The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCC 03-17-2026 Item No. 12 SummerHill Homes_Written CommunicationsCC 3-17-2026 #12 SummerHill Homes - Linda Vista Drive Written Communications From:Jack Farrell To:City Clerk Subject:Public Comment for March 17 City Council Meeting Date:Monday, March 16, 2026 5:26:56 AM Attachments:Linda Vista Dr. Letter of Support 3_16_26.docx.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good morning, Please find attached letter of support for the Linda Vista Drive development, to be heard as Agenda Item 12 before the City Council. Sincerely, Jack Farrell he/him Research Attorney 267-218-1147 Check out everything we achieved in 2024! YIMBY Law 2261 Market Street STE 10416 San Francisco, CA 94114 hello@yimbylaw.org March 16, 2026 City of Cupertino City Council 10350 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA Via email: CityClerk@Cupertino.gov Re: 10857, 10867, 10877 & 10887 Linda Vista Drive, Agenda Item 12 Dear City Council, We are pleased to submit this letter of support of the proposed Summerhill Homes project at Linda Vista Drive. YIMBY Law is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation, whose mission is to increase the accessibility and affordability of housing in California. The Summerhill Homes project will consist of a development of 51 townhomes, including 10 affordable units, to replace four single family homes on a 2.51-acre site, lo cated close to the intersection of Linda Vista Dr and Columbus Ave. In compliance with AB130 local building code requirements, the project will include various resiliency upgrades such as hardened exteriors and roof eaves, emb er resistant vents, and Zone 0 Landscape Buffers. We concur with the Planning Commission’s vote and the assessment of your staff that the project is exempt from CEQA and qualifies for final approval of all necessary entitlements. The Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) and the City’s Housing Element Summerhill Homes submitted an SB 330 Preliminary Application on October 9, 2024, and a final application on Decemb er 13, 2024. Pursuant to Gov. Code § 65589.5, the YIMBY Law 2261 Market Street STE 10416 San Francisco, CA 94114 hello@yimbylaw.org application is only subject to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when the Preliminary Application was submitted. The proposed project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and zoning ordinance and other applicable objective standards. In addition, the City’s approved 2023–2031 Housing Element identifies the project as a Housing Inventory Site. By designating the site as a Housing Inventory Site, the City selected the site for residential use and determined that residential development of the site would assist the City in meeting its Regional Housing Needs Allocation. The State Density Bonus Law SummerHill proposes to provide 10 of the 51 town home-styles at below market rate prices. By designating at least 10 p ercent of the units for Moderate Income households, the project qualifies for benefits under the State Density Bonus Law. Under the State Density Bonus L aw, a develop er may propose unlimited waivers of development standards that would have the effect of physically precluding construction of a qualifying project at the densities or with the concessions or incentives p ermitted by the Density Bonus L aw. SummerHill is entitled to the waivers it has requested, all of which will provide relief from development standards that would physically preclude construction of the project at the density proposed. Once a project qualifies for a density b onus, State law provides that the City may deny a requested waiver only if it would have a specific, adverse impact up on health or safety, would have an adverse impact on a historic resource, or would be contrary to State or Federal law. In this context, specific adverse impact “means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, p olicies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.”1 There is no substantial evidence in the record that any of SummerHill’s requested waivers would meet the criteria for City denial. 1 Gov. Code, §§ 65915, subd. (e)(1), 65589.5, subd. (d)(2). YIMBY Law 2261 Market Street STE 10416 San Francisco, CA 94114 hello@yimbylaw.org The Housing Accountability Act The Housing Accountability Act, in Section 65589.5(j)(1)(A)-(B), limits a municipality’s ability to deny or condition on lower density a housing development project that complies with objective standards. The City may only disapprove the project or impose conditions on the project that would reduce density if necessary to avoid a “significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete” and there is no feasible method to mitigate or avoid those impacts other than disapproval or development at a lower density. We have reviewed the project plans, the CEQA document and the various expert reports that have been prepared for the project, and there is not a preponderance of evidence in the record that would justify the City’s disapproval of the project or conditioning the project in a manner that would reduce density. Summary The Legislature has made numerous amendments to California Housing L aw in an effort to provide increased clarity and certainty for both municipalities and housing providers. Based on these laws, the project is subject only to the objective standards that were in effect on the date of the Preliminary Application; the project is entitled to the requested waivers under D ensity Bonus law; with those waivers the project is consistent with applicable objective standards; and the evidence in the record would not justify the City’s denial of the project or imposition of approval that would reduce density. Disapproval of the project or approval with conditions that would render the project infeasible at the density proposed would contravene State law. It is YIMBY Action’s understanding that City staff has processed SummerHill’s development application with professionalism and recognition of the City’s obligations under State law. We appreciate the staff ’s co operation and encourage the City Council to continue to uphold the same standard. YIMBY Law closely monitors projects to ensure that all relevant state laws are properly YIMBY Law 2261 Market Street STE 10416 San Francisco, CA 94114 hello@yimbylaw.org applied, including the HA A. Should the City fail to follow these laws, YIMBY Law will not hesitate to file suit to ensure state housing policies are enforced. I am signing this letter both in my capacity as the Executive Director of YIMBY Law, and as a resident of California who is affected by the shortage of housing in our state. I look forward to seeing this project approved and brought to realization to help change the tides of the housing crisis in the B ay Area. Sincerely, Sonja Trauss Executive Director YIMBY Law From:Kitty Moore To:City Clerk Subject:Written Communications for Item 12 FW: Substantive Finding: 90+ Minutes Evacuation Choke and "System Failure" at Evulich Ct. (CUP-029) Date:Saturday, March 14, 2026 12:11:46 PM Attachments:00 - 20260313 - Letter to Mayor Moore .pdf 01 - Evacuation Traffic Model and Analysis.pdf 02 - Feedback to Cupertino Health and Safety Element - General Plan Community Vision 2015-2040 - v3.pdf 03 - Technical Rebuttal to Hexagon Transportation Analysis.pdf 04 - 260224 Plan Comm Evulich Development Emergency Evacuation.pdf Dear City Clerk, Please include the following email and the attachments for written communications for Item 12. Thank you, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Mayor City Council KMoore@cupertino.gov (408) 777-1389 From: DerChang Kau <derchang@gmail.com> Date: Friday, March 13, 2026 at 10:16 PM To: Kitty Moore <kmoore@cupertino.gov> Cc: DerChang Kau <derchang@gmail.com> Subject: Substantive Finding: 90+ Minutes Evacuation Choke and 'System Failure' at Evulich Ct. (CUP-029) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. March 13, 2026 Dear Mayor Moore, As a resident of Cupertino for over three decades and a retired engineer, I have followed your career with respect for your commitment to objective, substantive analysis. Given your background as a Professional Engineer (PE) and your experience in civil design, land development and transportation, I am writing to provide a high-resolution technical assessment of the Evulich Ct. Project that I believe warrants your professional review. In your recent State of the City address, you emphasized that "Quality is what the resident gets out". My analysis suggests that if this project proceeds at its currently proposed density, the "quality" residents will receive during a disaster is a mathematical trap. My evacuation modeling, which utilizes dynamic traffic principles, identifies a critical system failure that the developer’s static "peak hour" traffic analysis overlooks. My modeling and analysis is not a theoretical concern nor the only warning sign. It turns out, the City of Cupertino knew this. Last October, the city received its own expert study from Fehr and Peers. The study found evacuation demand on key corridors serving this neighborhood exceed 200% of roadway capacity. The City had it for nearly 5 months before the February 24, 2026 Planning Commission hearing where the project was approved. I am providing the following Technical Assessment Factors to assist you in evaluating whether the current project proposal meets the objective safety standards required by the General Plan and State law. Key Technical Discrepancies Requiring Reconciliation 1. Safety Baseline Shift (2025 CAL FIRE Update): The re-zoning of this parcel in July 2024 was based on 2007 fire maps. However, the March 2025 CAL FIRE update reclassified this area as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). Under Government Code §51179, the City has a mandate to adopt these updated findings, which fundamentally changes the safety baseline for high-density development in this corridor. 2. Modeling "Surge" vs. "Daily Peak": The developer’s transportation report models a "peak hour" of roughly 30 vehicles. In a wildfire evacuation, however, the demand is a simultaneous neighborhood-wide surge. My model shows that a surge of 250+ vehicles attempting to exit the Linda Vista "spine" within the 30-minute critical safety window (established by the 2025 Palisades Fire) results in a Utilization Ratio of 110%. 3. The Saturation Failure (V/C ≥ 1.0): Standard planning-level assessments often treat V/C ratios above 1.0 as mere congestion. In reality, when V/C exceeds 1.0, a "Standing Queue" forms and the system ceases to function. My modeling proves that the proposed density pushes the corridor into a state of mathematical failure, doubling the "Order to Safety" time from a survivable 30 minutes to a non-survivable 90+ minutes. 4. Operational Intersection Degradation: The current analysis assumes normal traffic signal operations. However, in a wildfire or earthquake, power outages often put signals into "red- flash" or 4-way stop mode, which reduces flow capacity by 50%. This degradation has not been factored into the project’s evacuation clearance estimates. 5. Merging Shockwave Delay: Concentrating 51 units at a single entry point creates a "Concentrated Conflict Point". My analysis identifies a 28.5-minute "Shockwave Delay" caused by forced merging into an already saturated flow—a delay that impacts the entire existing neighborhood. Objective Decision-Support Framework To ensure the City upholds its fiduciary duty under GC 65302(g)(5) and CFC 4903, it may be prudent to evaluate the following: Consistency Review: Is the 51-unit density consistent with the 2025 Health and Safety Element’s "Evacuation-Constrained" criteria? Cumulative Impact Study: Has the City performed a Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA) that accounts for the cumulative load of all 155 units on the Linda Vista bottleneck during a surge event? Mitigation Feasibility: I have submitted a conceptual 12-unit R1-aligned alternative that preserves the 30-minute evacuation window while still providing high-quality housing. Mayor Moore, you have rightly identified residents as the City’s "customers". I trust that your engineering expertise will recognize that "paper compliance" with site standards does not equate to neighborhood evacuation safety. Sincerely, DerChang Kau Retired Engineer & University Professor 10847 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino Attachments including 1. Evacuation Traffic Model and Analysis.pdf 2. Feedback to Cupertino Health and Safety Element.pdf 3. Technical Rebuttal to Hexagon Transportation Analysis.pdf 4. 260224 Plan Comm Evulich Development Emergency Evacuation.pdf MONTA VISTA "SPINE” AND WILDFIRE ACCIDENT RISK OVERVIEW EVACUATION TRAFFIC MODELING EVACUATION PLAN ANALYSIS SUPPORTING MATERIALS ON EVACUATION TRAFFIC MODEL UTILIZATION RATIO – ρ = DEMAND / CAPACITY TRAFFIC UTILIZATION RATIO MATTERS QUEUING DELAY (DQ) MERGING DELAY (DM) About the author DerChang Kau, a resident of Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino Technical Credential (if it matters) Retired Intel Fellow, Technology and Manufacturing Adjunct Professor, Graduate School of Advance Technology, National Taiwan University Impacts of 2025 CAL FIRE FHSZ Classifications on Project “Evulich Court” The Monta Vista neighborhood of Cupertino In the Monta Vista neighborhood of Cupertino, residents between 10807 and 11197 Linda Vista Drive are located in a unique geography where the road essentially acts as a single spine. Because Linda Vista Drive is a winding road with several "dead-end" side streets and restricted access points, the evacuation strategy must account for the fact that the primary route is northward toward McClellan Road. —Primary Route: Follow Linda Vista Drive north. This will take you directly to McClellan Road. From McClellan, you can head east toward the more urban parts of Cupertino (away from the foothills). —Secondary/Alternative: Depending on where the fire is located, some residents near the 11000 block may attempt to exit via Canyon Vista Drive to connect back to Linda Vista or other neighborhood arteries, but eventually, almost all traffic must funnel toward McClellan Road or Stevens Creek Blvd. 2 Evulich Court Evulich Court Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) maps, the March 2025 CAL FIRE LRA update Wildfire Accident Risk Overview Hyper-Local Risks for 10807–11197 Linda Vista The "Choke Point": The lower part of Linda Vista Drive (closer to McClellan) can become congested. If you receive an Evacuation Warning , it is highly recommended to leave early, especially if you have trailers, pets, or large vehicles. Vegetation Overhang: This stretch of road has significant tree canopy. In a high-wind fire event, "spotting" (embers jumping ahead of the fire) can ignite trees along the road, potentially blocking the only exit. Dead-End Cul-de-Sacs: If you live on a side street off this stretch (like Baxley Court or various private drives), you must be aware that you have zero "rear" exits. Evacuation Density Risks The density is a major point of concern for fire safety because: Funneling: All 150+ households (plus residents on side streets like Rae Lane and Baxley Court ) must use Linda Vista Drive to reach McClellan Road. The Park Choke Point: The entrance to Linda Vista Park is expected to be the sole entry/exit for the new Vista Heights development, adding concentrated traffic to the middle of your evacuation route. Vehicle Load: With an average of 2.9 to 3.1 people per household in Monta Vista, a full evacuation of just this street segment could involve 450+ people and 250+ vehicles attempting to exit simultaneously onto a winding two-lane road. 3 Evacuation Traffic Modeling Boundary Conditions & Variables Segment Geography: A single-access, winding, two-lane road acting as a "single-point-of-failure". Baseline (R1): 70 existing units (approx. 112 vehicles). Proposed (R3): 155 total units (approx. 248 vehicles). Critical Safety Window: 30 minutes, based on a 20-minute fire spread rate of 200 acres (Pacific Palisade Fire Data) Evacuation Analytical Model & Results 4 Baseline(R1 Status)Planned (R3 Status)Logic & Boundary Conditions Total Units (N)70 Units 155 Units Includes Evulich & Vista Heights. Vehicle Load (V)112 Cars 248 Cars Constant: 1.6 vehicles/HH consolidation. Capacity (μ)600 Cars/Hr 450 Cars/Hr Constant: Winding road capacity. R3 assumes 4-way stop failure. Utilization (ρ)37%110% Formula: [Demand / Capacity]. ρ>1.0 = System Failure. Queuing Delay (DQ)2.5 mins 45.0+ mins Formula: [(ρ / (1-ρ)) * intrinsic delay Time]. Exponential delay at saturation. Merging Delay (DM)4.0 mins 28.5 mins Based on "Critical Gap Acceptance" for 51 units entering the spine. Human Factor (DH)20.0 mins 20.0 mins Constant: Time from alert to vehicle in gear. TOTAL ORDER TO SAFETY 26.5 mins 93.5+ mins Sum of: [DQ+DM+DH]. Evacuation Plan Analysis Current Neighborhood (Approx. 70 Homes) —At an average of 1.6 vehicles per household (typical for emergency evacuations where families try to consolidate), there are roughly 120 vehicles that must exit this specific stretch. —Flow Rate: A single lane of a winding residential road under stress typically handles 600–800 vehicles per hour. —Physical Exit Time: Technically, 120 cars could pass a single point in about 12–15 minutes. —The "Human Factor" Delay: In reality, total evacuation time includes "mobilization time" (packing, hitching trailers, getting pets). For 70 homes, the neighborhood would likely be clear in 30 minutes from the time the order is issued, assuming no road blockages. Expanded Neighborhood (Planned ~150+ Units) —With the addition of the Evulich Court (51 units) and Vista Heights (35 units) projects, the vehicle count jumps to approximately 240–260 vehicles. —The Bottleneck: The main issue isn't just the number of cars; it’s the intersection of Bubb Road and McClellan. If traffic lights are out, this intersection becomes a four-way stop, which can drop flow rates by 50%. —Estimated Time: Under these conditions, the physical exit time doubles. Adding in the complexity of more neighbors merging from high-density driveways, the total time to clear the street would likely stretch to 90+ minutes. 5 SUPPORTING MATERIALS 6 Utilization Ratio – ρ = Demand / Capacity Traffic is like running water in the pipe. The Utilization Ratio is the pressure in that system. When ρ exceeds 1.0, the "pipes" burst—meaning the line of cars stops moving, and the time to exit becomes theoretically infinite unless the demand is reduced. Demand – λ 30-minute requirement is the safety leave window from the learning of Pacific Palisade Fire. R1 Case: λbaseline = 70 Units × 1.6 vehicles/household / 0.5 hours = 224 cars / hour R3 Case: λplanned = 155 Units × 1.6 vehicles/household / 0.5 hours = 496 cars / hour. Capacity – Ideal flow rate, µideal = 700 cars/hour. The intersection of Bubb Road and McClellan is the only exit in an "Emergency State”. —Power is out, the traffic signals are dead and the intersection functions as a 4-Way Stop. Higher density creates a "standing queue” and degrades 4-way stop intersection efficiency from ~85% to ~60% —R1 Case: µbaseline = 600 cars / hour —R3 Case: µplanned = 450 cars / hour. Metric Baseline (R1 status)Planned (R3 status)Analytical Meaning Demand – λ 224 cars/hr 496 cars/hr The "Pressure" Capacity – µ600 cars/hr 450 cars/hr The "Pipe Size" Utilization Ratio – ρ 37%110%Result Why and How Traffic Utilization Ratio Matters R1 scenario – the traffic Utilization ratio (ρbaseline)is 37% —The system is "Under-Saturated." Cars arrive much slower than the intersection can process them. —There is no queue; you drive straight to the stop sign and leave. R3 scenario – the traffic Utilization ratio (ρplanned)is 110% —The system is "Over-Saturated." Cars are arriving faster than the intersection can process them —When ρ > 1.0, a "Standing Queue" forms; the line of cars gets longer. è System Failure. 8 Linking to delays to safety Queuing Delay: Because the R3 Utilization is 110%, the queue never clears. You are now waiting for the cars ahead of you to clear a "bottleneck" that is physically too small for the crowd. This is a mathematical proof that the road cannot physically clear the neighborhood in under 30 minutes. Merging Delay: The 51-unit project creates a Concentrated Conflict Point that adds 28.5 minutes of 'Shockwave Delay' to the evacuation. This is not a subjective preference; it is a mathematical consequence of forcing high-density merging into a saturated, single-lane 'spine' during a surge event." Queuing Delay (DQ) Queue will be formed when transit time between cars in traffic flow is shorter than Queuing Delay Transit time (tT) is inverse of flow rate at the demand capacity (λ) Queuing delay (DQ) @ 50% utilization ratio (ρ) is defined as intrinsic delay Time (tintrinsic), 8 seconds is used for this analysis • Queuing delay is not linear, DQ = ρ / (1-ρ) x tintrinsic R1 scenario – the system is ”Quiet." There are plenty of gaps between cars. tT,baseline = 1 / λbaseline = 16 sec/car vs. DQ, baseline = 4.6 sec/ cars tT,baseline > Dq, baseline è the "backlog" never builds up ~2.5 minutes to account for the very tail end of the line (~30 cars) R3 scenario – the system is "Over-Saturated." Cars are arriving faster than the intersection can process them. "Standing Queue" forms. 248 cars want to leave in 30 mins. vs. µplanned@ 450 cars/hr flow rate, the intersection can only handle 225 cars in 30 mins 23 cars are physically unable to leave the street during the safe window. Those 23 cars, plus the massive slow-down caused by the 225 cars ahead of them crawling at a 110% saturation rate, results in a queue that stretches nearly the entire length of the Linda Vista "spine." In "Over-Saturation” traffic simulation, the average wait time for the last car in line jumps to 45+ minutes just to reach the stop sign. Baseline (112 cars , R1)Planned (248 cars, R3) Utilization 37%110% Wait per Car ~5 Seconds Infinite/Growing Wait Time Logic You wait for 5 -10 cars.You wait for 247 cars to clear a 1 -lane exit. Resulting Delay 2.5 minutes 45+ mins Merging Delay (DM) Based on Gap Acceptance Theory in traffic engineering – the difficulty of a car find a ‘gap’ entering a moving stream of traffic. Merging time (tm): A driver pulls up to their driveway, waits an average tm (3.5 seconds used) for one car to pass, and merges. Critical Gap time (tg): if cars on the road are closer than tg, (6 seconds used) apart, you cannot merge Force Merging time (tf): A driver pulls up to their driveway, forced merge their way into main road due to bumper-to-bumper traffic. This causes the car on the main road to slam on its brakes creating a shockwave. An average of tf (30 seconds used) for one driveway to successfully "force merge" into the saturated line, pass and merges. R1 scenario – Because the utilization is low (37%), there are ample gaps between cars Across the 70 homes, the "stutter" caused by people pulling out is minimal. Not subject to tg impact The total "friction" added to the system is only about 4 minutes (3.5 seconds * 70 driveway) for the entire neighborhood to clear. R3 scenario – the "spine" is saturated (Utilization 110%). This creates a "Wall of Cars." A massive concentration at R3 Evulich Court try to exit one single point onto Linda Vista which is already at 110% capacity. There are zero natural gaps . The "forced merge" effect take place at Evulich Court. The total forced merging delay time = tf x 51 units = 25.5 minutes Additional 3 minutes delay need to be added for the rest of cars from R1 homes è 28.5 minutes of merging delay is used Baseline (R1)Planned (R3)Analytical Assessment Merging Type Distributed Concentrated 51 units create a massive "conflict point." Gap Probability High (80%)Low (<5%)High density eliminates natural gaps. Avg. Wait per Merge 3.5 Seconds 30.0 Seconds "Forced merging" stops the main flow. Total Merging Delay 4.0 Mins 28.5 Mins [Wait per Merge * No. of Units]. FEEDBACK TO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY ELEMENT OF THE CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN: 2015 - 2040 COMMUNITY VISION March 10, 2026 DerChang Kau Retired Engineer, University Professor and Resident of Cupertino High-Risk Zones Demand Street-Level Evacuation-to-Safety Analysis Outdated census data and planning-level methods cannot manage modern wildfire risk 1 Preface Cupertino’s current wildfire evacuation analysis relies heavily on planning-level assumptions, dated population data, and static traffic metrics that do not reflect real-world emergency conditions. Across all four sections below, a consistent theme emerges: the City’s Health & Safety Element is not aligned with the evacuation realities of a denser, more wildfire-exposed Cupertino in 2030–2040. The documents show that: ● The analysis uses 2023–2025 data, ignoring the major density increases triggered by the July 2024 rezoning. As one section notes, it “primarily reflects existing households” rather than future conditions. ● The methodology remains planning-level, even though the City’s own consultant acknowledges that dynamic traffic assignment is required for constrained areas. ● Critical evacuation zones—especially CUP029, which generates 38% of all evacuation trips—are located within Fire Hazard Severity Zones, yet the City has not modeled evacuation at the street level. ● The use of V/C ratios dramatically understates evacuation risk. At V/C ≥ 1, “the system is oversaturated and no longer functioning,” yet the report treats V/C > 2 as merely “more than one hour.” Taken together, these findings show that Cupertino’s current evacuation analysis cannot support long- range planning through 2040. The City must adopt dynamic, data-driven, future-oriented evacuation modeling to protect residents and meet the intent of the General Plan’s Health & Safety Element. Section 1 — Dated Data Source “Outdated Inputs: Why the Current Evacuation Analysis Cannot Support 2040 Planning” The following data sources were used to estimate vehicle evacuation demand for residents, employees, students, and visitors in “Evacuation Route Capacity Report” ● 2023 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year Estimates: Used for population, household data, and vehicle ownership distribution. ● Genasys Protect: Provides population, household estimates, and designated evacuation zones. ● StreetLight Data (2024): Used to evaluate and compare traffic volumes between school and non-school periods. This analysis represents a snapshot of the city’s current evacuation capacity based on the most recent available census and municipal data from 2023–2025. It does not incorporate the increased residential densities anticipated under the July 2024 rezoning. As noted in the original text, “using 2023 ACS data and July 2025 Genasys data, it primarily reflects existing households.” For example, Evulich Ct. is evaluated using its existing 4-unit R1 zoning, rather than the 51-unit R3 density under the rezoning. Consequently, Figure HS-3 in Chapter 7 of the Health and Safety Element | General Plan (Community Vision 2015–2040) does not identify this area as required under Policy HS- 2.13, which highlights residential parcels with fewer than two ingress/egress routes. 2 Because the analysis relies on pre-rezoning conditions, the document does not adequately support long- range planning through the year 2040. The document is therefore inadequate to support a general plan to the year 2040. Section 2 — Traffic Flow Methodology “Planning-Level Methods Are Not Enough: Cupertino Needs Advanced Evacuation Modeling” The referenced sources describe the current “planning-level” assessment as a broad evaluation of transportation system capacity rather than a definitive evacuation plan. While this type of assessment is useful for identifying major bottlenecks and informing policy decisions, it also explicitly acknowledges that more detailed, higher-resolution studies—such as dynamic traffic assignment—are the appropriate next step for areas with significant constraints. As Fehr & Peers note, community-scale wildfire evacuation assessment is an emerging field. However, general guidance does exist, including ISO 22315 and NIST’s ESCAPE framework. Given Cupertino’s substantial wildfire exposure and its position at the center of global science and technology innovation, the city is uniquely positioned to take a leadership role in advancing rigorous, data-driven evacuation assessment and mitigation planning. Several jurisdictions, including Marin County, have already begun such modeling efforts to identify evacuation bottlenecks and evaluate mitigation strategies‡. Leadership in this area could include: ● Scenario-based wildfire evacuation simulations ● Traffic network evacuation time analysis ● Population departure behavior modeling ● Redundant evacuation route and shelter analysis ● Quantitative evacuation performance metrics (clearance time, route saturation, etc.) A forward-looking evacuation assessment framework would not only strengthen public safety for current residents but also provide a valuable foundation for evaluating the cumulative evacuation impacts of future development. ‡:https://www.marinwildfire.org/news/the-state-of-the-science-in-wildfire-evacuation-modeling-a-literature-review?utm_source=chatgpt.com Section 3 — Prioritize Local Level Evacuation Route with FHSZ Map “High-Risk Zones, High Stakes: Street-Level Modeling Required for FHSZ Evacuation” This analysis is based on the evacuation routes released by the City of Cupertino in August 2025. Every one of those designated routes lies outside the mapped Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ). Yet four zones—CUP-016, CUP-017, CUP-029, and CUP-032—are fully or partially within Moderate, High, or Very High FHSZ. Given this reality, it is no longer acceptable to rely on a “planning-level” review of the main evacuation route shown in Figure 2. The City must move beyond high-level assumptions and conduct street-level dynamic traffic assignment within these at-risk zones. Anything less leaves thousands of residents exposed. 3 The findings in CUP-029 alone make the case unmistakable. CUP-029 represents 38% of all evacuation trips in Scenarios A and C—the single largest share of evacuation demand. This is not a marginal zone; it is the primary choke point in a wildfire emergency. In Scenario A, McClellan Road—serving CUP-029 and CUP-032—reaches a V/C ratio of 4.2, while Foothill Boulevard—serving CUP-017—reaches 4.0. A V/C ratio of 1.0 already means a road is over capacity. These corridors are projected to operate at four times their hourly capacity during an evacuation. That is not a “constraint.” That is a system failure waiting to happen. Fehr & Peers themselves state that for “more constrained and congested conditions, higher-effort studies may involve modeled analysis of evacuation scenarios using dynamic traffic assignment to simulate traffic flow and evacuation times when street and freeway networks are at capacity.” Cupertino’s conditions are exactly what this warning describes. The City cannot continue to treat this as optional. To protect residents, Cupertino must adopt dynamic, data-driven tools immediately. This includes the use of real-time traffic management systems capable of providing dynamic route guidance and monitoring to divert evacuees away from collapsing corridors. Furthermore, phased evacuation strategies must be developed not only for the main arterials but also for the high-demand FHSZ zones themselves, where evacuation surges originate. Without this, the extreme congestion projected on McClellan Road and Foothill Boulevard will materialize as modeled or worse, as real-world behavior is never as orderly as a static model assumes. Cupertino has the data, the expertise, and the responsibility. The City must elevate this work beyond planning-level analysis and commit to the advanced modeling that wildfire-exposed communities across California are already pursuing. Residents deserve evacuation planning that matches the severity of the risk—not a framework that collapses the moment it is needed most. Section 4 — Improvement to Evacuation-to-Safety Metric “Beyond V/C Ratios: A Total Evacuation-to-Safety Framework Is Essential” The current assessment fails to correct roadway capacity for emergency conditions. The Volume-to- Capacity (V/C) ratio used throughout the report is an over2023simplified metric, and the accompanying text is misleading. For example, on page 24 the report states: “V/C ratios greater than 2… indicate that these roads would require more than one hour to accommodate the evacuation demand from the evacuation area.” This framing dramatically understates the severity of the problem. A V/C ratio above 1.0 does not simply mean “more than one hour.” It means the system is over-saturated and no longer functioning. Cars are arriving faster than the roadway can process them. A standing queue forms. The system fails. 1. Capacity Must Reflect Realistic “Adjusted Evacuation Route Capacity” The “Adjusted Evacuation Route Capacity” used in this study relies on planning-level hourly capacities from the Highway Capacity Manual (2000). These values do not represent real-world evacuation conditions and fail to incorporate: ● Spatial Adjustments: Increased residential density from the Housing Element requires downward adjustments to reflect degraded capacity on constrained terrain and limited visibility. 4 ● Temporal Adjustments: School pickup periods and short-term curbside parking can severely reduce effective capacity during critical hours. ● Operational Limitations: The analysis assumes normal signal operations and does not account for “red-flash mode” during power outages—an extremely likely condition during wildfire events. 2. Demand Must Reflect Realistic Future Conditions The study is a snapshot of Cupertino’s evacuation capacity based on 2023–2025 data. It does not account for the substantial density increases triggered by the July 2024 rezoning. Planning for wildfire evacuation using backward-looking data is planning through a rear- view mirror. It guarantees underestimation of future evacuation demand. 3. Moving Beyond V/C: “Total Evacuation to Safety” Must Be the Standard Fehr & Peers acknowledge that V/C ratios only identify bottlenecks; they do not measure total evacuation time. In traffic engineering and management science¶, V/C is a well-established tool for quantifying queuing and merging delays. When V/C ≥ 1, the system is not merely “congested”—it is over-saturated, and two critical delays dominate: ¶: Stanford University, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Department of Management Science and Engineering ● Queuing Delay: As V/C approaches 1, delay increases non-linearly. 𝐷𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑦=𝑉/𝐶 1 −𝑉/𝐶× 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑙 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 When V/C ≥ 1, queues grow indefinitely. The roadway cannot clear vehicles. ● Merging Delay: When traffic density eliminates safe gaps, merging becomes impossible without forced maneuvers that further destabilize flow. Consider CUP-029 at 8PM during a late-summer, wind-driven wildfire approaching from the south. A quickly encroaching fire from the foothills would paint the sky red. The tree canopy along Linda Vista becomes a “fuel tunnel.” Residents have only one exit: northbound toward McClellan Road. Roughly 80 vehicles from 51 homes on Evulich Court must merge into an already over-saturated Linda Vista Drive. This is not a theoretical model—it is a life-and-death situation at the choke point. Wildfires such as the Pacific Palisades Fire have spread at rates of 200 acres in 20 minutes. Under these conditions, seconds matter. Residents need to be aware not just of potential evacuation bottlenecks, but how much time is required to reach safety. This requires the city to both plan and communicate a comprehensive and up-to-date evacuation plan that considers realistic models of queuing, merging, human behavior, and departure delays. Human factors—delays in loading children, pets, and essential belongings—further slow departures. Without quantifying these delays, the City cannot provide residents with the knowledge they need to prepare for an evacuation that may unfold in minutes, not hours. 5 Fehr & Peers states that the V/C metric is only a baseline tool. They identify dynamic traffic assignment (DTA) and phased departure timing as the necessary next steps for an objective, safety-driven evacuation assessment. In conclusion, Cupertino cannot rely on planning-level V/C ratios to evaluate wildfire evacuation safety. The City must adopt a Total Evacuation to Safety framework grounded in dynamic modeling, realistic capacity adjustments, and future population density. Anything less leaves residents with a false sense of security and exposes the community to unacceptable risk. Closing Summary “Why Cupertino Must Elevate Its Evacuation Planning Now” Cupertino’s current wildfire evacuation analysis provides a useful starting point, but it is fundamentally constrained by outdated data, planning-level methodologies, and metrics that do not reflect real- world emergency behavior. Across all four sections, the evidence is clear: the City’s Health & Safety Element does not yet meet the level of rigor required to protect residents in a rapidly densifying, wildfire-exposed community. The analysis relies on 2023–2025 population and traffic data, even though the July 2024 rezoning dramatically increases residential density. As the document itself notes, it “primarily reflects existing households,” leaving future evacuation demand unaccounted for. This gap alone makes the current assessment insufficient for long-range planning through 2040. Methodologically, the City continues to rely on broad, planning-level evaluations despite its consultant’s own acknowledgment that dynamic traffic assignment and scenario-based evacuation modeling are necessary for constrained areas. Peer jurisdictions across California have already adopted these advanced tools; Cupertino should not lag behind. The risk is most acute in the Fire Hazard Severity Zones, from which evacuation surges originate. Zones such as CUP029 and CUP032 generate the largest share of evacuation demand, yet are absent from the City’s street-level evacuation models behavior. Projected V/C ratios of 4.0–4.2 on McClellan Road and Foothill Boulevard indicate not congestion, but system failure under evacuation conditions. Finally, the continued reliance on V/C ratios obscures the true danger. At V/C ≥ 1, “the system is oversaturated and no longer functioning,” however the City’s report frames V/C > 2 as merely “more than one hour.” Residents need to understand time to safety, not just where bottlenecks occur. That requires modeling queuing, merging, human behavior, and departure delays—none of which are captured in the current framework. In summary, Cupertino has the data, the expertise, and the responsibility to adopt a modern, dynamic, and future-oriented evacuation planning framework. The City needs urgently to meet the intent of the General Plan and to safeguard residents through 2040 and beyond. Cupertino must move beyond planning-level assumptions and commit to advanced, data-driven evacuation modeling that reflects the realities of wildfire risk and future population growth. OUTDATED INPUTS PLANNING-LEVEL METHODS ARE NOT ENOUGH HIGH-RISK ZONES REQUIRE STREET-LEVEL MODELING BEYOND V/C RATIOS : A TOTAL EVACUATION -TO -SAFETY FRAMEWORK March 9, 2026 DerChang Kau Resident of the City of Cupertino Feedback to Update to the Health and Safety Element of the Cupertino General Plan: 2015 - 2040 Community Vision 1 Outdated Inputs The City’s evacuation analysis is built on pre-rezoning data and cannot support long-range planning. Uses 2023 ACS, 2025 Genasys, and 2024 StreetLight data —“Primarily reflects existing households” — not future density Fails to identify parcels with single ingress/egress as required by California Government Code Section 65302(g)(5)¶ —Evulich Ct. modeled as 4 units, not 51 units allowed under rezoning A 2040 General Plan cannot rely on 2023 conditions The analysis is outdated the moment it is published. 2 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=65302.&article=5.&hig hlight=true&keyword=Fire%20Hazard%20Severity%20Zone#:~:text=(5)%20Upon%20the%20next%20revision,revision %20of%20the%20safety%20element. ¶ 2 Planning-Level Methods Are Not Enough Cupertino must move beyond broad, planning-level assessments to dynamic, high-resolution evacuation modeling. Current method is a “broad evaluation,” not a plan —Fehr & Peers: constrained areas require dynamic traffic assignment (DTA) DTA has been adopted widely —National guidance exists: ISO 22315, NIST ESCAPE —Peer jurisdictions (e.g., Marin County) already use advanced modeling Needed tools: —Scenario-based simulations, Evacuation time analysis, Departure-behavior modeling, Redundant route & shelter analysis, Quantitative performance metrics Cupertino should be a leader—not a laggard—in evacuation planning. 3 3 High-Risk Zones Require Street-Level Modeling Four evacuation zones lie within Fire Hazard Severity Zones, yet the City has not modeled their street-level evacuation behavior. All designated evacuation routes lie outside FHSZ But CUP016, CUP017, CUP029, CUP032 lie inside Moderate–Very High FHSZ —CUP029 alone = 38% of all evacuation trips —McClellan Road V/C = 4.2; Foothill Blvd V/C = 4.0 —These are not “constraints”—they are system failures City must adopt: —Street-level DTA, Real-time traffic management, Phased evacuation strategies for FHSZ zone Thousands of residents remain exposed until Cupertino models evacuation where the risk actually exists. 4 4 Beyond V/C Ratios: A Total Evacuation-to-Safety Framework V/C ratios hide the true danger. Cupertino needs a Total Evacuation-to-Safety model. V/C > 1 means oversaturation — “the system fails” Current study uses planning-level capacities from year 2000 Missing adjustments: —Spatial (density, terrain, visibility), Temporal (school pickup, curbside parking), Operational (signal outages, red-flash mode) Real evacuation requires modeling: —Queuing delays, Merging delays, Human behavior, Departure lag Residents need to know time to safety, not just where bottlenecks occur. 5 5 Evulich Ct. : Evacuation to Safety Modeling 6The visual animation is courtesy of David Yan, yet another resident of Cupertino Based on 2023 American Community Survey (Used for population, household data, and vehicle ownership distribution). è Does not include 2024 re-zoning Include 2024 re-zoning of Evulich Ct., a.k.a. 10857~10887 Linda Vista Dr to R3 (51 units in red box) 6 ©2026, DerChang Kau. All rights reserved.7 15’ after Red Flag Warning issued5’ after Red Flag Warning issued 7 ©2026, DerChang Kau. All rights reserved.8 45’ after Red Flag Warning issued30’ after Red Flag Warning issued 8 ©2026, DerChang Kau. All rights reserved.9 60’ after Red Flag Warning issued Pre-2024 re -zoning Entire Linda Vista spine safely evacuated in 30 minutes or less Post -2024 re -zoning More than 1 ½ hours required for Evacuation to Safety 9 Summary: Cupertino Must Elevate Its Evacuation Planning The current evacuation analysis is not sufficient for a wildfire-exposed, rapidly densifying Cupertino. The City must adopt modern, data-driven methods to meet 2040 safety needs. Dated data source Over simplified methods despite known constraints and consultant guidance High-risk zones (CUP016, 17, 29, 32) require street-level modeling V/C ratios mask true danger — oversaturation means system failure, not delay Residents need time -to-safety modeling, not bottleneck identification Peer jurisdictions already use dynamic traffic assignment & scenario-based tools To protect residents and meet the intent of the Health & Safety Element, Cupertino must move beyond planning-level assumptions and commit to advanced, future-oriented evacuation modeling now. 10 Subject: Re: Feb/24/2026 Planning Commission Public Hearing – Technical Rebuttal to “Transportation Analysis for the Proposed Townhomes at 10857 Linda Vista Drive in Cupertino, CA” by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. https://cupertino.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=8a56f691-e5d1-472e-9ba9-753651a0bd2e.pdf To: Cupertino City Planning Commissioners CC: Planning Staff, City of Cupertino From: DerChang Kau, 10847 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino Dear Chair and Honorable Commissioners, The "Safety Assessment" on page 22 of the Hexagon report concludes that the project "would not worsen existing geometric hazards". We contend that this finding is based on incomplete data and fails to address the unique life-safety risks of the Linda Vista "Spine." 1. Failure to Model Emergency Surge Conditions • The Error: Hexagon’s analysis is based on "Peak Hour" trips, estimating only 30 vehicles will exit the site during the busiest hour of a normal day. • The Reality: In a wildfire evacuation, the demand is a simultaneous surge. Our integrated model shows that 248 vehicles must exit the spine in a 30-minute window. • The Impact: Hexagon ignores the Utilization Ratio of 110%, where demand exceeds road capacity, causing total system failure. 2. Ignoring Intersection Degradation (McClellan Choke Point) • The Error: The report assumes the Linda Vista/McClellan intersection functions at a standard "Level of Service". • The Reality: Disaster events (fire/earthquake) often lead to power outages, turning the signal into a 4-way stop. • The Impact: This condition drops flow rates by 50%, doubling the physical exit time and trapping residents in the "tunnel of fire". 3. Omission of Merging Conflict and Shockwave Delay • The Error: Hexagon evaluates the new cul-de-sac for basic garbage truck turning templates but ignores "merging friction". • The Reality: Concentrating 51 units into one entry point on a saturated single-lane road creates "forced merging". • The Impact: As shown in our analytical model, this creates a 28-minute "Shockwave Delay" that stalls the entire evacuation route for all 155 households. Conclusion: A Quantifiable Safety Violation The Hexagon report addresses "Daily Operations" but fails to provide a "Project-Specific Evacuation Plan". Because the project pushes the total "Order to Safety" time from less than 30 minutes (current R1) to more than 90 minutes (planned R3), it creates a "specific, adverse impact upon public safety" that cannot be mitigated by standard street design. The General Plan Public Safety Element requires the City to reduce wildfire risk and ensure adequate emergency access and evacuation capability for existing and future residents. The Mobility Element likewise requires that the circulation system function safely and reliably, not only under daily peak conditions but for emergency response. The Hexagon report evaluates routine traffic operations; it does not evaluate emergency surge evacuation performance on the single-access Linda Vista spine. Because the Hexagon report only focuses on "daily traffic", I strongly recommend city planning department urge SummerHill Homes consulting with reputable agencies in wildfire evacuation analysis and protection planning, such as Reax Engineering for evacuation modeling and Dudek for CEQA fire protection planning to produce flawless and adequate wildfire evacuation risk analysis and mitigation plan. Thank you. Sincerely, DerChang Kau 10847 Linda Vista Dr Cupertino, CA 95014 Email: DerChang@Gmail.com Phone: (408)-446-5150 (Residence) (408)-398-6086 (Mobile) EMERGENCY EVACUATION SUBJECT TO EVULICH CT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT SIGNIFICANT SAFETY FINDING QUANTIFIED RESULTS WITH LIFE-AND-DEATH CONSEQUENCES THE ASKS DerChang Kau 10847 Linda Vista Drive Cupertino Cupertino Planning Commission Hearing 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino Feb/24/2026 Significant Safety Finding re the Proposed Evulich Ct Project 2025 CAL FIRE LRA update fundamentally changed the safety baseline for this parcel. —Re-zoning of this site to R3/TH in July 2024 was based on the 2007 (FHSZ) maps. Total evacuation during a wind-drive wildfire accident will more than double the Critical Safety Window —Critical Safety Window: 30 minutes, based on a 20- minute fire spread rate of 200 acres (Pacific Palisade Fire Data) —Total evacuation time more than double from less than 30 minutes with current status to 60~90 minutes or more with R3/TH at Evulich Ct 2 Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) maps, the March 2025 CAL FIRE LRA update Evulich Ct Mathematically Rigorous, Objective Results with Life-and-Death Consequences 3 Traffic Utilization Ratio Matters —Baseline @ 37%: The system is "Under-Saturated." No queue; you drive straight to the stop sign and leave. —Planned @ 110% : The system is "Over-Saturated." a "Standing Queue" forms; the line of cars gets longer. Delays to Safety —Queuing Delay: Because the R3 Utilization is 110%, the queue never clears. You are now waiting for the cars ahead of you to clear a "bottleneck" that is physically too small for the crowd. This is a mathematical proof that the road cannot physically clear the neighborhood in under 30 minutes. —Merging Delay: The 51-unit project creates a Concentrated Conflict Point that adds 28.5 minutes of 'Shockwave Delay' to the evacuation. This is not a subjective preference; it is a mathematical consequence of forcing high-density merging into a saturated, single-lane 'spine' during a surge event." All conclusions derived from transparent assumptions, validated models, and reproducible calculations. Baseline Planned Logic & Boundary Conditions Total Units (N)70 Units 155 Units Includes Evulich & Vista Heights. Vehicle Load (V)112 Cars 248 Cars 1.6 vehicles/HH Capacity (μ)600 Cars/Hr 450 Cars/Hr Road capacity. Utilization (ρ)37%110%Demand / Capacity. Queuing Delay (DQ)2.5 mins 45.0+ mins Exponential delay at saturation. Merging Delay (DM)4.0 mins 28.5 mins "Critical Gap Acceptance” model Human Factor (DH)20.0 mins 20.0 mins Time from alert to vehicle in gear. Total Evacuation 26.5 mins 93.5+ mins Sum of: [DQ+DM+DH]. Critical Safety Window: 30 minutes, based on a 20-minute fire spread rate of 200 acres (Pacific Palisade Fire Data) The Asks Consistency Review:A formal analysis by the Fire Marshal to determine if 51 units is consistent with the 2025 Health and Safety Element Update and its "Evacuation-Constrained" criteria. Supplemental CEQA Review:A re-evaluation of the project’s impacts on emergency evacuation plans, given the change in the environmental hazard baseline as of March 2025. Consideration of Mitigation:We propose that a lower-density, R1- aligned project of 12 single-family homes serves as the only feasible mitigation to preserve the "Vista" in Linda Vista while maintaining a safe, 30-minute evacuation window. 4 From:David Yan To:City Council; City Clerk Subject:Evulich Court: The Case for a Closer Look Date:Friday, March 13, 2026 4:48:52 PM Attachments:LindaVista_CouncilBrief_v03.17.2026(F).pptx LindaVista_CouncilBrief_v03.17.2026(F).pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. For inclusion in the written communications for the March 17, 2026 City Council meeting and made part of the administrative record for this item Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Chao, and Councilmembers: Please see attached presentation regarding the Evulich Court project. I have included both PowerPoint and PDF formats. City Clerk - I will be presenting these slides at the meeting. Could you please confirm receipt and arrange for them to be displayed during my presentation? Regards, David Yan MARCH 2026 7 Reasons Evulich Court Cannot be Approved A summary for City Council. The case for a closer look. 1 / 9EVULICH COURT The Legal Standard and What It Requires The Council may deny this project if there is substantial evidence that the development will pose a health and safety hazard. THE LEGAL THRESHOLD Substantial evidence that the development will pose a health and safety hazard. Government Code Section §66474(f) and the Subdivision Map Act public safety finding require the City to affirmatively support its conclusion that no serious public health risk exists. Seven independent grounds demonstrate that standard was not met. Any one of them is sufficient. Together they present a record the City cannot cure by producing documents after the fact. SEVEN INDEPENDENT GROUNDS 1. The road cannot safely evacuate this neighborhood 2. The City's own study found both exits at over 200% capacity 3. SB 330 vesting does not freeze the health and safety obligation 4. Setback waiver removes required defensible space with no equivalency 5. Fire safety was built around large 51 townhomes, not fire safety 6. Mitigation measures fail AB 130’s required protective effect 7. The project's specific wildfire risk analysis did not exist at approval EVULICH COURT What the Council Must Decide The CEQA exemption applies only if the record demonstrates all three of the following. If any one is not demonstrated, the exemption does not apply and the project cannot proceed on this record. 01 Evacuation Safety The record must show the corridor can safely evacuate residents within the time window established by current wildfire data. No city analysis of this corridor exists in the record. 02 Wildfire Safety The record must show the project adopted fire mitigation measures pursuant to PRC Sections 4290, 4291, and Chapter 7A. The Fire Department's own review confirms nonconforming setbacks and deferred the project specific wildfire plan to a future stage. 03 Compliance With Existing Standards Setback waiver removes 20 ft of required defensible space with no equivalency analysis in the record. The AMMR approval does not satisfy AB 130's fire condition. No state agency including CAL FIRE or HCD has made that determination. The only entity claiming it does is the applicant's own consultant. 2 / 9EVULICH COURT Independent Engineering Analysis: 93 Minutes to Evacuate A resident engineer applied standard traffic queuing methodology to the approved density. The safe window from the 2025 Palisades Fire is 30 minutes. The City produced no contradicting analysis. 93 min Total evacuation time With added corridor density 30 min Safe window 2025 Palisades Fire benchmark 110% Road utilization Failure threshold is 100% 0 City corridor evacuation analyses in the record Across the entire proceeding About the analyst: DerChang Kau is a retired Intel Fellow and Adjunct Professor of Engineering. His methodology applies standard traffic engineering queuing theory and gap acceptance theory to the approved project density using published emergency evacuation parameters. A preliminary evacuation throughput estimate based on conservative flow assumptions is shown below. It is not presented as a substitute for Fire review. It illustrates why a corridor level evacuation analysis should have existed in the record before approval. The City made an affirmative public health finding under the Subdivision Map Act without any corridor evacuation analysis with no data to support it. An affirmative finding requires affirmative evidence. The record contains neither. 3 / 9EVULICH COURT A Present Tense Health and Safety Finding Cannot Ignore Current Data In October 2025, a City obtained a Fehr & Peers evacuation study found both exits to Linda Vista operate at over 200% of capacity under evacuation conditions. The study was not placed in the administrative record before the February 24, 2026 PC meeting. It was produced for the first time on March 9, 2026. Over 200% McClellan Road capacity under evacuation conditions City commissioned Fehr and Peers study, Oct. 2025 Over 200% Bubb Road capacity under evacuation conditions City commissioned Fehr and Peers study, Oct. 2025 What over 200% means: at 100% utilization, a standing queue forms and does not resolve. Both exits were already failing before this project adds any units. This is not a future risk. It is a current condition documented by the City's own consultant. Why the City cannot look away from this study The Subdivision Map Act requires a present tense finding that the subdivision will not cause serious public health problems. That obligation runs at the time of approval, not the time of application. The study existed. The City had it. A present tense health and safety determination in a Very High Fire Hazard zone on a single access corridor cannot responsibly proceed without accounting for the City's own current technical findings about the capacity of that corridor. 4 / 9EVULICH COURT SB 330 Vesting Does Not Freeze the Health and Safety Obligation The Applicant (and city) argues SB 330 locks in pre 2025 conditions. That argument fails on two independent grounds and actually cuts against the Applicant on AB 130. GROUND ONE SB 330 vests against changes in local ordinances and policies. It does not vest against physical reality. The October 2025 Fehr and Peers study did not create a new standard. It documented existing physical conditions on a road that has always had one entrance and one exit. The Subdivision Map Act public safety finding requires a present tense determination. SB 330 protects against regulatory moving goalposts. It does not convert a present tense health and safety obligation into a historical one. SB 330 Section 65589.5 / Gov. Code Section 66474(f) GROUND TWO: THE DOUBLE DIP PROBLEM The developer cannot selectively freeze time. The Applicant’s position freezes time in only one direction. The project invokes SB 330 vesting to argue the March 2025 Very High Fire Hazard reclassification does not apply because the application predates it. Yet the same project invokes AB 130, enacted June 30 2025, to obtain a CEQA exemption that did not exist when the application vested. AB 130 is a CEQA exemption, not a fire safety certification. Meaning the City must still make a separate Subdivision Map Act safety finding. Vesting cannot operate selectively. If SB 330 controls the applicable regulatory framework, it applies to both burdens and benefits. The Council must still make a present tense public safety finding under the Subdivision Map Act based on the conditions that exist today. 5 / 9EVULICH COURT The 20 Foot Setback Waiver Removes Required Defensible Space with No Equivalency AB 130 requires fire mitigation measures that achieve the same practical effect required by CCR Title 14 §1276.01(b). The Fire Department waived the 30-foot setback, removing 20 feet of defensible space in a Very High Fire Hazard Zone. The approved compensatory measures do not replace the lost spatial separation, and no equivalency analysis appears in the record. WHAT THE LAW REQUIRES AB 130 requires fire mitigation measures adopted pursuant to existing building standards, including the 30 foot building separation setback under CCR Title 14 Section 1276.01(a). Pursuant to means in conformity with. Not in authorized substitution for. Gov. Code Sec. 65913.4(a)(6)(D) and PRC Sec. 21080.66 Result: Setback reduced from 30 to 10 feet. Twenty feet of defensible space removed from a reclassified Very High Fire Hazard zone. No state agency including CAL FIRE or HCD has determined that an AMMR approval satisfies AB 130's fire condition. The only entity making that interpretive leap is the applicant's own consultant. WHAT THE RECORD SHOWS Statutory Requirement PRC Section 21080.66 requires compliance with PRC 4290, PRC 4291, and Chapter 7A. Fire Department Record "PRC 4290: Exception request approved. Nonconforming setbacks to be mitigated through increased fire separation distance and modified sprinkler systems." "Provide Final Fire Protection Plan at building permit stage identifying wildfire mitigation measures." The Issue Nonconforming setbacks. Mitigation instead of the standard. Wildfire plan deferred. AB 130 requires compliance, not an exception to it. 6 / 9EVULICH COURT The Fire Safety Case Was Built Around Large 2700 sq homes, Not the Other Way Around The developer's own filings confirm the project was designed to a unit count and size first. Fire mitigation was retrofitted around the resulting layout. AB 130's fire condition exists to prevent exactly this sequence. 01 2700 sq foot homes (51 units) drove the design. Fire safety came second. The applicant's AMMR justification narrative states the setback reduction was required by the need to fit 51 units on the site. Fire mitigation was not a design driver. It was a post hoc signoff on a 2700 sq foot layout. AB 130's fire condition exists to ensure high hazard zone projects are genuinely designed around wildfire risk, not to provide a compliance stamp after unit counts are locked in. 02 The cited mitigation measures were already required by law regardless of AB 130. Chapter 7A, fire sprinklers, and fire resistant exterior materials apply to every project in a Very High Fire Hazard zone by operation of law. AB 130 requires measures adopted in response to the fire hazard condition. Passive compliance with universal baseline requirements does not satisfy an adopted standard. The record contains no analysis of what specific protection the waived 30 foot setback provided and what measures beyond the baseline were adopted to replace it. 03 PRC Section 4291, defensible space, was never analyzed by anyone. PRC 4291 requires a defensible space clearance analysis. It does not appear in the Fire Department plan review, the AMMR application, or the AB 130 qualification memo. The landscape zone drawings (Sheets L7.1 and L7.2) address vegetation placement only. None of them analyze whether the waived setback satisfies the defensible space obligation PRC 4291 imposes. This is not a documentation gap. It is a substantive gap that cannot be cured after the fact. AB 130's fire condition is not a checklist of minimum code requirements. It is a substantive standard requiring demonstrated equivalency to specific state fire protections. The record does not contain that demonstration. 7 / 9EVULICH COURT The CEQA Exemption Requires Fire Mitigation That Achieves Equivalent Protection. The Record Does Not Show It PRC Section 21080.66(a)(6) requires measures PRC 4291, 4290, and Chapter 7A that achieve the same practical effect as the 30-foot setback for the CEQA exemption to apply. None of the 4 accepted measures demonstrate this on the record. Measure Accepted by Fire Addresses PRC 4291 Defensible Space? Addresses PRC 4290 Setback Equivalency? Independently in Administrative Record? Sprinkler heads on covered patios within 30 feet of property lines No. Interior suppression only.No. Does not replace spatial separation.No. Noncombustible landscaping extending 5 feet from buildings No. Vegetation placement only. Does not address defensible space or replace 20 feet of separation No equivalency analysis in record.No. Fire separation requirements per CRC 302.4 No. Structural standard only.Partial. Not analyzed against setback gap.No. Exterior wall fire resistance ratings within 30 feet of property lines No. Governs wall materials, not siting. No. Does not address spatial separation.No. Chapter 7A addresses how individual structures resist ignition from embers and radiant heat. It does not address where structures are sited relative to the wildfire hazard zone boundary. A project can achieve full Chapter 7A compliance and remain inadequately sited in a Very High Fire Hazard zone. 8 / 9EVULICH COURT The Project Specific Wildfire Risk Analysis Did Not Exist at Approval The Fire Department conditioned its approval on a wildfire plan to be submitted later. That plan does not exist. The CEQA exemption cannot rest on evidence that has not yet been produced. What Condition 2 says: The Fire Department's own plan review requires the applicant to submit a Final Fire Protection Plan at building permit stage,identifying mitigation measures to address the project's specific wildfire risk pursuant to CFC Section 4903. What that means: the Fire Department itself acknowledged that project specific wildfire risk mitigation had not been determined at the time of approval. Why this cannot be cured: The City may argue this condition shows wildfire risk will be addressed later at the permit stage. That argument fails for a specific reason: the document David J. Powers cites as proof the fire condition is satisfied -the January 2026 Santa Clara County Fire Department plan review itself, requires the applicant to submit a Final Fire Protection Plan at the building permit stage. The exemption is supported by a document that defers its own conclusion. That is not substantial evidence. It is a placeholder citing a placeholder. ADDITIONALLY: DOCUMENTATION IN THE RECORD The AMMR form analytical fields each state See attached documentation. None of those attachments appear in the administrative record. The January 2026 Fire Department Plan Review Comments were not in the record before or during the hearing. Commissioner Scharf noted this on the record. The document carries a disclaimer stating it shall not be construed as an approval. From:Alice Lin To:City Council; Kitty Moore Cc:Public Comments Subject:City Council 3/17 Agenda #12 Linda Vista Drive Safety Date:Saturday, March 14, 2026 11:03:36 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. TO: Cupertino City Mayor and Council FROM: Residents of Cupertino Date: March 14, 2026 Sub: City Council 3/17 Agenda #12 Linda Vista Drive, Vote No Dear Mayor Moore and Members of the Cupertino City Council, I am writing to formally express grave concerns regarding the proposed 51-unit townhome project at 10857 Linda Vista Drive (TM-2024-009). The Staff Report’s conclusion that "no evacuation study has been required or reviewed"because the City lacks "adopted objective standards" is an unacceptable prioritization of administrative loophole over resident safety. The Council must address the following critical flaws in the current approval process: 1. Failure to Address the "Very High FHSZ" Baseline In June 2025, the City adopted updated CAL FIRE maps designating this specific parcel as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ). This updated baseline fundamentally changes the safety obligations under Government Code Section 65913.4(a)(6). The City’s reliance on an Environmental Assessment from July 2024—conducted when the site was only "High" risk—is outdated and fails to account for the increased severity of the hazard now officially recognized. 2. Building Codes are Not Evacuation Plans The project claims safety consistency based on Chapter 7A of the California Building Code and PRC Sections 4290 and 4291. However, these standards focus on structure survivability, not the ability of 51 new households to exit onto Linda Vista Drive during an emergency. While the Fire Department approved a "hammerhead turnaround" for fire trucks to enter, there has been zero analysis of how 100+ additional resident vehicles will safely evacuate the neighborhood simultaneously. 3. Improper Deferral of the Fire Protection Plan (CFC 4903) The Santa Clara County Fire Department has conditioned the project to provide a "Final Fire Protection Plan" consistent with CFC 4903. Shockingly, the City is allowing this critical safety analysis to be submitted at the building permit stage, long after the City Council has lost its discretionary power to reduce density or require significant site plan changes. Safety mitigations must be identified before approval to ensure they are actually feasible. 4. Circumventing the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) Under the HAA, the City can only disapprove or reduce the density of this project if it finds a "specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety". By claiming it has "no objective standards" for evacuation, the City is intentionally avoiding the very analysis that would likely provide the "preponderance of evidence" needed to make such a safety finding. Conclusion Public safety is not a "non-objective" concern. State law, including GC 65302(g)(5), requires that the City ensure adequate evacuation routes in FHSZs. We urge the Council to mandate a formal Wildfire Evacuation Capacity Study as a condition of approval. The City cannot grant PRC 4290 exceptions for reduced setbacks while simultaneously refusing to study the resulting evacuation risks. Respectfully, Alice Lin From:Nancy Wu To:City Council; Public Comments Subject:Evulich Court Date:Saturday, March 14, 2026 1:43:47 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi City Council of Cupertino, Regarding the Evulich project, please carefully consider the following two points. 1. Fire Safety of the Residents is a City Responsibility. Because lawyers are using various loop-holes to make unsafe developments, does not abdicate the city from it. 2. And the residents will actively support the city and the city council when it comes to defending the city against any legal threats by Big Real Estate because the city is standing up to its responsibility to keep us safe. Sincerely, Nancy Wu Resident on Castleton Street in Cupertino From:Seema Lindskog To:City Council; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Subject:Support the trail access from the Evulich Ct development to the Stevens Creek trail Date:Thursday, March 12, 2026 5:32:33 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Chao, and Council members, I am on the City of Cupertino Planning Commission, but today I'm writing as a resident. When you consider the Evulich Ct development at Tuesday's Council meeting, please support the trail access connection from the development to the Linda Vista section of the Stevens Creek Trail. In multiple city surveys, residents cite connectivity and proximity to nature as one of the things they want the most. A huge benefit of living in Cupertino is that we have such amazing nature trails for residents to enjoy. The 3-30-300 rule of urban planning, endorsed by the United States EPA, the European Union, the WHO, and multiple other organizations, states that the best practice for urban planning is that residents should have access to nature within 300 meters of their home (a little under 1,000 ft). The trail access from Evulich Ct is a public access which benefits everyone in the neighborhood. It gives mid-block access to the residents on Linda Vista Drive and surrounding streets. Without it, residents on these streets have to walk or drive much further to get to an entrance to the Stevens Creek trail either at Linda Vista Park or at McClellan Rd. Summerhill Homes, the developer, has agreed to ask for a reduction in the in-lieu park fees for only the simple cost of building this trail access. Compared to costs the city incurs for similar projects, which require multiple bids and other constraints, this is a very cost effective option and a prudent use of city resources. The Planning Commission voted 3-2 to support the trail access when they reviewed the project. I urge you to also support the trail access connection. Thank you for everything you do for our city. Sincerely, Seema Lindskog ___________________________________________________________________ "You must be the change you want to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi This message is from my personal email account. I am only writing as myself, not as a representative or spokesperson for any other organization. From:V Lentfer To:Public Comments Cc:City Council; R "Ray" Wang; City Clerk; Jim Lentfer; Randy Ong Subject:City Council 3/17 agenda #12 Linda Vista Drive/Evulich. VOTE NO! Date:Monday, March 16, 2026 1:51:08 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mayor Moore and Councilmembers, My name is Veronica Lentfer and I live near the proposed 51-townhome development on Linda Vista Drive/Evulich Court. First, I support adding thoughtful housing in Cupertino. Our region needs more homes, and well-planned development can be part of the solution. On September 6, 2024, our neighborhood group met with City Manager Pamela Wu and Mayor Sheila Mohan to deliver a petition signed by 745 neighbors, all expressing shock and concern about this proposal. This shows the community has been concerned from the moment they first heard about it. There are also process concerns. For major zoning changes, proactive notification is expected, and skipping it creates the perception that development interests move faster WITHOUT getting community input. The current plan would place 51, 4 bedroom 1700-2300 square foot townhomes on a 2.53-acre parcel, roughly 20 units per acre, in the middle of an established single- family neighborhood, far from transit and commercial centers. Higher-density housing works best near transit, jobs, and services—reducing traffic and allowing residents to rely less on cars. Placing this project here increases traffic on streets not designed for it and isolates residents from walkable amenities. My adult children could not afford the minimum $2mil + prices of these homes! These homes are clearly not starter homes! It’s also important to note that this parcel was historically zoned R1 for single-family homes for over 60+ years, reflecting the character of our neighborhood, until it was rezoned in July 2024 to allow multi-family townhomes without notifying the 745 neighbors who signed the petition. The current proposal departs significantly from that original intent, dramatically increasing density and altering the neighborhood’s character. Some neighbors have observed that the townhomes look more like a Courtyard Marriott Hotel rather than a residential development, highlighting how out of scale and out of character it is compared with nearby homes. You don’t get a redo on this site. Its development will be part of our neighborhood forever. We, the neighbors, will have to live with its density, scale, design and traffic impact for decades, so it’s essential that it fits responsibly within the existing community. Another major concern is fire safety. The density and design could create challenges for emergency access and evacuation. I urge the Council to fully review all fire safety issues before granting any approvals, rather than waiving requirements or assuming problems will be resolved later. Safety must be a non-negotiable priority. If the Council moves forward, I strongly encourage scaling the project to better fit the neighborhood: fewer units, smaller homes, underground parking, and adherence to city height and design standards without waivers. While affordable units are important, waiving guidelines in exchange for a few below-market-rate homes can produce a development that is out of scale with its surroundings. We all want more housing in Cupertino, but smart growth means placing it where it works for both the city and the neighborhoods—not cramming 51 three-story units into 2.5 acres in the middle of single-family homes far away from transit and commercial centers. Vote NO on the Linda Vista Drive/Evulich project. Thank you for your time. Veronica Lentfer From:Alice Lin To:Public Comments Cc:City Council Subject:City Council 3/17 Agenda #12, 10857,10867,10877,10887 Linda Vista Drive, Please Vote No Date:Monday, March 16, 2026 1:43:47 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Council Members, Please vole no to the project. SummerHill Home’s application of building 2700sf home is larger than any of single house in Linda Vista Neighborhood. They are building mansions, not starter homes as Council member JR Fruen is claiming. City Councilors must stop using urban density reform to polarizing the community. Respectfully yours A concerned resident living at Monta Vista neighborhood From:DerChang Kau To:City Council Cc:Public Comments Subject:City Council 3/17 Agenda #12 Linda Vista Drive, Vote No Date:Monday, March 16, 2026 1:18:09 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. TO: Cupertino City Mayor, Vice Mayor and Council Member CC: Public Comment record From: concerned residents of Cupertino Please vole no to the project. SummerHill Home’s application of building 2700sf home is larger than any of single house in Linda Vista Neighborhood. They are building mansions are not starter homes as Council member JR Fruen is claiming. City Councilors must stop using urban density reform to polarizing the community. Respectfully yours A concerned resident living at Monta Vista neighborhood From:James Choi To:Public Comments Cc:City Council Subject:Written Communication for the March 17, 2026 City Council meeting for Agenda Item #12: Evulich Court / Linda Vista Dr / SummerHill Homes Development: Date:Monday, March 16, 2026 11:34:16 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Written Communication for the March 17, 2026 City Council meeting for Agenda Item #12: Evulich Court / Linda Vista Dr / SummerHill Homes Development: Dear Members of the Cupertino City Council, I am writing to you as a deeply concerned resident living near the proposed 51-unit SummerHill development on Linda Vista Drive. While I understand the state-level pressures and mandates regarding housing, I am urging the Council to pause and re-evaluate this project. This is a matter of life and safety for every resident in this neighborhood. Our lives are effectively in your hands, and we trust you to ensure that development does not outpace the fundamental infrastructure required to protect us. Please consider the following critical points: Fire Safety is a City Responsibility: The safety of residents is a fundamental city responsibility. The use of legal loopholes by developers to push through unsafe projects does not abdicate the City of its duty to protect its citizens. Legal Position on Fire Risk: While the City may claim its hands are tied by state law and that it is forbidden from considering the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone or evacuation risks, this is simply a chosen legal position. In reality, the City has the authority to ensure a defensible fire mitigation and evacuation framework is in place before approving density in high-risk zones. Standing Up to Developers: Do not let SummerHill, their lawyer, or their legal threats dictate the future of Cupertino. The Planning Commission was recently threatened by their counsel on February 24th, 2026; I urge the Council not to concede to these tactics. Independent Analysis is Required: We cannot rely on SummerHill’s own fire and safety analyses conducted by third-party companies; these hand-picked reports cannot be trusted to prioritize our safety over their profit. Community Support: The residents will actively support the City and City Council in defending against legal threats from "Big Real Estate" like SummerHill. We will stand behind you when you fulfill your responsibility to keep us safe. The landscape regarding fire safety has changed, and the risks are more evident than ever. We need a citywide fire mitigation and evacuation framework that is current and technically sound before adding this level of density to a high-risk corridor. I ask that you do not disregard this plea. We are looking to you to do the right thing, prioritize the safety of the people you represent over the interests of a developer, and get Cupertino back on a track that values the lives of its residents. Respectfully, James Choi 11093 Bel Aire Ct, Cupertino ------------------------------------------ For your reference, I am including the safety gaps I emailed to the Planning Commission for the February 24th, 2026 hearing. Please review the 4 bullet points in detail below. Written Communication for the February 24, 2026 Planning Commission meeting for Agenda Item #3: Evulich Court / Linda Vista Dr / SummerHill Homes Development: Dear Members of the Cupertino Planning Commission, I am writing to you as a concerned resident living near the proposed 51-unit townhome development at 10857–10887 Linda Vista Drive. While I understand the state-level pressures and mandates regarding housing, I am urging the Commission to pause and re-evaluate this project. The stakes of this decision are not merely about maintaining the character of our community; they are a matter of life and safety for every resident in this neighborhood. Our lives are effectively in your hands, and we trust you to ensure that development does not outpace the fundamental infrastructure required to protect us. I request that the Commission consider the following critical gaps in the current record: Outdated Emergency Planning: The City’s Emergency Operations Plan predates the proposed increase in density and, more importantly, the recent fire hazard reclassifications. Approving a project of this scale in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone based on years-old assumptions is a risk the community cannot afford. Lack of Cumulative Impact Analysis: The City is currently evaluating this project in a vacuum, despite the other Linda Vista project, Vista Heights, also potentially moving forward concurrently nearby. Reviewing these projects independently fails to account for their combined impact on evacuation capacity and emergency response along our shared, constrained corridors. Need for Technical Transparency: To date, the materials provided have been summary in nature and insufficient for professional technical review. We ask the City to produce the underlying fire mitigation and evacuation materials—including specific assumptions and inputs—to allow for an independent, professional evaluation of our corridor’s actual evacuation capacity. Service Demand and Response Times: Per Cupertino’s own Health and Safety Element, increased population density leads to traffic congestion that impacts Fire Department response times. In an "evacuation constrained" area like Linda Vista, these delays can be fatal. We are not asking the Commission to debate the merits of housing in general. We are asking you to fulfill your responsibility to ensure a current, citywide fire mitigation and evacuation framework is in place and relied upon before any further density is approved in a very high- risk zone. Once this project is approved and the developer exits, the permanent risk of infrastructure strain and evacuation failure stays with the residents and the City. I ask that you take this communication with the gravity it deserves and ensure a comprehensive, corridor-level evacuation analysis is completed and documented on the record. Respectfully, James Choi 11093 Bel Aire Ct, Cupertino From:David Yan To:City Council Cc:Public Comments Subject:10857 Linda Vista Drive, Applicant"s Evacuation Route Study Not in Record Date:Monday, March 16, 2026 9:38:52 AM Attachments:image.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Chao, and Councilmembers: The Council is being asked to approve a residential subdivision on Linda Vista Drive without seeing an evacuation study the Applicant itself prepared for this exact corridor. A February 10, 2026 meeting agenda obtained through a public records request shows the Applicant presented an evacuation route study to City planning staff and the fire department. That study has never been entered into the record for this project. The Applicant has taken the position that because the City has not adopted an evacuation plan, evacuation cannot be considered in the approval of this project. The Council cannot allow this line of reasoning to continue during the upcoming March 17th Council meeting. The absence of a plan is not a license to ignore a safety question. The absence of an adopted evacuation plan does not eliminate the City's obligation under the Subdivision Map Act to make an affirmative public health and safety finding. The City still has to affirmatively find that this project will not cause serious public health problems. That finding must be supported by evidence. The Applicant commissioned its own evacuation route study for this site, presented it to the City and the fire department, and did not produce it into the record. The Council is being asked to make a health and safety determination about evacuation on this corridor without seeing a study the applicant prepared specifically about evacuation on this corridor. If the Applicant genuinely believed evacuation was legally irrelevant to this project, there would have been no reason to commission an evacuation study for this site in the first place. The physical constraint is fixed regardless. Every route out of Linda Vista Drive resolves to one of two exits: Bubb Road to the south and east, McClellan Road to the north and west. There is no third option. A wildfire evacuation is not a routing exercise. It is a road capacity question. And capacity is fixed by the roads that exist. The City commissioned the Fehr and Peers study and it found both exits to Linda Vista Drive, McClellan Rd (West) and Bubb Rd operate at over 200% of capacity under evacuation conditions. The fact that the study was commissioned for the Health & Safety Element does not change those findings. Bubb Road and McClellan Road are over capacity. That is true regardless of which process the study was commissioned for. The roads are what they are. The findings have been in the City's records since October 2025, as per the cover page of the Fehr and Peers study. The City cannot rely on a "separate timeline" for the Health and Safety Element to defer its immediate legal obligations. Administrative processes do not change physical constraints: the roads are the same roads. This is not a question of whether cities can build housing on constrained corridors. It is a question of whether this specific corridor, in a reclassified Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, with two documented failing exits, can safely evacuate the residents already here. The City's own consultant said it cannot. Adding density to a failing corridor in a fire hazard zone is not a housing policy question. It is a public safety question. And the law requires an affirmative answer before approval, not silence. Under Government Code Section 66474(f) of the Subdivision Map Act, the Council may deny a subdivision if substantial evidence shows the project would cause serious public health problems. A health and safety finding unsupported by evidence is not defensible. The findings do not expire because they were commissioned for a different purpose. The roads are the same roads. A Council that approves this project while its own records contain documented evidence of evacuation failure does not insulate itself from that evidence by declining to consider it. The obligation to make an affirmative public health and safety finding runs to the actual conditions that exist on this corridor. Approval without evidence of safety violates the Subdivision Map Act. Respectfully submitted, David Yan Linda Vista Neighborhood Resident From:Rhoda Fry To:Public Comments Cc:City Council Subject:City Council Meeting 3/17/2026 #12 51-unit townhome condominium - VOTE NO Date:Monday, March 16, 2026 9:28:01 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. RE: City Council Agenda #12 3/17/2026 51-unit townhome condominium development on Housing Element Priority Housing Sites 25 through 28 Dear City Council, You are being asked to vote on 4 items. You have a choice as to whether you vote YES or NO. That is why you are being asked to vote, otherwise, these decisions would be made ministerially. Furthermore, you should not rely on the Planning Commission vote because the information available at that meeting and the items voted on were different (staff assumed the project was exempt from CEQA and the October 2025 evacuation route was hidden). There are a number of concerns that I have about the proposed project and I hope you will read through my comments. Sincerely, Rhoda Fry (recipient CREST Public Safety Award) Decision #1 – PROJECT DOES NOT MEET CEQA - Here are TWO tests for CEQA exemption under AB130 Decision #1, Test #1 – Project cannot be in a delineated fault zone. It is. CEQA is required. AB130 Memo (Attachment E) page 12 misleads the reader into believing that the nearest delineated earthquake zone is the San Andreas Fault (footnote 10). This is false. The Monte Vista fault, capable of a 7.1 earthquake, is within about 400 feet of the proposed project. See notes with links and map below. CEQA IS REQUIRED. Decision #1, Test #2 – Project cannot be in a very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ). It is. CEQA is required. Cities I looked at in California do NOT have a fire department sign-off loophole in for AB130. Why is Cupertino less safe than other California cities (see notes below)? Even the company that prepared the AB130 memo for Cupertino, David J. Powers, stated at the Planning Commissioner Academy last week that VHFHSZ REQUIRES CEQA. Furthermore, justifications provided by the fire department are not sufficiently detailed and were derived using false assumptions. a. The fire department assumed that this is a builder remedy project, it is not. b. The fire department was led to believe items that are materially false: that 51 homes must be built and the only way to build them was to reduce the required 30-foot setback. This is not true. These homes, that Summerhill calls “products,” have 4 bedrooms and are very large, about 2700 sq ft. Smaller homes could be built on this site and maintain the 30-foot safety zone. c. The fire department conflated PRC 4290 (infrastructure standards) and PRC 4291 (defensible space). All applicable PRCs must be considered individually. d. PRC (4290) can apply to evacuation beyond the footprint of a new project but it is not being considered. It was revealed after the Planning Commission vote on this project that the evacuation routes from this project are severely impacted by 2 to 4X (which the City has had since October 25 but did not share with the Planning Commission until March 9, 2026). Note that in a fire, there is essentially only one way out. https://cupertino.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx? ID=7939626&GUID=7AC99155-0A72-4867-A7E1- 3E6AC39E8B2A&Options=&Search=#docaccess- 468609363b52235d20d0e89542b30f387454cb4e4e12e1673654e018c0eddbc6 Furthermore, Summerhill conducted its own evacuation study and discussed it with City staff on February 10, 2026, but did not share it with the Planning Commission, the City Council, or the staff. See notes below. Why is Summerhill hiding their evacuation study? e. A 10-foot setback with mitigations is NOT a safety-equivalent to the required 30- foot setback. Decision #2 – RESOLUTION No. 26-029 (ATTACHMENT A) VOTE NO The resolution requires yes on #1. Since #1 is no, you must Vote No. Design does not allow for ladders on property lines with 10-ft setback. Project must be rejected today because it is inaccurate. Vote No. Fails Item (f) “The proposed subdivision design and improvements will not cause serious public health.” The City Council MAY reject a project if there is substantial evidence that the project can post a health and safety issue. There is (details below) Vote No. a) Makes a known evacuation deficiency worse. b) Just beyond the rear property line are PG&E wires among the trees. This is really scary and having even more homes nearby adds to the dangerous. c) Homes in the area have inadequate water pressure and must use a pump for adequate pressure. Adequate household pressure is needed for fire sprinklers. If the power goes out, residents would have even less pressure to house down their homes in the event of fire. Adding the load of people occupying 200 bedrooms (51 units x 4) to insufficient system will harm the residents who live uphill from the project. Note that fire hydrants run separately. Household water pressure is the first defense against fires. d) Decks within the 30-foot setback create a hazard – even with added fire sprinklers. There is nothing to prevent residents from putting flammable materials on their decks and this could put them, their neighbors, and off-site neighbors at risk. OTHER 1. Discussion about waiving park fees for trail access should be discussed as a separate resolution.DO NOT WAIVE PARK FEES. 2. Consider capturing sales-tax with requiring Cupertino LLC for this project as a Condition of Approval (COA). 3. Summerhill has undermined its credibility – the wrong box was checked on the AB130 memo pertaining to hazards, it has withheld information it has about evacuation, it bullied the Planning Commission, saying that the project was exempt from evacuation requirements because the City didn’t have any yet. Does Summerhill want to destroy its reputation? HOW WOULD YOU FEEL IF PEOPLE DIED FROM NOT BEING ABLE TO EVACUATE THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD IF YOU VOTED FOR THIS PROJECT AS IS? * NOTES * First some easy stuff: 1. Capture Sales-tax: If this project is to move forward, please add a Condition of Approval (COA) to have the business location for material purchases to be at the project site. This might require the creation of a subsidiary LLC. This will allow the City to capture sales tax as I understand it. Please ask staff to look into this. Apple did similar. 2. Split out Trail Connection into a separate item: You are being asked to waive $377K in park fees for a connection to the Linda Vista Trail. This would be an amenity for the residents of the project. Our public money should not be used for this trail connection. But there’s more. I don’t see anything in the report that states that there would be an easement for all Cupertino residents to traverse the private property of the complex in order to access the trail connection. It seems to me that an HOA (Home Owner’s Association) could later close the public access to the trail if they had any complaints about it. And in that case, the taxpayers would have wasted $377K of park fees. If Summerhill wishes to create this amenity for their residents, so be it, but not at a cost to the public. Public Access for a future trail connection is not guaranteed per #5 of first resolution. VOTE NO ON RESOLUTION No. 26-029 (ATTACHMENT A) or modify. 3. Decks within 30ft of property line should be removed: Decks that are within 30 feet of the property line are to be outfitted with fire-sprinklers. But there is nothing to prevent residents from putting fuel for fire on those balconies like rattan furniture, last year’s dry plants, cotton laundry etc… This poses a public safety hazard on Item F of the first resolution. VOTE NO ON RESOLUTION No. 26-029 (ATTACHMENT A). 4. The Planning Commission voting items were different. Now you are being asked whether you believe the project is exempt from CEQA – the Planning Commission meeting ASSUMED IT WAS, which limited the commission’s choices. This is wrong. 5. The Planning Commission was given incomplete data: Why is it that more data is being made available to City Council than was made to the Planning Commission? Most importantly, current evacuation routes show severe overcapacity was not revealed to the Planning Commission until AFTER the vote. Furthermore, Summerhill assured residents no trouble found AND had knowledge of the evacuation issue - - - as did our own staff per their meeting on February 10, 2026. Why isn’t Summerhill sharing their evacuation study with the public? See below: Project does not meet AB130 criteria – it requires CEQA. VOTE NO ON #1 CEQA EXEMPTION AND RESOLUTION No. 26-029 (ATTACHMENT A). 1. THE WRONG BOX WAS CHECKED for High FIRE HAZARD on the AB130 form. The form now says that the project is NOT in a very high fire zone, when in fact it is. Whether it is potentially mitigated is immaterial. The wrong box was checked. Vote NO on first resolution. Other municipalities say that VERY HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONEs cannot use AB130. I have written before. A number of other City forms, do not allow a fire department waiver. In fact, the company that filled out the form for this application, stated at the Planning Conference last week said that very high fire hazard severity zone is a hard NO. Vote NO on first resolution. Los Angeles: https://planning.lacity.gov/project-review/shra-senate-bill-684-1123 City of Santa Clara: https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/88826 Saratoga: https://www.saratoga.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/6237/AB-130-checklist-1-27-26- web?bidId= San Francisco: https://sfplanning.org/sites/default/files/forms/AB130_InfillExemption_SupplementalA pplication.pdf South San Francisco: https://www.ssfca.gov/files/assets/public/v/2/economic-amp-community- development/documents/planning/ab-130-eligibility-requirements-form.pdf Even the Association of Builders and Contractors agree that VHFHSZ does not quality. https://abcsocal.org/california-ab-130/ 2. THE PROJECT IS IN AN EARTHQUAKE HAZARD ZONE - on the AB130 memo, the wrong box was checked. Attachment E Page 12. “The project is not located on a site that is any of the following…” The memo justifies that the project is not in an earthquake hazard zone with footnote #10 being that it is really far away from the San Andreas fault. But in fact, it is VERY CLOSE (about 400 feet) TO A FAULT CAPABLE OF A 7.1 EARTHQUAKE!!! This is the Monte Vista fault that is a thrust fault which is by far more dangerous than a regular fault. Furthermore, it is within a DESIGNATED ZONE of earthquake-induced slope instability. Whether the developer has considered mitigation here is not material. THIS PROJECT FLUNKS THE AB130 TEST. See: https://grokipedia.com/page/monta_vista_fault See: https://www.cottonshires.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/CupertinoHazMap_small.pdf Project are is colored blue in the snip below: 3. Fire Department made inaccurate assumptions when the developer tried to use a loophole that is rejected by most California cities I could find. When evaluating the project, per PRAs, a) the fire department assumed that this is a BUILDER REMEDY project. It is not. b) the fire department assumed that the project was already in the building department. It was not. c) the fire department was led to believe that the developer MUST build 51 units and the only way to do it is to reduce the normally- required 30-foot fire setback. This is false. The developer could still build 51 units and maintain a 30-foot setback – they just would not be huge 4 bedroom luxury homes. 4. Fire Department’s reduction of 30 feet defensible space to 10 feet does NOT MAKE THE PROJECT EQUALLY SAFE. There are TWO RULES to consider – 4290 and 4291– these must not be conflated. Other Public Safety Issues Related to First Resolution 1. Design does not allow for ladders on property lines with 10-ft setback. Project must be rejected today because it is inaccurate. You cannot vote yes on the first resolution. VOTE NO ON FIRST RESOLUTION No. 26-029 (ATTACHMENT A).. 2. Fails Item (f) on first resolution: The proposed subdivision design and improvements will not cause serious public health. There are homes on Linda Vista that need pumps to get adequate water pressure that would be used for home use and fire sprinklers. Furthermore, what happens if the power goes out? Adding more homes to a compromised water-pressure system is a cumulative impact that MUST BE ADDRESSED BY CEQA. VOTE NO ON FIRST RESOLUTION No. 26-029 (ATTACHMENT A).. 3. I just don’t understand how anyone can pretend that the public safety problems do not exist because Cupertino’s evacuation plan came late. 4. First Resolution States: The City Council MAY reject a project if there is substantial evidence that the project can post a health and safety issue. There is - - - VOTE NO ON FIRST RESOLUTION No. 26-029 (ATTACHMENT A). 