Groups Sue to Halt Razing of Museum : Preservation: The action may be too late, as director says one Science and Industry building is already partially down.

The contentious issue of what to do with the Museum of Science and Industry took another turn Thursday when a group of preservationist organizations, along with two state senators, filed suit in an attempt to stop any further demolition of the buildings.

The suit, however, may have been filed too late.

The museum director said late Thursday afternoon that the roof and the southern half of the Ahmanson Building had already been razed. “Over half the building is already down,” said Jeffrey Rudolph. “The interior is already demolished.”

The suit, filed in Sacramento, said the museum, located across the street from USC, was being razed “despite the blatant violation of multiple state laws requiring preservation of the structure.”

Specifically, the suit said public funds were being used for the construction of new structures “in an unconscionable misuse of bond monies specifically earmarked by the voters of California for seismic retrofit.”

But Rudolph said the suit involved little more than “the same issues discussed by the Legislature last year. There are no new factual issues that haven’t already been addressed in the environmental impact report, in extensive legislative hearings, and extensive review by the attorney general’s office prior to the signing of the demolition contract.”

Plaintiffs in the suit are the Society of Architectural Historians, the California Preservation Foundation, the West Adams Heritage Assn., Taxpayers for Preservation and state Sens. Milton Marks (D-San Francisco) and Nicholas C. Petris (D-Oakland). The suit asks for a temporary restraining order to halt any further demolition.

The controversy surrounding the museum centers on two buildings that have been closed to the public since 1990--the Ahmanson and the Armory, both of which were opened in 1912.

In 1987, the Legislature authorized the preparation of a master plan for Exposition Park, which includes the museum. In 1990, architects examined both buildings as part of the plan’s preparation and concluded that they would be unsafe in an earthquake. Further, they said that because more than 1,000 children visited the museum each day, the risk of keeping the buildings open was heightened. So in June, 1990, both buildings were closed to the public, though the staff still has its offices in the Armory.

Four months after the closure, voters passed the 1990 Earthquake Safety and Public Building Rehabilitation Bond Act. The act was a response to the Loma Prieta earthquake and was designed, in part, to repair several damaged state buildings in Oakland and San Francisco.

But the act did not specify a geographical area. And it also said the money could be used to either repair or replace buildings that would be unsafe in an earthquake. Museum officials, casting about for funds, hit upon the bond issue as a source.

In 1992, state Sen. Teresa Hughes (D-Inglewood) introduced legislation calling for the replacement of the museum and asked that the funding source be the building rehabilitation bond act. The bill sailed through the Assembly and Senate.

But last summer, controversy erupted over spending $45 million to raze much of the museum and build a much larger, modernized structure. It also turned into a north-south fight, with legislators from the Bay Area, including Petris, saying that Southern California was making off with money it did not deserve.

As for why the suit was so long in coming, money seemed to be at least a part of the problem.

Lynn Bryant, the president of the Society of Architectural Historians, said that, until recently, “no money had been raised to pay the lawyer.”