Commentary

Commentary: In Praise of Engardio’s Street Safety Leadership

By on • ( 30 Comments )

Why Joel Engardio’s Leadership Matters for Street Safety

By Jen Nossokoff and Dave Alexander

As parents and advocates for street safety, we understand the frustration that has led to the recall effort against District 4 Supervisor Joel Engardio. We’ve lived through the fear and heartbreak of traffic accidents in our neighborhood. Just last fall, a child from our community spent six days in the hospital after being hit by a driver, and an elderly resident lost their life in a tragic collision. These aren’t just statistics. They are our neighbors, our children’s classmates, and our family members.

We understand the concerns some residents have about Ocean Beach Park and its potential impact on traffic patterns. However, the reality is that Proposition K has passed, and the Ocean Beach Park project is moving forward. Supervisor Engardio is now committed to ensuring its effective execution while prioritizing street safety. Forcing a change in leadership through a recall would only disrupt these ongoing efforts and potentially set back the progress being made on street safety.

It’s easy to equate disagreement with not being heard, but just because Supervisor Engardio made a decision that many in the community didn’t like, doesn’t mean he wasn’t listening. The future of this stretch of the Upper Great Highway has been under discussion for over five years. During this time, he has heard from thousands of Sunset and other westside residents in everything from public meetings to private correspondence, and incorporated community feedback into the plans. He fast-tracked traffic signals at the Upper Great Highway and Lincoln Way in addition to the re-paving of Sunset Boulevard to ensure safe and smooth traffic flow after the closure. His decision to co-sponsor Prop. K was not a unilateral decision but rather a long-term vision shared by seven supervisors.

Now, we must ensure he continues listening and works collaboratively to address any remaining safety concerns, regardless of past disagreements.

Here’s why we believe recalling Supervisor Engardio is not the answer to our street safety concerns:

Tangible Action on Safety: Since taking office, Engardio has secured funding for new traffic signals at key intersections along Lincoln Way and other critical corridors. He has implemented over six miles of new stop signs, speed humps and safer crosswalks in District 4, with many near schools where our children walk and bike daily. These aren’t just plans, they are real improvements happening now.

Proactive Approach: Engardio is actively collaborating with the mayor’s office to implement additional traffic-calming measures. He’s not waiting for the next accident to occur but working to prevent them.

Holistic Vision: While the closure of the Upper Great Highway south of Lincoln is controversial, it’s part of a larger plan to create safe, car-free spaces for people of all ages. As parents, we see the value in having more areas where our children can play and move freely without the constant threat of vehicle traffic.

Public Transit Focus: Engardio has made improving public transit a key part of his approach. Better transit options mean fewer cars on the road, which directly translates to safer streets for our kids.

Community Engagement: Through initiatives like the Sunset Night Market, the new Fourth of July parade tradition, and the Sunset Community Band, Engardio has demonstrated a commitment to building community and improving quality of life in the district. His “fix-it-file” program shows his dedication to addressing residents’ concerns directly and efficiently.

He also actively engages with residents through his regular newsletter, providing updates on key issues and opportunities to get involved. 

We understand the impulse to want immediate change when it comes to the safety of our children. But recalls are blunt instruments, better suited for addressing misconduct than policy disagreements. A recall won’t magically fix our street safety issues – it will only divert time, energy, and resources away from the crucial work already underway.

Some neighbors who opposed Prop. K worry that closing the Great Highway will push more traffic onto side streets, making them less safe. But rather than a recall, the best way to address these concerns is through direct engagement and advocacy for smart, effective solutions. Let’s work with Supervisor Engardio to refine and accelerate improvements for both safety and traffic flow. Let’s push for more funding for traffic calming, better bike infrastructure and expanded public transit options. Let’s organize community walk audits and bike rides to identify dangerous intersections and brainstorm solutions.

Our children’s safety is too important to gamble on a divisive recall that could set back progress. By working together – parents, community members, and city leaders – we can create the safe streets our families deserve. Let’s reject this recall and instead redouble our efforts to make the Richmond and Sunset districts a model for street safety in San Francisco.

Jen Nossokoff and Dave Alexander submitted this commentary on behalf of Richmond Family San Francisco. We advocate with our friends and neighbors for family-centered public education, land use and transportation policies. Learn more at https://www.richmondfamilysf.com.

Categories: Commentary

Tagged as: , , , , , , , ,

30 replies »

  1. “The future of this stretch of the Upper Great Highway has been under discussion for over five years. During this time, he has heard from thousands of Sunset and other westside residents in everything from public meetings to private correspondence, and incorporated community feedback into the plans.”

    The Park People keep saying this, yet not one piece of tangible evidence has ever been brought forward to prove it. For example, when and where were these “public meetings”? There must be minutes or other notes from these meetings. How do I obtain those? Where can I find the “community feedback” that was “incorporated…into the plans”? Any and all “private correspondence” to an elected official is made part of the public record. Where can I find it? Surely there are records of all these things somewhere, but I have found nothing in my own research. Perhaps Jen Nossokoff and/or Dave Alexander can direct me where to look. Or, better yet, perhaps they can provide the proof themselves. There letter would have far more credibility if they were to provide actual citations; otherwise, it is nothing more than fluff.

    Like

    Reply

    • Hi Alyse,

      We appreciate the opportunity to clarify. The discussions around the future of the Great Highway have taken place over several years through public meetings, hearings, and community engagement efforts. While there are differing views on the project, the process itself has been public and well-documented.

      For official records, I’d recommend checking the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department, San Francisco County Transportation Authority, and Board of Supervisors meeting archives, where minutes and reports from public discussions are available. Many of these meetings were recorded and can be accessed through the city’s website. Additionally, Supervisor Engardio has shared updates through his newsletters, which have included opportunities for residents to provide feedback.

      If you’re looking for specific documents, you can submit a public records request through the SF Office of the Clerk, or contact Supervisor Engardio’s office directly, as they can provide further details on how community input was incorporated.

      I understand that concerns remain, and I’d be happy to help connect with you about ways to stay involved as the project moves forward. Thanks again for engaging in this conversation—I appreciate your commitment to ensuring transparency in the process.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      • Off the top of my head, public meetings and community engagement related to the use and future of the Great Highway included a joint SFMTA/Rec & Park Board hearing, a Planning Commission Hearing, a SF County Transportation Authority Hearing, 4 legislative hearings before the Board of Supervisors, a “question time” with the Mayor at the Board of Supervisors, 3 hearings at the Board of Appeals, and 3 state-level hearings at the California Coastal Commission. Every one took public comment; some even took 7+ hours of public comment! On top of that, there was an SFCTA study and public survey, thousands of pages of environmental review for the Ocean Beach Climate Change Adaptation Project (itself with its own written comment process), and tens of thousands of times over nearly five years where people wrote and spoke with their representatives about this issue in everything from formal meetings to conversations at night markets and other events.

        And a variety of things did change because Supervisor Engardio and other decision-makers listened to this public input. Offhand, those include the MLK Jr connector, removing Slow Streets in the Sunset, traffic lights and traffic light timing, stop signs, speed bumps, flex posts and other traffic control devices, parking improvements, new ADA parking spaces, improvements in maintenance and cleaning, moving bus stops on Sunset so drivers spend less time waiting behind buses, and various environmental considerations at South Ocean Beach.

        And then we had the most inclusive public input process available in a democracy, where each side had months to make their case to the voters. That included numerous debates and forums, rallies, exhaustive press coverage including fact-checking and analysis, a plethora of editorials and op-eds and letters to the editor, an uncountable number of in-person conversations by people on all sides of the issue, and ultimately a vote with extremely high turnout. That’s as participatory as it gets.

        I’ll also note that when Open the Great Highway placed 2022’s Prop I on the ballot, which would have permanently ended the park at all times, there were certainly no hearings or community feedback incorporated into that plan.

        Ultimately, San Francisco needs to be able to make decisions about our future in a reasonable length of time. I submit that more than 4.5 years of debating this one road, with all the public process I described above, was enough time to make a decision. I’m sorry the outcome of that decision wasn’t the one you wanted, but that doesn’t mean there weren’t many opportunities to make yourself heard on the issue.

        Liked by 1 person

      • You made the claim. It is up to you to provide the proof. Additionally, most of what you referenced happened AFTER the proposition was filed with the Department of Elections. There was NO community input, no town hall meetings, and no outreach to business and community leaders. Prove me wrong!

        Liked by 1 person

    • Engardio has already betrayed low-income renters and YIMBY talking points :

      48hills.org/2025/02/planners-approve-golf-club-industrial-building-put-conditions-on-engardio-condo-conversions/

      He’s giving away rent-control protections for ADU’s, the entire premise of ADU’s being “streamlined” and made more affordable for owners was to make the units affordable housing for renters to ease the housing crisis. That’s why it exists, and he’s taking that program and turning it into a cash cow for developers instead.

      Bait and switch. Deliberate. Shameless! He’s no ally to the working class.

      He’s a traitor to every constituency eventually; he can’t be trusted by anyone.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

  2. I find it oxymoronic for people to argue that closing the Great Highway is for “traffic safety”. The Great Highway has been one of the safest traffic corridors for years and years (the recent fatality of a confused woman with dementia who was wandering on the highway in the dark was an anomaly). Closing it and diverting traffic to 19th Avenue and Sunset Blvd (both high injury streets) INCREASES the likelihood of traffic injuries. Just two weeks ago there was a 3 car accident on Sunset that sent people to the hospital. Sunset is punctuated with intersections for both cars and pedestrians, schools and other high pedestrian traffic structures – which the Great Highway did not suffer from. People I know who live along Sunset are enraged that they now have to cross with their children on a much busier and dangerous street.

    Re Engardio’s “effectiveness”, I just crossed from the Richmond to the Sunset and the light at 41st and Lincoln JUST got turned on as a four way stop (which it was before) and has not yet been turned on as a functioning traffic signal. Ditto the light at Sloat and Skyline. Thinking that the installation of two traffic signals is adequate mitigation for diverting 20,000 cars away from one of the safest streets to two of the high injury streets is delusional. Engardio promised that the GH would not be closed until the mitigation efforts were in place yet Park and Recs is publicizing a 2025 first quarter closure (meaning in the next 3-6 weeks) yet there has been NO evidence that two new traffic lights has in anyway mitigated the traffic problems. There have no other traffic mitigation steps along the GG Park roads that close for events making it impossible to GET to Sunset, nor when storms close Crossover because falling trees close 19th Avenue. In 2025 19th Avenue is scheduled for more construction work (the final paving after two years of sewer/water work).

    I have actually READ the Ocean Beach master plan after Eric Mar referred to it. There was no mention in that document of the need to close the GH. The GH was acknowledged to be a major traffic artery. Planned withdrawal was mentioned in response to rising sea levels. Saying the GH has to close because the extension was eroding is not true. Diverting that traffic to east of the zoo would not have impacted any homes because there are no homes along that route. It barely increases the transit time. This was just one of the many false statements made by Engardio to support closing the GH.

    The time to close the GH is AFTER those community input discussions have taken place and the mitigation/safety efforts have been accomplished and shown to be working. Not in 3-6 weeks when NONE of that has been done.

    Isn’t the role of a supervisor someone who legislates and represents their district? Connie Chan (who defeated Jen Nossakoff in the last election by a huge margin) understands that. If the initial pilot program to shut down the GH had proceeded, there would have more nuanced discussions at the BOS, the possibility of crafting compromises, etc in 2026 WITH community input. Prop K crafted by Engardio eliminated Gordon Mar’s inclusion of “community input” language. Prop K was a black and white yes/no vote which divided the western part of SF (who had skin in the game) from the eastern part (with no skin in the game because it wasn’t THEIR homes having 20,000 cars per day diverting down their formerly quiet residential streets). There was no room for compromise with Prop K. If one were concerned about dividing a neighborhood and community, Prop K was the perfect tool.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    • All TRUE. Joel used Gordon Mars pilot project as a template for his prop K ordinance. He deleted the section that mandated Community input before any decision were to be made about closure of the Great Highway. He did not want any Community discussion about this very significant change that would affect the quality of life of all people living in D4. He sneaked this onto the ballot on the very last day. I asked him, when I found out about the prop k measure, why he didn’t include the compromise, which is what we have today. His reply was brief, dismissive and flippant. “Its too late for that. It has to be a yes-no vote. You can put the compromise on the ballot in 2026.” The safety, health, and quality of life of his constituents come last for this guy. We can do better.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  3. thank you for this. As a parent of two young kids who walk and bike everywhere, traffic safety is so important to me. I’ll grateful for the work Joel has done in this area and I worry that a recall will just be a big waste that slows everything down and costs a lot of money for nothing.

    Like

    Reply

    • Ah, the “non-profit” speaks! Activist talking points don’t re-write the reality of Engardio’s shameless lies and Billionaire-backed developer giveaway.

      Joel is a failed politician, not a climate warrior, not a safety advocate. A liar.

      Deal with it Lindsay, even if politically inconvenient to your “non-profit” ambitions.

      If SAFETY were your #1 issue, you would have demanded safety improvements before closing the #1 most safe major thoroughfare in SF and forcing all those tens of thousands of vehicles onto narrow, poorly-controlled residential streets that OUR CHILDREN ACTUALLY DO PLAY ON. You really need to clue in.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  4. Thank you, Jen and Dave! I couldn’t agree more about the choice that Sunset residents have at this point. Either accept that Prop K has passed, and push for the kind of implementation that you want to see–or keep trying to relitigate a decision that’s already been made, and very possibly miss out on being part of the conversation about both the future of the park and traffic/street design changes.

