Planning Commission - Special Meeting

GOOD EVENING EVERYONE. GOOD EVENING EVERYONE. GOOD EVENING EVERYONE. WELCOME TO THE SPECIAL PLANNING WELCOME TO THE SPECIAL PLANNING WELCOME TO THE SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 21, COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 21, COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 21, 2026. 2026. 2026. THE MEETING IS NOW CALLED TO THE MEETING IS NOW CALLED TO THE MEETING IS NOW CALLED TO ORDER. ORDER. ORDER. I'LL ASK YOU TO PLEASE SILENCE I'LL ASK YOU TO PLEASE SILENCE I'LL ASK YOU TO PLEASE SILENCE YOUR DEVICES. YOUR DEVICES.

YOUR DEVICES.

I'LL BEGIN WITH THE ROLL CALL I'LL BEGIN WITH THE ROLL CALL I'LL BEGIN WITH THE ROLL CALL STARTING Commissioner Meyer?

Here.

And I'm here, and we'll note that Commissioner Thomas is recused due to proximity, and Chair Burch is unavailable. And we'll move next to the Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner Ram.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Okay, so as always, we begin the meeting with the verbal communications portion. And as you know, by now, the opportunity is for anyone who wants to speak on a matter not on the agenda is welcome to come forward. We don't have any cards. Do we have anyone on Zoom? Mr. Paulson?

I'm sorry, Chairperson. It is a special meeting, and so therefore the comments are restricted to the subject matter of tonight's meeting.

Okay, so verbal communications is not on the agenda?

It is, but it's for items that are on the agenda.

Okay, well, we closed the public hearing at the last meeting. My understanding was that at this meeting, we would have motions in discussion by the planning commissioners.

That's correct. And then every meeting has to have an opportunity for members of the public to make verbal comments.

That is not on the agenda. Sorry if I'm being dense here.

And that would be the case if it was a regular meeting. And this is a special meeting.

So I'm confused. Are you suggesting that we open the public portion of the meeting?

No, I'm not. I'm just recommending that there be an opportunity for verbal communications.

I'm sorry, I'm completely lost. If the public portion of the meeting is closed and no more public testimony can be had on the application, and we've closed the public hearing on the application, then how is verbal communication to be accepted?

It's just simply a portion of the Brown Act that requires an opportunity for members of the public to address the commission at any meeting. If you like, we could recess.

No, I just can't reconcile those two in my mind. I'm sorry if I'm being dense here. We do have one member of the public, but let's resolve this issue.

THROUGH THE CHAIR. MAY I SUGGEST THAT WE TAKE A BRIEF RECESS?

WHY DON'T WE TAKE A FIVE MINUTE RECESS.

THANK YOU.

So I'm going to call the meeting back to order and upon legal advice I understand that verbal communications on items not on the agenda is not permitted and that we will allow verbal communications on the resolution. the application that is. And so people who wish to speak, and I have a card from Lee Quintana, are welcome to come forward, certainly with the understanding that we have read and heard a lot, but you're welcome to do so. Thank you, Ms. Quintana.

Again, I'm really not prepared to speak. I haven't had a chance to read the letter from the applicant. I do have some thoughts. I started out writing a letter to the commission, and I approached it seven different ways, and none of them worked. But I do have some real concerns that there are conditions in here that are questionable, such as the ending hours of operations. The JCC has hours of operations till 12.30, and then they're given exemptions that they can use till 1.30. TWO TIMES A MONTH, THAT'S A LOT OF LATE NIGHT ACTIVITY. THEY'RE NOT IN AN R1 DISTRICT, BUT THEY ARE ADJACENT TO MULTIPLE FAMILY HOUSING. DOES THAT MEAN THAT MULTIPLE FAMILY HOUSING HAVE LESS RIGHTS OR MORE RIGHTS THAN SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING? The issue of the cafe, again, JCC has a cafe that is open to the people who use the facility, not to anybody else, and it can't be advertised. That's one of the things that the mosque was asking for. It's unclear to me, reading through the last set of conditions that I read through, they may have changed already, what a special event is. In most other CUPs, it specifically indicates that it's something that you need to get a permit from the police department. In this one, it doesn't say that. It says more than 100 people. I don't know if that is consistent with any other CUP. And again, the first thing in the Moss letter was the first thing that I came upon, which was the limitation to just religious-related matters. There should be a very clear definition of what the permitted uses are. I don't think there is. Not clear. This document is hard to read. It's repetitive. It's confusing. We have maximum attendance records set by the fire department, set by this, set by that. What is maximum attendance? Some CUPs have parking that is insufficient for their allowed attendance. There are all these inconsistencies between these. And I guess basically that's all that I'm going to have the time to talk about. But one more thing that I do want to state. All the CUPs that I looked at The only time that fencing was a requirement was when new construction was being done. So to force new fencing on one side of this site that is largely vacant.

