Court Acts Too Late to Save Green Dragon : Preservation: Wrecking ball does much of its work before a restraining order comes through to halt destruction of historic bohemian cottages in La Jolla. A lawsuit is threatened.

The Green Dragon Colony, four turn-of-the-century cottages that many say represented the last fragment of La Jolla’s architectural and historical roots, was practically demolished by developers Thursday before a restraining order preventing further destruction could be issued.

The wrecking ball’s arrival in the heart of the palm-studded seaside town caused a furor as preservationists and state attorneys claimed Thursday that developers ignored state laws in their destruction the day before of remnants of the once-great artist’s colony.

In San Diego Superior Court on Thursday, the state attorney general’s office won a temporary restraining order against further demolition until July 23, after arguing that parts of the long-ago boarded-up cottages, such as a few walls, could still be salvaged.

Meanwhile, state attorneys say they are considering additional legal action against the property owners, led by retired La Jolla architect Robert Mosher, who they argue ignored state Coastal Commission laws in beginning demolition without waiting out the routine 10-day appeal period on the project.

“Somebody pulled a fast one,” said Deputy Atty. Gen. Jamee Patterson. “There are all kinds of limitations on this kind of demolition under Coastal Commission law. They should have waited before sending in the bulldozers. But they didn’t. And we’re definitely going to pursue some legal action here.”

Attorneys for the property owners said Thursday that the demolition marked the end of a long and frustrating battle to clear away the cottages, situated between Prospect Street and La Jolla Cove, which they said had nostalgic but little historic significance.

Besides, they say, the owners had long ago made a standing offer to move the cottages to another site for preservation--one that was never acted upon. No immediate plans have been made to build on the site, although a hotel complex had been considered.

“Those buildings have been offered for years to the city or anyone else who wanted them,” said attorney Franne Ficara. “They turned us down.”

The demolition was the latest event in a five-year debate over the fate of the board-and-batten cottages, once an internationally famous retreat for the writers, painters and other artists who pioneered La Jolla as a mecca for creative souls.

In February, 1990, the owners filed permit applications with the city to demolish the structures. But, in succeeding months, they became frustrated with what their attorneys called the city’s foot-dragging on granting their requests.

“They were simply trying to delay us by the continued revision of a bogus environmental document,” Ficara said, “revising, revising, revising until we would give up.”

Recently, the owners filed suit against the city in San Diego Superior Court, seeking $2.8 million in damages that included the money lost on the value of the property during the preceding year.

The suit also claimed that the city had violated the state’s Permit Streamlining Act by not making a decision on the permit application within one year and sought an immediate approval of the application.

On Tuesday, in an attempt to settle the potentially costly lawsuit, the San Diego City Council voted not to oppose a judge’s order that the permits be granted.

The following morning, Superior Court Judge Barbara Gamer issued an order for the demolition permits, sending state attorneys and a lawyer hired by local preservationists scrambling for a last-minute stay.

“We ran frantically over to the courthouse, knocking on courtroom doors, but we couldn’t find a judge willing to touch it,” Patterson said. “It was a frustrating day to say the least.”

Rudolf Hradecky, deputy San Diego city attorney, said the City Council went legally into closed deliberations to discuss resolving the lawsuit. The result, he added, was that council members found themselves in a no-win situation.

“We concluded that the streamline act time-frame had indeed run its course and that, if we eventually went to court, we would not have an adequate defense,” he said. “It would have created a potential liability for the taxpayers.”

But a city official close to the decision, who asked not to be identified, questioned the wisdom of the city’s quick surrender at the hands of the developers.

“It sends a really sickening message to developers that all they have to do is threaten to sue the city, and the City Council will roll over and play dead. I think it stinks.”

Patterson said lawyers from the state attorney general’s office returned to court Thursday, when Judge Gamer issued the restraining order.

The judge, she said, was not initially aware that, in addition to the necessary city demolition permit, there were also Coastal Commission permits affecting the property, which require a 10-day waiting period on any demolition until an appeal could be filed.

Patterson also denied claims made by attorneys for the property owners that any appeals provisions would have been outweighed by the conditions of the state’s Permit Streamline Act, which holds that the decision on the application was already past due.

“They’re mixing apples and oranges,” she said. “The Coastal Commission laws still apply here. Obviously the judge had some doubts. She granted us the stay.”

Preservationists expressed shock Thursday over the destruction of what many called the last remaining living snapshots of a simpler, less commercial La Jolla that can now never be retrieved.

Ronald Buckley, director of the city of San Diego’s Historical Site Board, said the destruction of the cottages was unthinkable. Not long ago, he said, a state historical preservation officer said the four buildings probably qualified for inclusion in the National Registry of Historic Places.

“You can’t print my reaction to this,” he said of the demolition. “Yeah, I’m angry. This definitely shouldn’t have occurred. These aren’t just a bunch of rabid people trying to save something for nostalgia’s sake.

“These were buildings worth saving. They were the last remnants of the last turn-of-the-century internationally known arts and crafts colony on the West Coast,” Buckley said.

Originally known as the Green Dragon Camp, the colony was launched by a German-born teacher named Anna Held, who moved to the area in 1894 and bought the first sliver of land near La Jolla Cove for $165.

A generation later, the Green Dragon became a famous bohemian retreat for some of the best-known artists and writers of the 20th Century, and a key element of the Arts and Crafts Movement in those years.

Eventually, however, the land changed hands and the vitality of the colony waned. But the artists’ influence remained, with studios and galleries occupying many of the cottages.

In 1943, the Mosher family bought the property. Bob Mosher, whose office was on the site for 38 years, renovated and remodeled some of the cottages. Some of the new buildings, which house art galleries, jewelry stores and the Chart House restaurant, incorporate the walls, foundations and fireplaces of the historic cottages.

The four buildings destroyed Wednesday had been boarded up and unoccupied for several years. The site is now owned by the Mosher Trust, which is administered by San Diego Trust & Savings Bank and includes Robert Mosher as one of its two representatives.

Mosher, an influential local architect who was a founder of La Jolla’s two community planning groups, could not be reached for comment Thursday. But, in a 1986 interview with The Times on the value of the cottages, he dismissed them as “those rundown old things” and vowed to eventually demolish them or move from the property.

“Ha! I just laugh when I hear that,” he said, referring to their perceived value. “They’re old, no one denies that. But saying they have some historical significance as architectural works is simply ridiculous.”

Buckley said the city of San Diego “already has a poor reputation nationwide for its treatment of other historical structures, and any offer to move the cottages would have severely diminished their value.”

“The property on which they sit gives them the proper historical context,” he said. “To move the homes would not have made sense. That was the place where they became famous. That is where they belonged.”