Staff Report.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