Editor:
Supervisor Joel Engardio has been an energetic, caring and communicative leader for District 4, and he deserves to continue to represent the Outer Sunset. I am sorry to learn that he is facing a recall, initiated by voters who are unhappy with the outcome of the Proposition K vote.
In fact, this recall would do nothing to slow or reverse the democratic decision of San Francisco voters to convert the Upper Great Highway (UGH) into a permanent park. The recall is intended to punish Joel Engardio, but the reality is that the residents of District 4 would lose a great representative who has made building local community and supporting local businesses the focus of his tenure on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.
Supervisor Engardio has explained that a group of constituents first came to him with the idea of a permanent park after the closure of the UGH to car traffic during the pandemic. The closure opened up a safe space for local residents to walk, run, skate and ride in the fresh ocean air. Our neighborhood woke up to the revelation that this beautiful space that had always been reserved for cars and trucks could come alive for local residents as a place to exercise and connect and could be a new coastal retreat for the city-at-large.
Of course, making this conversion is opposed by drivers who are accustomed to moving quickly past the Outer Sunset neighborhood on their way to points south or north, and changing the car route will cost those travelers a few more minutes. There are also locals who fear that a change of this magnitude will have negative consequences, imagined or unforeseen.
But the reality is that climate change is here, and coastal erosion is here. Residents who have lived in this area for a while have seen a part of residential Pacifica fall into the ocean. We have seen a huge parking lot at Sloat Boulevard fall into the ocean. The road connecting the UGH to Highway 35 that points south is already slated to be closed to cars because of coastal erosion. What we have here is a lemons-to-lemonade situation. Car traffic must be diverted east because of that road closure no matter what, and a majority of San Franciscans saw that the inconvenience was an opportunity to create a huge new recreation space between the Outer Sunset neighborhood and Ocean Beach.
Joel Engardio listens to his constituents, and he has also been a leader in moving the Great Highway Park closer to reality. No, we don’t know what may happen when the park is established full time, and we may encounter or observe problems. But government is for identifying problems and finding solutions to those problems.
This formerly neglected stretch of road on the edge of North America, a place where we are so lucky to live, deserves the attention we are paying to it. I hope my neighbors will join me in supporting Supervisor Joel Engardio as we move into the era of a Great Highway Park.
Emily Faxon
Categories: letter to the editor
Richmond Review/Sunset Beacon 
I’m so tired of reading dismissive comments about the amount of time it takes to get around the closure. It’s NEVER a few minutes, this comes from a person who doesn’t use it for daily life (the author). It can be 20-40 mins depending on traffic. It’s hardly a neglected stretch of road; it’s a main thoroughfare AND evacuation route in and out of SF. Please go sit at Chain of Lakes, or snake your way down when the GH is closed and see how long it takes. I do it multiple times per week, and I’ve timed it. Another point: Joel lied to his constituents. He clearly stated to people’s faces that he was FOR the compromise, so please don’t paint him to be this great person who is addressing climate change. He lied, plain and simple. The way he snuck the ballot measure in at the last minute speaks volumes about his character.Car traffic needs to be diverted away from the road north of Sloat but that doesn’t mean we need to close the whole road. This is a ridiculous assertion. That is akin to saying my finger needs to be amputated, let’s just remove my whole arm. Makes zero sense.As does this entire article…
LikeLike
If it’s true that sea level rise will eventually wipe out the roadway on the Great Highway, then why spend hundreds of millions of dollars to create a park that will also be under water? This is an argument that Supervisor Engardio and his supporters have been making for months. Is there some magical thinking that believes that a roadway won’t be spared, but a park will? It simply makes no sense.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I dont know what planet that this writer lives on. For every point she makes, the opposite is true. He has ignored his own constituents to promote a closure of the GH. He does the bidding of rich developers, tech bros, and the bike lobby, not the needs of the strong majority of his constituents. He has violated his oath to represent D4, and he must go. He has no history as a resident of S4, and it shows in his patronizing callous dismissal of the safety, health, and quality of life for D4. He can plan parties, but when faced with an existential decision, he failed his duty miserably. He must be recalled.
http://www.recallengardio.com
LikeLiked by 3 people
This reader is perpetuating perhaps the biggest lie about the Great Highway closure: that closing the highway helps combat climate change. The falsity of this assertion was made clear to Joel Engardio many times, starting while he was a candidate for Gordon Mar’s seat, yet he (and so many others) consciously advanced the falsity throughout the effort to close the highway. Any politician who knowingly uses a false narrative to promote an agenda–an agenda to which a strong majority of his constituents oppose–deserves to be recalled for that reason alone. He proved himself to be just another unethical politician and does not deserve to represent District 4.
