Latest news with #BoardofSupervisors
San Francisco Chronicle
2 hours ago
- Politics
- San Francisco Chronicle
Video appears to show Mayor Lurie booed out of Trans March
As thousands of transgender people and their allies marched through San Francisco in protest of President Donald Trump's attacks on transgender rights, one local politician became the target of some hostility: Mayor Daniel Lurie. A video posted to X Friday evening appeared to show the mayor confronted by a handful of attendees at Dolores Park, with one declaring that Lurie was 'not wanted here.' Lurie and his attendants then exit the park, the video shows, followed by a few people chanting, 'How dare you come here!' At least one other person can be heard booing Lurie, who meets and hugs Supervisor Rafael Mandelman. The video does not make it clear what prompted the encounter, though San Francisco resident Dimitry Yakoushkin, who posted the video, previously criticized Lurie and the Board of Supervisors for not including the transgender flag in the city's Pride flag raising ceremony this month. Lurie, a moderate Democrat, has generally steered clear of directly criticizing Trump, instead insisting on his own support for LGBTQ+ communities and other vulnerable groups. His reticence has frustrated some progressives who want him to be more explicit in his criticism. Trans March attendees have a history of rejecting politicians they feel are using the event for political purposes. In 2016, then-Supervisor Scott Wiener, who is gay, and Mayor Ed Lee were booed out of the march when they attempted to speak from a stage.
San Francisco Chronicle
15 hours ago
- Business
- San Francisco Chronicle
Daniel Lurie didn't get everything he wanted in his first S.F. budget. Neither did his critics
Mayor Daniel Lurie 's first San Francisco budget negotiations were not as dramatic as they could have been, despite vigorous opposition from labor unions and nonprofits over his plan to close the city's huge deficit. When Lurie introduced his proposal to eliminate a roughly $800 million two-year shortfall, he sought to cut 1,300 vacant jobs and about 100 filled positions. But city lawmakers on Thursday reached a deal with Lurie to prevent 56 layoffs, blunting the impact on San Francisco's vast municipal workforce that is already one of the largest in the country. The mayor allocated funding for about 33,000 city employees next fiscal year. Unions sounded the alarm about the budget even before it was proposed by Lurie, unsuccessfully urging him to avoid deep cuts by calling on tech companies to drop lawsuits seeking tax refunds. As the Board of Supervisors vetted the budget plan, labor groups escalated their resistance, disrupting a meeting until police removed protesting workers in handcuffs. Nonprofits also vehemently objected to Lurie's proposal to cut about $185 million in grant and contract spending. Ultimately, the deal that the supervisors' budget committee brokered with Lurie scaled back some of his most aggressive plans. By tweaking the mayor's two-year spending proposal, supervisors freed up $15 million to reduce layoffs, and they reallocated $26 million to invest in a variety of services that Lurie originally intended to cut. The money is a drop in the bucket of San Francisco's $7 billion general fund, but it will help avoid some of the most painful belt-tightening originally envisioned by Lurie. The budget deal, which must still be approved by the full board of supervisors next month, illustrates how Lurie is trying to balance the demands of lawmakers and organized labor while making good on promises to reduce San Francisco's persistent deficits. He didn't give the unions or supervisors everything they wanted. But he also didn't seek a massive overhaul of the city bureaucracy or press for layoffs on the scale the city saw during the Great Recession. Lurie said in a statement that the budget deal would help the city avoid spending 'money we don't have, while focusing our resources on providing safe and clean streets, addressing the fentanyl crisis, and advancing our economic recovery.' 'Passing this budget also required painful decisions that were, unfortunately, necessary to set up our entire city for success,' Lurie said. 'Leadership means making those tough decisions, and this group of city leaders did that.' Supervisor Connie Chan, who chairs the board's budget committee, said Lurie was put in a difficult position partly because recent city budgets under his predecessor, London Breed, were balanced with a heavy reliance on temporary funding sources. Lurie used far less one-time money in his first budget proposal than Breed did last year, according to the city controller's office. The mayor and supervisors also set aside $400 million to help shield the city from federal funding cuts under the Trump administration. 'We are looking to the future about how we protect San Francisco and make sure that San Francisco is solvent,' Chan said. 'That really is the common goal that got us through this budget process… I recognize that and I think the mayor recognizes that.' Chan said she and her colleagues have tried to do 'whatever we can to reverse the layoffs for our front-line workers and to protect as many direct services to the most vulnerable as possible.' 'Under the circumstances, I think that we have delivered that,' she said. SEIU 1021, the city's largest public-sector union, had a mixed reaction to the budget deal. Union president Theresa Rutherford said in a statement that her group was relieved that the agreement between supervisors and the mayor 'reverses layoffs of frontline workers.' But she was 'disappointed and concerned' about cuts to nonprofits and city services that remain in the spending plan. The budget would still cut about $171 million from grants and contracts, a $14 million reduction from what the mayor first proposed. 'We've been fighting hard, but our work is not done,' Rutherford said. 'We will continue to fight to protect public services, especially for those in our community who need them the most, and the rights of all the workers who provide those services, public and nonprofit alike. And we will hold the mayor accountable for reversing these layoffs.' One of the biggest sticking points in this year's budget negotiations involved changes that Lurie proposed in how the city spends revenue from a 2018 business tax that funds homeless services. The tax measure, Proposition C, earmarked specific percentages of the proceeds for permanent housing, mental health services, homelessness prevention and shelter and hygiene services. Lurie wanted to redirect about $90 million in unspent revenue from the tax to fund his priorities, namely homeless shelters, which he thinks are in dire need of expansion to get more unhoused people off the streets. The mayor also sought more flexibility in how his administration spends future revenue from the tax. After an extended debate and negotiations with the mayor's office, the budget committee reduced Lurie's $90 million reallocation request down to about $30 million. The committee also agreed to let Lurie more freely spend up to $19 million in extra revenue from the tax if approved by a simple majority of the board. That prompted some intense pushback from Supervisor Jackie Fielder, who questioned why supervisors were 'going to do away with a key provision' of Prop C, which originally required a supermajority board vote to alter the funding categories. 'Should we even have a Board of Supervisors at this point?' Fielder asked at a budget committee hearing. The Coalition on Homelessness advocacy group also lamented the decision, calling it a 'mayoral power grab' in a news release. 'San Francisco is not a kingdom, and it is not a corporation, it is a democracy,' Jennifer Friedenbach, the coalition's executive director, said in a statement. 'Prop C … was carefully constructed to ensure that data-driven, voter-approved mandates existed to build a responsive and efficient homeless system that was protected from wrongheaded political winds.' Chan, the budget chair, defended the committee's decision as a fair compromise. 'We negotiated with the mayor the best outcome (possible) in a very balanced spending plan that supports homeless families and homeless transitional-age youth,' Chan said in an interview. 'I also understand that at this moment and this time, there is also an urgent need to solve the crisis that we see on our streets.' Aldo Toledo contributed reporting.
San Francisco Chronicle
2 days ago
- Health
- San Francisco Chronicle
‘Profoundly disappointing': Modest gains in S.F. effort to force mentally ill people into treatment
In 2024, San Francisco was one of two California counties that jumped at the opportunity to implement a new law allowing cities to place those struggling with mental illness into involuntary medical treatment. But 18 months after San Francisco began rolling it out, Board of Supervisors President Rafael Mandelman criticized the city's implementation, saying it has 'not been a success.' 'It's profoundly disappointing that we are where we are,' Mandelman said during a Thursday hearing, which he had called, of the Public Safety and Neighborhood Services Committee. Centered on behavioral health issues since he was first elected in 2018, Mandelman has sponsored several actions in support of expanding conservatorship programs. Now, he's turned critical of the little progress that's been made. Passed in 2023, California Senate Bill 43 expanded the population eligible for conservatorship — a legal arrangement where the government can place individuals deemed unable to care for themselves into involuntary treatment — to include people whose mental illness or drug addiction inhibits their ability to keep themselves safe. The city saw 136 temporary conservatorships in the first year of the law's implementation — an increase of 28, or 25%, from the previous year. So far this year, the city has seen 50 additional temporary conservatorships, according to a presentation from the city's public health and homelessness officials. But although over 85% of the new conservatorship cases fell under the expanded criteria of SB43, none relied solely on the new eligibility guidelines, meaning these patients would have qualified for conservatorship without the new legislation. Mandelman called these improvements 'exceedingly modest,' adding that he and other city residents have observed a persistently high number of individuals in critical need of mental health treatment and placements in conservatorship. The slow progress arises from a shortage of 100-140 locked subacute treatment beds for those struggling with mental illness, according to Daniel Tsai, director of the city's public health department. He also noted a lack of mixed-treatment facilities that can provide adequate care for patients who require treatment for both mental illness and addiction. Last month, the state awarded San Francisco $27 million for 73 new treatment beds, including 57 locked subacute treatment beds and 16 dual diagnosis beds for those with both addiction and behavioral health needs. Tsai said that San Francisco currently has about 100 locked subacute beds and has bought 48 out-of-county beds, sending conserved patients to places as far as Southern California. Due to the shortage of locked beds, city officials are piloting a program placing conservatorship-eligible people in shelters, while providing them with intensive treatment. The program has enrolled about five patients in the past month since its launch, he added. The program aims to help those who, with medication or other treatments, may see improvements without locked facilities, explained Kelly Dearman, executive director of Department of Disability and Aging Services during the hearing. Though he's eager to see where the pilot program goes, Mandelman said he's skeptical about addressing a need for locked treatment facilities by placing individuals in shelter beds. He fears that people staying in shelters will be more likely to leave their treatment placements and engage in the same activities that led to their initial condition. Within two years, the city plans to open an additional 57 locked beds at the Behavioral Health Center at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center, but the move would displace 82 residents who currently live at the center and receive residential care. The city's public health department notified residents of the plans in early May, Mission Local reported, stating that no residents will be asked to move until the fall. On Thursday afternoon, roughly 40 caregivers, family members and residents gathered outside of the center on Potrero Avenue to protest the public health department's plans to displace RCFE and ARF residents. Around 90% of the residents have signed a petition calling on the city's public health commission to reconsider the project. 