ITEM NO. 12.
and that given the visual openness of the fence, increased setback created by the sidewalk, stop sign, and traffic light the proposed fence would not create a safety hazard. This statement will be added to the project file.
Let me know if you would like to discuss further.
Thank you,
Sean
Sean Mullin, AICP භ Senior Planner
Community Development Department භ 110 E. Main Street, Los Gatos CA 95030 Ph: 408.354.6823 භ [email protected]
www.losgatosca.gov භ https://www.facebook.com/losgatosca COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HOURS:
Counter Hours: 8:00 AM – 1:00 PM, Monday – Friday
Phone Hours: 8:00 AM – 5:00 PM, Monday – Friday
Town offices are now open. In accordance with the Santa Clara County Public Health Office Order, we strongly recommend masks indoors regardless of vaccination status. All permit submittals are to be done online via our Citizen’s Portal platform. All other services can be completed at the counter. For more information on permit submittal, resubmittal, and issuance, please visit the Building and Planning webpages.
General Plan update, learn more at www.losgatos2040.com Housing Element update, learn more at https://engagelosgatoshousing.com
CONFIDENTIALITY DISCLAIMER
This e-mail is intended only for the use of the individual(s) named in this e-mail. If you receive this e-mail and are not a named recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of the e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us at the above e-mail address.
3 Think Green, please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
From: Sean Mullin
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2023 4:20 PM
To: James Watson <[email protected]>
Subject: 10 Charles - Fence Height Exception
Hi James,
ITEM NO. 12.
I am reviewing a requested Fence Height Exception for 10 Charles Street. The applicant requests approval to construct a fence exceeding three feet in height within the required front and street-side setback, within the corner sight triangle, and within the traffic view area. Attached is the Letter of Justification, photos, and neighbor support letters for the request. Are you available to review the request and provide feedback from the Engineering perspective? Please let me know if you would like to set up a meeting to discuss further.
Best regards,
Sean
Sean Mullin, AICP භ Senior Planner
Community Development Department භ 110 E. Main Street, Los Gatos CA 95030 Ph: 408.354.6823 භ [email protected]
www.losgatosca.gov භ https://www.facebook.com/losgatosca COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HOURS:
Counter Hours: 8:00 AM – 1:00 PM, Monday – Friday
Phone Hours: 8:00 AM – 5:00 PM, Monday – Friday
Town offices are now open. In accordance with the Santa Clara County Public Health Office Order, we strongly recommend masks indoors regardless of vaccination status. All permit submittals are to be done online via our Citizen’s Portal platform. All other services can be completed at the counter. For more information on permit submittal, resubmittal, and issuance, please visit the Building and Planning webpages.
General Plan update, learn more at www.losgatos2040.com Housing Element update, learn more at https://engagelosgatoshousing.com
CONFIDENTIALITY DISCLAIMER
This e-mail is intended only for the use of the individual(s) named in this e-mail. If you receive this e-mail and are not a named recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of the e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us at the above e-mail address.
3 Think Green, please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
ITEM NO. 12.
7KLV3DJH
,QWHQWLRQDOO\
/HIW%ODQN
ITEM NO. 12.
PORTION OF FENCE
LOCATED IN TOWN’S
RIGHT-OF-WAY
PROPERTY LINE
EXHIBIT 7
ITEM NO. 12.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ITEM NO. 12.
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
(408) 354-6872 Fax (408) 354-7593
March 23, 2023
Firouz Pradhan
10 Charles Street
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Via email
RE: 10 Charles Street
Fence Height Exception FHE-23-001
The Los Gatos Community Development Department and Parks and Public Works Department have reviewed the referenced application for a fence height exception pursuant to Section
29.40.0320. On March 23, 2023, the Los Gatos Community Development Department has denied the request as the required findings could not be made and the fence is located in the Town’s right-or-way.
PLEASE NOTE: Pursuant to Section 29.20.255 of the Town Code, this decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission within 10 days of the denial date. Any interested person may appeal this decision to the Planning Commission. Appeals, with the completed Appeal Form and appeal fee payment, must be submitted within 10 days from the date of denial, or by 4:00 p.m., April 3, 2023.
If you have any questions concerning this decision, please contact Project Planner Ryan Safty at (408) 354-6823 or via email at [email protected].
Best regards,
Sean Mullin, AICP
Senior Planner
N:\DEV\PLANNING PROJECT FILES\Charles Street\10\FHE-23-001\Charles Street, 10 - FHE-23-001 - Denial Action Letter 03-23-23.docx
CIVIC CENTER
110 E. MAIN STREET
LOS GATOS, CA 95030
EXHIBIT 8
ITEM NO. 12.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ITEM NO. 12.
ITEM NO. 12.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ITEM NO. 12.
FENCE EXEMPTION APPLICATION – 10 CHARLES STREET, LOS GATOS, CA 95032 March 2, 2025
Sean Mullin
Planning Manager
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Respected Mr. Mullin..
10 CHARLES STREET, LOS GATOS, CA 95030 – FENCE HEIGHT EXEMPTION [FHE-001] I am writing for your and the Planning Commission’s kind consideration to grant exemption in response to your letter dated 03/23/23 issued by your office regarding the fence being in the Town’s right of way.
I would like to bring to your attention, through this submission, the unique characteristics & circumstances surrounding the property, the specific concerns we have had around safety & security, the principal goals we established for the design & construction of this fence, and, finally, the diligent steps we undertook to meet these goals, both for ourselves and the community at large.
UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS & CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THIS PROPERTY
1. Charles is a quiet, dead-end street, with just five neighbors living on the entire street! Accordingly, there is little or no traffic on the street.
2. The subject home (10 Charles St), though located at the corner of Los Gatos Blvd & Charles, has its entry door and address sign on Charles St,
3. The main living room, and the secondary bedroom – typically and often occupied by our elderly mother, or our grandchildren when they visit us – opens on the main Boulevard through a large pair of French doors.
4. While egressing from Charles St to the Boulevard, there is a legal STOP sign that ensures the exiting cars come to a complete stop before turning in either direction.
5. The home exactly across from the subject property has a fence that is identical in height and form, except for the specific shape of the lattice.
6. The yard fronting the Los Gatos Boulevard side is the primary yard area that is being used for kids’ play area and outdoor leisure activities, and has vegetable beds and other floral decorations planted.
7. Access to the front yard is slightly tight as the front, right hand side corner of the home has been blessed with a cluster of heritage oak and other trees. (See picture attached).
8. The subject property was under major renovation and repair for a period of almost 2 years during the pandemic, and there was a 6-feet tall, opaque construction fence surrounding the property that did not result in any concerns that we were aware of. - THIS SPACE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK -
ITEM NO. 12.
FENCE EXEMPTION APPLICATION – 10 CHARLES STREET, LOS GATOS, CA 95032
SPECIFIC FACTORS IN THE DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION OF THE FENCE
1. Safety & Security: It is clear that the safety & security was of key concern. This was amplified multi-fold when we had two distinct incidents of an intruder loitering around at the door leading to the front bedroom, in one instant to be warned of alerting the police unless the person left immediately. No threat was imposed, nor an imminent danger to life or property.
2. Visibility: We were equally concerned about the visibility whilst existing Charles St, until we spoke with some of the neighbors, and carefully analyzed the facts contained in (1) through (8) above. Letters from a couple of neighbors expressing their unequivocal support for the fence and its zero impact on the visibility has been attached for your reference. (See Letters from Neighbors, duly attached)
3. Access to the Front Yard: We needed to make sure that access to the front yard, the principal outdoor area for kids’ play, is easily available. (See picture attached).
DILIGENT STEPS UNDERTAKEN TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE FENCE The custom-built fence is a combination of a 26” tall, lower opaque section, overlaid with a 38” lattice work. The lattice work is custom designed to provide maximum visibility by its orientation and size of the openings (5”). See picture attached. This allows a clear sight or visibility to any south-bound traffic from Los Gatos Boulevard.
In fact, the fence was designed and built in consultation with some of the neighbors, and we are working closely to establish their comfort level.
Inadvertentently, part of the fence was built in the public right of way, and this has helped provide a reasonable and fair access to approach the first yard. Had we built the fence along the property line, such access would have either been impractical, or would have required removal of a cluster of heritage oak trees.
CONCLUSION
I hope we have been able to demonstrate that the specific goals and concerns of the community have been met, and while we may have been short in meeting the letter of the code, we have clearly met the spirit of the law.
REQUEST
We once again humbly request you to grant us the exception. To this end, we are willing to provide the Town any necessary documentation to protect itself as well as to create an explicit and formal understanding that such concessions may be reversed at will as deemed necessary by the Town.
Finally, please feel free to reach out to me in case you may have any questions or concerns.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
_____________
Firoz Pradhan
Tel:
Email:
Enclosures: (1) Fence design details with dimensions (2) Letter(s) from Neighbors (3) Fence photos (4 pgs)
ITEM NO. 12.
View egressing from Charles St. Notice cluster of trees that block some of the visibility, while the wide, open lattice work provides clear visibility of oncoming cars and pedestrians. page 1 of 4
ITEM NO. 12.
Close-up view at the STOP sign at Charles St while egressing onto Los Gatos Blvd providiing clear visibility. page 2 of 4
ITEM NO. 12.
View of the fence adjacent to the neighbor towards downtown. Notice that the fence has been clipped, and was done in consulation with this neighbor (Michelle). page 3 of 4
ITEM NO. 12.
Similar fence belonging to the neighbor across the subject home. page 4 of 4
ITEM NO. 12.
ITEM NO. 12.
ITEM NO. 12.
ITEM NO. 12.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ITEM NO. 12.
30’
RIGHT-OF-WAY/PROPERTY LINE
30’
NOT TO SCALE
STREET
STREET
CL
30’
30’
LEGEND:
Corner Sight Triangle
CORNER SIGHT TRIANGLE
200’
EDGE OF ROADWAY/FACE OF CURB
RIGHT-OF-WAY/PROPERTY LINE
NOT TO SCALE
STREET
STREET
CL
200’
200’
LEGEND:
Traffic View Area
TRAFFIC VIEW AREA
EDGE OF ROADWAY/FACE OF CURB
200’
15’
15’
For more information, please read Town
Code Section 26.10.065. Obstruction at
corners of intersecting streets.
For more information, please read Town
Code Section 26.10.065. Obstruction at
corners of intersecting streets.
EXHIBIT 11
ITEM NO. 12.
DRIVEWAY VIEW AREA
FRONT AND STREET SIDE YARD AREA
NOT TO SCALE
NOT TO SCALE STREET
SIDE YARD SETBACK
REAR YARD SETBACK
FRONT YARD SETBACK
PROPERTY LINE
LEGEND:
Driveway View Area
LEGEND:
Front and Street
Side Yard Area
STREET
SIDEWALK
PROPERTY LINE
DRIVEWAY
10’
10’
Sidewalk Example
STREET
PROPERTY LINE
DRIVEWAY
10’
10’
No Sidewalk Example STREET SIDE YARD SETBACK STREET
ITEM NO. 12.
A P P E A R A N C E S:
Los Gatos Planning
Commissioners:
Emily Thomas, Chair
Jeffrey Barnett
Susan Burnett
Steve Raspe
Rob Stump
Town Manager: Chris Constantin
Community Development
Director:
Joel Paulson
Town Attorney: Gabrielle Whelan
Transcribed by: Vicki L. Blandin
(619) 541-3405
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/12/2025
Item 3, 10 Charles Street
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 THOMAS: We will now be moving onto Item 3
on our agenda for tonight. Item 3 is to consider an appeal of a Community Development Director decision to deny a
Fence Exception Request for an existing fence partially located in the Town’s right-of-way and exceeding the height limitations within the required front yard and street side yard setbacks on property zoned R-1:D, located at 10
Charles Street. APN 532-36-022. Categorically exempt
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. Fence Height Exception Application FHE-23-001. Property Owner, Applicant, and
Appellant is Firoz Pradhan, and the project planner is Mr.
Mullin.
Can I have a show of hands of Commissioners that
visited the site? And are there any disclosures? No. Thank you. And I believe, Mr. Mullin, you’re giving the Staff Report. Thank you.
SEAN MULLIN: Yes, thank you and good evening.
For your consideration tonight there is an appeal of the Director’s decision denying an exception to the fence
height regulations at 10 Charles Street.
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/12/2025
Item 3, 10 Charles Street
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
The subject property is located on the corner of
Charles Street and Los Gatos Boulevard, and it is developed as a single-family residence.
On November 11, 2022 an administrative warning
was issued by the Town for the construction of a fence
exceeding height limitations in the required side yard
area. Staff discussed the fence with the property owner and informed them that the new fence exceeded the maximum
allowable height of 3’ when located in the required front and streetside yard setbacks, as well as the traffic view area and the corner site triangle.
On January 10, 2023 the Applicant applied for an
exception to the Town’s fence regulations based on concerns related to safety and security. Planning and Engineering Staff initially supported the request, finding that the open design of the fence and the width of the sidewalk and planting strip mitigated the traffic and pedestrian safety concerns, however, following a site visit Staff noted that portions of the fence are located in the Town’s right-ofway, a fact not available during initial consideration of the exception request.
In consultation with the Engineering division, it
was determined that the Town could not make the findings
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/12/2025
Item 3, 10 Charles Street
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
required for granting the exception, and the request was denied on March 23, 2023.
On April 3, 2023 the denial was appealed to the
Planning Commission by the property owner. Pursuant to Town Code, the Planning Commission may hear the matter anew and render a new decision.
In their Letter of Justification, the property
owner reiterates their safety concerns, security concerns, discusses the unique characteristics of the property, and goals of mitigating safety issues with the open view
portion of the fence. The property owner also notes the location of the fence accommodates reasonable and fair
access to approach the front yard. The property owner also noted that locating the fence within the property boundary would make exterior circulation between the side yard and front yard impractical and may require the removal of some oak trees. Finally, the property owner offers their
willingness to sign any needed agreements with the Town in order to maintain the fence in the Town’s right-of-way.
Based on the analysis provided in the Staff
Report, Staff recommends denial of the appeal, upholding the decision of the Director to deny the exception request.
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/12/2025
Item 3, 10 Charles Street
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
In addition to Planning Staff, Engineering Staff
is also in attendance tonight to address any questions that the Commission has.
This concludes my presentation and Staff is
available to support your discussion this evening.
CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you. Commissioner Stump.
COMMISSIONER STUMP: A couple of questions.
First, as I understand it, the portion of the fence that’s in the Town right-of-way is on Charles Street, not the Los Gatos Boulevard side, is that correct?
SEAN MULLIN: That’s correct.
COMMISSIONER STUMP: So, it’s Charles Street that
is in the Town right-of-way.
The other question I would have for Public Works
would be are there any plans for a sidewalk now or ever to be installed on Charles Street? What is the priority?
Obviously Town right-of-way would be very important to us if sidewalks were to be installed. What’s the story there? DIRECTOR PAULSON: Thank you, Commissioner Stump.
We have Mr. Watson, Senior Civil Engineer, on Zoom, as well as the Town Engineer, Gary Heap, so whoever wants to field that, go ahead and chime in.
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/12/2025
Item 3, 10 Charles Street
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
JAMES WATSON: I can jump in. James Watson,
Senior Engineer, Town of Los Gatos. Thanks for the
question.
Sidewalks are something that typically are put in
by the direction of Council, and so we would look to
Council to make some sort of capital improvement project in the area if there were such a demand or request. To my
knowledge, there is currently no plan, and I’ve heard no discussions of any plans to install a sidewalk on Charles Street.
COMMISSIONER STUMP: Thank you.
CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Raspe.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you. I just want to
follow-up on that question. To the extent that we permitted a fence to be placed subject to, as I understand it, a
license agreement of encroachment (inaudible), is one of the conditions of that, to follow-up on Commissioner
Stump’s question, if the Town ever wished to develop it, the landowner would have to remove the fence? Is that one of the conditions of the agreement?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you.
CHAIR THOMAS: Any other questions for Staff?
Commissioner Barnett.
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/12/2025
Item 3, 10 Charles Street
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
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Extending on that comment.
The Staff Report says that private improvements on the
Town’s right-of-way can create safety and Town liability issues that are not typically permitted, but they can be allowed with an Encroachment Permit and License Agreement, typically required through Parks and Public Works
Department, so my question is has there been any discussion with the Applicant related to getting such an Encroachment Permit?
SEAN MULLIN: Thank you for that question. I can
start. The Applicant has expressed their willingness to sign any agreement needed to maintain the fence in the
Town’s right-of-way.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Is there any reason why
that hasn’t been done yet?
SEAN MULLIN: In general—and I can defer to Mr.
Watson—the Town discourages improvements in the public
right-of-way, so that was the reason for denial. I don't know if Mr. Watson has anything to add to that.
JAMES WATSON: I’ll just echo that, but yes, when
we originally looked at it we weren’t considering any
improvements in the public right-of-way. We have had some situations come up recently that have made us consider some private improvements in the public right-of-way.
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/12/2025
Item 3, 10 Charles Street
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
One other thing to consider, information that did
come up subsequent to our original denial, is our Town
Engineer did a ride-along with one of our Police Department officers and actually went to the site just today and took a look at it, and the police officer did not support the viewing that was available at that turn, expressing concern about southbound traffic on Los Gatos Boulevard turning right onto Charles and potential for a pedestrian being unable to be seen. I just wanted to add that extra piece of information, since it did kind of develop today.
CHAIR THOMAS: Are there any other questions for
Staff? Yes, Commissioner Stump.
COMMISSIONER STUMP: Maybe I’m directionally
challenged, but that was a right turn onto Charles Street as you would be going north on Los Gatos Boulevard? Is that what was being stated as concern by the police officer? JAMES WATSON: If I said that, I misspoke. I
intended to say southbound on Los Gatos Boulevard, right turn onto Charles.
SEAN MULLIN: For clarification, I believe the
right turn would be northbound.
COMMISSIONER STUMP: The right turn going
northbound, okay. We wouldn’t be making a right turn onto Charles Street if you’re going southbound.
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/12/2025
Item 3, 10 Charles Street
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
JAMES WATSON: That’s contrary. So, you come up
to the traffic intersection at Los Gatos/Saratoga and Los Gatos Boulevard, you take a right turn onto Los Gatos
Boulevard, and then it’s a left turn onto Charles, and so if you’re heading in the northbound direction, you would turn left onto Charles, but that’s not the one that was brought up. It’s the other direction, coming towards Los Gatos/Saratoga and turning onto Charles, which to my
recollection is a right turn.
SEAN MULLIN: Just verifying through the Chair,
that would be the northbound direction of Los Gatos
Boulevard, turning right onto Charles Street.
JAMES WATSON: I apologize for that. I’m the
directionally challenged one.
CHAIR THOMAS: I just would like to clarify with
Staff though that there was a… According to Parks and
Public Works, is that who determines that the initial view corridor was clear and okay?
SEAN MULLIN: Thank you for that question.
Obviously, as you can recognize with the dates, this has been kicking around for a little bit. Discussions back in 2023 with Mr. Watson and the traffic engineering based on a site visit, they didn’t have any site line issue, and
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/12/2025
Item 3, 10 Charles Street
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
that’s reflected in that email exchange between me and Mr.
Watson.
There was some information provided verbally
through the Town Engineer based on a ride-along with one of our police officers today, that the police officer in that conversation expressed some concern with the line of sight when turning right onto Charles from Los Gatos Boulevard.
As you look down that fence, you’re not looking
perpendicular to the open view of it, you’re looking at it at an angle, and that officer, to my understanding,
expressed some concerns about the blocking of the view
through the corner when approaching it from that direction.
CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, thank you. Any other
questions at this time? Thank you, Mr. Mullin, and
everyone. We will now open the public portion of the public hearing on Item 3 and give the Applicant or Appellant an opportunity to address the Commission for up to five
minutes. I believe I have a speaker card for Mr. Pradhan.
FIROZ PRADHAN: Respected Chairwoman and members
of the Planning Commission. I just want to start out by taking a moment to, from the bottom of my heart, thank the Staff, particularly Sean Mullin, for the patience that he has exhibited over the last year-and-a-half while I was
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/12/2025
Item 3, 10 Charles Street
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
going through an irreparable loss in my life, and I really want to thank you.
There are some unique characteristics surrounding
this particular home. It was built in 1920. We purchased the home 99 years later. It’s obviously located—and I’m really happy that you’ve all visited the site—on a very quiet dead-end street at the intersection of Charles and Los Gatos Boulevard. Just six neighbors on the street, very little traffic.
The main living room, which is often visited by
my son and the two grandkids of my mother-in-law is the bedroom on the front of the house, and that room, through a pair of French doors, opens to the Boulevard.
The other thing of course is that there is a stop
sign on Charles, which you are aware of. During COVID, and while construction was going on, there was a 6-foot solid fence, the green canvas fence. We had never, never got a phone call even from anybody saying that there is a concern about visibility.
When we were designing the home, and the fence
specifically, but even the home, just to let you know that we had overall a fantastic experience with the Town,
whether it was with Joel Paulson from Planning or from the HPC, or Roy Alba, or Robert Gray, or Sean Mullin of course,
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/12/2025
Item 3, 10 Charles Street
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
any of the people. It was just a fantastic experience, and people would say, “Oh my God, we feel sorry that you’re building something in the Town,” and I’m just being honest with you, for us the experience was absolutely fantastic.
We were also blessed, we had spoken with two top,
top architects, Gary Kohlsaat and Chris Spaulding, and then we worked with Chris Spaulding. The objectives of building the fence for us was safety and security, particularly
because kids were going to be playing in the front yard, and that was the main play area. Visibility was a main
issue, and we had spoken with the neighbors, and most of the neighbors.
There was one neighbor, obviously, who has some
concern, and we are still trying to work out some tweaking of the fence that would address that need and hopefully the concern of the police officer.
In fact, when James Watson mentioned about the
police officer, I actually have spoken to three or four different police officers when there would be some incident and they would park on Charles Street, because it’s easy parking, and I would literally call them out and I would say, “Can you just spend a couple of minutes and tell me if you have any concerns with the visibility,” and each one of them said absolutely not, the way the fence has been
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/12/2025
Item 3, 10 Charles Street
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
designed and built, they don’t have any concern. But
visibility for us was important, in addition to safety and security.
We spoke with the neighbors. We made it a point
to have a very expensive and custom-built fence, 26” tall, 38” of latticework, and we literally mimicked the fence of the house across the street. Then of course I reached out to Nicole Burnham when Sean Mullin expressed a concern. She (inaudible) James Watson, he came, he spent some time, and thus the email that he sent.
If you can quickly pull up the PDF on the
visibility. The white car is mine, and I’m literally at the stop sign, and this is today. It’s obviously a rainy and cloudy day, but you can see that even through the lattice you could see the cars. If you can play it again. As soon as the car enters and much before. Now, if you can show us the PDF. I know there is a concern about the right-of-way.
What we did is very naively we built the fence along the curb and gutter, and you can see there are some trees, and if we were to build the fence along the properly line,
which we were not even aware of, all I did was I called Chris Spaulding, I sent him the design, and I said, “Do you have a view on this?” and he said, “It’s beautiful, but it
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/12/2025
Item 3, 10 Charles Street
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
must be very expensive,” and is said, “Yes, but it is in keeping with all the details that we have put in the home.” You’re not able to find the other PDF? It’s fine.
They were basically snapshots of the video that I had sent where you can literally see the cars coming through the lattice, and if you need to tweak the last two or three sections, it’s something that we are definitely willing to do, and as far as the right-of-way is concerned, Sean and I have spoken about this. If there’s anything we need to do to protect the Town, we’ll do it. Thank you.
CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you, thank you. Before you
sit down, are there any questions for the Appellant at this time? No. Okay, thank you. You will have an additional
three minutes to speak after we get public comment.
FIROZ PRADHAN: Thank you so much.
CHAIR THOMAS: I do have a couple of speaker
cards here. The first is for Michelle. Please just state your name for the record and you will have three minutes.
MICHELLE HUNTLEY: Thank you. Hi, my name is
Michelle Huntley. I am the property owner at 264 Los Gatos Boulevard, which shares a properly line with 10 Charles.
Forgive me, I don’t know Town laws and regulations, but I just wanted to speak to you today.
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/12/2025
Item 3, 10 Charles Street
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
When Firoz finished his remodel, he did approach
me about a fence going on Los Gatos Boulevard, at which point I did express my concerns, because it is a busy road, we’ve got kids, we’ve got kids on bikes, scooters, short kids, tall kids, high schoolers, middle schoolers, cars. He did make many changes to the fence. He did provide some spacing so I could see and have some visibility, because if it's a solid fence my driveway is a complete safety hazard and unusable.
It has affected my visibility; it has reduced it
for sure. What caught me off guard was that not only does it affect my visibility, but the pedestrians walking by cannot see me. I’m very careful, and I drive out carefully, and as it is now I’m okay as long as the bushes are kept off the fence, but I’ve witnessed the surprise on many
people’s faces when they see my car; they had no idea it’s there, which is an extra layer.
So, my concern going forward would be allowing an
unrestricted fence going in, requiring a permanent…saying that it’s allowed to have the fence higher, and with
unrestricted materials, because someone in the future, he could change his mind later and put a solid fence in and visibility, the driveway would be unusable; visibility at Charles Street would be even more impacted.
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/12/2025
Item 3, 10 Charles Street
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
I have seen people really have to slow down, and
that’s an unreasonable expectation for kids to take that extra time to go super slow if something more solid were to go in down the line. It’s an unreasonable expectation for adults to slow down running late for work. People tend to speed through these intersections and we need some
visibility, so as it is now, I hope that we can find a way to work together to maintain this visibility that works within the Town laws and to preserve the safety going
forward for any future owner.
CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you. I think Commissioner
Stump has a question.
COMMISSIONER STUMP: In fact, I looked at your
property today just because of that concern of a fence
coming right up to your property, and I noticed that it is angled a bit.
MICHELLE HUNTLEY: Yes, I asked him for an angle,
and he did.
COMMISSIONER STUMP: My question is, is that
angle sufficient from your perspective, or could it be even greater? Could you be happier? Could you have additional visibility? I know that the fence comes around between your properties and I think stops at a hedge line.
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/12/2025
Item 3, 10 Charles Street
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
MICHELLE HUNTLEY: Yes, it does, the hedge line
going back. They wanted a fence and a hedge line, and I just couldn’t fit it in my driveway. We had asked for the angle, and they did agree, and I had thought at the time that it was going to be a little bit more we had agreed upon, so, I mean, any angle additional helps greatly.
Everything helps on that street.
CHAIR THOMAS: I do just want to clarify one
thing with you. Right now, you feel like the visibility is good. Your main concern is that moving forward if the fence were altered to not have the lattice, that would be…
MICHELLE HUNTLEY: If there is any altering, that
would be completely unusable. As of right now, I’m
managing. He’s been agreeing to keep the hedge off the
fence, because there’s now a hedge on the other side of it which further obstructs the view, but if he agrees to keep it maintained, as it is now, I feel comfortable working with him. A future owner might be another story.
CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, thank you. The next speaker
card I have is for Doug.
DOUG OLCOTT: My name is Doug Olcott; I live at
300 Charles Street, the very end of the street, and I am speaking in defense of the appeal of the denial of the
exception. I have lived on that street for a long time with
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/12/2025
Item 3, 10 Charles Street
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
my wife, and our children have been raised mainly there, going to local schools.
I had sent you a PowerPoint with many more slides
than Mr. Mullin showed up there showing the access to Los Gatos Boulevard, first from Charles Street, and then views looking either way, left and right, from the street, and showing that there was no blocking of the view by his
fence.
Also, at the very end of Charles Street before
you get to the Boulevard, there is the word “Stop” written in the pavement before the sidewalk, so if you’re leaving, you have to stop there and you look in either direction, and there is no obstruction.
Also, the Town, at my request and some other
people’s request, has put a sign on the Boulevard before you approach Charles Street saying, “Do Not Block
Intersection,” at the intersection with Charles Street, not at the traffic light which connects the road to Saratoga.
And also, they marked on the pavement in front of the
Charles intersection with the Boulevard, “Keep Clear.” So, if people are driving in that direction and paying
attention, they would not block the exit or ingress in, and they would leave space for people to get in and out, and
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/12/2025
Item 3, 10 Charles Street
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
also, it would protect children, lots of children going to school there down that street, and bicyclists.
I feel that the current location of the fence and
the provisions that the Town has made for safety there are adequate, and I have not seen any accidents there in all the time we’ve lived there, and from the time he built that fence that was caused by a lack of a view, so that’s all I wanted to say.
Now, if you want, I’d like to meet with Mr.
Mullin at the site, again, or someone, to go over these details. If you could see them in my photos, I think you would agree with what I’m saying. Unfortunately, I wasn’t aware that the deadline was 11:00am today. That’s all I wanted to say.
CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you very much. Yes, and
thank you for the reminder that the deadline is at 11:00am for the public. But we did all do a site visit, at least.
Are there any questions for the speaker? The next speaker card I have is for Natasha.
FIROZ PRADHAN: She’s my daughter. I think she
had confidence in her dad and she left.
CHAIR THOMAS: Okay. I understand. And Sayid
Nejard also? Okay, thank you.
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/12/2025
Item 3, 10 Charles Street
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
SAYID NEJARD: Hi, my name is Sayid Nejard. I
live on Charles Street a couple of houses down from the Mr.
Pradhan’s house.
Like Mr. Doug was saying, I don’t see any issue
with visibility from Charles Street to Los Gatos Boulevard.
There is a stop sign right there, you stop, and then just look and you can see anybody who is passing; dogwalkers, people, pedestrians, and so on.
The only issue I see on this is in the afternoon
the high school students are going back home and driving off of Los Gatos Boulevard. That section, they speed up and there is a little bit of danger of an accident there, but it’s not the reason for the fence; they’re not taking about the fence here. But that intersection is quite dangerous, and I’ve seen an accident before, and this really had
nothing with do with 10 Charles Street.
When he built the house, it just really made the
neighborhood so much nicer; it’s a beautiful home and the fence is a very high-quality, beautiful, with the lattice section that you can be seen through, and I’d hate to see that be changed to something else; definitely not a solid fence. I’m not very familiar with the ordinance of the
Town, but the way it is, I have no issues with it, not me and not anyone in my family. Thanks.
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/12/2025
Item 3, 10 Charles Street
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
CHAIR THOMAS: Are there any questions for the
speaker? No. Thank you. The last speaker card I have is for Kevin.
KEVIN CHESNEY: Hi, I’m Kevin Chesney; I have
owned the house on 2 Charles Street since 1994.
First of all, I lost both parents in 2024, my
mother and father, and Firoz and I have talked about our losses together. He lost his lovely wife. He’s a wonderful neighbor. It’s not an issue. He’s a kind neighbor, and I hate to come up here and talk about how dangerous that
fence is.
To be quite honest, the neighbor on 5 Charles
Street, Matthew Daily, had an accident for the fence that was that green fence that he’s talking about that was for construction. Kent Anderson, the other neighbor, and I both immediately after he brought that fence up said that’s
dangerous. Both of us said please make changes to it,
please change it, and we’ve talked about it for over a
year. We didn’t go to the Town, but we asked him to make changes, because as you’re coming out from Charles Street and you’re turning right, you can’t see to the left, and when his hedges come up…
Basically, if the Town leaves it there, I’m going
to sue you; it is dangerous. Basically, you’re doing
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/12/2025
Item 3, 10 Charles Street
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
something that is putting me at risk. As a homeowner, as someone who has lived there since 1994, it is a dangerous fence.
Now, that being said, I’ve sat down with him.
He’s very kind, and we’ve talked about changes that could be made that would address that, and if he can make those changes, I am totally fine. He needs to move it back maybe 2’-4’, or he needs to drop some of those things down, but if he doesn’t make those changes, then you guys are going to be liable. You make that decision, I will hold you
liable. It is a dangerous fence, and there are three
neighbors, Matthew Daily, Kent Anderson, and me, that see it as extremely dangerous.
I’m sorry. I love my neighbor. He’s very kind.
He’s a very good man. It’s a beautiful home. But to be
quite honest, it’s dangerous, and we’ve already had one accident because of that prior fence, so to be quite
honest, it’s very dangerous.
CHAIR THOMAS: Are there any questions?
Commissioner Stump.
COMMISSIONER STUMP: I just wanted to get a
clarification. You said because of that prior fence. Are you talking about the construction fence that was up?
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/12/2025
Item 3, 10 Charles Street
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
KEVIN CHESNEY: Yes, the construction fence.
Matthew Daily had an accident with the construction fence.
COMMISSIONER STUMP: I understand.
KEVIN CHESNEY: Prior to that, there was no
fence. I’ve lived there. I knew Don prior to that.
COMMISSIONER STUMP: What changes are you
recommending to that corner?
KEVIN CHESNEY: Actually, I spoke with him
earlier. We’ve talked about a couple of changes. Either move the fence back, which other neighbors, if you look, it’s all about visibility. He’s done a beautiful job of building a beautiful home, the fence itself is a beautiful fence. I don’t want to discount that.
He’s been kind, and we’ve talked about things.
It’s not a matter of me wanting to come up here and diss him, it’s a matter of safety; that’s all it is. And he and I talked about it earlier today. He needs to bring a
portion of that fence down. If I’m coming up and I have to go into the sidewalk to see whether or not someone is
coming over, or if I need to turn right, it’s dangerous for me. We’ve already had an accident. All I want to do is make it safe, that’s all. And to be quite honest, he’s a good neighbor and I feel bad having to come up and say this.
COMMISSIONER STUMP: Okay, thank you.
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/12/2025
Item 3, 10 Charles Street
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
CHAIR THOMAS: Are there any additional
questions? Thank you. I have no speaker cards for Item 3.
Are there any hands raised on Zoom?
DIRECTOR PAULSON: Thank you, Chair. Let me
switch screens. No, there are no hands raised on Zoom.
CHAIR THOMAS: So, I invite the Appellant back
up. You will have an additional three minutes.
FIROZ PRADHAN: I really don’t know if I have
much to add, but I will say that when I spoke to those two or three different police officers, in one of the cases he had already addressed the incident and he actually turned around, stopped at a stop sign, looked left, looked right, and he said, “Why are you asking me this? I don’t see a problem.”
And I do understand that Kevin has a problem, and
we have spoken about lowering those two or three sections at the corner. Obviously, our concern is the safety issue, because when the grandkids are playing there, it’s a 26- inch fence and somebody can walk across. I also mentioned to Sean that we had two incidents where somebody literally knocked at the door of the French doors in the front
bedroom, so safety and security is a concern.
I also totally understand that visibility is a
concern. I was driving back today from Whole Foods to
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/12/2025
Item 3, 10 Charles Street
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
Charles to see if there are other such cases, and I came across nine homes on the corner of Los Gatos Boulevard and side streets that had fences that were about 3 feet and solid. On Charles itself, all three other corners have the same issue, but they are working with it, and I am willing to work with people and get this issue resolved.
I really don’t have anything to say. We have such
wonderful memories, and this is not relevant to this, but I just share these things. The home originally was 268 Los Gatos Boulevard and I got a call from Robert Gray because we had applied for a change of address, and he said, “I just want to give you the good news. Your home is now going to be on Charles, but there is a problem. We need an even number from 2-20,” and in the spur of the moment I said, “We are not rich enough to live on 10 Downing, but we could live on 10 Charles,” and that’s how the address came.
When the demolition was going on, we found a
piece of paper, handwritten, nailed to one of the studs saying the mailbox on this building has been found to be satisfactory, and it was signed February 18, 1920, and we found it in February 2020, a hundred years later.
It's really, really important for me, and I know
this is very personal and this may not be… My wife lived joyfully until the very last moment. There is a beautiful
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/12/2025
Item 3, 10 Charles Street
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
African proverb, “When death comes, and it will, make sure it finds you alive,” and she lived that until the very last moment. I want to honor her legacy and still make sure that people are safe.
Finally, I want to say let justice and law be
tempered with pragmatism. That’s all. Thank you so much, and I’m sorry if I got emotional.
CHAIR THOMAS: No, thank you. Thank you for
sharing all of that, and all the details. Are there any questions. Commissioner Stump does have a question for you.
COMMISSIONER STUMP: Thanks for the information
that you provided. Would you consider making some changes at the corner of Charles and Los Gatos Boulevard, whether it’s more of an angle similar to what you did on the other side for your neighbor so that there would be more
visibility, especially looking down Los Gatos Boulevard? FIROZ PRADHAN: Right. One of the things that’s
easy to do, because obviously these are very solid posts and so on, is there are three sections, and if you pull up the picture I can show you. There are three sections, one on Charles and two on Los Gatos Boulevard. If the lattice work can be lowered to 3’, or probably to 39”, as long as the visibility is there, then you’re not looking through the lattice.
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/12/2025
Item 3, 10 Charles Street
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
COMMISSIONER STUMP: Other question too. Your
neighbor at 264 Los Gatos Boulevard, would you also be
willing to work with her to review the kind of the angle that was put in there? Because even my observation was it was a bit shallow and not a lot, and it could be something that goes back a little bit even farther.
FIROZ PRADHAN: Yes, I can work with Michelle.
Sure.
COMMISSIONER STUMP: Thank you.
FIROZ PRADHAN: Though I do feel that her concern
was (inaudible) this morning of course is that if you sell the home, somebody will come and put a solid fence, so if there is an exception, it shouldn’t be a blanket exception.
COMMISSIONER STUMP: Thank you.
CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you. Are there any other
questions? Okay. Thank you so much.
FIROZ PRADHAN: Thank you so much.
CHAIR THOMAS: We will now close the public
portion of the public hearing on Item 3, and I invite
Commissioners to ask questions of Staff, provide comments, and eventually propose a motion.
I have a question about the findings just because
we started with some other questions. On page 129, Exhibit 2 says, “The required findings for granting a fence height
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/12/2025
Item 3, 10 Charles Street
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
exception pursuant…,” blah, blah, blah, “are a special
security concern exists,” and then there’s a second bullet point. I just want to clarify that we only need to make one of those two findings.
SEAN MULLIN: That’s correct.
CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, thank you. Then, originally
the Applicant came forward with the special security
concern, but this is also listed as option, and when I was looking through I was thinking that perhaps a special
circumstance exists because of the lot configuration with regard to the house and everything, so is that why that’s listed there also for us.
SEAN MULLIN: Thank you for that question. The
reason those are listed is those are the two that really apply to the property, because it’s not interior lot, so there are a number of findings, A-E, D and E, which are provided here, are the ones that are applicable to the lot.
CHAIR THOMAS: Right, because the other one is
also like commercial property, all of that.
SEAN MULLIN: Correct.
CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, thank you. Just wanted to
clarify that. Does anyone else have questions for Staff? I just want to clarify with Staff and with the Town Attorney that if this appeal… I mean, what happens if we grant this
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/12/2025
Item 3, 10 Charles Street
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
appeal, and with regard to the legal responsibility of the Town if this fence is in the public right-of-way.
ATTORNEY WHELAN: The Town would be susceptible
to claims if there were an injury. There’s an immunity
that’s called the “design immunity,” when the Town has
participated in the design of an improvement that immunity would not be available because the Town… And a legislative body has to approve the design for the design immunity to apply, so the design immunity would not be available under these circumstances.
CHAIR THOMAS: And as part of the documents that
the Appellant is agreeing to sign off on, what sort of
responsibility do they take?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: It does require the property
owner to indemnify the Town for any claims that arise out of the improvement that’s located in the public right-ofway. And then there is also an insurance requirement.
CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, and it also gives the Town
the ability to remove the fence in case of an emergency, or require that the property owner remove the fence if there’s a need for the use of that right-of-way?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: The Town’s agreements in the
past have required the property owner to remove the
improvement at the request of the Town. We don’t have any
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/12/2025
Item 3, 10 Charles Street
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
language in the agreement right now that talks about the Town having the ability to remove it in the event of an emergency, but I think there’s case law that would support the Town’s ability to do that.
CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, thank you. Yes, Commissioner
Burnett.
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Yes, I have a question. If
the present owner sold his home, would the same rules
apply? I mean, he would have signed an indemnity protecting the Town. Would the new homeowner?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: That’s a good point. The
Conditions of Approval do run with the land, however, the license agreement would not run with the land, and so we would need to provide that the license agreement terminates when the property changes hands.
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Thank you.
CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Stump.
COMMISSIONER STUMP: The safety issue that was
brought up by one of the residents on Charles Street, is there some guidance the Town would give there related to the construction? I know some suggestions have been
offered, but if we were to grant the appeal, could that be a condition of granting the appeal, or granting permission to be in the Town right-of-way, etc.?
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/12/2025
Item 3, 10 Charles Street
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
SEAN MULLIN: Thank you for that. I think the
Town or the Planning Commission has the ability to grant the appeal with conditions to modify the fence as you see fit. My initial response is does the Town have basically a framework to avoid the situation. Obviously, the Town Code helps avoid it, and that’s why we’re here this evening. You have the latitude to look at things a little bit more in a different light and consider the appeal and the extenuating circumstances.
DIRECTOR PAULSON: Through the Chair, if I may
offer? Through the Town Engineer, the license agreement would actually… He’s indicating the license agreement would be recorded on the property, it would run with the
property, just to add that information. I’m not sure if he’s available to unmute at the moment.
ATTORNEY WHELAN: We’d need to structure it as a
deed restriction so that it applied to any new buyer,
because historically the Town’s license agreements have been between the Town and a specific party.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Can we start with
comments, Chair?
CHAIR THOMAS: Go for it.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I don’t see from my
perspective any way that we can grant the appeal. The
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/12/2025
Item 3, 10 Charles Street
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
recommendation by Staff is no. I think there’s credibility from the Public Works representative about the policeman speaking today, even though it’s hearsay; so is the
Applicant’s statement about the other policeman. I think the concern about loss of indemnity is a very serious
issue. The liability of the Town is a very great issue
also.
There may be opportunities for the Appellant to
come back with another application to be consistent with the ordinances of the Town, but I personally would find it extremely difficult to grant the appeal.
CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Burnett.
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Yes, I agree with
Commissioner Barnett. Hearing from a couple of the
residents, the issues they brought up, which were very
concerning, I would not be able to make the required
findings to grant the appeal, and I stand by our compliance officer in violation of the code and the zoning,
29.40.0315.
I mean, these corners are very important and we
have a lot of them come before us, so we’re very sensitive about any kind of change on corner fences, and this seems to pose a particular problem. This is a busy road, and from the police officer who mentioned, although we say it was
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/12/2025
Item 3, 10 Charles Street
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
hearsay, he did comment that it was dangerous and the fence was not… There’s so much lattice that I think it actually tends to help block the view, but I would not be able to grant an appeal in this item.
CHAIR THOMAS: I have an additional question for
Town Staff, and that is if the current owner or future
owner wanted to alter the fence, they couldn’t make it a solid fence, because that wouldn’t be an in-kind
replacement?
SEAN MULLIN: That’s correct. If the appeal were
granted for the fence as it currently is, the fence would have to remain as is.
CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, thank you. Just to clarify
that, because that was a concern of one of the neighbors.
ATTORNEY WHELAN: To add onto that, if the
Commission were inclined to grant the appeal, I would
recommend making that a condition of approval about keeping it in-kind.
CHAIR THOMAS: Even though it’s in the Town Code,
additionally having that just as a backup.
ATTORNEY WHELAN: I think so, because otherwise
the conditions will be recorded as they are, and it won’t be documented.
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/12/2025
Item 3, 10 Charles Street
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
CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, perfect. I hear everyone’s
concerns. My mom lives relatively close to this property, so I do walk and… Obviously I’m not walking up that end of Charles, because it’s a dead end, but I do cross Charles there a lot and walk along Los Gatos Boulevard, and I know that safety is a primary concern, however, when the initial Staff Report that we have came in they didn’t have a
concern with the corner site triangle, which typically is the standard that we look at with regard to safety,
however, I hear some of the neighbors’ concerns.
I’m wondering if we can come to some sort of
middle ground of adjusting the fence, because I do think that on certain parts of this property it does make sense, and I could make some of these findings. I could make the findings that this is not an unreasonable request, and so I really do think that if the safety is the concern I’m
wondering if the Commission has any ideas about how to
possibly just make an adjustment.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Chair, I’m torn on this one.
I really came in this evening after reviewing materials and I understood the Appellant’s concerns. He wants to utilize their front yard, has small children, and as a result there is traffic right there and you want to protect your
children from both intruders and getting outside the
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/12/2025
Item 3, 10 Charles Street
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
property and into traffic. At the same time, we have to protect our pedestrians and drivers from visibility issues, and so this is one where I think I agree with you, Chair.
There is a win here, I think, for both the Town
and for the Applicant, but I don’t think it’s the current configuration. I think the current configuration obstructs too much of children and high schoolers walking up and down the street, and people trying to make a left turn, for
instance, out of Charles onto Los Gatos Boulevard.
I don’t know that lowering the fence height helps
the Applicant, because children can go over in either
direction, out in traffic or into his yard. I’m wondering if perhaps taking the right angle out where it connects Charles and Los Gatos Boulevard, if you turn that instead into a 45-degree angle, I think that creates a sight line.
Is that a better idea? Maybe. The Applicant would have to give up some land to make that happen, so part of the
usable space.
I think, again, there’s a solution here, but in
its current configuration, I can’t support the fence. I think it creates issues for pedestrians, for drivers, and ultimately for the Town.
CHAIR THOMAS: Could I request that the photo
that is in the Staff Report as part of Exhibit 10, that
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/12/2025
Item 3, 10 Charles Street
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
corner that really shows us…that we look at it together as a group, but perhaps for Staff’s recommendation, if we’re going to make a recommendation to clarify.
SEAN MULLIN: What was that page number again?
CHAIR THOMAS: One-thirty-seven.
SEAN MULLIN: It will take me one moment.
CHAIR THOMAS: I think that as you’re pulling
that up, Mr. Mullin, I just want to say that part of the visibility issue that I saw when I visited is that there are a lot of trees happening anyway, so those trees are there and they exist, but that does definitely add to the situation. I think that if where that first tree in on
Charles is, is that’s where the fence starts its lefthand turn, that will mitigate a lot of these issues. So, I am wondering if everyone is amenable to us just opening up public comment again just to get a clarification if the Appellant would be willing to adjust that change.
ATTORNEY WHELAN: You could open it up just for
the purpose of asking that question.
CHAIR THOMAS: That one question, okay. Let’s
hold. I want to see what other Commissioners think. There are multiple trees there, so really, I agree with
Commissioner Raspe that if that…
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/12/2025
Item 3, 10 Charles Street
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
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Just to clarify. You see, it
looks like there’s a span probably of 10’ from the corner to the first vertical post right where the cursor is. If you take out that section and instead go on a 45-degree angle, I think that perhaps opens up a view corridor. I don't know if it’s adequate or not, and I just throw it out there as a possible solution.
CHAIR THOMAS: Yes, Commissioner Barnett.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I have a question for
Staff, and that is given the procedural status that we have an appeal based on the existing fence, do we as the
Commission have authority to approve a variation?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: You could grant the appeal with
conditions, and the conditions could be the revisions that the Commission lands on.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Okay, thank you.
CHAIR THOMAS: And the alternative would be
reject, and then there would have to be a whole new
application to come in to be processed.
ATTORNEY WHELAN: I’ll see what Mr. Paulson has
to say after me, but I would say that you could deny the appeal, and then say that the Applicant is free to come back with a new proposal.
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/12/2025
Item 3, 10 Charles Street
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
DIRECTOR PAULSON: In addition, whether the
appeal is granted or denied, that’s an appealable action.
CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, because it’s a decision.
Great, so all of the options. I feel like that would
satisfy the needs of all the parties involved. I’m curious what other Commissioners are thinking, or do you want me to ask the Appellant if they’re willing to make that change? COMMISSIONER STUMP: I was going to say can you
expand on that? So, which solution were you proposing?
CHAIR THOMAS: To attempt to grant the appeal
with the condition that this part of the fence, the lattice be removed and the fence be made at the 45-degree angle.
COMMISSIONER STUMP: I agree we should give it a
try. We should pursue it tonight.
CHAIR THOMAS: Yes, Commissioner Barnett.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I just want to say
following up on Staff’s option. My personal opinion was that we shouldn’t be engineering and designing this
tonight, that we should deny it without prejudice and
encourage the Appellant to come in with a different plan. I personally don’t feel confident about doing that ourselves without Staff reviewing the new design, including Public Works.
CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Burnett.
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/12/2025
Item 3, 10 Charles Street
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
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Yes, I agree with
Commissioner Barnett exactly on this. I feel we should deny it and have them come back with a new design, and I’m also concerned about leaving shrubbery and tree care up to them, to make sure that the visibility is cleared out all the time; that’s another problem for me.
So, with this issue, there are a lot of problems
with this fence the way it is. You have shrubbery, you have row, you have indemnity issues, you have the fence, which is very busy and causes, I think, an obstructed view, so I would feel much more comfortable denying it and having them come back with clear direction from Staff on how these
issues could be resolved.
But I’m still concerned about our other Town
issue, the right-of-way, so I’m not comfortable with that yet. Thank you.
CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, thank you. I do want to say
that according to the Staff Report that we got tonight, I did not see that there was a safety issue according to
that, so I’m not sure for me personally how that really has… I don't know how Staff would reevaluate it in a way that it couldn’t make anything worse, it’s only going to improve.
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/12/2025
Item 3, 10 Charles Street
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
But I do have a question for Staff about the
shrubbery and if there is anything in Town Code about
requiring visibility with shrubs with regard to
landscaping?
SEAN MULLIN: Thank you for that question. The
same rules that apply to this fence also apply to trees and shrubs. They’re limited to 3’ in height and subject to code enforcement should they grow taller than what is allowed when they’re in the required front yard area, corner, site triangle, traffic view area, or the required streetside setback.
CHAIR THOMAS: So, if the owner, or whoever lives
there in the future, let the shrubs get out of control, that should be a code compliance complaint and a code
violation?
SEAN MULLIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: I have a question for Staff.
Is there any way—again, I’m trying to find a path forward— that if the Applicant were to incorporate our changes, for instance, if we were to deny the appeal, that the Applicant would incorporate our changes with a new design, would it necessarily come back to us? Or if the Community
Development Director found… I understand it’s the private right-of-way issue that actually initially landed it before
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/12/2025
Item 3, 10 Charles Street
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
us, but if, for instance, we indicated that that wasn’t our main concern, rather it’s the safety issue, and if Town Staff was placated with that issue, would it have to come back to us if the redesign was incorporated giving our
input tonight and Town Staff was satisfied?
SEAN MULLIN: If I could ask a clarifying
question. If you’re talking about design alterations, is that something that would be accomplished through a
condition on granting the appeal, or would that be… There are options of continuing it and coming back with an
alternate design, or denying it with direction and without prejudice, being explicit about why you can’t grant the appeal, and then the homeowner could file for a new Fence Height Exception and Staff could reevaluate under that. I’m not sure if it would end up back here or not; it’s hard to tell unless you continued it.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: I’m just trying to find the
quickest point A to B. I think we’re largely in a court here. I think we all want to solve the problem. We see what the issues are, and I suggested a solution. I do agree with Commissioner Barnett. I don’t want to be in a position that we are engineering results; that’s not our role. But I want to get to the end result as quickly as possible, so if that is denial with recommendations, let them start the process
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/12/2025
Item 3, 10 Charles Street
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
again, maybe that’s it. I’m open to suggestions on it, but I do agree, we shouldn’t be designing the fence.
CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Barnett.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Just a quick comment would
be that as part of a revised plan they could move the fence out of the right-of-way and take away that issue, and then I think if it passes muster with Staff that everyone would be okay with that.
CHAIR THOMAS: Personally, I understand the
safety concerns, but once again, I do really strongly feel that Parks and Public Works said that this was not a major safety concern. It’s really more in front of us, I think.
We do need to make the finding for a Fence Height
Exception, and I understand that. I think the public rightof-way issue is what is in front of us, so maybe we do need to get a better idea of how we feel about that. I know that Commissioner Burnett said she’s not entirely comfortable with that situation, but I felt like the willingness of the Applicant to sign the license agreement and all the
required documents were satisfactory to me. I know there are other examples of private improvements in the public right-of-way in Town, it just is part of being an old town with small streets and funky lots and all of the things, but I don’t really feel comfortable relying on hearsay from
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/12/2025
Item 3, 10 Charles Street
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
one police officer today, like saying that should trump the traffic engineer’s opinions on safety, so that’s just kind of where I’m at. Commissioner Stump.
COMMISSIONER STUMP: So, then I think it comes to
either denial, that we deny the appeal, or we continue this with the idea that we would bring this back, and because we have two things to consider. We’ve got the right-of-way, and now we’re identifying public safety. It could have all been avoided if the fence were 3’ high all the way around and not in the Town right-of-way. That’s not the
circumstance we find ourselves in.
The other thing we need to keep in mind too,
Staff was ready to grant this exception, as we see it,
until it was discovered that a portion of this fence was in the right-of-way, and keep in mind that the Los Gatos
Boulevard side of the fence is not in the Town right-ofway, it’s only on the Charles Street side, so I think that’s what we’re faced with. It’s either we’ve got to deny this appeal and encourage the homeowner to come back
through the process, or continue this, and I guess I’d look to Staff to say is there a preference, and is one of those ways more convenient for the Appellant.
SEAN MULLIN: There’s certainly not a preference
from Staff’s perspective. I think there are merits to both
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/12/2025
Item 3, 10 Charles Street
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
directions. Continuing with very specific direction could allow, and actually applying for a new Fence Height
Exception if it were denied would allow the Applicant an opportunity to continue to work with Staff, and based on what we’ve heard tonight and the interaction with the
Police Department, that could be something that we could chase down as well. If it were a continuance, we’d be
looking for very specific direction about the items that would need to be addressed, and then we could continue
working with the Applicant and then bring that back.
DIRECTOR PAULSON: Through the Chair, I see that
the Town Engineer has his hand raised on Zoom, so Mr. Heap, if you have some input, please unmute yourself.
GARY HEAP: Yes, thank you. I appreciate you
allowing me to speak on this item here. I appreciate the late notice of this new information this evening with
regard to the input from the Police Department today. I was fortunate enough to do a drive-along with Sergeant Kalipo this afternoon, and I did bring this item up, specifically with regard to the visibility issue.
The visibility issue is not from exiting Charles,
but it is from traveling northbound on Los Gatos Boulevard and making that right turn onto Charles, which is not stop controlled, so folks can make that right turn, and if there
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/12/2025
Item 3, 10 Charles Street
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
are pedestrians that happen to be walking along Charles in the street, because there is no sidewalk, it’s difficult for them to move out of the way with that fence being
there.
I would be okay, so long, as it was all right
with the Planning Department and the Town Attorney, to go ahead and allow for this to move forward as a
recommendation with removal of the fence, or at least
lowering the fence within the 30’ triangle at the corner, which is our standard sight distance requirement for a
corner.
Then with regard to the fencing along Charles in
the right-of-way, we could then live with that in the
right-of-way with the license agreement that is recorded against the property, which again, is deed restricted, and so if in the future we did need that right-of-way, we could request that property and remove that.
CHAIR THOMAS: I think that I would request that
we open the public comment just to answer the question of what the Appellant…would you want us to issue a continuance with specific guidance, or would you rather have us deny and essentially you would need to start over?
FIROZ PRADHAN: The neighbors and I have been
discussing this issue.
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/12/2025
Item 3, 10 Charles Street
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
CHAIR THOMAS: I’m sorry, it’s just a question of
would you be… If we issued a continuance on this item with specific direction, would you be willing to work with Staff to improve the view corridor, as the Town Engineer
mentioned?
FIROZ PRADHAN: One hundred percent, yes.
CHAIR THOMAS: And would you prefer to go that
route versus a straight up denial of the request, which means that your options would be that you could appeal to Town Council or start over with a new application?
FIROZ PRADHAN: I would one hundred percent like
to resolve this issue with the Staff, and obviously we’ll involve the neighbors as well, rather than going to Town Council or coming back to this place. Thank you so much.
CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you. I really appreciate
that. Thank you. Commissioner Barnett.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Would there be a new
filing fee if there was a new application?
DIRECTOR PAULSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: On that basis, I’d like to
make a motion that we continue this hearing to a date
acceptable to Staff with direction that the Appellant
confer with Staff with respect to addressing both the
right-of-way issue and the safety issue, and that we have
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/12/2025
Item 3, 10 Charles Street
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
the opportunity then to bring it back in the event that Staff is not prepared to make a decision on its own.
CHAIR THOMAS: Is that a specific enough motion?
SEAN MULLIN: I can start, and then the Director
can jump in. I think with that motion, that’s what Staff has been working on for some time. I think as a
recommendation, perhaps we might want to be more specific about the safety concerns and the potential resolutions without of course engineering from the dais. We’ve heard concerns about the corner sight triangle, and we’ve heard some opinions and feedback from the Town Engineer on that, and we’ve also heard concerns about the neighbor’s
driveway; I think it was 264 Los Gatos Boulevard.
Offering specificity about bringing the height
down, I think that’s the kind of direction that would be extremely useful for Staff since we’ve already been trying to get there with this offline.
CHAIR THOMAS: I think Commissioner Raspe has…
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Chair, if I might offer a
discussion among Commissioners. My specific recommendations would be for the redesign. Redesigning the corner at the intersection of Los Gatos/Saratoga and Charles Street such that a possible resolution will be a 45-degree angle
instead of a 90-degree angle at that site, that as part of
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/12/2025
Item 3, 10 Charles Street
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
the conditions of approval there would be no changes in material to the fence, that plantings would not be allowed to grow along the fence line, and there would be a redesign of the fence at the driveway section of 264 Charles. Those would be my specific recommendations we would include as part of our continuance.
CHAIR THOMAS: I realized we didn’t get a second
for motion.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: We didn’t get a second. We
don’t have a motion.
CHAIR THOMAS: We don’t have a motion. Is that a
motion though?
COMMISSIONER RASPE: I would append that to
Commissioner Barnett’s motion. He already, I think, made a motion to continue. Those would be my conditions for the continuance, if Staff believes those are specific enough.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Yes, the maker would
accept those.
CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, and who seconded that motion
initially? Okay, Commissioner Stump. Thank you. So, now discussion. Do we feel like that’s sufficient direction? Commissioner Burnett.
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/12/2025
Item 3, 10 Charles Street
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
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Could I just have the
motion clarified? At the corner you’re talking about having a 45-degree angle?
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Yes, your recommendation.
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: And you’re keeping the
same fencing material, lattice?
COMMISSIONER RASPE: So, it couldn’t be solid,
and it couldn’t allow plantings to grow (inaudible) view corridor, either this corner or any subsequent corner.
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: And then how many feet
would that be on Los Gatos Boulevard and then…
COMMISSIONER RASPE: I think I would leave the
specifics for Staff.
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: How do you figure out the
dimensions on that?
CHAIR THOMAS: To open the view triangle?
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: I think there’s the… I would
go from post-to-post. There are already existing posts it looks like about 10’ from the corner.
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: I see.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: (Inaudible).
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: And does Staff feel that
that would be adequate?
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/12/2025
Item 3, 10 Charles Street
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
CHAIR THOMAS: Is that adequate? Is that more
specific?
SEAN MULLIN: Thank you for that. I think that’s
certainly more specific. What I’m hearing is to look at the corner sight triangle with the suggestion of changing that angle between Los Gatos Boulevard and Charles to a 45-
degree angle or somewhere thereabouts, especially on the first panel on each side. Condition of Approval so that there are no changes to fence moving forward so it carries with the project, not just in the Town Code, and that no plantings be allowed along the fence, and to work to
redesign the fence to improve the safety at 264 Los Gatos Boulevard.
CHAIR THOMAS: Yes. And then, I would just like
to offer a recommendation to amend that we understand there are existing trees, so taking that into consideration too that we understand it might be like a foot, or inches, or something else might need to happen to engineer around
those trees on the corner. Is that okay with the makers? COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Yes.
CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, thank you. And then I
believe the Town Engineer, he raised his hand for a second.
GARY HEAP: I did. If I could provide additional
input. Our Town standard at corners is a 30’ setback from
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/12/2025
Item 3, 10 Charles Street
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
the intersection, 30’ back from the properly line, along both of the legs of that triangle at the corner, and then it would be 10’ back at the adjacent driveway, so that
would be our Town standard for visibility.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Yes, I would amend my
motion to adopt that standard as one to be considered
before this is brought back to us, or certainly to the
Staff’s approval.
CHAIR THOMAS: Okay. Are we ready to call the
question? I’m sorry, we can’t open the public portion
again. Are we continuing to a date… Sorry, this is not to a date certain determined by Staff.
DIRECTOR PAULSON: We can do it to a date
certain, and let’s do April 23rd, and we’ll work through internal stuff, and if we’re not ready, then we’ll just continue it again.
CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, to April 23rd. Great. Let’s
go ahead and call the question. All those in favor? The motion passes unanimously.
(END)
ITEM NO. 12.
PREPARED BY: SEAN MULLIN, AICP
Planning Manager
Reviewed by: Community Development Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6872 www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 04/23/2025
ITEM NO: 3
DATE: April 18, 2025
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Consider an Appeal of a Community Development Director Decision to Deny a Fence Exception Request for an Existing Fence Partially Located in the Town’s Right-of Way and Exceeding the Height Limitations within the Required Front Yard and Street-Side Yard Setbacks on Property Zoned R-1D. Located at 10 Charles Street. APN 532-36-022. Categorically Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. Fence Height Exception Application FHE-23-001. Property Owner/Applicant/Appellant: Firouz Pradhan. Project Planner: Sean Mullin.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue consideration of the appeal to a date certain of May 28, 2025, to allow the applicant additional time to prepare a response to the Commission’s direction of March 12, 2025.
ATTACHMENT 3
ITEM NO. 12.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ITEM NO. 12.
PREPARED BY: Erin M. Walters
Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Community Development Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6872 www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 04/23/2025
ITEM NO: 3
ADDENDUM
DATE: April 22, 2025
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Consider an Appeal of a Community Development Director Decision to Deny a Fence Exception Request for an Existing Fence Partially Located in the Town’s Right-of Way and Exceeding the Height Limitations within the Required Front Yard and Street-Side Yard Setbacks on Property Zoned R-1D. Located at 10 Charles Street. APN 532-36-022. Categorically Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. Fence Height Exception Application FHE-23-001. Property Owner/Applicant/Appellant: Firouz Pradhan. Project Planner: Sean Mullin.
REMARKS:
Exhibit 12 includes public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, April 18, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, April 22, 2025.
EXHIBITS:
12. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, April 18, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, April 22, 2025
ATTACHMENT 4
ITEM NO. 12.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ITEM NO. 12.
From: Kevin Chesney
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 10:52 AM
To: Erin Walters <[email protected]>
Cc: Cheryl Smith Joel Paulson <[email protected]> Subject: RE: 10 Charles Street - Follow up
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Erin,
Please include the email below as well as the attachments as discussed.
Kevin
Kevin Chesney,
This email and any attachments may contain private, confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately delete this email and any attachments
From: Kevin Chesney
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 10:40 AM
To: 'Erin Walters' <[email protected]>
Cc: 'Kent E Anderson' ; 'Matthew Dailey'
'Cheryl Smith' <c ; 'Joel Paulson'
<[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 10 Charles Street - Follow up
Hello Erin,
In my conversation with Cheryl Smith who is my long-time significant other, the current fence situation does not allow the driver to see unless they proceed into the crosswalk which is quite dangerous and based on my understanding is also a driving violation. As she has often commented, we as drivers are used to no fence being in the way. She is also so concerned about the bushes that Firouz planted just behind the fence, which it makes it so much more difficult to see through the lattice. Why have lattice for visibility if you obfuscate the visibility with bushes?
EXHIBIT 12
ITEM NO. 12.
So, please also include this feedback from Cheryl as well as the video, as attached, that she took given her concerns over safety. As she sent me in an email this morning and writes:
“This video demonstrates the lack of visibility of cars as well as pedestrians and cyclists as you approach Los Gatos Blvd. The fencing along Charles Street blocks visibility of the oncoming traffic as you approach Los Gatos Blvd. and the cars on the video appear as blurs and that is driving at normal speed. The cars often go much faster as they race to make the green light at the intersection. As you approach Los Gatos Blvd, in order to see oncoming cars or pedestrians coming from the downtown direction, you must fully enter the crosswalk in order to see clearly as the lattice fencing along Los Gatos Blvd. prevents clear visibility. Firouz has also planted bushes on the inside of the lattice fencing along Los Gatos Blvd. which has now grown enough to block the lattice making it virtually ineffective as a “see through” fencing option.”
Finally, Cheryl recommended that I record a new video at a busier time when children are present in the morning on their way to school, especially with how many cars are on road. I will do that in advance of the next planning meeting since you stated that this issue will be continued. Both Cheryl and I will be present to voice our concerns at the follow up meeting as well as many other neighbors given all our safety concerns. We can also be there for this upcoming meeting if you wish, as well as Kent Anderson, especially based upon my conversation with him this morning, but I am uncertain if we are able to speak given our last conversation.
If we can speak, then we all wish to attend, so please advise.
My neighbors and I are tired of the can being kicked down the road. So, please resolve this issue soon as it has been years since Kent and I rose our safety concerns Firouz.
In summary, the planning committee should deny this exception for the safety the neighbors, my family, and all the children traversing this path in our community.
ITEM NO. 12.
With kind regards,
Kevin
Kevin Chesney, Chief Executive Officer -
This email and any attachments may contain private, confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately delete this email and any attachments
From: Kevin Chesney
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 6:16 PM
To: 'Erin Walters' <[email protected]>
Cc: 'Kent E Anderson' ; 'Matthew Dailey'
; Cheryl Smith ; 'Joel Paulson'
<[email protected]>
Subject: 10 Charles Street - Follow up
Dear Erin,
Thank you again for speaking with me regarding the fence exception. I voiced my concerns to Firouz the day he started constructing the fence, along with my neighbor Kent Anderson, who lives at Los Gatos Blvd, the yellow farmhouse that is directly across Charles St from Firoz’s home.
More specifically, I have numerous text messages dating back to December 22, 2022, voicing my concerns as well as asking for a solution to the safety concerns. I have attached a couple of them but will make them all available if you wish.
There are at least 4 neighbors who have voiced their concerns, but only Michelle and I spoke at the last planning meeting. Each time, the can kept getting kicked down the road, with options discussed with Firouz, but no commitment for change. In early 2024, I had to fly to Virginia to care for my mother and stepfather. I became their primary caregiver, and I
ITEM NO. 12.
lost both parents, one on April 4, 2024, and the other on Christmas, 2024. As such, my messages to Firouz stopped in 2024 as I was focused on other matters.
I am so thankful for the kindness and thoughtful advice you provided when we met. As you must know, it is not easy to raise such objections, given that neighbors wish to remain neighborly, but the safety of my family, my other neighbors, and the unrelated children from Los Gatos High School, Fisher Middle School, and Van Meter Elementary School that traverse these streets each weekday are much more important for us to protect.
It is so important for the planning commission to realize this risk to our community. A potential insurance policy by the owner of 10 Charles Street is not enough, given if someone dies from an accident due to this fence, my neighbors or I will be prosecuted for involuntary manslaughter. The code for safety is clear, and our neighbor has violated it, even though he is an educated contractor who knew the requirements when purchasing the property.
I am hopeful the planning commission will make the right decision to protect us.
With kind regards,
Kevin
Kevin Chesney,
This email and any attachments may contain private, confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately delete this email and any attachments
ITEM NO. 12.
ITEM NO. 12.
ITEM NO. 12.
INCLUDED WITH THE PUBLIC COMMENT WAS A
VIDEO FOR REFERENCE.
USE THE FOLLOWING LINK TO VIEW THE
RECORDING:
https://www.losgatosca.gov/DocumentC
enter/View/41900/Video---10-CharlesTraffic
ITEM NO. 12.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ITEM NO. 12.
PREPARED BY: Erin M. Walters
Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Community Development Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6872 www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 04/23/2025
ITEM NO: 3
DESK ITEM
DATE: April 23, 2025
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Consider an Appeal of a Community Development Director Decision to Deny a Fence Exception Request for an Existing Fence Partially Located in the Town’s Right-of Way and Exceeding the Height Limitations within the Required Front Yard and Street-Side Yard Setbacks on Property Zoned R-1D. Located at 10 Charles Street. APN 532-36-022. Categorically Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. Fence Height Exception Application FHE-23-001. Property Owner/Applicant/Appellant: Firouz Pradhan. Project Planner: Sean Mullin.
REMARKS:
Exhibit 13 includes comments received from the applicant.
Exhibit 14 includes public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Tuesday, April 22, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Wednesday, April 23, 2025.
EXHIBITS:
Exhibits previously received with the April 22, 2025, Addendum Report:
12. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, April 18, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, April 22, 2025
Exhibit received with this Desk Item Report:
2. 13. Comments received from the applicant
14. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m., Tuesday, April 22, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Wednesday, April 23, 2025
ATTACHMENT 5
ITEM NO. 12.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ITEM NO. 12.
From: Firoz Pradhan
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 11:34 PM
To: Joel Paulson <[email protected]>
Cc: Alexa Nolder <[email protected]>; Sean Mullin <[email protected]>; Erin Walters <[email protected]>; Firoz Pradhan <
Subject: Planning Commission - Continuation of Hearing - 10 Charles St [EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Joel.
As per our conversation earlier today, I would humbly request you to inform the Planning Commission of my prior communication to the Town regarding my unavailability to attend the Planning Commission hearing scheduled for tomorrow, both through an email to Sean Mullin on April 3rd, as well as in person on March 12th, immediately upon the Commission ordering a continuation. This was due to a longstanding family commitment, more specifically being that my son and his family are visiting our home tonight - for a week-long stay - for the first time since the passing away of my wife.
As the Planning Commission is aware, during last month’s hearing, the Commission recommended that I work collaboratively with the concerned neighbors and Town staff to develop a mutually agreeable mitigation plan. I have taken this recommendation very seriously, and reached out to the two neighbors who expressed the most concern during the previous meeting, and we are scheduled to meet next Thursday (May 1st) to discuss and finalize a mitigation plan that addresses their concerns while preserving the key elements of the safety & security, and to do so in consultation with the Planning Staff. The order entailed that we return to the Planning Commission with an established plan for their consent. I also understand that Staff shall recommend to the Planning Commission that Wednesday, May 28th be the date set up for this to occur.
I would also like you to assure the Commission that I remain fully committed to resolving this matter in a timely and constructive manner. I have no intention of delaying the process, and I am actively working with all stakeholders to arrive at a responsible solution.
I respectfully ask that no action be taken on my appeal in tomorrow’s meeting in my absence, and that the Commission be made aware of both my scheduling conflict and my good faith efforts to comply with their guidance set forth in the last hearing.
Thank you for your attention to this matter, and for your continued support in helping bring this issue to a fair and collaborative resolution.
Warm regards,
Firoz Pradhan
10 Charles St
Los Gatos, CA 95032
EXHIBIT 13
ITEM NO. 12.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ITEM NO. 12.
EXHIBIT 14
ITEM NO. 12.
Kent Anderson
Los Gatos Blvd.
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Steve Raspe
Historical Preservation Committee
110 E. Mian St.
Los Gatos, CA 9503o
April 7, 2025
Dear Mr. Raspe,
I am writing to you concerning the fence built at 10 Charles St. I have had numerous conversations and meeting with Firoouz and my other neighbors discussing this. All the houses in this courtyard are upset about this.
I was shocked to hear it said there was no opposition to this. The house is really 268 Los Gatos Blvd. It was only recently changed to make it appear that it is not on the boulevard.
It represents a historic home on the entrance to our city. There is an ordinance that protects the sight lines of these homes in order to maintain the beauty of our town. Simply renaming the lots address does not do away with the set backs and sight lines that need to be preserved and enforced.
This particular fence is exceeding dangerous. As it is I have witnessed almost 1 accident a month right on that corner. There is a tremendous amount of traffic right there. The road expands into two lanes right inn from of the house and it is difficult to see both lanes before pulling into traffic.
This fence conceals the sidewalk entirely making it impossible to see a anyone coming on the sidewalk in that direction. Van Meter elementary in right down the street and Fisher is around the corner from that. We have hundreds of kids some on bikes and scooter that cross right there daily.
In the afternoon the high school kids zoom past there as well. This fence need to be removed to the 15’ setback that is required and angled to 45% no closer that 30’ at the corner it self. And bushes interfering with this sight line also need to be removed. There is no reason to allow this. I would be surprised if it does lead to a serious accident in the near future.
Sincerely,
Kent Anderson
cc. Sean Mullins
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #3, 10 Charles Street
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:
Kendra Burch, Vice Chair
Jeffrey Barnett
Susan Burnett
Steve Raspe
Rob Stump
Town Manager: Chris Constantin
Community Development
Director:
Joel Paulson
Town Attorney: Gabrielle Whelan
Transcribed by: Vicki L. Blandin
(619) 541-3405
ATTACHMENT 6
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #3, 10 Charles Street
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:
VICE CHAIR BURCH: We will now move onto the
Public Hearings, and now our first item is going to be Item 3, previously from the Consent Calendar.
Consider an appeal of a Community Development
Director decision to deny a fence exception request for an existing fence partially located in the Town’s right-of-way and exceeding the height limitations within the required front yard and streetside yard setbacks on property zoned R-1D, located at 10 Charles Street, APN 532-36-022. Project is categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures.
Fence Height Exception Application FHE-23-001. The Property Owner/Applicant is Firoz Pradhan, and the project planner is Sean Mullin, who I understand is not available this
evening. Who will be giving the Staff Report?
DIRECTOR PAULSON: Thank you. There is no Staff
Report. This item is being requested to be continued so that the Applicant can address the direction from the
previous Planning Commission meeting. Additionally, as in the Desk Item, they’re not available this evening.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: So, we are only pulling this
to allow for public testimony?
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #3, 10 Charles Street
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
DIRECTOR PAULSON: You have two speakers, and I
don't know if the Town Attorney has any additional comments on the speaking now or at the future meeting.
ATTORNEY WHELAN: One option would be for the
Chairperson to ask the speakers if they’re able to come to the next meeting. Has it been scheduled for a future
meeting yet?
DIRECTOR PAULSON: I think they are potentially
available for the next meeting, but they wish to speak this evening.
ATTORNEY WHELAN: Okay. If they’re available, my
recommendation is they be asked to come to the meeting at which this will be discussed so that everybody can have the benefit of their comments.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: This is a little new to me.
So, in that case we do have two speaker cards; I believe it’s Kevin Chesney and Kent Anderson. Is that acceptable that we hold your testimony until…
(Inaudible comment from the audience.)
VICE CHAIR BURCH: All right.
ATTORNEY WHELAN: There is no requirement to open
the public hearing.
(Inaudible comment from the audience.)
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #3, 10 Charles Street
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
ATTORNEY WHELAN: If it is your position that
you’re not available for the meeting at which this will be discussed, you’re welcome to give testimony tonight.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Okay. I’m fine, let’s go ahead
and allow that. So, all right, we’re going to open the
public testimony for Item 3, and I have a speaker card. The first one I have is, I believe, Kevin Chesney.
KEVIN CHESNEY: Hello. As you remember, I am
Kevin Chesney, the owner of 2 Charles Street that has owned the property since 1994 when I bought the property
(inaudible), and also I bought it with respect to the
fencing that was there, including 302 Charles Street
(inaudible). I expressed my concerns last time, and I’m sorry I wasn’t as articulate (inaudible) and for that I apologize.
I also, as my neighbor, Kent Anderson, who will
speak after me, was unaware of the violation that the Town raised with respect to the fence until the appeal. We kept trying to work collegially with our neighbor to address my concerns. If you look at what we just both presented, I have text messages back too 2022 raising my concerns,
telling him that I thought it was unsafe, but he built his fence.
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #3, 10 Charles Street
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
Both Kent and I objected, as well as our
neighbor, Matthew Daily, who actually is traveling to
Thailand or he would be here today, but he had had an
accident, and yet Firoz said nobody was concerned about the fence that he created for construction, but we were all being neighborly, we were all being kind, we were all
trying to support him.
But it is a clear example, in my mind, of
building something that an educated contractor knew wasn’t compliant, and then asking everybody for forgiveness, which is quite annoying given he’s an educated contractor. He knows the laws, he knows what is required of him, he knew it when he bought the property.
With respect to Firoz’s letter to Mr. Mullin to
justify the exception, I would comment on several of his points.
First, he states that Charles Street is a quiet
dead-end street with only a handful of residents. I wish his assessment of the situation were true, but it’s not that quiet in fact, and there is actually a No U-Turn on that street based upon the fact that most parents try to use that as a way to circumvent their ability to get to Van Meter or Fisher. That is one of the most heavily
transcribed areas of kids walking back and forth. You have
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #3, 10 Charles Street
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
no idea. You need to be there at 8:00 o’clock in the
morning, or 7:30; it's dangerous.
Second, he states the stop sign ensures our
safety, but we cannot see it properly when we proceed to within the crosswalk. We have to get out into the crosswalk to actually see. I can see fine to the right, because my neighbor at 302 Charles Street, which is Kent, has a 45- degree angle.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: I’m afraid that’s your time.
KEVIN CHESNEY: Okay, so fine.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Are there any questions
though?
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Chair, one question for Mr.
Chesney. First of all, thank you for appearing in the first instance and again this evening. Our hope last time was that the neighbors would come together, talk about the
issues, and see if there was a resolution. My only question to you is has there been a discussion between you and the Applicant since our last meeting?
KEVIN CHESNEY: One discussion to meet next week,
and this has been going on. As Sean Mullin says, we keep kicking the can down the road, and it’s frustrating.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: I appreciate it.
KEVIN CHESNEY: Terribly frustrating.
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #3, 10 Charles Street
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
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Any other questions? I do have
one. You were just mentioning the visibility, that you
can’t see till you’re in the crosswalk. Are you trying to say like I need to be halfway through the street, or like at the corner?
KEVIN CHESNEY: I will be more specific.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: I would like that, please.
KEVIN CHESNEY: I have to be out into the
crosswalk, which means I have to go into an area that is dangerous for the students who are walking with their
parents. Secondly, I just talked to Michelle Huntley, who spoke, which is the neighbor on the other side, and she said to me just a few minutes ago that she gets out of her car and looks over so she can tell whether or not there are any issues. It’s appalling.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Okay, thank you so much.
KEVIN CHESNEY: It’s absolutely appalling.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: If I can ask you one
question. Have you observed any accidents involving any other cars of pedestrians?
KEVIN CHESNEY: Per my last situation, Matthew
Daily actually had an accident himself, 5 Charles Street, based upon the prior fence. Kent will speak, and he will say that he witnesses accidents at that intersection
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #3, 10 Charles Street
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
probably monthly. It is a very, very difficult
intersection.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Thank you for that.
Appreciate your comment.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Any other questions? Thank you
very much.
KEVIN CHESNEY: Thank you.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: All right, Kent Anderson.
You’ll have three minutes, Mr. Anderson.
KENT ANDERSON: Okay, thank you. My name is Kent
Anderson. I live right across the street from Firoz
actually, and I work right in that office for the most
part. I kind of moved recently, but I did…I worked in that office. I would witness an accident there almost once a month, to be honest with you.
That’s one of the busiest places in Los Gatos.
It’s right on Los Gatos Boulevard and Highway 9. Everybody who comes downtown, or half of the people who come
downtown, exit onto 17 right there, and that’s the one area where it goes from one lane into two lanes, because there’s a turn lane there, people are going through there fast
because they want to make the light, they want to get onto the freeway.
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #3, 10 Charles Street
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
Also, we’ve got Van Meter, we’ve got Fisher,
going down there every single day. We also have Mariposa; I guess they’re speaking here as well, they’re just around the corner. So, we’ve got kids that go by there from 8:00 o’clock to 8:30,probably hundreds of them, and it’s really not fair.
You can’t stop right at the stop sign there, you
have to go past the line where the stop sign says stop in order to see around the corner, which is into the
crosswalk, and it’s almost too late. This is a serious
hazard.
In addition to that, his lattice work doesn’t
meet code. It can only be 20% obscured; his is probably doubled that.
In addition to that, he’s planted a bunch of
bushes alongside. It’s made an impossible situation and I really think this needs to be denied.
It needs to be cut down to 3’, all the bushes
there need to be cut down to 3’. There’s absolutely no
reason for this.
This house isn’t really on Charles Street; they
just changed the address with this last owner. It’s really 268 Los Gatos Boulevard, and that’s the way it’s been
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #3, 10 Charles Street
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
forever, so really hope you guys will just deny it flat out.
We do have a meeting set up with him, but it’s
the same nonsense I’ve heard over time. He wants to take out a couple of pieces of lattice or something that’s not really going to make that much difference. That’s really all I have to say. Thank you, guys, for listening. I
appreciate it.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Any questions?
COMMISSIONER STUMP: Can I ask one question of
Staff. In looking back at the meeting minutes from March 12th basically to see if that time the motion was that the Appellant confer with Staff with respect to addressing the right-of-way issue and the safety issue, and that it be brought back to the Planning Commission if Staff is not prepared to decide on its own. So, do we know what that status is as far as the action?
DIRECTOR PAULSON: We do not.
COMMISSIONER STUMP: So, to be continued. Thank
you.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: All right, thank you, Mr.
Anderson.
KENT ANDERSON: Thank you.
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #3, 10 Charles Street
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
VICE CHAIR BURCH: All right, I will close the
public portion of this item and look to my Commissioners for any comments, questions of Staff, or a motion.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: I’ll go ahead, Chair; I’ll
begin. I was prepared to have this on the Consent Calendar, and I’m actually glad it came off. I’m glad to see that the neighbors are working towards it and are alerting us to the potential issues here. I’m loath to render a judgement on it tonight, because the Applicant isn’t available, but I’m also hesitant to continue this much longer given that there are some apparent safety issues.
So, I would move to continue this to the first
available date, and a date certain, so that we can resolve this as quickly as possible.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Thank you. Anyone else?
Commissioner Barnett.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Was that a motion? If so,
I’ll second.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: I’ll just ask Staff; do we
have a date available that we can set it tonight?
DIRECTOR PAULSON: We probably have a date
available, but we don’t know if the Applicant is available.
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #3, 10 Charles Street
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
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Can I ask that we set it for
that date. We’ll just set it for that date, and let the Applicant object if they’re unable to do it.
DIRECTOR PAULSON: That would be May 14th rather
than May 28th.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Second?
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Yes, absolutely.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: All right, we have a motion.
Any other comments? All right, then all in favor. Passes unanimously to a date certain of May 14th. I assume there are no appeal rights or anything on this for us to bring up.
ATTORNEY WHELAN: No.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Thank you.
DIRECTOR PAULSON: One second. Why can’t we do
the 14th?
FEMALE: The 14th is no longer available due to
legal ad requirements. You would have to do May 28th to abide by the legal ad requirement.
DIRECTOR PAULSON: This doesn’t require a legal
ad, because we’re continuing it to a date certain.
FEMALE: Okay.
(END)
ITEM NO. 12.
PREPARED BY: SEAN MULLIN, AICP
Planning Manager
Reviewed by: Community Development Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6872 www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 05/14/2025
ITEM NO: 3
DATE: May 9, 2025
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Consider an Appeal of a Community Development Director Decision to Deny a Fence Exception Request for an Existing Fence Partially Located in the Town’s Right-of Way and Exceeding the Height Limitations within the Required Front Yard and Street-Side Yard Setbacks on Property Zoned R-1D. Located at 10 Charles Street. APN 532-36-022. Categorically Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. Fence Height Exception Application FHE-23-001. Property Owner/Applicant/Appellant: Firouz Pradhan. Project Planner: Sean Mullin.
RECOMMENDATION:
On April 23, 2025, the Planning Commission continued consideration of this appeal to the May 14, 2025 meeting. The applicant has informed staff that they are not available to attend the May 14, 2025 meeting due to previously arranged travel plans and requested a continuance to the next meeting. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue consideration of the appeal to a date certain of May 28, 2025.
ITEM NO. 12.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ITEM NO. 12.
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6832
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MAY 14, 2025
The Planning Commission of the Town of Los Gatos conducted a Regular Meeting on Wednesday, May 14, 2025, at 7:00 p.m.
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 PM
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Emily Thomas, Commissioner Jeffrey Barnett, Commissioner Susan Burnett, Commissioner Steve Raspe, Commissioner Joseph Sordi, Commissioner Rob Stump
Absent: Vice Chair Kendra Burch
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
CONSENT ITEMS (TO BE ACTED UPON BY A SINGLE MOTION)
1. Approval of Minutes – April 23, 2025
2. Approval of Minutes – April 30, 2025
3. Consider an Appeal of a Community Development Director Decision to deny a fence exception request for an existing fence partially located in the Town’s right-of-way and exceeding the height limitations within the required front yard and street-side yard setbacks on property zoned R-1D. Located at 10 Charles Street. APN 532-36-022.
Categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. Fence height Exception Application FHE-23-001.
Property Owner/Applicant/Appellant: Firouz Pradhan. Project Planner: Sean Mullin.
Commissioner Stump requested Item 1, Draft Minutes of the April 23, 2025 Planning Commission meeting, be pulled from the Consent Calendar.
MOTION: Motion by Commissioner Stump to approve adoption of the Consent Calendar, with the exception of Item 1. Seconded by Commissioner Barnett.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously.
ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM NO. 12.
PAGE 2 OF 4
MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 14, 2025
1. Approval of Minutes – April 23, 2025
Commissioners discussed the matter.
MOTION: Motion by Commissioner Stump to approve adoption of Consent Calendar Item 1, Approval of April 23, 2025 Meeting Minutes, as amended. Seconded by Commissioner Raspe.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
4. Senate Bill 9 Ordinance Amendments
Town Code Amendment Application A-25-002
Project Location: Town Wide
Applicant: Town of Los Gatos
Project Planner: Ryan Safty
Consider making a recommendation to the Town Council on an ordinance amending Chapter 29 (Zoning Regulations) of the Town Code for Senate Bill 9 (SB 9) in response to the provisions of Senate Bill 450 (SB 450). The proposed amendments to the Town Code are not considered a project under Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act, and in accordance with Government Code Sections 66411.7(n) and 66452.21(g), Senate Bill 9 ordinances are not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.
Ryan Safty, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Opened Public Comment.
Harini
In 2023 I specifically requested the Town Council to remove the 1,200 square foot second unit limit, as it (inaudible) the intent and purpose of the State law, but that suggestion was ignored, probably to try to see what sticks in, but that thinking makes it difficult for the Town to control objective Town planning until a more strict State law comes in and takes over the Town’s control completely. I request this be in line with the intent of State law. Regarding the bonus, I saw and agree with the comment about being consistent with (inaudible) bonus (inaudible) non-split scenario (inaudible) four units (inaudible) and the ADUs provided a minimum of 800 square feet, or 10% of the lot size. Here, I only see 10% of the lot size, the minimum of the 800 square feet is not there in the SB 9, so I would request you to add that. The shared utilities is a serious issue. We can have shared utilities and yet separate (inaudible) and
ITEM NO. 12.
PAGE 3 OF 4
MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 14, 2025
as rightly said in the comments, sewers are not metered and there is no need for shared utilities for that, as (inaudible) and installation costs are quite high for multiple sewers, so it’s always good to have shared utilities for those sorts of things.
Closed Public Comment.
Commissioners discussed the matter.
MOTION: Motion by Commissioner Raspe to recommend to Town Council approval of an ordinance amending Chapter 29 (Zoning Regulations) of the Town Code for Senate Bill 9 (SB 9) in response to the provisions of Senate Bill 450 (SB 450). Seconded by Commissioner Stump.
Commissioners discussed the matter.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
5. Forward a recommendation of approval to the Town Council for the Draft Proposed Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget for Fiscal Years (FY) 2025/26 – 2029/30.
Saurabh Nijhawan, Capital Improvement Senior Civil Engineer, presented the staff report.
MOTION: Motion by Commissioner Raspe to recommend to Town Council approval of the Draft Proposed Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget for Fiscal Years (FY) 2025/26 – 2029/30. Seconded by Commissioner Sordi.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously.
REPORT FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Joel Paulson, Director of Community Development
• The Town Council met on May 6th:
o Discussed Program AB, which the Planning Commission had recommended approval of. After deliberation the Council sent the matter back to staff with direction to look at different options and to discuss it with the Department of Housing and Community Development to narrow the focus of that effort. This item will return to the Planning Commission or Town Council, depending on the scope of those modifications.
ITEM NO. 12.
PAGE 4 OF 4
MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 14, 2025
o A special Council meeting is scheduled for May 6th for Dio Deka at 143-151 East Main Street was cancelled due to a clerical error between notices, and will now be heard at the Town Council’s May 27th meeting.
o The Genuine Automotive project that was heard by the Planning Commission will now be heard by the Town Council on June 3rd.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS/COMMISSION MATTERS
General Plan Committee
Commissioner Thomas
- The GPC met on May 14th:
o Forwarded a recommendation to approve a General Plan amendment to adopt the Fire Hazard Severity Map. The Planning Commission will receive this item in the future.
o Recommended to Town Council to dissolve the General Plan Committee due to lack of work.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
This is to certify that the foregoing is a true
and correct copy of the minutes of the
May 14, 2025 meeting as approved by the
Planning Commission.
_____________________________
/s/ Vicki Blandin
ITEM NO. 12.
PREPARED BY: Sean Mullin, AICP
Planning Manager
Reviewed by: Community Development Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6872 www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 05/28/2025
ITEM NO: 2
DATE: May 23, 2025
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Consider an Appeal of a Community Development Director Decision to Deny a Fence Exception Request for an Existing Fence Partially Located in the Town’s Right-of Way and Exceeding the Height Limitations within the Required Front Yard and Street-Side Yard Setbacks on Property Zoned R-1D. Located at 10 Charles Street. APN 532-36-022. Categorically Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. Fence Height Exception Application FHE-23-001. Property Owner/Applicant/Appellant: Firouz Pradhan. Project Planner: Sean Mullin.
BACKGROUND:
On March 12, the Planning Commission considered the appeal of a Community Development Director decision to deny a fence height exception request for an existing fence partially located in the Town’s right-of way and exceeding the height limitations within the required front yard and street-side yard setbacks on property zoned R-1D, located at 10 Charles Street. The Planning Commission received the staff report, testimony from the applicant, input from the public, and voted unanimously to continue the matter to the April 23, 2025 meeting with the following direction to the applicant:
Address the right-of-way and safety issues created by the fence; Redesign the fence at the corner of Los Gatos Boulevard and Charles Street to adhere to the Corner Sight Triangle standards to staffs’ approval;
Redesign the fence near the driveway serving 264 Los Gatos Boulevard to address sight and safety concerns; and
Any approval carry the conditions that there be no changes to the materials or solidness of the fence and that there be no plantings allowed along the fence.
On April 23, 2025, staff recommended that the Planning Commission continue this matter to a date certain of May 28, 2025, to allow the applicant additional time to prepare a response to
ITEM NO. 12.
PAGE 2 OF 5
SUBJECT: 10 Charles Street/FHE-23-001
DATE: May 23, 2025
C:\Users\MeetingsOfficeUser12\AppData\Local\Temp\tmpFF60.tmp the Commission’s direction of March 12, 2025. A member of the public pulled this item from the Consent Calendar and provided comments to the Commission. The Commission then continued this matter to the May 14, 2025 meeting.
On May 14, 2025, staff recommended that the Commission continue this matter to the May 28, 2025 meeting due to the applicant’s previously arranged travel plans. The Commission continued this matter to the May 28, 2025 meeting.
DISCUSSION:
The subject property is located at the corner of Charles Street and Los Gatos Boulevard. The Town Code limits the height of fences, walls, trees, and shrubs to three feet when located in a required front and street side setbacks; corner sight triangle; driveway view area; or traffic view area. The subject property is encumbered by all four of these areas. Exhibit 16, prepared by staff, demonstrates the interaction of the various areas on the subject property to identify the portions of the property where a fence is limited to a maximum height of three feet. The entirety of the existing fence is located in areas limiting its height to three feet. Additionally, portions of the fence are located in the Charles Street right-of-way.
In response to some of the discussion at the Planning Commission meetings of March 12, 2025 and April 23, 2025, staff contacted the Los Gatos-Monte Sereno Police Department and requested any record of collisions occurring at the corner of Charles Street and Los Gatos Boulevard within the last year. Police records for the last year include one reported collision at this intersection.
As discussed below, the applicant submitted two letters that present two separate options for consideration by the Planning Commission.
May 19, 2025 Letter
Exhibit 17 includes a letter from the applicant dated May 19, 2025. This letter details the applicant’s efforts to address the Planning’s Commission’s direction. Specifically, the applicant indicates that they met with neighbors and Town staff to discuss modifications to the fence.
The option presented in Exhibit 17 proposes to maintain the fence at the current height, design, and location with two modifications:
1. Corner of Los Gatos Boulevard and Charles Street – As shown in Exhibit B of the May 19, 2025 letter, the fence would be modified with the intent of meeting the corner sight triangle as discussed with the Town Engineer. The portions of existing fence located in the triangular area at the intersection having sides 30 feet in length as measured from the face of the curbs on Los Gatos Boulevard and Charles Street would be removed and a new matching portion constructed along the hypotenuse of the triangle. This modification would improve visibility through the corner. Staff notes that the proposed modification would not
ITEM NO. 12.
PAGE 3 OF 5
SUBJECT: 10 Charles Street/FHE-23-001
DATE: May 23, 2025
C:\Users\MeetingsOfficeUser12\AppData\Local\Temp\tmpFF60.tmp meet the specific requirements of the definition of corner sight triangle provided in Town Code Sections 26.10.065 and 29.40.0310, which require the dimensions of the triangle to be measured from the intersecting property lines rather than the face of the curbs.
2. Adjacent to 264 Los Gatos Boulevard – As shown in Exhibit C of the May 19, 2025 letter (Exhibit 17), the fence adjacent to the driveway serving the adjacent property at 264 Los Gatos Boulevard would be modified with the intent of meeting the driveway view area as discussed with the Town Engineer. The applicant proposes to eliminate the portions of the fence located within a seven-foot by eight-foot triangle measured from the back of the sidewalk and a new matching portion constructed along the hypotenuse of the triangle.
Staff notes that the proposed modification would not meet the specific requirements of the definition of driveway view area provided in Town Code Section 29.40.0310, which requires a triangle with 10-foot dimensions.
Through the option presented in the May 19, 2025 letter (Exhibit 17), the applicant does not propose a height reduction. The proposed modifications would partially address the safety concerns created by fencing located in the corner sight triangle and driveway view areas; however, the modifications would not adhere to the dimensions required by the Town Code. With the modifications, the fence would remain in the required front and street side setbacks; corner sight triangle; driveway view area; and traffic view area at a height exceeding the maximum allowed three feet. Additionally, portions of the fence located along Charles Street would remain in the right-of-way and the applicant indicates that they are willing to enter into the appropriate agreements with the Town to maintain private improvements in the right-of-way.
May 22, 2025 Letter
Exhibit 18 includes a second letter from the applicant dated May 22, 2025. This letter responds to information provided by staff in an email following up on a meeting with the applicant and clarifying the proper dimensions for the corner sight triangle and driveway view area. In the letter, the applicant presents a second option (Exhibit G), which maintains the current height and design of the fence with the following modifications:
The fence would be moved further away from Los Gatos Boulevard. The letter provides three separate distances for the proposed relocation: three feet; three feet, six inches; and three feet, nine inches. The applicant confirmed to staff that the intent is to move the fence three feet, nine inches further away from Los Gatos Boulevard; Trees planted in front of the fence would be relocated behind the relocated fence; A portion of the relocated fence at the corner of Los Gatos Boulevard and Charles Street would be set at an angle to connect to the fence along Charles Street to address the sight lines at the corner; and
ITEM NO. 12.
PAGE 4 OF 5
SUBJECT: 10 Charles Street/FHE-23-001
DATE: May 23, 2025
C:\Users\MeetingsOfficeUser12\AppData\Local\Temp\tmpFF60.tmp A portion of the relocated fence adjacent to 264 Los Gatos Boulevard would be set at an angle to connect to the fence along the shared property line to address the sight lines at the neighbor’s driveway.
Through the option presented in the May 22, 2025 letter (Exhibit 18), the applicant does not propose a height reduction. The proposed modifications would partially address the safety concerns created by fencing located in the corner sight triangle and driveway view areas; however, the fence would remain in the required front and street side setbacks; corner sight triangle; driveway view area; and traffic view area at a height exceeding the maximum allowed three feet. Additionally, portions of the fence located along Charles Street would remain in the right-of-way and the applicant indicated that they are willing to enter into the appropriate agreements with the Town to maintain private improvements in the right-ofway.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Public comments received between 11:01 am, Wednesday, April 23, 2025 and 11:00 am, Friday, May 23, 2025 are included as Exhibit 19.
CONCLUSION:
A. Summary
The property owner is requesting that the Planning Commission grant their appeal of the Community Development Director’s decision to deny an exception to the fencing regulations, approving the exception for a fence partially located in the Town’s right-ofway and exceeding a height of three feet located in the front and street-side yard areas, traffic view area, corner sight triangle, and the Town’s right-of-way. The applicant responded to the March 12, 2025, direction of the Planning Commission with two options for modifications to the fence as described above and shown in Exhibits 17 and
18. B. Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Community Development Director decision to deny the requested exception due to safety and Town liability issues created with public improvements located in the Town’s right-of-way.
C. Alternatives
Alternatively, the Commission can:
ITEM NO. 12.
PAGE 5 OF 5
SUBJECT: 10 Charles Street/FHE-23-001
DATE: May 23, 2025
C:\Users\MeetingsOfficeUser12\AppData\Local\Temp\tmpFF60.tmp
1. Continue the matter to a date certain with specific direction;
2. Grant the appeal and approve the fence height exception with the findings in Exhibit 2 and the modified draft conditions provided in Exhibit 15; or
3. Grant the appeal with additional and/or modified conditions.
EXHIBITS:
Previously received with the March 12, 2025, Staff Report:
1. Location Map
2. Required Findings
3. Recommended Conditions of Approval if Appeal is Granted
4. Administrative Warning VL-22-578
5. Fence Height Exception Request – Letter of Justification
6. Email between Planning and Engineering staff
7. Annotated Site Plan Prepared by Staff
8. Fence Height Exception Denial Letter
9. Appeal of the Community Development Director Decision
10. Letter of Justification for Appeal
11. Traffic View Area Diagrams
Previously received with the April 23, 2025, Addendum Report:
12. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, April 18, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, April 22, 2025
Previously received with the April 23, 2025, Desk Item Report:
13. Comments received from the applicant
14. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m., Tuesday, April 22, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Wednesday, April 23, 2025
Received with this Staff Report:
15. Modified Recommended Conditions of Approval
16. Regulated areas exhibit by staff
17. Applicant response letter, dated May 19, 2025
18. Applicant response letter, dated May 22, 2025
19. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Wednesday, April 23, 2025 and 11:00 a.m., Friday, May 23, 2025
ITEM NO. 12.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ITEM NO. 12.
PLANNING COMMISSION – March 12, 2025
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
10 Charles Street
Fence Height Exception FHE-23-001
Consider an Appeal of a Community Development Director Decision to Deny a Fence Exception Request for an Existing Fence Partially Located in the Town’s Right-of Way and Exceeding the Height Limitations within the Required Front Yard and Street-Side Yard Setbacks on Property Zoned R-1D. APN 532-36-022. Categorically Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures.
Property Owner/Applicant/Appellant: Firouz Pradhan
Project Planner: Sean Mullin
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. MATERIALS: The fence design, openness, and materials shall be maintained with no changes.
4. PLANTINGS: No new plantings are allowed between the fence and Los Gatos Boulevard or Charles Street. Any plantings installed in these areas in the time period between construction of the fence and the granting of this appeal shall be removed. All existing remaining plantings shall be maintained in compliance with the requirements of the Town Code.
5. TOWN INDEMNITY: Applicants are notified that Town Code Section 1.10.115 requires that any applicant who receives a permit or entitlement (“the Project”) from the Town shall defend (with counsel approved by Town), indemnify, and hold harmless the Town, its agents, officers, and employees from and against any claim, action, or proceeding (including without limitation any appeal or petition for review thereof) against the Town or its agents, officers or employees related to an approval of the Project, including without limitation any related application, permit, certification, condition, environmental determination, other approval, compliance or failure to comply with applicable laws and regulations, and/or processing methods (“Challenge”). Town may (but is not obligated to) defend such Challenge as Town, in its sole discretion, determines appropriate, all at applicant’s sole cost and expense.
EXHIBIT 15
ITEM NO. 12.
Applicant shall bear any and all losses, damages, injuries, liabilities, costs and expenses (including, without limitation, staff time and in-house attorney’s fees on a fully-loaded basis, attorney’s fees for outside legal counsel, expert witness fees, court costs, and other litigation expenses) arising out of or related to any Challenge (“Costs”), whether incurred by Applicant, Town, or awarded to any third party, and shall pay to the Town upon demand any Costs incurred by the Town. No modification of the Project, any application, permit certification, condition, environmental determination, other approval, change in applicable laws and regulations, or change in such Challenge as Town, in its sole discretion, determines appropriate, all the applicant’s sole cost and expense. No modification of the Project, any application, permit certification, condition, environmental determination, other approval, change in applicable laws and regulations, or change in processing methods shall alter the applicant’s indemnity obligation.
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS & PUBLIC WORKS:
Engineering Division
6. PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT‐OF‐WAY (LICENSE AGREEMENT): The property owner shall enter into an agreement with the Town for the private improvements (fence) constructed within the Town’s right‐of‐way. The agreement shall commit the Owner to always maintaining the improvements in a good and safe condition; ensuring local vegetation around the private improvements complies with Town Code sections 23.10.080,
26.10.065, and 29.40.030; providing proof of insurance coverage for the improvements; and indemnifying the Town of Los Gatos. The agreement must be completed and accepted by the Director of Parks and Public Works and recorded by the Town Clerk at the Santa Clara County Office of the Clerk‐Recorder.
EXHIBIT 3
ITEM NO. 12.
Portion of fence located in
the Town’s right-of-way.
Property Line
Corner Sight Triangle
Driveway View Area
Required Setback Areas
Existing Fence
Proposed Modified Fence
per May 19th Letter
Proposed Modified Fence
per May 22nd Letter
Traffic View Area
EXHIBIT 16 Page 17 Page 268
ITEM NO. 12.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ITEM NO. 12.
FENCE EXEMPTION APPLICATION – 10 CHARLES STREET, LOS GATOS, CA 95032 May 19, 2025
Sean Mullin
Planning Manager
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Respected Mr. Mullin..
10 CHARLES STREET, LOS GATOS, CA 95030 – FENCE HEIGHT EXEMPTION [FHE-001] I am writing for your and the Planning Commission’s kind consideration with respect to the continuation of the Planning Commission’s hearing held on March 12th, 2025.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
During the above hearing, the Planning Commission deliberated over two key issues:
(a) Visibility whilst egressing from Charles St, and from the neighbor’s property (b) Portion of the fence along Charles St being in the public right of way.
With respect to (a), the Town recommended that I should work with the neighbors & the Staff to come up with a workable solution, and - with respect to (b) – while no decision was made, the Planning Commission was able to confirm with the Town Attorney that the Town could protect itself adequately if any concessions were made in this regard.
FOLLOW-UP ACTION UNDERTAKEN
With respect to the above, the following action steps were taken:
(a) Engage with Neighbors
(b) Engage with Staff, including in-person, on-site meetings with you & Gary Heap. (See Exhibit A capturing email exchange with the Town staff on this issue)
PROPOSED MITIGATION TO ADDRESS VISIBILITY CONCERNS
Per site visit by Mr. Gary Heap on Thursday, May 8, 2025, I was instructed to:
“Submit a plan that shows removal of the fence at the corner within the 30’ triangle measured from the point at which the face of curb on Charles matches the face of curb on Los Gatos Boulevard. Likewise, you need to show removal of the fence along your neighbor’s property at their driveway. This would be a 10’ triangle measured 10 feet from the back of walk.” Accordingly, I have identified the corners of the 30’ triangle at the intersection of Los Gatos Boulevard and Charles St, as well as the 10’ triangle at the neighbor’s property.
See Exhibit B & Exhibit C respectively showing photographs and plans showing location of the proposed fence, clearly understanding that any fence existing within the 30’ triangle will be removed.
Notes: (a) The new sections of the proposed fence shall be built with the same design and specifications, including the large format lattice work for enhanced visibility, and shall not be replaced without the written approval of the Town of Los Gatos's Planning Department. (b) With respect to the neighbor’s property, I have also shown a 7’x8’ triangle as an option for consideration as this will enable us to build the new fence section without causing any disruption to the existing tree, but I shall implement the 10’ triangle if required.
EXHIBIT 17
ITEM NO. 12.
FENCE EXEMPTION APPLICATION – 10 CHARLES STREET, LOS GATOS, CA 95032 PROPOSED MITIGATION TO ADDRESS FENCE BEING IN THE TOWN’S RIGHT OF WAY With regard to the above, I would like to draw your attention to the following:
1. I had earlier stated that, to the best of my knowledge, I did recall that there was an existing fence along a good portion of Charles St when we acquired the property in February 2019, and that I was willing to swear, under penalty of perjury, that we simply built the new fence to mimic the location of the new fence as it existed then, and extend it along the rest of Charles St, simply following the bulge along the curb. I do understand, ofcourse, that even though we switched from a very tall and opaque fence to a custom-designed & custom-crafted lattice fence for aesthetic appeal & expanded visibility, our naiveté does not automatically grandfather the earlier fence.
2. As a couple of neighbors claimed that there was no fence at all along Charles St, and I did vividly remember otherwise, I dug into all past emails, public records, private archives etc, and, lo & behold, found photos of the fence that existed when we acquired the property in February 2019 (See Exhibit D).
3. If the fence along Charles had to be pushed back, access to the front yard – the principal area of kids to play – gets very tight, particularly as the front, right hand side corner of the home has been blessed with a cluster of heritage and other trees.
4. One of the neighbors, Mr. Douglas Olcott, informed me, via a letter, that “the public right of way narrows significantly as one approaches the boulevard due to the bulge in the curb line of the street. As a result of this, there is a risk of drivers, particularly at night, hitting the curb. The presence of the current fence which follows the bulge and the curb line actually provides more visibility whilst entering Charles St, thereby reducing the aforementioned risk factor.”
5. Most importantly, as I have said earlier in response to a question raised by one of the Commissioners during the March 12th hearing, I am willing to provide the Town the necessary documentation to ensure that any concessions given in this regard may be reversed at will by the Town.
CONCLUSION
I hope we have been able to demonstrate that the specific goals and concerns of the community as well as the Town have been met, and while we may have been short in meeting the letter of the code, we have clearly met the spirit of the law.
REQUEST
We once again humbly request you to grant us the exception. As I mentioned earlier, I will be travelling extensively overseas during the next couple of months, and would like to get the modifications as proposed above completed, ideally before my travel plans.
Finally, please feel free to reach out to me in case you may have any questions or concerns.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
_____________
Firoz Pradhan
Tel: 408.821.2052
Email: [email protected]
Enclosures: As above
ITEM NO. 12.
!"# $
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`abcdefagdhijhkalLFG.H3+G*7J*K,0M*F-32.Mm
nopq`arstuihvwaxhvayzwa{|{}ay~{agx ^`ahdvathal'()*+,-./0*1./2*30.4m
`abcdefagdhijhkalLFG.H3+G*7J*K,0M*F-32.Mm
no
q`ay|ajhdtuaaagdeeutiaxttkaekabdcihva|}y 9
DCY9P Q.1)791)19JF77)K
EXHIBIT A
ITEM NO. 12.
Based upon discussions with the Town's Engineering & Public Works Department held on Thursday, May 8th, it is proposed that the existing fence section at the corner of Los Gatos Boulevard and Charles St be removed, and be replaced with a new fence section that is angled along the straight line drawn from point A to point B, established or located per Public Works guidance as follows: ...... Point A to Point C (Curb Corner): 30'0"; Point B to Point C (Curb Corner): 30'0" (Note: Points A, B & C are shown above). > The new fence section, along with the existing fence section that will be retained, is shown in dark black line on the next sheet, while the resulting enhanced visibility triangle (on both sides) is shown shaded in green color. > All plants and bushes that fall within the visibility triangle shall be removed or maintained to a height of 36" maximum, while all original trees that existed prior to February 2019 when the property was acquired shall be retained. > I humbly request that all existing plants, busies and trees that are inside the proposed fence (i.e. outside the visibility triangle be allowed to be retained.> The existing fence design and specifications, including the large format lattice work, shall be retained for enhanced visibility, and shall not be replaced without the written approval of the Town of Los Gatos's Planning Department.
A
B
C
CURB CORNER
EXHIBIT B
ITEM NO. 12.
B
ALL EXISTING FENCE IN 30' & 10' TRIANGLES TO BE REMOVED
ITEM NO. 12.
ITEM NO. 12.
EXHIBIT C
FENCE MODIFICATION AT INTERIOR PROPERTY (COMMON FENCE SHARED WITH MICHELLE)The proposed fence modification plan is based upon a 10'x 10' triangle as directed by Public Works. However, constructing a fence along this pathmay interfere with the existing tree (shown in the picture above). Accordingly, an alternative is shown by constructing a visibility triangle using approximately 7'0" along Los Gatos Boulevard and 8'0" along the common shared fence so as to avoid any damage or disruption to the tree. This option will also enable us to simply remove the two existing corner fence sections, and construct a new section connecting the two existing non-corner posts. Needless to say, while this significantly enhances visibility, and, hence, we feel it is a practical solution, we are open to
ITEM NO. 12.
1
ITEM NO. 12.
SOLID WOOD FENCE SHOWN HERE, MOSTLY COVERED WITH HEDGE, BUT STILL PARTIALLY VISIBLE HERE WITH LATTICE WORK AT BOTTOM SECTION.
EXHIBIT D
EVIDENCE OF FENCE EXISTING ALONG CHARLES ST PRIOR TO PURCHASE OF PROPERTY IN FEB 2019
ITEM NO. 12.
ITEM NO. 12.
APPROX. 78"
TALL WOOD FENCE
THAT WAS COVERED
BY THE HEDGE
SHOWN HERE.
This car was abandoned
by someone, and had to
be towed away by the
Police.
ITEM NO. 12.
SOLID WOOD FENCE WITH
LATTICE AT BOTTOM SECTION.
ALSO, AN ANTIQUE WROUGHT
IRON GATE THAT HAS BEEN
REUSED AND LOCATED AS AN
ENTRY GATE TO THE BACKYARD
ITEM NO. 12.
FENCE EXEMPTION APPLICATION – 10 CHARLES STREET, LOS GATOS, CA 95032 May 22, 2025
Sean Mullin
Planning Manager
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Respected Mr. Mullin..
10 CHARLES STREET, LOS GATOS, CA 95030 – FENCE HEIGHT EXEMPTION [FHE-001] Thank you for taking the time to meet with me this morning, and helping me understand the implications of the email dated 05/19/25 (Exhibit E) sent by James Watson..
Based upon this, I am attaching two exhibits for your and the Planning Commission’s review and kind consideration:
Exhibit F - As mandated per James Watson Email - per Town Code - May-20-2025 Exhibit G - Proposed Mitigation per Neighbor Discussions - May-09-2025 It is very clear to me that the fence configuration shown in Exhibit F is extremely onerous, impractical and unacceptable, yielding a loss of 55% of the front yard (totally 1,525 sft), and causing significant hardships!
I strongly feel that the mitigation worked out with all but one of the neighbors (Exhibit G) works really well, both in terms of addressing any visibility or safety concerns, as well as allaying my personal apprehensions I may have had around security.
I equally feel confident that the mitigation that was explained by the Public Works staff during the site visit on Thursday, May 8th, and which was acceptable to me, and proposed in my earlier submission to you via email dated 05/19/25 (See Exhibit B & Exhibit C attached with that email) works equally well, and also enjoys the support of most of the neighbors.
CONCLUSION
I hope we have been able to demonstrate that the specific goals of the community as well as any practical concerns of the Town Staff have been met, and while we may have been short in meeting the letter of the code, we have clearly met the spirit of the law.
REQUEST
We once again humbly request you to grant us the exception by allowing us to move forward with the mitigation proposed in Exhibits B & C (preferred), or in Exhibit G.
Finally, please make my earlier submission dated 05/19/25 part of your Staff Report.
And please feel free to reach out to me in case you may have any questions or concerns.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
_____________
Firoz Pradhan
Tel: 408.821.2052
Email: [email protected]
Enclosures: As above
EXHIBIT 18 Page 31 Page 282
ITEM NO. 12.
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`=2=A?=90,7+9)S);9SH7-9*H79I7-179D+9E7G617G9*,9AVTD-1H7+9,E9K,37G9,6*+DG79,I9*H79L,E-7E MD0H*95ED)-0/789WED37S);9ZD7S9XE7)89)-G95E)IID19ZD7S9XE7)2 B/7)+79E73D+79;,6E9J/)-+9*,9+H,S97D*H7E9*H79I7-179E7G617G9*,9/7++9*H)-9AVTD-1H7+9D-9H7D0H*9K7)+6E7G IE,K9*H79*,J9,I9)Ga)17-*9+*E77*916EU9I,E9I7-17+9/,1)*7G9SD*HD-97D*H7E9*H79L,E-7E9MD*795ED)-0/79,E95E)IID1 ZD7S9XE7)29+H,S9*H79E7/,1)*7G9I7-179U7HD-G9*H79A=TI,,*9*ED)-0/79K7)+6E7G9IE,K9*H79D-*7E+71*D,-9,I9*H7 IE,-*9)-G9+DG79;)EG9JE,J7E*;9/D-7+9D-91,KJ/D)-179SD*H9 5H79I7-1791,-+*E61*7G9D-9*H79J6U/D19ED0H*T,ITS);9K);9U79)JJE,37G9SD*H9*H79+6UKD++D,-9,I9)-97b716*7G cD17-+79X0E77K7-*9U7*S77-9*H79JE,J7E*;9,S-7E9)-G9*H795,S-9*H)*9+*DJ6/)*7+9D-G7K-DID1)*D,-9I,E9*H7 5,S-89J7EJ7*6)/9D-+6E)-1791,37E)079E7[6DE7K7-*+89)-9)0E77K7-*9*,9E7K,379*H79DKJE,37K7-*+9)*9;,6E 1,+*9DI9E7[67+*7G9U;9*H795,S-9G679*,9)95,S-9BE,a71*89)-G9,*H7E9KD+129*7EK+299 5H79M*)II9d7J,E*9I,E9*HD+9C7-179O7D0H*9eb17J*D,-9D+9G679*,G);29L,6/G9;,69J/7)+79E73D+79;,6E9J/)-9*, 1,KJ/;9SD*H9*H79)U,379E7I7E7-17G95,S-9L,G7+f9B/7)+79/7*9K79R-,S9DI9;,69H)379)-;9[67+*D,-+295H)-R ;,62 9 g% h
$%
h
ij
ki
lm
nk
EXHIBIT E
ITEM NO. 12.
!"
"
#
$%&'
(
"(&&&"
(
"(
)*+,-./012.345562.78
'
(
"(9
:;<=-.3>[email protected]@.BCA.DEDF.BGFH.I3 [email protected]OP' (
"(9Q.R1S0T.U1VT>2.7W
'
(
"(9
:XYZ;[=-.\UG.BE.]^1L50T./V._.IL>N>T0?.300`2a.>2.\[email protected] O
efWg
hg&
( iiP&
(
P"g&&
Pj
e
(gg
k
f
i
e
i
"
l 8
mnopqrsttupvqwxyzq{qztoppup|qropo|n} gg
e~
Pg~Pg
"
8
!"
"$!#
g
'
(
"( &&&"
(
"( P ff&&&"i
"
gf
(
yrrx
qzrqm yspn}qs}q!
vqe
e zpnqs}!
e
e
¡¢£¤¥¢¥¦¢§¨§©ª«¨©ª¬«¬®¬¯«¥¦°©¢±²³¨´¥©µ©ª¶¥§©ª·¸¥ ´¹©¦¥³§©ª«¨©ª¬«¬®¬¯· wttqºn}»uqs¼»uotqo}nqq¼nq½pnqptupnq¾uoqs}qyuu¿npÀqz}otqºtoÁ}»Âqwttqn}qn}¾uÃnqÃopq¼n ûºtnn½qoqnqÃspn}ÂqÄ}q»}nqupÁ}»oupqpqºn}»uqs¼»uotvq}ns¼»uotvqop½qusopÃnvqºtnonq¾uu nqÅsut½up|qop½qztoppup|qÆn¼ºo|n Page 33 Page 284 ITEM NO. 12.
! "#$%
&!
&'(
(
( )
&
'
*
&
'
)$%
! &!&
&
('
)
! $ +
,-./01234566173896:;63<=1;0>653?/6361@05=1A61?3B6C=5638501?01D3?/0;36EA:09F GHIJKLM+KLNK+OPMMLQR STUUTVWXYZU[ \]^
_`_
a b c
a_
Td_\e_S]Sfghij klllmn
o[cTUo[p
_Sq\pSqSp
rUYsrTZtuYghij mkn
ITEM NO. 12.
EXHIBIT F - IMPLICATION OF FENCE IF TOWN CODE WAS TO BE IMPLEMENTED WITH CURRENT FENCE DESIGN Some Basic Area CalcsFRONT SETBACK: 30'6"LOT WIDTH: 50'0"TOTAL FRONT YARD: 1,525 SQFTAREA OUTSIDE FENCE: 432.00 SQFT (TRIANGLE) plus 412.50 SQFT (TRAPEZOID) = 844.50 SQFT (AREA LOST)EFFECTIVE FRONT YARD = 1,525 - 844.50 = 680.50 (i.e. 45% of Total Front Yard) 15'
ITEM NO. 12.
CURRENT VIEW TRIANGLE
PROPOSED VIEW TRIANGLE(after propsoed changes are made) NOTES:
1. This plan entails bringing the
entire fence along LG Blvd back by 3'0" to 3'6", and clipping the corners on both, the street side as well as the street corner. It further entails moving all the planting (incl trees that were planted after the property was purchased in February 2019) to behind the proposed fence.
2. This plan was run by all the
neighbors, and has had everyone's verbal or written support, with the exception of a single neighbor, Kevin Chesney)
3. The proposed view triangle is
shown for moving the fence back by 3'0", and the visibility only increases significantly if it is moved back by 3'6".
EXHIBIT G: PROPOSED MITIGATION THAT WAS DISCUSSED WITH NEIGHBORS PER PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ON MAR-12-25
ITEM NO. 12.
EXHIBIT 19
ITEM NO. 12.
ITEM NO. 12.
ITEM NO. 12.
ITEM NO. 12.
ITEM NO. 12.
ITEM NO. 12.
ITEM NO. 12.
ITEM NO. 12.
PREPARED BY: Sean Mullin, AICP
Planning Manager
Reviewed by: Community Development Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6872 www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 05/28/2025
ITEM NO: 2
ADDENDUM
DATE: May 27, 2025
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Consider an Appeal of a Community Development Director Decision to Deny a Fence Exception Request for an Existing Fence Partially Located in the Town’s Right-of Way and Exceeding the Height Limitations within the Required Front Yard and Street-Side Yard Setbacks on Property Zoned R-1D. Located at 10 Charles Street. APN 532-36-022. Categorically Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. Fence Height Exception Application FHE-23-001. Property Owner/Applicant/Appellant: Firouz Pradhan. Project Planner: Sean Mullin.
REMARKS:
Exhibit 20 includes public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, May 23, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, May 27, 2025.
EXHIBITS:
Previously received with the March 12, 2025, Staff Report:
1. Location Map
2. Required Findings
3. Recommended Conditions of Approval if Appeal is Granted
4. Administrative Warning VL-22-578
5. Fence Height Exception Request – Letter of Justification
6. Email between Planning and Engineering staff
7. Annotated Site Plan Prepared by Staff
8. Fence Height Exception Denial Letter
ATTACHMENT 10
ITEM NO. 12.
PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: 10 Charles Street/FHE-23-001
DATE: May 27, 2025
9. Appeal of the Community Development Director Decision
10. Letter of Justification for Appeal
11. Traffic View Area Diagrams
Previously received with the April 23, 2025, Addendum Report:
12. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, April 18, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, April 22, 2025
Previously received with the April 23, 2025, Desk Item Report:
13. Comments received from the applicant
14. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m., Tuesday, April 22, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Wednesday, April 23, 2025
Previously received with the May 28, 2025, Staff Report:
15. Modified Recommended Conditions of Approval
16. Regulated areas exhibit by staff
17. Applicant response letter, dated May 19, 2025
18. Applicant response letter, dated May 22, 2025
19. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Wednesday, April 23, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Friday, May 23, 2025
Received with this Addendum Report:
20. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, May 23, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, May 27, 2025
ITEM NO. 12.
From: Saeed Malakooti
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2025 10:16 AM
To: Sean Mullin <[email protected]>;
Subject: 10 Charles St - Fence Issue
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
From: Saeed Nejad
To: Mr. Sean Mullin (Planning Manager)
Town of Los Gatos
110 E Main St.
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Mr. Mullin,
I am writing this letter in reference to Mr. Firoz Pradhan, my neighbor residing at 10 Charles St.
Los Gatos.
Although I have no issues with Mr. Pradhan's current fence position, after reviewing both Option A and Option B (as detailed in the attached drawings), it appears that visibility and safety could be significantly improved by implementing either option when entering or exiting Charles Street.
Furthermore, Mr. Pradhan has made a sincere effort to engage with all affected neighbors, addressing their concerns and seeking a workable solution.
I hope this letter can be helpful in clarification of current fence wall concerns.. Please feel free to contact me if further information is needed.
Sincerely,
Saeed Nejad
EXHIBIT 20
ITEM NO. 12.
CURRENT VIEW TRIANGLE
PROPOSED VIEW TRIANGLE(after propsoed changes are made) NOTES:
1. This plan entails bringing the
entire fence along LG Blvd backby 3'0" to 3'6", and clipping thecorners on both, the street sideas well as the street corner. Itfurther entails moving all theplanting (incl trees that wereplanted after the property waspurchased in February 2019) tobehind the proposed fence.
2. This plan was run by all the
neighbors, and has hadeveryone's verbal or writtensupport, with the exception of asingle neighbor, Kevin Chesney)
3. The proposed view triangle is
shown for moving the fence backby 3'0", and the visibility onlyincreases significantly if it ismoved back by 3'6".
OPTION A - MOVE FENCE ALONG LOS GATOS BLVD BY 3'6", AND CLIP CORNERS BY ELIMINATING THE EXISTING CORNER SECTIONS (BOTH ENDS)
ITEM NO. 12.
ITEM NO. 12.
ITEM NO. 12.
ITEM NO. 12.
1
ITEM NO. 12.
EXHIBIT C
FENCE MODIFICATION AT INTERIOR PROPERTY (COMMON FENCE SHARED WITH MICHELLE)The proposed fence modification plan is based upon a 10'x 10' triangle as directed by Public Works. However, constructing a fence along this pathmay interfere with the existing tree (shown in the picture above). Accordingly, an alternative is shown by constructing a visibility triangle using approximately 7'0" along Los Gatos Boulevard and 8'0" along the common shared fence so as to avoid any damage or disruption to the tree. This option will also enable us to simply remove the two existing corner fence sections, and construct a new section connecting the two existing non-corner posts. Needless to say, while this significantly enhances visibility, and, hence, we feel it is a practical solution, we are open to
ITEM NO. 12.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ITEM NO. 12.
PREPARED BY: Sean Mullin, AICP
Planning Manager
Reviewed by: Community Development Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6872 www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 05/28/2025
ITEM NO: 2
DESK ITEM
DATE: May 28, 2025
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Consider an Appeal of a Community Development Director Decision to Deny a Fence Exception Request for an Existing Fence Partially Located in the Town’s Right-of Way and Exceeding the Height Limitations within the Required Front Yard and Street-Side Yard Setbacks on Property Zoned R-1D. Located at 10 Charles Street. APN 532-36-022. Categorically Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. Fence Height Exception Application FHE-23-001. Property Owner/Applicant/Appellant: Firouz Pradhan. Project Planner: Sean Mullin.
REMARKS:
Exhibit 21 includes public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Tuesday, May 27, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Wednesday, May 28, 2025.
EXHIBITS:
Previously received with the March 12, 2025, Staff Report:
1. Location Map
2. Required Findings
3. Recommended Conditions of Approval if Appeal is Granted
4. Administrative Warning VL-22-578
5. Fence Height Exception Request – Letter of Justification
6. Email between Planning and Engineering staff
7. Annotated Site Plan Prepared by Staff
8. Fence Height Exception Denial Letter
ATTACHMENT 11
ITEM NO. 12.
PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: 10 Charles Street/FHE-23-001
DATE: May 28, 2025
9. Appeal of the Community Development Director Decision
10. Letter of Justification for Appeal
11. Traffic View Area Diagrams
Previously received with the April 23, 2025, Addendum Report:
12. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, April 18, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, April 22, 2025
Previously received with the April 23, 2025, Desk Item Report:
13. Comments received from the applicant
14. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m., Tuesday, April 22, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Wednesday, April 23, 2025
Previously received with the May 28, 2025, Staff Report:
15. Modified Recommended Conditions of Approval
16. Regulated areas exhibit by staff
17. Applicant response letter, dated May 19, 2025
18. Applicant response letter, dated May 22, 2025
19. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Wednesday, April 23, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Friday, May 23, 2025
Previously received with the May 28, 2025, Addendum Report:
20. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, May 23, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, May 27, 2025
Received with this Desk Item Report:
21. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Tuesday, May 27, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Wednesday, May 28, 2025
ITEM NO. 12.
Kevin B. Chesney
May 27, 2025
Planning Commission
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Subject: Public Comment - Item #2, Fence Exceptional Appeal at 10 Charles Street Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
I am writing to submit an additional public comment regarding Item #2 on the May 28, 2025, Planning Commission agenda, concerning the fence height exception appeal for 10 Charles Street.
In reviewing the staff report and the applicant’s information in the recent addendum report, I noted that Mr. Pradhan has made a claim that “all neighbors” support the proposed fence modifications “with the exception of a single neighbor, Kevin Chesney.” I want to clarify for the record that this statement is inaccurate and overstates the degree of community consensus.
I am not the only neighbor who has raised concerns. Several residents have previously submitted objections and voiced concerns about the encroachment into the public right-ofway, code violations, and traffic safety implications. As the owner of immediately adjacent to the subject property, I remain concerned that the fence as built compromises visibility and safety and fails to comply with the Town’s objective zoning and setback regulations.
The applicant has also implied that a prior fence along Charles Street justifies the current design and placement. This claim is misleading. As shown in the attached Exhibit A (Photo:
268 Los Gatos Blvd – Side View), the preexisting fence covered only a small fraction of the property line, and did not extend along the full Charles Street frontage. Even if this minimal fencing existed in 2019, it cannot be invoked to justify a significantly expanded and structurally different fence.
Moreover, new construction, especially when located in the public right-of-way and exceeding height limits, is not eligible for grandfathering under Town Code. To allow it, would undermine established visibility and safety standards and set a troubling precedent.
1 of 5 EXHIBIT 21
ITEM NO. 12.
