , 15 types of permits — for projects ranging from kitchen and bath remodels to fire alarm and sprinklers — were to be transferred from San Francisco’s old system to the PermitSF platform by March. The new, OpenGov-powered platform would allow residents to file for those permits online, rather than having to visit the Permit Center. As of Tuesday, about two months after the deadline, only seven of the permits are available on PermitSF . The rest are scheduled to go live by June, according to the company. But a city official overseeing the project told The Standard not to expect all of those permits to be available on the platform before the end of summer. The halting progress, alongside issues with the software’s capabilities raised by city employees, renews a critical question: Was OpenGov the right company for one of the most technically complicated projects the city has undertaken in recent years? For some former OpenGov employees, the answer is an unequivocal no. “Our system was not prepared for it,” said one ex-staffer, who spoke on the condition of anonymity out of fear of reprisals. “When they go for these deals, they just promise, promise, promise. … There was knowledge that this was a much bigger lift than what was going to be possible.” Another added: “We didn’t have any of the stuff that we promised [the city]. … The money was very important to [the company]. I think it was more the prestige for doing it for a big city like San Francisco.” Some city employees concur that OpenGov’s permitting software lacks important features, leading to missed deadlines and a rush by the mayor’s office to celebrate progress on PermitSF even as the system remains limited. “It’s been amateur hour, to be honest. I’ve never seen anything like this before,” said one city worker. “The ability to spin absolute failures as success is absolutely wild to me.” Lurie said in a statement, “It’s clear our new portal is working.” He added, “We’re seeing strong adoption, faster processing, and more flexibility for applicants, exactly what San Francisco needs to move projects forward. By modernizing how permits are submitted and reviewed, we’re making life easier for San Franciscans and helping accelerate the housing and investment our city needs.” In a statement, a company spokesperson said, “OpenGov remains committed to supporting San Francisco’s permitting transformation and working alongside its teams to deliver the project.” The company deferred questions about the project’s timelines and contract to the city. Questions about the software’s efficacy come at a crucial moment for both the company and the Lurie administration. OpenGov’s contract is up for renewal, with members of the Civil Service Commission set to vote Monday on a new $6.5 million, six-year contract that is subject to the approval of the Board of Supervisors. The proposal is already facing objections from IFPTE Local 21, a union that represents more than 13,000 city employees and has been critical of Lurie’s leadership at times, including his decision to lay off 127 city workers to help close a $643 million budget deficit. Lurie has staked much on the project's success. In February, his office trumpeted the system’s launch , signaling to voters that he was delivering on one of the pillars of his 2024 mayoral campaign of making government more efficient. However, as with the campaign promise to create 1,500 shelter beds in six months , City Hall has quietly walked back some of Lurie’s ambitious targets. Elizabeth Watty, director of current planning and one of the managers of PermitSF, admitted that there have been hiccups in the project’s rollout. “If we were to do it over again, we probably would have selected different things to work on for this first year,” she said, referring to the types of permits the city prioritized for launch. “Once you start digging in, you’re like, oh, it’d be great if we could actually launch this instead. But this was enumerated in the contract.” But Watty defended the city’s adoption of the OpenGov-built platform, describing the “first phase” as “foundational” to the city’s overhaul of an antiquated system. “I think we’re really excited to be able to kick off phase two with all those lessons learned under our belt, too, and have this opportunity to structure the contract in a way that gives us more of that nimbleness to do it the right way for permitting to be successful,” she said. Michelle Reynolds, a spokesperson for the Office of Small Business, one of the departments involved in PermitSF’s execution, said the city’s permitting is “notoriously complex,” and the initial February launch was undertaken in four months, something the city “has been trying to do for over 15 years.” “ OpenGov’s approach is to use their pre-built tool as a foundation, off of which they develop additional features that San Francisco needs,” she said. “That is not a limitation, it’s a deliberate risk-management strategy, and it’s already working.” Reynolds said the new contract will require OpenGov to train city staff to maintain the software indefinitely. The city projects it will be “cost neutral” by the fourth year of the contract, she said, because of savings through letting go of old permitting systems. A contract leads to an inquiry Software procurement doesn’t usually court controversy. But that wasn’t the case with OpenGov, which was founded in 2012 by former CEO Zac Bookman and conservative entrepreneur Joe Lonsdale. The company, which was acquired by cable conglomerate Cox Enterprises in a $1.8 billion deal in 2024, touts 2,000 government clients, for whom it modernizes the old, creaky software that many cities and states depend on. In addition to streamlining permitting, the company builds out systems to manage licensing, budgets, procurement, and tax and revenue collection. When Lurie launched his permit reform initiative at the beginning of 2025, the search for a software provider began. Watty; Ned Segal, the mayor’s chief of housing and economic development; and Florence Simon, the office’s former innovation director ( who was fired in March ), sought a company that could take on the complex endeavor of overhauling a system that, in Mission Local columnist Joe Eskenazi’s words , was so old, “it wouldn’t even get carded.” San Francisco has hundreds of permit types, and a whopping 20 software programs have been used to coordinate their approval across multiple departments — a migraine-inducing exercise that Lurie and others have argued inhibits business and lowers