The Dan Grand Slam? How Daniel Lurie got everything he wanted on election night

Mayor Daniel Lurie wasn’t running for reelection Tuesday night. But he may have won bigger than anybody else in San Francisco politics. The mayor, who has enjoyed a moderate majority on the Board of Supervisors since taking office in January 2025, will maintain a team of allies with the decisive wins of his two preferred incumbent supervisors: Alan Wong in District 4 and Stephen Sherrill in District 2. Both crushed their opponents in early victories. What’s more, Propositions C and D, dueling tax measures that Lurie opposed, appeared to flop with voters. Everything, it seemed, was coming up Daniel on primary night. “The early returns that we are seeing show that San Franciscans like the direction that we are going in,” the mayor told reporters at a party for Prop. A, the Earthquake Safety and Emergency Response Bond — supported by Lurie, and winning by a landslide — outside Original Joe’s in North Beach. “We are just getting started. We are going to continue to put our foot on the accelerator.” Wong, whom Lurie appointed after voters recalled former Supervisor Joel Engardio, crushed a host of challengers, including progressive activist Natalie Gee, with early results showing support from more than 52% of Sunset and Parkside voters. Wong said he knocked on more than half the doors in his district in the run-up to the election. The biggest issue in the District 4 election — and the biggest issue in the Sunset for the last six years — was the Great Highway: Should it remain a park or reopen to cars? Wong and most of his challengers advocated for the latter, but Wong seemed to have most successfully associated himself with the pro-car stance. In District 2, Sherrill walloped neighborhood organizer Lori Brooke, pulling in 70% of votes tallied by 9:45 p.m. Apparently, allegations that former Mayor London Breed appointed Sherrill as a favor to Michael Bloomberg (Breed and Sherrill denied the claims) did little to hurt the supervisor’s campaign. Brooke and Gee have both filed to run again in November, when Wong and Sherrill will once again have to defend their seats. These victories mean that moderates will retain the upper hand on the Board of Supervisors and can breathe a sigh of relief after fears of a progressive groundswell. The presumed failure of Prop. D, the Overpaid CEO Tax, says the same. Labor unions had hoped to ride a surge of voter anger over wealth inequality to an election victory against greedy corporations, generating up to $300 million annually for the city’s general fund. But Lurie took the side of the pro-business camp, which pointed to reports that the tax could cost San Francisco nearly 1,000 jobs and shrink the local economy by more than $200 million annually over the next two decades. At the same time, Lurie opposed the competing Prop. C, arguing that labor and big business should have worked out a deal among themselves instead of bringing their fight to the ballot. He called the dueling measures evidence of a “broken system.” Huddled with reporters outside Original Joe’s, the mayor conceded that Prop. D’s existence speaks to wealth inequality and the soaring cost of living in San Francisco. “Oh my goodness, this city is incredibly expensive, it’s unaffordable for so many people,” he said, pointing to his early childhood education program and Family Zoning Plan as efforts to attack the problem. “The affordability crisis is at the top of my agenda.” And for another election cycle, that agenda seems to be in good political shape.

Live updates: Hilton extends lead over Becerra; Wiener tops poll

Sherrill and Wong cruise to victory in early landslide results

Mayor Daniel Lurie sure knows how to pick ’em. Voters in two San Francisco districts have decided to keep their mayor-endorsed supervisors in office in Tuesday’s special election. District 2 Supervisor Stephen Sherrill, who represents the Marina, Cow Hollow, and Pacific Heights, and District 4 Supervisor Alan Wong, whose district includes the Sunset and Parkside neighborhoods, appear headed for landslide victories over their challengers. Early results gave Sherrill and Wong commanding leads over their opponents. The outcomes will likely strengthen Lurie’s control of City Hall. Both supervisors are close allies to the mayor, giving him greater support on the 11-member Board of Supervisors as he advances his agenda on business taxes, drug policy, and housing. The mayor has endorsed and campaigned with Wong — whom he chose to fill the seat of the recalled Supervisor Joel Engardio — and Sherrill, who was appointed by former Mayor London Breed. Both supervisors are on the ballot to complete the remainder of their predecessors’ terms. The winners of the June election will serve through the end of the year. Both seats will be up for election again in November for full four-year terms. District 2 Sherrill, who was appointed by Breed in 2024, faces a challenge from neighborhood activist Lori Brooke. Housing has emerged as a dividing line in the race; in brief, Sherrill supports Lurie’s upzoning plan, while Brooke opposes it. The election is a test of whether the YIMBY consensus has reached the tony Marina neighborhood, where some residents are scandalized by a proposal to build a 25-story apartment tower atop a Safeway. Brooke says the proposal shows that the Family Zoning Plan doesn’t reflect residents’ wishes, while Sherrill has tried to walk the narrow line of opposing the specifics of the tower proposal while supporting more housing in the abstract. More recently, the campaign has been rocked by allegations from Breed’s former allies that she appointed Sherrill to curry favor with Michael Bloomberg. Breed and Sherrill deny the claims. District 4 Wong was appointed by Lurie late last year after the previous appointee, Isabella “Beya” Alcaraz, lasted less than 10 days before resigning . He is facing challenges from merchant leader Albert Chow, City Hall staffer and progressive activist Natalie Gee, educator David Lee, and school coordinator Jeremy Greco. The district has been shaken by the closure of the Great Highway and its conversion into Sunset Dunes. Greco is the only candidate campaigning to keep the park, while the other candidates support reopening the roadway to vehicular traffic. The District 4 election could have broader implications for the balance of power on the board. A victory by Gee would represent a major win for progressives and could signal a shift in the board’s ideological makeup. Outside spending groups have poured more than $1 million into efforts to keep the incumbents in office and attack their opponents, while progressive labor organizations have spent roughly $400,000 backing Gee.

Lurie’s budget spares city jobs — but grant funding cuts may lead to nonprofit layoffs

San Francisco City Hall jobs are safe, for now — but next year, not so much. Mayor Daniel Lurie released his annual proposed budget on Monday, aiming to close a $643 million deficit. Despite devastating federal disinvestment and a still-recovering economy, additional layoffs did not materialize this year. The budget cuts some social safety net programs as the city seeks to offset expected federal reductions that threaten to leave tens of thousands of San Franciscans without health care and food stamps. “Today, I am proud to submit a balanced budget that is fiscally responsible and strengthens our social safety net, so even in the face of federal cuts, San Franciscans know they can count on this city,” Lurie said in livestreamed remarks to the city. It’s not all roses: the budget slashes grant funding to nonprofit services focused on helping the poorest citizens, immigrants, and communities of color. The funding loss may result in as many as 1,050 layoffs among nonprofit service providers, advocates said Monday. Earlier this year, dire budget projections led labor unions to brace for layoffs among the city’s 34,000 employees in Lurie’s budget proposal, and in April, the mayor handed out a small set of pink slips to 127 employees. Speaking to The Standard last month, SEIU 1021, which represents one of the largest swaths of city employees, warned that strikes next year could “shut down the city.” In a statement, SEIU 1021 San Francisco Vice President Kristin Hardy said, “We are pleased and relieved to see that Mayor Lurie did not include further layoffs in the next fiscal year’s budget. San Francisco is at a pivotal moment in its recovery, and we cannot afford to go backward.” Still, she added, the union continues to fight against nonprofit reductions, and for Lurie to keep three Department of Public Health community clinics open, which are slated for closure under the budget reductions. “They are absolutely vital to the clients who receive services there, who are some of the city’s most vulnerable residents,” Hardy said. “And we want to ensure that nonprofits providing critical public services have the funding they need to retain the frontline workers who do that hard work every day.” Lurie said his budget closes a $300 million structural deficit, meaning the city has reduced ongoing spending by roughly $300 million to better align with projected revenues. But that only bit a chunk out of a $1 billion structural deficit that is projected by 2029. At a press conference on the budget Monday, Lurie told reporters he didn’t want to shrink the entire deficit at once. Instead, he said, he wanted to “responsibly” shrink government by focusing on core services. Cutting too quickly, he said, may threaten the city’s economic recovery and the city's continued ability to provide its remaining social safety net. “You’re seeing the city come back; it’s an economic recovery we can all feel,” Lurie said, “but it’s fragile. We need to nurture it.” At the same time, Lurie added, “we wanted to protect our immigrants and their legal rights, we wanted to protect our LGBTQ-plus and our trans community. We’re always going to lean into our values here in San Francisco, and our budget reflects that.” The continued deficit may mean that future layoffs are still on the table. Departments need to start work to prevent that now, Lurie wrote in his budget, by collectively reducing $81.5 million in personnel costs over the next year through “recognition and attrition.” The challenge will be figuring out “how we think about getting the best services for our residents as we continue through the hiring slowdown,” said Sophia Kittler, the city’s budget director, at the Monday press conference. Some city employees got better news than others: Police officers and firefighters were promised 14% raises after contract negotiations this year, at a cost of roughly $100 million over two years . Other city unions will negotiate their contracts next year. The mayor’s budget book is a sprawling 150-plus-page document, but some notable programs he invested in include $90 million in shelter and housing for families and youth, $34 million in federal risk reserve spending to backfill CalFresh and Medi-Cal disinvestment, restoring proposed cuts to LGBTQ+ community services, community organization-led legal services for the poorest San Franciscans, and investments in maternal and infant health. Perhaps controversially, Lurie proposed a $100 million reserve for homelessness prevention and legal services from a pot of funding created by the 2018 ballot measure Proposition C, which was championed by Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff . It is aimed at helping homeless young adults, and past efforts to divert funding to other uses have sparked outcry from the Board of Supervisors and homeless advocates. To meet the looming fiscal challenge, Lurie has cut back City Hall grant funding for nonprofit programs serving San Francisco’s poorest communities. Early budget documents submitted from departments to Lurie signaled to the city’s 700-plus nonprofits that they would face devastating cuts in services for immigrants, senior citizens, people with disabilities, and disadvantaged communities of color. The People’s Budget Coalition, a collective of more than 150 community organizations that receive city grant funding, said that while Lurie’s budget restores some funding, most of the devastating cuts departments promised are preserved in the mayor’s budget. The layoffs they anticipated have not been significantly averted, the coalition said. “Mayor Lurie says we need to make ‘hard choices,’” the coalition wrote. “But balancing the budget on the backs of working-class residents has become too easy for this administration.” Gabriel Medina, executive director of La Raza Community Resource Center on Valencia Street, learned in February that his organization would lose $660,000 in city grants, but half of it was restored in the mayor’s proposed budget. Instead of two layoffs, he may only have to make one. The funding loss still will hit Spanish-speaking immigrants hard, Medina said. The city depends on organizations like La Raza Community Resource Center to connect monolingual San Franciscans to Medi-Cal and CalFresh, as well as emergency financial assistance when they’re displaced in emergencies such as fires. Medina said hundreds of families would lose out on such services from La Raza Community Resource Center alone. It’s far from a done deal. The mayor’s proposed budget is only a step in the city’s budget process. Now the Board of Supervisors will negotiate the budget with the mayor and in concert will deliver a compromise by July. “We are going to spend the next month doing Board of Supervisors advocacy,” Medina said. “The good news is, we might get half from the mayor, but maybe could get half from the board.” “We’re just waiting to see,” he said. Lurie’s budget also does not assume any funding from Proposition D, the Overpaid CEO Tax, which is on the ballot in Tuesday’s June primary election. If approved, it would bring as much as $300 million annually to San Francisco’s coffers starting in 2028. Supervisor Connie Chan had urged Lurie to dip into the city’s reserve budget to serve as a “bridge” until that funding materialized. Lurie told reporters Monday he would not modify the budget if Prop. D passes, adding the city needs to be “fiscally disciplined” and not spend money “that we don’t have.” While the proposed cuts will be painful, they’re less devastating than initially estimated for two reasons: The mayor got lucky, and he also manufactured his own luck. A budget status report issued by the City Controller’s Office in May revealed a $339 million surplus compared with previous projections, mostly due to better business tax revenue from “worldwide sales” among a number of San Francisco businesses, a matter mostly out of city government’s control. But a $108 million boost in property transfer tax revenue came due to renewed investor interest in commercial real estate, which the administration has cited as evidence that its efforts to revitalize downtown are gaining traction. A hiring freeze Lurie announced last year also saved the city roughly $130 million, according to the mayor’s office.

