Agenda packet — Los Gatos City Council, January 17, 2023 (part 2 of 2)

TABLE 1: CHANGES IN TOTAL FUND BALANCE
*Negative fund balance due to authorized spending of anticipated revenues These figures will be updated for future reports once the FY 2017/18 pendent audit is co Fund Description
Prior Year
Carryforward
7/1/2022
Increase/
(Decrease)
Jul - Sep
Current
Revenue
Current
Expenditure
Transfer
In
Transfer
Out
Fund Balance
10/31/2022
General Fund
Committed Fund Balances:

Hillside Stability Reserve 1,000,000 - - - - - 1,000,000 Assigned Fund Balances:

Future Capital Replacement & Efficiency Project Reserve 3,509,000 - - - - - 3,509,000 Carryforwards Reserve 20,000 - - - - - 20,000
Facility Reserve 3,700,000 - - - - - 3,700,000
Unassigned Fund Balances:

Working Capital Reserve 1,000,000 - - - - - 1,000,000
Fiscal Stabilization Reserve 3,250,000 - - - - - 3,250,000 Compensated Absences Reserve 330,000 - - - - - 330,000
Other Unassigned Fund Balance Reserve (Pre YE distribution) 2,601,458 (3,928,371) 1,162,030 (1,551,359) - (1,716,242) * General Fund Total 15,410,458 (3,928,371) 1,162,030 (1,551,359) - - 11,092,758 Special Revenue
Landscape/Lighting Districts 977,231 (57,805) 847 (17,579) - - 902,694 ARPA Federal Grants 7,127,589 - - - - - 7,127,589
Special Revenue Fund Total 8,104,820 (57,805) 847 (17,579) - - 8,030,283 Debt Service
Library Bond 805,311 (710,933) 2,754 - - - 97,132
Arrowhead Bond 124,402 (69,541) - (767) - - 54,094
Debt Service Fund Total 929,714 (780,474) 2,754 (767) - - 151,226 Internal Service Fund
Liability/Risk Management 641,403 (588,061) - (11,324) - - 42,018 Workers Compensation 232,829 (226) 1,535 (55,007) - - 179,130 Office Support Fund 155,443 4,072 615 (1,473) - - 158,658 Information Technology Services 661,159 (6,254) 797 (50,198) - - 605,505 Vehicle & Equipment Maintenance 278,317 17,846 - (23,027) - - 273,136 Building Maintenance 764,302 30,844 - (62,168) - - 732,977 Vehicle & Equipment Replacement 905,217 24,738 - - - - 929,954 Technology Replacement 798,337 37,263 - - - - 835,600
Facility FFE Replacement 941,400 46,334 - - - - 987,735 Internal Service Fund Total 5,378,407 (433,444) 2,947 (203,197) - - 4,744,713 Trust/Agency
WVCWP Agency Fund 558,655 197,263 - (47,148) - - 708,769 Trust/Agency Fund Total 558,655 197,263 - (47,148) - - 708,769 Capital Project
Street Projects 3,381,066 (432,231) 132,561 (86,642) - - 2,994,755 Park and Trail Projects 849,562 (1,824) - (16,720) - - 831,019 Facility Projects 623,475 (155,704) 5,029 (2,098) - - 470,702 Administrative Projects 1,429,921 (50,295) 5,226 (14,050) - - 1,370,802 Tree Fund Projects 52,541 - - - - - 52,541
Park In-Lieu Projects 1,172,555 30,098 - (62,663) - - 1,139,991 CIP Grant Street Projects (46,912) (2,131) - (12,228) - - (61,271) * CIP Grant Park & Trail Projects - 100,000 - (196,841) - - (96,841) * CIP Grant Administrative Projects (164,574) - - - - - (164,574) * CIP Grant ARPR/SLFRF Projects - (142,725) - (182,105) - - (324,830) * Gas Tax Fund Projects 247,731 258,409 127,538 (1,273,891) - - (640,213) * CIP Fund Total 7,545,366 (396,402) 270,354 (1,847,238) - - 5,572,079 Total City 37,927,419 (5,399,234) 1,438,931 (3,667,288) - - 30,299,828 1,782,5456

Page 196 ends

TABLE 2: FUND BALANCES BY CIP PROJECT
*Negative fund balance due to authorized spending of anticipated revenues budgeted be updated for future re
CIP Funds/Projects
Prior Year
Carryforward
7/1/2022
Increase/
(Decrease)
Jul - Sep
Current
Revenue
Current
Expenditure Transfer In Transfer Out
Fund Balance
10/31/2022
Street Projects
Annual Road Improvements 1,009,556 (137,971) 132,561 (37,196) - - 966,951 Roadway Safety & Traffic Calming 147,118 - - - - - 147,118 Citywide Traffic Signal Battery Backup 266,315 - - - - - 266,315 Portable Radar Feedback Sign 1,548 - - - - - 1,548
Local Roadway Safety Plan 3,410 (237) - (126) - - 3,047 Prospect/Saratoga Median Improvement 309,379 - - - - - 309,379 Village Clock 8,626 (6,066) - - - - 2,560
Big Basin Way/Blaney Trash Can Replacement 50,802 - - - - - 50,802 Annual Infrastructure Maintenance & Repairs 41,431 (13,705) - - - - 27,726 Guava Court Curb & Gutter Replacement 280,000 - - - - - 280,000 El Camino Grande Storm Drain Pump 104 - - - - - 104
Saratoga Village Crosswalk & Sidewalk Rehabilitation 49,055 (1,052) - - - - 48,004 Quito Road Sidewalk Improvements 43,370 - - - - - 43,370 Saratoga/Sunnyvale Road Sidewalk 92,158 - - - - - 92,158 Quito Road Sidewalk Rehabilitation and Gap Closure 182,609 - - - - - 182,609 Fourth Street Bridge Widening 99,837 - - (1,438) - - 98,399 Quito Road Bridge Replacement 132,197 - - (162) - - 132,035 Quito Road Bridge - ROW Acquisition 3,662 - - - - - 3,662 Annual Retaining Wall Maintenance & Repairs 222,450 3,209 - (333) - - 225,327 Mt. Eden Erosion Repair 59,622 (3,209) - - - - 56,412
Continental Circle Landslide Stabilization 57,447 - - - - - 57,447 Pierce Road Retainment 300,290 (273,200) - (47,389) - - (20,299) * Mt. Eden Emergency Landslide 20,080 - - - - - 20,080
Total Street Projects 3,381,066 (432,231) 132,561 (86,642) - - 2,994,755 Parks & Trails Projects
Park/Trail Repairs 32,873 - - - - - 32,873
Hakone Gardens Infrastructure Improvements 16,599 - - - - - 16,599 Hakone Pond Reconstruction 300,000 - - - - - 300,000
Beauchamps Park Playground Replacement 35,131 - - (11,418) - - 23,713 Guava/Fredericksburg Entrance 235,970 (1,824) - (5,302) - - 228,844 Saratoga Village to Quarry Park Walkway - Design 228,989 - - - - - 228,989 Total Parks & Trails Projects 849,562 (1,824) - (16,720) - - 831,019 Facility Projects
Open Work Space 80,000 - - - - - 80,000
Civic Theater Improvements - 4,458 5,029 - - - 9,486
PEG Funded Project 113,650 - - - - - 113,650
Community Center Improvement 24,513 (3,351) - - - - 21,162 Community Center Generator and EV Charging Stations 395,312 (156,811) - (2,098) - - 236,404 Library Building Exterior Maintenance 10,000 - - - - - 10,000 Total Facility Projects 623,475 (155,704) 5,029 (2,098) - - 470,702 Administrative and Technology Projects
Safe Routes to School - (1,245) - - - - (1,245) *
City Website/Intranet 16,948 - - - - - 16,948
Development Technology 20,538 552 13 (9,455) - - 11,648 Software Technology Management 118,695 20,916 5,213 - - - 144,824 LLD Initiation Match Program 25,000 - - - - - 25,000
Horseshoe Beautification 13,295 (290) - - - - 13,005
Business Renewal Program 6,643 - - (2,345) - - 4,298
Citywide Accessibility Assessment 28,066 - - - - - 28,066 City Art Program 53,669 - - - - - 53,669
Safe Routes to School Needs Assessment 15,748 - - - - - 15,748 El Quito Neighborhood Improvements 284,507 - - - - - 284,507 Parking District ADA Improvements and Rehabilitation 250,000 - - - - - 250,000 Storm Drain Master Plan 300,000 - - - - - 300,000
ADA Self Assessment - - - (2,250) - - (2,250) *
General Plan Update 238,592 (70,228) - - - - 168,364
Wildfire Mitigation Program 4,067 - - - - - 4,067
Risk Management Project Funding 54,153 - - - - - 54,153 Total Administrative and Technology Projects 1,429,921 (50,295) 5,226 (14,050) - - 1,370,802

Page 197 ends

TABLE 2 (cont.): FUND BALANCES BY CIP PROJECT
*Negative fund balance due to authorized spending of anticipated revenues CIP Funds/Projects
Prior Year
Carryforward
7/1/2022
Increase/
(Decrease)
Jul - Sep
Current
Revenue
Current
Expenditure Transfer In Transfer Out
Fund Balance
10/31/2022
Tree Fund Projects
Citywide Tree Planting Program 26,666 - - - - - 26,666
Tree Dedication Program 25,875 - - - - - 25,875
Total Tree Fund Projects 52,541 - - - - - 52,541
Park In-Lieu Projects
Orchard Irrigation & Tree Planting 10,947 - - - - - 10,947 Hakone Gardens Infrastructure 82,420 - - - - - 82,420
Trail Pet Stations 25,000 - - - - - 25,000
Saratoga Village to Quarry Park Walkway - Design 73,810 - - - - - 73,810 Unallocated Park In-Lieu Funds 970,299 31,343 - - - - 1,001,642 Total Park In-Lieu Projects 1,172,555 30,098 - (62,663) - - 1,139,991 CIP Grant Street Projects
Local Roadway Safety Plan (1,619) (2,131) - (1,132) - - (4,882) * Prospect/Saratoga Median Improvement (19,217) - - - - - (19,217) * Citywide Signal Upgrade II 18 - - - - - 18
Saratoga Ave Sidewalk (34,146) - - - - - (34,146) *
Village Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter - Phase II Construction (91) - - - - - (91) * Saratoga Village Crosswalk & Sidewalk Rehabilitation (834) - - - - - (834) * 4th Street Bridge - - - (11,096) - - (11,096) *
Quito Bridge Replacement 18,597 - - - - - 18,597
Quito Road Bridges - ROW Acquisition (9,619) - - - - - (9,619) * Total CIP Grant Street Projects (46,912) (2,131) - (12,228) - - (61,271) CIP Grant Park & Trail Projects
Beauchamps Park Playground - - - (196,841) - - (196,841) * Park and Trail Fire Mitigation - 100,000 - - - - 100,000 Total CIP Grant Park & Trail Projects - 100,000 - (196,841) - - (96,841) CIP Grant Administrative Projects
CDD Software/ADA (14,574) - - - - - (14,574) *
General Plan Update (LEAP) (150,000) - - - - - (150,000) * Total CIP Grant Administrative Projects (164,574) - - - - - (164,574) CIP Grant ARPA/SLFRF Projects
Storm Water Master Plan - (88,055) - (139,398) - - (227,453) * Saratoga Village Water Improvement - (54,670) - (42,707) - - (97,377) * Total CIP Grant ARPA/SLFRF Projects - (142,725) - (182,105) - - (324,830) Gas Tax Fund Projects
Annual Roadway Improvements 194,170 258,409 127,538 (1,273,891) - - (693,774) * Prospect/Saratoga Median Improvements 48,278 - - - - - 48,278 Big Basin Way Sidewalk Repairs (1,802) - - - - - (1,802) * Quito Road Bridges 7,085 - - - - - 7,085
Total Gas Tax Fund Projects 247,731 258,409 127,538 (1,273,891) - - (640,213) Total CIP Funds 7,545,366 (396,402) 270,354 (1,847,238) - - 5,572,079

Page 198 ends

Town of Los Gatos
Portfolio Allocation & Treasurer's Fund Balances
November 30, 2022
Month YTD
Fund Balances - Beginning of Month/Period $62,569,239.63 $72,886,942.83 Receipts 5,801,425.93 20,163,060.09
Disbursements (3,096,678.62) (27,776,015.98)
Fund Balances - End of Month/Period $65,273,986.94 $65,273,986.94 Portfolio Allocation: % of Portfolio Max. % 0r $ Allowed Per State Law or Policy BNY MM $79,480.09 0.15% 20% of Town Portfolio
US Treasury Notes $10,037,973.70 18.65% No Max. on US Treasuries Government Agency Debenture Notes $23,416,349.00 43.52% No Max. on Non-Mortgage Backed Corporate Medium Term Bonds $13,336,173.01 24.78% 30% of Town Portfolio Local Agency Investment Fund $6,941,939.56 12.90% $75 M per State Law Subtotal - Investments 53,811,915.36 100.00%
Reconciled Demand Deposit Balances 11,462,071.58
Total Treasurer's Fund $65,273,986.94
BNY MM

0.15% US Treasury Notes

18.65%
Government Agency Debenture Notes

43.52%
Corporate Medium Term Bonds

24.8%
Local Agency Investment Fund

12.9%
Portfolio Investment Allocation
0 10000000
20000000
30000000
40000000
50000000
60000000
70000000
80000000
90000000
Nov-21 Dec-21 Jan-22 Feb-22 Mar-22 Apr-22 May-22 Jun-22 Jul-22 Aug-22 Sep-22 Oct-22 Nov-22 Treasurer's Fund Balances
page 2 Page 199 Page 99
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Page 200 ends

From: Phil Koen
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023 10:04:43 AM
To: Mary Badame <[email protected]>
Subject: Agenda Item #14 - recommendations

EXTERNAL SENDER
Dear Vice Mayor Badame,

I am writing to you in my capacity as your citizen appointee to the Finance Commission. I am also the newly elected Vice Chair of the Finance Commission.

As a member of the Finance Commission, I am tasked with providing advice to assist the Town Council in making financial decisions and establishing the Town’s fiscal policies and priorities. I am writing to you to provide my advice and guidance regarding Agenda Item #14 for the upcoming Town Council meeting.

This item is requesting the Town Council to a) review and approve the Town’s response to the 2022 Civil Grand Jury Report and b) review and approve changes to the Town’s Operating Portfolio Investment Policy.

Since the Finance Commission was not consulted in the preparation of the Staff’s memo for agenda item 14, the Commission was unaware of the memo’s content. Furthermore, since no Finance Commission meeting was scheduled after the Staff memo was published and prior to the Town Council meeting, the only opportunity for a member of the Finance Commission to provide advice is through direct communication with the Council Member who appointed the citizen. Hence, the reason I am writing to you today.

Please be advised of the following:

Concern #1: Town’s Response to the 2022 Civil Grand Jury report entitled “Show me the Money:

Financial Transparency Needed”

The Town’s response is listed as attachment #3 to agenda item #14. The summary statement in the cover letter to Judge McGowen which states, “In summary, the Town agrees and already implemented the recommendation of monthly reporting,” is general enough to appear to be an acceptable response.

A major problem however exists with the “Findings.” The issue is: what financial data is included in the report entitled “Portfolio Allocation and Treasurer’s Fund Balances” and does the financial data fully comply with the required reporting under State Government Codes Sections 53607, 53646(b) and 41004? I have attached the first page of the November report which was included in the Town Council agenda packet. I will be referring to the area boxed in red.

The first line of the report shows, “fund balances – beginning of month/period.” The amount $72,886,942 supposedly represents the closing fund balances for FY 2022, which also represents the opening balance for FY 2023. However, this amount is NOT the total fund balances for the Town. As of the end of FY 2022 the Town’s total fund balances combined was $59,102,420, which represents the combined fund balances of all governmental funds ($50,862,138) and all proprietary funds ($8,240,282).

These numbers were taken from the just-published FY 2022 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR).

The amount that is reported as “fund balances” appears instead to be the total amount of cash and investments held by the Town. The difference between the two numbers represents the total liabilities

Page 201 ends

of the Town. Fund balance should represent the actual net funding available for all funds at the end of the reporting period and is computed by taking a fund’s total assets (including cash and investments) less all liabilities. That is how a fund balance is calculated. There is no doubt that the “fund balance” as reported in the “Portfolio Allocation and Treasurer’s Report Fund Balances” is not fund balance but rather the total amount of the investment portfolio. The two are not the same.

The Grand Jury report only focused on government code Section 41004 which specifically states, “at least once each month, the city treasurer shall submit to the city clerk a written report and accounting of all receipts, disbursements, and fund balances.” There are other government codes, namely sections 53607 and 53646(b) that require monthly reporting on an investment portfolio, including but not limited to market value information, cost basis of investment, interest rates, weighted average maturity, etc.

Apart from the area boxed in red, the Town’s report addresses the reporting requirements for an investment portfolio as mandated by sections 53607 and 53646(b). To be clear, the Town’s report does not provide the specific information required by section 41004.

Based on a reading of the footnotes of the Grand Jury report, the Town provided a copy of the report, “Portfolio Allocation and Treasurer’s Fund Balances,” to the Grand Jury. Without having specific knowledge of the source of the numbers being reported, it is only logical that the Grand Jury assumed that the numbers reported as “fund balances” would be the actual fund balances. Any casual reader of the report would naturally assume the same. We now know this is not correct.

Now that we have a correct understanding of what is reported, asserting that the finding, “Los Gatos produced reports that contain the required content... ...as required by California Government Code Section 41004,” would be incorrect and inappropriate. I recommend that the Town fully comply with section 41004 and produce the required fund balance information. Furthermore, the Town should disclose to the Grand Jury that the Treasurer’s Report does not include fund balances, but rather a total of the investment portfolio. The Grand Jury likely would appreciate this additional disclosure and full transparency.

The Grand Jury Report pointed to the City of Saratoga’s “Changes in Total Fund Balance” as an excellent example of a treasurer’s report “fully compliant with section 41004.” I have attached Saratoga’s Treasurer’s Report for the month of October 2022 which contains Table 1 referenced by the Grand Jury.

Please note that Saratoga’s report specifically references that the report complies with section 41004 and is accomplished through Table 1 and Table 2. Table 1 and 2 provide an accounting for all receipts, disbursements, and fund balances for all funds, including CIP funds. To even the most casual observer, it is obvious that Saratoga’s reporting is extensive and fully transparent of the net change in fund balances.

It is my recommendation that the Town produce the equivalent of Table 1 and Table 2, which would bring it into compliance with section 41004 while greatly improving financial transparency.

Concern #2: Staff’s Report Discussion – “Finance Commission reviewed the proposed changes provided by staff and suggested one additional change to clarify that the monthly report will comply with Government Code Section 41004”

At the January 10, 2023 meeting of the Finance Commission, a discussion commenced concerning the redline changes to the Town’s Investment Policy within a few minutes of a “hard stop” 5 pm deadline that had been previously established. I was in the process of making several suggestions of additional changes that should be made to the Investment Policy including but not limited to clarifying the specific Government Codes that apply to investing, managing, and reporting of the Town’s investment portfolio,

Page 202 ends

such as sections 53607 and 53646 (b), and the reporting required to conform to section 41004. In the middle of the discussion, the meeting was terminated. It is inaccurate to suggest that the Commission had completed its review work and that there was only one additional suggested change to the Investment Policy. In fact, there are many changes that should be made.

Furthermore, there was no vote taken by the Commission to approve the redline version that is now before the Town Council. To have the Council “approve” this version of the Investment Policy prior to the Finance Commission completing its work would appear to be ignoring the spirit of Measure A and the Commission’s advice process which previously had been established in making changes to the Town’s financial policies.

My recommendation is to have the Town Council take no action on the Investment Policy at this meeting. Rather the Investment Policy should be sent back to the Finance Commission so the Commission can complete its work and present a revised Investment Policy to the Town Council later.

Concern #3: Staff’s Report Discussion – “Town Council approval of the staff and Commission recommendations will ensure the Town is in compliance with California Government Code Section 41004”

There are 2 separate issues here that need to be addressed. The first is the claim that the proposed redline changes to the Investment Policy are sufficient to “ensure” the Town is fully compliant with section 41004. To be clear, the redline changes only propose to increase the frequency of the reporting, moving from quarterly to monthly reporting. The changes do not address the adequacy of the financial data to be reported. This has been explained above and there is no need to cover this ground again.

The second issue is the implication that the Finance Commission took a formal vote and approved the redline version of the Investment Policy. This did not occur and can be verified by listening to the recording of the meeting.

In conclusion, for the Town to fully comply with section 41004 there are 2 steps that must be taken.

First, the Town must implement substantially the same monthly reporting that the City of Saratoga produces in Tables 1 and 2 of their Treasurer’s Report. These reports will provide the Town Council and the residents a level of transparency the Town has never had before, thus ensuring timely financial information is available to all. By reporting for all fund revenues, expenditures, transfers in and out and ending fund balance monthly, the Town Council, Finance Commission, and members of the public will experience the “financial transparency needed” as identified by the Grand Jury. If this level of reporting is not implemented, the Town will not be in compliance with Government Code section 41004. .

The second step is to revise the Investment Policy to, among other items, reflect all government code sections that apply and to make other clarifying revisions. The Finance Commission should be allowed to complete the work that it started. There is no reason for the Town Council to act on this redline version prior to the Commission completing its work.

Thank you for your consideration of these points. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Phil Koen

Page 203 ends

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Page 204 ends

From: Phil Koen
To: Gitta Ungvari
Cc: Arn Andrews; [email protected]
Subject: Follow up to Investment Report discussed at the FC meeting Date: Friday, January 13, 2023 3:09:13 PM
Attachments: Pages from FY-202122-ACFR - (5).pdf
July investment report.pdf

EXTERNAL SENDER
Hello Gitta,
It was great to see you on the FC meeting call this past Tuesday. I appreciate your patience in answering my questions. There is a lot to absorb, and I only learn by asking questions. I’ll try to keep them to a minimum going forward.

I would like to circle back to the investment report. I have attached a page from the July Investment Report which shows a “beginning funds balances” totaling $72,886,942. I have also attached a portion of footnote #2 from the ACFR which shows the total cash and investments held by the Town and Fiduciary Funds totaling $74,096,537. Can you explain the source of the $72,886,942 shown on the Investment Report?
Also, could you clarify the description “Fund Balances” on the investment report. What does that exactly mean? As far as I can tell this is not the total of all fund balances for the Town. According to the ACFR, the total fund balance for all Governmental Funds was $50,862,138 and the fund balance for all Proprietary Funds was $8,240,282. That would mean the total fund balances for the Town was $59,102,420, leaving an unexplained gap of $13,784,522.

I think it is important that we use terminology which is accurate to avoid any confusion for members of the TC and the public. My concern here is the term “funds balances” as used on the Investment report really means the total of all financial assets being invested. Could you please clarify what the term “funds balances” as used on the investment report means.

All the best,
Phil Koen

Page 205 ends

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Page 206 ends

From: Phil Koen
To: Arn Andrews
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Follow up to the FC meeting
Date: Thursday, January 12, 2023 4:59:37 PM

EXTERNAL SENDER
Hello Arn,
Just a quick follow up note regarding information requests from the FC meeting last Tuesday evening. Staff was going to provide the FC with the gross amount of the market-to-market adjustment that was netted in the “net” investment income of $(1,404,563).

Also, there were a couple of questions regarding the balance of the development deposits for General Plan Revenue ($698,302 in revenue was recognized) and the balance of the development deposits for the Below Market Housing Program ($1,200,000 in revenue was recognized). I am assuming that all these various development fee deposits are consolidated and reported in the $6.8m deposits on the General Fund balance sheet. Is my understanding correct? How many different deposit accounts are consolidated into the $6.8m? I had one last question which I forgot to ask last. On page 35 of the transactions report, under the private purpose trust fund column there is a $5,899,675 deduction. Could you provide some detail about this deduction?
Thank you.

Phil Koen

Page 207 ends

TOWN OF LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA

NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
JUNE 30, 2022

Page 74 ends

The following table summarizes the Towns policy related to maturities and concentration of investments:

Maximum
Maximum Portfolio
Investment Type Maturity Percentage
US Treasury Obligations 5 years None
US Agency Obligations 5 years None
Bankers Acceptances 180 days 30%
Commercial Paper 270 days 25%
Medium Term Notes 5 years 30%
Collateralized CD's 5 years 30%
CA LAIF NA $65 million
Money Market Funds NA 20%
The following is a summary of the Town’s Cash and Investments (stated at fair value) as of June 30, 2022:

Available Concentration Time to Weighted
for of Credit Input Mature Average
Operations Restricted Total Risk Rating Level (Years) Maturity US Treasury Securities $ 15,212,639 $ - $ 15,212,639 29.29% n/a 2 0-3 1.35 Government Agencies 15,995,919 - 15,995,919 30.79% n/a 2 0-4 1.52 Corporate Bonds 13,664,652 - 13,664,652 26.31% A3 2 0-3 1.33 Market Mutual Funds 253,599 - 253,599 0.49% Not Rated 2 n/a n/a LAIF 6,816,565 - 6,816,565 13.12% Not Rated n/a n/a n/a Total Investments 51,943,374 - 51,943,374 100.00%
Cash Deposits with Banks 19,349,009 2,094,363 21,443,372 Money Market Accounts 17,391 - 17,391
Pension Trust - 690,000 690,000
Cash on Hand at Town 2,400 - 2,400
Total Cash and Investments $ 71,312,174 $ 2,784,363 $ 74,096,537 Description
Cash and investments are classified in the financial statements as shown below, based on whether or not their use is restricted by Town debt or Agency agreements.

Fiduciary
Description Total Town Funds Totals
Cash and Investments Available for Operations $ 69,392,044 $ 1,920,130 $ 71,312,174 Restricted Cash and Investments 819,929 1,964,434 2,784,363 Total Cash and Investments $ 70,211,973 $ 3,884,564 $ 74,096,537 DRAFT
72,132,11

Page 208 ends

Month YTD
Fund Balances - Beginning of Month/Period $72,886,942.83 $72,886,942.83 Receipts 6,045,229.86 6,045,229.86
Disbursements (11,248,320.72) (11,248,320.72)
Fund Balances - End of Month/Period $67,683,851.97 $67,683,851.97 Portfolio Allocation: % of Portfolio Max. % 0r $ Allowed Per State Law or Policy BNY MM $292,775.99 0.55% 20% of Town Portfolio
US Treasury Notes $10,046,915.87 18.75% No Max. on US Treasuries Government Agency Debenture Notes $22,975,336.40 42.89% No Max. on Non-Mortgage Backed Corporate Medium Term Bonds $13,339,223.01 24.90% 30% of Town Portfolio Local Agency Investment Fund $6,918,398.79 12.91% $75 M per State Law Subtotal - Investments 53,572,650.06 100.00%
Reconciled Demand Deposit Balances 14,111,201.91
Total Treasurer's Fund $67,683,851.97
Town of Los Gatos
Portfolio Allocation & Treasurer's Fund Balances
July 31, 2022
BNY MM

0.55% US Treasury Notes

18.75%
Government Agency Debenture Notes

42.89%
Corporate Medium Term Bonds

24.9%
Local Agency Investment Fund

12.9%
Portfolio Investment Allocation
0 10000000
20000000
30000000
40000000
50000000
60000000
70000000
80000000
90000000
Jul-21 Aug-21 Sep-21 Oct-21 Nov-21 Dec-21 Jan-22 Feb-22 Mar-22 Apr-22 May-22 Jun-22 Jul-22 Treasurer's Fund Balances
page 2 Page 19
Item 2.
-

Page 209 ends

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Page 210 ends

From: Phil Koen
To: Gabrielle Whelan; Arn Andrews; Ron Dickel
Cc: Laurel Prevetti
Subject: FY 23 Fund Balances Activity and Net Change.pdf Date: Sunday, January 8, 2023 8:05:41 AM
Attachments: FY 23 Fund Balances Activity and Net Change.pdf

EXTERNAL SENDER
Hello Gabrielle,
Here is the Town’s report of change in fund balances that I referenced in my earlier email. For some reason the attachment did not properly attach.

Thank you,
Phil Koen

Page 211 ends

C - 33

FUND BALANCE ACTIVITY SUMMARY
FISCAL YEAR 2022/23
7/1/22 Plus Less 6/30/23
Estimated Revenues & Transfers Expenditures & Transfers Use of Estimated Fund Balance Carryforwards In Carryforwards Out Reserves Fund Balance

GENERAL FUND
Unreserved Fund Balances
Undesignated Reserves
Available to be Appropriated $ - $ 49,466,931 $ 538,536 $ 49,637,932 $ 3,006,978 $ 2,639,443 $ - Restricted Fund Balances
Pension Trust 690,000 - - - - 390,000 1,080,000
Committed to:

Budget Stabilization Reserve 5,991,566 - - - - - 5,991,566 Catastrophic Reserves 5,991,566 - - - - - 5,991,566
Pension/OPEB Reserve 300,000 - - - - - 300,000
Assigned to:

Open Space Reserve 410,000 - - - - - 410,000
Sustainability 140,553 - - - - - 140,553
Capital/Special Projects 5,682,452 - - - - (2,350,000) 3,332,452 Compensated Absences* 1,649,917 - - - - - 1,649,917
Market Fluctuations 438,333 - - - - - 438,333
Measure G District Sales Tax 679,443 - - - - (679,443) - Rehab Loan (Nonspendabe) 159,000 - - - - 159,000
Total General Fund Reserves $ 22,132,830 $ 49,466,931 $ 538,536 $ 49,637,932 $ 3,006,978 $ - $ 19,493,387

SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
Housing Conservation Program $ 177,241 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 177,241 Community Dev Block Grant (10,587) - - - - - (10,587)
Urban Run-Off Source Fund 416,611 359,950 - 190,911 - - 585,650 Blackwell Assessment District 13,657 3,210 - 10,678 460 - 5,729 Kennedy Assessment District 22,101 10,605 - 17,410 1,510 - 13,786 Gemini Assessment District 36,407 4,750 - 12,148 610 - 28,399 Santa Rosa Assessment District 35,352 - - 19,957 660 - 14,735 Vasona Assessment District 37,652 10,075 - 15,720 1,430 - 30,577 Hillbrook Assessment District 23,804 6,040 - 19,729 250 - 9,865 ARPA - 1,304,696 - 1,304,696 - - -
Library Trust 82,598 70,500 - 95,000 - - 58,098
Ness Trust Bequest 22,189 250 - 20,755 - - 1,684
Betty McClendon Trust 88,005 1,000 - 1,000 - - 88,005
Barbara J Cassin Trust 361,735 4,500 - 4,500 - - 361,735 Total Special Revenue Funds Reserves $ 1,306,765 $ 1,775,576 $ - $ 1,712,504 $ 4,920 $ - $ 1,364,917 Fiscal Year 2022/23 Proposed Budget
General Fund Undesignated Reserves reflect ongoing revenue, carryforward, transfer, expenditures, the net effect of the change in Designated Reserves, and the use of Undesignated Reserves.
• FY2022/23 Budgeted revenue (include $1.6 million ARPA revenue replacements and $0.9 OPEB 115 Trust reimbursement) and expenditure appropriations, and transfers to and from the General Fund.
• Authorized carryforwards reflect operating appropriations that were brought forward as a funding source. The actual carryforward amount will be determined at FY 2022/23 year-end, with funding offset by undesignated reserves. • General Fund Reserve Policy requires a minimum of 25% of General Fund operating expenditures equally divided between the Budget Stabilization Reserve and Catastrophic Reserve.
• In FY 2015/16, Council established a General Fund Pension/Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) Reserve Account. At the same time, the Council revised the General Fund Reserve Policy to provide for a maximum of $300,000 in General Fund Year End Savings upon year-end close to be deposited in the Pension/OPEB Reserve Account and used as authorized by Town Council. • Undesignated Fund Balance is a year-end fund balance not yet identified by the Town Council for a specific purpose. The Town General Fund Reserve Policy requires full funding of the Catastrophic and Budget Stabilization Reserves, distribution to the Pension/OPEB Reserve, and any remianing balance to the Capital/Special Projects Reserve.

Page 212 ends

C - 34

INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
Liability Self-Insurance $ 638,860 $ 429,249 $ - $ 846,940 $ - $ - $ 221,169 Worker's Comp Self-Insurance 818,420 1,033,315 - 1,840,000 - - 11,735 Information Technology 2,793,817 714,309 - 983,975 700,000 - 1,824,151 Equipment Replacement 1,657,006 686,837 - 816,240 - - 1,527,603 Facilities Maintenance 102,962 1,262,247 - 1,240,344 - - 124,865 Total Internal Service Funds Reserves $ 6,011,065 $ 4,125,957 $ - $ 5,727,499 $ 700,000 $ - $ 3,709,523

CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS
GFAR $ 14,273,601 $ 4,748,297 $ 3,706,978 $ 8,982,939 $ 417,616 $ - $ 13,328,321 Grant Funded CIP Projects (3,689,292) 5,437,041 - 4,967,041 - - (3,219,292) Storm Drain #1 1,135,466 49,680 - - - - 1,185,146
Storm Drain #2 2,090,579 54,520 - - - - 2,145,099
Storm Drain #3 (155,453) 880 - - - - (154,573)
Traffic Mitigation 381,319 - - - 10,000 - 371,319
Construction Tax-Undergrounding 3,257,936 52,490 - - - - 3,310,426 Gas Tax 1,898,590 1,603,689 - 1,497,689 106,000 - 1,898,590 Total Capital Projects Funds Reserves $ 19,192,746 $ 11,946,597 $ 3,706,978 $ 15,447,669 $ 533,616 $ - $ 18,865,036 Successor Agency of the Los Gatos RDA Fund
SA- Trust Fund $ 4,080,130 $ 3,799,926 $ - $ 3,799,877 $ - $ - $ 4,080,179 Total SA of the Los Gatos RDA Funds Reserves $ 4,080,130 $ 3,799,926 $ - $ 3,799,877 $ - $ - $ 4,080,179 TOTAL RESERVES $ 52,723,536 $ 71,114,987 $ 4,245,514 $ 76,325,481 $ 4,245,514 $ - $ 47,513,042 Equipment Replacement Fund Balance is the accumulation of replacement funding-to-date for assets. Revenues are the pro-rated annual charges to departments for asset replacement, and expenditures reflect the cost of equipment up for replacement in this fiscal year. The Fund will continue to reallocate Fund Balance as a transfer to the General Fund for assets that have accumulated replacement costs and have been identified as no longer being part of the Replacement Schedule.

Fiscal Year 2022/23 Proposed Budget
GFAR, Grant Fund, Storm Drain Funds, and Gas Tax Fund Balances reflect the spending down of available funds in FY 2022/23 in line with the planned Capital Improvement Program. The GFAR and Grant Funds also include transfers-in to fund these planned projects. Traffic Mitigation Fund reflects a transfer out of $10,000 for estimated annual administration fees. Grant Funded Projects Fund Balance reflects appropriations for incoming revenues and prior year carryforwards, which will result in either positive or negative fund balance depending on timing of receipts and budget. All grant projects net to zero at completion.

Page 213 ends

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Page 214 ends

From: Phil Koen
To: Gabrielle Whelan; Arn Andrews; Ron Dickel
Cc: Laurel Prevetti
Subject: Update of Investment Policy - Agenda Item #7
Date: Sunday, January 8, 2023 8:00:29 AM
Attachments: Update of Investment Policy.pdf
Pages from FY-2022-23-Operating-Budget(2).pdf

EXTERNAL SENDER
Hello Gabrielle,
In reading the Staff report for agenda item #7, the purpose of the proposed changes to the Town’s Investment Policy is to bring the policy into compliance with Government Code Section 41004. Additionally the Staff attached a report from the Civil Grand Jury entitled “Show Me the Money; Financial Transparency Needed” as supporting material.

Section 41004 states “at least once each month, the city treasurer shall submit to the city clerk a written report and accounting of all receipts, disbursements and fund balances”. Please note that the code explicitly states the requirement is to provide a report and accounting of “fund balances”. There is no mention in the code about reporting the Town’s investment portfolio.

The Civil Grand Jury report included the City of Saratoga’s Treasurer’s Report which the Grand Jury found to be an excellent example of an acceptable report. In reviewing the report, which is attached, all of the Saratoga’s fund balances are listed with columns showing current period revenues, expenditures, transfers in and out and ending balances for every fund. To be clear, this report does not discuss in any way the performance of the City’s investment portfolio.

My question is how does the document described in the proposed Investment Policy comply with Government Code Section 41004 if the report only shows the performance results of the Town’s investment portfolio? The monthly results of the Town’s investment portfolio is not the same as a monthly accounting of the change in all fund balances. The ability of the Town to produce on a monthly basis a Treasurer’s report similar to Saratoga’s would be a “game changer” in improving financial transparency, which is the ultimate goal.

In addition to the question of periodicity of reporting, there appears to be a more fundamental question as to what is actually required to be reported. Based on my reading of Section 41004 and the report issued by the Grand Jury, in addition to the Treasurer’s Report issued by Saratoga, I don’t see how any reasonable reading of the Town’s Investment Report one can conclude the report (see agenda item 1 for an example) remotely complies with the requirements of Section 41004.

I would appreciate you reviewing this matter prior the Finance Commission’s meeting so the Commission can be fully informed regarding the legal reporting requirement of Section 41004. I have also attached a copy of a change in fund balance report published by the Town which is substantially the same as the Treasurer’s report produced by Saratoga.

Page 215 ends

Thank you for your assistance,
Phil Koen

Page 216 ends

Page 17 of 22 ends

SHOW ME THE MONEY: FINANCIAL TRA NSPARENCY NEEDED
Example 1. Page 3 of 7 from Saratoga August 2022 Treasurer’s Report https://legistarwebproduction.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/1578630/Treasurer_Report_for_August_ 2022.pdf

Page 53 ends

Item 7.

Page 217 ends

COUNCIL POLICY MANUAL
TITLE: Investment Policy POLICY NUMBER: 4-02
EFFECTIVE DATE: 11/1/16 PAGES: 8
ENABLING ACTIONS: 2016-063 REVISED DATES: 5/16/17;5/15/2018; 9/3/2019; 11/03/2020, 1/17/2023
APPROVED:

PURPOSE
The Town of Los Gatos (the “Town”), incorporated in 1887, is located approximately 60 miles south of San Francisco, in the southwestern portion of Santa Clara County. The Town operates under the Council/Manager form of government. The Town Council is the legislative body for the Town. It has five members elected to serve staggered four year terms. The Town Manager is appointed by the Town Council.

The Town Council has adopted this Investment Policy in order to establish the investment scope, objectives, delegation of authority, standards of prudence, reporting requirements, internal controls, eligible investments and transactions, diversification requirements, risk tolerance, and safekeeping and custodial procedures for the investment of the funds of the Town. All Town funds will be invested in accordance with this Investment Policy and with applicable sections of the California Government Code.

This Investment Policy was originally adopted by the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos November 1, 2016. Town Council adopted revisions replace any previous investment policy or investment procedures of the Town.

SCOPE
This Investment Policy applies to all of the Town's short-term operating funds. These funds are described in the Town's annual financial report and include, but are not limited to:

General Fund
Special Revenue Funds
Capital Project Funds
Debt Service Funds
Enterprise Fund
Internal Service Funds
Fiduciary Funds ATTACHMENT 2
Small Town Service Community Stewardship Future Focus

Page 59 ends

Item 7.

Page 218 ends

TITLE: Investment Policy PAGE:
2 of 10
POLICY NUMBER:
4-02
Specifically excluded from this Investment Policy are amounts which are held by a trustee or fiscal agent and pledged as payment or security for bonds or other indebtedness, obligations under a lease, or obligations under certificates of participation. Such funds are invested in accordance with statutory provisions, ordinance, resolution, or indenture governing the issuance of the obligations. In addition, this Investment Policy is not applicable to the Town's Deferred Compensation Plan. These investments are directed by each employee participant in accordance with the rules of the Deferred Compensation Plan.

POLICY

OBJECTIVES
The Town’s funds shall be invested in accordance with all applicable Town policies and codes, State statutes, and Federal regulations, and in a manner designed to accomplish the following objectives, which are listed in priority order:

1. Preservation of capital and protection of investment principal.

2. Maintenance of sufficient liquidity to meet anticipated cash flows.

3. Attainment of a market value rate of return.

4. Diversification to avoid incurring unreasonable market risks.

DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY
Management responsibility for the Town’s investment program is delegated annually by the Town Manager to the Town Treasurer/Finance Director (the “Treasurer”) pursuant to California Government Code Section 36510. The Treasurer may delegate the authority to conduct investment transactions and to manage the operation of the investment portfolio to other specifically authorized staff members. The Treasurer shall maintain a list of persons authorized to transact securities business for the Town. No person may engage in an investment transaction except as expressly provided under the terms of this Investment Policy.

The Treasurer shall develop written administrative procedures and internal controls, consistent with this Investment Policy, for the operation of the Town's investment program. Such procedures shall be designed to prevent losses arising from fraud, employee error, misrepresentation by third parties, or imprudent actions by employees.

The Town may engage the support services of outside investment advisors in regard to its investment program, so long as it can be demonstrated that these services produce a net financial advantage or necessary financial protection of the Town's financial resources.

PRUDENCE
The standard of prudence to be used for managing the Town's investments shall be California Government Code Section 53600.3, the prudent investor standard which states, “When

Page 60 ends

Item 7.

Page 219 ends

TITLE: Investment Policy PAGE:
3 of 10
POLICY NUMBER:
4-02
investing, reinvesting, purchasing, acquiring, exchanging, selling, or managing public funds, a trustee shall act with care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing, including, but not limited to, the general economic conditions and the anticipated needs of the agency, that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and familiarity with those matters would use in the conduct of funds of a like character and with like aims, to safeguard the principal and maintain the liquidity needs of the agency.” The Town's overall investment program shall be designed and managed with a degree of professionalism that is worthy of the public trust. The Town recognizes that no investment is totally without risk and that the investment activities of the Town are a matter of public record.

Accordingly, the Town recognizes that occasional measured losses may occur in a diversified portfolio and shall be considered within the context of the overall portfolio's return, provided that adequate diversification has been implemented and that the sale of a security is in the best long-term interest of the Town.

The Treasurer and authorized investment personnel acting in accordance with written procedures and exercising due diligence shall be relieved of personal responsibility for an individual security's credit risk or market price changes, provided that the deviations from expectations are reported in a timely fashion to the Town Council and appropriate action is taken to control adverse developments.

ETHICS AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Elected officials and Town employees involved in the investment process shall refrain from personal business activity that could conflict with proper execution of the investment program or could impair or create the appearance of an impairment of their ability to make impartial investment decisions. Elected officials and Town employees shall disclose to the Town Council any business interests they have in financial institutions that conduct business with the Town and they shall subordinate their personal investment transactions to those of the Town. In addition, the Town Manager and the Treasurer shall file a Statement of Economic Interests each year pursuant to California Government Code Section 87203 and regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission.

SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE INVESTING
In addition to and subordinate to the objectives set forth above, investment of funds should be guided by the following socially responsible investment goals when investing in corporate securities and depository institutions. Investments shall be made in compliance with the responsible investment goals to the extent that such investments achieve substantially equivalent safety, liquidity and yield compared to other investments permitted by state law.

Page 61 ends

Item 7.

Page 220 ends

TITLE: Investment Policy PAGE:
4 of 10
POLICY NUMBER:
4-02
(1) Environmental, Social Responsibility and Governance Concerns Investments are encouraged in entities that support community well-being through safe and environmentally sound practices and fair labor practices. Investments are encouraged in entities that support equality of rights regardless of sex, race, age, disability or sexual orientation. All corporate securities within the portfolio will be monitored by an independent third-party who will provide the Town with an ESG (Environmental, Social Responsibility, and Governance) rating. The Town will prefer companies when appropriate that maintain a higher ESG rating as opposed to those companies that have a lower ESG Rating. (2) Community Investments
Investments are encouraged in entities that promote community economic development, and investments are discouraged in entities that finance high-cost check-cashing and deferred deposit (payday-lending) businesses. Investments are encouraged in entities that have a demonstrated involvement in the development or rehabilitation of low-income affordable housing and have a demonstrated commitment to reducing predatory mortgage lending and increasing the responsible servicing of mortgage loans. Securities investments are encouraged in financial institutions that have a Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) rating of either Satisfactory or Outstanding, as well as financial institutions that are designated as a Community Development Financial Institution (CDFI) by the United States Treasury Department, or otherwise demonstrate commitment to community economic development.

AUTHORIZED SECURITIES AND TRANSACTIONS
All investments and deposits of the Town shall be made in accordance with California Government Code Sections 16429.1, 53600-53609 and 53630-53686, except that pursuant to California Government Code Section 5903(e), proceeds of bonds and any moneys set aside or pledged to secure payment of the bonds may be invested in securities or obligations described in the ordinance, resolution, indenture, agreement, or other instrument providing for the issuance of the bonds. Any revisions or extensions of these code sections will be assumed to be part of this Investment Policy immediately upon being enacted. However, in the event that amendments to these sections conflict with this Investment Policy and past Town investment practices, the Town may delay adherence to the new requirements when it is deemed in the best interest of the Town to do so. In such instances, after consultation with the Town’s attorney, the Treasurer will present a recommended course of action to the Town Council for approval. All investment limits specified in the Policy are calculated at the time of investment.

The Town has further restricted the eligible types of securities and transactions as follows:

1. United States Treasury bills, notes, bonds, or certificates with a final maturity not exceeding five years from the date of trade settlement.

2. Federal Agency Obligations for which the faith and credit of the United States are pledged for the payment of principal and interest and which have a final maturity not exceeding five years from the date of trade settlement. There is no limit on the percentage of the

Page 62 ends

Item 7.

Page 221 ends

TITLE: Investment Policy PAGE:
5 of 10
POLICY NUMBER:
4-02
portfolio that can be invested in this category, however, no more than 20% of the town’s total portfolio shall be invested in the combination of Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA), Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC) mortgage-backed securities.

3. Federal Instrumentality (government sponsored enterprise) debentures, discount notes, callable securities, step-up securities, and mortgage-backed securities (including FNMA and FHLMC) with a final maturity not exceeding five years from the date of trade settlement.

There is no limit on the percentage of the portfolio that can be invested in this category, however, no more than 20% of the town’s total portfolio shall be invested in the combination of GNMA, FNMA, and FHLMC mortgage-backed securities.

4. Prime Commercial Paper with a maturity not exceeding 270 days from the date of trade settlement with the highest ranking or of the highest letter and number rating as provided for by a nationally recognized statistical-rating organization (NRSRO). The entity that issues the commercial paper shall meet all of the following conditions in either sub-paragraph A. or sub-paragraph B. below:

A. The entity shall (1) be organized and operating in the United States as a general corporation, (2) have total assets in excess of five hundred million dollars ($500,000,000) and (3) Have debt other than commercial paper, if any, that is rated “A” or higher by a NRSRO.

B. The entity shall (1) be organized within the United States as a special purpose corporation, trust, or limited liability company, (2) have program wide credit enhancements, including, but not limited to, over collateralization, letters of credit or surety bond and (3) have commercial paper that is rated “A-1” or higher, or the equivalent, by a NRSRO.

Purchases of eligible commercial paper shall not exceed:
 10% of the outstanding commercial paper of any single corporate issuer,  5% of the Town’s total portfolio in the commercial paper of any one issuer, and  25% of the Town’s total portfolio.

5. Eligible Bankers Acceptances with a maturity not exceeding 180 days from the date of trade settlement, issued by a state or national bank with combined capital and surplus of at least $250 million, whose deposits are insured by the FDIC, and whose senior long-term debt is rated at least A or the equivalent by a NRSRO at the time of purchase. No more than 5% of the Town’s total portfolio shall be invested in banker’s acceptances of any one issuer, and the aggregate investment in banker’s acceptances shall not exceed 30% of the Town’s total portfolio.

Page 63 ends

Item 7.

Page 222 ends

TITLE: Investment Policy PAGE:
6 of 10
POLICY NUMBER:
4-02

6. Medium Term Notes (Corporate Notes) issued by corporations organized and operating within the United States or by depository institutions licensed by the United States or any state and operating within the United States, with a final maturity not exceeding five years from the date of trade settlement and rated at least “A” or the equivalent by a NRSRO. No more than 5% of the Town’s total portfolio shall be invested in the medium-term notes of any one issuer and the aggregate investment in medium term notes shall not exceed 30% of the Town’s total portfolio.

7. Municipal & State Obligations:

A. Municipal bonds including registered notes or bonds of any of the 50 states, including bonds payable solely out of the revenues from a revenue-producing property owned, controlled, or operated by a state or by a department, board, agency, or authority of any of the 50 states.

B. In addition, bonds, notes, warrants, or other evidences of indebtedness of any local agency in California, including bonds payable solely out of the revenues from a revenueproducing property owned, controlled, operated by the local agency, or by a department, board, agency, or authority of the local agency.

Municipal bonds must be rated at least “A” or the equivalent by a NRSRO with maturities not exceeding five years from the date of the trade settlement. No more than 5% of the Town’s total portfolio shall be invested in “A” rated bonds or in the bonds of any one municipality. In addition, the aggregate investment in municipal bonds may not exceed 30% of the total portfolio.

8. Certificates of Deposit with a final maturity not exceeding five years from the date of trade settlement. The aggregate investment in certificates of deposit shall not exceed 30% of the Town’s portfolio, and no more than 5% of the portfolio shall be held in any one deposit or allocated to any one issuer. Certificates of Deposit shall be issued by a nationally or statechartered bank or a state or federal savings and loan association or by a state-licensed branch of a foreign bank or by a federally licensed branch of a foreign bank provided that the senior debt obligations of the issuing institution are rated at least “A” or the equivalent by a NRSRO.

Negotiable certificates of deposit issued by a nationally or state-chartered bank, or by a federally licensed or state-licensed branch of a foreign bank. Purchases of negotiable certificates of deposits are subject to the limitations of Section 53601(i), shall be fully insured by the FDIC with a corresponding FDIC certification number, and shall be delivered through the Depository Trust Company.

Non-Negotiable certificates of deposit issued by a nationally or state-chartered bank, or by a federally licensed or state-licensed branch of a foreign bank. Purchases of non-negotiable certificates of deposit are subject to the limitations of Sections 53601(n) and 53638 and shall be fully insured by the FDIC with a corresponding FDIC certification number.

Page 64 ends

Item 7.

Page 223 ends

TITLE: Investment Policy PAGE:
7 of 10
POLICY NUMBER:
4-02
Private sector entities may be used to place certificates of deposit subject to the limitations of Section 53601.8.

9. State of California’s Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), pursuant to California Government Code Section 16429.1. The aggregate amount invested in LAIF shall not exceed the maximum allowed by the fund.

10. Money Market Funds registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 that (1) are “no-load” (meaning no commission or fee shall be charged on purchases or sales of shares); (2) have a constant net asset value per share of $1.00; (3) invest only in government securities, and (4) have a rating of at least AAA or the equivalent by at least two NRSROs.

No more than 10% of the Town’s total portfolio shall be invested in money market funds of any one issuer, and the aggregate investment in money market funds shall not exceed 20% of the Town’s total portfolio.

Securities that have been downgraded to a level that is below the minimum ratings described herein may be sold or held at the Town’s discretion. The portfolio will be brought back into compliance with Investment Policy guidelines as soon as is practical.

The foregoing list of authorized securities and transactions shall be strictly interpreted. Any deviation from it must be preapproved by resolution of the Town Council.

PORTFOLIO MATURITIES AND LIQUIDITY
To the extent possible, investments shall be matched with anticipated cash flow requirements and known future liabilities. The Town will not invest in securities maturing more than five years from the date of trade settlement, unless the Town Council has by resolution granted authority to make such an investment at least three months prior to the date of investment.

SELECTION OF BROKER/DEALERS
The Treasurer shall maintain a list of broker/dealers approved for investment purposes, and it shall be the policy of the Town to purchase securities only from those authorized firms. To be eligible, a firm must meet at least one of the following criteria:
 Be recognized as a Primary Dealer by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York or have a primary dealer within their holding company structure; or  Report voluntarily to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; or  Qualify under Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 15c3-1 (Uniform Net Capital Rule).

In addition, authorized broker/dealers must be licensed by the State of California as a broker/dealer as defined in Section 25004 of the California Corporations Code.

The Town may engage the services of investment advisory firms to assist in the management of the portfolio and investment advisors may utilize their own list of approved broker/dealers.

Page 65 ends

Item 7.

Page 224 ends

TITLE: Investment Policy PAGE:
8 of 10
POLICY NUMBER:
4-02
Such broker/dealers will comply with the selection criteria above and the list of approved firms shall be provided to the Town on an annual basis or upon request.

In the event that an external investment advisor is not used in the process of recommending a particular transaction in the Town’s portfolio, authorized broker/dealers shall attest in writing that they have received and reviewed a copy of the this Investment Policy and shall be required to submit and annually update a Town approved Broker/Dealer Information request form, which includes the firm’s most recent financial statements.

The Town may purchase commercial paper from direct issuers even though they are not on the approved broker/dealer list as long as they meet the criteria outlined in Item 4 of the Authorized Securities and Transactions section of this Investment Policy.

COMPETITIVE TRANSACTIONS
Each investment transaction shall be competitively transacted with authorized broker/dealers.

At least three broker/dealers shall be contacted for each transaction and their bid and offering prices shall be recorded.

If the Town is offered a security for which there is no other readily available competitive offering, the Treasurer will document quotations for comparable or alternative securities.

SELECTION OF BANKS
The Treasurer shall maintain a list of banks and savings banks approved to provide banking services for the Town. To be eligible, a bank must be a member of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, must qualify as a depository of public funds in the State of California as defined in California Government Code Section 53630.5 and shall secure deposits in excess of FDIC coverage in accordance with California Government Code Section 53652.

Authorized banks that accept deposits from the Town shall meet high standards with regard to liquidity, asset quality, profitability and capital adequacy. The Treasurer shall utilize a commercial bank rating service to perform credit analysis on banks seeking authorization.

Banks that in the judgment of the Treasurer no longer offer adequate safety to the Town shall be removed from the Town’s list of authorized banks.

SAFEKEEPING AND CUSTODY
The Treasurer shall select one or more financial institutions to provide safekeeping and custodial services for the Town. A Safekeeping Agreement shall be executed with each custodian bank prior to utilizing that bank's safekeeping services.

Custodian banks will be selected on the basis of their ability to provide services for the Town's account and the competitive pricing of their safekeeping related services.

Page 66 ends

Item 7.

Page 225 ends

TITLE: Investment Policy PAGE:
9 of 10
POLICY NUMBER:
4-02
The purchase and sale of securities and repurchase agreement transactions shall be settled on a delivery versus payment basis. All securities shall be perfected in the name of the Town.

Sufficient evidence to title shall be consistent with modern investment, banking and commercial practices.

All investment securities, purchased by the Town, will be delivered by book entry and will be held in third-party safekeeping by a Town approved custodian bank or its Depository Trust Company (DTC) participant account.

All Fed wireable book entry securities owned by the Town shall be held in the Federal Reserve System in a customer account for the custodian bank which will name the Town as “customer.” All DTC eligible securities shall be held in the custodian bank’s DTC participant account and the custodian bank shall provide evidence that the securities are held for the Town as “customer.”

PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE
The investment portfolio shall be designed to attain a market rate of return throughout budgetary and economic cycles, taking into account prevailing market conditions, risk constraints for eligible securities, and cash flow requirements. The performance of the Town’s investments shall be compared to the average yield on the U.S. Treasury security that most closely corresponds to the portfolio’s weighted average effective maturity. When comparing the performance of the Town’s portfolio, its rate of return will be computed net of all fees and expenses.

REPORTING
No less than quarterly Every month, the Treasurer shall prepare a report of the investment earnings and performance results of the Town’s investment portfolio. The report shall be submitted to the Town Clerk within 45 days after the end of each month quarter for inclusion as an agenda item at the next scheduled Town Council meeting. The report shall include the following information:

1. Investment type, issuer, date of maturity, par value and dollar amount invested in all securities, and investments and monies held by the Town;

2. A market value as of the date of the report (or the most recent valuation as to assets not valued monthly) and the source of the valuation;

3. Realized and unrealized gains or losses calculated by amortized cost and by fair value;

4. The weighted average maturity of the portfolio and a percentage breakdown of the total portfolio by maturity;

5. A description of the funds, investments and programs that are under the management of contracted parties;

6. The Town of Los Gatos Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) scores;

Page 67 ends

Item 7.
-

Page 226 ends

TITLE: Investment Policy PAGE:
10 of 10
POLICY NUMBER:
4-02

7. A statement of compliance with this Investment Policy or an explanation for noncompliance; and

8. A statement of the ability to meet expenditure requirements for the next six months, and an explanation of why money will not be available if that is the case.

PROCEDURES
This Investment Policy shall be adopted by resolution of the Town Council. Annually the Town Manger shall present this Investment Policy to the Town Council and the Finance Commission for review to ensure its consistency with the Town’s investment objectives, current law and economic trends. Any amendments to this Investment Policy shall be approved by the Town Council.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______
Gabrielle Wheelan, Town Attorney

Page 68 ends

Item 7.

Page 227 ends

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Page 228 ends

From: Phil Koen
To: Arn Andrews; Ron Dickel
Cc: Laurel Prevetti
Subject: Treasurer_Report_for_October_2022.pdf
Date: Saturday, January 7, 2023 8:44:15 AM
Attachments: Treasurer_Report_for_October_2022.pdf

EXTERNAL SENDER
Hello Arn and Ron,
Could you please distribute the attached City of Saratoga Treasurer’s Report to the FC to discuss during agenda item #2 and #7.

Also I would like to pull agenda item #2 from the consent items because I have a number of questions I would like to ask/discuss.

Thank you.

Phil Koen

Page 229 ends

SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: December 7, 2022
DEPARTMENT: Administrative Services
PREPARED BY: Ann Xu, Accountant
Agnes Pabis, Finance Manager
SUBJECT: Treasurer’s Report for the Month Ended October 31, 2022 RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Review and accept the Treasurer’s Report for the month ended October 31, 2022.

BACKGROUND:

California government code section 41004 requires that the City Treasurer submits to the City Clerk and the legislative body a written report and accounting of all receipts, disbursements, and fund balances. The Municipal Code of the City of Saratoga, Article 2-20, Section 2-20.035 designates the City Manager as the City Treasurer. This report is prepared to fulfill this requirement.

The following attachments provide various financial transaction data for the City of Saratoga’s Funds collectively as well as specifically for the City’s General (Operating) Fund, including an attachment from the State Treasurer’s Office of Quarterly LAIF rates from the 1st Quarter of 1977 to the present.

FISCAL STATEMENT:

Cash and Investments Balance by Fund
As of October 31, 2022, the City’s unaudited cash and investments totaled $34,998,784. The City Council’s adopted policy on the Working Capital Reserve Fund states that effective July 1, 2016: for cash flow purposes and to avoid the occurrence of dry period financing, pooled cash from all funds should not be allowed to fall below $1,000,000. The total pooled cash balance of $34.9 million exceeds the minimum amount required.

Comerica Bank $ 2,366,778
Deposit with LAIF $ 32,632,006
Total Cash $ 34,998,784
Cash Summary

Page 230 ends

City’s Current Financial Position
In accordance with California government code section 53646 (b) (3), the City is financially well positioned and able to meet its estimated expenditure requirements for the next six months. As of October 31, 2022, the City’s financial position (Assets $35.2M, Liabilities $4.9M, and Fund Equity $30.3M) remains very strong and there are no issues in meeting financial obligations now or in the foreseeable future.

The following Fund Balance schedule represents actual funding available for all funds at the end of the monthly period. This amount differs from the above Cash Summary schedule as assets and liabilities are components of the fund balance. As illustrated in the summary below, Total Cash is adjusted by the addition of Total Assets less the amount of Total Liabilities to arrive at the Ending Fund Balance – which represents the actual amount of funds available.

ATTACHMENTS:

Table 1 – Change in Total Fund Balances by Fund
Table 2 – Change in Total Fund Balances by CIP Project
Chart 1 – Change in Investment Pool Balance by Month
Chart 2 – Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) Quarterly Apportionment Rates "+
Total Cash $ 34,998,784
Plus: Assets 177,614
Less: Liabilities (4,876,570)
Ending Fund Balance $ 30,299,828
Adjusting Cash to Ending Fund Balance

Page 231 ends

Hillside Stability Reserve 1,000,000 - - - - - 1,000,000 Assigned Fund Balances:

Page 232 ends

Page 233 ends

Page 234 ends

CHART 1: CHANGE IN INVESTMENT POOL BALANCE BY MONTH

Page 235 ends

CHART 2
March June September December
1977 5.68 5.78 5.84 6.45
1978 6.97 7.35 7.86 8.32
1979 8.81 9.10 9.26 10.06
1980 11.11 11.54 10.01 10.47
1981 11.23 11.68 12.40 11.91
1982 11.82 11.99 11.74 10.71
1983 9.87 9.64 10.04 10.18
1984 10.32 10.88 11.53 11.41
1985 10.32 9.98 9.54 9.43
1986 9.09 8.39 7.81 7.48
1987 7.24 7.21 7.54 7.97
1988 8.01 7.87 8.20 8.45
1989 8.76 9.13 8.87 8.68
1990 8.52 8.50 8.39 8.27
1991 7.97 7.38 7.00 6.52
1992 5.87 5.45 4.97 4.67
1993 4.64 4.51 4.44 4.36
1994 4.25 4.45 4.96 5.37
1995 5.76 5.98 5.89 5.76
1996 5.62 5.52 5.57 5.58
1997 5.56 5.63 5.68 5.71
1998 5.70 5.66 5.64 5.46
1999 5.19 5.08 5.21 5.49
2000 5.80 6.18 6.47 6.52
2001 6.16 5.32 4.47 3.52
2002 2.96 2.75 2.63 2.31
2003 1.98 1.77 1.63 1.56
2004 1.47 1.44 1.67 2.00
2005 2.38 2.85 3.18 3.63
2006 4.03 4.53 4.93 5.11
2007 5.17 5.23 5.24 4.96
2008 4.18 3.11 2.77 2.54
2009 1.91 1.51 0.90 0.60
2010 0.56 0.56 0.51 0.46
2011 0.51 0.48 0.38 0.38
2012 0.38 0.36 0.35 0.32
2013 0.28 0.24 0.26 0.26
2014 0.24 0.22 0.24 0.25
2015 0.26 0.28 0.32 0.37
2016 0.46 0.55 0.60 0.68
2017 0.78 0.92 1.07 1.20
2018 1.51 1.90 2.16 2.40
2019 2.55 2.57 2.45 2.29
2020 2.03 1.36 0.84 0.63
2021 0.44 0.33 0.24 0.23
2022 0.32 0.75 1.35
Quarterly Apportionment Rates
Local Agency Investment Fund

Page 236 ends

PREPARED BY: Savannah Van Akin
Assistant Planner
Reviewed by: Town Manager, Assistant Town Manager, Town Attorney, and Community Development Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6832 www.losgatosca.gov

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 1/17/2023
ITEM NO: 15
DATE: January 12, 2023
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: Laurel Prevetti, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Consider an Appeal of a Planning Commission Decision to Deny a Fence Height Exception Request for Construction of a Six-Foot Fence Located Within the Required Front Yard Setback and a Vehicular Gate Set Back Less than 18 Feet from the Edge of the Adjacent Street on Property Zoned R-1:10. Located at 755 Blossom Hill Road. APN 523-04-043. PROPERTY OWNER/APPELLANT:

David and Ilana Kohanchi. APPLICANT: Nina Guralnic.

RECOMMENDATION:

Deny an appeal of a Planning Commission decision to deny a fence height exception request for construction of a six-foot fence located within the required front yard setback and a vehicular gate set back less than 18 feet from the edge of the adjacent street on property zoned R-1:10, located at 755 Blossom Hill Road.

BACKGROUND:

The subject property is located on the north side of Blossom Hill Road, east of the intersection with Camelia Terrace (Attachment 1, Exhibit 1).

On December 14, 2020, the Town issued an administrative warning for a code violation at 755 Blossom Hill Road (Attachment 1, Exhibit 4). This warning was sent after several complaints were submitted regarding a front yard fence and vehicular gate. This administrative warning requested that the property owners reduce their six-foot fence along the front property line down to three feet, and to remove the vehicular gate, to meet Town Code, by January 3, 2021.

On February 12, 2021, the applicant applied for an exception to the Town’s fence regulations for the unpermitted construction of the vehicular gate and fencing on the subject property,

Page 237 ends

PAGE 2 OF 8
SUBJECT: 755 Blossom Hill Road/FHE-21-003
DATE: January 12, 2022
BACKGROUND (continued):
which does not comply with the Town Code fence regulations for height and setbacks (Attachment 1, Exhibits 5 and 6). The request was based on concerns related to protection for children, animals, and a garden. Privacy is also listed as a concern.

Staff contacted the applicant to discuss the concerns with the vehicular gate and fence, and explore potential options available.

On July 2, 2021, the Town denied the exception request because the findings listed in Town Code Section 29.40.0320 could not be made. Safety concerns with the fence included the location of the metal fencing relative to the driveway which obstructs visibility as vehicles exit the driveway and cross over the sidewalk and into the roadway, and the reduced setback of the vehicular gate would not allow for vehicles to clear the travel lanes of Blossom Hill Road while queuing (Attachment 1, Exhibit 7).

On November 16, 2021, staff contacted the applicant and provided examples of similar fence height exception requests that were appealed to the Planning Commission. Staff also reminded the applicant of the options to remedy the situation. These options included:
removing the illegal fence and gate; modifying the fence and gate to comply with Town Code; or filing an appeal of the decision to deny the fence height exception.

The applicant was contacted via email on January 31, 2022, March 22, 2022, April 5, 2022, May 3, 2022, and May 24, 2022. Staff asked for a progress update and provided the options to remedy the situation.

On July 7, 2022, the Town issued a second administrative warning for a code violation (Attachment 1, Exhibit 8). This administrative warning requested the property owners to:
remove the illegal fence and gate; modify the fence and gate to comply with Town Code; or file an appeal of the decision to deny the fence height exception by August 7, 2022.

On August 5, 2022, the decision of the Community Development Director to deny the exception request was appealed to the Planning Commission (Attachment 1, Exhibit 9). The project was scheduled for review on September 13, 2022, and in response to a request from the applicant, the item was continued to the November 9, 2022 Planning Commission hearing date (Attachment 3, Exhibit 14).

On November 9, 2022, the Planning Commission denied the appeal and upheld the Community Development Director denial of the fence height exception request for construction of six-foot tall fencing located within the required front yard setback and construction of a vehicular gate with reduced setbacks (Attachment 5).

On November 14, 2022, the decision of the Planning Commission was appealed to the Town Council by the property owners, David and IIana Kohanchi (Attachment 6).

Page 238 ends

PAGE 3 OF 8
SUBJECT: 755 Blossom Hill Road/FHE-21-003
DATE: January 12, 2022
BACKGROUND (continued):

On December 13, 2022, the appellant made a request for a continuance of the item to a date certain of January 17, 2023 (Attachment 7). Because this item was publicly noticed and because the Town Code Section 29.20.280 requires that the Town hold a public hearing within 56 days of an appeal (in this case by January 4, 2023), the Town Council opened the public hearing on December 13, 2022 and continued the appeal hearing to January 17, 2023. No one provided testimony on December 13, 2022.

Pursuant to Town Code Section 29.20.295, in the appeal, and based on the record, the appellant bears the burden to prove that there was an error or abuse of discretion by the Planning Commission, or that its decision is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. If neither is proved, the appeal should be denied. If the appellant meets the burden, the Town Council shall grant the appeal and may modify, in whole or in part, the determination from which the appeal was taken or, at its discretion, return the matter to Planning Commission. If the basis for granting the appeal is, in whole or in part, information not presented to or considered by the Planning Commission, the matter shall be returned to the Planning Commission for review.

DISCUSSION:

A. Project Summary
The property owner requested an exception to the fence regulations to approve a constructed six-foot fence located within the required front set back and a vehicular gate set back less than (18) feet from the edge of the adjacent street (Attachment 1, Exhibits 5 and 6). The vehicular gate and fencing exceed the three-foot height limitation when located in a required front setback, traffic view area, and driveway view area; and the vehicular gate does not meet the 18-foot setback requirement as measured from the edge of the street.

Per Town Code Section 29.40.0315 (a)(3), fences, walls, gates, and hedges may not exceed a height of three feet when located within a required front or side yard abutting a street, driveway view area, or traffic view area unless an exception is granted by the Town Engineer and Community Development Director. This regulation is intended to minimize conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists, and cars by ensuring fences, walls, gates, and hedges do not obstruct the view from a car as it exits a driveway and crosses over a sidewalk to enter the roadway. Limiting the height of fences and gates to no more than three feet in these areas allows drivers and pedestrians a view of each other while continuing to afford property owners the opportunity to define the boundaries of their property.

The required front yard setback in the R-1:10 zone is 25 feet. A traffic view area is the area which is within 15 feet of a street and a driveway view area is a triangular area at the intersection of driveways and sidewalks and street intersections having sides 10 feet in

Page 239 ends

PAGE 4 OF 8
SUBJECT: 755 Blossom Hill Road/FHE-21-003
DATE: January 12, 2022
DISCUSSION (continued):
length (Attachment 1, Exhibit 10). The existing six-foot tall wood fence, built prior to the fence regulations update in 2019, has a minimum setback of nine feet from the property line. The six-foot tall metal fence and vehicular gate, constructed after the adoption of the new regulations, are located on the property line (Attachment 1, Exhibit 11).

Per Town Code Section 29.40.0315 (c)(3), vehicular gates shall be set back from the edge of the adjacent street a minimum of 18 feet. The intent of this regulation is to allow for vehicles to clear the travel lanes while queuing as the gate is opening.

Per Town Code Section 29.40.0315 (b)(1)(c), barbed or razor wire fences, including any fence with attached barbs, sharp points, or razors materials are prohibited. The existing metal fence and gate have distinct sharp points at the top (Attachment 1, Exhibit 12).

Town Code Section 29.40.0320, provided below, allows an exception to any of the fence regulations if a property owner can demonstrate that one of the following conditions exist.

Sec. 29.40.0320. - Exceptions.

An exception to any of these fence regulations may be granted by the Community Development Director. A fence exception application and fee shall be filed with the Community Development Department and shall provide written justification that demonstrates one (1) of the following conditions exist:
(a) Adjacent to commercial property, perimeter fences or walls may be eight (8) feet if requested or agreed upon by a majority of the adjacent residential property owners. (b) On interior lots, side yard and rear yard fences, walls, gates, gateways, entry arbors, or hedges, behind the front yard setback, may be a maximum of eight (8) feet high provided the property owner can provide written justification that either:
(1) A special privacy concern exists that cannot be practically addressed by additional landscaping or tree screening; or
(2) A special wildlife/animal problem affects the property that cannot be practically addressed through alternatives. Documented instances of wildlife grazing on gardens or ornamental landscaping may be an example of such a problem. (c) At public utility facilities, critical infrastructure, and emergency access locations, exceptions may be granted where strict enforcement of these regulations will result in a security or safety concern.
(d) A special security concern exists that cannot be practically addressed through alternatives.
(e) A special circumstance exists, including lot size or configuration, where strict enforcement of these regulations would result in undue hardship.

The property owner requested an exception due to security and privacy concerns (Attachment 1, Exhibit 5 and 6). The privacy concerns were related to the property’s

Page 240 ends

PAGE 5 OF 8
SUBJECT: 755 Blossom Hill Road/FHE-21-003
DATE: January 12, 2022
DISCUSSION (continued):
proximity to commercial centers and medical offices, citing instances when people mistake their home for the chiropractor’s office next door. Regarding the security concerns, the property owner cited protecting children, containing animals, and protecting a garden as justification.

Staff was unable to support the proposed exceptions as the location of the metal fencing relative to the driveway creates a safety concern as vehicles exit the driveway and cross over the sidewalk to enter the roadway. Additionally, the location of the vehicular gate would not allow for vehicles to clear the travel lanes while queuing. Parks and Public Works Department staff reviewed the proposal and could not support the exception requests. The Town denied the exception request on July 2, 2021 (Attachment 1, Exhibit 7).

B. Planning Commission
The project was scheduled for review on September 13, 2022 (Attachments 1, 2, and 3), and in response to a request from the applicant the item was continued to the November 9, 2022, the Planning Commission hearing.

On November 9, 2022, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing and considered testimony from the appellant, and the public (Attachments 4 and 5). After asking questions, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing and discussed the appeal. The Commission discussed the appellant’s concerns. The Commission stated that the fence was in clear violation of the Town Code, and that they could not find compelling evidence to grant an exception. One of the findings discussed was regarding a special privacy concern. The Commission did not see substantial evidence that a special privacy concern exists that could not be practically addressed in other ways. The Commission listed the properties in the immediate neighborhood with fencing that complies with current fence height regulations, the sufficient space in the front yard to install a tall fence behind the required front yard setback, and the other security measures that already exist onsite as reasons for not being able to make the required findings for approval. The Commission also listed the safety concerns address by Parks and Public Works staff as a reason for their motion. After completing their deliberations, the Commission denied the appeal and upheld the Community Development Director denial of the Fence Height Exception application.

C. Appeal to Town Council
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed on November 14, 2022, by David and IIana Kohanchi (Attachment 6). The appellant stated that the Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion because of discrimination and bias. The appellant stated that the Planning Commission’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence in the record, including crime statistics, concerns about break-ins, safety given recent burglaries, the location being a high traffic commercial area, and neighbor support. The Town Council

Page 241 ends

PAGE 6 OF 8
SUBJECT: 755 Blossom Hill Road/FHE-21-003
DATE: January 12, 2022
DISCUSSION (continued):
should review the record contained in the Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes (Attachment 5) to determine if the appeal should be upheld or denied.

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

Written notice of the Town Council hearing was sent to property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the subject property.

CONCLUSION:

A. Recommendation
For the reasons stated in this report, it is recommended that the Town Council uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and adopt a resolution denying the appeal (Attachment 8).

B. Alternatives
Alternatively, the Town Council could:

1. Adopt a resolution to grant the appeal and remand the application back to the Planning Commission with specific direction (Attachment 9);

2. Adopt a resolution granting the appeal and approving the application (Attachment 10); or

3. Continue the application to a date certain with specific direction.

COORDINATION:

The Community Development Department coordinated with the Parks and Public Works Department in the review of the fence height exception.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:

The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. September 14, 2022, Planning Commission Staff Report, with Exhibits 1 through 12

2. September 14, 2022, Planning Commission Desk Addendum, with Exhibit 13

3. September 14, 2022, Planning Commission Desk Item, with Exhibit 14 and 15

Page 242 ends

PAGE 7 OF 8
SUBJECT: 755 Blossom Hill Road/FHE-21-003
DATE: January 12, 2022
ATTACHMENTS (continued):

4. November 9, 2022, Planning Commission Staff Report, with Exhibit 16

5. November 9, 2022, Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes

6. Appeal of the Planning Commission decision, received November 14, 2022

7. Request for Continuance, dated December 13, 2022

8. Draft Resolution to Deny the Appeal and Deny the Project

9. Draft Resolution to Grant the Appeal and Remand the Project to Planning Commission

10. Draft Resolution to Grant the Appeal and Approve the Project, with Exhibits A and B

Page 243 ends

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

Page 244 ends

!!"
#!$
%%&'

( ) *+,&-&./0&12-,034156 '
$'

789:8;<8=>?78= @<?::A:>B8CCA==A8: DE@8D7 FGGHIJKLMHGNOPQRPSTSS IHGFJUNS V #!+*6&66 VW
!! XW
Y " * !!"
#!$
ZYV ## [ !!"
#!$ $
X$

\]$# ^"[ "$ [
]3X VX$
( $_\\^"X
$` "$ [

\$")\"$
$` #
a 3% %&'bcdefghef ijjklcmmcnopllqceh'
,6-3&03&0-'X$

\]$# ##$ X
36%3&&-'WVW_
\$\'(
V
)"$'WYV(

\
`'
W

VW

\## [ !!"
#!$ $
]$# \ rstuvwxyuzy{y|}~suw # #
3% %&* $5,, !
'

WYVV )
(
a

3% %&

3[!
##$
)*
)" $
6%*&,1^"[
" "

]
(Z)a

\(
3% 1
"\ !!$

\

\ \ !!$ 3
%636& 3% (
3% %& _ W[[$W[[$ [ W

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 245 ends

!
"
#$%#&#'()

*+,-./0.,1//2345.67738/-./0,9::;<2<,=>8<?,@/A:,2A:BCB9D2A: *EF9+

@G/:0>H/823.*<2/5>038<??IEJ/A:2:K0.K<422>2G/<L>:2/LMK3L/?34/.7>02G/NA:?/A/42<23>4 >72G/*<?37>043<E4O30>4A/42<?FK<?32I982PQ/823>4RSTUT+V/W*>4.20K823>4>0*>4O/0.3>4>7 QA<??Q20K82K0/.D@G/:0>H/82:0>:>./.7/48345<4L<O/G38K?<05<2/D
XNV;NVMQ+

Y@G/:0>H/823.*<2/5>038<??IEJ/A:2:K0.K<422>2G/<L>:2/LMK3L/?34/.7>02G/ NA:?/A/42<23>4>72G/*<?37>043<E4O30>4A/42<?FK<?32I982PQ/823>4RSTUT+V/W *>4.20K823>4>0*>4O/0.3>4>7QA<??Q20K82K0/.D

9*@N6V+

@G/L/83.3>4>72G/Z?<44345*>AA3..3>43.734<?K4?/..<::/<?/LW32G342/4L<I.D
C9*[M\6-V;+

@G/.K]H/82:0>:/02I3.?>8<2/L>42G/4>02G.3L/>7C?>..>A^3??\><LP/<.2>72G/342/0./823>4 W32G*<A/?3<@/00<8/_EJG3]32R`D

64;/8/A]/0RaPbUbUP2G/@>W43..K/L<4<LA343.20<23O/W<043457>0<8>L/O3>?<23>4<2BSS C?>..>A^3??\><L_EJG3]32a`D@G3.W<04345W<../42<72/0./O/0<?8>A:?<342.W/0/.K]A322/L 0/5<0L345<70>42I<0L7/48/cO/G38K?<05<2/D@G3.?/22/00/dK/.2/L2G<22G/:0>:/02I>W4/0. 0/LK8/2G/30.3Je7>>27/48/<?>452G/70>42:0>:/02I?34/L>W42>2G0//7//22>A//2@>W4*>L/P ]If<4K<0ITPbUbRD

64X/]0K<0IRbPbUbRP2G/:0>:/02I>W4/0<::?3/L7>0<4/J8/:23>42>2G/ghijkl7/48/ 0/5K?<23>4.7>02G/K4:/0A322/L8>4.20K823>4>72G/O/G38K?<05<2/<4L7/48345>42G/.K]H/82 :0>:/02IPWG38GL>/.4>28>A:?IW32G2G/@>W4*>L/7/48/0/5K?<23>4.7>0G/35G2<4L./2]<8m. _EJG3]32.S<4Ln`D@G/0/dK/.2W<.]<./L>48>48/04.0/?<2/L2>:0>2/823>47>08G3?L0/4P <43A<?.P<4L<5<0L/4DZ03O<8I3.<?.>?3.2/L<.<8>48/04D
Q2<778>42<82/L2G/:0>:/02I>W4/02>L3.8K..8>48/04.W32G2G/O/G38K?<05<2/<4L7/48/<4L /J:?>0/:>2/423<?>:23>4.<O<3?<]?/D

64fK?IbPbUbRP2G/@>W4L/43/L2G//J8/:23>40/dK/.2]/8<K./2G/734L345.?3.2/L34@>W4 *>L/Q/823>4boDaUDUTbU8>K?L4>2]/A<L/P.<7/2I8>48/04.348?KL3452G/?>8<23>4>72G/ A/2<?7/483450/?<23O/2>2G/L03O/W<IWG38G>].20K82.O3.3]3?32I<.O/G38?/./J322G/L03O/W<I <4L80>..>O/02G/.3L/W<?m<4L342>2G/0><LW<IP<4L2G/0/LK8/L./2]<8m>72G/O/G38K?<0 5<2/W>K?L4>2<??>W7>0O/G38?/.2>8?/<02G/20<O/??<4/.>7C?>..>A^3??\><LWG3?/dK/K345 _EJG3]32B`D

pPage 246 qrstu

!
"
#$%#&#'()

*+,-./0.,1//2345.67738/-./0,9::;<2<,=>8<?,@/A:,2A:BCB9D2A: C9*EFG6-H;I8>4234J/KL+

64H>M/AN/0OPQRSROQ.2<778>42<82/K2T/:0>:/02U>V4/0<4K:0>M3K/K/W<A:?/.>7.3A3?<0 7/48/T/35T2/W8/:23>40/XJ/.2.2T<2V/0/<::/<?/K2>2T/Y?<44345*>AA3..3>4DZ2<77<?.> 0/A34K/K2T/:0>:/02U>V4/0.>72T/>:23>4.2>0/A/KU2T/.32J<23>4D@T/./>:23>4.348?JK/K+ 0/A>M3452T/3??/5<?7/48/<4K5<2/[A>K37U3452T/7/48/<4K5<2/2>8>A:?UV32T@>V4*>K/[ >073?345<4<::/<?>72T/K/83.3>42>K/4U2T/7/48/T/35T2/W8/:23>4D
@T/:0>:/02U>V4/0V<.8>42<82/KM3</A<3?>4\<4J<0U]OQRSRRQ1<08TRRQRSRRQ9:03?^Q RSRRQ1<U]QRSRRQ<4K1<UR_QRSRRDZ2<77<.`/K7>0<:0>50/..J:K<2/<4K:0>M3K/K2T/ >:23>4.2>0/A/KU2T/.32J<23>4D

64\J?UBQRSRRQ2T/@>V43..J/K<./8>4K<KA343.20<23M/V<043457>0<8>K/M3>?<23>4IaWT3N32 bLD@T3.?/22/00/XJ/.2/K2T/:0>:/02U>V4/0.2>+0/A>M/2T/3??/5<?7/48/<4K5<2/[A>K37U2T/ 7/48/<4K5<2/2>8>A:?UV32T@>V4*>K/[>073?/<4<::/<?>72T/K/83.3>42>K/4U2T/7/48/ T/35T2/W8/:23>4NU9J5J.2BQRSRRD

649J5J.2^QRSRRQ2T/K/83.3>4>72T/*>AAJ432U;/M/?>:A/42;30/82>02>K/4U2T//W8/:23>4 0/XJ/.2V<.<::/<?/K2>2T/Y?<44345*>AA3..3>4IaWT3N32cLD
YG6\a*@;aZ*GdY@d6H+

9D=>8<23>4<4KZJ00>J4K345H/35TN>0T>>K

@T/.JNe/82:0>:/02U3.?>8<2/K>42T/4>02T.3K/>7C?>..>Af3??G><KQ/<.2>72T/ 342/0./823>4V32T*<A/?3<@/00<8/IaWT3N32OLD@T/:0>:/02UT<..345?/g7<A3?U0/.3K/423<? :0>:/023/.2>2T/4>02T<4K/<.2Q<./43>0?3M3457<83?32U<4K<8>AA/083<?8/42/02>2T/ .>J2TQ<4K<4>7738/2>2T/V/.2D

CDY0>e/82ZJAA<0U<4Kh>4345*>A:?3<48/

@T/:0>:/02U>V4/03.<::/<?3452T/*>AAJ432U;/M/?>:A/42;30/82>0K/83.3>42>K/4U< 0/XJ/.27>0<4/W8/:23>42>2T/7/483450/5J?<23>4.>72T/@>V4*>K/7>02T/J4:/0A322/K 8>4.20J823>4>72T/M/T38J?<05<2/<4K7/48345D

;dZ*-ZZd6H+

9Di/48/f/35T2aW8/:23>4

@T/:0>:/02U>V4/00/XJ/.2/K<4/W8/:23>42>2T/7/48/0/5J?<23>4.2><::0>M/< 8>4.20J82/K.3Wg7>>27/48/?>8<2/KV32T342T/0/XJ30/K70>42U<0K<4K<M/T38J?<05<2/./2N<8` ?/..2T<4/35T2//4IObL7//270>A2T//K5/>72T/<Ke<8/42.20//2IaWT3N32.^<4KPLD@T/ M/T38J?<05<2/<4K7/48345/W8//K2T/2T0//g7>>2T/35T2?3A32<23>4VT/4?>8<2/K jPage 247 klmno

!
"
#$%#&#'()

*+,-./0.,1//2345.67738/-./0,9::;<2<,=>8<?,@/A:,2A:BCB9D2A: ;EF*-FFE6GH8>4234I/JK+

34<0/LI30/J70>42./2M<8NO20<7738P3/Q<0/<O<4JJ03P/Q<RP3/Q<0/<S<4J2T/P/T38I?<05<2/ J>/.4>2A//22T/UVW7>>2./2M<8N0/LI30/A/42<.A/<.I0/J70>A2T//J5/>72T/.20//2D
X/0@>Q4*>J/F/823>4YZD[\D\]U^H<KH]KO7/48/.OQ<??.O5<2/.O<4JT/J5/.A<R4>2/_8//J< T/35T2>72T0//7//2QT/4?>8<2/JQ32T34<0/LI30/J70>42>0.3J/R<0J<MI22345<.20//2O J03P/Q<RP3/Q<0/<O>020<7738P3/Q<0/<I4?/..<4/_8/:23>43.50<42/JMR2T/@>Q4 `4534//0<4J*>AAI432R;/P/?>:A/42;30/82>0D@T3.0/5I?<23>43.342/4J/J2>A343A3a/ 8>47?382.M/2Q//4:/J/.203<4.O8R8?3.2.O<4J8<0.MR/4.I03457/48/.OQ<??.O5<2/.O<4J T/J5/.J>4>2>M.20I822T/P3/Q70>A<8<0<.32/_32.<J03P/Q<R<4J80>../.>P/0< .3J/Q<?N2>/42/02T/0><JQ<RD=3A323452T/T/35T2>77/48/.<4J5<2/.2>4>A>0/2T<4 2T0//7//2342T/./<0/<.<??>Q.J03P/0.<4J:/J/.203<4.<P3/Q>7/<8T>2T/0QT3?/ 8>4234I3452><77>0J:0>:/02R>Q4/0.2T/>::>02I432R2>J/734/2T/M>I4J<03/.>72T/30 :0>:/02RD@T/0/LI30/J70>42R<0J./2M<8N342T/bWU+U\a>4/3.Y^7//2D920<7738P3/Q<0/<

3.2T/<0/<QT38T3.Q32T34U^7//2>7<.20//2<4J<J03P/Q<RP3/Q<0/<3.<203<45I?<0<0/<<2 2T/342/0./823>4>7J03P/Q<R.<4J.3J/Q<?N.<4J.20//2342/0./823>4.T<P345.3J/.U\7//234 ?/452TH`_T3M32U\KD@T//_3.2345.3_W7>>22<??Q>>J7/48/T<.<A343AIA./2M<8N>7434/7//2 70>A2T/:0>:/02R?34/<4J2T/.3_W7>>22<??A/2<?7/48/<4JP/T38I?<05<2/<0/?>8<2/J>4 2T/:0>:/02R?34/H`_T3M32UUKD

X/0@>Q4*>J/F/823>4YZD[\D\]U^H8KH]KOP/T38I?<05<2/..T<??M/./2M<8N70>A2T//J5/>7 2T/<Jc<8/42.20//2<A343AIA>7UV7//2D@T/342/42>72T3.0/5I?<23>43.2><??>Q7>0 P/T38?/.2>8?/<02T/20<P/??<4/.QT3?/LI/I345<.2T/5<2/3.>:/4345D
X/0@>Q4*>J/F/823>4YZD[\D\]U^HMKHUKH8KOM<0M/J>00<a>0Q30/7/48/.O348?IJ345<4R 7/48/Q32T<22<8T/JM<0M.O.T<0::>342.O>00<a>0.A<2/03<?.<0/:0>T3M32/JD@T//_3.2345 A/2<?7/48/<4J5<2/T<.J3.23482.T<0::>342.<22T/2>:H`_T3M32UYKD
@>Q4*>J/F/823>4YZD[\D\]Y\O:0>P3J/JM/?>QO<??>Q.<4/_8/:23>42><4R>72T/7/48/ 0/5I?<23>4.37<:0>:/02R>Q4/08<4J/A>4.20<2/2T<2>4/>72T/7>??>Q3458>4J323>4./_3.2D
defghigjkgklhkgmnofepqrstug
vteofepqrstqswtxsyqzeueyetfe{e|}~wqrstuwxe|{wtqexqzes}trqx ee~spetqr{efqs{gvyetfeeofepqrstwpp~rfwqrstwtyeeuzw~~eyr~e rqzqze
s}trqxee~spetqepw{qetqwtuzw~~p{sre
{rqqet}uqryrfwqrstqzwq
estuq{wqeustesyqzeys~~s
rt|fstrqrstueoruq

wvwfetqqsfse{frw~p{spe{qxpe{reqe{yetfeus{ w~~uwxeer|zqyeeqry
{e}euqes{w|{ee}pstxwws{rqxsyqzewwfetq{euretqrw~p{spe{qxs te{ug

Page 248

!
"
#$%#&#'()

*+,-./0.,1//2345.67738/-./0,9::;<2<,=>8<?,@/A:,2A:BCB9D2A: ;EF*-FFE6GH8>4234I/JK+

LMNOPQPRSTQUTVURWXWQYSZ[TY[PYTS[TZ[TY\SP]SWX^[VVWX_[RSWX_[RS^[ZWXSPRTZ[TMUTWX UT`SY_SWXMS`QPYR`S\TUPRZ[TYWSRM[]aXb[ZMS[b[cQbdbU\SQ_`RLeN\SSR`Q_` fTUgQYSYR`SfTUfSTRZU^PST][PfTUgQYS^TQRRSPhdWRQ\Q][RQUPR`[RSQR`STi LjNkWfS]Q[VfTQg[]Z]UP]STPScQWRWR`[R][PPURMSfT[]RQ][VVZ[YYTSWWSYMZ [YYQRQUP[VV[PYW][fQP_UTRTSSW]TSSPQP_lUT
LmNkWfS]Q[V^QVYVQ\Sn[PQb[VfTUMVSb[\\S]RWR`SfTUfSTRZR`[R][PPURMSfT[]RQ][VVZ [YYTSWWSYR`TUd_`[VRSTP[RQgSWopU]dbSPRSYQPWR[P]SWU\^QVYVQ\S_T[qQP_UP _[TYSPWUTUTP[bSPR[VV[PYW][fQP_b[ZMS[PSc[bfVSU\Wd]`[fTUMVSbo L]NkRfdMVQ]dRQVQRZ\[]QVQRQSWX]TQRQ][VQP\T[WRTd]RdTSX[PYSbST_SP]Z[]]SWWVU][RQUPWX Sc]SfRQUPWb[ZMS_T[PRSY^`STSWRTQ]RSP\UT]SbSPRU\R`SWSTS_dV[RQUPW^QVVTSWdVR QP[WS]dTQRZUTW[\SRZ]UP]STPo
LYNkWfS]Q[VWS]dTQRZ]UP]STPScQWRWR`[R][PPURMSfT[]RQ][VVZ[YYTSWWSYR`TUd_` [VRSTP[RQgSWo
LSNkWfS]Q[V]QT]dbWR[P]SScQWRWXQP]VdYQP_VURWQqSUT]UP\Q_dT[RQUPX^`STSWRTQ]R SP\UT]SbSPRU\R`SWSTS_dV[RQUPW^UdVYTSWdVRQPdPYdS`[TYW`Qfo
@r/:0>:/02s>t4/00/uI/.2/J<4/v8/:23>4JI/2>./8I032s<4J:03w<8s8>48/04. Hxvr3y32z<4J{KD@r/:03w<8s|}~|~

}
}
}

}
8>AA/083<?8/42/0.<4JA/J38<?>7738/.83234534.2<48/.tr/4:/>:?/A3.2</2r/30r>A/ 7>02r/|}|
}}|~
}}D/5<0J3452r/./8I032s8>48/04.2r/:0>:/02s
>t4/0832/J:0>2/823458r3?J0/48>42<34345<43A<?.<4J:0>2/82345<5<0J/4<. I.23738<23>4D

F2<77t<.I4<y?/2>.I::>022r/:0>:>./J/v8/:23>4.<.2r/?>8<23>4>72r/A/2<?7/48345 0/?<23w/2>2r/J03w/t<s80/<2/.<.<7/2s8>48/04<.w/r38?/./v322r/J03w/t<s<4J80>.. >w/02r/.3J/t<?2>/42/02r/0><Jt<sD9JJ323>4<??s2r/?>8<23>4>72r/w/r38I?<05<2/ t>I?J4>2<??>t7>0w/r38?/.2>8?/<02r/20<w/??<4/.tr3?/uI/I345D<0.<4JIy?38>0. ;/:<02A/42.2<770/w3/t/J2r/:0>:>.<?<4J8>I?J4>2.I::>022r//v8/:23>40/uI/.2.D@r/ @>t4J/43/J2r//v8/:23>40/uI/.2>4I?sHxvr3y32BKD
CD9::/<?94<?s.3.

@r/J/83.3>4>72r/*>AAI432s;/w/?>:A/42;30/82>02>J/4s2r//48//35r2xv8/:23>4 <::?38<23>4t<.<::/<?/J>49I5I.2zHxvr3y32K<72/0./w/0<?A>42r.>7.2<77 0/<8r345>I2<4J<72/0<./8>4J<JA343.20<23w/t<04345?/22/0t<../42>4I?sBD@r/ <::/??<42?3.2../8I032s<4J2r/I43uI/?>8<23>4<.I.23738<23>47>02r/30<::/<?D@r/ ~
?/22/00<3./../w/0<?:>342.2>.I::>022r/30<::/<?>72r/7/48/r/35r2/v8/:23>4 <.?3.2/Jy/?>tD

Page 249 ¡

!
"
#$%#&#'()

*+,-./0.,1//2345.67738/-./0,9::;<2<,=>8<?,@/A:,2A:BCB9D2A: ;EF*-FFE6GH8>4234I/JK+

LD@M/4>48>A:?3<427/48/<4J5<2/<0/<?0/<JNOI3?2D PD9??>2M/04>48>A:?3<427/48/.Q32M342M/@>Q4.M>I?JO/<?2/0/J2>A//2@>Q4 *>J/D
RD@M/7/48/:0>S3J/.:0>2/823>4<5<34.2Q3?J?37/D
TD@M/7/48/<JJ./U20<./8I032N7>02M/307<A3?NQM3?/<Q<N<2Q>0VD WD@M/7/48/<JJ./U20<./8I032N<4J:03S<8N<5<34.23420I.3>4.70>A2M/:IO?38D XD@M/?>8<23>4>72M/30M>A/3.I43YI/?N.I00>I4J/JONOI.34/../.D BD@>Q4.2<77Q/0/4>2<88/..3O?/7>0YI/.23>4.JI03452M/:<4J/A388?>.I0/D ZD@M/7/48/:0>S3J/J.<7/2NJI0345*6[E;D
@M/:0>:/02N\]]^__\`abc?/22/0<?.>:0>S3J/J0/.:>4./.2>.I::>022M/30<::/<?>72M/LZd 7>>2./2O<8V0/YI30/A/427>02M/S/M38I?<05<2/<.?3.2/JO/?>QD
LD@M/0/<0//U3.2345./S/47//22<??20//.?343452M/:0>:/02N2M<2O?>8VS3.3O3?32ND PD@M/307/48/M<.5<:.O/2Q//42M/0<3?.eA<V345S3.3O3?32N/<.N7>0348>A345>0 >I25>345S/M38?/.D
RD@M/5<2/0/8/3S/0Q>0V.70>A<J3.2<48/>7Lefff7//2eQM38M:0/S/42.8<0.70>A .2>::345342M/0><J2>/42/02M0>I5M2M/5<2/D TD@M/N<0/Q3??3452>?/<S/2M/5<2/>:/4JI03452M/J<ND@M/5<2/3.2>:0/S/42 435M223A/3420IJ/0.D
WD@M/30M>A/3.I43YI/?N:?<8/J<A>458>AA/083<?:0>:/023/.e<4J<?>45C?>..>Ag3?? hi\jklm^\an`o\_^ccj^pn`^jq`^norsimriijlr\m\la^mDt
*Du4S30>4A/42<?v/S3/Q

@M/:0>w/823.*<2/5>038<??NuU/A:2:I0.I<422>2M/<J>:2/JxI3J/?34/.7>02M/ EA:?/A/42<23>4>72M/*<?37>043<u4S30>4A/42<?yI<?32N982eF/823>4LWRfR+G/Q *>4.20I823>4>0*>4S/0.3>4>7FA<??F20I82I0/.D

z-C=E**611uG@F+

{0322/44>238/Q<../422>:0>:/02N>Q4/0.<4J2/4<42.Q32M34Rff7//2>72M/.IOw/82 :0>:/02ND9223A/>7:0/:<0<23>4>72M3.0/:>02e4>:IO?388>AA/42M<.O//40/8/3S/JD
*6G*=-FE6G+

9DFIAA<0N

@M/:0>:/02N>Q4/03.0/YI/.23452M<22M/z?<44345*>AA3..3>40/8>4.3J/02M/*>AAI432N |^}^_i]~^`a|nm^laimbcj^lncni`aij^`ar^/U8/:23>4.2>2M/7/48/0/5I?<23>4.2> A<342<34<4I4:/0A322/JS/M38I?<05<2/<4J7/483452M<2/U8//J.2M/2M0//d7>>2M/35M2 Page 250

! "#$"%"&'(

)*+,-./-+0..1234-56627.,-./+899:;1;+<=7;>+?.@9+1@9ABA8C1@9 )5D)<,EF5DG7=3123H.IJ*
>2@21;12=3KL.3>=7;1.I23;/.MH2/.I6/=31-.1N;7OP;3I;Q.L27H>;/4;1.1L;1I=.-3=1@..1 1L.RST6==1-.1N;7O/.MH2/[email protected];-@.;-H/.I6/=@1L..I4.=61L.-1/..1C
BCU.7=@@.3I;12=3

E1;66/.7=@@.3I-1L;11L.V>;33234)=@@2--2=3I.3W1L.;99.;>=6;)=@@H321W XYZY[\]^Y_`XabYc`\bdYcaea\_`\dY_f`gYYhcY]`a\_e`\`gYi\j_kelY_cYbYmn[o`a\_eC
)C8>1./3;12Q.-

8>1./3;12Q.>WP1L.)=@@2--2=37;3*

RC)=3123H.1L.@;11./1=;I;1.7./1;23K21L-9.72627I2/.712=3p qCr/;311L.;99.;>;3I;99/=Q.1L.YhcY]`a\_e`\`gYi\j_kelY_cYbYmn[o`a\_eK21L1L. 623I23423stL2N21q;3I1L.I/;617=3I212=3-9/=Q2I.I23stL2N21up=/ uCr/;311L.;99.;>K21L;II212=3;>;3Iv=/@=I262.I7=3I212=3-C
swxFBF?E*

RC<=7;12=30;9
qCU.MH2/.Iy23I234-;3I)=3-2I./;12=3-
uCU.7=@@.3I.I)=3I212=3-=6899/=Q;>
zC8I@232-1/;12Q.{;/3234<.11./PI;1.I:.7.@N./RzPq|q| }Cy.37.x.24L1st7.912=3U.MH.-1PI;1.Iy.N/H;/WRqPq|qR1=1L.)=@@H321W:.Q.>[email protected] :.9;/[email protected]
~Cy.37.x.24L1st7.912=3U.MH.-1PI;1.Iy.N/H;/WRqPq|qR1=1L.V;/O-;3IVHN>27{=/O- :.9;/[email protected]
ACy.37.x.24L1st7.912=3:.32;><.11./PI;1.IH>WqPq|qR SC8I@232-1/;12Q.{;/3234<.11./PI;1.IH>WAPq|qq
C899.;>=61L.)=@@H321W:.Q.>[email protected]:2/.71=/:.72-2=3P/.7.2Q.I8H4H-1}Pq|qq R|C2.K8/.;-:2;4/;@-
RRCE21.V>;3
RqCE21.F@;4.-
Page 251

Page 252

!! !"%#$ "#$
&'()
*
2Page 253 34567 +,-./.01

Page 254

!!"#$%%$&'(##$)*

+,-+'+(./01-+20($,
'3453667

$,%(*+8),22+)#$9)$&&:,(0;
+<+#$2&+,0
(8+-0$8
+-(%($,0$
+,;)
+,-+
'+(./01-+20($,+=:+%09$8$,%08:-0($,$9
(13
$$0>)##
+,-(,.$-)0+*?(0/(,
0/++=:(8+*
8$,0@)8*
+0A)-BC),*$,%08:-0($,$9)D+/(-:#)8)0+E(0/+*:-+*

+0A)-B%$,8$2+80;F$,+*3556G!4736H36H7G >@ ? )<(*
),*#),)I$/),-/(G>(,):8)#,(-G J> )<),,)/D),
B(,G

KLMNOPLQROSQOSTRUPVWXYZ

[\]^_`ab^cdefghd^ia`echjjklm^n_d_o`fohpddad]^hqa_d^qroeq^jep^fsa`d]^ tn_j^n^pdhdeapasd]^ghjesa`pehlpue`apn^pdhjvohjedkwcdxy^cdeapz{|}|~^ gapfd`ocdeapa`gapu^`feapasynhjjyd`ocdo`^f

y~wtrg
tyyt
l
\y}}z}td^n{{jaffanejjahqlm]eed^oe`^qepqepifhpqgapfeq^`hdeapfqacm ltt\

Page 255

Page 256

!"##"$%&!!
"'(
)*+)%)&,-./0+)1.&"*%/2342556

"*#&()7'*11)'!"8'"$$9*&.:);)!"1$)*.&7)+."7)+&#&"*.")*:')*+) %)&,-./0+)1.&"*
)<9)#.8"7"*#.79+.&"*"8
&02"".'!!)*+&*,"+'.)(=&.-&*
.-)
)<9&7)(7"*.>'7(
).?'+@'*("*#.79+.&"*"8'
)-&+9!'7'.)A&.-
)(9+)(

).?'+@#"*7"1)7.:B"*)(
24C45D3625E25E6D
/
> =/
C';&(
'*(!'*'F"-'*+-&DC&*'97'!*&+D
G//
C
';'**'-
'*
@&*D

HIHJKLMHNLOMPHNIQIOHJKRNSKPHISIOPITTUQNHVRKWKXIYTKQHZ
[\]^^_^`a_b_c_d^
efMYYSIWMXZHghijkklhmjnhopigjllqrmosklrnrthpjmmoutjpmrvhngjllowngrmopthnhopiow jkkuoxjllhinrtqrlovf
yfKzYNSMHNIQZHgrOrpmrJrh{gnK|mrknhopjkkuoxjlvhllr|khurnvo}rjuiwuosngrjkkuoxjl tjnrk~ui~jpnnoLrmnhopyfyfyowngrHovpPotr~plriingrjkkuoxjlgjiqrrpxrinrtf fUNXRNQYKSTNHZHgrkuokoirtxrghm~lju{jnrur
~hurij~hlthp{Yrushnf
fOKQPKMQRMHKLJMSYYINQHLZMp}igjukkohpniigjllqrursoxrtkuhounongrhii~jpmr owjq~hlthp{krushnf
fHIQNQRKTQNHVZMkklhmjpnijurponhwhrtngjnHovpPotrLrmnhopefefeeur ~huringjn
jp}jkklhmjpnvgourmrhxrijkrushnourpnhnlrsrpnwuosngrHovpigjlltrwrpthptrsphw} jptgoltgjuslriingrHovpjpthniowwhmhjlihpjp}jmnhopquo~{gnq}jnghutkjun}no oxrun~upirnjihtrouxohtngrkrushnourpnhnlrsrpnfHghiur ~hursrpnhijmopthnhopow
jkkuoxjlowjlli~mgkrushnijptrpnhnlrsrpnivgrngruouponr|kuriil}irnwounghpngr jkkuoxjljptsj}qrirm~urtnongrijnhiwjmnhopowngrHovpMnnoupr}f

LZYXMQQNQPITTNLLNIQSKYISHLyyyeyyyNnrsyloiiosJhllSojtK|ghqhnSrmossrptrtPopthnhopiowMkkuoxjlhw MkkrjlhiMkkuoxrtftom|
Page 257 KzJNNH

Page 258

Page 259 ends

Page 260 ends

!"# $
%$&'()

(&# *

+&,"(&-
(.
.&

(."(&)'

/0&'
")!.(
'."(.

1
1
1

21
3
4
3

1567

28
1

17
9 (.
&#&! ((."(:&*
';
! &
"#<
:"#=

(
'-,&&>"?"' ("
@&
("#-"
A%:&

&'
7
3

22

1

B
2

7CD3

21DDEF7C

G1
H2

I
43JF7B4

23
21
2
1

56K

2

11

L

21

4
C

2

2
1

MIN&/
=&
>
:( &
OPQRSQSTUV&

&("

"''
" #W"::
0#
&
#

QX
$":(-X:"
%(
1

2B
W!) "
:
"*" #"0#
$&'YZ

:
-.
!
-"
/"##[
:( &

OPQRSQSTS-/. :.:#
"'#W("(
\
]^_`abcda_ecfghi_abjka_labjmadnabjf_dofggb_ieipa`qkaaemcnmf`afggioadi_i` ocemc_fggr`ira`esgc_abjatlareemfe_iio_a`i`illurf_eikf_sli`_a`giei`r`avcbabc_ emawio_bmfgga`alei`vfc_efc_uri_bulmgiei`r`avcbabf_ska_lajmadnai`ofgg mcnma`emf_xkaaefyipaemalu`yc_fe`fkkclpcaof`afu_gabbfra`vcecbbalu`adk`iv emawio_z_nc_aa`{|e`fkkclpcaof`afcbemaf`afomclmcbocemc_}~kaaeikfruygclbe`aae f_docemc_kaaeikema`cnmeikofsgc_aikf_c_ea`baleci_{f`yadoc`ai``fhi``cyyi_ oc`acbr`imcyceadc_fgghi_ab{
u`k`i_eka_lacbr`alcbagsqkaaec_macnme{
adcd_ebaaiu`miubafbfli`_a`giei`
r`avcba{wmfeyac_nbfcdjemaka_laofbrgfladiueikfba_baik_alabbces{wmabef`eik ema^rf_davclofbblf`ski`apa`si_a{cpa_fdavi_be`feadgflikli_la`_ki` ra`bi_fgbrflajbilcfgdcbef_lc_njf_dvfb`auc`ava_ebysgilfg`abcda_ebjceyalfva c_luvya_eki`vaf_dvsviema`c_gfoeir`iealevsockaf_dkueu`almcgdk`ivema mafpsofgc_ne`fkkcl{ieeiva_eci_emakfleemfeiu`miuba`abcdab_ateeiflivvu_ces lmc`ir`flei`ikkclac_u_dfeadocembe`f_na`bf_dfl`ibbemabe`aaek`ivfbura`vf`ae rf`c_ngiekcggadocemmivagabbrairga{^_kflejemadfsoavipadc_eiiu`mivaoamfd eic_dgsfbfmivagabbna_egavf_ei`avipamcbyagi_nc_nbk`iviu`k`i_esf`d{wmcbcb _iofvfeea`ikra`bi_fgf_druygclbfkaes{
IB

2

1 M11

("
OSS$($'&?
(
'
:( &
')#
&
#W"

#W(&Y"
W:&'

'#&(&'
'
?
[
C

2

B

(.
'
"$(?" ?)?.
!.($&'"'
"Y/ (.
"##
'&

'(W#

Q[A)'.&)
&
$"##
(&
2
1
21H

B7
M

87CJFJ5CBCJJF3F
28

4

8
2CJ

2

4
1

¡¢¡£¤ ¥Page 261 ¦§¨©ª

!"##
#$

%

&

'( )*
%
+, -

(

(

&

(%
+'
.

(

&
(

%
+/0121341561738

(

(

(

9

"
:

!"##
#$
)*

- (

%

& %;

9

<

&

%;

(

=

%

%
+
-
(

40>?6@?A4B6?87622>4131CB566?D
+

(

)*

-

( ;

.

(+

(

E

(

(

-F17B>GG5638BH36I
(

(

+,

( (
-
(

(9

(

(

((

(

$

'

(

<

:

(
(

J
'

)*

J

;

-

K

LPage 262 MNOPQ

!
!

#$$%&'()*%*+,-.%/,,0$,1*'%(23,$-(4,,1*+'5)-*,.,$-65,3,-,-&7-$,(**%- $%88,$'-91%1,*:23+'$+'5-$%(,.6'9&'();

!

<
"

=

!

>

?
@@A"BC"DADE
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`SU\ZaUbcWVYWVRVZdPReV]RXZWPUVZf\bZXZ +-&5+'1-(&+6),'(*,G,,($,3'*+&-'9:9'G,g)%'()*%-(&G%83%42$-:'())%$,',52(%* *%8,(*'%(-+,-/:$-5,-*G%8:3'G,3'*+-.-.:'(5'&,;h K+,%(9:%*+,1-4'()51-$,3%69&.,$9%5,*%*+,+%65,2.6**+-*5,$*'%('5)%'()*%.,65,& iRbT]Wj_bZVdPajUQkl]ZbZWPVRR\]ZbPaUTZiRbRSb_USY]\Zb\RajUQRS\PW_Ze]ZVP]ZYbRePSak OG*+,1-4'()'5G%$,&%6*2'*3%69&+-/,*%.,8%/,&\R\]WPPaUTZ[UV_\]ZmUmQdPajUQUbZU 3%69&&'5-11,-;

n;h#51,$'-95,$6'*:$%($,(,0'5*5*+-*$-((%*.,1-$*'$-99:-&&,55,&*+%6)+-9*,(-*'/,5;
J,,51,$*G699:-54*+-*:%68-4,-(,0$,1*'%(-(&-99%3%6G,($,3'*+*+,/,+'$69- )-*,*%,8-'('(*-$*;J,-,/,:3'99'()*%),**+,1,8'*,L6',&*%5,$6, 9,)-9'I-*'%(%G*+'5)-*,;OG-(:-(&-99%*+,1,8'*5-,(,,&,&23,3'99.,+-11:*% $%819:;J,$-(-54o;o,:,3+'$+1-1,3%4p1,8'*g5h-,(,$,55-:;J,-54*+-* -(,0$,1*'%(.,)-(*,&.:*+,K%3(q()'(,,-(&r%886('*:n,/,9%18,(*n',$*%;
#95%2%(%65*,,*-(&5,/,-95*,,*5-%6(&*+,(,')+.%+%%&2*+,,-,8-(:sG,,*+')+ G,($,5g5,,-&&,55,5.,9%3-(&1'$*6,5-**-$+,&h3'*+-+')+/,+'$69-)-*,%(*+,1%1,*: 9'(,WVajUWV^WZeWVibRV\RiaZRajZdP]RSPZPkK+,,-,8-(:8%,'(*+,(,')+.%+%%&.6**+, G%99%3'()'5%(9:-9'5*%G*+,-&&,55,5-%6(&%6+%65,;H-5,&%(-99*+,-G%,8,(*'%(,& ,-5%(523,,51,$*G699:-54G%:%6*%-99%365*%-95%+-/,56$+-)-*,-(&G,($,;
tPage 263 uvwxy

!"#
$

%#
$

&

'

((
)

%

"

%#
$

"&

*
+)

)

+)

,
-

(
.
*

/

)

0Page 264 12345

!"#$!%
&
%'()*
)'$!+
!,'
-#)'
.!)/
/'

)/#)'*(
01'( #*"/)
(/#
)/

2
2 2
3 2
4 54

2678

392

28
:

!'$'"!
)
)/#);'+
(<
"!'#$=
!;#$>
)
(.-'' ?#@#(!)#A'

!)#$.# B&;''(
8
4

33
2

C 3
8DE4

32EEFG8D

H 2
I3 J
54KG8C 5

234

32
3 2
67L

32

23

22
M 32

5
D3
3 2 2NOPQORQRQ PJC8S RNTQQUPV

(
# !$W#;;

!1$
'$!
XY%#;).Y;#&)
2 3Z/
'$W"*! #;
#+#!$#1$
%'([\
;

./
"

.# 0#$$
]!

;)!'
^_X`aXaba.0/!;/;$
#($W
)#)

c
defghijkhfljmnopfhiqrhfshiqthkuhiqmfkvmnnifplpwhgxrhhltjutmghmnnpvhkpfpg vjltjfmnnygpyhglznjfhiqh{shylltmlfppvfhgpgpss|ymflprmfzspgfhgnplpgygh}jihijf lth~pvfitmnnhghslpg}mjflmjf|ypfi|stnplpgygh}jihimfzrhfshqthkuhpgvmnn tjuthgltmfrhhlmpwhlths|gjfmlgmrrjswjhvmghm|fnhiimyhg}jljiihs|ghkrgp} lth~pvffujfhhglgmrrjswjhvmghmjilthmghmvtjstjivjltjf rhhlprmy|njsilghhl
mfkvjltjfrhhlprlthgjutlprvmznjfhprmfjflhgihsljpfmghkvjghpggmopggjpf vjghjiygptjjlhkjfmnnopfhi
|grgpflrhfshjiyghsjihnzxrhhljfthjutlhkjkflihhp|gtp|ihmimspgfhgnplpg ygh}jih~tmlhjfuimjkqlthrhfshvmiynmshkp|lprmihfihprfhshiijlz~thilmglpr ltheymfkh}jsvmiismgzrpghwhgzpfhjwhfmkh}pfilgmlhknmsprspfshgfrpg yhgipfmniymshqipsjmnkjilmfsjfuqmfk}migh|jgh}hfliznpsmnghijkhfliqjlhsm}h jfs|}hflrpg}hmfk}z}plthgjfnmvlpygplhsl}zvjrhmfkr|l|ghstjnkrgp}lth thmwzvmnjfulgmrrjspllp}hfljpflthrmslltmlp|gtp|ihghijkhifh{llpmsp}}|fjlz stjgpygmslpgprrjshjf|fkmlhkvjltilgmfuhgimfkmsgpiilthilghhlrgp}mi|yhg}mghl ymgjfunplrjnnhkvjlttp}hnhiiyhpynhefrmslqlthkmzvh}pwhkjflpp|gtp}hvhtmk lpjfknzmimtp}hnhiiuhflnh}mflpgh}pwhtjihnpfujfuirgp}p|grgpflzmgk~tjiji fpvm}mllhgpryhgipfmnmfky|njsimrhlz
RJCU2 22 22NORQORQRQ

3
2NOPQORQRQ

PQ3
2
2
2

Z/
(
%'(
.'(*$

0
(
1('
#))/
)!@
'%)/
%
;
&
;';

)!'.# )/

0$#0

UJ9 S RNTQQUQV
22
¡ ¢Page 265 £¤¥¦§

! !

#$%&%'(%)*%+',

!

23.44546

7
8!

!

0
0

!
1!

!

!

!!

($;<*=<>(?*<,+*&&;(%'%@?)**<A
B!

0 "

!

D%+?;EE)*',?F'*G

0
!

!
0

0

!
61

!

!

0

/

0

7

!

I

0
!

0
0

0
J

!
7

::

K
!

-
7

L
0
9!!

M
!

7
!

N

/!

OPage 266 PQRST

" #$%&'(')'* +,-./$0.%-,1 2334%566578,%%95.: ;56/.<56(=>?3)@' A BCDEEDFGHCCD I JK-1K8K,LM<NO1KP<,5-QJ8NR'*R))@S 9KT$K6<,-L.PP05U.%V50.15-6<0$1<K:6,OQWSV55<VK-1K%51.<K:X,<M,-<MK0KT$,0K: V05-<&.0:.-:.UKM,1$%.0L.<K6K<Y.1Z%K66<M.-K,LM<KK-Q*[SV057<MKK:LK5V<MK .:\.1K-<6<0KK<5-P05PK0<&]5-K:9R*^*)_>`+3'@R)aR)a@_ `9b`N9cdbe+N9^f.U,:.-:g%.-.h5M.-1M, >``;g=>+c^+,-./$0.%-,1 cMK;56/.<56=577$-,<&fKUK%5P7K-<fKP.0<7K-<M.60KU,KXK:<MK0KVK0K-1K:.PP%,1.<,5- V50.VK-1KMK,LM<KO1KP<,5-P$06$.-<<5iK1<,5-'?_a)_)@')_b-#$%&'(')'*(<MK;56/.<56 =577$-,<&fKUK%5P7K-<fKP.0<7K-<M.6:K-,K:<MK0KT$K6<_ `;N>iN+bcN^`$06$.-<<5iK1<,5-'?_')_'335V<MKc5X-=5:K(<M,6:K1,6,5-7.&YK.PPK.%K: <5<MK`%.--,-L=577,66,5-X,<M,-*):.&65V<MK:K-,.%:.<K_ >-&,-<K0K6<K:PK065-7.&.PPK.%<M,6:K1,6,5-<5<MK`%.--,-L=577,66,5-_>PPK.%6(X,<M<MK 157P%K<K:>PPK.%J507.-:.PPK.%VKKP.&7K-<(7$6<YK6$Y7,<<K:X,<M,-*):.&6V057<MK :.<K5V:K-,.%(50Y&3^))P_7_(#$%&*'(')'*_ gV&5$M.UK.-&T$K6<,5-615-1K0-,-L<M,6:K1,6,5-(P%K.6K15-<.1<`05\K1<`%.--K0f,KL5j50. .<Qa)[S@3aRW[)W50U,.K7.,%.<fj50.k%56L.<561._L5U_ i,-1K0K%&( f,KL5j50. >66,6<.-<`%.--K0 ll<%LRV,%Kl:.<.lfNmlfgN/blJK-1KNOK7P<,5-6l')'*l4%566578,%%9:233l4%566578,%%9:233>1<,5-;K<<K0)2R)'R'*_:51O =gmg==N+cN9 **)N_j>g+ic9NNc ;bi/>cbi(=>?3)@) nopqrqst uPage 267 vwxyy

Page 268

Page 269

Page 270

Page 271 ends

Page 272 ends

Page 273 ends

Page 274 ends

Page 275 ends

Page 276

!" #$%& #'!$("

)

)
)

',-.#"/0 "'

*+
)
23
23
4567879:;
<Page 277 =>?@A

!"#$%&'( )#%& "%'
!
"*+, '+- ,"%%, #-% '"- "%' ./

). 012 012 3456789 :7;<85

). 012 012
= 3456789 :7;<85 >Page 278 ?@A BB EXHIBIT 11

Page 279 ends

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

Page 280 ends

Page 281 ends

Page 282 ends

Page 283

Page 284

!!"
#!$
%%&'()*+,-./00.1234*.2356789&:&;<=&>?:9=@ABCD E
$E

FGHIGJKGLMNFGL OKNIIPIMQGRRPLLPGI STOGSF UVVWXYZ[\WV]^_`a_bcbb XWVUYd]b \[[VY[eU f
#!ghiDjDD fk
!! lk
m " i !!"
#!$
nmf ## o !!"
#!$ $
l$

pq$# r"o "$ o
q@l fl$
s $tppr"l
$u "$ o
p$" vp"$
$u #
w @g gjExyz{|}~{|yy
y{~E
Dh@j@jhEl$

pq$# ##$ l
@Dg@jjhE kfkt
p$pEs
f
v"$E kmfs

p
uE

qpgh$"#"$$ !!$op## op oo# E
f

"
$pp
#!giDjDD
oo# gEs $
# DEr"l
hE $ !! o## E!t si$!giDjDj El$

pq$# r"il"
gDiDjDg p !!"
#! #! AEl$

pq$# r"il"
gDiDjDg pu"$t u #! CEl$

pq$# sim"
DiDjDg BE!t
sim"
CiDjDD E## op !!"
#!$ $ i$"
"iDjDD gjE

!
ggE
gDE
!

$pp"!# ghE"$ !!$gg jgE!Ei #!iDjDDigg jjE!Ei
#!ghiDjDD
ATTACHMENT 2

Page 285 ends

Page 286

!"# $%&
'( )%&
'( *&+'+,-'./
01234567

789::;&++5
&&
6<=6>?"@6?A6>
A%&
'(
++

+
B
&
.C
,
'9::;&++5
&&>+C&
+
+&&-?D
C+
'C=D E+

,+'
'
,
'C
+
,
'
+

'

..
+

&

,++

,
D ++-BC
FC
+
,
++C
,&&
&+
'.
+C

&
+

,++
DC &
.
'

+
C'C
&&D+

&F
'GDC
,C
+ .
&
&

+
C
+&,
-
"+

+&
BD& D &D
'

, +++
'
H
,F

H-B C,
+
,
+@+
+
+
&
C+
,+ D & '
&+
&.
'C-B

BCC
+

D&D

&+,

-
B

C
'C

+C&I
HF J
JHDC
,CD&&&D

,,+++C&
C
' ,
-
"'
B

.
.
'
,C
'CJ,

9::;&++5
&&>-

,&

C%K
#

L"# $%&
'( )%&
'( *&+'+,-'./
0123M
+
6<=6>?"@6?A6>
=DC

, ,
5&&C F

C
+

+F
+
C

&
-#

+ BD

'
J++
+
C
+,+
J,
FC
,
, C

-B
+ CC,

,+
&,
+

+ +
B
&CC
++

+C&

' + J,
-

. C&,

C
C
,++

C
&,
-=C
+

+
+++

+
,,
&DC
,CBC
FD +
J,
-6.
+C&C.C
'C,C+C

+

C

,C

B
&
.CC
+

&
+C&,
C.C
+
'C-
=C F

6<5B;B=
8 NPage 287 OPQRS

!"

#$

%&'(
)**+,
--
.$,,/012

,3
45
1/
,6
7189--:
;<=;/>
?;>2;/

00
=

!"

#$

3,

$
@20
=
5
8?
-A
-
/
)**+,
--
.$,,/012

,3
45
1/
,6
7189--:
.,,

95$$
@8
5
:
--
B=
7

!3,

$
@C
$--$

)**+,
--
.$,,/0D-
E:-8
8
7!$@!F7$

B=
7

!3,

$
@C
$--$

E:$)**
+,
--
.$,,/0
!-,8
7$
@:$
@!=
5 D--$5,#7:-$-
--$
:-
-8$--:-

:-+,
--
.$,,/0
!
!$7,88$7
!-$
:-$
@!-$5,#0
=!$-95$
--5!$,5,#$
@
$ $
@5
-8$--:-8
:7#-$
@
77--!

!7
:,! -:,$
!$7,77$
-5$!$
G:
!0H!$,5,#$
@-
:

!-
:!-$
8+,
--
.$,,/095$
--@
$
@:7#7

7
,-
$
!88$7
,

+,
--
.$,,/0$7,$
8

8)**+,
--
.$,,/0D-$ 50=!5-

77--
!

7:-!-,8
7@5-7,
-1!-,8
7:-!=
5 D--$5,#0
--:,
!@
$
@:7#$
!5-
:
,
$!8,
5
888$70=!$ @

:
8!:7#

5,#:
!@

7,,8
77--0=!$-5-

@
75!8$:7#

,$77!!,@,$@!
-
88$70=!-7

-8
95$
--5-,$ :7#
!
:

!-$5,#5$!!7#
8! !$7,-$7#$
@
:$

!5-
:
88$7,
0
=!,$ :7#5-$!I3

J

:7#06:!@$
@!-$5,#:-8
!
-$

!-,8
7:-$@!
!@
8!-$5,#5!5,#$
@7
-
,$7
5!!

$-:-!$
@5!,7!$$
5!,7!$:-!$
@

-,8
:-!$
@-
,,7:-
!$- $:,,

K,
5

$-!
@$

7
75!$,$
5!,7!$:-!$
@
5!,7!$
-
,,7:-

5
:,7
,,$5$!!-,8
70C
E:$--7#-8

8
7$
@03-
,-7#$-

F$-
0
>

5 ,

@+,
--
.9,,/05
C!+,
--
20
C,,$=
7!-
8
7
@!:-
!-$5,#-
$77--

8
!$
0=!$--7$

8
+,
--
.9,,/0$-!

:@!80=!$-

-#$
@0=!

5 !-

,@,$@!

$ !$7,88$703-
,!$-$-
:

,-$:$

5$!

@:
!5-
:
,

+,
--
.$,,/05$,,

$
,$
@
$
@:7#$
!8::$

77--!
0=!3,

$
@208
!=
5
8?
-A
-7

7,@,
$

7-

$-!

5
, !$@

0=!

5 ,!-5

8
7$
7#
8!-,8
7!-
7
$
-
8-7#
!$@!E:$
0
9:@!3,

$
@C
$--$

!,)**+,
--
.$,,/0
E:$!

5

!$,,@,8
70=!$-$-

G:-!$@!$--::-8$--:0
-
:
5
5-#$,,,
7#5

:-+,
--
.$,,/0$

!3
$75!$,
$
@
$-8
!:
#
8!$-75!$,#,@,,

+,
--
.$,,/0=!
5-!$8
!$

$8
!$-$
G:$-0
LPage 288 MNOPQ

!

"

#
$%&'()*+
,-./()
#"01#1211003145) 6&(
*
7

+
,89:-;/(" <44=
>

?@A
A>B@10@22C
BD
B?E5
"BEB?
>

#
)
?
!

!

!=

!

#
!

!
!

!

#
)
?
GPage 289 HIJKK

Page 290 ends

!!"
#!$
%%&'()*+,-./00.1234*.2356789&:&;<=&>?:9=@ABCD E
$E

FGHIGJKGLMNFGL OKNIIPIMQGRRPLLPGI STOGSF UVVWXYZ[\WV]^_`ab`c^cc XWVUYd]c [VefXWVU g
#!hijDkDD gl
!! ml
n " j !!"
#!$
ong ## p !!"
#!$ $
m$

qr$# s"p "$ p
r@m gm$
t $uqqs"m
$v "$ p

q$"wq"$
$v #
x @h hkEyz{|}~|} zz
z|E
D@ki@kiEm$

qr$# ##$ m
@Dh@kkElglu
q$qE t
g
w"$Elngt

q
vE

rqhi$"s"p $ "$ pq! q
!jDkDD
!! !
Erqh$"#"$$ !!$pq## p q"!# E
g
"
$qq
#!hijDkDD
pp# hEt $
# DEs"m
E$ !! p## iE!u tj$!hijDkDk Em$

qr$# s"jm"
hDjDkDh q !!"
#! #! AEm$

qr$# s"jm"
hDjDkDh qv"$u v #! CEm$

qr$# tjn"
DjDkDh BE!u
tjn"
CjDkDD E## pq !!"
#!$ $ j$"
"jDkDD
hkE

!
hhE
hDE
!

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 291 ends

! "#$"%"&
'(

)*+,-./012*+3+-,+45-6767+8+96+:;+*<=>?@??A44+B4/:C+9.*6D <EF)/;1-3G.::+B6*+3+-,+4<<D@<HF:F>8+96+:;+*I>?@??>HB4<<D@@HF:F>8+96+:;+*<E> ?@??

C+3+-,+45-6767-0J+0KL6+:C+9.*6D
<=FC+M/+06N.*G.B6-B/HB3+
<OF)/;1-3G.::+B6*+3+-,+4<<D@<HF:F>8+96+:;+*<E>?@??>HB4<<D@@HF:F>8+96+:;+*<=> ?@??
PPage 292 QRSTU

! "#$ # "

%

&

%'(
)
*+

),-**.

/-*
)
*,''
()
(
*,0)
(
+**-
12

34567869:886;<=>?6@=A;BCA<D@E@FA=>F6?A9@=AGG:686=@<6?<H86;@=E@A=:86IDHGJA<@=AK@<AH;4
)*
)*(
#
L*

))
1(
(
1
(
1)),()
)M

M

(
&*,(+(,

1 0&-*
(00*((
N (
1)
()(
)M%*
)
(

)

(*,
O((

-*
*
(*)
)'0
*+M

P4Q7FH;9@==<HFH88HC4RD686AG@?696;<=AS6=ADHH?<D@<QCH;7<T6@T=6<HF@S6<D6F66<A;B
(
M**+)&/(

(-*
00((
+/-0*(((
M

QEA<C686JHGGAT=6<H?6=@>UQ7?=AS6<HFHV6<H6A<D68W9<HT683X<DH8YZ[\]^\_`abM

)+(
1(
(
M/(-)
(
1,+
**,M

")'(+**,

!%/c/d
ePage 293 fghij

Page 294

! "#
$% &' ()*
+' ()*
,

)

- .)
/0
1234$'56 78!8!7.9-:();<=-(
$(- (
9:<8
8!!7
<>?<@5$A<5B<@
:
C

/

.C
/;D-
E
F
(

(
;E ((
.%

;
8(8 E(/
(;(

*
F( -

;

D

;(

;
)

; ;D-(
)

GF
;
E((
.</

C; /

E(;E;
(/
(;(

*
F( )

; ; ;D-(

- -F
.C

E;(E

F(

D

;(

*
F(E
F
E -

;

DD
;(

F

;
D-
();; //

F(DF.$

; H -

;

;

F

-(/(
--F

() ();(.C

((/;(
D-E(
(
;/ F
D ;

(

- F

D;
E(-((
.C

(

E;

;(
.C

()
G

;();

;

.?;(
D-(
)
;E ((
.*F()(

EE(;F
;
();

;

.
$
/ F

D;(
/ F
*
F(CE
F
(A

-
(F

D;

-
($
(- .C
)

J66K

:(@
/

F

; ;
D-(
)

)
F

F(E

F;/;(-F
) .C; /=
(-E

()D

;
-
;

/
/;(-F
)

-
(-

.C
E; ;(
) -
F

E(;

E(;
)
D

(
F

!!!D.?;
(

/
;)
"D
F
D;

(
F

DD(-
D-
-

.
L
((

!
!#67$% &' ()*
+' ()*
,

)

- .)
/0
1234$'56 78!8!7.9-:();<=-(
$(- (
9:<8
8!!7
<>?<@5$A<5B<@
:
(
L
((.C(/
;

J66K

:(@

.C
;
(
F

D;D-
);

E
F
(

;D-
(((

-F

.?;D-(
H()

F-
;)
)
-

D;

;

F);
;D-.C
-
/
;
D

M
(E;
;
(

(

F-(
E;

D (D

D
CF

;
D

-(
.'

-F;(

D-.$

(;(
-
F(E;C
;(

F(DFD-((
)

;()

(
D; .CD(
(

/

.?;(

(

/

F

)

E(;D

/()/;(-

-;(

(;

E(;E

D
F(

.?;
-F
(
D;D-
(

F

);D

FE();
NOPQRQSTU
VPage 295 WXYZ[

Page 296

!!"
#!$
%%&'()*+,-./00.1234*.2356789&:&;<=&>?:9=@ABCD E
$E

FGHIGJKGLMNFGL OKNIIPIMQGRRPLLPGI STOGSF UVVWXYZ[\WV]^^_`_abaa XWVUYc]d e !fgDhDD
ei
!! ji
k " g !!"
#!$
lke ## m !!"
#!$ $
j$

no$# p"m "$ m
o@j ej$
q $rnnp"j
$s "$ m

n$"tn"$
$s #
u @v vhEwxyz{|}z{ ~xx
xz}E
D@hf@hfEj$

no$# ##$ j
@Dv@hhEieir
n$nE q
e
t"$Eikeq

n
sE

en!

$n"m
#!vfgDhDDg$ "
!gDhDDg" p"m !n##$E

e
"
$nn
#!vfgDhDD
mm# vEq $
# DEp"j
E$ !! m## fE!r qg$!vfgDhDh Ej$

no$# p"gj"
vDgDhDv n !!"
#! #! AEj$

no$# p"gj"
vDgDhDv ns"$r s #! CEj$

no$# qgk"
DgDhDv BE!r
qgk"
CgDhDD E## mn !!"
#!$ $ g$"
"gDhDD
vhE

!
vvE
vDE
!

ATTACHMENT 4

Page 297 ends

!"#$%$&'(

)*+,-./012*+3+-,+45-6767+8+96+:;+*<=>?@??A44+B4/:C <DE)/;1-3F.::+B6*+3+-,+4<<C@<GE:E>8+96+:;+*H>?@??>GB4<<C@@GE:E>8+96+:;+*<D> ?@??

)*+,-./012*+3+-,+45-6767+8+96+:;+*<=>?@??I+0JK6+:C <=EL+M/+06N.*F.B6-B/GB3+
<OE)/;1-3F.::+B6*+3+-,+4<<C@<GE:E>8+96+:;+*<D>?@??>GB4<<C@@GE:E>8+96+:;+*<=> ?@??

L+3+-,+45-6767-086GNNL+9.*6C
<PEA44-6-.BG1Q5B+*R/06-N-3G6-.B>4G6+48+96+:;+*<H>?@??
SPage 298 TUVWX

!"#"$!
%&'(
%
)&*+&,-./+'
01&--2
3*+4055&*-',/6*

/'+&)**7
380+*55&/*9

/,5*%
+)*-:9%;
44
0*
.&,&56&4'45/4)*&*7
#&-'
5*4/++&4*
&5+0+&,&56&*<=97
+3>,)5&)56.
5*&)*&*>+55-*&?!(35&+*++05&/
16**3&+&405&
6-@&/+*&&-.&4&)5
*&4*6,'.,-'73-&.*,'1.&//06*&5*
,&-
&:

5'6*;+,&+
.&-)6.&--
1#
+9*
+,&,A&5/05&++7
&5&1+

*&5

)*
7

&5&5&5
06-'B<5/4&+*&+
-
6+*+**4
&5--
.*&45/4)*&*+*&
&5&+*4*'*
#
+9*
+7
+&C0*&+*
,&A&6
45/44---
&&&5'B+/'+(
&D4-0/6'
*&54--5&C05&,&*+:)5
AA-'&&5'E*6*;7
+))-&+*
'45/4
4*-A+++*4&
5,?!45/
*
544)5
4&/05&F14**,&+4A&C0*&
/0*67
G*/
'
0*+
0-/A&,')5
5*'H$
'
0*3+
0-/1
55'A
0*,'.,-'>++.&*'
+3>,-

60))*&*.
5,*
(50+6*
*&
+)*-/056
5*4/++&4*
1&5&
&&5'+&4
/,**&5+*
*&)*&*>++05-H
0-/3A&4
4&5&/**
05&6A
5I, *1

,&+/
11+5
AA&/.&1'&5+6
H:14++
,&*6380+*5&4&*-'
/+4
&5&/;H
0-/3A&4
4&5&/**,'A
++>451++*
-&.5
*
.+
0+&-&++*

,
*+6

?-&/&5:-&++*JA-
4+.5
,
05
,&;H
30/&5+*/**'
05
..4&+A&&0/*&/1*))&51
5*&,/+*
.*+
&D&,)*
(A0*4
0-/'
0)-&+&,'
1)&5+
-4
4&5+*
*&-+*7

'
0.
5'
05*,&/4
+/&5*
73*+6-'))5&4*&/7
$/K
4$
LMNOPOQRS
TPage 299 UVWXY

Page 300
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
1 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
A P P E A R A N C E S:

Los Gatos Planning
Commissioners:

Melanie Hanssen, Chair
Jeffrey Barnett, Vice Chair
Kylie Clark
Kathryn Janoff
Steve Raspe
Emily Thomas
Town Manager: Laurel Prevetti
Community Development
Director:

Joel Paulson
Town Attorney: Gabrielle Whelan
Transcribed by: Vicki L. Blandin
(619) 541-3405
ATTACHMENT 5

Page 301 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
2 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
P R O C E E D I N G S:

CHAIR HANSSEN: We will move on to the Public
Hearings portion of the meeting, and we have two items for Public Hearings this evening.

The first one is consider an appeal of a
Community Development Director Decision to deny a Fence Height Exception request for construction of a 6’ tall
fence located within the required front yard setbacks, and construction of a vehicular gate with reduced setbacks on property zoned R-1:10, located at 755 Blossom Hill Road, APN 523-04-043, Fence Height Exception Application FHE-21- 003, Property Owners David and Ilana Kohanchi, and
Applicant Nina Gurainic. Project planner is Savannah Van Akin.

I will ask if any Commissioners need to be
recused from this item? And may I see a show of hands from Commissioners who have visited the subject property? Very good.

Then I will turn it over to staff for their Staff
Report.

SAVANNAH VAN AKIN: Good evening, Planning
Commissioners. Before you is an appeal of a Community

Page 302 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
3 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
Development Director Decision to deny a Fence Height
Exception request at 755 Blossom Hill Road. This item was originally scheduled for the September 14th meeting date. On September 13th the property owner requested the item be continued to the November 9, 2022 Planning Commission
meeting. The Staff Report and exhibit materials from the September 14th meeting are what are being considered today.

The property owner is requesting approval to
permit a previously constructed 6’ metal fence and gate.

The fence is along the property line within the required front yard setback. Per current Town Code, fences are
limited to 3’ in height when located within a required
front yard setback, and gates have an 18’ setback
requirement unless accepted as granted by the Town Engineer and the Community Development Director. The fence also has sharp points, as seen in Exhibit 12, which are prohibited per Town Code.

On February 12, 2021 the property owner applied
for an exception to the Town’s fence regulations for the unpermitted construction of the gate and the fencing on the subject property, which does not comply with the Town Code fence regulations. The property owner cited Condition D for privacy and security concerns as justification for their fence and gate. The privacy concerns were related to the

Page 303 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
4 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
property’s proximity to the commercial centers and medical offices, citing occasions when people thought their home was the chiropractor’s office, which is located next door.

The property owner also cited protecting children,
containing animals, and protecting a garden as
justification for extra security.

On July 2, 2021 the Town denied the exception
request because the findings listed in the Town Code could not be made. The decision of the Community Development
Director to deny the Fence Height Exception application was appealed on August 5, 2022. The Appellant listed security and the unique location as justification for their appeal.

The Appellant’s letter raises several points to
support their Fence Height Exception, all of which is
listed in your Staff Report. Of the seven public comments received for this application, one was in opposition to the fence.

Based on the discussion provided in the Staff
Report Staff, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal, uphold the decision of the Community
Development Director, and deny the Fence Height Exception.

This concludes Staff’s presentation and we’re
happy to answer any questions.

Page 304 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
5 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you very much for your
Staff Report. Do any Commissioners have questions for Staff at this time? Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. This is a
question for the Town Attorney. It seems to me in the
Appellant’s package they were disputing this item because they couldn’t get ahold of Town Staff because of COVID, and so there was no clear direction given from Staff, and the information that they could find online didn’t provide
clarification as to their specific circumstance. Could you comment on those reasons why the appeal should be
considered and provide guidance?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: Those contentions really fall
into an estoppel argument, and the courts have held there are cases in which towns actually gave the wrong
information to an applicant and court held that the
applicant was still required to undo what had been
constructed, because it was not possible to get estoppel against a public agency, because the courts will balance the public interest in having a consistent code applied against the private injustice, and the public interest in almost all cases will prevail in the court decision.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you. Thank you for that,
Commissioner Janoff. Commissioner Clark.

Page 305 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
6 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. I have two
questions. I was wondering if you would be able to say
again the amount of attempts that the Town made to reach out to them, and was it attempts where you just didn’t hear back at all?
SAVANNAH VAN AKIN: Thank you for that question.

The Town first sent a warning letter on December 14, 2020.

They applied for their exception on February 12, 2021. We denied the application on July 2, 2021 and then the Town continued to contact the property owner on November 16, 2021, January 31, 2022, March 22, April 5, May 3, and May 24, and then we proceeded to send a second warning letter on July 7th, 2022.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Okay, thank you, and all of
those attempts that were listed before the warning letter, you just didn’t get any sort of response?
SAVANNAH VAN AKIN: There were many instances
where there was just no response at all, and if there was a response, it was very minimal.

JENNIFER ARMER: Sorry Commissioner, I just
wanted to add as well, we do generally reach out to try to have a conversation when we’ve had a report of something that’s nonconforming before issuing a violation, and there have been numerous conversations with them through the

Page 306 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
7 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
process, so it isn’t a case where we just aren’t getting a response. There are numerous conversations and following up to make sure that they are continuing and moving forward with what needs to be the next steps in the process, as they decided that they didn’t want to remove the fence and so they wanted to move onto the next steps.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Okay, thank you. Chair, may
I ask another question?
CHAIR HANSSEN: Yes.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: I was wondering if you can
speak a little bit more to the safety hazards for traffic and pedestrians that it causes? One thing I saw was that it wouldn’t allow for vehicles to clear the travel lanes while queuing and I don’t really understand what that means, if you’d be able to speak a little bit to that?
JENNIFER ARMER: I can jump in initially,
Savannah, if you’d like. We also have the Town Engineer, WooJae Kim, available. It has to do with the location of the gate, not allowing a car to pull all the way onto the property while waiting for the gate to open, but would
block the sidewalk and the travel lane is one issue.

The other issue, I believe, was the view
triangle. If somebody is coming out of the driveway, does this fence and gate block that? But as I said, we do have

Page 307 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
8 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
WooJae Kim here, Town Engineer, who may have something to add.

WOOJAE KIM: Thank you, Ms. Armer. WooJae Kim,
Town Engineer. This request came through our office as well and we reviewed the site. Blossom Hill Road is an arterial for the Town, so it’s heavily used, 35 miles per hour speed limit, and the 18’ requirement is so that the vehicle when entering the property wouldn’t be blocking the street and they wouldn’t be queuing waiting for the gate to open, so that’s a safety concern there.

Also, there is quite a bit of pedestrian and
student traffic on the sidewalks, and that’s the other
issue with the traffic view area, which needs to be
cleared, or at least at like 3’ high obstruction at most.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you, that’s perfect.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Vice Chair Barnett.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you. I have a question
for Staff in terms of the availability of the Staff to
answer questions from the public during the COVID shutdown.

JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you, Commissioner. I’ll
jump in again since Savannah has joined us since that time.

We have continued to be available through the entire
closure. Even when we did not have open door, drop-in

Page 308 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
9 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
hours, we did continue to respond to inquiries via phone and email.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you for that response.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Did you have any other questions?
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Yes, I have a question for
the Town Attorney, if I might?
CHAIR HANSSEN: Go ahead.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I noticed in Section

29.40.0320(b) that their reference is to special privacy concerns and wildlife problems as potential reasons for exception from the fence regulations, and my question is are these only relevant where the fence is outside of the setback?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: Yes, that is correct.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I have a question for Staff
also about the other houses on that block of Los Gatos
Boulevard. I just wanted to confirm that, because there are other fences on that block of Los Gatos Boulevard going towards the school, and I just wanted to confirm that all of those were in compliance with the ordinance, and if any are not if it’s because they were built before the
ordinance was passed.

Page 309 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
10 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
JENNIFER ARMER: Yes, that is our understanding,
that all of the other properties either are in conformance, or the fence was built prior to the adoption of the most recent ordinance in 2019. I don’t believe we’re aware of any in that vicinity that are currently in noncompliance and built after the new ordinance.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay, perfect. I just
wanted to confirm, because there are lots of different
options and styles happening along there. Thank you.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Are there any other questions
from Commissioners? And you’ll have another opportunity to ask Staff questions after the public hearing is closed. I don’t see any, so we will turn to the Appellant, and the Appellant has up to five minutes to speak to the Planning Commission on this item.

JENNIFER ARMER: We’ve got two hands raised,
Ilana, and I’ll let you speak. You may speak for up to five minutes. If there is anyone else on your team who also
wants to speak, let us know and we can allow them. It all needs to be part of the same five minutes.

DAVID KOHANCHI: Can you show the PowerPoint, if
possible, before we start the timer?
JENNIFER ARMER: Yes, I can get that started.

Page 310 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
11 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
DAVID KOHANCHI: Thank you so much for coming. We
truly appreciate it.

ILANA KOHANCHI: Hi, you guys are confused. I’m
Ilana, that’s my husband David. We’re on my computer.

DAVID KOHANCHI: Hi. This is the Fence Height
Exception request for the Kohanchi family. There are a lot of topics to cover, so I’ll go as quickly as possible.

Our home is positioned, as we discussed, in a
commercial area. Directly in front of us are the Terraces of Los Gatos, to the right in the front is King’s Court Shopping Center, and directly to the right adjoined to our home is a large dental/chiropractor office.

This is the Terraces of Los Gatos.

This is the King’s Court.

And this to the right adjoining our fence is the
chiropractor/dental office.

Again, concerns with this, I couldn’t be more
vocal about it. In the area there is a lot of walking
traffic, there are a lot of strangers, there’s a lot of very suspicious characters. We feel that we need the added protection.

In addition, the Terraces, our home is directly
under their second story, so there are probably within a hundred people that can view into our kitchen and into our

Page 311 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
12 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
front lot, so we think that we need an added layer of
protection from that as well.

Again, as discussed, we’re on Blossom Hill Road,
a very dangerous street, and the speeds have been unchecked for years. There was within recent years an accident where somebody was unfortunately killed; that was within a block of our home.

The fence is a galvanized steel fence. It is
almost impenetrable by a car, and we fear a car jumping the curb, and just like before a car actually swerved off the road and hit someone who was opening their trunk; we feel that’s puts us at high risk, so we think it’s a safety
measure.

Things to consider. Crime rates are going up
everywhere, in particular Blossom Manor. Our home was
actually burglarized within the last two years, very known to the Town and to the street. Two doors down, 763 Blossom Hill Road, was burglarized within the last year, which I think is important to note.

In general, we live in a great area that
unfortunately is not as safe as we think. Our Town is more dangerous than 53% of cities.

If you look at the Ring thread, which we have
from our front door camera, there’s a bunch of stuff that’s

Page 312 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
13 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
going on in the Town; I know if you are discussing it.

Trespassing. This is all in Los Gatos. Gunshots, people with guns, people stealing packages. I think we need to reevaluate the safety of our community.

Something that was astounding to us, we have a
child, a three year old, at home. The southern part of Los Gatos might be protected from this, but where we live in the dot, we’re within a very close area to about 200 sex offenders, one within a few homes of us, so we think it’s safe to have an extra fence, one in which the vehicular gate is only closed at nighttime to protect us from these incidents.

Again, Ilana and I are both Jewish. I don’t like
to say this. Ilana and I come from families, Russian and Persian, that left their home countries in exile, and we’re quite concerned given the current rhetoric in the world.

Notable on this is that there was a manifesto of somebody who had guns ready to kills Jews in Los Gatos within the last year on 7/19/2021.

In addition to that, some other considerations.

I’m a single provider physician. I don’t truthfully make enough money. We make good money, but I’m a single provider and we have active endeavors in the works. I’m buying a vending machine business that requires a lot of inventory

Page 313 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
14 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
that will stay in our home. I plan for an exotic car
business on (inaudible) that will start in the next year, and we have the original Cilker farmland that has a lot of productive products that we’re going to sell in the future.

So I think those assets put this at higher risk than other properties.

Again, this was discussed, when we went online.

We moved to this town, my wife was pregnant, we were very stressed, and it was the COVID pandemic. Nobody was
accessible. Very, very difficult to get ahold of people.

So we used the only resource available,
losgatosca.gov, which was unfruitful. It basically said 6’ and that’s all. Six feet, no setback, period.

So, if you look through Los Gatos there are
fences everywhere. And we looked everywhere, and this was within the two-minute drive, we found 39 fences. We
discussed it with the Town, the comments that these are before, etc., don’t seem to apply given the ubiquitousness of the fences.

Again, you can’t have selective enforcement of
the rules. We should have a way to monitor who has a fence and who doesn’t for you to be able to say that previous fences existed. There are actually one to two on this

Page 314 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
15 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
street that violate, and one that was built in the last few months.

I’m a single provider. My wife and I live here.

We moved here to protect our daughter. We bought our home close to its peak; property taxes are high. So at least our opinion should be as important as others. COVID happened, we’re scared; life is tough.

We understand the concerns that are presented. A
single person complained, and we don’t think their concerns are valid. We’re here, and we’re all just trying to survive and live happily. Thank you so much.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you very much for your
presentation. I’d like to ask if any Planning Commissioners have questions for the Appellant? Commissioner Clark.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. Where did you get
the number that Los Gatos is more dangerous than 53% of cities?
DAVID KOHANCHI: There are a number of registries
online. I can actually open it up. I initially had a
reference. I can get it to you in about 30 seconds. That’s a universally accepted number currently. The crime index is 47 out of 100, which indicates it’s 47% safer (inaudible) than other U.S. cities.

Page 315 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
16 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Then a follow up. It seems
like you have a lot of concern specifically about Los Gatos and crime here, and instead of doing all of this for your home, why did you move here and why don’t you move if this is such a big concern for you?
DAVID KOHANCHI: I’m a cardiac anesthesiologist
at Good Samaritan Hospital. I have to be within 15-20
minutes for emergencies, very important ones, and there is a very selective distance that I can live that we felt
safe. We want our daughter to be in a good school district and this is one of the best. It’s tough to say that I’m suggesting that this is a very dangerous area. Clearly I didn’t think so, given that we moved here, but given what we’ve heard in moving here and the dangers that it
presents…
Our home was robbed within in the last three
years. Somebody jumped over a fence and came here and
robbed the home. We weren’t here, but that’s the story that we’re hearing from our neighbors. That’s terrifying. Two doors down they were robbed. On Oleander Avenue a car was stolen two blocks away within the last six months.

Everybody during COVID and pre-COVID, we wanted
to buy a home. That’s the thing to do. You move to the
City, you start working, and you buy a home. One of the

Page 316 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
17 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
biggest concerns when you buy a home is where to live.

Unfortunately, it was very hard to find homes, and this was the quickest to get, and we actually bought it off market and we were very lucky. I love the Town; I just think we should be transparent about the safety concerns so that we can move forward safely as citizens. We can’t take a blind eye to the dangers that exist right here.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. Do any other
Commissioners have questions for the Appellant? Vice Chair Barnett.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I’m afraid I have a large
number of questions, maybe eight or nine, so I wonder if the Chair would indulge me as I go through them?
CHAIR HANSSEN: Yes, go ahead and do that.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: What’s your position on the
Town’s argument that your fence spikes are in violation of the code?
DAVID KOHANCHI: Sorry, could you repeat that?
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: The Town has pointed out
that you have spikes at the top of the fence in violation of Section 29.40.0315 of the code, and I was wondering what your position is on that?

Page 317 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
18 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
DAVID KOHANCHI: To be quite honest, the spikes
were an intent of an aesthetic. We were trying for it to look nice. We didn’t realize it was against the code when we looked at the rules. The ordinance that was listed was very clear, and that was all that was listed with regards to fences that was posted on that website.

Though I understand the concern, and I understand
that that might be an issue, that for us is not that
significant. If needed, I can get rid of the spikes on the fence. I understand that concern.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Okay, appreciate that. Is
the garage on your property available for parking, and if not, why?
DAVID KOHANCHI: The garage on the property was
converted to closed space so that we can use it as storage, so no, it is not currently used and accessible for cars.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Could the storage be removed
to another location so that you could park your car in the garage and have straight access out to Blossom Hill Road for your emergency calls?
DAVID KOHANCHI: The front lot of our house is
very large, and it’s really far back, so in theory if you put a car in there it can only fit one and not two, and that still wouldn’t… I don’t fully understand. Are you

Page 318 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
19 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
saying that parking in the garage would make it easier to get out for emergencies? It’s very far away from the front of the house.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: No, what I understand is
that you want to keep the front area available for
potential use by your daughter as a playing area, and
therefore you don’t want a car parked there, so my question is whether you could find that available parking, keep the play space open, and still have direct access out to the street?
DAVID KOHANCHI: In theory, yes, I could put my
car, but currently we have two cars and a third, because our mother-in-law is here all the time. I plan on buying two to three more exotic cars in the next six months to a year for the purpose of renting them out as a business, so even if did that it would be blocked for me to get out, because those cars require space to be parked.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: So we can move on. The
letters that you sent to the Town don’t actually have dates on them. I looked at Exhibit 5 on page 27, and Exhibit 6 on page 31. Are you able to define what the sending dates of those two letters were?
DAVID KOHANCHI: I don’t have those in front of
me, so I can’t answer that question.

Page 319 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
20 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: My fellow Commissioner
raised the question about notices from the Town. Is it
accurate that you received a number of outreaches by the Town concerning the fence and gate?
DAVID KOHANCHI: The notices that responded to us
were after the fence was made, not previous to. Those were several attempts to contact the Town where we did not get responsiveness, and we made the fence given what we knew to be the knowledge at the time. In response to every single one that was sent, every since message that was sent that we received, we communicated again with the Town to say that we believe that this should be appealed for X, Y, and Z. The delay in that time frame is nothing to do with our miscommunication, it has to do with we were waiting for the next steps to occur.

Our mother-in-law met with the Town several
times. I met with the Town at least once, and there have been several phone calls between then and now. The
narrative that we were communicated with without
responsiveness is false. We definitely responded to every message if it made sense for the next step to occur.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Were some of those emails,
or was it all oral?

Page 320 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
21 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
DAVID KOHANCHI: Mainly phone calls and in-person
meetings. In fact, it’s very easy for us to find out,
because Nina Gurainic met with the Planning Committee
multiple times: Joel, Jocelyn, everybody who is well aware of her communication. I’m late to the game of
communication, because the last several years have been relatively tough for us, but in response to that, yes, we have definitely responded to the messages.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Okay, thank you. My next
question is in Exhibit 6, which is one of the letters
submitted to the Town. In paragraph eight it says that the fence was placed solely for safety during the COVID
pandemic. Was that correct at the time?
DAVID KOHANCHI: Not solely, but one of the major
reasons, yes.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: And would you acknowledge
that there’s a risk that the gate mechanism or the remote might not be operable at some times due to malfunction or batteries?
DAVID KOHANCHI: Is it possible? Are you asking
me is it possible that a mechanical vehicle gate can
malfunction? Yes. In response to that, if I may, the gate is left open all days from 6:30 to 9:00pm. And the
potential that that would happen would happen during off

Page 321 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
22 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
hours when the car traffic is significantly minimal on
Blossom Hill Road, in which case we would park on the side of the road, and we have side gates that would allow us into the gate.

ILANA KOHANCHI: I just want to clarify. He meant
6:30am to 9:00pm, not evening hours, but as in the entire day from morning till night. It’s only closed at night for our safety.

DAVID KOHANCHI: Never, never has it been closed
during the day.

ILANA KOHANCHI: Therefore, it could never block
anyone from driving in or pulling in or block the road; that just wouldn’t happen, because it’s always open.

DAVID KOHANCHI: That being said, also we
intentionally purchased the top of the line clicker and device that is over 500’ away. We thought of that concern prior to placing it and planned ahead.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Clarify for me, if you
would, how many occasions of trespass there have been
during your period of ownership.

DAVID KOHANCHI: Twice. One person came into our
back yard to obtain persimmons when we moved in, and when we moved there was a small amount of time between the time that we purchased the home and when we moved in, because we

Page 322 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
23 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
were delivering a baby, and in that two-week time somebody squatted in the front of our house. We had a squatter in the front of our home. Very nice couple that was sleeping on the front of the home; we asked them to leave. So in terms of how long we have lived here and how many people have trespassed on our watch, twice.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Okay, thank you for that.

You pointed out in your appeal that there were a number of fences within the setback in Los Gatos-Almaden Road, but did you find any on Blossom Hill Road between, say, Cherry Blossom and Camellia Terrace?
DAVID KOHANCHI: You’re speaking of a very small
distance, right? So you’re asking a question of seven
homes. You’re asking were there any within seven homes, right? Because across the street is the retirement
facility, and to the right of me is the dental/chiropractor office, and the answer is yes, there’s a vehicular gate at the end of the street.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Do you know if it’s within
the setback?
DAVID KOHANCHI: It is not within the setback.