confidence in local government. A winner in the PermitSF sweepstakes was announced in the summer. “We’re just trying to make life easier, more efficient, more effective, and deliver faster for the people of San Francisco,” Lurie said in an Instagram post Aug. 26 about the selection of OpenGov. However, questions quickly surfaced about the company’s selection. The mayor’s office never issued a competitive bid, arguing that doing so would have delayed the self-imposed February deadline. Instead, it asked dozens of software companies to showcase their products to the city, an informal process known as a “request for information,” rather than the traditional bidding procedure known as a “request for proposal.” In April 2025, a month before the city notified companies that it was looking for a permitting solution, Segal, the former COO of Twitter, introduced OpenGov’s then-CEO to another city official. “Zac can help us think through permitting technology,” Segal said in an email, adding a smiley face. “Zac has been patiently waiting for the right partner.” By July, Segal and his team had narrowed the competition to two companies: OpenGov and Vancouver-based Clariti. Documents obtained by The Standard show that city staffers across departments flagged OpenGov as having “gaps so significant” in its features that it “shouldn’t be considered” and expressed concerns about the product’s cost. A majority of staff preferred Clariti, though there were worries about one department’s past experiences with the Canadian company. The Standard reported on the links between OpenGov and Lurie in October. Katherine August-deWilde, who leads the Partnership for San Francisco , a business group that provides policy advice to the mayor, was an adviser to OpenGov at the time of the deal. (August-deWilde no longer remains an “active” adviser to the company, a spokesperson said.) Lonsdale and Bookman, who stepped down as CEO in April and now serves as chairman emeritus, have collectively given tens of thousands of dollars over the past decade to Tipping Point Community, the nonprofit Lurie founded. Financial records show that Lurie and his family held investments in OpenGov through a fund overseen by another Tipping Point donor. In response to these revelations, Supervisor Jackie Fielder, who has sparred with Lurie during his mayoral tenure and remains wary of tech’s power in the city, launched an inquiry in November into how the OpenGov contract was procured. (Fielder went on leave in April , citing mental health issues, and is expected to return in June.) The Standard obtained a draft version of the Board of Supervisors’ budget and legislative analyst report, which has not been released publicly, finding that the OpenGov contract was eight times larger than the average new software contract procured through the same no-bid process. While investigators found the selection process did not violate city requirements, the report states it did not abide by best practices and that the procurement of OpenGov was “less transparent.” The report’s authors urged the board to adopt a policy prohibiting the procurement methods used by the mayor’s office. A small but working product The budget and legislative analyst’s report pointed out another aspect of the deal: The mayor’s office’s “key justification” for the no-bid contract was that OpenGov was the only company that could meet its deadlines. But records released on a weekly basis by the company show that those deadlines haven’t been met. The OpenGov contract was supposed to deliver the 15 permit types on a new system by March 16. On that date , the company released an update spelling out that there would be an eight- to 14-week “extension for remaining workflows.” Today, the public can obtain permits through PermitSF for window, door, and siding replacements; fire alarms; sprinklers and water flow; special events; and contractor authorization. According to the city, between February and April, 772 permits were processed through the new platform — 10.2% of all permits issued during that period. Though its reach is limited, some front-line city staffers who are working with PermitSF said the platform has made their jobs easier. “We do the same type of review, we do the same type of back and forth with applicants,” said Dakota Spycher, a staff member of the planning department. “It’s just all in one system. We don’t have to write on [a] physical form. We don’t have to enter information into a system that was created in the ’90s, and we don’t have to create a new record ourselves. So it’s really streamlined.” Spycher pointed out that he can access the platform remotely, allowing him to tackle an influx of permit applications even if he isn’t at the Permit Center, an option that wasn’t available before. Another SF Planning employee said she can spend more time with customers answering questions. The mayor’s office pointed to data that it says shows success: Fewer people are going to the Permit Center, and wait times to get a permit from the San Francisco Fire Department have decreased from an average of 30 minutes to 14 minutes. But there are many types of permits not yet on OpenGov’s platform: reroofing, solar, electrical, kitchen and bath remodel, and a handful of others that require more technical work than those that went online in February. Beyond that, there are many more complicated permit types to transfer to the new system in the coming years. Reynolds from the Office of Small Business said sign and reroofing will be completed in June, “with additional permit types rolling out shortly after.” The delays, said city employees, can be attributed in part to the software’s limited or lackluster features related to customization, data access, and reporting and analytics. City staff have put together a list of more than 50 enhancements they say the software needs, according to a copy of the internal document obtained by The Standard. The issues include problems with basic labeling, gaps in the permissions controls governing who can edit data in the system, and a lack of integration with the city’s existing systems. One former OpenGov employee agreed with the city staffers’ sentiments, saying the company is “not even close” to its competitors in terms of feature parity. The person estimated that OpenGov software can handle approximately 25% of what other govtech firms, like Clariti and Tyler Technologies, can do. Said one current city employee: “I think San Francisco is funding the research and development work of OpenGov.”

