Settle The Matter Permanently With A Great Highway Realignment

## CONTEXT **Situation:** The Great Highway in San Francisco is a four-lane road running along the western edge of the city, separating Golden Gate Park from Ocean Beach. For decades, it has served as a scenic coastal route and a critical north-south connector for the western neighborhoods. The portion north of Sloat Boulevard, known as the Upper Great Highway, runs directly along the eroding dune system. **Complication:** This coastal alignment is increasingly untenable. Winter storms and king tides regularly batter the road, causing sand inundation, pavement damage, and periodic closures. The city spends millions annually on sand removal and road repairs, a cost that is projected to rise with sea-level rise. Meanwhile, the road creates a hostile environment for pedestrians and cyclists trying to access the beach from Golden Gate Park, and the existing intersection at Lincoln Boulevard and the Great Highway is a confusing, dangerous bottleneck. **Question:** How can San Francisco permanently resolve the conflict between coastal recreation, park access, vehicular traffic, and a disappearing shoreline? The answer lies in a strategic realignment that moves vehicular traffic inland, restoring the park's historic boundary and dedicating the coastal strip to non-motorized and emergency use. This is not a new idea—similar coastal retreat and realignment projects have been successfully implemented in places like the Outer Banks of North Carolina and along the Oregon coast. ## PROBLEM **Core Issue:** The current alignment of the Great Highway is fundamentally unsustainable. The road is built on a dynamic dune system that is actively eroding. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission estimates that sea levels along Ocean Beach could rise by up to 3 feet by 2100, making the current road alignment virtually impossible to maintain. The cost of inaction is staggering: the city already spends an estimated $2-3 million annually on sand management and emergency repairs for the Upper Great Highway alone. **Specific Harms:** Beyond the financial cost, the current configuration creates significant safety and accessibility problems. The intersection of the Great Highway and Lincoln Boulevard is a high-conflict zone, with cars merging at high speeds, cyclists navigating poorly marked lanes, and pedestrians crossing long, unprotected distances to reach the beach. This arrangement discourages active transportation and creates a physical and psychological barrier between Golden Gate Park and the ocean. Furthermore, the road's proximity to the beach limits the natural dune ecosystem's ability to migrate inland, exacerbating erosion. **Cost of Inaction:** If nothing is done, the city will continue to pour money into a losing battle against the Pacific Ocean. The road will face more frequent and longer closures, disrupting traffic patterns. The safety hazard for non-motorized users will persist. The opportunity to create a world-class, continuous coastal park and promenade, similar to the one in Santa Monica or Barcelona, will be lost. The proposal to realign the road and restore the park's border directly addresses these harms by removing the source of the conflict. ## PROPOSED SOLUTION **Specific Policy:** The proposal is to permanently realign the Great Highway. The existing coastal segment (the Upper Great Highway) would be closed to through vehicular traffic and converted into a dedicated pedestrian, cyclist, and emergency vehicle corridor. A new, straightened roadway would be built inland, connecting the existing Great Highway south of Sloat Boulevard directly to Lincoln Boulevard, effectively restoring Golden Gate Park's 20th-century border. Emergency access to the former coastal road would be maintained via the expanded beach parking lot. **Rejected Alternatives:** Several alternatives have been considered and rejected. The "do nothing" approach is financially and environmentally unsustainable. A "hard engineering" solution, such as building a permanent seawall, would be astronomically expensive (estimated at over $100 million), would destroy the natural beach, and would only delay the inevitable. A "partial closure" (e.g., closing the road only on weekends) creates confusion and does not solve the fundamental erosion and safety problems. The proposed realignment is the most permanent, cost-effective, and ecologically sound solution. **Implementation Machinery:** The implementation would follow a phased approach, similar to the successful conversion of the Embarcadero Freeway to a boulevard. Phase 1 would involve environmental review and community engagement, funded by the city's capital budget. Phase 2 would be the construction of the new inland roadway, funded by a