To be clear, my opposition is not personal. It is rooted in a commitment to fair application of the law, public safety, and the protection of shared civic spaces. As staff has concluded, neither of the applicant’s proposals complies with the visibility and right-of-way standards defined by the Town Code. I respectfully urge the Commission to deny the appeal and preserve the integrity of the planning process.
Thank you for including this comment in the public record.
Sincerely,
Kevin B. Chesney
Exhibit A: Photo Showing Limited Extent of Former Fence Along Charles Street
2 of 5
ITEM NO. 12.
Michelle Huntley
May 7, 2025
Los Gatos Building/Planning Commission
To Whom It May Concern,
This letter is in regards to the fence owned by my neighbor, Firoz Pradhan, who is requesting an exemption to the the town fencing code for a front and side yard fence.
This issue was brought up at a previous town council meeting in which we hoped to find a solution that would work for all parties involved. There were two points that needed to be addressed.
The first was the side that shares a driveway with my property at . Mr. Pradhan has proposed a solution to me that includes moving the entire Los Gatos Boulevard section of the fence to provide a 3 foot, 6 inch setback from the Los Gatos Blvd curb in addition to angling the corner of the fence which will increase visibility both for me and any pedestrians passing by the property. He has also agreed that bushes will be moved well inside the fence line. These changes resolve any concern I have on my side and I do not have any issues with this new design.
The second issue was with the Charles street side of the property. The issue here, for everyone involved, has always been safety. I cannot attest to that, as I am certainly not qualified, but this proposal is a great improvement upon the original fencing and allows for much greater visibility. Town codes exist to keep people safe but I realize exceptions can be made that provide for best property use without compromising safety. I would defer to the town inspectors and experts to judge if there is adequate visibility and would absolutely support the exemption request if deemed safe with a caveat that the permit includes some wording about any future replacement fence being in like kind and that the location may not be altered to diminish setback (though this maybe redundant with current town code, I feel it is very important for the future of the properties).
I hope that after many years, we can finally resolve this issue, get the current visibility issues resolved, and move on. Thank you for your time and consideration of this issue.
Sincerely yours,
Michelle Huntley
3 of 5 Page 310
ITEM NO. 12.
4 of 5
ITEM NO. 12.
5 of 5
ITEM NO. 12.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/28/2025
Item #2, 10 Charles Street
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:
Emily Thomas, Chair
Kendra Burch, Vice Chair
Jeffrey Barnett
Susan Burnett
Joseph Sordi
Rob Stump
Town Manager: Chris Constantin
Community Development
Director:
Joel Paulson
Town Attorney: Gabrielle Whelan
Transcribed by: Vicki L. Blandin
(619) 541-3405
ATTACHMENT 12
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/28/2025
Item #2, 10 Charles Street
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 THOMAS: We will now move on to our public
hearings, starting with Item 2. Item 2 is to consider an appeal of a Community Development Director decision to deny a fence exception request for an existing fence partially located in the Town’s right-of-way and exceeding the height limitations within the required front yard and streetside yard setbacks on property zoned R-1D, located at 10 Charles Street. APN 532-36-022. Categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303: New Construction or
Conversion of Small Structures. Fence Height Exception
Application FHE-23-001. The property owner and Applicant and Appellant is Mr. Pradhan, and our project planner is Mr. Mullin, who will be giving the Staff Report.
Before that, are there any disclosures from the
Commissioners? Okay, and then can I see hands of who has visited the property? Thank you. Okay, thank you, Mr.
Mullin.
SEAN MULLIN: Thank you, and good evening.
On March 12th the Planning Commission considered
the appeal and continued the matter with the following
direction to the Applicant: address the right-of-way and
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/28/2025
Item #2, 10 Charles Street
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
safety issues created by the fence; redesign the fence at the corner of Los Gatos Boulevard and Charles Street to adhere to the corner sight triangle standards to Staff’s approval; redesign the fence near the driveway serving 264 Los Gatos Boulevard to address site and safety concerns; and any approval should carry the condition that there be no changes to materials or solidness of the fence, and that there will be no plantings allowed along the fence.
In response to the Commission’s direction the
Applicant has met with Staff and neighbors and has
submitted two letters presenting two options for
consideration.
The first option would maintain the fence at the
current height, design, and location with modifications moving portions of the fence to partially address the
corner sight triangle and the neighbor’s driveway view
area. With these modifications, the fence would remain in the required front and street side setbacks, corner sight triangle, driveway view area, and traffic view area at a height exceeding the maximum allowed 3’.
The second option would maintain the current
height and design of the fence, but would move the fence back 3’-9”, and relocate portions of the fence at the
corner and adjacent to the neighbor’s driveway to tie into
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/28/2025
Item #2, 10 Charles Street
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
the existing fence. With this option, the fence would
remain in the required front and streetside setbacks,
corner sight triangle, driveway view area, and traffic view area at a height exceeding the maximum allowed 3’.
With both options, portions of the fence located
along Charles Street would remain in the right-of-way, and the Applicant indicates that they are willing to enter into the appropriate agreements with the Town to maintain
private improvements in the right-of-way.
Based on the analysis provided in the Staff
Report, Staff recommends denial of the appeal due to safety and Town liability issues, upholding the decision of the Director to deny the exception to the fence regulations.
An Addendum and Desk Item were distributed with
public comments received after the publishing of the Staff Report, and in addition to Planning Staff, Engineering
Staff is also in attendance tonight to further support your discussion.
This concludes Staff’s presentation and we’re
available for any questions.
CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you. Are there any questions
for Staff at this time? Commissioner Stump.
COMMISSIONER STUMP: Mr. Mullin, if the appeal
were to be denied, what is the next process as far as
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/28/2025
Item #2, 10 Charles Street
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
remediation? What sort of commitment would we be getting from the Appellant to take the required action so that that fence fully complies with Town Code as well as the rightof-way? ATTORNEY WHELAN: I can address that. The Town’s
Code Compliance Officer most likely would issue a
compliance order that would require that the fence be
brought into conformance with the Town’s regulations within a specified amount of time. Then, if it doesn’t occur
within that time frame, then there is a hearing scheduled before a hearing officer, and the hearing officer has the ability to impose penalties. Then, if the fence is still not brought into conformance, then the Town’s next step would be to get an injunction.
COMMISSIONER STUMP: Thank you.
DIRECTOR PAULSON: Through the Chair, prior to
that occurring, whatever decision is made by the Planning Commission is ultimately appealable to the Council, so that would be the next step. Following that decision, then what Ms. Whelan mentioned is plausible.
CHAIR THOMAS: Are there any other additional
questions for Staff at this time. Commissioner Barnett.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: This would be for Ms.
Whelan. The Applicant/Appellant has offered to enter into
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/28/2025
Item #2, 10 Charles Street
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
an indemnity agreement with the Town respecting the rightof-way encroachment, and the question I have is would a standard homeowner’s insurance policy cover liability
related to the easement that would be given by the Town? ATTORNEY WHELAN: I don’t have the answer to that
offhand. I know that upon occasion there are people who install things in the Town’s public right-of-way, and in those instances the Town and that party enter into a
license agreement, and as a general rule that license
agreement contains an indemnity requirement, and then we do typically require a separate insurance policy. I don't know whether a homeowner’s policy would cover this or not, but I could get back to the Commission with that information at a future time.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: It sounds like one way or
the other, there’s going to be coverage.
ATTORNEY WHELAN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Okay, thanks so much.
CHAIR THOMAS: Any other questions for Staff at
this time? I now invite the Appellant up to speak. Whoever is speaking on behalf of the Appellant can come to the
microphone and State your name, and you will have five
minutes. Thank you.
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/28/2025
Item #2, 10 Charles Street
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
FIROZ PRADHAN: My name is Firoz Pradhan and I’m
the proud owner of the property at 10 Charles Street.
On the 12th of March the Planning Commission
unanimously voted that I should go back and try to work with the staff and with the neighbors to find a workable solution that addresses the visibility or safety concern.
If you can jump to slide 10. And so, this is the
story of the mysterious fence. I diligently reached out to as many neighbors as I possibly could. My home is in red.
The neighbor, Michelle, I reached out to, had
several discussions, extremely supportive, and I think we came up with a solution that would work.
Jenna seems like is not on Charles, but is on
Charles because it’s a flag lot. I have had (inaudible) discussions with her, and she wasn’t even aware there was a problem with respect to the visibility. I told her what we were doing, what we were proposing, and essentially the solution we were recommending is pushing the fence back by
3.5’, clipping the corners, and going from there. She said this obviously seems to solve the problem.
The same response I got from Mr. Olcott, and the
same response I got from Saeed. I also got the same
response from Kent, except in the case of Kent there was no follow-up letter as was the case with Saeed and with Mr.
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/28/2025
Item #2, 10 Charles Street
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
Olcott, and with Michelle. All of them responded with a letter to the Town expressing their comfort.
As far as the neighbor, Kevin, is concerned, and
I believe he is here with us today and obviously he could speak on his behalf, he initially was not comfortable at all. When I showed him the solution, he said, “As far as the visibility is concerned, it seems to solve my problem.” I’m sorry if I’m being so sort of open or candid about it, but he said, “I’m really pissed off with you, and so I’m going to raise an objection.” And obviously the discussions ended over there.
I did try to reach out to Matt Daily, who used to
be on Charles, more to find out about an accident that had occurred at the intersection. I was not able to reach out to him regarding the visibility till this morning.
If you can move to slide 1. So, this was the
solution. If you see the fence on Los Gatos Boulevard, it’s pushed back by 3.5’, actually 3’-9” based on my
clarification with Sean. The visibility is significantly enhanced, and you can literally see down the road, as well as Michelle is extremely comfortable and she’s put that in her letter as well, which is on the record.
Subsequent to this, what happened is I met with
Sean and had a discussion with him. He urged me to talk to
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/28/2025
Item #2, 10 Charles Street
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
Gary Heap at Public Works, if (inaudible). Sorry, next
slide again.
And Gary Heap said, “We will not support what you
have come up with.” What he wants us to do is a 30-foot triangle from face-of-curb at Los Gatos Boulevard to faceof-curb at Charles. We did that, marked out everything, we did the fence accordingly. Go to the next slide, please.
And this was the triangle that he came up with on
both sides. He looked at it, and I believe he’s in the
room, and I’m obviously trying to quote him as accurately as possible. I was nervous when he told me about this. He said, “Firoz, it’s not going to be as bad as you think. Let us mark it and show it to you.” He showed it to me, I felt comfortable, he said, “Go ahead and do this. It definitely solves the problem.” Let’s go to the next slide.
This is the triangle. Next slide.
This is on the other side. Next slide, please.
Unfortunately, what happened is two or three days
later I got an email from him saying that it was a mistake and that the 30 feet really has to be measured from the property corner and not from the curb corner, and that
completely threw me off. I went back to Sean and had a
meeting with him. Next slide, please.
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/28/2025
Item #2, 10 Charles Street
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
And this is what the code requires, and there is
no way we could do this, so I would urge the Planning
Commission to let us do the solution that we came up with Gary Heap.
CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, thank you very much. Are
there any questions for speaker at this time? Yes,
Commissioner Barnett.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Yes, sir. The unanimous
vote of the Planning Commission at our March 12th meeting included a direction to redesign the fence at the corner of Los Gatos Boulevard and Charles Street to adhere to the corner sight triangle standards to Staff’s approval, and Staff’s approval was not given. It’s recommendation tonight is to deny the appeal. Do you have any comment about that? FIROZ PRADHAN: My understanding from the last
meeting with the Planning Commission—that’s a great
question—my understanding, Mr. Barnett, was that I should go back and come back with a solution that would work for everybody, for the neighbors and for the Staff, and see if it practically solves the concern that people have with respect to visibility.
I’m trying to quote as closely as possible. When
I met with the Staff, with Gary Heap and James Watson, and they showed me the triangle they wanted me to… They looked
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/28/2025
Item #2, 10 Charles Street
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
at it and they said, “This definitely solves the visibility problem.” James Watson mentioned something about the 200’ rule, to which Mr. Heap said, “That’s not a problem. We are going to be granting… We’re okay with the fence height
exception, so that should not be a problem.”
So, if the idea was just for me to go back and
follow the code to the T, it would imply giving up 55% of the front yard. That was the last slide that Sean showed us, and that’s something that I would just not be
comfortable with.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Okay, thank you, sir.
CHAIR THOMAS: Any other questions? Thank you.
We’ll have public comment, and then you’ll have an
additional three minutes.
FIROZ PRADHAN: Thank you so much. I didn’t
realize five minutes would go so fast.
CHAIR THOMAS: I know, it does. It goes fast when
you’re up there. So, we will now continue with the public portion of this public hearing, and invite comments from members of the public. If you have not already turned in a speaker card to Staff, please do so at this time, or use the raised hand feature on Zoom. I do have two speaker
cards, and the first one is for Kevin Chesney. Thank you.
You will have three minutes.
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/28/2025
Item #2, 10 Charles Street
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
KEVIN CHESNEY: Good evening, Commissioners, and
thank you for your time. My name is Kevin Chesney and I reside at 2 Charles Street, immediately adjacent to the subject property.
I urge the Commission to deny this fence
exception, not as a personal disagreement, but because it poses a real risk to pedestrian safety and undermines the community standards.
First, I want to address a claim by the Applicant
in his addendum. He asserts that all neighbors support the proposed fence, with the exception of a single neighbor, Kevin Chesney, which is me. This statement is not only
misleading, but it is inaccurate. Other neighbors, like Matthew Daily and Ken Anderson, have also expressed
concerns despite the Applicant’s efforts to convince them otherwise, and after two years of this, we’re all worn
down; we’re tired.
This is not about personal preference or
aesthetics, it’s about safety, code compliance, and the public right-of-way. The fence, as constructed, encroaches into the town’s right-of-way, exceeds height limits, and violates visibility standards that exist for a reason.
The intersection is traveled daily by school
children walking or biking to Louise Van Meter Elementary,
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/28/2025
Item #2, 10 Charles Street
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
Raymond Fisher, Los Gatos High School, and even Mariposa.
These children use this very sidewalk, some learning to ride, others carrying back packs that are bigger than them.
They shouldn’t have to navigate a blind corner caused by a noncompliant fence. The Town has a duty to protect its most vulnerable pedestrians, not just accommodate property
owners.
The Applicant has also suggested that a prior
fence may justify this one, but any previous fence only existed a short way down the frontage, and Town policy is clear. New construction in violation of code does not get grandfathered because someone didn’t know the rules.
If this appeal is granted, it will send the
message that safety regulations are flexible and it is
acceptable to build first and seek forgiveness later, even when children’s safety is at stake. I respectfully urge the Commission to support the Staff recommendation and deny this appeal.
Upholding these standards affirm that Los Gatos
values safety over shortcuts, and children over
convenience. Let’s show that rules exist for a reason and that the Town is protecting those who walk its sidewalks.
When rules are enforced fairly, everyone—residents,
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/28/2025
Item #2, 10 Charles Street
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
parents, and future builders—benefits from a system they can trust.
I also want to thank the Staff, Sean and Erin
Walters especially, for educating me.
CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you. Are there any questions
for the speaker? No. Okay, thank you. The next speaker card I have is for Michelle Huntley.
MICHELLE HUNTLEY: Hi, my name is Michelle
Huntley; I live at 264 Los Gatos Boulevard. I’ve been
thinking about this a lot, because it’s been years, but really the only issue for this is: is this safe or is this not safe?
I think that the new proposal of moving back, was
it 6’-9”, and angling the corners, is a minimum. Right now, people can’t see me and I can’t see them. Moving the fence back from my side, I think, would be okay. Speaking from the Charles side, I can’t really speak to that. Is it safe? I don't know. That’s not my job; I’m a nurse and we don’t do that.
We just need to decide if this is something
that’s safe. We have Town Code and Town rules, and I do believe that there are exceptions that can work for
everyone to be safe, but I’m not one that can say if this is safe. It’s certainly a big improvement. From my side, I
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/28/2025
Item #2, 10 Charles Street
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
think I can work with it. From the Charles Street side, they have a lot more traffic. It isn’t just me; it’s all of the neighborhood.
But whatever we decide, I just ask that we make
it very specific going forward, because we’ve had
agreements in the past and things have not exactly turned out as discussed, so make it specific and include future protections. I know it’s already a redundancy, and we
talked about it before, but saying that going forward, the fence must be in like kind for any future owners.
But we definitely need to move a little bit back.
I think the 6’-9” from my side could work, but again,
Charles Street is a busy intersection and someone needs to say is this safe or it not, because that’s really the only thing that matters.
CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you. Are there any questions
for the speaker? Okay, thank you. I don’t have any more speaker cards. Are there any hands raised…
(Inaudible speaker in audience.)
CHAIR THOMAS: That’s okay, you can pass it on
up. Thank you. For Item 2. Yes, perfect. Just please State your name for the record.
DOUG OLCOTT: Yes, my name is Doug Olcott; I’ve
lived at 300 Charles Street since 1977, which is the end of
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/28/2025
Item #2, 10 Charles Street
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
that section of Charles. I wrote a second letter, after the Staff here proposed changes to the configuration of the fence, in support of the changes, moving the fence back from the Boulevard 3.5’, and clipping the corner.
But I also made a recommendation for another
minor change, and that would be to put reflectors on that fence, because I have driven into Charles from the
intersection on the Boulevard—one of the slides shows that— at night, and have hit the curb there on Firoz’s side.
There’s a bulge in that curb there, not straight,
and there’s a very large tree there; it’s not listed, this is Town property. Not suggesting that we cut down the tree, but there are no lights put up by the Town, or reflectors there, warning people about that restriction as you come in, so I was suggesting to Firoz that he, himself, put
reflectors on his fence. People commonly do that when there is any kind of danger when you’re entering a gate or
something, and he has agreed to do that, so that might
help.
If you’re coming from the intersection of Highway
9 and the Boulevard, and you’re turning right at night, no lights, and you come in there, you can’t see that red
painted curb very well, so having more reflectors there, I think, would help.
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/28/2025
Item #2, 10 Charles Street
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
CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you, and before you sit
down, are there any questions for the speaker? No. Okay, thank you very much. Are there any more speaker cards? No.
Any hands raised on Zoom?
DIRECTOR PAULSON: No hands.
CHAIR THOMAS: Oh, there is one more. Can you
fill out a speaker card, please? Oh, perfect, can I get it? Thank you very much.
SAEED NEJAD: Good evening. My name is Saeed
Nejad. I’ve been living on Charles Street since 1993.
Firoz’s work on rebuilding this house, this Victorian old house, is well done. It’s very nice, I’m very proud.
But when it comes to the fence and this dispute,
I regret having it basically, because it’s strange to have this real nice home, and yet we are still disputing over the fence. I wish this would never have happened, but
anyway.
Both options that I looked at, A and B, I think
they do provide good visibility, and even without those, talking about basically myself on my behalf, I try to drive safely, and visually in the morning at 4:30 when I’m
leaving the house, there is no one there, and I still stop and look around, sometimes you see joggers, they run, but I am able to manage that. So far, so good.
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/28/2025
Item #2, 10 Charles Street
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
Back to Options A and B. As you saw in the
slides, the visibility actually increases, it enhances, and I think if you just stop right where the stop sign is, you can easily see both sides and you can move on, but as far as the code is concerned, and regulations, it’s up to you totally. You are the experts in this field, but as far as the safety that I’m concerned, I think it is manageable.
That’s it.
CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you very much. Are there any
questions for the speaker? Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this Item 2, or are there any hands raised on Zoom? Okay. I now will invite the Appellant back up, and you will have an additional three minutes, followed by questions by Commissioners.
FIROZ PRADHAN: If we can go to slide 9. In
January 2023, Public Works actually gave an email mailed to Planning, saying, “Engineering supports this exception, and because of the width of the sidewalk and the planter strip, it provides the space for the driveway turning into Los Gatos Boulevard; therefore, it is my opinion that the
height and open design of the proposed fence does not
create a safety hazard at this location.”
Subsequently, as recent as the 8th of May the same
gentleman and Mr. Gary Heap both looked at the triangle and
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/28/2025
Item #2, 10 Charles Street
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
said, “This definitely solves the visibility problem, and we will support the fence exception.”
Mr. Olcott actually acknowledged and sent a
letter to the Town saying the presence of the current fence in the right-of-way following the direction of the curb actually provides more visibility while entering Charles Street, thereby reducing the aforementioned risk factor.
And it is a risk factor. In the night, when you’re turning into Charles, you could hit the curb, had it not been for the fence.
The other issue I want to touch upon is it was
mentioned that Matt Daily was against the fence and there was an accident, and there was a big issue in the last
Planning Commission hearing about that accident. I did
reach out to Matt Daily this morning and had a long
conversation with him. I don't know if he had a chance to reach out to Sean; he said he will try to do that.
He said that the accident occurred when there was
a 6-foot opaque construction fence that wrapped around the property completely, and the police had determined that the accident was not his fault, but it was the fault of the other driver. So, I just want to point out that this issue was obviously amplified and exaggerated.
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/28/2025
Item #2, 10 Charles Street
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
There was another letter that said that we
changed the address from Los Gatos Boulevard to 10 Charles Street, and that again was completely false. Sean was
involved, and Mr. Gray was involved in that decision.
My request would therefore be to let me follow
the 30’x30’ triangle that was worked out in one of the
exhibits with the Public Works staff. I can lower the fence to 3 feet in that triangle, get all the bushes out, get all the trees that we planted out, give an undertaking that we will not put any plant more than 3’, and we can go from there. I am absolutely confident it solves the problem.
CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you. Are there any questions
for the Applicant? Vice Chair Burch.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Just to be clear with what you
were saying at the end, there’s an Option A, and Option B, and then there is the plan of compliance. Is what you’re suggesting either Option A or Option B with lowering the fence height and clipping the corners? Which one are you referencing that is your preference?
FIROZ PRADHAN: Thank you so much. I know I was a
little rushed toward the end. What I’m suggesting is that we worked out—and we can go back to the triangle, if you like—it’s the one that we worked out Staff, with Public Works. It’s slide 4. Yes, perfect.
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/28/2025
Item #2, 10 Charles Street
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
So, what I’m saying is that if you take the
visibility triangle, and it provides tremendous significant visibility, if we can instead clip the fence there, we
basically in that triangle lower the fence to 3’, both the triangles, the left side and the right side; and
essentially eliminate all the plants which are over 3’, basically all the trees that we have planted, we push them back outside the triangle, which is essentially lowering one, two, three sections on the right side and two sections on the left side, so five full panels get lowered to 3’. We don’t need to remove the fence and push it back, we just lower the fence to 3’, and everything inside the triangle, all the plants inside the triangle, get moved away.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: If it, depending on how the
discussion obviously goes amongst the Commissioners and everything, if this Commission though leaned more towards Option A, which does push the fence back, would still have the clipped corners, the 3’ reduced. Is that amenable to you also?
FIROZ PRADHAN: So, here is my concern on that.
My concern on that is that you’ve got children walking up and down. If you move the fence 3.5’ or 3’-9”, almost 4’, I don’t want to be responsible for somebody getting hurt on
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/28/2025
Item #2, 10 Charles Street
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
my property when they’re walking up and down; that is a concern I have.
If this is providing any less visibility, I’m
open to that idea, but I know practically this solution provides more visibility on both sides.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Okay, thank you.
FIROZ PRADHAN: I just think it’s a more win/win.
CHAIR THOMAS: Are there any additional questions
for the Appellant? Okay, thank you very much. We will now close the public portion of the public hearing on Item 2, and I invite Commissioners to ask questions of Staff,
provide comments, or propose a motion.
I am going to start it off, actually. I have a
question for Staff about part of the fence that’s in the public right-of-way. I know that there was a fence there previously. Can you just explain a little bit of the
history on that part of the property?
SEAN MULLIN: Thank you for that question. I
believe there have been some photos that show that there was a fence there previously. I can’t speak to whether it was located in the public right-of-way, I don’t have plans that show that, and regardless, once the fence is removed, per the Town Code the rights to it are lost.
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/28/2025
Item #2, 10 Charles Street
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
CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, I just didn’t know if its
location has been an issue for the Town or something
previously. Not that you’re aware of.
SEAN MULLIN: Not that I’m aware of, and I
couldn’t speak to its location relative to the right-ofway.
CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, thank you. I know a lot of
us have questions, so Commissioner Burnett.
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Thank you for that.
Question for Staff. I’m wondering with the Staff Report; do you still stand by your recommendations in your report
after all the different designs have been submitted that we’ve looked at?
SEAN MULLIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Thank you.
CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Barnett.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I would appreciate hearing
from a representative from Public Works with respect to the revised plans, and to clear up the record concerning the communications. Thank you.
GARY HEAP: Yes, Gary Heap, Town Engineer. We
have some explaining to do on this one. We have not
provided a consistent response back to the Applicant on this; I’ll be the first one to say it. There have been a
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/28/2025
Item #2, 10 Charles Street
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
number of communications with this Applicant. I can say the one consistent thing throughout this whole process has been our Town standard drawing that we have provided to this Applicant and showing him through the diagram what we’ve allowed.
Early indications and early discussions with the
Applicant indicated for my Staff that we would be
supportive of the fence exception, allowing the fence to remain. We went and did a site visit prior to, I think, the first meeting which we had, and I did a ride-along with our traffic sergeant and asked him, I said, “We’re getting a lot of questions about this. I don’t get it. Where is the site distance issue coming out of the street, coming out of Charles? I don’t understand how this is a sight distance issue. You’ve seen the exhibits; you’ve seen the diagrams.
Folks coming out of the street and making that left or
right turn onto Los Gatos Boulevard doesn’t seem to be an issue.” He said, “Gary, that’s not the issue. It’s actually when you’re going northbound on Los Gatos Boulevard and making the right turn.” Sean, do you have the image that I sent you earlier today?
So, this is the direction of traffic flow that is
concerning to us. As you’re going northbound and then going to make a right turn onto Charles, you can see the whole
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/28/2025
Item #2, 10 Charles Street
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
frontage of his property there, you can see the driveway just south of the beginning of the fence. As you’re
traveling northbound and go to make the right turn onto Charles, that is the obstruction. Looking at the fence on angle, even though you’re looking at it perpendicularly, it's half open; looking at it on angle like that, it
provides 100% obstruction.
And so, at that point I believe that we came to
the meeting as Staff and we said, “We really can’t support the fence exception. We’ve really got to go ahead and have it removed within the triangle area of visibility.” You guys made your decision; we had subsequent discussions.
On May 8th we met with the Applicant and we
provided incorrect information, which was followed up very quickly with an email that said we’re sorry, we incorrectly measured. Typically, we don’t go out in the field and
measure for applicants. We thought we were helping out, we thought we were supporting. We usually just review plans and then look at the plans and say does the plan meet the code, or does it not? All the plans that we’ve seen, we consistently provided responses back, saying it did not meet our code, it did not meet our requirements.
When we traveled out there and met with the
Applicant, mismarked, because when we went out there we
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/28/2025
Item #2, 10 Charles Street
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
measured 30’ from the face of curb, which throughout my career is what I’m used to doing. Here in Los Gatos though the 30’ is measured from the properly line. That was
realized after the fact.
We apologized, we sent an email to the property
owner saying we’re willing to go ahead and allow the fence on Charles to remain in the public right-of-way, because that was something that we were still contemplating, with the license agreement, but we’ve got to remove that fence within the corner triangle sight distance.
From our opinion, I believe the trees can remain
so long as they’re trimmed up above 7’, and so long as no foliage or fence is higher than 3’; that is what our
standard requires.
But it’s the 30’ triangle from the properly line
that needs to be adhered to, and that’s I think because we haven’t seen those plans yet with that proposal, which is why you see in front of you this evening the recommendation you have.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Thank you, that’s very
helpful.
CHAIR THOMAS: Vice Chair Burch.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: As a follow-up to what you
were just talking about, going down there and measuring.
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/28/2025
Item #2, 10 Charles Street
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
For scalability, in my mind, I know the house just right across from Charles does have the clipped fence. Is that 30’ back? Did you measure to see if that met the 30’ off the properly line?
GARY HEAP: There is no visibility triangle
compliance at that location at all. But again, if you’re travelling northbound and making the right turn, the fence on the far side, the green fence, doesn’t impact
visibility. Coming out on Charles and looking left or
right, neither of the fences, frankly, in their current location, create a visibility issue. It’s only when you’re making that northbound right turn that the fence on the south side in front of the Appellant’s house causes the issue.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Okay, thank you.
CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Stump.
COMMISSIONER STUMP: Question for Staff as well.
I’m not sure if it comes your way or maybe Sean’s way. We certainly have a good idea of a fence that does not comply with the Town Code. We’ve been looking at this now for
several weeks.
My question would be could you recap what would
be in compliance at that location? I realize it may be
somewhat of a verbal description, or if you put up a
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/28/2025
Item #2, 10 Charles Street
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
diagram and say these changes would need to be made for a fence to be in compliance on this property.
SEAN MULLIN: Thank you for that question. I can
put up a slide if you’ll bear with me, that is
overwhelmingly complicated, I admit, but I can try to walk you through it. We’ll just focus on the front part of the property at the corner of Charles and Los Gatos Boulevard, and this is fairly consistent with the Applicant’s
presentation that showed the areas that would be impacted by the fence.
One thing that I would clarify is that while you
see all these areas with colors and triangles where the fence has been characterized as now allowed, a fence that’s 3’ tall could be located right on the properly line in all these areas, so one solution is to have a fence that marks the properly line that would be consistent with Town Code, to the Commissioners’ question, to limit the height to 3’ as the code requires.
This complicated diagram provides the corner
sight triangle that is measured at the properly line in blue. It provides the traffic view area. It provides the driveway view area. These are all standard drawings on file with the Town. This is based on a plan that was provided for the house remodel, so we had some scalability there.
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/28/2025
Item #2, 10 Charles Street
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
The red dashed line is the location of the fence
currently. There is not a surveyed location; this is based on field observations to the best of Staff’s ability.
Option 1 is this burgundy dotted line you see as
it’s clipping the corners near the driveway and the corner, and Option 2 is the blue dotted line moving the fence back 3’-9” and then clipping the corners a little bit as well.
As stated in the Staff Report, with either of those
options, the fence would still require an exception, and that’s part of the appeal this evening.
CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Stump.
COMMISSIONER STUMP: Quick follow-up. If I
understand this correctly, a 3’ fence could go right to the properly line. A 3’ fence also would not require side
angles, because you can see over a 3’ fence.
SEAN MULLIN: That’s correct.
COMMISSIONER STUMP: Okay, thank you very much.
CHAIR THOMAS: Any other questions? Yes, Vice
Chair Burch.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: If a 3’ fence would meet Town
Code, does that also include plantings? Do the plantings have to stay below the 3’ for this building?
SEAN MULLIN: Thank you for that question. Yes,
the Town’s Zoning Code would limit shrubs, fences, and
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/28/2025
Item #2, 10 Charles Street
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
walls to a 3’ height in these locations, and then one of the Town’s engineering codes would require that any trees in those locations be limbed up to 7’. So, you get this buffer between 3’ and 7’ for the view area when you’re
operating a car in and out of these intersections.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Thank you.
CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Sordi.
COMMISSIONER SORDI: As long as you’ve got that
graphic up, I have a question about the corner sight
triangle. So, that is represented accurately in the graphic now?
SEAN MULLIN: It’s as scaled as it could be, but
yes, it’s represented accurately. What was provided in the field, these straight legs here and down here were not
included, so the triangle itself was more of a traditional triangle with the two corner points being right at the face of the curb. What the standard drawing requires is that you come perpendicular in from the roadway to the properly
line, then begin your 30’ measurement, and then connect it with the hypotenuse.
COMMISSIONER SORDI: Okay, thank you.
SEAN MULLIN: I have a cleaned-up version of the
Town’s standard engineering drawing that might be a little bit easier. You can see it’s not as extreme as the example
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/28/2025
Item #2, 10 Charles Street
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
that was just shown, but you see from the edge of the
roadway/face of the curb that the triangle doesn’t start at that angle; it comes in perpendicular until it hits the properly line, and then the angle is drafted.
CHAIR THOMAS: I have another question. Do either
Option A or B fix the turning right onto Charles view
situation from your perspective? I recognized that even if it does, it’s still not in compliance, but I think that as members of the public and many of us have stated, safety is the number one concern, and obviously the purpose of having these sight triangles is for safety, so do Option A or B address that safety issue?
GARY HEAP: I do not believe so. We have Town
standards for a reason, and not complying with those Town standards, I don’t think, leaves us in a really good light.
They’re there for a reason; we have to really follow them when we need to.
CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, thank you. Then I did have
another question for Staff regarding our decision-making. A couple members of the public made comments about how a
decision could set a precedent. I mean maybe Director
Paulson should comment on this. Is that true that if we made a decision tonight, that would require us to make it for future similar decisions.
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/28/2025
Item #2, 10 Charles Street
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
DIRECTOR PAULSON: Thank you. Appreciate the
question. No, each individual application is looked at on its own merits. Unless identical circumstances existed, which is highly unlikely, and even in that case the
Commission is not tied to previous decisions.
CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, thank you. Vice Chair Burch.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: In front of us, if we deny the
appeal, my understanding from what you said, Mr. Mullin, this will go back then to the Compliance Officer who will then enforce the fence being in compliance, which sounds like would be a 3’ fence, 3’ plantings, 7’ clearance
without the clipped; or we could look at these options and determine we feel like one of these would also fulfill the need, and we could recommend one of these. It’s a little confusing, so I just want to understand.
SEAN MULLIN: I think there are several options.
First of all, if the Planning Commission denied
the appeal, it’s subject to further appeal to the Town
Council, so this is not necessarily the final
administrative decision.
Second, if the ultimate decision was not granting
of the appeal, should this end up on the Council’s hands, the Applicant would need to work with the Code Enforcement Officer and Planning to remedy the situation and meet the
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/28/2025
Item #2, 10 Charles Street
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
Town Code. That would include lowering the height, or
moving the fence out of these traffic view areas, and
removing the fence from the public right-of-way as well along Charles Street.
It is possible to further request an exception
with a different option; but not typical.
CHAIR THOMAS: My proposal here, I think maybe we
could move forward with some sort of motion. We voted
unanimously to come back to address the safety sight
triangle, etc., issue. I think that we can make the
findings about in the public right-of-way, especially if Commissioner Barnett feels comfortable from a legal point of view that we’ve covered all of our bases, and the Town Attorney feels comfortable, I think we can find the
exception for that portion of the fence.
My concern is that if we deny this application
fully, then that is all included in it, so I propose that make a motion to approve it with specific modifications to the front portion of the fence with the safety issues that are very specific, and try to come up with a way to grant the appeal in that direction. Is that something that we’re perhaps interested in?
Let me further explain maybe what that would
possibly look like first. We would perhaps grant this
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/28/2025
Item #2, 10 Charles Street
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
appeal and have two options, you need to move the entire fence out of the view triangle, the blue square situation.
Sean, can you put that back up again? So, either move the fence back so that that works, or lower the fence. Leave it as it is, but make it compliant with the 3’, and then allow for an exception for it to be higher than 3’ once it is outside of that corner sight triangle, like in the back, on the Charles Street side. Is this making sense at all?
That is something that I feel like I can make the
findings for, but I am interested… I just saw Sean writing stuff down, so, Mr. Mullin.
SEAN MULLIN: Thank you. I may have some
clarifying questions during the discussion. I’ll try to write them down.
CHAIR THOMAS: Okay. Commissioner Barnett.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: My position is that there
was clear direction from the Planning Commission on March 12th that the Appellant return with a plan that was approved by Staff. Staff has not approved either Option A or B.
Furthermore, I cannot make any of the findings
required by Town Ordinance 29.43.20. We’re not adjacent to a commercial property. A special privacy concern does not exist, in my opinion. There is no wildlife issue here. The security issues, well, the Appellant mentioned two people
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/28/2025
Item #2, 10 Charles Street
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
who were loitering near his property. I don’t see that as a justification for allowing the fence height to be allowed.
And I don’t see further that there are special
circumstances, including size of the lot or configuration, where it would cause an undue hardship.
The Appellant has mentioned that part of his yard
is not usable unless we have the modification, but there is no way that that overcomes the public safety issue for
children, for adults. We know how people are driving in the Town, which is frequently in violation of the Vehicle Code.
So, those are my thoughts.
CHAIR THOMAS: I appreciate that. Is the public
right-of-way your issue? Because that’s what I’m saying, that if we grant the appeal that that’s the portion that I would be in support of. The rest of it would have to come into compliance.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: As I understand, Staff
said that that issue can be addressed with a License
Agreement and insurance, but I don’t see the point of
dealing with the right-of-way when we have to have the
fence reconfigured anyway.
CHAIR THOMAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I’m not adamantly against
that, but I think it’s a moot issue.
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/28/2025
Item #2, 10 Charles Street
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
CHAIR THOMAS: Okay. Commissioner Burnett.
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Thank you, Chair. Yes, I
totally agree with Commissioner Barnett. I think this item has gone on for quite a while with very clear directions.
Our Staff is definitely still upholding their summary and their discussion and their feelings that have been
presented, so I totally agree with Commissioner Barnett that we should move forward and deny this. I mean, not deny it, but deny the appeal. Thank you.
CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Stump.
COMMISSIONER STUMP: I’ve got to throw my
agreement in there as well. This has become so convoluted over time. We are continuing to try to solve a problem that shouldn’t have been there in the first place. I realize that the Appellant likely built this fence in good faith, thinking that it was going to be a beautiful fence, but it does not meet the Town Code.
So, I guess two wrongs don’t make a right. I
don't know if that makes sense or not, I’m just saying I have real concerns about safety in that area. For any of you that deal with that intersection, that’s a dangerous left turn coming off of Highway 9 and making a left onto Charles Street. My concern is why? Because pedestrians are there, and people are so concerned about making a left turn
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/28/2025
Item #2, 10 Charles Street
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
they don’t really pay attention to what’s going on on the sidewalk.
You may say that’s not a side issue, I’m just
saying there are continued safety issues around Charles Street, and it is a congested area, it’s a tight area, it’s a funny intersection there, and I do not think we should compromise safety in this matter at all.
CHAIR THOMAS: Vice Chair Burch.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: My understanding of what the
Chair was saying was not compromising on compliance with the view corridor in the front yard at all; she was
basically saying that has to fall into compliance for all the reasons that you guys have said, but rather than have us deny the appeal and this go back up to Town Council, I think what she was trying to say was the front yard has to fall into compliance.
We all agree this is a safety issue, no ifs,
ands, or buts; but the side yard, this appears that this is not a massive issue with Staff. They think there is a path forward, that what we could do is say we’ve come up with… I guess what in a sense it’s saying is we’re granting the appeal, but with a number of conditions that aren’t really granting the appeal. Does that make sense?
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/28/2025
Item #2, 10 Charles Street
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
We’re still enforcing the safety requirements.
What we’re doing is eliminating even more meetings on this topic by saying that this has to go into compliance, but the side yard, we’re going to let Staff deal with that with them. Does that make sense? I just want to make it clear that I don’t think anybody up here is going to say forget the safety issue.
CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Sordi, and then I’ll
get back to you.
COMMISSIONER SORDI: I just wanted to agree with
Commissioner Barnett. I don’t think a good faith effort was made to follow the direction of the Planning Commission, and I did watch the hearing the last time this item was here.
I have an issue with taking a formal action to
uphold an appeal, when effectively we’re denying most of what the Applicant is asking for. (Inaudible) asking to keep a fence that exceeds height limits and encroaches in the front setback and in the triangle areas, so I don't know how else you’d do it.
The other question I guess I would have, even if
the appeal is denied, is is there anything preventing the Applicant from pursuing a License Agreement along Charles Street with Staff later? Is there anything preventing him
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/28/2025
Item #2, 10 Charles Street
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
from bringing up that issue with Council if he chose to appeal?
SEAN MULLIN: I can start, and the Town Engineer
may want to jump in as well.
I think if the appeal were denied, and Staff
continued to work with the Applicant to bring the fence into compliance, the conversation with the Town Engineer could be had about maintaining portions of it in the rightof-way and whether they supported that; that may be a separate issue.
GARY HEAP: I can go ahead and add onto that. The
issue outside the sight triangle along Charles and that 6’ there is not a concern for Public Works. We deal with
fences that get built in the right-of-way, unfortunately, too many times, and a lot of times it’s just easier…so long as it doesn’t create a site distance issue, and a lot of times there are good reasons for it, security, etc., we allow those to remain in the public right-of-way; so long as they don’t interfere or go against zoning requirements in terms of heights in the setback, as long as that’s not the case, then we go ahead and allow those to remain with a License Agreement.
So, in this case, so long as the fence is either
removed or lowered to 3’ within the visibility triangle,
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/28/2025
Item #2, 10 Charles Street
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
we’re happy to support keeping the fence 6’ high along
Charles outside that triangle, and allowing it to be there through a License Agreement.
CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you for answering that
question. Just before Commissioner Stump, I want to say that really I think that we should assume best intent from everyone involved in this entire situation, that everyone wants this wrapped up as effectively as possible, and I do think that my potential motion would hopefully be the least amount of work for Staff, for the Applicant, for the
neighbors, for Town Council, because another one of these won’t have to go to them; it would be preventing that.
I don’t think we should compromise safety at all.
I’m a huge proponent for… As a person that sat on the
General Plan Advisory Committee and updated the General Plan, I pushed so much for bike and pedestrian safety and all of that, and so I really think that the front yard
issue needs to come into compliance, but I don’t think we should just like say…
I feel like in my opinion that the Applicant, we
told him that safety was the concern. That was the message that we sent. We care most about safety, come back to us with a safety thing, and this is the option that he
proposed. If we’re not satisfied with that, that’s fine,
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/28/2025
Item #2, 10 Charles Street
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
but he gave us two very specific options. I don’t think that we should be punishing everyone here, including Staff, to have to go back and do additional more work and have to start a lot of this process over again just because we feel like he didn’t take the exact direction that we totally anticipated.
I still would urge other Commissioners to
consider the fact that the reality is this is going to
become another fence height exception situation perhaps if it’s in the public right-of-way, and we’re going to be
seeing this perhaps again on a future agenda, a new item, a new thing, a new application, so I would urge everyone to really think about trying to solve the problem here tonight instead of just create future problems down the line.
Commissioner Stump.
COMMISSIONER STUMP: My question is do we have an
option before us that really is in compliance?
CHAIR THOMAS: We don’t have an option that’s in
compliance, but all Staff has said up this point at all of our meetings and in all of the Staff Reports is they don’t have a problem with this fence being in the right-of-way.
Fences are in the right-of-way all the time.
COMMISSIONER STUMP: I’m not talking about the
right-of-way.
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/28/2025
Item #2, 10 Charles Street
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
CHAIR THOMAS: Then what are you talking about?
COMMISSIONER STUMP: Front area.
CHAIR THOMAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER STUMP: We keep hearing that it says
not still comply with Town Code.
CHAIR THOMAS: I know, but we can approve it, and
say you have to reduce it down to 3’ or move it into Town… Like, this area has to be in Town Code. That’s what I’m proposing. The front part would be in compliance, either at the 3’ or you move it back; those are your two options that meet our Fence Ordinance situation, but we would be
granting the back part that was just mentioned that’s not an issue, that’s in the public right-of-way.
Sorry, we can’t take any comments from the public
at this point. Vice Chair Burch.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Can I then now look to Mr.
Mullin, because you said you maybe had some questions and notes. Before we try to go down either path of making a motion, can we ask you what questions you have? Is this going to make it more difficult? What is the best path
here?
SEAN MULLIN: I would start off by saying
regardless of the difficulties, Staff is happy to continue working with the Applicant to find a solution and fulfill
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/28/2025
Item #2, 10 Charles Street
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
any direction given by the Planning Commission, so that’s not a problem.
The question that I have, the more I listen to
the two options presented by the Chair just clarifying
exactly at what height the fence could be maintained in the right-of-way with the two options that the Chair presented.
So, what I heard was Option 1 is to move the
fence, maintaining its current height, but meeting the Town Code. We’re talking about the portion on the front, so that would be, with that diagram, moving out all those shaded and triangled areas and maintain the fence in the right-ofway. Then my question is at what height? The existing height, or do we need to lower that?
Option 2, as I heard it, was to lower the fence
in its current location to 3’, which would then meet the Town Code, and maintain it in the right-of-way in its
current position, and again, at what height?
I would just seek that clarification to me, with
the two options presented by the Chair. That’s the only piece of missing information for me.
CHAIR THOMAS: It’s currently at 6’?
SEAN MULLIN: It’s not 6’, and I’m sorry, I have
to look it up. It’s less than that, but it’s somewhere
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/28/2025
Item #2, 10 Charles Street
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
between 3.5’ and 5’. I just can’t recall off hand; sorry about that.
CHAIR THOMAS: The part in the right-of-way?
SEAN MULLIN: I can look it up.
CHAIR THOMAS: Okay. Our normal for a side yard
or back yard fence, what is it, 6’ with 2’ of lattice, or something? Or what is it?
SEAN MULLIN: If it were on a properly line, so
an interior properly line not adjacent to a street, and it was a side interior or a rear properly line, on this
property without an exception they could build a 7’ fence, but the top part needs to be at least 1’ of lattice. There is no openness requirement with that lattice; it was more about aesthetically breaking up the tall stretch.
CHAIR THOMAS: So, my proposal, I guess, would be
at the current height that it is, current height and
structure that it is.
SEAN MULLIN: For clarification, just to be very
clear, for the portion that’s in the right-of-way.
CHAIR THOMAS: Yes, that is outside of the site.
SEAN MULLIN: Outside of the traffic view areas
and triangles.
CHAIR THOMAS: Yes, outside of the traffic view
areas and triangles. It could remain at the height that it
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/28/2025
Item #2, 10 Charles Street
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
is in the public right-of-way, because I do think a special circumstance exists because of the nature of the lot.
Then, in the front portion it would either need
to be lowered to 3’ to come into compliance with our Fence Ordinance, or moved out of the setback area to the required setbacks at its current height. Does that clarify enough for you for now, Mr. Mullin?
SEAN MULLIN: Yes, and I’ll come back to you with
that fence height.
DIRECTOR PAULSON: Ms. Whelan has her hand up.
ATTORNEY WHELAN: It would be good to put on the
record specifically what the special circumstance is
regarding the lot.
CHAIR THOMAS: Okay. Commissioner Burnett.
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Yes, I did have a
question. I was confused, again. You were speaking of
Option 1 to lower the entire front to 3’, and then going around the corner, there is 3’ to… I don't know how many feet that is to the triangle.
CHAIR THOMAS: Yes, to the end.
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: To the end, so that would
all be 3’.
CHAIR THOMAS: Yes.
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/28/2025
Item #2, 10 Charles Street
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
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: And the rest of the
fencing would be what it is now.
CHAIR THOMAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Which, I was there, and
actually I think that fencing that he has makes it almost worse, because it is crisscrossed, and with all the bushes and everything, I think it’s a very difficult situation. I would prefer just to go along with denying the appeal
entirely and having him go along with what our Town
recommends on this. It is so complicated, and why are we making all these extra hoops for this? It sort of doesn’t make sense to me. And asking a lot of exceptions when it’s very clear cut, you just follow what our Town has. That’s it.
CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Barnett.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: As I understand, four of
the Commissioners have strongly indicated denial of the appeal, and in light of that I propose to make a motion for discussion and see where we are after that.
So, if I may, with respect to Item 2 on tonight’s
calendar, I propose to move to deny the appeal of the
Director’s decision concerning the fence exception,
including the right-of-way, for the reason stated
previously.
ITEM NO. 12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/28/2025
Item #2, 10 Charles Street
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
I cannot make the findings required under the
code, Section 29.40.320. I would incorporate my comments previously indicated into the motion, and I think that’s the extent of the motion.
CHAIR THOMAS: Is there a second? Commissioner
Burnett.
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: I’ll second it.
CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, and then discussion. I’ll
call the question. All those in favor, please raise your hand. And that’s everyone except me. So, the motion passes 5-1. Are there appeal rights?
DIRECTOR PAULSON: Yes, thank you, Chair. There
are appeal rights. Anyone who is not satisfied with the decision of the Planning Commission can appeal that
decision to the Town Council. Forms are available online and in the Clerk’s Office. There is a fee for filing the appeal, and the appeal must be filed within ten days.
CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you.
(END)
ITEM NO. 12.
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
(408) 354-6872 Fax (408) 354-7593
May 30, 2025
Firoz Pradhan
10 Charles Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Via Email
RE: 10 Charles Street
Fence Height Exception Application FHE-23-001
Consider an Appeal of a Community Development Director Decision to Deny a Fence Exception Request for an Existing Fence Partially Located in the Town’s Right-of Way and Exceeding the Height Limitations within the Required Front Yard and Street-Side Yard Setbacks on Property Zoned R-1D. APN 532-36-022. Categorically Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303:
New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures.
Property Owner/Applicant/Appellant: Firoz Pradhan
Project Planner: Sean Mullin
At its meeting of May 28, 2025, the Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission denied the above referenced application.
PLEASE NOTE: Pursuant to Section 29.20.275 of the Town Code, this approval may be appealed to the Town Council within 10 days of the date the approval is granted. Therefore, this action for denial should not be considered final until the appeal period has lapsed.
If you have any questions, I can be contacted by email at [email protected].
Best regards,
Sean Mullin, AICP
Planning Manager
N:\DEV\PC\PC ACTION Letters\2025\05-28-25 [10 Charles Street - Item #2; Denied].docx
CIVIC CENTER
110 E. MAIN STREET
LOS GATOS, CA 95030
ATTACHMENT 13
ITEM NO. 12.
ATTACHMENT 14
ITEM NO. 12.
Q
Firoz Pradhan
Property Owner
Dated: June 12, 2025
M
N
O
P
ATTACHMENT 15
ITEM NO. 12.
72 in.
22 in.
32 in.
18 in.
72 in.
30 in.
38 in.
71 1/2 in.
4 in.
(e) grade
(e) grade
(e) grade
5” x 5” WOOD LATTICE
REDWOOD FENCE BOARD
2X12 PT WOOD KICKER
4X4 PT POST
2X4 TOP CAP
4X4 PT POST
5” x 5” WOOD LATTICE
REDWOOD FENCE BOARD
2X4 TOP CAP
2X4 SILL
2X4 TOP CAP
REDWOOD FENCE BOARD
4X4 PT POST
2X4 SILL
2X12 PT WOOD KICKER
NOT TO SCALE
SECTION M: LENGTH APPROX 24 FEET
SECTION O: LENGTH APPROX 24 FEET
SECTION N: GATE. LENGTH 5 FEET 2 INCHES
SECTION P, Q: LENGTHS APPROX 48 FEET AND 9 FEET
ITEM NO. 12.
36 in.
30 in.
3 in.
(e) grade
REDWOOD FENCE BOARD
2X12 PT WOOD KICKER
4X4 PT POST
2X4 TOP CAP
SECTIONS OF FENCE IN AREAS A, B, C, & D: LENGTH APPROX 93.5 FEET 3 in.
NOT TO SCALE
ITEM NO. 12.
Draft Resolution Adoption Date
DRAFT RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
TO DENY A FENCE HEIGHT EXCEPTION REQUEST FOR AN EXISTING FENCE PARTIALLY LOCATED IN THE TOWN’S RIGHT-OF-WAY AND EXCEEDING THE HEIGHT
LIMITATIONS WITHIN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD AND STREET-SIDE YARD SETBACKS ON PROPERTY ZONED R-1D AND UPHOLDING THE DENIAL.
APN 532-36-022
FENCE HEIGHT EXCEPTION APPLICATION: FHE-23-001
PROPERTY LOCATION: 10 CHARLES STREET
APPELLANT/PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: FIROZ PRADHAN
WHEREAS, on November 11, 2022, the Town issued an Administrative Warning for a code violation at the subject property for construction of a fence exceeding height limitations within the required side yard area. In communication with staff, staff indicated that the Town Code offers an exception process that allows for deviation from the Town’s requirements if the appropriate findings are made by the Community Development Director; and WHEREAS, on January 10, 2023, the property owner applied for an exception to the Town’s fence regulations for the construction of a fence that does not comply with the Town Code regulations for fences located in the required front and street-side yard areas, as well as the traffic view area and corner sight triangle. In reviewing the application, staff noted that a portion of the fence was located in the Town’s right-of-way; and WHEREAS, on March 23, 2023, the Community Development Director denied the Fence Height Exception application, unable to make the findings required by Town Code Section
29.40.0320 for granting an exception. Additionally, the Town could not support the fence remaining in the Town’s right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, on April 3, 2023, the appellant, an interested person, filed a timely appeal of the decision of the Community Development Director to deny a Fence Height Exception request for an existing fence partially located in the Town’s right-of-way and exceeding the height limitations within the front yard and street-side yard setbacks on property zoned R-1D, located at 10 Charles Street; and
WHEREAS, on March 12, 2025, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered an appeal of the decision of the Community Development Director to deny a Fence Height Exception request for an existing fence partially located in the Town’s right-of-way and exceeding the height limitations within the front yard and street-side yard setbacks on property zoned R-1D, located at 10 Charles Street. The Planning Commission continued the matter to a date certain with direction to the appellant; and
WHEREAS, on April 23, 2025, the Planning Commission considered public testimony and continued the matter to a date certain of May 14, 2025; and Draft Resolution to be
modified by Town
Council deliberations
and direction.
ATTACHMENT
16 Page 366
ITEM NO. 12.
Draft Resolution Adoption Date
WHEREAS, on May 14, 2025, the Planning Commission continued the matter to a date certain of May 28, 2025; and
WHEREAS, on May 28, 2025, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered the appellant’s response to their direction of March 12, 2025. The Planning Commission received the staff report, testimony from the applicant, and input from the public.
The Planning Commission was unable to make the findings to grant the appeal and voted fiveto-one to deny the appeal; and WHEREAS, on June 9, 2025, the appellant, an interested person, filed a timely appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission to a Fence Height Exception request for an existing fence partially located in the Town’s right-of-way and exceeding the height limitations within the front yard and street-side yard setbacks on property zoned R-1D, located at 10 Charles Street; and
WHEREAS, this matter came before the Town Council for public hearing on August 19, 2025, 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 materials contained in the Council Agenda Report for their meeting on August 19, 2025, along with any and all subsequent reports and materials prepared concerning this application; and
WHEREAS, Town Code Section 29.20.295 provides that an appellant bears the burden of proof to demonstrate that there was error or abuse of discretion (including decisions that are not supported by substantial evidence in the record) by the Planning Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
In accordance with Town Code section 29.20.295, the Town Council finds that:
1. The appellant has not demonstrated that the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the Fence Height Exception application FHE-23-001 was in error or an abuse of discretion.
2. The appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission to deny a Fence Height Exception request for an existing fence partially located in the Town’s right-of-way and exceeding the height limitations within the front yard and street-side yard setbacks on property zoned R-1D, located at 10 Charles Street, is denied, and the application denial is upheld.
3. 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
ITEM NO. 12.
Draft Resolution Adoption Date
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 19th day of August 2025, by the following vote:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SIGNED:
_______________________________
MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
ATTEST:
__________________________________
TOWN CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
ITEM NO. 12.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ITEM NO. 12.
Kevin B. Chesney
June 12, 2025
Nicolle Burnham, Director of Parks & Public Works
Joel Paulson, Director of Community Development
Town of Los Gatos
Subject: Objection to Longstanding Fence Encroachment, Safety Hazard, and Efforts to Circumvent Planning Commission Denial at 10 Charles Street Dear Ms. Burnham and Mr. Paulson,
I write to formally object to a fence that has remained in place for over two years at 10 Charles Street, which encroaches into the public right-of-way, exceeds permitted fence height limits and required setbacks, and poses an extreme safety hazard by obstructing visibility at a neighborhood intersection. As a long-standing resident of Charles Street and an adjacent property owner, I object to any after-the-fact permitting or exception being granted by your departments without a formal hearing and full public transparency.
To date, there has been no valid encroachment permit issued prior to construction, and the installation violates multiple provisions of the Town of Los Gatos Municipal Code, including height and setback limits under § 29.40.030, right-of-way encroachment rules requiring a Construction Encroachment Permit under Title 15.50, and the enforcement provisions of § 29.40.0330. More troubling, the property owner attempted to retroactively legalize the fence by appealing to the Planning Commission, which denied the request on May 28, 2025, following public testimony. Despite this denial, the applicant proceeded to file an appeal to the Town Council while simultaneously engaging with both Public Works and the Planning Department outside of public view. These parallel efforts appear designed to circumvent formal review by securing an informal staff-level resolution—based on misrepresented facts, exaggerated claims of neighborhood support, and a consistent pattern of delay. This tactic not only undermines the integrity of the Town’s code enforcement process but also prolongs a clear public safety hazard and erodes community trust.
Docusign Envelope ID: 3B8B9CF5-6F9A-4719-AE5E-71E38F3EE3DA ATTACHMENT 17 Page 370
ITEM NO. 12.
The Planning Commission's denial reflects a proper exercise of authority following public process and should remain determinative unless formally overturned with notice and hearing.
Let me be clear:
There is no consensus or neighborhood agreement supporting this encroachment or the requested fence exceptions.
While I understand that in some limited cases, the Community Development Director may grant minor fence exceptions, this particular case already went before the Planning Commission and was denied. Any subsequent approval would therefore constitute a procedural end-run around a formal decision. Staff-level or backchannel approvals would be procedurally improper and deeply concerning.
I respectfully request the following:
1. Immediate confirmation that no fence exception or encroachment permit is being issued or considered through either department without a public hearing and formal process.
2. That this letter be entered into the administrative record for 10 Charles Street.
3. That I receive written notice of any future actions, approvals, or hearings regarding this matter.
Failure to uphold the Planning Commission's decision—particularly through informal channels or staff-level workarounds—would constitute a serious breach of public trust, transparency, and due process. If necessary, I am prepared to pursue additional administrative or legal remedies, including formal appeals or action in Superior Court.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. As a committed resident and adjacent property owner, I urge the Town to uphold the integrity of its public process and ensure enforcement of its municipal code. I respectfully request a timely written response confirming the Town’s position and intended course of action.
Sincerely,
Kevin B. Chesney
CC: Sean Mullin, Planning Manager
Docusign Envelope ID: 3B8B9CF5-6F9A-4719-AE5E-71E38F3EE3DA
ITEM NO. 12.
ITEM NO. 12.
36 in.
30 in.
3 in.
(e) grade
REDWOOD FENCE BOARD
2X12 PT WOOD KICKER
4X4 PT POST
2X4 TOP CAP
SECTIONS OF FENCE IN AREAS A, B, C, & D: LENGTH APPROX 93.5 FEET 3 in.
NOT TO SCALE
ITEM NO. 12.
From: Saeed Malakooti
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2025 4:40 PM
To: Sean Mullin <[email protected]>;
Subject:
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Mr. Mullin,
I am writing this letter in reference to Mr. Firoz Pradhan, my neighbor residing at 10 Charles St.
Los Gatos.
In reference to the latest property fence modification proposal (attached drawing), I believe the visibility issues should be resolved once the designated areas “A, B, C & D” fence height is reduced to 3’ as it describes in the proposal.
I hope this letter can be helpful in clarification of current fence wall concerns. Please feel free to contact me if further information is needed.
Sincerely,
Saeed Nejad
ITEM NO. 12.
ITEM NO. 12.
Kevin B. Chesney
August 12, 2025
To: Mayor Mathew Hudes and Members of the Town Council
Re: 10 Charles Street Fence Appeal – Response to Appeal Arguments and Affirmation of Planning Commission Decision
Dear Mayor Hudes and Members of the Council:
As an adjacent property owner and long-standing resident of Charles Street, I write to address specific arguments raised in the appeal of the Planning Commission’s May 28, 2025 decision denying the fence exception at 10 Charles Street. This matter has now been ongoing for over two years, during which the community has endured a dangerous fence that poses serious public safety risks and impairs visibility at a busy intersection Town planning staff did not recommend approval of the fence exception, and the Planning Commission voted 5–1 to deny the request, a decision reflecting a strong consensus that the fence violates zoning and right-of-way regulations and continues to present safety hazards.
The appellant argues the Commission should have approved the request with conditions. Yet even with potential visibility adjustments, the fence would still violate core requirements. No new evidence has been presented that would change the facts or justify reversing the decision.
The appellant also cites a Public Works comment suggesting a license agreement could address the right-of-way issue. This misstates its significance. A license agreement is only a procedural option if directed by the Council; it cannot replace zoning compliance or override height, setback, or safety rules. Any implication of Town “willingness” to approve should be corrected.
With no new or compelling evidence, limited neighborhood support, and ongoing safety and compliance concerns, there is no sound basis to overturn the Commission’s decision. I respectfully urge the Council to affirm and uphold that decision and reject the appeal.
Sincerely,
Kevin B. Chesney
cc: Sean Mullin, Planning Manager
Docusign Envelope ID: C77F77DD-001F-4342-AD68-70FEE8B57B64
ITEM NO. 12.
ITEM NO. 12.
PREPARED BY: Ryan Baker
Library Director
Reviewed by: Town Manager, Assistant Town Manager, Town Attorney, and Finance Director 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6832 www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 08/19/2025
ITEM NO: 13
DATE: August 19, 2025
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: Chris Constantin, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Provide Direction for the Distribution of $155,000 Included in the FY 2025- 26 Budget for Community Grants
RECOMMENDATION: Provide direction for the distribution of $155,000 included in the FY 2025-26 budget for Community Grants.
FISCAL IMPACT:
$155,000 was allocated for Community Grants as part of the FY 2025-26 budget by Council motion on May 20, 2025. The direction for allocation of these funds does not create an additional fiscal impact.
STRATEGIC PRIORITY:
This item supports the Core Goal of Fiscal Stability and the strategic priority to develop a structure to ensure accountability of how funding resources move forward the Town’s core goals and priorities.
BACKGROUND:
As part of the preparation and adoption of the FY 2025-26 budget, the Town Council discussed Community Grants at Budget Study Session on April 22, 2025, and again during the budget discussions on May 20, 2025. While several ideas and recommendations were discussed, the final action of the Council on May 20, 2025, was simply to allocate $155,000 to the Community Grants line item, with distribution of that amount to be discussed in August.
Discussion highlights from the April 22nd and May 20th meetings included whether or not to continue a Competitive Grant program in the future, the possibility of outsourcing the work of
ITEM NO. 13.
PAGE 2 OF 4
SUBJECT: Provide Direction for the Allocation of $155,000 Included in the FY 2025-26 Budget for Community Grants
DATE: August 19, 2025
grant administration to a third-party foundation, and possible interest in adding Sustaining Grant funding to the St. Vincent de Paul laundry service program at $2,000.
For additional background reference to aid discussion, Attachment 1 provides tables showing the detailed breakout and accounting for all grants and giving to non-profit organizations for the past four years, including those provided through ARPA replacement funding.
DISCUSSION:
Sustaining Grants are non-competitive operational grants to select human services non-profits with long partnership histories with the Town and strong alignment to Town priorities, and are given with the purpose of sustaining the core service or operations of the non-profit recipient.
At the April 22nd and May 20th meetings, $126,800 was proposed to fund the following sustaining grants:
• $48,000 to Live Oak Nutrition for nutrition services, • $20,000 to West Valley Community Services for human services support, • $20,000 to West Valley Community Services for rental assistance, • $12,500 to Counseling and Support Services for Youth (CASSY) for mental health support,
• $12,500 to Next Door Solutions to Domestic Violence for domestic abuse victim services,
• $6,000 to St. Luke’s Episcopal for food pantry support, and • $7,800 to Los Gatos Methodist for shower program support.
While discussed at the May 20th meeting, this list does not include funding for the laundry program through St. Vincent de Paul as there was no official motion of the Council to add it at the time.
Staff requests that the Council give direction on the following:
1. Would Council like to move forward with the proposed Sustaining Grants or make any changes?
Competitive One-time Grants are open to all classes of non-profits to fund one-time projects.
No organization is guaranteed that its application will rank high enough to receive funding.
They do not impact the operating budget of any organization, as these funds were never intended or structured to serve that purpose.
Staff requests that the Council give direction on the following:
2. If there are remaining funds that are not allocated as Sustaining Grants, would Council like to make them available as Competitive One-time Grants?
Staff cost for administration was considered. Staff received quotes from third-party foundations to administer Competitive Grants; however, it was found that this was costPage 379 ITEM NO. 13.
PAGE 3 OF 4
SUBJECT: Provide Direction for the Allocation of $155,000 Included in the FY 2025-26 Budget for Community Grants
DATE: August 19, 2025
prohibitive. As such, the process will need to remain internal at a staff cost of 112 hours (estimated indirect cost of $20,600). It may be possible to reduce the workload by reducing the number of applications received and/or by reducing the number of grants to be administered.
Staff requests that the Council give direction on the following:
3. If Competitive One-time Grants continue, would Council consider any of the following modifications to the competitive program that may result in a staff workload reduction:
Only allow an organization to receive a competitive award every other year, rather than remaining eligible every year (i.e., if an organization has a successful application that is awarded in FY 2025-26, they would not be eligible to reapply again until FY 2027-28).
Organizations that are unsuccessful will still be able to apply again the following year.
This would potentially cut the number of applications for processing in half and may additionally provide opportunities for a wider range of recipients to be successful over a two-year period.
Lower the maximum grant award amount to $5,000 or less. We have seen very successful projects for under this dollar amount, so it is known that funding at this level can be useful, while at the same time, it may potentially reduce the number of applications if organizations decide the funding level is not worth the dollar amount limitations.
Reduce the number of awards given to reduce contracts and reporting by earmarking a smaller total competitive grant fund pool.
Stipulate that 100% of the service or event funded by the grant takes place within the municipal boundaries of incorporated Los Gatos. This will reduce/eliminate the number of applications that, while benefiting Los Gatos residents, operate with a more regional focus or whose proposed grant project extends into the areas that are the jurisdiction of Santa Clara County, unincorporated Los Gatos mountain communities, Saratoga, Monte Sereno, etc. This would not bar an organization headquartered outside of Los Gatos from applying, so long as the service or project seeking grant funding remains fully inside the municipal limits of Los Gatos.
Additional clarification on specific aspects of the Community Grant program would also be helpful for staff administration of the program going forward. Staff requests that the Council give direction on the following:
4. Is the Council’s intention for the composition of the grant reading/rating pool to include two members of the Arts and Culture Commission, two members of the Community Health and Senior Services Commission, and one member of the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Commission; OR would Council prefer a different composition of grant readers/raters.
5. Would the Council like to revisit Community Grants again during the Fiscal Year 2026-27 Budget Process; OR is Council comfortable committing to the direction given at tonight’s
ITEM NO. 13.
PAGE 4 OF 4
SUBJECT: Provide Direction for the Allocation of $155,000 Included in the FY 2025-26 Budget for Community Grants
DATE: August 19, 2025
structure to ensure accountability of how funding resources move forward the Town’s core goals and priorities”.
CONCLUSION:
Staff looks forward to Council’s discussion and the questions above are summarized here for ease of reference:
1. Would the Council like to move forward with the proposed Sustaining Grants or make any changes?
2. If there are remaining funds that are not allocated as Sustaining Grants, would the Council like to make them available as Competitive One-time Grants?
3. If Competitive One-time Grants continue, would the Council consider the following program modifications:
Only allow an organization to receive a Competitive One-time award every other year, rather than remaining eligible every year?
Lower the maximum grant award amount to $5,000 or less? Reduce the number of awards given?
Stipulate that 100% of the service or event applied for takes place within the municipal boundaries of incorporated Los Gatos?
4. Who would the Council prefer for the composition of the grant reader/rater pool?
5. Would the Council like to revisit Community Grants again during the Fiscal Year 2026-27 Budget Process; OR is the Council comfortable committing to the direction given at tonight’s meeting as a multi-year framework?
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
This is not a project defined under CEQA, and no further action is required.
ATTACHMENT:
1. Community Grant Recipient Details from FY2021-22 through FY2024-25
ITEM NO. 13.
ATTACHMENT 1
General Fund Grants from FY 2021-22 through FY 2024-25
The tables shown below give the detailed breakout and accounting of all General Fund grants and giving to non-profit organizations for the past four years, as well as General Fund monies made available because of the utilization of ARPA replacement funding for that purpose. The inclusion of the ARPA component is to provide clarity regarding grant funding sources at various points over the past four years.
Community Grants Program
Sustaining Grants are non-competitive operational grants to select human services non-profits with long partnership histories with the Town and strong alignment to Town priorities, and are given with the purpose of sustaining the core service or operations of the non-profit recipient.
Sustaining Recipient 2021-22
Awarded
2022-23
Awarded
2023-24
Awarded
2024-25
Awarded
Counseling and Support
Services for
Youth/CASSY
$ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 12,000 $ 13,000
Live Oak Senior
Nutrition* $ 22,000 $ 22,000 $ 22,000 $ 23,000
Next Door Solutions $ 5,000 $ 10,000 $ 12,000 $ 13,000
West Valley Community
Services $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 21,000
Total $ 57,000 $ 62,000 $ 66,000 $ 70,000
*Live Oak Senior Nutrition received an additional $25,000 in one-time funds earmarked by the Council for nutrition programs in FY2024-25 for a total of $48,000. To match accounting with the published budget, the additional $25,000 is noted below under Competitive Grants, despite the organization not needing to compete for that funding.
Competitive One-time Grants are open to all classes of non-profits to fund one-time projects.
No organization is guaranteed that its application will rank high enough to receive funding.
They do not impact the operating budget of any organization, as these funds were never intended or structured to serve that purpose. The list below shows only successful applications that were awarded funds in one of the past four years, and it is not representative of all applications received.
One-Time Recipient 2021-22
Awarded
2022-23
Awarded
2023-24
Awarded
2024-25
Awarded
Arts Docents of Los
Gatos $ 10,000 - $ 1,300 $ 4,500
AWO - $ 7,500 $ 5,998
Billy Jones Wildcat
Railroad - - - $ 10,000
Bay Area Housing Corp - $ 7,500 - -
Chabad of San Jose - - $ 12,000 -
Collaborating Agencies’
Disaster Relief
Effort/CADRE
- - - $ 10,000
ITEM NO. 13.
ATTACHMENT 1
Daves Avenue
Elementary School - - $ 10,500 -
Friends of the Library - $ 600 - -
Girls on the Run of
Silicon Valley - - $ 12,000 $ 10,000
History Club of Los
Gatos $ 10,000 - - -
Homementen Santa
Clara Ani Chapter - - $ 4,320 -
JCC Los Gatos - $ 7,500 $ 12,000 $ 10,000
Kyle J. Taylor
Foundation - - - $ 10,000
Live Oak Adult Day
Services $ 13,000 - $ 12,000 -
Live Oak Senior
Nutrition* - - -
$ 25,000
LGSRec - - $ 12,000 -
Los Gatos Anti-Racism
Coalition (rental
assistance)**
- - $ 12,000 $ 12,500
Los Gatos Chamber of
Commerce - - $ 12,000 -
Los Gatos Community
Concert Association - - $ 6,000 $ 7,500
Los Gatos Education
Foundation - - $ 12,000 $ 10,000
Los Gatos Foundation
for Older Adults to
Thrive
- - - $ 1,500
Los Gatos Methodist
Church $ 5,750 $ 6,000 - -
Los Gatos Music and
Arts - $ 7,000 $ 12,000 $ 10,000
Los Gatos Public
Media/KCAT - $ 7,500 - $ 10,000
Los Gatos Youth Park - - - $ 10,000
Louise Van Meter
Project Cornerstone - $ 7,500 $ 12,000 $ 10,000
Mariposa Montessori
School $ 9,263 - - -
NAMI Santa Clara
County - $ 7,500 - -
New Museum of Los
Gatos/NUMU $ 10,000 $ 7,500 $ 12,000 $ 10,000
Omniware Networks - - $ 2,500 -
Parent Helping Parents $ 10,000 - $ 12,000 $ 10,000
Plant Based Advocates - - $ 9,382 -
Rebuilding Together
Silicon Valley - - $ 7,500 $ 7,500
Silicon Valley Jewish
Film Festival - - $ 12,000 $ 10,000
ITEM NO. 13.
ATTACHMENT 1
Rotary Club of Los Gatos - - $ 7,500 -
St. Luke’s Episcopal
Church - - $ 6,000 -
St. Vincent de Paul
(rental assistance)** - - - $ 12,500
St. Vincent de Paul
Society - - - $ 4,000
Tianmu Educational
Foundation - - - $ 10,000
Veterans’ Memorial and
Support Foundation - $ 7,500 $ 12,000 $ 5,000
West Valley Community
Services $ 10,000 - - $ 10,000
Youth Theater Alliance - $ 7,500 - -
Total $ 78,013 $ 81,100 $ 229,000 $ 230,000
*See note under Sustaining Grant table
**Rental assistance programs. In addition, a $15,000 annual grant for rental assistance is given to West Valley Community Services listed under the table for grants from other budget lines.
Innovation Grants was a program to promote community-driven ideas initiated by students and community members. This program was discontinued at the end of FY2023-24.
Recipient 2021-22
Awarded
2022-23
Awarded
2023-24
Awarded
2024-25
Awarded
Arjun Seshadri $ 1,500 - - -
Bruce Preville $ 1,500 - - -
Cheryl Hansen $ 1,500 - - -
Heather Shaw - $ 1,500 - -
Tom Picraux - $ 1,500 - -
Lilli Valencia - $ 1,500 - -
Farah Tavana - $ 1,500 $ 1,500 -
Alyssa Ackalloor - - $ 1,500 -
Mikaela Swanson - - $ 1,500 -
Roya Tavana - - $ 1,500 -
Total $ 4,500 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ -
ITEM NO. 13.
ATTACHMENT 1
Other Grants
Grants from other budget line items are for projects or support of non-profit organizations outside of the Community Grant process. These include grants given directly by the Council at the request of a non-profit organization, or as line items captured in other departments. Note that the two items listed below from the Town Manager’s Office (TMO) Unhoused Initiatives were removed from that line item for FY2025-26 and suggested for inclusion in the Community Grant Program as Sustaining Grants for better consistency.
Other Grant Recipient 2021-22
Awarded
2022-23
Awarded
2023-24
Awarded
2024-25
Awarded
Los Gatos Methodist
Church (TMO line item
for Unhoused initiatives)
- - - $ 7,800
Los Gatos Public
Media/KCAT (Direct
request made to
Council)
- - $ 100,000 -
New Museum of Los
Gatos/NUMU (Direct
request made to
Council)
- - - $ 100,000
St. Luke’s Episcopal
Church (TMO line item
for Unhoused initiatives)
- - - $ 6,000
West Valley Community
Services (CDD line item
for rental assistance)
$ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000
Total $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 115,000 $ 128,800
ARPA Replacement Funds
ARPA Replacement Funds provided additional funding opportunities and enhanced what was normally available in the General Fund. These grants were considered by the Council on an individual basis at the direct request of non-profit organizations. The inclusion of these grants in this report is only intended to clarify any confusion that may have arisen regarding grant funding sources at various points over the last four years.
Recipient 2021-22
Awarded
2022-23
Awarded
2023-24
Awarded
2024-25
Awarded
Los Gatos Public
Media/KCAT $ 100,000 - - -
LGSRec 55+ $ 328,500 - $ 225,000 -
SASCC (Community
Assessment Survey) $ 21,500 - - -
SASCC (Health Fair) $ 15,000 - - -
SASCC (Outlook
Newspaper) $ 30,000 - - -
SASCC (Senior Drive
Through) $ 5,000 - - -
Total $ 500,000 $ - $ 225,000 $ -
ITEM NO. 13.
ATTACHMENT 1
Totals listed below are drawn from the sums of the tables listed above.
Fiscal
Year
General Fund ARPA
Replacement
Funded
Grants
One-time
competitive
Sustaining Innovation Other
budget line
items
GENERAL
FUND
TOTALS
ARPA
TOTALS
FY2021-
22 $ 78,013 $ 57,000 $ 4,500 $ 15,000 $ 154,513 $ 500,000 FY2022-
23 $ 81,100 $ 62,000 $ 6,000 $ 15,000 $ 164,100 $ -
FY2023-
24 $ 229,000 $ 66,000 $ 6,000 $ 115,000 $ 416,000 $ 225,000 FY2024-
25 $ 230,000 $ 70,000 $ - $ 128,800 $ 428,800 $ -
TOTALS $ 1,163,413 $ 725,000
ITEM NO. 13.