Staff Report with Exhibits 1 through 7.24 Pleasant St
PREPARED BY: Suray Nathan
Assistant Planner
Reviewed by: Planning Manager, Town Attorney, and 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: 10/08/2025
ITEM NO: 3
DATE: October 3, 2025
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Consider an Appeal of a Community Development Director Decision to Deny a
Request to Remove a Pre-1941 Property from the Historic Resources
Inventory for Property Zoned R-1D. Located at 24 Pleasant Street. APN 529-
26-016. Request for Review PHST-25-013. Exempt Pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines, Section 15061 (b)(3). Property Owner/Applicant/Appellant:
Swapnil Raut and Rashmi Jadhav. Project Planner: Suray Nathan.
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 (HRI) for property zoned R-1D,
located at 24 Pleasant Street.
PROJECT DATA:
General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential
Zoning Designation: R-1D – Single-Family Residential Downtown
Applicable Plans and Standards: General Plan, Town Code, Residential Design Guidelines
Parcel Size: 6,500 square feet
Surrounding Area:
Existing Land Use General Plan Zoning
North Residential Low Density Residential R-1D
South Residential Low Density Residential R-1D
East Residential Low Density Residential R-1D
West Los Gatos High School Public R-1:20:PS
PAGE 2 OF 7
SUBJECT: 24 Pleasant Street/Appeal of PHST-25-013
DATE: October 3, 2025
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 HRI.
ACTION:
The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed within ten days.
BACKGROUND:
The subject property is located on the west side of Pleasant Street, approximately 260 feet
north of East Main Street (Exhibit 1). The property is 6,500 square feet and developed with an
existing 1,166-square foot single-story residence constructed in 1926 per the Santa Clara
County Assessor’s Database. The property is not within a historic district or Landmark and
Historic Preservation (LHP) overlay, but it is included in the 1990 Anne Bloomfield Survey,
providing a preliminary rating of historic and some altered, but still a contributor to the
district if there is one (Exhibit 3, Attachment 2). The house first appears on the Sanborn Fire
Insurance Maps in 1928 (Exhibit 3, Attachment 1). Subsequent maps show that the footprint of
the residence remained consistent through 1956.
On August 27, 2025, the Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) considered a request to
remove the subject property from the HRI. The applicant’s request letter noted that, based on
their research, the findings for removal can be made, noting that the residence is not
associated with events important to the Town, not associated with significant persons, and the
residence has lost integrity from previous modifications and additions (Exhibit 3, Attachment 3).
The HPC received the staff report, held a public hearing, and discussed the request. The HPC
voted two-to-two, with one Committee member absent from the hearing, to recommend
denial to the Community Development Director, finding that the residence still has integrity and
the overall design is in-keeping with the Mediterranean Revival style of that period (Exhibit 4).
The audio from this meeting is available on the Town’s website at https://losgatos-
PAGE 3 OF 7
SUBJECT: 24 Pleasant Street/Appeal of PHST-25-013
DATE: October 3, 2025
ca.municodemeetings.com/bc-hpc/page/historic-preservation-committee-12.
On August 28, 2025, the Community Development Director denied the request for removal
(Exhibit 5).
On September 5, 2025, the decision of the Community Development Director was appealed to
the Planning Commission by interested persons, Swapnil Raut and Rashmi Jadhav, property
owners of 24 Pleasant Street (Exhibit 6).
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 appeal shall be set for the first regular meeting
of the Planning Commission in which the business of the Planning Commission will permit,
more than five (5) days after the date of filing the appeal. The Planning Commission may hear
the matter anew and render a new decision on the matter.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
A. Location and Surrounding Neighborhood
The subject property is located on the west side of Pleasant Street, approximately 260 feet
north of East Main Street (Exhibit 1). All surrounding properties are zoned for single-family
residential development, except the property to the west, which has a Public School Overlay
designation and is developed with a portion of the Los Gatos High School.
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 1926 for
the residence; therefore, the subject property is included on the HRI as a presumptive
historic residence.
PAGE 4 OF 7
SUBJECT: 24 Pleasant Street/Appeal of PHST-25-013
DATE: October 3, 2025
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 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 neighborhoods and areas
of the Town, the increase of economic and financial benefits to the Town and its
inhabitants, and the promotion of tourist trade and interest.
4. The enrichment of human life in its educational and cultural dimensions by serving
aesthetic as well as material needs and fostering knowledge of the living heritage of
the past.
Residential Design Guidelines Section 4 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:
• Any structure/site that is located within a historic district (Broadway, Almond Grove,
Fairview Plaza, University/ Edelen, and Downtown Commercial); or
PAGE 5 OF 7
SUBJECT: 24 Pleasant Street/Appeal of PHST-25-013
DATE: October 3, 2025
• 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 August 27, 2025, the HPC received the staff report, held a public hearing, and discussed
the request. The HPC voted two-to-two, with one Committee member absent from the
hearing, to recommend denial to the Community Development Director, finding that the
residence still has integrity and is in-keeping with the Mediterranean Revival style (Exhibit
4). On August 28, 2025, the Community Development Director denied the request for
removal (Exhibit 5).
C. Appeal to Planning Commission
On September 5, 2025, the decision of the Community Development Director was appealed
to the Planning Commission by interested persons, Swapnil Raut and Rashmi Jadhav,
property owners of 24 Pleasant Street (Exhibit 6). The appellant provided an additional
letter in support of the appeal dated September 15, 2025 (Exhibit 7). The letter addresses
PAGE 6 OF 7
SUBJECT: 24 Pleasant Street/Appeal of PHST-25-013
DATE: October 3, 2025
each of the five findings required for removing a property from the HRI. Below are the five
required findings, followed by a summary of the appellant’s justification for each finding.
1. The structure is not associated with events that have made a significant contribution to
the Town.
• The appellant notes that the research at the Los Gatos Public Library and the Town
records of the subject property do not yield any evidence of the property’s direct
association with a significant Town event.
2. No Significant persons are associated with the site.
• The appellant points out that the research of the owner and occupancy records using
the Town directory and assessors' records does not indicate that any former
residents of the property meet the threshold of a significant person associated with
the site. The appellant provided a list of names of the previous occupants as an
attachment to the letter (Exhibit 7).
3. There are no distinctive characteristics of type, period, or method of construction or
representation of work of a master.
• The appellant states that the house is described as Mediterranean Revival; however,
it does not exhibit the key hallmark of the style that rises to significance.
• Additionally, subsequent alterations to the windows, roof, and the rear addition
diminish any stylistic expressions of the Mediterranean Revival style.
4. The structure does not yield information to Town history.
• The appellant notes that, based on their research and observation, the existing house
does not yield information essential to understanding Los Gatos' history.
5. The integrity has been compromised such that the structure no longer has the potential
to convey significance.
• The appellant states that the research and the exhibits provided show that the
integrity of the house has been compromised. The appellant cites window
replacements, roofline changes, and a rear addition as having altered the original
design, material, and workmanship.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Written notice was sent to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the subject
property. At the time of preparation of this report, no public comment has been received.
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
PAGE 7 OF 7
SUBJECT: 24 Pleasant Street/Appeal of PHST-25-013
DATE: October 3, 2025
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 appealed the Community Development Director’s decision to deny the
request to remove a pre-1941 property from the HRI for property zoned R-1D, located at 24
Pleasant Street.
B. Recommendation
For reasons stated in this report, which include the HPC not being able to make finding #3 in
their recommendation, it is recommended that the Planning Commission deny the appeal
and uphold the decision of the Community Development Director to deny the removal of
the presumptive historic property (pre-1941) from the HRI.
C. Alternatives
Alternatively, the Planning 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.
EXHIBITS:
1. Location Map
2. Required Findings
3. Historic Preservation Committee Staff Report and Attachments, August 27, 2025
4. Historic Preservation Committee Meeting Minutes for August 27, 2025
5. Historic Preservation Committee Action Letter, August 28, 2025
6. Appeal of the Community Development Director, Received September 5, 2025
7. Appellant letter, dated September 15, 2025
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
CHICAGO AVLOS GATOS BLE MAIN ST
NEW
Y
O
R
K
A
V
PLEASANT STJO
H
N
S
O
N
A
V
VILLA AV ALPINE AVTERRACE CTJACKSON ST
LO
M
A
A
L
T
A
A
VBELLA VISTA AVBROOKLYN
A
V
SIMO
N
S
W
Y
R
E
E
D
S
H
E
A
D
L
NLOS GATOS BL24 Pleasant 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 1
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
PLANNING COMMISSION – October 8, 2025
REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR:
24 Pleasant St
Request for Review PHST-25-013
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-1D. APN 529-26-016. Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Section 15061(b)(3).
Property Owner/Applicant/Appellant: Swapnil Raut and Rashmi Jadhav
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.
EXHIBIT 2
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
PREPARED BY: Suray Nathan
Assistant Planner
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6874
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 08/27/2025 ITEM NO: 4
DATE: August 22, 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-1D. Located at 24 Pleasant Street.
