Staff Report with Exhibits 1 through 9.55 Ellenwood Avenue
PREPARED BY: Sean Mullin, AICP
Planning Manager
Reviewed by: Community Development Director and Town Attorney
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6872
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 01/08/2025
ITEM NO: 6
DATE: January 3, 2025
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Consider an Appeal of a Community Development Director Decision to Deny a
Request to Remove a Pre-1941 Property from the Historic Resources
Inventory on Property Zoned R-1:8. Located at 55 Ellenwood Avenue. APN
510-19-010. Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Section 15061(b)(3). Request for
Review PHST-24-020. Property Owner: Pooja Goel. Applicant: Melina Padilla.
Appellant: Vishal Jain. Project Planner: Sean Mullin.
RECOMMENDATION:
Deny the appeal and uphold the Community Development Director decision to deny the
removal of a pre-1941 property from the Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) on property zoned
R-1:8, located at 55 Ellenwood Avenue.
PROJECT DATA:
General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential
Zoning Designation: R-1:8; Single Family Residential
Applicable Plans & Standards: General Plan, Town Code, Residential Design Guidelines
Parcel Size: 21,000 square feet
Surrounding Area:
Existing Land Use General Plan Zoning
North Residential Low Density Residential R-1:8
South Residential Low Density Residential R-1:8
East Residential Low Density Residential R-1:8
West Residential Low Density Residential R-1:8
PAGE 2 OF 8
SUBJECT: 55 Ellenwood Avenue/Appeal of PHST-24-020
DATE: January 3, 2025
S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2025\01-08-2025\Item 6 - 55 Ellenwood Ave\Staff Report.55 Ellenwood Avenue.docx
CEQA:
The project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to the adopted
Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA, Section 15061(b)(3): A project is exempt from
CEQA when the activity is covered by the commonsense exemption that CEQA only applies to
projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it
can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question will have a
significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.
FINDINGS:
▪ As required to remove a pre-1941 property from the HRI.
ACTION:
The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed within ten days.
BACKGROUND:
The subject property is located on the south side of Ellenwood Avenue, just south of the
intersection of Ellenwood Avenue and Alexander Avenue (Exhibit 1). The property is currently
developed with a single-family residence. The Santa Clara County Assessor’s Database lists a
construction date for the residence of 1918. The 1990 Anne Bloomfield Survey does not provide
a construction date estimate, but provides a preliminary rating of “N-new, probably built since
1950” (Exhibit 3, Attachment 1). The Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps include the property
beginning in 1928 and show the residence as having a consistent footprint through 1956
(Exhibit 3, Attachment 2).
On October 23, 2024, the Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) considered a request to
remove the subject property from the HRI due to a lack of historic significance and loss of
integrity resulting from previous modifications and additions (Exhibits 3 and 4). The HPC
received the staff report and desk item, held a public hearing, and discussed the request. The
HPC voted four to zero with one member recused to forward a recommendation of denial to
the Community Development Director. In their motion, the HPC noted that the residence still
represents a time and place, and that finding number 3 could not be made (Exhibit 5). The
request was denied by the Community Development Director on October 25, 2024 (Exhibit 6).
The audio from this meeting is available on the Town’s website at https://losgatos-
ca.municodemeetings.com/bc-hpc/page/historic-preservation-committee-6 .
On October 31, 2024, the property owner appealed the decision of the Community
Development Director to the Planning Commission (Exhibit 7).
The Town Code provides that decisions of the Community Development Director may be
appealed to the Planning Commission by any interested party as defined by Section 29.10.020
PAGE 3 OF 8
SUBJECT: 55 Ellenwood Avenue/Appeal of PHST-24-020
DATE: January 3, 2025
S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2025\01-08-2025\Item 6 - 55 Ellenwood Ave\Staff Report.55 Ellenwood Avenue.docx
within 10 days of the decision. For residential projects an interested person is defined as, “any
person or persons or entity or entities who own property or reside within one thousand (1,000)
feet of a property for which a decision has been rendered, and can demonstrate that their
property will be injured by the decision.” The appellant meets the requirements.
Pursuant to Town Code Section 29.20.265, the appeal shall be set for the first regular meeting
of the Planning Commission in which the business of Planning Commission will permit, more
than five (5) days after the date of filing the appeal. The Planning Commission may hear the
matter anew and render a new decision on the matter.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
A. Location and Surrounding Neighborhood
The subject property is located on the south side of Ellenwood Avenue, just south of the
intersection of Ellenwood Avenue and Alexander Avenue (Exhibit 1). The property is
currently developed with a single-family residence. All the surrounding properties are zoned
R-1:8 and developed with single-family residences.
B. Project Summary
The property owner is appealing the Community Development Director’s decision to deny a
request to remove the pre-1941 property from the HRI.
DISCUSSION:
A. HPC Authority and Applicability
Town Code Section 29.10.020 defines “Historic Structure” as “any primary structure
constructed prior to 1941, unless the deciding body has determined that the structure has
no historic significance and should not be included in the Town Historic Resources
Inventory.” The Santa Clara County Assessor’s Database lists a construction date of 1918 for
the residence; therefore, the subject property is included on the HRI.
Pursuant to Town Code Section 29.80.215, the purpose of the Town’s Historic Preservation
Ordinance states:
It is hereby found that structures, sites, and areas of special character or special
historical, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value have been and continue to be
unnecessarily destroyed or impaired, despite the feasibility of preserving them. It is
further found that the public health, safety, and welfare require prevention of needless
destruction and impairment, and promotion of the economic utilization and
discouragement of the decay and desuetude of such structures, sites, and areas.
PAGE 4 OF 8
SUBJECT: 55 Ellenwood Avenue/Appeal of PHST-24-020
DATE: January 3, 2025
S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2025\01-08-2025\Item 6 - 55 Ellenwood Ave\Staff Report.55 Ellenwood Avenue.docx
The purpose of historic preservation is to promote the health, safety, and general
welfare of the public through:
1. The protection, enhancement, perpetuation, and use of structures, sites, and areas
that are reminders of past eras, events, and persons important in local, State, or
National history, or which provide significant examples of architectural styles of the
past or are landmarks in the history of architecture, or which are unique and
irreplaceable assets to the Town and its neighborhoods, or which provide for this
and future generations examples of the physical surroundings in which past
generations lived.
2. The development and maintenance of appropriate settings and environments for
such structures.
3. The enhancement of property values, the stabilization of neighborhoods and areas
of the Town, the increase of economic and financial benefits to the Town and its
inhabitants, and the promotion of tourist trade and interest.
4. The enrichment of human life in its educational and cultural dimensions by serving
aesthetic as well as material needs and fostering knowledge of the living heritage of
the past.
Residential Design Guidelines Section 4.6 speaks specifically to pre-1941 structures and
provides that pre-1941 structures have the potential to be historically significant, but not all
will necessarily be classified as historic. Applications for removal, remodeling, or additions
to structures constructed prior to 1941 will be reviewed by staff to determine their historic
merit and contribution to the surrounding neighborhood. An initial evaluation will be made
utilizing the 1991 Anne Bloomfield Historical Resources Survey Project for Los Gatos. Staff
may, at the discretion of the Community Development Director, refer a project application
to the HPC for its input and recommendations.
When considering a request for a determination that a pre-1941 primary structure has no
historic significance or architectural merit, the HPC considers the following findings in their
recommendation to the Community Development Director:
1. The structure is not associated with events that have made a significant contribution to
the Town;
2. No Significant persons are associated with the site;
3. There are no distinctive characteristics of type, period, or method of construction or
representation of work of a master;
4. The structure does not yield information to Town history; or
5. The integrity has been compromised such that the structure no longer has the potential
to convey significance.
B. Historic Preservation Committee
On October 23, 2024, the HPC received the staff report and desk item, held a public hearing,
and discussed the request (Exhibits 3 and 4). Following discussion, the HPC voted four to
PAGE 5 OF 8
SUBJECT: 55 Ellenwood Avenue/Appeal of PHST-24-020
DATE: January 3, 2025
S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2025\01-08-2025\Item 6 - 55 Ellenwood Ave\Staff Report.55 Ellenwood Avenue.docx
zero with one member recused to forward a recommendation of denial to the Community
Development Director. In their motion, the HPC noted that the residence still represents a
time and place, and that finding number 3 could not be made (Exhibit 5). On October 25,
2024, the Community Development Director denied the request for removal (Exhibit 6).
C. Appeal to Planning Commission
The decision of the Community Development Director was appealed on October 31, 2024,
by one of the property owners, Vishal Jain (Exhibit 7). In their reasons for why the appeal
should be granted provided on the appeal form, the appellant notes that major remodels
have eliminated the historic integrity of the residence and that the HPC review process was
rushed and potentially biased. Additional information supporting the appellant’s appeal was
provided by their architect (Exhibit 8). This information addresses each of the five findings
required for removing a property from the HRI. Below are the points raised by the appellant
in Exhibit 7, followed by staff’s response in italics.
1. Major remodels have eliminated the historic integrity of the residence.
The October 23, 2024, HPC staff report summarizes Town permit records for the subject
property (Exhibit 3). The staff report notes that two significant additions were
constructed in 1994 and 1998, and references an exhibit prepared by staff showing the
approximate footprint of the residence prior to 1994 and the demolition impacts
incurred to the residence resulting from the additions to the residence (Exhibit 3,
Attachment 3). The staff report also notes that the Bloomfield Survey conducted in 1990
rating the residence as “new” occurred prior to completion of the 1994 and 1998
additions. Following review of the staff report and discussion of the request, the HPC was
unable to make finding number 3 for removal and recommended denial of the request to
the Community Development Director (Exhibits 5 and 6).
Exhibit 8 prepared by the property owner’s architect and further discussed below,
provides additional exhibits demonstrating the impact that the 1994 and 1998 additions
had on the integrity of the original residence. Additionally, this exhibit provides a rough
calculation of the demolition incurred through the two additions that concludes the
residence experienced a technical demolition under the Town’s definition as a result of
the additions. These additional exhibits and calculation were not available during the
October 23, 2024, HPC review.
PAGE 6 OF 8
SUBJECT: 55 Ellenwood Avenue/Appeal of PHST-24-020
DATE: January 3, 2025
S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2025\01-08-2025\Item 6 - 55 Ellenwood Ave\Staff Report.55 Ellenwood Avenue.docx
2. The HPC review was rushed and potentially biased.
Staff has no comment on the claim that the HPC review was rushed and potentially
biased raised by the appellant. The audio from the October 23, 2024 meeting is available
on the Town’s website at https://losgatos-ca.municodemeetings.com/bc-
hpc/page/historic-preservation-committee-6 .
The supplemental information provided by the property owner’s architect address each of the
five findings required for removal of a residence and provides exhibits and statements
concluding that all the findings for removal can be made (Exhibit 8). Below are the five required
findings followed by a summary of the appellant’s justification for each finding.
1. The structure is not associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the
Town.
• Extensive research at the Los Gatos Public Library revealed no mention of this property
in historical newspapers, articles, notable real estate listings, or public records. The
absence of such documentation strongly suggests the property lacks significant
historical importance.
• Research found no evidence linking this property to any historical significance.
2. No Significant persons are associated with the site.
• The appellant’s exhibit provides a list of people associated with 55 Ellenwood and
concludes that no persons significant to the Town are associated with the site.
3. There are no distinctive characteristics of type, period, or method of construction or
representation of work of a master.
• The Anne Bloomfield Survey documents the home, built in the 1950s, received
preliminary rating of “N”, due to major renovations by 1989. No distinctive architectural
features were identified, and no construction changes are recorded in city archives
through 1994. This undermines its historic integrity and diminishes its eligibility for
historic designation.
• Windows and other features reflect a nonhistoric typology.
4. The structure does not yield information to Town history.
• Extensive research at the Los Gatos Public Library revealed no mention of this property
in historical newspapers, articles, notable real estate listings, or public records. The
absence of such documentation strongly suggests the property lacks significant
historical importance.
• Research found no evidence linking this property to any historical significance.
PAGE 7 OF 8
SUBJECT: 55 Ellenwood Avenue/Appeal of PHST-24-020
DATE: January 3, 2025
S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2025\01-08-2025\Item 6 - 55 Ellenwood Ave\Staff Report.55 Ellenwood Avenue.docx
5. The integrity has been compromised such that the structure no longer has the potential to
convey significance.
• The exhibits provided by the applicant demonstrate the impact that the 1994 and 1998
additions had on the integrity of the original residence. Through a rough calculation of
the demolition incurred through the two additions, the appellant concludes the
residence experienced a technical demolition under the Town’s definition.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Written notice was sent to property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the subject
property. Public comments received by 11:00 am, January 3, 2025, are included as Exhibit 9.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to the adopted
Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA, Section 15061(b)(3): A project is exempt from
CEQA when the activity is covered by the commonsense exemption that CEQA only applies to
projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it
can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question will have a
significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.
CONCLUSION:
A. Summary
The property owner is appealing the Community Development Director’s decision to deny a
request to remove the pre-1941 property from the HRI.
B. Recommendation
For reasons stated in this report, which include the HPC not being able to make finding #3 in
their recommendation, it is recommended that the Planning Commission deny the appeal
and uphold the decision of the Community Development Director to deny the removal of
the presumptive historic property (pre-1941) from the HRI.
C. Alternatives
Alternatively, the Commission can:
1. Continue the matter to a date certain with specific direction;
2. Grant the appeal and remove the subject property from the HRI, making the findings
provided in Exhibit 2; or
3. Remand the appeal to the HPC with specific direction.
PAGE 8 OF 8
SUBJECT: 55 Ellenwood Avenue/Appeal of PHST-24-020
DATE: January 3, 2025
S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2025\01-08-2025\Item 6 - 55 Ellenwood Ave\Staff Report.55 Ellenwood Avenue.docx
EXHIBITS:
1. Location Map
2. Required Findings
3. Historic Preservation Committee Staff Report and Attachments, October 23, 2024
4. Historic Preservation Committee Desk Item Report and Attachments, October 23, 2024
5. Historic Preservation Committee Meeting Minutes for October 23, 2024
6. Historic Preservation Committee Action Letter, October 23, 2024
7. Appeal of the Community Development Director, Received October 31, 2024
8. Supplemental Information Provided by Applicant’s Architect
9. Public Comment Received by 11:00 am, Friday, January 3, 2025
APRICOT L
N
HER
N
A
N
D
E
Z
A
V BELMONT AVELLENWOOD AV ALEXANDER AVGLEN RI
D
G
E
A
V
PALM AVW
E
L
L
E
N
W
O
O
D
A
VOAKHURST DR55 Ellenwood Avenue
0 0.250.125 Miles
°
Update Notes:
- Updated 12/20/17 to link to tlg-sql12 server data (sm)- Updated 11/22/19 adding centerpoint guides, Buildings layer, and Project Site leader with label
- Updated 10/8/20 to add street centerlines which can be useful in the hillside area- Updated 02-19-21 to link to TLG-SQL17 database (sm)
- Updated 08-23-23 to link to "Town Assessor Data" (sm)
EXHIBIT 1
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
PLANNING COMMISSION – January 8, 2025
REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR:
55 Ellenwood Avenue
Request for Review PHST-24-020
Consider an Appeal of a Community Development Director Decision to Deny a Request
to Remove a Pre-1941 Property from the Historic Resources Inventory on Property
Zoned R-1:8. APN 510-19-010. Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Section 15061(b)(3).
