‘Separated from family and terrified’: Schiff raises alarm over SFO detention center

Sen. Adam Schiff said his visit Tuesday to a de facto immigration detention center at San Francisco International Airport left him concerned that people detained there still cannot call family members or attorneys. “It’s not meaningful to get a list of attorneys if you can’t call them,” Schiff said, describing how detainees are eventually handed a list of legal groups but are not allowed to call them. He said he’s especially concerned that lawful permanent U.S. residents are being detained in the Customs and Border Protection facility, where they are unable to “reach their family for hours or days, and they’re sort of just at the whim of what CBP is doing — and they have no recourse.” The holding room at SFO, which airport officials call the “in-transit lounge,” has come under growing scrutiny in recent months as more people are held there for days rather than hours. Most of those detained are green-card holders with past arrests, and a San Francisco Chronicle investigation found that many of them were transferred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention. CBP did not respond to a request for comment. Schiff said one person in currently detained in the facility, but the Chronicle reported Sept. 1 that more than two dozen people had been held there this year. President Donald Trump’s administration has made hundreds of immigration-related arrests in airports in recent years, and increasingly the CBP is detaining green-card holders for longer than 72 hours, generally the maximum time allowed under CBP policy. Schiff said the detention facility at SFO, a 3,000-square-foot windowless room in the international terminal, was renovated in July and now has a shower, reclining chairs, couches large enough to sleep on, and a separate curtained area for families. The lights can now be dimmed, though not fully turned off. Earlier accounts described harsh conditions, including detainees who said they slept in chairs under lights that rarely or never went off. Detainees also described limited access to showers. Schiff said although the facilities are “probably much better facilities than they were months ago,” the holding area is “still not appropriate for long-term detention,” which he noted violates CBP policy. Schiff said his most pressing concern is that detainees can’t call family members or attorneys themselves. He said CBP officials told him they offer to call a relative on a detainee’s behalf, but Schiff questioned what happens when no one picks up. “Or they leave a message, and people are afraid to return the call because they’re being asked to call Customs and Border Patrol,” he said. He added, “They go through that trauma, separated from family and being terrified, and their family is terrified, and the family doesn’t know what happened to them.” Schiff is at least the third Democratic member of Congress to visit the facility this year. Rep. Kevin Mullin, whose district includes SFO, was initially turned awa y when he attempted to visit in August. And Sen. Alex Padilla made a surprise visit this month, referring to the facility as part of Trump’s “mass detention and deportation campaign.” The San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a resolution in September calling on California’s congressional delegation to regularly conduct oversight visits to monitor the facility.

Myrna Melgar says SF is having a MeToo moment. For her, it’s personal

Last year, as I listened to Supervisor Myrna Melgar address parents in the auditorium of my children’s elementary school in the wake of a terrible tragedy , I had an odd thought: I bet she’s an eldest daughter. What can I say, like recognizes like. As the oldest of three siblings, my spidey sense tingled as she spoke both empathetically and directly, taking charge in the particular way that oldest daughters do when the family is in crisis. This week, when Melgar joined me on “PST,” I learned that my hunch was correct. She is the oldest of five sisters and had from an extremely young age been the adult they needed, despite being a child herself. “My mom left us when I was 5, so I’m the mom in the family,” she explained. When Melgar was a teenager, one sister told her that an adult family member had been sexually assaulting her and their other sisters. “I cannot describe to you that feeling of powerlessness and guilt that I felt at having not been able to protect them,” Melgar told me. As an adult, and the mother to three girls, Melgar has turned that powerlessness into action. In particular, she’s leading the charge to support victims of sexual assault in San Francisco. She has held hearings about staffing up the Special Victims Unit of the San Francisco Police Department. She was also the first city official to walk back an endorsement of Manny Yekutiel after an accuser came forward describing an alleged sexual assault. “I am disappointed that in a city where we say ‘believe victims’ — I was the only one,” said Melgar. “ We talk about how we’re such a progressive city, but these issues are personal.” After The Standard revealed this summer that the SFPD was routinely not investigating rape and assault allegations , Melgar called another hearing to demand reform. That hearing happened last week and began with the police chief, metaphoric hat in hand, admitting that the department must do better. “We’ve heard the concerns raised about SVU, and I take them seriously,” said SFPD Chief Derrick Lew. “ We also come to this conversation with humility. There are things we believe we are doing well, and there are areas where we know we need to get better.” Afterward, Melgar sat down with me to discuss why this issue is so personal to her, the changes she wants to see from the police and city leadership, why consent and accountability matter in the straight and gay communities, and how both men and women are deeply hurt when the grownups in the room fail in their primary duty: keeping people safe. Listen to the episode on YouTube , Apple Podcasts , Spotify , or wherever you find your podcasts.

‘Absurd’: City officials laugh off PG&E’s $20B price tag for San Francisco’s grid

