San Francisco's Great Highway park gets its official name
SF officials announced the new name for the new park at the Great Highway on Wednesday.
Last month a lawsuit was filed to block the park.
The park is set to debut to the public on Saturday, April 12 with a community celebration.
SAN FRANCISCO - Sunset Dunes it is. San Francisco's Recreation and Park Department announced the official new name for the park along the Great Highway on Wednesday.
What we know
The name was announced after a Rec and Park special meeting where commissioners chose between five finalists where the public had input on naming the new park. The naming contest garnered 3,900 responses, which were whittled down to 3,200 potential names.
Officials said this response was overwhelming.
The finalists were Playland Parkway, Sunset Dunes, Great Parkway, Fog line and Plover Parkway.
The chosen name emerged after an hour of deliberation and public comment. The final vote came down to four who said yes, and two who said no to Sunset Dunes.
"Sunset Dunes beautifully reflects both the natural beauty and the iconic spirit of San Francisco," said Rec and Park General Manager Phil Ginsburg. "We are thrilled to officially welcome Sunset Dunes as a new, vibrant addition to our city's treasured parks, offering an unforgettable coastal experience for generations to come."
The criteria for the name had to consider connection to nature, historical significance, community resonance, iconic placemaking and overall clarity, city officials said.
"Sunset Dunes will provide stunning views of the Pacific Ocean, lush coastal ecosystems, and attractions and programming to keep visitors engaged," officials with Rec and Park said in a news release.
The park will include areas for skateboarding, hammocks to relax on and other seating areas, public art installations, a bike pump track, fitness classes, and live music.
The backstory
The concept of the park has hit some roadblocks. Not everyone likes the idea of closing the Great Highway to traffic permanently, but Prop. K, which proposed this exact plan, won at the ballot box in November.
The 2-mile stretch of Great Highway officially closed to traffic on March 14.
Last month, a lawsuit was filed to block the park. Opponents of the newly-named Sunset Dunes argue plans were rushed through and did not follow the law. The lawsuit, filed in San Francisco Superior Court, said backers of the plans didn't do their due diligence on environmental concerns and said the state has final say on how roads are ultimately used, not cities.
Residents and businesses in the area are concerned with how traffic will be impacted. One local hardware store owner we spoke with previously said the park's creation will jam up 19th Avenue, making it unsafe for children, the elderly and will impact businesses.
Supervisor Joel Engardio, who oversees the area, has borne the brunt of the blame. Residents have begun an effort to have him recalled because the idea for the park was pitched by him. Signs both for and against the recall effort can be seen in the Sunset neighborhood.
With the community divided over the park, some have gone to the extreme by vandalizing artwork for the new park. Last month we reported on two instances of vandalism, including a mural that was defaced and graffiti that was spray painted on the closed highway itself.
What's next
Sunset Dunes will be the largest pedestrian conversion project in California.
The park officially debuts on Saturday, April 12, during a community celebration held on Noriega Street from 11:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
3 days ago
- Los Angeles Times
Teyana Taylor must pay ex-husband Iman Shumpert $70,000 after dispute over leaked divorce details
Teyana Taylor was ordered to cover ex-husband Iman Shumpert's $70,000 in attorney fees after she was found in contempt of court for violating terms of her 2024 divorce agreement. Taylor, 34, and Shumpert, 35, both had been accusing each other of violating the agreement by leaking their settlement terms to blogs, according to court documents filed Aug. 5 in Georgia's Fulton County Superior Court. The court found the 'Gonna Love Me' singer had violated the 'prohibition against disclosure of 'summaries, abstracts, portions and descriptions'' of the final judgment in their divorce. Taylor confirmed her marriage to the former NBA pro during a 2016 appearance on 'The Wendy Williams Show' and the couple appeared that same year in the official music video of the track 'Fade' by Kanye West (now known as Ye). The exes have two children together, Iman 'Junie' Tayla and Rue Rose, now 9 and 4, respectively. Shumpert helped Taylor deliver both babies at home in the couple's bathroom. The couple separated in 2023 and she filed for divorce that November. The split was finalized in July 2024, then in March of this year details of the agreement suddenly appeared online, leading to the filings in civil court. Taylor had asked the court to order Shumpert to pay her legal fees, but after she refused to show proof of income, the answer was no. The 'Coming 2 America' actor did not answer questions about her assets and her income, stating the information was 'completely irrelevant to any issue.' The court ordered Taylor to pay for Shumpert's fees, saying she had the means to pay because she has been in three movies since the divorced was finalized and has TV series booked for this fall. During the hearing, Taylor failed to prove that Shumpert had provided details from their divorce case to entertainment blogs.
