Outlook
Fairness and equal treatment to all
From Zafar Imam
Date Tue 8/18/2026 11:09 AM
To Clerk « [email protected]>
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear members and Hon Mayor
I urge you all to grant WVMA's appeal and ensure equal treatment to the town's Muslim community Thank you for your consideration and for supporting fairness, religious freedom and equal treatment to all communities
Sincerely
Muhammad Zafar Imam
Sent from my iPhone
Outlook
Support Equal Treatment for WVMA
From Yousef Helal
Date Tue 8/18/2026 11:17 AM
To Council «[email protected]>; Clerk <[email protected]> [EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Mayor and Members of the Los Gatos Town Council,
I urge you to grant WVMA's appeal and ensure equal treatment for the Town's Muslim community.
The conditions imposed on WVMA appear to subject the mosque to requirements that are not imposed on comparable houses of worship. Religious institutions should be treated fairly regardless of faith.
Thank you for your consideration and for supporting fairness, religious freedom, and equal treatment for all.
Sincerely,
Yousef Helal
Outlook
Support Equal Treatment for WVMA
From Yousef Helal •
Date Tue 8/18/2026 11:19 AM
To Council «[email protected]>; Clerk < [email protected]> [EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Mayor and Members of the Los Gatos Town Council,
I'm writing to add a personal note to my earlier message in support of WVMA's appeal.
As a Muslim living and working in the Bay Area, this matter is close to my heart. My faith community regularly gathers for daily prayers, Quran study, and family events, and we know how essential a welcoming, dedicated place of worship is to a community's sense of belonging. When any house of worship is singled out with conditions that aren't applied to others, it doesn't just burden that one congregation, it sends a signal to the whole faith community about whether they're truly welcome here.
I hope you'll grant WVMA's appeal and uphold the equal treatment that religious freedom requires for all faiths.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Yousef Helal
Sent with Slashy
On Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 11:17 AM, Yousef Helal L wrote:
Dear Mayor and Members of the Los Gatos Town Council, I urge you to grant WVMA's appeal and ensure equal treatment for the Town's Muslim community. The conditions imposed on WVMA appear to
Outlook
Please accept the following report as a desk item for the CUP modification hearing tonight From Linda S
Date Tue 8/18/2026 11:05 AM
To Jocelyn Shoopman < [email protected]>; Mary Badame <[email protected]>; Sean Mullin < [email protected]>; Joel Paulson <[email protected]>; Gabrielle Whelar < [email protected]>; Planning <[email protected]>; Allen Meyer <[email protected]>; Clerk <[email protected]>
Chris Constantin <[email protected]>; Farley Road Neighborhood Coalition [EXTERNAL SENDER]
Clerk,
Please accept this report for the CUP modification hearing at town council tonight.
Regards,
Linda Swenberg
I am writing as a concerned resident regarding the conditional use permit modifications granted to the West Valley Muslim ssociation (WVMA) at 16769 Farley Road. Although I don't live in the immediately affected neighborhood, I do live nearby in milar R-1:8 neighborhood near a different quiet religious facility and so I have an interest in preserving the integrity of th residential zones and protecting residents from intensification of use from any property operating under a conditional use permit.
As background, I have a graduate degree in engineering from Caltech and worked for several years as an engineer. I know how to analyze technical documents.
A little less than a year ago, I was watching a livestream of a Town Council meeting when I recognized my friends, Jim and Kim Ratcliff, at the podium presenting a verbal comment. They were simply pleading for resolution to an issue with the neighbors who had intensified use to such an extent that it was regularly disrupting their sleep and overall enjoyment of their home. They alsc had concerns about safety of the neighborhood due to the congestion.
This report addresses errors in the process associated with noise. Due to these errors, the findings that the proposed uses will not impair the existing use of the zone, would not be detrimental to public health, safety, or general welfare, and that the uses are in harmony with the various elements or objectives of the general plan and the purposes of the zoning chapter were not supported by substantial evidence.
Salter Study Background
Salter placed three monitors on trees and utility poles 12 feet high between January 31 and February 11, 2025. Ramadan in 2025 was February 28 to March 29, so no Ramadan data was collected. It measured one Friday evening from 8:00-9:00pm during departure and one Thursday morning from 9:00-10:00am during arrival. It did not measure 4:30am Fajr arrival, or at any time during Ramadan. The metric used was Legh) - the average noise over an hour. The report calculated property line levels by subtracting 5 to 7 decibels for a 5-6 foot wood slat fence, conservatively using 5 decibels.
Sundance Technical Analysis
On August 14, 2026, Sundance Acoustics LLC completed an independent technical analysis of the Salter Study. The Sundance Analysis was commissioned by the Farley Road Neighborhood Coalition (FRNC). It was submitted to the town on August 14.
This report references that analysis throughout.
Errors in the Salter Study Itself
Wrong Time, Wrong Season:
As the analysis correctly notes, the CUP application asks the Town to authorize operating periods that Salter did not directly test.
How this was used during the hearings:
March 25, 2026 page 56: Osman Ghafoor asserts, "These same vehicles making the same sounds that are lawful at 9:00pm remain the same noise standards at 10:30pm or 11:00pm.
That is untrue. There are different allowed noise levels at the property plane per $16.20.015 for different time frames. 10PM- 8AM, the allowable max noise levels are lower because the codes support the policy to protect the primary purpose - sleeping- of residential zones during those hours.
Also, the study was not done during Ramadan.
Commissioner Stump asked March 25, 2026: "If the study was not done during Ramadan at all, what was your thinking, especially when we've been told tonight that there were as many as 280 vehicles coming in March on one evening. That would seem to be a peak period." Applicant answered: "sound science... doesn't matter if there are 1,200 cars or 600 cars, the same cars go by, whether period of five minutes or ten minutes, noise level never goes above Los Gatos standards... we were hoping this had come through before Ramadan." That admission shows timing was chosen for convenience, not peak impact. Resident testimony March 31, 2026 page 16: "data taken Jan 31-Feb 11, Ramadan Feb 28-Mar 29. Study conducted only one evening 8-9pm and one morning 9-10am."
Without an evaluation at the proper time period, there is not substantial evidence to support a finding that the expanded hours will not impair the existing use of the zone.
Report unclear as to whether the study followed required procedures Salter's event comparisons are reported as one-hour averages of sound levels. The Town of Los Gatos defines a very specific noise-level measurement procedure and requires FAST response for impulsive sounds, such from car doors closing. The submitted report provides insufficient information to verify that the study actually addresses the character of the noise being evaluated.
Salter report appears to have substantially more detailed measurement data than what was presented in its written report
Salter states that three long-term monitors were installed from January 31 through February 11 at the egress aisle, Farley Road, and rear parking lot. At the March 25 Planning Commission hearing, Salter acoustician Ben Piper further stated that their monitoring system was capturing measurements at one-second intervals and explained that instantaneous noise could be evaluated for events such as vehicle pass-bys. (March 25, 2026, page 155) As far as noise from leaving prayer sessions: If 280 cars leave in 15 minutes with 400 door slams, 280 trunk slams, lock beeps, backup beepers, and the lot is silent for 45 minutes, the hourly average would be low even though the peaks are very high.
Neighbors do not experience an hourly average; they experience each slam.
At they hearings, Salter admitted that the sounds from the parking lot would fall under the curfew description but that he interprets the noise limit to mean hourly average noise. May 21, 2026 verbatim page 12: "Headlights through windows, engines starting, car doors closing, conversations, phones on speaker, traffic movements late into evening. One moment may seem minor.
Repeated over time, they fundamentally change nighttime character." March 25, 2026 page 158 resident: "they hear horns, they hear beeps, they hear backup noises from electric cars, sometimes alarms... whole line of cars." Despite approximately ten days of monitoring at three locations, the written report primarily presents selected one-hour Leq averages, including an 8-9 p.m. departure period and a 9-10 a.m. arrival period. It does not present the complete one-second time history, maximum event levels, statistical levels such as L10/L90, or identify whether the meters were using FAST or SLOW response. This is particularly relevant because the Town's measurement procedure specifies FAST response, while a one-second logging interval alone does not establish which response setting was used. This cannot support a statement that the study shows that WVMA is in compliance with noise codes. It also cannot support a statement that the study shows that WVMA late night and early morning operations will not impair the existing use of the residential zone.
Property Line Levels were calculated rather than directly measured-Assumed 5 dB fence reduction should be verified
This is an engineering calculation which is completely subjective. It could be valid or not. It should be verified as valid or, better yet, direct measurements at the residential property boundaries would provide much stronger evidence to support the findings.