“Absurd.” “Fantasy.” “Inflated.” When reacting to Pacific Gas & Electric’s price tag for its San Francisco grid — a whopping $20 billion — city officials pulled no punches Thursday. “It’s a ridiculous number,” said Supervisor Myrna Melgar. “This is like selling your house, and you want to get the most.” To put it into perspective: The city’s annual budget is $16.9 billion. The Warriors are worth $14.5 billion. The GDP of Afghanistan is about $17 billion. So why did PG&E throw out the big figure — nearly six times the price the city put on the utility’s assets? Supervisor Stephen Sherrill summed it up as a negotiating strategy. “I’m not surprised to hear PG&E anchor their pricing at an incredibly high end,” he said. “These are opening salvos.” Other city officials shared similar sentiments, noting that the math doesn’t add up. “PG&E’s entire electric system is worth about $60 billion, and San Francisco accounts for only a tiny part of that — representing about 5% of PG&E’s electricity system demand,” said Nancy Crowley, a spokesperson for the city’s Public Utilities Commission. “We’ve gone to the state utility regulator to get an impartial assessment of what the assets San Francisco wants to buy are really worth.” The SFPUC would be in charge of the public power system if the city were to take over the grid. City Attorney David Chiu described PG&E’s price as “quite bold.” He added that San Francisco has “had 40 large-scale outages in the last year,” referring to a figure the city cited in a letter to PG&E this month. “PG&E has not provided any information to back up their absurdly inflated number, but we look forward to learning more through the CPUC valuation process.” There’s one person who remains tight-lipped about it all: Mayor Daniel Lurie. In an interview with The Standard on Thursday morning at Salesforce Park, Lurie said “all options are on the table” on the issue of public power. When pressed on what would be the deciding factors in his decision-making, he said, “I’m not happy with the performance of PG&E right now, and I’m going to leave it at that, because it still needs to go through a lot of process before we can make a determination.” The answer is in line with The Standard’s previous reporting on Lurie’s position on public power: He’s skeptical about the process but also angry at PG&E, especially since the December blackout that left wide swaths of the city without power. A possible takeover of PG&E’s grid has been discussed for decades. December’s blackout prompted increased calls for a divorce between the city and the utility, and there’s widespread support among the Board of Supervisors to take such action. The board unanimously rejected the utility’s bureaucratic maneuver to delay the takeover through a California Environmental Quality Act appeal. The city has argued that a municipal-owned utility, as opposed to PG&E’s investor-owned model, would be cheaper for ratepayers. But PG&E has opposed the idea for years, claiming that the city is in no position to take over its infrastructure. The $20 billion figure, announced Wednesday evening by PG&E CEO Patti Poppe, is part of an ongoing evaluation proceeding at the California Public Utilities Commission to determine the value of San Francisco’s grid. The proceeding, started under Mayor London Breed’s administration, will culminate in state regulators placing a price tag on the city’s electrical system. In April, the city revealed its own number: $3.4 billion, stating that this was “based on new information, including additional asset details identified by PG&E and updated cost estimates.” Jennifer Robison, a spokesperson for PG&E, said Thursday that the two figures — the city’s and the utility’s — are “not an apples-to-apples comparison,” explaining that San Francisco’s estimate does not include the totality of expenses associated with a public power takeover. Robison said the city’s missing expenditures include severance, which is the price of shifting costs to remaining PG&E customers for mandated statewide programs like wildfire risk reduction. (Robison did not comment on the city’s claim that the total value of PG&E’s system is $60 billion.) “My coworkers and I love serving San Francisco. San Francisco’s expectations are high, and we intend to measure up,” Poppe said in a statement Wednesday. “We have 600 people who serve you every day, and if San Francisco were to take over those assets, those people would leave. I imagine a day when a whole convoy of blue-and-white trucks are driving across the Bay Bridge heading to Oakland, never to come back. I don’t think that’s in San Francisco’s best interest.” Before San Francisco makes the final plunge for public power, there are hurdles to overcome. The first step is the back-and-forth between the city and PG&E at the CPUC. The utility will provide more details on its rationale for the $20 billion figure in its response to the CPUC on Tuesday. According to the SFPUC, the city has until Feb. 22 to respond to that, and PG&E can respond again by March 24. Evidentiary hearings could take place in the spring or summer. A lawsuit could stretch out the process for years. The CPUC did not respond to a request for comment. Some don’t feel the city will get a fair shake during the state proceedings. Loretta Lynch, former president of the CPUC and a supporter of public power, said she is concerned that state regulators will be overly deferential to the utility in the valuation proceedings, a criticism made by other officials over the years. She compared the situation to Volodymyr Zelensky negotiating with Vladimir Putin — San Francisco being the president of Ukraine, and PG&E being the president of Russia. “I’m worried the CPUC is Donald Trump,” Lynch said, referring to criticism that the president is too obedient to Putin. Lynch, who has observed the public power debate for decades, said the $20 billion figure puts the takeover issue “at the end of the beginning.” “This will be one of the defining issues for the future of our city,” she said. “It will define who we are as San Francisco.”

City takeover of PG&E grid could cost $20B, utility says

It would cost $20 billion for San Francisco to purchase Pacific Gas & Electric’s grid in a public power takeover, the utility’s CEO announced Wednesday, far above an estimate the city provided earlier this year. In comments made at a public event on Wednesday, PG&E CEO Patti Poppe provided the figure and said that the city’s takeover of the grid is not “in San Francisco’s best interest.” The $20 billion number, the company said, includes its electric system assets, property, and severance costs. The estimate from PG&E comes after the city made its own April offer of how much the utility’s infrastructure would cost: $3.4 billion. The figures are part of a proceeding initiated during Mayor London Breed’s administration at the California Public Utilities Commission. PG&E must provide its new estimate to state regulators by Oct. 20. The company said the city’s figure does not include “an analysis of severance costs.” “PG&E’s analysis finds the City’s April 2026 offer for PG&E’s assets to be well below market value,” a statement on the company’s website reads . “That includes the City providing no value for 2,000 PG&E real estate interests, such as easements and licenses that would be costly for the City to purchase in a dense urban area.” The company also said the $20 billion figure does not include the “hundreds of millions of dollars” the city would incur in start-up costs to launch its public power initiative. “Nor does it include the revenues that the City would lose from PG&E: The Company’s tax and franchise fee payments, which total approximately $100 million a year, help the City pay for public services including fire and police protection,” the company said. The San Francisco Chronicle first reported Poppe’s disclosure of the $20 billion figure. The city’s effort to take over PG&E’s grid is part of a decades-long saga. But attention to the issue has increased since a December blackout that left wide swaths of San Francisco without power. There’s widespread support among the Board of Supervisors for public power: In September, the board unanimously rejected PG&E’s appeal of an environmental review of the city’s acquisition of the grid. Mayor Daniel Lurie hasn’t made his opinion on a takeover of the grid public; however, The Standard reported in September that he is skeptical of the effort but is not standing in the way of city officials pushing the matter forward.

