Post-Swalwell Democrats push for consensus. Plus: Was London Breed passed over for job?

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 . In late February, the California Democratic Party wound itself into knots deciding which of the eight leading candidates to endorse in the gubernatorial contest. Now, with disgraced ex-congressman Eric Swalwell very much out of the race, efforts are percolating to reconvene the Dems for one last go-round at an endorsement vote. California Democratic Party executive committee member Christine Pelosi told Power Play she was approached by a “variety of campaigns” in the hopes she’d give her Jane Hancock to a petition demanding a new vote. She declined. The petition pushers’ logic goes like this: With Democrats across the state and country united behind removing Swalwell from political life, can’t state Dems harness that same unity to coalesce behind a candidate for the primary? Especially as the split-seven-ways ticket risks allowing a Republican like Fox News host Steve Hilton the opportunity to reach the governor’s office. California Democratic Party chair Rusty Hicks declined to comment on any overtures being made by people inside the party. Pelosi isn’t convinced. “ There’s a difference between indicating that we have to stand with survivors and then turning that into saying we’re going to coalesce around a particular person,” she said. “I just don’t see that happening.” The Democratic Party’s roughly 400-person executive board meets three times a year, and it would take the vote of 100 members and three statewide officers to convene a meeting, according to party bylaws. Pelosi said that’s a long shot. (The next meeting isn’t scheduled yet but will take place after the June primary.) And while Swalwell received the most support during February’s party convention, it was only 24%. Even if all that backing transferred to the next runner-up, Betty Yee, who netted 17%, that’s leagues away from the 60% threshold needed for an endorsement. “Frankly,” Pelosi said, “I don’t think there’s a consensus candidate right now. — Joe Fitzgerald Rodriguez Got tips? Send to us at powerplay@sfstandard.com . SCHAAFTED: The Bay Area Council, which lobbies for policies embraced by the business community, is celebrating the appointment of two-term Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf as president and CEO . But Power Play has learned that another familiar political player was under consideration: London Breed . Sources with knowledge of the Bay Area Council’s outreach confirmed that the former San Francisco mayor was approached about the position, though she apparently declined to apply. It’s unclear how Breed’s candidacy would’ve impacted Schaaf’s chances of leading an organization known for promoting denser housing and robust transit funding. Both former mayors made these issues top priorities of their administrations. The council itself was mum on whether it actively recruited Breed, with spokesperson Rufus Jeffris saying, “The recruitment process was confidential.” Breed declined to comment. If you, dear reader, heard any other interesting names that were in the mix, we’re all ears . — J.F.R. DEM WORRIES : Workers at the Department of Emergency Management are raising concerns about the city’s public-safety staff in light of a handful of layoffs at the agency. DEM, which coordinates the response to emergencies like blackouts or tsunami warnings, was not spared in the 127 layoffs Mayor Daniel Lurie announced April 6. Cuts at the DEM include a watch center position, an important job for keeping city officials informed of emergencies and sending alerts when something bad is going down. The watch center staff has some overlapping responsibilities with 911 dispatch and on-call agency employees, according to DEM. Two staffers from DEM’s Division of Emergency Services — the division coordinator and the assistant deputy director — also got axed. In total, the department saw six layoffs. Current and former employees said that while the layoffs don’t gut the city’s public-safety response, they do put a strain on the staff. The watch center, for instance, was in touch with Pacific Gas & Electric during the December blackouts, relaying information to the mayor and Board of Supervisors about the effects of the outage and the estimated time of power restoration. The team also helps on big events, like when the business summit APEC comes to town or for the forthcoming FIFA World Cup events. Are you a City Hall employee? We want to hear from you. Email powerplay@sfstandard.com to get in touch. “It’s a risk to the public,” said one former employee. “With short staffing, you’re wondering how this is going to impact long-term operations.” DEM spokesperson Jackie Thornhill said, “Our proposed budget protects DEM’s core operational services, preserving emergency preparedness and response by consolidating administrative functions, eliminating redundancies, and prioritizing operational coordination.” — Gabe Greschler NEW CHAPTER : One of the loudest parent voices in the San Francisco Unified School District is putting down the bullhorn. Meredith Dodson is stepping down from her executive role at SF Parents, the organization she founded, though she will remain active in the group’s political arm, SF Parents Action, which handles endorsements . “Six years in, and I’m more hopeful about SF Parents than ever,” Dodson said. “I’m moving into a deeper focus on our political and elections work.” Dodson confirmed she is not running for the school board and said she wants to spend more time with her family. Dodson launched SF Parents during the pandemic amid widespread frustration with SFUSD’s remote learning policy. The group went on to play a key role in supporting the 2022 school board recall and is now a major moderate force in SFUSD politics, often countering the progressive views of the United Educators of San Francisco, the city’s powerful teachers union . SF Parents is beginning a search for a new executive director. It operates with an annual budget of about $1 million, backed by major donors that include Crankstart, the foundation of Michael Moritz , chairman of The Standard. — Han Li

To protect and prosecute: The tough-love doctrine of Brooke Jenkins

City to bail out ailing San Francisco Zoo with  up to $8.5 million loan

The struggling San Francisco Zoo may soon receive a financial lifeline from the city, as a new report warns that alternatives — including shutting the zoo permanently — could cost far more than keeping it afloat under the current nonprofit operator. Supervisor Myrna Melgar, who represents the southwestern neighborhoods where the zoo is located, asked the Board of Supervisors’ budget analysts to study the potential costs of three scenarios: the city taking over the zoo’s operations, finding a new nonprofit operator, or closing it down. The report , which was obtained exclusively by The Standard, concluded that each of the options would cost tens of millions of dollars. Given that finding, Melgar, working with Mayor Daniel Lurie and zoo leaders, is introducing legislation to provide the zoo with a $8.5 million loan as a turnaround fund to help stabilize and rebuild. The figure is based on the zoo’s internal strategic plan; few details were disclosed on how it was calculated. “I don’t think we have a choice,” Melgar said. “People don’t realize these animals and this land belong to the city. If the zoo operator no longer exists, it becomes our responsibility to feed the animals three times a day.” The zoo, which is operated by the nonprofit San Francisco Zoological Society, reported a $6.4 million loss in fiscal year 2025 on an annual operating budget of about $30 million, according to officials. Zoo attendance in 2025 was about 700,000, according to a financial report, down 40% from 2019 . The Board of Supervisors ordered an audit of the zoo in late 2024 ; the findings will be released in a few weeks. The $8.5 million loan — $6.5 million guaranteed in the next few fiscal years, with an additional $2 million tied to performance — would support financial stabilization, operational improvements, and efforts to rebuild confidence among donors and visitors. The loan would be repaid through reductions in the city’s annual funding to the zoo. The zoo has had a tumultuous few years , including mismanagement scandals involving former CEO Tanya Peterson and a high-profile, unresolved deal to borrow a pair of giant pandas from China. Though rumors persist that the panda deal has been nixed, zoo sources have told The Standard that the effort continues, and the facility is trying to raise the estimated $8 million needed for new habitats. Melgar, Supervisor Connie Chan, and City Administrator Carmen Chu met Tuesday with a delegation from the Chinese Consulate for a briefing on the loan plan, a sign that the city officials are confident in their ability to support the zoo and move forward with the panda project. Melgar said the Chinese government remains committed to the panda plans. Lurie is scheduled to travel to China this month. The proposed loan is separate from the efforts to secure the pandas and would not directly support that project, according to Melgar. Cassandra Costello, who took over this year as zoo CEO, said she has moved quickly to develop a turnaround plan for the money-losing attraction. “This bridge loan is one piece of a much larger story: new leadership, a clear strategic direction, and a team that is deeply committed to the animals in our care and the community we serve,” she said. The price of closing Melgar acknowledged that the timing of the loan is difficult, with the city implementing hundreds of layoffs amid a $800 million budget deficit, but she argued that inaction would be even more costly. If the San Francisco Zoological Society were to cease operations, the city would have to assume responsibility, because it owns both the land and the animals. This would cost the city $109 million over three years, offset by $45 million in revenue. If the zoo were to close altogether, San Francisco would spend about $45 million over three years to relocate animals and maintain the site, without any revenue to offset costs. The third scenario, recruiting a new operator, would cost about $42 million, analysts estimated. Expenses include ongoing animal care and essential staffing during the transition. Relocating animals alone could cost up to $1.2 million, with uncertainty for species that are difficult to place. The city would also face legal, human resources, and administrative costs tied to layoffs and logistics. Even after a closure, there would be costs to secure and maintain the property. The report’s bottom line: Shutting down the zoo would not save money and would leave the city with significant long-term financial obligations. Melgar’s legislation will go through the board’s budget committee before heading to the full board for a majority vote.

