Streamlined Rules Used in Effort to Raze Cottage

The partial destruction last weekend of a 19th-Century Victorian cottage in a historic district near USC outraged neighbors and has prompted chagrined city officials to tighten demolition rules streamlined after the spring riots.

The owner of the cottage in St. James Park--which was listed last year in the National Register of Historic Places--had obtained a demolition permit, claiming the building was damaged during the unrest.

But residents insist that no homes in the neighborhood were damaged in the riots, and they were horrified to find a demolition crew at the structure early Saturday. More than a dozen workers were dismantling the house with pickaxes, chain saws, crowbars and sledgehammers, cutting its distinctive green gable, smashing the diamond-shaped windows and splintering the 100-year old redwood walls.

Under standard city procedure, ownerChris Carbonel, who operates a property management firm in Torrance,

would not have been able to obtain a demolition permit so quickly and without notifying neighbors.

But the city had streamlined the demolition permit procedure after the riots, eliminating a number of steps so property owners could quickly rebuild.

The demolition was halted after angry residents contacted the Building and Safety Department, and officials now are re-evaluating their approval of Carbonel’s permit.

Officials say they are now aware that the building has historic significance, said Angie Chang, a department coordinator. And “there are questions whether the house actually was damaged during the riots,” she added.

Moreover, the city has restored some time-consuming steps to the demolition process to ensure that other historic buildings are not destroyed by accident, said Tim Taylor, the department’s executive officer.

Carbonel, meanwhile, continues to insist that the house was damaged during the riots and that it is not a historic structure--an issue on which various public agencies have disagreed. Neighbors say they are prepared to file suit to have the house fully restored.

JoAnne Greene Fields, who lives two houses away from the cottage--known as the Hodgman House--says not one house in the neighborhood was damaged during the riots. All the neighbors, she said, made a point to “keep an eye on the Victorian,” because it was uninhabited.

More than 25 neighbors signed declarations this week stating: “From personal knowledge, I can testify that the . . . house was not damaged nor in any way affected by the recent disturbances. . . . I am prepared to testify if necessary to this fact.”

But Carbonel said he visited the property a few days before the riots and a few days after--and that sometime between the two visits the interior was vandalized. Holes were punched in the walls, he said, and plaster was stripped from the walls and ceiling.

He assumed, Carbonel said, that the damage was riot-related, although he acknowledged he had no direct evidence.

“I wasn’t going to go down there during the riots to find out what was going on . . . but I’m sure that’s when the vandalism took place,” he said. “It looked like Mr. Karate wanted to practice his kicks on the walls and tear the place up.”

Neighbors, however, contend that squatters had lived in the house--which had been converted into three apartments and left vacant for about a year--and damaged it months before the riots. City building officials note that very few residences were damaged during the unrest; the Hodgman House was not included in their list of riot-damaged properties.

Before city officials “fast-tracked” the demolition permit process, the property would have been reviewed by a city preservation expert and neighbors would have been notified before the permit was granted. Those steps were temporarily eliminated to speed post-riot reconstruction.

So the demolition caught residents completely by surprise.

“It was an incredibly painful thing to watch,” said neighbor Jim Childs. “Watching a house in a historic neighborhood being trashed . . . we all felt as if we were being violated.”

Carbonel purchased the house about 10 years ago and later decided to demolish it and build condominiums. The city’s Community Redevelopment Agency supported the plans, determining that the house lacked historic significance. The agency did not require a full environmental impact report on the redevelopment plan.

Neighbors filed suit, stalling the project, but lost in court and on appeal. Both a judge and the Los Angeles Cultural Heritage Commission decided that the house did not have historic significance.

But after the court case, the neighborhood was listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and the house was identified as a “contributing structure.”

This meant that two California preservation agencies and the U.S. Department of the Interior had determined that the house and the neighborhood did have historic significance, said Barbara Hoff, director of preservation for the Los Angeles Conservancy.