How SF government became a hulking, 34,800-person behemoth

It’s a perennial complaint: San Francisco’s government is just too damn big.&nbsp;



That concern has come to the forefront in recent weeks after Mayor Daniel Lurie <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/05/28/san-francisco-mayor-daniel-lurie-budget-layoffs/">proposed layoffs</a> in an effort to resolve a <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/05/30/san-francisco-budget-daniel-lurie-deficit-proposal/">historic budget deficit</a>.&nbsp;



Salaries and employee benefits account for the largest chunk of city spending: 43% of the current budget. A <a href="https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2025/sf-city-employees/">recent analysis</a> found that San Francisco has the most public employees in core functions of any U.S. metropolis, even after detangling its unusual status as both a city and county.



Our workforce wasn’t always such a behemoth. The Standard analyzed City Hall’s growth over the past 20 years, revealing that it has far outpaced San Francisco’s population.



In 2005, the city employed 26,900 people, according to the Department of Human Resources. Twenty years later, it had 34,800, a 29% increase. During that time, the city’s population grew by 8%, from 780,000 in 2005 to 842,000 in 2025, according to the <a href="https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/">California Department of Finance</a>.&nbsp;



<div class="wp-block-sf-standard-datawrapper-chart" data-chart-id="413574"></div>



The mayor’s push to cut around 100 jobs would represent a thin slice of the city’s ballooning bureaucracy — just 0.29% of City Hall’s workforce. Lurie’s office, which also proposed slashing 1,000 unfilled roles, says the mayor is not focused on the number of employees but on prudent spending practices.&nbsp;



“It is really about, ‘How do we not spend money we don&#8217;t have?’&#8221; Sophia Kittler, the mayor’s budget director, said. On Thursday, a Board of Supervisors committee <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/06/26/san-francisco-mayor-daniel-lurie-layoffs-negotiation-budget/">approved $15 million to avoid some</a> of Lurie&#8217;s layoffs. 



The Standard contacted three dozen city departments to discuss why they have grown over the past two decades. Four major themes emerged: voter-approved ballot measures, new state and federal laws, and expanded city responsibilities and projects; additionally, as these factors swelled the ranks, more support personnel were needed to bolster the larger workforce.



<div class="wp-block-sf-standard-datawrapper-chart" data-chart-id="413559"></div>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-that-long-long-list-of-ballot-measures">That long, long list of ballot measures</h2>



Successful ballot propositions have forced the city to beef up its staffing.&nbsp;



Take the <a href="https://www.sf.gov/reports--december-2024--about-our-city-our-home-fund">Our City, Our Home initiative</a>, which passed with 61% of the vote in 2018. The measure, also called Proposition C, imposed taxes on businesses to raise money for homelessness services. But raking in all that money requires more staff to administer it. From 2020 to 2025, the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing nearly doubled in size, from 124 to 232 workers; a spokesperson attributed this in part to Prop. C. The additional personnel were needed to acquire city-owned housing sites and oversee grants, among other responsibilities.&nbsp;



Or consider the library system. In 2022, San Franciscans overwhelmingly voted to mandate that city libraries be open systemwide at least 1,400 hours per week. Today, San Francisco remains the only big city in California with all its library sites open seven days a week. To keep the lights on, library staffing grew by 23% from 2005 to 2025.



<figure class="wp-block-image alignwide size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1600" height="1600" src="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/sfstandard_spot_001b.png" alt="The image is a chaotic office scene with scattered papers, a desk, chair, keyboard, telephone, and various office supplies in pastel colors, creating a cluttered atmosphere." class="wp-image-413675" srcset="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/sfstandard_spot_001b.png 1600w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/sfstandard_spot_001b.png?resize=150,150 150w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/sfstandard_spot_001b.png?resize=300,300 300w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/sfstandard_spot_001b.png?resize=768,768 768w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/sfstandard_spot_001b.png?resize=1536,1536 1536w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/sfstandard_spot_001b.png?resize=180,180 180w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1600px) 100vw, 1600px" /></figure>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-outside-pressures">Outside pressures</h2>



It isn’t just local lawmaking that has inflated San Francisco’s government. State and federal legislation also play a role in dictating City Hall’s size.&nbsp;



Just look at the Department of Public Health. A driver of its addition of around 1,800 employees in the past 20 years — the most of any city department —&nbsp;was the federal Affordable Care Act. Obamacare vastly expanded the number of people eligible for Medi-Cal, whose healthcare is <a href="https://www.ppic.org/blog/counties-are-key-partners-in-the-medi-cal-program/">provided by the department</a>. Since 2013, the number of San Franciscans enrolled in Medi-Cal has grown by more than 100,000, forcing the health department to add staff.&nbsp;



<figure class="wp-block-pullquote"><blockquote>&#8216;It is really about, &#8220;How do we not spend money we don&#8217;t have?&#8221;&#8216;<cite>Sophia Kittler, the mayor’s budget director</cite></blockquote></figure>



“As the primary safety-net health care system for the city, SFDPH has become the primary health home and has provided care to many of these new Medi-Cal recipients,” the department wrote in a statement.



That’s just the tip of the iceberg regarding staffing up to comply with outside regulations and programs. The Public Utilities Commission has brought on more staff due to new state water regulations, the city attorney’s office expanded to deal with updates to California’s conservatorship laws, and the Environment Department swelled as it absorbed Obama-era stimulus funding and California Energy Commission grants.



<figure class="wp-block-image alignwide size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1600" height="1600" src="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/sfstandard_spot_002b.png" alt="The image features an abstract, colorful illustration of multiple interconnected faces and figures, merging together with a playful, surreal style with pastel colors." class="wp-image-413676" srcset="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/sfstandard_spot_002b.png 1600w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/sfstandard_spot_002b.png?resize=150,150 150w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/sfstandard_spot_002b.png?resize=300,300 300w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/sfstandard_spot_002b.png?resize=768,768 768w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/sfstandard_spot_002b.png?resize=1536,1536 1536w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/sfstandard_spot_002b.png?resize=180,180 180w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1600px) 100vw, 1600px" /></figure>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-more-services-more-staffers">More services, more staffers</h2>



Many departments said they’re simply doing more to serve San Franciscans today than they were in years past.



The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency grew its staff by 11% in the past decade to improve service on city buses and trains, according to spokesperson Erica Kato. “Prior to 2019, we under-invested in transit maintenance, training, and supervision,” Kato said. “Muni reliability suffered.”&nbsp;



<figure class="wp-block-pullquote"><blockquote>&#8216;We are just constantly growing. And not necessarily subtracting.&#8217;<cite>Nicole Neditch, a policy director at SF think tank SPUR</cite></blockquote></figure>



Other government agencies have simply taken on more responsibilities.&nbsp;



The Department of Emergency Management, which has grown by 44% to 308 employees since 2005, became a sponsor for a <a href="https://www.bayareauasi.org/about-us">regional security program</a>, created a <a href="https://www.sf.gov/coordinated-street-response-program">coordinated street response division</a>, and is receiving 15.5% more 911 calls than it did in fiscal 2011-12, the earliest available data.



<div class="wp-block-sf-standard-related-posts-container">
<div class="wp-block-sf-standard-related-post"></div>



<div class="wp-block-sf-standard-related-post"></div>



<div class="wp-block-sf-standard-related-post"></div>
</div>



The Fire Department has also been impacted by that 911 surge; it has staffed up to handle a near doubling of emergency services calls in the past 20 years, according to Chief of Staff Adrienne Sims.



The Recreation and Parks Department has also shouldered more responsibility as it has grown 11% to 952 workers from 856 two decades ago. During that period, the department added more parks to its purview, which required more staff to maintain. The department said the public has also asked for more staff to address vandalism and after-hours calls. That required hiring more park rangers: from 12 in 2005 to 55 today.&nbsp;



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">More employees means … more employees</h2>



As the workforce grows, so do the responsibilities of supporting agencies like the Ethics Department, which oversees financial disclosures and ethics enforcement of city employees. The department has 26 employees, representing a 160% increase since 2005.&nbsp;



The same goes for the Human Resources Department, which has grown by 53% (89 employees) since 2005.&nbsp;



“Once you introduce new legislation, once you add a new department, once you add staff to a particular program, it is very difficult to take those pieces away,” said Nicole Neditch, a governance and economy policy director at the SF-based think tank SPUR. “We are just constantly growing. And not necessarily subtracting.”

This is why San Francisco’s budget is so screwed

Cratered. Decimated. Tanked. Whatever word you use, the reality is the same.&nbsp;



San Francisco’s budget is screwed.



The deficit is an eye-watering $782 million out of a budget of $15.9 billion. Now, Mayor Daniel Lurie has the unenviable task of digging San Francisco out of that hole by slashing spending.&nbsp;



Lurie plans to balance critical priorities <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/05/27/san-francisco-budget-cuts-district-attorney-public-defender/">like public safety</a> while gutting the budgets of other city departments. Residents could see service cuts, and 1,000 city positions might be eliminated. More than 100 people may be laid off.&nbsp;



It’s not going to be pretty. The Board of Supervisors and the mayor’s office are mandated to agree on a balanced budget by the end of July.&nbsp;



So, how did we get here?&nbsp; Was it pandemic-era pain that cracked and emptied San Francisco’s piggy bank? Yes — but it’s more complicated than that.



<div class="wp-block-sf-standard-related-posts-container">
<div class="wp-block-sf-standard-related-post"></div>



<div class="wp-block-sf-standard-related-post"></div>



<div class="wp-block-sf-standard-related-post"></div>
</div>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-sf-s-leaky-budget-was-patched-with-one-time-fixes">SF’s leaky budget was patched with one-time fixes</h2>



If the city government doesn’t have the money, it can’t spend it.&nbsp;



During boom times, as valuable tech companies planted local roots and property values exploded, San Francisco’s annual budget grew steadily, topping $13 billion by 2021. Then the pandemic hit, emptying downtown, killing tourism, and worsening a structural gap between spending and revenue. Temporary relief came in the form of emergency funds from the federal government.&nbsp;



Last year, Mayor London Breed faced a similarly dire deficit. Downtown is the city’s economic engine. As vacancies rose, tax income fell. Breed could have begun paring down the size of government, lessening the pain by doing so gradually over years.&nbsp;



<div class="wp-block-sf-standard-datawrapper-chart" data-chart-id="405022"></div>



Instead, she plugged the budget hole with one-time fixes to the tune of $1 billion, according to the controller’s office. It’s the budget equivalent of raiding your savings account to pay off your credit card debt, rather than trimming spending.&nbsp;



The controller’s <a href="https://media.api.sf.gov/documents/FY24-25_and_FY25-26_Revenue_Letter_FINAL.pdf">annual revenue letter</a>, an analysis of the mayor’s budget, tells the tale: Breed used $445 million in leftover funding from the previous year’s budget, $235 million in pandemic-era Federal Emergency Management Agency reimbursements, $138 million from the city’s fiscal reserve, and $137 million in short-term cost shifts, among other one-time uses, to forestall the worst.



“As one-time solutions are depleted, the structural budget gap will become larger, making future budgets more difficult to close,” the controller wrote.



Blame a political season in which budget cuts might’ve guaranteed losing the mayorship. Or blame rosy optimism, with Breed hoping she could forestall layoffs as a hollowed-out downtown revived itself.&nbsp;



No matter the reason, she bet big that the economy would recover. Spoiler alert: It didn’t.



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-paying-workers-fairly-is-pricey">Paying workers fairly is pricey</h2>



Breed’s contract negotiations with labor unions last year went surprisingly smoothly. There’s a reason for that: from visor-wearing clerks to meter maids, city workers got higher raises than expected. The cost of their benefits has risen, too.&nbsp;



Cynics pointed out that making unions happy was a sure bet to avoid messy public fights during a fraught election year. But in some ways, Breed’s hands were tied. Public workers&#8217; wage growth is tied to inflation, by city charter mandate, and if negotiations were taken to arbitration, that would be a key factor in handing them a win.



The city has added thousands of workers over the past decade, and the costs of employing them has grown, too. No one is saying people shouldn’t get raises, especially in pricey San Francisco. And workers’ spiraling healthcare costs <a href="https://www.ama-assn.org/about/ama-research/trends-health-care-spending">are a national problem</a>. But city government spending is a balancing act. The money has to come from somewhere.



<div class="wp-block-sf-standard-datawrapper-chart" data-chart-id="404728"></div>



The tools at Lurie’s disposal include generating revenue from putting tax measures on the ballot, using one-time funds while waiting for revenue to right-size, and laying off workers. Lurie has said — <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/01/23/daniel-lurie-san-francisco-mayor-budget-cuts/">repeatedly</a> — that he will not employ one-time fixes to balance the budget.&nbsp;



That’s why Lurie has signaled that for the first time in more than a decade, city workers may lose their jobs.&nbsp;



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-property-owners-want-their-money-back">Property owners want their money back</h2>



Sure, downtown businesses emptied out like a keg at a frat party, but the pandemic hurt our finances in other ways, too. As commercial landlords watched the rental market dry up, they <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2022/04/06/property-tax-assessments-covid-remote-work/">appealed to the city to lower their tax burdens</a>.&nbsp;



Taxes are based on the property’s assessed value. A new assessment may mean lower taxes — a boon for owners but a pain point for the city. Property taxes are the city’s largest source of tax revenue, bringing in billions annually.



During economically stable times, there are 1,000 to 2,000 annual property value appeals, according to city data compiled by local think tank SPUR. But right now, there are a whopping 9,000 appeals pending. More than $217 million is being tucked away just to meet the demand of these appeals, according to SPUR.&nbsp;



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-the-federal-government-stiffed-us">The federal government stiffed us</h2>



San Francisco spent big on public health efforts during the pandemic. FEMA was on the hook to pay the city back, but it has been dragging its feet. In the latest revenue forecast, <a href="https://media.api.sf.gov/documents/March_Update_FY_25-26_through_FY_29-30_03.31.25_FINAL.pdf">from March</a>, the city controller projected that reimbursements for the 2025-26 financial year would be reduced from $147 million to $80 million. This week, the controller’s office confirmed to The Standard that the forecast was accurate.&nbsp;



It could get worse.&nbsp;



<a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/04/10/san-francisco-lurie-budget-trump-2-billion/">Roughly $2 billion in federal spending</a> winds its way through San Francisco’s budget, and all of it is vulnerable to President Donald Trump’s whims. Lurie has pledged a $400 million reserve specifically to guard against federal meddling, <a href="https://missionlocal.org/2025/05/s-f-to-budget-400m-in-reserve-in-anticipation-of-federal-cuts/">Mission Local reported</a>.&nbsp;



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-the-numbers-are-worse-than-they-look">The numbers are worse than they look</h2>



Many San Franciscans have at some time publicly bemoaned, “Why can’t the city pay for that thing we love with its $15 billion budget?”&nbsp;



It ain’t that simple. Most of San Francisco’s budget is legally locked into a specific purpose: immutable, unchangeable. The reasons vary.&nbsp;



For instance, roughly one-third of the budget is thought of as a “pass-through” from federal and state governments, <a href="https://www.spur.org/news/2025-05-20/balancing-san-franciscos-budget-part-2-revenues-and-expenditures">intended for a specific use</a>, like Medi-Cal. Another constraint is voter set-asides. These are the alphabet-soup ballot measures that voters approve regularly. These propositions run the gamut, ranging from a new tax that can be spent only on Free City college for residents to&nbsp; setting aside a certain amount of the general fund to bolster Muni as it hemorrhages riders.&nbsp;



Then there are the enterprise agencies, which raise their own money for internal use only. Those departments include the San Francisco International Airport, Port of San Francisco, San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, and San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. Those agencies add up to billions in the city’s budget.



Tally all that up, and only a scant 18% of the city’s budget, or $2.8 billion, is free for a mayor to sift about as needed —&nbsp;making plugging the $782 million deficit an even more challenging prospect.&nbsp;

Say less: Lurie’s office tightens grip on talking to press

For years, <a href="https://sfstandard.com/tag/daniel-lurie/">Daniel Lurie</a> mostly avoided public criticism by staying out of the city’s ruthless political scene. That all changed in 2023, when he announced his run for mayor and started trading barbs with other candidates.



But since Lurie took office last month, the mayor’s office has resorted to extreme measures to buffer criticism and control the narrative.&nbsp;



Lurie’s press relations team has instituted rules that require all San Francisco departments to receive the blessing of the mayor’s staff before making statements to the media, The Standard has learned. The new approach by the mayor&#8217;s office was described by half a dozen City Hall sources as aggressive rather than collegial, coming off as micromanaging and overly sensitive to potential criticism. 



Sources said that in weekly calls this month with public information officers for city departments, Lurie&#8217;s communications director, Nina Negusse, and Press Secretary Charles Lutvak announced that all statements from city departments will have to be pre-approved by the mayor&#8217;s office. 



Additionally, departments must brief the mayor’s office on all media inquiries deemed politically sensitive, any request that mentions the mayor’s office, anything related to policy changes in the city, any criticism of the mayor or city, anything that would attract national media attention, and anything that touches the work of multiple departments. 



“Rather than asking how they can help, it was: ‘We want to know everything,’” a source said.



Sources said it has long been the norm that any story or inquiry dealing with the mayor would be flagged and passed along, but the new approach is being described as micromanaging. Sources noted that press officials for many city departments, which have held the weekly calls since the pandemic, have substantially more experience than <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/01/23/daniel-lurie-city-hall-san-francisco-hires-administration/">Negusse and Lutvak</a> in working with the press.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" height="2500" width="1668" src="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/8420072128_luriepublicsafety-24.jpg?w=1668" alt="The image shows a man in a gray suit and purple tie, looking to the side with a slight smile. The background is a muted blue, and there's a shadowy hand visible." class="wp-image-364412" srcset="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/8420072128_luriepublicsafety-24.jpg 4002w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/8420072128_luriepublicsafety-24.jpg?resize=200,300 200w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/8420072128_luriepublicsafety-24.jpg?resize=768,1151 768w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/8420072128_luriepublicsafety-24.jpg?resize=1668,2500 1668w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/8420072128_luriepublicsafety-24.jpg?resize=1025,1536 1025w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/8420072128_luriepublicsafety-24.jpg?resize=1366,2048 1366w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1668px) 100vw, 1668px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Lurie&#8217;s team has insisted that press officials for some city departments send weekly memos rather than discuss issues by phone, sources say.</figcaption></figure>



Negusse worked in corporate communications for two years after spending six years as public information officer for the city’s Public Utilities Commission. Lutvak worked on Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign for eight months after spending more than two years in the office of New York Mayor Eric Adams, who in 2022 instituted <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2022/04/04/eric-adams-press-corps-audio-00022569">a similar approach to dealing with the media</a>.



“After years of politicians letting departments operate in siloes, San Franciscans overwhelmingly voted for change and elected Mayor Lurie to manage city government collaboratively and efficiently,” Lutvak said in a statement when asked about his department’s practices. “Our office is coordinating across departments to ensure we speak with one voice about the important work our city employees are doing to make the city safer, cleaner, and more prosperous.”



“Collaborative” is not the word everyone at City Hall would use for the new approach. In one meeting, sources said, staff members were told they didn’t need to have Negusse’s phone number or call her, as she would be in touch if a conversation is needed.



“I’ve never seen anything like it,” a second source said.



The mayor&#8217;s office disputed details about the breadth of its new media policy but didn’t provide details. Lutvak denied that staffers were told not to call Negusse.



At the end of every Thursday, roughly a dozen departments are required to send memos with updates on pending media inquiries and plans for the following week, a source said, rather than talking by phone.



<div class="wp-block-sf-standard-related-posts-container">
<div class="wp-block-sf-standard-related-post"></div>



<div class="wp-block-sf-standard-related-post"></div>
</div>



Public safety departments like police and fire appear to have been given slightly different directives, sources said, as these agencies are required to communicate with the public during times of emergency.



It’s unclear if Lurie&#8217;s office was trying to extend the order to departments led by elected officials, such as City Attorney David Chiu and Assessor-Recorder Joaquin Torres, neither of whom report to the mayor. 



A source with knowledge of how previous mayoral administrations dealt with city departments said the Lurie team seems to have overstepped its bounds. There’s also concern that information will not be relayed to the public in a timely manner if it needs to be reviewed by mayoral staff on almost every occasion.



“If I was [Negusse], I would want people to call me, because you want to have those relationships with departments,” the source said. “You want to know everything that’s going on, that&#8217;s true, but you can’t slow departments down to the point that they can’t function.”

San Francisco’s new transportation boss is a powerful nonprofit exec

San Francisco Mayor-elect Daniel Lurie said Monday that Alicia John-Baptiste, head of the influential urban policy think tank SPUR, will serve as a policy chief in his administration, overseeing infrastructure, climate, and transportation.



The hire is part of <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2024/12/11/daniel-luries-san-francisco-mayor-reorganization/">Lurie’s restructuring of the mayor’s office</a>, in which a group of policy chiefs will act as intermediaries with a host of departments, rather than the agency heads reporting directly to the mayor. John-Baptiste’s portfolio of agencies includes the Environment Department, the SF Municipal Transportation Agency, the Port of San Francisco, the Public Utilities Commission, Public Works, and Recreation and Parks.



John-Baptiste spent a decade at SPUR; for the last six years, she ran the nonprofit as president and CEO. Prior to that, she worked as chief of staff at the SFMTA and, before that, the Planning Department, according to LinkedIn.



<div class="wp-block-sf-standard-related-posts-container">
<div class="wp-block-sf-standard-related-post"></div>



<div class="wp-block-sf-standard-related-post"></div>
</div>



John-Baptiste said in a statement that her return to City Hall comes at a “critical time” for San Francisco.



“How the city plans for and delivers on its major infrastructure, climate, and mobility goals will shape our vitality for years to come, and I’m looking forward to partnering with the mayor-elect and city leadership on this important work,” she said.



“Alicia brings extensive expertise in shaping bold, transformative policies, and whose leadership will enhance communication and transparency as we pursue a more sustainable, connected, and resilient San Francisco,” Lurie said in a statement.



Few agencies will be under more scrutiny than the SFMTA, whose embattled director <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2024/12/12/sfmta-chief-jeff-tumlin-to-step-down/">Jeffrey Tumlin stepped down</a> at the end of the year.



SPUR has been influential in shaping the incoming Lurie administration’s approach to governance. In August, the nonprofit recommended the&nbsp; restructuring of the mayor’s office to reduce the number of direct reports and create greater accountability.&nbsp;



“In its current state, the City and County of San Francisco’s government structure is like an overgrown garden: Everything was planted for its specific purpose but over time has grown thick and become difficult to disentangle,” the report states.&nbsp;



However, the report went on to note that the introduction of policy chiefs and other proposals — such as restoring the mayor’s ability to <a href="https://www.instagram.com/sfstandard/reel/DD-KNq2NCgq/">hire and fire department heads</a> — would allow the city to “design a system that supports leadership and empowerment with clear lines of accountability.”



In addition to her work in the public and nonprofit sectors, John-Baptiste holds a master’s degree in public policy from the Harvard Kennedy School and a bachelor’s degree from Duke University. She has served on the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, the Transbay Joint Powers Authority Board, and the Oakland Budget Advisory Commission.

Prop. C, which would create inspector general, projected to win

Corrupt officials may garner more scrutiny under Proposition C, which would create a new inspector general position to investigate City Hall misdeeds.



Prop. C was leading by a wide margin in early returns, suggesting that San Francisco voters like the idea of a dedicated watchdog. 



<div class="wp-block-sf-standard-datawrapper-chart" data-chart-id="325583"></div>



City Hall is in dire need of extra hands to dig up all its dirt, <a href="https://voterguide.sfelections.org/local-ballot-measures/proposition-c">the measure’s</a> proponents say.



In 2020, former Public Works director Mohammed Nuru was indicted by the U.S. Department of Justice in a wide-ranging bribery scandal. Nuru later pleaded guilty, but by the time he did, more department heads and city staffers were charged or implicated: former San Francisco Public Utilities manager Harlan Kelly, former Department of Building Inspection director Tom Hui, and a bevy of staffers and city contractors.



In the wake of the scandal, city officials were left wondering: Why did it take an FBI investigation to root out the corruption?



Multiple local agencies are already tasked with investigating corruption: the City Attorney’s Office, the District Attorney’s Office, and the Ethics Commission, among others.



Proposition C’s principal officer, Ed Harrington, is a former city controller and former manager of the Public Utilities Commission (PUC). Harrington said San Francisco’s investigative arms are set up to stamp out corruption after the fact, rather than prevent it.



“The current way we do business is almost always reactive,” Harrington said. “There’s no proactive way for someone to say, ‘Something odd is happening here.’”



Harrington points to an example from his tenure at the PUC. A crew of city electricians on Treasure Island were <a href="https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/How-city-workers-pulled-off-alleged-scam-3183147.php">fraudulently billing for personal purchases</a> like BMW tires and lease payments on a truck. They allegedly hired prostitutes and took them back to their worksite. Harrington said he approached the District Attorney’s office to investigate, but they wouldn’t lift a finger.



“They were running a whole scam over there. The DA didn’t do anything for three years,” Harrington said. “We had to do all the paperwork and bring it to them.”



Under Prop. C, an inspector general would be empowered to issue subpoenas and investigate suspected fraud, waste, or abuse. The inspector general would have the power to dig through records of city agencies, permittees, contractors — like the ones who bribed Nuru — and lobbyists.



The inspector general would be housed under the city controller’s office, where they could share some staff as a cost-saving measure. The inspector general may cost the city as much as $775,000 annually, according to the controller.



The measure’s opponents mostly disagreed with two elements of the proposal: Firstly, that it <a href="https://growsf.org/voter-guide/#prop-c">is duplicative of existing government agencies</a>, and secondly, that it may be a vehicle to promote Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin’s mayoral candidacy. He has publicly argued the ballot measure is a demonstration of his commitment to ethics in government.



The measure was authored by Peskin and placed on the ballot by the Board of Supervisors after a unanimous vote.



The chief opponents to the inspector general position are Republicans, including Jay Donde, president of the Briones Society, a moderate-leaning Republican group. Donde said he thinks the way the inspector general would be hired is problematic: The controller would appoint an inspector general; the mayor and Board of Supervisors would have to confirm that appointment.



Donde thinks the inspector general should be an elected position.



“If you look at any other jurisdiction,” Donde said, “the person that has this responsibility is independent.”



Proposition C’s proponents believe that housing the inspector general in the controller’s office helps to shield it from political meddling. The city controller is appointed to 10-year terms, insulating them from the rocky waters of politics. And controller’s office funding is enshrined in the city charter, meaning an irate mayor or Board of Supervisors couldn’t cut money from an inspector general if they disagreed with an investigation.



Harrington said allowing the mayor and Board of Supervisors to confirm the inspector general will instill confidence in the appointee and protect them from political disruptions.



“Is that the right level of independence?” Harrington said. “There’s no perfect way. But this is the best you could get.”

The Supreme Court battle that could make your SF water bill skyrocket

In bizarro political news, lawyers for San Francisco were in front of the Supreme Court on Wednesday over a lawsuit the city filed against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.&nbsp;



At issue is whether the regulator can hold the city generally responsible for overall water quality, rather than specific restrictions on discharged pollutants.



The arguments rest on complex legal jargon — the opening and responding briefs alone run more than 150 pages — but the case could have serious implications for San Francisco residents.&nbsp;



City Attorney David Chiu has been leading the effort, arguing that if San Francisco doesn’t win, it may need to spend $10 billion in capital improvements that would have a “negligible impact” on water quality but serious effects on residents’ wallets.&nbsp;



According to Chiu, ratepayers could see their water and sewage bills increase from around $850 annually to nearly $9,000, a change that could throw thousands into poverty.&nbsp;



Here’s what you need to know about the case.



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-why-is-san-francisco-suing-the-epa-aren-t-we-supposed-to-be-tree-huggers">Why is San Francisco suing the EPA? Aren’t we supposed to be tree-huggers?</h2>



San Francisco has been a champion of some environmental regulations, but this specific legal fight concerns a small portion of the language in permits issued by the EPA that allow the city to discharge its wastewater into the bay and the Pacific Ocean.&nbsp;



The permits prohibit discharges that “cause or contribute to a violation of any water quality standard” as well as the creation of any “pollution, contamination, or nuisance” as defined by California law.&nbsp;



The provisions in question are called “generic prohibitions” because they don’t specify limits on sewage discharge. San Francisco is arguing that these are too vague and put the city in a difficult position that leaves it vulnerable to private lawsuits and continual enforcement action by the EPA.&nbsp;



As Dennis Herrera, the general manager for San Francisco’s Public Utilities Commission, put it: “The EPA is basically saying, ‘You can’t pollute too much, but we won’t tell you what too much is until after you’ve already done it.’ That’s untenable.”



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-scintillating-and-the-problem-is">Scintillating. And the problem is?</h2>



First, we have to examine how the city’s sewer discharge works. San Francisco operates a combined stormwater and sewer system that treats both sources of water before discharging it out of the Oceanside Plant by Lake Merced and the Southeast Plant in the Bayview.



During heavy rain, the system can become overloaded and release untreated water into the ocean or the bay. The EPA has repeatedly ordered San Francisco to reduce this overflow, saying there are examples of sewage flooding the streets and pollutants like copper, zinc, and ammonia ending up in the discharge.



The EPA and environmental groups have in the past filed lawsuits against San Francisco for these sewage discharges. Most recently, the EPA in May <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/feds-sue-san-francisco-over-shoddy-stormwater-sewage-system/">sued the city in federal court</a> over &#8220;its repeated and widespread failures” to operate treatment plants in compliance with the permits. The city faces potential civil penalties of more than $66,000 per day for each violation.



San Francisco is arguing that the EPA’s policy overreaches from its regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act, which allows the regulator to impose limitations on pollutants rather than prohibitions on overall water quality.



Additionally, the city takes issue with how the EPA measures compliance, using the quality of receiving waters (the bay or the ocean) rather than tracking what discharge plants are actually releasing. They hold that this could make the city responsible for water quality issues it had no part in creating.



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-what-is-the-epa-saying">What is the EPA saying?</h2>



The regulator argues (big surprise) that it does have the legal authority to impose these generic prohibitions, which it says are necessary to control overall water quality.



The agency’s interpretation of the Clean Water Act allows for any limitation necessary to meet water quality standards. Narrative standards rather than simple effluent limitations can be helpful, the EPA argues.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="2500" height="1667" src="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/SFWasteWater12142022-39.jpg?w=2500" alt="A worker in safety gear walks through a large industrial facility with pipes and machinery, wearing a vest labeled &quot;SFPUC Wastewater.&quot;" class="wp-image-125148" srcset="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/SFWasteWater12142022-39.jpg 2500w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/SFWasteWater12142022-39-300x200.jpg 300w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/SFWasteWater12142022-39-768x512.jpg 768w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/SFWasteWater12142022-39-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/SFWasteWater12142022-39-2048x1366.jpg 2048w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/SFWasteWater12142022-39-650x433.jpg 650w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/SFWasteWater12142022-39-370x247.jpg 370w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/SFWasteWater12142022-39-800x533.jpg 800w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/SFWasteWater12142022-39-450x300.jpg 450w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/SFWasteWater12142022-39-20x13.jpg 20w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/SFWasteWater12142022-39-185x123.jpg 185w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/SFWasteWater12142022-39-740x493.jpg 740w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/SFWasteWater12142022-39-400x267.jpg 400w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/SFWasteWater12142022-39-1600x1067.jpg 1600w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/SFWasteWater12142022-39-225x150.jpg 225w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/SFWasteWater12142022-39-900x600.jpg 900w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/SFWasteWater12142022-39-72x48.jpg 72w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2500px) 100vw, 2500px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">San Francisco has been sued by both the EPA and private organizations over untreated sewage discharged in the Bay during storm surges. </figcaption></figure>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-who-is-on-san-francisco-s-side">Who is on San Francisco’s side?</h2>



Since the case has major implications for local governments, several other cities — including New York, Washington, and Boston — and water utilities joined an amicus brief in support of San Francisco’s argument. San Francisco has also found support from trade groups like the National Mining Association, American Farm Bureau Federation, and American Fuel &amp; Petrochemical Manufacturers.



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-how-might-this-affect-residents-water-bills">How might this affect residents’ water bills?</h2>



Chiu has argued that to meet the existing standards as outlined by the EPA, there would need to be an estimated $10.6 billion in capital projects. That would balloon average annual sewage and water bills to nearly $9,000 by 2039, according to an analysis by the Public Utilities Commission.&nbsp;



Chiu said that’s a staggering bill to pay, particularly when these types of discharges happen 10 times a year or less. Federal government officials have argued that the sewage system is failing and needs upgrades.



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-so-how-might-this-shake-out">So how might this shake out?</h2>



During oral arguments, the justices appeared to be split along typical ideological lines. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, both conservatives, indicated support for San Francisco’s arguments, while liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor appeared to see merit in the EPA’s interpretation of the Clean Water Act. There seemed to be support for a compromise measure in which the EPA could use “generic prohibitions” after exhausting efforts to get information from the relevant officials.&nbsp;



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-isn-t-this-all-a-little-ironic">Isn’t this all a little ironic?</h2>



What could possibly be ironic about San Francisco appealing to a conservative Supreme Court to roll back regulatory standards?

Breed has dodged scandals before. This one might actually stick

Mayor London Breed is a perennial gold medalist in the most important event for any City Hall political athlete: scandal hurdles.



When former public works director Mohammed Nuru was arrested by the FBI in 2020 for taking bribes, San Franciscans didn’t bat an eyelash. No matter that Nuru was Breed’s former paramour, who paid to fix her broken-down jalopy.



After all, Covid struck just weeks after Nuru&#8217;s impropriety surfaced, recasting the mayor as a life-saving hero.



One hurdle jumped.



Later that same year, the FBI arrested former Public Utilities Commission General Manager Harlan Kelly. The bribery accusations also implicated his wife, former City Administrator Naomi Kelly.



The story was much the same: They were longtime Breed confidants. In any given week, Kelly may have pocketed those bribes on a Monday and met with Breed to talk city matters on a Tuesday.



Breed sailed with the grace of <a href="https://www.npr.org/2024/08/08/g-s1-16076/sydney-mclaughlin-levrone-400m-hurdles-world-record-olympic-gold">Sydney McLaughlin-Levrone</a> far above any critiques.



This time she may not be so lucky. Fast-forward to 2024, and Breed is running for reelection. Last week’s latest City Hall scandal gives her opponents ample chance to raise those hurdles higher than she can soar.



An investigation by The Standard revealed that Sheryl Davis, head of the Human Rights Commission, approved <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2024/09/12/san-francisco-dream-keeper-initiative-sheryl-davis-james-spingola-nonprofit/">$1.5 million in contracts with a local nonprofit</a>, Collective Impact, run by a man she has a close personal relationship with; the two shared a home address and a car. Rules require her to disclose such a relationship, though she allegedly has done no such thing.



The San Francisco Chronicle also <a href="https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/marthas-vinyard-rental-questions-spending-19743302.php">raised questions</a> about Davis’ financial dealings through the commission. Davis was subsequently placed on administrative leave on Thursday and resigned Friday.



Former political consultant David Latterman, who worked on campaigns for state Sen. Scott Wiener, said Breed may face especially intense scrutiny because she has more direct ties to Davis’ program than she did to Nuru’s department in 2020.



“Harlan&#8217;s a grown-up and made his own decisions. Mohammed is a grown-up and made his own decisions. The connection was never there,” Latterman said.



This time, however, Davis awarded the questionable contracts under the Dream Keeper Initiative, <a href="https://www.dreamkeepersf.org/history">and that was Breed’s project</a>.



She conceived of it. She championed it. And now, she may own its political pitfalls.