The first casualties of Lurie’s layoffs — and where cuts may come next

With a $643 million deficit and hundreds of millions in federal dollars likely lost to Trump administration cuts, San Francisco City Hall looks to have a bloody budget season. The pink slips started flowing Monday after Mayor Daniel Lurie slashed 127 jobs across 18 city departments. More cuts are expected in the coming months. Power Play has obtained a partial list of who was affected; among them are 22 workers from the city administrator’s office, 10 from the Human Services Agency, nine from the Department of Public Health, three from the San Francisco Police Department, two each from the mayor’s office and War Memorial, and one each from the Arts Commission, controller’s office, Ethics Commission, Human Rights Commission, and Department of Human Resources. Four nurses from Laguna Honda were also laid off. And dozens more are also affected. The above figures were provided by SEIU 1021. The list doesn’t include workers who are members of City Hall’s second-largest union, IFPTE 21, which did not respond to a request for comment on how many lost their jobs. One of the city departments hit hardest was the Office of Economic and Workforce Development, which oversees downtown recovery and business growth. The office confirmed that 14 employees were laid off, affecting all teams and levels of seniority. An unusual departure preceded the layoffs: Iowayna Peña, who was a high-profile hire as the office’s director of workforce development, left Friday, the Department of Human Resources confirmed. It is unclear whether she was fired or resigned, as spokespeople cited confidentiality in personnel matters. Peña didn’t respond to a request for comment. Before the City Hall job, Peña, who is active in the LGBTQ+ community, worked for the Giants as a colleague of Lurie’s chief of staff, Staci Slaughter . Are you a City Hall worker? We want to hear from you. Email powerplay@sfstandard.com to get in touch. Peña’s departure has fueled rumors that OEWD’s workforce division could be merged with another department, part of Lurie’s pattern of consolidating city agencies and reducing staffing. In a statement, OEWD Executive Director Anne Taupier dismissed that notion, saying, “Our workforce division remains central to our mission of advancing economic prosperity.” Up to nine senior-level employees were part of the layoff round, according to Criss Romero , who oversees the Municipal Executive Association, which represents around 1,600 managers in the city. Shuffling and folding other departments together is a central part of the Lurie playbook. In January, he announced he would combine the Planning Department with the Department of Building Inspection to streamline permitting, and in 2025, he merged the Human Rights Commission and the Department on the Status of Women. Insiders told Power Play that homelessness policy chief Kunal Modi and Department of Public Health Director Daniel Tsai talked about shifting management of much of the city’s homelessness portfolio, including permanent supportive housing, to the health agency. Those talks were shelved last year amid budget woes. In an email sent Monday to public health staff and obtained by Power Play, Tsai said the layoffs were part of a restructuring that included eliminating redundant programs, cutting “unnecessary” management layers, redirecting clinical staff away from administrative work to patient care, and eliminating recent vacancies. “We needed to rethink how DPH operates,” Tsai wrote. Along with speculation about department tweaks, the layoffs could have a domino effect on labor’s priorities in the coming weeks and months. One labor official told Power Play they expect the “Overpaid CEO Tax” being championed by SEIU and IFPTE (which, if passed, would add $200 million to city coffers) to see increased support now that budget cuts are being felt. “I think [the unions] are going to see this as an opportunity to really, in a tangible way, show what is going to happen to city workers if we don’t have new revenue as part of the mix,” the labor figure said. “This is going to solidify that new revenue is a must-have. And the consequence of not having it comes really close to home.” — Gabe Greschler, Han Li, and Joe Fitzgerald Rodriguez Got tips? Send to us at powerplay@sfstandard.com . YOU’VE GOT A FRIEND IN ME: Republican gubernatorial darling Steve Hilton just got the Midas touch from President Donald Trump . While it wasn’t a surprise that a leading right-wing candidate netted a “ COMPLETE & TOTAL ENDORSEMENT ” Monday from the right-wing-iest president of our time, another Hilton connection might raise eyebrows: He and Lurie, apparently, used to be buds. In a sit-down last week at The Standard’s offices, Hilton dished on his frequent appearances at the mayor’s Tipping Point Community events — annual fundraising soirees that are a must-attend for the city’s moneyed elite — and how that led to him and Lurie getting “to know each other.” “The very first Uber I ever got into was called for me by Daniel in the very early days,” Hilton said. “He’s approaching the job in the right way, which is as a pragmatic problem solver.” Team Lurie didn’t respond to a request for comment. And while Hilton admitted he hasn’t seen Lurie in “ages,” he joins the growing list of random Republicans lauding the mayor, including dearly departed Cabinet members Kristi Noem and Pam Bondi . This wasn’t the first time Lurie had received kind words from Hilton — the former Fox News correspondent praised San Franciscans for electing the Levi’s heir over former Mayor London Breed . — J.F.R. POA PARIAH: Ads for supervisor candidates are beginning to hit voters’ mailboxes and screens, and one in particular caught the eyes of District 4 denizens: “ Natalie Gee will hire more officers,” a new web ad says in bold black letters, “so we don’t overspend on overtime,” it adds below in a lighter typeface. The ad started popping up online three weeks ago, the candidate said. The ad struck some observers as contradictory, given Gee’s public tiff with the Police Officers Association late last year, during the mayor’s appointment process to replace Beya Alcaraz, the 200-hour supervisor . Gee had answered a candidate questionnaire agreeing that the POA should be disbanded and that San Francisco police officers should be represented by a “bona fide union.” Gee also disagreed with police officers’ rights to qualified immunity, which they use to defend against lawsuits. The POA wasn’t happy, to put it mildly. Speaking to Power Play, Gee denied any shift in her position on the legitimacy of the police union. Gee told the mayor’s office she supported hiring more officers to reduce overtime, she said. “I have maintained that it is important that we get more officers walking beats and serving the community in the Sunset, especially bilingual officers,” Gee said. And hiring more officers? That’s just fiscally responsible, she added. The POA did not respond to a request for comment. — J.F.R. CHANGE MY MIND: One of the most influential labor groups in California has made a surprising shift in the heated San Francisco congressional race. SEIU California confirmed that it has withdrawn its endorsement of state Sen. Scott Wiener and is now solely backing Supervisor Connie Chan . The move is tied to Wiener’s opposition to Proposition D on the June ballot — the “ Overpaid CEO Tax ” backed by SEIU’s local branches. Theresa Rutherford , president of SEIU Local 1021 and an executive board member of SEIU California, said supporting Prop. D should be an easy choice for San Francisco’s next congressmember. “A candidate’s stance on the Overpaid CEO Act is more than just another policy choice — it reveals who is standing with working people in this moment,” Rutherford said. Wiener spoke against the measure at a recent candidate forum , saying “it’s not the right time” for another business tax. He voted against it during the March meeting of the Democratic County Central Committee. “Downtown is still recovering from the pandemic,” Wiener said in a statement. “I strongly support Mayor Lurie’s economic recovery work. We need to give the mayor space to succeed.” Lurie has also opposed the measure. The endorsement gives a major boost to Chan, who has been trailing in a recent poll behind Wiener and tech entrepreneur Saikat Chakrabarti . However, its impact will depend on how SEIU engages in the race, whether through volunteer mobilization or financial support. Chan’s campaign said it’s thrilled to have the sole endorsement and is “proud to stand with the healthcare workers, janitors, in-home caregivers, school and city employees of SEIU.” Assemblymember Catherine Stefani , who’s running for reelection and also voted against the tax at the DCCC meeting, confirmed to Power Play that SEIU withdrew her endorsement too. “I respect SEIU and the essential role their members play in our communities,” Stefani said. “But I believe the proposed CEO tax would harm our city and undermine our economic recovery.” — H.L.

4,324 contacts. 236 lobbyists. One very busy City Hall

Who was the most-lobbied San Francisco official in 2025? If you guessed Mayor Daniel Lurie, you chose wrong. It was San Francisco Airport Director Mike Nakornkhet and his staff, who were contacted more than 400 times — almost all by lobbyists for one company: Waymo. That includes 30 times on just one day in November, as the autonomous vehicle maker was pushing to get its robotaxis into SFO. We took a peek inside 2025 Ethics Commission data to better understand the $13.4 million City Hall influence apparatus. San Francisco’s lobbying machine is especially active, insiders say, because of the city’s political prestige and bureaucratic friction. It’s a city for the politically ambitious where it’s also notoriously difficult to get anything done. For comparison, on the other side of Silicon Valley, San Jose had fewer than one-third as many registered lobbyists as San Francisco had last year. San Francisco officials were contacted 4,324 times by lobbyists in 2025, or nearly a dozen times every day. Nearly 40% of those contacts — 1,720 — were related to building permits. Transportation came next, with 955. Human rights ranked last, with only three contacts. Companies large and small rely on lobbyists. The eight-location gym chain SF Fitness hired one who spent all of last year trying to secure building permits for a location at 1600 Jackson St. in Nob Hill, contacting city officials 113 times. Meanwhile, Two Sigma Investments, a $70 billion New York hedge fund, reached out to the San Francisco Employees’ Retirement System no fewer than 99 times — not to influence legislation but to pitch a pension fund investment. For businesses that can afford it, lobbying can feel like a capitalist’s dream. While roughly 236 lobbyists were registered in San Francisco in 2025, a handful of pros dominated the field. Rich Peterson of Lighthouse Public Affairs brought in nearly $2.9 million from 51 clients. Chris Gruwell of New Deal Advisers earned slightly less — $2.6 million — but represented the most clients, with 56. But that doesn’t tell the full story. While San Francisco requires outside lobbying firms to disclose their client lists and fees, large companies often employ full-time in-house staff to influence policy. Those lobbyists are required to report when they contact public officials, but they report only the portion of their salary that corresponds to time spent lobbying, not their full compensation. The true cost of influence at City Hall is a mystery and almost certainly far higher than the numbers suggest. Here are the five companies whose lobbyists contacted San Francisco officials the most in 2025, what they wanted, and whether or not they got it. The busiest companies Waymo: 678 contacts No company worked City Hall harder than Waymo. The robotaxi company, owned by Alphabet, hired lobbyists who contacted public officials more than three times as often as the next busiest client — almost entirely as part of a push to get its vehicles into San Francisco International Airport. Waymo ran two parallel lobbying operations: an outside firm that was paid $10,000 a month and an in-house team that targeted airport staff, the mayor’s office, the city attorney, planning, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, the Board of Supervisors, and the Police Department. By year’s end, the company was also playing defense. When a beloved bodega cat died after being struck by a Waymo on Oct. 27, Supervisor Jackie Fielder called for stricter public regulation of robotaxis . In the following weeks, Waymo’s lobbyists contacted seven different supervisors, asking them to oppose any restrictions on autonomous vehicle operations countywide. It all seems to have been worth it. In September, Lurie announced that Waymo had been granted a permit to operate at the airport. By January, the company had begun offering rides to SFO. Meanwhile, Fielder’s call for more robotaxi regulation appears not to have found other takers inside City Hall. “SFO followed a measured and deliberate process to evaluating the permitting of Waymo at the Airport,” a representative for the airport said. “Other companies have also expressed interest in providing autonomous vehicle services at the Airport, and we have engaged with them in a similar, consistent manner.” Union Square Alliance: 207 contacts The business improvement district that manages Union Square spent the year lobbying on multiple fronts: pushing the Powell Street Corridor Improvement Project, campaigning for more police resources and physical barriers to deter retail theft, and trying to bring life back to the neighborhood’s public spaces with food trucks, holiday events, and a Winter Walk street closure. Starting in June, it turned its focus to securing its own future, lobbying the Recreation and Parks Department to extend its contract to manage Union Square Plaza. Teamster Joint Council 7: 203 contacts The Teamsters represent more than 70,000 Bay Area workers, and in 2025 their primary concern was automation. The union monitored autonomous vehicle policy at every city agency that touches transportation — the airport, SFMTA, the mayor’s office, the city attorney — and in July lobbied every member of the Board of Supervisors in support of a ban on commercial deliveries by autonomous vehicles. The union was also fighting to protect San Francisco’s production, distribution, and repair zones — areas set aside for the kind of blue-collar work Teamsters depend on — from encroachment by tech companies seeking permits for laboratories and outdoor testing. When DoorDash sought to use an industrial site in the Mission to test delivery drones, Teamsters appealed the city’s approval and lobbied the Board of Supervisors, coming out victorious . In December, the board approved legislation requiring companies to obtain a conditional-use permit before converting outdoor PDR spaces for testing purposes. Pacific Gas and Electric: 148 contacts PG&E spent the year meeting with Lurie’s office sometimes multiple times a week, pitching itself as a reliable partner on service planning and long-term grid capacity — seemingly in an attempt to fight off San Francisco’s ongoing effort to municipalize its electrical grid . Then, a major power outage that began Dec. 20 sent PG&E lobbyists scrambling into the new year, with three contacts to the mayor’s office on Jan. 2 alone. The company brought in a new lobbyist to manage the fallout and began making the rounds to every relevant city agency. Hines: 142 contacts The Texas real estate giant responsible for building the Salesforce tower spent 2025 grinding through the permitting process for one of the most significant development opportunities downtown: the old PG&E headquarters at 77 Beale St., a sprawling Financial District property where Hines plans to build the city’s tallest building. Lobbyists contacted the Planning Department, the city attorney, the Office of Economic and Workforce Development, the Department of Building Inspection, the Fire Department, and Public Works. The most-contacted officials Nakornkhet’s office was contacted far more than any other agency or official. Lurie came second, with 297 contacts to his office, most from PG&E, Union Square Alliance, and Waymo. The Board of Supervisors was lobbied more than any city department, and Matt Dorsey of District 6 — a major area of development — was contacted the most. Dorsey was also lobbied by the SF Deputy Sheriff’s Association more than any other supervisor. Fielder, who represents District 9, was contacted by the Teamsters more than any other supervisor. Waymo didn’t contact her once. City planner Corey Teague fielded contacts from a range of corporate rezoning campaigns, all the way down to advocates for a pickleball court. So what about AI? San Francisco is home to the world’s most powerful AI companies, but aside from Waymo, their City Hall lobbying footprint was modest in 2025. Anthropic spent $80,000 hiring lobbyist Alex Tourk at $20,000 a month to meet with the mayor’s office, SFPD, and city HR to pitch a partnership with Claude. OpenAI, which used the same lobbyist in 2024 to support business tax reform, filed no contacts of city officials in 2025. For now, it appears Bay Area-based AI companies are more focused on lobbying at the federal and state levels, where policies could dictate their futures. This story has been updated to include comment from SFO.

