Los Gatos City Council
August 11, 2026

ITEM NO. 1.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
6 November 2025

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

SURREY FARMS ESTATES SUBDIVISION PROJECT
Item
Number Checklist Question Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule
SignOff
surveys, inspecting potential roosting habitat
with fiberoptic cameras, or a combination
thereof.

If a non-breeding bat colony is discovered, the
individuals shall be humanely evicted via twostep removal under the direction of a qualified biologist to ensure that harm or take would not
occur to any bats as a result of tree removal.

Two-step removal can only occur during March
1 to April 15 and September 1 to October 15 to
avoid harm to maternity and overwintering
colonies.

If a maternity colony is detected, then a
qualified biologist shall determine an
appropriate size for a construction-free buffer
to be established around the tree and remain
in place until the qualified biologist has
determined that the nursery is inactive. Tree
removal shall preferably be done between
March 1 and April 15 or August 15 and October
15 to avoid interfering with an active nursery.

Proof of compliance with this mitigation
measure shall be provided to the Town of Los
Gatos Community Development Department.

San Francisco Dusky-Footed Woodrat
IV-7 A qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey for San Francisco duskyfooted woodrat nests between 30 and 14 days prior to the onset of construction activities. The
survey shall encompass all construction zones
within the woodland habitat and developed
areas, and surrounding lands within 25 feet.

Town of Los
Gatos Planning
Division
Between 30 and 14
days prior to the
onset of construction
activities

ITEM NO. 1.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
7 November 2025

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

SURREY FARMS ESTATES SUBDIVISION PROJECT
Item
Number Checklist Question Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule
SignOff
Results of the assessment shall be submitted
to the Town of Los Gatos Community
Development Department.

Identified nests shall be avoided, where
possible, and buffered by a minimum of 20
feet. If avoidance is not possible, the nest(s)
shall be manually deconstructed by a qualified
biologist when helpless young are not present,
typically during the non-breeding season
(October through January). If is the qualified
biologist has determined that young may be
present during the nest deconstruction, a
suitable buffer of a minimum of 20 feet shall be
established around the nest until a qualified
biologist determines that the young are
independent enough to successfully move
from the deconstructed nest. Approximate age
of the juveniles shall be recorded when
observed and appropriate time shall be
extrapolated out to when they would be
independent from their parents; then the
deconstruction can continue after the biologist
confirms that the young are not present in the
nest at the time. Proof of compliance with this
mitigation measure shall be provided to the
Town of Los Gatos Community Development
Department.

American Badger
IV-8 During the course of the pre-construction
surveys for other species, a qualified biologist
shall also determine the presence or absence
of badgers prior to the start of construction. If
badgers are found to be absent, other
Town of Los
Gatos Planning
Division
During the course of
the pre-construction
surveys for other
species

ITEM NO. 1.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
8 November 2025

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

SURREY FARMS ESTATES SUBDIVISION PROJECT
Item
Number Checklist Question Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule
SignOff
mitigations for the protection of badgers shall
not be warranted.

If an active badger den is identified during preconstruction surveys within or immediately adjacent to an area subject to construction, a
construction-free buffer of up to 300 feet shall
be established around the den. Once a
qualified biologist has determined that badger
has vacated the burrow, the burrow can be
collapsed or excavated, and ground
disturbance can proceed. Should the burrow
be determined to be a natal or reproductive
den, and because badgers are known to use
multiple burrows in a breeding burrow
complex, a biological monitor shall be present
on-site during construction activities in the
vicinity of the burrows to ensure the buffer is
adequate to avoid direct impacts to individuals
or natal/reproductive den abandonment. The
monitor shall be present until is the qualified
biologist has determined that young are of an
independent age and construction activities
would not harm individual badgers.

Additionally, all workers shall attend a
“tailgate” training that includes a description of
the species, a brief summary of the species’
biology, and minimization measures and
instructions on what to do if American badger
is observed.

Proof of compliance with this mitigation
measure shall be provided to the Town of Los
Gatos Community Development Department.

ITEM NO. 1.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
9 November 2025

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

SURREY FARMS ESTATES SUBDIVISION PROJECT
Item
Number Checklist Question Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule
SignOff
Burrowing Owl
IV-9 A qualified biologist shall conduct a
preconstruction survey for burrowing owl
following the 2012 CDFW Guidelines, or the
most recent guidelines, which includes two
surveys, one within 14 days prior to the start of
construction and the second within 24 hours
prior to the start of construction. If a lapse in
project-related work of 15 calendar days or
longer occurs, an additional survey shall be
required prior to reinitiation. A written summary
of the survey results shall be submitted to the
Town of Los Gatos Community Development
Department before any construction permits
are issued. If burrowing owls or active
burrows/refugia are not found, then further
mitigation measures are not necessary.

Identified burrowing owls shall be avoided and
active burrowing owl burrows shall be avoided
with a 250-foot non-disturbance buffer until the
burrow is abandoned. The project biologist
shall conduct a weekly check-in to confirm the
buffer is still intact and confirm the current
activity of that burrow. Proof of compliance
with this mitigation measure shall be provided
to the Town of Los Gatos Community
Development Department.

Town of Los
Gatos Planning
Division
Within 14 days prior
to the start of
construction and
within 24 hours prior
to the start of
construction

IV-e. Conflict with any local
policies or ordinances
protecting biological
resources, such as a
tree preservation policy
or ordinance?
IV-10 Prior to the start of construction activities, the applicant shall comply with the Town of Los
Gatos Tree Protection Ordinance and a tree
removal permit shall be obtained from the
Town for the removal of any on-site trees that
qualify as a protected tree. If the trees
proposed for removal are found to be in good
condition, and the tree removal permit is
Town of Los
Gatos Planning
Division
Prior to the start of
construction
activities

ITEM NO. 1.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
10 November 2025

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

SURREY FARMS ESTATES SUBDIVISION PROJECT
Item
Number Checklist Question Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule
SignOff
granted primarily for the convenience of the
applicant, then the full cost and responsibility
of such removal shall be borne by the
applicant, including planting of replacement
trees. According to the Tree Mitigation and
Protection Plan prepared for the proposed
project, the project would not meet the
required on-site tree replacement requirement;
thus, the project applicant shall pay the
appropriate in-lieu fees, pursuant to the
requirements of Division II of Chapter 29.10 of
the Town’s Municipal Code. The above noted
requirements shall be completed to the
satisfaction of the Town of Los Gatos Planning
Division.

V. Cultural Resources
V-b;
V-c
Cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of a unique
archaeological resource
pursuant to Section
15064.5; or disturb any
human remains,
including those interred
outside of dedicated
cemeteries?
V-1 If historic, archaeological, or paleontological
resources are encountered during subsurface
excavation activities, all construction activities
within a 100-foot radius of the resource shall
cease until a qualified archaeologist
determines whether the resource requires
further study. The Town shall require that the
applicant include a standard inadvertent
discovery clause in every construction contract
to inform contractors of this requirement. Any
previously undiscovered resources found
during construction shall be recorded on
appropriate California Department of Parks
and Recreation forms and evaluated for
significance in terms of California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) criteria by
a qualified archaeologist. Potentially significant
cultural resources consist of, but are not
limited to, stone, bone, fossils, wood, or shell
The Town of Los
Gatos
Community
Development
Department
During construction,
if historic,
archaeological, or
paleontological
resources are
encountered during
subsurface
excavation activities

ITEM NO. 1.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
11 November 2025

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

SURREY FARMS ESTATES SUBDIVISION PROJECT
Item
Number Checklist Question Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule
SignOff
artifacts or features, including hearths,
structural remains, or historic dumpsites.

If the resource is determined to be significant
under CEQA, the Town and a qualified
archaeologist shall determine whether
preservation in place is feasible. Such
preservation in place is the preferred
mitigation. If such preservation is infeasible,
the qualified archaeologist shall prepare and
implement a research design and
archaeological data recovery plan for the
resource. The archaeologist shall also conduct
appropriate technical analyses, prepare a
comprehensive written report and file the
report with the appropriate information center
(California Historical Resources Information
System), and provide for the permanent
curation of the recovered materials.

V-2 If human remains, or remains that are
potentially human, are found during
construction, all work shall be halted
immediately within 100 feet, and a professional
archeologist shall ensure reasonable
protection measures are taken to protect the
discovery from disturbance. The archaeologist
shall notify the Santa Clara County Coroner
(pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the State Health
and Safety Code). The provisions of Section
7050.5 of the California Health and Safety
Code, Section 5097.98 of the California Public
Resources Code, and Assembly Bill (AB) 2641
will be implemented. If the Coroner determines
the remains are Native American and not the
result of a crime scene, then the Coroner will
Town of Los
Gatos
Community
Development
Department
Santa Clara
County Coroner
NAHC, if the
Santa Clara
County Coroner
determines
remains are
Native American
During construction,
if human remains, or
other remains that
are potentially
human, are found

ITEM NO. 1.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
12 November 2025

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

SURREY FARMS ESTATES SUBDIVISION PROJECT
Item
Number Checklist Question Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule
SignOff
notify the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC), which then will
designate a Native American Most Likely
Descendant (MLD) for the project (Section
5097.98 of the Public Resources Code). The
designated MLD will have 48 hours from the
time access to the property is granted to make
recommendations concerning treatment of the
remains. If the applicant does not agree with
the recommendations of the MLD, the NAHC
can mediate (Section 5097.94 of the Public
Resources Code). If an agreement is not
reached, the qualified archaeologist or MLD
must rebury the remains where they will not be
further disturbed (Section 5097.98 of the
Public Resources Code). This will also include
either recording the site with the NAHC or the
appropriate Information Center, using an open
space or conservation zoning designation or
easement, or recording a reinternment
document with the county in which the property
is located (AB 2641). Work cannot resume
within the no-work radius until the lead agency,
through consultation as appropriate,
determines that the treatment measures have
been completed to the Town’s satisfaction.

VII. Geology and Soils
VII-aii;
VII-aiii;
VII-c;
VII-d
Directly or indirectly
cause potential
substantial adverse
effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or
death involving: strong
seismic ground shaking;
or seismic-related
ground failure, including
VII-1 Prior to approval of any grading or
improvement plans for the project, a licensed
engineer shall review the plans to ensure the
engineering recommendations set forth in the
site-specific Geotechnical and Geologic
Hazard Investigation prepared for the
proposed project by Cornerstone Earth Group
are adequately incorporated, including all
relevant CBSC standards, to the satisfaction of
Town of Los
Gatos
Town Engineer
Prior to approval of
any grading or
improvement plans
for the project

ITEM NO. 1.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
13 November 2025

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

SURREY FARMS ESTATES SUBDIVISION PROJECT
Item
Number Checklist Question Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule
SignOff
liquefaction; or be
located on a geologic
unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would
become unstable as a
result of the project, and
potentially result in onor off-site landslide,
lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse; or be
located on expansive
soil, as defined in Table
18-1B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994),
creating substantial
direct or indirect risks to
life or property?
the Town’s Engineer. All grading and
improvement plans shall be reviewed and
approved by the Town of Los Gatos
Community Development Department and the
Town’s Engineer.

X. Hydrology and Water Quality
X-a Violate any water quality
standards or waste
discharge requirements
or otherwise
substantially degrade
surface or ground water
quality?
X-1 Prior to any ground-disturbing activities, the
project applicant shall prepare and submit a
final erosion and sediment control plan for
review and approval by the Town of Los Gatos
Engineering Division of the Parks and Public
Works Department. A Notice of Intent (NOI)
and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) shall be submitted to the San
Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control
Board. A maximum of two weeks is allowed
between clearing of an area and
stabilizing/building on an area if grading is
allowed during the rainy season. Prior to any
ground disturbance, the on-site aquatic
features (i.e., the ephemeral
drainage/drainage swale and Ross Creek)
shall be flagged by a qualified biologist with
Town of Los
Gatos
Engineering
Division
Town of Los
Gatos Building
Department
Prior to any grounddisturbing activities

ITEM NO. 1.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
14 November 2025

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

SURREY FARMS ESTATES SUBDIVISION PROJECT
Item
Number Checklist Question Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule
SignOff
highly visible flagging tape, or similar, to clearly
demarcate the limits of the aquatic features,
and interim erosion control measures shall be
installed around the aquatic features, at a
minimum. The project applicant shall submit a
letter to the Town prepared by the qualified
biologist confirming completion of the flagging
for review and approval prior to
commencement of any ground disturbance.

Interim erosion control methods shall include,
but are not limited to: silt fences, fiber rolls
(with locations and details), erosion control
blankets, Town standard seeding
specification, filter berms, check dams,
retention basins, etc. The project contractor
shall provide erosion control measures as
needed to protect downstream water quality
during winter months. The grading, drainage,
erosion control plan and SWPPP shall be
prepared in compliance with applicable
measures contained in the amended
provisions C.3 and C.14 of most current Santa
Clara County National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal
Regional Permit (MRP). Monitoring for erosion
and sediment control is required and shall be
performed by the Qualified SWPPP Developer
(QSD) or Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP)
as required by the Construction General
Permit. Stormwater samples are required for
all discharge locations and projects may not
exceed limits set forth by the Construction
General Permit Numeric Action Levels and/or
Numeric Effluent Levels. A Rain Event Action
Plan (REAP) shall be developed 48 hours prior
to any likely precipitation event, defined by a

ITEM NO. 1.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
15 November 2025

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

SURREY FARMS ESTATES SUBDIVISION PROJECT
Item
Number Checklist Question Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule
SignOff
50 percent or greater probability as determined
by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), and/or whenever rain
is imminent. The QSD or QSP must print and
save records of the precipitation forecast for
the project location area from
(https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/) which shall
accompany monitoring reports and sampling
test data. A rain gauge is required on-site. The
Town of Los Gatos Engineering Division shall
conduct periodic NPDES inspections of the
site throughout the recognized storm season
to verify compliance with the Construction
General Permit and Stormwater ordinances
and regulations.

XIII. Noise
XIII-a Generate a substantial
temporary or permanent
increase in ambient
noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in
excess of standards
established in the local
general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable
standards of other
agencies?
XIII-1 For any construction proposed within 25 feet of
a noise-sensitive receptor, the proposed
project shall implement construction
equipment staging areas to create distance
between construction-related noise sources
and noise-sensitive receptors; use electric
tools; use mobile construction equipment with
smart back-up alarms; and implement
additional noise attenuation techniques during
the clearing, earth moving, grading, and
foundation/conditioning phases of
construction, such as temporary sound
barriers between the construction site and the
sensitive receptors. The foregoing
requirements shall be included in the grading
plan to the satisfaction of the Town’s Engineer
and shall be submitted for review and approval
to the Town of Los Gatos Community
Development Department.

Town Engineer
Town of Los
Gatos
Community
Development
Department
During any
construction
proposed within 25
feet of a noisesensitive receptor

ITEM NO. 1.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
16 November 2025

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

SURREY FARMS ESTATES SUBDIVISION PROJECT
Item
Number Checklist Question Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule
SignOff
XIII-b Generate excessive
groundborne vibration
or groundborne noise
levels?
XIII-2 Any compaction required within 26 feet of
existing structures adjacent to the off-site
improvement areas shall be accomplished by
using static drum rollers, rather than vibratory
compactors/rollers, which use weight instead
of vibrations to achieve soil compaction. As an
alternative, preconstruction crack
documentation and construction vibration
monitoring could be conducted to ensure that
construction vibrations do not cause damage
to any adjacent structures. The above
requirements shall be included by way of
notation on any future improvement plans
approved for the off-site improvements to the
satisfaction of the Town of Los Gatos
Community Development Department.

Town of Los
Gatos
Community
Development
Department
During any
compaction required
within 26 feet of
existing structures
adjacent to the offsite improvement
areas
XVII. Transportation
XVII-b Conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section
15064.3, subdivision
(b)?
XVII-1 Concurrent with submittal of final project
improvement plans, the project applicant shall
also submit to the Town of Los Gatos
Community Development Department for
review and approval off-site improvement
plans showing the construction of new
sidewalks at the following intersections:
• Along the north side of Blossom Hill
Road between Regent Drive and
Union Avenue; and
• Along the north side of Fisher Avenue
between Mitchell Avenue and Roberts
Road.

The improvement plans shall demonstrate, to
the satisfaction of the Town Engineer, that the
off-site sidewalk improvements would comply
with all applicable design parameters and
Town of Los
Gatos
Town Engineer
Concurrent with
submittal of final
project improvement
plans

ITEM NO. 1.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
17 November 2025

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

SURREY FARMS ESTATES SUBDIVISION PROJECT
Item
Number Checklist Question Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule
SignOff
requirements set forth by the Town of Los
Gatos. The off-site improvements shall be
constructed prior to the issuance of any
certificate of occupancy for the project.

XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources
XVIII-a;
XVIII-b
Would the project cause
a substantial adverse
change in the
significance of a tribal
cultural resource,
defined in Public
Resources Code
section 21074 as either
a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that
is geographically
defined in terms of the
size and scope of the
landscape, sacred
place, or object with
cultural value to a
California Native
American Tribe, and
that is: listed or eligible
for listing in the
California Register of
Historical Resources, or
in a local register of
historical resources as
defined in Public
Resources Code
section 5020.1(k); or a
resource determined by
the lead agency, in its
discretion and
supported by substantial
XVIII-1 Implement Mitigation Measures V-1 and V-2. See Mitigation Measures V-1
and V-2
See Mitigation
Measures V-1 and
V-2

ITEM NO. 1.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
18 November 2025

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

SURREY FARMS ESTATES SUBDIVISION PROJECT
Item
Number Checklist Question Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule
SignOff
evidence, to be
significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code
Section 5024.1. In
applying the criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of
Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider
the significance of the
resource to a California
Native American tribe.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

INTRODUCTION
This Responses to Comments document contains comments received during the public review period of the Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND).

According to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15073 and 15074, the lead agency must consider the comments received during consultation and review periods together with the IS/MND. However, unlike with an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), comments received on an IS/MND are not required to be attached to the negative declaration, nor must the lead agency make specific written responses to public agencies. Nonetheless, the lead agency has chosen to provide responses to the comments for consideration by the Town decision-makers.

BACKGROUND
The Town of Los Gatos used the following methods to solicit public input on the IS/MND: a Notice of Completion of the IS/MND was posted with the State Clearinghouse on September 19, 2025. The IS/MND was distributed to applicable public agencies, responsible agencies, and interested individuals. In addition, copies of the document were made available at the Town of Los Gatos Town Hall, located at 110 East Main Street. Electronic copies of the IS/MND were also available on the Town’s website at the following page: https://www.losgatosca.gov/DocumentCenter/Index/2227. The public review period ended October 8, 2025.

LIST OF COMMENTERS
The Town of Los Gatos received 24 comment letters during the public review period of the IS/MND for the proposed project. The comment letters were received from the following agencies and individuals, and are included in the Responses to Comments section below:

Agencies
Letter 1 ..........................................San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Individuals
Letter 2 ........................................................................................................Ken and Pat Arendt Letter 3 ................................................................. Sameer Bidichandani and Shabina Mirajkar Letter 4 .................................................................................................... Jim and Karen Brown Letter 5 ........................................................................................Jill and Craig Fordyce (1 of 2) Letter 6 ........................................................................................Jill and Craig Fordyce (2 of 2) Letter 7 ............................................................................................ David and Karri Greenfield Letter 8 .......................................................................................Georgette and Michael Harrell Letter 9 ................................................................................................... Monica and Lotfi Herzi Letter 10 ......................................................................................................................Paul Krug Letter 11 .................................................................................................................... Raj Kumar Letter 12 ............................................................................................Donna and Roger Maltbie Letter 13 ........................................................................................Bruce and Jackie McCombs

RESPONSES TO E COMMENTS

y,//dϭϯ

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 14 ............................................................................................... Darcie and Tom McNeil Letter 15 ..............................................................................................................Kathy Meleyco Letter 16 ...........................................................................................Malea and Mike Mordaunt Letter 17 ................................................................................. Huipeng Ren and Tingting Yang Letter 18 .............................................................................................................. Philip Shanker Letter 19 ..................................................................................................Dan Sherbeck (1 of 2) Letter 20 ..................................................................................................Dan Sherbeck (2 of 2) Letter 21 ..................................................................................................Susan and Brad Stahl Letter 22 ............................................................................. Eric van Miltenburg and Lori Owen Letter 23 ...................................................................Jon Witkin (through Camas J. Steinmetz) Letter 24 ............................................................................................................. Grant Zamudio

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
The Responses to Comments below include each comment letter received regarding the Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project IS/MND, as well as responses to each comment. Each bracketed comment letter has been numbered at the top and bracketed to indicate how the letter has been divided into individual comments. Each comment is given a number with the letter number appearing first, followed by the comment number. For example, the first comment in Letter 1 would have the following format: 1-1. The response to each comment will reference the comment number.

Where revisions to the IS/MND text were made, new text is double underlined and deleted text is struck through. All such revisions to the IS/MND are minor and merely clarify, amplify, or make insignificant modifications that do not affect the adequacy of the conclusions presented therein.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5 states the following regarding recirculation requirements for negative declarations:
(c) Recirculation is not required under the following circumstances:
(1) Mitigation measures are replaced with equal or more effective measures pursuant to Section 15074.1.
(2) New project revisions are added in response to written or verbal comments on the project's effects identified in the proposed negative declaration which are not new avoidable significant effects.
(3) Measures or conditions of project approval are added after circulation of the negative declaration which are not required by CEQA, which do not create new significant environmental effects and are not necessary to mitigate an avoidable significant effect.
(4) New information is added to the negative declaration which merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the negative declaration.

Based on the above, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5, recirculation of the IS/MND is not warranted.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 1
1-1
1-2

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 1 cont.
1-2
cont.
1-3

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 1 cont.
1-3
cont.
1-4
1-5

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 1 cont.
1-5
cont.
1-6

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 1 cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 1 cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 1 cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 1 cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 1 cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 1 cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 1 cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 1 cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 1 cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 1 cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 1 cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 1 cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 1 cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 1 cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

LETTER 1: BRIAN WINES, SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGIONAL WATER

QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
Response to Comment 1-1
The commenter refers to an “ephemeral creek channel.” The referenced ephemeral creek channel historically supports water only in storm events.

Under Impact 3.3.11, the Biological Evaluation Report prepared for the proposed project by LOA (included as Appendix B to the IS/MND) states: “…the proposed project will not directly impact Ross Creek, the intermittent ephemeral drainage, or the seasonal wetland drainage feature.

Therefore, the project will not result in impacts to waters or sensitive habitat under the jurisdiction of the USACE, CDFW, or RWQCB.” The foregoing conclusion was confirmed by the project engineer, is based on the current project plans, and is adequately reflected in the IS/MND.

In addition, as discussed within Section IV, Biological Resources, of the IS/MND, a site visit was conducted on May 14, 2025, by LOA, a professional biological consulting firm under contract with the Town’s environmental consultant for the project, to confirm the characteristics of the on-site ephemeral drainage as part of the Biological Evaluation (which was conducted to identify on-site habitats and the likelihood of special-status species occurrence). Pages 48 and 49 of the IS/MND include the following discussion, with revisions shown in response to the comment:

The on-site ephemeral drainage with swales was determined not to be considered jurisdictional water of the U.S. or the State. Nonetheless, aAs shown in Figure 3, the proposed project would be designed to incorporate a minimum 10-foot buffer between the proposed development and the vegetation surrounding the ephemeral drainage. As such, the ephemeral drainage with swales would not be directly impacted by the proposed project. Similarly, as discussed above, the proposed project would retain the 100- to 110- foot flood easement between the development footprint and Ross Creek. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the disturbance of any on-site wetlands.

The design of the proposed project, inclusive of the aforementioned buffer, would ensure that no direct impacts would occur to the on-site ephemeral drainage. Thus, whether or not the ephemeral drainage is subject to RWQCB jurisdiction would not change the conclusions of the IS/MND.

It is recognized that the 10-foot buffer intersects with a proposed public utility easement along the internal roadway at the northernmost end of the ephemeral drainage. Underground utilities are not proposed within the easement area, and thus, no ground disturbance would occur within the easement area. Nonetheless, construction of the internal roadway would occur in close proximity to the northern edge of the ephemeral drainage. The potential indirect effects of this construction on water quality of the ephemeral drainage, should it receive flow from a precipitation event, would be addressed through implementation of the erosion control measures of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), required by Mitigation Measure X-1 on page 74 of the IS/MND. In response to RWQCB concerns, the Town has made the following amplifications to Mitigation Measure X-1:

X-1 Prior to any ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant shall prepare and submit a final erosion and sediment control plan for review and approval by the Town of Los Gatos Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department. A Notice of Intent (NOI) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be submitted to the San

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. A maximum of two weeks is allowed between clearing of an area and stabilizing/building on an area if grading is allowed during the rainy season. Prior to any ground disturbance, the on-site aquatic features (i.e., the ephemeral drainage/drainage swale and Ross Creek) shall be flagged by a qualified biologist with highly visible flagging tape, or similar, to clearly demarcate the limits of the aquatic features, and interim erosion control measures shall be installed around the aquatic features, at a minimum. The project applicant shall submit a letter to the Town prepared by the qualified biologist confirming completion of the flagging for review and approval prior to commencement of any ground disturbance. Interim erosion control measures, to be carried out during construction and before installation of the final landscaping, shall be included. Interim erosion control methods shall include, but are not limited to: silt fences, fiber rolls (with locations and details), erosion control blankets, Town standard seeding specification, filter berms, check dams, retention basins, etc. The project contractor shall provide erosion control measures as needed to protect downstream water quality during winter months. The grading, drainage, erosion control plan and SWPPP shall be prepared in compliance with applicable measures contained in the amended provisions C.3 and C.14 of most current Santa Clara County National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Regional Permit (MRP).

Monitoring for erosion and sediment control is required and shall be performed by the Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD) or Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP) as required by the Construction General Permit.

Stormwater samples are required for all discharge locations and projects may not exceed limits set forth by the Construction General Permit Numeric Action Levels and/or Numeric Effluent Levels. A Rain Event Action Plan (REAP) shall be developed 48 hours prior to any likely precipitation event, defined by a 50 percent or greater probability as determined by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and/or whenever rain is imminent. The QSD or QSP must print and save records of the precipitation forecast for the project location area from (https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/) which shall accompany monitoring reports and sampling test data. A rain gauge is required on-site. The Town of Los Gatos Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department and the Building Department shall conduct periodic NPDES inspections of the site throughout the recognized storm season to verify compliance with the Construction General Permit and Stormwater ordinances and regulations.

The above revisions serve as minor amplifications to Mitigation Measure X-1.

Response to Comment 1-2
Please see Response to Comment 1-1 above.

Response to Comment 1-3
Section 6.13.1 of the Geotechnical and Geologic Hazard Investigation (GGHI) prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix D to the IS/MND) includes the possibility of using pervious pavement when discussing stormwater treatment designs. Except for Lots 7, 8, and 10, the maximum slope of the proposed pervious pavement areas is 3.5 percent. The lots include pervious pavers on the private driveways, which are shown with a maximum slope of 15 percent on the grading plan. According to the geotechnical report, underdrains are required for all pervious

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

paver installations, with which the proposed project would comply. Overall, as stated on page 73 of the IS/MND, the proposed project would comply with the requirements of the SWRCB and the RWQCB, and would meet C.3 Standards related to stormwater treatment, which would be ensured through a condition of approval and as part of the Town’s review of final project plans.

Response to Comment 1-4
The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) include language that a maintenance agreement be put in place between the Town and the property owner, requiring the owner to operate and maintain all on-site stormwater treatment infrastructure. The City will require the owner to operate and maintain all on-site stormwater treatment infrastructure as a Condition of Approval.

With respect to the placement of the proposed bioretention basins and proximity to public roadways, all of the proposed lots would front a private roadway. The maintenance agreement will include language allowing Town personnel to access each bioretention area periodically as required for inspection purposes.

Hydromodification management for the project site was discussed under question c.i-iii within Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the IS/MND. In addition, a Bay Area Hydrology Model (BAHM) report was prepared for the proposed project by Balance Hydrologics (see Appendix A to this document), which was submitted to, and reviewed by, the Town. Page 76 of the IS/MND is hereby revised as follows to incorporate additional details from the BAHM report:

Furthermore, as discussed above, following project development, stormwater runoff from each on-site DMA would be directed into an associated bioretention area located adjacent to each lot, which would be lined with an impermeable liner. Following on-site treatment, stormwater flows would be metered out into the existing 27- and 36-inch storm drains located north and west of the site, respectively. The proposed on-site stormwater infrastructure would be sized to meet Provision C.3.g of the County’s Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES permit (MRP), which requires new development to manage stormwater flows such that post-development runoff does not exceed pre-project runoff rates and durations.