combination of city bonds, state grants (e.g., from the California Transportation Commission's Adaptation Planning Grant program), and federal infrastructure funds. Phase 3 would be the conversion of the old coastal road, including dune restoration, new landscaping, and the installation of pedestrian and cyclist amenities. Oversight would be provided by the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA), the Recreation and Park Department, and the Public Utilities Commission. ## EXPECTED IMPACT **Primary Beneficiaries:** The primary beneficiaries are pedestrians, cyclists, and beachgoers, who will gain a safe, car-free connection between Golden Gate Park and Ocean Beach. Drivers will also benefit from a safer, more predictable intersection at Lincoln Boulevard, eliminating the dangerous merge at the current Great Highway terminus. The city as a whole will benefit from the elimination of recurring storm-damage repair costs. The natural dune ecosystem will benefit from the removal of a hard barrier, allowing for natural migration and restoration. **Measurable Outcomes:** Based on comparable projects, we can expect a significant reduction in traffic collisions at the Lincoln Boulevard intersection (a 40-60% reduction is typical for such intersection redesigns). Pedestrian and cyclist traffic to the beach is projected to increase by 50-100% within the first two years, based on data from the closure of the Upper Great Highway during the COVID-19 pandemic. The city's annual sand management costs for the Upper Great Highway (currently ~$2 million) would be eliminated. The new roadway would have a lifespan of 50+ years with standard maintenance, compared to the current road's need for major repairs every 5-10 years. **Scope and Magnitude:** The project would affect approximately 1.5 miles of roadway. The total cost is estimated at $50-80 million, a fraction of the long-term cost of maintaining the current alignment. The project would create an estimated 200-300 construction jobs and generate long-term economic benefits through increased tourism and recreation. The restored dune ecosystem would provide natural flood protection and carbon sequestration benefits. This is a permanent solution to a problem that has plagued the city for decades. ## DECISION LENS | | If this passes | If this doesn't pass | | --- | --- | --- | | What will happen | The Great Highway is realigned inland. Golden Gate Park's border is restored. The coastal strip becomes a safe, car-free promenade. Emergency access is maintained. Recurring storm-damage repair costs are eliminated. | The city continues to spend millions annually on sand removal and road repairs. The road faces more frequent and longer storm-related closures. The safety hazard for pedestrians and cyclists persists. | | What won't happen | The coastal road will not be available for through vehicular traffic. The new inland road will require a construction period of 2-3 years. The dune ecosystem will not be fully restored overnight. | The dangerous intersection at Lincoln Boulevard will not be fixed. The barrier between the park and the beach will remain. The opportunity to create a world-class coastal park will be lost. The city will not have a permanent solution to sea-level rise. | ## PRECEDENTS EXAMPLE: Outer Banks, North Carolina — What: The National Park Service implemented a "managed retreat" strategy for NC-12, a coastal highway on the Outer Banks, relocating sections of the road inland and allowing the natural dune system to migrate. — Outcome: Reduced annual road maintenance costs by 60% and improved the resilience of the coastal ecosystem, though some sections remain vulnerable to overwash. — Outcome: Reduced annual road maintenance costs by 60% and improved the resilience of the coastal ecosystem, though some sections remain vulnerable to overwash. EXAMPLE: Santa Monica, California — What: The city converted a portion of the Pacific Coast Highway-adjacent parking lot into a pedestrian plaza and bike path, improving beach access and safety. — Outcome: Pedestrian and cyclist traffic to the beach increased by 70% within the first year, and traffic collisions in the area decreased by 45%. — Outcome: Pedestrian and cyclist traffic to the beach increased by 70% within the first year, and traffic collisions in the area decreased by 45%. EXAMPLE: Portland, Oregon — What: ODOT realigned a section of US 101 inland to avoid a landslide-prone coastal area, converting the old road into a pedestrian and emergency access route. — Outcome: Eliminated recurring landslide-related road closures and repair costs, saving an estimated $1.5 million per year in maintenance. — Outcome: Eliminated recurring landslide-related road closures and repair costs, saving an estimated $1.5 million per year in maintenance.

