J.R. Eppler

• Office: Supervisor, District 10
• Election Date: November 3, 2026
• Candidate: J.R. Eppler
• Due Date: March 12, 2026
• Printable Version

Thank you for seeking GrowSF's endorsement for the November 3, 2026 election! GrowSF believes in a growing, beautiful, vibrant, healthy, safe, and prosperous city via common sense solutions and effective government. Our work includes running public opinion polls to understand what voters want, advocating for those changes, and ensuring that the SF government represents the people.

The GrowSF endorsement committee will review all completed questionnaires and seek consensus on which candidates best align with our vision for San Francisco.

Please complete this questionnaire by March 12, 2026 so we have enough time to adequately review and discuss your answers.

• Your Policy Goals
• Your Leadership
• The Issues
• Public Safety
• Substance abuse
• Mental Health
• Small Business
• Housing
• Transit Infrastructure
• Budget
• Personal
• Thank you

Your Policy Goals

We’d like to get some details about your high-level goals and how you intend to use your elected office to achieve them.

What policies do you hope to change or preserve by running for Supervisor, District 10? Please be specific, and list them in order of priority.

At a high level, my goal is simple: preserve what works, fix what doesn’t, and make sure District 10 is no longer an afterthought at City Hall.

1. Deliver complete neighborhoods through infrastructure and services
District 10 has been underinvested in for decades. I will prioritize policies that ensure our neighborhoods receive a fair share of city services—starting with accepting and maintaining our 35 miles of unaccepted streets, improving transit reliability, and investing in parks, libraries, and public spaces so every neighborhood is complete, vibrant, and connected.

2.A. Accelerate housing production at all income levels, without displacement
We need to both preserve and rehabilitate our existing housing stock, while building new developments. I support increasing our supply of market-rate and affordable housing, especially on underutilized sites and along transit corridors where gaps between our residential neighborhoods lend themselves to mixed-use development. Simultaneously we can strengthen anti-displacement tools like preventing demolition of existing housing stock, investment in the Small Sites Program, community land trusts, and support for first time and existing homeowners, especially for historically marginalized communities. I will push to streamline permitting and ensure zoning changes actually result in homes being built.

2.B. Un-stick development in major projects
From Pier 70 to the Baylands, major projects will provide housing at a range of incomes and new commercial development. I will work with developers to accelerate their projects, using tools like infrastructure finance districts and a public infrastructure bank, so that these projects can deliver on their promise of new homes, jobs and open space and provide community benefits without decades-long delay.

3. Strengthen transit and connectivity within and beyond District 10
District 10 is too often cut off from opportunity. I will advocate for a Bayview Caltrain station, full signal priority for the T Third, restoration of key routes like the 10 Townsend, and better pedestrian, bike and bus infrastructure so residents can reliably get to work, school, and services.

4. Fix the city’s permitting and small business environment
It takes far too long to open a business in San Francisco. I will support policies that reduce permitting timelines and costs and improve inter-agency coordination, so local entrepreneurs can open their doors in months, not years, and our commercial corridors can thrive.

5. Improve public safety through accountability and community-based strategies
I support continuing and expanding proven strategies like foot patrols and the Violence Reduction Initiative, while investing in community-based intervention and youth opportunity. Public safety policy must balance enforcement with prevention and rebuild trust between the city and the communities it serves.

Why those policies?

I’ve chosen these priorities because they reflect both what District 10 needs most and where city government is falling short.

For too long, our district has experienced a gap between promises and delivery. We’ve been asked to carry major infrastructure, large-scale development, and citywide priorities, while at the same time not receiving the basic services, connectivity, and investment that other neighborhoods take for granted. These policies are about closing that gap.

They also reflect what I hear consistently from residents: people want neighborhoods that are complete, vibrant and connected, housing that works for families at different income levels, safer streets, reliable transit, and a city that can actually follow through for its people. These aren’t abstract policy goals. They are day-to-day quality of life issues.

Finally, these priorities focus on areas where a Supervisor can have real impact. That means using the office to push accountability on major projects, improve coordination across city departments, and make sure that policies on housing, transit, and economic development actually translate into results on the ground.

At the end of the day, this is about making sure District 10 is no longer overlooked—and that the city delivers on its commitments to the communities that have waited far too long.

Explain why your #1 goal is your #1 goal.

It’s my number one goal because everything else depends on it.

If a neighborhood doesn’t have safe, maintained streets, reliable transit, accessible parks, and basic city services, it’s not truly livable, no matter what else we build. District 10 has too often been asked to take on growth and infrastructure for the city without receiving that same level of investment in return.

The result is a daily gap between what residents should be able to expect and what they actually experience, whether it’s unaccepted streets, unreliable transit, or under-resourced public spaces.

Fixing that is foundational. When we deliver complete neighborhoods, where streets are maintained, transit works, and public spaces are cared for, we create the conditions for everything else to succeed: housing becomes more viable, small businesses can thrive, and families can put down roots.

For me, this is about fairness and follow-through. District 10 deserves the same level of service, connectivity, and investment as any other part of San Francisco, and making that a reality has to come first.

How will you build the coalition and political capital to enact your #1 goal? What obstacles will you face, and how will you overcome them? Will the power of the office of Supervisor, District 10 be enough to achieve this goal?

Building complete neighborhoods in District 10 requires coordination across multiple city departments: Public Works, SFMTA, Recreation and Parks, Planning, and the budget process. So success starts with building a broad, aligned coalition. I will begin by organizing locally, working with neighborhood groups, merchant associations, and community organizations to align around clear, shared priorities like street acceptance, transit reliability, and infrastructure investment, and ensuring those voices are heard consistently at City Hall. At the same time, I will build partnerships with my colleagues by identifying shared interests across districts, while making the case that District 10 deserves long-overdue investment. I will also use the tools of the office, such as budget authority, oversight hearings, and public data, to drive accountability and ensure departments are delivering real results.

There are real challenges to this work, including competition for limited resources, fragmentation across city departments, and the inertia that too often slows progress. I will address these by staying focused on clear priorities, maintaining persistent pressure until projects are completed, and increasing transparency so progress, and delays, are visible to the public. The office of District 10 Supervisor is a powerful platform for advocacy, coordination, and accountability, and when used effectively, it is enough to drive real results. With strong community support and consistent leadership, we can ensure District 10 is no longer overlooked and that the city delivers on its commitments.

Will the power of the office of Supervisor, District 10 be enough to achieve the other goals?

Yes, the office of District 10 Supervisor is enough to achieve these goals, if it’s used effectively.

The role is uniquely positioned to drive results. A Supervisor helps set the budget, shapes legislation, conducts oversight, and, just as importantly, serves as the primary advocate for their district. By using those tools well, building coalitions at City Hall, and staying closely connected to community voices, the office can move priorities forward in a meaningful way.

For my other goals, housing production, transit improvements, small business support, and public safety, the key is leadership. That means bringing together stakeholders, keeping consistent pressure on departments to deliver, and making sure District 10’s priorities are represented in every major city decision.

San Francisco has areas of procedural and legislative bloat, making it hard for the city to serve its residents effectively. Give three examples of legislation that should be repealed.

The goal isn’t to remove protections; it’s to remove unnecessary friction. If something meets our standards, it should be able to move forward and the city should be able to deliver services efficiently to the people who depend on them. As a result, I would pursue the following reforms:

1. Reform outdated city hiring rules that delay getting frontline workers on the job
The city’s civil service hiring process is too slow and rigid, making it difficult to quickly hire the street-level staff we need, whether that’s public works crews, transit operators, or maintenance staff. Vacancies persist while neighborhoods wait for basic services. I would support reforming hiring rules and timelines to allow departments to fill critical roles faster, while maintaining fairness and transparency, so we can actually deliver services on the ground.

2. Remove Overlapping Conditional Use (CU) requirements for small businesses
Many neighborhood-serving businesses, like cafes, restaurants, and small retail, are still subject to lengthy conditional use processes even when they are consistent with zoning. These duplicative approvals can add months or years to opening a business. I would support streamlining CU requirements for non-controversial, neighborhood-scale businesses and expanding by-right approvals.

