Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
CC 03-17-2026 Item No. 12 SummerHill Homes_Written Communications_2
CC 3-17-2026 #12 SummerHill Homes - Linda Vista Drive Written Communications From:Vikram Saxena To:City Clerk; City Attorney"s Office; Tina Kapoor Cc:Liang Chao; Kitty Moore; R "Ray" Wang Subject:Fwd: Evulich Court Townhomes, 10857 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino (TM-2024-009 / ASA-2024-015 / TR-2024- 044) Date:Tuesday, March 17, 2026 10:55:58 AM Attachments:Screenshot 2026-03-10 at 1.40.43 AM.png BioRetentionPads.png SetbackPlan.png BradFoxLetterNovember13.png 16 – Project Site Plan.pdf Exhibit A_SETBACK SITE PLAN_2025-12-19 Revised.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 Cupertino City staff: Please include the following email chain as a part of the written communication for the March 17th City Council meeting regarding the Evulich Court agenda item. Sincerely -Vikram ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Vikram Saxena <vsaxena@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Mar 10, 2026 at 2:08 AM Subject: Re: Evulich Court Townhomes, 10857 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino (TM-2024-009 / ASA-2024-015 / TR-2024-044) To: hector.estrada@sccfd.org <hector.estrada@sccfd.org> Cc: Bui, Martin <Martin.Bui@asm.ca.gov>, David Yan <davidcyan@outlook.com>, Mark Fantozzi <mwfantozzi@tfanco.com>, DerChang Kau <derchang@gmail.com> Dear Assistant Fire Chief Estrada: I wanted to follow-up on my previous email. 1. Reviewing documents related to the project, we noticed an email from Mr. Brad Fox (attached) stating that the project is a Builder's Remedy project. As we discussed, this is not a Builder's Remedy Project. This site was a part of Cupertino's Housing Element. I urge you to ensure that the appropriate fire-safety standards are being applied to this project, especially for any CEQA waivers under AB130 for a home in VHFHSZ. .2. As clear from the diagrams below, the side of the townhomes facing the single family homes is more than 50' wide and have window openings. The 10-foot setback here is not sufficient for operating ground ladders up to the 30-foot high eaves. Furthermore, the site plan shows that these regions have bio-retention pads which do not offer firm surface for the ground ladder to be firmly secured. For the safety of the firemen, please ensure adequate access is available from the north or south sides of the buildings. These sides are the longest sides of the perimeter and are perpendicular to the wildland-urban interface. 3. If the developer agrees to reduce the size of the homes by approximately 25% (from 2,700 sq. ft.), they can meet the 30-foot setbacks required by law for VHFHSZ, instead of seeking exemptions (the redlines). We should not be trading mansions against the safety of firefighters and neighbours. Sincerely, -Vikram Saxena On Sun, Mar 8, 2026 at 8:38 PM Vikram Saxena <vsaxena@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Assistant Chief Estrada, We met at the State of the City event in Cupertino, on February 26th. The strength & confidence you exuded as an actual firefighter stood out. This background, combined with the trust the fraternity of firefighters places in your leadership, prompted this letter. I am a former Vice-Chair of the Cupertino Planning Commission. I was a PC member when this parcel at 10857–10887 Linda Vista Drive was added to the Housing Element. I supported housing here. What I never anticipated was that a developer would disregard R3 setback obligations to neighboring homeowners — and that a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) designation would be applied to the parcel after the rezoning, compounding every safety concern. KEY ISSUES: Insufficient Firefighter Access and Unnecessary Setback Reduction: Reducing the setbacks from 30 ft to 10 ft has resulted in a 10-foot clearance which is operationally insufficient for ground ladder operation. SCC FD's own plan review (Comment 7) requires 75° ladder access for 2nd and 3rd floor rescue which necessitates at least 11.5’. The accepted mitigations address fire spread but not firefighter operational access. Bypassed Evacuation Safety Review: The AMMR approval enabled an AB 130 CEQA exemption, which concealed a severe road capacity crisis. As documented in Cupertino's October 2025 Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment, the primary neighborhood exit, Bubb Road, is already operating at 2.4 times its evacuation capacity — a risk that was never analyzed and is compounded by the evacuation load from three public schools (3500 children) AMMR Undermines Legal Streamlining Claim: The Alternate Means approval explicitly departs from the existing 30-foot fire safety standard, which, under a correct reading of AB 130, should disqualify the project from ministerial streamlining rather than serving as proof of compliance. Furthermore, the setback reduction was not legally necessary: 51 units are achievable at 1,500–1,800 sf per unit without any waiver. The reduction exists solely to accommodate an oversized 2,700+ sf design, to pad developer profits while shifting fire risk onto residents and first responders. Details 1. The Approval Carries Your Name The Alternate Materials, Methods and Construction approval for this project (SCC FD Plan Review #250800 / #251740, January 6, 2026) was signed “Brad Fox (for AC Estrada).” That approval reduced the mandatory 30-foot VHFHSZ setback under CCR Title 14 §1276.01(a) to 10 feet on the North and South sides, directly abutting R1 single-family homes and 20 feet on the West on the WUI. The accepted mitigations: sprinkler heads on covered patios, 1-hour fire-rated exterior walls, non-combustible landscaping 5 feet from buildings, address fire spread between structures. They say nothing about firefighter operational access. The developer’s own application explicitly states it is not proposing modifications to windows, leaving unprotected openings on the faces where the setback reduction is deepest. 2. The Setback Reduction Was a Design Choice, Not a Density Necessity The General Plan density requirement for this 2.51-acre site is approximately 51 units: a count requirement, not a size requirement. The AMMR’s own justification states the setback reduction was needed because of “the size and quantity of the proposed townhomes.” It does not show that 51 units cannot fit with 30-foot setbacks. The proposed units average over 2,700 sf; even the BMR units exceed 2,500 sf. Most comparable townhome developments in this region run 1,500–2,000 sf (eg: Vida in Sunnyvale) At 1,800 sf per unit, the same 51-unit density is achievable on this site with the full 30-foot VHFHSZ setback maintained. The developer chose oversized, high-margin units and passed on the responsibility of fire safety concerns to your department. Under Gov. Code §65915, a density bonus waiver requires showing the standard physically precludes the required density. Smaller units achieve the same density. The waiver fails that test. 3. 10 Feet Setback Is Not Enough For Ground Ladder Operation The same plan review that approved the reduced setbacks contains Comment 7, requiring ground-ladder rescue from second and third-floor rooms at a 75-degree climbing angle. The geometry does not work in 10 feet: ~9 ft horizontal clearance needed for a 35-ft ladder at 75° ~2.5 ft standing room at the heel for therefighter holding the ladder additional — any fence or wall at the property boundary reduces clearance further That is ~11.5 ft minimum before accounting for boundary obstacles, against a 10-ft setback. 4. A Documented Road Capacity Crisis That Was Never Reviewed The City of Cupertino’s Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment (October 2025, presented to the Planning Commission on March 9, 2026) found that every major evacuation route from the Fire Hazard Severity Zone already exceeds capacity during a wildfire event: Bubb Road north of Hyannisport Drive: V/C = 2.4: the primary exit for this neighborhood Foothill Blvd: V/C = 4.0, McClellan Road east of Bubb: V/C = 4.2, Stevens Creek Blvd: V/C = 3.6 This analysis was never applied to this project, because of the AB 130 CEQA exemption. This was a result of the SCC FD’s AMMR approval. Three public schools Monta Vista High School, John F. Kennedy Middle School, and Lincoln Elementary School add significantly to the evacuation load on these same roads. This is precisely the kind of public safety risk CEQA exists to surface; and it warrants a pause before this project receives final approval. 5. The Alternate Means Approval Undermines the AB 130 Claim AB 130 (PRC §21080.66) excludes VHFHSZ projects from CEQA streamlining unless they adopt applicable fire hazard mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards. The AMMR is an explicit departure from the existing standard: the 30-ft setback. A departure from a standard is not compliance with it. The AB 130 qualification memo uses the AMMR as proof that fire safety has been addressed. That reasoning is circular: the instrument that departs from the wildfire safety standard cannot simultaneously satisfy the condition requiring compliance with it. The correct reading is that an alternate means approval in a VHFHSZ disqualifies a project for CEQA exemption under AB130. 6. My Request As Assistant Chief of Fire Prevention, the safety of the firefighters who respond to this address is your direct responsibility. I am requesting you to verify, operationally — not on plan drawings — that a crew can deploy a 35-ft ladder at 75 degrees on the North and South sides of this site with a person at the base and the property boundary behind them. And I am requesting you to consider whether the AMMR approval, and the CEQA exemption it enabled, should stand given the evacuation capacity data. The firefighters who respond to Evulich Court will not know the lack of space to safely operate a ground ladder was a density bonus waiver or that the windows were out of scope. They will know what is in front of them. You understand what that means better than anyone else in this process. That is why this letter is addressed to you. Thank you for your service and your time. Respectfully, Vikram Saxena Former Vice-Chair, Cupertino Planning Commission vsaxena@gmail.com 408 390 4036 * * * * * 1 2 3 4 5 6 31 32 33 34 35 36 7 8 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 37 40 44 48 41 45 49 42 46 50 43 47 51 38 39 21 22 OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OHW OHW OHW OHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHW OHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHW > BLDG 2 FF 396.4 PAD 395.4 BLDG 10 FF 393.5 PAD 392.5 BLDG 9 FF 393.8 PAD 392.8 BLDG 8 FF 396.3 PAD 395.3BLDG 7 FF 397.3 PAD 396.3 BLDG 1 FF 396.5 PAD 395.5 BLDG 6 FF 397.2 PAD 396.2 BLDG 4 FF 393.6 PAD 392.6 BLDG 3 FF 396.3 PAD 395.3 BLDG 5 FF 393.4 PAD 392.4 BLDG HT. = 37'-0"BLDG HT. = 39'-3"BLDG HT. = 40'-6 1 2"BLDG HT. = 39'-3" BLDG HT. = 40'-0 1 2" BLDG HT. = 37'-6" BLDG HT. = 38'-9" BLDG HT. = 39'-4 1 2"BLDG HT. = 37'-10 1 2"BLDG HT. = 38'-3 1 4" 9 10 A A D S T R E E T A S T R E E T B S T R E E T C S T R E E T E S T R E E T EVULICH COURT (PUBLIC ROAD) SEE NOTE 6 SEE NOTE 6 SEE NOTE 6 SEE NOTE 6 SEE NOTE 6 SEE NOTE 6 SEE NOTE 6 SEE NOTE 6 SEE NOTE 6 SEE NOTE 6 B B *23 LI N D A V I S T A D R I V E (P U B L I C R O A D ) TYPICAL EVULICH COURT STREET SECTION TYPICAL A-E STREET SECTION TYPICAL LINDA VISTA STREET SECTION LEGEND 10857 LINDA VISTA DRIVE Cupertino, CA January 12, 2026 3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583 650-857-0122 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN C2.0 * SCALE 1" = 20' 0'40'20'10'20'0' VICINITY MAP SITE PROPOSED PARCELS GROSS/LOT AREAS PARCEL GROSS(1) SF NET(2) SF D S T R E E T A S T R E E T B S T R E E T C S T R E E T E S T R E E T LI N D A V I S T A D R I V E (P U B L I C R O A D ) EVULICH COURT (PUBLIC ROAD) BLDG 6 BLDG 1 BLDG 2 BLDG 3 BLDG 4 BLDG 5 BLDG 7 BLDG 8 BLDG 9 BLDG 10 H:\3988-000\ACAD\EXHIBITS\XB-033_SETBACK SITE PLAN.DWG SETBACK SITE PLAN 10857 LINDA VISTA DRIVE CITY OF CUPERTINO SANTA CLARA COUNTY CALIFORNIA SCALE: 1" = 20'DATE: SEPTEMBER 15, 2025 6040200 CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS SAN RAMON WWW.CBANDG.COM ROSEVILLE (925) 866-0322 (916) 788-4456 LEGEND ABBREVIATIONS From:Rhoda Fry To:Public Comments Cc:City Council Subject:3/17/2026 #12 Linda Vista - AB130 Fire Requirements NOT MET! PLEASE READ! Date:Tuesday, March 17, 2026 10:01:27 AM Attachments:EVULICH.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 Council, AB130 Fire Requirements NOT MET! PLEASE READ! I understand that we need to consider that fire has provided good information - - - but the information that fire provided was NOT WHAT WAS NEEDED FOR AB130. It is like needing a pancake breakfast and getting ham & eggs. The AMMR provided by fire might have been a good document (like tasty ham & eggs), but that doesn’t matter (if you need pancakes). The consultant failed to obtain the AB130 Requirements!!! Minimally, PRC 4290, 4291 (or 51182), and CBC7 are required. This text is from an ABAG checklist: ABAG: The development site has adopted fire hazard mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards or state fire mitigation measures applicable to the development, including, but not limited to, standards established under all of the following or their successor provisions: (1) Section 4291 of the Public Resources Code or Section 51182, as applicable; (2) Section 4290 of the Public Resources Code; (3) Chapter 7A of the California Building Code (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations). Source: https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025-12/Urban-Infill-Housing-Development- CEQA-Exemption-Template-Eligibility-Checklist-12042025.docx Regards, Rhoda Fry AB130 Requires: NOT in Earthquake Fault Zone BUT Project is IN Earthquake Fault Zone AB130 DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS PROJECT & REQUIRES CEQA Project is less than 400 feet from Monta Vista Fault per Cupertino Official Map (see ) capable of 7.1M earthquake & thrust fault more dangerous than regular faults & in area of earthquake-induced slope instability (light blue) Note – Summerhill justifies claim by footnote #10 showing San Andreas fault that is much further away (page 12, attachment E). Geotech reports don’t use Cupertino map. Source: Geologic and Seismic Hazards Map of the City of Cupertino prepared for the City of Cupertino by Cotton, Shires & Asso ciates, Inc. https://www.cottonshires.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/CupertinoHazMap_small.pdf which augments the State Alquist-Priolo Zone. Source: Monte Vista Fault: https://grokipedia.com/page/monta_vista_fault 1 CEQA Applies to Project based on Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone NO AB130 •Many jurisdictions automatically reject AB130 based on fire – so should Cupertino. Even Summerhill’s own consulting firm, Powers, agrees (per the Planning Commission Academy)! •IF FIRE EXEMPTION IS SELECTED (not recommended) at least 3 items are needed (PRC 4290, 4291, and CBC7) ABAG: The development site has adopted fire hazard mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards or state fire mitigation measures applicable to the development, including, but not limited to, standards established under all of the following or their successor provisions: (1)Section 4291 of the Public Resources Code or Section 51182, as applicable; (2) Section 4290 of the Public Resources Code; (3)Chapter 7A of the California Building Code (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations). •CONSULTANT FAILED TO OBTAIN AB130 REQUIREMENTS FOR VHFHSZ!!! Fire Department Unaware of AB130 Requirements (per PRAs) - assumed Builder Remedy - assumed that the only way to build 51 homes was to waive required 30-foot zone (safety zone could be retained by building smaller - not 4-bedroom mansions) - does not split out all PRCs such as 4290, 4291, CBC – consider beyond fenceline - 10-foot setback with mitigations is NOT equivalent to the required 30-foot setback PLEASE DON’T TAKE RISKS Resident Safety MUST BE GUARANTEED This project is NOT subject to AB130 and is subject to CEQA Now we’ll have more time to create a better project!!! Summerhill has been willing to modify at Staples, they should for Evulich too.2 VOTE NO on RESOLUTION No. 26-029 (ATTACHMENT A) (f) “The proposed subdivision design and improvements will not cause serious public health.” THIS IS FALSE!!! •Design does not allow for fire ladders within 10-ft setback (do the math) •Makes a known evacuation deficiency worse (we just learned that McClellan, the only way out in a fire is at two to four times over capacity & 3200 students within a mile – City has known since October 2025) •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. •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. Household water pressure is the first defense against fires. FYI: fire hydrants run separately. •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. You are being asked to vote – you can VOTE NO. Otherwise, decision would be made ministerially THIS PROJECT CAUSES SERIOUS PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS WITHIN & BEYOND FENCELINE 3 Closing thoughts . . . •Any discussion of Park-Fee waivers must be done separately •Consider capturing sales-tax by requiring Cupertino LLC for project as a Condition of Approval (COA). •Summerhill has undermined its credibility – the wrong box was checked on the AB130 memo pertaining to hazards (e.g., fire & earthquake). Summerhill withheld information it has about evacuation – they met with staff about it on February 10, 2026. They 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? VOTE NO ON CEQA EXEMPTION VOTE NO ON RESOLUTION ATTACHMENT because project creates public health hazards By this statement, this presentation includes all PRAs, published and unpublished that pertain to this project 4 From:Vikram Saxena To:City Council; City Attorney"s Office; City Clerk; Tina Kapoor; Benjamin Fu Subject:Fire Safety Memo and Administrative Record: City"s Independent Obligation to Verify AMMR Equivalency: Evulich Court Date:Monday, March 16, 2026 10:13:51 PM Attachments:Fire Safety Administrative Record - Evulich Court 26-14876 March 16.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 Mayor Moore and Members of the City Council, Please find the attached memorandum regarding fire safety findings for the Evulich Court project. I request that this email and the attached memo be recorded as Written Communications for the Evulich Court Agenda Item. This communication addresses whether the Fire Department's approval of the Alternative Materials and Methods Request (AMMR) resolves the City's wildfire safety obligations. Based on the administrative record, it does not, for the following reasons: 1. AMMR approval is not a final determination. The SCCFD Fire Prevention Plan Review Comments explicitly state that the review shall not be construed as an approval of a violation of the California Fire Code or other regulations. The Fire Department’s approval is a technical recommendation; the legal authority and responsibility to issue or deny a building permit rest solely with the City. 2. The City has acknowledged its independent role. City staff recently confirmed that the Health and Safety Element Evacuation Route Capacity Analysis was released for public review on February 11, 2026. The City cannot approve a project within this area without referencing its own commissioned analysis. The City remains the final approving authority. 3. Legal standards require independent City findings. State housing statutes, including SB 330 and the State Density Bonus Law, do not waive the City’s obligation to protect public health and safety. The City must make its own findings, supported by substantial evidence, that the AMMR provides the same practical fire-safety effect as the 30-foot separation standard for both the development and the surrounding community, as defined by 14 CCR §1270.01. While the Fire Department has reviewed the project, the City has yet to document its own verification that this determination satisfies all legal requirements. The attached memorandum identifies specific gaps in the record that require clarification before the City's findings can be supported by substantial evidence. I respectfully ask the Council to direct staff to address these gaps before the project is approved. Respectfully submitted, Vikram Saxena MEMORANDUM Date: March 16,, 2026 To: Cupertino City Council From: Concerned Residents of Linda Vista Neighborhood Cc: City Attorney Subject: Fire Safety Analysis: Reduction of Structure Separation under the Fire Safe Regulations Evulich Court Project: Administrative Record Clarification Executive Summary The Evulich Court project proposes a 51-unit townhome development located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). The project relies on an Alternative Materials and Methods Request (AMMR) allowing the reduction of the 30-foot structure separation required under the Board of Forestry Fire Safe Regulations (14 CCR §1276.01) to 10 feet along the project ’s north and south boundaries adjoining existing single-family homes. Under the Board of Forestry Fire Safe Regulations (14 CCR §1276.01), such an alternative may be approved only where it provides the same practical effect as the regulation being replaced, meaning the reduced separation must maintain wildfire protection equivalent to the 30-foot standard. Four issues warrant clarification before the City relies on this determination: • The setback reduction was not automatically granted by State housing laws. The applicant sought approval from the Santa Clara County Fire Department through an AMMR to reduce the required separation. This confirms that the reduction required a technical determination that the proposed design provides the same practical fire-safety effect as the 30-foot separation standard, rather than being automatically vested under SB 330 or Density Bonus provisions. • The Fire Safe Regulations require evaluation of wildfire safety beyond the new buildings. The regulations define Defensible Space as the area providing defense for the “neighborhood or community ” against “escaping Structure fires” (14 CCR §1270.01). The required separation is therefore not solely a building-level standard; it is a community-scale measure intended to limit fire spread between buildings and across adjacent parcels. Reducing the separation to 10 feet places combustible wooden fencing at the property line directly within the fire exposure zone, and ADU construction on adjacent parcels could reduce structure-to-structure spacing to 14 feet. • The administrative record does not document analysis of this community-scale exposure risk. The AMMR approval references mitigation measures such as fire-rated exterior walls and patio sprinklers, but the record does not address structure-to-structure radiant heat exposure, the vulnerability of neighboring homes built prior to modern Wildland-Urban Interface standards, unprotected window Page 1 openings in reduced-setback walls, or wildfire evacuation constraints — conditions that bear directly on whether the reduced separation provides the same practical effect as the 30-foot standard for the surrounding “neighborhood or community.” • The project’s CEQA exemption under AB 130 depends on the validity of this AMMR. The AB 130 exemption (PRC §21080.66) is available in a VHFHSZ only if the project adopts fire hazard mitigation measures “pursuant to existing building standards.” The applicant’s own AB 130 Qualification Memorandum acknowledges that the project relies on a reduction of the required 30-foot setback. If the AMMR determination lacks the analytical basis to demonstrate equivalent fire-safety protection, the statutory predicate for the CEQA exemption is likewise unsupported. Key Question for Council Consideration Under the Fire Safe Regulations, an Alternative Materials and Methods Request may be approved only when the proposed alternative provides the same practical fire-safety effect as the required standard. What technical analysis demonstrates that the reduced separation provides wildfire protection equivalent to the 30-foot separation standard — not only for the proposed development, but for the surrounding neighborhood or community as contemplated by the Fire Safe Regulations (14 CCR §1270.01) — and where is that analysis documented in the administrative record? 1. Legal Framework: Fire Safe Regulations and City Responsibility 1.1 State Housing Laws Do Not Override the City’s Obligation to Ensure Wildfire Safety The project applicant has indicated that the project relies on provisions of SB 330 (Housing Crisis Act of 2019) and the California Density Bonus Law (Government Code §65915). City staff have similarly indicated that these statutes constrain the City’s ability to impose conditions on the project. While these statutes may limit the application of certain development standards, they do not waive the City’s responsibility to protect public health and safety. State housing law expressly preserves local authority to address specific adverse impacts on public health and safety based on substantial evidence in the record. The City’s own General Plan Health and Safety Element reinforces this obligation: • Goal B directs the City to provide “efficient and effective fire and emergency services to protect the community from hazards associated with wild and urban fires.” • Policy 6-7 (Early Project Review) requires the City to “involve the Fire Department in the early design stage of all projects requiring public review to assure Fire Department input and modifications as needed.” • Policy 6-10 (Multi-Story Buildings Fire Risks) directs the City to “ensure that adequate fire protection is built into the design” of multi-story buildings “to ensure the safety of the community.” Page 2 The AMMR was filed on January 5, 2026, accepted by the Fire Official on January 6, and the Fire Prevention Plan Review was completed on January 7. The administrative record contains no documentation of the technical analysis performed during this period. Independent of Fire Department review, the City retains its own obligation to determine that project design adequately protects both the proposed development and the surrounding community. The AMMR itself confirms this distinction: the applicant sought and obtained Fire Department approval specifically because the setback reduction required an independent fire-safety determination — it was not automatically vested under SB 330 or the Density Bonus Law. This obligation is further underscored by the City’s own draft Health and Safety Element, currently under Council consideration, which includes an Evacuation Route Capacity Analysis for the project area prepared pursuant to Government Code §65302(g). The City cannot make adequate wildfire safety findings for a project in a VHFHSZ without reference to evacuation capacity data it has itself commissioned and that is directly relevant to the relationship between reduced structure separation and life-safety risk during wildfire conditions. 1.2 The Fire Safe Regulations Apply Directly to the Evulich Court Project Public Resources Code §4290 authorizes the Board of Forestry Fire Safe Regulations, codified at 14 CCR §1270.01 et seq., which establish minimum development standards in wildfire hazard areas, including requirements for roadway access, emergency access, and separation between structures. Following SB 901 (2018), these regulations apply directly to development within LRA Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. The Evulich Court project is subject to these regulations on this basis. 