APN 529-26-016. Request for Review PHST-25-013. Exempt Pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines, Section 15061 (b)(3). Property Owner/Applicant: Swapnil Raut
and Rashmi Jadhav. Project Planner: Suray Nathan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Consider a request to remove a pre-1941 property from the Historic Resources Inventory for a
property zoned R-1D located at 24 Pleasant Street.
PROPERTY DETAILS:
1.Date primary structure was built: 1926 per County Assessor
2.Bloomfield Preliminary Rating: , historic & some altered, but still a contributor to the
district if there is one
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
EXHIBIT 3
PAGE 2 OF 3 SUBJECT: 24 Pleasant Street/ PHST-25-013 DATE: August 22, 2025
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
1926, and the house first appears on the Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps in 1928 (Attachment 1).
The property is not within a historic district or LHP overlay, but it is included in the 1990 Anne
Bloomfield Survey (Attachment 2).
The applicant provided a Letter of Justification for the requested removal of a Mediterranean
Revival-style house (Attachment 3) that includes Town records showing some alterations and
additions, and photos of the current residence.
The applicant’s research and Town records show a building permit to construct a bedroom and
garage in 1957 (Attachment 3, page 12); however, no plans for the addition are found in the
Town records.
Town records also indicate that on February 14, 2000, the Building Division approved the
kitchen and bath remodeling, as well as the installation of all new windows into existing
openings without requiring a header change, except for the two patio doors at the rear
(Attachment 3, page 35).
CONCLUSION:
Should the Committee find that the structure has no historic significance or architectural merit,
a recommendation of approval of the request to remove the property from the Historic
Resources Inventory would be forwarded to the Community Development Director. Once
approved by the Director, any proposed alterations would not return to the Committee.
FINDINGS:
A. Findings - related to a request for a determination that a pre-1941 primary structure has no
historic significance or architectural merit.
In evaluating a request for a determination of historic significance or architectural merit,
the Historic Preservation Committee shall consider the following:
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.
PAGE 3 OF 3 SUBJECT: 24 Pleasant Street/ PHST-25-013 DATE: August 22, 2025
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Sanborn Fire Maps
2. 1990 Anne Bloomfield Survey
3. Letter of Justification
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
1928
24 Pleasant St
ATTACHMENT 1
1944
24 Pleasant St
1956
24 Pleasant St
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Historic Preservation Committee, Town of Los Gatos Tel: 309-532-9911, 385-887-2519
110 E. Main St Date: July 15 th , 2025
Los Gatos, CA 95030
24 Pleasant St - Request to Remove from Historic Register
Dear Members of the Historic Preservation Committee,
We are writing to formally request that our property, located at 24 Pleasant Street, be removed from the
Town of Los Gatos Historic Registry.
After careful research and consideration, we believe the property no longer meets the criteria for continued
historic designation. Although it was originally included due to its pre-1941 construction date, we respectfully
submit that it lacks the architectural integrity, cultural significance, and historical relevance necessary to
justify its continued inclusion on the registry.
Key Points Supporting the Request:
1.Research Findings (Conducted with Librarian Shawnte Santos at the Los Gatos Library):
● The property is not part of the Historic Property Research Collection.
● The property address is not in a Historic District and does not have a LHP Overlay.
● The structure does not yield information to Town history; It is not recognized in the 1989 Ann
Bloomfield Architectural Survey forms as a contributing or significant structure.
● The property is not mentioned on the Bell Ringers list.
● The property structure does not have known associations with historically significant individuals or
events to the town.
● The 1941 Tax Assessment and Santa Clara County historic records make no references to
Pleasant Street as historically designated.
● No historically significant individuals appear to be associated with the property. Early owners —
including Alexander E. P., W.H. Moron, Bert Homes, J.R. Gibson, Douglas Gravelle, Mrs. Dorothy
McKevitt, and Michael Blackt — do not have any known ties to notable historical events or
contributions.
2.Significant Alterations Over Time:
● The integrity of the structure has been compromised as the original front and side windows have
been replaced.
● A substantial rear addition has been built, including an extra bedroom and expanded living area.
● The current roofline and exterior appearance no longer reflect the original architectural style.
In Closing:
We greatly value the rich history and character of Los Gatos and remain committed to maintaining the charm
and aesthetic of the neighborhood. Our request is simply to allow us the flexibility to make thoughtful
updates that support our family’s needs, while staying aligned with the community’s visual traditions.
We appreciate your time and consideration, and we are happy to provide any additional documentation or
participate in further discussion as needed.
Sincerely,
Swapnil Raut & Rashmi Jadhav
ATTACHMENT 3
1929 McMillan and McMillan official map of Santa Clara County does not show Pleasant St
on the map:
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
AUGUST 27, 2025
The Historic Preservation Committee of the Town of Los Gatos conducted a regular meeting on
August 27, 2025 at 4:00 p.m.