In order to calculate the project’s ability to meet flow-duration frequency requirements while also meeting the required water quality treatment standards, a Bay Area Hydrology Model (BAHM) report was prepared for the proposed project by Balance Hydrologics.1 As discussed therein, site runoff would be directed to one of nine proposed bioretention basins that provide both water quality treatment and flow-duration control. Each bioretention area has been designed in accordance with the standard design criteria outlined in the C.3 Stormwater Handbook. Specifically, each basin was modeled with six inches of surface ponding, 18 inches of biotreatment soil media, and 12 inches of drain rock. A four-inch underdrain would collect the treated water, which would then be metered through a twoinch orifice integrated into the storm drain overflow structure. The two-inch orifice is required to meet the hydromodification management criteria. The modeling conducted as part of the BAHM report showed that the basins would biofilter an approximate average of 90 percent of the mean annual runoff. Such filtration rates are well in excess of the minimum 80 percent required by the MRP. As such, the BAHM report concluded that the proposed stormwater management facilities would provide effective water-quality treatment and flow-duration controls for the full range of flows, from one-tenth of the twoyear flood event up to the 10-year event. 1 Balance Hydrologics. Summary of BAHM Modeling for the Surrey Farm Project, Town of Los Gatos. July 31, 2025.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Based on the above, the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner which would result in erosion, siltation, or flooding on- or off-site, create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Consequently, implementation of the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact.

Response to Comment 1-5
The ephemeral drainage/drainage swale historically supports water only during storm events. As shown in Figure 15 of the IS/MND (On-Site Habitats), the ephemeral drainage/drainage swale does not extend across the entirety of the site; the downstream end of the ephemeral drainage currently tapers off at the northernmost extent, which occurs on Lot 8, near the proposed roadway.

As shown in the proposed Site Plan (included as Figure 3 in the IS/MND), the project was purposefully designed to avoid the on-site aquatic features, including the ephemeral drainage.

The majority of Lot 8, which is located upslope and to the east of the drainage, and that currently sheet flows towards the drainage during storm events, would remain undisturbed. This upslope area is shown as Drainage Management Area (DMA) B in the Stormwater Control Plan sheet of the BAHM report. Similarly, much of the upslope areas on Lot 9, located on the western side of the drainage, would not be disturbed. Accordingly, development of the proposed project would not be expected to substantially alter the amount of stormwater entering the ephemeral drainage/drainage swale during storm events, as those upslope areas that would remain undisturbed would continue to sheet flow to the drainage.

As part of the Biological Evaluation Report, LOA mapped the trees within the ephemeral drainage/drainage swale as mixed oak woodland habitat, not as riparian habitat. According to LOA, the trees within the drainage would not be negatively impacted by the project’s current stormwater plan.

Response to Comment 1-6
The attachments to the comment letter are related to a previous project proposal that, while located on the same site, was not approved by the Town. Because the attached comments are on a separate CEQA analysis than the IS/MND prepared for the proposed project, the comments are not directly applicable to the proposed project and are considered more for context and reference. Therefore, responses to the attached comments are not required or provided. In addition, LOA reviewed the biological reconnaissance, wetland evaluation, three-season floristic survey, and tree inventory prepared for the 2017 EIR as part of their preparation of the Biological Evaluation for the proposed project. Therefore, the same reports that were used to inform the 2017 EIR were considered as part of the proposed project.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 2
2-1
2-2
2-5
2-4
2-3

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 2 cont.
2-6
2-7
2-8
2-5
cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

LETTER 2: KEN AND PAT ARENDT
Response to Comment 2-1
Please see Responses to Comments 2-2, 2-5, and 2-6. The comments will be forwarded to the decision-makers as part of the consideration of the proposed project.

Response to Comment 2-2
As noted on page seven of the IS/MND, the Builder’s Remedy status of the project allows the project vested rights to be subject only to the applicable ordinances, policies, and standards in place at the time the project application was submitted. While the site is currently identified by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) as being within a High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ), at the time of project application, the site was mapped within a Very High FHSZ. Page 102 of the IS/MND is hereby revised accordingly:
a-d. According to maps prepared as part of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) Fire and Resource Assessment Program, the project site is not located within an SRA; however, the site is located within a Very High FHSZ.2
The project site is currently undeveloped and contains scattered oak woodlands throughout. Development of the proposed residential uses would include the clearing of on-site fuel sources and, thus, is not anticipated to increase wildfire risks at the site relative to the existing conditions within the project site.

Additionally, the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable requirements of the CFC through the installation of fire sprinkler systems, fire hydrants, and other applicable requirements. In addition, the proposed project would be subject to the requirements of Chapter 7A of the CBC which include, but are not limited to, use of ignition-resistant materials, fire-intrusion design of roofing and vents, and use of glazed exterior windows and doors. The proposed project would also be situated near existing roads, water lines, and other utilities, which would reduce risks related to wildfire due to the existing development generally acting as a fuel break because of a lack of natural debris (e.g., vegetation).

Wildfire risks are not anticipated to be exacerbated during project operation, as the anticipated residential uses typically do not involve operational components that would increase the risk of wildfire. Development of the site for residential uses would help to reduce the risk of wildland fire in the area due to site improvements, such as roadways, driveways, and irrigated landscaping, which would reduce readily combustible vegetation. Additionally, pursuant to Mitigation Measure VII-1, the project design would be required to show that final grading or improvement plans incorporate all recommendations included within the site-specific GGHI prepared for the proposed project to ensure slope stability at the project site.

Furthermore, as shown in Figure 16 of the IS/MND, the proposed project locates the residences outside of the areas of the site with the steepest slopes. Although some slopes occur within the project site, the on-site slopes are limited in size and are not sufficient to facilitate rapid spread of wildfire, as compared to mountainous areas with slopes sufficiently large enough to accommodate rapid spread of wildfire. As a result, the proposed project would not exacerbate wildfire risks due to slope. The off-site improvement areas do not include significant slopes.

As discussed in Section IX, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this IS/MND implementation of the proposed project would not result in any substantial modifications to the existing roadway system and, thus, would not physically

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

interfere with the Town’s EOP, particularly with any emergency evacuation routes.

Furthermore, the proposed project would not include land uses or operations that could impair implementation of the plan. While the long-term maintenance of the proposed roadways, water and wastewater infrastructure, and other utilities would not exacerbate fire risks, the activities associated with the initial construction and placement of the utilities and infrastructure could cause a temporary increase in fire risks due to the use of heavy equipment, which would contain combustible materials such as fuels, oils, and ignition sources. However, the project contractor would be required to comply with all applicable health and safety standards, including the California Health and Safety Codes and local Town ordinances regulating the handling, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials.

Compliance with such standards would help to minimize the potential for accidental conditions, including fire.

Additionally, the Santa Clara County Fire Department SCCFD has also adopted Genasys Protect (formerly known as Zonehaven) to provide specific, timely and accurate information regarding evacuations within the County. Genasys Protect divides geographic regions into smaller zones to help simplify evacuations. In the event of a wildfire or public safety emergency, fire department and law enforcement agencies will issue evacuation orders and other protective actions for impacted areas. Genasys Protect is a web-based platform that provides real-time evacuation updates. The project site is located within Zone LGA-008, which includes the area north of Kennedy Road, south of Blossom Hill Road, east of Los Gatos Boulevard, and west of Short Road and Brooke Acres Drive.2 Therefore, the proposed project would not be expected to be subject to or result in substantial adverse effects related to wildfires, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.

As shown above, the foregoing revisions elaborate on the discussion within Section XX, Wildfire, of the IS/MND, but do not result in any new significant impacts or substantial increase in impact significance from what was identified in the IS/MND. Page 70 of the IS/MND is hereby also revised as follows to ensure consistency with the revisions shown above:
g. Issues related to wildfire hazards are discussed in Section XX, Wildfire, of this IS/MND. As noted therein, the project site is not located within a State Responsibility Area (SRA). However, the site is located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ).3
As noted within Section XX, Wildfire, of the IS/MND, development of the proposed residential uses would include the clearing of on-site fuel sources and is therefore not anticipated to increase wildfire risks relative to the existing site conditions. In particular, the IS/MND notes that the proposed project would not result in any substantial modifications to the existing roadway system and, thus, would not physically interfere with the Town’s Emergency Operation Plan (EOP), particularly with any emergency evacuation routes. Further, in addition to the proposed access points from Twin Oaks Drive and Cerro Vista Court (for Lot 10 only), as noted on page 70 of the IS/MND, the proposed project would include a 20-foot-wide emergency vehicle access (EVA) route extending south from the site to connect to Brooke Acres Drive. Following construction of 2 Protect Genasys. Genasys Protect. Available at: https://protect.genasys.com/zones/US-CA-XSC-LGA-008.

Accessed May 2025. 3 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Santa Clara County: State Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Effective April 1, 2024.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

the EVA route, construction trips could use the roadway. During project operations, the EVA route could also be used for egress during evacuation scenarios. Furthermore, the project improvement plans would be submitted to the Town for review by the Town, which would ensure compliance with the California Fire Code (CFC) and California Building Code (CBC).

Response to Comment 2-3
Removal of trees does not violate the Town’s Tree Protection Ordinance. The Ordinance allows for tree removal, provided that certain conditions are met. The discussion under question IV-e of the IS/MND acknowledges that the proposed project would not meet the on-site tree replacement requirements. As a result, the IS/MND includes a mitigation measure (IV-9) requiring compliance with the Town of Los Gatos Tree Protection Ordinance. For example, the mitigation requires the project applicant to pay the appropriate in-lieu fees, pursuant to the requirements of Division II of Chapter 29.10 of the Town’s Municipal Code.

According to LOA, the proposed project would result in a small loss of habitat for the various wildlife species that occur regionally. Many of the species currently using the site would continue to use the site for movement or daily activities, as less than half of the site would be impacted, and less than half of the on-site woodlands would be impacted. Therefore, while some oak woodland habitat would be impacted, the amount is negligible on a regional scale; those species currently using woodland habitat within the impact area would be able to use woodland habitat in the unimpacted areas of the site or elsewhere regionally. In addition, Mitigation Measures IV-1 through IV-9 as set forth in the IS/MND would ensure that significant impacts related to adverse effects on the special-status species listed by the comment would not occur.

Response to Comment 2-4
The comment does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND. However, the IS/MND does address the proposed height in comparison to the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines on page 21 as follows:

As discussed above, the proposed project currently includes subdivision of the 17.55-acre project site into 12 lots and the subsequent development of 12 single-family residences.

The project site is identified as a Hillside Area pursuant to the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. The foregoing standards and guidelines include requirements related to hillside grading, development intensity, architectural design, landscape design, and other site elements such as fences, walls, and driveway entries. The project has been designed such that several residential lots would comply with a number of Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines, including standards related to the Least Restrictive Development Areas (LRDAs), the maximum allowable floor area ratio (FAR) for the site, and the location of the proposed residences within the lots. For example, nine of the 12 proposed residences would be located within the LRDAs, where the slopes are less than 30 percent, consistent with the Hillside Development Standards.

However, because the project is invoking Builder’s Remedy, compliance with all of the Town’s guidelines, policies, or programs is not required unless noncompliance constitutes a significant health or safety risk. As such, multiple aspects of the project are not in compliance with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines, such as the extent of grading and maximum heights. Regarding the latter, it should be noted that seven of the residential lots (Lot 1 and Lots 7 through 12) would only exceed the maximum height of 25 feet by approximately one to two feet, and Lots 7 through 10 would be located on the upper sloped portions of the project site. Thus, an effort has been made to minimize the height exceedance on the proposed residential lots that may be more visible.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

In addition, Figure 11 of the IS/MND shows the existing and proposed view of the project site as seen from Longmeadow Drive. As noted on page 23 of the IS/MND, the majority of the project site would remain screened by the existing trees and vegetation and the proposed project would not conflict with existing regulations related to views of the Hillside Area from Longmeadow Drive.

Therefore, the IS/MND appropriately concluded that the proposed project would not conflict with applicable Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines regulations governing scenic quality.

Response to Comment 2-5
Potential impacts related to geology and soils, including the risks of landslide, liquefaction, and fault rupture, are discussed in Section VII of the IS/MND. As discussed therein, the project site is located in a zone designated as having a “low” fault rupture hazard potential and is considered to be outside recognized fault zones. Similarly, the site is not located within County- or Statedesignated liquefaction hazard zones. Finally, Mitigation Measure VII-1 requires the project to incorporate the recommendations of the GGHI prepared for the proposed project, which would require the proposed project to be designed sufficient to ensure that impacts related to soil instability would not occur.

With respect to the erosion and sediment control plan required by Mitigation Measure X-1, the measure and associated plan require interim erosion control measures to be carried out during project construction. The specifics of such measures would be reviewed and approved by the Town of Los Gatos Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department prior to ground-disturbing activities associated with the project. As specified on page 73 of the IS/MND, the erosion control methods shall include, but are not limited to: silt fences, fiber rolls (with locations and details), erosion control blankets, Town standard seeding specification, filter berms, check dams, retention basins, etc. Implementation of such erosion control methods would ensure that impacts related to drainage and erosion would not occur.

In addition, monitoring for erosion and sediment control is required by Mitigation Measure X-1 and by the Construction General Permit. Such monitoring would be performed by a qualified professional and would ensure the control measures are performing adequately.

Response to Comment 2-6
Bioretention basins are standard features of development projects and, as noted on page 12 of the IS/MND, would be sized and designed to meet the Town’s C.3 Stormwater Standards design criteria, which require new development to manage stormwater flows such that post-development runoff does not exceed pre-project runoff rates and durations, thereby ensuring flooding would not occur. Bioretention basins filter stormwater runoff naturally through percolation, and do not pond water or result in long-term standing water. Thus, the proposed bioretention basins would not result in any safety concerns.

Response to Comment 2-7
Project construction noise is evaluated on pages 80 through 82 within question XIII-a of the IS/MND. As discussed therein, noise levels associated with project construction at the nearest existing single-family residences could exceed the applicable noise level standards. Mitigation Measure XIII-1 requires the project implement construction equipment staging areas to create distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors; use electric tools, which create less noise than non-electric; and use mobile construction equipment with smart back-up alarms, which automatically adjust their volume instead of using a fixed volume.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Such measures are consistent with Mitigation Measure N-1 in the Town’s General Plan EIR and would reduce potential impacts related to construction noise to a less-than-significant level.

With respect to ingress and egress routes, as well as roadway safety, the proposed project would not result in any substantial modifications to the existing roadway system and, thus, would not physically interfere with the Town’s EOP. Increased traffic from project construction would be temporary and cease upon buildout of the proposed project. As presented on page 82 of the IS/MND, generally, a doubling in traffic volumes is required to increase traffic noise levels by 3.0 dB, which is the level at which an increase in noise is generally perceptible. The proposed project would generate approximately 113 trips per day. Although traffic volume data for the roadways adjacent to the project site is not available, an average of 799 daily trips were recorded during the Spring 2024 trimester at Hillbrook School near the site’s northwestern corner. Even under the conservative assumption that the traffic volumes at Hillbrook School are representative of the traffic on the nearest roadways in the project vicinity, the proposed project would not double traffic volumes on local roadways and, thus, would not substantially increase traffic noise in the project vicinity.

Response to Comment 2-8
The comment does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

3-1
Letter 3
3-2

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

3-2
cont.
3-3

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

LETTER 3: SAMEER BIDICHANDANI AND SHABINA MIRAJKAR
Response to Comment 3-1
In addition to the proposed access points from Twin Oaks Drive and Cerro Vista Court (for Lot 10 only), as noted on page 70 of the IS/MND, the proposed project would include a 20-foot-wide EVA route extending south from the site to connect to Brooke Acres Drive. Following construction of the EVA route, construction trips could use the roadway.

Response to Comment 3-2
According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, “The level of detail contained in the response, however, may correspond to the level of detail provided in the comment (i.e., responses to general comments may be general). A general response may be appropriate when a comment does not contain or specifically refer to readily available information, or does not explain the relevance of evidence submitted with the comment.” Thus, when a commenter expresses general concerns, such as the proposed project would result in “more traffic”, “effects on water quality”, or “increased noise”, a specific response is not offered.

Rather, the commenter is referred to the sections where the referenced general concern is evaluated in detail. For example, project-related impacts related to biological resources, such as trees, habitats, or protected species, are evaluated in Section IV, Biological Resources, of the IS/MND. Potential impacts related to drainage are discussed under Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality, and impacts related to evacuation and fire risk are discussed under Sections IX, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and XX, Wildfire, of the IS/MND. Light pollution and consistency with the applicable Hillside Standards and Guidelines policies are discussed under Section I, Aesthetics, of the IS/MND; potential impacts related to air pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with the proposed project are discussed under Sections III, Air Quality, and VIII, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the IS/MND; and Section XIII, Noise, addresses potential impacts related to construction and operational noise.

Potential impacts related to transportation are discussed under Section XVII, Transportation, of the IS/MND. As discussed therein, traditionally, lead agencies used level of service (LOS) to assess the significance of impacts related to transportation. LOS represents a qualitative description of the traffic operations experienced by the driver at an intersection or along a roadway segment. However, pursuant to SB 743, the Natural Resources Agency promulgated CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 in late 2018, which became effective in early 2019. Subdivision (a) of that section provides that “[g]enerally, vehicle miles traveled is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is now used, rather than LOS, to assess the significance of transportation impacts under CEQA. As discussed under question XVII-b, the proposed project would result in a lessthan-significant impact related to VMT with implementation of Mitigation Measure XVII-1.

The comment does not provide substantial evidence supporting why the mitigation measures set forth in the IS/MND would not be sufficient. In addition, the proposed project would be subject to all existing objective development regulations.

The comment has been noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers as part of the consideration of the proposed project.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Response to Comment 3-3
The comment does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND and has been noted for the record.

It should be noted that the addition of a trail is not proposed as part of the project, anticipated or planned for the site, nor required by the Town. The comment will be forwarded to the decisionmakers as part of the consideration of the proposed project.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 4
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

LETTER 4: JIM AND KAREN BROWN
Response to Comment 4-1
Please see Response to Comment 3-2.

Response to Comment 4-2
Please see Responses to Comments 2-4 and 23-12.

Response to Comment 4-3
The comment does not provide sufficient explanation regarding “known water problems and fire safety issues” to provide a detailed response. Please see Responses to Comments 2-2 and 3-2.

Response to Comment 4-4
Please see Responses to Comments 2-7 and 3-2.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 5

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 5 cont.
5-1
5-2
5-3

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 5 cont.
5-3
cont.
5-4
5-5
5-6

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 5 cont.
5-6
cont.
5-7
5-8
5-9
5-10

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 5 cont.
5-10
cont.
5-12
5-11

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 5 cont.
5-12
cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 5 cont.
5-12
cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 5 cont.
5-12
cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 5 cont.
5-12
cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 5 cont.
5-12
cont.
5-13

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 5 cont.
5-13
cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 5 cont.
5-13
cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 5 cont.
5-13
cont.
5-14

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 5 cont.
5-15

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 5 cont.
5-15
cont.
5-16
5-17

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 5 cont.
5-18
5-19

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 5 cont.
5-19
cont.
5-20
5-21

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 5 cont.
5-23
5-22
5-24
5-25

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 5 cont.
5-25
cont.
5-26
5-27

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 5 cont.
5-27
cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 5 cont.
5-27
cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 5 cont.
5-27
cont.
5-28

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 5 cont.
5-28
cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 5 cont.
5-28
cont.
5-29

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 5 cont.
5-30
5-29
cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 5 cont.
5-30
cont.
5-31

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 5 cont.
5-31
cont.
5-32

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 5 cont.
5-32
cont.
5-33

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 5 cont.
5-33
cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 5 cont.
5-33
cont.
5-34
5-35

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 5 cont.
5-35
cont.
5-36
5-37

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 5 cont.
5-38
5-39
5-40

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 5 cont.
5-40
cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 5 cont.
5-40
cont.
5-41
5-42

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 5 cont.
5-42
cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 5 cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 5 cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 5 cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 5 cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 5 cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 5 cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

LETTER 5: JILL AND CRAIG FORDYCE (1 OF 2)
Response to Comment 5-1
The comment is introductory and does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND. Please see the following responses to specific comments.

Response to Comment 5-2
The comment generally states that the Town cannot lawfully adopt an MND under CEQA because substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the project may have environmental impacts.

The comment does not provide any substantial evidence supporting this claim. Please see the following responses to more specific comments.

Response to Comment 5-3
The comment identifies the waivers being requested for the project but does not provide any substantial evidence how the waivers result in significant environmental impacts.

Response to Comment 5-4
Per Government Code Section 65589.5, the Town can impose objective development standards so long as those standards meet the following criteria:
1) Appropriate to, and consistent with, meeting the local agency’s share of its Regional Housing Needs Allocation;
2) Applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density permitted on the site and proposed by the applicant; and
3) Meet the definition of “objective” in that they involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the applicant and the public official.

In addition, no objective standard can be applied if it will render the project “infeasible” (unless the project will have a specific adverse impact on public health or safety and there is no feasible method to mitigate or avoid the impact). The statute defines “feasible” as capable of being accomplished successfully within a reasonable period, considering economic, environmental, social, and technological factors. The Town decision-makers, at a public hearing, will consider whether the project will have a specific adverse impact on public health or safety and whether there is no feasible method to mitigate or avoid the impact. The IS/MND prepared for the project provides substantial evidence that all potentially significant project-related environmental impacts can be mitigated.

In an effort to make this clearer in the IS/MND, the following revision is made to page 16 of the IS/MND:

Architecture and Site Plan Review
The Town’s Building Division Community Development Department is responsible for a plan review of all new construction, additions, and remodels for both commercial and residential properties, as well as construction inspection services for projects including electrical, plumbing and mechanical installations. Plan review ensures compliance with applicable State and local codes, policies, guidelines, and standards of all residential and commercial structures within the Town limits, including the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. As described in the Town’s Code, the purpose of Architecture and Site

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Plan Review through the Planning Division is to regulate the height, width, shape, proportion, siting, exterior construction and design of buildings to ensure that they are architecturally compatible with their surroundings. Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code lists the matters that the Town must consider when reviewing applications for Architecture and Site Approval. The Town’s review is limited to objective standards only, pursuant to SB 330 and Builder’s Remedy.

The above revision is intended to clarify the Town’s authority and does not affect the conclusions of the IS/MND.

Response to Comment 5-5
Please see Response to Comment 2-2.

With respect to water supply, page 99 of the IS/MND includes the following discussion:

As discussed in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this IS/MND, while the on-site development of 12 proposed single-family residences would increase water usage beyond the current on-site water demand, the relatively minor increase in water usage would not be considered substantial, as the Santa Clara Subbasin has an operational storage capacity of approximately 350,000 AF per year, and both SCWVD and SJW have sufficient water supplies through 2045. The project would also comply with Chapter 26.40 of the Town’s Municipal Code, which contains the Town’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.

Fire water would be included within the project’s anticipated water supplies.

Response to Comment 5-6
Please see Response to Comment 2-3.

Response to Comment 5-7
Please see Response to Comment 2-3.

Response to Comment 5-8
Please see Response to Comment 5-15.

Response to Comment 5-9
Engineering level detail, such as a final erosion and sediment control plan, is not required as part of CEQA review (Dry Creek Citizens Coalition v. County of Tulare (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 20, 26.).

Pursuant to Mitigation Measure X-1, a final erosion and sediment control plan would be reviewed and approved by the Town of Los Gatos Engineering Division prior to any ground-disturbing activities. In addition, a SWPPP must be approved by the RWQCB and is submitted after project approval before operations begin, not for review during the CEQA process.

Response to Comment 5-10
As discussed under question X-c.i-iii on pages 75 and 76 of the IS/MND, the proposed on-site stormwater infrastructure would be sized to manage stormwater flows such that post-development runoff does not exceed pre-project runoff rates and durations, consistent with Provision C.3.g of the County’s Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Therefore, the new impervious surfaces are not anticipated to result in significant impacts related to altering the drainage pattern of the site.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

With respect to the proposed bioretention basins, each bioretention area has been designed in accordance with the standard design criteria outlined in the County C.3 Stormwater Handbook.

Town personnel would be able to access each bioretention area periodically as required for inspection purposes. Therefore, the bioretention basins are not anticipated to create any safety issues or hazards.

Response to Comment 5-11
Please see Response to Comment 2-7.

Response to Comment 5-12
The comment does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND and has been noted for the record.

The comment will be forwarded to the decision-makers as part of the consideration of the proposed project.

Response to Comment 5-13
Please see Response to Comment 5-4.

Response to Comment 5-14
Please see Response to Comment 5-2.

Response to Comment 5-15
As shown in Figure 11 of the IS/MND, existing trees along Longmeadow Drive currently obscure views of the site. Because the trees are not proposed for removal as part of the proposed project, such screening effects would be maintained, and the IS/MND’s conclusion is accurate.

Notwithstanding, substantial degradation of views of the site is not the relevant question as that would be the appropriate inquiry, pursuant to Appendix G, Section I c., if the site were within a non-urbanized area. Furthermore, privacy and private views are not protected pursuant to CEQA as noted in Footnote 6 on page 23 of the IS/MND.

As noted on page 21 of the IS/MND, the project site is within an urbanized area, and thus, the relevant threshold is whether the project would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. As noted on page 23 of the IS/MND:

From an aesthetics perspective, it is reasonable to conclude that not every conflict with a scenic regulation would result in a significant aesthetic impact, pursuant to CEQA. Because the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines contain standards related to preserving views of hillsides, computer-generated photo simulations of the project were prepared from public viewpoints. Although the simulated public viewpoints do not coincide with the Town’s designated Hillside Area viewing areas, the simulations were prepared to meet the Town’s Height Pole, Flagging, Netting, and Signage Policy For Additions and New Construction Policy and are used herein to facilitate an understanding as to whether the project’s deviations from Hillside Development Standards are consequential from an aesthetics perspective. Potential views of the project site from public spaces were determined to include views from Longmeadow Drive (Figure 11, View #1), which is located west of the project site; from the Hillbrook School campus north of the site (Figure 12, View #2); from Cerro Vista Court (Figure 13, View #3); and from Brooke Acres Drive, south of the project site (Figure 14, View #4).

Figure 11 presents the existing view of the project site in comparison to the view of the project site with development of the proposed project from View #1. As shown in the figure,

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

the existing view of the site from Longmeadow Drive consists of the street frontages and existing trees associated with the existing single-family residences, as well as the existing vegetation on the project site in the background. With the proposed project, the view from Longmeadow Drive would include a partial view of three of the 12 proposed single-family residences in the background. The majority of the project site would remain screened by the existing trees and vegetation. The proposed project would not conflict with existing regulations related to views of the Hillside Area from Longmeadow Drive. Because the proposed project would not substantially affect views of the Hillside Area from Longmeadow Drive, the proposed project would not conflict with the applicable Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines regulations governing scenic quality.

Response to Comment 5-16
The existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings would not be substantially degraded by bioretention basins, which are standard features of development projects and generally appear coherent with the rest of a developed site.

Response to Comment 5-17
The relevant threshold pursuant to Appendix G, Section I d. is whether the project would create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. The Town acknowledges that the project would increase lighting in the area, including lighting from headlights. However, there is no substantial evidence showing that vehicle trips from 12 new homes would be considered substantial, and furthermore, the CEQA threshold is focused on protecting nighttime views of the area, not interior private living spaces of adjacent homes.

Response to Comment 5-18
Please see Responses to Comments 5-15 and 5-17.

As discussed on page 20 of the IS/MND:

Examples of typical scenic vistas include mountain ranges, ridgelines, or bodies of water as viewed from a highway, public space, or other area designated for the express purpose of viewing and sightseeing. In general, a project’s impact to a scenic vista would occur if development of the project would substantially change or remove a scenic vista. The General Plan EIR identifies southward views of the Santa Cruz Mountains and ridgelines as the primary protected scenic vistas within the Town. Due to the heavily-wooded nature of the Town, scenic views are most prominent from the southbound lanes of the Town’s major north-south running streets. The project site is located in an area of the Town that is heavily obscured from view due to intervening topography and vegetation. Therefore, views of the Santa Cruz Mountains would not be obstructed by project development. In addition, due to the intervening topography and vegetation described above, views of any other potential ridgelines beyond the project site are not visible from the surrounding roadways.

At a local level, the Town does not identify any roadways as scenic routes. In addition, while State Route (SR) 17 is designated as eligible for listing as a State Scenic Highway, State Scenic Highways are not located within the Town of Los Gatos.5 The project site is located approximately 1.06 miles east of SR 17 and is obscured from view through various natural features and existing development. Therefore, the proposed project would not have the potential to damage scenic resources within the vicinity of a State Scenic Highway.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Response to Comment 5-19
The NOx-related impact would only occur if the off-site sidewalk improvements were constructed concurrently with the on-site project components. Mitigation Measure III-1 address this by restricting construction of the off-site sidewalk from occurring simultaneously with the on-site construction of the proposed project, or alternatively, ensuring that all construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower to be used in construction of the off-site sidewalk improvements shall be Tier 4 final off-road construction equipment.

