ITEM NO. 1.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
15 June 2026
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SURREY FARMS ESTATES SUBDIVISION PROJECT
Item
Number Checklist Question Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule
SignOff
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
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
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
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.
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
16 June 2026
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SURREY FARMS ESTATES SUBDIVISION PROJECT
Item
Number Checklist Question Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule
SignOff
direct or indirect risks to
life or property?
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 stream 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 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
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
17 June 2026
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SURREY FARMS ESTATES SUBDIVISION PROJECT
Item
Number Checklist Question Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule
SignOff
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 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.
ITEM NO. 1.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
18 June 2026
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SURREY FARMS ESTATES SUBDIVISION PROJECT
Item
Number Checklist Question Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule
SignOff
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
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
ITEM NO. 1.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
19 June 2026
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SURREY FARMS ESTATES SUBDIVISION PROJECT
Item
Number Checklist Question Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule
SignOff
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
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.
Town of Los
Gatos
Town Engineer
Concurrent with
submittal of final
project improvement
plans
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
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
20 June 2026
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SURREY FARMS ESTATES SUBDIVISION PROJECT
Item
Number Checklist Question Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule
SignOff
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
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 Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
INTRODUCTION
This Responses to Comments document contains comments received during the public review period of the Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Recirculated 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 Recirculated IS/MND: a Notice of Completion of the Recirculated IS/MND was posted with the State Clearinghouse on April 17, 2026. The Recirculated 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 Recirculated 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 May 18, 2026.
LIST OF COMMENTERS
The Town of Los Gatos received 13 comment letters during the public review period of the Recirculated IS/MND for the proposed project. The comment letters were received from the following agencies, groups, and individuals, and are included in the Responses to Comments section below:
Agencies
Letter 1 ................................................................. Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Letter 2 ...................................San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Groups
Letter 3 ......................................................................Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance (SCVBA) and Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter (SCLP)
Individuals
Letter 4 ................................................................................................................ Jill Fordyce (1 of 2) Letter 5 ................................................................................................................ Jill Fordyce (2 of 2) Letter 6 ...........................................................................................................Lotfi and Monica Herzi Letter 7 ................................................................................................................................ Jim Lyon Letter 8 ....................................................................................................William and Kathy Meleyco
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
EXHIBIT 40
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 9 ..................................................................................................................George Montanari Letter 10 ......................................................................................................................Philip Shanker Letter 11 ................................................................................................................ Camas Steinmetz Letter 12 ........................................................................................................ Jon and Marsha Witkin Letter 13 .....................................................................................................................Grant Zamudio
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
The Responses to Comments below include each comment letter received regarding the Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Recirculated 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.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 1
1-1
1-2
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
1-2
cont.
1-3
1-4
Letter 1, cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
1-4
cont.
1-5
Letter 1, cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 1, cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
LETTER 1: DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL
Response to Comment 1-1
The comment does not address the adequacy of the Recirculated IS/MND.
Response to Comment 1-2
As stated on page 74 of the Recirculated IS/MND, the site has not been subject to past development or agricultural use. Therefore, the project site has not been subject to a past use that is associated with the presence of hazardous materials, such as those mentioned in the comment, and such materials are unlikely to be present on-site.
Response to Comment 1-3
Mitigation Measure VII-1, set forth on page 69 of the Recirculated IS/MND, ensures that the engineering recommendations included in the site-specific Geotechnical and Geologic Hazard Investigation (GGHI) prepared for the proposed project by Cornerstone Earth Group (Cornerstone) are adequately incorporated. Section 6.8.2 of the GGHI includes recommendations related to soil import similar to those noted in the comment.
Response to Comment 1-4
Please see Response to Comment 1-2.
Response to Comment 1-5
The comment is conclusionary and does not address the adequacy of the Recirculated IS/MND.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 2
2-1
2-2
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 2, cont.
2-2, cont.
2-4
2-3
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 2, cont.
2-4, cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 2, cont.
2-4, cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
LETTER 2: SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
CONTROL BOARD
Response to Comment 2-1
The comment is introductory and presents the history of the commenter’s letters provided on the various CEQA documentation for the project site and summarizes their concerns presented in more detail within the remainder of the letter. Please see Responses to Comments 2-2 through 2-4 for detailed responses to each of the commenter’s specific concerns.
Response to Comment 2-2
Please see Response to Comment 2-4.
Response to Comment 2-3
According to Live Oak Associates (LOA), the RWQCB uses an atypical and distinct, more inclusive definition of riparian vegetation. As noted on page 51, the Recirculated IS/MND relies on a more typical definition of riparian vegetation sourced from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The full definition is as follows:
Riparian areas are plant communities contiguous to and affected by surface and subsurface hydrologic features of perennial or intermittent lotic and lentic water bodies (rivers, streams, lakes, or drainage ways). Riparian areas are usually transitional between wetland and upland. Riparian areas have one or both of the following characteristics:
1. distinctly different vegetative species than adjacent areas.
2. species similar to adjacent areas but exhibiting more vigorous or robust growth forms.
While a small area of the ephemeral stream (approximately 100 to 150 feet) at the terminus of the stream would be impacted by the project, no shrubs or trees along the length of the on-site ephemeral stream would be impacted. In other words, only upland herbaceous vegetation, away from the ephemeral stream, within the proposed development areas, would be impacted by the project. Therefore, even under the RWQCB’s more inclusive riparian definition, the conclusions presented in the Recirculated IS/MND would not change, as all of the shrubs and trees (e.g., RWQCB riparian) along the ephemeral stream would be retained after project buildout.
Response to Comment 2-4
The commenter states in part that “The Recirculated ISMND lacks concrete proposals for mitigation. Therefore, the Recirculated ISMND fails to demonstrate that the project’s impacts to waters of the State can be mitigated to less than significant levels.” This statement reflects the commenter’s professional opinion, which the Town respectfully acknowledges, but it does not reflect the CEQA Guidelines, for reasons articulated in the leading publication on CEQA practice, Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act, as follows:1 The need to defer formulation of the specifics of a mitigation measure often arises when a regulatory agency will be issuing a permit or other approval for a project and can be expected to impose mitigation requirements independent of CEQA as a condition of approval. These requirements are ordinarily worked out through a consultation and 1 Stephen L. Kostka and Linda C. Klein. Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act, Volume 1. CEB:
March 2026 Update, Section 14.12.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
approval process that takes place after the EIR is completed. In such situations, it is often desirable to defer formulation of the specifics of mitigation measures so that they can be designed to meet the regulatory agency’s requirements while also providing adequate mitigation under CEQA. When it is anticipated that a regulatory agency will impose its own mitigation requirements on a project, formulation of the details of mitigation measures identified in an EIR may be deferred if the EIR requires regulatory agency review, identifies methods the agency will consider for mitigating the impact, and indicates the expected outcome.
The preceding demonstrates that Mitigation Measures IV-10 and IV-11 of the Recirculated IS/MND are adequate pursuant to CEQA as they recognize the role that the regulatory agencies will play in determining specific mitigation requirements when issuing permits. Compliance with the applicable permit requirements would ensure that the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on State-protected wetlands through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
Notwithstanding the above, Mitigation Measures IV-10 and IV-11 of the Recirculated IS/MND go beyond simply requiring permits from the regulatory agencies by identifying potential ways of compensating for the portion of the ephemeral stream that would be impacted by the proposed project. The mitigation measures appropriately, however, recognize that the ultimate approach to mitigation will be determined in coordination with the regulatory agencies.
The “Compensation” portion of Mitigation Measure IV-10 requires that the project mitigate impacts through the creation, restoration, and/or enhancement of habitat at one or more appropriate locations near impacted areas at a 1:1 minimum replacement-to-loss ratio. Thus, the mitigation measure includes a clear performance standard. Mitigation Measure IV-10 further notes that it is anticipated that all compensation measures can be accommodated on-site within the existing ephemeral stream, for which an important consideration is to remove the existing culvert in the upper area of the stream.
The project would impact the lower approximately 122 lineal feet of 713 lineal feet of the ephemeral stream, 24 feet of which supports two small, incised channels within the on-site ephemeral stream (see Figure 1 below). Woody vegetation (i.e., shrubs or trees) does not occur along the 24-foot reach of the swale. That portion supports only upland herbaceous vegetation.
Nearly 83 percent of the ephemeral stream (591 lineal feet) would be preserved, which would include all of the woody vegetation (e.g., upland shrubs and trees) that occurs along the ephemeral stream and a total of 282 lineal feet (or 92 percent) of the incised channels.
In order to compensate for the project’s impact to an estimated 122 lineal feet of the northern portion of the ephemeral stream, pursuant to Mitigation Measure IV-10, ephemeral stream habitat could be restored (i.e., removal of the existing culvert upstream [approximately 15 feet in length]) and created by establishing additional incised sections of the ephemeral stream. As noted above, the project would impact an estimated 122 lineal feet of ephemeral stream, 24 feet of which is incised, and as mitigation could remove the existing 15-foot culvert and create a minimum of 122 lineal feet of incised channel, thereby improving the connectivity of the ephemeral stream. In addition to creating suitable incised features, the project could also install woody vegetation (e.g., shrubs and trees) along the ephemeral stream to provide additional shading. The aforementioned enhancements are feasible and would be capable of meeting the performance standard of a minimum 1:1 ratio and could approach 2 to 2.5:1.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Figure 1
On-Site Ephemeral Stream
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Accordingly, the mitigation measure identifies feasible options for achieving the performance standards. The exact requirements that the project would be subject to are the ultimate decision of the RWQCB and the flexibility within the mitigation measures allows for the applicant and the RWQCB to agree on other mitigation requirements.
Based on the above, because Mitigation Measure IV-10 includes specific, enforceable performance standards and identifies potential actions necessary to achieve the standard, the mitigation measure meets the requirements of the CEQA Guidelines and the Recirculated IS/MND does not inappropriately defer mitigation.
It should be noted that similar mitigation has been included in many other certified CEQA documents and is accepted as feasible and effective by regulatory agencies. An example of a project within the region that is subject to a similar mitigation measure pursuant to the certified CEQA document prepared for the project would be the Podva Property Residential Development located within the Town of Danville, California, which is also under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. The certified EIR prepared for that project (SCH # 2012102028) identified a significant impact related to the placement of fill within two jurisdictional upland seasonal channels and the loss or degradation of associated riparian habitat value. The EIR included Mitigation Measure 4.4-10a, which required either the creation of new habitat as replacement for habitat loss or enhancement of the quality of existing habitat for native plants and wildlife. More specifically, the measure required replacement of habitat at an acceptable replacement-to-loss ratio for permanent acreage impacts, as well as reseeding or replanting of vegetation in temporarily disturbed areas. In addition, Mitigation Measure 4.10c of the EIR required the project applicant to obtain the necessary regulatory permits from the RWQCB and CDFW. As a result of implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4-10a, on-site restoration of a section of ephemeral stream channel through culvert and concrete riprap removal and planting of willows and the elongation of a created channel within the open space of the site occurred. Based on the Year 7 (2025) Monitoring Report for the project, the created ephemeral channel and vegetation cover within the channels continue to meet success criteria.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 3
3-1
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 3, cont.
3-2
3-1, cont.
3-3
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 3, cont.
3-4
3-3, cont.
3-5
3-6
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 3, cont.
3-7
3-6, cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 3, cont.
3-8
3-7, cont.
3-9
3-10
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 3, cont.
3-11
3-10, cont.
3-12
3-13
3-14
3-15
3-16
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 3, cont.
3-17
3-18
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
LETTER 3: SANTA CLARA VALLEY BIRD ALLIANCE AND SIERRA CLUB
LOMA PRIETA CHAPTER
Response to Comment 3-1
The comment is introductory and includes a summary of the commenter’s concerns presented in more detail within the remainder of the letter. Please see Responses to Comments 3-2 through 3-18 for detailed responses to each of the commenter’s specific concerns. Please see Response to Comment 5-2 regarding the fair argument standard.
Response to Comment 3-2
Please see Response to Comment 2-4 for further information regarding compliance with a regulatory permit or other similar process as mitigation.
Response to Comment 3-3
Please see Response to Comment 2-4.
Response to Comment 3-4
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 on-site oak woodland 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. Furthermore, the CEQA threshold for determining whether a project would have a significant impact to wildlife movement corridors is not whether any disruption of movements would occur, but rather the project must “interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors…” (emphasis added) (See CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, Section IV, Biological Resources, Question d). The commenter provides no substantial evidence that the proposed project would substantially interfere with wildlife movement.
Response to Comment 3-5
Please see Response to Comment 3-4.
Response to Comment 3-6
Please see Responses to Comments 3-4 and 3-10. As stated in the Recirculated IS/MND, the project site is not within an identified regional movement corridor or landscape linkage. In addition, the project site is surrounded by developed areas of the Town, with the primary exception being the expansive foothills area to the east, much of which contains oak woodland, though large lot estates punctuate this foothill landscape. The proposed project would impact only 5.38 acres of an area that contains expansive movement corridors to the east/southeast/northeast, and even the project site itself would continue to allow wildlife movement through the ephemeral stream and upslope areas of the project site.
Cumulative impacts are discussed within the Recirculated IS/MND under Question XXI-b within Section XXI, Mandatory Findings of Significance. As discussed therein:
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
… it is important to understand that CEQA allows for a project’s incremental contribution to a significant cumulative impact to be found less than cumulatively considerable. For a cumulative impact analysis pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15130, the lead agency should generally undertake a two-step analysis. The first question is whether the combined effects from both the proposed project and other projects would be cumulatively significant.
If the agency answers this inquiry in the affirmative, the second question is whether “the proposed project’s incremental effects are cumulatively considerable.” (Communities for a Better Environment, supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at p. 120 [emphasis added]) In other words, it is possible that the “cumulative impact” of multiple projects would be significant, but that the incremental contribution to that impact from a particular project may not itself be “cumulatively considerable.” Thus, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, subdivision (h)(5), states that “[t]he mere existence of significant cumulative impacts caused by other projects alone shall not constitute substantial evidence that the proposed project’s incremental effects are cumulatively considerable.” In conclusion, it is not necessarily true that, even where cumulative impacts are significant, any level of incremental contribution must be deemed cumulatively considerable. (Communities for a Better Environment, supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at p. 120.)
Based on the results of the preceding analysis, and the foregoing additional cumulative discussion, this 12-unit residential project is not anticipated to have a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to significant cumulative impacts that may otherwise be caused by pending and approved projects.
Response to Comment 3-7
Suitable habitat and nectar plants for Crotch’s bumble bee is considered absent from the project site, as the site typically undergoes annual disturbance from mowing for fire abatement up to approximately 15 feet from the property line. According to LOA, numerous surveys are currently ongoing at sites that support potentially suitable habitat throughout the Bay Area, most of which return negative results. The Santa Clara County Habitat Plan 2026 Amendment Update found, based on a considerable number of surveys over the last three years, that primary habitat for the Crotch’s bumble bee is in the undeveloped areas of the east and west foothills of the Santa Clara Valley. The project site is located in an urban area, surrounded by existing development, and the site itself is disturbed in such a manner that the site is considered unsuitable for the Crotch’s bumble bee. The lack of sightings regionally based on the results of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) query conducted as part of the Biological Evaluation, as well as the database compiled by the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, provides further justification to infer absence of the species on the site, in addition to the field characteristics of the site.
Response to Comment 3-8
The only portion of Ross Creek within the project site is located in the southwestern corner, which would be avoided entirely as part of the proposed project. Page 51 of the Recirculated IS/MND includes the following discussion:
… 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.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Thus, although the Biological Evaluation identified riparian woodland in the vicinity of Ross Creek in the site’s southwest corner, the proposed project would not involve any disturbance in the vicinity of Ross Creek or associated riparian woodland area. Further, the Town has determined that the proposed project would comply with the landscape design concepts from the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines related to the use of native species indigenous to the immediate area, which is evidenced by the various native and adaptive plant species included in the planting notes provided to the Town. Overall, the proposed project would not be expected to introduce invasive plant species and would not result in any impacts related to such.
Response to Comment 3-9
Please see Response to Comment 3-6 above.
Response to Comment 3-10
Impacts related to lighting are discussed under Question I-d within Section I, Aesthetics, of the Recirculated IS/MND. As stated on page 31 therein:
According to the project applicant, all exterior lighting (i.e., both building-mounted and landscape lighting) would be designed consistent with the Hillside Design Standards and Guidelines outdoor lighting standards, which require the minimum lighting required for pedestrian safety and require compliance with the Town’s Municipal Code. To reduce the potential for disturbance due to nighttime lighting, the project would comply with Town Code Section 29.10.09015, which requires all permanent exterior light fixtures to use shields so that bulbs are not visible and to ensure that light is directed to the ground surface and does not spill onto neighboring parcels or produce glare when seen from nearby homes. As such, the proposed project would comply with both the Town’s Municipal Code and policies within the Hillside Design Standards and Guidelines.
The standards referenced above would ensure that project lighting would be shielded and directed downward, among other requirements.
In addition, as stated on page 30 of the Recirculated IS/MND, existing sources of light and glare including, but not limited to, headlights on cars and trucks travelling along nearby roadways and private driveways, exterior light fixtures, and interior light spilling through windows, are present within the project vicinity. Therefore, while the development of the project site with 12 single-family residences would add new sources of light and glare to the site, such sources would be similar in nature to the existing surrounding conditions. Based on such, wildlife species in the vicinity would be expected to be somewhat urban-adapted, particularly to existing lighting in the vicinity.
The comment does not provide any substantial evidence that additional lighting at the site that is designed consistent with the Town’s Municipal Code and policies within the Hillside Design Standards and Guidelines would affect the breeding behavior of any special-status species to a degree that would preclude them from productive breeding. Therefore, substantial evidence that a direct significant impact would occur to any special-status species as a result of project lighting has not been provided.
Response to Comment 3-11
The comment does not present substantial evidence of a direct significant impact to any specialstatus species. Urban-adapted and common birds are the most likely to collide with windows due to their higher frequency of occurrence and likelihood of interaction along the built environment
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
interface. Moreover, as reported in the San Francisco Standards for Bird Safe Buildings2 and other documents, the typical bird strike zone is from grade to 60 feet, the primary concern is with any uninterrupted glazing 24 square feet or larger in size, and the likelihood of strike depends on various factors, including the glazing used, the angle of the glass, the orientation of the building, and landscaping. Although the proposed residences would include windows, the features listed within the comment (expansive glass, transparent facades, glass balcony railings, corner glazing, and atriums) are not anticipated to be included within the proposed residences. In addition, based on the architectural design sheets for the proposed project, the proposed building facades would include many materials other than glass that are visible to birds. Such materials would include wood siding and stone veneer. Further, the elevations also feature forms of architectural relief (overhangs, spatially offset adjacent faces), as well as varied (opaque) materials and colors. All of the aforementioned architectural design features would serve to minimize operation impacts related to the risk of bird strikes.
Response to Comment 3-12
Please see Responses to Comments 2-1 through 2-4, as well as 5-2.
Response to Comment 3-13
Please see Response to Comment 3-1.
Response to Comment 3-14
Please see Responses to Comments 2-3, 2-4, 3-4, 3-6, and 3-8. Impacts related to the removal of on-site trees considered protected under the Town’s Tree Protection Ordinance, including mixed oak woodland, are presented in the Recirculated IS/MND on pages 56 and 57.
Response to Comment 3-15
The Recirculated IS/MND addresses impacts to special-status species and sensitive biological resources within Section IV, Biological Resources, including related to nesting birds, raptors, bats, and other wildlife. Mitigation measures are set forth in the Recirculated IS/MND, including preconstruction surveys and appropriate protocol to be followed should the surveys result in positive identification of any species, sufficient to ensure impacts would be reduced to a less-thansignificant level. Please see Response to Comment 3-7 related to Crotch’s bumble bee.
Response to Comment 3-16
Please see Responses to Comments 3-6, 3-10, and 3-11.
Response to Comment 3-17
The purpose of an alternatives analysis pursuant to CEQA is to identify alternatives to a project that would feasibly attain the project’s objectives while reducing the significant environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project. CEQA does not require the evaluation of project alternatives in an IS/MND, as the IS/MND concludes that, with incorporation of mitigation, all potentially significant impacts resulting from the proposed project could be fully mitigated to lessthan-significant levels. Therefore, an alternatives analysis is not required to be provided for the IS/MND.
2 San Francisco Planning Department. 2011. Standards for bird-safe buildings. San Francisco Planning Department, City and County of San Francisco, California.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Response to Comment 3-18
The comment does not address the adequacy of the Recirculated IS/MND. The SCVBA and SCLP comment letter dated October 17, 2025 was included within Exhibit 11 of the staff report for the Planning Commission hearing on December 17, 2025. Pursuant to CEQA and additionally because the letter was not received during the public comment period for the IS/MND, written responses to the SCVBA and SCLP letter are not required. Nonetheless, written responses to the late letter were prepared and were also available as Addendum 2 to the staff report for the decision-makers consideration. The staff report and addenda for the December 17, 2025 Planning Commission hearing are available at https://losgatos-ca.municodemeetings.com/bcpc/page/planning-commission-special-2. As such, the prior comments and responses to the prior comments are part of the administrative record.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 4
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
4-5
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 4, cont.
4-6
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
LETTER 4: JILL FORDYCE (1 OF 2)
Response to Comment 4-1
Mitigation Measures IV-10 and IV-11, as shown on pages 53 and 55 of the Recirculated IS/MND, require the project applicant to obtain a Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification and/or Waste Discharge Permit from the RWQCB and Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA), if determined necessary by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), as well as to comply with all permit provisions. Such permits are obtained through a separate process between the project applicant and each agency. The CEQA process must be completed and a Notice of Determination filed with the County Clerk’s Office before the regulatory permits may be issued. Regulatory agencies are not able to issue permits prior to certification of a CEQA document. Please see Response to Comment 2-4 for further information regarding compliance with a regulatory permit or other similar process as mitigation.
Response to Comment 4-2
Mitigation Measures IV-10 and IV-11 are required to ensure that the proposed project’s impacts to the northerly extent of the ephemeral stream, which is presumed to be a water of the State, are fully reduced to a less-than-significant level. Please see Responses to Comments 2-4 and 4-1.
Response to Comment 4-3
As discussed on page 52 of the Recirculated IS/MND:
The on-site ephemeral feature historically supports water only during and shortly after storm events. The Town of Los Gatos follows the Guidelines and Standards for Land Use By Streams document (“Guidelines and Standards”). The Town Council adopted a resolution implementing the Guidelines and Standards at its meeting on February 20, 2007.
What had previously been identified in this IS/MND as an “ephemeral drainage” has portions with an incised channel and portions without. According to the definition of a stream in the Guidelines and Standards (Chapter 2, subsection E), only the portions of the feature having a channel meet the definition of a stream, and therefore, only those portions need a buffer. Notwithstanding, for purposes of this recirculated environmental document, the entire on-site feature will be referred to as an ephemeral stream.
The use of the term “stream” is specifically associated the Town’s adopted Guidelines and Standards for Land Use by Streams.
Response to Comment 4-4
The locations of the proposed easements and earth/concrete swale are shown in Figure 2.
Response to Comment 4-5
Please see Response to Comment 8-14.
Response to Comment 4-6
The comment does not address the adequacy of the Recirculated IS/MND.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Figure 2
Easement and Swale Locations
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 5
5-1
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 5, cont.
5-1, cont.
5-2
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 5, cont.
5-2, cont.
5-3
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 5, cont.
5-4
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 5, cont.
5-4, cont.
5-5
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 5, cont.
5-5, cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 5, cont.
5-5, cont.
5-6
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 5, cont.
5-6, cont.
5-7
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 5, cont.
5-7, cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 5, cont.
5-8
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 5, cont.
5-9
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 5, cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 5, cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 5, cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 5, cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 5, cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
5-10
5-11
5-12
Letter 5, cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
5-12, cont.
5-13
5-15
Letter 5, cont.
5-14
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
5-15, cont.
5-16
5-17
Letter 5, cont.
5-18
5-19
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
5-19, cont.
5-21
Letter 5, cont.
5-20
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
5-21, cont.
Letter 5 cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
5-21, cont.
Letter 5 cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
5-21, cont.
Letter 5, cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
5-21, cont.
Letter 5, cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
5-22
Letter 5, cont.
5-21, cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
5-22, cont.
Letter 5, cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 5, cont.
5-22, cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
5-22, cont.
Letter 5, cont.
5-23
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
5-24
Letter 5, cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
5-25
5-26
Letter 5, cont.
5-24, cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
5-27
5-28
Letter 5, cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
5-29
5-30
Letter 5, cont.
5-28, cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
5-32
5-31
5-33
5-34
Letter 5, cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
5-35
5-36
Letter 5, cont.
5-34, cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 5, cont.
5-36, cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 5, cont.
5-36, cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
5-36, cont.
Letter 5, cont.
5-37
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
5-37, cont.
Letter 5, cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
5-38
Letter 5, cont.
5-37, cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
5-39
5-38, cont.
Letter 5, cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
5-39, cont.
Letter 5, cont.
5-40
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
5-41
Letter 5, cont.
5-40, cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
5-41, cont.
5-42
Letter 5, cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 5, cont.
5-42, cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
5-42, cont.
5-43
Letter 5, cont.
5-44
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
5-45
5-46
Letter 5, cont.
5-44, cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
5-47
5-48
5-49
Letter 5, cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 5 cont.
5-49, cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
5-50
5-51
Letter 5, cont.
5-49, cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 5, cont.
5-51, cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 5, cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 5, cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 5, cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 5, cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 5, cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 5, cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 5, cont.
5-52
5-53
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 5, cont.
5-53, cont.
5-54
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 5, cont.
5-54, cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 5, cont.
5-54, cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 5, cont.
5-54, cont.
5-55
5-56
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 5, cont.
5-56, cont.
5-57
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 5, cont.
5-57, cont.
5-58
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 5, cont.
5-59
5-60
5-58, cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 5, cont.
5-60, cont.
5-61
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 5, cont.
5-61, cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
LETTER 5: JILL FORDYCE (2 OF 2)
Response to Comment 5-1
The comment is introductory and presents the history of the commenter’s letters provided on the various CEQA documentation for the project site and summarizes their concerns presented in more detail within the remainder of the letter. Please see Responses to Comments 5-2 through 5-61 for detailed responses to each of the commenter’s specific concerns.
Response to Comment 5-2
Please see Responses to Comments 3-1 through 3-18, which respond to the comments submitted by the SCVBA, and Responses to Comments 2-1 through 2-4, which respond to the comments submitted by the RWQCB.
The commenter misunderstands CEQA and its Guidelines as to when EIRs are required.
According to Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act,3 The CEQA Guidelines strongly encourage mitigated negative declarations as a means of reducing delay and paperwork. They recommend that public agencies urge applicants to revise projects, either before or after an application is filed, to eliminate potentially significant environmental effects, allowing a negative declaration rather than an EIR to be prepared.
[…] A mitigated negative declaration is appropriate if significant impacts will be avoided, or mitigated to the extent that “clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur,” and there is no substantial evidence in the agency record “that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment.”
[…] If environmental problems are discovered after an application has been submitted, the applicant can modify the project to mitigate or avoid them. The applicant then need not spend time and money on an EIR, and the significant effects on the environmental that would otherwise be addressed in an EIR will have been eliminated…The initial study supporting a mitigated negative declaration must include a “discussion” of ways to mitigate the significant effects that are identified.
[…] Mitigated negative declarations can simplify the CEQA review process and reduce expenses, while ensuring maximum environmental protection because all potential impacts must be mitigated to a level of insignificance…Well-designed mitigation measures can ensure that the environment will be fully protected.
[…] In the absence of substantial evidence in the record showing that significant adverse impacts will remain after mitigation, a court will presume that the conditions adopted by the agency in a mitigated negative declaration will be effective and will ensure that impacts are mitigated to an acceptable level…In other words, the burden is on the petitioner to demonstrate that there is substantial evidence in the record supporting a fair argument that the proposed project may have a significant effect even if mitigation measures are implemented.
As can be clearly seen, an EIR is required if significant impacts cannot be fully mitigated by the imposition of feasible mitigation measures. The Recirculated IS/MND provides substantial 3 Stephen L. Kostka and Linda C. Klein. Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act, Volume 1. CEB:
March 2026 Update, Sections 6.60 and 6.68.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
evidence that all of the project’s potentially significant impacts can be fully mitigated through the mitigation measures included in the document, and the applicant has agreed to implement all mitigation measures. The commenter provides no substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the proposed project may have a significant effect even if mitigation measures are implemented (emphasis added).
Response to Comment 5-3
Contrary to the comment, the Recirculated IS/MND is clear as to the jurisdictional status of the ephemeral stream. Page 52 states that the USACE jurisdiction only extends to the 342-squarefoot (sf) concrete-lined drainage considered a seasonal wetland in the northwestern corner of the project site and that the ephemeral stream would be considered a water of the State under the jurisdiction of the RWQCB.
Response to Comment 5-4
Again, the commenter misconstrues CEQA. CEQA does not require that “If there is a “fair argument”, supported by substantial evidence, that the project may have a significant environmental impact, then the agency is required to prepare a full EIR instead.” This ignores the above explained guidelines (see Response to Comment 5-2) that the substantial evidence must support a fair argument that the proposed project may have a significant effect even if mitigation measures are implemented (emphasis added). The commenter provides no such substantial evidence. The mitigation measures in the Recirculated IS/MND are both entirely feasible and effective in fully reducing the project’s potentially significant environmental impacts to a less-thansignificant level.
Response to Comment 5-5
As shown on the project plans (e.g., Figure 4 of the Recirculated IS/MND), runoff collected via the existing ephemeral stream would be directed to a proposed field inlet located south the proposed internal road. Water would then be directed to the proposed underground storm drain system that connects to the existing 27-inch storm drain line at the northwest corner of the project.
This engineering approach to accommodating temporary runoff within the ephemeral stream upon project development did not change in light of the additional biological information provided in the Recirculated IS/MND, nor does it need to. The partial filling of the terminus of the ephemeral stream, as acknowledged in the Recirculated IS/MND, is inconsequential to this matter given that the temporary runoff within the ephemeral stream will be captured by the on-site drainage system before the water reaches the filled in portion of the ephemeral stream.
In addition, please see Responses to Comments 8-14 and 8-15 related to the specific neighboring property mentioned by the comment.
Response to Comment 5-6
Please see Response to Comment 5-5 above.
Response to Comment 5-7
Please see Response to Comment 8-14. It should be noted that the Recirculated IS/MND does not include “enlarged building envelopes” from what was described in the initial circulation.
Response to Comment 5-8
Please see Responses to Comments 4-1 through 4-6.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Response to Comment 5-9
The comment is conclusionary and reiterates comments addressed in Responses to Comments 5-2 through 5-8.
Response to Comment 5-10
The comment is introductory and does not address the adequacy of the initially circulated IS/MND, for which this same comment letter was submitted. The commenter’s letter was included as Letter 5 and responded to within the Responses to Comments document associated with the first circulation, which was Exhibit 13 to the staff report for the Planning Commission hearing on December 17, 2025, for the decision-makers consideration, available at https://losgatosca.municodemeetings.com/bc-pc/page/planning-commission-special-2.
Please see the following responses to specific comments, which have been minorly updated to refer to the page numbers and revisions of the Recirculated IS/MND.
Response to Comment 5-11
Please see Response to Comment 5-2.
Response to Comment 5-12
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 5-13
Pursuant to 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 clarify, the following revision was made to page 16 of the Recirculated 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
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
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.
The above revision is intended to clarify the Town’s authority and does not affect the conclusions of the IS/MND.
Response to Comment 5-14
As noted on page 13 of the Recirculated 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. The Recirculated IS/MND was revised accordingly, as shown on page 76, as well as pages 109 and 110.
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 addition, the Recirculated 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 76 of the Recirculated 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 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).
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.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Response to Comment 5-15
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.
Please see Response to Comment 3-4.
Response to Comment 5-16
Please see Response to Comment 5-15.
Response to Comment 5-17
Please see Response to Comment 5-14.
Response to Comment 5-18
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 5-19
Please see Response to Comment 8-14 related to the proposed impervious surfaces. As discussed under Question X-c.i-iii on page 82 of the Recirculated 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.
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 5-20
Project construction noise is evaluated on pages 87 through 89 within Question XIII-a of the Recirculated 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
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
volume. 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 89 of the Recirculated 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 5-21
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 5-22
Please see Response to Comment 5-13.
Response to Comment 5-23
Please see Response to Comment 5-2.
Response to Comment 5-24
As shown in Figure 11 of the Recirculated 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 Recirculated 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 25 of the Recirculated IS/MND.
As noted on page 25 of the Recirculated 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 25 of the Recirculated 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
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
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, 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 5-25
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 5-26
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 5-27
Please see Responses to Comments 5-24 and 5-26.
As discussed on page 22 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.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
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.
Response to Comment 5-28
The impact related to oxides of nitrogen (NOX) 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 Quality Management District (BAAQMD).
4 The BAAQMD 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 BAAQMD. 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 5-29
The comment summarizes the findings of the initial circulation of the IS/MND and does not address the adequacy of the document. The Recirculated IS/MND provides additional information and analysis of the on-site ephemeral stream, including identification of a new significant impact to the northern portion of the ephemeral stream, and incorporation of feasible mitigation to fully reduce the potential impact to a less-than-significant level. Please refer to Section IV, Biological Resources, of the Recirculated IS/MND, for further detail. 4 It should be noted that BAAQMD is now currently referred to as the Bay Area Air District (BAAD). However, the originally circulated IS/MND was released for public review prior to the rebranding, and due to the insubstantial nature of the name change with regard to the analysis and conclusions of the IS/MND, revisions related to such were not made as part of the Recirculated IS/MND. For the purposes of consistency with the originally circulated IS/MND and the Recirculated IS/MND, BAAD is referred to as BAAQMD throughout this document.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Response to Comment 5-30
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 5-31
The comment summarizes the findings of the initial circulation of the IS/MND and does not address the adequacy of the document. Mitigation Measures IV-1 through IV-3, which are included in the Recirculated IS/MND, address potential impacts to the California red-legged frog.
Therefore, further response is not necessary.
Response to Comment 5-32
The comment summarizes the findings of the initial circulation of the IS/MND and does not address the adequacy of the document. Mitigation Measure IV-4, which is included in the Recirculated IS/MND, addresses potential impacts to protected raptor and migratory bird species.
Therefore, further response is not necessary.
Response to Comment 5-33
The comment summarizes the findings of the initial circulation of the IS/MND and does not address the adequacy of the document. Mitigation Measure IV-7, which is included in the Recirculated IS/MND, addresses potential impacts to protected San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat. Therefore, further response is not necessary.
Response to Comment 5-34
The analysis of special-status wildlife species, which starts on page 45 of the Recirculated 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 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 Recirculated 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 5-35
Please see Response to Comment 5-15.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Response to Comment 5-36
Please see Response to Comment 5-15.
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.5 Of the total, 244 trees would be removed (223 of which would qualify as protected) and 371 trees would be retained. Page 57 of the Recirculated IS/MND was revised accordingly and reflected the findings of the revised Arborist Report.
Because the number of protected trees proposed for removal did not change, further revisions to the initial circulation of the IS/MND were 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 5-37
Please see Response to Comment 8-14 related to the proposed impervious surfaces.
As shown in Figure 17 of the Recirculated 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 Recirculated IS/MND as Appendix E. 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.
The Recirculated IS/MND also includes the following analysis on page 67:
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 17). 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 5 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 Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
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 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.
Mitigation Measure VII-1 has been included in the Recirculated 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 and/or the Recirculated 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 5-38
Please see Responses to Comments 5-18, 5-19, and 8-14.
Response to Comment 5-39
Please see Response to Comment 5-18.
Response to Comment 5-40
Please see Response to Comment 5-18.
Response to Comment 5-41
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 15 of the Recirculated 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. 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. The maintenance agreement will include language allowing Town personnel to access each bioretention area periodically as required for inspection purposes.
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 Recirculated 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.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Response to Comment 5-42
The comment summarizes the findings of the initial circulation 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 5-43
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.
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 5-44
As discussed under Response to Comment 5-28, 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 5-45
As discussed on page 93 of the Recirculated IS/MND within Section XIV, Population and Housing, the analysis 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 5-46
The methods used to determine Mitigation Measure XVII-1 are discussed on page 101 of the Recirculated 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
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
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.
Response to Comment 5-47
Contrary to the comment, cumulative impacts to traffic are discussed within the Recirculated IS/MND on page 112 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. 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 5-48
The comment is conclusory and does not address the adequacy of the initial circulation of the IS/MND. Please see Responses to Comments 5-28 and 5-46 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 5-49
Please see Response to Comment 5-14. 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 76 of the Recirculated 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.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
With respect to regulations applicable to the proposed project, as noted on page 109 of the Recirculated 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 ignition-resistant 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.
Emergency evacuation scenarios are discussed under Question IX-f within Section IX, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, as well as under Section XX, Wildfire. 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 5-50
The comment does not address the adequacy of the initial circulation of the IS/MND. Cumulative impacts are discussed within the Recirculated IS/MND under Question XXI-b within Section XXI, Mandatory Findings of Significance. Please see Response to Comment 5-47.
Response to Comment 5-51
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 5-18, 5-37, 5- 39, and 5-49.
Response to Comment 5-52
The comment is introductory and presents a summary of the commenter’s concerns presented in more detail within the remainder of the letter.
Response to Comment 5-53
Please see Response to Comment 5-2.
Response to Comment 5-54
The Town has responded to both the letters referred to by the commenter, which were submitted during or immediately after the public review period for the initial circulation of the IS/MND. The responses are available as exhibits to the staff report for the Planning Commission hearing on December 17, 2025, available at https://losgatos-ca.municodemeetings.com/bcpc/page/planning-commission-special-2. Please also see Responses to Comments 2-1 through 2-4.
In addition, the Recirculated IS/MND provides additional information and analysis of the on-site ephemeral stream, including identification of a new significant impact to the northern portion of the ephemeral stream, and incorporation of feasible mitigation to fully reduce the potential impact to a
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
less-than-significant level. Please refer to Section IV, Biological Resources, of the Recirculated IS/MND, for further detail.
Response to Comment 5-55
Please see Response to Comment 8-7 related to the previously conducted floristic surveys, Response to Comment 3-4 related to wildlife corridors, and Response to Comment 3-7 related to Crotch’s bumble bee. Similar to Crotch’s bumble bee, the Biological Evaluation considered the western bumble bee absent from the site due to lack of suitable habitat and nectar plants.
The Recirculated IS/MND includes an analysis of the project site and the site’s potential to contain special-status plant species, roosting habitat for special-status bat species, and burrowing owls.
Mitigation Measure IV-9, which requires pre-construction surveys for burrowing owls consistent with CDFW guidelines, identifies performance standards and includes the specific criteria the agency will apply in determining that the impact will be mitigated. Mitigation Measure IV-7 includes the same elements related to potential impacts to the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat; the level of detail requested by the comment is not required for CEQA analysis.
With respect to special-status plant species, a field survey of the project site was conducted in December 2024 to identify on-site habitats which could potentially support special-status species, and to determine the likelihood of any occurrences of special-status species. Such plant species were not identified within the project site.
The potential for special-status amphibian and reptile species is included within the Biological Evaluation prepared for the proposed project. As shown within Tables 2A and 2B and discussed therein, the only species with the potential to occur on-site is the California red-legged frog. As a result, the Recirculated IS/MND includes Mitigation Measures IV-1 through IV-3.
Response to Comment 5-56
Please see Response to Comment 5-2.
Response to Comment 5-57
Please see Responses to Comments 5-37 through 5-50 related to the letter’s previous comments.
In addition, as discussed throughout this document and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(B), specific details of a mitigation measure may be developed after project approval when it is impractical or infeasible to include those details during the project's environmental review provided that the agency (1) commits itself to the mitigation, (2) adopts specific performance standards the mitigation will achieve, and (3) identifies the type(s) of potential action(s) that can feasibly achieve that performance standard. Compliance with a regulatory permit or other similar process may be identified as mitigation if compliance would result in implementation of measures that would be reasonably expected, based on substantial evidence in the record, to reduce the significant impact to the specified performance standards.
In addition, a lead agency may defer formulation of the details of a mitigation measure pending further study when necessary to do so, if the lead agency describes the mitigation actions that will be considered, adopts clear performance standards for measuring the effectiveness of the measures selected, and commits the agency to the mitigation plan. A mitigation performance standard is sufficient if the mitigation identifies specific criteria the agency will apply in determining that the impact will be mitigated (See Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 525).
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Mitigation Measure X-1 identifies specific performance standards related to the erosion and sediment control plan, including the specific permits required, various erosion control measures, and monitoring methods. As such, Mitigation Measure X-1 is not considered deferred mitigation.
Response to Comment 5-58
Please see Response to Comment 5-37.
Response to Comment 5-59
The comment presents concerns discussed at length throughout the comment letter. Please see Responses to Comments 5-5, 5-22, 5-28, 5-37, 5-41, and 5-43.
Response to Comment 5-60
Please see Response to Comment 5-49.
Response to Comment 5-61
The comment pertains to the Town’s Below Market Price Housing Program Guidelines, which does not relate to physical impacts on the environment and, thus, is outside the scope of CEQA.
The comment has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their consideration.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 6
6-1
6-2
6-3
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 6, cont.
6-3, cont.
6-4
6-5
6-6
6-7
6-8
6-9
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 6, cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
LETTER 6: LOTFI AND MONICA HERZI
Response to Comment 6-1
Please see Response to Comment 5-2.
Response to Comment 6-2
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. The comment does not provide specific comments regarding the adequacy of the analysis within the Recirculated IS/MND.
Impacts related to landslides and earthquakes are addressed under Section VII, Geology and Soils, of the Recirculated IS/MND. As concluded therein, all identified impacts related to geology and soils could be reduced to less-than-significant levels with incorporation of the mitigation measures set forth within the Recirculated IS/MND. Potential impacts related to wildfire are evaluated under Section XX of the Recirculated IS/MND, including the proposed project’s potential to exacerbate fire hazards within a FHSZ and affect emergency evacuation routes.
Emergency access is also discussed under Question IX-f on page 76 of the Recirculated IS/MND and Question XVII-c,d on page 102. As noted under Question IX-f, the proposed project would not result in any substantial modifications to the existing roadway system and, thus, would not include land uses or operations that could impair implementation of the Town’s EOP nor physically interfere with the EOP, particularly with any emergency evacuation routes. In addition, the proposed project would include a 20-foot-wide EVA route and would not result in inadequate emergency access.
Please see Response to Comment 5-2.
Response to Comment 6-3
Bioretention basins are standard features of development projects and, as noted on page 15 of the Recirculated IS/MND, would be sized and designed to meet the Town’s C.3 Stormwater Standards design criteria. Such standards 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. Please see Response to Comment 8-14. Although the proposed basin would temporarily store stormwater and release at a controlled rate to match existing pre-development conditions, the system would be designed for active flow-through, rather than long-term water storage. Thus, long-term standing water that could be used as a mosquito breeding site would not occur and the proposed basins would not result in any associated health or safety concerns.
Response to Comment 6-4
Please see Response to Comment 6-2. Project-related impacts related to light pollution are discussed under Section I, Aesthetics, of the Recirculated IS/MND; potential impacts related to air pollutant emissions associated with the proposed project are discussed under Section III, Air Quality, of the Recirculated IS/MND; potential impacts related to water are discussed under
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Recirculated IS/MND; and impacts related to noise are addressed under Section XIII, Noise, of the Recirculated IS/MND.
As discussed in the Recirculated IS/MND and reiterated in Response to Comment 5-47, impacts related to traffic congestion are not required to be evaluated pursuant to CEQA. Potential impacts related to hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) and emergency access are discussed under Section XVII, Transportation, of the Recirculated IS/MND Response to Comment 6-5
Please see Responses to Comments 5-2 and 6-2. Potential impacts of the proposed project on wetlands, riparian habitat, including associated with Ross Creek, and special-status species are addressed in Section IV, Biological Resources, of the Recirculated IS/MND. As presented therein, all identified impacts could be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
Response to Comment 6-6
As discussed under Question IV-e within Section IV, Biological Resources, of the Recirculated IS/MND, the proposed project would not meet the on-site tree replacement requirements. As a result, the Recirculated IS/MND includes Mitigation Measure IV-12, which requires compliance with the Town’s Tree Protection Ordinance. The Town’s adopted Tree Protection Ordinance includes standards for in-lieu fees within Division II of Chapter 29.10 of the Town’s Municipal Code. Removal of trees does not violate the Town’s Tree Protection Ordinance. Payment of inlieu fees is a standard practice of the Town and is considered sufficient mitigation.
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.
The proposed project does not propose development on the steepest parts of the site, thereby preserving substantial amounts of the existing hillside.
Response to Comment 6-7
As stated on page six of the 2025 initial circulation of the IS/MND, a Draft EIR was prepared for the project site in 2015, followed by a Partial Recirculated Draft EIR in 2017, for a residential project of the same name, but the EIR was never certified by the Town. Although the project has since changed, the setting of the site has generally remained the same and, thus, certain information associated with the former EIR remains applicable to the current Recirculated IS/MND analysis. Importantly, several project-specific technical reports were also prepared for the currently proposed project and form the basis of several technical sections of the Recirculated IS/MND; all such recently completed technical reports used in the preparation of the IS/MND were attached as appendices.
The primary technical report prepared in support of the EIR that was also used for the IS/MND analysis was the Cultural Resource Study prepared for the site by Holman & Associates Archeological Consultants, dated January 2013. Historic and archaeological resources typically reflect periods of earlier California history, and thus, the results of a cultural resources study
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
completed in 2013 would not change over the course of the last 12 years (2013 to 2025). As a result, reliance upon the Holman & Associates report is justified for the current Recirculated IS/MND. Notwithstanding, an updated search of the California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) records was conducted to determine whether any new cultural resources have been discovered in the project area since 2013. No new resources have been identified.
In addition, where environmental setting information has the potential to change over time, contemporary information was used.
A Recirculated IS/MND has been prepared for the proposed project and, thus, a formal environmental review has been conducted and has not been bypassed.
Response to Comment 6-8
Please see Responses to Comments 5-2 and 6-2 through 6-6.
Response to Comment 6-9
The IS/MND states the following on page 95:
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. Please see Responses to Comments 6-4 related to traffic congestion.
As presented in the Recirculated IS/MND, in addition to the proposed access point from Twin Oaks Drive, the proposed project would also include access from Cerro Vista Court (for Lot 10 only) and a 20-foot-wide emergency vehicle access (EVA) route extending south from the site to connect to Brooke Acres Drive. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their consideration.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 7
7-1
7-2
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 7, cont.
7-6
7-3
7-4
7-5
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 7, cont.
7-6,
cont.
7-12
7-7
7-8
7-9
7-10
7-11
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 7, cont.
7-12,
cont.
7-13
7-14
7-15
7-16
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 7, cont.
7-16,
cont.
7-17
7-18
7-19
7-20
7-21
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
LETTER 7: JIM LYON
Response to Comment 7-1
Please see Response to Comment 5-2.
Response to Comment 7-2
The comment provides a summary of the project and does not address the adequacy of the Recirculated IS/MND.
Response to Comment 7-3
Please see Response to Comment 5-2.
Response to Comment 7-4
Responses to the RWQCB comments on the IS/MND dated October 6, 2025, were prepared and included as part of the staff report for the for the Planning Commission hearing on December 17, 2025, for the decision-makers consideration. In addition, as stated on page seven of the Recirculated IS/MND:
Following the public review period, the Town prepared responses to public comments pertaining to the environmental analysis and the project was considered by Planning Commission on December 17, 2025. In response to public comments and input at the Planning Commission hearing, on February 12, 2026, Live Oak Associates conducted additional on-site field investigation of the ephemeral feature located on the project site after a storm event when water was flowing in the on-site ephemeral feature. This followon assessment resulted in the determination that the northerly limits of the ephemeral feature extend into the proposed internal driveway and Lot 5 development footprint. As a result, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5, the IS/MND has been revised and recirculated to identify a new potentially significant impact related to having a substantial adverse effect on aquatic features, and include new mitigation measures under question IV-b,c to reduce the newly identified impact to a less-than-significant level (Mitigation Measures IV-10 and -11).
The Recirculated IS/MND directly addresses concerns brought forth by the RWQCB. Please also see Responses to Comments 2-1 through 2-4, which respond to the comments submitted by the RWQCB on the Recirculated IS/MND. Please see Response to Comment 5-2 regarding the fair argument standard and requirement for preparation of an EIR.
Response to Comment 7-5
The comment’s description of the analysis is an accurate description of the first circulation of the IS/MND; however, as discussed above in Response to Comment 7-4 and as shown throughout the Recirculated IS/MND, the current analysis of the ephemeral stream has been revised. As stated on page 53 of the Recirculated IS/MND, the ephemeral stream is presumed to be a water of the State.
Response to Comment 7-6
Please see Response to Comment 8-8.
Response to Comment 7-7
Please see Response to Comment 2-4.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Response to Comment 7-8
Section 6.13.1 of the GGHI prepared for the proposed project 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 and are shown with a maximum slope of 15 percent on the grading plan. According to the GGHI, underdrains are required for all pervious paver installations, with which the proposed project would comply. The GGHI was included as Appendix E to the Recirculated IS/MND and as Appendix D to the first circulation. Overall, as stated on page 79 of the Recirculated 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 7-9
Hydromodification management for the project site was discussed under Question c.i-iii within Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the IS/MND. A BAHM report was prepared for the proposed project by Balance Hydrologics (see Appendix C to the Recirculated IS/MND), which was submitted to, and reviewed by, the Town. Page 82 of the Recirculated IS/MND was revised to incorporate additional details from the BAHM report.
Response to Comment 7-10
Please see Response to Comment 6-2. The comment does not provide further detail or any substantial evidence of any significant geology, soils, erosion, and slope stability concerns that are not adequately addressed. Potential impacts of the proposed project related to the aforementioned concerns are addressed in Section VII, Geology and Soils, of the Recirculated IS/MND. As concluded therein, all identified impacts related to geology and soils could be reduced to less-than-significant levels with incorporation of the mitigation measures set forth within the Recirculated IS/MND.
Response to Comment 7-11
Please see Response to Comment 7-10. The comment does not provide substantial evidence of how the project could “destabilize slopes and affect downstream properties.” The analysis within the Recirculated IS/MND is informed by the GGHI prepared for the proposed project by Cornerstone, which was included as Appendix E to the Recirculated IS/MND. As noted on page 65 of the Recirculated IS/MND, the GGHI was subject to a Geologic and Geotechnical Peer Review conducted by the Town’s consulting geotechnical firm, CSA, and Cornerstone subsequently prepared an Interim Response to Geotechnical Peer Review to respond to the comments and resolve identified concerns. The aforementioned materials represent an adequate site-specific geotechnical analysis.
Response to Comment 7-12
Please see Responses to Comments 5-14 and 6-2. The comment does not provide further details or substantial evidence of why the analysis in Recirculated IS/MND of the noted concerns is not adequate.
Response to Comment 7-13
As discussed on page 102 of the Recirculated IS/MND, the emergency access to Lot 10 provided by the new connection to Cerro Vista Court would be subject to review and approval by the Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD). Whether emergency access is available from Cerro
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Vista Court would not affect emergency access to Lots 1 through 9, 11 and 12, or any off-site areas. As shown in Figure 18 of the Recirculated IS/MND, the new internal roadway would be 24 feet wide and would provide sufficient turnaround space for emergency vehicles. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause or result in inadequate emergency access to any areas within the Town.
Response to Comment 7-14
A comprehensive Arborist Report was prepared for the site by McClintock Landscape Horticultural Services (McClintock). Following a peer review by Monarch Consulting Arborists, the Arborist Report was revised during July 2025 and was included as Appendix D to the Recirculated IS/MND and Appendix C to the initial circulation. Question IV-e of the Recirculated IS/MND discusses the findings of the Tree Mitigation and Protection Plan prepared for the proposed project, which evaluates the entire project site. As discussed therein, 223 protected trees would be removed and a total of 551 replacement trees would be required to be planted on-site. Because the 85 trees proposed to be planted on-site would not meet the on-site tree replacement requirements, 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.
Response to Comment 7-15
Please see Response to Comment 5-13.
Response to Comment 7-16
Please see Response to Comment 5-2.
Response to Comment 7-17
Please see Response to Comment 5-2.
Response to Comment 7-18
Please see Response to Comment 5-3.
Response to Comment 7-19
Please see Responses to Comments 2-4, 5-14, 7-9, 7-15, and 8-8.
Response to Comment 7-20
Under CEQA, a legal challenge can only be made on a discretionary decision made by the lead agency. Thus, contrary to the comment, the CEQA document is not currently subject to a legal challenge. As demonstrated in the Recirculated IS/MND, this Responses to Comments document, and all supporting documents in the record, the Recirculated IS/MND meets the requirements of CEQA.
Response to Comment 7-21
Please see Response to Comment 5-2.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
8-1
8-2
Letter 8
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 8, cont.
8-2, cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
8-2, cont.
Letter 8, cont.
8-3
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 8, cont.
8-3, cont.
8-4
8-5
8-6
8-10
8-7
8-8
8-9
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 8, cont.
8-11
8-12
8-13
8-14
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 8, cont.
8-14, cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 8, cont.
8-15
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 8, cont.
8-15, cont.
8-16
8-17
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 8, cont.
8-17, cont.
8-18
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 8, cont.
8-18, cont.
8-19
8-20
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 8, cont.
8-20, cont.
8-21
8-22
8-23
8-24
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 8, cont.
8-24, cont.
8-25
8-26
8-27
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 8, cont.
8-27, cont.
8-28
8-29
8-30
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 8, cont.
8-30, cont.
8-31
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 8, cont.
8-31, cont.
8-32
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 8, cont.
8-32, cont.
8-33
8-34
8-35
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 8, cont.
8-35, cont.
8-36
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 8, cont.
8-37
8-38
8-39
8-42
8-40
8-41
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 8, cont.
8-42, cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 8, cont.
8-42, cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 8, cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
LETTER 8: WILLIAM AND KATHY MELEYCO
Response to Comment 8-1
The comment is introductory and does not address the adequacy of the Recirculated IS/MND. It should be noted that the commenter’s previous letter was included as Letter 15 and responded to within the Responses to Comments document associated with the first circulation, which was Exhibit 13 to the staff report for the Planning Commission hearing on December 17, 2025, available at the following address: https://losgatos-ca.municodemeetings.com/bcpc/page/planning-commission-special-2.
Response to Comment 8-2
The comment summarizes the letter’s additional comments, which are responded to in further detail below. Please also see Response to Comment 5-2.
Response to Comment 8-3
As noted by the comment and discussed within the Recirculated IS/MND, the addition of Mitigation Measures IV-10 and IV-11 to the IS/MND necessitated recirculation. Additional changes were not required due to new information. The commenter appears to suggest that because one error was found in the biological resources section of the IS/MND, then other items must have been missed. This is a logical fallacy that overestimates, without substantial evidence, the number of errors in the document because one error was found. Instead, the one error that was identified has been adequately addressed in the Recirculated IS/MND (Question IV-b,c within Section IV, Biological Resources) and substantial evidence continues to support that the remaining sections of the IS/MND are adequate.
Response to Comment 8-4
The Town has responded to the letter authored by the SCVBA and SCLP referred to by the commenter. The responses were included within Exhibit 11 of the staff report for the Planning Commission hearing on December 17, 2025, and, thus, are available for review.
Response to Comment 8-5
Please see Response to Comment 5-3, as well as Responses to Comments 2-1 through 2-4, which respond to the comments submitted by the RWQCB.
Response to Comment 8-6
Additional reaches were not mapped on-site. As discussed in Responses to Comments 2-3 and 2-4, with respect to the extent of the on-site ephemeral stream, as recently confirmed by LOA during their site visit on February 12, 2026, after a storm event when water was flowing in the onsite ephemeral stream (Recirculated IS/MND, page seven), the project would impact the lower approximately 100 to 150 feet of the ephemeral stream.
Response to Comment 8-7
Contrary to the comment, the Recirculated IS/MND does not acknowledge that three-season floristic surveys are required for any particular species, but that such surveys were already conducted on-site.
Surveys are only conducted during the species blooming period. For example, Santa Clara red ribbons bloom between April and July; surveys for species would be timed based on conditions
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
that year during that window, as they were in 2012 and 2013. The project site does not support typical habitat for Santa Clara red ribbons; as noted on page 45 of the Recirculated IS/MND, the Biological Evaluation prepared for the proposed project concluded that Santa Clara red ribbons and bent-flowered fiddleneck are unlikely to occur on-site because the site supports only marginally suitable habitat for the species. In addition, the site is periodically disturbed due to annual mowing for fire abatement purposes, which typically occur throughout the site to approximately 15 feet from the property line. Full rare plant surveys in 2012 and 2013 during the various blooming periods, along with the on-going disturbance, confirmed that the site lacks suitable habitat for special status plants. Thus, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in adverse effects to special-status species and the conclusions of the Recirculated IS/MND remain adequate.
Response to Comment 8-8
The entirety of the seasonal wetland in the northwestern corner of the site would be avoided, as verified by LOA in coordination with the project engineer.
Please see Responses to Comments 2-3 and 2-4, which contain responses to the RWQCB comments submitted on the Recirculated IS/MND. In addition, according to LOA, the ephemeral stream is typical of ephemeral resources (i.e., only flows with water during or shortly after a rain event). The lack of a clear incised channel along the entire length of the ephemeral stream is a clear indication of the limited water flow most of the year. Notwithstanding, the majority of Lot 8, which is located upslope and to the east of the ephemeral stream, and that currently sheet flows towards the stream during storm events, would remain undisturbed. This upslope area is shown as 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 stream during storm events, as those upslope areas that would remain undisturbed would continue to sheet flow to the ephemeral stream.
Response to Comment 8-9
The on-site field surveys adequately assessed the extent of on-site potentially suitable habitats for protected wildlife species. As noted on pages 46 and 47 of the Recirculated IS/MND, potentially suitable roosting and foraging habitat for pallid bat and Townsend’s big-eared bat is present on-site, trees that could provide nesting habitat for raptors and migratory birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) are located on-site, and San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat nests were observed within the site. As a result, the IS/MND included Mitigation Measures IV-4 through IV-7 to reduce potential impacts to the foregoing special-status species to a less-than-significant level.
It should be noted that CEQA analysis identifies the potential for environmental impacts to occur, and the conclusions are intended to inform the decision-makers rather than make the ultimate conclusion related to the approval of a project. The pre-construction surveys required by the mitigation measures within the Recirculated IS/MND would occur immediately prior to commencement of on-site construction, but such timing is more appropriate than conducting surveys far in advance of construction activities, as the results of the on-site survey will capture the conditions of the site closer to the date of construction than surveys conducted for the IS/MND.
Furthermore, such surveys are not the full extent of the mitigation measure requirements related to special-status wildlife species. Pre-construction surveys are required as the first step to
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
conclusively identify the presence or absence of specific species, the mitigation measures included within the IS/MND specify what actions shall be taken if the surveys result in positive identification, as well as the appropriate overseeing authority.
Response to Comment 8-10
Please see Response to Comment 5-2.
Response to Comment 8-11
The CEQA process must be completed and a Notice of Determination filed with the County Clerk’s Office before the regulatory permits may be issued. Regulatory agencies are not able to issue permits prior to certification of a CEQA document. Therefore, the commenter’s assertions about the inadequacy of Mitigation Measures IV-10 and IV-11 are baseless.
Response to Comment 8-12
A lead agency may defer formulation of the details of a mitigation measure pending further study when necessary to do so, if the lead agency describes the mitigation actions that will be considered, adopts clear performance standards for measuring the effectiveness of the measures selected, and commits the agency to the mitigation plan. A mitigation performance standard is sufficient if the mitigation identifies specific criteria the agency will apply in determining that the impact will be mitigated (See Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 525).
Mitigation Measure IV-10, which is included in the Recirculated IS/MND to address potential impacts related to the on-site ephemeral stream, includes adequate performance standards as shown on page 55 of the Recirculated IS/MND and below:
An on-site habitat mitigation and monitoring plan (HMMP) would need to be developed with the goal of creating, restoring, and/or enhancing the ephemeral stream with habitat functions and values greater than or equal to those existing in the impact zone. At a minimum, the HMMP should include:
• The location of all enhancement and/or restoration activities; • Planting specifications;
• Site maintenance and management requirements;
• Monitoring requirements;
• Final success criteria; and
• Adaptive management procedures.
Because Mitigation Measure IV-10 includes a specific, enforceable performance standards for the HMMP and identifies potential actions necessary to achieve the standards, Mitigation Measure IV-10 meets the requirements of Section 15126.4(a)(1)(B) of the CEQA Guidelines, and the Recirculated IS/MND does not inappropriately defer mitigation.
Response to Comment 8-13
Please see Responses to Comments 2-1 through 2-4.
The commenter incorrectly states that the Town cannot adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration without knowing what conditions CDFW and RWQCB will impose – or whether they will require modifications that fundamentally alter the project’s design or feasibility. First, there is no credible reason to think that the resource agencies will require a fundamental alteration of the project’s
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
design given that, as demonstrated in Response to Comment 2-4, it is feasible to fully mitigate the project’s impact to the ephemeral stream elsewhere on the project site.
Second, in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(B), Mitigation Measures IV-10 and IV-11 include adequate performance standards and actions that would achieve such performance standards. As stated in Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act,6 The need to defer formulation of the specifics of a mitigation measure often arises when a regulatory agency will be issuing a permit or other approval for a project and can be expected to impose mitigation requirements independent of CEQA as a condition of approval. These requirements are ordinarily worked out through a consultation and approval process that takes place after the EIR is completed. In such situations, it is often desirable to defer formulation of the specifics of mitigation measures so that they can be designed to meet the regulatory agency’s requirements while also providing adequate mitigation under CEQA. When it is anticipated that a regulatory agency will impose its own mitigation requirements on a project, formulation of the details of mitigation measures identified in an EIR may be deferred if the EIR requires regulatory agency review, identifies methods the agency will consider for mitigating the impact, and indicates the expected outcome.
The preceding demonstrates that Mitigation Measures IV-10 and IV-11 of the Recirculated IS/MND are adequate pursuant to CEQA as they recognize the role that the regulatory agencies will play in determining specific mitigation requirements when issuing permits. Compliance with the applicable permit requirements would ensure that the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on state protected wetlands through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
Response to Comment 8-14
The impervious area calculation included in the first circulation of the IS/MND of 62,224 sf was based on information provided by the applicant team to date at that time. A calculation error was subsequently identified by the project applicant and Town after the third round of plan submittals.
As a result, the previously stated increase in impervious area of 56 percent was inaccurate and inadvertently misrepresented in the earlier submittal packages. All plans, calculations, and supporting documents associated with the proposed project have since been revised accordingly.
It should be noted that neither the project site boundaries nor the overall disturbance area of the site have changed.
The proposed project is not expected to increase stormwater impacts to the adjacent downhill properties along the western edge of the site. While the development will add approximately 97,000 sf of new impervious area, the project also includes a new storm drainage system specifically designed to capture, slow down, treat, and control stormwater runoff before the runoff leaves the site, in accordance with applicable State and local stormwater regulations.
Under existing conditions, stormwater from approximately 14 acres of undeveloped hillside flows across the ground surface toward the western edge of the property and eventually drains to the existing inlet located near the northwest corner of the site. Because the site is currently undeveloped, much of this runoff travels as uncontrolled surface flow before reaching the inlet.
With the proposed development, the majority of the runoff would instead be intercepted earlier, 6 Stephen L. Kostka and Linda C. Klein. Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act, Volume 1. CEB:
March 2026 Update, Section 14.12.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
through new storm drain inlets and underground pipes, that would collect and convey stormwater directly into the proposed storm drainage system. As a result, the amount of land area draining across the western edge of the site would be significantly reduced. In post-project conditions, the existing inlet at the northwest corner of the site would receive runoff from approximately 1.5 acres, compared to approximately 14 acres today.
In other words, although the project introduces additional paved and developed areas, the proposed development would include a much more controlled drainage system that would reduce the amount of uncontrolled surface water flowing toward the existing downhill properties.
The proposed stormwater treatment system/detention basin would further help manage runoff by temporarily storing and slowly releasing stormwater at controlled rates that would be designed to match existing pre-development conditions. The basin would collect runoff from approximately one acre of the developed site, which is substantially smaller than the existing tributary area currently draining toward the western property edge. The basin also includes an impermeable liner; as such, the basin would be designed to temporarily hold and meter water through the storm drain system, rather than allow water to infiltrate into the ground.
Overall, the proposed project replaces a large amount of existing uncontrolled surface drainage with a managed stormwater collection and detention system intended to reduce surface runoff along the western property boundary and maintain controlled discharge rates consistent with existing conditions.
Response to Comment 8-15
Please see Response to Comment 8-14.
The most recent BAHM report submitted to the Town (included as Appendix C to the Recirculated IS/MND) reflects the corrected post-project impervious area of 96,894 sf, as shown in Table 1 on page four of the BAHM report. In addition, all stormwater calculations and supporting BAHM model documentation associated with this revision have been updated and incorporated into the latest plan sets submitted to the Town. This updated analysis also reflects the proposed stormwater treatment and detention measures designed to control runoff rates and maintain postproject discharge conditions consistent with existing pre-development conditions.
With respect to the air quality modeling conducted for the proposed project, please see Response to Comment 8-22 below.
Response to Comment 8-16
The comment provides a summary of the construction-related criteria pollutant emissions analysis presented in the Recirculated IS/MND and also generally alleges that the mitigation measure included in the Recirculated IS/MND to reduce construction-related emissions is inadequate. As shown in the detailed responses below, the commenter’s allegation is incorrect. Thus, the analysis presented within the Recirculated IS/MND is adequate. Please see Responses to Comments 8- 17 through 8-22 below.
Response to Comment 8-17
Please see Responses to Comments 8-18 and 8-20.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Response to Comment 8-18
Section 15097 of CEQA requires all State and local agencies to establish monitoring or reporting programs for projects approved by a public agency whenever approval involves the adoption of either a “mitigated negative declaration” or specified environmental findings related to environmental impact reports.
A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) was prepared for the proposed project.
The intent of the MMRP is to ensure implementation of the mitigation measures identified within the Recirculated IS/MND, including Mitigation Measure III-1. The MMRP would be used by Town staff and mitigation monitoring personnel to ensure compliance with mitigation measures during project implementation and will provide for monitoring of construction activities and in-the-field identification and resolution of environmental concerns.
Monitoring and documenting the implementation of mitigation measures will be coordinated by the Town of Los Gatos. The applicant will be responsible for fully understanding and effectively implementing the mitigation measures contained within the MMRP. The Town will be responsible for monitoring compliance.
In addition, as stated in Mitigation Measure III-1, conformance with the requirements of Mitigation Measure III-1 shall be confirmed through review and approval of plans by the Town of Los Gatos Parks and Public Works Department.
The commenter is incorrect in stating that the on-site project components and off-site sidewalk improvements were not modeled separately. Such modeling was conducted, and the emissions for the on- and off-site project components are presented separately within Table 2 of the Recirculated IS/MND. In addition, mitigated modeling was conducted using CalEEMod to analyze the reduction in emissions that would occur through the use of higher-tiered heavy-duty equipment during construction of the off-site improvements. However, the CalEEMod results reports for both the unmitigated and the mitigated modeling conducted to analyze the emissions associated with the off-site sidewalk improvements were erroneously omitted from Appendix A of the Recirculated IS/MND. Such reports are attached to this Responses to Comments document as Appendix A, and the emissions presented therein are consistent with the emissions presented within the Recirculated IS/MND. Thus, the Recirculated IS/MND adequately demonstrates that Mitigation Measure III-1 would reduce construction-related NOX emissions to below the applicable threshold of significance, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
Response to Comment 8-19
As discussed on pages 34 and 35 of the Recirculated IS/MND, although the timing of the off-site sidewalk improvements is unknown, in order to provide a conservative analysis, both off-site improvements are considered to occur concurrently with the on-site project construction.
Nonetheless, separate modeling was conducted using CalEEMod to estimate the emissions associated with construction of the off-site sidewalk improvements. In addition, emissions for the on- and off-site project components are presented separately within Table 2 of the Recirculated IS/MND. Mitigated modeling was also conducted using CalEEMod to analyze the reduction in emissions that would occur through the use of higher-tiered heavy-duty equipment during construction of the off-site improvements. Both scenarios were determined to adequately reduce construction-related NOX emissions to below the applicable BAAQMD threshold of significance.
Thus, both options included in Mitigation Measure III-1 would be adequate to reduce the identified impact to a less-than-significant level.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Please see Response to Comment 8-18 regarding enforcement of Mitigation Measure III-1.
Response to Comment 8-20
As noted by the commenter, the BAAQMD BCMMs were listed in the Recirculated IS/MND. In addition, the commenter is correct that the Recirculated IS/MND states that the proposed project’s required implementation of the BAAQMD’s BCMMs would help to further minimize constructionrelated emissions, and that implementation of the BAAQMD BCMMs would reduce fugitive dust emissions resulting from project construction.
The commenter’s claim that, “the IS/MND is claiming emission reductions from measures it never modeled,” is false. The modeling conducted for the proposed project did not include implementation of the BAAQMD BCMMs in order to present a conservative, worst-case scenario emissions estimate. Emission reductions that would occur through implementation of the BAAQMD BCMMs were not accounted for in either the maximum unmitigated construction emissions estimates presented in Table 2 of the Recirculated IS/MND or the mitigated NOX emissions estimate presented on page 37 of the Recirculated IS/MND. Even without considering implementation of the BAAQMD BCMMs, the construction-related ROG, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions were determined to be below the applicable BAAQMD thresholds of significance, and implementation of Mitigation Measure III-1 would be adequate to reduce construction-related NOX emissions to below the applicable BAAQMD threshold of significance. Accordingly, the BAAQMD BCMMs are not necessary or required to reduce construction-related criteria pollutant emissions to a less-than-significant level and would result in further emissions reductions from what is presented in the Recirculated IS/MND.
Response to Comment 8-21
The commenter’s claim that “Hillbrook School is a sensitive receptor that the air quality analysis ignores” is false. As stated on page 38 of the Recirculated IS/MND, “the nearest existing sensitive receptors to the project site are the Hillbrook School, which includes sport fields adjacent to the northern project site boundary, and the hillside residences surrounding the project site.” In addition, health risks associated with TACs generated by the proposed project were analyzed on page 39 of the Recirculated IS/MND. As stated therein, the proposed project would not involve any land uses or operations that would be considered major sources of TACs, including diesel particulate matter (DPM). As such, the project would not generate any substantial pollutant concentrations during operations. With regard to health risks associated with project construction, health risks resulting from exposure to TACs are dependent both on dosage and the exposure period. Both factors were considered when assessing the potential impacts resulting from emission of DPM during project construction. Page 39 of the Recirculated IS/MND presents a discussion of the limited duration of potential exposure, as well as the existing regulations that would reduce the emission of DPM. For instance, project construction would be limited to approximately two years, and all off-road equipment operating at the site would be subject to the In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation, which requires increasingly stringent emissions standards be met by off-road equipment. Thus, nearby receptors, including Hillbrook School, would not be exposed to emissions from on-site construction equipment for a substantial amount of time, and emissions from on-site construction equipment must be reduced in compliance with the existing statewide regulations related to off-road diesel vehicles.
A common surrogate for DPM is fine particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), which was estimated as part of the CalEEMod emissions estimates prepared for the Recirculated
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
IS/MND. As demonstrated in Table 2 of the Recirculated IS/MND, exhaust emissions of PM2.5 would be released at a maximum rate of 13.22 pounds per day (lbs/day), which is far below the BAAQMD’s thresholds for significance for exhaust-related PM2.5. While BAAQMD’s threshold of significance is not necessarily meant to serve as a threshold for DPM emissions, the fact that total exhaust related PM2.5 emissions would be far below the BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance provides an indication of the comparative scope of emissions that would occur due to the proposed project. Based on the above, the amount of DPM emitted during on-site construction activity would be low, and given the dispersive nature of DPM, the ultimate dosage at any nearby receptor location would be limited. Furthermore, the period of time during which DPM emissions would occur is also relatively limited.
Because health risks are a result of dosage and exposure duration, the Recirculated IS/MND concluded that the proposed project would not result in significant health risks related to project construction. Because the project was determined not to result in the substantial release of TACs, the project would not have the potential to result in health risks to nearby receptors, and a detailed health risk analysis is not warranted.
Response to Comment 8-22
As presented on page 34 of the Recirculated IS/MND, the CalEEMod modeling prepared for the proposed project assumed a disturbance area of 5.38 acres, which was based on the project’s total disturbance area of 234,538 sf per the Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan (see Figure 4 of the Recirculated IS/MND). The 234,538 sf (5.38 acre) disturbance area assumed within the CalEEMod modeling included both pervious and impervious surfaces, and was larger than both the 62,225 sf or the 97,386 sf of impervious surfaces noted in the comment.
In addition, CalEEMod bases grading, equipment operation, concrete/asphalt, and construction worker trip assumptions on the full disturbance area acreage, not on whether surfaces within the disturbance area would be pervious or impervious. Similarly, haul truck trips are based on the total amount of soil import/export anticipated to occur, not the amount of anticipated pervious/impervious surfaces on-site. Thus, the construction emissions estimated within the CalEEMod modeling prepared for the proposed project and presented within the Recirculated IS/MND are accurate, and would not change due to the increase in impervious surfaces noted within the comment.
Response to Comment 8-23
The comment is a summary of Comments 8-16 through 8-22. Please see Response to Comments 8-16 through 8-22 accordingly.
Response to Comment 8-24
While urbanized areas contain development that is technically flammable, the rapid spread of active wildfires is most prominent in undeveloped and vegetated areas. Therefore, the removal of on-site vegetation (i.e., wildfire fuel sources) would reduce wildfire spread. In addition, residential areas are located throughout Very High FHSZs and outside of FHSZs in equal measure; such development and the associated factors, such as standard lighting features, are not considered wildfire risks. The proposed project would also be situated near existing roads, water lines, and other utilities, which would reduce risks related to wildfire.
In addition, as noted within Section VIII, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Recirculated IS/MND, the proposed project would be required to include all electric (i.e., no natural gas) appliances and
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
plumbing in order to comply with BAAQMD thresholds of significance. The proposed project would include undergrounding of the existing overhead electrical lines. In addition, in accordance with the Town’s requirements, all new or relocated electric power lines would be installed underground.
Thus, the electricity lines associated with the proposed project would not present a fire risk.
The proposed project would also be required to comply with all applicable State standards and regulations associated with prevention of wildfire hazards, including the CFC. As discussed on page 109 of the Recirculated IS/MND and reiterated in Response to Comment 5-49, the proposed project would be required to install 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 significantly assist in reducing the threat of a wildfire spreading from undeveloped land to the proposed structures, as well as the potential of fire spreading from the site to surrounding areas.
Response to Comment 8-25
Contrary to the comment, 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 Recirculated IS/MND.
In particular, the Recirculated 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 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 76 of the Recirculated 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. 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 CFC and CBC.
Response to Comment 8-26
The peer review of the GGHI identified seven points of recommended clarification.7 The identified items of clarification are as follows:
1. Consider providing a maximum fill thickness differential across building pads to reduce the potential for differential fill settlement under shallow foundations;
2. Provide recommendations regarding how terraced walls should be designed and clarify how to evaluate if they are surcharging the lower terraced retaining wall;
3. Provide vehicle surcharge loads (including garbage trucks) to retaining walls located adjacent to driveways, streets and garages;
4. Prepare a geologic cross section through Borings EB‐6, EB‐5 and Test Pit TP‐6, and revise the geologic contacts on Figure 2, accordingly;
5. Discuss the stability of 15‐foot to 20‐foot-high terraced retaining walls and with 2:1 slopes;
6. Provide clarification where the recommended subdrains should be placed; and
7. Prepare a plan showing the estimated limits of undocumented fill. 7 Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc. Geologic and Geotechnical Peer Review. January 6, 2025.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Cornerstone confirmed the above factors would be addressed once project grading and improvement plans were finalized.8
Response to Comment 8-27
Mitigation Measure IV-12 within the Recirculated IS/MND requires compliance with the Town’s Tree Protection Ordinance, which includes standards for in-lieu fees within Division II of Chapter
29.10 of the Town’s Municipal Code. Removal of trees does not violate the Town’s Tree Protection Ordinance. Payment of in-lieu fees is a standard practice of the Town and is considered sufficient mitigation.
Response to Comment 8-28
The comment in part pertains to private views, which are not protected pursuant to CEQA. Further, seven trees would not provide appreciable sound buffering, as published sources, such as from the U.S. Forest Service,9 have noted that an 100-foot-wide planted buffer is needed to reduce noise by a noticeable level (e.g., five to eight decibels). The planted buffer must be dense with trees and shrubs to prevent gaps (e.g., if you can see through the trees or between gaps, sound can pass through). The comment does not address the adequacy of the Recirculated IS/MND and has been noted for the record.
Response to Comment 8-29
The comment pertains to the Town’s Below Market Price Housing Program, which does not relate to physical impacts on the environment and, thus, is outside the scope of CEQA. The comment has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their consideration.
Response to Comment 8-30
The comment summarizes previous comments. For the reasons discussed within the original circulation of the IS/MND, the Recirculated IS/MND, and Responses to Comments 8-24 through 8-26 and 8-29, the proposed project would not have an unmitigated significant impact related to fire risk, landslide risk, and drainage impacts.
Response to Comment 8-31
The wildlife species listed by the comment are not exclusively special-status species. Please see Response to Comment 8-35.
While the Biological Evaluation prepared for the proposed project may not address impacts to every common wildlife species that may use the site, and although all species play an important role in the environment, CEQA assigns priority to special-status species. As such, special-status species must be one of the primary focal points of a CEQA-level biological analysis. Under CEQA, many species listed on California’s Taxa to Watch List, continental and region-specific USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern lists, and naturally rare species (such as raptors protected under California’s Birds of Prey laws) are not required to be assessed, and mitigation for potential project impacts associated with such species is not warranted.
8 Cornerstone Earth Group. Interim Response to Geotechnical Peer Review. March 5, 2025. 9 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forst Service, Southern Research Station. General Technical Report SRS-109:
Conservation Buffers, Design Guidelines for Buffers, Corridors, and Greenways. September 2008.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
As discussed on pages 41 and 42 of the Recirculated IS/MND, for purposes of the analysis for CEQA, special-status species include the following:
• Plant and wildlife species that have been formally listed as threatened or endangered, or are candidates for such listing by the USFWS or National Marine Fisheries (NMFS); • Plant and wildlife species that have been listed as threatened or endangered or are candidates for such listing by the CDFW;
• CDFW Species of Special Concern, which are species that face extirpation in California if current population and habitat trends continue;
• CDFW Fully Protected Species; and
• Species on CNPS Lists 1 and 2, which are considered to be rare, threatened, or endangered in California by the CNPS and CDFW.
Furthermore, common birds and raptors found throughout California are protected under California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3511, and 3513, which prohibit the “take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests, or eggs,” and also protected under the federal MBTA. Nesting-bird surveys are recommended if work activities are scheduled during the nesting season to protect any and all nesting birds. Mitigation Measure IV-4 within the Recirculated IS/MND would ensure additional surveying is conducted accordingly and active on-site nests are not disturbed by project construction. However, the commenter’s characterization of specialstatus species reflects a personal interpretation and does not align with the criteria used in CEQA review.
Response to Comment 8-32
Please see Response to Comment 8-31. In addition, the special-status wildlife species listed by the commenter are discussed throughout pages 45 through 51 of the Recirculated IS/MND. As discussed therein, Mitigation Measures IV-1 through IV-8 would reduce potentially significant impacts to the foregoing wildlife species to a less-than-significant level.
With respect to the obscure bumble bee and large marble butterfly, the foregoing insect species are described as requiring suitable grassland and open habitats. Such habitats are similar in nature to the habitat required by Crotch’s bumble bee and western bumble bee, which are noted in the Biological Evaluation as requiring meadow and grassland habitats. Because the Crotch’s bumble bee and western bumble bee were considered absent from the site due to lack of suitable habitat and nectar plants, a similar conclusion would likely be reached for the obscure bumble bee and large marble butterfly. Please also see Response to Comment 3-7.
The commenter also refers to the “Town’s own biological peer reviewer (Coast Ridge Ecology, Patrick Kobernus, December 8, 2025)” and indicates that Coast Ridge Ecology directly challenged the IS/MND. This statement is inaccurate and misleading as the Town does not have a contract with Coast Ridge Ecology for peer review services.
Response to Comment 8-33
Please see Response to Comment 3-4.
Response to Comment 8-34
Please see Response to Comment 3-10.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
The comment does not provide any substantial evidence that additional lighting at the site that is designed consistent with the Town’s Municipal Code and policies within the Hillside Design Standards and Guidelines would affect the breeding behavior of any special-status species to a degree that would preclude them from productive breeding. Therefore, substantial evidence that a direct significant impact would occur to any special-status species as a result of project lighting has not been provided.
Response to Comment 8-35
Please see Response to Comment 8-31.
The great blue heron is not a special-status species, due to its rarity, but rather a bird that is protected by the federal MBTA. There are several other migratory birds and nesting raptors that could occur on the project site, which is precisely why the IS/MND includes Mitigation Measure IV-4. Mitigation Measure IV-4 specifies that such surveying shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within seven days prior to tree removal or ground disturbing activities if such activities are scheduled to commence during the nesting season (February 1st through August 31st), when such impacts would be considered significant under CEQA. Mitigation Measure IV-4 would protect great blue heron should they be found nesting on-site, which is unlikely, as they typically nest in colonies in tall trees, often in close proximity to water (e.g., Vasona Park). While the project site may provide foraging opportunities for great blue heron, foraging habitat for this species, which is locally common, is not protected by federal or State law. Therefore, the commenter’s claim that the Recirculated IS/MND did not identify nor mitigate for an impact related to protected bird species is false.
With respect to the RWQCB, please see Response to Comment 2-3 and 2-4.
Response to Comment 8-36
Please see Responses to Comments 2-3 and 8-8.
Response to Comment 8-37
Please see Response to Comment 6-3.
Response to Comment 8-38
Please see Response to Comment 5-2.
Response to Comment 8-39
Please see Responses to Comments 4-1, 5-18, 8-8, 8-12, and 8-13.
Response to Comment 8-40
Cumulative impacts are discussed within the Recirculated IS/MND under Question XXI-b within Section XXI, Mandatory Findings of Significance. Cumulative noise is evaluated on page 113 of the Recirculated IS/MND, as follows:
With respect to cumulative noise impacts, the primary concern related to cumulative noise levels is increased traffic noise. As previously discussed, a doubling in traffic volumes is generally required to noticeably increase traffic noise levels. The project site is located in an area that is already developed; any proposed or anticipated projects located near the project site only involve the redevelopment of already-developed parcels rather than any development of vacant sites. For example, a parcel to the east of the project site at 15995
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Cerro Vista Drive has applied for site improvements requiring a grading permit, and a project located at 16005 Shannon Road north of the project site has requested approval for the demolition of an existing single-family residence and construction of a new singlefamily residence with reduced setbacks. As such, undeveloped parcels in the project vicinity that could be developed to double traffic volumes on surrounding roadways do not exist. Thus, the project’s increase in vehicle trips in addition to cumulative development within the Town would not combine to cause a significant impact not already identified in the Town’s General Plan.
It is unclear what type of project-related noise the commenter is concerned about. The project is residential in nature and would not generate operational noise that is any different from the commenter’s own home. The commenter provides no substantial evidence that this residential project would create an adverse operational noise impact.
Response to Comment 8-41
Contrary to the comment, the Recirculated IS/MND evaluates whether the project would create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area under Question I-d on pages 30 and 31.
In addition, 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 (see Appendix G, Section I, Question d), 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 8-42
The comment is conclusionary and summarizes the letter’s previous comments. Please see Responses to Comments 8-3 through 8-41 above.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 9
9-1
9-2
9-3
9-4
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 9, cont.
9-4, cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
LETTER 9: GEORGE MONTANARI
Response to Comment 9-1
The comment is introductory and does not address the adequacy of the Recirculated IS/MND.
Response to Comment 9-2
Please see Response to Comment 6-2. The comment does not specifically address the adequacy of the Recirculated IS/MND. As noted on page 89 of the Recirculated IS/MND and based off of the CalEEMod results (see Appendix A to the Recirculated IS/MND), the proposed project is anticipated to generate approximately 113 trips per day.
Response to Comment 9-3
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 decision-makers as part of their consideration of the proposed project.
Response to Comment 9-4
Please see Responses to Comments 6-2, 8-25, and 9-3. The commenter does not provide further details or substantial evidence regarding what CEQA impacts would occur to the homeowners on Longmeadow Drive. The Recirculated IS/MND provides substantial evidence that all of the project’s potentially significant impacts can be fully mitigated through the mitigation measures included in the document. Regarding access to the open space with trails and paths, as stated on page 15 of the Recirculated IS/MND, the proposed project would maintain open space and future trail easements within and along the southern and eastern boundaries of the site (see Figure 2 herein). The comment has been noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their consideration.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
10-1
Letter 10
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
LETTER 10: PHILIP SHANKER
Response to Comment 10-1
Please see Response to Comment 5-2.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 11
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 11, cont.
11-1
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 11, cont.
11-2
11-1, cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
LETTER 11: CAMAS STEINMETZ
Response to Comment 11-1
Please see Response to Comment 2-4.
Response to Comment 11-2
Please see Response to Comment 5-2.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 12
12-1
12-2
12-3
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
LETTER 12: JON AND MARSHA WITKIN
Response to Comment 12-1
Potential impacts related to geology and soils, including the risks of landslide, are discussed in Section VII of the IS/MND. As discussed therein and shown in Figure 17 of the Recirculated IS/MND, the Recirculated IS/MND acknowledges that the California Geological Survey (CGS) mapping shows that all or a portion of the site lies within a landslide hazard area, and hazard mapping by Santa Clara County indicates that the eastern half of the site is within a County landslide hazard zone; USGS mapping shows that there were “Many Landslides” in the area containing the project site. However, the GGHI states that most active landslides have been observed to the south of the site, as evidenced by the State of California Landslide Inventory, and the stie is not within an area of active landslide hazard. According to the GGHI, most slopes steeper than 3:1 (horizontal:vertical) may experience some soil creep or localized shallow movement within colluvial soils that mantle the hillsides during periods of heavy rain and, thus, the GGHI includes recommendations for hillside grading requirements. The Recirculated IS/MND also includes the following analysis on page 67:
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 17). 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 that the earthwork activities associated with the proposed project would be acceptable and would not 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.
Accordingly, Mitigation Measure VII-1, requiring compliance with the engineering recommendations of the GGHI, would ensure impacts related to soil instability would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Response to Comment 12-2
Please see Responses to Comments 2-4, 5-19, 6-3, and 8-8.
Response to Comment 12-3
Please see Response to Comment 6-2. The comment does not specifically address the adequacy of the Recirculated IS/MND, but expresses opinions generally in opposition of the proposed project. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their consideration.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 13
13-1
13-2
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
Letter 13, cont.
13-2, cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Comments
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Recirculated IS/MND
June 2026
LETTER 13: GRANT ZAMUDIO
Response to Comment 13-1
Please see Responses to Comments 5-41, 6-2 through 6-4, 6-6, and 8-14.
Response to Comment 13-2
Please see Responses to Comments 5-2 and 6-7.
ITEM NO. 1.
APPENDIX A
AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS MODELING RESULTS FOR OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS
ITEM NO. 1.
Twin Oaks Lots 1-12 (Surrey Farms) Off-Site Improvements Custom Report, 5/27/2025 1 / 20
Twin Oaks Lots 1-12 (Surrey Farms) Off-Site Improvements Custom Report
Table of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing (2025) - Unmitigated
3.3. Linear, Grading & Excavation (2025) - Unmitigated
3.5. Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade (2025) - Unmitigated
3.7. Linear, Paving (2025) - Unmitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
ITEM NO. 1.
Twin Oaks Lots 1-12 (Surrey Farms) Off-Site Improvements Custom Report, 5/27/2025 2 / 20
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
5.5. Architectural Coatings
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
5.7. Construction Paving
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors
5.18. Vegetation Page 1749
ITEM NO. 1.
Twin Oaks Lots 1-12 (Surrey Farms) Off-Site Improvements Custom Report, 5/27/2025 3 / 20
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
8. User Changes to Default Data
ITEM NO. 1.
Twin Oaks Lots 1-12 (Surrey Farms) Off-Site Improvements Custom Report, 5/27/2025 4 / 20
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Twin Oaks Lots 1-12 (Surrey Farms) Off-Site Improvements Construction Start Date 9/1/2025
Lead Agency Town of Los Gatos
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 3.00
Precipitation (days) 12.8
Location 37.225321111983384, -121.95178138638185
County Santa Clara
City Los Gatos
Air District Bay Area AQMD
Air Basin San Francisco Bay Area
TAZ 1946
EDFZ 1
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.29
1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Road Widening 0.48 Mile 0.29 0.00 0.00 — — —
ITEM NO. 1.
Twin Oaks Lots 1-12 (Surrey Farms) Off-Site Improvements Custom Report, 5/27/2025 5 / 20
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.53 3.82 32.7 38.4 0.07 1.46 4.03 5.49 1.35 0.48 1.82 — 7,993 7,993 0.32 0.08 1.34 8,026 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.12 0.10 0.84 1.01 < 0.005 0.04 0.09 0.13 0.03 0.01 0.05 — 204 204 0.01 < 0.005 0.02 205 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.02 0.02 0.15 0.18 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 — 33.8 33.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 33.9
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 4.53 3.82 32.7 38.4 0.07 1.46 4.03 5.49 1.35 0.48 1.82 — 7,993 7,993 0.32 0.08 1.34 8,026 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Page 1752
ITEM NO. 1.
Twin Oaks Lots 1-12 (Surrey Farms) Off-Site Improvements Custom Report, 5/27/2025 6 / 20
2025 0.12 0.10 0.84 1.01 < 0.005 0.04 0.09 0.13 0.03 0.01 0.05 — 204 204 0.01 < 0.005 0.02 205 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.02 0.02 0.15 0.18 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 — 33.8 33.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 33.9
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing (2025) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.58 0.49 4.22 4.50 0.01 0.24 — 0.24 0.22 — 0.22 — 632 632 0.03 0.01 — 634 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.53 0.53 — 0.06 0.06 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 3.46 3.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.47
ITEM NO. 1.
Twin Oaks Lots 1-12 (Surrey Farms) Off-Site Improvements Custom Report, 5/27/2025 7 / 20
Dust — — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.57 0.57 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.58 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 64.3 64.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.25 65.3 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.33 0.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.33 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06
ITEM NO. 1.
Twin Oaks Lots 1-12 (Surrey Farms) Off-Site Improvements Custom Report, 5/27/2025 8 / 20
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.3. Linear, Grading & Excavation (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
4.39 3.69 32.6 36.9 0.07 1.46 — 1.46 1.35 — 1.35 — 7,645 7,645 0.31 0.06 — 7,671 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 3.71 3.71 — 0.40 0.40 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.07 0.06 0.54 0.61 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 126 126 0.01 < 0.005 — 126 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.06 0.06 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
ITEM NO. 1.
Twin Oaks Lots 1-12 (Surrey Farms) Off-Site Improvements Custom Report, 5/27/2025 9 / 20
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.01 0.01 0.10 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 20.8 20.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 20.9 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.14 0.12 0.09 1.53 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.31 0.00 0.07 0.07 — 321 321 0.01 0.01 1.27 326 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.0 27.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 28.2 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.95 4.95 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.02 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.44 0.44 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.46 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.82 0.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.83 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.5. Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade (2025) - Unmitigated
ITEM NO. 1.
Twin Oaks Lots 1-12 (Surrey Farms) Off-Site Improvements Custom Report, 5/27/2025 10 / 20
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
2.25 1.88 17.2 19.9 0.04 0.69 — 0.69 0.64 — 0.64 — 4,090 4,090 0.17 0.03 — 4,104 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 1.59 1.59 — 0.17 0.17 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.03 0.03 0.24 0.27 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 56.0 56.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 56.2 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.02 0.02 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.01 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 9.28 9.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.31
ITEM NO. 1.
Twin Oaks Lots 1-12 (Surrey Farms) Off-Site Improvements Custom Report, 5/27/2025 11 / 20
Dust — — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.06 1.02 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 214 214 < 0.005 0.01 0.85 218 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.75 2.75 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 2.79 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.46 0.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.46 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.7. Linear, Paving (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ITEM NO. 1.
Twin Oaks Lots 1-12 (Surrey Farms) Off-Site Improvements Custom Report, 5/27/2025 12 / 20
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.02 0.86 7.92 11.7 0.02 0.34 — 0.34 0.31 — 0.31 — 1,769 1,769 0.07 0.01 — 1,775 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.01 < 0.005 0.04 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 9.69 9.69 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.72 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.60 1.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.61 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 150 150 < 0.005 0.01 0.59 152 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
ITEM NO. 1.
Twin Oaks Lots 1-12 (Surrey Farms) Off-Site Improvements Custom Report, 5/27/2025 13 / 20
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.77 0.77 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.78 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.13 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.13 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ITEM NO. 1.
Twin Oaks Lots 1-12 (Surrey Farms) Off-Site Improvements Custom Report, 5/27/2025 14 / 20
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ITEM NO. 1.
Twin Oaks Lots 1-12 (Surrey Farms) Off-Site Improvements Custom Report, 5/27/2025 15 / 20
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Linear, Grubbing & Land
Clearing
Linear, Grubbing & Land
Clearing
9/1/2025 9/3/2025 5.00 2.00 —
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
9/4/2025 9/12/2025 5.00 6.00 —
ITEM NO. 1.
Twin Oaks Lots 1-12 (Surrey Farms) Off-Site Improvements Custom Report, 5/27/2025 16 / 20
Linear, Drainage, Utilities,
& Sub-Grade
Linear, Drainage, Utilities,
& Sub-Grade
9/13/2025 9/20/2025 5.00 5.00 —
Linear, Paving Linear, Paving 9/21/2025 9/23/2025 5.00 2.00 —
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Linear, Grubbing &
Land Clearing
Signal Boards Electric Average 0.00 8.00 6.00 0.82
Linear, Grubbing &
Land Clearing
Crawler Tractors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 87.0 0.43
Linear, Grubbing &
Land Clearing
Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Excavators Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Crawler Tractors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 87.0 0.43
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Graders Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 148 0.41
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Signal Boards Electric Average 0.00 8.00 6.00 0.82
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 150 0.36
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Scrapers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 423 0.48
ITEM NO. 1.
Twin Oaks Lots 1-12 (Surrey Farms) Off-Site Improvements Custom Report, 5/27/2025 17 / 20
Linear, Drainage, Rough Terrain Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 96.0 0.40 Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Signal Boards Electric Average 0.00 8.00 6.00 0.82
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Plate Compactors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 8.00 0.43
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Pumps Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 11.0 0.74
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 37.0 0.48
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74
Linear, Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Linear, Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Linear, Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 81.0 0.42 Linear, Paving Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Linear, Paving Signal Boards Electric Average 0.00 8.00 6.00 0.82
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing — — — —
Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing Worker 7.50 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing Vendor 0.00 8.40 HHDT,MHDT Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing Onsite truck — — HHDT
ITEM NO. 1.
