Parkmerced Update

The architects, planners, and landscape designers from the Netherlands who toured Parkmerced in October during the Architecture in the City Week were in awe at the landscape  designs of Thomas Church, and in utter disbelief of the plans to destroy such a fully mature landscape and wonderful example of housing design for families. They questioned why local government agencies had not purchased the Parkmerced property outright nor protected it through preservation efforts. Tenants Michael Russom, Cathy Lentz, advocate Aaron Goodman and Andrew Wolfram (SF Preservation Commissioner) tried to explain that often in America, real estate and development machinations trump the public’s best interests.  Parkmerced is a project that provides essential housing in the southwest of the City, well built with families in mind and at human scale. The visiting architects and planners noted that there should be studies on how people have lived at Parkmerced, why they still remain there, unbelieving that demolition of 4200 units of family housing could ever occur in such an ideal community.  They understood why the residents would mount a legal appeal of the EIR and project approval by the Planning Commission

The EIR appeal vs the City of San Francisco

Litigation against the City of San Francisco and the developer, Fortress Investments LLC, over the EIR for the project was filed by San Francisco Tomorrow and the Parkmerced Action Coalition (PmAC).  Superior Court Judge Terri Jackson dismissed the residents’ EIR appeal; that decision will now have to be appealed to a higher court. Judge Jackson seemed more in tune with the goals of the developers, architects, political lobbyists and financial backers such as Fortress and the China Community Bank.  She made a similar decision to uphold the EIR for the Treasure Island project, a proposal of 8,000 new units of primarily for sale market rate housing, giving scant attention to the environmental arguments raised by the appellants.

The Parkmerced “Vision” project, in conjunction with the San Francisco State (SFSU-CSU) Master Plan revision, proposes redevelopment of an even larger area than just Parkmerced itself. A total of three projects would divide and destroy the largely intact landscape design created by Thomas Church, considered by some the father of modern landscape design. The Landscape was featured in the 2008 travelling exhibition “Marvels of Modernism: Landscapes at Risk”.  The major question raised by the decision to demolish Parkmerced is a quandary about how and in what ways should necessary densification of urban areas be accomplished. Housing quotas assigned by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), and by AB375 (which mandates transit orientated development in cities such as San Francisco) sometimes conflict with goals and principles of the General Plan on how to best preserve and protect the existing affordable rental housing stock and the cultural landscape. (www.parkmercedvision.com)

A culture of demolition and maximizing profits for the few

A recent EIR for the topic of “inclusionary housing” and an article in the SF Weekly led writer Joe Eshkenazi to observe that a culture of demolition and maximizing profits for the few ignores the real needs of residents, needs which were met in the post-World War II housing development of Parkmerced.

SFSU-CSU intends to kick start another part of their large scale development plans  adjacent to the northern side of the campus near Lake Merced.  The grading permits at 800 Brotherhood Way have been appealed recently by Judge Quentin Kopp and the religious organizations along Brotherhood Way stating, among other things, that there is a failure to recognize the adjacent coastal areas and migratory bird flight zones over the area.

Park Merced Lawsuit Status

The appeal of the EIR for the Park Merced project has moved to another level and has been accepted by the State Court of Appeals, Division 2.  The trial date is as yet unknown but it will not be soon.  However, SFT Board member Bernie Choden who is spearheading the legal challenge says that “our chances are very good.”

This appeal lays down a comprehensive challenge to the way city government interprets and uses CEQA, what it considers adequate environmental mitigations, how it interprets and enforces the General Plan, and how it treats citizen advocacy, rent control and seismic safety.  The Park Merced case is about all these issues and is costing just a few people a lot of money. What we need now, is a joining together to support this prime suit with advocacy, money and Amicus briefs of support.  For more information, contact attorney Stuart Flashman at 510-652-5373.

Lawsuits like this in which SFT is involved cost money.  If you are motivated to contribute to the ongoing appeal of the Parkmerced Project, donations to the legal challenges can be made at both www.sftomorrow.org  and   www.pmacsf.org