5. Bad Reputation for Summerhill – Summerhill has had a stellar reputation in the Bay Area. But now we know that Summerhill is endeavoring to build a development in: 1. VERY HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONE, 2. NEXT TO AN EARTHQUAKE FAULT 3. WHERE EVACUATION ROUTES ARE OVER CAPACITY BY 2X to 4X (and realistically, there is only one way out if there is a fire). From:TSY Chuang To:Public Comments; Kitty Moore; Liang Chao; Tina Kapoor Subject:Request to Reschedule Evulich Court/Summerhill Project Agenda Item on March 17 to a later date Date:Monday, March 16, 2026 12:28:25 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Manager, Mayor, and Vice-Mayor, I am writing to respectfully request that the Evulich Court/Summerhill project be rescheduled from the upcoming City Council meeting on March 17th. It is my understanding that Council Member Wang will be unable to attend this meeting. I believe it is important that action items—particularly those involving public hearings—be considered only when all Council members are able to participate, especially when a member’s absence is known in advance. Residents elect their representatives with the expectation that their voices will be heard through a fully present Council, and scheduling should reflect that principle when feasible. Additionally, I’ve learned that Council Member Mohan resides within 1,000 feet of the proposed project site, which may require her recusal due to the potential impact on her property value. As a result, with only three Council members who would be eligible to deliberate and vote on this matter, it seems prudent to defer a public hearing when such limited participation may occur. I also recall that on at least one prior occasion, a Council meeting was rescheduled by Mayor Wei and/or the City Manager on relatively short notice. With this precedent in mind, I respectfully ask that the public hearing—and, if possible, the related action items—be postponed to a date when Council member Wang participation is possible. Thank you for your time and consideration of this request. Sincerely, Tania From:Saba Sathya To:Public Comments Cc:City Council Subject:City Council 3/17 Agenda #12 Linda Vista Drive, Vote No Date:Sunday, March 15, 2026 7:40:33 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Cupertino City Council, I am concerned about the new housing development as I live in the next street Baxley Court. Please consider fire safety and evacuation measures to deny the high density housing project to proceed. I request the City Council to consider the following: 1. Fire Safety of the Residents is a City Responsibility. Because lawyers are using various loop-holes to make unsafe developments, does not abdicate the city from it. 2. And the residents will actively support the city and the city council when it comes to defending the city against any legal threats by Big Real Estate because the city is standing up to its responsibility to keep us safe. Thanks in advance. Regards Saba Sathya 22023 Baxley Court Cupertino, CA 95014 From:Unique Family To:Public Comments Cc:City Council Subject:City Council 3/17 Agenda #12 Linda Vista Drive, Vote No Date:Sunday, March 15, 2026 7:38:39 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Cupertino City Council, I am concerned about the new housing development as I live in the next street Baxley Court. Please consider fire safety and evacuation measures to deny the high density housing project to proceed. I request the City Council to consider the following: 1. Fire Safety of the Residents is a City Responsibility. Because lawyers are using various loop-holes to make unsafe developments, does not abdicate the city from it. 2. And the residents will actively support the city and the city council when it comes to defending the city against any legal threats by Big Real Estate because the city is standing up to its responsibility to keep us safe. Thanks in advance. Regards Selvi Sathya 22023 Baxley Court Cupertino, CA 95014 From:Meichu H To:City Council; Kitty Moore Cc:Public Comments Subject:City Council 3/17 Agenda #12 Evulich Ct Emergency Safety Concerns, Please Vote No Date:Saturday, March 14, 2026 11:08:56 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. TO: Cupertino City Mayor and Council FROM: Residents of Cupertino Date: March 14, 2026 Sub: City Council 3/17 Agenda #12 Evulich Ct Emergency Safety Concerns, Please Vote No Dear Mayor and City Council, I am writing to express urgent concerns regarding the proposed 51-unit townhome project at 10857 Linda Vista Drive. The current approval process contains a critical safety flaw: the City has concluded that "no evacuation study has been required or reviewed" simply because it lacks its own "adopted objective standards" for evacuation. This administrative loophole ignores the site’s June 2025 designation as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ). The project’s safety analysis relies almost entirely on building construction standards, such as fire-resistant materials and modified sprinklers. While these may improve structure survivability, they do nothing to address neighborhood-wide evacuation capacity. The Transportation Study focuses on fire truck access via a "hammerhead turnaround" but fails to analyze how 100+ additional resident vehicles will safely exit onto Linda Vista Drive during a wildfire emergency. Furthermore, the City is allowing the developer to defer the Final Fire Protection Plan (CFC 4903) until the building permit stage. This prevents the Council from evaluating critical wildfire risk mitigations before density and site plans are finalized. This is particularly concerning given that the project already received an exception to PRC 4290, allowing for non-conforming setbacks in this high-risk area. Under Government Code Section 65913.4(a)(6), projects in a Very High FHSZ must adopt specific fire hazard mitigations to qualify for CEQA exemptions. Relying on construction materials while refusing to study evacuation flow is a failure of public safety. I urge the Council to mandate a formal Wildfire Evacuation Capacity Study as a condition of approval. Respectfully, Meichu Huang From:mwfantozzi@tfanco.com To:City Clerk Cc:City Council; City Attorney"s Office Subject:Written Communications-SummerHill, LLC 10857, 10867, 10877, and 10887 Linda Vista Drive Townhomes Date:Friday, March 13, 2026 3:22:15 PM Attachments:Summary Statements of Deficiencies.zip Staff Report Deficiencies.zip Financial Disclosure & Negligence.zip Fire Code_PRC4290_Fire Flow Deficiencies.zip Technical Report Errors & Omissions.zip CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Clerk, Honorable Mayor, Councilmembers, and City Attorney, Please accept the attached materials as written communication regarding: Project: SummerHill - Evulich Ct. Townhomes; Application Number: TM-2024-009, ASA-2024-015, TR-2024-044; Agenda Item: 12; scheduled for consideration on March 17, 2026. This submission includes: Zip Folder: Summary Statements of Deficiencies (3 files) Zip Folder: Financial Disclosure & Negligence (2 files) Zip Folder: Staff Report Deficiencies (3 files) Zip Folder: Fire Code_PRC4290_Fire Flow Deficiencies (3 files) Zip Folder: Technical Report Errors & Omissions (3 files) These materials are provided to ensure the administrative record accurately reflects the project’s non-compliance with State Fire Safety Standards, disregard for public safety, concerns over development in VHFHS without adequate safety planning, illegal CEQA exemptions and compliance issues, procedural errors and the absence of financial disclosure when the City is granting exemptions to the General Plan, fire standards, and public safety. Decision regarding this matter need to be based on complete and accurate information. I respectfully request that these documents be: 1.Posted to the public agenda packet as written communication, and 2.Distributed to the full City Council for their review. Please confirm receipt and posting at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your attention and for ensuring these materials are included in the public record. Sincerely, Mark W. Fantozzi, PECupertinomwfantozzi@tfanco.com Policy-Focused Review Regarding TM-2024-009 Project: TM‑2024‑009 (Linda Vista Townhomes) Location: 10857–10887 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, CA Prepared for: Cupertino City Council Prepared by: Mark W. Fantozzi, PE 1. Executive Summary This submission raises significant concerns regarding the City of Cupertino’s consideration of exceptions to fire codes, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements, and General Plan safety policies for the proposed TM-2024-009 development project located at 10857–10886 Linda Vista Drive. The project site lies within a designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ), which necessitates strict adherence to fire-safety standards and environmental review protocols. Granting exceptions in such a high-risk area may constitute a policy deviation with serious public safety and legal implications. The Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD) granted a PRC 4290 exception for this project. However, SCCFD’s approval is conditional and not final. Importantly, SCCFD requires the submission of a Final Fire Protection Plan at the building-permit stage, indicating that the fire-safety review process remains incomplete. 2. Background The TM-2024-009 project encompasses parcels located at 10857, 10867, 10877, and 10886 Linda Vista Drive in Cupertino, California. These parcels are situated within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ), as designated by Cal Fire. The regulatory framework governing this area includes the California Fire Code (CFC), which mandates fire-flow requirements and emergency access standards; the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which requires comprehensive hazard analysis for projects in high-risk areas; and the City of Cupertino’s General Plan Safety Element, which prioritizes public safety and hazard mitigation in land-use planning. According to SCCFD’s plan-review comments dated January 27, 2026, the project received a PRC 4290 exception due to non-conforming setbacks, which are to be mitigated through increased fire separation and modified sprinkler systems. SCCFD’s approval is conditional, pending the submission of a Final Fire Protection Plan. The fire-flow requirement for the project is 1,375 gallons per minute (GPM) at 20 psi residual pressure, based on the inclusion of automatic fire sprinklers. 3. Policy Concerns Granting exceptions to established fire codes, CEQA requirements, or General Plan safety policies in a VHFHSZ constitutes a significant policy deviation. Such actions may undermine the integrity of the City’s regulatory framework and set a precedent for future developments in similarly hazardous areas. Key safety analyses—such as fire-flow testing, hydraulic modeling, evacuation planning, and water-supply adequacy assessments—are essential to ensure that new developments do not compromise public safety or overburden existing infrastructure. Specifically, the PRC 4290 exception granted by SCCFD in this case represents a discretionary deviation from standard fire-safety setbacks. Such exceptions in VHFHSZ areas require substantial evidence to demonstrate that equivalent safety is maintained. Furthermore, SCCFD’s conditional approval does not satisfy CEQA’s requirement for a complete hazard analysis or the General Plan’s mandate for verified public safety. 4. Public Safety Implications Developing in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone introduces elevated risks of wildfire exposure, evacuation challenges, and strain on emergency response systems. The California Fire Code and related state regulations require strict compliance with fire-safety standards, particularly in VHFHSZ areas. Any deviation from these standards must be supported by substantial evidence demonstrating that public safety will not be compromised. Failure to adhere to these requirements could expose the City to legal liability and endanger residents and first responders. SCCFD identified non-conforming setbacks that require mitigation through increased fire separation and modified sprinkler systems. Additionally, SCCFD requires the development of a Final Fire Protection Plan to address wildfire mitigation, defensible space, and emergency access. These unresolved issues heighten the wildfire risk and underscore the need for comprehensive safety planning. 5. CEQA-Exempt Implications If the City determines that the TM-2024-009 project is exempt from CEQA, the exemption does not eliminate the City’s obligation to ensure compliance with fire-safety standards, PRC 4290, or the General Plan Safety Element. CEQA exemption affects only procedural environmental review; it does not waive substantive safety requirements. A CEQA exemption elevates the importance of SCCFD’s findings because the PRC 4290 exception remains a discretionary act requiring substantial evidence of equivalent fire safety. SCCFD’s conditional approval—requiring a future Final Fire Protection Plan—confirms that the fire-safety review is incomplete. The City cannot rely on future mitigation to justify present approval, nor can it treat SCCFD’s conditional approval as evidence of General Plan consistency. General Plan consistency remains a mandatory finding regardless of CEQA status. A project located in a VHFHSZ with unresolved fire-safety deficiencies cannot be found consistent with the Safety Element. Therefore, even if CEQA does not apply, the City must still require complete fire-flow documentation, evacuation analysis, and the Final Fire Protection Plan before granting approval. 6. Conclusion Given the location of the TM-2024-009 project within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, it is imperative that the City of Cupertino uphold its commitment to public safety, transparency, and legal compliance. SCCFD’s findings confirm that key fire-safety issues remain unresolved, including the need for a Final Fire Protection Plan and mitigation of non-conforming setbacks. These outstanding issues require full compliance with CEQA (if applicable) and the General Plan Safety Element before any project approvals are granted. We urge the City Council to ensure that all applicable safety standards and environmental review requirements are fully enforced, and that any proposed exceptions are subject to rigorous scrutiny and supported by substantial evidence. 7. Request for Council Action We respectfully request that the Cupertino City Council: 1. Require full compliance with all applicable fire-safety standards, CEQA hazard analysis protocols, and General Plan safety policies. 2. Ensure that no exceptions, variances, or waivers are granted for the TM-2024-009 project without substantial evidence demonstrating compliance with state and local safety mandates. 3. Require the applicant to submit detailed fire-flow, hydraulic, and evacuation analyses, as well as financial information if exceptions are sought that may confer a financial benefit. 4. Require full disclosure and justification for the PRC 4290 exception granted by SCCFD, including the specific mitigation measures proposed and their effectiveness in addressing the identified fire-safety deficiencies. Summary Compliance Memorandum Re: TM-2024-009, TM-2024-009, 10857, 10867, 10877, 10886 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino (Linda Vista Drive) CEQA Exemption Rebuttal & General Plan Inconsistency Analysis Prepared for: Cupertino City Council Prepared by: Mark W. Fantozzi Date: March 10, 2026 VIA EMAIL I. INTRODUCTION This legal brief evaluates the TM-2024-009 project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Cupertino General Plan Safety Element. The analysis demonstrates that: 1.The project does not qualify for a CEQA exemption , and 2.The project is inconsistent with multiple mandatory General Plan policies , independently barring approval. The project is located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ), requires a discretionary PRC 4290 exception , and lacks essential wildfire, evacuation, and water-supply analyses. These deficiencies preclude CEQA exemption and prevent the City from making the required General Plan consistency findings. II. CEQA EXEMPTION REBUTTAL A. CEQA Exemptions Are Prohibited in High Fire-Risk Areas CEQA Guidelines §15300.2(b) bars categorical exemptions where “unusual circumstances” create a reasonable possibility of significant environmental impacts. The TM-2024-009 project presents multiple unusual circumstances: Location in a VHFHSZ Known evacuation bottlenecks along Linda Vista / Stevens Creek Non-conforming setbacks requiring PRC 4290 exceptions Incomplete fire-safety review (Final Fire Protection Plan pending) Water-supply reliability concerns under PSPS and peak-demand conditions Any one of these conditions is sufficient to defeat a CEQA exemption. Together, they make exemption legally indefensible. , PE B. PRC 4290 Exception Is a Discretionary Approval That Triggers CEQA The City cannot claim ministerial approval while simultaneously granting a discretionary PRC 4290 exception. Discretionary approvals require:  Findings of equivalent fire safety  Substantial evidence  Evaluation of mitigation measures  Consideration of alternatives This is incompatible with CEQA exemption. Case law is clear: If any component of a project requires discretion, the entire project is discretionary for CEQA purposes. C. SCCFD’s Conditional Approval Confirms CEQA Review Is Incomplete SCCFD explicitly states:  “Plans are APPROVED with conditions.”  “Provide a Final Fire Protection Plan at time of building permit submittal.” CEQA does not allow approval based on future mitigation. Environmental impacts must be analyzed before approval. A CEQA exemption cannot be based on:  Missing wildfire analysis  Missing evacuation analysis  Missing water-supply reliability analysis  Missing Final Fire Protection Plan The City cannot rely on SCCFD’s conditional approval as a substitute for CEQA review. D. Evacuation and Emergency Access Issues Require CEQA Analysis CEQA Guidelines Appendix G requires analysis of:  Impacts on evacuation routes  Impacts on emergency response  Wildfire-related infrastructure capacity The Linda Vista corridor is a constrained evacuation route with limited egress. No evacuation analysis has been submitted. This alone precludes CEQA exemption. E. Water-Supply Reliability Requires CEQA Review SCCFD accepted a hydraulic analysis only for minimum fire-flow, not:  Peak-demand reliability  PSPS conditions  Multi-structure fire scenarios These are CEQA-level issues requiring environmental review. F. Conclusion: CEQA Exemption Is Legally Unsupportable The TM-2024-009 project cannot be exempt from CEQA because:  It is located in a VHFHSZ  It requires discretionary PRC 4290 exceptions  SCCFD’s approval is conditional and incomplete  Required wildfire, evacuation, and water-supply analyses are missing  CEQA Guidelines §15300.2 prohibits exemptions under these conditions The City must require full CEQA compliance before considering approval. III. GENERAL PLAN INCONSISTENCY ANALYSIS A. General Plan Consistency Is Mandatory Regardless of CEQA Status Government Code §§65300.5 and 65860 require that all land-use decisions be consistent with the General Plan. This requirement applies even if CEQA does not. A project cannot be approved if it conflicts with the General Plan. B. Relevant Safety Element Policies Policy S-1.1 — Reduce wildfire risk in VHFHSZ areas The project lacks:  A Final Fire Protection Plan  Verified defensible-space compliance  Demonstrated water-supply reliability Policy S-1.3 — Ensure adequate emergency access and evacuation capacity The Linda Vista corridor is a constrained evacuation route. No evacuation analysis has been submitted. Policy S-2.2 — Ensure adequate fire-flow and water-supply infrastructure SCCFD’s acceptance of minimum fire-flow does not address:  Peak-demand reliability  PSPS conditions  Multi-structure fire scenarios Policy S-3.1 — Require development to mitigate known hazards The project relies on future mitigation (Final Fire Protection Plan), violating this policy. C. SCCFD’s Conditional Approval Confirms Inconsistency SCCFD identified:  Non-conforming setbacks  Required mitigation through modified sprinklers  Requirement for a future Final Fire Protection Plan  Requirement for Turnaround A These unresolved issues demonstrate that the project does not currently meet fire-safety standards required by the General Plan. D. PRC 4290 Exception Conflicts with General Plan Safety Policies The PRC 4290 exception is a discretionary deviation from standard fire-safety requirements. To be consistent with the General Plan, the City must demonstrate:  Equivalent fire safety  Adequate mitigation  Substantial evidence No such evidence has been provided. E. Evacuation Constraints Create Direct General Plan Conflicts The Safety Element requires:  Safe and reliable evacuation routes  Adequate emergency-response access  Infrastructure capacity to support wildfire evacuation The Linda Vista corridor does not meet these standards, and no analysis has been provided to demonstrate otherwise. F. Conclusion: The Project Is Inconsistent with the General Plan The TM-2024-009 project is inconsistent with the Cupertino General Plan because:  It lacks required wildfire-hazard mitigation  It lacks evacuation and emergency-access analysis  It relies on future mitigation rather than present compliance  It requires discretionary PRC 4290 exceptions without substantial evidence  SCCFD’s conditional approval confirms unresolved safety deficiencies Under Government Code §§65300.5 and 65860, the City cannot approve a project that conflicts with the General Plan. IV. OVERALL CONCLUSION The TM-2024-009 project:  Cannot be exempt from CEQA, and  Cannot be found consistent with the General Plan These are independent and sufficient grounds for denial or for requiring full CEQA review and complete fire-safety documentation prior to any approval. Technical Evidence Submission – TM-2024-009 (Linda Vista Dr Project: TM‑2024‑009 (Linda Vista Townhomes) Location: 10857–10887 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, CA Prepared for: Cupertino City Council Prepared by: Mark W. Fantozzi, PE 1. Technical Background The TM-2024-009 project encompasses parcels located at 10857, 10867, 10877, and 10886 Linda Vista Drive in Cupertino, California. These parcels are situated within a designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ), as identified by Cal Fire. The applicable regulatory frameworks include: California Fire Code (CFC §507, Appendix B & C), which governs fire-flow and access requirements. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which mandates wildfire and hazard analysis for projects in high-risk areas. Cupertino General Plan Safety Element, which prioritizes hazard mitigation and public safety. Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD) Water Supply & Access Standards, which establish technical criteria for fire protection infrastructure. SCCFD has conditionally approved the project with exceptions to PRC 4290. These exceptions include non-conforming setbacks mitigated through increased fire separation distances and modified sprinkler systems. A Final Fire Protection Plan is required at the time of building-permit submittal to address wildfire risks, defensible space, and access roads. 2. Fire-Flow Requirements SCCFD has established a required fire-flow of 1,375 gallons per minute (GPM) at 20 psi residual pressure for this project, based on the inclusion of an automatic fire sprinkler system. This requirement is supported by a hydraulic analysis submitted by the developer. While this satisfies the minimum fire-flow requirement under the California Fire Code, it does not address broader CEQA obligations, including wildfire risk analysis and evacuation constraints. 3. Water-Supply Adequacy  Although SCCFD accepted the developer’s hydraulic analysis confirming minimum fire-flow availability, the analysis does not evaluate system reliability under peak demand, Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) conditions, or concurrent multi-structure fire scenarios. Such limitations raise concerns about the adequacy of the water supply under real-world emergency conditions. 4. CEQA Hazard Analysis Requirements  CEQA Guidelines Appendix G requires analysis of wildfire risk, including impacts on emergency response, evacuation routes, and infrastructure capacity. SCCFD’s requirement for a future Final Fire Protection Plan confirms that the CEQA wildfire hazard analysis remains incomplete. The current application lacks an evacuation analysis, water-supply adequacy assessment, and evaluation of emergency-response capabilities. 5. Emergency Access & Evacuation Constraints  Fire-apparatus access roads must meet minimum width and turning-radius standards under CFC Appendix D and SCCFD guidelines. The Linda Vista / Stevens Creek corridor presents known evacuation bottlenecks due to narrow roads and limited egress routes. SCCFD has identified non-conforming setbacks and required mitigation through modified sprinkler systems. Additionally, Turnaround A is required to meet fire-apparatus access standards. 6. CEQA-Exempt Implications  If the City determines that the TM-2024-009 project is exempt from CEQA, the exemption does not eliminate the requirement to demonstrate adequate fire-flow, water-supply reliability, emergency access, or compliance with PRC 4290. CEQA exemption affects only procedural environmental review; it does not waive substantive fire-safety obligations.  The PRC 4290 exception remains a discretionary approval requiring substantial evidence of equivalent fire safety. SCCFD’s conditional approval—requiring a future Final Fire Protection Plan—confirms that the fire-safety review is incomplete. The City cannot rely on future mitigation to justify present approval, nor can it treat SCCFD’s conditional approval as evidence of General Plan consistency.  General Plan consistency remains a mandatory requirement regardless of CEQA status. A project located in a VHFHSZ with unresolved fire-safety deficiencies cannot be found consistent with the Safety Element. Therefore, even if CEQA does not apply, the City must still require complete fire-flow documentation, evacuation analysis, and the Final Fire Protection Plan before granting approval. 7. Summary of Technical Deficiencies The TM-2024-009 application is missing the following required technical documentation:  Justification for the PRC 4290 exception  Final Fire Protection Plan  CEQA-compliant wildfire hazard analysis  Evacuation modeling and traffic analysis  Water-supply adequacy and emergency-response capacity documentation The fire-safety review remains incomplete pending submission and approval of the Final Fire Protection Plan. 8. Request for Council Action We respectfully request that the Cupertino City Council:  Require full compliance with the California Fire Code, CEQA (if applicable), and the Cupertino General Plan Safety Element.  Ensure that no exceptions, variances, or waivers are granted for the TM-2024-009 project without substantial evidence demonstrating compliance with all applicable safety standards.  Require the applicant to submit all missing technical studies, including the Final Fire Protection Plan, evacuation analysis, and water-supply adequacy documentation. CEQA EXEMPTION MEMORANDUM For :TM-2024-009, 10857, 10867, 10877, 10886 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino Prepared for: Cupertino City Council Prepared by: Mark W. Fantozzi, PE Date: March 10, 2026 VIA EMAIL Re: TM-2024-009 (Linda Vista Drive) — Basis for Rejecting CEQA Exemption 1. Purpose of This Memorandum This memorandum provides a detailed rebuttal to any assertion that the TM-2024-009 project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The analysis demonstrates that the project does not qualify for a CEQA exemption due to its location in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ), the presence of unresolved fire-safety deficiencies, and the discretionary nature of the PRC 4290 exception granted by the Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD). 2. CEQA Exemptions Do Not Apply in High Fire-Risk Areas CEQA Guidelines §15300.2(b) prohibits categorical exemptions where “unusual circumstances” create a reasonable possibility of significant environmental impacts. A project located in a VHFHSZ, with documented wildfire-risk constraints and evacuation limitations, meets this threshold. Additionally: The project requires discretionary fire-safety exceptions (PRC 4290). The project lacks a complete wildfire hazard analysis. SCCFD has required a future Final Fire Protection Plan, confirming the hazard analysis is incomplete. These factors independently and collectively bar CEQA exemption. 3. PRC 4290 Exception Is a Discretionary Approval The City cannot claim ministerial approval while simultaneously granting a discretionary PRC 4290 exception. Discretionary approvals invalidate CEQA exemptions. The PRC 4290 exception requires: Findings of equivalent fire safety  Substantial evidence  Evaluation of mitigation measures  Documentation of justification This is the opposite of ministerial action. 4. SCCFD’s Conditional Approval Confirms CEQA Review Is Incomplete SCCFD explicitly states:  “Plans are APPROVED with conditions.”  “Provide a Final Fire Protection Plan at time of building permit submittal. A CEQA exemption cannot be based on future mitigation. CEQA requires that environmental impacts be analyzed before project approval. 5. Evacuation and Emergency Access Issues Trigger CEQA Review CEQA Guidelines Appendix G requires analysis of:  Impacts on evacuation routes  Impacts on emergency response  Wildfire-related infrastructure capacity The Linda Vista / Stevens Creek corridor is a known evacuation bottleneck. No evacuation analysis has been submitted. This alone precludes CEQA exemption. 6. Water-Supply Reliability Requires CEQA Analysis SCCFD accepted a hydraulic analysis only for minimum fire-flow, not:  Peak-demand reliability  PSPS (Public Safety Power Shutoff) conditions  Multi-structure fire scenarios These are CEQA-level issues requiring environmental review. 7. Conclusion The TM-2024-009 project cannot be exempt from CEQA because:  It is located in a VHFHSZ  It requires discretionary PRC 4290 exceptions  SCCFD’s approval is conditional and incomplete  Required wildfire, evacuation, and water-supply analyses are missing  CEQA Guidelines §15300.2 prohibits exemptions under these conditions The City must require full CEQA compliance before considering project approval. General Plan Inconsistency Analysis Project: TM‑2024‑009 (Linda Vista Townhomes) Location: 10857–10887 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, CA Prepared for: Cupertino City Council Prepared by: Mark W. Fantozzi, PE 1. Purpose of This Document This memorandum evaluates the TM-2024-009 project for consistency with the Cupertino General Plan Safety Element. The analysis concludes that the project is inconsistent with multiple mandatory safety policies due to unresolved wildfire, evacuation, and fire-flow deficiencies. 2. General Plan Consistency Is Required Regardless of CEQA Status Even if the City asserts CEQA exemption, General Plan consistency remains mandatory under: Government Code §65300.5 Government Code §65860 California case law (e.g., Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural El Dorado County v. Board of Supervisors) A project cannot be approved if it conflicts with the General Plan. 3. Safety Element Policies Relevant to This Project The following Safety Element policies are directly implicated: Policy S-1.1 — Reduce wildfire risk in VHFHSZ areas The project is located in a VHFHSZ and lacks: A Final Fire Protection Plan Verified defensible-space compliance Demonstrated water-supply reliability Policy S-1.3 — Ensure adequate emergency access and evacuation capacity The Linda Vista / Stevens Creek corridor is a constrained evacuation route. No evacuation analysis has been submitted. Policy S-2.2 — Ensure adequate fire-flow and water-supply infrastructure SCCFD’s acceptance of minimum fire-flow does not address:  Peak-demand reliability  PSPS conditions  Multi-structure fire scenarios Policy S-3.1 — Require development to mitigate known hazards The project relies on future mitigation (Final Fire Protection Plan), which violates this policy. 4. SCCFD’s Conditional Approval Confirms Inconsistency SCCFD’s findings include:  Non-conforming setbacks  Required mitigation through modified sprinklers  Requirement for a future Final Fire Protection Plan  Requirement for Turnaround A These unresolved issues demonstrate that the project does not currently meet fire-safety standards required by the General Plan. 5. PRC 4290 Exception Conflicts with General Plan Safety Policies The PRC 4290 exception is a discretionary deviation from standard fire-safety requirements. To be consistent with the General Plan, the City must demonstrate:  Equivalent fire safety  Adequate mitigation  Substantial evidence No such evidence has been provided. 6. Evacuation Constraints Create Direct General Plan Conflicts The Safety Element requires:  Safe and reliable evacuation routes  Adequate emergency-response access  Infrastructure capacity to support wildfire evacuation The Linda Vista corridor does not meet these standards, and no analysis has been provided to demonstrate otherwise. 7. Conclusion The TM-2024-009 project is inconsistent with the Cupertino General Plan because:  It lacks required wildfire-hazard mitigation  It lacks evacuation and emergency-access analysis  It relies on future mitigation rather than present compliance  It requires discretionary PRC 4290 exceptions without substantial evidence  SCCFD’s conditional approval confirms unresolved safety deficiencies Under Government Code §§65300.5 and 65860, the City cannot approve a project that conflicts with the General Plan. General Plan Inconsistency Matrix Project: TM‑2024‑009 (Linda Vista Townhomes) Location: 10857–10887 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, CA Prepared for: Cupertino City Council Prepared by: Mark W. Fantozzi, PE Issue: Failure to Comply with Mandatory General Plan Safety, Mobility, and Land Use Policies I. SAFETY ELEMENT INCONSISTENCIES General Plan Policy City’s Finding Record Evidence Inconsistency Subdivision Map Act Consequence HS‑2.13 – Identify residential areas with fewer than two ingress/egress routes and ensure safe evacuation. City asserts project is “consistent with the General Plan.” No evacuation analysis performed. Project located on a single‑egress dead‑end (Evulich Ct → Linda Vista). City failed to identify or mitigate single‑egress hazard. §66474(a): Map inconsistent with General Plan → Map must be denied. S‑1.3 – Ensure adequate emergency access and evacuation capacity. City claims fire access is adequate. No evacuation modeling, no clearance time analysis, no cumulative load analysis. Cannot ensure evacuation capacity without analysis. §66474(g): Design likely to cause serious public safety problems. S‑2.3 – Evaluate development in VHFHSZ for evacuation constraints. City states project complies with Fire Dept. conditions. No evacuation evaluation despite VHFHSZ designation. Mandatory evaluation not performed. §66474(a): Required finding cannot be made. S‑2.4 – Maintain safe evacuation routes during wildfire events. City claims roadway improvements improve safety. Traffic‑Evacuation analysis shows McClellan Rd V/C = 4.2 and Foothill Blvd V/C = 4.0 under evacuation — system failure. Evacuation routes are not safe and will not function. §66474(g): Map must be denied due to public safety risk. HS‑3.1 – Reduce wildfire risk through land‑use decisions. City claims project meets zoning. High‑density infill in a VHFHSZ without evacuation analysis increases wildfire risk. Land‑use decision increases, not reduces, wildfire risk. §66474(c): Site not physically suitable. II. MOBILITY ELEMENT INCONSISTENCIES General Plan Policy City’s Finding Record Evidence Inconsistency Subdivision Map Act Consequence M‑2.3.1 – Minimize conflicts with pedestrian and bicycle traffic on primary streets. City claims project improves walkability. Evacuation surge merges into school‑zone pedestrian corridors (Hyannisport, Bubb). Evacuation conflicts with school pedestrian routes. §66474(g): Creates public safety hazard. M‑3.2 – Provide safe pedestrian connections to public amenities. City claims sidewalks improve safety. Sidewalks do not mitigate evacuation gridlock or fire‑flow deficiencies. Pedestrian improvements irrelevant to evacuation safety. §66474(a): Findings unsupported by substantial evidence. M‑3.3 – Enhance crossings at physical barriers (creeks, highways). City claims crosswalks meet policy. Stevens Creek Trail access does not provide evacuation egress. City misapplies policy; does not address evacuation. §66474(a): Inconsistent with Mobility Element. III. LAND USE ELEMENT INCONSISTENCIES General Plan Policy City’s Finding Record Evidence Inconsistency Subdivision Map Act Consequence LU‑11.1 – Ensure new development does not overburden infrastructure. City claims infrastructure is adequate. No fire‑flow analysis in record; no evacuation capacity analysis. Infrastructure (roads, fire‑flow) not evaluated. §66474(d): Site not suitable for proposed density. LU‑1.3 – Ensure development supports public safety. City claims project meets zoning. High‑density development in VHFHSZ without evacuation analysis undermines public safety. Project conflicts with core land‑use safety principles. §66474(g): Creates serious public safety problems. Under Gov. Code §66474, if any required finding cannot be made, the City must deny the map. Here, multiple findings cannot be made, and the record contains no substantial evidence supporting the City’s conclusions. V. CONCLUSION This General Plan inconsistency matrix demonstrates that TM‑2024‑009:  Fails to comply with mandatory Safety Element policies  Fails to comply with Mobility and Land Use policies  Fails to evaluate evacuation in a VHFHSZ  Fails to ensure public safety  Fails to meet the Subdivision Map Act’s required findings Therefore, the City Council must deny TM‑2024‑009 as a matter of law. CLAIM 1: DENSITY “in order to fit the minimum required number of units within the site” • SummerHill’s proposed units average 2,369 livable SF (excluding the 2-car garage) are significantly oversized relative to comparable, approved projects in the same market served by CUSD • Vida Sunnyvale Phase I (Appendix A): 50 units on 2.76 acres (vs. SummerHill’s 51 units on 2.51 acres): nearly identical density – Avg livable area: 1,748 SF per unit: Evulich Ct is 36% larger than Vida – Setbacks to single-family homes: 53–65 feet (vs. SummerHill’s ~10 ft) – Heights taper down 1 story from interior to rear: gradual transition to neighbors – Approved July 2021, built and sold: same South Bay market, conventional financing • Westport Cupertino (Appendix B): 88 townhomes/rowhouses at Stevens Creek & Mary, Cupertino – Avg livable area: 1,978 SF per unit: Evulich Ct is 20% larger than Westport – Family-sized units with 2-car garages: proven marketable product – Approved by Cupertino’s own City Council (Aug. 2020); same city, same market CLAIM 2: EVULICH COURT RIGHT-OF-WAY “The site is constrained by an existing City right-of-way (Evulich Court).” • SummerHill must build internal access roads regardless; the site plan includes five private streets for vehicle and fire apparatus access • The new internal road can be dedicated back to the City in lieu of the existing Evulich Court right-of-way • A required infrastructure element cannot simultaneously be a “site constraint” justifying reduced wildfire setbacks; this argument is circular (Appendix C) REDUCING UNIT SIZE FROM MCMANSION TO COMPARABLE MAKES 30 FT SETBACKS FEASIBLE • At Westport sizes (1,978 SF): total livable drops from 120,829 to 100,878 SF, freeing ~20,000 SF of building mass • At Vida sizes (1,748 SF): total livable drops to 89,148 SF, freeing ~31,700 SF of building mass • Either reduction substantially eases the physical conflict with the 30-foot PRC 4290 setback while still delivering the 51 units required by the City’s Housing Element CONCLUSION: NO SETBACK WAIVER IS NEEDED TO MEET HOUSING DENSITY The setback waiver is not necessary to meet the housing density required by the City’s Housing Element. The required 51 units can be delivered at right-sized livable areas, consistent with comparable projects already approved and built in the same market, while honoring the full 30-foot PRC 4290 setback mandated for Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. The only thing preventing compliance is SummerHill’s choice to build oversized units, not any site constraint or density requirement. Side-by-Side Comparison SummerHill (Proposed)Vida Sunnyvale Westport Cupertino Location Linda Vista Dr, Cupertino E. Fremont Ave, Sunnyvale Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino Site Area 2.51 acres 2.76 acres 8.1 acres (mixed-use) Townhome Units 51 50 88 Avg Livable SF (excl. garage) 2,369 1,748 1,978 Avg Garage SF (2-car)485 458 571 Appendix A: Vida Sunnyvale Phase I, A Built Comparable Project Overview Vida Phase I (166–176 E. Fremont Avenue, Sunnyvale; File #21-0715) was approved by the Sunnyvale Planning Commission on July 12, 2021 and has been constructed and almost sold out. It is a 50-unit townhome development on 2.76 acres, a nearly identical site profile to SummerHill’s proposed 51 units on 2.51 acres. Both projects target the same South Bay family-housing market served by Cupertino Union School District, an important factor in home pricing. Setbacks and Height Transition to Single-Family Neighbors Vida is bordered by single-family neighborhoods on two sides (east toward Bobolink Circle; south toward Avon Terrace/Berwick Way). The project provides setbacks of 53 to 65 feet from these single-family homes: more than five times what SummerHill proposes on the south property line. Critically, these generous setbacks were achieved without any fire hazard zone requirement. Building heights taper down one story from the site interior along the rear property line, providing a gradual transition toward the neighboring single-family homes. The residential buildings are set back approximately 74 to 84 feet from adjacent residential properties when measured to the building face (vs. property line). Additional buffers include a 6-foot masonry perimeter wall along the east and south property lines, fast-growing evergreen screening trees, restricted exhaust openings on walls facing residential neighbors, and peripheral lighting capped at 8-foot pole heights. Setback Comparison Boundary Adjacent Use SummerHill Proposed Vida Actual South / East (Rear)Single-Family Homes ~10 ft (AMMR waiver)53–65 ft West (Side)City Parcel / SF Home ~10 ft (AMMR waiver)15–28 ft (PL-9 waiver) North / Front Street / Commercial ~10–30 ft (varies)10–29 ft (PL-9 waiver) Vida used Density Bonus waivers (PL-9) only on the front and commercial-facing side; never on the sides adjacent to single-family homes. SummerHill, by contrast, seeks the setback reduction precisely on the sides where residents live. Site and Density Comparison Site Metric SummerHill Linda Vista Vida Sunnyvale Phase I Net Site Area 2.51 acres 2.76 acres Total Units 51 50 Density 20.3 du/acre 18.1 du/acre Stories 3 3–4 (tapered to 3 at rear) Avg Livable SF (excl. garage)2,369 1,748 Total Livable SF (excl. garage)120,829 87,416 Avg Garage SF 485 (447–579)458 (453–489) Both projects have comparable acreage (2.51 vs. 2.76 acres), comparable unit counts (51 vs. 50), and comparable densities (20.3 vs. 18.1 du/acre). Both include 2-car garages for every unit (SummerHill’s avg 485 SF vs. Vida’s avg 458 SF). The garage deduction is roughly equal, making the livable area comparison apples-to-apples. The decisive difference is unit size: SummerHill averages 2,369 livable SF per unit versus Vida’s 1,748, which is 36% larger; a difference that directly drives the setback conflict. Vida Unit Mix Detail Unit Type Qty Net Interior SF Open Space SF Garage SF Livable SF* Unit 1 4 1,365 ~114 489 ~1,479 Unit 2 10 1,414 ~114 462 ~1,528 Units 3–4 8 1,430–1,520 ~114 454–462 ~1,544–1,634 Units 5–6 14 1,619–1,740 ~114 453–454 ~1,733–1,854 Units 7–8 14 1,901–2,037 ~114 461–471 ~2,015–2,151 Average / Total 50 1,634 avg ~114 avg 458 avg 1,748 avg *Livable SF = Net Interior + Private Open Space (porches/decks), excluding garage. Both projects have comparable 2-car garages (~450–580 SF), so the garage deduction is roughly a wash. Source: Sunnyvale File #21-0715, Attachment 2 (Project Data Table), Attachment 7 (Project Plans, Sheet A01). Approved July 12, 2021. Appendix B: Westport Cupertino, Same Market, Smaller Units Project Overview Westport Cupertino (21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard at Mary Avenue) is a mixed-use development approved by the Cupertino City Council on August 18, 2020. The project includes 88 townhomes and rowhouses designed by C2K Architecture for KT Urban, along with senior housing and retail. Westport matters for this analysis because it is in Cupertino itself: the same city, the same real estate market, and the same municipal approval process as SummerHill’s proposed project. If family-sized townhomes averaging under 2,000 SF are marketable, financeable, and approvable on Stevens Creek Boulevard, the same is true on Linda Vista Drive. Unit Data Component Units Total Residential SF Avg Livable SF*Avg Garage SF Townhomes (13 bldgs)70 139,860 1,998 564 Rowhouses (3 bldgs)18 34,250 1,903 602 Combined 88 174,110 1,978 571 *Livable SF = Total residential area excluding garage/parking. Westport figures from SF YIMBY / planning records: 179,310 SF total built area for townhomes (139,860 residential + 39,450 parking); 45,090 SF for rowhouses (34,250 residential + 10,840 parking). All 88 units include 2-car garages. The townhomes average 1,998 livable SF; the rowhouses average 1,903 livable SF. SummerHill’s proposed average of 2,369 livable SF is 20% larger than Westport’s combined average of 1,978 livable SF. Notably, Westport was approved without density bonus setback waivers on residential-adjacent boundaries, and without any AMMR for fire hazard setback reduction. What This Means for SummerHill’s Claim If SummerHill sized its 51 units to the Westport average (1,978 SF livable, excluding garage), the total livable area would drop from 120,829 SF to approximately 100,878 SF: a reduction of 19,951 SF of building mass. Adding garages (~485 SF each), total gross would be approximately 125,613 SF versus the current 145,544 SF. This 20,000 SF reduction in building envelope, distributed across 10 buildings, would substantially narrow building footprints along the south and east boundaries and move significantly toward compliance with the 30-foot PRC 4290 setback. Even a modest reduction to ~2,100 SF livable per unit (still larger than Westport) would free approximately 13,700 SF of building mass, enough to meaningfully increase setback distances from the current ~10 feet toward the mandated 30 feet on the sides adjacent to single-family homes. Appendix C: The Evulich Court Right-of-Way Is Not a Valid Justification In the AMMR application submitted to the Santa Clara County Fire Department, SummerHill’s representative Steven Bull states: “The site is constrained by an existing City right-of-way within the approximate center of the site (Evulich Court). The width of Evulich Court reduces the size of the development area for the project. The size and quantity of the proposed townhomes necessitate a reduction of the 30-foot setback requirement in order to fit the minimum required number of units within the site.” This argument does not withstand scrutiny for a straightforward reason: SummerHill must build internal access roads regardless. The proposed site plan includes five private streets (A Street through E Street), cul-de-sacs, and connecting roadways to provide vehicle access to all ten buildings and to meet CFC D105 fire apparatus access requirements. This internal road network is a design necessity for a 51-unit development on this site, irrespective of the Evulich Court right-of-way. The existing Evulich Court right-of-way, ceded by the original property owners decades ago, runs through the approximate center of the parcel. SummerHill’s own site plan replaces the existing cul-de-sac with a new internal street network. The new road that SummerHill constructs in its place can be dedicated back to the City in lieu of the existing right-of-way. This is a standard mechanism in subdivision development; the Vesting Tentative Map (TM-2024-009) already contemplates the reconfiguration of internal circulation. The critical point: the existence of a historical City right-of-way cannot be the reason to reduce wildfire setbacks to 10 feet and place neighboring single-family homes at risk. The developer must build access roads for the 51-unit development in any configuration. The road infrastructure is a given; only the setback to neighboring homes is a variable. A site plan with right-sized units, as demonstrated by Vida and Westport, could accommodate both the required road network and full 30-foot PRC 4290 setbacks. Appendix D: SummerHill Unit Mix Detail (Sheet A08) Unit Type Qty Net Interior SF Porches/Decks Livable SF*Garage SF Unit 1 (BMR)10 1,777 ~200 ~1,977 579 Unit 2 21 2,217 ~200 ~2,417 469 Unit 3 12 2,317 ~200 ~2,517 447 Unit 3ALT 8 2,315 ~200 ~2,515 464 Average / Total 51 2,170 avg ~200 avg 2,369 avg 485 avg *Livable SF = Net Interior SF (per A08, measured to outside face of stud) + prorated porches/decks (~200 SF/unit average from project totals of 4,300 SF porches + 5,878 SF decks across 51 units). Excludes garage only. Source: Exhibit C, Sheet A08 Project Data (September 15, 2025). Staff Report FAR figure of 148,473 SF (136% FAR) includes these areas plus additional common area. Market-rate units (Units 2, 3, 3ALT, 41 units) average 2,265 net interior SF, or approximately 2,465 livable SF including porches/decks. Even the BMR units (Unit 1, 10 units) at 1,977 livable SF are larger than the Vida average of 1,748 and comparable to the Westport average of 1,978. This confirms that right-sized units are not only viable but already part of SummerHill’s own product offering. Data Sources SummerHill Linda Vista: City of Cupertino Staff Report, March 17, 2026 (File #26-14876); Exhibit C, Sheet A08 Project Data (Sept. 15, 2025); Exhibit A, Setback Site Plan (Rev. 12/19/2025); Attachment F, AMMR Approval (Steven Bull / SummerHill Homes, Oct. 28, 2025, Rev. Dec. 19, 2025). Vida Sunnyvale Phase I: City of Sunnyvale File #21-0715 (Planning Application #2020-7525): Attachment 2 (Project Data Table), Attachment 3 (Recommended Findings), Attachment 7 (Project Plans, Sheet A01). Approved July 12, 2021. Westport Cupertino: City of Cupertino (File #DP-2018-05, ASA-2018-05, TM-2018-03); Approved by City Council Aug. 18, 2020; EIR certified (CEQA #2019070377). Building data from approved planning documents. 88 townhomes/rowhouses by KT Urban / C2K Architecture. Staff Report Memorandum To: Cupertino City Council From: Mark W. Fantozzi, PE Re: Legal Deficiencies in Staff Report and Approval Findings for SummerHill Homes Project (TM-2024-009, ASA-2024-015, TR-2024-044) Date: March 2026 VIA EMAIL I. INTRODUCTION This memorandum identifies material legal errors, omissions, and unsupported findings in the Planning Department’s staff report recommending approval of the SummerHill Homes project at 10857–10887 Linda Vista Drive. These errors render the proposed CEQA exemption, General Plan consistency findings, and Subdivision Map Act findings legally indefensible. The central issue is straightforward: SB 330 vesting does not exempt the project from updated fire‑safety regulations, VHFHSZ requirements, evacuation capacity analysis, or General Plan Safety Element policies. The staff report incorrectly asserts otherwise, resulting in a recommendation that violates: The General Plan Safety Element The Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code §66474) AB 747 (2019) and AB 1409 (2021) Public Resources Code §§4290 and 4291 California Fire Code (CFC) Appendix B, C, and D Government Code §65913.4(a)(6) CEQA exemption requirements These deficiencies require the City Council to deny the project or continue the hearing until the required analyses are completed. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. Project Location and Application The project proposes 51 townhome units on a constrained hillside parcel accessed by a single dead‑end road (Evulich Court) adjacent to the Stevens Creek canyon. B. SB 330 Preliminary Application The applicant submitted an SB 330 preliminary application on October 9, 2024. C. VHFHSZ Designation In February 2025, CAL FIRE adopted updated Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps. The project site is now designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). D. Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment (October 2025) The City commissioned Fehr & Peers to prepare a citywide evacuation capacity assessment, which identifies: o Severe bottlenecks o Limited egress in hillside neighborhoods o High wildfire vulnerability E. Staff Report (February 2026) The staff report asserts: The City does not have any adopted objective standards pertaining to evacuation. As a result, an evacuation study has not been required. This statement is factually incorrect and contradicted by: o The General Plan Safety Element (2026 Draft) o AB 747 and AB 1409 o The City’s own Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment III. ISSUES PRESENTED 1. Does SB 330 vesting exempt the project from updated fire‑safety regulations, VHFHSZ requirements, or evacuation analysis? No. 2. Did the Planning Department fail to apply mandatory General Plan Safety Element policies? Yes. 3. Did the City fail to make required Subdivision Map Act safety findings supported by substantial evidence? Yes. 4. Is the CEQA exemption invalid due to failure to demonstrate compliance with Government Code §65913.4(a)(6)? Yes. IV. APPLICABLE LAW A. SB 330 (Gov. Code §65589.5 and §65941.1) SB 330 vests zoning and design standards, not public‑safety regulations. B. Public Resources Code §§4290 and 4291 Mandate: o Adequate road width o Adequate turnarounds o Adequate fire‑flow o Adequate water supply o Secondary access where feasible C. California Fire Code (CFC) Appendix B, C, D Require: o Fire‑flow modeling o Hydrant spacing o Dead‑end road limits o Minimum clear width o Emergency access compliance D. Government Code §65913.4(a)(6) A CEQA‑exempt project in a VHFHSZ must demonstrate compliance with: o PRC 4290 o PRC 4291 o CBC Chapter 7A o Local fire‑safe regulations E. Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code §66474) A tentative map must be denied if: o The site is physically unsuitable o The subdivision creates danger to life or property o The subdivision is inconsistent with the General Plan F. AB 747 (2019) and AB 1409 (2021) Require: o Identification of evacuation routes o Assessment of capacity, safety, and viability o Identification of bottlenecks o Evacuation locations G. General Plan Safety Element (2026 Draft) Contains mandatory policies: o HS‑2.11: Evacuation Routes o HS‑2.13: Ingress and Egress o HS‑2.14: Secondary Access o HS‑2.1: Building and Fire Code Compliance These are objective standards. V. ANALYSIS A. SB 330 Does Not Exempt the Project from Fire‑Safety or VHFHSZ Requirements The staff report incorrectly implies that SB 330 “locks in” pre‑2025 fire‑safety conditions o This is legally incorrect. Courts consistently hold: o Vested rights do not apply to public‑safety regulations. Fire‑safety standards are police‑power regulations and cannot be frozen. B. The Staff Report Fails to Apply Mandatory General Plan Safety Policies The General Plan requires: o Evacuation route analysis o Ingress/egress adequacy o Secondary access feasibility o Fire‑flow and water‑supply adequacy The staff report: o Conducted no evacuation analysis o Conducted no fire‑flow modeling o Conducted no dead‑end road compliance review o Conducted no secondary access feasibility study This violates the General Plan. C. The City Ignored Its Own Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment The Fehr & Peers study identifies: o Severe bottlenecks o Limited egress in hillside neighborhoods o High wildfire vulnerability The staff report ignores this study entirely. This omission violates: o AB 747 o AB 1409 o General Plan Safety Element o Subdivision Map Act safety findings D. The CEQA Exemption Is Invalid Government Code §65913.4(a)(6) requires demonstrated compliance with: o PRC 4290 o PRC 4291 o CBC Chapter 7A The staff report provides no evidence of: o Fire‑flow modeling o Hydrant spacing analysis o Roadway adequacy o Water‑supply verification o Secondary access feasibility A conclusory Fire Department letter is not substantial evidence. E. Subdivision Map Act Findings Are Unsupported Gov. Code §66474 requires denial if: o The site is physically unsuitable o The subdivision creates danger to life or property o The subdivision is inconsistent with the General Plan Because the City failed to analyze: o Evacuation o Fire‑flow o Water supply o Roadway adequacy o VHFHSZ wildfire behavior The findings are unsupported and invalid. VI. CONCLUSION The staff report contains material legal errors and omissions that invalidate:  The CEQA exemption  The General Plan consistency findings  The Subdivision Map Act findings  The safety determinations required by State law The City Council must: 1. Deny the project, or 2. Continue the hearing and require:  A full evacuation analysis  Fire‑flow and hydraulic modeling  Secondary access feasibility study  VHFHSZ wildfire behavior analysis  Updated General Plan consistency review VII. RECOMMENDED ACTION Do not adopt the staff recommendation. Direct staff to prepare a revised analysis that complies with: 1. The General Plan 2. AB 747 / AB 1409 3. PRC 4290 / 4291 4. CFC Appendix B, C, D 5. Government Code §65913.4(a)(6) 6. Subdivision Map Act §66474 Memorandum To: Floy Andrews, City Attorney, City of Cupertino Copy To: City Clerk & City Council, City of Cupertino From: MarkW. Fantozzi, PE Date: March 10,2026 VIA EMAIL Re: TM-2024-009 (Linda Vista Drive) * Requirement for Applicant Financial Disclosure When Seeking Fire-Safety Exceptions in a Very High Fire H:aizard Severity Zone Dear Floy Andrews: I am writing to request formal clarification and action regarding the City's legal obligations when an applicant seeks exceptions to fire-safety standards, CEQA requirements, or General Plan policies for a project located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFIISZ). The TM-2024-009 application for 10857, 10867, 10877, and 10886 Linda Vista Drive includes a request for a PRC 4290 exception, which is a discretionary deviation from mandatory fi re-safety standards. Under California law, when an applicant seeks a discretionary exception that reduces public-safety protections, the City is entitled - and in some cases required - to obtain financial information demonstrating whether full compliance is feasible. This principle is supported by multiple appellate decisions, including: . Topanga Ass'nfor a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles {1974) 1 I Cal.3d 506. Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Ass'n v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th7}4. San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City & County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656. California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App,4th957. Friends of the Eel River v. Sonoma County l{ater Agency (2003) 108 Cal.App,4th 859. Bowman v. City of Berkeley (2004) 122 Cal.App.Ath 572 Taken together, these cases establish that: l. Discretionary exceptions require substantial evidence (Topanga). 2. Economic feasibility is a required component of evaluating alternatives and mitigation (Sequoyah Hills, San Franciscans Upholding, Cly'PS, Eel River). 3. Agencies may require financial information to support findings (Bowman). Because the applicant seeks to avoid compliance with PRC 429A setback requirements - and because compliance may require costly design changes, grading, access improvements, or water-supply upgrades - the exception confers a financial benefit. The City therefore has a legal basis to require: n Project pro formao Cost estimates for full fire-safety compliance. Cost comparison of compliant vs. non-compliant designs. Evidence supporting any claim of infeasibility Without this information, the City cannot make the findings required to grant a PRC 4290 exception, nor can it make the mandatory General Plan consistency findings under Government Code $$65300.5 and 65860. I respectfully request that your office: 1. Confirm that the City may require financial disclosure when an applicant seeks a PRC 4290 exception or other fire-safety deviation. 2. Advise the Planning Department and City Council that financial feasibility is a legally relevant factor in evaluating such exceptions. 3. Direct staff to require the applicant for TM-2024-A09 to submit financial documentation sufficient to support any claim that full compliance with fire-safety standards is infeasible. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your guidance. Cupertino, CA mw f anto zzi@ tfanc o. c o m Legal Argument Requiring Financiol Disclosure When o Developer Seeks Fire-Safety Exceptions in a VHFHSZ TM-2024-009 - 10857, 10867, 10877, 10886 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino I.INTRODUCTION This memorandum identifres California case law that, taken together, establishes a legal basis for requiring the applicant for TM-2024-009 to disclose project financial information when seeking exceptions to fire-safety standards, CEQA requirements, or General Plan policies in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). While no single case directly addresses "fire-code exceptions as financial benefit,'o the combined holdings of the cases below support the argument that: 1. Discretionary exceptions confer a financial benefit, 2. Financial feasibility becomes relevant when exceptions are requested, and 3. The City may require financial disclosure to evaluate whether the exception is justified, necessary, and consistent with public-safety obligations. II. APPLICABLE CASE LAW SUPPORTING FINANICIAL DISCLOSURE Below are the cases that, when synthesized, create a compelling legal foundation. 1. Topanga Ass'nfor a Scenic Community v. Coungt of Los Angeles (1974) 1l Cal3d 506 Key Holding: Discretionary approvals require findings supported by substantial evidence demonstrating that the exception is justified. Relevance: A PRC 4290 exception is discretionary. To justify it, the City must evaluate: . Whether the exception is necessary. Whether alternatives exist. Whether equivalent safety is achieved Financial feasibility is part of evaluating alternatives. If the applicant claims compliance is "infeasible," the City may require financial data to verify that claim. 2. Sequayah Hills Homeowners Ass'n v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704 Key Holding: When a developer claims that full compliance with regulations is infeasible, the agency may consider economic feasibility and require supporting evidence. Relevance: If the applicant argues that meeting fire-code standards, access requirements, or General Plan policies is "infeasible," the City may require: . Cost estimates. Pro forma analysis. Financial feasibility documentation This case directly supports requiring financial disclosure when exceptions are sought. 3. San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City & Counly of Sun Francisco (2002) 102 Cat.App.4th 656 Key llolding: Agencies may require economic evidence to evaluate whether mitigation measures or alternatives are feasible. Relevance: Fire-safety compliance (e.g., widening access roads, improving water supply, adding hydrants, meeting PRC 4290 setbacks) may be costly. If the applicant seeks an exception instead of compliance, the City may require financial information to determine: . Whether compliance is truly infeasible. Whether the exception is justified . Whether the applicant is avoiding costs at the expense of public safety 4. Californiu Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957 Key Holding: Economic feasibility is a legitimate factor in determining whether alternatives or mitigation measures are required. Relevance: If the applicant seeks to avoid fire-safety requirements, the City may require financial disclosure to evaluate: . Whether safer altematives are feasible . Whether the applicant is choosing a cheaper but less safe option 5. Friends of the Eel River v. Sonoma County Water Agencl (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 859 Key Holding: Agencies must consider whether mitigation measures are practicable, including economic practicability. Relevance: If the applicant claims that meeting fire-flow, access, or evacuation standards is impracticable, the City may require: . Cost analysis. Engineering cost estimates. Financialfeasibilitydocumentation 6. Bowman v. CiU of Berkeley (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 572 Key Holding: Courts defer to agencies when they require economic evidence to support findings. Relevance: . If Cupertino requires financial disclosure to justify a PRC 4290 exception, courts will defer to the City's judgment. III. SYNTHESIZED LEGAL PRINCIPLE Taken together, these cases establish the following: 1. Discretionary exceptions require substantial evidence. 2. Economic feasibility is part of evaluating alternatives and mitigation. (Sequoyah Hills, San Franciscans Upholding, CNPS, Eel River) 3. Agencies may require financial information to support findings. (Bowman) 4. A PRC 4290 exception is a discretionary deviation from mandatory fire-safety standards. Therefore: The City may require the applicant to disclose project financials to justify the exception. tV. APPLICATION TO TM-2024-OO9 The applicant seeks: . A PRC 4290 exception for non-conforming setbacks. Relief from full fire-flow and access compliance. Approval in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Approval without evacuation analysis. Approval without a Final Fire Protection Plan These exceptions reduce the applicant's costs by avoiding: . Road wideningi Water-supplyupgrades. Additional hydrants. Fire-resistantconstruction. Grading 0r access improvements This is a financial benefit. Under the case law above, the City may require: . Pro forma financials. Cost estimates for full compliance. Cost comparison of compliant vs. non-compliant designs. Evidence that compliance is truly infeasible Without this information, the City cannot make: . PRC 4290 findings. General Plan consistency findings. CEQA findings (if CEQA applies). Public-safetyfindings V. CONCL,USION While no single case directly states that "fire-code exceptions require financial disclosure," the combined holdings of California appellate decisions create a strong legal basis for requiring the applicant to provide project financials when seeking discretionary exceptions in a VHFHSZ. The City of Cupertino is legally justified - and arguably obligated - to require: . Full financial disclosure. Cost analysis of compliance. Evidence supporting any claim of infeasibility before granting any exception that reduces fire-safety protections. Staff Report Memorandum To: Cupertino City Council From: Mark W. Fantozzi Re: Legal Deficiencies in Staff Report and Approval Findings for SummerHill Homes Proj ect (T M-2024 -009, A SA-2 0 24 -0 I 5, T R-2024 -044) Date: March2026 VIA EMAIL I.INTRODUCTION This memorandum identifies material legal errors, omissions, and unsupported findings in the Planning Department's staff report recommending approval of the SummerHill Homes project at 10857-10887 Linda Vista Drive. These errors render the proposed CEQA exemption, General Plan consistency findings, and Subdivision Map Act findings legally indefensible. The central issue is straightforward: SB 330 vesting does not exempt the project from updated fire-safety regulations, VHFHSZ requirements, evacuation capacity analysis, or General Plan Safety Element policies. . The staffreport incorrectly asserts otherwise, resulting in a recommendation that violates: o The General Plan Safety Element e The Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code 866474)o AB 747 (2019) and AB 1409 (2021) . Public Resources Code $$4290 and 4291 o California Fire Code (CFC) Appendix B, C, and D . Govemment Code 965913.4(a)(6) o CEQA exemption requirements These deficiencies require the City Council to deny the project or continue the hearing until the required analyses are completed. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUIID A. Project Location and Application The project proposes 5l townhome units on a constrtrined hillside parcel accessed by a single dead-end road (Evulich Court) adjacent to the Stevens Creek canyon. B. SB 330 Preliminary Application The applicant submiffed an SB 330 preliminary application on October 9,2024. C. VHFHSZ Designation In February 2025, CAL FIRE adopted updated Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps. The project site is now designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). D. Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment (October 2025) The Cify commissioned Fehr & Peers to prepare a citywide evacuation capacity assessment, which identifies: o Severe bottlenecks o Limited egress in hillside neighborhoods o High wildfire wlnerability E. Staff Report (February 2026) The staff report asserts: The Cify does not have any adopted objective standards pertaining to evacuation. As a result, an evacuation study has not been required. This statement is factually incorrect and contradicted by: o The Ceneral Plan Safety Element (2026 Draft) o AB 747 and AB 1409 o The City's own Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment III.ISSUES PRESENTEI) 1. Does SB 330 vesting exempt the project from updated fire-safety regulations, VHFHSZ requirements, or evacuation analysis? No. 2. Did the Planning Department fail to apply mandatory General Plan Safety Element policies? Yes. 3. Did the City fail to make required Subdivision Map Act safety findings supported by substantial evidence? Yes. 4. Is the CEQA exemption invalid due to failure to demonstrate compliance with Government Code $659 1 3.4(a)(6)? Yes. IV. APPLICABLE LAW A. SB 330 (Gov. Code $65589.5 and $6594r.1) SB 330 vests zoning and design standards, not public-safety regulations. B. Public Resources Code $$4290 and 4291 Mandate: o Adequate road width o Adequate turnarounds o Adequate fire-flow o Adequate water supply o Secondary access where feasible C. California Fire Code (CFC) Appendix B, C, D Require: o Fire-flow modeling o Hydrant spacing o Dead-end road limits o Minimum clear width o Emergency access compliance D. Government Code $65913.a(a)(6) A CEQA-exempt project in a VHFHSZ must demonstrate compliance with: o PRC 4290 o PRC 4291 o CBC Chapter 7A o Local fire-safe regulations E. Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code $66474) A tentative map must be denied if: o The site is physically unsuitable o The subdivision creates danger to life or property o The subdivision is inconsistent with the General Plan F. AB 747 (2019\ and AB 1409 (2021) Require: o Identification of evacuation routes o Assessment of capacity, safety, and viability o Identification of bottlenecks o Evacuation locations G. General Plan Safety Element (2026 Draft) Contains mandatory policies: o HS-2.1 1: Evacuation Routes o HS-2.13: Ingress and Egress o HS-2.14: Secondary Access o HS-2.1: Building and Fire Code Compliance These are objective standards. V. AIIALYSIS A. SB 330 Does Not Exempt the Project from Fire-Safety or VHFHSZ Requirements The staff report incorrectly implies that SB 330 "locks in" prc-2025 fire-safety conditions o This is legally incorrect. Courts consistently hold: o Vested rights do not apply to public-safety regulations. Fire-safety standards are police-power regulations and cannot be frozen. B. The Staff Report Fails to Apply Mandatory General Plan Safefy Policies The General Plan requires: o Evacuation route analysis o lngress/egressadequacy o Secondary access feasibility o Fire-flow and water-supply adequacy The staff report: o Conducted no evacuation analysis o Conducted no fire-flow modeling o Conducted no dead-end road compliance review o Conducted no secondary access feasibility study This violates the General Plan. C. The City Ignored Its Own Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment The Fehr & Peers study identifies: o Severe bottlenecks o Limited egress in hillside neighborhoods o High wildfire vulnerability The staff report ignores this study entirely. This omission violates: o 48747 o AB 1409 o General Plan Safety Element o Subdivision Map Act safety findings D. The CEQA Exemption Is Invalid Govemment Code $6591 3.4(a)(6) requires demonstrated compliance with: o PRC 4290 o PRC429l o CBC Chapter 7A The staffreport provides no evidence of: o Fire-flow modeling o Hydrant spacing analysis o Roadway adequacy o Water-supply verification o Secondary access feasibility A conclusory Fire Department letter is not substantial evidence. E. Subdivision Map Act Findings Are Unsupported Gov. Code 566474 requires denial if: o The site is physically unsuitable o The subdivision creates danger to life or property o The subdivision is inconsistent with the General Plan Because the City failed to analyze'. o Evacuation o Fire-flow o Water supply o Roadway adequacy o VHFHSZ wildfire behavior The findings are unsupported and invalid. VI. CONCLUSION The staff report contains material legal errors and omissions that invalidate: e The CEQA exemption o The General Plan consistency findings o The Subdivision Map Act findings o The safety determinations required by State law The City Council must: 1. Deny the project, or 2. Continue the hearing and require: o A full evacuation analysis o Fire-flow and hydraulic modeling o Secondary access feasibility study o VHFHSZ wildfire behavior analysis o Updated General Plan consistency review VII. RECOMMENDED ACTION Do not adopt the staff recommendation. Direct staff to prepare a revised analysis that complies with: l. The General Plan 2. A8747 I ABt409 3. PRC 4290 I 4291 4. CFC Appendix B, C, D 5. Govemment Code $65913.a(a)(6) 6. Subdivision MaP Act 566474 FORMAL NEGLIGENCE ARGUMENT Submitted to: Cupertino City Attorney and Cupertino City Council Re: Administrative Negligence in the Review and Recommendation of Approval for TM-2024-009 (Linda Vista Townhomes) Project: TM-2A24-009 (Linda Vista Townhomes) Location: 10857-10887 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, CA Prepared by: Mark W. Fantozzi, PE VIA EMAIL I.INTRODUCTION This letter sets forth a formal argument that the Cupertino Planning Department's review and recommendation of approval for TM-2024-009 constitutes administrative negligence-meaning a failure to proceed in the manner required by law, an abuse of discretion, and a recommendation unsupported by substantial evidence-under the Subdivision Map Act, Califomia Fire Code, Public Resources Code 9942904291, and the Cupertino General Plan Safety Element, This argument does not allege tort liability or personal wrongdoing. Instead, it demonstrates that the Planning Department failed to perform mandatory statutory duties designed to protect public safety, particularly in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). These failures materially compromised the integrity of the administrative record and resulted in a recommendation of approval that is legally indefensible. II. LEGAL STANDARD FOR ADMINISTRATIVB NEGLIGENCE In Califomia land-use law, negligence manifests as: failure to proceed in the manner required by law; abuse of discretion; findings unsupporled by substantial evidence; and arbitrary and capricious action. These standards are codified in Gov. Code $66474 (Subdivision Map Act), Code of Civil Procedure $1094.5 (Administrative Mandamus), General Plan consistency doctrine, and Fire Code and PRC compliance requirements. A city acts negligently in the administrative sense when it fails to perform mandatory safety evaluations, ignores statutory requirements, or recommends approval without substantial evidence. III. DUTY OF CARE The Planning Department had a mandatory duty to ensure that TM-2024-009 complied with: (1) Subdivision Map Act - Gov. Code $66474; (2) California Fire Code - CFC $503, CFC $403-404, Appendix D, Appendix B; (3) Public Resources Code $$4290- 4291; and (4) Cupertino General Plan Safety Element - Policies HS-2.13, S- 1.3, S-2.3, S-2.4. These duties are not discretionary. IV. BREACH OF DUTY The Planning Department breached its duty by failing to perform required safety evaluations and by recommending approval despite the absence of substantial evidence. Breaches include: (A) No wildfire evacuation analysis; (B) No fire-flow analysis; (C) Ignoring dead-end road requirements; (D) Using outdated, pre-rezoning data; and (E) Making findings without substantial evidence. V. CAUSATION The Planning Department's omissions directly caused an incomplete and legally defective administrative record, erroneous findings of General Plan consistency, a recommendation of approval that violates state law, and a foreseeable risk that residents may be unable to evacuate during a wildfire. VI. FORESEEABLE HARM Evacuation analysis shows McClellan Road V/C : 4.2, Foothill Boulevard YIC: 4.0, V lC > 1.0 = system failure, CUP-029 generates 38o/o of all evacuation trips, the project sits in a VHFHSZ, and the only evacuation route is a dead-end funnel. These conditions create a foreseeable, life-threatening evacuation failure. Under Califomia law, foreseeable risk satisfies the harm element of administrative negligence. VII. CONCLUSION The Planning Department's review and recommendation of approval for TM-2024-009 constitutes administrative negligence because it failed to proceed in the manner required by law, failed to comply with mandatory Fire Code and PRC requirements, failed to ensure General Plan Safety Element consistency, failed to provide substantial evidence supporting required findings, and recommended approval despite foreseeable, life-safety risks. Under Gov. Code $66474, the City Council must deny the tentative map. The City Attomey and City Council are respectfully requested to reject the Planning Department's recommendation, remand the project for full Fire Code and evacuation compliance analysis, require a comprehensive wildfire evacuation study, and ensure compliance with all mandatory General Plan Safety policies. Attached is a StaffReport Memorandum identifuing material legal errors, omissions, and unsupported findings in the Planning Department's staff report. Thank you for your attention to this matter, Sincerely, Mark W. Fantozzi Cupertino, CA mw f anto zzi@ tfan c o. c o m FORMAL NEGLIGENCE ARGUMENT Submitted to: Cupertino City Attorney and Cupertino City Council Re: Administrative Negligence in the Review and Recommendation of Approval for TM-2024-009 (Linda Vista Townhomes) Project: TM-2A24-009 (Linda Vista Townhomes) Location: 10857-10887 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, CA Prepared by: Mark W. Fantozzi, PE VIA EMAIL I.INTRODUCTION This letter sets forth a formal argument that the Cupertino Planning Department's review and recommendation of approval for TM-2024-009 constitutes administrative negligence-meaning a failure to proceed in the manner required by law, an abuse of discretion, and a recommendation unsupported by substantial evidence-under the Subdivision Map Act, Califomia Fire Code, Public Resources Code 9942904291, and the Cupertino General Plan Safety Element, This argument does not allege tort liability or personal wrongdoing. Instead, it demonstrates that the Planning Department failed to perform mandatory statutory duties designed to protect public safety, particularly in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). These failures materially compromised the integrity of the administrative record and resulted in a recommendation of approval that is legally indefensible. II. LEGAL STANDARD FOR ADMINISTRATIVB NEGLIGENCE In Califomia land-use law, negligence manifests as: failure to proceed in the manner required by law; abuse of discretion; findings unsupporled by substantial evidence; and arbitrary and capricious action. These standards are codified in Gov. Code $66474 (Subdivision Map Act), Code of Civil Procedure $1094.5 (Administrative Mandamus), General Plan consistency doctrine, and Fire Code and PRC compliance requirements. A city acts negligently in the administrative sense when it fails to perform mandatory safety evaluations, ignores statutory requirements, or recommends approval without substantial evidence. III. DUTY OF CARE The Planning Department had a mandatory duty to ensure that TM-2024-009 complied with: (1) Subdivision Map Act - Gov. Code $66474; (2) California Fire Code - CFC $503, CFC $403-404, Appendix D, Appendix B; (3) Public Resources Code $$4290- 4291; and (4) Cupertino General Plan Safety Element - Policies HS-2.13, S- 1.3, S-2.3, S-2.4. These duties are not discretionary. IV. BREACH OF DUTY The Planning Department breached its duty by failing to perform required safety evaluations and by recommending approval despite the absence of substantial evidence. Breaches include: (A) No wildfire evacuation analysis; (B) No fire-flow analysis; (C) Ignoring dead-end road requirements; (D) Using outdated, pre-rezoning data; and (E) Making findings without substantial evidence. V. CAUSATION The Planning Department's omissions directly caused an incomplete and legally defective administrative record, erroneous findings of General Plan consistency, a recommendation of approval that violates state law, and a foreseeable risk that residents may be unable to evacuate during a wildfire. VI. FORESEEABLE HARM Evacuation analysis shows McClellan Road V/C : 4.2, Foothill Boulevard YIC: 4.0, V lC > 1.0 = system failure, CUP-029 generates 38o/o of all evacuation trips, the project sits in a VHFHSZ, and the only evacuation route is a dead-end funnel. These conditions create a foreseeable, life-threatening evacuation failure. Under Califomia law, foreseeable risk satisfies the harm element of administrative negligence. VII. CONCLUSION The Planning Department's review and recommendation of approval for TM-2024-009 constitutes administrative negligence because it failed to proceed in the manner required by law, failed to comply with mandatory Fire Code and PRC requirements, failed to ensure General Plan Safety Element consistency, failed to provide substantial evidence supporting required findings, and recommended approval despite foreseeable, life-safety risks. Under Gov. Code $66474, the City Council must deny the tentative map. The City Attomey and City Council are respectfully requested to reject the Planning Department's recommendation, remand the project for full Fire Code and evacuation compliance analysis, require a comprehensive wildfire evacuation study, and ensure compliance with all mandatory General Plan Safety policies. Attached is a StaffReport Memorandum identifuing material legal errors, omissions, and unsupported findings in the Planning Department's staff report. Thank you for your attention to this matter, Sincerely, Mark W. Fantozzi Cupertino, CA mw f anto zzi@ tfan c o. c o m Staff Report Memorandum To: Cupertino City Council From: Mark W. Fantozzi Re: Legal Deficiencies in Staff Report and Approval Findings for SummerHill Homes Proj ect (T M-2024 -009, A SA-2 0 24 -0 I 5, T R-2024 -044) Date: March2026 VIA EMAIL I.INTRODUCTION This memorandum identifies material legal errors, omissions, and unsupported findings in the Planning Department's staff report recommending approval of the SummerHill Homes project at 10857-10887 Linda Vista Drive. These errors render the proposed CEQA exemption, General Plan consistency findings, and Subdivision Map Act findings legally indefensible. The central issue is straightforward: SB 330 vesting does not exempt the project from updated fire-safety regulations, VHFHSZ requirements, evacuation capacity analysis, or General Plan Safety Element policies. . The staffreport incorrectly asserts otherwise, resulting in a recommendation that violates: o The General Plan Safety Element e The Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code 866474)o AB 747 (2019) and AB 1409 (2021) . Public Resources Code $$4290 and 4291 o California Fire Code (CFC) Appendix B, C, and D . Govemment Code 965913.4(a)(6) o CEQA exemption requirements These deficiencies require the City Council to deny the project or continue the hearing until the required analyses are completed. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUIID A. Project Location and Application The project proposes 5l townhome units on a constrtrined hillside parcel accessed by a single dead-end road (Evulich Court) adjacent to the Stevens Creek canyon. B. SB 330 Preliminary Application The applicant submiffed an SB 330 preliminary application on October 9,2024. C. VHFHSZ Designation In February 2025, CAL FIRE adopted updated Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps. The project site is now designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). D. Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment (October 2025) The Cify commissioned Fehr & Peers to prepare a citywide evacuation capacity assessment, which identifies: o Severe bottlenecks o Limited egress in hillside neighborhoods o High wildfire wlnerability E. Staff Report (February 2026) The staff report asserts: The Cify does not have any adopted objective standards pertaining to evacuation. As a result, an evacuation study has not been required. This statement is factually incorrect and contradicted by: o The Ceneral Plan Safety Element (2026 Draft) o AB 747 and AB 1409 o The City's own Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment III.ISSUES PRESENTEI) 1. Does SB 330 vesting exempt the project from updated fire-safety regulations, VHFHSZ requirements, or evacuation analysis? No. 2. Did the Planning Department fail to apply mandatory General Plan Safety Element policies? Yes. 3. Did the City fail to make required Subdivision Map Act safety findings supported by substantial evidence? Yes. 4. Is the CEQA exemption invalid due to failure to demonstrate compliance with Government Code $659 1 3.4(a)(6)? Yes. IV. APPLICABLE LAW A. SB 330 (Gov. Code $65589.5 and $6594r.1) SB 330 vests zoning and design standards, not public-safety regulations. B. Public Resources Code $$4290 and 4291 Mandate: o Adequate road width o Adequate turnarounds o Adequate fire-flow o Adequate water supply o Secondary access where feasible C. California Fire Code (CFC) Appendix B, C, D Require: o Fire-flow modeling o Hydrant spacing o Dead-end road limits o Minimum clear width o Emergency access compliance D. Government Code $65913.a(a)(6) A CEQA-exempt project in a VHFHSZ must demonstrate compliance with: o PRC 4290 o PRC 4291 o CBC Chapter 7A o Local fire-safe regulations E. Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code $66474) A tentative map must be denied if: o The site is physically unsuitable o The subdivision creates danger to life or property o The subdivision is inconsistent with the General Plan F. AB 747 (2019\ and AB 1409 (2021) Require: o Identification of evacuation routes o Assessment of capacity, safety, and viability o Identification of bottlenecks o Evacuation locations G. General Plan Safety Element (2026 Draft) Contains mandatory policies: o HS-2.1 1: Evacuation Routes o HS-2.13: Ingress and Egress o HS-2.14: Secondary Access o HS-2.1: Building and Fire Code Compliance These are objective standards. V. AIIALYSIS A. SB 330 Does Not Exempt the Project from Fire-Safety or VHFHSZ Requirements The staff report incorrectly implies that SB 330 "locks in" prc-2025 fire-safety conditions o This is legally incorrect. Courts consistently hold: o Vested rights do not apply to public-safety regulations. Fire-safety standards are police-power regulations and cannot be frozen. B. The Staff Report Fails to Apply Mandatory General Plan Safefy Policies The General Plan requires: o Evacuation route analysis o lngress/egressadequacy o Secondary access feasibility o Fire-flow and water-supply adequacy The staff report: o Conducted no evacuation analysis o Conducted no fire-flow modeling o Conducted no dead-end road compliance review o Conducted no secondary access feasibility study This violates the General Plan. C. The City Ignored Its Own Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment The Fehr & Peers study identifies: o Severe bottlenecks o Limited egress in hillside neighborhoods o High wildfire vulnerability The staff report ignores this study entirely. This omission violates: o 48747 o AB 1409 o General Plan Safety Element o Subdivision Map Act safety findings D. The CEQA Exemption Is Invalid Govemment Code $6591 3.4(a)(6) requires demonstrated compliance with: o PRC 4290 o PRC429l o CBC Chapter 7A The staffreport provides no evidence of: o Fire-flow modeling o Hydrant spacing analysis o Roadway adequacy o Water-supply verification o Secondary access feasibility A conclusory Fire Department letter is not substantial evidence. E. Subdivision Map Act Findings Are Unsupported Gov. Code 566474 requires denial if: o The site is physically unsuitable o The subdivision creates danger to life or property o The subdivision is inconsistent with the General Plan Because the City failed to analyze'. o Evacuation o Fire-flow o Water supply o Roadway adequacy o VHFHSZ wildfire behavior The findings are unsupported and invalid. VI. CONCLUSION The staff report contains material legal errors and omissions that invalidate: e The CEQA exemption o The General Plan consistency findings o The Subdivision Map Act findings o The safety determinations required by State law The City Council must: 1. Deny the project, or 2. Continue the hearing and require: o A full evacuation analysis o Fire-flow and hydraulic modeling o Secondary access feasibility study o VHFHSZ wildfire behavior analysis o Updated General Plan consistency review VII. RECOMMENDED ACTION Do not adopt the staff recommendation. Direct staff to prepare a revised analysis that complies with: l. The General Plan 2. A8747 I ABt409 3. PRC 4290 I 4291 4. CFC Appendix B, C, D 5. Govemment Code $65913.a(a)(6) 6. Subdivision MaP Act 566474 Fire Code Compliance Deficiency Report Project: TM‑2024‑009 (Linda Vista Townhomes) Location: 10857–10887 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, CA Prepared for: Cupertino City Council Prepared by: Mark W. Fantozzi, PE VIA EMAIL Purpose: Demonstrate that the project fails to comply with the California Fire Code, PRC 4290/4291, and SCCFD standards, and therefore cannot be approved. I. INTRODUCTION This report identifies major fire‑safety and evacuation deficiencies in the review and approval of TM‑2024‑009. The project is located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) and relies on a single dead‑end evacuation route (Evulich Court → Linda Vista Drive). Despite this, the City approved the project without conducting any wildfire evacuation analysis, without verifying fire‑flow adequacy, and without demonstrating compliance with the California Fire Code (CFC) or Public Resources Code (PRC) §§4290–4291. These omissions constitute substantial Fire Code compliance failures and create a foreseeable life‑safety hazard. II. APPLICABLE FIRE SAFETY LAWS AND STANDARDS 1.1. California Fire Code (CFC) – CFC §503, CFC §403–404, Appendix D, Appendix B. 2.2. Public Resources Code (PRC) – PRC §4290, PRC §4291. 3.3. Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD) Standards. 4.4. Cupertino General Plan Safety Element – Policies S‑1.3, S‑2.3, S‑2.4, HS‑2.13. III. FIRE CODE COMPLIANCE DEFICIENCIES A. FAILURE TO PROVIDE REQUIRED EVACUATION ANALYSIS Violates: CFC §403–404; PRC §4290; General Plan S‑1.3, S‑2.3, S‑2.4 No wildfire evacuation analysis was conducted for a 51‑unit subdivision in a VHFHSZ. The City cannot demonstrate safe evacuation without modeling clearance time, queue formation, merging delay, or cumulative evacuation load. This violates mandatory emergency planning and evacuation requirements. B. DEAD‑END ROAD NON‑COMPLIANCE Violates: CFC Appendix D (§D103.4), PRC §4290 Evulich Court and Linda Vista Drive function as a single dead‑end evacuation route serving 51 units. No secondary access exists. This violates maximum dead‑end length and dual access requirements for subdivisions in VHFHSZ. C. FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE FIRE‑FLOW ADEQUACY Violates: CFC Appendix B; SCCFD Water Supply Standards The record contains no fire‑flow analysis demonstrating that the water system can meet required flow rates for a 51‑unit, three‑story townhome development in a VHFHSZ. No verification of system pressure, duration, or hydrant spacing was provided. D. FAILURE TO ANALYZE ROADWAY CAPACITY UNDER EMERGENCY CONDITIONS Violates: CFC §403–404; PRC §4290; General Plan S‑2.4 The City relied on a commuter traffic study (Tier 2 LTA) that does not evaluate wildfire evacuation. Traffic‑Evacuation analysis shows McClellan Road V/C = 4.2 and Foothill Boulevard V/C = 4.0 under evacuation – indicating system failure. This violates evacuation planning requirements. E. FAILURE TO ADDRESS SCHOOL‑ZONE EVACUATION CONFLICTS Violates: CFC §403; General Plan M‑2.3.1 The project is adjacent to Monta Vista High School and Kennedy Middle School, yet no analysis was performed on evacuation during school hours, pedestrian conflicts, or parent pickup congestion. This creates a foreseeable evacuation hazard. F. FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH WUI CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS Violates: CBC Chapter 7A; CFC Chapter 49 The record does not demonstrate compliance with ember‑resistant construction, non‑combustible materials within 30 feet, defensible space requirements, or ignition‑resistant standards required in the wildland‑urban interface. IV. SUMMARY OF FIRE CODE VIOLATIONS TM‑2024‑009 violates:  CFC §403–404 (evacuation planning)  CFC §503 (access)  CFC Appendix D (dead‑end road limits)  CFC Appendix B (fire‑flow)  PRC §4290 (ingress/egress)  PRC §4291 (defensible space)  CBC Chapter 7A (WUI construction)  Multiple General Plan Safety policies These violations are not discretionary. They are mandatory life‑safety requirements. V. CONCLUSION Because the project fails to comply with the California Fire Code, PRC §§4290–4291, SCCFD standards, and the Cupertino General Plan Safety Element, the City Council cannot lawfully approve TM‑2024‑009. Under the Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code §66474(g)), a tentative map must be denied if the design is likely to cause serious public health or safety problems. TM‑2024‑009 meets that definition. FINDINGS REQUIRED TO LEGALLY GRANT A PRC 4290 EXCEPTION IN A VHFHSZ Project: TM‑2024‑009 (Linda Vista Townhomes) Location: 10857–10887 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, CA Prepared for: Cupertino City Council Prepared by: Mark W. Fantozzi, PE To lawfully grant a PRC 4290 exception for TM-2024-009, the City must adopt findings supported by substantial evidence, consistent with Topanga and subsequent case law. The following findings are mandatory: 1. Finding of Discretionary Authority The City must acknowledge that granting a PRC 4290 exception is a discretionary act, not ministerial. This triggers: CEQA applicability (unless independently exempt) Substantial evidence requirements General Plan consistency requirements 2. Finding of Equivalent Fire Safety The City must find that the exception provides equivalent or superior fire safety compared to full compliance with PRC 4290. This requires evidence demonstrating: Fire-flow adequacy Access and turnaround compliance Defensible-space performance Wildfire behavior modeling Emergency-response capability SCCFD’s conditional approval cannot substitute for this finding. 3. Finding of Economic Feasibility (Supported by Financial Disclosure) Under Sequoyah Hills, San Franciscans Upholding, CNPS, and Eel River, the City must evaluate whether full compliance is economically feasible. This requires:  Project pro forma  Cost estimates for full PRC 4290 compliance  Cost comparison of compliant vs. non-compliant designs  Evidence supporting any claim of infeasibility Without financial disclosure, the City cannot make this finding. 4. Finding of No Reasonable Alternative The City must find that no feasible alternative design exists that would avoid the need for the exception. This requires analysis of:  Alternative site layouts  Alternative access configurations  Alternative grading or roadway improvements  Alternative water-supply enhancements 5. Finding of General Plan Consistency Government Code §§65300.5 and 65860 require that all land-use decisions be consistent with the General Plan. The City must find consistency with:  Safety Element Policy S-1.1 (wildfire risk reduction)  Safety Element Policy S-1.3 (evacuation and emergency access)  Safety Element Policy S-2.2 (fire-flow and water-supply adequacy)  Safety Element Policy S-3.1 (mitigation of known hazards) Unresolved fire-safety deficiencies prevent this finding. 6. Finding That Future Mitigation Is Not Required to Justify Present Approval CEQA and case law prohibit reliance on future mitigation to justify approval. The City must find that:  All fire-safety issues are resolved now, not deferred  The Final Fire Protection Plan is complete and approved  No essential analysis (evacuation, water-supply reliability) is outstanding SCCFD’s requirement for a future Final Fire Protection Plan prevents this finding. 7. Finding That Public Safety Is Not Compromised The City must find that granting the exception does not:  Increase wildfire risk  Reduce evacuation capacity  Impair emergency response  Increase risk to residents or first responders Given the site’s VHFHSZ location, this finding requires robust evidence. CONCLUSION Unless the applicant provides:  Full financial disclosure  Complete fire-safety documentation  A Final Fire Protection Plan  Evacuation and water-supply analyses The City cannot legally adopt the findings required to grant a PRC 4290 exception. If the City cannot make these findings, it must:  Deny the exception, or  Require full compliance with PRC 4290 and all applicable fire-safety standards. Legal Memorandum To: Cupertino City Council From: Mark W. Fantozzi, PE Re: Legal Analysis Incorporating Fire-Flow, Fire-Access, and Water-Supply Deficiencies – SummerHill Homes Project (TM-2024-009, ASA-2024-015, TR-2024-044), 10857–10887 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, CA Date: March 2026 VIA EMAIL I. INTRODUCTION This updated memorandum incorporates the findings of the Fire Safety Compliance Deficiency Analysis – TM-2024-009, including the Fire-Flow Deficiency Log, Fire-Access Deficiency Log, and Water-Supply Adequacy Matrix. These technical findings materially strengthen and expand the legal deficiencies previously identified in the Planning Department’s staff report. The combined evidence demonstrates that: The SummerHill project cannot be approved under State law, the General Plan, or the Subdivision Map Act because it fails to meet minimum fire-flow, fire-access, and water-supply requirements. The staff report’s recommendation is legally indefensible because it: Misstates the effect of SB 330 vesting Ignores mandatory General Plan Safety Element policies Fails to apply AB 747 and AB 1409 evacuation requirements Relies on conclusory, unsupported statements from SCCFD Provides no substantial evidence of compliance with PRC 4290/4291 or CFC Appendix B/C/D Fails to make required Subdivision Map Act findings The newly documented fire-safety deficiencies confirm that the project presents unmitigated danger to life and property, requiring denial or continuation. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. Project Context The project proposes 51 attached townhomes on a constrained hillside parcel accessed solely by Evulich Court, a dead-end road adjacent to the Stevens Creek canyon. B. VHFHSZ Designation In February 2025, CAL FIRE designated the site as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). C. Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment (2025) The City’s own study identifies:  Severe bottlenecks  Limited egress in hillside neighborhoods  High wildfire vulnerability D. Staff Report Errors The staff report incorrectly claims: “The City does not have any adopted objective standards pertaining to evacuation… As a result, an evacuation study has not been required.” This is contradicted by:  General Plan Safety Element (2026 Draft)  AB 747 and AB 1409  The City’s own evacuation study  State fire-safe regulations E. New Evidence: Fire Safety Compliance Deficiency Analysis The combined logs and matrix document:  17 fire-flow deficiencies  9 fire-access deficiencies  17 water-supply deficiencies These deficiencies are structural, systemic, and uncorrected. EXHIBIT 1 — FIRE FLOW DEFICIENCY LOG (17 ITEMS) # Deficiency Description 1 No Fire Flow Analysis No fire-flow calculations provided for the 51-unit development. 2 No Hydrant Flow Test No hydrant flow test submitted for any hydrant serving Evulich Court or Linda Vista Dr. 3 No Residual Pressure Verification No demonstration that minimum residual pressure is met under fire-flow demand. 4 No Static Pressure Data No baseline static pressure provided for any hydrant. 5 No Fire Flow Duration Analysis No demonstration of required duration (2–4 hours depending on demand). 6 No Cumulative Demand Modeling No modeling of simultaneous domestic + fire-flow demand. 7 No Peak-Hour Demand Modeling No analysis of peak-hour system stress. 8 No Emergency Demand Modeling No modeling of wildfire-event demand conditions. 9 No Water Main Capacity Analysis No hydraulic modeling of the Evulich/Linda Vista water main. 10 No Hydrant Spacing Plan No hydrant spacing diagram or compliance verification. 11 No Hydrant Placement Plan No hydrant placement plan for interior roads. 12 No Secondary Hydrant Source No demonstration of redundant water supply. 13 No WUI-Specific Fire Flow Analysis No analysis tailored to VHFHSZ conditions. 14 No Pressure Zone Verification No confirmation of pressure zone adequacy. 15 No Fire Flow Certification No certification from water purveyor. 16 No System Reliability Analysis No analysis of system reliability under wildfire conditions. 17 No Compliance Statement No evidence of compliance with CFC Appendix B or PRC 4290. EXHIBIT 2 — FIRE ACCESS DEFICIENCY LOG (9 ITEMS) # Deficiency Description 1 Excessive Dead-End Length Evulich Court exceeds maximum dead- end length allowed in VHFHSZ. 2 No Secondary Access No secondary access provided despite hillside/VHFHSZ designation. 3 No Turnaround Analysis No compliant turnaround (hammerhead or cul-de-sac) demonstrated. 4 No Turning Radius Analysis No AutoTURN or equivalent analysis for fire apparatus. 5 No Grade Analysis No verification that grades meet CFC/PRC limits. 6 No Width Verification No demonstration that road width meets minimum 20–26 ft requirements. 7 No Vertical Clearance Verification No confirmation of required 13’6” vertical clearance. 8 No Roadway Structural Analysis No demonstration that pavement supports 75,000-lb apparatus. 9 No Access Reliability Analysis No analysis of wildfire-related access obstruction risks. EXHIBIT 3 — WATER SUPPLY ADEQUACY MATRIX (17 ITEMS) # Required Element Provided? Deficiency 1 Static Pressure Data No Not provided 2 Residual Pressure Data No Not provided 3 Peak-Hour Demand Modeling No Not provided 4 Emergency Demand Modeling No Not provided 5 Fire Flow Demand Calculation No Not provided 6 Water Main Capacity Analysis No Not provided 7 Hydrant Flow Test No Not provided 8 Hydrant Spacing Analysis No Not provided 9 Hydrant Placement Plan No Not provided 10 Pressure Zone Verification No Not provided 11 System Reliability Analysis No Not provided 12 Redundant Water Supply No Not provided 13 WUI-Specific Water Supply Analysis No Not provided 14 Fire Flow Duration Analysis No Not provided 15 Domestic + Fire Flow Modeling No Not provided 16 Purveyor Certification No Not provided 17 Compliance Statement No Not provided III. ISSUES PRESENTED 1. Does SB 330 vesting exempt the project from updated fire-safety, water-supply, or evacuation requirements? No. 2. Do the newly documented fire-flow, fire-access, and water-supply deficiencies prevent approval under State law? Yes. 3. Did the City fail to apply mandatory General Plan Safety Element policies? Yes. 4. Is the CEQA exemption invalid under Government Code §65913.4(a)(6)? Yes. 5. Can the City make Subdivision Map Act findings under §66474? No. IV. APPLICABLE LAW A. SB 330 (Gov. Code §65589.5; §65941.1) Vesting applies only to zoning and design standards, not:  Fire-flow  Water supply  Fire-access  VHFHSZ regulations  Evacuation requirements  Subdivision Map Act safety findings B. Public Resources Code §§4290 and 4291 Require:  Adequate water supply  Adequate fire-flow  Secondary access where feasible  Road width, grade, and turning radii  Defensible space C. California Fire Code (CFC) Appendix B, C, D Require:  Verified fire-flow  Hydrant spacing  Dead-end road limits  Turnarounds  Road width and grade  Water-supply reliability D. Government Code §65913.4(a)(6) A CEQA-exempt project in a VHFHSZ must demonstrate compliance with:  PRC 4290  PRC 4291  CBC Chapter 7A  Local fire-safe regulations E. AB 747 (2019) and AB 1409 (2021) Require:  Evacuation route identification  Capacity analysis  Bottleneck identification  Evacuation locations F. Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code §66474) Requires denial if:  The site is physically unsuitable  The subdivision creates danger to life or property  The subdivision is inconsistent with the General Plan V. ANALYSIS A. SB 330 Does Not Exempt the Project From Fire-Safety Requirements SB 330 does not freeze:  Fire-flow requirements  Water-supply requirements  Fire-access requirements  VHFHSZ regulations These are police-power safety regulations, which cannot be vested. B. Newly Documented Fire-Flow, Fire-Access, and Water-Supply Deficiencies Require Denial 1. Fire-Flow Deficiencies (17 total) The project lacks:  Any fire-flow analysis  Any hydrant flow test  Any residual pressure verification  Any fire-flow duration analysis  Any modeling of cumulative demand  Any hydrant spacing plan Conclusion: The project fails CFC Appendix B and PRC 4290. 2. Fire-Access Deficiencies (9 total) The project:  Exceeds maximum dead-end length  Has no secondary access  Has no turning-radius analysis  Has no compliant turnaround  Has no grade analysis  Has no width verification Conclusion: The project fails CFC Appendix D and PRC 4290. 3. Water-Supply Deficiencies (17 total) The project lacks:  Static pressure data  Residual pressure data  Peak-hour demand modeling  Emergency demand modeling  Water main capacity analysis  Hydrant spacing and placement analysis  WUI-specific water-supply analysis Conclusion: The project fails CFC §507 and PRC 4290. C. The Staff Report’s Safety Findings Are Unsupported The staff report provides no substantial evidence of:  Adequate fire-flow  Adequate water supply  Adequate fire-access  Evacuation capacity  Secondary access feasibility The Fire Department’s “consistency” letter is conclusory and unsupported. D. The CEQA Exemption Is Invalid Government Code §65913.4(a)(6) requires demonstrated compliance with:  PRC 4290  PRC 4291  CBC Chapter 7A The City provided no evidence of compliance. E. Subdivision Map Act Findings Cannot Be Made Under §66474, the City must deny the map if:  The site is physically unsuitable  The subdivision creates danger to life or property  The subdivision is inconsistent with the General Plan Given the documented deficiencies, these findings cannot be made. VI. CONCLUSION The newly documented fire-flow, fire-access, and water-supply deficiencies confirm that the SummerHill project:  Fails to meet minimum State fire-safety requirements  Fails to meet General Plan Safety Element policies  Fails to meet Subdivision Map Act safety findings  Fails to qualify for a CEQA exemption under §65913.4(a)(6) The project cannot be approved. The City Council must: 1. Deny the project, or 2. Continue the hearing and require: o Full fire-flow and hydraulic modeling o Fire-access and secondary access analysis o Water-supply adequacy analysis o Evacuation capacity analysis o Updated General Plan consistency review E&O FINDINGS – Biological Report Project: TM‑2024‑009 (Linda Vista Townhomes) Location: 10857–10887 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, CA Prepared for: Cupertino City Council Prepared by: Mark W. Fantozzi 1) Summary of Key Issues Identified (High-Level) Finding Severity Description BIO-01 High Report does not analyze red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) despite being an abundant local breeding raptor protected under MBTA & CDFW §3503.5 (raptor protection). BIO-02 High Report assumes raptor habitat on site is “developed” and insignificant but does not assess large trees for raptor nesting; only mentions white-tailed kite. [8 – Biolog...cal Report | PDF] BIO-03 High Report omits analysis of bird hazards created by high-density development: reflectivity, glass collisions, artificial lighting, and pet predation—issues recognized in urban CEQA biology reviews. BIO-04 Medium Report claims wildlife movement impacts are minimal, but does not analyze aerial predator movement (raptors, owls, crows) over the site despite adjacent open-space/golf course matrix. [8 – Biolog...cal Report | PDF] BIO-05 Medium Report cites Cupertino General Plan Policy ES-5, ES-5.1, ES-5.2, ES-5.3, etc., but does not evaluate how 51 townhomes increase urban pressure on wildlife, nor propose mitigation. [8 – Biolog...cal Report | PDF] BIO-06 Medium Report overlooks cumulative impacts on raptor foraging habitat: turf, ruderal grassland, gopher populations, and adjacent creek corridor. BIO-07 Medium Bat analysis acknowledges possible roosting, but no acoustic surveys conducted—common CEQA expectation for sites with old structures. [8 – Biolog...cal Report | PDF] BIO-08 Low No tree inventory (oak, cedar, maple, sycamore) was done; report defers this to future arborist work. Tree canopy = habitat. [8 – Biolog...cal Report | PDF] 2) Detailed E&O Findings BIO-01 – Omission of Red-Tailed Hawk Assessment (High) Issue The Biological Report never evaluates red-tailed hawk, even though:  It is one of the most common nesting raptors in Cupertino, including suburban neighborhoods and golf course edges.  Adjacent habitats (grassland patches, golf course open space, tall trees) provide ideal foraging and nesting substrates.  Report explicitly addresses only white-tailed kite as a possible on-site raptor. [8 – Biolog...cal Report | PDF] Why This Is an E&O  Under California Fish & Game Code §3503.5, all raptors and their nests are protected.  Excluding a common protected raptor species is a CEQA deficiency because CEQA requires evaluation of all protected wildlife species potentially affected. Required Corrective Action  Add specific species-level analysis for red-tailed hawk, including: o Nesting habitat survey of all large trees (onsite & within 500 ft). o Foraging habitat impact analysis, especially loss of ruderal grassland and prey base (gophers). o Construction buffer recommendations (typically 500 ft for active hawk nests). BIO-02 – Raptor Habitat Minimization Without Evidence (High) The report asserts the site “does not contain regionally important habitat for the white-tailed kite.” But: [8 – Biolog...cal Report | PDF]  The site includes large trees, open urban edge, prey sign (gophers noted in Report).  Adjacent landscapes (golf course, grassland edge) substantially increase local habitat value.  No tree height/canopy survey or raptor perch/nest survey was documented. Why This Is an E&O Raptor habitat evaluation must include tree suitability, prey availability, and adjacent matrix context—all absent. Corrective Action  Conduct formal raptor nesting tree assessment before CEQA clearance.  Prepare a Raptor Habitat Suitability Memo suitable for City review. BIO-03 – Missing Analysis: Bird Hazards from Dense Development (Glass, Lighting, Pets) (High) The Biological Report does not address:  Glass collision hazards (especially townhomes with large windows).  Light pollution impacts on nocturnal birds and migrating species.  Artificial night lighting conflicts with General Plan ES Policies.  Outdoor cat predation pressure (scientifically known major urban biodiversity impact).  Vegetation-attractant features that could draw prey species into hazardous zones. Why This Is an E&O Cupertino General Plan ES-5 (Protect urban ecosystem) explicitly requires developments to reduce harm to wildlife. [8 – Biolog...cal Report | PDF] CEQA requires evaluation of project-generated hazards, not just baseline habitat. Corrective Action Add Urban Bird Hazard Mitigation Plan , including:  Bird-safe window treatments (ceramic fritting, patterned glass).  Down-shielded lighting.  Seasonal lighting restrictions during migration.  Native, bird-safe landscaping choices.  Outdoor cat containment measures (indoor pet policy / HOA restrictions). BIO-04 – Incomplete Wildlife Movement Analysis (Medium) The report states wildlife movement is minimal because the site is developed. But it does not consider aerial wildlife, such as: [8 – Biolog...cal Report | PDF]  Red-tailed hawk  Cooper’s hawk  Great horned owl  White-tailed kite  Crows, ravens, turkey vultures These species routinely move between Stevens Creek, the golf course, residential backyard trees, and open areas. Corrective Action  Add Aerial Wildlife Movement Assessment showing how the new 2–3-story buildings alter vertical flight paths and edge habitat. BIO-05 – Partial Compliance with General Plan Biological Policies (Medium) The report quotes Cupertino General Plan ES policies… …but does not evaluate consistency with them in analysis. Example:  ES-5.1.1 requires landscaping that enhances the urban ecosystem . The report does not include a landscaping review or recommendations.  ES-5.2 requires clustering away from sensitive habitat, yet no analysis is made of clustering options.  ES-5.6 requires creation of wildlife linkages; none are evaluated. Corrective Action Provide a General Plan Consistency Matrix for all ES-policies. BIO-06 – Cumulative Foraging Habitat Impact Not Addressed (Medium) Raptors forage in:  Ruderal grassland on site.  Golf course open areas.  Adjacent tree-lined backyards. The conversion of all remaining open patches into high-density homes removes:  Perch locations  Foraging zones  Gopher and rodent habitat (documented onsite by the Report). [8 – Biolog...cal Report | PDF] Yet foraging loss is not analyzed. Corrective Action Provide Raptor Foraging Habitat Loss Evaluation with acreage calculations and mitigation measures. BIO-07 – No Acoustic Surveys for Bats (Medium) The report acknowledges possible roosting for big-eared and pallid bats. Structures are suitable for roosting. Yet no acoustic or evening emergence surveys were conducted. This is a CEQA expectation when older structures are present. Corrective Action Conduct: 1. Two-night acoustic bat survey (AnaBat or equivalent). 2. Dusk emergence survey for maternity roost determination. BIO-08 – No Tree Inventory Provided (Low) The report states the project should have an arborist identify which trees are protected. But:  Tree species list is incomplete.  Tree sizes are not documented.  Tree health is unassessed. Given trees = habitat, this omission cascades into raptor and migratory bird habitat omissions. Corrective Action  Add full arborist report with DBH, species, condition, wildlife use, mitigation measures. 3) Corrective Action Tracker (For Integration Into TM-2024-009 Workbook) ID Issue Recommended Action Responsible Party Due Date BIO-01 Missing red-tailed hawk analysis Add species analysis (nesting/foraging) & construction buffers Environmental Consultant 3/20/2026 BIO-02 Missing raptor habitat evaluation Conduct tree survey + raptor habitat memo Environmental Consultant + Arborist 3/20/2026 BIO-03 Bird hazards from dense development Add Bird-Safe Design & Lighting Plan Architect + Biologist 3/20/2026 BIO-04 Missing aerial wildlife movement analysis Provide aerial corridor impact discussion Environmental Consultant 3/20/2026 BIO-05 Missing General Plan consistency assessment Add ES policy consistency matrix Planning Consultant 3/20/2026 BIO-06 Missing cumulative foraging impact evaluation Quantify foraging loss; add mitigation Environmental Consultant 3/20/2026 BIO-07 No bat acoustic surveys Conduct acoustic + emergence surveys Bat Biologist Prior to demo; 4/2026 BIO-08 No tree inventory Formal ESA E&O Finding Project: TM‑2024‑009 (Linda Vista Townhomes) Location: 10857–10887 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, CA Prepared for: Cupertino City Council Prepared by: Mark W. Fantozzi Title: Incomplete agricultural pesticide analyte coverage (parathion & ziram not evaluated) Documents referenced: Phase I ESA identified the property’s historic agricultural use and treated potential pesticide residue as an Other Environmental Consideration (OEC) requiring further consideration. [10 – Phase...Assessment | PDF] Phase II ESA collected shallow soils (SB-5 to SB-11) for pesticide analysis but the laboratory scope was limited to organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) via EPA Method 8081A (e.g., DDT, DDE, DDD, dieldrin). Organophosphates (e.g., parathion) and dithiocarbamates (e.g., ziram) were not included. Analytical tables and the lab case narrative show no parathion or ziram analytes or results. Why this is an error/omission: Given the site’s documented historical agricultural use, Cupertino reviewers typically expect a comprehensive legacy pesticide screen that covers multiple pesticide classes historically used in orchards and similar uses (not just OCPs). The current Phase II scope omits key classes: Organophosphates (OPs): e.g., parathion (commonly used historically), which is not covered by 8081A. OPs often require GC/MS methods specific to OPs or broader semi- volatile suites (e.g., EPA 8270 SIM variants) depending on lab capability. The provided lab work did not include OP methods. Dithiocarbamates (DTCs): e.g., ziram, which typically requires specialized derivatization/HPLC or 8321B-type analysis; again not present in the lab scope. Risk/Impact: Potential data gap in the ESA record for Cupertino entitlement and CEQA review, where agencies look for evidence that common historic-use pesticide classes (OCPs, OPs, and DTCs) have been affirmatively addressed. [10 – Phase...Assessment | PDF] If soils with previously untested OP/DTC residues exist, this could affect soil management, worker safety, and construction-phase best management practices; the Phase II conclusion that “no additional investigation is recommended” is unsupported for OP/DTC classes. 2) Recommended Corrective Actions 1. Supplemental Soil Investigation – OP & DTC Pesticides o Scope: Collect additional shallow interval composites (e.g., 0.5–1.5 ft bgs, plus 3–6 in below organic layer if present) from the previously sampled grid (SB-5 to SB-11 vicinity) and any former orchard rows/structures if identifiable. Analyze for organophosphates (include parathion) and dithiocarbamates (include ziram) using appropriate certified methods (e.g., 8321B for OP/DTC, or lab-validated OP/DTC suites). o Decision Criteria: Compare to SF Bay RWQCB Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs, July 2019 Rev. 2) under Residential Direct Exposure; document detection limits and any J-qualified estimates. o Deliverable: Addendum to Phase II ESA summarizing methods, tables, ESL comparisons, and conclusions. 2. Soil Management Note (Interim) o Pending results, include an interim soil handling note for plans/specs stating that if unexpected stained/odorous soils are encountered, work will follow the contractor’s Health & Safety Plan and stop-work & notify protocol, with expedited lab testing. (This mirrors Phase II limitations and prudent practice.) 3. Agency Coordination (If Needed) o If any OP/DTC detections exceed ESLs, prepare a Corrective Action Plan with removal, blending, or capping options and consult with the City and, if warranted by concentration and extent, the Santa Clara County DEH/SF Bay RWQCB for concurrence on closure. 3) E&O Tracker — Pesticide Coverage (Standalone Table) ID Finding Evidence (where found) Why it matters Corrective Action Responsibl e Due Date Stat us ENV- 01 Parathion & ziram not analyzed; Phase II only ran OCPs (8081A) Phase I flags historic ag use (OEC); Phase II analytes & lab packages list OCPs only; no OP/DTC (no parathion/ziram) [10 – Phase...Assessme nt | PDF] City/CEQ A reviewers expect a complete legacy pesticide screen; omission leaves data gap; could Run supplement al soil testing for OPs (incl. parathion) and DTCs (incl. ziram) using appropriate certified methods Environme ntal Consultant (AEI or approved equivalent) H (target Mar 20, 2026 for lab report; samplin g by Mar 6, 2026) Ope n delay entitlemen ts (e.g., 8321B or lab-validated equivalents); compare to 2019 SF Bay RWQCB ESLs; issue Phase II Addendum with conclusions. ENV- 02 Conclusions over-general ized (“no additional investigation recommende d”) despite untested pesticide classes Phase II Summary/Conclu sions section recommends no further work; but OP/DTC classes untested Could be read as “case closed” and later conflict with City comments , causing re-work Qualify the conclusion in an Addendum; state that OP/DTC results have been added; revise conclusion accordingly. Environmen tal Consultant M (with ENV-01 addendu m) Ope n ENV- 03 Interim soil handling note not stated for potential unexpected conditions Phase II limitations acknowledge uncertainty; no interim field note provided for construction docs Improves contracto r awarenes s and risk managem ent prior to addendum Insert interim soil handling note in Specs/Plan General Notes (stop-work, characterizat ion, HASP) until addendum resolves. Civil/CM + Environmen tal Consultant M (Mar 6, 2026) Ope n Severity key: H=High (blocks approval), M=Medium (comment risk), L=Low (editorial) Errors & Omissions Register — Final Transportation Study (Hexagon, dated Dec 15, 2025) Project: TM‑2024‑009 (Linda Vista Townhomes) Location: 10857–10887 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, CA Prepared for: Cupertino City Council Prepared by: Mark W. Fantozzi VIA EMAIL Key: Severity = H (High: may affect approval/conditions), M (Medium: likely comment/condition), L (Low: editorial/clarification) # Category Finding (what’s wrong or missing) Where in Study Why it matters Recommended action Seve rity 1 Project identifica tion Address range mismatch. Study title and narrative analyze “10857 Linda Vista Drive” only; application and notice reference 10857–10887 (4 parcels). Confirm parcel coverage, frontage, and the new public street footprint. [15 – Final...tion Study | PDF] Cover memo & throughout (“10857 Linda Vista Drive”) [15 – Final...tion Study | PDF] If legal description or frontage differs, traffic assignment, sight distance, parking frontage counts, and conditions can change; can trigger resubmittal. Align the report header, site plan figures, and legal parcel list to the TM; add APNs and full address range; revise figures accordingly. H 2 Methodol ogy scope Off-site study area potentially incomplete. Only 3 unsignalized intersections were analyzed (Linda Study Intersections list; Trip Distribution/Ass ignment (notes about If 6–7 peak-hour trips shift to other streets, localized delay/safety at Add a sensitivity check including Linda Vista/Columbus and Linda Vista/Terrace M Vista/Hyannisport; Fort Baker/Hyannisport ; Bubb/Hyannisport) . The text itself notes some site traffic may choose Columbus Ave or Terrace Dr, yet those intersections are not evaluated. [15 – Final...tion Study | PDF] Columbus/Terra ce) [15 – Final...tion Study | PDF] Linda Vista/Colum bus or Linda Vista/Terrace may be underestimate d; neighbors often comment here. (AM/PM). If negligible, document; if not, include mitigations. 3 Trip distributi on assumpti on All Bubb-bound traffic assigned to Hyannisport as a “worst case.” That’s conservative for school area, but may understate impacts on Columbus/Terrace since those links weren’t tested. [15 – Final...tion Study | PDF] Trip Distribution/Ass ignment; Figures 4–5 [15 – Final...tion Study | PDF] Can bias impact location (school frontages vs. cut-through streets); City may ask for a scenario that reflects likely splits. Add a second assignment using proportional split to Hyannisport/Columb us/Terrace based on observed turning shares; compare LOS/queues. M 4 Parking code complian ce Minimum parking ratio appears mis-cited. Study says “one (1) space per townhome” (Table 19.124.040(A)), but Cupertino’s code table lists “Small Lot Single-Family, Townhouse (P)” = 2.8/DU (2 garage + 0.8 open) and R-3 High Density Parking section (pp. 17–18); asserts 1 space/DU; code table contradicts. [15 – Final...tion Study | PDF], [§ 19.124.0...t Parking.] If the higher ratios apply (depending on zoning overlay), the plan may under-provid e open/guest spaces (report shows 10 on- street along Evulich Court). Risk of redesign or conditions. Confirm the applicable zoning line for “Townhome Combining District” (R-3 vs P). If R-3 applies, provide 1 open space/DU (guest) on-site or on- street; if P applies, target 0.8 open/DU. Update parking tables and striping/layout. [§ 19.124.0...t Parking.] H = 2.0/DU (1 covered + 1 open); the report’s claimed 1.0/DU minimum conflicts with the table. [15 – Final...tion Study | PDF], [§ 19.124.0...t Parking.] 5 Bicycle parking requirem ents Report states “no bicycle parking requirements for townhomes.” Cupertino code requires bicycle parking in multi- family residential developments (Class I/II as applicable), and table entries show requirements for multi-family and condos; the report position is at least incomplete for an R-3 townhome combining district. [15 – Final...tion Study | PDF], [§ 19.124.0...t Parking.] Parking section; claim of no bike parking requirement; Code §19.124.040(P) says bike parking shall be provided in multi-family. [15 – Final...tion Study | PDF], [§ 19.124.0...t Parking.] Risk of condition of approval to add secure, accessible long-term bike parking beyond in-garage hooks; can affect common area programming/ cost. Coordinate with Planning to confirm classification; add Class I long-term (e.g., shared room/cages) + Class II short-term racks near common areas as required; revise plans and counts. [§ 19.124.0...t Parking.] M 6 CEQA/V MT complian ce basis The study says “pursuant to AB 130, [project] is not required to conduct a VMT analysis.” AB 130 (2025) created new CEQA tools (e.g., infill housing exemption PRC §21080.66 and a VMT mitigation General Plan Consistency & Municipal Code discussion (pp. 12–16) stating “not applicable … pursuant to AB 130.” [15 – Final...tion Study | PDF] A mis-stated legal basis can prompt CEQA challenge or a completeness hold. If using the AB 130 infill exemption, you must affirmatively show each Clarify CEQA pathway: (a) If PRC §21080.66 exemption applies, add a compliance memo; (b) If not, provide VMT screening/analysis per Cupertino Transportation Study Guidelines (Jan 2025). H fee option), but does not blanket-exempt all housing from VMT analysis. If the project asserts the new infill CEQA exemption, document compliance with all criteria; otherwise, City code sections on VMT may still apply. [15 – Final...tion Study | PDF], [abag.ca.gov], [coblentzlaw.com], [nossaman.com], [jdsupra.com] qualifying element; otherwise provide a screening memo or VMT memo per City guidelines. [abag.ca.gov], [cupertino.gov] 7 Guideline s alignmen t Report references Cupertino’s Transportation Analysis Guidelines (Jan 2025) and states Tier-2 LTA was followed. Ensure checklist elements (Table A-7) are fully documented (e.g., loading, curb management near schools, sight distance controls as enforceable measures). [15 – Final...tion Study | PDF], [cupertino.gov] Scope/Checklist section & Site Access Review Missing checklist items show up as late comments; enforceable details (signing/stripi ng) reduce risk. Attach completed Table A-7 with drawings of no-parking zones within sight triangles and any school-area curbside controls. [cupertino.gov] M 8 Sight distance & Sight-triangle narrative recommends Sight Distance (p. 19) & Driveway Without a stamped diagram, Provide a scaled sight-triangle exhibit (per Std M parking control prohibiting on-street parking within corner triangles at Linda Vista/Evulich; however, the plan also shows 8' parking both sides west of chokers. The study should translate this into an actual striping/signing layout and quantify lost spaces. [15 – Final...tion Study | PDF] Design (pp. 17– 19) [15 – Final...tion Study | PDF] reviewers can’t confirm compliance; residents may contest loss of curb spaces if not scoped now. Detail 7-2) with curb red-curb limits, R-xx signs, and an updated on-street parking count table. [15 – Final...tion Study | PDF] 9 Garbage & delivery operation s Internal drive aisles B–E lack turnarounds, so large vehicles must back in/out. This is acknowledged for garbage, but the plan lacks an operational plan (signage, time windows, enforcement) and turning path exhibits for delivery vans/box trucks. [15 – Final...tion Study | PDF] Garbage Collection (p. 21); On-site circulation (pp. 17–19) [15 – Final...tion Study | PDF] Backing movements near residential garages can raise safety/visibilit y issues; reviewers often condition “No Stopping/Loa ding” or designate staging. Add swept-paths for 30–35’ single-unit trucks at each aisle; include a solid waste & delivery plan (signed by the hauler), and add striping/signage where needed. [15 – Final...tion Study | PDF] M 1 0 School-ar ea operation s Field notes report short AM queues at Hyannisport during drop-off and instances of NB Bubb Rd queue spillback at McClellan. No School Area Field Observations (p. 9) [15 – Final...tion Study | PDF] School operations are sensitive; lack of mitigation/mo nitoring invites conditions post-hearing. Add a school-hour curbside plan (T-reg signs, cones, monitoring commitment for first semester of occupancy) and include a M Safety subsection (curb management, time-of-day loading controls, crossing guard dependency) is provided. [15 – Final...tion Study | PDF] post-occupancy check-in trigger. 1 1 Active transport ation context The report describes Stevens Creek Trail as a “~5-mile” facility stretching from “southern Cupertino to near the Bay” adjacent to site. In reality, the trail exists in two disconnected segments (Mountain View ~5 miles; Cupertino segment ~1–2 miles between Linda Vista Park– Blackberry Farm). The wording could be read as implying a continuous corridor at the site. [15 – Final...tion Study | PDF], [traillink.com], [siliconval...ctions. com] Existing Ped/Bike Facilities (p. 6) [15 – Final...tion Study | PDF] Overstating connectivity can affect mode split assumptions and General Plan consistency claims. Rephrase to reflect disconnected segments and cite the local Cupertino segment length & endpoints; add a context map. [traillink.com], [siliconval...ctions.c om] L 1 2 Transit descripti on States no transit within 0.5 mi; closest stop ~1.25 mi. Provide a map and stop list to substantiate distance to nearest Existing Transit Services (p. 6) [15 – Final...tion Study | PDF] Minor, but reviewers often ask for a map source and measured distances. Add a VTA stop map with measured walking distances and routes; if >0.5 mi, leave as-is with exhibit. L VTA stops (e.g., on McClellan Rd or Stevens Creek Blvd). [15 – Final...tion Study | PDF] 1 3 Vision Zero / LRSP consisten cy The report says Linda Vista Drive is not on the City’s High Injury Network and that no plan improvements affect the frontage. Provide the HIN map reference and cite the adopted Vision Zero Action Plan (2024). [15 – Final...tion Study | PDF], [cupertino.gov], [cupertino.gov] Plans & Policies (pp. 15–16) [15 – Final...tion Study | PDF] Adds traceability and avoids plan-consisten cy back-and-fort h. Insert HIN map excerpt and VZAP adoption reference; keep the conclusion if confirmed. [cupertino.gov], [cupertino.gov] L 1 4 LOS reporting clarity LOS tables present control delay but do not include HCM criteria footnotes in table headers; readers must infer from notes. Minor formatting clarity. [15 – Final...tion Study | PDF] Tables 2–4 (pp. 7, 12) [15 – Final...tion Study | PDF] Improves transparency for non-engineer reviewers. Add HCM criteria bands in the table header row. L 1 5 Typos / presentat ion Multiple typos (e.g., “Authoirty/Confo rmance,” “Great than”) and mixed usage (Evulich Court intro appears later). [15 – Final...tion Study | PDF] Throughout [15 – Final...tion Study | PDF] Clean presentation reduces friction in staff review. Proof/QA the PDF; harmonize street naming from the outset. L 1 6 VTA coordinat ion “VTA comments received and addressed” is asserted without attaching comment letter or response matrix. [15 – Final...tion Study | PDF] General Plan Consistency table (p. 14) [15 – Final...tion Study | PDF] Reviewers will ask for the record. Attach VTA comment email/letter and a response log appendix. M Notes on key legal/standards references (for your cover memo)  AB 130 (2025) CEQA reforms: Added PRC §21080.66 (urban infill housing CEQA exemption) and a VMT mitigation fee option program guidance to be issued by July 1, 2026; not a general VMT exemption. Use this if the project qualifies; otherwise follow local VMT screening. [abag.ca.gov], [coblentzlaw.com], [nossaman.com], [jdsupra.com]  Cupertino Transportation Study Guidelines (Jan 2025): Defines Tier 2 LTA content and includes the Site Access & Circulation Checklist (Table A-7) the study references — use it to ensure the revised submittal is complete. [cupertino.gov]  Cupertino Municipal Code §19.124.040: Off-street parking table shows Small Lot Single-Family, Townhouse (P) = 2.8/DU and R-3 High Density Multiple-Family = 2.0/DU, plus bicycle parking shall be provided in multi-family developments (Class I/II). Coordinate which line applies to R-3 + Townhome Combining District. [§ 19.124.0...t Parking.]  Stevens Creek Trail factual context: Disconnected segments (Mountain View ~5 miles; Cupertino Linda Vista Park–Blackberry Farm ~1–2 miles). Don’t imply continuous facility at the project frontage. [traillink.com], [siliconval...ctions.com] Quick wins (edits you can request from the consultant this week) 1. Parking & bike parking clarification (High) – Confirm applicable row in CMC Table 19.124.040(A); update site plan and parking count to meet open/guest and bike parking duties; add counts to the LTA. [§ 19.124.0...t Parking.] 2. CEQA/VMT basis (High) – One-pager confirming AB 130 infill exemption criteria OR provide a VMT screening memo per City guidelines; attach to the study. [abag.ca.gov], [cupertino.gov] 3. Sensitivity test to Columbus/Terrace (Med) – Add 1–2 intersections and a proportional distribution scenario; summarize impacts are still < thresholds (or propose minor measures). [15 – Final...tion Study | PDF] 4. Sight-distance / curb control exhibit (Med) – Red-curb/signing layout and revised on-street parking tally on Evulich Court. [15 – Final...tion Study | PDF] 5. Ops appendix (Med) – Waste & delivery plan + additional swept paths for 30–35’ vehicles at aisles B–E. [15 – Final...tion Study | PDF] 6. Documentation attachments (Low) – VTA comment / response matrix; Vision Zero High Injury Network map excerpt; updated trail description/map. [15 – Final...tion Study | PDF], [cupertino.gov], [traillink.com] Assumptions & limits  The findings above are based on your attached “15 – Final Transportation Study.pdf” and public sources cited; no plan set beyond the figure excerpts was reviewed. Where local code interpretation matters (e.g., parking table line applicability to R-3 + Townhome Combining District), confirm with the City Planner/Zoning Administrator. [15 – Final...tion Study | PDF], [§ 19.124.0...t Parking.] Would you like this as an Excel/Word tracker? If helpful, I can export this register to Excel with filters for discipline/owner and add a status and due date column for your TM action log. Also, if you have City staff redlines or plan sheets, send them over and I’ll fold those into the next pass. Sources Provide your feedback on BizChat You said: also Consider City of Cupertino general plan, caltrans safe streets, AASHTO guidelines, MUTCD, pedestrian safety, traffic impact analysis, City of Cupertino parking standards. Copilot said: Copilot Reasoning completed in 6 steps Absolutely—here’s an expanded Errors & Omissions (E&O) register for the Final Transportation Study – 10857–10887 Linda Vista Dr (TM-2024-009) that now explicitly considers the City of Cupertino General Plan (Mobility Element), Caltrans Complete Streets/Safe System direction, AASHTO “Green Book”, MUTCD/CA MUTCD, pedestrian safety best practice, Traffic Impact/LTA guidance, and Cupertino parking standards. I’ve kept your earlier items and added standards-based checks, with clear cites right after each statement. Expanded Errors & Omissions Register (standards-informed) Key: H/M/L = High/Medium/Low severity # Category Finding (what’s wrong or missing) Where in Study Why it matters Recommended action Se v. 1 Project identification Address range mismatch—report says “10857 Linda Vista Dr”; application/site encompass 10857–10887 (four lots). [15 – Final...tion Study | PDF] Cover memo & througho ut. [15 – Final...tio n Study | PDF] Legal description/fro ntage govern geometry, sight triangles, and on-street counts; mislabeling invites resubmittal. Align title block, APNs, and figures to full range. H 2 Study area completeness No analysis at Linda Vista/Columbus or Linda Vista/Terrace despite text acknowledging some trips would use those streets. [15 – Final...tion Study | PDF] Intersecti ons list; Trip Assignme nt notes. [15 – Final...tio n Study | PDF] Under-testing can miss localized delay/safety issues. Cupertino 2025 Guidelines expect LTA to capture likely influence area and use the A-7 Add AM/PM LOS + observations at Columbus and Terrace; include a proportional assignment case. M checklist. [cupertino.gov] 3 Assignment bias All Bubb-bound trips pushed to Hyannisport “worst case”, but no companion scenario for likely split. [15 – Final...tion Study | PDF] Figures 4–5; Trip Assignme nt. [15 – Final...tio n Study | PDF] Can over-weight school frontage and under-weight other locals; the City may ask for a more representative case per TS Guidelines. [cupertino.gov] Add Base (observed share) scenario; compare LOS/queues and document any negligible delta. M 4 Parking code Minimums mis-stated. Report claims 1.0 space per townhome, but CMC §19.124.040(A) shows Townhouse (P) = 2.8/DU (2 garage + 0.8 open); R-3 = 2.0/DU (1 covered + 1 open). Classification must be confirmed for the Townhome Combining District. [§ 19.124.0...t Parking.] Parking section (pp. 17– 18). [15 – Final...tio n Study | PDF] Under-provisio n of open/guest stalls risks conditions/rede sign. Confirm applicable row; revise plan to provide open/guest per code; update supply table & striping. [§ 19.124.0...t Parking.] H 5 Bicycle parking Report says no bicycle parking requirement for townhomes; however CMC §19.124.040(P) requires bike parking in multi-family developments Parking section; Bike facilities narrative. [15 – Final...tio n Study | PDF] Consistency with the General Plan Mobility Policy M-3.8 (“Require public and private bicycle parking”) is Add Class I long-term (e.g., shared room/cages) and Class II short-term racks in common spaces; include counts on plans. [§ M (Class I/II). For R-3 Townhome Combining, provide long-term/short-ter m accordingly. [§ 19.124.0...t Parking.] expected. [cupertino.gov] 19.124.0...t Parking.] 6 CEQA/VMT basis Report states “pursuant to AB 130, VMT not required.” AB 130 introduced a new infill exemption (PRC §21080.66) and a state VMT mitigation fee option, but it is not a blanket VMT waiver; projects must either qualify for the exemption or follow local screening/analysis per City Guidelines. [abag.ca.gov], [coblentzlaw.com] , [nossaman.com] Code consisten cy section (pp. 12– 16). [15 – Final...tio n Study | PDF] Misstating CEQA posture can trigger completeness holds or challenge. (a) If using PRC §21080.66 exemption, add a compliance memo; (b) else provide VMT screening/memo per Cupertino 2025 Guidelines. [abag.ca.gov], [cupertino.gov] H 7 Checklist/documen tation Site Access & Circulation Checklist (A-7) not appended; several items (loading, curb mgmt., sight-distance controls) not shown as enforceable measures. [cupertino.gov] Site Access Review section. [15 – Final...tio n Study | PDF] Missing checklist exhibits generate late comments. Attach completed A-7, with signed/striped controls and curb regulations sheets. [cupertino.gov] M 8 Sight distance / curb control Recommends no parking in corner sight triangles at Linda Vista/Evulich but lacks a scaled red-curb/sign plan and a revised on-street count. [15 – Final...tion Study | PDF] Sight Distance (p. 19). [15 – Final...tio n Study | PDF] MUTCD/CA MUTCD require consistent control devices; provide exact locations and signs for enforceability. [mutcd- dr.f...wa.dot.go v], [dot.ca.gov] Add Std Detail 7-2 sight-triangle exhibit and R-7/curb markings per CA MUTCD; re-tally curb spaces. [15 – Final...tion Study | PDF], [dot.ca.gov] M 9 School-area treatments Field notes mention AM drop-off queues and NB Bubb spillback; the study lacks a School Area Safety plan (temporary curb management, crossing control assumptions). MUTCD Part 7 addresses school area control, and City VZAP prioritizes safe systems. [15 – Final...tion Study | PDF], [mutcd- dr.f...wa.dot.gov], [cupertino.gov] Field Obs (p. 9). [15 – Final...tio n Study | PDF] Reviewers expect defined school-hour devices and monitoring commitments. Add a school-hour curb plan (signs, cones, loading windows) and post-occupancy monitoring for 1 school term; coordinate with SVUSD. [mutcd- dr.f...wa.dot.gov] M 1 0 Truck ops & waste Aisles B–E have no turnarounds; trucks must back in/out. Lacks a delivery/solid-wa ste ops plan and swept paths for 30–35’ SUT beyond the cul-de-sac check. Garbage Collectio n & On-site Circulatio n. [15 – Final...tio n Study | PDF] Backing near garages can raise conflict risk; City may condition “No Stopping/Loadi ng” zones. Add turning path exhibits for SUTs at each aisle; include time-window & signage plan. M [15 – Final...tion Study | PDF] 1 1 Ped/bike network accuracy Trail description implies a continuous ~5-mile facility by the site; Stevens Creek Trail is two disconnected segments (Mountain View ~5 mi; Cupertino Linda Vista Park–Blackberry Farm ~1–2 mi). [traillink.com], [siliconval...ctions. com] Existing Ped/Bike Facilities (p. 6). [15 – Final...tio n Study | PDF] Overstating connectivity can over-credit non-auto mode share in narratives. Correct text + add local segment map and endpoints. [traillink.com], [siliconval...ctions. com] L 1 2 Transit description Claims nearest transit stop is ~1.25 mi; no map or distance measure provided. [15 – Final...tion Study | PDF] Transit Services (p. 6). [15 – Final...tio n Study | PDF] Provide objective backing for completeness. Add VTA stop map with measured walking routes/distances. L 1 3 Vision Zero/HIN mapping Asserts site street not on High Injury Network, but no HIN map excerpt or adoption reference to Vision Zero Action Plan (2024). [cupertino.gov], [cupertino.gov] Plans & Policies section. [15 – Final...tio n Study | PDF] Tightens plan consistency review. Insert HIN map excerpt + adoption citation; keep conclusion if confirmed. [cupertino.gov] L 1 4 LOS presentation Control-delay LOS tables lack HCM criteria row/footnote in header; minor clarity. [15 – Final...tion Study | PDF] Tables 2– 4. [15 – Final...tio n Study | PDF] Improves readability for non-engineers. Add HCM LOS criteria bands in table headers. L 1 5 Typos/format Multiple typos (“Authoirty”, “Great than”) and inconsistent intro for Evulich Ct. [15 – Final...tion Study | PDF] Througho ut. [15 – Final...tio n Study | PDF] Avoids avoidable staff comments. Proof and harmonize street names. L Standards-Specific Additions (what else to tune before City review) 1. Cupertino General Plan – Mobility Element consistency  The Mobility Element includes Policies M-3.2 (connectivity), M-3.3 (ped/bike crossings), M-3.5 (minimize driveways), and M-3.8 (require bicycle parking). Where the study claims consistency, attach policy-by-policy check tables and show how each improvement (e.g., chokers, crosswalks, sidewalk continuity) satisfies these policies. [cupertino.gov]  The Element also discusses Transportation Impact Analysis expectations; align the LTA scope and mitigation format with the Mobility Element sections on walkability/bikeability and school access. [cupertino.gov] 2. Caltrans Safe/Complete Streets direction  Caltrans’ Director’s Policy 37 (DP-37) requires comfortable, convenient, and connected Complete Streets facilities and endorses design flexibility to serve users of all ages/abilities—relevant to your Evulich Ct throat narrowing, chokers, and crossing. Cite DP-37 and the 2024–25 Complete Streets Action Plan to ground the use of context-sensitive measures. [dot.ca.gov], [dot.ca.gov]  DIB-94 (2024) provides contextual design guidance and encourages traffic calming and intersection designs for ped/bike comfort; reference it when justifying narrowed curb-to-curb widths and curb extensions at the new T-intersection. [dot.ca.gov] 3. AASHTO “Green Book” (GDHS-7) checks  Re-affirm intersection sight distance and local residential street design elements per AASHTO 2018 (7th ed.) for a 25 mph context, and ensure your sight-triangle exhibit states the assumed design speed, vegetation control, and parking prohibition limits. (Use the City standard detail for triangles; cite AASHTO as the geometric design basis.) [store.tran...tation.org]  If you keep the 20-ft aisle widths and 8-ft parking both sides west of the chokers, demonstrate two-way passing and parking maneuver envelopes meet AASHTO local street guidance or City standard detail equivalents. [store.tran...tation.org] 4. MUTCD / CA MUTCD controls (especially school area & crossings)  For any new crosswalks, signing/marking must conform to MUTCD 11th Edition (Dec 2023), with Part 7 rules for school areas where applicable; California has now issued CA MUTCD 2026 (effective Jan 18, 2026) in substantial conformance with the national MUTCD— use its part/section citations on markings, STOP/YIELD control, and curb extensions as you finalize sheets. [mutcd-dr.f...wa.dot.gov], [dot.ca.gov]  Add a device schedule (sign codes, line types, colors) tied to MUTCD/CA MUTCD tables for the Evulich/Linda Vista intersection and any no-parking extents within sight triangles. [dot.ca.gov] 5. Pedestrian safety emphasis (Vision Zero / neighborhood context)  Link the proposed chokers and narrowed throat to Vision Zero’s Safe System approach adopted by the City (2024), and include an 85th percentile speed check post-construction as part of a post-occupancy “safety & circulation” verification. [cupertino.gov], [cupertino.gov]  Where field notes indicate short peak-period queues near schools, add day-of-week/time-of-day curb regulations, and where appropriate, school-area legends (per MUTCD Part 7) to reduce mid-block encroachment and improve ped visibility. [15 – Final...tion Study | PDF], [mutcd-dr.f...wa.dot.gov] 6. Traffic Impact / LTA documentation (City’s 2025 Guidelines)  Append the completed A-7 checklist and ensure the report includes all required components (trip gen methodology, assignment rationale, school area assessment, access review, ped/bike/transit, and mitigation commitments with plan-view exhibits). [cupertino.gov] 7. Cupertino Parking Standards (clarity on classification)  Confirm whether the project is being processed as R-3 with Townhome Combining District or under a P (Planned) designation that invokes the “Townhouse (P) 2.8/DU” row. Update the report tables accordingly; reconcile with General Plan Mobility objectives on right-sizing parking and bicycle parking (M-3.8). [§ 19.124.0...t Parking.], [cupertino.gov] Short punch-list (what to ask Hexagon to fix now) 1. Parking & Bike Parking (H) – Correct minimums and provide on-site open/guest plus Class I/II bike parking counts and plan locations. [§ 19.124.0...t Parking.] 2. CEQA/VMT (H) – Provide either AB 130 PRC §21080.66 exemption memo or a VMT screening/analysis per City 2025 Guidelines. [abag.ca.gov], [cupertino.gov] 3. Add Columbus/Terrace sensitivity (M) – LOS/queue checks + narrative. [15 – Final...tion Study | PDF] 4. Sight-triangle package (M) – Scaled red-curb/signing plan (CA MUTCD device schedule) and revised on-street counts. [dot.ca.gov] 5. School-area ops (M) – MUTCD Part 7-aligned curb management, temporary controls, and a post-occupancy monitoring commitment. [mutcd-dr.f...wa.dot.gov] 6. Truck ops appendix (M) – Swept paths for 30–35’ SUT at each aisle + hauler letter and delivery windows. [15 – Final...tion Study | PDF] 7. Policy consistency tie-outs (L/M) – One-page matrix to Mobility Element policies (esp. M-3.2, M-3.3, M-3.5, M-3.8), DP-37/DIB-94 references for context-sensitive design. [cupertino.gov], [dot.ca.gov], [dot.ca.gov] Citations / References used in this E&O  Final Transportation Study PDF (attached): basis for all page/figure references. [15 – Final...tion Study | PDF]  Cupertino Transportation Study Guidelines (Jan 2025)—Tiering, LTA content, A-7 checklist. [cupertino.gov]  Cupertino Municipal Code §19.124.040 (Parking & Bicycle Parking)—ratios, bike parking classes. [§ 19.124.0...t Parking.]  Cupertino General Plan – Mobility Element (Policies including M-3.8). [cupertino.gov]  Caltrans DP-37 Complete Streets; DIB-94 Contextual Design; 2024–25 Complete Streets Action Plan. [dot.ca.gov], [dot.ca.gov], [dot.ca.gov]  MUTCD 11th Ed. (Dec 2023); CA MUTCD 2026 (effective Jan 18, 2026)—devices, Part 7 school areas, markings. [mutcd-dr.f...wa.dot.gov], [dot.ca.gov]  AASHTO “Green Book” (2018, 7th ed.)—geometric design & sight distance context. [store.tran...tation.org]  Vision Zero Action Plan & HIN (Cupertino)—policy alignment and safety framing. [cupertino.gov], [cupertino.gov]  Stevens Creek Trail factual context—segment lengths & endpoints. [traillink.com], [siliconval...ctions.com] From:Vikram Saxena To:City Attorney"s Office; City Clerk Cc:Benjamin Fu; City Council; Tina Kapoor Subject:Evulich Court: We can have 30 feet VHFHSZ setbacks AND construct 51 townhomes (Written Comments for Marcy 17 Meeting) Date:Friday, March 13, 2026 3:13:10 PM Attachments:Setback Viability Memo - Linda Vista 26-14876 - March13.pdf Approved AMMR Linda Vista.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Clerk: Please include the following as written communication for the March 17th City Council meeting for Agenda Item 12 (Evulich Court). ________________________________________________________________________________________________________Dear Cupertino City Council Members and City Attorney: CONCLUSION: NO SETBACK WAIVER IS NEEDED TO MEET HOUSING DENSITY Summary: The required 51-unit density can be achieved while honoring the full 30-foot fire-safety setback mandated for Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones; all Summerhill has to do is size the units to comparable developments. Vida Sunnyvale Phase I achieved a nearly identical unit count (50 units on 2.76 acres) with 53–65 foot setbacks to single- family homes by utilizing smaller average unit sizes (1,748 SF livable area). Westport Cupertino, also used smaller, marketable family-sized units (1,978 SF average livable area), establishing the financial viability of right-sized units that accommodate fire-safety requirements PDF of this memo and the letter from Summerhill to the Santa Clara County Fire Department requesting a waiver of the 30-foot setbacks are also attached. Regards -Vikram _____________ MEMORANDUM March 13, 2026 TO:Cupertino City Council FROM:Concerned Residents of Linda Vista Drive RE:Provide 30 ft Setbacks Required for VHFHSZ & Build 51 Units: No Setback Waiver Needed FILE:City Council Meeting of March 17, 2026 | File #26-14876 | 10857 Linda Vista Drive Executive Summary SummerHill Homes proposes 51 townhomes at 10857 Linda Vista Drive, a site reclassified as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) in March 2025. SummerHill obtained an AMMR to reduce the 30 feet setbacks to 10 feet on the south and east boundaries; these are the side directly abutting existing single-family homes. The AMMR (filed by Steven Bull, accepted Jan. 6, 2026) says Justification The primary justifications for the reduction of the 30-foot setback requirement to the northern, southern, and western property lines are the development density requirements and site constraints due to the existing public right-of-way for the cul-de-sac within the site. Subsection (b) of the above listed Code includes Development density requirements and site constraints among the exceptions to the 30’ setback requirement. In this memorandum we refute both claims and establish that the 30 feet setbacks (fire-safety) and 51 unit density (housing element) can both be satisfied together. File #26-14876 | 10857 Linda Vista Drive MEMORANDUM March 13, 2026 TO: Cupertino City Council FROM: Concerned Residents of Linda Vista Drive RE: Provide 30 ft Setbacks Required for VHFHSZ & Build 51 Units: No Setback Waiver Needed FILE: City Council Meeting of March 17, 2026 | File #26-14876 | 10857 Linda Vista Drive Executive Summary SummerHill Homes proposes 51 townhomes at 10857 Linda Vista Drive, a site reclassified as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) in March 2025. SummerHill obtained an AMMR to reduce the 30 feet setbacks to 10 feet on the south and east boundaries; these are the side directly abutting existing single-family homes. The AMMR (filed by Steven Bull, accepted Jan. 6, 2026) says Justification The primary justifications for the reduction of the 30-foot setback requirement to the northern, southern, and western property lines are the development density requirements and site constraints due to the existing public right-of-way for the cul-de-sac within the site. Subsection (b) of the above listed Code includes Development density requirements and site constraints among the exceptions to the 30’ setback requirement. In this memorandum we refute both claims and establish that the 30 feet setbacks (fire-safety) and 51 unit density (housing element) can both be satisfied together. CLAIM 1: DENSITY “in order to fit the minimum required number of units within the site” • SummerHill’s proposed units average 2,369 livable SF (excluding the 2-car garage) are significantly oversized relative to comparable, approved projects in the same market served by CUSD • Vida Sunnyvale Phase I (Appendix A): 50 units on 2.76 acres (vs. SummerHill’s 51 units on 2.51 acres): nearly identical density – Avg livable area: 1,748 SF per unit: Evulich Ct is 36% larger than Vida – Setbacks to single-family homes: 53–65 feet (vs. SummerHill’s ~10 ft) – Heights taper down 1 story from interior to rear: gradual transition to neighbors – Approved July 2021, built and sold: same South Bay market, conventional financing • Westport Cupertino (Appendix B): 88 townhomes/rowhouses at Stevens Creek & Mary, Cupertino – Avg livable area: 1,978 SF per unit: Evulich Ct is 20% larger than Westport – Family-sized units with 2-car garages: proven marketable product – Approved by Cupertino’s own City Council (Aug. 2020); same city, same market CLAIM 2: EVULICH COURT RIGHT-OF-WAY “The site is constrained by an existing City right-of-way (Evulich Court).” • SummerHill must build internal access roads regardless; the site plan includes five private streets for vehicle and fire apparatus access • The new internal road can be dedicated back to the City in lieu of the existing Evulich Court right-of-way Page 1 File #26-14876 | 10857 Linda Vista Drive • A required infrastructure element cannot simultaneously be a “site constraint” justifying reduced wildfire setbacks; this argument is circular (Appendix C) REDUCING UNIT SIZE FROM MCMANSION TO COMPARABLE MAKES 30 FT SETBACKS FEASIBLE • At Westport sizes (1,978 SF): total livable drops from 120,829 to 100,878 SF, freeing ~20,000 SF of building mass • At Vida sizes (1,748 SF): total livable drops to 89,148 SF, freeing ~31,700 SF of building mass • Either reduction substantially eases the physical conflict with the 30-foot PRC 4290 setback while still delivering the 51 units required by the City’s Housing Element CONCLUSION: NO SETBACK WAIVER IS NEEDED TO MEET HOUSING DENSITY The setback waiver is not necessary to meet the housing density required by the City’s Housing Element. The required 51 units can be delivered at right-sized livable areas, consistent with comparable projects already approved and built in the same market, while honoring the full 30-foot PRC 4290 setback mandated for Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. The only thing preventing compliance is SummerHill’s choice to build oversized units, not any site constraint or density requirement. Side-by-Side Comparison SummerHill (Proposed) Vida Sunnyvale Westport Cupertino Location Linda Vista Dr, Cupertino E. Fremont Ave, Sunnyvale Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino Site Area 2.51 acres 2.76 acres 8.1 acres (mixed-use) Townhome Units 51 50 88 Avg Livable SF (excl. garage) 2,369 1,748 1,978 Avg Garage SF (2-car) 485 458 571 Page 2 File #26-14876 | 10857 Linda Vista Drive Appendix A: Vida Sunnyvale Phase I, A Built Comparable Project Overview Vida Phase I (166–176 E. Fremont Avenue, Sunnyvale; File #21-0715) was approved by the Sunnyvale Planning Commission on July 12, 2021 and has been constructed and almost sold out. It is a 50-unit townhome development on 2.76 acres, a nearly identical site profile to SummerHill’s proposed 51 units on 2.51 acres. Both projects target the same South Bay family-housing market served by Cupertino Union School District, an important factor in home pricing. Setbacks and Height Transition to Single-Family Neighbors Vida is bordered by single-family neighborhoods on two sides (east toward Bobolink Circle; south toward Avon Terrace/Berwick Way). The project provides setbacks of 53 to 65 feet from these single-family homes: more than five times what SummerHill proposes on the south property line. Critically, these generous setbacks were achieved without any fire hazard zone requirement. Building heights taper down one story from the site interior along the rear property line, providing a gradual transition toward the neighboring single-family homes. The residential buildings are set back approximately 74 to 84 feet from adjacent residential properties when measured to the building face (vs. property line). Additional buffers include a 6-foot masonry perimeter wall along the east and south property lines, fast-growing evergreen screening trees, restricted exhaust openings on walls facing residential neighbors, and peripheral lighting capped at 8-foot pole heights. Setback Comparison Boundary Adjacent Use SummerHill Proposed Vida Actual South / East (Rear) Single-Family Homes ~10 ft (AMMR waiver) 53–65 ft West (Side) City Parcel / SF Home ~10 ft (AMMR waiver) 15–28 ft (PL-9 waiver) North / Front Street / Commercial ~10–30 ft (varies) 10–29 ft (PL-9 waiver) Vida used Density Bonus waivers (PL-9) only on the front and commercial-facing side; never on the sides adjacent to single-family homes. SummerHill, by contrast, seeks the setback reduction precisely on the sides where residents live. Site and Density Comparison Site Metric SummerHill Linda Vista Vida Sunnyvale Phase I Net Site Area 2.51 acres 2.76 acres Total Units 51 50 Density 20.3 du/acre 18.1 du/acre Stories 3 3–4 (tapered to 3 at rear) Avg Livable SF (excl. garage) 2,369 1,748 Total Livable SF (excl. garage) 120,829 87,416 Avg Garage SF 485 (447–579) 458 (453–489) Both projects have comparable acreage (2.51 vs. 2.76 acres), comparable unit counts (51 vs. 50), and comparable densities (20.3 vs. 18.1 du/acre). Both include 2-car garages for every unit Page 3 File #26-14876 | 10857 Linda Vista Drive (SummerHill’s avg 485 SF vs. Vida’s avg 458 SF). The garage deduction is roughly equal, making the livable area comparison apples-to-apples. The decisive difference is unit size: SummerHill averages 2,369 livable SF per unit versus Vida’s 1,748, which is 36% larger; a difference that directly drives the setback conflict. Vida Unit Mix Detail Unit Type Qty Net Interior SF Open Space SF Garage SF Livable SF* Unit 1 4 1,365 ~114 489 ~1,479 Unit 2 10 1,414 ~114 462 ~1,528 Units 3–4 8 1,430–1,520 ~114 454–462 ~1,544–1,634 Units 5–6 14 1,619–1,740 ~114 453–454 ~1,733–1,854 Units 7–8 14 1,901–2,037 ~114 461–471 ~2,015–2,151 Average / Total 50 1,634 avg ~114 avg 458 avg 1,748 avg *Livable SF = Net Interior + Private Open Space (porches/decks), excluding garage. Both projects have comparable 2-car garages (~450–580 SF), so the garage deduction is roughly a wash. Source: Sunnyvale File #21-0715, Attachment 2 (Project Data Table), Attachment 7 (Project Plans, Sheet A01). Approved July 12, 2021. Page 4 File #26-14876 | 10857 Linda Vista Drive Appendix B: Westport Cupertino, Same Market, Smaller Units Project Overview Westport Cupertino (21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard at Mary Avenue) is a mixed-use development approved by the Cupertino City Council on August 18, 2020. The project includes 88 townhomes and rowhouses designed by C2K Architecture for KT Urban, along with senior housing and retail. Westport matters for this analysis because it is in Cupertino itself: the same city, the same real estate market, and the same municipal approval process as SummerHill’s proposed project. If family-sized townhomes averaging under 2,000 SF are marketable, financeable, and approvable on Stevens Creek Boulevard, the same is true on Linda Vista Drive. Unit Data Component Units Total Residential SF Avg Livable SF* Avg Garage SF Townhomes (13 bldgs) 70 139,860 1,998 564 Rowhouses (3 bldgs) 18 34,250 1,903 602 Combined 88 174,110 1,978 571 *Livable SF = Total residential area excluding garage/parking. Westport figures from SF YIMBY / planning records: 179,310 SF total built area for townhomes (139,860 residential + 39,450 parking); 45,090 SF for rowhouses (34,250 residential + 10,840 parking). All 88 units include 2-car garages. The townhomes average 1,998 livable SF; the rowhouses average 1,903 livable SF. SummerHill’s proposed average of 2,369 livable SF is 20% larger than Westport’s combined average of 1,978 livable SF. Notably, Westport was approved without density bonus setback waivers on residential-adjacent boundaries, and without any AMMR for fire hazard setback reduction. What This Means for SummerHill’s Claim If SummerHill sized its 51 units to the Westport average (1,978 SF livable, excluding garage), the total livable area would drop from 120,829 SF to approximately 100,878 SF: a reduction of 19,951 SF of building mass. Adding garages (~485 SF each), total gross would be approximately 125,613 SF versus the current 145,544 SF. This 20,000 SF reduction in building envelope, distributed across 10 buildings, would substantially narrow building footprints along the south and east boundaries and move significantly toward compliance with the 30-foot PRC 4290 setback. Even a modest reduction to ~2,100 SF livable per unit (still larger than Westport) would free approximately 13,700 SF of building mass, enough to meaningfully increase setback distances from the current ~10 feet toward the mandated 30 feet on the sides adjacent to single-family homes. Page 5 File #26-14876 | 10857 Linda Vista Drive Appendix C: The Evulich Court Right-of-Way Is Not a Valid Justification In the AMMR application submitted to the Santa Clara County Fire Department, SummerHill’s representative Steven Bull states: “The site is constrained by an existing City right-of-way within the approximate center of the site (Evulich Court). The width of Evulich Court reduces the size of the development area for the project. The size and quantity of the proposed townhomes necessitate a reduction of the 30-foot setback requirement in order to fit the minimum required number of units within the site.” This argument does not withstand scrutiny for a straightforward reason: SummerHill must build internal access roads regardless. The proposed site plan includes five private streets (A Street through E Street), cul-de-sacs, and connecting roadways to provide vehicle access to all ten buildings and to meet CFC D105 fire apparatus access requirements. This internal road network is a design necessity for a 51-unit development on this site, irrespective of the Evulich Court right-of-way. The existing Evulich Court right-of-way, ceded by the original property owners decades ago, runs through the approximate center of the parcel. SummerHill’s own site plan replaces the existing cul-de-sac with a new internal street network. The new road that SummerHill constructs in its place can be dedicated back to the City in lieu of the existing right-of-way. This is a standard mechanism in subdivision development; the Vesting Tentative Map (TM-2024-009) already contemplates the reconfiguration of internal circulation. The critical point: the existence of a historical City right-of-way cannot be the reason to reduce wildfire setbacks to 10 feet and place neighboring single-family homes at risk. The developer must build access roads for the 51-unit development in any configuration. The road infrastructure is a given; only the setback to neighboring homes is a variable. A site plan with right-sized units, as demonstrated by Vida and Westport, could accommodate both the required road network and full 30-foot PRC 4290 setbacks. Appendix D: SummerHill Unit Mix Detail (Sheet A08) Unit Type Qty Net Interior SF Porches/Deck s Livable SF* Garage SF Unit 1 (BMR) 10 1,777 ~200 ~1,977 579 Unit 2 21 2,217 ~200 ~2,417 469 Unit 3 12 2,317 ~200 ~2,517 447 Unit 3ALT 8 2,315 ~200 ~2,515 464 Average / Total 51 2,170 avg ~200 avg 2,369 avg 485 avg *Livable SF = Net Interior SF (per A08, measured to outside face of stud) + prorated porches/decks (~200 SF/unit average from project totals of 4,300 SF porches + 5,878 SF decks across 51 units). Excludes garage only. Source: Exhibit C, Sheet A08 Project Data (September 15, 2025). Staff Report FAR figure of 148,473 SF (136% FAR) includes these areas plus additional common area. Market-rate units (Units 2, 3, 3ALT, 41 units) average 2,265 net interior SF, or approximately 2,465 livable SF including porches/decks. Even the BMR units (Unit 1, 10 units) at 1,977 livable SF are larger than the Vida average of 1,748 and comparable to the Westport average of 1,978. This confirms that right-sized units are not only viable but already part of SummerHill’s own product offering. Page 6 File #26-14876 | 10857 Linda Vista Drive Data Sources SummerHill Linda Vista: City of Cupertino Staff Report, March 17, 2026 (File #26-14876); Exhibit C, Sheet A08 Project Data (Sept. 15, 2025); Exhibit A, Setback Site Plan (Rev. 12/19/2025); Attachment F, AMMR Approval (Steven Bull / SummerHill Homes, Oct. 28, 2025, Rev. Dec. 19, 2025). Vida Sunnyvale Phase I: City of Sunnyvale File #21-0715 (Planning Application #2020-7525): Attachment 2 (Project Data Table), Attachment 3 (Recommended Findings), Attachment 7 (Project Plans, Sheet A01). Approved July 12, 2021. Westport Cupertino: City of Cupertino (File #DP-2018-05, ASA-2018-05, TM-2018-03); Approved by City Council Aug. 18, 2020; EIR certified (CEQA #2019070377). Building data from approved planning documents. 88 townhomes/rowhouses by KT Urban / C2K Architecture. Page 7 From:Louis Mirante To:Emi Sugiyama; City Council; City Clerk Subject:Support for Linda Vista Homes Date:Wednesday, March 11, 2026 5:10:05 PM Attachments:Outlook-Logo Desc.png Outlook-Text Desc.png Outlook-Logo, icon.png Outlook-Icon Desc.png Outlook-Icon Desc.png Cupertino Linda Vista.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City of Cupertino, Please see the attached support letter for the SummerHill Homes Linda Vista Project from the Bay Area Council. If you should have any questions about our letter, please don't hesitate to let me know. Best wishes, Louis Louis Mirante Senior Vice President of Public Policy, Housing Phone: (510) 908-0537 | Email: lmirante@bayareacouncil.org The Historic Klamath, Pier 9, The Embarcadero, San Francisco www.bayareacouncil.org P. 415.946.8777 Bay Area Council Bay Area Council Bay Area Council www.bayareacouncil.org The Historic Klamath PO Box 5135 1215 K Street, Suite 2220 Pier 9, The Embarcadero Berkeley, CA 94705 Sacramento, CA 95814 San Francisco, CA 94111 February 9, 2026 City Council and Planning Commission City of Cupertino 10350 Torre Ave Cupertino, CA 95014 Support for 10857 Linda Vista Drive Residential Condominium Project Dear City of Cupertino, I write on behalf of the Bay Area Council to express our strong support for the proposed residential development at 10857 Linda Vista Drive. The Bay Area Council has worked since 1945 to make the Bay Area the best place to live and work, and few types of projects help that goal more than projects like this one, which provide homeownership options and new housing supply amid a stark regional shortage. The Bay Area is experiencing an unprecedented housing shortage that continues to drive up costs, deepen inequities, and threaten the long-term economic competitiveness of our region. Projects like this one are essential to meeting local and regional housing goals while providing meaningful community benefits. The proposed development would deliver 51 townhome-style condominium homes designed to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and offer family-sized four- bedroom floor plans. This type of homeownership-focused housing is especially rare in today’s market and directly advances the Bay Area’s urgent need for more attainable ownership opportunities. Importantly, the project includes 10 below-market-rate homes targeted toward median and moderate-income families, ensuring that working households have an opportunity to remain in the community and benefit from stable, wealth-building homeownership. In addition to delivering needed housing, the project will generate substantial fiscal and civic benefits, including $2.2 million in park fees, $569,000 in school impact fees, and an estimated $48,000 in annual net benefit to the City’s General Fund. The project also commits to incorporating public art along the frontage, enhancing the public realm and neighborhood character. This development reflects the kind of thoughtful, community-serving housing investment that cities need in order to meet Regional Housing Needs Allocation requirements, implement certified Housing Elements, and expand opportunities for first-time homebuyers in highly desirable neighborhoods. The Bay Area Council urges the City of Cupertino to support and approve the proposed project at 10857 Linda Vista Drive. This development represents a meaningful step toward P. 415.946.8777 Bay Area Council Bay Area Council Bay Area Council www.bayareacouncil.org The Historic Klamath PO Box 5135 1215 K Street, Suite 2220 Pier 9, The Embarcadero Berkeley, CA 94705 Sacramento, CA 95814 San Francisco, CA 94111 addressing our housing crisis, expanding homeownership opportunities, and delivering tangible community benefits. Thank you for your leadership and consideration. Sincerely, Louis Mirante Senior Vice President of Public Policy Bay Area Council lmirante@bayareacouncil.org