Property Owner: Pooja Goel
Applicant: Melina Padilla
Appellant: Vishal Jain
Project Planner: Sean Mullin.
FINDINGS
Required findings to determine that a pre-1941 structure has no significant or architectural
merit:
■ As required for a determination that a pre-1941 primary structure has no historic significance
or architectural merit:
1. The structure is not associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the
Town;
2. No Significant persons are associated with the site;
3. There are no distinctive characteristics of type, period or method of construction or
representation of work of a master;
4. The structure does not yield information to Town history; or
5. The integrity has been compromised such that the structure no longer has the potential to
convey significance.
S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2025\01-08-2025\ITEM 6 - 55 ELLENWOOD AVE\EXHIBIT 2 - REQUIRED FINDINGS.DOCX
EXHIBIT 2
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
PREPARED BY: Sean Mullin, AICP
Planning Manager
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6874
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE REPORT
MEETING DATE: 10/23/2024 ITEM NO: 7
DATE: October 18, 2024
TO: Historic Preservation Committee
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Consider a Request to Remove a Pre-1941 Property from the Historic
Resources Inventory for Property Zoned R-1:8. Located at 55 Ellenwood
Avenue. APN 510-19-010. Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Section 15061(b)(3).
Request for Review PHST-24-020. Property Owner: Pooja Goel. Applicant:
Melina Padilla. Project Planner: Sean Mullin.
RECOMMENDATION:
Consider a request to remove a pre-1941 property from the Historic Resources Inventory for
property zoned R-1:8 located at 55 Ellenwood Avenue.
PROPERTY DETAILS:
1.Date primary structure was built: 1918 per County Assessor
2.Town of Los Gatos Historic Status Code: N – New (probably built since 1950)
3.Does property have an LHP Overlay? No
4.Is structure in a historic district? No
5.If yes, is it a contributor? N/A
6.Findings required? Yes
7.Considerations required? No
DISCUSSION:
The applicant is requesting approval to remove the pre-1941 residence from the Historic
Resources Inventory. The Santa Clara County Assessor’s Database lists a construction date of
1918. The 1990 Anne Bloomfield Survey does not provide a construction date estimate, but
provides a preliminary rating of “new, probably built since 1950” (Attachment 1). The Sanborn
Fire Insurance Maps include the property beginning in 1928 and show the residence as having a
consistent footprint through 1956 (Attachment 2).
EXHIBIT 3
PAGE 2 OF 3 SUBJECT: 55 Ellenwood Avenue/PHST-24-020 DATE: October 18, 2024
\\tlg-file\data\DEV\HISTORIC PRESERVATION\HPC Reports and Attachments\2024\10-23-24\Item 7 - 55 Ellenwood Avenue\Staff Report.55
Ellenwood Avenue.docx
DISCUSSION (continued):
A review of Town records provides the following:
• 1958 – Building Permit – scope unknown;
• 1973 – Building Permit to enclose part of an existing deck;
• 1994 – Building Permit for construction of a 1,400-square foot addition to the existing
1,589-square foot home for a new primary bedroom suite; and
• 1998 – Approval of a Minor Residential Development application for a new second-story
addition and subsequent Building Permit for the addition, which included a new attached
garage.
Based on the development plans contained in Town records, staff prepared an exhibit showing
the approximate footprint of the residence prior to 1994 and the demolition impacts incurred
to the residence resulting from the 1994 and 1998 additions to the residence (Attachment 3).
Staff also notes that the Bloomfield Survey conducted in 1990 rating the residence as “new”
occurred prior to completion of the 1994 and 1998 additions.
The applicant provided an informational packet with their application, which includes a
summary of the history of the residence, a Letter of Justification, and pictures of the residence
(Attachment 4). Based on the research provided, the applicant believes that the required
findings for removal from the Historic Resources Inventory can be made for this property as the
residence is not in its original condition and there is nothing noted about the property that is
significant to the Town’s history.
CONCLUSION:
Should the Committee find that the structure no longer has historic significance or architectural
merit due to the loss of integrity, a recommendation of approval of the request to remove the
property from the Historic Resources Inventory would be forwarded to the Community
Development Director. Once approved by the Director, any proposed alterations would not
return to the Committee.
FINDINGS:
A. Findings - related to a request for a determination that a pre-1941 primary structure has no
historic significance or architectural merit.
In evaluating a request for a determination of historic significance or architectural merit,
the Historic Preservation Committee shall consider the following:
PAGE 3 OF 3 SUBJECT: 55 Ellenwood Avenue/PHST-24-020 DATE: October 18, 2024
\\tlg-file\data\DEV\HISTORIC PRESERVATION\HPC Reports and Attachments\2024\10-23-24\Item 7 - 55 Ellenwood Avenue\Staff Report.55
Ellenwood Avenue.docx
FINDINGS (continued):
1. The structure is not associated with events that have made a significant contribution
to the Town;
2. No Significant persons are associated with the site;
3. There are no distinctive characteristics of type, period or method of construction or
representation of work of a master;
4. The structure does not yield information to Town history; or
5. The integrity has been compromised such that the structure no longer has the
potential to convey significance.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. 1990 Anne Bloomfield Survey
2. Sanborn Map Exhibit
3. Impact of Additions Exhibit
4. Applicant’s Submittal Packet
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
d/nne 23[oom(u.fd
ARCHITECTURAL/CULTURAL SURVEY
LOS GATOS RESEARCH
File address ? I/, 11 w~ed --~----~~~~~~~---------
PARCEL MAP INFORMATION
ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY
t41 Sl 922-1063
2229 WEBSTER STREET
SAN FRANCISCO. CA 941 I 5
Parcel #----~--~~~~--~------------Lot size: ______ front ft. x ______ ft. deep
Lot shape: Rectangle __ L Rectangle with small rear jog ___ Other __________________ _
Location: N S E w side of St Ave Other __________ __ ----------------------
distance to cross st: _____ ft. N_ s_ E_ w_ from. ______________ _
at NE NW SE sw corner of ______________________ __
HISTORIC INFORMATION ON PARCEL MAP
Old tract or subdivision name. _________________ Old Block # ________ Old lot # ____________ __
FIELD SURVEY INFORMATION (handwritten in red)
Preliminary rating !vi Estimated age ______ __ Style ________________________ # storiea__
Alterations. ____________________________________________________________________________ ___
Other _______________________________________________________________________________ _
:OUNTY ASSESSOR--PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS (paste on copy) '6'1 1/ EFFective date 1/fk 'g I
t.D S$ TU U f Coot Yll y
OWNERSHIP SHOWN ON MAPS
Source Source Source Location of property, or
Name Date Page Old ·tract/block/lot ----
~ Blk Book 1908 r
Survey 1944
MISCELLANEOUS
National Register listed date __________________ __
County Inventory 1979 ______________ ~------------
Town of Los Gatos: Des!gnation ___ Recognition __
District Name ~--~~~~---------------------
Previous Survey y
,-s f11.6J1¥f&r1 Date 14 ~-.
~ I Contributor ~@r 1 P:.J.rp District Non-contrib~
Earliest known 7 Owner_ Resident_:
Context(:S):
. Al terations: Moved_
· Raised Porch encl_-
·Addition_ Siding__ -
Windows_ Condition_
Des igner: a_ b __ d __
Lot
Size ---
I I
7 OININII IIOOM S F AIU L Y ltOOII 2.0 unLln 11111
Owner
Name
!
I I
I I
2 I'OOl .,,
'"""'
PHOTOS: Roll/frame # , ---------Date -----
ATTACHMENT 1
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
1928
55 Ellenwood
ATTACHMENT 2
1944
55 Ellenwood
1956
55 Ellenwood
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
1956 Sanborn Map
Approximate outline of
residence as reflected in
1994 Building Permit
ATTACHMENT 3
Approximate outline of
residence as reflected in
1994 Building Permit
Portion (dashed) of original house
demolished in 1994 addition
1994 Primary Suite addition
1994 Permit for Primary Suite Addition
Portion (dashed) of original house
demolished in 1994 addition Portion (dashed) of original house
demolished in 1998 addition
1994 Primary Suite addition 1998 Addition
1998 Permit for Addition
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
To whom it may concern,
I am writing to request removing the property at 55 Ellenwood Avenue, Los Gatos from the historic listing. As I investigate, this property has
the following information:
1. After conducting extensive research at Los Gatos Public Library, we were unable to find any mention of this property in historical
newspapers, any articles, any important real estate listings, or public records. If the building had significant historical importance, we believe it
would have been documented somewhere. Please see Exhibit 3 for reference.
2. During our research at the library, we reviewed several documents, including Project Bellringer II, which lists homes built before 1900, and
a paper on the Los Gatos Historic Homes Tours. Additionally, we searched the Historic Property Research Collection. None of these sources,
however, made any mention of 55 Ellenwood Avenue, suggesting that this property may not be recognized as historically significant in these
contexts. Please see Exhibit 1 and 2 for reference.
3. Upon researching in Bookcase# 11 in 1941 tax assessment survey, no information regarding 55 Ellenwood Avenue was found, indicating
that the property may not have been recorded during that period. Please see Exhibit 4 for reference.
4. In Anne Bloomfield’s 1989 survey, she indicated that 55 Ellenwood Avenue was likely constructed around 1950. Additionally, she assigned
a preliminary rating of “N”. This indicates that the property underwent major changes between the time it was originally constructed and 1989
(when survey was conducted) which led the surveyor to indicate the year of construction as 1950. None of the construction related changes
are recorded in city archives from the time it was built until 1994. Please see Exhibit 5 for reference.
5. We have reviewed the Sanborn maps from 1928 and 1944, which indicate that the house’s construction remained largely unchanged
during that time. However, between 1944 and 1998, this property underwent several major remodels, revisions, and additions that led to
technical demolitions, including massive changes to the front elevation of the property during the major revisions, remodels and extensions
done during 1994 and 1998. As a result, much of the building’s original historical character has been lost. Please see Exhibit 6, 7, 8 and 9 for
reference.
6. According to our research from Polk's Directories and County records, these are the list of people who resided in this house.
1. 1934-1945 Stanley A R and Flowers C H
2. Aug 13,1968- Dec 24,1986: First Syndey and Roberts Dunton owned the property, in middle property defaulted to bank (First National
Bank and Palo Alto Financial Corporation) before owned by Leigh & Merry Belden)
3. Dec 24, 1986: Leigh & Merry Belden sold it to Andris Holms
4. March 24,1992: Andris Holms transferred the property to Andris and Leslie as Community Property
5. Dec 20, 2002: Property was transferred from Community Property to Andris and Leslie's Trust
6. April 26, 2012: Property was transferred from Trust to Leslie Holms (Survivor)+ Trust
7. June 18, 2019: Property was transferred from Leslie Ann Holms and Trust to "The Family Revocable Trust with
as Trustees
--> Upon Looking all records, we were not able to find evidence of any significant architectural entity or individual associates with this
property.
7. We are encountering several ongoing challenges with this property. The doors frequently stick, making them difficult to open, and the
inadequate drainage system results in constant maintenance costs every few months. Neighbors have also expressed concerns about the
building’s appearance and overall condition reducing the appeal of the neighborhood and has been brought up in every meetup. Additionally,
the outdated roof design not only prevents us from installing solar panels but also causes frequent issues with the shingles, which break
periodically and require repairs every few months. This has led to water leakage, causing further damage to various parts of the house. The
skylights are very old, with seals that no longer function properly, leading to water leaks during rainy weather. Please see pictures attached.
8. The exterior shingles of the house are also severely aged, contributing to water seepage around the window trims. This has caused
significant window damage, making them difficult to open and reducing ventilation. Despite multiple cleanings, the growth of algae and
discoloration on the exterior persists.
9. Furthermore, the doors leading to both the front and backyard do not open smoothly, and when they do, they make noise and do not close
properly, especially during rainy weather. The wooden frames around these doors are also visibly rotted. We have attached pictures for
reference.
10. In addition, plumbing issues are frequent, with clogged pipes occurring about every few weeks due to the old plumbing system. As a
result, we are limited to using only one of the three bathrooms regularly.
11. The house has also severe ant infestation causing unhygienic conditions in the kitchen area.
We as the current owners of 55 Ellenwood Ave, Los Gatos, CA for the last 6 years humbly request to please review the facts and help
consider removing the property from historic resources inventory as major changes in 1994 and 1998 have consumed the historical integrity
of the property.
Exhibit 1 (Source Los Gatos Library)
Exhibit 2 (Source Los Gatos Library)
Exhibit 3 (Source Los Gatos Library)
No records found in the 1941 tax assessment
Exhibit 4 (Source Los Gatos Library)
Exhibit 5 (Source Los Gatos Library)
1928 Sanborn Map
Exhibit 6 (Source Los Gatos Library)
1944 Sanborn Map
Exhibit 7 (Source Los Gatos Library)
Exhibit 8 (Source Los Gatos Library)
Exhibit 9 (Source Los Gatos Library)
House Images
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ATTACHMENT 5
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
PREPARED BY: Sean Mullin, AICP
Planning Manager
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6874
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE REPORT
MEETING DATE: 10/23/2024 ITEM NO: 7 DESK ITEM
DATE: October 23, 2024
TO: Historic Preservation Committee
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Consider a Request to Remove a Pre-1941 Property from the Historic
Resources Inventory for Property Zoned R-1:8. Located at 55 Ellenwood
Avenue. APN 510-19-010. Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Section 15061(b)(3).
Request for Review PHST-24-020. Property Owner: Pooja Goel. Applicant:
Melina Padilla. Project Planner: Sean Mullin.
DISCUSSION:
Attachment 5 includes additional photos of the exterior of the residence located at 55
Ellenwood Avenue.
ATTACHMENTS:
Previously received with the October 23, 2024 Staff Report:
1.1990 Anne Bloomfield Survey
2.Sanborn Map Exhibit
3.Impact of Additions Exhibit
4.Applicant’s Submittal Packet
Received with this Desk Item Report:
5. Photos
EXHIBIT 4
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ATTACHMENT 5
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6874
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
COMMITTEE REPORT
MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING
OCTOBER 23, 2024
The Historic Preservation Committee of the Town of Los Gatos conducted a regular meeting on
October 23, 2024 at 4:00 p.m.
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 4 PM
ROLL CALL Present: Chair Susan Burnett, Vice Chair Lee Quintana, Planning Commissioner Jeffrey Barnett,
Committee Member Barry Cheskin and Committee Member Martha Queiroz.
Absent: None
VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
CONSENT ITEMS (TO BE ACTED UPON BY A SINGLE MOTION)
1.Approval of Minutes – July 24, 2024
2.Approval of Minutes – September 25, 2024
MOTION: Motion by Vice Chair Lee Quintana to approve the Consent Calendar.
Seconded by Committee Member Martha Queiroz.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. Planning Commissioner Jeffrey Barnett
recused on Item 1.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3.145 Tait Avenue
Minor Residential Development Application MR-24-010
Requesting Approval for Construction of a Second-Story Addition Exceeding 100 Square
Feet and Exterior Alterations to an Existing Contributing Single-Family Residence
Located in the Almond Grove Historic District on Property Zoned R-1D:LHP. Located on
145 Tait Avenue. APN 510-18-029. Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301:
Existing Facilities.
EXHIBIT 5
PAGE 2 OF 13 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 23, 2024
Property Owner: Jennifer McNellis
Applicant: Eric Beckstrom
Project Planner: Erin Walters
Continued from September 11, 2024
Committee Member Queiroz recused themselves from Item 3, 145 Tait Avenue as their
property is located within 1,000 feet of the subject property.
Erin Walters, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Opened Public Comment.
Applicant presented the project.
Jennifer McNellis, Owner, Paul, and Erik Beckstrom, Architect
- They received feedback from the Committee and consulting architect, Larry Cannon.
They addressed his five points:
1. They modified the plans to blend the roof ridge height with the current second-story
addition that was done in 1996.
2. Switched picture windows to Marvin windows with muntins and dividers.
3. Both garage doors will be the same height.
4. Will use Marvin style windows.
5. Bay window will maintain a 12-inch setback.
Closed Public Comment.
Committee members discussed the matter.
MOTION: Motion by Chair Burnett to Forward a Recommendation to the Director
on a Request for Approval for Construction of a Second-Story Addition
Exceeding 100 Square Feet and Exterior Alterations to an Existing
Contributing Single-Family Residence Located in the Almond Grove
Historic District on Property Zoned R-1D:LHP. Seconded by Barry
Cheskin.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously.
Appeal rights read.
PAGE 3 OF 13 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 23, 2024
4. 200 Hernandez Avenue
Request for Review Application PHST-24-018
Requesting Approval for Exterior Alterations to a Pre-1941 Single-Family Residence on
Property Zoned R-1:12. APN 510-21-003. Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section
15301: Existing Facilities.
Property Owner/Applicant: Vaishali Singh-Sood
Project Planner: Sean Mullin
Continued from September 25, 2024
Sean Mullin, Planning Manager, presented the staff report.
Opened Public Comment.
Applicant presented the project.
Vaishali Singh-Sood, Owner
- Read written statement. As requested by the Committee, they provided documents,
regarding weight differences between roof styles, pros and cons of a metal roof, and the
fire benefits of a metal roof.
- They provided photos of standing seam roofs and samples of barrel roof and standing
seam roof materials. The barrel style material can bend. There are seamless steel roof in
the neighborhood.
- Provided a black standing seam roof. The prior owner added the red trim. They spoke to
the former owner’s daughter who said that the roof was originally black.
Committee members asked questions of the applicant.
Vaishali Singh-Sood, Owner
- They prefer black and not the traditional red because it was never red.
- Adding a barrel trim to the roof will need to be discussed with roofers
- Roofers said a tile roof could not be supported because there are no trusses.
- In the photo, the rafter tails under the roof will remain.
- The current red trim on the windows is not original. The red trim was painted in the
1990’s by the prior homeowner. If they are allowed a standing seam roof, they would be
willing to come to an agreed solution.
Committee Member
- Have they considered alternative materials? On the American Institute of Architects
website there were two options to consider. There is a metal product that looks like a
barrel roof and a lightweight concrete product that is lighter than tile. The weight of
Spanish tile is 2.9 per square foot.
PAGE 4 OF 13 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 23, 2024
Vaishali Singh-Sood, Owner
- They are afraid of branches falling on the roof. If a steel metal barrel roof is dented it is
costly to replace.
- They spoke to three roofers, but no structural engineers, who say that the roof cannot
support the weight of tile which is 2.9 per square foot.
- They prefer and believe that a standing seam roof and not a barrel metal roof is more
resistant to damage.
Closed Public Comment.
Committee members discussed the matter.
• Want the barrel edging.
• Want the edging color to match the red window trim color.
• The roof slope is slight. If they have a barrel edging, the standing seam roof is not very
visible.
• A black standing seam roof looks too modern and sets a precedent.
• Like to see a barrel trim, if feasible.
• If no barrel roof, then would like to see a calculation.
• A standing seam metal roof doesn’t match the style of the house and the neighborhood.
• Roof appears very prominent and visible from the street. It would be a large expanse of
black metal.
• Owning a historic home requires maintenance.
• Need to research other materials that includes metal.
• Not convinced that a barrel style metal roof is more prone to damage.
• Concerned about not using the color of clay tiles which is more authentic.
MOTION: Motion by Chair Burnett to request that the applicant return with more
information, including how much weight the roof can accommodate.
Investigate more materials such as presented by a committee member,
confer with the Town‘s Building Official, and a structural engineer to
determine the weight threshold. Seconded by Committee Member
Queiroz.
Friendly Amendment by Commissioner Barnett.
Present it to the Town’s Building Official first, and if not opined, present it to a CA licensed
structural engineer. Letter from a Structural engineer that it cannot support a tile roof and what
it can support.
Comment by Committee Member Cheskin
To Refine the Friendly amendment, what is the weight threshold?
Motion withdrawn by Chair Burnett.
PAGE 5 OF 13 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 23, 2024
New MOTION: Motion by Chair Burnett to request that the applicant return with
information presented by a structural engineer whether the house can
bear the lightweight concrete or steel roofing examples presented by
Committee Member Queiroz. Applicant will return with barrel style
shapes on the eaves or on the entire roof. Seconded by Commissioner
Barnett.
Friendly Amendment by Committee Member Cheskin.
To clarify to the applicant that the committee wants and expects that the trim or entire roof
have the appearance of a barrel roof.
Friendly amendment accepted by Chair Burnett and Commissioner Barnett.
Friendly Amendment by Committee Member Cheskin.
To clarify what is the threshold. How many pounds per square foot?
Friendly amendment accepted by Chair Burnett and Commissioner Barnett.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously.
5. 52 Ashler Avenue
Minor Residential Development Application MR-24-009
Requesting Approval for Construction of a Second-Story Addition Exceeding 100 Square
Feet and Exterior Alterations to an Existing Pre-1941 Single-Family Residence on
Property Zoned R-1D. APN 410-14-048. Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Section 15301:
Existing Facilities.
Property Owner: Joseph Ervin
Applicant: Ramin Zohoor
Project Planner: Maria Chavarin
Maria Chavarin, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report.
Opened Public Comment.
Applicant was not present.
Closed Public Comment.
Committee members discussed the matter.
PAGE 6 OF 13 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 23, 2024
• Design looks much improved from the original plans with the addition of the shed
dormer.
• The mass is still big in the front elevation, the floor plan looks good.
• Prefer a larger center gable dormer instead of two on the sides.
• The applicant fulfilled the requirement by meeting with the architect.
• This is an improvement to the existing house design which was very awkward.
• They responded to the architect’s recommendations.
MOTION: Motion by Vice Chair Quintana to forward a recommendation of
approval to the Community Development Director on the plans as
modified per the recommendation of the Town’s Consulting Architect for
Construction on 52 Ashler Avenue. Make the finding that the pre-1941
structure will neither adversely affect the exterior architecture
characteristic or other features of the property which is the subject of the
application. Seconded by Committee Member Queiroz.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously.
6. 352 W. Main Street
Minor Development in a Historic District Application HS-24-054 Requesting Approval for Construction of Exterior Alteration (Window Replacement) to a
Non-Contributing Multi-Family Residential Development in the Broadway Historic
District on Property Zoned R-1D:LHP. APN 510-45-033. Exempt Pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines, Section 15301: Existing Facilities.
Property Owner: West Main Partners LLC.
Applicant: Byron Brown
Project Planner: Suray Nathan
Suray Nathan, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report.
Opened Public Comment.
Applicant presented the project.
Byron Brown, Applicant, Ralph Cavanna, and Timothy Vago, Applicants
- Their intention is to upgrade the existing windows. The original build date was listed as
1930, but it is actually 1953. The are four addresses (346, 348, 350 and 352) on the
same APN, but historic information stopped at 325. The buildings next door and across
the street have white vinyl windows. When they applied for the Building Permit they
were instructed to come before the HPC. The existing windows are a mix of materials
including vinyl, aluminum and wood. They wanted to make the windows consistent. The
windows have already been bought and created.
PAGE 7 OF 13 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 23, 2024
Committee members asked questions of the applicant and made comments.
Byron Brown, Applicant, Ralph Cavanna, and Timothy Vago, Applicants
- They chose vinyl to improve insulation and waterproofing. Choosing vinyl is a major cost
savings. They have many windows to replace for their tenants.
- The windows are also fire-tempered because the building is in a wildfire zone. One pane
must be tempered for fire safety.
- They already have the windows.
- They brought photos of the existing windows and a sample of the proposed windows.
Committee member made a comment.
• Residential Design Guidelines say that windows must be compatible with the project.
The vinyl should look like wood.
Byron Brown, Applicant, Ralph Cavanna, and Timothy Vago, Applicants
- Would it be acceptable if the vinyl was painted a different color like wood?
- Vinyl is paintable. Now, they have UV paint for vinyl.
- Job has been postponed until resolved.
- They would hate to throw away the windows. They have 58 windows.
Committee member made a comment.
• How do we prevent this situation from happening?
Staff
- Most people come in and check at the beginning.
- The Design Guidelines in Chapter 4.84 says that windows should be constructed of real
glass, window frames should be constructed of real wood not vinyl, metal or plastic.
Wood sashes may be vinyl or metal clad if consistent with the historic design context.
Byron Brown, Applicant, Ralph Cavanna, and Timothy Vago, Applicants
- Trim around all the existing windows is wood. Some have shutters
Committee member made a comment.
• If not in a historic district, no permits are needed if replaced within existing window
openings. Is the permit required?
Staff
- Permits are not uncommon.
PAGE 8 OF 13 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 23, 2024
Committee member made a comment.
• Troubled that it doesn’t meet the Design guidelines even though they already bought
the windows.
Open Public Comment
Committee members asked questions of the applicant.
Byron Brown, Applicant, Ralph Cavanna, and Timothy Vago, Applicants
- They were in the permit process when they measured and ordered the windows.
Closed Public Comment
Committee members discussed the matter.
• The 58 windows are prominent.
• It would be a huge improvement if all the windows were matching.
• If painted and not white that could be recommended.
• Use of vinyl is a direct violation. White is very stark,
• The windows clearly need to be replaced.
• Is white the concern? We have made exceptions.
• Vinyl is not acceptable.
• The house is not historic but is in a historic district.
• Seems to be a waste of materials and the tenants may not get new windows due to
higher costs.
Committee members asked questions of the applicant.
Byron Brown, Applicant, Ralph Cavanna, and Timothy Vago, Applicants
- Speaking on behalf of the owner, the preference would be to paint the vinyl a wood
color.
- The project is expensive at $60,000. It is at the top of their budget.
- They want to complete the project before winter.
- They can bring in a painted sample.
- They have been doing business in Los Gatos for the last 30 years and have followed the
permitting process. In this case, they learned about the historic component at the last
stage.
- They cannot get a manufacture’s credit because the windows are not standard. They
were made to fit each window opening.
Committee member made a comment.
• Do not want to set a precedent for use of vinyl windows.
PAGE 9 OF 13 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 23, 2024
Staff:
- This does not set a precedent. Each project is considered case by case.
MOTION: Motion by Committee Member Cheskin to continue to the next meeting.
The applicant will bring back samples of painted vinyl windows to show
the quality and effect of the paint and that it appears less like vinyl.
Seconded by Committee Member Queiroz
Friendly Amendment by Vice Chair Quintana
We should not choose the color.
Friendly Amendment by Vice Chair Quintana
To clarify it would be to see the quality and effect of the paint. That it appears less like vinyl.
Friendly Amendment accepted by Committee Member Cheskin and Committee Member
Queiroz.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously.
7. 55 Ellenwood Avenue
Request for Review PHST-24-020
Consider a Request to Remove a Pre-1941 Property from the Historic Resources
Inventory for Property Zoned R-1:8. APN 510-19-010. Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Section
15061(b)(3).
Property Owner: Pooja Goel
Applicant: Melina Padilla
Project Planner: Sean Mullin
Committee Member Cheskin recused themselves from Item 7, 55 Ellenwood Avenue, as their
property is located within 1,000 feet of the subject property.
Sean Mullin, Planning Manager, presented the staff report.
Committee members asked questions of the Project Planner.
Opened Public Comment.
Applicant presented the project.
Pooja Goel, Owner. Rashel, husband
PAGE 10 OF 13 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 23, 2024
- They have lived there for six years. There are many maintenance issues regarding
plumbing, pest control, and electrical. They can only use one bathroom. They need to
repair the roof and siding. They have not lived there for the last 3 months.
- There are no plans to demolish.
- They want to make the house liveable for their family and parents.
- Two of the three doors don’t work.
- The siding is rotting. They clean out gutters every year. But there are still leaks.
- The roof too old for solar panels.
- Multiple revisions were done to the house over the years.
- Additions were done in 1994 and 1998.
Committee members asked questions of the applicant.
Pooja Goel, Owner. Rashel, husband.
- They are not planning to demolish.
- They request removal from the Historic Inventory because they may want to extend the
house in the future.
- They plan to paint the house, repair the roof, repair the skylight leakages, change the
doors, and make vents in the house so that they can get solar and AC.
- You cannot see much of the house from the street.
- The structure in the back has a bathroom that doesn’t work. The plumber wasn’t able to
fix it.
Closed Public Comment.
MOTION: Motion by Chair Burnett to extend the meeting past 2 hours by 15
minutes. Seconded by Vice Chair Quintana.
VOTE: Motion passed 4-0, Committee Member Cheskin recused.
Committee members discussed the matter.
• The appearance and style of the house hasn’t changed over the years
• Even with the additions, it still looks historic and is surrounded by historic homes.
• Have the five criteria been met?
Committee members asked questions of the applicant.
Pooja Goel, Owner. Rashel, husband
- They know the prior owners who lived there for 35 years.
- They did lots of historical research.
- Little is left of the original house.
Closed Public Comment.
PAGE 11 OF 13 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 23, 2024
Committee members discussed the matter.
• Are pre-1941 houses being judged by state or federal standards.
• It is premature to take it off the inventory.
• The house has the look and there are distinctive features of a time and place still
present.
• Can the 5th finding be made?
MOTION: Motion by Chair Burnett to deny the request as it still represents a time
and place. And that the finding number 3 cannot be made. Seconded by
Committee Member Queiroz.
VOTE: Motion passed 4-0, Committee Member Cheskin recused.
MOTION: Motion by Chair Burnett to extend the meeting past the two hours from
6:00 to 6:30 PM. Seconded by Commissioner Barnett.
VOTE: Motion passed 4-0, Committee Member Cheskin recused.
Friendly Amendment by Vice Chair Quintana
That the integrity of the structure has not been lost. It is still recognizable.
Friendly amendment accepted by Chair Burnett and Committee Member Queiroz.
VOTE: Motion passed 4-0, Committee Member Cheskin recused.
Appeal rights read
8. 50 Hernandez Avenue
Request for Review Application PHST-24-002
Requesting Approval for Modification (Siding Replacement) of a Previously Approved
Project on an Existing Pre-1941 Single-Family Residence on Property Zoned R-1:8. APN
510-20-003. Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301: Existing Facilities.
Property Owner: Richard Archuleta and Chrissy Klander
Applicant: Jay Plett, Architect
Project Planner: Sean Mullin
Chair Burnett and Committee Member Cheskin recused themselves from Item 8, 50
Hernandez Avenue, as their properties are located within 1,000 feet of the subject property.
Vice Chair Quintana remains by random selection to retain quorum.
PAGE 12 OF 13 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 23, 2024
Sean Mullin, Planning Manager, presented the staff report
Opened public comment.
Applicant presented the project.
Jay Plett, Applicant
- Currently there is a mix of siding throughout the house and additions. Some repairs in
the past were patched over and filled with Bondo. They’d like to retore with three lap
wood siding to be consistent. An addition in the back has been approved.
Committee members asked questions of the applicant.
Jay Plett, Applicant
- Currently there is a mix of siding throughout the house and additions.
- Until actual construction began, they couldn’t see the patching.
- It is a Technical Demolition. Request to be exempt that allows when something is not
reparable.
- The appropriate siding is cedar or redwood. Old growth redwood is cost prohibitive
now. Original siding was done in 1903. Now they use treated pine.
- The owner chose that profile because it matches the existing three lap siding on the
home.
Closed public comment.
Committee members discussed the matter.
• Replacement with matching siding is an improvement over the existing hodge podge.
MOTION: Motion by Committee Member Barnett to Recommend Approval to the
Community Development Director for Modification (Siding Replacement)
of a Previously Approved Project on an Existing Pre-1941 Single-Family
Residence on Property Zoned R-1:8. APN 510-20-003. Seconded by
Committee Member Queiroz.
VOTE: Motion passed 3-0, Chair Burnett and Committee Member Cheskin are
recused.
REPORT FROM THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
• Director’s decisions all aligned with the recommendations of the Committee.
• Appeal received for 228 Bachman Avenue and is scheduled for the Planning Commission
on November 13, 2024.
PAGE 13 OF 13 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 23, 2024
OTHER BUSINESS (Up to three minutes may be allotted to each speaker on any of the
following items.)
• Next HPC Special meeting is November 20. Due to the holiday and meets at 4:00 PM
COMMITTEE MATTERS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 6:29 p.m.
This is to certify that the foregoing is a true
and correct copy of the minutes of the
October 23, 2024 meeting as approved by the
Historic Preservation Committee.
/s/ Sean Mullin, AICP, Planning Manager
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
(408)354-6872 Fax (408) 354-7593
October 25, 2024
Melina Padilla
2375 Zanker Road, Suite 245
San Jose, CA 95131
Via email
RE: 55 Ellenwood Avenue
Request for Review PHST-24-020
Consider a Request to Remove a Pre-1941 Property from the Historic Resources Inventory for
Property Zoned R-1:8. APN 510-19-010. Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Section 15061(b)(3).
Property Owner: Pooja Goel
Applicant: Melina Padilla
Project Planner: Sean Mullin
On October 23, 2024, the Los Gatos Historic Preservation Committee recommended denial of the above
request to the Community Development Director. The request was denied by the Community
Development Director on October 25, 2024.
PLEASE NOTE: Pursuant to Sections 29.20.255 and 29.20.260 of the Town Code, this decision may be
appealed to the Planning Commission by any interested person as defined by Town Code Section
29.10.020 within 10 days on forms available online with fees paid. Final deadline is 4:00 p.m. on that
10th day. Therefore, this action should not be considered final, and no permits by the Town will be
issued until the appeal period has passed.
If you have any questions, I can be contacted by phone at (408) 354-6823 or by email at
smullin@losgatosca.gov.
Best regards,
Sean Mullin, AICP
Planning Manager
Cc: Pooja Goel, via email
N:\DEV\HISTORIC PRESERVATION\HPC Action Letters\2024\Ellenwood Ave, 55 - 10-23-24 - HPC Action Letter.docx
CIVIC CENTER
110 E. MAIN STREET
LOS GATOS, CA 95030
EXHIBIT 6
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
55 Ellenwood Ave.
January 8th, 2025
Appeal of HPC Ruling to Planning Commission
EXHIBIT 8
FINDINGS:
Related to a request for a determination that a pre-1941 structure (55 Ellenwood) has no historic significance or architectural merit:
1. The structure is not associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the Town.
2. No Significant persons are associated with the site.
3. There are no distinctive characteristics of type, period or method of construction or representation of work of a master.
4. The structure does not yield information to Town history.
5. The integrity has been compromised such that the structure no longer has the potential to convey significance.
The Property + HPC Comments
55 Ellenwood
“Appearance +
style hasn’t
changed.” - HPC
“Original structure as I
remember it, and I’ve lived
here for 50 years!” - HPC
“Still has the feeling even
though it’s been added to
from when I moved here 45
years ago.” - HPC
Source: Google Maps Satellite
“Still looks historic.”
- HPC
Evidence of an underlying desire of HPC to not listen to fact.
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
1928 (Before Lot Split)1944 (After Lot Split)
51 Ellenwood Is
Born (Neighbor)
55 Ellenwood
Sanborn Maps
Sanborn maps from
1928 and 1944 show
significant changes to
the property by 1998,
including major
remodels that altered
its original character.
Permit 1994
Permit 1998
Other Notable Dates:
Extensive research at the Los Gatos Public Library revealed
no mention of this property in historical newspapers,
articles, notable real estate listings, or public records. The
absence of such documentation strongly suggests the
property lacks significant historical importance.
FINDING #1, #4
1. The structure is not associated with events that have
made a significant contribution to the Town.✓
✓4. The structure does not yield information to Town history.
House Index
Research found no evidence linking this
property to any historical significance.
FINDING #1, #4
1. The structure is not associated with events that have
made a significant contribution to the Town.✓
✓4. The structure does not yield information to Town history.
Museums of Los Gatos Historic Homes Tour
List Of People Recorded As Associated With 55 Ellenwood:
1.1934 – 1945 Stanley A R and Flowers C H
2.1968 – 1986 Sydney and Roberts Dunton
3.1968 – 1986 First National Bank and Palo Alto Financial Corporation
4.1968 – 1986 Leigh & Merry Belden
5.1986 Andris Holms
6.1992 Andris and Leslie
7.2002 Andris and Leslie Trust
8.2012 Leslie Holms Trust
9.2019 The Jain Family Revocable Trust with Vishal Jain and Pooja Goel as Trustees
FINDING #2
✓2. No Significant persons are associated with the site.
District
Non-contributing
1950
55 Ellenwood
FINDING #3
✓3. There are no distinctive characteristics of type, period or
method of construction or representation of work of a master;
The Anne Bloomfield Survey documents the home,
built in the 1950s, received preliminary rating of
“N”, due to major renovations by 1989. No
distinctive architectural features were identified,
and no construction changes are recorded in city
archives through 1994. This undermines its historic
integrity and diminishes its eligibility for historic
designation.
“N”
1989
New Windows at new Master
Bedroom – nonhistorical typology.
New Windows at new Master
Bedroom – nonhistorical typology
New exposed 2x6 rafters
visible from public sidewalk +
trellis and lattice
1994 Approved Permitted Work / Addition
FINDING #3, #5
✓3. There are no distinctive characteristics of type, period or method of construction or representation of work of a master.
100% NEW ADDITION 100% NEW ADDITION
100% NEW ADDITION 100% NEW ADDITION
Non original window typology
5. The integrity has been compromised such that the structure no longer has the potential to convey significance.✓
Before 1994 Construction
300% Window Size Increase at New Addition
✓5. The integrity has been compromised such that the structure no longer has the potential to convey significance.
“Still looks historic.”
- HPC
“Appearance + style
hasn’t changed.” - HPCFINDING #3, #5
After 1994 Construction
FALSE FALSE
3. There are no distinctive characteristics of type, period or method of construction or representation of work of a master.✓
New Windows at Master
Bedroom
FINDING #3, #5
✓5. The integrity has been compromised such that the structure no longer has the potential to convey significance.
2019 Image
ORIGINAL
Different exposed rafter tail
detail not matching original
No evidence of
original vs current
fenestration pattern
NEW ADDITION (1994)1998 ADDITION
3. There are no distinctive characteristics of type, period or method of construction or representation of work of a master.✓
Contemporary grand arched
window at new living room addition
Contemporary veneer stone
chimney
Contemporary windows at
new game room addition
✓3. There are no distinctive characteristics of type, period or method of construction or representation of work of a master.
1998 New Addition
FINDING #3
100% NEW ADDITION100% NEW ADDITION
1998 Approved Permit
“Original structure as I
remember it, and I’ve
lived here for 50
years!” - HPC
2019 Image
FALSE
1998 New Addition
1998 Proposed North Elevation (Approved)2024 Image
Contemporary fenestration
configuration + type
Contemporary swinging
windows above modern
door panels
FINDING #3, #5
✓3. There are no distinctive characteristics of type, period or method of construction or representation of work of a master.
“Appearance +
style hasn’t
changed.” - HPC
FALSE
100% NEW ADDITION 100% NEW ADDITION
5. The integrity has been compromised such that the structure no longer has the potential to convey significance.✓
Current Photo of Existing House (2024)
FINDING #3, #5
✓3. There are no distinctive characteristics of type, period or method of construction or representation of work of a
master;
✓5. The integrity has been compromised such that the structure no longer has the potential to convey significance.
ORIGINAL STRUCTURE NEW ADDITION (1994)NEW ADDITION (1998)
55 Ellenwood Ave. (Before 1994 Renovation)
FINDING #5
“Original structure as I
remember it, and I’ve lived
here for 50 years!” - HPC
“Appearance +
style hasn’t
changed.” - HPC
FALSE
FALSE
Existing Property Picture From Redfin Real Estate Listing (2019)
FINDING #5
NEW ADDITION (1994)NEW ADDITION (1998)ORIGINAL STRUCTURE
Approved Permits (1994)
Existing
Area of total
demolition
Original Footprint
1994 Footprint
Existing
100% Original House Footprint Per San Born
Map 1928 +1944
FINDING #5
Outline of
residence as
reflected in 1994
Building Permit
Technical demolition of area 50% affected at “front facade”
50% Original Front Facade
50% Technical Demolition at Front Facade
50%
50%
✓5. The integrity has been compromised such that the
structure no longer has the potential to convey significance.
Staff Comment: “Based upon
available information, the
property has likely incurred a
technical demo.”
50%
50%
TRUE
Approved Permits - (1998)
FINDING #5
➢Technical demolition of area 60% and 70% affected at “front facade”
40% Original Front
60% Technical Demo at Front
“Staff leans towards
interpretation that prior
permitted work already
involved a technical demo”
✓5. The integrity has been compromised such that the structure no longer has the potential to convey significance.
Original
New
Area of total
demolition
25%
35%40%
New
30% Original Front Facade
70% Technical Demolition at Front Facade
70% > 25% max demolition @ FRONT
TRUE
35%
15%
25%
15%
Area of total
demolition
Original House Remain
Area of Total Demolition
Approved Permits (1994, 1998)
FINDING #5
1994 Addition
1998 Addition
“Staff leans towards
interpretation that prior
permitted work already
involved a technical demo”
“Still has the feeling even
though it’s been added to
from when I moved here 45
years ago.” - HPC
“Appearance + style
hasn’t changed.” -
HPC
“Still looks
historic.” - HPC
✓5. The integrity has been compromised such that the structure no longer has the potential to convey significance.
“Original structure as I
remember it, and I’ve lived
here for 50 years!” - HPC
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FINDINGS:
Related to a request for a determination that a pre-1941 structure (55 Ellenwood) has no historic significance or architectural merit:
1. The structure is not associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the Town.✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
2. No Significant persons are associated with the site.
3. There are no distinctive characteristics of type, period or method of construction or representation of work of a master.
4. The structure does not yield information to Town history.
5. The integrity has been compromised such that the structure no longer has the potential to convey significance.
EXHIBIT 9
Tedi Uhrowczik
December 22, 2024
Gentlemen and Ladies:
I am writing to you because I am in support of the current remodel of 55 Ellenwood Ave, Los
Gatos. The following are the facts:
1. I have resided at (across the street from 55 Ellenwood) since 1979, 45 yrs.
Since that time, almost every house in our Ellenwood, West Ellenwood, Belmont, Apricot,
Alexander and Bachman Ave area has been remodeled, greatly increasing the charm and
appeal of the area.
2. 55 Ellenwood specifically has gone through 3 major changes/remodels since 1979:
1981 After we remodeled our home in 1980, the Beldens used our contractor, BenRogers
Construction to remodel 55 Ellenwood
1994 remodel by the Holms
1998 major remodel by the Holms changing the entire front of the house
3. Because of all the changes over last 45 years, 55 Ellenwood has not retained anything
that one could call “historical” . However, what it has retained is a home façade which is
ugly with no charm/ambiance.
4. For sure, I am not in support of all remodeling. There have been remodels approved in
the neighborhood that are way too big given their lot sizes. These are the remodels which
are totally inappropriate for our charming area. I support only the ones which are
appropriate.
5. I am so very pleased that Pooja and Vishal are now remodeling their property to better fit
the upscale charm and ambiance of the neighborhood. Again, the area has changed
drastically over my 45 years here, definitely for the better. And I look forward to finally
seeing a beautiful home at 55 Ellenwood with a softer, more pleasant look than it’s current
“non-historic” ugly look.
6. I therefore ask you to allow Pooja/Vishal to proceed with the beautification of their
currently rundown, ugly, non-historic property.
Tedi Uhrowczik
Owner/Resident
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank