City Hall

City Hall: Joel Engardio

By on • ( 34 Comments )

Making a Case for Prop. K

Why transform a section of the Great Highway into an oceanside park? I believe it will help the environment, boost local merchants and bring people joy. 

And cars will still be able to get where they need to go.

It’s important to understand that Prop. K does not touch the section of the Great Highway that actually connects the Richmond and Sunset neighborhoods. Drivers will still be able to use the Great Highway to go around Golden Gate Park and reach the Sunset 24/7. 

Prop. K only deals with the section south of Lincoln Way, which has no on/off ramps for car access into the Sunset. 

Remember, the Great Highway south of Sloat Boulevard is already legislated to close. We are losing the direct connection to Daly City. Now we have to decide what’s the best use of the section between Lincoln and Sloat.

There has been a lot of misinformation flying around, so let’s talk about the facts.

What Are the Travel Patterns on the Great Highway?

A County Transportation Authority report says 64% of Great Highway usage is travel from the Richmond District to the peninsula, bypassing the Sunset District and San Francisco. But the road south of Sloat is already legislated to close due to extreme coastal erosion. With the greatest utility of the Great Highway gone, drivers will be forced to turn left at Sloat and detour inland to the Peninsula. Prop. K would have drivers turn left at Lincoln instead, using Sunset Boulevard for points south. A study by SFMTA says the time difference on this route is three extra minutes from the Richmond to Daly City.  

Only 5% of drivers use the Great Highway as a connection between the Richmond and Sunset districts. The section that connects the two neighborhoods, west of Golden Gate Park, is not under consideration for closure. It will remain open to cars 24/7.

Can Lincoln Way and Sunset Boulevard Accommodate More Cars?

San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) data show Great Highway traffic is down nearly 40% pre-pandemic. Traffic is down 30% on Sunset Boulevard, which has capacity to absorb additional traffic.

We know this because Sunset Boulevard is already handling the additional traffic when the Great Highway is unexpectedly closed due to sand build-up – which happens up to 65 days a year. 

Do we want to maintain an unpredictable route that forces drivers to turn left at Sloat Boulevard, or do we want a more predictable route by making a left turn at Lincoln Way? If we commit to making a left turn at Lincoln, we have the opportunity to create a coastal park and implement traffic flow improvements to get drivers to the same place with only a few minutes difference. 

What Will a Park Look Like?

In the short term, the ballot measure will let the City start the planning process to close the road between Lincoln and Sloat to allow for a full-time coastal park promenade. It will look like what it already does on the weekends when the road is closed to traffic. This is already a success with 9,400 people on average visiting each weekend, making the promenade San Francisco’s third most popular park. Data show that 4,000 people visit on Saturdays, 4,000 on Sundays, and 1,400 on Friday afternoons. 

Long term, everyone has the opportunity to dream about the potential of a coastal park. The ballot measure purposefully doesn’t commit to any one vision for a park, which allows for more community input on what the park can eventually become. 

What About Funding?

If the ballot measure passes, there will be short- and long-term funding. Initially, city departments would continue to fund park maintenance and sand clearing. The Recreation and Park Department could install low-cost amenities, like benches. Eventually, there would be a public process for park design and capital improvements. State and federal grants, a future park bond and public/private partnerships like a park conservancy could provide funds. But we can’t begin that process until the voters decide how to use this space.

The city controller recently issued a memo that says the closure of the Upper Great Highway from Lincoln to Sloat will save millions of dollars by reducing the need for sand removal and traffic-related capital improvements – namely the traffic signals that are past their life span. They are rusted out and need replacing. 

These savings can be reinvested in the new park and pay for traffic flow improvements.

Coastal Protections 

If the Upper Great Highway becomes a park, the area would be protected by the state Coastal Commission. That means there will not be housing development on the Upper Great Highway or the streets adjacent to it. The City Charter also protects parkland from being used for non-recreational purposes without a vote of the people – another safeguard against any housing development on the Upper Great Highway.

The planning department is proposing new zoning heights throughout the city, but the Lower Great Highway and 48th Avenue are not under consideration for rezoning. The heights on those streets will remain at their current 40 feet. One exception is a state law that allows for three additional stories if the housing is 100% affordable. That means we will not see a wall of towers and we will not turn the Outer Sunset into Miami Beach.

Will We Lose an Emergency Evacuation Route?

San Francisco’s Department of Emergency Management issued a statement that the Great Highway is not a designated emergency evacuation route.

Why Isn’t a Part-Time Park Option on the Ballot?

A part-time park/highway option is not sustainable. It’s difficult to create lasting park infrastructure when the weekend park has to convert back to a road every Monday morning.

An option to create a hybrid half park/half road between Lincoln and Sloat was studied during the decision to close the Great Highway south of Sloat. This option would create one lane of traffic in each direction, which would not offer the convenience drivers desire. It would also create hazards for the people crossing traffic to use the park.

The hybrid option was also prohibitively expensive because it would require massive infrastructure upgrades to current codes, including a physical separation between the two lanes of traffic.

Dedicating half of the area to a full-time park and the other half to a full-time road would cost the most while providing the least desirable experience for both drivers and park goers. 

A hybrid park/highway would still have all the expenses of maintaining the road for cars, even when the road has far less utility with everything already set to close south of Sloat. For example, the signal lights on the Upper Great Highway between Lincoln and Sloat have reached the end of their lifespan. They are rusted out and need replacement – a cost of nearly $5 million that could be used for something else.

What Happens if Prop. K Fails or Passes?

If Prop. K fails in November, the weekend pilot closure will continue through December 2025. Anything beyond then would require separate action by the Board of Supervisors or a ballot initiative in 2026.

If Prop. K wins, the current weekend pilot will continue as it is. There will be a long and public process about the how/what/when of a transition to a full-time park. It won’t happen overnight. It could take a year or longer of status quo. It will still require state Coastal Commission approval. 

What Is the Political Reality?

This issue has been in the public debate for more than three years. 

There was a ballot measure in 2022 called Prop. I that would have opened the Upper Great Highway to cars 24/7. I opposed Prop. I because it would have taken the weekend closure away. I supported the weekend closure. I also talked about the pending closure of the highway South of Sloat due to coastal erosion and how it would create the opportunity for a permanent oceanside park between Lincoln and Sloat. This language was even on my campaign website in 2022.

A lot has changed since the campaign two years ago. Yes, the compromise was good.

But voters overwhelmingly rejected Prop. I in November 2022. It failed 65% to 35%  citywide and it failed 53% to 47% in the Sunset. Then, in December 2022, the Board of Supervisors voted 9-2 to refuse changing the Friday hours to include the evening commute.

In the past year, advocates wanting to open the Upper Great Highway to cars failed three attempts to appeal the closure. The most recent failed appeal was at the California Coastal Commission in May 2024. That month, the Board of Supervisors unanimously voted to close the Great Highway south of Sloat. The highway will never again be a direct connection to Daly City and Interstate 280.

All of these developments since 2022 have changed everything. We must be honest about the political reality. A majority of the members of the Board of Supervisors currently supports closing the Upper Great Highway between Lincoln and Sloat.

There won’t be another election until June 2026. By then, the Board of Supervisors will have already decided the future of the Great Highway. That’s why I believe we must let voters have a say this November.

What to do with the Upper Great Highway is a policy issue that reasonable people disagree on. I believe voters should get to hear the facts and make their own decision. Every voter deserves to have their voice heard.

This is a once-in-a-century opportunity to bring a renaissance to San Francisco and the Sunset District. 

Think of the future generations who will get better access to the coast and a gathering place for exercise, art, music and culture. Imagine how small businesses can benefit if the Sunset is home to an iconic park every tourist wants to visit. Two streetcar lines offer a direct ride to the beach. There will be a tremendous spillover effect for our businesses. 

We can have all this benefit while also making traffic flow improvements to ensure everyone can get where they need to go.

Please read my full blog post for more information: engardio.com/blog/great-highway-future.

Joel Engardio is the District 4 representative on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. He can be reached at engardio.com/contact.

