Introduction. precipitous demolition of the historic Ford Building. The master architect for the Streamline-

Introduction 1 2 1. Petitioner Save Our Heritage Organisation brings this mandamus action in the 3 4 public interest to challenge the City’s app...
Author: Jacob Lane
2 downloads 1 Views 187KB Size
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