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 4:00 PM
ROLL CALL Present: Vice Chair Martha Queiroz. Planning Commissioner Susan Burnett, Planning
Commissioner Emily Thomas, and Committee Member Alan Feinberg.
Absent: Chair Lee Quintana
VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
CONSENT ITEMS (TO BE ACTED UPON BY A SINGLE MOTION)
1.Approval of Minutes – June 25, 2025
MOTION: Motion by Commissioner Burnett to approve the Consent Calendar.
Seconded by Committee Member Feinberg.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously, 4-0.
EXHIBIT 4
PAGE 2 OF 12 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2025
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. 68 Broadway
Request for Review HS-25-035
Consider a Request for Approval to Construct Exterior Alterations to an Existing
Contributing Single-Family Residence in the Broadway Historic District on Property
Zoned R-1D:LHP. APN 510-45-085. Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301:
Existing Facilities. Property Owner/Applicant: Marc Dubresson. Project Planner: Samina
Merchant.
Samina Merchant, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Committee members asked questions of Staff.
Sean Mullin, Planning Manager
The property is a flag lot with the house set back. The Bloomfield survey was done as a
windshield survey.
Opened Public Comment.
Marc Debrusson, Owner/Applicant
Thank you to Vice Chair Queiroz for the name of a window vendor. They were able to create
a large wood window with divided lites that match the other windows in their house. This will
be installed on the back of the house.
Closed Public Comment.
MOTION: Motion by Commissioner Burnett to Recommend Approval to the
Community Development Director for a Request to Construct Exterior
Alterations to an Existing Contributing Single-Family Residence in the
Broadway Historic District on Property Zoned R-1D:LHP with the findings
as noted in the Staff Report. APN 510-45-085. Seconded by
Commissioner Thomas.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously, 4-0.
PAGE 3 OF 12 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2025
3. 16760 Magneson Loop
Request for Review Application PHST-25-014
Consider a Request for Approval to Construct Exterior Alterations (Window
Replacement) to an Existing Pre-1941 Single-Family Residence on Property Zoned R-1:8.
APN 523-06-015. Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301: Existing Facilities.
Property Owner/Applicant: Mickael Forsman. Project Planner: Maria Chavarin.
Maria Chavarin, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Opened Public Comment.
Anita, Applicant Representing Renewal by Anderson,
Owner wants to remove the full divided lites in the windows visible from the public right of
way. The rest of the existing windows will have lites. There are three windows that face the
street. The owner does not want divided lites in these windows. The owner looked at
neighboring houses and saw street-facing windows with no grids. The owner is not present
today because they are out of the country on a business trip.
Committee members asked questions of the applicant.
Anita, Applicant Representing Renewal by Anderson,
They tried to persuade the owner to retain the divided lites, but the owner does not
want them. The owner is not present because they are out of the country on business.
Vice Chair Quieroz
Was any research done by the owner? Are there photos of the original windows?
Anita, Applicant Representing Renewal by Anderson,
The owner was not willing to pay for the research.
Committee Member Feinberg
The owner wrote in general that the style of the windows did not have grids.
Vice Chair Quieroz
This is contradictory to my research.
Commissioner Burnett
Why did the owner choose two different materials of Fibrex and Aluminum clad wood?
Anita, Applicant Representing Renewal by Anderson,
The owner chose Fibrex for the front windows. The owner chose wood composite with grids
for the non-visible areas on the side and back.
PAGE 4 OF 12 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2025
Closed Public Comment.
Committee members discussed the matter.
Commissioner Burnett
Why are the 3 windows done in aluminum clad?
Sean Mullin, Planning Manager
Aluminum-clad windows require less maintenance and can be painted. The Fibrex windows
would be full Fibrex and not clad around wood.
Vice Chair Queiroz
Their research found that diamond shape or rectangular shape is common for Tudor style.
There was nothing about plain glass. Prefer divided lites or, as a compromise, put divided lites
in the transom area. The series A for the 500 series by Anderson offers diamond shape lites.
Member Feinberg
The neighbors next door and across the street changed their windows with no divided lites.
Did they come before this committee? Is there a precedent?
Commissioner Thomas
Most Tudor homes were traditionally larger. This is a small cottage size Tudor. Looked at
neighbors for comparison. Windows with no lites look less busy. The proposed replacement
looks better, but there are other options that would look good.
Commissioner Burnett
Magnesson is a unique street. Prefer to keep the front windows the same. The divided lites
provide character. Prefer windows with divided lites instead of plain glass.
Commissioner Thomas
We could ask for a continuance from the owner to provide photos of the original windows.
Sean Mullin, Planning Manager
Possibly make a motion to approve the project with the condition that the front window be
done a certain way.
Vice Chair Queiroz
Support the compromise that the street-facing windows have some divided lites.
Member Feinberg
Don’t want to overcomplicate the process, especially since the neighbors recently installed
windows without grids.
PAGE 5 OF 12 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2025
Sean Mullin, Planning Manager
The Committee can be specific about each window.
Open Public Comment
Anita, Applicant Representing Renewal by Anderson,
Windows on the sides will have divided lites. Windows 115 and 116 will be replaced with
divided lites. There are six total windows in the front. Window 109 is visible. Window 110 is not
visible.
Closed public comment
MOTION: Motion by Commissioner Thomas to recommend approval for windows
with the condition that windows 103, 104, and 105, have divided lites.
Windows 106, 107, and 108 do not need lites. Windows 109, 110, 111,
112, and 113 on the side elevation will have divided lites. Windows 114,
115 and 116 are approved as proposed. Seconded by Commissioner
Burnett.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously, 4-0.
4. 24 Pleasant Street
Request for Review PHST-25-013
Consider a Request to Remove a Pre-1941 Property from the Historic Resources
Inventory for Property Zoned R-1D. APN 529-26-016. Exempt Pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines, Section 15061 (b)(3). Property Owner/Applicant: Swapnil Raut and Rashmi
Jadhav. Project Planner: Suray Nathan.
Suray Nathan, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report.
Committee members asked questions of Staff.
Opened Public Comment.
Rashmi Jadhav and Swapnil Raut, Owners
The integrity of the house has been significantly altered. In 1957, a permit was issued to add
a bedroom and a bathroom. In 2000, the kitchen and bathroom were remodeled. Also, all the
windows were replaced. Their letter, photos, and the permit history show these changes.
Because of this and the absence of any record of any historic significance, they believe the
house no longer meets the requirements to be on the Historic Registry. They wish to remodel
PAGE 6 OF 12 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2025
to accommodate their growing family. They would remodel while preserving the home’s
Mediterranean revival style, character and charm.
Committee members asked questions of the applicant.
Swapnil Raut, Owner
They love the Mediterranean Spanish-style house and intend to keep it, but they want to
expand the house to fit their family. This includes changing the front. They have reached out to
the neighbors. The neighbors were happy since the house has been changed in the past. They
mentioned visiting the Historic Preservation Committee to get their blessings.
Closed Public Comment.
Committee members discussed the matter.
Vice Chair Queiroz
Even though it is a simple example of the style, it has many characteristics: a hipped roof,
the arched articulated front door, red tile roof, arch above the windows, low-pitched roof,
stucco walls, asymmetrical façade, and ornamental tiles on the stairs. There are missing items
like the red roof tiles, windows that are tall and narrow, and black wrought iron. It is a simple
and unornamented house but meets many of the criteria for the style. Prefer leaving it in the
inventory.
Member Feinberg
I disagree. I don’t see any distinctive characteristics, except for the front entry door with the
tile roof and clay tile steps. The other criteria outweigh these few characteristics. There are no
significant events or persons of note, and the integrity of the house has been severely
compromised.
Commissioner Burnett
It is a good example of the Mediterranean Revival style of the 1920’s. The stucco is in good
condition. The owners can still remodel even when kept on the Historic Inventory.
Commissioner Thomas
The addition has compromised the integrity of the house. There is no significant person or
event related to this house. It does not have enough distinct characteristics to keep in the
inventory. Leaning towards granting the request to remove.
Commissioner Burnett
The stucco on the addition blends well with the original house.
PAGE 7 OF 12 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2025
MOTION: Motion by Vice Chair Queiroz to forward a recommendation of denial of
the above request to the Community Development Director with the
finding of number 3 that there are distinctive characteristics of type,
period, or method of construction, and representation of a master work.
Seconded by Commissioner Burnett.
VOTE: Motion did not pass, 2-2. Thomas and Feinberg opposed.
OTHER BUSINESS (Up to three minutes may be allotted to each speaker on any of the following
items.)
5. 245 Los Gatos Boulevard
Consider a Request for Preliminary Review to Construct a New Second-Story Addition
and Exterior Alterations to an Existing Pre-1941 Single-Family Residence on Property
Zoned R-1D. Located at 245 Los Gatos Boulevard. APN 529-24-024. Request for Review
Application PHST-25-011. Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301: Existing
Facilities. Property Owner: Michael Phung. Applicant: Andres Johnson. Project Planner:
Samina Merchant.
Samina Merchant, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Opened Public Comment.
Andres Johnson, Architect
The last time they came before the Committee, the proposed second-floor addition was in
the back. The Committee’s recommendation was to move it forward and add more detail. They
moved it forward 18 feet to fit with the interior layout and roofline. The house is a one-story
with mission style windows, lanterns, corbels, etc. They are trying to enhance the Spanish
Colonial style with tiles and lanterns. The owner is looking for recommendations and positive
feedback because it is an investment for them.
Committee members asked questions of the applicant.
Member Feinberg
Has the owner spoken with the neighbors? Why are they not here?
Andres Johnson, Architect
I don’t know if they have spoken with the neighbors. They are out of town but were here
the last time.
PAGE 8 OF 12 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2025
Commissioner Burnett
The changes look very good. Is the upper front window the right size?
Andres Johnson, Architect
We will balance the size of the window in the parapet. The window allows light into the
staircase.
Commissioner Thomas
What does the owner plan to do with the roof?
Andres Johnson, Architect
The owner wants to put a whole roof of clay tile but is not sure if it can handle the load.
Commissioner Burnett
What color is the stucco on the addition?
Andres Johnson, Architect
The stucco will be all white.
Vice Chair Queiroz
They did a good job in listening to the Committees comments the last meeting. The design
looks good as it is. But it would be nice to add a carved rounded arch above the window in the
addition. This’ll tie the addition to the main house.
Andres Johnson, Architect
Yes, we can do that arch with the clay tile vents.
Member Feinberg
What is planned for the carport?
Andres Johnson, Architect
The carport is not part of the project and will be left as it is.
Commissioner Thomas
The changes will suit the house better. It is an appropriate design for the second-story
addition.
Closed the Public Hearing.
PAGE 9 OF 12 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2025
6. 321 Bachman Avenue
Consider a Request for Preliminary Review to Construct an Addition with Reduced
Setbacks to an Existing Noncontributing Single-Family Residence Located in the Almond
Grove Historic District on Nonconforming Property Zoned R-1D:LHP. Located at 321
Bachman Avenue. APN 510-17-100. Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Section 15301: Existing
Facilities. Request for Review Application PHST-25-016. Property Owner: Stanley and
Jean Melax. Applicant: Jennifer Kretschmer, AIA. Project Planner: Sean Mullin.
Vice Chair Queiroz recused from Item 6, 321 Bachman Avenue, as their property is located
within 1,000 feet of the subject property. Vice Chair Queiroz appointed Commissioner to
chair the meeting
Sean Mullin, Planning Manager, presented the staff report.
Opened Public Comment.
Jennifer Kretchner, Architect
This home is a non-contributor in the Almond Grove District. There’s a lot of Victorian
homes in that area. They want to restore the character, clean up the façade, and return a
garage to the home. It doesn’t conform to setbacks. When they do a formal submission, they
will ask for reductions in the front and rear. The house is adjacent to an alley. There are
precedents of porches and bay windows in the neighborhood. The house at 224 Massol has
porches to the front. The house at 240 Massol has a front bay window. There are other homes
in the neighborhood that have bay windows. No materials have been chosen yet, but they have
3-D renderings showing the look of the porch and bay window. In the past the primary
bedroom replaced the former garage. Owners will talk on the justification and research on the
home.
Jean Melax, Co-owner
Their house was part of the property at 240 Massol. In 1996, they tore down an existing
garage and built a primary bedroom. They also did a small lot line adjustment. In 2004, they did
another lot line adjustment, which added a large empty space. That is where they are proposing
to add a garage. They love the neighborhood. They want to add some more Victorian features
like the porches in the front and sides of the house.
Jennifer Kretchner, Architect
The reduction in setbacks is to accommodate the porches. They will not go any further than
the front of the home. The only pop out is where the bay window. The porch will match others
in the neighborhood. Proposing a 4-foot setback. From the rear property line. Create a porch
and add the cantilevered Bay window
PAGE 10 OF 12 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2025
Jean Melax, Owner
The other neighborhood garages are close to the alley. There are garages that have 3-foot
setbacks.
Jennifer Kretchner, Architect
They are proposing 4-foot setbacks.
Commissioner Burnett
No problem with the setbacks. But I am not happy with the design on the front. The
columns are too heavy and have a modern look. It doesn’t have the cottage feel. It looks very
futuristic.
Jennifer Kretchner, Architect
We don’t have the proposed materials yet. They will use the original wood siding and match
the porch to the others in the neighborhood. They want to avoid demolishing the roof.
Member Feinberg
The rendering doesn’t show the porch with details. We appreciate the research you did.
