Scholars Fight Diocese Plan to Build on Mission Ruins

When Junipero Serra and a small group of Franciscan priests chose a bluff on the northern edge of what is now Mission Valley to build their first mission in “Upper California,” the only impediments they faced were the forces of nature and primitive construction methods.

But 200 years later, officials of the Catholic Diocese of San Diego attempting to build a multi-purpose center on the same site are encountering a much more formidable obstacle--the opposition of archeologists and historians who are worried that valuable artifacts will be lost or damaged by the new construction.

The controversy over building on the ruins at Mission San Diego de Alcala has pitted the interests of scholars against those of church officials, with the city’s Historical Site Board left to navigate through the morass of conflicting academic opinions. At issue is the archeological importance of the southeast corner of the mission property, on which several structures have stood since the 1770s and which has been extensively excavated since 1966.

The question will be decided Wednesday, when the Historical Site Board meets to determine whether the diocese’s current building plans are consistent with a design approved five years ago or further environmental study is necessary. However, the issue is merely the focal point of a much larger dispute over whether the mission’s primary importance is religious or secular.

Msgr. I. Brent Eagen said the new multi-purpose center, which will be made to resemble a mission grainery that stood on the site 200 years ago, will serve both the interests of historians and the modern needs of the church.

“We’re conserving what has been uncovered there archeologically, and we’re building a reconstruction of an historical building,” Eagen said. “The new building will have a museum to exhibit the artifacts that have been taken out of the area. I think that’s the best thing for the mission, historically and archeologically.”

However, Raymond Starr, a professor of history at San Diego State University who specializes in the California mission system, disagrees.

“The monsignor doesn’t know a damn thing about history,” Starr said. “They’re not building an historical reconstruction, they’re building a modern building in the mission style. Once that building is constructed, these ruins will be lost as an historical resource for the rest of our lifetimes.”

Starr is the most strident member of the Committee for the Preservation of the Mission San Diego de Alcala, a small group of citizens opposed to either the idea of building on the ruins or the method of construction, or to both. Eagen maintains that the diocese has taken every step possible to preserve the mission’s artifacts, and that the needs of parishioners must eventually have primacy over the preferences of historians.

“The missions were originally built to serve people, not to serve as museums and artifacts,” he said. “This new building will serve people in the community today.”

The diocese first applied to build on the site in 1979. After ordering an environmental impact report (EIR), the Historical Site Board in March, 1980, approved the application on the condition that the mission ruins be sprayed with a protectorant, and that a 10-foot sand fill be used as buffer between the ruins and the building’s foundation.

No further action was taken on the matter for five years, during which archeologists from the University of San Diego completed their excavation and diocese officials raised funds for the project. But in January of this year, the diocese presented its formal architectural plans for the center, which called for bulldozing the entire site so that the structure could be built on a solid slab.

The Historical Site Board rejected that proposal and called for a new environmental impact report on the project. Anxious to get construction under way, architect Alfonso Macy instead revised his plans to have the building’s foundation rest on 20 caissons--concrete pilings--driven into the ground.

After meeting with the architect and diocese officials April 3, Historical Site Board secretary Ron Buckley and city planner Allen Jones said they found the caisson plan to be consistent with the proposal approved by the board in 1980, and recommended approval of the project.

However, members of the mission preservation committee are lobbying the Historical Site Board to reject the revised proposal and order a new environmental impact report.

“To me, this project with the pilings is new,” said Ronald May, chairman of the Fort Guijarros Museum Foundation and a member of the committee. “It’s a whole lot better than going in with a D-9 Cat (bulldozer) and pushing all the archeological material into the creek, but I think the caissons are substantially different than the original project.”

Members of the committee say they are concerned that previously uncovered artifacts will be destroyed either during the drilling of the holes for the caissons or by the weight of the pilings. However, Buckley said that although the caissons were not mentioned in the 1979 environmental impact report, they were part of the original plans approved by the Historical Site Board in 1980.

“The caissons were always contemplated,” Buckley said. “When (the applicants) originally came through, the environmental documents did not call for caissons, but the architect made it quite clear that piers would be used to support the structure. You can’t just build on 10 feet of sand.”

“That sounds like a pretty weak argument to me,” May countered. “My feeling is the original EIR misrepresented the world of reality. If they knew they couldn’t build on sand, they should have said so in 1979.”

But even if the caisson system is opposed by the current members of the Historical Site Board, most of whom were not on the board in 1980, they must still prove that the plan is inconsistent with the original project.

“I won’t say they’re boxed in, but they’re really going to have to dig to find some significant difference, and I don’t see it,” Buckley said.

The board toured the site last week, hearing testimony from members of the preservation committee and Roxanne Phillips, an archeologist working for the diocese. Phillips said that archeologists would be able to look for artifacts by checking the wedges of soil brought up by the drills used to make holes for the caissons. However, members of the preservation committee suggested that the holes be hand-dug by archeologists to protect artifacts.

Buckley said the Historical Site Board is investigating the cost and time involved in having the holes excavated before the caissons are installed. He said the board may ask the diocese to allow the excavation if the procedure will not be too lengthy or costly. Eagen said the diocese would comply with such a directive, but he questioned its necessity.

“That entire area has been thoroughly tested, so I don’t think there will be any great discoveries forthcoming,” Eagen said. “That’s why we’ve chosen this site--because it has been more thoroughly explored than any other part of the mission.”

University of San Diego Prof. Raymond Brandes, one the primary archeologists involved in excavating the site, has supported Eagen’s contention, arguing that “to leave the site open for tourists to see is not feasible; the elements would destroy what remains no matter the suggestions about preservatives.”

Starr and May have questioned Brandes’ determination, suggesting that he is bowing to pressure from the Catholic Church to conclude his research. Brandes was not available for comment. Starr added that the information contained in Brandes’ findings should be used to build a historically accurate reconstruction of the grainery that existed on the site 200 years ago.

“I don’t think they should build anything on this site until they have the information to do a complete historical reconstruction,” he said. “If the mission were to be interpreted in a proper historical context, these ruins would be as important as the church itself. It’s obvious that as long as Monsignor Eagen’s here, that will never be done.”