I'm afraid your time is up. We always appreciate your comments.

Yeah, you do.

Sometimes your letters. Yeah, my understanding of the protocol is willing can can confirm that it's not an expectation of the planning commissioners to ask questions of the speakers.

That's correct.

Thank you very much. So I have another card here from Michelle s.

Thank you and good evening. The one topic that I wanted to discuss was the recommendation and action of the planning commissioners to delay the adoption of the resolution. This is because the original intent of the modification for this conditional use application was specific to address and support the five daily prayers, and Ramadan. And that would be not prudent or responsible for the Planning Commissioners or the Town Council to adopt a resolution without fact-based relevant data that's representative of the modification being requested. The current information that you have in the packets that have been provided over the last almost half dozen meetings is inaccurate and it was submitted by the applicant that is misleading and irrelevant and does not provide a factual or accurate information about the intensification of use, traffic safety, light and noise pollution. The data submitted did not represent the proposed modification for the general hours or Ramadan And it's the applicant's reports were done in non-seasonal conditions as well as only for daily prayer services versus the plethora of extensive types of activities listed in Section B, Item 9. We believe misapplying the RULIPA strips our homeowners of their property rights, turning the residents into substandard citizens. Enforcing neutral restrictions on noise, headlights, and the hours of operation is a legitimate exercise of the municipal authority and not a religious discrimination. We are here not about religion but about compatibility. Any questions?

but thank you very much for your comments. I don't have any other cards. Is there anyone who wants to speak? Thank you. We'll begin with Kim Ratcliffe and then go on to Jim.

Hi, Planning Commission. I have copies of the letter that we sent today at 1159. Does everybody have those, or would anyone like one? I think you all got them, but.

We can ask the town attorney if that was a desk item.

I believe it was.

It was included in the desk item.

Thank you.

Basically, we wrote to you and after meeting with Ms. Whelan, she suggested that we send you ideas on how to improve the conditions that would improve the neighbors' lives. And I don't see that any of these changes that we've suggested in the letters have been included. So I just wanted to go over It says here on the proposed modifications that conditions B10C and all of conditions C, D, and E mitigate negative influences on our lives. And traffic conditions also address the safety of the congregants of the mosque. And I feel that I need to point out there's just not clarity. In 24 driveway operations, the applicant shall ensure the ingress and egress to neighboring driveways is preserved. How? There's no details about that. 25, event parking overflow plan. The applicant shall implement an overflow parking plan. Again, how? There's no details. A big thing to the neighbors is the language in the also under driveway operations. The applicant is authorized to remove the right turn only sign at the end of the egress driveway. Well, the applicant has had permission to remove that for the last two years, and we've been asking the town and the applicant, and they haven't removed it. And that's a huge factor for us because it not only directs every single car that comes out of the parking lot, every 200 car right past our house. So we take the brunt on three sides, the parking lot, the side narrow exit driveway, and now in the front, and all the cars, instead of turning left onto the feeder street, they feed past our house and through all, they wind through all the streets. So that is a really big one that I feel that the, I would encourage the language to be stronger for that and also mandate a left turn only, um, sign. I think that would be great. Um, also 26 parking lot expansion. We have, we hear when the cars drive down the narrow driveway, we hear bump, bump, bump, bump. And this is very unclear. Shall we be repaired on a local basis? this is 26 parking lot expansion, shall be repaired on a local basis so that cracks, bumps, or other anomalies do not unreasonably contribute to additional noise generation of passing vehicles. I just feel there needs to be more clarity.

Understood, okay, thank you for your comments. And now we have Jim Radcliffe, please.

Thanks, commissioners. So the applicant, when he first asked, he had a humble ask. He said, a mosque is not a mosque unless you have five daily prayers. So he got that. And then he wanted an hour later for Ramadan. He got that, too. Now he wants extra time for coffee time, guest speakers, weddings, amplification. He wants to stay 30 minutes away. to empty the parking lot, that's gonna be a big challenge. 10 p.m. and now he wants to go to 10.30 every day of the year. That's gonna be a really hardship. People work from home. We need to sleep. That is not gonna be a great situation. And again, there's no maximum on occupancy. This is not equitable for the neighbors. St. Mary's, you can only stay till 9.30. And I guess the thing that's frustrating is the mosque has that intensification of use that is uncomparable to other churches in Los Gatos. It's not a very good comparison. It really needs to be compared to other mosques in the Bay Area. Because a lot of these other mosques are not on R1 streets in a residential neighborhood. So it's not really an equitable or fair comparison when you're comparing mosques you know, the applicant and to the other churches in Los Gatos. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. And we have Mary Hogan.

Good evening, commissioners and all. Last Tuesday at 9 p.m., I stood in the driveway of a home across from the facility. I heard audio playing. It was from a phone on speaker as an attendee walked from the facility entrance down Farley Road toward Zorda Way. He crossed the street, entered a parked car, and shortly left. At 10 p.m., again, I'm out on the street. I have a cat who I walk on a leash. Another attendee entered a car parked in front of the facility on Farley Road. He made a U-turn on Farley. The flash of lights washed the front of the house and departed toward Los Gatos Boulevard. These are not dramatic incidents, and that is precisely the point. This was not a major event. The parking lot was not full. Yet even under ordinary conditions, activity associated with late departures carries into the surrounding neighborhood. In residential areas, the impacts are incremental. Headlights through windows, engines starting, car doors closing, conversation, phones on speaker, traffic movements late into the evening. One moment may seem minor. Repeated over time, they fundamentally change the nighttime character of a neighborhood. That is why conditions matter. It is unrealistic to expect perfect compliance from every visitor every night indefinitely. If this expansion is approved, we are potentially discussing activity associated with approximately 180 parking spaces multiplied across evenings, weekends, and special events. That creates thousands of individual moments where nearby residents absorb the burden of noise, traffic, lighting, and disruption. This is not about opposing faith, worship, or community gathering. It is about compatibility within a residential neighborhood and recognizing that operational impacts do not stop at property lines. The Commission has both the authority and the responsibility to mitigate these impacts through meaningful conditions. First, the town's own parking code states that a use may not be modified through increased occupancy or intensity. Second, any approval should include a shorter compliance review period so the town can evaluate whether mitigation measures are actually working. Third, requiring reasonable investments in traffic management, noise reduction, quiet departures cannot be characterized as an undue financial burden. At the end of the day, this comes down to mutual respect between neighbors. I ask each of you to picture your own home at night. your porch, your living room, your family settle in, the quiet that makes a neighborhood feel like home. And consider what it means to preserve that for the residents who live here every day. Good planning is not about what a facility is permitted to do, it's about protecting the lived experience of the surrounding community.

Thank you for those comments, Ms. Hogan. And now we have Courtney.

Hello. We spent quite a bit of time in our previous hearing to understand the intensity. Commissioner Stumpf asked the applicant on the expected volume. The traffic data provided to us only accounted for the five daily prayers and Ramadan. They were great information. However, it didn't account for events, weddings, rentals, plant sharing, guest speakers, all year round new commercial and social activities. There's no cap at that. These activities are not part of the calculation because our cup was written entirely based on data discussed. It is not comprehensive and accurate. We simply do not understand the true nature or scale of what is being proposed. like the neighbor earlier said, the scope has changed from the beginning of five daily prayers to now, coffee after praying, 30 minutes to leave the parking, et cetera. And furthermore, while our building codes clearly define max occupancy for traditional seating and standing, They don't account for prayer position requirements. We don't know what that number really truly is. We're guessing here. Leaving the true safety limits really unclear. We move from parking spot limitations now to people capacity, and if people capacity is on praying, not on sitting or standing, then what is that? So I asked the Planning Commission before moving forward, we need to get the numbers right. I respectfully ask that we do the analysis during Ramadan to capture true peak traffic alongside a proper occupancy validation for prayer spacing. Only with this accurate data can we draft a safe, fair, and effective cup. This will also give us time to write the cup in a way that is clear for all. As the applicant stated a couple weeks ago, it's not clear to him as an applicant. It's not clear to that neighbor who just showed up here. It's definitely not clear to most of us here. So thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you, Courtney. And we have Gus Hu again. Please come forward.

Brown act you got thing because we already had And I was wearing brown hat and stuff like that you you know how it kind of works, but you're supposed to also give it a three-day Notice on on this kind of stuff because it's just like getting the last minute stuff I Don't I think it's too soon after the San Diego just to hear this kind of thing, just for the record. The flowers are for them, just out of town thing. I'd like to remind everybody, especially Farley, I said this the first time, if... They sell the property, and you guys on the Planning Commission know this. Builders that get this, they're to go three, four, six stories high. And everybody here that's complaining about noise and stuff like that, this would be 24 hours a day. There would be 100 cars coming in and out, lights to be on all the time. The Farley residents have to realize they can sell the property Everybody we're already complaining about high-rises. They're gonna put a high-rise there That's a perfect or three or four stories right looking down on your backyards So consider this in you know another thing is we're getting into like a lot of legal stuff. I've been in This this would go into the federal courts. I've been to three the San Jose San Francisco and Oakland courts is expensive for both sides and The town's gonna be you know you're hitting the town too, so let's let's try to Settle this the the the right lane. I mean turning right I think They should know you can't turn right into the residential. That was the biggest problem that things I think they will correct that I don't know why they haven't taken down the sign if that's true, but they should do that immediately and I don't know if you guys can say, oh, make a left turn, but I would even block it off and have the cross guards, because it's a residential street. Put cross guards on the property line. Don't let them turn in front of the Radcliffe's house. And all the residents can go... Around down Frank every nobody needs to go down past the things besides the six houses and that way You can you separate them for a little period of time and that would solve a lot of the problems I think it could be easily settled out of court or you know out of This if if both sides would just be a little bit more reasonable Thank you Thank you, sir.

I have a card from Rosie, please oh

Good evening Planning Commissioners, thank you so much. I just want to focus on one quick thing here. Over the last meeting, not only were there a number of conditions that were added by the Planning Commission, but there were two substantial changes made by the staff and the town attorney there. One was a change in the language of what the usage was to specify worship services. and the second was essentially ending at 10 p.m. without actually any time for moving that. I want to point out that both of them actually have a significant violation of LLUPA over here. We're not asking for special terms, we're asking for equal terms. And in order for the Planning Commission to actually move through that, we have actually submitted the detailed letter, so you can review that in detail. But what this actually means is that the town has a responsibility in order to make sure that number one, it's equal terms, and number two, that if it is, since it's a substantial burden for us, has to have a compelling reason and the least restrictive means. So I just wanted to make that reminder to the commission before it finalizes the set of conditions of approval. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Do we have anyone on Zoom?

There are no hands raised on Zoom.

Okay, thank you. So we'll now proceed to formally act on the request for approval to modify the Conditional Use Permit U-2410 for the property at 16769 Farley Road, and I incorporate all of the terms in the subject matter paragraph of the agenda. And before we begin, are there any disclosures regarding this matter? Commissioner Stumpf.

Yes, I did receive a direct email from a Farley Road neighbor, Mary Hogan. The email was headed parking space per seats. I did not read the email, so I did not respond to any of the email's content. I responded to Ms. Hogan stating I'm unable to comment or to answer your questions. A response I received back, thank you for your reply. I totally understand your position and appreciate all your time and concerns.

Thank you very much. Other commissioners? I have a disclosure. Javed Elahi has attended meetings here and has spoken. He was a law school classmate of mine, and during our respective legal practices, we had occasion to speak. However, we have spoken on no matters other than private matters unrelated in any way to this proceeding, such as retirement and physical health. AND IN NO WAY IS THAT GOING TO AFFECT MY OPINION TONIGHT. SO MOVING ON, I BELIEVE WE SHOULD PROCEED TO ASK QUESTIONS OF STAFF BEFORE A MOTION IS PRESENTED. AND I'LL LOOK FOR HANDS. MR. SORTI.

I WAS HOPING STAFF COULD GIVE US A QUICK SUMMARY OF THE ITEMS WE RECEIVED. I THINK I'M PRETTY CLEAR ABOUT Uh, well, maybe I'll just start out and I'll get more detail about my question. So the. We got the packet and it's a clean version and also attracts changes version of the modified conditions. Uh, that we discussed on May 13th. Um, so there's a clean version and red line version. It's the next 1 and I'm a little confused about it says, um, so those were those were 44 and 45. We got another memo that says that it's a revised resolution. It's exhibit 47 to provide reference to the applicable conditions of approval. And then it goes on to say, which address the unique impacts of nighttime services in a residential zone. I feel like I'm missing something. Was there something, was it intended to clarify something or?

Yes, it was. The original resolution referenced what impacts each condition was intended to address, but it didn't list all of the applicable conditions of approval. And so the second version that you got lists all of the conditions of approval that relate to that particular impact.

Okay, so the... So we have 34 conditions of approval, I think in the original right in the packet. And did that number change?

The conditions of approval did not change and the addendum it was only the resolution that was just the resolution part.

Yes, I get it. Okay. Thank you.

Other questions for staff.

commissioner stump please in public comment either today or yesterday we received an inquiry related to traffic direction and it had to do with parking and this is condition 23 parking lot monitoring and i assume that if the mosque PARKING MONITORS ARE ON THE PUBLIC STREET ASSISTING WITH PARKING IN THE LOT OR THE STREET THAT THEY NEED TO BE AUTHORIZED BY PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS AND OR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OR WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF PARKING LOT MONITOR OR TRAFFIC DIRECTION? THIS IS AGAIN CONDITION 23.

There is a code section in the town code that specifies that people directing traffic on a town street are limited to specific people, not private individuals. However, private property can have traffic and parking regulation by other people.

So then the understanding for the applicant is that their people are not to be in the street at all, but on the sidewalk or the driveway? BECAUSE I KNOW JUST OBSERVING IT, THEY WERE TRYING TO BE CONSCIENTIOUS AND THEY HAVE BEEN OUT IN THE STREET AND TRYING TO GIVE PEOPLE DIRECTION. SO I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR IF THAT IS WE NEED TO GIVE THEM DIRECTION NOT TO HAVE PEOPLE IN THE STREET OR THOSE PEOPLE NEED TO BE TRAINED, APPROVED.

