The court upheld an earlier decision by Superior Court JudgeRonald Quidachay that allows Proposition L to go before cityvoters. The proposition, designed to further restrict the city'soffice development boom, is similar but more restrictive than ameasure put forth by Mayor Willie Brown. The mayor's allies havebeen trying to remove Proposition L from the ballot.

Court of Appeal Judges James Marchiano, William Stein and GaryStrankman gave no written explanation for yesterday's decision tokeep Proposition L on the ballot. Opponents, led by real estateattorney Jim Reuben, argue the city should not have allowed themeasure onto the Nov. 7 ballot because proponents missed the usualfiling deadline. City officials got around the deadline by allowingProposition L proponents to seek a special election, thenconsolidating that special election with the November ballot. TheCourt of Appeal has backed them up.

Proposition L would maintain the current 950,000-square-footannual cap on the amount of office construction and specify thatmultimedia development be counted under that limit. It would alsoban office construction in parts of the Mission District and Southof Market and temporarily freeze it in other areas. Brown'sProposition K would also preserve a 950,000-square-foot annual capon office space growth, but offers more exemptions, meaning muchmore than 950,000 sf could ultimately be developed.