3. Redundant permitting and interdepartmental review requirements
Across housing and commercial projects, applicants often face duplicative reviews from multiple departments with overlapping mandates. This isn’t always a single piece of legislation, but a web of requirements that have built up over time. I would support consolidating and repealing redundant review steps, particularly where agencies are reviewing the same issues, so we can reduce timelines without compromising safety or quality.

What is an "out there" change that you would make to state/local government policy, if you could? For the purpose of this question, you are not constrained to the office of Supervisor, District 10.

If I could make an “out there” change, it would be to overhaul California’s school funding formula so districts in high-cost regions like San Francisco are funded based on the actual cost of educating students and running schools well—not just daily enrollment. Right now, SFUSD is expected to recruit and retain teachers, maintain adequate staffing, and provide the academic, counseling, special education, and enrichment supports students need in one of the most expensive cities in the country using a formula that does not adequately account for housing costs, healthcare costs, or the real cost of operating schools here. That is a recipe for instability.

I would create a permanent regional cost-of-living adjustment within the state funding system, paired with a protected local funding floor for teacher pay, staff retention, and core student services. The goal would be to make sure districts like SFUSD can pay educators a living wage, offer competitive health benefits, maintain adequate classroom and support staffing, and preserve the programs families rely on, from counseling and special education to arts, after-school programs, and academic intervention.

In other words, I would change the system so school funding reflects reality. Real stability does not come from constant cuts, larger class sizes, or forcing teachers and staff out of the communities they serve. It comes from a funding model that lets districts plan ahead, support students fully, and keep great educators and school staff in our classrooms.

My ‘out there’ idea is simple: if we expect schools to serve San Francisco’s kids well, the funding system has to make it possible to staff them properly and support students completely.

Your Leadership

We’d like to learn more about your leadership style and plan to execute effectively once you assume office.

When in office, how would you balance the needs of the electorate with the demands of special interests? Where do you foresee this being the biggest challenge?

My responsibility as Supervisor is to the residents of District 10. I was elected to represent their interests, their priorities, and their vision for their neighborhoods. I will always govern asking how proposed legislation affects the residents of Bayview, Hunters Point, Visitacion Valley, Potrero Hill, and Dogpatch. Our diverse coalition of stakeholders are part of the policymaking process, but my guiding principle is simple: if their goals align with the will and wellbeing of the people I represent, I am happy to work with them to deliver the greatest possible benefit for District 10 and the city.

The biggest challenge comes when citywide policies place disproportionate burdens on communities that have historically carried more than their fair share. District 10 has often been asked to absorb impacts that other neighborhoods would not accept: from freeways jammed through neighborhoods, power plants, and smelly waste treatment plants to poorly managed nuclear cleanups, D10 has carried more than its fair share.

My role is to ensure that San Francisco moves forward together. That means advocating fiercely for my district while also supporting solutions across the entire city. When we invest in District 10 and deliver housing, infrastructure, and opportunity, we’re not just correcting past inequities, we’re strengthening San Francisco as a whole. A strong District 10 and a strong San Francisco are not in conflict. They rise together.

When in office, how would you balance the needs of your district with the needs of the city? Where do you anticipate this being the biggest challenge?

As Supervisor, my first responsibility is to represent District 10, and that responsibility includes making sure our district is fully part of a stronger San Francisco.

In many cases, District and citywide needs are aligned. When we invest in housing, transit, infrastructure, and economic opportunity in District 10, we’re helping address citywide challenges. The issue hasn’t been conflict. It’s been imbalance. District 10 has too often been asked to absorb more than its fair share of burdens without receiving a commensurate level of investment.

The biggest challenge comes in ensuring both benefits and burdens are shared more equitably across the city. My role is to advocate for District 10 while working with my colleagues to advance solutions that distribute infrastructure and opportunity more fairly.

Because ultimately, a city that shares both responsibility and opportunity, and delivers for District 10, is a stronger San Francisco for everyone.

How do you think the day-to-day management of a Supervisor’s office can be improved? How do you plan to run your office?

A Supervisor’s office should be grounded in learning and listening. No single person has all the answers, especially in a city as complex as San Francisco and a district as diverse as District 10. My approach would be to stay closely connected to residents, community organizations, small businesses, and frontline workers so that the office is constantly learning from the people experiencing city policies in real time. Regular office hours in the district, strong constituent services, and consistent engagement will ensure our office remains responsive and accountable.

Equally important is building a strong team. I plan to hire knowledgeable aides with deep expertise in policy areas like housing, public safety, land use and economic development, as well as staff who are representative of, and have strong relationships within, our diverse District 10 communities.

Just as importantly, I will run the office with a focus on follow-through and results. That means tracking constituent issues from intake to resolution, coordinating closely with city departments to cut through delays, and using data to measure whether we are actually delivering for residents. The goal is simple: a responsive, well-run office that people can rely on to get things done.

If you could measure the success of your term by 1 metric, and 1 metric only, what would that metric be?

If I had to measure success by one metric, it would be whether District 10 residents feel more optimistic about the future of their neighborhoods than they did when I took office. For too long, our neighborhoods, especially in the southern parts of the district have felt disconnected from decisions made at City Hall. If more residents believe their voices are being heard and that their government is finally working with them rather than around them, that would be a meaningful sign of progress.

Optimism reflects a lot of things at once: whether people feel safe, whether they see opportunity in their communities, if the city is delivering on its promises, and if residents feel included in shaping what comes next. If, by the end of my term, more residents believe their neighborhoods are moving in the right direction—and that their government is finally working with them and delivering results—that will be the clearest sign of success.

The Issues

Next, we will cover the issues that voters tell us they care about. We hope to gain a better understanding of your policy positions, and we hope that you use this opportunity to communicate with voters.

Public Safety

What is the #1 public safety issue today? Why do you believe this is the #1 issue?

The #1 public safety issue today is the breakdown of trust between communities and the systems meant to keep them safe, and in District 10, a key driver of that is the lack of culturally competent officers on the street.

Public safety isn’t just about crime rates. It’s about whether people feel safe and believe the system works for them. When officers don’t understand or reflect the communities they serve, it’s harder to build relationships, communication suffers, and trust erodes. That makes it more difficult to prevent crime, respond effectively, and sustain long-term safety.

I believe this is the central issue because everything else depends on it. Without trust, even strong public safety strategies fall short, as people are less likely to report crime, engage with officers, or see the system as legitimate.

Rebuilding that trust starts with putting the right people on the street: culturally competent officers, consistent foot patrols, and a focus on relationship-building. When officers know the community and the community knows them, public safety becomes more effective, more fair, and more durable.

What power would you have to solve this issue?

As Supervisor, I would use my leverage budget, oversight, and appointments to solve this problem.

Through the budget, I can prioritize funding for recruitment, training, and deployment strategies that emphasize culturally competent officers, language access, and consistent foot patrols in District 10. Through oversight, I can hold SFPD accountable, using hearings and data to ensure commitments around community policing and cultural competency are actually being implemented. Through appointments, I can help shape public safety policy by supporting strong candidates for bodies like the Police Commission who understand the importance of trust and accountability.

And just as importantly, the role of Supervisor is about advocacy: working with SFPD leadership and community organizations to push for deployment strategies that prioritize relationship-building.

What three things would you change about how SFPD operates?

I would focus on three changes that strengthen trust, visibility, and effectiveness on the ground.

First, prioritize language and culturally competent officers.
District 10 is one of the most diverse parts of the city, and public safety works best when officers can communicate directly with the communities they serve. That means recruiting and deploying officers with relevant language skills and cultural understanding, and making sure those skills are reflected in neighborhood assignments.

Second, expand walking and biking patrols.
Officers should be present and visible in the community, not just responding to calls from a car. Foot and bike patrols allow officers to build relationships, understand neighborhood dynamics, and intervene early before issues escalate. It’s one of the most effective ways to improve both safety and trust.