Fox News
5 days ago
- Fox News
Priscilla Presley blasts lawsuit claiming she pulled plug on Lisa Marie to gain control of Elvis' estate
Priscilla Presley is being accused of creating a multimillion-dollar scheme involving fraud, cover-ups and the exploitation of her own daughter's death. In a $50 million lawsuit filed Monday in Los Angeles Superior Court, Priscilla's former business partners, Brigitte Kruse and Kevin Fialko, alleged the 80-year-old widow of Elvis Presley made a calculated move in the final hours of Lisa Marie's life, accusing her of allegedly pulling her daughter off life support against her wishes. Meanwhile, Priscilla's high-profile attorney, Marty Singer, blasted the lawsuit as "shameful" and "salacious," and told Fox News Digital the accusations are "malicious character assassination." "Accusing a grieving mother of contributing to her daughter's death is not savvy advocacy – it's disgusting," Singer said. According to a lawsuit obtained by Fox News Digital, Priscilla acted immediately after Lisa Marie went into cardiac arrest on Jan. 12, 2023. "Within just over twenty-four hours, Lisa suffered cardiac arrest on Thursday, January 12th and she was rushed to West Hills Hospital," the complaint instead of honoring Lisa Marie's medical direction to "prolong her life," the lawsuit claimed Priscilla saw a window to regain control of the Presley estate, especially with Lisa Marie reportedly in the process of removing her as trustee of a multimillion-dollar trust. "Priscilla rushed to West Hills Hospital, and despite Lisa's clear directive to 'prolong her life,' Priscilla pulled the plug within hours of Lisa being admitted," the lawsuit stated, adding that Riley Keough, Lisa Marie's daughter and heir, had not yet arrived. The lawsuit further alleged that Priscilla wasted no time taking command of the media response. According to the filing, she pressured Kruse to issue a carefully worded statement soon after Lisa Marie's passing – Kruse and Fialko claim the rapid-fire statement was part of a calculated effort to recast Presley as the grieving family figurehead and consolidate power amid looming estate battles. "It is with a heavy heart that I must share the devastating news that my beautiful daughter Lisa Marie has left us," her statement read. She has also been accused of instructing Kruse and Fialko to push press messaging that rebranded her as the "Queen" of Graceland. This allegation is one of several explosive claims in the $50 million lawsuit that accuses Priscilla of fraud, breach of contract and reputation destruction, including allegedly exploiting her daughter's death for personal and financial gain. Kruse and Fialko claimed Priscilla had sold the rights to her own name, image and likeness (NIL) two decades ago – and "forgot" to mention it. Their lawyer, Jordan Matthews, said in a statement obtained by Fox News Digital that the "evidence will establish that the real victims here are my clients, who invested millions and years of hard work into revitalizing Priscilla Presley's brand, only to be betrayed and falsely accused once the money was on the table and every personal and business issue had been resolved." Kruse and Fialko alleged that Priscilla first reached out to them in 2021 while drowning in debt – owing nearly $700,000 in taxes and reportedly behind on car payments. They claimed they spent thousands of hours – and millions in funding – revitalizing her brand, brokering deals and restructuring her finances. But behind the scenes, the lawsuit stated, Presley had already offloaded her NIL rights to Elvis Presley Enterprises in 2005 for $6.5 million – a deal she kept secret while leveraging her image to lure investments. The lawsuit stated that when confronted about the previous agreement, Priscilla repeatedly denied making it and later said she had forgotten about it when confronted with evidence of it. Kruse and Fialko also said they negotiated a $2.4 million payout for Priscilla in a high-stakes legal standoff with granddaughter Keough over the estate. They also claimed Priscilla cut them off, trashed their reputations and filed a retaliatory elder abuse lawsuit. "Elder abuse is a very serious problem in our society," attorney Matthews said. "Our complaint alleges that Priscilla targeted Kruse and Fialko from day one, when she was in dire financial need, faced with mounting IRS debt and multiple lawsuits, even within her own family. The complaint alleges that Priscilla's relationship with her daughter was in ruins for decades and long before Kruse and Fialko were involved." He added, "Kruse and Fialko invested seven figures into rebuilding Priscilla's brand, stabilizing her finances, settling her lawsuits, cleaning up numerous private family ordeals, and attempting to help Priscilla repair her relationship with her daughter. Priscilla has, in turn, smeared Kruse and Fialko with false lies and malicious campaigns." Also named in the lawsuit was Keya Morgan, the controversial former manager of Marvel icon Stan Lee, previously charged with elder abuse. Kruse and Fialko accused Morgan of coaching Priscilla to make false abuse claims, threatening them directly and taking their seats at the Venice Film Festival premiere of "Priscilla" – a film they claimed they helped bring to life. Priscilla's own lawsuit against her former business partners, filed last year, painted a very different picture. She claimed Kruse and Fialko isolated her from longtime advisors, took over her bank accounts and tricked her into signing 20-plus contracts in under 30 minutes – including ones that gave them majority control over her own name and likeness. "If plaintiff's allegations are true… it's classic elder abuse," one judge ruled in an earlier case. But Kruse and Fialko argued the elder abuse narrative is a lie, a legal weapon used by Priscilla and Morgan to silence and erase their contractual claims. They want the court to order Presley to stop profiting off her NIL outside the companies they formed – and pay more than $50 million in damages.