City presses for investigation into PG&E December blackout

Nearly three months after a Pacific Gas & Electric blackout wreaked havoc during a holiday weekend in San Francisco, city officials are calling for an investigation into the incident, which left 137,000 residents without power. In a letter sent to PG&E CEO Patricia Poppe dated March 12, the city said it has “deep concern” about the reliability and safety of the utility company’s services in light of the blackout, which was caused by a Dec. 20 fire at a Mission substation, and says it will ask the California Public Utilities Commission to probe the power outage. Shortly after the blackout, the CPUC said it had initiated an investigation. But there has been no indication that the probe is underway, according to the city attorney’s office. In a statement, the state regulator said otherwise: “ The CPUC’s staff investigation into the PG&E December 2025 outages remains in progress.” The March 12 letter reads in part, “The fire and outages threatened public health and safety and caused significant personal and economic hardship for San Francisco’s residents, businesses, and public services. … We understand that PG&E is still gathering information about exactly what happened and why, and we look forward to reviewing that important information. But given the history of outages and substation fires in San Francisco, we believe that more must be done.” The letter was signed by Mayor Daniel Lurie, City Attorney David Chiu, Board of Supervisors President Rafael Mandelman, and San Francisco Public Utilities Commission General Manager Dennis Herrera. “We appreciate the letter that city leaders provided this week regarding the outage that took place last December in San Francisco,” a PG&E spokesperson said. “We remain committed to working in partnership with the City, and will support any actions directed by the CPUC for the benefit of the customers we are privileged to serve.” The letter states that the Dec. 20 blackout had a negative economic impact on the city, occurring during the holiday season, “when stores and restaurants would have been filled with shoppers and diners.” It also states that PG&E has a history of blackouts in the city, including fires in 1996, 2003, and 2005 at the same Mission substation that caused the Dec. 20 outage. Blackouts in December 1998 and December 2003 caused public health and safety threats and economic harm, the city contends. There have also been more recent blackouts: Outages in April 2023 in Chinatown and other neighborhoods were caused by an explosion at a PG&E site near Clay and Montgomery Streets. And outages in 2021 and 2022 affected San Francisco’s 911 call center, forcing the city to pay for a backup power system. The city states that PG&E has failed to communicate “accurate and timely” information about these blackout incidents and described the utility’s claims process as “confusing and burdensome.” The letter follows a scathing hearing in February, during which supervisors excoriated PG&E’s other CEO, Sumeet Singh , about the response to the December blackout. During the Feb. 12 hearing, Singh stated that Lurie had directed the utility to prioritize resources for the opera house , though he quickly recanted that statement. The squabble over the December blackout comes as efforts are underway to have the city split from PG&E and create its own public power infrastructure, a move that has been in the works for decades by the utility’s critics. In February, state Sen. Scott Wiener introduced a bill that would give cities more power to separate from PG&E. Meanwhile, a petition by the city to the CPUC is calculating the value of the utility company’s assets in San Francisco. The Planning Department is working on an analysis about public power, and a report is expected next month.

More power to Lurie? New ballot measure could give SF mayors bigger say in hiring

Amid a push to overhaul San Francisco’s Kafkaesque city charter , officials are considering granting even more power to the mayor. Sources say measures proposed for the November election that would overhaul the city’s governing document are designed to increase mayoral authority and control. The changes would include granting the mayor the ability to hire many city department heads. For example, the selection of the police chief is an authority that is now shared with the Police Commission. The proposal follows a monthslong process launched by Mayor Daniel Lurie and Board of Supervisors President Rafael Mandelman, who assembled a task force to examine reforms to the city’s 500-plus-page governing document. The effort incorporated several recommendations from a November report by the nonprofit think tank SPUR. The mayor’s office declined to comment. Mandelman said many of the ideas have been discussed for years, and the timing is right to act. “I think we should make [the changes] happen,” Mandelman said. “It makes sense to do this in this cycle. This is the right year to do it.” The SPUR report laid out 10 recommendations, including shifting more hiring power to the mayor. “The charter should be amended to allow the mayor to directly hire and remove executive-branch department heads,” the report said. “This change would align accountability with public expectations, ensuring that voters can hold the mayor responsible for results.” Other proposed changes, sources say, would allow most commissioners to be removed at will by their appointing authority – either the mayor or the Board of Supervisors. The measure would also restore “deputy mayors” to oversee city departments, a structure eliminated by voters in the early 1990s . It would give the mayor greater flexibility to reorganize city agencies, including potentially facilitating a merger of the Department of Building Inspection and the Planning Department. Sources say that Lurie believes greater authority would bring greater accountability, and that he cannot fully deliver on his promise to revitalize San Francisco without stronger executive tools. Other proposals under discussion include changes to the city’s contracting process and raising the threshold for citizen-led initiatives and Board of Supervisors proposals to qualify for the ballot. A separate effort is underway to reduce the number of city commissions. Failed effort in 2024 This is not the first recent attempt to restructure City Hall’s balance of power. In 2023, the now-defunct political group TogetherSF launched a similar campaign . After multiple revisions to its proposal , the group qualified Proposition D for the 2024 ballot. The measure focused on cutting commissions but also empowered the mayor to hire and fire department heads and remove certain appointees. Prop. D became entangled in a contentious mayoral race as Mark Farrell, a candidate and former supervisor, developed close ties to the measure and to TogetherSF. Prop. D failed , as did Farrell’s quest for mayor, and TogetherSF disbanded shortly afterward, merging into Neighbors for a Better San Francisco. Jay Cheng, executive director of Neighbors for a Better San Francisco, said the group strongly supports Lurie’s charter reform effort. “It’s reminiscent of and reflective of our ideas at TogetherSF,” Cheng said. “We’re glad to see this moving forward as part of Lurie’s charter reform measure.” Former Supervisor Aaron Peskin, a critic of Prop. D who helped defeat the measure, said he supports increasing mayoral power but urged Lurie to engage in broader discussions before moving forward. “While I support that recommendation, I think it would benefit from being done in consultation with existing commissions that often know more about their departments than a new mayor,” Peskin said. A poll obtained by The Standard found that voters largely support expanding mayoral authority. The survey, conducted in late January by David Binder Research among 600 likely November voters, found that 70% support giving the mayor more power to reorganize or combine departments to improve coordination and accountability. “The high level of support for this policy reflects alignment between positive opinion of the mayor, lower opinion of the Board of Supervisors, and a desire to fix what’s seen as a broken system, prone to corruption,” the poll analysis states. Lurie and city leaders will decide how to place a measure on the ballot, either through approval by a majority of the Board of Supervisors or by gathering voter signatures.

