[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6601746,"mediaKeyId","3005831-3a1a08a4d5060208d57576f86c2dbcbf","parentId",3005831,"title","Public defenders, advocates press board not to cut juvenile social‑work staff; supervisors seek budget information","audioSeconds",1700,"startMs",2029000,"endMs",3729000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3005831-3a1a08a4d5060208d57576f86c2dbcbf&start=2029&end=3729","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3005831-3a1a08a4d5060208d57576f86c2dbcbf/thumbnail_2029000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6601746/San-Francisco-County/California/Public-defenders-advocates-press-board-not-to-cut-juvenile-socialwork-staff-supervisors-seek-budget-information","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6601746-d82b227d46c1b02cd38ea555031abc9a/orig.mp4?Expires=1775186461&Signature=ByYzPBJjJWh-11B5W-1LlIPffNphxz2BgNd6MH9qzYRy~ZzoA9TqSuW6SbCUZ1B1Tv5Aco7WF~ru5lWD2bGoYIjZ5F8FkB4oH07oltw3ftC1P30u7NBMZ6J~4JAORWCRKtfPQLNyDnFa5YzUvA4n4hmo6TtNLap3SqHDJB9pGTkoHb~AlmiuierflymS9nLexTD41iZzmCku7tu0YxTqrlnrdHZNIPIt-hh7LQlg3NV1-Dqc2GFbUoIH4CNv1gbV2fKbhaG0DkfAs4nq0oOC7pLK3LRPu1PYqYDKqERCps6-bsRUHDYMFLIX0zeVfecrapDXnb6cfxpsdbbe92W-mg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Sanfrancisco Government tv","date","2025-04-16T02:09:00Z","article","Several speakers at public comment and multiple supervisors addressed proposed or potential reductions to social‑work positions in the juvenile public defender's office and urged the board to preserve those positions.

Advocates and attorneys described social workers as essential to effective juvenile defense and cost‑saving for the city. Sue Burrell, staff attorney at the Youth Law Center, told the board that “social workers are essential” and said national professional guidelines consider social‑work services part of competent juvenile defense. Abigail Trillin, managing attorney at Legal Services for Children, said social workers “save money and they save children's lives and futures,” adding that probation officers do not provide the same services without social‑work training.

Patricia Lee, managing attorney of the Public Defender's juvenile unit, said the office's social‑work staff helped secure alternatives to commitments to the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) after 2005: “No client was committed to DJJ, and this is an amazing statistic,” she said and added that avoiding out‑of‑home commitments produced savings — noting 20 placement cases last year that avoided higher‑cost placements and citing a savings figure discussed on the record (about $600,000).

Public Defender Jeff Adachi addressed the board, saying he learned of a planned letter of inquiry through news coverage and not direct notice, and expressed concern about process and communication with the board. He said the department had asked for two paralegal positions because of workload and asked for professional courtesy during inquiries.

Supervisor Ellsberg said the matter would be framed for the June and July budget process: he requested that the controller provide information to help review the Public Defender's budget in that later cycle rather than seeking immediate cuts to the current year. Ellsberg said the department is about $1,000,000 overspent and has not produced $850,000 in midyear cuts; he asked the controller to provide a set of questions and data to inform the board's review for fiscal 2009–10.

No formal reductions were adopted at the meeting. Supervisors and advocates said the board needs a clearer factual record and fiscal analysis before considering cuts that advocates warned would raise costs and harm outcomes for youth.

What happens next: Supervisor Ellsberg asked the controller to compile fiscal information for use in the board’s June–July budget hearings; the public defender’s office said it will respond to inquiries but criticized the timing and manner of the initial request.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Sanfrancisco Government tv - 123364800002/03/09 - Apr 16, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Public defenders, juvenile advocates and community speakers urged the board not to cut social‑work staff in the Public Defender's juvenile unit; Supervisor Ellsberg said he will request detailed fiscal information from the controller for use during the June budget process.","taxTitle","San Francisco County, California","taxId",2862,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6601752,"Votes at a glance: approvals and authorizations from the Feb. board meeting",2496,2115000,4611000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3005831-3a1a08a4d5060208d57576f86c2dbcbf&start=2115&end=4611","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3005831-3a1a08a4d5060208d57576f86c2dbcbf/thumbnail_2115000.jpg","/articles/6601752/San-Francisco-County/California/Votes-at-a-glance-approvals-and-authorizations-from-the-Feb-board-meeting","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6601752-3e5a8e016772f61d56d89a323cf0ef94/orig.mp4?Expires=1775186461&Signature=QXL5OYcmhnYWA2Bz4enVc6L4RFS5qZ9rKKSlLlpTPt1lEkq5kIKfTaZUFAHXDST4JWRTNnhhILl1gRSvXZNzbuGdg1gWjKRjJzKeFaeVRuLfJUKSZpXneJLa41nROKfiUwzIDHGsqAyuwMmfOSUFzGY-Ga6WsL22XWhKssmWww5LffyR2QLsuIsAlft8VZIWtAJRvMsglsqZGX1YbwAj2bITHPXGP~qCtKPqeEZZG8JCGQIOMp0qZ5JWaq~iyR5lJlPh3EpI8DHijrXxNkVqLwGF165DUWpuJAXk6PpxkZw-RRhKo8BfAbzCfd3og5xsKORv66eHg9ljD0oFlvAsxQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Board of Supervisors took final action on a number of items that were called together or considered with brief discussion. Below are the items, the outcome, and key details as recorded on the public record.