Categories: City Hall

Tagged as: , , , ,

34 replies »

  1. Another disingenuous column. Engardio totally ignores the impact of the proposed 2025 road improvement projects planned for 2025 for Sunset Blvd. We are just nearing completion of a similar project along 19th Avenue which had multiple delays prolonging the time required to complete the project. We all know what a nightmare 19th Avenue was. 19th Avenue STILL requires re-pavement which is anticipated to happen next year. With the GH permanently closed there will be only ONE unobstructed north south traffic artery: traffic will be horrendous. When Outside Lands closed Chain of Lakes, trying to go north south on 19th turned a 30 minute drive to SFO into a 1 1/2 hour trip for one of my neighbors. It was reported that it took 45 minutes to cross GGP on Crossover. Lucas Luxe’s response at the KALW townhall? “Well just don’t drive during Outside Lands” (or Bay to Breakers or Escape from Alcatraz or the SF Marathon or Hardly Strictly Bluegrass or any of the other myriad events that close roads). People don’t have the luxury of “just not driving”. People have to go to work, appointments, pick up kids, do maintenance chores requiring carrying heavy loads like garden mulch, construction supplies. The closure of the GH extension DOES NOT preclude commuting to the Peninsula using the GH as anyone who does that regularly like I have in my 40 years of living in the Richmond district. You merely divert east of the zoo (which by the way doesn’t have residential areas like the Lower Great Highway and adjacent streets which have been damaged by diverted traffic when the GH is closed). There is no recreational desert in the western part of SF. We have an entire Ocean Beach which is a national recreation area well maintained by federal funds. We have GG Park, Lake Merced, Land’s End, Sutro Heights. There IS a transit desert with inadequate public transportation going north south and now impeded traffic arteries. Can you imagine putting closing Marina Boulevard to a city wide vote because the SF Bike Coalition and Kid Safe want it for a recreational area? Why? Because it’s part of a “coast”? Well they have Crissy Field, the Marina Green, and other already existing recreational areas immediately adjacent to Marina Blvd. The GH has an actual BEACH to enjoy the coast. The “data” thrown around by Engardio and Luxe is dubious. The GH is only the “third most used park” if you only include city managed parks. If you include federal parks like the Presidio, Ocean Beach itself, Land’s End, the ranking of the GH as a “park” dwindles. Plus those attendance numbers are artificially boosted when special events orchestrated by anti-car activists boost the numbers dramatically but those events could be held on already existing parks, school yards, etc. During most weekends and all weekdays recreational use is nowhere close to stated 5000/day which EVEN IF TRUE is paled when compared to the 19,000-20,000 vehicles/day who use it. Most of the examples of conversions to parks don’t take over an actively used traffic corridor. The Embarcadero Freeway was significantly damaged by an earthquake. The High Line in NY used an abandoned train railroad track. Claiming the extension closure justifies the entire GH closures is false. I consider the new Tunnel Top park an example of a very well planned project. They didn’t just close Doyle Drive to make a park and tell people to use other non-existent alternate routes. They maintained traffic flow as they improved and buried Doyle Drive. They created and improved the alternative corridor BEFORE they closed the old one. THEN AFTER those improvements were completed, they took the opportunity to build a new recreation area with much more federal money than the city has to build a GH “park”. Why doesn’t Engardio advocate for making all the improvements to the proposed alternative routes BEFORE putting up a proposition that closes a major traffic corridor? Why do it NOW without funding for a new park, without showing that functioning alternative routes but only promising improvements? It’s a fantasy that the alternative is only “a three minute longer commute”. Finally, diverting traffic does NOTHING for “the environment”. Luxe and Engardio say there’s been no impact to emissions by closing the GH but the UC Riverside study clearly says smog emissions spiked along 19th Avenue after the pandemic “because the GH was closed”. https://news.ucr.edu/articles/2022/12/05/post-lockdown-auto-emissions-cant-hide-grass

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  2. Joel you can justify this land grab all you want but we see it for what it really is. You and developers want to carve out sections of the Richmond and Sunset that are in the Coastal Zone so you can build baby build. Well we don’t want to turn the West into high rise central. So to hell with your plan. Open the Great Highway.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  3. If you REALLY wanted to know who people feel and do something actually EQUITABLE for our district, you would have introduced two bills: One to close the road (there is no “park” in your Proposition K), and the other to make the 2 day closure, 5 day open compromise permanent. But you filed Prok K at the last possible minute, slamming the door on anyone who wanted to put a compromise on the ballot. Nice job, Joel.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  5. Joel you “believe” it will boost the local economy, but what actual analysis have you done to support that claim? People can take the trains to visit the beach right now and use the walking path. Why would this weekday closure change the existing numbers? People work during the week.

