By Clarence Cromwell
Members of the Heritage Preservation Committee are quitting in protest after the Monte Sereno City Council decided to leave historic preservation decisions to owners of the city's most treasured buildings.
After months of discussion, the council got its first chance to cast a vote while examining a revision of the city's general plan March 18. The council was warned in a Feb. 20 letter that committee members would quit if forced to accept voluntary preservation, but the council decided with a 4-1 vote to add a phrase making historical preservation voluntary. Councilmember Dorothea Bamford opposed the change.
Although the new version of the general plan isn't scheduled for adoption until April, the vote means Monte Sereno's preservation ordinance must be rewritten to match the new general plan, if the general plan is adopted as expected. It could mean that the council has given up all ability to protect important buildings, critics said.
The vote likely means the end of the line for members of the Heritage Preservation Committee. Three of the four members appointed by the previous council said they'll probably resign.
Chairman John Wimer, up for reappointment next month, told the Los Gatos Weekly-Times that he's definitely finished with the committee. Members Susan Anawalt and Gerry Peters said they want to make sure they understand the council's decision, but if they heard what they think they heard--that the homeowner will have the final word on preservation--they'll quit, too. Adu Bagley was not available for comment at press time, but she also signed the February letter that threatened resignation if the council reversed its stance on preservation.
Councilmember Gordon Knight said he didn't like the threat to quit, comparing it to a "temper tantrum." But Knight will vote to reappoint current commissioners in the future if they appear to "change their attitudes," he said.
Councilmember Joel Gambord said he expects that people with views different from the current commissioners' will be appointed from now on. He wants people who "persuade homeowners rather than use force."
The updating of Monte Sereno's general plan started in September 1994. But the change in historic preservation policy was first proposed this spring, after Gambord joined the council.
Gambord and Knight both campaigned on the historic preservation issue during last fall's election, and councilmember Suzanne Jackson offered her support at a Feb. 5 council meeting, creating what looked like a quorum.
Mayor Jack Lucas came slowly to agree with the majority, although he kept tight-lipped about the matter until now. Two homeowners who asked to be freed from historic preservation burdens heavily influenced Lucas' decision, he said. Lucas said he was also concerned that future councils might apply historic preservation laws unfairly.
"Right now, the tenor of this council is a little more pro-homeowner," Lucas said. "It's not that we're against history; it's just that we feel the property owners' rights could be endangered."
Bamford has argued that "voluntary" preservation equals scrapping the law and would result in demolition of all the city's historic houses sooner or later. She also said that changes aren't needed to allow consideration of what homeowners want, because the current version of the preservation ordinance requires the council to consider the owner's input.
Gambord has made the case that forbidding people to change their homes so others can enjoy the historic value is too heavy-handed.
The council stopped adding houses to the historic inventory after Gambord won a council seat and advanced his "voluntary" preservation idea.
Gambord, owner of the historic John Steinbeck house, voted on preservation only after receiving word from California's Fair Political Practices Commission that to do so is not a conflict of interest. He can vote on matters that change the preservation law, but not on whether to remove houses from the inventory. He also may not vote on historic matters pertaining to his own house.
The rewritten general plan is expected to go before the council April 1. Before adopting the plan, the council must consider a number of changes at that meeting.
This article appeared in the Saratoga News, April 2, 1997.
©1997 Metro Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved.