Jones Lang LaSalle
CA 01 04 06
STEVE JOBS' BROKEDOWN TEARDOWN
Peter Slatin
With a stinging rebuke for a town that has gone out of its way for Apple founder Steve Jobs, a California judge has squashed Jobs' dreams of demolishing the house he bought 22 years ago, but never saw as a dream home.
The case turned on questions of historic preservation and a town's mandate to uphold its own statutes rather then bend them to the wishes of a single powerful local property owner.
California Superior Court Judge Marie Weiner ruled on Dec. 28 that a decision by the Town Council of wealthy Woodside, in San Mateo County, to support Jobs' application to demolish his house was "the utter antithesis of its existing General Plan." Weiner called that document, which sets forth the legal requirements governing development in Woodside, "one of conservation, preservation and certainly maintenance of existing structures." This last was likely a reference to the fact that most of the doors and all of the windows have been removed from the house – Jobs testified that he had no idea who had ordered that done - allowing the elements, and vandals, to have their way with it.
The judge also wrote that the actions of the local government "simply demonstrate the Town Council?s exaggerated efforts to find a means to the end that Jobs seeks."
Jobs lived as a bachelor in the historic Daniel C. Jackling House for a decade after buying it in 1983, when he was just 29 years old. But the billionaire computer maven has for years sought to tear down the 17,000-square-foot mansion, built in 1926 by a copper mining baron, and to replace it with a roughly 6,000-square-foot modern house.
The house was designed by architect George Washington Smith, who is credited with creating the Spanish colonial revival look of wealthy towns such as Santa Barbara and Montecito. At least one Smith house is on the National Register of Historic Places. Other Smith homes in California have listed for as much as $21 million in recent years; Jobs paid $2 million for the Jackling House.
After Jobs first sought demolition permission, a mandated state review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) found that the house qualified to be on the state's registry of historic sites. CEQA, which was enacted more than 30 years ago, says Santa Monica attorney Doug Carstens, who worked with preservation groups on the case, is a "very specific statutory scheme to protect the environment and economy." Basically, he says, it means that, in the absence of proof of "feasible alternatives, public agencies are not allowed to approve projects with significant adverse affects on the environment or historic resources."
Therein is the off-kilter crux of the Jobs case. For it was the Woodside Town Council itself that found, in 2004, that Jobs' house indeed deserved protection as a historic state resource – and then, on the same day, ruled that there were "overriding considerations" for granting Jobs' wishes.
That didn't hold for the plaintiffs, an ad hoc coalition of historic preservationists from within and outside the community. "The town itself concluded that the house was a significant resource and that to demolish it would have a significant adverse impact - at the same time as it approved demolition," says Carstens.
And in doing so, Judge Weiner ruled, the town essentially was trying to ignore its own laws. She wouldn't have it. "The finding of overriding consideration was not supported by substantial evidence," wrote Weiner, "and the granting of the demolition permit by Woodside to Jobs was an abuse of discretion."
What's next? Oddly enough, Jobs could again ask Woodside to re-evaluate his request by supplying new evidence that would somehow mitigate the adverse effects of demolition on the stated aims of the town's General Plan. He has previously offered to donate the house to anyone who would pay to dismantle, move and rebuild it, and although preservationists say there has been serious interest, nothing has come of it. Estimates of the cost of such a move range up to $10 million, though the ultimate price tag is almost impossible to predict. Or he could continue to let the property, on some dozen acres at the end of a private road, continue to deteriorate.
Attorney Doug Carstens notes that, while Judge Weiner's ruling doesn't redefine California law or set a precedent, it is a reaffirmation of that law. "The town can't act on a whim to break their own rules," says Carstens. "They have to follow what this democracy has mandated."
Jobs may be an innovator, but he isn't the first high-tech titan to run into a brick wall trying to tear down a historic property. According to a 2004 article in the San Francisco Chronicle, both NetScape's Jim Clark and Oracle's Larry Ellison tussled with Woodside in the past. Clark wanted to demolish a 1915 stable by the same architect, George Washington Smith, but eventually agreed to move it to another location on his property. Ellison, too, cooperated with Woodside. He won permission to dismantle and store a 1913 house designed by Hearst Castle architect Julia Morgan.
CA 01 04 06
STEVE JOBS' BROKEDOWN TEARDOWN
Peter Slatin
With a stinging rebuke for a town that has gone out of its way for Apple founder Steve Jobs, a California judge has squashed Jobs' dreams of demolishing the house he bought 22 years ago, but never saw as a dream home.
The case turned on questions of historic preservation and a town's mandate to uphold its own statutes rather then bend them to the wishes of a single powerful local property owner.
California Superior Court Judge Marie Weiner ruled on Dec. 28 that a decision by the Town Council of wealthy Woodside, in San Mateo County, to support Jobs' application to demolish his house was "the utter antithesis of its existing General Plan." Weiner called that document, which sets forth the legal requirements governing development in Woodside, "one of conservation, preservation and certainly maintenance of existing structures." This last was likely a reference to the fact that most of the doors and all of the windows have been removed from the house – Jobs testified that he had no idea who had ordered that done - allowing the elements, and vandals, to have their way with it.
The judge also wrote that the actions of the local government "simply demonstrate the Town Council?s exaggerated efforts to find a means to the end that Jobs seeks."
Jobs lived as a bachelor in the historic Daniel C. Jackling House for a decade after buying it in 1983, when he was just 29 years old. But the billionaire computer maven has for years sought to tear down the 17,000-square-foot mansion, built in 1926 by a copper mining baron, and to replace it with a roughly 6,000-square-foot modern house.
The house was designed by architect George Washington Smith, who is credited with creating the Spanish colonial revival look of wealthy towns such as Santa Barbara and Montecito. At least one Smith house is on the National Register of Historic Places. Other Smith homes in California have listed for as much as $21 million in recent years; Jobs paid $2 million for the Jackling House.
After Jobs first sought demolition permission, a mandated state review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) found that the house qualified to be on the state's registry of historic sites. CEQA, which was enacted more than 30 years ago, says Santa Monica attorney Doug Carstens, who worked with preservation groups on the case, is a "very specific statutory scheme to protect the environment and economy." Basically, he says, it means that, in the absence of proof of "feasible alternatives, public agencies are not allowed to approve projects with significant adverse affects on the environment or historic resources."
Therein is the off-kilter crux of the Jobs case. For it was the Woodside Town Council itself that found, in 2004, that Jobs' house indeed deserved protection as a historic state resource – and then, on the same day, ruled that there were "overriding considerations" for granting Jobs' wishes.
That didn't hold for the plaintiffs, an ad hoc coalition of historic preservationists from within and outside the community. "The town itself concluded that the house was a significant resource and that to demolish it would have a significant adverse impact - at the same time as it approved demolition," says Carstens.
And in doing so, Judge Weiner ruled, the town essentially was trying to ignore its own laws. She wouldn't have it. "The finding of overriding consideration was not supported by substantial evidence," wrote Weiner, "and the granting of the demolition permit by Woodside to Jobs was an abuse of discretion."
What's next? Oddly enough, Jobs could again ask Woodside to re-evaluate his request by supplying new evidence that would somehow mitigate the adverse effects of demolition on the stated aims of the town's General Plan. He has previously offered to donate the house to anyone who would pay to dismantle, move and rebuild it, and although preservationists say there has been serious interest, nothing has come of it. Estimates of the cost of such a move range up to $10 million, though the ultimate price tag is almost impossible to predict. Or he could continue to let the property, on some dozen acres at the end of a private road, continue to deteriorate.
Attorney Doug Carstens notes that, while Judge Weiner's ruling doesn't redefine California law or set a precedent, it is a reaffirmation of that law. "The town can't act on a whim to break their own rules," says Carstens. "They have to follow what this democracy has mandated."
Jobs may be an innovator, but he isn't the first high-tech titan to run into a brick wall trying to tear down a historic property. According to a 2004 article in the San Francisco Chronicle, both NetScape's Jim Clark and Oracle's Larry Ellison tussled with Woodside in the past. Clark wanted to demolish a 1915 stable by the same architect, George Washington Smith, but eventually agreed to move it to another location on his property. Ellison, too, cooperated with Woodside. He won permission to dismantle and store a 1913 house designed by Hearst Castle architect Julia Morgan.
posted by Jones Lang LaSalle NJ News Blog at 10:47 AM
<< Home