Judge Rules Razing of Old Home Was Illegal : Preservation: Jurist overturns own decision on city demolishing house to build a parking lot. She says an adequate environmental impact report was not made.

To make way for a City Hall parking lot, the city of Glendora illegally razed an 83-year-old home that deserved placement on the California Register of Historical Resources, a Superior Court judge has ruled.

Superior Court Judge Diane Wayne overturned a judgment she made in favor of the city in September after reviewing letters from state Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren, the State Office of Historic Preservation and the State Historical Resource Commission in support of a Glendora Preservation Foundation lawsuit against the city.

Wayne’s Dec. 9 ruling was the first practical test of a state law (AB 2881) protecting historical sites that went into effect last January. Under the legislation, cities must perform environmental reviews before demolishing buildings of potential historical significance.

Wayne ruled that the foundation proved the demolished house, a yellow Craftsman bungalow at 214 E. Foothill Blvd. that had stood since 1910, was legally part of the Glendora Historical District and the city had neglected to perform an adequate environmental impact report before bringing in the wrecking ball.

“They tore down the house nine hours after the City Council made the decision to demolish it. That was just blatant,” foundation President Jane Negley said.

Last February, Negley asked the City Council to conduct an environmental review to ensure the house was not part of the city’s historical district before buying the property.

The city purchased the home in March for $169,500 and demolished it at the end of the month to make way for the $30,000 parking lot, said City Manager Art Cook. The foundation filed its lawsuit in April.

“We wish we could have worked this out without the lawsuit,” Negley said. “But there are other places downtown that could be destroyed for parking lots.”

Glendora Mayor Bob Kuhn said the city plans to appeal the decision, fighting it all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. Cook said he suspects political motivations, not legal concerns, were the reason the court reversed its earlier decision.

“We think it was a matter of the attorney general intervening at the last minute,” Cook said. “It seems the court is more susceptible to politics than legal evidence.”

While the foundation painted a picture of the house as a historical treasure, Cook described the home as a ramshackle building that would have been condemned if it were still standing.

“It was termite-infested, the roof sagged, the plumbing and the electrical were both substandard and hazardous. . . . It seems ridiculous so much is being made over an old shack,” he said.

Cook said homeowners should have the right to do what they please to their homes and property. “A homeowner that lives in an older home is having their property rights unilaterally taken away by the state,” he said.

“A lot of people buy older homes with the idea of remodeling them, or expanding them, or even tearing them down and building a new home,” he said. “But this law takes those rights away from them.”

Though listing on the California Register of Historical Resources does not guarantee a house can be saved, the new law should force cities to think long and hard before bulldozing their foundations flat, said Valerie Langs, an attorney for the foundation.

“What it does guarantee is that the city has to go through a formal review, including an (environmental impact report) and public comment, before demolition.”

The city and foundation will be back in court Jan. 10 for a hearing to determine if the city should pay the foundation’s $30,000 in legal costs, Langs said.

Though Glendora has already spent $80,000 on attorneys, Cook said the city sees a small victory in the reversed ruling.

“The court ruled we don’t have to rebuild the house,” he said.