Item 2 - Staff Report with Exhibits 1 through 8.16805 Loma Street
PREPARED BY: Sean Mullin, AICP
Planning Manager
Reviewed by: Community Development Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6872
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 08/08/2025
ITEM NO: 2
DATE: August 8, 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 for Property Zoned R-1:8. Located at 16805 Loma Street. APN 532-
07-101. Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Section 15061(b)(3). Request for Review
PHST-25-007. Property Owner/Appellant: William Wundram. Applicant: David
Britt, Britt-Rowe. Project Planner: Sean Mullin.
RECOMMENDATION:
Deny the appeal of the Community Development Director decision to deny a request to remove
a pre-1941 property from the Historic Resources Inventory for property zoned R-1:8, located at
16805 Loma Street.
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: 7,708 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 9
PAGE 2 OF 11
SUBJECT: 16805 Loma Street/Appeal of PHST-25-007
DATE: August 8, 2024
C:\Users\MeetingsOfficeUser13\AppData\Local\Temp\tmp4BA5.tmp
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:
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.
As required to remove a pre-1941 property from the Historic Resources Inventory (HRI).
ACTION:
The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed within ten days.
BACKGROUND:
The subject property is located on the north side of Loma Street, approximately 58 feet east of
the intersection with Ferris Avenue (Exhibit 1). The property is currently developed with an
862-square foot single-family residence constructed in 1929 per the Santa Clara County
Assessor’s Database. The property was annexed into the Town in 1999. The property is not
within a historic district or LHP overlay, is not included in the 1990 Anne Bloomfield Survey, and
is not located within the coverage area of the Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps.
On May 28, 2025, the Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) considered a request to remove
the subject property from the HRI. The applicant’s request included a letter indicating that,
based on their research and experience, the findings for removal from the HRI could be made,
noting that the residence is not associated with events important to the Town, not associated
with significant persons, not representative of work of a master, does not yield information to
the Town’s history, and its integrity has been compromised (Exhibit 3, Attachment 1). The HPC
received the staff report, held a public hearing, and discussed the request. The HPC voted
three-to-two to recommend denial to the Community Development Director finding that the
residence still has integrity and is typical of a California bungalow (Exhibit 4). The audio from
this meeting is available on the Town’s website at https://losgatos-
ca.municodemeetings.com/bc-hpc/page/historic-preservation-committee-10. On May 30,
2025, the Community Development Director denied the request for removal (Exhibit 5).
Page 10
PAGE 3 OF 11
SUBJECT: 16805 Loma Street/Appeal of PHST-25-007
DATE: August 8, 2024
C:\Users\MeetingsOfficeUser13\AppData\Local\Temp\tmp4BA5.tmp
On June 4, 2025, the decision of the Community Development Director was appealed to the
Planning Commission by an interested person, William Wundram, property owner of 16805
Loma Street (Exhibit 6). On the appeal form, the appellant indicated that the HPC stated that
there were no changes to the residence, but neglected to reference a 1967 picture
demonstrating changes that occurred to the windows, doors, and roofing.
Pursuant to Town Code Section 29.20.255, any interested person, as defined by Section
29.10.020, may appeal to the Planning Commission any decision of the Community
Development Director determining matters pertaining to historic preservation. For residential
projects, an interested person is defined as “a person or entity who owns property or resides
within 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 hearing for the appeal must set for the first
regular meeting of the Planning Commission more than five days after the date of filing the
appeal. Due to legal noticing timelines and the July public hearing recess, the August 5, 2025
Planning Commission meeting is the first regular meeting available to consider 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 north side of Loma Street, approximately 58 feet east
of the intersection with Ferris Avenue (Exhibit 1). 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
the request to remove a 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 1929 for
the residence; therefore, the subject property is included on the HRI as a presumptive
historic residence.
Page 11
PAGE 4 OF 11
SUBJECT: 16805 Loma Street/Appeal of PHST-25-007
DATE: August 8, 2024
C:\Users\MeetingsOfficeUser13\AppData\Local\Temp\tmp4BA5.tmp
Town Code Sections 29.20.700 and 29.80.222 provide that the Community Development
Director, upon recommendation by the HPC, determines matters pertaining to historic
preservation that are not assigned to the Planning Commission. Section 29.80.227 (6)
provides that it is the power and duty of the HPC to make a recommendation to the
Community Development Director on requests for removal of a pre-1941 property from 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.
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 environment for
such structures.
3. The enhancement of property values, the stabilization of neighborhood 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 notes that the Town has a wealth of older homes,
many homes constructed prior to 1941, and may be found throughout Los Gatos. It is Town
policy to preserve these resources whenever possible and practicable, and to require
special care in the remodeling of and additions to them. All pre-1941 structures have the
potential to be historically significant. Section 4.2 notes that the Town recognizes a historic
resource as follows:
Page 12
PAGE 5 OF 11
SUBJECT: 16805 Loma Street/Appeal of PHST-25-007
DATE: August 8, 2024
C:\Users\MeetingsOfficeUser13\AppData\Local\Temp\tmp4BA5.tmp
Any structure/site that is located within an historic district (Broadway, Almond Grove,
Fairview Plaza, University/ Edelen, and Downtown Commercial); or
Any structure/site that is historically designated; or
Any primary structure that was constructed prior to 1941, unless the Town has
determined that the structure has no historic significance or architectural merit.
Lastly, Section 4.6 of the Residential Design Guidelines 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 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 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.
These criteria are derived from the criteria used by the National and State Registers of
Historic Places and reflect the purpose provided in the Town’s Historic Preservation
Ordinance found in Section 29.80.215 of the Town Code.
B. Historic Preservation Committee
On May 28, 2025, the HPC received the staff report, held a public hearing, and discussed the
request (Exhibits 3 and 4). Following discussion, the HPC voted three-to-two to recommend
denial to the Community Development Director finding that the residence still has integrity
and is typical of a California bungalow (Exhibit 4). On May 30, 2025, the Community
Development Director denied the request for removal without prejudice (Exhibit 5).
Page 13
PAGE 6 OF 11
SUBJECT: 16805 Loma Street/Appeal of PHST-25-007
DATE: August 8, 2024
C:\Users\MeetingsOfficeUser13\AppData\Local\Temp\tmp4BA5.tmp
C. Appeal to Planning Commission
The decision of the Community Development Director was appealed on June 4, 2025, by the
property owner, William Wundram (Exhibit 6). On the appeal form, the appellant indicated
that the HPC stated that there were no changes to the residence, but neglected to
reference a 1967 picture demonstrating changes to the windows, doors, and roofing
(Exhibit 6). An additional letter from the appellant was provided in support of the appeal on
July 28, 2025 (Exhibit 7). The letter includes an executive summary detailing reasons the
appeal should be granted; two separate historic and architectural evaluations of the
property; property research conducted by the property owner as required for an HPC
application; neighborhood feedback; transcripts of the April 23, 2025, and May 28, 2025,
HPC meetings; and a structural condition report from a licensed structural engineer. The
various points raised in the letter are discussed below.
Executive Summary
Primary appeal points:
The main points made in the Executive Summary of the appeal letter are provided below
followed by staff analysis in italic font.
1. The three dissenting committee members didn’t identify the specific criteria for denial.
As reflected in the meeting minutes included as Exhibit 4, Commissioner Burnett’s
motion to recommend denial included that the residence still has integrity and is typical
of a California bungalow. The first part of the motion aligns with Criterion 5, while the
second part of the motion does not explicitly align with the other criteria.
2. There was a wide variation of interpretation of the structure’s architectural style by HPC
members (Criterion #3).
During discussion, HPC members described the residence as a generic bungalow,
California bungalow, and a Los Gatos bungalow. The term bungalow is often provided as
reference to a smaller, single-story house with a sloped roof and a porch. The primary
defining feature of a bungalow is its small size. The Bloomfield Survey noted the style of
the residence as Bungalow. The Historic and Architectural Evaluations provided by the
appellant refer to the residence as a Craftsman Bungalow or a Bungalow with limited
Craftsman elements.
3. Continued references to a newer photo (1990) than what was provided (1967) and not
acknowledging the series of modifications that have been made to the structure
(Criterion #5).
Page 14
PAGE 7 OF 11
SUBJECT: 16805 Loma Street/Appeal of PHST-25-007
DATE: August 8, 2024
C:\Users\MeetingsOfficeUser13\AppData\Local\Temp\tmp4BA5.tmp
The applicant provided multiple photos of the residence including a 1990 photo from the
Bloomfield Survey and a 1967 photo from the County Assessor. One Committee member
referenced the 1990 Bloomfield photo, noting that the residence had not changed from
that photo.
4. There was a comparison to another property on San Benito, which is not allowed.
Each request considered by the HPC must be considered independent of other
applications, even if there are similarities between the requests. Staff provided
clarification to the HPC that the San Benito project considered on the same agenda
should not be considered with this request.
5. There were incorrect statements made by the HPC Chair about similar pre-1941 houses
on Loma Street that were previously approved for removal from the list under the same
criteria.
The appellant’s letter provides more details on this assertion. Staff offers no further
comments.
6. There have been repeated comments made by a few HPC members stating that the
criteria is “very confusing and contradictory" and feeling as if they are “losing homes all
of the time,” which leads to concerns over a fair and consistent assessment for
applicants.
The Town’s criteria used to determine whether a pre-1941 primary structure has historic
significance or architectural merit are closely related to those used by the National and
State Registers and reflect the purpose provided in the Town’s Historic Preservation
Ordinance found in Section 29.80.215 of the Town Code. Staff acknowledges that the
criteria are not currently included in the Town Code and intends to address this through
a future code amendment.
The Town’s Historic Preservation Ordinance casts a wide net when classifying homes
constructed prior to 1941 as presumptive historic resources. This date was selected
during consideration of the completed Bloomfiled Survey in 1991. The date represents
the first year on record that the County Assessor had surveyed the Town thoroughly. In
recognition that the wide net would inevitably classify many homes as presumptive
historic resources that would not be found to have historic significance or architectural
merit, the Town Code and Residential Design Guidelines provides a process for removal
from the inventory. Requests for removal from the HRI are regularly included on HPC
agendas.
Staff has no comment on the concern over fair and consistent assessments.
Page 15
PAGE 8 OF 11
SUBJECT: 16805 Loma Street/Appeal of PHST-25-007
DATE: August 8, 2024
C:\Users\MeetingsOfficeUser13\AppData\Local\Temp\tmp4BA5.tmp
Discussion of Criteria:
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 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.
These criteria are derived from the criteria used by the National and State Registers of
Historic Places and reflect the purpose provided in the Town’s Historic Preservation
Ordinance found in Section 29.80.215 of the Town Code.
The appellant provides a detailed discussion of the criteria used for evaluating the historic
status of a pre-1941 residence in the Town. The appellant provides a comparison between
the Town’s criteria and the criteria used by the National Register. In line with the National
Register, the appellant asserts that Criteria 1 through 4 speak to the whether a potential
resource conveys significance, while Criterion 5 speaks to whether the integrity has been
compromised such that it no longer has the potential to convey significance. The appellant
contends that Criterion 5 is not a criterion that can be used on its own to determine if a
potential resource conveys significance; rather, it describes whether significance conveyed
via Criteria 1 through 4 is still present.
As reflected in the meeting minutes included as Exhibit 4, Commissioner Burnett’s motion
to recommend denial included that the residence still has integrity and is typical of a
California bungalow. The first part of the motion aligns with Criterion 5, while the second
part of the motion does not explicitly align with the other criteria. As noted above, the
appellant asserts Criterion 5 cannot be used on its own to determine if a potential resource
conveys significance and, therefore, the residence would not be architecturally or
historically significant.
Evaluation of the Residence Against the Criteria
In Exhibit 7, the appellant provides a detailed evaluation of the residence against the
Town’s criteria, concluding that the residence does not meet the Town’s criteria for historic
significance or architectural merit.
Page 16
PAGE 9 OF 11
SUBJECT: 16805 Loma Street/Appeal of PHST-25-007
DATE: August 8, 2024
C:\Users\MeetingsOfficeUser13\AppData\Local\Temp\tmp4BA5.tmp
As reflected in the meeting minutes included as Exhibit 4, Commissioner Burnett’s motion
to recommend denial included that the residence still has integrity and is typical of a
California bungalow.
Historic and Architectural Evaluations
The appellant’s letter includes two historic and architectural evaluations. The first, prepared
by Jennifer Hembree of Page and Turnbull, concludes the following:
Constructed in 1929, the property at 16805 Loma Street is not a unique Craftsman-style
bungalow constructed in the area and dates to the end of the period when the style had
lost favor. The property is also not the best example of a Craftsman bungalow in Los
Gatos due to its simple pattern book-like design and multiple alterations. Many other
better examples are prevalent in the town, those that individually convey the style, as
well as those that together form a distinguishable district. The property at 16805 Loma
Street is thus also not a rare or last remaining example of a Craftsman bungalow in Los
Gatos that should be recognized despite its compromised integrity. Under review of the
property’s architectural merit, it is therefore in Page & Turnbull’s professional opinion
that the property at 16805 Loma Street does not fully embody the character-defining
features necessary to individually convey architectural merit as a Craftsman bungalow.
There are no distinctive characteristics of type, period, or method of construction or
representation of work of a master, and the integrity has been compromised such that
the structure no longer has the potential to convey significance.
The second evaluation, prepared by Brad Brewster of Brewster Historic Preservation ,
concludes the following:
Although the subject property at 16805 Loma Street is more than 45 years old and has
been identified as a ‘bungalow’ in the Town of Los Gatos’ historic resources inventory,
further review of the property indicates that it would not meet the Town, state, or
national evaluation criteria for individual architectural significance.
Structural Condition Report
The appellant’s letter includes a structural condition report prepared by Charles Williams, a
registered structural engineer. The report discusses structural deficiencies with the roof,
wall, and floor framing, as wells as foundation issues. The report concludes the following:
Given the numerous problems with the existing structure at every level, it would not be
economical to repair the existing structure. Therefore, it is my recommendation the
existing structure be demolished and replace with a new structure that addresses all the
concerns.
Page 17
PAGE 10 OF 11
SUBJECT: 16805 Loma Street/Appeal of PHST-25-007
DATE: August 8, 2024
C:\Users\MeetingsOfficeUser13\AppData\Local\Temp\tmp4BA5.tmp
A structure’s condition is not typically a consideration in determining whether a pre-1941
residence has historic significance or architectural merit. Due to the age of pre-1941 residences
and myriad states of deferred maintenance, structural deficiencies are common. A structure
with deficiencies that is found to have historic significance or architectural merit would be a
good candidate for restoration.
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, Friday, August 8, 2025, are included as
Exhibit 8.
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
the request to remove a pre-1941 property from the HRI for property zoned R-1:8, located
at 16805 Loma Street.
B. Recommendation
For reasons stated in this report, it is recommended that the Planning Commission deny the
appeal and uphold the decision of the Community Development Director to deny the
request to remove a pre-1941 property 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 18
PAGE 11 OF 11
SUBJECT: 16805 Loma Street/Appeal of PHST-25-007
DATE: August 8, 2024
C:\Users\MeetingsOfficeUser13\AppData\Local\Temp\tmp4BA5.tmp
EXHIBITS:
1. Location Map
2. Required Findings
3. Historic Preservation Committee Staff Report and Attachments, May 28, 2025
4. Historic Preservation Committee Meeting Minutes for May 28, 2025
5. Historic Preservation Committee Action Letter, May 28, 2025
6. Appeal of the Community Development Director decision, received June 4, 2025
7. Appellant letter, dated July 28, 2025
8. Public comments received by 11:00 am, Friday, August 8, 2025
Page 19
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Page 20
FERRIS AVLOMA ST
ENGLEWOOD AVLOS GATOS BLROBIE LNNINO A
V
POTTER CT
MARCHMO
N
T
D
R
SPENCER AV
TOPPI
N
G
W
Y
16805 Loma Street
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 1Page 21
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Page 22
PLANNING COMMISSION – August 13, 2024
REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR:
16805 Loma Street
Request for Review PHST-25-007
Consider an Appeal of a Community Development Director Decision to Deny a Request
to Remove a Pre-1941 Property from the Historic Resources Inventory for Property
Zoned R-1:8. APN 532-07-101. Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Section 15061(b)(3).
Property Owner/Appellant: William Wundram
Applicant: David Britt, Britt-Rowe
FINDINGS
Required finding for 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.
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\08-13-2025\ITEM 2 - 16805 LOMA ST\EXHIBIT 2 - REQUIRED FINDINGS.DOCX
EXHIBIT 2
Page 23
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Page 24
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: 05/28/2025
ITEM NO: 6
DATE: May 23, 2025
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 16805 Loma
Street. APN 532-07-101. Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Section 15061(b)(3).
Request for Review PHST-25-007. Property Owner: William Wundram.
Applicant: David Britt, Britt-Rowe. 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 16805 Loma Street.
PROPERTY DETAILS:
1.Date primary structure was built: 1929 per County Assessor
2.Bloomfield Preliminary Rating: “+” – historic and intact or worthy of special note
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
1929. The 1990 Anne Bloomfield Survey estimates the construction date as 1920s and provides
a preliminary rating of “historic and intact or worthy of special note” (Attachment 1). The
property is not within the coverage of the Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps.
EXHIBIT 3Page 25
PAGE 2 OF 3
SUBJECT: 16805 Loma Street/PHST-25-007
DATE: May 23, 2025
N:\DEV\HISTORIC PRESERVATION\HPC Reports and Attachments\2025\05-28-25\Item 6 - 16805 Loma Street\Staff Report.16805 Loma
Street.docx
The subject property was annexed into the Town in the late 1990s and a review of Town
records yielded no Town permit history.
The applicant provided an informational packet with their application, which includes a letter
requesting removal of the residence from the inventory, historic research for the property, an
architectural assessment of the residence, and a structural assessment and photos of the
residence (Attachments 1 through 5). The applicant’s letter indicates that, based on their
research and experience, the findings for removal from the Historic Resources Inventory can be
made, noting that the residence is not associated with events important to the Town, not
associated with significant persons, not representative of work of a master, does not yield
information to the town’s history, and its integrity has been compromised (Attachment 1).
In addition to the materials provided relative to the request to remove the residence from the
Historic Resources Inventory, the applicant has also provided preliminary details related to
potential redevelopment of the property, including a Letter of Justification, project data,
evaluation of the surrounding residences, How to Read Your Neighborhood Workbook,
summary of neighborhood outreach efforts, and preliminary plans for a new residence
(Attachments 6 through 11). Staff notes that the request before the Committee is for removal
of the residence from the Historic Resources Inventory. The preliminary details for
redevelopment should not be used as justification with any recommendation on the request
and is not the subject of this review.
CONCLUSION:
Should the Committee find that the findings for removal can be made, 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 or redevelopment of the property 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:
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
Page 26
PAGE 3 OF 3
SUBJECT: 16805 Loma Street/PHST-25-007
DATE: May 23, 2025
N:\DEV\HISTORIC PRESERVATION\HPC Reports and Attachments\2025\05-28-25\Item 6 - 16805 Loma Street\Staff Report.16805 Loma
Street.docx
5. The integrity has been compromised such that the structure no longer has the
potential to convey significance.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Request Letter
2. Historic Research
3. Architectural Assessment
4. Structural Assessment
5. Structural Photos
6. Preliminary Letter of Justification for Redevelopment
7. Preliminary Project Data for Redevelopment
8. Evaluation of Surrounding Residences
9. How to Read Your Neighborhood Workbook
10. Summary of Neighbor Outreach Efforts for Redevelopment
11. Preliminary Plans for Redevelopment
Page 27
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Page 28
BRITT/ROWE
108 N. Santa Cruz Ave.
Los Gatos, CA 95030
TO: Town of Los Gatos Historic Preservation Committee
FROM: David Britt; BRITT/ROWE
FOR: Justification of request for REMOVAL of existing structure from the Historic List of a single
family residence in the TOWN OF LOS GATOS.
Dear members of the Los Gatos Historic Preservation Committee Member;
This letter has been prepared by the applicant David Britt, for the request to remove the existing structure located at
16805 Loma Street, Los Gatos. The property is not located within the town’s historic overlay districts. This letter
outlines the justification for removal based on the 5 criterias adopted by the Town of Los Gatos. To make the
findings for removal, the house has been thoroughly reviewed by me based on 40 years of experience working in the
Town of Los Gatos as a residential designer and an educational background of historic Bay Area architecture at both
San Jose State University and University of California, Berkeley.
1.There is no evidence that structure is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to
the Town. The property was annexed to the town in 1999 as part of the Ferris #6 Annexation.
2.There is no evidence significant persons are associated with the site.
3.There are no distinctive characteristics of the type, period or method of construction or representation of
work of a master. To elaborate, the structure can be identified as a”Builder Bungalow” with a simple
dutch-hipped roof in mass and scale, but without any identifiable architectural features to determine a
specific subset of builder bungalows, i.e. Craftsman, Storybook, Chalet, or others.
4.The Structure does not yield any information to the town’s history
5.The integrity has been compromised such that the structure has the potential to convey significance. If there
were any details that could possibly distinguish that structure and to deem it architecturally significant (i.e,
decorative eave brackets, trim moulds, leaded glass, windows with a specific mullion pattern(s), etc., they
have since been removed. There was an addition in 1967 at the rear of the house adding a bedroom and
laundry room that are not original, nor match the architectural style of the original structure. The property
was also split in the early 70’s to create 16801 Lo where the pre-1941 structure at 16801 Loma
Street was removed to build a new structure in 2000.
For supporting reference material and evidence to the historic research, please refer to “Loma
Historic Research v2.” and “Loma Street Structural Photos”.
Sincerely
David Britt, Britt/Rowe
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 29
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Page 30
Subj: Research the History of a House in Los Gatos
Location: 16805 Loma Street
Date: Between 3/212025 and 3/27/2025
Conducted By: William and Brenna Wundram (property owners)
Table of Contents
Los Gatos Public Library
Sanborn Maps
1941 Tax Assessment Survey
1989 Anne Bloomfield Historic Resource Survey
Polk’s Directories 1924-1974
Museums of Los Gatos Historic Homes Tours
100 Bellringers
As It Was by Dora Rankin
Los Gatos Historic Resources Inventory – Jun 1991
Historic Property Research folders
History of Los Gatos by Bruntz and Los Gatos Observed by Dallas.
Residence drawers of the vertical file
The Patrons’ inquiries (binder #3)
A Field Guide to American Houses
Santa Clara County Planning Office
County Permit History
Santa Clara County Tax Assessors Office
County Property Records
San Jose Public Library
California Room - Aerial Maps
Los Gatos Planning Office
Laserfiche System – property research
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 31
1. Los Gatos Public Library (POC – Shawnte Santos and Jenn Laredo)
a. Sanborn Maps – Reviewed the 1928 and 1944 Sanborn maps (see photos in Exhibit A).
FINDING: The location of 16805 Loma Street is outside of the scope of the two maps.
b. 1941 Tax Assessment Survey – Reviewed the 1941 Tax Assessment Survey
documentation.
FINDING: 16805 Loma Street was not listed in the tax assessment survey.
c. 1989 Anne Bloomfield Historic Resource Survey – The Anne Bloomfield survey for
16805 Loma Street was executed on April 5, 1990 (see Exhibit B in the Appendix) noting
an estimated age of “1920s” and a “bungalow” style. Three other surveys were
completed for properties on the same street at 16760, 16770 and 16791 Loma Street
noting “bungalow” and “generic” style designations with two of those being active
rentals. Ferris Ave doesn’t have Anne Bloomfield surveys for 164XX addresses, only
addresses starting with 166XX. Englewood also does not have corresponding
Bloomfield surveys yet there were a series of pre 1941 houses on the street that have
been demolished over the years.
Most properties on Loma Street didn’t start to get annexed to the city until February 1st,
1999 as part of the Ferris #6 Annexation, (see Exhibit C in the Appendix) (which was over
nine years after the survey was executed) and well into the 2000s. Santa Clara County
permit activity ceases in 2015 for Loma Street and there was a bulk annexation in 2019.
16805 Loma Street was not in the purview of the City of Los Gatos Planning office at the
time of the Bloomfield survey.
FINDING: Bloomfield survey found for 16805 Loma Street.
d. Polk’s Directories 1924-1974.
The first match to an individual with a registered phone number was in 1962 to Hortenia
Moreno for one year. The next registered phone number started in 1968 through 1974 to
Albert Panighetti. The ancestory.com searches didn’t provide any significant results
(Albert Panighetti – born Mar 2nd, 1904 - died Mar 1991 – WW2 veteran).
Per the listing realtor, Kurt E. and Arlyn M. Wilson family owned it for the past forty years
and rented it out for the past twenty-five years.
FINDING: No significant findings of previous residents.
e. A list of the Museums of Los Gatos Historic Homes Tours and programs.
Page 32
FINDING: No houses on Loma Street were on the home tours.
f. A list of the 100 Bellringers and information.
FINDING: No match from the binder or supplemental.
g. Reviewed As It Was by Dora Rankin.
FINDING: No match found.
h. Reviewed the Los Gatos Historic Resources Inventory – Jun 1991.
FINDING: No match found.
i. Reviewed the Historic Property Research folders.
FINDING: No match found.
j. Reviewed History of Los Gatos by George Bruntz and Los Gatos Observed by Alistair
Dallas.
FINDING: No Loma Street houses listed.
k. Reviewed Information in the Residence drawers of the Vertical file.
FINDING: Box 6 Folders 1-8. No Loma Street residences in the vertical files.
l. Reviewed The Patrons’ inquiries, binder #3 residences.
FINDING: No listing for Loma Street houses.
m. Reviewed A Field Guide to American Houses by Virginia Savage McAlester.
FINDING: No match found.
2. Santa Clara County Resources
a. Santa Clara County Planning Office
FINDING: Found three permits. 1. “remodel/addition” permit from 1967 number:
1967-7094-00 (Exhibit D), 2. “repair roof” from 1967 number: 1967-7410-00 and 3.
“re-roof” permit from 1990 number: 1990-840-00 by the owner Albert Panighetti.
See supporting structural pictures (separate document) noting the addition of the
rear bedroom and laundry room.
b. Santa Clara County Tax Assessor (see Exhibit E from 1966)
Page 33
FINDING: One property was found which was listed under 16801, which is currently
the next-door neighbor’s address now. The original property had a garage that could have
been on the current neighbor’s property. The split of 16801 to create 16801 and 16805 was
Nov 12th, 1971, and the old APN was 532-07-008.
c. San Jose Public Library (California Room)
FINDING: Researched aerial photography from the period and added the best photo I
could from 1948 (Exhibit F) noting other structures on Loma Street.
3. Los Gatos Community Development Department Resources
a. Permit and Planning Documents (Laserfiche)
FINDING: No Planning or Building department results found for 16805 Loma Street. I
did find three demolition requests for pre-1941 houses on Loma Street.
1. 16801 Loma Street – Exhibit G – April 1, 1999 (next door)
2. 16761 Loma Street – Exhibit H – Nov 18, 1998 (same side of the street)
3. 16810 Loma Street – Exhibit I – July 7, 2004 (directly across the street)
Page 34
APPENDIX
Exhibit A – Sanborn Maps 1944
Page 35
Exhibit B – 16805 Loma Street – Anne Bloomfield Survey
Page 36
Exhibit C – February, 1999 (Ferris #6), Annexation of 16805 Loma Street to the City of Los Gatos
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Exhibit D – 1967 Permit for an Addition / Remodel
Page 41
Exhibit E – County Tax Assessor Property Record
Page 42
Page 43
Exhibit F – 1948 Map showing a series of houses on Loma Street
Page 44
Exhibit G – 16801 Pre-1941 Demo Approval – April 1, 1999
Page 45
Page 46
Page 47
Page 48
Exhibit H – 16761 Pre-1941 Demo Approval – Nov 18, 1998
Page 49
Exhibit I – 16810 Pre-1941 Demo Approval – July 7, 2004
Page 50
Page 51
Page 52
Page 53
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Page 54
!"#$%
&!
’!(!)!*+!!+!,!!-!!$%!
(!!!.!-,%
(-,,/!+!
-0%".!!$%--%-$1-!1!
!!$%!-!%-!,!!.!!$%
-!!+!2!,(2/%%*
!!$%$%!/!.!!$%-(!/!!2!
2!!(%2%!$-!/!2!,$%!/!
1-!!!!%3!%
0%".!!$%,-%-$1+!!,
4%!!$!51!!6!!7-!(
!!!!6//!,%%.!
(!/%!(!!$%!!6.!4%!
2+!(!2/( !2%!6//!,%,!
%,!)!!!+-!!!6%!
!!6/%%!,!!4!!+%!!$%
!!6,!%%!!,!/%.!!!!,+!
/!!!%!-!!,!/%,!!/!
2+!%
00%"6!!--%!!$%--%+!2!
!)!(22!.!!$%-,-!+!,!!
!!2!8!+!!-%,!!-/!,!!!-
9!%!/!,!!!%!!222/!,!!!
%!!/!,!!!!-*
!!!!-,/&!2!!
!-!/!-!+!,!!/!!8!+!!.!
!!-(!/!!2!22!(!8!+!!!!,
/!/!!-
10"!!!$%-,/!+!/!/(
%!!!,!!!+!6%-!--!!!/!-
2!.!!!%-!$!,!!-,!+!(!
’%-ATTACHMENT 4Page 55
!-!!!!!%*!!+!-
!!/+!2//(!!,!!-%
--!!!!!6!-:%!
/!2+!!+!!,!-!!-!2/4!
!-.(!)!!-!--!%
!%!!%:(!2!8!+!!-(/!!
(-!!-/!!/4!*!!(2/!!,
!!2!-(/!!)!!!2/!
+!!!2/!,!!$%!!+!(!+!
,/!!!2!!$%!.!!-!(
!!!!$%!/!!!!2!,!,
!!!!!!/+!:,(!+!,
(!!!!/+!’!!-!!-!!
!-!!!(-!)!
!!(
!
!%!!+#%!!
Verified by pdfFiller
04/03/2025
04/03/2025
Page 56
Subj: Structural and Condition Photos
Location: 16805 Loma Street
Date: 3/25/2025
Conducted By: William and Brenna Wundram (property owners)
16805 Loma Street Structural Photos
Table of Contents.
1.Foundation
a.Exterior/Interior foundation spalling on exterior and interior foundation walls
(painted over recently)
b.Vertical cracks (front right section)
c.No anchor bolts (Note: this signifles a high probably of no rebar in the foundation
walls)
2.Crawlspace Framing
a.Cripple wall framing on the foundation wall
b.Shimmed fioor joists and mudsill
c.Cracked fioor joists some up to 9ft spans for the 2x6 fioor joists
d.Post framing against dirt
e.Subfioor damage
3.Attic Framing
a.1x6 ridge beams
b.No purlins
4.Rear Addition (rear bedroom and laundry room were added).
a.Rear Addition – Attic view from rear bedroom access).
b.Rear Addition – Original exterior foundation wall
5.Main Level Framing and General Topics
a.No shear walls or exterior sheathing
b.No insulation
c.¼ drywall in multiple rooms
d.Termite damage
e.Single pane windows
f.Knob and tube wiring
g.Electrical panel (unknown amps)
h.Gas meter location (under window)
ATTACHMENT 5
Page 57
1.Foundation
1A. Exterior/Interior Foundation Spalling (painted over recently)
Page 58
Page 59
1B. Vertical cracks (front right section)
Page 60
1C. No anchor bolts (Note: this signifles a high probably of no rebar in the foundation walls)
2.Crawlspace Framing
2A. Cripple wall framing on the foundation wall
Page 61
2B. Shimmed fioor joists and mud sill
Page 62
2C. Cracked 2x6 fioor joists. Some spans are up to 9 feet.
Page 63
2D. Post framing against dirt.
Page 64
2E. Subfioor damage
3.Attic Framing
3A. 1x6 ridge beams
Page 65
3B. No purlins (just vertical 1x6s)
4A. Rear Addition – Attic view from rear bedroom access).
Page 66
4B. Rear Addition – Original Exterior Foundation Wall
Page 67
5A-C. No shear walls or exterior plywood sheathing (1X4 siding shown). No insulation and ¼ drywall
installed in multiple rooms.
5D. Termite damage (rear door)
Page 68
5E. Single pane windows (not original)
5F. Knob and tube wiring
Page 69
5G. Electrical Panel (unknown amps) with cloth wrapped wiring
Page 70
5G. Gas meter location under window (Not allowed)
Page 71
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Page 72
BRITT/ROWE
108 N. Santa Cruz Ave.
Los Gatos, CA 95030
TO: Town of Los Gatos Planning Staff
FROM: David Britt; BRITT/ROWE
FOR: Justification of request to construct a new single family residence in the TOWN OF LOS GATOS.
Dear Town of Los Gatos Planning Staff;
This letter has been prepared by the applicant David Britt, for the request to construct a new two-story single family
residence located at16805 Loma Street, This letter outlines the justification for construction. To make the findings
for DRC application approval, the residence has been designed within criteria set forth by the town for all new
residential construction as outlined in the “Design Review Guidelines” and other mitigating measures with respect to
neighborhood compatibility and preservation.
1.The residence is designed within the allowed development standards of R1-8 residential zone.
2.The house has been designed to be compatible with the neighborhood by in that it is similar to FAR, height,
proposed setbacks, height, and maas scale similar to many in the neighborhood consistent with the town
Design Review Gj\uiview guideline as outlined in section 3.3.2
3.One story mass elements have been included in the sign to mitigate two-story mass consistent in guidelines
as outlined in section 3:10.1
4.Proposed exterior finishes have been specified to be high quality and are consistent with the proposed
architectural style and to compliment the neighborhood guidelines 3.3.1 and 3.3.2.
5.Propose window and door material have been specified to match the surrounding neigborhood per
as outlined in section 3.4.1
In addition to items found in the Design Review Guidelines, other design elements have been
incorporated to mitigate the impact of a new two-story residence:
1.Second floor windows facing side property lines have high sills.
2.Second floor setbacks are significantly increased from minimum allowable.
Thank you planning staff for your assistance with our application.
Sincerely
David Britt, Britt/Rowe
ATTACHMENT 6
Page 73
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Page 74
Project Information
Scope of Work: Demolition of existing pre-1941 one-story
single-family residence with no garage, and construction of new
two-story single family residence.
Property Owner: William Wundram
18605 Loma Street
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Project location: 18605 Loma Street
Los Gatos,CA95032
APN: 532-07-101
Zoning: R1-8
Lot Area: 7,461
Avg Lot Slope: less than 2% (flat)
FAR Existing Proposed Allowed
Main Dwelling: 861 (.11) 2,454 (.32) 2,462 (.33)
Garage: 0 (.0) 483 (.06) 671 (.09)
Setbacks Existing Proposed Allowed
Front: 17’-5” 25’-0” 25’-0”
Rear: 33’-6” 20’-0” 20’-0”
Sides (left/right) 38’-7”/9’-3” 8’-0”/8’-0” 8’-0”/8’-0”
Lot Coverage: Existing Proposed Allowed
First Floor/Porches/Garage 905 (12%) 2,326 (31%) (40%)
Building Height: Existing Proposed Allowed
Measured from exist. grade) 14’ 27’ 30’
Page 75
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Page 76
16805 Loma Street and
Surrounding Houses
Los Gatos
ATTACHMENT 8
Page 77
16805 Loma Street
16805 Loma St
862 sqft
7,460 lot
Single story
Year 1929
Page 78
Rear View
16456 Ferris St
2,750 sqft
15,137 lot
Two story
Year 1995
From 16805 Loma Rear YardPage 79
Front View
Front (from Street) – directly across
16800/10 Loma St
4,400 sqft
10,812 lot
Two story
Year 2010
Was a Pre 1941 House
and was approved for
demolition
Page 80
Front Right View
Front (from Street) – directly across
16490 Ferris Ave
2,505 sqft
9,800 lot
Two story
Year 1999
Was a Pre 1941 House and
was approved for major
renovation and second
story
Page 81
Right View
16801 Loma St
2,472 sqft
7,578 lot
Two story
Year 2000
Was a Pre 1941 House
and was approved for
demolition
Front (from Street)
From 16805 Loma YardPage 82
Left View
16460 Ferris St
2,368 sqft
5,880 lot
Two story
Year Unknown
From 16805 Loma Yard
From 16805 Loma Yard
16460 Ferris St Front (from Street)Page 83
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Page 84
ATTACHMENT 9
Page 85
Page 86
Page 87
Page 88
Page 89
Page 90
Page 91
Page 92
Page 93
Page 94
Page 95
Page 96
Page 97
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Page 98
Subj: Neighboring property owner notiflcation
Location: 16805 Loma Street
Date: Between 4/13/2025 and 4/22/2025
Conducted By: William and Brenna Wundram (property owners)
Dear Los Gatos Planning Department,
Brenna and I visited each of the following neighbors regarding our interest building the
proposed house designed by David Britt. We provided each family a three-page packet that
is included in our proposal (A0, A1 and A2) noting the placement of the structure on the lot,
fioor plans and elevations.
Address Location Names Date
16801 Loma Street Right of Property Kerry and Joel Lindholm 4/13/25
16460 Ferris Ave Left of Property Catherine and Gary
Pasternak
4/13/25
16456 Ferris Ave Rear of Property Vicky and Bob Francone 4/18/25
16790 Loma Street Across the Street -
Left
Catherine Ambrozewicz
and Stephan Tremblay
4/18/25
16810 Loma Street Across the Street –
Center
Pavni Diwanji 4/13/25
16490 Ferris Ave Across the Street -
Right
Kris and Mark Rapazzini 4/22/25
All neighbors were receptive of our intended plans, thought the design was fltting for the
neighborhood and appreciated our outreach. The Pasternaks (16460 Ferris Ave) were
interested in discussing potential landscape screening options between the two properties
at a later stage.
Please let me know if you have any further questions. I can be reached at (408) 421-5494 or
by email at wundy76@hotmail.com.
Best regards,
William Wundram
ATTACHMENT 10Page 99
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Page 100
Page 101
Page 102
Page 103
Material Board – 16805 Loma Street – Los Gatos
Roof Shingles – Presidential Shake – Shadow Gray Metal Roof – Dark Bronze
Windows – Windsor – Bronze Siding – Stucco – Dover White
Trim Color – BM Beigewood Garage Door Color
Page 104
Column Design Front Bracket Design
Page 105
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Page 106
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
MAY 28, 2025
The Historic Preservation Committee of the Town of Los Gatos conducted a regular meeting on
May 28, 2025 at 4:00 p.m.
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 4:00 PM
ROLL CALL Present: Chair Lee Quintana, Vice Chair Martha Queiroz. Planning Commissioner Susan Burnett,
Committee Member Alan Feinberg, and (Planning Commissioner Emily Thomas late due to
traffic).
Absent: None.
VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS Wayne Heimsoth, Vietnam Veteran, California State Guard Staff Sargeant, Los Gatos Veteran
Memorial Support Foundation Board Member, and American Legion Post 99 Adjutant.
Their mission is to save the old fire station at 4 Tait Avenue as a historical landmark and
use it as a meeting place and office for their two organizations. They are asking Planning what
needs to be done to rent the building and the approximate cost. The American Legion has a
501c Charity organization which can help with the cost. They are asking that it be called a
Veterans Center. Other towns have spaces for veteran organizations. They are not moving in
but by calling it a Veterans Center, other veteran organizations can use, help fix and fund the
building. Please save the building and advise the Planning Commission to turn it into a Town
resource.
CONSENT ITEMS (TO BE ACTED UPON BY A SINGLE MOTION)
1.Approval of Minutes – March 26, 2025
2.Approval of Minutes – April 23, 2025
Correction on April 23 Minutes - Discussion on the criteria for the State and Federal
significance and the Town’s significance. There are 5 different categories usually spoken
of. For the State and Federal the first four criteria are “or” the last one is “and.” The
Town’s all five criteria are followed by “or”. There is no “and”.
MOTION: Motion by Commissioner Burnett to approve the Consent Calendar.
Seconded by Vice Chair Queiroz.
EXHIBIT 4Page 107
PAGE 2 OF 13 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF MAY 28, 2025
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. 446 San Benito Avenue
Consider a Request to Remove a Pre-1941 Property from the Historic Resources
Inventory for Property Zoned R-1D. APN 410-16-051. Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Section
15061(b)(3). Request for Review PHST-25-005. Property Owner/Applicant: Devendra
Deshwal. Project Planner: Erin Walters.
Erin Walters, Senior Planner, presented the staff report.
Opened Public Comment.
Applicant presented the project.
Devendra Deshwal, Owner/Applicant
At the last meeting there were four conditions required to remove from the property
from inventory. Of the five conditions to remove from the inventory, four have been satisfied.
The fifth condition is if the structure has lost its integrity.
They spoke with neighbors regarding the history of the property. The neighbor at 441
has lived there for fifty years and said that the front and rear of the house have been totally
changed. A garage and an auxiliary structure used to be in the middle of the lot, but they
burned in a fire three or four years ago. The neighbors at 447 and 437 confirmed that there was
a fire, and that the auxiliary structure was damaged. They contacted the prior owners, who
provided old photos of the front and rear of the house. Current photos are provided for
comparison.
Committee members asked questions of the applicant.
Devendra Deshwal, Owner/Applicant
The applicant did a lot of work. They took photos of the subject structures widows and
their neighbors windows for comparison. The windows have been altered. They don’t know
when the windows were changed.
Committee members asked questions of Staff.
Erin Walters, Project Planner
If the structure stays in the Historic Inventory, it will need to meet the requirement of no
more than twenty-five percent demolition of the siding/wall covering for the front facing
elevation and no more than fifty percent removal of the covering/siding for all elevations. The
Page 108
PAGE 3 OF 13 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF MAY 28, 2025
application will return to the Committee for formal review after submittal of an Architecture
and Site Application.
Sean Mullin, Planning Manager
The lattice is not a wall covering and not included in that twenty-five percent demolition
calculation.
Erin Walters, Project Planner
The garage is an accessory structure and not included.
Sean Mullin, Planning Manager
Historic houses typically have structural issues and that is not typically a basis for
removal from the inventory. Restoration and rehabilitation include structural issues.
Closed Public Comment.
Planning Commissioner Thomas arrived at 4:20.
Committee members discussed the matter.
Vice Chair Queiroz
Appreciate all the work done by the homeowner. The house represents a simple
California bungalow style. It is shown through the front covered porch, wood shingled exterior,
and low-pitched gabled roof. The structure could be expanded and kept in the inventory and
restored to its former glory.
Member Feinberg
Satisfied that the technical criteria have been met and is willing to grant the request for
removal.
Commissioner Burnett
It is a perfect example of a California bungalow. The houses on San Benito are unique to
Los Gatos. The exterior tells a story about a time in Los Gatos. The owner can still build a larger
home but keep the same feeling. I want to keep it in the inventory.
Commissioner Thomas
I agree that it is a nice representation but there have been modifications. Does it meet
the criteria?
Chair Quintana
If taken off the inventory it could come back as a two-story house. That block has a
cohesiveness. Other homes there have additions, but they are towards the back. The major
change on this home is the lattice work but that can be removed. The porch floor changed from
Page 109
PAGE 4 OF 13 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF MAY 28, 2025
wood to cement which is not significant. The foundation is fixable but costly. What cost does
the Committee put on maintaining its inventory?
Vice Chair Queiroz
The photos reinforce that the house looks unchanged even with the window change.
The windows can be replaced with the look of the former windows. What is the cost difference
between fixing what is there and tearing down to build new.
Member Feinberg
Cost is not within our purview. It is not one of the criteria.
MOTION: Motion by Commissioner Burnett to forward a recommendation of
denial of the above request to the Community Development Director.
Seconded by Vice Chair Queiroz.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously, (5-0).
4. 37 Ellenwood Avenue
Consider a Request to Remove a Pre-1941 Property from the Historic Resources
Inventory for Property Zoned R-1:8. APN 510-19-015. Request for Review PHST-25-008.
Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15061 (b)(3). Property Owner/Applicant:
Arthur Chatoff. Project Planner: Samina Merchant.
Samina Merchant, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Opened Public Comment.
Committee members asked questions of Staff.
Applicant presented the project.
Arthur Chatoff, Owner
He is the owner, showed photos of 41 and 37 Ellenwood. Cannot see the house from the
street. 41 is the only house that looks at 37. Daughter, son, and grandkids live in 37. There’s a
permit for a shed attached to the garage. Nothing historic about it. Bought it from people who
lived there for four generations. The photos show a hodge podge of styles. Went through the
five points and none were met. Available for questions.
Closed Public Comment.
Committee members discussed the matter.
Page 110
PAGE 5 OF 13 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF MAY 28, 2025
Commissioner Thomas
Appreciate the photos and Staff recommendation. In this case we don’t see any original
or significant architecture.
Commissioner Burnett
It has nice architectural features. But because it was built in 1956 it doesn’t qualify.
Vice Chair Queiroz
If it wasn’t on the map pre-1941, it should be removed.
MOTION: Motion by Commissioner Thomas to recommend removal from the
Historic Inventory. Does not meet the five criteria. Seconded by
Commissioner Burnett.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously, (5-0)
5. 109 Tait Avenue
Consider a Request for Approval to Construct Exterior Alterations to a Non-Contributing
Single-Family Residence in the Almond Grove District on Property Zoned R-1D:LHP.
Located at. APN 510-18-037. Minor Development in a Historic District Application HS-25-
009. Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301: Existing Facilities. Property
Owners: Howard Labe and Jill Nakamura. Applicant: Terry J. Martin, AIA. Project
Planner: Erin Walters.
Vice Chair Queiroz recused themselves due to owning property within 500 feet of the
property.
Erin Walters, Senior Planner, presented the staff report.
Committee members asked questions of Staff.
Opened Public Comment.
Applicant presented the project.
Rebecca Pollard, Architect; Howard Labe and Jill Nakamura Owners
The project has two goals which include making a covered back porch for the owners to
enjoy the backyard and replacing the current patchwork roof that is not weather sound. The
project is not visible from the street.
Committee members asked questions of the applicant.
Page 111
PAGE 6 OF 13 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF MAY 28, 2025
Howard Labe, Owner
The neighbor to the left did the same thing to their home.
Closed Public Comment.
Committee members discussed the matter.
Commissioner Burnett
It is an improvement. The design fits very well with the home.
Commissioner Thomas
It is a nice improvement and fits in with the district.
Member Feinberg
Main concern was that the left side is visible from the neighbor. But that was addressed.
MOTION: Motion by Commissioner Burnett to forward a recommendation of
approval of the above request to the Community Development Director.
Seconded by Commissioner Thomas.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously, (4-0, Vice Chair Queiroz recused).
6. 16805 Loma Street
Consider a Request to Remove a Pre-1941 Property from the Historic Resources
Inventory for Property Zoned R-1:8. APN 532-07-101. Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Section
15061(b)(3). Request for Review PHST-25-007. Property Owner: William Wundram.
Applicant: David Britt, Britt-Rowe. Project Planner: Sean Mullin.
Sean Mullin, Planning Manager, presented the staff report.
Committee members asked questions of Staff.
Opened Public Comment.
Applicant presented the project.
Brenna Wundram, Co-owner
Brenna and Bill have lived in Los Gatos since 2008. Brenna is teacher at West Valley College.
Bill works for Varian Medical Systems. They love Los Gatos. They bought this property and hired
an architect. They have many neighbors here.
Page 112
PAGE 7 OF 13 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF MAY 28, 2025
Bill Wundram, Co-owner
He will present the research and the proposal. No significant persons. It was a rental
property for forty years. Wasn’t in the Sanborn map or any other historic overlay. Listed as a
bungalow. It wasn’t annexed until 1999. The address was originally 16801 Loma Street. Split in
1971. Three of the six pre-1941 neighboring homes were approved for demolition. They had
built dates from 1999 to 2010.
The property had three primary permits. Main permit in 1967 was for adding a bedroom
and a laundry room. The structural engineer described an over span of floor framing, rafter
framing without bracing, no sheer walls, and shims under the mudsills between the post and
beam connections to level the house.
David Britt, Architect
They have been in the business for over 30 years. They had worked with HPC in the past on
neighborhood projects. They did not find value. Work within an identifiable style. This property
is the last parcel on Loma that has not been remodeled or rebuilt. They looked very carefully
There was nothing left of the bungalow structure to identify it as California or a Spanish
bungalow. They propose removal and building something more consistent with the
neighborhood while following the Design Guidelines.
Carrie Winhall, Neighbor
They bought the adjoining house in 1998 and built in 2000. They’ve been there for
twenty-seven years. They are in support of the project. The owners have been proactive in
reaching out to the neighbors. All the houses are now two-story homes built in the last 30
years. It’ll be a huge improvement to the neighborhood. It had been a rental property and not
very well maintained.
Cheryl Green, Neighbor
They are in support of the project. The owners have been very proactive in working with
all the neighbors. The new design looks consistent with the neighborhood. They have lived
there for 20 years and don’t know of any significance at that house.
Dave Renner, Neighbor
Shady lane 2 blocks away. Know Bill for 15 years. Maintaining the aesthetics of the
neighborhood and have done a lot of research and thorough research of the five criteria.
David Britt, Architect
At the start of any project they try to find some architectural value in the structure. This
structure has been reduced to a bungalow shape. All the decorative surface treatments have
been removed. To add value it would be purely speculative.
Closed Public Comment.
Page 113
PAGE 8 OF 13 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF MAY 28, 2025
Committee members asked questions of Staff.
Sean Mullin, Planning Manager
The proposed design is not part of the decision process.
Committee members discussed the matter.
Commissioner Thomas
Encourage the communicating and connecting with the neighbors.
Grew up in that neighborhood. It is a generic bungalow. Doesn’t have anything architecturally
significant or historically significant.
Vice Chair Queiroz
We appreciate the applicant’s work. The house is representative of an era. Even though
other homes have been taken off, we prefer to keep it. The house looks the same as the
original.
Commissioner Burnett
It is a typical California bungalow built in the 1920’s, especially in that area. In the 1998
Bloomfield photos, it looks the same. It should stay on the inventory.
Chair Quintana
Of the three examples that were allowed demolition, two were not homes but barns,
which are not included as historic structures. The third one indicated an incomplete application.
While there are a lot of second-story additions in the area, they are mostly in the back. It is not
an exact style but is a typical bungalow seen throughout Los Gatos.
Commissioner Thomas
The neighborhood is not to be considered. This house does not have enough
significance. Not in support of a denial.
Chair Quintana
In the List of five criteria the “or” integrity has not been kept. Some of the committee
says it retains enough of a bungalow style. Keeping it on the inventory does not mean they
cannot make improvements.
MOTION: Motion by Commissioner Burnett to forward a recommendation of
denial of the above request to the Community Development Director.
Finding that it still has integrity and typical California bungalow.
Seconded by Vice Chair Queiroz.
VOTE: Motion passed passes (3-2), Commissioner Thomas and Member
Feinberg opposed.
Page 114
PAGE 9 OF 13 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF MAY 28, 2025
7. 119 Harding Avenue
Consider a Request for Approval to Construct an Addition and Exterior Modifications to
an Existing Pre-1941 Single-Family Residence on Property Zoned R-1:8. APN 532-35-022.
Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301: Existing Facilities. Request for
Review Application PHST-25-010. Property Owner: Brian Conlisk. Applicant: Jay Plett
Architect, LLC. Project Planner: Sean Mullin.
Sean Mullin, Planning Manager, presented the staff report.
Opened Public Comment.
Applicant presented the project.
Jay Plett, Architect; Brian Conlisk, Owner
Proposing a very small addition. According to the Bloomfield Survey, the windows were
already changed. This will be the fourth change. The view from the front and roofline won’t
change. They are punching out in the back. Moving the door and removing only one window.
The addition is no more than 500 square feet. All the new windows will be in keeping with the
Spanish revival style.
Committee members asked questions of the applicant and staff.
Jay Plett, Architect; Brian Conlisk, Owner
The front door will be replaced with a similar nice door. They will match the stucco
molding around the windows. There are no bay windows. The house will basically stay the
same.
Chair Quintana
The house may have had more embellishment as a Spanish style home. Can the
Committee make the recommendation to add lighting fixtures, to be more consistent with the
Spanish Colonial style?
Sean Mullin, Planning Manager
You can make the recommendation, but those items are not part of the project.
Chair Quintana
Concerned that the project will come back many times due to structural damage.
Page 115
PAGE 10 OF 13 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF MAY 28, 2025
Jay Plett, Applicant
They are not adding a second story. They are not taking the structure apart. Here’s a
close-up image of the windowsill that is rotten and filled with Bondo. There is termite damage
to the windows.
Sean Mullin, Planning Manager
It is typical to find structural damage in older homes. It is usually handled at staff level
and does not return to the Committee. You don’t know the structure’s condition until you open
a wall.
Vice Chair Queiroz
Can the Committee recommend that if they find damage that they replace in kind?
Sean Mullin, Planning Manager
To replace in kind is covered in the Design Guidelines and Town Code.
Jay Plett
The crawl space looks good, and they have not found any termite damage. The windows
were 1980’s wood windows.
Jay Plett, Applicant
The fireplace structure remains but will not be used. The awnings will also remain as
protection from the heat.
Vice Chair Queiroz
Materials for windows. Normally we don’t approve the aluminum clad. How about
fiberglass clad?
Jay Plett, Applicant
They would look for the style. The aluminum clad windows can still have the stucco trim.
It will be indistinguishable. The interior would be wood. It would be wood with fiberglass clad
or painted metal clad windows. The window would have the same trim and sill.
Sean Mullin, Planning Manager
Before the availability of fiberglass clad windows, the Committee typically approved
wood or metal clad windows.
Commissioner Thomas
Will you be re-stuccoing the similar color shade. What window style was original to the
home?
Page 116
PAGE 11 OF 13 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF MAY 28, 2025
Jay Plett, Applicant
We will re-stuccoing and have not yet decided on a paint color. The window styles are
casement and provide circulation.
Closed Public Comment.
MOTION: Motion by Vice Chair Queiroz to forward a recommendation of approval
of the above request to the Community Development Director. Seconded
by Member Feinberg.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously, (5-0).
OTHER BUSINESS (Up to three minutes may be allotted to each speaker on any of the following
items.)
8. 310 Tait Avenue
Consider a Request for Preliminary Review to Construct a New Second-Story Addition
and Exterior Alterations to an Existing Non-Contributing Single-Family Residence
Located in the Almond Grove Historic District on Property Zoned R-1D:LHP. APN 510-14-
058. Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301: Existing Facilities. Request for
Review Application PHST-24-026. Property Owner: Santiago Allende. Applicant: Donna
Chivers. Project Planner: Erin Walters.
Erin Walters, Senior Planner, presented the staff report
Opened public comment.
Applicant presented the project.
Donna Chivers, Architect,
Architectural revisions were made based on the Committee’s comments from the
previous meeting. Based on their preliminary calculations and discussions with the project
planner, they believe that it does not qualify as a technical demolition. They are saving the
entire front, left side, and back of the house. Just taking off a portion. The front door, both
windows and chimney all stay intact. They are adding a second story. They pushed back the
upper story addition fifteen feet from the front property line. It now sits behind the ridge of the
original roof. The ridge helps hide the massing from the front view. Windows are proposed to
be single hung windows with wood trim. New windows will have the same trim. They will add a
scalloped trim to match the existing. The existing siding was inspected by Planning, Building and
Police. It was deemed sound. The foundation will not be demolished but will need to be
reinforced.
Page 117
PAGE 12 OF 13 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF MAY 28, 2025
Committee members asked questions of the applicant and staff and provided comments.
Vice Chair Queiroz
Is this the ADU bathroom? It seems like a wide building in a small lot.
Sean Mullin, Project Planner
The setbacks can be 4 feet.
Commissioner Thomas
The requested changes were addressed. Pushing back the addition lessens the massing.
Member Feinberg
In two dimensional drawings it is hard to see the setbacks. The landscaping helps a lot.
Donna Chivers, Applicant
The garage/shed is being removed. It is on the neighbor’s property line. The ADU is
attached to the house. There is no garage or off-street parking.
Chair Quintana
It is a much better design than previous one; however, it dominates the existing
structure. Tait is its own neighborhood. There are no other two-story homes. Afraid that it’ll
open the door for other case-by-case, two-story structures.
Erin Walters, Project Planner
The parking and FAR would be reviewed when an Architecture and Site (A&S)
application is submitted.
Sean Mullin, Planning Manager
When they receive the A&S application with details, staff will present it to the Planning
Commission who can grant exceptions.
Vice Chair Queiroz
Recommend moving more of the mass to the back. The bathroom could be moved to
the back to reduce the mass.
Erin Walters, Project Planner
The State allows a minimum 800 square foot ADU even if the main house is over the
maximum allowed floor area.
Sean Mullin, Planning Manager
This attached ADU meets the Town Code. ADUs cannot be subject to discretionary
review. The applicant is welcome to consider the recommendation, but it is not binding.
Page 118
PAGE 13 OF 13 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF MAY 28, 2025
Member Feinberg
The back addition looks massive behind a tiny house.
Vice Chair Queiroz
Recommend that it should not go over FAR since it is in a historic district.
Sean Mullin, Planning Manager
In summary, the Committee agrees that it is a better design, but the lack of parking, the
massing and the scale are concerns. It is a large home on a small lot. They ask that the architect
consider working within the FAR.
Chair Quintana
Major concern is keeping the effect of that immediate neighborhood
Donna Chivers, Architect
There is a second-story house on Almendra right across the street and another two-
story homes visible on that street.
Chair Quintana
That is typical of a corner house. This is a street of four cottage homes.
Commissioner Burnett
Ask that the architect to go back over the design guidelines.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 6:19 p.m.
This is to certify that the foregoing is a true
and correct copy of the minutes of the
May 28, 2025 meeting as approved by the
Historic Preservation Committee.
/s/ Sean Mullin, AICP, Planning Manager
Page 119
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Page 120
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
(408) 354-6872 Fax (408) 354-7593
May 30, 2025
David Britt, Britt/Rowe
108 N Santa Cruz Avenue
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Via email
RE: 16805 Loma Street
Request for Review PHST-25-007
Consider a Request to Remove a Pre-1941 Property from the Historic Resources Inventory for
Property Zoned R-1:8. APN 532-07-101. Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Section 15061(b)(3).
Property Owner: William Wundram
Applicant: David Britt, Britt-Rowe
Project Planner: Sean Mullin
On May 28, 2025, 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 May 29, 2025.
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: William Wundram, via email
N:\DEV\HISTORIC PRESERVATION\HPC Action Letters\2025\Loma St, 16805 - HPC Action Letter - 05-28-25.docx
CIVIC CENTER
110 E. MAIN STREET
LOS GATOS, CA 95030
EXHIBIT 5Page 121
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Page 122
EXHIBIT 6
Page 123
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Page 124
1-1
TO: Town of Los Gatos Planning Committee
FROM: William and Brenna Wundram
FOR: The appeal to the Planning Committee for the HPC recommendation (2 - 3 split vote)
to deny approval to remove 16805 Loma Street (a pre-1941 property) from the Historic
Inventory for Property Zoned R-1:8 APN 532-07-101.
DATE: July 28th, 2025
Dear Members of the Los Gatos Planning Committee,
We are submitting this appeal summary to the Los Gatos Planning Committee on August
13th, 2025 after our May 28th, 2025 HPC presentation where we were denied removal from
the Historic Inventory for our property at 16805 Loma Street by a vote of 2 - 3 vote. This
packet is segmented into the following sections:
References will be made to section and page (example: 3-5).
1.Executive Summary – This is a guide to summarize the (A) evaluation of 16805 Loma
Street against the required flndings, (B) the series of procedural issues we identifled
in our May 28th 2025 presentation, (C) a concern over the inconsistent application
and understanding of the required flndings by some HPC members (as noted in the
April 23rd 2025 transcript provided) and (D) our proposed design that has received
great feedback from the neighbors.
2.Technical Memo - Page and Turnbull– Jen Hembree of Page and Turnbull provides a
detailed report evaluating architectural style, historic architectural context,
character-deflning features alterations and integrity, leading to an assessment
against the town’s flve required flndings. Jen qualifles that the structure does not
meet the criteria for eligibility as a contributing historic structure.
3.Technical Memo - Brewster Historic Preservation– Brad Brewster of Brewster
Historic Preservation provides an additional detailed analysis focusing on the
architectural description of the property, a brief historic overview of the property’s
development, application of the standard state and local historic resource
evaluation criteria and evaluation of integrity. Brad also qualifles that the structure
does not meet the criteria for eligibility as a contributing historic structure.
4.Research the History of a House in Los Gatos – this consists of the required
research at the Los Gatos and San Jose Public Libraries, Santa Clara County
Planning Office and Tax Assessor’s Office as well as the Los Gatos Planning Office
for the property, as well as examples of other approved pre-1941 properties on Loma
Street.
EXHIBIT 7Page 125
1-2
5. Neighborhood Notiflcation, Letters and Surrounding House Photos – this is a
summary of our communication to the immediate surrounding neighbors as well as
letters from neighbors supporting our proposal. I have added photos of the adjacent
houses to show context of the block.
6. May 28th Transcript – this is the transcript from our presentation to the HPC for
16805 Loma Street. I will reference statements of HPC members (highlighted).
7. April 23rd Transcript – this is a transcript from the April 23rd 2025 HPC meeting where
some members of the HPC and the Planning Director discuss their uncertainty
about the required flndings and assessment process and a bias to retain the current
inventory list (highlighted).
8. Existing Structural Conditions - 16805 Loma Street – this report details the issues
and safety concerns with the foundation and framing identifled in a March 31st 2025
inspection by Charlie Williams a licensed structural engineer.
Executive Summary
Prior to presenting our response, we would like to tell you about ourselves. My wife,
Brenna, is a teacher at West Valley and Mission Colleges, and I work for Varian Medical
Systems with a focus on program management and process improvement. We have been
residents of Los Gatos since 2008 and have walked down Loma Street many times over the
years. When we saw the “Coming Soon” sign up for 16805 Loma Street, we felt this would
be a wonderful location to develop our primary and long-term residence. We have
presented our plans to all of our adjacent neighbors and they have been very receptive and
supportive.
In our May 28th 2025 HPC meeting, we were denied approval with a narrow 2-3 loss. In our
meeting, (a) the three dissenting committee members didn’t identify the speciflc flndings
for denial, (b) there a wide variation of interpretation of the structure’s architectural style by
HPC members (Criteria #3), (c) continued references to a newer photo (1990) than what
was provided (1967) and not acknowledging the series of modiflcations that have been
made to the structure (Required Finding #5) (d) there was a comparison to another property
on San Benito, which is not allowed, (e) there were incorrect statements made by the HPC
Chair about similar pre-1941 houses on Loma Street that were previously approved for
removal from the list under the same criteria and (f) there have been repeated comments
made by a few HPC members stating that the criteria is “very confusing and contradictory"
and feeling as if they are “losing homes all of the time”, which leads to concerns over a fair
and consistent assessment for applicants.
We are augmenting our original analysis with two technical memos from professional
architectural historians, Jen Hembree, from Page and Turnbull, and Brad Brewster from
Page 126
1-3
Brewster Historic Preservation, with over 50 years of collective experience. Both agencies
are listed as recommended consultants on the San Jose Historic Resources website. Both
architectural historians have qualified that 16805 Loma Street does not meet the
criteria to be historically significant.
I would also like to bring to light the last session of April 2025 HPC meeting. This session
(transcript provided) was a discussion between a few HPC members and the Planning
Department, where some committee members discussed their concern over how to apply
the required flndings.
Evaluation of Pre-1941 Structures Against the Criteria
Table 1-A compares the flve required flndings to remove from Los Gatos Historic Inventory
(column 1) next to the National Register Criteria noted in “How to Apply the National
Register Criteria for Evaluation”
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB-15_web508.pdf (column 2)
and have included statements from this document regarding eligibility (column 3). The
California State criteria is near verbatim as well: https://californiapreservation.org/wp-
content/uploads/2015/12/1.PaulTravis_Survey-Resources-101Jan2016.pdf (Slide 9 for
Signiflcance)
Table 1-A – Los Gatos Required Findings to National Register Criteria and Eligibility Mapping
Los Gatos Required
Findings (for removal)
National Register
Criteria (qualifying for
preservation)
National Register Criteria
Eligibility
1. The structure is not
associated with
events that have
made a signiflcant
contribution to the
Town;
A. That are associated
with events that have
made a signiflcant
contribution to the
broad patterns of our
history; or
The property you are evaluating
must be documented, through
accepted means of historical or
archeological research (including
oral history), to have existed at the
time of the event or pattern of
events and to have been
associated with those events. (pg
18)
2. No Signiflcant
persons are
associated with the
site;
B. That are associated
with the lives of
persons signiflcant in
our past; or
The persons associated with the
property must be individually
significant within a historic
context. A property is not eligible if
its only justiflcation for signiflcance
is that it was owned or used by a
person who is a member of an
identiflable profession, class, or
Page 127
1-4
social or ethnic group. It must be
shown that the person gained
importance within his or her
profession or group. (pg 21)
3. There are no
distinctive
characteristics of
type, period or
method of
construction or
representation of
work of a master;
C. That embody the
distinctive
characteristics of a
type, period, or
method of
construction, or that
represent the work of a
master, or that
possess high artistic
values, or that
represent a significant
and distinguishable
entity whose
components may lack
individual distinction; or
Distinctive characteristics: To be
eligible, a property must clearly
contain enough of those
characteristics to be considered
a true representative of a
particular type, period, or method
of construction. (pg 18)
Type, period or method of
construction: A structure is eligible
as a specimen of its type or period
of construction if it is an important
example (within its context) of
building practices of a particular
time in history. (pg 18)
Representation of work of a
master: A master is a flgure of
generally recognized greatness in
a field, a known craftsman of
consummate skill, or an
anonymous craftsman whose
work is distinguishable from others
by its characteristic style and
quality. The property must express a
particular phase in the
development of the master's
career, an aspect of his or her work,
or a particular idea or theme in his
or her craft. (pg 20)
4. The structure does
not yield information
to Town history; or
D. That have yielded, or
may be likely to yield,
information important
in prehistory or
history.
The property must have, or have
had, information to contribute to
our understanding of human
history or prehistory, and the
information must be considered
important. The information must
be considered important. (pg 27)
Page 128
1-5
5. The integrity has
been compromised
such that the
structure no longer
has the potential to
convey significance.
“When evaluated within its historic context, a property must
be shown to be significant for one or more of the four
Criteria for Evaluation” (pg 17) and, “a property must not
only be shown to be significant under the National Register
criteria, but it also must have integrity”. (pg 50)
Note: Page references for eligibility statements are to the pdf page number. I added the
eligibility statements from NPS.gov to help provide additional context to what qualifles as
historically signiflcant, speciflcally for Required Findings #3. The eligibility statements
further segment the Required Findings #3 into three parts. These statements refer to a
structure that is “a ‘true representative’ of a particular type, period, or method of
construction”, “an ‘important example’ (within its context) of building practices of a
particular time in history”, and “whose work is ‘distinguishable from others’ by its
characteristic style and quality”.