The measures listed by the comment to manage construction dust emissions are standard measures implemented by all projects within the Bay Area Air District (BAAD). The BAAD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures (BCMMs) were developed to ensure continued attainment of ambient air quality standards (AAQS) or to work towards attainment of AAQS for which the area is currently designated nonattainment. The watering of exposed surfaces does not involve sufficient amounts of water to generate runoff, but is a standard procedure intended to dampen surfaces enough to reduce dust generation when such surfaces are disturbed during project construction.

With respect to pollutants of concern, as discussed under question III-c of the IS/MND, the proposed project meets the screening criteria for localized carbon monoxide (CO) emissions established by BAAD. As discussed on page 37 of the IS/MND, toxic air contaminants (TACs) generally result in health risks when populations are exposed to high concentrations over extension periods of time (e.g., 30 years or greater). Despite the proximity of the Hillbrook School, the construction period would be temporary and would occur over a short duration as compared to the length of time required for health risks to occur. In addition, all construction equipment and operation thereof would be regulated by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and their InUse Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation, which would reduce emissions associated with off-road diesel vehicles and equipment.

Response to Comment 5-20
The comment summarizes the findings of the IS/MND and does not address the adequacy of the document. Therefore, further response is not necessary.

Response to Comment 5-21
Mitigation Measures IV-1 through IV-9 would reduce the potential impacts to the species listed within the comment by ensuring thorough surveys for the presence of the species are conducted (as well as avoidance and minimization steps to take if the species are identified). In addition, the IS/MND includes a mitigation measure requiring compliance with the Town’s Tree Protection Ordinance. Payment of in-lieu fees to the Town Tree Replacement Fund is allowed by the ordinance. Pursuant to Section 29.10.0985 of the Town’s Municipal Code, the funds generated by payment of such fees would be used at the Town’s discretion to add or replace trees on public property in the vicinity of the project site; add or replace trees or landscaping on other Town property; or support the Town's urban forestry management program.

Response to Comment 5-22
The comment summarizes the findings of the IS/MND and does not address the adequacy of the document. Mitigation Measures IV-1 through IV-3 address potential impacts to the California redlegged frog. Therefore, further response is not necessary.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Response to Comment 5-23
The comment summarizes the findings of the IS/MND and does not address the adequacy of the document. Mitigation Measure IV-4 addresses potential impacts to protected raptor and migratory bird species. Therefore, further response is not necessary.

Response to Comment 5-24
The comment summarizes the findings of the IS/MND and does not address the adequacy of the document. Mitigation Measure IV-7 addresses potential impacts to protected San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat. Therefore, further response is not necessary.

Response to Comment 5-25
The analysis of special-status wildlife species, which starts on page 42 of the IS/MND, was informed by the Biological Evaluation prepared for the proposed project. The EIR prepared for the project site referred to by the comment was prepared in August 2017, more than eight years ago from the time of the IS/MND. A recent field survey of the project site was conducted on December 19, 2024, as part of the Biological Evaluation to identify on-site habitats and to determine the likelihood of any occurrences of special-status species. An additional site visit was conducted on May 14, 2025, to confirm the characteristics of the on-site ephemeral drainage. A literature review of various biological databases was also conducted to assess the suitability of on-site habitats.

In addition, the mitigation measures included within the IS/MND would provide protection to the species listed in the comment. Although the species listed within the comment were not specifically identified as having a high potential to occur on-site by the Biological Evaluation and, thus, were not specifically analyzed under question IV-a, the required measures within Mitigation Measures IV-3 and IV-4 through IV-6 would also reduce any potential impacts to any unlikely occurrences of the species.

Response to Comment 5-26
Please see Response to Comment 2-3.

Response to Comment 5-27
Please see Response to Comment 2-3 above.

The proposed project does not include mass grading, nor does the site include forest land as defined in PRC Section 12220(g). The standards of a tree protection ordinance of a separate city from the Town, such as the City of Agoura Hills, would not apply to the proposed project.

The arborist report was revised during the public review period, during which the total number of on-site trees and the project’s potential impacts were revised. According to the revised Arborist Report, the new inventory identified a total of 673 individual trees over four inches in diameter, 630 of which qualify for some level of protection under the Town’s tree protection ordinance and 43 of which are exempted.4 Of the total, 244 trees would be removed (223 of which would qualify as protected) and 371 trees would be retained.
4 McClintock Landscape Horticultural Services. Certified Arborist Report, Tree Preservation Plan, Surrey Farms, Project #4185.10, Los Gatos, CA 95032. October 16, 2025, Revision 5.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

As discussed above, mixed oak woodland is present throughout the project site, some of which would be impacted by the proposed development. In order to determine if on-site trees proposed for removal qualify for protection under the provisions of the Town’s Municipal Code, an Arborist Report was prepared for the site by McClintock Landscape Horticultural Services (McClintock) (see Appendix C), which has been peer reviewed by Monarch Consulting Arborists. During a site tree survey conducted of the project site, the Arborist Report identified 603 673 on-site trees measuring four inches or greater in diameter at breast height (DBH), consisting of 26 species. According to the Arborist Report, 546 630 of the on-site trees qualify for protection under the Town’s Tree Protection Ordinance.

According to the Tree Mitigation and Protection Plan prepared for the proposed project, 223 protected trees would be removed, which would require a total of 551 replacement trees to be planted on-site, pursuant to the Town of Los Gatos Tree Protection Ordinance.

A total of 85 trees are proposed to be planted on-site, which would not meet the on-site tree replacement requirements (see Figure 8 and Figure 9). Thus, payment of in-lieu fees consistent with Division II of Chapter 29.10 of the Town’s Municipal Code would be required to mitigate for the shortfall in on-site tree replacement.

Because the number of protected trees proposed for removal has not changed, further revisions to the IS/MND are not necessary. As discussed therein, compliance with the project’s Tree Mitigation and Protection Plan and the mitigation measures within the IS/MND would ensure that significant impacts related to conflicts with the Town’s tree ordinance do not occur.

Response to Comment 5-28
As shown in Figure 16 of the IS/MND, the proposed project locates the residences outside of the areas of the site with the steepest slopes. Such siting significantly reduces the potential for the effects discussed by the comment.

In addition, the GGHI was included in the IS/MND as Appendix D. The GGHI was subject to a Geologic and Geotechnical Peer Review conducted by the Town’s consulting geotechnical firm, Cotton, Shires, and Associates, Inc. (CSA), and Cornerstone subsequently prepared an Interim Response to Geotechnical Peer Review to respond to the comments and resolve identified concerns. The GGHI included review of geotechnical literature and available conceptual layouts, a site visit in August 2024, the drilling of six test borings to depths between 10 and 20 feet, and the excavation of six test pits.

During the excavation of test pits, evidence of either shallow or deep-seated landslide deposits were not observed, and field features indicative of slope failure and instability were not observed during the site reconnaissance. As such, the GGHI concluded that the underlying slopes of the project site are relatively stable and, thus, the landslide hazard is considered low to moderate. In addition, the peer review of the GGHI notes that the majority of the proposed residences (i.e., Lots 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12) are outside of the indicated on-site slopes (see Figure 16).

While the proposed lots would exceed the maximum allowable graded cut or fill for each lot pursuant to the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines, the proposed earthwork activities are accounted for in the analysis of the project-specific GGHI. Specifically, Section 6 of the GGHI discusses various requirements related to earthwork, including, but not limited to, temporary and permanent cut and fill slopes, subgrade preparation, wet soil stabilization, material for fill, compaction requirements, and trench backfill. Compliance with such requirements would ensure

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

that the earthwork activities associated with the proposed project would be acceptable and would lead to instability. Without incorporating the recommendations included within the GGHI, new fill placed for the planned structures and streets on existing inclined slopes could cause a significant impact related to slope instability (IS/MND, pg. 61).

Mitigation Measure VII-1 has been included in the IS/MND to ensure that all geotechnical recommendations in the GGHI are incorporated into grading and improvement plans. It is not necessary to list all recommendations in the mitigation measure. The summary nature of Mitigation Measure VII-1 is a standard approach intended to eliminate excessively technical details from the text of the IS/MND. The measure relies upon the authority of the Town as the lead agency, as well as all applicable CBSC standards, the combination of which would ensure potential impacts related to geological and soil hazards are reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Response to Comment 5-29
Please see Responses to Comments 5-9 and 5-10.

Response to Comment 5-30
Please see Response to Comment 5-9.

Response to Comment 5-31
Please see Response to Comment 5-9.

Response to Comment 5-32
Bioretention is a way to clean and filter stormwater runoff naturally through percolation, or the slow movement of water through the pores in soil or permeable rock. As noted on page 12 of the IS/MND, the stormwater bioretention basins would be sized and designed to meet the Town’s C.3 Stormwater Standards design criteria. Such standards are intended to ensure new development controls stormwater runoff pollutant discharges. Following on-site treatment, stormwater flows would be metered out from the bioretention areas into the existing 27- and 36-inch storm drains located north and west of the site, respectively. As discussed within Response to Comment 1-4, a maintenance agreement would be put in place between the Town and the future property owners requiring the owners to operate and maintain all the stormwater treatment infrastructure.

Potential impacts related to flooding are analyzed within question X-c.i-iii. Based on the design of the bioretention areas, as well as the proposed retaining walls, which would serve to prevent erosion, the IS/MND concluded that the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner which would result in erosion, siltation, or flooding on- or off-site, create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.

Response to Comment 5-33
The comment summarizes the findings of the IS/MND and does not address the adequacy of the document. Mitigation Measure XIII-1 includes the requirements of the Town’s General Plan EIR’s Mitigation Measure N-1. Therefore, further response is not necessary.

Response to Comment 5-34
A water treatment facility is not proposed as part of the project; therefore, noise or vibration from such a source would not occur at the site or surrounding areas.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

It is acknowledged that noise would result from residential activity, but there is no evidence to suggest that residential noise from the project would be any different from the residential noise associated with the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Further, any level of increased noise is not the relevant CEQA threshold used to determine impact significance. The Town of Los Gatos has numerical noise thresholds, and substantial evidence supports that these levels would not be exceeded by the operation of the proposed project.

Response to Comment 5-35
As discussed under Response to Comment 5-19, the proposed project would implement the BAAQMD BCMMs to reduce dust generation and manage pollutant emissions.

With respect to construction noise, Mitigation Measure XIII-1 requires multiple measures to reduce noise at the existing sensitive receptors. Specifically, any construction proposed within 25 feet of a noise-sensitive receptor would be required to create distance between constructionrelated noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors; use electric tools, which create less noise than non-electric; and use mobile construction equipment with smart back-up alarms, which automatically adjust their volume instead of using a fixed volume. In addition, the project would implement additional noise attenuation techniques during the clearing, earth moving, grading, and foundation/conditioning phases of construction, such as temporary sound barriers between the construction site and the sensitive receptors.

Response to Comment 5-36
As discussed on page 86 of the IS/MND within Section XIV, Population and Housing, the IS/MND used the average household size as estimated by the Town’s 2040 General Plan (2.4 persons per household). Using this average household size, the proposed project would result in a maximum increase of 29 residents within the Town (2.4 persons per household x 12 proposed residences = 28.8 residents). Such figures are consistent with the Town’s approach to estimating population increases.

It should be noted that the 86 total on-site parking spaces include both off-street parking and 27 garage parking spaces. Parking is not generally an indication of the number of residents associated with the project.

Response to Comment 5-37
The methods used to determine Mitigation Measure XVII-1 are discussed on page 94 of the IS/MND. As discussed therein, the VMT Technical Memorandum coordinated with Town staff and identified the off-site improvement locations where feasible pedestrian network improvements could occur as part of the proposed project. The foregoing sidewalk connection improvements would be consistent with the planned improvements identified within the Town’s 2020 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.

In order to assess the VMT reduction potential associated with the, the VMT Technical Memorandum included a quantitative analysis using the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Handbook (Measure T-17: Provide Pedestrian Network Improvements).

The Handbook provides methods to assess potential benefits of different climate vulnerability reduction measures, as well as measures that can be implemented to improve health and equity.

In the case of the proposed project, the associated off-site sidewalk improvements would encourage alternative modes of travel, thereby reducing VMT.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Response to Comment 5-38
Contrary to the comment, cumulative impacts to traffic are discussed within the IS/MND, on page 105 under question XXI-b as follows:

With respect to cumulative transportation impacts, public concerns have been raised about increased congestion, particularly along Los Gatos Boulevard, where several of the SB 330 projects are located. Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, environmental analysis documents must use VMT rather than LOS as the metric to analyze transportation impacts. Section 21099(b)(2) of the California PRC states that “automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicle capacity or traffic congestion, shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment.” The State’s requirement to transition from LOS to VMT is instead aimed at promoting infill development, public health through active transportation, and a reduction in GHG emissions. Overall, the transition from LOS alters the focus of CEQA analysis from congestion to more physical impacts on the environment related to vehicle trips.

Accordingly, impacts related to traffic congestion are not required to be evaluated pursuant to CEQA, and thus, are appropriately not addressed herein.

In addition, potential impacts to evacuation are discussed under question IX-f within Section IX, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, as well as under Section XX, Wildfire, of the IS/MND. As discussed therein, the proposed project would not result in any substantial modifications to the existing roadway system and, thus, would not physically interfere with the Town’s adopted EOP, particularly with any emergency evacuation routes.

Response to Comment 5-39
The comment is conclusory and does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND. Please see Responses to Comments 5-19 and 5-37 for further discussion. The comment has been noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers as part of the consideration of the proposed project.

Response to Comment 5-40
Please see Response to Comment 2-2. In addition, the roadways noted within the comment were all designed consistent with the Town standards, which accommodate for emergency vehicles.

Further, as noted on page 70 of the IS/MND, the proposed project would include a 20-foot-wide EVA route extending south from the site to connect to Brooke Acres Drive. The EVA route would result in an additional point of access reserved specifically for emergency response vehicles.

With respect to regulations applicable to the proposed project, as noted on page 102 of the IS/MND, the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable requirements of the CFC, including the installation of fire sprinkler systems, fire hydrants, and other applicable requirements, as well as the requirements of Chapter 7A of the CBC, including the use of ignitionresistant materials and glazed exterior windows and doors. The Builder’s Remedy status of the project does not affect the applicability of the foregoing requirements, which would reduce potential impacts related to wildfire.

Contrary to the comment, the likelihood of wildfire would be reduced by development of the project due to the clearing of on-site fuel sources (i.e., vegetation and trees). The proposed project would also be situated near existing roads, water lines, and other utilities, which would reduce risks related to wildfire.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Emergency evacuation scenarios are discussed under question IX-f within Section IX, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, as well as under Section XX, Wildfire, of the IS/MND. As discussed therein, the proposed project would not result in any substantial modifications to the existing roadway system and, thus, would not physically interfere with the Town’s adopted EOP, particularly with any emergency evacuation routes.

Response to Comment 5-41
The comment does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND. Cumulative impacts are discussed within the IS/MND under question XXI-b within Section XXI, Mandatory Findings of Significance.

Please see Responses to Comments 4-3 and 5-38.

Response to Comment 5-42
The comment states that many mitigation measures included in the IS/MND are insufficient, lack performance standards, and/or are deferred to future studies and plans, but provides no substantial evidence to support this position. Please see Responses to Comments 5-9, 5-28, 5- 30, and 5-40.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 6
6-1

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 6 cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 6 cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 6 cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 6 cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

LETTER 6: JILL AND CRAIG FORDYCE (2 OF 2)
Response to Comment 6-1
The comment does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND and has been noted for the record.

The comment will be forwarded to the decision-makers as part of the consideration of the proposed project.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 7
7-1

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 7 cont.
7-1
cont.
7-2
7-3

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

LETTER 7: DAVID AND KARRI GREENFIELD
Response to Comment 7-1
Please see Responses to Comments 3-1 through 3-3. The comment has been noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers as part of the consideration of the proposed project.

Response to Comment 7-2
Please see Response to Comment 3-2 related to general comments on environmental concerns.

Response to Comment 7-3
Please see Response to Comment 3-3.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 8
8-1
8-2
8-3

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

LETTER 8: GEORGETTE AND MICHAEL HARRELL
Response to Comment 8-1
The comment is introductory and does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND.

Response to Comment 8-2
Please see Response to Comment 3-1.

Response to Comment 8-3
Please see Response to Comment 3-2 related to general comments on environmental concerns.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 9
9-1
9-4
9-3
9-2

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 9 cont.
9-4
cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

LETTER 9: MONICA AND LOTFI HERZI
Response to Comment 9-1
The comment is introductory and does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND.

Response to Comment 9-2
Please see Response to Comment 3-2 related to general comments on environmental concerns.

In addition, the wildlife species mentioned by the commenter are common species that are not afforded special-status requiring review pursuant to CEQA.

Response to Comment 9-3
Please see Responses to Comments 3-1 and 3-2. The comment does not provide details to explain how the “existing streets would be destroyed” by construction vehicles. Heavy-duty truck traffic would only occur throughout the duration of construction activities and would cease upon buildout of the proposed project.

Response to Comment 9-4
Please see Response to Comment 3-2 related to general comments on environmental concerns.

The comment has been noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers as part of the consideration of the proposed project.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 10
10-1

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 10 cont.
10-1
cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

LETTER 10: PAUL KRUG
Response to Comment 10-1
Please see Responses to Comments 5-6 through 5-11.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 11
11-1

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

LETTER 11: RAJ KUMAR
Response to Comment 11-1
Please see Response to Comment 3-2 related to general comments on environmental concerns.

The comment has been noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers as part of the consideration of the proposed project.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 12
12-1
12-2
12-3

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

LETTER 12: DONNA AND ROGER MALTBIE
Response to Comment 12-1
Please see Response to Comment 3-2 related to general comments on environmental concerns.

Response to Comment 12-2
Please see Response to Comment 3-2 related to general comments on environmental concerns.

It is unclear what traffic survey the commenter is referring to. As discussed in detail in Section XVII, Transportation, of the IS/MND, the analysis of impacts related to transportation within the IS/MND is based on a VMT Technical Memorandum prepared for the proposed project by TJKM (included as Appendix E to the IS/MND). Traffic counts within the project area were not required or relied upon for the analysis.

Response to Comment 12-3
The comment does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND and has been noted for the record.

The comment will be forwarded to the decision-makers as part of the consideration of the proposed project.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 13
13-1

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 13 cont.
13-1
cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

LETTER 13: BRUCE AND JACKIE MCCOMBS
Response to Comment 13-1
The comment does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND. The comment has been noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers as part of the consideration of the proposed project.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 14
14-1
14-2

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 14 cont.
14-3
14-4

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

LETTER 14: DARCIE AND TOM MCNEIL
Response to Comment 14-1
The comment is introductory and does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND.

Response to Comment 14-2
Please see Response to Comment 3-2 related to general comments on environmental concerns.

Please also see Responses to Comments 2-2, 2-7, and 3-1. Impacts related to flooding are addressed in the IS/MND under Section X. As discussed therein, the project site is not located within a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodplain and, thus, development of the proposed project would not result in any impacts related to flooding.

Response to Comment 14-3
The comment does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND and has been noted for the record.

The comment will be forwarded to the decision-makers as part of the consideration of the proposed project.

Response to Comment 14-4
Please see Response to Comment 3-2, as well as Response to Comment 14-2 above.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 15
15-1
15-2

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 15 cont.
15-3
15-2
cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 15 cont.
15-3
cont.
15-4

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 15 cont.
15-4
cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

LETTER 15: KATHY MELEYCO
Response to Comment 15-1
Please see Responses to Comments 2-4 and 3-2. In addition, in Preserve Poway v. City of Poway (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 560, the Appellate Court evaluated whether community character is a consideration in CEQA and whether changes to community character or social impacts constitute an environmental impact under CEQA. The Court determined CEQA does not require an analysis of subjective psychological feelings or social impacts. Rather, CEQA’s overriding and primary goal is to protect the physical environment. CEQA defines a “significant effect on the environment” as “substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse changes in physical conditions ....” (PRC section 21100. subd. [d]). Therefore, comments concerning potential social or economic effects of the project, including quality of life comments, need not be analyzed or addressed further.

Nonetheless, the comment has been noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decisionmakers as part of their consideration of the proposed project.

Response to Comment 15-2
Please see Responses to Comments 2-7, 3-1, 3-2, and 14-2.

Response to Comment 15-3
Please see Response to Comment 2-4 related to consistency with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines.

As discussed under question I-c of the IS/MND, because the site is considered to be located within an urbanized area of the Town, the appropriate CEQA threshold related to aesthetic impacts is not whether the proposed project would substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings, but whether the project would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Therefore, question I-c of the IS/MND evaluates whether the proposed project would conflict with applicable standards set forth by the Town, including those contained within the Town’s Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. The IS/MND concludes that, overall, because the proposed project would not be visible from the four viewing areas identified in the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines, and because the proposed project would be designed compliant with Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines policies to the extent feasible such that public views of the Hillside Area would not be significantly affected, the proposed project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality, including policies related to reducing visual impacts of projects.

With respect to glare and lighting, as discussed under question I-d of the IS/MND, the proposed project would comply with both the Town’s Municipal Code standards and policies within the Hillside Design Standards and Guidelines related to lighting for new development. The IS/MND concludes that implementation of the Town’s programs, policies, and code requirements would reduce the light and glare-related impacts from the proposed project to a less-than-significant level.

The Town does not currently have a requirement related to screening trees between adjacent properties. In addition, the IS/MND does not identify any impacts that would necessitate inclusion of screening trees in order to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, a nexus to require screening trees be planted along the property line does not exist.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Response to Comment 15-4
Please see Responses to Comments 2-7 and 15-1. As noted on page 32 of the IS/MND, construction is anticipated to take place over approximately two years. Regarding dust, as stated on page 32 of the IS/MND, BAAQMD requires all projects within the District’s jurisdiction to implement Basic Construction Mitigation Measures (BCMMs) related to dust suppression. Further discussion regarding dust is provided on page 38 of the IS/MND.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 16
16-1

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

LETTER 16: MALEA AND MIKE MORDAUNT
Response to Comment 16-1
Please see Responses to Comments 2-2, 2-4, 3-2 and 3-3. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-makers as part of the consideration of the proposed project.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

17-1
Letter 17

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

LETTER 17: HUIPENG REN AND TINGTING YANG
Response to Comment 17-1
Please see Responses to Comments 2-2 through 2-5, 2-7, and 14-2.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 18
18-1

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

LETTER 18: PHILIP SHANKER
Response to Comment 18-1
The comment does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND and has been noted for the record.

Please see Response to Comment 3-2. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-makers as part of the consideration of the proposed project.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 19
19-1

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 19 cont.
19-2
19-1
cont.
19-3

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 19 cont.
19-3
cont.
19-4

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 19 cont.
19-4
cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

LETTER 19: DAN SHERBECK (1 OF 2)
Response to Comment 19-1
Please see Response to Comment 2-2.

With respect to geological hazards, the IS/MND requires Mitigation Measure VII-1 requires the proposed project to incorporate the recommendations of the GGHI, which would reduce the significance level of impacts related to soil instability. Implementation of Mitigation Measure VII-1 would reduce the potential impact to a less-than-significant level.

Response to Comment 19-2
Potential impacts to VMT and impacts to hazards are separate questions within Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Construction of the proposed project, including the off-site sidewalk improvements required by Mitigation Measure XVII-1, would be limited to the project site and small portions of Blossom Hill Road and Fisher Avenue. In addition, as discussed by the comment, project construction would be temporary.

The IS/MND also acknowledges the above factors on page 95, as follows:

Construction traffic associated with the proposed project would include heavy-duty vehicles which would share the area roadways with normal vehicle traffic, as well as transport of construction materials, and daily construction employee trips to and from the site. However, such heavy-duty truck traffic would only occur throughout the duration of construction activities and would cease upon buildout of the proposed project.

The Town would impose standard conditions of approval upon the project related to traffic safety during construction. Therefore, revisions to the IS/MND are not required.

Response to Comment 19-3
As previously discussed, Mitigation Measure VII-1 requires the project to incorporate the recommendations of the GGHI prepared for the proposed project, which would reduce the significance level of impacts related to expansive soils.

In addition, please see Response to Comment 1-4 related to the project’s management of stormwater runoff. Furthermore, the project’s conditions of approval, as imposed by the Town, would require compliance with C.3 standards.

Response to Comment 19-4
As discussed under question IV-e within Section IV, Biological Resources, of the IS/MND, the proposed project would not meet the on-site tree replacement requirements. As a result, the IS/MND includes a mitigation measure requiring compliance with the Town of Los Gatos Tree Protection Ordinance.

With respect to Builder’s Remedy, page seven of the IS/MND includes the following discussion:

Because the project is subject to Builder’s Remedy, compliance with all of the Town’s guidelines, policies, or programs is not required unless noncompliance would constitute a significant health or safety risk. Although not legally required, the proposed project would comply with many of the Town’s Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines, such as standards related to lot configuration and building locations within the proposed lots.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Therefore, because the local regulations related to density, setbacks, and public trails are not considered related to health or safety, compliance with such standards is not required. The noncompliance discussed in the comment, including conflicts related to the extent of grading and building heights, is discussed throughout the IS/MND.

With respect to fire safety, please see Response to Comment 2-2.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

20-1
Letter 20

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 20 cont.
20-1
cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 20 cont.
20-2
20-1
cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 20 cont.
20-2
cont.
20-3

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 20 cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

LETTER 20: DAN SHERBECK (2 OF 2)
Response to Comment 20-1
Please see Responses to Comments 19-1 through 19-3.

Response to Comment 20-2
The comment does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND and has been noted for the record.

The comment will be forwarded to the decision-makers as part of the consideration of the proposed project.

With respect to Builder’s Remedy, the Project qualifies for the requirements established by the Housing Accountability Act (Government Code Section 65589.5), a newer housing production statute that seeks “to significantly increase the approval and construction of new housing for all economic segments of California’s communities by meaningfully and effectively curbing the capability of local governments to deny, reduce the density for, or render infeasible housing development projects…” (Section 65589.5(a)(2)(K)). In addition, the Housing Accountability Act expresses the State’s policy that the statute “be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing” (Government Code Section 65589.5(a)(2)(L)).

The proposed project does not include mass grading, and does not proposed development on the steepest parts of the site, thereby preserving substantial amounts of the existing hillside.

With respect to the site’s FHSZ, please see Response to Comment 2-2.

Response to Comment 20-3
Please see Response to Comment 19-4.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 21
21-1
21-2

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 21 cont.
21-2
cont.
21-3

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

LETTER 21: SUSAN AND BRAD STAHL
Response to Comment 21-1
Please see Response to Comment 5-17.

Response to Comment 21-2
Please see Response to Comment 5-17. Because the IS/MND concluded that the project would not result in any impacts related to creating a new source of substantial light or glare, a nexus to require the requested mitigation measures under CEQA does not exist. Any such measures would be voluntary. The comment has been noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decisionmakers as part of the consideration of the proposed project.

Response to Comment 21-3
Emergency access to the project site is discussed under question XVII-c,d of the IS/MND. As noted on page 95 therein, access to the project site would be provided through a connection to Twin Oaks Drive, by a new private driveway extending from Cerro Vista Court, and through the proposed EVA route connection to Brooke Acres Drive. The IS/MND did not identify potentially significant impacts related to insufficient access routes to the site. Thus, a nexus to require the requested mitigation measure under CEQA does not exist. In addition, the Town does not have any standards or requirements that would require additional access points from those noted above. The comment has been noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers as part of the consideration of the proposed project.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 22
22-1
22-2
22-3
22-4
22-5
22-6

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 22 cont.
22-6
cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

LETTER 22: ERIC VAN MILTENBURG AND LORI OWEN
Response to Comment 22-1
Please see Response to Comment 3-2.

Response to Comment 22-2
Please see Response to Comment 2-2.

Response to Comment 22-3
Please see Responses to Comments 2-3, 2-5, and 5-26.

Response to Comment 22-4
Please see Response to Comment 2-5.

Response to Comment 22-5
Please see Responses to Comments 2-4 and 2-7.

Response to Comment 22-6
Please see Response to Comment 3-2. The comment has been noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers as part of the consideration of the proposed project.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

,
Letter 23

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 23 cont.
23-2
23-1

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 23 cont.
23-3
23-2
cont.
23-4

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 23 cont.
23-5
23-4
cont.
23-6

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 23 cont.
23-7
23-8
23-9

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 23 cont.
23-9
cont.
23-10
23-11
23-12

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 23 cont.
23-12
cont.
23-13
23-14

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 23 cont.
23-14
cont.
23-15

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 23 cont.
23-15
cont.
23-16
23-17

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 23 cont.
23-17
cont.
23-18
23-19

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 23 cont.
23-19
cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 23 cont.
23-19
cont.
23-20

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 23 cont.
23-20
cont.
23-21
23-22

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 23 cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 23 cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 23 cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 23 cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 23 cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 23 cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 23 cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 23 cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 23 cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 23 cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 23 cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 23 cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 23 cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 23 cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 23 cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 23 cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 23 cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 23 cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 23 cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 23 cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 23 cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 23 cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 23 cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 23 cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 23 cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 23 cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 23 cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 23

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 23 cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 23 cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 23 cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

LETTER 23: JON WITKIN (THROUGH CAMAS J. STEINMETZ)
Response to Comment 23-1
The comment is introductory and does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND. The comment has been noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers as part of the consideration of the proposed project.

