Save Our Heritage Organisation v. San Diego Unified Port District 1
San Diego County Regional Airport Authority created by legislation in 2003 Operates San Diego International Airport Acts as the Airport Land Use Commission for County for County of San Diego Leases land upon which Airport sits from the Port District San Diego Unified Port District Landlord to Airport Authority Leases Airport site to Airport Authority Leases former TDY Site to Airport Authority Pursuant to a Settlement Agreement, Airport Authority required to defend Port in any actions challenging Port s EIR for the demolition project Save Our Heritage Organisation ( SOHO ) Petitioner in CEQA action challenging the TDY Demolition EIR 2
FORMER TELEDYNE RYAN AERONAUTICAL COMPLEX TDY SITE 45 acre site adjacent to Airport Former aircraft manufacturing plant 50 buildings on the site constructed between 1939 and 1957 Historic District on Site consisting of 17 buildings Buildings contaminated with hazardous substances Deteriorating buildings creating safety hazard 3
4
5
6
TDY DEMOLITION EIR Port (lead agency under CEQA) and Airport Authority (Real Party in Interest) jointly prepare the EIR Port Commission certifies EIR on August, 2010 Project Description Demolish and remove 50 existing structures Remove all asphalt concrete and other paving materials Remove and dispose of all hazardous and contaminated demolition materials Cutting, capping, removal and replacement of underground piping and utilities Capping storm drains and sanitary sewer lines Removal of all on site landscaping 7
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES No Project Alternative Deteriorating and contaminated buildings on site resulting in significant adverse impacts to the bay Avoids unmitigable impacts to historic resources Rehabilitation and Re Use Rehabilitation and re use of 17 buildings considered to be contributing to historic district Requires abatement, rehabilitation and bringing buildings up to code Cost in excess of $75,000,000 to retrofit and remediate 5 buildings ($9 million to demolish same 5 buildings) Cost of entire demolition project is $38 million) Contaminated underground facilities remain and continue to pollute San Diego Bay Rehabilitation and Relocation Rehabilitation and relocation f 17 buildings considered to be contributing to historic district $9 million $55 million to acquire relocation property No feasible relocation areas 8
SOHO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE Grounds for CEQA challenge: 1. EIR failed to consider future uses of the site as part of its non demolition alternatives 2. The EIR segmented review and failed to address a reasonable range of alternatives for full or partial adaptive reuse of the 17 historic buildings 3. Alternatives to full demolition are economically and programmatically feasible Requested Remedy: 1. Set aside and void certification of the EIR 2. Issue a temporary stay and preliminary injunction staying the demolition project 3. Permanent injunction pending full compliance with CEQA 4. Award SOHO attorneys fees and costs 9
PORT/AIRPORT RESPONSE TO SOHO WRIT 1. The Port s decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record 2. SOHO offers no evidence that any individual building has any historic significance 3. The Project is properly defined 4. SOHO s contentions are not supported by the record 10
TRIAL COURT RULING [Judgment entered October 5, 2010] Petition for writ of administrative mandamus denied The Port was not required to study reuse of the site when no definite plans were being made for specified use of the project site Port presented sufficient evidence to show that proposed alternative is economically infeasible Leaving the buildings standing would risk the possibility of leaving contaminated soils under the buildings. 11
SOHO APPEAL [Filed October 12, 2010] SOHO files Petition for Writ of Supersedeas and Temporary Stay of Demolition Requests emergency stay of demolition as to Buildings 180 and 181 Without hearing from the Port or Airport, judge signs temporary stay order Stay order was emailed to Airport counsel at 5:15 pm on October 12 th Airport counsel did not read email until 5:45 and immediately forwarded email to Port counsel who had direct contact with demolition contractor Contractor arrived on site at 7:00 a.m and began demolishing buildings Port counsel does not get email until next day at 8:15 am Demolition work was halted at approximately 8:45 am 12
13
14
15
16
APPELATE COURT Requests Parties to file briefs addressing the following issues: 1. Why the demolition occurred in spite of court order staying demolition 2. Whether the buildings can be salvaged, stabilized or preserved in light of the demolition that has occurred 3. Whether there is anything left to preserve for the purpose of appeal or whether the appeal is moot 4. Whether counsel s and parties efforts to timely inform the demolition contractor of the stay were reasonable 17
PORT/AIRPORT RESPONSE 1. The two buildings at issue are not historically significant 2. No requirement to study re use of the site after demolition 2. It is not economically feasible to rehabilitate either building Bldg 180 $6,332,747 to rehab and reuse $713,343 to demolish Bldg 181 $3,951,595 to rehab and reuse $$696,372 to demolish 3. Rehabilitating Bldgs 180 and 181 will interfere with remediation of the project site 18
COURT OF APPEAL FINDING stay vacated Petition for writ of supersedeas denied No sanctions imposed 19