"The issue before you is not to preserve and rehabilitate a work of marginal
importance; it is to assure the protection and survival of a work of great
significance."
"Anthea Hartig, Ph.d, Chairperson, State Historical Resources Commission
Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, California
"When I saw the Jackling house and what Jobs' neglect had done to it, it
brought tears to my eyes... I would be very happy to join and support your
organization.
I, too, believe you have a very strong case to stop this demolition. I had
feared that no one would have the guts and money to go up against Steve
Jobs. Thank you so much."
"Barbara Wood, Woodside Resident
Background on our group and court case - Click Here
|
July/ August/ September 2009 Judge retains jurisdiction, UOH demolishes case for demolition by faux relocation
Same Court that ruled against demolition in late 05 will read why Town and Jobs case is even less convincing today
As a unanimous California Appeals Court made very clear : none of the preservation solutions for the Jackling House prevent Steve Jobs from building a new house. It is not preservationists who are obstructing solutions -- only the obstinacy of trying to prove "financially infeasible" of Jobs' contributing to any real solution is dragging this back before the Trial Court Judge, in September.
Our attorney's "Supplemental Objections" show that their claiming "financial infeasibility" - if you do the math - does not hold up at all. ( see pages 4 and 5 ) And, as the National Trust pointed out earlier ( see letter below ), the so-called "solution" being promoted by the Town and Jobs' attorney is in fact hollow, and an evasion of responsibility by both the Town and the Owner.
See "Supplemental Objections", and National Trust letter, below.
The good news is, at least two financially feasible preservation options ARE open to Mr. Jobs, but would require his financial participation for a fraction of the value of his Woodside land. 1) Andrew Skurman's plans for glamorous restoration and sale of the Jackling House, or 2) Paul Berger's rebuilding the Jackling House on land he owns in Napa. Mr. Berger's earlier proposals offered Mr. Jobs a small profit ! However in front of the Council Mr. Ellman grossly distorted all of Berger's offers, even questioning the location of his land, which is at 2520 Pope Canyon Road, St. Helena, CA (http://gis.napa.ca.gov/prcl_smry/prcl_info.asp?parcel=018080048000&profile=PLANNING%20APPLICANT) . Unlike others, Paul Berger commits to reconstruct the House on a known site. And would negotiate the shared costs with Mr. Jobs' agent.
In addition, the Berger family company has exceptional experience restoring historic buildings. (http://www.bergerbro.com/portfolio-03.html ) and the company has committed to overseeing reconstruction of the Jackling House on this site This is verifiable information which the Council chose not to look at, relying instead on bluffing and misleading statements from Mr. Ellman.
The Smythe proposal, as Ellman himself emphasized in front of the Council, is "an attempt, not a commitment", but has been selected because it asks nothing of Jobs. UOH had not been shown Mr. Smythe's plans, but subsequently learned they do not even meet Mr. Ellman's previously stated criteria ( Ellman letter to Doug Carstens, March 2007 ) that there be "a definitive commitment.. suitably backed with financial ability to perform on a site acceptable to your principles". Mr. Ellman claiming Gordon Smythe has been the "most persistent and most professional" does not factually fit the objective chronology of offers they received. The Berger family began making offers in early 2005, Paul Berger later offering to negotiate on shared costs, reiterating his offer May 12, 2009 in an open letter to the Council.
Ellman and Jobs and the Council now promote a plan which enables the owner to merely pay for demolition, with nothing toward preservation of the historic resource as required under law. But as "that Judge" wrote back in late 2005, a contribution from Jobs toward preservation must be placed in context of the value of his Woodside land, which the Judge estimated upwards of $50million. Skurman's plans, without a luxury basement addition, would cost 1/5 this amount. Relocation to Berger's land would cost 1/8 and would achieve mitigation as required under law. Architect Andrew Skurman's beautifully restored Jackling House would be worth more on the market at much less cost per square foot, so none of their claims of "financial infeasibility" hold up under scrutiny.
For September hearing, UOH responds to hollow relocation deal
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aXMGGrrIASW0
UOH on Jackling House owner's opportunities and obligations
July 14 National Trust letter to Town regarding Jobs'/ Smythe deal
June 12, Court has jurisdiction over any decision to demolish
Apple’s Jobs Ordered Back to Court Over Mansion-Demolition Plan
Regarding what Jobs could do with the House, as the Appeals Court wrote, NO
one is preventing him from building his new house. He could build it on the
ample property, while restoring the old house and selling it at a profit, or
contributing as promised to getting it relocated. Architect Andrew Skurman,
hired BY Jobs' team, testified showing plans for the beautifully restorable
House, which he told us IS exceptionally exquisite architecture. His high
end figure would be $13m, including a grand new basement. Jobs is claiming
his small new house would cost around $8m. Relocation of the House would we
are told cost about $6m, but Jobs has rejected offers from people
willing to share the costs. Judge Weiner had estimated the value of Jobs'
Woodside land at over 50m$, so any alternative to demolition costs a
fraction of just the land value. The law requires adopting a feasible
alternative to demolishing a historic resource.
May 21 UOH files "Objection" with Court, since any demolition decision is still under Court's Jurisdiction
After the Town Council (with Mayor dissenting) paid little attention to details of three Court rulings in our favor, our attorney Doug Carstens and National Trust attorney Brian Turner reminded the Town that any new decision on demolition remains under the Court's jurisdiction. Now the Town Staff and their specially hired attorney will try to come up with legal language to justify a Council vote for demolition at the next meeting, June 9.
But like state of the art animation, the picture being shown the Council looks impressive but glosses over bothersome inconsistencies and the same evidence found missing four years ago.
Successive Courts ruled against approving Mr. Jobs' demolition plans unless all alternatives such as relocation or restoration are proved infeasible. His attorney's evidence failed to meet that test in 2004, and although their evidence is much glossier now we believe it doesn't address inconvenient facts and episodes.
We recently learned that the attorney hired by the Town to advise the Council on this matter had a professional relationship with Pixar. No wonder more Woodside residents are outraged now and are discreetly supporting UOH. The pointless destruction of local heritage is bad enough.
Now they worry that State laws, when inconvenient, get airbrushed over.
UOH filed an Objection with the Court, pointing out the Courts have repeatedly written that unless infeasibility of other options is proven, the Town must deny demolition, and that the Owner's unwillingness to pay does NOT equal infeasibility. Jobs' lawyer's arguments show how strong is the unwillingness to discuss his contribution, but do not prove all options are "financially infeasible" Common sense relocating the House and selling it, or restoring it and selling it, could be profitable to Mr. Jobs, and the contrary has never been proven. Viable offers to relocate the House (see Berger letters, below, and http://bergerbro.com/portfolio-02.html, http://bergerbro.com/portfolio-03.html ) have been made to Jobs' attorney, who for four years has refused to disclose Jobs' publicly promised contribution toward a relocation solution. Until this contribution can be evaluated, "financial infeasibility" has not been proven.
READ LAWYER'S RECAP OF HOW JOBS' EVIDENCE DOESN'T PROVE FINANCIAL INFEASIBILITY, AND WHY CREATING GREEN SPACE IS A BOGUS AND ILLEGAL JUSTIFICATION FOR DESTROYING A HISTORIC RESOURCE
The reams of cost comparisons shown the Council were all provided by Jobs' hired consultants. Estimates per square foot for the proposed new house were, even to Council members, preposterously low. Meanwhile, reliable costs of relocation have not been shown. We also cite the Court's ruling that Jobs cannot decide unilaterally what is feasible, what he doesn't feel like paying toward a preservation alternative. Unwillingness does NOT equal infeasibility. So far Council members are unwilling to ask the taboo question, what is Jobs' reasonable contribution toward relocation, his idea to begin with?
May 12, Council moved toward vote on tear-down, apparently uninformed on rulings and recent evidence
We and our brilliant allies from the National Trust, and new supporters such as the Art Deco Society of California, attended and were dumbfounded when a Council member expressed his opinion that the House would not be suitable for 21st century living. Had he slept through earlier testimony from architect Andrew Skurman showing precisely the opposite ? The irony is that Skurman was hired by Jobs' team!
Skurman's plans and drawings showed the Jackling House is restorable, is retrofittable, and would be a highly glamorous and valuable residence. Skurman's professional testimony before the Council contradicted this Council member's personal musings. Skurman's testimony also contradicted Jobs' claim that the House is an "abomination" beyond repair.
Jaws dropped when another Council member claimed environmental "open space" benefits (!) from tearing down the Jackling House. Dumping this "masterpiece" (as the Trust's Director called the House) into landfill is extremely irresponsible environmentally. Even more bizarre, why did this gentleman and the Council ignore 5 pages the Court dedicated to rejecting exactly the fallacious and illegal "open space" argument?
Another Council member asked why the National Trust never made an offer to buy the Jackling house (!) Was she unaware that all communication from Jobs' attorney over the past eight years was that his client had NO interest in selling ? Any Google search will show that the House was never marketed for sale. Anthea Hartig, of the Trust, patiently tried to correct the Council's befuddlement and noted that over the last four years the Trust has never been called by either Jobs or the Town in view of any productive discussion.
The Council, visibly under great pressure, was offered several non- confrontational legally sound exit strategies by UOH's Doug Carstens. A Woodside resident has suggested another safe exit for the Council : "The basic problem is meeting the conditions of the application, which is the applicant's responsibility, and he has not met them. So the council ONLY needs to look at that. Period." But the Council, with one exception, heeded only Jobs' and the Town's special (former Pixar) attorney.
Ellman waving his arms stating he'd see to it that the Council's decision on demolition would never go back in front of "that Judge" ! Oops ! The decision DOES go back to "that judge" -- whose thorough ruling on this case was upheld by higher courts including the State Supreme Court. Mr. Ellman fumed against UOH and the National Trust for not even getting the House on some historic register ! Basic CEQA Law 101, which he knows perfectly well, states that this cannot happen without an owner's consent. Ellman's tone before the Town Council then shifted to aggrieved exasperation, on how he and his client really tried to "sell the darn house" ( note the very misleading word SELL ) but no one wants the darn thing. The undisputed fact is his client has publicly refused to sell the House. Ellman then complained that he and his client had patiently waited thinking someone would come forward saying they were "a little short" on money, and would have been helped out by Steve ! "We were very precise about this" Ellman added, emphatically. Hearing this whopping mistruth, people in the audience gasped and the Mayor's jaw dropped. He asked Ellman, where exactly had they ever made such a "precise" offer known ?
A suddenly mumbling Ellman evaded the question, because their "financial infeasibility" argument is that Jobs is only willing to pay to demolish, not toward reconstruction off site, even though the Courts require "mitigation".
The Town has allowed Mr. Jobs to unilaterally decide what he feels like paying to resolve his legal impasse, and he's decided to pay nothing beyond demolition.
See MarketWatch article overview, and architect plans for restoring the House.
More articles & letters:
Arguments made at April 28 meeting | Apple CEO Steve Jobs stays home; attorney makes case for demolishing Woodside home | Group Fights Steve Jobs to Save Historic California Mansion | Letter to Mayor Mason, Town Council members, and Madam Town Manager from Clotilde Luce (Word Doc) | Paul A. Berger October 19, 2006 | Paul A. Berger April 17, 2009 | Steve Juniper Letter | Read historian's fascinating letter showing Jobs' debt to Jackling | Woodside Colludes With Jobs to Destroy Jackling House
April 28 Town Council hears from us, from Jobs' attorney
In 2004 an Environmental Impact Report was approved by the Council which permitted demolition, but Jobs' plan was found to be inadequate by three courts up to the State Supreme Court. Jobs' attorney submitted supplemental information that attempts to address those inadequacies. At the 4/28 meeting Brian Turner for the National Trust, author Kathryn Masson from Washington DC, UOH President Clotilde Luce, and several residents submitted written and spoken testimony on the inadequacy of Jobs' "new evidence." We noted that the only piece of independent evidence the Town had was the Judd Report showing that relocation/restoration IS feasible. We again asked, will the Town, as is its purview, finally require the famous promised contribution from Jobs toward relocation ? We recommended negotiations on shared costs with qualified interested parties be carried out with a Mediator.
Following the meeting, architect Andrew Skurman, hired by Jobs' team to draw plans for renovation, sadly just to prove renovation of a huge house costs more than a new smaller house, told preservationists that the House IS a highly refined piece of architecture which once restored would be amazing as a residence.
The Town of Woodside Current Issues & Events
November 2008 Appeals Court affirms fees to our attorneys
"Congrats to all of us & esp to our attorneys who stuck w.us. Hopefully,
they will get a commensurate return on all their work." -- UOH member
Richard, in Seattle
Sample from 12 page Court ruling, again validating our case:
• "The Court also found that the action [Uphold our Heritage’s lawsuit]
conferred a significant benefit on the general public...
The Court awarded Heritage a total of $403,548 in fees… more than 75
percent of the fees were incurred in the appellate proceedings…
• "The future of the historic home is still undecided, but there are several
potential scenarios under which the historic value of the property
will be permanently preserved
• "In addition, We agree with the trial court that the action "raised issues of
law, specifically regarding the issue of ‘economic infeasibility’ … as to which the Court of Appeal … found that refusal of an applicant to
proceed with alternatives is not a "legal infeasibility " under CEQA.
(page 5 of full decision, see PDF below)
The Court has again validated our group’s efforts, deeming our case to be
"of public benefit" therefore awarding fees to attorneys who took on this
case with no guarantee they’d get paid more than the modest capped fee
UOH raised through donations. The Court’s 12 page decision
(see PDF, below) amplifies an earlier Court’s ruling which Jobs appealed.
NB : our group will get no monetary award, all money raised or awarded
goes to "legal". The Court noted (page 11) that 75% of our legal fees
were due to Jobs’ successive appeals over the last three years.
• PDF Court Decision
• Apple's Jobs Must Pay Opponents' Legal Bill in Mansion Fight
• Woodside group wins fee award in Steve Jobs case
by Andrea Gemmet News - Wednesday, November 19,
2008
• Legal Pad: Jobs Loses Fees Ruling, Checks Sofa Cushions
An email we received congratulates UOH but adds: "It is truly frustrating
that the court system allows someone like SJ to continually delay and
frustrate good faith efforts .." This email is from a construction expert
highly experienced in heritage restoration and owner of an appropriate
site, whose offers from 2005 to 2007 to Jobs’ attorney to negotiate
relocating the House were simply dismissed.
May 2008: History of Pixar features Jackling House case
"THE PIXAR TOUCH" (Alfred A Knopf, New York, 2008) by business writer
David Price, delves into unpublicized episodes in the history of Apple,
Pixar, and Disney. Price has written for the Wall Street Journal, Forbes,
the Washington Post, etc. Jobs' less public persona is a leitmotif
throughout the book, and the book ends with a critical interpretation on
his handling of the Woodside house.
* And Timothy LeCain, Ph.D, who has written extensively on technology
and the environment, is publishing a book about Daniel Jackling's
contribution to modern America. LeCain had no prior relations with UOH
when he contacted us. In his first email to us LeCain wrote :
"I believe the evidence shows that Jackling was in many ways just as
significant to the creation of modern America as Henry Ford .... Would
Jobs have proposed tearing down Henry Ford's historic home? The irony
is all the greater since Jobs has made his own fortune through machines
that depend on electricity supplied, by and large, via wires made of
copper. ... so in a very real sense Jobs' entire career has depended on
Jackling's innovations. That Jobs repays this historic debt by attempting
to tear down Jackling's house strikes me as a particularly egregious case
of historical amnesia."
* Diane Keaton's book "CALIFORNIA ROMANTICA" (Rizzoli, 2007) offers
the most artistic photos of George Washington Smith's Southern
California homes to appear anywhere. Photos of Smith's Ogilvy House,
seen gutted and undergoing renovation, will be particularly poignant to
those who made repeated attempts to negotiate to restore the Jackling
House.
Re-cap 2007, UOH prevails once, twice, in court
From December 2006 to December 2007, UOH's court win was upheld
twice : unanimously in Appeals and again when the California Supreme
Court denied Steve Jobs' request to re-hear the case. As recently as July
2007, realistic options that would preserve the historic residence were
being offered to Mr. Jobs by qualified and motivated parties.
August 2007 Read article "Chutzpah of Preservationists vs. Hubris of CEO"
Article provides more background on the Jackling case and rebuts
common misconceptions about preservationists. Home Miami Article
May 2007: UOH goes to Hollywood
Note Oscar statue! (Oscar is not yet a member of UOH) We were honored
to speak at a very lively California Preservation Foundation event held in
Hollywood's Kodak Theater. It was a pleasure to finally thank leaders from
the CPF and the National Trust, who stood with us in Court. The next day
UOH members got to visit the Casa del Herrero and other Smith-designed
buildings in Santa Barbara, with author and UOH member Pat Gebhard.
April 2007: State Supreme Court rebuffs further appeal
The high Court denied Jobs and Town’s request to reconsider the Appeals
Court January 2007 decisions in our favor.
See: Decision PDF
Jobs’ and Town’s attorneys argued to the Supreme Court that the
"intention" of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was that it
be "voluntary." Read Doug Carstens' succinct rebuttal: Answer for
petition for Answer for petition for Review.doc
And since some bloggers misrepresent what the law requires of Jobs, it is
worth reading Carstens' words carefully:
"the implication that an obligation to restore and preserve a residence
has been imposed is a red herring…. no one has imposed an obligation on
Appellant Jobs to restore the House." However the courts have made it
clear that the owner must show that demolition is the only option, and
that this law was not intended to be "voluntary".
Congratulations to our attorneys and huge thanks to the National Trust's
Dr. Anthea Hartig in San Francisco for filing a brief in court with us, and to
the California Preservation Foundation. Sample of press coverage:
http://www.almanacnews.com/news/show_story.php?id=614
January 2007: A year after first win, we win in Appeal
Appeals Court unanimously upheld our January 2006 win in Trial Court.
The New York Times called UOH's Appeals win "a major legal victory."
Uphold our Heritage members in California, Washington, Florida, Virginia,
Connecticut, Massachusetts, France, and Portugal, among them several
architects and authors on architecture, are vindicated. The feasibility of
preserving this historic resource is evidenced by the fact that serious
proposals have been made to relocate and rebuild it, and that the Town's
own consultants have shown that relocation and preservation are feasible.
Press Points to Exit Strategy
|
HELP WITH A TAX DEDUCTIBLE DONATION TO THE NATIONAL TRUST
Donations are tax-deductible!
National Trust for Historic Preservation
The Hearst Building, 5 Third Street, Suite 707
San Francisco, CA 94103
Phone: 415.947.0692
FAX: 415.947.0699
Specify "for the Jackling house."
|