Heated district race shows the lengths — and limits — of Lurie’s big-money network

Supervisor Stephen Sherrill has been appointed by one mayor and received the endorsement of another. He’s an incumbent with more than a year of experience inside City Hall. And he’s got four PACs — four — supporting him, with a combined $1 million in the bank, making him perhaps the most lavishly funded candidate in board history. So why does Cow Hollow neighborhood organizer Lori Brooke think she has a shot at toppling Sherrill in the June contest for District 2? “I am absolutely grassroots, bottom-up perspective,” Brooke said over coffee at Rose’s Cafe on Union Street. “And City Hall does not always have that, and Stephen doesn’t have that.” The race for District 2, which covers posh enclaves like the Marina, Presidio Heights, and Cow Hollow, is shaping up to be a true David-versus-Goliath fight. It doesn’t necessarily carry the same political implications as, say, the election in District 4 — where the outcome could tilt the ideological scales of the moderate-majority Board of Supervisors — but it will say much about whether money can sway hearts and minds in a wealthy and traditionally conservative corner of the city. The truth is, Sherrill and Brooke aren’t terribly dissimilar — they both hold moderate views on issues like public safety and homelessness, positions that aren’t going to ruffle feathers in their district. This race is all about housing: an incumbent who leans urbanist and is open to more development in the district versus a challenger who is intensely skeptical of its impact on affordability. The production of residential development in the city remains slow, and even if Brooke is victorious, recent state laws have reduced local officials’ ability to stop projects from being built. That doesn’t mean the NIMBYs can’t try to flex their muscles: A Brooke-founded group helped sue the city in January over its state-mandated housing plan. Sherrill, 39, entered office after being appointed in December 2024 by former Mayor London Breed , succeeding Catherine Stefani, who was elected to the Assembly. Early in his career, he interned in the George W. Bush administration and later worked in the office of former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. He registered as a Democrat in 2023. Formerly director of the Mayor’s Office of Innovation, a Bloomberg Philanthropies project, Sherrill has been a close ally of Mayor Daniel Lurie, supporting his Family Zoning Plan and calls for more cops and for loosening the city’s bureaucracy. During a recent afternoon door-knocking session in Anza Vista, Sherrill was asked by constituents about the traffic impacts from the incoming T&T Supermarket at the shopping center at Geary and Masonic and the never-ending drama surrounding the San Francisco Unified School District (which the Board of Supervisors does not oversee). He was quick to mention his endorsement from Lurie and pressed hard on making the neighborhood safer and more welcoming to families. He didn’t mention his support for housing at the top of the conversation, only once he’d established a connection. In interviews with The Standard, however, he did not shy away from his stance that San Francisco has a housing shortage. He said he is “very proud” of his vote on Lurie’s upzoning plan, a response to state-mandated requirements to rezone large swaths of the city to encourage more housing. While Sherrill faced some opposition from his constituents on the proposal, he argued that if the city did not adopt it, the state could impose severe penalties. “For all the people who may still disagree with the choice that I made to vote for the plan, which I‘m very proud of — they can’t say that I didn’t show up; they can’t say that I didn’t engage with them,” said Sherrill. “They can’t say that I didn’t listen to them. I may not have done what they wanted. Listening doesn’t mean doing what people want.” Sherrill’s housing views were tested late last year, when Align Real Estate released plans for a 25-story development complex at the Marina Safeway. The supervisor called the design “outrageous” and “cartoonish.” He said residents were blindsided by Align’s proposal, and the project could stymie additional construction. “If we do things that erode trust with residents, it makes it harder to do all the other things that mean progress,” he said. Sherrill’s campaign, headquartered at a cavernous office on Union Street, has raised $396,000 for both the June election, which will allow him to fill out the term of his predecessor, Stefani, and a follow-up in November, when a new four-year term would commence. But that’s just a part of the moneyed machine behind him. Lurie’s well-heeled donor base created an independent expenditure committee in support of Sherrill and District 4 incumbent Alan Wong called “ SF Believes ,” which has raised an eye-popping $802,000. The PAC was cofounded by financier Alec Perkins, who also set up the pro-Lurie PAC that helped the mayor zoom to victory in 2024 with a cool $6.6 million. There’s another pro-Sherrill PAC backed by GrowSF, which has raised $252,000 toward its $500,000 goal , as well as one linked to the consulting firm BMWL, which has raised $26,000. A fourth, set up by a handful of unions, is still collecting donations. It’s a tremendous amount of money for an off-season district race, and far more support than any supervisor had in support or opposition in 2024. It is likely the largest number of PACs to ever support a Board of Supervisors member. Brooke, 62, has zero PACs. But she is embracing the uphill battle and thinks Sherrill’s PAC money can go only so far. “What we‘re up against is a money juggernaut,” she said. “But there’s a point of diminishing returns in a district race.” A longtime neighborhood activist, Brooke has been president of the Cow Hollow Association’s leadership for nearly two decades and in 2023 cofounded Neighborhoods United SF, which has been fiercely critical of the state’s efforts to force cities to build more housing. She has raised $160,000 for the June race, just opened an account for a November sequel, and has formed a campaign team with links to former Supervisor Aaron Peskin and the recall campaign of ousted Supervisor Joel Engardio. Her office, located on Lombard Street, is maybe a fifth of the size of Sherrill’s. She contends that the Family Zoning Plan is driven by a false narrative — that building more will drive down prices — and winces at the term “housing crisis,” instead calling it an “affordability crisis.” Even though the city was required to comply with the state’s housing requirements, the board members, she said, didn’t offer sufficient opposition. “Even if legally they had to do something, you can at least go kicking and fighting,” she said. “Instead, they rolled over like a Labrador, let them rub the belly.” While door-knocking last month in Cow Hollow, she came across residents who were disturbed at the idea of more development in the area. She admitted to potential constituents that she and Sherrill aren’t all that different, but that their big red line is on housing. (Brooke is also against Lurie’s proposed parcel tax to fund Muni, which Sherrill supports. “The voters in D2 do not want that,” she said. “They do not want more taxing.”) While meeting her neighbors, she got a few excited about her views, especially when she mentioned that her opponent was appointed by Breed; some residents frowned when they heard the former mayor’s name. She sees herself as the outsider, going up against a supervisor who hasn’t been knee-deep in the community like she has. “He comes from Bush, Bloomberg,” Brooke said about Sherrill. “His motivation and where he cut his teeth is at the administrative level. I cut my teeth at street level.”

City layoffs begin: Lurie hands out 127 pink slips

Facing a mounting budget deficit, Mayor Daniel Lurie on Monday sent out 127 layoff notices to city employees across 18 departments, The Standard has learned. The layoff notices — in the city administrator’s office, Department of Public Health, San Francisco Police Department, Office of Economic and Workforce Development, Human Services Agency, and other departments — are the first phase in a larger set of cuts by Lurie. A complete list of departments affected was not immediately available. The mayor said he intends to eliminate 500 positions across the city. The second phase of layoffs could come around the time he releases his proposed budget, at the end of May or early June. Additionally, the mayor’s office has frozen about 2,000 vacant positions. The layoffs come as the city reckons with a $643 million budget deficit over the next two years. City officials have blamed the fiscal issues primarily on President Donald Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill, which gutted local coffers of healthcare funding. In December, the mayor announced $400 million in budget cuts , with $100 million from personnel reductions. “Facing a budget deficit that will rise to $1 billion, alongside significant cuts in federal and state funding, we have a choice: take action now or be forced to do twice as much in the coming years,” Lurie said in a statement. “The steps we’re taking today are a painful but necessary continuation of the work we’ve been doing since last year to manage taxpayer dollars responsibly and deliver the best possible services for San Franciscans. That work will continue as we prepare a responsible budget that sets up our city for a broad and durable economic recovery.” Lurie’s strategy differs from the less aggressive approach he took to staff eliminations last year. In 2025, Lurie announced around 150 layoffs, but those were eventually reduced to around 40 workers losing their jobs after negotiations with members of the Board of Supervisors as the budget wrapped up in the summer. This time, layoffs are happening earlier in the year to save the city more money down the road, according to the mayor’s office. Are you a City Hall worker? We want to hear from you. Email powerplay@sfstandard.com to get in touch. Still, this year’s reductions represent a small slice of the city’s workforce of about 34,000. If all 500 employee cuts are implemented, it will represent a 1.5% reduction of the city workforce. The announcement Monday drew strong condemnation from the city’s public-sector unions, SEIU 1021 and IFPTE Local 21. The unions are trying to fend off employee cuts through their Overpaid CEO Tax measure on the June 2 ballot, which labor says could raise around $200 million for the city’s general fund. Monday’s layoffs are likely to increase animosity between the mayor and labor, which fiercely protested last year’s employee cuts. One labor leader was arrested last summer in the Board of Supervisors’ chambers. “What we know so far is that the cuts are drastic and are going to be felt in every corner of San Francisco,” a joint statement from the two unions stated. “City workers are deeply concerned that these cuts will further strain already understaffed departments that keep San Francisco clean, safe, and livable.” Supervisor Connie Chan, who is the chair of the board’s budget committees, said cutting vacant positions should be a priority. “I expect the mayor and his budget team to continue their conversations with labor leaders and to ensure we do not balance the city budget on the backs of our workers and sacrificing critical city services,” said Chan. In March, the controller’s office released a rosier outlook on the city’s budget deficit, reducing the shortfall from $936 million. The better fiscal outlook was attributed to a decrease in retirement fund payments and better-than-expected hotel and sales tax revenue.

San Rafael’s city manager is out. Controversial homeless shelter may have pushed her

A plan to build 65 tiny cabins for homeless residents of San Rafael has torn the community apart, spawned lawsuits, rattled city leadership — and, The Standard has learned, may have driven out the city manager. Cristine Alilovich, who resigned as city manager in February, and other San Rafael officials began discussing acquiring the property in closed session as early as March 2025 but did not publicly disclose their intentions for the site. Plans to use the site for homeless housing were not announced until October, after negotiations to buy the property from a private seller were complete. The lack of transparency angered residents of Marin County’s largest city, who attended public meetings en masse and formed an ad-hoc group called Marin Citizens for Solutions Not Secrecy. The group accused the city of violating California’s open-meeting law, the Brown Act, and sent a cease-and-desist letter through an attorney. The Marin Independent Journal published an op-ed criticizing the city for its lack of transparency. Despite fierce public opposition at a town hall meeting in November, the City Council voted unanimously to move forward with the project and approved the $7 million property purchase, funded in part by county housing dollars. Construction of the cabins is expected to cost $1 million. A January performance review of Alilovich, obtained through a public records request, paints a picture of concern within city government over how the project was handled. The tiny house project, planned for Merrydale Road, was a “symbol of chaos,” according to the report from consultant Daniel Keen, which was drawn from interviews with a dozen senior city staffers, who described rushed timelines, mounting legal and financial risks, and crumbling morale. Public agendas and minutes show the City Council met for two hours in a special Feb. 9 closed session to discuss Alilovich‘s performance. She took a two-week leave of absence the following day and ultimately resigned, ending her 11-year tenure working for the city. Her departure, announced in a joint statement with the city, said they had “mutually decided to part ways.” She received a $471,832 severance package, equal to a year’s salary. She has since been named interim city manager in Sonoma. The performance review shows that senior city staffers — including the community and economic development director, finance director, fire and police chiefs, public works director, and human resources director — frequently referenced the project in raising concerns about Alilovich’s performance. Even interviewees who gave positive feedback on Alilovich cited her work on the project as “problematic.” Staff described a rushed process with insufficient planning, limited public outreach, and unclear financial and operational implications, according to the report. “There were frequent references to ‘chaos,’ ‘a tornado,’ and ‘Tasmanian-devil energy,’” Keen wrote. “That project is the definition of a fire drill,” one city staffer said in the report. In February, the city hired Swinerton Management & Consulting to erect 65 temporary small cabins for up to 70 people as soon as this spring. After three or four years, a city-contracted housing developer will build permanent affordable housing on the site. It was framed as an urgent response to Marin County’s housing and homelessness crises, but the effort has rapidly become a flashpoint as San Rafael wrestles with its first effort to build a shelter in a residential neighborhood. San Rafael accounts for 30% of Marin’s unhoused population, with 326 individuals counted in 2024 — the most recent data available. Supporters say the 350 Merrydale project would reduce the number of encampments, such as a persistent site on Andersen Drive. Crime at these encampments, like last month’s fatal stabbing of a 28-year-old homeless woman, has residents worried. The Merrydale site will follow a “housing-first” model that does not require sobriety or treatment as a condition of entry — a policy tied to the city’s declaration last year of a shelter crisis. “Tackling the homelessness crisis is something that needs a sense of urgency so, in some respects, I can understand the feedback,” Alilovich told The Standard. “A lot of people worked really hard under intense deadlines and exceptional circumstances to help move that project forward, so things were definitely hectic at times. I’m grateful to have led that team during the time I was city manager and wish my colleagues and the project nothing but the best.” Alilovich declined to provide a reason for her resignation. The performance review, which was heavily redacted, states that “staff repeatedly said that Merrydale was not fully discussed with the director team early, and they lacked a shared understanding of the scope, risks and constraints of the property and project.” Another portion says that “many interviewees said key departments were brought in late to discussions of the project, after major decisions (i.e., acquisition of land) or public commitments were already underway.” Despite city leaders expressing concerns about the project, elected officials have emphasized the need for speed. “The sooner we can open it, the better,” Vice Mayor Rachel Kertz told the Marin Independent Journal last week. San Rafael Mayor Kate Colin and City Council members did not respond to requests for comment.

‘Knife fight’ politics take a mental health toll on SF leaders

Janice Li was riding high in November 2018, freshly elected to the BART board of directors after years of advocacy work for safer streets at the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition. Her victory was decisive, with a 12-point win over her nearest rival. She had earned the right to celebrate. But Li couldn’t bring herself to leave her apartment. The following weeks were marred by panic attacks and anxiety. “There’s no feeling quite like being in elected office and the loneliness that you face,” Li said. Local officials are opening up about how holding office has affected their mental health after Supervisor Jackie Fielder checked into a hospital amid a mental health crisis that led her to publicly consider resignation. Her tenure on the Board of Supervisors has been brief but intense. For just over a year, Fielder has represented a heavily Latino community amid Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids, dealt with a drug crisis that has moved into the heart of her district, and weathered a recent investigation into the leak of a confidential memo that has put her office in the city attorney’s sights. San Francisco politics are often described as a “knife fight in a phone booth,” a phrase coined by David Chiu, now the city attorney. The city’s unique brutality has for decades sharpened politicians — from the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein to Gov. Gavin Newsom — preparing them for higher office. But some say there’s a painful personal cost to San Francisco’s unrelenting gladiatorial politics. It bloodies as many people as it hones. Li has for years spoken frankly about her mental health struggles, while the stigma has held others back. Women, people of color, and queer politicians can face more scrutiny, Li said, especially when they’re young and new to office. But she was determined to not let the pressure end her career. She found solace in a tight-knit friend group of early-career LGBTQ+ Asian politicos, including Board of Education Commissioner Phil Kim and Entertainment Commission member Cyn Wang. That support, therapy, and Li’s own acumen bolstered her continued success on the BART board, where she has served as vice president and president. Now Li reaches out to freshman politicians to ensure that they too enjoy peer support; among them is Ruth Ferguson, 31, whom Mayor Daniel Lurie appointed in January to the City College of San Francisco board of trustees. Ferguson weathered harassment working in the state Legislature in the 2020s, which she reported in formal complaints and called out publicly. But it left her with diagnosed PTSD, which has flared in the San Francisco political fray. In a city proud of its self-described acceptance of people of all backgrounds, and at a time of unprecedented awareness of social inequities, Ferguson experienced even more vitriol, particularly against herself and other women. There’s the everyday condescension, and then there’s the rage. Last month, a local political gadfly wrote to her in a Facebook message calling her a “skank bitch” for backing a ballot measure to institute stricter Board of Supervisors term limits. Comments on Fielder’s mental health crisis and leave from office took a similar disturbing tone. Online trolls accused her of hiding a sexually transmitted disease, and more. “I don’t think it needs to be this way,” Ferguson said. Rigel Robinson was elected to the Berkeley City Council in 2018 and soon faced a similar kind of hate. He was stalked, threatened, and harassed over his support for a housing development near People’s Park. The pressure led him to resign in 2024. He’s now a consultant for the Bay Area Council, working remotely from Paris, where his wife pursues her dream career as a bioengineer. “I treasured my time in elected office and am deeply proud of the work I got done for my city,” he said by text message. “But I am also proud to have left when I did.” Former San Francisco Supervisor Jane Kim, who is running to be state insurance commissioner, said she has seen the city’s hard-knuckle politics drum out good public servants, especially young women. Even the regular practice of updating constituents via social media can make you feel exposed, Kim said. “Whenever I’ve run for office, whenever I’ve been in office, the sensation is you feel raw all the time, like all your skin is peeled off, so the wind is just blowing into your body without any form of protection,” she said. Running a campaign for statewide office is not nearly as stressful as a local race in San Francisco, Kim said, where politicians have far more face time with opponents and critics. San Francisco’s dense, 7x7-mile peninsula means running into opponents three times a night and having lobbyists accost you at restaurants. There’s no escape. Two years after leaving San Francisco public office in 2019, Kim had bloodwork done. Every metric showed that she was far healthier than she had been in years. “Clearly, my body kept receipts,” she said.

Ex-Human Rights Commission head charged in corruption probe; Breed not implicated

San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins announced charges Monday against Sheryl Davis, former executive director of the city’s Human Rights Commission, and James Spingola, former head of the nonprofit Collective Impact, alleging that they misused roughly $350,000 in public funds intended for the Black community. Davis faces 19 criminal counts, including felony misappropriation of public funds and felony perjury by certification. Spingola, who exited Collective Impact in October, is being charged with four counts of felony aiding and abetting a conflict of interest in a government contract. The two lived together as Davis was directing grants to Spingola’s nonprofit. “We have to make sure that we hold everything accountable. Each and every day we file cases involving street crime, but people have to understand that accountability goes beyond what happens on the streets,” Jenkins said Monday, adding that the investigation is ongoing. Davis and Spingola surrendered voluntarily and were booked into San Francisco County Jail, Jenkins said. The charges — a result of an 18-month-long investigation — stem from the Dream Keeper Initiative, a program launched under former Mayor London Breed to funnel money into Black communities, which was managed by the Human Rights Commission. Prosecutors allege Davis steered nearly $8.5 million in Dream Keeper grants — and other city funds — to Collective Impact despite conflicts of interest that should have disqualified her from the decision-making process. Collective Impact and Spingola received more than $3 million in additional funds through the city’s Office of Economic and Workforce Development, prosecutors said. Prosecutors allege Davis had two direct conflicts of interest. First, according to the warrant affidavit, Davis and Spingola have lived together since 2015, share accounts at two banks, and have traveled together, paying for each other’s flights and hotel stays. Spingola wrote monthly rent checks to their landlord from the bank account where his Collective Impact paycheck was deposited, according to prosecutors. “We are not alleging that they even had an intimate relationship,” Jenkins said, adding that the conflict-of-interest charges rest on the entanglement of their finances, not on any theory of a romantic relationship. The second conflict relates to Davis’ continued financial involvement with Collective Impact after joining the Human Rights Commission. Prosecutors allege she remained a signatory on Collective Impact’s bank account, signed checks, authorized reimbursements to herself and used Collective Impact funds to pay Human Rights Commission expenses. Jenkins also alleges that Davis’ son received direct financial benefits from organizations that received Dream Keeper money. Prosecutors say Davis signed four contracts awarding millions of dollars to the nonprofit Homeless Children’s Network while the organization was simultaneously paying her son more than $140,000 as an independent contractor between October 2021 and 2024. Those payments were deposited into a bank account held jointly by Davis and her son, according to the warrant affidavit. Among the payments, prosecutors allege, he received $10,000 for helping the director of Homeless Children’s Network prepare five presentation slides for a panel on which Davis served as moderator and $40,000 for a two-month research project for which he was permitted to determine the scope of his own work. Collective Impact also spent more than $45,000 on behalf of Davis’ son in 2023 and 2024, on payroll, rent, and graduate school tuition, prosecutors said. Jenkins alleged Davis used a combination of city and Collective Impact funds to pay for personal projects, including hiring public relations firms to promote her personal brand and website, promoting and selling her children’s book, and upgrading flights. Prosecutors allege funds were used to purchase tables and VIP admissions to events in Beverly Hills, Martha’s Vineyard, and New York City, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. Davis also directed spending through an entity called Megablack, described by Jenkins as a community initiative with no formal nonprofit status, no leadership structure, and no registration with the California secretary of state or attorney general’s office. Funds raised for Megablack flowed into Collective Impact’s bank accounts. Prosecutors allege Davis directed those funds toward expenses the Human Rights Commission would not have been permitted to make as a city agency, including payments for music artists, banquets, and a wine-tasting event. Davis’ attorney Tony Brass said she has been forthcoming about her role as a city official with nonprofit connections. “I have a lot of questions about the processes within the mayor’s office and the city attorney’s office,” Brass said. “This is a person who was asking for more transparency. She asked to be audited. She actively wanted to give up her power. And she has proactively announced her conflicts of interest. I’m very curious how they have a criminal case based on her conduct.” Representatives of the Human Rights Commission declined to comment. Davis joined the commission in 2016 and quickly became an important figure in the city’s efforts to economically bolster Black communities. Her role became more prominent in 2021, when Breed launched the Dream Keeper Initiative in response to George Floyd’s murder and placed it under the management of the Human Rights Commission. Davis’ tenure there ended in 2024, when The Standard was first to report that she had signed off on city contracts worth at least $1.5 million to Spingola while the two were living together. The revelations created a scandal for Breed, who was in the middle of a reelection bid and said she was aware of the “very close” relationship between Davis and Spingola. The district attorney’s office cited The Standard’s reporting in its arrest warrant. Jenkins said the $350,000 of misused funds represents a combination of misappropriated Dream Keeper Initiative funds and Proposition Q funds administered through Davis’ department. Proposition Q allows city departments to bypass the need for a contract for the purchase of goods under $10,000. Jenkins acknowledged the total could grow as the investigation continues. Jenkins said the investigation involved more than 50 search warrants served on various entities, along with a large volume of emails between Davis and third parties. She said the probe began after her office received tips through its Public Integrity Unit and determined there was sufficient basis to open a criminal investigation. The investigation was launched after Davis had left office. Jenkins declined to say whether Breed had knowledge of the alleged misconduct, noting only that charges were filed against individuals whom prosecutors believe committed crimes. She did not implicate Breed. “If more comes out, those charges can be changed,” Jenkins said. “More can be added.” “We have to hold government actors accountable,” Jenkins added, “certainly when they are abusing the trust of San Franciscans and abusing taxpayer dollars.” Monday’s arrest follows other charges levied against figures in the San Francisco nonprofit world. Gwendolyn Westbrook , the former head of a homeless services nonprofit, was accused in February of misappropriating more than $1.2 million in public funds. In 2024, another former nonprofit executive, Kyra Worthy, was charged with 34 felonies for the alleged misuse of $700,000 in public funds.

