The URL can be used to link to this page

IS-MND - Public Review- September 2025- 178 Twin Oaks Dr. (PDF) Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2025 1501 Sports Drive, Suite A, Sacramento, CA 95834 Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration i September 2025 TABLE OF CONTENTS A. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 1 B. SOURCES ........................................................................................................................ 2 C. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED .......................................... 4 D. DETERMINATION ............................................................................................................ 5 E. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION........................................................................... 6 F. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................ 6 G. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ................................................................................... 19 I. AESTHETICS. ..................................................................................................... 20 II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES. .................................................. 30 III. AIR QUALITY. ..................................................................................................... 31 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. .............................................................................. 39 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. ................................................................................. 52 VI. ENERGY. ............................................................................................................ 56 VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. ..................................................................................... 59 VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. .................................................................... 65 IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. ..................................................... 68 X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. .............................................................. 71 XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING............................................................................... 77 XII. MINERAL RESOURCES. .................................................................................... 78 XIII. NOISE. ................................................................................................................ 79 XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING. .......................................................................... 86 XV. PUBLIC SERVICES. ........................................................................................... 87 XVI. RECREATION. .................................................................................................... 90 XVII. TRANSPORTATION. .......................................................................................... 91 XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. ................................................................... 97 XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. ............................................................... 98 XX. WILDFIRE. ........................................................................................................ 102 XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. ................................................ 104 APPENDICES: Appendix A: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Modeling Results Appendix B: Biological Evaluation Report Appendix C: Arborist Report Appendix D: Geotechnical and Geologic Hazard Investigation Appendix E: VMT Technical Memorandum Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 1 September 2025 A. BACKGROUND 1. Project Title: Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Erin Walters Senior Planner (408) 354-6867 4. Project Location: 178 Twin Oaks Drive Los Gatos, CA 95030 Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN): 532-16-006 5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Larry Dodge Jim Foley 223 West Main Street, Suite D2 Los Gatos, CA 95030 6. Existing General Plan Designation: Agriculture 7. Existing Zoning Designation: Resource Conservation (RC) 8. Required Approvals from Other Public Agencies: None 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The approximately 17.55-acre project site, identified by APN 532-16-006, is located on an undeveloped hillside at 178 Twin Oaks Drive in the Town of Los Gatos, California. The project site contains scattered oak woodlands throughout, and a small portion of East Ross Creek crosses the project site’s farthest southwestern corner through a buried culvert. Existing single-family residences are located in the vicinity of the project site, as well as an existing private school located to the north of the site. The project site is located within the Town’s 1978 Hillside Specific Plan and is identified as a Hillside Area pursuant to the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. The Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan designates the project site as Agriculture and the site is zoned RC. 10. Project Description Summary: The Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project (proposed project) would subdivide the project site into 12 residential lots, ranging in size from approximately 0.1-acre to 5.48 acres. The eastern portion of the project site would remain undeveloped. The western slope would be developed with 11 residences, comprised of eight market-rate single- INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 2 September 2025 family residences and three below market-rate detached row houses. An additional single-family residence would be developed on the hillside’s northeastern slope. Access to the project site would be provided through a new private driveway off of Twin Oaks Drive west of the project site, as well as a separate access route to Lot 10 from Cerro Vista Court. The proposed project would require Town approval of a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, Tree Removal Permit, and Architecture and Site Plan Review. Due to the applicant’s formal Senate Bill (SB) 330 application and Builder’s Remedy status, the project does not require approval of a General Plan Amendment or Rezone. 11. Status of Native American Consultation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1: In compliance with Assembly Bill (AB) 52 (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21080.3.1), project notification letters were distributed to Costanoan, Northern Valley, Yokut, Bay Miwok, Ohlone, Patwin, Plains Miwok, Bay Miwok, and Delta Yokut tribes on February 24, 2025. As of July 1, 2025, which significantly exceeds the required 30-day consultation response period, the Town has not received a request for consultation. B. SOURCES The following documents are referenced information sources used for the purpose of this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND): 1. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2022 California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. April 2023. 2. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Air Quality Summary Reports. Available at: https://www.baaqmd.gov/about-air-quality/air-quality-measurement/air-quality- summaries. Accessed May 2025. 3. CalEPA. Cortese List Data Resources. Available at: https://calepa.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/SiteCleanup-CorteseList-CurrentList.pdf. Accessed May 2025. 4. California Building Standards Commission. 2022 California Green Building Standards Code. 2023. 5. California Department of Conservation. California Important Farmland Finder. Available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/. Accessed May 2025. 6. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Santa Clara County: State Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Effective April 1, 2024. 7. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. Available at: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates. Accessed October 2023. 8. California Department of Toxic Substances Control. EnviroStor. Available at: https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=178+Twin+Oaks+Drive%2C+Los+Gatos#. Accessed May 2025. 9. California Department of Transportation. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Available at: https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa. Accessed October 2023. 10. City of San Jose. San Jose-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility. Available at: https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments-offices/environmental-services/water-utilities/regional-wastewater-facility. Accessed October 2023. 11. Cornerstone Earth Group. Geotechnical & Geologic Hazard Investigation, Twin Oaks Drive Subdivision. October 1, 2024. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 3 September 2025 12. Cornerstone Earth Group. Interim Response to Geotechnical Peer Review. March 5, 2025. 13. Cotton, Shires, and Associates, Inc. Geological and Geotechnical Peer Review. January 6, 2025. 14. Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details – Guadalupe Sanitary Landfill (43-AN-0015). Available at: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/ 1376?siteID=3399. Accessed October 2023. 15. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map 06085C0377H. Available at: https://hazards-fema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html. Accessed April 2025. 16. Holman & Associates Archeological Consultants. Cultural Resource Study of the Proposed Surrey Farm Estates Project, 170 Twin Oaks Drive, Los Gatos, Santa Clara County, California. January 25, 2013. 17. Live Oak Associates, Inc. 178 Twin Oaks Drive Project, Biological Evaluation, Los Gatos, Santa Clara County, California. May 23, 2025. 18. McClintock Landscape Horticultural Services. Arborist Report, Tree Preservation Plan, Surrey Farms, Project #4185.10, Los Gatos, CA 95032. December 15, 2024. Revised July 23, 2025. 19. Northwest Information Center. Record search results for the proposed Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project, NWIC File No.: 24-0971. January 13, 2025. 20. Protect Genasys. Genasys Protect. Available at: https://protect.genasys.com/zones/US-CA-XSC-LGA-008. Accessed May 2025. 21. San Jose Water Company. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021. 22. Santa Clara Valley Water District. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021. 23. Santa Clara Valley Water District. Local Dams and Reservoirs. Available at: https://www.valleywater.org/your-water/local-dams-and-reservoirs. Accessed May 2025. 24. State Water Resources Control Board. GeoTracker Public Site. Available at: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/. Accessed May 2025. 25. TJKM. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis for 178 Twin Oaks Drive Project in Town of Los Gatos, CA. April 23, 2025. 26. Town of Los Gatos Council. Agenda Report. April 26, 2018. 27. Town of Los Gatos. 2040 General Plan EIR. June 2022. 28. Town of Los Gatos. Emergency Operation Plan. 2015. 29. Town of Los Gatos. Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan. January 7, 2011. 30. Town of Los Gatos. Town of Los Gatos 2040 General Plan. June 30, 2022. 31. Town of Los Gatos. What is a Historic Resource? Available at: https://www.losgatosca.gov/1718/Introduction-to-Historic-Preservation. Accessed April 2025. 32. Town of Los Gatos Town Council. Resolution of the Town Council of The Town of Los Gatos Adopting Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds of Significance for Purposes of Analyzing Transportation Impacts Under the California Environmental Quality Act. November 17, 2020. 33. U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. OSHA Technical Manual (OTM) Section III: Chapter 5. Available at: https://www.osha.gov/otm/section-3-health-hazards/chapter-5#measurements. Accessed October 2023. 34. W-Trans. Hillbrook School Report 2023-2024 School Year, Spring Trimester Monitoring. December 4, 2024. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 4 September 2025 C. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is “Less-Than-Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.  Aesthetics  Agriculture and Forest Resources  Air Quality  Biological Resources  Cultural Resources  Energy  Geology and Soils  Greenhouse Gas Emissions  Hazards and Hazardous Materials  Hydrology and Water Quality  Land Use and Planning  Mineral Resources  Noise  Population and Housing  Public Services  Recreation  Transportation  Tribal Cultural Resources  Utilities and Service Systems  Wildfire  Mandatory Findings of Significance Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 5 September 2025 D. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial study:  I find that the Proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.  I find that although the Proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.  I find that the Proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.  I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.  I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date Erin Walters, Senior Planner Town of Los Gatos Printed Name For Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 6 September 2025 E. INTRODUCTION This IS/MND identifies and analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. The information and analysis presented in this document are organized in accordance with the order of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) checklist in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Where the analysis provided in this document identifies potentially significant environmental effects of the project, mitigation measures sufficient to reduce the impacts to less-than-significant levels are prescribed. The mitigation measures prescribed for environmental effects described in this IS/MND would be implemented in conjunction with the proposed project, as required by CEQA, and the mitigation measures would be incorporated into the proposed project through Conditions of Approval. The Town would adopt findings and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the proposed project in conjunction with project approval. On June 30, 2022, the Town of Los Gatos adopted the Town’s 2040 General Plan Update,1 and the associated 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (2040 General Plan EIR)2 was certified. On April 2, 2024, the Town Council voted to rescind the Land Use and Community Design Elements of the 2040 General Plan. Therefore, the Town’s current General Plan consists of the Land Use Element and Community Design Element of the Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan,3 and the remaining elements of the 2040 General Plan. The Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan EIR (2020 General Plan EIR) is the effective EIR for the Land Use Element and the Community Design Element. Therefore, when the term “General Plan” is used in this IS/MND, the General Plan in effect is being referenced (i.e., the Town of Los Gatos California 2040 General Plan with the 2020 General Plan’s Land Use and Community Design Elements). Applicable portions of the General Plan and General Plan EIR are incorporated by reference, as necessary, as part of this IS/MND. The General Plan EIR is a program EIR, prepared pursuant to Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations [CCR], Sections 15000 et seq.). The General Plan EIR analyzed full implementation of the General Plan and identified measures to mitigate the significant adverse impacts associated with the General Plan. In addition, an EIR was prepared for the project site in August 2017 for a residential project of the same name. At the time, the project site was proposed for subdivision into 10 lots for future development of single-family residences. Although the project has since changed and the EIR was never certified by the Town, the setting of the site has remained the same and, thus, a number of the technical reports associated with the former project and 2017 EIR remain applicable to the proposed project. Project-specific technical reports have also been prepared for the proposed project and form the basis of several technical sections of this IS/MND. All technical reports used in the preparation of this IS/MND are attached as appendices. F. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The following provides a description of the project site’s current location and setting, as well as the proposed project components and the discretionary actions required for the project. 1 Town of Los Gatos. Town of Los Gatos 2040 General Plan. June 30, 2022. 2 Town of Los Gatos. 2040 General Plan EIR. June 2022. 3 Town of Los Gatos. Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan. January 7, 2011. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 7 September 2025 Project Location and Setting The approximately 17.55-acre project site, identified by APN 532-16-006, is located on an undeveloped hillside at 178 Twin Oaks Drive in the Town of Los Gatos, California (see Figure 1 and Figure 2). The project site contains scattered oak woodlands throughout the hillside, which includes steep west-facing slopes in the eastern portion of the site that decrease in grade to near-flat slopes in the western portion. A portion of East Ross Creek crosses the project site’s farthest southwestern corner through a buried culvert and the eastern on-site slopes are bisected by an ephemeral drainage channel. A 100- to 110-foot Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCWVD) flood easement is located in the southern portion of the project site as well. Existing single-family residences are located in the vicinity of the project site. In addition, a private, lower and middle school campus known as Hillbrook School is located north of the project site. The project site is located within the Town’s 1978 Hillside Specific Plan and the Hillside Area identified by the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. The Hillside Area of the Town includes all areas with HR (Hillside Residential) and RC (Resource Conservation) zoning, and some lots with R-1 (Residential, Single-Family) zoning. The Town’s General Plan designates the project site as Agriculture and the site is zoned RC. A Williamson Act contract was previously active for the project site, but a non-renewal deed was recorded in April of 2015 and the Williamson Act expired on January 1, 2025.4 As such, the project site is not currently under a Williamson Act contract. Project Components The proposed project would include the subdivision and subsequent development of 12 residential lots, construction of associated utilities and internal roadways, and removal of on-site trees (see Figure 3 and Figure 4). As such, the proposed project would required approval of a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, Architecture and Site Plan Review, and Tree Removal Permit, the details of which are discussed below. The applicant team has submitted a formal SB 330 application for the project site and the project is subject to Builder’s Remedy. Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(5), known as SB 35 Builder’s Remedy, is a provision of California’s Housing Accountability Act that prevents jurisdictions without a substantially compliant housing element from denying certain housing projects, even if such projects do not comply with the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance or general plan. Although the Town formally certified a compliant Housing Element on July 10, 2024, the project’s application was submitted prior to the certification. Therefore, the proposed project does not require Town approval of a General Plan Amendment or Rezone to allow for approval of the proposed residential subdivision. In addition, the Builder’s Remedy status of the project allows the project to conform only to the applicable ordinances, policies, and standards in place at the time the project application was submitted. 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. Further discussion regarding voluntary compliance with Town standards related to specific CEQA topics are addressed in the relevant sections throughout this IS/MND as applicable. 4 Town of Los Gatos Council. Agenda Report. April 26, 2018. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 8 September 2025 Figure 1 Regional Project Location Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 9 September 2025 Figure 2 Project Site Boundaries Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 10 September 2025 Figure 3 Site Plan Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 11 September 2025 Figure 4 Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 12 September 2025 Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map As discussed above, the proposed project would require approval of a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map for the subdivision of the project site into 12 residential lots ranging in size from approximately 0.1-acre to 5.48 acres, as well as the construction of associated utilities and internal roadways. Consistent with the Town’s Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines, nine of the 12 homes are to be constructed within the project site would be built within the least restrictive development area. The 12 residences would be comprised of nine market-rate single-family residences and three below market-rate detached residences. The proposed project would also include the development of retaining walls throughout the project site, including along the internal roadway and along the outside perimeter of all the proposed lots as shown in Figure 4. The retaining walls would include a maximum height of five feet, as well as perforated subdrain, drainrock, and weepholes to prevent erosion. As shown on Figure 4, a minimum 10-foot buffer from the canopy of on-site trees surrounding the on-site ephemeral drainage channel to the nearest proposed development area, and the existing SCWVD flood easement area in the southern portion of the site would remain. The proposed roadway and utilities improvements associated with the proposed project, as well as the required off-site improvements, are discussed in detail below. Access and Circulation As shown on Figure 5, access to Lots 1 through 9, as well as 11 and 12, would be provided by a new private driveway from Twin Oaks Drive west of the site, which would connect to an internal roadway system. The new driveway connection would include a 24-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) on the project site, which extends from Twin Oaks Drive between two developed parcels to the north and south (APNs 532-16-002 and -005, respectively). Construction of the new driveway would require the removal of on-site trees and an existing shed. Site access to Lot 10 would be provided by a new private driveway extending from Cerro Vista Court. A 20-foot-wide emergency vehicle access (EVA) route would extend south from the site to connect to Brooke Acres Drive. A total of 86 parking spaces would be provided throughout the project site, including off-street parking and 27 garage parking spaces. Utilities Water and sewer utilities would be provided through new connections to existing utility lines within the project vicinity (see Figure 6). Specifically, the proposed water and sewer lines for Lots 1 through 9, 11, and 12 would connect to an existing eight-inch water main within Twin Oaks Drive and an eight-inch sewer main within the western portion of the site. Water and sewer lines for Lot 10 would connect to the existing six-inch water main and eight-inch sewer main within Cerro Vista Court. The on-site utility lines would be installed within the proposed internal roadways. Water would be provided to the project site by the San Jose Water Company (SJW), and sewer service would be provided by West Valley Sanitation District. With respect to stormwater drainage, the majority of the proposed lots would function as individual drainage management areas (DMAs), as shown in Figure 7. The three residences within Lots 1, 11, and 12 would combine into one DMA, and the undeveloped areas and roadways would be divided into additional DMAs. Stormwater runoff from each DMA would be directed into an associated bioretention area, which would provide treatment. Lots 1 through 4 and 7 through 10 would each include an individual bioretention area, and Lots 5 and 6 would share a bioretention area. The stormwater bioretention basins would be sized and designed to meet the Town’s C.3 Stormwater Standards design criteria. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 13 September 2025 Figure 5 Vesting Tentative Map Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 14 September 2025 Figure 6 Utility Plan Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 15 September 2025 Figure 7 Stormwater Control Plan Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 16 September 2025 The proposed internal roadways would be lined with pervious pavement to allow for infiltration. Following on-site treatment, stormwater flows would be directed to the existing 27- and 36-inch storm drains located north and west of the site, respectively. Off-Site Improvements As discussed further under Section XVII of this IS/MND and as required by Mitigation Measure XVII-1, the proposed project would also include the construction of sidewalk connections at the following two locations outside of the project site within the Town: along the north side of Blossom Hill Road between Regent Drive and Union Avenue; and along the east side of Fisher Avenue between Mitchell Avenue and Roberts Road. Required Approvals The proposed project would require Town approval of a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map and be subject to the Town’s Architecture and Site Plan Review process, as well as requiring approval of a Tree Removal Permit. The project approvals are described in further detail below. Architecture and Site Plan Review The Town’s Building Division is responsible for a plan review of all new construction, additions, and remodels for both commercial and residential properties, as well as construction inspection services for projects including electrical, plumbing and mechanical installations. Plan review ensures compliance with applicable State and local codes, policies, guidelines, and standards of all residential and commercial structures within the Town limits, including the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. As described in the Town’s Code, the purpose of Architecture and Site Plan Review 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. Tree Removal Permit Consistent with Section 26.20.010 of the Town’s Municipal Code requires that planting, movement, replacement, or removal of protected trees shall not occur without obtaining a permit. The proposed project would require the removal of a total of 223 on-site protected trees. Thus, the project would require Town approval of a Tree Removal Permit (see Figure 8 and Figure 9). Discretionary Actions The proposed project would require the following discretionary approvals from the Town of Los Gatos: • Adoption of the IS/MND; • Adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program; • Approval of a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map; • Approval of a Tree Removal Permit; and • Architecture and Site Plan Review. As previously discussed, the proposed project is subject to Builder’s Remedy pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(5) and therefore does not require a General Plan Amendment or Rezone. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 17 September 2025 Figure 8 Tree Mitigation and Protection Plan (1 of 2) Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 18 September 2025 Figure 9 Tree Mitigation and Protection Plan (2 of 2) Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 19 September 2025 G. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The following checklist contains the environmental checklist form presented in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The checklist form is used to describe the impacts of the proposed project. A discussion follows each environmental issue identified in the checklist. For this checklist, the following designations are used: Potentially Significant Impact: An impact that could be significant, and for which no sufficient mitigation has been identified. If any potentially significant impacts are identified, an EIR must be prepared. Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: An impact that requires mitigation to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Less-Than-Significant Impact: Any impact that would not be considered significant under CEQA relative to existing standards. No Impact: The project would not have any impact. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 20 September 2025 I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less-Than-Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than-Significant Impact No Impact a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?     b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway?     c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?     d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?     Discussion a,b. Examples of typical scenic vistas include mountain ranges, ridgelines, or bodies of water as viewed from a highway, public space, or other area designated for the express purpose of viewing and sightseeing. In general, a project’s impact to a scenic vista would occur if development of the project would substantially change or remove a scenic vista. The General Plan EIR identifies southward views of the Santa Cruz Mountains and ridgelines as the primary protected scenic vistas within the Town. Due to the heavily-wooded nature of the Town, scenic views are most prominent from the southbound lanes of the Town’s major north-south running streets. The project site is located in an area of the Town that is heavily obscured from view due to intervening topography and vegetation. Therefore, views of the Santa Cruz Mountains would not be obstructed by project development. In addition, due to the intervening topography and vegetation described above, views of any other potential ridgelines beyond the project site are not visible from the surrounding roadways. At a local level, the Town does not identify any roadways as scenic routes. In addition, while State Route (SR) 17 is designated as eligible for listing as a State Scenic Highway, State Scenic Highways are not located within the Town of Los Gatos.5 The project site is located approximately 1.06 miles east of SR 17 and is obscured from view through various natural features and existing development. Therefore, the proposed project would not have the potential to damage scenic resources within the vicinity of a State Scenic Highway. Based on the above, development of the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista and would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. c. The project site is currently undeveloped and is located on a hillside. The project site is adjacent to scattered hillside single-family residences to the northeast, south, and east, 5 California Department of Transportation. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Available at: https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa. Accessed October 2023. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 21 September 2025 and is located in the vicinity of an existing single-family residential neighborhood to the west. An existing private school is located to the north of the site. Therefore, the project site is generally located in an urbanized area of the Town. Pursuant to Appendix G of the CEQA guidelines, because the project site is in an urbanized area, the relevant threshold is whether the project would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. As noted previously, the proposed project would construct two off-site sidewalk improvements, one along the north side of Blossom Hill Road between Regent Drive and Union Avenue and the other along the east side of Fisher Avenue between Mitchell Avenue and Roberts Road. Such improvements would occur along existing roadways within existing ROWs and would be designed consistent with Section 2.16 of the Town’s Engineering Standards, which relate to sidewalks as part of street design. Therefore, the analysis below is focused on the potential conflicts with applicable zoning and regulations associated with the on-site project components. As discussed above, the proposed project currently includes subdivision of the 17.55-acre project site into 12 lots and the subsequent development of 12 single-family residences. The project site is identified as a Hillside Area pursuant to the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. The foregoing standards and guidelines include requirements related to hillside grading, development intensity, architectural design, landscape design, and other site elements such as fences, walls, and driveway entries. The project has been designed such that several residential lots would comply with a number of Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines, including standards related to the Least Restrictive Development Areas (LRDAs), the maximum allowable floor area ratio (FAR) for the site, and the location of the proposed residences within the lots. For example, nine of the 12 proposed residences would be located within the LRDAs, where the slopes are less than 30 percent, consistent with the Hillside Development Standards. However, because the project is invoking Builder’s Remedy, compliance with all of the Town’s guidelines, policies, or programs is not required unless noncompliance constitutes a significant health or safety risk. As such, multiple aspects of the project are not in compliance with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines, such as the extent of grading and maximum heights. Regarding the latter, it should be noted that seven of the residential lots (Lot 1 and Lots 7 through 12) would only exceed the maximum height of 25 feet by approximately one to two feet, and Lots 7 through 10 would be located on the upper sloped portions of the project site. Thus, an effort has been made to minimize the height exceedance on the proposed residential lots that may be more visible. The Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines require an analysis of how a development project would impact views of the project site from four specific “viewing areas” where the designated Hillside Area can be viewed (see Figure 10). The views of the Hillside Area as seen from the Town’s identified points have been recognized as significant. Such areas include the northwest corner of the West Main Street/Bayview Avenue intersection, an area west of the intersection of the southbound SR 17 on-ramp and Los Gatos-Saratoga Road, the southwest corner of the Blossom Hill Road/Los Gatos Boulevard intersection, and the northwest corner of the Selinda Way/Los Gatos-Almaden Road intersection. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 22 September 2025 Figure 10 Hillside Viewing Area Locations Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 23 September 2025 Although the project site is located within the designated Hillside Area, the project site is not visible from any of the foregoing viewing areas due to the existing intervening urban development. As such, the proposed project would not interfere with existing views of the designated Hillside Area from Town-designated viewing areas. 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.6 Although the simulated public viewpoints do not coincide with the Town’s designated Hillside Area viewing areas, the simulations were prepared to meet the Town’s Height Pole, Flagging, Netting, and Signage Policy For Additions and New Construction Policy and are used herein to facilitate an understanding as to whether the project’s deviations from Hillside Development Standards are consequential from an aesthetics perspective. Potential views of the project site from public spaces were determined to include views from Longmeadow Drive (Figure 11, View #1), which is located west of the project site; from the Hillbrook School campus north of the site (Figure 12, View #2); from Cerro Vista Court (Figure 13, View #3); and from Brooke Acres Drive, south of the project site (Figure 14, View #4). Figure 11 presents the existing view of the project site in comparison to the view of the project site with development of the proposed project from View #1. As shown in the figure, 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. 6 It is important to distinguish between public and private views. Private views are views seen from privately owned land and are typically viewed by individual viewers, including views from private residences. Public views are views that are experienced by the collective public. CEQA case law has established that CEQA documents are not required to consider impacts on private views and may limit their analysis of aesthetic effects to impacts on public views. For example, in Mira Mar Mobile Community v. City of Oceanside (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 477, 492-494, the court held that a county, in preparing an EIR for a proposed condominium project, acted within its discretion in choosing not to consider private views. The court noted that “California landowners do not have a right of access to air, light and view over adjoining property” and added that “[u]nder CEQA, the question is whether a project will affect the environment of persons in general, not whether a project will affect particular persons.” (Id. at p. 492.) In this same vein, another court, in Topanga Beach Renters Assn. v. Department of General Services (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 188, 195, observed that “all government activity has some direct or indirect adverse effect on some persons.” Such conclusions are consistent with the inquiries set forth in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, which ask whether projects outside urbanized areas would “substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views” of a project site and its surroundings. (Italics added.) In light of these considerations, the Town has determined that it is appropriate to focus the aesthetic impact analysis on potential impacts to public views, rather than private views. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 24 September 2025 Figure 11 Existing and Proposed View of the Project Site from Longmeadow Drive (View #1) Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 25 September 2025 Figure 12 Existing and Proposed View of the Project Site from Hillbrook School (View #2) Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 26 September 2025 Figure 13 Existing and Proposed View of the Project Site from Cerro Vista Court (View #3) Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 27 September 2025 Figure 14 Existing and Proposed View of the Project Site from Brooke Acres Drive (View #4) Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 28 September 2025 Figure 12 presents the existing view of the project site in comparison to the view of the site with development of the proposed project from View #2. As shown in the figure, the view of the project site from the sport fields associated with Hillbrook School consists of the open field in the foreground, trees in the midground, and a distant view of the surrounding ridges in the background. Two of the 12 proposed single-family residences would be visible in the midground. However, the proposed residences would be predominantly obscured by the existing trees, and the ridge in the background would remain visible. In addition, the sport fields are only used for short periods of time throughout the day, as compared to consistently used areas such as classrooms. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing regulations related to views of the Hillside Area from Hillbrook School. Because the proposed project would not substantially affect views of the Hillside Area from Hillbrook School, the proposed project would not conflict with the applicable Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines regulations governing scenic quality. Figure 13 presents the existing view of the project site in comparison to the view of the site with development of the proposed project from View #3. As shown therein, views of the project site from Cerro Vista Court are obscured by the intervening trees and topography. Following project development, views would remain largely unchanged, save for the addition of a driveway and single-family residence. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing regulations related to views of the Hillside Area, including the existing views from Blossom Hill Park. Figure 14 presents the existing view of the project site in comparison to the view of the site with development of the proposed project from View #4. As shown in the figure, the existing view of the site from Brooke Acres Drive is entirely obscured by existing trees. With the proposed project, the view from Brooke Acres Drive would consist of the emergency access route to the proposed development from the south, including landscaping trees and two partially obscured single-family residences. The proposed project would not conflict with existing regulations related to views of the Hillside Area and would not substantially affect views of the Hillside Area from Brooke Acres Drive. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the applicable Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines regulations governing scenic quality. Overall, because the proposed project would not be visible from the four viewing areas identified in the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines, and because the proposed project would be designed compliant with Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines policies to the extent feasible such that public views of the Hillside Area would not be significantly affected, the proposed project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality, including policies related to reducing visual impacts of projects, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. d. The project site is currently undeveloped and is surrounded by existing residences and the Hillbrook School. Therefore, 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 and would not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 29 September 2025 In addition, the Community Design Element of the 2020 General Plan contains policies and goals for light and glare, implementation of which would reduce potential impacts from new development. Policy CD-3.2 states that street and structural lighting shall achieve minimal visual impact by preventing glare, limiting light on neighboring properties, and avoiding light pollution of the night sky. Policy CD-17.3 requires design standards that include a review of project lighting to be considered for every project. The Town’s 1978 Hillside Specific Plan also notes that lighting design for new development within the Specific Plan area should be controlled to screen excessive light sources in the hillside areas from neighboring residential areas and the valley floor. 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 implementation of the Town’s programs, policies, and code requirements would reduce the light and glare related impacts from the proposed project. Thus, implementation of the project would result in a less-than-significant impact with respect to creating a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 30 September 2025 II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less-Than-Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than-Significant Impact No Impact a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?     b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?     c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?     d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?     e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?     Discussion a,e. The project site is not currently used for agricultural production. Additionally, according to the U.S. Department of Conservation’s Important Farmland Finder, the project site and the off-site improvement footprint are primarily characterized as “Other Land” and are not considered farmland.7 The project site does not contain and is not located adjacent to Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland). Given the designation of the site as Other Land, development of the proposed project would not convert Farmland to a non-agricultural use or otherwise result in the loss of Farmland. Therefore, no impact would occur as a result of the proposed project. b. The project site is not currently under a Williamson Act contract. A Williamson Act contract was active for the project site, but a non-renewal deed was recorded in April of 2015. In addition, the Williamson Act expired on January 1, 2025.8 While the Town’s General Plan designates the project site as Agriculture and the site is zoned RC, the project site is not currently used for agricultural production and single-family residential uses are allowed under the RC zoning designation. Therefore, buildout of the proposed project would not conflict with an agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. c,d. The project site is not considered forest land (as defined in PRC Section 12220[g]), timberland (as defined by PRC Section 4526), and is not zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104[g]). Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact with regard to conversion of forest land or any potential conflict with forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production zoning. 7 Department of Conservation. California Important Farmland Finder. Available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/. Accessed May 2025. 8 Town of Los Gatos Council. Agenda Report. April 26, 2018. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 31 September 2025 III. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than-Significant Impact No Impact a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?     b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?     c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?     d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?     Discussion a,b. The Town of Los Gatos is located in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The SFBAAB area is currently designated as a nonattainment area for the State and federal ozone, State and federal fine particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), and State respirable particulate matter 10 microns in diameter (PM10) ambient air quality standards (AAQS). The SFBAAB is designated attainment or unclassified for all other AAQS. It should be noted that on January 9, 2013, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) issued a final rule to determine that the Bay Area has attained the 24- hour PM2.5 federal AAQS. Nonetheless, the Bay Area must continue to be designated as nonattainment for the federal PM2.5 AAQS until such time as the BAAQMD submits a redesignation request and a maintenance plan to the USEPA, and the USEPA approves the proposed redesignation. The USEPA has not yet approved a request for redesignation of the SFBAAB; therefore, the SFBAAB remains in nonattainment for 24-hour PM2.5. In compliance with regulations, due to the nonattainment designations of the area, the BAAQMD periodically prepares and updates air quality plans that provide emission reduction strategies to achieve attainment of the AAQS, including control strategies to reduce air pollutant emissions through regulations, incentive programs, public education, and partnerships with other agencies. The current air quality plans are prepared in cooperation with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). The most recent federal ozone plan is the 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan, which was adopted on October 24, 2001, and approved by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) on November 1, 2001. The plan was submitted to the USEPA on November 30, 2001, for review and approval. The most recent State ozone plan is the 2017 Clean Air Plan, adopted on April 19, 2017. The 2017 Clean Air Plan was developed as a multi-pollutant plan that provides an integrated control strategy to reduce ozone, PM, toxic air contaminants (TACs), and greenhouse gases (GHGs). Although a plan for achieving the State PM10 standard is not required, the BAAQMD has prioritized measures to reduce PM in developing the control strategy for the 2017 Clean Air Plan. The control strategy serves as the backbone of the BAAQMD’s current PM control program. The aforementioned air quality plans contain mobile source controls, stationary source controls, and transportation control measures to be implemented in the region to attain the Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 32 September 2025 State and federal AAQS within the SFBAAB. Adopted BAAQMD rules and regulations, as well as the thresholds of significance, have been developed with the intent to ensure continued attainment of AAQS, or to work towards attainment of AAQS for which the area is currently designated nonattainment, consistent with applicable air quality plans. The BAAQMD’s established significance thresholds associated with development projects for emissions of the ozone precursors reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX), as well as for PM10 and PM2.5, expressed in pounds per day (lbs/day) and tons per year (tons/yr), are listed in Table 1. By exceeding the BAAQMD’s mass emission thresholds for ROG, NOX, PM10, or PM2.5, a project would be considered to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the BAAQMD’s air quality planning efforts. Table 1 BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance Pollutant Construction Operational Average Daily Emissions (lbs/day) Average Daily Emissions (lbs/day) Maximum Annual Emissions (tons/year) ROG 54 54 10 NOx 54 54 10 PM10 (exhaust) 82 82 15 PM2.5 (exhaust) 54 54 10 Source: BAAQMD, CEQA Guidelines, April 2023. Particulate matter can be split into two categories: fugitive and exhaust. The BAAQMD thresholds of significance for exhaust are presented in Table 1. BAAQMD does not maintain quantitative thresholds for fugitive emissions of PM10 or PM2.5, rather, BAAQMD requires all projects within the District’s jurisdiction to implement Basic Construction Mitigation Measures (BCMMs) related to dust suppression. The proposed project’s construction and operational emissions were quantified using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) web-based software version 2022 – a statewide model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify air quality emissions, including GHG emissions, from land use projects. The model applies inherent default values for various land uses, including construction data, trip generation rates, vehicle mix, trip length, average speed, etc. Where project-specific information is available, such information should be applied in the model. Accordingly, the proposed project’s modeling assumes the following inherent site design features and project-specific construction information: • Construction would commence in September 2025 and take place over approximately two years; • During grading, a total of 10,878 cubic yards (CY) of soil would be exported from the site and 21,082 CY would be imported; and • The proposed project would include construction of 12 single-family residences on a disturbance area of 5.38 acres. In addition, Mitigation Measure XVII-1 included in Section XVII, Transportation, of this IS/MND, requires 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. Separate modeling was conducted using Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 33 September 2025 CalEEMod to estimate the emissions associated with construction of the off-site sidewalk improvements. 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. The proposed project’s estimated emissions associated with construction and operations are presented below. All CalEEMod results are included as Appendix A to this IS/MND. Construction Emissions According to the CalEEMod results, the proposed project, as well as the off-site sidewalk improvements, would result in maximum unmitigated construction criteria air pollutant emissions as shown in Table 2. The combined emissions of the on-site and off-site construction activities could exceed the BAAQMD threshold of significance for NOX. Table 2 Maximum Unmitigated Construction Emissions (lbs/day) Pollutant Proposed Project Emissions Threshold of Significance Exceeds Threshold? On-Site Project Emissions ROG 3.37 54 NO NOX 31.70 54 NO PM10* 21.20 82 NO PM2.5* 11.40 54 NO Off-Site Sidewalk Improvement Emissions ROG 3.82 54 NO NOX 32.70 54 NO PM10* 5.49 82 NO PM2.5* 1.82 54 NO Total Emissions ROG 7.19 54 NO NOX 64.40 54 YES PM10* 26.69 82 NO PM2.5* 13.22 54 NO * Emissions from exhaust only. BAAQMD has not yet adopted thresholds for fugitive PM emissions. Source: CalEEMod, February 2025 and CalEEMod, May 2025 (see Appendix A). All projects under the jurisdiction of the BAAQMD are required to implement all of the BAAQMD’s BCMMs, which include the following: 1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. 2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. 3. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. 4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph). 5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 34 September 2025 6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. 7. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator. 8. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. The proposed project’s required implementation of the BAAQMD’s BCMMs listed above would help to further minimize construction-related emissions. In particular, implementation of the foregoing measures would reduce fugitive dust emissions resulting from project construction. However, as shown in Table 2, the combined emissions of the on-site and the off-site construction activities would exceed the BAAQMD threshold of significance for NOX. Therefore, if the off-site sidewalk improvements were constructed concurrently with the on-site project components, the proposed project could conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plans during project construction, and a potentially significant impact could occur. Operational Emissions According to the CalEEMod results, future development of the site with 12 single-family residences would result in maximum unmitigated operational criteria air pollutant emissions as shown in Table 3. As shown in the table, the proposed project’s operational emissions of ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 would be below the applicable thresholds. Consequently, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plans during project operation. Table 3 Unmitigated Maximum Operational Emissions Pollutant Proposed Project Emissions Threshold of Significance Exceeds Threshold? lbs/day tons/yr lbs/day tons/yr ROG 1.02 0.18 54 10 NO NOX 0.45 0.08 54 10 NO PM10* 0.75 0.13 82 15 NO PM2.5* 0.20 0.04 54 10 NO * Emissions from exhaust only. BAAQMD has not yet adopted thresholds for fugitive PM emissions. Source: CalEEMod, February 2025 (see Appendix A). Conclusion As stated previously, the applicable regional air quality plans include the 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan and the 2017 Clean Air Plan. Because the proposed project would not result in operational emissions of criteria pollutants in excess of BAAQMD’s applicable threshold of significance, conflicts with or obstruction of implementation of the applicable regional air quality plans during operation would not occur. However, the combined emissions of the on-site and the off-site construction activities would exceed the BAAQMD Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 35 September 2025 threshold of significance for NOX. Thus, the proposed project could result in a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure(s) As shown in Table 2, when considered separately, both the on-site project construction emissions and the off-site sidewalk improvement construction emissions would be below the applicable thresholds of significance for ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5. If simultaneous construction of the on-site and off-site components of the proposed project cannot be avoided, use of higher-tiered heavy-duty equipment during construction of the off-site improvements would reduce the associated NOX emissions to 6.85 lbs/day, which would reduce the total NOX emissions associated with the combined on- and off-site construction activities to 38.55 lbs/day, which would be below the applicable BAAQMD threshold. Therefore, implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level. 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 Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation as required by CARB. Clear signage regarding idling restrictions shall be placed at the entrances to the construction site. • Portable equipment over 50 horsepower must have either a valid BAAQMD Permit to Operate (PTO) or a valid statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP) placard and sticker issued by CARB. Conformance with the foregoing requirements shall be confirmed through review and approval of plans by the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department. c. Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others, due to the types of population groups or activities involved. Heightened sensitivity may be caused by Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 36 September 2025 health problems, proximity to the emissions source, and/or duration of exposure to air pollutants. Children, pregnant women, the elderly, and those with existing health problems are especially vulnerable to the effects of air pollution. Sensitive receptors are typically defined as facilities where sensitive receptor population groups (i.e., children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill) are likely to be located. Accordingly, land uses that are typically considered to be sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, retirement homes, convalescent homes, hospitals, and medical clinics. 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, the nearest of which is located approximately 50 feet from the nearest on-site disturbance areas. The major pollutant concentrations of concern are localized carbon monoxide (CO) emissions and TAC emissions, which are addressed in further detail below. Localized CO Emissions Localized concentrations of CO are related to the levels of traffic and congestion along streets and at intersections. High levels of localized CO concentrations are only expected where background levels are high, and traffic volumes and congestion levels are high. Emissions of CO are of potential concern, as the pollutant is a toxic gas that results from the incomplete combustion of carbon-containing fuels such as gasoline or wood. In order to provide a conservative indication of whether a project would result in localized CO emissions that would exceed the applicable threshold of significance, the BAAQMD has established screening criteria for localized CO emissions. According to BAAQMD, a project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to localized CO emission concentrations if all of the following conditions are true for the project: • The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans; • The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour; and • The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, underpass, etc.). While BAAQMD has established the foregoing screening criteria for potential impacts, the SFBAAB has been in attainment of California AAQS (CAAQS) and National AAQS (NAAQS) for CO for more than 20 years.9 Due to the continued attainment of CAAQS and NAAQS, and advances in vehicle emissions technologies, the likelihood that any single project would create a CO hotspot is minimal. Future development of the site with 12 single-family residences would not contribute to high levels of traffic congestion that could result in long-term generation of CO. Furthermore, areas where vertical and/or horizontal mixing do not occur, such as underpasses or similar features, do not exist in the project area. Therefore, based on the BAAQMD’s screening criteria for localized CO emissions, the proposed project would not be expected to result in substantial levels of localized CO 9 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Air Quality Summary Reports. Available at: https://www.baaqmd.gov/about-air-quality/air-quality-measurement/air-quality-summaries. Accessed May 2025. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 37 September 2025 at surrounding intersections or generate localized concentrations of CO that would exceed standards or cause health hazards. TAC Emissions Another category of environmental concern is TACs. The CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (Handbook) provides recommended setback distances for sensitive land uses from major sources of TACs, including, but not limited to, freeways and high traffic roads, distribution centers, and rail yards. The CARB has identified diesel particulate matter (DPM) from diesel-fueled engines as a TAC; thus, high volume freeways, stationary diesel engines, and facilities attracting heavy and constant diesel vehicle traffic are identified as having the highest associated health risks from DPM. Health risks associated with TACs are a function of both the concentration of emissions and the duration of exposure, where the higher the concentration and/or the longer the period of time that a sensitive receptor is exposed to pollutant concentrations would correlate to a higher health risk. The proposed project would not involve any land uses or operations that would be considered major sources of TACs, including DPM. As such, the project would not generate any substantial pollutant concentrations during operations. Short-term, construction-related activities could result in the generation of TACs, specifically DPM, from on-road haul trucks and off-road equipment exhaust emissions. However, construction is temporary and occurs over a relatively short duration in comparison to the operational lifetime of the proposed project. Health risks are typically associated with exposure to high concentrations of TACs over extended periods of time (e.g., 30 years or greater), whereas the construction period associated with the proposed project would likely be limited to approximately two years. All construction equipment and operation thereof would be regulated by the CARB In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation, which is intended to help reduce emissions associated with off-road diesel vehicles and equipment, including DPM. Project construction would also be required to comply with all applicable BAAQMD rules and regulations, particularly associated with permitting of air pollutant sources. In addition, construction equipment would operate intermittently throughout the day and only on portions of the site at a time. Because construction equipment on-site or at the off-site sidewalk improvement areas would not operate for long periods of time and would be used at varying locations within the site, associated emissions of DPM would not occur at the same location (or be evenly spread throughout the entire project site) for long periods of time. Due to the temporary nature of construction and the relatively short duration of potential exposure to associated emissions, the potential for any one sensitive receptor in the area to be exposed to concentrations of pollutants for a substantially extended period of time would be low. Therefore, construction associated with the proposed project would not be expected to expose any sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Conclusion Based on the above, the proposed project, including the off-site improvements, would not expose any sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of localized CO or TACs during construction or operation. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less- Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 38 September 2025 than-significant impact related to the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. d. Emissions of concern include those leading to odors, emission of dust, or emissions considered to constitute air pollutants. Air pollutants have been discussed in questions ‘a’ through ‘c’ above. Therefore, the following discussion focuses on emissions of odors and dust. Pursuant to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, odors are generally regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard.10 Manifestations of a person’s reaction to odors can range from psychological (e.g., irritation, anger, or anxiety) to physiological (e.g., circulatory and respiratory effects, nausea, vomiting, and headache). The presence of an odor impact is dependent on a number of variables including: the nature of the odor source; the frequency of odor generation; the intensity of odor; the distance of odor source to sensitive receptors; wind direction; and sensitivity of the receptor. Due to the subjective nature of odor impacts, the number of variables that can influence the potential for an odor impact, and the variety of odor sources, quantitative analysis to determine the presence of a significant odor impact is difficult. Typical odor-generating land uses include, but are not limited to, wastewater treatment plants, landfills, and composting facilities. The proposed project would not introduce any such land uses. Construction activities often include diesel-fueled equipment and heavy-duty trucks, which could create odors associated with diesel fumes that may be considered objectionable. However, the construction phase is temporary in nature and would only occur over approximately two years. In addition, hours of operation for construction equipment would be restricted consistent with Section 16.20.035 of the Town’s Municipal Code. Project construction would also be required to comply with all applicable BAAQMD rules and regulations, particularly associated with permitting of air pollutant sources. The aforementioned regulations would help to minimize emissions, including emissions leading to odors. Accordingly, substantial objectionable odors would not be expected to occur during construction activities. As noted previously, all projects under the jurisdiction of BAAQMD are required to implement the BAAQMD’s BCMMs. The BCMMs would act to reduce construction-related dust by ensuring that haul trucks with loose material are covered, reducing vehicle dirt track-out, and limiting vehicle speeds within the improvement area, among other methods, which would ensure that construction of the proposed project does not result in substantial emissions of dust. Following construction, the entire improvement area would be either paved or landscaped. Thus, project operations would not generate significant amounts of dust that would adversely affect a substantial number of people. For the aforementioned reasons, construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people, and a less-than-significant impact would result. 10 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2022 California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. April 2023. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 39 September 2025 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less-Than-Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than-Significant Impact No Impact a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?     b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?     c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?     d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites?     e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?     f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?     Discussion a. The following discussion is based primarily on the findings of a Biological Evaluation prepared for the project by Live Oak Associates, Inc (see Appendix B).11 The off-site sidewalk improvements would occur within the ROW of existing roadways and, thus, would occur within previously disturbed areas. As such, the proposed off-site sidewalk improvements are not anticipated to result in any impacts related to biological resources, and the following discussion focuses on potential impacts associated with the proposed on-site development. Several species of plants and animals within the State of California have low populations, limited distributions, or both. Such species may be considered “rare” and are vulnerable to extirpation as the state’s human population grows and the habitats the species occupy are converted to agricultural and urban uses. State and federal laws have provided the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) with a mechanism for conserving and protecting the diversity of plant and animal species native to the state. A sizable number of native plants and animals have been formally designated as threatened or endangered under state and federal endangered species legislation. Others have been designated as “candidates” for such listing. Still others have been designated as “species of special concern” by CDFW. The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) has developed its own set of lists of native plants considered 11 Live Oak Associates, Inc. 178 Twin Oaks Drive Project, Biological Evaluation, Los Gatos, Santa Clara County, California. May 23, 2025. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 40 September 2025 rare, threatened, or endangered. Collectively, these plants and animals are referred to as “special-status species.” Although CDFW Species of Special Concern generally do not have special legal status, they are given special consideration under 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. In addition to regulations for special-status species, most birds in the U.S., including non-status species, are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918. Under the MBTA, destroying active nests, eggs, and young is illegal. In order to identify potential biological resource constraints and assess the suitability of habitats on the project site to potentially support State- and federally protected species, a literature review of the following databases was conducted as part of the Biological Evaluation report: • California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB); • Special-status species lists prepared by the CDFW, USFWS, and CNPS; • USFWS National Wetlands Inventory website; • US Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey website; • Manuals and references related to plants and animals found in and around Santa Clara County; and • A biological reconnaissance, wetland evaluation, three-season floristic survey, and tree inventory prepared for the project site by Wood Biological Consulting as part of the 2017 EIR. A field survey of the project site was conducted on December 19, 2024, as part of the Biological Evaluation to identify on-site habitats, which could potentially support special- status species, 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. Based on the results of the database review and field surveys, on-site habitats were determined to include California annual grassland, ruderal, mixed oak woodland, ornamental woodland, creek (Ross Creek), drainage with swales, drainage (seasonal wetland), and riparian woodland (see Figure 15). The site consists primarily of California annual grassland with stands of mixed oak woodland occurring on the edges of the site and isolated clusters of oaks throughout the site. The results of the database review and field survey conducted as part of the Biological Evaluation are discussed in further detail below. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 41 September 2025 Figure 15 On-Site Habitats Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 42 September 2025 Special-Status Plants Based on the literature review conducted as part of the Biological Evaluation, a total of 17 special-status plant species have been identified within the project region. Three special-status plant species were eliminated from consideration as the species are endemic on serpentine or alkaline soils, which do not occur within the project site, and another three species were eliminated from consideration due to the project site being outside of the species’ elevation range. Of the remaining 11 species, nine were considered absent from or unlikely to occur on the site as a result of a lack of suitable habitat, either because the species is a perennial that would have been identifiable if present during the December site visit, or because habitat on the site is marginal for the species and the species has not been documented in the project vicinity (i.e., within three miles of the site). The Biological Evaluation concluded that the remaining two special-status plant species identified within the project vicinity (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 to the December field survey, which did not observe special-status plant species, the Biological Evaluation notes that three-season floristic surveys were previously conducted on the site in 2012 and 2013, and special-status plant species were not observed on-site. Therefore, Santa Clara red ribbons and bent-flowered fiddleneck are determined to be absent from the project site, and the proposed project would not result in adverse effects to special-status plant species. Special-Status Wildlife According to the Biological Evaluation, a total of 19 special-status wildlife species have been identified within the project region. Eleven special-status wildlife species were eliminated from consideration as the project site does not contain suitable habitat, the site is located outside of the species’ known range, and/or known occurrences have not been identified within the vicinity of the site. The 11 species eliminated from consideration include Crotch’s bumble bee, western bumble bee, California tiger salamander, foothill yellow-legged frog, Swainson’s hawk, tricolored blackbird, Santa Cruz black salamander, California giant salamander, northern California legless lizard, northwestern pond turtle, and burrowing owl. For example, Crotch’s bumble bee was eliminated due to a lack of suitable habitat and nectar plants within the project site, as well as the nearest recorded CNDDB observation occurring more than three miles from the site. Similarly, California tiger salamander, foothill yellow-legged frog, and California giant salamander each rely on specific conditions of wetland habitats that are absent from the project site. In addition, the project site lacks suitable breeding and roosting habitat for tricolored blackbird, and the on-site conditions are not only poor nesting habitat for Swainson’s hawk, but the nearest occurrence of the species was recorded more than 15 miles southwest of the project site. The remaining eight species with the potential to occur on-site include California red-legged frog, white-tailed kite, golden eagle, purple martin, pallid bat, Townsend’s big- eared bat, San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat, and American badger. The Biological Evaluation notes that although the foregoing species would not be likely to dwell on-site, they may regularly or occasionally use the project site for foraging. Despite the fact that the site does not provide regionally important foraging habitat for such species, should they be present on-site during construction activities, mortality of individuals could occur. Furthermore, the Biological Evaluation determined that although burrowing owl is unlikely to occur on-site, mitigation for potential impacts to the species should be included out of an abundance of caution. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 43 September 2025 The proposed project’s potential to result in adverse effects to the nine special-status wildlife species identified above, as well as any additional nesting raptors and migratory birds protected by the MBTA, is discussed in further detail below. California Red-Legged Frog California red-legged frog is a California “species of special concern.” The species occurs in dense, shrubby riparian vegetation such as arroyo willow, cattails, and bulrushes with still or slow-moving water. The species prefers perennial streams or ponds, and a salinity of less than 4.5 percent. The closest recorded location of California red-legged frog is generally mapped in the vicinity of Los Gatos Creek, approximately one mile west of the project site; dense urban development is located between the Creek and the site. According to the Biological Evaluation, although Ross Creek, does not support sufficient water depth or vegetation structure to provide breeding habitat for California red-legged frog, the creek channel may be suitable for dispersal and foraging habitat for the species. Given the potential for California red-legged frog to be present within the site, on-site construction activities could result in an adverse impact to California red-legged frog. As such, a potentially significant impact could occur. White-Tailed Kite, Golden Eagle, Purple Martin, and Other Nesting Raptors and Migratory Birds White-tailed kite and golden eagle are both California Fully Protected species. Both species are found within rolling foothills, while white-tailed kite is often found in valley margins with scattered oaks and river bottomlands or marshes next to deciduous woodland, and golden eagle is found in mountain areas, sage-juniper flats, and deserts. White-tailed kite prefers open grasslands, meadows, or marshes for foraging located close to isolated, dense-topped trees for nesting and perching; golden eagle prefers cliff-walled canyons or large trees for providing nesting, and forages in open areas. According to the Biological Evaluation, the project site provides suitable foraging habitat for both species but does not provide suitable nesting habitat for white-tailed kite or golden eagle. The Biological Evaluation notes that suitable nesting trees for the white-tailed kite occur on the margins of the project site, and that, while nesting within the project site is unlikely for the golden eagle, suitable nesting habitat for the species occurs south of the project site. Purple martin is a California “species of special concern.” The species inhabits woodlands and low-elevation coniferous forests of Douglas fir, ponderosa pine, and Monterey pine. Purple martin nests in old woodpecker cavities as well as human-made structures and nests widely in human-made birdhouses. The species’ nests are often located in tall, isolated trees or snags, as well as within tree cavities in vertical sections of trees. Although tree cavities in vertical sections of trees and appropriate bird houses suitable for nesting are absent from the project site, grassy edges near the on-site woodland may serve as suitable foraging habitat. In addition, suitable nesting habitat occurs in the Santa Cruz Mountains in the vicinity of the project site. In addition to the suitable foraging habitat provided by the project site for the white-tailed kite, golden eagle, and purple martin, as well as the marginally suitable nesting habitat for the white-tailed kite, the site contains existing trees that could provide nesting habitat for raptors and migratory birds protected by the MBTA. As part of the proposed project, 223 on-site trees would be removed. Construction activities that adversely affect the nesting success of raptors and migratory birds (i.e., lead to the abandonment of active nests) or Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 44 September 2025 result in mortality of individual birds constitute a violation of State and federal laws. Thus, if such species occur on-site during the breeding season, project construction activities could result in an adverse effect to species protected under the MBTA. Pallid Bat and Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat Both pallid bat and the Townsend’s big-eared bat are California “species of special concern.” Pallid bat typically occurs in grasslands, chaparral, woodlands, and forests; and is most common in dry rocky open areas providing roosting opportunities. Roost sites include caves, mines, rock crevices, and large cavities along horizontal portions of trees. Townsend’s big-eared bat is primarily a cave-dwelling species, but may also roost in buildings, bridges, rock crevices, and hollow trees. The closest recorded locations of pallid bat and Townsend’s big-eared bat are approximately 2.5 miles east and four miles southwest of the site, respectively. On-site trees within the mixed oak woodland contain cavities along horizontal portions of trees that are potentially suitable for roosting bats, and suitable foraging habitat is present in grassland edge habitat. Tree removal during on-site construction activities could result in harm to individual roosting bats. Thus, the proposed project could result in adverse impacts to pallid bat and the Townsend’s big-eared bat, and a potentially significant impact could occur. San Francisco Dusky-Footed Woodrat San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat is a California “species of special concern,” and is typically found in hardwood forests, oak riparian, and shrub habitats. During the field survey conducted as part of the Biological Evaluation, San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat nests were observed on-site, within the oak woodland understory in the north portion of the site. As such, if construction activities are to occur within the on-site San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat habitat, the proposed project could result in adverse impacts to San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat, and a potentially significant impact could occur. American Badger American badger is a California “species of special concern.” The species is found in a variety of habitats, especially in open habitats such as oak-savannah and grasslands where the species’ presence is typically identified by distinctive, large underground dens (burrows) excavated in friable (loose) soils. The nocturnal mammal is rarely observed during field surveys. According to the Biological Evaluation, the grasslands on-site could provide suitable habitat for the American badger. Therefore, on-site construction activities could result in an adverse impact to American badgers, and a potentially significant impact could occur. Burrowing Owl Burrowing owl is a candidate for listing under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Burrowing owl generally occurs in a variety of open, arid habitats; typically grasslands, desert scrub, agricultural fields, washes, and disturbed areas such as golf courses or vacant lots. Burrows, perch sites, and friable soil are vital habitat components for the species, and habitats with low-lying, sparse vegetation are preferred. Ground squirrel burrows and other fossorial mammal burrows are typically used for nesting and Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 45 September 2025 as year-round refuge sites. The species may also utilize culverts, abandoned pipes, rubble piles, and other manmade structures if burrows are absent. The breeding season for burrowing owls is from February 1 to August 31. As discussed above, although potential foraging habitat for burrowing owl is present on- site, the site does not contain suitable burrows for nesting. While limited occurrences have been reported in the vicinity of Los Gatos, the species mainly occurs in the region along the southern edge of the San Francisco Bay and to the southeast in Coyote Valley. Burrowing owl is unlikely to breed on-site. Nonetheless, out of an abundance of caution, the Biological Evaluation concluded that mitigation for the species should be implemented. Conclusion Based on the above, although the proposed project would not have the potential to result in potentially adverse effects to special-status plant species, construction activities associated with the proposed project could have an adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on wildlife species identified as special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or the USFWS. Therefore, a potentially significant impact could result. Mitigation Measure(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. California Red-Legged Frog IV-1 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. IV-2 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. IV-3 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. White-Tailed Kite and Other Nesting Raptors and Migratory Birds IV-4 If tree removal or ground disturbing activities are scheduled to commence during the nesting season (February 1st through August 31st), a pre-construction 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 Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 46 September 2025 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. Pallid Bat and Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat IV-5 Prior to the commencement of construction activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a bat habitat assessment of all potential roosting habitat features, including trees within the proposed impact footprint within the project vicinity. The habitat assessment shall identify all potentially suitable roosting habitat and may be conducted up to one year prior to the start of construction. The results of the assessment shall be submitted to the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department. IV-6 If potential roosting habitat is identified (cavities in trees or potential roosts within structures) within the areas proposed for impact, the biologist shall survey the potential roosting habitat during the active season (generally April through October or from January through March on days with temperatures in excess of 50 degrees Fahrenheit) within seven days prior to the start of construction activities to determine the presence of roosting bats. The surveys are recommended to be conducted utilizing methods that are considered acceptable by CDFW and bat experts. Methods may include evening emergence surveys, acoustic surveys, inspecting potential roosting habitat with fiberoptic cameras, or a combination thereof. If a non-breeding bat colony is discovered, the individuals shall be humanely evicted via two-step removal under the direction of a qualified biologist to ensure that harm or take would not occur to any bats as a result of tree removal. Two-step removal can only occur during March 1 to April 15 and September 1 to October 15 to avoid harm to maternity and overwintering colonies. If a maternity colony is detected, then a qualified biologist shall determine an appropriate size for a construction-free buffer to be established around the tree and remain in place until the qualified biologist has determined that the nursery is inactive. Tree removal shall preferably be done between March 1 and April 15 or August 15 and October 15 to avoid interfering with an active nursery. Proof of compliance with this mitigation measure shall be provided to the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 47 September 2025 San Francisco Dusky-Footed Woodrat IV-7 A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey for San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat nests between 30 and 14 days prior to the onset of construction activities. The survey shall encompass all construction zones within the woodland habitat and developed areas, and surrounding lands within 25 feet. Results of the assessment shall be submitted to the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department. Identified nests shall be avoided, where possible, and buffered by a minimum of 20 feet. If avoidance is not possible, the nest(s) shall be manually deconstructed by a qualified biologist when helpless young are not present, typically during the non-breeding season (October through January). If is the qualified biologist has determined that young may be present during the nest deconstruction, a suitable buffer of a minimum of 20 feet shall be established around the nest until a qualified biologist determines that the young are independent enough to successfully move from the deconstructed nest. Approximate age of the juveniles shall be recorded when observed and appropriate time shall be extrapolated out to when they would be independent from their parents; then the deconstruction can continue after the biologist confirms that the young are not present in the nest at the time. Proof of compliance with this mitigation measure shall be provided to the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department. American Badger IV-8 During the course of the pre-construction surveys for other species, a qualified biologist shall also determine the presence or absence of badgers prior to the start of construction. If badgers are found to be absent, other mitigations for the protection of badgers shall not be warranted. If an active badger den is identified during pre-construction surveys within or immediately adjacent to an area subject to construction, a construction-free buffer of up to 300 feet shall be established around the den. Once a qualified biologist has determined that badger has vacated the burrow, the burrow can be collapsed or excavated, and ground disturbance can proceed. Should the burrow be determined to be a natal or reproductive den, and because badgers are known to use multiple burrows in a breeding burrow complex, a biological monitor shall be present on-site during construction activities in the vicinity of the burrows to ensure the buffer is adequate to avoid direct impacts to individuals or natal/reproductive den abandonment. The monitor shall be present until is the qualified biologist has determined that young are of an independent age and construction activities would not harm individual badgers. Additionally, all workers shall attend a “tailgate” training that includes a description of the species, a brief summary of the species’ biology, and minimization measures and instructions on what to do if American badger is observed. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 48 September 2025 Proof of compliance with this mitigation measure shall be provided to the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department. Burrowing Owl IV-9 A qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey for burrowing owl following the 2012 CDFW Guidelines, or the most recent guidelines, which includes two surveys, one within 14 days prior to the start of construction and the second within 24 hours prior to the start of construction. If a lapse in project-related work of 15 calendar days or longer occurs, an additional survey shall be required prior to reinitiation. A written summary of the survey results shall be submitted to the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department before any construction permits are issued. If burrowing owls or active burrows/refugia are not found, then further mitigation measures are not necessary. Identified burrowing owls shall be avoided and active burrowing owl burrows shall be avoided with a 250-foot non-disturbance buffer until the burrow is abandoned. The project biologist shall conduct a weekly check-in to confirm the buffer is still intact and confirm the current activity of that burrow. Proof of compliance with this mitigation measure shall be provided to the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department. b,c. As discussed above, the Biological Evaluation identified riparian woodland in the vicinity of Ross Creek in the site’s southwest corner. However, distinctive riparian vegetation is absent, and only the presence of Ross Creek qualifies the surrounding vegetation as a riparian corridor. Furthermore, consistent with the Town’s Standards and Guidelines for Land Use Near Streams, the proposed project would include a 25-foot riparian setback from the top-of-bank of Ross Creek and incorporate the 100- to 110-foot flood easement from Ross Creek. As such, according to the site plan prepared for the proposed project, development within the riparian woodland area is not proposed, and Ross Creek would not be directly impacted by the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly impact riparian habitat. With respect to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and State, according to the Biological Evaluation, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) prepared a letter in June 2016 stating that the only jurisdictional waters of the U.S. within the project site consists of a 342-sf (0.008-acre) concrete-lined drainage considered a seasonal wetland in the northwestern corner of the site. An existing 27-inch storm drainage line currently runs in an east-to-west direction through the drainage, to which the proposed project would connect (see Figure 6). However, as shown in Figure 3, development associated with the proposed project would be set back from the on-site drainage area, including the proposed storm drainage connection, and the jurisdictional waters would be protected by an exclusion fence. As such, the proposed project would not result in any impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. or State. The on-site ephemeral drainage with swales was determined not to be considered jurisdictional water of the U.S. or the State. Nonetheless, as shown in Figure 3, the proposed project would be designed to incorporate a minimum 10-foot buffer between the proposed development and the vegetation surrounding the ephemeral drainage. As such, the ephemeral drainage with swales would not be directly impacted by the proposed project. Similarly, as discussed above, the proposed project would retain the 100- to 110- Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 49 September 2025 foot flood easement between the development footprint and Ross Creek. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the disturbance of any on-site wetlands. Based on the above, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS, or have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means, and a less than significant impact would occur. d. According to the Biological Evaluation, the project site is not within an identified regional movement corridor or landscape linkage and does not support any nursery sites. Because substantial portions of the project site are not proposed for development, significant portions of existing on-site habitat would not be altered, and local urban species currently crossing the site for regular and dispersal movements would still be able to cross the site following project buildout. Therefore, the proposed project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur. e. Division II of Chapter 29.10 of the Town’s Municipal Code comprises the Town’s Tree Protection Ordinance. The applicable portion of the Town’s Tree Protection Ordinance protects trees that meet the following criteria: • All trees which have a twelve-inch or greater diameter (thirty-seven and one-half-inch circumference) of any trunk or in the case of multi-trunk trees, a total of eighteen inches or greater diameter (fifty-six and one-half-inch circumference) of the sum of all trunks, where such trees are located on developed residential property. • All trees which have an eight-inch or greater diameter (twenty-five-inch circumference) of any trunk or in the case of multi-trunk trees, a total of eight inches or greater diameter (twenty-five-inch circumference) of the sum of all trunks, where such trees are located on developed Hillside residential property. • All trees of the following species which have an eight-inch or greater diameter (twenty-five-inch circumference) located on developed residential property: o Blue Oak (Quercus douglasii); o Black Oak (Quercus kellogii); o California Buckeye (Aesculus californica); o Pacific Madrone (Arbutus menziesii). • All trees which have a four-inch or greater diameter (twelve and one half-inch circumference) of any trunk, when removal relates to any review for which zoning approval or subdivision approval is required. • Any tree that existed at the time of a zoning approval or subdivision approval and was a specific subject of such approval or otherwise covered by landscape or site plans. • Any tree that was required by the Town to be planted or retained by the terms and conditions of a development application, building permit or subdivision approval in all zoning districts, tree removal permit or code enforcement action. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 50 September 2025 • All trees, which have a four-inch or greater diameter (twelve and one half-inch circumference) of any trunk and are located on property other than developed residential property. • All publicly owned trees growing on Town lands, public places or in a public right-of-way easement, which have a four-inch or greater diameter (twelve and one-half-inch circumference) of any trunk. • A protected tree shall also include a stand of trees, the nature of which makes each dependent upon the other for the survival of the stand. • The following trees shall also be considered protected trees and shall be subject to the pruning permit requirements set forth in Section 29.10.0982 and the public noticing procedures set forth in Section 20.10.0994: o Heritage trees; o Large protected trees. As discussed above, mixed oak woodland is present throughout the project site, some of which would be impacted by the proposed development. In order to determine if on-site trees proposed for removal qualify for protection under the provisions of the Town’s Municipal Code, an Arborist Report was prepared for the site by McClintock Landscape Horticultural Services (McClintock) (see Appendix C),12 which has been peer reviewed by Monarch Consulting Arborists. During a site tree survey conducted of the project site, the Arborist Report identified 603 on-site trees measuring four inches or greater in diameter at breast height (DBH), consisting of 26 species. According to the Arborist Report, 546 of the on-site trees qualify for protection under the Town’s Tree Protection Ordinance. According to the Tree Mitigation and Protection Plan prepared for the proposed project, 223 protected trees would be removed, which would require a total of 551 replacement trees to be planted on-site, pursuant to the Town of Los Gatos Tree Protection Ordinance. A total of 85 trees are proposed to be planted on-site, which would not meet the on-site tree replacement requirements (see Figure 8 and Figure 9). Thus, payment of in-lieu fees consistent with Division II of Chapter 29.10 of the Town’s Municipal Code would be required to mitigate for the shortfall in on-site tree replacement. Given that the proposed project would result in the removal of on-site trees considered protected under the Town’s Tree Protection Ordinance, including mixed oak woodland, and would not meet the on-site tree replacement requirements, a potentially significant impact could occur related to conflicting with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Mitigation Measure(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level. IV-9 Prior to the start of construction activities, the applicant shall comply with the Town of Los Gatos Tree Protection Ordinance and a tree removal permit shall be obtained from the Town for the removal of any on-site trees that qualify as a protected tree. If the trees proposed for removal are found to be in good condition, and the tree removal permit is granted primarily for the convenience of the applicant, then the full cost and responsibility of 12 McClintock Landscape Horticultural Services. Arborist Report, Tree Preservation Plan, Surrey Farms, Project #4185.10, Los Gatos, CA 95032. December 15, 2024. Revised July 23, 2025. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 51 September 2025 such removal shall be borne by the applicant, including planting of replacement trees. According to the Tree Mitigation and Protection Plan prepared for the proposed project, the project would not meet the required on-site tree replacement requirement; thus, the project applicant shall pay the appropriate in-lieu fees, pursuant to the requirements of Division II of Chapter 29.10 of the Town’s Municipal Code. The above noted requirements shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Town of Los Gatos Parks and Public Works Department. f. The project site is not located in an area that has an approved Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with a Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, and no impact would occur. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 52 September 2025 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less-Than-Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than-Significant Impact No Impact a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?     b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?     c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries.     Discussion The following is based on a Cultural Resource Study prepared for the 2017 EIR by Holman & Associates Archeological Consultants (Holman).13 Although the Cultural Resource Study was prepared for the 2017 EIR, the project site is contained within the study area for the report and site conditions have not changed since preparation of the report. Therefore, the Cultural Resource Study prepared by Holman is still applicable to the proposed project. The off-site sidewalk improvements would occur within the ROW of existing roadways and, thus, would occur within previously disturbed areas. As such, the proposed off-site sidewalk improvements are not anticipated to result in any impacts related to cultural resources, and the following discussion focuses on potential impacts associated with the proposed on-site development. a. Historical resources are features that are associated with the lives of historically-important persons and/or historically-significant events, that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction, or that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to the pre-history or history of the local area, California, or the nation. Examples of typical historical resources include, but are not limited to, buildings, farmsteads, rail lines, bridges, and trash scatters containing objects such as colored glass and ceramics. The Town of Los Gatos recognizes any structure or site as historic if the structure is located within a historic district, historically designated within the Landmark Historic Preservation (LHP) overlay, or is a primary structure constructed prior to 1941, unless the Town has specifically determined the structure does not have historic significance or architectural merit.14 The project site is undeveloped and is not located within a historic district or within the LHP overlay; as such, the site does not qualify as historic pursuant to the Town of Los Gatos criteria. Furthermore, the archival research and visual inspection for the project site conducted as part of the Cultural Research Study prepared for the project site did not identify any past potential historical resources within the project site. The conclusions of the Cultural Research Study were confirmed by a recent records search of the California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) performed by the Northwest Information Center (NWIC).15 Based on the Cultural Research Study and the CHRIS search results, the project site is not currently listed on the California Register of 13 Holman & Associates Archeological Consultants. Cultural Resource Study of the Proposed Surrey Farm Estates Project, 170 Twin Oaks Drive, Los Gatos, Santa Clara County, California. January 25, 2013. 14 Town of Los Gatos. What is a Historic Resource? Available at: https://www.losgatosca.gov/1718/Introduction-to- Historic-Preservation. Accessed April 2025. 15 Northwest Information Center. Record search results for the proposed Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project, NWIC File No.: 24-0971. January 13, 2025. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 53 September 2025 Historic Resources (CRHR), or the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and the site does not include any resources potentially eligible for listing in such registers. Therefore, the proposed project would not have the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, and no impact would occur. b,c. In order to determine whether archaeological resources are located on the project site, an archival review was conducted as part of the Cultural Resource Study prepared for the project site, as well as part of the aforementioned updated CHRIS records search. The CHRIS records search included review of archaeological resource records, historic properties records, official records and maps of archaeological sites and surveys in Santa Clara County, the NRHP, and the CRHR. According to the CHRIS records search, archaeological or historic resources have not been recorded within the project boundaries. The site reconnaissance conducted as part of the Cultural Resource Study included walking 30-foot transects over the open hillsides and closer transects of the entire lower western edge of the project site. The site reconnaissance did not identify any traces of significant precontact or historic cultural material. Based on the results of the archival review and site reconnaissance, the Cultural Resource Study concluded that the proposed project would not result in any impact to known cultural resources. However, the CHRIS records search showed that a moderate to high potential exists for unrecorded archaeological resources to be within the project site. As such, the potential exists for unknown archaeological resources, including human remains, to be uncovered during ground-disturbing activities for the proposed project. Therefore, if previously unknown resources are encountered during construction activities, the proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and/or disturb human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries, during construction. General Plan Policy OSP-9.4 requires that if cultural resources, including archaeological resources, are discovered during grading or other on-site excavation activities, construction shall stop until appropriate mitigation is implemented. Policy OSP-9.1 requires evaluation of archaeological and/or cultural resources early in the development review process through consultation with interested parties and the use of contemporary professional techniques in archaeology, ethnography, and architectural history. Policy OSP-9.2 requires that the Town ensure the preservation, restoration, and appropriate use of archaeological and/or culturally significant structures and sites. Additionally, General Plan policy OSP-9.3 requires that any human remains discovered during implementation of public and private projects within the Town be treated with respect and dignity and fully comply with California laws that address the identification and treatment of human remains. Compliance with 2040 General Plan Policies OSP-1 through OSP-4 would generally help ensure that work would stop if archeological resources or human remains are identified during construction. However, given their general nature, the policies do not specify the appropriate course of action if such resources are discovered. As a result, without mitigation, the proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 54 September 2025 15064.5, or disturb human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries, and a potentially significant impact could occur. Mitigation Measure(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level. V-1 If historic, archaeological, or paleontological resources are encountered during subsurface excavation activities, all construction activities within a 100-foot radius of the resource shall cease until a qualified archaeologist determines whether the resource requires further study. The Town shall require that the applicant include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction shall be recorded on appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation forms and evaluated for significance in terms of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) criteria by a qualified archaeologist. Potentially significant cultural resources consist of, but are not limited to, stone, bone, fossils, wood, or shell artifacts or features, including hearths, structural remains, or historic dumpsites. If the resource is determined to be significant under CEQA, the Town and a qualified archaeologist shall determine whether preservation in place is feasible. Such preservation in place is the preferred mitigation. If such preservation is infeasible, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare and implement a research design and archaeological data recovery plan for the resource. The archaeologist shall also conduct appropriate technical analyses, prepare a comprehensive written report and file the report with the appropriate information center (California Historical Resources Information System), and provide for the permanent curation of the recovered materials. V-2 If human remains, or remains that are potentially human, are found during construction, all work shall be halted immediately within 100 feet, and a professional archeologist shall ensure reasonable protection measures are taken to protect the discovery from disturbance. The archaeologist shall notify the Santa Clara County Coroner (pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the State Health and Safety Code). The provisions of Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code, and Assembly Bill (AB) 2641 will be implemented. If the Coroner determines the remains are Native American and not the result of a crime scene, then the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which then will designate a Native American Most Likely Descendant (MLD) for the project (Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code). The designated MLD will have 48 hours from the time access to the property is granted to make recommendations concerning treatment of the remains. If the applicant does not agree with the recommendations of the MLD, the NAHC can mediate (Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code). If an agreement is not reached, the qualified archaeologist or MLD must rebury the remains where they will not be further disturbed (Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code). This will Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 55 September 2025 also include either recording the site with the NAHC or the appropriate Information Center, using an open space or conservation zoning designation or easement, or recording a reinternment document with the county in which the property is located (AB 2641). Work cannot resume within the no-work radius until the lead agency, through consultation as appropriate, determines that the treatment measures have been completed to the Town’s satisfaction. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 56 September 2025 VI. ENERGY. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less-Than-Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than-Significant Impact No Impact a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?     b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?     Discussion a,b. The main forms of available energy supply are electricity, natural gas, and oil. A description of the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code, the Building Energy Efficiency Standards, with which the proposed project would be required to comply, as well as discussions regarding the proposed project’s potential effects related to energy demand during construction and operations, are provided below. California Green Building Standards Code The 2022 California Green Building Standards Code, otherwise known as the CALGreen Code (CCR Title 24, Part 11), is a portion of the California Building Standards Code (CBSC), which became effective with the rest of the CBSC on January 1, 2023.16 The purpose of the CALGreen Code is to improve public health, safety, and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings through the use of building concepts having a reduced negative impact or positive environmental impact and encouraging sustainable construction practices. The provisions of the code apply to the planning, design, operation, construction, use, and occupancy of every newly constructed building or structure throughout California. Requirements of the CALGreen Code include, but are not limited to, the following measures: • Compliance with relevant regulations related to future installation of electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure in residential and non-residential structures; • Indoor water use consumption is reduced through the establishment of maximum fixture water use rates; • Outdoor landscaping must comply with the California Department of Water Resources’ Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO), or a local ordinance, whichever is more stringent, to reduce outdoor water use; • Diversion of 65 percent of construction and demolition waste from landfills; • Incentives for installation of electric heat pumps, which use less energy than traditional heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems and water heaters; • Required solar photovoltaic (PV) system and battery storage standards for certain buildings; and • Mandatory use of low-pollutant emitting interior finish materials such as paints, carpet, vinyl flooring, and particle board. 16 California Building Standards Commission. 2022 California Green Building Standards Code. 2023. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 57 September 2025 Building Energy Efficiency Standards The 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards is a portion of the CBSC, which expands upon energy-efficiency measures from the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, went into effect starting January 1, 2023. The 2022 standards provide for additional efficiency improvements beyond the 2019 standards. The proposed project would be subject to all relevant provisions of the most recent update of the CBSC, including the Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Adherence to the most recent CALGreen Code and Building Energy Efficiency Standards would ensure that the future residential structures would consume energy efficiently. Construction Energy Use Construction of the proposed project and off-site sidewalk improvements would involve energy demand and consumption related to use of oil in the form of gasoline and diesel fuel for construction worker vehicle trips, hauling and materials delivery truck trips, and operation of off-road construction equipment. In addition, diesel-fueled portable generators may be necessary to provide additional electricity demands for temporary lighting, welding, and for supplying energy to areas of the site where energy supply cannot be met through a hookup to the existing electricity grid. Even during the most intense period of construction, due to the different types of construction activities (e.g., site preparation, grading, building construction), only portions of the project site and off-site improvement areas would be disturbed at a time, with operation of construction equipment occurring at different locations on the project site, rather than a single location. Project construction would not involve the use of natural gas appliances or equipment. All construction equipment and operation thereof would be regulated by the CARB’s In- Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation. The In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation is intended to reduce emissions from in-use, off-road, heavy-duty diesel vehicles in California by imposing limits on idling, requiring all vehicles to be reported to CARB, restricting the addition of older vehicles into fleets, and requiring fleets to reduce emissions by retiring, replacing, or repowering older engines, or installing exhaust retrofits. In addition, as a means of reducing emissions, construction vehicles are required to become cleaner through the use of renewable energy resources. The In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation would therefore help to improve fuel efficiency for equipment used in construction of the proposed project. Technological innovations and more stringent standards are being researched, such as multi-function equipment, hybrid equipment, or other design changes, which could help to further reduce demand on oil and limit emissions associated with construction. Based on the above, the temporary increase in energy use occurring during construction of the proposed project, including off-site improvements, would not result in a significant increase in peak or base demands or require additional capacity from local or regional energy supplies. In addition, construction activities would be required to comply with all applicable regulations related to energy conservation and fuel efficiency, which would help to reduce the temporary increase in demand. Operational Energy Use Following implementation of the proposed project, PG&E would provide electricity to the project site. Energy use associated with operation of the future on-site residences would be typical of residential uses, requiring electricity for interior and exterior building lighting, HVAC, electronic equipment, refrigeration, appliances, and more. Maintenance activities Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 58 September 2025 during operations, such as landscape maintenance, would involve the use of electric or gas-powered equipment. In addition to on-site energy use, operation of the proposed residences would result in transportation energy use associated with vehicle trips generated by future residents and visitors. All future residences on-site would be subject to all relevant provisions of the most recent update of the CBSC, including the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CARB standards, which would ensure that the future residences would be designed to be energy efficient to the maximum extent practicable. Adherence to the most recent CAL Green Code, the Building Energy Efficiency Standards, would ensure that all development on-site would consume energy efficiently through the incorporation of such features as efficient water heating systems, high performance attics and walls, and high efficacy lighting. In addition, State regulations promote the generation of renewable energy and encourage energy efficiency through requirements placed on utility providers and strict development standards. For instance, the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) requires utilities, including PG&E, to procure an increasing proportion of electricity from renewable sources. Ultimately, the RPS requirements mandate that all electricity produced within the State be renewably sourced by the year 2045. With regard to transportation energy use, California leads the nation in registered alternatively-fueled and hybrid vehicles. Under SB 500, the State has required that, starting in the year 2030, all cars sold shall be zero-emission/electric vehicles. In addition, State-specific regulations encourage fuel efficiency and the reduction of dependence on oil. Improvements in vehicle efficiency and fuel economy standards help to reduce consumption of gasoline and reduce the State’s dependence on petroleum products. In addition, the CBSC requires new developments to include the necessary electrical infrastructure for EV charging stations. The proposed project would comply with all applicable regulations associated with vehicle efficiency and fuel economy. In addition, as discussed in Section XVII, Transportation, of this IS/MND and with implementation of Mitigation Measure XVII-1, the proposed project is not anticipated to substantially increase vehicle miles traveled (VMT) within the project area. Conclusion Based on the above, construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources or conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Thus, a less- than-significant impact would occur. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 59 September 2025 VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less-Than-Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than-Significant Impact No Impact a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.     ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?     iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?     iv. Landslides?     b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?     c. 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 on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?     d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?     e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?     f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?     Discussion The following discussion is based primarily on a Geotechnical and Geologic Hazard Investigation (GGHI) prepared for the proposed project by Cornerstone Earth Group (Cornerstone) (see Appendix D).17 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),18 and Cornerstone subsequently prepared an Interim Response to Geotechnical Peer Review to respond to the comments and resolve identified concerns.19 As discussed throughout this IS/MND, the off-site sidewalk improvements would occur within the ROW of existing roadways and, thus, would occur within generally flat, previously disturbed areas. As such, the proposed off-site sidewalk improvements are not anticipated to result in any significant impacts related to geology and soils, and the following discussion focuses on potential impacts associated with the proposed project. ai-ii. According to the GGHI, the project site is not located within the boundaries of an Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or a Santa Clara County Fault Hazard Zone. Although the project site is located within 0.06-mile of the Monte Vista-Shannon fault, mapping for the 17 Cornerstone Earth Group. Geotechnical & Geologic Hazard Investigation, Twin Oaks Drive Subdivision. October 1, 2024. 18 Cotton, Shires, and Associates, Inc. Geological and Geotechnical Peer Review. January 6, 2025. 19 Cornerstone Earth Group. Interim Response to Geotechnical Peer Review. March 5, 2025. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 60 September 2025 Town of Los Gatos shows that the project site is located in a zone designated as having a “low” fault rupture hazard potential and is considered to be outside recognized fault zones. Although the project site would not be subject to fault rupture hazards, moderate to severe earthquakes could cause strong ground shaking at the site, which is the case for most sites within the Bay Area. Due to the site’s proximity to active faults in the region, such as the San Andreas Fault system and the Hayward and Calaveras Fault systems, the potential exists for the proposed buildings to be subject to seismic ground shaking. However, all structures developed as part of the proposed project would be required to be built in accordance with the CBSC, which provides minimum standards to ensure that structures are designed using sound engineering practices and appropriate engineering standards for the seismic area in which the project site is located. Projects designed in accordance with the CBSC should be able to: 1) resist minor earthquakes without damage; 2) resist moderate earthquakes without structural damage, but with some non-structural damage; and 3) resist major earthquakes without collapse, but with some structural, as well as non-structural, damage. Although conformance with the CBSC does not guarantee that substantial structural damage would not occur in the event of a maximum magnitude earthquake, conformance with the CBSC can reasonably be assumed to ensure that the proposed structure would be survivable, allowing occupants to safely evacuate in the event of a major earthquake. Based on the above, a less-than-significant impact would occur related to seismic surface rupture and strong seismic ground shaking. The proposed project’s potential effects related to liquefaction, landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence/settlement, and expansive soils are discussed in detail below. 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 six borings were logged in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and laboratory testing was conducted of all collected samples. The test borings generally encountered Pleistocene-aged, alluvial soils, with some undocumented fill consisting of approximately three feet of dense clayey sand or hard sandy lean clay. The test pits generally encountered hillside soil consisting of either colluvium or stream terrace deposits overlying relatively shallow bedrock or Santa Clara Foundation. Liquefaction Soil liquefaction results from loss of strength during cyclic loading, especially as a result of cyclic loadings induced by earthquakes or ground shaking. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are clean, loose, saturated, uniformly graded fine sands. Based on the GGHI prepared for the proposed project, the site is not located within County- or State- designated liquefaction hazard zones. In addition, given that the site is underlain by Pleistocene age soils where soil is relatively thick, the potential for liquefaction to impact the site is considered to be low. Furthermore, groundwater in the project area is relatively deep and Holocene age loose, clean, submerged sediment is not present at the site. Thus, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death associated with seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. aiii,aiv, c,d. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 61 September 2025 Landslides Seismically-induced landslides are triggered by earthquake ground shaking. The risk of landslide hazard is greatest in areas with steep, unstable slopes. According to the GGHI, the project site is located on a moderately sloping to flat parcel within a hillside setting with grades sloping generally down from the east to the west. 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. During the excavation of test pits, evidence of either shallow or deep-seated landslide deposits were not observed, and field features indicative of slope failure and instability were not observed during the site reconnaissance. As such, the GGHI concluded that the underlying slopes of the project site are relatively stable and, thus, the landslide hazard is considered low to moderate. In addition, the peer review of the GGHI notes that the majority of the proposed residences (i.e., Lots 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12) are outside of the indicated on-site slopes (see Figure 16). While the proposed lots would exceed the maximum allowable graded cut or fill for each lot pursuant to the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines, the proposed earthwork activities are accounted for in the analysis of the project-specific GGHI. Specifically, Section 6 of the GGHI discusses various requirements related to earthwork, including, but not limited to, temporary and permanent cut and fill slopes, subgrade preparation, wet soil stabilization, material for fill, compaction requirements, and trench backfill. Compliance with such requirements would ensure 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. Lateral Spreading Lateral spreading is horizontal/lateral ground movement of relatively flat-lying soil deposits towards a free face such as an excavation, channel, or open body of water; typically, lateral spreading is associated with liquefaction of one or more subsurface layers near the bottom of the exposed slope. The amount of movement depends on the soil strength, duration and intensity of seismic shaking, topography, and free face geometry. An ephemeral drainage with swales bisects the site. The project includes a minimum 10-foot buffer from the vegetation associated with the ephemeral drainage; therefore, the potential for lateral spreading to impact the proposed project is relatively low. Subsidence/Settlement Subsidence is the settlement of soils of very low density, generally from either oxidation of organic material, desiccation and shrinkage, or both, following drainage. Subsidence takes place gradually, usually over a period of several years, and is a common consequence of liquefaction. Because on-site soils were predominantly stiff to very stiff clays and medium dense to dense sands, the GGHI concluded that the potential for significant seismic subsidence/settlement to affect the proposed project is low. However, undocumented fill was encountered in the southwestern section of the site, the presence of which could cause settlement due to the variable nature and consistency of undocumented fills. Therefore, potential adverse impacts related to subsidence/settlement could occur. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 62 September 2025 Figure 16 Least Restrictive Development Area and On-Site Slopes Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 63 September 2025 Expansive Soils Expansive soils are soils which undergo significant volume change with changes in moisture content. Specifically, such soils shrink and harden when dried and expand and soften when wetted, potentially resulting in damage to building foundations. As part of the GGHI, plasticity index tests were conducted on soil samples from the project site to determine the expansion potential of surficial soils. The results of the tests indicated plasticity indexes ranging from 16 to 21, which are considered low to moderate expansion potential. Overall, the GGHI concluded that moderately expansive soils generally blanket the project site. Therefore, the proposed project could result in potential hazards or risks related to expansive soils. Conclusion Based on the above discussion, although the proposed project would not result in potential adverse impacts related to liquefaction, the proposed project could result in potential hazards or risks related to landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, and/or soil expansion, and a potentially significant impact could occur. Mitigation Measure(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level. 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. b. Issues related to erosion are discussed in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this IS/MND. As noted therein, Mitigation Measure X-1 requires the preparation and implementation of an erosion and sediment control plan. Thus, implementation of Mitigation Measure X-1 would ensure the proposed project does not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. In addition, the proposed retaining walls would include perforated subdrain, drainrock, and weepholes, thereby contributing to erosion prevention. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur. e. As previously discussed, sewer service would be provided through new connections to existing lines within the project vicinity. Specifically, the proposed sewer lines for Lots 1 through 9, 11, and 12 would connect to an existing eight-inch sewer main within the western portion of the site, while the sewer lines for Lot 10 would connect to the existing eight-inch sewer main within Cerro Vista Court. Thus, the construction or operation of septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems is not included as part of the project. Therefore, no impact regarding the capability of soil to adequately support the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would occur. f. According to the Town’s General Plan EIR, based on the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology’s system for assessing paleontological sensitivity, the soils within the Town Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 64 September 2025 have a high potential to yield paleontological resources. However, implementation of General Plan Policy ENV-12.5, which requires that construction stop until appropriate mitigation is implemented if paleontological resources are uncovered during grading or other on-site excavation activities, would help ensure the protection of uncovered paleontological resources. In addition, the proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure V-1, which would further reduce any potential impacts to unknown paleontological resources that are uncovered during project construction. Therefore, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 65 September 2025 VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than-Significant Impact No Impact a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?     b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gasses?     Discussion a,b. Emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the industrial/manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors. Therefore, the cumulative global emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change can be attributed to every nation, region, and city, and virtually every individual on Earth. An individual project’s GHG emissions are at a micro-scale level relative to global emissions and effects to global climate change; however, an individual project could result in a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to a significant cumulative macro-scale impact. As such, impacts related to emissions of GHG are inherently considered cumulative impacts. Implementation of the proposed project would cumulatively contribute to increases of GHG emissions. Estimated GHG emissions attributable to future development would be primarily associated with increases of carbon dioxide (CO2) and, to a lesser extent, other GHG pollutants, such as methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) associated with area sources, mobile sources or vehicles, utilities (electricity and natural gas), water usage, wastewater generation, and the generation of solid waste. The primary source of GHG emissions for the project would be mobile source emissions. The common unit of measurement for GHG is expressed in terms of annual metric tons of CO2 equivalents (MTCO2e/yr). The proposed project is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of BAAQMD. The BAAQMD Air Quality Guidelines include qualitative GHG thresholds to related to Buildings and Transportation that address climate change legislation, including SB 32.20 Construction GHG emissions are a one-time release and are, therefore, not typically expected to generate a significant contribution to global climate change. Neither the Town nor BAAQMD has an adopted threshold of significance for construction-related GHG emissions and does not require quantification. Nonetheless, the proposed project’s construction GHG emissions, as well as operational emissions, have been estimated using CalEEMod under the same assumptions discussed in Section III, Air Quality, of this IS/MND (see Appendix A). The emissions estimates prepared for the proposed project determined that on-site construction activities associated with the proposed project would result in total unmitigated GHG emissions of 375 MTCO2e over the entire construction period. The emissions estimates prepared for the off-site sidewalk improvements determined that the improvements would result in total unmitigated GHG emissions of 33.9 MTCO2e. As discussed in Section III, Air Quality, of this IS/MND, Mitigation Measure III-1 requires that the on-site and off-site construction occur separately or that higher-tiered heavy-duty equipment be used during construction of the off-site improvements. 20 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2022 California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. April 2023. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 66 September 2025 Operational GHG emissions are presented in Table 4. It should be noted that the off-site sidewalk improvements would not result in any operational GHG emissions. As noted previously, the BAAQMD’s applicable thresholds of significance for GHG emissions are qualitative, and, thus, the information presented below is provided for disclosure purposes only. Potential impacts related to GHG emissions resulting from implementation of the proposed project are considered in comparison with BAAQMD’s adopted thresholds of significance below. Table 4 Unmitigated Operational GHG Emissions Source GHG Emissions (MTCO2e/yr) Mobile 122 Area 0.45 Energy 36.4 Water 1.66 Waste 2.93 Refrigerants 0.03 Total Operational GHG Emissions 163.47 Source: CalEEMod, February 2025 (see Appendix A). BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance According to the BAAQMD thresholds of significance, a project must either include specific project design elements (e.g., exclude use of natural gas, achieve a specific reduction in project-generated VMT below the regional average) or be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy that meets the criteria under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b).21 In October 2012, the Town of Los Gatos adopted a Sustainability Plan to ensure the Town’s compliance with statewide GHG reduction goals. The Sustainability Plan includes emissions reduction targets for the Town, as well as reduction strategies. However, given that the Sustainability Plan was adopted prior to the passing of SB 32, the following analysis focuses on the new BAAQMD GHG thresholds related to specific project design elements. Compliance with BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance According to the BAAQMD’s new requirements, in order to find a less-than-significant GHG impact, projects must include, at a minimum, the following project design elements: • The project will not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing (in both residential and nonresidential development); • The project will not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy usage as determined by the analysis required under CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) and Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines; • The project will achieve a reduction in project-generated VMT below the regional average consistent with the current version of the California Climate Change Scoping Plan (currently 15 percent) or meet a locally adopted Senate Bill 743 VMT target, reflecting the recommendations provided in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research's Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA; and 21 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2022 California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. April 2023. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 67 September 2025 • The project will achieve compliance with off-street electric vehicle requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2. In order to be consistent with the first criterion, the proposed project is required to include all electric appliances and plumbing. Regarding the second criterion, as discussed in Section VI, Energy, of this Initial Study, the proposed project would comply with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations regarding energy use during both project construction and project operations. Required compliance with applicable standards and regulations ensure that the building energy use associated with the proposed project would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. With respect to the third criterion, as discussed in Section XVII, Transportation, of this IS/MND, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant VMT impact with implementation of Mitigation Measure XVII-1. Therefore, the proposed project would meet the third criterion by reflecting the recommendations provided in the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. With respect to the fourth criterion, the future on-site residences would be subject to the single-family residential off-street EV requirements included in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2 available at the time of construction. For example, pursuant to the 2022 CALGreen Code, which is the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Code currently available, single-family residential projects are required to install a listed raceway to accommodate a dedicated 208/240-volt branch circuit for each unit, which would be suitable for EV charging. Conclusion Based on the above, the proposed project would not be considered to generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, or conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 68 September 2025 IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less-Than-Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than-Significant Impact No Impact a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?     b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment?     c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?     d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?     e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?     f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?     g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?     Discussion a. Residential uses are not typically associated with the routine transport, use, disposal, or generation of substantial amounts of hazardous materials. Maintenance and operation of the future on-site residences may use common household cleaning products, fertilizers, and herbicides on-site, any of which could contain potentially hazardous chemicals; however, such products would be expected to be used in accordance with label instructions. Due to the regulations governing use of such products and the limited amount anticipated to be used on the site, routine use of such products would not represent a substantial risk to public health or the environment. Therefore, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. b. According to the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Envirostor Database, hazardous material sites do not exist at the project site or in the project vicinity.22 According to the Cultural Resource Study prepared for the project site, 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, and such materials are unlikely to be present on-site. 22 California Department of Toxic Substances Control. EnviroStor. Available at: https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=178+Twin+Oaks+Drive%2C+Los+Gatos#. Accessed May 2025. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 69 September 2025 Construction activities associated with the proposed project would involve the use of heavy equipment, which would contain fuels and oils, and various other products such as concrete, paints, and adhesives. Small quantities of potentially toxic substances (e.g., petroleum and other chemicals used to operate and maintain construction equipment) would be used at the project site and transported to and from the site during construction. However, the project contractor would be required to comply with all California Health and Safety Codes regulating the handling, storage, and transportation of hazardous and toxic materials. Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 25510(a), except as provided in subdivision (b), the handler or an employee, authorized representative, agent, or designee of a handler, shall, upon discovery, immediately report any release or threatened release of a hazardous material to the unified program agency (in the case of the proposed project, the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health) in accordance with the regulations adopted pursuant to Section 25510(a). The handler or an employee, authorized representative, agent, or designee of the handler shall provide all State, city, or county fire or public health or safety personnel and emergency response personnel with access to the handler's facilities. In the case of the proposed project, the contractors are required to notify the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health in the event of an accidental release of a hazardous material, who would then monitor the conditions and recommend appropriate remediation measures. Based on the above, hazardous materials are unlikely to be present within the project site. In addition, although the construction phase of the proposed project would involve regulated use of hazardous materials, the contractor would be required to adhere to all relevant guidelines and ordinances regulating the handling, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials. Therefore, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment, and a less than significant impact would occur. c. The nearest school is the lower and middle school campus associated with Hillbrook School, which is located approximately 0.08-mile northwest of the site. Therefore, a school is located within one-quarter mile of the project site. However, as discussed above, operation of the proposed project would not include any activities that would involve the routine emission or handling of substantial amounts of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials. Additionally, construction activities associated with the proposed project would involve the use of heavy equipment, which would contain fuels and oils, and various other products such as concrete, paints, and adhesives. However, as discussed above, project contractors are required to comply with all California Health and Safety Codes regulating the handling, storage, and transportation of hazardous and toxic materials. Therefore, the project would have a less-than-significant impact related to hazardous emissions or the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. d. Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the California Environmental Protection Agency to annually develop an updated Cortese List. The components of the Cortese List include the DTSC Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List, the list of leaking underground storage tank (UST) sites from the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) GeoTracker database, the list of solid waste disposal sites identified by the SWRCB, and the list of active Cease and Desist Orders (CDO) and Cleanup and Abatement Orders (CAO) from the SWRCB. As discussed above, the project site is not Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 70 September 2025 included on the DTSC Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List,23 or the list of solid waste disposal sites.24 Additionally, the SWRCB’s GeoTracker database does not identify the project site as containing any Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUSTs), which is another portion of the Cortese List.25 Finally, the project site is not on the list of active CDO and CAO from the SWRCB. Thus, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment, and no impact would occur. e. The project site is not within an airport land use plan, within two miles of a public airport, or near a private landing strip. The nearest airport to the project site is the San Jose International Airport, located approximately 8.85 miles north of the site. Therefore, no impact related to a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area related to such would occur. f. The Town’s Emergency Operation Plan (EOP) identifies potential threats and outlines response protocols and procedures.26 According to the EOP, evacuations are considered most likely in response to a dam failure or wildfire. In general, during emergencies, major roads, highways, hospitals, and fire stations are important to the initial response of the Town. Additionally, schools, churches, and community centers are frequently used as assembly points for displaced people, or for distribution of emergency supplies. The proposed project would not result in any substantial modifications to the existing roadway system and, thus, would not physically interfere with the EOP, particularly with any emergency evacuation routes. In addition, the proposed project would include a 20-foot-wide EVA route extending south from the site to connect to Brooke Acres Drive. Furthermore, the proposed project would not include land uses or operations that could impair implementation of the plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not interfere with an emergency evacuation or response plan, and no impact would occur. g. Issues related to wildfire hazards are discussed in Section XX, Wildfire, of this IS/MND. As noted therein, the project site is not located within a State Responsibility Area (SRA). However, the site is located within a High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ).27 Nonetheless, the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable requirements of the California Fire Code (CFC) through the installation of fire sprinkler systems, fire hydrants, and other applicable requirements. For example, as discussed above, the proposed project would include an EVA route connected to Brooke Acres Drive. The proposed project would also be situated near existing roads, water lines, and other utilities, which would reduce risks related to wildfire. Thus, the potential for wildland fires to reach the project site would be limited. Further discussion is included in Section XX, Wildfire, of this IS/MND. Overall, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, and a less-than- significant impact would occur. 23 California Department of Toxic Substances Control. EnviroStor. Available at: https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=178+Twin+Oaks+Drive%2C+Los+Gatos#. Accessed May 2025. 24 CalEPA. Cortese List Data Resources. Available at: https://calepa.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/SiteCleanup-CorteseList-CurrentList.pdf. Accessed May 2025. 25 State Water Resources Control Board. GeoTracker Public Site. Available at: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/. Accessed May 2025. 26 Town of Los Gatos. Emergency Operation Plan. 2015. 27 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Santa Clara County: State Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Effective April 1, 2024. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 71 September 2025 X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less-Than-Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than-Significant Impact No Impact a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?     b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?     c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site;     ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;     iii. 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; or     iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?     d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?     e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?     Discussion a. The following discussion provides a summary of the proposed project’s potential to violate water quality standards/waste discharge requirements or otherwise degrade water quality during construction and operation. Construction During the early stages of construction activities, topsoil would be exposed during ground disturbance. Prior to overlaying the ground surface with impervious surfaces and structures, the potential exists for wind and water erosion to discharge sediment and/or urban pollutants into stormwater runoff, which could adversely affect water quality downstream. The off-site sidewalk improvements would only be subject to short-term construction periods and are not anticipated to result in significant impacts to erosion. With respect to the proposed project, the SWRCB regulates stormwater discharges associated with construction activities where clearing, grading, or excavation results in a land disturbance of one or more acres. The Town’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requires applicants to show proof of coverage under the State’s General Construction Permit prior to receipt of any construction permits. The State’s General Construction Permit requires a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to be prepared for the site. A SWPPP describes Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 72 September 2025 or minimize pollutants from entering stormwater and must address both grading/erosion impacts and non-point source pollution impacts of the development project. Because the proposed project would disturb greater than one acre of land, the proposed project would be subject to the requirements of the State’s General Construction Permit. In addition, on- and off-site construction activities would be required to comply with Chapter 12, Grading, Erosion, and Sediment Control, of the Town’s Municipal Code, which includes standards for managing stormwater runoff during construction and operation. Pursuant to Section 12.20.050, approval of an erosion and sediment control plan by the Town Engineer is required for new development projects within Los Gatos. According to the erosion control plans prepared for each lot, the proposed lots would include stabilized construction entrances, which would include corrugated steel panels and sediment barriers to channelize runoff to sediment trapping devices, eight-inch minimum fiber rolls along the boundaries of each lot, and standard protected stormwater drainage inlets. In addition, Lots 4 through 8 would include hydroseeding disturbed areas to stabilize on-site soils during construction and prevent erosion. Final erosion and sediment control plans would be required to comply with the recommendations of the civil engineer, geotechnical engineer, engineering geologist, or landscape architect involved in preparation of the grading plans, as well as any and all standards and specifications adopted by the Town Engineer for the control of erosion and sedimentation on grading sites. Because a final erosion and sediment control plan has not yet been prepared for the proposed project, proper compliance with the aforementioned regulations cannot be ensured at this time, and the proposed project could discharge sediment or urban pollutants through soil erosion, violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality during construction. Operation Following buildout of the proposed single-family residences and associated roadways, approximately 62,224 sf of the project site would be covered by impervious surfaces; the remaining 702,502 sf of the project site would remain unpaved. The required off-site sidewalk improvements would also represent an increase in impervious surfaces. While the proposed project would increase the amount of impervious surfaces as compared to existing conditions, the proposed project would install an on-site stormwater drainage system to collect and treat the on-site runoff. Additionally, all municipalities within Santa Clara County (and the County itself) are required to develop more restrictive surface water control standards for new development projects as part of the renewal of the Countywide NPDES permit. Thus, typical operations associated with the off-site improvements and the future on-site residences would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, nor degrade water quality. The Town of Los Gatos has adopted the County C.3 Stormwater Standards, which require new development and redevelopment projects that create or alter 10,000 or more sf of impervious area to contain and treat all stormwater runoff from the project site. As discussed above, the proposed project would create approximately 62,224 sf of new impervious surface. Thus, the project would be subject to the requirements of the C.3 Stormwater Standards related to stormwater treatment, which are included in the Town’s NPDES General Permit. Additionally, Town Code Section 22.30.035 requires permanent stormwater pollution prevention measures for development projects to reduce water quality impacts of stormwater runoff from the site in accordance with the Town's current NPDES water discharge permit and the Town's policy for stormwater management. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 73 September 2025 As shown in Figure 7, the majority of the proposed lots would function as individual DMAs. The three residences on Lots 1, 11, and 12 would be combined into one DMA, and the undeveloped areas and roadways would be divided into additional DMAs. Stormwater runoff from each DMA would be directed into an associated bioretention area located adjacent to each lot, which would be lined with an impermeable liner. Lots 1 to 4 and 7 through 10 would each include a bioretention area, and Lots 5 and 6 would share a bioretention area. The stormwater bioretention basins would be sized and designed to meet the Town’s C.3 Stormwater Standards. A portion of the internal roadway, as well as the proposed driveways, would be lined with pervious pavement to allow for stormwater infiltration (see Figure 6). Overall, the proposed project would comply with the requirements of the SWRCB and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and would meet C.3 Standards related to stormwater treatment. Therefore, during operation, the project would comply with all relevant water quality standards and waste discharge requirements, and would not degrade water quality. Conclusion Based on the above, because a final erosion and sediment control plan has not yet been prepared for the proposed project, the proposed project could result in the violation of water quality standards or degradation of water quality during construction, and a potentially significant impact would occur. Mitigation Measure(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level. 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. Interim erosion control measures, to be carried out during construction and before installation of the final landscaping, shall be included. Interim erosion control method shall include, but are not limited to: silt fences, fiber rolls (with locations and details), erosion control blankets, Town standard seeding specification, filter berms, check dams, retention basins, etc. The project contractor shall provide erosion control measures as needed to protect downstream water quality during winter months. The grading, drainage, erosion control plan and SWPPP shall be prepared in compliance with applicable measures contained in the amended provisions C.3 and C.14 of most current Santa Clara County National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Regional Permit (MRP). Monitoring for erosion and sediment control is required and shall be performed by the Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD) or Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP) as required by the Construction General Permit. Stormwater samples are required for all discharge locations and projects may not exceed limits set forth by the Construction General Permit Numeric Action Levels and/or Numeric Effluent Levels. A Rain Event Action Plan (REAP) Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 74 September 2025 shall be developed 48 hours prior to any likely precipitation event, defined by a 50 percent or greater probability as determined by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and/or whenever rain is imminent. The QSD or QSP must print and save records of the precipitation forecast for the project location area from (https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/) which shall accompany monitoring reports and sampling test data. A rain gauge is required on-site. The Town of Los Gatos Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department and the Building Department shall conduct periodic NPDES inspections of the site throughout the recognized storm season to verify compliance with the Construction General Permit and Stormwater ordinances and regulations. b,e. Water supplies in the Town of Los Gatos are provided by the SJW. Groundwater currently accounts for approximately 30 to 40 percent of the SJW’s water supplies, while the remaining water supply is sourced from surface water of the Los Gatos Creek watershed.28 Groundwater is drawn from the Santa Clara Subbasin, which is part of the larger Santa Clara Valley Basin. The Santa Clara Subbasin is an unadjudicated groundwater basin and is maintained by the SCVWD. California’s Groundwater (Bulletin 118) is the State’s official publication on the occurrence and nature of groundwater in California. The publication defines the groundwater basin boundaries and summarizes groundwater information for each of the State’s 10 hydrologic regions. Bulletin 118 – Interim Update 2016 defines 517 groundwater basins and subbasins in California. Pursuant to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), the Department of Water Resources (DWR) is required to prioritize the 517 groundwater basins and subbasins as either High, Medium, Low, or Very Low. Prioritization is based on the following considerations: • The population overlying the basin or subbasin; • The rate of current and projected growth of the population overlying the basin or subbasin; • The number of public supply wells that draw from the basin or subbasin; • The total number of wells that draw from the basin or subbasin; • The irrigated acreage overlying the basin or subbasin; • The degree to which persons overlying the basin or subbasin rely on groundwater as their primary source of water; • Any documented impacts on the groundwater within the basin or subbasin, including overdraft, subsidence, saline intrusion, and other water quality degradation; and • Any other information determined to be relevant by the department, including adverse impacts on local habitat and local streamflows. Each basin’s priority determines which provisions of California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) and SGMA apply. SGMA requires Medium and High priority basins to develop groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs), develop groundwater sustainability plans (GSPs) and manage groundwater for long-term sustainability. The Santa Clara Subbasin is considered High Priority by the DWR due to 28 San Jose Water Company. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 75 September 2025 the overlying population, projected growth, number of wells, irrigation acreage, groundwater reliance, and groundwater impacts of the area; however, the subbasin has not been identified by DWR as being critically overdrafted. 29 Between 2016 and 2020, the volume of water pumped from the Santa Clara Subbasin increased from 10,637 acre-feet (AF) to 17,360 AF; however, the groundwater basin has an operational storage capacity of approximately 350,000 AF.30 Because the project site is currently undeveloped, the 12 proposed single-family residences would increase water usage on-site beyond the existing water demand. However, given the relatively minor increase in water usage that would result from a net increase in 12 residences, the proposed project would not substantially increase groundwater usage as compared to current aquifer withdrawals. As such, the proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in groundwater use beyond the water supply demand accounted for in the SJW 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). According to the 2020 UWMP, water supplies are projected to meet expected demand for normal year, single-dry year, and multiple-dry year scenarios through 2045.31 While the SJW UWMP anticipates being able to adequately meet water demands through 2045, the proposed project is subject to Builder’s Remedy and, thus, was not anticipated as part of the UWMP. However, as discussed further in Section XIX of this IS/MND, SJW partially sources water through purchases from SCWVD. According to the SCWVD UWMP, SCWVD anticipates having a surplus of at least 10,000 AF for normal year, single-dry year, and multiple-dry year scenarios through 2045.32 Therefore, SJW would be able to continue purchasing water from SCWVD through all future scenarios, and the proposed project’s minimal increase in water demand could be accommodated without substantially decreasing supplies. Additionally, the proposed project would include the development of a new stormwater drainage system to capture and treat on-site runoff. As such, even with the development of the proposed project, groundwater recharge would still occur through the proposed pervious pavements within the internal roadways, as well as the approximately 702,502 sf of the project site that would remain unpaved. Thus, the proposed project would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge in the area. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the Santa Clara Subbasin. In addition, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur. c.i-iii. The project site is currently undeveloped. Therefore, the proposed project would result in an increase in impervious surfaces on the project site. The proposed project would include installation of a new stormwater drainage system to capture and treat on-site runoff from new impervious surfaces. As discussed above, consistent with Chapter 12 of the Town’s Municipal Code, Mitigation Measure X-1 requires the preparation and implementation of an erosion and sediment control plan to demonstrate compliance with requirements related to the prevention of substantial erosion or siltation during construction activities. In addition, as shown in Figure 4, the proposed project would include the installation of 29 San Jose Water Company. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan [pg. 6-4]. June 2021. 30 Ibid. 31 San Jose Water Company. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan [pg. 7-1]. June 2021. 32 Santa Clara Valley Water District. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan [pg. 47 and 48]. June 2021. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 76 September 2025 retaining walls throughout the project site. Based on the proposed design of the retaining walls, which would include a maximum height of five feet, as well as perforated subdrain, drainrock, and weepholes, the retaining walls would serve to prevent erosion. Furthermore, as discussed above, following project development, stormwater runoff from each on-site DMA would be directed into an associated bioretention area located adjacent to each lot, which would be lined with an impermeable liner. Following on-site treatment, stormwater flows would be metered out into the existing 27- and 36-inch storm drains located north and west of the site, respectively. The proposed on-site stormwater infrastructure would be sized to meet Provision C.3.g of the County’s Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES permit (MRP), which requires new development to manage stormwater flows such that post-development runoff does not exceed pre-project runoff rates and durations. Based on the above, the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner which would result in erosion, siltation, or flooding on- or off-site, create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Consequently, implementation of the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact. civ. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) number 06085C0377H, the project site is within Zone X, a zone with a 0.2 percent annual chance to flood with an average depth of less than one foot.33 Although not mapped by FEMA, as discussed throughout this IS/MND, SCWVD maintains an existing 100- to 110-foot flood easement within the southern portion of the project site to access an existing storm drainage culvert. As shown on Figure 4, the proposed project would not include development within the easement or modifications to the existing culvert. Therefore, development of the proposed project would not impede or redirect flood flows and a less-than-significant impact would result. d. As discussed under question ‘civ’ above, the proposed project would not be subject to substantial flooding risks. The nearest reservoir is the Vasona Reservoir located approximately 1.3 miles northwest of the site. In addition, the Lexington Reservoir and Lenihan Dam are located approximately 2.3 miles southwest of the site. However, the project site is not located within a dam failure inundation area.34 Tsunamis are defined as sea waves created by undersea fault movement, whereas a seiche is a long-wavelength, large-scale wave action set up in a closed body of water such as a lake or reservoir. Due to the project site’s substantial distance from the coast, the proposed project would not be exposed to flooding risks associated with tsunamis. Seiches do not pose a risk to the proposed project, as the project site is not located adjacent to any closed body of water. Therefore, the proposed project would not pose a risk related to the release of pollutants due to project inundation due to flooding, tsunami, or seiche, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. 33 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map 06085C0377H. Available at: https://hazards- fema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html. Accessed April 2025. 34 Santa Clara Valley Water District. Local Dams and Reservoirs. Available at: https://www.valleywater.org/your-water/local-dams-and-reservoirs. Accessed May 2025. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 77 September 2025 XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less-Than-Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than-Significant Impact No Impact a. Physically divide an established community?     b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?     Discussion a. A project risks dividing an established community if the project would introduce infrastructure or alter land uses so as to change the land use conditions in the surrounding community, or isolate an existing land use. Existing single-family residences are located in the vicinity of the project site and the Hillbrook School is located north of the site. The project site is currently undeveloped, and the proposed project would include the construction of 12 single-family residences, as well as the associated access roadway and utilities infrastructure improvements. The proposed project, including the off-site sidewalk improvements, would be compatible with the existing surrounding land uses and would not alter the existing general development trends in the area or isolate an existing land use. Therefore, the proposed project would not physically divide an established community, and no impact would occur. b. The project site is currently designated Agriculture by the Town’s 2020 General Plan and is zoned RC. The proposed residential development is not compatible with the site’s General Plan land use and zoning designation. However, the applicant team has submitted a formal SB 330 application for the project site and the project is subject to Builder’s Remedy. Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(5), known as SB 35 Builder’s Remedy, is a provision of California’s Housing Accountability Act that prevents jurisdictions without a substantially compliant housing element from denying certain housing projects, even if such projects do not comply with the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance or general plan. Therefore, the proposed project does not require Town approval of a General Plan Amendment or Rezone to allow for approval of the proposed residential subdivision. As discussed throughout this IS/MND, the proposed project, including the proposed off-site improvements, would not result in any significant environmental effects that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by the mitigation measures provided herein. In addition, the proposed project would not conflict with Town policies and regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, including, but not limited to, the Town’s noise standards, applicable SWRCB regulations related to stormwater, the Town’s tree protection ordinance, and the development standards included in the Town’s General Plan and zoning code, as well as some of the standards included within the 1987 Hillside Specific Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental impact. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 78 September 2025 XII. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less-Than-Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than-Significant Impact No Impact a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?     b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?     Discussion a,b. The General Plan EIR determined that mineral resources are not significant in the Town. Several limestone quarries operated south of Los Gatos in the late 1800s and early 1900s. The nearest active quarries are the Lexington Quarry, east of Lexington Reservoir, and the Lehigh Permanente and Stevens Creek quarries west of Cupertino. However, active mining operations do not exist within the Town of Los Gatos and known mineral resources do not exist in the vicinity of the project site. Thus, the proposed project, including the proposed off-site improvements, would not result in any impacts associated with loss of locally or regionally important mineral resources, and no impact would occur. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 79 September 2025 XIII. NOISE. Would the project result in: Potentially Significant Impact Less-Than-Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than-Significant Impact No Impact a. Generation of 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?     b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?     c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?     Discussion a. The discussion below presents information regarding sensitive noise receptors in proximity to the project site, applicable noise standards, and the potential for the proposed project to result in noise impacts during project construction and operation. The following terms are referenced in the sections below: • Decibel (dB): A unit of sound energy intensity. An A-weighted decibel (dBA) is a decibel corrected for the variation in frequency response to the typical human ear at commonly encountered noise levels. All references to dB in this report will be A-weighted unless noted otherwise. • Day-Night Average Level (Ldn): The average sound level over a 24-hour day, with a +10 decibel weighing applied to noise occurring during nighttime (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM) hours. • Median Sound Level (L50): The sound level exceeded 50 percent of the time over a given time-period. • Average (Equivalent) Sound Level (Leq): The steady-state dBA containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given time period (usually one hour). • Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL): The 24-hour average noise level with noise occurring during evening (7:00 PM to 10:00 PM) hours weighted by a factor of three and nighttime hours weighted by a factor of ten prior to averaging. Sensitive Noise Receptors Some land uses are considered more sensitive to noise than others, and, thus, are referred to as sensitive noise receptors. Land uses often associated with sensitive noise receptors generally include residences, schools, libraries, hospitals, and passive recreational areas. Noise sensitive land uses are typically given special attention in order to achieve protection from excessive noise. The nearest existing sensitive receptors to the project site are the single-family residences located in the vicinity of the site and the Hillbrook School located to the north of the site. Town Noise Standards Both the Town’s Municipal Code and General Plan include regulations related to the generation of noise. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 80 September 2025 Section 16.20.035 of the Town’s Municipal Code states the following regarding construction noise: Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. weekdays, and 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Saturdays, construction, alteration or repair activities which are authorized by a valid Town permit or as otherwise allowed by Town permit, shall be allowed if they meet at least one of the following noise limitations: (1) No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding eighty-five (85) dBA at twenty-five (25) feet. If the device is located within a structure on the property, the measurement shall be made at distances as close to twenty-five (25) feet from the device as possible. (2) The noise level at any point outside of the property plane shall not exceed eighty-five (85) dBA. Table NOI-2 of the Town’s General Plan establishes a maximum outdoor noise limit of 55 dBA Ldn for residential land uses within the Town. The Noise Element of the Town’s General Plan also specifies a limit of 45 dBA Ldn for residential interiors. The Town of Los Gatos has not established a threshold for significant increases in traffic noise. However, the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) has developed guidance for determining increases in traffic noise. Therefore, increases in the ambient noise environment due to the proposed project were evaluated using the criteria developed by FICON. Although the FICON guidelines were originally developed for aircraft noise impacts, the noise increase thresholds are generally considered appropriate for evaluation of noise increases at noise sensitive uses such as single-family residences. The significance criteria are provided in Table 5, below. Table 5 FICON Noise Exposure Increases for Determining Level of Significance Noise Exposure without Project Potential Significant Impact < 60 dB CNEL 5 dB or more 60-65 dB CNEL 3 dB or more >65 dB CNEL 1.5 dB or more Source: Federal Interagency Committee on Noise, 1992. As shown in the table, according to the FICON, an increase in the traffic noise level of five dB or more would be significant where the pre-project noise levels are less than 60 dB Ldn. In areas where the pre-project noise levels range from 60 to 65 dBA, a three dBA barely perceptible noise level increase appears to be appropriate for most people. When the pre-project noise levels already exceed 65 dBA, any increase in community noise louder than 1.5 dBA or greater is considered a significant impact, given that the noise increase likely contributes to an existing noise exposure exceedance. Project Construction Noise During construction activities associated with the proposed project, including the proposed off-site sidewalk improvements, heavy equipment would be used, which would temporarily increase ambient noise levels within the project vicinity. Noise levels would vary depending on the type of equipment used, how the equipment is operated, and how well Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 81 September 2025 the equipment is maintained. In addition, noise exposure at any single point outside the project site would vary depending on the proximity of construction activities to that point. Standard construction equipment, such as backhoes, loaders, and dump trucks, would be used during construction. Noise would also be generated during the construction phase by increased truck traffic on area roadways. Truck traffic would involve transport of heavy materials and equipment to and from the construction site. Noise increases from truck traffic related to the movement of material would be of short duration, and would likely occur primarily during daytime hours. Table 6 shows the predicted construction noise levels for typical construction equipment, which may be used during construction activities associated with the proposed project. Table 6 Construction Equipment Noise Type of Equipment Maximum Level, dB at 25 feet Air Compressor 86 Backhoe 86 Concrete Mixer 91 Dozer 91 Grader 91 Jack Hammer 94 Loader 86 Paver 91 Roller 91 Saw 82 Scarified 89 Scraper 91 Truck 90 Source: Town of Los Gatos, 2040 General Plan EIR [Table 4.12-5], 2022. Based on the table, construction of the proposed project could generate maximum noise levels up to 94 dB at a distance of 25 feet. As a result, the proposed project would not meet the first noise limitation included in Section 16.20.035 of the Town’s Municipal Code, which states that individual pieces of equipment shall not produce a noise level exceeding 85 dBA at 25 feet. Section 16.20.035 of the Town’s Municipal Code also states that construction activities shall be allowed if the noise level at any point outside of the property plane does not exceed 85 dBA. As one increases the distance between equipment, or increases separation of areas with simultaneous construction activity, dispersion and distance attenuation reduce the effects of combining separate noise sources. The noise levels from a source decrease at a rate of approximately 6 dB per every doubling of distance from the noise source.35 Because the nearest sensitive receptors are located approximately 50 feet from the project site boundaries, noise levels at the existing single-family residences could exceed 85 dBA during construction activities. As discussed under Impact N-1 in the General Plan EIR, implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1 was determined to be 35 U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. OSHA Technical Manual (OTM) Section III: Chapter 5. Available at: https://www.osha.gov/otm/section-3-health-hazards/chapter-5#measurements. Accessed October 2023. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 82 September 2025 required to reduce potential impacts related to construction noise associated with buildout of locations within the Town’s General Plan area within 25 feet of noise-sensitive receptors to a less-than-significant level. Provisions required by Mitigation Measure N-1 in the General Plan EIR include staging construction equipment in areas distant from sensitive receptors, using electrically powered tools, and implementation of temporary sound barriers. Without the inclusion of similar mitigation, the proposed on- and off-site construction activities could result in the generation of a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local noise ordinance. Project Operational Noise Residences are not typically associated with the generation of substantial noise. Operation of the proposed residences would include typical residential noise, which would be compatible with the adjacent existing residential uses. The proposed project is not anticipated to contribute a measurable operational noise level increase to the existing ambient noise environment at any sensitive receptor locations. Therefore, a less-than- significant impact would occur with regard to on-site operational noise. According to the General Plan EIR, the predominant source of noise in the Town is vehicular traffic. Roadways in the Town with the highest traffic volumes include State Route (SR) 9, SR 17 and SR 85. Additional sources include major arterial roadways, such as Blossom Hill Road, Lark Avenue, Los Gatos-Saratoga Road (SR 9), Los Gatos Boulevard, and Winchester Boulevard, none of which are located in the project vicinity. Generally, a doubling in traffic volumes is required to increase traffic noise levels by 3.0 dB. Consistent with the CalEEMod results (see Appendix A), 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, which is located near the site’s northwestern corner.36 Conservatively assuming 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. Based on the above, the proposed project, including the proposed off-site improvements, would not result in operational noise increases that would result in significant effects on sensitive receptors in the project vicinity. Conclusion Based on the above, although operation of the proposed project would not result in the generation of a substantial increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the Town’s Municipal Code, project construction could result in the generation of a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels. Thus, a potentially significant impact would occur. Mitigation Measure(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level. 36 W-Trans. Hillbrook School 2023-2024 School Year, Spring Trimester Monitoring. December 3, 2024. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 83 September 2025 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. b. Similar to noise, vibration involves a source, a transmission path, and a receiver. However, noise is generally considered to be pressure waves transmitted through air, whereas vibration usually consists of the excitation of a structure or surface. As with noise, vibration consists of an amplitude and frequency. A person’s perception to the vibration depends on their individual sensitivity to vibration, as well as the amplitude and frequency of the source and the response of the system which is vibrating. Vibration is measured in terms of acceleration, velocity, or displacement. A common practice is to monitor vibration in terms of peak particle velocities (PPV) in inches per second (in/sec). Standards pertaining to perception as well as damage to structures have been developed for vibration levels defined in terms of PPV. Human and structural response to different vibration levels is influenced by a number of factors, including ground type, distance between source and receptor, duration, and the number of perceived vibration events. Table 7, which was developed by Caltrans, shows that the vibration levels that would normally be required to result in damage to structures range from 0.2 to 0.6 in/sec PPV. The proposed project would only cause elevated vibration levels during construction, as the proposed project would not involve any uses or operations that would generate substantial groundborne vibration. The primary vibration-generating activities associated with the proposed project would occur during grading, placement of underground utilities, and construction of foundations. Although noise and vibration associated with the construction of the project would add to the noise and vibration environment in the immediate project vicinity, construction activities would be temporary in nature and are anticipated to occur during normal daytime working hours. Table 8 shows the typical vibration levels produced by construction equipment at various distances. The most substantial source of groundborne vibrations associated with project construction would be the use of vibratory compactors. Use of vibratory compactors/rollers could be required during construction of the proposed on-site drive aisles and parking areas. However, at a distance of 26 feet or greater, vibration levels from such equipment would be below the 0.20 in/sec threshold recommended by Caltrans. Proposed on-site construction activities would occur at a distance of approximately 50 feet from the nearest single-family residence to the west of the site. Therefore, the proposed on-site construction activities would not generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 84 September 2025 Table 7 Effects of Vibration on People and Buildings PPV Human Reaction Effect on Buildings mm/sec in/sec 0.15 to 0.30 0.006 to 0.019 Threshold of perception; possibility of intrusion Vibrations unlikely to cause damage of any type 2.0 0.08 Vibrations readily perceptible Recommended upper level of the vibration to which ruins and ancient monuments should be subjected 2.5 0.10 Level at which continuous vibrations begin to annoy people Virtually no risk of “architectural” damage to normal buildings 5.0 0.20 Vibrations annoying to people in buildings (this agrees with the levels established for people standing on bridges and subjected to relative short periods of vibrations) Threshold at which there is a risk of “architectural” damage to normal dwelling - houses with plastered walls and ceilings. Special types of finish such as lining of walls, flexible ceiling treatment, etc., would minimize “architectural” damage 10 to 15 0.4 to 0.6 Vibrations considered unpleasant by people subjected to continuous vibrations and unacceptable to some people walking on bridges Vibrations at a greater level than normally expected from traffic, but would cause “architectural” damage and possibly minor structural damage Source: Caltrans. Transportation Related Earthborne Vibrations. TAV-02-01-R9601. February 20, 2002. Table 8 Vibration Levels for Various Construction Equipment Type of Equipment PPV at 25 feet (in/sec) PPV at 50 feet (in/sec) PPV at 100 feet (in/sec) Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.031 0.011 Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.027 0.010 Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.001 0.000 Auger/drill Rigs 0.089 0.031 0.011 Jackhammer 0.035 0.012 0.004 Vibratory Hammer 0.070 0.025 0.009 Vibratory Compactor/roller 0.210 0.074 0.026 Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines, May 2006. The off-site improvement areas are located within ROWs of existing roadways adjacent to existing single-family residences. Therefore, if the construction of the off-site improvements included the use of vibratory compactors, vibration levels could exceed the 0.20 in/sec PPV threshold established by Caltrans for architectural damage to buildings. Based on the above, the proposed project could expose people to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels, and a potentially significant impact could occur. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 85 September 2025 Mitigation Measure(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level. 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. c. The project site is not within an airport land use plan, within two miles of a public airport, or near a private landing strip. The nearest airport to the project site is the San Jose International Airport, located approximately 8.85 miles north of the site. Given that the project site is not located within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, the proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels associated with such. Thus, no impact would occur. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 86 September 2025 XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less-Than-Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than-Significant Impact No Impact a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)?     b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?     Discussion a. The proposed project would include the development of 12 single-family residences within the project site. According to the 2040 General Plan EIR, buildout of the General Plan would facilitate new residential development in the Town of Los Gatos, which would accommodate an increase in the population to an estimated 42,021 by the year 2040, which would be 27.1 percent above the ABAG’s Plan Bay Area 2040 population forecast of 33,050. In addition, the average household size in Los Gatos estimated by the 2040 General Plan was 2.4 persons per household, as of 2021. Using this average household size, the proposed project would result in a maximum increase of 29 residents within the Town. According to the 2040 General Plan, the entire Town has an estimated total population of 30,832. The estimated increase in 29 residents would equate to approximately 0.09 percent of the entire Town’s population. The project site is currently designated Agriculture by the Town’s 2020 General Plan and is zoned RC. As previously discussed, because the applicant team has submitted a formal SB 330 application for the project site and the project is subject to Builder’s Remedy, the proposed project does not require approval of a General Plan Amendment or Rezone. Nonetheless, given the relatively small increase in population that could result from project buildout, the proposed project would not result in substantial unplanned population growth within the Town. In addition, as discussed in Section XIX, Utilities and Services Systems, of this IS/MND, adequate utility infrastructure and services exist to meet the additional demand that would be created by the project. Similarly, as discussed in Section XV, Public Services, public service providers, such as local police and fire departments, would be capable of accommodating the demands of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project, including the proposed off-site improvements, would not induce substantial unplanned population growth either directly or indirectly, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. b. The project site is currently undeveloped, and does not contain any existing residential structures. Furthermore, the proposed project would result in the development of 12 new single-family residences, thus increasing the housing stock of the Town. Therefore, the proposed project, including the proposed off-site improvements, would not displace a substantial amount of existing housing or people and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere, and no impact would occur. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 87 September 2025 XV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Potentially Significant Impact Less-Than-Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than-Significant Impact No Impact a. Fire protection?     b. Police protection?     c. Schools?     d. Parks?     e. Other Public Facilities?     Discussion a,b. Fire protection services are currently provided to the site by the Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD). The SCCFD maintains 17 fire stations and is staffed by approximately 300 fire prevention, suppression, investigation, administration, and maintenance personnel. The nearest fire station to the project site is the Shannon Fire Station, located at 16565 Shannon Road, approximately 0.9-mile northwest of the project site. The SCCFD has the following service standards: • First unit shall arrive on scene in less than seven minutes from dispatch of alarm, at least 90 percent of the time. • Second unit shall arrive on scene in less than nine minutes from dispatch of alarm, at least 90 percent of the time. • Remaining units shall arrive on scene in less than 15 minutes from dispatch of alarm, at least 90 percent of the time. • A fire company with at least one paramedic shall arrive on scene in less than seven minutes from dispatch of alarm, at least 90 percent of the time. The Los Gatos-Monte Sereno Police Department provides police protection services to the project site. The Police Department has a total of 64 staff members, consisting of 42 sworn personnel, including one chief and two captains, 22 non-sworn personnel, and a large number of volunteers and interns. Officers provide police assistance seven days per week, 24 hours per day. The Town’s Police Department headquarters is located at 110 East Main Street, approximately 2.6 miles southwest of the project site. The Police Department does not have quantified service standards. However, the Police Department does have the performance objective of “providing a safe environment through timely response and police assistance.” The department categorizes all calls as Priority One, Priority Two, or Priority Three. Priority One calls involve either a serious emergency or public safety hazard. Priority Two calls are those that require immediate response, but are not an emergency. Priority Three calls are all non-emergency calls. Given the proximity of the nearest fire station to the project site, the aforementioned response times goals would be met at the site. In addition, as discussed in Section XIV, Population and Housing, above, the proposed project would result in an estimated population of 29 residents, which would equate to approximately 0.09 percent of the entire Town’s population. Therefore, due to the relatively small increase in population, the Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 88 September 2025 increase in demand for fire and police services at the project site would not be considered substantial and could be met by current service providers, without the need for expanding existing fire or police protection facilities or constructing new facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. The project would comply with all applicable State and local requirements related to fire safety and security, including installation of fire sprinklers. Compliance with such standards would minimize fire and police protection demands associated with the project. Potential impacts related to wildfire hazards are discussed in Section XX, Wildfire, of this IS/MND. Therefore, the proposed project, including the proposed off-site improvements, would have a less-than-significant impact related to the need for new or physically altered fire or police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. c. The Town of Los Gatos is currently served by six different school districts: the Los Gatos Union School District, the Los Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union High School District, the Campbell Union School District, the Campbell Union High School District, the Cambrian Union Elementary District, and Union Elementary School District. As discussed throughout this IS/MND, the proposed project would result in the development of the site with 12 single-family residences. According to the Town’s General Plan EIR, single-family residences are anticipated to generate an increase of 0.7 students per residence. Therefore, the proposed project could increase the amount of school age children in the Town by approximately eight students. Given the relatively small increase in student population that could occur as a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the proposed project, the increase in demand for school facilities would not be considered substantial and could be met by current district facilities, without the need for expanding existing schools or constructing new facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. In addition, the project would be subject to payment of School Impact Mitigation Development Fees to fund local school services. Proposition 1A/SB 50 prohibits local agencies from using the inadequacy of school facilities as a basis for denying or conditioning approvals of any “[…] legislative or adjudicative act…involving …the planning, use, or development of real property” (Government Code 65996(b)). Satisfaction of the Proposition 1A/SB 50 statutory requirements by a developer is deemed to be “full and complete mitigation.” Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact related to the need for new or physically altered schools, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. d,e. Further discussion on parks and recreation facilities within the Town is provided in Section XVI, Recreation, below. As discussed therein, the Town currently provides 8.4 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The nearest park or recreational facility to the project site is Blossom Hill Park, located approximately 0.4-mile northwest of the site. The Town of Los Gatos also includes one public library located within the Town’s Civic Center complex approximately 1.4 miles from the site, as well as a Health Library and Resource Center within the El Camino Hospital, located approximately 2.7 miles from the site. The Town library was upgraded in 2012 and resulted in an increase of approximately 16,000 sf. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 89 September 2025 The development of the site with 12 single-family residences would result in an increase of approximately 29 residents. Given the relatively small increase in population that could occur as a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the proposed project, the increase in demand for parks and recreational facilities, or other public facilities such as libraries would not be considered substantial and could be met by current Town facilities, without the need for the expansion or construction of such new facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. In addition, as discussed below, in compliance with the Quimby Act, because the proposed project does not currently provide any dedicated parkland, the proposed project would be required to pay in-lieu fees to be used for the provision of parks and recreational services within the Town. Therefore, the on- and off-site components of the proposed project would have a less- than-significant impact related to the need for new or physically altered parks or other public facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 90 September 2025 XVI. RECREATION. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less-Than-Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than-Significant Impact No Impact a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?     b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?     Discussion a,b. The Town contains approximately 254 acres of parkland, nearly seven miles of multi-use trails, and over 65 acres of lawn area. Of 37 total public and private parks and recreation facilities in the Town of Los Gatos, 18 are publicly owned and operated parks. In addition, 15 recreational facilities with one or more sports fields exist within the Town of Los Gatos; 11 contain baseball fields, and 10 contain multi-use field areas for organized scheduled events. Such facilities provide a total of approximately 507,700 sf of multi-use field space within Los Gatos. Overall, the Town currently provides 8.4 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The nearest park or recreational facility to the project site is Blossom Hill Park, located approximately 0.4-mile northwest of the site. Pursuant to the Town’s General Plan Policy OSPR-6.7, the Town has a goal to provide parkland at a rate of five acres per 1,000 residents. The Town currently has approximately 7.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents and, thus, is already meeting the goal. Although the proposed project does not currently include the dedication of any parkland on-site, because the Town already exceeds the park standard and the anticipated increase in population generated by the project is fairly small, the proposed project (including the proposed off-site improvements) would not result in population growth that could result in increased demand on existing recreational facilities or cause the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 91 September 2025 XVII. TRANSPORTATION. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less-Than-Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than-Significant Impact No Impact a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?     b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?     c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?     d. Result in inadequate emergency access?     Discussion a. The law has changed with respect to how transportation-related impacts may be addressed under CEQA. Traditionally, lead agencies used level of service (LOS) to assess the significance of such impacts. LOS represents a qualitative description of the traffic operations experienced by the driver at an intersection or along a roadway segment and ranges from LOS A, which represents the absence of congestion and little delay, to LOS F, which signifies excessive congestion and delays. Greater levels of congestion are considered to be more significant than lesser levels. Mitigation measures typically took the form of capacity-increasing improvements, which often had their own environmental impacts (e.g., to biological resources). Depending on circumstances, and an agency’s tolerance for congestion (e.g., as reflected in its general plan), LOS D, E, or F often represented significant environmental effects. In 2013, however, the State Legislature passed legislation with the intention of ultimately doing away with LOS in most instances as a basis for environmental analysis under CEQA. Enacted as part of SB 743 (2013), PRC Section 21099, subdivision (b)(1), directed the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to prepare, develop, and transmit to the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency for certification and adoption proposed CEQA Guidelines addressing “criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects within transit priority areas. Those criteria shall promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. In developing the criteria, [OPR] shall recommend potential metrics to measure transportation impacts that may include, but are not limited to, vehicle miles traveled, vehicle miles traveled per capita, automobile trip generation rates, or automobile trips generated. The office may also establish criteria for models used to analyze transportation impacts to ensure the models are accurate, reliable, and consistent with the intent of this section.” Subdivision (b)(2) of Section 21099 further provides that “[u]pon certification of the guidelines by the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency pursuant to this section, automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment pursuant to [CEQA], except in locations specifically identified in the guidelines, if any.” (Italics added.) Pursuant to SB 743, the Natural Resources Agency promulgated CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 in late 2018, which became effective in early 2019. Subdivision (a) of that section provides that “[g]enerally, vehicle miles traveled is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. For the purposes of this section, ‘vehicle miles traveled’ refers Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 92 September 2025 to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project. Other relevant considerations may include the effects of the project on transit and non-motorized travel. Except as provided in subdivision (b)(2) below (regarding roadway capacity), a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact.”37 Please refer to question ‘b’ for a discussion of VMT. Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Facilities The following provides a discussion of the proposed project’s potential impacts to pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Pedestrian facilities are comprised of crosswalks, sidewalks, pedestrian signals, and off-street paths, which provide safe and convenient routes for pedestrians to access the destinations such as institutions, businesses, public transportation, and recreation facilities. Bicycle paths, lanes and routes are typical examples of bicycle transportation facilities, which are defined as being in one of the following four classes: 1. Class I Multiuse Trail – a completely separated facility designed for the exclusive use of bicyclists and pedestrians with crossing points minimized. 2. Class II Bike Lane – a designated lane for the exclusive or semi-exclusive use of bicycles with through travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians prohibited, but with vehicle parking and cross-flows by pedestrians and motorists permitted. 3. Class III Bike Route – a route designated by signs or pavement markings and shared with pedestrians and motorists. 4. Class IV Separated Bikeway – an on-street facility reserved for use by bicyclists, with physical separation between the bikeway and travel lanes. Physical separation consists of vertical elements that may include curbs, landscaping, bollards, or parking lanes. Sidewalks, bicycle paths, or other pedestrian and bicycle facilities are not currently present nor planned on the roadways within the project vicinity (e.g., Brooke Acres Road, Twin Oaks Drive, and Cerro Vista Court). Given the rural and hillside nature of roadways in the vicinity of the project site, bike lanes and sidewalks are not desirable. As discussed further under question ‘b’ below, the proposed project would include the construction of off-site pedestrian facilities at two intersections within the Town, which would improve pedestrian access in the area. In addition, the required sidewalk construction would occur within existing ROWs and would not conflict with any existing plans. Thus, the proposed project would not result in substantial modification or the removal of any existing or planned bicycle or pedestrian facilities or preclude the implementation of such facilities in the project vicinity, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. 37 Subdivision (b)(2) of Section 15064.3 (“transportation projects”) provides that “[t]ransportation projects that reduce, or have no impact on, vehicle miles traveled should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. For roadway capacity projects, agencies have discretion to determine the appropriate measure of transportation impact consistent with CEQA and other applicable requirements. To the extent that such impacts have already been adequately addressed at a programmatic level, such as in a regional transportation plan EIR, a lead agency may tier from that analysis as provided in Section 15152. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 93 September 2025 Transit Facilities Existing transit service to the Town is provided by VTA. VTA provides bus, light rail, and paratransit service throughout Santa Clara County, including Los Gatos. Buses are generally equipped with front-loading racks that can hold up to two bicycles. VTA transit routes are not located in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project. The nearest bus route is Route #27, which provides connection to the nearest light rail station. The nearest bus stops to the project site are located at the Los Gatos Boulevard/Nino Avenue intersection, approximately 0.7-mile west of the site. A project is considered to have a significant impact on transit if the project conflicts with existing transit facilities, is expected to generate additional transit trips beyond the capacity of the existing transit system, or would conflict with a program or plan addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. The transit service within the Town operates within capacity, and the relatively minor increase in additional trips that could occur as a result of the proposed project could be accommodated by existing bus services. In addition, the proposed project would not include any off-site roadway improvements that would affect existing transit or bicycle facilities. Conclusion Based on the above, the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. b. Section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines provides specific considerations for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts. Pursuant to Section 15064.3, analysis of VMT attributable to a project is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. Other relevant considerations may include the effects of the project on transit and non-motorized travel. Pursuant to Section 15064.3(b)(3), a lead agency may analyze a project’s VMT qualitatively based on the availability of transit, proximity to destinations, etc. While changes to driving conditions that increase intersection delay are an important consideration for traffic operations and management, the most appropriate method of analysis does not fully describe environmental effects associated with fuel consumption, emissions, and public health. Rather, Section 15064.3(3) changes the focus of CEQA transportation impact analysis from measuring impact to drivers to measuring the physical impact of driving. A VMT Technical Memorandum was prepared for the proposed project by TJKM to evaluate the potential VMT impacts associated with the development of the project site with 12 single-family residences (see Appendix E).38 According to the Technical Memorandum, the baseline VMT per capita for the Town of Los Gatos is 33.27. Pursuant to a November 2020 Town Council Resolution,39 an 11.3 percent reduction target sets the applicable VMT threshold for the proposed project at 29.51. Based on the project-specific VMT calculations conducted as part of the Technical Memorandum, the proposed project 38 TJKM. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis for 178 Twin Oaks Drive Project in Town of Los Gatos, CA. April 23, 2025. 39 Town of Los Gatos Town Council. Resolution of the Town Council of The Town Of Los Gatos Adopting Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds Of Significance for Purposes of Analyzing Transportation Impacts Under the California Environmental Quality Act. November 17, 2020. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 94 September 2025 is expected to result in a VMT per capita of 32.34, which is above the 29.51 VMT per capita threshold. Because the proposed project is anticipated to exceed the applicable VMT threshold, the proposed project could conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b). Therefore, a potentially significant impact could occur. Mitigation Measure(s) The proposed project would need to reduce project VMT levels by 2.83 percent to ensure the project VMT falls below the applicable threshold. VMT reduction measures can be incorporated as a part of project design features that encourage a mode shift from automobiles to transit or non-motorized modes of travel. The efficacy of such project-level strategies varies, with individual project-level measures often achieving reductions between zero and six percent. In coordination with the Town, the VMT Technical Memorandum identifies three potential off-site improvement locations where feasible pedestrian network improvements could occur as part of the proposed project, including the following: Option 1, along the north side of Blossom Hill Road between Regent Drive and Union Avenue; Option 2, along Kennedy Road from east of Longmeadow Drive to Olde Drive; and Option 3, along the north side of Fisher Avenue between Mitchell Avenue and Roberts Road. The foregoing sidewalk connection improvements would be consistent with the planned improvements identified within the Town’s 2020 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. In order to assess the VMT reduction potential associated with each option, 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). According to the VMT Technical Memorandum, Options 1 and 3 would be sufficient to reduce the project VMT by more than the necessary 2.83 percent reduction, with a 1.38 percent and 2.68 percent reduction, respectively. According to the VMT Technical Memorandum, Option 2 was considered infeasible due to a lack of currently existing sidewalks along Kennedy Road, thereby preventing the application of CAPCOA quantification methodologies. Therefore, implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level. 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 Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 95 September 2025 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. c,d. Several factors generally determine whether a project has sufficient access for emergency vehicles, including the number of access points (both public and emergency access only) and width of access points and internal roadways. Access to the project site would be provided primarily through a connection to Twin Oaks Drive known as Surrey Farms Hill. Access to Lots 1 through 9, as well as 11 and 12, would be provided by new private driveways connected to the proposed internal roadway. Site access to Lot 10 would be provided by a new private driveway extending from Cerro Vista Court. In addition, the proposed EVA route connection would extend south from the site to connect to Brooke Acres Drive. As shown in Figure 17, the new internal roadway would be 24 feet wide and would provide sufficient turnaround space for emergency vehicles. Emergency access to Lot 10 would be provided by the new connection to Cerro Vista Court, subject to review and approval by the SCCFD. Whether emergency access is available from Cerro Vista Court would not affect emergency access to Lots 1 through 9, 11 and 12, or any off-site areas. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause or result in inadequate emergency access to any areas within the Town. In addition, the proposed project would not include any new sharp curves or dangerous intersections, and would not be located in the vicinity of any such roadway features. The design of the internal circulation system would not involve any features that could increase traffic hazards at the site. The proposed connections to Twin Oaks Drive and Cerro Vista Court would be free and clear of any obstructions to provide adequate sight distance, thereby ensuring that exiting vehicles can see pedestrians and vehicles traveling on the roadways. Any landscaping and signage would be located in such a way to ensure an unobstructed view for drivers exiting the site. 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. Based on the above, the proposed project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment), and would not result in inadequate emergency access. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 96 September 2025 Figure 17 Proposed Fire Truck Turnaround Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 97 September 2025 XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is: Potentially Significant Impact Less-Than-Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than-Significant Impact No Impact a. 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).     b. 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.     Discussion a,b. In compliance with AB 52, the Town of Los Gatos sent project notification letters to the Costanoan, Northern Valley, Yokut, Bay Miwok, Ohlone, Patwin, Plains Miwok, Bay Miwok, and the Delta Yokut tribes on February 24, 2025. Requests for consultation were not received during the required consultation period. As discussed in Section V, Cultural Resources, based on a Cultural Resource Evaluation prepared for the proposed project by Holman,40 known archaeological resources, including Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) or human remains, have not been previously documented at the project site. In addition, compliance with General Plan policies OSP-1 through OSP-4 would generally help ensure that work would stop if archaeological resources (including TCRs) or human remains are identified during construction, but do not specify the appropriate course of action if such resources are discovered. While it is reasonable to anticipate that project development, including the proposed off-site improvements, would not impact TCRs, the potential cannot be dismissed for unknown TCRs to be uncovered during ground- disturbing activities for the proposed project. Therefore, if previously unknown resources are encountered during construction activities, the proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a TCR, defined in PRC section 21074, during construction. As a result, without mitigation, a potentially significant impact could occur. Mitigation Measure(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level. XVIII-1 Implement Mitigation Measures V-1 and V-2. 40 Holman & Associates Archeological Consultants. Cultural Resource Study of the Proposed Surrey Farm Estates Project, 170 Twin Oaks Drive, Los Gatos, Santa Clara County, California. January 25, 2013. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 98 September 2025 XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less-Than-Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than-Significant Impact No Impact a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?     b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?     c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?     d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?     e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?     Discussion a-c. Water, sanitary sewer, stormwater, electricity, and telecommunications, services would be provided by way of new connections to existing infrastructure in the project area. Brief discussions of each are included below. It should be noted that the required off-site sidewalk improvements would not include utility infrastructure improvements and, thus, are not discussed further in the following analysis. Water Water utilities would be provided through new connections to existing utility lines within the project vicinity, including an eight-inch water main located within Twin Oaks Drive. A new eight-inch water main would be extended east within the proposed internal roadway. Water service laterals would be extended from the water main to each lot. In addition, Lot 10 would connect to the existing six-inch water main within Cerro Vista Court. Water supplies in the Town of Los Gatos are provided by SJW. Water supply is currently provided to SJW through a number of sources, including purchased water from SCWVD, groundwater from the Santa Clara Subbasin, surface water, and recycled water. However, the majority of water supplied to SJW is through a treated water contract with SCWVD. Thus, SJW used information received from SCWVD to inform SJW’s Water Supply Reliability Analysis. Based on the SCWVD 2020 UWMP, SCWVD will have sufficient supplies to meet SJW’s and other retailers’ demands through 2045 under average year, single-dry year, and five consecutive dry year conditions, and under a Drought Risk Assessment (DRA) condition for a drought that lasts five consecutive years.41 In addition, according to the SCWVD UWMP, water supplies are projected to exceed expected 41 San Jose Water Company. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 99 September 2025 demand for normal year, single-dry year, and multiple-dry year scenarios through 2045.42 Therefore, SJW would be able to continue purchasing water from SCWVD through all future scenarios. 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. Based on the above, SJW would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Sewer Service Sewer service would be provided through new connections to existing utility lines within the project vicinity, including an eight-inch sewer main located within Twin Oaks Drive and a six-inch line in Cerro Vista Court. With the exception of Lot 10, the proposed residential lots would connect to the new six-inch sanitary sewer line within the internal roadway. Lot 10 would connect to the Cerro Vista Court line by way of a new four-inch sewer line. Within the Town of Los Gatos, sewer service is provided by the West Valley Sanitation District. Wastewater treatment for the project site would occur at the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) located in Alviso. The WPCP has a licensed capacity of 167 million gallons per day (MGD) and treats an average of 110 MGD.43 While the 12 proposed single-family residences would increase wastewater generation associated with the site, the relatively minor increase in wastewater would not be considered substantial, as the WPCP has a remaining capacity of 57 MGD. In addition, 2040 General Plan Policy PFS-2.1 ensures that the Town supports the West Valley Sanitation District’s efforts to maintain wastewater conveyance, treatment, and disposal infrastructure in good working condition in order to supply municipal sewer service to the Town’s residents and businesses. Thus, the West Valley Sanitation District would have adequate capacity to serve the wastewater demand projected for the proposed project in addition to the Town’s existing commitments. Stormwater Systems Because the project site is currently undeveloped, development of the proposed project would result in an increase in on-site impervious surfaces such as roofs, sidewalks, and driveways, which would increase the flow of stormwater runoff. However, the proposed project would include installation of new storm drain inlets to capture on-site storm runoff and convey flows through a network of storm drain lines ranging between 15 and 27 inches in diameter to on-site bioretention areas for treatment. Lots 1 to 4 and 7 through 10 would each include an individual bioretention area, and Lots 5 and 6 would share a bioretention 42 Santa Clara Valley Water District. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan [pg. 47 and 48]. June 2021. 43 City of San Jose. San Jose-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility. Available at: https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments-offices/environmental-services/water-utilities/regional-wastewater-facility. Accessed October 2023. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 100 September 2025 area. The stormwater bioretention basins would be sized and designed to meet the Town’s C3 design criteria, and would filter and remove contaminants from runoff. Following on- site treatment, stormwater flows would be directed to the existing 27- and 36-inch storm drains located north and west of the site, respectively. As discussed under Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this IS/MND, the proposed on-site stormwater infrastructure would be sized to meet Provision C.3.g of the County’s MRP, which requires new development to manage stormwater flows such that post-development runoff does not exceed pre-project runoff rates and durations. As such, the proposed project would not require major relocation or expansion of any stormwater infrastructure, as adequate stormwater facilities would be provided to serve the project. Other Utilities Electric and telecommunications utilities would be provided by way of connections to existing infrastructure located within the immediate project vicinity. The proposed project would not require major upgrades to, or extension of, existing infrastructure. Thus, impacts to electricity and telecommunications infrastructure would be less than significant. Conclusion Based on the above, the utility infrastructure within the project vicinity has been designed with adequate capacity to accommodate demand from the proposed project. Therefore, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. d,e. Solid waste, recyclable materials, and compostable material collection within the Town of Los Gatos is provided through West Valley Collection and Recycling. Solid waste from the Town is ultimately disposed of at the Guadalupe Sanitary Landfill, located at 15999 Guadalupe Mines Road in San Jose. As of 2011, the landfill had approximately 11,055,000 cubic yards (CY) of remaining capacity, or 38.7 percent of the total permitted capacity of the landfill (28,600,000 CY).44 During operation, the residents would produce solid waste that would be collected by West Valley Collection and Recycling and transferred to the Guadalupe Sanitary Landfill. Operational solid waste generation from the 12 proposed single-family residences has been estimated based on an average waste generation rate for single-family residential development of 10.2 pounds per unit per day.45 As such, approximately 122.4 pounds of solid waste per day would be generated by the proposed residential development on-site. Such an increase would be a small contribution to the facility’s total permitted capacity and would not be considered a substantial amount of waste, as the facility has adequate capacity to accept such waste. In addition, the project would be required to comply with all federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste and recycling. Pursuant to the CALGreen Code, at least 65 percent diversion of construction waste is required. 44 Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details – Guadalupe Sanitary Landfill (43-AN-0015). Available at: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/ 1376?siteID=3399. Accessed October 2023. 45 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. Available at: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates. Accessed October 2023. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 101 September 2025 Based on the above, the proposed project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals and would comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Thus, a less-than-significant impact related to solid waste would occur as a result of the proposed project. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 102 September 2025 XX. WILDFIRE. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less-Than-Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than-Significant Impact No Impact a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?     b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?     c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?     d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?     Discussion a-d. According to maps prepared as part of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) Fire and Resource Assessment Program, the project site is not located within an SRA; however, the site is located within a High FHSZ.46 The project site is currently undeveloped and contains scattered oak woodlands throughout. Development of the proposed residential uses would include the clearing of on-site fuel sources and, thus, is not anticipated to increase wildfire risks at the site relative to the existing conditions within the project site. Additionally, the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable requirements of the CFC through the installation of fire sprinkler systems, fire hydrants, and other applicable requirements. In addition, the proposed project would be subject to the requirements of Chapter 7A of the CBC which include, but are not limited to, use of ignition-resistant materials, fire-intrusion design of roofing and vents, and use of glazed exterior windows and doors. The proposed project would also be situated near existing roads, water lines, and other utilities, which would reduce risks related to wildfire. Development of the site for residential uses would help to reduce the risk of wildland fire in the area due to site improvements, such as roadways, driveways, and irrigated landscaping, which would reduce readily combustible vegetation. Additionally, pursuant to Mitigation Measure VII-1, the project design would be required to show that final grading or improvement plans incorporate all recommendations included within the site-specific GGHI prepared for the proposed project to ensure slope stability at the project site. The off-site improvement areas do not include significant slopes. As discussed in Section IX, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this IS/MND implementation of the proposed project would not result in any substantial modifications to the existing roadway system and, thus, would not physically interfere with the Town’s EOP, particularly with any emergency evacuation routes. Furthermore, the proposed 46 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Santa Clara County: State Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Effective April 1, 2024. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 103 September 2025 project would not include land uses or operations that could impair implementation of the plan. Additionally, the Santa Clara County Fire Department has also adopted Genasys Protect (formerly known as Zonehaven) to provide specific, timely and accurate information regarding evacuations within the County. Genasys Protect divides geographic regions into smaller zones to help simplify evacuations. In the event of a wildfire or public safety emergency, fire department and law enforcement agencies will issue evacuation orders and other protective actions for impacted areas. Genasys Protect is a web-based platform that provides real-time evacuation updates. The project site is located within Zone LGA-008, which includes the area north of Kennedy Road, south of Blossom Hill Road, east of Los Gatos Boulevard, and west of Short Road and Brooke Acres Drive.47 Therefore, the proposed project would not be expected to be subject to or result in substantial adverse effects related to wildfires, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. 47 Protect Genasys. Genasys Protect. Available at: https://protect.genasys.com/zones/US-CA-XSC-LGA-008. Accessed May 2025. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 104 September 2025 XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Potentially Significant Impact Less-Than-Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than-Significant Impact No Impact a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?     b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?     c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?     Discussion a. As discussed in Section IV, Biological Resources, of this IS/MND, while the potential exists for several special-status species to occur on-site, Mitigation Measures IV-1 through IV-8 would ensure that impacts to such species would be less than significant. The project site does not contain any known historic or precontact resources. Thus, implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to have the potential to result in impacts related to historic or precontact resources. Nevertheless, Mitigation Measures V-1 and V-2 would ensure that in the event that archaeological and paleontological resources are discovered within the project site during construction activities, such resources are protected in compliance with the requirements of CEQA. Considering the above, the proposed project would not: 1) degrade the quality of the environment; 2) substantially reduce or impact the habitat of fish or wildlife species; 3) cause fish or wildlife populations to drop below self-sustaining levels; 4) threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; 5) reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal; or 6) eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur. b. The proposed project in conjunction with other reasonably foreseeable development within the Town of Los Gatos could incrementally contribute to cumulative impacts in the area. The 2040 General Plan EIR evaluated the potential growth of up to 3,738 residential units, and the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update included 2,371 units. In addition, 16 proposed projects within the Town are subject to SB 330 and/or Builder’s Remedy. As of June 2025, three of the foregoing projects have been approved by the Town, and 10 are currently under review. It is important to note that several of these SB 330 projects are identified Housing Element sites in the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update. These include North40 Phase II (450 units), Los Gatos Lodge (155 units), N40 “The Luxe” (120 units), ACE Property “The Arya” (175 units), Genuine Automotive (55 units), Walnut Orchard (138 units), 76 Gas Station (23 units), and Happy Cleaners (10 units). Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 105 September 2025 Impacts related to many of the resource areas addressed in this IS/MND are localized, site-specific, and/or project-specific and not cumulative in nature. For example, the creation of glare or shadows at one location is not worsened by glare or shadows created at another location. Projects that block a view or affect the visual quality of a site also typically have localized aesthetic impacts. Impacts to a subsurface archaeological find at one project site would not generally be made worse by impacts to a cultural or tribal cultural resource at another site due to development of another project. Rather, the resources and the effects upon them are generally independent. Similarly, impacts related to soil conditions at one project site are not worsened by impacts from development on another site with unstable soil conditions at another project site. Rather, the soil conditions, and the implications of such conditions for each project, are independent. Hazardous materials and other public health and safety issues are generally site-specific and/or project-specific as well and would not be significantly affected by other development within the project area. Furthermore, 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. 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. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 106 September 2025 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 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 single-family 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. With respect to water supply, the 12 proposed single-family residences would increase water usage on-site beyond the existing water demand. However, given the relatively minor increase in water usage that would result from a net increase in 12 residences, the proposed project would not substantially increase groundwater usage beyond the water supply demand accounted for in the SJW 2020 UWMP. According to the 2020 UWMP, water supplies are projected to meet expected demand for normal year, single-dry year, and multiple-dry year scenarios through 2045.48 As SJW’s wholesale water supplier, Valley Water provides or manages the majority of SJW’s water supplies. Thus, in its UWMP, SJW used information received from Valley Water to inform SJW’s Water Supply Reliability Analysis. According to Valley Water’s 2020 UWMP, after accounting for projected demand from existing and foreseeable development, the District estimates having a surplus of at least 116,000 AF for normal years, at least 25,000 AF for single-dry years, and at least 10,000 AF for multiple-dry year scenarios through 2045.49 Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that sufficient water supply exists to accommodate the project’s water supply in combination with other pending and approved projects within the Town of Los Gatos. As demonstrated in this IS/MND, all potential environmental impacts that could occur as a result of project development would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through compliance with the mitigation measures included in this IS/MND, as well as applicable General Plan policies, Municipal Code standards, and other applicable local and State regulations, and would not result in adverse health or safety effects to existing or future residents in the area. Overall, due to the relatively minor increase of 12 residential units in an area surrounded by existing development, and with implementation of the mitigation measures included in this IS/MND and compliance with all applicable regulations, the project’s incremental contribution towards any identified cumulative impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. Therefore, when viewed in conjunction with other closely related past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects, development of the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts in the Town of Los Gatos, and the project’s incremental contribution to cumulative impacts would be less than significant. 48 San Jose Water Company. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan [pg. 7-1]. June 2021. 49 Santa Clara Valley Water District. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan [see Tables 7-2, 7-3, and 7-4]. June 2021. Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 107 September 2025 c. As described in this IS/MND, although the project is subject to SB 330 Builder’s Remedy, the proposed project has been designed to comply with a variety of applicable General Plan policies, Municipal Code standards, and other applicable local and State regulations, and would be required to implement the mitigation measures included herein. In addition, as discussed in the Air Quality, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Noise sections of this IS/MND, the proposed project would not cause substantial adverse effects to human beings, which cannot be mitigated to less-than-significant levels, including effects related to exposure to air pollutants, geologic hazards, GHG emissions, hazardous materials, and excessive noise. As such, the proposed project would not result in direct or indirect impacts to human beings and, thus, the project’s impact would be less-than-significant.