Third, grow community ambassador and non-peace officer response teams.
Not every situation requires an armed response. Expanding teams focused on outreach, de-escalation, and service connection, whether for mental health, homelessness, or quality-of-life issues, allows us to respond more appropriately while freeing up sworn officers to focus on serious crime.

Together, these changes create a public safety system that is more responsive, more trusted, and better aligned with the needs of our communities.

What small change do you think would have the biggest impact?

Language and culturally competent police officers and response teams.

Should San Francisco…	Yes	No
Try to achieve “full staffing” for SFPD? (Defined as about 2,100 officers, according to the city)	Yes
Arrest and prosecute street-level fentanyl dealers?	Yes
Investigate, arrest, and prosecute fentanyl distribution ringleaders (like organized crime and cartel members)?	Yes
Arrest and prosecute street-level vendors of suspected stolen goods?		No
Investigate, arrest, and prosecute the leaders of theft rings and fencing operations?	Yes

I would not make arresting and prosecuting street-level vendors the primary approach. In many cases, these individuals are operating at the lowest level of the system and are often themselves economically vulnerable.

Our enforcement efforts should be focused on the organized theft rings and fencing operations that drive this activity. That’s where we can have the greatest impact by disrupting the networks that profit from stolen goods.

At the same time, we do need to address the impact on small businesses and neighborhood safety. That means setting clear expectations, using citations and compliance-based enforcement, and connecting individuals to services and economic opportunities.

The goal is to be both effective and fair: targeting the root of the problem while avoiding approaches that simply cycle low-level actors through the system without solving it.

When considering appointments to the Police Commission, which sets SFPD's use of force guidelines, what do you consider to be important in the candidate? Please include what you believe the ideal candidate’s views are on the following: public drug use, sidewalk vending (including food and stolen goods), use of police technology (drones, AI), and shoplifting.

The ideal candidate for the San Francisco Police Commission, in my view, is someone thoughtful, independent, and deeply committed to the communities they serve. I want a commissioner who understands we can have both public safety and fairness, making sure policing is both effective and just. I value someone who listens first, studies the data, and makes decisions based on real-world outcomes rather than ideology or special interest pressure. They should have strong judgment, integrity, and experience navigating complex city systems, and they must be able to hold the SFPD accountable while working constructively to improve transparency, trust, and, crucially, performance across the department.

On specific issues, I believe public drug use is harmful, but I would not support arresting someone for a first-time offense; enforcement should focus on repeat or dangerous and anti-social behavior. For sidewalk vending, including food or other items, I would prioritize compliance over criminalizing first-time sellers. I support expanding the use of police technology, like drones and AI, to improve safety, but only with strong oversight to protect privacy and civil liberties and without worsening the city’s budget deficit. Finally, I believe shoplifting should be addressed in a way that protects workers and small businesses while focusing enforcement on repeat offenders. I would look for commissioners who can strike this balance between safety, fairness, and community trust in all of these areas.

Substance abuse

In general, how should the City handle people who are abusing drugs on City sidewalks?

Open drug use on city sidewalks is harmful for the individuals struggling with addiction and for the surrounding community. I believe the city has a responsibility to address it. Addiction is a public health crisis, and our first priority should be connecting people to treatment, recovery services, and stable housing so they have a real path off the street.

At the same time, sidewalks and public spaces need to be safe and usable for everyone. I support a balanced approach where outreach and treatment are the first response, but the city also sets clear expectations that public drug use cannot continue without consequences. When individuals repeatedly refuse services and commit harmful behavior in public spaces, the city should be prepared to use enforcement while still prioritizing treatment and recovery opportunities.

If someone is passed out from drugs on the sidewalk, how should the City respond?

If someone is passed out on the street due to drug use, the first priority should always be their immediate safety and health. The city should respond with trained medical and crisis response teams who can assess whether the person is experiencing an overdose or other medical emergency and provide care right away. Situations like this should primarily be treated as a public health issue, not simply a criminal one.

At the same time, the response should not end once the person wakes up and leaves. The city should use that moment of contact to connect individuals with outreach workers, treatment options, shelter, and recovery services. Repeated incidents should trigger more intensive intervention and case management so people are not left cycling between crisis and the street. The goal should be to stabilize the individual and provide them with needed care while also ensuring public spaces remain safe and accessible for everyone. The City should deploy the whole of its public health arsenal, including the judicial use of conservatorships, in responding to these issues.

Do you support the creation of safe consumption sites in San Francisco? If so, please detail how they should be run. If not, please explain a viable alternative.

My position is that supervised consumption sites should only be considered if they are clearly tied to real pathways into rehabilitation. I am open to carefully designed pilot programs, but they must operate as a bridge to treatment rather than a place where addiction is simply managed indefinitely. That means on site medical staff, active case management, and clear systems that connect individuals to detox, medication assisted treatment, mental health care, and long term recovery services.

Any pilot program must also include strict accountability checkpoints to prevent a repeat of the failed UN Plaza experiment. The city should set clear metrics such as reductions in overdose deaths, increased enrollment in treatment programs, and measurable improvements in conditions in surrounding neighborhoods. These outcomes should be reviewed regularly and reported publicly. If the program fails to meet those goals within a defined period of time, the city should be prepared to adjust the model or shut it down entirely. Harm reduction should always be paired with both a real commitment to recovery and accountability if necessary.

Do you support sober housing? Why or why not?
I support expanding sober housing options in San Francisco, but it must be part of a portfolio of options in a broader strategy that maintains a focus on Housing First. For people choosing recovery, sober housing provides a structured, drug-free environment and access to treatment, counseling, and case management. But recovery is not linear, and the city must avoid overly punitive measures when residents inevitably relapse. People in these programs need support, not eviction, so they have a real chance to rebuild their lives.

Would you continue or change the city’s harm reduction policies that distribute drug use paraphernalia beyond clean needles, such as pipes, foil, etc.?

I would support changing the City’s harm reduction policies to ensure they are more tightly connected to services and held accountable for their impact on surrounding communities.

Harm reduction tools like pipes and foil can play a role in protecting public health by preventing injuries and the spread of disease. But these programs cannot operate in isolation. They should be structured as part of a broader system that actively connects individuals to treatment, mental health care, and housing.

That means setting clear standards: requiring on-site outreach and case management, establishing measurable goals like treatment referrals and engagement, and tracking neighborhood-level impacts. Programs should be regularly evaluated, and if they are not reducing harm or are contributing to disorder, they should be adjusted or discontinued.

The goal is to move from a passive model to an accountable, service-connected approach—one that reduces harm in the short term while creating real pathways to recovery and stability.

Mental Health

Should San Francisco amend our current laws around mental health crisis intervention to better help people suffering on the streets? If yes, why and how? If not, why not?

Yes, San Francisco should amend its current laws around mental health crisis intervention, because what we’re doing today is not working for the people suffering on our streets or for the communities around them.

We have a system that too often waits until someone is in crisis, cycles them through short-term interventions, and then releases them back into the same conditions. That’s not treatment, it’s churn. As leaders like Supervisor Mandelman have highlighted, there are individuals with severe mental illness and substance use disorders who need a higher level of care than what our current system consistently provides, including structured, longer-term intervention when necessary.

I believe we need a more complete continuum of care. That starts with expanding community-based services like mental health clinics, crisis response teams, and supportive housing. And it also means strengthening tools like conservatorship and assisted outpatient treatment for those who are unable to care for themselves and are repeatedly cycling through crisis.

At the same time, any expansion of these tools must come with strong guardrails: clear standards for when intervention is appropriate, due process protections, regular review, and a system that prioritizes treatment and recovery and not warehousing people.

The goal is not to rely on any one approach, but to fix the gaps. We need a system that can meet people where they are, whether that’s voluntary services, structured outpatient care, or, in the most serious cases, mandated treatment, so that we are no longer leaving people to suffer in public without the help they need.

What aspects of San Francisco’s conservatorship policies would you change?

I would focus on making conservatorship a more effective, targeted, and accountable tool within a broader continuum of care. Right now, our system too often relies on short-term interventions that don’t lead to stability. People cycle through crisis, receive temporary care, and are released without the long-term support they need. Conservatorship should be available for those who truly cannot care for themselves, but it needs to function as part of a system that actually delivers sustained treatment and recovery.

First, I would expand alternatives like assisted outpatient treatment and longer-term holds where appropriate, so we are not jumping straight from short-term crisis response to full conservatorship. These intermediate steps can provide structure and care while preserving more independence.

Second, for those who do require conservatorship, I would strengthen the system around it by ensuring there are enough treatment beds, mental health services, and supportive housing options so conservatorship leads to real stabilization, not just temporary placement.

Third, accountability and safeguards are critical. Conservatorship should be a resort for those without capacity to care for themselves, with clear criteria, due process protections, and regular review to ensure it is being used appropriately and that individuals are progressing toward recovery and greater independence.

Some have argued that San Francisco should place people who are experiencing mental health crises on the streets into involuntary mental health holds at psychiatric facilities. Do you agree or disagree with this view? Please explain why or why not. If you agree with this view, please outline some guardrails and oversight the City must provide to prevent abuse. If you disagree with this view, please outline your preferred alternative solution as well as any drawbacks it might have and oversight it might need.

I agree that involuntary mental health holds play a role, but they should be used sparingly and as part of a broader system and not as a default response. There are individuals on our streets who are in severe crisis and unable to care for themselves, and in those cases, short-term holds can be necessary to stabilize them and initiate care. But without follow-through, they risk becoming a revolving door. That’s why these holds must be paired with clear next steps, such as access to treatment, step-down care, and supportive housing, so intervention leads to stability.

Small Business

What would you change about the process of new retail business formation in San Francisco, across zoning, permitting, renovations, fees, and financing? Please be as specific as possible.

At a high level, the goal is simple: if a business follows the rules, it should be able to open quickly, affordably, and predictably. Right now, that’s not the case, and fixing this problem is one of the most direct ways we can support neighborhood vitality, job creation, and economic opportunity across the city.

I would focus on reforms across the full lifecycle of opening a business:

1. Zoning: We can expand what businesses are allowed by-right, especially for neighborhood-serving retail like cafes, restaurants, and small shops. If a use fits the planning code, it should not require additional hearings or discretionary approvals. We also need to provide for mixed-use zoning along transit corridors in District 10, allowing development that can increase the customer base for our merchant corridors and provide for more business opportunities.

2. Permitting: Right now, businesses navigate multiple departments with overlapping requirements. Even with reforms underway, coordination remains a major challenge.
I would consolidate permitting into a single intake process with a dedicated case manager, implement clear timelines or “shot clocks” for approvals, and expand online applications and real-time tracking so applicants know exactly where they stand.

3. Renovations: Small businesses should not have to rebuild a space from scratch to open. I would expand exemptions for minor upgrades and allow businesses to reuse existing infrastructure where it is safe to do so, reducing both cost and delay. Recent reforms moving in this direction, like easing requirements for equipment upgrades, are a good start and should be expanded.

4. Fees: Programs like “First Year Free,” which waive initial permit and registration fees, have helped thousands of businesses and should be extended and expanded.

5. Financing: Many small businesses struggle not just with regulation, but with access to capital. I would expand City-backed loan programs, partner with community lenders, work on the creation of a public bank and provide technical assistance so entrepreneurs, especially from historically underserved communities, can navigate both financing and permitting successfully.

Which of these types of businesses should be permitted by-right vs require special government approval?	Allowed	Needs Permission
Bars that don’t serve food	Yes
Bars that serve food	Yes
Vice businesses (strip clubs, liquor stores, etc.)		Yes
Formula retail (Starbucks, Safeway, Whole Foods, etc)		Yes
Cafes & restaurants	If not formula
Professional offices	Yes

If San Francisco adopted policies that allowed all non-vice businesses to open without special hearings, what would you do to help local small businesses compete with large national chains?

Should San Francisco…	Yes	No
Reduce the time to obtain all permits to open a new business to no more than 3 months	Conditional Yes
Reduce the cost of obtaining permits to open a new business	Yes
Reduce the number of activities which must obtain permits, and expand the number of by-right activities	Yes
Try to attract businesses of all sizes to the City?	Yes

If you want to explain any positions above, please feel free:

San Francisco’s neighborhoods, and their merchant corridors, are unique, and I do not favor a one-size fits all approach to small business and retail. I am not against allowing formula retail to have by right in certain corridors, but I do support requiring conditional use authorizations in many of our core neighborhood merchant corridors. I would be willing to look at the definition of formula retail to ensure that successful small operators are not penalized by their growth simply because they have exceeded the current formula retail threshold.

Housing

Do you believe that San Francisco has a shortage of homes? Why or why not?

San Francisco not only has a shortage of homes, but most acutely has a shortage of homes that everyday residents can afford. Recent data shows that demand for housing continues to dramatically outpace the number of homes being built, and home buyers and renters are being outbid by those who can afford to pay more than the average worker. Vacancy rates remain low and rents have continued to rise as more people compete for a limited number of units. We must make it easier to build in San Francisco while also incentivizing developers to break ground..

Do you believe that housing prices are set by supply and demand constraints? Why or why not?

Yes, in San Francisco, demand for housing far exceeds the number of homes available, which naturally drives up costs. Limited supply, combined with a growing population and strong job market, creates pressure that pushes rents and home prices higher when when other factors are held constant.

Zoning restrictions, slow permitting, high construction material costs, and real estate speculation also constrain the number of homes that can come to market, which amplifies the effect of demand. I believe we can use smart policy to address these constraints, streamlining approvals, incentivizing development, converting underused office space to housing, and opening more space to mixed-use residential development, to help make the market more responsive and affordable for residents.

Do you think Mayor Lurie’s Family zoning plan is too ambitious or not ambitious enough? Why?

Mayor Lurie’s Family Zoning Plan is a step in the right direction, but ultimately not ambitious enough on its own to meet the scale of our housing challenge.

The plan is important because it modernizes outdated zoning and opens up more neighborhoods, particularly in the north and west sides of the city, to housing production, which is long overdue. It also helps San Francisco meet state requirements to plan for roughly 82,000 new homes and maintain local control over development.

But zoning capacity is only part of the equation. The plan creates the possibility for tens of thousands of new homes, but that doesn’t mean those homes will actually get built. We still face major barriers: slow permitting, high construction costs, and a lack of financing for both market-rate and affordable projects.

At the same time, the plan doesn’t fully address the need for deeply affordable housing or ensure that new development translates into complete, livable neighborhoods, especially in places like District 10 that are already growing and need infrastructure, transit, and services to keep pace.

So my view is this: the Family Zoning Plan is necessary, but not sufficient. It’s a foundation we should build on—not the finish line. If we’re serious about solving the housing crisis, we need to pair zoning reform with permitting reform, new financing tools, and a clear strategy to actually deliver housing at all income levels.

Do you believe that building more housing is the #1 way to reduce the cost of living in San Francisco? Why or why not?

Building more housing is the number one way to reduce the cost of living, but it is only one part of the equation. Increasing housing supply can help relieve pressure on rents and home prices, but the cost of living is influenced by much more than just housing.

A holistic approach needs to consider all the components of cost of living: housing, food, transportation, healthcare, education, taxes, and everyday goods and services. Improving public transit and lowering transportation costs, expanding access to affordable healthcare, and supporting local businesses to reduce consumer prices all play a role. To truly make San Francisco more affordable, we need policies that address these interconnected costs while also increasing housing supply.

Should any of the following be exempt from CEQA, Discretionary Review, and Conditional Use permits?	Should be exempt	Should not be exempt
Homeless shelters	X
Affordable housing	X
Market rate housing		X

In general, is it too hard, just right, or too easy to…	Too hard	Just right	Too easy
Expand your home (adding new stories, rooms, decks, etc)	X
Renovate your home (update bathroom, kitchen, etc)	X
Demolish your home and redevelop it into multifamily housing	X
Redevelop things like parking lots and single-story commercial into multifamily housing	X
Build subsidized housing	X
Build market-rate housing	X
Build homeless shelters (including navigation centers and “tiny homes”)	X

If you want to explain any positions above, please feel free:

I support exempting certain types of housing from CEQA, Discretionary Review, and Conditional Use—but in a targeted and practical way that helps projects actually get built and without posing a threat to our environmental standards.

For affordable housing and homeless shelters, I support clear exemptions. These projects serve urgent public needs, and the current process often adds delay without improving outcomes.

For market-rate housing, I don’t support a blanket exemption. But if a project is consistent with zoning and meets real environmental standards,, it should be able to move forward without unnecessary discretionary review or duplicative approvals. If we’ve already set the rules, we should allow projects that follow them to proceed.

More broadly, the issue isn’t oversight. Instead, it’s redundancy and delay. We’ve created layers of process that make it too hard to build anything, even when it aligns with our goals. I support reforming these systems so they focus on real impacts, not procedural hurdles. Certainty in review timelines is good for everyone.

The goal is simple: if a project meets our standards, it should be able to move forward predictably and efficiently—especially when it delivers housing our city needs.

Transit Infrastructure

Do you believe the MUNI funding crisis should be solved by taxes alone? Why or why not?

No.

Muni is facing a $307 million structural deficit starting in July 2026, growing to over $430 million by 2030. That didn't happen overnight, and it won't be fixed by any single lever. The pandemic hollowed out our downtown tax base and dried up the federal and state relief funds that were masking a deeper problem. What we have now is a structural crisis that requires a structural solution.

The city and SFMTA have already done real work on their end by reducing what would have been a $440 million deficit through internal cost savings, efficiency upgrades, and transit priority investments. That's the right instinct. We have to demand that SFMTA continues to demonstrate fiscal responsibility before we ask taxpayers for more.

But efficiency alone won't close this gap, and that's why I strongly support the ballot measures now being developed for November 2026. The regional Connect Bay Area Act, enabled by SB 63, would bring Muni approximately $155 million per year through a one-cent sales tax, with real third-party accountability and efficiency requirements attached. That's the kind of long-term, durable regional funding our transit system has lacked for decades. Paired with a local San Francisco parcel tax measure, these two measures together could come close to stabilizing Muni's finances through the end of the decade.

But I want to be honest: even if both measures pass, we'll still face a gap. That's why as Supervisor I'd push for a true long-term funding model that doesn't force SFMTA to fight for its life every budget cycle. That means looking seriously at infrastructure finance districts, public-private partnerships around transit-adjacent development, and state and federal advocacy for sustained transit investment. District 10 was built by workers who depended on public transit to get to the shipyards, the factories, the hospital. Today, our families still depend on those buses. Muni isn't a luxury. It's infrastructure, and we should fund it that way.

Should it be the policy of San Francisco to build a citywide protected bike lane network? Why or why not?

Yes, and San Francisco has already committed to doing exactly that. The Biking and Rolling Plan adopted in early 2025 lays out a citywide network designed to put safe biking infrastructure within a quarter mile of every resident. My job as Supervisor is to make sure District 10 is not left behind as that plan gets implemented.

The case for protected lanes is strong in every dimension. Protected infrastructure makes streets safer not just for cyclists but for pedestrians and drivers too, by making all road users more visible and predictable. Studies in cities, including San Francisco, show retail sales go up when streets feel safer and more welcoming, and that cyclists and walkers tend to be loyal, local customers. Research also shows that within a year of installing protected lanes, cycling increases by anywhere from 21% to 171%. There are people who want to ride and they just need bike paths that don’t cause them to feel like they are putting their lives at risk.

There's also a simple math argument. San Francisco is planning for over 80,000 new homes and 150,000 new residents over the next decade. We cannot fit that many more people on our streets if everyone is driving. Active transportation isn't a lifestyle amenity. It's a core part of our infrastructure strategy.

But I want to be honest about where the plan falls short: implementation. The 2025 plan is still more of a roadmap than reality, and communities in District 10 (Bayview-Hunters Point and Visitacion Valley in particular) have historically been excluded from street planning decisions that affected them deeply. I won't support a top-down rollout that repeats those mistakes. The plan itself acknowledges this history and commits to community co-design, and I'll hold it to that standard.

Is Vision Zero the right goal? Why or why not?

Yes, zero traffic deaths should absolutely be our goal. No family in San Francisco should lose someone to a preventable crash on the way to school, work or the grocery store. That's not an idealistic aspiration; it's the minimum standard a city should hold itself to.

But let's be honest: San Francisco adopted Vision Zero in 2014, set a 10-year deadline, and failed completely. Instead of zero deaths, 2024 was the deadliest year on our streets since 2007, with 49 people killed. That's more than the year we made the commitment. The goal was right. The follow-through was a failure of government accountability, plain and simple.

The Civil Grand Jury's investigation found that traffic citations by SFPD dropped by 95% over the Vision Zero decade, not because of staffing levels, but because police leadership stopped prioritizing it and stopped holding officers accountable. Meanwhile, SFMTA made real progress on engineering interventions like protected lanes and pedestrian signals, but it has moved too slowly, leaving roughly 50 miles of the city's most dangerous streets without improvements, and missing deadline after deadline with no real consequence.

That's why I support the Street Safety Act the Board adopted in 2025. It does what Vision Zero never did: it creates binding deadlines, quarterly public dashboards, mandatory inter-agency coordination, and annual accountability hearings run by the Controller's Office. The 33 speed safety cameras now active across the city are a tangible example of what happens when we pair the right goal with enforceable mechanisms.

As Supervisor, I will hold the city to those mechanisms. District 10 sits squarely on the High Injury Network, the 12% of San Francisco streets that account for 68% of severe and fatal crashes. My constituents are disproportionately bearing the cost of our failure to act. I'll push for our neighborhood streets to be prioritized in the implementation plan, and I'll demand the annual accountability hearings actually produce results and not just reports.

The goal of zero is right. What was missing was the accountability to get there. That changes now.

Should San Francisco prioritize buses over car traffic by creating more bus-only lanes and directing traffic enforcement officers to ticket drivers who ignore the restrictions?

Yes. San Francisco enshrined a Transit-First policy into law in 1973. More than fifty years later, we still have cars double-parked in bus lanes while Muni riders sit stuck in traffic behind them. That gap between our stated values and daily reality is exactly the kind of government failure I'm running to fix.

The data is clear: bus-only lanes work when they're enforced. Red paint on transit lanes alone has cut violations by up to 55%. Where we've actually enforced lane restrictions, transit delays have dropped by up to 20% on key corridors. The problem has never been the policy. It's been the follow-through.

For years, enforcement was a joke. Citywide, just two parking control officers were reviewing bus-lane camera footage, generating roughly 20 citations a day across the entire city. SFMTA has finally moved to fix this, approving a next-generation automated enforcement system in late 2025 that uses real-time license plate readers and GPS tracking on buses. The goal is a 500% increase in citations, paid for entirely by citation revenue, with the explicit long-term aim of reducing violations as compliance improves. That is exactly the right approach: smart, self-funding enforcement that changes behavior, not just generates revenue.

I want to see that system fully deployed and working in District 10. Our residents depend almost entirely on surface buses, the T-Third, the 19, the 23, and every double-parked car in a bus lane is a tax on their time and reliability. As Supervisor, I'll push SFMTA to prioritize our corridors in the rollout, track the data publicly, and hold the agency accountable for results.

More bus lanes, smarter enforcement, and real accountability. That's Transit-First in practice, not just on paper.

Budget

San Francisco is facing a large budget deficit due to declining tax revenues from our struggling downtown. What would your approach be to fix this?

My approach would be to treat this as a structural problem, not a one-year patch. San Francisco closed an $800 million two-year deficit in the FY 2025–26 / FY 2026–27 budget, but the City’s own long-term projections still show ongoing shortfalls. The underlying issue is a weakened tax base tied to changes in how downtown functions, and we need to respond accordingly.

First, we need to rebuild the City’s economic engine. That means making it easier to open small businesses, activating vacant storefronts, supporting housing development, including office-to-residential conversions where feasible, and ensuring downtown and our neighborhood corridors are places where people want to work, live, and spend time. And it means unlocking the development potential along the waterfront and in the Baylands in District 10, where we can further diversify our economic engine.

Second, I would focus on accountability in how we spend public dollars. That means being clear about what programs are delivering results for our residents and being willing to restructure or eliminate those that are not. In a constrained fiscal environment, we cannot afford to fund processes that don’t translate into outcomes residents can see in their daily lives.

Finally, I am open to targeted, durable and progressive revenue solutions that are paired with clear accountability. San Franciscans will support new revenue when they know that government is focused, disciplined, and delivering results.

The goal is straightforward: restore fiscal stability by being more accountable with what we spend and more intentional about growing the economy that sustains it.

City Hall staffing has grown 27% while the city’s population has stayed stagnant. Would you support right sizing city government to rebalance the budget? Why or why not? Compare SF to other cities & counties.

Yes, with important caveats about how and where cuts are made.

The numbers are real. San Francisco employs 24 workers per 1,000 residents, more than any comparable American city, including New York (18% fewer) and Los Angeles (40% fewer). Our budget has grown 54% since 2012 in inflation-adjusted terms while our population has actually declined. That imbalance needs to be addressed.

But right-sizing alone won’t solve the problem. Mayor Lurie’s proposal to cut $100 million and eliminate roughly 500 positions is a reasonable first step, but it only addresses a fraction of the structural deficit. Any serious approach has to combine workforce efficiencies with broader fiscal reforms and revenue strategies, including smarter contracting and outcomes-based spending reviews across departments.

I would focus cuts on management and administrative overhead, where the City hires at disproportionately higher rates than frontline workers. At the same time, we should protect the staff who deliver core services—cleaning streets, running transit, keeping libraries open—especially where staffing increases reflect voter-mandated programs.

There’s also a practical limit to cutting. Done carelessly, layoffs can shift costs elsewhere and make service delivery worse. The goal isn’t just a smaller government—it’s one that delivers better results with the resources it has, particularly for the residents who depend upon it the most.

District-Specific Questions

Do you have a 100 day plan for when you take office? If yes, list your top three deliverables, and the metrics you will use to measure progress by Day 100.

Yes, but I want to be honest about what a Supervisor can realistically deliver in 100 days. The Board controls roughly $20 million in discretionary spending out of a $15.9 billion budget. We don't run departments. We set policy, legislate, appropriate budgets, conduct oversight, and represent our constituents. Anyone promising to solve homelessness or fix Muni in 100 days isn't being honest with you.

What I can do in 100 days is establish that District 10 has an engaged, organized, and persuasive voice at City Hall. Here's how:

1. Launch a District 10 Community Listening Tour, and publish what I hear. In the first 100 days, I'll hold town halls and office hours in each of D10's neighborhoods: Bayview, Hunters Point, Potrero Hill, Dogpatch, Visitacion Valley, and Silver Terrace, and meet with neighborhood groups, merchants, tenant leaders, faith leaders, and frontline service providers. And by day 100 I'll publish a public District 10 Priorities Report summarizing my learnings and mapping each priority to a specific city department, budget line, or legislative action. The metric: every neighborhood represented, report published on time, commitments tracked publicly.

2. Introduce a first package of district priorities at City Hall. A Supervisor’s job is to turn community priorities into action. In the first 100 days, I would introduce or co-sponsor legislation, resolutions, or budget priorities focused on the district’s most urgent needs, whether that is street acceptance, corridor activation, transit improvements, or public safety. The metric at least one major district priority formally introduced, with a clear implementation path and identified City partners.

3. Establish a D10 City Services Dashboard, in every language our residents speak. District 10 has historically been under-served and under-measured, and too many of our residents don't have access to the resources they're entitled to simply because those resources aren't available in their language. I'll work with the Controller's Office to build a simple, public-facing dashboard tracking key service metrics in D10, street cleaning response times, Muni on-time performance on our corridors, park maintenance, and 311 response rates, benchmarked against citywide averages. Critically, the dashboard and all associated outreach materials will be published in the languages our communities actually speak: Spanish, Cantonese, Samoan, and others as needed. The metric: dashboard live, fully translated, and publicly accessible by Day 100.

The point of the first 100 days is not to overpromise. It is to show that the office is organized, accessible, and capable of turning neighborhood needs into action.

District 10 includes some of the City’s largest entitled redevelopment sites, including Hunters Point Shipyard and Candlestick Point. What actions would you take to accelerate safe, accountable delivery of housing, parks and infrastructure on these sites?

These two sites represent both the greatest opportunity and the longest-running broken promise in District 10. Together, Hunters Point Shipyard and Candlestick Point are supposed to deliver more than 10,000 homes, hundreds of acres of open space, and thousands of jobs. My job as Supervisor would be to make sure those promises finally turn into results, with transparency, accountability, and sustained pressure on every agency and developer involved.

Hunters Point Shipyard

The shipyard's central obstacle is the Navy-led Superfund cleanup. A Supervisor cannot control that process directly, but can absolutely influence it through oversight, public pressure, and coordination with our state and federal partners. The fraud by Tetra Tech did enormous damage, not just to the cleanup timeline, but to community trust, and rebuilding that trust requires full transparency. I will push for real-time public reporting on cleanup progress, air monitoring, and parcel readiness, in the languages residents actually speak. At the same time, I will press OCII and FivePoint to move forward on parcels already transferred to the City (A, D-2, UC-1, and UC-2 ) and deemed ready for development, rather than allowing those sites to remain stalled simply because they are tied to the larger project.

I will also use the Supervisor's platform to maintain consistent pressure on the Navy and EPA, working with our state legislators and Congressional delegation to hold cleanup timelines publicly accountable

Candlestick Point

Candlestick is a different situation, where there is no excuse for further delay. This site is entitled, it has an approved developer, and infrastructure work is finally underway in early 2026. But the community's skepticism is fully earned. Alice Griffith residents at Double Rock, a majority-Black public housing community, have been surrounded by dirt lots and blocked roads for a decade. As supervisor, I will push for strict enforcement of development agreements and community benefit obligations, including the payments and public amenities that have already been promised.

For both sites, I would hold regular public oversight hearings with OCII, FivePoint, and the relevant City departments, publish milestone timelines, and create a clear public record of what has been promised and what has actually been delivered. I would also make these projects permitting priorities, because San Francisco cannot allow its own internal delays to become the reason another decade is lost.

The people of Bayview-Hunters Point have waited long enough. What they deserve now is not another round of promises, but visible progress, real accountability, As one longtime resident said at the Board hearing: "I'm 53, and my peers are afraid they won't live to see this project completed." That's the standard I'm holding myself to.

Given the Mayor’s Family Zoning Plan was passed, what changes do you want to see in D10’s housing production between 2026-2030 (at all income levels)? What can you do as Supervisor to ensure the new zoning actually turns into permits, construction starts, and completed projects?

The Family Zoning Plan is a meaningful step, but new zoning is just permission. It means nothing until it becomes permitted, construction starts, and keys go in doors. San Francisco has a long history of passing good housing policy and watching it stall in bureaucracy. My job as Supervisor is to make sure that doesn't happen here. The plan also doesn’t specify what needs to be done in District 10, instead focusing more heavily on the northern and western parts of the city.

Between 2026 and 2030, I want to see District 10 produce housing at every income level, deeply affordable units for the families who've been here for generations, workforce housing for the teachers, nurses, and transit workers who keep this city running, and market-rate units that add supply and take pressure off the broader rental market. Those aren't competing goals, they're all part of the same solution. We have opportunities to connect neighborhoods with mixed-use residential development, particularly along the Third Street corridor between 23rd and Jerrold and the Evans Street corridor between Third and Hunters Point Boulevard. We need to work with the Planning Department to change the zoning to make it a reality.

To make sure new zoning actually produces results, I'll focus on three things. First, push hard for permitting reform, consolidating Planning and Building Inspection and capping review timelines. Second, I’ll use the Board's oversight powers to track housing production data by district, published quarterly and publicly accessible so there's no hiding when projects stall. Third, I’ll work with developers, community land trusts, and nonprofits to ensure affordable units aren't just planned but financed and built, advocating for infrastructure finance districts and public financing tools like a public bank that help below-market projects pencil out in a difficult construction environment.

Many longtime residents fear being priced out as the Bayview becomes more desirable. What policies would you support to help existing homeowners, while still welcoming new housing and investment? Please be specific and name funding sources, responsible agencies, and metrics you will track.

Bayview isn't suddenly being discovered. It's a neighborhood that has always had value, to the families who built it, raised children in it, and stayed through decades of disinvestment. The question of who benefits from new development is the central issue.

I will use the Small Sites Program to bring housing to D10 at scale. The Mission District has demonstrated what's possible: MEDA has built over 2,000 units of affordable housing, stabilizing more than 6,000 people, by acquiring small rent-controlled buildings before they leave the rent-control system. Bayview has seen almost none of this activity. I will push MOHCD to prioritize District 10 acquisitions and partner with SFHDC, which already serves D10 residents directly. Metric: number of D10 units acquired annually, benchmarked against Mission District activity.

I will use community land trusts as part of the long game for permanent affordability. Washington D.C. and Atlanta have both used them to protect historically Black neighborhoods from speculative pressure tied to major nearby investment. San Francisco has a Community Land Trust, but its footprint in District 10 remains limited. I will advocate for dedicated funding through MOHCD and infrastructure finance districts tied to Candlestick development to expand CLT activity in Bayview. Metric: number of District 10 units placed into permanent CLT ownership each year.

I'll strengthen homeowner rehabilitation and first-time buyer support through CalHOME and the Downpayment Assistance Loan Program. Both are underutilized in D10, not because residents don't need them, but because outreach has been inadequate and materials aren't consistently available in Spanish, Cantonese, Tagalog, or Samoan. I will partner with SFHDC to run targeted outreach in every language our residents speak. Homeownership is the single most powerful anti-displacement tool available: an owner cannot be evicted. Metric: number of D10 homeowners served annually, compared to citywide averages.

I'll enforce the local hiring requirements and community benefits agreements already attached to the Candlestick and shipyard developments, and push for job training partnerships with City College so new investment employs the people who already live here. Metric: percentage of construction jobs filled by D10 residents, reported annually.

New investment in District 10 is overdue and welcome. But development that displaces the people who endured decades of neglect is not success. It's just a different kind of failure.

What will you do to support D10’s commercial corridors? And what metrics would you target by 2030 (e.g., median time to open, # of new business openings, corridor vacancy rate, etc.)?

This answer has to be grounded in what business owners are actually telling us. The Bayview Merchants Association's 2025 report says Bayview is affordable, creative, and increasingly findable, but still held back by low foot traffic, break-ins, street hazards, and a lack of consideration by government. A recent Harvard Business School study reaches a similar conclusion: Third Street has the assets, but needs stronger civic support, a clearer hub strategy, more consistent activation, and closer alignment between community leaders and City Hall. Supporting our commercial corridors is not primarily a grant program problem. It is a government accountability problem.

My approach is districtwide but tailored to each corridor.

On Third Street in Bayview, I would fix the permitting bottleneck with dedicated permit navigators, push for a corridor manager and eventually a CBD-style support structure, extend storefront activation grants like Vacant to Vibrant, and support recurring activation at Mendell Plaza, the Opera House, and the library. Third Street needs a recognizable heart, a common events calendar, essential retail like grocery and pharmacy, and safer public space. I would also treat merchant protection during the Islais Creek Bridge rebuild as a top accountability issue.

On Leland Avenue and Bayshore in Visitacion Valley, the priority is building on the corridor's new commercial district status with predictable permitting, storefront activation, safer streets, and programming that gives residents a reason to return week after week, not just during one-off events.

On Third and 22nd in Dogpatch, the opportunity is connecting existing foot traffic, arts, and retail so the area functions as a complete commercial district rather than a set of individual destinations. That means better streetscape management, support for small storefront tenants, and making sure transit and pedestrian improvements bring customers to local businesses.

On 17th, 18th, and 20th Streets in Potrero Hill, the focus is protecting neighborhood-serving businesses that already define those corridors through legacy business support, ownership transition help, faster permits, and targeted public realm improvements.

By 2030, I would target a median time from application to opening under 90 days across D10; a 20% reduction in vacancy on Third Street; an active CBD or corridor management structure on Third Street by 2028; and measurable annual increases in new small business openings across all four corridors.

District 10's commercial corridors don't need more neglect disguised as process. They need a City government that is organized, responsive, and serious about helping neighborhood businesses thrive.

Bayview’s gun-violence rates remain persistently high. What is your plan to reduce violent crime while rebuilding trust between SFPD and the community?

Let’s start with what the data show. District 10 saw a 50% drop in homicides and shootings in 2024, and citywide shootings fell another 24% in 2025 to their lowest levels in decades. That progress was driven by a specific strategy, the SF Violence Reduction Initiative, and by the community leaders who made it work on the ground in Bayview. The job now is to build on what's working and not let budget pressures erode the gains we've made.

Here is my plan for moving forward:

More community-rooted foot patrols. A California Policy Lab study found that doubling SFPD foot patrols produced the greatest assault reductions specifically in Bayview, more than anywhere else in the city. Officers who walk the same blocks every day know the neighborhood, build relationships, and de-escalate situations before they become 911 calls. As we hire more police officers, I will push Bayview Station to expand dedicated foot patrol assignments on Third Street and our highest-incident corridors, with consistent routes, consistent officers, and culturally competent assignment practices that prioritize language skills, community ties, and demonstrated de-escalation track records.

Protect and expand the Violence Reduction Initiative. The VRI pairs sworn officers with civilian staff and community Life Coaches, focusing resources on individuals at highest risk of gun violence. An independent University of Pennsylvania assessment confirmed it is working. With city budget pressures mounting, VRI is exactly the kind of program that could quietly lose funding. I will fight to protect it in every budget cycle.

Invest in community intervention infrastructure. San Francisco already has the Street Violence Intervention Program, the Mayor's Office of Violence Prevention, and the Street Violence Response Team, bringing together city departments, community organizations, and faith leaders. An intervention worker who grew up in Bayview and has standing in the community can reach someone that no police officer can. I will advocate for stable, multi-year funding for these programs through the Department of Public Health and push for D10 community organizations to have a formal seat at the Street Violence Response Team table.

Play the long game by expanding youth opportunity. Gun violence doesn't start with a gun. It starts with a young person who sees no path forward. This is where I want to invest most heavily. I will push for expanded summer jobs programs, after-school programming, and mentorship pipelines that connect D10 youth directly to the growing job opportunities in our district, through partnerships with City College, new employers coming to Candlestick and the shipyard, and anchor institutions like ZSFG and UCSF. Every young person in D10 should have a realistic line of sight to a job, a career, and a future in this neighborhood. That is the most durable violence prevention investment we can make.

The goal is a District 10 where every family feels safe, every young person has a reason to stay out of harm's way, and the police are seen as partners. We're closer than we've ever been. I intend to keep going.

Do you support expanding foot patrols in District 10?

Yes. I support expanding foot patrols in District 10 because they are one of the best ways to build trust, improve visibility, and prevent problems before they escalate. In neighborhoods like Bayview, consistent foot patrols help officers develop real relationships with residents, merchants, and community leaders, which makes public safety more effective and more responsive.

