The URL can be used to link to this page

IS-MND Response to Public Comments - 11-25-25 - 178 Twin Oaks DrResponses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 1 INTRODUCTION This Responses to Comments document contains comments received during the public review period of the Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). According to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15073 and 15074, the lead agency must consider the comments received during consultation and review periods together with the IS/MND. However, unlike with an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), comments received on an IS/MND are not required to be attached to the negative declaration, nor must the lead agency make specific written responses to public agencies. Nonetheless, the lead agency has chosen to provide responses to the comments for consideration by the Town decision-makers. BACKGROUND The Town of Los Gatos used the following methods to solicit public input on the IS/MND: a Notice of Completion of the IS/MND was posted with the State Clearinghouse on September 19, 2025. The IS/MND was distributed to applicable public agencies, responsible agencies, and interested individuals. In addition, copies of the document were made available at the Town of Los Gatos Town Hall, located at 110 East Main Street. Electronic copies of the IS/MND were also available on the Town’s website at the following page: https://www.losgatosca.gov/DocumentCenter/Index/2227. The public review period ended October 8, 2025. LIST OF COMMENTERS The Town of Los Gatos received 24 comment letters during the public review period of the IS/MND for the proposed project. The comment letters were received from the following agencies and individuals, and are included in the Responses to Comments section below: Agencies Letter 1 .......................................... San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Individuals Letter 2 ........................................................................................................ Ken and Pat Arendt Letter 3 ................................................................. Sameer Bidichandani and Shabina Mirajkar Letter 4 .................................................................................................... Jim and Karen Brown Letter 5 ........................................................................................ Jill and Craig Fordyce (1 of 2) Letter 6 ........................................................................................ Jill and Craig Fordyce (2 of 2) Letter 7 ............................................................................................ David and Karri Greenfield Letter 8 ....................................................................................... Georgette and Michael Harrell Letter 9 ................................................................................................... Monica and Lotfi Herzi Letter 10 ...................................................................................................................... Paul Krug Letter 11 .................................................................................................................... Raj Kumar Letter 12 ............................................................................................ Donna and Roger Maltbie Letter 13 ........................................................................................ Bruce and Jackie McCombs RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 2 Letter 14 ............................................................................................... Darcie and Tom McNeil Letter 15 .............................................................................................................. Kathy Meleyco Letter 16 ........................................................................................... Malea and Mike Mordaunt Letter 17 ................................................................................. Huipeng Ren and Tingting Yang Letter 18 .............................................................................................................. Philip Shanker Letter 19 .................................................................................................. Dan Sherbeck (1 of 2) Letter 20 .................................................................................................. Dan Sherbeck (2 of 2) Letter 21 .................................................................................................. Susan and Brad Stahl Letter 22 ............................................................................. Eric van Miltenburg and Lori Owen Letter 23 ................................................................... Jon Witkin (through Camas J. Steinmetz) Letter 24 ............................................................................................................. Grant Zamudio RESPONSES TO COMMENTS The Responses to Comments below include each comment letter received regarding the Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project IS/MND, as well as responses to each comment. Each bracketed comment letter has been numbered at the top and bracketed to indicate how the letter has been divided into individual comments. Each comment is given a number with the letter number appearing first, followed by the comment number. For example, the first comment in Letter 1 would have the following format: 1-1. The response to each comment will reference the comment number. Where revisions to the IS/MND text were made, new text is double underlined and deleted text is struck through. All such revisions to the IS/MND are minor and merely clarify, amplify, or make insignificant modifications that do not affect the adequacy of the conclusions presented therein. CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5 states the following regarding recirculation requirements for negative declarations: (c) Recirculation is not required under the following circumstances: (1) Mitigation measures are replaced with equal or more effective measures pursuant to Section 15074.1. (2) New project revisions are added in response to written or verbal comments on the project's effects identified in the proposed negative declaration which are not new avoidable significant effects. (3) Measures or conditions of project approval are added after circulation of the negative declaration which are not required by CEQA, which do not create new significant environmental effects and are not necessary to mitigate an avoidable significant effect. (4) New information is added to the negative declaration which merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the negative declaration. Based on the above, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5, recirculation of the IS/MND is not warranted. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 3 Letter 1 1-1 1-2 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 4 Letter 1 cont. 1-2 cont. 1-3 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 5 Letter 1 cont. 1-3 cont. 1-4 1-5 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 6 Letter 1 cont. 1-5 cont. 1-6 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 7 Letter 1 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 8 Letter 1 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 9 Letter 1 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 10 Letter 1 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 11 Letter 1 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 12 Letter 1 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 13 Letter 1 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 14 Letter 1 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 15 Letter 1 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 16 Letter 1 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 17 Letter 1 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 18 Letter 1 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 19 Letter 1 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 20 Letter 1 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 21 LETTER 1: BRIAN WINES, SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD Response to Comment 1-1 The commenter refers to an “ephemeral creek channel.” The referenced ephemeral creek channel historically supports water only in storm events. Under Impact 3.3.11, the Biological Evaluation Report prepared for the proposed project by LOA (included as Appendix B to the IS/MND) states: “…the proposed project will not directly impact Ross Creek, the intermittent ephemeral drainage, or the seasonal wetland drainage feature. Therefore, the project will not result in impacts to waters or sensitive habitat under the jurisdiction of the USACE, CDFW, or RWQCB.” The foregoing conclusion was confirmed by the project engineer, is based on the current project plans, and is adequately reflected in the IS/MND. In addition, as discussed within Section IV, Biological Resources, of the IS/MND, a site visit was conducted on May 14, 2025, by LOA, a professional biological consulting firm under contract with the Town’s environmental consultant for the project, to confirm the characteristics of the on-site ephemeral drainage as part of the Biological Evaluation (which was conducted to identify on-site habitats and the likelihood of special-status species occurrence). Pages 48 and 49 of the IS/MND include the following discussion, with revisions shown in response to the comment: The on-site ephemeral drainage with swales was determined not to be considered jurisdictional water of the U.S. or the State. Nonetheless, aAs shown in Figure 3, the proposed project would be designed to incorporate a minimum 10-foot buffer between the proposed development and the vegetation surrounding the ephemeral drainage. As such, the ephemeral drainage with swales would not be directly impacted by the proposed project. Similarly, as discussed above, the proposed project would retain the 100- to 110-foot flood easement between the development footprint and Ross Creek. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the disturbance of any on-site wetlands. The design of the proposed project, inclusive of the aforementioned buffer, would ensure that no direct impacts would occur to the on-site ephemeral drainage. Thus, whether or not the ephemeral drainage is subject to RWQCB jurisdiction would not change the conclusions of the IS/MND. It is recognized that the 10-foot buffer intersects with a proposed public utility easement along the internal roadway at the northernmost end of the ephemeral drainage. Underground utilities are not proposed within the easement area, and thus, no ground disturbance would occur within the easement area. Nonetheless, construction of the internal roadway would occur in close proximity to the northern edge of the ephemeral drainage. The potential indirect effects of this construction on water quality of the ephemeral drainage, should it receive flow from a precipitation event, would be addressed through implementation of the erosion control measures of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), required by Mitigation Measure X-1 on page 74 of the IS/MND. In response to RWQCB concerns, the Town has made the following amplifications to Mitigation Measure X-1: X-1 Prior to any ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant shall prepare and submit a final erosion and sediment control plan for review and approval by the Town of Los Gatos Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department. A Notice of Intent (NOI) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be submitted to the San Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 22 Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. A maximum of two weeks is allowed between clearing of an area and stabilizing/building on an area if grading is allowed during the rainy season. Prior to any ground disturbance, the on-site aquatic features (i.e., the ephemeral drainage/drainage swale and Ross Creek) shall be flagged by a qualified biologist with highly visible flagging tape, or similar, to clearly demarcate the limits of the aquatic features, and interim erosion control measures shall be installed around the aquatic features, at a minimum. The project applicant shall submit a letter to the Town prepared by the qualified biologist confirming completion of the flagging for review and approval prior to commencement of any ground disturbance. Interim erosion control measures, to be carried out during construction and before installation of the final landscaping, shall be included. Interim erosion control methods shall include, but are not limited to: silt fences, fiber rolls (with locations and details), erosion control blankets, Town standard seeding specification, filter berms, check dams, retention basins, etc. The project contractor shall provide erosion control measures as needed to protect downstream water quality during winter months. The grading, drainage, erosion control plan and SWPPP shall be prepared in compliance with applicable measures contained in the amended provisions C.3 and C.14 of most current Santa Clara County National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Regional Permit (MRP). Monitoring for erosion and sediment control is required and shall be performed by the Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD) or Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP) as required by the Construction General Permit. Stormwater samples are required for all discharge locations and projects may not exceed limits set forth by the Construction General Permit Numeric Action Levels and/or Numeric Effluent Levels. A Rain Event Action Plan (REAP) shall be developed 48 hours prior to any likely precipitation event, defined by a 50 percent or greater probability as determined by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and/or whenever rain is imminent. The QSD or QSP must print and save records of the precipitation forecast for the project location area from (https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/) which shall accompany monitoring reports and sampling test data. A rain gauge is required on-site. The Town of Los Gatos Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department and the Building Department shall conduct periodic NPDES inspections of the site throughout the recognized storm season to verify compliance with the Construction General Permit and Stormwater ordinances and regulations. The above revisions serve as minor amplifications to Mitigation Measure X-1. Response to Comment 1-2 Please see Response to Comment 1-1 above. Response to Comment 1-3 Section 6.13.1 of the Geotechnical and Geologic Hazard Investigation (GGHI) prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix D to the IS/MND) includes the possibility of using pervious pavement when discussing stormwater treatment designs. Except for Lots 7, 8, and 10, the maximum slope of the proposed pervious pavement areas is 3.5 percent. The lots include pervious pavers on the private driveways, which are shown with a maximum slope of 15 percent on the grading plan. According to the geotechnical report, underdrains are required for all pervious Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 23 paver installations, with which the proposed project would comply. Overall, as stated on page 73 of the IS/MND, the proposed project would comply with the requirements of the SWRCB and the RWQCB, and would meet C.3 Standards related to stormwater treatment, which would be ensured through a condition of approval and as part of the Town’s review of final project plans. Response to Comment 1-4 The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) include language that a maintenance agreement be put in place between the Town and the property owner, requiring the owner to operate and maintain all on-site stormwater treatment infrastructure. The City will require the owner to operate and maintain all on-site stormwater treatment infrastructure as a Condition of Approval. With respect to the placement of the proposed bioretention basins and proximity to public roadways, all of the proposed lots would front a private roadway. The maintenance agreement will include language allowing Town personnel to access each bioretention area periodically as required for inspection purposes. Hydromodification management for the project site was discussed under question c.i-iii within Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the IS/MND. In addition, a Bay Area Hydrology Model (BAHM) report was prepared for the proposed project by Balance Hydrologics (see Appendix A to this document), which was submitted to, and reviewed by, the Town. Page 76 of the IS/MND is hereby revised as follows to incorporate additional details from the BAHM report: Furthermore, as discussed above, following project development, stormwater runoff from each on-site DMA would be directed into an associated bioretention area located adjacent to each lot, which would be lined with an impermeable liner. Following on-site treatment, stormwater flows would be metered out into the existing 27- and 36-inch storm drains located north and west of the site, respectively. The proposed on-site stormwater infrastructure would be sized to meet Provision C.3.g of the County’s Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES permit (MRP), which requires new development to manage stormwater flows such that post-development runoff does not exceed pre-project runoff rates and durations. In order to calculate the project’s ability to meet flow-duration frequency requirements while also meeting the required water quality treatment standards, a Bay Area Hydrology Model (BAHM) report was prepared for the proposed project by Balance Hydrologics.1 As discussed therein, site runoff would be directed to one of nine proposed bioretention basins that provide both water quality treatment and flow-duration control. Each bioretention area has been designed in accordance with the standard design criteria outlined in the C.3 Stormwater Handbook. Specifically, each basin was modeled with six inches of surface ponding, 18 inches of biotreatment soil media, and 12 inches of drain rock. A four-inch underdrain would collect the treated water, which would then be metered through a two-inch orifice integrated into the storm drain overflow structure. The two-inch orifice is required to meet the hydromodification management criteria. The modeling conducted as part of the BAHM report showed that the basins would biofilter an approximate average of 90 percent of the mean annual runoff. Such filtration rates are well in excess of the minimum 80 percent required by the MRP. As such, the BAHM report concluded that the proposed stormwater management facilities would provide effective water-quality treatment and flow-duration controls for the full range of flows, from one-tenth of the two-year flood event up to the 10-year event. 1 Balance Hydrologics. Summary of BAHM Modeling for the Surrey Farm Project, Town of Los Gatos. July 31, 2025. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 24 Based on the above, the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner which would result in erosion, siltation, or flooding on- or off-site, create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Consequently, implementation of the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact. Response to Comment 1-5 The ephemeral drainage/drainage swale historically supports water only during storm events. As shown in Figure 15 of the IS/MND (On-Site Habitats), the ephemeral drainage/drainage swale does not extend across the entirety of the site; the downstream end of the ephemeral drainage currently tapers off at the northernmost extent, which occurs on Lot 8, near the proposed roadway. As shown in the proposed Site Plan (included as Figure 3 in the IS/MND), the project was purposefully designed to avoid the on-site aquatic features, including the ephemeral drainage. The majority of Lot 8, which is located upslope and to the east of the drainage, and that currently sheet flows towards the drainage during storm events, would remain undisturbed. This upslope area is shown as Drainage Management Area (DMA) B in the Stormwater Control Plan sheet of the BAHM report. Similarly, much of the upslope areas on Lot 9, located on the western side of the drainage, would not be disturbed. Accordingly, development of the proposed project would not be expected to substantially alter the amount of stormwater entering the ephemeral drainage/drainage swale during storm events, as those upslope areas that would remain undisturbed would continue to sheet flow to the drainage. As part of the Biological Evaluation Report, LOA mapped the trees within the ephemeral drainage/drainage swale as mixed oak woodland habitat, not as riparian habitat. According to LOA, the trees within the drainage would not be negatively impacted by the project’s current stormwater plan. Response to Comment 1-6 The attachments to the comment letter are related to a previous project proposal that, while located on the same site, was not approved by the Town. Because the attached comments are on a separate CEQA analysis than the IS/MND prepared for the proposed project, the comments are not directly applicable to the proposed project and are considered more for context and reference. Therefore, responses to the attached comments are not required or provided. In addition, LOA reviewed the biological reconnaissance, wetland evaluation, three-season floristic survey, and tree inventory prepared for the 2017 EIR as part of their preparation of the Biological Evaluation for the proposed project. Therefore, the same reports that were used to inform the 2017 EIR were considered as part of the proposed project. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 25 Letter 2 2-1 2-2 2-5 2-4 2-3 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 26 Letter 2 cont. 2-6 2-7 2-8 2-5 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 27 LETTER 2: KEN AND PAT ARENDT Response to Comment 2-1 Please see Responses to Comments 2-2, 2-5, and 2-6. The comments will be forwarded to the decision-makers as part of the consideration of the proposed project. Response to Comment 2-2 As noted on page seven of the IS/MND, the Builder’s Remedy status of the project allows the project vested rights to be subject only to the applicable ordinances, policies, and standards in place at the time the project application was submitted. While the site is currently identified by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) as being within a High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ), at the time of project application, the site was mapped within a Very High FHSZ. Page 102 of the IS/MND is hereby revised accordingly: a-d. According to maps prepared as part of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) Fire and Resource Assessment Program, the project site is not located within an SRA; however, the site is located within a Very High FHSZ.2 The project site is currently undeveloped and contains scattered oak woodlands throughout. Development of the proposed residential uses would include the clearing of on-site fuel sources and, thus, is not anticipated to increase wildfire risks at the site relative to the existing conditions within the project site. Additionally, the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable requirements of the CFC through the installation of fire sprinkler systems, fire hydrants, and other applicable requirements. In addition, the proposed project would be subject to the requirements of Chapter 7A of the CBC which include, but are not limited to, use of ignition-resistant materials, fire-intrusion design of roofing and vents, and use of glazed exterior windows and doors. The proposed project would also be situated near existing roads, water lines, and other utilities, which would reduce risks related to wildfire due to the existing development generally acting as a fuel break because of a lack of natural debris (e.g., vegetation). Wildfire risks are not anticipated to be exacerbated during project operation, as the anticipated residential uses typically do not involve operational components that would increase the risk of wildfire. Development of the site for residential uses would help to reduce the risk of wildland fire in the area due to site improvements, such as roadways, driveways, and irrigated landscaping, which would reduce readily combustible vegetation. Additionally, pursuant to Mitigation Measure VII-1, the project design would be required to show that final grading or improvement plans incorporate all recommendations included within the site-specific GGHI prepared for the proposed project to ensure slope stability at the project site. Furthermore, as shown in Figure 16 of the IS/MND, the proposed project locates the residences outside of the areas of the site with the steepest slopes. Although some slopes occur within the project site, the on-site slopes are limited in size and are not sufficient to facilitate rapid spread of wildfire, as compared to mountainous areas with slopes sufficiently large enough to accommodate rapid spread of wildfire. As a result, the proposed project would not exacerbate wildfire risks due to slope. The off-site improvement areas do not include significant slopes. As discussed in Section IX, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this IS/MND implementation of the proposed project would not result in any substantial modifications to the existing roadway system and, thus, would not physically Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 28 interfere with the Town’s EOP, particularly with any emergency evacuation routes. Furthermore, the proposed project would not include land uses or operations that could impair implementation of the plan. While the long-term maintenance of the proposed roadways, water and wastewater infrastructure, and other utilities would not exacerbate fire risks, the activities associated with the initial construction and placement of the utilities and infrastructure could cause a temporary increase in fire risks due to the use of heavy equipment, which would contain combustible materials such as fuels, oils, and ignition sources. However, the project contractor would be required to comply with all applicable health and safety standards, including the California Health and Safety Codes and local Town ordinances regulating the handling, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials. Compliance with such standards would help to minimize the potential for accidental conditions, including fire. Additionally, the Santa Clara County Fire Department SCCFD has also adopted Genasys Protect (formerly known as Zonehaven) to provide specific, timely and accurate information regarding evacuations within the County. Genasys Protect divides geographic regions into smaller zones to help simplify evacuations. In the event of a wildfire or public safety emergency, fire department and law enforcement agencies will issue evacuation orders and other protective actions for impacted areas. Genasys Protect is a web-based platform that provides real-time evacuation updates. The project site is located within Zone LGA-008, which includes the area north of Kennedy Road, south of Blossom Hill Road, east of Los Gatos Boulevard, and west of Short Road and Brooke Acres Drive.2 Therefore, the proposed project would not be expected to be subject to or result in substantial adverse effects related to wildfires, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. As shown above, the foregoing revisions elaborate on the discussion within Section XX, Wildfire, of the IS/MND, but do not result in any new significant impacts or substantial increase in impact significance from what was identified in the IS/MND. Page 70 of the IS/MND is hereby also revised as follows to ensure consistency with the revisions shown above: g. Issues related to wildfire hazards are discussed in Section XX, Wildfire, of this IS/MND. As noted therein, the project site is not located within a State Responsibility Area (SRA). However, the site is located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ).3 As noted within Section XX, Wildfire, of the IS/MND, development of the proposed residential uses would include the clearing of on-site fuel sources and is therefore not anticipated to increase wildfire risks relative to the existing site conditions. In particular, the IS/MND notes that the proposed project would not result in any substantial modifications to the existing roadway system and, thus, would not physically interfere with the Town’s Emergency Operation Plan (EOP), particularly with any emergency evacuation routes. Further, in addition to the proposed access points from Twin Oaks Drive and Cerro Vista Court (for Lot 10 only), as noted on page 70 of the IS/MND, the proposed project would include a 20-foot-wide emergency vehicle access (EVA) route extending south from the site to connect to Brooke Acres Drive. Following construction of 2 Protect Genasys. Genasys Protect. Available at: https://protect.genasys.com/zones/US-CA-XSC-LGA-008. Accessed May 2025. 3 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Santa Clara County: State Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Effective April 1, 2024. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 29 the EVA route, construction trips could use the roadway. During project operations, the EVA route could also be used for egress during evacuation scenarios. Furthermore, the project improvement plans would be submitted to the Town for review by the Town, which would ensure compliance with the California Fire Code (CFC) and California Building Code (CBC). Response to Comment 2-3 Removal of trees does not violate the Town’s Tree Protection Ordinance. The Ordinance allows for tree removal, provided that certain conditions are met. The discussion under question IV-e of the IS/MND acknowledges that the proposed project would not meet the on-site tree replacement requirements. As a result, the IS/MND includes a mitigation measure (IV-9) requiring compliance with the Town of Los Gatos Tree Protection Ordinance. For example, the mitigation requires the project applicant to pay the appropriate in-lieu fees, pursuant to the requirements of Division II of Chapter 29.10 of the Town’s Municipal Code. According to LOA, the proposed project would result in a small loss of habitat for the various wildlife species that occur regionally. Many of the species currently using the site would continue to use the site for movement or daily activities, as less than half of the site would be impacted, and less than half of the on-site woodlands would be impacted. Therefore, while some oak woodland habitat would be impacted, the amount is negligible on a regional scale; those species currently using woodland habitat within the impact area would be able to use woodland habitat in the unimpacted areas of the site or elsewhere regionally. In addition, Mitigation Measures IV-1 through IV-9 as set forth in the IS/MND would ensure that significant impacts related to adverse effects on the special-status species listed by the comment would not occur. Response to Comment 2-4 The comment does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND. However, the IS/MND does address the proposed height in comparison to the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines on page 21 as follows: As discussed above, the proposed project currently includes subdivision of the 17.55-acre project site into 12 lots and the subsequent development of 12 single-family residences. The project site is identified as a Hillside Area pursuant to the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. The foregoing standards and guidelines include requirements related to hillside grading, development intensity, architectural design, landscape design, and other site elements such as fences, walls, and driveway entries. The project has been designed such that several residential lots would comply with a number of Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines, including standards related to the Least Restrictive Development Areas (LRDAs), the maximum allowable floor area ratio (FAR) for the site, and the location of the proposed residences within the lots. For example, nine of the 12 proposed residences would be located within the LRDAs, where the slopes are less than 30 percent, consistent with the Hillside Development Standards. However, because the project is invoking Builder’s Remedy, compliance with all of the Town’s guidelines, policies, or programs is not required unless noncompliance constitutes a significant health or safety risk. As such, multiple aspects of the project are not in compliance with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines, such as the extent of grading and maximum heights. Regarding the latter, it should be noted that seven of the residential lots (Lot 1 and Lots 7 through 12) would only exceed the maximum height of 25 feet by approximately one to two feet, and Lots 7 through 10 would be located on the upper sloped portions of the project site. Thus, an effort has been made to minimize the height exceedance on the proposed residential lots that may be more visible. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 30 In addition, Figure 11 of the IS/MND shows the existing and proposed view of the project site as seen from Longmeadow Drive. As noted on page 23 of the IS/MND, the majority of the project site would remain screened by the existing trees and vegetation and the proposed project would not conflict with existing regulations related to views of the Hillside Area from Longmeadow Drive. Therefore, the IS/MND appropriately concluded that the proposed project would not conflict with applicable Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines regulations governing scenic quality. Response to Comment 2-5 Potential impacts related to geology and soils, including the risks of landslide, liquefaction, and fault rupture, are discussed in Section VII of the IS/MND. As discussed therein, the project site is located in a zone designated as having a “low” fault rupture hazard potential and is considered to be outside recognized fault zones. Similarly, the site is not located within County- or State-designated liquefaction hazard zones. Finally, Mitigation Measure VII-1 requires the project to incorporate the recommendations of the GGHI prepared for the proposed project, which would require the proposed project to be designed sufficient to ensure that impacts related to soil instability would not occur. With respect to the erosion and sediment control plan required by Mitigation Measure X-1, the measure and associated plan require interim erosion control measures to be carried out during project construction. The specifics of such measures would be reviewed and approved by the Town of Los Gatos Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department prior to ground-disturbing activities associated with the project. As specified on page 73 of the IS/MND, the erosion control methods shall include, but are not limited to: silt fences, fiber rolls (with locations and details), erosion control blankets, Town standard seeding specification, filter berms, check dams, retention basins, etc. Implementation of such erosion control methods would ensure that impacts related to drainage and erosion would not occur. In addition, monitoring for erosion and sediment control is required by Mitigation Measure X-1 and by the Construction General Permit. Such monitoring would be performed by a qualified professional and would ensure the control measures are performing adequately. Response to Comment 2-6 Bioretention basins are standard features of development projects and, as noted on page 12 of the IS/MND, would be sized and designed to meet the Town’s C.3 Stormwater Standards design criteria, which require new development to manage stormwater flows such that post-development runoff does not exceed pre-project runoff rates and durations, thereby ensuring flooding would not occur. Bioretention basins filter stormwater runoff naturally through percolation, and do not pond water or result in long-term standing water. Thus, the proposed bioretention basins would not result in any safety concerns. Response to Comment 2-7 Project construction noise is evaluated on pages 80 through 82 within question XIII-a of the IS/MND. As discussed therein, noise levels associated with project construction at the nearest existing single-family residences could exceed the applicable noise level standards. Mitigation Measure XIII-1 requires the project implement construction equipment staging areas to create distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors; use electric tools, which create less noise than non-electric; and use mobile construction equipment with smart back-up alarms, which automatically adjust their volume instead of using a fixed volume. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 31 Such measures are consistent with Mitigation Measure N-1 in the Town’s General Plan EIR and would reduce potential impacts related to construction noise to a less-than-significant level. With respect to ingress and egress routes, as well as roadway safety, the proposed project would not result in any substantial modifications to the existing roadway system and, thus, would not physically interfere with the Town’s EOP. Increased traffic from project construction would be temporary and cease upon buildout of the proposed project. As presented on page 82 of the IS/MND, generally, a doubling in traffic volumes is required to increase traffic noise levels by 3.0 dB, which is the level at which an increase in noise is generally perceptible. The proposed project would generate approximately 113 trips per day. Although traffic volume data for the roadways adjacent to the project site is not available, an average of 799 daily trips were recorded during the Spring 2024 trimester at Hillbrook School near the site’s northwestern corner. Even under the conservative assumption that the traffic volumes at Hillbrook School are representative of the traffic on the nearest roadways in the project vicinity, the proposed project would not double traffic volumes on local roadways and, thus, would not substantially increase traffic noise in the project vicinity. Response to Comment 2-8 The comment does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 32 3-1 Letter 3 3-2 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 33 3-2 cont. 3-3 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 34 LETTER 3: SAMEER BIDICHANDANI AND SHABINA MIRAJKAR Response to Comment 3-1 In addition to the proposed access points from Twin Oaks Drive and Cerro Vista Court (for Lot 10 only), as noted on page 70 of the IS/MND, the proposed project would include a 20-foot-wide EVA route extending south from the site to connect to Brooke Acres Drive. Following construction of the EVA route, construction trips could use the roadway. Response to Comment 3-2 According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, “The level of detail contained in the response, however, may correspond to the level of detail provided in the comment (i.e., responses to general comments may be general). A general response may be appropriate when a comment does not contain or specifically refer to readily available information, or does not explain the relevance of evidence submitted with the comment.” Thus, when a commenter expresses general concerns, such as the proposed project would result in “more traffic”, “effects on water quality”, or “increased noise”, a specific response is not offered. Rather, the commenter is referred to the sections where the referenced general concern is evaluated in detail. For example, project-related impacts related to biological resources, such as trees, habitats, or protected species, are evaluated in Section IV, Biological Resources, of the IS/MND. Potential impacts related to drainage are discussed under Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality, and impacts related to evacuation and fire risk are discussed under Sections IX, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and XX, Wildfire, of the IS/MND. Light pollution and consistency with the applicable Hillside Standards and Guidelines policies are discussed under Section I, Aesthetics, of the IS/MND; potential impacts related to air pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with the proposed project are discussed under Sections III, Air Quality, and VIII, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the IS/MND; and Section XIII, Noise, addresses potential impacts related to construction and operational noise. Potential impacts related to transportation are discussed under Section XVII, Transportation, of the IS/MND. As discussed therein, traditionally, lead agencies used level of service (LOS) to assess the significance of impacts related to transportation. LOS represents a qualitative description of the traffic operations experienced by the driver at an intersection or along a roadway segment. However, pursuant to SB 743, the Natural Resources Agency promulgated CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 in late 2018, which became effective in early 2019. Subdivision (a) of that section provides that “[g]enerally, vehicle miles traveled is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is now used, rather than LOS, to assess the significance of transportation impacts under CEQA. As discussed under question XVII-b, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to VMT with implementation of Mitigation Measure XVII-1. The comment does not provide substantial evidence supporting why the mitigation measures set forth in the IS/MND would not be sufficient. In addition, the proposed project would be subject to all existing objective development regulations. The comment has been noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers as part of the consideration of the proposed project. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 35 Response to Comment 3-3 The comment does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND and has been noted for the record. It should be noted that the addition of a trail is not proposed as part of the project, anticipated or planned for the site, nor required by the Town. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-makers as part of the consideration of the proposed project. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 36 Letter 4 4-1 4-2 4-3 4-4 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 37 LETTER 4: JIM AND KAREN BROWN Response to Comment 4-1 Please see Response to Comment 3-2. Response to Comment 4-2 Please see Responses to Comments 2-4 and 23-12. Response to Comment 4-3 The comment does not provide sufficient explanation regarding “known water problems and fire safety issues” to provide a detailed response. Please see Responses to Comments 2-2 and 3-2. Response to Comment 4-4 Please see Responses to Comments 2-7 and 3-2. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 38 Letter 5 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 39 Letter 5 cont. 5-1 5-2 5-3 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 40 Letter 5 cont. 5-3 cont. 5-4 5-5 5-6 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 41 Letter 5 cont. 5-6 cont. 5-7 5-8 5-9 5-10 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 42 Letter 5 cont. 5-10 cont. 5-12 5-11 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 43 Letter 5 cont. 5-12 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 44 Letter 5 cont. 5-12 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 45 Letter 5 cont. 5-12 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 46 Letter 5 cont. 5-12 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 47 Letter 5 cont. 5-12 cont. 5-13 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 48 Letter 5 cont. 5-13 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 49 Letter 5 cont. 5-13 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 50 Letter 5 cont. 5-13 cont. 5-14 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 51 Letter 5 cont. 5-15 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 52 Letter 5 cont. 5-15 cont. 5-16 5-17 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 53 Letter 5 cont. 5-18 5-19 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 54 Letter 5 cont. 5-19 cont. 5-20 5-21 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 55 Letter 5 cont. 5-23 5-22 5-24 5-25 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 56 Letter 5 cont. 5-25 cont. 5-26 5-27 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 57 Letter 5 cont. 5-27 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 58 Letter 5 cont. 5-27 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 59 Letter 5 cont. 5-27 cont. 5-28 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 60 Letter 5 cont. 5-28 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 61 Letter 5 cont. 5-28 cont. 5-29 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 62 Letter 5 cont. 5-30 5-29 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 63 Letter 5 cont. 5-30 cont. 5-31 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 64 Letter 5 cont. 5-31 cont. 5-32 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 65 Letter 5 cont. 5-32 cont. 5-33 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 66 Letter 5 cont. 5-33 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 67 Letter 5 cont. 5-33 cont. 5-34 5-35 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 68 Letter 5 cont. 5-35 cont. 5-36 5-37 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 69 Letter 5 cont. 5-38 5-39 5-40 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 70 Letter 5 cont. 5-40 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 71 Letter 5 cont. 5-40 cont. 5-41 5-42 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 72 Letter 5 cont. 5-42 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 73 Letter 5 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 74 Letter 5 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 75 Letter 5 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 76 Letter 5 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 77 Letter 5 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 78 Letter 5 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 79 LETTER 5: JILL AND CRAIG FORDYCE (1 OF 2) Response to Comment 5-1 The comment is introductory and does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND. Please see the following responses to specific comments. Response to Comment 5-2 The comment generally states that the Town cannot lawfully adopt an MND under CEQA because substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the project may have environmental impacts. The comment does not provide any substantial evidence supporting this claim. Please see the following responses to more specific comments. Response to Comment 5-3 The comment identifies the waivers being requested for the project but does not provide any substantial evidence how the waivers result in significant environmental impacts. Response to Comment 5-4 Per Government Code Section 65589.5, the Town can impose objective development standards so long as those standards meet the following criteria: 1) Appropriate to, and consistent with, meeting the local agency’s share of its Regional Housing Needs Allocation; 2) Applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density permitted on the site and proposed by the applicant; and 3) Meet the definition of “objective” in that they involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the applicant and the public official. In addition, no objective standard can be applied if it will render the project “infeasible” (unless the project will have a specific adverse impact on public health or safety and there is no feasible method to mitigate or avoid the impact). The statute defines “feasible” as capable of being accomplished successfully within a reasonable period, considering economic, environmental, social, and technological factors. The Town decision-makers, at a public hearing, will consider whether the project will have a specific adverse impact on public health or safety and whether there is no feasible method to mitigate or avoid the impact. The IS/MND prepared for the project provides substantial evidence that all potentially significant project-related environmental impacts can be mitigated. In an effort to make this clearer in the IS/MND, the following revision is made to page 16 of the IS/MND: Architecture and Site Plan Review The Town’s Building Division Community Development Department is responsible for a plan review of all new construction, additions, and remodels for both commercial and residential properties, as well as construction inspection services for projects including electrical, plumbing and mechanical installations. Plan review ensures compliance with applicable State and local codes, policies, guidelines, and standards of all residential and commercial structures within the Town limits, including the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. As described in the Town’s Code, the purpose of Architecture and Site Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 80 Plan Review through the Planning Division is to regulate the height, width, shape, proportion, siting, exterior construction and design of buildings to ensure that they are architecturally compatible with their surroundings. Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code lists the matters that the Town must consider when reviewing applications for Architecture and Site Approval. The Town’s review is limited to objective standards only, pursuant to SB 330 and Builder’s Remedy. The above revision is intended to clarify the Town’s authority and does not affect the conclusions of the IS/MND. Response to Comment 5-5 Please see Response to Comment 2-2. With respect to water supply, page 99 of the IS/MND includes the following discussion: As discussed in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this IS/MND, while the on-site development of 12 proposed single-family residences would increase water usage beyond the current on-site water demand, the relatively minor increase in water usage would not be considered substantial, as the Santa Clara Subbasin has an operational storage capacity of approximately 350,000 AF per year, and both SCWVD and SJW have sufficient water supplies through 2045. The project would also comply with Chapter 26.40 of the Town’s Municipal Code, which contains the Town’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. Fire water would be included within the project’s anticipated water supplies. Response to Comment 5-6 Please see Response to Comment 2-3. Response to Comment 5-7 Please see Response to Comment 2-3. Response to Comment 5-8 Please see Response to Comment 5-15. Response to Comment 5-9 Engineering level detail, such as a final erosion and sediment control plan, is not required as part of CEQA review (Dry Creek Citizens Coalition v. County of Tulare (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 20, 26.). Pursuant to Mitigation Measure X-1, a final erosion and sediment control plan would be reviewed and approved by the Town of Los Gatos Engineering Division prior to any ground-disturbing activities. In addition, a SWPPP must be approved by the RWQCB and is submitted after project approval before operations begin, not for review during the CEQA process. Response to Comment 5-10 As discussed under question X-c.i-iii on pages 75 and 76 of the IS/MND, the proposed on-site stormwater infrastructure would be sized to manage stormwater flows such that post-development runoff does not exceed pre-project runoff rates and durations, consistent with Provision C.3.g of the County’s Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Therefore, the new impervious surfaces are not anticipated to result in significant impacts related to altering the drainage pattern of the site. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 81 With respect to the proposed bioretention basins, each bioretention area has been designed in accordance with the standard design criteria outlined in the County C.3 Stormwater Handbook. Town personnel would be able to access each bioretention area periodically as required for inspection purposes. Therefore, the bioretention basins are not anticipated to create any safety issues or hazards. Response to Comment 5-11 Please see Response to Comment 2-7. Response to Comment 5-12 The comment does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND and has been noted for the record. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-makers as part of the consideration of the proposed project. Response to Comment 5-13 Please see Response to Comment 5-4. Response to Comment 5-14 Please see Response to Comment 5-2. Response to Comment 5-15 As shown in Figure 11 of the IS/MND, existing trees along Longmeadow Drive currently obscure views of the site. Because the trees are not proposed for removal as part of the proposed project, such screening effects would be maintained, and the IS/MND’s conclusion is accurate. Notwithstanding, substantial degradation of views of the site is not the relevant question as that would be the appropriate inquiry, pursuant to Appendix G, Section I c., if the site were within a non-urbanized area. Furthermore, privacy and private views are not protected pursuant to CEQA as noted in Footnote 6 on page 23 of the IS/MND. As noted on page 21 of the IS/MND, the project site is within an urbanized area, and thus, the relevant threshold is whether the project would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. As noted on page 23 of the IS/MND: From an aesthetics perspective, it is reasonable to conclude that not every conflict with a scenic regulation would result in a significant aesthetic impact, pursuant to CEQA. Because the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines contain standards related to preserving views of hillsides, computer-generated photo simulations of the project were prepared from public viewpoints. Although the simulated public viewpoints do not coincide with the Town’s designated Hillside Area viewing areas, the simulations were prepared to meet the Town’s Height Pole, Flagging, Netting, and Signage Policy For Additions and New Construction Policy and are used herein to facilitate an understanding as to whether the project’s deviations from Hillside Development Standards are consequential from an aesthetics perspective. Potential views of the project site from public spaces were determined to include views from Longmeadow Drive (Figure 11, View #1), which is located west of the project site; from the Hillbrook School campus north of the site (Figure 12, View #2); from Cerro Vista Court (Figure 13, View #3); and from Brooke Acres Drive, south of the project site (Figure 14, View #4). Figure 11 presents the existing view of the project site in comparison to the view of the project site with development of the proposed project from View #1. As shown in the figure, Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 82 the existing view of the site from Longmeadow Drive consists of the street frontages and existing trees associated with the existing single-family residences, as well as the existing vegetation on the project site in the background. With the proposed project, the view from Longmeadow Drive would include a partial view of three of the 12 proposed single-family residences in the background. The majority of the project site would remain screened by the existing trees and vegetation. The proposed project would not conflict with existing regulations related to views of the Hillside Area from Longmeadow Drive. Because the proposed project would not substantially affect views of the Hillside Area from Longmeadow Drive, the proposed project would not conflict with the applicable Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines regulations governing scenic quality. Response to Comment 5-16 The existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings would not be substantially degraded by bioretention basins, which are standard features of development projects and generally appear coherent with the rest of a developed site. Response to Comment 5-17 The relevant threshold pursuant to Appendix G, Section I d. is whether the project would create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. The Town acknowledges that the project would increase lighting in the area, including lighting from headlights. However, there is no substantial evidence showing that vehicle trips from 12 new homes would be considered substantial, and furthermore, the CEQA threshold is focused on protecting nighttime views of the area, not interior private living spaces of adjacent homes. Response to Comment 5-18 Please see Responses to Comments 5-15 and 5-17. As discussed on page 20 of the IS/MND: Examples of typical scenic vistas include mountain ranges, ridgelines, or bodies of water as viewed from a highway, public space, or other area designated for the express purpose of viewing and sightseeing. In general, a project’s impact to a scenic vista would occur if development of the project would substantially change or remove a scenic vista. The General Plan EIR identifies southward views of the Santa Cruz Mountains and ridgelines as the primary protected scenic vistas within the Town. Due to the heavily-wooded nature of the Town, scenic views are most prominent from the southbound lanes of the Town’s major north-south running streets. The project site is located in an area of the Town that is heavily obscured from view due to intervening topography and vegetation. Therefore, views of the Santa Cruz Mountains would not be obstructed by project development. In addition, due to the intervening topography and vegetation described above, views of any other potential ridgelines beyond the project site are not visible from the surrounding roadways. At a local level, the Town does not identify any roadways as scenic routes. In addition, while State Route (SR) 17 is designated as eligible for listing as a State Scenic Highway, State Scenic Highways are not located within the Town of Los Gatos.5 The project site is located approximately 1.06 miles east of SR 17 and is obscured from view through various natural features and existing development. Therefore, the proposed project would not have the potential to damage scenic resources within the vicinity of a State Scenic Highway. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 83 Response to Comment 5-19 The NOx-related impact would only occur if the off-site sidewalk improvements were constructed concurrently with the on-site project components. Mitigation Measure III-1 address this by restricting construction of the off-site sidewalk from occurring simultaneously with the on-site construction of the proposed project, or alternatively, ensuring that all construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower to be used in construction of the off-site sidewalk improvements shall be Tier 4 final off-road construction equipment. The measures listed by the comment to manage construction dust emissions are standard measures implemented by all projects within the Bay Area Air District (BAAD). The BAAD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures (BCMMs) were developed to ensure continued attainment of ambient air quality standards (AAQS) or to work towards attainment of AAQS for which the area is currently designated nonattainment. The watering of exposed surfaces does not involve sufficient amounts of water to generate runoff, but is a standard procedure intended to dampen surfaces enough to reduce dust generation when such surfaces are disturbed during project construction. With respect to pollutants of concern, as discussed under question III-c of the IS/MND, the proposed project meets the screening criteria for localized carbon monoxide (CO) emissions established by BAAD. As discussed on page 37 of the IS/MND, toxic air contaminants (TACs) generally result in health risks when populations are exposed to high concentrations over extension periods of time (e.g., 30 years or greater). Despite the proximity of the Hillbrook School, the construction period would be temporary and would occur over a short duration as compared to the length of time required for health risks to occur. In addition, all construction equipment and operation thereof would be regulated by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and their In- Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation, which would reduce emissions associated with off-road diesel vehicles and equipment. Response to Comment 5-20 The comment summarizes the findings of the IS/MND and does not address the adequacy of the document. Therefore, further response is not necessary. Response to Comment 5-21 Mitigation Measures IV-1 through IV-9 would reduce the potential impacts to the species listed within the comment by ensuring thorough surveys for the presence of the species are conducted (as well as avoidance and minimization steps to take if the species are identified). In addition, the IS/MND includes a mitigation measure requiring compliance with the Town’s Tree Protection Ordinance. Payment of in-lieu fees to the Town Tree Replacement Fund is allowed by the ordinance. Pursuant to Section 29.10.0985 of the Town’s Municipal Code, the funds generated by payment of such fees would be used at the Town’s discretion to add or replace trees on public property in the vicinity of the project site; add or replace trees or landscaping on other Town property; or support the Town's urban forestry management program. Response to Comment 5-22 The comment summarizes the findings of the IS/MND and does not address the adequacy of the document. Mitigation Measures IV-1 through IV-3 address potential impacts to the California red-legged frog. Therefore, further response is not necessary. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 84 Response to Comment 5-23 The comment summarizes the findings of the IS/MND and does not address the adequacy of the document. Mitigation Measure IV-4 addresses potential impacts to protected raptor and migratory bird species. Therefore, further response is not necessary. Response to Comment 5-24 The comment summarizes the findings of the IS/MND and does not address the adequacy of the document. Mitigation Measure IV-7 addresses potential impacts to protected San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat. Therefore, further response is not necessary. Response to Comment 5-25 The analysis of special-status wildlife species, which starts on page 42 of the IS/MND, was informed by the Biological Evaluation prepared for the proposed project. The EIR prepared for the project site referred to by the comment was prepared in August 2017, more than eight years ago from the time of the IS/MND. A recent field survey of the project site was conducted on December 19, 2024, as part of the Biological Evaluation to identify on-site habitats and to determine the likelihood of any occurrences of special-status species. An additional site visit was conducted on May 14, 2025, to confirm the characteristics of the on-site ephemeral drainage. A literature review of various biological databases was also conducted to assess the suitability of on-site habitats. In addition, the mitigation measures included within the IS/MND would provide protection to the species listed in the comment. Although the species listed within the comment were not specifically identified as having a high potential to occur on-site by the Biological Evaluation and, thus, were not specifically analyzed under question IV-a, the required measures within Mitigation Measures IV-3 and IV-4 through IV-6 would also reduce any potential impacts to any unlikely occurrences of the species. Response to Comment 5-26 Please see Response to Comment 2-3. Response to Comment 5-27 Please see Response to Comment 2-3 above. The proposed project does not include mass grading, nor does the site include forest land as defined in PRC Section 12220(g). The standards of a tree protection ordinance of a separate city from the Town, such as the City of Agoura Hills, would not apply to the proposed project. The arborist report was revised during the public review period, during which the total number of on-site trees and the project’s potential impacts were revised. According to the revised Arborist Report, the new inventory identified a total of 673 individual trees over four inches in diameter, 630 of which qualify for some level of protection under the Town’s tree protection ordinance and 43 of which are exempted.4 Of the total, 244 trees would be removed (223 of which would qualify as protected) and 371 trees would be retained. 4 McClintock Landscape Horticultural Services. Certified Arborist Report, Tree Preservation Plan, Surrey Farms, Project #4185.10, Los Gatos, CA 95032. October 16, 2025, Revision 5. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 85 Page 50 of the IS/MND is hereby revised to reflect the findings of the revised Arborist Report: As discussed above, mixed oak woodland is present throughout the project site, some of which would be impacted by the proposed development. In order to determine if on-site trees proposed for removal qualify for protection under the provisions of the Town’s Municipal Code, an Arborist Report was prepared for the site by McClintock Landscape Horticultural Services (McClintock) (see Appendix C), which has been peer reviewed by Monarch Consulting Arborists. During a site tree survey conducted of the project site, the Arborist Report identified 603 673 on-site trees measuring four inches or greater in diameter at breast height (DBH), consisting of 26 species. According to the Arborist Report, 546 630 of the on-site trees qualify for protection under the Town’s Tree Protection Ordinance. According to the Tree Mitigation and Protection Plan prepared for the proposed project, 223 protected trees would be removed, which would require a total of 551 replacement trees to be planted on-site, pursuant to the Town of Los Gatos Tree Protection Ordinance. A total of 85 trees are proposed to be planted on-site, which would not meet the on-site tree replacement requirements (see Figure 8 and Figure 9). Thus, payment of in-lieu fees consistent with Division II of Chapter 29.10 of the Town’s Municipal Code would be required to mitigate for the shortfall in on-site tree replacement. Because the number of protected trees proposed for removal has not changed, further revisions to the IS/MND are not necessary. As discussed therein, compliance with the project’s Tree Mitigation and Protection Plan and the mitigation measures within the IS/MND would ensure that significant impacts related to conflicts with the Town’s tree ordinance do not occur. Response to Comment 5-28 As shown in Figure 16 of the IS/MND, the proposed project locates the residences outside of the areas of the site with the steepest slopes. Such siting significantly reduces the potential for the effects discussed by the comment. In addition, the GGHI was included in the IS/MND as Appendix D. The GGHI was subject to a Geologic and Geotechnical Peer Review conducted by the Town’s consulting geotechnical firm, Cotton, Shires, and Associates, Inc. (CSA), and Cornerstone subsequently prepared an Interim Response to Geotechnical Peer Review to respond to the comments and resolve identified concerns. The GGHI included review of geotechnical literature and available conceptual layouts, a site visit in August 2024, the drilling of six test borings to depths between 10 and 20 feet, and the excavation of six test pits. During the excavation of test pits, evidence of either shallow or deep-seated landslide deposits were not observed, and field features indicative of slope failure and instability were not observed during the site reconnaissance. As such, the GGHI concluded that the underlying slopes of the project site are relatively stable and, thus, the landslide hazard is considered low to moderate. In addition, the peer review of the GGHI notes that the majority of the proposed residences (i.e., Lots 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12) are outside of the indicated on-site slopes (see Figure 16). While the proposed lots would exceed the maximum allowable graded cut or fill for each lot pursuant to the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines, the proposed earthwork activities are accounted for in the analysis of the project-specific GGHI. Specifically, Section 6 of the GGHI discusses various requirements related to earthwork, including, but not limited to, temporary and permanent cut and fill slopes, subgrade preparation, wet soil stabilization, material for fill, compaction requirements, and trench backfill. Compliance with such requirements would ensure Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 86 that the earthwork activities associated with the proposed project would be acceptable and would lead to instability. Without incorporating the recommendations included within the GGHI, new fill placed for the planned structures and streets on existing inclined slopes could cause a significant impact related to slope instability (IS/MND, pg. 61). Mitigation Measure VII-1 has been included in the IS/MND to ensure that all geotechnical recommendations in the GGHI are incorporated into grading and improvement plans. It is not necessary to list all recommendations in the mitigation measure. The summary nature of Mitigation Measure VII-1 is a standard approach intended to eliminate excessively technical details from the text of the IS/MND. The measure relies upon the authority of the Town as the lead agency, as well as all applicable CBSC standards, the combination of which would ensure potential impacts related to geological and soil hazards are reduced to a less-than-significant level. Response to Comment 5-29 Please see Responses to Comments 5-9 and 5-10. Response to Comment 5-30 Please see Response to Comment 5-9. Response to Comment 5-31 Please see Response to Comment 5-9. Response to Comment 5-32 Bioretention is a way to clean and filter stormwater runoff naturally through percolation, or the slow movement of water through the pores in soil or permeable rock. As noted on page 12 of the IS/MND, the stormwater bioretention basins would be sized and designed to meet the Town’s C.3 Stormwater Standards design criteria. Such standards are intended to ensure new development controls stormwater runoff pollutant discharges. Following on-site treatment, stormwater flows would be metered out from the bioretention areas into the existing 27- and 36-inch storm drains located north and west of the site, respectively. As discussed within Response to Comment 1-4, a maintenance agreement would be put in place between the Town and the future property owners requiring the owners to operate and maintain all the stormwater treatment infrastructure. Potential impacts related to flooding are analyzed within question X-c.i-iii. Based on the design of the bioretention areas, as well as the proposed retaining walls, which would serve to prevent erosion, the IS/MND concluded that the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner which would result in erosion, siltation, or flooding on- or off-site, create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Response to Comment 5-33 The comment summarizes the findings of the IS/MND and does not address the adequacy of the document. Mitigation Measure XIII-1 includes the requirements of the Town’s General Plan EIR’s Mitigation Measure N-1. Therefore, further response is not necessary. Response to Comment 5-34 A water treatment facility is not proposed as part of the project; therefore, noise or vibration from such a source would not occur at the site or surrounding areas. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 87 It is acknowledged that noise would result from residential activity, but there is no evidence to suggest that residential noise from the project would be any different from the residential noise associated with the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Further, any level of increased noise is not the relevant CEQA threshold used to determine impact significance. The Town of Los Gatos has numerical noise thresholds, and substantial evidence supports that these levels would not be exceeded by the operation of the proposed project. Response to Comment 5-35 As discussed under Response to Comment 5-19, the proposed project would implement the BAAQMD BCMMs to reduce dust generation and manage pollutant emissions. With respect to construction noise, Mitigation Measure XIII-1 requires multiple measures to reduce noise at the existing sensitive receptors. Specifically, any construction proposed within 25 feet of a noise-sensitive receptor would be required to create distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors; use electric tools, which create less noise than non-electric; and use mobile construction equipment with smart back-up alarms, which automatically adjust their volume instead of using a fixed volume. In addition, the project would implement additional noise attenuation techniques during the clearing, earth moving, grading, and foundation/conditioning phases of construction, such as temporary sound barriers between the construction site and the sensitive receptors. Response to Comment 5-36 As discussed on page 86 of the IS/MND within Section XIV, Population and Housing, the IS/MND used the average household size as estimated by the Town’s 2040 General Plan (2.4 persons per household). Using this average household size, the proposed project would result in a maximum increase of 29 residents within the Town (2.4 persons per household x 12 proposed residences = 28.8 residents). Such figures are consistent with the Town’s approach to estimating population increases. It should be noted that the 86 total on-site parking spaces include both off-street parking and 27 garage parking spaces. Parking is not generally an indication of the number of residents associated with the project. Response to Comment 5-37 The methods used to determine Mitigation Measure XVII-1 are discussed on page 94 of the IS/MND. As discussed therein, the VMT Technical Memorandum coordinated with Town staff and identified the off-site improvement locations where feasible pedestrian network improvements could occur as part of the proposed project. The foregoing sidewalk connection improvements would be consistent with the planned improvements identified within the Town’s 2020 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. In order to assess the VMT reduction potential associated with the, the VMT Technical Memorandum included a quantitative analysis using the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Handbook (Measure T-17: Provide Pedestrian Network Improvements). The Handbook provides methods to assess potential benefits of different climate vulnerability reduction measures, as well as measures that can be implemented to improve health and equity. In the case of the proposed project, the associated off-site sidewalk improvements would encourage alternative modes of travel, thereby reducing VMT. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 88 Response to Comment 5-38 Contrary to the comment, cumulative impacts to traffic are discussed within the IS/MND, on page 105 under question XXI-b as follows: With respect to cumulative transportation impacts, public concerns have been raised about increased congestion, particularly along Los Gatos Boulevard, where several of the SB 330 projects are located. Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, environmental analysis documents must use VMT rather than LOS as the metric to analyze transportation impacts. Section 21099(b)(2) of the California PRC states that “automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicle capacity or traffic congestion, shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment.” The State’s requirement to transition from LOS to VMT is instead aimed at promoting infill development, public health through active transportation, and a reduction in GHG emissions. Overall, the transition from LOS alters the focus of CEQA analysis from congestion to more physical impacts on the environment related to vehicle trips. Accordingly, impacts related to traffic congestion are not required to be evaluated pursuant to CEQA, and thus, are appropriately not addressed herein. In addition, potential impacts to evacuation are discussed under question IX-f within Section IX, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, as well as under Section XX, Wildfire, of the IS/MND. As discussed therein, the proposed project would not result in any substantial modifications to the existing roadway system and, thus, would not physically interfere with the Town’s adopted EOP, particularly with any emergency evacuation routes. Response to Comment 5-39 The comment is conclusory and does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND. Please see Responses to Comments 5-19 and 5-37 for further discussion. The comment has been noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers as part of the consideration of the proposed project. Response to Comment 5-40 Please see Response to Comment 2-2. In addition, the roadways noted within the comment were all designed consistent with the Town standards, which accommodate for emergency vehicles. Further, as noted on page 70 of the IS/MND, the proposed project would include a 20-foot-wide EVA route extending south from the site to connect to Brooke Acres Drive. The EVA route would result in an additional point of access reserved specifically for emergency response vehicles. With respect to regulations applicable to the proposed project, as noted on page 102 of the IS/MND, the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable requirements of the CFC, including the installation of fire sprinkler systems, fire hydrants, and other applicable requirements, as well as the requirements of Chapter 7A of the CBC, including the use of ignition-resistant materials and glazed exterior windows and doors. The Builder’s Remedy status of the project does not affect the applicability of the foregoing requirements, which would reduce potential impacts related to wildfire. Contrary to the comment, the likelihood of wildfire would be reduced by development of the project due to the clearing of on-site fuel sources (i.e., vegetation and trees). The proposed project would also be situated near existing roads, water lines, and other utilities, which would reduce risks related to wildfire. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 89 Emergency evacuation scenarios are discussed under question IX-f within Section IX, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, as well as under Section XX, Wildfire, of the IS/MND. As discussed therein, the proposed project would not result in any substantial modifications to the existing roadway system and, thus, would not physically interfere with the Town’s adopted EOP, particularly with any emergency evacuation routes. Response to Comment 5-41 The comment does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND. Cumulative impacts are discussed within the IS/MND under question XXI-b within Section XXI, Mandatory Findings of Significance. Please see Responses to Comments 4-3 and 5-38. Response to Comment 5-42 The comment states that many mitigation measures included in the IS/MND are insufficient, lack performance standards, and/or are deferred to future studies and plans, but provides no substantial evidence to support this position. Please see Responses to Comments 5-9, 5-28, 5-30, and 5-40. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 90 Letter 6 6-1 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 91 Letter 6 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 92 Letter 6 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 93 Letter 6 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 94 Letter 6 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 95 LETTER 6: JILL AND CRAIG FORDYCE (2 OF 2) Response to Comment 6-1 The comment does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND and has been noted for the record. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-makers as part of the consideration of the proposed project. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 96 Letter 7 7-1 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 97 Letter 7 cont. 7-1 cont. 7-2 7-3 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 98 LETTER 7: DAVID AND KARRI GREENFIELD Response to Comment 7-1 Please see Responses to Comments 3-1 through 3-3. The comment has been noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers as part of the consideration of the proposed project. Response to Comment 7-2 Please see Response to Comment 3-2 related to general comments on environmental concerns. Response to Comment 7-3 Please see Response to Comment 3-3. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 99 Letter 8 8-1 8-2 8-3 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 100 LETTER 8: GEORGETTE AND MICHAEL HARRELL Response to Comment 8-1 The comment is introductory and does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND. Response to Comment 8-2 Please see Response to Comment 3-1. Response to Comment 8-3 Please see Response to Comment 3-2 related to general comments on environmental concerns. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 101 Letter 9 9-1 9-4 9-3 9-2 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 102 Letter 9 cont. 9-4 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 103 LETTER 9: MONICA AND LOTFI HERZI Response to Comment 9-1 The comment is introductory and does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND. Response to Comment 9-2 Please see Response to Comment 3-2 related to general comments on environmental concerns. In addition, the wildlife species mentioned by the commenter are common species that are not afforded special-status requiring review pursuant to CEQA. Response to Comment 9-3 Please see Responses to Comments 3-1 and 3-2. The comment does not provide details to explain how the “existing streets would be destroyed” by construction vehicles. Heavy-duty truck traffic would only occur throughout the duration of construction activities and would cease upon buildout of the proposed project. Response to Comment 9-4 Please see Response to Comment 3-2 related to general comments on environmental concerns. The comment has been noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers as part of the consideration of the proposed project. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 104 Letter 10 10-1 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 105 Letter 10 cont. 10-1 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 106 LETTER 10: PAUL KRUG Response to Comment 10-1 Please see Responses to Comments 5-6 through 5-11. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 107 Letter 11 11-1 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 108 LETTER 11: RAJ KUMAR Response to Comment 11-1 Please see Response to Comment 3-2 related to general comments on environmental concerns. The comment has been noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers as part of the consideration of the proposed project. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 109 Letter 12 12-1 12-2 12-3 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 110 LETTER 12: DONNA AND ROGER MALTBIE Response to Comment 12-1 Please see Response to Comment 3-2 related to general comments on environmental concerns. Response to Comment 12-2 Please see Response to Comment 3-2 related to general comments on environmental concerns. It is unclear what traffic survey the commenter is referring to. As discussed in detail in Section XVII, Transportation, of the IS/MND, the analysis of impacts related to transportation within the IS/MND is based on a VMT Technical Memorandum prepared for the proposed project by TJKM (included as Appendix E to the IS/MND). Traffic counts within the project area were not required or relied upon for the analysis. Response to Comment 12-3 The comment does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND and has been noted for the record. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-makers as part of the consideration of the proposed project. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 111 Letter 13 13-1 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 112 Letter 13 cont. 13-1 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 113 LETTER 13: BRUCE AND JACKIE MCCOMBS Response to Comment 13-1 The comment does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND. The comment has been noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers as part of the consideration of the proposed project. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 114 Letter 14 14-1 14-2 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 115 Letter 14 cont. 14-3 14-4 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 116 LETTER 14: DARCIE AND TOM MCNEIL Response to Comment 14-1 The comment is introductory and does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND. Response to Comment 14-2 Please see Response to Comment 3-2 related to general comments on environmental concerns. Please also see Responses to Comments 2-2, 2-7, and 3-1. Impacts related to flooding are addressed in the IS/MND under Section X. As discussed therein, the project site is not located within a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodplain and, thus, development of the proposed project would not result in any impacts related to flooding. Response to Comment 14-3 The comment does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND and has been noted for the record. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-makers as part of the consideration of the proposed project. Response to Comment 14-4 Please see Response to Comment 3-2, as well as Response to Comment 14-2 above. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 117 Letter 15 15-1 15-2 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 118 Letter 15 cont. 15-3 15-2 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 119 Letter 15 cont. 15-3 cont. 15-4 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 120 Letter 15 cont. 15-4 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 121 LETTER 15: KATHY MELEYCO Response to Comment 15-1 Please see Responses to Comments 2-4 and 3-2. In addition, in Preserve Poway v. City of Poway (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 560, the Appellate Court evaluated whether community character is a consideration in CEQA and whether changes to community character or social impacts constitute an environmental impact under CEQA. The Court determined CEQA does not require an analysis of subjective psychological feelings or social impacts. Rather, CEQA’s overriding and primary goal is to protect the physical environment. CEQA defines a “significant effect on the environment” as “substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse changes in physical conditions ....” (PRC section 21100. subd. [d]). Therefore, comments concerning potential social or economic effects of the project, including quality of life comments, need not be analyzed or addressed further. Nonetheless, the comment has been noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers as part of their consideration of the proposed project. Response to Comment 15-2 Please see Responses to Comments 2-7, 3-1, 3-2, and 14-2. Response to Comment 15-3 Please see Response to Comment 2-4 related to consistency with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. As discussed under question I-c of the IS/MND, because the site is considered to be located within an urbanized area of the Town, the appropriate CEQA threshold related to aesthetic impacts is not whether the proposed project would substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings, but whether the project would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Therefore, question I-c of the IS/MND evaluates whether the proposed project would conflict with applicable standards set forth by the Town, including those contained within the Town’s Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. The IS/MND concludes that, overall, because the proposed project would not be visible from the four viewing areas identified in the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines, and because the proposed project would be designed compliant with Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines policies to the extent feasible such that public views of the Hillside Area would not be significantly affected, the proposed project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality, including policies related to reducing visual impacts of projects. With respect to glare and lighting, as discussed under question I-d of the IS/MND, the proposed project would comply with both the Town’s Municipal Code standards and policies within the Hillside Design Standards and Guidelines related to lighting for new development. The IS/MND concludes that implementation of the Town’s programs, policies, and code requirements would reduce the light and glare-related impacts from the proposed project to a less-than-significant level. The Town does not currently have a requirement related to screening trees between adjacent properties. In addition, the IS/MND does not identify any impacts that would necessitate inclusion of screening trees in order to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, a nexus to require screening trees be planted along the property line does not exist. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 122 Response to Comment 15-4 Please see Responses to Comments 2-7 and 15-1. As noted on page 32 of the IS/MND, construction is anticipated to take place over approximately two years. Regarding dust, as stated on page 32 of the IS/MND, BAAQMD requires all projects within the District’s jurisdiction to implement Basic Construction Mitigation Measures (BCMMs) related to dust suppression. Further discussion regarding dust is provided on page 38 of the IS/MND. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 123 Letter 16 16-1 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 124 LETTER 16: MALEA AND MIKE MORDAUNT Response to Comment 16-1 Please see Responses to Comments 2-2, 2-4, 3-2 and 3-3. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-makers as part of the consideration of the proposed project. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 125 17-1 Letter 17 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 126 LETTER 17: HUIPENG REN AND TINGTING YANG Response to Comment 17-1 Please see Responses to Comments 2-2 through 2-5, 2-7, and 14-2. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 127 Letter 18 18-1 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 128 LETTER 18: PHILIP SHANKER Response to Comment 18-1 The comment does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND and has been noted for the record. Please see Response to Comment 3-2. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-makers as part of the consideration of the proposed project. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 129 Letter 19 19-1 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 130 Letter 19 cont. 19-2 19-1 cont. 19-3 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 131 Letter 19 cont. 19-3 cont. 19-4 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 132 Letter 19 cont. 19-4 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 133 LETTER 19: DAN SHERBECK (1 OF 2) Response to Comment 19-1 Please see Response to Comment 2-2. With respect to geological hazards, the IS/MND requires Mitigation Measure VII-1 requires the proposed project to incorporate the recommendations of the GGHI, which would reduce the significance level of impacts related to soil instability. Implementation of Mitigation Measure VII-1 would reduce the potential impact to a less-than-significant level. Response to Comment 19-2 Potential impacts to VMT and impacts to hazards are separate questions within Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Construction of the proposed project, including the off-site sidewalk improvements required by Mitigation Measure XVII-1, would be limited to the project site and small portions of Blossom Hill Road and Fisher Avenue. In addition, as discussed by the comment, project construction would be temporary. The IS/MND also acknowledges the above factors on page 95, as follows: Construction traffic associated with the proposed project would include heavy-duty vehicles which would share the area roadways with normal vehicle traffic, as well as transport of construction materials, and daily construction employee trips to and from the site. However, such heavy-duty truck traffic would only occur throughout the duration of construction activities and would cease upon buildout of the proposed project. The Town would impose standard conditions of approval upon the project related to traffic safety during construction. Therefore, revisions to the IS/MND are not required. Response to Comment 19-3 As previously discussed, Mitigation Measure VII-1 requires the project to incorporate the recommendations of the GGHI prepared for the proposed project, which would reduce the significance level of impacts related to expansive soils. In addition, please see Response to Comment 1-4 related to the project’s management of stormwater runoff. Furthermore, the project’s conditions of approval, as imposed by the Town, would require compliance with C.3 standards. Response to Comment 19-4 As discussed under question IV-e within Section IV, Biological Resources, of the IS/MND, the proposed project would not meet the on-site tree replacement requirements. As a result, the IS/MND includes a mitigation measure requiring compliance with the Town of Los Gatos Tree Protection Ordinance. With respect to Builder’s Remedy, page seven of the IS/MND includes the following discussion: Because the project is subject to Builder’s Remedy, compliance with all of the Town’s guidelines, policies, or programs is not required unless noncompliance would constitute a significant health or safety risk. Although not legally required, the proposed project would comply with many of the Town’s Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines, such as standards related to lot configuration and building locations within the proposed lots. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 134 Therefore, because the local regulations related to density, setbacks, and public trails are not considered related to health or safety, compliance with such standards is not required. The noncompliance discussed in the comment, including conflicts related to the extent of grading and building heights, is discussed throughout the IS/MND. With respect to fire safety, please see Response to Comment 2-2. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 135 20-1 Letter 20 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 136 Letter 20 cont. 20-1 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 137 Letter 20 cont. 20-2 20-1 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 138 Letter 20 cont. 20-2 cont. 20-3 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 139 Letter 20 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 140 LETTER 20: DAN SHERBECK (2 OF 2) Response to Comment 20-1 Please see Responses to Comments 19-1 through 19-3. Response to Comment 20-2 The comment does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND and has been noted for the record. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-makers as part of the consideration of the proposed project. With respect to Builder’s Remedy, the Project qualifies for the requirements established by the Housing Accountability Act (Government Code Section 65589.5), a newer housing production statute that seeks “to significantly increase the approval and construction of new housing for all economic segments of California’s communities by meaningfully and effectively curbing the capability of local governments to deny, reduce the density for, or render infeasible housing development projects…” (Section 65589.5(a)(2)(K)). In addition, the Housing Accountability Act expresses the State’s policy that the statute “be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing” (Government Code Section 65589.5(a)(2)(L)). The proposed project does not include mass grading, and does not proposed development on the steepest parts of the site, thereby preserving substantial amounts of the existing hillside. With respect to the site’s FHSZ, please see Response to Comment 2-2. Response to Comment 20-3 Please see Response to Comment 19-4. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 141 Letter 21 21-1 21-2 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 142 Letter 21 cont. 21-2 cont. 21-3 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 143 LETTER 21: SUSAN AND BRAD STAHL Response to Comment 21-1 Please see Response to Comment 5-17. Response to Comment 21-2 Please see Response to Comment 5-17. Because the IS/MND concluded that the project would not result in any impacts related to creating a new source of substantial light or glare, a nexus to require the requested mitigation measures under CEQA does not exist. Any such measures would be voluntary. The comment has been noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers as part of the consideration of the proposed project. Response to Comment 21-3 Emergency access to the project site is discussed under question XVII-c,d of the IS/MND. As noted on page 95 therein, access to the project site would be provided through a connection to Twin Oaks Drive, by a new private driveway extending from Cerro Vista Court, and through the proposed EVA route connection to Brooke Acres Drive. The IS/MND did not identify potentially significant impacts related to insufficient access routes to the site. Thus, a nexus to require the requested mitigation measure under CEQA does not exist. In addition, the Town does not have any standards or requirements that would require additional access points from those noted above. The comment has been noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers as part of the consideration of the proposed project. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 144 Letter 22 22-1 22-2 22-3 22-4 22-5 22-6 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 145 Letter 22 cont. 22-6 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 146 LETTER 22: ERIC VAN MILTENBURG AND LORI OWEN Response to Comment 22-1 Please see Response to Comment 3-2. Response to Comment 22-2 Please see Response to Comment 2-2. Response to Comment 22-3 Please see Responses to Comments 2-3, 2-5, and 5-26. Response to Comment 22-4 Please see Response to Comment 2-5. Response to Comment 22-5 Please see Responses to Comments 2-4 and 2-7. Response to Comment 22-6 Please see Response to Comment 3-2. The comment has been noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers as part of the consideration of the proposed project. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 147 Letter 23 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 148 Letter 23 cont. 23-2 23-1 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 149 Letter 23 cont. 23-3 23-2 cont. 23-4 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 150 Letter 23 cont. 23-5 23-4 cont. 23-6 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 151 Letter 23 cont. 23-7 23-8 23-9 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 152 Letter 23 cont. 23-9 cont. 23-10 23-11 23-12 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 153 Letter 23 cont. 23-12 cont. 23-13 23-14 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 154 Letter 23 cont. 23-14 cont. 23-15 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 155 Letter 23 cont. 23-15 cont. 23-16 23-17 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 156 Letter 23 cont. 23-17 cont. 23-18 23-19 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 157 Letter 23 cont. 23-19 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 158 Letter 23 cont. 23-19 cont. 23-20 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 159 Letter 23 cont. 23-20 cont. 23-21 23-22 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 160 Letter 23 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 161 Letter 23 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 162 Letter 23 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 163 Letter 23 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 164 Letter 23 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 165 Letter 23 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 166 Letter 23 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 167 Letter 23 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 168 Letter 23 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 169 Letter 23 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 170 Letter 23 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 171 Letter 23 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 172 Letter 23 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 173 Letter 23 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 174 Letter 23 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 175 Letter 23 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 176 Letter 23 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 177 Letter 23 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 178 Letter 23 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 179 Letter 23 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 180 Letter 23 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 181 Letter 23 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 182 Letter 23 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 183 Letter 23 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 184 Letter 23 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 185 Letter 23 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 186 Letter 23 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 187 Letter 23 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 188 Letter 23 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 189 Letter 23 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 190 Letter 23 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 191 LETTER 23: JON WITKIN (THROUGH CAMAS J. STEINMETZ) Response to Comment 23-1 The comment is introductory and does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND. The comment has been noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers as part of the consideration of the proposed project. Response to Comment 23-2 Please see Responses to Comments 2-3 and 5-15. Response to Comment 23-3 The comment is introductory to a section of the comment letter, where specific elements of the comment are discussed in greater detail. Please see detailed responses below. Response to Comment 23-4 The IS/MND prepared for the project provides substantial evidence that all potentially significant project-related environmental impacts can be fully mitigated, and thus, an EIR is not required. Response to Comment 23-5 Please see Responses to Comments 23-10 through 23-23. In addition, cumulative impacts are discussed within the IS/MND under question XXI-b within Section XXI, Mandatory Findings of Significance. Response to Comment 23-6 Comment noted. See Response to Comment 23-7. Response to Comment 23-7 Analysis of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) is not required pursuant to CEQA unless the developer has a specific proposal to include such units in the project. For example, in Save Round Valley Alliance v County of Inyo, the court upheld an EIR’s project description for a residential subdivision against claims the description should have included units that might be built under a county ordinance allowing a second unit on each lot, because future construction of second units was speculative. A specific proposal to build ADUs on the project site does not exist as part of the proposed project, and thus, evaluating ADUs as part of the project would be speculative. The proposed project does not include swimming pools, cabanas, or sport courts within the development proposal, and thus, evaluating such features is speculative. Further, it is unclear how inclusion of such fairly typical residential amenities could result in significant physical environmental impacts. Response to Comment 23-8 Please see Response to Comment 5-15. Response to Comment 23-9 As noted on page 20 of the IS/MND, State Scenic Highways are not located within the Town of Los Gatos and the Town does not identify any roadways as scenic routes at a local level. Therefore, the proposed project would not have the potential to damage scenic resources, such as trees, that are located within the vicinity of a State Scenic Highway. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 192 In addition, the discussion under question IV-e on pages 49 and 50 of the IS/MND acknowledges that the proposed project would result in a potentially significant impact related to the removal of on-site trees. As a result, the IS/MND includes a mitigation measure requiring compliance with the Town of Los Gatos Tree Protection Ordinance. Response to Comment 23-10 Contrary to the comment, the IS/MND identifies the applicable regulations governing scenic quality. Question I-c includes multiple references to the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines, the scenic regulations of which would apply to the proposed project. For example, the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines require an analysis of how a project would impact views from four specific “viewing areas.” The IS/MND includes such an analysis, as well as further discussion using simulated public viewpoints that were prepared to meet the Town’s Height Pole, Flagging, Netting, and Signage Policy For Additions and New Construction Policy. Based on the dual analyses and the simulated views presented in Figures 11 through 14 of the IS/MND, the IS/MND presents sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the project’s deviations from Hillside Development Standards are inconsequential from an aesthetics perspective. Please see Response to Comment 5-15. Response to Comment 23-11 Please see Response to Comment 5-15. A deed restriction related to the trees in question is not required for the proposed project, as such a deed restriction is associated with a visibility analysis pursuant to the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. In accordance with State Density Bonus Law, the proposed project was not required to conduct a Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines visibility analysis. Response to Comment 23-12 The standard referenced by the comment, on page 17 of the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines, is related to locating building sites within the least visible areas of the Least Restrictive Development Areas (LRDAs), not the least visible areas of the project site as a whole. With respect to the on-site LRDAs, page 21 of the IS/MND includes the following discussion: The project has been designed such that several residential lots would comply with a number of Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines, including standards related to the Least Restrictive Development Areas (LRDAs), the maximum allowable floor area ratio (FAR) for the site, and the location of the proposed residences within the lots. For example, nine of the 12 proposed residences would be located within the LRDAs, where the slopes are less than 30 percent, consistent with the Hillside Development Standards. The above analysis supports the IS/MND’s conclusion that views of the site, including from Longmeadow Drive, would not conflict with the policy referenced by the comment. Please also see Response to Comment 5-15. Response to Comment 23-13 Please see Response to Comment 5-4. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 193 Response to Comment 23-14 The commenter provides no substantial evidence showing that the proposed two-story homes would result in substantial shadow effects to nearby residences. Such analyses are typically conducted for taller structures. Response to Comment 23-15 As discussed in Response to Comment 5-27, the total number of on-site trees has been revised to 630. Therefore, the 223 trees proposed for removal is actually 35 percent. As noted by the comment, the appropriate CEQA threshold is whether the project would conflict with a local policy intended to protect biological resources, such as the Town’s Tree Protection Ordinance. Because the mitigation measure would require compliance with the ordinance, a conflict would not occur, and the project would result in a less-than-significant impact. Response to Comment 23-16 The CEQA threshold within question IV-e is related to whether the project would conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Maintenance of on-site trees can be ensured through the covenants codes & restrictions that will be established for the project. Response to Comment 23-17 Section 29.10.0985 of the Town’s Municipal Code requires that two or more trees be planted per tree removed to mitigate permitted protected tree removal. The exact number of required replacement trees is determined by using Table 3-1 as presented in Section 29.10.0985 and indexing the canopy size of the tree to be removed with the required replacement quantity. The Municipal Code section also provides that, if a tree or trees cannot be reasonably planted on a site, an in-lieu payment, as set forth by the Town Council, shall be paid to the Town Tree Replacement Fund. The Town’s Comprehensive Fee Schedule sets the in-lieu fee as the Market Price plus installation cost for replacement trees, as determined by the Director. The current in-lieu fees are $250 for a 24-inch box replacement tree and $500 for a 36-inch box replacement tree. As part of the conditions of approval associated with the proposed project, the project applicant shall be required to obtain an approved Tree Removal and/or Pruning Permit prior to construction and tree removal. The Town will require payment of any required in-lieu fees prior to issuance of the Tree Removal and/or Pruning Permit. Funds collected through the fees are continually used to replant trees throughout the Town. Defensible space is defined in Section 29.10.0955 of the Town’s Municipal Code as follows: Defensible Space means an area around the perimeter of a structure in which vegetation, debris, and other types of combustible fuels are treated, cleared, or reduced to slow the rate and intensity of potentially approaching wildfire or fire escaping from structures. Because the project’s development application is proposing development on vacant land, the defensible space finding required for an exception from obtaining a Tree Removal and/or Pruning Permit does not apply. As noted on page 16 and throughout the IS/MND, the proposed project would require Town approval of such a permit. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 194 Response to Comment 23-18 Please see Response to Comment 23-19. Response to Comment 23-19 The Oak Woodlands Conservation Act is a voluntary program to encourage landowners to protect oak woodlands, and does not obligate landowners to conserve oak woodlands. The project site is a relatively small infill project of 17.55 acres and is currently surrounded by existing development. The site supports approximately 5.5 acres of mixed oak woodlands, less than half which would be impacted by the project. Because the Oak Woodlands Conservation Act is a voluntary program and the project is impacting a relatively small amount of oak woodlands as compared to the amount of oak woodlands in the region, the project’s impact is less than significant and does not require specific mitigation. In addition, as discussed under question IV-f of the IS/MND, project would also comply with the Town’s Tree Protection Ordinance. Response to Comment 23-20 Contrary to the comment, question XI-b within Section XI, Land Use and Planning, of the IS/MND includes specific policies, as follows (emphasis added): As discussed throughout this IS/MND, the proposed project, including the proposed 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. The consistency with the applicable policies, including the Hillside Standards and Guidelines, are discussed throughout the IS/MND (e.g., consistency with applicable noise standards is analyzed under Section XIII, Noise). In addition, the determination that the project is consistent or inconsistent with the Town policies or other plans and policies, such as the Hillside Standards and Guidelines, is ultimately the decision of the Town Council. Furthermore, although CEQA analysis may identify some areas of general consistency with jurisdiction policies, the jurisdiction has the ability to impose additional requirements or conditions of approval on a project, at the time of its approval, to bring a project into more complete conformance with existing policies, though this ability is more narrow in this case due to Builder’s Remedy. Response to Comment 23-21 Please see Response to Comment 2-2. Response to Comment 23-22 The comment is conclusory and summarizes the comments contained within the letter, which are addressed in further detail above within Responses to Comments 23-2 through 23-21. For the Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 195 reasons discussed therein, revision and recirculation of the IS/MND and/or preparation of an EIR are not required. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 196 Letter 24 24-1 24-2 24-3 24-4 Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 197 Letter 24 cont. Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 Page 198 LETTER 24: GRANT ZAMUDIO Response to Comment 24-1 Commented noted. Please see Response to Comment 5-4. Response to Comment 24-2 Please see Responses to Comments 1-1 and 2-3. The proposed project is not requesting a variance or waiver related to the Town’s tree removal requirements. The IS/MND evaluates potential impacts to riparian habitat and protected wetlands under question IV-b,c. As discussed therein, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community, or have a substantial adverse effect on State- or federally protected wetlands, and a less than significant impact would occur. With respect to Ross Creek specifically, page 48 of the IS/MND includes the following discussion: As discussed above, the Biological Evaluation identified riparian woodland in the vicinity of Ross Creek in the site’s southwest corner. However, distinctive riparian vegetation is absent, and only the presence of Ross Creek qualifies the surrounding vegetation as a riparian corridor. Furthermore, consistent with the Town’s Standards and Guidelines for Land Use Near Streams, the proposed project would include a 25-foot riparian setback from the top-of-bank of Ross Creek and incorporate the 100- to 110-foot flood easement from Ross Creek. As such, according to the site plan prepared for the proposed project, development within the riparian woodland area is not proposed, and Ross Creek would not be directly impacted by the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly impact riparian habitat. Response to Comment 24-3 Please see Response to Comment 3-2. Response to Comment 24-4 Please see Responses to Comments 2-2, 3-1, 3-3, and 21-3. The comment does not provide sufficient detail or evidence supporting the claim that an existing road would be substantially damaged as a result of the proposed project. Project construction would be required to comply with all applicable standards and requirements set forth by the Town, State, or other regulatory agency. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-makers as part of the consideration of the proposed project. APPENDIX A BAY AREA HYDROLOGY MODEL REPORT Integrated Surface and Ground Water Hydrology • Wetland and Channel Restoration • Water Quality • Erosion and Sedimentation • Storm Water and Floodplain Management 800 Bancroft Way • Suite 101 • Berkeley, CA 94710 • (510) 704-1000 931 Mission Street • Santa Cruz, CA 95060 • (831) 457-9900 12020 Donner Pass Road • Unit B1 • Truckee, CA 96161 • (530) 550-9776 www.balancehydro.com • email: office@balancehydro.com July 31, 2025 Rafael Hernandez, P.E. HMH Engineers 1570 Oakland Road San Jose, California 95131 via email to: rhernandez@HMHca.com RE: Summary of BAHM Modeling for the Surrey Farm Project, Town of Los Gatos Dear Rafael Hernandez: I would like to begin by again thanking you for providing Balance Hydrologics the opportunity to assist with the modeling of water-quality and hydromodification control measures for the proposed Surrey Farm Project (Project) in the Town of Los Gatos, California. Coordinating with your office, Balance has proceeded with completing modeling of the proposed stormwater treatment measures, demonstrating that the project can meet flow-duration frequency requirements while meeting the required water quality treatment standards. This letter reviews our technical approach and methodology, summarizes the modeling input parameters and assumptions, and discusses the results of the work. Regulatory and Project Setting Compliance with runoff water quality and hydromodification management criteria was assessed using the Bay Area Hydrology Model (BAHM, version 2023). Per the latest version of Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP3) issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, treatment controls must be provided and must be capable of treating 80 percent of the mean annual runoff from the post-project site. Additionally, changes in runoff flow and duration must be mitigated to avoid hydromodification impacts. The pertinent range for flow-duration control is from one-tenth of the 2-year pre-project flow rate to the 10-year pre-project flow rate. The proposed project will construct a clustered group of residential structures on a previously undeveloped property totaling approximately 1765 acres in the south-central part of the Town. The site is located roughly a quarter mile south of Shannon Drive between Twin Oaks Drive to the west and Cerro Vista Drive to the east. The existing site is characterized by relatively steep terrain with land cover consisting largely of non-native grassland with some scattered trees. Balance Hydrologics, Inc. Rafael Hernandez, P.E. July 31, 2025 Page 2 224067 BAHM Modeling Report 07-31-2025 The site is underlaid by three soil types per soil mapping information prepared by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (see Appendix A). The dominant soil type covering 86% of the site is Zeppelin- Alumrock Complex, which is classified as a Hydrologic Soil Group C soil, indicative of low infiltration soils that are prone to high rates of runoff. BAHM Modeling Input parameters for the BAHM model were compiled from project plans provided by HMH. The BAHM model used data from the San Jose rain gauge with a factor of 1.724 to account for the difference in mean annual precipitation between the project site and the reference gauge location. The pre- and post-project drainage areas were analyzed as follows and pertinent parameters are summarized in Table 1: •Pre-project. The overall site was divided into three drainage management areas (DMAs) to characterize runoff in the pre-project condition, and these are identified as DMA A, DMA B, and DMA C (see Figure 1 below). The first two DMAs represent distinct connection points to an existing storm drain system that crosses the western portion of the site and runs north to the end of Longmeadow Drive. Given the close proximity of these two connections, they were considered to represent a single point of compliance identified as POC1. DMA C represents runoff from the northeastern portion of the site that runs north as sheet flow toward Cerro Vista Court. Flow is picked up there by a separate trunk storm drain line, and, though part of the same overall watershed, was assigned a separate point of compliance, POC2. There is no appreciable impervious cover on the site in the pre-project condition, and all three DMAs were parameterized in BAHM as C/D grass cover on moderate slopes (DMA A) or steep slopes (DMAs B and C). •Post-project. For the post-project conditions, the overall analysis framework of three DMAs and two points of compliance is maintained. Minor DMA boundary shifts occur within two of the lots and along the principal access road to the site (see the plan sheet included as Appendix B). The residential lots will all drain to treatment measures located within DMA B. The only land cover changes in DMA A will be the initial, roughly 400 feet of the access road, which will be constructed with permeable concrete and/or pavers over a course of aggregate base rock. A similar situation will exist in DMA B and DMA C where some access driveways will be constructed of permeable material. Since all runoff in DMA A will be routed to the pavers, that DMA is separated into two parts in the post-project case, one representing the preserved open space portion (permeable) and another for the small impervious cover area, both of which are then connected to a permeable paver element in BAHM. The permeable paver area in DMA B1 is modeled analogously to that in DMA but receives runoff from a larger impervious area. The other permeable roadway areas are modeled as pervious self-treating areas. Balance Hydrologics, Inc. Rafael Hernandez, P.E. July 31, 2025 Page 3 224067 BAHM Modeling Report 07-31-2025 Figure 1. Pre-project DMA boundaries and points of compliance As noted above, all the developed portions of the residential lots and the remainder of the access road will be located in DMA B. That said, the site plan uses compact structure configurations to limit impervious cover and preserve pervious area as practical. In fact, overall impervious cover is projected to be approximately 16% of the 14.2-acre DMA B. Runoff from all impervious areas will be collected in field inlets and/or catch basins and routed to one of nine bioretention basins that will provide water-quality treatment and flow-duration control. The bioretention basins are identified using numbering based on the respective lot draining to each. In all but three cases, each bioretention basin (BR) will handle the runoff from only the impervious area for one residential lot. The exceptions include the following: DMA B1 will drain to an area of permeable pavers sized to infiltrate the required treatment volume as described previously, BR 5+6 which will serve two lots (DMA 5+6), and BR 11 which will handle runoff from the eastern part of the main site roadway (DMA 11). Balance Hydrologics, Inc. Rafael Hernandez, P.E. July 31, 2025 Page 4 224067 BAHM Modeling Report 07-31-2025 Table 1. Summary of Pre- and Post-Project Land Cover The proposed bioretention basins will follow standard design elements as summarized in the C.3 Stormwater Handbook published by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (June 2016). Each facility is modeled with a total surface ponding depth of 6 inches, an 18-inch-thick biosoil layer, and a bottom 12-inch-thick rock layer. The model was parameterized using a 4-inch diameter underdrain, and model results show that 2-inch diameter underdrain orifices will be needed to meet hydromodification management criteria. The basins were assumed to have 3:1 side slopes. Figure 2 shows the post-project schematic of the BAHM model. DMA (sq ft)(acres)(sq ft)(acres)(sq ft)(acres)(sq ft)(acres) Pre-project DMA A 34,860 0.8003 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 34,658 0.7956 DMA B 613,302 14.0795 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 613,302 14.0795 DMA C 116,866 2.6829 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 116,866 2.6829 Total 765,028 17.5626 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 764,826 17.5580 Post-project DMA A+AA OS 23,853 0.5476 1,435 0.0329 0 0.0000 22,418 0.5146 DMA A+AA PP 9,084 0.2085 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 9,084 0.2085 DMA B OS 485,022 11.1346 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 485,022 11.1346 B1 6,720 0.1543 770 0.0177 3,082 0.0707 2,868 0.0658 B1 PP 3,280 0.0753 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 3,280 0.0753 B2 7,853 0.1803 1,038 0.0238 4,153 0.0953 2,662 0.0611 B3 7,446 0.1709 1,064 0.0244 4,256 0.0977 2,126 0.0488 B4 13,404 0.3077 1,362 0.0313 5,447 0.1251 6,595 0.1514 B5-6 42,370 0.9727 18,965 0.4354 12,643 0.2902 10,762 0.2471 B7 12,030 0.2762 1,789 0.0411 7,157 0.1643 3,084 0.0708 B8 9,661 0.2218 1,788 0.0410 7,150 0.1642 723 0.0166 B9 11,603 0.2664 1,787 0.0410 7,149 0.1641 2,667 0.0612 B10 13,150 0.3019 2,031 0.0466 8,124 0.1865 2,995 0.0688 B11 7,476 0.1716 1,141 0.0262 4,563 0.1048 1,772 0.0407 DMA C OS 112,076 2.5729 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 112,076 2.5729 Total 765,028 17.5626 33,170 0.7615 63,724 1.4629 668,134 15.3382 Road/Sidewalk Roof PerviousTotal Area Balance Hydrologics, Inc. Rafael Hernandez, P.E. July 31, 2025 Page 5 224067 BAHM Modeling Report 07-31-2025 Figure 2. Post-Project BAHM Model Schematic Model Results Iterative BAHM model runs were completed to optimize the size and configuration of the stormwater infrastructure components. The full BAHM model output is included in Appendix C. The bioretention top of biosoil area and runoff treatment performance for each basin are summarized in Table 2. The modeling indicates that very high treatment rates can be anticipated from the proposed treatment measures. In fact, the BAHM output shows that the basins will biofilter approximately 90% of the mean annual runoff on average, well in excess of the minimum 80% required per MRP3, with no single basin failing to meet 80% treatment. Table 2. Treatment Areas and Resulting Runoff Treatment Figure 3 illustrates the flow-duration plots for POC2 for the pre- and post-project (mitigated) cases. Eff Impervious Surface Area Area/Eff Imp Treated Facility (sq ft)(sq ft)(%)(%) DMA B1 Pavers 4139 3,280 79%99.0 BR 2 5,431 259 4.8%92.6 BR 3 5,507 259 4.7%93.0 BR 4 7,438 306 4.1%87.7 BR 5+6 32,516 1,682 5.2%88.9 BR 7 9,224 305 3.3%87.4 BR 8 8,973 371 4.1%92.9 BR 9 9,168 346 3.8%90.2 BR 10 10,418 363 3.5%88.8 BR 11 5,857 238 4.1%91.3 Balance Hydrologics, Inc. Rafael Hernandez, P.E. July 31, 2025 Page 6 224067 BAHM Modeling Report 07-31-2025 Figure 3. Flow-Duration Compliance Plot for POC 1 from the BAHM Model Output Flow-duration compliance for POC2 is shown in Figure 4 below. Figure 4. Flow-Duration Compliance Plot for POC 2 from the BAHM Model Output Balance Hydrologics, Inc. Rafael Hernandez, P.E. July 31, 2025 Page 7 224067 BAHM Modeling Report 07-31-2025 Closing Thank you again for the opportunity to assist with these stormwater management analyses. The modeling of the proposed stormwater management facilities shows that effective water-quality treatment and flow-duration controls can be provided for the full range of flows from one-tenth of the 2-year event up to the 10-year event. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have questions related to the modeling work, results, or conclusions presented herein. Sincerely, BALANCE HYDROLOGICS, Inc. Edward D. Ballman, PE Principal Engineer Enclosures: Appendix A: Web Soil Survey Report Appendix B: Post-project Stormwater Control Plan Appendix C: Bay Area Hydrology Model Output BAHM July 2025 Zip File __________________________________ Jiovanna Garcia-Diaz Engineer/ Hydrologist APPENDICES APPENDIX A Web Soil Survey Report Hydrologic Soil Group—Santa Clara Area, California, Western Part (Surrey Farrms) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 5/17/2024 Page 1 of 4412021041202604120310412036041204104120460412051041202104120260412031041203604120410412046041205104120560592740592790592840592890592940592990593040593090593140593190593240 592740 592790 592840 592890 592940 592990 593040 593090 593140 593190 593240 37° 13' 36'' N 121° 57' 17'' W37° 13' 36'' N121° 56' 55'' W37° 13' 25'' N 121° 57' 17'' W37° 13' 25'' N 121° 56' 55'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 10N WGS84 0 100 200 400 600 Feet 0 35 70 140 210 Meters Map Scale: 1:2,510 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Rating Polygons A A/D B B/D C C/D D Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines A A/D B B/D C C/D D Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points A A/D B B/D C C/D D Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Santa Clara Area, California, Western Part Survey Area Data: Version 12, Sep 11, 2023 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Mar 1, 2023—Sep 1, 2023 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Hydrologic Soil Group—Santa Clara Area, California, Western Part (Surrey Farrms) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 5/17/2024 Page 2 of 4 Hydrologic Soil Group Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 135 Urban land- Stevenscreek complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes 2.4 12.5% 177 Urban land-Botella complex, 9 to 15 percent slopes 0.4 1.9% 376 Zeppelin-Alumrock complex, 30 to 50 percent slopes C 16.4 85.6% Totals for Area of Interest 19.1 100.0% Hydrologic Soil Group—Santa Clara Area, California, Western Part Surrey Farrms Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 5/17/2024 Page 3 of 4 Description Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long-duration storms. The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and three dual classes (A/D, B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows: Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes. Rating Options Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Higher Hydrologic Soil Group—Santa Clara Area, California, Western Part Surrey Farrms Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 5/17/2024 Page 4 of 4 APPENDIX B Post-project Stormwater Control Plan X SDSDSDSDSDS D SD SD SD SDSDSDSDSD SDSDSDSD SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSD SD SDSDEAST ROSS CREEK IN EX 36-INCH RCPCERRA V I S T A C O U R T TWIN OAKS DR IVE LOT 1 LOT 2 LOT 3 LOT 9 LOT 5 LOT 6 LOT 7 LOT 10 LOT 8 LOT 4 TCM BR 5+6 TCM BR 10 TCM BR 7 APPROXIMATE RIPARIAN LIMIT (TYP.) TCM BR1 DMA B1 DMA B11 DMA B9 DMA B4 DMA B2 DMA B3 DMA B10 DMA B8 DMA B7 DMA B5+6 DMA B5+6 DMA C DMA A DMA B VALLEY WATER'S 110' FLOODPLAIN EASE M E N T DMA B1A DMA B1B TCM BR 4 DMA B7A DMA B1B TCM BR 9 DMA B10B TCM BR 8 TCM B11 TCM BR 2 DMA B2A TCM BR 3 DMA B3B DMA B3A DMA B9A DMA B10A DMA B1B DMA B3C DMA B7B DMA AA STORMWATER CONTROL PLAN 1" = 50' 1 INCH = 50 FEET 10050250 DRAWN BY: PROJECT NO: CAD DWG FILE: CHECKED BY: DESIGNED BY: DATE: SCALE: HMHC DATE DESCRIPTIONNOSURREY FARM ESTATES178 TWIN OAKS DRIVEDEVELOPMENT REVIEW & TENTATIVE MAPM-24-013S:\PROJECTS\418510\PL\PERMIT\_SITE\PERMIT\418510SW.DWG418510SW.DWG 5.0 4185.10 AUGUST XX, 2025 PLOTTED: 7/23/2025 3:47 PMLand Use Entitlements Land Planning Landscape Architecture Civil Engineering Utility Design Land Surveying Stormwater Compliance 1570 Oakland Road (408) 487-2200 San Jose, CA 95131 HMHca.com 1 10/07/24 PER CITY COMMENTS 2 01/08/25 PER CITY COMMENTS 3 04/18/25 PER CITY COMMENTS 4 07/25/25 PER CITY COMMENTS DMA#DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREA STORM DRAIN PIPE (EXISTING) STORM DRAIN PIPE SD SD SD STORM DRAIN INLET STORM DRAIN MANHOLE STORM DRAIN INLET (EXISTING) STORM DRAIN MANHOLE (EXISTING) PROJECT BOUNDARY LEGEND BIORETENTION AREA DIRECTION OF SURFACE DRAINAGE CURB INLET NW MD RH LOT LINE EASEMENT STORM DRAIN CLEANOUT AT DOWNSPOUT BUBBLER BOX PERVIOUS PAVERS RIPARIAN HYDROMODIFICATION NOTE: 1.REFER TO THE "SUMMARY OF BAHM MODELING FOR THE SURREY FARM PROJECT" REPORT FOR HYDROMODIFICATION AND STORMWATER TREATMENT DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS AND SUMMARY OF RESULTS. 4 - 4 APPENDIX C Bay Area Hydrology Model Output BAHM2023 PROJECT REPORT 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 2 General Model Information BAHM2023 Project Name:224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 Site Name:Surrey Farm Site Address: City:Los Gatos Report Date:7/29/2025 Gage:San Jose Data Start:1959/10/01 Data End:2022/09/30 Timestep:Hourly Precip Scale:1.724 Version Date:2024/06/19 POC Thresholds Low Flow Threshold for POC1:10 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC1:10 Year Low Flow Threshold for POC2:10 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC2:10 Year 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 3 Landuse Basin Data Pre-Project Land Use DMA B Pre Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre C D,Grass,Ste(10-20)14.0795 Pervious Total 14.0795 Impervious Land Use acre Impervious Total 0 Basin Total 14.0795 Element Flow Componants: Surface Interflow Groundwater Componant Flows To: POC 1 POC 1 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 4 DMA C Pre Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre C D,Grass,Ste(10-20)2.6829 Pervious Total 2.6829 Impervious Land Use acre Impervious Total 0 Basin Total 2.6829 Element Flow Componants: Surface Interflow Groundwater Componant Flows To: POC 2 POC 2 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 5 DMA A Pre Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre C D,Grass,Mod(5-10%)0.7956 Pervious Total 0.7956 Impervious Land Use acre Roads,Flat(0-5%) 0.0046 Impervious Total 0.0046 Basin Total 0.8002 Element Flow Componants: Surface Interflow Groundwater Componant Flows To: POC 1 POC 1 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 6 Mitigated Land Use DMA B OS Bypass:Yes GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre C D,Grass,Ste(10-20)11.1346 Pervious Total 11.1346 Impervious Land Use acre Impervious Total 0 Basin Total 11.1346 Element Flow Componants: Surface Interflow Groundwater Componant Flows To: POC 1 POC 1 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 7 DMA B2 Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre C D,Grass,Flat(0-5%)0.0552 Pervious Total 0.0552 Impervious Land Use acre Roads,Mod(5-10%) 0.0238 Roof Area 0.0953 Impervious Total 0.1191 Basin Total 0.1743 Element Flow Componants: Surface Interflow Groundwater Componant Flows To: Surface BR B2 Surface BR B2 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 8 DMA B3 Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre C D,Grass,Flat(0-5%)0.0429 Pervious Total 0.0429 Impervious Land Use acre Roads,Mod(5-10%) 0.0244 Roof Area 0.0977 Impervious Total 0.1221 Basin Total 0.165 Element Flow Componants: Surface Interflow Groundwater Componant Flows To: Surface BR B3 Surface BR B3 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 9 DMA B4 Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre C D,Grass,Flat(0-5%)0.1444 Pervious Total 0.1444 Impervious Land Use acre Roads,Mod(5-10%) 0.0313 Roof Area 0.1251 Impervious Total 0.1564 Basin Total 0.3008 Element Flow Componants: Surface Interflow Groundwater Componant Flows To: Surface BR B4 Surface BR B4 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 10 DMA B5-6 Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre C D,Grass,Flat(0-5%)0.2084 Pervious Total 0.2084 Impervious Land Use acre Roads,Flat(0-5%) 0.0969 Roads,Mod(5-10%) 0.3385 Roof Area 0.2902 Impervious Total 0.7256 Basin Total 0.934 Element Flow Componants: Surface Interflow Groundwater Componant Flows To: Surface BR B5-6 Surface BR B5-6 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 11 DMA B7 Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre C D,Grass,Flat(0-5%)0.0638 Pervious Total 0.0638 Impervious Land Use acre Roads,Mod(5-10%) 0.0411 Roof Area 0.1643 Impervious Total 0.2054 Basin Total 0.2692 Element Flow Componants: Surface Interflow Groundwater Componant Flows To: Surface BR B7 Surface BR B7 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 12 DMA B8 Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre C D,Grass,Flat(0-5%)0.0081 Pervious Total 0.0081 Impervious Land Use acre Roads,Mod(5-10%) 0.041 Roof Area 0.1642 Impervious Total 0.2052 Basin Total 0.2133 Element Flow Componants: Surface Interflow Groundwater Componant Flows To: Surface BR B8 Surface BR B8 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 13 DMA B9 Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre C D,Grass,Flat(0-5%)0.0533 Pervious Total 0.0533 Impervious Land Use acre Roads,Mod(5-10%) 0.041 Roof Area 0.1641 Impervious Total 0.2051 Basin Total 0.2584 Element Flow Componants: Surface Interflow Groundwater Componant Flows To: Surface BR B9 Surface BR B9 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 14 DMA B10 Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre C D,Grass,Flat(0-5%)0.0604 Pervious Total 0.0604 Impervious Land Use acre Roads,Mod(5-10%) 0.0466 Roof Area 0.1865 Impervious Total 0.2331 Basin Total 0.2935 Element Flow Componants: Surface Interflow Groundwater Componant Flows To: Surface BR B10 Surface BR B10 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 15 DMA B11 Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre C D,Grass,Flat(0-5%)0.0352 Pervious Total 0.0352 Impervious Land Use acre Roads,Mod(5-10%) 0.0262 Roof Area 0.1048 Impervious Total 0.131 Basin Total 0.1662 Element Flow Componants: Surface Interflow Groundwater Componant Flows To: Surface BR B11 Surface BR B11 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 16 DMA C OS Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre C D,Grass,Ste(10-20)2.5729 Pervious Total 2.5729 Impervious Land Use acre Impervious Total 0 Basin Total 2.5729 Element Flow Componants: Surface Interflow Groundwater Componant Flows To: POC 2 POC 2 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 17 DMA A OS Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre C D,Grass,Mod(5-10%) .5146 Element Flow Componants: Surface Interflow Groundwater Componant Flows To: DMA A PP DMA A PP 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 18 DMA A Imp Bypass:No Impervious Land Use acre Roads,Mod(5-10%) 0.0329 Element Flow Componant: Surface Componant Flows To: DMA A PP 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 19 DMA B1 Perv Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre C D,Grass,Flat(0-5%) .0658 Element Flow Componants: Surface Interflow Groundwater Componant Flows To: DMA B1 PP DMA B1 PP 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 20 DMA B1 Imp Bypass:No Impervious Land Use acre Roof Area 0.0884 Element Flow Componant: Surface Componant Flows To: DMA B1 PP 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 21 Routing Elements Pre-Project Routing 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 22 Mitigated Routing BR B2 Bottom Length: 25.90 ft. Bottom Width: 10.00 ft. Material thickness of first layer: 1.5 Material type for first layer: BAHM 5 Material thickness of second layer: 1 Material type for second layer: GRAVEL Material thickness of third layer: 0 Material type for third layer: GRAVEL Underdrain used Underdrain Diameter (feet):0.333333333333333 Orifice Diameter (in.):2 Offset (in.):0 Flow Through Underdrain (ac-ft.):16.025 Total Outflow (ac-ft.):17.308 Percent Through Underdrain:92.59 Discharge Structure Riser Height:0.5 ft. Riser Diameter:12 in. Element Outlets: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Outlet Flows To: Bioretention Hydraulic Table Stage(feet)Area(ac.)Volume(ac-ft.)Discharge(cfs)Infilt(cfs) 0.0000 0.0059 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0385 0.0059 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0769 0.0059 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.1154 0.0059 0.0003 0.0000 0.0000 0.1538 0.0059 0.0003 0.0000 0.0000 0.1923 0.0059 0.0004 0.0000 0.0000 0.2308 0.0059 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000 0.2692 0.0059 0.0006 0.0000 0.0000 0.3077 0.0059 0.0007 0.0000 0.0000 0.3462 0.0059 0.0008 0.0000 0.0000 0.3846 0.0059 0.0009 0.0000 0.0000 0.4231 0.0059 0.0010 0.0013 0.0000 0.4615 0.0059 0.0010 0.0016 0.0000 0.5000 0.0059 0.0011 0.0018 0.0000 0.5385 0.0059 0.0012 0.0022 0.0000 0.5769 0.0059 0.0013 0.0025 0.0000 0.6154 0.0059 0.0014 0.0029 0.0000 0.6538 0.0059 0.0015 0.0033 0.0000 0.6923 0.0059 0.0016 0.0038 0.0000 0.7308 0.0059 0.0017 0.0043 0.0000 0.7692 0.0059 0.0017 0.0049 0.0000 0.8077 0.0059 0.0018 0.0055 0.0000 0.8462 0.0059 0.0019 0.0062 0.0000 0.8846 0.0059 0.0020 0.0069 0.0000 0.9231 0.0059 0.0021 0.0076 0.0000 0.9615 0.0059 0.0022 0.0077 0.0000 1.0000 0.0059 0.0023 0.0085 0.0000 1.0385 0.0059 0.0023 0.0094 0.0000 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 23 1.0769 0.0059 0.0024 0.0104 0.0000 1.1154 0.0059 0.0025 0.0114 0.0000 1.1538 0.0059 0.0026 0.0124 0.0000 1.1923 0.0059 0.0027 0.0135 0.0000 1.2308 0.0059 0.0028 0.0147 0.0000 1.2692 0.0059 0.0029 0.0160 0.0000 1.3077 0.0059 0.0030 0.0173 0.0000 1.3462 0.0059 0.0030 0.0183 0.0000 1.3846 0.0059 0.0031 0.0186 0.0000 1.4231 0.0059 0.0032 0.0201 0.0000 1.4615 0.0059 0.0033 0.0216 0.0000 1.5000 0.0059 0.0034 0.0231 0.0000 1.5385 0.0059 0.0035 0.0248 0.0000 1.5769 0.0059 0.0036 0.0265 0.0000 1.6154 0.0059 0.0037 0.0282 0.0000 1.6538 0.0059 0.0038 0.0366 0.0000 1.6923 0.0059 0.0039 0.0400 0.0000 1.7308 0.0059 0.0040 0.0400 0.0000 1.7692 0.0059 0.0041 0.0400 0.0000 1.8077 0.0059 0.0042 0.0400 0.0000 1.8462 0.0059 0.0043 0.0400 0.0000 1.8846 0.0059 0.0043 0.0400 0.0000 1.9231 0.0059 0.0044 0.0400 0.0000 1.9615 0.0059 0.0045 0.0400 0.0000 2.0000 0.0059 0.0046 0.0400 0.0000 2.0385 0.0059 0.0047 0.0400 0.0000 2.0769 0.0059 0.0048 0.0400 0.0000 2.1154 0.0059 0.0049 0.0400 0.0000 2.1538 0.0059 0.0050 0.0400 0.0000 2.1923 0.0059 0.0051 0.0400 0.0000 2.2308 0.0059 0.0052 0.0400 0.0000 2.2692 0.0059 0.0053 0.0400 0.0000 2.3077 0.0059 0.0054 0.0400 0.0000 2.3462 0.0059 0.0055 0.0400 0.0000 2.3846 0.0059 0.0056 0.0400 0.0000 2.4231 0.0059 0.0057 0.0400 0.0000 2.4615 0.0059 0.0058 0.0400 0.0000 2.5000 0.0059 0.0059 0.0400 0.0000 2.5000 0.0059 0.0059 0.0400 0.0000 Bioretention Surface Hydraulic Table Stage(feet)Area(ac.)Volume(ac-ft.)Discharge(cfs)To Amended(cfs)Infilt(cfs) 2.5000 0.0059 0.0059 0.0000 0.0300 0.0000 2.5385 0.0061 0.0061 0.0000 0.0300 0.0000 2.5769 0.0063 0.0063 0.0000 0.0315 0.0000 2.6154 0.0065 0.0066 0.0000 0.0323 0.0000 2.6538 0.0067 0.0068 0.0000 0.0331 0.0000 2.6923 0.0069 0.0071 0.0000 0.0338 0.0000 2.7308 0.0071 0.0074 0.0000 0.0346 0.0000 2.7692 0.0073 0.0077 0.0000 0.0354 0.0000 2.8077 0.0075 0.0079 0.0000 0.0361 0.0000 2.8462 0.0078 0.0082 0.0000 0.0369 0.0000 2.8846 0.0080 0.0085 0.0000 0.0377 0.0000 2.9231 0.0082 0.0088 0.0000 0.0384 0.0000 2.9615 0.0084 0.0092 0.0000 0.0392 0.0000 3.0000 0.0086 0.0095 0.0000 0.0400 0.0000 3.0385 0.0088 0.0098 0.0800 0.0407 0.0000 3.0769 0.0091 0.0102 0.2257 0.0415 0.0000 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 24 3.1154 0.0093 0.0105 0.4122 0.0423 0.0000 3.1538 0.0095 0.0109 0.6273 0.0430 0.0000 3.1923 0.0098 0.0113 0.8600 0.0438 0.0000 3.2308 0.0100 0.0116 1.0991 0.0446 0.0000 3.2692 0.0102 0.0120 1.3333 0.0453 0.0000 3.3077 0.0105 0.0124 1.5516 0.0461 0.0000 3.3462 0.0107 0.0128 1.7445 0.0469 0.0000 3.3846 0.0110 0.0133 1.9054 0.0477 0.0000 3.4231 0.0112 0.0137 2.0318 0.0484 0.0000 3.4615 0.0115 0.0141 2.1274 0.0492 0.0000 3.5000 0.0117 0.0146 2.2033 0.0500 0.0000 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 25 BR B3 Bottom Length: 25.90 ft. Bottom Width: 10.00 ft. Material thickness of first layer: 1.5 Material type for first layer: BAHM 5 Material thickness of second layer: 1 Material type for second layer: GRAVEL Material thickness of third layer: 0 Material type for third layer: GRAVEL Underdrain used Underdrain Diameter (feet):0.333333333333333 Orifice Diameter (in.):2 Offset (in.):0 Flow Through Underdrain (ac-ft.):15.903 Total Outflow (ac-ft.):17.105 Percent Through Underdrain:92.98 Discharge Structure Riser Height:0.5 ft. Riser Diameter:12 in. Element Outlets: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Outlet Flows To: Bioretention Hydraulic Table Stage(feet)Area(ac.)Volume(ac-ft.)Discharge(cfs)Infilt(cfs) 0.0000 0.0059 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0385 0.0059 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0769 0.0059 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.1154 0.0059 0.0003 0.0000 0.0000 0.1538 0.0059 0.0003 0.0000 0.0000 0.1923 0.0059 0.0004 0.0000 0.0000 0.2308 0.0059 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000 0.2692 0.0059 0.0006 0.0000 0.0000 0.3077 0.0059 0.0007 0.0000 0.0000 0.3462 0.0059 0.0008 0.0000 0.0000 0.3846 0.0059 0.0009 0.0000 0.0000 0.4231 0.0059 0.0010 0.0013 0.0000 0.4615 0.0059 0.0010 0.0016 0.0000 0.5000 0.0059 0.0011 0.0018 0.0000 0.5385 0.0059 0.0012 0.0022 0.0000 0.5769 0.0059 0.0013 0.0025 0.0000 0.6154 0.0059 0.0014 0.0029 0.0000 0.6538 0.0059 0.0015 0.0033 0.0000 0.6923 0.0059 0.0016 0.0038 0.0000 0.7308 0.0059 0.0017 0.0043 0.0000 0.7692 0.0059 0.0017 0.0049 0.0000 0.8077 0.0059 0.0018 0.0055 0.0000 0.8462 0.0059 0.0019 0.0062 0.0000 0.8846 0.0059 0.0020 0.0069 0.0000 0.9231 0.0059 0.0021 0.0076 0.0000 0.9615 0.0059 0.0022 0.0077 0.0000 1.0000 0.0059 0.0023 0.0085 0.0000 1.0385 0.0059 0.0023 0.0094 0.0000 1.0769 0.0059 0.0024 0.0104 0.0000 1.1154 0.0059 0.0025 0.0114 0.0000 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 26 1.1538 0.0059 0.0026 0.0124 0.0000 1.1923 0.0059 0.0027 0.0135 0.0000 1.2308 0.0059 0.0028 0.0147 0.0000 1.2692 0.0059 0.0029 0.0160 0.0000 1.3077 0.0059 0.0030 0.0173 0.0000 1.3462 0.0059 0.0030 0.0183 0.0000 1.3846 0.0059 0.0031 0.0186 0.0000 1.4231 0.0059 0.0032 0.0201 0.0000 1.4615 0.0059 0.0033 0.0216 0.0000 1.5000 0.0059 0.0034 0.0231 0.0000 1.5385 0.0059 0.0035 0.0248 0.0000 1.5769 0.0059 0.0036 0.0265 0.0000 1.6154 0.0059 0.0037 0.0282 0.0000 1.6538 0.0059 0.0038 0.0366 0.0000 1.6923 0.0059 0.0039 0.0400 0.0000 1.7308 0.0059 0.0040 0.0400 0.0000 1.7692 0.0059 0.0041 0.0400 0.0000 1.8077 0.0059 0.0042 0.0400 0.0000 1.8462 0.0059 0.0043 0.0400 0.0000 1.8846 0.0059 0.0043 0.0400 0.0000 1.9231 0.0059 0.0044 0.0400 0.0000 1.9615 0.0059 0.0045 0.0400 0.0000 2.0000 0.0059 0.0046 0.0400 0.0000 2.0385 0.0059 0.0047 0.0400 0.0000 2.0769 0.0059 0.0048 0.0400 0.0000 2.1154 0.0059 0.0049 0.0400 0.0000 2.1538 0.0059 0.0050 0.0400 0.0000 2.1923 0.0059 0.0051 0.0400 0.0000 2.2308 0.0059 0.0052 0.0400 0.0000 2.2692 0.0059 0.0053 0.0400 0.0000 2.3077 0.0059 0.0054 0.0400 0.0000 2.3462 0.0059 0.0055 0.0400 0.0000 2.3846 0.0059 0.0056 0.0400 0.0000 2.4231 0.0059 0.0057 0.0400 0.0000 2.4615 0.0059 0.0058 0.0400 0.0000 2.5000 0.0059 0.0059 0.0400 0.0000 2.5000 0.0059 0.0059 0.0400 0.0000 Bioretention Surface Hydraulic Table Stage(feet)Area(ac.)Volume(ac-ft.)Discharge(cfs)To Amended(cfs)Infilt(cfs) 2.5000 0.0059 0.0059 0.0000 0.0300 0.0000 2.5385 0.0061 0.0061 0.0000 0.0300 0.0000 2.5769 0.0063 0.0063 0.0000 0.0315 0.0000 2.6154 0.0065 0.0066 0.0000 0.0323 0.0000 2.6538 0.0067 0.0068 0.0000 0.0331 0.0000 2.6923 0.0069 0.0071 0.0000 0.0338 0.0000 2.7308 0.0071 0.0074 0.0000 0.0346 0.0000 2.7692 0.0073 0.0077 0.0000 0.0354 0.0000 2.8077 0.0075 0.0079 0.0000 0.0361 0.0000 2.8462 0.0078 0.0082 0.0000 0.0369 0.0000 2.8846 0.0080 0.0085 0.0000 0.0377 0.0000 2.9231 0.0082 0.0088 0.0000 0.0384 0.0000 2.9615 0.0084 0.0092 0.0000 0.0392 0.0000 3.0000 0.0086 0.0095 0.0000 0.0400 0.0000 3.0385 0.0088 0.0098 0.0800 0.0407 0.0000 3.0769 0.0091 0.0102 0.2257 0.0415 0.0000 3.1154 0.0093 0.0105 0.4122 0.0423 0.0000 3.1538 0.0095 0.0109 0.6273 0.0430 0.0000 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 27 3.1923 0.0098 0.0113 0.8600 0.0438 0.0000 3.2308 0.0100 0.0116 1.0991 0.0446 0.0000 3.2692 0.0102 0.0120 1.3333 0.0453 0.0000 3.3077 0.0105 0.0124 1.5516 0.0461 0.0000 3.3462 0.0107 0.0128 1.7445 0.0469 0.0000 3.3846 0.0110 0.0133 1.9054 0.0477 0.0000 3.4231 0.0112 0.0137 2.0318 0.0484 0.0000 3.4615 0.0115 0.0141 2.1274 0.0492 0.0000 3.5000 0.0117 0.0146 2.2033 0.0500 0.0000 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 28 BR B4 Bottom Length: 30.60 ft. Bottom Width: 10.00 ft. Material thickness of first layer: 1.5 Material type for first layer: BAHM 5 Material thickness of second layer: 1 Material type for second layer: GRAVEL Material thickness of third layer: 0 Material type for third layer: GRAVEL Underdrain used Underdrain Diameter (feet):0.333333333333333 Orifice Diameter (in.):2 Offset (in.):0 Flow Through Underdrain (ac-ft.):22.784 Total Outflow (ac-ft.):25.986 Percent Through Underdrain:87.68 Discharge Structure Riser Height:0.5 ft. Riser Diameter:12 in. Element Outlets: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Outlet Flows To: Bioretention Hydraulic Table Stage(feet)Area(ac.)Volume(ac-ft.)Discharge(cfs)Infilt(cfs) 0.0000 0.0070 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0385 0.0070 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0769 0.0070 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.1154 0.0070 0.0003 0.0000 0.0000 0.1538 0.0070 0.0004 0.0000 0.0000 0.1923 0.0070 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000 0.2308 0.0070 0.0006 0.0000 0.0000 0.2692 0.0070 0.0007 0.0000 0.0000 0.3077 0.0070 0.0008 0.0000 0.0000 0.3462 0.0070 0.0009 0.0000 0.0000 0.3846 0.0070 0.0010 0.0000 0.0000 0.4231 0.0070 0.0011 0.0016 0.0000 0.4615 0.0070 0.0012 0.0019 0.0000 0.5000 0.0070 0.0013 0.0022 0.0000 0.5385 0.0070 0.0014 0.0025 0.0000 0.5769 0.0070 0.0015 0.0030 0.0000 0.6154 0.0070 0.0016 0.0034 0.0000 0.6538 0.0070 0.0017 0.0039 0.0000 0.6923 0.0070 0.0018 0.0045 0.0000 0.7308 0.0070 0.0020 0.0051 0.0000 0.7692 0.0070 0.0021 0.0058 0.0000 0.8077 0.0070 0.0022 0.0065 0.0000 0.8462 0.0070 0.0023 0.0073 0.0000 0.8846 0.0070 0.0024 0.0082 0.0000 0.9231 0.0070 0.0025 0.0090 0.0000 0.9615 0.0070 0.0026 0.0091 0.0000 1.0000 0.0070 0.0027 0.0101 0.0000 1.0385 0.0070 0.0028 0.0111 0.0000 1.0769 0.0070 0.0029 0.0122 0.0000 1.1154 0.0070 0.0030 0.0134 0.0000 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 29 1.1538 0.0070 0.0031 0.0147 0.0000 1.1923 0.0070 0.0032 0.0160 0.0000 1.2308 0.0070 0.0033 0.0174 0.0000 1.2692 0.0070 0.0034 0.0189 0.0000 1.3077 0.0070 0.0035 0.0204 0.0000 1.3462 0.0070 0.0036 0.0216 0.0000 1.3846 0.0070 0.0037 0.0220 0.0000 1.4231 0.0070 0.0038 0.0237 0.0000 1.4615 0.0070 0.0039 0.0255 0.0000 1.5000 0.0070 0.0040 0.0273 0.0000 1.5385 0.0070 0.0041 0.0293 0.0000 1.5769 0.0070 0.0042 0.0313 0.0000 1.6154 0.0070 0.0043 0.0333 0.0000 1.6538 0.0070 0.0045 0.0366 0.0000 1.6923 0.0070 0.0046 0.0452 0.0000 1.7308 0.0070 0.0047 0.0472 0.0000 1.7692 0.0070 0.0048 0.0472 0.0000 1.8077 0.0070 0.0049 0.0472 0.0000 1.8462 0.0070 0.0050 0.0472 0.0000 1.8846 0.0070 0.0051 0.0472 0.0000 1.9231 0.0070 0.0052 0.0472 0.0000 1.9615 0.0070 0.0054 0.0472 0.0000 2.0000 0.0070 0.0055 0.0472 0.0000 2.0385 0.0070 0.0056 0.0472 0.0000 2.0769 0.0070 0.0057 0.0472 0.0000 2.1154 0.0070 0.0058 0.0472 0.0000 2.1538 0.0070 0.0059 0.0472 0.0000 2.1923 0.0070 0.0060 0.0472 0.0000 2.2308 0.0070 0.0061 0.0472 0.0000 2.2692 0.0070 0.0063 0.0472 0.0000 2.3077 0.0070 0.0064 0.0472 0.0000 2.3462 0.0070 0.0065 0.0472 0.0000 2.3846 0.0070 0.0066 0.0472 0.0000 2.4231 0.0070 0.0067 0.0472 0.0000 2.4615 0.0070 0.0068 0.0472 0.0000 2.5000 0.0070 0.0069 0.0472 0.0000 2.5000 0.0070 0.0069 0.0472 0.0000 Bioretention Surface Hydraulic Table Stage(feet)Area(ac.)Volume(ac-ft.)Discharge(cfs)To Amended(cfs)Infilt(cfs) 2.5000 0.0070 0.0069 0.0000 0.0354 0.0000 2.5385 0.0072 0.0072 0.0000 0.0354 0.0000 2.5769 0.0075 0.0075 0.0000 0.0372 0.0000 2.6154 0.0077 0.0078 0.0000 0.0381 0.0000 2.6538 0.0079 0.0081 0.0000 0.0390 0.0000 2.6923 0.0081 0.0084 0.0000 0.0400 0.0000 2.7308 0.0084 0.0087 0.0000 0.0409 0.0000 2.7692 0.0086 0.0090 0.0000 0.0418 0.0000 2.8077 0.0088 0.0094 0.0000 0.0427 0.0000 2.8462 0.0091 0.0097 0.0000 0.0436 0.0000 2.8846 0.0093 0.0101 0.0000 0.0445 0.0000 2.9231 0.0095 0.0104 0.0000 0.0454 0.0000 2.9615 0.0098 0.0108 0.0000 0.0463 0.0000 3.0000 0.0100 0.0112 0.0000 0.0472 0.0000 3.0385 0.0103 0.0116 0.0800 0.0481 0.0000 3.0769 0.0105 0.0120 0.2257 0.0490 0.0000 3.1154 0.0108 0.0124 0.4122 0.0499 0.0000 3.1538 0.0110 0.0128 0.6273 0.0509 0.0000 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 30 3.1923 0.0113 0.0132 0.8600 0.0518 0.0000 3.2308 0.0116 0.0137 1.0991 0.0527 0.0000 3.2692 0.0118 0.0141 1.3333 0.0536 0.0000 3.3077 0.0121 0.0146 1.5516 0.0545 0.0000 3.3462 0.0123 0.0150 1.7445 0.0554 0.0000 3.3846 0.0126 0.0155 1.9054 0.0563 0.0000 3.4231 0.0129 0.0160 2.0318 0.0572 0.0000 3.4615 0.0132 0.0165 2.1274 0.0581 0.0000 3.5000 0.0134 0.0170 2.2033 0.0590 0.0000 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 31 BR B5-6 Bottom Length: 139.80 ft. Bottom Width: 10.00 ft. Material thickness of first layer: 1.5 Material type for first layer: BAHM 5 Material thickness of second layer: 1 Material type for second layer: GRAVEL Material thickness of third layer: 0 Material type for third layer: GRAVEL Underdrain used Underdrain Diameter (feet):0.333333333333333 Orifice Diameter (in.):2 Offset (in.):0 Flow Through Underdrain (ac-ft.):88.656 Total Outflow (ac-ft.):99.74 Percent Through Underdrain:88.89 Discharge Structure Riser Height:0.5 ft. Riser Diameter:12 in. Element Outlets: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Outlet Flows To: Bioretention Hydraulic Table Stage(feet)Area(ac.)Volume(ac-ft.)Discharge(cfs)Infilt(cfs) 0.0000 0.0321 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0385 0.0321 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0769 0.0321 0.0009 0.0000 0.0000 0.1154 0.0321 0.0014 0.0000 0.0000 0.1538 0.0321 0.0019 0.0000 0.0000 0.1923 0.0321 0.0023 0.0000 0.0000 0.2308 0.0321 0.0028 0.0000 0.0000 0.2692 0.0321 0.0033 0.0000 0.0000 0.3077 0.0321 0.0038 0.0000 0.0000 0.3462 0.0321 0.0042 0.0000 0.0000 0.3846 0.0321 0.0047 0.0000 0.0000 0.4231 0.0321 0.0052 0.0073 0.0000 0.4615 0.0321 0.0056 0.0085 0.0000 0.5000 0.0321 0.0061 0.0100 0.0000 0.5385 0.0321 0.0066 0.0116 0.0000 0.5769 0.0321 0.0070 0.0135 0.0000 0.6154 0.0321 0.0075 0.0156 0.0000 0.6538 0.0321 0.0080 0.0180 0.0000 0.6923 0.0321 0.0084 0.0199 0.0000 0.7308 0.0321 0.0089 0.0234 0.0000 0.7692 0.0321 0.0094 0.0249 0.0000 0.8077 0.0321 0.0099 0.0252 0.0000 0.8462 0.0321 0.0103 0.0295 0.0000 0.8846 0.0321 0.0108 0.0333 0.0000 0.9231 0.0321 0.0113 0.0354 0.0000 0.9615 0.0321 0.0117 0.0366 0.0000 1.0000 0.0321 0.0122 0.0397 0.0000 1.0385 0.0321 0.0127 0.0425 0.0000 1.0769 0.0321 0.0131 0.0452 0.0000 1.1154 0.0321 0.0136 0.0477 0.0000 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 32 1.1538 0.0321 0.0141 0.0501 0.0000 1.1923 0.0321 0.0145 0.0523 0.0000 1.2308 0.0321 0.0150 0.0545 0.0000 1.2692 0.0321 0.0155 0.0566 0.0000 1.3077 0.0321 0.0159 0.0586 0.0000 1.3462 0.0321 0.0164 0.0605 0.0000 1.3846 0.0321 0.0169 0.0624 0.0000 1.4231 0.0321 0.0174 0.0642 0.0000 1.4615 0.0321 0.0178 0.0660 0.0000 1.5000 0.0321 0.0183 0.0677 0.0000 1.5385 0.0321 0.0188 0.0694 0.0000 1.5769 0.0321 0.0194 0.0710 0.0000 1.6154 0.0321 0.0199 0.0726 0.0000 1.6538 0.0321 0.0204 0.0742 0.0000 1.6923 0.0321 0.0209 0.0757 0.0000 1.7308 0.0321 0.0214 0.0772 0.0000 1.7692 0.0321 0.0219 0.0787 0.0000 1.8077 0.0321 0.0224 0.0801 0.0000 1.8462 0.0321 0.0229 0.0815 0.0000 1.8846 0.0321 0.0235 0.0829 0.0000 1.9231 0.0321 0.0240 0.0843 0.0000 1.9615 0.0321 0.0245 0.0857 0.0000 2.0000 0.0321 0.0250 0.0870 0.0000 2.0385 0.0321 0.0255 0.0883 0.0000 2.0769 0.0321 0.0260 0.0896 0.0000 2.1154 0.0321 0.0265 0.0909 0.0000 2.1538 0.0321 0.0270 0.0921 0.0000 2.1923 0.0321 0.0276 0.0934 0.0000 2.2308 0.0321 0.0281 0.0946 0.0000 2.2692 0.0321 0.0286 0.0958 0.0000 2.3077 0.0321 0.0291 0.0970 0.0000 2.3462 0.0321 0.0296 0.0994 0.0000 2.3846 0.0321 0.0301 0.1017 0.0000 2.4231 0.0321 0.0306 0.1040 0.0000 2.4615 0.0321 0.0311 0.1063 0.0000 2.5000 0.0321 0.0317 0.1096 0.0000 2.5000 0.0321 0.0317 0.1096 0.0000 Bioretention Surface Hydraulic Table Stage(feet)Area(ac.)Volume(ac-ft.)Discharge(cfs)To Amended(cfs)Infilt(cfs) 2.5000 0.0321 0.0317 0.0000 0.1618 0.0000 2.5385 0.0329 0.0329 0.0000 0.1618 0.0000 2.5769 0.0337 0.0342 0.0000 0.1701 0.0000 2.6154 0.0345 0.0355 0.0000 0.1743 0.0000 2.6538 0.0353 0.0368 0.0000 0.1784 0.0000 2.6923 0.0361 0.0382 0.0000 0.1826 0.0000 2.7308 0.0369 0.0396 0.0000 0.1867 0.0000 2.7692 0.0377 0.0410 0.0000 0.1908 0.0000 2.8077 0.0385 0.0425 0.0000 0.1950 0.0000 2.8462 0.0393 0.0440 0.0000 0.1991 0.0000 2.8846 0.0402 0.0455 0.0000 0.2033 0.0000 2.9231 0.0410 0.0471 0.0000 0.2074 0.0000 2.9615 0.0418 0.0487 0.0000 0.2116 0.0000 3.0000 0.0426 0.0503 0.0000 0.2157 0.0000 3.0385 0.0434 0.0520 0.0800 0.2199 0.0000 3.0769 0.0443 0.0537 0.2257 0.2240 0.0000 3.1154 0.0451 0.0554 0.4122 0.2282 0.0000 3.1538 0.0459 0.0571 0.6273 0.2323 0.0000 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 33 3.1923 0.0468 0.0589 0.8600 0.2365 0.0000 3.2308 0.0476 0.0607 1.0991 0.2406 0.0000 3.2692 0.0485 0.0626 1.3333 0.2448 0.0000 3.3077 0.0493 0.0645 1.5516 0.2489 0.0000 3.3462 0.0501 0.0664 1.7445 0.2531 0.0000 3.3846 0.0510 0.0683 1.9054 0.2572 0.0000 3.4231 0.0518 0.0703 2.0318 0.2614 0.0000 3.4615 0.0527 0.0723 2.1274 0.2655 0.0000 3.5000 0.0536 0.0743 2.2033 0.2697 0.0000 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 34 BR B7 Bottom Length: 30.50 ft. Bottom Width: 10.00 ft. Material thickness of first layer: 1.5 Material type for first layer: BAHM 5 Material thickness of second layer: 1 Material type for second layer: GRAVEL Material thickness of third layer: 0 Material type for third layer: GRAVEL Underdrain used Underdrain Diameter (feet):0.333333333333333 Orifice Diameter (in.):2 Offset (in.):0 Flow Through Underdrain (ac-ft.):24.688 Total Outflow (ac-ft.):28.237 Percent Through Underdrain:87.43 Discharge Structure Riser Height:0.5 ft. Riser Diameter:12 in. Element Outlets: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Outlet Flows To: Bioretention Hydraulic Table Stage(feet)Area(ac.)Volume(ac-ft.)Discharge(cfs)Infilt(cfs) 0.0000 0.0070 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0385 0.0070 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0769 0.0070 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.1154 0.0070 0.0003 0.0000 0.0000 0.1538 0.0070 0.0004 0.0000 0.0000 0.1923 0.0070 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000 0.2308 0.0070 0.0006 0.0000 0.0000 0.2692 0.0070 0.0007 0.0000 0.0000 0.3077 0.0070 0.0008 0.0000 0.0000 0.3462 0.0070 0.0009 0.0000 0.0000 0.3846 0.0070 0.0010 0.0000 0.0000 0.4231 0.0070 0.0011 0.0016 0.0000 0.4615 0.0070 0.0012 0.0019 0.0000 0.5000 0.0070 0.0013 0.0022 0.0000 0.5385 0.0070 0.0014 0.0025 0.0000 0.5769 0.0070 0.0015 0.0029 0.0000 0.6154 0.0070 0.0016 0.0034 0.0000 0.6538 0.0070 0.0017 0.0039 0.0000 0.6923 0.0070 0.0018 0.0045 0.0000 0.7308 0.0070 0.0019 0.0051 0.0000 0.7692 0.0070 0.0020 0.0058 0.0000 0.8077 0.0070 0.0021 0.0065 0.0000 0.8462 0.0070 0.0023 0.0073 0.0000 0.8846 0.0070 0.0024 0.0081 0.0000 0.9231 0.0070 0.0025 0.0090 0.0000 0.9615 0.0070 0.0026 0.0091 0.0000 1.0000 0.0070 0.0027 0.0100 0.0000 1.0385 0.0070 0.0028 0.0111 0.0000 1.0769 0.0070 0.0029 0.0122 0.0000 1.1154 0.0070 0.0030 0.0134 0.0000 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 35 1.1538 0.0070 0.0031 0.0146 0.0000 1.1923 0.0070 0.0032 0.0159 0.0000 1.2308 0.0070 0.0033 0.0173 0.0000 1.2692 0.0070 0.0034 0.0188 0.0000 1.3077 0.0070 0.0035 0.0203 0.0000 1.3462 0.0070 0.0036 0.0215 0.0000 1.3846 0.0070 0.0037 0.0220 0.0000 1.4231 0.0070 0.0038 0.0236 0.0000 1.4615 0.0070 0.0039 0.0254 0.0000 1.5000 0.0070 0.0040 0.0273 0.0000 1.5385 0.0070 0.0041 0.0292 0.0000 1.5769 0.0070 0.0042 0.0312 0.0000 1.6154 0.0070 0.0043 0.0332 0.0000 1.6538 0.0070 0.0044 0.0366 0.0000 1.6923 0.0070 0.0046 0.0452 0.0000 1.7308 0.0070 0.0047 0.0471 0.0000 1.7692 0.0070 0.0048 0.0471 0.0000 1.8077 0.0070 0.0049 0.0471 0.0000 1.8462 0.0070 0.0050 0.0471 0.0000 1.8846 0.0070 0.0051 0.0471 0.0000 1.9231 0.0070 0.0052 0.0471 0.0000 1.9615 0.0070 0.0053 0.0471 0.0000 2.0000 0.0070 0.0055 0.0471 0.0000 2.0385 0.0070 0.0056 0.0471 0.0000 2.0769 0.0070 0.0057 0.0471 0.0000 2.1154 0.0070 0.0058 0.0471 0.0000 2.1538 0.0070 0.0059 0.0471 0.0000 2.1923 0.0070 0.0060 0.0471 0.0000 2.2308 0.0070 0.0061 0.0471 0.0000 2.2692 0.0070 0.0062 0.0471 0.0000 2.3077 0.0070 0.0063 0.0471 0.0000 2.3462 0.0070 0.0065 0.0471 0.0000 2.3846 0.0070 0.0066 0.0471 0.0000 2.4231 0.0070 0.0067 0.0471 0.0000 2.4615 0.0070 0.0068 0.0471 0.0000 2.5000 0.0070 0.0069 0.0471 0.0000 2.5000 0.0070 0.0069 0.0471 0.0000 Bioretention Surface Hydraulic Table Stage(feet)Area(ac.)Volume(ac-ft.)Discharge(cfs)To Amended(cfs)Infilt(cfs) 2.5000 0.0070 0.0069 0.0000 0.0353 0.0000 2.5385 0.0072 0.0072 0.0000 0.0353 0.0000 2.5769 0.0074 0.0075 0.0000 0.0371 0.0000 2.6154 0.0077 0.0078 0.0000 0.0380 0.0000 2.6538 0.0079 0.0081 0.0000 0.0389 0.0000 2.6923 0.0081 0.0084 0.0000 0.0398 0.0000 2.7308 0.0083 0.0087 0.0000 0.0407 0.0000 2.7692 0.0086 0.0090 0.0000 0.0416 0.0000 2.8077 0.0088 0.0093 0.0000 0.0425 0.0000 2.8462 0.0090 0.0097 0.0000 0.0434 0.0000 2.8846 0.0093 0.0100 0.0000 0.0444 0.0000 2.9231 0.0095 0.0104 0.0000 0.0453 0.0000 2.9615 0.0098 0.0108 0.0000 0.0462 0.0000 3.0000 0.0100 0.0111 0.0000 0.0471 0.0000 3.0385 0.0102 0.0115 0.0800 0.0480 0.0000 3.0769 0.0105 0.0119 0.2257 0.0489 0.0000 3.1154 0.0107 0.0123 0.4122 0.0498 0.0000 3.1538 0.0110 0.0128 0.6273 0.0507 0.0000 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 36 3.1923 0.0113 0.0132 0.8600 0.0516 0.0000 3.2308 0.0115 0.0136 1.0991 0.0525 0.0000 3.2692 0.0118 0.0141 1.3333 0.0534 0.0000 3.3077 0.0120 0.0145 1.5516 0.0543 0.0000 3.3462 0.0123 0.0150 1.7445 0.0552 0.0000 3.3846 0.0126 0.0155 1.9054 0.0561 0.0000 3.4231 0.0129 0.0160 2.0318 0.0570 0.0000 3.4615 0.0131 0.0165 2.1274 0.0579 0.0000 3.5000 0.0134 0.0170 2.2033 0.0588 0.0000 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 37 BR B8 Bottom Length: 37.10 ft. Bottom Width: 10.00 ft. Material thickness of first layer: 1.5 Material type for first layer: BAHM 5 Material thickness of second layer: 1 Material type for second layer: GRAVEL Material thickness of third layer: 0 Material type for third layer: GRAVEL Underdrain used Underdrain Diameter (feet):0.333333333333333 Orifice Diameter (in.):2 Offset (in.):0 Flow Through Underdrain (ac-ft.):23.936 Total Outflow (ac-ft.):25.754 Percent Through Underdrain:92.94 Discharge Structure Riser Height:0.5 ft. Riser Diameter:12 in. Element Outlets: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Outlet Flows To: Bioretention Hydraulic Table Stage(feet)Area(ac.)Volume(ac-ft.)Discharge(cfs)Infilt(cfs) 0.0000 0.0085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0385 0.0085 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0769 0.0085 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.1154 0.0085 0.0004 0.0000 0.0000 0.1538 0.0085 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000 0.1923 0.0085 0.0006 0.0000 0.0000 0.2308 0.0085 0.0007 0.0000 0.0000 0.2692 0.0085 0.0009 0.0000 0.0000 0.3077 0.0085 0.0010 0.0000 0.0000 0.3462 0.0085 0.0011 0.0000 0.0000 0.3846 0.0085 0.0012 0.0000 0.0000 0.4231 0.0085 0.0014 0.0019 0.0000 0.4615 0.0085 0.0015 0.0023 0.0000 0.5000 0.0085 0.0016 0.0026 0.0000 0.5385 0.0085 0.0017 0.0031 0.0000 0.5769 0.0085 0.0019 0.0036 0.0000 0.6154 0.0085 0.0020 0.0041 0.0000 0.6538 0.0085 0.0021 0.0048 0.0000 0.6923 0.0085 0.0022 0.0054 0.0000 0.7308 0.0085 0.0024 0.0062 0.0000 0.7692 0.0085 0.0025 0.0070 0.0000 0.8077 0.0085 0.0026 0.0079 0.0000 0.8462 0.0085 0.0027 0.0089 0.0000 0.8846 0.0085 0.0029 0.0099 0.0000 0.9231 0.0085 0.0030 0.0109 0.0000 0.9615 0.0085 0.0031 0.0110 0.0000 1.0000 0.0085 0.0032 0.0122 0.0000 1.0385 0.0085 0.0034 0.0135 0.0000 1.0769 0.0085 0.0035 0.0148 0.0000 1.1154 0.0085 0.0036 0.0163 0.0000 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 38 1.1538 0.0085 0.0037 0.0178 0.0000 1.1923 0.0085 0.0039 0.0194 0.0000 1.2308 0.0085 0.0040 0.0211 0.0000 1.2692 0.0085 0.0041 0.0229 0.0000 1.3077 0.0085 0.0042 0.0247 0.0000 1.3462 0.0085 0.0044 0.0262 0.0000 1.3846 0.0085 0.0045 0.0267 0.0000 1.4231 0.0085 0.0046 0.0288 0.0000 1.4615 0.0085 0.0047 0.0309 0.0000 1.5000 0.0085 0.0049 0.0332 0.0000 1.5385 0.0085 0.0050 0.0355 0.0000 1.5769 0.0085 0.0051 0.0366 0.0000 1.6154 0.0085 0.0053 0.0397 0.0000 1.6538 0.0085 0.0054 0.0417 0.0000 1.6923 0.0085 0.0055 0.0425 0.0000 1.7308 0.0085 0.0057 0.0501 0.0000 1.7692 0.0085 0.0058 0.0545 0.0000 1.8077 0.0085 0.0060 0.0573 0.0000 1.8462 0.0085 0.0061 0.0573 0.0000 1.8846 0.0085 0.0062 0.0573 0.0000 1.9231 0.0085 0.0064 0.0573 0.0000 1.9615 0.0085 0.0065 0.0573 0.0000 2.0000 0.0085 0.0066 0.0573 0.0000 2.0385 0.0085 0.0068 0.0573 0.0000 2.0769 0.0085 0.0069 0.0573 0.0000 2.1154 0.0085 0.0070 0.0573 0.0000 2.1538 0.0085 0.0072 0.0573 0.0000 2.1923 0.0085 0.0073 0.0573 0.0000 2.2308 0.0085 0.0074 0.0573 0.0000 2.2692 0.0085 0.0076 0.0573 0.0000 2.3077 0.0085 0.0077 0.0573 0.0000 2.3462 0.0085 0.0079 0.0573 0.0000 2.3846 0.0085 0.0080 0.0573 0.0000 2.4231 0.0085 0.0081 0.0573 0.0000 2.4615 0.0085 0.0083 0.0573 0.0000 2.5000 0.0085 0.0084 0.0573 0.0000 2.5000 0.0085 0.0084 0.0573 0.0000 Bioretention Surface Hydraulic Table Stage(feet)Area(ac.)Volume(ac-ft.)Discharge(cfs)To Amended(cfs)Infilt(cfs) 2.5000 0.0085 0.0084 0.0000 0.0429 0.0000 2.5385 0.0088 0.0087 0.0000 0.0429 0.0000 2.5769 0.0090 0.0091 0.0000 0.0451 0.0000 2.6154 0.0093 0.0094 0.0000 0.0462 0.0000 2.6538 0.0095 0.0098 0.0000 0.0473 0.0000 2.6923 0.0098 0.0102 0.0000 0.0484 0.0000 2.7308 0.0101 0.0105 0.0000 0.0495 0.0000 2.7692 0.0103 0.0109 0.0000 0.0506 0.0000 2.8077 0.0106 0.0113 0.0000 0.0517 0.0000 2.8462 0.0109 0.0117 0.0000 0.0528 0.0000 2.8846 0.0111 0.0122 0.0000 0.0540 0.0000 2.9231 0.0114 0.0126 0.0000 0.0551 0.0000 2.9615 0.0117 0.0130 0.0000 0.0562 0.0000 3.0000 0.0120 0.0135 0.0000 0.0573 0.0000 3.0385 0.0122 0.0140 0.0800 0.0584 0.0000 3.0769 0.0125 0.0144 0.2257 0.0595 0.0000 3.1154 0.0128 0.0149 0.4122 0.0606 0.0000 3.1538 0.0131 0.0154 0.6273 0.0617 0.0000 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 39 3.1923 0.0134 0.0159 0.8600 0.0628 0.0000 3.2308 0.0137 0.0165 1.0991 0.0639 0.0000 3.2692 0.0140 0.0170 1.3333 0.0650 0.0000 3.3077 0.0143 0.0175 1.5516 0.0661 0.0000 3.3462 0.0146 0.0181 1.7445 0.0672 0.0000 3.3846 0.0149 0.0187 1.9054 0.0683 0.0000 3.4231 0.0152 0.0192 2.0318 0.0694 0.0000 3.4615 0.0155 0.0198 2.1274 0.0705 0.0000 3.5000 0.0158 0.0204 2.2033 0.0716 0.0000 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 40 BR B9 Bottom Length: 34.60 ft. Bottom Width: 10.00 ft. Material thickness of first layer: 1.5 Material type for first layer: BAHM 5 Material thickness of second layer: 1 Material type for second layer: GRAVEL Material thickness of third layer: 0 Material type for third layer: GRAVEL Underdrain used Underdrain Diameter (feet):0.333333333333333 Orifice Diameter (in.):2 Offset (in.):0 Flow Through Underdrain (ac-ft.):25.053 Total Outflow (ac-ft.):27.774 Percent Through Underdrain:90.2 Discharge Structure Riser Height:0.5 ft. Riser Diameter:12 in. Element Outlets: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Outlet Flows To: Bioretention Hydraulic Table Stage(feet)Area(ac.)Volume(ac-ft.)Discharge(cfs)Infilt(cfs) 0.0000 0.0079 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0385 0.0079 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0769 0.0079 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.1154 0.0079 0.0003 0.0000 0.0000 0.1538 0.0079 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000 0.1923 0.0079 0.0006 0.0000 0.0000 0.2308 0.0079 0.0007 0.0000 0.0000 0.2692 0.0079 0.0008 0.0000 0.0000 0.3077 0.0079 0.0009 0.0000 0.0000 0.3462 0.0079 0.0010 0.0000 0.0000 0.3846 0.0079 0.0012 0.0000 0.0000 0.4231 0.0079 0.0013 0.0018 0.0000 0.4615 0.0079 0.0014 0.0021 0.0000 0.5000 0.0079 0.0015 0.0025 0.0000 0.5385 0.0079 0.0016 0.0029 0.0000 0.5769 0.0079 0.0017 0.0033 0.0000 0.6154 0.0079 0.0019 0.0039 0.0000 0.6538 0.0079 0.0020 0.0044 0.0000 0.6923 0.0079 0.0021 0.0051 0.0000 0.7308 0.0079 0.0022 0.0058 0.0000 0.7692 0.0079 0.0023 0.0065 0.0000 0.8077 0.0079 0.0024 0.0074 0.0000 0.8462 0.0079 0.0026 0.0083 0.0000 0.8846 0.0079 0.0027 0.0092 0.0000 0.9231 0.0079 0.0028 0.0102 0.0000 0.9615 0.0079 0.0029 0.0103 0.0000 1.0000 0.0079 0.0030 0.0114 0.0000 1.0385 0.0079 0.0031 0.0126 0.0000 1.0769 0.0079 0.0033 0.0138 0.0000 1.1154 0.0079 0.0034 0.0152 0.0000 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 41 1.1538 0.0079 0.0035 0.0166 0.0000 1.1923 0.0079 0.0036 0.0181 0.0000 1.2308 0.0079 0.0037 0.0197 0.0000 1.2692 0.0079 0.0038 0.0213 0.0000 1.3077 0.0079 0.0039 0.0231 0.0000 1.3462 0.0079 0.0041 0.0244 0.0000 1.3846 0.0079 0.0042 0.0249 0.0000 1.4231 0.0079 0.0043 0.0268 0.0000 1.4615 0.0079 0.0044 0.0288 0.0000 1.5000 0.0079 0.0045 0.0309 0.0000 1.5385 0.0079 0.0047 0.0331 0.0000 1.5769 0.0079 0.0048 0.0354 0.0000 1.6154 0.0079 0.0049 0.0366 0.0000 1.6538 0.0079 0.0050 0.0397 0.0000 1.6923 0.0079 0.0052 0.0452 0.0000 1.7308 0.0079 0.0053 0.0501 0.0000 1.7692 0.0079 0.0054 0.0534 0.0000 1.8077 0.0079 0.0056 0.0534 0.0000 1.8462 0.0079 0.0057 0.0534 0.0000 1.8846 0.0079 0.0058 0.0534 0.0000 1.9231 0.0079 0.0059 0.0534 0.0000 1.9615 0.0079 0.0061 0.0534 0.0000 2.0000 0.0079 0.0062 0.0534 0.0000 2.0385 0.0079 0.0063 0.0534 0.0000 2.0769 0.0079 0.0064 0.0534 0.0000 2.1154 0.0079 0.0066 0.0534 0.0000 2.1538 0.0079 0.0067 0.0534 0.0000 2.1923 0.0079 0.0068 0.0534 0.0000 2.2308 0.0079 0.0069 0.0534 0.0000 2.2692 0.0079 0.0071 0.0534 0.0000 2.3077 0.0079 0.0072 0.0534 0.0000 2.3462 0.0079 0.0073 0.0534 0.0000 2.3846 0.0079 0.0075 0.0534 0.0000 2.4231 0.0079 0.0076 0.0534 0.0000 2.4615 0.0079 0.0077 0.0534 0.0000 2.5000 0.0079 0.0078 0.0534 0.0000 2.5000 0.0079 0.0078 0.0534 0.0000 Bioretention Surface Hydraulic Table Stage(feet)Area(ac.)Volume(ac-ft.)Discharge(cfs)To Amended(cfs)Infilt(cfs) 2.5000 0.0079 0.0078 0.0000 0.0400 0.0000 2.5385 0.0082 0.0081 0.0000 0.0400 0.0000 2.5769 0.0084 0.0085 0.0000 0.0421 0.0000 2.6154 0.0087 0.0088 0.0000 0.0431 0.0000 2.6538 0.0089 0.0091 0.0000 0.0442 0.0000 2.6923 0.0092 0.0095 0.0000 0.0452 0.0000 2.7308 0.0094 0.0098 0.0000 0.0462 0.0000 2.7692 0.0097 0.0102 0.0000 0.0472 0.0000 2.8077 0.0099 0.0106 0.0000 0.0483 0.0000 2.8462 0.0102 0.0110 0.0000 0.0493 0.0000 2.8846 0.0104 0.0114 0.0000 0.0503 0.0000 2.9231 0.0107 0.0118 0.0000 0.0513 0.0000 2.9615 0.0110 0.0122 0.0000 0.0524 0.0000 3.0000 0.0112 0.0126 0.0000 0.0534 0.0000 3.0385 0.0115 0.0130 0.0800 0.0544 0.0000 3.0769 0.0118 0.0135 0.2257 0.0554 0.0000 3.1154 0.0120 0.0140 0.4122 0.0565 0.0000 3.1538 0.0123 0.0144 0.6273 0.0575 0.0000 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 42 3.1923 0.0126 0.0149 0.8600 0.0585 0.0000 3.2308 0.0129 0.0154 1.0991 0.0596 0.0000 3.2692 0.0132 0.0159 1.3333 0.0606 0.0000 3.3077 0.0134 0.0164 1.5516 0.0616 0.0000 3.3462 0.0137 0.0169 1.7445 0.0626 0.0000 3.3846 0.0140 0.0175 1.9054 0.0637 0.0000 3.4231 0.0143 0.0180 2.0318 0.0647 0.0000 3.4615 0.0146 0.0186 2.1274 0.0657 0.0000 3.5000 0.0149 0.0191 2.2033 0.0667 0.0000 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 43 BR B10 Bottom Length: 36.30 ft. Bottom Width: 10.00 ft. Material thickness of first layer: 1.5 Material type for first layer: BAHM 5 Material thickness of second layer: 1 Material type for second layer: GRAVEL Material thickness of third layer: 0 Material type for third layer: GRAVEL Underdrain used Underdrain Diameter (feet):0.333333333333333 Orifice Diameter (in.):2 Offset (in.):0 Flow Through Underdrain (ac-ft.):27.995 Total Outflow (ac-ft.):31.519 Percent Through Underdrain:88.82 Discharge Structure Riser Height:0.5 ft. Riser Diameter:12 in. Element Outlets: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Outlet Flows To: Bioretention Hydraulic Table Stage(feet)Area(ac.)Volume(ac-ft.)Discharge(cfs)Infilt(cfs) 0.0000 0.0083 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0385 0.0083 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0769 0.0083 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.1154 0.0083 0.0004 0.0000 0.0000 0.1538 0.0083 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000 0.1923 0.0083 0.0006 0.0000 0.0000 0.2308 0.0083 0.0007 0.0000 0.0000 0.2692 0.0083 0.0009 0.0000 0.0000 0.3077 0.0083 0.0010 0.0000 0.0000 0.3462 0.0083 0.0011 0.0000 0.0000 0.3846 0.0083 0.0012 0.0000 0.0000 0.4231 0.0083 0.0013 0.0019 0.0000 0.4615 0.0083 0.0015 0.0022 0.0000 0.5000 0.0083 0.0016 0.0026 0.0000 0.5385 0.0083 0.0017 0.0030 0.0000 0.5769 0.0083 0.0018 0.0035 0.0000 0.6154 0.0083 0.0019 0.0041 0.0000 0.6538 0.0083 0.0021 0.0047 0.0000 0.6923 0.0083 0.0022 0.0053 0.0000 0.7308 0.0083 0.0023 0.0061 0.0000 0.7692 0.0083 0.0024 0.0069 0.0000 0.8077 0.0083 0.0026 0.0077 0.0000 0.8462 0.0083 0.0027 0.0087 0.0000 0.8846 0.0083 0.0028 0.0097 0.0000 0.9231 0.0083 0.0029 0.0107 0.0000 0.9615 0.0083 0.0030 0.0108 0.0000 1.0000 0.0083 0.0032 0.0120 0.0000 1.0385 0.0083 0.0033 0.0132 0.0000 1.0769 0.0083 0.0034 0.0145 0.0000 1.1154 0.0083 0.0035 0.0159 0.0000 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 44 1.1538 0.0083 0.0037 0.0174 0.0000 1.1923 0.0083 0.0038 0.0190 0.0000 1.2308 0.0083 0.0039 0.0206 0.0000 1.2692 0.0083 0.0040 0.0224 0.0000 1.3077 0.0083 0.0041 0.0242 0.0000 1.3462 0.0083 0.0043 0.0256 0.0000 1.3846 0.0083 0.0044 0.0261 0.0000 1.4231 0.0083 0.0045 0.0281 0.0000 1.4615 0.0083 0.0046 0.0302 0.0000 1.5000 0.0083 0.0048 0.0324 0.0000 1.5385 0.0083 0.0049 0.0347 0.0000 1.5769 0.0083 0.0050 0.0366 0.0000 1.6154 0.0083 0.0052 0.0395 0.0000 1.6538 0.0083 0.0053 0.0397 0.0000 1.6923 0.0083 0.0054 0.0452 0.0000 1.7308 0.0083 0.0056 0.0501 0.0000 1.7692 0.0083 0.0057 0.0545 0.0000 1.8077 0.0083 0.0058 0.0560 0.0000 1.8462 0.0083 0.0060 0.0560 0.0000 1.8846 0.0083 0.0061 0.0560 0.0000 1.9231 0.0083 0.0062 0.0560 0.0000 1.9615 0.0083 0.0064 0.0560 0.0000 2.0000 0.0083 0.0065 0.0560 0.0000 2.0385 0.0083 0.0066 0.0560 0.0000 2.0769 0.0083 0.0068 0.0560 0.0000 2.1154 0.0083 0.0069 0.0560 0.0000 2.1538 0.0083 0.0070 0.0560 0.0000 2.1923 0.0083 0.0072 0.0560 0.0000 2.2308 0.0083 0.0073 0.0560 0.0000 2.2692 0.0083 0.0074 0.0560 0.0000 2.3077 0.0083 0.0076 0.0560 0.0000 2.3462 0.0083 0.0077 0.0560 0.0000 2.3846 0.0083 0.0078 0.0560 0.0000 2.4231 0.0083 0.0080 0.0560 0.0000 2.4615 0.0083 0.0081 0.0560 0.0000 2.5000 0.0083 0.0082 0.0560 0.0000 2.5000 0.0083 0.0082 0.0560 0.0000 Bioretention Surface Hydraulic Table Stage(feet)Area(ac.)Volume(ac-ft.)Discharge(cfs)To Amended(cfs)Infilt(cfs) 2.5000 0.0083 0.0082 0.0000 0.0420 0.0000 2.5385 0.0086 0.0085 0.0000 0.0420 0.0000 2.5769 0.0088 0.0089 0.0000 0.0442 0.0000 2.6154 0.0091 0.0092 0.0000 0.0452 0.0000 2.6538 0.0093 0.0096 0.0000 0.0463 0.0000 2.6923 0.0096 0.0099 0.0000 0.0474 0.0000 2.7308 0.0098 0.0103 0.0000 0.0485 0.0000 2.7692 0.0101 0.0107 0.0000 0.0496 0.0000 2.8077 0.0104 0.0111 0.0000 0.0506 0.0000 2.8462 0.0106 0.0115 0.0000 0.0517 0.0000 2.8846 0.0109 0.0119 0.0000 0.0528 0.0000 2.9231 0.0112 0.0123 0.0000 0.0539 0.0000 2.9615 0.0115 0.0128 0.0000 0.0549 0.0000 3.0000 0.0117 0.0132 0.0000 0.0560 0.0000 3.0385 0.0120 0.0137 0.0800 0.0571 0.0000 3.0769 0.0123 0.0141 0.2257 0.0582 0.0000 3.1154 0.0126 0.0146 0.4122 0.0593 0.0000 3.1538 0.0129 0.0151 0.6273 0.0603 0.0000 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 45 3.1923 0.0131 0.0156 0.8600 0.0614 0.0000 3.2308 0.0134 0.0161 1.0991 0.0625 0.0000 3.2692 0.0137 0.0166 1.3333 0.0636 0.0000 3.3077 0.0140 0.0172 1.5516 0.0646 0.0000 3.3462 0.0143 0.0177 1.7445 0.0657 0.0000 3.3846 0.0146 0.0183 1.9054 0.0668 0.0000 3.4231 0.0149 0.0188 2.0318 0.0679 0.0000 3.4615 0.0152 0.0194 2.1274 0.0689 0.0000 3.5000 0.0155 0.0200 2.2033 0.0700 0.0000 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 46 BR B11 Bottom Length: 23.80 ft. Bottom Width: 10.00 ft. Material thickness of first layer: 1.5 Material type for first layer: BAHM 5 Material thickness of second layer: 1 Material type for second layer: GRAVEL Material thickness of third layer: 0 Material type for third layer: GRAVEL Underdrain used Underdrain Diameter (feet):0.333333333333333 Orifice Diameter (in.):2 Offset (in.):0 Flow Through Underdrain (ac-ft.):16.253 Total Outflow (ac-ft.):17.799 Percent Through Underdrain:91.31 Discharge Structure Riser Height:0.5 ft. Riser Diameter:12 in. Element Outlets: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Outlet Flows To: Bioretention Hydraulic Table Stage(feet)Area(ac.)Volume(ac-ft.)Discharge(cfs)Infilt(cfs) 0.0000 0.0055 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0385 0.0055 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0769 0.0055 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.1154 0.0055 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.1538 0.0055 0.0003 0.0000 0.0000 0.1923 0.0055 0.0004 0.0000 0.0000 0.2308 0.0055 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000 0.2692 0.0055 0.0006 0.0000 0.0000 0.3077 0.0055 0.0006 0.0000 0.0000 0.3462 0.0055 0.0007 0.0000 0.0000 0.3846 0.0055 0.0008 0.0000 0.0000 0.4231 0.0055 0.0009 0.0012 0.0000 0.4615 0.0055 0.0010 0.0015 0.0000 0.5000 0.0055 0.0010 0.0017 0.0000 0.5385 0.0055 0.0011 0.0020 0.0000 0.5769 0.0055 0.0012 0.0023 0.0000 0.6154 0.0055 0.0013 0.0027 0.0000 0.6538 0.0055 0.0014 0.0031 0.0000 0.6923 0.0055 0.0014 0.0035 0.0000 0.7308 0.0055 0.0015 0.0040 0.0000 0.7692 0.0055 0.0016 0.0045 0.0000 0.8077 0.0055 0.0017 0.0051 0.0000 0.8462 0.0055 0.0018 0.0057 0.0000 0.8846 0.0055 0.0018 0.0064 0.0000 0.9231 0.0055 0.0019 0.0070 0.0000 0.9615 0.0055 0.0020 0.0071 0.0000 1.0000 0.0055 0.0021 0.0078 0.0000 1.0385 0.0055 0.0022 0.0087 0.0000 1.0769 0.0055 0.0022 0.0095 0.0000 1.1154 0.0055 0.0023 0.0104 0.0000 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 47 1.1538 0.0055 0.0024 0.0114 0.0000 1.1923 0.0055 0.0025 0.0124 0.0000 1.2308 0.0055 0.0026 0.0135 0.0000 1.2692 0.0055 0.0026 0.0147 0.0000 1.3077 0.0055 0.0027 0.0159 0.0000 1.3462 0.0055 0.0028 0.0168 0.0000 1.3846 0.0055 0.0029 0.0171 0.0000 1.4231 0.0055 0.0030 0.0185 0.0000 1.4615 0.0055 0.0030 0.0198 0.0000 1.5000 0.0055 0.0031 0.0213 0.0000 1.5385 0.0055 0.0032 0.0228 0.0000 1.5769 0.0055 0.0033 0.0243 0.0000 1.6154 0.0055 0.0034 0.0259 0.0000 1.6538 0.0055 0.0035 0.0366 0.0000 1.6923 0.0055 0.0036 0.0367 0.0000 1.7308 0.0055 0.0036 0.0367 0.0000 1.7692 0.0055 0.0037 0.0367 0.0000 1.8077 0.0055 0.0038 0.0367 0.0000 1.8462 0.0055 0.0039 0.0367 0.0000 1.8846 0.0055 0.0040 0.0367 0.0000 1.9231 0.0055 0.0041 0.0367 0.0000 1.9615 0.0055 0.0042 0.0367 0.0000 2.0000 0.0055 0.0043 0.0367 0.0000 2.0385 0.0055 0.0043 0.0367 0.0000 2.0769 0.0055 0.0044 0.0367 0.0000 2.1154 0.0055 0.0045 0.0367 0.0000 2.1538 0.0055 0.0046 0.0367 0.0000 2.1923 0.0055 0.0047 0.0367 0.0000 2.2308 0.0055 0.0048 0.0367 0.0000 2.2692 0.0055 0.0049 0.0367 0.0000 2.3077 0.0055 0.0050 0.0367 0.0000 2.3462 0.0055 0.0050 0.0367 0.0000 2.3846 0.0055 0.0051 0.0367 0.0000 2.4231 0.0055 0.0052 0.0367 0.0000 2.4615 0.0055 0.0053 0.0367 0.0000 2.5000 0.0055 0.0054 0.0367 0.0000 2.5000 0.0055 0.0054 0.0367 0.0000 Bioretention Surface Hydraulic Table Stage(feet)Area(ac.)Volume(ac-ft.)Discharge(cfs)To Amended(cfs)Infilt(cfs) 2.5000 0.0055 0.0054 0.0000 0.0275 0.0000 2.5385 0.0056 0.0056 0.0000 0.0275 0.0000 2.5769 0.0058 0.0058 0.0000 0.0290 0.0000 2.6154 0.0060 0.0061 0.0000 0.0297 0.0000 2.6538 0.0062 0.0063 0.0000 0.0304 0.0000 2.6923 0.0064 0.0065 0.0000 0.0311 0.0000 2.7308 0.0066 0.0068 0.0000 0.0318 0.0000 2.7692 0.0068 0.0070 0.0000 0.0325 0.0000 2.8077 0.0070 0.0073 0.0000 0.0332 0.0000 2.8462 0.0072 0.0076 0.0000 0.0339 0.0000 2.8846 0.0074 0.0079 0.0000 0.0346 0.0000 2.9231 0.0076 0.0081 0.0000 0.0353 0.0000 2.9615 0.0078 0.0084 0.0000 0.0360 0.0000 3.0000 0.0080 0.0087 0.0000 0.0367 0.0000 3.0385 0.0082 0.0090 0.0800 0.0374 0.0000 3.0769 0.0084 0.0094 0.2257 0.0381 0.0000 3.1154 0.0086 0.0097 0.4122 0.0388 0.0000 3.1538 0.0089 0.0100 0.6273 0.0396 0.0000 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 48 3.1923 0.0091 0.0104 0.8600 0.0403 0.0000 3.2308 0.0093 0.0107 1.0991 0.0410 0.0000 3.2692 0.0095 0.0111 1.3333 0.0417 0.0000 3.3077 0.0098 0.0115 1.5516 0.0424 0.0000 3.3462 0.0100 0.0118 1.7445 0.0431 0.0000 3.3846 0.0102 0.0122 1.9054 0.0438 0.0000 3.4231 0.0105 0.0126 2.0318 0.0445 0.0000 3.4615 0.0107 0.0130 2.1274 0.0452 0.0000 3.5000 0.0109 0.0135 2.2033 0.0459 0.0000 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 49 DMA A PP Pavement Area:0.2086 acre.Pavement Length: 413.00 ft. Pavement Width: 22.00 ft. Pavement slope 1:0 To 1 Pavement thickness: 0.333 Pour Space of Pavement: 0.2 Material thickness of second layer: 0.75 Pour Space of material for second layer: 0.4 Material thickness of third layer: 0 Pour Space of material for third layer: 0 Infiltration On Infiltration rate:0.3 Infiltration reduction factor:0.5 Total Volume Infiltrated (ac-ft.):52.742 Total Volume Through Riser (ac-ft.):0.812 Total Volume Through Facility (ac-ft.):53.554 Percent Infiltrated:98.48 Total Precip Applied to Facility:0 Total Evap From Facility:1.558 Discharge Structure Riser Height:2.08 ft. Riser Diameter:264 in. Notch Type:Rectangular Notch Width:5.000 ft. Notch Height:0.497 ft. Element Outlets: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Outlet Flows To: Permeable Pavement Hydraulic Table Stage(feet)Area(ac.)Volume(ac-ft.)Discharge(cfs)Infilt(cfs) 0.0000 0.208 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0231 0.208 0.001 0.000 0.031 0.0462 0.208 0.003 0.000 0.031 0.0693 0.208 0.005 0.000 0.031 0.0924 0.208 0.007 0.000 0.031 0.1156 0.208 0.009 0.000 0.031 0.1387 0.208 0.011 0.000 0.031 0.1618 0.208 0.013 0.000 0.031 0.1849 0.208 0.015 0.000 0.031 0.2080 0.208 0.017 0.000 0.031 0.2311 0.208 0.019 0.000 0.031 0.2542 0.208 0.021 0.000 0.031 0.2773 0.208 0.023 0.000 0.031 0.3004 0.208 0.025 0.000 0.031 0.3236 0.208 0.027 0.000 0.031 0.3467 0.208 0.028 0.000 0.031 0.3698 0.208 0.030 0.000 0.031 0.3929 0.208 0.032 0.000 0.031 0.4160 0.208 0.034 0.000 0.031 0.4391 0.208 0.036 0.000 0.031 0.4622 0.208 0.038 0.000 0.031 0.4853 0.208 0.040 0.000 0.031 0.5084 0.208 0.042 0.000 0.031 0.5316 0.208 0.044 0.000 0.031 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 50 0.5547 0.208 0.046 0.000 0.031 0.5778 0.208 0.048 0.000 0.031 0.6009 0.208 0.050 0.000 0.031 0.6240 0.208 0.052 0.000 0.031 0.6471 0.208 0.054 0.000 0.031 0.6702 0.208 0.055 0.000 0.031 0.6933 0.208 0.057 0.000 0.031 0.7164 0.208 0.059 0.000 0.031 0.7396 0.208 0.061 0.000 0.031 0.7627 0.208 0.062 0.000 0.031 0.7858 0.208 0.063 0.000 0.031 0.8089 0.208 0.064 0.000 0.031 0.8320 0.208 0.065 0.000 0.031 0.8551 0.208 0.066 0.000 0.031 0.8782 0.208 0.067 0.000 0.031 0.9013 0.208 0.068 0.000 0.031 0.9244 0.208 0.069 0.000 0.031 0.9476 0.208 0.070 0.000 0.031 0.9707 0.208 0.071 0.000 0.031 0.9938 0.208 0.072 0.000 0.031 1.0169 0.208 0.073 0.000 0.031 1.0400 0.208 0.074 0.000 0.031 1.0631 0.208 0.075 0.000 0.031 1.0862 0.208 0.080 0.000 0.031 1.1093 0.208 0.084 0.000 0.031 1.1324 0.208 0.089 0.000 0.031 1.1556 0.208 0.094 0.000 0.031 1.1787 0.208 0.099 0.000 0.031 1.2018 0.208 0.104 0.000 0.031 1.2249 0.208 0.108 0.000 0.031 1.2480 0.208 0.113 0.000 0.031 1.2711 0.208 0.118 0.000 0.031 1.2942 0.208 0.123 0.000 0.031 1.3173 0.208 0.128 0.000 0.031 1.3404 0.208 0.133 0.000 0.031 1.3636 0.208 0.137 0.000 0.031 1.3867 0.208 0.142 0.000 0.031 1.4098 0.208 0.147 0.000 0.031 1.4329 0.208 0.152 0.000 0.031 1.4560 0.208 0.157 0.000 0.031 1.4791 0.208 0.162 0.000 0.031 1.5022 0.208 0.166 0.000 0.031 1.5253 0.208 0.171 0.000 0.031 1.5484 0.208 0.176 0.000 0.031 1.5716 0.208 0.181 0.000 0.031 1.5947 0.208 0.186 0.021 0.031 1.6178 0.208 0.190 0.108 0.031 1.6409 0.208 0.195 0.231 0.031 1.6640 0.208 0.200 0.383 0.031 1.6871 0.208 0.205 0.559 0.031 1.7102 0.208 0.210 0.755 0.031 1.7333 0.208 0.215 0.970 0.031 1.7564 0.208 0.219 1.202 0.031 1.7796 0.208 0.224 1.450 0.031 1.8027 0.208 0.229 1.714 0.031 1.8258 0.208 0.234 1.991 0.031 1.8489 0.208 0.239 2.282 0.031 1.8720 0.208 0.243 2.586 0.031 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 51 1.8951 0.208 0.248 2.903 0.031 1.9182 0.208 0.253 3.231 0.031 1.9413 0.208 0.258 3.571 0.031 1.9644 0.208 0.263 3.922 0.031 1.9876 0.208 0.268 4.284 0.031 2.0107 0.208 0.272 4.656 0.031 2.0338 0.208 0.277 5.039 0.031 2.0569 0.208 0.282 5.431 0.031 2.0800 0.208 0.287 5.833 0.031 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 52 DMA B1 PP Pavement Area:0.0752 acre.Pavement Length: 156.00 ft. Pavement Width: 21.00 ft. Pavement slope 1:0 To 1 Pavement thickness: 0.333 Pour Space of Pavement: 0.2 Material thickness of second layer: 0.75 Pour Space of material for second layer: 0.4 Material thickness of third layer: 0 Pour Space of material for third layer: 0 Infiltration On Infiltration rate:0.3 Infiltration reduction factor:0.5 Total Volume Infiltrated (ac-ft.):21.995 Total Volume Through Riser (ac-ft.):0.224 Total Volume Through Facility (ac-ft.):22.219 Percent Infiltrated:98.99 Total Precip Applied to Facility:0 Total Evap From Facility:0.549 Discharge Structure Riser Height:2.08 ft. Riser Diameter:252 in. Notch Type:Rectangular Notch Width:5.000 ft. Notch Height:0.497 ft. Element Outlets: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Outlet Flows To: Permeable Pavement Hydraulic Table Stage(feet)Area(ac.)Volume(ac-ft.)Discharge(cfs)Infilt(cfs) 0.0000 0.075 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0231 0.075 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.0462 0.075 0.001 0.000 0.011 0.0693 0.075 0.002 0.000 0.011 0.0924 0.075 0.002 0.000 0.011 0.1156 0.075 0.003 0.000 0.011 0.1387 0.075 0.004 0.000 0.011 0.1618 0.075 0.004 0.000 0.011 0.1849 0.075 0.005 0.000 0.011 0.2080 0.075 0.006 0.000 0.011 0.2311 0.075 0.007 0.000 0.011 0.2542 0.075 0.007 0.000 0.011 0.2773 0.075 0.008 0.000 0.011 0.3004 0.075 0.009 0.000 0.011 0.3236 0.075 0.009 0.000 0.011 0.3467 0.075 0.010 0.000 0.011 0.3698 0.075 0.011 0.000 0.011 0.3929 0.075 0.011 0.000 0.011 0.4160 0.075 0.012 0.000 0.011 0.4391 0.075 0.013 0.000 0.011 0.4622 0.075 0.013 0.000 0.011 0.4853 0.075 0.014 0.000 0.011 0.5084 0.075 0.015 0.000 0.011 0.5316 0.075 0.016 0.000 0.011 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 53 0.5547 0.075 0.016 0.000 0.011 0.5778 0.075 0.017 0.000 0.011 0.6009 0.075 0.018 0.000 0.011 0.6240 0.075 0.018 0.000 0.011 0.6471 0.075 0.019 0.000 0.011 0.6702 0.075 0.020 0.000 0.011 0.6933 0.075 0.020 0.000 0.011 0.7164 0.075 0.021 0.000 0.011 0.7396 0.075 0.022 0.000 0.011 0.7627 0.075 0.022 0.000 0.011 0.7858 0.075 0.022 0.000 0.011 0.8089 0.075 0.023 0.000 0.011 0.8320 0.075 0.023 0.000 0.011 0.8551 0.075 0.024 0.000 0.011 0.8782 0.075 0.024 0.000 0.011 0.9013 0.075 0.024 0.000 0.011 0.9244 0.075 0.025 0.000 0.011 0.9476 0.075 0.025 0.000 0.011 0.9707 0.075 0.025 0.000 0.011 0.9938 0.075 0.026 0.000 0.011 1.0169 0.075 0.026 0.000 0.011 1.0400 0.075 0.026 0.000 0.011 1.0631 0.075 0.027 0.000 0.011 1.0862 0.075 0.028 0.000 0.011 1.1093 0.075 0.030 0.000 0.011 1.1324 0.075 0.032 0.000 0.011 1.1556 0.075 0.034 0.000 0.011 1.1787 0.075 0.035 0.000 0.011 1.2018 0.075 0.037 0.000 0.011 1.2249 0.075 0.039 0.000 0.011 1.2480 0.075 0.041 0.000 0.011 1.2711 0.075 0.042 0.000 0.011 1.2942 0.075 0.044 0.000 0.011 1.3173 0.075 0.046 0.000 0.011 1.3404 0.075 0.048 0.000 0.011 1.3636 0.075 0.049 0.000 0.011 1.3867 0.075 0.051 0.000 0.011 1.4098 0.075 0.053 0.000 0.011 1.4329 0.075 0.054 0.000 0.011 1.4560 0.075 0.056 0.000 0.011 1.4791 0.075 0.058 0.000 0.011 1.5022 0.075 0.060 0.000 0.011 1.5253 0.075 0.061 0.000 0.011 1.5484 0.075 0.063 0.000 0.011 1.5716 0.075 0.065 0.000 0.011 1.5947 0.075 0.067 0.021 0.011 1.6178 0.075 0.068 0.108 0.011 1.6409 0.075 0.070 0.231 0.011 1.6640 0.075 0.072 0.383 0.011 1.6871 0.075 0.074 0.559 0.011 1.7102 0.075 0.075 0.755 0.011 1.7333 0.075 0.077 0.970 0.011 1.7564 0.075 0.079 1.202 0.011 1.7796 0.075 0.081 1.450 0.011 1.8027 0.075 0.082 1.714 0.011 1.8258 0.075 0.084 1.991 0.011 1.8489 0.075 0.086 2.282 0.011 1.8720 0.075 0.087 2.586 0.011 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 54 1.8951 0.075 0.089 2.903 0.011 1.9182 0.075 0.091 3.231 0.011 1.9413 0.075 0.093 3.571 0.011 1.9644 0.075 0.094 3.922 0.011 1.9876 0.075 0.096 4.284 0.011 2.0107 0.075 0.098 4.656 0.011 2.0338 0.075 0.100 5.039 0.011 2.0569 0.075 0.101 5.431 0.011 2.0800 0.075 0.103 5.833 0.011 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:00:44 PM Page 55 Analysis Results POC 1 + Pre-Project x Mitigated Pre-Project Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:14.8751 Total Impervious Area:0.0046 Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:12.3867 Total Impervious Area:2.508093 Flow Frequency Method:Weibull Flow Frequency Return Periods for Pre-Project. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 8.86219 5 year 13.810125 10 year 16.1301 25 year 23.351553 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 6.99226 5 year 10.835944 10 year 12.610544 25 year 17.774469 Annual Peaks Annual Peaks for Pre-Project and Mitigated. POC #1 Year Pre-Project Mitigated 1960 4.930 4.191 1961 3.098 2.690 1962 9.369 7.527 1963 10.306 8.534 1964 13.785 10.854 1965 6.373 5.299 1966 3.503 3.132 1967 10.273 8.184 1968 14.284 11.272 1969 8.311 6.708 1970 9.537 7.632 1971 8.467 6.788 1972 3.295 2.857 1973 10.927 8.607 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:01:16 PM Page 56 1974 7.829 6.259 1975 8.737 6.916 1976 0.145 0.382 1977 1.593 1.607 1978 7.266 5.892 1979 9.009 7.181 1980 11.521 9.103 1981 4.309 3.678 1982 13.919 10.832 1983 10.557 8.450 1984 5.977 4.759 1985 12.417 9.833 1986 10.507 8.354 1987 4.043 3.509 1988 7.001 5.737 1989 3.093 2.563 1990 5.548 4.697 1991 7.111 5.786 1992 10.105 8.058 1993 10.238 8.119 1994 7.039 5.721 1995 8.457 6.821 1996 16.653 12.825 1997 8.220 6.632 1998 8.862 6.992 1999 3.926 3.248 2000 8.100 6.509 2001 2.814 2.358 2002 1.740 1.655 2003 15.130 11.708 2004 26.274 19.963 2005 10.965 8.485 2006 7.023 5.586 2007 4.244 3.589 2008 9.163 7.377 2009 14.200 11.129 2010 18.664 14.288 2011 11.409 8.839 2012 10.868 8.558 2013 27.364 20.977 2014 16.208 12.697 2015 16.030 12.499 2016 15.331 11.982 2017 21.821 16.628 2018 3.994 3.485 2019 8.565 6.918 2020 12.321 9.561 2021 7.547 6.178 2022 11.853 9.277 Ranked Annual Peaks Ranked Annual Peaks for Pre-Project and Mitigated. POC #1 Rank Pre-Project Mitigated 1 27.3640 20.9769 2 26.2739 19.9628 3 21.8208 16.6282 4 18.6638 14.2881 5 16.6533 12.8250 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:01:16 PM Page 57 6 16.2078 12.6973 7 16.0302 12.4990 8 15.3306 11.9817 9 15.1303 11.7076 10 14.2843 11.2715 11 14.2000 11.1291 12 13.9190 10.8539 13 13.7850 10.8318 14 12.4169 9.8326 15 12.3208 9.5607 16 11.8533 9.2766 17 11.5212 9.1034 18 11.4093 8.8394 19 10.9651 8.6074 20 10.9270 8.5584 21 10.8680 8.5344 22 10.5568 8.4850 23 10.5065 8.4499 24 10.3055 8.3542 25 10.2729 8.1842 26 10.2378 8.1188 27 10.1050 8.0582 28 9.5371 7.6317 29 9.3694 7.5267 30 9.1625 7.3768 31 9.0094 7.1805 32 8.8622 6.9923 33 8.7367 6.9183 34 8.5647 6.9165 35 8.4674 6.8211 36 8.4568 6.7876 37 8.3107 6.7081 38 8.2201 6.6319 39 8.0997 6.5086 40 7.8295 6.2590 41 7.5470 6.1776 42 7.2661 5.8915 43 7.1112 5.7858 44 7.0387 5.7374 45 7.0228 5.7209 46 7.0013 5.5859 47 6.3727 5.2989 48 5.9773 4.7592 49 5.5479 4.6967 50 4.9300 4.1907 51 4.3089 3.6778 52 4.2444 3.5888 53 4.0433 3.5089 54 3.9935 3.4846 55 3.9260 3.2481 56 3.5027 3.1316 57 3.2951 2.8570 58 3.0984 2.6898 59 3.0929 2.5634 60 2.8145 2.3576 61 1.7395 1.6549 62 1.5933 1.6075 63 0.1447 0.3825 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:01:16 PM Page 58 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:01:16 PM Page 59 Duration Flows The Facility PASSED Flow(cfs)Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fail 0.8862 2875 2936 102 Pass 1.0402 2560 2514 98 Pass 1.1942 2253 2146 95 Pass 1.3482 1985 1891 95 Pass 1.5021 1747 1661 95 Pass 1.6561 1563 1448 92 Pass 1.8101 1426 1290 90 Pass 1.9641 1285 1143 88 Pass 2.1180 1177 1039 88 Pass 2.2720 1065 925 86 Pass 2.4260 973 823 84 Pass 2.5800 881 747 84 Pass 2.7340 815 683 83 Pass 2.8879 749 622 83 Pass 3.0419 712 559 78 Pass 3.1959 661 512 77 Pass 3.3499 613 468 76 Pass 3.5039 573 428 74 Pass 3.6578 529 389 73 Pass 3.8118 494 357 72 Pass 3.9658 458 320 69 Pass 4.1198 422 295 69 Pass 4.2737 394 273 69 Pass 4.4277 374 255 68 Pass 4.5817 347 236 68 Pass 4.7357 318 215 67 Pass 4.8897 297 205 69 Pass 5.0436 285 201 70 Pass 5.1976 265 189 71 Pass 5.3516 253 177 69 Pass 5.5056 237 169 71 Pass 5.6596 222 156 70 Pass 5.8135 213 141 66 Pass 5.9675 205 129 62 Pass 6.1215 200 127 63 Pass 6.2755 193 116 60 Pass 6.4294 183 110 60 Pass 6.5834 176 103 58 Pass 6.7374 167 95 56 Pass 6.8914 162 86 53 Pass 7.0454 150 79 52 Pass 7.1993 142 75 52 Pass 7.3533 131 73 55 Pass 7.5073 128 69 53 Pass 7.6613 119 64 53 Pass 7.8153 119 62 52 Pass 7.9692 112 59 52 Pass 8.1232 104 50 48 Pass 8.2772 100 47 47 Pass 8.4312 93 41 44 Pass 8.5851 84 35 41 Pass 8.7391 80 33 41 Pass 8.8931 78 30 38 Pass 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:01:16 PM Page 60 9.0471 73 29 39 Pass 9.2011 72 27 37 Pass 9.3550 69 26 37 Pass 9.5090 66 26 39 Pass 9.6630 64 24 37 Pass 9.8170 61 23 37 Pass 9.9710 58 21 36 Pass 10.1249 55 21 38 Pass 10.2789 51 19 37 Pass 10.4329 45 18 40 Pass 10.5869 41 17 41 Pass 10.7408 38 17 44 Pass 10.8948 36 14 38 Pass 11.0488 33 14 42 Pass 11.2028 32 11 34 Pass 11.3568 30 10 33 Pass 11.5107 29 10 34 Pass 11.6647 28 10 35 Pass 11.8187 27 9 33 Pass 11.9727 25 9 36 Pass 12.1267 24 8 33 Pass 12.2806 24 8 33 Pass 12.4346 22 8 36 Pass 12.5886 20 7 35 Pass 12.7426 20 6 30 Pass 12.8965 20 5 25 Pass 13.0505 19 4 21 Pass 13.2045 18 4 22 Pass 13.3585 18 4 22 Pass 13.5125 18 4 22 Pass 13.6664 17 4 23 Pass 13.8204 16 4 25 Pass 13.9744 14 4 28 Pass 14.1284 14 4 28 Pass 14.2824 11 4 36 Pass 14.4363 10 3 30 Pass 14.5903 10 3 30 Pass 14.7443 10 3 30 Pass 14.8983 10 3 30 Pass 15.0522 10 3 30 Pass 15.2062 9 3 33 Pass 15.3602 8 3 37 Pass 15.5142 8 3 37 Pass 15.6682 8 3 37 Pass 15.8221 8 3 37 Pass 15.9761 8 3 37 Pass 16.1301 7 3 42 Pass 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:01:16 PM Page 61 Water Quality 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:01:16 PM Page 62 POC 2 + Pre-Project x Mitigated Pre-Project Landuse Totals for POC #2 Total Pervious Area:2.6829 Total Impervious Area:0 Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #2 Total Pervious Area:2.5729 Total Impervious Area:0 Flow Frequency Method:Weibull Flow Frequency Return Periods for Pre-Project. POC #2 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 1.60657 5 year 2.502204 10 year 2.932572 25 year 4.227573 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #2 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 1.5407 5 year 2.399613 10 year 2.812342 25 year 4.054243 Annual Peaks Annual Peaks for Pre-Project and Mitigated. POC #2 Year Pre-Project Mitigated 1960 0.895 0.858 1961 0.564 0.540 1962 1.697 1.627 1963 1.862 1.786 1964 2.499 2.396 1965 1.173 1.125 1966 0.639 0.613 1967 1.857 1.781 1968 2.583 2.477 1969 1.501 1.440 1970 1.726 1.655 1971 1.548 1.484 1972 0.600 0.576 1973 1.979 1.898 1974 1.417 1.359 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:01:48 PM Page 63 1975 1.583 1.518 1976 0.027 0.026 1977 0.295 0.283 1978 1.315 1.261 1979 1.634 1.567 1980 2.080 1.995 1981 0.791 0.758 1982 2.517 2.414 1983 1.906 1.828 1984 1.088 1.043 1985 2.260 2.167 1986 1.898 1.820 1987 0.738 0.707 1988 1.270 1.218 1989 0.563 0.540 1990 1.023 0.981 1991 1.304 1.250 1992 1.826 1.751 1993 1.855 1.779 1994 1.294 1.241 1995 1.526 1.464 1996 3.012 2.889 1997 1.485 1.424 1998 1.607 1.541 1999 0.712 0.683 2000 1.469 1.409 2001 0.513 0.492 2002 0.323 0.310 2003 2.742 2.630 2004 4.755 4.560 2005 1.987 1.905 2006 1.294 1.241 2007 0.773 0.741 2008 1.660 1.592 2009 2.567 2.462 2010 3.378 3.240 2011 2.067 1.982 2012 1.970 1.889 2013 4.954 4.751 2014 2.960 2.839 2015 2.897 2.779 2016 2.770 2.656 2017 3.951 3.789 2018 0.728 0.698 2019 1.552 1.488 2020 2.241 2.149 2021 1.374 1.317 2022 2.150 2.062 Ranked Annual Peaks Ranked Annual Peaks for Pre-Project and Mitigated. POC #2 Rank Pre-Project Mitigated 1 4.9543 4.7512 2 4.7547 4.5597 3 3.9515 3.7895 4 3.3783 3.2398 5 3.0121 2.8886 6 2.9599 2.8385 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:01:48 PM Page 64 7 2.8975 2.7787 8 2.7696 2.6561 9 2.7423 2.6299 10 2.5827 2.4768 11 2.5670 2.4617 12 2.5169 2.4137 13 2.4988 2.3964 14 2.2598 2.1672 15 2.2413 2.1494 16 2.1502 2.0620 17 2.0798 1.9945 18 2.0672 1.9824 19 1.9867 1.9053 20 1.9794 1.8983 21 1.9698 1.8890 22 1.9060 1.8278 23 1.8977 1.8199 24 1.8624 1.7860 25 1.8571 1.7810 26 1.8551 1.7790 27 1.8261 1.7513 28 1.7258 1.6551 29 1.6966 1.6271 30 1.6601 1.5920 31 1.6341 1.5671 32 1.6066 1.5407 33 1.5826 1.5177 34 1.5518 1.4882 35 1.5477 1.4842 36 1.5262 1.4636 37 1.5014 1.4398 38 1.4847 1.4238 39 1.4694 1.4092 40 1.4170 1.3589 41 1.3737 1.3174 42 1.3149 1.2610 43 1.3036 1.2502 44 1.2940 1.2409 45 1.2939 1.2409 46 1.2696 1.2175 47 1.1728 1.1247 48 1.0881 1.0435 49 1.0226 0.9807 50 0.8952 0.8585 51 0.7908 0.7583 52 0.7730 0.7413 53 0.7377 0.7075 54 0.7275 0.6977 55 0.7121 0.6829 56 0.6389 0.6127 57 0.6004 0.5758 58 0.5636 0.5405 59 0.5634 0.5403 60 0.5131 0.4921 61 0.3234 0.3102 62 0.2952 0.2831 63 0.0274 0.0262 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:01:48 PM Page 65 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:01:48 PM Page 66 Duration Flows The Facility PASSED Flow(cfs)Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fail 0.1607 2902 2833 97 Pass 0.1887 2586 2494 96 Pass 0.2167 2272 2168 95 Pass 0.2447 2005 1911 95 Pass 0.2727 1759 1682 95 Pass 0.3007 1572 1504 95 Pass 0.3287 1435 1365 95 Pass 0.3567 1298 1220 93 Pass 0.3847 1179 1125 95 Pass 0.4126 1071 1015 94 Pass 0.4406 974 914 93 Pass 0.4686 880 836 95 Pass 0.4966 816 765 93 Pass 0.5246 752 724 96 Pass 0.5526 713 667 93 Pass 0.5806 661 621 93 Pass 0.6086 614 577 93 Pass 0.6366 574 532 92 Pass 0.6646 531 492 92 Pass 0.6926 492 455 92 Pass 0.7206 458 423 92 Pass 0.7486 425 391 92 Pass 0.7766 394 367 93 Pass 0.8046 374 336 89 Pass 0.8326 344 310 90 Pass 0.8606 316 292 92 Pass 0.8886 297 273 91 Pass 0.9166 285 263 92 Pass 0.9446 266 245 92 Pass 0.9726 253 231 91 Pass 1.0006 237 217 91 Pass 1.0286 223 207 92 Pass 1.0566 210 201 95 Pass 1.0846 205 197 96 Pass 1.1126 200 187 93 Pass 1.1406 193 177 91 Pass 1.1686 185 167 90 Pass 1.1966 174 164 94 Pass 1.2246 166 151 90 Pass 1.2526 160 142 88 Pass 1.2806 151 131 86 Pass 1.3086 140 126 90 Pass 1.3366 131 119 90 Pass 1.3646 126 117 92 Pass 1.3926 119 110 92 Pass 1.4206 118 104 88 Pass 1.4486 110 97 88 Pass 1.4766 104 90 86 Pass 1.5046 98 83 84 Pass 1.5326 92 79 85 Pass 1.5606 83 76 91 Pass 1.5886 79 73 92 Pass 1.6166 77 70 90 Pass 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:01:48 PM Page 67 1.6446 73 66 90 Pass 1.6726 71 64 90 Pass 1.7006 68 62 91 Pass 1.7286 65 58 89 Pass 1.7566 64 55 85 Pass 1.7846 61 50 81 Pass 1.8126 57 46 80 Pass 1.8406 54 41 75 Pass 1.8686 48 37 77 Pass 1.8966 45 36 80 Pass 1.9246 41 33 80 Pass 1.9526 37 32 86 Pass 1.9806 35 30 85 Pass 2.0086 33 28 84 Pass 2.0366 32 27 84 Pass 2.0646 30 25 83 Pass 2.0926 28 24 85 Pass 2.1206 27 24 88 Pass 2.1486 27 24 88 Pass 2.1766 25 21 84 Pass 2.2046 24 20 83 Pass 2.2326 24 20 83 Pass 2.2606 21 19 90 Pass 2.2886 20 18 90 Pass 2.3166 20 18 90 Pass 2.3446 20 18 90 Pass 2.3726 19 17 89 Pass 2.4006 18 16 88 Pass 2.4286 18 14 77 Pass 2.4566 17 14 82 Pass 2.4846 17 10 58 Pass 2.5126 15 10 66 Pass 2.5406 14 10 71 Pass 2.5686 13 10 76 Pass 2.5966 10 10 100 Pass 2.6246 10 10 100 Pass 2.6526 10 9 90 Pass 2.6806 10 8 80 Pass 2.7086 10 8 80 Pass 2.7366 10 8 80 Pass 2.7646 9 8 88 Pass 2.7926 8 7 87 Pass 2.8206 8 7 87 Pass 2.8486 8 5 62 Pass 2.8766 8 5 62 Pass 2.9046 7 4 57 Pass 2.9326 7 4 57 Pass 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:01:48 PM Page 68 Water Quality 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:01:48 PM Page 69 Model Default Modifications Total of 0 changes have been made. PERLND Changes No PERLND changes have been made. IMPLND Changes No IMPLND changes have been made. 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:01:49 PM Page 70 Appendix Pre-Project Schematic 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:01:51 PM Page 71 Mitigated Schematic 224067 Surrey Farm July 2025 7/29/2025 8:01:52 PM Page 72 Disclaimer Legal Notice This program and accompanying documentation are provided 'as-is' without warranty of any kind.The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by End User. Clear Creek Solutions Inc. and the governmental licensee or sublicensees disclaim all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions Inc, Applied Marine SciencesIncorporated, the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, EOA Incorporated, member agencies of the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program, member agencies of the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program, member agencies of the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program or any other LOU Participants or authorized representatives of LOU Participants be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information,business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this programeven if Clear Creek Solutions Inc., Applied Marine Sciences Incorporated, the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, EOA Incorporated or any member agencies of the LOU Participants or their authorized representatives have been advised of the possibility of such damages. Software Copyright © by Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 2005-2025; All Rights Reserved. Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 6200 Capitol Blvd. Ste F Olympia, WA. 98501 Toll Free 1(866)943-0304 Local (360)943-0304 www.clearcreeksolutions.com BAHM October 2024 Zip File (Attached to email)