San Francisco's Great Highway Park Transformation: Victory and Controversy

The End of an Era: From Highway to Oceanfront Park

The Upper Great Highway's life as a thoroughfare for automobiles is coming to an end. After serving as a crucial coastal transportation route for decades, the two-mile stretch from Lincoln Way to Sloat Boulevard will officially close to cars on March 14, 2025. This closure represents the culmination of a gradual transition that began during the pandemic when the road was initially closed to provide more outdoor recreation space for social distancing.

Since 2021, the city has maintained a hybrid approach, with the road closed to vehicles on weekends and open on weekdays. This arrangement was formalized in 2022 when the San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved a three-year pilot project. However, the passage of Proposition K in the November election, which passed with 54.7% of the vote, made the closure permanent and set the stage for the creation of a new 50-acre oceanfront park.

A New Vision for Ocean Beach

San Francisco's Recreation and Parks Department has ambitious plans for the newly available space. Set to officially open on April 12, the yet-unnamed park will transform the asphalt corridor into a vibrant community space featuring:

• Murals and public art installations
• Lounge spaces and elevated seating for ocean views
• A venue for live music performances
• Dedicated areas for skating and outdoor fitness
• A nature exploration area for children
• Improved bike infrastructure, including parking and a pump track

The city is actively engaging residents in the naming process, accepting submissions for potential park names through March 16. Suggestions have ranged from tributes to local wildlife, such as the "Snowy Plover Park" honoring the threatened shorebird species that inhabits Ocean Beach, to more whimsical options like one resident's "Robert Bobby Bingus Memorial Parkway," named after his dog.

Community Support and Opposition

The transformation has generated mixed reactions among San Francisco residents. Many outdoor enthusiasts and nearby residents have expressed enthusiasm for the change.

"I am super stoked about it, it's great," said Caroline Loffredo, an Outer Sunset resident who enjoys both surfing at Ocean Beach and running along the Great Highway.

Cyclists particularly appreciate the safety benefits of a car-free corridor. "We like to get out here because there's a lot less traffic, and I'm very nervous about riding near traffic, so I think it will be good for me," said San Francisco resident and cyclist Cameron Stiehl.

However, others have voiced concerns about the impact on traffic patterns and commute times. Even supporters acknowledge potential inconveniences.

"It's unfortunate the Great Highway is closing because it's a commute I take, personally," said Jordyn Gabucayan, an Outer Richmond resident who estimates the closure will add 10-15 minutes to his work commute. Despite this, he appreciates the recreational benefits: "I do love running, so it's honestly a good opportunity to run and for kids and families to walk around as well."

Legal Challenge Emerges

The most significant opposition has taken the form of a lawsuit filed against the city, the Board of Supervisors, and five specific supervisors who placed Proposition K on the ballot: Joel Engardio, Myrna Melgar, Dean Preston, Rafael Mandelman, and Matt Dorsey.

The legal challenge, spearheaded by attorneys Jim Sutton and Eli Love, was filed on behalf of three plaintiffs:

• Matt Boschetto, a former District 7 candidate who ran an independent expenditure committee that invested over $260,000 to fight Proposition K
• Albert Chow, a hardware store owner and vocal opponent of the Great Highway closure
• LivableSF, a nonprofit incorporated by Vin Budhai, who is also co-organizing a recall campaign against District 4 Supervisor Joel Engardio over his role in championing Proposition K

The lawsuit claims that Proposition K is "legally invalid" on two primary grounds:

1. State Preemption: The plaintiffs argue that the State of California has preempted local control of traffic and roads, making it illegal for voters in local elections to decide on road closures. They specifically cite Vehicle Code section 21101(a)(1), which allows municipalities to close highways only when the local legislative body determines they are "no longer needed for vehicular traffic."

2. CEQA Violation: The suit alleges that the city circumvented the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which should have required an environmental impact report for the project. While voter-initiated ballot measures are exempt from CEQA, the plaintiffs contend that measures placed on the ballot by four or more supervisors do not enjoy the same exemption.

A key aspect of the legal argument focuses on what the plaintiffs describe as a "partial" closure. They point out that Proposition K still allows transit vehicles, emergency vehicles, official government vehicles, and other authorized vehicles to use the Upper Great Highway, which they argue "directly contradicts the voters' finding… that the Upper Great Highway is 'no longer needed for vehicular traffic.'"

The plaintiffs also claim that because the Upper Great Highway served residents from beyond just the Outer Sunset neighborhood, the matter is of "statewide concern" rather than purely local interest.

The City's Response

The city has not yet formally responded to the lawsuit. Jen Kwart, a spokesperson for the city attorney, stated, "Once the lawsuit is filed and served, we will review the complaint and respond in court."

Supporters of the park project remain optimistic about the legal outcome. "We are confident that the City Attorney's office will defend the will of San Franciscans against this baseless lawsuit," said Lucas Lux of Friends of Ocean Beach Park. "Meanwhile, we are excited for the park to open in April so thousands of San Franciscans can begin enjoying the coastal park they voted for."

A Changing Landscape

The transformation of the Great Highway reflects a broader trend in urban planning toward prioritizing recreational spaces and reducing car dependency. The area has a long history of evolution, having transitioned from natural sand dunes to a coastal roadway, and now to a dedicated park space.

Environmental factors have also played a role in this decision. The Great Highway has long faced challenges from coastal erosion and sand accumulation, with images showing traffic light poles partially submerged by sand drifts. The new park designation acknowledges these natural processes and works with, rather than against, the coastal environment.

Looking Forward

As March 14 approaches, San Francisco stands at a pivotal moment in its urban development. The closure of the Upper Great Highway to vehicles marks not just a change in traffic patterns but a philosophical shift in how public space is allocated and utilized in a dense urban environment.

While the legal challenges introduce uncertainty, the city is moving forward with its plans to transform the space. The April 12 opening date for the new park remains on schedule, with preparation work underway to convert the asphalt corridor into a multifunctional community space.

For residents and visitors alike, the transformation presents new opportunities to experience San Francisco's stunning coastline in a car-free environment. Whether the park becomes a beloved community asset or remains a point of contention will likely depend on how well it serves the diverse needs of the city's population and how effectively the city addresses legitimate concerns about traffic flow and accessibility.

As San Francisco continues to evolve, the Great Highway park project serves as a case study in the ongoing dialogue about urban space, transportation, environmental stewardship, and community needs in 21st-century cities.