Fact #1: Cars are not going away anytime soon. Fact #2: It is indisputable that the most fuel-efficient way for drivers on the west side of San Francisco to traverse the two miles between Sloat and Lincoln is on the Great Highway. With the timed stoplights, a driver who maintains a constant 30-35 mph doesn’t have to brake. Maintaining a constant moderate speed is the most fuel-efficient manner to drive a vehicle. Conversely, stopping and starting up, accelerating and decelerating, and, most significantly, driving in congested conditions is the LEAST fuel-efficient way to drive a car and generates the greatest volume of carbon emissions.
When the highway is closed, drivers are prevented from traversing the two-mile stretch in the most fuel-efficient fashion, and instead are forced through residential streets, with four-way intersections every block. A safe driver must completely stop at each intersection having a stop sign and start up again, and at least brake on the approach to the other intersections and then accelerate once it’s determined clear. Additionally, as virtually all westside residents have experienced, when the highway is closed, new points of traffic congestion are created throughout the Outer Sunset. Finally, forcing drivers to detour out of their way and not use the most direct route for getting across the westernmost 2-mile stretch of the City necessarily increases the number of vehicle miles traveled (Sunset Boulevard is .8 miles east, and 19th Avenue is 1.8 miles east). It is tautological: more vehicle miles traveled causes the release of more carbon emissions.
So Joel and others, support the highway closure if you must, but stop being disingenuous about the justification. Just admit it that you hate drivers, are a rich techie who’s speculated on westside real estate and are banking that the closure plan will increase your property value, or whatever. But to say that closing the highway helps combat climate change is foolish.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Sorry Emily,
While it is true that the Great Highway south of Sloat is threatened by erosion and most of the public access parking has been lost to sea, the closure of that stretch of the highway may not be necessary any more. Why? SFPUC is set to build a massive seawall to protect their sewer infrastructure underneath and behind the road. The seawall, due to begin construction this year, is designed to block wave attack and erosion at the seawall face. Thus, the road closure argument for erosion response is no longer a valid argument. If SFPUC engineers are successful with their wall, the seawall could arguably protect a newly renovated road segment (along with a new multi-use trail) The argument for closure South of Sloat due to erosion may be a move to avoid admitting that this is more a transit first (anti-auto) policy choice by our city agencies. It would be nice to see someone from the press check in on this.
LikeLiked by 3 people
to Add: The road and the sewage infrastructure does need to be realigned at south Ocean Beach – if we care to save beach from eroding away. Not closed – just realigned away from the surf and the erosion hazard. The argument for complete road closure due to erosion is a mischaracterization by park advocates. Climate change adaptation is a challenge enough. We should all try to keep the facts straight.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Apparently this letter writer has never read the Ocean Beach Master Plan (which I have after being referred to the document by Eric Mar, previous supervisor and brother to Gordon Mar). The Great Highway section that is being closed to make a “park” has never been in danger of erosion, only the GH extension (which ironically enough is where the essential water treatment plant is). The closed GH section is hundreds and hundreds of yards from the ocean, protected by Ocean Beach. The Master Plan never recommended closing the GH itself, only the extension. When the extension closes, it is a simple matter to divert east of the zoo and water treatment plant along roads with NO houses to join Hwy 35. To claim the closure of the GH as a major traffic artery is better for climate change is ludicrous. You are not decreasing carbon emissions by diverting traffic from a very efficient route to less efficient routes, you are INCREASING carbon emissions. This was confirmed by the UC Riverside study using grass sampling post the pandemic which showed that CO2 emissions had RISEN along 19th Avenue and the authors of the study even said “due to the closure of the Great Highway). https://news.ucr.edu/articles/2022/12/05/post-lockdown-auto-emissions-cant-hide-grass The final mis-statement of facts is “it’s only a few minutes longer” to take the alternate routes of Sunset Blvd and 19th Avenue. It takes far longer (as someone who uses those routes compared to the GH can attest to) and it is often MUCH