By Jonathan Baer
The Board of Trustees of Foothill De Anza Community College District voted on Aug. 1 to tear down Griffin House, a 1901 house built for Willard Griffin, a founder of Del Monte Packing. And while the destruction of the building is a tragic loss of an irreplaceable architectural and historic National Register landmark, there is a far more disturbing aspect of this situation. The facts that the district staff and board have used in justifying tearing down Griffin House are simply not true and in some cases start to look like the oldest excuse in the world: “The dog ate my homework.”
So why is Griffin House being torn down?
The EIR and findings that form the basis on which the trustees will decide to demolish Griffin House are factually incorrect.
The district claims they have a fiduciary responsibility not to spend funds in excess of the cost of new construction to restore the building. Friends of Griffin House over the past nine months has evaluated the cost and feasibility of restoring Griffin House. It can be restored for the same cost per square foot as new construction - and perhaps less if matching grants are sought. We have pointed out to both the staff and the board some very serious errors in the analyses that have been developed by the district and its architects. District staff has claimed that restoration would cost three times the cost of new construction based upon outdated designs and cost calculations; our team of professionals determined that the costs were comparable, based upon our obtaining current construction numbers and basing the renovation on the district’s current needs.
State law requires the district to use state historic building code when restoring a building on the National Register. Doing so helps preserve important architectural features of the structure and also reduces restoration costs dramatically. Yet district staff has not, and in fact refuses to, use this building code in evaluating restoration costs.
Since acquiring the 97 acre-site along with the house in the late 1950s, the district has failed to provide ongoing maintenance of the building; basic items like painting have not been done. Friends of Griffin House raised over $100,000 in the 1990s so that a new roof could be installed. Yet the district has failed to repair broken windows (or at the very least cover them with plastic sheeting to prevent rain and animals from entering). The district talks about the poor condition of the building without acknowledging their direct responsibility for its current state of disrepair.
The district has being complaining for years that restoring Griffin House would be at the expense of its primary mission of education - but the district will spend a significant amount of money on a new facility. Once it is torn down they will spend more than $4.6 million building a new structure and another $3 million to renovate the existing district offices. Further the district claims they have no money for Griffin House - a claim they have been making both when they did not have money as well as when they did have money. A $248 million bond measure passed in 1999 was earmarked specifically for facilities renovation, yet not a dime of that money has been spent on Griffin House. And even if the district does not have sufficient funds to fully restore the building today, a new bond measure for district facilities is likely to be passed in the next few years.
So it’s not a question of money. The district simply does not want Griffin House.
The district claims that there are no other locations suitable for new administrative offices - somewhat hard to image on a 97-acre campus. Yet the district’s own architects recently identified three suitable locations for additional facilities that would not necessitate tearing down Griffin House. But to the best of my knowledge the board never discussed any of those alternatives.
The district claims that Griffin House is unsuitable for its purposes. Yet anyone who has toured the building knows that this 7,500 square foot structure would provide exceptional office and meeting rooms. Just visit the restored Douglas Hall at Menlo School and you will know what I mean.
The district claims that it will mitigate the loss by photographing the building and providing architectural elements to local museums prior to tearing the house down. Photos and a few fragments on display cannot in any way substitute for the actual experience of being in this magnificent country estate. The prominent architectural firm of Wolfe and McKenzie in San Jose designed the house. It is one of the most prominent examples of shingle style architecture both locally and in the state; it is a landmark example of a country estate in the Santa Clara Valley of the Hearts Delight.
And despite the board President Sandy Hay’s request that staff reconcile widely different cost numbers presented by Friends of Griffin House and district staff, the staff has refused to do so. I am disappointed and disturbed that the board made its decision without this reconciliation of the cost numbers. In the end, the board has chosen to ignore significant information and simply base its decision on the work and recommendations of district staff.
This last point is perhaps the most serious. The board of trustees has a fiduciary responsibility to the community that elected them. The board cannot and should not simply be a rubber stamp for the district staff. Yet in this case that is what has happened. How else can you explain the trustees’ decision to accept the EIR and approve destruction of Griffin House when they have not questioned or been able to reconcile vastly different cost analyses?
So it’s now the end of the semester and time to grade the trustees on their carrying out their fiduciary responsibilities and duties as regard Griffin House. Unfortunately they get failing grades. And the local community that elected them should not be willing to tolerate such a poor job.
Jonathan Baer of Los Altos Hills is a member of Friends of Griffin House.
