UPDATED: Westsiders file lawsuit to overturn Prop. K and the Upper Great Highway Closure

Boschetto et al. v. City & County of San Francisco

by John Crabtree

• • • • • • • • January 2026 • • • • • • • •

Prop. K lawsuit goes down swinging.

San Francisco Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Ross ruled on Monday, January 5th, that Proposition K is valid under state law, rejecting a legal challenge to the 2024 ballot measure that closed part of the Great Highway to vehicular traffic. Judge Ross issued an initial ruling in the case last week, detailing his reasoning for why Prop. K likely complies with state law. But he invited attorneys from both sides to present arguments at a hearing Monday, after which he announced his decision in favor of the City and County of San Francisco on all counts.

Reactions from Plaintiffs and approximately 50 supporters of the lawsuit ranged from frustration to exasperation but fell short of incredulity. Indications from Judge Ross had not been encouraging for some time. But the extent to which the judge was willing to bow and scrape to the city’s arguments was, at a minimum, off-putting.

Even Judge Ross noted, during the proceedings, his lack of understanding of CEQA, which more than one observer commented on by saying, “that was the one thing that I agreed with Judge Ross on, his fundamental misunderstanding of CEQA.”

Two areas of Questionable Judgement

Judge Ross wholeheartedly accepted the city’s claim that “An action by five supervisors is not a ‘project’ under CEQA.” I have written previously that I consider that claim to be, by far, the most absurd part of the City’s claims. I still consider it to be dangerously absurd, no less so because the Judge agreed with the city even though he never made them argue it.

Judge Ross referenced that old saw about the city saving money on sand-clearing costs on The Great Highway. It was particularly annoying to hear that reference because it was this writer, in my small publication — Though the Heavens Fall — and with the help of one of the best researchers anywhere, that researched, disproved and wrote about the city’s false claims about $1.7 million sand-clearing on the Upper Great Highway as well as the mendacity that played out in the Prop. K Voter Information Pamphlet — Lock, Stock and Two Smokin Barrels.

It is disheartening to see the City and County of San Francisco turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to enforcement of one of California’s most vital environmental laws – the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It is, perhaps, even worse to witness a San Francisco Superior Court Judge parrot disproven fiscal propaganda from a discredited Prop. K Voter Information Pamphlet. We should, and most of us do, expect our judges to seek the truth and follow the law. Sadly, that was not what happened on Monday, January 5, 2026.

Westside plaintiffs in the action challenging the 2024 ballot measure Proposition K that brought about the controversial closure of the Upper Great Highway (UGH) from Lincoln Way to Sloat Boulevard – Boschetto, Chow, Arjes, et. al. – will kicked off the New Year with a hearing at 2:00 p.m. on January 6th.

Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Ross heard arguments from plaintiffs’ counsel as well as defendant attorneys representing the City & County of San Francisco in Department 613, Civic Center Courthouse, 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco.

While this day in court has been long-awaited and highly anticipated, perfect clarity on that day is unlikely to emerge. Judge Ross heard arguments from both sides and then will require time to deliberate on the law and the facts of the case. There could also be additional matters – motions, briefs, etc. We are a nation under the rule of law, and resolving these issues will take more time.

Additionally, the City will likely appeal if the Court rules against it, first, because the City has the right to appeal, and second, because City Attorney David Chiu has demonstrated a predilection for appealing decisions against the City. The more complex the case – and this one is plenty complex – the more likely the appeal, which will take more time.

Paying Attention to Details

The City – primarily in the form of SF Rec & Park – has behaved recklessly and irresponsibly with the amount of construction work that has occurred on The Great Highway to establish "Sunset Dunes Park," while this case awaits its day in court.

The City has, to date, offered little legal rationale for this ongoing use and "need" for the UGH as a park, a key element of Plaintiffs’ case and one to watch during arguments on January 5th.”

City attorneys previously told Judge Ross that all park amenities and construction would be "light-touch, temporary and removable." SF Rec & Park spent over $2 million on park amenities and construction.It is difficult to accept, for example, that spending $80K to $100K on concrete, rebar, and labor to build the Sunset Dunes Skateboard Park on the UGH is "light-touch, temporary and removable."

Moreover, SFP&R spent significant additional funds and effort removing roadway infrastructure, such as traffic lights and signage, to enable the UGH's transition to something resembling a park as rapidly as possible.

If the Court finds in favor of the plaintiffs, care will need to be taken in judicial orders to ensure that the city does not fail to follow the orders of the Court or otherwise continue to engage in unlawful actions – trust, but verify, as the old Russian proverb tells us.

Key Case Elements

First and foremost, Plaintiffs argue in their opening briefs that legally, the City cannot unilaterally close a highway that is still needed for vehicular use, nor can the City partially close a road to some vehicular traffic but not others (partial closure). Local residents have documented hundreds of examples over 100 days since closure, when the UGH is still used by vehicular traffic. Emergency vehicles – Police, Fire and EMS – as well as city vehicles from SF Rec & Park, Public Works and other departments still utilize the UGH. Also, a surprising number of private and commercial vehicles still use it, albeit more rarely than city vehicles.

The City has, to date, offered little legal rationale for this ongoing use and "need" for the UGH as a park, a key element of Plaintiffs' case and one to watch during arguments on January 5th.

The City claims that "An action by five supervisors is not a 'project' under CEQA."

The CEQA element is key in the City's argument in the case, although they wish that it were not. This reasoning is, on its face, absurd. On page 19 of the City's Opposition Brief, the claim is proffered that, "because five supervisors are not a 'public agency,' placing Prop. K on the ballot was not a 'project'" under CEQA. That is the rationale that the City attempts to make to explain efforts to evade CEQA review.

The conclusion is not only wrong but also misleading. None is more preposterous.

The five supervisors who affixed their signatures to the Board of Supervisors (BOS) form — [Submittal Form - For Proposed Initiative Measure(s)] — were clearly acting in their official capacity as government officials. Even the form's title communicates that. It is an official form, signed by supervisors in their official capacity, time-stamped upon submission by the Department of Elections and, four minutes later, by the Clerk of the BOS.

The five supervisors who signed the above document — Supervisor Joel Engardio, Supervisor Myrna Melgar, Supervisor Dean Preston, Supervisor Rafael Mandelman and Supervisor Matt Dorsey — acting in their official capacity as government officials were required to "submit the proposed initiative to the Board of Supervisors no later than 45 days prior to the deadline for submission of such initiatives to the Department of Elections." [San Francisco Charter 2.113(b)]

Moreover, these five supervisors drafted legislative language for the proposition, gathered on the final day, which was "no later than 45 days prior to the deadline for submission of such initiatives…," signed the official form that the City keeps for supervisors to put a measure on the ballot, and submitted it on the afternoon of that same day — June 18, 2024 at 1:49 p.m. (DOE) and again at 1:53 p.m. (BOS).

City Attorney David Chiu and his staff attorneys would have us believe that all those actions, every single one of them, were carried out by five individuals who just happened to be supervisors acting in complete extra-official synchronicity. That claim doesn't merely strain credibility; it shatters it.

John Crabtree Sunset Resident, District 4

January 2026