City Hall enters the octagon: The bare-knuckle fights coming to SF politics in 2026

Theo Ellington has ‘skin in the game’ in D10 supervisor race. But can he win?

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.”

Plan to fix ‘broken’ San Francisco blows up in 2 weeks

In an embarrassing blunder, a moderate political group in San Francisco withdrew <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2023/12/05/san-francisco-could-vote-on-drastic-reforms-to-city-hall-next-year/">a ballot measure intended to cut bureaucracy</a> at City Hall just two weeks after it announced the ordinance in a press conference.



TogetherSF Action confirmed to The Standard on Monday that it was pulling one of two proposed ballot measures to reform the city charter because, contrary to <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2023/08/22/does-san-franciscos-mayor-need-more-power-this-group-says-yes/">the group&#8217;s goal of empowering the mayor</a> to make more decisions, it would actually hand more authority to the Board of Supervisors.&nbsp;



The group decided to scrap the measure before a Tuesday deadline after huddling with officials in the Mayor&#8217;s Office last week. TogetherSF Action plans to revise it and submit a new version to the Department of Elections.



Earlier this month, TogetherSF Action announced it was introducing two ballot measures to reform the city charter—one to give the mayor more power and the other to cut the number of city commissions in half. The group contends that giving the mayor more authority is key to making progress on public safety and the housing, homelessness and drug crises.&nbsp;



But the proposal to eliminate commissions contained a fatal flaw, according to multiple sources in and around City Hall: Eliminating certain commissions would kick oversight responsibilities over to the Board of Supervisors, a group Mayor London Breed has repeatedly criticized as being <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2023/03/07/mayor-breed-pushes-27m-police-overtime-bill-slams-obstructionist-board/">“obstructionist”</a> and <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2023/03/29/mayor-breed-hits-back-at-sf-progressives-touts-conservatorship-in-jon-stewart-interview/">tone-deaf on the issues</a> many San Franciscans are facing.



Multiple sources in and around City Hall suggested the errors in TogetherSF Action’s proposed measure came from a DIY approach and a failure to consult with experts until concerns arose. One source, who is familiar with the issues but was not authorized to speak publicly, called the proposal “sloppy.”



Kanishka Cheng, the head of the nonprofit TogetherSF and its political arm, TogetherSF Action, said in a statement Monday that the ballot measure to eliminate commissions—known as the <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24229164-20231204_cutthedysfunctionalbureaucracy_text">“Cut the Dysfunctional Bureaucracy Initiative”</a>—was being updated to change the “status quo” on city operations.



“San Francisco’s governance structure is broken and we are committed to advancing bold reforms at the ballot this November to ensure city government is better positioned to tackle the challenges facing our city,” Cheng said. “We are making updates to our reform measure that will make the initiative stronger and clarify authority and responsibilities between the executive and legislative branches. Voters deserve to know who is responsible for the city government’s decisions and to hold them accountable.”&nbsp;



Michael Moritz, who is chairman of The Standard, has provided funding to the 501c3 nonprofit TogetherSF and its political arm, TogetherSF Action.



The second proposed ballot measure—known as the “We Need SF To Work Initiative”—would give the mayor sole discretion to hire and fire department heads, strengthen the mayor’s ability to control commissions, and allow for the creation of deputy mayor positions.



Under city rules, any voter-led ballot initiative must first be submitted to the Department of Elections. After a 15-day review period by the City Attorney’s Office, the proposal receives a title and summary, and advocates can proceed to collect petition signatures. Sources suggested it would take four to five months to collect the almost 50,000 petition signatures required by July 8 to <a href="https://sfelections.org/tools/cscal_nov24/">qualify for the November 2024 ballot</a>. That 15-day period was to expire Tuesday.



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-plan-to-cut-commissions-in-san-francisco">Plan to Cut Commissions in San Francisco</h2>



The <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24229164-20231204_cutthedysfunctionalbureaucracy_text">“Cut the Dysfunctional Bureaucracy Initiative”</a> proposed creating a task force to review commissions in the city and suggest which ones were redundant and ripe for elimination. As of this summer, San Francisco had <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2023/07/06/only-1-person-at-sf-city-hall-knows-the-answer-to-this-simple-question/">53 departments, 56 boards and commissions and 74 other advisory bodies</a>.



TogetherSF Action’s original plan suggested the number of commissions be capped at 65.&nbsp;



TogetherSF Action said the revised version will seek to keep bodies such as the Board of Appeals, Police Commission, Fire Commission and Planning Commission while allowing the mayor and supervisors the ability to hire and fire commissioners for the Public Utilities Commission, the Fine Arts Commissions, the War Memorial Board and the Airport Commission.



