Introduction
1 2
1.
Petitioner Save Our Heritage Organisation brings this mandamus action in the
3 4
public interest to challenge the City’s approval of the Salvation Army parking lot project and the
5
precipitous demolition of the historic Ford Building. The master architect for the Streamline-
6
Moderne building was Frank Hope Jr., influenced by industrial designer Walter Dorwin Teague,
7 8 9 10 11
who also designed the Air & Space Museum in Balboa Park. The Ford Building site on West 12th Avenue in San Diego contains significant historic, cultural, and archaeological resources that the City failed to protect as mandated by the California Environmental Quality Act and City ordinances. A peremptory writ should issue to
12 13 14
require the City’s compliance with state and local law, including consideration of feasible mitigations such as the reconstruction of the unique Ford Building.
15
Jurisdiction
16 17
2.
This Court has jurisdiction under Public Resources Code section 21168 and Code
18 19
of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. The parties and project site are in San Diego County.
20
Parties
21 22 23
3.
Save Our Heritage Organisation (SOHO) is a California nonprofit corporation
formed in 1969 to lead the San Diego community as a catalyst for historic preservation by
24 25
raising awareness and appreciation of the region’s rich architectural and cultural heritage.
26
SOHO’s members include community residents and concerned citizens who enjoy and
27
appreciate San Diego’s cultural, architectural, and historic resources. SOHO brings this petition
28 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Petition for Writ of Mandamus
2
1
on behalf of all others similarly situated that are too numerous to be named and brought before
2
this Court as petitioners. SOHO members objected to the demolition of the Ford Building. There
3 4 5 6 7
were no public administrative proceedings. 4.
Respondents City of San Diego and Redevelopment Agency of the City of San
Diego are public agencies. Respondent Centre City Development Corporation (CCDC) is the public, non-profit corporation created by the City of San Diego or Redevelopment Agency, or
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
both, to staff and implement their redevelopment projects and programs. Respondents are collectively referenced in this Petition as the City. 5.
Real Party in Interest Salvation Army is the organization that owns the site at 1025
12th Avenue in San Diego and applied for and received a demolition permit for the Ford Building and parking lot project. 6.
Does 1 to 10 are fictitiously named Respondents and Real Parties in Interest
whose true names and capacities are currently unknown to SOHO. If and when their true names
17 18
and capacities are known, SOHO will amend this petition to assert them.
19
General Allegations
20 21 22
7.
The paragraphs below refer to and rely on information in documents relating to
this action, all of which will be filed with this Court as part of the record of proceedings and are
23 24 25 26
here incorporated by reference. 8.
Walter Dorwin Teague (1883-1960) was an American Art Deco industrial
designer of great fame and renown. He pioneered industrial design as a profession in the United
27 28
States, creating products, exhibits, corporate graphics, and interiors. He designed products for ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Petition for Writ of Mandamus
3
1
Eastman Kodak [including brownie cameras], Boeing [including the stratocruiser], Corning
2
Glass, Polaroid, Montgomery Ward, Steinway pianos, Steuben glassware, and exhibits for the
3 4
New York World’s Fair and the Golden Gate International Exposition in San Francisco in 1939-
5
1940. He also designed porcelain-clad Texaco service stations that became an Art Deco icon of
6
war-era America. In 1940 he completed his seminal work, Design this Day, about the origins
7
and philosophy of industrial design.
8 9
9.
In San Diego, Teague designed the Ford pavilion for the 1935-1936 California
10
Pacific International Exposition held in Balboa Park. It currently houses the Air & Space
11
Museum. It is unknown to SOHO at this time what direct involvement Teague may have had in
12 13
the design of the Ford Building on 12th Avenue, but at the very least the Ford pavilion
14
influenced San Diego master architect Frank Hope Jr. who was the credited architect. The
15
building was a Ford dealership for decades and in recent years has been used for storage, car
16
sales, and a commercial wig shop. The site in its even earlier days also boasted one of the first
17 18 19 20
large mansions constructed in downtown San Diego and the largest Second Empire home ever built in the City, owned by John G. Capron, a prominent railroad man. 10.