    Like

    Reply

    • You are missing the point of the recall. It us not to relitigate the prop k decision. It to get rid of a liar and a person who does not deserve to be in elected office. Joel does not deserve to represent D4 because he puts the safety and health of his constituents last over appeasing the developers and bike crowd, hoping to move to higher office. He has lied since his campaign, where he told hundreds of D4 residents that he supported the Compromise put in place by Gordon Mar. I voted for him, and told others to vote for him. Never again.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

    • I voted No on K but I accept that it has passed. The recall effort is NOT a attempt to change that. The recall effort is to remove a supervisor who not only failed to represent the people who voted for him but lied & deceived them in the process. I was born & raised ninth Sunset and never before have I seen this level of betrayal. Joel disregarded his constituents in order to gain favor among powerful political groups. He can not be trusted.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  5. Thank you Jen and Dave for a call to action to move forward and envision a park and westside network we all want to see. Also, thank you supervisor Engardio and everyone for really trying to think this transition through. For all, I urge you to be a part of the conversation to shape our future, not a wasteful petty recall that revisits the past.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    • He lied to our faces, used Billionaire dark money to do it and sold out his district.

      No, we can’t trust him to act in our interests.

      ALSO :

      THE RECALL IS GOING TO HAPPEN. THEY HAVE THE SIGS.

      So the Recall is ONLY a waste if we enable Engardio’s lies and shamelessly dishonest supporters in NOT kicking him out of office for his indiscretions and complete contempt for our district and district elections generally.

      The Recall will be paid for – let’s make it count and get a REAL REPRESENTATIVE.

      We can do better than Joel the liar and his un-funded liabilities that far exceed the cost of the recall. We can, and we will, because we decide who runs our district.

      Not downtown Billionaires!

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  6. Jen Nossikoff (and Engardio the baldfaced) lied during the Prop K debate, claiming all kinds of things that have no bearing on reality. Among them, closing 1 major road creates “cool green zones” and “helps cool a warming planet” etc.

    This is a lie from start to finish and they repeat it constantly. It’s a developer sellout.

    We in the Sunset choose not to listen to failed political creatures telling lies.

    Sorry Jen, sorry Joel. Time to get a real job – D4 rejects your lies.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  8. Do these people have no sense of IRONY? INSTEAD of fixing the cracked and failing roads, instead of improving or maintaining MUNI standards, instead of adding public safety boots on the ground or even maintaining crossing guards for schools, instead of improving major thoroughfare safety in transportation corridors with the tens of MILLIONS they apparently can think of no more “safe” use for, their big “accomplishment” was to waste (developing a PUBLIC beach for PRIVATE ownership and commercialization) ALL THAT MONEY and citywide attention turning a necessary roadway into a paved yuppie park for the privileged children of Google lawyers?

    Jen do you have any idea how completely vapid and vacant your pieces here are? Any concept of how this plays among the actual long term residents?

    (And weren’t you running for Supervisor of the OTHER side of the park? Gee.)

    Your corporate BS takeover of the Sunset will not happen without a fight – but lying to our faces and pretending you were actually about “safety first” all along? WHAT?

    Have you no SHAME? No decency at all? Is this really your job now, to lie in public and then hand-wave away the legitimate concerns of an entire constituency?

    We aren’t buying it. The Recall is happening whether you like it or not, and once we’ve gotten it on the ballot the cost is fixed and paid. We will recall Engardio, and we will make the Sunset safe without the dishonest advertisers who rode in on Breed’s wave of corruption and Billionaire cash. Save your PR puff pieces, there’s not a whit of truth in them and the worst part is you KNOW it.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  10. The authors miss the mark on the reason for the recall: it is not over one policy issue! It is about his lack of ethics. When a supermajority of your constitutes is against a proposal that you put forth after stating while running for office that you did not support, then that supermajority is coming after you via a recall. The authors citation of his ‘body of work’ and his ‘willingness to listen’ are blatantly false. It will be in the best interests for the residents of the Westside when he takes a walk of shame out of City hall. We need to move forward to address the needs of the community with a representation that has some sort of moral compass.

    Sincerely,

    Marty Murphy

    sfpoliticshub.com

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    • Hi Marty,

      I understand that many who supported Supervisor Engardio feel disappointed, even frustrated, by some of his decisions in office. Holding elected officials accountable is an essential part of a functioning democracy, and I respect the passion and engagement that this conversation reflects.