Permitting appeals would go to the Board of Appeals instead of supervisors. For commissions such as the Public Utilities Commission, the Airport Commission and the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, the mayor would be able to appoint a supermajority of commissioners.&nbsp;&nbsp;



Supervisor Aaron Peskin, the president of the Board of Supervisors, said the mistakes should be seen as a “teachable moment.” He suggested the group should have worked with <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2023/10/31/san-francisco-city-hall-ballot-measure-reforms-rafael-mandelman/">Supervisor Rafael Mandelman, who also introduced a charter reform measure</a> that had some overlapping goals with TogetherSF Action’s proposal.&nbsp;



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="2999" height="2000" src="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/20231109_detentiondrugdealers-37.jpg?w=2500" alt="A man gesticulates and speaks with 1 hand extended out next to a podium with a gilded facade in the background." class="wp-image-219949" srcset="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/20231109_detentiondrugdealers-37.jpg 2999w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/20231109_detentiondrugdealers-37.jpg?resize=300,200 300w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/20231109_detentiondrugdealers-37.jpg?resize=768,512 768w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/20231109_detentiondrugdealers-37.jpg?resize=2500,1667 2500w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/20231109_detentiondrugdealers-37.jpg?resize=1536,1024 1536w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/20231109_detentiondrugdealers-37.jpg?resize=2048,1366 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2999px) 100vw, 2999px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin criticized TogetherSF Action&#8217;s proposed ballot measure as ill-conceived. </figcaption></figure>



“We can have a discussion about what the best public policy is, but if it’s not what they intended, it shows this organization and its members don’t know what they’re doing,” Peskin said. “When you’re tinkering with your constitution, it should be tinkered with in public.”



The Mayor’s Office declined to comment.



The Department of Elections received <a href="https://www.sf.gov/sites/default/files/2023-12/20231218_Withdrawal%20Letter.pdf">a letter from Cheng</a> requesting that the ballot measure be withdrawn Monday afternoon. She added that she plans to submit a revised version “in the coming days.” Once resubmitted, another 15-day review process would start before any signatures could be gathered.&nbsp;



Mandelman said he has not seen TogetherSF Action’s ballot measures, but he and the group have been talking about ways to improve the city through charter reform. He indicated his ballot measure, which also suggests the creation of deputy mayors, would be more incremental with an eye on continuing to reform the city charter in 2026.



“To their credit, they are motivated by a sincere desire to fix problems in San Francisco city governance. In my experience, that’s not easy,” Mandelman said. “It’s hard to fault them for trying to come up with some structural solutions.”

California math wars: San Franciscans demand return of 8th grade algebra

San Francisco lawmakers took an initial step in urging the city’s public school district to change its policy on algebra Monday, when a committee recommended that a policy statement be placed on the March 2024 ballot.&nbsp;The vote was taken after testimony from parents urging support for the policy change.&nbsp;



The Board of Supervisors’ Rules Committee voted unanimously to move forward with a ballot measure urging the San Francisco Unified School District to make first-year algebra available to middle school students by the eighth grade. The next step is for the entire board to vote on the issue on Tuesday, and most members are likely to support the statement.



Though they have no direct role in overseeing school curricula, some supervisors believe they have a role to play in educational policy. Last week, Supervisors Hillary Ronen and Myrna Melgar, along with SFUSD administrators, embarked on a junket to Japan <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2023/11/07/san-francisco-supervisors-education-schools-math-algebra/">to learn about math education</a>.&nbsp;



READ MORE: <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2023/11/07/san-francisco-supervisors-education-schools-math-algebra/">San Francisco Supervisors Fly to Japan To Learn About Math</a>



Around 20 local parents packed into Monday’s hearing to support the algebra measure. Supervisor Joel Engardio, who sponsored the measure, <a href="https://twitter.com/sfjudgeanon/status/1724115246804275678" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">held a rally outside City Hall</a> before the meeting.



“The Board of Supervisors doesn’t have control over the school district, but every resident of San Francisco is our constituent, including parents and students, and their voices deserve to be heard,” sponsoring Supervisor Joel Engardio said at the meeting.&nbsp;



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="2237" height="1491" src="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/INLINED11_BOSExpenses10182023.jpg?w=2237" alt="Supervisor Joel Engardio listens during a City Hall meeting on July 11, 2023" class="wp-image-212465" srcset="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/INLINED11_BOSExpenses10182023.jpg 2237w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/INLINED11_BOSExpenses10182023.jpg?resize=300,200 300w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/INLINED11_BOSExpenses10182023.jpg?resize=768,512 768w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/INLINED11_BOSExpenses10182023.jpg?resize=1536,1024 1536w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/INLINED11_BOSExpenses10182023.jpg?resize=2048,1365 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2237px) 100vw, 2237px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">District 4 Supervisor Joel Engardio is sponsoring a ballot measure to make first-year algebra available to eighth graders in San Francisco&#8217;s public schools.</figcaption></figure>



“[Algebra] was not something I did well with in high school; I was one of those students who was struggling to catch up,” Supervisor Matt Dorsey said. “I feel especially representing Mission Bay and Downtown, where so many companies need to make sure we are competitive and have a well-prepared workforce, I think this is part and parcel of that.”&nbsp;



Board of Appeals Commissioner and attorney John Trasviña told the committee that “we can never have a policy that discourages Latino kids from reaching everywhere they can reach; that means having algebra in the eighth grade.”&nbsp;&nbsp;



San Francisco public schools <a href="https://www.kqed.org/news/10610214/san-francisco-middle-schools-no-longer-teaching-algebra-1" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">haven’t offered middle school algebra since 2015</a>, when the district adopted a new curriculum that offered algebra one in the freshman year of high school, followed by geometry in the 10th grade and higher courses in the 11th grade.&nbsp;&nbsp;



The goal was to keep algebra from becoming a barrier to further academic achievement, but it led to a stiff backlash from parents who argued that waiting until high school to offer algebra stifled pathways for students to pursue advanced STEM coursework, requiring them to double up on math courses further down the line.&nbsp;



Algebra became a rallying cry during the 2018 school board race, and some school board members who supported the controversial move to eliminate it in middle schools—such as former school board member Alison Collins—<a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2022/02/16/school-board-recall-successful/">were recalled</a> in 2022.



“I was really shocked when I learned that San Francisco public schools don&#8217;t offer algebra until ninth grade and that the workarounds for it are so difficult and so hard,” said Autumn Looijen, an organizer of SF Guardians, an activist group created during the recall elections, told The Standard.



“I have a kid who took algebra in sixth grade down the peninsula, and we also have a kid who went through the standard math pathways here, including doubling up in his junior year,” Looijen added. “It was tough, you know. That&#8217;s a lot of math to learn in a short period of time during your junior year when you&#8217;ve got so many challenging classes going on.”

Sunset skyscraper: San Francisco developers are back with ‘kind of nuts’ plan

The infamous Sunset skyscraper—an amorphous plan for a 50-story apartment tower just blocks away from San Francisco’s Ocean Beach, first revealed in April and rejected multiple times by the city—is back.&nbsp;&nbsp;



Developers Raelynn and John Hickey submitted a new application for the project Aug. 25, on the heels of <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2023/08/22/developers-behind-50-story-tower-in-sunset-sue-san-francisco/">lawsuits they filed against the city</a> Aug. 17. The suits allege San Francisco’s Planning Department misinterpreted state law in rejecting the project and also created stricter standards for height and bulk in direct response to their application.&nbsp;



The new application seeks approval for the project under a new law, AB 2011, which took effect last month. Sponsored by East Bay Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, it allows for by-right approval of mixed-income housing on commercial parcels, so long as certain frontage, labor and environmental criteria are met.&nbsp;



“We like that developers are noticing AB 2011, but it’s unlikely that this is an exemplary project,” a spokesperson for Wicks wrote in an email. “At the very least, maybe the publicity will alert more folks to AB 2011 and its potential to cut red tape.”



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="2560" height="1468" src="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/INLINED2_2700Sloat07052023-scaled.jpg?w=2500" alt="" class="wp-image-178492" srcset="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/INLINED2_2700Sloat07052023-scaled.jpg 2560w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/INLINED2_2700Sloat07052023-300x172.jpg 300w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/INLINED2_2700Sloat07052023-2500x1434.jpg 2500w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/INLINED2_2700Sloat07052023-768x440.jpg 768w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/INLINED2_2700Sloat07052023-1536x881.jpg 1536w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/INLINED2_2700Sloat07052023-2048x1175.jpg 2048w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/INLINED2_2700Sloat07052023-650x373.jpg 650w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/INLINED2_2700Sloat07052023-370x212.jpg 370w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/INLINED2_2700Sloat07052023-800x459.jpg 800w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/INLINED2_2700Sloat07052023-450x258.jpg 450w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/INLINED2_2700Sloat07052023-20x11.jpg 20w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/INLINED2_2700Sloat07052023-185x106.jpg 185w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/INLINED2_2700Sloat07052023-740x424.jpg 740w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/INLINED2_2700Sloat07052023-400x229.jpg 400w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/INLINED2_2700Sloat07052023-1600x918.jpg 1600w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/INLINED2_2700Sloat07052023-225x129.jpg 225w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/INLINED2_2700Sloat07052023-900x516.jpg 900w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/INLINED2_2700Sloat07052023-84x48.jpg 84w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2560px) 100vw, 2560px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Detail from earlier plans for 2700 Sloat project, showing multiple towers in the project base.</figcaption></figure>



The Hickeys&#8217; new application also includes new changes to the building plans. In an effort to satisfy the density bonus law’s requirements, the previous application featured&nbsp;<a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2023/07/13/sunset-tower-developers-past-ponzi-scheme-failed-high-rise-projects-raise-red-flags/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">four narrow towers attached together, creating the appearance of a single tower</a>. The new plan reportedly now changes the project&#8217;s base to six narrow attached towers.



A spokesperson for the Planning Department told The Standard that they consider the submission to be &#8220;incomplete and still under review.&#8221;



In <a href="https://twitter.com/_fruchtose/status/1697281768540557543" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">a long X thread</a> analyzing the new application, housing activist Robert Fruchtman characterizes them as “combative,” “incompetent,” and “kind of nuts.” 



<figure class="wp-block-embed is-type-rich is-provider-twitter wp-block-embed-twitter"><div class="wp-block-embed__wrapper">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">TLDR: The sponsors of 2700 Sloat have taken new approaches to fixing the technical problems with the previous iterations of their project, but their inability to follow the application process will likely sink the project.&mdash; Robert Fruchtman (@_fruchtose) <a href="https://twitter.com/_fruchtose/status/1697281768540557543?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 31, 2023</a></blockquote><script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
</div></figure>



&#8220;They’ve submitted — simultaneously along with their lawsuits — an application for the project to be considered under AB 2011. They’re essentially proposing that the project now be considered under an alternate path entirely, coming in with a new project, if you will, that enjoys the ministerial approval, and the density bonuses afforded under that act,&#8221; Planning Department spokesperson Dan Sider wrote in an email. 



The new application and litigation come after San Francisco’s Board of Appeals <a href="https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/stop-2700-sloat-blvd" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">rejected developers’ claims</a> on July 27. The project has generated intense controversy, with more than 3,600 residents signing <a href="https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/stop-2700-sloat-blvd">an online petition opposing it</a>. 



One of the developers, John Hickey, who is said to have taken the lead in discussions with the city, submitted a similarly grandiose proposal for three 650-foot apartment towers at India Basin in San Francisco&#8217;s Bayview District in 2004.&nbsp;



At the time, he was under indictment for <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2023/07/13/sunset-tower-developers-past-ponzi-scheme-failed-high-rise-projects-raise-red-flags/">a $20 million fraud case</a> where he had bilked over 700 investors who believed they were buying interest in North Bay real estate. Hickey served over six years in federal prison over the case.

Developers behind 50-story tower in Sunset sue San Francisco

Developers behind <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2023/07/27/san-franciscos-sunset-skyscraper-appeal-gets-toppled/">a proposed 50-story tower in the Sunset</a> that city officials rejected last month for being “categorically out of compliance” have sued the city, arguing San Francisco is misinterpreting state law.



<a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23924182-2700-sloat-lawsuit">The lawsuit</a>—filed Thursday in San Francisco Superior Court—argues that the 589-foot apartment tower and retail complex at 2700 Sloat Blvd. meets the requirements under California’s Density Bonus Law, which allows developers to exceed standard density requirements in certain circumstances.



The suit goes on to claim that the city misinterpreted and applied the density bonus law to the project, adding that the proposal was not a final blueprint but met objective zoning standards and represented a “realistic development capacity of the site.”



<a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2023/07/13/sunset-tower-developers-past-ponzi-scheme-failed-high-rise-projects-raise-red-flags/">John and Raelynn Hickey</a>, the developer couple behind the project, claim in their lawsuit that a proposal to construct six buildings to make up the tower was “hypothetical and meant only to establish the realistic development capacity of the site. The number of buildings was not a project detail.”



Late last month, the city’s Board of Appeals unanimously upheld a decision to block the controversial proposal.&nbsp;



The extreme height of the tower compared with the rest of the neighborhood, which mostly consists of two- and single-story buildings, left many to wonder if the developers actually intended to build the project.



