San Francisco
Prop GAllowing Private Vehicles on the Upper Great Highway in Sunset Dunes Park
What your vote does
A YES vote means
After approvals, including Coastal Act permits, private vehicles could use the Upper Great Highway Monday 4 a.m.–Friday 6 p.m., except holidays, closing Sunset Dunes Park. 3
A NO vote means
Sunset Dunes Park stays as it is: the former Upper Great Highway stays closed to private vehicles at all times. 3
Both ovals are empty on purpose. The choice is yours.
Shall the City close Sunset Dunes Park from Monday at 4:00 a.m. through Friday at 6:00 p.m., unless a holiday falls on a weekday, in order to reopen the roadway known as the Upper Great Highway to private vehicles during that time?
This is the exact wording from the official voter guide.
If it fails
Nothing changes if it fails
If Prop G fails, the park stays as it is now. Sunset Dunes Park, the old Upper Great Highway, stays closed to private vehicles at all times. Emergency, government and park shuttle vehicles can still use it. 3
Why it’s on the ballot now
Sunset Dunes Park replaced the Upper Great Highway between Lincoln Way and Sloat Boulevard. The park is closed to private vehicles at all times. 3
Prop G says in 2022, after a COVID-era closure, the Board of Supervisors found it would be appropriate to restrict private vehicles on the Upper Great Highway at certain times. 8
Supporters say a weekday-cars, weekend-park setup was in place from 2021 to 2024. Opponents say voters approved Prop K in November 2024 to close the road to cars. 67
Supporters say traffic injuries in Sunset neighborhoods have risen since the closure. Opponents say crashes are down since the park opened. 6
Prop G reached the ballot by petition. The Department of Elections certified enough valid signatures on July 23, 2026. 5
The money
If the road is open to private vehicles, the Controller estimates about $9.8 million one-time, including $8.8 million for signals at 8 intersections and about $750,000 to remove park elements and restore roadway. Yearly costs could rise $500,000–$1.9 million, including about $100,000 to $1.5 million for sand removal and dune reshaping. The Controller also expects the park to need fewer weekday staff and less upkeep. That would cut costs and free staff for other work. For context, park staffing now costs about $300,000 a year. A coastal permit and Sloat redesign could add costs. 4
- Amount
- If the road reopens to cars: about $9.8 million one-time, plus $500,000 to $1.9 million a year (Controller)
- How long
- Ongoing; changing the days and times needs another public vote
- Who pays
- The Controller says the costs would fall on City government. How much is spent depends on budget decisions by the Mayor and Board of Supervisors and on departments' operating decisions. 4
- Vote needed to pass
- Needs a simple majority (50% + 1) to passSome measures need 55% or two-thirds of votes to pass. This one needs only a simple majority.
Prop G needs a simple majority (50% plus one) of yes votes to pass. 2
Who bears the cost
City government (the General Fund)
What they already pay
- The Controller says sand removal and dune reshaping at the park cost about $290,000 in FY 2024-2025 and $330,000 in FY 2025-2026. 4
If it passes
- If the road is open to private vehicles, the Controller estimates about $9.8 million in one-time capital costs and about $500,000 to $1.9 million more each year, paid by City government. 4
- The Controller says actual spending depends on budget and department decisions. The park would need fewer weekday staff and less upkeep, which cuts costs. For context, park staffing now costs about $300,000 a year. A coastal permit could add costs that cannot be determined now. 4
Who’s behind it
How it got on the ballot: Citizen petition
Voters signed a petition. It needed 10,615 valid signatures, equal to 2% of registered voters, and the Department of Elections found more than that. 5
Where the support comes from
Placed by who endorsed it and who funded it, not by our opinion. How we place measures
The San Francisco Republican Party recommends Yes on Prop G, and the San Francisco Democratic Party recommends No. The moderate coalition group GrowSF opposes it, as do SPUR, YIMBY Action and the San Francisco Bay Chapter of the Sierra Club. The San Francisco Chamber of Commerce is neutral, and TogetherSF Action (now Blueprint SF), San Francisco League of Pissed Off Voters and Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club list it with no position. The largest donors to the committee supporting Prop G are Chinese American Democratic Club and Wei Selena Chu; to the committee opposing it, Jeremy Stoppelman and Laura Yakovenko. 13910111214
Endorsements
| Group | YES | NO | Neutral |
|---|---|---|---|
| Progressive slate | |||
| San Francisco League of Pissed Off Voters | No position | ||
| Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club | No position | ||
| Moderate slate | |||
| GrowSF | No | ||
| TogetherSF Action (now Blueprint SF) | No position | ||
| San Francisco Chamber of Commerce | Neutral | ||
| Political parties | |||
| San Francisco Democratic Party | No | ||
| San Francisco Republican Party | Yes | ||
| San Francisco Green Party | No position | ||
| Other groups | |||
| SPUR | No | ||
| League of Women Voters of San Francisco | Neutral | ||
| YIMBY Action | No | ||
| San Francisco Women's Political Committee | No | ||
| Alice B. Toklas LGBTQ Democratic Club | No | ||
| Edwin M. Lee Asian Pacific Democratic Club | No position | ||
| Sierra Club, San Francisco Bay Chapter | No | ||
Follow the money
YESTop donors
- Chinese American Democratic Club$25K
Who is this?
The Chinese American Democratic Club is a San Francisco political association for Chinese Americans. A San Francisco Public Press article said the club had about 100 paying members. 1
What they’ve said
The club's name is on a paid argument in favor of Prop G. The argument says closing the Great Highway made everyday duties harder and added traffic on nearby streets. 2
- Wei Selena Chu$9,900
- Lisa Arjes$5,000
- Sandra Dratler$5,000
- William OKeeffe Jr.$4,990
- Better Housing Policies$3,800
- Peter Wendell$3,500
- Tomasita Medal$3,500
- California Professional Firefighters PAC$2,500
- California Nurses Association Political Action Committee$2,500
- The top 5 donors gave 33% of this side’s money.
- 9% came from outside San Francisco.
- 0% came from outside California.
Committees: Yes on G, Great Highway for Everyone
NOTop donors
- Jeremy Stoppelman$400K
Who is this?
- Laura Yakovenko$200K
- Nicholas Josefowitz$50K
- Friends Of Sunset Dunes$42.7K
- Donald J Edwards$35K
- Fund For A Better Future Inc.$25K
- Andrew Casteel$16K
- Stephen Dodson$10K
- Michael R Glaser$2,500
- Steven Chapman$2,000
- The top 5 donors gave 89% of this side’s money.
- 32% came from outside San Francisco.
- 5% came from outside California.
- Independent spending (not controlled by the campaign): $16.7K
Committees: No on G, Save Sunset Dunes sponsored by Friends of Sunset Dunes
- Yes on G, Great Highway for Everyone: includes $600 of 24-hour late contributions (Form 497) dated after its latest Form 460 period ended 2026-10-17.
- No on G, Save Sunset Dunes sponsored by Friends of Sunset Dunes: includes $1,000 of 24-hour late contributions (Form 497) dated after its latest Form 460 period ended 2026-10-17.
- NO side independent expenditures (Form 496) of $16,706, mostly by: GrowSF Voter Guide $10,884; SPUR - San Francisco Bay Area Planning & Urban Research Association $5,823. These are separate from, and not included in, total_raised.
- Totals are contributions reported on Form 460 (Schedule A monetary, C non-monetary, loans) plus Form 497 late reports, from Jan 2025 or the committee's 2026 start; amended filings replace the original. Unitemized gifts under $100 are in totals but not in donor lists or geography shares. Outside-SF/CA shares use itemized gifts only.
- Source cutoff: the SF Ethics Commission data on DataSF was loaded 2026-10-27 and includes filings received through 2026-10-26. as_of is the latest filing from this measure's own committees, which can be earlier.
- Committees from the June 2, 2026 election (Props A–D on business taxes, term limits and the earthquake bond) are not counted. See pipeline/config/money_committees.yaml for each exclusion.
Sources: SF Ethics Commission campaign finance transactions (DataSF pitq-e56w) · SF Ethics Commission campaign finance summary totals (DataSF 9ggq-m8hp) · SF Ethics Commission campaign filers (DataSF 4c8t-ngau)
The strongest case for and against
Each side’s best argument, written as its supporters would make it. Neither is our view.
Strongest case for
Supporters, including retired SFPD Commander Richard Corriea, say traffic injuries in Sunset neighborhoods have risen sharply since the Great Highway closed. They say weekday car access would help keep traffic off neighborhood streets. They say the road would stay a car-free park on weekends and holidays, and walking paths, bike lanes and the beach would stay open every day. They call it a return to the compromise in place from 2021 to 2024. Paid arguments in favor say 14,000 to 20,000 cars used the road each day before the closure. Paid signers include Supervisor Alan Wong, the Chinese American Democratic Club, the SF Taxpayers Association and Richmond District residents. 67
Strongest case against
Opponents, including Senator Scott Wiener, five Supervisors and the Sierra Club, say Prop G would remove the playground, skate park and seating, and end the nearly 60% of park visits that happen on weekdays. They cite the cost: nearly $10 million, plus up to $1.9 million a year. They say three independent analyses found traffic impacts are minimal, with the most affected trips 2 to 4 minutes longer at rush hour. They say Prop G would end future park improvements, and that Sunset Dunes is the best plan for adapting to climate change and sea-level rise. Paid signers include SPUR, Outer Sunset Neighbors, the Sunset Merchants Association and Walk San Francisco. 67
Sources
Every fact on this page links to one of these sources.
- Official ballot question, Proposition G (en edition), SF Voter Information Pamphlet, Nov 3, 2026, p. 108
- Vote threshold for Proposition G, SF Voter Information Pamphlet, Nov 3, 2026, p. 108
- Ballot Simplification Council digest of Proposition G, SF Voter Information Pamphlet, Nov 3, 2026, p. 108
- Controller's Statement on Proposition G, SF Voter Information Pamphlet, Nov 3, 2026, p. 108-109
- How Proposition G got on the ballot (Dept. of Elections), SF Voter Information Pamphlet, Nov 3, 2026, p. 109
- Proponent's and opponent's arguments and rebuttals on Proposition G, SF Voter Information Pamphlet, Nov 3, 2026, p. 110-111
- Paid arguments on Proposition G (not checked for accuracy by any official body), SF Voter Information Pamphlet, Nov 3, 2026, p. 112-123
- Legal text of Proposition G, SF Voter Information Pamphlet, Nov 3, 2026, p. 220-222
- TogetherSF Action (now Blueprint SF): recommendations for the November 3, 2026 election
- SPUR: recommendations for the November 3, 2026 election
- YIMBY Action: recommendations for the November 3, 2026 election
- KQED Voter Guide: Prop G (supporters and opponents listed)
- How endorsers line up on Prop G: this guide's coalition groupings (endorsement method 1.0, data as of 2026-10-27)
- Campaign finance filings as of 2026-10-22 (compiled by this guide from SF Ethics Commission campaign finance transactions (DataSF pitq-e56w); data/money/sf-2026-11-g.json, main@0dcbec8)