Already, her mayoral opponents have seized on the moment. On Thursday, Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin called for an <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2024/09/12/aaron-peskin-investigation-dream-keeper-initiative/">investigation into Davis’ conduct.</a> Mayoral candidate and former Supervisor Mark Farrell called for a federal investigation into the mayor’s role in the Dream Keeper Initiative. He also challenged the mayor to fire Davis.



Hammering on ethics allegations may ultimately benefit Peskin’s and Farrell’s campaigns. Yet that may be a perilous political path.



Latterman warned that the scrutiny may cause voters to look into Farrell’s own <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2024/07/01/mark-farrell-campaign-money-san-francisco-restaurants-bars/">alleged ethical lapses</a> — including questionable campaign donations from Recology, a trash company with its own unscrupulous role in Nuru’s scandal — or into the skeletons in Peskin’s closet.



Already, another candidate, nonprofit founder and Levi Strauss heir Daniel Lurie, has <a href="https://x.com/DanielLurie/status/1834617816546480327">started to point fingers at Farrell</a> for alleged questionable ethics related to Recology. He seized on recent scandals to buttress his campaign’s narrative of the disruptor seeking to dethrone crooked City Hall insiders.



Lurie has the largest campaign war chest, which could easily up its spending, spreading its message of Lurie as an incorruptible force for change.



However, Latterman argued, voters may tune out altogether if Breed’s competitors push too hard. And that, perversely, could benefit the mayor.



“Clearly this is a hand, but how do you want to play it?” Latterman said. “If they drag it into the mud and things get ugly, that favors an incumbent. People get tired of it, they get less interested.”



For now, Breed is playing defense.



Reporters from The Standard caught up with her at a Financial District political event. Standing under the soft light of opulent chandeliers in the Julia Morgan Ballroom, reporters asked if she knew about Davis’ relationship with the man she awarded $1.5 million in contracts to.



“Not right now, not right now,” Breed said.



The reporters pressed.



“No means no,” she said.



Absent Breed’s explanations, her opponents will fill in the blanks for voters. The story they tell may make her campaign fall flat on its face. Or, maybe, the hurdling champion will soar again.



Reporter Gabe Greschler contributed to this story.

Mark Farrell says SF’s oversight of Recology is trash. He wants to change that

San Francisco’s garbage company is trashy in more ways than one. One mayoral candidate says he has a solution.&nbsp;



Former Supervisor and interim Mayor Mark Farrell wants to put the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission in charge of Recology, the city’s scandal-plagued trash hauler.&nbsp;



The problem is twofold, Farrell said: San Franciscans are fed up with garbage-filled streets, and Recology’s officers have been indicted for juicing their bills, overcharging city residents $94.5 million that they will repay in a settlement with the city.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="8192" height="5464" src="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/20240910-garbagepolicy-es-20.jpg?w=2500" alt="A row of white garbage trucks with green and blue stripes is parked in a lot, with hills in the background." class="wp-image-310728" srcset="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/20240910-garbagepolicy-es-20.jpg 8192w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/20240910-garbagepolicy-es-20.jpg?resize=300,200 300w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/20240910-garbagepolicy-es-20.jpg?resize=768,512 768w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/20240910-garbagepolicy-es-20.jpg?resize=2500,1667 2500w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/20240910-garbagepolicy-es-20.jpg?resize=1536,1025 1536w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/20240910-garbagepolicy-es-20.jpg?resize=2048,1366 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 8192px) 100vw, 8192px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">San Francisco&#8217;s garbage company, Recology, has a history of bribing city officials.</figcaption></figure>



Farrell argued that putting the company under the commission&#8217;s purview, which has citizen groups that oversee the city’s other utility services, would help solve both problems.



“The unfortunate reality is Mayor Breed has failed in the cleanliness of our streets,” Farrell told The Standard. “There&#8217;s no place to put our trash in commercial corridors and our neighborhoods. Trash cans have been systematically removed from our city while our streets have gotten dirtier.”



But Farrell’s plan isn’t a done deal, even if he wins.&nbsp;



Recology’s century-old contract is up for renewal in October. And since its oversight was recently transferred to a ratepayer board <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2022/05/06/recology-backtracks-on-fighting-garbage-rate-reform-in-sf-will-now-back-june-ballot-measure/">after the passage of Proposition F</a> in 2022, a supermajority vote of the Board of Supervisors may be required to tweak some city rules governing our garbage.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="3000" height="2000" src="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/20240723_farrellvisitspaintedladies_-04891.jpg?w=2500" alt="A man in a dark suit jacket gestures with his hand. He appears to be speaking. The background features a chandelier and blurred people." class="wp-image-294762" srcset="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/20240723_farrellvisitspaintedladies_-04891.jpg 3000w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/20240723_farrellvisitspaintedladies_-04891.jpg?resize=300,200 300w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/20240723_farrellvisitspaintedladies_-04891.jpg?resize=768,512 768w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/20240723_farrellvisitspaintedladies_-04891.jpg?resize=2500,1667 2500w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/20240723_farrellvisitspaintedladies_-04891.jpg?resize=1536,1024 1536w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/20240723_farrellvisitspaintedladies_-04891.jpg?resize=2048,1365 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 3000px) 100vw, 3000px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Mark Farrell says that putting the company under the city&#8217;s purview will save residents money.</figcaption></figure>



Slogging through that process would be worth it, though, because the move will save money for residents, Farrell claims. If the SFPUC oversaw Recology, the agency could bundle garbage rates with other utility costs, which other cities like Seattle already do.



Recology’s relationship with San Francisco has been in flux since the 2020 federal indictment of former Public Works Director Mohammed Nuru, who was found guilty of taking bribes from multiple parties, including Recology officers.&nbsp;



Former Recology Community Relations Manager Paul Giusti arranged more than $1 million in bribes for Nuru. Giusti cooperated with the investigation, <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2023/12/14/san-francisco-corruption-paul-giusti-sandra-zuniga-sentencing/">sparing him prison time</a>. John Porter, his supervisor, <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2023/09/21/san-francisco-corruption-recology-executive-sentenced-nuru-bribery-scandal/">was sentenced to six months of house arrest</a> for signing off on those payments.



In 2021, Recology settled a lawsuit filed by San Francisco and agreed to repay ratepayers at least $94.5 million in overcharges.



In a statement, Breed&#8217;s campaign took aim at Farrell for taking a $5,000 donation from a Recology PAC in 2018. Just a week later, <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2024/07/01/mark-farrell-campaign-money-san-francisco-restaurants-bars/">Farrell nominated Giusti, who was indicted by the FBI</a>, to a city commission. 



 &#8220;Mark Farrell did nothing to address Recology when he was in office as supervisor or temporary mayor. He doesn’t get to have a plan now, he has a record,&#8221; said Breed campaign spokesperson Joe Arellano. &#8220;San Francisco’s streets aren’t dirty, Mark Farrell is.&#8221;



<div class="wp-block-sf-standard-related-posts-container">
<div class="wp-block-sf-standard-related-post"></div>
</div>



Since Recology’s rates were moved <a href="https://www.spur.org/voter-guide/2022-06/sf-prop-f-refuse-rate-reform">to a new oversight model</a> in 2022, the Refuse Rate Board <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2023/03/10/scandal-plagued-recology-wants-you-to-pay-more-for-garbage-removal/">has approved rate increases</a> of only 1.33% in 2024 and 2.55% in 2025, which is 36% lower than Recology’s proposed rate increases and will result in $8.7 million in ratepayer savings over two years, according to the mayor’s ffice.



