Photograph by George Sakkestad
Sue Anawalt (second from left) watches as Heritage Preservation Committee members (from left) John Wimer, Adu Bagley (behind) and Gerry Peters inspect her Queen Anne cottage.
By Clarence Cromwell
The scale appears to be tipping in favor of looser restrictions on owners of historic properties in Monte Sereno. First, Joel Gambord and Gordon Knight won council seats in a Nov. 5 upset. Both say they want the city to loosen up historical regulations.
Now, other councilmembers say they're willing to reconsider whether the law protecting historical homes should apply only to those owners who volunteer to participate in the historical registry.
The Heritage Preservation Ordinance, adopted March 7, 1995, created the Heritage Preservation Committee and charged it with historical guard duties: Create the inventory of historically important buildings and properties; gather information about them; review the list every three years; and examine landowners' applications to modify the houses. There was no opposition at the time, councilmembers said.
The fate of some Monte Sereno historical buildings, however, could be determined by the proposed volunteer clause because the job of officially adding most properties to the historical inventory remains to be completed by the City Council. Only three of the 30 buildings have received the necessary council vote. The remainder are on a tentative list at City Hall, awaiting inspection by heritage committee members to verify their importance before the council can vote them to the inventory.
Gambord, owner of the Steinbeck house, has been a critic of the preservation law that hampered his home-improvement projects. He says houses should not be listed on the inventory if owners oppose it.
"When a home gets put on that list, it is burdened with numerous restrictions that other homeowners don't have to deal with," Gambord said. "Is this not a form of taking without compensation?"
The law requires a Heritage Resource Use Permit for work on most historical buildings and bans owners from demolishing the buildings or altering the their exteriors.
Monumental Dissatisfaction
Gambord's tribulations with the city could be considered a property owner's nightmare. When he bought the Greenwood Lane house in 1968, he didn't plan to maintain a historical monument, he said. The house where Steinbeck wrote The Grapes of Wrath and Of Mice and Men is not only on the Monte Sereno inventory but was entered in the National Register of Historic Places. The heritage committee judged it to be the most important property in town.
"I bought the house because I like it," Gambord said. "When they said it was John Steinbeck's house, I said, 'So what?'" He wrote a letter to the city stating that he doesn't mind being on the inventory, but that he doesn't want to be encumbered by historical policies. Gambord said he may even want to tear the Steinbeck house down.
The city isn't likely to allow that; officials didn't even take kindly to his impromptu renovation of historic parts of the house.
When Gambord pulled some siding and part of a porch off the house without city permission, building officials served him with an order to halt the work. (Under the ordinance, any work changing or removing historical elements of a historical building requires permission from the City Council.) Gambord was eventually allowed to finish renovating the additions on the house that aren't historic, but the city action delayed his project.
Others have found their plans frustrated by the same law.
Carl Cooper gave up on restoring his 92-year-old Craftsman cottage on Withey Road because the city reversed its stance on preserving the property, he said.
Cooper wanted to tear the building down and make a replica, with a new floor plan and an additional 1,963 square feet, on a site 25 feet west of where the house now rests. His architect, Gary Schloh, said the house was too decrepit to preserve, and the heritage committee agreed, although they considered the house architecturally valuable. A historical preservation expert hired by the city, however, concluded that the house's redwood timbers are in excellent condition, and the council ruled that Cooper can move the house to the site he proposed, but he can't tear it down.
Cooper decided to sell the house and his property to a Bay Area newcomer who's interested in restoring it.
"We just became so very frustrated dealing with the city, that when an offer came to buy it we decided to get rid of it and not have to deal with the headaches," Cooper said. Cooper said last week he would not have sold his house had he known Gambord would win the council election.
Gambord talks about reworking the ordinance, although he hasn't proposed any specific changes.
"I think it should be changed," he said. "I think an owner should be able to say, 'No, I don't want this.' That would put some balance back in the whole process."
Gambord expects a debate the first time a homeowner asks not to be added to the inventory. But there's no telling how long that will be. The heritage committee verifies about one property a month for the council to vote into the inventory. Last week, with Gambord and Knight not yet sworn in, the current council accepted the meticulously restored home of Dennis and Cathy Varni, who wanted their house inventoried.
'We'll lose it all'
The City Council, charged with preserving the city's quality of life--including the charming historical houses--faces the possibility that Monte Sereno's 30 quaint, old buildings will eventually disappear if unprotected, said Council member Dorothea Bamford. She points to Saratoga's voluntary historical ordinance. Of the 101 eligible buildings in Saratoga, 14 properties have been given a protective "landmark" status under Saratoga's law. The law lacks penalties for those who destroy landmark buildings.
After Saratoga passed its ordinance in 1987, six historic buildings were destroyed; they were considered historic, but most of the owners hadn't volunteered for landmark status.
One landmark home identified with the founder of the city, Martin McCarty, was torn down in March, except for the front porch and two walls. Mike Ingster, the new owner, learned that demolishing most of the house and building new would be cheaper than renovating. The Saratoga City Council responded by revoking the demolished building's landmark status. Another important building, the J.C. Cunningham house at 14120 Saratoga Ave., was burned in a fire district training exercise, so owners of the property could build two new houses on the lot. Four other historic Saratoga buildings were likewise razed to make way for development.
When Saratoga's historical committee reevaluated its law last summer--in reaction to the McCarty demolition--its members decided they need regulate historical properties more tightly. The city attorney in Saratoga has recommended a demolition ordinance that would require permits for tearing down historical buildings, thereby making it impossible to destroy a historical building. The council is expected to hear a report on the subject in January and decide whether to take action.
Bamford fears runaway demolition of Monte Sereno's historic treasures if the council lets up on the heritage ordinance.
"I think if you're going to make it voluntary, you're not going to have it very long," Bamford said. "I certainly would want to think twice before making any substantial changes. We'll lose it all."
Bamford agrees that the city should consider what property owners want to do with their houses, but it can do that without taking them off the list, she says. The ordinance states that the council must weigh property owners' wishes when it makes historical property decisions.
"The owner does very definitely have rights," Bamford said. "It's an area that's not been overlooked."
Heritage committee members said owners of the distinctive properties may be further assured by the numbered scale they use to assess each building.
"We're really not as tight as some people have the impression that we are," said committee member Adu Bagley.
A house is graded on a scale of 1 to 10 in a total of 11 specific categories related to architecture, the history of the building and the area around the building. The heritage ordinance dictates to committee members when they may grant a 10 to a home and when they must dole out a zero. Under the category of history, a 10 would go to a building connected to "a person of primary importance," such as Steinbeck. A zero in that cate-gory would mean no connection to an important person.
The more points a house has, the more stringent regulations become.
"It's only strong where it needs to be strong," said Monte Sereno Planner Brian Loventhal. "It's very strong at one end of the spectrum, but it's forgiving and realistic on the other end. We're not burdening a homeowner who has some small aspect of their property that is [historically] valuable."
The city staff can give a property owner permission to work on a building with less than 10 historical points, but a City Council vote is required for some work if a building has more than 11 points altogether.
The Steinbeck house earned 53 points (10 of them for Steinbeck's presence and 9 because of the two books he wrote there). Besides belonging to the author, it was designed by a well-known local architect, Lawrence Case.
The Cooper house earned a score of 46 points, 27 of which were for its architecture. The house's age, its Craftsman style and smaller architectural details were factors.
Jackson, Lucas swing votes
Council members Susan Jackson and Jack Lucas have both indicated that they'll consider an escape clause for owners who don't want their houses preserved. Either of them could help Gambord and Knight form a three-person majority to change the preservation ordinance--or they can overrule the newcomers if they both stand firm with Bamford.
Jackson said any change she agreed to would apply only to minor buildings; she wouldn't let off the hook the owner of an important house like Gambord's, she said.
"But I'm totally against the government coming in and saying, 'You can't do this on your property because there's an ordinance saying you can't,' " Jackson explained. She wants to preserve the city's atmosphere, she said, but over-restricting minor landmarks smacks of big government.
Knight explained why he agrees with Gambord. "I do believe that the homeowner should have the right to refuse if he wants to," he said. "Some of the people on the commission are overwhelmed by the value of history."
Knight said the city should be helping property owners increase their property values, but he believes the added restrictions of the heritage ordinance will decrease land's worth.
"There's been enough activity," Knight said, "enough noise and hoo-hah about it, you need to have a look and see if it's appropriate for the current conditions."
This article appeared in the Los Gatos Weekly-Times, November 27, 1996.
©1996 Metro Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved