Civil Complaint
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
' . ' ' 1 Kevin T. Snider, CA SBN 1709881 Michael J. Peffer, CA SBN 192265 2 Matthew B. McReynolds CA SBN 234797 APR 1 4 Z016 PACIFIC JUSTICE INSTITUTE 3 212 9th Street, Suite 208 CLERK OF THE COURT Oakland, CA 95827 BY: t}OWMAN LIU 4 Tel.: (510) 834-7232 Deputy Clerk Fax:(916)834-8784 5 E-mail: [email protected] 6 Conrad Reynoldson, WA SBN 481872 WASHINGTON CIVIL & DISABILITY ADVOCATE 7 4421 51 51 A venue N mtheast Seattle, WA 98105 8 Tel. : (206) 855-3134 9 E-mail: Comad,[email protected] 10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 12 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 13 SAN FRANCISCO CHINESE CHRISTIAN Case No. CGC · 16-551486 14 UNION, RICHARD LAM, PEGGY LAM, PATRICK SULLIVAN, SYLVIA 15 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND TERPSTRA, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 16 Plaintiffs, [CCP §526a] 17 vs. 18 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, 19 PIDLIP ALAN GINSBURG, GENERAL 20 MANAGER, RECREATION AND PARKS DEPARTMENT, in his official capacity, 21 Defendants. 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 Counsel of record and for service. 28 2 Application for pro hac vice pending. -1- Complaint .. COMES NOW PLAINTIFFS who allege as follows: 2 3 Introduction 4 The City and County of San Francisco has installed a three-inch hole in the center of a three- 5 foot diameter concrete base for public urination. This hole is called a pissoir. It is located at the 6 southwest quadrant of Mission Dolores Park at a busy street corner, between a sidewalk and a train 7 stop. Persons urinate into the hole in public view. There is no signage, accessibility for persons with 8 disabilities, and no place to wash hands. This complaint is brought as a taxpayer action for equitable 9 relief to prevent the continued illegal and wasteful expenditure of public funds to install and maintain 10 the pissoir. The basis for the requested relief is that the pissoir violates the Jaw and public policy 1 1 regarding privacy, sex discrimination, public health, access for persons with disabilities, and the 12 Plumbing Code. Because the City Attorney and Attorney General have failed to bring an action to 13 halt the pissoir as a public nuisance, the Plaintiffs bring this Complaint. 14 Parties 15 1. Plaintiff, San Francisco Chinese Christian Union is a religious nonprofit corporation 16 17 incorporated in the State of California and doing business in the City and County of San Francisco, 18 California. Its members include fifteen churches within the City and County of San Francisco. These 19 represent persons, both male and female, which include residents and citizens of the City and County of 20 San Francisco who have paid a tax to the City and County of San Francisco. They use Dolores Park, 21 ride the San Francisco Municipal Transit Authority (SFMTA) in which they board and alight the train 22 at the stop at the corner of 20th and Church Street. Further, some of their members are wheelchair 23 bound or take care of a child or parent who uses a wheelchair. The San Francisco Chinese Christian 24 25 Union has served the residents of San Francisco since 1916. Additionally, the purpose statement of the 26 San Francisco Chinese Christian Union's bylaws state: "The purpose of this organization is to promote 27 Christian fellowship among the churches and to work cooperatively in projects directed toward the 28 community and in projects related to the spreading of the Christian Gospel." The mission and goal of -2- Complaint . ' the members includes caring for the sick and infirm within the community. To that end, the San Francisco Chinese Christian Union was one of fifteen organizations which raised funds to build the 2 3 3 Chinese Hospital in 1923 and which was erected in 1925. Since its inceptions, a representative from 4 the San Francisco Chinese Christian Union has sat on the board of the Chinese Hospital. The San 5 Francisco Chinese Christian Union has an interest in the care of the sick, including those with 6 disabilities. Moreover, the San Francisco Chinese Cluistian Union has associational standing to bring a 7 taxpayer suit. 8 2. Richard Lam is a resident and citizen of the City and County of San Francisco, 9 California, who owns real prope1iy within that jurisdiction and has, within one year of the filing of this 10 11 Complaint, has been accessed for and liable to pay a tax - including, but not limited to, property taxes - 12 to, and for the benefit and support of, the City and County of San Francisco. Mr. Lam uses Dolores 13 Park, at times riding the train there. 14 3. Peggy Lam is a resident and citizen of the City and County of San Francisco, California, 15 who owns real prope1iy within that jurisdiction and has, within one year of the filing of this Complaint, 16 has been accessed for and liable to pay a tax - including, but not limited to, property taxes - to, and for 17 the benefit and support of, the City and County of San Francisco. Mrs. Lam uses Dolores Park, at 18 19 times riding the train there. 20 4. Patrick Sullivan is a resident and citizen of the City and County of San Francisco, 21 California who has, within one year of the filing of this Complaint, been accessed for and liable to pay 22 a tax - including, but not limited to, property taxes - to, and for the benefit and supp01i of, the City and 23 County of San Francisco. Mr. Sullivan lives across the street from Dolores Park and has a clear view 24 of persons using the pissoir from his kitchen window. He is informed and believes and thereon alleges 25 that the presence of the pissoir negatively impacts the value of his home. 26 27 3 28 The Tung Wah Dispensary (est. 1899) was destroyed in the 1906 earthquake. The Chinese Hospital was established in 1923 to replace the Dispensary. -3- Complaint 5. Sylvia Terpstra is a resident and citizen of the City and County of San Francisco, California, who owns real prope1iy within that jurisdiction and has, within one year of the filing of this 2 3 Complaint, has been accessed for and liable to pay a tax - including, but not limited to, property taxes - 4 to, and for the benefit and support of, the City and County of San Francisco. She uses Dolores Park, 5 at times riding the train there. 6 6. Defendant, City and County of San Francisco, is an entity established pursuant to A1iicle 7 XI, §6, of the California Constitution. The City and County of San Francisco has jurisdictional control 8 over the Recreation and Parks Department, including Mission Dolores Park, the sidewalks surrounding 9 Mission Dolores Park, and the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency which has a stop at the 10 11 corner of 20th and Church Street. The City and County of San Francisco lays and collects taxes for the 12 support of its activities within its jurisdiction. The City and County of San Francisco has authority 13 over the installation and maintenance of the pissoir. Moreover, the City and County of San Francisco 14 has authorized the expenditure of funds for the installation and maintenance of the pissoir. 15 7. Defendant, Philip Alan Ginsburg, serves as the General Manager of the Recreation and 16 Parks Depaiiment for the City and County of San Francisco. Mr. Ginsburg has operational oversight of 17 parks within San Francisco, including Mission Dolores Park. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe 18 19 and thereon allege that at all times herein mentioned, Mr. Ginsburg was in office and had control and 20 oversight over the installation of the pissoir. The Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and 21 thereon allege that at all times herein mentioned, Mr. Ginsburg currently has control and oversight over 22 the maintenance of the pissoir. He is named in his official capacity. 23 24 Venue 25 8. Venue in the Superior Court in and for the County of San Francisco is proper because 26 both the real property (Mission Dolores Park, the sidewalks sunounding the park, and the train stop) 27 28 and the res (pissoir), which is the subject of this dispute, are located in the City and County of San -4- Complaint Francisco, California. Moreover, all actions described herein occurred within the City and County of San Francisco. Further, the Plaintiffs reside and conduct business within the City and County of San 2 3 Francisco. The Defendant conducts business within the City and County of San Francisco and 4 Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that the Defendant also resides there in the City 5 and County of San Francisco, as well. 6 Facts 7 9. Mission Dolores Park is a 16.1 acre city park in San Francisco, California, located at 8 the eastern edge of the Castro/Upper Market neighborhood, bounded by 18th Street to the north, 9 Dolores Street to the east, 20th Street to the south, and Church Street to the west. The majority of 10 11 Mission Dolores Park consists of open space, totaling approximately 11. 9 acres, including a 12 playground, two dog play areas, multi-use field, and other grassy and landscaped areas. Open between 13 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., Mission Dolores Park is primarily used for active and passive recreation, as well as 14 various public events, including concerts, outdoor movie nights, performances, political rallies, and 15 other events. 16 10. The Mission Dolores Park Rehabilitation Project ("Project") was financed by the 2008 17 Clean and Safe Neighborhood Parks $153 million general obligation bond approved by San Francisco 18 19 Voters n 2008.