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

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.

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.

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

Spending on SF ballot measures shatters this decade-long record

Got plans Wednesday evening? Join Standard reporters Hannah Wiley and Emily Shugerman at Manny’s from 6 to 7 p.m. for “Show Me the Money: The Hidden Finance Behind California’s Elections.” Purchase tickets here . When the San Francisco Board of Supervisors banned flavored tobacco in 2017, the cigarette industry responded in turn, pouring a whopping $12 million into a failed repeal of the city’s law during the June 2018 primary. When it comes to ballot measures during primary elections, all was quiet for about eight years … until now. The June primary will be the most expensive in at least a decade on a per-ballot measure basis: With only four propositions before voters, campaigns are raising an average of $3 million per measure, about $300,000 more than the pricey 2018 race, when there were eight. This year, donors have thrown down $12.2 million for ballot propositions, with the majority of that centered on dueling measures over the Overpaid CEO Tax: Measures C and D. The closely watched contest — with huge sums coming from labor and corporate interests — will have lasting political repercussions. A victory for Measure C, which would block the CEO tax and expand relief for small businesses, would signal that business-friendly politics still hold sway in San Francisco and that voters trust the city’s economic recovery over new corporate taxes. A win for Measure D, the Overpaid CEO Act, would suggest a growing populist appetite that could embolden labor and put the city’s moderate majority on notice. The competing measures have been seeing a last-minute surge of donations over the last week. Measure C has raised $200,000 from Meta, while Measure D has raised $500,000 from congressional candidate Saikat Chakrabarti , $400,000 from SEIU Local 1021, and $385,000 from IFPTE Local 21. And it’s not just C and D that are causing totals to soar: Prop. A, a $535 million bond for earthquake safety, has secured $2 million in donations from the likes of crypto billionaire Chris Larsen , DoorDash, and Reddit CEO Steven Huffman . That puts it in roughly a tie with the March 2024 police staffing proposition (which failed) for the fourth-most-expensive primary ballot measure in a decade. Still, 2018 was one for the record books, with $22 million raised on measures. San Francisco State politics professor Jason McDaniel said the spending this cycle is due to a variety of factors that make it hard to draw any specific conclusion, but there are some notable takeaways. He said moderate groups like GrowSF , which emerged during the pandemic, have had several years to refine their fundraising strategies and are now far more effective at raising money for their causes. He also noted that several of the candidates and measures on the June 2 ballot are directly tied to Mayor Daniel Lurie ’s vision for the city, including its economic recovery. It’s no secret that Lurie’s friends have some serious dough . And, similar to certain statewide races , C and D have reignited the war between Big Tech and Big Labor. That’s when voters really see “an increase in spending,” McDaniel said. Tech companies in years past would typically get involved in political issues tied directly to their industry, McDaniel said. But frustration with progressive politics in San Francisco and other cities has pushed the companies to get more involved in races that aren’t directly tied to tech. “Our current era of more tech-inspired spending is about a more broad-based agenda, not about promoting their industry per se,” he said. “It’s more of a competing vision of the city.” — Gabriel Greschler and Hannah Wiley Got tips? Send them to us at powerplay@sfstandard.com . WHAT ABOUT ME?: A potential early endorsement from a prominent group has upset a major candidate in the District 8 supervisor race. The seat, representing the Castro, has long been viewed as the LGBTQ+ political stronghold. The moderate-leaning Alice B. Toklas LGBTQ Democratic Club is moving to exclusively endorse healthcare advocate Gary McCoy in the November 2026 race, with a club membership vote scheduled for June, prompting pushback from former SFMTA commissioner and small-business owner Manny Yekutiel . At a club meeting Tuesday night, when members voted to move forward with the endorsement process, Yekutiel handed out flyers calling the process undemocratic, unnecessary, and insider-y because other candidates were ignored. The campaign added that it simply wants a fair shot in the process and will continue working to earn the club’s support. However, Alice club cochair Jane Natoli praised McCoy’s deep commitment to the club, for which he has also been a co-chair. “He’s someone who has been there for a long time,” Natoli said. Sources told Power Play that the club’s leadership has internal disagreement over the early endorsement, but McCoy’s supporters appear to have enough of a supermajority to advance it. And it’s widely expected that McCoy will secure the sole endorsement. Another candidate, Democratic County Central Committee member Michael Nguyen , said he respects Alice’s decision. — Han Li POA-PILE ON: Mailer after mailer has hammered District 4 supervisor candidate Natalie Gee for her answer to a 2-year-old Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club candidate questionnaire, where she checked a box marked “yes” when asked if the Police Officers Association (the controversial union representing San Francisco’s rank-and-file cops) should be disbanded. We’ve seen six mailers hitting her on her views on public safety, including contributions to former District Attorney Chesa Boudin . Three of the mailers specifically reference her POA position. The race for the District 4 seat — representing the Sunset, one of the city’s most contested swing districts — has become one of the most expensive supervisor races of the cycle, a proxy battle between Lurie-aligned moderates and progressive-aligned challengers. It’s “disqualifying,” read the attack ads from the independent expenditure committee SF Believes, which supports Lurie’s appointee, incumbent Supervisor Alan Wong. Funny that. Because Wong also said the POA should be disbanded. Depending on the year, the POA has been everything from toxic political pariahs for defending officers involved in high-profile shootings, to haloed saviors when the electorate has larger public safety fears. When the group’s power ebbs, it flexes it in the political sphere. SF Believes, which is floating the ads, is a Lurie-aligned independent expenditure committee backed by financiers Adam Clammer and Alec Perkins and has spent roughly $486,000 in the race so far. (That’s a lot of mailers!) A Power Play tipster pointed us toward a 2020 Harvey Milk questionnaire Wong filled out during his race for the City College Board of Trustees, amid George Floyd-era protests, wherein Wong gave the same answer as Gee. So if Wong echoed Gee, are his remarks also “disqualifying?” SF Believes ain’t squawkin’. And the SF POA, which endorsed Wong, did not respond to a request for comment. But Frank Noto , a Wong supporter and president of Stop Crime Action, blasted the questionnaire for its age, saying it “does not reflect” Wong’s current views or record. “Since then, he has been clear and consistent on supporting public safety,” Noto said. For her part, Gee said Wong’s change in stance was in character for the supervisor. “They are trying to confuse voters and distract from the fact that the candidate they are propping up has changed his positions on everything from defunding the police to upzoning to supporting affordable housing,” she said. “I trust that voters in the Sunset are smart enough to look past absurd mailers full of lies and half-truths.” — Joe Fitzgerald Rodriguez