One additional key point is that Required Findings #5 (referring to integrity) is not a criteria
at the national and state level for a valid reason. “Signiflcance” is qualifled against (a)
events, (b) persons, (c) distinctive characteristics and (d) history. “Integrity” is a scale of
degree (seven aspects) that needs to be satisfled only after historical signiflcance has been
satisfled. From the flrst two sentences of the flrst paragraph (NPS.gov pg 50) on integrity,
“Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance. To be listed in the National
Register of Historic Places, a property must not only be shown to be significant under the
National Register criteria, but it also must have integrity.” (pg 50). You will see that the
Town of Los Gatos Required Findings #5 is derived from the flrst sentence, just as a
negative statement. The following sentence in the quotation above qualifles that “integrity”
is not a component of “signiflcance”, and they both required to qualify eligibility. The latter
half of Required Findings #5 “such that the structure no longer has the potential to convey
signiflcance” is a qualifying statement pointing to the flrst four criteria (signiflcance).
”Significance + Integrity = Eligibility”.
In Table 1-B below, I have drafted a theoretical example with two scenarios of an excellent
example of a Craftsman style from 1939. In Scenario #1, the excellent example of a
Craftsman style structure has not been modifled. Based on these inputs, Required
Findings #3 and Required Findings #5 have both been satisfled and this structure could be
eligible for consideration to be qualifled as a contributing historic resource. Let’s compare
this to Scenario #2, where this same excellent example of a Craftsman style structure has
changes to design, materials, workmanship, setting or other aspects. The structure has
Page 129
1-6
been modifled so that doesn’t represent what was originally there. Based on these
different inputs, the structure would not be eligible to be qualifled as a contributing historic
resource because the “integrity” has been compromised.
The key takeaway from this example with two scenarios is that Required Findings #4 is
dependent on the assessment of “integrity.” Required Findings #1 through #4 are also
dependent upon the assessment of “integrity” helping to qualify why the national and state
processes refer to ”Significance + Integrity = Eligibility”. Integrity is not linear to the flrst
four criteria (signiflcance).
The confusion on how to interpret integrity and signiflcance has been echoed by some
members of the HPC as noted in the April 23rd, 2025 transcript and is referenced later in
this document.
Table 1-B – An Example of Two Outcomes While Satisfying a Criteria
Page 130
1-7
Evaluation of the 16085 Loma Street Structure Against the Criteria
The following section summarizes our flndings to qualify that the structure at 16805 Loma
Street is not historically signiflcant.
Required Findings #1: “The structure is not associated with events that have made
a significant contribution to the Town”. This was sufficiently addressed in the May 28th
HPC presentation with no questions asked or challenges to the flndings provided in Section
4 - Research the History of a House in Los Gatos. Our property and all other properties on
Loma Street were not referenced in the required materials to review (Museums of Los
Gatos Historic Homes, 100 Bellringers or in the other eight listed references noted). The
property was not annexed to the town until 1999, it is not in a historic district, and is not on
the Sanborn maps.
FINDING: 16805 LOMA STREET DOES MEET REQUIRED FINDING #1
Required Findings #2: “No Significant persons are associated with the site;”. This
was sufficiently addressed in the May 28th HPC presentation with no questions asked or
challenges to the flndings provided in Section 4 - Research the History of a House in Los
Gatos. Albert Panighetti was the flrst recognized owner in the 1960s and 1970s, who split
the lot creating 16801 ( property) and 16805 and completing an
addition/remodel in 1967 adding a bedroom and laundry room and other updates to the
facade of the structure. The recent owners for the past forty years were Kurt and Arlyn
Wilson, who rented the property for the past twenty-flve years.
FINDING: 16805 LOMA STREET DOES MEET REQUIRED FINDING #1
Required Findings #3: “There are no distinctive characteristics of type, period or
method of construction or representation of work of a master;
Please review Jen Hembree (Page & Turnbull) and Brad Brewster from Brewster Historic
Preservation for detailed analysis.
On page (2-13), Jen Hembree (Technical Memo - Page and Turnbull) provides a table
(Character-Deflning Features) comparing the character-deflning features and states, “In
review of the above, the property at 16805 Loma Street, which was a modest design to
begin with, has fewer character-deflning features of the Craftsman-style than those it either
does not have or has lost due to alterations. Thus, the property at 16805 Loma Street does
Page 131
1-8
not appear to fully embody the Craftsman-style bungalow and therefore does not strongly
represent the Craftsman style historic architectural context. There are no distinctive
characteristics of type, period or method of construction or representation of work of a
master.” (2-13). Jen goes on to say, “Under review of the property’s architectural merit, it
is therefore in Page & Turnbull’s professional opinion that the property at 16805 Loma
Street does not fully embody the character-defining features necessary to individually
convey architectural merit as a Craftsman bungalow. There are no distinctive
characteristics of type, period or method of construction or representation of work of
a master…” (pg 2-16).
Brad Brewster’s assessment (Technical Memo – Brewster Historic Preservation) further
validates Jen Hembree’s conclusion, “While the building has some of the distinctive
characteristics of this type of architecture, such as its front porch, the side gable roof with
decorative eave brackets, and its overall diminutive size and relatively simple architectural
form, it is an exceptionally modest and simplified version of the style that would not
rise to the level of a local landmark for its architectural values. Over two dozen better
examples of the property type and period can be found throughout Los Gatos that more
closely embody the characteristics of the Craftsman Bungalow. Research revealed no
associations with the work of a master. For these reasons the subject property would
not qualify as Town of Los Gatos historical landmark under local evaluation Criteria 3.”
(3-3)
In addition to the professional analysis provided above, there was a wide range of
interpretations by some of the HPC committee members:
Emily Thomas noted, “I know this little bungalow house, but I also understand how it is just,
generic bungalow”, " from my perspective, it does not seem to have any speciflc
characteristics that is…that qualifles it”. (6-7)
Alan Feinberg: did not comment on criteria #3 but did vote in favor of our request to remove
the property from the list.
Martha Queiroz noted, “it is representative of an era, even though other homes have been
changed in the neighborhood maybe they were by, like, a less conservative group of … on
HPC, I'm not sure.” (6-7) I would like to note that being representative of an era does not
meet the criteria for being historically signiflcant.
Lee Quintana, "Los Gatos bungalow. Uh, it may not be an exact style", ", to me, this is a
typical Los Gatos Bungalow. Uh, it may not be an exact style, but a lot of the homes on the
survey that we consider, to be representative of the character of Los Gatos are not…
examples of, uh…pure examples of the type of architecture.” (6-9) …and goes on to say, “we
Page 132
1-9
are trying to… preserve the feeling of our past history." (6-9) In Lee’s comments she refers
to a “Los Gatos bungalow” that is not a deflned style and not does it meet the National
Eligibility statement of being a “true representative of a particular type, period or method of
construction”. She also notes that she is trying to preserve a feeling of “our past history”
which is not the purpose of the HPC for this assessment. The purpose of this process is the
consistently and without bias apply the criteria to all resident applications.
Susan Burnett: “very typical of a California bungalow“, (6-8) "we are the Historic
Preservation Committee and we're trying to maintain our inventory", "we're trying to
maintain the same feeling of time and place". (6-8) This assessment is not in line with the
professional opinion of the two architectural historians and there were no stated
qualiflcations on how this is satisfled. Susan Burnett is also mirroring the same
commentary by Lee Quintana of wanting to maintain an inventory when that is not the
charter of the HPC.
FINDING: 16805 LOMA STREET DOES MEET REQUIRED FINDING #3
Required Findings #4: “The structure does not yield information to Town history;”.
This criteria was sufficiently addressed in the May 28th HPC presentation with no questions
asked or challenges to the flndings provided in Section 4 - Research the History of a House
in Los Gatos. The property and all other properties on Loma Street were not referenced in
the required materials to review. The property was not annexed to the town until 1999 and
is not part of the historic district.
FINDING: 16805 LOMA STREET DOES MEET REQUIRED FINDING #4
Required Findings #5: “The integrity has been compromised such that the structure
no longer has the potential to convey significance.”
Jen Hembree (Page & Turnbull) provides a detailed analysis of the alterations and integrity
calling out a series of modiflcations in her report. Referring to the Character-Deflning
Features table (2-13), it helps to qualify the lack of integrity and is further validated with
photos. She notes, “A substantial amount of original features have been removed and do
not date to 1929 (such as front fianking windows, front exposed rafter tails, and wood
shingle rooflng); For some features, only a portion of the original have been retained (such
as original wood-sash windows and its original form/massing).” (2-13). She notes in the
conclusion, “the integrity has been compromised such that the structure no longer has
the potential to convey significance.” (2-16).
Page 133
1-10
Brad Brewster’s assessment further validates Jen Hembree’s conclusion, “visible
alterations include replacement porch columns, replacement ‘picture’ windows on the
front (south) elevation, the replacement vinyl frame front and rear doors, the rear (north)
addition with gable roof and angled rear door with circular concrete steps and landing, as
well as the asphalt roof cladding. As a result of these alterations, the subject property
would be considered to only have a low to moderate level of integrity.” Brad wraps up in
his summary with, “further review of the property indicates that it would not meet the
city, state, or national evaluation criteria for individual architectural significance.” (3-
4).
During the May 28th meeting, two members of the HPC (that voted to deny removal)
consistently referred to the 1990 photo from the Bloomfleld survey and not the picture
provided from 1967 from the Santa Clara Tax Assessor’s Office, which might have impacted
the outcome. There are noted differences to the structure between the two photos as
noted in Jen Hembree’s report. I was not asked any questions about the photos and the
following discussion happened during the committee-only discussion.
Martha Queiroz noted, “I feel like at least the photo that we have of it as a… I don't know
how far back this… this dates on the Ann Bloomfleld Survey, but… The house looks exactly
the same as before”. (7-8).
Susan Burnett: “It hasn't changed at all since Bloomfleld photograph that was done. I think
it was in 98. Whatever, she did the survey. It was from 1998, it was. 1998.” (7-8)
1967 Photo from the Santa Clara County Tax Assessment File – Earliest Available Photo
Page 134
Page 135
1-12
In addition to satisfying the required flndings at this point, we wanted to bring to light a few
other elements that might have impacted our assessment outcome during our HPC
presentation.
Comparison to Another Project - During our presentation there were multiple
comparisons to another project on San Benito, which is very close to downtown. The
comparison by committee members to other applications is not allowed (as noted by
the Planning Manager). The HPC members that were comparing the properties were two of
the same committee members that denied our application. I have extracted the quotes
below as reference from the transcript.
Martha Queiroz: "but it feels like a case exactly, like, San Benito" (6-7)
Susan Burnett: "I could honestly repeat what I said for our previous one on San Benito.” (6-
8)
Martha Queiroz to Emily Thomas, "I would like that for my fellow committee member. Um,
you voted for the other item on the agenda that was very similar, and I'd like to know what
differences, you see, because they also have… We have spoken to neighbors and staff. It
was not in good condition…” (6-10)
Emily Thomas: “Are we supposed to be considering other applications in our decision?“ (6-
10)
Sean Mullin (Planning Manager): “No”. (6-10)
Previous Decisions on Loma Street – In my research, I found other pre-1941 houses
that have been approved for removal from the historic inventory by HPC on Loma Street
and I provided evidence within the Research the History of a House in Los Gatos (see
Section 4) from the Laserflche records. Expanding out, there have been a series of
approvals for pre-1941 structures on the adjacent streets of Englewood and Ferris. This
neighborhood is over a mile and half away from the historic districts. The other approved
pre-1941 houses on Loma Street were consistent in style to 16805 Loma Street and the
decision by the HPC on May 28th for 16805 Loma Street is inconsistent with previous
approvals under the same criteria.
During our May 28th presentation, , the owner of 16801 Loma Street,
presented as a neighbor. She noted that her family went through the process in 2000 and
Page 136
Page 137
Page 138
1-15
Lee Quintana: “I was flnding myself not sure I was making consistent decisions when
requests were made to remove projects from inventory.” (7-3)
Lee Quintana: "A lot of our language is very confusing and contradictory" (7-2)
Alan Feinberg and Lee Quintana further commented, "arbitrary", "capricious" (7-3)
Joel Paulson, “I haven't sat here for a long time….with his body. But after seeing this close
up tonight. You know, the HPC has roles, duties, responsibilities, continuing items because
you want to see plans that are not your purview doesn't make any sense…if you can't. If you
can't make one of the flndings to remove or to keep it on to, just deny it.” (7-6)
In summary, some HPC members have noted their concern over how to interpret and apply
the criteria. The transcript also notes some members’ concern over “losing homes all the
time" (7-3) and jokingly referring to “NIMBY” (Not In My Backyard) (7-13). The charter of the
HPC should be to fairly apply the documented criteria consistently to all residents
regardless of timing.
Structural Integrity – In addition to the exterior changes noted, Charlie Williams,
(certifled structural engineer) drafted a detailed letter (with many photos) on March 31st,
2025 (see Section 8 – Existing Structural Conditions - 16805 Loma Street) about the
condition of the structure. The speciflc callouts are considerable safety issues to the
structure:
1. Overspanned fioor framing
2. Overspanned rafter framing without bracing (Section 4-6,7)
3. No shear walls
4. Cripple walls between the mudsill and rim joists (Section 4-4)
5. Shims under the mudsill and between the post and beam connections in an
attempt to level the house (Section 4-5,6)
6. No anchor bolts or rebar in the foundation (Section 4-4)
7. Signiflcant spalling of the foundation (Section 4-3)
This structure regardless of its lack of historical signiflcance would require a signiflcant
rebuild, including removal of the siding to install appropriate shear walls in the event of an
earthquake to make the structure safe.
Proposal Design (Britt/Rowe Design) – We would like to add in a front elevation
rendering of our preferred proposal in hopes that it might allay any concerns over proposing
Page 139
1-16
a structure that doesn’t flt within the neighborhood. David Britt of Britt/Rowe Design has
been designing houses in Los Gatos for over thirty years and has a few examples in the
Town’s Design Guidelines. We have received great feedback from the neighbors as noted in
their submitted letters of support.
In summation, we have provided hundreds of hours of research to date across many
different resources and conferred with many neighbors on Loma Street regarding the
history of the block to date. After a narrow 2-3 loss in the May HPC meeting, we hired not
one but two recommended architectural historians with over 50 years of experience in their
fleld. The conclusion by the professionals is that 16805 Loma Street is not a structure
that would be eligible as a contributing historic resource at the national, state or town
level and we hope that the Planning Commission agrees. Previous residents with similar
houses on Loma Street have been approved under the same criteria. We have lived in the
town for many years and would like to build our forever home based on David Britt’s vision
and a design that is welcomed by our neighbors.
Respectfully,
William and Brenna Wundram
Page 140
SECTION 2
Technical Memo - Page and
Turnbull
Page 141
Page 142
16805 Loma Street, Los Gatos– Letter of Opinion [25228]
Page 2-2
PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154
such as historic aerial photographs, historic images associated with a 1967 tax assessment record
and the 1990 survey form, building permits on file at the Santa Clara County Planning Department,
as well as photographs of the interior attic space taken by the owner and letters prepared by the
property owner’s architect and structural engineer.
Limited research conducted by Page & Turnbull included a review of non-digitized historic photos in
the Arnold Del Carlo Photograph Collection, 1948-1990 at the Sourisseau Academy of San José State
University which contains imagery, including aerials of Los Gatos as it developed in the post-1940s,
although no images of the Loma Street property were found. Research did not include chain of title
research, or any owner or occupant biographical information. Photographs of the current condition
of the subject property were taken on June 16, 2025.
ARCHITECTURAL MERIT & INTEGRITY CRITERIA
This memorandum considers the architectural merit and associated integrity of the residence at
16805 Loma Street using the associated evaluative framework criteria or considerations of the Town
of Los Gatos Historic Preservation Committee. The Historic Preservation Committee considers the
following when making 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.
Framework Criteria
The considerations established by the Town of Los Gatos for maintaining status on the Historic
Resources Inventory are similar to the criteria for the National Register of Historic Places and the
California Register of Historical Resources. In all cases, historic resources may be significant for their
association with important events, people, architecture and/or master architects, and/or
information potential (archaeological significance).
This letter only addresses the property’s architectural merit and integrity. Integrity is closely related
to the ability of the property to possess architectural merit. Therefore, this letter only addresses
Page 143
16805 Loma Street, Los Gatos– Letter of Opinion [25228]
Page 2-3
PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154
Considerations #3 and #5. Evaluation of the property for its association with important events,
people and/or information potential is outside the scope of work, at request of the owner.
Alterations and Integrity
Page & Turnbull compared photographs (pre-1975) to the current condition observed during the site
visit. The following description of exterior alterations is not exhaustive but lists the primary observed
alterations. While the house is set at a slight angle, cardinal directions are used in the following
description for ease of comprehension (ex. southwest façade is called the south façade). Note also
that interior alterations are not listed as it is Page & Turnbull’s understanding that the interior is not
subject to review by the Town of Los Gatos Historic Preservation Committee.
At the south façade facing Loma Street, the original wall and its cladding are extant, but both the
main entry door and its east and west flanking windows have been replaced with contemporary
units (Figure 1 and Figure 4). The replacement windows each consist of a single pane, undivided lite,
in lieu of original tripartite windows (Figure 5, Figure 6, and Figure 13). Also noticeable is the
installation of a contemporary gutter which appears to have led to the removal of exposed rafter
tails above the flanking windows (Figure 7 and Figure 13). The front porch appears similar in
location and form to that seen in earlier photographs. It contains slender, straight, square wood
columns extending only to and directly on the concrete stoop. The porch roof appears to retain its
original triangular knee braces at its south face although a trim board has been installed over its
fascia board and gutters have been installed along its’ side facades.
The east and west façades appear to retain original wall cladding as well as one-over-one wood hung
windows and triangular knee braces (Figure 2 and Figure 3). Visual inspection indicates that overall,
there is an inconsistency in the construction of the knee braces; some knee braces are applied to
the façade whereas others appear to be integrated through joinery (Figure 8, Figure 9, and Figure
10).
At the rear (north) facade, a non-original addition, constructed in 1967, has expanded the building’s
footprint from a roughly square shape to a rectangular shape and removed most of the original wall
and cladding of the north façade, although an original hung wood window remains in the eastern
portion (Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 11, and Figure 12). The residence, inclusive of the porch has also
received contemporary asphalt roof shingles, replacing original wood shingles (Figure 15). The loss
of original features and the accretion of non-original features and materials such as the rear
addition, front door, and plate glass windows as well as use of applied knee braces have
compromised the building’s integrity of design, materials, workmanship, and to an extent its overall
feeling and association.
Page 144
16805 Loma Street, Los Gatos– Letter of Opinion [25228]
Page 2-4
PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154
Figure 1. South façade, facing north.
Figure 2. East (left) and north (right) facades, view southwest towards Loma Street. Non-original rear addition in
the foreground inclusive of back entry door and concrete stoop.
Page 145
16805 Loma Street, Los Gatos– Letter of Opinion [25228]
Page 2-5
PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154
Figure 3. North (left) and west (right) facades, facing southeast to Loma Street. Non-original rear addition at left.
Page 146
16805 Loma Street, Los Gatos– Letter of Opinion [25228]
Page 2-6
PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154
Figure 4. South façade, contemporary main entry door.
Figure 5. South façade, looking northwest
contemporary single-pane window unit, typical of
both front windows. Gutter installation seen
above and at side of porch.
Figure 6. South façade, looking northwest at
contemporary single-pane window unit, typical of both
front windows.
Figure 7. Detail of southwest corner looking
above east flanking window showing new gutter
and altered/removed rafter tails.
Page 147
16805 Loma Street, Los Gatos– Letter of Opinion [25228]
Page 2-7
PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154
Figure 8. Applied knee brace.
Figure 9. Applied knee brace.
Figure 10. Integrated knee brace.
Page 148
Page 149
16805 Loma Street, Los Gatos– Letter of Opinion [25228]
Page 2-9
PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154
Figure 14. Historic Survey Form image, dated 1990, showing alterations to windows.
Figure 15. Detail view in attic space showing original wood shingles concealed due to rear addition, 2024.
Source: Property owner.
Page 150
16805 Loma Street, Los Gatos– Letter of Opinion [25228]
Page 2-10
PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154
Architectural Merit
This section considers the architectural merit of the residence at 16805 Loma Street.
Historic Architectural Context
Page & Turnbull concurs with the description of the property at 16805 Loma Street as a “bungalow”
as noted in the 1990 historic survey form. Page & Turnbull would further clarify the architectural
style as a Craftsman. The historic architectural context for the property as a Craftsman bungalow
must therefore be established.
The Craftsman style evolved from the English Arts and Crafts Movement and later, the work of
innovative American architects working in the Midwest and California, in particular Frank Lloyd
Wright and Greene & Greene.3 The Craftsman style was utilized predominantly in residential
properties and was dominant from the 1900s to the 1930s. Occurring primarily in California, the
Craftsman style is a contemporary to the Midwestern-dominant Prairie style. Craftsman magazine,
published in America from 1901 to 1917, helped to disseminate the ideas associated with the style in
North America, such as anti-industrialism and emphasis on handcrafted products. The Craftsman
style took off in California during the first decade of the twentieth century in response to the work of
Greene & Greene in Southern California. Additional influences included Japanese architecture, Swiss
chalets, and the indoor/outdoor traditions of the Spanish and Mexican homes of the region.4
Ranging from the elaborate one-off homes of the wealthy in Pasadena and the Berkeley hills to the
rows of bungalows of Oakland, Los Angeles, and San José, Craftsman style is the dominant
residential style present within many contemporary smaller California communities. Elaborate
homes such as Gamble House in Pasadena, represent high style examples.
Rows of more modest bungalows are found throughout California. Small-scale, wood-framed
Craftsman bungalows could be constructed easily and affordably, which contributed to their
popularity in the Bay Area following the 1906 earthquake. They were often available as kit houses or
plans in pattern books beginning from the 1890s. Pattern book houses generally do not possess
distinguishing historical or architectural significance required for individual listing, as they were
mass-produced and therefore not unique designs. They consisted of standard plans and sometimes
pre-cut materials, not designed by “master” architects or builders. They were widely available and
intended for a broad market. The Craftsman style rapidly faded from favor after the mid-1920s.
3 Virginia Savage McAlester, “Craftsman: 1905 – 1930,” in A Field Guide to American Houses (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2013),
568, 578.
4 Rodney Douglas Parker, “The California Bungalow and the Tyrolean Chalet: The Ill-Fated Life of an American Vernacular,”
Journal of American Culture 15, vol. 4 (1992): 1.
Page 151
16805 Loma Street, Los Gatos– Letter of Opinion [25228]
Page 2-11
PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154
Figure 16. The 1913 “Bungalow No. 210” is an example of
a Craftsman bungalow kit house. The Draughtsman
catalog.
Figure 17. Pacific Ready-Cut Homes No. 269 is
another example of a Craftsman bungalow kit
house, no date.
Figure 18. “The Lamont,” is another example of a
Craftsman bungalow kit house, publisher unknown, no
date.
Figure 19. “The Eleanor,” is another example of a
simple Craftsman bungalow kit house, Aladdin
Homes Annual Sales Catalog, 1918.
Page 152
16805 Loma Street, Los Gatos– Letter of Opinion [25228]
Page 2-12
PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154
Character-Defining Features
Once an historic architectural context has been established, an analysis of the property within that
context is undertaken. More specifically, when evaluating a property for eligibility for national, state
or local designation under criteria related to type, period, or method of construction (IE
Architecture), the essential physical features – the character-defining features-- that enable the
property to convey its historic identity must be evident. These distinctive character-defining features
are the physical traits that commonly recur in property types and/or architectural styles. To be
eligible, a property must clearly contain enough of those characteristics to be considered a true
representative of a particular type, period, or method of construction, and these features must also
retain a sufficient degree of integrity. Characteristics can be expressed in terms such as form,
proportion, structure, plan, style, or materials.
Page & Turnbull notes that architectural historian’s Virginia McAlester’s A Field Guide to American
Houses, most recently updated in 2024, is considered the definitive guide to residential architecture
in America. A Field Guide to American Houses presents a list of character-defining physical features
that must be present for a building to represent a particular architectural style. As stated in the field
guide, Craftsman bungalows are typically characterized by the following character-defining physical
features:
Form/Massing: commonly one or one and one-half stories high;
Roofs: low-pitched gabled roofs with
o wide, unenclosed eave overhangs;
o decorative (false) beams or braces;
o exposed rafter tails;
Porches: full- or partial-width porches with
o tapered square columns or pedestals;
o extending porch elements.
Windows: two or more windows grouped together in one assembly
o a narrow window on each side of a broad center window is common
Materiality:
o cladding of wood clapboard or wood shingles most common5
While the house at 16805 Loma Street contains a characteristic roof, a porch, windows on side
facades, and exterior materials, the description of alterations and integrity considerations presented
earlier in this memorandum conveys the following:
5 Virginia McAlester, A Field Guide to American Houses McAlester (Alfred A. Knopf: New York, 2024), pp. 566-569.
Page 153
Page 154
16805 Loma Street, Los Gatos– Letter of Opinion [25228]
Page 2-14
PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154
style historic architectural context. There are no distinctive characteristics of type, period or method
of construction or representation of work of a master.
Furthermore, there are other Craftsman style, single-family homes in Los Gatos that represent the
historic architectural context for the style more fully and also retain better integrity of design and
materials, which is paramount for properties to convey their architectural significance. Page &
Turnbull notes that there are a number of other Craftsman-style residences in the Town of Los
Gatos that appear to more fully embody the style. The following photos show a sampling of such
properties in Los Gatos that have been formally referenced, for instance in Los Gatos Observed by
Alistair Dallas (Figure 20 and Figure 21).6 Page & Turnbull also notes that there are a number of
Craftsman-style residences located throughout Los Gatos, including some that together, with other
properties, form the Almond Grove Historic District and the University/Edelen Historic District (Figure
22, Figure 23, Figure 24, and Figure 25) as well as some located in the Downtown Commercial
Historic District (Figure 26). A district is an entity whose components (individual buildings) may lack
individual distinction and only together, that is, only when looked at, as a whole, become a
distinguishable entity. The property 16805 Loma Street is not located within any historic district.
Figure 20. 120 Cleland Avenue, noted in Los Gatos
Observed
Figure 21. 25 Glen Ridge Avenue, noted in Los Gatos
Observed
6 Photos provided by Google, GoogleStreetview or W. Wundram.
Page 155
16805 Loma Street, Los Gatos– Letter of Opinion [25228]
Page 2-15
PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154
Figure 22. 111 University Avenue, University/Edelen
Historic District
Figure 23. 115 University Avenue, University/Edelen
Historic District
Figure 24. 127 Wilder Avenue, Almond Grove
Historic District
Figure 25. 150 Wilder Avenue, Almond Grove Historic
District
Figure 26. 15 University Avenue, Downtown Commercial Historic District
Page 156
16805 Loma Street, Los Gatos– Letter of Opinion [25228]
Page 2-16
PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154
CONCLUSION
Constructed in 1929, the property at 16805 Loma Street is not a unique Craftsman-style bungalow
constructed in the area and dates to the end of the period when the style had lost favor. The
property is also not the best example of a Craftsman bungalow in Los Gatos due to its simple
pattern book-like design and multiple alterations. Many other better examples are prevalent in the
town, those that individually convey the style, as well as those that together form a distinguishable
district. The property at 16805 Loma Street is thus also not a rare or last remaining example of a
Craftsman bungalow in Los Gatos that should be recognized despite its compromised integrity.
Under review of the property’s architectural merit, it is therefore in Page & Turnbull’s professional
opinion that the property at 16805 Loma Street does not fully embody the character-defining
features necessary to individually convey architectural merit as a Craftsman bungalow. There are no
distinctive characteristics of type, period or method of construction or representation of work of a
master, and the integrity has been compromised such that the structure no longer has the potential
to convey significance.
QUALIFICATIONS
Page & Turnbull was established in 1973 as Charles Hall Page & Associates to provide architectural
and conservation services for historic buildings, resources, and civic areas. The company was one of
the first architecture firms in California to dedicate its practice to historic preservation and is among
the longest practicing such firms in the country. Offices are located in San Francisco, San José, Los
Angeles, Sacramento, and staff includes planners, architectural historians, licensed architects,
designers, and conservators. All of Page & Turnbull’s professional staff members meet or exceed the
Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards as published in the Code of Federal
Regulations, 36 CFR Part 61.
Principal Christina Dikas Brobst and primary author, Jennifer Hembree, meet the Secretary of the
Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Architectural History. Both have extensive
experience researching and evaluating historic properties, as well as analyzing proposed projects
that impact historic resources using the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties.
Page 157
SECTION 3
Technical Memo –
Brewster Historic Preservation
Page 158
Brewster Historic Preservation 3-1
July 27, 2025
MEMORANDUM: Historic-Architectural Evaluation of 16805 Loma Street, Los Gatos, CA
Introduction
Brewster Historic Preservation has been engaged by the property owner of a single-family residence at
16805 Loma Street in Los Gatos to provide a professional opinion regarding its potential architectural
significance for consideration at a Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission appeal hearing on August
13, 2025. Provided below is a brief architectural description of the property, a brief history of the
Craftsman Bungalow style of architecture, a brief comparison of similar property in Los Gatos, as well as
an evaluation of the building’s potential architectural significance using local, state and national
evaluation criteria. Photos of the subject property as well as other, comparative examples are provided in
Attachments A-B.
The memorandum has been prepared by Brad Brewster, founder and principal of Brewster Historic
Preservation, a historic preservation consulting firm founded in San Francisco in 2017. Mr. Brewster is an
architectural historian and preservation planner with a master’s degree in Urban Design and Historic
Preservation, 29 years of experience in the field of historic architectural resources primarily in the Bay
Area, and one who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Architectural History. Mr.
Brewster’s professional resume is provided in Attachment C.
Architectural Description
Located on the north side of Loma Street, between Ferris Avenue on the west and Englewood Avenue on
the east, the site is currently occupied by an 862-square-foot single-story residence that was built in 1929.
The property was identified in a historic resource inventory completed in 1990 for the Town of Los Gatos
by architectural historian and author, Anne Bloomfield, who identified the residence simply as a
‘bungalow’ (see brief history of the Craftsman Bungalow, below).
The building is a single-family residence with an irregular L-shaped plan, a side-gable roof clad in asphalt
shingles, wall cladding consisting of horizontal wood lap siding with a narrow, 3” reveal, and is
constructed of wood framing supported by a concrete perimeter foundation with a shallow
basement/crawlspace. Broad, unenclosed roof eaves are supported by decorative wood eave brackets on
the front (south) and side (east and west) elevations. A shallow entry porch with a gable roof supported by
wood columns and decorative eave brackets is centered on the front (south) elevation. The raised porch
floor is constructed of concrete and is approached by three concrete steps. While the shape of the roof is
primarily gable in form, the east and west ends of the gable as well as the south end of the porch roof
exhibit a clipped gable form, also called a ‘jerkinhead’ gable. The rear (north) elevation contains an
addition with a standard gable roof. Wall cladding and roofing of the rear addition generally matches that
found on the main part of the residence. Two wood frame louvered attic vents are located on the side (east
and west) gable end elevations. Aluminum gutters can be found on the northern and southern ends of the
roof, as well as on the eastern and western ends of the roof of the rear addition.
Fenestration consists of a mixture of sizes and materials depending on the elevation. The front (south)
elevation contains two fixed frame replacement ‘picture’ windows with wood trim, one to either side of
the front door. The front door consists of a replacement vinyl paneled unit with wood trim. Windows on
the side (south and west) elevations are wood frame, double-hung sash units with one-over-one panes
with wood sills and trim (total of five; three large and two small). The addition on the rear (north)
Page 159
Brewster Historic Preservation 3-2
elevation contains a total of four wood frame, double-hung sash units with one-over-one panes with wood
sills and trim. Located on an angled northeast corner of the rear addition is a replacement vinyl paneled
door with wood trim. This rear door is accessed by concrete steps with a landing that are circular in form.
The basement crawlspace is accessed from a set of wood frame double doors located in the northeast
corner of the building.
Alterations. Visible alterations include replacement porch columns, replacement ‘picture’ windows on the
front (south) elevation, the replacement vinyl frame front and rear doors, the rear (north) addition with
gable roof and angled rear door with circular concrete steps and landing, the asphalt roof cladding, as well
as the aluminum gutters.
Brief History of the Craftsman Bungalow
The architectural style of the subject property at 16805 Loma Street is a Bungalow with limited
Craftsman elements, exhibited primarily by its front porch, the side gable roof with decorative eave
brackets, and its overall diminutive size and relatively simple architectural form.
The word “bungalow” in English is derived from the Hindi word “bangla,” which literally means
“belonging to Bengal.” It was used to describe a type of low, single-story house common in the Bengal
region of India. The British adopted this style of dwelling and the name, eventually leading to the modern
English word “bungalow.”
Craftsman houses were inspired by the work of two California brothers – Charles Sumner Greene and
Henry Mather Greene – who together practiced in Pasadena from 1893 to 1914. About 1903 they began to
design simple Craftsman-type bungalows, and by 1909 they had designed several exceptional landmark
examples. Several influences – the English Arts & Crafts movement, and interest in Oriental wooden
architecture, and their early training in the manual arts – appear to have led the Greenes to design and
build these intricately detailed buildings. These and similar residences were given extensive publicity in
such magazines as the Western Architect, The Architect, House Beautiful, Good Housekeeping,
Architectural Record, and Ladies Home Journal, thus familiarizing the rest of the nation with the style.
As a result, a flood of pattern books appear, offering plans for Craftsman bungalows; some even offered
pre-cut packages of lumber and detailing to be assembled by local labor. Through these vehicles, the one-
story Craftsman house quickly became the most popular small house in the country. High style
interpretations are rare and one-story vernacular examples, such as the subject property, are simply called
‘bungalows.’ This style of house was built in the US between 1905 and 1930 and peaked in their
popularity in the mid-1920s. They can be found throughout the US but are especially prevalent in the
West and South where simple, inexpensive housing was needed to accommodate the growing population
during the first three decades of the Twentieth Century.1 Key characteristics of the Craftsman house
include low-pitched gabled roof with wide eaves, exposed beams and rafters, a full or partial-width front
porch supported by square or tapered columns, an emphasis on natural materials such as stone, wood, or
brick, built-in features and handcrafted details such as decorative woodwork, window seats, and cabinets.
Other Comparative Craftsman Style Homes in Los Gatos
Over two dozen Craftsman style homes in Los Gatos were reviewed for comparative purposes. Photos of
a selection of these examples are provided in Attachment B. As shown in the attachment, most of these
examples contain most if not all of the key characteristics of the Craftsman house described above. The
1 Virginia Savage McAlester, A Field Guide to American Houses, Second Edition, 2013.
Page 160
Brewster Historic Preservation 3-3
subject property at 16805 Loma Street is a Bungalow with limited Craftsman elements but is missing
many of other elements of a true Craftsman style home, and therefore by comparison, it is considered a
very modest and simplified version of the design type.
Evaluation of Potential Architectural Significance
The subject property has been evaluated for its potential architectural significance by applying the Town
of Los Gatos, State, and National evaluation criteria.
Town of Los Gatos
The distinctive characteristics of type, period or method of construction or the representation of the work
of a master (Criteria 3)
Built in 1929, the subject property is an example of a Bungalow with limited Craftsman elements. While
the building has some of the distinctive characteristics of this type of architecture, such as its front porch,
the side gable roof with decorative eave brackets, and its overall diminutive size and relatively simple
architectural form, it is an exceptionally modest and simplified version of the style that would not rise to
the level of a local landmark for its architectural values. Over two dozen better examples of the property
type and period can be found throughout Los Gatos that more closely embody the characteristics of the
Craftsman Bungalow. The design type does not represent particular to a type of bungalow found
exclusively in Los Gatos, but rather, is one that is commonly found in the region, the state, and the West
in general. Similarly, the design would not be considered of one particular era, but rather, one that
generally occurred during the first three decades of the Twentieth Century throughout the region, the
state, and the West. Completed in 1929, the subject property was constructed at the very end of this time
period as the type and style were waning in popularity. Research revealed no associations with the work
of a master. For these reasons the subject property would not qualify as Town of Los Gatos historical
landmark under local evaluation Criteria 3.
State of California – California Register of Historic Resources
Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction or represents
the work of a master or possesses high artistic values (Criteria 3).
The subject property at 16805 Loma Street, completed in 1929, is a Bungalow with Craftsman limited
elements exhibited by its front porch, the side gable roof with decorative eave brackets, and its overall
diminutive size and relatively simple architectural form. Beginning in Southern California in the early
20th Century, the one-story Craftsman house quickly became the most popular small house not only in
California but in the entire country. High style interpretations are rare and one-story vernacular examples
are simply called ‘bungalows.’ Although it retains some of the characteristics of the Craftsman Bungalow
style of architecture, the subject property would be considered a very modest and more typical design
effort rather than one which embodies the distinctive characteristics of the type, period, or method of
construction, and would certainly not be characterized as a ‘high style’ version of the Craftsman
Bungalow design. Thousands of better examples of the property type built between 1905 and 1930 can be
found throughout state that more closely embody the characteristics of the Craftsman Bungalow.
Research revealed no associations with the work of a master, nor would it be considered to possess high
artistic values. For these reasons the subject property would not qualify as State historical landmark under
State evaluation Criteria 3.
Page 161
Brewster Historic Preservation 3-4
Nation – National Register of Historic Places
Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the
work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable
entity whose components may lack individual distinction (Criteria C).
Designed and built in 1929 as a Bungalow with limited Craftsman elements, the subject property retains
some of the characteristics of the design including its front porch, the side gable roof with decorative eave
brackets, and its overall diminutive size and relatively simple architectural form. Beginning in Southern
California in the early 20th Century, the one-story Craftsman house quickly became the most popular
small house in the country due primarily to the extensive publicity in magazines and resulting flood of
architectural pattern books. High style interpretations are rare and one-story vernacular examples are
simply called ‘bungalows.’ This style of house was built in the US between 1905 and 1930 and peaked in
their popularity in the mid-1920s. Although it retains some of the characteristics of the Craftsman
Bungalow style of architecture, the subject property would be considered a very modest and more typical
design effort rather than one which embodies the distinctive characteristics of the type, period, or method
of construction, and would certainly not be characterized as a ‘high style’ version of the Craftsman
Bungalow design. Numerous better examples of the property type built between 1905 and 1930 can be
found throughout region and the country that more closely embody the characteristics of the Craftsman
Bungalow. Research revealed no associations with the work of a master or would it be considered to
possess high artistic values. While the building certainly lacks individual distinction, it does not represent
a significant or distinguishable entity considering how common the building type was in the US. For these
reasons, the subject property would not qualify as national historical landmark under national evaluation
Criteria 3.
Integrity. Integrity refers to a property's ability to convey its significance through its physical
characteristics and by possessing the elements that authentically represent the property's historical
importance. The concept of integrity is not a standalone qualifier or a separate evaluation criterion for the
determination of significance of a property. Typically, an evaluation of integrity is completed after an
evaluation of historical significance has been thoroughly examined and is only applied after the evaluation
determines that the subject property meets one or more of the standard criteria. Conversely, an evaluation
of integrity is typically not completed if a property does not meet any of the aforementioned evaluation
criteria. Although the subject property does not meet any of the local, state, or national criteria for
individual architectural significance, an evaluation of integrity has been applied, nonetheless. As
described above, visible alterations include replacement porch columns, replacement ‘picture’ windows
on the front (south) elevation, the replacement vinyl frame front and rear doors, the rear (north) addition
with gable roof and angled rear door with circular concrete steps and landing, the asphalt roof cladding,
and the aluminum gutters. As a result of these alterations, the subject property would be considered to
only have a low-to-moderate level of integrity.
Summary
Although the subject property at 16805 Loma Street is more than 45 years old and has been identified as a
‘bungalow’ in the Town of Los Gatos’ historic resources inventory, further review of the property
indicates that it would not meet the town, state, or national evaluation criteria for individual architectural
significance.
Page 162
Brewster Historic Preservation 3-5
Brad Brewster
Founder and Principal
Brewster Historic Preservation
Attachment A – Contemporary Photos of Subject Property
Attachment B – Comparative Craftsman style Homes in Los Gatos
Attachment C – Professional Resume
Page 163
ATTACHMENT A – CONTEMPORARY PHOTOS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY
Front (south) elevation looking north
Front (south) and partial side (west) elevations, looking northeast
Page 164
Front (south) and partial side (east) elevations, looking northwest
Side (east) elevation looking southwest
Page 165
Rear (north) elevation looking south
Side (west) elevation looking east
Page 166
ATTACHMENT B – COMPARATIVE CRAFTSMAN STYLE HOMES IN LOS GATOS
118 Loma Alta 115 Loma Alta
122 Loma Alta 256 Loma Alta
369 Johnson Ave 233 Johnson Ave
Page 167
160 Villa Ave 215 Wilder Ave
150 Wilder Ave 127 Wilder Ave
56 Bayview 8 Pennsylvania Ave
Page 168
207 Glenridge Ave 452 Monterey Ave
231 University Ave 565 San Benito Ave
32 Ashler Ave 565 San Benito Ave
Page 169
105 University Ave 111 University Ave
115 University Ave 303 University Ave
Page 170
Page 171
W. Brad Brewster
The Bentley Company, Moffett Field, CA March 1993 – June 1994
Environmental Planner
• Contract Planner for NASA Ames Research Center (now NASA Research Park) at the former Moffett Naval Air
Station
• Co-author of the Moffett Field Comprehensive Use Plan to guide NASA development at Moffett Field
Brady and Associates (now LSA), Berkeley, CA July 1992 – March 1993
Environmental Planner
• Contributed significantly to numerous Initial Studies and EIRs for California cities and counties
• Wrote various general plan elements for California communities
EDUCATION
1994- 1996 Master of Urban Design and Planning, with Certificates in Urban Design and Historic Preservation,
University of Washington, Seattle, WA
1987-1992 Bachelor of Science in City and Regional Planning
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA
AFFILIATIONS
California Preservation Foundation (CPF)
National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP)
Society of Architectural Historians (SAH)
Page 172
SECTION 4
Research the History of a
House in Los Gatos
Page 173
4-1
Subj: Research the History of a House in Los Gatos
Location: 16805 Loma Street
Date: Between 3/21/2025 and 3/27/2025
Conducted By: William and Brenna Wundram (property owners)
Table of Contents
Los Gatos Public Library
Sanborn Maps
1941 Tax Assessment Survey
1989 Anne Bloomfield Historic Resource Survey
Polk’s Directories 1924-1974
Museums of Los Gatos Historic Homes Tours
100 Bellringers
As It Was by Dora Rankin
Los Gatos Historic Resources Inventory – Jun 1991
Historic Property Research folders
History of Los Gatos by Bruntz and Los Gatos Observed by Dallas.
Residence drawers of the vertical file
The Patrons’ inquiries (binder #3)
A Field Guide to American Houses
Santa Clara County Planning Office
County Permit History
Santa Clara County Tax Assessors Office
County Property Records
San Jose Public Library
California Room - Aerial Maps
Los Gatos Planning Office
Laserfiche System – property research
Page 174
4-2
1. Los Gatos Public Library (POC – Shawnte Santos and Jenn Laredo)
a. Sanborn Maps – Reviewed the 1928 and 1944 Sanborn maps (see photos in Exhibit A).
FINDING: The location of 16805 Loma Street is outside of the scope of the two maps.
b. 1941 Tax Assessment Survey – Reviewed the 1941 Tax Assessment Survey
documentation.
FINDING: 16805 Loma Street was not listed in the tax assessment survey.
c. 1989 Anne Bloomfield Historic Resource Survey – The Anne Bloomfield survey for
16805 Loma Street was executed on April 5, 1990 (see Exhibit B in the Appendix) noting
an estimated age of “1920s” and a “bungalow” style. Ferris Ave doesn’t have Anne
Bloomfield surveys for 164XX addresses, only addresses starting with 166XX.
Englewood also does not have corresponding Bloomfield surveys yet there were a series
of pr-1941 houses on the street that have been demolished over the years. 16805 Loma
Street was not in the purview of the City of Los Gatos Planning office at the time of the
Bloomfield survey as most properties on Loma Street weren’t annexed to the city until
February 1st, 1999 as part of the Ferris #6 Annexation, (see Exhibit C in the Appendix)
which was over nine years after the survey was executed.
FINDING: Bloomfield survey found for 16805 Loma Street.
d. Polk’s Directories 1924-1974.
The first match to an individual with a registered phone number was in 1962 to Hortenia
Moreno for one year. The next registered phone number started in 1968 through 1974 to
Albert Panighetti. The ancestory.com searches didn’t provide any significant results
(Albert Panighetti – born Mar 2nd, 1904 - died Mar 1991 – WW2 veteran).
Per the listing realtor, Kurt E. and Arlyn M. Wilson family owned it for the past forty years
and rented it out for the past twenty-five years.
FINDING: No significant findings of previous residents.
e. A list of the Museums of Los Gatos Historic Homes Tours and programs.
FINDING: No houses on Loma Street were on the home tours.
f. A list of the 100 Bellringers and information.
FINDING: No match from the binder or supplemental.
Page 175
4-3
g. Reviewed As It Was by Dora Rankin.
FINDING: No match found.
h. Reviewed the Los Gatos Historic Resources Inventory – Jun 1991.
FINDING: No match found.
i. Reviewed the Historic Property Research folders.
FINDING: No match found.
j. Reviewed History of Los Gatos by George Bruntz and Los Gatos Observed by Alistair
Dallas.
FINDING: No Loma Street houses listed.
k. Reviewed Information in the Residence drawers of the Vertical file.
FINDING: Box 6 Folders 1-8. No Loma Street residences in the vertical files.
l. Reviewed The Patrons’ inquiries, binder #3 residences.
FINDING: No listing for Loma Street houses.
m. Reviewed A Field Guide to American Houses by Virginia Savage McAlester.
FINDING: No match found.
2. Santa Clara County Resources
a. Santa Clara County Planning Office
FINDING: Found three permits. 1. “remodel/addition” permit from 1967 number:
1967-7094-00 (Exhibit D), 2. “repair roof” from 1967 number: 1967-7410-00 and 3.
“re-roof” permit from 1990 number: 1990-840-00 by the owner Albert Panighetti.
See supporting structural pictures (separate document) noting the addition of the
rear bedroom and laundry room.
b. Santa Clara County Tax Assessor (see Exhibit E from 1966)
FINDING: One property was found which was listed under 16801, which is currently
the next-door neighbor’s address now (Lindholm’s). The split of 16801 to create 16801 and
16805 was Nov 12th, 1971, and the old APN was 532-07-008.
c. San Jose Public Library (California Room)
Page 176
4-4
FINDING: Researched aerial photography from the period and added the best photo I
could from 1948 (Exhibit F) noting other structures on Loma Street.
3. Los Gatos Community Development Department Resources
a. Permit and Planning Documents (Laserfiche)
FINDING: No Planning or Building department results found for 16805 Loma Street. I
did find a few demolition requests for pre-1941 houses on Loma Street.
1. 16801 Loma Street – Exhibit G – April 1, 1999 (next door) – was a pre-1941
property that was approved for demolition and rebuild. See the attached
Lindholm’s letter who have owned the property for over 26 years and lived in the
house prior to demolition.
2. 16761 Loma Street – Exhibit H – Nov 18, 1998 (same side of the street) – was a
pre-1941 property that was approved for demolition and rebuild. Kim Dallas is
the current owner and had confirmed that the original pre-1941 structure was a
single family home.
There are multiple pre-1941 demolition approvals on Englewood and there are no listed
denials noted within a block on Loma Street.
Page 177
4-5
APPENDIX
Exhibit A – Sanborn Maps 1944
Page 178
4-6
Exhibit B – 16805 Loma Street – Anne Bloomfield Survey
Page 179
4-7
Exhibit C – February, 1999 (Ferris #6), Annexation of 16805 Loma Street to the City of Los Gatos
Page 180
4-8
Page 181
4-9
Page 182
4-10
Page 183
4-11
Exhibit D – 1967 Permit for an Addition / Remodel
Page 184
4-12
Exhibit E – County Tax Assessor Property Record from 1967
Page 185
4-13
Page 186
Page 187
4-15
Exhibit G – 16801 Pre-1941 Demo Approval – April 1, 1999
Page 188
4-16
Page 189
Page 190
Page 191
4-19
Exhibit H – 16761 Pre-1941 Demo Approval – Nov 18, 1998
Page 192
4-20
Page 193
SECTION 5
Neighborhood Notification, Letters
and Surrounding House Photos
Page 194
5-1
Subj: Neighboring property owner notiflcation
Location: 16805 Loma Street
Date: Between 4/13/2025 and 4/22/2025
Conducted By: William and Brenna Wundram (property owners)
Dear Los Gatos Planning Department,
Brenna and I visited each of the following neighbors regarding our interest building the
proposed house designed by David Britt. We provided each family a three-page packet that
is included in our proposal (A0, A1 and A2) noting the placement of the structure on the lot,
fioor plans and elevations.
Address Location Names Date
16801 Loma Street Right of Property 4/13/25
16460 Ferris Ave Left of Property
4/13/25
16456 Ferris Ave Rear of Property 4/18/25
16790 Loma Street Across the Street -
Left
4/18/25
16810 Loma Street Across the Street –
Center
4/13/25
16490 Ferris Ave Across the Street -
Right
4/22/25
All neighbors were receptive of our intended plans, thought the design was fltting for the
neighborhood and appreciated our outreach. The (16460 Ferris Ave) were
interested in discussing potential landscape screening options between the two properties
at a later stage.
Please let me know if you have any further questions. I can be reached at or
by email at .
Best regards,
William Wundram
Page 195
5-2
APPENDIX A – Neighbor Letters
LETTER FROM (16801 LOMA STREET) SUBMITTED 6/27/2025
Dear Sean,
Our family has lived at 16801 Loma St for the past 27 years and we are directly adjacent to
16805 Loma St. This property had been maintained as a rental property (mainly single
person) during the entire time we’ve lived here. Our new neighbors, the Wundram’s are
attempting to build a new house on their recently purchased property. They have
proactively shown their plans to all of the neighbors and explained what their intentions
are.
We purchased a pre 1941 home in 1998 and went through this same approval process and
were allowed to remove our home and build a new home back in 2000. At one point in time
16805 and 16801 Loma were one parcel. There was someone who implied our house was a
barn back in the day but that is absolutely not true. It was a 3 bedroom, 1 bath house that
we lived in for almost 2 years while we planned our new home. The house on the other side
of us was almost a replica of the Wundram house and they, too, rebuilt their home shortly
before we did. All of the homes immediately surrounding Bill and Brenna’s have also been
rebuilt. They are surrounded by 5 two story homes. The plans for their new home will flt
seamlessly in our neighborhood.
The Town of Los Gatos’ Historic Preservation Ordinance wisely protects structures that
contribute meaningfully to the town’s historic character—those with architectural
distinction, historical context, or cultural value. But not every pre-1941 structure
automatically qualifles. The Town Code clearly notes that for a structure to be considered
historic, it must demonstrate signiflcance through its architecture, history, or contribution
to a historic district.
I am obviously not an expert, but the home in question does not seem to meet that
standard in any way, shape or form. It is NOT architecturally signiflcant, it is NOT in a
historic area, is it NOT associated with any notable event or flgure NOR was it constructed
by a master. It is, by deflnition, simply old, and it has barely been maintained throughout
the time we’ve lived here. No one that I have talked to on our street or in our community
feels this home meets that criteria. The majority of residents on our street are all old time
community members of Los Gatos who have been active either within the town or in our
school districts for decades. We are not “new blood” and we appreciate the historic
houses within our community. We do not, however, believe that this house qualifles as one
Page 196
Page 197
5-4
LETTER FROM (16761 LOMA STREET) SUBMITTED 7/06/2025
July 6, 2025
Sean Mullin
Town of Los Gatos, Planning Manager
I hope this message flnds you well.
I’m writing to provide some background and clariflcation regarding the pre-1941 single-
family residence located at 16761 Loma Street. My family has a long history with this
property—my grandparents, William and Virginia Oakes, purchased the home in 1941. My
mother lived there from birth in 1943 until 1965. After my grandmother’s passing in 1992,
my family and I moved in and have lived there ever since.
In 1998, in order to accommodate our growing family, we applied to demolish the original 3
bedroom, 1 bath home at 16761 Loma St. We were approved for demolition in June of
1999.
I’d like to clarify that the home was never a barn, nor was it part of any designated historical
district. I understand there may be some confusion due to a nearby structure—the only
barn in the area during the 1940s was located around the corner on Ferris Avenue, where
the Potter Court neighborhood now stands. That property belonged to the Hanson family
and was later demolished to make way for the Potter Court subdivision.
In my opinion, Bill and Breanna’s proposed home is well-suited to the character of our
neighborhood and complements the surrounding properties. I respectfully encourage your
support of their request, as this project would be a positive addition to our community. We
warmly welcome both the development and their family to the neighborhood.
Warm Regards,
16761 Loma St
Page 198
5-5
Page 199
5-6
LETTER FROM NANCY AND (16791 LOMA STREET) SUBMITTED 6/12/2025
Mr. Sean Mullin
Planning Manager
Town of Los Gatos
Re: 16805 Loma Street - Bill and Brenna Wundram
Dear Mr. Mullin,
I have lived on Loma Street since 1981. One of the issues involved on the lot is the home
design’s flt in the neighborhood. There is no question Bill and Brenna’s house plan will be
an asset to Loma Street. I support the building of this home on Loma Street.
Another issue is in need of some discussion that gets at what the term “historic” actually
means for this property.
I have seen 8-9 renters occupying the bungalow since 1981. The view from the street was
that of a rental unit. It has always been an eye sore for Loma Street neighbors. This
bungalow is a rental structure. It does not flt into Loma Street’s surroundings.
Removing this unit and building Bill and Brenna’s home will satisfy the residents that
something aesthetically pleasing will now be placed on the lot.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
16791 Loma Street
Los Gatos, Ca. 95032
Page 200
Page 201
5-8
LETTER FROM (16464 SHADY VIEW LANE) SUBMITTED 7/07/2025
Dear Sean,
I have been a Los Gatos resident since 2010 and live on Shady View Lane and have known
the Wundrams for about 15 years. I was in attendance at the Town Historic Preservation
Committee meeting on May 28th when the Committee voted 3-2 to reject their proposal. I
was shocked by the discussion and the “justiflcation” the Committee used to reject the
proposal as the facts presented in the documents, the presentation by the Wundram’s and
the neighbors didn’t appear be a consideration and instead, the Committee discussion
turned to an arbitrary set of information that was either untrue or irrelevant and the points
were only made to help sway other members to reject the proposal without flrst
determining the claims being made were factually correct or relevant.
As evidenced by the documents submitted and attestation from the architect and
neighbors, the house doesn’t meet any of the criteria that suggests the house may be worth
considering to be preserved. Looking at the timeline and facts of the property, the original
house was constructed in 1929 with no known documentation of what the house looked
like or anything of the like. The aerial photo from 1948 shows a footprint of the home which
is not consistent with the current roofiine and footprint today. What happened between
1929 and 1948 is a complete unknown. The oldest photo of the front of the house is from
1967 where the facade and windows differ from the current structure. The property was
not part of the Town until 1999 and was therefore unincorporated Santa Clara County and
was not part of any Los Gatos planning or permitting processes during that
time. Furthermore, the Committee is chartered to focus on homes prior to 1941 which
there is no documentation for. The justiflcation the Committee discussed was preserving a
California bungalow. A California bungalow could have a very broad interpretation as it is
an arbitrary term that could entail any small ranch house. However, with respect to 16805
Loma, there is no documentation or information about the house, so what exactly does the
Committee wish to preserve? What about this house requires it to be preserved under the
rules of the Historic Preservation Committee? Seems like any further proposals would be
subject to whimsical and arbitrary opinions of what the Committee thinks it should look
like rather than having a deflned set of criteria and speciflc aspects that should be
preserved. It is bothering to me that the Committee is using such arbitrary, misleading
information to make decisions which impact resident property owners in the hundreds of
thousands of dollars.
In addition, Loma St had a number of small ranch houses on it and all the other structures
were approved for demolition. The structure is a simple farm house and doesn’t look like
Page 202
5-9
other true examples of a California Craftsman in Los Gatos. Finally, the neighbors are in
support of the demolition and proposed structure.
As a long term resident, I urge the committee to reconsider its conclusion and revisit the
justiflcation used for denying the proposal.
Best Regards,
16464 Shady View Lane
Page 203
5-10
APPENDIX B - Surrounding House Photos
Rear View (16456 Ferris Street) – 2,750 sqft – two story ()
From 16805 Loma Street View
From Street Front
Page 204
5-11
Right View (16801 Loma Street) – 2,472 sqft – two story ()
From 16805 Loma Street View
From Street Front
Page 205
5-12
Front View (16810 Loma Street) – 4,400 sqft – two story ()
From Street Front
Page 206
5-13
Other Immediate Properties
16490 Ferris Ave – 2,505 sqft – two story ()
16490 Ferris Ave – 2,505 sqft – two story ()
Page 207
5-14
16781 Loma Street – 1,975 sqft
16463 Ferris Ave – 3,872 sqft
Page 208
SECTION 6
May 28th Transcript
Page 209
6-1
Transcript of the May 25th HPC for 16805 Loma Street
Direct Source Link: https://losgatos-ca.municodemeetings.com/bc-hpc/page/historic-
preservation-committee-10
Time Start: 1:02:50
HPC Committee Attendees: Lee Quintana, Martha Queiroz, Alan Feinberg, Sue Burnett,
Emily Thomas
Planning Staff Attendees: Sean Mullin
TRANSCRIPT:
Lee Quintana (HPC Committee Member): I’ll call the applicant forward. Please state your
names. You will have 5 minutes… Let's give it to staff. Each one of you should flll out a
card. Oh, I see. Sorry about that.
Brenna Wundram (homeowner): Hi, thank you for letting us speak today. I'm gonna just do
a quick little introduction of who we are and then they're going to get into a little bit more
about the property. So, I just thought it would be kind of nice just to kind of introduce who
we are. I'm Brenna, and this is Bill, and I'm a teacher at West Valley College, and Bill is a
works for Varian Medical Systems. We've been residents of Los Gatos since 2008. We
absolutely love the town of Los Gatos. We walked down Loma Street many times, and
when we saw the sign coming soon, this last year, for this property, we were so excited,
because we've always wanted to design and build our own home. And so, we connected
with David Britt, who's our architect, and he's designed something that we think is really
beautiful, that flts the neighborhood. We have a lot of our neighbors here. Um, in that
neighborhood today that will speak to the property. And I guess we'll go ahead and pass it
to Bill.
Bill Wundram (homeowner): I'm gonna hit wave tops on the research, because I know it's
a lot of research, I don't have enough time. Um, so, obviously, we're going to present the
research as well as our proposal, and we're presenting a proposal because we've heard
that was the… what we heard in previous audio recordings that I've listened to recently and
attended the last session. There were comments saying, I'd like to see what the proposal
Page 210
6-2
is, and I'd like to hear what the neighbors think. So that's why we took time to draft that
proposal, and that's where David will be able to cover that. Um, high points in terms of the
property. In terms of the overall ownership, there weren't any signiflcant persons that
owned the property, Albert Panighetti owned it in the 60s and 70s, and it recently owned by
Kurt and Arlyn Wilson for 40 years. It was a rental property, as we bought it from them.
Um, it wasn't in… this property or any other properties on Loma Street weren’t in the
museums of Los Gatos Historic Homes, 100 Bellringers, or the eight other listed references
required to review as Sean referred, or noted, it wasn't in the Sanborn maps or any other
historic overlay. It noted they had a 1990 Bloomfleld survey, noted as a bungalow.
It did not have a Los Gatos Historic Resources Inventory Evaluation Sheet, another method
of assessing a property. In particular, it wasn't even annexed until 1999 as part of the Ferris
6 annexation. And so, therefore, it wasn't in the purview of what's got us planning in 1990
when the surveys were executed.
The original house address was actually 16801 Loma Street, it was split in 1971 to create
16801, 16805 and 16801 is the property directly to the right owned by the Lindholms and
Kerry is here to talk in a second and that was also a pre-41 structure that was approved for
demo under the same criterion built in 2000. As well as, if you look at the direct adjacent
six properties, three of the other houses were pre-41 and approved, the same process by
Los Gatos planning and have bill dates from 1999 through 2010, and David will talk about
the structure not being unique to any other properties there.
In terms of the structure itself. Permit history, there are 3 primary permits. The big one was
an addition in 1967 of an addition remodel, adding a bedroom and laundry room to it.
I provided pictures of the original roof, still in the attic space today. And referring to Charlie
Williams, a structural engineer analysis. Um, he particularly called out overspan of fioor
framing, rafter framing without bracing, no sheer walls, shims under the mud sills and
between the post and beam connections to try to level the whole thing. I mean, that's a…
it's not… a simple remediation.
Flying through here…but I'd like to hand it over to David Britt. He's, uh, been designing for
30-plus years. I don't want to talk about his age.
David Britt (Architect): The walker would have given it away, so…
Page 211
6-3
Bill Wundram (homeowner): He actually does have a few examples of his work in the
design guidelines reports.
David Britt (Architect): Yes. So, I'm David Britt, I've been working in the Town of Los Gatos
for over 30 years with my business partners, Britt Rowe. The neighborhood in question,
Mike lives on Englewood Avenue, and we've done a lot of work in that neighborhood, and
there's been projects that we've done in the past that we work with HPC on, um, and in
those projects, I could flnd value to the homes, uh, that we were given the opportunity to
add on to, whether it was a two-story addition, or if it was a one-story addition. I've always
been proud of the fact that we were able to work within an identiflable architectural style
that could be uh, you know, identifled, uh, based on the house that was there.
There's one on Los Gatos Boulevard that is a Spanish bungalow, and it's a beautiful home,
and we just basically… Um, and added on to it in in that vein, turned out to be a very
successful project. When Bill called me and said, listen, I just bought this house on Loma, I
was aware of the property, and said, oh yeah, I think that's the last parcel on Loma Street
that, uh, looks undeveloped, because all the houses on that street have been heavily
remodeled, or are all new, and then went through the same process that, uh, we are going…
together with Bill had the homes removed. Um, that were on inventory. And so, I saw this
as, well…flrst, I looked at it very closely, and uh… like I said, I couldn't flnd any value into
this particular, clearly what was a bungalow but they're… in this particular situation, there's
nothing left of this, I'll say, bungalow structure, that I can say, I can’t identify it as, I would
say, a California bungalow, or it's a Spanish bungalow, or if it's a Georgian colonial
bungalow that we can all flnd in Los Gatos. So, when I mentioned it…
Lee Quintana (HPC Committee Member): Would you like to just summarize things for 5
minutes?
David Britt (Architect): Sure, of course. Thank you. So what we are proposing is removing
the house from the inventory, and then proposing something that is more consistent with
the neighborhood. And, you know, we know how to work with staff, and uh… do something
that is compatible with the neighborhood and uses that all the design review guidelines
that have been adopted by the town.
Page 212
6-4
Lee Quintana (HPC Committee Member): I know we want to do that, but it's the flve
minutes we're talking about. You must say that they're go back, or they're there? Not yet.
Hold on…Okay, now you can move. Okay, thank you.
David Britt (Architect): Do I sit? Yeah, I mean, you know, I feel like you don't have to… is
that okay? Yeah.
Lee Quintana (HPC Committee Member): Okay, do we have any comments from the
public on this? Yes, you, thank you. Thank you for going to state your name.
(16801 Loma Neighbor): Thank you. My name is I was part
of that original parcel, and I live right next to them, I'm 16801 Loma Street. We bought the
property in 1998, and we had to go through the same process back then. In fact, Lee, I
think. I think we came in front of you, um, uh, while we built in 2000, so that's what I was…
Yeah. Uh, yeah, so we've been there for 27 years, um. And I guess when I was looking at the
town standards, I… to see, you know, a point of reference. I came across something that
said it must demonstrate signiflcance through its architecture, history, or contribution to a
historic district.
Obviously, you guys are the expert, not me. But in my layman's terms, I don't think it meets
any of those. Um, I feel like it's just… simply another house that's in our community, and I
hope that age alone isn’t it the deciding factor that overrides their right to improve their
property in a responsible and aesthetically pleasing way in our neighborhood. Um, they
have been very proactive in reaching out to all the neighbors in our neighborhood. The
surrounding… the immediate surrounding flve properties have all been rebuilt. We are all
two-story homes that have been rebuilt within the past 30 years. Um, and given the
precedent on our street, I believe they should be allowed the same opportunity we've had
and others have had and I respectfully ask that you support their requests. As it would be a
huge improvement to our community. Um, it has been a rental property the entire time I've
lived there, and not well maintained. They've maintained better in the past 2 months than it
has been over the past 27 years. So, um, again, I just hope you take into consideration the
precedent that has been set on our street. If you… I don't know if you've driven by our street
and seen it, but we are… we are all… we've all been afforded the opportunity to do what
they're asking to be done. Thank you.
Page 213
6-5
Lee Quintana (HPC Committee Member): Any questions from the committee? Thank you
very much. So now, you have 3 minutes.
Emily Thomas (HPC Committee Member): Oh, there's someone else.
Lee Quintana (HPC Committee Member): Oh, someone else, sorry, sorry about that. I
keep trying to rush this along.
(Ferris Ave Neighbor): Sorry. So I'm gonna be quick. My name is
I live on Ferris Avenue, just about two houses away from the property that is under
consideration. I'm obviously not an expert either, but I wanted to echo my support for their
application to be removed and to go forward with the building that they're proposing. I also
think that they have been very proactive in working with all of the neighbors to get
feedback, show them plans, ask questions and whatnot, and I really do think that the new
design is going to be very consistent with the other homes on the street. Um, and to my
knowledge, I've lived in my house for a little over 20 years.
I'm not aware of anything signiflcant historically with that house, and I've asked a number
of neighbors who've been there for much longer than me and neither are they, so, um, for
whatever information that can help them in the decision.
Lee Quintana (HPC Committee Member): Thank you very much. Do you have any
questions? No, thank you very much.
David Britt (Architect): So, going, uh, speaking directly about the structure that is on, on,
on the…
Lee Quintana (HPC Committee Member): Wait, wait, I think that there's still more. Oh, I'm
sorry, I'm sorry.
(Shady View Neighbor): My name is . Um, I live over on Shady
View Lane, which is about, uh, two blocks away. I've known Bill and Brenna for 15 years
Page 214
6-6
and they have, I do know that you know, they are 100% interested in maintaining the
aesthetics of the neighborhood and doing what's right for the neighborhood in a very, um,
cooperative way. They've done thorough research on the criteria that the Commission has
put forth, and, um. Based on those flve criteria. I believe that, uh, um, you know, that they
ought to be afforded the right to be able to Uh, to, um, uh… to be removed from the
inventory. Thank you.
Lee Quintana (HPC Committee Member): Any comments for questions from the move?
Okay, no, thank you very much. Thank you. Anybody else?
David Britt (Architect): Alright, so speaking to the particular structure in, uh… pushing, you
know, again. When I took a look at it, I tried to… It could live any project. I try to flnd some
architectural value in a structure that's there, right? It is built from 1941 but some… so
much of the original trim has been removed. It has been reduced to just a bungalow shape
and if I was to introduce any sort of identiflable architectural bungalow style it would be
pure speculation. I couldn't say, well, this was a… shingle style craftsman, or if it was a
Spanish bungalow. I refer to my little bungalow list, and the American book that I know that
we use a lot here in Los Gatos that identifles architectural style. So, again. I feel that…
there was no architectural… as an architect, there's no… value in the existing structure as it
exists, and if I was to add value to it, it would be, um… purely speculative.
Lee Quintana (HPC Committee Member): Thank you very much. Will be good. I'm going
to turn it back to the committee.
Alan Feinberg (HPC Committee Member): Understandably, you can't consider the, um…
the construction. That's just… part of the decision of the criteria. Look, I was really curious
to see, uh the rendering, that's not… the decision criteria flrst.
Sean Mullin (Planning Manager): That's correct. The new construction, the preliminary
plan does not speak to any of the flndings. It should not be the basis for it approving or
denying.
Page 215
6-7
Lee Quintana (HPC Committee Member): Any other questions? Do we have a question on
other comments?
Emily Thomas (HPC Committee Member): Um, I just want to say that from… although
we're not able to, consider the… potential plans are in the preliminary plans for
redevelopment, as, the current chair of the Planning Commission, it is nice to hear that
you've reached out to… the applicant has reached out to neighbors and started that
process already, because that is something that we really, like, encourage in town, like, no
matter what ends up happening with this project, just that you're discussing and flnding
support and just connecting with them, so I just flrst wanted to make that comment,
because I think that that makes our staff, like, town staff's jobs easier in the long run, too
and then my second thing is, is that, um, this… you know, I grew up over in this
neighborhood and have been up and down this street in this area so many times, and um…
I know this little bungalow house, but I also understand how it is just, like, generic
bungalow, and I am newer to the this committee, um, but from my perspective, it does not
seem to have any spec, like, speciflc characteristics that is…that qualifles it, um… to be
something that is, like, particularly architecturally important other than its age at this time,
sadly. So, I'm curious to hear what my fellow committee members have to say, but I must
say from the research presented, I don't think that it's… associated with events that have…
You know, signiflcant contributions to the town, or any signiflcant people, and I don't think
it, like, yields any info… speciflc information to town history, um, but… I am willing to hear
what my fellow committee members have to say about, the consideration number 3, which
is that it… whether or not it is… has distinctive characteristics of time period or method of
construction, or representation of work of a master. I mean, I… don't think it does, in my
opinion, by what's been presented and or if number 5 applies, um, such that the structure
no longer has potential to convey signiflcance because of the changes that have been
made over time. For me, I'm not quite as sure if we have as much solid evidence of that in
front of us, versus just kind of… some of the assumptions that were being made, so… Those
are kind of my general comments, and I'm curious to know what other people have to say in
those comments.
Martha Queiroz (HPC Committee Member): So, for me. Once again, I appreciate all the
research that's been done by the homeowners, but it feels like a case exactly, like, San
Benito and I think even the letter from the designer where it says this is representative of an
era that it does… it is representative of an era, even though other homes have been
Page 216
6-8
changed in the neighborhood maybe they were by, like, a less conservative group of … on
HPC, I'm not sure.
My leaning would be not to take it off. I feel like at least the photo that we have of it as a… I
don't know how far back this… this dates on the Ann Bloomfleld Survey, but… The house
looks exactly the same as before, and…I would say it should stay on the …..
Lee Quintana (HPC Committee Member): Commissioner Burnett.
Sue Burnett (HPC Committee Member): Um, actually, I could honestly repeat what I said
for our previous one on San Benito. In fact, this one is even more signiflcant, and I think for
a California bungalow in California. It was built in the 20s, and it's a typical… if you go
through the… the book of the American Heritage. You can see all… this house all over the
place, and there were typical California bungalow, and especially in that area. I live in the
Ellenwood area and we have homes that the… when they are… over on San Benito,
Monterey, and over on the east side of Los Gatos. And it's… yeah, I grew up in Los Gatos.
So this is pretty typical and actually, the integrity of it, it looks very well put together. It
hasn't changed at all since Bloomfleld photograph that was done. I think it was in 98.
Whatever, she did the survey. It was from 1998, it was. 1998. And, um, it's built in the 20s,
so I flnd it a very good example, and… very typical of a California bungalow, so I would have
a hard time removing it from the inventory, and as I said before, we are the Historic
Preservation Committee and we're trying to maintain our inventory. Does it mean you can't
add on or change, or, you know, make it better, make it… But it… we're trying to maintain the
same feeling of time and place. And the character of the home, I think it stands for itself.
How it looks, I mean… I would not want to take it out of the inventory.
Lee Quintana (HPC Committee Member): Okay, I'm gonna call myself. Um, I agree with
the previous two speakers, and I also like to make the comment that of the three examples
that were given as, um buildings that were… um, allowed… demolition, uh, two of them
were… not homes, not the primary residence, but were barns, and… In my opinion,
unfortunately, barns are not covered by our pre-1941. So, they really we're not, uh,
demolitions of historic structures. They were straight demolitions and the third one… I
couldn't flnd, um, that the application, it… It indicated that the application was incomplete,
and I couldn't flnd any evidence that it was actually approved, but I also would like to make
Page 217
6-9
the comment that well, I went to the site. It seemed to me that while there were a lot of
second-story editions on Loma, you know, the in the immediate neighborhood. For the
most part, those second-story editions were to the back of the original structure.
Um, or even if they were demos, they were… the second story was more to the rear than to
the front, so it maintained the character that particular area of a street. Yes, there'll be
many newer buildings and additions too.
Emily Thomas (HPC Committee Member): I just have a question about, are we… is that
something that we're supposed to take into consideration when it is… Like, when approving
or denying this request?
Sean Mullin (Planning Manager): The neighborhood? The neighborhood? No. Okay, okay.
Lee Quintana (HPC Committee Member): And I would also add that, to me, this is a
typical Los Gatos Bungalow. Uh, it may not be an exact style, but a lot of the homes on the
survey that we consider, to be representative of the character of Los Gatos are not…
examples of, uh…pure examples of the type of architecture. Give my home as an example,
it's the Queen Anne but it's not a typical Queen Anne. Uh… that's just one example I could
probably go on forever, proving examples, but to me. Uh, this is a typical bungalow that
was seen throughout Los Gatos And, um, we are trying to… preserve the feeling of our past
history. This doesn't mean that they can't submit an application For a remodeling
additions. Uh, would anybody like to make a motion?
Emily Thomas (HPC Committee Member): I… I think that I… I mean, I have similar
comments that I've… I think that, as a person that I know that I'm, once again, newer to the
committee, and not an expert in architecture, but I… I don't think that it has enough
signiflcance to keep it on. I think that, like I said, that there's possibly two different flndings
to take it off, and um… I know there's a lot of… there are a lot of other structures in that
neighborhood that I think that… well, not even in that neighborhood. I guess what I'm
saying is that as a person that grew up in this area and passed that house, like, very, very
frequently and other parts of the neighborhood, I just want to say that there are homes that
I see that I do walk by that I'm like, went… that I wouldn't…now, knowing from my
Page 218
6-10
perspective as an adult on this committee going… something has more historical
signiflcance or not as a person that has grown up and lived here for 35 years and so, from
my perspective, like, even though It is… it was marked as a bungalow on the Bloomfleld
Survey. I just don't think that it's, like any signiflcant value, and I don't think that… I did not
know that it was even this old, as person that grew up in this area, and now looks at houses
all the time. For this speciflc purpose, and so, um… I just think that that's just my
perspective on it, and I think that I won't be able to support a denial motion. At this point.
Lee Quintana (HPC Committee Member): I'd just like to add something from the inventory
itself. It had an X, which means that it is, um… It was intact and worthy of special note.
Um, and, um… I think it meets… the criteria number 5 of the considerations. Would
anybody like to make a motion? No, I have another question? Okay.
Martha Queiroz (HPC Committee Member): Um, I would like that for my fellow committee
member. Um, you voted for the other item on the agenda that was very similar, and I'd like
to know what differences, you see, because they also have… We have spoken to neighbors
and staff. It was not in good condition…
Emily Thomas (HPC Committee Member): Are we supposed to be considering other
applications in our decision?
Sean Mullin (Planning Manager): No.
Emily Thomas (HPC Committee Member): I just feel like this does not… Uh, like, their… I
mean, I don't have to justify this, but the previous ones, there… there was more
architectural signiflcance to it, and I don't think that there… in my in my non-expert opinion,
other than sitting on this committee, I don't think that there's architectural signiflcance to
this one.
Lee Quintana (HPC Committee Member): Okay, I'm gonna make a comment here.
Number 5 is the integrity has been compromised such that the structure no longer has the
potential to convey signiflcance. That's in the flndings and considerations. That's… an “or”
Page 219
6-11
so it doesn't have to meet any of the above, just an “or”… I think… some of the committee,
uh, believes that it still has enough integrity to be seen as a bungalow that is typical of past
life in California, whereas Los Gatos speciflcally. And, uh… Keeping on the inventory does
not mean that they cannot submit a plan that is consistent with being on the inventory. Um
So… Anybody like to make a motion?
Sue Burnett (HPC Committee Member): I make a motion to deny the request to remove it,
uh, pre-1941 property from the historic resources inventory for properties on R- R1-8, right?
They say that 16805 Loma Street. Apms 53207101. It's exempt pursuant to CEQA Section
15061. The three requests for review. Bhst-25-007, Property Owner William Wundram,
Applicant David Britt (Britt Rowe) and project planner, Sean Mullen. And I'd like to make the
comment that I can make the flndings that it does still have a very distinctive characteristic
and type of typical California bungalow.
You know, built in Los Gatos in the 20s. And I feel it still has, uh… integrity to it and it's very
signiflcant for a time and place. So I feel strongly that it should not be taken out of, uh… pre
1941 guidelines, the historic inventory.
Lee Quintana (HPC Committee Member): And do I hear a second?
Martha Queiroz (HPC Committee Member): I'll second it.
Lee Quintana (HPC Committee Member): Any further discussion? Okay, I'll call the
question. All those in favor of the motion? All those opposed? The motion carries three to
two. Thank you. I think we are now up to… Oh, so that's pretty good.
Page 220
SECTION 7
April 23rd Transcript
Page 221
7-1
Transcript of the last topic from the April 23rd HPC - this is a transcript with HPC
members discussing the process and criteria with Joel Paulson
Direct Source Link: https://losgatos-ca.municodemeetings.com/bc-
hpc/page/historic-preservation-committee-9
Time Start: 1:16:30
HPC Committee Attendees: Lee Quintana, Martha Queiroz, Alan Feinberg, Sue
Burnett
Planning Staff Attendees: Joel Paulson
TRANSCRIPT:
Actually think for that is number 5. Yeah, other business. Oh.
Lee Quintana (HPC Committee Member): that is my concern is about understanding
the town of Los Gatos historic preservation criteria. That'll just say that this has puzzled
me for a long time.
Every time we get one of these asking to get something removed that is 1941,
I really hassle with it and I decided, and I'm going to apologize that I had intended to give
you a list of all the places in all of the government, documents that I could find that
address 1941 historic resources and I don't know what I did with. I know I spent a long
time going through it.
Joel Paulson (Community Development Director): they are in the cloud.,,,
Lee Quintana (HPC Committee Member): they are in the cloud of my brain. So, but let
me just try and summarize some of the things that I found. Specifically with reference
to pre 1941 historic resources.
In the residential design guidelines. In the section specifically devoted to historic
preservation,
There's a statement that says that extremely significant homes have been designated
as landmarks. And also there is a statement about contributing structures and historic
districts which are not landmarks.
I think our codes are written so it's confusing to a certain extent because you can have a
historic district which contain both landmark structures, but also because other pre
Page 222
7-2
1941 homes that are not landmark but are contributing structures.
Joel Paulson (Community Development Director): And so non contributors as well.
Lee Quintana (HPC Committee Member): So yeah, so. The way I come to think about it
is that. And we state that pre 1941 structures are presumptive historic resources. So
my figuring is the town has several different ways to identify historic resources. One is
by landmark status that means space for federal criteria or under state criteria, meet
local criteria for landmarking.
Or it doesn't meet the criteria but in a historic district it's identified as a contributing
structure. And we identified pre-1941 structure as presumptive historic resources and
since we have a level that says extremely significant for landmarks.
I therefore go to, well, there's another level and that's just a significant pre 1941
structure, which is a historic resource.
So what makes it a historic a pre 1941 presumptive historic resource, not a historic
resource and what I come up with I, you know, with everything that I've read, and the
fact that in the Bloomfield Study survey it often designates, not in a historic district, but
if it were a historic district, it would be a contributing structure.
Sue Burnett (HPC Committee Member): Like the one on San Benito,
Lee Quintana (HPC Committee Member): the one on San Benito. It doesn't say that it
that the whole area has to be in a historic district. It just says that if there were historic,
if this were in a historic district or an area that was could be. You know. What I'm trying
to say is it doesn't have to meet the criteria of being in an area of a historic district, it
just needs to meet the criteria. If there were historic district, it would be a contributor,
you know.
A lot of our language is very confusing and contradictory in all these different things, so
that that's my primary thing. And then the other thing is. I think that the criteria for
States and Federal listing as a landmark structure Is basically the same five findings
that the town uses when we need to make findings with the exception that the state and
federal have an “or” or “and” before the last and the next to the last finding, but the
town has an “or” so the way I understand that after much hassle with my brain is that it
may not have to meet all those the previous findings, that it only has to meet the last
one, which is the “or” rather than “and”, but to be considered a pre 1941 historic
resource not in a historic district or not a landmark. Whereas the state and federal
criteria are stricter, and that fits with what I have always been told, which is that Los
Gatos has a strong historic preservation program. Well, once having gone through this
Page 223
7-3
reasoning, I could probably say yes, that's the case, but it certainly isn't clear in any of
our documents. It's it's sort of there, but it's not there.
Alan Feinberg (HPC Committee Member): Yeah.
Lee Quintana (HPC Committee Member): So I mean and my concern here is that I was
finding myself not sure I was making consistent decisions when requests were made to
remove projects from inventory. Which an aside question, Joel. Do we actually have a
historic inventory list? Or is it the Bloomfield survey? Or is it because not everything
that's considered historic has a Bloomfield survey.
Joel Paulson (Community Development Director): Sean and I talked about this
multiple times. I can't remember if one of our contract planners was starting that or
took that on but when Seam gets back next week, we check in with him on the progress
'cause we can talk about that for months.
Lee: Yeah. And so my I would sum my experience my first year experience only historic
Preservation Committee as confusing and frustrating because of the lack of clarity and
consistency and look at all of this.
Alan Feinberg (HPC Committee Member): And if I hear you correctly, that just makes
our jobs more difficult. The decision making process more difficult and ambiguous.
Yeah, and arbitrary is a good word, yeah.
Lee Quintana (HPC Committee Member): Well, an arbitrary and capricious.
Sue Burnett (HPC Committee Member): Yeah. When I was first, I started years ago it
was much easier because I think there were…I think the staff is more like minded and I
think the members were more like minded, but it didn't have to get every of the five. It
seems like now if there's…
If there's only now that there can’t be just one reason to retain it. Now you seem to
have said it doesn't…If it if it what I'm trying to say though, yeah, if it only if it still has
integrity, it still looks and feels at a time and place in a neighborhood and you, your
grandchildren can go there and say, well, grandma, you know, she had a house like
that…that's what we're trying to preserve. But now I mean, I feel like sometimes crying
about it because I feel that's the goal of our committee, but for some reason it's
switched and now it's much it's at a much higher level that we have to meet to save
these homes and it's extremely frustrating. We are losing homes all the time.
Page 224
7-4
Lee Quintana (HPC Committee Member): We're not using the same criteria. If a
project comes in with a historic report, that historic report does its evaluation based on
the federal and state criteria.
Not the town's criteria, because there's no real statement of the town's criteria persay,
like I said, you have to go through all of these different documents and I don't think
that's done by most and I think there's even confusion within the town because one of
the things that we refused to take off the inventory that went to the Planning
Commission and our town attorney said, well, it was a mistake, that the finding said
“or” and not “and”, and I found that to that took my breath away.
Joel Paulson (Community Development Director): So I don't know how I don't know
how many decades ago that state was made.
Lee Quintana (HPC Committee Member): No, it was. It was within the last couple of
months.
Joel Paulson (Community Development Director): Yeah, we haven't changed the
historic code in the last couple months. I know what statement you're talking about.
When the last time we changed that section of the town code.
Lee Quintana (HPC Committee Member): OK, I'm saying that our attorney.
Joel Paulson (Community Development Director): Oh, I know.
Lee Quintana (HPC Committee Member): It was a mistake that it said.
Joel Paulson (Community Development Director): I also recall not hearing any
reasoning for why it was a mistake.
Lee Quintana (HPC Committee Member): So yeah, and the next week we did the same
thing on another project and we used the “or”, but they upheld that appeal.
Sue Burnett (HPC Committee Member): Well, what's the solution?
Alan Feinberg (HPC Committee Member): Yeah. What do we do?
Page 225
7-5
Lee Quintana (HPC Committee Member): No. OK. The most I could figure out from
everything that's already here that the criteria. The only criteria I could figure out would
be that if a structure qualified to be a contributing structure in a historic district, it
would be considered a Los Gatos historic resource.
Joel Paulson (Community Development Director): So anything less than that is not
historic,
Lee Quintana (HPC Committee Member): but that requires some kind of criteria that
we can use to establish whether it would be a contributor and also, I think part of the
problem is that…I was reading more historic reports as they come in sometimes with
these projects, they're not consistent. They have different criteria and I remember that
this was a problem in San Jose. And we in San Jose established criteria that historic
architects, architectural historian PAT to use when they were analyzing historic
building, so that there was some parallel consistency. And the other, the other thing is
because…while the enabling ordinance, I believe says that. The town should hire a
historic architecture. We don't have one. So you're getting inconsistencies with, you
know, different consultants preparing the reports.
Alan Feinberg (HPC Committee Member): So coming back to Susan's comment then
what? What do we do? What can we do? What can we ask staff to do? Cause, I agree
with you and we absolutely want to be clear and consistent and….if if we're not, that
creates all kinds of confusion, not only within our committee, but in recommendations
we make for the decisions that come before us. So.
Lee Quintana (HPC Committee Member): I think it's easier for appeals to be approved
because of the inconsistency in the differences. I don't know, Joel, if it's something that
the committee could.
Sue Burnett (HPC Committee Member): You could define for us better.
Lee Quintana (HPC Committee Member): Either staff could define for us better, or
that guideline we could form an ad hoc committee and come up with some suggestions
that could be forwarded to Council and the Policy Committee or something to make
some changes so that it's all works better and easier for both the committee and for the
staff.
Page 226
7-6
Joel Paulson (Community Development Director): Yeah, if you ever download from
wherever the ideas and thoughts that you had from before, you can forward those to
staff. We have directives from town manager and Council, whether it's ad hoc
committee subcommittees, if it involves very much time, unless it's directed by
Council, we're not going to be participating in that.
You guys are free to do what you want. I check and to see. Because you're
recommending body, if there's any like special rules, represent some of them weren't in
trouble with Brown Act and bringing people in, and there's been some other issues with
some that he's apparently not with some other bodies, but yeah. Yeah, right down ideas
is you have, we can take a look at the state and federal criteria that you think is similar
but not the same as the five that we have in the town. That obviously would be, I don’t
even know that it's codified as findings. Frankly, it's town code that we've converted
that someone converted over the years…
Lee Quintana (HPC Committee Member): which you know, right, brings me to this
next statement is that we make findings and we make considerations and I'm not sure I
understand why one or why the other and the findings that we make..
Joel Paulson (Community Development Director): Call Sandy. I'll call Sandy and find
out.
Lee Quintana (HPC Committee Member): The findings we are in the introduction to
the zoning code chapter and the considerations we make are referred to as standards
in the zoning code and the historic overlay refers to standards that are in the historic
overlay portion of the code and we don't. There we don't have standard. If they refer
back to the residential design standards in the residential design guidelines, we don't
have standards.
So you know it's all wishy washy…and the last thing is, you know, even considering, I
think it's pretty easy to come to the conclusion that any pre 1941 structure that would
make as a contributing structure and historic district, I think that's pretty easy to come
by. But that doesn't cover the issues that Suzan brought up. We're losing these smaller.
You know. Well, Los Gatos historic defining structures because we don't have..we
don't have the tools, but not.
Joel Paulson (Community Development Director): I think I mean the process and
little …I haven't sat here for a long time….with his body. But after seeing this close up
tonight. You know, the HPC has roles, duties, responsibilities, continuing items
because you want to see plans that are not your purview doesn't make any sense…if
you can't. If you can't make one of the findings to remove or to keep it on to just deny it.
Page 227
7-7
Right, just make the recommendation now because you know you have two instances
tonight where one, you've got a property owner, they're not doing this all the time. The
one had their architecture or architectural historian, whatever she was. So that's kind
of a leg up, but you know a lot of times we have folks who just want to do something
that seems simple.
The amount of research that she did was, you know, astonishing, but the reality is that
to go through that and it's continued because I don't know what you want to do….just
deny it.
Lee Quintana (HPC Committee Member): It's a good point.
Joel Paulson (Community Development Director): Yeah
That waste of staff’s time and the property owner applicant's time. So I think I I tried to
let it go when I let it go the first time and then it started happening the second time. I'm
like, oh, I guess I should have said something.
Lee Quintana (HPC Committee Member): Maybe the 1st?
Joel Paulson (Community Development Director): Yeah, for sure.
Alan Feinberg (HPC Committee Member): Well, I think the reason that happened the
second time is…
Lee Quintana (HPC Committee Member): But let me ask you, if we deny them, then
what happens?
Joel Paulson (Community Development Director): Well, that's what we, well, they
either appeal or they don't. So they would appeal to the Planning Commission. Right,
because basically what can happen is you're recommending to me I'm not gonna
change your mind. Basically, I'm not gonna go against what the HPC unless there's
some just really crazy evidence that comes forward and then it will go to Planning
Commission. Right. Especially you make a recommendation. I actually formally deny
it. You don't have to deny here…just make a recommendation. You're not the bad guy
as bad as I am.
Lee Quintana (HPC Committee Member): But you know, part of the problem, I think is
that. I don't think most homeowners, even given doing the research that they do with
his store library such as cetera really have the skills to assess the structures and I don't
Page 228
7-8
know how to get around that one.
