By the Park Merced Action Coalition
On Monday, July 11, at 11am, San Francisco residents, San Francisco Tomorrow, Parkmerced Action Coalition, their attorney Stuart Flashman and members of the Board of Supervisors rallied on the steps of City Hall to call attention to the Board of Supervisors’ approval of a plan to demolish their rent-controlled community. They released the following statement:
STOP THE DESTRUCTION!
Learning from history, social fabric and neighborhoods can evolve organically for the betterment of San Francisco rather than calling for wholesale demolition with short-sighted economic benefits—particularly when true infill development alternatives would be both feasible and profitable.
In order to stop the destruction of one of San Francisco’s few multi-ethnic, multi-generational, and family neighborhoods, San Francisco Tomorrow (SFT) and the Park Merced Action Coalition (PMAC) have filed a lawsuit against the City for its June 9th approval of the Parkmerced Development Project.
The Final Environment Impact Report (FEIR) for the Parkmerced Project is inaccurate and inadequate. If allowed to continue as approved, the project will destroy 1,538 units of affordable, rent-controlled housing, adversely affect the environment and well being of those living, working, and playing in the region. In addition, the suit points to the project’s inconsistency with priority policies enacted by San Francisco voters in Proposition M as well as other inconsistencies with the City’s general plan and violation of the City’s Sunshine Ordinance.
The lawsuit calls for the court to set aside the project approvals until the Park Merced Project complies with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City’s general plan policies.
· Demolition of 1,538 seismically sound rent-controlled townhouses and their surrounding gardens.
· Not addressing livability issues associated with the 20- 30 year demolition and construction project, including: noise, air quality, and loss of open space. The Project’s findings DO NOT MEET legal air quality standards.
· Failing to assess the seismic impact of the existing towers, nor providing for their retrofits and upgrades. Additionally, no provisions exist for loss of open space and other unavoidable adverse impacts for tower residents.
· Slaughter of migrating birds by the Project’s shoreline windmills, and a general refusal to look at alternatives that could avoid the Project’s many impacts.
· The faulty reference to development as a “transit village”, since no third party assurances or funding sources are identified for transit and related work. The addition of 6,342 parking places also contradicts the concept of a transit village.