As promised, Prop. K opponents gathered on Tuesday in the Sunset to announce a lawsuit against the city and five San Francisco supervisors, hoping to invalidate the 2024 ballot measure that will close the Great Highway to cars.
And that clock is ticking. The road is set to close to traffic on Friday, and opponents expect to file by 5 p.m. today in a bid to stop the closure. The suit asks for an injunction to stop Friday’s planned closure, the plaintiffs said.
“We’ll just have to wait and see,” said Vin Budhai, the co-organizer of the campaign to recall District 4 Supervisor Joel Engardio, who is being targeted for putting Prop. K on the ballot.
The San Francisco City Attorney’s office did not comment on the pending suit, but Engardio, for his part, sees little chance of its success. After reading Mission Local’s story yesterday on the lawsuit, he wrote in a text message that he has “full confidence in the City Attorney’s ability to draft legal ballot measures that go before San Francisco voters.”
“My guess is, the court will quickly see this lawsuit has no merit,” Engardio added.
About 60 people — opponents of the ballot measure and supporters of recalling Engardio, two groups that largely overlap — filled the intersection in front of Uncle Benny’s Donut and Bagel at 22nd Avenue and Irving Street around noon, holding signs reading “Recall Engardio” and “Keep the Great Highway open.” Cars honked as they drove. A cyclist booed the crowd when passing by, and a supporter responded: “Bike slut!”
The lawsuit claims that Prop. K, which passed with nearly 55 percent of the vote in November, is “legally invalid” as “the State of California has preempted the field of traffic control and roads and state law precludes actions by voters in local elections which relate to road closures.”
“This lawsuit is our only course to right that wrong,” said Matt Boschetto, another plaintiff and a former District 7 supervisor candidate, whose family spent lavishly on an anti-K campaign. The suit will target the city and five current and former officials who put Prop. K on the ballot: Engardio, Myrna Melgar, Dean Preston, Rafael Mandelman and Matt Dorsey.
“Voters don’t have the authority to close the road,” said Richard Corriea, a retired police commander, attorney and Richmond District resident, who said only the state can do so. Corriea said the only exception is when the city determines the road is not needed for car traffic, but he said that Prop. K’s carve-out for emergency vehicles “contradicts the voters’ finding … that the Upper Great Highway is ‘no longer needed for vehicular traffic.’”
The suit also claims that the city violated the California Environmental Quality Act which, plaintiffs said, should have resulted in the creation of an environmental impact report related to the “project.”
Corriea, after admitting that he is not a specialist in environmental law, said he “can’t think of anything that calls for more environmental review than sending traffic into high-injury corridors to having vehicles spewing exhaust, sitting in bumper-to-bumper traffic because they can’t use thoroughfares.”
However, the California Environmental Quality Act does not apply to the closure of the Great Highway, according to Sen. Scott Wiener, the author of a state law (SB 922) that “exempts this kind of project from CEQA.” The legislation expedites bike, pedestrian, light rail and bus rapid transit projects by exempting them from CEQA.
A previous version of the law, SB 288, exempted the closure of John F. Kennedy, Jr., Drive in Golden Gate Park from CEQA review back in 2022. The city’s planning department has also determined that “CEQA does not apply to a measure submitted to the voters by the Mayor or 5 Supervisors,” though the suit contends that that finding is “in error.”
“After a vigorous campaign pro and con, the voters passed Prop K. People have every right to disagree with that result, but the voters have spoken,” wrote Wiener in a text. “This lawsuit strikes me as weak at best.”
Seems a little funny to me that their legal arguments could have been the same the day after the Supervisors put the measure on the ballot last year. If they’re so confident in the law, they could have saved everyone a lot of time and money, but instead they ran a campaign! Huh. So instead of suing then, or when ballots went out, or after results were certified, or when the Coastal Commission granted a permit, or when the plans were announced, they threaten to sue (still hasn’t been filed as of 4:30pm) days before the city starts mobilizing. But the last time these people sued the city over something similar – “Open the Great Highway Alliance” suing over Great Highway and JFK in December 2021 – it took two months for a judge to deny their motion for a preliminary injunction. The city will have had their grand opening by then. Maybe learn to take the L, folks. It’s back up and running, after all.
Has this lawsuit actually been filed yet? I see there was a press conference and I see drafts of the complaint, but the court’s case filings do not show any such case having been filed. It’s possible the court’s database is behind (or that I’m missing something). One would think they would have filed then immediately sought a TRO, but I just don’t see anything like that. Is there any evidence, such as a case number, that this has actually been filed in Superior Court?
Six days after this rally, and I still do not see any indication in the Superior Court files that this complaint was ever filed. And no motion for a TRO/injunction is listed on any of the court calendars where one would expect to find it. The Great Highway is now shut down. If they, in fact, intend to seek an injunction – which I think is far from clear – these delays have made it much more unlikely that any judge would buy it. I’m not sure what is going on, but it sure seems fishy.
It’s fishy to have a pseudo-lawyer pretend to have read the complaint and found it wanting before they’ve actually even read one word of it, anyhow…
Once again Lucas Lux got on camera and stated a falsehood. He said that the people voted for a park . There was no no mention of a park planned or funded in Prop K . The residents were duped into voting for a road closure with the faux promise of a park . Time to call Lux, Engardio , and Weiner out on their continuing falsehoods .
That was based on very different legal arguments. Bypassing CEQA is the current one. If they’re entirely different why are you pretending they’re exactly the same? Kind of a slight of hand? What’s your fear of hearing the facts play out in court? The fact is CEQA is law and it’s being illegally bypassed. If you think you have the right to endanger people in violation of state law, what is your legal argument for it?
@HM – What’s this about “slight of hand?” Nobody’s talking about Donny Drumpf here.
Off-topic and obfuscating in defense of liars again.
Nice distraction attempt, really good.
Is that even true? They put it on the ballot at the last possible second to avoid allowing opponents (2/3 of the Sunset and Richmond districts who are impacted most for example) to organize and mount an opposition. This was deliberate. They also didn’t follow the law as it’s written, so you really think it’s not a legal right to sue and enforce the law? Interesting twists of logic these that Prop K proponents support. Maybe don’t bypass written Law, folks.
Kudos to the lawyers for coming up with a argument that is not so frivolous as to result in sanctions – but just barely. They rely on two cases where Berkeley and Lafayette left roads open for use by locals’ private vehicles but closed traffic to others. The courts held that the statute allowing a city to close a street when it is “no longer needed” for traffic did not allow closure for all but private vehicles of local residents – a reasonable outcome. This lawsuit argues that closing the road but allowing emergency vehicles to use the Great Highway is the same thing as that. I don’t think any court will conclude that SF is prohibited from leaving the road available for emergency vehicles. Even if a court reached such a ridiculous conclusion (hey, never say never), Prop K has a severability clause, and it seems that the outcome would then be that the exemption allowing for emergency vehicle use would be stricken, meaning that the road would be closed to all traffic including emergency vehicles. I’ve seen courts do some crazy things, but that’s rare, and this lawsuit is banking on such a long shot outcome.
Speaking of frivolous arguments from frivolous maybe-lawyers…
We westsiders sure are resistant to change. They better stop this thing and recall Engardio now, because things will look really different when the new park is established as a destination for people from across the City and around the world. Parking and traffic could end up being a nightmare!
If only there were other ways of getting from one place to another in San Francisco!
Once the local business get all that additional foot traffic, the vacant storefronts fill up, and local kids have another place to play and a safe way to get from one side of the neighborhood to the other, Supervisor Engardio is going to be pretty hard to vote out of office.
Speak for yourself.
Anyone who claims that we have no right to vote on something automatically makes me think of MAGA. While these may or may not be Trump voters, these car folks need to accept they while may live near the beach, they do not own it or the street along the beach. It belongs to the city, and we voted to close it, they need to get over it and spend energy fighting Republicans efforts to destroy our democracy.
Civics Check: All SF citizens have the right to vote in our city wide elections. Local district residents only get to vote in their own district elections. We all have a right to sue, petition our government for redress of grievances, etc. As Trump and company will soon see, the courts will settle the remaining disputes – and a free Democracy means we obey their rulings whether we agree with them or not.
This war against beach safety by the neighborhood drivers who care more about a few minutes of driving time than they do about the blood regularly spilled on this dangerous highway highlight ls how little drivers care about the carnage they cause. The people of SF voted for this. Attempts to overturn the will of the voters should be punishable. The anti-K voters are just as horrifying as the destruction that’s happening to our federal government. I prey they suffer for trying to make us all less safe!
“I prey they suffer for trying to make us all less safe!”
I pray the same for Engardio and his clueless yuppie parade of paid goons.
DO YOU EVEN LIVE IN THE SUNSET? NO.