Response to Comment 23-2
Please see Responses to Comments 2-3 and 5-15.

Response to Comment 23-3
The comment is introductory to a section of the comment letter, where specific elements of the comment are discussed in greater detail. Please see detailed responses below.

Response to Comment 23-4
The IS/MND prepared for the project provides substantial evidence that all potentially significant project-related environmental impacts can be fully mitigated, and thus, an EIR is not required.

Response to Comment 23-5
Please see Responses to Comments 23-10 through 23-23. In addition, cumulative impacts are discussed within the IS/MND under question XXI-b within Section XXI, Mandatory Findings of Significance.

Response to Comment 23-6
Comment noted. See Response to Comment 23-7.

Response to Comment 23-7
Analysis of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) is not required pursuant to CEQA unless the developer has a specific proposal to include such units in the project. For example, in Save Round Valley Alliance v County of Inyo, the court upheld an EIR’s project description for a residential subdivision against claims the description should have included units that might be built under a county ordinance allowing a second unit on each lot, because future construction of second units was speculative. A specific proposal to build ADUs on the project site does not exist as part of the proposed project, and thus, evaluating ADUs as part of the project would be speculative.

The proposed project does not include swimming pools, cabanas, or sport courts within the development proposal, and thus, evaluating such features is speculative. Further, it is unclear how inclusion of such fairly typical residential amenities could result in significant physical environmental impacts.

Response to Comment 23-8
Please see Response to Comment 5-15.

Response to Comment 23-9
As noted on page 20 of the IS/MND, State Scenic Highways are not located within the Town of Los Gatos and the Town does not identify any roadways as scenic routes at a local level.

Therefore, the proposed project would not have the potential to damage scenic resources, such as trees, that are located within the vicinity of a State Scenic Highway.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

In addition, the discussion under question IV-e on pages 49 and 50 of the IS/MND acknowledges that the proposed project would result in a potentially significant impact related to the removal of on-site trees. As a result, the IS/MND includes a mitigation measure requiring compliance with the Town of Los Gatos Tree Protection Ordinance.

Response to Comment 23-10
Contrary to the comment, the IS/MND identifies the applicable regulations governing scenic quality. Question I-c includes multiple references to the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines, the scenic regulations of which would apply to the proposed project. For example, the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines require an analysis of how a project would impact views from four specific “viewing areas.” The IS/MND includes such an analysis, as well as further discussion using simulated public viewpoints that were prepared to meet the Town’s Height Pole, Flagging, Netting, and Signage Policy For Additions and New Construction Policy. Based on the dual analyses and the simulated views presented in Figures 11 through 14 of the IS/MND, the IS/MND presents sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the project’s deviations from Hillside Development Standards are inconsequential from an aesthetics perspective. Please see Response to Comment 5-15.

Response to Comment 23-11
Please see Response to Comment 5-15. A deed restriction related to the trees in question is not required for the proposed project, as such a deed restriction is associated with a visibility analysis pursuant to the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. In accordance with State Density Bonus Law, the proposed project was not required to conduct a Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines visibility analysis.

Response to Comment 23-12
The standard referenced by the comment, on page 17 of the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines, is related to locating building sites within the least visible areas of the Least Restrictive Development Areas (LRDAs), not the least visible areas of the project site as a whole. With respect to the on-site LRDAs, page 21 of the IS/MND includes the following discussion:

The project has been designed such that several residential lots would comply with a number of Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines, including standards related to the Least Restrictive Development Areas (LRDAs), the maximum allowable floor area ratio (FAR) for the site, and the location of the proposed residences within the lots. For example, nine of the 12 proposed residences would be located within the LRDAs, where the slopes are less than 30 percent, consistent with the Hillside Development Standards.

The above analysis supports the IS/MND’s conclusion that views of the site, including from Longmeadow Drive, would not conflict with the policy referenced by the comment.

Please also see Response to Comment 5-15.

Response to Comment 23-13
Please see Response to Comment 5-4.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Response to Comment 23-14
The commenter provides no substantial evidence showing that the proposed two-story homes would result in substantial shadow effects to nearby residences. Such analyses are typically conducted for taller structures.

Response to Comment 23-15
As discussed in Response to Comment 5-27, the total number of on-site trees has been revised to 630. Therefore, the 223 trees proposed for removal is actually 35 percent.

As noted by the comment, the appropriate CEQA threshold is whether the project would conflict with a local policy intended to protect biological resources, such as the Town’s Tree Protection Ordinance. Because the mitigation measure would require compliance with the ordinance, a conflict would not occur, and the project would result in a less-than-significant impact.

Response to Comment 23-16
The CEQA threshold within question IV-e is related to whether the project would conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Maintenance of on-site trees can be ensured through the covenants codes & restrictions that will be established for the project.

Response to Comment 23-17
Section 29.10.0985 of the Town’s Municipal Code requires that two or more trees be planted per tree removed to mitigate permitted protected tree removal. The exact number of required replacement trees is determined by using Table 3-1 as presented in Section 29.10.0985 and indexing the canopy size of the tree to be removed with the required replacement quantity. The Municipal Code section also provides that, if a tree or trees cannot be reasonably planted on a site, an in-lieu payment, as set forth by the Town Council, shall be paid to the Town Tree Replacement Fund.

The Town’s Comprehensive Fee Schedule sets the in-lieu fee as the Market Price plus installation cost for replacement trees, as determined by the Director. The current in-lieu fees are $250 for a 24-inch box replacement tree and $500 for a 36-inch box replacement tree. As part of the conditions of approval associated with the proposed project, the project applicant shall be required to obtain an approved Tree Removal and/or Pruning Permit prior to construction and tree removal.

The Town will require payment of any required in-lieu fees prior to issuance of the Tree Removal and/or Pruning Permit. Funds collected through the fees are continually used to replant trees throughout the Town.

Defensible space is defined in Section 29.10.0955 of the Town’s Municipal Code as follows:

Defensible Space means an area around the perimeter of a structure in which vegetation, debris, and other types of combustible fuels are treated, cleared, or reduced to slow the rate and intensity of potentially approaching wildfire or fire escaping from structures.

Because the project’s development application is proposing development on vacant land, the defensible space finding required for an exception from obtaining a Tree Removal and/or Pruning Permit does not apply. As noted on page 16 and throughout the IS/MND, the proposed project would require Town approval of such a permit.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Response to Comment 23-18
Please see Response to Comment 23-19.

Response to Comment 23-19
The Oak Woodlands Conservation Act is a voluntary program to encourage landowners to protect oak woodlands, and does not obligate landowners to conserve oak woodlands. The project site is a relatively small infill project of 17.55 acres and is currently surrounded by existing development. The site supports approximately 5.5 acres of mixed oak woodlands, less than half which would be impacted by the project. Because the Oak Woodlands Conservation Act is a voluntary program and the project is impacting a relatively small amount of oak woodlands as compared to the amount of oak woodlands in the region, the project’s impact is less than significant and does not require specific mitigation. In addition, as discussed under question IV-f of the IS/MND, project would also comply with the Town’s Tree Protection Ordinance.

Response to Comment 23-20
Contrary to the comment, question XI-b within Section XI, Land Use and Planning, of the IS/MND includes specific policies, as follows (emphasis added):

As discussed throughout this IS/MND, the proposed project, including the proposed offsite improvements, would not result in any significant environmental effects that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by the mitigation measures provided herein. In addition, the proposed project would not conflict with Town policies and regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, including, but not limited to, the Town’s noise standards, applicable SWRCB regulations related to stormwater, the Town’s tree protection ordinance, and the development standards included in the Town’s General Plan and zoning code, as well as some of the standards included within the 1987 Hillside Specific Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental impact. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur.

The consistency with the applicable policies, including the Hillside Standards and Guidelines, are discussed throughout the IS/MND (e.g., consistency with applicable noise standards is analyzed under Section XIII, Noise).

In addition, the determination that the project is consistent or inconsistent with the Town policies or other plans and policies, such as the Hillside Standards and Guidelines, is ultimately the decision of the Town Council. Furthermore, although CEQA analysis may identify some areas of general consistency with jurisdiction policies, the jurisdiction has the ability to impose additional requirements or conditions of approval on a project, at the time of its approval, to bring a project into more complete conformance with existing policies, though this ability is more narrow in this case due to Builder’s Remedy.

Response to Comment 23-21
Please see Response to Comment 2-2.

Response to Comment 23-22
The comment is conclusory and summarizes the comments contained within the letter, which are addressed in further detail above within Responses to Comments 23-2 through 23-21. For the

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

reasons discussed therein, revision and recirculation of the IS/MND and/or preparation of an EIR are not required.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 24
24-1
24-2
24-3
24-4

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

Letter 24 cont.

ITEM NO. 1.

Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

LETTER 24: GRANT ZAMUDIO
Response to Comment 24-1
Commented noted. Please see Response to Comment 5-4.

Response to Comment 24-2
Please see Responses to Comments 1-1 and 2-3. The proposed project is not requesting a variance or waiver related to the Town’s tree removal requirements.

The IS/MND evaluates potential impacts to riparian habitat and protected wetlands under question IV-b,c. As discussed therein, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community, or have a substantial adverse effect on State- or federally protected wetlands, and a less than significant impact would occur. With respect to Ross Creek specifically, page 48 of the IS/MND includes the following discussion:

As discussed above, the Biological Evaluation identified riparian woodland in the vicinity of Ross Creek in the site’s southwest corner. However, distinctive riparian vegetation is absent, and only the presence of Ross Creek qualifies the surrounding vegetation as a riparian corridor. Furthermore, consistent with the Town’s Standards and Guidelines for Land Use Near Streams, the proposed project would include a 25-foot riparian setback from the top-of-bank of Ross Creek and incorporate the 100- to 110-foot flood easement from Ross Creek. As such, according to the site plan prepared for the proposed project, development within the riparian woodland area is not proposed, and Ross Creek would not be directly impacted by the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly impact riparian habitat.

Response to Comment 24-3
Please see Response to Comment 3-2.

Response to Comment 24-4
Please see Responses to Comments 2-2, 3-1, 3-3, and 21-3. The comment does not provide sufficient detail or evidence supporting the claim that an existing road would be substantially damaged as a result of the proposed project. Project construction would be required to comply with all applicable standards and requirements set forth by the Town, State, or other regulatory agency. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-makers as part of the consideration of the proposed project.

ITEM NO. 1.

APPENDIX A

BAY AREA HYDROLOGY MODEL REPORT

ITEM NO. 1.

Integrated Surface and Ground Water Hydrology • Wetland and Channel Restoration • Water Quality • Erosion and Sedimentation • Storm Water and Floodplain Management 800 Bancroft Way • Suite 101 • Berkeley, CA 94710 • (510) 704-1000 931 Mission Street • Santa Cruz, CA 95060 • (831) 457-9900 12020 Donner Pass Road • Unit B1 • Truckee, CA 96161 • (530) 550-9776 www.balancehydro.com • email: [email protected]
July 31, 2025
Rafael Hernandez, P.E.

HMH Engineers
1570 Oakland Road
San Jose, California 95131
via email to: [email protected]
RE: Summary of BAHM Modeling for the Surrey Farm Project, Town of Los Gatos Dear Rafael Hernandez:

I would like to begin by again thanking you for providing Balance Hydrologics the opportunity to assist with the modeling of water-quality and hydromodification control measures for the proposed Surrey Farm Project (Project) in the Town of Los Gatos, California. Coordinating with your office, Balance has proceeded with completing modeling of the proposed stormwater treatment measures, demonstrating that the project can meet flow-duration frequency requirements while meeting the required water quality treatment standards. This letter reviews our technical approach and methodology, summarizes the modeling input parameters and assumptions, and discusses the results of the work.

Regulatory and Project Setting
Compliance with runoff water quality and hydromodification management criteria was assessed using the Bay Area Hydrology Model (BAHM, version 2023). Per the latest version of Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP3) issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, treatment controls must be provided and must be capable of treating 80 percent of the mean annual runoff from the post-project site. Additionally, changes in runoff flow and duration must be mitigated to avoid hydromodification impacts. The pertinent range for flow-duration control is from one-tenth of the 2-year pre-project flow rate to the 10-year pre-project flow rate.

The proposed project will construct a clustered group of residential structures on a previously undeveloped property totaling approximately 1765 acres in the south-central part of the Town.

The site is located roughly a quarter mile south of Shannon Drive between Twin Oaks Drive to the west and Cerro Vista Drive to the east. The existing site is characterized by relatively steep terrain with land cover consisting largely of non-native grassland with some scattered trees.

ITEM NO. 1.

Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

Rafael Hernandez, P.E.

July 31, 2025

224067 BAHM Modeling Report 07-31-2025
The site is underlaid by three soil types per soil mapping information prepared by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (see Appendix A). The dominant soil type covering 86% of the site is ZeppelinAlumrock Complex, which is classified as a Hydrologic Soil Group C soil, indicative of low infiltration soils that are prone to high rates of runoff.

BAHM Modeling
Input parameters for the BAHM model were compiled from project plans provided by HMH. The BAHM model used data from the San Jose rain gauge with a factor of 1.724 to account for the difference in mean annual precipitation between the project site and the reference gauge location.

The pre- and post-project drainage areas were analyzed as follows and pertinent parameters are summarized in Table 1:
x Pre-project. The overall site was divided into three drainage management areas (DMAs) to characterize runoff in the pre-project condition, and these are identified as DMA A, DMA B, and DMA C (see Figure 1 below). The first two DMAs represent distinct connection points to an existing storm drain system that crosses the western portion of the site and runs north to the end of Longmeadow Drive. Given the close proximity of these two connections, they were considered to represent a single point of compliance identified as POC1. DMA C represents runoff from the northeastern portion of the site that runs north as sheet flow toward Cerro Vista Court. Flow is picked up there by a separate trunk storm drain line, and, though part of the same overall watershed, was assigned a separate point of compliance, POC2. There is no appreciable impervious cover on the site in the pre-project condition, and all three DMAs were parameterized in BAHM as C/D grass cover on moderate slopes (DMA A) or steep slopes (DMAs B and C).
x Post-project. For the post-project conditions, the overall analysis framework of three DMAs and two points of compliance is maintained. Minor DMA boundary shifts occur within two of the lots and along the principal access road to the site (see the plan sheet included as Appendix B).

The residential lots will all drain to treatment measures located within DMA B. The only land cover changes in DMA A will be the initial, roughly 400 feet of the access road, which will be constructed with permeable concrete and/or pavers over a course of aggregate base rock.

A similar situation will exist in DMA B and DMA C where some access driveways will be constructed of permeable material. Since all runoff in DMA A will be routed to the pavers, that DMA is separated into two parts in the post-project case, one representing the preserved open space portion (permeable) and another for the small impervious cover area, both of which are then connected to a permeable paver element in BAHM. The permeable paver area in DMA B1 is modeled analogously to that in DMA but receives runoff from a larger impervious area. The other permeable roadway areas are modeled as pervious self-treating areas.

ITEM NO. 1.

Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

Rafael Hernandez, P.E.

July 31, 2025

224067 BAHM Modeling Report 07-31-2025
Figure 1. Pre-project DMA boundaries and points of compliance As noted above, all the developed portions of the residential lots and the remainder of the access road will be located in DMA B. That said, the site plan uses compact structure configurations to limit impervious cover and preserve pervious area as practical. In fact, overall impervious cover is projected to be approximately 16% of the 14.2-acre DMA B. Runoff from all impervious areas will be collected in field inlets and/or catch basins and routed to one of nine bioretention basins that will provide water-quality treatment and flow-duration control. The bioretention basins are identified using numbering based on the respective lot draining to each. In all but three cases, each bioretention basin (BR) will handle the runoff from only the impervious area for one residential lot. The exceptions include the following: DMA B1 will drain to an area of permeable pavers sized to infiltrate the required treatment volume as described previously, BR 5+6 which will serve two lots (DMA 5+6), and BR 11 which will handle runoff from the eastern part of the main site roadway (DMA 11).

ITEM NO. 1.

Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

Rafael Hernandez, P.E.

July 31, 2025

224067 BAHM Modeling Report 07-31-2025
Table 1. Summary of Pre- and Post-Project Land Cover
The proposed bioretention basins will follow standard design elements as summarized in the C.3 Stormwater Handbook published by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (June 2016). Each facility is modeled with a total surface ponding depth of 6 inches, an 18-inch-thick biosoil layer, and a bottom 12-inch-thick rock layer. The model was parameterized using a 4-inch diameter underdrain, and model results show that 2-inch diameter underdrain orifices will be needed to meet hydromodification management criteria. The basins were assumed to have 3:1 side slopes.

Figure 2 shows the post-project schematic of the BAHM model.

DMA (sq ft) (acres) (sq ft) (acres) (sq ft) (acres) (sq ft) (acres) Pre-project
DMA A 34,860 0.8003 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 34,658 0.7956
DMA B 613,302 14.0795 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 613,302 14.0795 DMA C 116,866 2.6829 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 116,866 2.6829
Total 765,028 17.5626 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 764,826 17.5580 Post-project
DMA A+AA OS 23,853 0.5476 1,435 0.0329 0 0.0000 22,418 0.5146 DMA A+AA PP 9,084 0.2085 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 9,084 0.2085 DMA B OS 485,022 11.1346 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 485,022 11.1346 B1 6,720 0.1543 770 0.0177 3,082 0.0707 2,868 0.0658
B1 PP 3,280 0.0753 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 3,280 0.0753
B2 7,853 0.1803 1,038 0.0238 4,153 0.0953 2,662 0.0611
B3 7,446 0.1709 1,064 0.0244 4,256 0.0977 2,126 0.0488
B4 13,404 0.3077 1,362 0.0313 5,447 0.1251 6,595 0.1514 B5-6 42,370 0.9727 18,965 0.4354 12,643 0.2902 10,762 0.2471 B7 12,030 0.2762 1,789 0.0411 7,157 0.1643 3,084 0.0708 B8 9,661 0.2218 1,788 0.0410 7,150 0.1642 723 0.0166
B9 11,603 0.2664 1,787 0.0410 7,149 0.1641 2,667 0.0612 B10 13,150 0.3019 2,031 0.0466 8,124 0.1865 2,995 0.0688 B11 7,476 0.1716 1,141 0.0262 4,563 0.1048 1,772 0.0407 DMA C OS 112,076 2.5729 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 112,076 2.5729 Total 765,028 17.5626 33,170 0.7615 63,724 1.4629 668,134 15.3382 Total Area Road/Sidewalk Roof Pervious

ITEM NO. 1.

Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

Rafael Hernandez, P.E.

July 31, 2025

224067 BAHM Modeling Report 07-31-2025
Figure 2. Post-Project BAHM Model Schematic
Model Results
Iterative BAHM model runs were completed to optimize the size and configuration of the stormwater infrastructure components. The full BAHM model output is included in Appendix C. The bioretention top of biosoil area and runoff treatment performance for each basin are summarized in Table 2.

The modeling indicates that very high treatment rates can be anticipated from the proposed treatment measures. In fact, the BAHM output shows that the basins will biofilter approximately 90% of the mean annual runoff on average, well in excess of the minimum 80% required per MRP3, with no single basin failing to meet 80% treatment.

Table 2. Treatment Areas and Resulting Runoff Treatment Figure 3 illustrates the flow-duration plots for POC2 for the pre- and post-project (mitigated) cases.

Eff Impervious Surface Area Area/Eff Imp Treated
Facility (sq ft) (sq ft) (%) (%)
DMA B1 Pavers 4139 3,280 79% 99.0
BR 2 5,431 259 4.8% 92.6
BR 3 5,507 259 4.7% 93.0
BR 4 7,438 306 4.1% 87.7
BR 5+6 32,516 1,682 5.2% 88.9
BR 7 9,224 305 3.3% 87.4
BR 8 8,973 371 4.1% 92.9
BR 9 9,168 346 3.8% 90.2
BR 10 10,418 363 3.5% 88.8
BR 11 5,857 238 4.1% 91.3

ITEM NO. 1.

Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

Rafael Hernandez, P.E.

July 31, 2025

224067 BAHM Modeling Report 07-31-2025
Figure 3. Flow-Duration Compliance Plot for POC 1 from the BAHM Model Output Flow-duration compliance for POC2 is shown in Figure 4 below.

Figure 4. Flow-Duration Compliance Plot for POC 2 from the BAHM Model Output

ITEM NO. 1.

Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

Rafael Hernandez, P.E.

July 31, 2025

224067 BAHM Modeling Report 07-31-2025
Closing
Thank you again for the opportunity to assist with these stormwater management analyses. The modeling of the proposed stormwater management facilities shows that effective water-quality treatment and flow-duration controls can be provided for the full range of flows from one-tenth of the 2-year event up to the 10-year event.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have questions related to the modeling work, results, or conclusions presented herein.

Sincerely,
BALANCE HYDROLOGICS, Inc.

Edward D. Ballman, PE
Principal Engineer
Enclosures: Appendix A: Web Soil Survey Report
Appendix B: Post-project Stormwater Control Plan
Appendix C: Bay Area Hydrology Model Output
BAHM July 2025 Zip File

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
-LRYDQQD*DUFLD'LD]
(QJLQHHU+\GURORJLVW

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
-LRYDQQD *DUFLD'LD]
(QJLQHHU+\GURORJLVW

ITEM NO. 1.

APPENDICES

ITEM NO. 1.

APPENDIX A
Web Soil Survey Report

ITEM NO. 1.
+\GURORJLF6RLO*URXS²6DQWD&ODUD$UHD&DOLIRUQLD:HVWHUQ3DUW

6XUUH\)DUUPV

1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV
&RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH
:HE6RLO6XUYH\
1DWLRQDO&RRSHUDWLYH6RLO6XUYH\

3DJHRI
               
 

 
 

 

 


 
 

 
 

 


 

 
 

 

 


 
 

 
 

 

ƒ


1
ƒ


:
ƒ


1
ƒ


:
ƒ


1
ƒ


:
ƒ


1
ƒ


:
1 0DSSURMHFWLRQ
:HE0HUFDWRU&RUQHUFRRUGLQDWHV
:*6(GJHWLFV
870=RQH1:*6
    
)HHW
    
0HWHUV
0DS6FDOH

LISULQWHGRQ$ODQGVFDSH
[
VKHHW
6RLO0DSPD\QRWEHYDOLGDWWKLVVFDOH

ITEM NO. 1.
0$3/(*(1' 0$3,1)250$7,21
$UHDRI,QWHUHVW
$2,

$UHDRI,QWHUHVW
$2,

6RLOV
6RLO5DWLQJ3RO\JRQV
$
$'
%
%'
&
&'
'
1RWUDWHGRUQRWDYDLODEOH
6RLO5DWLQJ/LQHV
$
$'
%
%'
&
&'
'
1RWUDWHGRUQRWDYDLODEOH
6RLO5DWLQJ3RLQWV
$
$'
%
%'
&
&'
'
1RWUDWHGRUQRWDYDLODEOH
:DWHU)HDWXUHV
6WUHDPVDQG&DQDOV
7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ
5DLOV
,QWHUVWDWH+LJKZD\V
865RXWHV
0DMRU5RDGV
/RFDO5RDGV
%DFNJURXQG
$HULDO3KRWRJUDSK\
7KHVRLOVXUYH\VWKDWFRPSULVH\RXU$2,ZHUHPDSSHGDW 

:DUQLQJ
6RLO0DSPD\QRWEHYDOLGDWWKLVVFDOH
(QODUJHPHQWRIPDSVEH\RQGWKHVFDOHRIPDSSLQJFDQFDXVH PLVXQGHUVWDQGLQJRIWKHGHWDLORIPDSSLQJDQGDFFXUDF\RIVRLO OLQHSODFHPHQW7KHPDSVGRQRWVKRZWKHVPDOODUHDVRI FRQWUDVWLQJVRLOVWKDWFRXOGKDYHEHHQVKRZQDWDPRUHGHWDLOHG VFDOH
3OHDVHUHO\RQWKHEDUVFDOHRQHDFKPDSVKHHWIRUPDS PHDVXUHPHQWV
6RXUFHRI0DS
 1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV&RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH
:HE6RLO6XUYH\85/

&RRUGLQDWH6\VWHP
 :HE0HUFDWRU
(36*


0DSVIURPWKH:HE6RLO6XUYH\DUHEDVHGRQWKH:HE0HUFDWRU SURMHFWLRQZKLFKSUHVHUYHVGLUHFWLRQDQGVKDSHEXWGLVWRUWV GLVWDQFHDQGDUHD$SURMHFWLRQWKDWSUHVHUYHVDUHDVXFKDVWKH $OEHUVHTXDODUHDFRQLFSURMHFWLRQVKRXOGEHXVHGLIPRUH DFFXUDWHFDOFXODWLRQVRIGLVWDQFHRUDUHDDUHUHTXLUHG 7KLVSURGXFWLVJHQHUDWHGIURPWKH86'$15&6FHUWLILHGGDWDDV RIWKHYHUVLRQGDWH
V
OLVWHGEHORZ
6RLO6XUYH\$UHD
 6DQWD&ODUD$UHD&DOLIRUQLD:HVWHUQ3DUW
6XUYH\$UHD'DWD
 9HUVLRQ6HS
6RLOPDSXQLWVDUHODEHOHG
DVVSDFHDOORZV
IRUPDSVFDOHV

RUODUJHU
'DWH
V
DHULDOLPDJHVZHUHSKRWRJUDSKHG
 0DU²6HS

7KHRUWKRSKRWRRURWKHUEDVHPDSRQZKLFKWKHVRLOOLQHVZHUH FRPSLOHGDQGGLJLWL]HGSUREDEO\GLIIHUVIURPWKHEDFNJURXQG LPDJHU\GLVSOD\HGRQWKHVHPDSV$VDUHVXOWVRPHPLQRU VKLIWLQJRIPDSXQLWERXQGDULHVPD\EHHYLGHQW
+\GURORJLF6RLO*URXS²6DQWD&ODUD$UHD&DOLIRUQLD:HVWHUQ3DUW

6XUUH\)DUUPV

1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV
&RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH
:HE6RLO6XUYH\
1DWLRQDO&RRSHUDWLYH6RLO6XUYH\

3DJHRI

ITEM NO. 1.
+\GURORJLF6RLO*URXS
0DSXQLWV\PERO 0DSXQLWQDPH 5DWLQJ $FUHVLQ$2, 3HUFHQWRI$2,  8UEDQODQG
6WHYHQVFUHHN
FRPSOH[WR
SHUFHQWVORSHV
 
 8UEDQODQG%RWHOOD
FRPSOH[
WR
SHUFHQWVORSHV
 

 =HSSHOLQ$OXPURFN
FRPSOH[WR
SHUFHQWVORSHV
&  
7RWDOVIRU$UHDRI,QWHUHVW 
 
+\GURORJLF6RLO*URXS²6DQWD&ODUD$UHD&DOLIRUQLD:HVWHUQ3DUW 6XUUH\)DUUPV 1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV
&RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH
:HE6RLO6XUYH\
1DWLRQDO&RRSHUDWLYH6RLO6XUYH\

3DJHRI

ITEM NO. 1.
'HVFULSWLRQ
+\GURORJLFVRLOJURXSVDUHEDVHGRQHVWLPDWHVRIUXQRIISRWHQWLDO6RLOVDUH DVVLJQHGWRRQHRIIRXUJURXSVDFFRUGLQJWRWKHUDWHRIZDWHULQILOWUDWLRQZKHQWKH VRLOVDUHQRWSURWHFWHGE\YHJHWDWLRQDUHWKRURXJKO\ZHWDQGUHFHLYH SUHFLSLWDWLRQIURPORQJGXUDWLRQVWRUPV
7KHVRLOVLQWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVDUHDVVLJQHGWRIRXUJURXSV $%&DQG'
DQG
WKUHHGXDOFODVVHV
$'%'DQG&'
7KHJURXSVDUHGHILQHGDVIROORZV

*URXS$6RLOVKDYLQJDKLJKLQILOWUDWLRQUDWH
ORZUXQRIISRWHQWLDO
ZKHQ
WKRURXJKO\ZHW7KHVHFRQVLVWPDLQO\RIGHHSZHOOGUDLQHGWRH[FHVVLYHO\ GUDLQHGVDQGVRUJUDYHOO\VDQGV7KHVHVRLOVKDYHDKLJKUDWHRIZDWHU WUDQVPLVVLRQ
*URXS%6RLOVKDYLQJDPRGHUDWHLQILOWUDWLRQUDWHZKHQWKRURXJKO\ZHW7KHVH FRQVLVWFKLHIO\RIPRGHUDWHO\GHHSRUGHHSPRGHUDWHO\ZHOOGUDLQHGRUZHOO GUDLQHGVRLOVWKDWKDYHPRGHUDWHO\ILQHWH[WXUHWRPRGHUDWHO\FRDUVHWH[WXUH 7KHVHVRLOVKDYHDPRGHUDWHUDWHRIZDWHUWUDQVPLVVLRQ *URXS&6RLOVKDYLQJDVORZLQILOWUDWLRQUDWHZKHQWKRURXJKO\ZHW7KHVHFRQVLVW FKLHIO\RIVRLOVKDYLQJDOD\HUWKDWLPSHGHVWKHGRZQZDUGPRYHPHQWRIZDWHURU VRLOVRIPRGHUDWHO\ILQHWH[WXUHRUILQHWH[WXUH7KHVHVRLOVKDYHDVORZUDWHRI ZDWHUWUDQVPLVVLRQ
*URXS'6RLOVKDYLQJDYHU\VORZLQILOWUDWLRQUDWH
KLJKUXQRIISRWHQWLDO
ZKHQ
WKRURXJKO\ZHW7KHVHFRQVLVWFKLHIO\RIFOD\VWKDWKDYHDKLJKVKULQNVZHOO SRWHQWLDOVRLOVWKDWKDYHDKLJKZDWHUWDEOHVRLOVWKDWKDYHDFOD\SDQRUFOD\ OD\HUDWRUQHDUWKHVXUIDFHDQGVRLOVWKDWDUHVKDOORZRYHUQHDUO\LPSHUYLRXV PDWHULDO7KHVHVRLOVKDYHDYHU\VORZUDWHRIZDWHUWUDQVPLVVLRQ ,IDVRLOLVDVVLJQHGWRDGXDOK\GURORJLFJURXS
$'%'RU&'
WKHILUVWOHWWHULV
IRUGUDLQHGDUHDVDQGWKHVHFRQGLVIRUXQGUDLQHGDUHDV2QO\WKHVRLOVWKDWLQ WKHLUQDWXUDOFRQGLWLRQDUHLQJURXS'DUHDVVLJQHGWRGXDOFODVVHV 5DWLQJ2SWLRQV
$JJUHJDWLRQ0HWKRG
'RPLQDQW&RQGLWLRQ
&RPSRQHQW3HUFHQW&XWRII
1RQH6SHFLILHG
7LHEUHDN5XOH
+LJKHU
+\GURORJLF6RLO*URXS²6DQWD&ODUD$UHD&DOLIRUQLD:HVWHUQ3DUW 6XUUH\)DUUPV 1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV
&RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH
:HE6RLO6XUYH\
1DWLRQDO&RRSHUDWLYH6RLO6XUYH\

3DJHRI

ITEM NO. 1.

APPENDIX B
Post-project Stormwater Control Plan

ITEM NO. 1.

X
SD

SD SD SD SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
EAST ROSS CREEK IN EX 36-INCH RCP

CERRA VISTA COURT

TWIN OAKS DRIVE
LOT 1
LOT 2 LOT 3
LOT 9
LOT 5
LOT 6
LOT 7
LOT 10
LOT 8
LOT 4
TCM BR 5+6
TCM BR 10
TCM BR 7

APPROXIMATE
RIPARIAN LIMIT (TYP.)
TCM BR1
DMA C
DMA A
DMA B
VALLEY WATER'S 110'

FLOODPLAIN EASEMENT
TCM BR 4
TCM BR 9
TCM BR 8
TCM B11
TCM BR 2
TCM BR 3

STORMWATER

CONTROL PLAN
1" = 50'
1 INCH = 50 FEET
0 25 50 100
DRAWN BY:

PROJECT NO:

CAD DWG FILE:

CHECKED BY:

DESIGNED BY:

DATE:

SCALE:

C HMH
NO DATE DESCRIPTION SURREY FARM ESTATES 178 TWIN OAKS DRIVE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW & TENTATIVE MAP M-24-013
S:\PROJECTS\418510\PL\PERMIT\_SITE\PERMIT\418510SW.DWG
418510SW.DWG

5.0 4185.10
AUGUST XX, 2025
PLOTTED: 7/23/2025 3:47 PM
Land Use Entitlements
Land Planning
Landscape Architecture
Civil Engineering
Utility Design
Land Surveying
Stormwater Compliance
1570 Oakland Road (408) 487-2200
San Jose, CA 95131 HMHca.com
1 10/07/24 PER CITY COMMENTS
2 01/08/25 PER CITY COMMENTS
3 04/18/25 PER CITY COMMENTS
4 07/25/25 PER CITY COMMENTS
DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREA DMA#

STORM DRAIN PIPE (EXISTING)

STORM DRAIN PIPE SD SD SD

STORM DRAIN INLET

STORM DRAIN MANHOLE

STORM DRAIN INLET (EXISTING)

STORM DRAIN MANHOLE (EXISTING)

PROJECT BOUNDARY
LEGEND

BIORETENTION AREA

DIRECTION OF SURFACE DRAINAGE

CURB INLET
NW
MD
RH

LOT LINE

EASEMENT

STORM DRAIN CLEANOUT AT DOWNSPOUT

BUBBLER BOX

PERVIOUS PAVERS

RIPARIAN
HYDROMODIFICATION NOTE:

1. REFER TO THE "SUMMARY OF BAHM MODELING FOR THE
SURREY FARM PROJECT" REPORT FOR HYDROMODIFICATION

AND STORMWATER TREATMENT DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS AND
SUMMARY OF RESULTS.
4 -
4

ITEM NO. 1.

APPENDIX C
Bay Area Hydrology Model Output

ITEM NO. 1.

BAHM2023

PROJECT REPORT

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 2 General Model Information
BAHM2023 Project Name: 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025
Site Name: Surrey Farm
Site Address:

City: Los Gatos
Report Date: 7/29/2025
Gage: San Jose
Data Start: 1959/10/01
Data End: 2022/09/30
Timestep: Hourly
Precip Scale: 1.724
Version Date: 2024/06/19
POC Thresholds
Low Flow Threshold for POC1: 10 Percent of the 2 Year
High Flow Threshold for POC1: 10 Year
Low Flow Threshold for POC2: 10 Percent of the 2 Year
High Flow Threshold for POC2: 10 Year

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 3 Landuse Basin Data
Pre-Project Land Use
DMA B Pre
Bypass: No
GroundWater: No
Pervious Land Use acre
C D,Grass,Ste(10-20) 14.0795
Pervious Total 14.0795
Impervious Land Use acre
Impervious Total 0
Basin Total 14.0795
Element Flow Componants:

Surface Interflow Groundwater
Componant Flows To:

POC 1 POC 1

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 4 DMA C Pre
Bypass: No
GroundWater: No
Pervious Land Use acre
C D,Grass,Ste(10-20) 2.6829
Pervious Total 2.6829
Impervious Land Use acre
Impervious Total 0
Basin Total 2.6829
Element Flow Componants:

Surface Interflow Groundwater
Componant Flows To:

POC 2 POC 2

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 5 DMA A Pre
Bypass: No
GroundWater: No
Pervious Land Use acre
C D,Grass,Mod(5-10%) 0.7956
Pervious Total 0.7956
Impervious Land Use acre
Roads,Flat(0-5%) 0.0046
Impervious Total 0.0046
Basin Total 0.8002
Element Flow Componants:

Surface Interflow Groundwater
Componant Flows To:

POC 1 POC 1

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 6 Mitigated Land Use

DMA B OS
Bypass: Yes
GroundWater: No
Pervious Land Use acre
C D,Grass,Ste(10-20) 11.1346
Pervious Total 11.1346
Impervious Land Use acre
Impervious Total 0
Basin Total 11.1346
Element Flow Componants:

Surface Interflow Groundwater
Componant Flows To:

POC 1 POC 1

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 7 DMA B2
Bypass: No
GroundWater: No
Pervious Land Use acre
C D,Grass,Flat(0-5%) 0.0552
Pervious Total 0.0552
Impervious Land Use acre
Roads,Mod(5-10%) 0.0238
Roof Area 0.0953
Impervious Total 0.1191
Basin Total 0.1743
Element Flow Componants:

Surface Interflow Groundwater
Componant Flows To:

Surface BR B2 Surface BR B2

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 8 DMA B3
Bypass: No
GroundWater: No
Pervious Land Use acre
C D,Grass,Flat(0-5%) 0.0429
Pervious Total 0.0429
Impervious Land Use acre
Roads,Mod(5-10%) 0.0244
Roof Area 0.0977
Impervious Total 0.1221
Basin Total 0.165
Element Flow Componants:

Surface Interflow Groundwater
Componant Flows To:

Surface BR B3 Surface BR B3

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 9 DMA B4
Bypass: No
GroundWater: No
Pervious Land Use acre
C D,Grass,Flat(0-5%) 0.1444
Pervious Total 0.1444
Impervious Land Use acre
Roads,Mod(5-10%) 0.0313
Roof Area 0.1251
Impervious Total 0.1564
Basin Total 0.3008
Element Flow Componants:

Surface Interflow Groundwater
Componant Flows To:

Surface BR B4 Surface BR B4

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 10 DMA B5-6
Bypass: No
GroundWater: No
Pervious Land Use acre
C D,Grass,Flat(0-5%) 0.2084
Pervious Total 0.2084
Impervious Land Use acre
Roads,Flat(0-5%) 0.0969
Roads,Mod(5-10%) 0.3385
Roof Area 0.2902
Impervious Total 0.7256
Basin Total 0.934
Element Flow Componants:

Surface Interflow Groundwater
Componant Flows To:

Surface BR B5-6 Surface BR B5-6

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 11 DMA B7
Bypass: No
GroundWater: No
Pervious Land Use acre
C D,Grass,Flat(0-5%) 0.0638
Pervious Total 0.0638
Impervious Land Use acre
Roads,Mod(5-10%) 0.0411
Roof Area 0.1643
Impervious Total 0.2054
Basin Total 0.2692
Element Flow Componants:

Surface Interflow Groundwater
Componant Flows To:

Surface BR B7 Surface BR B7

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 12 DMA B8
Bypass: No
GroundWater: No
Pervious Land Use acre
C D,Grass,Flat(0-5%) 0.0081
Pervious Total 0.0081
Impervious Land Use acre
Roads,Mod(5-10%) 0.041
Roof Area 0.1642
Impervious Total 0.2052
Basin Total 0.2133
Element Flow Componants:

Surface Interflow Groundwater
Componant Flows To:

Surface BR B8 Surface BR B8

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 13 DMA B9
Bypass: No
GroundWater: No
Pervious Land Use acre
C D,Grass,Flat(0-5%) 0.0533
Pervious Total 0.0533
Impervious Land Use acre
Roads,Mod(5-10%) 0.041
Roof Area 0.1641
Impervious Total 0.2051
Basin Total 0.2584
Element Flow Componants:

Surface Interflow Groundwater
Componant Flows To:

Surface BR B9 Surface BR B9

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 14 DMA B10
Bypass: No
GroundWater: No
Pervious Land Use acre
C D,Grass,Flat(0-5%) 0.0604
Pervious Total 0.0604
Impervious Land Use acre
Roads,Mod(5-10%) 0.0466
Roof Area 0.1865
Impervious Total 0.2331
Basin Total 0.2935
Element Flow Componants:

Surface Interflow Groundwater
Componant Flows To:

Surface BR B10 Surface BR B10

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 15 DMA B11
Bypass: No
GroundWater: No
Pervious Land Use acre
C D,Grass,Flat(0-5%) 0.0352
Pervious Total 0.0352
Impervious Land Use acre
Roads,Mod(5-10%) 0.0262
Roof Area 0.1048
Impervious Total 0.131
Basin Total 0.1662
Element Flow Componants:

Surface Interflow Groundwater
Componant Flows To:

Surface BR B11 Surface BR B11

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 16

DMA C OS
Bypass: No
GroundWater: No
Pervious Land Use acre
C D,Grass,Ste(10-20) 2.5729
Pervious Total 2.5729
Impervious Land Use acre
Impervious Total 0
Basin Total 2.5729
Element Flow Componants:

Surface Interflow Groundwater
Componant Flows To:

POC 2 POC 2

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 17

DMA A OS
Bypass: No
GroundWater: No
Pervious Land Use acre
C D,Grass,Mod(5-10%) .5146
Element Flow Componants:

Surface Interflow Groundwater
Componant Flows To:

DMA A PP DMA A PP

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 18 DMA A Imp
Bypass: No
Impervious Land Use acre
Roads,Mod(5-10%) 0.0329
Element Flow Componant:

Surface
Componant Flows To:

DMA A PP

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 19 DMA B1 Perv
Bypass: No
GroundWater: No
Pervious Land Use acre
C D,Grass,Flat(0-5%) .0658
Element Flow Componants:

Surface Interflow Groundwater
Componant Flows To:

DMA B1 PP DMA B1 PP

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 20 DMA B1 Imp
Bypass: No
Impervious Land Use acre
Roof Area 0.0884
Element Flow Componant:

Surface
Componant Flows To:

DMA B1 PP

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 21 Routing Elements
Pre-Project Routing

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 22 Mitigated Routing
BR B2
Bottom Length: 25.90 ft.

Bottom Width: 10.00 ft.

Material thickness of first layer: 1.5
Material type for first layer: BAHM 5
Material thickness of second layer: 1
Material type for second layer: GRAVEL
Material thickness of third layer: 0
Material type for third layer: GRAVEL
Underdrain used
Underdrain Diameter (feet): 0.333333333333333
Orifice Diameter (in.): 2
Offset (in.): 0
Flow Through Underdrain (ac-ft.): 16.025
Total Outflow (ac-ft.): 17.308
Percent Through Underdrain: 92.59
Discharge Structure
Riser Height: 0.5 ft.

Riser Diameter: 12 in.

Element Outlets:

Outlet 1 Outlet 2
Outlet Flows To:

Bioretention Hydraulic Table
Stage(feet) Area(ac.) Volume(ac-ft.) Discharge(cfs) Infilt(cfs)

0.0000 0.0059 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0385 0.0059 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000

0.0769 0.0059 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000

0.1154 0.0059 0.0003 0.0000 0.0000

0.1538 0.0059 0.0003 0.0000 0.0000

0.1923 0.0059 0.0004 0.0000 0.0000

0.2308 0.0059 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000

0.2692 0.0059 0.0006 0.0000 0.0000

0.3077 0.0059 0.0007 0.0000 0.0000

0.3462 0.0059 0.0008 0.0000 0.0000

0.3846 0.0059 0.0009 0.0000 0.0000

0.4231 0.0059 0.0010 0.0013 0.0000

0.4615 0.0059 0.0010 0.0016 0.0000

0.5000 0.0059 0.0011 0.0018 0.0000

0.5385 0.0059 0.0012 0.0022 0.0000

0.5769 0.0059 0.0013 0.0025 0.0000

0.6154 0.0059 0.0014 0.0029 0.0000

0.6538 0.0059 0.0015 0.0033 0.0000

0.6923 0.0059 0.0016 0.0038 0.0000

0.7308 0.0059 0.0017 0.0043 0.0000

0.7692 0.0059 0.0017 0.0049 0.0000

0.8077 0.0059 0.0018 0.0055 0.0000

0.8462 0.0059 0.0019 0.0062 0.0000

0.8846 0.0059 0.0020 0.0069 0.0000

0.9231 0.0059 0.0021 0.0076 0.0000

0.9615 0.0059 0.0022 0.0077 0.0000

1.0000 0.0059 0.0023 0.0085 0.0000

1.0385 0.0059 0.0023 0.0094 0.0000

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 23

1.0769 0.0059 0.0024 0.0104 0.0000

1.1154 0.0059 0.0025 0.0114 0.0000

1.1538 0.0059 0.0026 0.0124 0.0000

1.1923 0.0059 0.0027 0.0135 0.0000

1.2308 0.0059 0.0028 0.0147 0.0000

1.2692 0.0059 0.0029 0.0160 0.0000

1.3077 0.0059 0.0030 0.0173 0.0000

1.3462 0.0059 0.0030 0.0183 0.0000

1.3846 0.0059 0.0031 0.0186 0.0000

1.4231 0.0059 0.0032 0.0201 0.0000

1.4615 0.0059 0.0033 0.0216 0.0000

1.5000 0.0059 0.0034 0.0231 0.0000

1.5385 0.0059 0.0035 0.0248 0.0000

1.5769 0.0059 0.0036 0.0265 0.0000

1.6154 0.0059 0.0037 0.0282 0.0000

1.6538 0.0059 0.0038 0.0366 0.0000

1.6923 0.0059 0.0039 0.0400 0.0000

1.7308 0.0059 0.0040 0.0400 0.0000

1.7692 0.0059 0.0041 0.0400 0.0000

1.8077 0.0059 0.0042 0.0400 0.0000

1.8462 0.0059 0.0043 0.0400 0.0000

1.8846 0.0059 0.0043 0.0400 0.0000

1.9231 0.0059 0.0044 0.0400 0.0000

1.9615 0.0059 0.0045 0.0400 0.0000

2.0000 0.0059 0.0046 0.0400 0.0000

2.0385 0.0059 0.0047 0.0400 0.0000

2.0769 0.0059 0.0048 0.0400 0.0000

2.1154 0.0059 0.0049 0.0400 0.0000

2.1538 0.0059 0.0050 0.0400 0.0000

2.1923 0.0059 0.0051 0.0400 0.0000

2.2308 0.0059 0.0052 0.0400 0.0000

2.2692 0.0059 0.0053 0.0400 0.0000

2.3077 0.0059 0.0054 0.0400 0.0000

2.3462 0.0059 0.0055 0.0400 0.0000

2.3846 0.0059 0.0056 0.0400 0.0000

2.4231 0.0059 0.0057 0.0400 0.0000

2.4615 0.0059 0.0058 0.0400 0.0000

2.5000 0.0059 0.0059 0.0400 0.0000

2.5000 0.0059 0.0059 0.0400 0.0000
Bioretention Surface Hydraulic Table
Stage(feet)Area(ac.)Volume(ac-ft.)Discharge(cfs)To Amended(cfs)Infilt(cfs)

2.5000 0.0059 0.0059 0.0000 0.0300 0.0000

2.5385 0.0061 0.0061 0.0000 0.0300 0.0000

2.5769 0.0063 0.0063 0.0000 0.0315 0.0000

2.6154 0.0065 0.0066 0.0000 0.0323 0.0000

2.6538 0.0067 0.0068 0.0000 0.0331 0.0000

2.6923 0.0069 0.0071 0.0000 0.0338 0.0000

2.7308 0.0071 0.0074 0.0000 0.0346 0.0000

2.7692 0.0073 0.0077 0.0000 0.0354 0.0000

2.8077 0.0075 0.0079 0.0000 0.0361 0.0000

2.8462 0.0078 0.0082 0.0000 0.0369 0.0000

2.8846 0.0080 0.0085 0.0000 0.0377 0.0000

2.9231 0.0082 0.0088 0.0000 0.0384 0.0000

2.9615 0.0084 0.0092 0.0000 0.0392 0.0000

3.0000 0.0086 0.0095 0.0000 0.0400 0.0000

3.0385 0.0088 0.0098 0.0800 0.0407 0.0000

3.0769 0.0091 0.0102 0.2257 0.0415 0.0000

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 24

3.1154 0.0093 0.0105 0.4122 0.0423 0.0000

3.1538 0.0095 0.0109 0.6273 0.0430 0.0000

3.1923 0.0098 0.0113 0.8600 0.0438 0.0000

3.2308 0.0100 0.0116 1.0991 0.0446 0.0000

3.2692 0.0102 0.0120 1.3333 0.0453 0.0000

3.3077 0.0105 0.0124 1.5516 0.0461 0.0000

3.3462 0.0107 0.0128 1.7445 0.0469 0.0000

3.3846 0.0110 0.0133 1.9054 0.0477 0.0000

3.4231 0.0112 0.0137 2.0318 0.0484 0.0000

3.4615 0.0115 0.0141 2.1274 0.0492 0.0000

3.5000 0.0117 0.0146 2.2033 0.0500 0.0000

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 25 BR B3
Bottom Length: 25.90 ft.

Bottom Width: 10.00 ft.

Material thickness of first layer: 1.5
Material type for first layer: BAHM 5
Material thickness of second layer: 1
Material type for second layer: GRAVEL
Material thickness of third layer: 0
Material type for third layer: GRAVEL
Underdrain used
Underdrain Diameter (feet): 0.333333333333333
Orifice Diameter (in.): 2
Offset (in.): 0
Flow Through Underdrain (ac-ft.): 15.903
Total Outflow (ac-ft.): 17.105
Percent Through Underdrain: 92.98
Discharge Structure
Riser Height: 0.5 ft.

Riser Diameter: 12 in.

Element Outlets:

Outlet 1 Outlet 2
Outlet Flows To:

Bioretention Hydraulic Table
Stage(feet) Area(ac.) Volume(ac-ft.) Discharge(cfs) Infilt(cfs)

0.0000 0.0059 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0385 0.0059 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000

0.0769 0.0059 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000

0.1154 0.0059 0.0003 0.0000 0.0000

0.1538 0.0059 0.0003 0.0000 0.0000

0.1923 0.0059 0.0004 0.0000 0.0000

0.2308 0.0059 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000

0.2692 0.0059 0.0006 0.0000 0.0000

0.3077 0.0059 0.0007 0.0000 0.0000

0.3462 0.0059 0.0008 0.0000 0.0000

0.3846 0.0059 0.0009 0.0000 0.0000

0.4231 0.0059 0.0010 0.0013 0.0000

0.4615 0.0059 0.0010 0.0016 0.0000

0.5000 0.0059 0.0011 0.0018 0.0000

0.5385 0.0059 0.0012 0.0022 0.0000

0.5769 0.0059 0.0013 0.0025 0.0000

0.6154 0.0059 0.0014 0.0029 0.0000

0.6538 0.0059 0.0015 0.0033 0.0000

0.6923 0.0059 0.0016 0.0038 0.0000

0.7308 0.0059 0.0017 0.0043 0.0000

0.7692 0.0059 0.0017 0.0049 0.0000

0.8077 0.0059 0.0018 0.0055 0.0000

0.8462 0.0059 0.0019 0.0062 0.0000

0.8846 0.0059 0.0020 0.0069 0.0000

0.9231 0.0059 0.0021 0.0076 0.0000

0.9615 0.0059 0.0022 0.0077 0.0000

1.0000 0.0059 0.0023 0.0085 0.0000

1.0385 0.0059 0.0023 0.0094 0.0000

1.0769 0.0059 0.0024 0.0104 0.0000

1.1154 0.0059 0.0025 0.0114 0.0000

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 26

1.1538 0.0059 0.0026 0.0124 0.0000

1.1923 0.0059 0.0027 0.0135 0.0000

1.2308 0.0059 0.0028 0.0147 0.0000

1.2692 0.0059 0.0029 0.0160 0.0000

1.3077 0.0059 0.0030 0.0173 0.0000

1.3462 0.0059 0.0030 0.0183 0.0000

1.3846 0.0059 0.0031 0.0186 0.0000

1.4231 0.0059 0.0032 0.0201 0.0000

1.4615 0.0059 0.0033 0.0216 0.0000

1.5000 0.0059 0.0034 0.0231 0.0000

1.5385 0.0059 0.0035 0.0248 0.0000

1.5769 0.0059 0.0036 0.0265 0.0000

1.6154 0.0059 0.0037 0.0282 0.0000

1.6538 0.0059 0.0038 0.0366 0.0000

1.6923 0.0059 0.0039 0.0400 0.0000

1.7308 0.0059 0.0040 0.0400 0.0000

1.7692 0.0059 0.0041 0.0400 0.0000

1.8077 0.0059 0.0042 0.0400 0.0000

1.8462 0.0059 0.0043 0.0400 0.0000

1.8846 0.0059 0.0043 0.0400 0.0000

1.9231 0.0059 0.0044 0.0400 0.0000

1.9615 0.0059 0.0045 0.0400 0.0000

2.0000 0.0059 0.0046 0.0400 0.0000

2.0385 0.0059 0.0047 0.0400 0.0000

2.0769 0.0059 0.0048 0.0400 0.0000

2.1154 0.0059 0.0049 0.0400 0.0000

2.1538 0.0059 0.0050 0.0400 0.0000

2.1923 0.0059 0.0051 0.0400 0.0000

2.2308 0.0059 0.0052 0.0400 0.0000

2.2692 0.0059 0.0053 0.0400 0.0000

2.3077 0.0059 0.0054 0.0400 0.0000

2.3462 0.0059 0.0055 0.0400 0.0000

2.3846 0.0059 0.0056 0.0400 0.0000

2.4231 0.0059 0.0057 0.0400 0.0000

2.4615 0.0059 0.0058 0.0400 0.0000

2.5000 0.0059 0.0059 0.0400 0.0000

2.5000 0.0059 0.0059 0.0400 0.0000
Bioretention Surface Hydraulic Table
Stage(feet)Area(ac.)Volume(ac-ft.)Discharge(cfs)To Amended(cfs)Infilt(cfs)

2.5000 0.0059 0.0059 0.0000 0.0300 0.0000

2.5385 0.0061 0.0061 0.0000 0.0300 0.0000

2.5769 0.0063 0.0063 0.0000 0.0315 0.0000

2.6154 0.0065 0.0066 0.0000 0.0323 0.0000

2.6538 0.0067 0.0068 0.0000 0.0331 0.0000

2.6923 0.0069 0.0071 0.0000 0.0338 0.0000

2.7308 0.0071 0.0074 0.0000 0.0346 0.0000

2.7692 0.0073 0.0077 0.0000 0.0354 0.0000

2.8077 0.0075 0.0079 0.0000 0.0361 0.0000

2.8462 0.0078 0.0082 0.0000 0.0369 0.0000

2.8846 0.0080 0.0085 0.0000 0.0377 0.0000

2.9231 0.0082 0.0088 0.0000 0.0384 0.0000

2.9615 0.0084 0.0092 0.0000 0.0392 0.0000

3.0000 0.0086 0.0095 0.0000 0.0400 0.0000

3.0385 0.0088 0.0098 0.0800 0.0407 0.0000

3.0769 0.0091 0.0102 0.2257 0.0415 0.0000

3.1154 0.0093 0.0105 0.4122 0.0423 0.0000

3.1538 0.0095 0.0109 0.6273 0.0430 0.0000

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 27

3.1923 0.0098 0.0113 0.8600 0.0438 0.0000

3.2308 0.0100 0.0116 1.0991 0.0446 0.0000

3.2692 0.0102 0.0120 1.3333 0.0453 0.0000

3.3077 0.0105 0.0124 1.5516 0.0461 0.0000

3.3462 0.0107 0.0128 1.7445 0.0469 0.0000

3.3846 0.0110 0.0133 1.9054 0.0477 0.0000

3.4231 0.0112 0.0137 2.0318 0.0484 0.0000

3.4615 0.0115 0.0141 2.1274 0.0492 0.0000

3.5000 0.0117 0.0146 2.2033 0.0500 0.0000

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 28 BR B4
Bottom Length: 30.60 ft.

Bottom Width: 10.00 ft.

Material thickness of first layer: 1.5
Material type for first layer: BAHM 5
Material thickness of second layer: 1
Material type for second layer: GRAVEL
Material thickness of third layer: 0
Material type for third layer: GRAVEL
Underdrain used
Underdrain Diameter (feet): 0.333333333333333
Orifice Diameter (in.): 2
Offset (in.): 0
Flow Through Underdrain (ac-ft.): 22.784
Total Outflow (ac-ft.): 25.986
Percent Through Underdrain: 87.68
Discharge Structure
Riser Height: 0.5 ft.

Riser Diameter: 12 in.