- Items 8 and 9 (Public Utilities Commission): The board granted a waiver of the Administrative Code to allow the Public Utilities Commission to award Agreement CS963 for Program Construction Management Services without competitive procurement, and authorized the general manager to execute a Water System Improvement Program construction management services agreement with \"Acum Water\" for an amount not to exceed $26,000,000 with a term up to seven years. Roll call: 10 ayes, 1 no. (Item numbers: 8, 9.)

- Item 13 (San Francisco International Airport contract): The board approved a one‑year extension option (third of five one‑year options embedded in the contract) for a contract involving airport passenger‑cart services; the airport reported the option was one of five and that the options are routinely used when performance and terms remain favorable. (Roll call: ayes recorded; final resolution adopted.)

- Item 14 (Homeland Security grant): The board adopted an ordinance authorizing the Department of Emergency Management to retroactively accept and expend a federal Department of Homeland Security grant of approximately $2,000,000 for disaster planning and related activities and added three grant‑funded positions across city offices. The roll call recorded unanimous support (ayes noted across roll call). (Item 14.)

- Item 15 (Tenant protections ordinance): The board passed the ordinance offering eviction and confidentiality protections to tenants who are victims of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking on first reading. The board adopted two amendments during the discussion to broaden the definition of qualified third parties and to allow protection for continuing actions. Roll call: 11 ayes; ordinance passed first reading.

- Item 17 (Port gift): The board adopted a resolution authorizing the Port to accept gift services valued at approximately $430,000 from the Copra Lane Crane Landmark Association for restoration and preservation of the Copra Crane at Pier 84. Roll call: 11 ayes.

- Item 18 (Streetscape transfer): The board adopted a resolution transferring a streetscape improvement project along Fillmore Street from the Redevelopment Agency to the city. Adopted without objection.

- Items 21 and 22 (adoption without committee reference): Two resolutions were adopted without committee referral: (21) urging Governor Schwarzenegger to sustain state mental‑health funding and preserve Proposition 63 monies; and (22) retroactive authorization to accept a $10,000 grant for a pilot program to meet cultural and linguistic needs of limited‑English‑proficient victims of domestic violence. Roll call: 11 ayes.

These items were either consented together or advanced with limited discussion at the meeting. The vote tallies above reflect the roll‑call tallies read into the record.","Several ordinances, contracts and resolutions were approved or adopted by the Board of Supervisors with minimal debate; this itemized roundup lists each action, the vote tally (where recorded) and key details.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6601756,"Supervisors approve steps toward June special election on revenue measures",1489,2207000,3696000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3005831-3a1a08a4d5060208d57576f86c2dbcbf&start=2207&end=3696","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3005831-3a1a08a4d5060208d57576f86c2dbcbf/thumbnail_2207000.jpg","/articles/6601756/San-Francisco-County/California/Supervisors-approve-steps-toward-June-special-election-on-revenue-measures","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6601756-fc153bde839d70549af1cce3c2f19679/orig.mp4?Expires=1775186461&Signature=O8Ad9kY3mJSav818Hw822EaRm5sd394eZzEhI8wocD7R6a31Rbt~l1SinhjkoVo8rzT2L1hhzxi-5K9smvvJC3qQfAHf3C~a6-~gC9XJFd5lcI5x2n4wexYL9GJGO~Vf5bb9iwivNIActk5HB1bdMGNORjOmFwajF31UmJlgxYVRGl2zFfo8y-jzNUgsxJkhRnvG1dJoCfHby3XbLqa2t9YTmCX9VbtrfZ5mQYDsW6Rybvb2afpb5CoYX84Croc7p-~39Jpk198EM-ShikY6V9XorFBYQ1p5odYUwCpnE8Q1nOYNUAyTUCiTMezCGy9-xEP0C2GXiwULK4sFcAHzIg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to advance an amended item and later adopted a resolution calling a municipal special election on June 2, 2009, to consider potential revenue and fiscal measures.