Manny‘s meltdown may hand the Castro to SF’s loudest harm reduction warrior

Not long ago, District 8 supervisorial candidate Gary McCoy was San Francisco’s most visible advocate for progressive drug policies. “Hear me out, eliminate cartels altogether by decriminalizing drugs, and provide a safe supply,” McCoy said in a 2022 tweet, which he now says was misinterpreted. The post came at a time when the city’s drug policy debate mobilized legions of keyboard warriors to blows on Twitter, now X. Still, McCoy was unabashed in his defense of harm reduction, a philosophy associated with leniency toward drug use, and consistently took to the platform to defend his views. In his role as VP of policy and public affairs at HealthRight 360, the city’s largest drug rehab nonprofit, he vigorously defended the city’s first safe consumption site, which allowed people to use drugs under supervision, before it closed after 11 months. He even went on a one-man hunger strike on City Hall’s steps, calling on then-Mayor London Breed to enact a fentanyl emergency ordinance and support safe consumption sites . For McCoy, a recovering drug user who spent almost a decade homeless on the city’s streets, his stance in the drug policy debate appeared to be part of his identity. In 2022, he went so far as to purchase a vanity license plate for his Volkswagen Tiguan: “HRM RDX” — short for harm reduction. Come 2026, McCoy is the front-runner for the District 8 Board of Supervisors seat, after the implosion of rival candidate Manny Yekutiel following a second accusation of sexual assault. Since his controversial tweet, harm reduction has fallen out of political favor with City Hall. McCoy hardly ever posts on X. He no longer works at HealthRight 360. He has a new license plate. And in an interview with The Standard, he said he would not consider himself a “harm reductionist.” But he argues that he’s not playing a different tune; he’s just singing some of his repertoire a little louder. “I have supported both harm reduction and abstinence on a full continuum of care for a very long time,” McCoy said. He added that his most ardent arguments for harm reduction came as a representative of Healthright 360 and were not necessarily his personal views, which he described as broader. In defense of his 2022 tweet, McCoy said he intended to advocate for the expansion of medications such as methadone or Suboxone, drugs used by medical professionals to taper someone’s addiction down so a person is ready to pursue recovery. “My favorite uninformed Twitter people,” McCoy said when asked about his 2022 statement. “I’ve been seeing this tweet go around forever.” “I’m being called a drug dealer on Twitter,” McCoy added. “It’s the same five people who aren’t informed.” As for the license plate? McCoy leases his car, so he swapped the plate once he snagged his next Tiguan. “I get my cars traded just before two years,” he said. McCoy’s position on drug policy has come under the spotlight because it is one of the few areas in which he took a considerably different tack than Yekutiel or the moderate establishment led by Mayor Daniel Lurie. Though McCoy’s opponents frame his support for harm reduction as an indictment of his leadership, the philosophy he supported has long been credited with saving lives , not taking them. Even as the phrase “harm reduction” has become an albatross around the neck of local politicians, international experts continue to advocate for its policies as necessary to humanely treat addiction and save lives. The message he now delivers on the issue, however, is a far cry from the McCoy his critics paint. With Yekutiel out of the picture and McCoy’s win virtually guaranteed, those critics fear the streets will become a fentanyl-laden hellscape. They worry that his stance has merely shifted for political purposes. “He’s lying to you,” said Tom Wolf, a drug policy advocate and vocal critic of harm reduction. “Gary was part of the problem in SF. … Now he’s reinvented himself.” McCoy pushed back. “I don’t think my stance has shifted,” he said. Yekutiel and McCoy mirrored each other’s stances on many of the city’s top issues — from the YIMBY view in support of building more housing to making affordability their No. 1 issue — but they differ on drug policy. Yekutiel agreed with the city’s new position to limit the distribution of drug supplies. Many experts on drug policy say some of the harm-reduction efforts for which McCoy has advocated — such as the circulation of Narcan and the dispersal of clean needles — are responsible for saving thousands of lives. San Francisco has distributed hundreds of thousands of doses of Narcan, with thousands of overdose reversals reported each year. The Tenderloin Center, the safe consumption site McCoy advocated for, reversed 333 overdoses and referred 289 people to housing, among other services, during the 11 months it was open in 2022. Though critics say the facility attracted disorder and connected few people directly to drug treatment when considering its $22 million annual price tag. Laura Guzman, executive director of the National Harm Reduction Coalition , said McCoy is a needed voice as San Francisco increasingly criminalizes drug users — and one who views harm-reduction policies as a way of holistically approaching drug users to help them make their own choice to kick the habit. “That’s what we’re looking for; we’re looking for leaders that understand harm reduction isn’t just about supporting people with supplies, but to engage people with wellness, with housing, and to choose their journey to recovery and treatment,” Guzman said. “Gary has what it takes to support people on their journey.” From the streets to City Hall One thing McCoy says his critics get right: he is a former drug user with a criminal record. As recently as 2011, he was one of the people without homes San Franciscans crossed the street to avoid in the Castro, though he said he used drugs in restrooms, not on the street. His rap sheet includes grand larceny, felony theft, probation violations, driving on a suspended license, and drug charges. McCoy hides none of this, detailing his misdeeds in an interview with The Standard at the start of his campaign. And since being on the street, McCoy served his time, got sober, and rebuilt his life. He worked in City Hall as a legislative aide, eventually rising to senior congressional staffer for Rep. Nancy Pelosi, leading one of the nation’s most powerful Democrats to endorse his candidacy. One of McCoy’s most ardent defenders is gay activist Cleve Jones, founder of the AIDS Memorial Quilt and a mentee of the late supervisor and gay rights icon Harvey Milk. “I think Gary’s qualifications are pretty obvious. He’s been through a lot of shit, and he’s learned from it. He’s grounded in a political education that is unparalleled,” Jones said. “And hello! When you work for her,” he said, referring to Pelosi, “you learn a lot.” Now other local Democrats are following Pelosi’s lead. McCoy’s campaign announced a slew of new endorsements Monday: Sen. Adam Schiff, California Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, state Sen. Scott Wiener, six members of the Board of Supervisors, and labor legend Dolores Huerta. Even those who had previously endorsed Yekutiel shifted to McCoy, including former Supervisor Bevan Dufty, Castro Merchants President Nate Bourg, and community activist Race Bannon. But for McCoy’s critics, the shifting endorsements are a gut punch. “Manny screwed this up for everyone,” Wolf said. “Now they’re going to support a guy who wants to go back to what we were doing.” What McCoy believes If elected, McCoy may find himself at odds with Lurie, who has shifted how the city approaches the fentanyl crisis, limiting some outdoor and mobile syringe access programs to indoor settings . McCoy used to frequent one such program behind the Safeway at Market and Church streets. “I used to go to that program to access clean syringes when I was on the streets, and because it’s not indoors, it no longer exists,” McCoy said. McCoy is HIV-positive, and those clean-needle programs prevented other drug users from contracting HIV from him, he said — one of the primary reasons harm-reduction advocates argue for the distribution of clean drug supplies. Lurie has also stepped up arrests of drug users, a tactic McCoy opposes. “I’ve never had an issue with arresting drug dealers,” he said. “I also think that drug using, [if there is] no other crime, requires a public health intervention most times.” McCoy said he still thinks safe consumption sites, which he calls overdose prevention sites, could help save lives. But he also recognizes the political winds have shifted. “I think we’re unfortunately far off in the political world for that to happen at this point,” McCoy said, “but maybe someday.” Steven Bacio, a founder of the moderate Democrat-aligned political group GrowSF, said McCoy’s positions are “out of step with the district, and his approach is objectively dangerous.” Those on the less progressive side of the drug policy debate argue that forceful intervention is needed for people suffering from addiction. They point to a decline in overdoses and an improvement in street conditions over the past three years as evidence that the city’s policy shift is working, though experts caution that many factors explain the progress the city is seeing — and that San Francisco’s overdose decline mirrors a nationwide trend . McCoy’s behavioral health policy platform includes creating a home base for the city’s myriad street crisis teams to hand patients off in lieu of making an emergency room visit, expanding available treatment beds for psychiatric and medical needs, and strengthening accountability for the city’s treatment efforts, including publishing a monthly dashboard on site conditions, complaints, staffing levels, and outcomes. His signature proposal would see the city establish “behavioral health campuses” at hospitals, starting with Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital on Portrero Avenue, based on what he called a proven example from the MLK Behavioral Health Center in Los Angeles. Instead of whisking drug users to the hospital in their worst moments, then hoping they seek treatment once they’re back downtown, the behavioral health campus would offer mental health and substance use care, psychiatric urgent care, crisis stabilization, sobering and residential treatment, and even transitional housing right next to hospitals. The idea would ostensibly spread out some services, he says, away from their cluster in the Tenderloin and South of Market. The idea even has backing from one of the city’s leading abstinence treatment voices, Supervisor Matt Dorsey. Like McCoy, Dorsey is a recovering drug user who melds his lived experience with data to develop drug treatment policy proposals — and he’s a major backer of McCoy’s platform. “This is an astute policy platform that focuses San Francisco’s behavioral health strategy on the right priorities,” Dorsey said in September, when McCoy revealed his platform. “McCoy’s plan would deliver care where it’s best delivered, expand needed treatment options, and better set up patients for long-term success.” McCoy’s plan acknowledges “legitimate geographic equity concerns” from neighborhood residents where services have been oversaturated, Dorsey added. “That’s essential,” Dorsey said, “if we’re to earn the public support necessary for a behavioral health strategy that supports long-term recovery and helps save lives.”

