Attachment 3 - Applicant's Research ResultsTOWN OF LOS GATOS
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE
HISTORIC RESEARCH WORKSHEET
Applicants shall provide written evidence and supporting documents to justify their request for a
remodel, alteration, addition, determination of significance, or demolition of a designated or
presumptive historic resource. This worksheet is intended to assist the applicant in gatheri ng written
evidence and supporting documents, and to assist the Historic Preservation Committee during
evaluation of the request.
Applicants shall provide written evidence and supporting documents of the historical and architectural
characteristics, regarding both structures (construction date, alteration dates, photographic
documentation) and people (owner and/or resident names). If written evidence cannot fit on this
worksheet, please attach separate sheets.
The Historic Preservation Committee reviews the application using the Town's Historic District Ordinance
requirements. Copies of the ordinance(s) are available at Town Hall. The Committee meets the fourth
Wednesday of every month. The filing deadline is 20 days prior to the meeting by 11:00 AM.
The applicant shall research the following (please check the box once you complete your research):
1.Los Gatos Public Library (see How to Research the History of a House in Los Gatos):
□Sanborn Maps
□1941 Tax Assessment
□1989 Anne Bloomfield Historic Resource Survey forms
□Polk’s Directories
□Telephone Directories
□Other
2.Santa Clara County Resources (especially helpful for properties previously located in the county’s
jurisdiction):
□Santa Clara County Planning Department records
□San Jose Public Library (California Room)
3.Community Development Department Resources:
□Sanborn Maps
□1989 Anne Bloomfield Historic Resource Survey forms
□Community Development Department property files (permit history)
Research was conducted on (please enter date): ____________________________________
Records and Documents found (please attach copies): _______________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENT 3
N:\DEV\FORMS\Planning\2022-23 Forms\HPC\HPC - Request for Review.docx 3/25/2022
HOW TO RESEARCH THE HISTORY OF A HOUSE IN LOS GATOS
At the Los Gatos Public Library
100 Villa Avenue, Los Gatos CA 95030
Locked Cases Area
1. The Los Gatos Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps located on the microfilm file cabinet. These maps indicate
the outline of buildings in 1884, 1888, 1891, 1895, 1904, 1928 and 1944 (please note the 1944 maps
have been relabeled and appear out-of-order, before the 1928 maps). These can be used to identify a
construction date range.
Bookcase #11
1. The 1941 Tax Assessment Survey. The listings are alphabetical by street name. An entry will note how
old the owner thought the house was in 1941 (please note that this information is not always accurate).
2. The 1991 Anne Bloomfield Historic Resources Survey. These listings are alphabetical by street name.
3. A list of the Museums of Los Gatos Historic Homes Tours and programs.
4. A list of the 100 Bellringers and information.
5. As it Was by Dora Rankin.
Bookcase #12
1. The 1924-1974 Polk’s Directories (please note that some years are missing), with reverse listings by
address and then resident name.
2. Business and Telephone Directories, as early as 1881-82.
History Room (Docent Hours: 1:00-5:00 Mondays and Thursdays; 10:00-12:00 Wednesdays)
1. History of Los Gatos by George Bruntz and Los Gatos Observed by Alistair Dallas (979.473).
2. Information in the Residences drawers of the Vertical File, filed by street.
3. The Patrons’ Inquiries, binder #3 Residences, listed by street, located on the shelf above the computers.
These may provide information found under previous searches.
General
1. ancestry.com is available free while inside the library.
2. A Field Guide to American Houses by Virginia Savage McAlester (728 M11 in non-fiction)
JAY PLETT ARCHITECT
48 Chestnut avenue
1
REQUEST FOR REMOVAL FROM HISTORIC INVENTORY
PER THE sanBORN MAPS, THE HOME WAS NOT ORIGINALLY
LOCATED WITHIN THE TOWN'S LIMITS.
Anne Bloomfield’s report contains the following photo of
the homes past appearance – photo- a.
photo- A
Bloomfield notes that THE GARAGE was constructed in the
1950’s, which would have constituted a technical demo of
the original house occurring at that time. Bloomfield also
notes the house is unseen (from street).
1. ORIGINAL(?) ENTRY DOOR
Removed and replaced
w/ window.
2. ORIGINAL WINDOW
3. ORIGINAL
WINDOWS
JAY PLETT ARCHITECT
48 Chestnut avenue
2
PHOTOS B, C and D SHOW THE HOMES CURRENT DESIGN.
PHOTO- B PHOTO- C
PHOTO- D
THE ENTRY DOOR HAS BEEN MOVED and IS NOT ORIGINAL.
THE FRENCH DOORS ON THE SOUTH FACING WALL HAVE BEEN
REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH A WINDOW - THIS WAS DONE TO ADD
A STAIR IN THAT LOCATION DOWN TO A NON-PERMITTED
'BOOTLEGGED' LOWER LEVEL ADDITION.
THE WINDOW ON THE WEST FACING WALL HAS BEEN REMOVED and
REPLACED WITH FRENCH DOORS AND Sidelights OF questionable
Quality – i.e. SNAP-IN GRIDS, non-safety glazing.
2. NEW
DOORS:
NON-
SAFETY
WINDOWS
ADDED,
SMALL
WINDOW IN
PHOTO A
REMOVED
1. ENTRY DOOR
MOVED/added.
3. ORIGINAL
WINDOWS
REPLACED W/
LARGER WINDOWS
Windows are
unmatched in size
and are
disjointed.
JAY PLETT ARCHITECT
48 Chestnut avenue
3
Photo- e
THE SOUTH FACING WALL - CLOSEST TO THE STREET - AT ONE TIME
HAD A GARAGE (photo- E) WHICH HAS BEEN CONVERTED TO a
NOn-PERMITTED LIVING SPACE OF dubious CONSTRUCTION:
• Part of bedroom slab is below grade with exterior
concrete curb failing to prevent moisture intrusion –
see photo J
PHOTO - J
• WATER Intrusion from UNKNOWN SOURCES
• constructed on a concrete slab with no moisture
barrier
• a different floor level than the original house, etc.
OTHER ASPECTS
THE WINDOWS ARE OF NON-COHERENT FENESTRATION – SOME
Casements, SOME DOUGLE HUNG, And SOME Single GLAZED. IN ALL
CASES, THE WINDOWS ARE at the end of their serviceable life,
DRYROTTED AND NON-REPAIRABLE.
THE WINDOWS ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE ARE A FIRE
HAZARD AND ARE NOT Permissible UNDER CURRENT CODE DUE TO
Concrete curb
slab below curb.
Metal flashing on
ground that is
failing to prevent
water intrusion.
JAY PLETT ARCHITECT
48 Chestnut avenue
4
THIER ONE FOOT PROXIMITY TO THE PROPERTY LINE. Photos of
window rot below.
SIDING AND BUILDING ENVELOPE
Photo- f photo- g photo- h
Photo- I photo- j
THE STRUCTURE’S SIDING IS IN POOR REPAIR. FACE NAILED WITH NO
PUTTY, NON EXISTENT CORNER TRIM THAT HAS ALLOWED WATER TO
INFILTRATE THE BUILIDING ENVELOPE, SIDING IRRESPONSIBLY
REPAIRED IN SOME LOCATIONS WITHOUT WEAVING THE SIDING
TOGETHER AND NO UNDERLAYMENT. MANY HOLES HAVE BEEN
No corner trim
seals – dry rot.
Concrete
curb slab
below curb.
Metal
flashing on
ground that
is failing to
prevent
water
intrusion.
typ
JAY PLETT ARCHITECT
48 Chestnut avenue
5
COVERED WITH SCREENING MATERIAL TO ALLEVIATE RODENT
INFESTATION, BUT AT THE SAME TIME ALLOWING WATER TO PASS
THROUGH INTO THE STURUCTURE’S FRAMING.
Both the lower level addition and garage conversion
exhibit mold and musty odors, especially during the rainy
season. This is due to wholly inadequate construction that
would need to be demolished to be repaired.
STRUCTURAL deficiencies
the home sits perched atop the edge of an extremely
steep slope. The foundation is wholly inadequate to anchor
the home properly in this location.
The home is deflecting downward due to this deficiency.
The foundation is not embedded into the ground. Every
rainy season that passes, the ground below the non-
embedded foundation settles, leaving an air gap that
rodents use to access the house.
77° SLOPE
PLAN AND SECTION SITE
JAY PLETT ARCHITECT
48 Chestnut avenue
6
At first, the owner had concrete added to seal and
stabilize the house. This has ultimately failed and now they
apply expandable spray foam to help keep out rodents
periodically as the ground blow the foundation continues
to settle over time.
This is a non-acceptable practice of foundation
construction – even by code, a minimal foundation
embedment of 18” below grade is required - this foundation
structure has zero embedment sitting atop an extreme
slope. this poses a dire life safety risk failure in the event
of an earthquake or failure of the slope below the
structure.
JAY PLETT ARCHITECT
48 Chestnut avenue
7
Photos show the cracks and separation failures to the
sheetrock in both the walls and ceilings DUE TO the settling
FOUNDATION. This is an ongoing defect that is worsening over
time as the foundation is not stable and in motion.
JAY PLETT ARCHITECT
48 Chestnut avenue
8
SEE ATTACHED LETTER FROM JANE WANG, P.E. Ms. Wang CLEARLY
Delineates THAT THE STRUCTURAL Deficiencies CONSTITUTE A LIFE
SAFETY HAZARD AND THE STRUCTURE SHOULD BE DEMOLISHED.
SUMMARY
The structure’s original style was non-descript and the
non-coherent modifications over the years do not match
the original style.
IT IS PLANNED FOR THE NEW HOME TO BE IN A TRADITIONAL
FARMHOUSE STYLE THAT WILL SITUATE PROPERLY ON THE SITE AND
BE A COMPLIMENT TO THE DESIRABLE LOS GATOS HOUSING
TRADITIONS.
.
Letter of Recommendation
Singh Residence
48 Chestnut Ave.
Los Gatos, CA
By
Jane Wang, P.E.
JOB NO. 102323
Letter of Recommendation for Demolition
Singh Residence
48 Chestnut Ave.
.
Los Gatos, CA
By
Jane Wang, P.E.
DATE BY: 12/11/23
JANE WANG
TEL NO: 408-4068892
To: Town of Los Gatos
From: Jane Wang, P.E.
(408) 406-8892
Subject: Letter of Recommendation for Singh Residence
48 Chestnut Ave., Los Gatos, CA
Date: Nov. 10, 2023
Safety hazard issues:
The structure is situated atop an extremely steep slope -reference photo 5. The
damaged foundation caused the house to tilt. The foundation is failing and cracked due
to lack of proper footings, piers/underpinning, poor workmanship and water Intrusion.
On the downhill side, large trees have grown against the foundation, uplifting and
cracking the footings. In several Places, the concrete footings extend up beyond the
level of the floor, allowing water intrusion.
The girder support system is substandard - many posts in contact with the
ground. The structure and foundation is Settling and creeping down the hillside. The
house is not level due to major supporting failure. Rest continuous foundation was not
built to the code, more than fifty percent of which needs to be replaced. Reference
photos 1 – 5.
Photo 1 Photo 2
Photo 3 Photo 4
Photo 5
The front portion of house is
a converted garage. The
floor slab has no steel or
waterproofing. Here too,
The footings extend up
beyond the level of the
floor allowing water
intrusion.
WALLS AND ROOF
The shear walls is not up to code, not enough to have proper lateral load
transfer, siding have been cut and attached back on the side of the house, not up to
code, which causing major leakage and failing. Back side toward about mid wall area,
which has no signs, that these patched siding are in accordance with codes as shown in
photo 7. Roof and wall is not properly framed. Majority of the roof eaves are not up to
code, which also contribute to water damage to the house, east, west and south side as
shown on in the photos below, Roofs support frame is not to code, lack beams in
between, which cause roof deform. The walls have been taken lots infiltration, causing
major rotten and mold to the structure. More than fifty percent of roof framing and walls
need to be reinforced or replaced. The load distribution on those timbers or foundation
could cause incorrect load transfer due to uneven quality of the material, which could be
a safety hazard.
The house is lack of thermal and moisture protection, is also unsafe to have a
standard living. The floors, walls and attic have no insulation. The siding has many
open penetrations. There is no corner trim or flashing allowing water intrusion into the
building resulting in mildew, rot and unhealthy air quality. The holes also contribute to
rodent infestation and those apparently have been screened over. See photos 6, 7, 8
and
9.
Photo 6 Photo 7
Photo 8 Photo 9
Roof and wall is not properly framed. More than fifty percent of roof framing and
the walls need to be replaced. The load distribution on those beams or foundation could
cause incorrect load transfer due to uneven quality of the material, which could be a
safety hazard.
The house's exterior is in such poor repair (photo 10), poorly insulated windows
Photo 10 Photo 11
and doors, and no interest to the public.,
`In conclusion, the house would have severe safety issues without replacing
most part of the foundation, roof, walls, etc., and lack the architectural or aesthetic
interests or value. The house is recommended to be demolished.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank