On Tuesday March 12, 2025, opponents of Proposition K, a measure to permanently ban vehicles from San Francisco’s Upper Great Highway, filed a lawsuit stating that the measure is illegal. Approved by only 54.7 percent of the voters, the win came not from neighborhoods impacted by the closure, but rather from residents in distant parts of the city. The lawsuit names the City of San Francisco, the Board of Supervisors, the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department, and five current and former supervisors who backed the plan to shut down a two-mile stretch of the highway between Lincoln Way and Sloat Boulevard to create “a park,” despite the fact there is no money in the budget and no plans approved to do so. Plaintiffs, which include community members and transportation advocacy group LivableSF, allege that Proposition K passed without environmental review under the 1970 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which requires developers to “disclose to the public the significant environmental effects of a proposed discretionary project.” They also allege that the measure violates the section of the California Vehicle Code that governs when a local legislative body may close a highway to vehicular traffic. The suit seeks to stop the closure of the Upper Great Highway, scheduled for Friday, March 14.
While the CEQA and California Vehicle Code arguments are strong, there’s another question that must be asked: Why would the city follow a different approval process for closing the Upper Great Highway from Lincoln to Sloat than they did for the recent and previously successful closing of the Great Highway from Sloat to Skyline?
It turns out the city went through a lengthy and apparently standard public planning process for closing the Great Highway from Sloat to Skyline. Initially named the Ocean Beach Climate Change Adaptation Project, the plan included the following key steps: (1) a city consistency finding with the Western Shoreline Plan (2) the city adoption of a final EIR with community involvement, and (3) the California Coastal Commission (CCC) approval of the Coastal Development Permit (CDP), by then dubbed the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Ocean Beach Armoring Project. The most relevant section of that CDP is Item N, California Environmental Quality Act, on page 107 of the CDP, which states, “Section 13906 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations requires Coastal Commission approval of CDP applications to be supported by a finding showing the application, as modified by any conditions of approval, is consistent with any applicable requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).”
The City’s EIR gave the California Coastal Commission (CCC) that CEQA finding, and the CCC confirmed it:
“For this phase of the project, Phase II, the City and County of San Francisco, acting as lead agency, adopted an Environmental Impact Report for the project. The Coastal Commission’s review and analysis of land use proposals such as this CDP application has been certified by the Secretary of Resources as the functional equivalent of environmental review under CEQA (14 CCR Section 15251(c)).” Coincidentally, the CCC has tagged this project now as postponed, adding the following note: “The Commission’s enforcement division has opened an investigation into potential Coastal Act violations associated with this item and site, as referenced in the staff report.”
To close the Upper Great Highway from Lincoln to Sloat, proponents (including YIMBY organization Abundant SF, Senator Scott Wiener, and Supervisor Joel Engardio) pursued a different approval strategy, in what appears to be an attempt to game the system and purposefully remove input from the local community. First, they opted to go straight to the ballot and put the measure to a vote by all San Franciscans to bypass and overwhelm the will of the directly impacted Sunset District community (in fact, Supervisor Joel Engardio is facing a recall because of this). Second, and apparently erroneously, proponents likely thought they could avoid the public CEQA/EIR process, too, and further bypass the will of Sunset locals, and most important, to subvert their voice and the voice of other Proposition K opponents.
On July 15, 2024, the city initially determined that “CEQA does not apply to a measure submitted to the voters by the Mayor or 5 supervisors.” Then, five months later, the Planning Department issued a CEQA Statutory Exemptions Determination on Nov. 12, 2024 for the Great Highway Mobility Improvements Project, making the following conclusion: “This project, as proposed, has been determined to be exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), specifically under a statutory exemption pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.25 as demonstrated below.” Oddly, the Planning Department did not reference or confirm the previous “mayor or five supervisors’ exemption” justification. The San Francisco Recreation and Park Department and the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) then used this determination to immediately file CDP applications with the CCC, while avoiding the public CEQA/EIR process under the city-purported exemption.
On Dec. 12, 2024, the CCC approved Application No. 2-24-0933, the Great Highway Vehicular Closure/Sloat Bike Lanes, which was “approved with conditions.” Like the CCC approval of the Great Highway road closure between Sloat and Skyline, the relevant section of this Coastal Development Permit is Item I. California Environmental Quality Act, on page 23, where the same opening paragraph confirms that the CCC needs an environmental finding before approving the city’s CDP application.
In the next paragraph, the CCC states that the city found the vehicle closure of the project exempt from CEQA, as CEQA does not apply to a measure submitted to the voters by the mayor or five supervisors. Under the CDP approval, the CCC did not confirm the validity of this exemption, just that the city made the statement, which implies the validity may be questionable. More important, neither the city nor the CCC (representing the State of California) provided any justification, such as the citing of a legal reference or basis, to support the validity of this CEQA exemption position. In the next sentence, the CCC then states, “However, the traffic, signage and wayfinding, and dune protection measures included in the proposed project are still subject to CEQA review.” This seems to indicate that the CCC disagrees with the legitimacy of the city’s sweeping CEQA exemption justification, that the CEQA/EIR process is still ongoing. Of course, traffic is a function of available roads, road access, and connectivity, including the Upper Great Highway.
San Francisco uses California Vehicle Code Section 360, which defines a ‘highway’ as ‘a way or place of whatever nature, publicly maintained and open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel. Highway includes street.’
Even more damning for Proposition K supporters, the CCC further relies on the second Planning Department’s CEQA Statutory Exemption Determination, too, specifically City Record No. 2024-010317ENV, referring to a Great Highway Mobility Improvements Project which specifically states on page 10, “the closure of the Upper Great Highway, as described in San Francisco’s 2024 Proposition K, is a separate action from the Great Highway Mobility Improvements project.” The entire paragraph, while clumsily written, seems to indicate that all the CCC is comfortable doing is dismissing any Proposition K bicycling improvements from the CEQA process, and that’s probably how this entire process got started, including the enactment of Wiener’s Senate Bill 922, “Environmental Quality Act exemptions: transportation-related projects” (approved by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Sept. 30, 2022).
Regardless, the CCC attempts in a single paragraph to claim that its review and analysis of the application serves as the functional equivalent of environmental review under CEQA. Incidentally, the CCC used this same sweeping boilerplate language, though more legitimately so, when it referred to the EIR that the city actually provided to them under its earlier CDP application for the closure of the Great Highway from Sloat to Skyline.
Finally, CEQA case law, with respect to CEQA exemptions pertaining to ballot initiatives, indicates “if a city council or board of supervisors decides to place a government-sponsored measure on the ballot, that action is discretionary and generally requires CEQA review under the Supreme Court’s 2001 decision in Friends of Sierra Madre v. City of Sierra Madre.” Additionally, “there is an important limitation on the use of ballot measures, in that the initiative process can only be used to enact legislative approvals. Many land use projects require some type of administrative or non-legislative approval, such as a subdivision map or use permit, and those administrative approvals cannot be enacted by initiative.” This latter finding would likely apply to the land use and necessary consistency finding for the Proposition K project and closure of the Upper Great Highway with the Western Shoreline Plan.
Moreover, in the California Supreme Court’s 2001 decision in Friends of Sierra Madre v. City of Sierra Madre the California Supreme Court succinctly concludes that “CEQA compliance is required when a project is proposed and placed on the ballot by a public agency.” This strong conclusion may be the reason the CCC backpedaled on the city’s CEQA exemption position and indicated the need for CEQA review for portions of the project under the CDP approval.
Project lacks final EIR, consistency with western shoreline plan
Preliminarily, it appears the Proposition K project still needs a final EIR. Additionally, like the approval process for the closure of the Great Highway between Sloat and Skyline, a complete consistency finding with the city’s Western Shoreline Plan appears to be needed, too.
Under that Sloat to Skyline approval, the Planning Department confirmed, “all projects approved or undertaken by the city, regardless of location, are reviewed for consistency with the General Plan. Thus, the policies of the Western Shoreline Plan apply to both actions that are subject to the City’s coastal permit authority and to the City’s General Plan.”
A Western Shoreline Plan consistency finding should be subject to the public scrutiny process as well, and both should be nearly impossible to achieve, in an ethical, transparent, noncorrupt setting. Why? The closure of the Upper Great Highway does not conform with the main objectives of the comprehensive Western Shoreline Plan.
Objective 1 covers transportation and the improvement of public transit access to the coast. Clearly, the Proposition K project decreases and worsens transportation access, and connectivity to the coast, particularly in the north-south direction. Viewed holistically, the abandonment and decommissioning of the Upper Great Highway to solely create a two-mile-long “park” in the middle of the six-mile-long stretch of western shoreline highway, creates a significant gap in this important transportation artery. Objective 2 is entirely dedicated to the Great Highway, which highlights its importance in the overall Western Shoreline Plan. The objective calls for the redesign of the Great Highway to enhance its scenic qualities and recreational use.
Of particular interest is Policy 2.1, and more precisely, where the redesign of the Great Highway calls for the development of the Great Highway right-of-way as a four-lane straight highway (for vehicles) with recreational trails for bicycle, pedestrian, landscaping, and parking. Additionally, the right-of-way development should emphasize slow pleasure traffic and safe pedestrian access to the beach.
Additionally, with respect to the previous closure of the Great Highway from Sloat to Skyline, the Western Shoreline Plan explicitly provided for it, under Coastal Hazards Objective 12, Policy 12.1, Implementation Measure (c) “Close the Great Highway between Sloat and Skyline Boulevards and make circulation and safety improvements along Sloat and Skyline Boulevards to better accommodate bicyclists, pedestrians, and vehicles.” Correspondingly, the plan clearly does not provide for a similar closure of the Upper Great Highway from Lincoln to Sloat. Instead, the Western Shoreline Plan requires the development of the Great Highway right-of-way as a four-lane straight highway for vehicles with recreational trails for bicycle, pedestrian, landscaping, and parking.
Rather than the San Francisco Planning Department completing a thorough consistency finding, like it did for the Sloat to Skyline closure, the CCC took it upon themselves to cherry-pick a few select consistency findings with the city’s Western Shoreline Plan (a.k.a. the CCC’s Local Coastal Program or LCP) to justify its approval of the CDP. Importantly, with respect to the redesign of the Great Highway, the CCC erroneously determined and concluded on page 20 of the CDP approval, “the LCP provides rather clear direction to ‘replace the Great Highway as a four-lane straight highway with recreational trails for bicycle, pedestrian, landscaping, and parking’ — which the proposed implementation of Proposition K would do for the Upper Great Highway from Sloat Boulevard to Lincoln Way. Put another way, the proposed project directly implements LCP provisions and helps to achieve LCP objectives.”
Of course, whether purposely fabricated or not, that’s not true and is not what the LCP says at all. Again, the LCP says, “develop the Great Highway right-of-way as a four-lane straight highway with recreational trails for bicycle, pedestrian, landscaping, and parking.” Put another way, and accurately, redesign and develop the entire Great Highway right-of-way, not replace the highway, and do so with four lanes for vehicles, plus recreational trails, landscaping, and parking.
To be absolutely clear, the City uses California Vehicle Code Section 360, which defines a “highway” as “a way or place of whatever nature, publicly maintained and open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel. Highway includes street.”
Furthermore, with respect to defining “vehicular travel,” a vehicle is typically motorized and does not include a bicycle or a pedestrian. Per section 2.07 of the San Francisco Park Code, “the word ‘vehicle’ shall mean any device, in, upon, or by which a person or property is or may be propelled, moved or drawn upon a highway, excepting a device moved by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks, and shall include, but not be limited to, the following: automobile, truck, motorcycle, motor-driven cycle, animal-drawn carriage, buckboard, cart, and minibike or bicycle when operated under engine power.”