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.

Lurie to spend $34M to protect thousands of SF’s Medi-Cal recipients from Trump’s cuts

President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act may turn San Francisco’s healthcare system into one big beautiful mess. The new work requirements under the bill HR1 may result in 45,000 San Franciscans losing healthcare within two years, according to city estimates. Roughly 21,000 people may lose eligibility for CalFresh, the food stamp program. Mayor Daniel Lurie plans to leverage city coffers to fill in the gaps, even as he balances mounting pressure to prevent layoffs and maintain nonprofit grant funding amid a fiscal crisis. Lurie is allocating $34 million from the city’s federal funding reserve to keep people enrolled in the Medi-Cal and CalFresh programs, his office shared exclusively with The Standard. “Even though we have zero funding from the feds to do this, and zero funding from the state to do this, we are taking it as our responsibility as a city to help [people] meet those work requirements,” said Trent Rhorer, executive director of the Human Services Agency. It’s the second and largest withdrawal from the fund since its creation last year to buttress San Francisco against financial turmoil from an unpredictable president. Lurie is moving to intervene in the hope of keeping residents enrolled before deadlines hit. CalFresh work requirements take effect in June; Medi-Cal follows in January, with a requirement of 80 hours a month to maintain coverage, along with stricter reporting schedules. The city isn’t acting out of compassion alone: If those 45,000 people lose healthcare coverage, San Francisco could absorb up to $400 million in uncompensated costs, the city estimates. Prevention, Lurie is betting, is cheaper than the alternative. The fund will pay for the hiring of more than 150 staffers at the Human Services Agency, the city department that confirms eligibility for Medi-Cal and CalFresh, processes the paperwork, and provides other support. They join the roughly 760 who are already with the agency and will help San Franciscans navigate — and survive — the new federal paperwork requirements before deadlines hit. Intending to cut what he called “waste and fraud” in Medicaid, Trump in July signed HR 1, a bill of nearly 1,000 pages filled with huge cuts to the social safety net, ramped-up Immigration and Customs Enforcement funding, and tax breaks. The law’s twice-annual reporting requirements may result in as many as 10 million people losing healthcare nationally by 2034. Medicaid, the national program known as Medi-Cal in California, insures the lowest-income Americans, seniors, and people with disabilities. In San Francisco, the funds support safety-net providers like Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and the Laguna Honda Hospital, a hospice. Lurie is due to deliver his proposed budget to the Board of Supervisors at the end of the month. He is legally mandated to close the $643 million deficit; to get there, he has laid off 127 of the city’s roughly 34,000 workers, with more cuts expected by June. “While federal cuts make it harder for San Franciscans to access health care and put food on the table, this budget will protect our city’s social safety net and help residents stay on the benefits they rely on,” Lurie said, in a statement. “We are delivering a responsible budget that prioritizes core services, safeguards vulnerable communities, and continues San Francisco’s broad, durable economic recovery.” In balancing the budget, Lurie must also weigh how much of the city’s tax dollars to spend to backfill any federal cuts coming San Francisco’s way, even as those risks aren’t immediately clear. To that end, Lurie and the Board of Supervisors last year placed $400 million into the newly created Federal and State Revenue Risk Reserve, some of which is paid for by $220 million in unused medical reimbursement accounts, a pot of money raised through controversial fees that restaurant owners argue hurt local businesses . Lurie is proposing to tap into that money to help CalFresh and Medi-Cal recipients. The economic ripple effects extend beyond healthcare. The local economy may take a hit of about $6 million monthly from lost CalFresh enrollment alone — a loss felt most sharply at corner stores, where as much as 80% of sales can come from CalFresh recipients. The Department of Public Health is also using its budget to buttress the loss of Medi-Cal, redirecting funds to beef up the Healthy San Francisco program, the city’s stab at universal healthcare in 2007, when Gov. Gavin Newsom was mayor, prior to the passage of the Affordable Care Act. “We’re leveraging all of our resources to help people connect to Medi-Cal coverage,” said Dan Tsai, director of the Public Health Department. The funding isn’t Lurie’s only prescription for the crisis. The Human Services Agency is launching a website that will direct people to work and volunteer opportunities to meet the new work requirements, courtesy of the Mayor’s Office of Innovation. And to meet San Franciscans where they are, the Human Services Agency has rolled out a mobile enrollment truck equipped with staff and all the needed paperwork — have forms, will travel. Rhorer said there’s a misconception that some people don’t want to meet the new Medi-Cal requirements. Some have jobs, he said, but can’t work enough hours to meet healthcare requirements. Others can’t find a gig at all. The perception of widespread laziness is “just not reality,” Rhorer said. “People don’t choose to be poor. People don’t say, ‘I’d rather not have any money.’ People are literally struggling to find and retain employment.”