In July 2009, the City gave notice to SOHO Executive Director Bruce Coon that a
21 22
proposal had been submitted by the Salvation Army, owner of the Ford Building site, to
23
demolish the building in its entirety and to build a parking lot. Mr. Coon responded on the same
24
day that he was notified, stating that in his view the building “appears to be the Ford dealership
25
built by the same architect (Teague) that designed the Ford Building in Balboa Park which it
26 27
resembles. It was connected to the Ford building by a special road. We have provided info to
28 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Petition for Writ of Mandamus
4
1
[the City’s historic resources staff] before on this building. One of our best Moderne buildings,
2
[it] needs to go to the Board for designation.”
3 4
11.
Historic preservation architect David Marshall of Heritage Architecture of San
5
Diego also received notice of the proposed demolition in July 2009 and informed the City that
6
he agreed that “this old Ford dealership is likely historic.”
7
12.
SOHO had several conversations with City staff emphasizing great concern and
8 9
opposition to the proposed demolition of the Ford Building. SOHO offered to submit a
10
designation package to the City to nominate the site for historic listing, but was told that the
11
matter would go before the full Historic Resources Board (HRB) and that SOHO would be
12 13 14 15 16
given an opportunity to participate and respond. 13.
Following further in-house review by City staff, which agreed that the Ford
Building was historically significant, the Salvation Army objected to any consideration of historic designation because of the Army’s status as a religious entity. Despite its conclusion
17 18
that the Ford Building qualified as historic under HRB criteria, City staff made no request for
19
historic designation to the Historic Resources Board following an in-house determination in
20
February 2010 by the City attorney’s office that the Salvation Army could qualify for a religious
21 22
exemption from historic designation. Staff did not communicate to SOHO or any other public
23
parties about its view that the Ford Building was ineligible for historic designation based on its
24
ownership by a religious entity.
25
14.
On August 3, 2010, the City issued a permit to the Salvation Army for demolition
26 27
of the Ford Building and construction of a parking lot. No public notice was given.
28 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Petition for Writ of Mandamus
5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
15.
On Friday, August 20, 2010, members of SOHO first became aware of substantial
demolition activity at the site of the Ford Building. Upon inquiry at the site, they learned that a demolition permit had issued. By Sunday, the building was substantially demolished; interior work had apparently been ongoing for weeks unawares. 16.
On Monday, August 23, 2010, SOHO learned that the City had abandoned its
review of historic resource impacts of the demolition, as described above, without notice. It also
8 9 10 11 12 13
learned that the City had approved a permit for a parking lot on the Ford Building site, and that such permits require a conditional use permit in the Centre City Planned District. 17.
The same day, City staff confirmed to SOHO that “while we did notify SOHO and
others of the proposed demolition at the beginning of the process, it appears that we did not
14
follow up with the final determination.” Staff noted that it considered the demolition to be a
15
ministerial action that does not require public notice. “In cases where we clear a property [for
16
demolition] that has expressed public interest, we try to notify members of the public but are not
17 18 19 20
always able to provide such courtesy notice.” 18.
The same day, SOHO’s attorney contacted the City attorney’s office, requesting
that the demolition activity cease because of lack of compliance with CEQA. Communication
21 22
continued, and the City later confirmed that it appeared that the demolition was completed, that
23
no CEQA Notice of Exemption had been prepared or filed, and that CEQA review would be
24
required for any additional work requiring a discretionary permit.
25
19.
On August 25th, SOHO’s attorney notified the City that demolition was ongoing
26 27
and requested that “the City order the site secured and work stopped.” By that time, the Ford
28 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Petition for Writ of Mandamus
6
1
Building was beyond saving, but SOHO was concerned about the disturbance of sub-surface
2
archaeological resources.
3 4
20.
On September 3rd, the City’s Chief Building Official wrote to the Salvation
5
Army’s contractor, AMG Demolition. The letter admitted that “the demolition permit was
6
issued in error.” Among other things, it explained that provisions required for “impacts to an
7
architectural historic resource” and “significant archaeological resources” in San Diego
8 9
Municipal Code section 156.0304(f) had not been met. Further, the City required a revised
10
demolition permit application, including but not limited to archaeological evaluation, testing,
11
data recovery, and monitoring. The City emphasized that “no work is authorized for the removal
12 13 14 15 16
of the slab or foundation or for the disturbance of any soils” without compliance. 21.
The City mailed the letter, rather than personally delivering or serving it. AMG
Demolition continued to work on the site until September 17th, claiming it had just received the letter. Significant excavation occurred before the City enforced its stop work order.
17 18
22.
SOHO has been informed that the City may pursue penalties against the Salvation
19
Army for its failure to stop work when instructed on September 3rd. However, the City has not
20
agreed to require CEQA review and mitigation for the impacts of the demolition permit
21 22 23 24 25
unlawfully issued. 23.
Members of SOHO have no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law. Issuance of a writ and injunctive relief are needed to avoid irreparable harm to San Diego residents via the failure to require compliance with CEQA and the San Diego
26 27
Municipal Code relevant to the demolition and excavation/grading of the Ford Building and its
28
site. The City has the capacity to correct its violations of law but refuses to do so. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Petition for Writ of Mandamus
7
1
First Cause of Action Violations of the California Environmental Quality Act
2 3 4 5
24.
SOHO incorporates all previous paragraphs as if fully set forth.
25.
The City abused its discretion and failed to act in the manner required by law in
6 7
issuing a permit for the demolition of the historic Ford Building, the excavation of its
8
archaeologically significant site, and construction of a parking lot without conducting
9
environmental review.
10
a.
11
Ownership by an agency claiming religious status does not allow exemption from
12
CEQA nor ministerial approval of demolition of a site with documented architectural,
13
archaeological, and/or historic importance.
14
b.
Regardless, demolition of the Ford Building to build a parking lot requires both a
15 16 17
demolition permit and a discretionary conditional use permit, and so the “whole of the action” before the City is discretionary.
18
c.
Since the demolition and excavation occurred without compliance with CEQA, the
19 20
Salvation Army permit applications must be submitted to environmental review that considers
21
appropriate mitigation from a baseline of the Ford Building and property as they existed prior to
22
the commencement of any demolition activities in the summer of 2010, including but not limited
23
to reconstruction of the Ford Building.
24 25 26 27 28
/ / / / ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Petition for Writ of Mandamus
8
1 2
Second Cause of Action Violations of the San Diego Municipal Code
3 4 5 6
26.
SOHO incorporates all previous paragraphs as if fully set forth.
27.
The City abused its discretion and failed to proceed in the manner required by law
7 8 9 10
in issuing a permit for demolition of the Ford Building and the construction of a parking lot without requiring compliance with Code section 156.0304 (f) and all other mitigation measures adopted as part of the Downtown Community Plan and its Final EIR.
11 12
WHEREFORE, Petitioner SOHO prays:
13 14
1.
That the Court issue a peremptory writ of mandamus ordering the City
15 16
respondents to set aside and void their approvals for the demolition of the Ford Building and
17
construction of a parking lot at the Salvation Army’s site on 12th Avenue, and to refrain from
18
consideration of any further approvals until full compliance with CEQA and the Municipal Code
19 20 21 22 23
is achieved, including the adoption of mitigation measures based on findings supported by substantial evidence; 2.
That the Court issue an administrative stay order enjoining the City, the Real
Parties in Interest, and their agents and employees from any and all physical actions in
24 25 26 27
furtherance of demolition or excavation at the Ford Building site, including but not limited to grading, demolition, pre-construction, salvage of historic features or fixtures, or construction activities of any kind;
28 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Petition for Writ of Mandamus
9
1
3.
For Petitioner’s costs and attorney fees pursuant to CCP section 1021.5; and
2
4.
For such other and further relief as the Court finds proper.
3 4
September 27, 2010
BRANDT-HAWLEY LAW GROUP
5 6
______________________ Susan Brandt-Hawley Attorney for Petitioner
7 8 9 10
VERIFICATION
11 12
I, Susan Brandt-Hawley, am the attorney for Petitioner who is located outside of Sonoma
13
County where I have my law offices, and so I verify this petition on its behalf. I have read the
14
Petition for Writ of Mandamus and know its contents. The matters stated in it are true and
15 16 17 18 19
correct based on my knowledge, except as to the matters stated on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true. I declare under penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct and is executed this 27th day of September, 2010, at Pasadena, California.
20 21 22 23
_____________________________ Susan Brandt-Hawley
24 25 26 27 28
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Petition for Writ of Mandamus
10