1.3 The Required Separation Protects the Surrounding Community, Not Just the New Buildings The regulations define Defensible Space as the area within a development, “neighborhood or community” providing defense against approaching wildfire and against “escaping Structure fires” (14 CCR §1270.01). Closely spaced buildings can allow fires to propagate across developed areas through structure-to-structure ignition, independently of surrounding vegetation. The 30-foot separation requirement under §1276.01 implements this standard at the parcel boundary — it protects not only the new development, but adjacent properties and the broader community from fire spreading between buildings. 1.4 The Record Does Not Identify Which Standard Was Applied to the AMMR The Evulich Court project received approval for an Alternative Materials and Methods Request (AMMR) reducing the required separation from 30 feet to 10 feet along portions of the project ’s north and south boundaries. The Fire Prevention Plan Review prepared by the Santa Clara County Fire Department (dated January 7, 2026) characterizes the proposed setbacks as “deficiencies to non-conforming 30’ setback requirements” to be mitigated. This language describes mitigation of a known deficiency — not an equivalency determination that the proposed alternative provides the same practical effect as the 30-foot standard. Under the Fire Safe Regulations, alternative materials or methods may be approved only where they provide the same practical effect as the regulation being replaced. The AMMR narrative Page 3 states that the 51-unit minimum density requirement and the cul-de-sac right-of-way within the site make the 30-foot setback impossible to achieve. Section 1276.01(b) recognizes these factors as grounds for seeking an AMMR, but they address why the prescriptive standard cannot be met — not whether the proposed alternative achieves the same practical fire-safety effect. The administrative record does not identify which standard was applied in evaluating the AMMR — the same practical effect standard under §1276.01 or the substantial compliance standard under 14 CCR §1270.06 — nor does it document the analytical basis for the determination. The record also does not include evidence that the Fire Marshal modeled the thermal impact of a fence-line fire at the 10-foot separation, or accounted for the combustible fuel load present at the property boundary, in reaching the equivalency determination. The AMMR process requires evaluation by both the fire code official and the building official. Under CFC 104.10, the fire code official must find that an alternative material or method is “not less than the equivalent” of the code standard in “quality, strength, effectiveness, fire resistance, durability and safety.” CBC 104.11 assigns the identical obligation to the building official. The Santa Clara County Fire Department’s AMMR approval form reflects both requirements, stating that “the Building and Fire Official must evaluate” whether the alternative is equal to the intent of the code. The Fire Official — Santa Clara County Fire Department — has signed. The Building Official signature line — which corresponds to the City of Cupertino’s building authority — is blank. Without the Building Official’s evaluation and signature, the AMMR has not completed the dual review required by both the California Building Code and the Fire Department ’s own approval form, and the City’s building authority has not formally determined that the proposed alternative meets code intent. 2. Structure-to-Structure Fire Exposure from Reduced Separation 2.1 Federal Research Supports the 30-Foot Separation as a Critical Threshold The Fire Safe Regulations establish a 30-foot separation between structures in wildfire hazard areas to reduce the likelihood that fire spreads from one building to another once ignition occurs. This standard reflects the relationship between structure spacing and radiant heat exposure: at closer distances, radiant heat from a fully involved structure can ignite combustible exterior materials on adjacent buildings even without direct flame contact. Research on structure-to-structure fire spread supports the 30-foot standard. NIST has found that intense radiant heat from a fully involved structure can ignite another structure at distances of approximately 30 feet, and that increasing spacing from 10 meters to 30 meters increases resistance to fire spread by a factor of ten (NIST TN 2205). Post-disaster analysis of the 2023 Lahaina fire by the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety (IBHS) identified structure spacing as the single most critical factor in structure-to-structure fire spread. The Evulich Court project reduces this separation to 10 feet along the project’s north and south boundaries adjoining existing single-family homes. 2.2 The Proposed Mitigations Protect the New Buildings but Not the Surrounding Community Page 4 The AMMR approval identifies several mitigation measures intended to address the reduced separation, including 1-hour fire-resistance-rated exterior walls, patio sprinklers in reduced setback areas, non-combustible landscaping adjacent to structures, and code-compliant wall penetrations. • These measures are focused exclusively on improving the fire resistance of the new buildings. • None of the identified measures address the impact of the reduced separation on the surrounding “neighborhood or community ” as contemplated by the Fire Safe Regulations (14 CCR §1270.01), including radiant heat exposure to adjacent properties and structure-to-structure fire spread. The project ’s Wildfire Protection Construction Requirements (Sheet A08) further illustrate this focus: the detailed specifications for exterior windows, walls, vents, decking, and garage doors are designed to protect the new buildings from exterior wildfire exposure. None address outward radiant heat from the new buildings toward neighboring properties. 2.3 Combustible Fuel Pathways at the Reduced Setback Create an Uncontrolled Fire Corridor Wooden fencing along or near the property line is a standard feature in the residential neighborhood surrounding the project site, and mature tree canopies on neighboring parcels developed in the 1950s extend to and beyond the property boundary. At a separation of only 10 feet, these elements combine to form a continuous fuel pathway that the City cannot regulate on neighboring land and the HOA has no authority to manage. Fire-hardening the new townhomes does not dissipate the thermal energy of a fire. In a narrow 10-foot corridor, fire-rated walls reflect and concentrate radiant heat back toward combustible fences, canopy material, and the un-hardened exteriors of neighboring homes. Rather than attenuating wildfire energy, the reduced separation channels it: a wildfire moving across the project boundary would accelerate through this corridor, using fence and canopy as connected fuel to carry fire laterally along the full length of the boundary and directly into the defensible space of adjacent residents. The project ’s fire-rated assemblies and sprinklers protect the developer ’s buildings; they do not replicate the attenuation effect of 30 feet of separation for the surrounding community. 2.4 The Project’s Own Defensible Space Plan Confirms the Absence of Required Buffer Zones The project ’s Defensible Space Fire Zone Plan (Sheet L7.1, submitted as part of the AMMR package) illustrates this condition. Zone 2 — the 30-to-100-foot fuel management band — is effectively absent along the north and south boundaries, where the setback reduction applies. The plan shows proposed tree canopy circles reaching and overlapping the property line, and notes that the HOA shall monitor and prune canopy to meet CAL FIRE requirements. The HOA has no authority to enforce this obligation on neighboring parcels, where existing mature trees operate outside any defensible space management plan. 2.5 Unprotected Window Openings in Reduced-Setback Walls Are Not Evaluated in the Record Page 5 The applicant ’s own AMMR narrative claims compliance with CRC R302.1(2) fire separation requirements while simultaneously noting that “we are not proposing modifications to the Openings (Windows) in Walls.” R302.1(2) typically requires protected openings or elimination of openings in fire-resistance-rated exterior walls at reduced separation distances; the applicant invokes the standard while exempting one of its key requirements. Under CRC R302.1(2), unprotected glazing can fail early under radiant heat exposure, allowing flame and radiant heat transmission across the reduced separation. The administrative record does not evaluate how the presence of unprotected openings in these walls affects radiant heat exposure between the proposed development and neighboring properties, or how the proposed mitigation measures collectively achieve the same practical effect as the 30-foot standard. 2.6 A Burning Fence at the 10-Foot Setback Would Impede Emergency Access and Rescue Operations A 10-foot setback containing an ignited wooden fence would produce extreme heat flux, making the corridor untenable for firefighters. This would prevent the safe deployment of ground ladders and hamper rescue operations along the project ’s perimeter — effectively negating the primary life-safety purpose of the perimeter setback. Because aerial apparatus access is not required for the project, emergency rescue would depend on ground ladder deployment in precisely the areas where the reduced setback and combustible fencing create the most hazardous conditions. 3. Adjacent Properties Face Increased Wildfire Exposure from the Reduced Separation 3.1 Neighboring Homes Are More Vulnerable to Radiant Heat Than Modern Construction The staff report describes the surrounding neighborhood as consisting primarily of single-family homes constructed between approximately 1947 and 1957. These homes predate modern Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) building standards and are likely to include combustible exterior materials, minimal ember-resistant features, and older window assemblies. Fire-resistant exterior construction on the Evulich Court buildings is designed to delay ignition of the project structures, but does not reduce the radiant heat imposed on neighboring properties once a structure becomes fully involved. Modern construction materials — engineered lumber, synthetic insulation, and high-density interior furnishings — carry a combustible load that burns intensely once flashover occurs. Neighboring pre-WUI homes would receive that radiant heat exposure across a separation of 10 feet. 3.2 ADU Development Could Reduce Structure Separation to 14 Feet State law allows Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) to be constructed with setbacks as small as four feet from property lines as a matter of right, and these rights are available to neighboring parcels independent of this project’s approvals. Since the adoption of State ADU reforms beginning in 2017, ADU construction has accelerated significantly across the Bay Area, making this a near-term likelihood rather than a remote possibility. Page 6 Because the Evulich Court project provides only a 10-foot setback along its north and south boundaries, ADU construction on adjacent parcels would reduce structure-to-structure spacing to 14 feet — less than half the 30-foot separation required by the Fire Safe Regulations. Many adjacent properties include combustible wooden fencing at or near the property line, which would sit directly within this 14-foot gap. In a fire scenario, the fence could ignite from radiant heat, carry fire along the property line, and spread to an adjacent ADU — effectively shifting wildfire risk from the project onto the surrounding community. Figure 1 — Structure Separation Along Project Boundary An ADU built 4 ft from the property line combined with a 10 ft project setback results in 14 ft of structure separation, compared with the 30 ft separation required by the Fire Safe Regulations (14 CCR §1276.01). 3.3 The Record Does Not Evaluate Wildfire Exposure to Adjacent Properties The administrative record does not evaluate how the reduced separation distance affects wildfire exposure to existing homes constructed prior to modern wildfire-resistant building standards, nor does it consider the potential for further reduction in structure spacing from ADU development on adjacent parcels. Both conditions bear directly on whether the reduced separation provides the same practical effect as the 30-foot standard for the surrounding “neighborhood or community ” (14 CCR §1270.01). 4. Wildfire Evacuation Conditions Are Not Addressed in the Record 4.1 No Project-Specific Evacuation Analysis Was Prepared The staff report states that a project-specific evacuation study was not required and was not prepared. As a result, the administrative record does not include analysis of evacuation capacity associated with wildfire conditions affecting the project site or the surrounding area. 4.2 The Project Is Located in an Area with Known Evacuation Constraints The City’s own draft Health and Safety Element, released for public review on February 11, 2026, includes an Evacuation Route Capacity Analysis covering the project area, prepared pursuant to Government Code §65302(g). This analysis has identified limited evacuation capacity on local roadways in this area of Cupertino, including areas serving three nearby public schools attended Page 7 by approximately 3,500 students. Structure separation directly affects the rate at which fire can spread between buildings; where evacuation capacity is constrained, reduced separation increases the risk that fire propagates across adjacent structures before residents can evacuate and before emergency response can be effectively deployed. The staff report does not reference this analysis in evaluating the project ’s wildfire safety. 4.3 Reducing Fire Safety Standards in an Evacuation-Constrained Area Requires Clear Justification Approving a reduction of the Fire Safe Regulation’s most basic structure separation requirement — from 30 feet to 10 feet, within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, in an area where evacuation capacity is already constrained — without documented analysis of the impact on evacuation safety would be inconsistent with the City’s obligation to protect public health and safety. 5. Administrative Record Clarification 5.1 The Record Should Document the Basis for Determining Equivalent Fire Safety Because the project relies on an AMMR to reduce the structure separation required by the Fire Safe Regulations, the applicable standard is whether the approved alternative provides the same practical effect as the regulation being replaced — including protection of the surrounding “neighborhood or community ” against “escaping Structure fires” (14 CCR §1270.01). The administrative record should clearly document how the following issues were evaluated in reaching that determination: • Which standard was applied to the AMMR — the same practical effect standard under §1276.01 or the substantial compliance standard under §1270.06 • How the Fire Department ’s characterization of the setbacks as “deficiencies to non-conforming 30’ setback requirements” is reconciled with a finding of equivalent fire-safety protection • What technical analysis was performed during the one-day period between AMMR filing (January 5, 2026) and acceptance (January 6, 2026) to support the equivalency determination • Structure-to-structure radiant heat exposure from the reduced separation, given that federal research identifies 30 feet as a critical threshold (NIST TN 2205) • The thermal impact of combustible fencing and mature tree canopy at the property line within the reduced setback zone, including their role as a connective fuel pathway and their effect on emergency access • The absence of Zone 2 (30-to-100-foot fuel management band) along the north and south boundaries as shown on the project’s own Defensible Space Fire Zone Plan (Sheet L7.1) • The applicant ’s claim of compliance with CRC R302.1(2) while simultaneously proposing no modifications to window openings in reduced-setback walls • Wildfire exposure to neighboring homes constructed between 1947 and 1957, prior to modern WUI building standards Page 8 • Future structure spacing associated with ADU development on adjacent parcels, which could reduce separation to 14 feet • Wildfire evacuation conditions in an area with known capacity constraints, including the City’s own draft Evacuation Route Capacity Analysis • Whether the AMMR has completed the dual review required by CFC 104.10 and CBC 104.11, given that the Building Official signature line on the Santa Clara County Fire Department ’s AMMR approval form — corresponding to the City of Cupertino’s building authority — remains blank, and no building code evaluation of the proposed alternative has been documented • Whether the AMMR determination provides a sufficient basis for the AB 130 CEQA exemption (PRC §21080.66), which requires fire hazard mitigation measures “pursuant to existing building standards” — not a discretionary reduction of an existing standard 5.2 Providing This Clarification Strengthens the City’s Record and Protects Its Decision Ensuring that the technical basis for the AMMR determination is clearly documented serves the City’s interest in maintaining a defensible administrative record. Without this documentation, the City’s approval findings may lack the substantial evidence required to demonstrate that the reduced separation provides the same practical effect as the 30-foot standard and is consistent with the General Plan Health and Safety Element. Page 9 From:DerChang Kau To:Public Comments Cc:DerChang Kau Subject:FW: Emergency Evacuation Performance Alert: Quantifying Non-Survivable Bottlenecks in the Linda Vista Corridor Date:Monday, March 16, 2026 6:31:09 PM Attachments:00 - 20260313 - Letter to Vice Mayor Chao.pdf 01 - 260224 Plan Comm Evulich Development Emergency Evacuation.pdf 02 - Evacuation Traffic Model and Analysis.pdf 03 - Letter to Assistant Chief Hector Estrada.pdf 04 - Technical Rebuttal to Hexagon Transportation Analysis.pdf 05 - Feedback to Cupertino Health and Safety Element - General Plan Community Vision 2015-2040 - v3.pdf 06 - Letter to City Council and City Manager, R1, Jan 29, 2026.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. To whom it may concern, Please include this memorandum to public records for March 17 City Council meeting on agenda #12 public hearing. Thank you From: DerChang Kau <derchang@gmail.com> Date: Friday, March 13, 2026 at 5:08 PM To: Liang Chao <lchao@cupertino.gov> Cc: 高德昌 <derchang@ntu.edu.tw>, DerChang@gmail.com <derchang@gmail.com> Subject: Emergency Evacuation Performance Alert: Quantifying Non-Survivable Bottlenecks in the Linda Vista Corridor March 13, 2026 Dear Vice Mayor Chao, As a fellow professional who respects your science and engineering background—specifically your Ph.D. in Computer Science and expertise in performance optimization and complex algorithms onscheduling and behavioral transformations —I am writing to share a rigorous, data-driven analysis regarding the Evulich Ct. Project. I am deeply concerned that the Planning Commission’s recent 3-2 vote to support this development was made in negligence of objective wildfire evacuation modeling that reveals a critical community safety risk. I have documented my concerns in successive letters to City Planner Emi Sugiyama (Jan. 16) and the City Council (Jan. 29), culminating in a formal technical presentation at the Feb. 24 Planning Commission hearing. Despite presenting mathematical proof of a system failure, the project was narrowly approved. Because of your discipline in system performance and data-driven decision-making, I believe you will find the following quantified results from my Evacuation Traffic Model significant: Systemic Failure (Utilization Ratio): Adding 51 units to the Linda Vista "spine" pushes the traffic utilization ratio from an under-saturated 37% to a failing 110%. This is a mathematical certainty that a "Standing Queue" will form, meaning the road physically cannot clear the neighborhood in time. The 30-Minute Safety Window: Wildfire spread data (e.g., the 2025 Pacific Palisades Fire) shows fire can consume 200 acres in 20 minutes. My modeling shows total evacuation time will more than double, jumping from 26.5 minutes to over 93 minutes—far exceeding the critical window for survival. Shockwave Merging Delays: Forcing 51 units to merge into a saturated single-lane exit creates a "Concentrated Conflict Point," adding 28.5 minutes of 'Shockwave Delay'. 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 have shared these technical concerns with Assistant Chief Hector Estrada of the SCC Fire Department, highlighting that internal site compliance does not equate to neighborhoodevacuation safety. We cannot allow "paper wavier" with internal site-plans to override the physical reality of a neighborhood-wide "trap hazard". Like many in our community, I believe that housing developments under SB 330 must not be used to bypass essential safety protections found in CFC4903 and GC 65302(g)(5), especially given the March 2025 CAL FIRE LRA update which fundamentally changed the hazard baseline for this parcel. I am seeking your support to prioritize this objective data over outdated 2024 planning assumptions. Specifically, I ask for your help in securing a formal Consistency Review by the Fire Marshal and a Supplemental CEQA Review to assess the cumulative impact on the entire Linda Vista evacuation corridor. Respectfully, DerChang Kau Resident of 10847 Linda Vista Drive Attachments including 1. 260224 Plan Comm Evulich Development Emergency Evacuation.pdf 2. Evacuation Traffic Model and Analysis.pdf 3. Letter to Assistant Chief Hector Estrada.pdf 4. Technical Rebuttal to Hexagon Transportation Analysis.pdf 5. Feedback to Cupertino Health and Safety Element - v3.pdf 6. Letter to City Council and City Manager, R1, Jan 29, 2026.pdf From:M. R. Wolfe & Associates, PC To:City Clerk Cc:City Council Subject:Correspondence re: Linda Vista Drive/SummerHill Project - March 17, 2026 City Council Agenda Public Hearing Item No. 12 Date:Monday, March 16, 2026 4:14:53 PM Attachments:Letter to Council re Linda Vist Project_3-16-26.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. To the Cupertino City Clerk: Attached please find correspondence addressed to the City Council concerning the subject project, currently set for a public hearing during the March 17, 2026 regular Council Meeting as Item No. 12. Please distribute to Council Members in advance of the meeting, and include in the administrative record for this matter. We would be grateful if you could acknowledge receipt of this email and attachment at your convenience. Thank you very much. ________________________ Sharon Kim M. R. Wolfe & Associates, P.C | Attorneys Land Use | Environmental Law | Government 580 California Street | Suite 1200 | San Francisco, CA 94104 415.369.9400 | Fax: 415.369.9405 | www.mrwolfeassociates.com The information in this e-mail may contain information that is confidential and/or subject to the attorney- client privilege. If you have received it in error, please delete and contact the sender immediately. Thank you. March 16, 2026 By Email Mayor Kitty Moore and Councilmembers Cupertino City Council c/o City Clerk 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CityClerk@Cupertino.gov CityCouncil@cupertino.gov Re: Tentative Map, Architectural and Site Approval, and Tree Removal Permit, 10857-10887 Linda Vista Drive (Application Nos. TM-2024-009, ASA-2024-015, TR-2024-044; SummerHill Homes, LLC) Dear Mayor Moore and Councilmembers: On behalf of Cupertino resident Mark Fantozzi, please accept and consider the following points addressing the above-referenced applications by SummerHill Homes, LLC seeking development entitlements for a proposed 51-unit townhome condominium project on Linda Vista Drive (“Project”). As this letter will explain, the City Council may not lawfully approve the Project at this time because: (1) it does not qualify for the so-called AB 130 exemption from CEQA for infill housing; and (2) required findings for approval of the Tentative Map under the Subdivision Map Act cannot be made. Overview Under AB 130, a residential project does not qualify for the new statutory exemption from CEQA for infill residential development if it is in a state-designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (“VHFHSZ”), unless it has been made subject to certain specified state fire safety standards. In this case, the developer claims that Cupertino City Council March 16, 2026 Page 2 notwithstanding the Project’s location in a VHFHSZ, it qualifies for the new exemption because it will adhere to “Alternate Means/Methods of Construction” (“AMMC”) that differ from state fire-safe regulations adopted under Public Resources Code (“PRC”) section 4290. This posture is fundamentally at odds with the governing statutory framework, which allows a CEQA exemption in such high-risk areas only where state-level wildfire-mitigation standards are applied as the baseline, not relaxed through project-specific exceptions. As will be explained below, the Project does not satisfy the fire-hazard mitigation condition in Government Code section 65913.4(a)(6)(D), and the City cannot lawfully rely on Public Resources Code section 21080.66 to exempt it from CEQA. At the same time, because the project seeks approval of a tentative map under the Subdivision Map Act, the Council has an independent duty under Government Code section 66474 and section 66474.02 to make public safety findings supported by substantial evidence. These findings cannot be made based on a record that openly documents deviations from state minimum setback requirements and lacks any corridor-level evacuation capacity analysis tailored to this single-access corridor. The City Council should therefore take no action to approve the Project at this time, and should instead direct staff to initiate required CEQA review. I. The Project Does Not Qualify for the AB 130 CEQA Exemption A. AB 130’s narrow exception for VHFHSZ sites. PRC section 21080.66 incorporates SB 330’s siting and hazard-screening standards set forth in Government Code section 65913.4 to define when infill housing in certain hazardous areas can qualify for a CEQA exemption. Section 65913.4(a)(6)(D) provides that a housing development may not rely on the streamlined procedures if it is located “within a very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 51178, or within the state responsibility area, as defined in Section 4102 of the Public Resources Code.” That exclusion applies unless “the site has adopted fire hazard mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards or state fire mitigation measures applicable to the development, including, but not limited to, standards Cupertino City Council March 16, 2026 Page 3 established under” PRC sections 4291 and 4290, Government Code section 51182, and Chapter 7A of the California Building Code. In this context, PRC sections 4290 and 4291, Government Code section 51182, and Chapter 7A/Wildland Urban Interface (“WUI”) requirements function as statewide baselines for access, siting, defensible space, and construction in VHFHSZs, applying by operation of law to every new home in such areas. SB 330 and AB 130 thus establish that a residential infill project in a VHFHSZ may be exempt from CEQA only if it is subject to, and in compliance with, these specified state-level