Los Angeles Times
05-08-2025
- Los Angeles Times
Justin Baldoni heats up ‘It Ends With Us' legal battle, bringing movie's insurers to court
Justin Baldoni's name is not going to be out of the courtroom anytime soon. The actor and director, who has been embroiled in legal drama related to his 2024 film 'It Ends With Us' for months, is suing insurers of the film for refusing to cover the costs of litigation stemming from the film. In a lawsuit filed July 30 in Los Angeles Superior Court, Baldoni and his production company, Wayfarer Studios, accuse three insurance companies of breach of contract for denying coverage of costs for a December lawsuit filed by Baldoni's co-star, Blake Lively. The case marks the latest wrinkle in an already messy dispute, bringing in new parties to try to sort out who's footing the mounting legal bills. The insurance companies named in the suit — New York Marine, QBE Insurance Group Limited and Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's — sold policies to Wayfarer, 'promising to defend and indemnify' the company and its officers against, among other things, lawsuits like the one Lively filed, which outlines claims of sexual harassment, retaliation and several other charges. Wayfarer Studios' executives Steve Sarowitz and Jamey Heath joined Baldoni and the company in filing the lawsuit against the insurers. They were also named defendants in Lively's suit. The sprawling legal saga surrounding 'It Ends With Us' erupted late last year after a contentious press tour and swirling rumors about a rift between Baldoni and Lively. Lively accused Baldoni and his team of orchestrating a smear campaign against her after she reported on-set sexual harassment in the original lawsuit she filed. Baldoni filed a $400 million countersuit alleging that Lively's accusations are baseless and have caused serious harm to his career, reputation and personal life, further escalating the high-interest legal brawl. A judge dismissed the countersuit in June, saying it didn't meet legal standards, marking a setback for Baldoni's camp. But the case remains one of the most closely-watched Hollywood courtroom battles in recent memory. The new lawsuit from Baldoni and his team comes after another insurer of the film, Harco National Insurance, recently tried to sever itself from the sticky legal feud. Harco filed a lawsuit in New York federal court in July seeking a court order expressly stating that it has no duty to pay legal fees for the production company or its officers. Harco says in the lawsuit that the sexual harassment Lively accuses Baldoni of on set allegedly occurred before the effective dates of its policy, and that Wayfarer didn't disclose possible issues that could have led to claims ahead of time. The policies from the three insurers named in the new suit collectively carry at least $8 million in insurance, and the complaint alleges that the policies should have covered the costs incurred in the legal fight. Each insurer sent letters to Wayfarer denying coverage, and Baldoni and his associates claim the insurers either did not conduct 'any meaningful investigation' into the claim before denying it, or that they cited various inapplicable exclusions to the policy. Representatives for all parties of the lawsuit did not respond to requests for comment, except for Lloyd's, which said it cannot discuss individual policies or policyholders, nor can it comment on matters in litigation. The latest development in the months-long dispute could color how Wayfarer and Baldoni move forward as legal fees continue to rack up. Greg Doll, an entertainment litigator and partner at the Los Angeles firm Doll Amir & Eley, said while the vast majority of similar civil cases are settled before trial, the Lively lawsuit could be an exception. 'What happens in an outlier case is it gets intensely personal, and there's public embarrassment, there's public accusations, and then it becomes about standing on principle,' Doll said. Baldoni's side has deep pockets. Wayfarer Studios has been footing the legal bills in the Lively suit, according to the most recent complaint filed. Sarowitz, Wayfarer's co-founder, co-chairman and leading financier who is also the billionaire founder of Paylocity, once allegedly said he was prepared to spend '$100 million to ruin' Lively and her family, according to Lively's complaint. 'Other companies, you could say they're going to live and die by the insurance coverage because they don't have any assets of their own. They're going to be scared,' Doll said. 'This doesn't appear to be that situation.' But as legal bills mount and the case only becomes more tangled, sorting out what coverage Baldoni's side could get from its insurers makes sense, Doll said, even despite the ample funding they have. Without coverage, it's a 'much more complex negotiation,' he added. 'That becomes a different sort of calculus [for them] about how much of our own money are we willing to spend in settlement, or how much we're willing to roll the dice and fight knowing that our own money might be at stake,' Doll said.