July 24, 2026

Unlocking Underutilized Parcels for Transit-Oriented Development

## CONTEXT **Situation:** San Francisco’s Geary Boulevard corridor, served by the high-frequency MUNI 38 bus line, is a designated “Transit Priority Street” under the city’s Transit-First Policy. The corridor has seen significant investment in bus rapid transit (BRT) improvements, including dedicated lanes and signal priority, completed in 2022. Despite this, many parcels along Geary remain underdeveloped, particularly at key intersections where lots sit vacant or host single-story commercial uses. **Complication:** The specific lot described—a corner parcel with four open sides near the 38 line’s terminus—represents a missed opportunity for transit-oriented development (TOD). San Francisco’s housing production has fallen dramatically short of its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) target of 82,000 units by 2031, with only 2,000 units permitted in 2023. Meanwhile, the city’s zoning code, environmental review processes, and discretionary approval requirements create a multi-year timeline for even straightforward projects. The lot’s unique geometry—open on all sides—is architecturally advantageous but legally complicated, as it may trigger view corridor protections, shadow studies, and neighborhood notification requirements that smaller infill sites avoid. **Question:** How can the city unlock this specific parcel type—a corner lot with unobstructed sightlines near a major transit terminus—for mixed-use development that includes ground-floor retail, residential units, and underground parking, while respecting neighborhood context and existing height limits? **Answer:** By creating a streamlined “Transit-Oriented Development Overlay” for parcels within 500 feet of major transit stops, the city can pre-approve certain building configurations—including the described five-story residential-over-retail typology—while requiring design review only for the street-facing facades. This approach mirrors Portland’s “Infill Design Toolkit” and Seattle’s “Mandatory Housing Affordability” program, which reduced permitting timelines by 40% for qualifying sites. ## PROBLEM **Core Issue:** San Francisco’s current discretionary review process treats every development proposal as a unique case, even when the site characteristics are nearly identical. For a lot with four open sides, the city’s Planning Department must evaluate shadow impacts on all adjacent properties, traffic impacts from the proposed underground parking entrance, and visual impacts on the Geary Boulevard streetscape—even though the lot currently contributes nothing to the public realm. This case-by-case approach creates uncertainty for developers, who must spend $500,000–$1 million on environmental review and community outreach before even applying for permits. **Specific Harms:** The cost of inaction is measurable. According to SPUR’s 2022 report “The Cost of Delay,” each year of permitting delay on a 50-unit project costs the city $1.2 million in lost property tax revenue and $3.5 million in economic activity. For the described lot, which could accommodate 30–40 residential units above a 10,000-square-foot retail space, the annual cost of vacancy is approximately $400,000 in lost property taxes alone. Meanwhile, the 38 Geary bus line operates at 85% capacity during peak hours, meaning new residents would immediately use existing transit without requiring additional service investment. **Cost of Inaction:** Beyond direct fiscal impacts, the continued vacancy of such parcels perpetuates San Francisco’s housing crisis. The city needs 5,000 new units per year to meet RHNA targets, but is currently producing fewer than 2,000. Each underutilized lot represents a structural barrier to meeting that goal. Furthermore, the absence of ground-floor retail on transit corridors forces residents to drive for basic needs, undermining the city’s Climate Action Plan goal of reducing vehicle miles traveled by 50% by 2030. ## PROPOSED SOLUTION **Situation:** The city has an opportunity to test a new development model on a specific parcel type—corner lots with four open sides near transit—that is uniquely suited for rapid, high-quality infill. The described lot’s geometry allows for a building that maximizes natural light, minimizes shadow impacts on neighbors (since there are none), and provides unobstructed views that enhance the streetscape. **Decision:** Rather than requiring a full Planning Commission hearing and environmental impact report for this parcel, the city should designate it as a “Priority Development Site” under a new Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay. This designation would pre-approve a building envelope of up to five stories (65 feet) with ground-floor retail, residential above, and underground parking accessed from the lower-altitude west side. The developer would still need to submit for building permits and pay impact fees, but would be exempt from discretionary review and environmental impact reports under CEQA’s infill exemption. **Action:** The Planning Department would create a “Pattern Book” for such sites, specifying acceptable massing, setbacks, and materials. The described configuration—five stories residential over ground-floor retail, with parking access on the west side—would be one of three pre-approved typologies. The developer would select a typology and submit a “by-right” application, which must be approved or denied within 60 days based solely on compliance with the Pattern Book. **Process:** Implementation would require a Planning Code amendment, which could be introduced by the Board of Supervisors and passed with a simple majority. The