By John Ferrannini
A lawsuit challenging the closure of San Francisco’s Upper Great Highway (UGH) to vehicle traffic will be heard in a civil court in June.
Matthew Boschetto, et al. v. San Francisco was filed in San Francisco County Superior Court on March 12. It alleges that Proposition K – the successful ballot measure that led to part of the westside thoroughfare being closed to cars starting March 14 – was not within the voters’ purview to close and that it ran afoul of the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA.
The civil complaint states the supervisors who voted to place the measure on the ballot, including District 4’s Joel Engardio, “ignored the state’s plenary authority over traffic control and roads and unlawfully placed a measure before San Francisco voters that was not in the voters’ power to decide.
“To make matters worse, this measure exceeds the limited authority given to cities and counties to legislate in the field of traffic control and roads by closing the Upper Great Highway to most vehicles while allowing other vehicular traffic on this road and by incorrectly determining that the closure of a major county highway is not subject to CEQA,” it continues.
The case is scheduled to be heard at 1:30 p.m., on June 2, in Department 606 at the Superior Court at 400 McAllister St.
One of the plaintiffs, Albert Chow, pointed out that the proposition was buoyed to victory last November despite much opposition from westside voters. Before COVID-19, an average of 20,000 vehicles used the UGH daily, though this fell 38% by the fall of 2023, according to San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency numbers.
The highway was closed to vehicle traffic amid the COVID-era’s need for space for physically distanced outdoor activities. A 2022 compromise closed the thoroughfare to vehicles on weekends but left it open on weekdays.
Proponents of Prop. K, such as Engardio, argue that the southernmost section of the road is slowly eroding into the ocean, and the middle section is often closed to vehicles due to sand.
“This entire proposition never sat well with the west side of the City,” said Chow, owner of Great Wall Hardware on Taraval Street. “It lit up a lot of anger. We didn’t want this. Our supervisor (Engardio) – despite constituents pleading, begging with him – still went forward.”
Chow is also the president of People of Parkside Sunset, an organization representing businesses and residents.
Engardio, a first-term supervisor who ousted incumbent Gordon Mar in 2022, may pay a steep political price, as Sunset residents are collecting signatures to place a recall on the ballot. More than 50 people attended a rally outside the Ortega Branch Library supporting his ouster, which has to collect nearly 10,000 signatures from District 4 registered voters by May 22 to move forward.
“I have full confidence in the city attorney’s ability to draft legal ballot measures that go before San Francisco voters,” Engardio said. “My guess is the court will quickly see this lawsuit has no merit.”
“Once the lawsuit is filed and served, we will review the complaint and respond in court,” said Dariel Walker Hampton, a communications officer for City Attorney David Chiu.
Communications Director Jen Kwart followed up March 20 that “we still have not been served.”
Lucas Lux, president of Friends of Ocean Beach Park, said the lawsuit is new packaging for the same opposition to turning the UGH into a park.
“This lawsuit is just another in a long line of attempts by park opponents to overturn the will of San Franciscans,” Lux stated. “Their prior attempts to bypass democratic outcomes include another failed lawsuit and multiple unanimously rejected appeals. Meanwhile, we are excited for the park to open in April so San Franciscans can begin enjoying the coastal park they voted for.”
Repaving and bike infrastructure is scheduled to be put in place by April 12, when Ocean Beach Park is slated to open.
Artwork Vandalized
On March 15 – one day after the highway was closed – a mural by local artist Emily Fromm at the Judah Street intersection of the highway was vandalized, according to a news release. Fromm said she has been harassed verbally “multiple times.”
A report was filed that same day and park rangers were investigating, the release continued.
“It’s painful to see something meant to uplift the community and celebrate our history be treated with disrespect,” Fromm stated. “Public art is vulnerable by nature, because it exists out in the open for everyone to enjoy. But vandalism like this doesn’t just damage a mural, it undermines the spirit of community that this project is all about. It’s my sincere hope that we can turn down the temperature and show our neighbors and local art the respect they deserve.”
Engardio condemned the vandalism.
“Defacing artwork or destroying property is not how opinions are shared,” he said. “And no one should have to endure verbal abuse by someone who disagrees with a policy or the outcome of a vote. Now more than ever we need civility in our politics and public discourse.”
Categories: Upper Great Highway
Richmond Review/Sunset Beacon 
Interesting how Joel Engardio is coming out so strongly to condemn vandalizing a mural when he said nothing when the bicycling groups obstructed trafffic on the GH weekly by biking slowly for hours, circling around and around. Those illegal actions regularly disrupted people’s ability to get to schools, jobs, medical appointments, the airport etc yet not one peep out of Gordon Mar, Joel Engardio, Lucas Lux and other proponents of the “park”. No enhanced enforcement of the law or monitoring to prevent these rides.
LikeLiked by 2 people
is the Pack Heights yelp billionaire gonna cover the costs of the city attorneys defending this dumb proposition or does he only spend money on giant giraffes and bike ramps?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Interesting how the bikers claimed that only the neighbors near Oak should decide what to do with Oak, while they demanded that everyone in the city should decide about the Great Highway. These people have no shame.
LikeLiked by 2 people
As we’ve seen over and over again, members of the Bicycle Coalition will lie, cheat and/or steal in the hopes of eventually gaining control of every road in the city. The takeover of the Great Highway wasn’t a park to them, it was a power play. Just like their buddy Engardio, they have no concern whatsoever over how it’s affected daily commuters or the disabled who used it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Phil Ginsburg needs to be completely investigated.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Contrary to Mr. Lux’s view, the process was not “democratic” at all. Where was the discussion before the stretch was decorated with “art”, who is paying for this cutesy “art,” and where was the open selection process for artists?
Nowhere to be found!
LikeLiked by 1 person
The animosity conveyed by those comments by an angry public who can’t face the fact there was a vote to make UGH a park is enough to drive me further into supporting the park. They do not seem to see anything positive about the park including increases in tourism to our beach and benefits to small business as well as beautifying our city which includes the art work. It so reminds me of when there was intense anger about closing down the Embarcadero freeway in China town after the earthquake. Our city is so much more beautiful and visitor friendly since then. Maybe it is time to accept the will of the people and look for the beauty and benefits for locals (children playing, safe bike riding, small business) and tourists.
LikeLike
Not only does this commenter fail to address the concerns of Sunset District residents, but they also ignore the undemocratic process by which Proposition K was put on the ballot. The measure was introduced at the last minute, leaving no time for an opposing measure to be submitted. This underhanded tactic is a clear indication that the proponents of Prop K knew they couldn’t win a fair and open debate on the merits of the proposal. It’s no wonder that there’s a lawsuit challenging the legality of the measure. Rather than dismissing the valid concerns of residents, we should be questioning the motives and methods of those who pushed for Prop K.
Ultimately, the creation of this so-called ‘park’ is nothing more than a farce. It’s a thinly-veiled attempt to appease a small group of people at the expense of the greater good. Instead of investing in real solutions to improve transportation, promote small businesses, and enhance the beauty of our city, the proponents of Prop K have chosen to push through a divisive and damaging measure. It’s time for our leaders to stop playing politics and start focusing on what truly matters: the well-being and prosperity of all San Francisco residents.
LikeLike
“There was a vote” yes, based on lies presented as a proposition, in contravention of both state and local laws on the books, with unclean hands by the proponents funded by Billionaire backers with dark money, at the last minute to avoid community input or opposition to what the developers wanted – to develop. They didn’t donate millions of dollars because SF needed to make “a park” out of an existing beach and park combo that already existed. They donated because it allows them to privatize the commons and circumvent laws set up to protect local residents and their rights.
If you can’t even handle the fact that someone sued to protect those rights, what does that say about you and your processes, really? Safety of residents and truth in governance are supposed to be paramount, both were set aside for developer interests and a 1/3 minority in both districts affected, all the while avoiding the reviews that make hard work into hard won compromises. They skipped it. You support that, so ask yourself why that is.
Why are they repeatedly caught lying if they’re as above board as you claim?
LikeLike
How long have you even possibly lived in SF to not know Ocean Beach was always popular already? I mean cmon. You credit Engardio with Ocean Beach.
Let’s get real.
LikeLike