‘We can shut down the city’: Lurie’s budget cuts spark a showdown with labor

Mayor Daniel Lurie may be setting the stage for a once-in-a-generation showdown with San Francisco’s public-sector labor unions. Faced with a $643 million deficit and the threat of hundreds of millions more in federal cuts, Lurie is slashing city jobs and squeezing public services — moves that are fueling anger among the unions he’ll soon face across the bargaining table. The timing couldn’t be more fraught. Next year, for the first time since 1976 , San Francisco’s public-sector workers will have the legal right to strike, after a recent decision by the California Public Employment Relations Board struck down the city’s ability to fire picketing workers. The last time a mayor pushed them this far, 5,000 city workers walked off the job, the streets filled with trash, the buses stopped running, and the city shook. Last month, Lurie sent pink slips to 127 city staffers. His draft budget is due in June, and hundreds more positions are threatened. While the mayor’s budget must be approved by the Board of Supervisors, a Lurie-friendly, moderate Democrat majority is poised to approve whatever cuts he proposes. The only person who can stop Lurie’s budget is Lurie himself. And he may have reason to pull his punches. Kristin Hardy, regional vice president of Service Employees International Union 1021 — which represents 16,000 San Francisco employees, nearly half of all city workers — said Lurie’s proposed layoffs will ensure workers are enraged by the time they meet him at the bargaining table in 2027. If that leads workers to strike, she said, “we can shut down the whole city.” “I really don’t think that the mayor wants this,” she added, but “that’s what it looks like it’s going toward.” SEIU 1021’s members hail from nearly all of San Francisco’s 50-odd departments, guaranteeing that a strike would kneecap services San Franciscans rely on every day, from permitting to public health. Bianca Polovina, president of IFPTE Local 21, which represents 6,400 city employees, told The Standard that city officials are disregarding alternative solutions to layoffs, including tapping reserves in the short term, before relying on the Overpaid CEO Tax, which will be on the ballot in June and, if passed, may raise as much as $300 million annually for the city’s general fund. “Our membership is alarmed at the impacts these layoffs are already having on public services. Shuttered clinics, reduced violence prevention programs, and community ambassadors pulled off the streets impact every San Franciscan,” they said. “It’s hard to imagine what’s in store if more service cuts are coming.” One thing is sure: Whatever action unions take next year depends on what action Lurie takes this year. “Our members will have the right to strike,” Polovina said. “That decision will be theirs to make.” Lurie hasn’t enjoyed strong relationships with public-sector unions, apparently by design. Bankrolling his own election to the tune of $9.5 million allowed Lurie to leapfrog the usual bridge-building between politicians and labor unions, traditionally hardened through years of campaigning and governing. Without those relationships to manage, Lurie’s administration has leaned into its argument that creating a friendly environment for downtown’s economic recovery will help refill city coffers. Sharky Laguana, a former small-business commissioner and CEO of the passenger van rental company Bandago , said Lurie’s policies are succeeding, including streamlining permits through his PermitSF program and creating joy with the success of the street festival, Downtown First Thursdays . “If we want to maintain the level of government we currently have, we’re going to have to find a way to raise tax revenue,” Laguana said. “The only way to do that is to convince people to do business here.” Yet, as Hardy tells it, some business-friendly policies helped build the wall between Lurie and labor. The mayor is against labor’s local Overpaid CEO Tax and the California Billionaire Tax, which are designed to shore up budget shortfalls. His proposed charter reform would weaken citizens’ ability to place initiatives on the ballot, a frequent tool for organized labor to spar with businesses over taxes. There are also ongoing, delicate negotiations over the future of a years-old San Francisco business fee to support workers’ healthcare. Lurie’s spokesperson, Charles Lutvak, said the mayor has taken a “collaborative” approach with labor. “We’re putting together a responsible budget that will protect the core services San Franciscans rely on, while managing spending long term to lay the groundwork for a broad and durable recovery,” Lutvak said. “That collaborative approach will continue to guide our work as we finalize the budget and deliver the high-quality services San Franciscans deserve.” But Mike Casey, president of the San Francisco Labor Council, which represents most unions in the city, said Lurie has had labor on the back foot since his first day in office. “We spend more time defending and holding onto what we fought for and won decades ago than advancing and moving forward things our members and working people need now,” he said. “If they want to keep stripping away what we’ve got, all the services, eliminate jobs, OK. But it ain’t gonna be people just sitting back and taking it.” That already frayed relationship may have further unraveled last week after Lurie codified 14% pay raises for police and firefighters, which will cost the city $100 million over the next two years. Local think tank SPUR issued a report this year warning that doing so would give other labor unions the ability to argue for raises of their own. Ed Harrington, a former San Francisco city controller, said the SPUR report was prescient. “When you go ahead and you give the police and fire big raises, of course, to us, some are going to say, ‘What about us?’” he said. Harrington said the situation mirrors the one that led to the city’s general strike in 1976. He hopes history doesn’t repeat itself. That year, more than 5,000 striking city workers shook San Francisco hard enough to register on the Richter scale: Street cleaning was halted, the main library and zoo were closed, and Muni buses lay dormant in their depots. Picket lines hit water pumping stations and the San Francisco Airport, according to an edition of the San Francisco Examiner from that year. Trash amassed in piles at San Francisco General Hospital, and a neglected Civic Center pool overflowed. If strikes rock San Francisco, it may endanger Lurie’s efforts to rebound the economy, according to Supervisor Myrna Melgar, a member of the board’s progressive Democrat wing who does not support the layoffs of city workers. “One thing that makes businesses nervous about investing in the city is unrest, so I really hope we don’t get there,” she said. “I hope that we take the path of labor peace.”