      That said, the reality of governing is that it requires making difficult choices—ones that won’t always align with every individual’s expectations. Leadership isn’t about saying yes to everyone; it’s about balancing competing needs, weighing long-term consequences, and making informed decisions with the best available data.

      The changes to the Upper Great Highway were not made lightly, nor in isolation. They were the result of years of public input, environmental review, and planning by multiple city agencies, informed by San Francisco’s broader goals for safety, sustainability, and climate resilience. Engardio did not act alone—his decision aligned with a majority of the Board of Supervisors, the mayor, and a voter-backed ballot measure.

      Disagreement on policy is fair and healthy. However, if the core frustration is about feeling unheard, then let’s focus on ensuring that the implementation of these changes includes continuous community feedback and adaptation.

      We can and should push for improvements, accountability, and better execution—but we should also recognize that governing requires taking stances that won’t always please everyone. The best path forward isn’t to undo years of planning but to work together to ensure that the solutions work for everyone.

      I welcome continued engagement on how we make our streets safer, more accessible, and better for all residents. what’s been done and refine it where needed, rather than start from scratch at the cost of time, resources, and progress.

      Like

      Reply

      • “I understand that many who supported Supervisor Engardio feel disappointed, even frustrated, even wanting to fire him for lying to their faces, but…”

        Just stop there thanks.

        Like

      • “but we should also recognize that governing requires taking stances that won’t always please everyone.” – What an INCREDIBLE attempt at excusing a Billionaire-dark-money backed last minute scuttling of an existing compromise that was hard won, just to feed downtown developers and an increasingly obviously corrupt “non-profit” machine that rules Engardio and Breed backers as if they are paid from it directly. ARE THEY? We won’t know until they’re removed from office FOR LYING and audited, their 501c3 and 501c4 connections slowly tussed from their subpoenae’d communications. Joel Engardio isn’t just a liar, isn’t just corrupt, isn’t just a Breed crony, isn’t just pro-recall, but all of the above. Let’s hold him to his record, and you to yours, Jen.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jen

        The best you and I can do is agree to disagree. There was no public involvement, other than a small group, on Joel’s decision to put prop K on the ballot. A supermajority of his constituents rejected prop K. This recall is about holding elected officials responsible to their constituents. The best way forward is for him to be removed from office.

        Sincerely

        Marty Murphy

        sfpoliticshub.com

        t

        Liked by 1 person

  11. It’s not clear to me what this recall is trying to accomplish. Recalling Joel isn’t going to bring back the great highway, and if that is what you are upset about then I feel like trying to find solutions to address any concerns would be a better use of time and resources.

    I mean people say they’re recalling Joel because of his “lack of ethics,” “lies,” and “inability to listen.” But lets be honest, if Prop K was never on the ballot would there be anyone still trying to recall him? I would be doubtful.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    • Joel will sell out other aspects of his district to his developer master. He lied. He continues to lie. He hired infamously lying PR to lie for him, including the OP. The lies are manifold. If you’re unclear on why lying liars are a problem I feel for you, but everyone else seems to understand why Joel Engardio deserves to be recalled except people on his direct payroll.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

    • “if Prop K was never on the ballot would there be anyone still trying to recall him?”

      His disastrous Scott Wieneresque ambitions for west-side downtown towers would be enough for me to vote for that, but no, without Prop K’s dishonest presentation and corrupt ballot appearance would anyone have been woken from the slumber of the London Breed brand of constant lying and gaslighting, pretending to be about solving the housing crisis etc? No, you’re right. Without him being caught so deliberately and shamelessly lying in this case, the majority would not have caught on to his shtick. But he did, and we did. He’s being recalled because he’s a liar.

      Prop K will be decided in the courts eventually, mark my words.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

    • Given past vitriol and commentary on the Sunset Beacon’s website, if Supervisor Engardio even touched any legislation to transition the Great Highway into a park, then all signs suggest pro-recall people would still be attempting to recall the D4 Supervisor.

      Like you, I’m not clear what a recall could accomplish. Mayor Lurie’s appointment would likely to be more pro-development and pro-park than Engardio. . .

      Like

      Reply

      • Engardio didn’t listen to his district. Lurie likely wouldn’t make the same mistake because he’d know if he did, they’d also be right out in 2 years. It’s actually a very GOOD precedent to have district leaders lead for THEIR DISTRICT, and be beholden to the constituents in that district absolutely first before all others.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a reply to Mac Cancel reply