Historic board upholds staff finding that Weaver Kitchen House is ineligible for local inventory

The Carmel-by-the-Sea Historic Preservation Board voted to issue a preliminary determination of ineligibility for the property commonly described as the Weaver Kitchen House and associated parcels on the west side of Unipero between Fifth and Sixth streets.

Staff member Catherine presented the item (Historic Evaluation HE25120) and said the city consultant recommended a Phase 1 intensive evaluation; that intensive review determined the property “was ineligible for listing on our historic inventory,” and staff issued a preliminary determination of ineligibility on July 17. Catherine described the property's development history (a residence and detached garage built in 1926, a plumbing shop added in 1932 and expanded in 1935), identified builder MJ Murphy, and summarized alterations including a 1974 “tudorized” remodeling, window and fenestration changes, rear additions and reconstruction after a truck collision. Catherine said staff and the consultant concluded the site was not significant under the applicable DPR/state criteria and therefore did not proceed to an in-depth integrity analysis.

Rob, who identified himself as the son of owner Judy Perfetto, said the family loves the buildings and that they especially value the office building on the right; he said they hoped the board’s ineligibility determination would allow them to do repairs to a more deteriorated building while preserving the main house.

A board member who asked to speak during the discussion noted three reasons to consider significance: the age and cumulative historic additions, the association with builder M.J. Murphy, and the life story of James Weaver Kitchen, the original owner and local plumber. Several board members responded that while the property is locally characteristic, multiple speakers said the property shows “substantial loss of integrity” because of modifications and additions over many decades. One board member said the family appears to care for the property and expressed confidence the house would remain in its present character even without inventory listing.

After discussion, a board member moved to adopt staff’s recommendation and issue a determination of ineligibility for the property; the motion was seconded and the roll-call vote was recorded as: Board member Dyer — yes; Board member Goodhue — yes; Board member Gualtieri — yes; Chair — yes. The determination of ineligibility was approved.

The board noted that, although the city cannot place the building on the inventory at this meeting because of the procedural posture, members could direct staff to pursue additional research or a revised DPR evaluation if they wished. The property owner reiterated to the board that the family has no intention of altering the primary office/house on the site while they own it.