Erin Walters, Senior Planner
ewalters@losgatosca.gov
Planning Commission
planning@losgatosca.gov
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
October 17, 2025
Subject: Comments on Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Surrey Farms Estates
(SCH No. 2025090920)
Dear Ms. Walters and Members of the Planning Commission,
The Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance (SCVBA) and the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter (SCLP) respectfully submit the following comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared for the proposed Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision at 178 Twin Oaks Drive. SCVBA is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the protection of birds, other wildlife, and their habitats across Santa Clara County. The Sierra Club mission is to promote the responsible use of the earth's ecosystems and resources.
As conservation organizations with members who live, recreate, and observe wildlife in Los Gatos and the Ross Creek watershed, we have a direct and substantial interest in ensuring full compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Our long history of engagement in environmental review involving riparian corridors, oak woodlands, and hillside developments reflects our commitment to protecting regional biodiversity and ecological integrity. Given the project’s location adjacent to critical habitat and wildlife movement corridors, rigorous environmental review is essential.
Based on our review of the IS/MND and the recent October 2025 comment letter from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), we find substantial evidence that the project may result in significant hydrological and biological impacts that are not adequately disclosed, analyzed, or mitigated. As detailed below, the IS/MND fails to address the jurisdictional status of an on-site ephemeral drainage, potential dewatering of riparian habitat, habitat fragmentation for wildlife, impacts from lighting and collision hazards to birds, and procedural conflicts with CEQA’s fair argument standard.
For these reasons, the Town must withdraw the IS/MND and prepare a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to ensure adequate environmental review in compliance with CEQA.
Project Overview and Summary of Environmental Concerns
The proposed Surrey Farms Estates project would subdivide approximately 17.5 acres within a hillside area at 178 Twin Oaks Drive, to construct multiple single-family residences, internal roadways, driveways, and associated infrastructure. The site includes oak woodland, sloped topography, and an ephemeral drainage feature that ultimately conveys runoff toward Ross Creek. Despite the project’s location within an ecologically sensitive transition zone between existing development and natural hillside habitat, the IS/MND concludes that all potential impacts can be mitigated to less-than-significant levels without the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
However, substantial evidence in the record, including evidence provided in the October 2025 comment letter from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), demonstrates that the project may cause significant environmental impacts that have not been fully evaluated or mitigated. These include, but are not limited to:
- Hydrologic impacts to a potentially jurisdictional ephemeral creek, including diversion of contributing stormwater flows that may result in dewatering of riparian vegetation,
- Loss and fragmentation of biological habitat, including oak woodland, wildlife corridors, and breeding/nesting habitat for birds, raptors, and pollinators such as Crotch’s Bumble Bee,
- Unaddressed light pollution and bird collision risks associated with hillside residential development and night lighting at the wildland–urban interface, and
- Procedural deficiencies under CEQA, including reliance on deferred mitigation, absence of required agency consultation, and disregard of substantial evidence submitted by a responsible agency.
Under CEQA’s “fair argument” standard (Guidelines §§15064, 15065), the existence of substantial evidence supporting a reasonable possibility of significant effects mandates preparation of an EIR. The presence of unresolved agency disagreement, particularly from the RWQCB, a responsible agency with jurisdiction over waters of the State, further compels elevation of environmental review. These omissions provide substantial evidence of a fair argument that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, requiring preparation of an EIR under CEQA Guidelines §§15064 and 15065.
Accordingly, SCVBA and SCLP submit that adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration would be legally improper, and that a full Environmental Impact Report is required to analyze, disclose, and mitigate the project’s hydrologic, ecological, and cumulative impacts.
- Hydrology and Waters of the State: Dewatering, Jurisdiction, and RWQCB Conflict
The IS/MND fails to properly evaluate or mitigate significant hydrologic impacts to an on-site ephemeral drainage that is subject to potential jurisdiction by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The document relies exclusively on a determination by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding federal jurisdiction, while omitting State jurisdictional standards under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act and Fish and Game Code §1602.
- Unresolved Jurisdiction over Waters of the State
The IS/MND asserts that the on-site ephemeral drainage is “non-jurisdictional,” yet it provides no confirmation or concurrence from RWQCB or CDFW. This omission directly conflicts with the RWQCB’s October 2025 comment letter, which reiterates the agency’s ongoing concern:
“Ten years after our initial comment letter, we remain concerned that the extent of waters subject to the jurisdiction of the Water Board and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife... has not been confirmed... Until jurisdiction is determined, the Project should assume that the ephemeral creek is a water of the State.”
Waters of the State are defined independently of federal jurisdiction and include seasonal and ephemeral drainages under the Porter-Cologne Act. Failure to acknowledge jurisdiction of a State-regulated waterway constitutes a procedural and substantive CEQA flaw, as the project may require Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) or Clean Water Act §401 certification from RWQCB, and a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA) from CDFW.
- Diversion and Dewatering of Riparian Flow
Current site hydrology supports riparian vegetation and wildlife habitat along the ephemeral drainage. The IS/MND proposes bioretention basins and pervious pavements designed to divert stormwater runoff into storm drains, away from the natural drainage. As RWQCB emphasizes:
“Stormwater runoff that currently supports riparian vegetation along the ephemeral creek would be diverted... This could deprive riparian vegetation of sufficient water to sustain the vegetation, a significant impact to the creek.”
The MND does not contain any hydromodification management analysis, despite the Town’s obligations under the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP). No measures are provided to maintain base flows, protect channel stability, or preserve riparian hydrology.
- Inconsistency with the Los Gatos General Plan
The Los Gatos General Plan calls for protection of riparian corridors, habitat connectivity, and natural hydrologic functions. An ephemeral creek that supports riparian growth is subject to these protections, and cannot be dismissed without agency consultation or hydrological analysis.
- Lack of Enforceable Maintenance and Ownership Measures
The IS/MND defers long-term maintenance to a future homeowners’ association (HOA), without identifying:
- Responsibility for inspection and repair of stormwater infrastructure,
- Funding mechanisms for hydrologic mitigation, or
- Standards for performance over time.
- Unresolved Jurisdiction over Waters of the State
Deferred mitigation violates CEQA Guidelines §15126.4(a)(1)(B), which prohibits mitigation dependent on undefined future actions.
Conclusion on Hydrology
Because substantial evidence demonstrates the potential for significant hydrologic impacts - including dewatering of a State-regulated waterway - CEQA mandates preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. The IS/MND must be withdrawn or recirculated to address these deficiencies.
Bird Collisions with Glass
Bird collisions with glass are one of the leading human-caused sources of bird mortality in North America. Scientists estimate that up to one billion birds die each year in the United States from collisions with buildings and transparent or reflective surfaces. This is not a marginal issue; it is a primary driver in the continent-wide decline of bird populations, including species already stressed by habitat loss, climate change, and drought.
Birds do not perceive glass as a barrier. They see reflected sky or vegetation and attempt to fly through it, or they see a direct line of habitat through a structure and follow a “line of flight”, often fatally. While some environmental documents briefly acknowledge reflective glass, a truly protective approach must also address clear glass and see-through conditions, such as parallel glass façades or corridors that create direct flight paths through structures, as well as stand-alone glass elements such as balcony railings.
These features can be especially hazardous in hillside or riparian-edge developments, where migrating and resident birds move through tree canopy or along drainages. Local oak woodland and creek corridors serve as flyways for warblers, thrushes, towhees, and raptors, species that cannot adapt to invisible barriers.
Los Gatos General Plan Recognizes Bird Collision Risk
Importantly, the Town of Los Gatos 2040 General Plan explicitly acknowledges bird collisions as a serious environmental concern and commits to requiring safer building design. Under the Environment and Sustainability Element, the Town states:
“Require new development to increase bird safety by reducing hazardous building and architectural elements, and including bird safe and lighting design.”
The General Plan further anticipates a dedicated Bird Safety Ordinance to reduce collisions with windows and regulate hazardous materials and lighting:
“Adopt a Bird Safety Ordinance to reduce bird collisions with windows... regulate building design and lighting implementation.”
Despite these commitments, the environmental document does not analyze bird collision hazards nor propose any bird-safe measures for glazing, transparency, or façade design. This absence creates a direct inconsistency between the project and the Town’s adopted policy direction.
Architectural Collision Hazards That Must Be Addressed
Basic bird-safe design is especially critical in hillside and riparian-edge developments where migratory routes cross tree canopies and drainages. Hazardous features include:Expansive reflective glass facing vegetation
Parallel or transparent façades creating “line-of-flight” conditions, and
Glass balcony railings, corner glazing, and atriums that create illusions of open passage
These features are known to cause high-speed bird strikes, a long-term operational impact that CEQA requires agencies to identify and mitigate.
CEQA Requires Addressing Operational Wildlife Mortality
CEQA evaluates not only temporary construction effects but long-term biological impacts fromthe operation of the built environment. Because bird-glass collision mortality is foreseeable,preventable, and recognized in Town policy, it must be mitigated at the project level throughenforceable measures such as patterned glazing, reduced reflectivity, and design alterations toeliminate see-through corridors.
Conclusion
Given the Town of Los Gatos’ explicit policy to “increase bird safety by reducing hazardous building elements,” it is essential that this project incorporate bird-safe architectural standards. Absent such measures, the project would perpetuate a known and significant source of avoidable wildlife mortality, inconsistent with both CEQA and the Town’s own General Plan.
Artificial Lighting (ALAN) and Impacts on Wildlife and Ecological Health
Artificial Light at Night (ALAN) poses significant and well-documented impacts on wildlife, ecological function, and human health. While the environmental document discusses lighting only from an aesthetic or glare perspective, the evaluation of lighting impacts on biological resources, including migratory birds, nocturnal wildlife, and ecosystems is warranted. Light is not merely a visual issue, it is a biological force that disrupts circadian systems, navigation, foraging, predator-prey behavior, and reproductive timing.
Los Gatos General Plan: Lighting is a Biological Resource Concern
The Town of Los Gatos 2040 General Plan expressly recognizes lighting as an environmental impact affecting wildlife, not just visual character. Under the Environment and Sustainability Element, the Town directs:
“Require the design of building, street, landscape, and parking area lighting to improve safety, energy efficiency, protection of the night skies (dark sky protections), biological resources, and environmental soundness.”
The General Plan also calls for a Dark Skies Ordinance to minimize ecological disruption:
“Adopt a Dark Skies Ordinance ... to regulate exterior lighting, skyglow, and impacts to wildlife.”
Despite these adopted policy commitments, the MND does not analyze lighting impacts on wildlife movement, riparian corridors, or nocturnal species. It treats lighting solely in terms of visual compatibility with surrounding homes, overlooking its ecological consequences.
Scientific Basis: Why ALAN Is an Ecological Impact
Peer-reviewed research has shown that nighttime lighting causes the following:Disorients migrating birds, pulling them off-route into developed areas where collision risk increases,
Disrupts circadian hormones in wildlife and humans by suppressing melatonin,
Alters predator–prey dynamics, favoring some species (rats, crows) over others (owls, bats), and
Reduces insect populations, which cascades upward to birds and bats reliant on them.
Blue-rich light (high CCT LEDs) is especially harmful. The spectral range of 4000–5000K commonly used in development has been linked to higher disorientation and physiological stress in wildlife. Warm-spectrum lighting at 2700 Kelvin or below significantly reduces ecological disruption.
Location Sensitivity: Hillsides and Riparian Zones
Lighting impacts are particularly severe at the urban–wildland interface, such as hillside developments bordering Ross Creek and oak woodland. These areas support nighttime movement of the following:
Owls (Great Horned, Barn Owl),
Bats and nocturnal pollinators, and
Migratory thrushes, warblers, and tanagers navigating by starlight.
General Plan implementation guidance even identifies riparian corridor lighting as an ecological concern requiring directional control:
“Require careful lighting design in and near natural riparian corridors to direct light away and maximize the distance between nighttime lighting and the corridor.”
This heightened sensitivity is entirely absent in the MND.
Recommended Mitigation – Consistent with General Plan
To comply with CEQA and align with General Plan sustainability goals, outdoor lighting should incorporate the following:
Full shielding and downward direction (no uplight, no spill into habitat),
2700K or lower color temperature to minimize harmful blue light,
Automatic shut-off or curfews after 10:00 PM, except motion-activated security lighting, and
No unshielded façade or landscape lighting near riparian or canopy edges.
Conclusion on Lighting
By omitting wildlife analysis and relying solely on human visual standards, the MND fails to address a documented environmental impact recognized in both science and Town policy. Effective lighting mitigation must protect ecological function, not just visual ambiance. A full EIR is warranted to evaluate operational lighting impacts in this sensitive hillside and riparian environment.
Biological and Wildlife Impacts: Habitat Loss, Fragmentation, and Special-Status Species
The IS/MND fails to adequately assess significant and irreversible impacts to biological resources, including native woodland habitat, wildlife movement corridors, nesting birds, and special-status pollinators. The project lies within a transitional zone between developed hillside residences and the Ross Creek watershed, an area known to support raptors, migratory songbirds, and oak-associated wildlife. The document’s reliance on generic pre-construction surveys does not satisfy CEQA’s requirements for identification, analysis, and mitigation of long-term habitat impacts.
A. Oak Woodland and Habitat Fragmentation
The project would remove a substantial number of mature coast live oaks and associated understory vegetation. Oak woodlands provide critical foraging, roosting, and nesting habitat for species such as Acorn Woodpecker, American Kestrel, Red-Shouldered Hawk, and multiple migratory warblers. Despite the scale of proposed vegetation clearing, the IS/MND does not quantify total tree loss, assess habitat fragmentation, or evaluate impacts to wildlife corridor functionality across the Ross Creek drainage interface.
Fragmentation of woodland habitat at this location poses long-term ecological consequences, including reduced canopy continuity, loss of acorn mast availability, and disruption of species movement between hillside and riparian zones. CEQA requires disclosure and mitigation of such impacts (Guidelines §15380), which the MND does not provide.
B. Riparian Dependency and Loss of Hydrologic Support
The IS/MND acknowledges the presence of an ephemeral drainage but incorrectly concludes there will be no biological impact. As documented by the RWQCB, the project’s stormwater design would redirect runoff away from the drainage, depriving the riparian system of seasonal hydrology:
“Stormwater runoff that currently supports riparian vegetation... would be diverted... This could deprive riparian vegetation of sufficient water to sustain the vegetation.”
The biological effects of hydrologic alteration, loss of vegetative cover, reduced insect prey availability, and increased temperature exposure, were not analyzed.
C. Nesting Birds and Raptors: Inadequate Mitigation
The site supports habitat suitable for breeding birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code §3503. However, the IS/MND proposes only seasonal nest surveys, deferring species protection to future conditions. CEQA prohibits reliance on deferred mitigation in place of substantive analysis. Permanent loss of nesting and roosting habitat is not mitigated by temporal surveying.
Raptor species such as Red-tailed Hawk, Cooper’s Hawk, and Great Horned Owl are known to utilize this region. The MND does not analyze displacement, loss of hunting perches, or effects on prey availability.
D. Special-Status Pollinators: Omission of Crotch’s Bumble Bee
The IS/MND omits any analysis of special-status invertebrates, including Crotch’s Bumble Bee (Bombus crotchii), a California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate species. This omission violates CEQA Guidelines §15380, which requires treatment of candidate species as threatened or endangered. Oak-woodland and chaparral-edge habitats within Santa Clara County are within the known range of this species.
No botanical or pollinator surveys appear to have been conducted.
Conclusion on Biological Impacts
The MND fails to disclose the scale of habitat conversion, analyze biological connectivity, or mitigate for permanent ecological loss. Substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the project may have significant biological impacts, requiring a full Environmental Impact Report.CEQA Procedural Failures: Reliance on an MND is Legally Improper
The IS/MND for Surrey Farms Estates does not comply with the procedural requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Multiple deficiencies in analysis, consultation, and mitigation demonstrate that reliance on a Mitigated Negative Declaration is legally improper. Under CEQA’s “fair argument” standard, the presence of substantial evidence supporting a significant impact mandates preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
A. Failure to Apply the Fair Argument Standard
CEQA Guidelines §15064(f)(1) requires an EIR where substantial evidence indicates a project may have a significant effect on the environment, even if the lead agency believes impacts can be mitigated. In this case, expert agency evidence from the RWQCB clearly disputes the MND’s conclusions on hydrology and biological impacts. Disagreement among experts requires an EIR, not an MND.
B. Deferral of Mitigation and Absence of Performance Standards
The IS/MND repeatedly defers mitigation to future plans, HOA oversight, or permitting processes, without defining performance standards or enforceable obligations. This violates CEQA Guidelines §15126.4(a)(1)(B), which prohibits reliance on unspecified or future mitigation, particularly where long-term resource impacts are involved (e.g., habitat loss, hydrology modification).
Examples of impermissible deferral include the following:
Stormwater operation and maintenance left to an undefined HOA,
Lack of binding commitments to preserve riparian flow or tree canopy, and
Absence of defined mitigation ratios for habitat or tree removal.
C. Failure to Recirculate After New Substantial Evidence (RWQCB 2025 Letter)
The October 2025 RWQCB comment letter introduces substantial new evidence that the project may significantly impact waters of the State. Under CEQA Guidelines §15088.5, a lead agency must recirculate an environmental document when new information shows the project will result in new or substantially more severe impacts than previously disclosed. The Town did not recirculate, thereby depriving decision-makers and the public of a full review.
D. Misapplication of Housing Laws Does Not Exempt CEQA
While the project appears to invoke the Builder’s Remedy provisions under Government Code §65589.5, CEQA remains fully applicable. Housing law does not waive or reduce CEQA review. Courts have consistently held that compliance with CEQA is mandatory and independent of zoning or housing authorization. The IS/MND’s approach suggests environmental review is secondary to entitlement, which is legally incorrect.
Conclusion on Procedural Failures
The procedural shortcomings of the IS/MND, combined with substantive omissions in hydrology, biology, and lighting, render it legally indefensible under CEQA. A full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required to ensure compliance with state environmental law and to provide accurate assessment, disclosure, and mitigation of the project’s impacts.
Conclusion and Request for Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report
For the reasons outlined in the sections above, the Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance finds that the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Surrey Farms Estates project is inadequate under CEQA. Substantial evidence in the record, including technical comment from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, demonstrates that the project may cause significant environmental impacts that have not been fully analyzed, disclosed, or mitigated. These include potential dewatering of Waters of the State, permanent loss of biological habitat, wildlife disturbance from lighting, and unmitigated operational effects.
Under CEQA Guidelines §§15064 and 15065, a Mitigated Negative Declaration cannot be adopted where substantial evidence supports a fair argument of significant impact. Furthermore, CEQA Guidelines §15088.5 requires recirculation when new information indicates the potential for new or more severe impacts, as is the case with RWQCB’s October 2025 letter.
Accordingly, SCVBA and SCLP respectfully requests the following from the Town of Los Gatos:Withdraw the Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Recirculate the environmental document to incorporate agency concerns and hydrologic and biological analysis, and
Prepare a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that evaluates project alternatives, hydrologic modifications, biological resource impacts, lighting effects, and cumulative conditions within the Ross Creek watershed.
The EIR must also include a reasonable range of alternatives that would reduce impacts to hydrology, wildlife corridors, and hillside habitat, as required under CEQA.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments and remain available to participate in future consultation, provide biological expertise, and ensure that environmental review for this site reflects the region’s ecological values and legal standards. Please include these comments in the administrative record for this project.
Respectfully,
Shani Kleinhaus, Ph.D.
Environmental Advocate
Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance
Katja Irvin, AICP
Guadalupe Group Conservation Chair
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter