Staff Report with Exhibits.33 WalnutAve
PREPARED BY: ERIN WALTERS
Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Planning Manager 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: 04/13/2022
ITEM NO: 2
DATE: April 8, 2022
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Consider an Appeal of the Historic Preservation Committee Decision to Deny
the Removal of a Presumptive Historic Property (Pre-1941) from the Historic
Resources Inventory on Property Zoned R-1:8. Located at 33 Walnut
Avenue. APN 510-41-007. Property Owner/Applicant/Appellant: Jeffrey
Siegel. Project Planner: Erin Walters.
RECOMMENDATION:
Deny the appeal of the Historic Preservation Committee decision to deny the removal of a
presumptive historic property (pre-1941) from the Historic Resources Inventory on property
zoned R-1:8, located at 33 Walnut Avenue.
PROJECT DATA:
General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential
Zoning Designation: R-1:8
Applicable Plans & Standards: General Plan, Residential Design Guidelines
Parcel Size: 8,000 square feet
Surrounding Area:
Existing Land Use General Plan Zoning
North Residential Low Density Residential R-1:8
South Residential Low Density Residential R-1:8
East Residential Low Density Residential R-1:8
West Residential Low Density Residential R-1:8
PAGE 2 OF 8
SUBJECT: 33 Walnut Avenue/Appeal of a HPC Decision
DATE: April 8, 2022
S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2022\04-13-2022\Item 2 - 33 Walnut Avenue\Staff Report.33 WalnutAve.docx
CEQA:
The request to remove the property from the Historic Resources Inventory is not considered a
project under the California Environmental Quality Act.
FINDINGS:
▪ As required to remove a pre-1941 property from the Historic Resources Inventory.
ACTION:
The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed within ten days.
BACKGROUND:
The subject property is located 185 feet from the northwest corner of Walnut Avenue and
Hernadez Avenue (Exhibit 1). The subject property has frontage on both Walnut Avenue and
Wissahickon Avenue. The property contains a presumptive historic (pre-1941) single-family
residence and a detached garage with a second story accessory dwelling unit (ADU) above. The
house, detached garage, and ADU are currently under construction /renovation.
On January 26, 2022, the property owner/applicant submitted materials requesting that the
Historic Preservation Committee (Committee) formally remove the subject residence from the
Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) due to its lack of historic significance and loss of integrity
resulting from modifications and additions to the residence (Exhibit 5, Attachment 7).
On February 23, 2022, the Committee considered the applicant’s request, including the
applicant’s letter of justification, research materials and site photographs of the subject
property (Exhibit 5). The Committee denied the request to remove the subject presumptive
historic property (pre-1941) from the HRI (Exhibits 3, 4, and 5).
On February 27, 2022, the property owner/applicant appealed the decision of the Committee
to the Planning Commission (Exhibit 6). The property owner/applicant/appellant indicated that
the Committee failed to consider and apply the decision criteria set forth in the Los Gatos Town
Code and defined by the United States Department of the Interior.
Pursuant to Section 29.20.258 of the Town Code, the decision of the Committee may be
appealed to the Planning Commission by any interested party as defined by Section 29.10.020
within 10 days of the decision.
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
PAGE 3 OF 8
SUBJECT: 33 Walnut Avenue/Appeal of a HPC Decision
DATE: April 8, 2022
S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2022\04-13-2022\Item 2 - 33 Walnut Avenue\Staff Report.33 WalnutAve.docx
BACKGROUND (continued):
can demonstrate that their property will be injured by the decision.” The appellant meets the
requirements.
Pursuant to Town Code Section 29.20.265, the appeal shall be set for the first regular meeting
of the Planning Commission in which the business of Planning Commission will permit, more
than five (5) days after the date of filing the appeal. The Planning C ommission may hear the
matter anew and render a new decision in the matter.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
A. Location and Surrounding Neighborhood
The subject property is located 185 feet from the northwest corner of Walnut Avenue and
Hernadez Avenue (Exhibit 1). The surrounding properties are low density residential.
B. Project Summary
The property owner is appealing the Committee’s decision to deny a request to remove the
subject presumptive historic property (pre-1941) from the HRI.
DISCUSSION:
A. Removal from the Historic Resources Inventory
Town Code Section 29.10.020 defines “Historic Structure” and includes, “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.”
Pursuant to the Residential Design Guidelines, Chapter 4, Historic Resources, the Town
recognizes any primary structure that was constructed prior to 1941, unless the Town has
determined that the structure has no historic significan ce or architectural merit as a local
historic resource.
The property owner is requesting approval to remove the subject presumptive historic
property (pre-1941) from the HRI. The applicant provided a Letter of Justification , research
materials, and site photographs of the subject property (Exhibit 5, Attachment 3, 4 and 7).
The findings required for the removal of a pre-1941 primary structure from the HRI
recognize that the qualities of a building do not align with the listed criteria for preservation
PAGE 4 OF 8
SUBJECT: 33 Walnut Avenue/Appeal of a HPC Decision
DATE: April 8, 2022
S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2022\04-13-2022\Item 2 - 33 Walnut Avenue\Staff Report.33 WalnutAve.docx
DISCUSSION (continued):
included in the purpose of historic preservation in the Town, specifically subsection 1
below.
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.
When considering a request for a determination that a pre-1941 primary structure has no
historic significance or architectural merit the Committee considers the following findings:
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.
A. Historic Preservation Committee
On February 23, 2022, the Committee received the staff report (Exhibit 5), opened the
meeting, and considered testimony from the applicant and public (Exhibit 3). After asking
questions of the applicant, the Committee closed the public hearing and discussed the
PAGE 5 OF 8
SUBJECT: 33 Walnut Avenue/Appeal of a HPC Decision
DATE: April 8, 2022
S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2022\04-13-2022\Item 2 - 33 Walnut Avenue\Staff Report.33 WalnutAve.docx
DISCUSSION (continued):
project. The Committee voted unanimously to deny the request to remove the subject
presumptive historic property (pre-1941) from the HRI.
B. Appeal to Planning Commission
The decision of the Committee was appealed on February 27, 2022, prior to the 5:00 p.m.
deadline, by the property owner, Jeffrey Siegel (Exhibit 6).
The appeal states that the appeal should be granted because the Committee failed to
consider and apply the decision criteria set forth in the Los Gatos Town Code and defined by
the United States Department of the Interior (Exhibit 6). The two primary points made in
the appeal are listed below with staff analysis in italic font.
1. Appellant: The Committee failed to consider and apply the decision criteria set forth in
the Los Gatos Town Code.
At the February 27, 2022 Committee meeting, the Committee considered the following
findings related to the request for a determination that the pre-1941 primary structure
had no historic significance or architectural merit. In evaluating a request for a
determination of historic significance or architectural merit, the Committee considered
the following:
1. The structure is not associated with events that have made a significant contribution
to the Town;
• The Committee was silent on this finding.
2. No Significant persons are associated with the site;
• The Committee was silent on this finding.
3. There are no distinctive characteristics of type, period or method of construction or
representation of work of a master;
• The Committee was silent on this finding.
4. The structure does not yield information to Town history; or
• The Committee was silent on this finding.
5. The integrity has been compromised such that the structure no longer has the
potential to convey significance.
• The Committee found that there have been changes made to the structure by
both previous property owners and the current property ow ner. In 2018, both
the current property owner/applicant/appellant and the Committee treated
PAGE 6 OF 8
SUBJECT: 33 Walnut Avenue/Appeal of a HPC Decision
DATE: April 8, 2022
S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2022\04-13-2022\Item 2 - 33 Walnut Avenue\Staff Report.33 WalnutAve.docx
DISCUSSION (continued):
the subject property as a historic (pre-1941) property (Exhibit 5, Attachments
3 and 4). The Committee found that nothing substantive had changed since
the 2018 Committee review and approval of exterior modifications to the
historic (pre-1941) structure. The Committee found that the property
owner/applicant’s request to remove the property from the HRI was the
result of property owner removing more than 25 percent of the siding on the
front elevation in September of 2021. Based on the testimony provided by
the property owner/applicant and the evidence provided in Exhibit 5, the
Committee found that historic integrity of the subject structure has not been
compromised. (Exhibit 3)
The Committee considered and applied the decision criteria set forth in the
Town Code.
2. Appellant: The Committee failed to consider and apply the decision criteria set forth by
the U.S. Department of Interior.
To be listed in the National Register of Historic Places by the U.S. Department of Interior,
a property must be shown to be significant under the National Register criteria and have
integrity. The National Register provides seven different aspects of integrity to consider
when evaluating the historic integrity of a property which include: location, design,
setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
The U.S. Department of Interior outlines the following steps for assessing integrity:
• Define the essential physical features that must be present for a property to
represent its significance.
• Determine whether the essential physical features are visible enough to
convey their significance.
• Determine, based on the significance and essential physical features, which
aspects of integrity are particularly vital to property being nominated it they
are present.
The U.S. Department of Interior recognizes properties change over time. It is not
necessary for a property to retain all its historic physical features or characteristics. The
property must retain the essential physical features that enable it to convey its historic
identity.
Pursuant to Town Code, the Town utilizes local criteria to evaluate requests in
determining whether or not pre-1941 primary structures have historic significance or
architectural merit, as described above. The local ordinance considers aspects of the
U.S. Department of Interior standards when evaluating the historic integrity of a
PAGE 7 OF 8
SUBJECT: 33 Walnut Avenue/Appeal of a HPC Decision
DATE: April 8, 2022
S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2022\04-13-2022\Item 2 - 33 Walnut Avenue\Staff Report.33 WalnutAve.docx
DISCUSSION (continued):
property and also considers the local Committee’s findings in determining if the building
has enough historic significance or architectural merit to remain on the HRI.
Additional information provided by the property owner/applicant/appellant is included as
Exhibit 7.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Written notice was sent to property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the subject
property. At the time of this report’s preparation, the Town has not received any public
comment.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The request to remove the property from the Historic Resources Inventory is not considered a
project under the California Environmental Quality Act.
CONCLUSION:
A. Summary
The property owner is requesting that the Planning Commission reconsider the Committee’s
decision to deny the removal of the presumptive historic property (pre-1941) from the
Historic Resource Inventory.
B. Recommendation
For reasons stated in this report, it is recommended that the Planning Commission deny the
appeal and uphold the decision of the Historic Preservation Committee to deny the removal
of the presumptive historic property (pre-1941) from the HRI.
C. Alternatives
Alternatively, the Commission can:
1. Continue the matter to a date certain with specific direction;
2. Grant the appeal and remove the subject property from the Historic Resource Inventory,
making one or more of the findings provided in Exhibit 2; or
3. Remand the appeal to the Historic Preservation Committee with specific direction.
PAGE 8 OF 8
SUBJECT: 33 Walnut Avenue/Appeal of a HPC Decision
DATE: April 8, 2022
S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2022\04-13-2022\Item 2 - 33 Walnut Avenue\Staff Report.33 WalnutAve.docx
EXHIBITS:
1. Location Map
2. Required Findings and Considerations
3. Historic Preservation Committee Meeting Minutes for February 23, 2022
4. Historic Preservation Committee Action Letter, February 23, 2022
5. Historic Preservation Committee Staff Report and Attachments, February 23, 2022
6. Appeal of the Historic Preservation Committee, received February 27, 2022
7. Additional Information Provided by the Appellant, received April 6, 2022
HE
R
N
A
N
D
E
Z
A
V
WISSAHICKON AVPALM AVWALNUT AVPENNSYLVANIA AV
OVERLOOK RD
CHES
T
N
U
T
A
V
33 Walnut Avenue
0 0.250.125 Miles
°
Update Notes:
- Updated 12/20/17 to link to tlg-sql12 server data (sm)
- Updated 11/22/19 adding centerpoint guides, Buildings layer, and Project Site leader with label
EXHIBIT 1
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
PLANNING COMMISSION – April 13, 2022
REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR:
33 Walnut Avenue
Consider an Appeal of the Historic Preservation Committee Decision to Deny the
Removal of a Presumptive Historic Property (Pre-1941) from the Historic Resources
Inventory on Property Zoned R-1:8. APN 510-41-007.
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT/APPELLANT: Jeffrey Siegel
FINDINGS
Required findings to determine that a pre-1941 structure has no significant or architectural
merit:
■ As required for a determination that a pre-1941 primary structure has no historic significance
or architectural merit:
1. The structure is not associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the
Town;
2. No Significant persons are associated with the site;
3. There are no distinctive characteristics of type, period or method of construction or
representation of work of a master;
4. The structure does not yield information to Town history; or
5. The integrity has been compromised such that the structure no longer has the potential to
convey significance.
N:\DEV\FINDINGS\2022\WALNUT AVENUE, 33- DRC APPEAL - 04-13-22 PC.DOCX EXHIBIT 2
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6874
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
COMMITTEE REPORT
MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING
FEBRUARY 23, 2022
The Historic Preservation Committee of the Town of Los Gatos conducted a Regular Meeting on
February 23, 2022 at 4:00 p.m.
This meeting This meeting is being conducted utilizing teleconferencing and electronic means
consistent with Town Council Policy 2-01 entitled Town Agenda Format and Rules and Town
Resolution. In accordance with Town Policy and Resolution, the public may only view the
meeting online and not in the Council Chamber.
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 4:00 PM
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Timothy Lundell, Vice Chair Barry Cheskin, Planning Commissioner Kylie Clark,
Planning Commissioner Steve Raspe
Absent: None
VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS
Susan Burnett, General Plan and Housing Element Advisory Committee member and former
Historical Preservation Committee Member.
-Concerned about HPC and PC. Seeing a lot of requests for demolition and changing of
historic homes that would not have been approved by past Historic Preservation
Committees. Started with 1300 historic homes. But now only 270 left. Guidelines have
gotten easier. Purpose was to save the past for future generations. Can we tighten things
up? In my Glenridge district a Garage was added next to the home. Instead of as a separate
unit. Guidelines are subjective. Because of SB 9, the Committees needs to be much more
mindful and protective.
CONSENT ITEMS (TO BE ACTED UPON BY A SINGLE MOTION)
1.Approval of Minutes – January 26, 2022
MOTION: Motion by Vice Chair Cheskin to approve the Consent Calendar.
Seconded by Chair Lundell.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously.
EXHIBIT 3
PAGE 2 OF 6 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 23, 2022
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. 40 Hernandez Avenue
Forward a Recommendation to the Director on a Request for Construction of Exterior
Alterations and an Addition to an Existing Presumptive Historic Single-Family Residence
(Pre-1941) on Property Zoned R-1:8. APN 510-19-027.
PROPERTY OWNER: Stan and Pamela Atwood
APPLICANT: Eric Beckstrom, Beckstrom Architecture
PROJECT PLANNER: Sean Mullin
Vice Chair Cheskin recused himself from Item 2, as his residence is located within 1,000 feet
of the subject property.
Sean Mullin, Senior Planner, presented the staff report.
Opened Public Comment.
Applicant presented the project.
Eric Beckstrom, Architect
- In 2006, the structure basically became a brand new house behind the façade. They will be
building an addition to make the house more symmetrical.
- They are supportive of preserving the front façade and porch area.
Susan Burnett
- Agrees that the front façade of the house is what makes it so spectacular and a contributing
house. Stick to the 2006 remodel percentage. Looking at the plans, it is more than a little
box.
Eric Beckstrom, Architect
- Will be matching the wall and windows. The build will be complementary. The end results
will look like the home as originally built in 1912 not 1920.
Closed Public Comment.
Committee members discussed the matter.
• Aesthetically pleasing. Like and support the project.
• Design adds symmetry.
• Addition is largely imperceptible.
• Recommend that the percentage of demo mimic that of the 2006 condition of approval.
• Maintain the elements that currently exist.
PAGE 3 OF 6 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 23, 2022
MOTION: Motion by Planning Commissioner Raspe to Forward a Recommendation
to the Director on a Request for Construction of Exterior Alterations and
an Addition to an Existing Presumptive Historic Single-Family Residence
(Pre-1941) on Property Zoned R-1:8. Subject to a condition of demolition
that would result in similar percentages as existed in 2006. Seconded by
Planning Commissioner Clark.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously.
Appeal rights were recited.
Vice Chair Cheskin rejoined.
3. 45 Montgomery Street
Consider a Request to Remove a Presumptive Historic Property (Pre-1941) from the Historic
Resources Inventory for Property Zoned R-1D. APN 410-17-004.
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Mark and Cathleen Petersen.
PROJECT PLANNERS: Savannah Van Akin/Sean Mullin
Savannah Van Akin, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report.
Opened and Closed Public Comment.
Committee members discussed the matter.
• Town’s recommendation seems straightforward as a clean-up item from 1991.
MOTION: Motion by Planning Commissioner Clark to Recommend Approval to the
Director for Removal of a Presumptive Historic Property (Pre-1941) from the
Historic Resources Inventory for Property Zoned R-1D. Seconded by Vice
Chair Cheskin.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously.
Appeal rights were recited.
PAGE 4 OF 6 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 23, 2022
4. 33 Walnut Avenue
Consider a Request to Remove a Presumptive Historic Property (Pre-1941) from the
Historic Resources Inventory for Property Zoned R-1:8. APN 510-41-007.
Property Owner/Applicant: Jeffrey Siegel
PROJECT PLANNER: Erin Walters
Vice Chair Cheskin recused himself from Item 4, as his residence is located within 1,000 feet
of the subject property.
Erin Walters, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Opened Public Comment.
Applicant presented the project.
Jeffrey Siegel, Owner/Applicant
- He is president of the Los Gatos Historic Society. He undertook extensive analysis to prepare
the report. This property doesn’t meet any criteria set by the State. The only reason for
inclusion is because it is Pre-1941. He bought it five years ago. The building has been
changed by every owner except the original owner. It went from an 890 square foot cottage
with an outhouse, to a 2600 square foot, 4 bathroom, 5 bedroom, two-story house. It bears
no resemblance to the original house. The one remaining element is the front fascia. The
front porch was demolished and rebuilt to match. However, updated seismic and safety
building codes dictated the use of concrete, steel, and a higher railing. The home has no
connection to a historic person or event. It is not in a historic district.
Committee members asked questions of the applicant.
Jeffrey Siegel, Owner/Applicant
- I did not make a request for removal in 2018 or 2019 when the front porch was evaluated.
The HPC allowed demolition of the deteriorated porch. The railing was too low and not safe.
Susan Burnett
- When was it declared a Bellringer house?
Staff
- 1984.
Jeffrey Siegel, Owner/Applicant
- Nothing historic remains. A remaining roof membrane shows where the original slope of the
roof.
- Expanded on the first floor in 1948 and 1950. In 1985 it became a two-story building. In
2006, 2007 and 2008, the upstairs and roof were changed.
PAGE 5 OF 6 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 23, 2022
Closed Public Comment.
Committee members discussed the matter.
• There have been changes made to the structure. However, in 2018, both the applicant
and HPC treated it as a historic property. Nothing substantive has changed besides the
approved work.
• This project is coming before the committee after a problem was flagged by staff.
• Most of the history has been removed. The owner attempted to preserve the front but
removed over 25%. It now comes to HPC because of that removal. Leaning towards
denial.
• Every structure has a story. Some big or small, intended, unintended, permitted and
before HPC was established. It would be a shame to have those changes justify removal.
• It is up to the HPC to determine, based on the provided information, if anything left is
historic.
MOTION: Motion by Planning Commissioner Raspe to Deny a Request to Remove a
Presumptive Historic Property (Pre-1941) from the Historic Resources
Inventory for Property Zoned R-1:8. Seconded by Planning
Commissioner Clark.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously.
Appeal rights were recited.
Vice Chair Cheskin rejoined.
OTHER BUSINESS (Up to three minutes may be allotted to each speaker on any of the following
items.)
5. 223 Tait Avenue
Preliminary Review for Technical Demolition of a Presumptive Historic Single-Family
Residence (Pre-1941) and Construction of a New Two-Story Residence Located in the
Almond Grove Historic District on Property Zoned R-1D:LHP. APN 510-17-004.
PROPERTY OWNER: Mark and Tammy De Mattei
APPLICANT: Jay Plett, Architect
PROJECT PLANNER: Ryan Safty
Ryan Safty, Associate Planner, presented the staff report
Opened public comment.
PAGE 6 OF 6 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 23, 2022
Jay Plett, Applicant
- Proposing a Craftsman style home. They will maintain the stucco siding and the lower
sloped roofs. The structure has no architectural significance due to several post 1941
additions. The porch was enclosed, several walls were demolished, and the siding was
removed along the rear with the previous addition. It already has been technically
demolished. They would like preliminary feedback on the conceptual proposal. They have
floor plans and a rendering and would like feedback on the design.
Committee member asked questions of the applicant:
Jay Plett, Applicant
- In terms of scale and massing, the height will be 27 feet. This is below the maximum
allowed. The existing structure is already elevated four feet.
- There are examples of other homes in the neighborhood with Arts and Crafts or Craftsman
style. The apartment complex next door has no style at all.
Susan Burnett
- Glen Ridge and Almond Grove neighborhoods have a mix of styles. The street doesn’t have
a certain style.
Jay Plett
- There are no Craftsman style homes immediately adjacent to the subject property but they
do exist in the area.
Closed Public Comment.
Committee members provided the following comments:
• The site was not part of Bloomfield survey and nothing architecturally significant. Good
candidate for rehabilitation. The Craftsman is fine. Any style that fits in.
• Concerned more about size, massing, shadowing, and privacy.
• Need more info about the surrounding neighborhood. It doesn’t seem to fit in with the
neighborhood.
• Important for the style to fit in with the neighborhood. Need to justify the style choice
with photos of nearby homes. Justification should be provided for any demolition.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m.
This is to certify that the foregoing is a true
and correct copy of the minutes of the
February 23, 2022, meeting as approved by the
Historic Preservation Committee.
/s/ Jennifer Armer, AICP, Planning Manager
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
(408) 354-6872 Fax (408) 354-7593
February 23, 2022
Jeffrey Siegel
33 Walnut Avenue
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Via email
RE: 33 Walnut Avenue
Consider a request to remove a presumptive historic property (pre-1941) from the
Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) for property zoned R-1:8.
APN 510-41-007.
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Jeffrey Siegel
PROJECT PLANNER: Erin Walters
On February 23, 2022, the Los Gatos Historic Preservation Committee could not make the
required findings for removing the pre-1941 property from the Historic Resources Inventory
and denied the request.
Pursuant to Section 29.20.258 of the Town Code, the decision of the Historic Preservation
Committee may be appealed to the Planning Commission within 10 days of the decision. Appeal
forms are available on the Town’s website.
If you have any questions, I can be contacted by phone at (408) 354-6867 or by email at
ewalters@losgatosca.gov.
Sincerely,
Erin Walters
Associate Planner
N:\DEV\HISTORIC PRESERVATION\HPC Action Letters\2022\Walnut Avenue 33 - 02-23-22_Action Letter - HPC.docx
CIVIC CENTER
110 E. MAIN STREET
LOS GATOS, CA 95030
EXHIBIT 4
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
PREPARED BY: ERIN WALTERS
Associate 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: 02/23/2022 ITEM NO: 4
DATE: February 18, 2022
TO: Historic Preservation Committee
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Consider a Request to Remove a Presumptive Historic Property (Pre-1941)
from the Historic Resources Inventory for Property Zoned R-1:8. Located at
33 Walnut Avenue. APN 510-41-007. PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Jeffrey
Siegel. PROJECT PLANNER: Erin Walters.
RECOMMENDATION:
Consider a request to remove a presumptive historic property (pre-1941) from the Historic
Resources Inventory (HRI) for property zoned R-1:8 located at 33 Walnut Avenue.
PROPERTY DETAILS:
1.Date primary structure was built: 1890
2.Town of Los Gatos Historic Status Code: I- Historic and Intact
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
BACKGROUND:
The Santa Clara County Assessor’s Database lists a construction date of 1890, typically
indicating substantial construction occurred around that time. The 1990 Anne Bloomfield
Survey indicates that the residence was constructed in the 1890’s and assigned a preliminary
rating of “historic and intact” (Attachment 1). The Sanborn Fire Insurance maps show the
residence on the subject property in 1895, having a consistent footprint through 1956
(Attachment 2).
EXHIBIT 5
PAGE 2 OF 4 SUBJECT: 33 Walnut Avenue DATE: February 18, 2022
N:\DEV\HISTORIC PRESERVATION\HPC Reports and Attachments\2022\02-23-22\Item 04 - 33 Walnut Avenue\Staff Report.33 Walnut
Avenue.docx
BACKGROUND (continued):
The property has frontage on both Walnut Avenue and Wissahickon Avenue. The property
contains a pre-1941 single-family residence and a new second story accessory dwelling unit
(ADU) located above a detached garage and carport, all currently under
construction/renovation.
An investigation of Town records includes an ADU was approved in 1985 and in 1994 a Building
Permit was issued for foundation work. On February 27, 2007, the Historic Preservation
Committee (Committee) considered whether or not the work proposed to the pre-1941 single-
family residence would be classified as a demolition. The Committee found that the rear of the
home was an addition which was unsympathetic to the architectural style of the original house,
and therefore the removal of the addition would not be classified as a demolition pursuant to
Town Code (Sheet A0 of Attachment 3). In 2007, a Building Permit was issued for a 300-square
foot first story addition and a 99-square foot second story addition and remodel (Attachment
3). In 2007, a Building Permit was issued for repair of terminate damage and dry rot at the
front porch. In 2008, a Building Permit was issued to rebuild the detached garage and retaining
wall.
Recent Modifications to the Main Residence by Current Owner
On August 22, 2018, and May 15, 2019, the Committee reviewed and approved plans for
modifications to the subject pre-1941 residence for the construction of a new roofed porch,
interior remodel, and exterior door and window modifications for the structure (Attachments 4
and 5). The proposed development plans included a second story addition to the front of the
existing two-story house. The proposed second story addition was associated with a proposed
expansion of an attached second story ADU. State regulations and the Town’s ADU Ordinance
allow second story ADU’s to be constructed on an existing two-story residence through a
ministerial review with an ADU Permit. On May 14, 2019, ADU Permit (D-19-004) was approved
for the reconstruction and expansion of an existing second story attached ADU in the main
residence.
Modifications to the Detached Garage, Carport, and ADU by Current Owner
On March 13, 2020, the Development Review Committee approved Architecture and Site
Application (S-19-041) for the construction of an addition to the existing detached garage which
exceeds 450 square feet and occupies more than 10 percent of the lot exclusive of building
setbacks on a non-conforming property. On December 7, 2020, ADU Permit (D-20-017) was
approved for a new detached ADU to be located above the expanded garage and new carport
and the removal of the existing attached ADU in the main residence. ADU permit (D-19-004)
for the reconstruction and expansion of an existing second story attached ADU in the
PAGE 3 OF 4 SUBJECT: 33 Walnut Avenue DATE: February 18, 2022
N:\DEV\HISTORIC PRESERVATION\HPC Reports and Attachments\2022\02-23-22\Item 04 - 33 Walnut Avenue\Staff Report.33 Walnut
Avenue.docx
BACKGROUND (continued):
main residence was withdrawn. In July of 2021, Building Permit (B20-0951) was issued for a
new detached ADU to be constructed above the expanded garage and new carport. Accessory
structures and ADU’s on historic properties are not reviewed by the Committee.
Technical Demolition of Main Residence by Current Owner
On April 21, 2021, Building Permit (B19-0482) was issued for the construction of a new roofed
porch, interior remodel, and exterior door and window modifications for the pre-1941
structure, per the approval by the Committee (Attachment 6). A demolition plan and signed
Demolition Affidavit was provided by the property owner/applicant/appellant’s team
acknowledging the Town Code’s demolition policy and process for historic structures. The
approved project did not result in a demolition.
On September 16, 2021, staff was informed by the property owner that more than 25 percent
of the exterior siding had been removed from the front elevation of the main residence on
Walnut Avenue.
This resulted in a technical demolition of the pre-1941 historic residence. On October 7, 2021,
the Community Development Director issued a Notice of Unlawful Demolition to the property
owner. On October 11, 2021, the property owner filed an appeal of the Director of Community
Development’s determination of demolition violation. On November 16, 2021, Town Council
held a public hearing, denied the appeal, upheld the Community Development Director’s
determination of a demolition violation and reduced penalty fees. The applicant is in the
process of applying for an Architecture and Site Application for a Technical Demolition which
will require review by the Committee.
DISCUSSION:
The applicant is requesting approval to remove the residence from the HRI and has provided a
written request, research on the property and photographs of the site (Attachments 7). Should
the Committee find that the structure does not have sufficient historic significance or
architectural merit, the structure would be removed from the HRI and any proposed work
would not return to the Committee. An Architecture and Site application is required for the
unlawful technical demolition, and it 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.
PAGE 4 OF 4 SUBJECT: 33 Walnut Avenue DATE: February 18, 2022
N:\DEV\HISTORIC PRESERVATION\HPC Reports and Attachments\2022\02-23-22\Item 04 - 33 Walnut Avenue\Staff Report.33 Walnut
Avenue.docx
FINDINGS (continued):
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.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. 1990 Anne Bloomfield Survey
2. Sanborn Map Exhibit
3. Historic Preservation Committee Agenda, Minutes, and Staff Report of August 22, 2018
4. Historic Preservation Committee Agenda, Minutes, and Staff Report of May 15, 2019
5. Excerpts from 2007 Building Permit Plans
6. Excerpts from 2021 Building Permit Plans
7. Letter of Justification, Research, and Photographs
-·--·--···--·--.... --. -----·-· ......... _. -. --··-··~·-· -·--~-----·--·-··---··--· ---... -·-·------···· .... , .... -.... ·-··----·-··---... --.-
gLr)--ce~t.. t,..o ~~EGt6S>
. rz,ao~'V) :\k3)t( J'o ~·t oou"£o
L e>-( -::;oX l ~D
. . ,.
. ..
.. ., '"' .
9· ....... ?-!":":1i.tn;:!..;C:."';';""'":r ~ ~'
I \ \ \
. . . .. .
(
', . .
. '
··.
· .
..
'
. ',
·"'
.··.·.· -.. .. ~ ~· . -.
·:.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
1895
33 Walnut Avenue
1895
ATTACHMENT 2
1904
33 Walnut Avenue
1908
33 Walnut Avenue
1928
33 Walnut Avenue
1956
33 Walnut Avenue
33 Walnut Avenue
1956
Page 1 of 2
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE SPECIAL MEETING
AUGUST 22, 2018
110 EAST MAIN STREET
LOS GATOS, CA
3:30 P.M
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS (Members of the public are welcome to address the
Committee on any matter that is not listed on the agenda. To ensure all agenda items are
heard and unless additional time is authorized by the Chair, this portion of the agenda is limited
to 30 minutes and no more than three (3) minutes per speaker. In the event additional
speakers were not able to be heard during the initial Verbal Communications portion of the
agenda, an additional Verbal Communications will be opened prior to adjournment.)
CONSENT ITEMS (TO BE ACTED UPON BY A SINGLE MOTION) (Items appearing on
the Consent Calendar are considered routine and may be approved by one motion. Unless there
are separate discussion and/or actions requested by the Committee, staff, or a member of the
public, it is requested that items under the Consent Calendar be acte d on simultaneously. Any
member of the Committee or public may request to have an item removed from the Consent
Calendar for comment and action.)
1.Approval of Minutes – July 25, 2018
OTHER BUSINESS (Up to three minutes may be allotted to each speaker on any of the
following items.)
2.33 Walnut Avenue
Requesting comments on proposed modifications to the front porch of a pre-1941
property zoned R-1:8. APN 510-41-007.
PROPERTY OWNER: Jeffrey Siegel
APPLICANT: David V. Hernandez, Heritage Architecture
PROJECT PLANNER: Erin Walters
Nancy Derham, Chair
Matthew Hudes, Vice Chair
Robert Cowan, Committee Member
Len Pacheco, Committee Member
Tom O’Donnell, Planning Commissioner
ATTACHMENT 3
Page 2 of 2
OTHER BUSINESS (Up to three minutes may be allotted to each speaker on any of the
following items.)
3. 25 W. Main Street
Requesting preliminary review of a proposal for exterior modifications and an addition
to a contributing commercial building in the Downtown Historic Commercial District on
property zoned C-2:LHP. APN 529-01-017.
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Steve Leonardis
PROJECT PLANNER: Jocelyn Shoopman
PUBLIC HEARINGS (Applicants and their representatives may be allotted up to a total of ten minutes
maximum for opening statements. Members of the public may be allotted up to three minutes to comment
on any public hearing item. Applicants and their representatives may be allotted up to a total of five
minutes maximum for closing statements. Items requested/recommended for continuance are subject to
the Committee’s consent at the meeting.)
4. 16940 Roberts Road
Requesting approval to remove a pre-1941 property from the Historic Resources
Inventory for property zoned R-M:5-12. APN 529-18-053.
PROPERTY OWNER: Chang 2003 Family Trust
APPLICANT: Josephine Chang
PROJECT PLANNER: Jocelyn Shoopman
ADJOURNMENT
IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, IF YOU NEED SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING,
PLEASE CONTACT THE CLERK DEPARTMENT AT (408) 354-6834. NOTIFICATION 48 HOURS BEFORE THE MEETING WILL ENABLE THE TOWN
TO MAKE REASONABLE ARRANGEMENTS TO ENSURE ACCESSIBILITY TO THIS MEETING [28 CF R §35.102-35.104]
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 SPECIAL MEETING
AUGUST 22, 2018
The Historic Preservation Committee of the Town of Los Gatos conducted a Special Meeting on
August 22, 2018, 2018, at 3:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Nancy Derham, Vice Chair Matthew Hudes (arrived at 3:57 p.m.), Committee
Member Robert Cowan, Committee Member Thomas O’Donnell, Committee Member Leonard
Pacheco
Absent: None
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 3:30 P.M.
VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
CONSENT ITEMS (TO BE ACTED UPON BY A SINGLE MOTION)
1. Approval of Minutes – July 25, 2018
MOTION: Motion by Committee Member Leonard Pacheco to approve the consent
item. Seconded by Committee Member Thomas O’Donnell.
VOTE: Motion passed 4-0-1, Vice Chair Matthew Hudes absent.
OTHER BUSINESS
2. 33 Walnut Avenue
Requesting comments on proposed modifications to the front porch of a pre-1941
property zoned R-1:8. APN 510-41-007.
PROPERTY OWNER: Jeffrey Siegel
APPLICANT: David V. Hernandez, Heritage Architecture
PROJECT PLANNER: Erin Walters
Committee Member Leonard Pacheco recused himself from this item.
Erin Walters, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
PAGE 2 OF 3 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF AUGUST 22, 2018
N:\DEV\HISTORIC PRESERVATION\HPCminutes\2018\8-22-18 Mins.docx
Opened and closed Public Comment.
Committee members discussed the matter.
3. 25 W. Main Street
Requesting preliminary review of a proposal for exterior modifications and an addition
to a contributing commercial building in the Downtown Historic Commercial District on
property zoned C-2:LHP. APN 529-01-017.
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Steve Leonardis
PROJECT PLANNER: Jocelyn Shoopman
Jocelyn Shoopman, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Opened Public Comment.
Karen Delaney
- Expressed disapproval of the current mural on the side of building.
Closed Public Comment.
Committee members discussed the matter.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
4. 16940 Roberts Road
Requesting approval to remove a pre-1941 property from the Historic Resources
Inventory for property zoned R-M:5-12. APN 529-18-053.
PROPERTY OWNER: Chang 2003 Family Trust
APPLICANT: Josephine Chang
PROJECT PLANNER: Jocelyn Shoopman
Jocelyn Shoopman, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Open and closed the Public Comment.
Committee members discussed the matter.
MOTION: Motion by Committee Member Thomas O’Donnell to continue this
matter to the September 26, 2018 Historic Preservation Committee
meeting. Seconded by Chair Nancy Derham.
VOTE: Motion passed 5-0.
PAGE 3 OF 3 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF AUGUST 22, 2018
N:\DEV\HISTORIC PRESERVATION\HPCminutes\2018\8-22-18 Mins.docx
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 5:08 p.m.
This is to certify that the foregoing is a true
and correct copy of the minutes of the
August 22, 2018 meeting as approved by the
Historic Preservation Committee.
/s/ Sylvie Roussel, Administrative Technician
PREPARED BY: ERIN WALTERS
Associate 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: 08/22/2018 ITEM NO: 2
DATE: AUGUST 16, 2018 TO: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE FROM: JOEL PAULSON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SUBJECT: PROJECT LOCATION: 33 WALNUT AVENUE. PROPERTY OWNER: JEFFREY SIEGEL. APPLICANT: DAVID V. HERNANDEZ, HERITAGE ARCHITECTURE. REQUESTING COMMENTS ON PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE FRONT PORCH OF A PRE-1941 PROPERTY ZONED R-1:8. APN 510-41-007.
RECOMMENDATION:
Review the proposal and provide comments on the proposed modifications to the front porch.
BACKGROUND:
A. Property Details
1. Date primary structure was built: 1890
2. Town of Los Gatos Preliminary Historic Status Code: I – Historic and Intact
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? No
7. Considerations required? No
B. Comments
The applicant proposes three modifications to the front porch:
1. Expansion of the existing front porch from six feet, eight inches to 11 feet, eight
inches in depth to create a more useable space. The existing decking and floor
structure would be replaced in-kind due to water damage.
PAGE 2 OF 2 SUBJECT: 33 WALNUT AVENUE AUGUST 16, 2018
N:\DEV\HISTORIC PRESERVATION\HPC Sheets\2018\Walnut33 -08-22-18.docx 8/17/2018 9:32 AM
BACKGROUND (Continued):
2. Raising the roof of the covered porch from six feet 10-inches to nine feet tall to
accommodate the existing eight-foot, four-inch front windows and provide visibility
from the house and light into the house.
3. Modify the existing six-inch by six-inch decorative wood columns and guard rail with
a square wood column design and a code compliant guard rail with a modified
decorative pattern.
Building permits are required for the proposed modifications to the front porch.
Committee comments are requested to ensure the compatibility of the proposed
modifications with the original structure and the surrounding area.
The proposed development plans show a second story addition to the existing two-story
house. The proposed second story addition is associated with a proposed Accessory
Dwelling Unit (ADU). New State regulations and the recent adoption of amendments to
the Town’s ADU Ordinance allow second story ADUs to be constructed on an existing
two-story residence with a ministerial review through an ADU permit.
The applicant’s request, the Bloomfield Survey, existing photos, and the proposed
development plans are attached.
DISCUSSION:
A. Considerations
For pre-1941 structures, the proposed work will neither adversely affect the exterior
architectural characteristics or other features of the property which is the subject of the
application.
Attachments:
1. Letter of Justification (six pages)
2. Bloomfield Survey (seven pages)
3. Photos of Existing Porch (five pages)
4. Development Plans (8 pages)
Distribution:
Cc: Jeffrey Siegel, 33 Walnut Avenue, Los Gatos, CA 95030
David V. Hernandez, Architect, Heritage Architecture, P.O. Box 8033, San Jose, CA 95155
To:
Cc:
HERITAGE AR CHITECTURE
DAVID V. HERNANDEZ, ARCHITECT
P.O. &x 8033. Sanjose. C\ 95.155
VM: (408) 298-0998 C : (-JOB) 772-3502
Erin ~1. Walters, Associate Pl:mnff
Town of Los Gatos
Community Development Departmen t
Sall}' 7.amowitz, Planning Manager
R e: HPC H earing
The Siegel Residence Front Porch Expansion/Repair
33 Walnut Avenue, Los Gatos, CA
RECEIVED
AUG 0 9 2018
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLA NN ING D IV IS IO N
August 09, 2018
Job No. 2018.07
This HPC review p acket is being submirted fo r discretionary review by Committee for approval of a
front porch ex pansion and repair attached to a p r e-1 941 residence. not withi n a historic district, but
whose fa<;:adc is considered of historical value.
Scop e of Work/Justification:
1. Remove and reph!cc wM~ damaged decking and repair existing floor structure as necessary.
2. E xtend exis ting deck footprint an additional 5'-0'', within Front Setback Building Envelope,
primarily on the frontage side of the reside n ce. 1bis will allow for a bes t us e of outdoor
u,·i ng and greater d ear area s for furniture grouping on the p orch.
3. Rc.-build the roof to its existing slope in order to raise t he bottom of the roof bearing beam
height from 6'-10" ab ove the residence subfl oor to 9'-0". By doing so, the 8'-4" tall
wind ows overlooking the porch will obtain a greatly improved sightline to the vista beyond
and increase natural li ght gain into t11 e residence. R ebuilding th e roof will all ow tl1e owner to
address the necessary rnof coverage of the deck by way of deeper overhands as deemed
necessary. Refer to interior view of porch photo attached.
4. Replace the existing partiall y turned 6x6 columns and 2'-3" high guardrail wi th new 6x6
square wood collllllllS and pedestal, along with a new code compliant guardrail with a
decorative p attern favored by the owner. Refer to pho tos of existing guard.rail and column
components .
5. A n y graphics rela ted to th e future work of an ADU at the fr ont of the residence is not to b e
considered for the purposes o f this rev iew. T he ADU r eview is fo ll owing a different tract
for approval by staff.
Submi;~ bt ( ( Q___
Davi~1~hi:: )
Heritage Architecture
A1chitect of RecoEd
Page 2 cont aim the O\\·ner's ju s tification for this scnpe of work.
Please see a.rra.che.d documenl.
SaIIy Zarnowitz
Los Gatos Planning Dept
Sally,
Thanks again for all your guidance in helping to develop our proposed a rchitectura l
plans for adding the ADU to the upper floor facing the front street.
Our goa l is to create an inviting livable space that will offer plenty of light and views
that are possible from living on the second floor with sweeping views of the
mountains and surrounding area. Having French doors and a walkout deck on the
upper part of the front porch will create an attractive aesthetic from the street, and
will bring a dditional light into the house and pleasant exterior views. This is also in
keeping with the neighborhood where quite a few homes have this same feature
including 151 Hernandez (deck faces onto Wissahickon), 7 Walnut Avenue, 3'81
Pennsylvania (deck is on top of the garage facing the street), 45 Glenridge (similar
archi t ectural style), 125 Tait (being built right now), and 220 Wilder are some
illustrative examples. l have checked with several of my neighbors on Walnut
Avenue and all are completely fine with the propose d addition as describe d .
At the same time, we are planning on r<esolving several design defects of the existing
front porch which include 1) flooring is sloped away from the house making it
awkward for poop1·e batandag, 2) f\o(i)ring is in poorcoHd>ition as a resuit ·offuH
exposur.e to rains from a lack-of adequate roof protection, 3),porch roof siopes
excessively down blocking views and light that would otherwise come into the tall
front windows, and 4) depth is shallow limiting the usability of the porch. Unlike my
prior house on Pine Avenue where the front porch was a wonderful, livable, space to
enjoy the front yard as it was 11 feet deep.
Thanks again for your eairlier gurdance and supp-ort in hetping us to complete the
design approval process. We are excited about undertaking_ the work that will
improve the aesthetics and functional use of the house.
Sincere ly,
Jeffrey Siegel
Proposed Porch Design Improvements in Context of Historic Preservation f:te&t!fU1E o
Anne Style Residence at 33 Walnut Avenue
References: AUG l 6 2018
1) A field guide to American Houses, Published 2014 by Virginia Sav'MfJN OF LOS GATOS
McAlester PLANN ING DIVI SION
2) The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and
Reconstructing Historic Buildings, 2017 Revised by Anne Grimmer
3) Los Gatos Guidelines for Historic Preservation
4) Consultation with Anne Grimmer, Architectural Historian for the Technical
Preservation Services Department of the United States Park Service
33 Walnut Avenue, built in 1890, is an example of a Queen Anne style residence with minor
spindlework detailing. With a hipped roof and lower cross gables, together with a wrap
around porch, the house displays multiple elements of an 1890 era Queen Anne. The house
is not located in a historic district though is considered by the town of Los Gatos to be
historical on account of the year that it was built.
History of the House:
While built in 1890, multiple alterations have been made to the house over the intervening
years including:
1) Roofing material -wood shingles replaced with composite material
2) Addition of second story ADU toward the rear of the house in 1986
3) Construction of a new two car garage in 2008 replacing a historic structure that
could not be adapted for todays modern lifestyle
4) First floor alterations including addition of 250 square feet by pushing out the rear
exterior walls of the house altering both size and shape
5) Full interior redesign and reconstruction in 2008 including removing interior walls,
changing bedroom locations and sizes, adding windows and doors, creating a great
room, adding a bathroom, and changing the interior flow of the house, al o n g with all
new plumbing, electrical, and HVAC
6) Multiple landscape changes over time including adding a stone retaining wall and
patio in the rear, with steps and gate out to the newly constructed garage
Curing the Porch Design Defects:
While many improvements have already been made over time, the one re maining and
much 'needed alteration is the improvement of the front porch to address specific design
defects tha t has caused safety, lighting, and sustainability issues. To be clear, this does NOT
mea n changing the character defining featur e s of the porch, which include wrapping
around the front and front-side of the house and the use of stylized v e rtica l suppo rts a nd
detailed railing design.
The design defects, which include shallow depth, overly pitched flooring, low profile
roofline that obscures light and interior visibility, missing roof protective overhang, and
ab~ence of a south facing weather barrier, altogether negatively impacts the sustainability,
safety, and functional use of the front section of the house. Weather exposure to the front
of the house, and a dark front interior are problems that are worth solving while respecting
the historical integrity of the Queen Anne style. In addition, the front steps have proven to
be a safety hazard as multiple guests have now slipped and fallen when walking down the
steps. This stems from the exposure of the steps to the elements, combined with their
shallow foot depth and steep pitch. It is desired to extend the porch roofline to cover and
protect the steps from the elements to create a safe environment. This is in keeping with
the Queen Anne style of architecture as evidenced in photos in the book A Field Guide to
American Houses page 361, image 11.
The desired porch improvements to address these existing problems include:
1) Deepening the porch from its current six feet to 11 feet, which is in keeping with the
legal setbacks. Given the gaps in the weave style and low height of the existing
railing, this will significantly improve the safety of using the porch, while allowing
far more light to enter the tall front windows, and provide much needed protection
from the strong west blowing winds and rains that assault the front (and side) of the
house given its east (and south) facing exposure.
2) Slight change to the front porch railing to a tighter weave design for improved safety
and stronger vertical supports with sturdier base.
3) Adding a transparent protective shield to the left side of the porch protecting the
south exposure from wind-blasted rains during the winter months (as many other
historic homes in Los Gatos currently have)
4) Raising the gutter eave height of the porch roofing, together with adding a porch
roof overhang, as required for both lighting improvement and for protecting the
front porch flooring and front siding of the house from the seasonal rains which
continues to cause damage.
5) Reducing the existing pitch of the porch flooring to create a shallower pitched
surface. Its current pitch creates a floor surface that is somewhat precarious to
stand and walk on, particularly for the elderly or anyone that's tall.
6) Extending the porch roof over the front stairs as a safety feature. The front stairs
are continually rained upon by environmental elements including water, bird
droppings, and tree leaves. Altogether this has created a dangerous and slippery
surface. Two guests have now slipped and at times fallen from these stairs and it's
highly desired to create an environment for safe ingress/egress of the house while
reducing legal liability.
A key question to answer:
The key question that arises when considering these proposed changes -is whether they
constitute a character-defining feature change, or whether the character-defining features
of the house can be preserved while making the required adaptation. To answer that
question, we have turned to multiple sources, including those published, as well as
consulted directly with the author of the Department of the Interiors Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties -Anne Grimmer. Anne's guidance in considering and
answering this question has directly informed the proposal being submitted to the Los
Gatos Historic Committee.
Rehabilitation defined:
Rehabilitation is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for
a property through repair, alterations, and additions, while preserving those portions
or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values. Maintaining
the Queen Anne style of the porch while incorporating the adaptation needed to
address the design defects is the intention of this proposed project.
Guidance from Anne Grimmer:
It has been determined, after consulting in conference with the architectural historian and
author of the Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for
Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings that the
proposed changes to 33 Walnut will not create a 'character-defining change'. In fact, these
guidelines state under Alterations -some exterior and interior alterations to a historic
building are generally needed as part of a Rehabilitation project to ensure it's continued use.
But it is most important that such alterations do not RADICALLY change, obscure, or destroy
character-defining spaces, materials, features, or finishes.
Anne noted that the porch related issues stem directly from what she calls a 'design defect',
which can be intelligently addressed while preserving the character-defining features of the
Queen Anne style. She gives the example of the firehouse that is down the street from her
office in Washington DC, and is also cited as an example in the guidelines. The opening of
the building, based on its original design, could not accommodate todays modern fire
trucks, and so the opening was enlarged as an adaptation to today's needs, while
preserving the building's style.
According to Anne, "the tall front windows of your house (at 33 Walnut) are indeed
a character defining feature, as is the style of the wrap around porch. But it's not
unprecedented to see porch rooflines that hang so low as to block light and
visibility. These should be considered a design defect, not a character-defining
feature of the house. Raising the roofline to cure this defect would be considered a
reasonable adaptation in the same way that enlarging the opening of the fire station
down the street, to accommodate today's larger fire trucks, improved the
functionality while still retaining the historic nature of the building itself. " For th is
example, Anne referenced page 150 in Standards for Preservation & Guidelines for
Preserving Historic Buildings.
Anne views the front porch of 33 Walnut as similar to the firehouse example. She notes
that making the improvements by addressing the design defects benefits the house and its
livability, while preserving its true character-defining features (wrap around porch, tall
front windows, detailed railing) of the Queen Anne architectural style. In other words, she
sees the proposed improvements (roof height, porch depth, roof overhang, wind barrier) as
an intelligent adaptation that would be barely discernible from the street, and not a radical
change.
We look forward to hearing the historic committee's assessment of these proposed
changes, as a means of intelligently addressing the design defects that have caused
problems in safety, livability, and maintenance.
Respectfully ... Jeffrey Siegel, homeowner of 33 Walnut Avenue
Jeffrey Sieget
'"'"'-n l IC.\... I Unr\L Mi.:> I VN. I
d/nne. 23£oomf iE.£d
ARCHITECTURAL/CULTURAL SURVEY
LOS GATOS RESEARCH
(415> 922-1063
2229 WEBSTER STREET
SAN FRANCISCO. C A 941 I 5
I
I
File a ddress __ 3..__.S~:..._c_'.V_.-·_A°"_·,._,._v_' ·_-I ____ _
PARCEL MAP INFORMATION
Parcel # 5/C ·4/-007 Lot size : 5 -0 front ft. x /IPO ft. deep
Lot shape: Re ctangle./' L __ Rectangle with small rear jog___ Other __________ _
Locat i on: N S E w./" side of LA/ St Ave ·/ Other ------
distance to cross st: /(p ~ ft. N __ s_L E __ W __ from fk_rn.o,..,...J e.-z.
at NE NW SE SW corner of -----------
HI STORIC INFORMATION ON PARCEL MAP
Old tract or subdivision nameb'k .,., iZ)1e ?r/;. Old Block # 3 Old lot # ~ -------I
FIELD SURVEY INFORMATION (handwritten in red)
Preliminary rating -1-Estimated age /'B 9C/<? # storie~
Alterations
---------~-----------------------------
Other
---------------------------------------~
COUNTY ASSESSOR--PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS (paste on copy) Page __ EFFecti ve date ___ _
OWNERSHIP SHOWN ON MAPS
Source
Name
-----
Blk Book
'
Source
Date
!1891
' 1 1908
1,1941 Survey ----1
Source
Page
Location of property, or Lot
Old ·tract/block/lot Size
Owner
Name
MISCELLANEOUS PHOTOS: Roll/ fram e # ~~:.. t ti
National Register listed date ----------County Inventory 1979 -------------Town of Los Gatos: Designation __ Recognition __
District Name ----------------
Previ ous Survey '/'900 CA r? I g '1o A f6
)
Gebhard : page # illustration page #
5~ l..Ua.(11 ~.1 --q-----
EVALUAT O~ D/t~ C• /'B&ff {sa ... )
, . . Co ntr i buto~
. . Dis t n .ct Non-contrib Ea rliest kn wn -
Own e r _ Resid e n t _: (P~. /13.o)
Con tex t (S ): • -
i
·/
. "
din.~ !Bloom{u.tJ.
ARC!UTBC~~~~-SURVBY
RAMS RBSBARCH
ARCHITECTURAL HISTOR'
C41 5 l 922· 106 ~
2229 WEBSTER STREE1
S A N FRANCISCO. C A 941 1 !
.... (per•on, l:11alld i a 9, ortuai aatloa, etc)~:--~----------------------------
1dr•••e• a••ocia t e d with .._._,?....-3._W~_a.._/._..,_v_-I ____________________________ _
ae l e va nt d a t e•s COM tr~_Ct ion. ____ • birth. ___ • death. ___ • Other. __________ _
:r. DIUC'IORY SBAJtCH (City Din c:tori••; county Dlie e t orie•, Telephone Boolul , •ociety direetori••· e tc.) -
Y•ar Book N•-/cla•••••..,. ., __ ..,,_~ T-<--•--1--u •••(----~• .. --_ .. _. ··--• •-• ... _,A••-\
5JD V.a I ;f. t.H-. ~ ~ P..u..d_ /;<..) """--. CJ...) <Ma '/ -b;// e tv) ..L,, t:J <!:/C'.'1 h 3~c..u-
t~6 ,... ?b...J ·"' (
.• BIOGRAPHICAL ISIUICR, indexe• 6 other a lp~tical li•tinq•.
(1n&ti1 l 1 d t t l
Ma rk •x• (in fd .or 'I ' (aotbiag f oand) a t ••eh •oarce you try. L b t Undta9e below.
Los Gatos Library : California History Center, De Anza College :
City directories (name & street index) ~-Biographical file
~-Historic Collection Index (green boxes) ~-Photo collection .
~-Thompson & West, 1876 (bio index)
--Pen Pictures , 1888 (bio index)
~-Sunshine Fruit & Flowers, 1895 (bio
~-Guinn, 1904 (bio index)
i ndex)
~-Sawyer, 1922 (bio index)
San Jose Historic al Mus e um :
~-Great Regi~ters (of voters)
Indexes ~-Bruntz, Hist'y of .LG, 1971 (bio index)
~-Extended index to Bruntz Photo collec tion
Bi o index of Munroe Frazer, 188 1 (Survey box)
Photo c ollection (2 boxes) Other s ources:
__ Indexes , Cal i forni a Historical ~t'farterl y
Los Gatos Museum (Forbes Mill): State Library Information Index (fi che)
Death records by year State Li brary-S.F. Newspaper I nd E1x -'.(")
Funeral rec ords (i ndex c ards to big books)
Photo collection
u:r . LIST ALL REPEltB!IC!;S FROM ABOVE . Fi nd the m. Copy good •t eri a l fa att a ch . Or copy below if only
a f ew word•. Or e xpla in why not r •l •v a nt (••· wrong per•on).
~ Continue d on Re v e r ie
ile a ddrH• .3 $ Ufa /n U ...f
PUBLUHD AIB>UllC.IMH'l'8
ARCHITECTUI<AL SURVEY
BUILDING RESEARCH
sources __ Mill _Bulle tin __ CA&Blll __ Call _chron __ DPB __ Bd...AB __ IX __ lie-_PCA Othe r
ARCHITEC TURAL HI STORY
1 51 9 2 2 · 1 063
2229 S TER S TREET
SAN FRANc.::;c o . C A 9411 5
Volume Da te Page __ _
Nature of a nnounceme nt: __ c o ntra ct notice __ Notice of comple tion ___ BP i aaued ___ Photo __ Blev/aketch/rend'g ___ Floor plan ___ Arch't/cont•r pub ___ Rea l eat
Copy exa ctly: ~ Builder/Contractor Architect/Ensin11r Location Naturt of work coat
BUILDING PERMIT~ --.... --.
>ource 1 Permit
te9ia t e r Pr•• • .. .. or . . . ·-Applica tion
Humber
OTRBll SOUR.CB (a pecify thoroughly)
SAlllBORR MAPS
Va c.
or
Vol/ dif .
~ .2!n bldq Add re a a
/'8 '16> /P 1"«.;. . '2..1 -~I W -
/1tJc/ ~
,. ,...,
l'i/'6 17 ,, '!?3 \j.) (:1 ') ~
oat•
Color :
yel, pnk,
ora nge
blu,gry
r e en
7
UH / Owner
lfo . o! " ~ Loca tion W1 llailL. a dd rt a a
Patchea No. of
Ye a/ lllo. of Height b a y
...!!!.L No !$2£i•1 -1tta.l. window
D ;J I 5 · e 1 7:
,..:?,.I "'
Builder/ Arch't/
contr . & engin'r
address & address Description
'Pc.Re t+ Differt ncea from today in:
~ Storie ! Footprint
'1lrdf
.J re--~ r
/Initia l• Date
of work
""'iti
Bldg' a
width/
d e pth/
he ight
ale
Exterior
Mate rjal•
date
Initia ls Date
Date of Describe or sketch
constr . plan
. · . . .
I'· t •
. · ..
. . .
" . . .
. . ., ...... . . .
PO< w ~d.? f:{;:.:Je l-J [) o D Eo oN "'~ u.,~ 1 N / N) E:e) "YL. .
Co\...-£>$~~ o t '~ \5bC.J(, Jf'b~l\ ~ !('t..-0ort . 10~ I
1Lrr ca"'b t.-c.H...J6 '2""60
. ~obhl) ~-JG){~ -(o ~1'( bt'YO[O
l ~'t S'D )( i 1:D
. . .
\ . . . ' .
.. " .
.. . . . . . . .. . ..
. ~ . . .
. . . . .
. . . . ..
. . .·: . · .. :· .
. . .· ... · . ' . ·" . . . . ·. . . . . . . .
. . . . ..
. .. . .
,• .. ' .. ..... . ., .
. . ,, ' •' . . . . ... ·. . .
. . . ;' . ·. . ~ ' .. ·.· .
·. . . . . . ~-:. . :' .. . . . . ... . .
,' .. . ,• ' , . .
.. . ·
., .. . : . . . .· : . . ~ . . . . . . . . . .
.. . . . . .
. . . .
' .... . . . . .
' . ...
. . ....
•, . '
. '• ...
(
Survey
S t r e e t: I " I /) () I'""/'-) r\ ~ ( •.• ./. .... ~ ::? ;; LA..l t-, ,\"..-·?·! -L.·v~ '· lJ_':\ -'>i'\' 1 \~ House Number :_.,_~_-______ _
D / ;;c, / . . . ,· Con s truction ate: Bstimated . i...Q_!: S ourc e 1 • ...:.;_' _, .:...:.',,-"-, ;...; __ ':..."-·-·--------------
~t yle :· -------------.:---------~--/---::~-( > .. 1_.)( .i /t [lv -i.e./} f'!'ve-,-,/( · .-._?-: f.f?/._~,.-1 t'?v~. '-I /):..,.l .,
I'resent Ovmers: () (} ~
l'hone: -------\'!illing to work with survey comrni ttee?
Rental? NoY-._yes _ Te no..n ts name : -------------1 hon e :
Absentee -owne rs ma iling addr e s s :
Best time to co ntact owner : Tenant:
( :'
History (inclu d e d a tes, even ts i and pers ons associated with site when knov,m )
l ,., .J . '
..... L-• ' •• ......
·,~ ./..( , '" I
: •rJ' '. : ; ~' ) ~· ' I • ;
/'/'· ,-~.,.,li :: ~~:]ii, ..
: t .... , . • ... \ '.
I .. ,, : ;
: t. : :.·
/
'\ ,1 ; .it' I I '! -·, i· 'l J t· I J I ( j I
I
, i.
ii·• .. '.:·. ·1.J)r':1
I
tf ; .
! w ./
) ~ . : ._
/ { •; (I
Architectural Hi story ( identify information source and year of cha nge)
Origina l:
Ad ded :
Remode led;
I•'
,.
r .--: ... ; : -. ' I . . . . . ~ ~ .. ~
, .. \ t .. , .. ; ;""
L ) :..· ..
' 1:
I
: ; ·'.)
..... ,-' 1. •, .7 .. '· .: \ .
I
~"; : ~i I!,~
!
,· ~ ••• ! • \._,. \. .
;
l I ·~ , 'f l "')
I
. ~ f:
'
f\'
.Jr\ J.) ,··. r A'' ii.-( ._. \
. ,. ,, .l ' " ' :, 11 ,..._ .... /t. f , ... 0:.\1; j
'••,.I
I .
• i
. l 1 I I ,' ! . ' f' If .~.. ; .
'~ . -r 4:-.("> r-....... ..; ' ~.. -,,... .-..J-• .a.. -. ... ..... ,. . .,,,. ----
THE .AUTHOR
RUTHERFORD MONTGOMERY would rather
write than do anything else in the world. Most of
his fifty-three books are about animals and the
wilderness he knows so well. As a boy, Mr. Mont-
gomery would listen to the tales told by hunters,
and his favorite sport then and now is going into
the woodland and sitting quietly on a log, ob-
serving the children of the Wild. He is a watcher,
not a hunter. Mr. Montgomery was born in North Dakota,
and taught sChool for ten years in Wyoming and
Colorado after graduating from Colorado Agri-
cultural College. He saw service in the United
States Flying Corps in World War I. Later, he
was a county judge in Colorado· and held state
offices there. He now lives in Los Gatos, Cali-
fornja..
* * *
' < -
YEllOW EYE!
By RUTHER.FORD MONTGOMERY
Illustrated by Farrel/ Collett
_, .
. y
\
... •......_
. .
·'
"
:1 ..
\
.. .
i
I
I
· 1
I
.·
· .
,·,
.1 -
" ••• #6
....... " .. -~.
X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXX X
WALNUT AVENUEWISSAHICKON AVENUENAIL (
T.
B.
M.)
ELE.
1
0
0.
0
0
X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXX X
WALNUT AVENUEWISSAHICKON AVENUENAIL (
T.
B.
M.)
ELE.
1
0
0.
0
0
P.O. BOX 8033, San Jose, California 95155 C: (408) 772-3502 VM: (408) 298-0998E-mail: dvhernandez@pacbell.netDAVID V. HERNANDEZ, ARCHITECTHERITAGE ARCHITECTUREHERITAGE
ARCHITECTURE
OLFCA
E
O FIHACNR
HGSAESNR
C-24801LIDICVA
STDATAV DATE
3 / 31 / 19
RENEWAL
E
DE AR
TI
TCEAZERINDNSIEGEL RESIDENCE REMODEL/ADDITION33 WALNUT AVE. LOS GATOS, CA1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )
GRAPHIC SCALE
8
168804
A1.1
N
ATTACHMENT 4
P.O. BOX 8033, San Jose, California 95155 C: (408) 772-3502 VM: (408) 298-0998E-mail: dvhernandez@pacbell.netDAVID V. HERNANDEZ, ARCHITECTHERITAGE ARCHITECTUREHERITAGE
ARCHITECTURE
OLFCA
E
O FIHACNR
HGSAESNR
C-24801LIDICVA
STDATAV DATE
3 / 31 / 19
RENEWAL
E
DE AR
TI
TCEAZERINDNSIEGEL RESIDENCE REMODEL/ADDITION33 WALNUT AVE. LOS GATOS, CA1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )
GRAPHIC SCALE
4
84402
A2.1
N
P.O. BOX 8033, San Jose, California 95155 C: (408) 772-3502 VM: (408) 298-0998E-mail: dvhernandez@pacbell.netDAVID V. HERNANDEZ, ARCHITECTHERITAGE ARCHITECTUREHERITAGE
ARCHITECTURE
OLFCA
E
O FIHACNR
HGSAESNR
C-24801LIDICVA
STDATAV DATE
3 / 31 / 19
RENEWAL
E
DE AR
TI
TCEAZERINDNSIEGEL RESIDENCE REMODEL/ADDITION33 WALNUT AVE. LOS GATOS, CA1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )
GRAPHIC SCALE
4
84402
A2.2
N
P.O. BOX 8033, San Jose, California 95155 C: (408) 772-3502 VM: (408) 298-0998E-mail: dvhernandez@pacbell.netDAVID V. HERNANDEZ, ARCHITECTHERITAGE ARCHITECTUREHERITAGE
ARCHITECTURE
OLFCA
E
O FIHACNR
HGSAESNR
C-24801LIDICVA
STDATAV DATE
3 / 31 / 19
RENEWAL
E
DE AR
TI
TCEAZERINDNSIEGEL RESIDENCE REMODEL/ADDITION33 WALNUT AVE. LOS GATOS, CA1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )
GRAPHIC SCALE
4
84402
A2.3
N
RIDGE
RIDGE
(E)RIDGE
RIDGERIDGEVALLEYVALLEY(E) VALLEY
(E) HIPVALLEYV
A
L
L
E
Y
HIP HIP
H
I
P
(E) HIP(E)(E)(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)(E)
(E)
4:12
ROOF PITCH 8:12
RIDGE
RIDGE(N) RIDGEVALLEY(N) VALLEYVALLEYVALLEY HIP HIP(
N
)
(
N
)(N) RIDGE(N) RIDGE (N) VALLEY(N) VALLEY(N) HIP(N) HIP
(N)(N) HIP(N) VALLEY(N) VALLEY(N) HIP(N) RIDGE
SLOPING ROOF
SHALLOW
CRICKET
ROOF PITCH 8:12
MATCH (E)
(N)
4:12
(N) DECK
EXTENSION
(N) PORCH P.O. BOX 8033, San Jose, California 95155 C: (408) 772-3502 VM: (408) 298-0998E-mail: dvhernandez@pacbell.netDAVID V. HERNANDEZ, ARCHITECTHERITAGE ARCHITECTUREHERITAGE
ARCHITECTURE
OLFCA
E
O FIHACNR
HGSAESNR
C-24801LIDICVA
STDATAV DATE
3 / 31 / 19
RENEWAL
E
DE AR
TI
TCEAZERINDNSIEGEL RESIDENCE REMODEL/ADDITION33 WALNUT AVE. LOS GATOS, CA1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )
GRAPHIC SCALE
4
84402
A3.1
N
P.O. BOX 8033, San Jose, California 95155 C: (408) 772-3502 VM: (408) 298-0998E-mail: dvhernandez@pacbell.netDAVID V. HERNANDEZ, ARCHITECTHERITAGE ARCHITECTUREHERITAGE
ARCHITECTURE
OLFCA
E
O FIHACNR
HGSAESNR
C-24801LIDICVA
STDATAV DATE
3 / 31 / 19
RENEWAL
E
DE AR
TI
TCEAZERINDNSIEGEL RESIDENCE REMODEL/ADDITION33 WALNUT AVE. LOS GATOS, CA1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )
GRAPHIC SCALE
4
84402
A4.1
P.O. BOX 8033, San Jose, California 95155 C: (408) 772-3502 VM: (408) 298-0998E-mail: dvhernandez@pacbell.netDAVID V. HERNANDEZ, ARCHITECTHERITAGE ARCHITECTUREHERITAGE
ARCHITECTURE
OLFCA
E
O FIHACNR
HGSAESNR
C-24801LIDICVA
STDATAV DATE
3 / 31 / 19
RENEWAL
E
DE AR
TI
TCEAZERINDNSIEGEL RESIDENCE REMODEL/ADDITION33 WALNUT AVE. LOS GATOS, CA1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )
GRAPHIC SCALE
4
84402
A4.2
P.O. BOX 8033, San Jose, California 95155 C: (408) 772-3502 VM: (408) 298-0998E-mail: dvhernandez@pacbell.netDAVID V. HERNANDEZ, ARCHITECTHERITAGE ARCHITECTUREHERITAGE
ARCHITECTURE
OLFCA
E
O FIHACNR
HGSAESNR
C-24801LIDICVA
STDATAV DATE
3 / 31 / 19
RENEWAL
E
DE AR
TI
TCEAZERINDNSIEGEL RESIDENCE REMODEL/ADDITION33 WALNUT AVE. LOS GATOS, CA1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )
GRAPHIC SCALE
4
84402
A4.1
P.O. BOX 8033, San Jose, California 95155 C: (408) 772-3502 VM: (408) 298-0998E-mail: dvhernandez@pacbell.netDAVID V. HERNANDEZ, ARCHITECTHERITAGE ARCHITECTUREHERITAGE
ARCHITECTURE
OLFCA
E
O FIHACNR
HGSAESNR
C-24801LIDICVA
STDATAV DATE
3 / 31 / 19
RENEWAL
E
DE AR
TI
TCEAZERINDNSIEGEL RESIDENCE REMODEL/ADDITION33 WALNUT AVE. LOS GATOS, CA1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )
GRAPHIC SCALE
4
84402
A4.2
Page 1 of 2
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE SPECIAL MEETING
MAY 15, 2019
110 EAST MAIN STREET
LOS GATOS, CA
4:00 PM
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS (Members of the public are welcome to address the
Committee on any matter that is not listed on the agenda. To ensure all agenda items are
heard and unless additional time is authorized by the Chair, this portion of the agenda is limited
to 30 minutes and no more than three (3) minutes per speaker. In the event additional
speakers were not able to be heard during the initial Verbal Communications portion of the
agenda, an additional Verbal Communications will be opened prior to adjournment.)
CONSENT ITEMS (TO BE ACTED UPON BY A SINGLE MOTION) (Items appearing on
the Consent Calendar are considered routine and may be approved by one motion. Unless there
are separate discussion and/or actions requested by the Committee, staff, or a member of the
public, it is requested that items under the Consent Calendar be acted on simultaneously. Any
member of the Committee or public may request to have an item removed from the Consent
Calendar for comment and action.)
1.Approval of Minutes – April 24, 2019
2.62 Ellenwood Avenue
Historic Resources Inventory Removal
Requesting continuance to June 26, 2019 for approval to remove a pre-1941 property
from the Historic Resources Inventory for property zoned R-1:12. APN 510-20-068.
PROPERTY OWNER: Lisa and Case Swenson
APPLICANT: Kurt Simrock
PROJECT PLANNER: Azhar Khan
Continued from April 24, 2019
Matthew Hudes, Chair
Robert Cowan, Vice Chair
Tom O’Donnell, Planning Commissioner
Nancy Derham, Committee Member
Len Pacheco, Committee Member
ATTACHMENT 4
Page 2 of 2
PUBLIC HEARINGS (Applicants and their representatives may be allotted up to a total of ten minutes
maximum for opening statements. Members of the public may be allotted up to three minutes to comment
on any public hearing item. Applicants and their representatives may be allotted up to a total of five
minutes maximum for closing statements. Items requested/recommended for continuance are subject to
the Committee’s consent at the meeting
3. 407 University Avenue
Historic Resources Inventory Removal
Requesting approval to remove a pre-1941 property from the Historic Resources
Inventory for property zoned R-1P. APN 529-07-041.
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Ravi Todi and Sudha Hisaria
PROJECT PLANNER: Sally Zarnowitz
OTHER BUSINESS (Up to three minutes may be allotted to each speaker on any of the
following items.)
4. 33 Walnut Avenue
Preliminary Review
Requesting preliminary review of a proposal for exterior alterations to a pre -1941 single-
family residence on property zoned R-1:8. APN 510-41-007.
PROPERTY OWNER: Jeffrey Siegel
APPLICANT: David V. Hernandez
PROJECT PLANNER: Erin Walters
5. 268 Los Gatos Boulevard
Preliminary Review
Requesting preliminary review of a proposal for exterior alterations to a pre -1941 single-
family residence on property zoned R-1:D. APN 532-36-022.
PROPERTY OWNER: Werner J Wiechmann
APPLICANT: Firoz Pradhan
PROJECT PLANNER: Azhar Khan
ADJOURNMENT
IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, IF YOU NEED SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING,
PLEASE CONTACT THE CLERK DEPARTMENT AT (408) 354-6834. NOTIFICATION 48 HOURS BEFORE THE MEETING WILL ENABLE THE TOWN
TO MAKE REASONABLE ARRANGEMENTS TO ENSURE ACCESSIBILITY TO THIS MEETING [28 CFR §35.102-35.104]
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 SPECIAL MEETING
MAY 15, 2019
The Historic Preservation Committee of the Town of Los Gatos conducted a Special Meeting on
May 15, 2019, at 4:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Vice Chair Robert Cowan, Committee Member Nancy Derham, Committee Member
Thomas O’Donnell
Absent: Leonard Pacheco, Matthew Hudes
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 4:00 PM
VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS
Jefferey Siegel – Presented a copy of his letter to Town Council promoting adoption of the Mills
Act.
CONSENT ITEMS (TO BE ACTED UPON BY A SINGLE MOTION)
1. Approval of Minutes – April 24, 2019
2. 62 Ellenwood Avenue -- Historic Resource Inventory Removal
MOTION: Motion by Committee Member Thomas O’Donnell to approve the
consent calendar. Seconded by Committee Member Nancy Derham.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. 3-0-2, Committee Member Leonard
Pacheco and Chair Matthew Hudes absent.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. 407 University Avenue
Historic Resources Inventory Removal
Requesting approval to remove a pre-1941 property from the Historic Resources
Inventory for property zoned R-1P. APN 529-07-041.
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Ravi Todi and Sudha Hisaria
PROJECT PLANNER: Sally Zarnowitz
Sally Zarnowitz, Planning Manager, presented the staff report.
PAGE 2 OF 3 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF MAY 15, 2019
N:\DEV\HISTORIC PRESERVATION\HPCminutes\2019\05-15-19 Mins.docx 6/28/2019 11:11 AM
Owner presented the reasons for his request.
Opened and closed Public Comment.
Committee members discussed the matter.
MOTION: Motion by Committee Member Thomas O’Donnell to approve the
request to remove from the Historic Resources Inventory. Seconded by
Committee Member Nancy Derham.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. 3-0-2, Committee Member Leonard
Pacheco and Chair Matthew Hudes absent.
OTHER BUSINESS (Up to three minutes may be allotted to each speaker on any of the following
items.)
4. 33 Walnut Avenue
Preliminary Review
Requesting preliminary review of a proposal for exterior alterations to a pre-1941 single-
family residence on property zoned R-1:8. APN 510-41-007.
PROPERTY OWNER: Jeffrey Siegel
APPLICANT: David V. Hernandez
PROJECT PLANNER: Erin Walters
Erin Walters, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Applicant presented the proposed project.
Opened and closed Public Comment.
Committee members discussed the matter.
MOTION: Motion by Committee Member Nancy Derham to recommend approval
of the proposal. Seconded by Vice Chair Robert Cowan.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. 3-0-2, Committee Member Leonard
Pacheco and Chair Matthew Hudes absent.
PAGE 3 OF 3 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF MAY 15, 2019
N:\DEV\HISTORIC PRESERVATION\HPCminutes\2019\05-15-19 Mins.docx 6/28/2019 11:11 AM
5. 268 Los Gatos Boulevard
Preliminary Review
Requesting preliminary review of a proposal for exterior alterations to a pre-1941 single-
family residence on property zoned R-1:D. APN 532-36-022.
PROPERTY OWNER: Werner J Wiechmann
APPLICANT: Firoz Pradhan
PROJECT PLANNER: Azhar Khan
Azhar Khan, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report.
Applicant presented the proposed project.
Opened and closed Public Comment.
Committee members discussed the matter.
MOTION: Motion by Committee Member Nancy Derham to recommend for
approval of the proposal. Seconded by Committee Member Thomas
O’Donnell.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. 3-0-2, Committee Member Leonard
Pacheco and Chair Matthew Hudes absent.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 4:56 p.m.
This is to certify that the foregoing is a true
and correct copy of the minutes of the
May 15, 2019 meeting as approved by the
Historic Preservation Committee.
/s/ Jocelyn Fong, Administrative Assistant
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
PREPARED BY: ERIN WALTERS
Associate 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: 05/15/2019 ITEM NO: 4
DATE: MAY 9, 2019 TO: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE FROM: JOEL PAULSON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SUBJECT: PROJECT LOCATION: 33 WALNUT AVENUE. PROPERTY OWNER: JEFFREY SIEGEL. APPLICANT: DAVID V. HERNANDEZ, HERITAGE ARCHITECTURE. REQUESTING PRELIMINARY REVIEW ON PROPOSED EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS TO A PRE-1941 PROPERTY ZONED R-1:8. APN 510-41-007.
RECOMMENDATION:
Review the proposal and provide comments on the proposed exterior alterations.
BACKGROUND:
A.Property Details
1.Date primary structure was built: 1890
2.Town of Los Gatos Preliminary Historic Status Code: I – Historic and Intact
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? No
7.Considerations required? No
B.Comments
Previous Review
On August 22, 2018 the Historic Preservation Committee reviewed and approved
modifications to the front porch as described below:
PAGE 2 OF 4 SUBJECT: 33 WALNUT AVENUE MAY 9, 2019
N:\DEV\HISTORIC PRESERVATION\HPC Sheets\2019\Walnut33 -05-15-19.docx
BACKGROUND (continued):
1.Raising the roof of the covered porch from six feet 10-inches to nine feet tall to
accommodate the existing eight-foot, four-inch front windows and provide visibility
from the house and light into the house.
2.Modify the existing six-inch by six-inch decorative wood columns and guard rail with
a square wood column design and a code compliant guard rail with a modified
decorative pattern.
Second Story- Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
The development plans show a second story addition to the existing two-story house.
The proposed second story addition is associated with an approved Accessory Dwelling
Unit (ADU). New State regulations and the recent adoption of amendments to the
Town’s ADU Ordinance allow second story ADUs to be constructed on an existing two-
story residence with a ministerial review through an ADU permit.
Current Proposal
The applicant proposes the following first story and second story exterior modifications
to the structure:
1.First Floor
a.Replace the existing front door with a new beveled glass front door (east
elevation);
b.Add a transom window above front door (east elevation);
c. Replace one double hung window with three taller double hung bedroom
windows (south elevation);
d.Add a single double hung window to the master bathroom (south elevation);
e.Replace two double hung master bedroom windows with two taller double
hung windows (south elevation);
f.Replace master bathroom and bedroom double hung windows with taller
double hung windows (south elevation);
g.Add a transom window above the existing master bedroom french doors
(west elevation); and
h.Add new French living room doors (north elevation).
2.Second Story Rear (non- ADU living area)
a.Add a second story covered patio (north elevation);
b.Add french doors to proposed covered patio (north elevation);
c.Add one double hung bathroom window (south elevation); and
d.Enlarge a portion of the south elevation to accommodate an expanded closet
(south elevation).
PAGE 3 OF 4 SUBJECT: 33 WALNUT AVENUE MAY 9, 2019
N:\DEV\HISTORIC PRESERVATION\HPC Sheets\2019\Walnut33 -05-15-19.docx
BACKGROUND (continued):
The applicant has provided a scope of work and a letter of justification in Attachment 1.
The applicant’s proposed scope of work includes a proposed new carport along
Wissahickon Avenue (Attachment 1). The Historic Preservation Committee does not
review accessory structures and staff has not yet reviewed the proposed carport to
determine if the proposed location, height, or size meet the Town’s Zoning Code.
Building permits are required for the proposed modifications. Per the applicant the
proposed project does not result in a technical demolition. Committee comments are
requested to ensure the compatibility of the proposed modifications with the original
structure and the surrounding area.
The applicant’s request, the Bloomfield Survey, existing photos, and the proposed
development plans are attached.
DISCUSSION:
A.Considerations
For pre-1941 structures, the proposed work will neither adversely affect the exterior
architectural characteristics or other features of the property which is the subject of the
application.
CONCLUSION:
The proposal is being referred to the Committee for its input and recommendation on whether
the proposed alterations are compatible with the original structure and the surrounding
neighborhood.
Should the HPC find merit in the request, the proposal could be approved by the Community
Development Director and processed with a Building Permit, and the project would not return
to the HPC.
Attachments:
1.Scope of Work/Letter of Justification
2.Bloomfield Survey
3. Photos of Existing Porch
4.Development Plans
N:\DEV\HISTORIC PRESERVATION\HPC Sheets\2019\Walnut33 -05-15-19.docx
PAGE 4 OF 4 SUBJECT: 33 WALNUT AVENUE MAY 9, 2019
Distribution:
Cc: Jeffrey Siegel, 33 Walnut Avenue, Los Gatos, CA 95030
David V. Hernandez, Architect, Heritage Architecture, P.O. Box 8033, San Jose, CA 95155
ATTACHMENT 1
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ATTACHMENT 3
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ATTACHMENT 4
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ATTACHMENT 5
ATTACHMENT 6
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Property: 33 Walnut Avenue
Subject: Request to Remove a Presumptive Historic Property (Pre-1941) from the Historic Inventory
Enclosed:
1)Historical accounting of changes made to the property since built
2)Diagrams showing what has already been permitted
3)Photos of what has already been built under the HPC approved permitting
4)Justification for removal of a pre-1941 property from the historic inventory
Resources consulted:
-Anne Bloomfield Survey
-Oral history account from long-established neighbor
-Prior permitted plans filed by Oveyssi detailing changes
-Prior HPC review documents
-Built environment - Historical artifacts remaining of the original roofing frame in attic
History of Property Since Built:
Unlike other lots in the neighborhood, 33 Walnut fronts onto two streets - Walnut and Wissahickon. This
means that changes made to the rear of the Walnut-facing home are clearly visible from Wissahickon, and
vice versa. There is no way to ‘hide’ exterior structural changes from viewing by either of these two streets.
Early Era:
33 Walnut started off as a small, one-bedroom cottage, not unlike the small one-bedroom homes to its
neighboring immediate left and right, but since then has undergone successive waves of alterations and
expansions by multiple owners over time, leaving to today resembling little of its original design. It was
constructed around 1890 (exact date not definitively documented) in the Queen Anne style that was popular
at that time, serving as a summer home for its first residents, Don and Joan Glod. There is some reference to
a William and Maybelle Peed who appear to have purchased the cottage in the 1920’s, and changing it before
selling to the Montgomery family. This is likely when the fireplace was removed with the advent of
electricity brought to Los Gatos.
The property was later sold to Rutherford and Eunice Montgomery in 1948 where it became their primary
residence. Rutherford was an author of children’s books and raised his family here before passing away in
1985. During the time that the Montgomery family lived here, extensive modifications were made to both the
interior and exterior of the house to make it suitable to raise a growing family. On the exterior, the rear of the
house was enlarged by adding a glassed-in rear porch along with further expanding the footprint by adding a
room adjacent to the kitchen. Later, following his death in 1985, a second-story addition was built on top of
the enclosed rear porch with exterior staircase extending into the rear of the yard, not visible from Walnut
Avenue. This second story was significant in changing the roofline while adding mass, becoming the second
significant modification to a family residence that began as a small, single-story, Queen Anne styled cottage.
Oveyssi Era:
Following the death of Eunice Montgomery in July 2006, the house was sold to Michael Oveyssi who
devoted nearly two years on its third major modification further expanding the footprint and changing both
the interior and exterior of the house. His intent was to expand and modernize the house before flipping it,
but due to the 2008 housing market downturn, kept it as a rental property until selling it its current owner in
ATTACHMENT 7
2016. It was during that extensive rebuild by Oveyssi that the entire interior of the house was gutted, the
footprint further enlarged, and interior space reconfigured and restyled. This expansion included demolition
of the rear porch before newly constructing roughly 500sf onto the back of the house, plus expanding the
second-story living space. This second story expansion completely altered the roofline transforming it from
the small shed dormer into a three-gabled profile that added high interior ceilings and enlatrged living space.
This expansion also entailed first demolishing the rear facing exterior staircase built by the Montgomery
family and then building a new exterior staircase and landing onto the north-facing side of the house that
offers views into neighboring properties to the North. This dramatically transformed skyline is prominent
when viewed from Wissahickon and also from Walnut when approaching the house from either the South or
North. During this time period, all windows were replaced with modern, dual-pane windows including the
addition of arched windows that starkly deviated from the original Queen Anne cottage.
What originally began as a small one bedroom, one bath, approximately 889sf summer cottage has been
transformed into a two-story 2620sf sprawling five-bedroom, four-bath family residence. The once-small
summer cottage no longer remains. In addition, in 2008 Mr. Oveyssi demolished the historic tin-clad
structure facing Wissahickon, replacing it with a modern-day, ranch-style two-car garage transforming the
appearance of the property from that frontage street. The one area left untouched by all prior owners
throughout its life was the wraparound front porch. Unfortunately, after decades of neglect exacerbated by
damage inflicted by storms approaching from the east and southern exposures, the front porch was
structurally compromised. Rotted decking, failing structural beams and weakened foundation created an
unsafe condition. The stairs were replaced by 2x8 slats of rough lumber before the property was placed on
the market by Oveyssi in 2016. The residence was then sold to the current owner in October 2016 in this
compromised condition.
Present Era:
A once-upon-a-time, small, single-story Queen Anne cottage with small tin-clad horse shelter bears no
resemblance to the existing lot now housing dual, two-story residential structures. The brew of demolitions,
alterations, and additions over the past century was recently perpetuated with the complete demolition of the
badly deteriorated front porch. The newly constructed porch differs in size, depth, roofline height and
distinctive radius corner contributing to the improved structural integrity of the house. Concrete and steel
have replaced old wood support structure. The porch changes, as approved by the HPC in 2019, retains a
Queen Anne architectural style. But burdened with conforming to modern-day seismic and safety codes, it
nonetheless is an abandonment of the historic materials, original construction methods, and low-slung railing
design; that are among the tests for being designated historic. While the house already differed in every
respect (shape and size and height) from the south, west, and north elevation views, it now differs from the
east elevation view as well.
As part of that permitted renovation, engineering specified a structural reinforcement of the front (East
facing) house wall. This required removal of the siding to attach tie-downs to foundation four feet below and
to add vertical framing members to the thinly-built front wall frame. The town code disallows removing
more then 25% of the front wall of a historic house, and while the wall itself was structurally reinforced, not
removed (only the siding removed in order to reinforce the wall), the town staff interprets the language of the
code to mean excluding even the removing of the siding. This runs contrary to the interpretation by the
property owner, builder, and architect and resulted in the property owner being assessed a fine and the
property assessed as a technical demolition of the entire house.
Carriage House – living space above detached garage:
Most recently, beginning in 2021, and continuing into early 2022, the two-car, single-story ranch-style
garage, facing Wissahickon, has been transformed into a two-story structure that contains an 800SF
residence over a three-car garage. While growing the housing stock (ADU) for Los Gatos, and providing EV
charging for three electric vehicles, the tall structure dominates the skyline from both Wissahickon and from
the rear windows of the main residence. The newly-built structure is visible as well from Walnut Avenue
given its mass and towering height, amplified by its high topological position on the lot. The roofline sits
about thirty-seven feet above Walnut Avenue making it impossible to miss from any viewpoint. In summary,
little about the property at 33 Walnut, when viewed from either Walnut or Wissahickon looks anything like
the small summer cottage and accompanying tin-clad horse shelter that once stood.
Today’s Request of the HPC:
Today, the request is before the HPC to remove the extensively altered residence from the historic inventory.
It simply fails to meet the tests of being historically significant by state or local standards, and should
therefore be removed from the historic inventory. With decades of successive changes to both the residence
and the entire lot, nothing about the house actually meets the state or local tests for historical preservation.
The information provided below to the HPC clearly shows that the property does not meet the criteria of the
state or local policies and regulations for designating a historic property. The information describes in detail
that the property has not contributed to the cultural heritage of California, is not associated with an important
person of history, has lost if any existed, significantly distinctive architectural characteristics through many
alterations, demolitions and expansions, and does not yield important information for history.
Enclosed are diagrams, previously approved by HPC and permitted in 2021, that showed the pre-existing and
permitted changes to the main residence. The front porch work has been largely completed, with a new
concrete and steel foundation, flattened roof, and steel posts that provide structural integrity to both the porch
and front wall of the house. Remaining for completion is adding the new porch decking, railing, and skirting.
Changing Character of Walnut Avenue:
Unlike streets in the Los Gatos Historic Districts, Walnut Avenue is an eclectic and rural street (no sidewalk
improvements) sporting a mixture of architectural styles and ages, with the most recently built, in 2010,
home located two lots to the north in a faux-craftsman style ranch home. To the immediate south is a small,
single-story, single-bedroom Spanish-style house. Directly across the street at 32 Walnut Avenue is a 1900-
built house previously removed from the historic inventory and now scheduled for demolition, to be replaced
by a two-story residence of far greater mass and livable space. Walnut Avenue is not in a historic district.
The residence at 33 Walnut Avenue, in its original form, would have more closely resembled these
neighboring, small homes in size and scale.
Lot Layout Differs:
In addition, the layout of structures on the lot, which has an elongated shape of 50 feet wide and 160 feet
deep, has undergone significant change. Where once stood a tin-fabricated horse shelter facing onto
Wissahickon, not sits a two-story Carriage House with new residence sitting over a three-car garage. As a
result, the site bears little resemblance or feel to when the main residence was built on the lot.
In summary, the changed layout of structures on the lot, the building mass-to-lot ratio, and the changed size,
shape and mass of the original residence, together with the newly built, seismically sound front porch has
collectively transformed the lot and dual residences into property that bears little resemblance to what was
built around 1890. That cottage has disappeared under the successive waves of substantial changes made
over the decades leaving nothing that the state of California would consider historic.
California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR)2
The California Register of Historical Resources is “an authoritative listing and guide to be used by state and
local agencies, private groups and citizens in identifying the existing historical resources of the state and to
indicate which resources deserve to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse
change” (Public Resources Code Section 5024.1[a]). The criteria for eligibility to the California Register are
based on National Register criteria (Public Resources Code Section 5024.1[b]). Certain resources are
determined by the statute to be automatically included in the California Register, including California
properties formally determined eligible for or listed in the National Register. To be eligible for the
California Register as a historical resource, a prehistoric or historic-period resource must be significant at the
local or state level under one or more of the following criteria:
1) It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or
regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States;
The property at 33 Walnut Avenue, once a small, Queen Anne styled single-story cottage, is not associated
with events that contributed to the broad patterns of local or regional history, nor the cultural heritage of
California. Neither is it located in a historic district of town.
2) It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history;
The subject property has no known historic relevance related to people or events. Prior owners were not
prominent in the community nor in local, California, or national history.
3) It 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
The original, small summer cottage was designed in the Queen Anne style, accentuated most prominently by
its shallow depth porch with low-slung roof and dangerously low railing height as the porch sits six feet
above the surrounding grade. The cottage has evolved over the decades into a two-story residence that is
nearly twice the size of the original with different proportions, massing, roofline, and a character-defining
wraparound front porch that while built in the Queen Anne style appearance-wise, bears no historic
relevance to the original porch due to state-mandated utilization of modern materials and construction
methods. Demolitions in front and back, additions in front, back, and second-story plus major remodeling
using modern materials makes the residence not distinctive of a historic type, period, region or method of
construction. It does not represent the work of a master or possess high artistic value.
4) It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the
local area, California, or the nation.
The site is not near or part of a historic site and has been graded for construction and landscaping. It is
unlikely to yield information important to the history or prehistory of the area. The building that stands today
is mostly recent construction and cannot yield important information from history.
Finding: The property at 33 Walnut Avenue does not meet the criteria to be listed in the California Register
of Historical Resources.
For a resource to be eligible for the California Register, it must also retain enough integrity to be
recognizable as a historical resource and to convey its significance.
Although the property at 33 Walnut Avenue is not found to be historically significant, a comparison to the
original design and fabrication reveals the building to have been substantially altered and does not meet the
criteria for retaining integrity.
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. The evaluation of integrity is something of a subjective judgment, but it must
always be grounded in an understanding of a property’s physical features and how they relate to its
significance. Historic properties either retain integrity (convey their significance) or they do not. Within the
concept of integrity, the National Register criteria recognizes seven aspects or qualities that, in various
combinations, define integrity. To retain historic integrity, a property will always possess several, and
usually most, of the aspects. The retention of specific aspects of integrity is paramount for a property to
convey its significance. Determining which of the aspects are most important to a particular property
requires knowing why, where, and when the property is significant.
The following defines the seven aspects and how they combine to produce integrity. A rule of thumb is to
consider whether the original owner would recognize the building and how it once functioned. There is no
question that the original owner would fail to recognize the small cottage that he built over a century ago.
SEVEN APSECTS OF INTEGRITY3
Location:
Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event
occurred. The relationship between the property and its location is often important to understanding why the
property was created or why something happened. The actual location of a historic property, complemented
by its setting, is particularly important in recapturing the sense of historic events and persons. Except in rare
cases, the relationship between a property and its historic associations is destroyed if the property is moved
or partly demolished.
The property is not located in a historic district.
Design:
Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. It
results from conscious decisions made during the original conception and planning of a property (or its
significant alteration) and applies to activities as diverse as community planning, engineering, architecture,
and landscape architecture. Design includes such elements as organization of space, proportion, scale,
technology, ornamentation, and materials. A property's design reflects historic functions and technologies as
well as aesthetics. It includes such considerations as the structural system; massing; arrangement of spaces;
pattern of fenestration; textures and colors of surface materials; type, amount, and style of ornamental
detailing; and arrangement and type of plantings in a designed landscape.
The present design in form, space, structure and style differs from what was originally built in 1890. When
viewed from all four elevations, the modifications don’t resemble a small, single-story cottage nor its
original style.
Setting:
Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. Whereas location refers to the specific place where
a property was built or an event occurred, setting refers to the character of the place in which the property
played its historical role. It involves how, not just where, the property is situated and its relationship to
surrounding features and open space. Setting often reflects the basic physical conditions under which a
property was built and the functions it was intended to serve. In addition, the way in which a property is
positioned in its environment can reflect the designer's concept of nature and aesthetic preferences. The
physical features that constitute the setting of a historic property can be either natural or manmade, including
such elements as:
- Topographic features (a gorge or the crest of a hill);
- Vegetation;
- Simple manmade features (paths or fences); and
- Relationships between buildings and other features or open space.
These features and their relationships should be examined not only within the exact boundaries of the
property, but also between the property and its surroundings. This is particularly important for districts.
Where once there was a small Queen Anne styled cottage and a tin-clad horse shelter on a wide-open lot
spanning two streets, today there are two residential structures co-existing on that lot eliminating any sense
of openness. Both structures are quite visible from Walnut Avenue and Wissahickon. These two, large
massed buildings are a complete departure from the small cottage first built on the lot. Due to vastly higher
topology of Wissahickon, the Carriage House looms large overshadowing the primary residence. When
viewed from Walnut, the Carriage House is quite visible with its rooftop towering some 37 feet above the
street grade of Walnut Avenue.
Materials:
Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in
a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. The choice and combination of materials
reveal the preferences of those who created the property and indicate the availability of particular types of
materials and technologies. Indigenous materials are often the focus of regional building traditions and
thereby help define an area's sense of time and place. A property must retain the key exterior materials dating
from the period of its historic significance. If the property has been rehabilitated, the historic materials and
significant features must have been preserved. The property must also be an actual historical resource, not a
re-creation; a recent structure fabricated to look historic is not eligible. Likewise, a property whose historic
features and materials have been lost and then reconstructed is usually not eligible.
While it would have been nice to have preserved the historic, original railing and lathed wooden posts on the
front porch, modern building codes imposed by the state and local authorities pre-empted that option.
Seismic and human safety factors trumped preservation of historical materials.
Workmanship:
Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period
in history or prehistory. It is the evidence of artisans' labor and skill in constructing or altering a building,
structure, object, or site. Workmanship can apply to the property as a whole or its individual components. It
can be expressed in vernacular methods of construction and plain finishes or in highly sophisticated
configurations and ornamental detailing. It can be based on common traditions or innovative period
techniques. Workmanship is important because it can furnish evidence of the technology of a craft, illustrate
the aesthetic principles of a historic or prehistoric period, and reveal individual, local, regional, or national
applications of both technological practices and aesthetic principles. Examples of workmanship in historic
buildings include tooling, carving, painting, graining, turning, and joinery.
The workmanship methods used to build the original front porch were dramatically different from modern
building methods that must take into account seismic and other factors. These factors that shape modern
building codes prevailed over reconstructing the porch based on original construction and design methods.
Likewise, most of the construction methods and materials used throughout the many structural changes to the
house differ from how homes were constructed in the late 1800’s.
Feeling:
Feeling is a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. It results
from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the property's historic character. For
example, a rural historic district retaining original design, materials, workmanship, and setting will relate the
feeling of agricultural life in the 19th century.
Due to changes in building mass, altered roofline, removal of historic elements including fireplace/chimney
(before electricity was added), original windows and doors, complete reconfiguration and remodel of interior
spaces, changed proportion of multiple physical structures to land, and the inability to reuse front porch
historic materials due to safety and structural factors, there is little feeling elicited of a historic period in
time. A five-bedroom, four-bath, two-story residence feels entirely different than a small cottage with open
land behind it.
Association:
Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. A
property retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to
convey that relationship to an observer. Like feeling, association requires the presence of physical features
that convey a property's historic character. Because feeling and association depend on individual perceptions,
their retention alone is never sufficient to support eligibility of a property for the National Register.
There is no known association of the property with any historic event or person. The aspect of association
cannot be applied because no event or person of importance is associated with the property.
CRHR SUMMARY:
The 1890-91 dated architecture, embodied in a small Queen Anne cottage, was remodeled and enlarged first
in the 1920’s by the Peed’s, then again in the 1940/50’s by the Montgomery’s, again in 2007/8 by Michael
Oveyssi, and finally again in 2021 by the present owner. Over this succession of changes, every aspect of the
house has changed. Given the sweeping breadth of these successive waves of changes over the decades, little
remains of any historic aspects of the original, small one-bedroom, one-bath cottage. The small neighboring
one-bedroom house to the right, at 41 Walnut is a good reference point to grasp what the original house
would have looked like, other than the front porch distinction.
The feeling of the lot as shaped by the views of the lot and beyond, from inside the residence, the proximity
to another large, two-story structure that looms large above the original residence, creates a feeling far
removed from a once-small cottage on a wide-open lot with unobstructed views of the surrounding
mountains when first built.
Transforming a single-story small cottage into a larger footprint, two-story house caused a loss of integrity.
After the 2007/8 remodeling and the additions to the original house, there was further loss of integrity. Of the
seven aspects of integrity, not even the aspect of location is present given how dramatically altered the layout
of structures on the lot is today. The design has changed, historic materials have been replaced with steel and
other contemporary, structurally rigid materials and using construction methods needed to meet today’s
stringent building codes, the original workmanship is lost. The setting has changed from a once open setting
to both Walnut and Wissahickon, to a setting of multiple buildings in close proximity where the once-cottage
mountain views now look out onto a two-story second building that sits ten feet higher on the lot due in part
to topology. The feeling of a small cottage has changed to one of a large massed, two-story house with
altered front façade, albeit seismically sound.
Findings: The property does not meet the criteria for significance or integrity, is not a significant historical
resource, and is not eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources.
Town of Los Gatos:
The following Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan goals and policies relating to archaeological and
historical resources are applicable to consider.
Goal OSP-9 To protect Los Gatos’s archaeological and cultural resources to maintain and enhance a unique
sense of place. Policy OSP-9.1 Evaluate archaeological and/or cultural resources early in the development
review process through consultation with interested parties and the use of contemporary professional
techniques in archaeology, ethnography, and architectural history.
The property was researched and then evaluated for cultural and architectural importance. Nothing of
substance was discovered.
Goal CD-12 To preserve significant historic and architectural features within the Town.
The research and evaluation show that the buildings on the property are not significant features in Los Gatos.
In the immediate area, several of the earlier houses have been reconstructed to larger buildings in different
architectural styles. These include homes on upper Pennsylvania Avenue, on Walnut Avenue, on
Wissahickon, and on Ellenwood. The property location is not within a historic district.
Division 3. Historic Preservation and LHP or Landmark and Historic Preservation Overlay Zone
Sec. 29.80.215. Purposes.
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.
The Town recognizes a historical resource as follows: any structure/site that is located within a historic
district, any structure/site that is historically designated, or any primary structure constructed prior to 1941
unless the Town has determined that the structure has no historic significance or architectural merit.
Finding: The Town has designated the historic districts of Almond Grove, Broadway, Los Gatos
Commercial, Fairview Plaza and University/Edelen. All the historic districts are located in the
historic core area of Los Gatos. The subject property is not in a designated historic district. The main house
has been extensively altered and enlarged, and does not exhibit special character; or special historical,
architectural, or aesthetic interest; or value to the built environment of Los Gatos. The Carriage House
building, landscaping, and second story expansion has been constructed since 2006 and are not contributing
to nor preserving any historic value.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
In the historical resource section of CEQA, the concern is directed toward any project that may create an
adverse change to any historical resource. CEQA Guidelines Appendix G indicates that a project may have a
significant effect on the environment if it would:
1. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in section
15064.5;
2. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
section 15064.5;
3. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature;
4. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries; or
5. Conflict with a plan or policy adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect.
A “substantial adverse change” to a historical resource is defined in Guidelines Section 15064.5(b) as
“physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such
that the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired.” The significance of a historical
resource is materially impaired when a project “demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those
physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its
inclusion in, or eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources;” or “demolishes or
materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local
register of historical resources...” or “demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical
characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for
inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources as determined by a lead agency for purposes of
CEQA.”
CEQA (Guidelines Section 15064.5), define the term “historical resources” to include the following:
1. A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing
in the California Register (Public Resources Code §5024.1, Title 14 California Code of Regulations, Section
4850 et seq.).
2. A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section 5020.1(k) of the Public
Resources Code or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of
Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally
significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence
demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant.
3. Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to
be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural,
educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California, may be considered to be a historical
resource, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole
record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the
resource meets the criteria for listing in the California Register (Public Resources Code Section 5024.1,
Title14 California Code of Regulations, Section 4852)
CEQA Finding: The research and evaluation of the primary residence and Carriage House at 33 Walnut
Avenue conclude that the property and buildings do not meet the criteria of the California Register of
Historical Resources or the criteria of the Town of Los Gatos for designating a historical resource. For
purposes of CEQA, the subject property is not a “Historical Resource” under the CEQA Guidelines.
Reference Materials:
1. Drawings: The following drawings shows precisely where the 1891-built cottage footprint was,
based on the original roof-frame artifact that remains beneath the actual functioning rooftop. It clearly
shows that the original footprint of the house was 889 sf of living space before the Peed and
Montgomery families made their alterations which included removing the fireplace and building an
additional room (behind the kitchen) onto the rear of the house. That added room extended the rear of
the house back about fourteen feet before being further extended in 2007 by Oveyssi.
2. This photo shows the roof frame artifact remaining in the attic indicating precisely where the rear of
the original house ended. This is hard evidence of the original structure not otherwise found in town
records.
The following photos show some of the exterior changes that have been made over the course of several
decades. Earlier changes such as the addition of a glassed-in rear porch and first version of the second story
addition are not shown, but are available to see in older photos provided by town staff.
3. View of newly constructed front porch from Walnut Avenue:
While true to the Queen Anne style front porch architecture, the improvements in depth, height, and shape,
together with the yet to be built new railing leaves no trace of the historic materials or construction methods..
4. View from Walnut Avenue of Carriage House:
This photo shows both the 2007 built exterior staircase and the newly built carriage house structures,
both visible from Walnut Avenue.
5. East-facing View of 2021/22-built Carriage House from Rear of Main Residence:
No longer is there any view looking out onto Wissahickon from the original house.
6. Northwest view of gabled 2nd-story of 33 Walnut plus 2021/22-built Carriage House:
Visibility from Wissahickon the Walnut facing house clearly reveals an entirely different residence than the
single-story house originally built with a wide-open view lot.
7. Northern Elevation View of 2007 massively altered second-story of 33 Walnut:
Clearly no longer a small 889 sf cottage.
8. Southwestern Elevation (from Wissahickon) view of three-gabled second-story addition:
9. Southern View of the First/Second-story 2007 Additions with High Extended Roofline:
The second-story roofline dominates the view from the neighboring lot on the southern elevation.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
EXHIBIT 6
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Letter to Los Gatos Planning Commission on Evaluating Historic Significance
(Please read in its entirety before the five-minute presentation by the property owner)
The property at 33 Walnut Avenue came before the Historic Preservation Committee on
2/18/2022 with the requested action that the property be removed from the historic inventory
based on extensive research that conclusively demonstrates a complete loss of historic integrity
resulting from multiple waves of major alterations over fifty years and several property owners.
That research contained an in-depth presentation of the facts and analysis, as required by
historic preservationists at the California state and U.S. national levels. In reaching their
conclusion, these historic preservationist professionals thoughtfully applied the decision
criteria, as defined by the U.S. Department of the Interior, and adopted by the California Office
of Historic Preservation. These same criteria are noted in the materials provided to the HPC by
Los Gatos Director of Planning Joel Paulson.
In fact, the town officially refers to 33 Walnut as a ‘presumably’ historic property simply
because of its age. Until the historic preservation criteria are carefully applied, no real
conclusions of historic significance can be drawn.
In other words, as historic preservationists know, age by itself is not a determinant of historic
significance. It’s a low water mark. That’s why formal criteria are used to make a fact-based
determination of historic significance. Being on the Los Gatos historic inventory, simply means
the house was built before 1941, nothing more. It doesn’t reflect the historic merits of the
property, hence the process we’re now undertaking, to decide whether or not there is
sufficient merit, for the property to be considered a key contributor to the town’s history. How
do we do that? By applying the following criteria:
Those FIVE criteria, as adopted in the Los Gatos town code, includes:
1. The structure is not associated with events that have made a significant contribution
to the Town; ITS NOT.
2. No Significant persons are associated with the site; NONE ARE.
3. There are no distinctive characteristics of type, period or method of construction or
representation of work of a master; NONE REMAINS.
4. The structure does not yield information to Town history; IT DOES NOT. Or
5. The integrity has been compromised such that the structure no longer has the
potential to convey significance. NO HISTORIC INTEGRITY REMAINS AFTER MULTIPLE,
MASSIVE ALTERATIONS MADE OVER A SIXTY YEARS PERIOD.
This is the criteria that the Planning Commission is being directed today to consider in
rendering its ruling on whether 33 Walnut is, in its present condition, a property of real historic
EXHIBIT 7
significance to the town of Los Gatos. Or whether, like other residences recently removed, such
as 253 W. Main Street (Wasserman property) and 62 Ellenwood (Swenson property), that “the
structure is not historically or architecturally significant, with the required findings, including
that the integrity has been compromised through alterations over time.”
In fact, the in-depth analysis IN THE REPORT provided by the homeowner to the Planning
Commission reveals that 33 Walnut has been far more altered than either of these two recently
removed properties. This truth explains why historic preservationists at the state and national
levels have concluded that 33 Walnut today lacks historic integrity nor qualifies for inclusion on
their historic registries. Had the HPC carefully applied the five criteria to the facts contained in
the homeowner provided report, a similar conclusion would certainly have been reached.
Traditionally, the HPC has expended thirty-sixty minutes of in-depth review and discussion
together with the homeowner before reaching a fact-based conclusion. This in-depth discussion
with the homeowner never occurred nor was their explicitly any discussion of the criteria and
material facts.
So, from a process standpoint, how did we get to this point, in front of you today?
At the 2/18/2022 HPC meeting there was a kick-off presentation by a neighbor, Susan Burnett,
residing within 400 feet of 33 Walnut, who presented an emotional appeal, lamenting about
the unfortunate removal of homes from the historic inventory, arguing against removal of this
property for sentimental reasons. To her, removal from the inventory equates to bulldozing the
property, which in our case couldn’t be further from the truth. So strong is her convictions
about preserving ALL old homes in the neighborhood, regardless of their historical relevance,
that she has presented proposals to prior town councils for incorporating the entire Glenridge
neighborhood as a sixth historic district, which it is not today.
At that HPC meeting, town staff also presented that the owner had removed the front siding of
the house which they stated ran counter to the town’s historic rules. According to staff, the
rules limit removal of front-facing siding to 25%. What staff failed to mention, was the siding
removal was necessary in order to undertake the town-approved structural front wall
reinforcements, dictated by structural engineering, in order to support the permitted
renovation work. Nor was it mentioned that under appeal of that town staff decision, that two
of the four non-recused town council members voted in agreement with the homeowner that
the rule language was ambiguous and contradictory. Had the fifth council member, council
member Hudes, not recused himself, the council would have overwhelmingly voted in favor of
the homeowner given such ambiguity.
The pandemic-induced five-minute presentation rule short changes the very conversation
needed to arrive at a thoughtful, well considered decision following a careful review of all the
facts. Consequently, the HPC’s rejection decision was in part, based on presumptions not facts,
such as what one HPC member noted as “if the property was eligible for removal from the
historic inventory, why didn’t the HPC a year earlier make that decision?” The inference is that
surely the prior HPC review would have ruled in favor of removal if it was deemed worthy.
Alternately, they could (but didn’t) have asked “Why did the prior HPC approve demolition of
the most notable character-defining feature, the wraparound front porch, and replacement
with a different porch design, if they thought the property of truly historic significance?”
Again, the facts:
First fact – there was never a removal request made of the prior HPC meeting.
Second fact - that observation is itself irrelevant, ignoring the direction of Planning Director Joel
Paulson calling for applying the historic preservation criteria as noted in the town code.
Had that time-limited discussion been replaced with what had been a long-held tradition and
practice of HPC in-depth reviews, the following facts would have surfaced for discussion:
1) Wildfire Safety was the Impetus for the removal request: The reason for the
homeowner requesting the removal of the property from the historic inventory
originated over concern about wildfires given the fact that the historic preservation
code disallows the replacement of old siding, even in high fire-risk situations in the
wildland urban interface. The historic preservation code has not been updated to reflect
the changing climate conditions nor acknowledges the existence of the WUI and the
threat of wildfires to historic homes. The neighboring property at 25 Walnut has
landscape plantings considered to be of the highest fire danger (Cyprus trees, known to
firefighters as Roman Candles) that sit all along the southern boundary of the property,
a mere 23 inches away from the main house. These trees are being outlawed in Marin
under the strong recommendation of Marin County Fire Authorities where wildfire
safety is taken most seriously. The dangerously close proximity to the neighboring highly
flammable trees creates an extreme danger situation to human life and property, and
sadly there is no Los Gatos town code to prevent that from happening. By removing the
property from the historic inventory, it would allow for replacing of old, highly
flammable siding with fire-hardened materials mandated for new construction use in
the WUI. This never came up during the HPC meeting because no questions were asked
by the HPC members of this condition though it was documented in the homeowners
report.
2) Historic Preservationists at the top state and national historic agencies have
concluded 33 Walnut has undeniably lost its historic integrity: The California state
Office of Historic Preservation in Sacramento, and the U.S. Department of the Interior in
Washington DC, in their assessment, reviewed the facts presented here (in far more
detail) and concluded that 33 Walnut would not meet their qualifications for adding the
property to the state or national historic registers. The reasons given were 1) no historic
persons or events are associated with the property, 2) not located in a historic district,
but most importantly, 3) “there is little historic integrity remaining following the
magnitude of the numerous alterations made to the property over time. The integrity-
killing alterations of front porch demolition, plus the changes in scale, mass, materials,
and modified style makes this a clear-cut conclusion”, they stated.
The in-depth reasoning for arriving at this conclusion was documented in a homeowner
prepared report to the HPC but no consideration or discussion of these facts occurred
during the abbreviated HPC review. That is wholly inconsistent with the HPC review
meetings of the past decades, a major departure from long established precedent.
3) Consistency with Prior HPC Rulings point to removal from the historic inventory:
Removal of the property from the historic inventory would be consistent with prior
rulings by the HPC. For example, the property at 253 W. Main Street (Mike Wasserman’s
property) was removed from the historic inventory on February, 2020 (before pandemic
meeting rules) because as noted by that HPC group, “the structure is not historically or
architecturally significant, with the required findings, including that the integrity has
been compromised through alterations over time.” To be clear, that property was far
less altered than 33 Walnut, and it resides in a historic district which sets the bar for
removal much higher than the non-historic neighborhood of Glenridge.
Another example is 62 Ellenwood, also removed in 2020 (pre-pandemic), where the
historic structure was fully intact with only minor modification. In sharp contrast to
these now removed properties - little remains of the original, one story, one-bedroom,
small summer cottage at 33 Walnut plus the most character-defining feature of all, the
wraparound front porch that was deteriorated beyond repair has since been replaced
with a different design, size, height, and shape, different materials, and different
building methods as required by structural engineering due to seismic and safety factors
built into modern building code. The once-small, charming summer cottage was long-
ago transformed into a sprawling multi-story, five-bedroom, four-bathroom residence
that is 300% larger with entirely different proportions. According to state and national
historic preservationists, “loss of historic integrity is 100%”. No wonder they rejected
the request of adding this property to their historic registries.
4) The Low Bar of being on the Historic Inventory: It’s important to understand, that many
properties were included on the historic inventory, when first created in the 1960’s, not
because they necessarily deserved to be on it, but because of their ‘origin birth date’
being pre-1941. That is indeed a very low bar by historic preservation standards.
Applying the criteria set forth by the State of California, and later adopted in the Los
Gatos town code, sets a far higher bar that seeks to get to the real question – is the
property of historic significance to the history of the town or state or country, by
virtue of associated events or people, or exceptional examples of a specific
architecture? When properties come before the HPC, and the facts are given serious
consideration in light of these questions, only then can a justifiable conclusion be
rendered after proper analysis. In other words, removing properties from the historic
inventory is NOT a loss to the town if the property doesn’t have historic significance.
5) A Historic Preservation litmus test: Is whether a person who was familiar with the
property before it was modified would recognize it in its present state. While we cannot
ask that question of the original owners, now deceased, the question was posed to
Phyllis Seaborn, who lived on Walnut Avenue back in 1961, and whose house next door
still stands in its near-original condition. She recalls clearly the inhabitants (the
Rutherford family) and the residence, before it underwent its biggest changes with the
Rutherford’s adding a second story in 1985 with the following homeowner, the Oveyssi
family adding square footage to the first floor and expanding the second story. That
expansion changed everything - adding mass and altering the roofline visible from all
four sides. And finally, the demolition of the disintegrated front porch by the current
homeowner. In Phyllis’s words, “33 Walnut looks nothing like it did when I first saw it
back in 1961. I certainly don’t see a small summer cottage anymore.” These
observations validate the professional verdict from historic preservationists, and aren’t
surprising given the scale of alterations made over a long period of time.
The Question before the Planning Commission today:
In summary, the question before the Planning Commission today is ‘what facts, analysis and
justification would lead you to conclude that there IS significant historic integrity remaining’
when historic preservationists working for the California State Office of Historic Preservation
(Jay Correia) and the U.S. Department of the Interior (Anne Grimmer) both concluded
otherwise?
When nothing of the character-defining historic features remain, what justification would the
Planning Commission present to override historic preservationist expertise by the very
authorities responsible at the state and national levels for historic preservation?
This is the question before you today. If you do see, after reviewing all the facts, that 33 Walnut
possesses significant historic importance to the town of Los Gatos, for the official town record,
please state your justification for deeming it of such significance that you would override the
determination by historic preservationist trained professionals.
Criteria-based Assessment
for 33 Walnut
Assessment by Historic Preservationists, long-time
neighbors, and Architects conclude no historic integrity
What Historic Preservationists Say..
•Anne Grimmer, Historic Preservationist, author of US Dept of the
Interior Guidelines for Historic Preservation, Washington DC:
•“A careful review of 33 Walnut in Los Gatos yields no historic integrity upon which to
consider adding it to the national registry.”
•Jay Correia, Historic Preservationist, California Office of Historic
Preservation, Sacramento:
•“There is little historic integrity remaining following the magnitude of the alterations
made to 33 Walnut. The integrity-killing front porch demolition, plus the changes in scale,
mass, materials, and modified style makes this a clear-cut decision.”
What long-time neighbor’s recollection says..
•Phyllis Seaborn, next-door Neighbor since 1961:
•“33 Walnut looks nothing like it did when I first saw it back in 1961. I don’t
recognize this residence as ever being that small summer cottage.”
PRESUMPTIVE means Pre-1941
•A very low bar, not a historic determination, on the inventory list only
by default
•Age by itself is not a determinant of historic significance
•Establishing historic significance requires
•Identifying historic elements and associating it with historic people and
events determines its historic value!
•So what are the historic elements for 33 Walnut? Where is there any
historic integrity remaining of a small summer cottage?
Massive Alterations to 33 Walnut
•Undertaken by four homeowners over six decades
•Major alterations made by the Rutherford’s and Oveyssi’s changing
materials, size, shape, massing, proportions, materials, style
•Last alteration replaced disintegrated front porch, approved by HPC,
with newly-built porch with differing height, depth, shape, size
•If 33 Walnut deemed historically significant, this would not have been approved
•No summer cottage –100% loss of historic integrity
•Not roofing, flooring, sub-flooring, foundation, windows, doors, size, shape,
siding, rear or front porches, or style
•No character-defining features remain
33 Walnut Today
–2 story, 5 bedroom, mixed styles
5 Criteria for Establishing Historic Value
1. The structure is not associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the Town; ITS NOT.
2. No Significant persons are associated with the site; NONE ARE.
3. There are no distinctive characteristics of type, period or method of construction or representation of work of a master; NONE REMAINS.
4. The structure does not yield information to Town history; IT DOES NOT. Or
5. The integrity has been compromised such that the structure no longer has the potential to convey significance. -NO HISTORIC INTEGRITY REMAINS AFTER MASSIVE ALTERATIONSMADE OVER A 60 YEAR PERIOD. VERIFIED BY PRESERVATIONISTS.
Consistency with prior HPC decisions
-Removed in 2020 from Historic Inventory
253 W. Main St. (Wasserman Residence)62 Ellenwood (Swenson Residence)
“the structure is not historically or architecturally significant, with the required findings,
including that the integrity has been compromised through alterations over time.”
Key Questions for Planning Commission
•What criteria-based data is there that would justify your deeming 33
Walnut a property of ‘great historic significance’ to our town?
•Why would you override the professional assessment of historic
preservationists at the California Office of Historic Preservation and
the U.S. Dept of the Interior?
•Or ignore the recollection of neighbors familiar with the property long
ago who see no resemblance to the long-gone summer cottage?
“the structure is not historically or architecturally significant, with the required findings, including
that the integrity has been compromised through alterations over time.”