wildfire-mitigation provisions as the governing baseline. Nothing in these statutes authorizes a CEQA exemption when these provisions have been relaxed through project-specific deviations. B. The Project’s AMMC is a deviation from state standards adopted under PRC 4290, not compliance with them. The record shows that the requirements for AB 130’s CEQA exemption have not been met. The applicant has filed, and Santa Clara County Fire Department has approved, an “Alternate Means/Methods Application for an exception request to PRC 4290” for the Project. The code provision identified in the application is 14 Cal.Code.Regs § 1276.01(a), adopted under PRC section 4290, which requires that “all parcels shall provide a minimum thirty (30) foot setback for all Buildings from all property lines and/or the center of a Road, except as provided for in subsection (b).” In its narrative, the applicant explains that the site cannot accommodate the 30-foot setback to all property lines and still meet Cupertino’s minimum density requirements, and therefore seeks to reduce the state-mandated setback to 10 feet along the northern and southern property lines and 20 feet along the western property line. The justification offered for this request is development density and site constraints associated with the existing cul-de-sac right-of-way, and not any contention that the state standard is inapplicable. To compensate for the reduced setbacks, the applicant proposes a package of measures in the Alternate Means/Methods submittal: non-combustible landscaping material extending five feet horizontally from the buildings; wildfire protective measures in accordance with California Building Code Chapter 7A; added fire sprinkler heads within covered porches and decks that are within 30 feet of the property line; and designing portions of buildings within 30 feet of property lines to Cupertino City Council March 16, 2026 Page 4 stricter fire separation distance requirements under Residential Code section R302.1, including one-hour-rated exterior walls and projections and protected penetrations. The Fire Department’s plan review expressly characterizes the proposal as “an exception request to PRC 4290;” affirms that “[t]his alternate proposes to mitigate deficiencies to non-conforming 30’ setback requirements;” and marks the exception “APPROVED.” In other words, the Project is not meeting the uniform 30-foot setback prescribed by the state’s PRC 4290 fire-safe regulations; instead, it is receiving a project-specific local exception based on a finding that this mitigation package is equivalent for purposes of that administrative determination. At the same time, the other statutes cited in Government Code section 65913.4(a)(6)(D), PRC section 4291, Government Code section 51182, and Chapter 7A of the California Building Code, apply as baseline requirements to any new structure in a VHFHSZ. Defensible-space obligations under PRC 4291 and Gov’t Code 51182 (e.g., maintaining up to 100 feet of modified vegetation or to the property line), and WUI construction standards under Chapter 7A (ember-resistant roof, wall, and opening protection) are not measures specially “adopted” for this Project in response to the AB 130 eligibility condition; they are pre-existing state mandates that would govern the project whether or not the developer sought a CEQA exemption and whether or not the 30-foot PRC 4290 setback were waived. The AMMC does not implement or enhance PRC section 4291, Gov’t Code section 51182, or Chapter 7A; it relaxes a PRC 4290 siting standard and substitutes building-centric measures for physical separation. This approach does not satisfy Government Code section 65913.4(a)(6)(D).1 The statute’s text requires that “the site has adopted fire hazard mitigation measures 1 The developer may contend that because the Fire Safe Regulations themselves allow case-by-case “exceptions to standards” where the local inspection entity finds “the same practical effect as these regulations towards providing defensible space” (14 Cal.Code.Regs § 1270.06/1270.07), a locally approved AMMC is, by definition, a mitigation measure “pursuant to” PRC 4290. That argument overreads both the regulations and Government Code section 65913.4(a)(6)(D). The authority to approve exceptions does not convert every project-specific variance into “compliance” with the regulations for purposes of AB 130 or SB 330. Section 65913.4(a)(6)(D) points to state-level regimes as the baseline mitigation frameworks that must be applied to a site before total CEQA immunity is available, not to individualized departures from those frameworks. Regardless, the record here contains no Cupertino City Council March 16, 2026 Page 5 pursuant to existing building standards or state fire mitigation measures applicable to the development,” including the named statutory sections and Chapter 7A frameworks. The phrase “pursuant to” in this context means “in accordance with” or “under the authority of” those state standards as adopted and actually applied to the Project’s design, not “in deviation from” them under a local alternate-means approval. The applicant’s own materials confirm that the alternate means approval “was obtained specifically to reduce the required 30 foot building separation setback.” A project that cannot meet a mandatory PRC section 4290 standard and requires a waiver to substitute a different approach—and that offers only baseline PRC 4291/GC 51182/Chapter 7A compliance that every WUI project must already provide—has not “adopted fire hazard mitigation measures pursuant to” those state standards in the sense contemplated by section 65913.4(a)(6)(D). To the contrary, it has reduced one of those standards and substituted a project-specific package of measures in its place. Treating an exception from PRC section 4290’s standards as if it were adoption of those same standards “pursuant to” that statute would invert the statutory scheme: the very fact that the project cannot meet the state minimum would become the basis for claiming that the state-based fire-hazard exclusion no longer applies. C. Fire-Code alternate means approval is not an AB 130 eligibility finding. The reliance on an “alternative means and methods” approval under California Fire Code section 104.9 to satisfy the AB 130’s fire-hazard condition fails on the plain text of the statute. The Fire Code’s alternate means and methods procedure is a mechanism for departing from an applicable standard when the code official determines that a different approach achieves equivalent safety. That determination addresses whether a proposed design deviation is acceptable under Fire Code authority, not whether the project has “adopted fire hazard mitigation measures pursuant to” PRC sections 4290, 4291, and Chapter 7A for purposes of satisfying AB 130’s separate CEQA exemption condition. The two frameworks serve different purposes and are governed by different legal standards. Satisfying one does not Fire Board-certified local ordinance and no documented “same practical effect” analysis showing that reducing the 30-foot setback to 10–20 feet, with added sprinklers and five feet of non-combustible landscaping, actually achieves the same level of WUI protection intended by § 1276.01. Cupertino City Council March 16, 2026 Page 6 automatically satisfy the other, and no agency-authored document in the record offers the statutory equivalency analysis that would be required to bridge that gap. D. Lack of substantial evidence for the AB 130 exemption determination. Any AB 130 exemption determination must rest on substantial evidence that the statutory eligibility criteria are in fact met. The lead agency bears independent responsibility for determining whether the AB 130 conditions are satisfied and for substantiating that determination with evidence in the record. CEQA permits reliance on applicant-submitted materials, but the record must contain the facts and analysis supporting the statutory determination, not simply a consultant’s assertion that “the conditions are met.” Here, the staff report adopts the developer’s consultant’s conclusion and states that the Santa Clara County Fire Department “has found that the project has demonstrated consistency with these requirements,” but there is no agency-authored analysis applying the controlling statutory language of Government Code section 65913.4(a)(6)(D) to the actual AMMC and fire-safety measures. Nor does the record contain any documented equivalency analysis showing that the combination of reduced setbacks, added sprinklers, and building-separation measures collectively achieves the same level of protection as the PRC 4290 30-foot setback, as opposed to satisfying Fire Code alternate-means criteria. Assertions of compliance do not substitute for evidence of compliance; substantial evidence review requires that the City disclose the analytic route it traveled from evidence to action, and here that analytic route is missing. E. SB 330 vesting does not alter AB 130’s state-law eligibility criteria. The developer may argue that SB 330 “vesting” locks in development standards as of its preliminary application date, which predated Cal Fire’s March 2025 VHFHSZ reclassification and AB 130’s June 2025 enactment, and that earlier laws and regulations therefore govern the Project’s AB 130 eligibility. That argument conflates two distinct legal frameworks. SB 330 protects applicants against cities Cupertino City Council March 16, 2026 Page 7 changing local ordinances, policies, and standards mid-project;2 it does not freeze or displace the State’s later-adopted, independent siting criteria for a statutory CEQA exemption, nor does it vest a right to have statewide hazard-mapping determinations ignored. Cal Fire’s FHSZ remapping is a state-level determination about physical fire-risk conditions, not a City ordinance or policy. Likewise, AB 130 is a state statute that took effect after the project vested and that the developer is now invoking for its benefit. The eligibility conditions included in that statute, including Government Code section 65913.4(a)(6)(D)’s VHFHSZ condition and its cross-references to PRC 4290/4291 and Chapter 7A, apply by their own terms at the time the statutory exemption is claimed. SB 330 cannot be used to pick and choose which portions of a later-enacted state exemption statute apply: a developer cannot simultaneously invoke AB 130 for its complete CEQA immunity while insisting that the statute’s state-law safety and siting criteria are inapplicable because of earlier vesting against local standards. In sum, because the Project site is in a VHFHSZ and is proceeding under an approved exception to the 30-foot setback required by PRC 4290’s implementing regulations, the condition for lifting the fire-hazard exclusion in Government Code section 65913.4(a)(6)(D) is not met. The Project therefore remains subject to the fire-hazard exclusion and is ineligible for the CEQA exemption provided in PRC section 21080.66. The City Council should therefore reject reliance on that exemption and instead require appropriate CEQA review that candidly evaluates wildfire risk, evacuation constraints, and cumulative hazard in this high-risk location. 2 SB 330’s text and implementing guidance make clear that vesting is limited to local laws, policies, and regulations. Government Code section 66300 regulates “development policy, standard, or condition” and defines that term to mean provisions of general plans, specific plans, zoning ordinances, subdivision standards, and similar local instruments. It does not purport to vest against changes in state statutes or state-adopted building or fire-safety codes. Cupertino City Council March 16, 2026 Page 8 II. Subdivision Map Act Findings Are Not Supported by Substantial Evidence A. Required findings under Government Code sections 66474 and 66474.02 In addition to the CEQA concerns described above, the Council’s consideration of the tentative subdivision map is independently constrained by the findings requirements of Subdivision Map Act, including Government Code sections 66474 and 66474.02. Section 66474 requires the Council to find, before approving a tentative map, that the design and improvement of the proposed subdivision “will not cause serious public health problems.” This finding must be supported by substantial evidence in the record at the time of approval, and must be made regardless of whether the Project qualifies for the AB 130 CEQA exemption. Section 66474.02 adds further wildfire-specific requirements for subdivisions in a state responsibility area or a VHFHSZ: before approving such a tentative map, the legislative body must make “a finding supported by substantial evidence in the record that the subdivision is consistent with regulations adopted by the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection (“Board”) pursuant to Sections 4290 and 4291 of the Public Resources Code or consistent with local ordinances certified by the Board as meeting or exceeding the state regulations,” and a separate finding regarding structural fire protection and suppression services. B. The AMMC is inconsistent with a finding of “consistency” with PRC 4290/4291 regulations The record raises serious doubt that the City can lawfully make these mandatory findings under the Subdivision Map Act. As noted, the Project relies on an “Alternate Means/Methods Application for an exception request to PRC 4290,” seeking relief from the Board’s minimum 30-foot building setback requirement in 14 C.C.R. section 1276.01(a). Rather than showing that the subdivision is “consistent with regulations adopted by the Board pursuant to Sections 4290 and 4291,” the application expressly acknowledges non-conformance with a key PRC 4290 standard and asks for approval of reduced setbacks, down to 10 feet in some locations, based on development density and site constraints. The Fire Department’s approval Cupertino City Council March 16, 2026 Page 9 confirms that this is an “exception request to PRC 4290” that “proposes to mitigate deficiencies to non-conforming 30' setback requirements,” and that those deficiencies are being accepted on a project-specific basis through an AMMC. This approach cannot be reconciled with a required finding that the subdivision is “consistent with” the PRC 4290/4291 regulations or with local ordinances the Board has certified as at least equivalent.3 Consistency in this context ordinarily means the subdivision satisfies the substantive standards adopted by the Board, not that those standards have been waived or reduced through an exception process to accommodate a particular project design. The AMMC’s mitigation measures, i.e., enhanced sprinklers, one-hour walls and projections within 30 feet of property lines, and five feet of non-combustible landscaping, may be sufficient, in the Fire Department’s view, to justify an exception under local alternate-means authority, but they do not change the content of the PRC section 4290 regulations themselves, nor do they transform a non-conforming setback into a conforming one. On this record, the subdivision is, at best, in compliance with PRC section 4290 “as modified by an exception,” which is not the same as being “consistent with regulations adopted by the Board pursuant to Sections 4290 and 4291” for purposes of Government Code section 66474.02(a)(1). C. Corridor-level evacuation capacity and the “serious public health problems” finding. The Council must also confront the separate public-health finding required by Government Code section 66474: that the design and improvement of the subdivision “will not cause serious public health problems.” That finding cannot be made in the abstract in a reclassified VHFHSZ on a single-access corridor without grappling with corridor-level evacuation capacity. The project is proposed on a 3 Nor can the City rely on the Fire Safe Regulations’ “same practical effect” exception process to satisfy Government Code section 66474.02. That statute requires a finding that the subdivision is consistent with “regulations adopted by the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Sections 4290 and 4291” or with Board-certified local ordinances that equal or exceed those regulations. It is keyed to the Board’s minimum standards and any formally certified local analogues, not to case-by-case variances granted by an inspection entity. Even if the AMMR could be justified under 14 CCR § 1270.06/1270.07, the record contains no evidence that the City has a Board-certified local ordinance substituting for the state regulations, and no analysis demonstrating that this specific exception maintains the same level of protection as § 1276.01’s 30-foot setback. Cupertino City Council March 16, 2026 Page 10 two-lane hillside spine with no secondary vehicular egress. While the City’s 2019 Emergency Operations Plan provides a general response framework, it is not a corridor-specific evacuation capacity analysis. Recognizing this gap, the City commissioned the October 2025 Cupertino Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment, which uses transportation-planning tools (trip generation, assignment, link capacity, v/c ratios) to evaluate evacuation route capacity under worst-case wildfire scenarios and to identify major evacuation routes, gateways, and bottlenecks for the western hillside WUI areas. However, neither the staff report nor any other project document applies that methodology to the specific conditions of the Linda Vista corridor and the cumulative load of this subdivision in combination with other projects such as Vista Heights. The Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment defines an evacuation area encompassing the western WUI hillside neighborhoods and confirms that evacuation demand must be funneled toward limited gateways at SR-85 and I-280; it identifies potential bottlenecks and emphasizes the importance of supply-side and demand-side strategies to manage evacuation loads. But there is no analysis in the project record that asks, or answers, the core statutory question: whether this single-access corridor, with its existing geometry, vegetation, and downstream constraints, can safely evacuate the increased population associated with this 51-unit subdivision (and the other pending units on the same spine) within a reasonable clearance time under wildfire conditions. Written objections submitted to the City by others include specific, documented clearance-time estimates for the Linda Vista corridor, comparing present conditions (approximately 70 units) to post-development scenarios (approximately 155 units with this project and Vista Heights), and estimating that corridor clearance times would increase from under 30 minutes to over 90 minutes once queueing, merging, and human-factor delays are considered. The City produced no corridor-specific evacuation throughput study, no application of the Fehr & Peers methodology to this particular single-access hillside corridor, and no Fire Marshal or other expert determination that the corridor can safely evacuate the increased population under wildfire conditions. Deference to building-level fire-code compliance (sprinklers, access lanes, construction materials) does not answer the corridor-level question about whether the only egress route is capable of safely Cupertino City Council March 16, 2026 Page 11 clearing residents in a timely way. The absence of that corridor-level evacuation analysis is a gap in the evidentiary foundation for the required public-health findings under Government Code sections 66474 and 66474.02; it cannot be filled after the fact with general references to compliance with building and fire codes that address different questions. D. Combined effect of CEQA and SMA frameworks. Taken together, the CEQA framework (PRC 21080.66 and Government Code section 65913.4(a)(6)(D)) and the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code sections 66474 and 66474.02) point in the same direction: in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, streamlined approval and tentative map approval are appropriate only where state-level wildfire-mitigation standards are applied as the governing baseline and where there is substantial evidence that the subdivision’s design and improvements will not cause serious public health problems, including evacuation risk—not where state fire-safe standards are relaxed through project-specific exceptions and corridor-level evacuation capacity has never been meaningfully analyzed. The Council should not attempt to rely on the CEQA exemption or to make the required 66474 and 66474.02 findings on this record. Instead, it should require full CEQA review and ensure that any approval of the tentative map is genuinely consistent with the Board’s fire-safe regulations or with duly certified local ordinances that meet or exceed those standards, and that corridor-level evacuation capacity for this single-access hillside corridor has been rigorously evaluated and disclosed. III. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the City Council should find the Project not exempt from CEQA, and should decline to approve a tentative map for Project pending adequate CEQA review and corridor-level evacuation analysis. Cupertino City Council March 16, 2026 Page 12 Thank you for your consideration of these comments and concerns. Yours very truly, M. R. WOLFE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Mark R. Wolfe On behalf of Mark Fantozzi MRW: cc: Mark Fantozzi From:James Lloyd To:Kitty Moore; Liang Chao; Sheila Mohan; J.R. Fruen; R "Ray" Wang Cc:Piu Ghosh (she/her); City Attorney"s Office; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Clerk; City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Subject:public comment re item 12 for tonight"s Council meeting Date:Tuesday, March 17, 2026 2:37:03 PM Attachments:Cupertino - 10857-87 Linda Vista Drive- HAA Letter - CC.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 Cupertino City Council, The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits the attached public comment re item 12 for tonight's Council meeting, the proposed 51-unit housing development project at 10857, 10867, 10877, and 10887 Linda Vista Drive, which includes 10 median- and moderate- income units. Sincerely, James M. Lloyd Director of Planning and Investigations California Housing Defense Fund james@calhdf.org CalHDF is grant & donation funded Donate today - https://calhdf.org/donate/ Mar 17, 2026 City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Proposed Housing Development at 10857-87 Linda Vista Drive By email: kmoore@cupertino.gov; lchao@cupertino.gov; smohan@cupertino.gov; jrfruen@cupertino.gov; rwang@cupertino.gov CC: piug@cupertino.gov; CityAttorney@cupertino.gov; CityManager@cupertino.gov; CityClerk@Cupertino.gov; planning@cupertino.gov; Dear Cupertino City Council, The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter to remind the City of its obligation to abide by all relevant state laws when evaluating the proposed 51-unit housing development project at 10857, 10867, 10877, and 10887 Linda Vista Drive, which includes 10 median- and moderate-income units. These laws include the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), the Density Bonus Law (“DBL”), Housing Element Law, and AB 130. The HAA provides the project legal protections. It requires approval of zoning and general plan compliant housing development projects unless findings can be made regarding specific, objective, written health and safety hazards. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j).) The HAA also bars cities from imposing conditions on the approval of such projects that would reduce the project’s density unless, again, such written findings are made. (Ibid.) As a development with at least two-thirds of its area devoted to residential uses, the project falls within the HAA’s ambit, and it complies with local zoning code and the City’s general plan. Increased density, concessions, and waivers that a project is entitled to under the DBL (Gov. Code, § 65915) do not render the project noncompliant with the zoning code or general plan, for purposes of the HAA (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j)(3)). The HAA’s protections therefore apply, and the City may not reject the project except based on health and safety standards, as outlined above. Furthermore, if the City rejects the project or impairs its feasibility, it must conduct “a thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action.” (Id. at subd. (b).) 2201 Broadway, PH1, Oakland, CA 94612 www.calhdf.org Of note, the City has planned for housing development on the site by including it in its current Housing Element site inventory. Specifically, the City has planned for 84 units on the site including 31 lower-income units. CalHDF also writes to emphasize that the DBL offers the proposed development certain protections. The City must respect these protections. In addition to granting the increase in residential units allowed by the DBL, the City must not deny the project the proposed waivers and concessions with respect to height, setback, floor area ratio, outdoor space, parking dimensions, and unit mix. If the City wishes to deny requested waivers, Government Code section 65915, subdivision (e)(1) requires findings that the waivers would have a specific, adverse impact upon health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. If the City wishes to deny requested concessions, Government Code section 65915, subdivision (d)(1) requires findings that the concessions would not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions, that the concessions would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety, or that the concessions are contrary to state or federal law. The City, if it makes any such findings, bears the burden of proof. (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (d)(4).) Of note, the DBL specifically allows for a reduction in required accessory parking in addition to the allowable waivers and concessions. (Id. at subd. (p).) Additionally, the California Court of Appeal has ruled that when an applicant has requested one or more waivers and/or concessions pursuant to the DBL, the City “may not apply any development standard that would physically preclude construction of that project as designed, even if the building includes ‘amenities’ beyond the bare minimum of building components.” (Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755, 775.) Finally, the project is exempt from state environmental review pursuant to AB 130 (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66). Caselaw from the California Court of Appeal affirms that local governments err, and may be sued, when they improperly refuse to grant a project a CEQA exemption or streamlined CEQA review to which it is entitled. (Hilltop Group, Inc. v. County of San Diego (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, 911.) As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage. New housing such as this is a public benefit: it will increase the city’s tax base; it will bring new customers to local businesses; and it will reduce displacement of existing residents by reducing competition for existing housing. It will also help cut down on transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions by providing housing in denser, more urban areas, as opposed to farther-flung regions in the state (and out of state). While no one project will solve the statewide housing crisis, the proposed development is a step in the right direction. CalHDF urges the City to approve it, consistent with its obligations under state law. 2 of 3 CalHDF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households. You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org. Sincerely, Dylan Casey CalHDF Executive Director James M. Lloyd CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations 3 of 3 From:Lin, Austin To:Emi Sugiyama; City Clerk Cc:Ebrahimi, Kevin; Bull, Steve Subject:Linda Vista / Requirements for Projects in VHFHSZ and AB130 Date:Tuesday, March 17, 2026 3:08:08 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png image005.png image006.png image007.png Saratoga_AB 130 checklist, 1-27-26 (web).pdf GOV_65913.4.-a6B-K.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. Hello Emi, This email is in response to the email sent by Rhoda Fry on March 16, 2026, in which she states that other municipalities do not allow projects in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones to utilize AB130. Ms. Fry provided links to other municipalities' AB130 checklists. I've attached Saratoga's as an example. The checklists are based on the State's requirements under AB130, and while they do not provide complete details on certain exceptions to the qualifying site conditions allowed under State law, they do reference the relevant state code section, in particular paragraph (6) of subdivision (a) of section 65913.4. See the highlighted section below from the Saratoga Checklist. Also attached is California Government Code 65913.4, with the appurtenant section highlighted. Subsection D, as shown further below does state that disqualification for projects in a VHFHSZ would not apply if: (i) sites are excluded from the specified hazard zones by a local agency, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 51179, or (ii) sites that have adopted fire hazard mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards or state fire mitigation measures applicable to the development. See green highlighted section below. As you are aware, we have adopted the necessary mitigation measures required to maintain our qualification for AB130, which have been reviewed and agreed upon by the Fire Department. Please let me know if you have any further questions on this matter. FROM SARATOGA AB130 CHECKLIST: Subsection D from California Government Code 65913.4(a)(6): Regards, Austin Lin, PE Development Manager SummerHill Homes Direct (510) 330-3064 | Mobile (408) 966-2278 | ✉️ alin@shhomes.com www.summerhillhomes.com 6101 Bollinger Canyon Road, Suite 425, San Ramon, CA 94583 Follow Us: All subject matter contained in this email is confidential and proprietary to SummerHill Homes LLC and should not be disclosed to any person not listed as an original recipient. SummerHill Homes LLC. All rights reserved. Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 www.saratoga.ca.us/cdd 408.868.1222 Page 1 of 6 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS The following informa�on is required from any applicant seeking to establish eligibility for an AB 130 CEQA exemp�on under Public Resources Code (“PRC”) Sec�on 21080.66. All documents, reports and plans must be provided to the Planning Department in digital format or via cer�fied mail. Applica�ons that are not eligible for the exemp�on or that do not provide sufficient informa�on to determine eligibility will not be processed in accordance with PRC Sec�on 21080.66. An applicant is responsible for paying all fees associated with the City’s determina�on of the project’s eligibility for the exemp�on. Comple�on of this form and submission of suppor�ng documenta�on (e.g., Biological Report, USACE Wetland Delinea�on Report) will help reduce delays and the cost of determining eligibility. A project that is eligible for the exemp�on shall be subject to tribal consulta�on, require a Phase I Environmental Assessment and other environmental requirements, and may poten�ally be subject to specified wage requirements. Ini�a�on of tribal consulta�on does not establish eligibility. This document was last updated on January 27, 2026. URBAN INFILL HOUSING CEQA EXEMPTION (AB 130) CHECKLIST Public Resources Code 21080.66 Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 www.saratoga.ca.us/cdd 408.868.1222 Page 2 of 6 Criteria Describe how project complies with the criteria. Please atach sufficient documenta�on to demonstrate compliance. Project is a “housing development project”, as defined in subdivision (b) of Sec�on 65905.5 of the Government Code. (PRC § 21080.66(a)) § 21080.66(a)(1) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the project site is not more than 20 acres. (B) The project site or the parcel size for a builder’s remedy project, as defined in paragraph (11) of subdivision (h) of Section 65589.5 of the Government Code, or the project site or the parcel size for a project that applied pursuant to paragraph (5) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5 of the Government Code, is not more than four acres. § 21080.66(a)(2) The project site meets either of the following criteria: (A) Is located within the boundaries of an incorporated municipality. (B) Is located within an urban area, as defined by the United States Census Bureau. § 21080.66(a)(3) The project site meets any of the following criteria: (A) Has been previously developed with an urban use. (B) At least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are developed with urban uses. (C) At least 75 percent of the area within a one-quarter mile radius of the site is developed with urban uses. (D) For sites with four sides, at least three out of four sides are developed with urban uses and at least two-thirds of the Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 www.saratoga.ca.us/cdd 408.868.1222 Page 3 of 6 Criteria Describe how project complies with the criteria. Please atach sufficient documenta�on to demonstrate compliance. perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are developed with urban uses. § 21080.66(a)(4) (A) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan and zoning ordinance, as well as any applicable local coastal program as defined in Section 30108.6. For purposes of this section, a housing development project shall be deemed consistent with the applicable general plan and zoning ordinance, and any applicable local coastal program, if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project is consistent. (B) If the zoning and general plan are not consistent with one another, a project shall be deemed consistent with both if the project is consistent with one. (C) The approval of a density bonus, incentives or concessions, waivers or reductions of development standards, and reduced parking ratios pursuant to Section 65915 of the Government Code shall not be grounds for determining that the project is inconsistent with the applicable general plan, zoning ordinance, or local coastal program. § 21080.66(a)(5) The project will be at least one-half of the applicable density specified in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583.2 of the Government Code. For Saratoga, 15 dwelling units per net acre is half of the 30 units per acre default density. Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 www.saratoga.ca.us/cdd 408.868.1222 Page 4 of 6 Criteria Describe how project complies with the criteria. Please atach sufficient documenta�on to demonstrate compliance. § 21080.66(a)(6) The project satisfies the requirements specified in paragraph (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4 of the Government Code. The development is not located on a site that is any of the following: ☐ (1) Coastal Zone ☐ (2) Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance ☐ (3) Wetlands ☐ (4) Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone ☐ (5) Hazardous Waste Sites ☐ (6) Earthquake Fault Zone ☐ (7) Special Flood Hazard Area ☐ (8) Regulatory Floodway ☐ (9) Conserva�on Lands in a Natural Community Conserva�on Plan ☐ (10) Habitat for Protected Species ☐ (11) Conserva�on Easement To establish eligibility, please atach: ☐ (3) USACE Wetland Delinea�on Report, prepared by a qualified wetland scien�st. A map is not sufficient evidence to establish eligibility. ☐ (5) Documenta�on from SWRCB, GeoTracker Map, GeoTracker, and DTSC, EnviroStor Map, EnviroStor Map ☐ (7) and (8) Documenta�on from the most current FEMA, Flood Insurance Rate Map ☐ (10) Biological Report, prepared by a “California Cer�fied Professional Biologist” ☐ (11) current �tle report § 21080.66(a)(7) The project does not require the demolition of a historic structure that was placed on a national, state, or local historic register before the date a preliminary application was submitted for the project pursuant to Section 65941.1 of the Government Code. Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 www.saratoga.ca.us/cdd 408.868.1222 Page 5 of 6 Criteria Describe how project complies with the criteria. Please atach sufficient documenta�on to demonstrate compliance. § 21080.66(a)(8) For a project that was deemed complete pursuant to paragraph (5) of subdivision (h) of Section 65589.5 of the Government Code on or after January 1, 2025, no portion of the project is designated for use as a hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other transient lodging. For the purposes of this section, “other transient lodging” does not include either of the following: (A) A residential hotel, as defined in Section 50519 of the Health and Safety Code. (B) After the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, a resident’s use or marketing of a unit as short-term lodging, as defined in Section 17568.8 of the Business and Professions Code, in a manner consistent with local law. Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 www.saratoga.ca.us/cdd 408.868.1222 Page 6 of 6 REQUIREMENTS FOR ELIGIBLE PROJECTS Projects that are eligible for the PRC Sec�on 21080.66 exemp�on shall be subject to the following requirements. Requirement Provide any informa�on regarding the applicability of, or compliance with, the criteria. Tribal No�fica�on/Consulta�on. See PRC § 21080.66(b) for addi�onal details. A Phase I environmental assessment and, if required, a preliminary endangerment assessment, removal of hazardous substance, and mi�ga�on measures. See PRC § 21080.66(c) for addi�onal details Please atach any Phase I environmental assessment that has already been completed. If the project is located within 500 feet of a freeway, the requirements in PRC § 21080.66 (c)(2) shall apply. Labor Standards If 100 percent of the units in the project are dedicated to lower income households, all construc�on workers shall be paid prevailing wage. If the project is over 85 feet in height above grade, the labor standards in Government Code sec�on 65913.4 (a)(8) shall apply. See PRC § 21080.66(d) for addi�onal details. 1953411.1 2019464.1 State of California GOVERNMENT CODE Section 65913.4 65913.4. (a) A development proponent may submit an application for a development that is subject to the streamlined, ministerial approval process provided by subdivision (c) and is not subject to a conditional use permit if the development complies with subdivision (b) and satisfies all of the following objective planning standards: (1) The development is a multifamily housing development that contains two or more residential units. (2) The development and the site on which it is located satisfy all of the following: (A) It is a legal parcel or parcels located in a city if, and only if, the city boundaries include some portion of either an urbanized area or urban cluster, as designated by the United States Census Bureau, or, for unincorporated areas, a legal parcel or parcels wholly within the boundaries of an urbanized area or urban cluster, as designated by the United States Census Bureau. (B) At least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are developed with urban uses. For the purposes of this section, parcels that are only separated by a street or highway shall be considered to be adjoined. (C) It is zoned for residential use or residential mixed-use development, or has a general plan designation that allows residential use or a mix of residential and nonresidential uses, and at least two-thirds of the square footage of the development is designated for residential use. Additional density, floor area, and units, and any other concession, incentive, or waiver of development standards granted pursuant to the Density Bonus Law in Section 65915 shall be included in the square footage calculation. The square footage of the development shall not include underground space, such as basements or underground parking garages. (3) (A) The development proponent has committed to record, prior to the issuance of the first building permit, a land use restriction or covenant providing that any lower or moderate income housing units required pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (4) shall remain available at affordable housing costs or rent to persons and families of lower or moderate income for no less than the following periods of time: (i) Fifty-five years for units that are rented. (ii) Forty-five years for units that are owned. (B) The city or county shall require the recording of covenants or restrictions implementing this paragraph for each parcel or unit of real property included in the development. (4) The development satisfies subparagraphs (A) and (B) below: (A) Is located in a locality that the department has determined is subject to this subparagraph on the basis that the number of units that have been issued building STATE OF CALIFORNIA AUTHENTICATED ELECTRONIC LEGAL MATERIAL 1 1 permits, as shown on the most recent production report received by the department, is less than the locality’s share of the regional housing needs, by income category, for that reporting period. A locality shall remain eligible under this subparagraph until the department’s determination for the next reporting period. (B) The development is subject to a requirement mandating a minimum percentage of below market rate housing based on one of the following: (i) The locality did not submit its latest production report to the department by the time period required by Section 65400, or that production report reflects that there were fewer units of above moderate-income housing issued building permits than were required for the regional housing needs assessment cycle for that reporting period. In addition, if the project contains more than 10 units of housing, the project does either of the following: (I) The project dedicates a minimum of 10 percent of the total number of units to housing affordable to households making at or below 80 percent of the area median income. However, if the locality has adopted a local ordinance that requires that greater than 10 percent of the units be dedicated to housing affordable to households making below 80 percent of the area median income, that local ordinance applies. (II) (ia) If the project is located within the San Francisco Bay area, the project, in lieu of complying with subclause (I), dedicates 20 percent of the total number of units to housing affordable to households making below 120 percent of the area median income with the average income of the units at or below 100 percent of the area median income. However, a local ordinance adopted by the locality applies if it requires greater than 20 percent of the units be dedicated to housing affordable to households making at or below 120 percent of the area median income, or requires that any of the units be dedicated at a level deeper than 120 percent. In order to comply with this subclause, the rent or sale price charged for units that are dedicated to housing affordable to households between 80 percent and 120 percent of the area median income shall not exceed 30 percent of the gross income of the household. (ib) For purposes of this subclause, “San Francisco Bay area” means the entire area within the territorial boundaries of the Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma, and the City and County of San Francisco. (ii) The locality’s latest production report reflects that there were fewer units of housing issued building permits affordable to either very low income or low-income households by income category than were required for the regional housing needs assessment cycle for that reporting period, and the project seeking approval dedicates 50 percent of the total number of units to housing affordable to households making at or below 80 percent of the area median income. However, if the locality has adopted a local ordinance that requires that greater than 50 percent of the units be dedicated to housing affordable to households making at or below 80 percent of the area median income, that local ordinance applies. (iii) The locality did not submit its latest production report to the department by the time period required by Section 65400, or if the production report reflects that there were fewer units of housing affordable to both income levels described in clauses 2 2 (i) and (ii) that were issued building permits than were required for the regional housing needs assessment cycle for that reporting period, the project seeking approval may choose between utilizing clause (i) or (ii). (C) (i) A development proponent that uses a unit of affordable housing to satisfy the requirements of subparagraph (B) may also satisfy any other local or state requirement for affordable housing, including local ordinances or the Density Bonus Law in Section 65915, provided that the development proponent complies with the applicable requirements in the state or local law. (ii) A development proponent that uses a unit of affordable housing to satisfy any other state or local affordability requirement may also satisfy the requirements of subparagraph (B), provided that the development proponent complies with applicable requirements of subparagraph (B). (iii) A development proponent may satisfy the affordability requirements of subparagraph (B) with a unit that is restricted to households with incomes lower than the applicable income limits required in subparagraph (B). (5) The development, excluding any additional density or any other concessions, incentives, or waivers of development standards granted pursuant to the Density Bonus Law in Section 65915, is consistent with objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards in effect at the time that the development is submitted to the local government pursuant to this section, or at the time a notice of intent is submitted pursuant to subdivision (b), whichever occurs earlier. For purposes of this paragraph, “objective zoning standards,” “objective subdivision standards,” and “objective design review standards” mean standards that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official before submittal. These standards may be embodied in alternative objective land use specifications adopted by a city or county, and may include, but are not limited to, housing overlay zones, specific plans, inclusionary zoning ordinances, and density bonus ordinances, subject to the following: (A) A development shall be deemed consistent with the objective zoning standards related to housing density, as applicable, if the density proposed is compliant with the maximum density allowed within that land use designation, notwithstanding any specified maximum unit allocation that may result in fewer units of housing being permitted. (B) In the event that objective zoning, general plan, subdivision, or design review standards are mutually inconsistent, a development shall be deemed consistent with the objective zoning and subdivision standards pursuant to this subdivision if the development is consistent with the standards set forth in the general plan. (C) It is the intent of the Legislature that the objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards described in this paragraph be adopted or amended in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 905 of the Statutes of 2004. 3 3 (D) The amendments to this subdivision made by the act adding this subparagraph do not constitute a change in, but are declaratory of, existing law. (6) The development is not located on a site that is any of the following: (A) A coastal zone, as defined in Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code. (B) Either prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance, as defined pursuant to United States Department of Agriculture land inventory and monitoring criteria, as modified for California, and designated on the maps prepared by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the Department of Conservation, or land zoned or designated for agricultural protection or preservation by a local ballot measure that was approved by the voters of that jurisdiction. (C) Wetlands, as defined in the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, Part 660 FW 2 (June 21, 1993). (D) Within a very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 51178, or within a high or very high fire hazard severity zone as indicated on maps adopted by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 4202 of the Public Resources Code. This subparagraph does not apply to sites excluded from the specified hazard zones by a local agency, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 51179, or sites that have adopted fire hazard mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards or state fire mitigation measures applicable to the development. (E) A hazardous waste site that is listed pursuant to Section 65962.5 or a hazardous waste site designated by the Department of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to Section 25356 of the Health and Safety Code, unless the State Department of Public Health, State Water Resources Control Board, or Department of Toxic Substances Control has cleared the site for residential use or residential mixed uses. (F) Within a delineated earthquake fault zone as determined by the State Geologist in any official maps published by the State Geologist, unless the development complies with applicable seismic protection building code standards adopted by the California Building Standards Commission under the California Building Standards Law (Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code), and by any local building department under Chapter 12.2 (commencing with Section 8875) of Division 1 of Title 2. (G) Within a special flood hazard area subject to inundation by the 1 percent annual chance flood (100-year flood) as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in any official maps published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. If a development proponent is able to satisfy all applicable federal qualifying criteria in order to provide that the site satisfies this subparagraph and is otherwise eligible for streamlined approval under this section, a local government shall not deny the application on the basis that the development proponent did not comply with any additional permit requirement, standard, or action adopted by that local government that is applicable to that site. A development may be located on a site described in this subparagraph if either of the following are met: 4 4 (i) The site has been subject to a Letter of Map Revision prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and issued to the local jurisdiction. (ii) The site meets Federal Emergency Management Agency requirements necessary to meet minimum flood plain management criteria of the National Flood Insurance Program pursuant to Part 59 (commencing with Section 59.1) and Part 60 (commencing with Section 60.1) of Subchapter B of Chapter I of Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations. (H) Within a regulatory floodway as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in any official maps published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, unless the development has received a no-rise certification in accordance with Section 60.3(d)(3) of Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If a development proponent is able to satisfy all applicable federal qualifying criteria in order to provide that the site satisfies this subparagraph and is otherwise eligible for streamlined approval under this section, a local government shall not deny the application on the basis that the development proponent did not comply with any additional permit requirement, standard, or action adopted by that local government that is applicable to that site. (I) Lands identified for conservation in an adopted natural community conservation plan pursuant to the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 2800) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code), habitat conservation plan pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531 et seq.), or other adopted natural resource protection plan. (J) Habitat for protected species identified as candidate, sensitive, or species of special status by state or federal agencies, fully protected species, or species protected by the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531 et seq.), the California Endangered Species Act (Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 2050) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code), or the Native Plant Protection Act (Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 1900) of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code). (K) Lands under conservation easement. (7) The development is not located on a site where any of the following apply: (A) The development would require the demolition of the following types of housing: (i) Housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income. (ii) Housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power. (iii) Housing that has been occupied by tenants within the past 10 years. (B) The site was previously used for housing that was occupied by tenants that was demolished within 10 years before the development proponent submits an application under this section. (C) The development would require the demolition of a historic structure that was placed on a national, state, or local historic register. 5 5 (D) The property contains housing units that are occupied by tenants, and units at the property are, or were, subsequently offered for sale to the general public by the subdivider or subsequent owner of the property. (8) The development proponent has done both of the following, as applicable: (A) Certified to the locality that either of the following is true, as applicable: (i) The entirety of the development is a public work for purposes of Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1720) of Part 7 of Division 2 of the Labor Code. (ii) If the development is not in its entirety a public work, that all construction workers employed in the execution of the development will be paid at least the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for the type of work and geographic area, as determined by the Director of Industrial Relations pursuant to Sections 1773 and 1773.9 of the Labor Code, except that apprentices registered in programs approved by the Chief of the Division of Apprenticeship Standards may be paid at least the applicable apprentice prevailing rate. If the development is subject to this subparagraph, then for those portions of the development that are not a public work all of the following shall apply: (I) The development proponent shall ensure that the prevailing wage requirement is included in all contracts for the performance of the work. (II) All contractors and subcontractors shall pay to all construction workers employed in the execution of the work at least the general prevailing rate of per diem wages, except that apprentices registered in programs approved by the Chief of the Division of Apprenticeship Standards may be paid at least the applicable apprentice prevailing rate. (III) Except as provided in subclause (V), all contractors and subcontractors shall maintain and verify payroll records pursuant to Section 1776 of the Labor Code and make those records available for inspection and copying as provided therein. (IV) Except as provided in subclause (V), the obligation of the contractors and subcontractors to pay prevailing wages may be enforced by the Labor Commissioner through the issuance of a civil wage and penalty assessment pursuant to Section 1741 of the Labor Code, which may be reviewed pursuant to Section 1742 of the Labor Code, within 18 months after the completion of the development, by an underpaid worker through an administrative complaint or civil action, or by a joint labor-management committee through a civil action under Section 1771.2 of the Labor Code. If a civil wage and penalty assessment is issued, the contractor, subcontractor, and surety on a bond or bonds issued to secure the payment of wages covered by the assessment shall be liable for liquidated damages pursuant to Section 1742.1 of the Labor Code. (V) Subclauses (III) and (IV) shall not apply if all contractors and subcontractors performing work on the development are subject to a project labor agreement that requires the payment of prevailing wages to all construction workers employed in the execution of the development and provides for enforcement of that obligation through an arbitration procedure. For purposes of this clause, “project labor agreement” has the same meaning as set forth in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 2500 of the Public Contract Code. 6 6 (VI) Notwithstanding subdivision (c) of Section 1773.1 of the Labor Code, the requirement that employer payments not reduce the obligation to pay the hourly straight time or overtime wages found to be prevailing shall not apply if otherwise provided in a bona fide collective bargaining agreement covering the worker. The requirement to pay at least the general prevailing rate of per diem wages does not preclude use of an alternative workweek schedule adopted pursuant to Section 511 or 514 of the Labor Code. (B) (i) For developments for which any of the following conditions apply, certified that a skilled and trained workforce shall be used to complete the development if the application is approved: (I) On and after January 1, 2018, until December 31, 2021, the development consists of 75 or more units with a residential component that is not 100 percent subsidized affordable housing and will be located within a jurisdiction located in a coastal or bay county with a population of 225,000 or more. (II) On and after January 1, 2022, until December 31, 2025, the development consists of 50 or more units with a residential component that is not 100 percent subsidized affordable housing and will be located within a jurisdiction located in a coastal or bay county with a population of 225,000 or more. (III) On and after January 1, 2018, until December 31, 2019, the development consists of 75 or more units with a residential component that is not 100 percent subsidized affordable housing and will be located within a jurisdiction with a population of fewer than 550,000 and that is not located in a coastal or bay county. (IV) On and after January 1, 2020, until December 31, 2021, the development consists of more than 50 units with a residential component that is not 100 percent subsidized affordable housing and will be located within a jurisdiction with a population of fewer than 550,000 and that is not located in a coastal or bay county. (V) On and after January 1, 2022, until December 31, 2025, the development consists of more than 25 units with a residential component that is not 100 percent subsidized affordable housing and will be located within a jurisdiction with a population of fewer than 550,000 and that is not located in a coastal or bay county. (ii) For purposes of this section, “skilled and trained workforce” has the same meaning as provided in Chapter 2.9 (commencing with Section 2600) of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Public Contract Code. (iii) If the development proponent has certified that a skilled and trained workforce will be used to complete the development and the application is approved, the following shall apply: (I) The applicant shall require in all contracts for the performance of work that every contractor and subcontractor at every tier will individually use a skilled and trained workforce to complete the development. (II) Every contractor and subcontractor shall use a skilled and trained workforce to complete the development. (III) Except as provided in subclause (IV), the applicant shall provide to the locality, on a monthly basis while the development or contract is being performed, a report demonstrating compliance with Chapter 2.9 (commencing with Section 2600) of Part 7 7 1 of Division 2 of the Public Contract Code. A monthly report provided to the locality pursuant to this subclause shall be a public record under the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of Title 1) and shall be open to public inspection. An applicant that fails to provide a monthly report demonstrating compliance with Chapter 2.9 (commencing with Section 2600) of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Public Contract Code shall be subject to a civil penalty of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per month for each month for which the report has not been provided.Any contractor or subcontractor that fails to use a skilled and trained workforce shall be subject to a civil penalty of two hundred dollars ($200) per day for each worker employed in contravention of the skilled and trained workforce requirement. Penalties may be assessed by the Labor Commissioner within 18 months of completion of the development using the same procedures for issuance of civil wage and penalty assessments pursuant to Section 1741 of the Labor Code, and may be reviewed pursuant to the same procedures in Section 1742 of the Labor Code. Penalties shall be paid to the State Public Works Enforcement Fund. (IV) Subclause (III) shall not apply if all contractors and subcontractors performing work on the development are subject to a project labor agreement that requires compliance with the skilled and trained workforce requirement and provides for enforcement of that obligation through an arbitration procedure. For purposes of this subparagraph, “project labor agreement” has the same meaning as set forth in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 2500 of the Public Contract Code. (C) Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A) and (B), a development that is subject to approval pursuant to this section is exempt from any requirement to pay prevailing wages or use a skilled and trained workforce if it meets both of the following: (i) The project includes 10 or fewer units. (ii) The project is not a public work for purposes of Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1720) of Part 7 of Division 2 of the Labor Code. (9) The development did not or does not involve a subdivision of a parcel that is, or, notwithstanding this section, would otherwise be, subject to the Subdivision Map Act (Division 2 (commencing with Section 66410)) or any other applicable law authorizing the subdivision of land, unless the development is consistent with all objective subdivision standards in the local subdivision ordinance, and either of the following apply: (A) The development has received or will receive financing or funding by means of a low-income housing tax credit and is subject to the requirement that prevailing wages be paid pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (8). (B) The development is subject to the requirement that prevailing wages be paid, and a skilled and trained workforce used, pursuant to paragraph (8). (10) The development shall not be upon an existing parcel of land or site that is governed under the Mobilehome Residency Law (Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section 798) of Title 2 of Part 2 of Division 2 of the Civil Code), the Recreational Vehicle Park Occupancy Law (Chapter 2.6 (commencing with Section 799.20) of Title 2 of Part 2 of Division 2 of the Civil Code), the Mobilehome Parks Act (Part 2.1 (commencing with Section 18200) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code), 8 8 or the Special Occupancy Parks Act (Part 2.3 (commencing with Section 18860) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code). (b) (1) (A) (i) Before submitting an application for a development subject to the streamlined, ministerial approval process described in subdivision (c), the development proponent shall submit to the local government a notice of its intent to submit an application. The notice of intent shall be in the form of a preliminary application that includes all of the information described in Section 65941.1, as that section read on January 1, 2020. (ii) Upon receipt of a notice of intent to submit an application described in clause (i), the local government shall engage in a scoping consultation regarding the proposed development with any California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area, as described in Section 21080.3.1 of the Public Resources Code, of the proposed development. In order to expedite compliance with this subdivision, the local government shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission for assistance in identifying any California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed development. (iii) The timeline for noticing and commencing a scoping consultation in accordance with this subdivision shall be as follows: (I) The local government shall provide a formal notice of a development proponent’s notice of intent to submit an application described in clause (i) to each California NativeAmerican tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed development within 30 days of receiving that notice of intent. The formal notice provided pursuant to this subclause shall include all of the following: (ia) A description of the proposed development. (ib) The location of the proposed development. (ic) An invitation to engage in a scoping consultation in accordance with this subdivision. (II) Each California Native American tribe that receives a formal notice pursuant to this clause shall have 30 days from the receipt of that notice to accept the invitation to engage in a scoping consultation. (III) If the local government receives a response accepting an invitation to engage in a scoping consultation pursuant to this subdivision, the local government shall commence the scoping consultation within 30 days of receiving that response. (B) The scoping consultation shall recognize that California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with a geographic area have knowledge and expertise concerning the resources at issue and shall take into account the cultural significance of the resource to the culturally affiliated California Native American tribe. (C) The parties to a scoping consultation conducted pursuant to this subdivision shall be the local government and any California NativeAmerican tribe traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed development. More than one California NativeAmerican tribe traditionally and culturally affiliated with 9 9 the geographic area of the proposed development may participate in the scoping consultation. However, the local government, upon the request of any California NativeAmerican tribe traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed development, shall engage in a separate scoping consultation with that California NativeAmerican tribe. The development proponent and its consultants may participate in a scoping consultation process conducted pursuant to this subdivision if all of the following conditions are met: (i) The development proponent and its consultants agree to respect the principles set forth in this subdivision. (ii) The development proponent and its consultants engage in the scoping consultation in good faith. (iii) The California NativeAmerican tribe participating in the scoping consultation approves the participation of the development proponent and its consultants. The California Native American tribe may rescind its approval at any time during the scoping consultation, either for the duration of the scoping consultation or with respect to any particular meeting or discussion held as part of the scoping consultation. (D) The participants to a scoping consultation pursuant to this subdivision shall comply with all of the following confidentiality requirements: (i) Subdivision (r) of Section 6254. (ii) Section 6254.10. (iii) Subdivision (c) of Section 21082.3 of the Public Resources Code. (iv) Subdivision (d) of Section 15120 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. (v) Any additional confidentiality standards adopted by the California Native American tribe participating in the scoping consultation. (E) The California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) shall not apply to a scoping consultation conducted pursuant to this subdivision. (2) (A) If, after concluding the scoping consultation, the parties find that no potential tribal cultural resource would be affected by the proposed development, the development proponent may submit an application for the proposed development that is subject to the streamlined, ministerial approval process described in subdivision (c). (B) If, after concluding the scoping consultation, the parties find that a potential tribal cultural resource could be affected by the proposed development and an enforceable agreement is documented between the California NativeAmerican tribe and the local government on methods, measures, and conditions for tribal cultural resource treatment, the development proponent may submit the application for a development subject to the streamlined, ministerial approval process described in subdivision (c). The local government shall ensure that the enforceable agreement is included in the requirements and conditions for the proposed development. (C) If, after concluding the scoping consultation, the parties find that a potential tribal cultural resource could be affected by the proposed development and an enforceable agreement is not documented between the California Native American 10 10 tribe and the local government regarding methods, measures, and conditions for tribal cultural resource treatment, the development shall not be eligible for the streamlined, ministerial approval process described in subdivision (c). (D) For purposes of this paragraph, a scoping consultation shall be deemed to be concluded if either of the following occur: (i) The parties to the scoping consultation document an enforceable agreement concerning methods, measures, and conditions to avoid or address potential impacts to tribal cultural resources that are or may be present. (ii) One or more parties to the scoping consultation, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, conclude that a mutual agreement on methods, measures, and conditions to avoid or address impacts to tribal cultural resources that are or may be present cannot be reached. (E) If the development or environmental setting substantially changes after the completion of the scoping consultation, the local government shall notify the California NativeAmerican tribe of the changes and engage in a subsequent scoping consultation if requested by the California NativeAmerican tribe. (3) A local government may only accept an application for streamlined, ministerial approval pursuant to this section if one of the following applies: (A) A California Native American tribe that received a formal notice of the development proponent’s notice of intent to submit an application pursuant to subclause (I) of clause (iii) of subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) did not accept the invitation to engage in a scoping consultation. (B) The California Native American tribe accepted an invitation to engage in a scoping consultation pursuant to subclause (II) of clause (iii) of subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) but substantially failed to engage in the scoping consultation after repeated documented attempts by the local government to engage the California Native American tribe. (C) The parties to a scoping consultation pursuant to this subdivision find that no potential tribal cultural resource will be affected by the proposed development pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2). (D) A scoping consultation between a California Native American tribe and the local government has occurred in accordance with this subdivision and resulted in agreement pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2). (4) A project shall not be eligible for the streamlined, ministerial process described in subdivision (c) if any of the following apply: (A) There is a tribal cultural resource that is on a national, state, tribal, or local historic register list located on the site of the project. (B) There is a potential tribal cultural resource that could be affected by the proposed development and the parties to a scoping consultation conducted pursuant to this subdivision do not document an enforceable agreement on methods, measures, and conditions for tribal cultural resource treatment, as described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2). 11 11 (C) The parties to a scoping consultation conducted pursuant to this subdivision do not agree as to whether a potential tribal cultural resource will be affected by the proposed development. (5) (A) If, after a scoping consultation conducted pursuant to this subdivision, a project is not eligible for the streamlined, ministerial process described in subdivision (c) for any or all of the following reasons, the local government shall provide written documentation of that fact, and an explanation of the reason for which the project is not eligible, to the development proponent and to any California Native American tribe that is a party to that scoping consultation: (i) There is a tribal cultural resource that is on a national, state, tribal, or local historic register list located on the site of the project, as described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (4). (ii) The parties to the scoping consultation have not documented an enforceable agreement on methods, measures, and conditions for tribal cultural resource treatment, as described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) and subparagraph (B) of paragraph (4). (iii) The parties to the scoping consultation do not agree as to whether a potential tribal cultural resource will be affected by the proposed development, as described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (4). (B) The written documentation provided to a development proponent pursuant to this paragraph shall include information on how the development proponent may seek a conditional use permit or other discretionary approval of the development from the local government. (6) This section is not intended, and shall not be construed, to limit consultation and discussion between a local government and a California Native American tribe pursuant to other applicable law, confidentiality provisions under other applicable law, the protection of religious exercise to the fullest extent permitted under state and federal law, or the ability of a California NativeAmerican tribe to submit information to the local government or participate in any process of the local government. (7) For purposes of this subdivision: (A) “Consultation” means the meaningful and timely process of seeking, discussing, and considering carefully the views of others, in a manner that is cognizant of all parties’ cultural values and, where feasible, seeking agreement. Consultation between local governments and Native American tribes shall be conducted in a way that is mutually respectful of each party’s sovereignty. Consultation shall also recognize the tribes’ potential needs for confidentiality with respect to places that have traditional tribal cultural importance. A lead agency shall consult the tribal consultation best practices described in the “State of California Tribal Consultation Guidelines: Supplement to the General Plan Guidelines” prepared by the Office of Planning and Research. (B) “Scoping” means the act of participating in early discussions or investigations between the local government and California Native American tribe, and the development proponent if authorized by the California Native American tribe, regarding the potential effects a proposed development could have on a potential 12 12 tribal cultural resource, as defined in Section 21074 of the Public Resources Code, or California Native American tribe, as defined in Section 21073 of the Public Resources Code. (8) This subdivision shall not apply to any project that has been approved under the streamlined, ministerial approval process provided under this section before the effective date of the act adding this subdivision. (c) (1) If a local government determines that a development submitted pursuant to this section is in conflict with any of the objective planning standards specified in subdivision (a), it shall provide the development proponent written documentation of which standard or standards the development conflicts with, and an explanation for the reason or reasons the development conflicts with that standard or standards, as follows: (A) Within 60 days of submittal of the development to the local government pursuant to this section if the development contains 150 or fewer housing units. (B) Within 90 days of submittal of the development to the local government pursuant to this section if the development contains more than 150 housing units. (2) If the local government fails to provide the required documentation pursuant to paragraph (1), the development shall be deemed to satisfy the objective planning standards specified in subdivision (a). (3) For purposes of this section, a development is consistent with the objective planning standards specified in subdivision (a) if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the development is consistent with the objective planning standards. (d) (1) Any design review or public oversight of the development may be conducted by the local government’s planning commission or any equivalent board or commission responsible for review and approval of development projects, or the city council or board of supervisors, as appropriate. That design review or public oversight shall be objective and be strictly focused on assessing compliance with criteria required for streamlined projects, as well as any reasonable objective design standards published and adopted by ordinance or resolution by a local jurisdiction before submission of a development application, and shall be broadly applicable to development within the jurisdiction. That design review or public oversight shall be completed as follows and shall not in any way inhibit, chill, or preclude the ministerial approval provided by this section or its effect, as applicable: (A) Within 90 days of submittal of the development to the local government pursuant to this section if the development contains 150 or fewer housing units. (B) Within 180 days of submittal of the development to the local government pursuant to this section if the development contains more than 150 housing units. (2) If the development is consistent with the requirements of subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (9) of subdivision (a) and is consistent with all objective subdivision standards in the local subdivision ordinance, an application for a subdivision pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act (Division 2 (commencing with Section 66410)) shall be exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 13 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) and shall be subject to the public oversight timelines set forth in paragraph (1). (e) (1) Notwithstanding any other law, a local government, whether or not it has adopted an ordinance governing automobile parking requirements in multifamily developments, shall not impose automobile parking standards for a streamlined development that was approved pursuant to this section in any of the following instances: (A) The development is located within one-half mile of public transit. (B) The development is located within an architecturally and historically significant historic district. (C) When on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupants of the development. (D) When there is a car share vehicle located within one block of the development. (2) If the development does not fall within any of the categories described in paragraph (1), the local government shall not impose automobile parking requirements for streamlined developments approved pursuant to this section that exceed one parking space per unit. (f) (1) If a local government approves a development pursuant to this section, then, notwithstanding any other law, that approval shall not expire if the project satisfies both of the following requirements: (A) The project includes public investment in housing affordability, beyond tax credits. (B) At least 50 percent of the units are affordable to households making at or below 80 percent of the area median income. (2) (A) If a local government approves a development pursuant to this section, and the project does not satisfy the requirements of subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1), that approval shall remain valid for three years from the date of the final action establishing that approval, or if litigation is filed challenging that approval, from the date of the final judgment upholding that approval. Approval shall remain valid for a project provided construction activity, including demolition and grading activity, on the development site has begun pursuant to a permit issued by the local jurisdiction and is in progress. For purposes of this subdivision, “in progress” means one of the following: (i) The construction has begun and has not ceased for more than 180 days. (ii) If the development requires multiple building permits, an initial phase has been completed, and the project proponent has applied for and is diligently pursuing a building permit for a subsequent phase, provided that once it has been issued, the building permit for the subsequent phase does not lapse. (B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), a local government may grant a project a one-time, one-year extension if the project proponent can provide documentation that there has been significant progress toward getting the development construction ready, such as filing a building permit application. (3) If the development proponent requests a modification pursuant to subdivision (g), then the time during which the approval shall remain valid shall be extended for 14 14 the number of days between the submittal of a modification request and the date of its final approval, plus an additional 180 days to allow time to obtain a building permit. If litigation is filed relating to the modification request, the time shall be further extended during the pendency of the litigation. The extension required by this paragraph shall only apply to the first request for a modification submitted by the development proponent. (4) The amendments made to this subdivision by the act that added this paragraph shall also be retroactively applied to developments approved prior to January 1, 2022. (g) (1) (A) A development proponent may request a modification to a development that has been approved under the streamlined, ministerial approval process provided in subdivision (c) if that request is submitted to the local government before the issuance of the final building permit required for construction of the development. (B) Except as provided in paragraph (3), the local government shall approve a modification if it determines that the modification is consistent with the objective planning standards specified in subdivision (a) that were in effect when the original development application was first submitted. (C) The local government shall evaluate any modifications requested pursuant to this subdivision for consistency with the objective planning standards using the same assumptions and analytical methodology that the local government originally used to assess consistency for the development that was approved for streamlined, ministerial approval pursuant to subdivision (c). (D) A guideline that was adopted or amended by the department pursuant to subdivision (l) after a development was approved through the streamlined, ministerial approval process described in subdivision (c) shall not be used as a basis to deny proposed modifications. (2) Upon receipt of the development proponent’s application requesting a modification, the local government shall determine if the requested modification is consistent with the objective planning standard and either approve or deny the modification request within 60 days after submission of the modification, or within 90 days if design review is required. (3) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the local government may apply objective planning standards adopted after the development application was first submitted to the requested modification in any of the following instances: (A) The development is revised such that the total number of residential units or total square footage of construction changes by 15 percent or more. The calculation of the square footage of construction changes shall not include underground space. (B) The development is revised such that the total number of residential units or total square footage of construction changes by 5 percent or more and it is necessary to subject the development to an objective standard beyond those in effect when the development application was submitted in order to mitigate or avoid a specific, adverse impact, as that term is defined in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (j) of Section 65589.5, upon the public health or safety and there is no feasible alternative method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact. The 15 15 calculation of the square footage of construction changes shall not include underground space. (C) (i) Objective building standards contained in the California Building Standards Code (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations), including, but not limited to, building plumbing, electrical, fire, and grading codes, may be applied to all modification applications that are submitted prior to the first building permit application. Those standards may be applied to modification applications submitted after the first building permit application if agreed to by the development proponent. (ii) The amendments made to clause (i) by the act that added clause (i) shall also be retroactively applied to modification applications submitted prior to January 1, 2022. (4) The local government’s review of a modification request pursuant to this subdivision shall be strictly limited to determining whether the modification, including any modification to previously approved density bonus concessions or waivers, modify the development’s consistency with the objective planning standards and shall not reconsider prior determinations that are not affected by the modification. (h) (1) A local government shall not adopt or impose any requirement, including, but not limited to, increased fees or inclusionary housing requirements, that applies to a project solely or partially on the basis that the project is eligible to receive ministerial or streamlined approval pursuant to this section. (2) (A) A local government shall issue a subsequent permit required for a development approved under this section if the application substantially complies with the development as it was approved pursuant to subdivision (c). Upon receipt of an application for a subsequent permit, the local government shall process the permit without unreasonable delay and shall not impose any procedure or requirement that is not imposed on projects that are not approved pursuant to this section. The local government shall consider the application for subsequent permits based upon the objective standards specified in any state or local laws that were in effect when the original development application was submitted, unless the development proponent agrees to a change in objective standards. Issuance of subsequent permits shall implement the approved development, and review of the permit application shall not inhibit, chill, or preclude the development. For purposes of this paragraph, a “subsequent permit” means a permit required subsequent to receiving approval under subdivision (c), and includes, but is not limited to, demolition, grading, encroachment, and building permits and final maps, if necessary. (B) The amendments made to subparagraph (A) by the act that added this subparagraph shall also be retroactively applied to subsequent permit applications submitted prior to January 1, 2022. (3) (A) If a public improvement is necessary to implement a development that is subject to the streamlined, ministerial approval pursuant to this section, including, but not limited to, a bicycle lane, sidewalk or walkway, public transit stop, driveway, street paving or overlay, a curb or gutter, a modified intersection, a street sign or street light, landscape or hardscape, an above-ground or underground utility connection, a water line, fire hydrant, storm or sanitary sewer connection, retaining wall, and any 16 16 related work, and that public improvement is located on land owned by the local government, to the extent that the public improvement requires approval from the local government, the local government shall not exercise its discretion over any approval relating to the public improvement in a manner that would inhibit, chill, or preclude the development. (B) If an application for a public improvement described in subparagraph (A) is submitted to a local government, the local government shall do all of the following: (i) Consider the application based upon any objective standards specified in any state or local laws that were in effect when the original development application was submitted. (ii) Conduct its review and approval in the same manner as it would evaluate the public improvement if required by a project that is not eligible to receive ministerial or streamlined approval pursuant to this section. (C) If an application for a public improvement described in subparagraph (A) is submitted to a local government, the local government shall not do either of the following: (i) Adopt or impose any requirement that applies to a project solely or partially on the basis that the project is eligible to receive ministerial or streamlined approval pursuant to this section. (ii) Unreasonably delay in its consideration, review, or approval of the application. (i) (1) This section shall not affect a development proponent’s ability to use any alternative streamlined by right permit processing adopted by a local government, including the provisions of subdivision (i) of Section 65583.2. (2) This section shall not prevent a development from also qualifying as a housing development project entitled to the protections of Section 65589.5. This paragraph does not constitute a change in, but is declaratory of, existing law. (j) The California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) does not apply to actions taken by a state agency, local government, or the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District to: (1) Lease, convey, or encumber land owned by the local government or the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District or to facilitate the lease, conveyance, or encumbrance of land owned by the local government, or for the lease of land owned by the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District in association with an eligible TOD project, as defined pursuant to Section 29010.1 of the Public Utilities Code, nor to any decisions associated with that lease, or to provide financial assistance to a development that receives streamlined approval pursuant to this section that is to be used for housing for persons and families of very low, low, or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code. (2) Approve improvements located on land owned by the local government or the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District that are necessary to implement a development that receives streamlined approval pursuant to this section that is to be used for housing for persons and families of very low, low, or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code. 17 17 (k) For purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings: (1) “Affordable housing cost” has the same meaning as set forth in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code. (2) (A) Subject to the qualification provided by subparagraph (B), “affordable rent” has the same meaning as set forth in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code. (B) For a development for which an application pursuant to this section was submitted prior to January 1, 2019, that includes 500 units or more of housing, and that dedicates 50 percent of the total number of units to housing affordable to households making at, or below, 80 percent of the area median income, affordable rent for at least 30 percent of these units shall be set at an affordable rent as defined in subparagraph (A) and “affordable rent” for the remainder of these units shall mean a rent that is consistent with the maximum rent levels for a housing development that receives an allocation of state or federal low-income housing tax credits from the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee. (3) “Department” means the Department of Housing and Community Development. (4) “Development proponent” means the developer who submits an application for streamlined approval pursuant to this section. (5) “Completed entitlements” means a housing development that has received all the required land use approvals or entitlements necessary for the issuance of a building permit. (6) “Locality” or “local government” means a city, including a charter city, a county, including a charter county, or a city and county, including a charter city and county. (7) “Moderate income housing units” means housing units with an affordable housing cost or affordable rent for persons and families of moderate income, as that term is defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code. (8) “Production report” means the information reported pursuant to subparagraph (H) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 65400. (9) “State agency” includes every state office, officer, department, division, bureau, board, and commission, but does not include the California State University or the University of California. (10) “Subsidized” means units that are price or rent restricted such that the units are affordable to households meeting the definitions of very low and lower income, as defined in Sections 50079.5 and 50105 of the Health and Safety Code. (11) “Reporting period” means either of the following: (A) The first half of the regional housing needs assessment cycle. (B) The last half of the regional housing needs assessment cycle. (12) “Urban uses” means any current or former residential, commercial, public institutional, transit or transportation passenger facility, or retail use, or any combination of those uses. (l) The department may review, adopt, amend, and repeal guidelines to implement uniform standards or criteria that supplement or clarify the terms, references, or standards set forth in this section. Any guidelines or terms adopted pursuant to this 18 18 subdivision shall not be subject to Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code. (m) The determination of whether an application for a development is subject to the streamlined ministerial approval process provided by subdivision (c) is not a “project” as defined in Section 21065 of the Public Resources Code. (n) It is the policy of the state that this section be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, increased housing supply. (o) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2026, and as of that date is repealed. (Amended by Stats. 2021, Ch. 160, Sec. 1. (AB 1174) Effective September 16, 2021. Repealed as of January 1, 2026, by its own provisions. ) 19 19 From:Emi Sugiyama To:City Clerk Subject:FW: 10857 Linda Vista Drive - 3rd Party Plan Review of Fire Hazard Zone Requirements Date:Tuesday, March 17, 2026 3:04:11 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png image005.png Linda Vista - Drawing Review Letter - 20260317.pdf Hello, Please include this email and attachment as part of the written communications for Item #12 of tonight’s City Council meeting. Emi Sugiyama Senior Planner Community Development EmiS@cupertino.gov (408)777-3205 From: Lin, Austin <ALin@shhomes.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2026 2:24 PM To: Emi Sugiyama <emis@cupertino.gov> Cc: Ebrahimi, Kevin <KEbrahimi@shhomes.com>; Bull, Steve <SBull@shhomes.com> Subject: RE: 10857 Linda Vista Drive - 3rd Party Plan Review of Fire Hazard Zone Requirements 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 Emi, Please see attached for the updated review letter that added an additional code citation regarding the defensible space regulations. Thank you, Austin Lin, PE Development Manager SummerHill Homes Direct (510) 330-3064 | Mobile (408) 966-2278 | ✉️ alin@shhomes.com www.summerhillhomes.com 6101 Bollinger Canyon Road, Suite 425, San Ramon, CA 94583 Follow Us: All subject matter contained in this email is confidential and proprietary to SummerHill Homes LLC and should not be disclosed to any person not listed as an original recipient. SummerHill Homes LLC. All rights reserved. From: Lin, Austin Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2026 2:10 PM To: Emi Sugiyama <emis@cupertino.gov> Cc: Ebrahimi, Kevin <KEbrahimi@shhomes.com>; Bull, Steve <SBull@shhomes.com> Subject: 10857 Linda Vista Drive - 3rd Party Plan Review of Fire Hazard Zone Requirements Hi Emi, We commissioned a 3rd party fire consultant to conduct a comprehensive review of the 10857 Linda Vista Drive plans for compliance with Fire Hazard Severity Zone Requirements. Please see attached for their review letter. Thank you, Austin Lin, PE Development Manager SummerHill Homes Direct (510) 330-3064 | Mobile (408) 966-2278 | ✉️ alin@shhomes.com www.summerhillhomes.com 6101 Bollinger Canyon Road, Suite 425, San Ramon, CA 94583 Follow Us: All subject matter contained in this email is confidential and proprietary to SummerHill Homes LLC and should not be disclosed to any person not listed as an original recipient. SummerHill Homes LLC. All rights reserved. jensenhughes.com Copyright ©2026 Jensen Hughes, Inc. All Rights Reserved. T0123 March 17, 2026 Steve Bull SummerHill Homes 6101 Bollinger Canyon Road, Suite 425, San Ramon, CA 94583 RE: Plan Review – Fire Hazard Severity Zone Requirements 10857 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, CA 95014 Dear Steve: This letter confirms Jensen Hughes’ review of the combined plan set for the above referenced project based on the 2022 California Building Code (CBC), 2022 California Residential Code (CRC), and 2022 California Fire Code, as amended by the City of Cupertino and the Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD). This review is based on the combined plan set dated January 12, 2026. This evaluation is limited to code sections related to structural hardening and defensible space requirements for wildfire risk reduction, including CBC Chapter 7A and CFC Chapter 49, which details the defensible space regulations applicable to this property as required by Public Resources Code 4290. Based on the Combined Plan Set provided to Jensen Hughes on March 13th, 2026, the plans appear to be in compliance with the relevant wildfire requirements and the approved Alternative Means and Methods Report (dated January 7th, 2026). This review does not state or imply that the submittal is approved or disapproved by the City of Cupertino or Santa Clara County Fire Department. Information not presented in the submitted drawings or contained in the supporting materials are not part of this review. This review does not imply that compliance with relevant codes and standards eliminates all hazards and risks. Sincerely, Jensen Hughes B.Amelia Pludow, PhD Wildfire Risk Mitigation Consultant From:Emi Sugiyama To:City Clerk Subject:FW: Linda Vista - AB130/Fault Zone Clarification Date:Tuesday, March 17, 2026 2:55:38 PM Attachments:image001.png 25712000001_2026-03-17_10857 Linda Vista Drive SB 130 Fault Zone Clarification.pdf Hello, Please include this email and attachment as a written communication for Item #12 of tonight’s City Council meeting. Emi Sugiyama Senior Planner Community Development EmiS@cupertino.gov (408)777-3205 From: Bull, Steve <SBull@shhomes.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2026 2:04 PM To: Emi Sugiyama <emis@cupertino.gov> Cc: Lin, Austin <ALin@shhomes.com>; Ebrahimi, Kevin <KEbrahimi@shhomes.com> Subject: Linda Vista - AB130/Fault Zone Clarification 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. Emi - In response to one of the questions noted in “written communications”, please find the attached letter from the project Soils Engineer confirming that the project is NOT located within a State mapped Fault Hazard Zone. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Steve Steven Bull Vice President of Development SummerHill Homes 6101 Bollinger Canyon Road, Suite 425, San Ramon, CA 94583 Mobile (510) 410-1188 sbull@shhomes.com / SummerHillHomes.com All subject matter contained in this email is confidential and proprietary to SummerHill Homes/SummerHill Apartment Communities and should not be disclosed to any person not listed as an original recipient. SummerHill Homes/ SummerHill Apartment Communities. All rights reserved. GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL WATER RESOURCES CONSTRUCTION SERVICES COASTAL/MARINE GEOTECHNICS 2633 Camino Ramon, Suite 250 San Ramon, CA 94583 (925) 866-9000 info@engeo.com www.engeo.com Project No. 25712.000.001 March 17, 2026 Mr. Kevin Ebrahimi SummerHill Homes 777 S. California Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94304 Subject: 10857 Linda Vista Drive Cupertino, California CLARIFICATION LETTER REGARDING ASSEMBLY BILL (AB) 130 IN RELATION TOMAPPED FAULT ZONES Dear Mr. Ebrahimi: This letter is to clarify our opinion regarding site eligibility regarding Assembly Bill (AB) 130 of 2026 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption related to seismic fault hazards. Based on our site-specific geologic investigation and a review of the applicable statutory language, we opine that the project meets eligibility criteria for the following reasons. •AB 130 (codified in PRC §21080.66) excludes projects from streamlining only if they are located within a "delineated earthquake fault zone as determined by the State Geologist." Per the California Geological Survey (CGS) Official Maps, the subject property is not located within a State-delineated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. While the property is situated within a Santa Clara County Fault Hazard Zone, such local designations are not "determined by the State Geologist" and therefore do not trigger the statutory disqualification under AB 130. •We performed comprehensive subsurface fault exploration at the property. This exploration included the excavation and detailed logging of three exploratory fault trenches. Our investigation found no evidence of surface fault rupture within the trenches across the project site and our study found no evidence to suggest the Monte Vista-Shannon Fault is present at the site. This site-specific data confirms that the local County zoning is not indicative of an actual surface rupture hazard on this parcel. Our findings have undergone formal peer review by the City of Cupertino’s designated geologic consultant. The City’s peer reviewer has concurred with our conclusions that no evidence of faulting was encountered within the exploratory trenches at the site. We strive to perform our professional services in accordance with generally accepted principles and practices currently employed in the area; there is no warranty, express or implied. If you have any questions or comments regarding this letter, please call and we will be glad to discuss them with you. Sincerely, ENGEO Incorporated J. Brooks Ramsdell, CEG Theodore P. Bayham, GE, CEG Principal Principal jbr/tpb/jg From:Emi Sugiyama To:City Clerk Subject:FW: Linda Vista / Requirements for Projects in VHFHSZ and AB130 Date:Tuesday, March 17, 2026 3:10:17 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png image005.png image006.png image007.png Saratoga_AB 130 checklist, 1-27-26 (web).pdf GOV_65913.4.-a6B-K.pdf Please ensure that this is included in the Written Communications for Item #12 and forwarded to Councilmembers as needed. -Emi Emi Sugiyama Senior Planner Community Development EmiS@cupertino.gov (408)777-3205 From: Lin, Austin <ALin@shhomes.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2026 3:06 PM To: Emi Sugiyama <emis@cupertino.gov>; City Clerk <cityclerk@cupertino.gov> Cc: Ebrahimi, Kevin <KEbrahimi@shhomes.com>; Bull, Steve <SBull@shhomes.com> Subject: Linda Vista / Requirements for Projects in VHFHSZ and AB130 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. Hello Emi, This email is in response to the email sent by Rhoda Fry on March 16, 2026, in which she states that other municipalities do not allow projects in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones to utilize AB130. Ms. Fry provided links to other municipalities' AB130 checklists. I've attached Saratoga's as an example. The checklists are based on the State's requirements under AB130, and while they do not provide complete details on certain exceptions to the qualifying site conditions allowed under State law, they do reference the relevant state code section, in particular paragraph (6) of subdivision (a) of section 65913.4. See the highlighted section below from the Saratoga Checklist. Also attached is California Government Code 65913.4, with the appurtenant section highlighted. Subsection D, as shown further below does state that disqualification for projects in a VHFHSZ would not apply if: (i) sites are excluded from the specified hazard zones by a local agency, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 51179, or (ii) sites that have adopted fire hazard mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards or state fire mitigation measures applicable to the development. See green highlighted section below. As you are aware, we have adopted the necessary mitigation measures required to maintain our qualification for AB130, which have been reviewed and agreed upon by the Fire Department. Please let me know if you have any further questions on this matter. FROM SARATOGA AB130 CHECKLIST: Subsection D from California Government Code 65913.4(a)(6): Regards, From:Emi Sugiyama To:City Clerk Subject:FW: 10857 Linda Vista Drive - Informational Evacuation Analysis Submittal Date:Tuesday, March 17, 2026 2:46:03 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png image005.png 10857LindaVista_Evacuation_Analysis_2026-2-26.pdf Hello, Please include this email and attachment as a written communication for Item #12 of tonight’s City Council meeting. Emi Sugiyama Senior Planner Community Development EmiS@cupertino.gov (408)777-3205 From: Emi Sugiyama Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2026 2:16 PM To: 'Lin, Austin' <ALin@shhomes.com> Cc: Bull, Steve <SBull@shhomes.com>; Ebrahimi, Kevin <KEbrahimi@shhomes.com> Subject: RE: 10857 Linda Vista Drive - Informational Evacuation Analysis Submittal Thank you for sending this over. I will forward this along to our City Clerk for inclusion in the public record. Please note that this study is not considered part of the project’s application materials and was prepared without City input in scope of work or otherwise. It does not include City review of the final product, including the City’s third-party peer review process. -Emi Emi Sugiyama Senior Planner Community Development EmiS@cupertino.gov (408)777-3205 From: Lin, Austin <ALin@shhomes.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2026 1:50 PM To: Emi Sugiyama <emis@cupertino.gov> Cc: Bull, Steve <SBull@shhomes.com>; Ebrahimi, Kevin <KEbrahimi@shhomes.com> Subject: 10857 Linda Vista Drive - Informational Evacuation Analysis Submittal 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: 10857 Linda Vista Drive – Informational Evacuation Analysis Submittal Dear Emi: In advance of this evening’s hearing, the applicant is submitting the attached memorandum titled Evacuation Analysis for the Proposed Townhomes at 10857 Linda Vista Drive, prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. This analysis is a voluntary, non-CEQA, informational assessment prepared at the request of the applicant for internal purposes to evaluate the project’s incremental contribution to evacuation conditions within the broader neighborhood context. We would like to clarify the context of this document and address recent public comments suggesting that an evacuation study was prepared and withheld. As reflected in the City’s staff report, the City of Cupertino does not have an adopted requirement or objective standard requiring a project-specific evacuation study, and no such study was required for this application. The project has been reviewed and found compliant with all applicable State fire safety requirements for development within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. During the course of community outreach, a neighbor submitted an independent evacuation analysis raising questions about evacuation conditions in the area. In order to better understand the assumptions and conclusions presented in that analysis, and for our own internal planning purposes, the applicant voluntarily requested that the traffic consultant who prepared the project traffic analysis conduct a technical evaluation of evacuation conditions. This evaluation was prepared for internal informational purposes only and to assist the applicant team in understanding the issues raised in light of community concerns. At the time of earlier meetings referenced by some commenters, this analysis had not yet been finalized, and no report was submitted to the City nor Fire Department because it was not required as part of the application. The attached memorandum was subsequently completed on February 26, 2026. The findings of the analysis indicate that the project represents a small share of overall evacuation demand and would result in a minimal increase in estimated evacuation time, approximately two minutes, when compared to existing conditions. Although not required, the applicant is providing this memorandum at this time in the interest of transparency. Sincerely, Austin Lin, PE Development Manager SummerHill Homes Direct (510) 330-3064 | Mobile (408) 966-2278 | ✉️ alin@shhomes.com www.summerhillhomes.com 6101 Bollinger Canyon Road, Suite 425, San Ramon, CA 94583 Follow Us: All subject matter contained in this email is confidential and proprietary to SummerHill Homes LLC and should not be disclosed to any person not listed as an original recipient. SummerHill Homes LLC. All rights reserved. Memorandum Date: February 26, 2026 To: Mr. Steve Bull, Summerhill Homes From: Shu hao (Ollie) Zhou, T.E. Huy Tran, T.E. Subject: Evacuation Analysis for the Proposed Townhomes at 10857 Linda Vista Drive in Cupertino, CA Introduction Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. has completed an evacuation analysis for the proposed townhomes located at 10857 Linda Vista Drive in Cupertino, California. The project would demolish four existing single-family homes on-site and construct 51 townhomes, resulting in a net increase of 47 residential units. Figure 1 illustrates the project site location in relation to the surrounding roadway network. The purpose of this memorandum is to assess whether the proposed project may affect emergency evacuation conditions in the surrounding hillside neighborhood during a hypothetical wildfire event. Scope of the Study This evacuation evaluation is a non-CEQA technical assessment prepared to address community concerns regarding the proposed project’s potential effects on emergency evacuation operations in the Cupertino foothills. The analysis is not required by the City of Cupertino and is intended to provide an informational review of how the project would integrate with existing neighborhood circulation and evacuation routes during a hypothetical wildfire event. The study defines a reasonable evacuation area based on proximity to the project site and the most likely travel paths connecting the neighborhood to the surrounding collector, arterial, and freeway roadway networks. The evaluation focuses on the project’s contribution to overall evacuation demand and evacuation time within this area during an emergency wildfire evacuation. Background (Housing Element Environmental Assessment) Wildfire hazards, emergency access, and evacuation planning were evaluated by the City of Cupertino as part of the 2023-2031 Housing Element Environmental Assessment (EA). The Housing Element EA concluded that implementation of the Housing Element would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. 10857 Linda Vista Drive Evacuation Analysis February 26, 2026 P a g e | 2 Figure 1 Project Site Location, Evacuation Area, Routes, and Critical Intersection i s t i n g e s i d e n t i a l n i t s i s t i n g e s i d e n t i a l n i t s = Project Site Location = Bubb Rd/McClellan Rd Intersection = Evacuation Route = Evacuation Area Rainbow DrRainbow Dr McClellan RdMcClellan Rd Bubb Rd Bubb Rd Stevens Creek BlvdStevens Creek Blvd F o o t h il l B l v d F o o t h il l B l v d Stevens Creek Stevens Creek Terrace DrTerrace Dr 10857 Linda Vista Drive Evacuation Analysis February 26, 2026 P a g e | 3 Study Limitations This memorandum provides a high-level evaluation of potential evacuation circulation conditions under a hypothetical wildfire scenario. No detailed traffic modeling or fire behavior simulations were conducted. Instead, this analysis qualitatively assesses the project’s relative contribution to overall evacuation demand based on available data, reasonable assumptions, and expected evacuation behavior. Evacuation Scenario This evaluation assumes a hypothetical wildfire scenario, presumed to be coming from the Cupertino foothills. There are many different types of emergencies that could require evacuation, and there are other emergencies that could require shelter in place. The wildfire scenario is picked as one of the common emergencies experienced in California requiring evacuations. It is expected that residents would be receiving their emergency evacuation orders from AlertSCC, Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA), City of Cupertino website and social media channels, or other sources. • AlertSCC: Santa Clara County’s official emergency alert system that provides notifications via text message, email, and voice call. • Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA): A federal alert system that automatically sends notifications to all cell phones within the affected geographic area. • City of Cupertino Website and Social Media Channels: The City supplements official alerts with real-time updates on its website and verified social media platforms. Evacuation Routes and Area The City of Cupertino has identified Foothill Boulevard, Stevens Creek Boulevard, McClellan Road, and Bubb Road as evacuation routes serving the project area, per the City of Cupertino Housing Element Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Per the City’s General Plan Mobility Chapter, Foothill Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard are designated arterial roadways, while McClellan Road and Bubb Road are designated major collectors that provide connections between local neighborhoods and the regional roadway system. In the project vicinity, evacuation traffic is generally expected to access the regional roadway system via one of three routes, depending on location: the Bubb Road/McClellan Road signalized intersection, the Foothill Boulevard/Stevens Creek Boulevard signalized intersection, or Rainbow Drive. For the evacuation area that includes the project site, as shown in Figure 1, residents would most likely evacuate via the Bubb Road/McClellan Road signalized intersection. Therefore, this intersection was identified as the sole critical evacuation outlet evaluated in this analysis. Residents located along Foothill Boulevard, west of Stevens Creek (the creek) and south of Stevens Creek Boulevard, would evacuate via the Foothill Boulevard/Stevens Creek Boulevard signalized intersection. Residents located south of Terrace Drive were assumed to evacuate via Rainbow Drive. Neither of these areas would utilize the Bubb Road/McClellan Road signalized intersection; therefore, these areas were excluded from the project evacuation area. Based on these routing assumptions, the evacuation area was defined to include the homes and neighborhoods most likely to evacuate via the Bubb Road/McClellan Road signalized intersection during a wildfire evacuation (see Figure 1). The evacuation area includes the project site and adjacent 10857 Linda Vista Drive Evacuation Analysis February 26, 2026 P a g e | 4 residential neighborhoods and is generally bounded by Almaden Avenue to the north, the Union Pacific Railroad tracks to the east, Terrace Drive to the south, and Stevens Creek (the creek) to the west. The defined evacuation area contains 1,324 existing residential units (see Figure 1) and is predominantly residential in land use. A worst-case scenario in terms of evacuation traffic generation would occur when all the residents are at home instead of at work/school or other activities during the day. Therefore, the effect of the other land uses such as school, fitness clubs, and small commercial uses are not considered as part of this analysis. Project Contribution The proposed project consists of 47 net additional residential units located within an evacuation area containing 1,324 e isting residential units. Therefore the project’s share of total evacuation demand represents approximately 3.6% of the overall evacuation traffic expected to use these routes. It should be noted that not everyone would evacuate at the exact same time, and the duration can sometimes span over the course of hours. Therefore, given this minimal increase, the project would not significantly affect evacuation traffic volumes or conditions for this evacuation area when compared to existing conditions. Evacuation Time Analysis Evacuation times were estimated using a planning-level, capacity-based approach that evaluates traffic flow through the critical Bubb Road/McClellan Road signalized intersection serving the evacuation area. Under Existing conditions, evacuation demand is estimated at approximately 2,648 vehicles, based on an assumption of 2.0 evacuation vehicles per household. Under Existing Plus Project conditions, the proposed project would add approximately 94 evacuation vehicles, resulting in a total evacuation demand of approximately 2,742 vehicles. Evacuation capacity was estimated using a conservative saturation flow rate of 900 vehicles per hour per lane at the critical signalized intersection identified above. Under emergency operations, outbound traffic in the evacuation area would use the eastbound left-turn, eastbound through, and northbound through lanes at the Bubb Road/McClellan Road intersection. These three lanes would provide a combined evacuation capacity of approximately 2,700 vehicles per hour (vph). Based on the estimated evacuation demand and available capacity, evacuation time is approximately 59 minutes under Existing conditions and would increase to approximately 61 minutes under Existing Plus Project conditions (see Table 1). This represents an increase of approximately two minutes and would not significantly affect evacuation operations when compared to existing conditions. Sensitivity Analysis A sensitivity analysis was conducted to compare evacuation demand and evacuation times for the proposed project with a theoretical residential development consistent with existing R-1 zoning. Under a theoretical R-1 zoning scenario, the project site would include 11 residential units within an evacuation area containing 1,324 existing residential units, representing approximately 0.8% of total evacuation demand. As discussed above, the proposed project represents approximately 3.6% of total evacuation demand within the defined evacuation area. The difference in evacuation demand between the two scenarios is minimal. 10857 Linda Vista Drive Evacuation Analysis February 26, 2026 P a g e | 5 Table 1 Estimated Evacuation Times for the Evacuation Area For evacuation time, the R-1 zoning scenario would generate approximately 22 evacuation vehicles, which, when added to the existing evacuation demand of approximately 2,648 vehicles, would result in a total evacuation demand of approximately 2,670 vehicles. When evaluated against an evacuation capacity of approximately 2,700 vehicles per hour, the estimated evacuation time would be the same as existing conditions at approximately 59 minutes. As discussed above, the proposed project would result in an estimated evacuation time of approximately 61 minutes under Existing Plus Project conditions. The difference in evacuation time between the two scenarios would be minimal. Overall, differences in evacuation demand and evacuation times between the proposed project and the theoretical R-1 zoning scenario are minimal, and evacuation conditions would be generally comparable under both scenarios. Fire Prevention Features The proposed project includes fire access and protection features consistent with the requirements of the City of Cupertino and the Santa Clara County Fire Department. The site layout extends Linda Vista Drive to provide internal circulation for the 51 townhomes and incorporates the following fire safety design elements: • Emergency vehicle access that meets all applicable turning radius, width, and grade requirements. • A Fire Department-approved hammerhead turnaround at the end of the private street. • Driveway and street designs that comply with California Fire Code standards for slope and emergency response clearance. The proposed street network satisfies the City’s emergency access requirements and the hammerhead turnaround design has been reviewed and approved by the Fire Department. Since the project is identified as being located in a Local Responsibility Area (LRA) Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, the project will be compliant with the requirements of California Residential Code Section R337, Materials and Methods for Exterior Wildfire Exposure to enhance the buildings’ fire-resistance and reduce wildfire vulnerability. In addition, the project will also provide defensible spaces in accordance with Cal Fire Defensible Space Guidelines and Recommendations. Estimated Total Vehicles per Total Evacuation Evacuation Scenario Households Household 1 Vehicles Capacity (vph) 2 Time (mins) Existing 1,324 2.0 2,648 2,700 59 Proposed Project (Net)47 2.0 94 ---- Existing Plus Project 1,371 2.0 2,742 2,700 61 Notes: 1 Based on the City of Seaside Evacuation Study dated December 12, 2022 prepared by Hexagon and Rancho Cucamonga Evacuation Assessment dated October 26, 2021 prepared by Fehr & Peers. 2 Assumes 900 vehicles per hour per lane for for one eastbound left-turn lane, one eastbound through lane, and one northbound through lane at the Bubb Road/McClellan Road signalized intersection. 10857 Linda Vista Drive Evacuation Analysis February 26, 2026 P a g e | 6 Conclusion This evacuation evaluation is informational and does not constitute a formal CEQA analysis. The proposed project consists of adding 47 net residential units within an evacuation area containing 1,324 existing residential units. Project residents would use the same evacuation routes as surrounding neighborhoods, primarily McClellan Road and Bubb Road, which provide access to the critical Bubb Road/McClellan Road signalized intersection. The results of this evacuation analysis for a wildfire indicate the following: • The proposed project represents approximately 3.6% of the total evacuation traffic expected to use these routes. Given this minimal increase, the project would not significantly affect evacuation traffic volumes or conditions for this evacuation area when compared to existing conditions. • The evacuation time analysis indicates that the proposed project would increase overall evacuation time for the evacuation area by approximately two minutes compared to Existing conditions. This minimal increase would not significantly affect evacuation operations at the identified critical signalized intersection. • The proposed project and a theoretical R-1 zoning scenario would result in similar evacuation demand and evacuation times, with only a minor incremental change in evacuation operations under either scenario. From:Emi Sugiyama To:City Clerk Subject:FW: Linda Vista: 2 story units and applicable COA Date:Tuesday, March 17, 2026 3:41:33 PM Attachments:image002.png image003.png XB-046_SITE PLAN_2-STORY_10 SETBACK_2026-03-17.pdf Hello, Please include this email and attachment as part of the written communications for Item #12 of tonight’s City Council meeting and forward to Councilmembers. -Emi Emi Sugiyama Senior Planner Community Development EmiS@cupertino.gov (408)777-3205 From: Bull, Steve <SBull@shhomes.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2026 2:20 PM To: Emi Sugiyama <emis@cupertino.gov>; Luke Connolly <lukec@cupertino.gov> Cc: Ebrahimi, Kevin <KEbrahimi@shhomes.com>; Lin, Austin <ALin@shhomes.com> Subject: RE: Linda Vista: 2 story units and applicable COA 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 Emi – We would like to propose 2-story homes at locations adjacent to residential neighbors. We propose the following Condition of Approval for discussion with Council tonight: Proposed COA: Two-Story Units The project will incorporate five (5) two-story homes in place of a corresponding number of three-story homes in order to provide a more compatible transition to the adjacent residential neighborhood. These units will be located at the ends of Buildings 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 where the project directly interfaces with existing homes as shown on the attached exhibit, which shows the locations of the 2-story units and the minimum setbacks to the buildings. These 2-story homes will be at a maximum of 30’ high. To accommodate the two story-units adjacent to the residential neighbors, the minimum setbacks for the affected buildings will be as follows: Street Side Setback (Evulich Court) – The minimum setback between the porches and Evulich Court right-of-way will be 2’-0”. The setback between the building mass and Evulich Court right-of-way will be 3’-0”. Front Setback - Along Linda Vista Drive, the minimum setback to the two-story homes will be thirteen (13) feet to the right-of-way. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Steve Steven Bull Vice President of Development SummerHill Homes 6101 Bollinger Canyon Road, Suite 425, San Ramon, CA 94583 Mobile (510) 410-1188 sbull@shhomes.com / SummerHillHomes.com All subject matter contained in this email is confidential and proprietary to SummerHill Homes/SummerHill Apartment Communities and should not be disclosed to any person not listed as an original recipient. SummerHill Homes/ SummerHill Apartment Communities. All rights reserved. From: Ebrahimi, Kevin <KEbrahimi@shhomes.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2026 9:40 AM To: Kitty Moore <kmoore@cupertino.gov> Cc: Bull, Steve <SBull@shhomes.com>; Matt Larson <matt@matt-larson.com>; floya@cupertino.gov; Tina Kapoor <tinak@cupertino.gov>; Margo N. Bradish (mbradish@coxcastle.com) <mbradish@coxcastle.com> Subject: Linda Vista: 2 story units and applicable COA Good Morning Mayor Moore, It was good meeting with you this morning. Very much appreciated your time and input on the project. Per our conversation below is the potential path that could address the requested 2 story plan type and feasibility of the project. In addition I have also included a COA that SummerHill can potentially agree to based on Staff’s position on the BMR units. Please see below. Thank you again, Kevin Ebrahimi Senior Vice President of Development SummerHill Homes 6101 Bollinger Canyon Road, Suite 425, San Ramon, CA 94583 Tel (650) 842-2268• Mobile (650) 815-8240 kebrahimi@shhomes.com / SummerHillHomes.com ____________________________________________________________________________ _________ Linda Vista - Possible Path to Address Height Reduction and BMR Requirements: The project qualifies for one concession under the State Density Bonus Law. City staff previously required SummerHill to use that concession to address the BMR Manual requirement that affordable units be “comparable to market rate units in terms of unit type,” based on the fact that only Plan Type 1 was proposed for the project rather than a mix of all three Plan Types. However, there may be an alternative way to address this issue. First, City staff did not timely raise comparability of unit types based on Plan Type during the consistency review period. Second, the “comparability” language may not be considered an objective development standard under state housing law. Third, even if the city determined the requirement applied, the Density Bonus Law allows waivers when a standard would physically prevent the project from being built as proposed. If the comparability issue could be addressed through a waiver or clarification rather than requiring the project’s concession, the project’s single concession could instead be used to adjust the BMR affordability levels. Specifically, this would allow the project’s BMR homes to be provided at the moderate-income level rather than split between moderate and median income levels. This adjustment would help offset the financial impact of reducing the height of 5 homes. ________ Proposed Modification of Approvals City would determine that no State Density Bonus Law concession is required relative to the requirement that the affordable units be “comparable to market rate units in terms of unit type.” City would grant a State Density Bonus Law concession and modify the Project’s Affordable Housing Plan to allow the Below Market Rate (BMR) units to be modified from the currently proposed mix of 50% moderate-income and 50% median-income units to 100% moderate- income units. Proposed COA: Two-Story Units and BMR Affordability Levels The project will incorporate five (5) two-story homes in place of three-story homes in order to provide a more compatible transition to the adjacent residential neighborhood. These units will be located at the ends of Buildings 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 where the project directly interfaces with existing homes as shown on the plans. These homes will be at a maximum of 30’ high. To accommodate the two story-units, the minimum setbacks for the two-story units will be as follows: Side Setback – The setback between the two-story homes and side property line adjacent to existing residential properties will be eight (8) feet. Front Setback - Along Linda Vista Drive, the setback to the two-story homes will be thirteen (13) feet or greater to the property line. In conjunction with this modification, the affordability levels of the project’s Below Market Rate (BMR) units will be modified from the currently proposed mix of 50% moderate-income and 50% median-income units to 100% moderate-income units. D S T R E E T A S T R E E T B S T R E E T C S T R E E T E S T R E E T LI N D A V I S T A D R I V E (P U B L I C R O A D ) EVULICH COURT (PUBLIC ROAD) BLDG 6 BLDG 1 BLDG 2 BLDG 3 BLDG 4 BLDG 5 BLDG 7 BLDG 8 BLDG 9 BLDG 10 H:\3988-000\ACAD\EXHIBITS\XB-046_SITE PLAN_2-STORY_10 SETBACK.DWG SETBACK SITE PLAN 10857 LINDA VISTA DRIVE CITY OF CUPERTINO SANTA CLARA COUNTY CALIFORNIA SCALE: 1" = 20'DATE: MARCH 17, 2026 6040200 CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS SAN RAMON WWW.CBANDG.COM ROSEVILLE (925) 866-0322 (916) 788-4456 LEGEND ABBREVIATIONS From:S PB To:City Council; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; Tina Kapoor; Luke Connolly; Benjamin Fu; Chad Mosley; A4H Americans4Hindus Subject:Fire safety Concerns !! Date:Tuesday, March 17, 2026 3:49:27 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, I am writing to raise serious fire safety concerns regarding the Evulich Court project, which proposes 51 townhomes in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The developer was granted a reduction of the required 30-foot wildfire setback to just 10 feet along boundaries adjacent to existing single-family homes. To date, neither the Cupertino Planning Department nor the Santa Clara County Fire Department has provided documented technical analysis demonstrating that a 10-foot setback offers equivalent protection to the 30- foot standard. The Alternative Means and Methods Report (AMMR) — the sole basis for the project’s fire safety claim — was filed, accepted, and reviewed in a single day, with no evidence of thorough technical scrutiny by the Santa Clara County Fire Department. Additionally, the AMMR lacks the required signature from the City’s Building Official, making it administratively incomplete. A City of Cupertino traffic study indicates that local roads already exceed 200% of capacity during wildfires. Neither the AMMR, which is incomplete, nor the traffic study has been entered into the Planning Commission record. Why has this essential information been omitted? Post-disaster analysis of the 2023 Lahaina fire identified building spacing as the single most critical factor in fire spread. The surrounding older homes — with combustible siding and minimal ember protection — are not addressed in the AMMR’s proposed mitigation measures. Residents of Linda Vista and the surrounding neighborhood are seeking transparency. We need to know where the fire safety documentation and official approvals from both the City and the Fire Department are for the entire community, not just the new units. Thank you for your time and attention. From:Cupertino ForAll To:City Council Cc:City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Subject:Agenda Item 12. Urging Approval for 51-unit Townhome Project on Linda Vista Drive Date:Tuesday, March 17, 2026 1:35:23 PM 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. Please include in Written Communications for City Council Meeting on March 17, 2026. _____________________ Dear Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor, and Councilmembers, Subject: Support for SummerHill Townhomes on Linda Vista Drive Cupertino For All is a local group of volunteers that advocates for sustainability, equity, and inclusive housing in our city. We have seen the plans for the SummerHill townhomes on Linda Vista Drive and we fully support the project for the following reasons. 1. The project is proposed for Priority Housing Sites 25-28 that are included in Cupertino's state-mandated Housing Element. The applicant has chosen to build at the lowest density allowed in the Housing Element. Alternatively the site could be built to 4-5 stories. 2. Townhomes are an important type of starter home and Cupertino needs this type of housing for families that overwise could not afford to live in the area. 3. New students in this west-side neighborhood would be very welcome at the nearby schools that are facing declining enrollment, namely Lincoln Elementary, Kennedy Middle School, and Monta Vista High School. 4. The location is conveniently close to Linda Vista Park and McClellan Ranch, and is walkable to all the local schools. The applicant is willing to create a trail connection for easy access to Linda Vista Trail that would benefit the whole neighborhood. 5. The project would add over 50 new households to enrich our community. We urge the City Council to approve the SummerHill Townhome project by taking the Recommended Actions under Item 12 on the City Council Agenda for March 17, 2026. Sincerely, Cupertino For All Board of Directors From:Bruce Su To:City Council Cc:Public Comments Subject:City Council 3/17 Agenda #12 Linda Vista Drive, Vote No Date:Tuesday, March 17, 2026 11:20:22 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. Hi there, I vote No on Evulich Ct. development. Thanks, Bruce From:Janet Zhang To:City Council Cc:Public Comments Subject:City Council 3/17 Agenda #12 Linda Vista Drive, Vote No. Date:Tuesday, March 17, 2026 11:13:38 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. Hi there, I live in the neighborhood and vote NO on Evulich Ct. development. Thanks, Yueqiao From:yangmisc@comcast.net To:City Council Cc:Public Comments Subject:Evulich Ct. Development Date:Tuesday, March 17, 2026 11:03:05 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 Council Members – We oppose the proposed development on Evulich Court. It presents a fire safety hazard to the community – a finding that is supported by available safety data. Accordingly, the development should NOT be approved absent compliance with applicable fire safety regulations. Thank you for your attention to and cooperation in this matter. Stephen and Anne Yang 10817 Linda Vista Drive From:Rocky Gunderson To:Public Comments Subject:Euvilich Court Development Date:Tuesday, March 17, 2026 10:18:39 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. To Cupertino City Council: Tonight a number of residents living nearby the Euvilich Ct proposed development will present pertinent information about the serious fire safety issues arising from the size and scope of the Summerhill housing development proposal. These are compelling issues that I hope you will pay serious attention to. But moreso, I am asking that, rather than falling back on the excuses that nothing can be changed at this point because (1) the development requirements were established prior to the recent redesignation of the neighborhood as a very high to highest fire danger level, and (2) the state finally approved Cupertino’s affordable housing plan and the city could be penalized if it changes its plan after the act, you embrace your role as civic leaders and respond to these real issues with common sense solutions rather than avoiding any challenge to state bureaucracy. As we learned from the recent fires in southern California, short-sighted attitudes that ignore real evacuation dangers and fire-fighting shortage of resources have and will continue to endanger the lives and property of people in our neighborhood. At the recent Planning Commission meeting the neighborhood residents presented compelling data about the challenges of evacuating the neighborhood in the case of fire or other emergency. If you are not familiar with the neighborhood, please note that it is built in the shape of a U, and all cars exiting the neighborhood eventually must merge onto McClellan Road, Rainbow Drive and/or Bubb Road. These are effectively two lane roads that already back up and cause exit delays of many minutes during school pick up/drop off and regular commute times. Should the entire neighborhood need to evacuate in an emergency the residents would be trapped for close to an hour. When this data was presented in very detailed, analytical format the developers cavalierly responded by looking at a google on a phone and saying that they saw at least 5 routes to get out of the neighborhood. Please note that any of those routes, Hyannisport, Columbus, Terrace, Linda Vista all empty out onto the two-lane roads mentioned above. Imagine what these routes would look like should the neighborhood have to evacuate. Please take your responsibilities as civic leaders seriously and pay attention to the current data about fire risks. Most notably, seriously examine the real evacuation challenges the proposed development would add to the already congested roads. Do what it takes to modify the housing element solution so that Cupertino can meet its affordable housing requirements in a safer and more responsible manner. Do not approve the Summerhill design as it stands! Certainly a development of 60% of the current proposed 51 units, say 30 units, would contribute to the affordable housing responsibility while significantly reducing the danger inherent in the current proposal. Those units could be less densely situated, the development would add approximately 60 cars per commute time rather than 100, and more space would be available for emergency vehicles. My point is the neighborhood is not against developing Euvilich Court; We are against the magnitude of the development for sane, safe reasons. I encourage you to take your responsibility seriously and promote the safety of the residents over the arbitrary requirements of state authorities. Respectfully, Rocky Gunderson 22074 Baxley Ct From:Tracy K To:City Council; Tina Kapoor; City Clerk Subject:Agenda item 12 written comments — new information Date:Tuesday, March 17, 2026 10:12:06 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 Council, City Manager, and staff: While I serve on the Cupertino Planning Commission, in this email I write only on behalf of myself. Since the Feb 24th public hearing on the Evulich property (approved 3-2), I have received new information: New information #1: There are strongly differing opinions on how AB130 should be implemented. Last week, a representative from the same environmental consulting firm that did the Evulich AB130 exemption adamantly stated to 100+ planning commissioners during the Planning Commissioners Academy: very high fire hazard zone developments should NOT be exempt from CEQA via AB130. The above information raises new questions: 1. Is there a discretionary element to AB130? How can some local agencies with very high fire hazard zone projects refuse to exempt projects from CEQA via AB130, while other cities exempt them? Why is this new rule being implemented inconsistently? 2. Who is the final arbiter of AB130 applications? Is it the consultant hired by the developer? Is it the fire department? Or is it the local agency, the city? The application put forth by the consultant is done from the perspective of the developer. All information points back to the city as the final approver of AB130 applications. On one hand, you have the spirit of the law, which was meant to streamline development projects done safely in infill areas that are not in very high fire hazard zones. On the other hand, you have the real-world application of the law -- exceptions upon exceptions tacked on to thread development projects through AB130 and get to a "yes, this is exempt" answer. Given this new knowledge that there are very staunchly differing opinions on AB130, all information points to the city as the one that must determine whether the interpretation that sits before us is a proper interpretation, or an incorrect application intended to push through a project that the law never intended to allow. 3. How do we want to treat all AB130 applications going forward? AB130 is a new law with very little precedent. Of the many planning commissioners I met at the conference, only one had ever seen an AB130 project. If very high fire hazard zone projects are allowed to be exempt via AB130, what other types of projects will we allow to be exempted? Projects on hazardous waste sites? Projects near earthquake faults? The decision made around Evulich sets a precedent for future decisions. New information #2: Evacuation study: Planning Commission did not have the evacuation study, completed September 2025, during the 2/24 Evulich hearing. The evacuation study showed that roads in the tri-school Linda Vista area are severely overburdened. While the study was not focused on the Linda Vista area, it is reasonable to conclude, given the high volume-to-capacity constraints around Bubb Road and McClellan, that a focused study on the Linda Vista area would yield similar results. I share this new information on behalf of myself only, and not as a reflection of anyone else's decision regarding Evulich. I believe in having full information before going into a decision. The intent of this information is simply to give Council a fuller picture of the situation at hand. Respectfully, Tracy Kosolcharoen Cupertino Resident From:Meichu H To:City Clerk Subject:Fwd: City Council 3/17 Agenda #12 Evulich Ct Emergency Safety Concerns, Please Vote No Date:Tuesday, March 17, 2026 9:44:08 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 Clerk, Please include the following email for 3/17 written communications for Item 12. Thank you, MeiChu Huang Begin forwarded message: From: Meichu H <TheMeiChu@gmail.com> Subject: City Council 3/17 Agenda #12 Evulich Ct Emergency Safety Concerns, Please Vote No Date: March 14, 2026 at 11:08:35 PM PDT To: CityCouncil@cupertino.gov, kmoore@cupertino.gov Cc: publiccomment@cupertino.gov 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:Alice Lin To:City Clerk Subject:Fwd: City Council 3/17 Agenda #12 Linda Vista Drive Safety Date:Tuesday, March 17, 2026 9:41:34 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 Clerk, Please include the following email for written communications for Item 12. Thank you, Alice Lin Begin forwarded message: From: Alice Lin <alice.hhlin@gmail.com> Subject: City Council 3/17 Agenda #12 Linda Vista Drive Safety Date: March 14, 2026 at 11:03:11 PM PDT To: CityCouncil@cupertino.gov, kmoore@cupertino.gov Cc: publiccomment@cupertino.gov 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:Rhoda Fry To:Public Comments Subject:3/17/2026: Agenda Item #12 Linda Vista Date:Tuesday, March 17, 2026 6:52:05 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. Regarding agenda #12, Linda Vista, please include all PRAs (published and unpublished) pertaining to this project as part of the administrative record for this meeting, especially NR 26-73, NR 26-74, NR 26-78, NR 26-79, NR 26-80. The enumerated items are at this link below. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/qc71ahb78oa05r2ez3ttj/AJD7eTD4PLQrShpzrQFwo7s? rlkey=gvoz2j0x2orfbeeafb4lgu7hu&st=v7xtvi8u&dl=0 From:Joan Cummings To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission; City Council; City Clerk Subject:Linda Vista Development Approval Date:Tuesday, March 17, 2026 5:40:21 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 Planning Commission and City Council: I live at 22034 Baxley Ct adjacent to the proposed development on Linda Vista of 51 townhomes on the Evulich property. In early 2025 Baxley Ct and adjacent properties were redrawn as Very High Fire Danger Property. As a result of this measure our property is now considered a very high fire danger property. In early 2025 our homeowner’s insurance increased from $1,700 to $4,200. We all know the difficulty of even obtaining home owner’s insurance today, not to mention the extremely high cost of the premiums. Please consider the impact on both Fire Safety as well as the financial burden of adding an additional 51 high density homes into a relatively small parcel with only one road in and out. They There have been many changes to the insurance landscape and hardening of homes against wild fire risks since the Palisades Fire a year ago. Please take a look again at the issues involved in putting high density housing in an area that wasn’t built with the infrastructure to accommodate it. Additionally, it has been pointed out that the townhomes at the Linda Vista project are going to be “starter” homes for new families moving into Cupertino. Please note the developer said the average size of the homes were between 2400-2700 square feet. As this is larger than many of the homes in the existing neighbor hood they hardly seem starter homes. We encourage you to vote against the project as it has many lasting ramifications. Sincerely, Joan and Craig Cummings From:louise saadati To:City Council; City Clerk Subject:Regular Meeting 3/17/26 Item 12, 3rd Action Item Date:Tuesday, March 17, 2026 1:42:23 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. Please include this email in the written communications for the Regular Meeting on 3/17/26 Item 12 ———————————— Dear Mayor Moore, Vice-Mayor Chao and Councilmembers: Please support and expedite the Evulich Court project. It is included in the Housing Element and Cupertino needs to meet the housing requirement set by HCD by June 2026. The townhomes for those projects will enable families to buy starter homes much less expensive than single family homes. This project will help fill the schools in close proximity (Lincoln Elementary, Kennedy Middle School and Monta Vista High School.). We must work to reverse the declining student enrollment in Cupertino, which led to Regnart Elementary closing. Please help create a pedestrian connection between Linda Vista Trail and this project. Access should be created between this project, Linda Vista Trail, McClellan Ranch and the adjacent tennis and swim club. We need pathways that facilitate walking, biking and community integration. Thank you for your service in expediting this project to completion and to include the above points to meet the HCD housing requirements and to help open and integrate our communities. Louise Saadati 40 year resident of Cupertino Sent from my iPhone From:Griffin To:Floy Andrews; City Attorney"s Office; Public Comments Cc:City Clerk Subject:2026-03-17 City Council Meeting - Item 12 Councilmember Mohan should Recuse Date:Monday, March 16, 2026 10:47:06 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. PLEASE INCLUDE THIS EMAIL AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATION FOR THE ABIVE MEETING AGENDA ITEM. Dear City Attorney Floy and City Council, It has been a requirement in the past that members of the City Council who live 1000 ft. or less from a development project recuse themselves from voting on items related to the project. Vice Mayor Chao recused herself from voting on the Vallco project. Mayor Moore recused herself from voting on the CUSD Finch property. Rod Sinks recused himself from voting on an Apple related project because his wife worked for Apple. REQUEST: Councilmember Mohan should recuse herself from voting on Item 12, the Evulich/Linda Vista Project because her home is within 1000 ft. of the property and it could impact her financially by affecting the value of her home. Sincerely, Peggy Griffin From:char marshall To:Public Comments Subject:Fwd: Linda Vista Housing Project -Evulich court Date:Monday, March 16, 2026 10:01:27 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. Forwarding my public comment to the correct email address. char.marshall23@gmail.com Lucky is the one who loves others, enjoys life, finds pleasure in little things, notices the world around them, has zest, inquisitiveness and purpose, brings happiness and joy to others, likes nature, lives simply, stretches in the sun, naps in the shade, takes care of business, and is self- sufficient ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: char marshall <char.marshall23@gmail.com> Date: Mon, Mar 16, 2026 at 9:57 PM Subject: Linda Vista Housing Project -Evulich court To: City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.gov> Cc: <publiccomment@cupertino.gove> To whom it may concern: It is completely irresponsible for the Council to ignore the findings of the City's studyon fire evacuation for the Linda Vista Corridor. Please vote no on the Evulich proposaltomorrow and review the Fehr and Peers study and insist that the city review it as well. As a resident on Linda Vista, I know that there could be a decent housing project onEvulich Court, but adding 51 townhomes and the amount of additional peoplepotentially needing evacuation in case of a fire is not reasonable. The plans should be reconsidered, with more concern for safety of the residentscurrently living in the corridor. Regards, Charean Marshall char.marshall23@gmail.com Roving Marshalls travel adventures From:Patrick Sheehy To:City Council Cc:Public Comments Subject:City Council 3/17 Agenda #12 Linda Vista Drive, Vote No Date:Monday, March 16, 2026 9:31:37 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 member, My name is Patrick Sheehy, and I live with my wife just 2 houses south of the proposed development. My main concern regarding the Evulich Court development is fire. Linda Vista Park is just a few hundred yards south of the Summerhill development, and the Deep Cliff Golf Course is adjacent on the back side. If a fire were to start in strong winds in Linda Vista Park and/or along the heavily wooded Stevens Creek – Golf Course area, there would be little time to contain the blaze before it spread to one, then another, of the 51 townhomes. And then what do I and my neighbors do? If I evacuate right away, I might be able to take one of my cars to escape. If not, then I would have to walk because the streets would become impassable very quickly. And at age 85 I don’t walk very fast anymore, let alone run… Might we at least wait until the new fire regulations are in place? Sincerely, Patrick Sheehy From:Venkat Ranganathan To:Public Comments; City Council; Tina Kapoor Subject:Request to Remove Purple-Marked Bike Lane Projects from Attachment D of ATP Date:Monday, March 16, 2026 9:25:20 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 City Council of Cupertino, I am a Cupertino resident, and I respectfully oppose the purple‑marked bike lane projects in Attachment D. These projects reduce essential curb parking, create safety risks, and disrupt school access. I request that all of them be removed from the ATP. Projects to remove: • Homestead Rd – buffered/separated lanes • Stevens Creek Blvd – separated lanes • Stelling Rd – buffered/separated lanes • Blaney Ave – buffered lanes • Bollinger Rd – buffered lanes • Foothill/Wolfe – separated lanes • Bonny/Pepper Tree – school-area lanes • Mary/McClellan – school routes Key concerns: • Loss of curb parking for seniors, guests, caregivers, and deliveries. • Emergency access impeded by concrete barriers, especially near Westport senior housing and the De Anza clinic. • Major disruption to Faria Elementary drop‑off for 600+ students. • The City’s scoring system penalizes parking removal; these projects do not meet that standard. Better alternatives: • Technology‑corridor improvements • Safer crosswalks and intersections • Targeted school‑area safety measures Request: Please remove all purple‑marked bike lane projects from the ATP. Thank you for prioritizing families, seniors, and community safety. Thanks Regards Venkat Ranganathan From:Avi Sachs To:City Council Cc:Public Comments Subject:City Council 3/17 Agenda #12 Linda Vista Drive - Vote NO Date:Monday, March 16, 2026 8:52:20 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 and City Council Members, I am writing to formally object to the proposed development at 10857-10887 Linda Vista Drive (Evulich Court). The City Council must vote NO on this project until a comprehensive and transparent review of the October 2025 Fehr & Peers fire safety study is conducted and entered into the public record. The Planning Commission’s 3-2 approval on February 24 was fundamentally flawed because it failed to account for critical safety data. According to the Fehr & Peers study, the evacuation demand on our local corridors already exceeds 200% of capacity. Approval of this high- density project in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) without addressing these findings is a failure of due diligence. Expert modeling suggests a 93-minute evacuation time for this area, while the survivable window in a fast-moving wildfire is estimated at only 30 minutes. Adding 51 townhomes to an overloaded evacuation route is a direct threat to the safety of both new and existing residents. I urge the Council to prioritize public safety over developer interests. Please vote NO on Agenda Item #12. Sincerely, Avi Sachs Linda Vista Drive Resident From:Nick Kau To:City Council; Public Comments Subject:City Council 3/17 Agenda #12 Linda Vista Drive, Vote No Date:Monday, March 16, 2026 8:30:21 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 City Council Members, I am writing to express my strong opposition to SummerHill Homes' application to construct a 2700 square foot residence. This proposed dwelling is substantially larger than any existing single-family home in the Linda Vista Neighborhood. This project appears to be for the construction of a mansion, not a starter home, directly contradicting statements made by Council Member JR Fruen. Such out-of-scale developments are not consistent with the established character of our community. I respectfully urge the City Council to cease using urban density reform policies in a manner that polarizes and divides our community. For these reasons, I request that you vote against SummerHill Homes' application. Sincerely, A Concerned Resident of the Monta Vista Neighborhood Association From:Liang-Hui Yang To:City Council Cc:Public Comments Subject:City Council 3/17 Agenda #12 Linda Vista Drive, Vote No Date:Monday, March 16, 2026 8:20:05 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. Please vote 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; they are not starter homes as Council member JR Fruen is claiming. City Councilors must stop using urban density reform polarizing the community. Respectfully yours A concerned resident living at Monta Vista neighborhood From:Liang-Hui Yang To:citycouncil@copertino.gov Cc:Public Comments Subject:City Council 3/17 Agenda #12 Linda Vista Drive, Vote No Date:Monday, March 16, 2026 8:16:27 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. Please vote 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; they are not starter homes as Council member JR Fruen is claiming. City Councilors must stop using urban density reform polarizing the community. Respectfully yours A concerned resident living at Monta Vista neighborhood From:Amber Palekar To:City Council Cc:Public Comments Subject:Subject: City Council 3/17 Agenda #12 Linda Vista Drive, Vote No. Date:Monday, March 16, 2026 7:39:55 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. Hello, My Vote is a "No" on City Council 3/17 Agenda #12 Linda Vista Drive Regards, --Amber Palekar From:Tao Huang To:Public Comments Cc:City Council Subject:City Council 3/17 Agenda #12 Linda Vista Drive, Vote No Date:Monday, March 16, 2026 7:38:26 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 Sir and Madam, I am reaching out as a Linda Vista Drive resident with serious concerns about the Evulich Court development and the fire safety risks it poses to our community. I understand that developers and their attorneys have worked to structure this project in ways that sidestep certain regulations — but I urge the council not to mistake legal loopholes for ethical clearance. The city's obligation to keep its residents safe does not disappear simply because someone found a cheating workaround. That responsibility rests with you, and we are counting on you to uphold it. I also want the council to know that you will not be standing alone if this goes sideways legally. Should Big Real Estate choose to pressure or pursue litigation against the city for taking a principled stand, the residents of Cupertino will be right there with you — at meetings, on record, and in full support. We back leaders who back us. Please hold the line on Evulich Court. Best, Taowei Huang 10976 Linda Vista Dr. From:Cynthia To:City Council Cc:Public Comments Subject:City Council 3/17 Agenda #12 Linda Vista Drive, Vote No Date:Monday, March 16, 2026 7:27:10 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 Vote 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; they are not starter homes as Council member JR Fruen is claiming. City Councilors must stop using urban density reform polarizing the community. Respectfully yours Cynthia Chou A concerned resident living at Cupertino neighborhood From:Kevin Yu To:City Council Cc:Public Comments Subject:City Council 3/17 Agenda #12 Linda Vista Drive, Vote No Date:Monday, March 16, 2026 7:12:03 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; they are not starter homes as Council member JR Fruen is claiming. City Councilors must stop using urban density reform polarizing the community. Respectfully yours A concerned resident living at Monta Vista neighborhood From:J Shearin To:City Council; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Clerk Subject:Evulich Court March 17, 2026, Agenda item 12 Date:Monday, March 16, 2026 6:36:32 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 City Council and Mayor Moore, It appears that the developer has included a way for neighbors to have access to the Linda Vista Trail as part of the development. As a former Parks and Recreation Commissioner, I know that our residents prioritize access to trails. Our own Parks and Recreation Master Plan from 2020 states that 80% of residents "favored adding trails and pathways.” I ask that this pathway stay as part of the development going forward. Sincerely, Jennifer Shearin Cupertino resident From:Connie Cunningham To:City Council Cc:City Clerk Subject:2026-03-17 CC Agenda Item 12, Evulich Court Townhome development (Summerhill) Date:Monday, March 16, 2026 6:01:38 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. 2026-03-17 CC Agenda Item 12, Evulich Court Townhome development (Summerhill) Dear Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor, and Councilmembers: I urge you to approve all recommendations for this project. Recommended Action: 1. Find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); 2. Make the required findings of No Net Loss (SB 166); and 3. Approve the following permits: a. Adopt Resolution No. 26-029 approving Tentative Final Map (TM-2024-009) (Attachment A); b. Adopt Resolution No. 26-030 approving Architectural & Site Approval Permit (ASA-2024-015) (Attachment B); and c. Adopt Resolution No. 26-031 approving Tree Removal Permit (TR-2024-044) (Attachment C). Evulich Court is currently vacant land. An important aspect is that Evulich is included in Housing Element, so has been considered for homes for several years. Recommendations of No Net Loss refer to the issue that Cupertino is not building the required number of homes, specifically, Below Market Rate (BMR) homes. Affordability This project will add many townhomes that are less expensive that single family homes. It will also add 10 below market rate for-sale homes. 51 townhomes - 10 BMR units .Project is at lowest density allowed in the Housing Element - alternative is 4-5 story apartments/condominiums Community Starter homes for young families - Townhomes - more affordable than the surrounding single family homes. Close to Lincoln Elementary, Kennedy Middle School and Monta Vista High School - all of which have declining enrollments. Transportation *Existing roads work well for this new development. *Strongly urge approval of a pedestrian connection between the project and adjacent Linda Vista Trail. The applicant is requesting that the cost to construct the trail connection, not to exceed $377,00023, the estimated construction cost of the trail connection improvements, be applied to the required in-lieu fee, reducing the required fee to $1,621,000. Sincerely, Connie L Cunningham 38 year resident Chair, Housing Commission, speaking for myself only. From:Helene Davis To:City Council; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Subject:March 17, 2026 - Agenda Item #12 Date:Monday, March 16, 2026 5:11:12 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 City Council, I am writing in regards to the Evulich Court development on Linda Vista Drive. The developer has included access to the Linda Vista Trail from the court and I ask that it stay as part of the development. As a former Parks and Recreation commissioner, I recall that connectivity to our public spaces was always a top priority for our citizens. Respectfully, Helene Davis From:Niart Potsnon To:City Council Cc:Public Comments Subject:City Council 3/17 Agenda #12 Linda Vista Drive, Vote No Date:Monday, March 16, 2026 4:50:30 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; they are not starter homes as Council member JR Fruen is claiming. City Councilors must stop using urban density reform polarizing the community. From:Sherry Pai To:City Council Cc:Public Comments Subject:City Council 3/17 Agenda #12 Linda Vista Drive, Vote No Date:Monday, March 16, 2026 4:39:41 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; they are not starter homes as Council member JR Fruen is claiming. City Councilors must stop using urban density reform polarizing the community. Respectfully yours A concerned resident living at Monta Vista neighborhood From:Debbie Timmers To:Public Comments; City Council; City Clerk Subject:Regular Meeting, Evulich Court, Item 12, 3rd Action Date:Monday, March 16, 2026 4:26:26 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, Vice Mayor Chao and Councilmembers: I am a 10 year Cupertino resident and I encourage you to approve the staff recommendation for this topic. When I moved here, I appreciated the higher-density housing my family could actually afford and I want others to have that same opportunity. My daughter and her family live in the duplex we purchased together and we consider ourselves very lucky to have found that solution. However, every few months my grandchildren are saddened when yet another classmate has to move away because their family cannot afford rent or housing. Townhomes are an excellent choice for young families and this is actually the lowest density that would be allowed there. The alternative would be multilevel apartments. Because this is included in the Housing Element, it helps us reach our State goals, and would help pull us out of the deficit. Since this location is close to schools, I urge approval of a pedestrian connection between the project and the adjacent Linda Vista Trail. This would alleviate traffic problems especially before and after school. Please help us retain our younger residents. We appreciate having a multigenerational and vibrant community. Debbie Timmers