Twin Oaks Lots 1-12 (Surrey Farms) Off-Site Improvements Custom Report, 5/27/2025 18 / 20
Linear, Grading & Excavation — — — —
Linear, Grading & Excavation Worker 37.5 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Linear, Grading & Excavation Vendor 1.00 8.40 HHDT,MHDT Linear, Grading & Excavation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Linear, Grading & Excavation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub-Grade
— — — —
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub-Grade
Worker 25.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub-Grade
Vendor 0.00 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub-Grade
Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub-Grade
Onsite truck — — HHDT
Linear, Paving — — — —
Linear, Paving Worker 17.5 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Linear, Paving Vendor 0.00 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Linear, Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Linear, Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.
5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
5.6. Dust Mitigation Page 1765
ITEM NO. 1.
Twin Oaks Lots 1-12 (Surrey Farms) Off-Site Improvements Custom Report, 5/27/2025 19 / 20
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Linear, Grubbing & Land
Clearing
— — 0.29 0.00 —
Linear, Grading & Excavation — — 0.29 0.00 —
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub-Grade
— — 0.29 0.00 —
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.
5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Road Widening 0.29 100%
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2025 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
ITEM NO. 1.
Twin Oaks Lots 1-12 (Surrey Farms) Off-Site Improvements Custom Report, 5/27/2025 20 / 20
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Lot acreage adjusted to represent overall disturbance area associated with the proposed project.
Construction: Construction Phases Based on typical construction practices, architectural coating assumed to start two weeks after the start of building construction and last for the same number of days. Demolition not required for the proposed project. Vertical Construction (Land Use Development) phase timing adjusted based on project-specific information provided by the project applicant.
Operations: Hearths Based on applicant provided information, all 12 units would include electric fireplaces.
ITEM NO. 1.
Twin Oaks Lots 1-12 (Surrey Farms) Off-Site Improvements Custom Report, 6/11/2025 1 / 30
Twin Oaks Lots 1-12 (Surrey Farms) Off-Site Improvements Custom Report
Table of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing (2025) - Unmitigated
3.2. Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing (2025) - Mitigated
3.3. Linear, Grading & Excavation (2025) - Unmitigated
3.4. Linear, Grading & Excavation (2025) - Mitigated
3.5. Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade (2025) - Unmitigated
ITEM NO. 1.
Twin Oaks Lots 1-12 (Surrey Farms) Off-Site Improvements Custom Report, 6/11/2025 2 / 30
3.6. Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade (2025) - Mitigated
3.7. Linear, Paving (2025) - Unmitigated
3.8. Linear, Paving (2025) - Mitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated
4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated
4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
5.2.2. Mitigated
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated Page 1769
ITEM NO. 1.
Twin Oaks Lots 1-12 (Surrey Farms) Off-Site Improvements Custom Report, 6/11/2025 3 / 30
5.3.2. Mitigated
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
5.5. Architectural Coatings
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
5.7. Construction Paving
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated Page 1770
ITEM NO. 1.
Twin Oaks Lots 1-12 (Surrey Farms) Off-Site Improvements Custom Report, 6/11/2025 4 / 30
5.18.2.2. Mitigated
8. User Changes to Default Data
ITEM NO. 1.
Twin Oaks Lots 1-12 (Surrey Farms) Off-Site Improvements Custom Report, 6/11/2025 5 / 30
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Twin Oaks Lots 1-12 (Surrey Farms) Off-Site Improvements Construction Start Date 9/1/2025
Lead Agency Town of Los Gatos
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 3.00
Precipitation (days) 12.8
Location 37.225321111983384, -121.95178138638185
County Santa Clara
City Los Gatos
Air District Bay Area AQMD
Air Basin San Francisco Bay Area
TAZ 1946
EDFZ 1
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.29
1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Road Widening 0.48 Mile 0.29 0.00 0.00 — — —
ITEM NO. 1.
Twin Oaks Lots 1-12 (Surrey Farms) Off-Site Improvements Custom Report, 6/11/2025 6 / 30
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Construction C-5 Use Advanced Engine Tiers
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mit. 0.90 0.89 6.85 47.1 0.07 0.14 4.03 4.17 0.14 0.48 0.62 — 7,993 7,993 0.32 0.08 1.34 8,026 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mit. 0.03 0.03 0.19 1.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.10 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 — 204 204 0.01 < 0.005 0.02 205 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mit. < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 33.8 33.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 33.9 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ITEM NO. 1.
Twin Oaks Lots 1-12 (Surrey Farms) Off-Site Improvements Custom Report, 6/11/2025 7 / 30
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.90 0.89 6.85 47.1 0.07 0.14 4.03 4.17 0.14 0.48 0.62 — 7,993 7,993 0.32 0.08 1.34 8,026 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.03 0.03 0.19 1.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.10 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 — 204 204 0.01 < 0.005 0.02 205 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 33.8 33.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 33.9
3. Construction Emissions Details
ITEM NO. 1.
Twin Oaks Lots 1-12 (Surrey Farms) Off-Site Improvements Custom Report, 6/11/2025 8 / 30
3.1. Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing (2025) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
3.2. Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing (2025) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ITEM NO. 1.
Twin Oaks Lots 1-12 (Surrey Farms) Off-Site Improvements Custom Report, 6/11/2025 9 / 30
Off-Roa 0.08 0.08 1.50 4.42 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 632 632 0.03 0.01 — 634 d
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.53 0.53 — 0.06 0.06 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 3.46 3.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.47 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.57 0.57 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.58 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ITEM NO. 1.
Twin Oaks Lots 1-12 (Surrey Farms) Off-Site Improvements Custom Report, 6/11/2025 10 / 30
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 64.3 64.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.25 65.3 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.33 0.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.33 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.3. Linear, Grading & Excavation (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ITEM NO. 1.
Twin Oaks Lots 1-12 (Surrey Farms) Off-Site Improvements Custom Report, 6/11/2025 11 / 30
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
3.4. Linear, Grading & Excavation (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.76 0.76 6.73 45.6 0.07 0.14 — 0.14 0.14 — 0.14 — 7,645 7,645 0.31 0.06 — 7,671 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 3.71 3.71 — 0.40 0.40 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ITEM NO. 1.
Twin Oaks Lots 1-12 (Surrey Farms) Off-Site Improvements Custom Report, 6/11/2025 12 / 30
Off-Roa 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.75 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 126 126 0.01 < 0.005 — 126 d
Equipm
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.06 0.06 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 20.8 20.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 20.9 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.14 0.12 0.09 1.53 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.31 0.00 0.07 0.07 — 321 321 0.01 0.01 1.27 326 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.0 27.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 28.2 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.95 4.95 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.02 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.44 0.44 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.46 HaulingPage 1779 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ITEM NO. 1.
Twin Oaks Lots 1-12 (Surrey Farms) Off-Site Improvements Custom Report, 6/11/2025 13 / 30
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.82 0.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.83 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.5. Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade (2025) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
3.6. Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade (2025) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Page 1780 ITEM NO. 1.
Twin Oaks Lots 1-12 (Surrey Farms) Off-Site Improvements Custom Report, 6/11/2025 14 / 30
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.64 0.59 4.34 24.3 0.04 0.14 — 0.14 0.14 — 0.14 — 4,090 4,090 0.17 0.03 — 4,104 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 1.59 1.59 — 0.17 0.17 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.01 0.01 0.06 0.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 56.0 56.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 56.2 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.02 0.02 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 9.28 9.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.31
ITEM NO. 1.
Twin Oaks Lots 1-12 (Surrey Farms) Off-Site Improvements Custom Report, 6/11/2025 15 / 30
Dust — — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.06 1.02 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 214 214 < 0.005 0.01 0.85 218 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.75 2.75 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 2.79 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.46 0.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.46 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.7. Linear, Paving (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ITEM NO. 1.
Twin Oaks Lots 1-12 (Surrey Farms) Off-Site Improvements Custom Report, 6/11/2025 16 / 30
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
3.8. Linear, Paving (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.18 0.18 2.06 12.4 0.02 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 1,769 1,769 0.07 0.01 — 1,775 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
ITEM NO. 1.
Twin Oaks Lots 1-12 (Surrey Farms) Off-Site Improvements Custom Report, 6/11/2025 17 / 30
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 9.69 9.69 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.72 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.60 1.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.61 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 150 150 < 0.005 0.01 0.59 152 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.77 0.77 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.78 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Page 1784
ITEM NO. 1.
Twin Oaks Lots 1-12 (Surrey Farms) Off-Site Improvements Custom Report, 6/11/2025 18 / 30
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.13 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.13 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
TotalPage 1785 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ITEM NO. 1.
Twin Oaks Lots 1-12 (Surrey Farms) Off-Site Improvements Custom Report, 6/11/2025 19 / 30
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ITEM NO. 1.
Twin Oaks Lots 1-12 (Surrey Farms) Off-Site Improvements Custom Report, 6/11/2025 20 / 30
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
ITEM NO. 1.
Twin Oaks Lots 1-12 (Surrey Farms) Off-Site Improvements Custom Report, 6/11/2025 21 / 30
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided Page 1788 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ITEM NO. 1.
Twin Oaks Lots 1-12 (Surrey Farms) Off-Site Improvements Custom Report, 6/11/2025 22 / 30
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Linear, Grubbing & Land
Clearing
Linear, Grubbing & Land
Clearing
9/1/2025 9/3/2025 5.00 2.00 —
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
9/4/2025 9/12/2025 5.00 6.00 —
Linear, Drainage, Utilities,
& Sub-Grade
Linear, Drainage, Utilities,
& Sub-Grade
9/13/2025 9/20/2025 5.00 5.00 —
Linear, Paving Linear, Paving 9/21/2025 9/23/2025 5.00 2.00 —
ITEM NO. 1.
Twin Oaks Lots 1-12 (Surrey Farms) Off-Site Improvements Custom Report, 6/11/2025 23 / 30
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Linear, Grubbing &
Land Clearing
Signal Boards Electric Average 0.00 8.00 6.00 0.82
Linear, Grubbing &
Land Clearing
Crawler Tractors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 87.0 0.43
Linear, Grubbing &
Land Clearing
Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Excavators Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Crawler Tractors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 87.0 0.43
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Graders Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 148 0.41
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Signal Boards Electric Average 0.00 8.00 6.00 0.82
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 150 0.36
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Scrapers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 423 0.48
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Rough Terrain Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 96.0 0.40 Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Signal Boards Electric Average 0.00 8.00 6.00 0.82 Page 1790 ITEM NO. 1.
Twin Oaks Lots 1-12 (Surrey Farms) Off-Site Improvements Custom Report, 6/11/2025 24 / 30
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Plate Compactors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 8.00 0.43
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Pumps Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 11.0 0.74
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 37.0 0.48
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74
Linear, Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Linear, Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Linear, Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 81.0 0.42 Linear, Paving Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Linear, Paving Signal Boards Electric Average 0.00 8.00 6.00 0.82
5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Linear, Grubbing &
Land Clearing
Signal Boards Electric Average 0.00 8.00 6.00 0.82
Linear, Grubbing &
Land Clearing
Crawler Tractors Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 87.0 0.43 Linear, Grubbing &
Land Clearing
Excavators Diesel Tier 4 Final 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Excavators Diesel Tier 4 Final 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Crawler Tractors Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 87.0 0.43 Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Graders Diesel Tier 4 Final 2.00 8.00 148 0.41
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Rollers Diesel Tier 4 Final 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
ITEM NO. 1.
Twin Oaks Lots 1-12 (Surrey Farms) Off-Site Improvements Custom Report, 6/11/2025 25 / 30
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Signal Boards Electric Average 0.00 8.00 6.00 0.82
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Tier 4 Final 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 150 0.36 Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Scrapers Diesel Tier 4 Final 2.00 8.00 423 0.48
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Scrapers Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 423 0.48
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Rough Terrain Forklifts Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 96.0 0.40 Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Tier 4 Final 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Signal Boards Electric Average 0.00 8.00 6.00 0.82
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Graders Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Plate Compactors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 8.00 0.43
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Pumps Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 11.0 0.74
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Air Compressors Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 37.0 0.48 Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74
Linear, Paving Rollers Diesel Tier 4 Final 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Linear, Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Linear, Paving Pavers Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 81.0 0.42 Linear, Paving Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Tier 4 Final 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Linear, Paving Signal Boards Electric Average 0.00 8.00 6.00 0.82
ITEM NO. 1.
Twin Oaks Lots 1-12 (Surrey Farms) Off-Site Improvements Custom Report, 6/11/2025 26 / 30
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing — — — —
Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing Worker 7.50 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing Vendor 0.00 8.40 HHDT,MHDT Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing Onsite truck — — HHDT
Linear, Grading & Excavation — — — —
Linear, Grading & Excavation Worker 37.5 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Linear, Grading & Excavation Vendor 1.00 8.40 HHDT,MHDT Linear, Grading & Excavation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Linear, Grading & Excavation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub-Grade
— — — —
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub-Grade
Worker 25.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub-Grade
Vendor 0.00 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub-Grade
Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub-Grade
Onsite truck — — HHDT
Linear, Paving — — — —
Linear, Paving Worker 17.5 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Linear, Paving Vendor 0.00 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Linear, Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Linear, Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
ITEM NO. 1.
Twin Oaks Lots 1-12 (Surrey Farms) Off-Site Improvements Custom Report, 6/11/2025 27 / 30
5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing — — — —
Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing Worker 7.50 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing Vendor 0.00 8.40 HHDT,MHDT Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing Onsite truck — — HHDT
Linear, Grading & Excavation — — — —
Linear, Grading & Excavation Worker 37.5 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Linear, Grading & Excavation Vendor 1.00 8.40 HHDT,MHDT Linear, Grading & Excavation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Linear, Grading & Excavation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub-Grade
— — — —
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub-Grade
Worker 25.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub-Grade
Vendor 0.00 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub-Grade
Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub-Grade
Onsite truck — — HHDT
Linear, Paving — — — —
Linear, Paving Worker 17.5 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Linear, Paving Vendor 0.00 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Linear, Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Linear, Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
5.4. Vehicles
ITEM NO. 1.
Twin Oaks Lots 1-12 (Surrey Farms) Off-Site Improvements Custom Report, 6/11/2025 28 / 30
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.
5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Linear, Grubbing & Land
Clearing
— — 0.29 0.00 —
Linear, Grading & Excavation — — 0.29 0.00 —
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub-Grade
— — 0.29 0.00 —
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.
5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Road Widening 0.29 100%
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2025 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
ITEM NO. 1.
Twin Oaks Lots 1-12 (Surrey Farms) Off-Site Improvements Custom Report, 6/11/2025 29 / 30
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
ITEM NO. 1.
Twin Oaks Lots 1-12 (Surrey Farms) Off-Site Improvements Custom Report, 6/11/2025 30 / 30
8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Lot acreage adjusted to represent overall disturbance area associated with the proposed project.
Construction: Construction Phases Based on typical construction practices, architectural coating assumed to start two weeks after the start of building construction and last for the same number of days. Demolition not required for the proposed project. Vertical Construction (Land Use Development) phase timing adjusted based on project-specific information provided by the project applicant.
Operations: Hearths Based on applicant provided information, all 12 units would include electric fireplaces.
ITEM NO. 1.
PLANNING COMMISSION – December 17, 2025
REVISED REQUIRED FINDINGS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR:
178 Twin Oaks Drive
Architecture and Site Applications S-24-023 through -032 and S-24-059 Vesting Tentative Map Application M-24-013
Mitigated Negative Declaration ND-25-001
Consider a Request for Approval for the Subdivision of One Lot into Twelve Lots with a Vesting Tentative Map, Construction of a New Single-Family Residence on Each Lot, Site Work Requiring a Grading Permit, and Removal of Large Protected Trees Under Senate Bill 330 (SB 330) on a Vacant Property Zoned RC. APN 532-16-006. A Recirculated Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Have Been Prepared.
Property Owner/Applicant: Larry Dodge
Project Planner: Erin Walters
FINDINGS
Required finding for CEQA:
■ A Recirculated Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project. It has been determined that this project will not have a significant impact on the environment with adoption of the Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration and Recirculated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to mitigate potential impacts to a less than significant level.
Required finding for consistency with the Town’s General Plan:
■ That the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan with the incentives, and waivers requested pursuant to State Density Bonus Law and granting of the requested exceptions to the maximum allowed density pursuant to the Builder’s Remedy provision of the Housing Accountability Act, CA Gov. Code § 65589.5 (d).