longer. My neighbor in the outer Richmond took 90 minutes vs the usual 30 minutes to get to SFO because the roads through GGPark were closed because of Outside Lands. You can’t even GET to the alternative routes if a tree falls on Crossover or accidents occur on Sunset or entertainment/athletic events close GG Park. Joel Engardio used false data (attendance records of the GH when closed to cars, closing the extension made the GH unusable as a north-south traffic artery, etc) and underhanded processes (putting the closure to the ballot city wide instead of the agree upon re-evaluation in 2026 by the BOS). West side precincts voted “no” by supermajorities of 64-74% because we USE the GH, know what the true facts are, and are damaged by the closure – unlike residents of the Mission, Haight, etc. Claims that closing the Great Highway is good for the environment and global warming are baseless, particularly since the way Engardio accomplished this bypassed any required environmental impact studies. No studies on how the dunes or threatened wildlife will be impacted by more foot traffic on those sensitive areas, no studies on CO2 emissions OVERALL (the Riverside study is the only one I have found so far) by diversion of cars from more efficient to less efficient roads, no studies on safety (diversion from low injury roads (GH) to high injury roads (Sunset Blvd and 19th Avenue) or effect on first responder times (even the public event a few weeks ago with Weiner and Ginsburg was interrupted by a first responder vehicle that had to wait for the gates to be opened and attendees of the event to clear the road to let the vehicle pass).
LikeLiked by 2 people
No, it was not Supervisor Engardio who opened up the space and brought a new revelation to neighborhood residents. The enhanced pedestrian access came about as a result of the thoughtful compromise that our fine previous Supervisor Gordon Mar crafted (before being summarily dumped in a similar bout of recall fever). And, no, the increased traffic through neighborhood streets not designed for such loads is not an imagined consequence – we see it each weekend.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Joel Engardio listens to his constituents” – is a lie. He listens to his Billionaires. He ignored his constituents. The thought process that pretends that closing a single road somehow positively affects an entire planet is positively uneducated.
They lied. They continue to lie.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s unfortunate that the commenters here can’t come to grips with reality. I know they’re angry at Engardio over his Prop K reversal but the truth of the matter is that this was all going to happen anyway, as the post mentions. In May 2014, the Board of Supervisors passed the closure of the GH extension because of beach erosion and in conjunction with the Ocean Beach Master Plan. So the road was ALREADY going to be closed, regardless of Prop K. Drivers were ALREADY going to have to divert to Sunset or 19th to drive south. This is the reality Westside drivers! If anyone keeps “telling lies” as you all like to repeat about Engardio ad naseum, it’s you folks!
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/here-s-happen-section-sf-s-great-highway-soon-19436545.php
LikeLiked by 1 person
Joel is a poor leader for our community in the Sunset District: newspaper articles, news station coverage, recall campaign, lawsuit, disenfranchised voters, lies, deceit. We need effective leaders who listen to their constitutes. Recall!
Sincerely,
Marty Murphy
sfpoliticshub.com
LikeLike
Please stop with the ridiculous masquerade. I’m tired of the lofty argument that climate change had anything whatsoever to do with the closure of the Great Highway. It’s a two-mile stretch of road that had a speed limit of 28 mph, which hardly constituted a climate change crisis. The reality is that the rest of the city who didn’t use it or were unaware of the importance of the highway were manipulated by Engardio and his cronies to vote for yet another San Francisco park, despite there already being 222 of them in our small city. In addition, the Bicycle Coalition and groups like WalkSF jumped at the chance to once again unleash their juvenile hatred toward anyone who drives a car and immediately got right behind Yes on K.
Your explanation that “a group of constituents came to Joel during the pandemic (???) with the idea of closing the highway” is amazing. So rather than openly consult with the majority of his constituents whether they wanted it or not (as well as taking into consideration District 1 residents used it daily as well) he let “the group” dictate his decision to put the Proposition on the ballot instead? Seriously, lol? If that’s not incredibly poor leadership, I don’t know what is!
Please… you’re clearly drinking the Engardio Kool-Aid. Don’t naively expect your neighbors to do the same.
LikeLike