Los Gatos City Council
August 18, 2026

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
60 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
town cannot say we value all of our community members in one breath, and look past certain members’ inalienable
rights in the next.

I realize there are valid concerns here about
cars and noise, and to that I have to say while I do
believe the WVMA has a responsibility to address those
concerns as a good neighbor, I don’t see any material
justifications for indefinitely infringing upon mosque
attendee’s right to prayer at their place of worship due to the hour of the day.

The WVMA works with other businesses and
organizations in the area to deal with overflow parking.

They’ve offered to plant more trees and hedges to mitigate noise. They took down their security gate in consideration of their neighbors. It is clear the mosque is actively
trying to connect and work with the rest of the community.

They are only petitioning for expanded hours because it is in direct service to their faith, and it’s their right.

For those reasons, I respectfully ask that the
Commission approve the proposed modifications to the WVMA’s Conditional Use Permit. Thank you.

CHAIR BURCH: Thank you. Are there any questions
for the speaker? No. Thank you.

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
61 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
DIRECTOR PAULSON: The next speaker is Fatima.

Chair, they’re not unmuting.

CHAIR BURCH: Fatima, if you can hear, we need
you to unmute. Otherwise, we’ll need to move on to the next speaker.

FATIMA: Hello?
CHAIR BURCH: We can hear you.

FATIMA: Hi, sorry. I was just getting ready for
prayer, which is what we’re all fighting to do, and peace, and with all the rights that we all have. But since you guys called me, I will delay the prayer for a second. I just wanted to make two points.

One of them is the other confusion that I have in
people, the neighbors that we have to the WVMA, and how they are comparing our worship, our lengthy, long hours of worship during the month of Ramadan, to partying. Where that correlates, I’m lost.

Then, my other thing, one of the neighbors, I
believe, or a supporter of one of the neighbors, made a comment about the Prophet, our Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. She was trying to quote him, and reference what he teaches us Muslims, and it was around the lines of we don’t have to worship at a local masjid, that we can
worship from the comfort of our own homes. Yes, with

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
62 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
context. I think we need to remember that there is context within that, but I do want to just quickly say with outside of the context, are we suggesting that some of us buy homes and pray, and invite all these people that are going to the masjids to pray right next door in mass numbers, and you can’t tell me what I’m supposed to do in my own home in that regard?
I feel like it’s also, for me, confusing, the
timing of all of these accusations and complaints when the political atmosphere is in turmoil in the Middle East right now? And I just feel targeted. In this community, we talk about certain people of walks of faith, of different skin colors, and I literally feel nothing but targeted in these suggestions that you are trying to tell us that because we were here 26 years ago, and there was a church prior that we were okay with, because there was a lack of foot traffic at that church of the time, that this new population, this new demographic of Muslims, who are doing just the same thing but in mass numbers within the confines of the
maximum capacity…
We’re bending backwards to try to accommodate,
and the time that these complaints are coming are of
questioning circumstances for me, and I have to say I can’t feel but like we’re being targeted as a Muslim community,

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
63 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
not by everyone, and I really want to say thank you to
those who are supporting us and are really trying to work with us, but it’s crazy that us worshipping hours on end for the majority of the time, if not the entirety of our prayers, being very peaceful… This is peaceful gatherings.

Just to remind you. Peaceful gatherings of prayer and
worship, and you guys are comparing it to partying. I’m sorry, but I’m lost.

CHAIR BURCH: That was your three minutes. Thank
you. Are there any questions for the speaker? No. Thank you.

DIRECTOR PAULSON: There are no more hands raised
on Zoom.

CHAIR BURCH: All right. I actually wasn’t ready
to get that so quickly. Now that we’ve listened to all the public testimony, the Applicant can make a closing
statement. You will have three minutes to speak, and then there may be questions.

RAZI MOHIUDDIN: If you could put up the
presentation here. Good evening. Thank you, Planning
Commissioners, for giving us the opportunity to make a
closing statement. We deliberately requested other members to refrain from additional comments since we had made that on the 25th. I think one slipped through over here, so

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
64 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
apologize for that. If you could put up the presentation, please.

I want to start off by telling that we have
always extended our hand on a continuous basis to our
neighbors. Despite what you have heard over and over last Wednesday, that we had not reached out, that’s not the
case, I can assure you. Text messages again and again from different folks to different folks saying, “Please, what can we do? Can we get together?” and so on.

We reached out again on Thursday and held a
meeting on Sunday with some of the neighbors. We talked about what are some of their suggestions and others in
order to improve our operational items.

There are certainly certain things that we can
do, and certain things we cannot do. We cannot change our prayer timings, that is determined by sunrise and sunset.

We cannot change the fact that we have to have Ramadan
nightly prayers. What we can do is improve our operational methods in order to mitigate as many of the issues as
possible. As you can see, we have left no stone unturned in terms of reaching out to our neighbors and trying to
address them.

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
65 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
Many of the points raised already have been
covered here in the draft Conditions of Approval, but I just want to talk about a couple of things over here.

One, a lot of comments have been made as if they
are 16-hour days that we are having services. Keep in mind that sunrise and sunset times determine prayer timing.

Eleven months of the year, we are talking about essentially agreeing to having a few additional time, one-and-a-half hours before sunrise for the pre-sunrise prayer, and then an additional half an hour for the nightly prayers. That’s for eleven months of the year. The additional time, until about 11:30pm, is only for the one month of Ramadan, so that’s not for all other eleven months, as an example over here.

We have addressed a number of noise and Quiet
Hours. Many of them are handled by the existing conditions of the permit. Like the noise and Quiet Hours, Condition 13 already says we shall comply with the Town’s Noise
Ordinance, and we shall comply with all Quiet Hours. That’s what the Conditions of Approval say already, again.

In the case of traffic… Okay, I think that’s it
for the time being, but I’m happy to answer any questions.

CHAIR BURCH: Any questions? Vice Chair Barnett.

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
66 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Would you please provide
your best estimate of the number of additional vehicles that will enter the property during the extended hours.

RAZI MOHIUDDIN: Sure. In the case of the morning
pre-sunrise prayer, these days we are probably on the order of, on a weekday, usually on Monday through Friday, in nonRamadan period, they may be on the order of about 30 to 50 cars. On a Saturday and Sunday, that might increase to
maybe about 70 to 100 cars, depending on whether it is
holidays or other days.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I had one more.

CHAIR BURCH: Yes, go ahead.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: What would be your thoughts
about adding language to the proposed conditions that would require submission of your application for expansion of the parking lot, say, within six months, and completion of
construction of the approved plans within 12 months?
RAZI MOHIUDDIN: So, that would be essentially
for the parking study that we submitted previously to
increase it to 203? I think in general we would want to do that. We were just concerned about our expense as well as the approval before we would actually do that, but if that is something that we could do, I can check with our board,

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
67 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
but that may be a possibility for us to make that a
Condition of Approval.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you, sir.

CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner Stump.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: By the way, I have several
questions on use and occupancy, so you can cut me off
whenever you need to.

CHAIR BURCH: I will. Go ahead.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: I’ve heard different numbers
related to your occupancy. Could you please clarify for us what is your maximum occupancy for your mosque?
RAZI MOHIUDDIN: There is a fire and building
occupancy number, that is, I believe, 1,217 maximum. That is by fire code; we cannot exceed that. Because we do not have pews, as an example in a traditional thing, we pray standing up, but traditionally what we have seen is we
accommodate a slightly lesser number in each one of those three different auditoriums that we have, but we don’t have a specific number there, per se. Like I mentioned before, last time, the maximum that we have had over the last two years on three days in 2025 and two days in 2026 Ramadan, we’re about 850 people.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: So, if I’m to understand it,
because I believe the 1,217 is based on a standing room

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
68 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
only, which means standing, five square feet per
participant. Are your folks standing throughout the
service, or does it take some other form?
RAZI MOHIUDDIN: Great question, Commissioner
Stump. The fire code, I don't know how they calculate that number, so they probably calculate it based on certain
square footage per person here. Our congregation basically stands in rows and then we have to kind of prostrate
effectively, so we take up approximately about eight to ten square feet, and of course we have to clear the aisleways and things of that nature, as an example, so it is highly unlikely that we will reach the 1,217, because we obviously are not going to be at that range.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Thank you. Can I continue?
CHAIR BURCH: You can.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Your website shows a
schedule of five prayer times, or services, and feel free to straighten me out on that, daily between the hours
currently of between 5:00am and 10:00pm; it’s about a 17.5- hour operations timeframe. What is your average daily
attendance across those five prayer times outside of
Ramadan?

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
69 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
RAZI MOHIUDDIN: Sure. Outside of Ramadan, and it
depends again on, let’s say, weekdays and non-holidays and things of that nature, as an example.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: That’s why I say average.

Average is fine.

RAZI MOHIUDDIN: Typically, what happens is in
the weekdays on the pre-sunrise we might have 50 to 60
folks that would come in, as an example, for that prayer; and then on the weekends, about 70 to 100. They would come in and generally leave within 20 minutes to, at most, an hour, as an example.

So, then, after that there is almost no activity,
because people are going to work, and there is almost
nobody at the facility between after the prayer ends all the way to the afternoon prayer, which is, depending again on daylight savings or daylight standard, probably like 12:30pm or 1:30pm.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: So, then, are the other
three prayer times just set out for your congregants to recognize those prayer times at their office or some other location, or is prayer service going on at the facility during those other three times as well.

RAZI MOHIUDDIN: We try to have five daily
prayers in congregation, every day, seven days a week.

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
70 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 is a resident Imam that lives on the property that would probably come and offer that, but it always happens that whoever is in the neighborhood or the nearest mosque, they would come in. So, during the midday prayers, that number might be much smaller comparatively, maybe about 20 people that might be there in the afternoon. There may be other programs that may be going on for them, Mommy and Me and things of that nature.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: I’ve seen that on your site.

RAZI MOHIUDDIN: So, they would probably join in
the congregational prayers at that point in time.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: So, again, my question would
be on an average day, how many people are at your facility for these prayer times, and you can leave out the special activities, but how many people are on your…
RAZI MOHIUDDIN: Probably around the order of
about 100 people for every prayer or so.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: So, you would guess 500 per
day.

RAZI MOHIUDDIN: But they are coming and going
respectively.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Understand.

RAZI MOHIUDDIN: They may be the same person that
is there, yes.

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
71 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: So, then, would you say with
that number of people that you’re fully able to accommodate them in your parking lot?
RAZI MOHIUDDIN: Absolutely.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: During Ramadan, we know that
it’s higher. You’d mentioned at the last meeting that your peak for 2026 was 850.

RAZI MOHIUDDIN: On two nights.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: On two nights, okay. And you
estimated, because I realize you’re probably not out
counting cars, but you estimated 280 cars…
RAZI MOHIUDDIN: I did count that, by the way,
but yes.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: …which would mean 180 in
your lot, hopefully, if your lot is full, and I realize you’ve got some challenges there, and that would mean 100 people seeking parking either on the street or some other offsite location. And as I understand it, in fact, when I came out one evening, you did have somebody directing
people into the parking lot at Affordable Treasures. How many parking spaces have you been able to make arrangements for at Affordable Treasures?
RAZI MOHIUDDIN: I believe at Affordable
Treasures has about 40 parking spots there, and on that 280

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
72 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
max number that I gave you, we actually accommodated about 200 cars by actually squeezing in at the far part of the parking lot additional vehicles there, smaller vehicles, for example, we tried to kind of squeeze them in harder, and about 35 were parked on that particular day at
Affordable Treasures, so the remainder of the 280 minus 235 were somewhere on-street parking.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: It seems like you’re really
blessed that you’ve had your mosque grow significantly, and at some point you’re going to get close to your maximum occupancy where it may require you then to send people to overflow locations. Have you explored other offsite
locations in Los Gatos or other surrounding communities? RAZI MOHIUDDIN: We have a very small facility of
1,000 square feet in Saratoga, and what we actually do for Ramadan specifically is rent the Saratoga Prospect Center.

We have been doing that since 2009, and we actually have special permission from the City of Saratoga to use it till midnight for Ramadan prayers, and actually, the number of people that come to the Saratoga Prospect Center is more than that are coming to our Los Gatos facility. We actually have about 600 people on an average, and we use both the Grace Hall and the Friendship Hall, there are two halls

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
73 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
separately, and we run a sound system thing in order to actually accommodate that.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: If I may, I think I’ve got
maybe two more.

CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner Stump, I’m just going
to remind you, we have a break at 8:00 o'clock, so you
might have to do a question and then we’re going to take a break.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Perfect, we’ll be very
speedy here. A speaker earlier reported that another
mosque, I believe it was in Santa Clara, that just out of respect for their neighbors, that they’ve agreed to end their evening by 10:00pm. Now, that means that they are actually, or I think what was also mentioned, is they were holding Ramadan services for that entire 30 days at another site. Are you familiar with this particular mosque?
RAZI MOHIUDDIN: I am familiar with this mosque.

The last speaker who spoke was the chairman of the board of trustees of MCA. I used to be president of MCA from 2003 to 2007 about 21 years ago, so I’m very familiar with this mosque. It’s called Masjid Al-Noor on 1755 Catherine
Street, so I was involved at that point in time on that.

They have the same five daily prayers. They have
the same Ramadan nightly prayers. They do not end at

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
74 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
10:00pm in summer months. They would actually go on until about 11:00pm to 11:30pm as well, so it’s exactly the same set of services, and you can go look at the mcabayarea.org site to look it up.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: So, that speaker was wrong?
RAZI MOHIUDDIN: I don't know who the speaker
was.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: But you’re saying that was
not correct?
RAZI MOHIUDDIN: That was not correct. Now, these
days, when the sunset is before 7:30pm, of course our
nightly prayer happens much earlier than 10:00pm, but in summer months, the time does not even start until 10:10pm, so it’s not possible for us to offer the prayer before
10:00pm.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Okay, going to respect that
for 8:00 o'clock. I will stop at this point. Thank you.

RAZI MOHIUDDIN: Thank you.

CHAIR BURCH: It’s just a couple of minutes till
8:00, so we’re going to go ahead and take a break, and
we’ll be back at 8:15.
(INTERMISSION)
CHAIR BURCH: We will reopen the discussion. I
believe Commissioner Stump had a couple more questions.

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
75 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: Switching the category to
CEQA, we had one speaker this evening who has got
significant experience in the planning world and
environmental, and in her opinion—of course, just her
opinion—she believed this really required environmental review, because there are significant changes that are
taking place, and then of course the attorney representing one of the Farley Road residents basically said that this is not, in her opinion of course, not categorically exempt from CEQA, and she did not really feel that the Condition of Approval really goes far enough in mitigating any
potential issues. So, my question is what position do you take on CEQA?
RAZI MOHIUDDIN: I’m not an expert on CEQA. Can I
request my counsel to answer that question?
COMMISSIONER STUMP: Absolutely, thank you. Glad
he’s here.

MATTHEW VISICK: Good evening, Commissioners. My
name is Matthew Visick, I’m a partner at Reuben, Junius & Rose. I’m happy to answer the CEQA question. It actually gives me an opportunity to point out something that
underpins a lot of the disparity in the comments, I think.

I think we’re all talking about two different
projects. I think a lot of the opponents to this project

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
76 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
envision this as an expansion of use. That’s fundamentally incorrect. The same five prayers are happening in both
situations, before and after. The same people are coming, the same number of cars are coming and going, nothing is any different, except one thing: at the end of it you don’t have to scrunch the time and leave early. That’s the only difference. Everything else is already happening today, it’s already allowed under the existing use permit. You have to really grasp that; that’s an important distinction.

There is no expansion of use here. We’re not adding any prayers, we’re not adding any people.

CHAIR BURCH: I hate to interrupt; be we do need
you to answer the question.

MATTHEW VISICK: Absolutely. But making that
point clearly is really important for everything I’m about to say.

CEQA is about impact on the environment. What
might the impacts be? They might be car trips; they might be noise. I don't know, in another project they may be
impacts on endangered species or something like that. Here, it’s really noise and traffic.

The noise is going to occur during a period
that’s half an hour longer, or an hour longer, depending on

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
77 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
which 15-year period you’re in, but it’s not more noise, it’s just happening over…the cars are spread out.

And the number of trips doesn’t go up either.

It’s the same people coming and going, so you don’t have any more cars. If you approve this use permit amendment tonight, you aren’t going to have any more cars than you do already. That’s why there’s no environmental impact.

It is an existing facility. The standard that has
to be met here is negligible, or no expansion of use.

That’s the standard for a class one CEQA exemption. That’s the case here.

Ironically, the case that the attorney who called
in cited, Sunflower Lines, is a great case for proving
exactly that point. I could tell you about the case, if it’s of interest to you, but it actually makes our point for us much better than it makes theirs.

The other thing in CEQA, categorical exemptions…
The speaker who came up who once did environmental review for the City of San Jose was talking about categorical
exemptions and exceptions to the exemptions. It’s in CEQA Guidelines 15300.2, and the exceptions don’t apply to the class one exemption. It’s just a mistake, I think, but
they’re inapplicable.

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
78 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
I don’t want to make everybody’s eye glaze over,
CEQA kind of always does that, but if you want to ask me any specific questions, I’m happy to walk you through it.

The fundamental point is there is no expansion of
use.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Thank you.

CHAIR BURCH: Are there any questions for the
Applicant? Commissioner Sordi.

COMMISSIONER SORDI: I wanted to clarify the
operating hours in the morning. Obviously, we’ve got the expansion of hours into the evening. Is there a mutual
exclusivity at all between that and the hours happening in the morning, or are the establishment of the hours in the morning year-round, including Ramadan?
RAZI MOHIUDDIN: The establishment of the morning
hours are year-round, and the establishment until 10:30pm is year-round, because of the five daily prayers, to
accommodate that particular time.

COMMISSIONER SORDI: So, if you were to identify
maybe a worst-case scenario time of year, we might say
that’s the time of year where you might have started at something along the lines of maybe 4:15am or 4:30am and ending after midnight.

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
79 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
RAZI MOHIUDDIN: Let me clarify prayer timings
versus congregational prayer timings. Prayer timings for pre-sunrise prayer on—and let’s pick the longest day of the year—June 21st, which I believe is the longest day of the year. In the longest day of the year, the pre-sunrise
prayer time starts at 4:17am and ends at approximately—I don’t remember the exact number—but it’s probably about 6:05am or something to that effect.

The congregational prayer that we hold is not at
4:17am. The earliest congregational prayer that we hold throughout the year is 5:00am. So, if you go look, the word we use in Arabic is iqamah, so if you look at our timing on our website, it will show you a 5:00am congregational
prayer timing. So, people will arrive probably five or ten minutes prior to that thing, and then will stay for the next 20-30 minutes, and then depart after that. So, that 5:00am is the earliest you’re going to see based on June 21st. On December 21st, that same congregational prayer timing is 6:30am.

So, that time will continue to change based on
the sunrise. We don’t have the luxury of saying it has to be at 5:00am or 6:00am or 7:00am or 8:00am, we have to do it based on sunrise. The time for the pre-sunrise prayer ends at sunrise, so we cannot pray after sunrise. So, today

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
80 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 sunrise prayer, sunrise is like at 7:00am I think
approximately here, so our prayer has to end by that time.

COMMISSIONER SORDI: Okay, thank you. Just a
quick follow-up. I wanted to understand a little bit more about in the religion the need to pray in a group. Is it more relevant and more established during Ramadan? I mean, for all practical purposes, are the prayer times as they are established always in group format?
RAZI MOHIUDDIN: In our religion, you can pray
anywhere that you are, basically. So, if I am at work and the time for prayer comes, you can pray there, but there is an understanding and a saying of the Prophet that you will get 27 times more reward if you pray in congregation at a mosque, and that’s what leads people to come to the mosque in order to pray in congregation, and that’s what happened.

Now, obviously in Ramadan more people are more
engaged with the religion in the sense that they want to increase their practice because they want to get additional rewards. That’s our belief system, effectively, and hence, there is maybe an increase for people attending
congregational prayers in Ramadan over there, but in
general, prayers can be offered any place. Congregational prayers are considered much more advantageous because of

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
81 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, and I can have our Imam speak to that if you want; either way is fine.

COMMISSIONER SORDI: Thank you.

CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner Burnett.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Yes, thank you. We’ve been
talking a lot about the noise, and I think that was one that the other attorney brought up about in CEQA and noise.

But I wanted to refer to our Municipal Code, which is the Curfew Noise Disturbance Code, and that is between 10:00pm and 8:00am, within like 100’ of sleeping places or noises.

I mean, how does that impact with the early morning prayers (inaudible) the later night prayers, but the morning
prayers? I think that that is Municipal Code 16.20.010, which is the Curfew Noise Disturbance Code.

RAZI MOHIUDDIN: Can I have our counsel answer
that particular question? But I will also come back and answer part of that.

MATTHEW VISICK: I agree, that’s a confusing part
of your code. If you notice, the term that it uses, I
believe, is “noise disturbance.”
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: (Inaudible).

MATTHEW VISICK: But I think the defined term is
noise disturbance. If you then go up to the top of that section of the Municipal Code, it defines noise

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
82 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
disturbance, and it defines it in a sort of contextual
fashion, and then it says something along the lines of
compliance with the numerical noise standards of this code is considered to be resolution of a noise disturbance. If you meet the numeric standards below, you are not creating a noise disturbance.

RAZI MOHIUDDIN: If I could add something over
there. If you look at the draft Conditions of Approval over there, they basically say the following things: “All
activities shall comply with the Town’s Noise Ordinance residential standard in effect at the time of the activity measured at the property line during 10:00pm and 8:00am.” So, it’s already built into the condition that we have to comply with this noise ordinance.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: So, just a further
question on this. But you are out of compliance right now with the 2020 CUP?
RAZI MOHIUDDIN: No, we do not believe we are out
of compliance for that, because I think the noise study provided that we are in compliance with the noise standard, and the current CUP does not have a start time included in there. So, when a lot of neighbors talk about us violating that, we’re not violating because there is no condition,

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
83 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 is no start time listed in the current Conditional Use Permit.

In fact, three days ago, on Friday morning, the
Los Gatos Police Department was called, and they met a
whole bunch of our attendees, saying, “What is going on over here?” We said, “Well, we are offering a prayer
service,” and they looked around and said, “Hmm, okay,” and they left, as an example. And then we talked to the Police Department as well as to Planning as well, and said, “We are being essentially called out on something that is not a restriction for us today.”
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Okay, thank you.

CHAIR BURCH: Any other questions? Vice Chair
Barnett, and then Commissioner Stump.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Proposed Condition 20
imposes the requirements of sufficient shrubs to be planted and maintained to obscure vehicle headlights on certain streets, including Farley Road, and my question is would you consider additional fence height to additionally
provide mitigation against the light pollution?
RAZI MOHIUDDIN: Absolutely. Right now, the Los
Gatos code, and just like the Saratoga code, allows 6 feet of height and 2 feet of lattice. If the Town would want us to increase that to something different, happy to do that.

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
84 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 have actually also offered our front neighbors an
opportunity to plant some trees in their front lot that we would pay for in order to mitigate some of the light coming into their property as well, but we would absolutely be willing to raise the fences, if needed.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you so much.

CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner Stump.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: I’ve got a question on
hours, and then I do have a couple of questions on parking and traffic, if I may.

Related to hours, your current schedule under
your current CUP allows for Ramadan hours up through
11:00pm. At what time are your congregants expected to exit the facility and basically things to be shut down based on that 11:00 o'clock timeframe? What’s the expectation?
RAZI MOHIUDDIN: This is a great question, and I
think this is where our interpretation was different and we had the letter that was written to us in July 2024 by Town Attorney Whelan, was that you have to clear the facility completely at 11:00pm, which is where…huge challenges that exist today.

For example, you all received a letter actually
on Monday this week from our neighbor, Ms. Ratcliff, that talked about essentially a curfew violation at 11:00pm on

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
85 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 last day of Ramadan on March 15th, and I just want to elaborate on that one.

If you look at the video, and I encourage you to
look at the video over there, it is being filmed from the bushes, and you can see the bushes around that, which gives us a tremendous amount of pain, like we are being spied on, we are being looked upon in there at all times, which is kind of what is happening here.

And then, you will see in that video our
executive director, Lubna, frantically waving cars to go by in there, because we redirected the traffic to not exit from the exit driveway in order to not disturb Ms.

Ratcliff, and we wanted them to exit on that.

And on that day, it was the last day of Ramadan,
so our Imam had an additional supplication to pray for the peace of the world, and he took a little bit longer to do and that resulted in us just marginally going about one or two minutes over that.

What is happening over here, if I could explain
this, is that the amount of the peace and quiet that we feel in the prayer suddenly turns into this mad rush to get out, and part of the reason why we’re requesting a little bit of extra time is because we want to kind of leave
gradually and nicely so that we don’t create this mad rush

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
86 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 goes out, so it’s very important to us to make sure that we have an end time for the facility, and a clearing time that allows us to exit normally and in a safe manner, as an example.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Let me move on, then, to if
your general hours, meaning non-Ramadan, are extended to 10:30pm, and your seasonal late hours, as it’s being called in the CUP, extended to 11:30pm, or 12:00am, again, sunset dependent, understand that. By what times will your members have fully exited the facility property and neighborhood during those general hour services ending at 10:00pm and seasonal late hour services ending at 11:30pm and 12:00am? RAZI MOHIUDDIN: The current language in the
Conditional Use Permit allows us an additional 30 minutes to clear the parking lot.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: So, that means the 10:30pm
would be 11:00pm.

RAZI MOHIUDDIN: That’s right.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: 11:30pm would be midnight.

RAZI MOHIUDDIN: Yes.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: And 12:00am would not be
12:30am.

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
87 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
RAZI MOHIUDDIN: And again, I want to emphasize,
the reason for that is not the cause that mad rush,
basically.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: I understand. Let me move to
a follow-up on parking and traffic. Now, you may have
answered this question, so I apologize if it’s being asked again.

As you go to seasonal late hours for Ramadan, do
you expect these expanded hours to drive any additional attendance?
RAZI MOHIUDDIN: We don’t. We cannot guarantee
that, obviously, because part of the thing is that
basically part of the reason is that post-COVID, faith
communities all across the board saw an increase in people coming to their congregations, and it’s not just the Muslim community. I’ve talked to some of the other interfaith
leaders. They’ve all experienced that, because people are looking for meaning, effectively. So, that’s the reason why we saw an uptick in our attendance as a result of that. But what we’re seeing is, just an example, 2025, I mentioned three nights where we had a lot of people; and 2026 was too, so it’s not like we are increasing that, we are
maintaining that on an ongoing basis right now.

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
88 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: Chair, if I may, I’ve got
two additional questions.

CHAIR BURCH: Yes.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: It’s mentioned in one of
your documents, and again, I understand probably the
challenges of your parking lot with underused spaces. It’s not always full. The congregants choose to find alternative offsite parking for a variety of reasons. The current
capacity of your parking lot is 180 spaces, correct?
RAZI MOHIUDDIN: That is correct.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: And so, again, maybe you
could tell us why your congregants, especially if you are going to spend money to rework and restripe your parking lot, maybe a reversed the parking in the parking lot, or not fully filling that parking lot to capacity.

RAZI MOHIUDDIN: On a regular basis for the
general five daily prayers and so on, with the exception of Fridays and with the exception of Ramadan, we are telling all of our congregants to park within our parking lot and not use street parking whatsoever. And we continue to
remind folks; we continue to tell everybody. That’s part of our newsletter campaign that goes out on a regular basis, and for almost everything else, except for Friday and

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
89 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
except for Ramadan, we are able to accommodate all of the prayers to be within our facility.

There may be some events occasionally, and in
which case, part of the conditions of the use permit
basically say is that if we are going to fill up the
parking lot, we need to create a traffic management plan, which we have committed to doing as part of the Conditions of Approval.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: What sort of overflow do you
typically face on a Friday? It sounds like, again, more people attending those Friday services, the Friday prayer time.

RAZI MOHIUDDIN: Yes.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: How many cars would you
estimate have to seek other parking?
RAZI MOHIUDDIN: Probably on the order of about
30 or 40, or so. Our Saratoga facility has generally two to three staggered prayers at the Saratoga Prospect Center; again, that’s a rental facility over there. So, we have tried to move many of the congregants to actually pray in Saratoga. Part of the reason the Saratoga Prospect Center is also where there are a lot more businesses around there, so most people go over there. Los Gatos is even more
residential than Saratoga is in that sense, so we don’t

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
90 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
necessarily see a whole lot of folks coming over here, but certainly there is some amount of overflow.

Keep in mind that also those who are, for
example, working from home, and people have some families and kids, and so they carpool for those services.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Thank you. My final
question. The surrounding neighborhood that you’re in was developed back in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s predominantly, and development of residential properties back at that time did not require curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. Some of the neighborhood streets like Farley Road, they are not
particularly safe for pedestrians, day or night. Do you have public safety concerns related to pedestrian safety for your congregants as well as the neighbors?
RAZI MOHIUDDIN: Obviously, we are concerned that
there is no kind of accident or anything like that. Part of the thing that we have done in order to mitigate that as much as possible is to have those traffic guards. We have a number of traffic guards that are directing traffic. One of the things that we have done, for example, right now in Ramadan, when we are using both driveways we ask the
vehicles to turn left when they are exiting from the
entryway and turn right when they are exiting from the
exitway, and what we ask is our pedestrian traffic to

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
91 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
actually cross the road in the middle of the facility and go on the far side in order to avoid essentially conflict with the vehicles.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: I guess the reason I ask is
the evening I was out there, I didn’t want to become a
statistic for the neighborhood, but as I was driving toward Los Gatos Boulevard down Farley Road one of your
congregants, making sure to be on time, was hustling,
probably parked at Affordable Treasures, and was in dark clothing. I did not see him. Now, there was no close call, no brush, but I went oh, what wouldda, coulda, shoulda
happened here, because I did not see him, so personally I am very concerned about public safety in general in that neighborhood, whether it’s for your congregants or it’s for the neighbors themselves. Thank you very much for that
response.

RAZI MOHIUDDIN: Thank you.

CHAIR BURCH: Are there additional questions for
the Applicant? Commissioner Burnett.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Just a quick question. I
know Ramadan is a beautiful 30-day time every year for your congregation. What worries me a little bit is the
sustainability of the numbers. I know some congregations in other faiths actually do reservations where they make a

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
92 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
time that you know how many people are coming and there’s a limit, so there’s some way to control the amount of people attending your festivities. Has that ever been maybe an option to think about?
RAZI MOHIUDDIN: Typically, as a faith community,
if somebody wants to come to the mosque, as an example, I don't know how to say to them no. Now, a lot of people, for example, we have members in our community who actually do not want to come to our facility, because they don’t want to kind of deal with and inconvenience the neighbors and so on, so they go to other facilities or don’t come at all, as an example. But in general, we try to basically tell people that listen, what we try to promote is make sure that if you come, you follow all laws, drive slowly, make sure that if you’re walking, you’re walking on the far side of the street, and making sure that everything that you’re doing is in a safe manner, and that’s what we try to do.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Thank you for that. I was
just thinking it would be sort of a comfort for the
community to know that there would be a limit to the amount of attendants.

CHAIR BURCH: Are there further questions? I have
a couple.

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
93 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 know that you have had a lot of conversations
with the neighbors, and we heard a lot tonight, so I want to go through a few things that as we start deliberating and talking, we understand potential paths forward.

Obviously, your neighbors have talked about the
noise along, I think, it’s the exit there. There are
certain ways to mitigate noise that are better than just a fence, such as a masonry wall that could be taller and that absorbs a lot of car noise. Are there things such as that that you guys would be willing to do to help bring down the noise issue with your neighbor, but also allow you guys to continue operating in the way you wish?
RAZI MOHIUDDIN: We have talked about that in the
past here. In general, masonry walls are actually from what I understand, number one, extremely expensive, number two, they create kind of a fort-like structure effectively in that sense here, and they really also bounce off sound, especially on both sides, if you will, as well, but the sound actually still continues to travel above it. So, from everything that we have learned, masonry walls are not
going to actually incrementally diffuse the sound even more on that.

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
94 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
Having said that, we are willing to consider
other methods, for example, in order to block off; shrubs, plants, and things of that nature as an example on that.

CHAIR BURCH: Something else that I want to
double check with, too, is there were some photos about the lighting on your parking lot, and all parking lot lights should be shielded. I don't know how old your pole lights are. If we wanted to put into the Conditions of Approval that we ensure that those lights are shielded so the light is directed down instead of out, would that be something you guys would be willing to do?
RAZI MOHIUDDIN: Chair Burch, I believe that
already exists over here. If you look at 13-C, Lighting, “All site and parking lot lighting shall be full control cut-off, downward directed, and dimmed to security levels during Quiet Hours.” But if you think that there is
something else that we can do in order to make it even
better, happy to consider that. There was a time that we may have been at a different angle, which was obviously causing some sense of light pollution over there, but we have since adjusted that and we agree to the additional Conditions of Approval over here, which will be full cutoff, downward directed, especially during the Quiet Hours.

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
95 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 BURCH: Okay, thank you. Are there any
further questions for the Applicant? All right, thank you.

RAZI MOHIUDDIN: Thank you. Appreciate it.

CHAIR BURCH: All right, we will now close the
public portion of the public hearing, and before we begin any motions or discussions, Ms. Whelan, could you just do a reminder of us that obviously we’ll go through questions of Staff, but then as we move into discussion, how that is supposed to flow?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: Yes. The Town Council recently
adopted the Rosenberg’s Rules of Order, and that requires a motion and a second before there is discussion. That’s the main difference, the main change. If the Commission would find it helpful, I did make some notes during the various presentations if you would like Staff’s perspective on any of the issues that were raised.

CHAIR BURCH: Great. So, we’ll go through
questions of Staff, but before any discussion, there will need to be a motion. Commissioner Stump.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: My question is do we have
any time to discuss what a motion would look like before we just lay it down on the table?

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
96 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: Yes, when you’re formulating
the motion you could say, “I’m thinking about making the following motion. Would there be general support for that?” CHAIR BURCH: Any other questions of Staff?
Commissioner Stump.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Well, I guess that’s not a
question. I’m sorry. I did ask a question of Staff, but we now need to talk about a motion, correct?
CHAIR BURCH: No, we can ask questions of Staff.

So, we’ll do questions of Staff.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Got it.

CHAIR BURCH: But what I wanted to be clear about
was we do not move into discussion.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Understand. Thank you.

CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner Stump and then
Commissioner Sordi.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Back to CEQA. It’s been
raised a couple of times this evening by a speaker and by the attorney for the resident. A question was asked of the Applicant, and the Applicant’s attorney responded as well.

We have an opinion that environmental review should be
conducted and that we should get outside counsel review.

Have we done that at this point in time, and what is the opinion of Town Staff on CEQA?

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
97 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: Yes, we have been consulting
with outside counsel along the way, and I do have a brief PowerPoint on how the Staff reached its determination
regarding CEQA, so if the Director could pull that up I can walk the Commission through how we reached our conclusion.

I’ll do that first, and then I think I might also address questions that came up regarding the Town’s Noise
Ordinance.

The Town is relying on CEQA Guideline Section
15301, which is a categorical exemption from CEQA for
existing facilities, and it applies when the operation or minor alteration of an existing structure facility will involve negligible or no expansion of an existing or a
former use.

Staff took a look at the current hours of the
West Valley Muslim Association and compared it with the new hours of operation that are being requested, and it’s
important to note that the existing Conditional Use Permit does not contain any limitation on morning hours of
operation. The current CUP only limits evening hours of operations. So, we compared a 10:00 o'clock end time with the requested 11:00 o'clock end time, and then during
Ramadan the change from 11:00 o'clock to either 11:30 or midnight, depending on the time of sunset, and we

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
98 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
determined that those additional hours were a minor
alteration in the existing operation that involved a
negligible change in the existing use.

Then, the Town did receive a letter from the law
firm of Hoge Fenton asking what baseline the Town was
using, and the Town is relying on a case called Bloom vs.

McGurk, and that requires that the Town make its CEQA
determination based on the existing use that’s in existence at the time that the determination is being made, and so Staff is recommending that the CEQA determination be made in conjunction with what the existing use is on the
property currently in connection with the 2020 Conditional Use Permit.

When a court reviews the use of a categorical
exemption, the court will ask whether the decision was
supported by substantial evidence in the record that the project involved negligible or no expansion of use, and as I mentioned, Staff felt that the increase in hours was a negligible expansion of use.

Now, there is a provision in CEQA that’s been
discussed a bit tonight, and that contains two possible exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption.

The first is when there are unusual circumstances
present, or cumulative impacts of a number of projects over

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
99 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
time result in a significant environmental impact. In order to use the unusual circumstance exception, there should be a reasonable possibility of a significant effect on the environment due to those unusual circumstances.

And cumulative impacts mean that the impact is
significant when it is considered together with other
related past, present, or future projects.

Staff didn’t feel that either of those exceptions
precluded the use of the categorical exemption. And in
order to make an argument that one of those exceptions
applies, a person must produce substantial evidence that supports a fair argument that the exception to that
exemption applies.

In summary, Staff looked at the facts of the
existing Conditional Use Permit and determined that based on the negligible expansion of use, the Categorical
Exemption 15301 applied in this instance.

I can answer other CEQA questions, or I can go
into the Noise Ordinance.

CHAIR BURCH: Are there further CEQA questions?
Commissioner Sordi and then Commissioner Stump.

COMMISSIONER SORDI: I think it was the speaker
from Hoge Fenton that suggested that because of the fact that there were standard environmental conditions included

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
100
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 the Conditions of Approval, that that implied that some sort of environmental review beyond just a categorical
exemption would be necessary.

ATTORNEY WHELAN: Are you referring to the
portion of the talk where they were saying that you can’t mitigate an impact out of existence?
COMMISSIONER SORDI: Right, right.

ATTORNEY WHELAN: Yes.

COMMISSIONER SORDI: I’m thinking about some of
the operational traffic Conditions of Approval.

ATTORNEY WHELAN: Yes. My take on that was there
is a portion of the Staff Report that talks about the
findings that the Commission needs to make in order to
approve a Conditional Use Permit. There are several
findings. One is would it negatively impact public health, safety, and welfare? Does it conform with the General Plan? Is it in the interest of the community, etc.

There is a discussion in the Staff Report about
those four findings, and the conclusion was that with the proposed conditions the project would be consistent with the goals of the General Plan, and so it was apples to
oranges. We were talking about whether or not the project would conform with the Town’s General Plan, which is a

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
101
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 separate consideration of whether or not the CEQA exemption applies.

CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner Stump.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: I’m going to make an
assumption that when the Planning Commission considered the CUP back in 2020 that this was our first mosque, and that we really did not have a clear understanding of how they operate, and obviously in the COVID years, they started up in the COVID years, and so their use was very limited, like most religious institutions.

As I’ve been doing some calculations, why does
the neighborhood see this as being truly impactful? Well, just based on numbers that I was provided tonight, their average attendance per week is 3,500 people. That would be just dividing it by four using the number would be 875 cars going to the mosque.

If you look back at the prior religious
institutions, average attendance at Jehovah’s Witness—I’ve had to go to Internet research, so is it totally accurate? As accurate as it can be, I would suppose—average weekly attendance was 350. Estimated cars for that would be 88 cars.

And go back to First Baptist Church. Let’s give
them credit and say they had average attendance of 600

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
102
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 people across three services. Their estimated cars, 150 over three different services.

So, when you look at that increase of vehicle
traffic, it’s no wonder that the folks on Farley Road in that neighborhood feel a significant impact, and combine that with the expanse of the hours that are offered, and understandably, to allow them to achieve their religious requirements, it’s a huge impact, and so looking at that impact back at that time, I just think it was probably
missed, that we’d say well, what is that use going to be and what is that use going to look like, and can this
neighborhood handle 3,500 cars a week, or 4,000?
The good news and bad news from the mosque, they
appear to be growing. Awesome, but that growth is just
going to continue to bring more congestion, more cars, more potential for public safety issues, and so I guess my long question would be does this speak at all to anything
related to CEQA as an exception, as something we say gee, that should be looked at, that’s significant?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: The case law supports looking
at the difference between the use as it exists on the day that the decision is being made against any change in the use that will come about as a result of the new land use

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
103
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 approval, and so based on that, Staff felt that the
increase in hours resulted in a negligible increase in use.

Reasonable minds can differ, and the
Commissioners could take a different tack. If the
Commission feels that the categorical exemption is
inapplicable, the next step would be for the Applicant to prepare an Initial Study, and the Initial Study would look at any impacts to the environment posed by the new hours of operation, the change in the hours, because the existing use already exists.

And then, based on that Initial Study, either a
Negative Declaration would be prepared, or a Mitigated
Negative Declaration that had mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate any significant environmental impacts, or an Environmental Impact Report.

DIRECTOR PAULSON: Through the Chair, just to
clarify, the CEQA, as you all know, no longer looks at
Level of Service, it’s Vehicle Miles Traveled, so it’s a different threshold than has been used in years past, so that would not even be a CEQA impact in and of itself.

CHAIR BURCH: Thank you for the clarification. I
have quick question just based on what you said, so I
understand. You said it would be measured based on the day the declaration was made, and I assume you mean today.

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
104
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: Based on the existing use as of
now.

CHAIR BURCH: Right now.

ATTORNEY WHELAN: Yes.

CHAIR BURCH: Thank you. Were there additional
questions of Staff? Vice Chair Barnett.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I have a good number of
them, so please bear with me.

CHAIR BURCH: I’ll cut you off if I have to. No
problem.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: What is Staff’s position
regarding the legal opinion of Mr. Spondorio (phonetic) in his letter of November 4th of last year that RLUIPA does not apply to this application?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: My understanding of the letter
is that that firm is of the opinion that RLUIPA is not
implicated because a denial of this proposed modification would not substantially burden the Applicant, and
specifically, the Applicant’s religious exercise. So, that is the threshold question: Would restricting expanded hours substantially burden this form of worship? That firm has concluded that it would not.

Staff’s view is that it would, but there are two
other elements of that analysis.

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
105
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 next question is, is there a compelling
government interest at stake that needs to be protected? And neighborhood compatibility has been held to be a
compelling government interest.

The third and final question is, is the public
entity imposing the least restrictive means to address that compelling government interest?
And, so, I think the attorney who spoke would end
the question at the substantial burden question, and Town Staff would end the question at are we imposing the least restrictive means to address a compelling government
interest?
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Okay, thank you. Further
question is to the knowledge of Staff, have any other
religious institutions in Los Gatos been required to
conduct a CEQA analysis at any level as part of their CUP application?
JOCELYN SHOOPMAN: Thank you for the question. At
this time, I’m not aware of any other religious institution that has been required to do an Initial Study with the
caveat that they weren’t requesting an expansion of their existing building.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you. If I may
continue? Okay, thank you.

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
106
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 Explain why the standard parking space-to-floor
ratio is not proposed as a condition?
JOCELYN SHOOPMAN: Thank you for that question.

That condition was not included in the previous Condition of Approval and other Conditions of Approval. It is
included so the Commission could have a discussion this evening about including that as a Condition of Approval.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you. We visited this a
little bit, but remind me what the occupancy rating for the premises is, and whether the current usage complies with that.

JOCELYN SHOOPMAN: Thank you for question. Are
you referring to what the fire occupancy amount is?
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Yes.

JOCELYN SHOOPMAN: The Fire Department determined
that the occupancy amount for a combined total of the three auditoriums is 869 people with chairs, or 1,217 people with no furniture.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Okay, thank you for that.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: What is the process of going
back to the Fire Department and reevaluating that? Why do I say that? Because that, as I understand it, is standing room only; it’s a standing room only calculation, and we heard tonight that they are not standing room only, and in

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
107
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 some cases it would be up to eight square feet, which would get us back toward that 869, so I’m just wondering, what is the process to have that reevaluated? That’s all I’m
asking. I’m not trying to make a statement here tonight, but I just think from a public safety standpoint, this
space needs to be evaluated appropriately, and I don’t
believe the Fire Department did.

DIRECTOR PAULSON: Through the Chair, if the
Commission is interested, we can always go back and get additional information from the Fire Department. They do this for a living, and so we generally rely on their
expertise, but if there is a need for additional
information, we definitely can look at that and see if
there are some other provisions.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Yes, I would appreciate
that. Thank you.

CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner Barnett, then let’s
let Commissioner Sordi.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: What is Staff’s thinking
about adding language to the Conditions of Approval that would require the Applicant to submit its request for the parking lot expansion within, say, six months, and
completed within, say, 12 months?

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
108
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: I don’t see any legal issues
with adding that condition.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you.

CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner Sordi.

COMMISSIONER SORDI: I just wanted to ask a
clarifying question, because we’ve had a lot of public
testimony and we heard a lot of people talk about code
violations, repeatedly saying that this user is out of
compliance, and they also made reference to something
called curfew on several occasions, and I would just want to get Staff’s response to that. Are there any operating hours that apply specifically in the morning where we’ve had people repeatedly saying that they’re operating outside of operating hours, and is there a curfew of any type?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: I can address that. In the
existing Conditional Use Permit, there is an evening end time, and during Ramadan that is 11:00pm, and we did have discussion with the Applicant on whether the operating
hours until 11:00pm included exit of vehicles, and so the existing Conditional Use Permit says that operations will end by 11:00pm.

The dictionary defines operations as the fact or
condition of functioning or being active, and so taking that in conjunction with the original reason for the

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
109
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 request, it’s Staff’s position that the cars need to exit by 11:00pm, and the reason for that is in 2020 when the hours were extended, the Applicant stated that the
additional time until 11:00pm was needed to allow vehicles time to exit, and so that was part of the reason for
granting that extension of time.

In the existing Conditional Use Permit there is
no limitation addressing morning hours, and so there are no limitations on ingress and egress.

There was an instance in 2024 where the Town
received a complaint regarding noise from the grate that was associated with the gate to the property, and in
Staff’s estimation that did constitute a noise disturbance as defined by our Town Code, because it was a repetitive banging sound. So, we did contact the mosque and the mosque removed that piece of equipment in order to eliminate that noise, so they addressed that problem.

Over this past Ramadan the Town’s Code Compliance
Officer did receive a complaint about cars exiting after 11:00pm, and he had issued a warning to the mosque, and he’s preparing a citation for the mosque.

Would it be helpful to have a definition of noise
disturbance, or do you feel like you have enough
information?

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
110
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 SORDI: Just a clarifying question,
because the term curfew has been used, and I don’t know whether that relates to the operational hours. We had
people speak to, I think, the 8:00am to 10:00pm… Sorry, I think it’s 10:00pm to 8:00am daily.

ATTORNEY WHELAN: Yes.

COMMISSIONER SORDI: I guess that relates to the
Noise Ordinance.

ATTORNEY WHELAN: It does. In the Town Code there
is a requirement that there be no noise disturbance between the hours of 10:00pm and 8:00am, and then the Town Code defines the term noise disturbance as, “Any sound judged by a reasonable, sane, and competent person which occurs with such intensity, frequency, or in such a manner as to
disturb the peace and quiet, endanger or injure personal or real property, or violates the factors set forth in this ordinance. It shall include, but not be limited to, noise from the following sounds, (this enumeration not being
exclusive, but only illustrative): the use, operation,
playing of any radio, television, musical instrument or instruments, etc., or any other devices for the production or reproduction of sound with louder volume than is
necessary; the sounding of a horn; the operation of any machinery or tool; the continuous or recurrent acceleration

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
111
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 of a motor vehicle or other engine while stationary; and yelling, shouting, hooting, whistling, or singing on a
public street.”
And then that section ends by saying, “Compliance
with the quantitative standards as listed herein shall
constitute elimination of a noise disturbance.” And so that is cross-referencing the Town’s decibel limits.

COMMISSIONER SORDI: So, just to clarify, it
might seem a little obvious at this point, but video
evidence of cars coming and going, say, between the hours of 5:00am and 8:00am on a daily basis, unless they violate a noise standard, I presume does not provide evidence of non-compliance?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: That’s correct, because under
the existing Conditional Use Permit there are no
limitations on morning use of the property, and so that would include ingress and egress to the property.

COMMISSIONER SORDI: Thank you.

CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner Mayer.

COMMISSIONER MAYER: I have a question for Staff.

One concern that was brought up both by the neighbors and by the WVMA is pedestrian safety on Farley Road itself, especially when there is traffic congestion, and just
having visited the street multiple times while researching

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
112
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 this CUP application, I did notice that the road itself, everyone here has inherited the design from when this was originally planned, and it seems that with the concerns raised there are areas that the Town could potentially
improve pedestrian safety on Farley Road, including
speedhumps, better lighting, regulation of parallel
parking, whether that’s permits or marked spaces or
something else.

My question for Staff is how do we discuss this
in relation to this CUP application? Obviously, we’re
talking about the public right-of-way here, and not the WVMA private property. I just want to make sure that the Commission is able to address these concerns that we’ve heard.

ATTORNEY WHELAN: The Town does have the ability
to impose conditions on a Conditional Use Permit that are intended to address the impacts of that use. Sometimes
jurisdictions will impose a requirement that an Applicant install a sidewalk along their frontage, or install a
streetlight or a traffic light, and so the general rule of thumb is that whatever condition is imposed has to be
reasonably related to the impacts of that use, and then in addition, the expense of it has to be roughly proportional to the impacts that that particular use is creating.

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
113
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 instance, if the Town were to impose a
requirement that this Applicant construct a sidewalk, this Applicant could only be required to pay for the portion of the sidewalk that would be used in proportion to the
congregation members who would be using that sidewalk as opposed to the residents.

COMMISSIONER MAYER: A follow-up question to
that. I’m not a traffic engineer or a civil engineer. How would that work if we wanted to have those discussions, but needed the input of, say, the Public Works Department?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: We have two representatives of
the Public Works Department here this evening, and so
usually a condition of that nature would be developed by Staff and then presented to the Commission.

CHAIR BURCH: Could we ask Public Works to expand
on that a little bit? Like, how do you make those
determinations?
GARY HEAP: Thanks for the question. Gary Heap,
Town Engineer. There are a number of items, I think, that got discussed there from sidewalks to street lighting to traffic calming, and a lot of issues that got brought up by the neighborhood as well. I could go ahead and address
those one at a time, if you’d like.

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
114
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 can start with streetlights. The neighborhood
itself, as I think we had indicated, was built back in the 1960s more than likely, with lighting that was probably sufficient at the time; it’s probably not now. But we have several other neighborhoods throughout our community that are not well lit according to the folks that like to see a lot of lighting. Lighting is a very intrusive type of
thing. Some people want lighting, because of safety issues.

Others don’t want lighting, because they like the nature of their neighborhood that is relatively dark in the evenings and they don’t want light obstructing their windows or
their houses, or their street, even.

So, it’s very difficult for us to, if you’re
talking about safety, determine if it’s a safety thing or not. Safety is a subjective thing as well. Are there
indications from our Police Department that there have been break-ins? Is it a safety thing there? Is it a pedestrian safety issue, because folks are walking on the shoulders during certain times of the evening? I don’t think we’ve had any accidents that have been reported that are
pedestrian related along there, so from that aspect, I
would say there is not a safety concern, wouldn’t warrant the lighting. Then again, we have several other areas in Town that are lit very similarly.

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
115
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 Sidewalks, the same type of thing. There are
plenty of neighborhoods throughout town that don’t have sidewalks where people walk in the street, and do so safely when there are cars parked there, and sometimes when
they’re not. I think you could make the argument that when cars are parked there it’s somewhat less safe than when there aren’t cars parked there and people can walk on the shoulder.

I think we’ve heard from the testimony that we’re
talking about a very limited time when these things occur.

Again, we haven’t had any accidents or situations. I don't know if that necessarily warrants the construction of a sidewalk along Farley Road to address those types of
things.

The traffic calming. There have been traffic
calming studies in the area. Mike Vroman, my senior traffic engineer, can answer some of those questions specifically, but know that the criteria for putting in speedhumps in a neighborhood would be 1,500 vehicles per day. We’ve done counts out there on I believe it was Flintridge—there was a request a number of years ago—and we did not hit that
threshold for volume.

There is also a speeding criterion. Five miles
over the posted speed limit, which is actually low for a

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
116
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 communities, and again, that would have us be looking at speeds in excess of 30 miles an hour, and what we’ve seen out there through some of the studies that we’ve done on speeds are relatively low, in the 26-27 mile an hour range, so would not qualify for speedhumps either.

So, we’ve looked and evaluated based on what
we’re seeing out there, and we just don’t see a need for any improvement based on an Engineering and a Public Works perspective. I hope that answers your question. It was
really longwinded; I apologize for that.

CHAIR BURCH: No, that does help. Go ahead, Vice
Chair Barnett.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Could you address the
suggestion of striping the street so that the two-way
traffic is a little safer?
GARY HEAP: Sure. I think there was a couple of
striping things that we had talked about and heard about.

Center line striping, I think, was one, and the other one is parking tees.

Any kind of striping we put down is not anything
that lasts forever. It’s something that has to be
maintained and costs the Town money to not only install it, but to reapply on a regular basis.

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
117
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 the perspective of parking tees, we
typically don’t put them down, because again, it’s an extra added expense. When I’ve seen it done in other communities, we tend to see that as more of a commercial application, and when you look at the amount of cars that can park on a street with and without parking tees, you can actually fit in more cars without parking tees, because a lot of cars don’t need that full 18’-22’ length that a parking tee
would provide, and so you can get more cars parked on a street frontage without parking tees.

Center line striping is something we could
certainly look at, but again, that’s typically managed or installed for high-volume locations where there are higher speeds.

DIRECTOR PAULSON: Through the Chair, just one
more added complication with any public improvement.

Looking at the map, there are a number of properties in that section of Farley Road that haven’t done the complete dedication, so as projects come through, it appears to be an additional 10’ on both sides that is the ultimate rightof-way width, and I want to say I recall it being a total of 60’, so that’s another complication with looking at
acquiring property potentially for added improvements.

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
118
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 BURCH: Okay, thank you. Do you have a
follow-up? Go ahead, Commissioner Mayer.

COMMISSIONER MAYER: Thank you for the
explanation of the objective criteria used to evaluate
these various street improvements, but I think the issue raised by, especially the neighbors, was the situation when there are parallel parked cars up and down the street on both sides, plus two-way traffic, and that creating a
hazard for pedestrians. I’d like to know more about what the engineering approach to a problem like that would be, if there is any.

GARY HEAP: Gary Heap, Public Works. We always
want to look at what the ultimate width of the roadway is.

We went out and did some measurements. You’ve got soft
shoulders on both sides of the majority of Farley Road, but in looking at a couple of different cross-sections, we had roughly 40’-plus of width out there, usable space. So, if you’re looking at 7’, maybe 8’, for the width of a parked car—I’m getting to your question. Sorry, I have to explain the numbers first—and you’re looking at roughly a 10’
travel lane for residential areas, you’re looking at, what is it, there is roughly 36’, thank you, Mike. Mike’s
helping me calculate things over there. So roughly 36’, so you’ve got an additional 4’.

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
119
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 Now, does that provide additional width for safe
passage of pedestrians? Again, safe passage of pedestrians is kind of a subjective thing. We’d have to look back at have there been any accidents? Have there been any reported close calls? With the way that the vehicular traffic works out there during the entrance and the exit, if you’ve got a lot of cars coming in on the entrance, they’re on one side of the street, they would be on the north side of Farley, so pedestrians could probably walk pretty safely on the south side.

Similarly, as cars are exiting from I guess it
would be the western driveway, they’re traveling on the right side, they’re already getting the north side, so if what I heard from the congregation is that folks are
crossing to then the south side and walking along the
street, yes, there are parked cars there, but there
typically wouldn’t be vehicular traffic on both sides of the street, since (inaudible) provide additional width for some safe passage through there.

So, again, my opinion is that I don’t think there
is an unsafe situation out there, and that, again, we
haven’t had any records or any notice that we’ve had any unsafe issues occurring.

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
120
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 BURCH: Other questions of Staff?
Commissioner Stump, then Vice Chair Barnett.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Might as well continue with
Public Works. Obviously, we’ve heard concerns by the
residents about parking, and certainly the congregants have tried to do their best not to park in driveways; it’s very dark, so they have a tendency to do that from time to time.

There is the concern about the massing of off-street
parking. My question is, from a resident perspective, what options do they have through the Town of Los Gatos to
address parking in their neighborhood?
GARY HEAP: Well, we have a residential parking
permit program. It’s being revamped right now. We hope to have it rolled out and approved in the next several months, but that residential permit parking is typically around high-impact areas that occur during the day: schools,
commercial areas, and the like, but then are supported by our Police Department in terms of that enforcement.

Right now, our enforcement for parking is only
until 6:00pm, and so if there is an issue with night
parking, it really wouldn’t be able to be served by our residential parking permit program unless we could have enforcement by our Police Department past those normal
hours, and so we would have to really talk to our Police

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
121
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 Department and see about expanding the hours. That’s something we can talk about in our residential parking
permit program as we’re developing that and, again,
bringing that forward for approval, but I will tell you right now that 6:00pm is what is the stated time for ending parking enforcement.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: It’s a good detail, but does
it say that on the sign, up until 6:00pm, because the
police will not cite you, or does it just still say Permit Parking? I don’t see anything on a sign that says…
GARY HEAP: Yes, as Mike indicated, it’s
inconsistent. Some of the signs have hours, some of the signs don’t. Part of the reason we’re revamping the program is for consistency and making sure we have consistency, and making sure we have consistent messaging throughout the community.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Thanks.

CHAIR BURCH: Further questions of Staff? I have
a couple.

There were a couple of comments about the
approval of an application like this setting precedence for the Town, and I would like Staff or Ms. Whelan to address how future applications would be looked at in relation to this.

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
122
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: What comes to mind is RLUIPA
has the provision that local jurisdictions have to treat religious uses on equal terms with non-religious uses and can’t discriminate amongst various denominations. I think it would be precedential to the extent that another
religious facility had similar hours of worship. I don’t think it would be precedential if another religious use did not have a similar need for prayers at those same hours.

CHAIR BURCH: My other question is for Public
Works. There was a comment about having a fire marshal
review the site or the street. Did we have Police or Fire maybe look at the street and express their opinion of any risk of maybe emergency evacuation, or emergency vehicles having access?
GARY HEAP: Thank you for the question. Gary
Heap, Public Works, again. I’m going to quote from an email that we received as Staff on March 25th from Kenny Ip, who is one of our fire marshals, basically saying, “When
parking is permitted on-street, both residential and
commercial applications shall conform to the following:
parking is permitted on both sides of the street if a
street width is 36’ or more,” and then it goes on to talk about if it’s less than that, then parking is allowed on one side, if it’s less than that, then no parking.

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
123
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, 36’ is the criteria that the Fire Department
looks at for parking on both sides of the street to be
permitted, and also then provide access along those
streets, and as we’ve indicated, our measurements are that we have 40’ of clear width along Farley Road there, I would indicate that based on what I’m seeing from the Fire
Department, they don’t have any issue with circulation.

Now, in terms of evacuation, in terms of some of
those other things, access to and the like, I really can’t address that; those comments would have to come from our Fire Department.

CHAIR BURCH: Thank you.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: As a follow-up to that, do
we have any street width issues in that neighborhood,
whether it might be Frank, Flintridge, and Izorah? I know you said you took some measurements out there. I couldn’t quite tell by eyeballing it when I was out there if we did have 36’, which is absolutely right. You could have 36’, according to California Vehicle Code and California Fire Code, for parking on both sides of the street. So, do we have any width issues out there?
GARY HEAP: We did measurements along Farley in a
couple different sections. I do not believe we did any
measurements along Izorah or along Frank.

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
124
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: Okay, thank you.

CHAIR BURCH: Any further questions of Staff?
Commissioner Burnett.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Yes, thank you. Two
questions. Has there been any cost to the Town for
regulating the traffic during high-traffic times, peak
hours around the Ramadan period, or have we had to put more police out there at a cost to the Town?
JOCELYN SHOOPMAN: Thank you for the question.

I’ll start. I’m not aware of the Staff adding additional police, but we also don’t have police presence here this evening to clarify that. In terms of Ramadan, the
Applicant, at their own expense, has hired traffic guards to assist with that.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Thank you for that, and I
have one follow-up question. In my readings, it was brought up that some of the attendants that are controlling the traffic going into the parking lot, that they actually need to be certified, you can’t just have someone be an
attendant that has no experience in that background. It was brought up in some of the reports that they actually should be certified or have some training in directing traffic.

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
125
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: I’m not familiar with any laws
on that point, but that’s definitely a Condition of
Approval that could be added.

CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner Stump.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: This is my opinion, but my
opinion is Farley Road is a disaster waiting to happen from a public safety standpoint, and I realize when something does happen, we go woulda, coulda, shoulda.

We did significant work over on Shannon Road
called the Shannon Road Improvement Project, major artery to Fisher and other schools, kids walking, very similar rural kind of road; no gutters, no sidewalks. In fact,
awesome job; I run on that quite often. I look at the
mosque, and I believe this is going to continue to grow.

CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner Stump, do you have a
question in this?
COMMISSIONER STUMP: Yes. My question is could
you explain how a street improvement project for Farley Road, what it would take to progress a project, or at least get a project on the board? I realize it’s long-term, takes years, probably get a grant, etc., but what’s the process? GARY HEAP: Thank you for that question. Gary
Heap, again, Parks and Public Works. To put a CIP project together, which is what we’re talking about, a capital

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
126
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 improvement project, we would look at basically there would be a cost issue. Ee would have to look at the design,
because we’d also, I think, really start by looking at how that prioritizes with other areas in Town.

The Shannon Road project that you referred to,
and thank you for the nice words about that project, we’re pretty happy with it and proud of it as well, that really was identified in our Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan. It’s something that’s heavily utilized by several schools in the area, and there were issues with kids walking and riding in the streets with a lot of traffic on a roadway that is a significant collector, that has higher speeds, and that has higher volumes as well, and so for a number of reasons that project took precedence and was a high priority for the Town.

We would have to look at how Farley Road and how
the improvements that might be recommended on Farley would compare with other improvements that we would have in town, what funding was available for those, and then we’d have to schedule a capital improvement project basically at the discretion of the Council.

CHAIR BURCH: I have a related question, just for
our knowledge. Once something is put as like a
recommendation for a capital improvement project, what is

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
127
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 typical duration, if it’s approved, to see it actually completed?
GARY HEAP: Right now, we have a five-year CIP,
so we plan out for five years. We ask for funding for that first year of the program, or the plan, we deliver those projects, and then as we’re going into that next fiscal year we make sure we can address those projects that are being put forward for funding—funding is pretty important here for the Town—and then look again at the next four or five years, and see where we’re at.

There are a number of projects that are already
programmed out, projects that are a higher priority,
projects that are coming out of our Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan and being generated through other means, and the Master Plan documents.

If you’re asking about Farley Road specifically,
we’d have to look at that and see where that falls in that priority. I’m not sure how it would be prioritized compared to some of our other Council-driven types of priorities, especially when it comes to bike and pedestrian safety and areas really around schools and higher pedestrian areas.

CHAIR BURCH: Okay, but we’re safe to say not
with five years?

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
128
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: If the Council were to direct us to
do improvements along here, we could look at putting that within our five-year program.

CHAIR BURCH: Okay, thank you. Are there any
other questions of Staff? Commissioner Burnett.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Thank you. We have a lot
of Conditional Use Permits in our Town, and speaking
basically of like Hillbrook, there are limits to the amount of automobiles that can come and go. In fact, we monitored it quite closely. They come before the Planning Commission once a year and we evaluate if they’re within the numbers that are under the conditions of the use of the CUP.

So, how is that different with this one? Can we
put a limit on the number of cars? Can you put a limit on the number of attendees? Is there any way to control the magnitude of attendance or automobiles?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: The Conditional Use Permit does
authorize the Town to impose conditions that would address the impacts of the use, and with this particular project I would recommend running any proposed condition through that RLUIPA analysis. The first question would be does it impose a substantial burden on the facility? Then, the second
question would be is the condition needed to address a

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
129
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 compelling government interest? And third, is it the least restrictive means to accomplishing that goal?
CHAIR BURCH: Following up like that, could there
be language around the number of people, four per number of vehicles that can be parked on the site or something, and would that have to be studied?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: I’ll start, and then others can
follow. In my opinion, it would be legally defensible to take the number of people that are assumed per car, and then consider the number of spaces in the parking lot, and then multiply the number of parking spaces by the number of people assumed to be in each car and limit attendance to that amount.

CHAIR BURCH: To be clear, that’s limited the
number of people. That probably doesn’t mean everybody has to be parked on the site.

ATTORNEY WHELAN: One option would be to limit
the number of attendees to those who can park on the site.

Another option would be to allow the offsite parking, and then have either a shuttle service or some safe way for people to get from that offsite parking location to the facility in the event of overflow parking.

CHAIR BURCH: One more follow-up on that. Have we
ever worked with an organization or anything to—for

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
130
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 example, they have an agreement with Affordable Treasures— at least show proof that they’re attempting to create
agreements with other parking lots or facilities for their overflow?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: I haven't encountered this in
Los Gatos, but in other jurisdictions the Condition of
Approval will typically say, “Demonstrate proof of a lease with another location to accommodate X number of cars, and demonstrate that annually.” So, the jurisdictions would not be involved in the negotiation or the selection of the
other site, but it would be the obligation of the permitee.

CHAIR BURCH: Okay, thank you. Are there any
other questions of Staff? If not, I just want to remind everybody before we go into conversation or deliberation, we do need to have a motion on the table, and we need it seconded, correct?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: That’s correct.

CHAIR BURCH: Does anybody care to make an
initial motion? Vice Chair Barnett.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I’ll make the motion with
the preface that on my six years on the Planning Commission I haven’t seen, number one, the opposing parties being so polite and respectful for others, so I wanted to compliment you on that. And also in my six years, it’s the most

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
131
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 difficult declaration, because of legitimate concerns on both sides, which I think have been recognized tonight, and also the conflicting legal opinions that we’ve seen from the neighbors and from the mosque. But we need to move
forward and at least get a motion on the table and see if it gets seconded so we can have some discussion.

My motion is concerning Item 1 on tonight’s
calendar, which is a request for approval to modify an
existing Conditional Use Permit for expanded hours of
operation in an institution for religious observance, West Valley Muslim Association, on property zoned R-1:8 located at 16769 Farley Road, APN 424-21-062.

I move to approve the draft resolution, which is
Exhibit 2, to the Staff Report on pages 23-26, which
includes the required findings for approval of the request to modify the existing use permit for expanded hours of operation. Approval of this resolution constitutes approval of the application, subject to the Condition of Approval set forth on Attachment A, page 27-31 of the Staff Report, and additional conditions as follows:

One, that Condition 17 on Driveway Operation be
amended to add the Applicant is authorized to remove the existing Right Turn Only sign at the exit driveway.

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
132
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 Two, that the Applicant provide contact
information for multiple board members and staff at all times and explore setting up a phone number that routes all of them, and the information shall be posted on the
Applicant’s website as well.

Three, that the Applicant shall request the Los
Gatos-Monte Sereno Police Department to increase patrols and place an electronic speed sign placement on Farley Road during Ramadan.

Four, that the Applicant shall submit its
application for the parking lot expansion within six
months, and complete the improvements within 12 months.

Five, the Applicant shall meet and confer with
Staff in good faith concerning the construction of
additional fence height to mitigate light pollution.

Six, the compliance with the Conditions of
Approval shall be reviewed annually by the Planning
Commission.

Seven, that parking lot attendants shall be
trained by the police or another appropriate safety agency.

Eight, the Fire Department shall conduct an
occupancy analysis based on the Conditions of Approval.

That’s it. Thank you very much.

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
133
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 BURCH: All right, thank you. Do we have a
second to the motion? (No second.) You guys will have to remind me where we go from here. If somebody wants to make another motion, they can?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: Up to three motions can be on
the table at any one time.

CHAIR BURCH: Do we have any discussion about the
current motion, or a second motion?
COMMISSIONER STUMP: The problem is my motion
would take a little time to explain.

CHAIR BURCH: Okay.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: First of all, I want to say
that I’m very appreciative of the Desk Items we got today.

Once again, it shows the level of engagement and folks
making positive suggestions on how to come to, I hope,
ultimately a win-win situation. A couple of things that I picked up in here.

Our concern is are we expediting approval rather
than resolving incompatibilities with the way we’re going? The attorney for the West Valley Muslim Association also said there’s a potential to work with the Town on street improvements. Hey, hey, yeah, let’s do that.

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
134
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 the West Valley Muslim Association got
together with neighbors again on Sunday to continue
dialogue. I really think those were appropriate.

The Applicant’s main concern, of course, is
getting authorization for their hours of operation to be expanded both outside of Ramadan and during Ramadan, and that’s what their members have primarily addressed in
public comments.

The neighbors’ main concerns are tied to public
safety and health, including volume of traffic, parking, pedestrian safety, light pollution, parking lights and head lights, and noise.

Before the CUP is finalized and voted on, I would
like to propose mediation between the parties. This would be a formal mediation, so that both sides are clearly heard and actions are documented and committed to, because I want to avoid one party wins and one party loses, and that’s what I’d like to see this next step. Now, this is
voluntary, so I have to look out at the group here tonight and say would you voluntarily be willing to go to mediation to further discuss and create actions, and perhaps even something that looks like an agreed upon CUP by all
parties?

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
135
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 Now, reminder, this is our Applicant for the CUP,
and so it’s our responsibility to work with the Applicant, but certainly the Applicant can take input.

So, again, my motion would involve continuing
this hearing to a date certain, perhaps, for example, in June, so that voluntary mediation could be completed and basically reported back to the Planning Commission at that time, and then we can consider if the mediation is
successful, touchdown. If it’s not successful, we’re back to probably the motion that Vice Chair Barnett has put
forward. So, I would be glad to turn that into a motion, but I think before we even do that, we would need to get a sense from the parties if they would be open to voluntary mediation.

CHAIR BURCH: Can I open the public hearing to
have the Applicant come up to answer that? I think I would only be able to ask the Applicant.

ATTORNEY WHELAN: Yes, but my recommendation is
opening the public hearing to hear from a representative from both the Applicant and the neighbors.

CHAIR BURCH: All right, we will reopen the
public portion of the hearing specifically for this item, and we need a representative from the Applicant and a
representative from the neighborhood. If the Applicant

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
136
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 could please come forward, and I think you’ve heard the discussion from Commissioner Stump. I believe it’s a little bit of a yes or no question. I don’t care who comes
forward, but could somebody come forward? Again, this is very specific to the item that was put in front of us of the agreement to enter into some type of mediation.

RAZI MOHIUDDIN: I’ll answer the question with
one word, but I’ll tell you my concern though here. We will be absolutely willing to do mediation, as what we have been always trying to do is reach out. However, we are concerned that this elongates the process. We have been at it for a long time, and I don’t think we have made progress over there, so we’re concerned that this creates more tension for our community, and uncertainty for our community. But if this is what the Commission wants, reluctantly, yes.

CHAIR BURCH: All right. Thank you.

Representative from the neighbors.

JIM RATCLIFF: I would very much appreciate that
kind of mediation, because just from our talks with them, it’s been at a standstill, so I think it would be very
helpful to have like a formal mediation, and it would be great if we could be looked at as one of the first towns in country that can come together and really make a

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
137
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 difference, and both live harmoniously in this
neighborhood.

CHAIR BURCH: All right, thank you. All right, so
we’re going to reclose the public…
RAZI MOHIUDDIN: Can I just make one quick
comment?
CHAIR BURCH: Very quick.

RAZI MOHIUDDIN: We need the mediator to be
familiar with things like RLUIPA, and also be familiar with the religion as well.

CHAIR BURCH: Yes, I had a question to Staff
regarding that, so yes. So, I’m going to reclose the public portion of the public hearing, and now I am going to ask a question of Staff. If we have something like this on the table, how do we ensure that the person that would be
involved in the mediation would be familiar with these very specific issues?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: The motion could include that
requirement, and the more specialized the mediator, the more expensive, and so I do think there should be
discussion on who will pay for the mediation.

CHAIR BURCH: That was going to be part of my
question too. Commissioner Burnett.

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
138
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, and on this point, I
would recommend that maybe a baseline or stating point
could actually be the nine suggestions by the attorney, Sabline (phonetic) (inaudible). I think her recommendations were very good, and maybe that could be the start of a
conversation, because it does give guidelines, it sort of addresses all the highlights of where most of the issues are, and it could be a starting point of conversation.

CHAIR BURCH: Okay, to the Maker of the Motion,
how are you going to, within this motion, propose who is paying for this?
COMMISSIONER STUMP: Could Staff speak to that a
little bit? I mean, in this particular case, we’re actually asking two parties to get together and enter into a
mediation, and more than likely not on the Town’s dime.

SEAN MULLIN: I can start and be brief. The
Town’s fee schedule, to my knowledge, does not have any mechanism to collect and fund outside mediation.

CHAIR BURCH: That’s my understanding, too.

ATTORNEY WHELAN: One option would be to ask the
Applicant to pay, since this is coming out of an
application for a Conditional Use Permit modification.

CHAIR BURCH: Does the Maker of the Motion have a
comment on that?

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
139
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: I’m sorry, did you say the
Applicant pay?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: Yes. There is no legal
requirement that the Applicant pay, but that seems logical, since the Applicant is asking for the CUP modification.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Okay. So, I move to continue
this hearing to a date certain in June, date to be
determined, assuming the medication would be completed, with a mediator that is experienced with RLUIPA, and that the Applicant will pay the cost of the mediation.

ATTORNEY WHELAN: I do recommend confirming with
the Applicant that they are open to pay, because otherwise the mediation won’t happen.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: I understand.

CHAIR BURCH: I’ll open the public portion of the
public hearing, only to ask the Applicant this specific question.

RAZI MOHIUDDIN: We would be willing to only
split it. I don’t think it’s fair for us to pay for it. If we have to pay the entire thing, we would like to have a decision today, if possible.

CHAIR BURCH: Right. Thank you. We’ll reclose the
public portion of the public hearing. Vice Chair Barnett.

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
140
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 VICE CHAIR BARNETT: The problem I see with
splitting the fees is that the neighborhood is not bound together, although you’ve commented together on a number of matters, but there are disparate views within the community and the neighbors. From my standpoint, it would be very difficult for them to achieve an equal contribution.

Certainly, some could agree to pay all of it, but that
would be a concern of mine, and I don’t have an answer to it.

CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner Burnett.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Yes, I would just want
fairness. I would want representation for the neighborhood as well as for the mosque, fair and balanced, that if you have a lawyer or… I know there is like a neighborhood
alliance or group that have gathered and maybe have paid the fees for their current legal representation, and maybe that would be their source, and the source for representing the mosque. I don't know, but it’s necessary that it’s fair and equal in the mediation that they’re represented
properly.

CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner Stump.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: I think it’s a fair question
to ask. I mean, I realize there’s a group that’s called the Farley Road Neighborhood Coalition, and I realize you’re

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
141
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 not a legal entity. You certainly have invested money to this point with your own legal counsel. And again, do we have to open up public comment again if I’m going to ask this question?
CHAIR BURCH: Yes. So, I guess I will open the
public portion of the public hearing again for a
representative of the neighborhood to speak to this. By the way, you can have a minute to talk amongst yourselves about this. You have a representative? Yes.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: I guess to ask my question,
would the Farley Road Neighborhood Coalition be willing to agree to some split, and I guess we could leave that to the parties, but to some split of the cost for mediation?
MICHELE S.: In this brief discussion, we are not
inclined at this time to answer yes or no, because we have no idea how much an expert, as the Planning Commission has alluded to, would cost for somebody who is extremely
specialized, and we’d like to also consider the fact that the Applicant assume part of the burden, since they are asking for the change and we are not; we’re trying to
protect what we have. Does that answer your question
sufficiently?
CHAIR BURCH: Yes. Thank you. I will reclose the
public portion of the public hearing. I’m going to ask a

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
142
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 question of Staff. If we have some discussion and this feels like the way the Commission wants to go, how do we perhaps allow time for them to determine that cost and how that split would come, and then come to Staff with the
solution to this that then comes up to a date certain
meeting? If we can even do that. You might say that’s
impossible.

ATTORNEY WHELAN: I’ll start, and others might
have other suggestions, but one option would be to continue this meeting to give the Applicant and the neighbor group and opportunity to look at options for a mediator and how much it would cost, and to give further thought to whether they think mediation would be fruitful, and then to return to the Planning Commission at a date certain.

CHAIR BURCH: Does Mr. Paulson have anything to
add?
DIRECTOR PAULSON: Well, that’s definitely one
path.

CHAIR BURCH: All right. So, we have a motion. I
think we need a second to continue in order to have further discussion, correct?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: That’s correct.

CHAIR BURCH: Okay, so is there a second?
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: I’ll second that.

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
143
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 BURCH: Seconded by Commissioner Burnett.

So, now let’s have discussion. How do my fellow
commissioners feel about the motion on the table with the idea that there could be a date certain to allow there to be conversation between the neighborhood coalition and the Applicant concerning this item? I’ll go down the row.

Commissioner Stump.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Yes, let me just clarify.

We’re talking about the motion that I put forward, right? CHAIR BURCH: Yes.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Which doesn’t sound like
it’s going to be acceptable to the… The Applicant has said they do not want to pay for the mediation.

CHAIR BURCH: However, as part of that there was
the question to Staff that if we wanted to…
COMMISSIONER STUMP: Is that a third motion
though, potentially?
CHAIR BURCH: Oh, would that be a third motion?
COMMISSIONER STUMP: That would be a third
motion.

ATTORNEY WHELAN: Yes, I thought I had heard
someone make that motion, but if not, a motion would be required to continue this meeting to a date certain to

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
144
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 allow the two parties to discuss the possibility of
mediation.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: So moved.

CHAIR BURCH: Okay, there you go. Is there a
second to what is now the third motion? Commissioner Sordi, thank you. All right, so now, some discussion. Commissioner Sordi, anything to add?
COMMISSIONER SORDI: No, nothing to add.

CHAIR BURCH: All right. Vice Chair Barnett.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: It seems like a reasonable
way to go forward if there is a possibility of having an amicable agreement where both sides are unhappy, the mark of a good settlement.

CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner Burnett.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Yes, I agree. I have
problems with the findings that I couldn’t support, so I think this is a good way to move forward on it based on my observations (inaudible) CEQA questions (inaudible).

CHAIR BURCH: Okay. Commissioner Mayer.

COMMISSIONER MAYER: It’s an unconventional
proposal, but I agree with it. I think it might be one of the best paths forward to (inaudible) any way I think we would vote tonight would not make everyone happy

ITEM NO. 8.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/31/2026
Item 1, 16769 Farley Road
145
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 (inaudible) more room and space to have discussion
(inaudible).

CHAIR BURCH: All right. So, do I need a call
before we set a date certain, if this was to pass?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: I recommend that the motion
include the date, and so perhaps the Director could give a sense of when a reasonable time to return would be.

DIRECTOR PAULSON: I think probably April 22nd is
the earliest, and if we’re not there yet, we can continue it to a further date.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: So, is it okay if I just add
that date to the motion?
CHAIR BURCH: Please do, yes. All right, and the
Seconder of the Motion, is that acceptable?
COMMISSIONER SORDI: Yes, that’s acceptable.

CHAIR BURCH: All right, so I’m going to call the
question. All in favor. All right, this passed unanimously, and I assume since this is a continuance, there are no
appeal rights, any further follow-up?
DIRECTOR PAULSON: That’s correct.

CHAIR BURCH: Thank you.
(END)

ITEM NO. 8.

PREPARED BY: Jocelyn Shoopman
Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Planning Manager, Community Development Director, and Town Attorney 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 406-354-6832
www.losgatosca.gov

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 04/22/2026
ITEM NO: 3
DATE: April 17, 2026
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Consider a Request for Approval to Modify an Existing Conditional Use Permit for Expanded Hours of Operation in an Institution for Religious Observance (West Valley Muslim Association) on Property Zoned R-1:8. Located at 16769 Farley Road. APN 424-21-062. Categorically Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301: Existing Facilities. Property Owner: West Valley Muslim Association, Osmar Ghafoor, President. Applicant: Razi Mohiuddin. Project Planner: Jocelyn Shoopman.

REMARKS:

On March 31, 2026, the Planning Commission discussed the item and received public testimony. The Planning Commission continued the item to a date certain of April 22, 2026, to allow an opportunity for the applicant and the neighborhood group to discuss the possibility of mediation.

Exhibit 24 contains the applicant’s response to meeting with the neighborhood group.

Exhibit 25 contains the neighborhood group’s response to meeting with the applicant.

Public comments received between 3:01 p.m., Tuesday, March 31, 2026, and 3:00 p.m., Friday, April 17, 2026, are included as Exhibit 26.

EXHIBITS:

Previously Received with the March 25, 2026, Staff Report:

1. Location Map

2. Draft Resolution Making the Required Findings and Approving the Application Subject to the Conditionals of Approval (Included as Attachment A)

3. Conditional Use Permit U-89-11
ATTACHMENT 10

ITEM NO. 8.

PAGE 2 OF 3
SUBJECT: 16769 Farley Road/U-24-010
DATE: April 17, 2026

4. Conditional Use Permit U-20-001; March 11, 2020, Planning Commission Staff Report; and March 11, 2020, Planning Commission Minutes

5. Letter of Justification

6. Neighborhood Outreach

7. Noise Analysis

8. Site Map

9. Applicant's Response to Public Comments Regarding Noise

10. Additional Information from the Applicant

11. Public Comments Received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, March 20, 2026, with Attachment A, Videos Provided as Part of Public Comments
Previously Received with the March 23, 2026, Addendum Report:

12. Public Comments Received Between 3:01 p.m., Friday, March 20, 2026, and 3:00 p.m., Monday, March 23, 2026
Previously Received with the March 24, 2026, Addendum Report 2:

13. Public Comments Received Between 3:01 p.m., Monday, March 23, 2026, and 3:00 p.m., Tuesday, March 24, 2026
Previously Received with the March 25, 2026, Desk Item Report:

14. Supplemental Information from the Applicant

15. Letter from the Applicant’s Legal Counsel

16. Public Comments Received Between 3:01 p.m., Tuesday, March 24, 2026, and 11:00 a.m., Wednesday, March 25, 2026
Previously Received with the March 27, 2026, Staff Report:

17. Public Comments Received Between 11:01 a.m., Wednesday, March 25, 2026, and 3:00 p.m., Friday, March 27, 2026
Previously Received with the March 30, 2026, Addendum Report:

18. Public Comments Received Between 3:01 p.m., Friday, March 27, 2026, and 3:00 p.m., Monday, March 30, 2026
Previously Received with the March 31, 2026, Desk Item Report:

19. Additional Information from the Applicant’s Legal Counsel

20. Supplemental Information from the Applicant’s Noise Consultant

21. Applicant’s Neighborhood Outreach

22. Applicant’s Response to Public Comments

23. Public Comments Received Between 3:01 p.m., Monday, March 30, 2026, and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, March 31, 2026

ITEM NO. 8.

PAGE 3 OF 3
SUBJECT: 16769 Farley Road/U-24-010
DATE: April 17, 2026
Received with the April 22, 2026, Staff Report:

24. Applicant’s Response to Neighborhood Group Meeting

25. Neighborhood Group’s Response to Meeting with the Applicant

26. Public Comments Received Between 3:01 p.m., Tuesday, March 31, 2026, and 3:00 p.m., Friday, April 17, 2026

ITEM NO. 8.

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

ITEM NO. 8.

From: Razi Mohiuddin < >
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2026 10:33 AM
To: Jocelyn Shoopman <[email protected]>
Subject: April 22 Meeting - Request for decision
Jocelyn,
We are writing to request that the Planning Commission take up our CUP modification application (U-24-010) on April 22, 2026 and render a decision.

Following the Commission's recommendation at the March 31 hearing, we immediately reached out to the Farley Road Neighborhood Coalition to schedule a meeting. That meeting took place on April 16. Unfortunately, we were not able to make meaningful progress. We also have not been able to agree on a mediator or the cost of mediation, despite our proposing multiple options including one at no cost, and a couple of them at very low ($100) cost. The neighbors are proposing a Fall 2026 mediator availability. We will provide a separate update on the substance of these discussions, but we continue to sense a pattern of requests to delay.

Time is of the essence. This application has been pending for 19 months. The summer months are approaching, and night prayer times will soon extend past 9:30 PM. Our Isha (night) prayer, which follows 1.5 hours after sunset, will occur close to or immediately after 10 PM in May, June, July, and August. We need clarity on whether we can use our facility until 10:30 PM during these months and allow congregants to depart by 11 PM.

We have acted in good faith throughout this process and remain committed to continuing to work with our neighbors and the Town, even beyond any decision by the commission. We will submit some additional details as desk items prior to the Wednesday 11 AM cutoff, and may include a presentation as well. We ask you also to include the most recent email chain from the neighborhood group that you were copied on, and share that with the planning commission.

We are prepared to answer any questions the Commission may have. Our community plans to attend the hearing on April 22 so that we can reach clarity and move forward.

Thanks,
Razi
EXHIBIT 24

ITEM NO. 8.

From: Kim Ratcliff < >
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2026 3:05 PM
To: Razi Mohiuddin < >
Cc: jimratcliff < >; Farley Road Neighborhood Coalition < >; Gabrielle Whelan <[email protected]>; Jocelyn Shoopman <[email protected]>
Subject: List of Mediators
Razi,
FYI - Attached is a list of mediators researched by the Farley Road Neighborhood Coalition.

Kim

ITEM NO. 8.

CONTACT Details Mediator's Name
Ethan Pitts
2 Embarcadero Center Suite 1500
San Francisco, CA 94123
T: 415-774-2649
Tamara Lange
https://www.jamsadr.com/neutrals/lange
https://www.linkedin.com/in/tamara-lange-j
ams/
Megan Kelly
Two Embarcadero Center Suite
1500
San Francisco, CA 94111
T: 415-774-2678
Judge James Ware (Ret.)
https://www.jamsadr.com/neutrals/ware
Served as both State and Federal Judge
Sandra Chan
Two Embarcadero Center Suite
1500
San Francisco, CA 94111
T: 415-774-2611
Judge Edward Infante (Ret.)
https://www.jamsadr.com/neutrals/infante
Served as magistrate judge in Northern
District
Significant class action experience
Ethan Pitts
2 Embarcadero Center Suite 1500
San Francisco, CA 94123
T: 415-774-2649
Howard Herman
https://www.jamsadr.com/neutrals/herman
https://www.linkedin.com/in/howard-herma
n-6b41281ab/
Environmental, civil rights, public policy
experience
Karume Richards
160 W. Santa Clara St Suite 1600
San Jose, CA 95113
T: 408-346-0764
Hon. Robert Baines (Ret.)
https://www.jamsadr.com/neutrals/baines
Jeffrey P. Blum, Attorney at Law
Family Law, Mediation and Private
Judging
134 Cuesta de Los Gatos Way
Los Gatos, CA 95032
T: 650 823-9959
Jeffrey P. Blum, Attorney at Law
Family Law, Mediation and Private
Judging
jeffreypblum.com
Per Jeff Blum, he spoke with WVMA
(Razi) over a year ago, upon a referral
Razi was given by Mayor Rob Moore.

ITEM NO. 8.

On Wed, Apr 15, 2026 at 12:26 PM Kim Ratcliff < > wrote:

Razi,
Thank you for agreeing to meet on April 16 from 7- 8 PM at the Starbucks on Blossom Hill Road.

Regarding your most recent email: it’s frustrating for us to have to frequently correct the record and provide the context that your statements omit. While you claim to have asked us three times for our needs, we have requested from you, multiple times, a comprehensive, holistic plan for this site, both as a collective neighborhood and through individuals’ communications.

We are meeting with you on Thursday in good faith to discuss new ideas and items necessary to remedy the impacts burdening our neighborhood. Based on your own words, “we believe there are meaningful steps we can take around traffic management, parking, lighting, landscaping, and other operational practices to be good neighbors,” we respectfully request that you share the specifics of what stands behind your statement and items that comprise such “meaningful steps.”
As local families are currently suffering with WVMA’s operational burdens, we ask for a holistic approach to site management rather than addressing issues one home address at a time.

Designing a comprehensive plan will demonstrate a commitment to the well-being of the entire community—benefiting the neighbors, the Town of Los Gatos, and the members of WVMA alike.

As good neighbors, we want to listen to your ideas and understand your commitment to solving the concerns raised in public hearings, neighborhood communication exchanges and public comments. Continually defaulting and referring to an outdated list from two years ago does not illustrate prioritizing an action plan based on recent information shared in an effort to make progress, nor does it illustrate your willingness to compromise. We remain open minded to new ideas and anticipate that during Thursday’s meeting such concepts will be introduced by you, so we can have a dialogue and provide fresh feedback.

To that end, instead of providing the structural solutions we have asked for, your approach has relied on minimal, piecemeal suggestions while citing RLUIPA as a reason to bypass standard neighborhood safety negotiations. A truly good-faith effort requires balancing religious exercise with the physical safety constraints of the surrounding residential community.

We disagree that the process is simply 'taking too long.' For a project of this scale and community impact, a multi-year review is the established standard in Los Gatos. Major institutional modifications, such as the Hillbrook School expansions, have historically required several years of rigorous environmental and safety analysis before reaching a final decision. The current 19-month duration is a direct result of the uncertainties, gaps, and outdated and missing data provided to the Town thus far. The interest and opposition from neighbors is overwhelming—more than we have ever seen at a Town hearing. This is a community-impacted decision where safety and lives matter, and we must proceed with extreme caution. It is

ITEM NO. 8.
essential that the Planning Commission makes a decision based on neutral, up-to-date data, not a narrative of expediency.

Our goal for the April 16 meeting is to move past these uncertainties and receive the specific, holistic changes we have requested. We want a resolution that respects the law and the documented physical constraints of our neighborhood.

To ensure there is no further miscommunication or selective reporting, we will be providing a written summary of our discussion points at the meeting and would like to agree on a set of 'joint meeting notes' afterward to ensure the record remains accurate for the Town.

Sincerely,
Kim Ratcliff
On behalf of the Farley Road Neighborhood Coalition
On Tue, Apr 14, 2026 at 1:38 PM Razi Mohiuddin < > wrote:

Dear Kim,
Thank you for your reply.

We are available to meet on April 16 at 7 PM at Starbucks on Blossom Hill Road. We will have two representatives. Look forward to seeing you then.

Regarding mediators – I understand you have concerns about Mr. Blum's impartiality. We'd note that mediation doesn't have to be a one-time event; we could work with Mr. Blum now and continue with another mediator later if needed. Finding a single mediator with all relevant experience – RLUIPA, familiarity with Town of Los Gatos, and community disputes – who is also available before April 22 and affordable is going to be difficult. That said, we have continued to research alternatives and have identified three experienced mediators with relevant background who have availability in early May, which can be in addition to Mr. Blum's mediation.
• Hon. Maria-Elena James (Ret.) – https://www.adrservices.com/neutrals/james-mariaelena/ • Hon. James Ware (Ret.) – https://www.jamsadr.com/neutrals/ware • Tamara Lange, Esq. – https://www.jamsadr.com/neutrals/lange Their rates range from $12,000–$14,000 for a full day. We are willing to split the cost equally. In addition to those, there are two other community resolution options - Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center, and Community Boards of San Francisco. And we have the US DOJ Community Relations Service and the CA Civil Rights Department - all are ready to offer their

ITEM NO. 8.
services in the near term. Please let us know if any of these would be acceptable, or share the mediators you have identified so we can compare options.

On operating hours and occupancy – this property has operated as an approved place of worship since 1990. We're happy to clarify how the facility is used, but our prayer times are determined by sunrise and sunset – that is a matter of religious practice protected by RLUIPA, not something we have flexibility to negotiate.

We welcome the opportunity to discuss traffic management, parking, lighting, and landscaping – as I've noted, we've already made more than 20 changes in these areas, and we're open to discussing more. You had originally shared a list of 11 items with me in October 2024, and we have addressed the vast majority of them. I've now asked three times what specific additional measures would be meaningful to you, and I haven't yet received an answer. In our last meeting on March 29, 2026, Mr. Ali Reza identified an issue with parking in front of his home on Fridays, and we offered cones, and he was amenable to that. Mr. Seger mentioned his concerns around light peeking through the fence, as well as parking lot lights, and we are amenable to addressing both of those. Both indicated that these measures would address their specific issues. Similarly, if there are specific additional measures you'd like to discuss, please bring them to the April 16 meeting.

Regardless of whether we are able to arrange formal mediation before April 22, we remain committed to continuing to work with our neighbors and the Town. In January, you spoke at the planning commission meeting expressing frustration that this application was taking too long.

We agree – this process has now been pending for 19 months. If we can’t agree on a way to mediate in the near term, we plan to ask that the Commission take up the matter on April 22 and make a decision so that all parties have clarity and can move forward.

We look forward to meeting.

Thanks,
Razi
On Apr 13, 2026, at 9:13 PM, Kim Ratcliff < > wrote:

Dear Razi,
Thank you for getting back to us. First, we want to ensure that we’re aligned on the motion and next steps from the Planning Commission – Motion #3 (Passed Unanimously):

The Commission voted to give both the neighbors and the applicant time to research mediator options and costs. This will help both parties determine if mediation is a fruitful path forward.

We are scheduled to return to the Planning Commission on April 22nd.

ITEM NO. 8.

We have reached out to several mediators to understand their fee structure, availability and area of expertise (RLUIPA and CEQA). We’ve met with the Farley Road Neighborhood Coalition (FRNC) to discuss the cost if there are viable paths to cover this type of expense. Based on our findings, we estimate the fee schedule to be $12,000/day and that’s without RLUIPA and CEQA expertise. When discussing availability for new clients, schedules indicate the soonest may be Fall of 2026. We have not come to any conclusions at this time but are continuing to investigate and research to find pro bono mediators that are neutral.

In regards to Jeffrey Blum, because he is part of the Town of Los Gatos and referred by the Town Council for this project, and is an involved Los Gatos resident, we don’t feel he could be impartial.

We’d like to propose meeting April 16 from 7- 8 pm at Starbucks on Blossom Hill Road. We would like to discuss operating hours, occupancy and parking. In addition, we would appreciate seeing your list of meaningful next steps that you shared in your previous email: “traffic management, parking, lighting, landscaping, and other operational practices to be good neighbors.”
In good faith, let’s minimize the number of participants. We recommend two representatives for each of us.

Thanks,
Kim Ratcliff
On Thu, Apr 9, 2026 at 2:46 PM Razi Mohiuddin < > wrote:
+Gabrielle, Jocelyn
Kim,
We have identified a mediator who has offered 2–3 hours at no cost. His name is Jeffrey Blum, and his bio is at https://www.jeffreypblum.com/. While he is not a RLUIPA specialist, we believe he could help facilitate a productive conversation. He is a Los Gatos resident and familiar with the town. He is willing to consider extending the hours if needed.

We also looked at other options, including Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center (suggested by Gabrielle Whelan), Community Boards of San Francisco (https://communityboards.org/), DOJ Community Relations Service (https://www.justice.gov/crs), and California Civil Rights Department (https://www.calcivilrights.ca.gov). We also contacted several JAMS mediators, who charge $12,000–$15,000 per day; most have availability only after April 22. We're open to a

ITEM NO. 8.

JAMS mediator if we split the cost equally. We're also happy to consider any mediators you've identified.

Mr. Blum is available Friday, April 17 from 9 AM to 4 PM, or Monday, April 21 from 2:15 to 5 PM.

Please let us know if you'd like to proceed with Mr. Blum or if you have another option to propose. On Friday, we are not available from 1 to 2:30 PM.

Regarding your concern about meaningful concessions – we've already made more than 20 operational changes, as noted in my previous message. I'd welcome hearing what specific additional measures would be meaningful to you, outside of our ability to practice our faith at their appointed times, which is protected by RLUIPA.

Thanks,
Razi
On Apr 6, 2026, at 2:41 PM, Kim Ratcliff < > wrote:

Dear Razi,
As stated during the 3/31 Planning Commission hearing, we'd like to reiterate that our neighborhood coalition has not agreed to split the cost of mediation yet. The neighborhood is not requesting the change; WVMA is the Applicant. Attorney Gabrielle Whelan noted that WVMA should pay.

That said, our neighborhood coalition is researching mediators.

Regarding a follow up meeting, thus far during the handful of times we've met with you, we've been disappointed at the lack of meaningful and substantial concessions you've been willing to offer. Before we meet again, we ask that you put in writing the solutions WVMA proposes to mitigate traffic management, parking, lighting, landscaping, and other operational practices that will restore the public safety and character of our neighborhood.

After we receive that list, our neighborhood coalition will put together a list of times/days we can collectively meet during the week of April 13.

Thanks,
Kim and Jim Ratcliff
cc: Farley Road Neighborhood Coalition
On Fri, Apr 3, 2026 at 1:10 PM Razi Mohiuddin < > wrote:

Dear Kim,

ITEM NO. 8.

I wanted to follow up on the hearing from Tuesday, as the Commission requested we pursue mediation before the follow-up meeting on April 22. I'd like to propose the following:
• Mediator: We jointly select a mediator and split the cost equally. I'd ask that you identify 2–3 mediators with RLUIPA experience, and we'll do the same. Please also request their rates so we can make a decision together.
• Follow-up Meeting: While we work on mediator selection, I'd like to propose we meet again one weekday evening at 6 PM. Please suggest some evenings that work for you and the neighborhood group.
• Agenda: We'd like to continue the discussion from last time and hear everyone's ideas.

As we've said, our prayer times follow sunrise and sunset – that's not something we control – and the facility's capacity was established when this property was originally approved as a place of worship. Those aren't areas where we have flexibility. But we believe there are meaningful steps we can take around traffic management, parking, lighting, landscaping, and other operational practices to be good neighbors.

If you could get back to me by the end of the weekend, that would help us stay on track.

Thanks,
Razi

ITEM NO. 8.

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

ITEM NO. 8.

From: Farley Road Neighborhood Coalition < >
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2026 1:50 PM
To: Gabrielle Whelan <[email protected]>; Jocelyn Shoopman <[email protected]>; Planning <[email protected]>; Sean Mullin <[email protected]>; Alexa Nolder <[email protected]>; Chris Constantin <[email protected]>; Allen Meyer <[email protected]>; Joel Paulson <[email protected]>; Town Manager <[email protected]>; Kim Ratcliff < >; < >;
< >; Mark Leonard < >;
< >
Cc: Farley Road Neighborhood Coalition < >
Subject: Follow-up and Summary of April 16 Meeting: FRNC & WVMA Dear Razi and Osman,
Thank you again for taking the time to meet on April 16. We appreciate the open dialogue and the opportunity to better understand WVMA’s perspective regarding the requested CUP modifications and operational considerations.

We want to follow up with a clear summary of our understanding of the discussion and the key outcomes from the meeting.

First, we appreciate the additional context you shared regarding WVMA’s interpretation of the proposed project, including the request to extend operating hours to accommodate prayer times and allow for orderly departure. We also acknowledge that the facility was acquired with awareness of its existing conditions and you expect that CUP modifications are a common practice.

Regarding mediation, the Farley Road Neighborhood Coalition (FRNC) remains actively engaged in researching neutral mediators with relevant expertise, particularly in areas such as land use and applicable regulatory frameworks. At this time, we have not reached a final decision on a mediator or funding approach. As discussed, we are open to participating in an initial, no-cost mediation session in May with a mutually agreed-upon mediator as a constructive first step, while continuing to evaluate longer-term options.

We also want to be candid that we were disappointed that WVMA brought no new or comprehensive proposals presented at the meeting to address the broader neighborhood impacts. That said, we are encouraged by the willingness expressed to revisit ideas, and we strongly urge WVMA to develop and share a more holistic plan that meaningfully addresses ongoing concerns.

As discussed, while some past efforts have focused on individual situations, the broader issues affecting the neighborhood remain unresolved—particularly those related to safety, traffic intensity, parking overflow, lighting impacts and operation hours . For example, measures such EXHIBIT 25

ITEM NO. 8.
as temporary cone placement have not proven to be a consistent or sustainable long-term solution, and current lighting conditions continue to create significant disruption for nearby homes.

Our goal remains to find balanced, practical solutions that support both religious use and the safety, privacy, and well-being of the surrounding residential community. We are committed to continuing this dialogue in good faith and are open to reviewing thoughtful, actionable proposals from WVMA that reflect that shared objective.

Finally, as we were unable to align on a joint meeting summary at the conclusion of the April 16 meeting, we are providing this email to ensure there is a clear record of our perspective on the discussion and next steps. We also want to reiterate the importance of the Planning Commission’s upcoming review being informed by objective, current data.

We look forward to continued engagement and to making progress together.

Sincerely,
Farley Road Neighborhood Coalition

ITEM NO. 8.

From: Farley Road Neighborhood Coalition < >
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2026 11:15 AM
To: Jocelyn Shoopman <[email protected]>; Alexa Nolder <[email protected]>; Planning <[email protected]>; Chris Constantin <[email protected]>; Gabrielle Whelan <[email protected]>
Cc: Allen Meyer <[email protected]>; Sean Mullin <[email protected]>; Joel Paulson <[email protected]>; Town Manager <[email protected]> Subject: Constructive Feedback and Supplemental Documentation Regarding CUP Compliance History
Dear Members of the Los Gatos Planning Commission,
The Farley Road Neighborhood Coalition submits the attached Compliance and Violation Log (2021–2026) as a resource to assist the Commission in drafting more effective, self-executing permit conditions.

Our goal is to support the Town in fostering a sustainable, long-term harmony for our neighborhood. We hope this proactive model offers clear, reliable boundaries that preserve our residents' quiet enjoyment while reducing the need for constant Town oversight. By sharing these 36 documented incidents, we aim to help the Commission and staff identify where current conditions may be difficult to implement, allowing us to work together toward more practical and easily manageable standards.

Addressing the Enforcement Gap
Our data shows that while residents have been diligent in providing photo and video evidence, the current enforcement protocol has struggled to produce meaningful corrective results:
• Protocol Clarity: We observed that even with photographic evidence, warnings were often issued for “alleged” violations. We look forward to discussing how future CUP language can be made more objective to simplify the Town's verification process. • Consistency: Despite 26 reports, only 7 resulted in formal action. We believe this highlights a need for clearer, non-discretionary consequences within the CUP itself to ensure Town protocols are followed consistently.

Summary of Operational Challenges (2021–2026)
This documentation is intended to help the Commission understand where the current operational model requires stronger boundaries:
• Evening Transitions: 13 incidents of activity past approved hours show a need for a more structured "closing protocol" for the facility.
• Site Safety: 8 incidents of blocked fire hydrants and driveways demonstrate that the current parking management plan requires physical barriers to ensure public safety. • Facility Maintenance: 9 incidents of unpermitted or off-hours construction suggest a need for a pre-approved annual maintenance calendar.

EXHIBIT 26

ITEM NO. 8.

Timeline of Neighborhood Impacts
Our documentation shows that without clear boundaries, impacts have escalated over time:
• 2021–2022: Initial noise and lighting concerns.
• 2024: Emergence of late-night activity patterns and unpermitted construction. • 2025–2026: Escalation to life-safety hazards, including fire hydrant and driveway obstructions.

A Collaborative Path Forward
The history of this site suggests that "Administrative Warnings" alone have not been sufficient to ensure consistent compliance. To foster a more harmonious relationship between the facility and the neighborhood, we urge the Commission to prioritize the implementation of clear, selfexecuting permit conditions.

By establishing objective and proactive standards, the Commission can reduce the future need for Town intervention and neighborhood reporting. We look forward to collaborating with the Town to ensure the final permit includes the necessary physical and operational protections to guarantee the long-term safety, privacy, and quiet enjoyment of the Farley Road residents.

We offer this data not just as a record of past issues, but as a roadmap for creating a CUP that truly works for the applicant, the Town, and the residents. We look forward to collaborating on a permit that ensures the long-term safety and harmony of Farley Road.

Sincerely,
Farley Road Neighborhood Coalition

ITEM NO. 8.
# Date(s) Description of Incident Reported? Action
CURFEW VIOLATIONS (Code Section 29.20.305)
1 3/22/24 WVMA held two events that started at 10 pm and 10:30 pm - curfew violation; attendees left and walked to cars at midnight
Yes Emailed Town manager on
4/1/24; code compliance - linked
to WVMA website - no action
2 4/7/24 Vehicles exited and members walked to cars at
midnight
Yes Emailed code compliance
submitted video documentation -
no action
3 4/8/24 CUP Code Violation: Code section 29.20.305 Yes Documented 4 5/13/24 Vehicles entered and exited WVMA at 10:30 pm No No action 5 5/20/24 Vehicles entered and exited WVMA at 10:30 pm No Documented 6 5/21/24 Vehicles entered and exited WVMA at 10:30 pm Yes Emailed video, video and video to Code Compliance - no action
7 5/22/24 Vehicles enter and exit WVMA at 10:50 pm Yes Emailed video to Code Compliance- no action
8 5/28/24 Vehicles exit WVMA at 10:50 pm No video
9 5/31/24 Vehicles enter and exit WVMA at 10:50 pm No video 10 6/1/24 Vehicles enter and exit WVMA at 10:50 pm No video 11 1/24/26 Vehicles exited 10:15 to 10:40 pm, van idled next to WVMA's auditorium door; vehicle double parked on
Farley Rd; last vehicle left at 11:24 pm.

Yes Called the non-emergency police
line(408.354.8600) and emailed
photos to Code Compliance
(incident #2601250038) - No
action
12 3/15/26 Multiple vehicles exited the facility past 11 pm Yes Called the non-emergency police line(408.354.8600) and emailed
Code Compliance. Incident
#2603150092. No action
13 3/18/26 Multiple vehicles exited WVMA's facility after 11 pm Ramadan curfew
Yes Reported to Code Compliance
and submitted video - -
administrative warning sent for

ITEM NO. 8.
“alleged code violation”
PARKING & PUBLIC SAFETY (CVC 22500e, 22514 / 18 U.S.C. 1701) 14 5/22/24 Vehicle blocked Ratcliff driveway No Did not call LG-MS PD 15 10/4/202
5 Blocked driveway during large WVMA event No Did not report - Texted WVMA ex Dir and asked traffic guard to take
action; WVMA made
announcement to move vehicle
16 2/18/26 Vehicle blocked Ratcliff driveway No Did not report. See video time stamp 02:47
17 3/13/26 Blocked mainbox during WVMA Friday service No Did not report 18 3/13/202
6 Ramadan attendee Vehicle blocked fire hydrant Yes Called non-emergency police line(408.354.8600) and emailed
Planning Commission
19 3/15/202
6 Ramadan attendee Vehicle blocked fire hydrant Yes Called non-emergency police line(408.354.8600) and emailed
Planning Commission
20 3/27/26 Tow truck blocked fire hydrant during Friday afternoon services
Yes The call to LGPD was made after
the time of the incident. Reported
to Allen Meyer; emailed photos.
21 2/28/25–
3/29/25
Speeding during Ramadan Yes Called LG-MS PD Incident # Call LGPD 4-8600
CONSTRUCTION & ZONING (Code Section 29.20.750 / 30.10.030) 22 3/28/24 Construction outside approved hours; members building Tough Sheds on Sunday
No Spoke to Lubna; Did not contact
code compliance
23 4/20/24 Construction outside approved hours; members building Tough Sheds on Sunday
No Did Not Report - Video
24 7/2024 Any storage unit or shed in the front yard or in the side yard and visible from a public right-of-way.

Yes Emailed photos to Code
Compliance - no action
25 10/23/24 Construction without obtaining a permit 12-foot wall constructed in public right of way
Yes Emailed code compliance July 17,
2024- issued an Administrative
warning Oct. 2024

ITEM NO. 8.
26 7/29/25 Construction outside approved hours; workers on roof until 6:45 pm
Yes Emailed code compliance -
WVMA stated workers were there
to repair AC... Code compliance
deemed this work as emergency
work and no action was taken. No
action
27 8/2/25 Construction outside approved hours at 7:30 am Yes Emailed code compliance - WVMA stated workers were there
to repair AC... Code compliance
deemed this work as emergency
work and no action was taken. No
action
28 8/9/25 Construction on Saturday outside approved hours; workers up roof.

Yes Emailed Code
Compliance—WVMA stated they
were doing rodent entry
preventative measures - Code
Compliance issued Administrative
warning.
29 8/21/25 Construction outside approved hours; workers up on roof until 7:30 pm
Yes Emailed code compliance -
WVMA stated workers were there
to repair AC... Code compliance
deemed this work as emergency
work and no action was taken.
30 2/14/26 Construction hours violation before 9 AM on Saturday - Yes Called the non-emergency police line(408.354.8600) and emailed
photos to Code Compliance
(incident #260140023) - no action
NOISE, LIGHTING & MAINTENANCE (Code Section 29.10.09015 / 16.20.015 / 16.20.010 / 16.20.060) 31 5/3/21 Amplified music and voices operated at high volume at various times daily
Yes Administrative Warning; verify
audio equipment is within legal
limits and suggestion to purchase
a decibel meter
32 6/29/22 Residential Outdoor Lighting (Section 29.10.09015) Yes Administrative Warning; Electrical permit required
33 4/20/24 Gas Leaf Blower No Did Not Report - video
34 6/9/24 CUP Code Violation: Code section 29.20.305 - facility rental
Yes Emailed Code Compliance;
Gabrielle Whelan sent letter
asking WVMA to come into
compliance

ITEM NO. 8.
35 6/9/24 Town Code Section 16.20.015 - Outside amplification Yes Emailed Code Compliance; Gabrielle Whelan sent letter
asking WVMA to come into
compliance
36 6/24/25 Gas Leaf Blower Yes Emailed video to Code
Compliance - administrative
warning issued

ITEM NO. 8.

From: Farley Road Neighborhood Coalition < >
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2026 9:32 AM
To: Jocelyn Shoopman <[email protected]>; Alexa Nolder <[email protected]>; Planning <[email protected]>; Chris Constantin <[email protected]>; Gabrielle Whelan <[email protected]>
Cc: Allen Meyer <[email protected]>; Sean Mullin <[email protected]>; Joel Paulson <[email protected]>; Town Manager <[email protected]> Subject: Proposed Draft CUP Conditions for WVMA
Dear Members of the Los Gatos Planning Commission,
On behalf of the Farley Road Neighborhood Coalition (FRNC), I am pleased to submit the attached document outlining proposed Conditional Use Permit (CUP) conditions for the West Valley Muslim Association (WVMA) facility.

Our coalition has prepared this document as a constructive and proactive step, reflecting our genuine commitment to working collaboratively with the Town and the applicant. We believe that thoughtfully defined operational and safety guidelines will help ensure the facility integrates harmoniously with the surrounding residential neighborhood.

We offer this draft as a starting point for ongoing collaboration. As the permit modification process moves forward and additional environmental or traffic information becomes available, the Coalition may suggest refinements or additions to help support the long-term safety, privacy, and well-being of our community.

We appreciate your time and consideration, and we look forward to engaging in a productive dialogue during the upcoming public hearing process.

Sincerely,
Farley Road Neighborhood Coalition

ITEM NO. 8.

General Operations & Administration
● Written Interpretations Only: No verbal interpretation, directive, or guidance shall be considered valid or binding.
● Approval & Substantial Conformance: All activities must comply with the approved plans. Any modifications require formal review by the Town based on the scope of the change.
● Town Indemnity: The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Town, its agents, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding related to the approval of this project. The applicant shall bear all legal costs and expenses incurred by the Town. ● Annual Compliance Review: The Planning Commission will conduct a mandatory annual review for a minimum of three (3) years to assess impacts on the neighborhood (violations, accidents, complaints) at the applicant's expense. ● Expiration & Lapse: The permit lapses if the activity is discontinued for 1 year. The 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. If the activity for which the Conditional Use Permit has been granted is discontinued for one (1) year, the approval lapses pursuant to Section 29.20.340 of the Town Code, Zoning Ordinance.

Use, Occupancy & Transparency
● Permitted Use: Use is restricted to religious worship and related institutional activities only. All services, gatherings, and events must be held indoors only. There shall be no outdoor activities permitted on the property, without exception, including but not limited to outdoor prayer, socializing in the parking lot, or amplified sound. ● Friday Service: The facility shall continue to offer only one Friday Jumu’ah service session. Returning to the previous three-session model is strictly prohibited. ● Formal Occupancy Inspection and Evaluation: Completed review by Santa Clara County Fire Department including site visit during Ramadan to determine maximum occupancy limits/required square feet per person for prostrating during religious assembly to ensure ongoing safety compliance.
● Emergency Access and Evacuation Plan. Compliance with all applicable fire and building codes and standards relating to fire and public safety shall be verified by the Fire Chief. Specific evaluation from the Fire Department regarding evacuation and emergency access on Farley Road under the facility’s peak conditions. ● No Permitted Square Footage Expansion of the Building: The total gross square footage of the existing primary structure and any accessory buildings shall be strictly limited to the current square footage permitted footprint. ● Capacity Management: Total on-site occupancy is strictly limited to 720 people or the available on-site parking capacity (whichever is reached first). This number is derived from the 180-space on-site parking limit (4:1 ratio). In any instance where all 180 on-site parking stalls are occupied, no further occupants shall be permitted on-site, regardless of the building’s maximum occupancy.

ITEM NO. 8.
● Neighborhood Courtesy: Facility will not be used between the hours of 12-5 pm on two Sundays a month to ensure resident's quiet enjoyment and minimize neighborhood impact.
● Digital Occupancy Monitoring: The applicant shall install a permanent digital occupancy counter system at all entry/exit points of the property. ○ Public Access: The Town and public shall have unrestricted, real-time remote access to this live data.
● Organized Gathering Restrictions: All organized gatherings—including, but not limited to, Eid, festivals, weddings, receptions, fundraisers, or private events—shall be restricted to a maximum of four (4) occurrences per calendar year and are subject to the following mandatory requirements:
○ Indoor Only: All event-related activities, including guest congregation, food service, and amplified sound, shall occur strictly within the interior of the permanent primary structure. No outdoor events, tents, or outdoor congregation areas are permitted.
○ No Staggered Attendance: Events must have a fixed start and end time with a single group of attendees; "rolling" or "staggered" arrivals/departures to bypass capacity limits are prohibited.
○ Operating Hours: All operations, including set-up, guest attendance, and tear-down, shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 AM to 10:00 PM. ○ Parking: All guest, staff, and vendor vehicles shall be contained exclusively within designated on-site parking stalls. Off-site, overflow, or street parking is strictly prohibited.
○ Public Scheduling: The annual event calendar must be posted on the facility’s public website twelve (12) months in advance. (A one-time exception is granted for 2026, requiring only six (6) months' advance posting). ○ Neighbor Notification: The operator shall provide written notice at least thirty (30) calendar days prior to each event to all residents and property owners within a 1,000-foot radius of the property lines. Notice must include the event date, times, and a 24-hour phone number for a live, on-site coordinator. ● Living Quarters: The leaders’ quarters shall be used exclusively as residences for institution-associated leaders and for no other purpose. ● Weekend Restrictions: No staging or breakdown or construction activities are permitted on weekends.

Hours of Operation & Ramadan Exceptions
General Daily Hours (Non-Ramadan)
● Operating Window: The facility is permitted to operate from 1.5 hours before sunrise until 10:00 PM.

ITEM NO. 8.
● Vacate the Premises: All members, guests, and vehicles must exit the property—including the parking lot—by the 10:00 PM cutoff.

Ramadan Exceptions
● Operating Window: During the annual, 30-day period of Ramadan, the following modified hours apply:
○ Pre-Sunrise: Services may begin up to 1 hour before sunrise. ○ Post-Sunset: Services may extend past the standard 10:00 PM cutoff, but are strictly capped at:
○ 11:00 PM if sunset occurs before 7:30 PM.
○ 11:30 PM if sunset occurs at or after 7:30 PM.
● Vacate the Premises: The property and parking lot must be fully vacated by the designated exception end time (11:00 PM or 11:30 PM).
● Traffic Safety: To mitigate neighborhood impact, radar speed signs must be placed on Farley Road throughout the 30-day Ramadan period.
● Advance Notice: Specific dates and times for Ramadan services must be posted on the public website 365 days in advance.

Parking & Traffic Management
● ALPR Vehicle Monitoring: The applicant shall install a permanent Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR) system at all ingress and egress points. ○ Trip Caps: Vehicle volume is strictly limited to the number of unique entries per week as dictated by traffic analysis.
○ Transparency: Live and historical vehicle tallies must be accessible to the public and the Town for independent auditing at any time.
● Traffic Demand Management (TDM): An annual TDM Plan must be submitted to the Town for approval. This plan must include measurable goals, strategies for carpooling, and a designated TDM Coordinator.The first annual TDM Plan is due September 1, 2026.
● Onsite Registration System: The applicant shall maintain a mandatory parking registration system for all attendees to effectively manage overflow and enhance traffic safety. This system must ensure that on-site capacity is never exceeded and provide the necessary data for accurate Traffic Demand Management (TDM) reporting. ● Parking Priority & Attendants:
○ On-Site First: All available on-site parking spaces must be fully utilized before any off-site or overflow options are engaged. Shuttle service to be provided for members who park at nearby off-site parking lots to prohibit on-street obstructions, including pick-up and drop-offs on Farley Road. ○ High-Attendance Staffing: For all high-attendance events, the venue must contract a professional, bonded, and insured private security firm. These paid

ITEM NO. 8.
personnel are required to manage parking operations, direct traffic flow, maximize lot efficiency, and actively prevent neighborhood spillover. ● Public Streets: Overflow parking onto Farley Road or any surrounding feeder streets ( Corcel Court, Flintridge, Chirco, Izorah, Frank) is strictly prohibited. ● Signage: The applicant shall post clear signage at all exits reminding attendees that street parking is prohibited and that violators may be subject to facility-enforced penalties or towing.
● Overflow Parking: Any parking needs exceeding the 180-space on-site capacity must be pre-arranged via a formal, written contract with an off-site provider. Proof of this contract must be submitted to the Town 30 days prior to use. ● Traffic Flow & Safety:
○ Professional Management: Professional traffic control must be present during peak entry and exit times to ensure Farley Road does not become congested or obstructed.
○ Mandatory Exit Routing: Replace “Turn Right Only” to “Turn Left Only” signage at the exit to steer vehicle flow away from residential zones. ○ No Street Loading: On-street obstructions, including passenger pick-ups, drop-offs, or queuing on Farley Road, are strictly prohibited. ○ Lot Restrictions: Portions of the parking lot immediately adjacent to the house at 16793 Farley Road property must be physically and substantially blocked off when the facility is not at peak capacity to protect neighbor privacy and safety effective immediately.
○ Exit Visibility: The facility must clear all obstructions at the WVMA exit to eliminate the blind spot. This ensures residents at 16793 Farley Road can safely see oncoming traffic and exit their driveway without being trapped or endangered; this corrective action is required effective immediately.

Noise, Light & Site Mitigation
● Quiet Hours: Strict "Quiet Hours" are established for the following times:
○ Weekdays: 10:00 PM – 8:00 AM
○ Weekends: 10:00 PM – 9:00 AM
● Outdoor Sound: Amplified outdoor sound, including loudspeakers or outdoor calls to prayer, is strictly prohibited at all times.
● Acoustic Compliance: The applicant shall install and maintain a high-fidelity, permanent digital noise monitoring station on Farley Road and feeder streets (Corcel Court, Flintridge, Chirco, Izorah, Frank).
○ Transparency: Real-time decibel levels must be accessible to the public via a live portal to verify compliance with Town noise ordinances.

ITEM NO. 8.
● Windows & Doors: All west-elevation openings must remain closed during services. All doors and windows facing residential properties must remain closed during Quiet Hours, except for immediate ingress and egress.
● Consultant Review: A Town-approved, independent consultant must evaluate and provide a mitigation plan for the following:
○ 8-foot Hedge: Uniform, mature 8-foot hedge around the entire perimeter of property to be planted by September 1, 2026
○ Pavement Repair: Repair of all parking lot cracks and joints along exit driveway that cause "booming" noises when vehicles pass over.
○ Headlight Barriers: Installation of robust physical barriers (e.g., solid planters or reflectors) at exit driveways to block headlights from shining into neighboring homes.
○ Sound-Reducing Gate Technology: Evaluation and implementation of sound-dampening gate hardware. Any motorized or sliding gates must utilize "whisper-quiet" technology, nylon rollers, and dampened closing mechanisms to eliminate metal-on-metal clanging and motor whine.
● Lighting: All fixtures must be full-cutoff, downward-facing, warm-colored LEDs equipped with timers.
○ Shutoff: All outdoor lighting must be turned off outside of operating hours and dimmed to the lowest safe level during Quiet Hours.
○ Dimming and Fixtures: All facility, site and parking lot lighting shall be full-cutoff, fully shielded, downward-facing fixtures and warm LED light and adopting municipal dark-sky ordinances to reduce skyglow.
● Signage: Clearly visible "Quiet Hours" signs must be posted at all pedestrian exits and throughout the parking lot to remind members to be respectful of neighbors.

Management & Violations
● Onsite Property Manager: A designated manager must be on-site during all operating hours to serve as the primary point of contact for the Town and neighbors. ● Reporting: Neighbors may report violations (noise, hours, parking) to the Town Compliance Officer and Planning Department during business hours, to the LGMS Police Department after hours, and to the On-site Manager for immediate correction. ● Violation Response: The applicant must provide a written mitigation plan within 48 hours of a reported violation.
● Revocation, Suspension, Modification. This Conditional Use Permit may be revoked, suspended or modified by the Planning Commission, or by the City Council on appeal, at any time whenever, after a noticed hearing in accordance with Section 29.20.310 of the Town of Los Gatos Code it finds:

ITEM NO. 8.

1. A violation of any conditions of the Conditional Use Permit was not abated, corrected or rectified within the time specified on the notice of violation; or

2. A violation of any City ordinance or State law was not abated, corrected or rectified within the time specified on the notice of violation; or

3. The use as presently conducted creates a nuisance.
● Expense: All costs for investigation, monitoring, and processing violations are the responsibility of the applicant.

Community Interface
● Online Calendar: The website must list all services, classes, and organized gatherings/events, including specific hours and on-site contact information. ● High-Attendance Reminders: At least 30 days before peak periods, the applicant must send written reminders to members regarding carpooling, respectful parking, and staying quiet in the lot. The applicant must provide written notice to residents on Farley, Corcel Court, Flintridge, Chirco, Izorah, Frank to advise them of peak periods, at least 30 days in advance.
● Deliveries: Restricted to:
○ Location: All loading, unloading, and staging must be conducted exclusively on the east side of the property. Use of the westside driveway for any delivery or service-related activity is strictly prohibited.
○ Mon–Fri: 8:00 a.m. – 6:00 p.m.
○ Sat: 9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.
○ Sun/Holidays: No deliveries allowed.

ITEM NO. 8.

From: Mary Hogan < >
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2026 9:49 PM
To: Jocelyn Shoopman <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Public Comment Opposing CUP U-24-010
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mary Hogan < >
Date: Tuesday, April 14, 2026
Subject: Public Comment Opposing CUP U-24-010
To: [email protected]
Dear Planning Commission,
I am writing to address specific safety concerns discussed during the Special Meeting of the Planning Commission on March 31, 2026. After reviewing the testimony provided by staff, I would like to request further clarification on the following points:

1. Pedestrian Safety and Traffic Volume
During the meeting, Town Engineer Heap noted that Farley Road’s 1960s-era lighting and lack of sidewalks are "similar" to other neighborhoods in the community. Town Engineer Heap characterized the impact on Farley Road as "limited." However, the data suggests otherwise:

Increased Volume:

The facility generated traffic is associated with approximately 200 vehicles per event, consisting of 180 on-site parking spaces and an estimated 20 vehicles utilizing overflow parking along Farley Road. These conditions are during 50 Fridays for Jumu’ah services and 28 evenings during Ramadan, totaling 78 event days and nights annually.

Based on these assumptions, the annual traffic volume attributable to the facility on Farley Road is estimated as follows:
200 vehicles × 2 trips per vehicle (arrival and departure) × 78 events = 31,200 vehicle trips per year.

Trip Impact:

Assuming that vehicle arrivals and departures occur within a concentrated 30-minute period per event, the total annual duration of facility-related traffic activity on Farley Road would be:
30 minutes per event × 78 events = 39 hours per year of concentrated traffic activity.

2. Emergency Access and Evacuation
Chair Burch inquired about Fire and Police evaluations regarding emergency evacuations.

Engineer Heap cited a March 25 email from Fire Marshal Kenny Ip regarding standard street widths for parking. However, a general rule for street width does not account for the unique real-time hazards of this proposal.

I formally request a specific evaluation from the Fire Department regarding evacuation and emergency access on Farley Road under the following peak conditions:

ITEM NO. 8.
• Over 200 cars occupying parking and traffic lanes.
• Heavy pedestrian presence in the roadway.
• Concurrent with daytime and nighttime operations

3. Occupancy Compliance
I request that the Planning Commission seek a formal inspection and evaluation from the Fire Department regarding the current building's maximum occupancy limits to ensure ongoing safety compliance.

4. Crisis Management and Communication
I request that a formalized neighborhood safety and security protocol for members and neighbors be implemented. Include this protocol as part of the Town of Los Gatos, Emergency Management Division, Chris Todd, Manager
Thank you for your time and for ensuring these safety metrics are fully vetted.

Mary Hogan
--
Mary Hogan
ˁ˚ᴥ˚ˀ

ITEM NO. 8.

From: JAMES W RATCLIFF < >
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2026 9:30 PM
To: Jocelyn Shoopman <[email protected]>; Planning <[email protected]> Cc: Gabrielle Whelan <[email protected]>; Kim Ratcliff < > Subject: Subject: Public Record request refuting defamatory statement CUP Modification 16769 Farley Road U-24-010
Dear Planning Commission,
I’m writing to correct a public record. A letter submitted to Jocelyn Shoopman via email on 3/30/26 from a sender named Gaitie Z. (who identified herself as a West Valley Muslim Association member) that was included in the 3/30/26 Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission Report Addendum contains false and defamatory statements about me. She wrote:
…Jim ended his public comment with “stop the Islamification…” I couldn’t hear the end, I imagine it ended with “stop the islamification” of our town or neighborhood.

This statement is false. You can view my complete statement in this video of the Planning Commission meeting held on March 25, 2026. Upon concluding my public remarks (time stamp 2:54), I in fact say, “I know the members of the facility love the neighborhood; let me love the neighborhood.”
To protect my reputation against these baseless accusations, I respectfully request the following:
• Formal Rebuttal: That the Town of Los Gatos create an official public record rebutting this false statement.
• Permanent Attachment: That this correction be permanently attached to the original letter within the Town’s records.
• Public Correction: That this information be corrected in the next Planning Commission meeting packet and reflected accurately in the official meeting minutes.

A decision of this importance should be based on facts and civil discourse, not on fabricated narratives or personal attacks. I appreciate your prompt attention to correcting this matter.

Thank you,
Jim Ratcliff

ITEM NO. 8.

From: Shannon Wagner < >
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2026 4:30 PM
To: Jocelyn Shoopman <[email protected]>; Planning <[email protected]>; Sean Mullin <[email protected]>; Joel Paulson <[email protected]> Subject: West Valley Muslim Association modifications to CUP Dear Los Gatos Planning Commission,
We are writing to you regarding the CUP modification application of the West Valley Muslim Association (WVMA) at 16769 Farley Road. We are residents of the neighborhood and live around the corner from the facility. We have lived here for nearly 32 years. We love the neighborhood and our neighbors. It is a neighborhood in which everyone is welcoming, respectful and friendly with each other.

We urge you to deny the proposed modifications to the CUP for the same reasons many of our neighbors have already expressed to you including noise, traffic, safety, lack of parking and quiet enjoyment. Also, the July 5, 2024 letter from Gabrielle Whelan, the town attorney, written to the WVMA pointed out that some of their current operational practices are already out of compliance.

The Conditional Use Permit (CUP) that the town granted them in 2020 specifically stated that they were capped on a specific number of attendees, could operate only between 8:00 AM and 10:00 PM (except Ramadan for only 30 days until 11:00 PM), and they could NOT rent out the facility. Attorney Whelan pointed out that they have broken all of the agreements mentioned. If the WVMA has violated its current CUP, how can we be sure they will not violate a modified CUP?
Ramadan and hours of worship has been practiced for over 1,400 years. The leaders of this mosque knew this when they rented this facility several years ago and knew the town code restrictions yet chose to rent it anyway.

This building has been a church for over 70 years, past occupants of the facility have operated during hours which are in compliance with the residential ordinances. Residents take this into consideration when they purchase a home in the neighborhood. The hours the WVMA require are not compatible with a residential neighborhood.

We fully support and respect the freedom and right to practice religion, but if they cannot be in compliance with the ordinances applicable to the location while doing so, they should modify their practice in order to comply or seek to find a different location that is properly zoned for their required hours of operation and needs, as would be required for any other entity.

Please take into consideration the safety and quiet enjoyment of the residents of this neighborhood and deny the CUP modifications.

Sincerely,
Shannon & Dave Wagner

ITEM NO. 8.

From: Farley Road Neighborhood Coalition < >
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2026 8:39 AM
To: Jocelyn Shoopman <[email protected]>; Alexa Nolder <[email protected]>; Planning <[email protected]>; Chris Constantin <[email protected]>; Gabrielle Whelan <[email protected]>; Allen Meyer <[email protected]>; Sean Mullin <[email protected]>; Joel Paulson <[email protected]> Subject: Opposition to CUP Modification – WVMA (16769 Farley Road) Dear Planning Commissioners,
I am writing to formally express my opposition to the proposed modification of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the West Valley Muslim Association located at 16769 Farley Road. While we respect the center’s presence in our town, the request to extend operating hours and expand to five daily congregational prayers represents an unsustainable increase in the intensity of land use for an R-1 Single-Family Residential zone.

The Planning Commission should maintain the current CUP restrictions for the following reasons:

1. Consistency with the "Musalla" Model and Current Operational Challenges Throughout the Bay Area, many Islamic prayer spaces operate successfully as "Musallas"— centers focused on neighborhood-scale gatherings and limited-hour services rather than 24/7 congregational activity. Local examples include the Saratoga Musalla and the Prospect Center, both of which serve the community effectively within specific operational boundaries. These centers acknowledge that their physical locations, particularly in residential pockets, are not suited to function as regional hubs. It is important to note that even under the current, more restrictive CUP, the Farley Road neighborhood has experienced ongoing challenges including traffic congestion, parking overflow, and noise disturbances. Documented instances of activity occurring outside permitted hours demonstrate that the site is already at its maximum operational capacity. Increasing the frequency of services to five times daily would only exacerbate these existing violations and further strain the neighborhood’s infrastructure.

2. Proximity and Availability of High-Capacity Regional Facilities The denial of this modification does not present a substantial burden on religious exercise, as several high-capacity, purpose-built facilities specifically zoned for 24/7 operations are located within a short driving distance. The Muslim Community Association (MCA) in Santa Clara and the South Bay Islamic Association (SBIA) on Harris Way in San Jose are designed specifically to handle the traffic, parking, and infrastructure required for five daily congregational prayers and late-night services. These regional facilities are situated in non-residential zones and are better equipped for high-volume transitions, whereas Farley Road—a narrow residential street—lacks the necessary infrastructure.

ITEM NO. 8.

3. Adherence to Original Planning Agreements
The current CUP was a bargained-for agreement between the town, the neighborhood, and the applicant. Residents made long-term life and financial decisions based on the assurance that this site would remain a low-impact community center with defined operating hours. To remove these core protections now would set a concerning precedent for all residential zoning within Los Gatos, suggesting that "Conditional Use" agreements are merely temporary rather than binding commitments to the community.

We urge the Planning Commission to uphold the existing conditions of the permit, which strike a fair balance between the needs of the center and the rights of the surrounding residents.

ITEM NO. 8.

From: Farley Road Neighborhood Coalition < >
Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2026 12:30 PM
To: Jocelyn Shoopman <[email protected]>; Alexa Nolder <[email protected]>; Planning <[email protected]>; Chris Constantin <[email protected]>; Gabrielle Whelan <[email protected]>; Allen Meyer <[email protected]>; Sean Mullin <[email protected]>; Joel Paulson <[email protected]> Subject: Opposition to WVMA CUP Modification: Evidence That Daily Congregational Prayers Are Not a Religious Necessity
Dear Commissioners,
I am writing to formally request that the Planning Commission deny the application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) modification filed by the West Valley Muslim Association (WVMA).

The applicant’s primary justification for this expansion centers on the claim that hosting all five daily prayers—Fajr, Zuhr, Asr, Maghrib, and Isha—is a "non-negotiable" religious requirement.

However, a review of regional practices undercuts the necessity of this modification and suggests that the applicant’s reliance on the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) is misplaced.

The applicant contends that their religious exercise is "substantially burdened" if they cannot provide facilities for all five prayers. Yet, several prominent Islamic centers in the immediate region operate successfully as "Jumu’ah-only" facilities (Friday prayer only), without offering the five daily congregational prayers. Notable examples include:

1. Saratoga Prospect Center (Saratoga, CA): Operates as a Jumu’ah-only center with no daily prayer services.

2. Peninsula Muslim Association (Mountain View, CA): Limits services to Jumu’ah and does not offer the five daily prayers.
(see attachments)
The fact that these nearby institutions function within the same faith tradition without daily congregational services proves that providing all five prayers at a specific land-use site is a preference, not a mandatory theological requirement for a religious center to exist. Under RLUIPA, a "substantial burden" must be more than a mere inconvenience; it must exert substantial pressure on an adherent to modify their behavior and violate their beliefs. Because many mosques operates without daily services, it is clear that denying this modification does not prevent the exercise of the Islamic faith, nor does it force the applicant to violate their religious tenets.

Furthermore, the "non-negotiable" nature of these prayers applies to the individual practitioner, who can perform them at home or in a workplace, rather than to the specific land-use intensity of a single building. By claiming these prayers are mandatory for the site, the applicant is attempting to use RLUIPA to bypass standard zoning protections related to traffic, noise, and neighborhood character.

ITEM NO. 8.

If other local mosques can fulfill their religious mission without daily congregational gatherings, the WVMA can do the same. Granting this modification would set a precedent where "religious necessity" is used to override local land-use authority, even when local precedents prove that such intensity of use is not required for the religious practice to flourish.

I urge the Commission to maintain the current CUP restrictions and deny this request.

Sincerely,
Farley Road Neighborhood Coalition

ITEM NO. 8.

ITEM NO. 8.

From: Farley Road Neighborhood Coalition < >
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2026 6:27 PM
To: Jocelyn Shoopman <[email protected]>; Alexa Nolder <[email protected]>; Planning <[email protected]>; Chris Constantin <[email protected]>; Gabrielle Whelan <[email protected]>; Allen Meyer <[email protected]>; Sean Mullin <[email protected]>; Joel Paulson <[email protected]> Subject: Urgent Safety Concerns: Record PRE26-00213 and the CUP Modification for 16769 Farley Road (WVMA)
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
I am writing to formally oppose the current Conditional Use Permit (CUP) modification request submitted by the West Valley Association (WVMA).

Recent filings by the applicant—specifically Pre-application Record PRE26-00213 submitted on February 26, 2026—contain a direct admission from WVMA that the facility is currently operating under unsafe conditions. In their own application to create a pedestrian opening in the concrete wall, the applicant states:
"CREATE AN OPENING IN THE CONCRETE WALL IN FRONT OF OUR PROPERTY FOR SAFE ACCESS TO PEDESTRIANS. WE CURRENTLY HAVE NO ACCESS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND ANYONE WALKING INTO THE PROPERTY NEEDS TO USE THE DRIVEWAY. THIS IS UNSAFE FOR EVERYONE AND ALSO CREATES A BOTTLE NECK FOR CARS DRIVIGN IN.."
Key Concerns
• Admitted Danger: The applicant has explicitly acknowledged that the lack of pedestrian access is "unsafe for everyone."
• Traffic Hazards: The "bottleneck" described creates significant safety risks for vehicles entering and exiting the property, impacting public street traffic. • Fire & Life Safety: A site that lacks dedicated pedestrian ingress/egress and forces foot traffic into active vehicle lanes poses a severe risk for emergency evacuations and first-responder access.

Our Request
We urge the Planning Commission to take the following actions before moving forward with any decisions regarding the CUP modification:

1. Immediate Site Assessment: We request that city officials, including the Fire Marshal and Traffic Engineering Department, conduct a formal safety and traffic assessment of the facility and the adjacent street.

2. Resolution of Safety Issues: The Commission should require the full resolution of these admitted safety hazards (as outlined in PRE26-00213) as a mandatory condition prior to considering the broader CUP modification.

ITEM NO. 8.

3. Hold on Approvals: No further expansion or modification of use should be granted while the applicant is knowingly operating a facility that they themselves have deemed unsafe for pedestrians and motorists.

The community’s safety must be the priority. We ask that the Commission hold WVMA accountable for these self-identified risks before allowing any further development or operational changes.

Thank you for your time and your commitment to the safety of our neighborhood.

Attaching screenshot for your reference.

Sincerely,
Farley Road Neighborhood Coalition

ITEM NO. 8.

From: Linda S < >
Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2026 6:29 PM
To: Gabrielle Whelan <[email protected]>
Cc: Jocelyn Shoopman <[email protected]>
Subject: Inaccurate reporting on the town
Dear Ms. Whelan,
I’ve been following the WVMA CUP modification application fairly closely.

Today, Los Gatan published another article about the hearings (https://losgatan.com/residentsurged-town-to-keep-current-mosque-site-zoned-for-worship/). This article contains inaccuracies on matters of fact that are part of the town’s official records of proceedings and also part of enforceable legal documentation. Considering these inaccuracies, does the town have any legal recourse in this matter? Would you consider requesting corrections? The first inaccuracy misstates conditions in CUP U-20-001 which were approved by the Planning Commission on March 11, 2020. In reporting about the March 11, 2020 hearing, Drew Penner writes that “on March 11, 2020...Planning Commission unanimously approved the change, including that hours of operation “shall not begin prior to one and a half hours before sunrise or extend past 10:30 p.m., seven days a week to accommodate indoor, morning and nighttime prayer services; and / During the 30-day month of Ramadan, indoor nighttime prayer services shall not extend past 11:30 p.m. whenever sunset is prior to 7:30 p.m., or until 12:00 a.m. whenever sunset is after 7:30 p.m.”
Those are not the restrictions which CUP U-20-001 places on the hours. It appears that Mr.

Penner took an excerpt from the proposed conditions for the applicant’s new requested modifications instead of reporting what was actually approved on 3/11/2020.

He also reported about the noise limits that the Town zoning maximums for the applicant’s property are 61 dBA on weekdays in the morning, 65 dBA until 10 pm and 54 dBA on weekday overnights. He doesn’t address weekends and holidays at all. According to the noise zone maps, weekends and holidays have a 5 dB lower ambient level.

According to the town’s noise zone maps, Mr. Penner again misreported the facts on record. https://www.losgatosca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/38492/Noise-Zone-Map?bidId= The property lies in different colored noise zones depending on the time of day. The accurate ambient zones are the following:

Time Period Ambient Noise Level
6 AM - 1 PM: 55 dBA
1 PM - 10 PM: 53 dBA
10 PM - 6 AM: 48 dBA
(For weekends and holidays, subtract 5 dB)

ITEM NO. 8.

The max allowed are the following (ambient + 6 dB):

Time Period weekdays weekends and holidays
6 AM - 1 PM: 61 dBA 56 dBA
1 PM - 10 PM: 59 dBA 54 dBA
10 PM - 6 AM: 54 dBA 49 dBA
That’s only a slight error, but you might still want to address it. (Incidentally, looking at the measurements in the Salter report, the highest arrival dBA measurement of 56 dBA, along with ALL of the other arrival noise levels and 2 of the departure levels would have been higher than the max allowed for overnight hours on weekend and holidays.) Finally, Mr. Penner misconstrues how the March 31, 2026 meeting actually proceeded once motions were brought to the floor by the commissioners. This is concerning because he mischaracterized the actions of Commissioner Rob Stump. Mr. Penner writes, “Commissioner Rob Stump jumped in before Barnett’s motion could find a second and poured cold water on what had looked, seconds earlier, like a considered compromise.” I watched the meeting on YouTube. Clearly, there was a long pause after the first motion. The chair then asked if anyone wanted to second the motion. No one wanted to second Barnett’s motion. The chair then asked for advice and you advised her that up to 3 motions could be on the table at any one time. The chair then asked for discussion or for a second motion. Only then did Rob Stump start to make another motion. No one watching the meeting proceedings would claim that Rob Stump “jumped in.” Honestly, this sounds libelous to me.

I’m concerned about how the town is being characterized and how this reporting will affect future proceedings.

Regards,
Linda Swenberg

ITEM NO. 8.

From: Mary Hogan < >
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2026 5:24 PM
To: Jocelyn Shoopman <[email protected]>; Joel Paulson <[email protected]>; Sean Mullin <[email protected]>; Allen Meyer <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Farley Road road safety and traffic congestion ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Mary Hogan < >
Date: Tue, Apr 7, 2026 at 4:44 PM
Subject: Farley Road road safety and traffic congestion To: <[email protected]>
Dear Planning Commission,
I would like to invite any member available to come visit Farley Rd on any Friday from 1:45-2:15 pm to view traffic congestion with safety in mind.

I am writing to express my concerns regarding the request of modification of an existing CUP for 16769 Farley Rd for the addition of up to 2 hours for 28 consecutive nights. These additional hours of traffic and possible number of vehicles could severely hinder evacuation efforts putting the lives of residents and visitors at risk.

In the event of a fire or other emergency, the only immediate evacuation route is a single narrow road.

Farley Rd is 0.9 miles away from 108 Mary Way which is in a High Fire Hazard area as designated on the June 17, 2025 Town Council approved Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map. Embers from urban wildfires can travel 1 to 5 miles.

I respectfully urge you and the Town of Los Gatos to review and ensure that comprehensive safety measures and evacuation plans are in place for this congestion on this residential road. Wildfire threats are becoming increasingly frequent and severe, and prioritizing public safety is more important than ever.

Thank you for your time and consideration,
Mary
--
Mary Hogan
ˁ˚ᴥ˚ˀ

ITEM NO. 8.

From: Farley Road Neighborhood Coalition < >
Sent: Sunday, April 5, 2026 3:15 PM
To: Jocelyn Shoopman <[email protected]>; Alexa Nolder <[email protected]>; Planning <[email protected]>; Michael Vroman <[email protected]>; Town PPW <[email protected]>
Subject: Correction of Public Record: Inaccurate Road Width Data for 16769 Farley Road (WVMA) CUP Modification
Dear Planning Commission and Public Works,
I am writing to formally dispute the testimony provided during the public hearing on March 31 regarding the street width of Farley Road as it relates to the CUP Modification for 16769 Farley Road (WVMA). It was stated for the record that the road is 40 feet wide; however, physical field measurements prove this is incorrect and creates a dangerous misunderstanding of the road's capacity.

The physical reality of Farley Road is one of extreme inconsistency. While there are sections where a curb-to-curb measurement reaches 39 feet, much of the road is constricted by irregular field conditions—including dirt shoulders, uneven pavement, mailboxes, fire hydrants, and utility poles—that significantly reduce the usable width.

Our field measurements at these "pinch points" show:
• 16761 Farley Road: 34 feet (measured from mailbox).
• 16750 Farley Road: 35 feet (measured from mailbox).
• 16731 Farley Road: 35 feet (measured from utility pole).

The department’s 40-foot claim suggested there is ample space for two 8-foot parking lanes (16’ total), a 20-foot fire lane, and 4 feet for pedestrians. However, a safe clearance for those parking and fire lanes alone requires at least 36 feet. At the locations listed above, the math simply fails:
• At 16761 Farley Road (34’): After accounting for 16' of parked cars, only 18 feet remains.

This is 2 feet short of the mandatory 20-foot fire lane requirement. • At 16750 & 16731 Farley Road (35’): Only 19 feet remains. This is 1 foot short of the fire lane requirement.

In all these real-world scenarios, there is zero room left for pedestrians, and we are short of the mandatory fire lane width.

I have attached photographs of these measurements taken at these specific locations to document that "paper reality" does not match the ground truth. I urge the Public Works Engineer to conduct an immediate on-site measurement of these obstructions rather than referencing outdated records. Decisions regarding the WVMA CUP modification must be based on accurate, physical data to ensure the safety of our residents.

ITEM NO. 8.

Sincerely,
Farley Road Neighborhood Coalition

ITEM NO. 8.

ITEM NO. 8.

From: Sean Allen < >
Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 4:20 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>; Rob Moore <[email protected]>; Maria Ristow <[email protected]>; Mary Badame <[email protected]>; Rob Rennie <[email protected]>; Matthew Hudes <[email protected]>; ; ; ;
Cc: ; Carla Torres < >; Lejoi Reese
< >; Sameena Usman < >; Musa Tariq <
>;
Subject: NAACP San Jose/Silicon Valley Branch – Public Comment for the Record: West Valley Muslim Association Conditional Use Permit Amendment, Farley Road Mosque

PUBLIC COMMENT SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
To: Town of Los Gatos Town Council & Planning Commission From: Sean Allen, President, NAACP San Jose/Silicon Valley Branch Re: West Valley Muslim Association Conditional Use Permit Amendment – Farley Road Mosque Date: April 1, 2026
Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Members of the Town Council, and Members of the Planning Commission:

My name is Sean Allen. I am the President of the NAACP San Jose/Silicon Valley Branch. I submit this comment on behalf of our Branch and in response to a request from the Muslim community that we stand with them during this proceeding. We do so proudly.

The NAACP supports the West Valley Muslim Association’s application for an amended Conditional Use Permit.

The right to worship is not a privilege extended at the pleasure of neighbors. It is a constitutionally protected right — enshrined in the First Amendment and reinforced by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), which explicitly prohibits local governments from imposing land use regulations that substantially burden the religious exercise of a religious assembly or institution without a compelling governmental interest pursued through the least restrictive means.

The Town of Los Gatos must apply that standard here. Requiring a mosque to cease religious observance during one of the holiest months in the Islamic calendar — Ramadan — because neighbors find the traffic inconvenient does not meet that threshold. It does not come close.

On the question of discrimination:

ITEM NO. 8.

The NAACP has reviewed the public commentary surrounding this matter, including statements made in connection with media coverage of this proceeding. What we found was deeply troubling and cannot go unaddressed in this official proceeding.

Members of the public made the following statements in this public discourse:
• Comparing wishing Muslims “Ramadan Mubarak” to Nazis wishing Jews a happy Hanukkah. • Stating that Islam has “ruined every country it’s predominant in.” • Suggesting that “bringing the Crusades back would be a good thing.” • Using the word “PORK” as a derogatory response when civil rights concerns were raised. • Stating “goodbye Los Gatos your end is here” in response to civil rights advocacy. • Characterizing Islam as a “7th century” religion that needs to be brought into modernity.

These are not traffic complaints. These are expressions of religious bigotry and Islamophobia.

And while this body may not be responsible for what individuals post on social media, this body is responsible for ensuring that public sentiment rooted in bias does not infect a land use proceeding that is supposed to be decided on neutral, lawful criteria.

The NAACP calls on this Town Council and Planning Commission to affirmatively state that Islamophobic public comment will not be given weight in this proceeding, and that the CUP amendment will be evaluated solely on its legal merits under RLUIPA, the California Constitution, and applicable land use law.

On the merits:

The West Valley Muslim Association has demonstrated extraordinary good-faith efforts to be a responsible neighbor — dimming lights, quieting security gates, notifying neighbors 30 days in advance of events, coaching congregants on respectful departure, and more. The Los GatosMonte Sereno Police Department itself acknowledged that WVMA keeps their gatherings “eerily quiet.” The mosque’s request for modest extended hours during Ramadan — a 30-day religious observance recognized globally — is reasonable, narrowly tailored, and legally sound.

The NAACP urges this body to approve the amended Conditional Use Permit.

Religious freedom in this country is not contingent on whether your faith makes your neighbor uncomfortable. It is not contingent on whether your community was here before you arrived.

And it is not contingent on whether the traffic during your holiest month inconveniences those who live nearby.

We are watching this proceeding. We are standing with the West Valley Muslim Association.

And we will continue to advocate for the civil rights of every community in Silicon Valley — regardless of their faith, their race, or the comfort level of their neighbors.

ITEM NO. 8.

Ramadan Mubarak.

Respectfully submitted,
Sean Allen
President, NAACP San Jose/Silicon Valley Branch

SOURCES AND REFERENCES
The following sources were reviewed and relied upon in preparing this statement:

1. Mercury News — “Los Gatos mosque seeks extended hours amid neighbors’ complaints,” Nollyanne Delacruz, February 18, 2026. (mercurynews.com)

2. The Los Gatan — “Ramadan in LG: Muslims begin month of fasts,” Drew Penner, February 19, 2026.

3. KRON4 — “Members of a Los Gatos mosque have begun celebrating the holy month of Ramadan,” Jack Molmud, February 19, 2026.

4. ABC7 / KGO — “Mosque in Los Gatos neighborhood becomes focus of local complaints as it seeks to extend hours,” Tim Johns, February 19, 2026.

5. KTVU FOX 2 — “Los Gatos mosque wants to extend hours to 11 p.m. in residential neighborhood,” Aaron Dickens, February 18, 2026.

6. CBS San Francisco — “Los Gatos mosque seeks more leeway as Ramadan begins, but neighbors are upset over extra noise,” Amanda Hari, February 18, 2026.

7. Mercury News Facebook Public Comment Section — Screenshots of public comments posted in response to Mercury News coverage, February 18–19, 2026. (Reviewed February 2026; on file with the NAACP San Jose/Silicon Valley Branch)

8. Town of Los Gatos — Conditional Use Permit Application, West Valley Muslim Association, filed September 2024; Town Attorney correspondence to WVMA, July 2024.

9. Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) — 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq.

10. Pew Research Center / Academic Research — Referenced statistic: more than 60,000 Muslim families in Santa Clara County, representing approximately 27% of the estimated 250,000 Muslim families in the Bay Area.

11. Islamophobia Research — Referenced statistic: Islamophobic hate crimes were five times more common following September 11, 2001. (Source: peer-reviewed research cited in Mercury News coverage, 2026)
Sent from my iPhone

ITEM NO. 8.

From: Evann P.S. Addeo < >
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2026 2:23 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Cc: Jocelyn Shoopman <[email protected]>; Alexa Nolder <[email protected]>; < >;
< >; Sblend Sblendorio < >; Ellie
Hale < >; Frank Masi < >; Erica R.

Hagelberg < >; J. Randall Toch
< >
Subject: Public Comment Item # 1; re 16769 Farley Road
Dear Ms. Kendra Burch and Planning Commission Members:

Please find the attached letters from Mr. Sblendorio of Hoge Fenton.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you,
Evann Addeo

Evann P.S. Addeo
Litigation Legal Administrative Assistant
D: +1.

O: +1. | 55 South Market Street, Suite 900San José, CA 95113 United States email
click here to send us files securely
click here to receive valuable legal information
A member of Mackrell International, a Global
Network of Independent Law Firms

ITEM NO. 8.

Sblend A. Sblendorio

4908-5486-5052v2
Tri-Valley Office | 6801 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 210, Pleasanton, California 94566-7047 phone 925.224.7780 fax 925.224.7782 www.hogefenton.com
March 31, 2026
Via E-Mail
Kendra Burch, Chair
Los Gatos Planning Commission
[email protected]
Re: Agenda Item No.1 March 31, 2026
Public Comment for the Hearing Considering 16769 Farley Road Conditional Use Permit Application U-24-010
Our File No.: 210148
Dear Ms. Burch and Planning Commissioners:

At the March 25, 2026 Planning Commission meeting, in discussion of Agenda Item No.2, Commissioners expressed interest in understanding the zoning conditions of the Evergreen Islamic Center (“EIC”) at 2486 Ruby Ave, San Jose, CA 95148, as well as the Muslim Community Association Al-Noor (“Al-Noor”) facility at 1755 Catherine St., Santa Clara, CA 95050. Additionally, questions were posed of the Calvery Church in Los Gatos related to how the Calvery Church’s facility impacts its neighborhood.

The EIC and Al-Noor facilities are not zoned residential as was stated on March 25.

Despite each of their proximities to residential zoning. EIC is in a planned development (“PD”) zoning, and Al-Noor is in Santa Clara’s Public/Quasi-Public (“PQP”) zoning.

The zoning of EIC and Al-Noor is significant because the uses of those facilities can be regulated based not on R-1 zoning, but on the PD and PQP zoning respectively. Whereas the zoning for 16769 Farley Road (the “Subject Property”), is zoned R-1, and is thus limited to uses consistent with that residential zoning.

Calvary Church, at 16330 Los Gatos Blvd, Los Gatos, CA 95032, is also zoned R-1 in the Town of Los Gatos (the “Town”). Calvary Church is subject to significant conditions of approval in its conditional use permit (Permit No. U-02-09 ), including precluding egress onto Robbie Ln which is designated as a Local Street (the same designation as Farley Road).

The following pages demonstrate further distinguishing characteristics of each these religious properties.

ITEM NO. 8.

March 31, 2026

4908-5486-5052v2
EIC, 2486 Ruby Avenue, San Jose, CA
Relevant Facts:
• 93,034 sq. ft. lot, approximately 21,614 sq. ft. building footprint (23.23% FAR) • Current zoning: A(PD) (Planned Development)
• Gated entry/exit from Ruby Avenue, an arterial thoroughfare approx. 250 feet from large four way intersection
• 74 foot distance from nearest residential structure

ITEM NO. 8.

March 31, 2026

4908-5486-5052v2
Al-Noor, 1755 Catherine Street, Santa Clara, CA
Relevant Facts:
• 23,522 sq. ft. lot, approximately 5,287 sq. ft. building footprint (22.48% FAR) • Current zoning: PQP (Public/Quasi-Public district)
• Gated entry/exit from two sides, onto large residential roads

ITEM NO. 8.

March 31, 2026

4908-5486-5052v2
Calvery Church, at 16330 Los Gatos Blvd. Los Gatos, CA
Relevant Facts:
• 321,995 sq. ft. lot, approximately 106,323 sq. ft. total building footprint (33.02% FAR); the parcel makes up nearly 2/3rds of city block.
• Current zoning: R-1:8 (Low density Residential, minimum lot of 8,000 sq. ft.) • Several access points, from Los Gatos Blvd., a major arterial thoroughfare with a streetlight, and Shannon Road, a neighborhood collector road. Two additional gates face Robie Lane, a local street, but the CUP only allows use as an overflow lot.

ITEM NO. 8.

March 31, 2026

4908-5486-5052v2
WVMA, at 16769 Farley Road, Los Gatos, CA
Relevant Facts:
• Current zoning is R-1:8 (Low density Residential, minimum lot of 8,000 sq. ft.) • 120,225 sq. ft. lot, approximately 12,827 sq. ft. building footprint (10.67% FAR) • Gated entry/exit from Farley Road, a local street that leads to Los Gatos Blvd. on one side, approx. 670 ft. away, and on the other side circles through residential tracts ultimately leading back to Los Gatos Blvd.

ITEM NO. 8.

March 31, 2026

4908-5486-5052v2
Conclusion
Unlike the EIC facility, the Subject Property is immediately surrounded by singlefamily residences on all sides; whereas the EIC facility has houses only on one side and the other sides are adjacent to open fields.

Unlike Al-Noor, the Subject Property is not on residential roads with sidewalks, and other infrastructure. Additionally, the residents of Catherine St. and the surrounding area in Santa Clara are not cut off from other roadways and adjacent neighborhoods as are the Farley Road residents. The Commission heard public comment from neighbors near the Subject Property that the neighborhood is small and has only outlets to Los Gatos Blvd.

Therefore, for Farley Road residents to take a walk necessitates walking in competition with traffic to and from the Subject Property.

And unlike Calvery Church, the Subject Property is not located directly on a major arterial road with significant on-site parking. As the Commission heard at the Meeting that the Subject Property generates more car traffic than can park on-site, creating significant street parking and congestion in the neighborhood. Unlike Calvery Church, the Subject Property cannot avoid egress onto a local street.

Because the Subject Property is designated R-1, and has no defining characteristic making its expanded use consisted with its R-1 zoning and the General Plan, as described in our March 25, 2026, letter to the Planning Commission, the Commission should deny the conditional use permit modification.

Sincerely,
HOGE, FENTON, JONES & APPEL, INC.

Sblend Sblendorio
Attorney

ITEM NO. 8.

Sblend A. Sblendorio

6113-2444v2
Tri-Valley Office | 6801 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 210, Pleasanton, California 94566-7047 phone 925.224.7780 fax 925.224.7782 www.hogefenton.com
March 31, 2026
Via E-Mail
Kendra Burch, Chair
Los Gatos Planning Commission
[email protected]
Re: Agenda Item No. 1 March 31, 2026
Public Comment for the Hearing Considering 16769 Farley Road Conditional Use Permit Application U-24-010
Our File No.: 210148
Dear Ms. Burch and Planning Commission Members:

The Ninth Circuit has issued binding authority which guides the substantial burden analysis in this jurisdiction. This authority must also guide your review of conditional use permit application U-24-010. On November 4, 2025 we wrote to the Planning Department regarding the Ninth Circuit precedent while also explaining why the above referenced project does not place such a burden on the applicants’ religious exercise.

Planning Staff’s report references the 2018 “Statement of the Department of Justice on the Land Use Provisions of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA)” issued by the U.S. Department of Justice. This DOJ statement appears to have informed the Staff’s description of factors relevant to analyzing whether a substantial burden exits. This DOJ statement is not legally binding, and merely lists an overview of factors which may have been relevant in various cases, but is not specific to any one jurisdiction. While those factors may be considered, that list is not instructive list of what should be factored in the Conditional Use Permit application before you, does not attempt to instruct on how courts have viewed those factors, and should not be given the same weight as established Ninth Circuit precedent applied more recently than the DOJ statement in question.

The following case excerpts describe how courts with jurisdiction over California have factored the burden of zoning requirements on religious practice.

In the Ninth Circuit, under RLUIPA:

A land use regulation imposes a substantial burden when it is “oppressive to a significantly great extent. That is, a substantial burden on religious exercise must impose a significantly great restriction or onus upon such exercise.” San Jose Christian Coll. v. City of Morgan Hill, 360 F.3d 1024, 1034 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We consider “the totality of the circumstances,” including, but not limited to, whether the [municipality’s]

ITEM NO. 8.

March 31, 2026

4905-6113-2444v2
reasons for denying the special use permit were arbitrary and could apply to Plaintiffs' future applications; whether Plaintiffs have ready alternatives or whether those alternatives would require “substantial uncertainty delay, or expense”; whether Plaintiffs were precluded from other locations in the [jurisdiction]; and whether Plaintiffs imposed the burden upon themselves.” (Spirit of Aloha Temple v. County of Maui (9th Cir. 2025) 132 F.4th 1148, 1156, cert. denied sub nom. Moss v. Sachem Cent. BD. of ED. (U.S., Mar. 23, 2026, No. 25-823) 2026 WL 795228 (“Spirit of Aloha”.)
Further, “a substantial burden must place more than inconvenience on religious exercise.” (New Harvest Christian Fellowship v. City of Salinas (9th Cir. 2022) 29 F.4th 596, 602 (“New Harvest”).)
In Spirit of Aloha, no substantial burden was found where the County denied a special use permit to the church, because the
proposed uses would increase traffic and burden public agencies. The Commission also noted safety concerns for drivers and pedestrians on Haumana Road.

Haumana Road is a narrow road, between eleven and eighteen feet wide at different parts. In contrast, the average rural or agricultural road is about twenty-two feet wide. Haumana Road contains no streetlights, no sidewalks, no shoulder, and no lane markings. And in certain places, two cars cannot pass each other unless one pulls off the road.

The Commission found compelling the testimony of several nearby property owners on Haumana Road, who expressed concerns about pedestrian safety.

Residents testified that children regularly walk home from school on the road and that the road has several blind turns, which pose a safety issue. Other residents noted concerns about flooding on the road during storms that made the road difficult to pass, although Plaintiffs challenge the severity and frequency of such flooding.

Given the conditions of Haumana Road, the County's concerns about traffic and road safety are well supported in the record and are not arbitrary.

Spirit of Aloha, supra, (9th Cir. 2025) 132 F.4th at 1157.

In New Harvest, while the zoning requirement was found to be an unequal burden on religion, the requirements under it were properly found to not substantially burden religion.

The court identified three primary reasons, under the totality of circumstances, that no substantial burden was imposed by the city’s zoning requirements:

First, New Harvest has not shown that the Assembly Uses Provision precludes it from conducting worship services in the Beverly Building. The record reflects

ITEM NO. 8.

March 31, 2026

4905-6113-2444v2
that New Harvest could have reconfigured the first floor of the building both to hold religious assemblies and to comply with the zoning requirements applicable in the Downtown Core Area. . . . While the City's proposed reconfiguration of the Beverly Building's first floor might have resulted in a space that could fit only 208 seats rather than New Harvest's preferred layout that could fit 299 seats, New Harvest never proved that this difference in capacity would have imposed a “substantial burden.” San Jose Christian Coll., 360 F.3d at 1034 (internal quotation marks omitted).

The Assembly Uses Provision also permits services on the second floor. . . . [E]ven assuming arguendo that the second floor is acoustically suboptimal, New Harvest has not shown that the resulting inconvenience would be anything more than that—an inconvenience. Id.

Second, even if we were to conclude that it would be a substantial burden for New Harvest to conduct worship on the second floor or to remodel the first floor, New Harvest has not shown that it was precluded from using other sites within the City. Under the zoning code, New Harvest is free to conduct worship services in almost any area of the City outside of the ground floor of the Main Street Restricted Area. To the extent that New Harvest would need to apply for a conditional use permit for religious assembly in other parts of the City, there is no evidence that suggests the City would deny such an application. To the contrary, over the past fifty years, the City has granted all but one such application from a church, among more than 100 applications. There is accordingly no record here that any subsequent application from New Harvest would be “fraught with uncertainty,” since the City has not exhibited the “inconsistent decision-making” and conflicting rationalizations for repeated denials that led us to find that the Guru Nanak congregation faced a substantial burden after it acquired a second property but was again denied zoning approval. [Guru Nanak Sikh Soc. of Yuba City v. County of Sutter (9th Cir. 2006) 456 F.3d 978, 990-991.]
Moreover, many properties have become available in Salinas since New Harvest represented that it was intending to look for a new location. But New Harvest did not take steps to acquire any of these properties. The parties disagree as to the time frame relevant to determining whether a suitable alternative property was available to New Harvest. But we need not resolve this issue because a suitable property was available for sale during the pendency of this litigation. Before the district court, New Harvest argued that this property was unsuitable because it would require congregants to make a U-turn on a highway in order to reach the property on the other side. New Harvest presented no evidence, however, showing that this feature would render the property unsuitable for its congregation's use. It did not show, for example, that the property was unsuitable because of “size, configuration, safety issues, or current uses.” See [International Church of Foursquare Gospel v. City of San Leandro (9th Cir. 2011) 673 F.3d 1059, 1068.] Inconvenience alone is not a substantial burden.

ITEM NO. 8.

March 31, 2026

4905-6113-2444v2
Finally, New Harvest's wholesale failure of proof concerning available alternatives is more significant because New Harvest purchased a building that it knew at the time was subject to unique zoning restrictions that would preclude it from conducting worship services on the first floor. This, combined with New Harvest's failure to diligently pursue other suitable buildings that came on the market since it represented to the City that its stay at the rented building would be temporary, suggests that New Harvest's burden is at least partly of its own making.
(New Harvest, supra, (9th Cir. 2022) 29 F.4th at pp. 602–604.) Sincerely,
HOGE, FENTON, JONES & APPEL, INC.

Sblend Sblendorio
Attorney

ITEM NO. 8.

From: Rose Dao < >
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2026 2:19 PM
To: Jocelyn Shoopman <[email protected]>; Rob Moore <[email protected]>; Maria Ristow <[email protected]>; Mary Badame <[email protected]>; Rob Rennie <[email protected]>; Matthew Hudes <[email protected]>; Alexa Nolder <[email protected]>; Alexa Nolder <[email protected]>; Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: WVMA CUP
Dear Town Leaders,
I realize that the WVMA is an important center for the Muslim community. My request is that the town also takes into consideration the safety and tranquility of our Farley neighborhood.

Even after Ramadan was over, there are daily visitors coming and going from 6 - 7 am and sometimes arriving even before 6 am. Our bedroom window faces along Farley Road and we can hear the cars coming and going in these early morning and late night hours. Since the members are not even abiding by the current hours of 8am - 10pm during non Ramadan hours, I'm concerned that if the CUP passes with the requested hour changes, we will have people coming and going starting even at 4 am during the times when Ramadan is later in the year than it has been the last few years.

I completely respect their religious freedom and desire to pray at certain times of the day. My concern is when these early and late prayer times have negative impacts on our neighborhood.

Its not uncommon that I see cars speeding during the early morning hours when there are fewer cars on the road.

I didn't think that is was reasonable for the priests from the other Churches in Los Gatos advocating for the CUP early morning and later night hour changes during last week's town hall meeting when their churches' hours are either from 8am-5pm or 7am-9 pm at the earliest and latest. Our neighborhood's request to not approve the requested CUP hour changes has nothing to do with religion. We wish to work with the WVMA since we realize it has a positive impact to their community. I think the same rules should apply to all business and places of worship. The WVMA on Farley Rd is located on a small road with no street lights leading up the association and no sidewalks.

I implore you to protect our small community.

Thank you so much for your consideration and assistance.

Rose Dao

ITEM NO. 8.

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

ITEM NO. 8.

PREPARED BY: Jocelyn Shoopman
Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Planning Manager, Community Development Director, and Town Attorney 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 406-354-6832
www.losgatosca.gov

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 04/22/2026
ITEM NO: 3
DATE: April 20, 2026
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Consider a Request for Approval to Modify an Existing Conditional Use Permit for Expanded Hours of Operation in an Institution for Religious Observance (West Valley Muslim Association) on Property Zoned R-1:8. Located at 16769 Farley Road. APN 424-21-062. Categorically Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301: Existing Facilities. Property Owner: West Valley Muslim Association, Osmar Ghafoor, President. Applicant: Razi Mohiuddin. Project Planner: Jocelyn Shoopman.

REMARKS:

Exhibit 27 contains additional information from the neighborhood group.

Public comments received between 3:01 p.m., Friday, Apil 17, 2026, and 3:00 p.m., Monday, April 20, 2026, are included as Exhibit 28.

EXHIBITS:

Previously Received with the March 25, 2026, Staff Report:

1. Location Map

2. Draft Resolution Making the Required Findings and Approving the Application Subject to the Conditionals of Approval (Included as Attachment A)

3. Conditional Use Permit U-89-11

4. Conditional Use Permit U-20-001; March 11, 2020, Planning Commission Staff Report; and March 11, 2020, Planning Commission Minutes

5. Letter of Justification

6. Neighborhood Outreach

7. Noise Analysis

8. Site Map

9. Applicant's Response to Public Comments Regarding Noise

10. Additional Information from the Applicant
ATTACHMENT 11

ITEM NO. 8.

PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: 16769 Farley Road/U-24-010
DATE: April 20, 2026

11. Public Comments Received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, March 20, 2026, with Attachment A, Videos Provided as Part of Public Comments
Previously Received with the March 23, 2026, Addendum Report:

12. Public Comments Received Between 3:01 p.m., Friday, March 20, 2026, and 3:00 p.m., Monday, March 23, 2026
Previously Received with the March 24, 2026, Addendum Report 2:

13. Public Comments Received Between 3:01 p.m., Monday, March 23, 2026, and 3:00 p.m., Tuesday, March 24, 2026
Previously Received with the March 25, 2026, Desk Item Report:

14. Supplemental Information from the Applicant

15. Letter from the Applicant’s Legal Counsel

16. Public Comments Received Between 3:01 p.m., Tuesday, March 24, 2026, and 11:00 a.m., Wednesday, March 25, 2026
Previously Received with the March 31, 2026, Staff Report:

17. Public Comments Received Between 11:01 a.m., Wednesday, March 25, 2026, and 3:00 p.m., Friday, March 27, 2026
Previously Received with the March 30, 2026, Addendum Report:

18. Public Comments Received Between 3:01 p.m., Friday, March 27, 2026, and 3:00 p.m., Monday, March 30, 2026
Previously Received with the March 31, 2026, Desk Item Report:

19. Additional Information from the Applicant’s Legal Counsel

20. Supplemental Information from the Applicant’s Noise Consultant

21. Applicant’s Neighborhood Outreach

22. Applicant’s Response to Public Comments

23. Public Comments Received Between 3:01 p.m., Monday, March 30, 2026, and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, March 31, 2026
Previously Received with the April 22, 2026, Staff Report:

24. Applicant’s Response to Neighborhood Group Meeting

25. Neighborhood Group’s Response to Meeting with the Applicant

26. Public Comments Received Between 3:01 p.m., Tuesday, March 31, 2026, and 3:00 p.m., Friday, April 17, 2026
Received with this Addendum Report:

27. Additional Information from the Neighborhood Group

28. Public Comments Received Between 3:01 p.m., Friday, Apil 17, 2026, and 3:00 p.m., Monday, April 20, 2026

ITEM NO. 8.

From: Farley Road Neighborhood Coalition < >
Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2026 11:00 PM
To: Jocelyn Shoopman <[email protected]>; Alexa Nolder <[email protected]>; Planning <[email protected]>; Chris Constantin <[email protected]>; Gabrielle Whelan <[email protected]>
Cc: Allen Meyer <[email protected]>; Sean Mullin <[email protected]>; Joel Paulson <[email protected]>; Town Manager <[email protected]> Subject: Request for Continuance – WVMA CUP Modification (Hearing Date: 4/22) Dear Planning Commission,
We have submitted our recommended CUP conditions on April 17, 2026. If you have specific questions or need clarification, we will be happy to provide answers during the 4/22 meeting.

Given the comprehensive nature of our proposal, we believe a continuance of the April 22nd vote is necessary to allow for a thorough review of the details and to further engage with mediation services.

Following your recommendation, we have contacted the Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center and the Center for Human Development and are awaiting their response.

We are also vetting a shortlist of highly qualified neutrals to ensure a productive session:
• Hon. James Ware (Ret.): Former State/Federal Judge; complex litigation expert. • Hon. Edward Infante (Ret.): Former U.S. Magistrate Judge; public policy specialist. • Tamara Lange: JAMS neutral; civil rights and complex dispute resolution. • Howard Herman: Environmental and public policy mediation expert. • Hon. Robert Baines (Ret.): Former Judge; deep Santa Clara County experience. • Jeffrey P. Blum: Local Los Gatos attorney; private judging and mediation.

A brief continuance is essential to finalize these professional arrangements and ensure a fair, sustainable agreement for the community.

Sincerely,
Farley Road Neighborhood Coalition
EXHIBIT 27

ITEM NO. 8.

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

ITEM NO. 8.

From: Kim Ratcliff < >
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2026 2:59 PM
To: Jocelyn Shoopman <[email protected]>; Planning <[email protected]>; Gabrielle Whelan <[email protected]>; jimratcliff < >; Joel Paulson <[email protected]>
Subject: Ratcliff’s Property Specific Requests for WVMA CUP Conditions Dear Planning Commissioners,
First, we want to thank you for the care and consideration you have given to this item so far. We appreciate your thoroughness and thoughtful questions.

As the direct neighbors to WVMA, we are in solidarity with the Farley Road Neighborhood Coalition on the proposed CUP Modification conditions sent to you last Friday.

However, as WVMA surrounds our property (see photo), we ask that you consider on our behalf the following mitigations specific to our property:

1. Taller fences as suggested by Commissioner Barnett will not absorb sound. Require the applicant to engage a light and noise pollution consultant, approved by the Town, to evaluate how to reduce light and noise impacts upon our home (as well as the other immediately adjacent homes.) This evaluation should include consideration of planting a uniform significant privacy hedge 8’ or taller surrounding our property line, installing more robust barriers at the exit driveway, and repairing the pavement cracks in the exit driveway that cause loud booming noises when vehicles pass over. A plan shall be planted and installed along our property by September 1, 2026.

2. Conduct a noise study during Ramadan by an unbiased noise consultant and collect decibel measurement of 200 vehicles exiting within 60 feet of our bedroom at 11 pm well after Town’s quiet hours ordinance.

EXHIBIT 28

ITEM NO. 8.

3. To satisfy the Town’s legitimate governmental interest in preserving our neighborhood:
• Limit the facility use twice a month on Sundays between the hours of 12-5 pm to ensure our quiet enjoyment of homes and minimize the facility’s neighborhood impact of sustained, around the clock weekday/night and weekend traffic/parking lot noise pollution (engines revving, slamming doors, car alarms, yelling, etc.) • Prohibit staggered attendance: Events must have a fixed start and end time with a single group of attendees. “Rolling" or "staggered" arrivals/departures to bypass capacity limits bring hours of sustained weekend traffic.

4. Limit the number of prayer attendees before 8 am and after 10 pm (with the exception of Ramadan) to less than 25, as contemplated in the 2020 CUP approval documentation allowing us to sleep and be rested for our jobs. Note: Calvary Church which allows daily assembly from 7 am to 10 pm and extended operation until 12:00 am on Saturdays sits on a 7.4 acre lot and is surrounded on three sides by commercial or office zoning with ingress and egress primary onto Los Gatos Blvd., which is designated as an arterial road.

5. Deny request for an extra half hour to vacate the parking lot. This condition, if accepted, translates to 200 vehicles as late as 11 pm year round (and 11:30 or midnight for 30 nights during Ramadan) as we try to sleep and rest in our home. More than ever, medical literature shows that restorative sleep is essential to one's health, well-being and longevity. Please allow us to get the peace and rest we all deserve in our home.

6. Require the applicant to block off portions (approx. 10 parking spaces) of the lot adjacent to our property on weekends, weeknights, and at night when the lot is not at full capacity with physical and substantial barriers (similar to the Calvary Church’s Shannon Road egress and permanently closed back right parking lot area) to protect our privacy.

7. Require applicant to remove the ‘right hand turn only’ sign at the end of exit and change it to ‘left hand only’ turn to feed traffic out to major arterial road, Los Gatos Blvd.

8. The applicant must address the blind spot at the end of exit driveway (mirror, signage) and/or provide traffic management for egress during peak traffic at all times of year, so as to ensure there are breaks in the traffic such that we may enter or exit our own driveway and are not trapped or endangered; require this corrective action immediately.

9. Require the applicant to conduct all weekend events set up and delivery on the East side of property, not on the west side adjacent to our property. No staging or delivery for Ramadan on weekends; weekdays only.

We are happy to answer any questions at the 4/22 meeting.

Thank you,
Kim and Jim Ratcliff

ITEM NO. 8.

From: Gus Who < >
Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2026 8:07 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment Item # 1&3 for 4-22 PC
To Whom It May Concern,
Given this Planning Commission meeting was just posted, and am trying to follow along with some others in this town to important info that will impact this town… I believe yesterday’s article published in the local Town paper (LOS GATOS WEEKLY TIMES) needs to be put in the record for agenda # 3. I am not sure of the author, but it is the “Opinion” of the paper that provides the “$1.00 | FRIDAY, APRIL 17, 2026 | MERCURYNEWS.COM/LOS-GATOS” This news was delivered free of charge to I believe the community at large. I am not sure, but suspect the Town supports such free service, and given the high volume of watch viewed replay to March 25 (1.2 k views) and March 31 (1.8 k views) planning commission meetings, um… if not resolved by parties, and none paid commissioners vote … one way or the other.. one can foresee legal ramifications, and people with “OPINIONS” that get “quoted” … um .. enough said.

I believe this should be noted, as someone who .. um .. that I request minutes be pulled, and corrected .. um … not very good at public speaking.. blah, blah… blah! But don’t want be hauled into a court of law.. um .. over WAT? (TRAFFIC & Noise??) Therefore this picture of page 6, articles and D … um .. to page.. See Traffic on ..A 20.. … add that up, and its…

ITEM NO. 8.

TIM E
All Rights Reserved
©®��

ITEM NO. 8.

From: Michelle Young < >
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2026 6:59 PM
To: Jocelyn Shoopman <[email protected]>; Planning <[email protected]> Subject: Please do the right thing!
Hello!
I am asking you, the Town of LG, to conduct critical traffic and public safety studies before granting a permit that will allow the facility right next door to all these homes to operate for 20 hours a day!
Would you want all this activity next door to your home? In your neighborhood?? Please do what’s right! This isn’t about culture or religious freedom — we fully support both, but this is about privacy and doing the right thing.

Please do the right thing and do the critical traffic and public safety studies before doing anything.

Please.

Michelle

ITEM NO. 8.

From: Linda S < >
Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2026 5:31 PM
To: Jocelyn Shoopman <[email protected]>
Cc: Gabrielle Whelan <[email protected]>; Town Manager <[email protected]>; Joel Paulson <[email protected]>; Sean Mullin <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Question about proposed CUP U-24-010
Dear Ms. Shoopman,
Thank you so much for your response.

I would like this email, with the addition of your response, to be included for the record. Please remove my email address from any of the published documents.

My concern is that there is some confusion about this CUP modification. Since it is stated in the title of the draft of the new CUP, anyone engaged with these proceedings would think that it is only limited to extending hours, but it is clear that the changes go beyond simply and expansion of operating hours. Below is the table comparing the currently approved permit and the proposed permit.

The expansion of uses is so significant, that it might even be considered a new type of nonconforming use of the building, such as a private club, fraternal organization, or community center. In that case, when considering the new conditional use permit, keep in mind section

29.10.235, “In no event may the building be used for any use that is less consistent with the uses permitted in the zone than the most recent lawful activity in the building.” Regards,
Linda Swenberg

ITEM NO. 8.

Category Approved Permit
(2020) Proposed Permit (2026) Key Changes Beyond Hours Extension Permitted
Uses
Maintain an
existing church
facility for religious
observance
(primarily worship
services). Limited
to religious
services during
Ramadan for
extended hours.

Operate an existing institution
for religious observance.

Includes worship services plus
religious exercise (prayers,
educational classes, Sunday
school), community events,
charitable events, and other
activities related to the
religious mission. Facility may
be rented to community
members or organizations for
educational, charitable,
religious, or related services
benefiting members.

Significant expansion of
allowable activities to
include a broader range of
community, educational,
and charitable
events/rentals (not limited
to core worship).

Occupancy
Limits
No explicit
maximum;
referenced
anticipated low
attendance (10–25
members for
Ramadan prayers).

On-site events limited to the
maximum building occupancy
established by Fire and Building
Code.

New explicit cap tied to
fire/building code (adds
enforceable limit).

Noise &
Quiet Hours
No specific noise
conditions or quiet
hours defined.

Windows on the
west elevation
shall remain closed
(general site
condition).

Establishes Quiet Hours: 10:00
p.m. – 8:00 a.m. daily. During
Quiet Hours: • All activities
must comply with Town Noise
Ordinance residential
standards (measured at
property line). • Parking lot
limited to ingress/egress,
security, emergency access, or
use by leaders’ quarters
occupants (when no service in
session). • Windows and doors
facing residences must remain
closed (except limited
ingress/egress for services). •
Lighting must be full-cutoff,
downward-directed, and
dimmed to security levels. •
Require posted “Quiet Hours”
New comprehensive Quiet
Hours regime with detailed
operational restrictions on
parking, building
operations, lighting, and
signage/communication.

ITEM NO. 8.
signage and reminders to
attendees to minimize noise
when leaving.

Parking Lot
Operations &
Closure
No specific parking
lot rules beyond
general note of no
increase in
traffic/parking
impacts.

Parking lot must be vacated by
11:00 p.m. during general
hours, or within 30 minutes of
the end of the last service
during seasonal late hours.

Staff/volunteers must remind
attendees to leave quietly. Lot
may open 2 hours prior to
sunrise for pre-sunrise services.

New mandatory lot
closure/vacation times and
reminder protocols (adds
enforcement layer for postevent activity).

Parking &
Traffic
Management
No detailed
requirements;
noted no
anticipated
increase in traffic
or parking
demand.
• Monthly outreach to
members encouraging
carpooling and sensitivity to
neighbors. • For events
exceeding on-site parking:
designate monitor/attendant;
ensure all on-site spaces used
first; maintain emergency
access. • Use both driveways
for exiting during high-traffic
events, with attendants as
needed. • Overflow parking
plan required when on-site
capacity insufficient. • At least
30 days before high-attendance
periods: written reminders to
members/attendees about
respectful parking, carpooling,
avoiding spillover on residential
streets, and minimizing parking
lot congregation.

Documentation must be kept
and available upon request.

Substantial new
requirements for proactive
traffic/parking
management, monitoring,
overflow planning, and
documented community
outreach (goes well beyond
the 2020 assumption of
minimal impact).

Lighting &
Site
Screening
No specific lighting
conditions. New
fence on easterly
side to match
existing redwood.

All site/parking lot lighting: fullcutoff, downward-directed, dimmed to security levels
during Quiet Hours. Within one
year: plant and maintain
sufficient shrubs to obscure
vehicle headlights along fence
New mandatory lighting
standards during Quiet
Hours and new landscape
screening requirement for
headlights.

ITEM NO. 8.
lines abutting Chirco Drive,
Corcel Court, and 16793 Farley
Road (as approved by
Community Development
Director).

Deliveries No specific
conditions.

Deliveries by vehicles >26,000
lbs GVWR limited to 8:00 a.m.–
8:00 p.m., Monday–Saturday.

New restriction on largevehicle deliveries.

Gates &
Mechanical
No specific
conditions.

Any future modification or new
electronic sliding gate must
include sound-reducing
approaches/technologies.

New sound-mitigation
requirement for gates.

Community
Interface &
Transparency
No website or
calendar
requirement.

Maintain a publicly accessible
website with: • Information on
services, programs, classes,
and events. • Monthly calendar
of scheduled events and hours.
• Contact information for
facility representatives. Annual
public listing of Ramadan latehour dates.

New mandatory public
website and calendar for
transparency and neighbor
awareness.

Compliance &
Monitoring
Standard: comply
with conditions;
memorandum for
building permit;
Certificate of
Use/Occupancy;
substantial
conformance with
plans. Any changes
require further
approval.

Retains standard language but
adds: No verbal interpretations
are binding—only written
approvals from Community
Development Director count.

One year after approval:

Planning Commission to
conduct a compliance review
(incomplete in extraction but
explicitly required).

Adds explicit prohibition on
relying on verbal guidance
and a scheduled one-year
compliance review by the
Planning Commission.

Leaders’
Quarters
Limited to living
quarters for
leaders associated
with the church
facility.

Limited to living quarters for
visiting scholars and/or leaders
associated with the institution.

Minor
clarification/expansion to
include “visiting scholars.”
Seasonal
Late-Hours
Up to 11:00 p.m.
for 30 days during
Ramadan.

Up to 11:30 p.m. (if sunset
before 7:30 p.m.) or 12:00 a.m.
(if sunset after 7:30 p.m.) for
Later allowable end times
(tied to sunset); new public
notification requirement

ITEM NO. 8.

Exception
(Ramadan)
30 days during Ramadan. Must
publish dates annually on
website. Not transferable to
another owner/use.
and non-transferability
clause.

On Apr 13, 2026, at 9:31 AM, Jocelyn Shoopman <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Linda,
This condition was updated to reflect that the existing living quarters may be utilized by a visiting scholar, per the applicant's request. From staff's understanding a visiting scholar provides additional education to the congregants and leaders of the mosque.

Staff is not aware of other CUPs with the terminology of a 'visiting scholar.' The CUP for the Faith Lutheran Church discusses an existing caretaker/pastor's quarters and that it shall not be expanded without obtaining prior approvals from the Town.

Please clarify if you would like your email, dated April 11th included as public comment for the April 22nd Planning Commission meeting.

Thank you,
Jocelyn Shoopman ● Senior Planner
Community Development Department ● 110 E Main Street, Los Gatos CA 95030 Ph: 408.354.6875 ● [email protected]
www.losgatosca.gov ● 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
NOTICE: The Town is aware of scam emails requesting wire transfers to pay permit, or other, fees. The Town will NOT ever request wire transfers to pay for permits. Please call your assigned staff, or the Community Development Department, if you receive a payment request that does not look legitimate. You can also log into your Citizen’s Portal account to see if you have any outstanding invoices.

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.

ITEM NO. 8.

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.

P Think Green, please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

From: Linda Swenberg < >
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2026 1:55 PM
To: Jocelyn Shoopman <[email protected]>
Cc: Gabrielle Whelan <[email protected]>; Town Manager <[email protected]>; Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: Question about proposed CUP U-24-010
Ms. Shoopman and others,
In reviewing the proposed CUP U-24-010 for 16769 Farley Road, I noticed that several other conditions have changed in addition to the hours of operation. Most of the changes are addressed in the Letter of Justification which the town received from the applicant, but not all of them.

In particular, in the Use and Occupancy section of the permit, item 8 Living Quarters now reads, “The leaders’ quarters shall not be used for any purpose other than living quarters for visiting scholars and/or leaders associated with the institution.” (Emphasis added). The bold text is a change from the previous permitted use/occupancy for the leaders’ quarters, which simply allowed “leaders associated with the institution” to live in those quarters.

There is no instance of “scholar” found in the staff report or the letter of justification from the applicant.

What is a “visiting scholar?” What justification was there for this change? Is it similar to permitted uses of other institutions in our town?
Regards,
Linda Swenberg

ITEM NO. 8.

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

ITEM NO. 8.

PREPARED BY: Jocelyn Shoopman
Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Planning Manager, Community Development Director, and Town Attorney 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 406-354-6832
www.losgatosca.gov

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 04/22/2026
ITEM NO: 3
ADDENDUM 2
DATE: April 21, 2026
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Consider a Request for Approval to Modify an Existing Conditional Use Permit for Expanded Hours of Operation in an Institution for Religious Observance (West Valley Muslim Association) on Property Zoned R-1:8. Located at 16769 Farley Road. APN 424-21-062. Categorically Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301: Existing Facilities. Property Owner: West Valley Muslim Association, Osmar Ghafoor, President. Applicant: Razi Mohiuddin. Project Planner: Jocelyn Shoopman.

REMARKS:

Exhibit 29 includes additional public comments received between 3:01 p.m., Monday, April 20, 2026, and 3:00 p.m., Tuesday, April 21, 2026
EXHIBITS:

Previously Received with the March 25, 2026, Staff Report:

1. Location Map

2. Draft Resolution Making the Required Findings and Approving the Application Subject to the Conditionals of Approval (Included as Attachment A)

3. Conditional Use Permit U-89-11

4. Conditional Use Permit U-20-001; March 11, 2020, Planning Commission Staff Report; and March 11, 2020, Planning Commission Minutes

5. Letter of Justification

6. Neighborhood Outreach

7. Noise Analysis

8. Site Map

9. Applicant's Response to Public Comments Regarding Noise

10. Additional Information from the Applicant

11. Public Comments Received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, March 20, 2026, with Attachment A, Videos Provided as Part of Public Comments
ATTACHMENT 12

ITEM NO. 8.

PAGE 2 OF 3
SUBJECT: 16769 Farley Road/U-24-010
DATE: April 21, 2026
Previously Received with the March 23, 2026, Addendum Report:

12. Public Comments Received Between 3:01 p.m., Friday, March 20, 2026, and 3:00 p.m., Monday, March 23, 2026
Previously Received with the March 24, 2026, Addendum Report 2:

13. Public Comments Received Between 3:01 p.m., Monday, March 23, 2026, and 3:00 p.m., Tuesday, March 24, 2026
Previously Received with the March 25, 2026, Desk Item Report:

14. Supplemental Information from the Applicant

15. Letter from the Applicant’s Legal Counsel

16. Public Comments Received Between 3:01 p.m., Tuesday, March 24, 2026, and 11:00 a.m., Wednesday, March 25, 2026
Previously Received with the March 31, 2026, Staff Report:

17. Public Comments Received Between 11:01 a.m., Wednesday, March 25, 2026, and 3:00 p.m., Friday, March 27, 2026
Previously Received with the March 30, 2026, Addendum Report:

18. Public Comments Received Between 3:01 p.m., Friday, March 27, 2026, and 3:00 p.m., Monday, March 30, 2026
Previously Received with the March 31, 2026, Desk Item Report:

19. Additional Information from the Applicant’s Legal Counsel

20. Supplemental Information from the Applicant’s Noise Consultant

21. Applicant’s Neighborhood Outreach

22. Applicant’s Response to Public Comments

23. Public Comments Received Between 3:01 p.m., Monday, March 30, 2026, and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, March 31, 2026
Previously Received with the April 22, 2026, Staff Report:

24. Applicant’s Response to Neighborhood Group Meeting

25. Neighborhood Group’s Response to Meeting with the Applicant

26. Public Comments Received Between 3:01 p.m., Tuesday, March 31, 2026, and 3:00 p.m., Friday, April 17, 2026
Previously Received with the April 20, 2026, Addendum Report:

27. Additional Information from the Neighborhood Group

28. Public Comments Received Between 3:01 p.m., Friday, Apil 17, 2026, and 3:00 p.m., Monday, April 20, 2026

ITEM NO. 8.

PAGE 3 OF 3
SUBJECT: 16769 Farley Road/U-24-010
DATE: April 21, 2026
Received with this Addendum 2 Report:

29. Public Comments Received Between 3:01 p.m., Monday, April 20, 2026, and 3:00 p.m., Tuesday, April 21, 2026

ITEM NO. 8.

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

ITEM NO. 8.

From: Hongzhi Zhao < >
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2026 1:47 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Cc: Jocelyn Shoopman <[email protected]>
Subject: WVMA CUP Modification U-24-010 (16769 Farley Road) Dear Planning Committee:

I am writing to you to express my concerns about the City's draft of modified CUP for WVMA. It is about the vehicle noise impact between 10:00pm - 6:00am. • The WVMA property located on Farley Road, along with its surrounding area, is designated as an R1 Residential Zone. The tranquil residential environment of this zone—particularly during the designated sleeping hours of 10:00 PM to 6:00 AM—is protected by the City’s Noise Ordinance:

16.20.010 Curfew Noise Disturbance.

16.20.015 Exterior Noise Level for Residential Zones.

16.20.030 Public Property Noise Level
• Since 2024, due to a surge in traffic volume resulting from WVMA-related activities, residents living on Farley Road and in the vicinity of the WVMA property have been subjected to persistent vehicular noise disturbances during the hours of 10:00 PM to 6:00 AM.
• The distance between residents' homes and Farley Road is approximately 40 feet; similarly, the distance between residents' homes and the WVMA driveway and parking lot is also approximately 40 feet.

At a distance of 40 feet from a road with traffic moving at 25 mph, one can expect a moderate to high level of noise, likely in the range of 55–65+ dBA.

A vehicle starting its engine typically produces a noise level in the range of 50 to 70 dBA when measured 40 feet (approx. 12 meters) away, depending on the engine type and acceleration.

A car door slamming is generally estimated at around 100 dB to 118 dB at the source. Based on standard sound propagation calculations, a car door slam measured at 40 feet away is typically in the range of 70 to 80 dBA.

Under relevant California state laws, the maximum permissible limit for vehicular noise is 95 dBA.

The aforementioned publicly available data aligns with the actual noise measurements I previously submitted to the City Planning Commission. The noise levels generated by the aforementioned vehicles far exceed the peak noise limits applicable to residential areas— specifically, during the hours of 10:00 PM to 6:00 AM, the peak noise limit is set at 49 dBA on weekends and 54 dBA on weekdays.

EXHIBIT 29 Page 1426
ITEM NO. 8.
• We have been unable to locate any official municipal documents demonstrating that the "Jehovah's Witnesses" (JW) were ever granted approval for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) authorizing operations to commence prior to 7:00 AM. In its 2020 amended CUP application, WVMA did not request an operating schedule beginning earlier than 7:00 AM.

The WVMA requested only that its operating hours be extended from 10:00 PM to 11:00 PM during the month of Ramadan. In its assessment of this amendment, the City of Los Gatos noted that, during Ramadan, it was anticipated that "10 to 25 members using the facility until 11:00 PM."
The City of Los Gatos did not have accurate information to assess the impact that the intensified noise—resulting from the increased volume of vehicles (exceeding 200) between the hours of 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM—would have on the sleep, health, and well-being of surrounding residents.
• In the proposed draft of WVMA modified CUP that only “Amplified outdoor sound “ not allowed by 16.20.015 is clearly stated. There are no conditions that clearly state that vehicle related noise on WVMA parking lots, the driving vehicle noise on WVMA driveways and on Farley Roads must not violate Noise ordinance 16.20.015, and 16.20.030 , and 16.20.010 the Curfew Noise Disturbance without exemption of 16.20.010 (b)(2) “Are not necessary in connection with an activity which is otherwise lawfully conducted.” • In the draft of CUP 13. Noise Mitigation a. Noise Standard “All activities shall comply with the Town’s Noise Ordinance residential standard in effect at the time of the activity measured at the property line during 10:00 p.m. – 8:00am.” It is not clear if the vehicle related noise is included in “All activities”. “Measured at the property line during 10:00pm-8:00am”. Several ambiguities currently exist:

Who is responsible for conducting these measurements? When exactly should the measurements take place (does this imply that measurements are required every night between 10:00 PM and 8:00 AM)? Where, specifically, are the measurements to be taken (does this necessitate the installation of a sound level meter adjacent to every residential property)? It must be recognized that the primary source of noise is vehicular traffic; vehicular noise is transient in nature—occurring intermittently as vehicles arrive and depart—and its intensity and characteristics vary depending on the specific vehicle model and the driver's operating style.
• In summary, we oppose the current draft CUP because it fails to protect surrounding residents from the vehicular noise disturbances generated by WVMA-related activities between the hours of 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM. We request that the City Council conduct a comprehensive assessment of the impact these activities have on residents' health, wellbeing, and road safety during this specific timeframe before rendering a final decision.

Regards,
Hongzhi Zhao

ITEM NO. 8.

From: Farley Road Neighborhood Coalition < >
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2026 9:05 AM
To: Jocelyn Shoopman <[email protected]>; Alexa Nolder <[email protected]>; Planning <[email protected]>; Chris Constantin <[email protected]>; Gabrielle Whelan <[email protected]>
Cc: Allen Meyer <[email protected]>; Sean Mullin <[email protected]>; Joel Paulson <[email protected]>; Town Manager <[email protected]> Subject: Clarification Request: CUP Modification for 16769 Farley Road To the Planning Commission and Town Staff:

I am writing to request clarification regarding the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) modification request for 16769 Farley Road.

A thorough review of this parcel’s land-use history reveals that no prior CUP has authorized operations during the Town's designated quiet hours prior to 8:00 AM.

While this proposal has been characterized as a "minor" modification, the technical data suggests a significant intensification of use that constitutes a substantial departure from the 2020 CUP.

Substantial Intensification of Use
• Moving the start time to 4:00 AM adds four hours of pre-dawn activity. • When combined with the proposed CUP modification for evening hours extension, the result is a total increase of five operational hours daily—a 21% expansion of the facility’s daily footprint.These hours fall within the nighttime noise-sensitive window (10:00 PM – 7:00 AM) defined by CEQA, and directly overlap with the Town’s own quiet hour protections (ending at 8:00 AM), we believe a formal environmental review is necessary to evaluate the impacts of noise, pre-dawn traffic safety, and light pollution on surrounding residents.

Request for Clarification
To ensure a transparent and equitable process, I respectfully request clarification on the following:
• Threshold for Modification: What specific metrics does the Town use to distinguish a "Minor" from a "Major" modification? Does a 21% increase in operational hours trigger a requirement for a comprehensive environmental impact study? • Independent Oversight: The private study provided by the applicant left more questions than answers. Under CEQA Guidelines § 15064, the Town, as the Lead Agency, must exercise "independent judgment." How will the Town ensure the community can trust the data through an objective, neutral review?
• Procedural Equity: We understand public comment is closed for the 4/22 hearing. I would like to confirm that this restriction applies equally to the applicant. Will they be barred from presenting new testimony, presentation material or new data information unless directly responding to a Commission inquiry?

ITEM NO. 8.
• Findings of Fact: Given the lack of precedent for pre-8:00 AM operations at this site, what specific "findings of fact" or "hardship" justify such a drastic departure from previous approvals?
We believe a thorough investigation is required to determine if this intensification is compatible with the neighborhood and supported by Town policy, prior to this being put to a vote by the Town Planning Commission
Thank you for your time and for protecting the integrity of our community.

Farley Road Neighborhood Coalition

ITEM NO. 8.

From: < >
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2026 9:54 PM
To: Jocelyn Shoopman <[email protected]>; Planning <[email protected]> Cc: Gabrielle Whelan <[email protected]>; Chris Constantin <[email protected]>; Joel Paulson <[email protected]>; Town Manager <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment, Item #3, (ANONYMOUS) PC Meeting 4/22/26 RE: Cost of Mediation=Applicant
SUBMITTING AS AN Anonymous LG Resident - Request that Town of Los Gatos Redact all personally identifiable information, including but not limited to name, email address, IP address

April 20, 2026
Dear Members of the Los Gatos Planning Commission,
We are deeply grateful for your dedication to serving our community, and we want to acknowledge the immense challenges and pressures you face while doing this vital work—thank you for your resilience and commitment.

During the March 31, 2026 Planning Commission, the action that was made and approved as a motion was for the two parties (Applicant and Neighborhood) to discuss the possibilities of mediation.

Town Attorney Gabrielle Whealan stated that the option would, "...give the Applicant and the neighborhood group an opportunity to look at options for a mediator, and how much it would cost and give further thought to whether they think mediation would be fruitful." The Planning Commission then motioned and agreed to include the follow up for the motion for the parties to share the possibilities of pursuing mediation or not, at a date certain of, April 22, 2026. We want to raise two areas for your consideration, prior to Wednesday's meeting.

First of all, several members of the Planning Commission pointed out key concerns that stand out: 1) Commissioner Stump, acknowledged the Farley Road Neighborhood is not a legal entity or party; 2) Commissioner Barnett said he sees the neighborhood's ability to pay as a challenge, and the neighbors do not have legal representation as a group; 3) Chair Burch raised the question of how to ensure a mediator is familiar with the very specific topics (i.e. RULIPA, and the religion); 4) and Commissioner Burnett raised her concerns about ensuring the process is fair and balanced, and that mediation would provide equal representation for the needs of the neighborhood and applicant.

Second, we respectfully disagree that the cost for a specialized mediator should be a shared financial responsibility between the Applicant and the tax paying homeowners and residents living in the Farley Road Neighborhood in the Town Of Los Gatos.

ITEM NO. 8.

Since the Applicant explicitly called out, "We need the mediator to be familiar with things like Rulipa and also be familiar with the religion as well",and furthermore, the Town Attorney, Gabrielle Whelan pointed out that the more specialized a mediator is, the more expensive the mediator's will charge. Based on what we have seen, daily rates can be as much as $12,000.00 a day. We strongly recommend the Applicant be solely responsible to pay for the cost.

To further underscore this point, one option outlined by the Town Attorney during the discussion, was framed as, since this is coming out of an application for a conditional use permit modification, while there is no legal requirement that the Applicant pay, it seems logical for the Applicant to pay since the applicant is asking for the CUP modification.

We know the Applicant is very keen to push the Planning Commission to make a decision as soon as possible, even as soon as April 22, 2026, but we do not believe that expediting approval rather than resolving incompatibilities is in the best interest for all involved.

It would be detrimental to rush a decision, versus working towards creating a long-term, wellbalanced plan that would support a safe, healthy and harmonious neighborhood environment.

This is definitely a difficult item and we appreciate the Planning Commission's dedication to solve such a complex decision, and we are grateful for the opportunity to provide meaningful perspectives and personal experience to best represent the FRNC residents of the Town of Los Gatos.

Respectfully,
Anonymous, Farley Road Neighbor

ITEM NO. 8.

From: Zayn Zaafran < >
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2026 6:23 PM
To: Jocelyn Shoopman <[email protected]>
Cc: < >
Subject: Proposed Community Solution to Neighbor Concerns (WVMA CUP) Dear Ms. Shoopman,
My name is Zayn Zaafraan. I am a former Assistant Senior Patrol Leader of Boy Scout Troop 399, and I am currently a student at the University of California, Davis, where I continue to hold a leadership role in my campus community — a path that I believe was shaped in large part by my years of involvement with WVMA and the values it instilled in me.

I had the honor of speaking before the Planning Commission at the March 25, 2026 hearing on the WVMA CUP modification application. I spoke then about what WVMA has meant to me personally — how it gave me a place to grow, to lead, and to serve. I wanted to follow up not just with words, but with action.

After the hearing, I learned that some of the immediate neighbors have raised concerns about vehicle headlights penetrating into their homes during evening and pre-dawn services. I heard this and I could not stop thinking about it. Rather than see this as an obstacle, I saw it as a problem worth solving.

So I designed one.

I am proposing a Scout-led community project: a series of mobile raised garden planters on rubber wheels (to minimize noise when being rolled out), constructed from cedar timber with blackout fabric backing and planted with tall ornamental grasses and native plants. These planters would be rolled into position during periods of higher facility usage — blocking headlight penetration at the source — and stored tidily out of the way at all other times. WVMA volunteers would manage the deployment and care of the planters. The plants themselves would provide natural sound absorption as well as a visual screen.

The design achieves several things simultaneously:
— It directly addresses the headlight concern raised by neighbors — It beautifies the facility and neighborhood
— It is entirely reversible and non-permanent, requiring no construction permits — It is maintained by community volunteers who take genuine pride in the neighborhood — It demonstrates that solutions to neighbor concerns can come from the community itself I recognise that the Planning Commission is being asked to weigh many competing interests in this matter. I simply want to offer this: WVMA is not an organization that waits to be told what to do. It is a community that produces young people who see a problem and build a solution. I learned that there, and I am still living it.

ITEM NO. 8.

I would be grateful if this letter and the attached image of the proposed planter design could be included in the record for the April 22, 2026 continued hearing. I remain available to answer any questions.

Respectfully submitted,
Zayn Zaafran
Student, University of California, Davis
Former Assistant Senior Patrol Leader, Boy Scout Troop 399 Former Member of the WVMA Youth Committee

ITEM NO. 8.

PREPARED BY: Jocelyn Shoopman
Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Planning Manager, Community Development Director, and Town Attorney 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 406-354-6832
www.losgatosca.gov

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 04/22/2026
ITEM NO: 3

DESK ITEM
DATE: April 22, 2026
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Consider a Request for Approval to Modify an Existing Conditional Use Permit for Expanded Hours of Operation in an Institution for Religious Observance (West Valley Muslim Association) on Property Zoned R-1:8. Located at 16769 Farley Road. APN 424-21-062. Categorically Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301: Existing Facilities. Property Owner: West Valley Muslim Association, Osmar Ghafoor, President. Applicant: Razi Mohiuddin. Project Planner: Jocelyn Shoopman.

REMARKS:

Exhibit 30 includes supplemental information from the applicant.

Exhibit 31 includes additional information from the applicant’s legal counsel.

Exhibit 32 includes Commissioner comments.

Exhibit 33 includes additional public comments received between 3:01 p.m., Tuesday, April 21, 2026, and 11:00 a.m., Wednesday, April 22, 2026
EXHIBITS:

Previously Received with the March 25, 2026, Staff Report:

1. Location Map

2. Draft Resolution Making the Required Findings and Approving the Application Subject to the Conditionals of Approval (Included as Attachment A)

3. Conditional Use Permit U-89-11

4. Conditional Use Permit U-20-001; March 11, 2020, Planning Commission Staff Report; and March 11, 2020, Planning Commission Minutes

5. Letter of Justification

6. Neighborhood Outreach
ATTACHMENT 13

ITEM NO. 8.

PAGE 2 OF 3
SUBJECT: 16769 Farley Road/U-24-010
DATE: April 22, 2026

7. Noise Analysis

8. Site Map

9. Applicant's Response to Public Comments Regarding Noise

10. Additional Information from the Applicant

11. Public Comments Received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, March 20, 2026, with Attachment A, Videos Provided as Part of Public Comments
Previously Received with the March 23, 2026, Addendum Report:

12. Public Comments Received Between 3:01 p.m., Friday, March 20, 2026, and 3:00 p.m., Monday, March 23, 2026
Previously Received with the March 24, 2026, Addendum Report 2:

13. Public Comments Received Between 3:01 p.m., Monday, March 23, 2026, and 3:00 p.m., Tuesday, March 24, 2026
Previously Received with the March 25, 2026, Desk Item Report:

14. Supplemental Information from the Applicant

15. Letter from the Applicant’s Legal Counsel

16. Public Comments Received Between 3:01 p.m., Tuesday, March 24, 2026, and 11:00 a.m., Wednesday, March 25, 2026
Previously Received with the March 31, 2026, Staff Report:

17. Public Comments Received Between 11:01 a.m., Wednesday, March 25, 2026, and 3:00 p.m., Friday, March 27, 2026
Previously Received with the March 30, 2026, Addendum Report:

18. Public Comments Received Between 3:01 p.m., Friday, March 27, 2026, and 3:00 p.m., Monday, March 30, 2026
Previously Received with the March 31, 2026, Desk Item Report:

19. Additional Information from the Applicant’s Legal Counsel

20. Supplemental Information from the Applicant’s Noise Consultant

21. Applicant’s Neighborhood Outreach

22. Applicant’s Response to Public Comments

23. Public Comments Received Between 3:01 p.m., Monday, March 30, 2026, and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, March 31, 2026
Previously Received with the April 22, 2026, Staff Report:

24. Applicant’s Response to Neighborhood Group Meeting

25. Neighborhood Group’s Response to Meeting with the Applicant

26. Public Comments Received Between 3:01 p.m., Tuesday, March 31, 2026, and 3:00 p.m., Friday, April 17, 2026

ITEM NO. 8.

PAGE 3 OF 3
SUBJECT: 16769 Farley Road/U-24-010
DATE: April 22, 2026
Previously Received with the April 20, 2026, Addendum Report:

27. Additional Information from the Neighborhood Group

28. Public Comments Received Between 3:01 p.m., Friday, Apil 17, 2026, and 3:00 p.m., Monday, April 20, 2026
Previously Received with the April 21, 2026, Addendum 2 Report:

29. Public Comments Received Between 3:01 p.m., Monday, April 20, 2026, and 3:00 p.m., Tuesday, April 21, 2026
Received with this Desk Item Report:

30. Supplemental Information from the Applicant

31. Additional Information from the Applicant’s Legal Counsel

32. Commissioner Comments

33. Public Comments Received Between 3:01 p.m., Tuesday, April 21, 2026, and 11:00 a.m., Wednesday, April 22, 2026

ITEM NO. 8.

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

ITEM NO. 8.

WVMA Request for Decision Page | 1 of 4
Supplemental Statement in Support of Approval – Request for Decision 04/22/2026
Address: 16769 Farley Road, Los Gatos CA 95032
Property Zoned: R-1:8
APN: 424-21-062
Owner and Applicant: West Valley Muslim Association (WVMA) Conditional Use Permit Application: U-24-010
Planner: Jocelyn Shoopman, Senior Planner, Town of Los Gatos SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPROVAL – REQUEST FOR DECISION The West Valley Muslim Association (“WVMA”) respectfully submits this letter as a desk item for the April 22, 2026 hearing. Planning Staff has carefully reviewed this application for 19 months, made all required CUP findings, and recommends approval. We respectfully request that the Commission follow Staff's recommendation.

1. Mediation: We Have Acted in Good Faith
• Following the March 31 hearing, WVMA immediately requested a meeting, proposed equal cost-sharing, identified a no-cost mediator (Jeffrey Blum) with April 17 availability, and offered four additional no or low-cost government mediation services. The neighbors rejected the free mediator, did not accept any low-cost options, declined to share costs, and their own research found professional mediator availability only in Fall 2026, while we were able to identify availability as early as May 2026. We met on April 16; no meaningful progress was made. • A single day of professional mediation typically costs $10,000–$14,000, approximately $5,000–$7,000 per side. We proposed cost-sharing arrangements that would have been very modest if shared among the claimed 70 participating households. The neighbors' unwillingness to share that cost – while simultaneously requesting continuances – signals delay rather than good-faith engagement. • Time is of the essence. This application has been pending for 19 months. Beginning in May, our Isha (night) prayer will occur just before or after 10 PM. We need clarity on whether we may use our facility until 10:30 PM and allow congregants to depart by 11 PM.

2. What the Neighbors Have Asked
• Reduce our operating hours: Our five daily prayers and Ramadan Taraweeh are mandated by Islamic faith, tied to sunrise and sunset, and cannot be moved. Every mosque in the Bay Area follows the same prayer schedule.

The 2020 CUP already permits all of these prayers, including pre-sunrise Fajr. We are requesting only a modest evening extension as sunset shifts later in summer. This is precisely what RLUIPA protects against – it is not in our power to change prayer times mandated by our faith. • Make “meaningful” changes – without specifying them: We have already made 20+ changes addressing traffic, lighting, and noise, and reviewed and responded to each of the 11 items our closest neighbor submitted.

At the April 16 meeting, we again asked what specific additional measures would be meaningful. No items were identified. Without these specifics, it has been challenging to move negotiations forward. • Provide a “holistic plan”: The draft conditions of approval ARE the holistic plan: normal operating hours for 11 months; Ramadan late-hours for one month; noise standards meeting all Town requirements day and night; parking and traffic management; carpooling outreach; full compliance with current and future laws; and a oneyear compliance review. WVMA has voluntarily accepted conditions more comprehensive than those of any other religious institution in Los Gatos. We are also open to exploring Town-led improvements on Farley Road – sidewalks, crosswalks, lighting, lane markers, speed bumps – and see this as a potentially fruitful area for solutions. This ongoing dialogue does not require a continuance.

EXHIBIT 30

ITEM NO. 8.

WVMA Request for Decision Page | 2 of 4
At the April 16 meeting, it became clear that what the neighbors ultimately want is for us to compromise on the number of prayers, the length of Ramadan prayers, or change when they occur. This is the one thing we cannot do – it is precisely the burden RLUIPA prohibits. We remain committed to working with neighbors on practical concerns, but we cannot compromise on religious observance itself.

3. What Is Actually Being Requested: Current vs. Proposed The table below compares the current usage and the 2020 CUP, with the proposed draft conditions of approval. We request that any decision of the Planning Commission be based on objective data, grounded in facts, on current laws, and obtained from professionals such as the Town Engineer and other qualified professionals.

Category Current Conditions Proposed Conditions
Facility 3 Auditoriums approved in 1990 for 682
seats, and 186 parking spaces.

This site has been used continuously as a
religious facility since at least 1963.

No change in facility size.

Proposed increase to on-site parking spaces
in the future.

Pre-Sunrise Prayers No explicit start hours Limited to 1.5 hours before sunrise. On shortest days of the year (Dec 21-25):
- Prayer Service Time: 6:30 AM
- Sunrise: 7:18 AM
On longest days of the year (June 21-25)
- Prayer Service Time: 5:00 AM
- Sunrise: 5:48 AM
Night Prayers Allowed, with:
- Hours of operation: 10 PM
Allowed, with:
- Hours of operation: 10:30 PM (+30 min)
- Clear parking lot: 11 PM (+1 hour)
Ramadan Prayers Allowed, with:
- Hours of operation: 11 PM
Allowed (until 2041 Ramadan is in winter):
- Service end: 11:30 PM (+30 min)
- Clear parking lot: 12 Midnight (+1 hour)
Hours – 11 months
of the year
Start: No start time specified
End: 10 PM
Start: 4:20 AM to 5:50 AM
End: 10:30 PM, Lot closed: 11 PM
Hours – 30 days of
Ramadan
End: 11 PM End: 11:30 PM, Lot closed: Midnight
(until 2041 while Ramadan is in winter)
Safety No objective data that safety has been a
concern. The Town Engineer has not
identified any safety concerns in the record.

No incidents related to safety. We are not
aware of any concerns raised by either the
Los Gatos Police Department or the Santa
Clara County Fire Department.

Open to exploring Town-led
improvements – sidewalks, crosswalks,
lighting, lane markers, speed bumps, etc.

All vehicles parked shall maintain
emergency vehicle access.

ITEM NO. 8.

WVMA Request for Decision Page | 3 of 4
Category Current Conditions Proposed Conditions
Traffic No requirement for any traffic
management. WVMA has voluntarily
implemented traffic management.

No accidents or cited speeding incidents
related to WVMA, despite increased patrols
by Los Gatos Police.

Active traffic management with parking
attendants.

Ensure all on-site spaces are utilized before
attendees seek parking off-site.

Use both driveways for exiting during
high traffic events, with attendants.

Noise No explicit limitation.

Validated by professional noise study.

Must meet Town’s Noise Ordinance
residential standard, including stricter
requirements between 10 PM and 8 AM.

No amplified outdoor sound.

Closing of all Windows and Doors on
West during indoor services, and during
Quiet Hours (10 PM to 8 AM).

Parking No explicit limitation.

Implemented overflow parking plan with
Affordable Treasures in Ramadan 2026.

Parking attendants for high traffic events.

Utilize all on-site parking before off-site.

Implement overflow parking plan.

Parking Lot
Lighting
No explicit limitation All site and parking lot lighting shall be full-cutoff, downward-directed, and
dimmed to security levels during Quiet
Hours (10 PM to 8 AM).

Vehicle Lighting /
Landscape
Plantings
No requirement and no explicit limitation Requires shrubs to be planted to obscure vehicle headlights along all fence lines.

WVMA offered to plant trees for front
neighbors.

Membership
Communication
No explicit requirement.

WVMA has regular reminders
(announcements, emails) to our attendees
to drive slowly, park legally, and walk
quietly.

WVMA has posted reminder signs all over
the property.

Monthly communication to encourage
carpooling, use of on-site spaces, and
sensitivity to neighbor concerns.

Electric Gate WVMA removed track to reduce noise. Must include sound reducing approach

ITEM NO. 8.

WVMA Request for Decision Page | 4 of 4
Category Current Conditions Proposed Conditions
Activity Calendar No requirement. WVMA’s website
provides information of all public events
and programs.

WVMA has shared information prior to
Ramadan every year, since 2019.

Must list services, programs, classes and
events open to members
Share Contact
Information
No requirement. WVMA has shared
information with neighbors.

Must share contact information
Deliveries No explicit limitation Mon to Sat 8 AM to 8 PM.

Compliance Review None 1 year after approval
Future Laws and
Town Code
No explicit requirement Must comply with current and future zoning, building, noise, traffic, parking and
environmental regulations.

Key takeaways:
• Our existing CUP already allows all current use. We are requesting only a modest increase in hours to accommodate the nightly prayer and ensure an orderly departure. • Every religion and every religious facility has high-attendance holy days and nights, and WVMA is no different.

Actual attendance at any given service varies widely, and the conditions are designed to address peak scenarios. • The proposed CUP is significantly more restrictive than the 2020 CUP – with 20+ new objective, enforceable conditions.
• Granting this CUP does not add prayer services, attendees, or vehicles. If anything, an extended departure window reduces congestion.
• Denial would leave in place the 2020 CUP's less restrictive conditions, with no enforceable noise, lighting, parking, or traffic management requirements. Denial also does not fundamentally alter the usage that is allowed today, the number of attendees, or the vehicles on the road.

Request for Decision
The only relief requested through this CUP is an extension of operating hours and orderly departure. We are not seeking any exceptions to any other Town ordinance - including noise (day or night), traffic, parking, building, zoning or environment standards – the draft conditions require compliance with all current and future ordinances.

This application has been pending for 19 months. Beginning in May, Isha prayer occurs just before or after 10 PM.

WVMA has engaged in good faith – making 20+ operational changes and agreeing to 25 new conditions among the most comprehensive ever applied to a religious institution in Los Gatos. Planning Staff has carefully studied this application for 19 months, made all required CUP findings, and recommends approval. We respectfully request that the Commission follow Staff's recommendation and approve the modified CUP U-24-010 on April 22, 2026.

ITEM NO. 8.

Matthew D. Visick
[email protected]
April 22, 2026
Delivered Via Electronic Mail Only ([email protected]) Planning Commission
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Re: 16769 Farley Road
Response to Comments Submitted After March 31 Meeting
Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning Commission, This office is counsel to the West Valley Muslim Association (“WVMA”) regarding its pending application to amend its conditional use permit (“CUP”). We have reviewed the voluminous comments submitted in recent days by the neighbors who oppose the project and their counsel. Rather than respond to each comment, we provide the general responses below and attach our letter of March 31, 2026 which addresses many of the points raised.

1. The existing CUP already allows for WVMA’s use, including morning prayer services. WVMA is only requesting a slight increase in operating hours at night. The neighbors who oppose the proposed CUP amendment do not seem to recognize that this is all that is being requested.1

2. Granting the requested extension of hours will not intensify the use of the site because it will not add additional prayer services or attendees beyond what is already occurring.2 It will not increase the number of cars on the road or the speed at which they drive. If anything, it will decrease traffic congestion by allowing vehicles to exit the parking lot more gradually.

3. WVMA is disappointed that they cannot find a compromise that will address the concerns of the neighbors who oppose the proposed CUP amendment. At the 1 See Agenda Packet, April 22 Meeting, p. 146 (comparing the modest extension of nighttime operational hours requested to the Hillbrook School expansions).
2 See Agenda Packet, April 22 Meeting, p. 172 (“Increasing the frequency of services to five times daily would only exacerbate these existing violations and further strain the neighborhood’s infrastructure.”).

EXHIBIT 31