Prop A: Vote YES on the Earthquake Safety and Emergency Response Bond

June 2026: The San Francisco League of Conservation Voters (SFLCV) supports Proposition A, which funds critical investments in earthquake safety and emergency response infrastructure. 

San Francisco is in one of the most seismically active areas in the world. The earthquake in 1906 and the fires that followed it destroyed much of the city. Although improvements have been made, key infrastructure vulnerabilities still exist and pose threat to San Franciscans.The Earthquake Safety and Emergency Response Bond is a chance to fill that gap. SFLCV urges a YES vote. From an environmental perspective, the bond supports climate resilience through investments in infrastructure.

Climate change increases the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, including conditions that exacerbate urban fires. Climate resilience requires more than emissions reductions. It requires that cities be structurally prepared for the emergencies that a warming world will deliver. Investments in fire suppression infrastructure, efficient emergency facilities, resilient transportation facilities, and reliable water access are climate investments that protect the homes, neighborhoods, and ecosystems San Franciscans depend on.

The bond accomplishes this without raising property tax rates, and it creates more than 2,000 construction-related jobs in the process. These are the kinds of public investments that demonstrate fiscal discipline and environmental seriousness.

San Francisco cannot build a sustainable future on a fragile foundation. Vote YES on Prop A.

June 2026: SFLCV Endorses Phil Kim for Board of Education

The San Francisco League of Conservation Voters supports Phil Kim for Board of Education based on a comparative assessment of candidates’ responses on environmental priorities, fiscal constraints, and district governance.

Across the field of candidates, there is broad agreement on core issues. Brandee Marckmann, Virginia Cheung, and Kim all support expanding outdoor and experiential learning, improving environmental health conditions in schools, and utilizing district property for teacher housing. Each candidate also acknowledges the connection between safe, sustainable school environments, and student outcomes.

Differences emerge in how these priorities would be implemented. Kim’s proposals more consistently focus on integrating environmental goals into existing district systems, particularly for facilities planning, budgeting, and accountability structures. He identifies specific gaps, such as the absence of an environmental safety workforce, and proposes aligning capital investments and audits to address health hazards and infrastructure needs.

By comparison, Marckmann emphasizes a broader “Sustainable Community Schools” and a Green New Deal framework, with a focus on community-driven programming and structural reforms, while Cheung prioritizes partnerships, capital improvements, and a whole-child model tied to environmental health. These approaches share similar goals but rely more heavily on future program development or external funding.

On fiscal issues, Kim places greater emphasis on multi-year planning, transparency, and aligning new investments with existing constraints. Other candidates focus more on revenue generation, governance restructuring, or program expansion, with less specificity on how environmental initiatives would be prioritized within the current budget context.

Regarding school closures/consolidation and facilities use, Kim does not take a categorical position but instead frames environmental health, access to green space, and community impact as key decision-making criteria. Marckmann opposes closures outright, and Cheung supports a moratorium, reflecting differing approaches to managing enrollment decline and infrastructure.

Kim’s integrated approach, which embeds environmental priorities within core district functions and maintains a focus on implementation, distinguishes his candidacy in this evaluation.

SFLCV encourages voters to support Phil Kim for Board of Education.

June 2026: No SFLCV endorsement for District 4 Supervisor

The San Francisco League of Conservation Voters (SFLCV) has chosen not to make an endorsement in the District 4 Supervisor race. During the endorsement process, the SFLCV focused on candidates' responses to questions about housing, transportation, and Sunset Dunes. These issues are critical to District 4 and the city at large because: 

• Meeting the state mandate to build approximately 82,000 new housing units by 2031 will require increased housing density in parts of District 4 

• Addressing Muni’s growing budget deficit (currently $307 million and growing) is essential to maintaining service and implementing the Transit-First Policy 

• Sunset Dunes Park, located in District 4, is now a permanent park and a model of smart climate adaptation that benefits all San Franciscans

Although three of the candidates — Alan Wong, Natalie Gee, and Jeremy Greco — showed real alignment with our priorities in some areas, none made a compelling enough case across each of these critical issues (housing, transportation, and Sunset Dunes) to earn our endorsement.

Wong supports measures that will increase housing density and prioritize transit in District 4, but he has not supported maintaining Sunset Dunes as a permanent park. Gee supports many transit-first policies and has a track record of doing so, but she proposes restrictions to the Family Zoning Plan, which may limit building critically-needed new housing. She also does not support keeping Sunset Dunes as a permanent park. Greco supports Sunset Dunes, but offered unclear reservations about Slow Streets and upzoning in the Family Zoning Plan. 

As for the other two candidates in the race, David Lee's responses to our initial questionnaire did not demonstrate alignment with SFLCV's positions, and Albert Chow declined to participate in our endorsement process.

Housing

Wong was the strongest candidate on housing issues and was the only one to fully endorse Mayor Lurie’s Family Zoning Plan. Wong understands the urgency of meeting the state’s mandate of building 82,000 new housing units in San Francisco and the Family Zoning Plan’s part in meeting that goal. He supports building both rent-controlled and market-rate housing. 

Gee would limit the Family Zoning Plan by increasing protections for small businesses and rent-controlled units. To make up for any resulting losses in housing units, she proposes increasing the number of office-to-residential conversions in other districts, continuing a problematic history of shifting housing development out of District 4. San Francisco has made some progress on office-to-residential conversion policies, but SFLCV considers this an insufficient solution fraught with logistical and financial challenges. SFLCV feels that the small business protections encompassed in the Family Zoning Plan are already robust.

Greco argued against the Family Zoning Plan, citing apprehension about blanket upzoning. However, the plan does not call for blanket upzoning and instead targets major transit corridors like Noriega, Taraval, and Judah as locations slated for increased density. When asked to clarify, Greco did offer support for upzoning along those corridors.

Transportation

Each of the candidates aligned with SFLCV on supporting the regional sales tax measure to fund Bay Area transit agencies; the parcel tax measure to fund Muni; and the city’s transit-first approach to transportation. 

Of all the candidates, Gee had the best track record on transit, as illustrated by her work bringing back the 8AX & 8BX lines and creating the Bayview Shuttle as Chief of Staff for D10 Supervisor Shamann Walton. All candidates emphasized placing bike lanes, traffic diverters, and modal filters where the community wants and needs them. Greco expressed concern about the expansion of the Slow Streets given the controversy surrounding Sunset Dunes and rerouting traffic from the Great Highway.

Sunset Dunes

Sunset Dunes Park is a burgeoning public space and a model of smart climate adaptation. SFLCV wholeheartedly supports it as a full-time park. Greco was the only candidate to agree, making him the strongest on this issue. Wong and Gee both support reopening the highway to weekday traffic, effectively rolling back what voters decided with November 2024’s Prop K. Wong went further, leading an unsuccessful effort to put the issue back on the ballot entirely. Traffic concerns don't hold up to scrutiny — analyses show that there have been no statistically significant changes to congestion and collision rates on nearby streets since the park's establishment. Every SF taxpayer bears the cost of maintaining a highway that nature is already reclaiming. 

Sunset Dunes is only beginning to reach its potential as a natural buffer against rising sea levels, a recovering coastal habitat, and a beloved public space for all San Franciscans. It deserves a champion in D4.

June 2026: SFLCV Endorses Stephen Sherrill for District 2 Supervisor

The San Francisco League of Conservation Voters (SFLCV) endorses Stephen Sherrill for supervisor in District 2. 

His demonstrated work to bring housing, accessible transit, and environmental priorities to city governance— the topics in focus for this endorsement process— make him an excellent candidate for his district. 

Sherrill supports transit-first improvements, such as increased frequency of high-ridership bus lines, bus-only lanes, signal priority and timing adjustments, and safer pedestrian infrastructure around transit. He also supports the November 2026 Stronger Muni for All and Connect Bay Area transit funding measures and has identified the need for additional long-term transit funding sources. 

The SFLCV considers dense urban housing an urgent climate priority for San Francisco. Sherrill has demonstrated alignment with our position on this topic via his support of the Family Zoning Plan and his co-sponsorship of an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) to facilitate 1,200 new housing units in development at 3333 and 3700 California Street. He has also expressed support for additional housing projects across the city, including sites at 1035 Van Ness, 3400 Laguna, and 750 Golden Gate Avenue. 

However, Sherrill opposes a 25-story apartment complex proposed at the Marina Safeway site, citing that the project doesn’t fit the scale of the neighborhood. SFLCV does not align with this stance because large, dense housing projects are necessary to meet San Francisco’s pressing housing needs. We urge Sherrill to reconsider his position and work to support this project to generate substantial new housing for District 2.

On the issue of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s (SFPUC) misguided approach to water consumption of the Tuolumne River, Sherrill stated his concern that the agency’s projections have "consistently overestimated future need, and the gap has real consequences for ratepayer affordability and river health. I support greater investment in water recycling, conservation, and alternative supply, and I believe the SFPUC should update its demand modeling to reflect actual trends. We should not be planning infrastructure around inflated projections when smarter, more sustainable alternatives may exist.” The Board of Supervisors needs more members who are willing to hold SFPUC to account, and SFLCV appreciates Sherrill’s position on this topic.

By contrast, Sherrill’s opponent, Lori Brooke, claims that she opposes cutbacks in Muni service, but has declined to support the ballot measure to provide more funding to Muni. She has also not outlined a clear alternative plan to address Muni’s budget deficit without cutting service. Brooke opposed the Family Zoning Plan and has more broadly resisted zoning changes that would allow multifamily housing along major transit corridors.These positions are far from what our city and our environment need.

SFLCV encourages voters to support Stephen Sherrill for District 2 Supervisor.

SFLCV seeks new board members

The SF League of Conservation Voters -- where the environment meets San Francisco politics -- is seeking new Board members. 

We have a dynamic all-volunteer team that educates the public on how their vote can hold San Francisco to its environmental values. We accomplish this primarily by evaluating local candidates and campaigns on their environmental and good government qualities and then making endorsements, which we publish on our website. We also advocate for local environmental legislation that is in line with our mission, speak at public hearings, organize events, and engage with local leaders.

We've identified the following priorities as we seek our new Board members: 

• Applicant perspectives especially encouraged – Residents of SF Board of Supervisors districts 3, 4, and 11; women; people of color; and people under 30 or over 60 years of age

• Environmental interests including, but not limited to – Toxics, air pollution, and environmental justice

• Skills – Media (social media and news media), graphic design, just transition/workforce development, labor/union relationships, campaign finance rules

• Passion – Willingness to jump in and get involved!

Do you or someone you know possess one or more of the above? If so, please complete this application to tell us a little more information about your background and interest. Prior experience on boards or in local politics is not required.

Many of us joined the Board in order to get more involved in our community and to learn more about local politics. Board members have found their time with SFLCV to be not only a rewarding volunteer opportunity but also a way to meaningfully connect with each other and their fellow San Francisco residents on topics vital to urban living. You can read more about our current Board members at https://www.sflcv.org/boardmembers.

Vote NO on the Engardio Recall

At a time when San Franciscans are asking their leaders to focus on climate action, housing affordability, and safer streets, we cannot afford to waste energy and public resources on a recall effort that does not serve the public interest.

We oppose the recall of District 4 Supervisor Joel Engardio because it is rooted in disagreement, not misconduct or malfeasance. While disagreement is a healthy part of democracy, using the recall process to reverse a valid election result is not.

Supervisor Engardio was elected in a fair and competitive race. That choice should be respected. Voters deserve the stability of knowing that their voice matters, and that election outcomes will be honored unless there is a clear breach of public trust.

Supervisor Engardio's decisions to date in no way demonstrate a breach of trust. He has supported key environmental efforts during his time in office. He backed Proposition L, which would have taxed Uber, Lyft, and Waymo to help fund Muni service. He opposed San Francisco’s lawsuit against the EPA, siding with clean water protections around our shoreline. He helped advance climate-friendly housing policy, supporting infill development, senior affordable housing bonds, and legislation to convert underused downtown buildings into homes. He voted to create Sunset Dunes, a new coastal park. He also supported public space and safer streets funding through Proposition B, and helped appoint walk/bike/transit champions to the SFMTA board. Disagreement about whether these were sound policy choices is for another day.

Recalls such as this set a concerning precedent. We risk eroding the very structure of representative government if we normalize recalling elected officials simply because we disagree with their policies. And we further polarize a city that is already navigating complex, urgent challenges.

Additionally, there is the question of capacity. Special elections take resources away from the important work of government: expanding access to sustainable transportation, investing in green infrastructure, and building healthier, more equitable communities. Our city cannot afford to redirect time and funding toward political infighting at the expense of real progress.

This recall effort does not meet the standard of holding elected leaders accountable for breaches of duty. It is a misuse of process and a distraction from the serious challenges we face as a city.

We urge San Franciscans to reject this recall and stay focused on the future we’re trying to build: one that is just, sustainable, and grounded in democratic stability.