At issue were procedural changes and the addition of three measures that had not previously had a public hearing: a possible vehicle impact fee, a possible tax intended to discourage consumption of high‑carbon‑footprint energy (referred to in the meeting as a carbon tax), and a proposed charter amendment to require that one‑time revenues be spent only on one‑time expenditures.

Supervisors debated whether the city had completed the preparatory work needed to present revenue measures to voters in June. Supervisor Maxwell and others urged caution, noting more work remained before placing measures on the ballot. Maxwell said more needs to be done “before we move forward with the June special election,” and argued for additional planning and stakeholder engagement.

Other supervisors argued the city must keep options open, given the depth of the fiscal crisis. Supervisor Dufty described a three‑part approach of cuts, concessions and revenues as necessary, saying the public would be more likely to support a balanced package. “The only way we're gonna solve the city's fiscal situation is to have a 3 part approach,” he said.

Supervisor Avalos introduced two additional revenue proposals during roll call and introductions later in the meeting: a gross receipts tax (with an exemption for firms under $2 million in receipts) and a proposed 5 percent sales tax set to expire after three years, which Avalos estimated could generate about $2.525 billion (her estimate presented on the record). Avalos said the sales‑tax measure would be dedicated to public safety and public health services.

After amendments and procedural votes, the board adopted the ordinance amending deadlines and the package of items that included the three new measures, and then separately adopted a resolution calling the June 2 special election (item 12). The resolution passed with eight ayes and three noes (8–3). Board members said the votes to move forward did not commit the city to a final package; supervisors and staff will continue drafting language, stakeholder outreach and budget analysis ahead of the June ballot deadline.

What happens next: staff and committee work to refine proposed measures, and supervisors said the mayor’s office, labor and business stakeholders should be engaged as the city prepares possible ballot measures for June.","The Board advanced an amended set of items allowing consideration of possible revenue measures for a June 2 special election, including a vehicle fee, a possible carbon tax and a charter amendment; the resolution calling the election passed 8–3.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6601761,"Board sustains mayor's veto reversing Mission Street height change after staff typo",1429,684000,2113000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3005831-3a1a08a4d5060208d57576f86c2dbcbf&start=684&end=2113","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3005831-3a1a08a4d5060208d57576f86c2dbcbf/thumbnail_684000.jpg","/articles/6601761/San-Francisco-County/California/Board-sustains-mayors-veto-reversing-Mission-Street-height-change-after-staff-typo","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6601761-bc3bbbd3301a63b14292a962c1d5efbc/orig.mp4?Expires=1775186461&Signature=DLWGGyfOfM42t12frXXP8EGsGLDPme6vKjc6par~9hrPHeV~De-aIHc-bUZThBFqEclVIi3sOcZ944h8pHj6r8yjL~iJm92xf3NcCXXzHUY-RvyLMAZD7XUF8isUeeBazR8V6RPamcIJjPDhNRaDU5xTV97OtCTWr6ZLY4hircWr0SQnCQdZ8DEcR4JutS9-47lAJYYnhYQ79h2rkfUJsRO-BGuwCj~J3hYt1xiou6FixqbbOrKsPy6pzWOUlBPr2Q51i6ywimDXS~TGP96HN-HyCs-MZupwq-qFUkS-vybXYJz0UTJdna-Or6hwKW0rZzbFvh0EuhzvSAbYPms-ew__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Board of Supervisors debated and sustained the mayor’s veto of an ordinance that would have amended the zoning map to change height and bulk designations for two Mission Street parcels — the New Mission Theatre and the El Capitan Theatre sites.

Planning Department staff told the board the change stemmed from a clerical error. Ken Rich of the Planning Department said the planning commission initially recommended 85‑foot height districts for Mission Street. After subsequent land‑use hearings, the committee recommended returning most Mission Street segments to existing levels but retaining an 85‑foot special height district for the two parcels in question. Rich said staff made a typographical error, inserting 85 feet into legislation where the board had intended 65 feet for the New Mission parcel; he apologized for the mistake.

Board members debated both the legal implications and the planning process. Several supervisors said they wanted more corridor‑wide planning and broader community involvement rather than spot zoning one or two properties. Supervisor Maxwell and Supervisor Campos urged more work by the Planning Department and an extended process; Maxwell said, “we recognized that there needed to be more work on this Mission Street corridor.”

Others framed the dispute as political. Supervisor Daley criticized the politics around the item and raised concerns about relationships between developers, fundraisers and elected officials; during his remarks he described the situation as the “worst pay to play development deal” he had seen and said the politics surrounding the item were “ugly.”

Deputy City Attorney Sheryl Adams explained the legal posture: “The document that's in the file and the document that is before the board and that is passed is the controlling document,” she said, noting that the board must act on the version in the public file rather than attempting post‑hoc corrections of drafting errors.

After debate the board recorded a roll call and the president announced the mayor’s veto was sustained. The matter will return to the Planning Department for the follow‑up work members requested: Ken Rich told supervisors the department expects to return with a corridor proposal within roughly six months of the ordinance’s effective date.","Supervisors debated a planning commission and land‑use committee decision on height limits for two Mission Street parcels; a staff typographical error and broader process concerns led to a veto that the board sustained.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6601766,"Board sustains mayor's veto of Community Justice Center funding",534,149000,683000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3005831-3a1a08a4d5060208d57576f86c2dbcbf&start=149&end=683","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3005831-3a1a08a4d5060208d57576f86c2dbcbf/thumbnail_149000.jpg","/articles/6601766/San-Francisco-County/California/Board-sustains-mayors-veto-of-Community-Justice-Center-funding","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6601766-793d2c88b986ac6d2f3ec8c224acc0f0/orig.mp4?Expires=1775186461&Signature=UHr7sCVDiY6lQZMT3hcry1iplOaKGEQsat0L63TFpWijDUFBAKv8MjNyADqJ2EBkhlPM4faNzTQtONW874vlYtmEEVw0EvpFTUajEiFyFbIGizXRJ-G~fR8uaPfOq30WVHaZ7ipcicpahNyW2gE2V8SK-sPTCcy3tlwnSCQPROFmKBWGw~QZbNZdZ1IhjFqfsm2oNDgBQZfMCMk6wCO96iObmNZefohxeIJBPl2W65rMXY5fuW2PFtVaO1tICdd7BIPyXJ2xHUbfTTQNKDl~2e3m5PLZDKEU9r4jvBIKuEmNF9aZOROckT1aos1o8UAyOujGfhFLQSIwbBsETIpBRg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on a vote sustained the mayor's veto of an ordinance related to funding for the Community Justice Center, preserving the mayor’s earlier action and keeping the challenged de-appropriation in place.

The matter (item 6 on the agenda) concerned an ordinance that would have de‑appropriated approximately $998,000 in general fund from the Mayor's Office of Community Justice and roughly $761,000 in federal direct grant revenue in the Department of Public Health for the Community Justice Center. The board considered a motion to override that veto; the roll call recorded 6 ayes and 5 noes and the president announced, “the mayor's veto is sustained.”

Why it matters: supporters of the Community Justice Center framed it as a program meant to place people into services as alternatives to incarceration. Opponents and some supervisors raised concerns about timing and the city's broader fiscal constraints, arguing that launching new programs during a severe budget shortfall could require cuts elsewhere.

Supervisor Daley argued in favor of maintaining funding, emphasizing the program's role in placing people into services as alternatives to incarceration and urging consistency with campaign commitments. “This item is not gonna make that list,” Daley said of the midyear budget list, warning that a delayed start would require additional cuts elsewhere to fund the center.

President Chu explained her position and background, noting experience as a prosecutor and her interest in accountability for the program. Supervisor Avalos said she opposed overriding the veto, saying this was not the time to start new initiatives given the city’s budget strain and the likelihood that service referrals from the court would face cuts.

There was no amendment to the ordinance and no additional direction adopted; the board’s vote sustained the mayor’s veto, so the prior de‑appropriation remains in effect.

The discussion on the item was substantive and included back‑and‑forth over the program’s timing, accountability measures, and the effect of broader cuts to mental‑health and substance‑abuse services scheduled to take effect in the coming weeks.","The San Francisco Board of Supervisors considered an override of the mayor's veto on funding tied to the Community Justice Center but ultimately sustained the veto after a roll-call vote.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Public defenders, advocates press board not to cut juvenile social‑work staff; supervisors seek budget information

Votes at a glance: approvals and authorizations from the Feb. board meeting

Supervisors approve steps toward June special election on revenue measures

Board sustains mayor's veto reversing Mission Street height change after staff typo

Board sustains mayor's veto of Community Justice Center funding