So, according to the City’s Western Shoreline Plan and LCP, the redesign and development of the Great Highway right-of-way are to include (1) a four-lane straight highway dedicated to vehicular travel, including cars, plus (2) parking, (3) recreational trails for bicycle and pedestrian, and (4) landscaping. Those are the four basic program elements to be included in the redesign and development of the Great Highway right-of-way footprint. Period.
Looking at all the evidence, it does not appear the city has actually adopted the ordinance for the Proposition K ballot measure, and approval of the project and the closure of Upper Great Highway under CEQA and the Western Shoreline Plan might be the reason. It would also be difficult to have an official “park” opening celebration on April 12 without an ordinance in place providing for the 24/7 closure of the Upper Great Highway considering the weekend-only pilot project ordinance is still in effect. Overall, the project feels rushed, apparently with a lot of sloppy work by the city and the CCC, and in particular the officials who backed it.
Precedent-setting development project
Critics of Proposition K were also suspect of what many see as the real motivation behind closing the Great Highway — residential development. It would be remiss not to mention the proposed eight-story affordable senior housing complex at 1234 Great Highway, right at Proposition K’s front door. Headed by the Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation (TNDC), it is geared toward low-income and formerly homeless seniors, but Sunset District residents have raised concerns about its potential impact on the neighborhood, particularly with the closure of its main thoroughfare. The plans call for transforming a former Motel 6 into a 199-unit affordable housing complex, with 50 percent of those units reserved for formerly homeless individuals and 50 percent going to low-income seniors.
Development along the Great Highway is certainly on the mind of YIMBY Senator Scott Wiener, who, in January 2024, introduced Senate Bill 951 to remove “urban San Francisco” from the protections of the CCC meant to “refine” the commission’s role in housing approvals and permitting. Former Mayor London Breed sponsored the bill, saying, “This is the kind of surgical, smart policy we need to expand housing opportunities while still being strong protectors of our natural environment.”
The Board of Supervisors’ Land Use and Transportation Committee approved a resolution opposing Wiener’s bill, and the Board of Supervisors voted by a veto-proof majority to support it. Aaron Peskin, then president of the board, said the danger went far beyond a boundary adjustment in San Francisco County. “It just signals to developers that they can go to their state senator and start chopping apart one of California’s most cherished pieces of law. The precedent is dangerous and scary, and it’s got to be stopped now.”
While Wiener said the bill was about creating affordable housing, Peskin believed it was about permitting a 50-story high-rise planned for the Outer Sunset and Wiener’s desire to “pursue any kind of development along the Pacific Ocean.” Wiener denied Peskin’s claims. But climate experts and coastal officials across California agreed the bill would have statewide ramifications, weakening the CCC’s power to protect shoreline public access, regulate proposed development, and plan for impending sea-level rise. Wiener wasn’t even subtle about how he wanted to redraw the coastal zone, limiting it to the beach “up to the Great Highway.” Sean Drake, a senior legislative analyst for the CCC, said, “Narrowing the coastal zone in this way would dramatically reduce the state’s role in important planning efforts for western San Francisco, particularly how that stretch of coastal area adapts to sea-level rise,” and also limit how the commission protects much of the infrastructure along the Great Highway. According to Drake, as sea levels rise, with little opportunity to implement “comprehensive resiliency strategies,” Ocean Beach is likely to “shrink against the exterior of the Great Highway and ultimately disappear.” The CCC voted unanimously to oppose the bill unless it was amended. Undeterred, Wiener said he will work with the commission and the San Francisco Planning Department on a compromise that would protect the coast while “having a pro-housing stance.”h of coastal area adapts to sea-level rise,” and also limit how the commission protects much of the infrastructure along the Great Highway. According to Drake, as sea levels rise, with little opportunity to implement “comprehensive resiliency strategies,” Ocean Beach is likely to “shrink against the exterior of the Great Highway and ultimately disappear.” The CCC ultimately voted unanimously to oppose the bill unless it was amended. Undeterred, Wiener said he will work with the commission and the San Francisco Planning Department on a compromise that would protect the coast while “having a pro-housing stance.”