PG&E failed to act on substation damage before crippling December blackout

Utility giant Pacific Gas & Electric on Friday released a long-awaited investigation into the December blackout that left 120,000 San Francisco residents without power, revealing that the multibillion-dollar company was aware of damage at the Mission substation responsible for the incident but left faulty equipment in place. The 70-page inquiry , conducted by the engineering firm Exponent, found that inclement weather before the Dec. 20 blackout spurred high humidity levels inside PG&E’s Mission substation and caused condensation buildup, resulting in a fire and the subsequent outage. PG&E personnel in November found a piece of equipment known as an “incident insulating board” with “burned spots” and warping that was partially responsible for the blackout, but they failed to replace or inspect it thoroughly, according to the report. The November damage was logged by PG&E as water issues, but Exponent investigators said it had other causes. The report found that the substation, built in the 1940s, was susceptible to rainwater and lacked an interior drainage system. Investigators from Exponent found pools of water in the site’s basement days after the December storm had passed. Exponent also found that ventilation fans in the substation’s basement had been broken for years and were not repaired until after the blackout. The report notes that while the precise contribution of basement water to the fire is unclear, standing water in the substation’s basement would have increased humidity and the likelihood of condensation in the switchgear room, where the fire began. The incident left homes without electricity for days and cost businesses and restaurants lost revenue during a crucial holiday weekend. Residents couldn’t flush toilets , holiday events were canceled, and restaurants were forced to throw out spoiled food . Making the situation worse, Waymo vehicles stalled more than 1,500 times during the outage, forcing the company to dispatch tow trucks to retrieve 64 cars while overwhelmed city dispatchers — kept on hold for as long as 53 minutes — scrambled to clear blocked intersections. Meanwhile, residents complained that PG&E estimates for power restoration were wildly inaccurate. In an interview with The Standard, Sumeet Singh, CEO of PG&E Co., expressed regret for the incident and asserted that the company would improve its operations to prevent a similar incident. A statement issued Friday did not mention the company’s knowledge of damaged equipment, and Singh said in the interview that there was no sign that PG&E could have known the substation was vulnerable to a fire. “We did not have any indications,” he said. “There were no early warning indicators.” He said no employees had been disciplined or terminated as a result of the incident. The company does not have an estimate of the economic impact of the blackout. PG&E customers were left infuriated by the blackout as they face increasingly high electricity bills that have added to the city and state’s affordability crisis. The situation has renewed long-standing calls for the city to break up with the multibillion-dollar company. It was not the first time the Mission substation had failed: In 2003, a fire at the site led to a $6.5 million fine by state regulators and the discovery through a subsequent investigation that a similar blaze had occurred in 1996. PG&E said it has taken action since the December incident, including conducting thousands of inspections at all 31 city substations and replacing equipment. In the wake of the outage, the company apologized and issued a $200 credit for residential customers and $2,500 for businesses. Singh said the credits and damage claims amount to roughly $50 million. The incident left local lawmakers exasperated, and supervisors quickly called for a hearing, demanding that PG&E explain why the blackout had occurred and how the company had responded. A February hearing revealed an avalanche of blunders by PG&E , including delayed responses and flawed restoration estimates. Also at the hearing, Singh said Mayor Daniel Lurie had personally directed PG&E to respond to the Opera House during the emergency, where his daughter was performing in a ballet, though the CEO retracted the statement hours later. December’s blackout has had ripple effects at the state level and has renewed calls for San Francisco to break up with PG&E, an effort that has been decades in the making. The city has pressed state regulators to investigate the December incident, claiming in a March letter signed by Lurie and others that the California Public Utilities Commission was dragging its feet on a probe. Meanwhile, state Sen. Scott Wiener, who is running to succeed Rep. Nancy Pelosi, introduced a bill earlier this year in response to the blackout that would have made it easier for San Francisco to pull away from PG&E. The bill failed to pass out of committee. But others are putting pressure on PG&E, including gubernatorial candidate Tom Steyer, who has blasted the utility for its high prices and the $17 million salary of Patti Poppe, CEO of PG&E Corp. Steyer has promised that if he’s elected, he will lower electricity costs by 25% and appoint voices critical of the utility to the CPUC, among other proposals. PG&E considers Steyer’s candidacy — which was buoyed by the exit of former Rep. Eric Swalwell — a major threat and has plowed millions of dollars into an anti-Steyer PAC . This week, Steyer’s campaign alleged that the utility breached campaign finance laws through its spending spree on statewide ads blasting the candidate.

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

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