    Did you make any effort to analyze the negative economic impact on families and workers trapped in gridlock trying to get back home every night? Have you spoken with the parents who struggle to transport their kids to the Beach Chalet fields for soccer practice every evening?

    Did you analyze the potential negative impact on businesses like the Beach Chalet, Cliff House, Louie’s, Seal Rock?

    When you assert that your untested and unvetted Sunset and Lincoln traffic modifications will work out just fine, are you factoring in the projected increase in west-side housing density that you are pushing for?

    For months you have chirped about “political realities” making this closure inevitable, but you and the special interests like the Bike Coalition are driving this unnecessary project. And it’s clear that you haven’t done the homework required of a responsible supervisor.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  6. The question that never seems to get answered is who, exactly, will be using this “park” on weekdays? It certainly won’t be the thousands of working people who will no longer be able to use the Great Highway for a safe and efficient commute. They will be at work, after experiencing the “joy” of being stuck in traffic for an additional fifteen to thirty minutes each way on their daily commute.

    It won’t be kids. They will be at school, day-care, after-school activities, or home doing homework. Those who work from home? Many of the people who work from home are as tied to their desk as if they were at an office. It’s not likely that someone from Hayes Valley or the Excelsior is going to make it to the “park” and back in the half hour/hour they have for lunch. Nor is it likely they will want to.

    The elderly, you claim? Hardly. And even if we were flocking to it, is there enough of us to justify displacing working people in the manner? I doubt it.

    No, those using the park with be the handful of work-from-home elitists with the flexibility to leave their job whenever the fancy strikes (or trust fund babies who don’t have to worry about jobs at all). It will be those with expensive bikes, dressed in spandex, who have the luxury of time because they send their laundry out and have their groceries delivered (when they’re not dining out). In short, it will be those with money, and lots of it.

    This is a class issue disguised as public service. And, like every class issue, it’s the working class who gets screwed.

    Shame on you, Pseudo-visor Engardio!

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  7. Thanks for your clear explanation for why we should all support Prop K. We will look back on this time years from now and wonder why it was even a question to turn the great highway into a park similar to JFK and the Embarcadero. I hope you continue pushing for this across the city (presidio blvd and central freeway come to mind). The city should be designed for the enjoyment and quality of life of its residents not for cars and drivers who want to vroom around as fast as possible. 100% you and prop K, thank you!

    Like

    Reply

    • The Central and Embarcadero Freeways were significantly damaged by earthquakes, unlike the Great Highway which is still in active use. They didn’t close an active traffic artery to make a “park”. The Embarcadero freeway was replaced by a blvd (still used by cars) and not turned into a park with cars banned. You can enjoy the quality of life at the ocean by using the actual beach or the adjacent walking path. As far as “all it’s residents” I would venture to say that many senior citizens and those with disabilities have decreased their visits to GGP and I believe attendance at the museums have declined.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      • More people are visiting the de Young than even before the pandemic, according to the museum’s own public reports.

        Like

      • Alexicisc. Not according to the 2023 Annual SF Park and Recs mandated reporting. Attendance although up between 2022 and 2023 (which they attribute to blockbuster exhibits), it’s still lower in 2023 than in 2019 pre pandemic. FY 19 1,120,025, FY 2022 504,007, FY 2023 (blockbuster exhibits year) 1,066,221. Note 2022 without extraordinary exhibits attendance was half of pre-pandemic.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Like Christina said, The Upper Great Highway is NOT damaged, does NOT obstruct anyone’s view or cover the area with shadows. And the Embarcadero is STILL used by cars to access the area’s attractions, though I’m sure you’d like to see cars banned from it.
      As far as JFK? JFK has never been an important North-South commute corridor for thousands of vehicles per day.
      As far as the Central Freeway and Park Presidio being closed…you HAVE to be kidding, that’s sheer lunacy!

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  8. The benefits of public open space are so difficult to measure. It enriches lives, provides something free for everyone to take advantage of. I appreciate that we’re letting voters decide. San Franciscans should get to have a say in how we use our public space.

