Remains of Green Dragon Uncoil State Preservationist Movement

Little remains of the Green Dragon Colony.

The collection of cottages has been reduced to a few splintered wooden platforms on stone foundations covered with dead roots. Surrounded by a temporary chain-link fence, the site is littered with debris, tree stumps and piles of decaying vegetation. A few rusted pipes and half-demolished wooden walls jut out of the steep hillside, a decrepit fortress guarding La Jolla Cove.

Workers in the trendy espresso shop and the seafood restaurant neighboring the site say they have never even heard of the colony, nor of the bitter dispute that flared 15 months ago when the owners of the property suddenly demolished the cottages, invoking the wrath of local preservationists.

To some locals, it was just another squabble in a community famous for bickering.

Yet long-term good is emerging from the rubble of the Green Dragon, according to those who fought for its survival. It led to an unusual pact forged by the California Coastal Commission that recognizes the historical importance of the site and helped prompt new controls on historic properties statewide. And the remains of the colony could still offer a peek into history for architecture students.

The remains of the Green Dragon are a legacy, historical preservationists say, a reminder to many people of the consequences of not fighting to save historical sites. To them, Green Dragon became a rallying cry.

“I think it was a galvanizing moment, in a way,” said David Singer of the La Jolla Conservancy, a new group formed in the wake of the battle. “Here was something that might have been preserved.”

At the heart of the preservationists’ optimism is the agreement between the Coastal Commission and the owners of the site.

In order to receive a permit to demolish the remaining portions of the cottages, which was issued last week, the owners agreed to allow materials from the cottages to be salvaged, which means they might be used by an architectural school for education purposes. Architects say the materials will provide students with a wealth of information about how early proponents of the Arts and Crafts movement used materials and related buildings to the natural surroundings.

Most important, the agreement also stipulates that future development must adhere to the “significant” style, scale and character elements of the original Green Dragon, following specifics laid out in a five-page report by the state. The report covers almost every element of the original site, including the style of windows, doors, stairways and landscaping.

In other words, there will be no 10-story hotel on the site, no Art Deco office buildings, no convenience store.

What will be allowed on the 40,000-square-foot site is unclear, and preservationists have some concerns about the proposals that might emerge. The agreement requires anyone applying to build to do a feasibility study to determine “the appropriate type and intensity of use for the site.”

Opponents of the demolition hail the agreement as a significant step. Short of ordering the landowners to rebuild the colony, they say, the compromise is the best possible solution, a clear recognition of the site’s historical significance.

“The commission was able to transcend the mess,” said architect Tony Ciani, one of the leaders of the fight to save the Green Dragon. “It established another way in these kind of circumstances to carry forward the historical scale and character of the community.”

Marie Lia, attorney for the trust that controlled the property, said the Coastal Commission agreement is an “appropriate and valid decision.” But, she added, “we just wish the decision could have been reached in a much shorter time and at much less cost to the property owner.”

To local preservationists, historical guerrillas who are often termed “obstructionists” by their opponents, the fight over the Green Dragon is a sign of the times, in both a positive and negative sense. They blame city government for allowing the demolition to occur in the first place, while the Coastal Commission agreement is viewed as a further indication of growing support for preservation on the statewide level.

“The tragedy of the demolition is that it is basically an example of how nonsupportive and also subversive the city is to historical preservation,” said Suzanne Lawrence, a board member of the Save Our Heritage Organization.

But Lawrence can also cite many positive aspects of the fight over the cottages. Relationships were formed that may transcend the battle for one site. People got involved who might stay involved.

“It was very much a traditional type of historical preservation,” she said. “There was tragedy, and through tragedy people raise awareness.”

SOHO was born in 1969 after a similar fight to save the Sherman-Gilbert house, which is now part of Heritage Park in Old Town. “The Green Dragon is a classic rallying scenario,” Lawrence said.

The land for the Green Dragon was originally purchased in 1894 by German-born teacher Anna Held, who was governess for the family of Ulysses S. Grant Jr., the President’s son. During the early part of the 20th Century, the cottages built on the site became a well-known retreat for artists and writers.

From an architectural point of view, the cottages were seen as sterling examples of the Arts and Crafts movement. A counter to the mechanized architecture of the mid-19th Century, the Arts and Crafts style emphasized natural materials and handcrafted work. Irving Gill, one of the seminal architectural voices in San Diego, designed at least one of the cottages.

From the construction of the walls that withstood dozens of earthquakes to their placement on the hill overlooking the cove, the cottages were hailed as an important representation of local history.

“They were not heroic versions of Craftsman architecture or bungalow architecture that everybody is familiar with,” Ciani said. “They were not the stereotypes.

“This was the first human settlement in La Jolla as we know La Jolla today,” he said. “And it is important because it tells us how these people who came from all over the world treated this natural setting.”

The debate between those who saw the Green Dragon cottages as an eyesore and those who viewed them as a piece of local history was emotional and went on for at least six years. The cottages had been unused and boarded up for several years, after they had been designated a historical site in 1986 by the San Diego Historical Site Board.

The conflict between the landowners--a trust led by local architect Robert Mosher--and preservationists came to a head July 10, 1991, when the owners tore down most of the structures. The city had issued a demolition permit after settling a lawsuit the group brought against the city for not acting on its request to tear down the cottages. It took 30 hours for the attorney general’s office and Ciani to get a temporary restraining order to halt the demolition, but by then most of the cottages had been destroyed.

A lawsuit filed by the attorney general’s office, alleging that the owners ignored state law when they demolished the property, has been settled out of court, although the final papers have not been signed. Under the terms of the settlement, the owners will pay an undisclosed amount into a fund managed by the Coastal Conservancy, a state group charged with protecting coastal resources.

“Everybody tried to proceed in the best manner possible,” said Lia, attorney for the trust. “We need to improve the whole system of how to deal with historical sites.”

The partial demolition of the site put the Coastal Commission in an awkward position. In a way, it was dealing with a moot point, since the cottages had already been destroyed.

“It was the only project that I have dealt with where historic buildings were already demolished when they were specifically identified as historic,” said Coastal Planner Laurinda Owens of the commission.

The compromise attempts to mandate some recognition of the historical nature of the property, while also giving the property owners reasonable expectation of doing something with the land.

Both sides agree that it shouldn’t have taken six years and the demolition of the cottages to reach this point.

“Six years is too long to resolve anything,” said Jay Wharton, a trustee of the La Jolla Community Planning Assn. “What the (Green Dragon case) indicates to me is that there needs to be a process where people get to the table in good faith and try to resolve it.”

The battle has also prompted the state and city to examine more organized ways of identifying historical sites, so there is “not an arbitrary ‘Oops, that may have been historic,’ ” situation in which a site is accidentally destroyed, SOHO’s Lawrence said. Since the Green Dragon brouhaha, the state has taken the step of having each agency appoint a historical preservation officer.

In 1991, when Gov. Pete Wilson signed a bill tightening controls on historical properties, he specifically cited the Green Dragon as an example of why tougher laws are needed.

In June, the Green Dragon land was purchased from the Mosher Trust for $5.5 million by a partnership headed by Don Allison. The group also owns the neighboring shopping center, Coast Walk.

The new owners inherited the agreement with the Coastal Commission.

“I would rather not have (the requirements); it is just another layer of restrictions,” Allison said.

But the preservationists are jubilant.

“A lot of people feel empowered” in the wake of Green Dragon, Ciani said. “People feel more of a sense of having an avenue to government. They are not so overwhelmed by it all.”