Jennifer Kretchner, Architect
It is better to look at the elevations.
Commissioner Thomas
What were you planning on the bay window?
Stanley Melax, Owner
We are open to suggestions on the bay window. Our main purpose is to add a garage. The
front of the house is slightly empty.
Commissioner Thomas
Like the bay windows. This rendering is not the best visual representation. The bay window
can be boxy or whatever style fits and makes sense both inside and outside.
Jennifer Kretchner, Architect
One of the goals is not to put weight or extreme slope to the existing structure. Trying to
avoid demolishing any part of the original home.
Member Feinberg
Like that you are going back in time by adding more historical details. Thank you for your
research.
PAGE 11 OF 12 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2025
Commissioner Thomas
That neighborhood has many non-conforming setbacks. The setbacks already exist.
Jennifer Kretchner, Architect
They’re also thinking about adding a covered walkway from garage to kitchen.
Commissioner Thomas
What would the garage look like?
Jennifer Kretchner, Architect
The materials will match the main house. They would use the same wood siding, window
trim, divided lites, etc.
Sean Mullin, Planning Manager
Consider a porch design that is proportionate and appropriate to the house. Design a bay
window. A planner will work with them on the setbacks. They will need to flesh out the
materials.
Jennifer Kretchner, Architect
Can we have a shallow roof? They also want to add five feet of patio space. Three equal
columns on the porch will be placed so they can see out the kitchen windows. The parapet can
have trim.
Sean Mullin, Planning Manager
The trim details on the porch will be critical.
Jennifer Kretchner, Architect
They can pull porch design details from the design reference book. There are many porch
examples on Tait.
Jean Melax, Owner
The paint color will not be yellow since that would be the same as their neighbors.
Sean Mullin, Planning Manager
They could come back for another preliminary review or go ahead and submit a formal
application.
Jennifer Kretchner, Architect
Do you object to the low slope of the porch?
Commissioner Thomas
It should tie in with the rest of the house. A porch will add character.
PAGE 12 OF 12 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2025
REPORT FROM THE DIRECTOR
Sean Mullin, Planning Manager
The denial of removal of Loma Street was appealed. It went before the Planning Commission
on August 13, 2025, and was granted.
COMMITTEE MATTERS
None.
ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 5:44 p.m.
This is to certify that the foregoing is a true
and correct copy of the minutes of the
August 27, 2025 meeting as approved by the
Historic Preservation Committee.
/s/ Sean Mullin, AICP, Planning Manager
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
(408) 354-6872 Fax (408) 354-7593
August 28, 2025
Swapnil Raut and Rashmi Jadhav
24 Pleasant Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Via email
RE: 24 Pleasant Street
Consider a Request to Remove a Pre-1941 Property from the Historic Resources
Inventory for Property Zoned R-1D. Located at 24 Pleasant Street. APN 529-26-016.
Request for Review PHST-25-013. Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15061
(b)(3). Property Owner/Applicant: Swapnil Raut and Rashmi Jadhav. Project Planner:
Suray Nathan.
On August 27, 2025, the Los Gatos Historic Preservation Committee recommended denial of
the subject request to the Community Development Director. The request was denied by the
Community Development Director on August 28, 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. The final
deadline is 4:00 p.m. on the 10th day (September 8, 2025). Therefore, this action should not be
considered final, and no permits will be issued by the Town until the appeal period has passed.
Once the appeal period is over, you can submit Building Permit applications.
If you have any questions, please contact Suray Nathan at snathan@losgatosca.gov.
Sincerely,
Suray Nathan
Assistant Planner
N:\DEV\PLANNING PROJECT FILES\Pleasant Street\24\PHST-25-013\Closing Documents\Action Letter
CIVIC CENTER
110 E. MAIN STREET
LOS GATOS, CA 95030
EXHIBIT 5
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
EXHIBIT 6
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Planning Commission
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Re: Appeal to Remove 24 Pleasant St, Los Gatos (APN [if known]) from the
Historic Inventory
Dear Commissioners:
To the best of our knowledge—and after a good-faith review of available resources, including
the Los Gatos Library’s Local History collections, documents posted on the Town’s website,
and publicly accessible online archives—the residence at 24 Pleasant St does not appear to
be associated with events of Town-wide significance or with individuals recognized for
significant contributions to Los Gatos.
1) Not associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the
Town
To the best of our knowledge—and based on a review of available Town records, local
histories, and neighborhood background—the residence has served as a typical private
home without documented ties to events of broad civic, cultural, or economic importance in
Los Gatos. No evidence indicates the property’s direct association with a significant Town
event.