Is San Francisco at an ‘eat the rich’ moment? The Overpaid CEO Tax could tell

The AI tech boom, soaring rents, and Donald Trump’s return to office may have created the perfect political moment for San Francisco progressives to stage a comeback. At the center of that fight is the hottest ballot measure this June: Proposition D, the so-called “ Overpaid CEO Tax ” that would increase taxes on large corporations with wide pay gaps between executives and workers. The measure has become the latest signal of a growing anti-big tech and anti-billionaire political narrative emerging in San Francisco and beyond. “The results on Election Day are going to be really indicative of whether this ‘eat the rich’ movement is resonating with the electorate,” Jay Cheng, a political consultant working on the campaign to defeat Prop. D, told The Standard. Cheng said the push is not limited to San Francisco, pointing to similar tax-the-rich proposals in Washington state and New York City , as well as a closely watched billionaire tax ballot measure headed for California voters this November. “There’s an overall effort from labor and unions to make ‘eat the rich’ a defining political issue,” he said. Keally McBride, a politics professor at the University of San Francisco, said there is a growing sense among voters that “enough is enough” when it comes to wealth concentration and widening inequality. Unlike everyday local political issues such as road paving or child care, McBride said taxes on the wealthy function more as a barometer of broader political sentiment. “I think the United States is kind of hitting this boiling point,” McBride said. “People are no longer trusting that the free market will operate the way it has served them.” The city’s overpaid CEO tax is not entirely new. Voters approved a similar executive pay tax in 2020, but it was effectively rolled back in 2024. Labor groups are now attempting to revive it. David Harrison, director of public policy at the Chamber of Commerce, argued that the tax represents a step backward. While it may feel emotionally satisfying to some voters, he said, it would do little to address the city’s underlying challenges. “The AI boom and renewed investment in San Francisco are signs that the city is beginning to recover,” Harrison said. “But recovery is not the same as stability.” Cheng said the No on D campaign is framing the measure around San Francisco’s economic recovery. “We’re in the middle of a recovery right now, but we’re not fully recovered,” Cheng said. “There’s concern this could derail that recovery.” Supporters of Prop. D, largely backed by organized labor, have raised roughly $3.3 million. Major donors include congressional candidate Saikat Chakrabarti, various branches of the Service Employees International Union, and several nurses’ and public-sector unions. “Don’t get it twisted. Prop D is about one thing — requiring billion-dollar corporations to pay their fair share like everyone else,” Scott Mann, the Yes on D campaign spokesperson, said in a statement. “This measure is truly about protecting care, not corporate greed.” Opponents, led by the Chamber of Commerce and backed by corporate and billionaire donors, have raised about $6.5 million. The Standard’s chairman, Michael Moritz, donated $625,000 to help defeat Prop. D. The chamber also placed Proposition C, a competing measure that would reduce business taxes, on the ballot. Because the two measures conflict, if both pass, only the one receiving more votes would take effect. The issue has divided San Francisco’s political establishment. Mayor Daniel Lurie and the San Francisco Democratic Party oppose Prop. D, while a supermajority of SF supervisors and Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi support it. A city report estimated that the measure would generate more than $200 million in annual revenue if approved, but also warned that it could prompt some major corporations to leave San Francisco, resulting in the loss of roughly 900 jobs . SF back to progressive? In recent years, moderates have largely dominated San Francisco politics, and Prop. D has emerged as the progressives’ biggest political push this election cycle. Cheng, a longtime moderate political operative, said moderates have made major progress but now fear a political backlash. “There is a fear of a pendulum swing back,” Cheng said. “[Progressives] are trying to find a narrative that swings that pendulum back faster.” Former Supervisor Aaron Peskin, a progressive backing Prop. D, argued San Francisco voters historically support economic stimulus during downturns but become more open to taxation during boom periods. “When the economy is overheated, the electorate is more inclined to tax it and get its fair share,” he said. Peskin said the city supported rolling back the CEO tax in 2024 because officials wanted to recruit and retain businesses during a fragile economic period. But now “rents have gone through the roof, evictions have gone up, the cost of living has gone up, AI has launched into the stratosphere,” and voters are more inclined to believe wealthy corporations should pay their fair share. Peskin argued that Trump’s policies could further shift San Francisco voters leftward. He said wealthy CEOs have benefited from federal tax breaks under Trump while cities like San Francisco face cuts from the federal government, strengthening the case for higher taxes on corporations and top executives. Four months ago, the Prop. D campaign released a poll showing 60% support for the measure. No other public polling has been released since, but insiders believe the race has tightened as both sides ramp up spending in the final weeks of the campaign. McBride said the San Francisco measure could become a bellwether for the statewide tax fight in November. She questioned whether campaign spending alone would determine the outcome, arguing that broader economic frustrations and voter sentiment may ultimately matter more. “At a certain level, all those flyers arriving in your mailbox start canceling each other out,” she said. “What becomes decisive is people saying, ‘I’m angry about how much money these people make, and this is my opportunity to register that discontent.’”

Who is funding the 2026 California Primary? We dig into the money on PST

Mayor Lurie releases his budget next week. Here’s how Trump royally screwed it

More and more, San Francisco’s 2026 budget process is resembling a slasher flick. Shadows are dancing across City Hall’s marble-wrought grand staircase, with President Donald Trump threatening to leap into view, ready to gouge hundreds of millions from the city’s coffers. The threat is real: Roughly $2 billion of San Francisco’s $16 billion budget flows from Washington, funding hundreds of grant programs across nearly every city department. Trump has already started turning off the tap. With a $643 million deficit looming, Mayor Daniel Lurie has days to reveal how the city absorbs the pain — and who feels it most. Trump has already made real cuts to healthcare. And while San Francisco has fought back — filing more than a dozen lawsuits against the administration and winning most of them so far — a single appellate loss could imperil billions. Fear that Trump may further upend any number of federal revenue streams undergirds every hard fiscal choice in front of Lurie. On June 1, the mayor will propose his draft budget to the Board of Supervisors and voters, revealing the true extent of the bloodletting. Trump’s policy choices are projected to disenroll up to 45,000 San Franciscans from healthcare and tens of thousands from food stamps. To protect those programs, Lurie is trimming across all 55 city departments rather than gutting public health and human services, his budget director, Sophia Kittler, told The Standard. “This is a loss to the whole city,” Kittler said. “We’re treating it as a citywide deficit.” The impacts are already here. Government layoffs loom, and nonprofit social safety-net programs know they face the chopping block. In anticipation of deep layoffs, labor has signaled a historic general strike is possible next year. In the meantime, tens of thousands of San Franciscans may lose crucial services, from food stamps to doulas. So what can San Francisco do to save itself? And how devastating will the impacts be? The answers are uncertain, but the city is preparing anyway. Threats in the shadows Since it’s a city and a county, San Francisco is uniquely vulnerable to federal meddling. Large counties often administer healthcare, serving as a pass-through for federal funding, creating a single vulnerable pot of money. But the city also depends on federal and state grants, both of which are primarily funded by the federal government. Trump could whisk much of it away with the stroke of a pen or the tap of a button on his social media platform, Truth Social . Much of it is also at risk in court. San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu is litigating more than a dozen lawsuits against the federal government, most of which touch on funding to the city. “Our legal efforts to defend our communities and protect our federal funding are paying off,” Chiu said in a statement. “We have seen many early wins in the lower courts, preserving billions of dollars in federal funding for our city.” Yet the risk still persists. The largest of these suits seeks to challenge the Trump administration’s effort to axe grants for any program it deems related to diversity, equity, and inclusion. As Chiu’s office wrote , Trump’s rules sought to instill his anti-immigrant, anti-LGBTQ+, anti-choice, and anti-equity policy preferences on federal spending. A court granted a preliminary injunction against Trump imposing new restrictions on those grants last year, Chiu’s office said the decision preserved billions in funding that help San Francisco support early childhood development, critical health services, safe and effective transportation, and housing to our most vulnerable. Each lawsuit represents a distinct fiscal vulnerability, a situation that insiders speculate will prompt Lurie to budget cautiously. He doesn’t have much room for error — the city has about $433 million in its federal-risk reserve fund, which Lurie and the Board of Supervisors created last year. If the worst federal funding losses happen, it won’t be enough. One Big Beautiful screw you You might’ve noticed that downtown still isn’t the hotbed it once was. That carries economic implications, since the city largely fills its general fund coffers from taxes generated by employee-filled high rises, including property taxes. In that weakened economic state came Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act , also known as H.R. 1, which threatens to see tens of thousands of San Franciscans lose Medi-Cal coverage and CalFresh food access — which in turn will prompt a roughly $300 million, two-year loss in federal payments to San Francisco to administer those programs locally. It isn’t a straight cut. Instead, the legislation implemented stricter work and filing requirements and is projected to cause people to lose their care. The Lurie administration budgeted $34 million to help those people navigate stricter filing requirements and retain access to Medi-Cal and CalFresh, but it remains to be seen how successful the effort will be. The funding losses primarily hit the Department of Public Health and the Human Services Agency. Those program losses equal roughly half of the city’s $643 million budget deficit. Lurie’s office chose to distribute the pain of that funding loss across the city’s 55 or so departments. Kittler said the other choice would be to decimate public health programs and food stamps, and that wasn’t a choice at all. Stemming the bleeding The Board of Supervisors will haggle with the mayor over budget details throughout June. There aren’t many choices before them. The city can either cut its funding or increase its revenue. Both choices carry risk. As nonprofit leaders have told The Standard, Lurie’s intention to cut community social service programs may have downstream impacts: if nonprofits that help tenants fight their evictions lose funding, for instance, more people may pressure homeless services in the coming months. Supervisor Conie Chan, the budget chair, laid out another plan in an early-May budget briefing with reporters. She said San Francisco shouldn’t live in fear of D.C. “You can absolutely plan that way. But then what you will end up with is just cuts and cuts and cuts,” Chan said. Instead, she said, Lurie should dip into reserves until 2028, when the Overpaid CEO Tax would begin generating an estimated $300 million annually. Dipping into reserves could leave San Francisco vulnerable to other Trump cuts, which may be anathema to risk-averse Lurie. It is also wholly dependent on voters approving the tax in June. Lurie opposed the tax. But if it does pass, he’ll have one more tool to forestall the worst of Trump’s cuts, whether he wanted it or not.

She taught Lurie’s business-world team how City Hall works. Now she’s done

Staci Slaughter is departing as chief of staff for Mayor Daniel Lurie. On Tuesday, Lurie gave insight into her role — she was a mentor, a guide, the Obi-Wan to the mayor’s Luke . And, importantly, she helped map the administration’s road to economic recovery. “Through it all, she invested the time to give the current and future leaders of our city the tools to succeed and grow,” Lurie said in a statement. “From the youngest mayor’s office staff to the most seasoned department heads, so many people across the government have benefited from her wisdom and mentorship. “I am no exception,” he added. Slaughter will stay on through the city’s annual budget process, with negotiations expected to conclude at the end of June. Lurie is expected to name a successor soon. Slaughter’s departure marks a quiet but significant transition for an administration that bet big on talent from outside government — and largely won. Her exit raises the question of whether Lurie’s business-world leadership can navigate what comes next: a $1 billion budget deficit, restless unions, and a city in mid-recovery. Slaughter taught a business-friendly cadre of leaders the arcane ways of city government. The outside perspective was always part of the plan, including former Twitter CFO Ned Segal and former McKinsey consultant Kunal Modi, two of Lurie’s policy chiefs. Slaughter helped the administration dream up its big-picture strategy for civic investment. Considering Lurie’s stratospheric approval rating, often in the 70s, it’s fair to say residents approved of her plans. While the bulk of her career was in leadership positions with the San Francisco Giants, including serving as the organization’s first female vice president, Slaughter cut her teeth in Frank Jordan’s mayoral administration as his press secretary from 1992 to 1996, serving as a senior adviser. Cammy Blackstone, former board chair of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, has known Slaughter since her time with the Giants. Blackstone said Slaughter knows how to keep calm amid the nonstop crises of local government work. “Her demeanor, she’s unflappable,” Blackstone said. “She really got [Lurie] into his stride.” That’s an important attitude when met with the fraught tensions of government. Slaughter stared down a gantlet of negotiators at the bargaining table with the San Francisco Unified School District, in discussions that led to the historic teachers strike . Lurie’s office is distinct from past mayors in that he appointed policy chiefs who oversee broad areas of government, like public safety, homelessness, and public health. Instead of overseeing departments, Slaughter served as a strategist alongside those policy chiefs. A review of her calendars, which are public, reveals her priorities: Chief among them, she was mired in briefings with the mayor’s budget director, Sophia Kittler, to chart a course out of what is expected to be a $1 billion structural budget deficit by 2029. Slaughter also booked dozens of meetings with Carol Isen, the city’s human resources director and chief labor negotiator. Sources said Slaughter played a key role in negotiations with the police and fire departments, which last month were awarded 14% salary increases at a cost of $100 million annually. Local think tank SPUR warned that those rosy contracts may prompt other unions to make similar demands when their contracts are up next year . Leaving was always part of Slaughter’s plan, Blackstone told The Standard. Slaughter wanted to get Lurie’s administration up and running and see it through this most recent budget. Because of her onetime leadership position at the Giants, and her husband’s role as a partner at Keker, Van Nest & Peters, Slaughter didn’t need the money, most City Hall insiders speculate — she joined Lurie’s administration purely out of loyalty to San Francisco. “This was truly government service on her part,” Blackstone said.

Ex-city planner alleges intimidation over objections to Lurie’s permit project

Mayor Daniel Lurie’s controversial permitting reform project, PermitSF, faces a new wave of questions after a former City Hall employee came forward Friday with allegations about the contracting and rollout of the system built by the San Francisco firm OpenGov. Michael Christensen, a principal planner at SF Planning who also worked at the SF Permit Center, left his job in December over concerns that city officials were intimidating workers to stay silent about the system’s shortcomings and that a former manager had asked OpenGov to build a backdoor that would allow city leaders to bypass staffers’ permitting decisions. Christensen worked on the team implementing OpenGov’s software platform, which was selected by the mayor’s office last summer under unusual circumstances to revamp the city’s convoluted permitting system. As detailed in two whistleblower complaints, a letter filed to a city commission, and an exclusive interview with The Standard, Christensen claims that internal dissent about the project was suppressed by leaders of the project, that OpenGov vastly overpromised on its capabilities, and that the new system is not as efficient as the city’s pre-existing infrastructure. Christensen said that Liz Watty, director of current planning and one of the managers of the project, told him last year that OpenGov promised it could revamp San Francisco’s entire permitting system in one year. The city ended up focusing on a narrow scope of permits in the first year, but even those deadlines have not been met. Christensen said Watty told him to report colleagues who expressed concerns about OpenGov, but he declined to do so. Watty did not respond to a request for comment. Michelle Reynolds, a spokesperson for the Office of Small Business, one of the departments involved in OpenGov’s implementation, denied Christensen’s claims about his conversations with Watty. Christensen also said that Florence Simon, the former director of the mayor’s office of innovation, asked prospective software companies during last year’s procurement process whether they could build a system that would allow city leaders to override staffers’ permitting rulings if there was disagreement or any delays. He said OpenGov agreed to build the feature. Other companies under consideration for the project — including Clariti, the software firm that a majority of city staff preferred over OpenGov — said they would do so only within legal requirements. “I never wanted to leave. I wanted to retire from the city,” Christensen said. “But the internal politics, the blatant hostility … it made me feel I’m no longer working for the place I was before.” Simon, who was fired from the city in March , said that her ask of software vendors was simply whether users could get visibility into the permitting platform to help speed up delayed permits, and that the inquiry did not include access for any elected officials. She said that she had never spoken to Christensen about this feature. Christensen’s remarks come two days after The Standard published an investigation into the adoption of OpenGov’s system and the trajectory of PermitSF , the name the mayor has chosen for the modernization effort. Interviews with former OpenGov employees revealed doubts within the govtech firm about meeting the deadlines. Meanwhile, city staffers detailed a lack of features in the software that has impeded their work. At a budget hearing Wednesday, Supervisor Connie Chan cited The Standard’s investigation and expressed skepticism about PermitSF , asking city officials for more information. Charles Lutvak, a spokesperson for the mayor’s office, said in a statement, “For years, our permitting system has been failing San Franciscans — wasting people’s time, frustrating small businesses, and holding back housing and our economic recovery. Fixing it will take time, it won’t always go as planned, and there will always be people who defend a failed status quo that works for special interests, but our job is to deliver for San Franciscans, and that’s what PermitSF is doing.” He said the city is open to input on the project, including anonymous feedback. “We have one job: to deliver the fastest, easiest, most transparent permitting system for San Franciscans,” Lutvak said. A spokesperson for OpenGov deferred comment to the city but said the company offers “an established, commercially available government software platform used by more than 2,000 agencies across the country.” ‘I t didn’t do any of the things we needed’ After procuring the OpenGov software last summer in a no-bid contract valued at $5.9 million, Lurie launched a limited version of a new permit system in February. But PermitSF is still months behind schedule, despite the mayor’s office insisting last year that OpenGov was the only company capable of meeting its aggressive deadlines. While city officials acknowledged that the project has hit roadblocks, they believe it has laid a foundation that will bring genuine reform to the city’s permitting infrastructure in the years to come. Some city employees told The Standard that the new platform has made their jobs easier, and the mayor’s office has cited statistics showing that OpenGov is speeding up permitting. But other city employees are speaking out against the project. Christensen’s concerns were outlined in a May 7 letter he submitted to the Civil Service Commission, a governing body that will decide Monday whether to proceed with a $6.5 million renewal of the OpenGov contract that also includes $22 million in licensing fees over five years, with the option of a one-year extension. The contract is subject to approval by the Board of Supervisors. IFPTE Local 21, the public employee union that represents more than 13,000 city workers, has pushed back against the contract extension. The union has been a major critic of Lurie, most recently over his decision to lay off more than 100 employees to close a $643 million budget deficit. Christensen said in his letter that the OpenGov-powered platform, which currently allows the public to obtain permits for windows, siding, and door replacement, along with a handful of others, is less efficient than the city’s preexisting systems. He said residents previously filled out a one-page application that would often be approved the same day. The new system, he said, asks dozens of questions that extend the process to days or weeks. The mayor’s office maintains that the new system is more efficient, has cut wait times in half for fire permits, and has reduced trips to the city’s Permit Center by 15%. Christensen’s exit in December came approximately two months after the city signed its first contract with OpenGov. Last year, as Lurie was launching PermitSF, Christensen was asked to play a lead role in the project’s implementation. “My departure from city service was a direct result of my concerns about the project, having been asked by department leadership to report colleagues who might ‘cause problems for the project,’ and having experienced direct retaliation after I filed two formal whistleblower complaints with the SF city controller’s office,” Christensen wrote. The letter claims that OpenGov maintains significant control over the software, unlike similar products, thereby making dozens of city staff positions obsolete. This was the subject of Christensen’s first whistleblower complaint, filed Oct. 15, which the controller’s office portal shows is still under investigation. His second whistleblower complaint, filed Nov. 17, raised concerns around OpenGov funding a white paper about San Francisco’s permitting process, something Christensen argues was a misuse of the contract. Such research, he contends, should have been conducted by city staff. The controller’s office portal shows that the investigation was referred to the Civil Service Commission. A spokesperson said the controller’s office doesn’t comment on the status of whistleblower complaints. Christensen declined to say who had retaliated against him for filing the whistleblower complaints. He said he is speaking up now because OpenGov’s contract is up for renewal and is urging the Civil Service Commission to deny it. “There was consternation that we had selected a product that staff had really looked into,” he said in an interview. “And that it didn’t do any of the things we needed it to do.” Other city employees have written in support of the contract. Natalia Fossi, a principal planner; Sylvia Jimenez, an SF Planning team manager; and Darcy Bender, who did not specify a position, wrote letters to the Civil Service Commission urging it to renew OpenGov’s contract. “We have launched multiple permit types in a matter of months,” wrote Bender. “Anyone who has worked in city technology knows how remarkable that timeline is. The public who apply for these permits and the staff who process them every day are already experiencing a difference. That momentum is real, and it is fragile. Further delays to this contract put it at risk.”

Lurie’s permit project gets grilled after SF Standard investigation

This article is from Power Play, a twice-weekly newsletter rounding up the latest City Hall and local politics gossip. To sign up, visit The Standard’s newsletter page . Hours after The Standard’s investigation into Mayor Daniel Lurie ’s permit overhaul was published, Supervisor Connie Chan had sharp questions for department heads at a Wednesday-afternoon Budget and Appropriations Committee meeting. Former employees of OpenGov, the company hired for Lurie’s permitting modernization effort, told The Standard they knew the firm would miss deadlines, and current city staffers said the software lacks important features. Lurie awarded OpenGov in a no-bid contract , claiming it was the only company that could meet its deadlines. But deadlines have been blown through. SF Planning’s director, Sarah Dennis Phillips , and the interim Department of Building Inspection director, David Kane , were in the hot seat as Chan had pointed questions about the permit overhaul in light of The Standard’s reporting. The exchanges became tense at times. The city is seeking to renew the OpenGov contract for six years, at a price of $6.5 million — a decision that must go before the Civil Service Commission before heading to the supervisors for approval. Chan’s suspicions are part of a bubbling skepticism against Lurie’s permit efforts. The Civil Service commissioners have already delayed a hearing to approve OpenGov’s contract renewal after claiming that the city did not provide them with enough information about opposition to the project from a public-sector union. Some commissioners expressed serious concern about the contract during a May 4 meeting before pushing the vote to this Monday. Phillips defended the adoption of the software, stating that the department is “very happy with the results” and that the “system is performing.” She conceded that there had been bumps in the road on timelines: “We are erring on the side of doing permits correctly, rather than in volume. That does take more time, and it means things are moving more slowly than we think.” The current contract was set to deliver 15 permit types by March onto a new OpenGov-powered platform. Today, fewer than half are available. Chan remains wary of the project’s trajectory. She asked the departments to provide evidence that OpenGov is making permitting more efficient and to outline a Plan B if OpenGov is shelved — a nightmare scenario for Lurie. She quoted The Standard’s reporting in which a city employee said San Francisco is essentially subsidizing OpenGov’s product advancements. “I’m not inclined to fund the research and development of OpenGov,” Chan said. “What I’m inclined to fund is the development of a permanent permitting system that actually works for San Franciscans.” — Gabriel Greschler Got tips? Send to us at powerplay@sfstandard.com . In the pipeline THE BIG SAIKAT SPEND: The centimillionaire congressional candidate Saikat Chakrabarti has pledged to spend whatever it takes to win. Now he’s helping local propositions too. On Tuesday, Chakrabarti dropped a cool $100,000 into the campaign for Proposition D, the Overpaid CEO Tax. If approved on the June’s ballot, it would raise taxes for any company with a wide pay gap between the CEO and the median salary of workers worldwide. The measure is backed by a bevy of unions that hope the funds will plug San Francisco’s budget hole: SEIU Local 2015, SEIU Local 1021, IFPTE Local 21, AFSCME 3299, and Teamsters Joint Council 7. That begs the question: Will Chakrabarti’s contribution help him finally make inroads with labor? “Labor bases its support on the shared values candidates have with working families,” a spokesperson for the Prop. D campaign stated succinctly. Chakrabarti is certainly making his case. “These companies just received massive federal tax breaks under Trump, so asking the largest corporations, that are paying CEOs more than 100 times their median employee’s salary, to contribute a little more isn’t going to hurt them,” Chakrabarti said. “But cutting homelessness services, emergency response programs, and public safety resources would hurt thousands of San Franciscans.” For her part, Chan has so many unions supporting her congressional run she could practically start her own labor council. Though Chakrabarti shares labor’s values, unions are loath to endorse wealthy candidates for any office. But if the alternative is state Sen. Scott Wiener, who pissed off SEIU California enough that they un-endorsed him, it’ll be interesting to see if progressive labor collectively holds its nose to back either of them in June. — Joe Fitzgerald Rodriguez YOU’RE WELCOME, L.A.: San Franciscans are generally proud to beat L.A. with our superior burritos, walkability, and fog over smog. However, we’ll have to begrudgingly concede that we’re on par in one respect: Both are now the scene of the political shenanigans of Jay Cheng , the consultant who earned Lurie’s ire and recently parted ways with Neighbors for a Better San Francisco under mysterious circumstances. Power Play readers will recall the rumor of an ethics investigation into Neighbors that may have ensnared Cheng. Cheng makes a cameo in an L.A. Times article last weekend detailing a dark money campaign to attack Los Angeles City Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez, a