As ‘nuisance’ evictions surge, SF lawmakers propose a fix

For Sue Yeng Yan, 92, and the other longtime, elderly tenants of 1120 Jackson St. who were served eviction notices in March, news that the landlord would start accepting their rent again should’ve been a moment of celebratory relief. Yan and occupants of four other units in the rent-controlled building, located along the Powell-Hyde cable car line in Lower Nob Hill, had received eviction notices from Nabob Hill LLC, which purchased the building last year. The landlord claimed that the tenants had dangerously cluttered their apartments, justifying “nuisance” evictions. After a community rally and reporting by The Standard brought attention to the tenants’ plight, Yan’s landlord sent a letter in June informing her that she had “cured” the supposed clutter conditions. The letter was the rental law equivalent of waving a white flag. Yan, who has lived there since 1982, could stay. She and the others were no longer a “nuisance.” But the experience traumatized Yan, according to her son-in-law Kin Wong. “She hasn’t recovered,” Wong said. “She wakes up crying. And she’s still worried that it may not be over, because the building is still under the same owner. They may find something else to harass her.” Yan’s fears could come true. Nabob Hill could restart eviction proceedings against Yan or her neighbors at any time. The letter she and the others received stated that “future inspections may occur.” New legislation aims to remove much of that subjectivity from San Francisco rental law. Supervisors Myrna Melgar and Jackie Fielder plan to unveil a proposal at Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors meeting that would significantly narrow what qualifies as a “nuisance.” The legislation will be announced against a backdrop of skyrocketing evictions in San Francisco, with more than 1,000 filed this year, putting 2026 on pace for the most evictions in a decade. Paired with surging rental prices, the rising number of housing displacements has led Mayor Daniel Lurie to declare a “rent emergency.” In declaring the emergency, Lurie threw his support behind a proposal by Fielder to prevent the eviction of tenants who owe less than a month of back rent. He also wants more city funding for eviction legal defense and larger payouts to those displaced by Ellis Act evictions. Nuisance claims have driven the latest wave of evictions. T he SF Rent Board ’s annual report on eviction notices, released in February, states that such evictions increased 41% year over year, from 288 to 405. The update to the rental law would require that nuisance-like activity “be severe in nature, or must be continuing and recurring,” according to Melgar’s office. It would “allow for tenants who may have caused damage through an honest mistake to avoid a nuisance claim if they have tendered the reasonable repair costs or ceased the activity they are being accused of.” “Right now, it‘s a little too vague,” Jennifer Fieber, Melgar’s legislative aide, said of the current code governing nuisance evictions. “There’s not a huge disincentive for unscrupulous attorneys to just keep filing these things.” Fieber said the new law would enable tenants to defend themselves by raising the threshold of what constitutes a nuisance. For those who’ve caused legitimate damage, the law would give them an opportunity to pay for repairs and stay. The legislation, modeled on similar laws in Berkeley and Oakland, would remove the word “nuisance” from the legal code to reduce subjectivity. It would allow for evictions in cases where a tenant disturbs the peace of other building occupants or engages in conduct that results in substantial damage to the building. “Neither of two prongs would encompass a situation like Ms. Yan‘s or her neighbors, or these more minor situations where there’s not proof of substantial damage,” said Shelby Nacino, managing attorney at Asian Law Caucus, which is handling Yan’s case. Her organization helped write the legislation, with input from Eviction Defense Collaborative, Legal Assistance to the Elderly, and other tenants advocacy groups. Nacino says that under the new law, landlords would have to show harder evidence to evict someone. A case like Yan’s — in which no other tenant ever complained about her supposed clutter, nor was she ever accused of damaging property — wouldn’t lead to an eviction. “One of the goals of the legislation is, there needs to be a more concrete basis other than just a conclusion that ‘You’re a nuisance’,” Nacino said. “This legislation is important, because we are seeing owners trying to capitalize on the increased rents in San Francisco. And it’s especially important for vulnerable seniors who have low rents because often they’ve lived in their buildings for a long time.” Dave Wasserman, a landlord attorney and VP of the Coalition for Better Housing, a landlords advocacy group, said he had not yet read the legislation but was broadly supportive of its aims. “Residents should not lose their housing for mistakes or purely negligent acts that are accidents,” he said. “Should they be held financially responsible? Yes. But an eviction for nuisance generally should be confined to intentional, malicious, and/or reckless conduct that goes unrectified after clear written warnings to stop. Hopefully, the final version of this law captures those qualities.” As for 1120 Jackson St., one of the elderly tenants who received an eviction notice in March reports that the landlord is still refusing to accept her rent, meaning that her case isn’t over. Nacino says the eviction cases against the other tenants accused of being nuisances could restart at any time due to the vagueness of the current law. Representatives of Nabob Hill did not respond to a request for comment According to her son-in-law, Yan still gets scared every time she receives a piece of mail she can’t immediately identify, worried that it’s another eviction notice. “ It‘s so unfair that the tenants have to suffer through this, and it’s so easy for the landlord just to come out of the blue and accuse them of being clutter,” Wong said. “Then you have to go through all this trouble to prove that you are not. It’s like you are guilty until proven innocent.”

Manny Yekutiel ‘crossed so many boundaries’: New allegation against SF candidate

Ryan Clark and his partner were dancing at a Pride event in 2023 when a man stumbled out of the crowd toward them. Clark said he and the man had a single date two years earlier, so he wasn’t expecting what happened next. Under the flashing lights of The Midway, just south of Dogpatch, the man allegedly groped Clark outside of his pants and then his partner inside his pants, the couple said. They repeatedly told him they were monogamous and wanted him to stop. He didn’t, they say, until Clark shoved him. That man, Clark and his partner claim, was Manny Yekutiel, a San Francisco cafe owner, nightlife personality, and now a front-runner in the election for supervisor of District 8. “I was shocked,” said Clark’s partner, who declined to be named due to his immigration status. “I never had this happen to me before.” Both men said Yekutiel sexually assaulted them that night. Their claims mirror an allegation made to police by a progressive political organizer, first published in The Standard in June, that Yekutiel sexually assaulted him at a house party in 2020. Yekutiel said in a statement that he does not recall the 2023 encounter that Clark and his partner described. He reiterated his denial of the earlier allegation by Brad Joseph Chapin, the progressive organizer. Yekutiel acknowledged a single consensual sexual interaction in 2021 with Clark. “I attended the 2023 Electroluxx Pride party. I remember that it was Pride weekend in San Francisco, that everyone was having a good time the way San Franciscans do at Pride parties, and, like many of the attendees, I may have had too much to drink. I remember running into Ryan at parties and being physically affectionate with each other, though I have no memory of the specific encounter he describes. Nobody should be touched sexually without their consent. If I crossed someone’s boundary, then I’m deeply sorry,” Yekutiel said in a statement. Clark and his partner, both 32, described the alleged 2023 assault to The Standard in an exclusive interview. Clark said he had a consensual sexual encounter with Yekutiel two years earlier but was emphatic that the relationship did not grant consent to grope him or his partner, whom Yekutiel had just met, two years later. While the couple acknowledged the sometimes-complicated rules of consent in gay culture, they said Yekutiel’s actions clearly defied any norms of propriety. “I’ve never experienced anything like that in my entire life. It crossed so many boundaries,” Clark said. “One of the reasons why I decided to come forward was the way that Manny reacted to Brad’s accusation, saying that it was false.” Referring to Chapin’s allegation that Yekutiel had reached down his pants and grabbed his testicles, Clark said, “It aligns with my personal experience with him.” The Standard spoke to five people who said the couple told them about the alleged incident after it occurred, and reviewed text messages from Clark to a friend about the alleged assault. Clark and his partner said they decided to come forward after witnessing what they viewed as overwhelmingly negative treatment of Chapin after he went public and after Mayor Daniel Lurie endorsed Yekutiel in the supervisor race. Yekutiel’s allies have said the accusation by Chapin was politically motivated, noting his background as a progressive organizer who often opposes Yekutiel’s moderate political bloc. Neither Clark nor his partner appears to have strong political allegiances in San Francisco. He has worked in the renewable energy sector, while his partner worked at Apple. After running Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign in California, Yekutiel opened his cafe in the Mission, Manny’s, which has hosted high-profile political and cultural events. Now insiders say the supervisor race is his to lose. He has raised more than $500,000 and has $255,000 in public funding, a total more than double that of his nearest opponent, Gary McCoy, in the race to represent the Castro and Noe Valley on the Board of Supervisors. A PAC supporting Yekutiel recently netted $50,000 from SF Believes, a powerful PAC that backs Lurie. The city’s Democratic Party and Lurie endorsed Yekutiel after Chapin made his claims in June. Lurie said in his September endorsement announcement that Yekutiel had told him that Chapin’s allegation was false. “I take any accusation of this nature very seriously, and I asked Manny directly about it. He assured me that the allegation simply was not true,” Lurie said in a statement. Lurie’s expressed support for Yekutiel was the impetus Clark said he needed to come forward. “Any half-decent person would understand that throwing your lot in with someone who’s accused of sexual assault is one thing, but to then say that you believe this person and not the survivor?” Clark said. “He should be ashamed.” Yekutiel said in a statement that he was honest with the mayor when he denied Chapin’s allegations. The page on Yekutiel’s campaign website with an extended list of people and organizations endorsing him became inaccessible this week after The Standard reached out to him about the new allegation. The endorsement URL now redirects to his homepage. The new allegation In 2021, Clark lived in San Diego and visited the city for Electroluxx, a Pride dance party at The Chapel. That’s when he met the man who would later become his partner, who declined to be named in line with The Standard’s policies on granting anonymity . By 2023, they were a monogamous couple. Electroluxx had moved to The Midway. The pair, who said they were sober, were there June 24, floating from room to room. Sometime in the early morning, they said, they stood at the edge of a dance floor and saw Yekutiel emerge from the crowd. Documents reviewed by The Standard show that all three men attended the event. Yekutiel stumbled toward them, the couple recalled. Clark said he asked, “How are you?” and within a few seconds, Yekutiel groped him. Yekutiel grabbed Clark’s behind and slid his hands down to his crotch from the outside of his pants, the couple allege. Yekutiel grabbed Clark’s penis, then his testicles, through his pants, according to the couple. Clark said he pointed to his partner and told Yekutiel, “This is my boyfriend; we’re not open,” meaning they were not open to new partners, in an attempt to get Yekutiel to stop. “He took that as an invitation,” Clark said. Yekutiel turned to Clark’s partner and started touching his backside, according to the couple. Then Yekutiel shoved his hand down the partner’s pants, groping his testicles and penis, the couple said. Clark tried to push Yekutiel off. But Yekutiel would not let go of the partner’s penis, according to the couple. Clark repeated, “We’re not open, Manny.” Yekutiel held on, Clark said. Clark pushed Yekutiel in the shoulder, prompting him to let go. The couple turned around and walked out. “I was like, ‘What the fuck is going on?’” Clark’s partner said. “I’ve never experienced anything like that.” “I felt like he had really crossed a line, and it was super inappropriate. And I was kind of just shocked and taken aback,” Clark said. “I just felt gross.” Clark said that while some in the gay community have experienced groping in bars and clubs, he has seen the culture change over the last decade. “I don’t feel like any of these gay spaces would operate and be able to function if we didn’t have measures in place to be able to say no when we need to say no. And the fact that ‘no’ did not work so many different ways this time means that this is the kind of person that makes spaces unsafe.” The couple did not file a police report, saying they wanted to put the alleged incident behind them. They did not know anyone who witnessed the alleged incident. Shortly afterward, Clark’s partner told his mother about it; she confirmed to The Standard that they discussed it at the time. “I was quite taken aback. He felt violated by it, really,” she said. “It must’ve felt really uncomfortable for him, for him to feel the need to