Element Outlets:

Outlet 1 Outlet 2
Outlet Flows To:

Bioretention Hydraulic Table
Stage(feet) Area(ac.) Volume(ac-ft.) Discharge(cfs) Infilt(cfs)

0.0000 0.0070 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0385 0.0070 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000

0.0769 0.0070 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000

0.1154 0.0070 0.0003 0.0000 0.0000

0.1538 0.0070 0.0004 0.0000 0.0000

0.1923 0.0070 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000

0.2308 0.0070 0.0006 0.0000 0.0000

0.2692 0.0070 0.0007 0.0000 0.0000

0.3077 0.0070 0.0008 0.0000 0.0000

0.3462 0.0070 0.0009 0.0000 0.0000

0.3846 0.0070 0.0010 0.0000 0.0000

0.4231 0.0070 0.0011 0.0016 0.0000

0.4615 0.0070 0.0012 0.0019 0.0000

0.5000 0.0070 0.0013 0.0022 0.0000

0.5385 0.0070 0.0014 0.0025 0.0000

0.5769 0.0070 0.0015 0.0030 0.0000

0.6154 0.0070 0.0016 0.0034 0.0000

0.6538 0.0070 0.0017 0.0039 0.0000

0.6923 0.0070 0.0018 0.0045 0.0000

0.7308 0.0070 0.0020 0.0051 0.0000

0.7692 0.0070 0.0021 0.0058 0.0000

0.8077 0.0070 0.0022 0.0065 0.0000

0.8462 0.0070 0.0023 0.0073 0.0000

0.8846 0.0070 0.0024 0.0082 0.0000

0.9231 0.0070 0.0025 0.0090 0.0000

0.9615 0.0070 0.0026 0.0091 0.0000

1.0000 0.0070 0.0027 0.0101 0.0000

1.0385 0.0070 0.0028 0.0111 0.0000

1.0769 0.0070 0.0029 0.0122 0.0000

1.1154 0.0070 0.0030 0.0134 0.0000

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 29

1.1538 0.0070 0.0031 0.0147 0.0000

1.1923 0.0070 0.0032 0.0160 0.0000

1.2308 0.0070 0.0033 0.0174 0.0000

1.2692 0.0070 0.0034 0.0189 0.0000

1.3077 0.0070 0.0035 0.0204 0.0000

1.3462 0.0070 0.0036 0.0216 0.0000

1.3846 0.0070 0.0037 0.0220 0.0000

1.4231 0.0070 0.0038 0.0237 0.0000

1.4615 0.0070 0.0039 0.0255 0.0000

1.5000 0.0070 0.0040 0.0273 0.0000

1.5385 0.0070 0.0041 0.0293 0.0000

1.5769 0.0070 0.0042 0.0313 0.0000

1.6154 0.0070 0.0043 0.0333 0.0000

1.6538 0.0070 0.0045 0.0366 0.0000

1.6923 0.0070 0.0046 0.0452 0.0000

1.7308 0.0070 0.0047 0.0472 0.0000

1.7692 0.0070 0.0048 0.0472 0.0000

1.8077 0.0070 0.0049 0.0472 0.0000

1.8462 0.0070 0.0050 0.0472 0.0000

1.8846 0.0070 0.0051 0.0472 0.0000

1.9231 0.0070 0.0052 0.0472 0.0000

1.9615 0.0070 0.0054 0.0472 0.0000

2.0000 0.0070 0.0055 0.0472 0.0000

2.0385 0.0070 0.0056 0.0472 0.0000

2.0769 0.0070 0.0057 0.0472 0.0000

2.1154 0.0070 0.0058 0.0472 0.0000

2.1538 0.0070 0.0059 0.0472 0.0000

2.1923 0.0070 0.0060 0.0472 0.0000

2.2308 0.0070 0.0061 0.0472 0.0000

2.2692 0.0070 0.0063 0.0472 0.0000

2.3077 0.0070 0.0064 0.0472 0.0000

2.3462 0.0070 0.0065 0.0472 0.0000

2.3846 0.0070 0.0066 0.0472 0.0000

2.4231 0.0070 0.0067 0.0472 0.0000

2.4615 0.0070 0.0068 0.0472 0.0000

2.5000 0.0070 0.0069 0.0472 0.0000

2.5000 0.0070 0.0069 0.0472 0.0000
Bioretention Surface Hydraulic Table
Stage(feet)Area(ac.)Volume(ac-ft.)Discharge(cfs)To Amended(cfs)Infilt(cfs)

2.5000 0.0070 0.0069 0.0000 0.0354 0.0000

2.5385 0.0072 0.0072 0.0000 0.0354 0.0000

2.5769 0.0075 0.0075 0.0000 0.0372 0.0000

2.6154 0.0077 0.0078 0.0000 0.0381 0.0000

2.6538 0.0079 0.0081 0.0000 0.0390 0.0000

2.6923 0.0081 0.0084 0.0000 0.0400 0.0000

2.7308 0.0084 0.0087 0.0000 0.0409 0.0000

2.7692 0.0086 0.0090 0.0000 0.0418 0.0000

2.8077 0.0088 0.0094 0.0000 0.0427 0.0000

2.8462 0.0091 0.0097 0.0000 0.0436 0.0000

2.8846 0.0093 0.0101 0.0000 0.0445 0.0000

2.9231 0.0095 0.0104 0.0000 0.0454 0.0000

2.9615 0.0098 0.0108 0.0000 0.0463 0.0000

3.0000 0.0100 0.0112 0.0000 0.0472 0.0000

3.0385 0.0103 0.0116 0.0800 0.0481 0.0000

3.0769 0.0105 0.0120 0.2257 0.0490 0.0000

3.1154 0.0108 0.0124 0.4122 0.0499 0.0000

3.1538 0.0110 0.0128 0.6273 0.0509 0.0000

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 30

3.1923 0.0113 0.0132 0.8600 0.0518 0.0000

3.2308 0.0116 0.0137 1.0991 0.0527 0.0000

3.2692 0.0118 0.0141 1.3333 0.0536 0.0000

3.3077 0.0121 0.0146 1.5516 0.0545 0.0000

3.3462 0.0123 0.0150 1.7445 0.0554 0.0000

3.3846 0.0126 0.0155 1.9054 0.0563 0.0000

3.4231 0.0129 0.0160 2.0318 0.0572 0.0000

3.4615 0.0132 0.0165 2.1274 0.0581 0.0000

3.5000 0.0134 0.0170 2.2033 0.0590 0.0000

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 31 BR B5-6
Bottom Length: 139.80 ft.

Bottom Width: 10.00 ft.

Material thickness of first layer: 1.5
Material type for first layer: BAHM 5
Material thickness of second layer: 1
Material type for second layer: GRAVEL
Material thickness of third layer: 0
Material type for third layer: GRAVEL
Underdrain used
Underdrain Diameter (feet): 0.333333333333333
Orifice Diameter (in.): 2
Offset (in.): 0
Flow Through Underdrain (ac-ft.): 88.656
Total Outflow (ac-ft.): 99.74
Percent Through Underdrain: 88.89
Discharge Structure
Riser Height: 0.5 ft.

Riser Diameter: 12 in.

Element Outlets:

Outlet 1 Outlet 2
Outlet Flows To:

Bioretention Hydraulic Table
Stage(feet) Area(ac.) Volume(ac-ft.) Discharge(cfs) Infilt(cfs)

0.0000 0.0321 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0385 0.0321 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000

0.0769 0.0321 0.0009 0.0000 0.0000

0.1154 0.0321 0.0014 0.0000 0.0000

0.1538 0.0321 0.0019 0.0000 0.0000

0.1923 0.0321 0.0023 0.0000 0.0000

0.2308 0.0321 0.0028 0.0000 0.0000

0.2692 0.0321 0.0033 0.0000 0.0000

0.3077 0.0321 0.0038 0.0000 0.0000

0.3462 0.0321 0.0042 0.0000 0.0000

0.3846 0.0321 0.0047 0.0000 0.0000

0.4231 0.0321 0.0052 0.0073 0.0000

0.4615 0.0321 0.0056 0.0085 0.0000

0.5000 0.0321 0.0061 0.0100 0.0000

0.5385 0.0321 0.0066 0.0116 0.0000

0.5769 0.0321 0.0070 0.0135 0.0000

0.6154 0.0321 0.0075 0.0156 0.0000

0.6538 0.0321 0.0080 0.0180 0.0000

0.6923 0.0321 0.0084 0.0199 0.0000

0.7308 0.0321 0.0089 0.0234 0.0000

0.7692 0.0321 0.0094 0.0249 0.0000

0.8077 0.0321 0.0099 0.0252 0.0000

0.8462 0.0321 0.0103 0.0295 0.0000

0.8846 0.0321 0.0108 0.0333 0.0000

0.9231 0.0321 0.0113 0.0354 0.0000

0.9615 0.0321 0.0117 0.0366 0.0000

1.0000 0.0321 0.0122 0.0397 0.0000

1.0385 0.0321 0.0127 0.0425 0.0000

1.0769 0.0321 0.0131 0.0452 0.0000

1.1154 0.0321 0.0136 0.0477 0.0000

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 32

1.1538 0.0321 0.0141 0.0501 0.0000

1.1923 0.0321 0.0145 0.0523 0.0000

1.2308 0.0321 0.0150 0.0545 0.0000

1.2692 0.0321 0.0155 0.0566 0.0000

1.3077 0.0321 0.0159 0.0586 0.0000

1.3462 0.0321 0.0164 0.0605 0.0000

1.3846 0.0321 0.0169 0.0624 0.0000

1.4231 0.0321 0.0174 0.0642 0.0000

1.4615 0.0321 0.0178 0.0660 0.0000

1.5000 0.0321 0.0183 0.0677 0.0000

1.5385 0.0321 0.0188 0.0694 0.0000

1.5769 0.0321 0.0194 0.0710 0.0000

1.6154 0.0321 0.0199 0.0726 0.0000

1.6538 0.0321 0.0204 0.0742 0.0000

1.6923 0.0321 0.0209 0.0757 0.0000

1.7308 0.0321 0.0214 0.0772 0.0000

1.7692 0.0321 0.0219 0.0787 0.0000

1.8077 0.0321 0.0224 0.0801 0.0000

1.8462 0.0321 0.0229 0.0815 0.0000

1.8846 0.0321 0.0235 0.0829 0.0000

1.9231 0.0321 0.0240 0.0843 0.0000

1.9615 0.0321 0.0245 0.0857 0.0000

2.0000 0.0321 0.0250 0.0870 0.0000

2.0385 0.0321 0.0255 0.0883 0.0000

2.0769 0.0321 0.0260 0.0896 0.0000

2.1154 0.0321 0.0265 0.0909 0.0000

2.1538 0.0321 0.0270 0.0921 0.0000

2.1923 0.0321 0.0276 0.0934 0.0000

2.2308 0.0321 0.0281 0.0946 0.0000

2.2692 0.0321 0.0286 0.0958 0.0000

2.3077 0.0321 0.0291 0.0970 0.0000

2.3462 0.0321 0.0296 0.0994 0.0000

2.3846 0.0321 0.0301 0.1017 0.0000

2.4231 0.0321 0.0306 0.1040 0.0000

2.4615 0.0321 0.0311 0.1063 0.0000

2.5000 0.0321 0.0317 0.1096 0.0000

2.5000 0.0321 0.0317 0.1096 0.0000
Bioretention Surface Hydraulic Table
Stage(feet)Area(ac.)Volume(ac-ft.)Discharge(cfs)To Amended(cfs)Infilt(cfs)

2.5000 0.0321 0.0317 0.0000 0.1618 0.0000

2.5385 0.0329 0.0329 0.0000 0.1618 0.0000

2.5769 0.0337 0.0342 0.0000 0.1701 0.0000

2.6154 0.0345 0.0355 0.0000 0.1743 0.0000

2.6538 0.0353 0.0368 0.0000 0.1784 0.0000

2.6923 0.0361 0.0382 0.0000 0.1826 0.0000

2.7308 0.0369 0.0396 0.0000 0.1867 0.0000

2.7692 0.0377 0.0410 0.0000 0.1908 0.0000

2.8077 0.0385 0.0425 0.0000 0.1950 0.0000

2.8462 0.0393 0.0440 0.0000 0.1991 0.0000

2.8846 0.0402 0.0455 0.0000 0.2033 0.0000

2.9231 0.0410 0.0471 0.0000 0.2074 0.0000

2.9615 0.0418 0.0487 0.0000 0.2116 0.0000

3.0000 0.0426 0.0503 0.0000 0.2157 0.0000

3.0385 0.0434 0.0520 0.0800 0.2199 0.0000

3.0769 0.0443 0.0537 0.2257 0.2240 0.0000

3.1154 0.0451 0.0554 0.4122 0.2282 0.0000

3.1538 0.0459 0.0571 0.6273 0.2323 0.0000

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 33

3.1923 0.0468 0.0589 0.8600 0.2365 0.0000

3.2308 0.0476 0.0607 1.0991 0.2406 0.0000

3.2692 0.0485 0.0626 1.3333 0.2448 0.0000

3.3077 0.0493 0.0645 1.5516 0.2489 0.0000

3.3462 0.0501 0.0664 1.7445 0.2531 0.0000

3.3846 0.0510 0.0683 1.9054 0.2572 0.0000

3.4231 0.0518 0.0703 2.0318 0.2614 0.0000

3.4615 0.0527 0.0723 2.1274 0.2655 0.0000

3.5000 0.0536 0.0743 2.2033 0.2697 0.0000

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 34 BR B7
Bottom Length: 30.50 ft.

Bottom Width: 10.00 ft.

Material thickness of first layer: 1.5
Material type for first layer: BAHM 5
Material thickness of second layer: 1
Material type for second layer: GRAVEL
Material thickness of third layer: 0
Material type for third layer: GRAVEL
Underdrain used
Underdrain Diameter (feet): 0.333333333333333
Orifice Diameter (in.): 2
Offset (in.): 0
Flow Through Underdrain (ac-ft.): 24.688
Total Outflow (ac-ft.): 28.237
Percent Through Underdrain: 87.43
Discharge Structure
Riser Height: 0.5 ft.

Riser Diameter: 12 in.

Element Outlets:

Outlet 1 Outlet 2
Outlet Flows To:

Bioretention Hydraulic Table
Stage(feet) Area(ac.) Volume(ac-ft.) Discharge(cfs) Infilt(cfs)

0.0000 0.0070 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0385 0.0070 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000

0.0769 0.0070 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000

0.1154 0.0070 0.0003 0.0000 0.0000

0.1538 0.0070 0.0004 0.0000 0.0000

0.1923 0.0070 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000

0.2308 0.0070 0.0006 0.0000 0.0000

0.2692 0.0070 0.0007 0.0000 0.0000

0.3077 0.0070 0.0008 0.0000 0.0000

0.3462 0.0070 0.0009 0.0000 0.0000

0.3846 0.0070 0.0010 0.0000 0.0000

0.4231 0.0070 0.0011 0.0016 0.0000

0.4615 0.0070 0.0012 0.0019 0.0000

0.5000 0.0070 0.0013 0.0022 0.0000

0.5385 0.0070 0.0014 0.0025 0.0000

0.5769 0.0070 0.0015 0.0029 0.0000

0.6154 0.0070 0.0016 0.0034 0.0000

0.6538 0.0070 0.0017 0.0039 0.0000

0.6923 0.0070 0.0018 0.0045 0.0000

0.7308 0.0070 0.0019 0.0051 0.0000

0.7692 0.0070 0.0020 0.0058 0.0000

0.8077 0.0070 0.0021 0.0065 0.0000

0.8462 0.0070 0.0023 0.0073 0.0000

0.8846 0.0070 0.0024 0.0081 0.0000

0.9231 0.0070 0.0025 0.0090 0.0000

0.9615 0.0070 0.0026 0.0091 0.0000

1.0000 0.0070 0.0027 0.0100 0.0000

1.0385 0.0070 0.0028 0.0111 0.0000

1.0769 0.0070 0.0029 0.0122 0.0000

1.1154 0.0070 0.0030 0.0134 0.0000

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 35

1.1538 0.0070 0.0031 0.0146 0.0000

1.1923 0.0070 0.0032 0.0159 0.0000

1.2308 0.0070 0.0033 0.0173 0.0000

1.2692 0.0070 0.0034 0.0188 0.0000

1.3077 0.0070 0.0035 0.0203 0.0000

1.3462 0.0070 0.0036 0.0215 0.0000

1.3846 0.0070 0.0037 0.0220 0.0000

1.4231 0.0070 0.0038 0.0236 0.0000

1.4615 0.0070 0.0039 0.0254 0.0000

1.5000 0.0070 0.0040 0.0273 0.0000

1.5385 0.0070 0.0041 0.0292 0.0000

1.5769 0.0070 0.0042 0.0312 0.0000

1.6154 0.0070 0.0043 0.0332 0.0000

1.6538 0.0070 0.0044 0.0366 0.0000

1.6923 0.0070 0.0046 0.0452 0.0000

1.7308 0.0070 0.0047 0.0471 0.0000

1.7692 0.0070 0.0048 0.0471 0.0000

1.8077 0.0070 0.0049 0.0471 0.0000

1.8462 0.0070 0.0050 0.0471 0.0000

1.8846 0.0070 0.0051 0.0471 0.0000

1.9231 0.0070 0.0052 0.0471 0.0000

1.9615 0.0070 0.0053 0.0471 0.0000

2.0000 0.0070 0.0055 0.0471 0.0000

2.0385 0.0070 0.0056 0.0471 0.0000

2.0769 0.0070 0.0057 0.0471 0.0000

2.1154 0.0070 0.0058 0.0471 0.0000

2.1538 0.0070 0.0059 0.0471 0.0000

2.1923 0.0070 0.0060 0.0471 0.0000

2.2308 0.0070 0.0061 0.0471 0.0000

2.2692 0.0070 0.0062 0.0471 0.0000

2.3077 0.0070 0.0063 0.0471 0.0000

2.3462 0.0070 0.0065 0.0471 0.0000

2.3846 0.0070 0.0066 0.0471 0.0000

2.4231 0.0070 0.0067 0.0471 0.0000

2.4615 0.0070 0.0068 0.0471 0.0000

2.5000 0.0070 0.0069 0.0471 0.0000

2.5000 0.0070 0.0069 0.0471 0.0000
Bioretention Surface Hydraulic Table
Stage(feet)Area(ac.)Volume(ac-ft.)Discharge(cfs)To Amended(cfs)Infilt(cfs)

2.5000 0.0070 0.0069 0.0000 0.0353 0.0000

2.5385 0.0072 0.0072 0.0000 0.0353 0.0000

2.5769 0.0074 0.0075 0.0000 0.0371 0.0000

2.6154 0.0077 0.0078 0.0000 0.0380 0.0000

2.6538 0.0079 0.0081 0.0000 0.0389 0.0000

2.6923 0.0081 0.0084 0.0000 0.0398 0.0000

2.7308 0.0083 0.0087 0.0000 0.0407 0.0000

2.7692 0.0086 0.0090 0.0000 0.0416 0.0000

2.8077 0.0088 0.0093 0.0000 0.0425 0.0000

2.8462 0.0090 0.0097 0.0000 0.0434 0.0000

2.8846 0.0093 0.0100 0.0000 0.0444 0.0000

2.9231 0.0095 0.0104 0.0000 0.0453 0.0000

2.9615 0.0098 0.0108 0.0000 0.0462 0.0000

3.0000 0.0100 0.0111 0.0000 0.0471 0.0000

3.0385 0.0102 0.0115 0.0800 0.0480 0.0000

3.0769 0.0105 0.0119 0.2257 0.0489 0.0000

3.1154 0.0107 0.0123 0.4122 0.0498 0.0000

3.1538 0.0110 0.0128 0.6273 0.0507 0.0000

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 36

3.1923 0.0113 0.0132 0.8600 0.0516 0.0000

3.2308 0.0115 0.0136 1.0991 0.0525 0.0000

3.2692 0.0118 0.0141 1.3333 0.0534 0.0000

3.3077 0.0120 0.0145 1.5516 0.0543 0.0000

3.3462 0.0123 0.0150 1.7445 0.0552 0.0000

3.3846 0.0126 0.0155 1.9054 0.0561 0.0000

3.4231 0.0129 0.0160 2.0318 0.0570 0.0000

3.4615 0.0131 0.0165 2.1274 0.0579 0.0000

3.5000 0.0134 0.0170 2.2033 0.0588 0.0000

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 37 BR B8
Bottom Length: 37.10 ft.

Bottom Width: 10.00 ft.

Material thickness of first layer: 1.5
Material type for first layer: BAHM 5
Material thickness of second layer: 1
Material type for second layer: GRAVEL
Material thickness of third layer: 0
Material type for third layer: GRAVEL
Underdrain used
Underdrain Diameter (feet): 0.333333333333333
Orifice Diameter (in.): 2
Offset (in.): 0
Flow Through Underdrain (ac-ft.): 23.936
Total Outflow (ac-ft.): 25.754
Percent Through Underdrain: 92.94
Discharge Structure
Riser Height: 0.5 ft.

Riser Diameter: 12 in.

Element Outlets:

Outlet 1 Outlet 2
Outlet Flows To:

Bioretention Hydraulic Table
Stage(feet) Area(ac.) Volume(ac-ft.) Discharge(cfs) Infilt(cfs)

0.0000 0.0085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0385 0.0085 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000

0.0769 0.0085 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000

0.1154 0.0085 0.0004 0.0000 0.0000

0.1538 0.0085 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000

0.1923 0.0085 0.0006 0.0000 0.0000

0.2308 0.0085 0.0007 0.0000 0.0000

0.2692 0.0085 0.0009 0.0000 0.0000

0.3077 0.0085 0.0010 0.0000 0.0000

0.3462 0.0085 0.0011 0.0000 0.0000

0.3846 0.0085 0.0012 0.0000 0.0000

0.4231 0.0085 0.0014 0.0019 0.0000

0.4615 0.0085 0.0015 0.0023 0.0000

0.5000 0.0085 0.0016 0.0026 0.0000

0.5385 0.0085 0.0017 0.0031 0.0000

0.5769 0.0085 0.0019 0.0036 0.0000

0.6154 0.0085 0.0020 0.0041 0.0000

0.6538 0.0085 0.0021 0.0048 0.0000

0.6923 0.0085 0.0022 0.0054 0.0000

0.7308 0.0085 0.0024 0.0062 0.0000

0.7692 0.0085 0.0025 0.0070 0.0000

0.8077 0.0085 0.0026 0.0079 0.0000

0.8462 0.0085 0.0027 0.0089 0.0000

0.8846 0.0085 0.0029 0.0099 0.0000

0.9231 0.0085 0.0030 0.0109 0.0000

0.9615 0.0085 0.0031 0.0110 0.0000

1.0000 0.0085 0.0032 0.0122 0.0000

1.0385 0.0085 0.0034 0.0135 0.0000

1.0769 0.0085 0.0035 0.0148 0.0000

1.1154 0.0085 0.0036 0.0163 0.0000

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 38

1.1538 0.0085 0.0037 0.0178 0.0000

1.1923 0.0085 0.0039 0.0194 0.0000

1.2308 0.0085 0.0040 0.0211 0.0000

1.2692 0.0085 0.0041 0.0229 0.0000

1.3077 0.0085 0.0042 0.0247 0.0000

1.3462 0.0085 0.0044 0.0262 0.0000

1.3846 0.0085 0.0045 0.0267 0.0000

1.4231 0.0085 0.0046 0.0288 0.0000

1.4615 0.0085 0.0047 0.0309 0.0000

1.5000 0.0085 0.0049 0.0332 0.0000

1.5385 0.0085 0.0050 0.0355 0.0000

1.5769 0.0085 0.0051 0.0366 0.0000

1.6154 0.0085 0.0053 0.0397 0.0000

1.6538 0.0085 0.0054 0.0417 0.0000

1.6923 0.0085 0.0055 0.0425 0.0000

1.7308 0.0085 0.0057 0.0501 0.0000

1.7692 0.0085 0.0058 0.0545 0.0000

1.8077 0.0085 0.0060 0.0573 0.0000

1.8462 0.0085 0.0061 0.0573 0.0000

1.8846 0.0085 0.0062 0.0573 0.0000

1.9231 0.0085 0.0064 0.0573 0.0000

1.9615 0.0085 0.0065 0.0573 0.0000

2.0000 0.0085 0.0066 0.0573 0.0000

2.0385 0.0085 0.0068 0.0573 0.0000

2.0769 0.0085 0.0069 0.0573 0.0000

2.1154 0.0085 0.0070 0.0573 0.0000

2.1538 0.0085 0.0072 0.0573 0.0000

2.1923 0.0085 0.0073 0.0573 0.0000

2.2308 0.0085 0.0074 0.0573 0.0000

2.2692 0.0085 0.0076 0.0573 0.0000

2.3077 0.0085 0.0077 0.0573 0.0000

2.3462 0.0085 0.0079 0.0573 0.0000

2.3846 0.0085 0.0080 0.0573 0.0000

2.4231 0.0085 0.0081 0.0573 0.0000

2.4615 0.0085 0.0083 0.0573 0.0000

2.5000 0.0085 0.0084 0.0573 0.0000

2.5000 0.0085 0.0084 0.0573 0.0000
Bioretention Surface Hydraulic Table
Stage(feet)Area(ac.)Volume(ac-ft.)Discharge(cfs)To Amended(cfs)Infilt(cfs)

2.5000 0.0085 0.0084 0.0000 0.0429 0.0000

2.5385 0.0088 0.0087 0.0000 0.0429 0.0000

2.5769 0.0090 0.0091 0.0000 0.0451 0.0000

2.6154 0.0093 0.0094 0.0000 0.0462 0.0000

2.6538 0.0095 0.0098 0.0000 0.0473 0.0000

2.6923 0.0098 0.0102 0.0000 0.0484 0.0000

2.7308 0.0101 0.0105 0.0000 0.0495 0.0000

2.7692 0.0103 0.0109 0.0000 0.0506 0.0000

2.8077 0.0106 0.0113 0.0000 0.0517 0.0000

2.8462 0.0109 0.0117 0.0000 0.0528 0.0000

2.8846 0.0111 0.0122 0.0000 0.0540 0.0000

2.9231 0.0114 0.0126 0.0000 0.0551 0.0000

2.9615 0.0117 0.0130 0.0000 0.0562 0.0000

3.0000 0.0120 0.0135 0.0000 0.0573 0.0000

3.0385 0.0122 0.0140 0.0800 0.0584 0.0000

3.0769 0.0125 0.0144 0.2257 0.0595 0.0000

3.1154 0.0128 0.0149 0.4122 0.0606 0.0000

3.1538 0.0131 0.0154 0.6273 0.0617 0.0000

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 39

3.1923 0.0134 0.0159 0.8600 0.0628 0.0000

3.2308 0.0137 0.0165 1.0991 0.0639 0.0000

3.2692 0.0140 0.0170 1.3333 0.0650 0.0000

3.3077 0.0143 0.0175 1.5516 0.0661 0.0000

3.3462 0.0146 0.0181 1.7445 0.0672 0.0000

3.3846 0.0149 0.0187 1.9054 0.0683 0.0000

3.4231 0.0152 0.0192 2.0318 0.0694 0.0000

3.4615 0.0155 0.0198 2.1274 0.0705 0.0000

3.5000 0.0158 0.0204 2.2033 0.0716 0.0000

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 40 BR B9
Bottom Length: 34.60 ft.

Bottom Width: 10.00 ft.

Material thickness of first layer: 1.5
Material type for first layer: BAHM 5
Material thickness of second layer: 1
Material type for second layer: GRAVEL
Material thickness of third layer: 0
Material type for third layer: GRAVEL
Underdrain used
Underdrain Diameter (feet): 0.333333333333333
Orifice Diameter (in.): 2
Offset (in.): 0
Flow Through Underdrain (ac-ft.): 25.053
Total Outflow (ac-ft.): 27.774
Percent Through Underdrain: 90.2
Discharge Structure
Riser Height: 0.5 ft.

Riser Diameter: 12 in.