Democratic Socialist. Dark money refers to political spending wherein entities fund other entities, which fund other entities, to disguise the true source of attack ads. The piece highlights Cheng’s role as a consultant for a nonprofit working to elect “centrist” and “moderate” candidates to office in the City of Angels. It’s one of the first clients of his new shop, Jay Cheng Strategy. When reached by text, Cheng said he now has clients in multiple cities to “help them move in a moderate direction, like we did in SF.” He declined to name those cities but said he will do so in the coming weeks. When asked about the accusations in the article, Cheng replied, tongue in cheek, “Wherever there is dark money, there is Jay Cheng!” You don’t say! — J. F. R. THAT WAS FAST: Conor Johnston and Eric Kingsbury, who were staffers to Mayor London Breed , came forward Monday to accuse their former boss of appointing Supervisor Stephen Sherrill to his position in the hopes that she’d get a job from Michael Bloomberg. Sherrill issued a statement asserting that the vetting process for the supervisor seat was rigorous, and that she’s proud of Sherrill’s record but, curiously, doesn’t outright deny the chief allegation of a quid pro quo. Either way, we’ll be darned if Sherrill’s chief opponent in the June election, community activist Lori Brooke, didn’t move quick to capitalize on the accusations. Her campaign snapped up www.stephensherrill.com , which redirects to The Standard’s article. Cheeky! And it whipped up attack mailers using the most salacious quotes from Mission Local and The Standard, which will flutter into District 2 voters’ mailboxes this week. “District 2 deserves better than a supervisor who has made their career in backroom political deals,” Brooke told Power Play. We doubt that’s the only hit coming. Considering the avalanche of money from four independent expenditure committees supporting Sherrill, Brooke will need every swing. — J. F. R. TABLOID TIME: San Francisco’s media ecosystem is apparently booming , and we sure welcome some competition — for better or worse. The infamous San Francisco Inquirer, which the Chronicle , Standard , and San José Spotlight debunked three years ago as a political operation backing a Bay Area-based tribe , is active again, publishing sensational headlines about the race to succeed Rep. Nancy Pelosi . Recent stories on the site, with no authors listed, are critical of Wiener and Chan, while offering more favorable treatment to Chakrabarti. “Pelosi declines to endorse Wiener, widely seen as a stunning rebuke,” one headline says . Well, stunning to who? We all know who the speaker emerita’s preferred candidate is. The site’s founder, Matt Ricchiazzi , an East Coast-based consultant accused of running fake news websites , denied any involvement with the campaigns. “I don’t have any client interests in the race. I’m just sharing my opinion about the contenders,” Ricchiazzi told Power Play. Chan’s campaign blasted a story on the site linking the Chinese American immigrant to the Chinese government’s influence. “These are dirty and racist tactics. Whoever is paying for this is a coward and is furthering anti-Asian hate for personal and political gain. It’s despicable,” said Julie Edwards , Chan’s spokesperson. Federal campaign filings do not show payments to Ricchiazzi connected to the race, but Chakrabarti may have a friendly relationship with the tribe that paid Ricchiazzi, according to a 2025 social media post . His campaign denied any relationship with Ricchiazzi. If there’s one good thing to say about the website, it’s packed with ads promoting local businesses — including our favorite Hook Fish Co. and City Lights Bookstore. — Han Li KUMBAYA: Four years ago, Supervisor Shamann Walton was scrutinized for dressing down a sheriff’s cadet who was serving as City Hall security. Walton called the cadet the N-word and later accused staffers of the Sheriff’s Department of targeting him for his scrutiny of the office. Recriminations followed, alongside hurt feelings and a lot of fear . Breed called on Walton to apologize. My, how things have changed. At the Board of Supervisors’ regular meeting Tuesday, Walton led a round of praise for the sheriff’s cadets, who, importantly, are not sheriffs in training; it’s just a classification of an unarmed segment of the sheriff’s staff. It was a wonder to see. Led by Walton, nearly every supervisor heaped kind words upon the cadets — who stood by a podium at the Board of Supervisors chambers, beaming — for their demeanor and professionalism. So, what gives? Are we all friends now? That’s right, Sheriff Paul Miyamoto told us outside the chambers. The relationship has “had its ups and downs,” Miyamoto admitted, but Walton “actually reached out and wanted to recognize the cadets for the work they do. I think it was intentional to make sure they feel appreciated.” “Everything else,” the sheriff said, “is water under the bridge.” — J. F. R.

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

The Behavioral Health Commission advises on mental health policy implementation and quality service delivery. It reviews and advocates for effective mental health services, ensuring policies meet community needs. It educates stakeholders to integrate mental health considerations into broader health strategies.

Behavioral Health Commission