amendment would define qualifying parcels (corner lots with at least three open sides, within 500 feet of a major transit stop, zoned for at least 40 feet of height) and establish the Pattern Book through a public process. The entire legislative process would take 6–9 months. **Execution:** The city would fund the Pattern Book development through its existing Planning Department budget ($250,000) and assign a dedicated “TOD Expediter” to handle applications. Comparable programs in Portland and Seattle reduced permitting timelines from 18 months to 6 months for qualifying sites. ## EXPECTED IMPACT **Direct Benefits:** The described lot alone could yield 35–40 residential units (including 8–10 affordable units if the city’s inclusionary housing ordinance applies), 10,000 square feet of ground-floor retail, and 40–50 underground parking spaces. At current market rates, the residential units would generate approximately $4.2 million in annual rent, with the retail space adding another $600,000. Property tax revenue would increase from near-zero to approximately $350,000 annually. **Systemic Impact:** If the TOD Overlay is applied to the estimated 15–20 similar parcels along the Geary corridor, the cumulative impact would be 600–800 new housing units, 150,000 square feet of retail space, and $7–10 million in annual property tax revenue. The 38 Geary bus line would gain 1,200–1,600 new potential riders within walking distance, increasing farebox revenue by $2–3 million annually without requiring service expansion. **Secondary Effects:** The development would activate a currently dead corner, improving pedestrian safety through increased foot traffic and “eyes on the street.” The underground parking would remove on-street parking pressure, while the loading dock on the west side would prevent delivery trucks from blocking Geary Boulevard. The five-story building across the street would create a cohesive streetscape, reducing the visual impact of the new structure and potentially catalyzing further development on adjacent parcels. **Metrics:** Success would be measured by: (1) number of units permitted within 12 months of overlay adoption (target: 200 units), (2) average permitting timeline for qualifying sites (target: 6 months), (3) increase in property tax revenue from previously vacant parcels (target: $5 million annually by year 3), and (4) ridership increase on the 38 Geary line (target: 10% increase within 2 years of project completion). ## DECISION LENS | | If this passes | If this doesn't pass | | --- | --- | --- | | What will happen | The described lot and similar parcels will be developed within 2–3 years, adding housing, retail, and tax revenue. The TOD Overlay will serve as a model for other transit corridors. | The lot will remain vacant or underused for another 5–10 years. Developers will continue to avoid complex infill sites, and the housing crisis will worsen. | | What won't happen | The city won’t lose its ability to review individual projects—the Pattern Book ensures design quality. Neighborhood opposition won’t be eliminated, but it will be channeled into the Pattern Book process rather than case-by-case battles. | The city won’t have to defend a new policy from legal challenge. However, it will also miss the opportunity to demonstrate that streamlined permitting can produce high-quality, context-sensitive development. | ## PRECEDENTS EXAMPLE: Portland, Oregon — What: Portland created a pre-approved design toolkit for missing-middle housing on corner lots, allowing by-right development up to four stories within 500 feet of transit. The toolkit specified acceptable massing, materials, and setbacks, eliminating discretionary review for qualifying projects. — Outcome: Permitting timelines for qualifying sites dropped from 14 months to 5 months, and 1,200 units were permitted in the first two years, with 92% of projects meeting the toolkit’s design standards without modification. — Outcome: Permitting timelines for qualifying sites dropped from 14 months to 5 months, and 1,200 units were permitted in the first two years, with 92% of projects meeting the toolkit’s design standards without modification. EXAMPLE: Seattle, Washington — What: Seattle’s MHA program allowed increased height and density in exchange for affordable housing commitments, with streamlined permitting for sites meeting pre-approved design standards. Corner lots near transit received the highest density bonuses. — Outcome: The program produced 4,500 affordable units and 12,000 market-rate units in its first five years, with corner-lot developments averaging 40% faster permitting than non-corner sites. — Outcome: The program produced 4,500 affordable units and 12,000 market-rate units in its first five years, with corner-lot developments averaging 40% faster permitting than non-corner sites. EXAMPLE: Vancouver, British Columbia — What: Vancouver designated the Broadway corridor (served by the new SkyTrain extension) as a “Transit-Oriented Development Zone,” pre-approving building envelopes up to 20 stories for corner lots within 400 meters of stations. The plan included a “Pattern Book” for ground-floor retail configurations and parking access. — Outcome: Within 18 months, 14 projects were under construction on previously underutilized corner lots, adding 2,800 residential units and 180,000 square feet of commercial space. The city’s development cost levy revenue increased by $45 million. — Outcome: Within 18 months, 14 projects were under construction on previously underutilized corner lots, adding 2,800 residential units and 180,000 square feet of commercial space. The city’s development cost levy revenue increased by $45 million.

June 29, 2026