Departments detail neighborhood investments in Lakeview/OMI; community presses for clearer tracking and fuller funding, library site dispute surfaces

San Francisco city departments told the Board of Supervisors’ Budget & Appropriations Committee on May 24 that they have targeted a range of services and investments to Lakeview, Oceanview, Merced Heights and Ingleside (collectively OMI) over the past decade, but community members and supervisors pressed for clearer, neighborhood‑level accounting and more sustained, capacity‑building support for local providers.

Supervisor Asha Safaie, who sponsored the hearing, framed it as a follow‑up to a COVID‑era conversation about equity investments in District 11. Presenters from the Human Services Agency (HSA), Department of Children, Youth & Families (DCYF), Office of Early Care & Education, Office of Economic & Workforce Development (OEWD), Department of Public Health (DPH), Mayor’s Office of Community Development (MOCD) and the public library described programs and methods to estimate investments targeted to ZIP codes 94112 and 94132.

HSA said it devotes more than $100 million annually in supports to residents in those ZIP codes and leverages an additional $91 million in state and federal funds; site‑based DAS programs serve roughly 4,200 seniors and adults with disabilities in the neighborhoods ($5 million annually). HSA noted data limits — program client addresses (not service‑site location) and ZIP‑level reporting make neighborhood disaggregation imperfect — and announced a mobile office pilot to bring eligibility workers into communities.

DCYF reported using an approximation method (dividing program funding by the number of sites served) and estimated its OMI allocations rose from about $1.3 million in FY2013 to an estimated $3.5 million in FY2022–23, while cautioning these are conservative estimates and driven in part by short‑term initiatives such as Summer Together and Dreamkeeper funding.

OEWD listed targeted small‑business and workforce investments: an economic vitality incubation hub (Dreamkeeper‑funded), COVID relief mini‑grants, an African American revolving loan fund and roughly $2 million invested to create an OMI neighborhood job center and satellite site. OEWD acknowledged difficulty in apportioning some citywide programs to OMI precisely but said programmatic support and procurement technical assistance have been used to increase local participation.

DPH said ZIP codes 94112 and 94132 account for more than 15% of unduplicated primary‑care patients served in the health network and about 21% of clients in the WIC program; DPH also highlighted the OMI Family Center behavioral health clinic and numerous community‑based and street‑based services that are not captured in electronic health record counts.

Community speakers — including neighborhood providers, job‑center staff and early‑childhood educators — thanked departments for services but repeatedly asked for: (1) clearer, published lists showing where funds have been spent and who has been served; (2) more and steadier funding for small, often Black‑led community organizations and family childcare providers; and (3) faster disbursement and better communication about awarded grants and capital repairs.

Supervisors pressed departments to expand procurement technical assistance, to prioritize capacity building for neighborhood providers, and to ensure family childcare providers are included in Universal TK planning. Early‑Childhood officials said they have released RFPs to build a diversified pipeline of educators and to fund field‑building supports targeted to African‑American providers; OEWD and MOCD described pre‑RFP TA and neighborhood equity scoring to increase competitive participation.

A flashpoint in the hearing was the Ocean View Branch library project. Library staff said $17.5 million is currently allocated toward the project and that the preliminary project assessment from the Planning Department recommends careful attention to pedestrian safety, potential re‑siting, and co‑location options. Supervisors and many community members said the Brotherhood Way/Orizaba site had previously been selected and that re‑opening site options risks long delay, cost escalation and erosion of community trust. The library said Brotherhood Way remains under consideration but that the department will continue outreach and examine alternatives in response to planning guidance.

Outcome: Supervisor Safaie moved to file the hearing, a procedural step indicating the committee had heard testimony; the motion passed on a roll‑call vote (4 ayes, Vice Chair absent). Departments will be asked to return with additional information, including more granular lists of grantees and clearer timelines for grant disbursements and procurement TA.

What to watch: supervisors signaled follow‑up hearings and budget requests ahead of the mayor’s budget, seeking clearer neighborhood‑level accounting, faster grant payments for community providers, and concrete capacity‑building supports for family childcare, workforce services and community‑based organizations in the OMI.