    Like

    Reply

    • I see, you want Daly City residents to vote on closing Hwy 35 to make it into a park even though it affects thousands and thousands of people using it as a road from the peninsula to the city. You want the entire city of SF to vote on closing Marina Blvd so it can be made into a park although it would horribly impact Marina residents as that traffic diverts into their residential streets. You want the entire city to vote on closing Taraval to cars like Lucas Luxe advocated for after that tragedy at the bus stop. SF is rich in already existing public spaces. According to the Park and Recs statements, EVERY SF resident is within 15 minutes of being able to access a park. Where do you live? I want to be able to decide how to use the streets around you for my preferences no matter how much it damages YOUR quality of life (like closing the GH does for the adjacent residential streets now seeing huge amounts of traffic despite attempts at traffic slowing). After Gordon Mar was inundated by complaints from adjacent street residents they began a series of traffic slowing (barricades, street bumps) first on the Lower GH, then 47th, then 46th, then 45th in a whack a mole attempt to mitigate those 20,000 cars now pouring into those formerly residential streets. It didn’t work, traffic just flowed to the next unobstructed street.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

    • It’s extremely unfortunate that San Francisco is so deprived of outdoor recreational opportunities. (as long as you forget Golden Gate Park, Ocean Beach, Lake Merced, Stern Grove, Sutro Park, The Presidio…)

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      • The city did an exhaustive Sunset Forward study in 2022 with numerous town halls, surveys, focus groups in different languages, and events all over the neighborhood, and it found that Sunset residents overwhelmingly asked for more community gathering spaces, parks, and open spaces. People say they want more parks, and if you’re west of Sunset Blvd but not near GGP, there really aren’t a lot of parks, especially parks with space to walk around.

        Like

      • Alexisc: No place to walk around? Like the entire Ocean Beach? Or the walking path adjacent to the GH that I’ve walked on for many years? When I golf at Harding/Fleming I see many people walking the paths there and around Lake Merced.

        Liked by 1 person

  9. Thank you for your leadership, Supervisor Engardio! And for taking the time to dispel the misinformation, and clearly lay out the choice we each get to make in how we vote on Prop K. Do we want to transform a section of road with declining utility to improve coastal access for all (including some in my family who have mobility issues and can’t walk on the sand), and better adapt to coastal erosion? Or do we want to let motorists continue to dominate one of the *many* roads that connect Lincoln and Sloat, to save 0-3 minutes on their commutes? Should we set aside a portion of our one precious coast as a place for people to be, or a place for people to bypass?

    The saying goes: think globally, act locally. Prop K is all of our opportunity to act locally for our environment, for coastal access, for our community, and for our children. And we’re lucky that the “cost” of opening up this part of the road as a 24/7 promenade doesn’t sacrifice a single parking spot, intersection, or dollar. Nor does it close off any destination to cars – every single place that can be reached by car on this part of the Great Highway can be reached by another road that will remain open to cars 24/7. This is why this section of the Great Highway is often referred to as redundant. Converting road space to other uses has been shown time and time again to REDUCE traffic, not increase it. We can do this, San Francisco! And I look forward to coming together as a community to brainstorm and vision how we want to use this iconic coastal space if we get the chance. Benches, community art, playgrounds, designated bike lanes, restored native plants…It will be a beautiful, community building park for everyone.

    Like

    Reply

    • There’s a bike / walking trail just east of the GH that works fine for people with limited mobility and always has.

      As for motorists ‘dominating’ the roads the GH is closed to cars on weekends, when most people would use it as a park anyway.

      19th Ave is scheduled to be repaved through 2027. Imagine the 20k cars GH serves each weekday diverting a considerably to there and watch the nightmare ensue. Not to mention the poor people along Lincoln who will have their traffic massively increased. Cheerleadng / ‘We can do this’ stuff doesn’t solve any problems.

      If GH is converted to a full time park (for which no budget has been approved, keep in mind), what happens to the benches, native plants and playgrounds that took up the roadway when the sand comes in and you can’t plow?

      Like

      Reply

  10. Thanks for the clear explanation of this, Joel. I know it must be hard to take the aggressive, negative comments from the small minority who want to keep this unnecessary auto bypass through our neighborhood, the Sunset. Thankfully a large majority of Sunset residents and San Francisco voters support Prop K and look forward to this once-in-a-generation opportunity to build a 40 acre oceanfront park that welcomes everyone to our beautiful neighborhood. Keep up the great work and keep improving our neighborhood!

    Like

    Reply

    • ” Thankfully a large majority of Sunset residents and San Francisco voters support Prop K”
      Based on what survey? A LOT of Social Media posts say otherwise. A LOT more people use it for commuting during the week than the few that are lucky enough to have weekdays off from school or work to use it. A “park”, which it will NOT be in the traditional sense of all the other real parks close to the Upper Great Highway, is a poor, misguided use of an important commuter corridor.

      Like

      Reply

      • Well when we voted on this two years ago, a substantial majority of people (including majorities in every district) voted against Prop I to put cars back on the Great Highway, so that seems like a better indication than your particular social media bubble.

        Like

    • Weekend closure alone only got 53 / 47 from local residents (after a massive outspend), and weekday closure is another magnitude of difference. No On K’s polling shows a 70% ‘No’ vote from the Richmond and Sunset on this, the people who would be affected the most.

      What road do you propose to take up the 20k cars per weekday that use GH? That sounds like a ‘necessary’ bypass to me. Happy talk about once-in-a-generation stuff doesn’t cut it with voters in the neighborhood and nor should it. It’s a disaster in the making if this passes.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  11. I really appreciate the supervisor clearing up the facts with regard to the Great Highway. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but lies and misinformation should have no place in this debate. Our coast is a precious resource, and we ought to treat it as such! I’m not aware of any city that has ever regretted the removal of a freway, and this will be no different. Supervisor Engardio, thank you for your visionary leadership on this issue — it’s something the city is sorely lacking. I look forward to voting Yes on K in November.

    Like

    Reply

  12. Mr. Engardio, you are trying to increase the emergency vehicle response times to emergencies that may occur out on the shores of the beach between Lincoln and Sloat , or any other medical emergencies that may occur in between the long stretch of road. In addition, as a commuter that uses that stretch to get to work on a daily basis, I truly appreciate that little bit of time / distance of relaxation when I’m driving to work and back to work to my house. Yes, my house, I’m a taxpayer in this city for decades, and I do not appreciate people like you lying to us trying to get your way and taking away one of the simple things and safety options that we have in this city! Perhaps you should take the time to sit at the corner of Lincoln and great highway to see the traffic jams caused on a nice sunny day on the weekends and how it backs up, how people get mad and how there’s honking going on because of this terrible idea that people like you started during the pandemic. Get out of your office come out here and truly see how bad it is, you’re a horrible, horrible person! Stop trying to take away completely the GREAT HIGHWAY from us. I do not understand why you’re not satisfied with the way things now, it is a fair compromise that we currently have it should stay as such!

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  13. The Great Highway is much more useful as a road than as a weekday “park”. I sometimes bike along the existing trail on weekdays, and there are not enough people walking or biking to justify closing the road. The weather is often windy and foggy. In addition, there is open space on either side of the road; Ocean Beach, and the trail between the Upper and Lower Great Highway.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  14. Where to start on this duff idea? First, the the Sloat bypass Supervisor Engardio bemoans can be improved with a traffic signal at Sloat and Skyline, instead of the ludicrous three-way stop sign there. Other signals can be improved as well.

    It’s not *that* bad to zip up and down Sloat for a minute, then turn right on Skyline. Within a moment you’re right back to where the bypass would lead you.

    Great fun? No, but diverting people on Lincoln is a much worse idea. Yes, it would be far better to keep the existing bypass open and stop moaning about ‘climate change’ based erosion and do something about it, but we have to be realistic about the political timefame here. Speeding up access on Sloat is much preferable to redirecting down Lincoln.

    Supervisor Engardio talks about an emergency ‘evacuation route’. This is answering a question that has never been asked.

    No one considers GH a major evacuation route; the idea is to keep emergency *access* for ambulances and firetrucks who need to get north-south quickly. If GH is closed those emergency vehicles will have to use local streets instead (and LGH is now pocketed with speed bumps), costing time.

    Supervisor Engardio talks about the Coastal Commission preventing height changes along Lower Great Highway and 48th Avenue. He might want to check in with State Senator Scott Weiner, who is busily trying to pull commission oversight from this area, opening up a condo-hell possibility that Mr. Engardio says is impossible.

    Very nice of the supervisor to consider Sunset Blvd underused, which would be news to anyone who drives it currently. Throwing up to 20k cars per weekday on it in all conditions (and up Lincoln as well, a true bottleneck) is no recipe for traffic heaven.

    Just because GH is closed a number of days per year (65 is a huge stretch– even the Yes on K campaign says the avg number is 27) doesn’t mean Sunset blvd just keeps smiling with the extra traffic. And when GH ‘is’ closed it’s generally in the winter, with the Christmas holidays ameliorating the impact somewhat.

    The ‘hybrid’ strawman he lists is also nonsense, keeping a lane of traffic open in each direction. Of course that would be difficult to achieve given space constraints, which is why it’s never been seriously considered.

    Instead, Richmond and Sunset residents have compromised by agreeing to take one for the team and close GH on weekends. If 8k people use it on weekends how many fewer will do so during the week, when most people are at work? In contrast, weekday car commute usage is far higher than on weekends.

    If a park is built by the way, and we have no budget proposal for that, how do the supporters plan to plow it if there’s no longer a roadway for access, but instead playgrounds, benches and native plants, all doomed to be covered 6ft deep in sand dunes in short order? A ‘park’ will have to resemble a ‘highway’ in any realistic scenario.

    This flawed proposal smacks of a ‘legacy’ project for officeholders eyeing higher ground, consequences to constituents be damned. Don’t let it happen. Vote No On K.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  15. If you take the Upper Great Highway to Skyline via Sloat, it’s a two lanes turning left into two lanes, a very manageable transition after the southern extension is closed (despite all this “road to nowhere” nonsense). But, not if the UGH is closed. One thing no one seems to be mentioning is if you take south bound Sunset via Lincoln, merging from Lincoln onto Sunset at 37th Ave is ONE LANE, and will back up traffic in the right lane approaching 37th Ave. in a big way during the commute times.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  16. As soon as we were made aware of Prop. K,  a well-funded, well-orchestrated advertising and promotional blitz proclaiming “Ocean Beach for Everyone” appeared. The funders knew about this before hand. Doesn’t it make you wonder who is behind this and why are they expending so much effort and money?  This is deliberately deceptive and a prime example of  misinformation. Ocean Beach is already open to everyone and always has been.  This is a tactic Rec and Park has used before in the case of the Beach Chalet Soccer Fields. The supporters of the Rec and Park sponsored Proposition in favor of artificial turf, flooded the City with posters showing a locked gate to the Fields with the slogan, “Let the children play” when it was Rec and Park who had put up the gate and locked it.

    Like

    Reply

  17. With 250 parks and playgrounds and a park or playground within a 10 minute walk from any residence it is stupid to say we need more parks! Why do people like Engardio want to move to San Francisco and want to change it? For Engardio it’s political, pleasing the developers that Scott Weiner wants to bring to the coast and build baby build. Those supporting Prop 14 are all like sheep being led to slaughter. Look at the remodeling of the homes along the Lower Great Highway. 2-3 stories with price tags in the $5 million plus range. Multi million dollar condos on every corner is what Engardio, Weiner and the developers want. Mom and pop business’s will be priced out of the market, with only corporate owned stores and restaurants. Look at South Beach and you’ll see what they want. Most of you who dream of home ownership here can forget it. There will be no affordable housing here and prices will only go up.

    The Great Highway supports the working class people. They don’t drive up and down for pleasure. They have jobs, places to go and things to do. It’s commerce. The city needs commerce to survive. Without it, the city will die as we know it. I still have to wonder what is the fear these Prop 14 supporters fear going to the beach and prefer to stay in a parking lot or on asphalt? Do they fear walking in sand or fear walking next to the water? You have over 3 miles of open beach to play on, 6 miles at low tide. Get over your fear of walking over the highway to the sand. It’s a lot nicer than a make believe park. No on Prop K!!

    Like

    Reply

Leave a reply to Paul Lavelle Cancel reply