The reason I don’t bring that up is because I don’t feel that that’s appropriate to discuss my neighborhood.

Page 323 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
24 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Can you comment on the fact
that you have security concerns, but at the same time
you’re willing to keep the gate open during daylight hours? DAVID KOHANCHI: I think the vast majority of
trespassing that occurs in Los Gatos, if you look at the Ring thread and historically and you look at crime data, happens at night. So my concern is when I am not home. I am a happy gun owner, and if somebody comes into my house
during the nighttime I’m usually present, but during the nighttime, sometimes when I leave the house I am not
present; it was my concern. I’m worried about the time when I leave to go to call in the hospital in the middle of the night and I’m not home. I am not as concerned during the day.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Finally, you acknowledged in
your presentation today, and I think in your appeal also, that Blossom Hill Road is in fact a dangerous road because of speeding?
DAVID KOHANCHI: Yes, sir.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: And in light of that
statement, what do you feel is incorrect about the Town’s position that there is a safety risk with respect to the gate not being 18’ back and the fence being within the
setback?

Page 324 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
25 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
DAVID KOHANCHI: In response, I have to take a
step back from you. If the true concern were that the gate and the vehicle setback was a risk, then everyone with a gate that’s on a high-speed street, Los Gatos-Almaden as an example, should be at the same risk.

In response to that comment also, would be that
the fence to us, because the incident where the person was killed, and there was another incident I know of in the same town on Blossom Hill Road where a car ran into
somebody’s home, drove into somebody’s home within the last five years, I believe. We don’t want that to happen. Our fence would prevent a car from getting into our lot, so that’s one of the main reasons why we put up that metal fence.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Okay, thank you. I think
that’s all my questions. I appreciate your time.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for all your questions,
Vice Chair Barnett. Then we also have Commissioner Thomas has her hand up.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Thank you, Chair. I have
two questions for the Applicant.

The first is if you could walk us through how and
when you tried to contact the Town to get clarification on the Fence Ordinance?

Page 325 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
26 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
DAVID KOHANCHI: The vast majority of
communication prior to the placement of the fence was done by Nina Gurainic.

When we purchased the house it was October of
2020. I was sick; I had COVID. We were managing
complications of COVID. My wife was pregnant. We were
living on Santana Row. She had a very complicated
pregnancy. She was in the hospital probably eight times over the course of a month with the concerns that there would be fetal demise. The baby was small; we had IUGR, Intrauterine Growth Restriction.

In the time from when we were in the hospital
delivering the baby, within several weeks Nina definitely contacted the Planning Department at least four separate times. I know, because she was in the hospital when she did it.

I personally did not call within that time frame.

I spoke to the contractor. We hired a contractor who looked at the online ordinance that was listed, and I approved given the ordinance that was listed. I, myself, did not attempt to contact the Planning Department.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Thank you for that. So the
contractor that you hired said that they looked at the
ordinance and you went with them that they trusted it?

Page 326 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
27 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
DAVID KOHANCHI: We confirmed by looking up the
ordinance as well.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: So you do not think that
the way that the ordinance was written that it’s clear that the way that you built your fence, that it’s in violation? DAVID KOHANCHI: The ordinance that we used is
the one that I put in the PowerPoint. The ordinance that we used we actually followed to a tee. There was an ordinance listed online, I can pull it up, and that ordinance
essentially says, “In residential zones fences, hedges, and walls not over 6’ high are allowed on or within all
property lines,” period. There is no addendum to it,
there’s no setback discussion, there’s no 3’. This was
modified after the fact. So this was listed on the website in October of 2020.

The Ordinance Handbook, which is what we were
told after the fact is different, was updated within the last few years and unfortunately the onsite website was not updated. And I understood the lawyer’s very intricate and phenomenal argument that the public, etc., but this is what was written and this is what we used. So it’s not that I violated an ordinance and I had any nefarious agenda. That was what was posted.

Page 327 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
28 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
And I get it, COVID, life is tough and we didn’t
update anything. But I just used what was there. I don't know how else to answer that, to be honest with you. So no, I did not know I violated the ordinance, because the one that I had utilized I currently followed.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay, thank you.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Just quickly, because I
know we have public comments and then the Appellant does have the opportunity to speak again, but I did want to
follow up on the question Commissioner Thomas was asking of Staff.

Staff, can you verify that at the time the
Appellant looked at the ordinance that that in fact was the ordinance and the only thing listed was what he’s
describing, or were there other sections of code that the Appellant simply missed, or didn’t know to find, or didn’t search thoroughly enough? I’m having a hard time
understanding the content of what is publicly available online, which is generally all anybody is going to have access to, during COVID anyway, how that could be so
different from what the actual code at the time was, if Staff could please explain?

Page 328 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
29 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you, Commissioner. I’d be
happy to give a little bit of background on that. The
official Town Code that is available online, that’s Chapter 29, which is the Zoning Code, but all of the other chapters of the Municipal Code, when code updates are adopted by Town Council those updates actually get automatically
updated by the company that maintains that website and our code. However, there are sometimes other pages on the
Town’s website with reference information pulling out
certain sections of the code to try to make it more easily accessible, and I believe the page that the Appellant is referencing was a reference that was connected with the Building Department’s webpage stating when a building
permit would be required for a fence and it had reference to the old code at that time, and so that was delayed in being updated. The full Municipal Code was updated
promptly.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: So you’re saying that there
were two places where there were two code reference, one up to date and one not up to date, so up to date code was
available at the time the Appellant was searching for fence information?
JENNIFER ARMER: That is correct.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you.

Page 329 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
30 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Raspe.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, Chair. I actually
had the same question as Commissioner Janoff, so thank you for asking that, and for your answer.

I did have one other question for the Appellant,
because I just don’t find it readily in my packet. What was the date of construction of the fence? I don’t know that our materials contain that.

DAVID KOHANCHI: The date of construction of the
fence is the end of 2020. We were delivering a child, so somewhere early in December of 2020, I would say December 6th, somewhere around there.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Okay. I notice that the Town
issued its administrative warning on December 14th, so it would have to be before that. What was the time lapse
between the time you completed the fence and the time you got the warning?
DAVID KOHANCHI: Probably several weeks. One to
two weeks.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Okay, thanks so much.

DAVID KOHANCHI: That’s my best guestimate, to be
honest with you.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: I appreciate it. Thanks.

Page 330 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
31 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR HANSSEN: That was a lot of questions, and
thank you for all your thorough questions, Commissioners. I feel like we should turn to the public for public comments, so I will put out to those in attendance, this would be the time for anyone that would like to speak in Verbal
Communications on this item. So if you would like to do so, please raise your hand on Zoom.

JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you, Chair. We do have
several people who have their hands raised. Right now the first is Mark. I will allow you to speak. Mark, you should be able to unmute, and you have up to three minutes.

MARK JAMIESON: Hi, my name is Mark Jamieson; I
live at 285 Marchmont Drive. I’m an acquaintance with the Kohanchis.

I’m basically in support of the fence. I drive by
their house every morning. I find nothing offensive with the fence. The gate is open during the day that I’ve
noticed. The only safety issue I would potentially realize is if like an Amazon truck or something like that had a delivery, and during the day it’s open for delivery, so I don’t see anything that would block the driveway.

We’ve been woken up to my daughter going into our
garage and finding a stranger asleep in our garage, and if I had the same opportunity to build a security fence if my

Page 331 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
32 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
property afforded that, I would. I know through reading all the Nextdoor and comments that have been going on in town, If I had a young baby and wife at home during the day, I would definitely have a secure fence at night.

Maybe there is some compromise that could happen,
like taking the spikes down and leaving the gate open
during the day, and so I would like to see maybe the Town could work with the Kohanchis as far as keeping the gate and maybe painting it that it might blend in a little bit more with the surrounding area.

I see many gates similar to theirs, and I realize
it’s not fully to code, but I think there might be some room for exception, the fact that they live on one of the busiest places in Town. Thank you for your time.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for your comments, and
I will turn to the Commission and see if any Commissioners have questions for you, Mr. Jamieson. I don’t see any hands raised, but thank you again for your comments. It looks like we do have others that would like to speak on this item.

JENNIFER ARMER: Yes, Steve is next in line.

We’ll allow you to speak. You should be able to unmute, and you have up to three minutes.

Page 332 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
33 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
STEVE DOZIER: Thank you. Steven Dozier. I live
at 16536 Englewood Avenue and I frequently drive by the property in question—I go to Peet’s quite a bit—and I find the fence well constructed and immaculate and I’ve never really had any problem with it. It seems to fit into the neighborhood as far as I can see on my daily trips to
King’s Court.

I agree that perhaps maybe there is a compromise
here between the Town and the Kohanchis. He has a young child and security these days is a concern; I also have. I just think the fence fits into the neighborhood, and I
think that the security it provides to this family is
important and I support the presence of the fence. That’s all I really have to say.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for your comments, and
I’d like to see if any Commissioners have questions for you. I don’t see any hands raised. Thank you, again, and it looks like we have others as well.

JENNIFER ARMER: Yes, next in line is John. You
should be able to unmute and you have up to three minutes.

JOHN CELLAR: Thank you, my name is John Cellar.

I’m a 31 year resident of Los Gatos, and going back further I actually went to high school here, so I have deep roots in the community. I appreciate your time and your

Page 333 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
34 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
consideration of this matter. There are a couple of points that I would like to make.

One is I understand and respect the need for
rules and regulations around building issues such as Dr.

Kohanchi’s; I absolutely think that they create an orderly and aesthetic community. But if we’re going to have these ordinances, they either need to be applied uniformly or they should not be applied at all. To single one person out while there are many examples of others that have in fact violated this code I think is blatantly unfair, unethical, and not in the spirit of community.

The other point that I would like to make is I
live on Littlefield Lane. Prior to that I lived at the
corner of Camino del Cerro and Blossom Hill Road. I was not on Blossom Hill Road, but we cornered it, and it’s a very busy road. People would drive very rapidly down the road.

In fact, there were two instances—not while we owned the home—where cars came through the fence onto our property.

So the issue of safety is one that is very near and dear to me.

Blossom Hill is a very busy road. Dr. Kohanchi is
surrounded by commercial buildings. I live on a cul-de-sac now, I don’t have those kinds of concerns, but if I were to live on Blossom Hill Road… And I have to tell you, part of

Page 334 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
35 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
the reason we left our previous home is because of issues around safety with cars coming rapidly down the street. So I think that it’s really important to consider the safety aspect of cars jumping the road and potentially going
through the fence and causing harm to family and/or
construction. That’s all I have to say. Thank you for your time.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you so much for your
comments. It looks like there are a couple of questions for you from Commissioners. I’ll start with Commissioner
Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you, and thank you,
Mr. Cellar. I just wanted to point out one thing. I
appreciate your concern for the Kohanchis, and I appreciate your thinking that this is an isolated incident that we would be seeing the fence issue for this one family
differently from others, but I wanted to point out and
perhaps direct you to previous Planning Commission
meetings.

We’ve had a number of Fence Ordinance issues
along these very lines. We are not singling out one family.

I just wanted to make sure that you understood, we do hear these issues individually, we consider them on their
merits, and I just wanted to assure you, this is not an

Page 335 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
36 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
isolated, singled out instance. Just wanted to make that perfectly clear.

JOHN CELLAR: I appreciate that. We all know
there are multiple examples of fences that are 6’ that are within the 18’ setback. Maybe each one of them has been (inaudible).

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: We are aware of that, Mr.

Cellar, and many of them are prior to the Fence Ordinance being in place, and some are not and they come to us
individually. But thank you for your comments. Appreciate it.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Then also Commissioner Thomas has
a question for you.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Thank you. Mr. Cellar, I
was wondering if you were aware of any recent fence height exceptions that you felt have been unfair? Because you
mentioned this, that you feel like not enforcing it
uniformly is a problem, so are you positive that the fences you’re thinking of and referring to have been built since the new ordinance was adopted?
JOHN CELLAR: No, I’m not positive of that, but
like I said, I’ve been in this community for a lot of
years, I’ve worked in this community, and I drive through the streets. Can I prove that? No, absolutely not, but it

Page 336 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
37 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
is very much my sense that there have been continued
construction of 6’ fences over the years, and obviously some were put in prior to the ordinance and my sense is that some have been put in subsequent to the ordinance.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Thank you, I appreciate
that. I think that it is important. I think that our Town Staff works really hard to ensure that things are enforced uniformly across the Board, and I know that this has been something that has come up in previous meeting, and every single time we ask, “Can you tell us exactly how many 6’ fences that are violation that had been built since the ordinance?” and as far as my experience since being on the Planning Commission, we haven’t had one issue with it, so thank you.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that, Commissioner
Thomas. Do any other Commissioners have questions for Mr.

Cellar? I don’t see any hands raised, so thank you for your comments, and it looks like we still have others that want to speak.

JENNIFER ARMER: Yes, I believe the next speaker
is Tony, and I’m going to allow you to speak. Go ahead, you can unmute and you have up to three minutes.

TONY BOMMARITO: My name is Tony Bommarito; I’m
well acquainted with the Kohanchis. I was just listening to

Page 337 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
38 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
the entire discussion and I just to make the point, and I hope it’s accurate, but it sounds like they did what I
would expect any reasonable person to do, which is to
consult the Town’s website, and it sounds like any
reasonable person in their circumstances would have
concluded that they were acting within the code. Now, I guess they could have scoured further and found more
information through other accessible sites, but I can
easily see how I, myself, would have been directed toward the information that they had and thought I was acting
within the code properly.

I think in fairness to them, this is sort of a
similar circumstance where somebody might have built a
fence 20 years ago or whatever, and then later on after the fact they find out that the code is in fact different than what they were told, and I don’t think that’s any fault of theirs, so I think in fairness to them I could see how they could be treated like somebody who built there fence before the code was changed. That’s my comment.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for your comment. Do
any Commissioners have questions for Tony? I don’t see any, but thank you for your comments.

Page 338 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
39 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
I don’t see any other hands raised, but if anyone
else that is viewing the meeting would like to speak on this item. It looks like we have a couple more.

JENNIFER ARMER: Yes, Lee, you should be able to
speak. You have up to three minutes.

LEE QUINTANA: I don’t think I’ll take the three
minutes, but I would like to comment that one of the
reasons that that Fence Ordinance was changed as to the setbacks in the front and the sides of yards that fronted streets was to maintain the small town character of Los Gatos, and when I drove by this this morning after reading it on the website, after just coming back from vacation in Oregon, I was sort of shocked by that fence and I felt like if everybody who wanted to be more protected put up fences like that, it would definitely change the character of Los Gatos.

As far as safety goes, I live in a house that’s
on a corner of a street where there’s a curve going uphill, and before I moved in the actual bay window of our house on the street was hit by a car, the tree in front of our house was hit by a car, and my car was demolished by a speeder coming up the hill, and yet I don’t have that kind of a fence, and I would never put it up because I think it would be an affront to my neighbors.

Page 339 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
40 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
I understand to a certain extent their concern,
but there must have been another way to do that. They could have replaced their 6’ fence that is further in with a more substantial fence.

I also would like to comment on the fact that the
whole front of that lot is fronted by very large trees
that, again, are not consistent with our current code, but they were there, and their concern is about intruders, and it seems to me having those large trees along that area provides a sort of hiding place for people, and if they’re concerned about safety one thing would be to lower the
foliage in the front of their yard.

I also looked at the plans and I was confused,
because it looked like there was a lot of space inside the yard inside the existing fence that has a gate across it that would allow for more storage of cars; it just shows on the plan asphalt.

I do have a certain amount of sympathy for them,
but I also think that the Town needs to be very careful about the exceptions that it grants. Thank you.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you so much, Ms. Quintana.

Do any Commissioners have questions for Ms. Quintana? I don’t see any hands raised, but thank you again for your

Page 340 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
41 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
comments, and it looks like we have another speaker, Mr.

Freeman.

JENNIFER ARMER: Yes, Keith, you should be able
to unmute. You have up to three minutes.

KEITH FREEMAN: Thank you. I live at 759 Blossom
Hill Road, next door to the Kohanchis, and have lived here for 30 years, and over the years have seen quite a few
incidents on the street.

All the comments have already been made about it
being a commercial area. I’d like to point out that the land slopes downward where 755 is located, and without that fence they were quite exposed to everything that’s been mentioned: people walking by, accidents. While we’ve lived next door there have been burglaries next door to me at 763, so the Kohanchis wanting to put up this fence in this particular area makes sense to me and I don’t have any
objections to it. I don’t have any aesthetic problems with it, because it’s in such a commercial area, especially with the Terraces located across the street. It isn’t really out of character, considering where it’s located. Thank you.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you so much for your
comments, Mr. Freeman. Do any Commissioners have questions? I don’t see any hands raised, so thank you again.

Page 341 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
42 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
I will again say that I don’t see anyone else
with their hand raised, so this would be the time to raise your hand if you want to speak on this item before I close the public hearing.

JENNIFER ARMER: If anyone else wishes to speak
before we do return to the Applicant/Appellant for their closing statement, any members of the public who wish to speak should raise your hand now. I don’t see any
additional hands raised, Chair.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. As Staff
said, that would be the end of public comments, and now we will go back to the Applicant/Appellant, and you have an additional three minutes to address the Planning Commission as well as any comments that were made by the public.

DAVID KOHANCHI: I’m going to respond to a few of
the comments that were made negatively toward the fence, and then I’ll just make it brief. Thank you so much for being here. I sure appreciate it. We’re neighbors at the end of the day, so I hope it stays that way regardless.

One, in relation to the comment about maintaining
small town values, we are, again, in a business area. We fit into where we are, and respectfully that doesn’t make sense with the ubiquitousness of the violations that are so severe. I spoke with Director Paulson within the last day.

Page 342 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
43 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
There are thousands of violations. When it’s that much of a portion it no longer makes sense to say that’s the value of the Town, unless we were to accept the 12,000 to 20,000 or whatever properties you want to build in the next decade, that doesn’t make sense. I understand your point. I respect the comment, but I disagree.

With regard to packages if the gate were closed.

Again, the gate is opened from sometimes earlier, 6:30, to 9:00 to 10:00pm at night. If you want we can have some kind of system where I monitor that and media record it; we can do that. Whatever you say I will abide by, but in response to the package, on Blossom Hill Road and nowhere else in this area Amazon trucks don’t drive into the driveway; they just don’t. They stop in front of the driveway, they take out the package, and they walk it to your front door.

In addition, if, let’s say, our gate was closed,
we have a metal package and delivery system outside of the gate that’s embedded in the gate itself for this very
purpose, so the potential for a delivery truck stopping and staying for longer than any other home does not exist in our home.

In response to a comment from somebody who said
even though a car flew into her house and she didn’t have a fence, so why does anybody else have a fence? Do we believe

Page 343 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
44 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
that to be a justifiable comment? Do we think that somebody saying that just because my house was robbed, my house had a car crash into it, why did I have a fence? Does that
merit you after the fact saying that why does somebody else want to prevent these disasters? That does not make sense to me as a logical statement.

In response to the trees that we have, there was
a comment about visibility. One of the big comments is
there’s walking traffic, there are people coming by, and you can’t see when you come out of the fence. This gate was designed as a metal perforated fence with the intent of being able to see through the fence; that was deliberate.

In addition, the trees alone block the view
enough, and they’re grandfathered in because they were
placed a decade ago, so none of those arguments seem to be valid with response. Yes, in theory that is a great
argument, but when you look at the fine details of what is actually happening, it does not make sense.

Our gate, if closed, which it never is, has a
package delivery system, so cars will not stop. The trees are there and they obstruct already, so even if I were to remove the gate, the trees are there, so I don’t think the vast majority of comments that were made, though I do
respect them, were valid in their points to get across.

Page 344 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
45 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR HANSSEN: I think Ms. Armer had her hand
up, so I’m sensing that is probably the three minutes.

DAVID KOHANCHI: Thank you so much.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Don’t go just yet. Let me see if
Commissioners have any additional questions for you, and this would be the last time to ask the Applicant/Appellant any questions, because after this we will be closing the public hearing. Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. Mr. Kohanchi,
you have a fence within this fence. Could you please
describe that and tell us why that fence is not sufficient security for your needs?
DAVID KOHANCHI: When we came into the home
initially that fence was locked, and we had squatters in the home with that fence already. We also hired somebody to fix the door. Within the first three months that we were here, the front door was broke into the home; there was like a lock issue, and we left. He left for lunch and came back and got over that fence.

The way that the fence is designed, given the
slope of the lot, and it’s a very flimsy wooden fence, in theory for someone to say why didn’t you replace that
fence? There’s a misunderstanding of the cost incurred. To replace that fence entirely would have cost three to five

Page 345 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
46 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
times the cost of putting our fence in, so that’s why we didn’t. I would have replaced and fixed that fence, but the cost was too great to do so.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: So there’s a cost issue,
and you’re saying that the fence…
DAVID KOHANCHI: It’s not sufficient.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: …inside the metal fence is
not (inaudible).

DAVID KOHANCHI: Not (inaudible).

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Another question, if I
might, Chair?
Your recent presentation indicated that you’ve
got two new businesses that require use of your property in a way that makes it necessary to park your personal use cars outside the original fence and behind the new fence.

It’s a little unclear to me. Your arguments have gone quite a bit into personal security, but what it looks like to me is that you’re really creating security for the cars that you want parked inside that fence as well; it seems like that’s a pretty high priority. Also, you’re starting a
high-end car rental business of some sort, and my guess is that you’re going to want to park those cars behind this fence as well, because there obviously wouldn’t be room

Page 346 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
47 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
behind the wooden fence, since there already isn’t room behind the wooden fence.

DAVID KOHANCHI: No, I think I could sufficiently
fit more cars, but I did not prioritize one versus the
other. All of them, I feel, are arguments that stand. I think the notion that safety is a priority to us; it’s been made very clear. The notion that if I buy cars that are worth a lot would I park them inside the inner gate versus in the other gate, the space and availability and
protective measures, the outer gate is significantly more sufficient in protecting the cars, and so for the added space I would park it in either.

There’s also the potential that if I were to rent
those cars that I would want those cars in the in-between space, and this is not a priority issue, so that the person that came to access the car, there would also be an extra layer there between the car and coming into our home.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: What I’m trying to
understand is given the use of your property in these new business ventures whether or not you have sufficient room behind the wooden fence to store the vending machines and high-end cars as well as your cars?
DAVID KOHANCHI: Likely not.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you.

Page 347 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
48 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Thank you, Chair. I have
one follow up question, and that is in order for us to
grant an exception we have to make these required findings.

One of them includes an undue hardship, so can you tell me the status of your two business ventures at this moment? DAVID KOHANCHI: Yes. One of the business
ventures I’m in a bidding war to purchase a vending machine route that has 55 vending machines, 14 of which are
unallocated, that would stay in our home until I find a location for them. I would store a significant inventory in the house. Likely it will go through within the next two weeks, and I’ll probably start taking over that business within the next month or two.

As far as cars, the car market, within the last
two years I’ve been looking for cars. I went to this Los Gatos exotic car collection many times. Unfortunately, the price of cars right now is 10-30% or even higher for exotic cars, so I’ve been waiting for the price of the used car market to decline significantly for it to make sense.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Thank you. I do just have a
question. In the materials you submitted, when you
discussed earlier you stated that over 100 people, you
estimate, from the Terraces can see directly into your

Page 348 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
49 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
house, and so are you arguing that you feel like there’s a safety concern because the people that live at the Terraces can see your house?
DAVID KOHANCHI: I think uninvited visibility of
any place creates the potential for a person to have
malintent. Any unwelcomed visibility creates a scenario of somebody you do not know having some intent upon you that you are unaware of. So do I think the retirement facility is the most risky of them all? No, but the facility in and of itself has a lot of outsiders the come and work in the facility that have no association with Los Gatos. There is heavy turnaround there with cooking staff, cleaning staff, the day-to-day workers, and nursing staff that have changed in and out. My concern isn’t necessarily for the residents that are retired there and living happily, my concern is for everybody else.

Directly across from us on the bottom floor,
which has a large gate itself, is like I think a restaurant related to the retirement facility, where all of the
workers sit directly outside our home and smoke constantly from early hours when I leave the home until 11:00pm. Right now, if I go outside there’s likely somebody smoking there.

That in and of itself creates a level of stress and a level

Page 349 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
50 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
of fear with the stranger that’s there, because there’s very little accountability.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay, you answered my
question. I just would like to clarify, so you’re not
really concerned about the residents that live across the street, but you are concerned about the type of workers that might come and be working at the Terraces?
DAVID KOHANCHI: Everybody else that frequents
that site, yes.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Chair, I have one more
question.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Go ahead.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: One of the other things
with the exceptions is that there are security concerns that exist that cannot be practically addressed through alternatives, and I think Commissioner Janoff talked about this a little bit with the second fence, but can you walk us through any other improvements that you’ve made to your home, or anything else that you’ve done to improve and
increase the safety of your home for your family?
DAVID KOHANCHI: The front door that was broken
when we moved in we fixed. The back door we reinforced with a double lock. We created a security system with about 17 cameras in the home, two outside in the front, three

Page 350 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
51 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
outside in the back, and a Ring doorbell. Everything that we can do that seems feasible, we’ve done.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Are those all the things
that you’ve done? Is there anything else that you’ve done to try to improve safety?
DAVID KOHANCHI: Improve safety? I don't see any
other thing that you could do, respectfully.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: And do you have a pool?
DAVID KOHANCHI: Yes.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: And is there a fence around
your pool?
DAVID KOHANCHI: There’s a reinforced cover that
we essentially just reinforced within the last two months, because our baby decided to walk and we’re aware that she’s at risk, so yes, there is a cover to the pool.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay, thank you.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I had a question for you. I was
going to ask about the security system. I’m trying to
understand, and maybe you could help me understand. You’re leaving the gate open from, if I heard correctly, 6:30 in the morning till 9:00 o'clock at night, so relative to this issue with the Terraces, I’m having a hard time visualizing where the concern would be from 9:00 o'clock at night until 6:30 in the morning from the Terraces. Could you help me

Page 351 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
52 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
with that, because you’re leaving the gate open the rest of the time?
DAVID KOHANCHI: I’m confused by the question.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Well, you’re talking about being
concerned about your safety and gave the examples of the workers at the Terraces and people sitting outside, and so are these workers sitting outside from 9:00 at night until 6:30 in the morning?
DAVID KOHANCHI: There are risks that I can
control and risks that I can’t control. One, we are in
agreement from the beginning that this gate should not be closed during the day, so we feel that there is a potential that if my wife wants to come in and out that there could be an issue, so we decided from the very inception that the gate would be open during those hours. For the sake of just us, we thought that it was appropriate for the gates to be open during the day.

Now, I don’t fully understand, because the gate
is perforated, so my concern is not necessarily that at daytime somebody is going to come in and at nighttime
they’re not. My concern is that the very added layer of protection is a strong deterrent to anybody that would
create a problem. And again, crime across the board is

Page 352 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
53 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
significantly worse at night, specifically with regards to trespassing and strangers breaking into homes.

I mean, if there was an option to close the gate
during the day and we thought it made sense, then yes, but I think logically speaking we keep it open, and there are things that you can and make sense to do, and things that you can’t. I don’t walk around in a bulletproof vest. When COVID happened we could have all wore…
CHAIR HANSSEN: It’s okay. I think you answered
by question, thank you.

DAVID KOHANCHI: No problem.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Do any other Commissioners have
questions? Vice Chair Barnett.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Doctor, I’m having trouble
understanding why you wouldn’t get adequate security if you moved the fence back to the setback as required by the
ordinance. Wouldn’t you get everything you’re asking for by moving it into compliance with the ordinance?
DAVID KOHANCHI: Respectfully, multiple
responses. If we moved cars closer to the front because we needed the space, those cars would be at risk for people jumping over the curb and hitting those cars and
vandalizing the cars, as a business discussion we had, and if we moved the gate it would incur significant costs that

Page 353 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
54 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
are insurmountable. So even the notion, even if that was possible, even if we said we’re going to move the gate, then by that virtue we followed an ordinance that it would be surmisable that other people that were within similar situations should do the same.

The reason that we’re asking, we changed the code
and we said it’s really important for the Town to maintain small town values, right? And we’re saying that the reason that we can’t ask everybody else, and the reason we made everyone grandfathered in (inaudible) because it’s a burden to its citizens, right? Because the notion of removing or reinstalling a fence is months of income, six months to a year of work, and a lifetime of money. I get the
suggestion, but in practicality I think it’s very, very difficult and non-feasible.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Okay, I understand your
response. Continuing the conversation on that point, would it be safe to say other than the cost factor, which I
respect is significant, the risk would be to the cars
parked in front of it?
DAVID KOHANCHI: Well, also us, right? This is
the lot of our home, it’s our property, so in theory if I’m walking out to get my mail a car could hop the curb and hit me. Same thing with our daughter. It’s a big lot, there’s

Page 354 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
55 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
we’re saying 18’ setback from where the other fence is, there’s 18’, and on both sides probably 50-60’. You’re
talking a big portion of our lot would be exposed. It’s not like every other home. Our lot is set back 40’ from the front of the street, so you’re taking away a significant portion of our property.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I understand your point and
appreciate your input.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that, and
Commissioner Thomas has another question.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Thank you, Chair. I just
have another question, because you mentioned that you’re going to start this business venture with the cars, but you currently don’t own any of those vehicles and you’re not storing any of them on your property?
DAVID KOHANCHI: My car is very expensive, but
no. Other than my own personal car that I use? No.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: And then have you filed for
a business license for this business that you’re planning on doing yet?
DAVID KOHANCHI: I have a business license. I
don’t think this should be privy to the Town, but yes, I have a business license that could be utilized (inaudible) to the public.

Page 355 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
56 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Well, it is part of our
seeing if this is an undue hardship or something, so that’s why I’m asking.

DAVID KOHANCHI: Understood. It could be amended.

I have a corporation that could be amended easily to be utilized for this, so yes, the infrastructure is in place for me to start the business.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay, but it would be very
expensive to move the fence back, so that’s the main issue here?
DAVID KOHANCHI: That’s one of the issues. That’s
the one that I think makes it almost impossible to do. It’s not the main issue, I think there are many, but that’s one of the issues that I think are very important.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Thank you.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Any other Commissioners have
questions for the Applicant/Appellant? I don’t see any
other hands raised, so thank you for your responses and I’m going to close the public hearing and turn to the
Commission for any additional questions for Staff, or
comments on the application/appeal. I don't know that we’re ready for a motion yet, but maybe, and I will start with Commissioner Clark.

Page 356 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
57 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. I have several
comments that I want to share. I think that a lot of what he said ended up countering his other points, and so I want to go through my thoughts I had as this was happening.

What we have is a fence that’s prohibited no
matter what, because it has spikes, within the setback, and then another fence in that fence that’s also within the setback, and there’s a 3’ height limitation when it’s in the front setback, traffic view area, and driveway view area, and this property meets all three of those criteria for why it should have a 3’ height, and so I think that’s a very important base to start with. There is a lot of
reasoning behind them not being able to do this.

One concern I had was they talked about how it
will increase safety, because the fence is pretty much
impenetrable by cars, and where my mind went with this is that then if a pedestrian is walking along and a car comes or something, they’d have absolutely nowhere to go, and I’m a lot more concerned about a pedestrian than about some expensive cars inside of a fence, and so I think that it sacrifices the safety of the public for the potential
safety of some cars and supposedly his family, even though I think that there are other ways around this.

Page 357 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
58 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
And he said that he didn’t replace the existing
fence because of the cost, but that really confuses me, because he’s talking about expensive cars and having all these business ventures and saying that that makes it
nearly impossible, but I think that it’s definitely within the realm of possibility for them to create a fence within their setback, and I don’t see any reason why they
shouldn’t be required to do that.

He said he wants two fences so that people can go
through the first one to get the cars and then maybe not get past the second, which I also think contradicts some of the other points.

So yes, overall I think that this feels like a
very, very special exception that they’re asking for that I don’t think is warranted. I think this fence really doesn’t fit with Town character. I was definitely surprised to see it, and I am not personally open to some form of compromise where they keep the fence open during the day and then
close it at night, because first, there’s not a way to
enforce that, and I don’t think we can just put that as a condition. But also, I don’t think that that’s the only problem by any means.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you so much for your
comments, Commissioner Clark. Commissioner Thomas.

Page 358 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
59 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Thank you, Chair. I also
just want to add that it’s difficult for me to see this as a special security concern that exists that cannot be
practically addressed; there are alternatives. I know that we’ve talked about security and safety and how that can be problematic, because some of it is like a feeling and
perception, but it is very difficult for me to grant an exception, to grant this appeal as an exception based on possible future business ventures. I’m interested to hear what other Commissioners have to say.

I know that during COVID things were difficult,
but it’s also difficult for me to think that the Town
didn’t respond at all. There’s just the lack of proof of communication on either way. It’s just really unfortunate, because it’s making it difficult for me to know just based on multiple phone calls, and I think that as a person that has recently dealt with things digitally when offices
haven’t been open, getting some permits for stuff, I
definitely have proof of when I contacted the Town first about things to clarify with Staff, and so it just makes it hard to me to believe since our email addresses are all over that there wasn’t a possible way to get a phone call back or an email, so that’s something that I’m kind of
struggling with too.

Page 359 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
60 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that, Commissioner
Thomas. Commissioner Raspe.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, Chair. I’ll join
in my fellow commissioners. I think it’s fairly plain that the fence as currently constructed is violative of various aspects of our new Town ordinance of height, setback, and materials.

I also didn’t find many of the Applicant’s
arguments compelling, the reliance upon the crime
statistics, for instance. Certainly we’ve all faced those types of things, but my experience in Los Gatos, and I
think for most people, it’s not such a crime infested area that 6’ spiked fences are required for our protection.

All that being said, I think the only point that
caught me at all was the notion of the confusion during COVID regarding what the Town Code actually provided. I listened to both sides of the argument on that issue, and I agree there may have been some confusion or lack of clarity perhaps, but the Applicant has made clear this was an
expensive build, and so I think reasonable due diligence was imperative on that part; I’m not sure they satisfied that requirement. It sounds like the Town was available in large measure to answer reasonable queries, and so that could have been sorted out before, and so even that I think

Page 360 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
61 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
the fence fails in the long run, and so that’s the way I see it.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that, Commissioner
Raspe. Back to Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I do have a question for
Staff, if that’s okay.

CHAIR HANSSEN: It is.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Thank you. I have a
question about if cars were being stored in between the fences, can they be stored there permanently or is that one of those rules that we have about things like RVs and boat trailers, that they’re not supposed to be visible to the street. I didn’t really think about that until now, so I didn’t have time to look up that part of our code, but
could Staff clarify that?
SAVANNAH VAN AKIN: Thank you for that question.

I can address that in terms of our Home Occupation Permit, which corresponds to receiving a business license. In this case, there are restrictions for having commercial vehicles or also storage that is visible from the street.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: So it is allowed, or would
it be part of the application process, or it’s not allowed? JENNIFER ARMER: Review of the description of the
business would be part of the process. When an Applicant

Page 361 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
62 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
comes in for a business license that is associated with the residential address we do look to get details of the
business, whether they’re going to be storing materials or have unusual activity that is out of character with the residential neighborhood, and so that’s part of a Home
Occupancy Permit that would be required if they were to apply for a business license.

It looks like Director Paulson has turned on his
camera, so he may have something else to add as well.

JOEL PAULSON: Thank you, Ms. Armer. Commissioner
Thomas, I think you were calling out the RVs, boats,
campers, trailers, and those are not allowed to be stored in the front setback, but a vehicle, you can park a vehicle as long as it’s not your required parking, which is not the instance here. The other component that Ms. Van Akin and Ms. Armer were talking about is more related to the
potential for any future business endeavors, so we would evaluate those at that time.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Thank you for the
clarification. I didn’t know if it had to do with the type of thing that was parked, or if it was how long it was
parked, or both, so thank you for that clarification.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. Commissioner
Janoff.

Page 362 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
63 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. The only area
that I could think would warrant an exception would be for a special circumstance where you’ve got some undue
situation that requires this fence, and at the moment the only circumstance that the Appellant has described that I heard tonight was a future potential high-end car rental business, and that’s all we heard. They’re too expensive to purchase now, I get that, and so that business hasn’t
launched, but the Planning Commission can’t make decisions based on a potential future what if. Somebody could say I’m planning to have a dinosaur statue in my front yard and I need a fence to protect it from vandals. Well, we can’t really make a decision based on the what if, we need to make a decision based on the existing circumstances, and I think what we have heard tonight, and I think what I’m
hearing my fellow commissioners saying, is that we have clear violations of an ordinance and there aren’t
compelling reasons to make a finding for an exception. And I can’t make an exception based on a what if scenario. It might never materialize, and there we are.

Having said that, I’m sympathetic to this
property being in a quasi-commercial zone. If there were a car business, if there were an active car rental business, I could see potentially having this sort of a fence to

Page 363 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
64 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
protect the vehicles behind it. It’s not an affront to me to see this fence in this particular area of town, I just can’t find a compelling reason to make an exception, but I’m open to other Commissioners.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you, Commissioner Janoff.

Vice Chair Barnett.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you, Chair. One thing
that troubles me a lot is the discrepancy between the code provision and what was on the website. The fact is that the actual language of the ordinance was always in place and easily viewed.

Also, I think it’s quite important that we take
advice from our Town Attorney that there is no estoppel under the general rules applicable to towns and cities.

I’m concerned about the spikes, but appreciate
the offer of the Applicant/Appellant to remove those.

It seems to me that there is adequate parking. A
major part of the presentation in support of the appeal was that there wouldn’t be an adequate play area for the
children based on the parking requirement of the doctor, however, we did discuss the garage and that seemed to be a partial solution to the problem.

I don’t think it’s consistent with the Blossom
Hill neighborhood. There are no other homes on that stretch

Page 364 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
65 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
between Camellia Terrace and Cherry Blossom that don’t have the proper setbacks.

In terms of the safety, which the Town raised as
a concern, I assumed that there was an opportunity to
understand the spacing of the pickets on the fence and the view that would be allowed by that, but it appears that the Town, for whatever reason, discounted that as a problem.

So in all, I tend to agree with my fellow
commissioners that there is a problem with this. I’m very sympathetic to the Applicant, having to rely on the
incorrect information on the website and spent a lot of money doing that, but I don’t see that we have an
opportunity to go outside our jurisdiction and allow it in this case. Thank you.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that, Vice Chair
Barnett.

I have a few comments as well. I was on the
Planning Commission when we were considering the update to the Fence Ordinance, and I think the whole idea was very much in line with what Ms. Quintana said in her comments, which is that if we’re going to have the small town
character we can’t go into a situation where we’re going to have all these homes that are going to put big fences along

Page 365 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
66 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
the front of their property, that does jive with it being a welcoming community.

Having said that, the ordinance is law and it
became law, and I was a bit concerned to hear that there is the possibility of one kind of information in one place and one in another place, but nonetheless, the Fence Ordinance had been in place.

I also had the experience of having been on the
Commission when we were working on the General Plan during the pandemic, and I don’t see any scenario where Town Staff wouldn’t have been very and incredibly responsive during that entire ordeal of the pandemic.

As for the concerns as noted by my fellow
commissioners, in order for us to grant an exception we would have to have compelling evidence that would support one of the findings that would be allowing for an
exception, and I just wasn’t hearing it. It sounds like there are other means of security that are in place, and then there’s also this future business but we can’t
consider that at this point in time, and so I can’t find any compelling reasons to grant an exception.

I would also add that in listening to our Town
Traffic Engineer, just the very concern alone about the viewing and stuff for the fence, whether it’s open or not,

Page 366 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
67 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
is a very compelling thing to make sure that we get this set right.

I will see if there are any other comments from
Commissioners, and if not, I would ask that somebody make a motion. Commissioner Clark.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. I’ll make a
motion. I move to deny the appeal of a Community
Development Director decision to deny an exception to the Town’s fence regulations on property zoned R-1:10 located at 755 Blossom Hill Road.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. Commissioner
Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I second the motion.

CHAIR HANSSEN: So we have a motion and a second.

Are there any additional comments from Commissioners before I call the question? So we will go again with the roll call vote, and I will start with Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Raspe.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Clark.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yes.

Page 367 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/2022
Item #3, 755 Blossom Hill Road
68 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR HANSSEN: Vice Chair Barnett.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: And I vote yes as well, so the
motion passes unanimously, and I will ask Staff if there are appeal rights for this action by the Commission?
JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you, Chair. Yes, there are
appeal rights. The decision of the Commission can be
appealed to the Town Council by any interested person as defined by Town Code Section 29.10.020 within ten days, and on forms available online with fees paid. Final deadline is 4:00pm on the tenth day.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Very good. Thank you for that.
(END)

Page 368 ends

Page 369 ends

Page 370 ends

To Whom it May Concern,
We would like for this item at 755 Blossom Hill Road (FHE-21-003) to be continued to the January 17 meeting. We acknowledge that we understand that the January 17 meeKng date is aLer the 56 day window period from the date of the Planning Commission Decision as outlined in Ordinance No 1967.

Sincerely,
David and Ilana Kohanchi
ATTACHMENT 7

Page 371 ends

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

Page 372 ends

ATTACHMENT 8

DRAFT RESOLUTION

RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS

DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY A FENCE

HEIGHT EXCEPTION REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SIX-FOOT FENCE LOCATED

WITHIN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK AND A VEHICULAR GATE SET BACK LESS THAN 18 FEET FROM THE EDGE OF THE ADJACENT STREET ON PROPERTY ZONED R-1:10.

APN 523-04-043
FENCE HEIGHT EXCEPTION APPLICATION: FHE-21-003
PROPERTY LOCATION: 755 BLOSSOM HILL ROAD
APPELLANT/PROPERTY OWNERS: DAVID AND ILANA KOHANCH
APPLICANT: NINA GURALNIC
WHEREAS, on December 14, 2020, the Town issued an administrative warning for a code violation at 755 Blossom Hill Road and requested that the property owners reduce their six-foot fence along the front property line down to three feet, and to remove the vehicular gate, to meet Town Code, by January 3, 2021; and
WHEREAS, on February 12, 2021, the property owner applied for an exception to the Town’s fence regulations for the unpermitted construction of the vehicular gate and fencing on the subject property, which does not comply with the Town Code fence regulations for height and setbacks; and
WHEREAS, on July 2, 2021, the Town denied the exception request because the findings listed in Town Code Section 29.40.0320 could not be made; and WHEREAS, on July 7, 2022, the Town issued a second administrative warning for a code violation. This administrative warning requested the property owners to: remove the illegal fence and gate; modify the fence and gate to comply with Town Code; or file an appeal of the decision to deny the fence height exception by August 7, 2022; and WHEREAS, on August 5, 2022, the decision of the Community Development Director to deny the exception request was appealed to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, on November 9, 2022, this matter came before the Planning Commission for public hearing and considered an appeal of the Community Development Director denial of a fence height exception request for construction of six-foot tall fencing located within the Draft Resolution to
be modified by Town
Council deliberations
and direction.

Page 373 ends

required front yard setback and construction of a vehicular gate with reduced setbacks and was regularly noticed in conformance with State and Town law; and WHEREAS, on November 9, 2022, the Planning Commission denied the appeal and denied the fence height exception request; and
WHEREAS, on November 14, 2022, the decision of the Planning Commission was appealed to the Town Council by the property owners, David and IIana Kohanchi; and WHEREAS, on December 13, 2022, the appellant made a request for a continuance of the item from December 20, 2022, to a date certain of January 17, 2023.

WHEREAS, on December 20, 2022, the Town Council opened the public hearing to take public comments from members of the public who would not be able to attend the January 17, 2023, meeting and continued the appeal hearing to January 17, 2023, and was regularly noticed in conformance with State and Town law; and
WHEREAS, this matter came before the Town Council for public hearing on January 17, 2023, and was regularly noticed in conformance with State and Town law; and WHEREAS, the Town Council received testimony and documentary evidence from the appellant and all interested persons who wished to testify or submit documents. The Town Council considered all testimony and materials submitted, including the record of the Planning Commission proceedings and the packet of material contained in the Council Agenda Report for their meeting on January 17, 2023, along with any and all subsequent reports and materials prepared concerning this application.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:

1. The appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission decision to deny a fence height exception for construction of a six-foot fence located within the required front yard setback and a vehicular gate set back less than 18 feet from the edge of the adjacent street on property zoned R-1:10 is denied and the application is denied.

2. The decision constitutes a final administrative decision pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6 as adopted by section 1.10.085 of the Town Code of the Town of Los Gatos. Any application for judicial relief from this decision must be sought within the time limits and pursuant to the procedures established by Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6, or such

Page 374 ends

shorter time as required by state and federal Law.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos, California, held on the __ day of January 2023, by the following vote:

COUNCIL MEMBERS:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

SIGNED:

MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
DATE: ___________________
ATTEST:

TOWN CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
DATE: ___________________

Page 375 ends

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

Page 376 ends

ATTACHMENT 9

DRAFT RESOLUTION

RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS

GRANTING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY A FENCE

HEIGHT EXCEPTION REQUEST AND APPROVE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SIX-FOOT

FENCE LOCATED WITHIN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK AND A VEHICULAR GATE SET BACK LESS THAN 18 FEET FROM THE EDGE OF THE ADJACENT STREET ON PROPERTY ZONED R-1:10.

APN 523-04-043
FENCE HEIGHT EXCEPTION APPLICATION: FHE-21-003
PROPERTY LOCATION: 755 BLOSSOM HILL ROAD
APPELLANT/PROPERTY OWNERS: DAVID AND ILANA KOHANCH
APPLICANT: NINA GURALNIC
WHEREAS, on December 14, 2020, the Town issued an administrative warning for a code violation at 755 Blossom Hill Road and requested that the property owners reduce their six-foot fence along the front property line down to three feet , and to remove the vehicular gate, to meet Town Code, by January 3, 2021; and
WHEREAS, on February 12, 2021, the property owner applied for an exception to the Town’s fence regulations for the unpermitted construction of the vehicular gate and fencing on the subject property, which does not comply with the Town Code fence regulations for height and setbacks; and
WHEREAS, on July 2, 2021, the Town denied the exception request because the findings listed in Town Code Section 29.40.0320 could not be made; and WHEREAS, on July 7, 2022, the Town issued a second administrative warning for a code violation. This administrative warning requested the property owners to: remove the illegal fence and gate; modify the fence and gate to comply with Town Code; or file an appeal of the decision to deny the fence height exception by August 7, 2022; and WHEREAS, on August 5, 2022, the decision of the Community Development Director to deny the exception request was appealed to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, on November 9, 2022, this matter came before the Planning Commission for public hearing and considered an appeal of the Community Development Director denial of a fence height exception request for construction of six-foot tall fencing located within the required front yard setback and construction of a vehicular gate with reduced setbacks and was Draft Resolution to
be modified by Town
Council deliberations
and direction.

Page 377 ends

regularly noticed in conformance with State and Town law; and WHEREAS, on November 9, 2022, the Planning Commission denied the appeal and denied the fence height exception request; and
WHEREAS, on November 14, 2022, the decision of the Planning Commission was appealed to the Town Council by the property owners, David and IIana Kohanchi; and WHEREAS, on December 13, 2022, the appellant made a request for a continuance of the item from December 20, 2022, to a date certain of January 17, 2023.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:

1. The appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission denying a fence height exception for construction of a six-foot fence located within the required front yard setback and a vehicular gate set back less than 18 feet from the edge of the adjacent street on property zoned R-1:10 is granted and the application is approved.

2. The Town Council finds that the project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures.

3. The Town Council hereby approves the fence height exception with conditions of

Page 378 ends

approval set forth in Exhibit A and shown in the development plans in Exhibit B.

4. The decision constitutes a final administrative decision pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6 as adopted by section 1.10.085 of the Town Code of the Town of Los Gatos. Any application for judicial relief from this decision must be sought within the time limits and pursuant to the procedures established by Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6, or such shorter time as required by state and federal Law.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos, California, held on the 17th day of January 2023, by the following vote:

COUNCIL MEMBERS:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

SIGNED:

MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
DATE: ___________________
ATTEST:

TOWN CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
DATE: ___________________

Page 379 ends

TOWN COUNCIL – January 17, 2023
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
755 Blossom Hill Road
Fence Height Exception FHE-21-003
Consider an Appeal of a Planning Commission Decision to Deny a Fence Height Exception Request for Construction of a Six-Foot Fence Located Within the Required Front Yard Setback and a Vehicular Gate Set Back Less than 18 Feet from the Edge of the Adjacent Street on Property Zoned R-1:10. APN 523-04-043. PROPERTY OWNER/APPELLANT:

David and Ilana Kohanchi. APPLICANT: Nina Guralnic. PROJECT PLANNER:

Savannah Van Akin.

TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:

Planning Division

1. APPROVAL: This application shall be completed in accordance with all of the conditions of approval listed below.

2. EXPIRATION: The Fence Height Exception approval will expire two years from the approval date pursuant to Section 29.20.320 of the Town Code, unless the approval has been vested.

3. BUILDING PERMIT: The proposed vehicular gate requires a Building Permit.

4. FENCE AND GATE SHARP POINTS: Any sharp points shall be removed, prior to the issuance of a building permit.

5. TOWN INDEMNITY: Applicants are notified that Town Code Section 1.10.115 requires that any applicant who receives a permit or entitlement from the Town shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Town and its officials in any action brought by a third party to overturn, set aside, or void the permit or entitlement. This requirement is a condition of approval of all such permits and entitlements whether or not expressly set forth in the approval and may be secured to the satisfaction of the Town Attorney.

EXHIBIT A

Page 380 ends

EXHIBIT
B

Page 381 ends

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

Page 382 ends

ATTACHMENT 10

DRAFT RESOLUTION

RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS

GRANTING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY A FENCE

HEIGHT EXCEPTION REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SIX-FOOT FENCE LOCATED

WITHIN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK AND A VEHICULAR GATE SET BACK LESS THAN 18 FEET FROM THE EDGE OF THE ADJACENT STREET ON PROPERTY ZONED R-1:10 AND REMANDING THE MATTER TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION.

APN 523-04-043
FENCE HEIGHT EXCEPTION APPLICATION: FHE-21-003
PROPERTY LOCATION: 755 BLOSSOM HILL ROAD
APPELLANT/PROPERTY OWNERS: DAVID AND ILANA KOHANCH
APPLICANT: NINA GURALNIC
WHEREAS, on December 14, 2020, the Town issued an administrative warning for a code violation at 755 Blossom Hill Road and requested that the property owners reduce their six-foot fence along the front property line down to three feet , and to remove the vehicular gate, to meet Town Code, by January 3, 2021; and
WHEREAS, on February 12, 2021, the property owner applied for an exception to the Town’s fence regulations for the unpermitted construction of the vehicular gate and fencing on the subject property, which does not comply with the Town Code fence regulations for height and setbacks; and
WHEREAS, on July 2, 2021, the Town denied the exception request because the findings listed in Town Code Section 29.40.0320 could not be made; and WHEREAS, on July 7, 2022, the Town issued a second administrative warning for a code violation. This administrative warning requested the property owners to: remove the illegal fence and gate; modify the fence and gate to comply with Town Code; or file an appeal of the decision to deny the fence height exception by August 7, 2022; and WHEREAS, on August 5, 2022, the decision of the Community Development Director to deny the exception request was appealed to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, on November 9, 2022, this matter came before the Planning Commission for public hearing and considered an appeal of the Community Development Director denial of a fence height exception request for construction of six-foot tall fencing located within the Draft Resolution to
be modified by Town
Council deliberations
and direction.

Page 383 ends

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:

2. The decision does not constitute a final administrative decision and the applications will be returned to Planning Commission for further consideration.

Page 384 ends

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos, California, held on the __ day of January 2023, by the following vote:

COUNCIL MEMBERS:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

SIGNED:

MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
DATE: ___________________
ATTEST:

TOWN CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
DATE: ___________________

Page 385 ends

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

Page 386 ends

Los Gatos City CouncilJanuary 17, 2023

Los Gatos City Council
January 17, 2023