Donald Trump can’t quit San Francisco

President Donald Trump has San Francisco in his sights again, and maybe Bill O’Reilly had something to do with it. In a meeting with his Cabinet on Thursday, Trump suggested that a federal intervention in San Francisco was again on the table, pointing to what he said are the city’s ongoing struggles with crime and drug abuse. “San Francisco — a great city, was a great city — could quickly become a great city again,” Trump said in a rambling comment. “But, you know, they’re going very slowly. “They have tremendous, tremendous potential. It was one of the greatest cities in the world. Now it’s got a lot of crime. And the mayor’s really trying. Again, a Democrat trying. And I spoke to him. He just wants to have a chance. And I said, ‘We’ll give you a chance, but we can solve it very quickly.’” Trump’s comments came hours before Bill O’Reilly, the former Fox News host, released a NewsNation prime-time special titled “The Decline and Fall of San Francisco,” dredging up a milieu of drugs, homelessness, and neglect. “One of the worst places in America,” O’Reilly said as he toured a Tenderloin street. “A legion of drug addicts, mentally ill, miscreants, thieves roaming the city. Nobody does anything about it.” O’Reilly’s special was heavily promoted in the days before broadcast, suggesting that the show might have reminded Trump that no city rattles conservative brains as much as the home of Gov. Gavin Newsom and Rep. Nancy Pelosi. Indeed, Fox News and its ilk have found San Francisco an irresistible target since 2023, when they gleefully showcased the city’s descent into a “doom loop” of homelessness, drug addiction, and street crime. Despite visible recent progress in addressing these problems — street tents and structures decreased to 155 in February from nearly 400 in February 2024 — the insinuations of the city’s decline continue. In February, conservative YouTuber Nick Shirley came to town, hoping to root out fraud or corruption. He also visited the Tenderloin. Political experts say there are reasons the anti-SF messaging won’t go away. “This is part of a campaign to undermine Gavin Newsom,” said Democratic consultant Jim Ross. “Look what they did on the fraud stuff with [Gov. Tim Walz] in Minnesota. They think that formula worked.” In the outrage after Shirley’s videos in Minnesota, Walz dropped out of his race for reelection. Matt Shupe, a Sacramento consultant for Republicans, said the timing is again right for putting SF in the spotlight with midterm elections coming up in November. “San Francisco is essentially the capital of the Democratic Party,” said Shupe. “It is a beautiful city. A magical place. It’s very special. But it also demonstrates the criminal mismanagement that pure Democratic Party rule has on one city.” The negative reports may seem repetitive, Shupe said, but that’s because they are effective. “It’s a good way to contrast [Democratic] talking points and anchor it in reality,” he said, noting that he was speaking as a consultant, not as a representative of the state Republican Party, which is one of his clients. Ross, however, isn’t sure the punches are landing on Newsom or other Democrats. “They’re still looking for the issue. I don’t think it’s popped up,” he said. “They’re still scrambling for their Somalian child-care story in California.” In a statement, Lurie underscored the progress made on his watch. “In San Francisco, crime is down 30%, encampments are at record lows, and our city is on the rise. Public safety is my No. 1 priority, and we are going to stay laser focused on keeping our streets safe and clean.”

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

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

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