tell me.” Within a year of the incident, Clark told a longtime friend, Jenna Clark (no relation). “Manny was putting his hands all over [Clark’s partner] and him. They just felt violated,” she told The Standard. In 2024, Clark told another friend, Shelby Pfeifer, that Manny had assaulted him and his partner. “Manny was, like, all up in their business and wouldn’t take no for an answer. Manny was like physically touching them,” Pfeifer said Clark told her. “I remember being pretty shocked that that had happened and him being so brazen.” In April 2025, Clark told his roommate Michelle Huang, who was seeking a job at Manny’s, where she had volunteered. Huang recalled Clark saying that “Manny was forcing himself onto [his partner], and it was supposed to be good and fun, but it was not well received, and he was not backing off.” On June 11, 2025, Huang texted a friend about news that Manny’s had been vandalized and mentioned the alleged incident involving Clark: “I have directly heard from 2 Gay men in sf that they were lowkey assaulted from Manny at a nightclub.” When The Standard published an article in June on Chapin’s sexual assault allegation against Yekutiel, Clark’s roommate texted it to him. Screenshots of the conversation were reviewed by The Standard. “Whoa,” she texted. Clark replied, “I feel bad because I read all these comments where people were like, ‘I believe Manny,’ and Manny totally denied it in the article. I almost want to say something. … Like it’s not a one time thing it is a pattern? It would be one thing if he took any sort of accountability at all but the total denial is just like. Fucked.” Clark also expressed fear. “This guy that spoke up was a figure in community. … I’m some nobody so I feel like mannys minions will eat me alive.” Two standards for sexual assault allegations? Chapin, a former Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club board member, alleged Yekutiel assaulted him at a February 2020 gathering in the Mission, according to a police report and interviews with The Standard. At the party, Yekutiel painfully clenched Chapin’s testicles, Chapin said. Chapin said he told Yekutiel to stop and attempted to free himself. Chapin filed his police report in April of this year. The San Francisco Police Department investigated, but no charges were brought. Yekutiel denied the allegations. In the intervening years, Chapin had exchanged friendly communications with Yekutiel via social media, which Yekutiel reportedly said indicated that nothing untoward had happened between them. (Sexual assault experts term kindness to an alleged perpetrator as “ fawning ,” wherein accusers seek friendly terms with those they believe harmed them in an attempt to prevent further harm.) Chapin in March also reported the incident to the San Francisco Democratic Party, which had set up a process to investigate misconduct. The party didn’t contact Chapin until after The Standard published the allegation. The Democratic County Central Committee ultimately said it had no jurisdiction, as the incident did not take place at a party event or involve an elected official. The findings cleared the way for the party to endorse Yekutiel at its August meeting. Most party members favored Yekutiel for the District 8 seat, which has traditionally been held by gay men, including its current occupant, Board President Rafael Mandelman, and his predecessors Jeff Sheehy and state Sen. Scott Wiener. The public commenters lauded Yekutiel for campaigning on audacious goals, including building 10,000 units of housing and a citywide subway network. At the Democrats’ meeting in the Visitacion Valley Community Center, Chapin scolded party leaders for failing to act on his allegations. After he spoke, dozens of community members extolled Yekutiel’s virtues to the board. Chapin sat in the front row in tears. That night mirrored Chapin’s experience online. In the comment sections of news stories detailing his allegations and on social media, his experience was discounted. Yekutiel lost some major endorsers in the wake of Chapin’s story — Attorney General Rob Bonta, Supervisor Myrna Melgar, and Rep. Lateefah Simon, among others — but most politicians and civic leaders stuck by him. In numerous background conversations with The Standard, those who continue to support Yekutiel commonly gave two explanations: that groping is regular and expected in the gay community and that if Yekutiel were guilty of assault, more accusers would come forward. Public officials have allegedly used similar arguments to defend Yekutiel. Melgar, the supervisor who pulled her endorsement, told The Standard that Mandelman told her privately that groping is perceived differently in the gay community. Mandelman is a key Yekutiel supporter, and occupies the Board of Supervisors seat Yekutiel is running for. During their discussion, Melgar asserted that in the past she had heard from women who had suffered greatly from sexual assault and therefore takes groping allegations like Chapin’s seriously. She recalled Mandelman replying, “For women, this is a big deal. Among the gays, it’s not a thing.” Mandelman denied making the statement to Melgar. “I don’t think I said that. Sexual assault is a thing. I think sexual assault occurs differently [in the gay community] and there’s a different threshold,” he said in a phone interview. Speaking to The Standard, Melgar said young gay men and teenagers have attended City Hall hearings, testifying that they had faced sexual assault and wanting action from their politicians, such as financial support for counseling. Referring to sexual assault in the gay community, Melgar said, “I do think it is a thing. And we need the leadership of our city to take a very proactive stance and to make people feel like we’re going to do something about it.” She plans to hold a City Hall hearing in October on police response to rape allegations, spurred by The Standard’s July investigation . In September, Mari Cohn, a San Francisco drag performer, joined a small protest outside a District 8 supervisor candidate debate at the Randall Museum , holding a sign that said “Believe Brad.” Yekutiel was slated to speak onstage alongside fellow candidates McCoy, Michael Nguyen, and Darshini Patel. Cohn is a District 8 resident and regularly performs in the Castro. “The fact that groping and sexual assault happens in the queer community, in this case among gay men, does not mean these allegations should be dismissed,” she said. “We can’t say sexual assault is bad only when it happens to women. When you allow any of it, you’re sending a message to all perpetrators and all survivors.” Sasha Perigo, a local tenants organizer who alleged she was assaulted by a San Francisco activist in 2021, said she believed people discounted Chapin’s allegations because he is a queer man. “One of the things that I’ve noticed throughout this is the difference in how I was received versus how Brad is being received,” Perigo said, “because to be victimized is considered feminine, and there’s underlying misogyny in that, and then there’s also people who will just treat any sort of, like, gay sexual encounter as inherently profane.” While there’s a common perception of queer culture as more thoughtful about consent and victimization due to a history of anti-gay hate, research shows a more complicated reality, according to Zoe Peterson, director of the sexual assault research initiative at Indiana University’s Kinsey Institute. Gay and bisexual men are as likely to be sexually assaulted as heterosexual women yet are rarely seen as victims, Peterson said. “We have these stereotypes about what a real perpetrator looks like and what a real victim looks like,” she said. “If the sexual assault doesn’t fit those stereotypes, people may have a harder time recognizing it was assault.” San Francisco’s Mayor’s Office for Victims’ Rights offers confidential support to victims of sexual assault and sexual harassment. If you have information to share, you can reach the reporters securely on Signal at 415-310-9964 or via this online form .

Recliners, snacks, back on the street: SF’s $19M RESET Center has become a revolving door

Each time Chris G. has left San Francisco’s new law-enforcement-led sobering center, he has ended up back in the same place. Officers have brought the 45-year-old to the RESET Center five times since it opened in May , and each time he declined further care, such as addiction medication or detox. After one visit, staff offered him a cab. He took it straight to Sixth and Mission streets — “where the dope is.” Chris, who is addicted to fentanyl and declined to provide his last name, speaks highly of the center and its staff. “It’s a little reprieve from the insanity out here,” he said, pointing to the juice, cookies and comfortable recliners. But so far, the respite hasn’t led him to seek recovery. Chris’s experience illustrates the core tension facing the RESET Center, a flagship initiative in Mayor Daniel Lurie’s strategy to curb public drug use and improve street conditions. The center, which will cost about $19.4 million to operate and secure over roughly two years, is running well below capacity, and the city cannot say where people who are referred to care end up. Far below projections Located on Sixth Street in SoMa, the center was designed as an alternative to jail or the hospital for people who are publicly intoxicated. After police drop them off, individuals are screened and assigned to one of 25 reclining chairs. They are expected to stay until staff consider them sober, which has averaged 7.5 hours. The center has several goals: get more people off the streets, connect them with treatment, and cut the time it takes officers to process detainees and get back on patrol. Colin LeClair, CEO of Connections Health Solutions, the for-profit company contracted to run the site, projected in April that it would serve up to 2,500 people a month and keep chairs “about 80% full.” Instead, the center has logged about 2,250 admissions in roughly its first five months, about 450 per month. While daily admissions more than doubled from 10 in July to 21 in September, the facility remains drastically underused. With an average stay that would allow each chair to be turned over at least three times a day, the center has the capacity to serve more than 75 people daily. But even with the recent bump in visits, a Standard analysis of Sheriff’s Office data reveals that it’s operating at less than 30% of its potential scale. City officials cite several reasons for the low occupancy, including a phased ramp-up, police understaffing, a narrow geographic intake zone, and strict eligibility rules. People cannot be admitted to the center if they’ve been given Narcan, have active warrants, or are exhibiting violent behavior or certain medical conditions. Sheriff Paul Miyamoto said the low intake at the start was intentional, and “pretty much everyone considers this so far a success.” “We were planning on keeping it at lower numbers and then expanding as we went,” he said. “We’re in a good place now.” To bring more people in, the Sheriff’s Office and Police Department recently expanded nighttime enforcement and added a wagon detail to some patrols. Lurie spokesperson Charles Lutvak said the “early results are promising,” and “every person who enters the RESET Center is a person who’s no longer doing drugs on our street and has a chance to get on the path to stability.” For police, the center’s value is time saved. SFPD spokesperson Evan Sernoffsky said dropping someone off at RESET takes less than five minutes — far faster than a jail booking or hospital transfer. “Success can be measured in a number of ways, including how RESET is maximizing an officer’s time on a call,” Sernoffsky said. For neighbors, the measure is what they see on the sidewalk. Leah Edwards, who has lived in SoMa for more than a decade, said she hasn’t noticed a difference in street conditions since the center opened. “Some days are really bad, other days are better,” Edwards said, “but there are still plenty of people incapacitated.” Referred where? What happens to people after leaving the RESET Center remains largely unknown. The Sheriff’s Office reports that 38% accept referrals to additional care, including addiction medications, short-term shelters, other sobering centers and detox. But that figure only reflects initial agreement, not whether someone follows through and sticks with it. Connections Health Solutions also hasn’t provided the agency with a breakdown — making it unclear how many people take advantage of different forms of care, or which specific programs clients end up using most. Joel Conger, president of Connections’ western region, said the company was still validating the data and deciding how to share it. For people like 41-year-old Kyle Wellington, referral numbers fail to capture the full picture. Officers have arrested him and brought him to the RESET Center about 10 times, he said. Half of those times, he was turned away for high blood pressure tested too high for admission and diverted to an emergency room instead. When he was admitted, he said he napped, watched TV and ate Uncrustables until he was permitted to leave. The one time he accepted a referral, he was taken to another short-term sobering site on Mission Street. He stayed a couple of days, stepping outside periodically to get high, before abandoning his attempt at detox. A fight over expansion Broadening the center’s geographic reach could potentially help boost intake numbers, but the idea has triggered a sharp debate among city officials. Police currently only bring in people arrested in SoMa, but Miyamoto said the goal was always broader. “I would love to expand into the Tenderloin immediately,” he said, adding that he’d like to open another center near Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital. Supervisor Bilal Mahmood, who represents the Tenderloin, agreed that expanding the reach could help fill more seats. Restricting pickups to SoMa, he argued, merely “pushes people out of that area into the Tenderloin.” But Supervisor Matt Dorsey, who represents SoMa, opposes bringing people arrested in other parts of the city to the center. The longer drives would undercut the police time savings that justify the model, he said, and would break a promise to SoMa residents. “There’s going to be a lot of pushback, including from the district supervisor, if we’re going to renege on that commitment,” said Dorsey, who added that he’d support opening more centers in other neighborhoods. Edwards sided with Dorsey, calling any geographic expansion a “bait and switch.” “If they aren’t able to fill it now, then the program doesn’t seem to be working as intended,” she said. “They should figure that out before trying to open it up.” Chris G. has his own idea of what’s missing. He was sober for 21 years before relapsing three and a half years ago. And to quit again, he believes, he first needs stable housing. In the meantime, he sees value in what the sobering center offers. “The shower, the food, the TV — all those things remind people of the life they could have,” Chris said. “It might not happen today, but something could click six months down the line.” He’d even go back to the center on his own if the rules allowed it. “I actually tried to see if I could go without the cops,” he said. “But they don’t let you do that.”

After $3.2 million in property damage, SF eyes ban on lighters used to smoke fentanyl

Jodie has burn marks all over her body. Her eyelashes and brows are singed. Her hair was accidentally burned into bangs. After smoking fentanyl on San Francisco’s streets for more than five years, the 39-year-old, who declined to give her last name, has her fair share of battle scars from mishaps with a butane lighter. Many of her peers have had it worse. Some have suffered third-degree burns. Others have accidentally set their sidewalk encampments on fire. Over the past six years, the San Francisco Fire Department has recorded more than 30 “butane-related fires,” which it suspects are started largely by street drug users, causing $3.2 million in property damage. There were 21 last year, accounting for more than two-thirds of the six-year total. Supervisor Rafael Mandelman said he will propose legislation Tuesday to ban the sale of lockable butane lighters. If passed, the law would impose $500 fines for first-time violations and $1,000 for all subsequent offenses committed within one year of the previous violation. The targeted lighters can be locked so the flame stays on, a preference of some drug users because the lighters can heat up a “nail” on a bong without having to hold down the trigger. “It’s an actual real problem,” Mandelman said. “This technology is getting used in ways that are leading to fires.” Several people using drugs on the city’s streets said they think the law is a good idea. After taking a hit of fentanyl, they’re liable to fall asleep with the lighter on, they explained. A lighter being used by a man named Ronnie combusted as he lit his crack pipe while talking with The Standard. “See, see, that’s what we’re talking about,” Ronnie exclaimed. “I’ve got more burns than freckles,” said Jodie, pointing to her freckled face. “Those things are dangerous. I’ve thought for a long time they should ban them.” But not everyone on the street is fired up about the legislation. Sitting Friday morning on a sidewalk in SoMa, Ian Lawless, 54, had a butane lighter tucked inside the front flap of his backpack for easy access. “That’s just stupid. It’ll just raise the value of them on the streets,” Lawless said, “or people will start using more dangerous things like rubbing alcohol — or go to Home Depot and get a propane torch.” Prior to fentanyl’s emergence in the city , most street drug users were injecting — rather than smoking — heroin. San Francisco Fire Department Chief Dean Crespin suspects the shift to smoking has led to an increase in lighter-related fires. “We see it all the time in our medical calls. Folks with the tips of their fingers burned. Their nail cuticles look like they’ve been exposed to extreme heat,” Crespin said. “This legislation is really just aimed at folks who would fall asleep while they’re lighting a pipe.” Mandelman said his office worked with the restaurant industry to avoid interfering with commercial kitchens that use torches for crème brûlée and other foods. The legislation would still allow the devices to be purchased online, he said. However, the supervisor suspects downtown smoke shops will be unhappy about his proposal. Smoke shops have faced scrutiny from city officials over several years for their role in the city’s drug crisis. In 2024, Mayor London Breed imposed a midnight curfew for many smoke shops in the Tenderloin, accusing them of attracting late-night crowds. This year, Supervisor Matt Dorsey extended the curfew to SoMa . “We’re not targeting smoke shops in particular,” Mandelman said. “But you know, if they are selling a product that is being used in a dangerous way, we’re going to try to regulate and restrict that.”

SF’s two biggest labor unions take Lurie’s contract deal — but not city nurses

Mayor Daniel Lurie notched a win this week as San Francisco’s two largest municipal unions, representing roughly half the city’s workforce, ratified an early contract extension . Not everyone is happy, however: A bargaining unit representing nearly 2,400 city nurses broke ranks and rejected the deal, setting up a fight over workplace safety, staffing, and pay. The contracts don’t expire until 2027, and negotiations weren’t expected to begin for months. But for Lurie, who faced strike threats during budget talks this year, an early deal heads off a potentially bruising round of bargaining. It also eases pressure for bigger raises after police and firefighters in March secured 14% pay increases over the next four years. To get ahead of the matter, Lurie’s administration approached the Public Employees Committee with an offer in August. The deal — posed to 10 unions representing 24,000 city employees — includes a 12% raise from 2027 to 2031 and no layoffs through June 30, 2029. Each unit has its own contract and can decide for itself whether to take the deal or go through a full bargaining process. One union’s rejection doesn’t jeopardize the offer for the rest. The city’s two largest unions — SEIU 1021 and IFPTE Local 21 — represent about 17,000 workers combined. Both cited economic stability and job security amid federal budget uncertainties as a reason for backing the agreement. (The nurses are part of a separate SEIU bargaining unit.) “A majority of our membership supported this agreement because it provides stability not just for our members but for the services this city relies on,” said Sarah Perez, president of IFPTE’s San Francisco chapter. Valerie Tucker, a city 911 dispatch supervisor and SEIU 1021 member leader, said in a statement that members backed the deal because “the more people who continue to work and serve our city, the better our city is represented.” While the deal makes Lurie’s budget negotiations much smoother in the coming months, the fiscal impact of the raises on the budget remains uncertain. The city faces a difficult fiscal future , and the mayor has not provided details on how the budget will accommodate the across-the-board raise in employee salaries. The deal is significant for Lurie, who was elected without support from public-sector unions and has faced opposition from them during previous budget negotiations. In a statement Friday, Lurie praised the unions that signed on, thanking workers who “show up every day to deliver reliable, responsive services for our residents” and noting that the contract “honors their work, provides stability, and recognizes cost-of-living increases.” A handful of other bargaining units — including those representing city transportation workers, electricians, and construction workers — have yet to decide on whether to accept the mayor’s early offer. The nurses’ bargaining committee rejected the offer unanimously, and a survey of its members showed overwhelming opposition, according to Jennifer Esteen, a registered nurse on the unit’s bargaining team who called the offer “absurd” and “insulting.” “Rejecting the offer from the mayor is not only about money; it’s about dignity,” Esteen said. “It’s about having a voice in the workplace.” Esteen argued that a two-year layoff guarantee falls short for a four-year contract, especially months after nurses fought off layoffs. “It feels disingenuous to say, ‘I want you locked in, and you cannot bargain for four years,’” she said. “If it’s two years of protections, we want a two-year deal.” Beyond job security, Esteen pointed to mounting workplace safety concerns, citing the fatal stabbing of a social worker in December at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital. “We’re the first responders at the level-one trauma center,” Esteen said, “and this mayor is not attuned to our safety.”

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.

Adult Probation Department

Cristel Tullock

The Board of Supervisors enacts legislation and amends municipal codes. It approves budgets, oversees city departments, and confirms mayoral appointments. It holds the authority to reject appointments and propose city policies.

Board of Supervisors

Connie Chan

Stephen Sherrill

Danny Sauter

Alan Wong

Bilal Mahmood

Matt Dorsey

Myrna Melgar

Rafael Mandelman

Jackie Fielder

Shamann Walton

Chyanne Chen

The Community Corrections Partnership advises on strategies for offender rehabilitation and public safety. It provides expertise in linking community members to social services and conducting outreach to educate the public about city programs. It emphasizes teamwork with justice and community stakeholders to ensure effective reentry and rehabilitative services.

Community Corrections Council

San Francisco Department of Emergency Management coordinates planning, preparedness, communication, response, and recovery for emergencies and disasters. It manages the city's 911 dispatch center and oversees emergency operations, ensuring effective communication between the public and first responders. The department directs and evaluates the EMS System, providing oversight of dispatchers, first responders, and medical facilities.

Department of Emergency Management

Mary Ellen Carroll

Department of Police Accountability investigates complaints against San Francisco police officers and conducts performance audits of the SFPD. It recommends policy changes to improve police practices and ensures compliance with laws and regulations. The department fosters community understanding through mediation and public reporting of findings.

Department of Police Accountability

Paul David Henderson

The Disaster Council advises on emergency preparedness and response strategies for San Francisco. It coordinates emergency functions with public agencies and organizations to protect life and property. It provides guidance on emergency plans and the direction of services during declared emergencies.

Disaster Council

The Fire Commission oversees the San Francisco Fire Department's implementation of its mission. It ensures accountability for emergency medical services and establishes criteria for departmental success. The commission governs disciplinary procedures and makes decisions on departmental policies.

Fire Commission

Fire Commission Commissioner 1

Allan Low

Stephen Nakajo

Armie Morgan

Marcy Fraser

San Francisco Fire Department provides fire suppression, emergency medical services, and disaster response. It conducts fire prevention inspections, public safety education, and community outreach. The department collaborates with other agencies for comprehensive emergency management.

Fire Department

Dean Crispen

The Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council advises on policies and strategies for juvenile justice in San Francisco. It provides expertise in coordinating services and resources for youth involved in the justice system. Key responsibilities include recommending improvements and ensuring compliance with juvenile justice regulations.

Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council

The Juvenile Probation Commission oversees the Juvenile Probation Department's operations and policies. It ensures effective supervision and rehabilitation services for youth involved in the juvenile justice system. The commission makes critical decisions regarding the management of the San Francisco Juvenile Justice Center.

Juvenile Probation Commission

Juvenile Probation Commission Commissioner 1

Juvenile Probation Commission Commissioner 2

Juvenile Probation Commission Commissioner 3

Juvenile Probation Commission Commissioner 4

Margaret Brodkin

Johanna Lacoe

Manuel Rodriguez

Juvenile Probation Department provides supervision and services to youth and families involved with the juvenile justice system. It operates the San Francisco Juvenile Justice Center, a secure facility for court-involved youth. The department funds reentry and rehabilitative programs to facilitate community reintegration.

Juvenile Probation Department

Katherine Weinstein Miller

The Mayor oversees the executive functions of San Francisco, implementing policies and managing city departments. Directs budget planning, prioritizes public safety, economic recovery, and homelessness initiatives. Exercises authority in appointing officials and shaping legislative agendas.

Mayor

Daniel Lurie

The San Francisco Police Commission sets policy for the Police Department and conducts disciplinary hearings on police misconduct charges. It imposes discipline when necessary and hears appeals from officers disciplined by the Chief of Police. The Commission also appoints and regulates Patrol Special Officers, with authority to suspend or dismiss them after hearings.

Police Commission

Police Commission Commissioner 1

Police Commission Commissioner 2

Police Commission Commissioner 3

Police Commission Commissioner 4

Cindy Elias

Clarence Don Clay

Wai Leung

San Francisco Police Department enforces laws, investigates crimes, and maintains public safety. It manages traffic regulations, conducts accident investigations, and collaborates on traffic studies. The department also engages in community policing and innovative safety programs to enhance neighborhood security.

Police Department

Paul Yep

Sheriff's Department maintains public safety through law enforcement, custody, and court security operations. It manages county jails, oversees inmate rehabilitation programs, and provides transportation for detainees. The department also executes civil processes and collaborates with community partners for crime prevention.

Sheriff's Department

Paul Miyamoto

Sheriff's Department Office of Inspector General investigates allegations of unwarranted action, unnecessary force, and neglect of duty by officers. It conducts performance audits of the San Francisco Police Department and analyzes data from various communication sources. The department shares findings and recommends improvements to ensure accountability and transparency.

Sheriff's Department Office of Inspector General

Sheriff's Department Office of Inspector General, Inspector General

The Sheriff's Department Oversight Board ensures accountability and transparency in the Sheriff's Department. It reviews policies, practices, and incidents, making recommendations for improvements. It holds the authority to conduct investigations and audits to uphold public trust.