Continued from yesterday’s Part 2 and the previous Part 1.]
For two posts now we’ve been following, via the Town Manager’s April 28, 2009 Report to Town Council (pdf) in Woodside, California, the eight-year saga of patient homeowner Steve Jobs, who is merely seeking to do what 99.9% of American would think an inalienable right, namely to demolish his own house, a 1925 white elephant crumbling even as the zoning process grinds on:
Not located on Sunset Boulevard:
The Jacking House, by Joanthan Habner
When last we left our hero, he’d been sent off to document, exhaustively, both the cost of building a new house and the cost of doing five other things.
1. Do nothing. Leave the house untouched. Without a trace of irony, the report observes
The EIR Addendum concludes that Alternative 1 would not meet the basic Project objectives of replacing the Residence with a smaller single-family home that comports with the Town Code –
While it’s by no means the hinge point of this decision, it appears the current house is very much non-conforming, existing in its larger-than-permitted and un-earthquake-proofed state only because its construction antedated those changes.
– and contains a modern floor plan and amenities consistent with current standards and expectations.
If the Jackling House burned down, you couldn’t rebuild it tomorrow, and if you did, you couldn’t live in it because of the earthquake risk. I tend to think Daniel Jackling would snort, “Case closed!”
Daniel Jackling,
“If it’s in the way, bulldoze it!”
Unsurprisingly, if Mr. Jobs does nothing, the house will slowly fall down:
Let me Usher this house out of existence
The EIR Addendum also finds that this alternative may not result in the protection of the historic Residence due to the ongoing deterioration of the Residence and the lack of assurances that the Residence would be restored and used if the Project is not approved.
Some people, not unreasonably, suspect and allege that Mr. Jobs has been deliberately not maintaining the house so as to change the facts on the ground – but as against that, if you know you want to tear down a house, why would you spend any money that (1) at best is lost and non-recoverable, or (2) at worst simply makes it harder for you to achieve your objective?
2. Restore the existing house. Renovate back to habitability and a high standard.
Since this alternative would primarily alter the interior of the Residence and leave the exterior of the Residence intact, the EIR Addendum concludes that Alternative 2 would avoid the significant, unavoidable impact to the historic resource.
This is what the Friends of the Jackling House would prefer, but it has two problems.
A. Even if restored, Mr. Jobs does not want to live in that structure
However, the EIR Addendum goes on to state that it does not appear that this alternative would meet most of the basic Project objectives of replacing the Residence with a smaller home that contains a modern floor plan and amenities.
Hallway with refrigerator
As the modern American home continues to evolve, some properties become functionally obsolescent to the point where their skeleton is inadequate to modern use. Some rooms are too big; others too small. Plumbing and wiring have to be completely ripped out and replaced. Insulation may be difficult, climate control impossible, energy efficiency a pipe dream.
B. It will cost more than building a new house
The EIR Addendum also suggests that the cost of this alternative (which could be comparable to the cost of Alternative 2A, which also involves interior renovation of the Residence) may make it economically infeasible since it could exceed the Project costs by approximately $5 million.
Some properties just need to go somewhere to die. Against that inevitable age, we will preserve those whose existence links so strongly to our history that money is no object – and when money is no object, then it must be government who pays, not the private owner. That’s one thing eminent domain is for.
If you Revere it, you must spare no expense
3. Restore it with an addition. It is then proposed that Mr. Jobs build a new wing – a new house to which the current one is appended, almost like a clone or offshoot.
This restoration alternative [is] similar to Alternative 2, but with modifications to the existing Residence to create a more conventional floor plan, as well as a major 16,000 square foot addition to the Residence to include a new living area, office suite and fitness area.
To save a 17,000 square foot house by building on the same site a new 16,000 square foot house seems carrying the preservation mission far into the domain of new development. Indeed, if it worked, imagine how many magnates would use that as a means of winkling an oversize house onto their white-elephant’s lot!
I have a Hearst for expansion
The EIR Addendum concludes that this alternative would not avoid the significant, unavoidable impact to the historic Residence or meet most of the basic Project objectives.
You mean, that Mr. Jobs might not want a 16,000 square foot addition?
The EIR Addendum also suggests that the estimated $20 million cost of this alternative (using the conservative Final EIR restoration cost of $4.9 million plus nearly $15 million for the 16,000 square foot addition based upon the per square foot estimate for the new home) may make it economically infeasible.
Translation: Next!
4. Restore it and move it elsewhere on-site. Shift it on the six acres and build new elsewhere. This alternative to demolition hypothesizes that, like a multi-segmented mobile home, the Jackling House could be trundled to a less conspicuous spot (and once transplanted, preserved against the elements), freeing up well-situated land for Mr. Jobs to build his new house.
Back then the challenge was building it …
The EIR Addendum concludes that this alternative would avoid the significant adverse impact to the historic Residence, and may, depending on its specific characteristics, meet most of the basic Project objectives.
If possible, this would be pleasing, but then there’s that problem: the white elephant has to squat somewhere, and the land is finite:
However, the EIR Addendum concludes that this alternative may be infeasible for legal and/or economic reasons because it:
[Legal] Would exceed the maximum amount of development allowed on the Property per the Town Code
[Economic] and is estimated to cost between $14.8 million (using the conservative estimated Final EIR restoration cost of $6.6 million plus the estimated $8.2 million Project cost) and $21.5 million (using the applicant’s estimated $13.3 million restoration cost).
In short, there’s just not enough room on-site.
Too tight a squeeze?
5. Move the house and reassemble it somewhere else. For many of us, this would be by far the happiest outcome. Homes do get relocated and live happy lives once they have moved. [I find it hugely ironic that Suzette Kelo's pink house, which was the subject of the landmark Supreme Court decision Kelo v. New London on eminent domain taking, was itself moved into the site of so much contention.]
Readers have already seen, in Hermit Crab Housing, that when a more modest and economically obsolescent existing structure can be relocated, it saves costs, creates valuable new affordable housing, and is much greener than demolition and landfill.
The EIR Addendum concurs with the Final EIR that the analysis of this alternative is “highly speculative” and depends on factors such as the feasibility of moving the Residence –
What usually moves, however, are small houses, not an elephant train like this one:
– which would have to be accomplished in pieces, down a narrow driveway and onto a sloping road with overarching trees and utility lines.
That kind of dismantling and reassembly is normally reserved for Greek or Egyptian temples (as at Philae or
Nice face lift
Oh by the way, there’s another problem – nowhere to go:
Assuming that it is physically possible to relocate the Residence and that a suitable off-site location could be found (no such site has been identified despite the applicant’s marketing efforts),
Talk about a killer parenthetical!
[Hence, if pigs could fly… – Ed.] the Project could avoid the significant, unavoidable impact to the historic Residence and achieve the basic Project objectives.
The Town Council staff thus prepared a handy chart comparing the alternatives, which in the interests of clarity I’ve reformatted (without changing any of the Yes/ No/ Maybe conclusions):
After this exhaustive exercise in proving the blindingly obvious, the EIR found that things physically feasible cost lots more money, and things that didn’t cost more money neither built a new house nor stopped the current house from crumbling.
Ladies and gentlemen of the electronic Town Council, you have now heard the staff’s report.
How would you vote?
Remember, then Friends of the Jackling House will be watching:
On May 12, 2009, the Woodside Town Council may vote to wiggle around a string of Court rulings AGAINST granting demolition of this historic mansion. There is still no adequate evidence to grant demolition.
Before you vote, let me add the most ironic part:
It is important to point out that in acting on this application, the Town Council’s authority is limited. The Council may approve or deny the demolition permit. The Council does not have authority to direct that one of the restoration alternatives described below be implemented.
Because directing such an action would be equivalent to a taking, and that would cost the town a lot of money.
I wonder, did Mr. Jobs realize that if he submitted plans for a big new house, such a projection might cost a high enough figure that it would make salvaging the Jackling house economically feasible? Might he have gamed the new-house price down?
Council members asked why cost estimates for renovation of the Jackling House appeared so high, while projected costs for a proposed new house for Mr. Jobs appeared preposterously low. Will there really be very low-grade surfaces in the new master bathroom? many wondered in disbelief.
Now you see it …
Remember, the demolition approval has nothing to do with the application for a new house. Mr. Jobs could then change his mind.
… Now you don’t
It’s my mansion and will die if I want it to
Die if I want it to.
Die if I want it to.
The end?
UPDATE: The council voted Yes:
Woodside council votes to let Steve Jobs move forward with demolition of historic mansion
By Jessica Bernstein-Wax
Daily News Staff Writer
Posted: 05/13/2009 12:21:41 AM PDT
Updated: 05/13/2009 12:21:45 AM PDT
The Woodside Town Council on Tuesday voted to let Apple CEO Steve Jobs move forward with plans to demolish his historic 14-bedroom house in the Woodside hills.
In a 6-1 vote, with Mayor Peter Mason opposing, council members instructed town staff to update an environmental impact report and draft a demolition permit, which would enable Jobs to knock down the 17,250-square-foot Spanish revival mansion known as the Jackling House and build a much smaller home on the property. Those items will return to the council at its regular meeting June 9.
“I love old Spanish revival homes — I have a couple of them myself, and I’ve restored them,” Council Member Dave Tanner said at the meeting. “I can tell you it’s a thing of love. I didn’t see any reason to try to restore or maintain this house,” he said of the Jackling House.
Given time, I will post more on this saga, as there are some interesting/ entertaining side notes about local land use, the futility doctrine (remedies need not be pursued if they are futile), and how the comment process can be used.
convert this post to pdf.