In May 2022, the Planning Department notified the developers of multiple issues with a more modest proposal for a 12- to 13-story project. Three months later, the developers came back with a plan four times taller.



Jen Kwart, a spokesperson for the City Attorney&#8217;s Office, said the agency had not been served with the lawsuit as of Thursday evening.



“Once we are served with the lawsuit, we will review the complaint and respond accordingly,” Kwart said.

San Francisco sends ‘Sunset skyscraper’ back to the drawing board

San Francisco’s Board of Appeals unanimously upheld a decision to block a controversial proposal for a 589-foot apartment tower in the Outer Sunset after a two-hour hearing late Wednesday evening.&nbsp;



The massive proposal <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2023/04/13/skyscraper-plans-revealed-for-san-franciscos-ocean-beach-712-homes-50-stories/">was first unveiled in April</a> after San Francisco’s Planning Department questioned an earlier proposal for a building a quarter of the size. The agency quickly rejected the new plans, calling them “categorically out of compliance with both state and local laws.”



The developer has described the current plan as <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2023/07/05/sunset-skyscraper-50-stories-680-apartments-at-san-franciscos-ocean-beach/">a “protest” of the city’s interpretation of a state law</a> that allows developers to build bigger in exchange for including affordable units. The project plans for 110 means-tested below-market-rate units.&nbsp;



“Massive” was the operative word of Wednesday’s proceedings, which were held over Zoning Administrator Corey Teague’s determination that the project violated existing height and bulk standards.&nbsp;



Board of Appeals President Rick Swig admonished participants to keep discussion strictly to the matter of the appeal—Teague’s interpretation of two planning code sections regarding height and bulk which prevent the current iteration of the project from going forward.



“There is no specific project tonight,” Swig said, during a discussion with Teague and the deputy city attorney about the parameters of the case. Board member John Trasviña noted “there would be other venues for discussion, such as the Planning Commission,” if the plan were to go forward somehow.



Melinda Sarjapur of law firm Reuben, Junius &amp; Rose, LLP, counsel for developer 2700 Sloat LLC, argued the determination violated a number of state laws such as the Housing Accountability Act, and was an “abuse of discretion,” citing several approved projects, such as Rincon Hill and others built in recent years, that like the proposal featured a single building with multiple towers.&nbsp;



Asked by Swig whether the appeal was an exercise in “pushing the envelope” with regard to current height and bulk restrictions, Sarjapur maintained that it wasn’t since the proposal was objectively similar to those other projects, which are mostly in the southeastern part of the city. In making the determination on the Sloat project, she argued that the Planning Department was creating “a new, arbitrary standard.”



Sarjapur did concede, however, that “I think the goal of current state housing laws is to maximize residential development, to address the current housing crisis that we’re in—that does call for pushing the envelope for what’s allowable.”



And the 2700 Sloat proposal may well “push the envelope” in that it features <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2023/07/13/sunset-tower-developers-past-ponzi-scheme-failed-high-rise-projects-raise-red-flags/">four narrow towers attached together, creating the appearance of a single tower</a>, in order to fit on a smaller plot of land compared to other previously approved large projects.



That’s how the project and the controversies around it—including whether or not it’s even a serious proposal—have become a Rorschach test of opinion on the current debate on how to solve San Francisco’s housing shortage and affordability problems.



More than 3,500 residents signed <a href="https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/stop-2700-sloat-blvd">an online petition</a> against the project, and Our Neighborhood Voices, an anti-growth group, has <a href="https://twitter.com/OurVoicesCA/status/1678871485677723649">used the proposal to garner support</a> for a statewide ballot measure that would roll back recent reforms in Sacramento to boost housing construction.&nbsp;



Meanwhile, local pro-housing activists have offered some pro-forma support for the project, perhaps simply to troll hardline “NIMBY” groups like Our Neighborhood Voices, and many showed up at the hearing in support of the developer’s appeal.&nbsp;



Swig, upon seeing 57 people lined up for public comment for the item, mostly remotely, limited comments to one minute per speaker. In the end, about 20 speakers testified, with opinions roughly divided equally over the developers’ appeal.



At least one local writer <a href="https://t.co/Es5MAhjbKB">has called the project</a> a “NIMBY jumpscare,” calling to mind neighborhood groups that regularly complain of shadows from comparably modest projects now facing a proposal that some might think threatens to turn Ocean Beach into a giant sundial.&nbsp;



Most on the front lines of the legislative struggle to remove obstacles to housing development, like state Sen. Scott Wiener, regard the tower as “a distraction.”



Whether the developers actually intend to build the project has become an open question, in part due to their history. Raelynn Hickey is the principal officer for the developer, but her husband, John Hickey, has led discussing the project with the city. Neither testified at Wednesday’s hearing.&nbsp;



John Hickey’s history can best be described as colorful.&nbsp;



In 2004 John Hickey promoted a project which would have included three 650-foot apartment towers—the tallest in the city if built—for India Basin in San Francisco’s Bayview. It <a href="https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/san-francisco-india-basin-proposal-would-add-3-2634826.php?fromRichie=1&amp;app=__Platform__&amp;v=__Version__&amp;method=__AllAccessEntitlementSource__" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">was described at the time</a> as “flying in the face of 30 years of waterfront planning.”



Another problem with the 2004 project: at the time, John Hickey was <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23872701-hickey-appeal-05-10004" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">under indictment</a> for defrauding over 700 investors in 1994 of $20 million, ostensibly for real estate development in the North Bay. He was sentenced to prison in 2006 and ordered to pay $17 million in restitution, most of which remains unpaid. He was released in 2013.&nbsp;



One experienced developer <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2023/07/13/sunset-tower-developers-past-ponzi-scheme-failed-high-rise-projects-raise-red-flags/">who spoke to The Standard July 13</a> estimated that the current iteration of the 2700 Sloat project would cost over $1 billion to build and that no lender “would seriously contemplate financing a billion-dollar project in that neighborhood.”



Those factors weren’t discussed at the hearing, but they certainly loomed in the background, as did opinions over the nature of San Francisco’s housing crisis, which Swig questioned at times.&nbsp;



In the end, the commissioners agreed that Teague’s determination was a legitimate baseline for deciding the initial merits of the project, leaving room for negotiation in the planning process.&nbsp;



“It doesn’t foreclose opportunities for housing,” Trasviña said, in declaring his vote against the appeal.&nbsp;



Commissioner Alex Lemberg called Teague’s determination “a legitimate use, not abuse, of discretion,” also noting that the Board of Appeals couldn’t rule on whether state laws preempted the decision.&nbsp;



The Hickeys have the option of requesting a rehearing of their appeal if they apply to the board within 10 days. They would have to show that new evidence would have changed the outcome of the hearing, or that there was “manifest injustice.”



Or, they could submit another plan.

Man behind the massive Ocean Beach Tower went to prison for a Ponzi scheme

John Hickey, one half of a San Francisco developer couple attempting to build <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2023/07/05/sunset-skyscraper-50-stories-680-apartments-at-san-franciscos-ocean-beach/">a 50-story tower in the Sunset</a>, has a reputation for proposing audacious projects that never come to fruition. He also has a history as a con man.



In 2004, Hickey was promoting plans for <a href="https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SAN-FRANCISCO-India-Basin-proposal-would-add-3-2634826.php?fromRichie=1&amp;app=__Platform__&amp;v=__Version__&amp;method=__AllAccessEntitlementSource__" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">a billion-dollar project</a> that would erect three towers in India Basin and dramatically alter the city’s eastern waterfront. The ambitious development proposal—dismissed as “crazy” by a former city planning director—would have created the largest residential towers in all of California.&nbsp;



At the time, few people knew Hickey had already been indicted seven years earlier for a <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23872701-hickey-appeal-05-10004" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Ponzi scheme</a> to develop land in Napa and Sonoma counties. Hickey and a co-conspirator bilked 700-plus investors out of roughly $20 million, according to court records. Some of the money went to pay off early investors; some of it went to personal use. Hickey spent 15 years ensnared in civil and criminal investigations and was eventually sentenced to <a href="https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Prison-term-for-developer-who-defrauded-investors-2501829.php" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">97 months in prison</a>.



As of 2016, three years after his release from prison, Hickey had paid just $5,150 toward the $17 million-plus he still owed in restitution to his victims.



The project Hickey and his wife, Raelynn, are now hawking in the Sunset—a tower that would stand out like a 589-foot sore thumb in the sleepy beach neighborhood—bears an eerie resemblance to the fanciful towers he boasted he would build two decades ago. It’s unclear how this new project would be financed. And pinning down the true motivations behind the project, which has become a lightning rod on both sides of the local housing debate, has proven difficult.



On Wednesday, Raelynn Hickey answered the door at the couple’s two-story home in the Sunset, where a gold Cadillac Escalade was parked askew in the driveway. At first, she lied and said the couple wasn’t home. Then, she admitted her identity and abruptly declined an interview.



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-tower-of-power">Tower of Power</h2>



A plant nursery currently occupies the proposed site of the tower: 2700 Sloat Blvd., which is just three blocks from Ocean Beach. Across the street from Sloat Garden Center is a five-story building—the most imposing structure in the neighborhood. The proposed tower would dwarf everything in its vicinity.



<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/OceanBeachTower071323_FEATURE.jpg?w=2500" alt="" class="wp-image-181416" srcset="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/OceanBeachTower071323_FEATURE.jpg 3000w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/OceanBeachTower071323_FEATURE.jpg?resize=300,200 300w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/OceanBeachTower071323_FEATURE.jpg?resize=768,512 768w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/OceanBeachTower071323_FEATURE.jpg?resize=2500,1668 2500w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/OceanBeachTower071323_FEATURE.jpg?resize=1536,1025 1536w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/OceanBeachTower071323_FEATURE.jpg?resize=2048,1366 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 3000px) 100vw, 3000px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Sloat Garden Center is located at the proposed site for a 50-story tower in the Sunset neighborhood in San Francisco.</figcaption></figure>



The latest plans for the tower—after multiple, incomplete proposals for the site, according to city officials—were <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2023/04/13/skyscraper-plans-revealed-for-san-franciscos-ocean-beach-712-homes-50-stories/">filed April 11</a> by CH Planning, a Reno-based company incorporated in 2021 and managed by Raelynn Hickey. In May 2022, the Planning Department notified the developer of multiple issues with the more modest proposal for a 12-13 story project. Three months ago, CH Planning came back with a plan four times taller.&nbsp;



In the most recent revision, the proposed tower would include 680 condominiums along with 100,000 square feet of retail space, a wellness spa and a basement garage to fit 212 cars. The scale of the project has left some leading developers in the city befuddled.&nbsp;&nbsp;



“I have many friends in the development community, and none of us can comprehend this project,” Oz Erickson, principal at developer Emerald Fund, told The Standard. “To the best of our experienced knowledge, none of us could remotely make this project work economically, much less understand how it would fit contextually in that neighborhood.”



The Planning Department rejected the most recent design, which was originally scheduled for a May hearing at the city’s Board of Appeals. But at the developers’ request, it’s been repeatedly postponed. A new hearing is now scheduled for July 26.



GET THE INSIDE SCOOP: Power Play is The Standard&#8217;s insider email newsletter covering City Hall and politics. Sign up&nbsp;<a href="https://mailchi.mp/sfstandard/powerplay_signup/">here</a>.



CH Planning’s revised plans cited California’s Density Bonus Law, which allows developers to tack on more height in exchange for including affordable housing. On the books since 1979, the law has been significantly expanded by legislation written to combat the state’s housing crunch.&nbsp;



John Hickey has taken the lead in discussions with the city, with CH Planning contending that the state’s Density Bonus Law should allow 2700 Sloat to proceed, in part because of the unique design of the tower: It includes four narrow, separate towers attached together on one base structure to skirt local rules on individual buildings.



Thousands of people have signed a petition opposing the project, and the city’s Planning Department summarily scoffed at the design, calling it “categorically out of compliance with both state and local laws.”



<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/OceanBeachTower071323_SOCIAL.jpg?w=2500" alt="" class="wp-image-181419" srcset="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/OceanBeachTower071323_SOCIAL.jpg 3000w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/OceanBeachTower071323_SOCIAL.jpg?resize=300,200 300w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/OceanBeachTower071323_SOCIAL.jpg?resize=768,512 768w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/OceanBeachTower071323_SOCIAL.jpg?resize=2500,1668 2500w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/OceanBeachTower071323_SOCIAL.jpg?resize=1536,1025 1536w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/OceanBeachTower071323_SOCIAL.jpg?resize=2048,1366 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 3000px) 100vw, 3000px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Sloat Garden Center is located at 2700 Sloat Blvd., where a 50-story tower is being proposed in the Sunset neighborhood in San Francisco.</figcaption></figure>



Nonetheless, Our Neighborhood Voices—a political group planning a ballot measure to undo state housing reforms—has seized upon the 2700 Sloat project, <a href="https://twitter.com/OurVoicesCA/status/1678871485677723649" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">using the tower</a> as a symbol of all that is wrong with legislation intended to accelerate housing production.&nbsp;



Meanwhile, YIMBYs and lawmakers who support denser housing seem to be of two minds when it comes to the proposed tower.



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-distraction-or-real-deal">Distraction or Real Deal?</h2>



The outlandish size of the 2700 Sloat project—and some of the arguments for and against it—have created a caricature of an otherwise serious issue. San Francisco is required to make room for 82,000 new units of housing by 2031. But a down market and impediments via local law and neighborhood opposition are making that target look more illusory by the day.



“This project has always seemed like a distraction to me,” said state Sen. Scott Wiener, whose bill SB 423 would extend and expand rules to streamline the creation of denser housing.



Opponents of the 2700 Sloat project have cast the tower as a symbol of what could happen in California if Wiener’s legislation is signed into law. Wiener said those arguments are not being made in “good faith.”



“We need more housing in all parts of San Francisco, including the west side,” he said. “Some of us are trying to work in the world of reality to make that happen.”&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/2022/11/SafeConsumptionGlide-52.jpg?w=2500" alt="" class="wp-image-97095" srcset="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/SafeConsumptionGlide-52.jpg 2500w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/SafeConsumptionGlide-52-300x200.jpg 300w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/SafeConsumptionGlide-52-768x512.jpg 768w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/upl...

The Board of Appeals provides final review for a wide range of City permitting decisions. It ensures an efficient and fair permit issuance process through an impartial panel. The Board exercises authority to make binding decisions on appeals.

Board of Appeals

Jose Lopez

Rick Swig

Board of Appeals Commissioner 1

Board of Appeals Commissioner 2

Board of Appeals Commissioner 5

Asian Art Museum

Office of the City Administrator

Adult Probation Department

Airport

Arts Commission

Office of the Assessor-Recorder

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

SF Superior Court

SF Superior Court Presiding Judge

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

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

Abatement Appeals Board

Abatement Appeals Board Commissioner 1

Abatement Appeals Board Commissioner 2

Abatement Appeals Board Commissioner 3

Abatement Appeals Board Commissioner 4

Abatement Appeals Board Commissioner 5

Abatement Appeals Board Commissioner 6

Abatement Appeals Board Commissioner 7

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

Access Appeals Commission

Access Appeals Commission Commissioner 1

Access Appeals Commission Commissioner 2

Access Appeals Commission Commissioner 3

Access Appeals Commission Commissioner 4

Access Appeals Commission Commissioner 5

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

Adult Day Health Care Planning Council

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

Cristel Tullock

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

Advisory Committee of Street Artists and Crafts Examiners

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

Advisory Council on Human Rights

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

Mike Nakornkhet

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

Airport Commission

Airport Commission Commissioner 1

Malcolm Yeung

Jose F. Almanza

Mark Buell

Susan Leal

Airport Director

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

Animal Care and Control Department

Virginia Donohue

Animal Care and Control Department, Director

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

Arts Commission Commissioner 1

Arts Commission Commissioner 2

Arts Commission Commissioner 3

Arts Commission Commissioner 4

Debra Walker

Suzanne Ferras

Jessica Rothschild

Seth Brenzel

JD Beltran

Marcus Shelby

J Riccardo Benavides

Nabiel Musleh

Charles (Chuck) Collins

Lydia So

Arts Commission Commissioner 15

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

Ralph Remington

Arts Commission, Director of Cultural Affairs

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

Asian Art Commission

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 1

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 2

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 3

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 4

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 5

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 6

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 7

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 8

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 9

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 10

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 11

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 12

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 13

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 14

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 15

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 16

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 17

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 18

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 19

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 20

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 21

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 22

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 23

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 24

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 25

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 26

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 27

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

Dr. Soyoung Lee

Asian Art Museum, Director

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

Assessment Appeals Board #1

Assessment Appeals Board #1 Commissioner 1

Assessment Appeals Board #1 Commissioner 2

Richard Lee

Stephen Wasserman

Adena Gilbert

Paul Bellar

Quirina Mitchell

Hilary Winslow

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

Assessment Appeals Board #2

Assessment Appeals Board #2 Commissioner 1

Assessment Appeals Board #2 Commissioner 2

Assessment Appeals Board #2 Commissioner 3

Claire Ervin Lee

Louisa Mendoza

Joyce Lewis

Nicholas Goldman

Michelle Domingo

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

Assessment Appeals Board #3

Assessment Appeals Board #3 Commissioner 1

Assessment Appeals Board #3 Commissioner 2

Assessment Appeals Board #3 Commissioner 3

Marc Dickow

Assessment Appeals Board #3 Commissioner 5

Assessment Appeals Board #3 Commissioner 6

Assessment Appeals Board #3 Commissioner 7

Assessment Appeals Board #3 Commissioner 8

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

Assessor-Recorder