2) No significant persons are associated with the site
Ownership and occupancy research (city directories, assessor records) have not identified
residents who meet the threshold of lasting significance to the Town’s development or
cultural life. The home’s past owners and tenants appear representative of ordinary
residential history rather than persons of recognized significance. (See Exhibit A:
occupant/owner chronology.)
3) Lacks distinctive characteristics of a type/period or work of a master
While the house has been described as Mediterranean Revival , it is very basic and does
not exhibit key hallmarks of the style in a manner that rises to significance. Moreover,
subsequent alterations have further diminished any stylistic expression:
● Windows: Original front and side windows were replaced , removing period
materials and profiles that would have communicated style and workmanship.
● Rear addition: A substantial rear addition (new bedroom and expanded living
area) changed the building’s massing and plan.
● Roofline/exterior: The current roofline and exterior appearance no longer
reflect the original architectural character .
We are not aware of attribution to a recognized “master” architect or builder, and the
construction methods are typical for the period. (See Exhibit B: current photos; prior
survey note if any; permit history.)
EXHIBIT 7
4) Does not yield (or have the potential to yield) information important to Town
history
Given its common residential construction and the extent of alterations to original fabric, the
structure is unlikely to yield new information important to understanding Los Gatos history
beyond what is already documented for the neighborhood and period. There is no indication
of rare technology, method, or intact fabric that would support research value. (See Exhibit
B: construction overview and alteration chronology.)
5) Integrity has been compromised such that the structure can no longer convey
significance
Applying standard integrity aspects (design, materials, workmanship, setting, feeling,
association):
● Design/Materials/Workmanship: The window replacements , roofline
changes , and rear addition have materially altered original design, materials, and
workmanship.
● Feeling/Association: These cumulative changes substantially diminish the
building’s ability to read as a representative Mediterranean Revival residence. Any
remaining elements are fragmentary and insufficient to convey significance.
In short, even if the house once displayed modest Mediterranean Revival features, those
features have been compromised to the point where the property no longer has the
potential to convey significance consistent with Town criteria. (See Exhibit B:
before/after comparison and integrity matrix.)
Procedural/Context Notes (for completeness)
● At the prior Historic Preservation Committee hearing, the decision to retain the house
on the inventory was not unanimous . We appreciate the Committee’s efforts, but
believe the record does not support the required findings given the extent of
alterations and the limited stylistic expression.
● If the Committee or Commission relied on earlier survey information, we ask that the
current condition (as documented in the attached photographs and permit history)
be given controlling weight.
Request:
For the reasons above, the property at 24 Pleasant St does not satisfy the Town’s
significance findings, and its integrity is insufficient to convey potential significance. We
respectfully request that the Planning Commission grant the appeal and remove the
property from the Historic Inventory .
We remain committed to maintaining the home in a manner compatible with the
neighborhood and will continue to comply with all applicable planning and building
requirements.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Rashmi & Swapnil Raut
Exhibit A — Prior Owners & Finding #2 (No Significant Persons)
Property: 24 Pleasant St, Los Gatos, CA 95030
Purpose: Document known prior owners/occupants and note that, based on available
sources, no owner is associated with events or contributions of recognized significance to
the Town of Los Gatos.
A1. Narrative Summary
Early owners and occupants identified for 24 Pleasant St — Alexander E. P. , W. H. Moron ,
Bert Homes , J. R. Gibson , Douglas Gravelle , Mrs. Dorothy McKevitt , and Michael
Black are not documented in local histories, directories, or available public records as
figures associated with Town-significant events, institutions, or civic contributions.
A2. Ownership/Occupancy Roster (Directory Years)
Note: Years shown are city directory listings indicating presence/occupancy
in those editions; they may not represent full ownership spans. Deed records
can refine exact transfer dates.
# Owner / Occupant (as listed)
Years Listed
(Directories) Source / Reference
1 Alexander E. P. 1930, 1934, 1937 City directories
2 W. H. Moron 1941 City directories
3 Bert Homes 1947 City directories
4 J. R. Gibson 1952, 1954, 1956 City directories
5 Douglas Gravelle 1962 City directories
6 Mrs. Dorothy McKevitt 1968, 1972 City directories
7 Michael Black 1990, 2000 City directories
A3. Method & Sources (Brief)
● Searched Los Gatos Library Local History city directories for the address and
names.
● Compiled a roster of listed owners/occupants and corresponding directory years.
● Reviewed local-history references for mentions of these individuals in connection with
Town-significant events; no qualifying associations found as of the date of this
exhibit.
Exhibit B - Lacks distinctive characteristics of Mediterranean Revival
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank