Welcome to our weekly “Meet the Candidates” series, in which we ask local candidates who have filed to run for office to respond to a question in 100 words or fewer. Answers will be published each week.
District 4 covers the area from 19th Avenue to Ocean Beach, Golden Gate Park to Lakeshore. It includes the Sunset, Parkside and Lakeshore neighborhoods.
Mission Local hosted a District 4 candidates forum on April 29 at the Ortega Branch library. If you missed it, you can watch the recording here.
In the Sunset and Parkside, more than 88 percent of households have at least one car, according to census data. Driving is so much a part of the culture that conversion of the Great Highway into a park prompted the successful recall of the district’s supervisor last year.
But an increasing number of residents want more bike lanes and pedestrian-friendly spaces in the neighborhood, and the city has been adapting to meet their demands, too.
Even before the drama of the Great Highway, drivers in the neighborhood felt besieged by street-redesign projects such as the L-Taraval improvement project, which began a decade ago.
During the project’s planning in 2017, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency found that passengers boarding and getting off the train risked running into traffic, as many cars didn’t stop when they saw a loading train.
The SFMTA wanted to install physical boarding islands to make it safer for passengers. But residents were so concerned about the loss of parking spaces that a community effort was launched to test an alternative to the boarding islands.
The SFMTA did that, launching a six-month pilot program to test if painted street markings could get drivers to stop for people boarding trains. It failed. In the end, boarding islands were installed and 36 parking spaces lost.
This week, we asked District 4 candidates: Is there a “war on cars” in San Francisco? Should travel by car be prioritized in the urban planning in the Sunset?
Mission Local color codes the answers to yes/no questions. A blue background means the candidate answered yes, an orange background means no, and a yellow background means that the candidate answered ambiguously.
David Lee
- Job: Educator at Laney College and San Francisco State University
- Age: 57
- Residency: Homeowner, living in D4 since September 2025
- Transportation: Driving, biking, public transit and walking
- Education: Bachelor’s degree from Hamilton College, master’s and doctorate degree from San Francisco State University
- Languages: English. Can understand Cantonese, Mandarin and Toishanese, but limited fluency.
I completely understand the deep frustration that Sunset residents feel right now, especially when City Hall is forcing top-down street modifications without any community input.
I may not agree with all the recent changes, but I don’t view this as a “war on cars,” but a challenge to provide safety and fair access for everyone. Our families and seniors shouldn’t feel like they are being punished for trying to get to work, drop their kids off at school, or visit local merchants.
We have to acknowledge the reality of our district. This is not downtown. The Sunset is a residential … read more here.
Endorsed by: Retired judge Quentin Kopp, Lillian Sing, Julie Tang, Supervisor Chyanne Chen, Former Supervisor Aaron Peskin, Sandra Lee Fewer, Sophie Maxwell, Former SFPD Commander Richard Corriea
Alan Wong
- Job: Current District 4 Supervisor / Commander in California’s National Guard
- Age: 38
- Residency: Renter. Born and raised in District 4, and moved back to District 4 from Inner Sunset in October 2025
- Transportation: Driving, walking and public transit
- Education: Bachelor’s degree from the University of California, San Diego; master’s degree from University of San Francisco
- Languages: English, Cantonese
The phrase “war on cars” reflects frustration from some drivers as the city expands bike lanes, transit priority, and pedestrian spaces. As supervisor, I will work with people who walk, bike, drive, and use public transit, recognizing these choices are often framed as a zero-sum tradeoff when they shouldn’t be.
My approach is additive, not zero-sum: we can improve other modes of travel in the Sunset without unduly impacting others.
Endorsed by: Mayor Daniel Lurie, San Francisco Chronicle, GrowSF, San Francisco Democratic Party, San Francisco Police Officers Association, SF YIMBY, Former Mayor Willie Brown, Sheriff Paul Miyamoto, San Francisco Firefighters Local 798, Deputy Sheriffs’ Association of San Francisco … read more here.
Albert Chow
- Job: Owner of Great Wall Hardware, president of People of Parkside Sunset
- Age: 59
- Residency: Homeowner, living in District 4 since 1978
- Transportation: Driving and walking
- Education: Bachelor’s degree from the University of California, Berkeley
- Languages: English, semi-fluent in Cantonese
I think many residents in the Sunset feel their needs as drivers have been overlooked in recent years. Whether or not you call it a “war on cars,” there is a real concern that some policies have made it harder to get around without fully considering how people in this district actually travel.
In the Sunset, cars are still a major part of daily life. Families, seniors and workers often rely on driving because transit can be limited or unreliable. That reality needs to be reflected in planning.
At the same time, we should continue improving transit and safety. My … read more here.
Endorsed by: ConnectedSF, Supervisor Connie Chan (#2), Chinese American Democratic Club, Retired SFPD Commander Richard Corriea, Retired SFPD Commander Peter Walsh, President of United Irish Cultural Center Liam Reidy
Natalie Gee
- Job: District 10 legislative aide
- Age: 40
- Residency: Renter, living in District 4 since 2021
- Transportation: Driving, walking and Muni
- Education: Bachelor’s degree from San Francisco State University
- Languages: English, Cantonese
Rhetoric like “war on cars” is counterproductive. Thousands of families in the Sunset depend on their cars to get to work, school, and care for loved ones.
We must work to design our streets so that cars can flow easily on major arteries, and also reduce traffic and speeding on neighborhood residential streets and commercial corridors that puts families and seniors at risk.
We must embrace all modes of transit in the Sunset, and prioritize certain modes like cars, bikes and public transit on specific roads. This reduces congestion, moves people more efficiently, and keeps everyone safer.
Endorsed by: California Working Families Party, San Francisco Labor Council, Former Mayor Art Agnos, Former Assemblymember Phil Ting, Assemblymember Matt Haney, Supervisor Connie Chan, Myrna Melgar, Jackie Fielder, Shamann Walton, Chyanne Chen, Former Supervisor Gordon Mar, IFPTE 21, SEIU 1021, AFT 2121, San Francisco Tenants Union … read more here.
Jeremy Greco
- Job: Campus coordinator at Presidio Hill School
- Age: 54
- Residency: Renter, living in District 4 since 2001
- Transportation: Driving
- Education: Bachelor’s degree from San Francisco State University
- Languages: English
The phrase “war on cars” is not helpful. A better conversation is how we build a smarter transportation future for San Francisco.
As a community, we should shape our present and future transportation vision toward relying less on cars and more on reliable public transit, walking, biking, and green community hubs.
That can reduce traffic, improve neighborhood connections, and decrease our dependence on fossil fuels. At the same time, many families, seniors, workers, and small businesses still rely on cars, especially in the Sunset District. Good planning means balancing today’s realities with tomorrow’s needs.
Endorsed by: San Francisco Green Party (ranked #2)
Candidates are rotated alphabetically. Answers may be lightly edited for formatting, spelling, and grammar. Do you have questions you’d like to ask the candidates? Email junyao@missionlocal.com.
You can register to vote here.
Please look at writing about the increase in business for small businesses and the increase in homes values because of Sunset dunes.
Oh great someone paid $2M for a shitbox in d4 and it’s now worth 2.2. Time for the big dance number, yippee.
There should be a war on cars. San Francisco is so far behind every European city in this it’s bizarre. The most successful retail zones in the world are all pedestrianized.
Alan, San Francisco is not in Europe.
To say that “Driving is so much a part of the culture” is to say that damaging anti-social behavior is part of the culture. Maybe it is, but it doesn’t mean that it’s OK, or that we shouldn’t discourage such behavior.
These candidates are chicken shit. If there’s a “war on cars” in San Francisco where are the casualties of that “war”? Until someone dies because of sunset dunes or car free jfk then there’s obviously no war. Those who claim ther is a “war on cars” are seemingly unwilling to account for the death toll imposed by their expensive, wasteful, arguably convenient lifestyle.
@Lpe – Natalie Gee and Jeremy Greco both answered the (dumb) question with aplomb, the phrase clickbait garbage.
(But it’s also a good podcast making sarcastic fun of clickbait garbage.)
There are too many cars in San Francisco as there is. Too much space wasted on parking lots, too.
MTA has reduced many traffic lights to 15-second cycles, along with installing bike lanes, bike traffic signals, no turn signs, and various devices to damage speeding cars. Jeff Tumlin (the previous director) is on record as saying that the city does not want anyone driving. This may not constitute a war on cars, but it feels like one to me.
I use a bike/car/Lyft/walk combo to get around. If I could bring my 100 lb. dog on Muni, I might expand to that too. The problem, as I see it, is that SFMTA hates me. They hate all of us. Police no longer issue speeding tickets, so MTA creates a series of obstacles to slow cars down. They call it a “road diet.” Cute. The idea is to make driving so painful that we reconsider the poor Muni service as a better option. Maybe then ridership will increase, and Muni will get the funds it needs to create a better system.
Not a war. More of a behaviour modification plan.
@SD – Done properly, road diets are not “hate” and don’t involve obstacles. It works much better (and better than police issuing tickets) to change the feel of a road so that people don’t expect to speed on it in the first place.
Closing Great Highway wasn’t about safety at all. It’s was political which is unsafe. The only war on cars are people supporting Anti-Car group that led the closure. Now we had more people on bikes freely running stops and hitting people on crosswalks while cars being dealt with
The simple answer is YES, many people without cars have decided that a car-free San Francisco is preferable and achievable.
My own experience with people like this, might not be representative, but I’ve found them to be that self-centered with a strong sense of entitlement, they lack empathy and the ability to see beyond their own narrow wants and needs, and they prefer absolutes to balanced solutions.
The answer isn’t to make cars less useful in San Francisco, it’s to make traffic more efficient for all vehicles, including cars. Some streets should be designed as major thoroughfares, primarily for cars, while many neighborhood streets can be designed for cars and bikes to fully share the road.
Maybe instead of generalizing “people like this” you could try to understand what it’s like to be a pedestrian, or unable to drive. It happens to many people, you know, for many reasons, and is not necessarily a choice. For many it feels like there has been a “war on pedestrians” for many, many decades: Car drivers have the asymmetric power to enforce their will on pedestrians with mortal force, too often with life-changing results.
Ok, so let’s have some details. Are you disabled? What is it about your life that requires you to drive a car in one of the most densely developed parts of the United States?
“Some streets should be designed as major thoroughfares, primarily for cars, while many neighborhood streets can be designed for cars and bikes to fully share the road.”
So you’re saying that cars should be allowed everywhere, but bikes only get certain streets to operate, and need to share with dangerous drivers even there. That’s not a “balanced solution,” it’s one that puts cars first.
Why is it that banning bikes and pedestrians from certain streets is acceptable, but banning cars from a small number is streets for safety reasons is coming from a place of “entitlement?”
Totally agree. It can be both, and it’s happening. Maybe not as quickly as some might like, but we’ll all eventually get used to the changes and one day wonder what all the fuss was about. Especially if things are done thoughtfully and not rushed, like they seemed to be on Valencia.
@oazar39 – “It can be both” is false equivalence in this town. We had a bus stop relocation project in the Lower Haight held up for years by people who didn’t want their own personal parking spot moved. ADA-mandated ramps for Muni go through years of the same thing.
We get years and years of foot-dragging (followed by years and years of complaining) despite a 2-to-1 voter mandate to make transit-first a priority in this city.
I don’t know how to drive and have therefore never owned a car. I always use public transit. Cars pollute, for one thing. Then there’s the space wasted on parking lots. If any cars are allowed it should be taxis and they should be electric. The era of gas guzzlers is over. The selfish people are the ones driving around alone in a car.