'I just do not agree with closing beds to open beds,' said Jennifer Esteen, a union representative and a registered nurse who works at the center. While she emphasized her support for expanding locked facilities, Esteen said that the city must not 'displace people who are stable in order to find room for other people.' She also noted that a locked treatment facility already located inside the center has over a dozen vacant spaces and doubts the city will be able to adequately staff and fill the expanded space. 'No current (Behavioral Health Center) resident will move without a secure and appropriate next home,' said Dr. Hillary Kunins, director of behavioral health services, at the hearing. She added that the city's acquisition of two assisted living facilities in Hayes Valley will help accommodate any displaced residents. But Esteen is skeptical of the city's messaging, sharing that she's seen cases where residents have not received accommodations under similar promises. She also raised concerns with the plans to move residents to privately contracted facilities, explaining that many residents were previously evicted or mistreated by similar facilities. Antoinette Conde, the sister of a resident of the center, fears that moving her brother to another facility will create unnecessary stress and confusion, while worsening his mental state. A lack of state-level oversight has driven much of this uncertainty over implementation, said Jill Nielsen, deputy director of programs at the Department of Disability and Aging Services who also serves as the city's public conservator. 'Counties are operating these programs to some degree in a vacuum,' she said during the hearing. Last year, several deputy public conservators told the Chronicle that they frequently ran into difficulty finding placements for conservatees, with many ending up on the street. These concerns came amid a push from former mayor London Breed to aggressively increase conservatorship numbers. Nielsen noted that the state did not give local governments additional funding to implement the law, a departure from how it provided San Francisco $4 million to implement Gov. Gavin Newsom's mental health program, CARE Court. Mandelman similarly advocated for more state guidance and oversight, adding that conservatorship, at the current moment, 'is almost entirely a local activity with very little state regulation.'
CBS News
4 days ago
- Politics
- CBS News
Vallejo asks Solano County for help navigating police staffing crisis, contract concerns delay vote
The city of Vallejo, in an urgent plea, asked the Solano County Sheriff's Office to help it address a critical police staffing shortage. As of Tuesday, the ball remains in Solano County's court to make a final decision on approval. Tuesday, the county Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 to delay the decision to next month at their regular July 22 meeting. It comes as last week the Vallejo city council unanimously voted to approve an $11.2 million contract with the Solano County Sheriff's Office that would allow 17 full-time Solano County Sheriff's deputies and staff members to respond to about half of Vallejo's city limits from noon to midnight, seven days a week spanning the entire calendar year of 2026. Solano County Sheriff Tom Ferrara said Tuesday at the Board of Supervisors' meeting that he does support helping the Vallejo Police Department navigate this crisis, but his department needs more time to make it work. "Is this the end-all, fix-it plan? No, but for 12 months, if we can give them some breathing room and all the stars align?" the sheriff asked, saying he would want to step in if the details can be worked out. Tuesday, his recommendation to the Board was to revisit approving the contract next month. Chair of the Board of Supervisors Mitch Mashburn agreed. "I want to make sure we have all our ducks in a row and our house in order, just like Vallejo did before we just say, 'Yeah, we want to do this,' " said Mashburn. "There are too many other elements that are factors in this that have to be worked out." The goal is to help get 911 response times down in underserved parts of Vallejo that are seeing unmanageable violent crime. Community members voiced their concern in public comments on Tuesday. "The violence keeps rising and families like mine are left praying every single day that we are not gonna be next. That's why I'm standing here today pleading with you to allow Solano County sheriff's deputies to come in and assist. It's about saving lives, it's about survival," said Vallejo mother Marissa Serafina through tears, who says her own son has been shot twice. In July 2023, CBS13 first reported that the city of Vallejo declared a state of emergency due to the crippling police staffing shortage. Since then, the department says it is working to get its head back above water, but this assistance from the sheriff's office would give them the immediate help and the stability needed to try and achieve full staffing again by 2027. Supervisor Cassandra James was the only "no" vote in Tuesday's decision to delay. James, a Vallejo resident, criticized not taking immediate action. "I also have to deal with the shootings every day, I live in that very community," James said." So it's really important