Salter page 4-5: "Based on barrier methodology specified in Laymon Miller (1981)... we calculate wood fences provide approximately 7 dB reduction... conservatively applying 5 dB reduction." A 5-6 foot wood slat fence with gaps like what exists along most property lines abutting the WVMA property might reduce noise by 0-3 dB in practice. To be an acoustic barrier it must be solid, have no gaps, extend to the ground, and be longer than the source. Salter admits "discontinuities in fencing." The South property line on Farley Road has no fence at all - 0 dB - and Salter measured 53 dBA at egress aisle and 56 dBA on Farley Road during arrival, which fails the 49 dBA weekend standard. When Commission asked March 31 p.93 about masonry wall, applicant said that option is "extremely expensive, fort-like, bounce off sound, still travels above." General Plan Environment Element requires sound walls, minimum 5-foot landscape buffer, noise attenuating construction, and for commercial adjacent residential, additional restrictions beyond Noise Ordinance by up to 10 percent. None provided.
Without the fence credit applied, even the average noise levels reported from the Salter-chosen sampling locations would have exceeded max allowed noise limits along Farley Road and at almost all locations measured had they occurred during weekend Report Omits Policy Declaration
On Page 2, the report states it includes full sections of the code which are applicable to the project, but leaves out §16.10.015 - Declaration of policy. Part (a) of that Sections reads as follows: "The Town Council finds that unnecessary, excessive and disturbing noise and vibration is detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the public and is contrary to public interest. Residents of Los Gatos are to be entitled to the reasonable use and enjoyment of their property without exposure to noise disturbances."
On March 25, 2026, page 153, Commissioner Sordi asks Ben Piper from Salter about the weekday nighttime criterion:
"54 dBA...that's the maximum at night?" Mr. Piper responds, "There is some interpretation there as well, because it's not exactly defined...my interpretation is that that is an hourly average noise level at different times." Later at the same hearing, Ben Piper admitted: "I certainly don't think anyone is imagining anything... excessive horn honking or revving would fall under curfew description of unnatural and egregious noise." (p. 158-159). Salter never reported Lmax, the maximum instantaneous level.
That is an error. Noise Level is clearly defined. In the definitions for that chapter, Noise Level is defined as follows:
"Noise level means the amplitude of sound pressure referenced to twenty (20) micropascals, measured in decibels, using the A-weighting network (for the purposes of this chapter)." It doesn't say average. 95 dBA Vehicle Standard does not apply to normal cars.
On Page 2 of the report, Salter misquotes $16.20.055: "Typical noncommercial vehicle noise (less than 6,000 Ibs.) is limited, according to Vehicle Code, to 95 dBA" and "We did not measure vehicle noise in excess of 95 dBA." Section 16.20.055 Motor vehicles actually states: "It shall be the policy of the Town to enforce those sections of the Vehicle Code of the State of California regarding motor vehicle noise emission limits and equipment problems which create noise problems, motor vehicle horns, sound levels emitted from off highway vehicles operating off the public right-of-way, and the successors thereof."
Vehicle Code sets that limit 95 dBA. This is not intended to regulate all noises associated with vehicles. Normal passenger car ingress/egress is 60-70 dBA at 25 feet and never exceeds 95 dBA, so compliance is guaranteed and meaningless.
Commissioner Sordi asked March 25, 2026 p. 153: "nighttime criterion 54 dBA, that's maximum at night?" Piper answered p. 153-154: "There is some interpretation... not exactly defined... hourly average... primarily for fixed noise sources like HVAC or amplified music... Municipal Code has specific section for vehicle noise which has its own criteria."
Under vehicle noise on Page 3, "we understand that the WVMA parking lot is not used for heavy vehicle idling, vehicle repair or testing, or recreational vehicle usage. Therefore, the project meets the motor vehicle noise criteria of Section
16.20.055 and this is not expected to change if the requested increased hours of operation are granted."
Asserts that Property line noise limits do not apply to vehicles On Page 5, Salter asserts, "Though vehicle egress noise does not apply to the Town property line noise criteria, our measurements and analysis indicate that noise levels from the congregation leaving an event would meet these standards." §16.20.055 when
Though vehicle egress noise does not apply to the Town property line noise criteria, Salter's own appendix page 4 states: "The Town's property line noise limits concern heavy vehicle idling, vehicle repair and testing, and recreational vehicles. These seemingly do not apply to vehicle egress noise. However, to provide additional context.." Piper's responses imply that the only noise ordinance which pertains to vehicles is $16.20.055. This is an error because $16.20.015 sets max noise levels at the property plane, which IS the property line.
Proper standards for compliance are 16.20.015 exterior noise levels for residential zones and 16.20.010 curfew noise disturbance. It was an error of discretion to make a finding based on Salter's legal interpretation that $16.20.055 prevails for all vehicle noise.
Other problems noted in the Sundance analysis
Some reported levels did exceed max thresholds. Curfew noise is a separate issue from a simple one-hour average property-line value. Locations of sampling equipment at inappropriate locations to measure sleep disturbances.
HOW THE STUDY WAS MISAPPLIED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS
Staff Report August 13, 2026 pages 18-21 uses Salter to support four findings, all out of context:
1. Compatibility Finding 29.20.190(a)(2) "will not impair existing uses of the zone" It says "same five prayers, same people, same cars, except don't have to scrunch time" (Visick March 31 p.76). Verbatim April 22 p.21-22 shows 400-500 typical Friday now vs 10-25 in 2020, Ramadan 2-3x = 800-1200, overflow praying in parking lot/sidewalk/street p. 22-23. Same prayers but 16-20x more people is expansion of use. Time matters in R-1 because curfew exists for reason.
2. Negligible Expansion Finding CEQA 15301: Staff says "Because parking lot capacity is 180 spaces, it is estimated number of vehicles is approximately 180 vehicles at heavily attended services. Proposed modification would extend use by one-half hour most of year and one hour Ramadan, negligible change." (p. 18-20). 180 is capacity, not count. Town Code 29.1.150 says one parking space equals four seats for churches, so 180 spaces = 720 seats. 400-500 people = 100-125 cars minimum but families arrive separately, and Ramadan 800-1200 = 200-300 cars plus 35-36 at Affordable Treasures per Chair Burch p.81. Staff ignores offsite. Commissioners added 18 conditions including offsite parking leases per Mullin p.82, which contradicts negligible.
3. No Cumulative Increase: Piper March 25 p. 150: "CUP does not request increase in occupancy or overall number, it only shifts hours, therefore would not be expected to have cumulative 24-hour average increase." General Plan CNEL adds 10 dB nighttime penalty because nighttime noise is more impactful. Shifting same cars from 9:30pm to 11pm-12:30am increases CNEL even if count same. Salter comparison "within 1-3 dB of ambient, unnoticeable" (Sordi March 25 p. 154) is not a Town standard - ambient is not a standard.
4. No Code Compliance Needed: Staff response to Appellant 2 p. 19 says site currently used for religious observance therefore will not result in increase in traffic impacts. Yet March 31 p. 109 Staff admits: "There was instance 2024 Town received complaint regarding noise from grate associated with gate... did constitute noise disturbance as defined by Town Code, because repetitive banging sound. We did contact mosque and mosque removed equipmen.... Over past Ramadan Code Compliance Officer did receive complaint about cars exiting after 11pm, issued warning, preparing citation." If existing operations already violate 11pm limit, extending to midnight/12:30am extends violation window.
TOWN CODE TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT OR MISINTERPRETED
A. 16.20.010 Curfew Noise Disturbance: Code says:
(a)"....No persons shall between hours of 10pm and 8am make, cause, suffer or permit to be made any noise disturbance which:
1. Is made within 100 feet of any building or place regularly used for sleeping purposes; or
2. Disturbs any person(s) within hearing distance."
(b) No persons shall make, cause, suffer or permit to be made any noise or sounds which:
(1) Are unreasonably disturbing or physically annoying to people of ordinary sensitivity or which are so harsh or prolonged or unnatural or unusual in their use, time or place as to cause physical discomfort to a person(s); or (2) Are not necessary in connection with an activity which is otherwise lawfully conducted Note that (a) and (b) are independent conditions, meaning a violation of either one would be a violation.
Lawfully conducted activity logical error (inverse error) Salter states on page 6 of the report that, "the Ordinance allows noise that is "necessary in connection with an activity which is otherwise lawfully conducted." To say that this statement is true based on §16.20.010 (b)(2) is a logical error called an inverse fallacy, also called denying the antecedent. The code $16.20.010 (b)(2) and the ordinance that it comes (Ordinance 2356 §VII) actually say nothing about noise or sounds which "ARE necessary." The Town Code only discusses noises which ARE NOT necessary. The statement is of the form "If illegal activity then Prohibited." It doesn't follow definitively from this that "If legal activity then NOT prohibited." In this part of the code, the town is silent on that. The rest of the noise ordinance applies, even to legal activity.
Salter says the ordinance allows noise "necessary in connection with an activity which is otherwise lawfully conducted," and from that concludes that extended operation would not appear to violate the applicable standards. Ben Piper similarly told the Commission that the curfew provision involves whether sound is unreasonably disturbing or associated with an otherwise lawful activity.
But the actual ordinance is more nuanced. §16.20.010 contains separate provisions. It prohibits noise during the 10 PM-8 AM curfew period under subsection (a), while subsection (b) separately addresses noise that is unreasonably disturbing or not necessary in connection with an otherwise lawfully conducted activity. best point is:
The fact that an underlying activity is lawful does not create a blanket exemption from the Town's Noise Ordinance. The ordinance still contains quantitative noise limits and separate curfew/noise-disturbance provisions.
A lawful activity (like construction) can still produce illegal noise if that noise goes beyond what's necessary for the work. Blasting loud music while doing yard work is a lawful activity, but the noise may not be "necessary" to accomplish the yard work. Operating machinery at 3 a.m. might be unnecessary noise, even if operating machinery during the day is lawful.
To illustrate the point as applied to Los Gatos, if I have a party in my backyard that is a bit loud, I have to turn the music down in order to comply with our noise curfew. Even though the party is still legal and lawfully conducted, the noise emanating from that party is regulated under the curfew noise disturbance section of our ordinance. On the other hand, if I have a party that uses illegal amplification.
On March 25, Ben Piper and Commissioner Burnett discussed this. The way Mr. Piper was leading the conversation in a way so as to make the argument that early morning services are not currently prohibited. He is trying to lead the commissioner to agree that if the activity is legal, any associated noise is allowed. "Disturbance" is defined March 31 p. 110-111 by Town Attorney Whelan reading: "Any sound judged by reasonable, sane, competent person which occurs with such intensity, frequency, or in such manner as to disturb peace and quiet, endanger or injure personal or real property, or violates factors set forth in ordinance. It shall include, but not limited to: radio, television, musical instrument, devices for production or reproduction of sound with louder volume than necessary; sounding of horn; operation of machinery or tool; continuous or recurrent acceleration of motor vehicle or other engine while stationary; and yelling, shouting, hooting, whistling, or singing on public street." Then code says:
"Compliance with quantitative standards shall constitute elimination of noise disturbance." Attorney Whelan said March 31 p. 111 video evidence of cars 5am-8am unless violates noise standard does not provide evidence of non-compliance because existing CUP has no morning limitations. Although it is true that the existing CUP had no defined morning hours of operation, the town's noise ordinance still applies. The proposed modification adds 1.5 hours before sunrise - which IS 4:30am in summer - so curfew now definitely applies to new hours. Furthermore, the curfew limits still apply whether the hours are specifically called out or not because those are hours when the use of the zone is primarily for sleeping.
16.20.015 Exterior Levels vs 16.20.055 Vehicle Emissions - Error in interpretation of the law - Noise disturbance definition does not include vehicle noise:
16.20.015: "No person shall cause, make, suffer or allow to be made by any machine, animal, device or combination in residential zone, noise level more than 6 dB above noise level specified for that particular noise zone, as shown on Noise Zone Map, during that particular time frame, at any point outside property plane." Noise Zone Map ambient for this area is 48 dBA 10pm-6am, so max allowed noise is 54 dBA weekday, 49 dBA with 5 dB weekend penalty. Staff reports correctly use 54 weekday, 49 weekend.
The way that Salter has treated the vehicle noise section of the noise code is a false dichotomy or a misreading of legal structure.
The fact that the ordinance has a *specific section* addressing certain vehicle situations-like mechanical failure or missing mufflers-doesn't exclude vehicles from the general noise restrictions that apply to everything else. The specific section addresses particular vehicle problems. But the general sections—like those restricting unnecessary noise from any activity, or noise at certain hours—still apply to vehicles too. If the ordinance meant to exempt all vehicle noise from those general sections, it would say so explicitly. It doesn't. Instead, it has both: general rules that apply to all noise (including from vehicles), *and* specific rules addressing particular vehicle problems. That's why ingress/egress noise, car doors slamming, and other vehicle-related noise can still violate the general ordinance provisions—even though there's also a dedicated section about specific vehicle defects." Salter also tries to state that §16.20.055 is the only code which applies for any vehicle noise. $16.20.055 is enforcement of state Vehicle Code emissions limits and heavy truck idling - not normal cars. It regulates noise from emissions and is used to prevent nuisance noise from vehicles without mufflers or vehicles with severe mechanical problems causing unusual noise. Using 95 dBA emissions max for 400-500 normal cars is out of context.
On March 25, 2026 pp. 158-159, Ben Piper comments, "If I might quickly. The maximum standards that are outlined in the code for vehicle noise, I wanted to quickly make the point that those are independent of how many cars go past.
The maximum level of a car pass-by would be the same regardless of how many times that occurs." On April 22, 2026 pg 4, Town Attorney Whelan states, "the Town's Noise Ordinance speaks to, noise disturbances, and that has a very specific definition and it does not include cars entering and exiting." Clearly Mr. Piper and Ms. Whelan conclude that vehicles are only restricted by $16.20.055. Again, although $16.20.055 applies to vehicles, it does not prevent any other part of the Noise Ordinance from being applied to vehicles. In fact, both $16.20.010 and $16.20.015 address either vehicles or machinery, so vehicles are demonstrably subject to portions of the noise ordinance other that $16.20.055.
29.20.190 Impairment of Existing Use:
Staff Report p.4 says second finding is "will not impair existing use of the zone." Existing use from 10 PM - 8 AM is primarily for sleeping. Any expansion of hours which involves activities which disrupts sleep in neighboring residences clearly impairs the existing uses. Furthermore, when we look at the activity with respect to the General Plan, we have to ask: Does 400-500 people arriving at 4:30am and leaving at midnight with headlights, engine starts, door slams (May 21 p.12) preserve quiet residential sense of place per General Plan LU-6?
General Plan Noise Element Stronger Than Ordinance:
General Plan 2040 Environment Element 8-25 to 8-28, cited by resident March 25 p.25: Requires applicants for new nonresidential to submit acoustical analysis by licensed acoustician as part of environmental review, exterior noise based on compatibility Figure 8-6, protect residential areas by requiring appropriate site and building design, sound walls, minimum 5-foot landscape buffer, noise attenuating construction. For commercial/industrial adjacent residential, additional restrictions beyond Noise Ordinance by up to 10 percent shall be applied. For new noise-sensitive and sound or noise-generating uses near open space, provide noise study with recommendations reducing impacts to maximum allowed. Staff never required Figure 8-6 analysis, never applied 10% additional restriction, never required site design beyond wood slat fence. Basic Salter study is not the acoustical analysis Noise Element requires.
The Salter report never even mentions the General Plan or acknowledges existing uses of the zone. How can it be used to support the required findings of $29.20.190 if it does not acknowledge that any disturbance that would impair sleep between 10 PM and 8 AM would be certainly be at odds with the intent of the zone as defined by $29.40.380:
The R-1 zone provides a means to create the best possible location and development standards for single-family dwellings, assure adequate light, air privacy and open space for each dwelling, minimize traffic and parking congestion, and reduce hazards from encroachment of industry and commercial activity.
Outlook
Support Equal Treatment for WVMA
From Saahir Essa
Date Tue 8/18/2026 11:38 AM
To Clerk < [email protected]>
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Mayor and Members of the Los Gatos Town Council,
I urge you to grant WVMA's appeal and ensure equal treatment for the Town's Muslim community.
The conditions imposed on WVMA appear to subject the mosque to requirements that are not imposed on comparable houses of worship. Religious institutions should be treated fairly regardless of faith.
For my family and me, WVMA serves as a vital spiritual home and an anchor for community service, education, and connection across the South Bay. Having an accessible, welcoming space in Los Gatos enriches the broader town by fostering interfaith dialogue, supporting charitable initiatives, and reflecting the diverse, inclusive fabric of our region. Ensuring that WVMA is granted the same rights and accommodations as any other congregation protects the foundational principle of equal religious freedom for every resident.
Thank you for your consideration and for supporting fairness, religious freedom, and equal treatment for all.
Sincerely,
Mohammed Saahir Essa
San Jose, CA
Outlook
Support Equal Treatment for WVMA
From Luke Frobase
Date Tue 8/18/2026 11:42 AM
To Clerk < [email protected]>
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Mayor and Members of the Los Gatos Town Council,
I urge you to grant WVMA's appeal and ensure equal treatment for the Town's Muslim community.
The conditions imposed on WVMA appear to subject the mosque to requirements that are not imposed on comparable houses of worship. Religious institutions should be treated fairly regardless of faith.
As a new convert to Islam, WVMA is vital in providing me with the tools I need to continue learning my faith. These restrictions imposed on the Muslim community greatly limit my ability to learn by restricting the amount of time I am able to spend with my teachers.
Thank you for your consideration and for supporting fairness, religious freedom, and equal treatment for all.
Sincerely,
Luke Frobase
Outlook
Support Equal Treatment for WVMA
From Yasmeen O Bashadi
Date Tue 8/18/2026 12:11 PM
To Clerk <[email protected]>
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Mayor and Members of the Los Gatos Town Council,
I urge you to grant WVMA's appeal and ensure equal treatment for the Town's Muslim community.
The conditions imposed on WVMA appear to subject the mosque to requirements that are not imposed on comparable houses of worship. Religious institutions should be treated fairly regardless of faith. This has been a place of community for my family and I for many years. As a member of both the Los Gatos community and the WVMA community, I believe equal treatment should be imposed on all religious institutions.
Thank you for your consideration and for supporting fairness, religious freedom, and equal treatment for all.
Sincerely,
Yasmeen
Outlook
Support Equal Treatment for WVMA
From Hakan
Date Tue 8/18/2026 12:14 PM
To Clerk < [email protected]>
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Mayor and Members of the Los Gatos Town Council,
I urge you to grant WVMA's appeal and ensure equal treatment for the Town's Muslim community.
The conditions imposed on WVMA appear to subject the mosque to requirements that are not imposed on comparable houses of worship. Religious institutions should be treated fairly regardless of faith.
This mosque is an integral and very important part of our families. We heavily rely on such institutions to touch the lives of our children to become better persons, care about their surroundings and take care of their communities, neighbors, coworkers when needed. Imposing unfair conditions to this mosque is also unfair to the broader society for such reasons.
Thank you for your consideration and for supporting fairness, religious freedom, and equal treatment for all.
Sincerely,
Hakan Dogan
Outlook
Support Equal Treatment for WVMA
From Kareem Elsayed
Date Tue 8/18/2026 1:16 PM
To Clerk < [email protected]>
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Mayor and Members of the Los Gatos Town Council,
Please grant WVMA's appeal and give the Town's Muslim community the same treatment every other congregation here receives.
The conditions placed on WVMA go past what comparable houses of worship in Los Gatos are asked to meet. Muslim families want what their neighbors already have: a place to pray, teach their kids, and gather on for their holy days.
WVMA provides important services that my two young boys, wife, and I enjoy. This center matters so much to us and I know to so many across our community.
Thank you for your time and for holding Los Gatos to a standard of fairness that is the same for all of uS.
Sincerely,
Kareem Elsayed
Outlook
Support Equal Treatment for WVMA
From Zabed Ahammad
Date Tue 8/18/2026 2:26 PM
To Council «[email protected]>; Clerk < [email protected]> [EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Mayor and Members of the Los Gatos Town Council,
I urge you to grant WVMA's appeal and ensure equal treatment for the Town's Muslim community.
The conditions imposed on WVMA appear to subject the mosque to requirements that are not imposed on comparable houses of worship. Religious institutions should be treated fairly regardless of faith.
Thank you for your consideration and for supporting fairness, religious freedom, and equal treatment for all.
Sincerely,
Zabed Ahammad
Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer
Outlook
Support Equal Treatment for WVMA
From fatima ahmad
Date Tue 8/18/2026 2:43 PM
To Clerk <[email protected]>; Council <[email protected]> [EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Mayor and Members of the Los Gatos Town Council,
I urge you to grant WVMA's appeal and ensure equal treatment for the Town's Muslim community.
The conditions imposed on WVMA appear to subject the mosque to requirements that are not imposed on comparable houses of worship. Religious institutions should be treated fairly regardless of faith.
Thank you for your consideration and for supporting fairness, religious freedom, and equal treatment for all.
Warmest Regards,
Fatima Ahmad
Outlook
We just need a peaceful place to pray
From Chak Khemici
Date Tue 8/18/2026 2:37 PM
To Clerk <[email protected]>
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Mayor and Members of the Los Gatos Town Council,
I urge you to grant WVMA's appeal and ensure equal treatment for the Town's Muslim community.
The conditions imposed on WVMA appear to subject the mosque to requirements that are not imposed on comparable houses of worship. Religious institutions should be treated fairly regardless of faith.
Los Gatos has only one mosque serving our Muslim community. We are simply asking for the opportunity to pray peacefully with our neighbors, family members, and friends, while being respectful and responsible members of the community. We are not asking for too much—only the same fairness and consideration afforded to other houses of worship.
Thank you for your consideration and for supporting fairness, religious freedom, and equal treatment for all.
Regards,
CK
Sent from my iPhone
Outlook
Support Equal Treatment for WVMA
From Rahnuma Ferdousi
Date Tue 8/18/2026 2:48 PM
To Clerk <[email protected]>; Council <[email protected]> [EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Mayor and Members of the Los Gatos Town Council,
I urge you to grant WVMA's appeal and ensure equal treatment for the Town's Muslim community.
The conditions imposed on WVMA appear to subject the mosque to requirements that are not imposed on comparable houses of worship. Religious institutions should be treated fairly regardless of faith.
Thank you for your consideration and for supporting fairness, religious freedom, and equal treatment for all.
--
Sincerely,
Rahnuma Ferdousi
Outlook
Support Equal Treatment for WMA
From Alex D
Date Tue 8/18/2026 2:51 PM
To Clerk < [email protected]>
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Mayor and Members of the Los Gatos Town Council,
I urge you to grant WVMA's appeal and ensure equal treatment for the Town's Muslim community.
The conditions imposed on WVMA appear to subject the mosque to requirements that are not imposed on comparable houses of worship. Religious institutions should be treated fairly regardless of faith.
WVMA has been a second home to me since I moved to the Bay Area and wish to see it be treated kindly and fairly.
Thank you for your consideration and for supporting fairness, religious freedom, and equal treatment for all.
Sincerely,
Alex Dickerson
Outlook
Support Equal Treatment for WVMA
From Abdullah-Ibrahim Ahmad
Date Tue 8/18/2026 2:51 PM
To Council [email protected]>; Clerk < [email protected]> [EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Mayor and Members of the Los Gatos Town Council,
I urge you to grant WVMA's appeal and ensure equal treatment for the Town's Muslim community.
The conditions imposed on WVMA appear to subject the mosque to requirements that are not imposed on comparable houses of worship. Religious institutions should be treated fairly regardless of faith.
Thank you for your consideration and for supporting fairness, religious freedom, and equal treatment for all.
Sincerely,
Abdullah-Ibrahim Ahmad
Outlook
Support Equal Treatment for WVMA
From Yusera Ishrat
Date Tue 8/18/2026 3:18 PM
To Clerk <[email protected]>
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Mayor and Members of the Los Gatos Town Council,
I urge you to grant WVMA's appeal and ensure equal treatment for the Town's Muslim community.
The conditions imposed on WVMA appear to subject the mosque to requirements that are not imposed on comparable houses of worship. Religious institutions should be treated fairly regardless of faith.
This matter is important to me because I want my family to live in a community where everyone is welcomed, respected, and treated equally regardless of their faith or background. Diversity is an important part of what makes Los Gatos a strong and vibrant city, and I believe our community should uphold those values by ensuring that all religious communities receive equal treatment.
Thank you for your consideration and for supporting fairness, religious freedom, and equal treatment for all.
Sincerely,
Yusera
Outlook
Support Equal Treatment for WVMA
From Seema Siddiqui
Date Tue 8/18/2026 3:22 PM
Clerk «[email protected]>
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Mayor and Members of the Los Gatos Town Council,
I respectfully urge you to grant WVMA's appeal and ensure equal treatment for the Town's Muslim community.
The conditions imposed on WVMA appear to subject the mosque to requirements that are not imposed on comparable houses of worship. Religious institutions should be treated fairly and consistently, regardless of faith.
This issue is especially meaningful to me personally because I work in the City of Los Gatos as a dentist and have a strong connection to this community. Los Gatos is not simply a place where I work, it is a community that has become important to me and my family, and I deeply value the sense of belonging, respect, and inclusiveness that I hope our town represents for everyone.
I believe all faith communities should have the same opportunity to worship and serve their communities without facing unequal or discriminatory treatment. I respectfully ask the Town Council to consider WVMA's appeal with fairness and to ensure that the Muslim community receives the same treatment afforded to other houses of worship.
Thank you for your time and consideration, and for upholding fairness, religious freedom, and equal treatment for all members of the Los Gatos community.
Sincerely,
Seema Siddiqui, DDS
Outlook
Support equal treatment for WVMA
From Zahra Kassam
Date Tue 8/18/2026 3:34 PM
Clerk «[email protected]>
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Mayor and Members of the Los Gatos Town Council,
My family moved to Los Gatos a few years ago specifically to be close to the mosque and this community. Having a fully functioning mosque where we can pray, gather, learn, and build relationships is critical to the well-being of my family and so many others in our community.
I respectfully ask you to support WVMA's appeal and ensure that our mosque is held to the same standards as other houses of worship in Los Gatos, without additional conditions or burdens.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Zahra Kassam
Outlook
Support Equal Treatment for WMA
From Abdelrhman Mostafa
Date Tue 8/18/2026 3:59 PM
To Clerk <[email protected]>
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Mayor and Members of the Los Gatos Town Council,
I urge you to grant WVMA's appeal and ensure equal treatment for the Town's Muslim community.
The conditions imposed on WVMA appear to subject the mosque to requirements that are not imposed on comparable houses of worship. Religious institutions should be treated fairly regardless of faith.
Thank you for your consideration and for supporting fairness, religious freedom, and equal treatment for all.
Sincerely,
Abdelrhman M.