He died near a troubled halfway house. His family and the city want answers

Melvin Bulauan’s son, Anjru Jaezon de Leon, said his father called him July 13 in distress.



“I tried to calm him down,” said de Leon. “He said, ‘Anjru, I’m anxious. I’m scared. I would rather go back to jail than stay here.’”



The &#8220;here&#8221; his father was referring to, according to de Leon, was 111 Taylor St., a halfway house in the Tenderloin run by <a href="https://www.geogroup.com/">GEO Group</a>, a Florida-based company that privately operates 50 correctional facilities nationwide — including a handful of Immigration and Customs Enforcement processing centers. The facility at 111 Taylor St. has long faced allegations of substandard living conditions, including poor medical care. GEO Group has operated the site since 1989.



The call from Bulauan was the last time his family spoke with him. The 45-year-old resident of 111 Taylor St. was found dead July 14, his birthday, after reportedly living at the halfway house for less than a week. His body was found a block away at 225 Taylor St., according to de Leon, who said the parole officer in charge of Bulauan was unaware that he had left the facility. Details of the circumstances or cause of death were unavailable.



“My dad was a kind person,” said de Leon. “He really loved us. … He was strong. He was funny.” A <a href="https://www.gofundme.com/f/for-the-dad-who-never-stopped-trying">GoFundMe</a> campaign to pay for Bulauan’s funeral has raised nearly $25,000.&nbsp;



Now the halfway house and its operators are facing scrutiny after a local lawmaker Tuesday called for a hearing into allegedly poor operating conditions at the facility and whether they contributed to Bulauan&#8217;s death. 



Supervisor Bilal Mahmood, who represents the Tenderloin, said he would subpoena GEO Group representatives for more information about conditions at 111 Taylor St.&nbsp;



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" height="1667" width="2500" src="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/8685542386_drugmarketkids_025.jpg?w=2500" alt="A man in a suit speaks into a microphone with a serious expression. The background is blurred, focusing on his face." class="wp-image-377628" srcset="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/8685542386_drugmarketkids_025.jpg 8192w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/8685542386_drugmarketkids_025.jpg?resize=300,200 300w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/8685542386_drugmarketkids_025.jpg?resize=768,512 768w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/8685542386_drugmarketkids_025.jpg?resize=2500,1667 2500w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/8685542386_drugmarketkids_025.jpg?resize=1536,1025 1536w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/8685542386_drugmarketkids_025.jpg?resize=2048,1366 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2500px) 100vw, 2500px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Supervisor Bilal Mahmood wants to investigate the conditions at 111 Taylor St.</figcaption></figure>



“Residents of the Tenderloin deserve answers as to what one of the largest private prison companies is doing in our backyard,” he said.&nbsp;



GEO Group spokesperson Monica Hook said 111 Taylor St. residents have the ability to come and go with permission in order to find work or receive services. 



Hook said Bulauan exited July 13 without authorization and was reported to the “supervising agency,” which she did not name. Once he was reported as missing, he was discharged from 111 Taylor St. the same day.&nbsp;



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" height="1667" width="2500" src="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/opensfhistorytransdayofremembrance112022_004.jpg?w=2500" alt="A blue, ornate, three-story building stands at an intersection. It has &quot;HOTEL WARFIELD&quot; signs, a mural, cars, and people nearby with traffic lights." class="wp-image-421585" srcset="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/opensfhistorytransdayofremembrance112022_004.jpg 8192w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/opensfhistorytransdayofremembrance112022_004.jpg?resize=300,200 300w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/opensfhistorytransdayofremembrance112022_004.jpg?resize=768,512 768w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/opensfhistorytransdayofremembrance112022_004.jpg?resize=2500,1667 2500w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/opensfhistorytransdayofremembrance112022_004.jpg?resize=1536,1025 1536w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/opensfhistorytransdayofremembrance112022_004.jpg?resize=2048,1366 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2500px) 100vw, 2500px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">GEO Group has overseen 111 Taylor St. since 1989.</figcaption></figure>



“The facility was notified as a courtesy by the supervising agency on July 15, 2025, that Mr. Bulauan was deceased,” said Hook. “We have no additional information.&#8221;



Mahmood said that in addition to details about operation of the halfway house, he plans to question GEO Group about allegations of <a href="https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/ninth-circuit-affirms-profit-operator-northwest-ice-processing-center-violated">civil rights violations</a> and its relationship with the federal government as President Donald Trump’s administration ramps up immigration raids.



The publicly traded company <a href="https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GEO/?guccounter=1&amp;guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&amp;guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAA24Qm2XhmNbrOZSkD-IKRCOqXQQo_2tNBGdlbBgE83z5bQzpxBZUPNxEJVTdvQBy8LwhPapndonk9oQ4rsxpXgRMH3MalVWFcZ72rxkgz7iF83TmmZ6eW77WjqS-73Pko3MwSrOB602iVU0USUt-U7nOQDeWq9yNhc_2ZUNmB-J">is worth more than $3 billion</a> and saw its stock price skyrocket after Trump’s election in November. GEO is one of the country’s largest for-profit prison operators; representatives this year said it was investing tens of millions of dollars in immigration enforcement activities, <a href="https://www.npr.org/2025/06/04/nx-s1-5417980/private-prisons-and-local-jails-are-ramping-up-as-ice-detention-exceeds-capacity">according to NPR</a>.



San Francisco and other California cities have seen a flurry of protests against ICE in recent months. Local lawmakers <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/01/28/san-francisco-donald-trump-immigration-sanctuary-city-ice/">have responded by affirming San Francisco’s status as a sanctuary city</a>, which limits local law enforcement’s ability to work with federal immigration officials.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" height="1882" width="2500" src="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/1000007700.jpg?w=2500" alt="Three people in hoodies sit closely near red planters on a city sidewalk, with caution signs visible nearby. One person stands further away by a building entrance." class="wp-image-421667" srcset="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/1000007700.jpg 4080w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/1000007700.jpg?resize=300,226 300w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/1000007700.jpg?resize=768,578 768w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/1000007700.jpg?resize=2500,1882 2500w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/1000007700.jpg?resize=1536,1157 1536w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/1000007700.jpg?resize=2048,1542 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2500px) 100vw, 2500px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">People congregate outside 111 Taylor St.</figcaption></figure>



Mahmood said GEO Group’s operations are “antithetical to San Francisco’s values.”



“This is a troubling situation,” he said.



On Tuesday, signs posted in windows at 111 Taylor St. said no audio or video recording was allowed without permission. A guard was posted at the entrance, and anyone entering had to pass through a metal detector.&nbsp;



The facility has a checkered history. In the late 1960s, it was the site of the Compton Cafeteria riot, a protest by members of the LGTBQ community over their treatment by police. <a href="https://www.sfchronicle.com/realestate/article/tenderloin-zoning-battle-20312869.php">According to reporting in the San Francisco Chronicle</a>, the halfway house has faced scrutiny from city inspectors and was the subject of a <a href="https://wearedefender.com/111-taylor">documentary</a> short by Adachi Project, from the late Public Defender Jeff Adachi, about conditions during the Covid pandemic. 



<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>



Dozens of community members protested GEO Group’s operations at the halfway house during a July 15 hearing at the city’s Board of Appeals, which <a href="https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/historic-tenderloin-building-halfway-house-20774062.php">voted to approve</a> the company’s continued use of the building.



Santana Tapia, a spokesperson for Compton&#8217;s x Coalition, a group advocating for the removal of GEO Group at the halfway house, said her group would like to see the site reclaimed as “a sacred space for San Francisco’s trans and queer community.”



&#8220;We demand accountability, we demand an end to these inhumane conditions, and we demand the city take action now,” Tapia said. “We say their names — we say Melvin Bulauan’s name — and we will not stop until 111 Taylor is free.”

Newsom doesn’t want to fund California’s new tough-on-crime law. Who should?

California voters overwhelmingly approved a tough-on-crime ballot measure in the November election, but it still lacks hundreds of millions of dollars in funding as state legislators and Gov. Gavin Newsom battle over how to finance the new law.



<a href="https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/36/">Proposition 36</a>, which passed with more than <a href="https://admin.cdn.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2024-general/sov/59-state-ballot-measures.pdf">68% of the vote statewide</a>, gives prosecutors more authority to charge certain drug- and theft-related crimes as felonies and allows judges to mandate treatment for some offenders.&nbsp;



Those who backed the measure, including a bipartisan group of local and state lawmakers, sought somewhere between <a href="https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article302877334.html">$250 million and $400 million</a> in state funding this year to implement the law, which took effect in December. 



Newsom rejected that request in his nearly <a href="https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/MAY-REVISE-2025-2026-Governor-Budget-Slides-PRESS.pdf">$322 billion</a> May budget proposal, arguing that it is up to local officials who supported the measure to find the money as the state grapples with a <a href="https://calmatters.org/politics/2025/05/california-budget-revision-may-2025/">projected $12 billion deficit</a>. Newsom’s refusal to fund Prop. 36 comes after he openly opposed the measure during the election over concerns that it would drive up incarceration rates.



“The state is not the only spigot,” Newsom said last month. “There were a lot of supervisors in the county that promoted it. So this is their opportunity to step up, fund it. There were city mayors that supported it. It’s their opportunity to step up, fund it.”&nbsp;



That put Newsom at odds with state lawmakers from both parties who for months have said it is necessary to include money in the budget for a law voters clearly wanted.&nbsp;



Last week, the Legislature announced its own <a href="https://sbud.senate.ca.gov/system/files/2025-06/legislature-s-version-of-the-budget-summary-sb-101-final.pdf">budget proposal</a>, ahead of a June 15 deadline, that includes roughly $110 million in one-time funding for costs related to Prop. 36. The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office last year <a href="https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=36&amp;year=2024">estimated</a> that carrying out the provisions of Prop. 36 would require “several tens of millions of dollars to the low hundreds of millions of dollars each year.”&nbsp;



In a statement, Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg) said his chamber “has been committed to funding Prop. 36 implementation from day one.”&nbsp;



The Legislature’s budget includes $50 million for county-level behavioral health programs, $30 million for local courts, and $15 million for public defenders, along with funding for pre-trial programs.&nbsp;



“Whatever one’s view on Prop. 36, the voters spoke and overwhelmingly passed it,” state Sen. Scott Wiener, a San Francisco Democrat and chair of the budget committee, said in a statement. “The funding in the budget to implement Prop. 36 is a good example of the power of state/local collaboration to address challenges facing communities.”



Newsom has until June 30 to sign the budget. His office declined to comment on whether he would approve a budget that included money for Prop. 36.



Supporters of Prop. 36 said the $110 million in one-time funds falls far short of what’s needed to handle an influx of cases. Without millions more, they argue, counties will not be able to meet the demand for treatment programs that are intended under the law as an alternative to prison time.&nbsp;



“While we appreciate the funding included by lawmakers for Prop 36, we are very frustrated that the dollars allocated will not ensure the success of Prop. 36,” said Napa County District Attorney Allison Haley, who serves as president of the California District Attorneys Association. “We should be listening to the will of voters and ensure Prop. 36 is fully funded.”



State Sen. Tom Umberg, a moderate Democrat from Orange County and former federal prosecutor who lobbied for <a href="https://www.kqed.org/news/12035165/california-officials-warn-prop-36-may-drain-resources-from-successful-community-programs">$250 million in funding for Prop. 36,</a> specifically wants more money for probation departments. He said one-time funding means there will be a routine fight for Prop. 36 funds year after year. 



“I don’t want to sound like $100 million isn’t of consequence. It is of consequence. But we need to do better,” he said.&nbsp;



The fight over Prop. 36 funding follows a heated campaign season that highlighted concerns over crime and a growing drug crisis — and how best to solve California’s most entrenched problems.&nbsp;



Proponents of Prop. 36 included prosecutors, local Democratic and Republican officials, and big-box retail giants who claimed more accountability is needed to battle crime.



But prison reform advocates and left-leaning Democrats blasted Prop. 36 as a return to California’s failed war on drugs, while warning voters that the state lacks enough treatment beds to meet demand.&nbsp;



“If our state’s treatment infrastructure is not scaled up substantially soon, we are going to see California’s prisons being repopulated with low-level drug offenders who are primarily suffering from addiction,” said Anne Irwin, founder and director of the advocacy organization Smart Justice California.&nbsp;



Prop. 36 effectively <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2024/10/30/sf-election-2024-prop-36/">rolled back a controversial 2014 ballot measure</a>, <a href="https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-08-12/what-is-california-proposition-47-how-proposition-36-could-change-crime-sentencing-drugs-theft">Proposition 47</a>, that reclassified certain felony drug and theft crimes as misdemeanors. That law leveraged treatment programs as an alternative to prison or jail time for low-level crimes, using money saved from incarceration costs to finance the programs.



Critics have long claimed that Prop. 47 did not deter crime because people were not forced to complete the treatment and faced only misdemeanor charges as a consequence.&nbsp;



Now, under Prop. 36, prosecutors can file those former misdemeanors as felonies for individuals with multiple related convictions on their record. The law also created a new court process that allows certain offenders the choice between drug and mental health treatment or years in prison. 



District attorneys have filed an average of <a href="https://www.ppic.org/blog/early-implementation-of-prop-36-varies-widely-across-counties/">1,700 to 2,600 Prop. 36 felony cases per month </a>since the law went into effect, according to an April analysis by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California.&nbsp;



In San Francisco, where nearly 64% of voters approved the measure, District Attorney Brooke Jenkins had filed 169 Prop. 36 cases as of June 3, according to her office.&nbsp;



Newsom said his budget includes funding to accommodate an increase in the prison population as more people are convicted of Prop. 36 felonies. His office noted that there is more than $100 million in funding <a href="https://www.bscc.ca.gov/news/bscc-releases-127-million-to-support-mental-health-services-substance-use-treatment/">slotted for Prop. 47 programs </a>that can be used for Prop. 36. 



But Irwin said those funds will soon run out, because Prop. 47 programs used money that otherwise would have been spent on incarceration. As jail and prison rates increase, she said, there will be less money for services.



“There is a clear lesson here: Beware of passing an expensive ballot initiative without including a funding mechanism,” she said.

Lurie’s budget cuts immigrant services in ‘time of crisis’

Mayor Daniel Lurie has <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/06/09/san-francisco-immigration-ice-los-angeles-donald-trump-daniel-lurie/">vowed to keep all San Franciscans safe</a> as federal immigration arrests surge in the city, but his proposed budget puts services for some of the most threatened communities on the chopping block.



As city officials negotiate over the next few weeks on how to close a $782 million deficit, nonprofit leaders, immigrant advocates, and at least one supervisor are sounding the alarm on what they say is a stall or rollback in funding during a time of profound fear in immigrant communities. And this could be just the beginning.&nbsp;



In one notable example, Lurie’s proposed budget would slash $250,000 from the Office of Civic Engagement and Immigrant Affairs in 2026-27. The cut would amount to almost 7% of the office’s current $3.7 million budget.



The mayor’s office also intends to significantly <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/06/05/daniel-lurie-budget-cuts-san-francisco-nonprofit-grants/">scale back contracts for nonprofits</a>, some of which assist immigrant families with legal support, food and housing, and other efforts.



“I’m disappointed these cuts are on the table,” Supervisor Jackie Fielder told The Standard. “I’m going to work with my colleagues this year and next to restore as many of them as we can.”



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" height="1667" width="2500" src="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/9039634452_sfpdovertime_002.jpg?w=2500" alt="A woman sits at a table with a laptop, a coffee carafe, and hand sanitizer, speaking into a microphone. She gestures with one hand, looking engaged." class="wp-image-394495" srcset="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/9039634452_sfpdovertime_002.jpg 3000w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/9039634452_sfpdovertime_002.jpg?resize=300,200 300w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/9039634452_sfpdovertime_002.jpg?resize=768,512 768w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/9039634452_sfpdovertime_002.jpg?resize=2500,1667 2500w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/9039634452_sfpdovertime_002.jpg?resize=1536,1024 1536w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/9039634452_sfpdovertime_002.jpg?resize=2048,1365 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2500px) 100vw, 2500px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Supervisor Jackie Fielder has raised issues with the mayor&#8217;s budget and its funding for immigrant services.</figcaption></figure>



Pinning down all the city departments that provide services to immigrant communities is a challenge due to the complexity of <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/05/30/san-francisco-budget-daniel-lurie-deficit-proposal/">San Francisco’s $15.9 billion budget</a>. Some agencies and divisions, such as the Office of Civic Engagement and Immigrant Affairs, play a direct role. Others, like the public defender’s office, have special allocations to represent immigrant clients.



The mayor’s office defended Lurie’s budget in an email Thursday, noting that funding for the Office of Civic Engagement and Immigrant Affairs dropped from $5.2 million to $3.7 million under former Mayor London Breed. Officials added that Lurie’s budget maintains steady funding for immigrant legal programs amid the fiscal crisis, while other city-funded programs faced cuts due to the budget crunch.



“We protect our people by building trust, not fear,” Lurie told a crowd at an immigration rally Thursday on the steps of City Hall. “I’m going to continue protecting legal services for our immigrant communities.”&nbsp;



<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>



<a href="https://media.api.sf.gov/documents/Public_Defender_Budget_Submission_FY26_and_FY27.pdf">Budget documents show</a> the public defender asked Lurie to increase funding to its Immigration Defense Unit but the office was rebuffed. Its seven attorneys and six-member support staff handle 1,200 cases annually, according to Francisco Ugarte, the unit’s manager.&nbsp;



“Currently, as immigration enforcement increases, the community needs our help,” Ugarte said in a statement. “We are proud of the work we do and believe that the city’s investment in our unit will significantly pay off in defending due process and helping people and their families reestablish legal status in our communities.&#8221;



Lurie’s budget also cuts funding to nonprofits with larger missions that include providing food, shelter, and legal assistance to immigrant families.



At a hearing Wednesday, Alejandra Cuestas-Jaimes, a director at La Raza Centro Legal, said thousands of immigrant workers depend on her nonprofit’s services, but its funding is expected to diminish over the next two years.&nbsp;



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" height="1667" width="2500" src="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/9334360850_icemissionprotest_035.jpg?w=2500" alt="A diverse group of protesters marches, holding signs with messages against ICE. Some people are wrapped in flags, including an American flag, amidst urban surroundings." class="wp-image-408630" srcset="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/9334360850_icemissionprotest_035.jpg 8192w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/9334360850_icemissionprotest_035.jpg?resize=300,200 300w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/9334360850_icemissionprotest_035.jpg?resize=768,512 768w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/9334360850_icemissionprotest_035.jpg?resize=2500,1667 2500w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/9334360850_icemissionprotest_035.jpg?resize=1536,1025 1536w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/9334360850_icemissionprotest_035.jpg?resize=2048,1366 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2500px) 100vw, 2500px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Hundreds attend a protest against Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids Monday in San Francisco.</figcaption></figure>



Lurie’s budget slashed $85,000 from Centro Legal — which represents immigrant workers, many of whom are victims of wage theft — in the coming year, accounting for roughly half of this program’s funding. All of the funding will be eliminated the following year.



“If you cut that budget, the work of 20 years of our collaborative will be destroyed, and all the immigrant workers will be without a voice to represent them in front of state, local, and federal authorities,” Cuestas-Jaimes told the Board of Supervisors.



Laura Valdéz, executive director of Mission Action, had a call with Lurie last week in which she asked him to reconsider adding resources for the San Francisco Immigrant Legal &amp; Education Network and the San Francisco Immigrant Legal Defense Collaborative, which partner on the city’s <a href="https://sfilen.org/resources/sf-rapid-response-network/">Rapid Response Network.</a>



“We are completely under-resourced to respond effectively,” Valdéz told The Standard.



Gabriel Medina, executive director of La Raza Community Resource Center, was one of several nonprofit leaders who told The Standard that, unlike other Bay Area counties, San Francisco has not increased funding for immigrant services in years. The static funding caused difficulties during Joe Biden’s presidency, Medina noted, but the dramatic escalation of raids and arrests under Donald Trump has created a dire emergency.



“In a time of crisis, we’re really concerned on how they&#8217;re expecting us to respond without city funding,” Medina said. “The mayor will say they’re trying to leverage foundations, but the city’s budget looks like it’s fallen flat.”



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" height="1667" width="2500" src="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/20242805-visionzeropresser-191.jpg?w=2500" alt="A man in a checkered suit speaks at a podium with people and a seal behind him." class="wp-image-263493" srcset="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/20242805-visionzeropresser-191.jpg 3000w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/20242805-visionzeropresser-191.jpg?resize=300,200 300w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/20242805-visionzeropresser-191.jpg?resize=768,512 768w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/20242805-visionzeropresser-191.jpg?resize=2500,1667 2500w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/20242805-visionzeropresser-191.jpg?resize=1536,1024 1536w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/20242805-visionzeropresser-191.jpg?resize=2048,1365 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2500px) 100vw, 2500px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">City Attorney David Chiu has filed six lawsuits against the Trump administration, including a challenge to stop the president’s effort to overturn birthright citizenship.</figcaption></figure>



In February, the Board of Supervisors passed legislation that created an exception for certain elected officials and top staff in the mayor’s office to solicit donations from private sources to deal with expected threats from the Trump administration. These funds could be used for “legal services related to the creation and enforcement of immigration laws,” as well as protecting the environment and defending reproductive rights and the LGBTQ+ community.



In one example, City Attorney David Chiu, who is leading the <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/01/21/california-attorney-general-rob-bonta-donald-trump-lawsuit-birthright-citizenship/">birthright citizenship lawsuit</a> against the Trump administration, <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25974371-form-803-52925/">solicited $400,000 for the Public Rights Project</a> to fund civil rights litigation. Chiu has filed six lawsuits in total, and the city has won preliminary injunctions or temporary restraining orders at the district court level in all of the cases, according to the city attorney’s office. But these efforts are focused on large-scale fights with the Trump administration, rather than helping immigrant communities with day-to-day survival.



Joaquín Torres, San Francisco’s assessor-recorder, said the Trump administration’s approach to immigration enforcement is “seemingly indiscriminate,” as <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/06/05/san-francisco-ice-arrests-mothers-children/">women and children are being “disappeared”</a> in arrests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. He added that he is waiting for the budget to be finalized, but some funding will be backfilled as he and other city officials seek out behested payments.



“Once we see where the need exists, we can move as a many-tiered body to reach out to philanthropic organizations to help fill any gaps or augment services where it&#8217;s needed,” Torres said. “I think it’s a little too early to make a final determination until we move through questions being answered in this budget process.”



City Administrator Carmen Chu, who oversees the budget for the Office of Civic Engagement and Immigrant Affairs, said at Wednesday’s hearing that as a daughter of immigrants, it is hard to stomach reports of ICE agents going after families in San Francisco.&nbsp;



“I look at my girls every day, and I cannot imagine the pain it would cause to be away from them,” Chu said. She proposed pushing back some cuts by a year so the city can work to identify money for the future. “When it’s Year 2, we have another shot at the budget, right?”

Lurie campaigned as an ethics crusader. Now he’s gutting SF’s top watchdog

On the campaign trail, Daniel Lurie vowed to vanquish City Hall corruption, promising to fully fund the city’s governance watchdog, the Ethics Commission.



Now, as mayor, Lurie just blew a gaping hole in the department’s budget, sparking an outcry from its leader.



“We need to spend money on the front end, before they become big problems,” said Patrick Ford, executive director of the Ethics Commission. “In that sense, an investment in ethics is a cost saver in the long run. Our department is tiny. And it is money well spent.”



The cuts may include axing the roles of four staffers in the 28-person department who identify loopholes in ethics rules and train city officials on the law. They are crucial to curbing corruption before it takes hold, Ford said.



In his proposed budget, <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/05/30/san-francisco-budget-daniel-lurie-deficit-proposal/">released Friday</a>, Lurie called for belt-tightening across city departments as part of an effort <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/05/30/san-francisco-budget-screwed-lurie/">to close a $782 million budget shortfall</a>. The Public Health Department, Office of Economic and Workforce Development, and Public Works, among others, are earmarked for budget cuts. Public safety agencies — the San Francisco Police Department, Sheriff’s Department, district attorney’s office, and public defender’s office — were mostly preserved.



Lurie’s budget requires approval by the Board of Supervisors; the deadline for reaching a deal is July 1. Supervisor Jackie Fielder said a robust Ethics Commission is key as Lurie steps up reliance on wealthy donors to fund city efforts around homelessness and the drug crisis.



<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>



“This drastic budget reduction to the commission severely undermines the city’s ability to investigate misconduct, enforce transparency, and hold public officials accountable,” Fielder said in a statement. “As the city increasingly turns to wealthy individuals and foundations to fill budget gaps, the need for robust oversight and accountability has never been more urgent.”



The Ethics Commission’s workforce expanded from 21 to 28 in the wake of a major scandal in 2020, in which former Public Works director Mohammed Nuru was <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2022/01/06/mohammed-nuru-key-figure-in-sf-corruption-scandal-formally-pleads-guilty/">found guilty</a> of taking bribes from contractors, including a Rolex watch and a tractor.



More department heads were implicated as the scandal unfolded, leading then-Mayor London Breed to hire more Ethics Commission staffers to train officials in good governance — and to catch them when they ran afoul of the law.



In 2023, <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2023/06/05/san-francisco-ethics-watchdog-decries-severe-cuts-under-mayors-budget/https://sfstandard.com/2023/06/05/san-francisco-ethics-watchdog-decries-severe-cuts-under-mayors-budget/">she tried to cut the commission’s budget</a>, a move Lurie called out last year on the campaign trail.



&#8220;While the current mayor attempted to defund the Ethics Commission, I commit to fully funding it,” Lurie said in August.



<figure class="wp-block-video"><video controls src="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/1000033044.mp4" playsinline></video></figure>



Soon after, Lurie’s campaign sent out a <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GHWzFiY3Nt0x9qB2eixwhhEC4CXgVFC425mehYnGSxM/edit?tab=t.0">press release</a> defining “fully funding” — essentially arguing that he meant he would fund certain divisions within the Ethics Commission, not the department as a whole.



&#8220;Mayor Lurie committed to fully funding the Ethics Commission by ensuring that the Enforcement and Audit Divisions had the staff and resources necessary to conduct investigations and audits,” the mayor’s spokesperson, Charles Lutvak, said Monday, citing the August press release. “Even facing an historic $800 million budget deficit, that’s exactly what this budget does.&#8221;



The four positions Lurie has proposed to eliminate — three of which are layoffs — are especially impactful considering the Ethics Commission’s tiny size relative to other city agencies, Ford argues. An analysis of staffing levels from the mayor’s proposed budget shows that the Ethics Commission may face a 14% cut to its workforce budget.



That’s the fourth-largest cut out of 53 city departments; by comparison, Recreation and Parks, which is budgeted for nearly 1,000 workers, faces a 0.3% cut to its staffing budget. Not all proposed reductions are to salaries and workers; some city departments may see steep reductions in grants and contracts.



One Ethics Commission position flagged for elimination is a policy analyst, who updates the city’s ethics laws and researches Board of Supervisors legislation in an effort to tighten the rules. Two other positions, senior program administrators, educate the roughly 6,000 city staffers who have to comply with financial disclosure requirements.



“If we don&#8217;t have the staff to create trainings and answer questions, you&#8217;re going to see people not fully understanding how to follow ethics rules, which can, over time, snowball into the kinds of major issues we&#8217;ve seen in recent years,” Ford said.



Lurie’s budget includes other funding that can tackle bad governance, including an inspector general, a position created via ballot measure last year that is tasked with rooting out government fraud.



When a Standard reporter asked Lurie about Ethics Commission cuts during a press conference Friday, the mayor deferred to his staff but added that he is “fully focused on ethics with this budget.”

Lurie’s $15.9B budget just landed. Here’s what to know

Mayor Daniel Lurie released his nearly <a href="https://media.api.sf.gov/documents/70_CSF_Proposed_Budget_Book_June_2024_Final_REV1_0525v2.pdf">$16 billion budget proposal</a> Friday, showcasing his master plan to close San Francisco’s $782 million deficit.



Many services will keep their funding at the current levels: the San Francisco Police Department, the public defender’s office, the district attorney’s office, street cleaning crews, and homelessness services.&nbsp;Other city agencies will likely lose funding. Lurie wants to cut roughly $185 million in contracts and nonprofit spending over two years, though the specifics of those reductions were not immediately available. He has also proposed eliminating approximately 1,400 positions from the city’s job rolls, <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/05/28/san-francisco-mayor-daniel-lurie-budget-layoffs/">mostly vacancies and retirements</a>. More than 100 of those cuts could come from layoffs.



Under Lurie&#8217;s proposal, the city&#8217;s total budget amounts to $15.9 billion in fiscal 2026 and $16.3 billion in fiscal 2027. 



<div class="wp-block-sf-standard-datawrapper-chart" data-chart-id="405257"></div>



In an address Friday morning, Lurie said the cuts are needed to right-size San Francisco’s habit of spending beyond its means, starting with the tech boom in the 2010s and continuing into the pandemic.



“Here’s the bottom line: We have to stop spending more than we can afford,” Lurie said. &#8220;The era of soaring city budgets and deteriorating street conditions is over.”



Despite Lurie’s talk of fiscal austerity, the majority of city departments would receive a budget bump under his proposal. The Department of Emergency Management, home of the 911 dispatch center, gets a 15% increase, the largest in the city. Budgets for the Juvenile Probation Department, the City Treasurer and Tax Collector and the Board of Supervisors would also shoot up by over 10%.&nbsp;



Discounting so-called enterprise departments, or agencies that are largely self-sufficient with independent budget processes, Human Services is set to pull in the largest overall windfall, with an $81 million increase. The police, fire, and sheriff&#8217;s departments would each get a more than $22 million bump.



But 21 departments do lose out in Lurie’s proposal: the Homelessness and Supportive Housing department is set to lose nearly $104 million; the Economic and Workforce Development Department faces a $57 million cut; and the Department of Public Works could lose $26 million trim.



<div class="wp-block-sf-standard-datawrapper-chart" data-chart-id="404910"></div>



Other departments that are set to lose large shares of their budget include the Ethics Commission, <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/05/30/sf-status-of-women-human-rights-commission-budget/">Human Rights Commission</a>, and the Arts Commission. Lurie closed the massive two-year deficit in his budget proposal partially through cuts but also by factoring in better-than-expected estimates for revenue in coming years. Despite delivering a balanced budget proposal for the next two years and taking an estimated $300 million chunk out of the long-term deficit, the mayor acknowledged that the structural deficit will persist in the following years. The mayor’s office confirmed that in balancing the budget, it tapped into $40 million in reserve funds to pay for new equipment across city departments. While other departments are facing layoffs, the administrative budget of the mayor&#8217;s office will get a bump due to negotiated wage increases, officials confirmed.



The mayor’s proposal kicks off negotiations with the Board of Supervisors before the final budget deadline of July 31. Public hearings will begin next month, allowing departments to request more funding.&nbsp;



&#8220;As we move through the board’s budget process in the month of June, it is clear that we have no good options,&#8221; said Supervisor Connie Chan. &#8220;As budget chair, I will work with Mayor Lurie and my colleagues on the Board of Supervisors to invest our public dollars in protecting San Franciscans and our values.&#8221;&nbsp;



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-uncertain-times">Uncertain times </h2>



The financial threats to the city’s coffers are twofold.



San Francisco has struggled more than many U.S. cities in its economic recovery from the Covid pandemic. Downtown office vacancies skyrocketed at the start of the pandemic, throwing a critical component of the city&#8217;s economy into disarray. Those vacancies remain above 30%.&nbsp;



Meanwhile, President Donald Trump has threatened to withhold billions of dollars in federal funding to San Francisco and other sanctuary cities that don’t comply with his hard-line immigration policies. The president’s budget plans include <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/05/14/san-francisco-hud-homelessness-housing-trump-budget-cuts/">gutting tens of millions</a> of dollars for low-income housing and homeless-prevention strategies. Republicans in Congress have&nbsp;also proposed cuts to programs for low-income residents, <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2026-election/political-fight-medicaid-escalates-house-republicans-trump-big-bill-rcna209194">such as Medicaid</a>, which would similarly impact city revenue.



<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 <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/04/24/san-francisco-judge-blocks-trump-sanctuary-city-order/">city has responded</a> <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/05/02/san-francisco-sues-hud-over-illegal-funding-dem/">with federal lawsuits</a> to block those efforts and protect funding streams for critical services.



Also at risk is hundreds of millions of dollars in Federal Emergency Management Agency funding that the city used for emergency shelters for homeless people during the height of the pandemic. City officials now fear they will not be reimbursed for those funds.&nbsp; Lurie confirmed Friday that the federal agency had notified the city of plans to claw back $140 million in funding it has already provided. 



The city also receives $1 billion in federal funding each year for Medicaid and housing, among other services. But there are increasing worries among city leaders that the money will not come through under Trump’s administration. Lurie is therefore proposing a $400 million reserve fund as a way to &#8220;deal with that uncertainty.&#8221;



When asked what will happen if those safety funds are not sufficient, Lurie told reporters at City Hall that he hopes the city&#8217;s economic recovery,&nbsp;predicated on increased tax revenue, will cover for the missing funds.



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-critics-decry-budget-cuts">Critics decry budget cuts </h2>



Socking that money away, however, has put more pressure on an already buckled budget.



One of Lurie&#8217;s most controversial proposals is to redirect large portions of the <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2022/11/08/wanting-more-from-tax-dollars-voters-poised-to-add-oversight-to-homelessness-department/">Our City, Our Home fund</a>, which voters approved via a 2018 ballot measure. The money was intended to boost transitional housing for younger residents, along with mental health services&nbsp;and additional shelter beds. Lurie instead wants to broaden the pool of San Franciscans the fund would help, raising concerns that there will be less money for the youth whom the ballot measure was intended to serve.&nbsp;



The proposal, which is likely to meet fierce opposition from supporters of homelessness nonprofits, would require a supermajority of the Board of Supervisors to approve.



Swift condemnation from local unions came as Lurie was in the middle of his budget address. In addition to criticizing proposed layoffs, labor groups decried tech companies such as Airbnb that have sued the city <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/03/31/san-francisco-budget-deficit-lawsuits-business-taxes/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">to recoup tax</a> <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/03/31/san-francisco-budget-deficit-lawsuits-business-taxes/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">money</a> they allege was overpaid.



Lurie declined to comment on the Airbnb lawsuit but said he welcomes more businesses to San Francisco.



&#8220;We want businesses here so that we can bring that tax revenue, and we can bring jobs back to San Francisco,&#8221; Lurie said.



&#8220;This is ridiculous. [Lurie] said this is a new era of accountability,&#8221; Anya Worley-Ziegmann of the People&#8217;s Budget Coalition, which advocates for nonprofits, community groups and unions, said Friday at City Hall. &#8220;Where&#8217;s the transparency? Where&#8217;s the budget?&#8221;



Service Employees International Union Local 1021 President Theresa Rutherford, whose union represents many city healthcare workers, said in a statement she was &#8220;deeply disappointed&#8221; in Lurie&#8217;s budget plans.



Rudy Gonzalez of the San Francisco Building &amp; Construction Trades Council said, &#8220;Layoffs are totally unnecessary. We can find the funds to save jobs and uphold San Francisco values.&#8221;



In response to the unions&#8217; criticism, Lurie said, &#8220;I take no joy in this. I was elected to make hard choices.&#8221;



Aside from union leaders,&nbsp;some&nbsp;city officials were dismayed by the proposed budget cuts. Patrick Ford, executive director of the San Francisco Ethics Commission, which monitors campaign finance issues and other matters, said despite <a href="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/press-release_-lurie-takes-on-city-hall-insider-corruption-with-aggressive-ethics-enforcement-proposal-to-restore-trust-integrity-accountability-in-city-government.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Lurie&#8217;s promises on the campaign trail</a>&nbsp;to fully fund the department, up to four positions in the 28-person city agency could be affected by the mayor&#8217;s layoff plans. 



&#8220;Based on what I know so far,&#8221; Ford said, &#8220;the rhetoric and reality are pretty different when it comes to the mayor’s support for ethics.&#8221;

Public safety agencies spared from major cuts after budget blowback

Despite Mayor Daniel Lurie’s warnings that he would have to slash San Francisco’s budget amid a massive deficit, two city departments vital to public safety avoided cuts to their agencies.



The district attorney’s and public defender’s offices will both maintain their previous funding levels in Lurie’s final budget proposal, according to sources familiar with the mayor’s fiscal plan.



The district attorney’s office confirmed to The Standard that it will keep its funding, while representatives for the public defender’s office said they were told the same information but wanted to see the numbers in writing.



Other public safety agencies will also evade the slash and burn of budget season: The San Francisco Police Department, San Francisco Fire Department, the San Francisco Sheriff&#8217;s Department, and 911 dispatchers will all be spared, sources confirmed to The Standard.



Facing a total $782-million deficit, Lurie in January ordered city agencies to slash 15% of their budgets, drawing outcry from department heads who warned the drastic cuts would affect services.



District Attorney Brooke Jenkins warned that a proposed $5.4 million reduction to her office <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/05/05/brooke-jenkins-daniel-lurie-budget-cuts/">would force her to lay off 25 junior prosecutors</a>, including those handling fentanyl cases. Those cuts would undermine Lurie’s efforts to crack down on public drug use and dealers in San Francisco, she said.



The mayor’s office declined to comment directly on budget details. But in a statement to The Standard, Lurie said, “Public safety and a fair justice system are foundational to San Francisco’s recovery.



“I am committed to protecting the core services that keep our communities safe — and that includes the people on the front lines, both in the courtroom and on the street,” Lurie added.



The mayor is expected to unveil his full budget blueprint near the June 1 deadline, kicking off a month-long negotiations sprint with the Board of Supervisors before the final budget is due. Labor leaders, nonprofit heads, and city officials have for weeks been on tenterhooks to learn what agencies and contracts could be slashed in Lurie’s efforts to plug the deficit.



Budget negotiations have already revealed potential services on the chopping block: <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/02/18/san-francisco-city-hall-street-cleaning-services-department-of-public-works/">street cleaning</a>, downtown Muni services, and even <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/05/14/sf-fleet-week-funding-budget-crisis/">Fleet Week disaster planning</a>.



Lurie faced the daunting task of balancing his promise of greater fiscal austerity at City Hall with his campaign pledge to increase <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/01/08/daniel-lurie-inauguration-speech-san-francisco/">public safety</a> in San Francisco.



Under Lurie’s draft blueprint, the district attorney’s office is set to receive $89.2 million for fiscal year 2025-26 and $92.4 million for 2026-27. It’s a slight increase from the $85.7 million awarded to the district attorney’s office in former Mayor London Breed’s final budget and represents previously promised salary increases.



Lurie’s proposal would also bump the public defender’s budget to $57.6 million in 2025-26 and $58.1 million in 2026-27 — a small increase from its allotted $55.4 million in 2024-25. The extra funding would pay mostly for expert witnesses and professional services contracts.



Lurie’s decision to maintain funding levels for the district attorney’s office allows him to avoid escalating a public feud with those on the front lines of fulfilling his public safety plans.



In an April 22 letter to Lurie’s budget office <a href="https://journaliststudio.google.com/u/1/pinpoint/document-view?collection=2c7e3f9dd477d49f&amp;docid=ef883a9ff7b5d8cd_2c7e3f9dd477d49f&amp;dapvm=2">obtained exclusively by The Standard</a>, Jenkins warned she would have to make layoffs and “suspend prosecuting entire categories of crimes” if the mayor carried out his budget reductions. It was the first public spat between Jenkins and Lurie, who has prioritized collegiality in City Hall.



“Mayor Lurie’s decision not to cut funding to our office is a testament to his commitment to prioritizing public safety and making sure that law enforcement agencies like ours have the staff and resources needed to get the job done,” Jenkins said in a statement.



The public defender’s office said the budget still falls short of providing necessary resources to keep up with Lurie’s push for more fentanyl-related arrests. The office&#8217;s chief attorney, Matt Gonzalez, told the San Francisco Superior Court this month <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/05/09/public-defender-fentanyl-san-francisco-lurie/">that the department was “unavailable,”</a> a legal function that effectively closes the office to new cases one day a week.



The public defender’s office learned of the final budget decision through The Standard’s inquiry.



Angela Chan, a high-level staffer at the office, said attorneys would continue to struggle to maintain caseloads and take on new clients even with the sustained funding. Chan said the office still plans to stay closed to new cases one day a week and will request more funding from the Board of Supervisors during June budget negotiations.



“If we stay flat, and the police and sheriff get tens of millions more dollars, that&#8217;s basically a cut for us,” she said. “That means more arrests and no additional staffing to deal with those cases.”



Editor&#8217;s note: This story has been updated with budget information for additional public safety agencies.

Brooke Jenkins accused of ‘Trump-esque’ intimidation in lawsuit

One by one, District Attorney Brooke Jenkins has picked off San Francisco Superior Court judges.



She’s challenged them all, and found success having them removed.



First it was Judge Anthony Kline, then Victor Hwang. Judges Carolyn Gold and Michelle Tong followed. All were either pushed from hearing criminal proceedings, or shunted off to other courts, in a torrent of legal maneuvers alleging prejudice, levied by prosecutors.



A writ filed Wednesday in a state appeals court claims Jenkins is undermining the judiciary and violating the rights of criminal defendants.



The district attorney hasn’t publicly stated her reasoning for the legal challenges but has been vocal in her critique of judges who, in her view, are soft on alleged criminals.



The writ, filed by Marsanne Weese, an attorney for a defendant whose time in court has been stalled, challenged this practice.



“It is in this climate that the elected District Attorney, in a distinctly Trump-esque manner, feels emboldened to publicly chastise judges by name for rulings she disagrees with,” Weese wrote. “Embarking on a campaign of intimidation against Superior Court judges, District Attorney is attempting to reshape the San Francisco criminal court to be more favorable towards her agenda.”



The matter centers on events in March, when prosecutors prevented Tong from hearing any criminal cases in her courtroom by claiming she was biased, successfully calling for her to be disqualified.



The writ was filed by David Hoglund — one of many defendants who was set to go before Tong — who claims his case was delayed as part of Jenkins’ policy to undermine the court by forcing it to reassign judges she does not approve of.



In a statement, the district attorney’s office said Jenkins is on solid legal ground.



<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>



“The San Francisco Superior Court denied Hoglund’s petition and found no error in the grant of the motion to disqualify Judge Tong or that it was unconstitutional to do so,” a spokesperson wrote. “We concur with the San Francisco Superior Court’s decision. Filing peremptory challenges by prosecutors, defense attorneys, and civil attorneys is a lawful, standard, and accepted practice.”



Hoglund’s attorney cries gamesmanship. Marsanne Weese, the defense attorney in the case who filed the suit, appealed the decision with the superior court and was shot down.



“This judge has never even sat in criminal court. So how can [Jenkins] state that this judge is biased when the judge has not done anything in criminal court?” Weese said.



Under state law, prosecutors are allowed to enter challenges on each case before a judge, forcing the court to provide a fresh judge without evidence of prejudice. Jenkins has turned the practice into policy. Every prosecutor who has come before Tong has made the same challenge, under oath.



Tong was a deputy public defender who was elected in 2020 and, until Jenkins’ challenge, was overseeing civil cases. She had not heard any criminal cases when she took the bench in Department 12 to hear Hoguland’s case.



Hoglund was arraigned in January and awaited preliminary hearings for drug misdemeanors before Tong’s court. Instead, Jenkins challenged Tong, leaving Hoglund to wait until the court found a new judge to hear his case.



Tong is the fourth judge to face such action by Jenkins, who has also railed against other judges in the press and on the steps of the courthouse. 



In 2022, prosecutors challenged Kline’s oversight of juvenile court. Because he was a retired visiting judge, he was simply replaced. In June 2024, prosecutors challenged Hwang’s assignment over the misdemeanor master calendar, seeing him reassigned to a civil department. And in August 2024, prosecutors challenged Gold, who was assigned to preliminary hearings; she was eventually reassigned to family court.



Jenkins’ actions have been condemned by some in the legal community and led to a State Bar complaint filed earlier this year by LaDoris Hazzard Cordell, a retired Superior Court judge in Santa Clara County. In that complaint, Cordell claimed Jenkins’ attacks against judges amounted to <a href="https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/brooke-jenkins-bar-complaint-20301276.php">interfering with the independence of the judiciary</a>. The State Bar decided not to investigate the matter.



Cordell, who in March resigned from the DA’s Innocence Commission over the matter, cited several times Jenkins has publicly attacked judges.



At a protest in March last year, Jenkins thundered against a ruling by Judge Kay Tsenin that sent a man who had stabbed an elderly woman to mental health treatment. Subsequent death threats against Tsenin forced her to work remotely.



In another case, Jenkins <a href="https://x.com/BrookeJenkinsSF/status/1885418073114743077">posted on X</a> that a ruling in January by Judge Gerardo Sandoval was an example of the court’s lax approach to public health.



Tong, who is still presiding over the same court, has yet to hear cases as prosecutors continue to claim bias. Defendants, meanwhile, have to wait for their cases to be assigned to another judge.



“At a time when the district attorney is complaining that cases are not moving forward quickly enough, they are essentially shutting down an entire court room and causing some people to remain in jail longer,” said Valerie Ibarra, spokesperson for the public defender’s office.



Jonah Lamb briefly worked under Tong at the Public Defenders Office.

SF public defender stops taking cases, citing Lurie’s anti-fentanyl surge

For the first time in more than a decade, the San Francisco public defender’s office is so overloaded with cases that it has closed up shop.



The office will decline new clients on one business day each week.



Wrongfully arrested? You might have to cool your heels in the clink a little longer. Got robbed and want the perp prosecuted quick? Too bad. The alleged criminal is guaranteed defense under the Constitution, so you can twiddle your thumbs, thanks much.



Matt Gonzalez, chief attorney of the public defender’s office, penned a letter to San Francisco Superior Court <a href="https://sf.courts.ca.gov/general-information/presiding-judge-master-calendar">Presiding Judge Rochelle C. East</a> saying the office would move to declare itself “unavailable,” a legal maneuver.



Public Defender Mano Raju says the office is overwhelmed with drug cases.



Raju explained the move in a Board of Supervisors hearing Wednesday. The meeting was aimed at addressing District Attorney Brooke Jenkins’ budget, but Raju took the floor.



“We’re in a position where we can’t take any more cases,” he told the supervisors. “If we keep on taking cases, we’re not going to be able to provide the representation our clients deserve, and it’s going to have a negative impact on the just outcome of the case.”



Raju said his office has tackled a 40% increase in felony filings since 2020 and handled more trials last year “than when we started keeping track.”



There were 200 more arraignments in the first four months of 2025 than in the same period last year, Gonzalez wrote in his letter to East. Raju said every attorney in his office is working overtime, often unpaid.



It’s easy to see why. Mayor Daniel Lurie arrived in office with a pocketful of promises, including a public safety mandate. That has translated to more arrests on Sixth Street, in the Mission, and in Jefferson Park, to name just a few high-profile fentanyl busts. While the busts <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/03/06/drug-dealing-arrests-police-park-raid/">haven&#8217;t all yielded prosecutions</a>, on the whole, charges have risen enough to drive a greater need for courtroom resources.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" height="1668" width="2500" src="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/social_20240418crimeisdown.jpg?w=2500" alt="A police officer stands near a squad car outside a building. The building and nearby trees are illuminated, creating a colorful night scene." class="wp-image-354772" srcset="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/social_20240418crimeisdown.jpg 3000w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/social_20240418crimeisdown.jpg?resize=300,200 300w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/social_20240418crimeisdown.jpg?resize=768,512 768w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/social_20240418crimeisdown.jpg?resize=2500,1668 2500w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/social_20240418crimeisdown.jpg?resize=1536,1025 1536w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/social_20240418crimeisdown.jpg?resize=2048,1366 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2500px) 100vw, 2500px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">San Francisco police have stepped up arrests on Sixth Street, the Mission, and other areas in an effort to tamp down drug activity.</figcaption></figure>



Lurie is trying to close an $820 million budget gap by June 1, when his budget proposal is due, but that’s coming into conflict with his pledge to improve public safety. The public defender’s office is among the city agencies that <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/03/05/san-francisco-budget-deficit-departments-daniel-lurie/">pushed back</a> on Lurie’s mandated cuts.



Jenkins, in a scathing letter penned in late April, pushed back on Lurie’s bid to cut more than $5.4 million from her office. The DA’s office, like the public defender’s, has been burdened with more cases.



In his budget request to the mayor, the public defender called out what he sees as a glaring disparity between funding for prosecutors versus constitutionally mandated defense. Raju’s budget is less than half that of the district attorney, he wrote.



<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>



“Although every person accused of a crime is presumed innocent, San Francisco’s criminal legal system, in practice, operates as if it presumes guilt, as reflected by its current and historic funding allocations,” the public defender’s office wrote.



The contrast is clear from their headquarters.



The district attorneys began their move into <a href="https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2019/11/26/d-c-firm-shells-out-134m-on-building-housing-s-f.html">a gleaming, spacious $134 million building on Rhode Island street</a> in 2019. The 340 district attorney staffers enjoy 118,000 square feet of space. The public defenders, by contrast, cram 210 employees into a 39,000-square-foot space they first occupied in 1989, when the staff was half the size. Two to four attorneys are packed into each windowless office.



The last time the public defender’s office declared itself “unavailable” <a href="https://sfpublicdefender.org/news/2009/01/public-defender-to-decline-clients-due-to-case-overload-and-inadequate-staffing/">was in 2009</a>, under the late Jeff Adachi. He was short two paralegals, positions he said were vital to preparing cases.



In an interview with The Standard, Raju made the law-and-order case for fully funding the public defender’s office.



“If you’re a person who just wants, as quickly as possible, a trial or some resolution, that can’t happen unless the public defender’s office is ready,” Raju said. “We are constitutionally obligated to review all the police reports, do our investigation, leave no stone unturned, file every appropriate motion.”



Jenkins agreed the public defender’s office needs to move through its cases for the criminal justice system to work smoothly. The DA’s office has more than 7,000 pending cases, the most in years, Jenkins said in a statement to The Standard.



“When Public Defenders are not ready to go to trial or proceed (often on cases many years old) those cases languish in our office driving up our pending case numbers and case loads. It causes frustration and retraumatization in our victims,” she wrote.



Lurie&#8217;s spokesperson, Charles Lutvak, said keeping San Franciscans safe is the mayor&#8217;s &#8220;number one goal.&#8221; The mayor&#8217;s budget will thread the needle of both closing the historic deficit and building on recent decreases in crime, he said.



&#8220;We appreciate the public defender’s partnership in this urgent work to get fentanyl off the streets and keep our city safe,” Lutvak said.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" height="1668" width="2500" src="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/20241217-nimamomeniverdict_aar_23.jpg?w=2500" alt="A woman in a suit inside a courthouse takes questions from reporters pointing microphones." class="wp-image-345180" srcset="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/20241217-nimamomeniverdict_aar_23.jpg 7040w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/20241217-nimamomeniverdict_aar_23.jpg?resize=300,200 300w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/20241217-nimamomeniverdict_aar_23.jpg?resize=768,512 768w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/20241217-nimamomeniverdict_aar_23.jpg?resize=2500,1668 2500w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/20241217-nimamomeniverdict_aar_23.jpg?resize=1536,1025 1536w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/20241217-nimamomeniverdict_aar_23.jpg?resize=2048,1366 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2500px) 100vw, 2500px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">District Attorney Brooke Jenkins says the public defender’s office needs to move through its cases for the criminal justice system to work smoothly.</figcaption></figure>



At Wednesday’s hearing, Jenkins cocked an eyebrow at the Board of Supervisors inviting Raju to speak when the topic on the agenda was her office’s budget.



“I find it fascinating that the public defender is here today. I can&#8217;t believe that that is by happenstance,” Jenkins said.



Speaking to the supervisors, Jenkins claimed there is a disparity between the offices’ funding because the DA handles all of its cases, while the public defender can kick cases to attorneys called “conflict counsel” provided by the Bar Association of San Francisco.



The public defender’s office contends that this costs taxpayers more money, and that the conflict counsel is also facing higher caseloads.



The Bar Association of San Francisco did not respond to a request for comment.



Jenkins claimed the public defender’s office uses two attorneys for most felony cases, while her office typically uses one.



“That contributes to caseloads for other attorneys being high,” she said. The public defender denied this claim.



One speaker during the public comments seemed intent on cooling the temperature in the room: Matt Beltramo, an assistant DA and officer of the San Francisco Municipal Attorneys Association, a labor organization representing attorneys working for city agencies.



He tied their headaches together.



“We DAs, like the public defenders, are extremely stretched,” he said. “And every day we’re called upon to do more and more with less.”

DA Jenkins: Lurie’s budget cuts will have a ‘crippling effect’ on public safety

It’s an anti-fentanyl frenzy. Police officers <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/04/30/sfpd-overtime-sick-leave-abuse-budget/">are busting their overtime budgets</a> deploying to the Tenderloin, Mid-Market, South of Market, and the Mission to arrest drug dealers and users en masse. San Francisco’s jails are more crowded <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/03/14/sf-jails-packed-for-the-first-time-in-decades/">than they’ve been in decades</a>.



But what happens if there are fewer attorneys to prosecute those arrests?



The San Francisco district attorney’s office may soon lay off at least 25 junior prosecutors to implement a $5.4 million budget cut mandated by Mayor Daniel Lurie.



That’s according to a scathing letter penned by District Attorney Brooke Jenkins to Lurie’s budget director, Sophia Kittler, which was obtained by The Standard in a public records request.



“If implemented, the [district attorney’s office] would effectively have to suspend prosecuting entire categories of crimes due to lack of resources [and] reassign and redistribute thousands of cases or risk mass dismissals,” Jenkins wrote. “The impact of this request, if implemented, will still have a crippling effect on ensuring public safety throughout San Francisco.”



Lurie’s budget office instructed all city departments to cut at least 15% from their annual budgets. The ask comes as San Francisco stares down an $820 million budget deficit driven by downtown’s cratered economy. The mayor’s office is reviewing budget proposals from more than 50 departments, <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/03/05/san-francisco-budget-deficit-departments-daniel-lurie/">at least 20 of which bucked the order</a> for reductions.



A City Hall hearing on the district attorney’s office budget and staffing is scheduled for Wednesday.



In her April 22 letter to Kittler, Jenkins said her office has little fat to trim. The cuts would need to start with junior prosecutors, who generally have fewer than five years of experience. They chiefly handle narcotics cases, misdemeanors, and preliminary hearings.



Lurie is balancing opposing needs.



Fiscal austerity in San Francisco’s current budget process is almost guaranteed. The mayor is legally mandated to deliver a balanced budget to the Board of Supervisors by June, a difficult task as President Donald Trump’s chaotic decisions <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/04/10/san-francisco-lurie-budget-trump-2-billion/">threaten more than $1 billion in federal funding</a> San Francisco relies on.



At the same time, Lurie rode into office <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/03/17/daniel-lurie-fentanyl-emergency/">promising a safer San Francisco</a>. The fentanyl crisis yielded 635 overdose deaths in 2024 and more than 100 so far this year. Lurie has directed the San Francisco Police Department to take up <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/02/21/the-mission-is-the-new-tenderloin/">special operations on Sixth Street</a> and at 16th and Mission, among other drug hot spots.



Charles Lutvak, the mayor&#8217;s spokesperson, said keeping San Franciscans safe is Lurie&#8217;s &#8220;number one goal.&#8221; His budget will close a historic deficit while also building on the city&#8217;s <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/01/07/san-francisco-crime-rate-fell-to-23-year-low-in-2024/">recent drop in crime</a>, Lutvak said.



&#8220;We appreciate District Attorney Jenkins’ partnership with our office and our law enforcement partners to get fentanyl off the street and keep our city safe every day,&#8221; Lutvak said.



In her letter, which reads very much like the work of a trial lawyer, Jenkins argued that the mayor’s one-size-fits-all budgeting approach wouldn’t work for the district attorney’s office.



The mayor asked departments to scale back their grants to nonprofit organizations, cut down on their contracts to outside firms, and reduce the number of professional services contracts the various departments offer.



That may apply to, say, the Mayor’s Office of Housing, which recently cut $4.2 million for <a href="https://missionlocal.org/2025/04/sf-nonprofit-housing-informal-evictions-legal-aid-cutting-funding/">free legal services provided by nonprofits</a> to San Franciscans, or the Public Works Department, which <a href="https://sfpublicworks.org/services/contractor-resources">contracts with construction firms</a>. But Jenkins said those buckets of spending are not a significant part of the DA’s budget.



Jenkins also pushed back against the mayor’s request to conduct a review of positions for potential cuts. Her staff are already working beyond their capacity, Jenkins said.



“Any staffing reductions are not possible if the city wishes to continue prosecuting crimes meaningfully,” she wrote. “Stated another way, good police work turns into prosecutions — a push for public safety impacts both organizations.”



The city’s crime crackdown has piled cases onto prosecutors’ desks.



The district attorney’s office has 7,031 pending cases, the most in five years, Jenkins said.



“Any reductions in staff will invariably lead to even higher, more unsustainable workloads,” she wrote. That would lead to staff burnout and “retention issues.” The city has already seen what arrests without prosecutions look like: The DA&#8217;s office <a href="https://missionlocal.org/2025/03/sf-police-raid/">publicly said</a> it wasn&#8217;t consulted about a March SFPD drug raid, leading to a grand total of zero arrests.



There was some reprieve for the DA, at least. The mayor&#8217;s office allowed Jenkins to bring in roughly 20 staffers during Lurie&#8217;s much-publicized <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/01/09/san-francisco-mayor-daniel-lurie-hiring-budget-deficit/">hiring slowdown</a>, according to sources with knowledge of the administration.



The district attorney’s office isn’t the only city department facing a fiscal scythe. Budget proposals show services slashed across the board: Public Works might <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/02/18/san-francisco-city-hall-street-cleaning-services-department-of-public-works/">clean streets less often</a>, and <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/04/07/public-works-pit-stop-public-toilets-face-cuts/">even public toilets</a> are on the chopping block. On the flip side of the justice system, <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/03/05/san-francisco-budget-deficit-departments-daniel-lurie/">the public defender’s office has said</a> it is “grossly underfunded” compared to prosecutors and is asking Lurie for an additional $13.6 million to represent its clients.



Additional public records obtained by The Standard shine a light on the district attorney’s financial strain.



In an email to the mayor’s office in late April, Eugene Clendinen, the DA’s chief financial officer, asked the mayor’s office for $894,000 for general operation increases. The annual maintenance of the office case management system, physical record storage, an online legal research contract, and court litigation expenses — even a court shuttle — are “all woefully underfunded,” Clendinen warned the mayor’s budget office.



“These costs are not superfluous,&#8221; he wrote, &#8220;they are part of our core need for operation.&#8221;

Lurie seizes budget control after SF departments fail to make cuts

Mayor Daniel Lurie is wresting the budget from the hands of city department leaders, some of whom haven’t made mandated cuts despite the possible loss of Trump administration funding.&nbsp;



Lurie has ordered all San Francisco departments to slash 15% of their budgets to combat a historic $820 million deficit. Nearly half <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/03/05/san-francisco-budget-deficit-departments-daniel-lurie/">refused or failed to do so</a>.&nbsp;



In what may be Lurie’s most aggressive move since his term began 100 days ago, the mayor’s office emailed all city departments — including Public Works, Homelessness and Supportive Housing, and SF Planning — Thursday evening to inform them that it would conduct a “thorough review” of their budgets to make additional, targeted cuts.



Sophia Kittler, the mayor’s budget director, penned the email to department heads and chief financial officers, warning that the deficit could balloon <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/04/10/san-francisco-lurie-budget-trump-2-billion/">to nearly $2 billion</a> should the federal government follow through on promised reductions. The Standard obtained the email in a public records request.



“We must reduce City costs and align spending with revenue projections,” Kittler wrote.



“Unfortunately, reductions proposed by departments to date have been insufficient to close the deficit, and there is no additional time.”



San Francisco’s budgeting process is normally a dance among departments, the mayor, and the Board of Supervisors. In late February, city departments submitted budget proposals, which the mayor was expected to incorporate into his budget submission to the Board of Supervisors on June 1. The subsequent negotiations would result in a budget that, by law, must be completed and balanced by July 1.&nbsp;



The number of departments that ignored the mayor’s instructions shocked even insiders. David Ho, a San Francisco-based political consultant, said Lurie’s rebuke of department heads evoked memories of former mayor Willie Brown, who was known for being assertive.



“Shit, they forgot who&#8217;s the boss,” Ho said.



For example, instead of trimming spending, the public defender’s office asked for an additional $13.6 million.



“The Public Defender Office remains underfunded in comparison to the rest of the agencies in the City’s criminal legal system and any cuts to the Department’s existing lean budget would have a detrimental effect on its current indispensable staffing and programs,” the department <a href="https://api.sf.gov/documents/37371/Public_Defender_Budget_Submission_FY26_and_FY27.pdf">wrote</a> in its budget submission to Lurie’s office.



The department heads’ political calculus was straightforward: They appear to view Lurie as an untested and inexperienced mayor, likely to defer to their expertise. Moreover, any cuts to politically popular programs — from <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/02/18/san-francisco-city-hall-street-cleaning-services-department-of-public-works/">street cleaning</a> to <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/04/15/muni-lines-cuts-parking-meter-fee-hikes/">Muni routes</a> — may threaten his honeymoon period with the electorate.



So they <a href="https://sfstandard.com/opinion/2025/03/10/daniel-lurie-is-getting-budget-rolled-by-his-own-bureaucrats/">rolled him</a>. Now he’s rolling back.



<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>



City departments <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2024/11/07/daniel-lurie-wins-san-francisco-mayor/">are known to shrug off budget instructions</a>, but the situation is dire. Downtown, San Francisco’s economic engine, generates far less tax revenue as office use has failed to rebound to pre-pandemic levels. And President Donald Trump’s threats have thrown a wrench into financial planning, as uncertainty over federal funding owed to the city looms.&nbsp;



It isn’t just the scofflaw departments that will see Lurie’s budget scythe swing their way. All departments “will receive an additional reduction target,” Kittler wrote.



In the email, Kittler requested lists of grants promised to nonprofits so the mayor’s office can cut spending in “non-core” functions to each department. She also requested a list of all upcoming professional contracts so the budget office can make a “significant reduction” in spending.&nbsp;



Layoffs remain a possibility, she noted, though the mayor’s office intends “to minimize impacts to our existing workforce.”



With a mind toward chaos in the White House and the steep federal reductions sought by <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/04/17/doge-neh-funding-cuts-sf/">Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency,</a> Kittler asked departments to provide a list of federal grants and revenues so the mayor’s budget office and city attorney can “review all federal revenues for risk.”



Anya Worley-Ziegmann, a spokesperson for the People’s Budget Coalition, which represents more than 150 nonprofits, community groups, labor unions and other organizations, said Kittler’s email signals there will be painful service cuts for San Franciscans.



“You&#8217;ll see less actual services, mental health services,” Worley-Ziegmann said, as well as reduced support for tenants and workers. &#8220;Those options will be defunded.”



Former Mayor London Breed relied on one-time funding sources to plug budget deficits, rather than opting for cuts. In her email to department heads Thursday, Kittler hammered home that this practice has come to an end.



“One-time solutions do not help reduce the structural deficit,” Kittler wrote.

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