that we do not let process get in the way." Part of the holdup is that the Solano County Deputy Sheriff's Association (DSA), which is the Sheriff's department union, sent a letter to the Vallejo City Council last week in opposition. The DSA says 90% of its members do not support taking on the Vallejo contract. "Prioritizing staffing for Vallejo... will reduce services for unincorporated Solano County. Reassignments from specialized bureaus or reduced patrol staffing will compromise our ability to deliver the high-quality service our citizens expect and erode community trust," the letter reads. "I received a copy of that DSA letter. Many of the elements raised, I really believe, can be resolved," said Vallejo Mayor Andrea Sorce. Sorce and other Vallejo city council members showed up to Tuesday's meeting to plead with the board in public comment to approve the contract. "There should not be lines that divide protecting and serving. There is no reason in a county with such brilliance, able to think outside the box, that we cannot figure this out together to serve Vallejo," said Dr. Tonia Lediju, Vallejo city council member. Two more issues were discussed in great detail at Tuesday's meeting that the sheriff's office needs to figure out within the next month. First, the department needs the board's help in fast-tracking the process of getting additional police vehicles outfitted to serve the Vallejo community. In addition, Sheriff Ferrara says he recently learned in an HR memo that his department could lose eight formerly retired deputies who came back onto the force thanks to a state law change to help address understaffing. The department has to work with CalPERS, the state's retirement and pension agency, to make sure they can keep those eight retired annuity deputy sheriffs, otherwise the deal with Vallejo might not work. "If I lose those eight now, I have got to hire 25," Ferrara said, adding if this happens, the department will be 'dead in the water' and calling these next steps a 'heavy lift." Ferrara promised he would do his best to find a resolution. The supervisors could end up scheduling an emergency meeting in early July if those labor issues and contract negotiations are quickly resolved. Otherwise, the Board is expected to vote on the contract on July 22.
San Francisco Chronicle
6 days ago
- Business
- San Francisco Chronicle
Mayor Lurie names new S.F. planning director, after a contentious approval process
Sarah Dennis Phillips, a veteran San Francisco real estate executive who has had top roles in both the private and public sectors, has been named the city's planning director, replacing Rich Hillis, who announced in May that he would be stepping down. The appointment took place after a contentious closed-door planning commission meeting on Wednesday, during which three of the seven commissioners walked out because they objected to the process by which the decision was made, according to department sources familiar with the hearing. The walkout was first reported by Mission Local. The three planning commissioners who walked out objected that they were not given a more prominent role in reviewing applicants. In the past, planning director appointments involved a nationwide search and commissioners reviewed a pool of applicants, eventually providing the mayor with a list of at least three qualified candidates. The process took several months. In this case, the mayor's staffers submitted Phillips' resume less than a day before the vote, which prompted commissioners Kathrin Moore, Gilbert Williams and Theresa Imperial to walk out in protest, refusing to participate in the interview or vote on the appointment. All three were appointed by the Board of Supervisors, whereas the four who voted in favor of Dennis-Phillips were appointed by former Mayor London Breed. The San Francisco Charter dictates that the planning director serves 'at the pleasure' of the commission and that the mayor and the commission 'agree about who will be the planning director.' The pick, which Mayor Daniel Lurie announced Wednesday, is part of a shuffling of San Francisco's top land-use brass. Phillips, who is currently the executive director of the San Francisco Office of Economic and Workforce Development, will be replaced by Anne Taupier, who currently heads up development for the mayor. In addition, Liz Watty, who heads up current planning for the planning department, will oversee the multiagency PermitSF initiative, which is focused on reforming San Francisco's famously cumbersome and time-consuming building permitting process. In a press release, Lurie said the new economic development team would help implement his efforts to bolster San Francisco's post-pandemic economic recovery by 'cutting red tape, supporting small businesses, adding housing, and revitalizing downtown.' Lurie said Phillips, Taupier and Watty 'have the leadership, experience, and track record to drive our city's economic recovery.' He said the three have 'helped generate billions of dollars in economic activity, create thousands of new homes across the city, open small businesses in every neighborhood and support major initiatives downtown.' Phillips in particular will be in the spotlight over the next seven months as the city is finalizing a rezoning that will allow more height and density in big swaths of the city in order to accommodate 46,000 units of new housing. The rezoning, which Lurie calls the 'Family Zoning' plan, is due to be adopted by the Board of Supervisors by Jan. 31, 2026, or the city risks losing state funding for transportation and housing projects. Phillips spent time as a city planner and deputy director of the Office of Economic and Workforce Development before taking a job in the private sector with real estate giant Tishman Speyer. While the planning director search didn't follow the established process of allowing commissioners to vet candidates, it was similar to the shortened process Lurie used to pick Julie Kirschbaum as the director of SFMTA and Dan Tsai as the city's public health director.