District 10 has borne the brunt of the City’s environmental burdens, power plants, shipyards, freeways, contaminated groundwater, and illegal dumping. What specific environmental-justice policies would you pursue for residents of D10, and what measurable impact would you target by 2030?

District 10 has carried more than its fair share of the City’s environmental burdens for generations, and environmental justice in D10 has to start with a simple principle: no neighborhood should be treated as a place where the rest of the city sends its impacts. As Supervisor, I would focus on four priorities.

First, I would push for real accountability and transparency on cleanup, especially at Hunters Point Shipyard. That means real-time, multilingual public reporting on remediation, demolition, and air monitoring, regular public oversight, and independent review of cleanup milestones so residents do not have to rely on promises from agencies that have already broken trust.

Second, I would treat illegal dumping and basic environmental conditions as an environmental-justice issue, not just a quality-of-life issue. I would push for faster response times, hotspot enforcement, more cameras and use of drone technology where appropriate, and better maintenance of unaccepted streets, stormwater systems, and public rights-of-way that have too often been neglected in District 10.

Third, I would pursue clean-air protections for neighborhoods impacted by truck traffic, industrial activity, and freeway exposure. That means stronger truck-route enforcement, anti-idling enforcement, expanded air-quality monitoring near sensitive sites like schools and parks, and prioritizing zero-emission infrastructure and green buffers in the neighborhoods that need them most.

Fourth, I would invest in greening and resilience, such as more tree canopy, shade, open space, and green infrastructure in heat-vulnerable parts of the district, especially Bayview-Hunters Point, Visitacion Valley, and along our major commercial and transportation corridors.

By 2030, I would target a 50% reduction in illegal dumping complaints in District 10, public air-quality monitoring at every major remediation or demolition site, measurable reductions in truck and idling violations on key corridors, and a significant expansion of tree canopy and green infrastructure in the district’s highest-burden neighborhoods. For me, environmental justice is about more than cleaning up past harm. It is about making sure District 10 finally receives the same protection, investment, and accountability that every neighborhood deserves.

Despite the addition of the Central Subway, and D10-specific transit upgrades in motion, many improvements are not fully delivered, and residents still experience D10 as “transit-poor” in terms of speed, reliability, and easy connections. What would you do to improve transit in D10? What metrics would you target by 2030?

District 10 should not still feel cut off from the rest of the city. My approach would be to focus on speed, reliability, and connections, that is, the features riders experience every day.

First, I would push for full signal priority and corridor upgrades on the T Third so trains spend less time sitting at lights and more time moving people. Second, I would advocate for better east-west and cross-town service in Bayview and the southern part of the district, including rapid-bus options where demand supports them. Third, I would push to restore key lost connections, including the 10 Townsend in the north of the district, so residents have easier access to jobs, downtown, and other neighborhoods. Fourth, I would keep pressing for a Bayview Caltrain station at Oakdale, because D10 deserves a faster regional connection. I would also push for a buildout of the infrastructure at the Baylands project, so the Sunnydale T Third stop and Tunnel Road Caltrain Stations would finally be connected. And finally, I would pair transit improvements with safer pedestrian, bike, and bus access so getting to transit is easier and safer in the first place.

Just as importantly, I would use the office to demand accountability from SFMTA: clearer timelines, district-level performance reporting, and a commitment that District 10 is not last in line when transit improvements are rolled out.

By 2030, I would target 10% faster T Third travel times, meaningful improvement in on-time performance on D10’s major transit lines, restoration or replacement of key lost connections like the 10 Townsend, implementation of transit-priority improvements across the district’s major corridors, and a clear, public delivery path for the Oakdale Caltrain station. Success should mean that residents no longer describe District 10 as transit-poor because transit is finally faster, more reliable, and better connected to opportunity.

Personal

Tell us a bit about yourself!

How long have you lived in San Francisco? What brought you here and what keeps you here?

I have lived in San Francisco for 19 years, 16 of which have been in District 10.

I followed a natural path to San Francisco: Stanford first drew me to the Bay Area, and after four years in Los Angeles for law and business school, I knew I wanted to come back. As a corporate attorney focused on emerging companies and venture capital, the City offered both the opportunity to build my career and a place I genuinely wanted to live.

I’ve stayed because of the community. I’ve worked with local businesses and nonprofits, become deeply involved in civic life, and am raising my family here. Over time, I’ve become invested in shaping the neighborhoods of District 10 and in making sure they grow into the complete, vibrant, and well-connected communities their residents deserve. I am staying because I want to see that work through.

What do you love most about San Francisco?

I love that San Francisco is a place where people show up, whether for their blocks, their small businesses, or for each other. It’s a city of neighborhoods with real character, where a local corridor, a merchant group, or a community meeting can shape what happens next.

What makes it special is that engagement here actually matters. When you get involved, whether through neighborhood organizations, city commissions, or advocacy, you have impact. Change isn’t abstract; it’s tangible, and it’s local.

And alongside that strong sense of community, there’s an energy of possibility. People have always come here to build things, to take risks, and to create opportunity. But just as importantly, we have people who work to make sure that opportunity is shared and that everyone has a chance to benefit from it.

That combination of community, engagement, and the potential for inclusive opportunity is what I love most about San Francisco.

What do you dislike the most about San Francisco?

What I dislike most about San Francisco is how often our very specific form of partisanship gets in the way of reaching our full potential. This is a city with incredible resources, talent, and opportunity, and yet there’s too often a gap between what we could be and how we actually function day to day.

That gap shows up when divisions take priority over solving real problems. It slows down progress, makes it harder to deliver basic services effectively, and too often leaves residents and small businesses feeling like the system isn’t working for them.

San Francisco doesn’t lack ideas or commitment. It struggles, instead, with execution. And when debate loses its focus on outcomes, we make it harder than it should be to build housing, support local businesses, keep our streets safe, and ensure every neighborhood is adequately served by transit.

I believe we can do better by focusing less on partisanship and more on results, by bringing people together to close the gaps that lead to inequity and deliver the kind of city all of our residents deserve.

Tell us about your current involvement in the community (e.g., volunteer groups, neighborhood associations, civic and professional organizations, etc.)

I am currently president of the Potrero Boosters Neighborhood Association, secretary of the Potrero-Dogpatch Merchants Association, and a board member of the Potrero Hill Democratic Club. Until recently served as secretary of the Friends of the Dogpatch Community Hub and as a board member of the San Francisco Counsel of District Merchants Associations. I served as a commissioner on the San Francisco Board of Appeals until I declared my candidacy. I am a volunteer traffic monitor at Daniel Webster Elementary School, and a coach in the San Francisco Youth Baseball League, although as an assistant this year instead of a head coach.

I am a member of the Potrero Gateway Steering Committee, the San Francisco Railyards Focus Group, and the Potrero Yard Neighborhood Working Group. In the past, I served on the following additional commissions, task forces and committees:

San Francisco Building Inspection Commission
Bayview-Hunters Point Express Working Group Members
District 10 Economic Recovery Task Force
Downtown Congestion Pricing Study Policy Advisory Group
Eastern Neighborhoods Citizens Advisory Committee
Potrero Yard Neighborhood Working Group
Railyard Alignment and Benefits Study Community Working Group
San Francisco Railyards Working/Focus Group
SFMTA Transportation Task Force 2045 UCSF Community Advisory Group
UCSF Dogpatch Community Task Force

Why do you want to run for public office?

I’m running because I understand how City government works, and I’m committed to making it work better for District 10. Every neighborhood in this district deserves to be complete, vibrant, and connected, and I know what it takes to help deliver that.

I’ve been part of this community for over a decade. It’s where my wife and I are raising our son, and I see every day the passion and resilience of D10 residents. But I’ve also seen where the City has fallen short—where promises are made but not kept, and where even progress comes in half measures or after years of delay.

We can do better. I’m running to bring focus, follow-through, and accountability, and to make sure the City delivers real results for communities that have waited far too long.

Thank you

Thank you for giving us your time and answering our questionnaire. We look forward to reading your answers and considering your candidacy!