PG&E CEO recants statement that Lurie  requested power to opera house during blackout

On the afternoon of Dec. 21, one day after a blackout plunged a third of San Francisco into darkness, City Hall and many of the surrounding blocks remained without power. But the stage lights were on at the War Memorial Opera House on Van Ness Avenue, where San Francisco Ballet performances of “The Nutcracker” were set to be staged at 2 p.m. and 7 p.m. The mystery of why that venue received special attention from Pacific Gas & Electric while swaths of the city were still in the dark was partially answered Thursday at a Board of Supervisors hearing, when PG&E CEO Sumeet Singh testified that Mayor Daniel Lurie had asked the utility to restore power at the opera house. However, the CEO later recanted those statements in an interview with The Standard. Not mentioned at the hearing: The mayor’s teenage daughter, Taya Lurie, was cast in the starring role of Clara at the matinee performance that Sunday. During stunning testimony before the Board’s Public Safety Committee, Supervisor Bilal Mahmood asked Singh why the utility had chosen to help the arts venue while so many other San Francisco sites were without power. “You prioritized the opera, where no one is living, to restore service, before you prioritized restoring service in communities and seniors living in [single room occupancies],” said Mahmood. “We did not make that decision on our own accord,” Singh replied. “We were requested by the mayor to provide temporary generation to that specific location. And we responded to that.” Singh said 10% of affected PG&E customers were still experiencing blackouts when the mayor made his request. The outages were caused by a fire at a PG&E substation on Eighth and Mission streets. Questions about why PG&E prioritized the opera house began after the utility posted on X a picture of two of its trucks outside the venue at approximately 2 p.m. on Dec. 21. That’s the exact time that the mayor’s teenage daughter, Taya Lurie, was cast in the starring role of Clara at a matinee performance . According to Amy Ovalle, an SF Ballet spokesperson, emergency backup power kept the show running. Weekend performances of “The Nutcracker” can generate more than $450,000 in ticket sales, according to the ballet. A text message obtained by The Standard through a public records request shows that Lurie received an update from a PG&E representative about the opera house during the blackout. “Opera house update,” Jake Zigelman, PG&E’s bay region VP, wrote to Lurie. “Our team is onsite and has been in touch with the opera folks. We’ve been told they have enough natural light and emergency backup power to move ahead with 2pm performance. We have a vendor mobilized to support temporary generation for the 7pm show. Not 100% on timing but working feverishly to make that happen.” Zigelman did not respond to a request for comment. On the day that Lurie received the text message from Zigelman, much of the Richmond and parts of the Tenderloin remained without power. On Dec. 22, a sign was posted outside City Hall stating that the building remained closed. Just blocks away, on Market Street, the NEMA high-rise tower did not regain power until Dec. 23, as residents dealt with cut elevator service and darkened hallways. The mayor’s office disputed Singh’s statement. “For days through the blackout, Mayor Lurie personally pushed PG&E to restore power across San Francisco as quickly as possible,” the mayor’s spokesperson, Charles Lutvak, wrote to The Standard. “The holiday season is an especially critical period for our major venues and cultural institutions, supporting small businesses and generating significant revenue for the city, so of course city leaders were communicating directly with those institutions and PG&E to help scheduled performances for tens of thousands of attendees proceed.” He added, “But to be clear, the mayor never directed any PG&E employee to provide power at any specific venue — and the San Francisco Ballet didn’t even have PG&E support until after the weekend.” When asked about the timing of the mayor’s daughter’s performance, Lurie’s office deferred to its statement. PG&E spokesperson David McCulloch said the utility was “constantly in touch” with city officials during the blackout. “As a significant venue hosting several major events over the weekend, the opera house was one of the facilities highlighted. However, we want to clarify that the mayor did not ask or direct PG&E to restore power to the opera house.” McCulloch declined to comment on the text message Zigelman sent to Lurie, saying that “our team was communicating updates to numerous city leaders throughout the restoration.” In an interview with Singh after publication, the company’s CEO called his remarks a “misunderstanding.” “I thought there was a specific request from the mayor’s office,” he said. “There was not a specific request. That was my misunderstanding because of all the communication that went back and forth. So that was misstated in the hearing.” In a statement, the Department of Emergency Management’s executive director, Mary Ellen Carroll, said she “passed along a request from the War Memorial Opera House leadership to PG&E to provide temporary generators.” Carroll said it was “not our top priority nor was it communicated to PG&E as such.” After questioning Singh about the opera house during the hearing, Mahmood professed to be dismayed by the utility chief’s response. “During a four-hour hearing with PG&E, their CEO gave inconsistent answers and repeatedly deflected blame instead of taking responsibility,” the supervisor said in a statement. “After hearing those contradictions, I find it difficult to trust their claims.” As the blackout continued in December, Lurie publicly expressed anger toward PG&E. “I’ll be pressing them very hard, because this is obviously not OK,” Lurie told The Standard on Dec. 21, as he was making a visit to the Richmond Recreation Center. “We’ll get to the bottom of that in the next day or two, I hope.” On Dec. 22, Lurie posted a video on his Instagram , stating that he would engage in “real honest” conversation with PG&E about the blackout. At the time of the morning post, 5,000 customers remained without power, he said. The revelations about the opera house come as supervisors on Thursday criticized the utility company’s response to the blackout, which left 130,000 residents without power beginning Dec. 20. The incident caused chaos across the city, as stoplights went dark, Waymos stalled , and underground Muni lines were closed. As criticisms bubble up over the blackout, the perennial conversation about San Francisco transitioning to public power has reignited. In December, state Sen. Scott Wiener said he would introduce legislation to have San Francisco and other cities break up with PG&E. In the meantime, an ongoing petition by the city to the California Public Utilities Commission is establishing the value of PG&E’s electric assets in San Francisco. The city’s planning department is conducting an environmental analysis surrounding its public power efforts, and a final version of the report is expected in April. Any efforts to take over PG&E’s equipment are likely to meet with stiff resistance from the utility.

Undercutting Lurie, YIMBY group to sue city over Family Zoning Plan

Neighborhood NIMBYs aren’t the only ones up in arms over San Francisco’s Family Zoning Plan. The pro-development advocates at YIMBY Law plan to file suit against San Francisco next month, claiming Mayor Daniel Lurie’s upzoning scheme fails to fulfill the city’s state-mandated allowance of housing, the organization’s executive director, Sonja Trauss, told The Standard. In response to the decades-long housing crisis, California officials have in recent years been pressuring local governments to loosen zoning requirements or risk losing state funding or land-use control. San Francisco is mandated by state officials to plan for 82,000 new homes by 2031. Of that, the city must rezone to reasonably allow for about 36,000 homes in the next six years. The Board of Supervisors approved San Francisco’s rezoning strategy — dubbed the Family Zoning Plan — in December. The Planning Department, which has been developing the Family Zoning Plan since before the Lurie administration, created its own projections using various models that estimate rezoning would allow for the creation of up to 64,000 homes. (That doesn’t mean all those homes will be built, as planners often note .) However, an analysis from Ted Egan , San Francisco’s chief economist, found that even in the most optimistic scenario, rezoning could create about 14,600 units over the next 20 years — a fraction of the benchmark set by the state. The report provided ammo for those pushing for more aggressive housing policies. “Why do planners always make promises they can’t keep? They’re addicted to it,” Trauss said. The plan met with fierce opposition from some residents who argued that wide-scale upzoning would change neighborhood character and function as a developer handout. Responding to those complaints, supervisors debated and approved a slew of amendments that included carve-outs and exemptions for specific areas. The potential lawsuit mirrors litigation filed by YIMBY Law and Californians for Homeownership against Los Angeles, claiming the city was not doing enough to rezone for new housing capacity as laid out under state law. If successful, the lawsuit could force sweeping rezoning or trigger the “builder’s remedy,” under which a city loses the ability to approve or deny housing developments. In a preliminary review , California’s Department of Housing and Community Development found that the Family Zoning Plan meets state requirements, based partly on the Planning Department’s projections. City Attorney spokesperson Jen Kwart said the City Attorney would review any lawsuits once served and respond in court. She added Trauss said YIMBY Law would not push the city to repeal its rezoning plan but rather to expand it by increasing height limits in specific areas. She added that YIMBY Law will be seeking individual residents to sign on as plaintiffs in the case. Charles Lutvak, a spokesperson for the mayor, emphasized maintaining local control in a statement. “As the cost of housing continues to rise, the Family Zoning Plan is going to help ensure that the next generation of San Franciscans can afford to raise their kids here,” Lutvak said via text message. “But our administration is not going to hand the keys to Sacramento—we’re going to meet state requirements while protecting what’s so special about our neighborhoods and our city.” Those on the other side of the issue — who think Lurie’s proposal means too much development — filed a lawsuit against the city this month over the state-mandated plan. The legal challenge was filed by the NIMBY-aligned groups Neighborhoods United SF and Small Business Forward. San Francisco has a deadline of Jan. 31 to adopt a finalized rezoning plan. Trauss said her organization plans to file its lawsuit challenging it in February. As for cost? “We’ll spend as much money as it takes,” she said.

Daniel Lurie was the public safety mayor. Now he’s trying to be the affordability guy

Asian Art Museum

Office of the City Administrator

Adult Probation Department

Airport

Arts Commission

Office of the Assessor-Recorder

Board of Appeals

Office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors

Office of the City Attorney

Department of Children, Youth and Their Families

Controller's Office

Planning Department

Civil Service Commission

District Attorney's Office

Department of Building Inspection

Department of Early Childhood

Department of Emergency Management

Department of Police Accountability

Department of Public Health

Department of Public Works

Office of Economic and Workforce Development

Environment Department

Ethics Commission

Fine Arts Museums

Fire Department

Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing

Human Rights Commission

Department of Human Resources

Human Services Agency

Health Service System

Juvenile Probation Department

Public Library

Municipal Transportation Agency

Office of the Mayor

Public Defender's Office

Police Department

Port

Public Utilities Commission

Recreation and Park Department

Department of Elections

Retirement System

Rent Board

Sheriff's Department Office of Inspector General

Sheriff's Department

Department of Technology

Office of the Treasurer & Tax Collector

War Memorial

Department on the Status of Women

General City Responsibilities

General Administration & Finance

Culture & Recreation

Community Health

Human Welfare & Neighborhood Development

Public Works, Transportation & Commerce

Public Protection

SF Civil Grand Jury

STATUTORY signing duty: indictments 'signed by the foreman' (Penal Code 940); presides

SF Civil Grand Jury Foreperson

SF Superior Court

SF Superior Court Presiding Judge

judicial assignments; court administration (CRC 10.603); CEO direction

The Abatement Appeals Board provides a final review process for City permitting decisions. It ensures fair and efficient adjudication of permit-related disputes before an impartial panel. The board holds authority to make binding decisions on appeals concerning notices of abatement.

Abatement Appeals Board

Abatement Appeals Board Commissioner 1

Abatement Appeals Board Commissioner 2

Abatement Appeals Board Commissioner 3

Abatement Appeals Board Commissioner 4

Abatement Appeals Board Commissioner 5

Abatement Appeals Board Commissioner 6

Abatement Appeals Board Commissioner 7

The Access Appeals Commission provides final reviews for a wide range of City permitting decisions. It ensures an efficient, fair, and expeditious permit issuance process through an impartial panel. The commission holds authority to make binding decisions on appeals related to City permits.

Access Appeals Commission

Access Appeals Commission Commissioner 1

Access Appeals Commission Commissioner 2

Access Appeals Commission Commissioner 3

Access Appeals Commission Commissioner 4

Access Appeals Commission Commissioner 5

The Adult Day Health Care Planning Council advises on the development and improvement of adult day health care services. It provides expertise in healthcare planning, policy recommendations, and program evaluation. Key responsibilities include assessing community needs and advising on service delivery enhancements.

Adult Day Health Care Planning Council

Adult Probation Department supervises individuals on probation and facilitates their reintegration into the community. It provides reentry and rehabilitative services, including victim restitution and financial assistance for crime victims. The department values public safety, offender rehabilitation, and community partnerships.

Cristel Tullock

The Advisory Committee of Street Artists and Crafts Examiners evaluates arts and crafts applicants and monitors program compliance. It conducts studio visits and public screenings to ensure adherence to established criteria. Members also revise program criteria and undertake additional tasks as needed.

Advisory Committee of Street Artists and Crafts Examiners

The Advisory Council on Human Rights advises on anti-discrimination laws and racial equity initiatives. It provides expertise on reparations and public policy impacts on Black communities. It guides efforts to establish partnerships with Historically Black Colleges and Universities in San Francisco.

Advisory Council on Human Rights

San Francisco Airport manages air traffic operations and ensures safe aircraft movement. It provides parking facilities and maintains airport infrastructure to accommodate travelers and staff. The department oversees ground transportation and coordinates with airlines for efficient passenger services.

Mike Nakornkhet

The Airport Commission oversees policy and strategic planning for San Francisco International Airport. It makes key decisions on airport development projects and financial management. It ensures compliance with regulations and collaborates on initiatives like terminal naming.

Airport Commission

Airport Commission Commissioner 1

Malcolm Yeung

Jose F. Almanza

Mark Buell

Susan Leal

Airport Director

Animal Care and Control Department manages animal sheltering, adoption, and emergency response services. It enforces animal-related laws and regulations, ensuring the humane treatment and safety of animals. The department also provides public education on responsible pet ownership and animal welfare.

Animal Care and Control Department

Virginia Donohue

Animal Care and Control Department, Director

The San Francisco Arts Commission oversees the integration of arts into city life and ensures public access to cultural experiences. It makes decisions on public art programs and allocates grants to support local artists and performances. The commission actively shapes policies affecting the arts ecosystem in San Francisco.

Arts Commission Commissioner 1

Arts Commission Commissioner 2

Arts Commission Commissioner 3

Arts Commission Commissioner 4

Debra Walker

Suzanne Ferras

Jessica Rothschild

Seth Brenzel

JD Beltran

Marcus Shelby

J Riccardo Benavides

Nabiel Musleh

Charles (Chuck) Collins

Lydia So

Arts Commission Commissioner 15

San Francisco Arts Commission invests in a vibrant arts community and shapes cultural policy. It enlivens the urban environment through public art programs and supports diverse artistic expressions. The commission facilitates meetings and discussions to engage the community in cultural development.

Ralph Remington

Arts Commission, Director of Cultural Affairs

The Asian Art Commission determines policy and administers the Asian Art Museum of San Francisco. It oversees museum operations and collaborates with the Asian Art Museum Foundation on fundraising efforts. Commissioners ensure the museum's strategic direction and financial sustainability.

Asian Art Commission

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 1

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 2

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 3

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 4

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 5

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 6

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 7

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 8

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 9

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 10

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 11

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 12

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 13

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 14

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 15

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 16

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 17

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 18

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 19

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 20

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 21

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 22

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 23

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 24

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 25

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 26

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 27

Asian Art Museum showcases Asian art and culture through exhibitions and educational programs. It offers diverse collections and hosts special events to engage the community. The museum fosters cultural appreciation and understanding by providing access to its extensive art collections.

Dr. Soyoung Lee

Asian Art Museum, Director

The Assessment Appeals Board #1 hears property tax assessment appeals in San Francisco. It evaluates evidence presented by taxpayers and the Assessor to determine property values. The Board has the authority to make final decisions on assessments regardless of property type or value.

Assessment Appeals Board #1

Assessment Appeals Board #1 Commissioner 1

Assessment Appeals Board #1 Commissioner 2

Richard Lee

Stephen Wasserman

Adena Gilbert

Paul Bellar

Quirina Mitchell

Hilary Winslow

The Assessment Appeals Board #2 adjudicates property tax assessment appeals for San Francisco taxpayers. It evaluates evidence presented by taxpayers and the Assessor to determine accurate property values. The Board exercises authority to render final decisions on residential properties and specific real estate assessments.

Assessment Appeals Board #2

Assessment Appeals Board #2 Commissioner 1

Assessment Appeals Board #2 Commissioner 2

Assessment Appeals Board #2 Commissioner 3

Claire Ervin Lee

Louisa Mendoza

Joyce Lewis

Nicholas Goldman

Michelle Domingo

The Assessment Appeals Board #3 provides a platform for San Francisco taxpayers to contest property tax assessments. It conducts hearings where evidence from both taxpayers and the Assessor is evaluated. The Board makes binding decisions on property assessments based on presented evidence.

Assessment Appeals Board #3

Assessment Appeals Board #3 Commissioner 1

Assessment Appeals Board #3 Commissioner 2

Assessment Appeals Board #3 Commissioner 3

Marc Dickow

Assessment Appeals Board #3 Commissioner 5

Assessment Appeals Board #3 Commissioner 6

Assessment Appeals Board #3 Commissioner 7

Assessment Appeals Board #3 Commissioner 8

Assesses property, applies exemptions, collects transfer taxes, and records official documents.

Assessor-Recorder