Well, that rule exists in the town code. If the planning commission is interested, it could be referenced in the conditions of approval. We don't typically reference town code sections in the conditions of approval, but that could be done. And if I were to read this condition of approval as it is, I would read it that the monitors are to be directing people on private property.

Thank you. Other questions? Commissioner Burnett.

Thank you. I have a question for staff. So one of the letters from the neighbor brought up an interesting recommendation for the town of Los Gatos planning staff, town engineer to develop a fund, fund a residential parking permit program. Is that something that could in the future be looked into or something that town would consider?

I believe Parks and Public Works is currently working on a permit program. I would not recommend that the town pay for the establishment of the program in a particular neighborhood.

Thank you.

JUST A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION ON THAT. AGAIN, PROBABLY IN THE SAME MEMO THAT COMMISSIONER BURNETT IS REFERRING TO, THERE WAS A STATEMENT RELATED TO ST. MARY'S AND DO WE HAVE A SPECIAL ARRANGEMENT WITH ST. MARY'S OR PARKING IN THAT AREA BASED ON THEIR PARKING SITUATION?

Thank you for that question. I'm not aware of the town having a specific program for St. Mary's.

I'll go and try and find the reference that was in the packet from one of the residents.

Through the chair, so I believe that there is permit parking requirements out there, which may or may not cover all of the services that St. Mary's holds, but there is some form of permit parking in that area.

And I guess further my question would be, was there any special consideration given by the town for that permit parking to be established in that area?

Not that we're aware of, because that was done quite some time ago. Yeah, I understand. Thank you.

I have a few and then we'll see if other commissioners have additional ones. The first question is for the attorney and the question is, do the changes proposed in Exhibit 47, Attachment A, as shown in the red line as well, are those proposed revisions a reflection of the opinion of staff and the town attorney that they are necessary for compliance with ARLUPA?

The majority of them are changes that were recommended after we reviewed correspondence from all parties after um i don't think it was after the last planning commission meeting but it was the one the april 22nd planning commission meeting and that's why there were alternative conditions of approval presented at the may 13th meeting there is one condition um that's not related to ralupa it's the condition that was mentioned by the applicant that says the worship services will end at a prescribed time and other activities will end it at a different time and that was intended to address concerns that the reason for the request for the cup modification is to allow for all of the required prayers and um So the intent was to make it clear that the expanded hours are to accommodate the prayers rather than other gatherings.

Well, as I went through the red line, it seemed to track exactly the changes that were requested in the letter of May 20th from the mosque. And that's why I thought that what we're looking at is a reaction to that letter.

I would say the bulk of the changes are in reaction to that letter. And then the change that I just described is a reaction to other input from the public.

Okay, thank you for that. Second question, is the Planning Commission, should the Planning Commission limit its consideration of other CUPs to those in the town or the county or those outside the county referred to by a number of the members of the public?

So with regard to RELUPA, the requirement is that the town treat religious uses on equal terms with other public assembly uses and that the town not discriminate between faiths. And so for purposes of the RELUPA analysis, the Planning Commission is looking at other uses within the town of Los Gatos. But that said, input on how conditional use permits are handled in other jurisdictions is also factual information that the Planning Commission can consider.

Okay, thank you for that. And let's see my third question. Oh, so there's been a lot of numbers floating around, of course. Exhibit 42, which is the town's compliance chart, shows that the mosque does not now have a seating capacity in the CUP. And I looked at it, and that's correct. But is there an occupancy limit applicable to the mosque under town ordinances, not a policy but an ordinance, or one that's imposed by county fire or the fire code?

THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REFERENCE, THE MAXIMUM BUILDING OCCUPANCY THAT'S BEEN ESTABLISHED BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND THEN INDEPENDENT OF THAT, THERE IS A TOWN CODE SECTION THAT TALKS ABOUT REQUIRED PARKING FOR VARIOUS USES. AND FOR RELIGIOUS USES, THE TOWN CODE DOES PROVIDE ONE PARKING SPACE FOR EVERY FOUR SEATS. you know it's not exactly on point for it for religious use that doesn't have seating but i do think it's reasonable to interpret seats as bodies okay thank you those were my questions are there any others mr stump

Yeah, this is just a follow-up. I said I would take a look for where the statement about parking was in some of the addendum material that came. This comes from an email from Kim Ratcliffe on Twitter. TODAY AND THIS IS TALKING ABOUT CONDITIONS AND SO THEY WERE RECOMMENDING TO DEVELOP AND FUND A RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT PROGRAM FOR THE FARLEY ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION THAT CAN BE ROLLED OUT IN PHASES. SKIPPING DOWN THE PAGE, THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE FARLEY ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION IS TO UTILIZE THE SAME PLAN THE TOWN OF LAS GADOS HAS ON TATE AVENUE AND BEING FOR ST. MARY'S CATHOLIC CHURCH. And I think the response I've received is that we did not have any special program or plan for St. Mary's, realize this was many years ago that this was established, but I'm just, again, I guess, Mr. Paulson, you've confirmed that there's no special arrangement in place.