“Following the disturbing revelations of criminal conduct by certain Recology executives, the City acted swiftly and decisively to provide cooperation to law enforcement which resulted in successful convictions and also to impose significant new controls, oversight and transparency on the city’s contracting practices for refuse collection and refuse rate-setting,” the mayor’s office said in a statement.



Farrell said it’s not enough — the public needs more transparency into Recology.



Despite the scandal, perhaps more pressing on voters’ minds is Recology’s main function: picking up the trash. San Francisco’s streets are infamously dirty, an oft-cited problem in the background of the city’s twin ills of crime and homelessness.&nbsp;



In response to a call-out for questions from The Standard, one reader, Gina G., wrote, “No one is picking up the garbage and the amount of trash everywhere is unprecedented. Even the public trash can near my building has been missing its door for a year, and reports to 311 go unanswered. What is your plan to fix this?”



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="3000" height="2001" src="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/BlackChurches09102023-951-1.jpg?w=2500" alt="A wall with colorful graffiti art is in the background, while trash and bags of garbage are scattered on the sidewalk in front. A parking meter is also visible." class="wp-image-205243" srcset="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/BlackChurches09102023-951-1.jpg 3000w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/BlackChurches09102023-951-1.jpg?resize=300,200 300w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/BlackChurches09102023-951-1.jpg?resize=768,512 768w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/BlackChurches09102023-951-1.jpg?resize=2500,1668 2500w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/BlackChurches09102023-951-1.jpg?resize=1536,1025 1536w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/BlackChurches09102023-951-1.jpg?resize=2048,1366 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 3000px) 100vw, 3000px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">San Francisco’s streets are infamously dirty.</figcaption></figure>



Farrell’s plan for SFPUC oversight includes pushing for more public trash cans, increasing the frequency of trash pickup, and rolling out a reusable container program to reduce single-use plastic waste. Similar programs are underway in London, Portland, <a href="https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Articles/2024/04/08/reuse-movement">and in some sports stadiums</a>.&nbsp;



Russel Long, a senior advisor with environmental nonprofit Friends of the Earth U.S., said Farrell’s plan to help San Francisco ensure Recology plays by the rules is not just good government; it’s also important to ensure it reaches its environmental goals.&nbsp;



“Recology has had a terrible lack of oversight,” Long said. “Elected officials were their appointed regulators. Obviously, the level of corruption discovered in Recology has been staggering. We need to clean it up.”



Long said the reusable container proposal could join other memorable city policies to clean up the streets, some of which he played a role in, too. In the 1990s h...

Flooding threatens to inundate San Francisco neighborhoods, report says

San Francisco is woefully unprepared when it comes to combating and mitigating rising seas, which could lead to disastrous flooding, according to the city’s latest civil grand jury report.&nbsp;



In a 71-page report titled “Come Hell or High Water,” the jury—a civilian oversight body of 19 San Franciscans—details how a precipitous increase in atmospheric rivers against the backdrop of vulnerable infrastructure and poor communication across city departments will inundate San Francisco’s low-lying neighborhoods. Overall, the jurors took issue with a gaping hole in communication with the public conveying the threat that rising seas pose.



“The issue at large needs more attention,” Ralph Lane, a member of the jury, told The Standard. “Climate change and sea level rise is gradual, so there&#8217;s not gonna be a cataclysmic event like an earthquake that can focus people on climate change adaptation, which is why transparency is one of the bigger pieces of our recommendations. There are going to be winners and losers, so it&#8217;s gotta be done in the sunshine.”



As the intensity and frequency of atmospheric rivers climbs due to climate change, sea levels are <a href="https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazards/sealevelrise/sealevelrise-tech-report.html#step3">projected to rise</a> as much as three-and-a-half feet by 2100, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The city’s wastewater system could not “manage that change alone” without the ability to direct water elsewhere, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission reported in December 2022. This could result in flooding in areas like SoMa, the Inner Mission, Civic Center and the Western Addition. Additionally, an increase in storms leads to more saturated soils, which can lead to landslides already seen statewide.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="6000" height="4000" src="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/inlined1_floodingreport.jpeg?w=2500" alt="Men wearing neon uniforms help to pack levees into a car during an intense storm in January 2023." class="wp-image-282673" srcset="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/inlined1_floodingreport.jpeg 6000w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/inlined1_floodingreport.jpeg?resize=300,200 300w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/inlined1_floodingreport.jpeg?resize=768,512 768w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/inlined1_floodingreport.jpeg?resize=2500,1667 2500w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/inlined1_floodingreport.jpeg?resize=1536,1024 1536w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/inlined1_floodingreport.jpeg?resize=2048,1365 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 6000px) 100vw, 6000px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">City public works employees unpack sandbags to distribute to the public ahead of a significant storm in January 2023.</figcaption></figure>



In 2021, the mayor&#8217;s office created ClimateSF as a partnership between the SFPUC, the Port of San Francisco, the Planning Department, the San Francisco Environment Department, and the Office of Resilience and Capital Planning to build a nexus of environmentally resilient and adaptable programs citywide.



However, the grand jury’s report found that while the group has created projects that identify vulnerable points, it lacks the thrust to implement these projects due to poor communication and absenteeism. The directors of the Port and SFPUC, the agencies that manage flooding, only attended one meeting together in all the years reviewed by the civil grand jury.&nbsp;



“Good ideas were discussed at the staff level; however, by not attending staff-level meetings, departmental leadership did not then develop ideas for implementing them,” the report reads.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="6000" height="4000" src="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/inlined02_floodingreport.jpeg?w=2500" alt="A woman carrying a small dog sits in her car awaiting sand bags during the January 2023 storms." class="wp-image-282674" srcset="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/inlined02_floodingreport.jpeg 6000w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/inlined02_floodingreport.jpeg?resize=300,200 300w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/inlined02_floodingreport.jpeg?resize=768,512 768w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/inlined02_floodingreport.jpeg?resize=2500,1667 2500w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/inlined02_floodingreport.jpeg?resize=1536,1024 1536w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/inlined02_floodingreport.jpeg?resize=2048,1365 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 6000px) 100vw, 6000px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Audette Bennett and her dog Pablo wait for free sandbags ahead of a massive storm in January 2023.</figcaption></figure>



The Office of Resilience and Capital Planning, which oversees ClimateSF, will publish a formal response to the report within 60 days.&nbsp;



&#8220;We appreciate the civil grand jury’s work on this and will closely review the recommendations,” a department spokesperson said. “To meet our climate goals, climate resilience must be embedded into every department’s work. While there&#8217;s still work to be done, San Francisco has been a nationwide leader on climate resilience.”



Since ClimateSF&#8217;s launch, the city has moved forward on several citywide initiatives to fight climate change. Among those are the Ocean Beach Climate Adaptation Project, a major armoring project that will turn parts of the Great Highway into a park, and the Climate Adaptation Plan, which cuts a path toward net zero greenhouse gas emissions citywide.

Breed proposes $1.3 billion budget bump, despite months of deficit warnings

For months, Mayor London Breed has been ringing the alarm about an $800 million deficit and asking city departments to plan for budget cuts. But instead of cutting overall spending, Breed’s latest budget proposal calls for a record $15.9 billion outlay next year, a nearly 9% climb from this year’s budget.