” this dangerous highway ” – Citation please? Are you talking about Sheila Detoy, shot by police ~25 years ago? Or the more recent case when a dementia patient wandered onto the roadway outside of a crosswalk with cars oncoming? Which?
I am ashamed that people are spending time and money fighting a voter approved park as we watch the federal government attack on human rights, foreign aid, funding for schools, support for veterans, international trade, affordable housing, equity.
Hey grandpa, what were you doing in 2025, when the shit hit the fan? I was funding a lawsuit to stop the installation of a new park next to the Ocean because people in my neighborhood have more rights to the space than people in the broader city, so we will fight for the right to. . . .
I remember hundreds of visits to the great highway during daytime hours and it was literally a ghost town — maybe a handful of cars in that expansive 20 block stretch. Often more traffic on the weekends, but that is surely not local residents?
This seems like literally the worst and lowest priority issue to sue the city for …
The rest of SF is grateful to Joel Engardio.
No, Engardio is a liar. You just got what you wanted this one time at the expense of Sunset families, children and homeowners. You want him to run your district? Fine. He’s being recalled because nobody here trusts a word that lying gaslight transplant says. His supporters accept and revel in the fact that he’s a shameless liar for their cause.
sad and pathetic
A firm majority of west side residents voted against the road closure. No amount of big tech, real estate money or hired pr spin can change that record – period. Lawsuits are a-flying, protest marches have been held, and a recall of the Supervisor is underway. Cheers to Democracy. Cheers to the Westside Uprising!!!
Protesting and fighting for what you believe is as San Francisco as San Francisco itself. It’s a shame how many people here think if you disagree with them you should have no voice.
You can simultaneously support someone’s right to protest while thinking that their position is preposterous. Personally I think there are a hell of a lot more important issues in this city and country right now worth their time, money and effort, but hey it’s their choice.
And it’s our neighborhood. The road is a key artery for residents in the outer aves. We’re not transit rich out here. It’s super hilly and business corridors are spread out. Many peeps work down on the peninsula or up in the north bay. The main artery of 19th Avenue is overloaded with traffic. Muni is slow, so cars are deemed essential. The Great Highway was/is extremely valuable for getting around. Here are some points to ponder: SF’s neighborhoods are unique, have different issues, needs and priorities. We should be good with that. Bike lanes and even some slow streets would actually be welcomed out here if locations were selected thoughtfully. That just hasn’t happened. Hoping we get better policy with the new SFMTA chief.
It’s important to people in the Richmond and Sunset, that’s why they the affected constituents voted it down massively. It was also a flawed and disinformative proposition. You don’t have to agree, nobody cares if you do because you’re not the presiding judge.
YIMBY’s take an us-vs-them attitude to literally every issue now. They think compromise and fact checking are somehow not necessary. It’s ridiculous that they think they should have a say and nobody else but that’s how they roll lately.
Looks like 55% of the voters agree with the YIMBYs here. So sad, auto fan!
Not everyone who wants Engardio to be held accountable for deliberately lying and selling out to Billionaire-backed developer objectives is a “car guy” in any case, loser propagandists. Many are just families that don’t want 30,000 more cars per day streaming down their 42 foot wide street with not even a stop sign, speeding because they’re trying to beat traffic Engardio and Bicycle Coalition trolls created by trying to slip this past without any planning considerations. HE LIED ABOUT IT. They spent 30+ million dollars on 2 stoplights on Irving and he calls it good? You have no concept of what Sunset residents are saddled with and pretending it’s all about car worship is deluded.
Your “like” isn’t a vote, sorry Engardiots.
” It’s ridiculous that they think they should have a say and nobody else”
This is pretty rich, coming from the opponents of a ballot measure that won and are now suing over it.
The ballot measure was flawed, deal with it.
The pro wrestling element of this is quite entertaining. In one corner, we have Joel “The Gerrymandering Kid” Engardio with Sam “Master of Disaster” Singer as his second. In the other corner, we have Sunset district residents outraged at being thrown under the bus represented in court by political powerhouse attorney Jim Sutton.
You hire Sam Singer when you’ve done wrong and you hire Jim Sutton when you want to win.
The issue I see here is a challenge to the State’s responsibility for traffic control. Not CEQA. If a municipality can decide to close roads, then Daly City can close 280 as an extreme example. Daly City could close Mission Street. Ultimately, any municipality can close any road that benefits other communities at the cost to those communities.
A local analogue would be closing San Jose Avenue between 280 and Randal street to be a park. Would Districts 8 and 9 be so accommodating if the voters closed that stretch of road?
For this reason, the State must have pre-eminence over traffic controls.
The core principle being violated here is an unaffected group (Districts 8, 9 and 5) are making decisions for affected groups (Districts 1, 4, and San Mateo County).
ALL struggles for freedoms in this country to include racial equality, labor rights, gender equality and most recently orientation equality challenge the decisions of one group over another group.
The Great Highway is a microcosm of this struggle for freedom. Everybody that uses the Great Highway will have yet more time added to their commute. Parents taking their children to school, residents of the Sunset that must now accommodate yet more traffic on their streets, Richmond residents going to work, workers from San Mateo County, etc will all lose more time that should be spent how they choose to spend it.
This loss of time and increased frustration is what District 4 is fighting about. Proposition K is not the will of the voters. It is the self-centered will of a lone wolf opportunist Joel Engardio (who was initially running for District 7 until he realized he was redistricted into District 4) that knew better than to talk to his constituents about the proposal. This makes him a Sneak.
Effectively expanding the GGNRA with the persistent blowing of sand across the Great Highway at the cost of making the lives of those that use the road more difficult in the loss of their time chosen by people on the other side of the city is precisely why District 4 is compelled to remove Joel Engardio.
Thus, fundamentally this recall campaign is about a struggle for self-determination.
“The core principle being violated here is an unaffected group (Districts 8, 9 and 5) are making decisions for affected groups (Districts 1, 4, and San Mateo County).”
LOL, the governing principle of San Francisco is that districts 6, 9 and 10 are held as virtual colonies that produce disproportionate sales and property tax revenues (due to tens of thousands of newly assessed new luxury condos) that are used to keep the other districts nice and clean while containing all undesirable social conduct in The Colony.
I agree with you that the GH closure was a scam and that Engardio should be recalled. But don’t go off claiming that there’s a game of keep away going on just because it effects you, when majority rule against The Colony has been the order of the day for decades if not longer.
Prop K was literally designed to stifle meaningful opposition as much as possible. Now that K is challenged in court as to legality its fearful proponents are trying to pretend it’s somehow ‘absurd’ to uphold the law or investigate that, and insinuate that nobody has the ‘right’ to bring such a challenge. In fact we all have that right to sue for redress. You don’t have to like our system of course, but they are our laws and they exist for reasons you might otherwise approve of. Think twice before trying to shut down debate. That’s not our system either. It doesn’t matter which side you are on if you’re only trying to troll or drown out the opinions of others. It’s actually destroying our society and in a way that is the immediate legacy of the way this proposition was brought, at the last minute, disinformationally, with no regard for the community it would tear apart.
“NO REGARD FOR THE COMMUNITY IT WOULD TEAR APART”
honestly, if this park is the worst thing happening in your life right now?
good for you, I guess?
I’m not taking your arguments seriously, just kudos for navigating this world so effortlessly. (until the mean urban park “tore apart your community”)
I’ll send flowers? Better yet – we’ll plant some together in the new Park.
I thought you were preserving Snowy Plover habitat or did you forget that part already? Awfully quick even for a zealot exhaust huffer on dual wheels. Plant flowers at Engardio’s political tombstone instead. You made that.
sad. pathetic and impotent and sad.
You are proving my point. What are you so afraid of with this legal challenge that you have to lash out at anyone you don’t agree with?
No one’s “afraid” of a legal challenge. We’re just pushing back at the inanity of trying to re-litigate a matter that has already been well debated and decided by San Francisco voters. Pursing the matter further is just stupid – the road is already going to be closed because of erosion. Why are you afraid to accept reality?
Obviously you are, or you wouldn’t be whining about it. Are you saying CEQA isn’t state law?
Trolling tito again. I guess this is Engardio’s best lieutenant left. Sad.
Thanks for making my point about the trolling and trying to shut down debate, you are exactly the poster child.
Pro-tip: when someone disagrees with your comment on a public forum and your only response is to accuse them of “trolling” and/or “shutting down debate” (?) it may give other readers the impression you’re not capable of friendly debate on the matter at hand.
if you really think I’m the “poster child” of “lashing out,” your reading comprehension might need as much work as your debate chops.
have a pleasant evening!
Pro-tip : Trolling in defense of something doesn’t affect it, Tito. You have no argument, pro-troll.
Pro-tip – find out the limit of project zero. Be the variable.