I confirm that we're not aware of one. I think it's also a different scenario because of its proximity to downtown. So you have potential for employees and others to park in those residential neighborhoods. So I imagine it was not strictly a St. Mary's issue. Thank you.

If there are no more questions, we're required by Rosenberg's Rules of Order, which are applicable to the Planning Commission, UNDER THE RULES ADOPTED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL TO HAVE A MOTION BEFORE US PRIOR TO DISCUSSION. AND I'M GOING TO EXERCISE MY AUTHORITY AS CHAIR TO MAKE A MOTION AND I FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WILL BE DISCUSSION ABOUT IT, THAT THERE MAY BE AMENDMENTS PROPOSED OR THERE MAY BE SUPERCEDING MOTIONS. BUT WE HAVE TO GET SOMETHING ON THE TABLE SO I'M GOING TO DO THAT RIGHT NOW. So my motion is to approve the application which is before us subject to the resolution or in addition to the resolution exhibit 47 and to the modified conditions in exhibit 47 attachment A with certain changes RELATING TO THE ARLUPA FINDINGS, FIRST, TO CHANGE ALL REFERENCES TO NIGHT AND DAY. SECONDLY, TO ADD THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE. THE CONDITIONS ADDRESSING SERIOUS VEHICLE AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY RISKS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THOSE CRAFTED TO MITIGATE MATERIAL SOUND AND LIGHT POLLUTION ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE LIVES OF CERTAIN NEIGHBORS. DO NOT REQUIRE SIGNIFICANT COSTS TO THE MOSQUE AND ARE THE LEAST EXPENSIVE MEANS TO ADDRESS THE COMPELLING TOWN'S GOVERNMENTAL INTEREST IN NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION AS SET FORTH IN THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN. THIRDLY, TO ADD AT THE END OF THE THE RESOLUTION AND NOT THE CONDITIONS. AT THE END OF THE PARAGRAPH WHICH ENDS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, YEAH, AND ADD THAT TRAFFIC AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ISSUES AFFECTING THE LARGER NEIGHBORHOOD, MORE PARTICULARLY IDENTIFIED IN PARAGRAPHS I THROUGH, ROMA NEURAL I THROUGH 5 AS FOLLOWS. And so what we're doing there is just melding in traffic and pedestrian safety issues. And the fourth change is in subparagraph I, conditions 12 and 13. Oh, I'm sorry. One moment. Yes, in the... One second, I have to see if this is in the resolution or in the conditions. Yes, in the resolution, On page five, there are Roman numeral subparagraphs one through five. And in subparagraph one, I would add conditions 12 and 30. And in subparagraph two, I would add conditions 10 through 13, and 23, 25, and 27. And then in the conditions, I have one change, condition 23, line two, delete parking attendants for the reasons that we've discussed based on the code. So that's my motion. I'm looking for a second, and then we can move on with our discussion. Commissioner Stone. Second. Thank you very much. Discussions. Question for staff? Sure.

I think you might have just modified condition 23, but could you repeat that last part? Make sure I understood the reference to number 23.

Oh, yeah. It was just to take out the requirement for parking attendance in the public street because of the town code prohibits that, unless approved by the Parks and Rec or Public Works Director.

I understand. Thanks.

OTHER DISCUSSIONS? COMMISSIONER STUMP. OTHER DISCUSSIONS? COMMISSIONER STUMP. OTHER DISCUSSIONS? COMMISSIONER STUMP. ACTUALLY, IS IT OKAY IF I COMMISSIONER STUMP. ACTUALLY, IS IT OKAY IF I COMMISSIONER STUMP. ACTUALLY, IS IT OKAY IF I MAKE ANOTHER MOTION AT THIS ACTUALLY, IS IT OKAY IF I MAKE ANOTHER MOTION AT THIS ACTUALLY, IS IT OKAY IF I MAKE ANOTHER MOTION AT THIS POINT?

THE 180 ON-SITE PARKING SPACES PROVIDED BY THE MOSQUE ON FARLEY ROAD SHOULD BE NOTED IN THE CUP. IT'S CURRENTLY NOT REFERENCED. SO I MOVE TO NOTE THE NUMBER OF ON-SITE PARKING SPACES BY REVISING THE FIRST SENTENCE OF CONDITION 26, PARKING LOT EXPANSION. The revision will read, the applicant shall provide at least 180 parking spaces. The second sentence begins with an application proposing additional parking spaces shall be submitted and carries on to the remainder of the existing first sentence. That is my motion. Two would be to amend your motion. Your motion.

It's not a superseding motion. It's an amendment to my motion. Thank you. I'm sorry about that. Very good. I'll second that motion. Is there a discussion? Commissioner Burnett.

Would this be a good time to bring up my decision? It's not a motion. It is.

We're having discussion on my motion as amended by Commissioner Stump, and you're welcome to discuss that.

Or alternatively, if you have a different motion, there can be up to three motions presented at any one time. Correct.

Okay, I don't know if this would go as a motion, but my motion is that I cannot make the findings to modify the existing CUP application based on all the documents presented, the testimony videos, as well as my own observations. The request is to have for 335 days a year a nightly religious observation, observance time to 11 o'clock. as well as increasing the hours from 11 p.m. to as late as 12 midnight or 12.30 a.m. for 30 days during Ramadan. Both times, requests include a half an hour to vacate the parking lot. The request, if approved, will directly impact the physical and mental health of this small community. The request for additional hours in itself is not a big deal request overall. It's the impact of adding additional time to vacate the onsite parking lot, cars leaving later at night, which upset sleeping patterns, as well as attendees walking past homes on a dark street with no sidewalks to offsite parking, has to all be taken into consideration. But the big concern is we're looking at 365 days of late night activity. if there are different needs for restorative sleep, which is essential for one's well-being and longevity, documented in many studies published by the NIH, the CDC, as well as many others. The direct impact on the extended hours for 13 families in the immediate, as well as surrounding neighborhood, will have a deleterious effect. Sleeping patterns of the working families, you have small children, you have new mothers, you have elderly as well as those recovering from an illness with disability concerns will be strained. Each resident, be it a baby to an elderly neighbor, have different needs when it comes to restorative sleep. there will not be one night during the year that this neighborhood can look forward to have within half what they have with the present CUP and the limited hours. And in closing, I might add, the land was purchased in 2018 by the West Valley Mosque Association, which is a wonderful organization I met at. With full knowledge of the CUP, with the hours of operation not to exceed past 10 p.m., a religious request from the mosque in 2020 to expand the hours of operation for religious observance during the month of Ramadan to 11 p.m. resulted in the present CUP. I might add the description at that time in the Planning Commission from Kareem Saeed, the West Valley Mosque Association Community Outreach Director, was to extend the hours from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m., expecting five to 10 cars to leave prior to 11 o'clock. And the remainder of the year, the operations would end at 10 PM. This denial would not impact the 2020 CUP that the West Valley Mosque Association has been following since March of 2020, which is over six years. you know this based on all my readings uh testimony um and uh everything that we have been brought forward by staff and that um that would be my comment okay thank you for that input commissioner stump actually i'm sorry uh chair i've got a few more amendments to offer

Actually, I have one.

Let's start with yours. Thanks. I'd like to start with condition 24, driveway operations. In the last sentence that reads, the applicant is authorized to remove the right turn only sign at the end of the egress driveway. I propose that we change that. The applicant is required to remove the right turn only sign and install a left turn only sign. That is condition 24. Condition 15 lot closure rule there was a comment about people living on-site and guests and And the parking requirements for them I'm proposing that in condition 20 I think it should be, we have two As, AA, AB, that at the end of the sentence, it states, or use by the leaders, quarters, occupants, or their guests would be added. And then we don't have to worry about that being in condition 15. It would be covered there. CONDITION 18 THAT DEALT WITH FOOD VENDORS, THERE WAS A RECOMMENDATION, A SUGGESTION TO ADD AT THE END OF THE SENTENCE FOOD VENDORS ASSOCIATED WITH THE BENCH SHOULD BE LOCATED AT LEAST 20 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE ABUTTING RESIDENCES. SO THE TERMINOLOGY ABUTTING RESIDENCES WOULD BE ADDED.

That is all. Okay, thank you. The maker of the motion accepts those changes. And my additional change is on condition 28, landscape plantings. Line two refers to perimeter fences. I think that should be adjacent to residences, which is the same language that is in line four. SO WE'LL NEED TO HAVE A SECOND SO WE'LL NEED TO HAVE A SECOND ON THAT. ON THAT. ON THAT. COMMISSIONER STUNN?

COMMISSIONER STUNN?

COMMISSIONER STUNN? SECOND. SECOND. SECOND. OKAY. OKAY. OKAY. SO WE HAVE THE MOTION I MADE SO WE HAVE THE MOTION I MADE the two presentations by Commissioner Stump with respect to changes that I have approved, and we also have my one on 28. So is there discussion at this time on the modified motion? Okay, seeing none, I'll call the question and ask those in favor to raise their hand. And those opposed? Thank you very much. Passes four to one. And because this is a special meeting, there's no further business before the commission. And I'll call the meeting adjourned. Through the chair.

If I may recite the appeal rights. Please, I'm sorry. Thank you. The decision of the planning commission can be appealed to the town council by any interested person as defined by town code section 29.10.020 within 10 days on forms available online with fees paid. The appeal is due by 1 p.m. on the final day if it is a Friday.

Thank you for that, Commissioner. So if there's no other comments, Commissioner Stump.

Yeah, it may not be appropriate at this point, but there were just a couple of comments that I wanted to, again, follow up with why some of these conditions are important, particularly two of them. We have a condition 7 compliance review, and that annual review has been set for 3 years following approval. And it is a reasonable requirement based on the location of the mosque. It's uniquely located on a landlocked property in a residential neighborhood, sharing property lines. On 3 sides of the property with 13 neighbors. THIS NEIGHBORHOOD LACKS INFRASTRUCTURE, GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS AND UNIFORM STREET WIDTH TO EASILY AND SAFELY SUPPORT VEHICLE TRAFFIC AND FLOW ESPECIALLY DURING RAMADAN. DUE TO THEIR DAILY ACTIVITY LEVEL AT THE MOSQUE THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS EXPERIENCING SIX TO TEN TIMES GREATER ATTENDANCE AND VEHICLE TRAFFIC. THAN PREVIOUS RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND THEIR AVERAGE WEEKLY ATTENDANCE IS 3500 WITH AN ESTIMATED 1160 VEHICLES AND DURING RAMADAN THIS INCREASES TO 9 TO 16 TIMES GREATER WITH AVERAGE WEEKLY ATTENDANCE OF 5000 INCLUDING AN ESTIMATE OF 1860 VEHICLES. THIS LEVEL OF ACTIVITY MAKES THIS THE HIGHEST VOLUME RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION IN LOS GATOS ON MOST DAYS OF THE WEEK. and on a weekly basis. So an annual review over the first three years of this CUP will allow the town applicant and the neighbors the opportunity to monitor and address concerns and impacts related to traffic, traffic flow, pedestrian safety, noise, light intrusion, and so on. IT'S HOPED THAT THIS EXTENDED REVIEW PERIOD WILL ALLOW FOR REASONABLE ADJUSTMENT AND FINE-TUNING THAT WILL BE BENEFICIAL FOR ALL CONCERNED. AND THEN I DO WANT TO STATE CONDITIONS 12 GENERAL HOURS SECTION C MAXIMUM CAPACITY AND CONDITION 13 SEASONAL LATE HOURS SECTION A MAXIMUM CAPACITY. MAXIMUM CAPACITIES FOR RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS HAVE BEEN ROUTINELY SET IN CUPS WITH FEW EXCEPTIONS. THESE MAXIMUM CAPACITIES ARE TYPICALLY BASED ON PARKING SPACES PROVIDED BY THE RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS TOWN CODE SECTION 29.10.150 HAS SET MAXIMUM CAPACITY. from paragraph 26, churches, one parking space for each four seats in each building will be used separately or together with any other building for worship. The math is straightforward. One parking space equals four seats. So as a specific example, Venture Church has 703 parking spaces. Times four, their maximum capacity is 2,812. The application of the code for the mosque with 180 parking spaces times four is 720. So this is the same methodology, the same town code that is being followed. And then a couple other quick points. During Ramadan, obviously, the maximum capacity is increased to 869, which is the maximum occupancy allowed by the fire department. How has this been done in the past? It follows the same methodology as Congregation Shir Hadash. THEIR STANDARD SERVICES HAVE A MAXIMUM CAPACITY OF 250 WITHIN THEIR PARKING REQUIREMENTS. IN FACT THEIR PARKING WOULD ALLOW THEM 300 AND UP TO 450 WHICH HAPPENS TO BE THE MAXIMUM OCCUPANCY ALLOWED BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR SPECIAL HOLIDAY SERVICES. SETTING INCLUDING MAXIMUM CAPACITIES AND CUPS BASED ON PARKING SPACES FOR RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION HAS BEEN A COMMON PRACTICE. OF THE 8 RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS CUPS REVIEWED BY ME, ALL 8 HAD MAXIMUM CAPACITIES SET AND 5 OF THE 8 HAD PARKING SPACES INCLUDED IN THE CUPS. those eight include congregation shir hadash saint mary's catholic church los gatos united methodist church faith lutheran church saint luke's episcopal calvary church legacy community church and venture church and again one last point this town code section that i referred to it served the community well over the last 50 plus years THE CODE HELPS TO ENSURE THAT RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS CONTAIN ACTIVITIES TO THEIR CAMPUSES INCLUDING ENOUGH PARKING TO SUPPORT THEIR CONGREGANTS ON THE PROPERTY. THIS HELPS TO AVOID THE INEVITABLE PARKING IMPACTS TO AREA RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES THAT ARISE WHEN CONGREGATES SEEK OFF CAMPUS PARKING. THANK YOU FOR THAT TIME, CHAIR.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THOSE THOUGHTFUL COMMENTS. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? WE HAVE THE APPEAL RIGHT SO NOW I'LL ADJOURN THE MEETING.