The surprising jump, announced Friday, is largely driven by increases in the city’s <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2022/05/06/sfs-budget-includes-enterprise-departments-heres-what-that-means/">enterprise departments</a>, such as the airport and Public Utilities Commission, which earn much of their own revenue by charging customers for services. However, Breed’s team was also able to avoid shrinking the general fund—the city’s main source of discretionary spending—through a combination of cuts, reduced hiring, and leveraging outside funding and rainy day reserves.



“We closed the deficit by spending less than we had planned to spend,” mayoral spokesperson Jeff Cretan said.



<div class="wp-block-sf-standard-datawrapper-chart" data-chart-id="280080"></div>



Broadly speaking, the mayor’s plan would preserve core city functions—<a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2024/05/30/san-francisco-budget-deficit-police-firefighters/">like police</a> and street sweeping. As a result, Breed would trim services seen as nonessential, such as the outreach arms of some city programs, which educate the public but do not provide a direct service.



Breed’s recommendations would push more funding for public safety agencies, while other city departments would see cuts, setting up what may become a fraught and contentious battle as the November election nears and the mayor fights to keep her job. The plan is subject to approval by the Board of Supervisors.&nbsp;



Under Breed’s plan, the police department, sheriff, district attorney, firefighters, and emergency management agency would receive <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2024/05/30/san-francisco-budget-deficit-police-firefighters/">a roughly $100 million increase in funding</a>, a move that comes as she seeks to present herself as a savior of San Francisco’s public safety employees and a crime fighter.&nbsp;



The budget will also sustain investments in the city’s downtown neighborhood, which has been hit hard by work-from-home trends and questions over its economic vitality. Funding will keep flowing toward departments like Public Works, which deploys cleaning crews to power-wash sidewalks.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="3000" height="2001" src="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/BreedSFPDOfficerOfTheMonth072623_12.jpg?w=2500" alt="A woman sits next to a row of police officers." class="wp-image-186366" srcset="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/BreedSFPDOfficerOfTheMonth072623_12.jpg 3000w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/BreedSFPDOfficerOfTheMonth072623_12.jpg?resize=300,200 300w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/BreedSFPDOfficerOfTheMonth072623_12.jpg?resize=768,512 768w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/BreedSFPDOfficerOfTheMonth072623_12.jpg?resize=2500,1668 2500w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/BreedSFPDOfficerOfTheMonth072623_12.jpg?resize=1536,1025 1536w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/BreedSFPDOfficerOfTheMonth072623_12.jpg?resize=2048,1366 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 3000px) 100vw, 3000px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Mayor London Breed is prioritizing increasing police and other public safety funding in her new budget proposal.</figcaption></figure>



In a statement, Breed said the city was “making real progress” on its budget.



“In this budget, we made the tough decisions to close our deficit and those are never easy, but we also made the right decision to prioritize critical city services our residents expect and deserve,” she said. “By investing in public safety, families, our economy, and improving the conditions on our streets, we will keep moving our city forward.”



A multitude of factors are contributing to the city’s squeeze in finances, including weak performance in revenue streams like property and business taxes. San Francisco’s pocketbook is still suffering from difficulties in the real estate market, office vacancies that have remained stubbornly high, and high interest rates that have slowed down industries like construction.



Breed’s budget avoided general fund cuts by pulling back on hiring and contracts and dipping into $122 million in reserves. The budget also includes a one-time Medi-Cal reimbursement totaling over $100 million, according to the Mayor’s Office. About $300 million of the deficit is getting resolved through cuts. The budget also axes some new projects or programs, instead opting to fold that funding into core operations.



<iframe title="San Francisco annual budget" aria-label="Stacked Columns" id="datawrapper-chart-5xyDE" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/5xyDE/1/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" style="width: 0; min-width: 100% !important; border: none;" height="503" data-external="1"></iframe><script type="text/javascript">!function(){"use strict";window.addEventListener("message",(function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r=0;r<e.length;r++)if(e[r].contentWindow===a.source){var i=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";e[r].style.height=i}}}))}();
</script>



Breed’s administration also <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2024/04/15/san-francisco-city-unions-labor-deal/">struck deals with the city’s unions</a>, offering pay bumps of 13% to tens of thousands of city workers over the next three years. A large portion of the general fund—60%—is devoted to employee salaries and benefits as health care and retirement costs have risen, according to city officials.



That will come at the cost of hiring, however. The budget includes funding for salaries and benefits for 33,285 employees, a small reduction from this year. Breed’s proposal would shut down recruitment almost across the board, except for frontline workers like police, nurses and dispatchers. No city employees would be laid off under the mayor’s plan. 



Other cuts will involve reducing funding for certain community-based contracts.



City officials said core programming that generally provides food or housing would be kept intact, while lower-priority services like workforce development and outreach initiatives would be slashed.&nbsp;



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="2500" height="1667" src="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/BoardOfSupervisorsChamber-2500x1667-1.jpeg?w=2500" alt="An ornate meeting room with high ceilings." class="wp-image-194579" srcset="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/BoardOfSupervisorsChamber-2500x1667-1.jpeg 2500w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/BoardOfSupervisorsChamber-2500x1667-1.jpeg?resize=300,200 300w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/BoardOfSupervisorsChamber-2500x1667-1.jpeg?resize=768,512 768w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/BoardOfSupervisorsChamber-2500x1667-1.jpeg?resize=1536,1024 1536w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/BoardOfSupervisorsChamber-2500x1667-1.jpeg?resize=2048,1366 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2500px) 100vw, 2500px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">The Board of Supervisors will debate, and likely tweak, Mayor London Breed’s budget proposal before voting on it.</figcaption></figure>



For example, the city takes in about $10 million each year in soda tax revenue and has historically used about $3 million of that funding for nutrition and health education. Breed is proposing cutting those education efforts, and instead, use that money to save programs that provide people with vouchers to buy healthy food at farmers’ markets and deliver meals to senior citizens.



Breed’s plan is likely to spur intense debate and discussion this summer and comes as the mayor—along with two supervisors and another two City Hall outsiders—seek the city’s top job in November.&nbsp;



Breed’s challengers are already casting her as having squandered years of bright economic growth—and a moderate versus progressive fight is almost certain in the coming weeks over at least some of the mayor’s spending priorities.



Last year, Breed was <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2023/05/31/san-francisco-mayor-proposes-record-spending-despite-780m-deficit/">able to plug up a similarly large deficit</a> through the use of Covid-related reimbursements and reserve funds. But by October, Breed warned that cuts were coming and directed city departments to make 10% reductions to their budgets.



San Francisco’s supervisors will propose their own tweaks to the mayor’s budget proposal before sending it back to her for a final signature by the end of July.

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

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

Joaquín Torres

The Ballot Simplification Committee ensures voter materials are clear and understandable. It reviews and revises ballot language to accurately reflect propositions and measures. The committee advises on simplifying complex legal and technical terms for voter comprehension.

Ballot Simplification Committee

The Bayview Hunters Point Citizens Advisory Committee provides policy advice on planning and land use matters in Zone 2 of Bayview Hunter's Point. It offers expertise in land use policies, zoning issues, and urban development. The committee advises the Board of Supervisors, City Boards, and commissions on relevant projects and initiatives.

Bayview Hunters Point Citizens Advisory Committee