Joel Paulson (Community Development Director): Yeah, I mean it's it's, it's a, it's a
cost, right? So not everyone wants to go out and hire a historian.
Lee Quintana (HPC Committee Member): And one last question or statement. I'm
gonna hire a historian to do a research on my house. Yeah. Just because I am curious
and I'm too lazy to do the research myself.
Sue Burnett (HPC Committee Member): So this is another area. So we have, let's say,
a historic house. It needs a lot of repair and they repair it and they do major work. But it
still has this time feel you know that it still looks like it was intended to look like
Joel Paulson (Community Development Director): keeps its integrity.
Sue Burnett (HPC Committee Member): So then they sell it and someone comes in
and says, well, yeah, but it's been totally remodeled and now it's not really historic
anymore because it's all new. But yet, it followed our probable guidelines in the past to
keep it to look and feel how it originally was attended and then you get caught because,
well, it is new. So we're sort of put in like a little limbo area there.
Joel Paulson (Community Development Director): Yeah. I mean, there's a lot. I mean,
there's, there's the problem is, there's so many different iterations of what can happen,
right? Let's say you have a historic house that's outside of the historic district that's pre
1941. They come in, they wanna do some remodeling. They're matching in kind.
They're, you know, doing maybe an addition that doesn't require discretionary review,
staff says, doesn't meet the criteria, you know, historic resources “yes” or “no” and it
does and it gets a building permit. I think that because in those cases, for the most
part, they're gonna be replacing stuff in kind, because if they're not, then it's gonna
come to you.
We are not going to approve that as a building permit necessarily. And so that's that's
kind of the check there. But there's other processes where if I was replacing siding, do I
wanna go to a building permit? Because I'm not a demo, if I'm not historic or wanna pay
$30K plus in planning application fees, go through a six to nine month process that can
get appealed all the way up to the town council, even though I'm doing a very simple
project. underground and utilities, there's hundreds, probably $100,000 easy to come,
extra stuff that gets triggered with that. But to your point, previously, it's sure we could
change the code to where you know 'cause if it's historic, there are a bunch of little
Page 229
7-9
caveats that do let them get around it right, it's in kind. It's just rotten beyond repair that
the building official goes out and says yes, this actually has to be replaced, but it gets to
be replaced in kind and I think there's a third one in the in the demo definition.
The other trigger for the historic is if you catch more than 25% of the side facing the
street, that's automatically demo, even if you're not touching anything else on the
house you touch, 25% of the exterior wall facade or cover it up in. The front in the front,
anything that faces the street. So you could have an alley. You could be on the corner.
You could technically have three sides so that automatically is a new house.
Right,
Lee Quintana (HPC Committee Member): OK. That is one of my questions. Is that we
having that at 25% being considered a demo…encourages demos. That, if anything,
that figure should be higher than per regular house.
Joel Paulson (Community Development Director): Well, I think to the point is trying to
maintain the integrity of the existing structure and existing materials. So to your historic
preservation bent. That's why it is lower than an non historic house, right?
Not historic house doesn't have a front facade number at all. It's 50% of the entire
perimeter, right? So you could be taking pieces off here and there all over the place
Martha Queiroz (HPC Committee Member): and it's actually the framing, not the wall
covering or non historic homes.
Lee: So for historic home, it's the wall covering, but if. If it were that. Not be considered
a demo that that needs to be replaced to be consistent with.
Joel Paulson (Community Development Director): Yeah. That's why I said there's cut
outs where if it's replacing in kind right when it's damaged, things like that. There's. I
can't remember. There's three parts here.
Martha: Well, I'm like for example. What the one that you guys just reviewed about the
insurance covered one. Our chief building official went out to the site to determine if
that existing material was damaged enough that they could. They could replace it and
so that was. That's one. As Joel says, there's one part of the historic demo that if they're
to be able to determine it's completely damaged, they can replace it so.
Joel Paulson (Community Development Director): But still in kind, perhaps we can
make sense….we run into this a lot now and hillsides we know what happens to have
the fire insurance problem to our insurance and problem, but we're into it more and
Page 230
7-10
more at the hillsides where you know you've got, let's just say it's shingle and the very
high fire. Has its very own come in and say hey, I got to replace my site. Well your pre
1941 you got to come to HPC to let you do the Hardie siding. Right. Instead of the…
Lee Quintana (HPC Committee Member): well that that was my question on the one
on…..what does the Hardie siding…
Joel Paulson (Community Development Director): Well, you should have asked her.
Lee Quintana (HPC Committee Member): Should've.
Joel Paulson (Community Development Director): I don't know if it's in the packet.
The packet's pretty thick, but.
Lee Quintana (HPC Committee Member): We didn’t even know that this was was
triggered by the fact that they were replacing siding.
Joel Paulson (Community Development Director): It is irrelevant.
Martha Queiroz (HPC Committee Member): Yeah, just the findings.
Joel Paulson (Community Development Director): Cause what anyone wants to do
with their property is irrelevant. It's those five findings. Whether or not they should be
removed or not, that's it.
Lee Quintana (HPC Committee Member): I understand that where I have problem
because that makes sense for certain things, but when the issue is they're requesting it
to be removed because they want to demolish it. The two are tied together, which is
most of the time and you know when you do it a demo you have to have a replacement
structure, but we're setting it up. That that replacement structure doesn't have to be
consistent with the historic anymore, because we took it off the inventory and all
connected that through and…
Joel Paulson (Community Development Director): it gets back to what Susan said
and that would be again change the code, get the Council to say that we're OK with
historic Preservation Committee having to review every house that was ever built before
1941 and every house in the historic district, which you already have to do.
Page 231
7-11
Lee Quintana (HPC Committee Member): but demolition ordinance, it works against
historic preservation because it's not very strict, really. You know, if you can make the
finding of this, this, this or this and and I think the last this is something to the effect the
applicant doesn't have any desire to maintain the house.
Joel Paulson (Community Development Director): That's under the demolition
findings.
Lee Quintana (HPC Committee Member): those are demolition findings. But there's a
reason that they're asking to take it off the inventory so that they can ask for the
demolition and make that finding.
Whereas you know for historic structure, it should be much higher bar. In the general
plan language. I think I'm not sure if it's in the 2020 or 2040. I think it was still in the
2020, but the language in the introductory verbiage on everything is “prohibit” when it
came comes to historic and then you go into the details on the you know, the goals and
the policies and the actual implementation. It's not prohibitive, but at all so. There, to
me that means there's inconsistency in our general plan, yeah.
Alan Feinberg (HPC Committee Member): Yeah. And to that point, my concern is if we
deny an application recommend deny it and the applicant takes issue with that, they
take it up to planning then our recommendation goes out the window or planning
supports the recommendation we've made to them and the applicant still doesn't like it
then they take it up to council and it gets approved.
Martha Queiroz (HPC Committee Member): It looks like every application. People
have that conversation all the time. You will just regular applications that don't come to
HPC. It's like, oh, I'm going to council anyway, so I'm just gonna, you know.
Sue Burnett (HPC Committee Member): We can we have some of these houses come
back to us for the redesign.
Joel Paulson (Community Development Director): That's what I'm saying. Change
the code.
Sue Burnett (HPC Committee Member): but how do we do that?
Page 232
7-12
Joel Paulson (Community Development Director): That's basically what I just said to
Lee, and she said “no”. Every pre 1941 right now comes to the HPC.
Sue Burnett (HPC Committee Member): So how do we do this?
Joel Paulson (Community Development Director): Yeah, it'd be a big lift to to do that
work. So we would have to be directed by Council. You can ask Council stuff all the
time. You know what you can do? You can ask him. Doesn't mean we're actually
gonna do it, but.
Sue Burnett (HPC Committee Member): It has to be put on their agenda to get how do
we get move it forward, though I can go up there and ask him for the money.
Joel Paulson (Community Development Director): I have this conversation. I ask him
what other five things they don't want us to do.
Alan Feinberg (HPC Committee Member): Well, I think this conversation with, with,
with Matthew Oh, because he's said. That one you're gonna be glad to know the top
priorities for my term as mayor is historic preservation. I said great, thank you, he said.
But that comes below,
And then he listed all the other critical issues he's dealing with. So my concern is yes,
he has best intentions, but he'll never get to it…
Joel Paulson (Community Development Director): the reality to Susan and meets
there used to be we haven't done it yet like last few years. We've done the strategic
priorities right. That's been the time to say, OK. Here's a list of all the ordinances that
everyone. That's what's due in our council. Here's our priorities from staff's
perspective.
You prioritize it. So this year it was done a little bit differently. The strategic priorities
that are supposed to be a follow up were targeted, which I think that portion was gonna
fit into, which hasn't happened yet.
Lee Quintana (HPC Committee Member): Yes, we can make a suggestion to the
Council, but what is the process?
For that suggestion to come from the committee as a whole, how do we do that 'cause
that has a lot more weight than if we get off as an individual and say we're on the
committee, but we're acting at an individual.
Page 233
7-13
Joel Paulson (Community Development Director): Yeah, I'll check with Gabrielle and
see what her thoughts are. The reality is it. It doesn't matter if it's one of you or 1000 of
you. Still the same issue.
Sue Burnett (HPC Committee Member): We have so many new people moving into
town. And they don't understand how this town feel like they're what we're trying to
preserve. And you just see it all the time. It's gonna be more and more.
Lee Quintana (HPC Committee Member): Well, no, it's we love this town because it's
historic character.
Joel Paulson (Community Development Director): but on everyone else's house.
Martha Queiroz (HPC Committee Member): Yeah, Nimby.
Alan Feinberg (HPC Committee Member): Right
Sue Burnett (HPC Committee Member): We still don't know what a pre 1941…..
Joel Paulson (Community Development Director): again those are all going to tie into
probably ultimately code and or policy document revisions like if it's going to be
creating another level or some more criteria for what's a you know pre 1941.
How do we make that distinction of a you know? It's not the Bloomberg Survey some of
them say that some probably don't, but the timing might say, hey, I think that will
actually would be a contributor if it if it wasn't a district, even though it's not more vice
versa, right. It's gonna depend on the specific circumstances. So I think that could be
difficult, but ultimately it's count code and or policy document modification.
Lee: So we have to come up with specific recommendations on how to change all of
these things.
Joel Paulson (Community Development Director): You as individuals and I'll chat with
Gabrielle on subcommittee thing too, where is the subcommittee and say, hey, here's
staff. Here's what we've come up with first of ideas. What is it gonna take to implement
it? And it's gonna be the same thing I'm telling you right now. Go to amendments and or
policy. Document modifications. It's not on a work plan. When the Council directs us
to do it, we'll do it.
Page 234
7-14
Martha Queiroz (HPC Committee Member): Who made the historic districts in the
beginning. Who set those?
Joel Paulson (Community Development Director): Susan Brock?
1:52:22 end…..
Page 235
SECTION 8
Existing Structural Conditions - 16805
Loma Street
Page 236
Page 237
Page 238
Page 239
Page 240
Page 241
Page 242
Page 243
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Page 244
From: >
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2025 10:43 AM
To: Sean Mullin <SMullin@losgatosca.gov>; bill wundram <>
Subject: 16805 Loma St Letter of Support
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Hi Sean,
Please find attached a letter of support for the Wundram family and their request to be
removed from the Historic House Inventory listing as we went through this same process on the
parcel immediately next to them.
Any question, please feel free to contact me directly and I’d be happy to elaborate.
16801 Loma St
EXHIBIT 8Page 245
June 27, 2025
Sean Mullin
Town of Los Gatos, Planning Manager
Dear Sean,
Our family has lived at 16801 Loma St for the past 27 years and we are directly adjacent to
16805 Loma St. This property had been maintained as a rental property (mainly single person)
during the entire time we’ve lived here. Our new neighbors, the Wundram’s are attempting to
build a new house on their recently purchased property. They have proactively shown their
plans to all of the neighbors and explained what their intentions are.
We purchased a pre 1941 home in 1998 and went through this same approval process and were
allowed to remove our home and build a new home back in 2000. At one point in time 16805
and 16801 Loma were one parcel. There was someone who implied our house was a barn back
in the day but that is absolutely not true. It was a 3 bedroom, 1 bath house that we lived in for
almost 2 years while we planned our new home. The house on the other side of us was almost a
replica of the Wundram house and they, too, rebuilt their home shortly before we did. All of the
homes immediately surrounding Bill and Brenna’s have also been rebuilt. They are surrounded
by 5 two story homes. The plans for their new home will fit seamlessly in our neighborhood.
The Town of Los Gatos’ Historic Preservation Ordinance wisely protects structures that
contribute meaningfully to the town’s historic character—those with architectural distinction,
historical context, or cultural value. But not every pre-1941 structure automatically qualifies.
The Town Code clearly notes that for a structure to be considered historic, it must demonstrate
significance through its architecture, history, or contribution to a historic district.
I am obviously not an expert, but the home in question does not seem to meet that standard in
any way, shape or form. It is NOT architecturally significant, it is NOT in a historic area, is it NOT
associated with any notable event or figure NOR was it constructed by a master. It is, by
definition, simply old, and it has barely been maintained throughout the time we’ve lived here.
No one that I have talked to on our street or in our community feels this home meets that
criteria. The majority of residents on our street are all old time community members of Los
Gatos who have been active either within the town or in our school districts for decades. We
are not “new blood” and we appreciate the historic houses within our community. We do not,
however, believe that this house qualifies as one of those. Even our mail carrier couldn’t
believe that the house would be considered historic and he has an intimate knowledge of the
houses in our town!
I attended the HPC meeting on April 23 and left really upset at the outcome. The committee
was not unanimous in denying their petition to be removed from the register. It was a 3-2 split
vote. It was clear the committee was confused about what deems a house historical as they
openly discussed their frustration or lack of knowledge of the guidelines. They clearly stated
that the guidelines are ambiguous. Many of the members stated they were confused and
frustrated because of the lack of clarity and consistency and that their own language is
Page 246
contradictory. Please reference the minutes from the April 23 HPC meeting to truly see the
confusion amongst the group.
Instead of relying on clear, objective criteria that should be consistently applied to every
property, it felt as though the committee let sentimentality guide their decision. In the absence
of firm standards, they seemed to default to emotional attachments and nostalgia for a bygone
era. One member openly stated this brings her to tears. But not every bungalow or farmhouse
in Los Gatos automatically merits preservation simply because it evokes memories of the past.
Bill and Breanna are building a home that suits their family’s needs, while respecting the
character of the neighborhood. They already live in our community and understand the
character of Los Gatos. They have been proactive in reaching out to our neighborhood and
sharing their plans with all of us.
Given the precedent on our street, I believe they should be allowed the same opportunity we
and others have had. One of the HPC members actually stated that maybe they were more
conservative than members from years past. The rules should be applied uniformly and fairly
across all homeowners and not based on how conservative members of the HPC committee are
at a given point in time.
I respectfully ask you to support their request as it would be a huge improvement to our
neighborhood and is the right thing to do based on the precedent of what others have been
allowed. We welcome Bill and Breanna to our neighborhood and hope they will be allowed the
freedom to build a home that meets their needs.
Thank you for your consideration.
16801 Loma St
Page 247
From:
Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2025 5:16 PM
To: Sean Mullin <SMullin@losgatosca.gov>
Cc:
Subject: Neighbor support for the redevelopment of 16808 Loma Street.
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
To Sean Mullin, Los Gatos Planning Manager,
My wife Michelle and I are writing on behalf of Bill and Brenna Wundram and other neighbors
of 16805 Loma Street, Los Gatos, CA 95032.
The purpose of this email is to show our strong support of the Wundrams and their proposal to
redevelop the property noted above.
We have lived at the corner of Loma and Englewood for 15+ years. Over the years, we have
hoped that the property at 16805 Loma Street would be purchased and utilized to its full
potential. The current structure, which is not in a historical district, holds neither historical nor
architectural value. Furthermore, the property is now out of date with the rest of the homes on
the street and in the neighborhood.
have reviewed the proposed architectural drawings and believe that the home
would be a great addition to the street.
We hope that you and the town will support the Wundrams in their building endeavor.
Regards,
16505 Englewood Avenue
Page 248
From:
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 9:42 PM
To: Sean Mullin <SMullin@losgatosca.gov>
Cc: bill wundram
Subject: 16805 Loma St. Letter of Support. (Resending with original house picture)
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
July 6, 2025
Sean Mullin
Town of Los Gatos, Planning Manager
I hope this message finds you well.
I’m writing to provide some background and clarification regarding the pre-1941 single-family
residence located at 16761 Loma Street. My family has a long history with this property—my
grandparents, , purchased the home in 1941. My mother lived there
from birth in 1943 until 1965. After my grandmother’s passing in 1992, my family and I moved in
and have lived there ever since.
In 1998, in order to accommodate our growing family, we applied to demolish the original 3
bedroom, 1 bath home at 16761 Loma St. We were approved for demolition in June of 1999.
I’d like to clarify that the home was never a barn, nor was it part of any designated historical
district. I understand there may be some confusion due to a nearby structure—the only barn in
the area during the 1940s was located around the corner on Ferris Avenue, where the Potter
Court neighborhood now stands. That property belonged to the Hanson family and was later
demolished to make way for the Potter Court subdivision.
In my opinion, Bill and Breanna’s proposed home is well-suited to the character of our
neighborhood and complements the surrounding properties. I respectfully encourage your
support of their request, as this project would be a positive addition to our community. We
warmly welcome both the development and their family to the neighborhood.
Warm Regards,
16761 Loma St
Page 249
Sent from my iPhone
Page 250
From:
Sent: Monday, July 7, 2025 12:58 PM
To: Sean Mullin <SMullin@losgatosca.gov>
Cc: Bill Wundram
Subject: 16805 Loma St
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Sean,
I have been a Los Gatos resident since 2010 and live on Shady View Lane and have known the
Wundrams for about 15 years. I was in attendance at the Town Historic Preservation Committee
meeting on May 28th when the Committee voted 3-2 to reject their proposal. I was shocked by
the discussion and the “justification” the Committee used to reject the proposal as the facts
presented in the documents, the presentation by the Wundram’s and the neighbors didn’t
appear be a consideration and instead, the Committee discussion turned to an arbitrary set of
information that was either untrue or irrelevant and the points were only made to help sway
other members to reject the proposal without first determining the claims being made were
factually correct or relevant.
As evidenced by the documents submitted and attestation from the architect and neighbors,
the house doesn’t meet any of the criteria that suggests the house may be worth considering to
be preserved. Looking at the timeline and facts of the property, the original house was
constructed in 1929 with no known documentation of what the house looked like or anything of
the like. The aerial photo from 1948 shows a footprint of the home which is not consistent with
the current roofline and footprint today. What happened between 1929 and 1948 is a
complete unknown. The oldest photo of the front of the house is from 1967 where the facade
and windows differ from the current structure. The property was not part of the Town until
1999 and was therefore unincorporated Santa Clara County and was not part of any Los Gatos
planning or permitting processes during that time. Furthermore, the Committee is chartered to
focus on homes prior to 1941 which there is no documentation for. The justification the
Committee discussed was preserving a California bungalow. A California bungalow could have a
very broad interpretation as it is an arbitrary term that could entail any small ranch
house. However, with respect to 16805 Loma, there is no documentation or information about
the house, so what exactly does the Committee wish to preserve? What about this house
requires it to be preserved under the rules of the Historic Preservation Committee? Seems like
any further proposals would be subject to whimsical and arbitrary opinions of what the
Committee thinks it should look like rather than having a defined set of criteria and specific
aspects that should be preserved. It is bothering to me that the Committee is using such
arbitrary, misleading information to make decisions which impact resident property owners in
the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
In addition, Loma St had a number of small ranch houses on it and all the other structures were
approved for demolition. The structure is a simple farm house and doesn’t look like other true
examples of a California Craftsman in Los Gatos. Finally, the neighbors are in support of
the demolition and proposed structure.
Page 251
As a long term resident, I urge the committee to reconsider its conclusion and revisit the
justification used for denying the proposal.
Best Regards,
16464 Shady View Lane
Page 252
From:
Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2025 10:05 AM
To: Sean Mullin <SMullin@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: 16805 Loma Street
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Hey Sean,
I'm sending you this letter of support for Bill Wundrum as an immediate resident in the
neighborhood versus a design professional.
Best,
M.
M. Rowe
Britt-Rowe
Page 253
MAR
MICHAEL/GINGER ROWE
Tuesday, August 5, 2025
Mr. Sean Mullin
Planning Commission Members
Town of Los Gatos Planning
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
RE: Mr. Bill Wundrum
16805 Loma Street
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Mr. Mullin & Commission Members,
I/We are writing this letter of support of Mr. Wundrum’s project, not as an architectural design professional
in the community, but as nearby neighborhood residents. My wife and I have owned our home on
Englewood Avenue for just over 33 years. Needless to say, we have witnessed a multitude of older homes
which were noted to have been constructed prior to 1941, demolished and rebuilt throughout our
neighborhood over the many years. It is disconcerting how the subjective opinion of a handful of Historical
Preservation Committee members can shape OUR neighborhoods, when in fact, no historical lineage can
be provided, no historical listing on any register can be noted and no historical event has ever taken place
there. The older home in question is not historical. It is simply a leftover, forgotten & neglected example
from a past moment in time built in an architectural style that was and still is very abundant across our state
and the rest of the country. During the HPC Meeting, the members “struggled” with trying to make the
distinction between a Historical Home and a Landmark. They failed to do so based on the criteria NEEDED
to deny this application in the first place. They also made a very troubling public comment that “previous
Historical Preservation Committees may have been less conservative than us…..”. That in itself proves they
are making decisions based on their personal emotions & subjectivity versus establishing the necessary
historical criteria required to make such a finding. As a longtime resident of the immediate neighborhood, I
find this statement and their decision to deny Mr. Wundrum’s application very discriminatory. What makes
this home more historically significant than the many Pre-1941 homes awarded permission for demolition
before it? Was it the current mood and perspective of the HPC only? If so, that is outside the lines of their
community responsibility.
It is in our opinion as immediate neighborhood residents that this house, like many others which have been
provided demolition permission in the past, is no different, nor is it historically contributory to the
preservation of the Town of Los Gatos’ overall architectural character. It is the responsibilityof the Planning
Page 254
Commission to protect the “best interest of the community”. Well, here we are as literal neighborhood
residents hoping for a common sense decision by the Planning Commission and to allow Mr. Wundrum to
move forward with his project. Thank you for allowing us to express our support for this application.
Best,
Michael &Ginger
Michael/Ginger Rowe
Page 255
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Page 256