Element Outlets:

Outlet 1 Outlet 2
Outlet Flows To:

Bioretention Hydraulic Table
Stage(feet) Area(ac.) Volume(ac-ft.) Discharge(cfs) Infilt(cfs)

0.0000 0.0079 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0385 0.0079 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000

0.0769 0.0079 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000

0.1154 0.0079 0.0003 0.0000 0.0000

0.1538 0.0079 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000

0.1923 0.0079 0.0006 0.0000 0.0000

0.2308 0.0079 0.0007 0.0000 0.0000

0.2692 0.0079 0.0008 0.0000 0.0000

0.3077 0.0079 0.0009 0.0000 0.0000

0.3462 0.0079 0.0010 0.0000 0.0000

0.3846 0.0079 0.0012 0.0000 0.0000

0.4231 0.0079 0.0013 0.0018 0.0000

0.4615 0.0079 0.0014 0.0021 0.0000

0.5000 0.0079 0.0015 0.0025 0.0000

0.5385 0.0079 0.0016 0.0029 0.0000

0.5769 0.0079 0.0017 0.0033 0.0000

0.6154 0.0079 0.0019 0.0039 0.0000

0.6538 0.0079 0.0020 0.0044 0.0000

0.6923 0.0079 0.0021 0.0051 0.0000

0.7308 0.0079 0.0022 0.0058 0.0000

0.7692 0.0079 0.0023 0.0065 0.0000

0.8077 0.0079 0.0024 0.0074 0.0000

0.8462 0.0079 0.0026 0.0083 0.0000

0.8846 0.0079 0.0027 0.0092 0.0000

0.9231 0.0079 0.0028 0.0102 0.0000

0.9615 0.0079 0.0029 0.0103 0.0000

1.0000 0.0079 0.0030 0.0114 0.0000

1.0385 0.0079 0.0031 0.0126 0.0000

1.0769 0.0079 0.0033 0.0138 0.0000

1.1154 0.0079 0.0034 0.0152 0.0000

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 41

1.1538 0.0079 0.0035 0.0166 0.0000

1.1923 0.0079 0.0036 0.0181 0.0000

1.2308 0.0079 0.0037 0.0197 0.0000

1.2692 0.0079 0.0038 0.0213 0.0000

1.3077 0.0079 0.0039 0.0231 0.0000

1.3462 0.0079 0.0041 0.0244 0.0000

1.3846 0.0079 0.0042 0.0249 0.0000

1.4231 0.0079 0.0043 0.0268 0.0000

1.4615 0.0079 0.0044 0.0288 0.0000

1.5000 0.0079 0.0045 0.0309 0.0000

1.5385 0.0079 0.0047 0.0331 0.0000

1.5769 0.0079 0.0048 0.0354 0.0000

1.6154 0.0079 0.0049 0.0366 0.0000

1.6538 0.0079 0.0050 0.0397 0.0000

1.6923 0.0079 0.0052 0.0452 0.0000

1.7308 0.0079 0.0053 0.0501 0.0000

1.7692 0.0079 0.0054 0.0534 0.0000

1.8077 0.0079 0.0056 0.0534 0.0000

1.8462 0.0079 0.0057 0.0534 0.0000

1.8846 0.0079 0.0058 0.0534 0.0000

1.9231 0.0079 0.0059 0.0534 0.0000

1.9615 0.0079 0.0061 0.0534 0.0000

2.0000 0.0079 0.0062 0.0534 0.0000

2.0385 0.0079 0.0063 0.0534 0.0000

2.0769 0.0079 0.0064 0.0534 0.0000

2.1154 0.0079 0.0066 0.0534 0.0000

2.1538 0.0079 0.0067 0.0534 0.0000

2.1923 0.0079 0.0068 0.0534 0.0000

2.2308 0.0079 0.0069 0.0534 0.0000

2.2692 0.0079 0.0071 0.0534 0.0000

2.3077 0.0079 0.0072 0.0534 0.0000

2.3462 0.0079 0.0073 0.0534 0.0000

2.3846 0.0079 0.0075 0.0534 0.0000

2.4231 0.0079 0.0076 0.0534 0.0000

2.4615 0.0079 0.0077 0.0534 0.0000

2.5000 0.0079 0.0078 0.0534 0.0000

2.5000 0.0079 0.0078 0.0534 0.0000
Bioretention Surface Hydraulic Table
Stage(feet)Area(ac.)Volume(ac-ft.)Discharge(cfs)To Amended(cfs)Infilt(cfs)

2.5000 0.0079 0.0078 0.0000 0.0400 0.0000

2.5385 0.0082 0.0081 0.0000 0.0400 0.0000

2.5769 0.0084 0.0085 0.0000 0.0421 0.0000

2.6154 0.0087 0.0088 0.0000 0.0431 0.0000

2.6538 0.0089 0.0091 0.0000 0.0442 0.0000

2.6923 0.0092 0.0095 0.0000 0.0452 0.0000

2.7308 0.0094 0.0098 0.0000 0.0462 0.0000

2.7692 0.0097 0.0102 0.0000 0.0472 0.0000

2.8077 0.0099 0.0106 0.0000 0.0483 0.0000

2.8462 0.0102 0.0110 0.0000 0.0493 0.0000

2.8846 0.0104 0.0114 0.0000 0.0503 0.0000

2.9231 0.0107 0.0118 0.0000 0.0513 0.0000

2.9615 0.0110 0.0122 0.0000 0.0524 0.0000

3.0000 0.0112 0.0126 0.0000 0.0534 0.0000

3.0385 0.0115 0.0130 0.0800 0.0544 0.0000

3.0769 0.0118 0.0135 0.2257 0.0554 0.0000

3.1154 0.0120 0.0140 0.4122 0.0565 0.0000

3.1538 0.0123 0.0144 0.6273 0.0575 0.0000

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 42

3.1923 0.0126 0.0149 0.8600 0.0585 0.0000

3.2308 0.0129 0.0154 1.0991 0.0596 0.0000

3.2692 0.0132 0.0159 1.3333 0.0606 0.0000

3.3077 0.0134 0.0164 1.5516 0.0616 0.0000

3.3462 0.0137 0.0169 1.7445 0.0626 0.0000

3.3846 0.0140 0.0175 1.9054 0.0637 0.0000

3.4231 0.0143 0.0180 2.0318 0.0647 0.0000

3.4615 0.0146 0.0186 2.1274 0.0657 0.0000

3.5000 0.0149 0.0191 2.2033 0.0667 0.0000

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 43 BR B10
Bottom Length: 36.30 ft.

Bottom Width: 10.00 ft.

Material thickness of first layer: 1.5
Material type for first layer: BAHM 5
Material thickness of second layer: 1
Material type for second layer: GRAVEL
Material thickness of third layer: 0
Material type for third layer: GRAVEL
Underdrain used
Underdrain Diameter (feet): 0.333333333333333
Orifice Diameter (in.): 2
Offset (in.): 0
Flow Through Underdrain (ac-ft.): 27.995
Total Outflow (ac-ft.): 31.519
Percent Through Underdrain: 88.82
Discharge Structure
Riser Height: 0.5 ft.

Riser Diameter: 12 in.

Element Outlets:

Outlet 1 Outlet 2
Outlet Flows To:

Bioretention Hydraulic Table
Stage(feet) Area(ac.) Volume(ac-ft.) Discharge(cfs) Infilt(cfs)

0.0000 0.0083 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0385 0.0083 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000

0.0769 0.0083 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000

0.1154 0.0083 0.0004 0.0000 0.0000

0.1538 0.0083 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000

0.1923 0.0083 0.0006 0.0000 0.0000

0.2308 0.0083 0.0007 0.0000 0.0000

0.2692 0.0083 0.0009 0.0000 0.0000

0.3077 0.0083 0.0010 0.0000 0.0000

0.3462 0.0083 0.0011 0.0000 0.0000

0.3846 0.0083 0.0012 0.0000 0.0000

0.4231 0.0083 0.0013 0.0019 0.0000

0.4615 0.0083 0.0015 0.0022 0.0000

0.5000 0.0083 0.0016 0.0026 0.0000

0.5385 0.0083 0.0017 0.0030 0.0000

0.5769 0.0083 0.0018 0.0035 0.0000

0.6154 0.0083 0.0019 0.0041 0.0000

0.6538 0.0083 0.0021 0.0047 0.0000

0.6923 0.0083 0.0022 0.0053 0.0000

0.7308 0.0083 0.0023 0.0061 0.0000

0.7692 0.0083 0.0024 0.0069 0.0000

0.8077 0.0083 0.0026 0.0077 0.0000

0.8462 0.0083 0.0027 0.0087 0.0000

0.8846 0.0083 0.0028 0.0097 0.0000

0.9231 0.0083 0.0029 0.0107 0.0000

0.9615 0.0083 0.0030 0.0108 0.0000

1.0000 0.0083 0.0032 0.0120 0.0000

1.0385 0.0083 0.0033 0.0132 0.0000

1.0769 0.0083 0.0034 0.0145 0.0000

1.1154 0.0083 0.0035 0.0159 0.0000

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 44

1.1538 0.0083 0.0037 0.0174 0.0000

1.1923 0.0083 0.0038 0.0190 0.0000

1.2308 0.0083 0.0039 0.0206 0.0000

1.2692 0.0083 0.0040 0.0224 0.0000

1.3077 0.0083 0.0041 0.0242 0.0000

1.3462 0.0083 0.0043 0.0256 0.0000

1.3846 0.0083 0.0044 0.0261 0.0000

1.4231 0.0083 0.0045 0.0281 0.0000

1.4615 0.0083 0.0046 0.0302 0.0000

1.5000 0.0083 0.0048 0.0324 0.0000

1.5385 0.0083 0.0049 0.0347 0.0000

1.5769 0.0083 0.0050 0.0366 0.0000

1.6154 0.0083 0.0052 0.0395 0.0000

1.6538 0.0083 0.0053 0.0397 0.0000

1.6923 0.0083 0.0054 0.0452 0.0000

1.7308 0.0083 0.0056 0.0501 0.0000

1.7692 0.0083 0.0057 0.0545 0.0000

1.8077 0.0083 0.0058 0.0560 0.0000

1.8462 0.0083 0.0060 0.0560 0.0000

1.8846 0.0083 0.0061 0.0560 0.0000

1.9231 0.0083 0.0062 0.0560 0.0000

1.9615 0.0083 0.0064 0.0560 0.0000

2.0000 0.0083 0.0065 0.0560 0.0000

2.0385 0.0083 0.0066 0.0560 0.0000

2.0769 0.0083 0.0068 0.0560 0.0000

2.1154 0.0083 0.0069 0.0560 0.0000

2.1538 0.0083 0.0070 0.0560 0.0000

2.1923 0.0083 0.0072 0.0560 0.0000

2.2308 0.0083 0.0073 0.0560 0.0000

2.2692 0.0083 0.0074 0.0560 0.0000

2.3077 0.0083 0.0076 0.0560 0.0000

2.3462 0.0083 0.0077 0.0560 0.0000

2.3846 0.0083 0.0078 0.0560 0.0000

2.4231 0.0083 0.0080 0.0560 0.0000

2.4615 0.0083 0.0081 0.0560 0.0000

2.5000 0.0083 0.0082 0.0560 0.0000

2.5000 0.0083 0.0082 0.0560 0.0000
Bioretention Surface Hydraulic Table
Stage(feet)Area(ac.)Volume(ac-ft.)Discharge(cfs)To Amended(cfs)Infilt(cfs)

2.5000 0.0083 0.0082 0.0000 0.0420 0.0000

2.5385 0.0086 0.0085 0.0000 0.0420 0.0000

2.5769 0.0088 0.0089 0.0000 0.0442 0.0000

2.6154 0.0091 0.0092 0.0000 0.0452 0.0000

2.6538 0.0093 0.0096 0.0000 0.0463 0.0000

2.6923 0.0096 0.0099 0.0000 0.0474 0.0000

2.7308 0.0098 0.0103 0.0000 0.0485 0.0000

2.7692 0.0101 0.0107 0.0000 0.0496 0.0000

2.8077 0.0104 0.0111 0.0000 0.0506 0.0000

2.8462 0.0106 0.0115 0.0000 0.0517 0.0000

2.8846 0.0109 0.0119 0.0000 0.0528 0.0000

2.9231 0.0112 0.0123 0.0000 0.0539 0.0000

2.9615 0.0115 0.0128 0.0000 0.0549 0.0000

3.0000 0.0117 0.0132 0.0000 0.0560 0.0000

3.0385 0.0120 0.0137 0.0800 0.0571 0.0000

3.0769 0.0123 0.0141 0.2257 0.0582 0.0000

3.1154 0.0126 0.0146 0.4122 0.0593 0.0000

3.1538 0.0129 0.0151 0.6273 0.0603 0.0000

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 45

3.1923 0.0131 0.0156 0.8600 0.0614 0.0000

3.2308 0.0134 0.0161 1.0991 0.0625 0.0000

3.2692 0.0137 0.0166 1.3333 0.0636 0.0000

3.3077 0.0140 0.0172 1.5516 0.0646 0.0000

3.3462 0.0143 0.0177 1.7445 0.0657 0.0000

3.3846 0.0146 0.0183 1.9054 0.0668 0.0000

3.4231 0.0149 0.0188 2.0318 0.0679 0.0000

3.4615 0.0152 0.0194 2.1274 0.0689 0.0000

3.5000 0.0155 0.0200 2.2033 0.0700 0.0000

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 46 BR B11
Bottom Length: 23.80 ft.

Bottom Width: 10.00 ft.

Material thickness of first layer: 1.5
Material type for first layer: BAHM 5
Material thickness of second layer: 1
Material type for second layer: GRAVEL
Material thickness of third layer: 0
Material type for third layer: GRAVEL
Underdrain used
Underdrain Diameter (feet): 0.333333333333333
Orifice Diameter (in.): 2
Offset (in.): 0
Flow Through Underdrain (ac-ft.): 16.253
Total Outflow (ac-ft.): 17.799
Percent Through Underdrain: 91.31
Discharge Structure
Riser Height: 0.5 ft.

Riser Diameter: 12 in.

Element Outlets:

Outlet 1 Outlet 2
Outlet Flows To:

Bioretention Hydraulic Table
Stage(feet) Area(ac.) Volume(ac-ft.) Discharge(cfs) Infilt(cfs)

0.0000 0.0055 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0385 0.0055 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000

0.0769 0.0055 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000

0.1154 0.0055 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000

0.1538 0.0055 0.0003 0.0000 0.0000

0.1923 0.0055 0.0004 0.0000 0.0000

0.2308 0.0055 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000

0.2692 0.0055 0.0006 0.0000 0.0000

0.3077 0.0055 0.0006 0.0000 0.0000

0.3462 0.0055 0.0007 0.0000 0.0000

0.3846 0.0055 0.0008 0.0000 0.0000

0.4231 0.0055 0.0009 0.0012 0.0000

0.4615 0.0055 0.0010 0.0015 0.0000

0.5000 0.0055 0.0010 0.0017 0.0000

0.5385 0.0055 0.0011 0.0020 0.0000

0.5769 0.0055 0.0012 0.0023 0.0000

0.6154 0.0055 0.0013 0.0027 0.0000

0.6538 0.0055 0.0014 0.0031 0.0000

0.6923 0.0055 0.0014 0.0035 0.0000

0.7308 0.0055 0.0015 0.0040 0.0000

0.7692 0.0055 0.0016 0.0045 0.0000

0.8077 0.0055 0.0017 0.0051 0.0000

0.8462 0.0055 0.0018 0.0057 0.0000

0.8846 0.0055 0.0018 0.0064 0.0000

0.9231 0.0055 0.0019 0.0070 0.0000

0.9615 0.0055 0.0020 0.0071 0.0000

1.0000 0.0055 0.0021 0.0078 0.0000

1.0385 0.0055 0.0022 0.0087 0.0000

1.0769 0.0055 0.0022 0.0095 0.0000

1.1154 0.0055 0.0023 0.0104 0.0000

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 47

1.1538 0.0055 0.0024 0.0114 0.0000

1.1923 0.0055 0.0025 0.0124 0.0000

1.2308 0.0055 0.0026 0.0135 0.0000

1.2692 0.0055 0.0026 0.0147 0.0000

1.3077 0.0055 0.0027 0.0159 0.0000

1.3462 0.0055 0.0028 0.0168 0.0000

1.3846 0.0055 0.0029 0.0171 0.0000

1.4231 0.0055 0.0030 0.0185 0.0000

1.4615 0.0055 0.0030 0.0198 0.0000

1.5000 0.0055 0.0031 0.0213 0.0000

1.5385 0.0055 0.0032 0.0228 0.0000

1.5769 0.0055 0.0033 0.0243 0.0000

1.6154 0.0055 0.0034 0.0259 0.0000

1.6538 0.0055 0.0035 0.0366 0.0000

1.6923 0.0055 0.0036 0.0367 0.0000

1.7308 0.0055 0.0036 0.0367 0.0000

1.7692 0.0055 0.0037 0.0367 0.0000

1.8077 0.0055 0.0038 0.0367 0.0000

1.8462 0.0055 0.0039 0.0367 0.0000

1.8846 0.0055 0.0040 0.0367 0.0000

1.9231 0.0055 0.0041 0.0367 0.0000

1.9615 0.0055 0.0042 0.0367 0.0000

2.0000 0.0055 0.0043 0.0367 0.0000

2.0385 0.0055 0.0043 0.0367 0.0000

2.0769 0.0055 0.0044 0.0367 0.0000

2.1154 0.0055 0.0045 0.0367 0.0000

2.1538 0.0055 0.0046 0.0367 0.0000

2.1923 0.0055 0.0047 0.0367 0.0000

2.2308 0.0055 0.0048 0.0367 0.0000

2.2692 0.0055 0.0049 0.0367 0.0000

2.3077 0.0055 0.0050 0.0367 0.0000

2.3462 0.0055 0.0050 0.0367 0.0000

2.3846 0.0055 0.0051 0.0367 0.0000

2.4231 0.0055 0.0052 0.0367 0.0000

2.4615 0.0055 0.0053 0.0367 0.0000

2.5000 0.0055 0.0054 0.0367 0.0000

2.5000 0.0055 0.0054 0.0367 0.0000
Bioretention Surface Hydraulic Table
Stage(feet)Area(ac.)Volume(ac-ft.)Discharge(cfs)To Amended(cfs)Infilt(cfs)

2.5000 0.0055 0.0054 0.0000 0.0275 0.0000

2.5385 0.0056 0.0056 0.0000 0.0275 0.0000

2.5769 0.0058 0.0058 0.0000 0.0290 0.0000

2.6154 0.0060 0.0061 0.0000 0.0297 0.0000

2.6538 0.0062 0.0063 0.0000 0.0304 0.0000

2.6923 0.0064 0.0065 0.0000 0.0311 0.0000

2.7308 0.0066 0.0068 0.0000 0.0318 0.0000

2.7692 0.0068 0.0070 0.0000 0.0325 0.0000

2.8077 0.0070 0.0073 0.0000 0.0332 0.0000

2.8462 0.0072 0.0076 0.0000 0.0339 0.0000

2.8846 0.0074 0.0079 0.0000 0.0346 0.0000

2.9231 0.0076 0.0081 0.0000 0.0353 0.0000

2.9615 0.0078 0.0084 0.0000 0.0360 0.0000

3.0000 0.0080 0.0087 0.0000 0.0367 0.0000

3.0385 0.0082 0.0090 0.0800 0.0374 0.0000

3.0769 0.0084 0.0094 0.2257 0.0381 0.0000

3.1154 0.0086 0.0097 0.4122 0.0388 0.0000

3.1538 0.0089 0.0100 0.6273 0.0396 0.0000

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 48

3.1923 0.0091 0.0104 0.8600 0.0403 0.0000

3.2308 0.0093 0.0107 1.0991 0.0410 0.0000

3.2692 0.0095 0.0111 1.3333 0.0417 0.0000

3.3077 0.0098 0.0115 1.5516 0.0424 0.0000

3.3462 0.0100 0.0118 1.7445 0.0431 0.0000

3.3846 0.0102 0.0122 1.9054 0.0438 0.0000

3.4231 0.0105 0.0126 2.0318 0.0445 0.0000

3.4615 0.0107 0.0130 2.1274 0.0452 0.0000

3.5000 0.0109 0.0135 2.2033 0.0459 0.0000

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 49

DMA A PP
Pavement Area:0.2086 acre.Pavement Length: 413.00 ft.

Pavement Width: 22.00 ft.

Pavement slope 1:0 To 1
Pavement thickness: 0.333
Pour Space of Pavement: 0.2
Material thickness of second layer: 0.75
Pour Space of material for second layer: 0.4
Material thickness of third layer: 0
Pour Space of material for third layer: 0
Infiltration On
Infiltration rate: 0.3
Infiltration reduction factor: 0.5
Total Volume Infiltrated (ac-ft.): 52.742
Total Volume Through Riser (ac-ft.): 0.812
Total Volume Through Facility (ac-ft.): 53.554
Percent Infiltrated: 98.48
Total Precip Applied to Facility: 0
Total Evap From Facility: 1.558
Discharge Structure
Riser Height: 2.08 ft.

Riser Diameter: 264 in.

Notch Type: Rectangular
Notch Width: 5.000 ft.

Notch Height: 0.497 ft.

Element Outlets:

Outlet 1 Outlet 2
Outlet Flows To:

Permeable Pavement Hydraulic Table
Stage(feet) Area(ac.) Volume(ac-ft.) Discharge(cfs) Infilt(cfs)

0.0000 0.208 0.000 0.000 0.000

0.0231 0.208 0.001 0.000 0.031

0.0462 0.208 0.003 0.000 0.031

0.0693 0.208 0.005 0.000 0.031

0.0924 0.208 0.007 0.000 0.031

0.1156 0.208 0.009 0.000 0.031

0.1387 0.208 0.011 0.000 0.031

0.1618 0.208 0.013 0.000 0.031

0.1849 0.208 0.015 0.000 0.031

0.2080 0.208 0.017 0.000 0.031

0.2311 0.208 0.019 0.000 0.031

0.2542 0.208 0.021 0.000 0.031

0.2773 0.208 0.023 0.000 0.031

0.3004 0.208 0.025 0.000 0.031

0.3236 0.208 0.027 0.000 0.031

0.3467 0.208 0.028 0.000 0.031

0.3698 0.208 0.030 0.000 0.031

0.3929 0.208 0.032 0.000 0.031

0.4160 0.208 0.034 0.000 0.031

0.4391 0.208 0.036 0.000 0.031

0.4622 0.208 0.038 0.000 0.031

0.4853 0.208 0.040 0.000 0.031

0.5084 0.208 0.042 0.000 0.031

0.5316 0.208 0.044 0.000 0.031

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 50

0.5547 0.208 0.046 0.000 0.031

0.5778 0.208 0.048 0.000 0.031

0.6009 0.208 0.050 0.000 0.031

0.6240 0.208 0.052 0.000 0.031

0.6471 0.208 0.054 0.000 0.031

0.6702 0.208 0.055 0.000 0.031

0.6933 0.208 0.057 0.000 0.031

0.7164 0.208 0.059 0.000 0.031

0.7396 0.208 0.061 0.000 0.031

0.7627 0.208 0.062 0.000 0.031

0.7858 0.208 0.063 0.000 0.031

0.8089 0.208 0.064 0.000 0.031

0.8320 0.208 0.065 0.000 0.031

0.8551 0.208 0.066 0.000 0.031

0.8782 0.208 0.067 0.000 0.031

0.9013 0.208 0.068 0.000 0.031

0.9244 0.208 0.069 0.000 0.031

0.9476 0.208 0.070 0.000 0.031

0.9707 0.208 0.071 0.000 0.031

0.9938 0.208 0.072 0.000 0.031

1.0169 0.208 0.073 0.000 0.031

1.0400 0.208 0.074 0.000 0.031

1.0631 0.208 0.075 0.000 0.031

1.0862 0.208 0.080 0.000 0.031

1.1093 0.208 0.084 0.000 0.031

1.1324 0.208 0.089 0.000 0.031

1.1556 0.208 0.094 0.000 0.031

1.1787 0.208 0.099 0.000 0.031

1.2018 0.208 0.104 0.000 0.031

1.2249 0.208 0.108 0.000 0.031

1.2480 0.208 0.113 0.000 0.031

1.2711 0.208 0.118 0.000 0.031

1.2942 0.208 0.123 0.000 0.031

1.3173 0.208 0.128 0.000 0.031

1.3404 0.208 0.133 0.000 0.031

1.3636 0.208 0.137 0.000 0.031

1.3867 0.208 0.142 0.000 0.031

1.4098 0.208 0.147 0.000 0.031

1.4329 0.208 0.152 0.000 0.031

1.4560 0.208 0.157 0.000 0.031

1.4791 0.208 0.162 0.000 0.031

1.5022 0.208 0.166 0.000 0.031

1.5253 0.208 0.171 0.000 0.031

1.5484 0.208 0.176 0.000 0.031

1.5716 0.208 0.181 0.000 0.031

1.5947 0.208 0.186 0.021 0.031

1.6178 0.208 0.190 0.108 0.031

1.6409 0.208 0.195 0.231 0.031

1.6640 0.208 0.200 0.383 0.031

1.6871 0.208 0.205 0.559 0.031

1.7102 0.208 0.210 0.755 0.031

1.7333 0.208 0.215 0.970 0.031

1.7564 0.208 0.219 1.202 0.031

1.7796 0.208 0.224 1.450 0.031

1.8027 0.208 0.229 1.714 0.031

1.8258 0.208 0.234 1.991 0.031

1.8489 0.208 0.239 2.282 0.031

1.8720 0.208 0.243 2.586 0.031

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 51

1.8951 0.208 0.248 2.903 0.031

1.9182 0.208 0.253 3.231 0.031

1.9413 0.208 0.258 3.571 0.031

1.9644 0.208 0.263 3.922 0.031

1.9876 0.208 0.268 4.284 0.031

2.0107 0.208 0.272 4.656 0.031

2.0338 0.208 0.277 5.039 0.031

2.0569 0.208 0.282 5.431 0.031

2.0800 0.208 0.287 5.833 0.031

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 52 DMA B1 PP
Pavement Area:0.0752 acre.Pavement Length: 156.00 ft.

Pavement Width: 21.00 ft.

Pavement slope 1:0 To 1
Pavement thickness: 0.333
Pour Space of Pavement: 0.2
Material thickness of second layer: 0.75
Pour Space of material for second layer: 0.4
Material thickness of third layer: 0
Pour Space of material for third layer: 0
Infiltration On
Infiltration rate: 0.3
Infiltration reduction factor: 0.5
Total Volume Infiltrated (ac-ft.): 21.995
Total Volume Through Riser (ac-ft.): 0.224
Total Volume Through Facility (ac-ft.): 22.219
Percent Infiltrated: 98.99
Total Precip Applied to Facility: 0
Total Evap From Facility: 0.549
Discharge Structure
Riser Height: 2.08 ft.

Riser Diameter: 252 in.

Notch Type: Rectangular
Notch Width: 5.000 ft.

Notch Height: 0.497 ft.

Element Outlets:

Outlet 1 Outlet 2
Outlet Flows To:

Permeable Pavement Hydraulic Table
Stage(feet) Area(ac.) Volume(ac-ft.) Discharge(cfs) Infilt(cfs)

0.0000 0.075 0.000 0.000 0.000

0.0231 0.075 0.000 0.000 0.011

0.0462 0.075 0.001 0.000 0.011

0.0693 0.075 0.002 0.000 0.011

0.0924 0.075 0.002 0.000 0.011

0.1156 0.075 0.003 0.000 0.011

0.1387 0.075 0.004 0.000 0.011

0.1618 0.075 0.004 0.000 0.011

0.1849 0.075 0.005 0.000 0.011

0.2080 0.075 0.006 0.000 0.011

0.2311 0.075 0.007 0.000 0.011

0.2542 0.075 0.007 0.000 0.011

0.2773 0.075 0.008 0.000 0.011

0.3004 0.075 0.009 0.000 0.011

0.3236 0.075 0.009 0.000 0.011

0.3467 0.075 0.010 0.000 0.011

0.3698 0.075 0.011 0.000 0.011

0.3929 0.075 0.011 0.000 0.011

0.4160 0.075 0.012 0.000 0.011

0.4391 0.075 0.013 0.000 0.011

0.4622 0.075 0.013 0.000 0.011

0.4853 0.075 0.014 0.000 0.011

0.5084 0.075 0.015 0.000 0.011

0.5316 0.075 0.016 0.000 0.011

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 53

0.5547 0.075 0.016 0.000 0.011

0.5778 0.075 0.017 0.000 0.011

0.6009 0.075 0.018 0.000 0.011

0.6240 0.075 0.018 0.000 0.011

0.6471 0.075 0.019 0.000 0.011

0.6702 0.075 0.020 0.000 0.011

0.6933 0.075 0.020 0.000 0.011

0.7164 0.075 0.021 0.000 0.011

0.7396 0.075 0.022 0.000 0.011

0.7627 0.075 0.022 0.000 0.011

0.7858 0.075 0.022 0.000 0.011

0.8089 0.075 0.023 0.000 0.011

0.8320 0.075 0.023 0.000 0.011

0.8551 0.075 0.024 0.000 0.011

0.8782 0.075 0.024 0.000 0.011

0.9013 0.075 0.024 0.000 0.011

0.9244 0.075 0.025 0.000 0.011

0.9476 0.075 0.025 0.000 0.011

0.9707 0.075 0.025 0.000 0.011

0.9938 0.075 0.026 0.000 0.011

1.0169 0.075 0.026 0.000 0.011

1.0400 0.075 0.026 0.000 0.011

1.0631 0.075 0.027 0.000 0.011

1.0862 0.075 0.028 0.000 0.011

1.1093 0.075 0.030 0.000 0.011

1.1324 0.075 0.032 0.000 0.011

1.1556 0.075 0.034 0.000 0.011

1.1787 0.075 0.035 0.000 0.011

1.2018 0.075 0.037 0.000 0.011

1.2249 0.075 0.039 0.000 0.011

1.2480 0.075 0.041 0.000 0.011

1.2711 0.075 0.042 0.000 0.011

1.2942 0.075 0.044 0.000 0.011

1.3173 0.075 0.046 0.000 0.011

1.3404 0.075 0.048 0.000 0.011

1.3636 0.075 0.049 0.000 0.011

1.3867 0.075 0.051 0.000 0.011

1.4098 0.075 0.053 0.000 0.011

1.4329 0.075 0.054 0.000 0.011

1.4560 0.075 0.056 0.000 0.011

1.4791 0.075 0.058 0.000 0.011

1.5022 0.075 0.060 0.000 0.011

1.5253 0.075 0.061 0.000 0.011

1.5484 0.075 0.063 0.000 0.011

1.5716 0.075 0.065 0.000 0.011

1.5947 0.075 0.067 0.021 0.011

1.6178 0.075 0.068 0.108 0.011

1.6409 0.075 0.070 0.231 0.011

1.6640 0.075 0.072 0.383 0.011

1.6871 0.075 0.074 0.559 0.011

1.7102 0.075 0.075 0.755 0.011

1.7333 0.075 0.077 0.970 0.011

1.7564 0.075 0.079 1.202 0.011

1.7796 0.075 0.081 1.450 0.011

1.8027 0.075 0.082 1.714 0.011

1.8258 0.075 0.084 1.991 0.011

1.8489 0.075 0.086 2.282 0.011

1.8720 0.075 0.087 2.586 0.011

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 54

1.8951 0.075 0.089 2.903 0.011

1.9182 0.075 0.091 3.231 0.011

1.9413 0.075 0.093 3.571 0.011

1.9644 0.075 0.094 3.922 0.011

1.9876 0.075 0.096 4.284 0.011

2.0107 0.075 0.098 4.656 0.011

2.0338 0.075 0.100 5.039 0.011

2.0569 0.075 0.101 5.431 0.011

2.0800 0.075 0.103 5.833 0.011

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 55 Analysis Results
POC 1
+ Pre-Project x Mitigated
Pre-Project Landuse Totals for POC #1
Total Pervious Area: 14.8751
Total Impervious Area: 0.0046
Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #1
Total Pervious Area: 12.3867
Total Impervious Area: 2.508093
Flow Frequency Method: Weibull
Flow Frequency Return Periods for Pre-Project. POC #1
Return Period Flow(cfs)
2 year 8.86219
5 year 13.810125
10 year 16.1301
25 year 23.351553
Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1
Return Period Flow(cfs)
2 year 6.99226
5 year 10.835944
10 year 12.610544
25 year 17.774469
Annual Peaks
Annual Peaks for Pre-Project and Mitigated. POC #1
Year Pre-Project Mitigated
1960 4.930 4.191
1961 3.098 2.690
1962 9.369 7.527
1963 10.306 8.534
1964 13.785 10.854
1965 6.373 5.299
1966 3.503 3.132
1967 10.273 8.184
1968 14.284 11.272
1969 8.311 6.708
1970 9.537 7.632
1971 8.467 6.788
1972 3.295 2.857
1973 10.927 8.607

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:01:16 PM Page 56 1974 7.829 6.259
1975 8.737 6.916
1976 0.145 0.382
1977 1.593 1.607
1978 7.266 5.892
1979 9.009 7.181
1980 11.521 9.103
1981 4.309 3.678
1982 13.919 10.832
1983 10.557 8.450
1984 5.977 4.759
1985 12.417 9.833
1986 10.507 8.354
1987 4.043 3.509
1988 7.001 5.737
1989 3.093 2.563
1990 5.548 4.697
1991 7.111 5.786
1992 10.105 8.058
1993 10.238 8.119
1994 7.039 5.721
1995 8.457 6.821
1996 16.653 12.825
1997 8.220 6.632
1998 8.862 6.992
1999 3.926 3.248
2000 8.100 6.509
2001 2.814 2.358
2002 1.740 1.655
2003 15.130 11.708
2004 26.274 19.963
2005 10.965 8.485
2006 7.023 5.586
2007 4.244 3.589
2008 9.163 7.377
2009 14.200 11.129
2010 18.664 14.288
2011 11.409 8.839
2012 10.868 8.558
2013 27.364 20.977
2014 16.208 12.697
2015 16.030 12.499
2016 15.331 11.982
2017 21.821 16.628
2018 3.994 3.485
2019 8.565 6.918
2020 12.321 9.561
2021 7.547 6.178
2022 11.853 9.277
Ranked Annual Peaks
Ranked Annual Peaks for Pre-Project and Mitigated. POC #1 Rank Pre-Project Mitigated
1 27.3640 20.9769
2 26.2739 19.9628
3 21.8208 16.6282
4 18.6638 14.2881
5 16.6533 12.8250

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:01:16 PM Page 57 6 16.2078 12.6973
7 16.0302 12.4990
8 15.3306 11.9817
9 15.1303 11.7076
10 14.2843 11.2715
11 14.2000 11.1291
12 13.9190 10.8539
13 13.7850 10.8318
14 12.4169 9.8326
15 12.3208 9.5607
16 11.8533 9.2766
17 11.5212 9.1034
18 11.4093 8.8394
19 10.9651 8.6074
20 10.9270 8.5584
21 10.8680 8.5344
22 10.5568 8.4850
23 10.5065 8.4499
24 10.3055 8.3542
25 10.2729 8.1842
26 10.2378 8.1188
27 10.1050 8.0582
28 9.5371 7.6317
29 9.3694 7.5267
30 9.1625 7.3768
31 9.0094 7.1805
32 8.8622 6.9923
33 8.7367 6.9183
34 8.5647 6.9165
35 8.4674 6.8211
36 8.4568 6.7876
37 8.3107 6.7081
38 8.2201 6.6319
39 8.0997 6.5086
40 7.8295 6.2590
41 7.5470 6.1776
42 7.2661 5.8915
43 7.1112 5.7858
44 7.0387 5.7374
45 7.0228 5.7209
46 7.0013 5.5859
47 6.3727 5.2989
48 5.9773 4.7592
49 5.5479 4.6967
50 4.9300 4.1907
51 4.3089 3.6778
52 4.2444 3.5888
53 4.0433 3.5089
54 3.9935 3.4846
55 3.9260 3.2481
56 3.5027 3.1316
57 3.2951 2.8570
58 3.0984 2.6898
59 3.0929 2.5634
60 2.8145 2.3576
61 1.7395 1.6549
62 1.5933 1.6075
63 0.1447 0.3825

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:01:16 PM Page 58 Page 785 ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:01:16 PM Page 59 Duration Flows
The Facility PASSED
Flow(cfs) Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fail

0.8862 2875 2936 102 Pass

1.0402 2560 2514 98 Pass

1.1942 2253 2146 95 Pass

1.3482 1985 1891 95 Pass

1.5021 1747 1661 95 Pass

1.6561 1563 1448 92 Pass

1.8101 1426 1290 90 Pass

1.9641 1285 1143 88 Pass

2.1180 1177 1039 88 Pass

2.2720 1065 925 86 Pass

2.4260 973 823 84 Pass

2.5800 881 747 84 Pass

2.7340 815 683 83 Pass

2.8879 749 622 83 Pass

3.0419 712 559 78 Pass

3.1959 661 512 77 Pass

3.3499 613 468 76 Pass

3.5039 573 428 74 Pass

3.6578 529 389 73 Pass

3.8118 494 357 72 Pass

3.9658 458 320 69 Pass

4.1198 422 295 69 Pass

4.2737 394 273 69 Pass

4.4277 374 255 68 Pass

4.5817 347 236 68 Pass

4.7357 318 215 67 Pass

4.8897 297 205 69 Pass

5.0436 285 201 70 Pass

5.1976 265 189 71 Pass

5.3516 253 177 69 Pass

5.5056 237 169 71 Pass

5.6596 222 156 70 Pass

5.8135 213 141 66 Pass

5.9675 205 129 62 Pass

6.1215 200 127 63 Pass

6.2755 193 116 60 Pass

6.4294 183 110 60 Pass

6.5834 176 103 58 Pass

6.7374 167 95 56 Pass

6.8914 162 86 53 Pass

7.0454 150 79 52 Pass

7.1993 142 75 52 Pass

7.3533 131 73 55 Pass

7.5073 128 69 53 Pass

7.6613 119 64 53 Pass

7.8153 119 62 52 Pass

7.9692 112 59 52 Pass

8.1232 104 50 48 Pass

8.2772 100 47 47 Pass

8.4312 93 41 44 Pass

8.5851 84 35 41 Pass

8.7391 80 33 41 Pass

8.8931 78 30 38 Pass

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:01:16 PM Page 60

9.0471 73 29 39 Pass

9.2011 72 27 37 Pass

9.3550 69 26 37 Pass

9.5090 66 26 39 Pass

9.6630 64 24 37 Pass

9.8170 61 23 37 Pass

9.9710 58 21 36 Pass

10.1249 55 21 38 Pass

10.2789 51 19 37 Pass

10.4329 45 18 40 Pass

10.5869 41 17 41 Pass

10.7408 38 17 44 Pass

10.8948 36 14 38 Pass

11.0488 33 14 42 Pass

11.2028 32 11 34 Pass

11.3568 30 10 33 Pass

11.5107 29 10 34 Pass

11.6647 28 10 35 Pass

11.8187 27 9 33 Pass

11.9727 25 9 36 Pass

12.1267 24 8 33 Pass

12.2806 24 8 33 Pass

12.4346 22 8 36 Pass

12.5886 20 7 35 Pass

12.7426 20 6 30 Pass

12.8965 20 5 25 Pass

13.0505 19 4 21 Pass

13.2045 18 4 22 Pass

13.3585 18 4 22 Pass

13.5125 18 4 22 Pass

13.6664 17 4 23 Pass

13.8204 16 4 25 Pass

13.9744 14 4 28 Pass

14.1284 14 4 28 Pass

14.2824 11 4 36 Pass

14.4363 10 3 30 Pass

14.5903 10 3 30 Pass

14.7443 10 3 30 Pass

14.8983 10 3 30 Pass

15.0522 10 3 30 Pass

15.2062 9 3 33 Pass

15.3602 8 3 37 Pass

15.5142 8 3 37 Pass

15.6682 8 3 37 Pass

15.8221 8 3 37 Pass

15.9761 8 3 37 Pass

16.1301 7 3 42 Pass

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:01:16 PM Page 61 Water Quality

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:01:16 PM Page 62 POC 2
+ Pre-Project x Mitigated
Pre-Project Landuse Totals for POC #2
Total Pervious Area: 2.6829
Total Impervious Area: 0
Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #2
Total Pervious Area: 2.5729
Total Impervious Area: 0
Flow Frequency Method: Weibull
Flow Frequency Return Periods for Pre-Project. POC #2
Return Period Flow(cfs)
2 year 1.60657
5 year 2.502204
10 year 2.932572
25 year 4.227573
Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #2
Return Period Flow(cfs)
2 year 1.5407
5 year 2.399613
10 year 2.812342
25 year 4.054243
Annual Peaks
Annual Peaks for Pre-Project and Mitigated. POC #2
Year Pre-Project Mitigated
1960 0.895 0.858
1961 0.564 0.540
1962 1.697 1.627
1963 1.862 1.786
1964 2.499 2.396
1965 1.173 1.125
1966 0.639 0.613
1967 1.857 1.781
1968 2.583 2.477
1969 1.501 1.440
1970 1.726 1.655
1971 1.548 1.484
1972 0.600 0.576
1973 1.979 1.898
1974 1.417 1.359

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:01:48 PM Page 63 1975 1.583 1.518
1976 0.027 0.026
1977 0.295 0.283
1978 1.315 1.261
1979 1.634 1.567
1980 2.080 1.995
1981 0.791 0.758
1982 2.517 2.414
1983 1.906 1.828
1984 1.088 1.043
1985 2.260 2.167
1986 1.898 1.820
1987 0.738 0.707
1988 1.270 1.218
1989 0.563 0.540
1990 1.023 0.981
1991 1.304 1.250
1992 1.826 1.751
1993 1.855 1.779
1994 1.294 1.241
1995 1.526 1.464
1996 3.012 2.889
1997 1.485 1.424
1998 1.607 1.541
1999 0.712 0.683
2000 1.469 1.409
2001 0.513 0.492
2002 0.323 0.310
2003 2.742 2.630
2004 4.755 4.560
2005 1.987 1.905
2006 1.294 1.241
2007 0.773 0.741
2008 1.660 1.592
2009 2.567 2.462
2010 3.378 3.240
2011 2.067 1.982
2012 1.970 1.889
2013 4.954 4.751
2014 2.960 2.839
2015 2.897 2.779
2016 2.770 2.656
2017 3.951 3.789
2018 0.728 0.698
2019 1.552 1.488
2020 2.241 2.149
2021 1.374 1.317
2022 2.150 2.062
Ranked Annual Peaks
Ranked Annual Peaks for Pre-Project and Mitigated. POC #2 Rank Pre-Project Mitigated
1 4.9543 4.7512
2 4.7547 4.5597
3 3.9515 3.7895
4 3.3783 3.2398
5 3.0121 2.8886
6 2.9599 2.8385

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:01:48 PM Page 64 7 2.8975 2.7787
8 2.7696 2.6561
9 2.7423 2.6299
10 2.5827 2.4768
11 2.5670 2.4617
12 2.5169 2.4137
13 2.4988 2.3964
14 2.2598 2.1672
15 2.2413 2.1494
16 2.1502 2.0620
17 2.0798 1.9945
18 2.0672 1.9824
19 1.9867 1.9053
20 1.9794 1.8983
21 1.9698 1.8890
22 1.9060 1.8278
23 1.8977 1.8199
24 1.8624 1.7860
25 1.8571 1.7810
26 1.8551 1.7790
27 1.8261 1.7513
28 1.7258 1.6551
29 1.6966 1.6271
30 1.6601 1.5920
31 1.6341 1.5671
32 1.6066 1.5407
33 1.5826 1.5177
34 1.5518 1.4882
35 1.5477 1.4842
36 1.5262 1.4636
37 1.5014 1.4398
38 1.4847 1.4238
39 1.4694 1.4092
40 1.4170 1.3589
41 1.3737 1.3174
42 1.3149 1.2610
43 1.3036 1.2502
44 1.2940 1.2409
45 1.2939 1.2409
46 1.2696 1.2175
47 1.1728 1.1247
48 1.0881 1.0435
49 1.0226 0.9807
50 0.8952 0.8585
51 0.7908 0.7583
52 0.7730 0.7413
53 0.7377 0.7075
54 0.7275 0.6977
55 0.7121 0.6829
56 0.6389 0.6127
57 0.6004 0.5758
58 0.5636 0.5405
59 0.5634 0.5403
60 0.5131 0.4921
61 0.3234 0.3102
62 0.2952 0.2831
63 0.0274 0.0262

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:01:48 PM Page 65 Page 792 ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:01:48 PM Page 66 Duration Flows
The Facility PASSED
Flow(cfs) Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fail

0.1607 2902 2833 97 Pass

0.1887 2586 2494 96 Pass

0.2167 2272 2168 95 Pass

0.2447 2005 1911 95 Pass

0.2727 1759 1682 95 Pass

0.3007 1572 1504 95 Pass

0.3287 1435 1365 95 Pass

0.3567 1298 1220 93 Pass

0.3847 1179 1125 95 Pass

0.4126 1071 1015 94 Pass

0.4406 974 914 93 Pass

0.4686 880 836 95 Pass

0.4966 816 765 93 Pass

0.5246 752 724 96 Pass

0.5526 713 667 93 Pass

0.5806 661 621 93 Pass

0.6086 614 577 93 Pass

0.6366 574 532 92 Pass

0.6646 531 492 92 Pass

0.6926 492 455 92 Pass

0.7206 458 423 92 Pass

0.7486 425 391 92 Pass

0.7766 394 367 93 Pass

0.8046 374 336 89 Pass

0.8326 344 310 90 Pass

0.8606 316 292 92 Pass

0.8886 297 273 91 Pass

0.9166 285 263 92 Pass

0.9446 266 245 92 Pass

0.9726 253 231 91 Pass

1.0006 237 217 91 Pass

1.0286 223 207 92 Pass

1.0566 210 201 95 Pass

1.0846 205 197 96 Pass

1.1126 200 187 93 Pass

1.1406 193 177 91 Pass

1.1686 185 167 90 Pass

1.1966 174 164 94 Pass

1.2246 166 151 90 Pass

1.2526 160 142 88 Pass

1.2806 151 131 86 Pass

1.3086 140 126 90 Pass

1.3366 131 119 90 Pass

1.3646 126 117 92 Pass

1.3926 119 110 92 Pass

1.4206 118 104 88 Pass

1.4486 110 97 88 Pass

1.4766 104 90 86 Pass

1.5046 98 83 84 Pass

1.5326 92 79 85 Pass

1.5606 83 76 91 Pass

1.5886 79 73 92 Pass

1.6166 77 70 90 Pass

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:01:48 PM Page 67

1.6446 73 66 90 Pass

1.6726 71 64 90 Pass

1.7006 68 62 91 Pass

1.7286 65 58 89 Pass

1.7566 64 55 85 Pass

1.7846 61 50 81 Pass

1.8126 57 46 80 Pass

1.8406 54 41 75 Pass

1.8686 48 37 77 Pass

1.8966 45 36 80 Pass

1.9246 41 33 80 Pass

1.9526 37 32 86 Pass

1.9806 35 30 85 Pass

2.0086 33 28 84 Pass

2.0366 32 27 84 Pass

2.0646 30 25 83 Pass

2.0926 28 24 85 Pass

2.1206 27 24 88 Pass

2.1486 27 24 88 Pass

2.1766 25 21 84 Pass

2.2046 24 20 83 Pass

2.2326 24 20 83 Pass

2.2606 21 19 90 Pass

2.2886 20 18 90 Pass

2.3166 20 18 90 Pass

2.3446 20 18 90 Pass

2.3726 19 17 89 Pass

2.4006 18 16 88 Pass

2.4286 18 14 77 Pass

2.4566 17 14 82 Pass

2.4846 17 10 58 Pass

2.5126 15 10 66 Pass

2.5406 14 10 71 Pass

2.5686 13 10 76 Pass

2.5966 10 10 100 Pass

2.6246 10 10 100 Pass

2.6526 10 9 90 Pass

2.6806 10 8 80 Pass

2.7086 10 8 80 Pass

2.7366 10 8 80 Pass

2.7646 9 8 88 Pass

2.7926 8 7 87 Pass

2.8206 8 7 87 Pass

2.8486 8 5 62 Pass

2.8766 8 5 62 Pass

2.9046 7 4 57 Pass

2.9326 7 4 57 Pass

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:01:48 PM Page 68 Water Quality

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:01:48 PM Page 69 Model Default Modifications
Total of 0 changes have been made.

PERLND Changes
No PERLND changes have been made.

IMPLND Changes
No IMPLND changes have been made.

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:01:49 PM Page 70 Appendix
Pre-Project Schematic

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:01:51 PM Page 71 Mitigated Schematic

ITEM NO. 1.
224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:01:52 PM Page 72 Disclaimer
Legal Notice
This program and accompanying documentation are provided 'as-is' without warranty of any kind.The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by End User. Clear Creek Solutions Inc. and the governmental licensee or sublicensees disclaim all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions Inc, Applied Marine SciencesIncorporated, the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, EOA Incorporated, member agencies of the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program, member agencies of the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program, member agencies of the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program or any other LOU Participants or authorized representatives of LOU Participants be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information,business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this programeven if Clear Creek Solutions Inc., Applied Marine Sciences Incorporated, the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, EOA Incorporated or any member agencies of the LOU Participants or their authorized representatives have been advised of the possibility of such damages. Software Copyright © by Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 2005-2025; All Rights Reserved.

Clear Creek Solutions, Inc.
6200 Capitol Blvd. Ste F
Olympia, WA. 98501
Toll Free 1(866)943-0304
Local (360)943-0304
www.clearcreeksolutions.com

ITEM NO. 1.

BAHM October 2024 Zip File
(Attached to email)

ITEM NO. 1.

Errata Sheet
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

INTRODUCTION
This Errata presents, in strike-through and double-underline format, the revisions to the Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). The revisions to the IS/MND reflected in this Errata do not affect the adequacy of the previous environmental analysis contained in the Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project IS/MND.

Because the changes presented below would not result in any new significant impacts or increase in impact significance from what was identified in the IS/MND, recirculation of the Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project IS/MND is not required.

CHANGES TO IS/MND
The following revision is hereby made to page 16 of the IS/MND:

Architecture and Site Plan Review
The Town’s Building Division Community Development Department is responsible for a plan review of all new construction, additions, and remodels for both commercial and residential properties, as well as construction inspection services for projects including electrical, plumbing and mechanical installations. Plan review ensures compliance with applicable State and local codes, policies, guidelines, and standards of all residential and commercial structures within the Town limits, including the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. As described in the Town’s Code, the purpose of Architecture and Site Plan Review through the Planning Division is to regulate the height, width, shape, proportion, siting, exterior construction and design of buildings to ensure that they are architecturally compatible with their surroundings. Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code lists the matters that the Town must consider when reviewing applications for Architecture and Site Approval. The Town’s review is limited to objective standards only, pursuant to SB 330 and Builder’s Remedy.

Mitigation Measure III-1 on page 35 of the IS/MND is hereby revised as follows as part of staffinitiated changes:

III-1 The project applicant shall show on Improvement Plans via notation that the project contractor shall restrict the construction of the off-site sidewalk improvements along the north side of Blossom Hill Road between Regent Drive and Union Avenue and along the north side of Fisher Avenue between Mitchell Avenue and Roberts Road from occurring simultaneously with the on-site construction of the proposed project.

Alternatively, if simultaneous construction of the on-site and off-site components of the proposed project cannot be avoided, prior to the initiation of ground disturbance associated with the off-site sidewalk improvements, the project applicant shall show on project improvement plans via notation the following requirements:

ERRATA SHEET
EXHIBIT 14

ITEM NO. 1.

Errata Sheet
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

 The contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower to be used in the construction of the off-site sidewalk improvements, including owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles, shall be Tier 4 final off-road construction equipment. In addition, all off-road equipment operating at the offsite construction site must be maintained in proper working condition according to manufacturer’s specifications.
 Idling shall be limited to five minutes or less in accordance with the In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation as required by CARB. Clear signage regarding idling restrictions shall be placed at the entrances to the construction site.
 Portable equipment over 50 horsepower must have either a valid BAAQMD Permit to Operate (PTO) or a valid statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP) placard and sticker issued by CARB.

Conformance with the foregoing requirements shall be confirmed through review and approval of plans by the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Parks and Public Works Department.

Pages 48 and 49 of the IS/MND is hereby revised as follows:

The on-site ephemeral drainage with swales was determined not to be considered jurisdictional water of the U.S. or the State. Nonetheless, aAs shown in Figure 3, the proposed project would be designed to incorporate a minimum 10-foot buffer between the proposed development and the vegetation surrounding the ephemeral drainage. As such, the ephemeral drainage with swales would not be directly impacted by the proposed project. Similarly, as discussed above, the proposed project would retain the 100- to 110- foot flood easement between the development footprint and Ross Creek. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the disturbance of any on-site wetlands.

Mitigation Measure IV-9 on page 50 of the IS/MND is hereby revised as follows as part of staffinitiated changes:

Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level.

IV-910 Prior to the start of construction activities, the applicant shall comply with the Town of Los Gatos Tree Protection Ordinance and a tree removal permit shall be obtained from the Town for the removal of any on-site trees that qualify as a protected tree. If the trees proposed for removal are found to be in good condition, and the tree removal permit is granted primarily for the convenience of the applicant, then the full cost and responsibility of such removal shall be borne by the applicant, including planting of replacement trees. According to the Tree Mitigation and Protection Plan prepared for the proposed project, the project would not meet the required on-site tree replacement requirement; thus, the project applicant shall pay the appropriate in-lieu fees, pursuant to the requirements of Division II of Chapter 29.10 of the Town’s Municipal Code. The above noted requirements shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Town of Los Gatos Parks and Public Works Department Planning Division.

ITEM NO. 1.

Errata Sheet
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

As discussed above, mixed oak woodland is present throughout the project site, some of which would be impacted by the proposed development. In order to determine if on-site trees proposed for removal qualify for protection under the provisions of the Town’s Municipal Code, an Arborist Report was prepared for the site by McClintock Landscape Horticultural Services (McClintock) (see Appendix C), which has been peer reviewed by Monarch Consulting Arborists. During a site tree survey conducted of the project site, the Arborist Report identified 603 673 on-site trees measuring four inches or greater in diameter at breast height (DBH), consisting of 26 species. According to the Arborist Report, 546 630 of the on-site trees qualify for protection under the Town’s Tree Protection Ordinance.

According to the Tree Mitigation and Protection Plan prepared for the proposed project, 223 protected trees would be removed, which would require a total of 551 replacement trees to be planted on-site, pursuant to the Town of Los Gatos Tree Protection Ordinance.

A total of 85 trees are proposed to be planted on-site, which would not meet the on-site tree replacement requirements (see Figure 8 and Figure 9). Thus, payment of in-lieu fees consistent with Division II of Chapter 29.10 of the Town’s Municipal Code would be required to mitigate for the shortfall in on-site tree replacement.

g. Issues related to wildfire hazards are discussed in Section XX, Wildfire, of this IS/MND. As noted therein, the project site is not located within a State Responsibility Area (SRA). However, the site is located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ).1
Mitigation Measure X-1 on page 74 of the IS/MND is hereby revised as follows:

X-1 Prior to any ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant shall prepare and submit a final erosion and sediment control plan for review and approval by the Town of Los Gatos Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department. A Notice of Intent (NOI) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be submitted to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. A maximum of two weeks is allowed between clearing of an area and stabilizing/building on an area if grading is allowed during the rainy season. Prior to any ground disturbance, the on-site aquatic features (i.e., the ephemeral drainage/drainage swale and Ross Creek) shall be flagged by a qualified biologist with highly visible flagging tape, or similar, to clearly demarcate the limits of the aquatic features, and interim erosion control measures shall be installed around the aquatic features, at a minimum. The project applicant shall submit a letter to the Town prepared by the qualified biologist confirming completion of the flagging for review and approval prior to commencement of any ground disturbance. Interim erosion control measures, to be carried out during construction and before installation of the final landscaping, shall be included. Interim erosion control methods shall include, but are not limited to: silt fences, fiber rolls (with locations and details), erosion control blankets, Town standard seeding specification, filter berms, check dams, retention basins, etc. The project 1 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Santa Clara County: State Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Effective April 1, 2024.

ITEM NO. 1.

Errata Sheet
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025

contractor shall provide erosion control measures as needed to protect downstream water quality during winter months. The grading, drainage, erosion control plan and SWPPP shall be prepared in compliance with applicable measures contained in the amended provisions C.3 and C.14 of most current Santa Clara County National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Regional Permit (MRP).

Monitoring for erosion and sediment control is required and shall be performed by the Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD) or Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP) as required by the Construction General Permit.

Stormwater samples are required for all discharge locations and projects may not exceed limits set forth by the Construction General Permit Numeric Action Levels and/or Numeric Effluent Levels. A Rain Event Action Plan (REAP) shall be developed 48 hours prior to any likely precipitation event, defined by a 50 percent or greater probability as determined by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and/or whenever rain is imminent. The QSD or QSP must print and save records of the precipitation forecast for the project location area from (https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/) which shall accompany monitoring reports and sampling test data. A rain gauge is required on-site. The Town of Los Gatos Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department and the Building Department shall conduct periodic NPDES inspections of the site throughout the recognized storm season to verify compliance with the Construction General Permit and Stormwater ordinances and regulations.

Furthermore, as discussed above, following project development, stormwater runoff from each on-site DMA would be directed into an associated bioretention area located adjacent to each lot, which would be lined with an impermeable liner. Following on-site treatment, stormwater flows would be metered out into the existing 27- and 36-inch storm drains located north and west of the site, respectively. The proposed on-site stormwater infrastructure would be sized to meet Provision C.3.g of the County’s Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES permit (MRP), which requires new development to manage stormwater flows such that post-development runoff does not exceed pre-project runoff rates and durations.

In order to calculate the project’s ability to meet flow-duration frequency requirements while also meeting the required water quality treatment standards, a Bay Area Hydrology Model (BAHM) report was prepared for the proposed project by Balance Hydrologics.2 As discussed therein, site runoff would be directed to one of nine proposed bioretention basins that provide both water quality treatment and flow-duration control. Each bioretention area has been designed in accordance with the standard design criteria outlined in the C.3 Stormwater Handbook. Specifically, each basin was modeled with six inches of surface ponding, 18 inches of biotreatment soil media, and 12 inches of drain rock. A four-inch underdrain would collect the treated water, which would then be metered through a twoinch orifice integrated into the storm drain overflow structure. The two-inch orifice is required to meet the hydromodification management criteria. The modeling conducted as part of the BAHM report showed that the basins would biofilter an approximate average of 90 percent of the mean annual runoff. Such filtration rates are well in excess of the minimum 80 percent required by the MRP. As such, the BAHM report concluded that the proposed stormwater management facilities would provide effective water-quality 2 Balance Hydrologics. Summary of BAHM Modeling for the Surrey Farm Project, Town of Los Gatos. July 31, 2025.