Required findings to deny a Subdivision application:
■ As required by Section 66474 of the State Subdivision Map Act the map shall be denied if any of the following findings are made: None of the findings could be made to deny the application with granting of the requested exceptions to Town standards pursuant to the Builder’s Remedy provision of the Housing Accountability Act, CA Gov. Code § 65589.5 (d).
Instead, the Town Council makes the following affirmative findings:
a. That the proposed map is consistent with all elements of the General Plan with granting of EXHIBIT 41
ITEM NO. 1.
the requested exceptions to Town standards pursuant to the Builder’s Remedy provision of the Housing Accountability Act, California Government Code Section 65589.5(d). b. That the design and improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with all elements of the General Plan with granting of the requested exceptions to Town standards pursuant to the Builder’s Remedy provision of the Housing Accountability Act, CA Gov. Code § 65589.5 (d).
c. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development. d. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. e. That the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat with implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the Conditions of Approval.
f. That the design of the subdivision and type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems.
g. That the design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision.
Required Subdivision Map Findings for the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection:
■ For tentative or parcel maps approved in state responsibility areas (SRA) or very high fire hazard severity zones (VH), the following findings are required to be made to the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection (14 CCR Section 1266.02):
1. A finding supported by substantial evidence in the record that the subdivision is consistent with:
a. Regulations adopted by the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Sections 4290 and 4291 of the Public Resources Code, or b. Consistent with local ordinances certified by the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection as meeting or exceeding the state regulations.
2. A finding supported by substantial evidence in the record that structural fire protection and suppression services will be available for the subdivision through any of the following entities:
a. A county, city, special district, political subdivision of the state, or another entity organized solely to provide fire protection services that is monitored and funded by a county or tother public entity. b. The Department of Forestry and Fire Protection by contract entered into pursuant to Section 4133, 4142, or 4144 of the Public Resources Code.
Required compliance with the Zoning Regulations:
■ The project meets the objective standards of Chapter 29 of the Town Code (Zoning Regulations) with the incentives and waivers requested pursuant to State Density Bonus Law (CA Gov. Code § 65915) and granting of the requested exceptions to Town standards pursuant to the Builder’s Remedy provision of the Housing Accountability Act, CA Gov. Code
ITEM NO. 1.
§ 65589.5 (d).
Required compliance with the Town of Los Gatos Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines:
■ The project meets the Town of Los Gatos Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines with the incentives and waivers requested pursuant to State Density Bonus Law (CA Gov.
Code § 65915) and granting of the requested exceptions to Town standards pursuant to the Builder’s Remedy provision of the Housing Accountability Act, CA Gov. Code § 65589.5 (d).
Required compliance with the Town of Los Gatos Hillside Specific Plan:
■ The project meets the Town of Los Gatos Hillside Specific Plan with the incentives and waivers requested pursuant to State Density Bonus Law (CA Gov. Code § 65915) and granting of the requested exceptions to Town standards pursuant to the Builder’s Remedy provision of the Housing Accountability Act, CA Gov. Code § 65589.5 (d).
Required for granting concession and waivers pursuant through State Density Bonus Law:
Concession(s) or incentive(s)
■ CA Government Code § 65915:
(d) The Town shall grant concession(s) or incentive(s) requested by the applicant unless the Town makes a written finding, based upon substantial evidence, of any of the following:
(A) The concession or incentive does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions, consistent with subdivision (k), to provide for affordable housing costs, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or for rents for the targeted units to be set as specified in subdivision (c). (B) The concession or incentive would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon public health and safety or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low-income and moderate-income households. (C) The concession or incentive would be contrary to state or federal law.
Waivers
■ CA Government Code § 65915 (a)(2):
The Town shall grant waivers to the Town’s development standards requested by the applicant unless the Town makes a written finding, based upon substantial evidence, that the development standard for which the waiver is requested would not physically preclude the construction of the development at the densities and with the concession permitted through Density Bonus Law.
ITEM NO. 1.
Required findings to deny a project under State Builder’s Remedy Law:
As required by CA Government Code § 65589.5 (d) of the California Housing Accountability Act, a qualifying housing development project invoking Builder’s Remedy shall not be denied by the Town, or condition approval in a manner that renders the housing development project infeasible, including through the use of design review standards, unless it makes written findings, based on the preponderance of the evidence in the record, as to one of the following: None of the findings could be made to deny the application.
1. The Town did not have a certified sixth cycle Housing Element by January 31, 2023.
2. The housing development project would not have a specific, adverse impact on the public health or safety.
3. The denial of the housing development project or imposition of conditions is not required in order to comply with specific state or federal law.
4. The housing development project is not proposed on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation that is surrounded on at least two sides by land being used for agricultural or resource preservation purposes, or which does not have adequate water or wastewater facilities to serve the project.
5. On the date the application for the housing development project was deemed complete, the Town had not adopted a revised housing element that was in substantial compliance with California Government Code Section 65589.5(d) of the California Housing Accountability Act, and the housing development project was inconsistent with both the Town’s Zoning Ordinance and General Plan Land Use Designation.
CONSIDERATIONS
Required considerations in review of Architecture and Site applications:
■ As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code, the applicable considerations in review of an Architecture and Site application were all made in reviewing this project.
N:\DEV\FINDINGS\2026\Twin Oaks Dr, 178 - A&S and Subdivision Revised Findings - PC 06-11-26.docx
ITEM NO. 1.
PLANNING COMMISSION – June 11, 2026 – Draft
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
178 Twin Oaks Drive, Lots 1 -12
Vesting Tentative Map Application M-24-013
Architecture and Site Applications S-24-023 through S-24-033 and S-24-059 Mitigated Negative Declaration ND-25-001
Consider a Request for Approval for the Subdivision of One Lot into Twelve Lots with a Vesting Tentative Map, Construction of a New Single-Family Residence on Each Lot, Site Work Requiring a Grading Permit, and Removal of Large Protected Trees Under Senate Bill 330 (SB 330) on a Vacant Property Zoned RC. APN 532-16-006. A Recirculated Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Have Been Prepared.
Property Owner/Applicant: Larry Dodge
Project Planner: Erin Walters
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
Planning Division
APPLICABLE TO ALL LOTS
1. APPROVAL: This project is vested to the ordinances, policies, and standards in effect on December 19, 2023, and these conditions of approval conform to those ordinances, policies, and standards. This application shall be completed in accordance with all of the conditions of approval and in substantial compliance with the approved plans. Any changes or modifications to the approved plans shall be approved by the Community Development Director, Development Review Committee, or the Planning Commission depending on the scope of the changes.
2. EXPIRATION: The approval will expire two years from the approval date pursuant to Section 29.20.320 of the Town Code, unless the approval has been vested, pursuant to
29.20.335.
3. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, AND RESTRICTIONS (CC&R): CC&Rs must be approved by the Town and recorded with the County prior to recording of map.
4. MASTER DEVELOPER: This project shall be developed and constructed by a single Master Developer responsible for the coordinated implementation of all site improvements, infrastructure, and building construction. Individual lots within the approved subdivision or development area shall not be sold, transferred, or otherwise conveyed to separate entities or individuals for the purpose of independent development, construction, or sale prior to completion of the project as a whole. Prior to recordation of any Final Map or issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall provide documentation to the Community Development Director demonstrating that a single Master Developer is responsible for construction and delivery of the project. Prior to issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy, the Town shall verify compliance with this condition. This condition shall be printed as a note on the Final Map.
EXHIBIT 42
ITEM NO. 1.
5. BELOW MARKET PRICE (BMP) UNITS: The developer shall provide three (3) BMP units (low income) for sale to be sold at a price that is affordable to the target household lowincome range, as required by the Town’s applicable BMP Program Guidelines and the applicable BMP Resolution. A deed restriction shall be recorded prior to the issuance of any building permits for residential units, stating that the BMP unit must be sold and maintained as a below market price unit pursuant to the Town’s BMP Ordinance and Guidelines.
6. AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT: Prior to issuance of building permits for residential units, the developer shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with the Town for provision of the required BMP units and to facilitate their sale pursuant to the BMP Program Guidelines and BMP Resolution in place at the time of building permit issuance.
7. PHASING OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF BMP UNITS: The Certificate of Occupancy for the first market rate unit shall not be issued until all three required BMP units have been constructed and Certificates of Occupancy for each BMP unit have been secured.
8. OPEN SPACE EASEMENTS: The Final Map submitted for recordation with the County Recorder shall include open space easements on Lots 2, 7, 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10, 11 and 12 to protect unique natural features, habitats, and movement corridors on the property, as shown in the Development Plans and Exhibit 35 of the June 11, 2026, Planning Commission staff report. Easements lying in, on, over, under and along those certain strips of land designated and delineated as “O.S.E.” (Open Space Easement). No activity or use shall be conducted in said open space easement which is not compatible with maintaining and preserving the natural or scenic character of the land. The open space easement shall be maintained by the property owner. Said easements shall be kept open and free from buildings and structures of any kind except public service structures, irrigation systems, and appurtenances thereto, lawful fences and all lawful roof overhangs.
9. PUBLIC TRAIL EASEMENTS: The Final Map submitted for recordation with the County Recorder shall include public trail easements to the Town of Los Gatos on Lots 1, 4, 5, 6, 8,9,10, 11 and 12 as shown in the Development Plans and Exhibit 35 of the June 11, 2026, Planning Commission staff report.
10. PUBLIC ART: The applicant shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 25, Article VII of the Town Code. The payment of the Los Gatos Public Art Fund in-lieu fee must be made prior to the issuance of any building permit for the development project.
11. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT: A Tree Removal Permit shall be obtained for any trees to be removed, prior to the issuance of Building and/or Grading Permits. Per Town Code Section 26.20.010 and Chapter 29, Article 1, Division 2, the developer shall obtain a tree removal permit prior to the removal of protected trees on private or Town property.
The project developer shall abide by any tree replacement ratios and/or in-lieu payments, tree protection measures, and best management practices required by the tree removal permit and/or within an updated arborist report.
12. REPLACEMENT TREES: New trees shall be planted to mitigate the loss of trees being removed. The number of trees and size of replacement trees shall be determined using the canopy replacement table in the Town Code.
13. EXISTING TREES: All existing trees shown on the plan and trees required to remain or to be planted are specific subjects of approval of this plan and must remain on the site.
ITEM NO. 1.
14. ARBORIST REQUIREMENTS: Prior to issuance of Building and/or Grading Permits, the developer shall implement, at their cost, all recommendations identified in the Arborist’s report for the project, on file in the Community Development Department.
These recommendations must be incorporated in the Building Permit plans and completed prior to issuance of a building permit where applicable and shall remain through all phases of construction.
15. TREE FENCING: Prior to issuance of Building and/or Grading Permits, protective tree fencing and other protection measures consistent with Section 29.10.1005 of the Town Code shall be placed as shown on the Tree Protection Plan of the approved plans prior to issuance of demolition and building permits and shall remain through all phases of construction. Include a tree protection plan with the construction plans.
16. TREE STAKING: Prior to final inspection, all newly planted trees shall be double staked using rubber tree ties.
17. LANDSCAPING: The final landscape plan shall comply with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines criteria for planting (ornamental planting shall be confined to areas within 30 feet of the house, inclusive of decks, patios and driveway). Prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, landscaping must be installed and completed.
18. WATER EFFICIENCY LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE: The final landscape plan, including landscape and irrigation plans and calculations, shall meet the Town of Los Gatos Water Conservation Ordinance or the State Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, whichever is more restrictive. The final landscape plan shall be reviewed by the Town’s consultant prior to issuance of building permits. A review fee based on the current fee schedule adopted by the Town Council is required when working landscape and irrigation plans are submitted for review.
19. PROJECT IDENTIFICATION SIGNAGE: Project identification signage on the project site shall be removed within 30 days of final action on the applications.
20. EXTERIOR COLOR: The exterior colors of the house shall not exceed an average light reflectivity value of 30 and shall blend with the natural vegetation.
21. LRV DEED RESTRICTION: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a deed restriction shall be recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s Office that requires all exterior colors to be maintained in conformance with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines.
22. PROPERTY FENCE: All new fencing shall comply with Town Code Section 29.40.0315 at building permit stage, unless an exception is granted by the Community Development Director.
23. OUTDOOR LIGHTING: Exterior lighting shall be kept to a minimum, and shall be down directed fixtures that will not reflect or encroach onto adjacent properties. No flood lights shall be used unless it can be demonstrated that they are needed for safety or security. The lighting plan shall be reviewed during building plan check.
24. TOWN INDEMNITY: Applicants are notified that Town Code Section 1.10.115 requires that any applicant who receives a permit or entitlement (“the Project”) from the Town shall defend (with counsel approved by Town), indemnify, and hold harmless the Town, its agents, officers, and employees from and against any claim, action, or proceeding (including without limitation any appeal or petition for review thereof) against the Town or its agents, officers or employees related to an approval of the Project, including
ITEM NO. 1.
without limitation any related application, permit, certification, condition, environmental determination, other approval, compliance or failure to comply with applicable laws and regulations, and/or processing methods (“Challenge”). Town may (but is not obligated to) defend such Challenge as Town, in its sole discretion, determines appropriate, all at applicant’s sole cost and expense.
Applicant shall bear any and all losses, damages, injuries, liabilities, costs and expenses (including, without limitation, staff time and in-house attorney’s fees on a fully-loaded basis, attorney’s fees for outside legal counsel, expert witness fees, court costs, and other litigation expenses) arising out of or related to any Challenge (“Costs”), whether incurred by Applicant, Town, or awarded to any third party, and shall pay to the Town upon demand any Costs incurred by the Town. No modification of the Project, any application, permit certification, condition, environmental determination, other approval, change in applicable laws and regulations, or change in such Challenge as Town, in its sole discretion, determines appropriate, all the applicant’s sole cost and expense. No modification of the Project, any application, permit certification, condition, environmental determination, other approval, change in applicable laws and regulations, or change in processing methods shall alter the applicant’s indemnity obligation.
25. COMPLIANCE MEMORANDUM: A memorandum shall be prepared and submitted with the building plans detailing how the Conditions of Approval will be addressed.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW MITIGATION MEASURE CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL LOTS *
26. *AIR QUALITY - 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:
• 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 off-site 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 OffRoad 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.
ITEM NO. 1.
• Conformance with the foregoing requirements shall be confirmed through review and approval of plans by the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department. 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 Parks and Public Works Department.
27. *BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IV- 1, CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED FROG: Within 48 hours prior to any ground disturbing activities or vegetation clearing within 50 feet of Ross Creek, a pre-construction survey for California red-legged frog shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. Survey results shall be submitted to the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department.
28. *BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IV- 2- CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED FROG: If California red-legged frog is encountered, activities shall cease until the animal moves out of any proposed work area on its own or is relocated by a permitted qualified biologist. Proof of compliance with this mitigation measure shall be provided to the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department.
29. *BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IV- 3, CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED FROG: During construction activities, fiber netting such as silt fence or similar material shall be used for erosion control where appropriate throughout the project site and within 50 feet of Ross Creek to ensure that California red-legged frog does not get trapped. Proof of compliance with this mitigation measure shall be provided to the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department.
30. *BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IV-4, WHITE-TAILED KITE AND OTHER NESTING RAPTORS AND MIGRATORY BIRDS: If tree removal or ground disturbing activities are scheduled to commence during the nesting season (February 1st through August 31st), a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within seven days prior to such activities to identify possible nesting activity. Survey results shall be submitted to the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department. If active nests are not found further mitigation is not required. If one or more active nests are found, a construction-free buffer of suitable dimensions shall be established around any active raptor or migratory bird nest for the duration of the project, or until the qualified biologist has determined that the chicks have fledged and are foraging independently from their parents. The buffer shall be identified on the ground with flagging or fencing. The buffer distance shall be determined by the on-site qualified biologist based on the species, level of disturbance activity, location of the nest, and the topography between the nest and the construction activity; the construction-free buffer shall consist of a minimum starting distance of 250 feet for raptors and 25 feet for other birds. Proof of compliance with this mitigation measure shall be provided to the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department.
31. *BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IV-5, PALLID BAT AND TOWNSEND’S BIG EARED BAT: Prior to the commencement of construction activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a bat