The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCC 04-01-2026 Item No. 3 Housing Development Linda Vista Drive _Written CommunicationsCC 4-01-2026 Linda Vista / Evulich Project Written Communications From: Rhoda Fry To: Public Comments Subject: 4/1/2026 Agenda #3 Linda Vista - hold off on the details Date: Sunday, March 29, 2026 7:34:20 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, Apologies for the flurry of emails. 1. Please vote on the park -fee waiver separately. It should not be bundled into your vote on other aspects of the project. 2. Please require the developer to select a more appropriate tree. The developer proposes Chinese Pistache. Although it is more fire-resistant than some trees, it is very susceptible to Verticillium wilt which kills trees. Verticillium is very common in old orchards and this property is in an old orchard. Thanks, Rhoda From: Tania Chen To: Public Comments; Public Comments; City Clerk; City Council; City Attorney"s Office Cc: City of Cupertino Planning Dew Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT - Evulich Court / 10857 Linda Vista Drive - MEETING DATE: APRIL 1, 2026 Date: Saturday, March 28, 2026 3:40:46 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 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, Due to a formatting issue in my previous email (text appearing in white font), I am resending my public comment to be included in the official administrative record for the April 1, 2026, City Council meeting. I am a resident of the Linda Vista neighborhood directly impacted by the proposed Evulich Court development. I am submitting this formal objection for the administrative record based on substantial evidence already shared with the Planning Committee and the City through oral comments and written email that this project poses specific, adverse impacts to public health and safety that cannot be mitigated. Executive Summary (Decision -Critical Risk) Under California Government Code § 65589.50)(1)(Housing Accountability Act), the City has a non -discretionary duty to deny a project that creates an unmitigable, specific adverse safety impact. Recent California appellate decisions (2023-2025 trendline) have materially raised the legal bar for wildfire and evacuation analysis under CEQA: • Courts now require realistic, data -driven evacuation modeling, not assumptions or generalized conclusions • Courts have invalidated approvals where agencies failed to analyze real -world conditions and community -wide evacuation constraints, not just project -level impacts • Courts have specifically rejected EIRs that fail to evaluate wildfire risk and evacuation impacts together and cumulatively Implication: Approval without resolving these deficiencies creates clear legal exposure and administrative vulnerability. 1. Emergency Evacuation Failure (Life -Safety Risk) The Linda Vista area is defined by: • Limited ingress/egress (Bubb Road and McClellan Avenue) • Constrained roadway geometry • High congestion under emergency conditions (and can be expected to be worse during commute or school drop-off hours) Evidence already submitted to the City —including the Fehr & Peers study (October 2025) and February planning materials —demonstrates: • Existing evacuation routes operating at -200% capacity • Current evacuation time: -26.5 minutes • Projected evacuation time with development (51 units, -100+ vehicles): -90 minutes Critical Benchmark: Wildfire evacuation survivability thresholds in VHFHSZ conditions are -30 minutes. Legal Relevance (Case Law Alignment): • Courts have rejected analyses that fail to consider how new residents worsen evacuation delays on shared routes • Courts require quantitative, scenario -based evacuation modeling, not unsupported conclusions Conclusion: A projected -90-minute evacuation is not a marginal impact —it is a systemic failure of life -safety infrastructure. 2. High Wildfire Risk Exposure The project is located within: • Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ)) Risk amplifiers include: • Vegetation fuel load • Canyon/topographic fire spread dynamics • Limited defensible space Recent Appellate Direction (2024): • In People ex rel. Bonta v. County of Lake (2024), the Court of Appeal emphasized that wildfire risks must be rigorously analyzed and cannot rely on uncertain or speculative mitigation measures • Courts recognize that adding population increases ignition risk and overall wildfire exposure Implication: This project increases both: • Probability of wildfire exposure severity • Evacuation demand and fatality 3. Inadequate Fire Setback (AMMR) The proposed setback reduction from 30 feet to 10 feet: • Weakens a primary fire protection standard • Does not address ember intrusion or radiant heat • Does not mitigate evacuation constraints Legal Context: Recent CEQA rulings emphasize that mitigation must be effective, enforceable, and evidence -based —not speculative or design -based substitutes Conclusion: This is a non-equivalent substitution of a critical safety control. 4. CEQA Compliance and Cumulative Impact Requirement Under CEQA: • Agencies must evaluate whether a project impairs emergency evacuation plans • Analysis must consider cumulative, community -wide evacuation impacts, not just project residents Recent Case Law Reinforcement: • Courts have invalidated approvals where agencies failed to analyze regional evacuation system performance • Unsupported expert opinion without factual basis does not constitute substantial evidence Key Deficiency in Current Record: The City has not demonstrated that: 1. Evacuation meets acceptable safety thresholds 2. Fire risk is fully mitigated 3. Infrastructure capacity supports proposed density 5. Real -World Wildfire Evidence (Risk Realization) Recent California wildfires demonstrate the real consequences of evacuation failure: • The 2025 Palisades Fire forced over 100,000 evacuations, with gridlocked roads and residents abandoning vehicles to flee on foot • Similar events highlight how constrained road networks fail under stress, validating the exact risk pattern identified in Linda Vista Implication: The modeled evacuation failure scenario is not theoretical —it is empirically observed in recent California fires. 6. Fire Apparatus Access Failure (AutoTURN Deficiency) The project relies on a hammerhead turnaround design on a dead-end roadway for emergency access. Critical Missing Evidence: There is no administrative record of an AutoTURN (or equivalent swept -path) simulation or analysis demonstrating that the largest responding fire apparatus can safely: • Enter the site • Navigate internal circulation • Execute a compliant turnaround within the hammerhead Applicable Apparatus Standard (Santa Clara County) The Santa Clara County Fire Department, which serves this area, operates tractor -drawn aerial (TDA) ladder trucks, including: • —101-foot aerial ladder (KME AerialCat platform) • Articulated tractor -trailer configuration (tiller -controlled) • Extended wheelbase with complex swept -path requirements This is among the most demanding apparatus types for turning radius and maneuverability and must be used as the design vehicle for access validation. Why This Matters: • California Fire Code § 503 requires that fire apparatus access roads support actual, real -world maneuverability, not theoretical layouts • Santa Clara County Fire standards require functional (not theoretical) access compliance • CEQA requires that safety conclusions be supported by substantial evidence, not assumptions Failure Mode if Not Verified Without validated swept -path analysis using a -101' ladder truck: • The apparatus may fail to complete the hammerhead turn • Fire crews may be forced to: • Back apparatus out over long narrow distances under active fire conditions with reduced visibility and civilians also evacuating (unsafe and time -prohibitive) • Stage far from the incident and delayed fire suppression response • This directly increases: • Structure ignition risk • Fire spread • Loss of life in evacuation -constrained conditions Conclusion In a constrained, single -access environment and not having a validated AutoTURN analysis using the largest responding fire apparatus (101' ladder truck), it is a predictable failure mode that cab escalate rapidly into mass -casualty. Without it, the City cannot conclude that emergency access is feasible or compliant. This is a fundamental life -safety gap and a clear lack of substantial evidence. 7. Council Responsibility and Liability Context Approving this project would: • Acknowledge known evacuation and wildfire risks • Proceed despite documented infrastructure insufficiency The administrative record already includes: • Technical studies • Resident -submitted analyses • Prior public testimony This establishes clear foreknowledge of risk, which courts increasingly scrutinize in CEQA litigation. 8. Requested Council Action I respectfully request that the City Council: 1. Invoke the Housing Accountability Act Safety Exception due to unmitigatable life -safety risk. 2. Require peer -reviewed evacuation modeling and validated AutoTURN (or equivalent swept -path) analysis using the largest responding fire apparatus (-101- foot ladder truck) to confirm ingress, maneuverability, and turnaround access feasibility. 3. Confirm CAL FIRE WUI and fire hazard classifications and require full CEQA Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addressing wildfire risk, evacuation feasibility and cumulative impacts. 4. Deny or defer the project until all life -safety compliance is fully demonstrated with substantial evidence. Conclusion This is not opposition to development —it is a requirement for compliance with California law and basic life -safety standards. The administrative record demonstrates: • Severely constrained evacuation capacity • Elevated wildfire exposure • Inadequate mitigation measures A -90-minute evacuation scenario in a VHFHSZ is not mitigable. Under the Housing Accountability Act and reinforced by recent California appellate rulings, the City has a legal obligation to deny this project. The Council must vote NO on Evulich Court. Respectfully, Tania Chen From: Lea Chuang To: Public Comments; City Clerk; City Council; City Attorney"s Office Cc: City of Cupertino Planning Dew Subject: Public Comment — Evulich Court Project (April 1 Decision) — CEQA Exemption & Wildfire Safety Concerns Date: Saturday, March 28, 2026 3:24:18 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 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, I am submitting this public comment regarding the Evulich Court project for inclusion in the administrative record ahead of the April 1 hearing and decision. This comment identifies substantial evidence in the record relevant to wildfire risk, evacuation feasibility, and emergency access under CEQA. 1. Wildfire Hazard Classification The project site is located within the CAL FIRE Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ), the highest state wildfire hazard classification. This designation requires project -level analysis of wildfire exposure under worst -case conditions, evacuation feasibility during emergency events, and fire suppression access constraints. The current record does not adequately analyze these conditions to support project approval under CEQA. 2. City -Commissioned Evacuation Evidence The Fehr & Peers evacuation and transportation analysis commissioned by the City and included in the administrative record identifies that evacuation performance is highly sensitive to peak and concurrent demand conditions. Despite this, the record does not include: Scenario -based evacuation modeling under peak -load conditions Cumulative evacuation demand analysis with concurrent development Sensitivity analysis consistent with the City -commissioned methodology This constitutes substantial evidence that evacuation impacts have not been fully evaluated under foreseeable conditions. 3. Health and Safety Element Update The City's updated Health and Safety Element currently under review/adoption reflects strengthened policy direction regarding wildfire resilience, evacuation capacity, and life - safety planning. The environmental analysis does not evaluate project impacts in light of this updated framework or reconcile project assumptions with evolving safety standards relevant to cumulative hazard conditions. 4. Emergency Access and Fire Operations Constraints The proposed reduced setbacks (approximately 10 feet) raise unresolved concerns regarding emergency response operations, including fire apparatus access and aerial ladder deployment under constrained site geometry. Independent verification of emergency access feasibility is not included in the record. 5. CEQA Findings Deficiency — Requirement for EIR Based on the above substantial evidence, the City cannot support findings that environmental impacts have been fully analyzed or mitigated to less -than -significant levels. The record instead supports the need for a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addressing: Wildfire impacts in a VHFHSZ under worst -case conditions Scenario -based evacuation modeling under peak and cumulative demand Emergency access and fire operations feasibility under constrained geometry Consistency with updated Health and Safety Element policy direction 6. CEQA Legal Standard — Requirement for Full Analysis California courts have consistently held that CEQA requires meaningful, project -level analysis of reasonably foreseeable significant impacts and does not permit incomplete or deferred environmental review where substantial evidence exists. In Save Our Access v. City of San Diego (Fourth Dist. Ct. App. 2025), the Court held that environmental review was deficient where it failed to adequately analyze significant impacts and improperly deferred analysis. This principle confirms that CEQA compliance requires full evaluation of foreseeable impacts supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. Conclusion In advance of the April 1 hearing and decision, the administrative record contains substantial evidence of unresolved wildfire, evacuation, and emergency access impacts that have not been fully analyzed under CEQA. As currently constituted, the record does not support project approval without first completing a full Environmental Impact Report addressing these issues. Sincerely, Lea Chuang From: Tania Chen To: Public Comments; City Clerk; City Council; City Attorney"s Office Cc: City of Cupertino Planning Dew Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT - Evulich Court / 10857 Linda Vista Drive - MEETING DATE: APRIL 1, 2026 Date: Friday, March 27, 2026 11:47:55 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. Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, I request that this comment be included in the official administrative record for the April 1, 2026, City Council meeting. I am a resident of the Linda Vista neighborhood directly impacted by the proposed Evulich Court development. I am submitting this formal objection for the administrative record based on substantial evidence already shared with the Planning Committee and the City through oral comments and written email that this project poses specific, adverse impact to public health and safety that cannot be mitigated. Executive Summary (Decision -Critical Risk) Under California Government Code § 65589.50)(1) (Housing Accountability Act), the City has a non - discretionary duty to deny a project that creates an unmitigable, specific adverse safety impact. Recent California appellate decisions (2023-2025 trendline) have materially raised the legal bar for wildfire and evacuation analysis under CEQA: Courts now require realistic, data -driven evacuation modeling, not assumptions or generalized conclusions Courts have invalidated approvals where agencies failed to analyze real -world conditions and community -wide evacuation constraints, not just project -level impacts Courts have specifically rejected EIRs that fail to evaluate wildfire risk and evacuation impacts together and cumulatively Implication: Approval without resolving these deficiencies creates clear legal exposure and administrative vulnerability. 1. Emergency Evacuation Failure (Life -Safety Risk) The Linda Vista area is defined by: • Limited ingress/egress (Bubb Road and McClellan Avenue) • Constrained roadway geometry • High congestion under emergency conditions (and can be expected to be worse during commute or school drop-off hours) Evidence already submitted to the City —including the Fehr & Peers study (October 2025) and February planning materials —demonstrates: Existing evacuation routes operating at -200% capacity Current evacuation time: -26.5 minutes • Projected evacuation time with development (51 units, -100+ vehicles): -90 minutes Critical Benchmark: Wildfire evacuation survivability thresholds in VHFHSZ conditions are -30 minutes. Legal Relevance (Case Law Alignment): • Courts have rejected analyses that fail to consider how new residents worsen evacuation delays on shared routes • Courts require quantitative, scenario -based evacuation modeling, not unsupported conclusions Conclusion: A projected --90-minute evacuation is not a marginal impact —it is a systemic failure of life -safety infrastructure. 2. Wildfire Risk and WUI Exposure The project is located within: • Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) • Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) Risk amplifiers include: • Vegetation fuel load • Canyon/topographic fire spread dynamics • Limited defensible space Recent Appellate Direction (2024): • In People ex rel. Bonta v. County of Lake (2024), the Court of Appeal emphasized that wildfire risks must be rigorously analyzed and cannot rely on uncertain or speculative mitigation measures • Courts recognize that adding population increases ignition risk and overall wildfire exposure Implication: This project increases both: • Probability of wildfire exposure severity • Evacuation demand and fatality 3. Inadequate Fire Setback (AMMR) The proposed setback reduction from 30 feet to 10 feet: • Weakens a primary fire protection standard • Does not address ember intrusion or radiant heat • Does not mitigate evacuation constraints Legal Context: Recent CEQA rulings emphasize that mitigation must be effective, enforceable, and evidence -based —not speculative or design -based substitutes Conclusion: This is a non-equivalent substitution of a critical safety control. 4. CEQA Compliance and Cumulative Impact Requirement Under CEQA: • Agencies must evaluate whether a project impairs emergency evacuation plans • Analysis must consider cumulative, community -wide evacuation impacts, not just project residents Recent Case Law Reinforcement: Courts have invalidated approvals where agencies failed to analyze regional evacuation system performance Unsupported expert opinion without factual basis does not constitute substantial evidence Key Deficiency in Current Record: The City has not demonstrated that: 1. Evacuation meets acceptable safety thresholds 2. Fire risk is fully mitigated 3. Infrastructure capacity supports proposed density 5. Real -World Wildfire Evidence (Risk Realization) Recent California wildfires demonstrate the real consequences of evacuation failure: • The 2025 Palisades Fire forced over 100,000 evacuations, with gridlocked roads and residents abandoning vehicles to flee on foot • Similar events highlight how constrained road networks fail under stress, validating the exact risk pattern identified in Linda Vista Implication: The modeled evacuation failure scenario is not theoretical —it is empirically observed in recent California fires. 6. Fire Apparatus Access Failure (AutoTURN Deficiency) The project relies on a hammerhead turnaround design on a dead-end roadway for emergency access. Critical Missing Evidence: There is no administrative record of an AutoTURN (or equivalent swept -path) simulation or analysis demonstrating that the largest responding fire apparatus can safely: • Enter the site • Navigate internal circulation • Execute a compliant turnaround within the hammerhead Applicable Apparatus Standard (Santa Clara County) The Santa Clara County Fire Department, which serves this area, operates tractor -drawn aerial (TDA) ladder trucks, including: -101-foot aerial ladder (KME AerialCat platform) Articulated tractor -trailer configuration (tiller -controlled) Extended wheelbase with complex swept -path requirements This is among the most demanding apparatus types for turning radius and maneuverability and must be used as the design vehicle for access validation. Why This Matters: • California Fire Code § 503 requires that fire apparatus access roads support actual, real -world maneuverability, not theoretical layouts • Santa Clara County Fire standards require functional (not theoretical) access compliance • CEQA requires that safety conclusions be supported by substantial evidence, not assumptions Failure Mode if Not Verified Without validated swept -path analysis using a --101' ladder truck: The apparatus may fail to complete the hammerhead turn Fire crews may be forced to: o Back apparatus out over long narrow distances under active fire conditions with reduced visibility and civilians also evacuating (unsafe and time -prohibitive) o Stage far from the incident and delayed fire suppression response This directly increases: o Structure ignition risk o Fire spread Loss of life in evacuation -constrained conditions Conclusion In a constrained, single -access environment and not having a validated AutoTURN analysis using the largest responding fire apparatus (101' ladder truck), it is a predictable failure mode that cab escalate rapidly into mass -casualty. Without it, the City cannot conclude that emergency access is feasible or compliant. This is a fundamental life -safety gap and a clear lack of substantial evidence. 7. Council Responsibility and Liability Context Approving this project would: • Acknowledge known evacuation and wildfire risks • Proceed despite documented infrastructure insufficiency The administrative record already includes: • Technical studies • Resident -submitted analyses • Prior public testimony This establishes clear foreknowledge of risk, which courts increasingly scrutinize in CEQA litigation. 8. Requested Council Action I respectfully request that the City Council: 1. Invoke the Housing Accountability Act Safety Exception due to unmitigatable life -safety risk. 2. Require peer -reviewed evacuation modeling and validated AutoTURN (or equivalent swept - path) analysis using the largest responding fire apparatus (-101-foot ladder truck) to confirm ingress, maneuverability, and turnaround access feasibility. 3. Confirm CAL FIRE WUI and fire hazard classifications and require full CEQA Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addressing wildfire risk, evacuation feasibility and cumulative impacts. 4. Deny or defer the project until all life -safety compliance is fully demonstrated with substantial evidence. Conclusion This is not opposition to development —it is a requirement for compliance with California law and basic life -safety standards. The administrative record demonstrates: • Severely constrained evacuation capacity • Elevated wildfire exposure • Inadequate mitigation measures A -90-minute evacuation scenario in a VHFHSZ is not mitigable. Under the Housing Accountability Act and reinforced by recent California appellate rulings, the City has a legal obligation to deny this project. The Council must vote NO on Evulich Court. Respectfully, Tania Chen From: Vikram Saxena To: Melissa Robertson Subject: Re: Building Official Evaluation Required Under CBC 104.11 for AMMR for Evulich Court Date: Friday, March 27, 2026 12:17:20 AM Attachments: imaae001.onna 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 Melissa, Thank you for your message. Yes, please include this in the written communications for the April 1 hearing. Sincerely, Vikram Saxena On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 1:08 PM Melissa Robertson <MelissaRna.cupertino.gov> wrote: Good afternoon, Did you want this to be included in the written communications for the upcoming council meeting? Thank you, Melissa Robertson Administrative Assistant City Manager's Office 0Melissa R rtin . nnnnn o 0 From: Vikram Saxena <vsaxena(@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2026 2:57 PM To: Building <Building(@cu erp tino.gov>; Tina Kapoor <TinaK(cDcupertino.gov>; Benjamin Fu <Benjamin F(@cupertino.gov> Cc: City Attorney's Office <CityAttorney(@cu erp tino.gov>; City Council <CityCouncil(@Cupertino.gov>; City of Cupertino Planning Commission <PlanningCommission(@cupertino.gov>; davidcyan(cDgmail.com; DerChang Kau <derchang(@gmail.com>; lindavistatt(@gmail.com; Mark Fantozzi <mwfantozzi(@tfanco.com> Subject: Building Official Evaluation Required Under CBC 104.11 for AMMR for Evulich Court 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: Alternate Means and Methods Request — io857 Linda Vista Drive (TM- 2024-009 / ASA-2024-015) Building Official Evaluation Required Under CBC 104.11 Dear Cupertino City Building Department Officials: I am writing regarding the Alternative Means and Methods Request (AMMR) for the Evulich Court project at 10857 Linda Vista Drive, which reduces the mandatory 30460t wildfire setback under the Fire Safe Regulations (14 CCR §1276.oi) to io feet along the project's north and south boundaries. The AMMR has not been signed by the Building Official. The Santa Clara County Fire Department's own AMMR form requires evaluation and signature by both the Fire Official and the Building Official. The Fire Official signed on January 6, 2026. The Building Official signature line — corresponding to the City of Cupertino's building authority — remains blank. The above application has been reviewed and has been: ACCEPTED ❑ REJECTED Signature: cc Fire Official: 7(2 AC. ;T At Date: t ZV Building Official: Date: DropB=/FimPne tion/Administrative/applications/bh/06.23.2025 AMMR approval page: Fire Official signed. Building Official line blank. This letter requests that, before you sign, you satisfy yourself that the applicable legal standard has been met — and I am enclosing documentation that raises substantial questions about whether it has. The core issue The 30400t setback is not merely a design preference — it is the minimum spatial condition necessary to allow compliance with California's defensible space law within private property boundaries. Reducing that distance without demonstrating equivalent functional capacity defeats the statutory framework the regulation was designed to implement. The standard you must apply: equivalency, not mitigation The AMMR functions as an "alternate means and methods" approval. It must therefore independently satisfy CBC §104.11 and CFC §104.io, each of which requires a finding of equivalency — not merely mitigation. Under CBC 104.11, the Building Official must determine that the proposed alternative is: "not less than the equivalent of that prescribed in this code in quality, strength, effectiveness, fire resistance, durability and safety." The SCCFD's own plan review describes the reduced setbacks as "deficiencies to non- conforming 30' setback requirements" to be "mitigated." This language describes mitigation of a known shortfall. The code requires equivalency. These are not the same standard. Mitigation means the impact of a shortfall has been reduced. Equivalency means the same outcome has been achieved. Your determination must be the latter. The regulatory chain: why the 30-foot setback is a system -level requirement The AMMR narrowly cites 14 CCR §1276.oi(a) — the 30400t setback. But the authority and reference notes for §1276.o1 state: "Authority cited: Section 4290, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 4290 and 4291, Public Resources Code." The regulation the AMMR seeks to modify was adopted under the authority of both PRC §4290 (minimum fire safety standards for new development) and PRC §4291(the requirement that every property owner maintain too feet of defensible space around structures at all times). While §1276.o1 is adopted under authority of both statutes, the 30400t setback functions as the structural precondition necessary to enable compliance with PRC §4291's defensible space requirements within property boundaries. PRC §4291 requires defensible space to be maintained "but not beyond the property line." Zone 1 under PRC §4291 extends 30 feet from the structure — exactly the distance the setback requires. Reduction of the 30400t setback to io feet eliminates the ability to maintain required defensible space within property boundaries, thereby creating a direct conflict with PRC §4291. At 10 feet, the project can only provide 10 feet of defensible space on its own land before reaching the property line. The remaining 90 feet of the required too -foot defensible space zone falls on neighboring parcels that the developer, the HOA, and the fire department have no authority to manage. The project's own Defensible Space Fire Zone Plan (Sheet L7.1) confirms this — Zone 2 is effectively absent along the north and south boundaries. What "same practical effect" must cover The Fire Safe Regulations allow exceptions only where the alternative provides the "same practical effect" (14 CCR §1270.o1(aa)). The 30400t setback is not an isolated dimensional standard. It is a system -level requirement that enables multiple functions simultaneously. "Same practical effect" must therefore be evaluated across all functions served by the 30400t setback: 1. Structure -to -structure fire spread mitigation — reducing radiant heat flux below ignition thresholds for neighboring properties, not just protecting the new buildings from ignition 2. Firefighter access and staging — physical space for ground ladder deployment, defensive perimeter operations, and safe suppression tactics 3. Civilian evacuation interface — ensuring fire conditions at the perimeter do not impede evacuation from adjacent properties 4. Ability to maintain defensible space under PRC §4291— providing sufficient space within property boundaries to comply with the too -foot defensible space requirement The AMMR mitigations address only the first function, and only from the perspective of protecting the new buildings. The applicant cannot satisfy the "same practical effect" standard by demonstrating equivalency in one function while leaving the remaining three unaddressed. What the enclosed documentation shows I am enclosing a technical analysis — "Why the 3o-Foot Setback Exists and Why Reducing It to 10 Feet Creates a More Dangerous Fire Environment" — which documents the following concerns. 1. No radiant heat analysis in the record The AMMR was filed January 5, accepted January 6, plan review completed January 7. No radiant heat modeling or structure -to -structure analysis is documented. 2. Radiant heat flux at 10 feet is —9x the level at 30 feet NIST research (TN 2205) found that increasing spacing from 10 to 30 feet increases fire spread resistance by a factor of ten. At io feet, radiant heat exceeds auto -ignition thresholds for the wood siding, vinyl, and older windows on neighboring 195os homes. 3. The chimney effect The 40400t townhome wall rising 26 feet above a single -story neighbor's roofline creates a vertical flue that draws fresh air into the base of the corridor — feeding oxygen to a burning fence and intensifying the fire at the height where the neighbor's combustible siding, eaves, and windows are most exposed. 4. The tunnel effect The io-foot corridors run ~500 feet along the full north and south boundaries. Bounded by 40400t fire -rated walls and combustible fencing, they channel wind -driven fire from the WUI along the entire boundary. Every neighboring home is exposed simultaneously. 5. Fire -hardening does not protect the neighbors Fire -rated walls protect the townhomes from ignition but do not reduce outward radiant heat. A contained fire behind a rated assembly can sustain dangerous heat flux levels on the neighboring structure for an extended period. 6. Combustible fencing creates an uncontrolled fuel pathway Wooden fencing at the property line ignites from reflected radiant heat and carries fire laterally along the full boundary. No entity has authority to regulate fencing on neighboring parcels. 7. Window openings contradiction The applicant claims R302.1(2) compliance while stating "we are not proposing modifications to the Openings (Windows) in Walls." R302.1(2) governs protected openings at reduced separations. 8. Ground ladder access does not work in 10 feet SCCFD's own Comment 7 requires 75' ladder access. A 35400t ladder at 75' needs ~11.5 feet. The setback is io feet, with bio-retention pads instead of firm ground. 9. Defensible space Zone 2 absent on reduced -setback boundaries Sheet L7.1 confirms Zone 2 is absent on the north and south boundaries — confirming the setback reduction makes PRC §4291 compliance physically impossible within property boundaries. 10. ADU development could reduce spacing to 14 feet State ADU law allows 4400t setbacks on neighboring parcels. Combined with 10 feet, actual structure -to -structure spacing could be 14 feet — less than half the required 30. The SCCFD disclaimer "This review shall not be construed to be an approval of a violation of the provisions of the California Fire Code or of other laws or regulations of the jurisdiction." The fire department has explicitly stated that its review is not a determination of code compliance. Your independent evaluation under CBC 104.11 is therefore not a formality. The CEQA exemption depends on your determination The project claims a CEQA exemption under PRC §21080.66 (AB 130), which applies only where fire hazard mitigation measures are implemented "pursuant to existing building standards." If the project relies on deviations from those standards — as it does through the AMMR's reduction of the 30400t setback — the exemption is valid only if those deviations demonstrably achieve equivalent safety under applicable fire and building codes. If equivalency is not demonstrated across all required functions — including defensible space feasibility under PRC §4291— the basis for the CEQA exemption is undermined. Your determination of equivalency under CBC 104.11 is therefore not only a building code question — it is a predicate for the project's environmental clearance. My request I respectfully request that, before signing the AMMR, you: 1. Apply the equivalency standard, not the mitigation standard — CBC §104.11 requires "not less than the equivalent." The SCCFD plan review describes "deficiencies" to be "mitigated." Your determination must go further. 2. Evaluate equivalency across all four functions served by the 30400t setback: fire spread mitigation (for the neighborhood), firefighter access, evacuation interface, and PRC §4291 defensible space feasibility. 3. Require a radiant heat analysis demonstrating equivalent protection for neighboring properties. 4. Address the chimney and tunnel effects created by the corridor geometry and the height differential. 5. Evaluate the window openings contradiction — R302.1(2) invoked but windows not modified. 6. Confirm firefighter ladder access is physically achievable in to feet, on the surfaces present. 7. Address the PRC §4291 conflict — whether the to -foot setback eliminates the ability to maintain defensible space within property boundaries, and how the project can comply without relying on parcels it does not control. The neighboring families built their homes decades before this project was proposed. They have no fire -hardened construction, no ember protection, and no ability to modify the conditions on the project side of the property line. Your signature on this AMMR is the last point in the process where the City's building authority can ensure that the standard has been met — not just for the developer's buildings, but for the community the Fire Safe Regulations are designed to protect. Thank you for your careful consideration. Respectfully, On behalf of many residents of Linda Vista Drive and Baxter Ct Vikram Saxena 11126 Linda Vista Drive 408-390-4036 Enclosures: • Technical Analysis: "Why the 3o-Foot Setback Exists" • AMMR Approval From: Jennifer Griffin To: City Clerk Cc: grenna5000(n yahoo.com; City Council Subject: Fwd: Community Meetings on SB 330 Projects, Especially Finch/Stevens Creek Hanover Project Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 7:54:18 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 Cleric Please consider the following as Public Input for the April 1, 2026 City Council meeting. Thank you. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Community Meetings on SB 330 Projects, Especially Finch/Stevens Creek Hanover Project From: Jennifer Griffin <grenna5000@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2026, 7:51 AM To: citycouncil@cupertino.org,cityclerk@cupertino.org CC: grenna5000@yahoo.com Dear City Council: (Please include the following as Public Input for the Cupertino City Council Meeting on April 1, 2026.) Can the city please have Community Meetings on the SB 330 Projects in the city? Can the city list These meetings on the City Website and send postcards out about them? There is a huge SB 330 Project proposed for Finch Avenue and Stevens Creek Blvd. with 365 housing units. To date I have heard nothing about it. Are there any Community Meetings planned? This project is going to be A big problem with traffic and it will be getting rid of banks, retail stores, a daycare, a big office Building and trying to fight for driveway space with Cupertino's Affordable Senior Housing project called The Terraces further east down Stevens Creek Blvd. How do we stay up to date on this SB 330 and other SB 330 projects we need to know about? The city used to send postcards. That worked well. Let's start doing that again. The SB 330s are wrecking havoc with retail in The city and the public needs to know how and where this is happening so we do not become victims of SB 330, the "retail crisis" bill. Our state electeds also need to know what is happening in the aftermath of this bill. I hope Cupertino will reach out to Senator Becker and Assemblyman Ahrens to let them know About the problems associated with SB 330. Maybe they can fix these problems in the state level. Also, our state representative should know also. SB 330 (in its first incarnation) let the public have five Community Meetings about SB 330 projects. Are we even getting those? I don't see a lot of effort to get even those meetings publicized. It is also a hassle to see any plans of these projects or anything at all for that matter. Staff is trying their Best with what limited means the state now allows, but you have a lot of the public or seniors who can never see the plans. It is getting to be a ridiculous sort of a cover-up. Can the city ask what the Current situation is of the "hide and seek" housing bill plan -sets is? Surely there are some current decisions and rulings based on this. Common sense on these "building plans" availability has gone out the window. Stick fighters drawn on a napkin by an architect would be a better substitution than what we have now. I guess the housing bill authors don't want us to see housing plans. I get it. But, seriously, what are they trying to hide? What are they trying to build any way? Please let there be Community Meetings on the SB 330 projects, especially the Finch/Stevens Creek Blvd. Hanover SB 330 Project site. This SB 330 is going to be a major issue for Eastern Cupertino, traffic, loss of retail, danger to students going to school or waiting for the bus, gridlock, infrastructure Problems etc. etc. Residents need to know about all of this so they can be a part of the voice seeking solutions for a better day. Thank you. Best regards, Jennifer Griffin Eastern City Resident From: James Choi To: City Council Cc: Public Comments Subject: [City Council Hearing April 1, 2026] Opposition to SummerHill / Linda Vista Drive / Evulich Court Project for Public Safety, Evacuation Risks, and Notice Failures Date: Monday, March 30, 2026 12:06:55 PM Attachments: 2007 Linda Vista Hill Fire.odf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Written Communication for the April 1, 2026 City Council meeting for agenda item on Evulich Court / Linda Vista Dr / SummerHill Homes Project: Dear Members of the Cupertino City Council, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed 51-unit SummerHill project on Linda Vista Drive. While the developer's counsel has made various legal claims, I urge the Council not to blindly accept these false and misleading statements (see other Linda Vista neighborhood residents' submitted written communications for why this is the case) or concede to the tactics used to threaten the Planning Commission on February 24th. The Council has a fundamental responsibility to protect its citizens, and this project presents a clear threat to life and safety in our community. 1. Evacuation Constraints and Public Safety Our neighborhood is already identified as "evacuation constrained." Adding 51 high -density units to this high -risk corridor will create gridlock during a fire emergency. We cannot allow a development that compromises the ability of families —including the many older residents in our area —to escape a wildfire. Furthermore, three major schools (Lincoln Elementary, Kennedy Middle School, and Monta Vista High) sit directly along this evacuation corridor, significantly increasing the human risk. 2. Proven Fire Risk The "Very High Fire Hazard" classification for this area is not a mere theoretical warning; it is a documented reality. In 2007, a fire broke out on the Linda Vista Park hillside directly behind Baxley Ct and Evulich Court. The attached photos from that event serve as a stark reminder of the danger we face. We cannot rely on hand-picked, third -party safety analyses provided by SummerHill to prioritize our lives over their profit. 3. Inadequate Public Notice The initial outreach for this development was fundamentally flawed and denied the community a meaningful say. None of the nearby residents knew this site was being upzoned from single-family to high -density due to the City not complying with statutory notification requirements or reasonable standards of transparency, leaving the most impacted residents unaware of the project until it was too late. 4. Formal Request for Recusal of Councilmember Sheila Mohan I am formally requesting the recusal of Councilmember Sheila Mohan from the vote on the SummerHill project due to a disqualifying conflict of interest regarding her property's proximity to the site as learned from neighbors. Conclusion Before you cast your vote, I ask you to answer one question: If this project is approved and a wildfire occurs where people cannot escape, who will be held responsible? The use of legal loopholes by developers to push through unsafe projects does not abdicate the City of its duty to protect its citizens. The City has the authority to ensure a sound fire mitigation and evacuation framework is in place before approving density in high -risk zones. The residents will actively support the City and City Council in defending against legal threats from "Big Real Estate" like SummerHill. We will stand behind you when you fulfill your responsibility to keep us safe. Please do the right thing and prioritize the safety of the people you represent over the interests of a developer. Respectfully, James Choi Linda Vista Neighborhood Resident (Bel Aire Ct) ♦�' � •r r � _ � 1 • tv- A "tit From: David Yan To: City Council Cc: Public Comments Subject: On the Improper Rezoning of Evulich Ct from RI to R3 Date: Monday, March 30, 2026 12:41:40 AM Attachments: Improper Uozonina Evulich 03.30.2026.odf 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. City Councilmembers, My most recent communications to the City Council about Evulich have focused on Fire compliance, Evacuation, and the AB 130 CEQA exemption process. This letter is on a separate but related matter that predates all of it. Attached is a letter documenting procedural deficiencies in the City's notification process for the July 2, 2024 upzoning of the Evulich Court parcels from R1 to R3. This is the foundational zoning action that enabled everything that has followed. It is worth examining on its own terms. The letter identifies two findings that I believe the Council should have before it as it considers the pending development application. First, the City's own mailing list for the Evulich Court rezoning did not include a single residential neighbor within 300 feet of the site. The list reached government agencies and commercial landlords across the region. It did not reach the street next door. Second, the City's Assistant Director of Community Development confirmed in writing on November 5, 2024 that no direct mailed notification was sent to residents for the July 2024 rezoning actions. A Yes vote on April 1 would not resolve the questions raised in this letter. The procedural deficiencies in the July 2024 upzoning remain uncured. If the development is approved and subsequently challenged in court, the validity of the underlying zoning will be in play alongside the fire safety and exemption questions already in the record. I am submitting this attached letter for inclusion in the administrative record in connection with the April 1 hearing. Regards, David Yan March 30, 2026 On the Improper Rezoning of 10857 -10887 Linda Vista Drive from R1 to R3 This letter looks at whether the City of Cupertino actually complied with the legal notification requirements in rezoning 10857-10887 Linda Vista Drive, sometimes called "Evulich Court," from R1 to R3. This analysis is based on a chronological review of the City's documents and their consistency with California Government Code Sections 65090 and 65091. The City had seven opportunities to reach the people most affected and failed at every one. Summary Compliance with state housing mandates does not excuse procedural violations. In fact, ensuring public participation and transparency is critical to achieving the equitable housing goals envisioned by state law. The City of Cupertino's rezoning of Evulich Court did not comply with statutory notification requirements or reasonable standards of transparency. The City's documents, when analyzed chronologically, reveal significant procedural deficiencies: 1. January 2022 Citywide Mailing: An initial mailing predated the inclusion of Evulich Court in the Housing Element and failed to notify residents of any specific rezoning plans. 2. June 5, 2024 Housing Element Rezoning Meeting eNotification: An electronic notification sent to subscribers lacked specificity about Evulich Court and did not reach nonsubscriber residents. 3. June 18, 2024 Affidavit of Mailing Notice: The City mailed notices to an "interested parties" list that did not include residents directly affected by the rezoning. 4. June 21, 2024 Public Hearing Display Ad: A newspaper ad in the Cupertino Courier was insufficient in reach and did not adequately inform residents of the specific rezoning. 5. June 27, 2024 City Council Meeting eNotification: Another electronic notification suffered from the same limitations as prior e-notifications. 6. July 2, 2024 City Council Meeting: The City proceeded with rezoning despite inadequate notification and public participation. 7. September 2024: Disregarded Community Petition: The city disregarded a petition signed by 745 about concerns about the rezoning of Euvulich Court, yet it was neither acknowledged nor placed on the City Council agenda for discussion. Two facts really stand out here. First: the City produced a mailing list for the Evulich Court rezoning that names the parcel owner and does not include a single residential neighbor within 300 feet. The list reached school districts, water agencies, and commercial landlords across the region. It did not reach the street next door. Second: the City's own Assistant Director of Community Development stated in writing on November 5, 2024 that when the Evulich parcels were rezoned in July 2024, there was no citywide mailed notification to residents, and that the City instead relied on newspaper publication, its website, and opt -in e-notifications. That is in the administrative record. On top of that, there's also a serious conflict of interest issue. The council member who cast a deciding vote on July 2, 2024 of the upzoning, Councilmember Sheila Mohan, resided approximately 959 feet from Evulich Court and did not recuse, despite a reasonably foreseeable material financial effect on her property under FPPC Regulations. Residents were excluded before the meeting while a materially interested councilmember participated in the vote that concluded it. Every other deficiency documented below compounds those facts. Legal Requirements for Rezoning Notification A. California Government Code Sections 65090-65091 • Section 65090: Requires that notices of public hearings be published in a newspaper of general circulation and mailed to all owners of real property within a 300 foot radius of the subject property at least 10 days prior to the hearing. • Section 65091: Mandates that notices must include the date, time, and place of the hearing, a general explanation of the matter to be considered, and a description of the property under consideration. HUD Requirements for Disclosure Framework The Housing Element Sites Inventory framework, mandated by HUD, requires jurisdictions to disclose site -specific data by street address and assessor parcel number, not by internal application codes. Cupertino's notices identified the Evulich Court rezoning only through application numbers such as "MCA-2023-001" or "SPA- 2023-001" (as per the relied upon documents) with no street name or parcel reference a resident could independently locate or verify. That choice was inconsistent with the transparency the framework requires. B. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Requirements • Section 8899.50 imposes a separate and independent mandatory duty on all public agencies to administer housing programs in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing. This duty applies to notificaiton practices. A process that directs mailed notice to commercial landlords and government agencies across the region while sending nothing to the residential neighbors most directly affected by the rezoning is not one that affirmatively furthers fair housing. Chronological Analysis of City's Documents Each of the notice actions described above fails to meet the requirements of Sections 65090 and 65091. Taken together, they demonstrate that no compliant notice was ever provided. 1. January 2022 Citywide Mailing • The City mailed a postcard to approximately 20,000 residents in January 2022 announcing the kickoff of the Housing Element update. This mailing had serious problems. • Timing: The mailing occurred before Evulich Court was added to the Housing Element in February 2022; therefore, it could not have notified residents of the specific rezoning plans. • Passage of Time: There is a long lapse between the January 2022 mailing and the July 2024 rezoning. Normal residential turnover, compounded by the significant time gap, likely means many current residents never received any initial communication about the rezoning process. • Lack of Specificity: The mailing did not mention Evulich Court, Linda Vista Drive, or any specific sites proposed for rezoning. 2. June 5, 2024 Housing Element Rezoning Meeting eNotification • On June 5, 2024, the City sent an email notification to subscribers of Cupertino General News, Housing, or Planning Commission Meetings, announcing a meeting about the Housing Element rezoning. This is insufficient by any reasonable standard. • Limited Audience: Only reached residents who had subscribed to receive such notifications, excluding those unaware of the subscription process. Relying on digital notifications disproportionately excludes certain populations, such as older residents or those with limited access to digital resources. • Lack of Specificity: Did not mention Evulich Court or Linda Vista Drive, instead referring generally to the Housing Element rezoning. 3. June 18, 2024 Affidavit of Mailing Notice • On June 18, 2024, the City filed an affidavit stating that it mailed a Notice of Public Hearing for the July 2, 2024 City Council meeting to parties on an "interested parties" list. This mailing list was a major failure. • Inadequate Mailing List: The "interested parties" list includes regional agencies and commercial property owners with no nexus to Linda Vista Drive such as the West Valley Mission Community College District of Saratoga and Cupertino Bowl LLC. It includes the Evulich parcel owner, confirming the City could identify site specific owners when it chose to. It does not include a single residential neighbor within 300 feet. 4. June 21, 2024 Public Hearing Display Ad • On June 21, 2024, the City published a public hearing notice in the Cupertino Courier regarding the July 2, 2024 City Council meeting. This ad falls way short. • Limited Circulation: The Cupertino Courier does not have a demonstrable reach within the Linda Vista Drive neighborhood. • Ambiguity: The notice referred to application numbers like "MCA-2023- 001" without mentioning Evulich Court or Linda Vista Drive. 5. June 27, 2024 City Council Meeting eNotification • On June 27, 2024, the City sent an email to subscribers announcing the July 2, 2024 City Council meeting. Again, clearly deficient. • Same Issues as Prior eNotifications: Limited to subscribers, excluding many residents. Low engagement (31 % unique opens and 3% click rate), further highlighting its insufficiency as a notification method. • Lack of Specificity: Failed to mention Evulich Court, relying instead on cryptic application numbers. 6. July 2, 2024 City Council Meeting • The City Council proceeded with the rezoning of Evulich Court on July 2, 2024 without evidence of proper notification to affected residents. The City later confirmed this in its own words. Four months after the councile meeting, in an email, the City's Assistant Director of Community Development confirmed that no mailed notice was sent and that the City relied on publication, its website, and opt in eNotifications. Email screenshot on next page for reference. ---------- Forwarded message--------- €rom: Luke Connolly < LukeC®cupertino.gov> Date: Tue, Nov 5, 2024 at 10:41 AM Subject: RE: request for copy of mailer/postcard to residents regarding rezoning To: Cc: Pamela Wu <PamelaUV@cupertino.gov>, Sheila Mohan <SMohan@cupertino.gov>,4N11W Kitty Moore <kmoore@cupertino.gov> Let me clarify what I said at the August 22 meeting at the In residence. There was a citywide mailing done in January 2022 when the Housing Element update was kicking off to inform residents about why the update was being done and to encourage their participation. About 20,000 postcards were mailed at that time. In February 2022 the Evulich site owners' requested that the four parcels that make up the Evulich site be included as Housing Element priority housing sites to develop new housing during the housing Element update time period, 2023-2031. The Evulich site was included as a Housing Element priority site throughout all City Commission and City Council meetings from that point forward with the intent of having multi- family housing or townhomes developed at a minimum density of either 20 or 30 residential units per acre. In July of this year when the four Evulich parcels were rezoned, along with 54 other parcels in the City, there was not a similar citywide mailed notification to residents, but notice was provided through newspaper publication, the City's website and e-notifications to residents who had signed up to receive notification of public meetings. The Housing Element was adopted by the City Council on May 14, 2024, the rezoning actions that followed in July were done to bring the 58 Housing Element sites into conformance with the Housing Element. hope this brief summary explains some of what was a lengthy and complicated process. Luke Connolly Assistant Director of Community Development 7. Conflict of Interest at the Point of Decision Councilmember Sheila Mohan (Mayor at the time) participated in and voted in favor of the July 2, 2024 upzoning without recusing herself, despite residing approximately 959 feet from the Evulich Court site. Under California FPPC Regulation 18702.2(a)(8), a public official has a disqualifying financial interest when a governmental decision will have a reasonably foreseeable material financial effect on real property in which the official holds an interest, when that property lies between 500-1000 feet, if the effect is individually and materially distinguishable from its effect on the public generally. The rezoning of an immediately adjacent parcel from single family to high density does exactly that. It changes the character of the surrounding neighborhood in ways that directly and measurably affect proximate property values. Councilmember Mohan voted on this rezoning without disclosing or recusing on either. The City may argue that recusal was impractical because the vote was structured as a single ordinance. That argument is unavailable here. The July 2 vote covered five specific priority housing sites, not a general citywide policy. Recusal on the Evulich component while voting on the remaining four sites was procedurally available to Councilmember Mohan. She did not avail herself of that option. The notification failures locked residents out before the meeting. The conflict of interest tainted the vote that concluded it. The process failed at both ends. 8. August - September 2024 Petition Submission • Disregard for a Community Submitted Petition: A petition signed by 745 residents was submitted in August and September 2024, after the July 2 vote. That timing matters: the upzoning was already complete, and the petition gave the City a clear opportunity to acknowledge the notification failures and initiate corrective action. It did neither. The petition was never acknowledged and never placed on a City Council agenda. • On the Relevance of This Issue in 2026: One might try to argue that notification deficiencies are moot because residents now know about the project. The right to notice is not a right to eventually find out. It is a right to participate before an irreversible decision is made. Proper notification under Sections 65090-65091 would have enabled affected residents to appear at the July 2, 2024 hearing, submit written comments, seek advice, present objections before the Council voted and raise concerns about fire safety and evacuation that we are doing now. By the time most residents learned of the rezoning, the upzoning had already occurred. The harm is that the window for meaningful participation opened and closed without the residents who had the most at stake ever being told it existed. Subsequent awareness does not retroactively cure the deprivation of that opportunity. Courts have consistently held that the purpose of notice requirements is prospective, not remedial. • To Make an Analogy of It: Real estate disclosure law makes the same point from a different angle. A seller cannot bury a known material defect in fine print and claim the buyer was informed. The City knew exactly which parcels were being upzoned; the residents did not. Requiring them to decode internal application numbers and search municipal databases mirrors the kind of information asymmetry that disclosure law is designed to prevent. The record shows a consistent pattern: no direct notice, no site specific disclosure, and no meaningful opportunity for affected residents to participate. Legal Implications A. Violation of California Sections 65090-65091 as discussed above. B. Failure to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing • Section 8899.50, enacted by AB 686 in 2018 and effective January 1, 2019, imposes a mandatory duty on all California public agencies to administer housing and community development programs in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing. The statute defines affirmatively furthering fair housing as taking meaningful actions that address significant disparities in housing needs and access to opportunity, overcome patterns of segregation, and foster inclusive communities. Section 8899.50(b)(2) states explicitly that a public agency "shall have a mandatory duty to comply." This is not aspirational language. It is an enforceable obligation. HCD's AFFH Guidance Memo, issued pursuant to AB 686, specifies that jurisdictions must make a "diligent effort" to "equitably include all community stakeholders" in the housing element public participation process. The City's notification process for the July 2, 2024 rezoning did the opposite. It mailed notices to government agencies in San Francisco and Oakland, and commercial landlords in Redwood City. It mailed nothing to a single neighbor of Evulich Court. A process that excluded the most affected stakeholders while reaching institutional and commercial recipients across the region is not one that affirmatively furthers fair housing but instead affirmatively bypasses it. D. Challenge of Zoning Procedure is Supported by Case Law • In Horn v. County of Ventura (1979) 24 Cal.3d 605, the California Supreme Court held that land use decisions which constitute a "substantial or significant deprivation of the property rights of other landowners" require that affected persons receive reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard before the decision occurs. The court further held that these due process requirements "are not rooted in statute but are compelled by the stronger force of constitutional principle." In other words, even where a statutory procedure exists, the Constitution independently demands meaningful notice to those whose property interests are at stake. The City cannot satisfy this floor by pointing to newspaper publication or subscriber email lists. Those methods did not reach the residents whose property would be most directly and materially affected by the rezoning of the adjacent parcel. • In Scott v. City of Indian Wells (1972) 6 Cal.3d 541, the California Supreme Court held that adjacent property owners have standing to challenge a land use decision where the city failed to notify them of a public hearing, and that a city owes a duty to consider the interests of neighboring owners even when, as in that case, they reside outside city limits. The facts of Scott are instructive well beyond standing doctrine. The City of Indian Wells issued a conditional use permit for a large residential development on land formerly zoned R-1 single family. No neighboring owners outside city limits were notified. One owner appeared at the council meeting and attempted to submit a petition bearing 45 signatures from neighboring property owners within 300 feet. The petition was refused and, in the court's words, "totally ignored." The California Supreme Court found this deeply problematic and reversed the lower court's dismissal. The parallels to Evulich Court are direct. A petition bearing 745 signatures, 16x the number at issue in Scott, was submitted and was never acknowledged, never placed on a City Council agenda, and never addressed. The court held that proper notice is a substantive due process safeguard, not a procedural technicality, and that ignoring the voices of affected neighbors is not a harmless error. Conclusion The record is what the City created. It speaks for itself. From: mwfantozziCabtfanco.com To: City Clerk Cc: City Council; City Attorney"s Office Subject: Written Communications-SummerHill, LLC 10857, 10867, 10877, and 10887 Linda Vista Drive Townhomes Date: Sunday, March 29, 2026 10:42:09 PM Attachments: City Council Letter April 1 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. Dear City Clerk, Honorable Mayor, Councilmembers, and City Attorney, Please accept the attached letter as written communication regarding: Project: SummerHill - Evulich Ct. Townhomes; Application Number: TM-2024-009, ASA-2024-015, TR-2024-044; Agenda Item: 12; scheduled for consideration on April 1, 2026. 1 respectfully request that this documents be: 1. Posted to the public agenda packet as written communication, and 2. Distributed to the full City Council for their review. Please confirm receipt and posting at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your attention and for ensuring these materials are included in the public record. Sincerely, Mark W. Fantozzi, PE Cupertino mwfantozziCcbtfanco.com March 29, 2026 City Clerk, Honorable Mayor, Council Members, City Attorney City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: SummerHill-Homes Linda Vista Drive VIA EMAIL On August 11, 2024, 1 wrote a letter to the City Council expressing my concern over the upzoning of the Evulich property on Linda Vista Drive. My assessment was made based on my engineering background as a registered professional engineer in the State of California. Once I was able to review the Planning Staff report prior to the February 24, 2026 Planning Commission public hearing, I found that my concerns were well founded. A few of us in the neighborhood began analyzing the project in more detail in preparation of the March 17 Council meeting and we found numerous failures by Staff, Fire and SummerHill in the analysis of this project. Further research has shown that the project has serious issues over how the project was determined to be in conformance with standards and how Staff ignored public safety. This Council did not create this situation. But it is being asked to ratify it. The Evulich property was quietly added to the Housing Element after a legal settlement, without meaningful notice to the neighborhood most affected. Planning then shepherded it through a process that systematically deferred, omitted, and concealed the analyses that would have exposed its deficiencies. The result is a project before this Council with an incomplete safety record, an unsupported CEQA exemption, and unresolved fire and evacuation risks in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. A yes vote does not just approve 51 townhomes. It ratifies every step that brought this project here. I think it is important to understand how we got here. The Evulich property was put on the list of properties to be considered for the Housing Element back in 2022. However, the property was removed from the list prior to the city-wide notification that went out in 2022. 1 received that notice and the Evulich property was not shown. The Evulich property was zoned R1 Single Family with a minimum lot size of 7500 sq ft. The infrastructure in our neighborhood was built over 60 years ago and designed to support 11 houses on this property. The proposed development would put 5 times the demand on the infrastructure in place. The property simply could not support upzoning and the conditions for a CEQA review made it untenable. On January 10, 2024, The City settled a law suit with YIMBY over the delay in the City submitting its Housing Element plan. As part of the settlement, the City agreed to waive CEQA for rezoning properties that are designated as part of the Housing Element. In February 2024, the Evulich property was put back on the Housing Element and rezoned to R3. One of the many complaints I and my neighbors have about this project was the lack of notification of the zoning change on the property. We had several neighborhood meetings with Luke Connoly and staff from Planning. Each time they claimed the city did an extensive public outreach. However, from public records we determined 1. The Evulich property was added after the general notification of properties placed under the Housing Element. 2. The Evulich property notification was done by a posted notice at City Hall, a post card mailing that did not go to anyone in the neighborhood and the City website. Furthermore, only the APN was provided, no street address. Do any of you know your APN number? Do any of you know your neighbor's APN? This notification may have satisfied the process allowed under the current housing laws but it was not in any way extensive as described by Luke Connoly. An effective outreach would have insured those most affected by the rezoning were notified in writing similar to what we received for the public hearing on the project. As I research this incident, it is clear that there was a concerted effort by Planning to conceal from the neighborhood the addition of the Evulich property to the Housing Element and subsequent rezoning. Understanding how we got here is important because it shows a pattern by Planning to conceal information that may jeopardize project approval. In addition, the exclusion of the property from the original Housing Element list and the subsequent addition of the property as a result of the YIMBY settlement made it clear that Planning was aware of the challenges this site has with respect to higher density. It's also important to consider the timing of events. 1. Waiver of CEQA as part of the YIMBY settlement in January 2024, 2. Addition of the property to the Housing Element in February 2024 3. Approval of the upzoning by City Council in early summer 2024 4. SummerH ill filing of the project in August 2024. The sequence of events is not coincidental. It evidences outside influence put on the City to move on this property. It suggests a Planning Department that is more interested in pushing a project through instead of honoring a commitment to the community to ensure transparency, accountability, and fairness in the decision -making processes. Based on my review of the project documents and Staff Report, it is clear the Council must deny the project or at a minimum require a full CEQA review and completion of all life -safety, environmental, and mobility analyses before any approval is considered. I have previously submitted detailed descriptions of the deficiencies found in Planning and Fire determinations as written communications and are summarized below. This site is in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, and the safety record is incomplete Your own record confirms the site sits in a VHFHSZ and that the project's safety case is unfinished. The Fire Department's conditional notes still require a Final Fire Protection Plan, acknowledge non -conforming setbacks, and call for a compliant turnaround —proof that key fire -safety issues remain outstanding today, not at some future building -permit stage. [Transporta... Study E&O I PDF], [ESA Review ... 0 Findings I PDF] Despite this, the applicant provided no wildfire evacuation analysis for a neighborhood with single -egress constraints and documented bottlenecks, which is directly contrary to the Fire Code, PRC 4290, and CEQA's wildfire impact requirements. [Transporta... Study E&O I PDF], [Biological Errors I PDF] Bottom line: You cannot make current, defensible findings on fire safety or evacuation on this record. [Biological Errors I PDF] 2) Fire -flow and water -supply reliability were not demonstrated (modeling isn't proof) The submittals do not include: • Hydrant flow tests or on -the -ground verification of residual pressure and duration, • Peak -demand, PSPS, or multi -structure fire scenarios, and • Hydrant spacing/placement and redundancy verification for a hillside VHFHSZ subdivision. [Transporta... Study E&O I PDF] Your integrated exhibits log documents 17 fire -flow, 9 fire -access, and 17 water -supply deficiencies — structural, not clerical. These are mandatory life -safety elements under CFC Appendix B/C/D and PRC 4290—not optional. [ESA Review ... 0 Findings I PDF] Hydraulic models are only as valid as their assumptions and boundary conditions; without physical flow tests and reliability checks, they can be easily skewed. In a VHFHSZ with a 50-year-old water main and no redundancy, that is unacceptable. [ESA Review ... 0 Findings I PDF] I've done extensive computer modeling in my work. Computer models are only as good as the assumptions made on the boundary conditions used. You can vary the results to achieve a desired result by simply changing the assumptions and/or boundary conditions. Testing is the only why to verify your model. Without field testing, there needs to be a review of the safety factors used and system redundancies to account for inaccuracies in the computer model. As an example, in structural engineering, certain connections used in the lateral force resisting systems of a building can be modeled as part of the analysis, but to be able to use the full capacity of the connection as modeled, there needs to physical testing of the connection. Ask: Require field hydrant flow testing, reliability modeling for peak/PSPS, and a water -main capacity/ redundancy plan before any approvals. [Transporta... Study E&O I PDF], [ESA Review ... O Findings I PDF] 3) Evacuation and access: no study, single egress, known bottlenecks The record shows no wildfire evacuation analysis —even though the corridor is single egress (Evulich Linda Vista) with known choke points, and even though the Fire Code and PRC 4290 require safe ingress/egress. The City's own policy framework and recent evacuation capacity work underscore these constraints. [Transporta... Study E&O I PDF], [Biological Errors I PDF] Planning staff's reliance on a claim that the City lacks an "adopted evacuation plan" does not excuse the project's duty to demonstrate safe evacuation now, particularly in a VHFHSZ. [Transporta... Study E&O PDF] Ask: Require a CEQA-level evacuation analysis with clearance times, network performance under wildfire loading, and mitigation/secondary access feasibility before action. [Biological Errors I PDF] 4) CEQA exemption is legally unsupportable on this record CEQA exemptions fail where unusual circumstances raise a reasonable possibility of significant impact: VHFHSZ location, discretionary PRC 4290 exception, missing wildfire/evacuation/water-reliability analyses, and conditional fire approval. All are present here. [Biological Errors I PDF] Moreover, because a PRC 4290 exception is discretionary, the project is not ministerial for CEQA purposes. CEQA does not allow approval premised on future mitigation such as a later Fire Protection Plan. [Biological Errors I PDF] The reason this property was removed from the original Housing Element list was the challenges a CEQA review would uncover and the resulting mitigations would make the project infeasible. The timing of the reinstatement following the YIMBY settlement is not coincidental. Ask: Direct staff to prepare a full CEQA analysis (wildfire behavior, evacuation, water reliability, biological, hazardous materials, and transportation updates). [Biological Errors I PDF] 5) General Plan consistency cannot be found Under Government Code §§65300.5 and 65860, you must make General Plan consistency findings regardless of CEQA status. You cannot do so here: the project lacks verified evacuation capacity, fire -flow reliability, and present (not deferred) hazard mitigation —all core Safety Element requirements. [ESA Review ... 0 Findings I PDF] Ask: Until the safety record is complete and consistent, General Plan findings cannot be made. [ESA Review ... 0 Findings I PDF] 6) Environmental & Biological E&O: data gaps that matter in the field • Phase II ESA tested only organochlorines (8081A); it did not test for organophosphates like parathion or dithiocarbamates like ziram—pesticide classes commonly present in legacy orchard soils. The corrective action is straightforward: run supplemental sampling/analysis (e.g., 8321 B/validated OP/DTC suites), compare to SF Bay RWQCB ESLs, and issue a Phase II Addendum. Approving without this is a CEQA-level gap. [ESA Review ... 0 Findings I PDF] • Biological report omissions: no species -level analysis for red-tailed hawk (a protected raptor), no acoustic bat surveys despite suitable structures, and no bird -safe design (glass/lighting/pets) or cumulative foraging assessment —each a standard expectation for CEQA biology in this setting. [Biological Errors I PDF] I grew up on a farm in Morgan Hill. As part of our farming operation, we farmed several hundred acres of fruit orchards much like what was here prior to development. I am familiar with the pesticides and fungicides used in orchards, and parathion and ziram were widely used up until the 70's. Developers are required to test for all legacy chemicals used as part of the historical use of the property. Ask: Require the ESA addendum and complete biological surveys/mitigation (raptor nesting, bat surveys, bird -safe measures) before hearing reconsideration. [ESA Review ... 0 Findings I PDF], [Biological Errors I PDF] 7) Transportation E&O: safety, code, and CEQA posture problems The Transportation Study contains numerous errors and omissions: • Parking minimums mis-stated; bicycle parking obligations omitted; both are material to plan compliance. • Missing intersections (e.g., Columbus/Terrace) even though the report itself says some trips will use them; skewing impact location. • Invalid CEQA/VMT posture (mis-reliance on AB 130); must either meet the new PRC §21080.66 infill criteria or follow Cupertino's 2025 Guidelines for VMT screening/analysis. • Sight-distance/school-area controls not translated into enforceable striping/signage exhibits (CA MUTCD). [Transporta... Study E&O I PDF] Ask: Require a corrected LTA: add the missing intersections/assignments, fix parking/bike parking, provide the AB 130/PRC §21080.66 compliance memo or VMT analysis, and submit stamped sight -triangle/ school -area control sheets. [Transporta... Study E&O I PDF] 8) "Vesting" does not freeze public safety; PRC 4290 exception needs evidence—incl. financials Staff suggested "vesting" insulates the project from updated safety rules. That is incorrect. SB 330 does not vest fire -safety, evacuation, water -supply, or VHFHSZ regulations —these are police -power standards that remain fully applicable. [Transporta... Study E&O I PDF] Further, a PRC 4290 exception is discretionary and requires findings of equivalent fire safety, no feasible alternative, General Plan consistency, and not deferring mitigation. Your record also explains when financial disclosure is warranted —if an exception confers a financial benefit, the City may require pro formas and cost comparisons to evaluate feasibility claims prior to granting any safety deviation. [Biological Errors I PDF], [Biological Errors I PDF] SummerHill intends to sell the market units for $2.21VI to $2.6M. The construction costs are fixed regardless where the project is built in the Bay Area. Land costs may vary but the land cost is known up front and once known is considered fixed. The soft costs are variable. By providing exceptions to standards, the City is providing SummerHill a financial benefit by reducing their soft costs. This goes directly to profit. A profit made by sacrificing the health and safety of the public, and jeopardizing property is not acceptable. The City has the authority to require SummerHill to disclose the financials on the project. Ask: Do not grant or rely on any PRC 4290 exception without a complete evidentiary record, including applicant financials if they assert compliance is infeasible. [Biological Errors I PDF], [Biological Errors PDF] 9) About "peer review" and why it doesn't cure missing evidence At the Planning Commission, SummerHill argued that reports were vetted by staff and "peer reviewed." But peer review is not a substitute for required data. The Millennium Tower was expert -designed and peer -reviewed —and still failed, with taxpayers paying tens of millions. The question is not whether a report exists —it's whether the record contains the required analyses and verified data to support your findings today. Here, it does not. [ESA Review ... 0 Findings I PDF] 10) The stakes: insurance, property values, and City liability Approving a 51-unit project in a VHFHSZ without verified evacuation, fire -flow reliability, ESA/biology completeness, and corrected transportation safety will drive insurance costs up and property values down while increasing the City's exposure in foreseeable wildfire scenarios. The prudent course is to complete the analyses first. [Transporta... Study E&O I PDF], [ESA Review ... 0 Findings I PDF], [Biological Errors I PDF], [Transporta... Study E&O I PDF] SummerHill is aware the project will not withstand a CEQA review. The reports they filed for this project are deeply flawed and we have demonstrated that the reports will not stand up to scrutiny. In an effort to get conciliatory approval by some of the neighbors, they offered concessions to two of my neighbors in advance of the March 17 Council meeting. SummerHill refused to consider these same concessions when asked by one of the Commissioners at the Planning Commission meeting, claiming they "could not make the project work." This confirms why the Evulich property was removed from the Housing Element back in 2022 when CEQA was required for rezoning, and why it was added back only after the CEQA waiver was granted by the City. This property should never have been upzoned in the first place and the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone only makes it worse for upzoning. As registered professional engineer, I am mandated by law to protect the health and safety of the public. This applies to the work I design. However, when I see the failure of a government agency to fulfill its duty to protect public safety and verify compliance, I feel it is my duty to identify the problems and demand compliance. Planning has clearly demonstrated indifference to public safety to the benefit of developers to simply meet a quota. This Council should not. The risks documented in this letter are now part of the public record regardless of how this Council votes. Supporting housing is defensible. Approving housing in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone without completing the required safety record is a different matter. If residents are trapped on Linda Vista Drive in a wildfire, the administrative record will show exactly what was known, who was told, and how each member voted. That record does not expire with a term. Please deny the project, or continue the hearing and direct staff to: 1. Prepare a full CEQA review addressing wildfire/evacuation, water -supply reliability, ESA addendum, complete biological surveys/mitigation, and a corrected transportation analysis. [Biological Errors I PDF], [ESA Review ... 0 Findings I PDF], [Biological Errors I PDF], [Transporta... Study E&O I PDF] 2. Require a Final Fire Protection Plan now, not at building -permit stage; include verified hydrant flow tests, peak/PSPS reliability, and redundancy measures. [Transporta... Study E&O I PDF], [ESA Review ... 0 Findings I PDF] 3. Require PRC 4290 exception findings supported by substantial evidence, including financial disclosure if the applicant claims safety compliance is infeasible. [Biological Errors I PDF], [Biological Errors I PDF] 4. Confirm General Plan consistency cannot be made until all safety and environmental requirements are satisfied on the record. [ESA Review ... 0 Findings I PDF] Sincerely, Mark W. Fantozzi, PE From: Rhoda Fry To: Public Comments Cc: Tina Kapoor; City Council Subject: 4/1/2026 Agenda #3 Linda Vista - APRIL DATE IS A SHAM Date: Sunday, March 29, 2026 6:47:58 AM Attachments: aril 1 deadline.Ddf 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, Summerhill's April Date is a sham. City Planning calculated a final date of May 4. Summerhill wanted April 1 to meet their own needs, it had NOTHING to do with AB130. The City is allowing themselves to be bullied — this is not okay. One January 30, 2026, Steve Bull wrote: "I ask this because we're concerned about a potential push until May because our contract requires us to go hearing by April l." Please see attached extracted from PRA NR 26-73 Regards, Rhoda and 10887 Linda Vista Drive Hello, Attached please find a letter which indicates that staff has completed our review for consistency for this project based on the information provided on January 13. 2026. l have also attached the proposed conditions provided from the Tamien Nation for your review. Please let me know if you have any questions. -Emi Emi Sugiyama Senior Planner Community Development EmiSAcunertino.eov (408)777-3205 From: Emi Sugiyama Sent: Friday, January 30, 2026 11:06 AM To:'Bull, Steve' <SBull@shhomes.com>; Lin, Austin <ALin@shhomes.com> Cc: Ebrahimi, Kevin <KEbrahirni5shhome%com>; Matt Larson <mattamatt-larson.com> Subject: RE: TM-2024-009, ASA-2024-015, TR-2024-044 - Planning Permits for Townhome Development at 10857, 10867, 10877, and 10887 Linda Vista Drive Hello Steve, Our calculation of the final date includes the 30-day approval period outlined in AB 130, moving the final date to May 4!h. Unfortunately, a final date of April 4`h would still not include enough time to ensure that, should an issue arise, we cant reschedule the item For a new hearing in April as the first hearing after the March 1711' meeting is on April 7"'. As such, we are requesting the 90-day extension to May 4th to accommodate any unforeseen circumstances. I'll also clarify that CGC Section. 65 95 7 allows for only one extension to be applied, so we wilt not have the opportunity to further extend the timeline past the date agreed upon. Thank you for sending over the sign -in sheet and I should have a tetter outlining; our consistency determination over to you early next week. -Emi Emi Sugiyama Senior Planner Community Development EmiSOcupertino.gov 14=777-3205 From: Bull, Steve <SBull0)shhomes.com> Sent: Friday, January 30, 2026 8:34 AM To: Emi Sugiyama <EmiS _ cupertino.gov-, Lin, Austin <ALin@shhomes.com> Cc: Ebrahimi, Kevin <KEbrahimie-shhomes.com>; Matt Larson <matt�7a matt-larson.com> Subject: RE: TM-2024-009, ASA-2024-015, TR-2024-044 - Planning Permits for Townhome Development at 10857, 10867, 10877, and 10887 Linda Vista Drive CAUT10N. This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the [content is safe. Good morning Emi, Please find the attached sign in sheet of the attendees from the 1128/26 neighborhood meeting. Also, can you confirm the AB130 timeline? I believe that the Tribal Consultation Period (including extension) ended on January 4, 2026- Wouldn't a 90-day extension bring the date to April 4, 2026 (rather than May 4)? 1 ask this because we're concerned about a potential push until May because our contract requires us to get to hearing by April 1. Finally, would you please provide a formal letter that states the project is consistent with the applicable codes, etc Thank you, Steve Steven Bull Vice President of Development SurnmerHill Homes 6101 Ballinger Canyon Road, Suite 425, San Ramon, CA 94583 Mobile (510) 410-1188 sbullC&shhomes.com / SummerHilftmes.com Al[ subject mailer cuumiala in this cmnil m am Ucntiul and prapricmry In SummcrH ill Fummcrlh 11 Aranmem Connuumlics and sWuW nw be disOmQd to any p¢rmn 0.m kitcd as an Original rucipiem. Summ"HilI Noma+ SummcrH ill Apartment Commumium All righu n n A From: Emi Sugiyama <ErniS(_ cu ep rtino"gvv> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2026 4:27 PM To: Bull, Steve <SBulleshhomes.com>; Lin, Austin <ALinCc)shhomes.com> Cc: Ebrahimi, Kevin <KEbrahimi@shhomes.com>; Matt Larson <mat!@matt-larson.com> Subject: RE: TM-2024-009, ASA-2024-015, TR-2024-044 - Planning Permits for Townhome Development at 10857, 10867, 10877, and 10887 Linda Vista Drive Hello Steve, Thank you for confirming the attendees and for the draft notice sign. Can you please confinn that the rendering shows accurate tree locations and mature growth? if so, please feel free to post as is. As for the extension, we are also expecting the project to be scheduled for a City Council hearing within a few weeks of the project being heard by the Planning Commission, likely on March 171h. However, we are requesting the full 90-day extension to ensure that, should an unforeseen issue (e.g. scheduling con fTic1) arise, we are able to accommodate a later hearing date. Please let me know if you have any questions. -Emi Emi Sugiyama Senior Planner Community Development EmiS&cuoertino.gov (408)777-3205 From: Bull, Steve <SBul Qshhomes.com�- Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2026 8:45 AM To: Emi Sugiyama <Emi5i7cuoerting. ova; Lin, Austin <ALinCcDshhomes.ccm> Cc: Ebrahimi, Kevin <KEbrahimi(a)shhomes.com; Matt Larson <mattOmatt-larson.com> Subject: RE: TM-2024-009, ASA-2024-015, TR-2024-044 - Planning Permits for Townhome Development at 10857, 10867, 10877. and 10887 Linda Vista Drive €CAUTION This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the [content is safe. Good morning Emi — Thank you for confirming the February 24, 2026 Planning Commission Hearing date. Please see the below information along with one question: Extension: We were estimating that the City Council date would be within 34 weeks of the Planning Commission Hearing date or approximately March 17, 2026. Can you clarify why a full 90-day extension until May 4 is needed? Planning Commission Attendance: The following team members will be in attendance in person From: Rhoda Fry To: Public Comments; City Attorney"s Office Subject: 4/1/2026 Agenda #3 Linda Vista Recusal Request Date: Saturday, March 28, 2026 6:12:44 PM Attachments: liana chao advice Ietter.Ddf kitty moore advice Ietter.Ddf 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 City Attorney, Recusal Request for Councilmember Mohan: Regarding Public Hearing #3 on April 1, 2026 regarding proposed Linda Vista project, Sheila Mohan resides within 1000 feet of the Linda Vista project and this development project could impact the value of her property due to alteration of the neighborhood's character and, more importantly, further impacting the ability to evacuate from a wild fire (per Cupertino's recent assessment). Consequently, she should recuse. Please find attached advice letters from the FPPC pertaining to councilmembers Liang Chao and Kitty Moore recusing due to their proximity to projects in 2020 and 2025, respectively that illustrate the need to recuse. Additionally, "For decisions impacting property between 500 and 1,000 feet from an official's real property, a decision's effect on an official's real property interest is material if the decision would change the parcel's market value, development potential, income producing potential, highest and best use, or character by substantially altering traffic levels, intensity of use, parking, view, privacy, noise levels, or air quality. (Regulation 18702.2(a)(8).)" (source: Cupertino's former law firm: https://www.smwlaw.com/2019/08/29/tips-for- compling-with-the-f=c s-revised-500-foot-rule-addres sing-when-public-officials-have-a- conflict-of-interest-in-decisions-potentially-affecting-their-real- oronertv/#: :text=For%20deci sions%20imnactin LYD/o20brobertv%20between.on%20an%20offic ial's%20real%20pro12ert Sincerely, Rhoda Fry PS — see map below f firII �1111 �lII �I IIII III d� IIII4� ,. Il�plll II III idlllll ,�- r", P��,,.' � iIIIIVaI�Ylu111YI111Vlilul�lll;lIIVII�puVVNIVJp)I�WV��C i, Line Pau, r]rr. IF "AIpa lh 3r, pal yaon it Nea�ure She dibtance bet— n or ound �� STATE OF CALIFORNIA FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION 1102 Q Street • Suite 3000 • Sacramento, CA 95811 (916) 322-566o • Fax (916) 322-o886 July 1, 2020 Heather Minner City Attorney City of Cupertino 1300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Re: Your Request for Advice Our File No. A-20-072 Dear Ms. Minner: This letter responds to your request for advice regarding the conflict of interest provisions of the Political Reform Act (the "Act").' Please note that we are only providing advice under the conflict of interest provisions of the Act and not under other general conflict of interest prohibitions such as common law conflict of interest or Section 1090. Also note that we are not a finder of fact when rendering advice (In re Oglesby (1975) 1 FPPC Ops. 71), and any advice we provide assumes your facts are complete and accurate. If this is not the case or if the facts underlying these decisions should change, you should contact us for additional advice. You are the City Attorney for the City of Cupertino seeking advice on behalf of Cupertino Councilmember Liang Chao. You ask whether Councilmember Chao may take part in future closed session City decisions involving strategy for litigation against the City that challenges recent General Plan and Zoning Code Amendments for the Vallco Shopping District Special Area. Councilmember Chao previously sought advice from the Commission regarding participation in governmental decisions concerning two mixed -use development projects (the Vallco SB 35 project and the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan project) on the Vallco site, the nearest boarder of which is located 939 feet away from her residence. (See Minner Advice Letter, No. A-19-032.)2 There, the Sand Hill Property Company planned to develop a mixed -use project located mainly on the site of the current Vallco Shopping Mall, which is approximately 58 acres. The mall began to decline in the early 2000's and by 2018, it had an approximately 76% vacancy rate. Both proposals were similarly substantial in size: 1) the SB 35 project proposed 2,402 housing units, 1.8 million square feet of office space and 400,000 square feet of retail, with building heights of up to 240 feet; and 2) the Specific Plan project proposed 2,923 housing units, 1,750,000 ' The Political Reform Act is contained in Government Code Sections 81000 through 91014. All statutory references are to the Government Code, unless otherwise indicated. The regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission are contained in Sections 18110 through 18997 of Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations. All regulatory references are to Title 2, Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations, unless otherwise indicated. 2 We note that Councilmember Chao was the Vice Mayor at the time the Minner letter was issued. File No. A-20-072 Page No. 2 square feet of office space, 400,000 square feet of retail, and 191 hotel rooms, with building heights of up to 22 stories. (Minner, supra.) The Commission concluded that although Councilmember Chao had a conflict of interest in governmental decisions concerning both proposed projects, the public generally exception applied to allow her to take part in the decisions.3 (Ibid.) The City Council has since rescinded its approval of the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan and the associated General Plan Amendment and Development Agreement in response to certified referendum petitions challenging their approvals. With respect to the SB 35 project, the Santa Clara County Superior Court issued a ruling that upheld the City's approval of it on May 6, 2020. The deadline for Petitioners to appeal that decision has not yet expired. The 2019 Vallco General Plan and Zoning Amendments and Litigation On August 20, 2019, the City Council adopted General Plan Amendments that amended land use regulations for the 58-acre Vallco site and on September 3, 2019, the City Council adopted corresponding Zoning amendments (collectively the "GPA"). Councilmember Chao recused herself from those decisions. The new GPA made the following changes: 1) Removed "office" as a permitted use for the Vallco Shopping District Special Area; 2) Established a 60-foot height limit for the entire site; 3) Permits a maximum of 620 residential units 13.1 acres to the east of Wolfe Road, and limited ground floor commercial uses are also permitted, but not required, in connection with residential development. The General Plan Amendments did not change other allowed uses and General Plan policies for the site. On the remaining roughly 45-acres (designated Regional Shopping), the following mix of non-residential uses are still allowed: 1) 1,207,704 square feet of commercial; and 2) 339 hotel rooms. General Plan policies requiring: (1) a specific plan, (2) a minimum of 600,000 square feet of retail use and no more than 30 percent of commercial spaced developed with entertainment uses, and (3) development in a street grid with improved pubic street connections to encourage development in the form of a town center are also retained for the Reginal Shopping designation. The City Council also made corresponding changes to the zoning code, and adopted a second addendum to the Environmental Impact Report (` EIR") for the 2014 General Plan, finding that no subsequent environmental review is required for these actions because there are no substantial changes to the project or the circumstances under which the project is to be undertaken that would result in new or substantially more severe environmental impacts requiring major revisions to the Final EIR. Additionally, it found there is no new information that involves new s The Commission further advised that Councilmember Chao should seek additional advice if the City Council were asked to consider a potential alternative Specific Plan proposal with similar or less impacts than the current Specific Plan proposal. File No. A-20-072 Page No. 3 significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified environmental effects that would require preparation of a subsequent EIR. Finally, the City Council directed staff to initiate a Specific Planning process for the portion of the site designated "Regional Shopping" by the General Plan amendments and consider as part of that process a plan that would include a maximum of 1,500 units of housing for the entire site and reduce the amount of required retail within the area to 400,000 square feet. The property owner of approximately 51 acres of the Vallco site has since filed a petition for writ of mandate in Santa Clara County Superior Court, challenging the City's approval of the GPA on several grounds. The GPA Lawsuit is currently stayed by agreement of the parties and the Court, until 30 days after a final judgment in the lawsuit challenging the Vallco SB 35 project. As mentioned, in its ruling dated May 6, 2020, the Santa Clara County Superior Court upheld the City's approval of the Vallco SB 35 project. Judgement was filed on May 22nd and the deadline for Petitioners to appeal that decision has not yet expired. The City Council will need to make a number of decisions regarding the GPA lawsuit, including litigation strategy if the case proceeds, and you expect there will be future closed sessions to provide updates on the case, facilitate discussions, and receive direction from Council. Initially, we must determine whether it is reasonably foreseeable that a project under the new GPA could have a material financial effect on Councilmember Chao's residence 939 feet away. As we explained with respect to foreseeability and materiality in our previous advice: The Vice Mayor's interest in her residence is not explicitly involved in any of the decisions at issue. Therefore, with respect to this interest, the effect of each of those decisions is reasonably foreseeable if it can be recognized as a realistic possibility and more than hypothetical or theoretical. Under Regulation 18702.2(a)(8), a decision's effect on an official's real property interest is material if the decision involves property located more than 500 but less than 1,000 feet from the property line of the official's parcel, and the decision would change the parcel's market value, development potential, income producing potential, highest and best use, or character by substantially altering traffic levels, intensity of use, parking, view, privacy, noise levels, or air quality. (Minner Advice Letter, supra.) In your previous advice request, we concluded that based on the facts provided, including the massive scale of both proposed projects, governmental decisions concerning either the Specific Plan Project or the SB 35 Project would have a reasonably foreseeable material financial effect on the Vice Mayor's interest in her residence. (Ibid.) File No. A-20-072 Page No. 4 Our conclusion is the same in the present matter. Even though any project under the new GPA would be considerably smaller than both the Specific Plan Project and the SB 35 Project, a project under the new GPA on the largely vacant Vallco site that proposed approximately 620 residential units, over 1,000,000 square feet of commercial, and 339 hotel rooms is still a substantial project that would likewise have a reasonably foreseeable and material financial effect on the Councilmember's residence 939 feet from the project. The determinative question therefore is whether the public generally exception would apply to allow Councilmember Chao to take part in decisions concerning litigation strategy with respect to the lawsuit challenging the new GPA. We conclude that it does not. For the exception to apply, Regulation 18703(a) provides: A governmental decision's financial effect on a public official's financial interest is indistinguishable from its effect on the public generally if the official establishes that a significant segment of the public is affected and the effect on his or her financial interest is not unique compared to the effect on the significant segment. For purposes of the exception, 25-percent or more of the residential real property within an official's jurisdiction constitutes a "significant segment of the public." (Regulation 18703(b).) In the previous advice request, you provided a map showing that approximately 25-percent of the residential units in the City are within 3,800 feet of the Project. (Minner Advice Letter, supra.) Concluding that the public generally exception applied, we stated: Given the massive size of this Project, which will add thousands of new housing units and jobs to the Project site that is expected to become a regional destination, it appears that the Project will affect all the residences identified in the significant segment within 3,800 feet of the Project. Furthermore, while some of the properties in closer proximity may be affected disproportionately, there is no indication that the foreseeable impacts, such as increased property value, increased traffic on several main thoroughfares, intensity of use or views, will have a unique or disproportionate effect on Vice Mayor Chao's residence, which is 929 feet from the Project, in comparison to the other properties within 3,800 feet of the project. (Ibid.) There are two important differences between the present situation and the previous one. First, as mentioned, any project under the new GPA will be significantly smaller than the massive Specific Plan and SB 35 projects, which both proposed well over 2,000 new housing units and almost 2 million square feet of office space. Here, there can only be a maximum of 620 housing units and office space is not even permitted. Second, there was an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") prepared as a result of the proposed projects in the previous advice request that contained important factual information concerning the specific impacts of those projects on which we could File No. A-20-072 Page No. 5 base our conclusion that the public generally exception applied. No such EIR was prepared in the present matter because under the updated GPA "there is no new information that involves new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified environmental effects that would require preparation of a subsequent EIR." Therefore, Councilmember Chao has not established that the public generally exception applies in the present situation. Accordingly, the Act's conflict of interest provisions prohibit Councilmember Chao from taking part in future closed session City decisions involving strategy for litigation against the City that challenges recent General Plan and Zoning Code Amendments for the Vallco Shopping District Special Area. If you have other questions on this matter, please contact me at (916) 322-5660. Sincerely, Dave Bainbridge General Counsel By: Jac�Z woOs�de Jack Woodside Senior Counsel, Legal Division JW:aja STATE OF CALIFORNIA FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION 1102 Q Street • Suite 3050 • Sacramento, CA 95811 (916) 322-566o • Fax (916) 322-o886 June 12, 2025 Kitty Moore Cupertino Vice Mayor Cupertino City Hall 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Your Request for Formal Advice Our File No. A-25-084 Dear Ms. Moore: This letter responds to your request for advice regarding the conflict of interest provisions of the Political Reform Act (the "Act").' Please note that we are only providing advice under the conflict of interest provisions of the Act and not under other general conflict of interest prohibitions such as common law conflict of interest or Section 1090. Also note that we are not a finder of fact when rendering advice (In re Oglesby (1975) 1 FPPC Ops. 71), and any advice we provide assumes your facts are complete and accurate. If this is not the case or if the facts underlying these decisions should change, you should contact us for additional advice. QUESTION Under the Act, may you, as a member of the Cupertino City Council, take part in governmental decisions relating to the acquisition and development of a vacant parcel of land (the "Finch Parcel") that would create a new City Park located approximately 600 feet from your residence? CONCLUSION No, given the scope of the decision, which involves the replacement of a currently fenced, vacant parcel with a new City park, and the proximity to your property, it appears that the decisions relating to the acquisition of the Finch Parcel, and its subsequent development, would impact the market value and income -producing potential of your property. Therefore, it is reasonably ' The Political Reform Act is contained in Government Code Sections 81000 through 91014. All statutory references are to the Government Code, unless otherwise indicated. The regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission are contained in Sections 18104 through 18998 of Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations. All regulatory references are to Title 2, Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations, unless otherwise indicated. File No. A-25-084 Page No. 2 foreseeable that decisions relating to the acquisition and development of the Finch Parcel may have a material financial effect on your property and the Act prohibits you from taking part in the decisions. FACTS AS PRESENTED BY REQUESTER You are the Vice Mayor of the City of Cupertino. The City will soon consider the potential purchase of a vacant property from the Cupertino Union School District for a potential park. The property in question is a vacant lot adjacent to, but fenced off from, Sedgwick Elementary School, a public pre-5th grade school. In a follow up email, you stated that the parcel is approximately 1.48 acres. A portion of the lot would likely be vacated to align the street with the rest of Phil Lane and allow for on street parking adjacent to the site. The school district purchased the property several years ago, tore down the existing home, did environmental cleanup, and has left it fenced off. You state that the vacant property is located slightly more than 600 feet from your home. You also note that, to access the property, due to permanent barriers (homes, fences, school), you would need to travel a minimum of 1,500 feet to get to the vacant parcel. You state that there is no foreseeable impact to traffic, noise, air quality, or view from your home because the Finch Parcel is on a separate street from the elementary school, with on -street parking and a parking lot, and that your view of the Finch Parcel is blocked by houses and mature trees. You also note that your home is near Hyde Middle School with open fields and track, Sedgwick Elementary, Creekside Park with soccer fields and playgrounds, and Cupertino High School. ANALYSIS Under Section 87100 of the Act, "[a] public official at any level of state or local government shall not make, participate in making or in any way attempt to use the official's position to influence a governmental decision in which the official knows or has reason to know the official has a financial interest." "A public official has a financial interest in a decision within the meaning of Section 87100 if it is reasonably foreseeable that the decision will have a material financial effect, distinguishable from its effect on the public generally, on the official, a member of the official's immediate family," or on certain specified economic interests. (Section 87103.) Among those specified economic interests is "[a]ny real property in which the public official has a direct or indirect interest worth two thousand dollars ($2,000) or more." (Section 87103(b).) Regulation 18701(a) provides the applicable standard for determining the foreseeability of a financial effect on an economic interest explicitly involved in the governmental decision. It states, "[a] financial effect on a financial interest is presumed to be reasonably foreseeable if the financial interest is a named party in, or the subject of, a governmental decision before the official or the official's agency. A financial interest is the subject of a proceeding if the decision involves the issuance, renewal, approval, denial or revocation of any license, permit, or other entitlement to, or contract with, the financial interest, and includes any governmental decision affecting a real property financial interest as described in Regulation 18702.2(a)(1)-(6)." File No. A-25-084 Page No. 3 Where an official's economic interest is not explicitly involved in the governmental decision, the applicable standard for determining the foreseeability of a financial effect on the economic interest is found in Regulation 18701(b). That regulation provides, "[a] financial effect need not be likely to be considered reasonably foreseeable. In general, if the financial effect can be recognized as a realistic possibility and more than hypothetical or theoretical, it is reasonably foreseeable. If the financial result cannot be expected absent extraordinary circumstances not subject to the public official's control, it is not reasonably foreseeable." The reasonably foreseeable financial effect of a governmental decision on a parcel of real property in which an official has a financial interest, other than a leasehold interest, is material whenever the governmental decision involves property located more than 500 feet but less than 1,000 feet from the property line of the parcel, and the decision would change the parcel's: (A) Development potential; (B) Income producing potential; (C) Highest and best use; (D) Character by substantially altering traffic levels, intensity of use, parking, view, privacy, noise levels, or air quality; or (E) Market value. (Regulation 18702.2(a)(8).) Given Regulation 18702.2(a)(8)'s reference to "the property line of the parcel," the relevant distance between a public official's real property and the real property at issue in a governmental decision, for purposes of the Act, is the distance measuring directly from parcel to parcel or "as the crow flies." With respect to a potential change to the character of your real property, you state that you do not believe the acquisition of property and the creation of a new park in place of a vacant parcel could foreseeably impact traffic levels, noise, air quality, or view from your home. While these are factors in determining whether a decision may affect the character of your property, they are not the only factors that must be considered. Based on the facts you have provided, it is unnecessary to reach a conclusion regarding whether the decisions would change the character of your real property, given the potential impact on market value and income -producing potential. More specifically, the decisions at issue would involve the acquisition of a vacant parcel for the construction of a new 1.48-acre City park, a decision made even more significant by the fact that the proposal would involve the redevelopment of a parcel that has been vacant and fenced off for several years. Considering these facts and the proximity to your property, it appears that the replacement of a vacant, fenced -off parcel with a new neighborhood amenity in the form of a 1.48- acre public park would impact the market value and income -producing potential of your real property. Therefore, it is reasonably foreseeable that the decision to acquire the Finch Parcel, may have a material financial effect on your real property, and the Act prohibits you from taking part in the decision. If you have other questions on this matter, please contact me at znorton@fppac.ca.gov. Sincerely, File No. A-25-084 Page No. 4 Dave Bainbridge General Counsel Wo-po MET ATO By: Zachary W. Norton Senior Counsel, Legal Division ZWN: aj a From: Vikram Saxena To: mbrad ishCalcoxcastle.corn Cc: City of Cupertino Planning Commission; City Council; Cily Clerk; City Attorney"s Office; DerChana Kau; davidcyan(algmail.com Subject: [URGENT] Notice of Factual Discrepancies — February 12, 2026 Letter Re: 10857 Linda Vista Drive (File #26- 14876) Date: Friday, March 27, 2026 1:02:03 PM Attachments: Notice of Factual Discrepancies to Cox Castle-City.pdf Attachment Cox Castle HAA CEOA Letter 2026-02-12.pdf Attachment SCCFD Plan Review Comments 2025-12-29.pdf F - Alternative Means and Methods Request Approval.pdf Attachment 4 SCCFD Plan Review 250800.g_df Attachment 5 SummerHill AMMR Narrative.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 Ms. Bradish, Please find attached a letter identifying specific factual discrepancies between the representations in your February 12, 2026 correspondence to the City of Cupertino and the administrative record published for the March 17, 2026 City Council meeting. The City Council hearing on this project is scheduled for April 1, 2026. I respectfully request a response by March 30, 2026. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Vikram Saxena Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino T" Y } SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 1315 Dell Avenue, Campbell, CA 95008 1 (408) 378-4010 1 SCCFD.org FIRE PREVENTION PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS PROJECT INFO: FIRE DEPT PLAN REVIEW #: 250800 CITY/COUNTY PROJECT #: TM-2024-009 / Asa-2024- 015 / TR-2024-044 LOCATION: 10857 Linda Vista Dr PROJECT NAME: I Multi family PREPARED BY: NAME/TITLE: [ Caleb Flanagan / DFM II EMAIL: Caleb.flanagan@sccfd.org DATE: 1 1/7/26 J The scope of this proiect includes the following: Alternate Means/Methods Application for an exception request to PRC 4290 - Proposed new 10 building 51-unit multi -family residential subdivision. Plan Status: The exception request to PRC 4290 methods request is APPROVED. Discussion: This alternate proposes to mitigate deficiencies to non -conforming 30' setback requirements. In order to mitigate the noncompliant setbacks the applicant ro oses the following: -Add sprinkler heads to covered patios in all reduced setback areas. -Design portions of buildings non meeting setback requirements to stricter fire separation distance requirements in accordance with CRC 302.4. -Extend non-combustible landscaping 5 feet from buildings. Comments and Conditions of Approval: 1. A copy of the Alternate Means/Methods application form, with approval signature, and these comments shall be made part of the building permit drawing set, to be routed to Santa Clara County Fire Department for final approval. This review shall not be construed to be an approval of a violation of the provisions of the California Fire Code or of other laws or regulations of the jurisdiction. A permit presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of the fire code or other such laws or regulations shall not be valid. Any addition to or alteration of approved construction documents shall be approved in advance. [CFC, Ch. 1, 105.3.6] COMMUNITIES OF DISTINCTION 10857 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino (Reference City of Cupertino Planning Application File Numbers #TM-2024-009, ASA-2024-015) Application for Use of Alternate Materials, Methods of Construction, or Modification of Code October 28, 2025 (REVISED December 19, 2025) Requirement California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 1.5, Chapter 7, Subchapter 2, Article 5, Section 1276.01, subsection (a): "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). Description of Request Request a reduction of the 30 foot setback from all buildings to the property lines as shown on the attached Exhibit A, which is consistent with the Development Permit plan set submitted to the City of Cupertino as file number TM-2024-009 and ASA-2024-015. In summary, the proposed setbacks to the public roads and property lines are proposed as follows: 1. Setbacks to center of Public Roads (In compliance with requirement) a. Evulich Court: Minimum 30 feet b. Linda Vista Drive: Minimum 30 feet 2. Setbacks to Property Lines (Request for Reduction) a. Northern Property Line: Minimum 10 feet b. Southern Property Line: Minimum 10 feet c. Western Property Line: Minimum 20 feet Justification The primary justifications for the reduction of the 30-foot setback requirement to the northern, southern, and western property lines are the development density requirements and site constraints due to the existing public right-of-way for the cul-de-sac within the site. Subsection (b) of the above listed Code includes Development density requirements and site constraints among the exceptions to the 30' setback requirement. The City of Cupertino General Plan and Zoning designations for the site are Medium/High Density Residential and Multiple -Family Residential / Townhome Combining District, respectively. The density requirement for the site in accordance with the City of Cupertino General Plan designation is a minimum of 20.01 units per acre and a maximum of 35 units per acre (Reference Cupertino General Plan: Land Use Plan and Appendix A Land Use Definitions). The project site is approximately 2.51 acres, which results in Linda Vista Site Alternative Materials, Methods of Construction, or Modification of Code October 28, 2025 (Revised December 19, 2025) Page 2 of 2 a minimum unit count requirement of 51 units to achieve the minimum density. The proposed unit count for the project is 51 units, which is the minimum required to comply with the City General Plan and Zoning for the site. The proposed homes will be townhomes in compliance with the Zoning designation. The proposed setbacks exceed the City of Cupertino Zoning standards at the northern, southern, and western boundaries. The site is constrained by an existing City right-of-way within the approximate center of the site (Evulich Court). The width of Evulich Court reduces the size of the development area for the project. The size and quantity of the proposed townhomes necessitate a reduction of the 30 foot setback requirement in order to fit the minimum required number of units within the site. Mitigation In accordance with subsection (b) of Section 1276.01, the project will include the following mitigation measures to mitigate the reduced setback by providing the same practical effect: 1. Non-combustible landscaping material extending five (5) feet horizontally from the furthest existing point of the Building. Please see Exhibits B1 and B2, which are included within the Development Permit Plan set as Sheets L7.1 and L7.2. 2. The Wildfire protective measures in accordance with the California Building Code Chapter 7A as noted on Exhibit C, which is included within the Development Permit Plan set as Sheet A08. 3. An added fire sprinkler head within each of the covered porches and decks that are within 30' of the property line as shown on Exhibit A. 4. Designing to stricter fire separation distance requirements within 30' of the property lines as shown on Exhibit A per Residential Code R302.1 (2) as follows*: a. Exterior Wall Elements — Fire resistance rated for 1 hour. b. Projections — Fire resistance rated for 1 hour c. Penetrations —Comply with Section 302.4 *Please note that we are not proposing modifications to the Openings (Windows) in Walls. ---- 1ki COX c..0"31 LE February 12, 2026 Emi Sugiyama, Senior Planner Luke Connolly, Assistant Director Community Development Department City of Cupertino City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP 50 California Street, Suite 3200 San Francisco, California 94111-4710 P: 415.262.5100 F: 415.262.5199 Margo N. Bradish 415.262.5101 mbradish@coxcastle.com File No. 107942 Re: 10857, 10867, 10877, and 10887 Linda Vista Drive Townhome Project Approval Dear Ms. Sugiyama and Mr. Connolly: At its February 24, 2026, hearing, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino ("City") will consider SummerHill Homes' ("SummerHill") proposed housing development project ("Project") at 10857, 10867, and 10877 Linda Vista Drive ("Property"). We write to encourage the Planning Commission to timely recommend that the City Council approve the Project no later than April 4, 2026, in accordance with the City's obligations under the Housing Accountability Act ("HAA"), the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), and the Permit Streamlining Act ("ESA"). The City's Sixth Cycle Housing Element ("Housing Element") Site Inventory lists the parcels that comprise the Property as Priority Housing Sites. SummerHill proposes to redevelop the Property with a new 51-unit townhome-style condominium community (including 10 units affordable to moderate income households). The proposed Project density is within the allowable density pursuant to the City's General Plan and Zoning Code. SummerHill submitted a preliminary application pursuant to SB 330 for the Project on October 9, 2024, and a formal application for the Project on December 13, 2024, seeking approval of Architectural and Site Approval (File # ASA-2024-015), a Tentative Map (File # TM-2024-009), and a Tree Removal Permit (File # TR-2024-044), including waivers under the State Density Bonus Law. The City determined the formal application complete on March 19, 2025. Housing Accountability Act — Consistency Review Timeline Once an application is deemed complete, the HAA requires a local agency to notify the applicant, with supporting documentation and reasons, if the local agency considers the project www.coxcastle.com Los Angeles I Orange County I San Francisco Planning Commission February 12, 2026 Page 2 to be "inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity" with applicable standards. (Gov. Code § 65589.50)(2)(a).) For projects of 150 units or fewer, the HAA consistency review period expires 30 days after the housing development project application is determined to be complete. (Gov. Code § 65589.50)(2)(A).) If the local agency fails to provide the required documentation within the deadline, the housingdvelopment project is deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity. The consistency review period for the Project expired on April 18, 2025. On April 18, 2025, the City submitted comments to SummerHill asserting inconsistencies with regard to certain "standard City requirements" as well as comments from the Fire Department and the Department of Public Works. Notably, the City did not make any comments asserting any inconsistencies with regard to evacuation routes at that time. As of that time, the Project was deemed consistent with standards for which inconsistencies were not identified and documented (including with regard to evacuation routes). Subsequently, the Fire Department confirmed that the Project complies with applicable Fire Code requirements with incorporation of required methods pursuant to the approved Application for Use of Alternate Materials, Methods of Construction, or Modification of Code for the Project. These methods include requirements for non-combustible landscaping material within defined areas, wildfire protective measures in accordance with the California Building Code, added sprinklers within defined areas, and stricter fire separation distances within defined areas. All of these methods have been incorporated into the Project plans. Concurrently with resolution of the Fire Department Comments, SummerHill worked with Public Works to address Public Works Department comments on the Project traffic study. On January 28, 2026, City staff confirmed that the Public Works and the Fire Department reviews were complete with no additional comments. On February 10, 2026, City staff notified SummerHill that staff had completed consistency review in accordance with the HAA. California Environmental Quality Act ("CE Q-A" As amended by AB 130, CEQA establishes a statutory exemption for housing development projects meeting listed conditions (e.g., site size of not more than 20 acres, infill location, consistency with applicable general plan and zoning, satisfaction of minimum density, and satisfaction of certain site criteria) that complete a specified tribal consultation process. (Pub. Res. Code § 21080.66.) On September 12, 2025, SummerHill formally notified the City of the eligibility of the Project for this exemption. On January 4, 2026, after complying with the statutory requirements, the City completed the tribal consultation process. The AB 130 site criteria include requirements that sites within a very fire hazard severity zone be subject to mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards or state fire mitigation measures applicable to the development, including standards established under Public Resources Code Sections 4290 and 4291 and Chapter 7A of the Building Code. (Pub. Res. Code 107942\19229684v6 Planning Commission February 12, 2026 Page 3 § 21080.66(a)(6); Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(6)(D).) As part of the AB 130 process, the Fire Department confirmed that the Project complies with those standards. Permit Streamlining Act — Project Approval Timeline The PSA requires CEQA lead agencies to make a decision to approve or disapprove housing development projects within specified timelines (as well as imposing strict limitations on disapproval, discussed below). As amended by AB 130 and AB 158, the PSA requires a city make a decision on a housing development project that is exempt from CEQA pursuant to the AB 130 infill exemption within 30 days after the later of (a) the conclusion of the AB 130 infill exemption tribal consultation process or (b) the expiration of the HAA consistency review period. (Gov. Code § 65950(a)(7).) The PSA permits the applicant and the lead agency to mutually agree to one extension of not more than 90 days. (Gov. Code §§ 65950(b), 65957.) Failure of the lead agency to make a decision on the project within these time periods results in deemed approval of the project. (Gov. Code §§ 65957, 65956(b).) As applied to the Project, the City would have been required to make a decision on the Project by February 3, 2026, which is the date that was 30 days after the conclusion of the AB 130 tribal consultation process on January 4, 2026 (because tribal consultation concluded later than the expiration of the consistency review period on April 18, 2025). On February 2, 2026, however, the City and Summerflill agreed to a one-time 60-day extension, making April 4, 2026, the new deadline for the City to make a decision the Project. The City's failure to make a decision on the Project by pril 4, 2026, would result in the Project being deemed approved. Housing Accountability Act Prohibition on Disapproval or Density Reduction The HAA prohibits local agencies from disapproving or rendering infeasible a housing development project at the density permitted on the site and proposed by the applicant, absent certain narrow findings. (Gov. Code § 65589.5.) The HAA broadly defines "disapproval" to include not only a final vote to disapprove entitlements, but also, for example, failure to act within applicable timelines, including PSA timelines, and failure to make a CEQA exemption determination. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(6).) When a housing development project meets applicable, objective standards, the HAA prohibits a local agency from disapproving or reducing the densi . of the project absent findings, based on the preponderance of evidence, that the project would have "a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety" absent such disapproval or lower density, and that there is no feasible method to avoid or mitigate that impact other than disapproval or a reduction density. (Gov. Code § 65589.50)(1).) The HAA defines a "specific, adverse impact" as "a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health 107942\19229684v6 Planning Commission February 12, 2026 Page 4 or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete." (Id.) We understand that some members of the public have raised concerns about emergency evacuation in the Project vicinity. As noted above, with incorporation of required methods pursuant to the approved Application for Use of Alternate Materials, Methods of Construction, or Modification of Code, the Fire Department confirmed that the Project complies with applicable Fire Code and AB 130 very high fire hazard severity area standards. Notably, in its review of the Project, the City has not identified any designated evacuation routes or other "objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions" related to evacuation routes. As such, there is not evidence that the Project would have "a specific adverse impact public on health and safety" as defined in the HAA with regard to evacuation routes. The HAA therefore prohibits the City from disapproving or a reducing the Project density based on concerns about evacuation routes. Remedies for Improper Disapproval The HAA gives courts broad power to compel local agencies to comply with housing laws, in some cases including directing local agencies to approve housing development projects. (See Gov. Code § 65589.5(k).) In addition, the HAA authorizes courts to impose fines on local agencies that act in bad faith and/or fail to comply with court orders compelling compliance with housing laws and/or. (Id.) Effective January 1, 2026, AB 712 additionally creates substantial financial consequences for local agencies found by a court to have violated state housing laws. First, the agency must pay the applicant's reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. (Gov. Code § 65914.2(b)(1).) Second, the agency is subject to fines under certain circumstances. If the Attorney General or the State Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD") warns the agency before litigation is filed that the agency's actions would violate state housing law and the applicant gives notice before filing litigation, the court must impose a minimum fine of $10,000 per housing unit. (Gov. Code §§ 65914.2(b)(2)(A)(i); 65589.5).) Penalties are enhanced by a factor of five in jurisdictions with prior violations of the same law. (Gov. Code § § 65914.2(b)(2)(A)(ii); 65589.5).) City staff has determined that the Project application is complete and that the Project is statutorily exempt from CEQA and has completed its consistency review. The PSA requires the City to make a decision on the Project by April 4, 2025, and failure to do so would result in a deemed approval. Because the Project is consistent with objective standards and would not have "a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety," the HAA prohibits the City from disapproving or reducing the density of the Project. Violation of any of these housing laws would expose the City to substantial financial consequences pursuant to AB 712. 107942\19229684v6 Planning Commission February 12, 2026 Page 5 We respectfully request that the Planning Commission, at its February 24, 2026, hearing, recommend that the City Council approve the Project on or before April 4, 2026, in accordance with applicable housing laws. Sincerely, Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP GWary6F C 5 � 3raall h Margo Bradish CC: Floy Andrews, City Attorney Steve Bull, SummerHill Homes Austin Lin, SummerHill Homes 107942\19229684v6 ow PROJECT INFO: SANTA�]E DEPARTMENT 1315 Dell Avenue, Campbell, CA 95008 1 (408) 378-4010 1 SCCFD.org FIRE PREVENTION PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS FIRE DEPT PLAN REVIEW #: 7251740 CITY/COUNTY PROJECT #: TM-2024-009/ASA-2024-015/TR- 2024-044 LOCATION: 10857 Linda Vista Dr PROJECT NAME: Multi -family subdivision PREPARED BY: NAME/TITLE: Caleb Flanagan EMAIL: Caleb.flanagan@sccfd.org DATE. 12/29/25 The scope of this project includes the following: Proposed new 10 building 51 unit multi -family residential subdivision. Plans Status: Plans are NOT APPROVED. Revise and resubmit drawings and provide a response letter addressing comments on this plan review. Plan Review Comments **1. PRC 4290: This project shall comply with PRC 4290 comments. Exception request to PRC 4290 submitted and under review. **2. Provide a "Preliminary Fire Protection Plan". This plan shall address fire department access, egress, road and address signage, water supply in addition to fuel reduction in accordance with Public Resources Code (PRC) 4290, the defensible space requirements in accordance with PRC 4291 or Government Code 51182, and the applicable building codes and standards for wildfire safety. The plan shall identify mitigation measures to address the project's specific wildfire risk and shall include the information required in CFC section 4903.2.1. [CFC section 49031 This review shall not be construed to be an approval of a violation of the provisions of the California Fire Code or of other laws or regulations of the jurisdiction. A permit presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of the fire code or other such laws or regulations shall not be valid. Any addition to or alteration of approved construction documents shall be approved in advance. [CFC, Ch. 1, 105.3.6] SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 1315 Dell Avenue, Campbell, CA 95008 i (408) 378-4010 1 SCCFD.org APPLICATION FOR USE OF ALTERNATE MATERIALS, METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION, OR MODIFICATION OF CODE Project Street Address:10857 Linda Vista Drive Project(:ity: Cupertino Building Permit# Applicant's name: SummerHill Homes; Attn.: Steven Bull 6101 Bollinger Canyon Road, San Ramon, CA 94583 425 Applicant's Address: Suite: Phone Number: (510)410-1188 Email: sbuII@shhomes.com FI Use of Alternate Materials or Method of Construction ❑ Modification of Code Codes Affected: Building Code Fire Code Mechanical Code Electrical Code C)Ili er: California Code of Regulations. We 14, Division 1.5, Chapter 7 -Fire Protection, Article 6, Subchapter 2, Article 5 Specific section(s) of the code involved: Section 1276.01 - Building and Parcel Siting and Setbacks, Subsection (a) Request a reduction in the minimum 30' setback to neighboring properties. Brief description of the request: � _ Please see the attached narrative for justification of the reduction pursuant to Section 1276.01(b). The Building and Fire Official must evaluate information that the material(s), method of work, and / or modification is equal to the intent of the code in strength, effect, fire - resistance, durability, safety, etc. SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 1315 Dell Avenue, Campbell. CA 95008 1 (408) 378.4010 1 SCCFD.org Please complete the following information as applicable to support your request. Use additional paper if necessary. 1. Quality: See attached documentation 2. Strength:. _ See attached documentation 3. Effectiveness: See attached documentation 4. Fire Resistance: See attached documentation 5. Durability: See attached documentation 6. Safety: See attached documentation Additional evidence of p The above application has been reviewed and has been: AACCEPTE ❑ REJECTED Signature: Fire Official: AC Tb�>e7;4j�- A Ae_ S`[ Ac Bate: I 2 Building Official: _Date:. DropB ox/FirePrevention/Administrative/a ppl!cations/bh/06.2 3.2025 SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 1315 Dell Avenue, Campbell, CA 95008 1 (408) 378-4010 1 SCCFD.org FIRE PREVENTION PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS PROJECT INFO: FIRE DEPT PLAN REVIEW #: 250800 l CITY/COUNTY PROJECT #: TM-2024-009 / Asa-2024- 015 / TR-2024-044 LOCATION-L 10857 Linda Vista Dr 1 PROJECT NAME: Multi family PREPARED BY: NAME/TITLE: Caleb Flanagan / DFM II EMAIL: Caleb.flanagan@sccfd.org DATE: 1/7/26 The scope of this proiect includes the following: Alternate Means/Methods Application for an exception request to PRC 4290 - Proposed new 10 building 51-unit multi -family residential subdivision. Plan Status: The exception request to PRC 4290 methods request is APPROVED. Discussion: This alternate proposes to mitigate deficiencies to non -conforming 30' setback requirements. In order to mitigate the noncompliant setbacks the applicanLproposes, the following: -Add sprinkler heads to covered patios in all reduced setback areas. -Design portions of buildings non meeting setback requirements to stricter fire separation distance requirements in accordance with CRC 302.4. -Extend non-combustible landscaping 5 feet from buildings. Comments and Conditions of A"roval: 1. A copy of the Alternate Means/Methods application form, with approval signature, and these comments shall be made part of the building permit drawing set, to be routed to Santa Clara County Fire Department for final approval. This review shall not be construed to be an approval of a violation of the provisions of the California Fire Code or of other laws or regulations of the jurisdiction. A permit presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of the fire code or other such laws or regulations shall not be valid. Any addition to or alteration of approved construction documents shall be approved in advance. [CFC, Ch. 1, 105.3.6] COMMUNITIES OF DISTINCTION 10857 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino (Reference City of Cupertino Planning Application File Numbers #TM-2024-009, ASA-2024-015) Application for Use of Alternate Materials, Methods of Construction, or Modification of Code October 28, 2025 (REVISED December 19, 2025) Requirement California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 1.5, Chapter 7, Subchapter 2, Article 5, Section 1276.01, subsection (a): "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). Description of Request Request a reduction of the 30 foot setback from all buildings to the property lines as shown on the attached Exhibit A, which is consistent with the Development Permit plan set submitted to the City of Cupertino as file number TM-2024-009 and ASA-2024-015. In summary, the proposed setbacks to the public roads and property lines are proposed as follows: 1. Setbacks to center of Public Roads (In compliance with requirement) a. Evulich Court: Minimum 30 feet b. Linda Vista Drive: Minimum 30 feet 2. Setbacks to Property Lines (Request for Reduction) a. Northern Property Line: Minimum 10 feet b. Southern Property Line: Minimum 10 feet c. Western Property Line: Minimum 20 feet Justification The primary justifications for the reduction of the 30-foot setback requirement to the northern, southern, and western property lines are the development density requirements and site constraints due to the existing public right-of-way for the cul-de-sac within the site. Subsection (b) of the above listed Code includes Development density requirements and site constraints among the exceptions to the 30' setback requirement. The City of Cupertino General Plan and Zoning designations for the site are Medium/High Density Residential and Multiple -Family Residential / Townhome Combining District, respectively. The density requirement for the site in accordance with the City of Cupertino General Plan designation is a minimum of 20.01 units per acre and a maximum of 35 units per acre (Reference Cupertino General Plan: Land Use Plan and Appendix A Land Use Definitions). The project site is approximately 2.51 acres, which results in Linda Vista Site Alternative Materials, Methods of Construction, or Modification of Code October 28, 2025 (Revised December 19, 2025) Page 2 of 2 a minimum unit count requirement of 51 units to achieve the minimum density. The proposed unit count for the project is 51 units, which is the minimum required to comply with the City General Plan and Zoning for the site. The proposed homes will be townhomes in compliance with the Zoning designation. The proposed setbacks exceed the City of Cupertino Zoning standards at the northern, southern, and western boundaries. The site is constrained by an existing City right-of-way within the approximate center of the site (Evulich Court). The width of Evulich Court reduces the size of the development area for the project. The size and quantity of the proposed townhomes necessitate a reduction of the 30 foot setback requirement in order to fit the minimum required number of units within the site. Mitigation In accordance with subsection (b) of Section 1276.01, the project will include the following mitigation measures to mitigate the reduced setback by providing the same practical effect: 1. Non-combustible landscaping material extending five (5) feet horizontally from the furthest existing point of the Building. Please see Exhibits B1 and B2, which are included within the Development Permit Plan set as Sheets L7.1 and L7.2. 2. The Wildfire protective measures in accordance with the California Building Code Chapter 7A as noted on Exhibit C, which is included within the Development Permit Plan set as Sheet A08. 3. An added fire sprinkler head within each of the covered porches and decks that are within 30' of the property line as shown on Exhibit A. 4. Designing to stricter fire separation distance requirements within 30' of the property lines as shown on Exhibit A per Residential Code R302.1 (2) as follows*: a. Exterior Wall Elements — Fire resistance rated for 1 hour. b. Projections — Fire resistance rated for 1 hour c. Penetrations —Comply with Section 302.4 *Please note that we are not proposing modifications to the Openings (Windows) in Walls. r r� I r J, RAM Ur r rl US UI1 356 07 027 J95. J94.4x I \ x x I I \ .. X .................. X ... ................ ...... I P o .. P 9 9 9 9 \ c m o m o m o m \ m p I I I I D • i J a LEGEND \ [❑ ❑ [❑ ❑ ° ❑ ❑] . • . i . • . [❑ ❑ ❑ ] I ` EXISTING PROPERTY LINE p ❑ • • • , — — PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE \ \ ` CEO CENTER LINE \ \ I ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE \ ❑ ❑ u 51' EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY [❑ 14 ° l CL-BLDG LOT LINE \ 0 / 50' \ ° I ° CL—PO •° BLDG 1 o BLDG 2 0 BLDG 3 BLDG 4 BLDG S o 0 PL-BLDG 0 ABBREVIATIONS I0 ❑] [❑ ] �� 4 O t. BLDG BUILDING I ` ❑ ° C CL CENTERLINE p • PL PROPERTY LINE 28.9 d ❑ d [❑ ] PO PORCH PL—BLDG W ° ❑] W [❑ ° W ° ❑] ` W I PL—PO [❑ ❑ a p F-+ a LSD I - -_ o W d I W tLl Ls� � c� � Iw A � 9 .• •A � Q M T/\ �_ m ° ° d � m o W ii d J � IiQ � m � m ♦ .`:0 i ♦ ♦ ♦ . ♦ a � O ZLi U V V . Ln I L'� I I D _ _ EVULICH COURT (PUBLIC ROAD) ^ , -) I 25.2 [❑❑ I o 0o a 0o a O) m m m 04 JI J N J m ° m ` . N ''•'`'•'`'•' a I J 31.Z' � U M M M V M J M M J. -- 39 G C7 �1. '5 PL—BLD- • ° A • J _ d I I /I n BLDG 6 W I d • ° • Q 56' I D o W [❑ BLDG 8 BLDG 9 BLDG 10 CL—BLDG ° IP ❑ [❑ ar [ ° ° ] [$� 26' , BLDG 7 PL-BLDG II 50' , CL-PO ° • .'.'.'.. ❑ 5 1.8 I I P p d CD J i a ocm om m om J X 0 O OE 1 0 . . . . . . I I I r�Pl\l56J06J026 KJP-,/-\RDEKA/ R RODRIrUES I FAJNT0ZZ1 SETBACK SITE PL I I � APJN: :3JJJJJJJ2J / APJN; :�JJJJJJJ2/I APIM 3-JJJJJJJ2J 1' 10857 LINDA VISTA DRIVE / . I CITY OF CUPERTINO SANTA CLARA COUNTY CALIFORNIA SCALE: F' = 20' DATE: SEPTEMBER 15, 2025 SAN RAMON (925) 866-0322 cbg ROSEVILLE ■ (916) 788-4456 WWW.CBANDG.COM 0 20 40 60 CIVIL ENGINEERS m SURVEYORS ■ PLANNERS H:\3988-000\ACAD\EXHIBITSVB-033-SETBACK SITE PLAN.DWG TREE KEY .��114k, o r j I �•�D I / `� i 1 1 I SO 10857 Linda o Cupertino, CA i- September 15, 2025 Vista Drive 3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583 COMMUNITIES OF DISTINCTION 650-857-0122 CIVIL ENGINEERS CbgSURVEYORS PLANNERS 5 L' I I I F 0 a E 'r L L E .� — _- — — -ice-- 1 I ■ 1 I 1 1 ■ 1 1 1 I ■ 1 1 1 1 ■ 1 1 1 1 PROPOSED CANOPY AT MATURITY 10' REQUIRED CLEAR SPACE FROM CANOPY TO CANOPY ZONE D • EMBER RESISTANT ZONE, 0-5 FEET FROM STRUCTURE • REFER TO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND IMAGES SHEET L.7.2 ZONE 1 • 0-30 FEET FROM STRUCTURE • REFER TO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND IMAGES SHEET L.7.2 ZONE 2 * 30-100 FEET FROM STRUCTURE ORTO PROPERTY LINE • REFER TO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND IMAGES SHEET L.7.2 NOTE: W ALL OF THE INFORMATION INCLUDED IN THE FOLLOWING EXHIBIT IS BASED ON CAL FIRE DEFENSIBLE SPACE GUIDELINES AND RECOMMENDATIONS (WWW.FIRE.CA.GOV). SMALL NARROW UPRIGHT CANOPY TREES HAVE BEEN PROPOSED AS Q LOW -COMBUSTIBLE AND TO MEET CAL FIRE REQUIREMENTS FOR 10'-0" SETBACK OF CANOPY FROM PROPOSED BUILDINGS AND ADJACENT U) TREES. HOA SHALL MONITOR THE CANOPY OF ALL TREES AND SELECTIVELY Q PRUNE CANOPIES AS NEEDED TO MEET CAL FIRE REQUIREMENTS. 0 REFER TO PROPOSED PLANT PALETTE SHEET L.4.1 FOR TREE SPECIES. Z J PLAN VIEW Scale: 1 "=20'-0" 0' 10' 20' 401 Defensible Space Fire Zone Plan L.7.1 5DG Architects, Inc. 3361 Walnut Blvd. Suite 120 Brentwood, CA 94513 925.634.7000 1 sdgarchitectsinc.com architects a 10857 Linda o Cupertino, CA � September 15, 2025 PEBBLE MULCH LARGE STONES IN PEBBLE MULCH ZONE o (EMBER RESISTANT ZONE, 0-5 FEET FROM STRUCTURE) • 5' FROM BUILDING EDGE • No REQUIRED CHANGE TO TYPICAL SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVER PLANTING PLAN. PLANTS ARE HIGH -MOISTURE AND LOW -SAP OR RESIN. • WOOD MULCH PROHIBITED. ACCEPTABLE MULCH To BE PEBBLES AND LARGE STONES • 10' REQUIRED MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN TREE BRANCHES • NO FENCING OR GATES PROPOSED WITHIN THIS AREA PEBBLE MULCH Vista Drive LARGE STONES IN PEBBLE MULCH ,r"""��-�,�� - '•+ tea: L 0 - - EXAMPLE OF PLANTING CONCEPT FOR ZONE 2 LARGE STONES IN PEBBLE MULCH 2X HEIGHT OF SHRUB MIN. HORIZONTAL CLEARANCE HORIZONTAL SPACING REQUIREMENTS IN ZONE 2 m Z) _❑ U)C LL �_ oa �u 2 L W � C X VERTICAL SPACING REQUIREMENTS IN ZONE 2 4 ZONE 1 (0-30 FEET FROM STRUCTURE) ZONE 2 (30-100 FEET FROM STRUCTURE OR TO PROPERTY LINE) • 30' FROM BUILDING EDGE • 100' FROM BUILDING EDGE ■ NO REQUIRED CHANGE TO TYPICAL SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVER PLANTING PLAN. PLANTS ■ SHRUBS AND GROUNDCOVER ACCEPTABLE IF MAINTAINING REQUIRED HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SPACING ARE HIGH -MOISTURE AND LOW -SAP OR RESIN. • FUEL SEPARATION MEASURES SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED BASED ON THE GENERAL GUDELINES FOR CREATING DEFENSIBLE • WOOD MULCH PROHIBITED. ACCEPTABLE MULCH To BE PEBBLES AND LARGE STONES SPACE PREPARED BY THE STATE BOARD OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION. SHRUBS AND GROUNDCOVER SHOULD BE PLACED TO MINIMIZE THE FUEL SPREAD INTO • WOOD MULCH PROHIBITED. ACCEPTABLE MULCH TO BE PEBBLES AND LARGE STONES • 10' REQUIRED MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN TREE BRANCHES THE TREES OR To OTHER GROUPS OF PLANTS ■ TREES CAN BE GROUPED PROVIDED THAT LOWER LIMBS ARE TRIMMED TO A MINIMUM HEIGHT OF 6' AND SURFACE FUELS • 10' REQUIRED MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN TREE BRANCHES (SHRUBS AND GRASSES) ARE REMOVED • SITE HAS LESS THAN 20% SLOPE 3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583 COMMUNITIES OF DISTINCTION 650-857-0122 CIVIL ENGINEERS CbgSURVEYORS PLANNERS S❑ R a 3 N R O S E 'J L E Defensible Space Fire Zones L.7.2 SDG Architects, Inc. 3361 Walnut Blvd. Suite 120 Brentwood, CA 94513 925.634.7000 1 sdgarchitectsinc.com Im architects PRIVATE USABLE OPEN SPACE BUILDING CODE SUMMARY UNIT MATRIX Unit Name Description Garage Type Quantity % Total Bedroom Count Unit Net SF* Garage SF (1,000 sf Max) Unit Gross SF** Porch SF Deck SF Total Net Living Space SF Unit 1 4 Bedroom + 2.5 Bath 2-Car Tandem 10 19.6% 40 1,777 579 2,356 0-43 52-64 17,770 Unit 2 4 Bedroom + 3.5 Bath Std 2 Car 21 41.2% 84 2,217 469 2,686 91 -126 91 -126 46,557 Unit 3 4 Bedroom + 3.5 Bath Std 2 Car 12 23.5% 48 2,317 447 2,764 74 64 27,804 Unit SALT 4 Bedroom + 3.5 Bath Std 2 Car 8 15.7% 32 2,315 464 2,779 106 64 18,520 Avg. Unit Square Footage 2,170 485 2,654 Total Units 51 100.0% 204 Garage % Tandem 9.8 Net SF: Measured to outside face of stud, excludes garage area, deck, and porches. Includes center line of air gap at unit party walls. Gross SF: Measured to outside face of stud, includes garage area. Inculdes air gap per unit. 110,651 BUILDING MATRIX Building Name Unit Configuration Net SF Garage SF Gross SF Porch SF Deck SF Gross SF w/ Porches/Decks # Bldgs Total Net SF Total Garage SF Total Gross SF Total Porch SF Total Deck SF Total Gross SF wl Porches/Decks Bldg 1, 6 3-2-2-2-2-3 13,502 2,770 16,272 598 776 19,640 2 27,004 5,540 32,544 1,196 1,552 35,292 Bldg 2 3-1-1-1-1-3ALT 11,740 3,227 14,967 266 592 18,460 1 11,740 3,227 14,967 266 592 15,825 Bldg 3, 4, 5 3ALT-2-1-1-2-3 12,620 3,007 15,627 448 684 19,082 3 37,860 9,021 46,881 1,344 2,052 50,277 Bldg 7 3ALT-2-3 6,849 1,380 8,229 279 326 9,888 1 6,849 1,380 8,229 279 326 8,834 Bldg 8, 9, 10 3-2-2-3ALT 9,066 1,849 10,915 405 452 13,169 3 27,198 5,547 32,745 1,215 1,356 35,316 Building Totals 10 110,651 24,715 135,366 4,300 5,878 145,544 WILDFIRE PROTECTION CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS BEING LOCATED IN A LOCAL RESPONSIBILITY AREA (LRA) VERY HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONE. THE PROJECT SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE SECTION R337, MATERIALS AND METHODS FOR EXTERIOR WILDFIRE EXPOSURE, AS FOLLOWS: 1. EXTERIOR WINDOWS AND EXTERIOR DOORS WITH GLAZING EXTERIOR WINDOWS AND EXTERIOR DOORS WITH GLAZING, SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF MULTI -PANE GLAZING WITH A MINIMUM OF ONE TEMPERED PANE. (C.R.C. R337.8.2.1) 2. EXTERIOR DOORS SHALL MEET ONE OF THE FOLLOWING (C.R.C. R337.8.3): A. THE EXTERIOR SURFACE OR CLADDING SHALL BE OF NON-COMBUSTIBLE OR IGNITION -RESISTANT MATERIAL. B. SHALL HAVE A FIRE -RESISTANCE RATING OF NOT LESS THAN 20 MIN. WHEN TESTED ACCORDING TO NFPA 252. SHALL BE TESTED TO MEET THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF SFM STANDARD 12-7A-1. 3. GARAGE DOORS SHALL RESIST THE INTRUSION OF EMBERS FROM ENTERING BY PREVENTING GAPS BETWEEN DOORS AND DOOR OPENINGS, AT HTE BOTTOM, SIDES, AND TOPS OF DOORS, FROM EXCEEDING 1/8". gAPS BETWEEN DOORS AND DOOR OPENINGS SHALL BE CONTROLLED BY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING METHODS: A. WEATHER STRIPPING PRODUCTS MADE OF MATERIALS THAT: (A) HAVE BEEN TESTED FOR TENSILE STRENGTH IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D638 AFTER EXPOSURE TO ASTM G155 FOR A PERIOD OF 2,000 HOURS, WHERE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DIFFERENCE IN TENSILE STRENGTH VALUES BETWEEN EXPOSED AND NONEXPOSED SAMPLES DO NOT EXCEED 10% AND (B) EXHIBIT A V-2 OR BETTER FLAMMABILITY RATING WHEN TESTED TO UL 94. B. DOOR OVERLAPS ONTO JAMBS AND HEADERS. C. GARAGE DOOR JAMBS AND HEADERS COVERED WITH METAL FLASHING 4. VENTS SHALL RESIST BUILDING IGNITION FROM THE INTRUSION OF BURNING EMBERS AND FLAME THROUGH THE VENTILATION OPENINGS WITH THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (C.R.C. R337.6) A. THE DIMENSIONS OF THE OPENINGS THEREIN SHALL BE A MIN. OF 1/16TH INCH AND SHALL NOT EXCEED 1/8TH INCH. B. THE MATERIALS SHALL BE INCOMBUSTIBLE C. THE MATERIALS USED SHALL BE CORROSION RESISTANT. 5. THE EXTERIOR WALL COVERING OR WALL ASSEMBLY SHALL COMPLY WITH ONE OF THE FOLLOWING C.R.C. R337.7.3: A. NONCOMBUSTIBLE MATERIAL. B. IGNITION- RESISTANT MATERIAL. C. SAWN LUMBER OR GLUE -LAMINATED WOOD WITH THE SMALLEST MINIMUM NOMINAL DIMENSION OF 4". SAWN OR GLUE -LAMINATED PLANKS SPLINED, TONGUE -AND -GROOVE, OR SET CLOSE TOGETHER AND WELL SPIKED. D. LOG WALL CONSTRUCTION. E. WALL ASSEMBLIES THAT HAVE BEEN TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEST PROCEDURES FOR A 10-MINUTE DIRECT FLAME CONTACT EXPOSURE TEST SET FORTH IN ASTM E2707 WITH THE CONDITIONS OF ACCEPTANCE SHOWN IN SECTION R337.7.3.1. F. WALL ASSEMBLIES THAT MEET THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS CRITERIA IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEST PROCEDURES FOR A 10-MINUTE DIRECT FLAME CONTACT EXPOSURE TEST SET FORTH IN SFM STANDARD 12-7A-1. EXCEPTIONS: ANY OF THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE DEEMED TO MEET THE ASSEMBLY PERFORMANCE CRITERIA AND INTENT OF THIS SECTION: A. ONE LAYER OF 5/8" TYPE X GYPSUM SHEATHING APPLIED BEHIND THE EXTERIOR COVERING OR CLADDING ON THE EXTERIOR SIDE OF THE FRAMING. B. THE EXTERIOR PORTION OF A 1-HOUR FIRE RESISTIVE EXTERIOR WALL ASSEMBLY DESIGNED FOR EXTERIOR FIRE EXPOSURE INCLUDING ASSEMBLIES USING GYPSUM PANEL AND SHEATHING PRODUCTS LISTED IN THE GYPSUM ASSOCIATION FIRE RESISTIVE FIRE DESIGN MANUAL. 6. DECKING SURFACES SHALL COMPLY WITH C.R.C. R337.9.3. THE WALKING SURFACE MATERIAL OF DECKS, PORCHES, BALCONY AND STAIRS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH ONE OF THE FOLLOWING MATERIALS: A. MATERIAL THAT COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION R337.9.4 WHEN TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH BOTH ASTM E2632 AND ASTM E2726. B. IGNITION -RESISTANT MATERIAL THAT COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION R337.4.3 WHEN TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM E84 OR UL 723. C. MATERIAL THAT COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF BOTH SFM STANDARD 12-7A-4 AND SFM STANDARD 12-7A-5. D. EXTERIOR FIRE RETARDANT TREATED WOOD. E. NONCOMBUSTIBLE MATERIAL. F. ANY MATERIAL THAT COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF SFM STANDARD 12-7A-4A WHEN ATTACHED EXTERIOR WALL COVERING IS ALSO COMPOSED OF NONCOMBUSTIBLE OR IGNITION -RESISTANT MATERIAL. EXCEPTION: WALL MATERIAL MAY BE OF ANY MATERIAL THAT OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THIS CHAPTER WHEN THE DECKING SURFACE MATERIAL COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS ASTM E84 WITH A CLASS B FLAME SPREAD RATING. G. AY MATERIAL THAT COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION R337.9.5 WHEN TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM E2632 AND WHEN ATTACHED EXTERIOR WALL COVERING IS ALSO COMPOSED OF ONLY NONCOMBUSTIBLE OR IGNITION -RESISTANT MATERIALS. EXCEPTION: WALL MATERIAL SHALL BE PERMITTED TO BE OF ANY MATERIAL THAT OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THIS CHAPTER WHEN THE DECKING SURFACE MATERIAL COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS ASTM E84 WITH A CLASS B FLAME SPREAD INDEX. 0 10857 Linda Cupertino, CA 00 co September 15, 2025 Vista Drive SITE AREAS AREA SQUARE FOOTAGE COMMON LANDSCAPE 30,781 S.F. COMMON HARDSCAPE (AMENITY) 901 S.F. COMMON HARDSCAPE (PRIVATE SIDEWALKS, AC & TRANSFORMER PADS) 7,535 S.F. PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS 2576 S.F. PRIVATE STREET ROW 17,044 S.F. BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA 49,629 S.F. 20'-0" PUBLIC UTILITY EASMENT 2,140 S.F. * SEE SHT. A10 FOR COLOR CODED DIAGRAMS OF AREAS. BUILDING # UNIT # UNIT TYPE PORCH SQUARE FOOTAGE FLOOR 2 DECK SQUARE FOOTAGE FLOOR 3 DECK SQUARE FOOTAGE TOTAL P.O.S. SQUARE FOOTAGE BUILDING 1 1 UNIT 3 74 64 - 138 2 UNIT 2 126 126 - 252 3 UNIT 2 107 107 107 321 4 UNIT 2 91 91 91 273 5 UNIT 2 126 126 - 252 6 UNIT 3 74 64 - 138 BUILDING 2 7 UNIT 3 74 64 - 138 8 UNIT 1 43 64 64 171 9 UNIT 1 0 (non -qualifying usable P.O.S. = 26 S.F.) 52 52 104 10 UNIT 1 0 (non -qualifying usable P.O.S. = 26 S.F.) 52 52 104 11 UNIT 1 43 64 64 171 12 UNIT 3 ALT 106 64 - 170 BUILDING 3 13 UNIT 3 74 64 - 138 14 UNIT 2 126 126 - 252 15 UNIT 1 43 64 64 171 16 UNIT 1 0 (non -qualifying usable P.O.S. = 26 S.F.) 52 52 104 17 UNIT 2 99 99 99 297 18 UNIT 3 ALT 106 64 - 170 BUILDING 4 19 UNIT 3 74 64 - 138 20 UNIT 2 126 126 - 252 21 UNIT 1 43 64 64 171 22 UNIT 1 0 (non -qualifying usable P.O.S. = 26 S.F.) 52 52 104 23 UNIT 2 99 99 99 297 24 UNIT 3 ALT 106 64 - 170 BUILDING 5 25 UNIT 3 74 64 - 138 26 UNIT 2 126 126 - 252 27 UNIT 1 43 64 64 171 28 UNIT 1 0 (non -qualifying usable P.O.S. = 26 S.F.) 52 52 104 29 UNIT 2 99 99 99 297 30 UNIT 3 ALT 106 64 - 170 BUILDING 6 31 UNIT 3 74 64 - 138 32 UNIT 2 126 126 - 252 33 UNIT 2 91 91 91 273 34 UNIT 2 107 107 107 321 35 UNIT 2 126 126 - 252 36 UNIT 3 74 64 - 138 BUILDING 7 37 UNIT 3 ALT 106 64 - 170 38 UNIT 2 99 99 99 297 39 UNIT 3 74 64 - 138 BUILDING 8 40 UNIT 3 ALT 106 64 - 170 41 UNIT 2 126 126 - 252 42 UNIT 2 99 99 99 297 43 UNIT 3 74 64 - 138 BUILDING 9 44 UNIT 3 ALT 106 64 - 170 45 UNIT 2 126 126 - 252 46 UNIT 2 99 99 99 297 47 UNIT 3 74 64 - 138 BUILDING 10 48 UNIT 3 ALT 106 64 - 170 49 UNIT 2 126 126 - 252 50 UNIT 2 99 99 99 297 51 UNIT 3 74 64 - 138 TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE 4,300 4,209 1,669 10,178 BUILDING ELEVATIONS RELATIVE TO CURB HEIGHT AT LINDA VISTA DRIVE REFFERENCE CURB TOP OF SLAB FIRST SECOND FLOOR THIRD FLOOR MAIN ROOF BUILDING # ELEV. @ LINDA PAD ELEVATION FLOOR ELEVATION ELEVATION ELEVATION ELEVATION VISTA DR. 390.7 (HIGH) BUILDING 1 395.5 396.5 406.2 416.5 433.4 3 .6 (LOW) .7 390.7 (HIGH) BUILDING 2 395.4 396.4 406.1 416.4 433.5 389.6 (LOW) 390.7 (HIGH) BUILDING 3 395.3 396.3 406.0 416.3 433.5 3 .6 (LOW) 390.7 (HIGH) BUILDING 4 392.6 393.6 403.3 413.6 430.8 389.6 (LOW) 390.7 (HIGH) BUILDING 5 392.4 393.4 403.1 413.4 430.6 3 .6 (LOW) 392.0 (HIGH) BUILDING 6 396.2 397.2 406.9 417.2 434.1 391.3.0 (LOW) 392.0 (HIGH) BUILDING 7 396.3 397.3 407.0 417.3 433.9 391.3 (LOW) 392.0 (HIGH) BUILDING 8 395.3 396.3 406.0 416.3 433.0 391.3.0 (LOW) 392.0 (HIGH) BUILDING 9 392.8 393.8 403.5 413.8 430.5 391.3 (LOW) 392.0 (HIGH) BUILDING 10 392.5 393.5 403.2 413.5 430.2 391.3 (LOW) 2022 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (CRC) CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (CBC) CHAPTER 11A SECTION 1102A.3 (for accessible route provisions for Multistory Dwellings). Code References 2022 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE (CFC), as adopted by the CITY OF CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE (CCMC), CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS (CCR), AND HEALTH & SAFETY CODE. Occupancy R-3 TOWNHOME PER 2022 CRC Fire Sprinkler System NFPA 13D Type of Construction VB NON -RATED Allowable Height 3 Stories Accessebility PER 2022 CBC, CHAPTER 11A California Building Code (CBC) Section 1102A.3 covers accessibility requirements for multistory apartments or condominium dwellings in buildings without elevators. The requirements include: - The primary entry to the dwelling unit must be on an accessible route, CBC 1102.A.3 accessibility Provisions unless exempt by site impracticality tests. for Addaptable Units - A bathroom or powder room must be located on the primary entry level and served by an accessible route. - All rooms and spaces on the primary entry level must be served by an accessible route. - Common use areas must be accessible as required by the chapter. SITE INFORMATION Project APN 356-06-001, 356-06-002, 356-06- 003, 356-06-004 General Plan Gross Area 2.555 ACRES (+/- 111,296 SF) Site Area 2.506 ACRES (+/-109,161 SF) Existing Medium/High Density Residential Proposed No change Zoning Existing Multiple -Family Residential / Townhome (R3/TH) Proposed No change Units Market Rate 41 Below -Market Rate 10 Total 51 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Required Proposed (PAMC secs. 18.14.020, 18.16.060) Project Minimum Site Specifications Site Area None required 2.506 ACRES (+/-109,161 SF) Site Width 303' - 0" Site Depth 446' - 10" Minimum Setbacks 20' (property line to porch) Front (Linda Vista Dr.) 20' 26' (property line to building face) Rear 15' 20.7' 6' (+ an additional 10' if building is more than one story higher than any Interior Side 10' (property line to building face)* adjacent primary residential structure) 3.6' (property line to porch)* Street Side (Evulich Ct.) 12' 5.6' (property line to building face)* Maximum Site Coverage 55% 45.5% 901 SF / 109,161 Net SF = .8% of the Common Open Space (Hardscape) - site is Common Open Space (average per unit = 18 SF) 30,781 SF / 109,161 Net SF = 28.2% Common Landscaped Area - of the site is Landscaped (average per unit = 604 SF) 10,178 SF / 109,161 Net SF=9.3%of Private Usable Open Space 60 SF per Unit Minimum = the site is Private Open Space ( 3,060 SF) w/minimum 6' dimension (average per unit = 200 SF) 901 SF for Common Open Space + 30,781 SF for Landscaped Area = Community Recreation Space 150 SF per Unit Minimum = (7,650 31,682 SF / 109,161 Net SF = 29.0% SF) of the site is Community Recreation Space (average per unit = 621 SF) 901 SF for Common Open Space + 30,781 SF for Landscape + 10,178 SF for Private Open Space = 41,860 SF Total Usable Open Space / 109,161 Net SF = 38.3% of the site is Usable Open Space (average per unit = 821 SF) approximately 40'-7" above existing / Maximum Height 30' natural grade* Residential Density (net) 20.01 DU/AC (Minimum) 20.35 DU/AC 35 DU/AC (Maximum) Maximum Residential Floor Area FAR = 1.36* (Building FAR: 148,473 Ratio (FAR) 0.85 SF / 109,161 Net SF) Parking Vehicle (Resident) 51 spaces (1/DU) ** 102 spaces Vehicle (Guest) None required ** None required ** 25.5 spaces (1 space per 2 residential Bicycle (Class I, Resident) units) 51 spaces 6 spaces (1 space per 10 residetial Bicycle (Class II, Guest) units) 12 spaces Below Market Rate (BMR) Summary 5 Median Income Household Units + 5 Moderate Income Household Units BMR Units 10.2 = 10 Total Below Market Rate Units (0.2 in lieu fees) * Waiver or reduction of development standards requested pursuant to State Density Bonus Law, Gov. Code sec. 65915. ** Parking requirements pursuant to CIVIC 19.124.040(A). NOTE: Per City of Cupertino Housing Mitigation Program Procedural Manual Section 2.3.4 BMR Unit Design Requirements, BMR units shall be comparable to market rate units in terms of unit type, number of bedrooms per unit, quality of exterior appearance, and overall quality of construction. BMR unit size should be generally representative of the unit sizes within the market -rate portion of residential projects. Interior features and finishes shall be durable, of good quality, and consistent with contemporary standards for new housing. The BMR units shall be dispersed throughout the residential project. NOTE: BMR units will be constructed and eligible for occupancy at a rate approximately proportional to the market rate units. SummerHill Homes will submit a phasing plan for the BMR units prior to issuance of building permits. All units, both market rate and BMR, will be sold to homebuyers. PROJECT DATA `1: 3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583 COMMUNITIES OF DISTINCTION 650-857-0122 CIVIL ENGINEERS cbg SURVEYORS PLANNERS 5 A N R A f. O N I R O S E V i L L E SDG Architects, Inc. 3361 Walnut Blvd. Suite 120 Brentwood, CA 94513 925.634.7000 1 sdgarchitectsinc.com 11 architects VIA EMAIL: mbradish@coxcastle.com March 27, 2026 Margo N. Bradish Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP 50 California Street, Suite 3200 San Francisco, CA 94111-4710 Re:Notice of Factual Discrepancies — February 12, 2026 Letter Re: 10857 Linda Vista Drive (File #26-14876) Dear Ms. Bradish: I write as a resident of Linda Vista Drive regarding your correspondence dated February 12, 2026, to the City of Cupertino. Your letter represents that the Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD) "confirmed that the Project complies" with Public Resources Code (PRC) Sections 4290 and 4291. You rely on this assertion of present compliance to invoke the AB 130 CEQA exemption and to threaten the City with AB 712 financial penalties of at least $10,000 per housing unit. The administrative record —specifically the files published for the March 17, 2026, City Council meeting and obtained via PRA Request NR 26-78—directly contradicts these assertions. This letter identifies the specific discrepancies between your representations and the documentary record, and requests that you correct them. 1. PRC §4291 (Defensible Space): "Plans are NOT APPROVED" Your letter claims the Fire Department "confirmed compliance" with PRC §4291 as part of the AB 130 process. However, the SCCFD Plan Review dated December 29, 2025, explicitly states: "Plans are NOT APPROVED." That review identifies a "Preliminary Fire Protection Plan" addressing defensible space under PRC §4291 as an outstanding requirement. Characterizing an unfulfilled, "not approved" status as "confirmed compliance" is a material misrepresentation of a life -safety record. 2. AMMR Scope: Zero Reference to PRC §4291 Your letter asserts the Alternate Means and Methods Request (AMMR) process confirmed the project complies with "those standards," explicitly including PRC 4291. A review of the AMMR Application (filed January 5, 2026) reveals it contains zero reference to PRC §4291. The Page 1 application is limited exclusively to structure setbacks under PRC §4290/14 CCR § 1276.01. Using a document that does not even mention a code section to certify compliance with that section is factually and legally indefensible. 3. The Incomplete AMMR: Missing Building Official Validation You represent the AMMR as a completed, "approved Application." However, the AMMR form itself states: "The Building and Fire Official must evaluate information" regarding the modification. While a Fire Official signed on January 6, 2026, the Building Official signature and date lines remain entirely blank. Under CBC 104.11, the Building Official has an independent, non -delegable duty to validate such modifications. An unsigned, partially executed document is not an "approved application." 4. "Exception" Mischaracterized as "Compliance" (PRC §4290) Your letter asserts the project "complies" with fire requirements. The SCCFD's actual determination characterizes the project as having "deficiencies to non -conforming 30' setback requirements." The Department approved an exception, not compliance. Approving a deviation from a safety standard due to documented deficiencies is not an affirmation of compliance. Request for Correction Your letter invokes AB 712 to threaten the City with financial penalties of at least $10,000 per housing unita total exposure exceeding half a million dollars for 51 units —and cites AB 130 to demand bypass of CEQA environmental review. These are exercises of the coercive power of the state directed at a municipality and its residents. The invocation of such power should require a correspondingly high evidentiary bar: documented, verified compliance with each cited standard. The discrepancies identified above suggest that bar has not been met. The residents of this neighborhood will bear the consequences of any fire safety shortcuts for decades. When a legal demand compels a city to waive environmental review and approve a project on the basis of fire compliance that the Fire Department's own records do not support, the resulting harm falls not on the developer or its counsel, but on the families who live adjacent to these structures. The questions raised in this letter are not matters of legal interpretation or good -faith differences of opinion. Whether the Fire Department issued a document confirming PRC §4291 compliance is a binary factual question. No such document exists. Whether the AMMR approved compliance with PRC §4290 or an exception to it is answered by the Fire Department's own words: "exception request" and "deficiencies to non -conforming." Whether the Building Official signed the AMMR is visible on the face of the document. Page 2 The City Council hearing on this project is scheduled for April 1, 2026. Please provide, no later than March 30, 2026: 1. The specific factual basis for your representation that the Fire Department "confirmed compliance" with PRC §4291 and Chapter 7A; or 2. Confirmation that you will formally correct the record with the City of Cupertino by withdrawing or amending the factual assertions identified in this letter. I trust that a review of the documents referenced below will confirm the discrepancies identified in this letter, and that a correction will follow promptly. Sincerely, Vikram Saxena Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino cc:Floy Andrews, City Attorney, City of Cupertino Cupertino City Council, Cupertino Planning Commission, City Manager City Clerk Page 3 EXHIBIT A: EVIDENCE LOG OF MATERIAL DISCREPANCIES Counsel's Claim (Feb 12 Administrative Fact (March 1 Primary Source Citation Letter) 17 Record) Fire Dept "confirmed" compliance SCCFD issued a status of "Plans SCCFD Plan Review 4251740 with PRC 4291. are NOT APPROVED"; 4291 is an outstanding requirement. The AMMR is a completed The Building Official signature is SCCFD AMMR Form "approved Application." BLANK; dual review is required by the form and CBC 104.11. AMMR process confirmed The AMMR Application has ZERO AMMR Application Narrative compliance with PRC 4291. reference to PRC 4291. The Project "complies" with Fire Project has "deficiencies" and is SCCFD Plan Review #250800 Code requirements. "non -conforming"; approved only as an "exception." LIST OF ATTACHMENTS • Attachment 1: Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP Letter dated February 12, 2026. • Attachment 2: SCCFD Fire Prevention Plan Review #251740 (December 29, 2025), explicitly stating "Plans are NOT APPROVED." • Attachment 3: SCCFD AMMR Application and Approval Form (January 6, 2026), showing blank Building Official signature. • Attachment 4: SCCFD Fire Prevention Plan Review #250800 (January 7, 2026), characterizing setbacks as "non -conforming." • Attachment 5: SummerHill Homes AMMR Narrative (Revised December 19, 2025), confirming scope is limited to PRC 4290. Page 4 From: Vikram Saxena To: City Attorney"s Office; Tina Ka000r Cc: City Clerk; Kitty Moore; R "Ray" Wang; Liang Chao; davidcyan(ftmail.com; DerChang Kau; lindavistatt(abamail.com Subject: [URGENT] Request for Notice of Regulatory Discrepancy: Cox Castle Letter of February 12, 2026 Date: Friday, March 27, 2026 12:37:55 AM Attachments: Request for Notice of Regulatory Discrepancypdf Attachment Cox Castle HAA CEOA Letter 2026-02-12.Ddf Attachment SCCFD Plan Review Comments 2025-12-29.Ddf F - Alternative Means and Methods Reauest Approval.Ddf 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 Attorney Andrews: Please find the attached memorandum documenting material discrepancies between the factual assertions in the Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP letter dated February 12, 2026, and the administrative record for the Evulich Court project at 10857 Linda Vista Drive. I request that the City Attorney issue a formal notice of regulatory discrepancy to SummerHill's counsel and require a correction of these factual assertions before the City relies on them for any approval findings. With the hearing scheduled for April 1, 2026, time is of the essence. The Cox Castle letter claims the Fire Department confirmed the project's compliance with PRC 4290, PRC 4291, and Chapter 7A of the California Building Code. However, the attached analysis demonstrates the following: - PRC 4291 (Defensible Space): This is not mentioned in the AMMR application, approval form, or the SCCFD Fire Prevention Plan Review. The only Fire Department reference identifies PRC 4291 as an outstanding, unfulfilled requirement. - PRC 4290: The Fire Department approved an exception reducing the 30-foot setback to 10 feet, characterizing the project as having "deficiencies to non -conforming" standards rather than confirming compliance. - AMMR Approval Form: The form requires signatures from both the Fire Official and the Building Official; however, the Building Official signature line remains blank. These misrepresented facts are the foundation for the assertion that the project qualifies for the AB 130 CEQA exemption and for the threat of AB 712 financial penalties against the City. Respectfully, Vikram Saxena On behalf of Linda Vista neighborhood ---- 1ki COX c..0"31 LE February 12, 2026 Emi Sugiyama, Senior Planner Luke Connolly, Assistant Director Community Development Department City of Cupertino City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP 50 California Street, Suite 3200 San Francisco, California 94111-4710 P: 415.262.5100 F: 415.262.5199 Margo N. Bradish 415.262.5101 mbradish@coxcastle.com File No. 107942 Re: 10857, 10867, 10877, and 10887 Linda Vista Drive Townhome Project Approval Dear Ms. Sugiyama and Mr. Connolly: At its February 24, 2026, hearing, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino ("City") will consider SummerHill Homes' ("SummerHill") proposed housing development project ("Project") at 10857, 10867, and 10877 Linda Vista Drive ("Property"). We write to encourage the Planning Commission to timely recommend that the City Council approve the Project no later than April 4, 2026, in accordance with the City's obligations under the Housing Accountability Act ("HAA"), the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), and the Permit Streamlining Act ("ESA"). The City's Sixth Cycle Housing Element ("Housing Element") Site Inventory lists the parcels that comprise the Property as Priority Housing Sites. SummerHill proposes to redevelop the Property with a new 51-unit townhome-style condominium community (including 10 units affordable to moderate income households). The proposed Project density is within the allowable density pursuant to the City's General Plan and Zoning Code. SummerHill submitted a preliminary application pursuant to SB 330 for the Project on October 9, 2024, and a formal application for the Project on December 13, 2024, seeking approval of Architectural and Site Approval (File # ASA-2024-015), a Tentative Map (File # TM-2024-009), and a Tree Removal Permit (File # TR-2024-044), including waivers under the State Density Bonus Law. The City determined the formal application complete on March 19, 2025. Housing Accountability Act — Consistency Review Timeline Once an application is deemed complete, the HAA requires a local agency to notify the applicant, with supporting documentation and reasons, if the local agency considers the project www.coxcastle.com Los Angeles I Orange County I San Francisco Planning Commission February 12, 2026 Page 2 to be "inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity" with applicable standards. (Gov. Code § 65589.50)(2)(a).) For projects of 150 units or fewer, the HAA consistency review period expires 30 days after the housing development project application is determined to be complete. (Gov. Code § 65589.50)(2)(A).) If the local agency fails to provide the required documentation within the deadline, the housingdvelopment project is deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity. The consistency review period for the Project expired on April 18, 2025. On April 18, 2025, the City submitted comments to SummerHill asserting inconsistencies with regard to certain "standard City requirements" as well as comments from the Fire Department and the Department of Public Works. Notably, the City did not make any comments asserting any inconsistencies with regard to evacuation routes at that time. As of that time, the Project was deemed consistent with standards for which inconsistencies were not identified and documented (including with regard to evacuation routes). Subsequently, the Fire Department confirmed that the Project complies with applicable Fire Code requirements with incorporation of required methods pursuant to the approved Application for Use of Alternate Materials, Methods of Construction, or Modification of Code for the Project. These methods include requirements for non-combustible landscaping material within defined areas, wildfire protective measures in accordance with the California Building Code, added sprinklers within defined areas, and stricter fire separation distances within defined areas. All of these methods have been incorporated into the Project plans. Concurrently with resolution of the Fire Department Comments, SummerHill worked with Public Works to address Public Works Department comments on the Project traffic study. On January 28, 2026, City staff confirmed that the Public Works and the Fire Department reviews were complete with no additional comments. On February 10, 2026, City staff notified SummerHill that staff had completed consistency review in accordance with the HAA. California Environmental Quality Act ("CE Q-A" As amended by AB 130, CEQA establishes a statutory exemption for housing development projects meeting listed conditions (e.g., site size of not more than 20 acres, infill location, consistency with applicable general plan and zoning, satisfaction of minimum density, and satisfaction of certain site criteria) that complete a specified tribal consultation process. (Pub. Res. Code § 21080.66.) On September 12, 2025, SummerHill formally notified the City of the eligibility of the Project for this exemption. On January 4, 2026, after complying with the statutory requirements, the City completed the tribal consultation process. The AB 130 site criteria include requirements that sites within a very fire hazard severity zone be subject to mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards or state fire mitigation measures applicable to the development, including standards established under Public Resources Code Sections 4290 and 4291 and Chapter 7A of the Building Code. (Pub. Res. Code 107942\19229684v6 Planning Commission February 12, 2026 Page 3 § 21080.66(a)(6); Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(6)(D).) As part of the AB 130 process, the Fire Department confirmed that the Project complies with those standards. Permit Streamlining Act — Project Approval Timeline The PSA requires CEQA lead agencies to make a decision to approve or disapprove housing development projects within specified timelines (as well as imposing strict limitations on disapproval, discussed below). As amended by AB 130 and AB 158, the PSA requires a city make a decision on a housing development project that is exempt from CEQA pursuant to the AB 130 infill exemption within 30 days after the later of (a) the conclusion of the AB 130 infill exemption tribal consultation process or (b) the expiration of the HAA consistency review period. (Gov. Code § 65950(a)(7).) The PSA permits the applicant and the lead agency to mutually agree to one extension of not more than 90 days. (Gov. Code §§ 65950(b), 65957.) Failure of the lead agency to make a decision on the project within these time periods results in deemed approval of the project. (Gov. Code §§ 65957, 65956(b).) As applied to the Project, the City would have been required to make a decision on the Project by February 3, 2026, which is the date that was 30 days after the conclusion of the AB 130 tribal consultation process on January 4, 2026 (because tribal consultation concluded later than the expiration of the consistency review period on April 18, 2025). On February 2, 2026, however, the City and Summerflill agreed to a one-time 60-day extension, making April 4, 2026, the new deadline for the City to make a decision the Project. The City's failure to make a decision on the Project by pril 4, 2026, would result in the Project being deemed approved. Housing Accountability Act Prohibition on Disapproval or Density Reduction The HAA prohibits local agencies from disapproving or rendering infeasible a housing development project at the density permitted on the site and proposed by the applicant, absent certain narrow findings. (Gov. Code § 65589.5.) The HAA broadly defines "disapproval" to include not only a final vote to disapprove entitlements, but also, for example, failure to act within applicable timelines, including PSA timelines, and failure to make a CEQA exemption determination. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(6).) When a housing development project meets applicable, objective standards, the HAA prohibits a local agency from disapproving or reducing the densi . of the project absent findings, based on the preponderance of evidence, that the project would have "a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety" absent such disapproval or lower density, and that there is no feasible method to avoid or mitigate that impact other than disapproval or a reduction density. (Gov. Code § 65589.50)(1).) The HAA defines a "specific, adverse impact" as "a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health 107942\19229684v6 Planning Commission February 12, 2026 Page 4 or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete." (Id.) We understand that some members of the public have raised concerns about emergency evacuation in the Project vicinity. As noted above, with incorporation of required methods pursuant to the approved Application for Use of Alternate Materials, Methods of Construction, or Modification of Code, the Fire Department confirmed that the Project complies with applicable Fire Code and AB 130 very high fire hazard severity area standards. Notably, in its review of the Project, the City has not identified any designated evacuation routes or other "objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions" related to evacuation routes. As such, there is not evidence that the Project would have "a specific adverse impact public on health and safety" as defined in the HAA with regard to evacuation routes. The HAA therefore prohibits the City from disapproving or a reducing the Project density based on concerns about evacuation routes. Remedies for Improper Disapproval The HAA gives courts broad power to compel local agencies to comply with housing laws, in some cases including directing local agencies to approve housing development projects. (See Gov. Code § 65589.5(k).) In addition, the HAA authorizes courts to impose fines on local agencies that act in bad faith and/or fail to comply with court orders compelling compliance with housing laws and/or. (Id.) Effective January 1, 2026, AB 712 additionally creates substantial financial consequences for local agencies found by a court to have violated state housing laws. First, the agency must pay the applicant's reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. (Gov. Code § 65914.2(b)(1).) Second, the agency is subject to fines under certain circumstances. If the Attorney General or the State Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD") warns the agency before litigation is filed that the agency's actions would violate state housing law and the applicant gives notice before filing litigation, the court must impose a minimum fine of $10,000 per housing unit. (Gov. Code §§ 65914.2(b)(2)(A)(i); 65589.5).) Penalties are enhanced by a factor of five in jurisdictions with prior violations of the same law. (Gov. Code § § 65914.2(b)(2)(A)(ii); 65589.5).) City staff has determined that the Project application is complete and that the Project is statutorily exempt from CEQA and has completed its consistency review. The PSA requires the City to make a decision on the Project by April 4, 2025, and failure to do so would result in a deemed approval. Because the Project is consistent with objective standards and would not have "a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety," the HAA prohibits the City from disapproving or reducing the density of the Project. Violation of any of these housing laws would expose the City to substantial financial consequences pursuant to AB 712. 107942\19229684v6 Planning Commission February 12, 2026 Page 5 We respectfully request that the Planning Commission, at its February 24, 2026, hearing, recommend that the City Council approve the Project on or before April 4, 2026, in accordance with applicable housing laws. Sincerely, Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP GWary6F C 5 � 3raall h Margo Bradish CC: Floy Andrews, City Attorney Steve Bull, SummerHill Homes Austin Lin, SummerHill Homes 107942\19229684v6 ow PROJECT INFO: SANTA�]E DEPARTMENT 1315 Dell Avenue, Campbell, CA 95008 1 (408) 378-4010 1 SCCFD.org FIRE PREVENTION PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS FIRE DEPT PLAN REVIEW #: 7251740 CITY/COUNTY PROJECT #: TM-2024-009/ASA-2024-015/TR- 2024-044 LOCATION: 10857 Linda Vista Dr PROJECT NAME: Multi -family subdivision PREPARED BY: NAME/TITLE: Caleb Flanagan EMAIL: Caleb.flanagan@sccfd.org DATE. 12/29/25 The scope of this project includes the following: Proposed new 10 building 51 unit multi -family residential subdivision. Plans Status: Plans are NOT APPROVED. Revise and resubmit drawings and provide a response letter addressing comments on this plan review. Plan Review Comments **1. PRC 4290: This project shall comply with PRC 4290 comments. Exception request to PRC 4290 submitted and under review. **2. Provide a "Preliminary Fire Protection Plan". This plan shall address fire department access, egress, road and address signage, water supply in addition to fuel reduction in accordance with Public Resources Code (PRC) 4290, the defensible space requirements in accordance with PRC 4291 or Government Code 51182, and the applicable building codes and standards for wildfire safety. The plan shall identify mitigation measures to address the project's specific wildfire risk and shall include the information required in CFC section 4903.2.1. [CFC section 49031 This review shall not be construed to be an approval of a violation of the provisions of the California Fire Code or of other laws or regulations of the jurisdiction. A permit presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of the fire code or other such laws or regulations shall not be valid. Any addition to or alteration of approved construction documents shall be approved in advance. [CFC, Ch. 1, 105.3.6] SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 1315 Dell Avenue, Campbell, CA 95008 i (408) 378-4010 1 SCCFD.org APPLICATION FOR USE OF ALTERNATE MATERIALS, METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION, OR MODIFICATION OF CODE Project Street Address:10857 Linda Vista Drive Project(:ity: Cupertino Building Permit# Applicant's name: SummerHill Homes; Attn.: Steven Bull 6101 Bollinger Canyon Road, San Ramon, CA 94583 425 Applicant's Address: Suite: Phone Number: (510)410-1188 Email: sbuII@shhomes.com FI Use of Alternate Materials or Method of Construction ❑ Modification of Code Codes Affected: Building Code Fire Code Mechanical Code Electrical Code C)Ili er: California Code of Regulations. We 14, Division 1.5, Chapter 7 -Fire Protection, Article 6, Subchapter 2, Article 5 Specific section(s) of the code involved: Section 1276.01 - Building and Parcel Siting and Setbacks, Subsection (a) Request a reduction in the minimum 30' setback to neighboring properties. Brief description of the request: � _ Please see the attached narrative for justification of the reduction pursuant to Section 1276.01(b). The Building and Fire Official must evaluate information that the material(s), method of work, and / or modification is equal to the intent of the code in strength, effect, fire - resistance, durability, safety, etc. SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 1315 Dell Avenue, Campbell. CA 95008 1 (408) 378.4010 1 SCCFD.org Please complete the following information as applicable to support your request. Use additional paper if necessary. 1. Quality: See attached documentation 2. Strength:. _ See attached documentation 3. Effectiveness: See attached documentation 4. Fire Resistance: See attached documentation 5. Durability: See attached documentation 6. Safety: See attached documentation Additional evidence of p The above application has been reviewed and has been: AACCEPTE ❑ REJECTED Signature: Fire Official: AC Tb�>e7;4j�- A Ae_ S`[ Ac Bate: I 2 Building Official: _Date:. DropB ox/FirePrevention/Administrative/a ppl!cations/bh/06.2 3.2025 SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 1315 Dell Avenue, Campbell, CA 95008 1 (408) 378-4010 1 SCCFD.org FIRE PREVENTION PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS PROJECT INFO: FIRE DEPT PLAN REVIEW #: 250800 l CITY/COUNTY PROJECT #: TM-2024-009 / Asa-2024- 015 / TR-2024-044 LOCATION-L 10857 Linda Vista Dr 1 PROJECT NAME: Multi family PREPARED BY: NAME/TITLE: Caleb Flanagan / DFM II EMAIL: Caleb.flanagan@sccfd.org DATE: 1/7/26 The scope of this proiect includes the following: Alternate Means/Methods Application for an exception request to PRC 4290 - Proposed new 10 building 51-unit multi -family residential subdivision. Plan Status: The exception request to PRC 4290 methods request is APPROVED. Discussion: This alternate proposes to mitigate deficiencies to non -conforming 30' setback requirements. In order to mitigate the noncompliant setbacks the applicanLproposes, the following: -Add sprinkler heads to covered patios in all reduced setback areas. -Design portions of buildings non meeting setback requirements to stricter fire separation distance requirements in accordance with CRC 302.4. -Extend non-combustible landscaping 5 feet from buildings. Comments and Conditions of A"roval: 1. A copy of the Alternate Means/Methods application form, with approval signature, and these comments shall be made part of the building permit drawing set, to be routed to Santa Clara County Fire Department for final approval. This review shall not be construed to be an approval of a violation of the provisions of the California Fire Code or of other laws or regulations of the jurisdiction. A permit presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of the fire code or other such laws or regulations shall not be valid. Any addition to or alteration of approved construction documents shall be approved in advance. [CFC, Ch. 1, 105.3.6] COMMUNITIES OF DISTINCTION 10857 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino (Reference City of Cupertino Planning Application File Numbers #TM-2024-009, ASA-2024-015) Application for Use of Alternate Materials, Methods of Construction, or Modification of Code October 28, 2025 (REVISED December 19, 2025) Requirement California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 1.5, Chapter 7, Subchapter 2, Article 5, Section 1276.01, subsection (a): "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). Description of Request Request a reduction of the 30 foot setback from all buildings to the property lines as shown on the attached Exhibit A, which is consistent with the Development Permit plan set submitted to the City of Cupertino as file number TM-2024-009 and ASA-2024-015. In summary, the proposed setbacks to the public roads and property lines are proposed as follows: 1. Setbacks to center of Public Roads (In compliance with requirement) a. Evulich Court: Minimum 30 feet b. Linda Vista Drive: Minimum 30 feet 2. Setbacks to Property Lines (Request for Reduction) a. Northern Property Line: Minimum 10 feet b. Southern Property Line: Minimum 10 feet c. Western Property Line: Minimum 20 feet Justification The primary justifications for the reduction of the 30-foot setback requirement to the northern, southern, and western property lines are the development density requirements and site constraints due to the existing public right-of-way for the cul-de-sac within the site. Subsection (b) of the above listed Code includes Development density requirements and site constraints among the exceptions to the 30' setback requirement. The City of Cupertino General Plan and Zoning designations for the site are Medium/High Density Residential and Multiple -Family Residential / Townhome Combining District, respectively. The density requirement for the site in accordance with the City of Cupertino General Plan designation is a minimum of 20.01 units per acre and a maximum of 35 units per acre (Reference Cupertino General Plan: Land Use Plan and Appendix A Land Use Definitions). The project site is approximately 2.51 acres, which results in Linda Vista Site Alternative Materials, Methods of Construction, or Modification of Code October 28, 2025 (Revised December 19, 2025) Page 2 of 2 a minimum unit count requirement of 51 units to achieve the minimum density. The proposed unit count for the project is 51 units, which is the minimum required to comply with the City General Plan and Zoning for the site. The proposed homes will be townhomes in compliance with the Zoning designation. The proposed setbacks exceed the City of Cupertino Zoning standards at the northern, southern, and western boundaries. The site is constrained by an existing City right-of-way within the approximate center of the site (Evulich Court). The width of Evulich Court reduces the size of the development area for the project. The size and quantity of the proposed townhomes necessitate a reduction of the 30 foot setback requirement in order to fit the minimum required number of units within the site. Mitigation In accordance with subsection (b) of Section 1276.01, the project will include the following mitigation measures to mitigate the reduced setback by providing the same practical effect: 1. Non-combustible landscaping material extending five (5) feet horizontally from the furthest existing point of the Building. Please see Exhibits B1 and B2, which are included within the Development Permit Plan set as Sheets L7.1 and L7.2. 2. The Wildfire protective measures in accordance with the California Building Code Chapter 7A as noted on Exhibit C, which is included within the Development Permit Plan set as Sheet A08. 3. An added fire sprinkler head within each of the covered porches and decks that are within 30' of the property line as shown on Exhibit A. 4. Designing to stricter fire separation distance requirements within 30' of the property lines as shown on Exhibit A per Residential Code R302.1 (2) as follows*: a. Exterior Wall Elements — Fire resistance rated for 1 hour. b. Projections — Fire resistance rated for 1 hour c. Penetrations —Comply with Section 302.4 *Please note that we are not proposing modifications to the Openings (Windows) in Walls. r r� I r J, RAM Ur r rl US UI1 356 07 027 J95. J94.4x I \ x x I I \ .. X .................. X ... ................ ...... I P o .. P 9 9 9 9 \ c m o m o m o m \ m p I I I I D • i J a LEGEND \ [❑ ❑ [❑ ❑ ° ❑ ❑] . • . i . • . [❑ ❑ ❑ ] I ` EXISTING PROPERTY LINE p ❑ • • • , — — PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE \ \ ` CEO CENTER LINE \ \ I ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE \ ❑ ❑ u 51' EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY [❑ 14 ° l CL-BLDG LOT LINE \ 0 / 50' \ ° I ° CL—PO •° BLDG 1 o BLDG 2 0 BLDG 3 BLDG 4 BLDG S o 0 PL-BLDG 0 ABBREVIATIONS I0 ❑] [❑ ] �� 4 O t. BLDG BUILDING I ` ❑ ° C CL CENTERLINE p • PL PROPERTY LINE 28.9 d ❑ d [❑ ] PO PORCH PL—BLDG W ° ❑] W [❑ ° W ° ❑] ` W I PL—PO [❑ ❑ a p F-+ a LSD I - -_ o W d I W tLl Ls� � c� � Iw A � 9 .• •A � Q M T/\ �_ m ° ° d � m o W ii d J � IiQ � m � m ♦ .`:0 i ♦ ♦ ♦ . ♦ a � O ZLi U V V . Ln I L'� I I D _ _ EVULICH COURT (PUBLIC ROAD) ^ , -) I 25.2 [❑❑ I o 0o a 0o a O) m m m 04 JI J N J m ° m ` . N ''•'`'•'`'•' a I J 31.Z' � U M M M V M J M M J. -- 39 G C7 �1. '5 PL—BLD- • ° A • J _ d I I /I n BLDG 6 W I d • ° • Q 56' I D o W [❑ BLDG 8 BLDG 9 BLDG 10 CL—BLDG ° IP ❑ [❑ ar [ ° ° ] [$� 26' , BLDG 7 PL-BLDG II 50' , CL-PO ° • .'.'.'.. ❑ 5 1.8 I I P p d CD J i a ocm om m om J X 0 O OE 1 0 . . . . . . I I I r�Pl\l56J06J026 KJP-,/-\RDEKA/ R RODRIrUES I FAJNT0ZZ1 SETBACK SITE PL I I � APJN: :3JJJJJJJ2J / APJN; :�JJJJJJJ2/I APIM 3-JJJJJJJ2J 1' 10857 LINDA VISTA DRIVE / . I CITY OF CUPERTINO SANTA CLARA COUNTY CALIFORNIA SCALE: F' = 20' DATE: SEPTEMBER 15, 2025 SAN RAMON (925) 866-0322 cbg ROSEVILLE ■ (916) 788-4456 WWW.CBANDG.COM 0 20 40 60 CIVIL ENGINEERS m SURVEYORS ■ PLANNERS H:\3988-000\ACAD\EXHIBITSVB-033-SETBACK SITE PLAN.DWG From: Vikram Saxena To: Building; Tina Ka000r; Benjamin Fu Cc: City Attorney"s Office; City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Commission; davidcyan(a gmail.com; DerChano Kau; lindavistatt(a)gmail.com; Mark Fantozzi Subject: Building Official Evaluation Required Under CBC 104.11 for AMMR for Evulich Court Date: Friday, March 20, 2026 2:58:23 PM Attachments: image.Dno Why the 30-Foot Setback Exists.Ddf F - Alternative Means and Methods Request Approval.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. Re: Alternate Means and Methods Request — 10857 Linda Vista Drive (TM- 2024-009 / ASA-2024-015) Building Official Evaluation Required Under CBC 104.11 Dear Cupertino City Building Department Officials: I am writing regarding the Alternative Means and Methods Request (AMMR) for the Evulich Court project at 1o857 Linda Vista Drive, which reduces the mandatory 30-foot wildfire setback under the Fire Safe Regulations (14 CCR §1276.o1) to 10 feet along the project's north and south boundaries. The AMMR has not been signed by the Building Official. The Santa Clara County Fire Department's own AMMR form requires evaluation and signature by both the Fire Official and the Building Official. The Fire Official signed on January 6, 2026. The Building Official signature line — corresponding to the City of Cupertino's building authority — remains blank. The above application has been reviewed and has been: ACCEPTED ❑ REJECTED Signature: cc Fire Official=7V Ae ST !t Date: ZV Building Official: Date: Dropgox/FirePme tion/Adminisnative/applications/bh/06.23.2025 AMMR approval page: Fire Official signed. Building Official line blank. This letter requests that, before you sign, you satisfy yourself that the applicable legal standard has been met — and I am enclosing documentation that raises substantial questions about whether it has. The core issue The 30400t setback is not merely a design preference — it is the minimum spatial condition necessary to allow compliance with California's defensible space law within private property boundaries. Reducing that distance without demonstrating equivalent functional capacity defeats the statutory framework the regulation was designed to implement. The standard you must apply: equivalency, not mitigation The AMMR functions as an "alternate means and methods" approval. It must therefore independently satisfy CBC §104.11 and CFC §104.10, each of which requires a finding of equivalency — not merely mitigation. Under CBC 104.11, the Building Official must determine that the proposed alternative is: "not less than the equivalent of that prescribed in this code in quality, strength, effectiveness, fire resistance, durability and safety." The SCCFD's own plan review describes the reduced setbacks as "deficiencies to non- conforming 30' setback requirements" to be "mitigated." This language describes mitigation of a known shortfall. The code requires equivalency. These are not the same standard. Mitigation means the impact of a shortfall has been reduced. Equivalency means the same outcome has been achieved. Your determination must be the latter. The regulatory chain: why the 30-foot setback is a system -level requirement The AMMR narrowly cites 14 CCR §1276.o1(a) — the 30400t setback. But the authority and reference notes for §1276.01 state: `Authority cited: Section 4290, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 4290 and 4291, Public Resources Code." The regulation the AMMR seeks to modify was adopted under the authority of both PRC §4290 (minimum fire safety standards for new development) and PRC §4291 (the requirement that every property owner maintain too feet of defensible space around structures at all times). While §1276.01 is adopted under authority of both statutes, the 30400t setback functions as the structural precondition necessary to enable compliance with PRC §4291's defensible space requirements within property boundaries. PRC §4291 requires defensible space to be maintained "but not beyond the property line." Zone 1 under PRC §4291 extends 30 feet from the structure — exactly the distance the setback requires. Reduction of the 30400t setback to 10 feet eliminates the ability to maintain required defensible space within property boundaries, thereby creating a direct conflict with PRC §4291. At 10 feet, the project can only provide 10 feet of defensible space on its own land before reaching the property line. The remaining go feet of the required too -foot defensible space zone falls on neighboring parcels that the developer, the HOA, and the fire department have no authority to manage. The project's own Defensible Space Fire Zone Plan (Sheet L7.1) confirms this — Zone 2 is effectively absent along the north and south boundaries. What "same practical effect" must cover The Fire Safe Regulations allow exceptions only where the alternative provides the "same practical effect" (14 CCR §1270.oi(aa)). The 30400t setback is not an isolated dimensional standard. It is a system -level requirement that enables multiple functions simultaneously. "Same practical effect" must therefore be evaluated across all functions served by the 30- foot setback: i. Structure -to -structure fire spread mitigation — reducing radiant heat flux below ignition thresholds for neighboring properties, not just protecting the new buildings from ignition 2. Firefighter access and staging — physical space for ground ladder deployment, defensive perimeter operations, and safe suppression tactics 3. Civilian evacuation interface — ensuring fire conditions at the perimeter do not impede evacuation from adjacent properties 4. Ability to maintain defensible space under PRC §4291— providing sufficient space within property boundaries to comply with the ioo-foot defensible space requirement The AMMR mitigations address only the first function, and only from the perspective of protecting the new buildings. The applicant cannot satisfy the "same practical effect" standard by demonstrating equivalency in one function while leaving the remaining three unaddressed. What the enclosed documentation shows I am enclosing a technical analysis — "Why the 3o-Foot Setback Exists and Why Reducing It to 10 Feet Creates a More Dangerous Fire Environment" — which documents the following concerns. 1. No radiant heat analysis in the record The AMMR was filed January 5, accepted January 6, plan review completed January 7. No radiant heat modeling or structure -to -structure analysis is documented. 2. Radiant heat flux at 10 feet is —9x the level at 30 feet NIST research (TN 2205) found that increasing spacing from 10 to 30 feet increases fire spread resistance by a factor of ten. At io feet, radiant heat exceeds auto -ignition thresholds for the wood siding, vinyl, and older windows on neighboring 1950s homes. 3. The chimney effect The 40400t townhome wall rising 26 feet above a single -story neighbor's roofline creates a vertical flue that draws fresh air into the base of the corridor — feeding oxygen to a burning fence and intensifying the fire at the height where the neighbor's combustible siding, eaves, and windows are most exposed. 4. The tunnel effect The to -foot corridors run ~500 feet along the full north and south boundaries. Bounded by 40400t fire -rated walls and combustible fencing, they channel wind -driven fire from the WUI along the entire boundary. Every neighboring home is exposed simultaneously. 5. Fire -hardening does not protect the neighbors Fire -rated walls protect the townhomes from ignition but do not reduce outward radiant heat. A contained fire behind a rated assembly can sustain dangerous heat flux levels on the neighboring structure for an extended period. 6. Combustible fencing creates an uncontrolled fuel pathway Wooden fencing at the property line ignites from reflected radiant heat and carries fire laterally along the full boundary. No entity has authority to regulate fencing on neighboring parcels. 7. Window openings contradiction The applicant claims R302.1(2) compliance while stating "we are not proposing modifications to the Openings (Windows) in Walls." R302.1(2) governs protected openings at reduced separations. 8. Ground ladder access does not work in 10 feet SCCFD's own Comment 7 requires 75' ladder access. A 35400t ladder at 75' needs ~11.5 feet. The setback is io feet, with bio-retention pads instead of firm ground. 9. Defensible space Zone 2 absent on reduced -setback boundaries Sheet L7.1 confirms Zone 2 is absent on the north and south boundaries — confirming the setback reduction makes PRC §4291 compliance physically impossible within property boundaries. 10. ADU development could reduce spacing to 14 feet State ADU law allows 4400t setbacks on neighboring parcels. Combined with io feet, actual structure -to -structure spacing could be 14 feet — less than half the required 30. The SCCFD disclaimer "This review shall not be construed to be an approval of a violation of the provisions of the California Fire Code or of other laws or regulations of the jurisdiction." The fire department has explicitly stated that its review is not a determination of code compliance. Your independent evaluation under CBC 104.11 is therefore not a formality. The CEQA exemption depends on your determination The project claims a CEQA exemption under PRC §21o80.66 (AB 130), which applies only where fire hazard mitigation measures are implemented "pursuant to existing building standards." If the project relies on deviations from those standards — as it does through the AMMR's reduction of the 30400t setback — the exemption is valid only if those deviations demonstrably achieve equivalent safety under applicable fire and building codes. If equivalency is not demonstrated across all required functions — including defensible space feasibility under PRC §4291— the basis for the CEQA exemption is undermined. Your determination of equivalency under CBC 104.11 is therefore not only a building code question — it is a predicate for the project's environmental clearance. My request I respectfully request that, before signing the AMMR, you: i. Apply the equivalency standard, not the mitigation standard — CBC §104.11 requires "not less than the equivalent." The SCCFD plan review describes "deficiencies" to be "mitigated." Your determination must go further. 2. Evaluate equivalency across all four functions served by the 30400t setback: fire spread mitigation (for the neighborhood), firefighter access, evacuation interface, and PRC §4291 defensible space feasibility. 3. Require a radiant heat analysis demonstrating equivalent protection for neighboring properties. 4. Address the chimney and tunnel effects created by the corridor geometry and the height differential. 5. Evaluate the window openings contradiction — R302.1(2) invoked but windows not modified. 6. Confirm firefighter ladder access is physically achievable in 10 feet, on the surfaces present. 7. Address the PRC §4291 conflict — whether the 10-foot setback eliminates the ability to maintain defensible space within property boundaries, and how the project can comply without relying on parcels it does not control. The neighboring families built their homes decades before this project was proposed. They have no fire -hardened construction, no ember protection, and no ability to modify the conditions on the project side of the property line. Your signature on this AMMR is the last point in the process where the City's building authority can ensure that the standard has been met — not just for the developer's buildings, but for the community the Fire Safe Regulations are designed to protect. Thank you for your careful consideration. Respectfully, On behalf of many residents of Linda Vista Drive and Baxter Ct Vikram Saxena 11126 Linda Vista Drive 408-390-4036 Enclosures: • Technical Analysis: "Why the 3o-Foot Setback Exists" • AMMR Approval TREE KEY .��114k, o r j I �•�D I / `� i 1 1 I SO 10857 Linda o Cupertino, CA i- September 15, 2025 Vista Drive 3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583 COMMUNITIES OF DISTINCTION 650-857-0122 CIVIL ENGINEERS CbgSURVEYORS PLANNERS 5 L' I I I F 0 a E 'r L L E .� — _- — — -ice-- 1 I ■ 1 I 1 1 ■ 1 1 1 I ■ 1 1 1 1 ■ 1 1 1 1 PROPOSED CANOPY AT MATURITY 10' REQUIRED CLEAR SPACE FROM CANOPY TO CANOPY ZONE D • EMBER RESISTANT ZONE, 0-5 FEET FROM STRUCTURE • REFER TO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND IMAGES SHEET L.7.2 ZONE 1 • 0-30 FEET FROM STRUCTURE • REFER TO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND IMAGES SHEET L.7.2 ZONE 2 * 30-100 FEET FROM STRUCTURE ORTO PROPERTY LINE • REFER TO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND IMAGES SHEET L.7.2 NOTE: W ALL OF THE INFORMATION INCLUDED IN THE FOLLOWING EXHIBIT IS BASED ON CAL FIRE DEFENSIBLE SPACE GUIDELINES AND RECOMMENDATIONS (WWW.FIRE.CA.GOV). SMALL NARROW UPRIGHT CANOPY TREES HAVE BEEN PROPOSED AS Q LOW -COMBUSTIBLE AND TO MEET CAL FIRE REQUIREMENTS FOR 10'-0" SETBACK OF CANOPY FROM PROPOSED BUILDINGS AND ADJACENT U) TREES. HOA SHALL MONITOR THE CANOPY OF ALL TREES AND SELECTIVELY Q PRUNE CANOPIES AS NEEDED TO MEET CAL FIRE REQUIREMENTS. 0 REFER TO PROPOSED PLANT PALETTE SHEET L.4.1 FOR TREE SPECIES. Z J PLAN VIEW Scale: 1 "=20'-0" 0' 10' 20' 401 Defensible Space Fire Zone Plan L.7.1 5DG Architects, Inc. 3361 Walnut Blvd. Suite 120 Brentwood, CA 94513 925.634.7000 1 sdgarchitectsinc.com architects a 10857 Linda o Cupertino, CA � September 15, 2025 PEBBLE MULCH LARGE STONES IN PEBBLE MULCH ZONE o (EMBER RESISTANT ZONE, 0-5 FEET FROM STRUCTURE) • 5' FROM BUILDING EDGE • No REQUIRED CHANGE TO TYPICAL SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVER PLANTING PLAN. PLANTS ARE HIGH -MOISTURE AND LOW -SAP OR RESIN. • WOOD MULCH PROHIBITED. ACCEPTABLE MULCH To BE PEBBLES AND LARGE STONES • 10' REQUIRED MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN TREE BRANCHES • NO FENCING OR GATES PROPOSED WITHIN THIS AREA PEBBLE MULCH Vista Drive LARGE STONES IN PEBBLE MULCH ,r"""��-�,�� - '•+ tea: L 0 - - EXAMPLE OF PLANTING CONCEPT FOR ZONE 2 LARGE STONES IN PEBBLE MULCH 2X HEIGHT OF SHRUB MIN. HORIZONTAL CLEARANCE HORIZONTAL SPACING REQUIREMENTS IN ZONE 2 m Z) _❑ U)C LL �_ oa �u 2 L W � C X VERTICAL SPACING REQUIREMENTS IN ZONE 2 4 ZONE 1 (0-30 FEET FROM STRUCTURE) ZONE 2 (30-100 FEET FROM STRUCTURE OR TO PROPERTY LINE) • 30' FROM BUILDING EDGE • 100' FROM BUILDING EDGE ■ NO REQUIRED CHANGE TO TYPICAL SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVER PLANTING PLAN. PLANTS ■ SHRUBS AND GROUNDCOVER ACCEPTABLE IF MAINTAINING REQUIRED HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SPACING ARE HIGH -MOISTURE AND LOW -SAP OR RESIN. • FUEL SEPARATION MEASURES SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED BASED ON THE GENERAL GUDELINES FOR CREATING DEFENSIBLE • WOOD MULCH PROHIBITED. ACCEPTABLE MULCH To BE PEBBLES AND LARGE STONES SPACE PREPARED BY THE STATE BOARD OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION. SHRUBS AND GROUNDCOVER SHOULD BE PLACED TO MINIMIZE THE FUEL SPREAD INTO • WOOD MULCH PROHIBITED. ACCEPTABLE MULCH TO BE PEBBLES AND LARGE STONES • 10' REQUIRED MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN TREE BRANCHES THE TREES OR To OTHER GROUPS OF PLANTS ■ TREES CAN BE GROUPED PROVIDED THAT LOWER LIMBS ARE TRIMMED TO A MINIMUM HEIGHT OF 6' AND SURFACE FUELS • 10' REQUIRED MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN TREE BRANCHES (SHRUBS AND GRASSES) ARE REMOVED • SITE HAS LESS THAN 20% SLOPE 3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583 COMMUNITIES OF DISTINCTION 650-857-0122 CIVIL ENGINEERS CbgSURVEYORS PLANNERS S❑ R a 3 N R O S E 'J L E Defensible Space Fire Zones L.7.2 SDG Architects, Inc. 3361 Walnut Blvd. Suite 120 Brentwood, CA 94513 925.634.7000 1 sdgarchitectsinc.com Im architects PRIVATE USABLE OPEN SPACE BUILDING CODE SUMMARY UNIT MATRIX Unit Name Description Garage Type Quantity % Total Bedroom Count Unit Net SF* Garage SF (1,000 sf Max) Unit Gross SF** Porch SF Deck SF Total Net Living Space SF Unit 1 4 Bedroom + 2.5 Bath 2-Car Tandem 10 19.6% 40 1,777 579 2,356 0-43 52-64 17,770 Unit 2 4 Bedroom + 3.5 Bath Std 2 Car 21 41.2% 84 2,217 469 2,686 91 -126 91 -126 46,557 Unit 3 4 Bedroom + 3.5 Bath Std 2 Car 12 23.5% 48 2,317 447 2,764 74 64 27,804 Unit SALT 4 Bedroom + 3.5 Bath Std 2 Car 8 15.7% 32 2,315 464 2,779 106 64 18,520 Avg. Unit Square Footage 2,170 485 2,654 Total Units 51 100.0% 204 Garage % Tandem 9.8 Net SF: Measured to outside face of stud, excludes garage area, deck, and porches. Includes center line of air gap at unit party walls. Gross SF: Measured to outside face of stud, includes garage area. Inculdes air gap per unit. 110,651 BUILDING MATRIX Building Name Unit Configuration Net SF Garage SF Gross SF Porch SF Deck SF Gross SF w/ Porches/Decks # Bldgs Total Net SF Total Garage SF Total Gross SF Total Porch SF Total Deck SF Total Gross SF wl Porches/Decks Bldg 1, 6 3-2-2-2-2-3 13,502 2,770 16,272 598 776 19,640 2 27,004 5,540 32,544 1,196 1,552 35,292 Bldg 2 3-1-1-1-1-3ALT 11,740 3,227 14,967 266 592 18,460 1 11,740 3,227 14,967 266 592 15,825 Bldg 3, 4, 5 3ALT-2-1-1-2-3 12,620 3,007 15,627 448 684 19,082 3 37,860 9,021 46,881 1,344 2,052 50,277 Bldg 7 3ALT-2-3 6,849 1,380 8,229 279 326 9,888 1 6,849 1,380 8,229 279 326 8,834 Bldg 8, 9, 10 3-2-2-3ALT 9,066 1,849 10,915 405 452 13,169 3 27,198 5,547 32,745 1,215 1,356 35,316 Building Totals 10 110,651 24,715 135,366 4,300 5,878 145,544 WILDFIRE PROTECTION CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS BEING LOCATED IN A LOCAL RESPONSIBILITY AREA (LRA) VERY HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONE. THE PROJECT SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE SECTION R337, MATERIALS AND METHODS FOR EXTERIOR WILDFIRE EXPOSURE, AS FOLLOWS: 1. EXTERIOR WINDOWS AND EXTERIOR DOORS WITH GLAZING EXTERIOR WINDOWS AND EXTERIOR DOORS WITH GLAZING, SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF MULTI -PANE GLAZING WITH A MINIMUM OF ONE TEMPERED PANE. (C.R.C. R337.8.2.1) 2. EXTERIOR DOORS SHALL MEET ONE OF THE FOLLOWING (C.R.C. R337.8.3): A. THE EXTERIOR SURFACE OR CLADDING SHALL BE OF NON-COMBUSTIBLE OR IGNITION -RESISTANT MATERIAL. B. SHALL HAVE A FIRE -RESISTANCE RATING OF NOT LESS THAN 20 MIN. WHEN TESTED ACCORDING TO NFPA 252. SHALL BE TESTED TO MEET THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF SFM STANDARD 12-7A-1. 3. GARAGE DOORS SHALL RESIST THE INTRUSION OF EMBERS FROM ENTERING BY PREVENTING GAPS BETWEEN DOORS AND DOOR OPENINGS, AT HTE BOTTOM, SIDES, AND TOPS OF DOORS, FROM EXCEEDING 1/8". gAPS BETWEEN DOORS AND DOOR OPENINGS SHALL BE CONTROLLED BY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING METHODS: A. WEATHER STRIPPING PRODUCTS MADE OF MATERIALS THAT: (A) HAVE BEEN TESTED FOR TENSILE STRENGTH IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D638 AFTER EXPOSURE TO ASTM G155 FOR A PERIOD OF 2,000 HOURS, WHERE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DIFFERENCE IN TENSILE STRENGTH VALUES BETWEEN EXPOSED AND NONEXPOSED SAMPLES DO NOT EXCEED 10% AND (B) EXHIBIT A V-2 OR BETTER FLAMMABILITY RATING WHEN TESTED TO UL 94. B. DOOR OVERLAPS ONTO JAMBS AND HEADERS. C. GARAGE DOOR JAMBS AND HEADERS COVERED WITH METAL FLASHING 4. VENTS SHALL RESIST BUILDING IGNITION FROM THE INTRUSION OF BURNING EMBERS AND FLAME THROUGH THE VENTILATION OPENINGS WITH THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (C.R.C. R337.6) A. THE DIMENSIONS OF THE OPENINGS THEREIN SHALL BE A MIN. OF 1/16TH INCH AND SHALL NOT EXCEED 1/8TH INCH. B. THE MATERIALS SHALL BE INCOMBUSTIBLE C. THE MATERIALS USED SHALL BE CORROSION RESISTANT. 5. THE EXTERIOR WALL COVERING OR WALL ASSEMBLY SHALL COMPLY WITH ONE OF THE FOLLOWING C.R.C. R337.7.3: A. NONCOMBUSTIBLE MATERIAL. B. IGNITION- RESISTANT MATERIAL. C. SAWN LUMBER OR GLUE -LAMINATED WOOD WITH THE SMALLEST MINIMUM NOMINAL DIMENSION OF 4". SAWN OR GLUE -LAMINATED PLANKS SPLINED, TONGUE -AND -GROOVE, OR SET CLOSE TOGETHER AND WELL SPIKED. D. LOG WALL CONSTRUCTION. E. WALL ASSEMBLIES THAT HAVE BEEN TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEST PROCEDURES FOR A 10-MINUTE DIRECT FLAME CONTACT EXPOSURE TEST SET FORTH IN ASTM E2707 WITH THE CONDITIONS OF ACCEPTANCE SHOWN IN SECTION R337.7.3.1. F. WALL ASSEMBLIES THAT MEET THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS CRITERIA IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEST PROCEDURES FOR A 10-MINUTE DIRECT FLAME CONTACT EXPOSURE TEST SET FORTH IN SFM STANDARD 12-7A-1. EXCEPTIONS: ANY OF THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE DEEMED TO MEET THE ASSEMBLY PERFORMANCE CRITERIA AND INTENT OF THIS SECTION: A. ONE LAYER OF 5/8" TYPE X GYPSUM SHEATHING APPLIED BEHIND THE EXTERIOR COVERING OR CLADDING ON THE EXTERIOR SIDE OF THE FRAMING. B. THE EXTERIOR PORTION OF A 1-HOUR FIRE RESISTIVE EXTERIOR WALL ASSEMBLY DESIGNED FOR EXTERIOR FIRE EXPOSURE INCLUDING ASSEMBLIES USING GYPSUM PANEL AND SHEATHING PRODUCTS LISTED IN THE GYPSUM ASSOCIATION FIRE RESISTIVE FIRE DESIGN MANUAL. 6. DECKING SURFACES SHALL COMPLY WITH C.R.C. R337.9.3. THE WALKING SURFACE MATERIAL OF DECKS, PORCHES, BALCONY AND STAIRS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH ONE OF THE FOLLOWING MATERIALS: A. MATERIAL THAT COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION R337.9.4 WHEN TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH BOTH ASTM E2632 AND ASTM E2726. B. IGNITION -RESISTANT MATERIAL THAT COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION R337.4.3 WHEN TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM E84 OR UL 723. C. MATERIAL THAT COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF BOTH SFM STANDARD 12-7A-4 AND SFM STANDARD 12-7A-5. D. EXTERIOR FIRE RETARDANT TREATED WOOD. E. NONCOMBUSTIBLE MATERIAL. F. ANY MATERIAL THAT COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF SFM STANDARD 12-7A-4A WHEN ATTACHED EXTERIOR WALL COVERING IS ALSO COMPOSED OF NONCOMBUSTIBLE OR IGNITION -RESISTANT MATERIAL. EXCEPTION: WALL MATERIAL MAY BE OF ANY MATERIAL THAT OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THIS CHAPTER WHEN THE DECKING SURFACE MATERIAL COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS ASTM E84 WITH A CLASS B FLAME SPREAD RATING. G. AY MATERIAL THAT COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION R337.9.5 WHEN TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM E2632 AND WHEN ATTACHED EXTERIOR WALL COVERING IS ALSO COMPOSED OF ONLY NONCOMBUSTIBLE OR IGNITION -RESISTANT MATERIALS. EXCEPTION: WALL MATERIAL SHALL BE PERMITTED TO BE OF ANY MATERIAL THAT OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THIS CHAPTER WHEN THE DECKING SURFACE MATERIAL COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS ASTM E84 WITH A CLASS B FLAME SPREAD INDEX. 0 10857 Linda Cupertino, CA 00 co September 15, 2025 Vista Drive SITE AREAS AREA SQUARE FOOTAGE COMMON LANDSCAPE 30,781 S.F. COMMON HARDSCAPE (AMENITY) 901 S.F. COMMON HARDSCAPE (PRIVATE SIDEWALKS, AC & TRANSFORMER PADS) 7,535 S.F. PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS 2576 S.F. PRIVATE STREET ROW 17,044 S.F. BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA 49,629 S.F. 20'-0" PUBLIC UTILITY EASMENT 2,140 S.F. * SEE SHT. A10 FOR COLOR CODED DIAGRAMS OF AREAS. BUILDING # UNIT # UNIT TYPE PORCH SQUARE FOOTAGE FLOOR 2 DECK SQUARE FOOTAGE FLOOR 3 DECK SQUARE FOOTAGE TOTAL P.O.S. SQUARE FOOTAGE BUILDING 1 1 UNIT 3 74 64 - 138 2 UNIT 2 126 126 - 252 3 UNIT 2 107 107 107 321 4 UNIT 2 91 91 91 273 5 UNIT 2 126 126 - 252 6 UNIT 3 74 64 - 138 BUILDING 2 7 UNIT 3 74 64 - 138 8 UNIT 1 43 64 64 171 9 UNIT 1 0 (non -qualifying usable P.O.S. = 26 S.F.) 52 52 104 10 UNIT 1 0 (non -qualifying usable P.O.S. = 26 S.F.) 52 52 104 11 UNIT 1 43 64 64 171 12 UNIT 3 ALT 106 64 - 170 BUILDING 3 13 UNIT 3 74 64 - 138 14 UNIT 2 126 126 - 252 15 UNIT 1 43 64 64 171 16 UNIT 1 0 (non -qualifying usable P.O.S. = 26 S.F.) 52 52 104 17 UNIT 2 99 99 99 297 18 UNIT 3 ALT 106 64 - 170 BUILDING 4 19 UNIT 3 74 64 - 138 20 UNIT 2 126 126 - 252 21 UNIT 1 43 64 64 171 22 UNIT 1 0 (non -qualifying usable P.O.S. = 26 S.F.) 52 52 104 23 UNIT 2 99 99 99 297 24 UNIT 3 ALT 106 64 - 170 BUILDING 5 25 UNIT 3 74 64 - 138 26 UNIT 2 126 126 - 252 27 UNIT 1 43 64 64 171 28 UNIT 1 0 (non -qualifying usable P.O.S. = 26 S.F.) 52 52 104 29 UNIT 2 99 99 99 297 30 UNIT 3 ALT 106 64 - 170 BUILDING 6 31 UNIT 3 74 64 - 138 32 UNIT 2 126 126 - 252 33 UNIT 2 91 91 91 273 34 UNIT 2 107 107 107 321 35 UNIT 2 126 126 - 252 36 UNIT 3 74 64 - 138 BUILDING 7 37 UNIT 3 ALT 106 64 - 170 38 UNIT 2 99 99 99 297 39 UNIT 3 74 64 - 138 BUILDING 8 40 UNIT 3 ALT 106 64 - 170 41 UNIT 2 126 126 - 252 42 UNIT 2 99 99 99 297 43 UNIT 3 74 64 - 138 BUILDING 9 44 UNIT 3 ALT 106 64 - 170 45 UNIT 2 126 126 - 252 46 UNIT 2 99 99 99 297 47 UNIT 3 74 64 - 138 BUILDING 10 48 UNIT 3 ALT 106 64 - 170 49 UNIT 2 126 126 - 252 50 UNIT 2 99 99 99 297 51 UNIT 3 74 64 - 138 TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE 4,300 4,209 1,669 10,178 BUILDING ELEVATIONS RELATIVE TO CURB HEIGHT AT LINDA VISTA DRIVE REFFERENCE CURB TOP OF SLAB FIRST SECOND FLOOR THIRD FLOOR MAIN ROOF BUILDING # ELEV. @ LINDA PAD ELEVATION FLOOR ELEVATION ELEVATION ELEVATION ELEVATION VISTA DR. 390.7 (HIGH) BUILDING 1 395.5 396.5 406.2 416.5 433.4 3 .6 (LOW) .7 390.7 (HIGH) BUILDING 2 395.4 396.4 406.1 416.4 433.5 389.6 (LOW) 390.7 (HIGH) BUILDING 3 395.3 396.3 406.0 416.3 433.5 3 .6 (LOW) 390.7 (HIGH) BUILDING 4 392.6 393.6 403.3 413.6 430.8 389.6 (LOW) 390.7 (HIGH) BUILDING 5 392.4 393.4 403.1 413.4 430.6 3 .6 (LOW) 392.0 (HIGH) BUILDING 6 396.2 397.2 406.9 417.2 434.1 391.3.0 (LOW) 392.0 (HIGH) BUILDING 7 396.3 397.3 407.0 417.3 433.9 391.3 (LOW) 392.0 (HIGH) BUILDING 8 395.3 396.3 406.0 416.3 433.0 391.3.0 (LOW) 392.0 (HIGH) BUILDING 9 392.8 393.8 403.5 413.8 430.5 391.3 (LOW) 392.0 (HIGH) BUILDING 10 392.5 393.5 403.2 413.5 430.2 391.3 (LOW) 2022 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (CRC) CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (CBC) CHAPTER 11A SECTION 1102A.3 (for accessible route provisions for Multistory Dwellings). Code References 2022 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE (CFC), as adopted by the CITY OF CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE (CCMC), CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS (CCR), AND HEALTH & SAFETY CODE. Occupancy R-3 TOWNHOME PER 2022 CRC Fire Sprinkler System NFPA 13D Type of Construction VB NON -RATED Allowable Height 3 Stories Accessebility PER 2022 CBC, CHAPTER 11A California Building Code (CBC) Section 1102A.3 covers accessibility requirements for multistory apartments or condominium dwellings in buildings without elevators. The requirements include: - The primary entry to the dwelling unit must be on an accessible route, CBC 1102.A.3 accessibility Provisions unless exempt by site impracticality tests. for Addaptable Units - A bathroom or powder room must be located on the primary entry level and served by an accessible route. - All rooms and spaces on the primary entry level must be served by an accessible route. - Common use areas must be accessible as required by the chapter. SITE INFORMATION Project APN 356-06-001, 356-06-002, 356-06- 003, 356-06-004 General Plan Gross Area 2.555 ACRES (+/- 111,296 SF) Site Area 2.506 ACRES (+/-109,161 SF) Existing Medium/High Density Residential Proposed No change Zoning Existing Multiple -Family Residential / Townhome (R3/TH) Proposed No change Units Market Rate 41 Below -Market Rate 10 Total 51 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Required Proposed (PAMC secs. 18.14.020, 18.16.060) Project Minimum Site Specifications Site Area None required 2.506 ACRES (+/-109,161 SF) Site Width 303' - 0" Site Depth 446' - 10" Minimum Setbacks 20' (property line to porch) Front (Linda Vista Dr.) 20' 26' (property line to building face) Rear 15' 20.7' 6' (+ an additional 10' if building is more than one story higher than any Interior Side 10' (property line to building face)* adjacent primary residential structure) 3.6' (property line to porch)* Street Side (Evulich Ct.) 12' 5.6' (property line to building face)* Maximum Site Coverage 55% 45.5% 901 SF / 109,161 Net SF = .8% of the Common Open Space (Hardscape) - site is Common Open Space (average per unit = 18 SF) 30,781 SF / 109,161 Net SF = 28.2% Common Landscaped Area - of the site is Landscaped (average per unit = 604 SF) 10,178 SF / 109,161 Net SF=9.3%of Private Usable Open Space 60 SF per Unit Minimum = the site is Private Open Space ( 3,060 SF) w/minimum 6' dimension (average per unit = 200 SF) 901 SF for Common Open Space + 30,781 SF for Landscaped Area = Community Recreation Space 150 SF per Unit Minimum = (7,650 31,682 SF / 109,161 Net SF = 29.0% SF) of the site is Community Recreation Space (average per unit = 621 SF) 901 SF for Common Open Space + 30,781 SF for Landscape + 10,178 SF for Private Open Space = 41,860 SF Total Usable Open Space / 109,161 Net SF = 38.3% of the site is Usable Open Space (average per unit = 821 SF) approximately 40'-7" above existing / Maximum Height 30' natural grade* Residential Density (net) 20.01 DU/AC (Minimum) 20.35 DU/AC 35 DU/AC (Maximum) Maximum Residential Floor Area FAR = 1.36* (Building FAR: 148,473 Ratio (FAR) 0.85 SF / 109,161 Net SF) Parking Vehicle (Resident) 51 spaces (1/DU) ** 102 spaces Vehicle (Guest) None required ** None required ** 25.5 spaces (1 space per 2 residential Bicycle (Class I, Resident) units) 51 spaces 6 spaces (1 space per 10 residetial Bicycle (Class II, Guest) units) 12 spaces Below Market Rate (BMR) Summary 5 Median Income Household Units + 5 Moderate Income Household Units BMR Units 10.2 = 10 Total Below Market Rate Units (0.2 in lieu fees) * Waiver or reduction of development standards requested pursuant to State Density Bonus Law, Gov. Code sec. 65915. ** Parking requirements pursuant to CIVIC 19.124.040(A). NOTE: Per City of Cupertino Housing Mitigation Program Procedural Manual Section 2.3.4 BMR Unit Design Requirements, BMR units shall be comparable to market rate units in terms of unit type, number of bedrooms per unit, quality of exterior appearance, and overall quality of construction. BMR unit size should be generally representative of the unit sizes within the market -rate portion of residential projects. Interior features and finishes shall be durable, of good quality, and consistent with contemporary standards for new housing. The BMR units shall be dispersed throughout the residential project. NOTE: BMR units will be constructed and eligible for occupancy at a rate approximately proportional to the market rate units. SummerHill Homes will submit a phasing plan for the BMR units prior to issuance of building permits. All units, both market rate and BMR, will be sold to homebuyers. PROJECT DATA `1: 3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583 COMMUNITIES OF DISTINCTION 650-857-0122 CIVIL ENGINEERS cbg SURVEYORS PLANNERS 5 A N R A f. O N I R O S E V i L L E SDG Architects, Inc. 3361 Walnut Blvd. Suite 120 Brentwood, CA 94513 925.634.7000 1 sdgarchitectsinc.com 11 architects Request for Notice of Regulatory Discrepancy Executive Summary The letter submitted by Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP on February 12, 2026, asserts that the Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD) confirmed the project's compliance with state fire safety standards, thereby mandating City approval. On page 3 of the letter, counsel states: "The AB 130 site criteria include requirements that sites within a very fire hazard severity zone be subject to mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards or state fire mitigation measures applicable to the development, including standards established under Public Resources Code Sections 4290 and 4291 and Chapter 7A of the Building Code. (Pub. Res. Code § 21080.66(a)(6); Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(6)(D).) As part of the AB 130 process, the Fire Department confirmed that the Project complies with those standards." The documentary record —including the AMMR application, the AMMR approval form, and the SCCFD's own project determinations —establishes three material misrepresentations in this assertion: • PRC 4291 (Defensible Space): PRC 4291 does not appear in the AMMR application, the AMMR approval form, or the SCCFD Fire Prevention Plan Review that approved the exception. The only Fire Department reference to PRC 4291 is in the December 29, 2025 Plan Review, which identifies it as an outstanding, unfulfilled requirement. No Fire Department document confirms compliance with PRC 4291. • Incomplete AMMR Approval: The Cox Castle letter presents the AMMR as a completed "approved Application." The AMMR form requires dual evaluation by both the Fire Official and the Building Official. The Fire Official signed; the Building Official signature line is blank. The dual review required by CFC 104.10 and CBC 104.11 was never completed. • PRC 4290 (Structure Setbacks): The Fire Department did not confirm compliance with PRC 4290. It approved an exception reducing the required 30-foot setback to 10 feet, characterizing the project as having "deficiencies to non -conforming 30' setback requirements." Approving a deviation from a standard is the opposite of confirming compliance with it. These misrepresentations form the factual predicate for the letter's claim that the project is exempt from CEQA under AB 130, which in turn triggers the Permit Streamlining Act timeline, the HAA prohibition on denial, and the threat of AB 712 financial penalties—$10,000 or more per housing unit, with a 5x multiplier for repeat violations. AB 712 was enacted to empower HCD and the Attorney General to enforce housing laws against non -compliant local agencies. By asserting fabricated regulatory predicates to invoke these enforcement mechanisms, the letter effectively leverages the coercive power of a state enforcement framework on a false factual basis. Given the material discrepancies between the Cox Castle letter and the administrative record, the City Attorney should demand that SummerHill's counsel issue a formal correction of the factual errors identified. Allowing these misrepresentations to remain uncorrected in the record exposes the City to the risk of making findings on a defective factual basis. Should counsel decline to correct the record, the continued reliance on misrepresented facts to compel an official act under threat of state -backed penalties may raise questions under California Rule of Professional Conduct 8.3, which addresses conduct involving reckless or intentional misrepresentation. 1. PRC 4291 (Defensible Space): Outstanding, Not "Confirmed" The Claim The Cox Castle letter asserts that "the Fire Department confirmed that the Project complies" with PRC 4291 as part of the AB 130 process. the Record PRC 4291 appears in no Fire Department determination document. A document -by -document review of the complete AMMR record and SCCFD determinations confirms that PRC 4291 (defensible space) is entirely absent from every document in which the Fire Department acted on this project: • AMMR Application (January 5, 2026): Filed by SummerHill Homes (Steven Bull). Cites only 14 CCR §1276.01—the structure setback standard under PRC 4290. PRC 4291 is not mentioned. • AMMR Approval Form (January 6, 2026): Accepted by Fire Official Brad Fox for AC Estrada. The form addresses only the setback reduction request under PRC 4290. PRC 4291 is not mentioned. • SCCFD Fire Prevention Plan Review #250800 (January 7, 2026): Scope: "Alternate Means/Methods Application for an exception request to PRC 4290." Approves the PRC 4290 exception only. PRC 4291 is not mentioned. • SummerHill AMMR Narrative (October 28, 2025, revised December 19, 2025): Details the justification for setback reduction under §1276.01 and proposes mitigation measures (sprinklers, fire -rated walls, non-combustible landscaping). These are building -level measures under PRC 4290. PRC 4291 defensible space is not addressed. The only Fire Department reference to PRC 4291 identifies it as an outstanding requirement: • SCCFD Fire Prevention Plan Review #251740 (December 29, 2025): States "Plans are NOT APPROVED." Requires the developer to provide a "Preliminary Fire Protection Plan" to address "defensible space requirements in accordance with PRC 4291 or Government Code 51182." This document identifies PRC 4291 compliance as an unfulfilled condition —not a completed review. • No Subsequent Resolution: There is no document in the administrative record indicating that the required Preliminary Fire Protection Plan addressing PRC 4291 was submitted, reviewed, or approved. Assessment: The Cox Castle letter claims Fire Department confirmation of compliance with PRC 4291. PRC 4291 does not appear in the AMMR application, the AMMR approval, or any SCCFD determination that acted on this project. The sole Fire Department reference to PRC 4291 identifies it as an outstanding, unfulfilled requirement. Characterizing this as "confirmation of compliance" is a material misrepresentation of the regulatory status. 2. The "Dual Review" Gap: Legally Incomplete Approval The Claim The letter repeatedly presents the AMMR as a completed, "approved Application." The Record • Mandatory Dual Validation: The Fire Department's own form states: "The Building and Fire Official must evaluate information" regarding the proposed modification. • Independent Obligations: State law (CFC 104.10 and CBC 104.11) assigns independent responsibilities to the Fire Official and the Building Official to find that an alternative is equivalent to the code. • Incomplete Execution: While the Fire Official signed the AMMR on January 6, 2026, the Building Official signature and date lines remain blank. Assessment: Because the dual review required by the form and state law was never completed, the document is only partially executed. Presenting it as a final determination is a misrepresentation of the legal record. 3. Conflating an "Exception" with "Compliance" (PRC 4290) The Claim The letter states the Fire Department "confirmed that the Project complies with applicable Fire Code requirements" through the approved Alternate Means and Methods Request (AMMR). The Record • Acknowledged Deficiencies: The SCCFD's approval of the AMMR explicitly characterizes the project as having "deficiencies to non -conforming 30' setback requirements." • Request for Reduction: The AMMR application is a "Request [for] a reduction in the minimum 30' setback" to as little as 10 feet. • Mitigation vs. Compliance: The developer proposed Chapter 7A wildfire construction standards merely as a mitigation to justify this reduction, not as evidence of standard compliance. Assessment: Approving a deviation from a standard due to "deficiencies" is the opposite of confirming compliance with that standard. Conclusion: Legal Consequence The AB 130 CEQA exemption requires that sites within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone be subject to mitigation measures "pursuant to existing building standards," including PRC 4290 and 4291. Because the administrative record shows that PRC 4291 compliance is an outstanding requirement and the Building Official has not validated the AMMR, the factual foundation for the CEQA exemption —and the subsequent AB 712 penalty threats —does not exist. Document Sources: AMMR Application (January 5, 2026); AMMR Approval Form (SCCFD, January 6, 2026); SCCFD Fire Prevention Plan Review #250800 (January 7, 2026); SCCFD Fire Prevention Plan Review #251740 (December 29, 2025); SummerHill Homes AMMR Narrative (October 28, 2025, revised December 19, 2025); Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP Letter (February 12, 2026). Why the 30-Foot Setback Exists And Why Reducing It to 10 Feet Creates a More Dangerous Fire Environment The 30400t setback is not merely a design preference —it is the minimum spatial condition necessary to allow compliance with California's defensible space law within private property boundaries. Reducing that distance without demonstrating equivalent functional capacity defeats the statutory framework the regulation was designed to implement. The regulatory standard: a system -level requirement The Fire Safe Regulations (14 CCR §1276.o1) require a 30400t setback from property lines for all buildings in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The authority and reference notes for §1276.o1 cite both PRC §4290 (minimum fire safety standards for new development) and PRC §4291(the requirement that every property owner maintain too feet of defensible space around structures at all times, but not beyond the property line). While §1276.o1 is adopted under authority of both statutes, the 30400t setback functions as the structural precondition necessary to enable compliance with PRC §4291's defensible space requirements within property boundaries. Zone i under PRC §4291 extends 30 feet from the structure —exactly the distance the setback requires. Reducing the setback to 10 feet eliminates the ability to provide Zone 1 defensible space on the project's own land, pushing 90 feet of the too -foot requirement onto neighboring parcels that the developer, the HOA, and the fire department have no authority to manage. The regulations define Defensible Space as protection for the "neighborhood or community" against both approaching wildfire and "escaping Structure fires" (14 CCR §1270.01(f)). The standard is not limited to protecting the new development —it encompasses the impact on adjacent properties. A reduction is permitted only if the alternative provides the "same practical effect" (§1270.o1(aa)). The 30400t setback is not an isolated dimensional standard. It is a system -level requirement that enables multiple functions simultaneously. "Same practical effect" must be evaluated across all functions served by the setback: 1. Structure -to -structure fire spread mitigation —reducing radiant heat below ignition thresholds for neighboring properties, not just the new buildings 2. Firefighter access and staging —physical space for ladder deployment, defensive perimeter, and suppression tactics 3. Civilian evacuation interface —ensuring fire conditions at the perimeter do not impede evacuation from adjacent properties 4. Ability to maintain defensible space under PRC §429i—sufficient space within property boundaries to comply with the too -foot defensible space requirement An alternative that demonstrates equivalency in one function —such as fire resistance of the new buildings —while leaving the remaining three unaddressed does not meet this standard. The code requires equivalency, not merely mitigation of a known shortfall. What the 30-foot setback does: energy dissipation Radiant heat flux follows an inverse -square relationship with distance. At 30 feet from a burning structure, the radiant heat flux on a receiving surface drops to roughly one -ninth of what it is at 10 feet. NIST research (TN 2205) has found that increasing spacing from approximately 10 feet to 30 feet increases resistance to fire spread by a factor of ten. At 30 feet, the geometry is open. Radiant energy disperses in all directions. Convective plumes rise freely and dissipate in open air. There is room for firefighters to deploy ladders, apply water, and establish a defensive perimeter. The fence at the property line sits far enough away that radiant heat from a structure fire remains below the ignition threshold for wood. The 30400t standard works because it provides four things simultaneously: thermal distance (heat flux drops below ignition thresholds), open geometry (energy disperses rather than concentrating), operational space (firefighters can physically work along the perimeter), and defensible space feasibility (sufficient room within property boundaries to comply with PRC §4291's 100400t requirement). What a 10-foot setback creates: a fire corridor Reducing the setback to io feet does not simply reduce the buffer. It fundamentally changes the fire environment by creating a narrow corridor that concentrates thermal energy rather than allowing it to dissipate. Two specific effects make the 10-foot corridor significantly more dangerous than the absence Of 20 additional feet would suggest. The chimney effect (vertical) The proposed townhomes are 40 feet tall. The neighboring single-family homes are 12-16 feet (one story) or 24-28 feet (two stories). With a one-story neighbor, the townhome wall rises 26 feet above the neighbor's roofline—creating a vertical flue. The 40400t townhome wall rising above a single -story neighbor's roofline creates a chimney flue that draws fresh air into the base of the io-foot corridor —feeding oxygen to a burning fence and intensifying the fire at precisely the height where the neighbor's combustible siding, eaves, and windows are most exposed —while preheating tree canopy overhead into a secondary ignition source. On one side of the corridor: a fire -rated, non-combustible townhome wall that reflects radiant energy back into the gap. On the other side: a 6-foot wooden fence at the property line, with mature tree canopy from the neighboring parcel overhead. The non-combustible wall does not absorb heat —it bounces it back toward the fence and the neighbor's home. The fence absorbs it and ignites. The hot gases rise along the tall townhome wall, pulling fresh air in at ground level, feeding the fire from below. This is the same physics that makes a fireplace chimney work. Cross-section: 10-foot setback — chimney effect (to scale) Scale: each square = 5 ft 26 ft of exposed wall above 1-story neighbor = chimney flue ---------------------- Townhome h gases 40 ft tall ac elerate fire -rated walls u ward 3 stories ------------------------ if 2-story (26 ft) tree canopy preheats 26 ft; heat effects offra ed wall Neighbor's home 6 ft wood fe ce �4 ft 1950s construction if 1-story (14 ft) property line I� 10ft Cross-section: 30-foot setback — energy dissipates (to scale) -------------- if 2-story (26 ft) 26 ft Neighbor's home 14: ft 1-story (14 ft) Open air Heat rises freely and disperses Below ignition threshold at fence fence fil Room for ladder cps 30 ft Townhome 40 ft tall 40 ft 40 ft Figure 1: Cross-section comparison (to scale). Top: 10 foot setback with chimney effect. Bottom: 30foot setback with natural dissipation. The tunnel effect (horizontal) The to -foot corridors run the full length of the north and south property boundaries —approximately 500 feet each. Bounded on one side by 40400t fire -rated townhome walls and on the other by combustible wood fencing, these corridors create tunnels that channel wind -driven fire from the wildland-urban interface on the west along the entire property boundary. A wildfire approaching from the west —the direction of the WUI—enters the corridor and accelerates through the narrow channel. The fence ignites progressively along its full length. Heat reflects off the non-combustible townhome wall back onto the fence and neighboring homes. Every home along the boundary is exposed simultaneously, not sequentially. This is fundamentally different from the 30400t setback, where fire energy entering from the west would disperse across open space well before reaching the fence line. Qft 93ft Plan view: 10-foot fire corridors along north and south boundaries Single-family homes (1950s) and recreational club — wood siding, fences, trees 1 and 2 story (12-28 ft) Bldg 1 Bldg 2 Bldg 3 Bldg 4 Bldg 5 2tfire Evulich Court (public road) V, Bldg 6 Bldg 7 Bldg 8 Bldg 9 Bldg 10 Single-family homes (1950s) — wood siding, fences, mature trees 1 and 2 story (12-28 ft) Win -driven fire from WUI enters both corridors, channels a ong 500 ft of boundarv. All homes exposed simultaneously Same layout with 30-foot setback: fire dissipates in open buffer Single-family homes (1950s) and recreational club 1 and 2 story (12-28 ft) I;ft 30 ft defensible space buffer Open air — heat dissipates, firefighter access Bldg 1 Bldg 2 Bldg 3 Bldg 4 Bldg 5 Evulich Court Bldg 6 Bldg 7 Bldg 8 Bldg 9 Bldg 10 IEft 30 ft defensible space buffer Open air— no tunnel, no chimney effect Single-family homes (1950s) — wood siding, fences, mature trees 1 and 2 story (12-28 ft) o tunnel geometry. Fire energy from WUI disperses across 30 of o en space. Fence and neighboring homes below ignition thres old. Figure 2: Plan view comparison. Top: io foot corridors channel fire along full boundary. Bottom: 3o foot buffer allows fire energy to dissipate. Fire -hardening the new building does not protect the neighbors The AMMR mitigations —fire -rated walls, patio sprinklers, non-combustible landscaping —protect the new townhomes from ignition. They are sound building practices. But they do not reduce the thermal energy radiated outward if a townhome does become fully involved. Modern residential interiors —synthetic materials, engineered wood products, dense furnishings —burn hotter and faster than older construction. The fire -rated exterior may delay ignition from outside, but once a fire is burning inside, the wall radiates heat outward for the duration. In some respects, afire -rated wall that contains afire but radiates heat is worse for the neighbor than a wall that fails: a contained fire behind a rated assembly can sustain high radiant output for longer, maintaining dangerous heat flux levels on the neighboring structure across the 10-foot gap for an extended period. The mitigations protect the developer's buildings. They do not replicate the attenuation effect of 30 feet of open separation for the surrounding community. Summary Factor 30-foot setback..setback Radiant heat flux at -1/9th intensity; below wood ignition ~9x intensity; above auto -ignition neighbor threshold threshold for wood siding Geometry Open air; energy disperses in all Narrow corridor; heat trapped and directions reflected between walls Chimney effect None; heat rises freely 40-ft wall above neighbor's roof creates vertical flue drawing fresh air into fire Tunnel effect None; wind -driven fire disperses over Soo-ft corridor channels fire along distance entire boundary simultaneously Fence at property line Below ignition threshold from radiant Ignites from radiant heat; fire runs heat laterally along full boundary Tree canopy Outside primary heat zone Preheated by rising gases in corridor; secondary ignition risk Firefighter access Room for ladder operations and Corridor untenable during fire; defensive perimeter bio-retention pads, not firm ground PRC §4291 defensible Zone 1(30 ft) achievable within Only 10 ft on own land; 90 ft of required space property; Zone 2 extends onto managed too ft falls on uncontrolled neighboring land parcels Neighbor impact Protected by thermal distance and open Combustible 195os home receives geometry concentrated radiant heat at close range The question under the Fire Safe Regulations: "Same practical effect" must be evaluated across all four functions served by the 30400t setback: fire spread mitigation for the neighborhood, firefighter access, evacuation interface, and defensible space feasibility under PRC §4291. A 10-foot corridor —bounded by a fire -rated wall that reflects heat, a combustible fence that ignites, and a chimney geometry that accelerates fire —does not achieve equivalency in any of them. Mitigation of a known deficiency is not equivalency. The physics says no. The geometry says no. The statutory framework says no. SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 1315 Dell Avenue, Campbell, CA 95008 i (408) 378-4010 1 SCCFD.org APPLICATION FOR USE OF ALTERNATE MATERIALS, METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION, OR MODIFICATION OF CODE Project Street Address:10857 Linda Vista Drive Project(:ity: Cupertino Building Permit# Applicant's name: SummerHill Homes; Attn.: Steven Bull 6101 Bollinger Canyon Road, San Ramon, CA 94583 425 Applicant's Address: Suite: Phone Number: (510)410-1188 Email: sbuII@shhomes.com FI Use of Alternate Materials or Method of Construction ❑ Modification of Code Codes Affected: Building Code Fire Code Mechanical Code Electrical Code C)Ili er: California Code of Regulations. We 14, Division 1.5, Chapter 7 -Fire Protection, Article 6, Subchapter 2, Article 5 Specific section(s) of the code involved: Section 1276.01 - Building and Parcel Siting and Setbacks, Subsection (a) Request a reduction in the minimum 30' setback to neighboring properties. Brief description of the request: � _ Please see the attached narrative for justification of the reduction pursuant to Section 1276.01(b). The Building and Fire Official must evaluate information that the material(s), method of work, and / or modification is equal to the intent of the code in strength, effect, fire - resistance, durability, safety, etc. SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 1315 Dell Avenue, Campbell. CA 95008 1 (408) 378.4010 1 SCCFD.org Please complete the following information as applicable to support your request. Use additional paper if necessary. 1. Quality: See attached documentation 2. Strength:. _ See attached documentation 3. Effectiveness: See attached documentation 4. Fire Resistance: See attached documentation 5. Durability: See attached documentation 6. Safety: See attached documentation Additional evidence of p The above application has been reviewed and has been: AACCEPTE ❑ REJECTED Signature: Fire Official: AC Tb�>e7;4j�- A Ae_ S`[ Ac Bate: I 2 Building Official: _Date:. DropB ox/FirePrevention/Administrative/a ppl!cations/bh/06.2 3.2025 SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 1315 Dell Avenue, Campbell, CA 95008 1 (408) 378-4010 1 SCCFD.org FIRE PREVENTION PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS PROJECT INFO: FIRE DEPT PLAN REVIEW #: 250800 l CITY/COUNTY PROJECT #: TM-2024-009 / Asa-2024- 015 / TR-2024-044 LOCATION-L 10857 Linda Vista Dr 1 PROJECT NAME: Multi family PREPARED BY: NAME/TITLE: Caleb Flanagan / DFM II EMAIL: Caleb.flanagan@sccfd.org DATE: 1/7/26 The scope of this proiect includes the following: Alternate Means/Methods Application for an exception request to PRC 4290 - Proposed new 10 building 51-unit multi -family residential subdivision. Plan Status: The exception request to PRC 4290 methods request is APPROVED. Discussion: This alternate proposes to mitigate deficiencies to non -conforming 30' setback requirements. In order to mitigate the noncompliant setbacks the applicanLproposes, the following: -Add sprinkler heads to covered patios in all reduced setback areas. -Design portions of buildings non meeting setback requirements to stricter fire separation distance requirements in accordance with CRC 302.4. -Extend non-combustible landscaping 5 feet from buildings. Comments and Conditions of A"roval: 1. A copy of the Alternate Means/Methods application form, with approval signature, and these comments shall be made part of the building permit drawing set, to be routed to Santa Clara County Fire Department for final approval. This review shall not be construed to be an approval of a violation of the provisions of the California Fire Code or of other laws or regulations of the jurisdiction. A permit presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of the fire code or other such laws or regulations shall not be valid. Any addition to or alteration of approved construction documents shall be approved in advance. [CFC, Ch. 1, 105.3.6] COMMUNITIES OF DISTINCTION 10857 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino (Reference City of Cupertino Planning Application File Numbers #TM-2024-009, ASA-2024-015) Application for Use of Alternate Materials, Methods of Construction, or Modification of Code October 28, 2025 (REVISED December 19, 2025) Requirement California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 1.5, Chapter 7, Subchapter 2, Article 5, Section 1276.01, subsection (a): "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). Description of Request Request a reduction of the 30 foot setback from all buildings to the property lines as shown on the attached Exhibit A, which is consistent with the Development Permit plan set submitted to the City of Cupertino as file number TM-2024-009 and ASA-2024-015. In summary, the proposed setbacks to the public roads and property lines are proposed as follows: 1. Setbacks to center of Public Roads (In compliance with requirement) a. Evulich Court: Minimum 30 feet b. Linda Vista Drive: Minimum 30 feet 2. Setbacks to Property Lines (Request for Reduction) a. Northern Property Line: Minimum 10 feet b. Southern Property Line: Minimum 10 feet c. Western Property Line: Minimum 20 feet Justification The primary justifications for the reduction of the 30-foot setback requirement to the northern, southern, and western property lines are the development density requirements and site constraints due to the existing public right-of-way for the cul-de-sac within the site. Subsection (b) of the above listed Code includes Development density requirements and site constraints among the exceptions to the 30' setback requirement. The City of Cupertino General Plan and Zoning designations for the site are Medium/High Density Residential and Multiple -Family Residential / Townhome Combining District, respectively. The density requirement for the site in accordance with the City of Cupertino General Plan designation is a minimum of 20.01 units per acre and a maximum of 35 units per acre (Reference Cupertino General Plan: Land Use Plan and Appendix A Land Use Definitions). The project site is approximately 2.51 acres, which results in Linda Vista Site Alternative Materials, Methods of Construction, or Modification of Code October 28, 2025 (Revised December 19, 2025) Page 2 of 2 a minimum unit count requirement of 51 units to achieve the minimum density. The proposed unit count for the project is 51 units, which is the minimum required to comply with the City General Plan and Zoning for the site. The proposed homes will be townhomes in compliance with the Zoning designation. The proposed setbacks exceed the City of Cupertino Zoning standards at the northern, southern, and western boundaries. The site is constrained by an existing City right-of-way within the approximate center of the site (Evulich Court). The width of Evulich Court reduces the size of the development area for the project. The size and quantity of the proposed townhomes necessitate a reduction of the 30 foot setback requirement in order to fit the minimum required number of units within the site. Mitigation In accordance with subsection (b) of Section 1276.01, the project will include the following mitigation measures to mitigate the reduced setback by providing the same practical effect: 1. Non-combustible landscaping material extending five (5) feet horizontally from the furthest existing point of the Building. Please see Exhibits B1 and B2, which are included within the Development Permit Plan set as Sheets L7.1 and L7.2. 2. The Wildfire protective measures in accordance with the California Building Code Chapter 7A as noted on Exhibit C, which is included within the Development Permit Plan set as Sheet A08. 3. An added fire sprinkler head within each of the covered porches and decks that are within 30' of the property line as shown on Exhibit A. 4. Designing to stricter fire separation distance requirements within 30' of the property lines as shown on Exhibit A per Residential Code R302.1 (2) as follows*: a. Exterior Wall Elements — Fire resistance rated for 1 hour. b. Projections — Fire resistance rated for 1 hour c. Penetrations —Comply with Section 302.4 *Please note that we are not proposing modifications to the Openings (Windows) in Walls. r r� I r J, RAM Ur r rl US UI1 356 07 027 J95. J94.4x I \ x x I I \ .. X .................. X ... ................ ...... I P o .. P 9 9 9 9 \ c m o m o m o m \ m p I I I I D • i J a LEGEND \ [❑ ❑ [❑ ❑ ° ❑ ❑] . • . i . • . [❑ ❑ ❑ ] I ` EXISTING PROPERTY LINE p ❑ • • • , — — PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE \ \ ` CEO CENTER LINE \ \ I ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE \ ❑ ❑ u 51' EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY [❑ 14 ° l CL-BLDG LOT LINE \ 0 / 50' \ ° I ° CL—PO •° BLDG 1 o BLDG 2 0 BLDG 3 BLDG 4 BLDG S o 0 PL-BLDG 0 ABBREVIATIONS I0 ❑] [❑ ] �� 4 O t. BLDG BUILDING I ` ❑ ° C CL CENTERLINE p • PL PROPERTY LINE 28.9 d ❑ d [❑ ] PO PORCH PL—BLDG W ° ❑] W [❑ ° W ° ❑] ` W I PL—PO [❑ ❑ a p F-+ a LSD I - -_ o W d I W tLl Ls� � c� � Iw A � 9 .• •A � Q M T/\ �_ m ° ° d � m o W ii d J � IiQ � m � m ♦ .`:0 i ♦ ♦ ♦ . ♦ a � O ZLi U V V . Ln I L'� I I D _ _ EVULICH COURT (PUBLIC ROAD) ^ , -) I 25.2 [❑❑ I o 0o a 0o a O) m m m 04 JI J N J m ° m ` . N ''•'`'•'`'•' a I J 31.Z' � U M M M V M J M M J. -- 39 G C7 �1. '5 PL—BLD- • ° A • J _ d I I /I n BLDG 6 W I d • ° • Q 56' I D o W [❑ BLDG 8 BLDG 9 BLDG 10 CL—BLDG ° IP ❑ [❑ ar [ ° ° ] [$� 26' , BLDG 7 PL-BLDG II 50' , CL-PO ° • .'.'.'.. ❑ 5 1.8 I I P p d CD J i a ocm om m om J X 0 O OE 1 0 . . . . . . I I I r�Pl\l56J06J026 KJP-,/-\RDEKA/ R RODRIrUES I FAJNT0ZZ1 SETBACK SITE PL I I � APJN: :3JJJJJJJ2J / APJN; :�JJJJJJJ2/I APIM 3-JJJJJJJ2J 1' 10857 LINDA VISTA DRIVE / . I CITY OF CUPERTINO SANTA CLARA COUNTY CALIFORNIA SCALE: F' = 20' DATE: SEPTEMBER 15, 2025 SAN RAMON (925) 866-0322 cbg ROSEVILLE ■ (916) 788-4456 WWW.CBANDG.COM 0 20 40 60 CIVIL ENGINEERS m SURVEYORS ■ PLANNERS H:\3988-000\ACAD\EXHIBITSVB-033-SETBACK SITE PLAN.DWG TREE KEY .��114k, o r j I �•�D I / `� i 1 1 I SO 10857 Linda o Cupertino, CA i- September 15, 2025 Vista Drive 3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583 COMMUNITIES OF DISTINCTION 650-857-0122 CIVIL ENGINEERS CbgSURVEYORS PLANNERS 5 L' I I I F 0 a E 'r L L E .� — _- — — -ice-- 1 I ■ 1 I 1 1 ■ 1 1 1 I ■ 1 1 1 1 ■ 1 1 1 1 PROPOSED CANOPY AT MATURITY 10' REQUIRED CLEAR SPACE FROM CANOPY TO CANOPY ZONE D • EMBER RESISTANT ZONE, 0-5 FEET FROM STRUCTURE • REFER TO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND IMAGES SHEET L.7.2 ZONE 1 • 0-30 FEET FROM STRUCTURE • REFER TO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND IMAGES SHEET L.7.2 ZONE 2 * 30-100 FEET FROM STRUCTURE ORTO PROPERTY LINE • REFER TO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND IMAGES SHEET L.7.2 NOTE: W ALL OF THE INFORMATION INCLUDED IN THE FOLLOWING EXHIBIT IS BASED ON CAL FIRE DEFENSIBLE SPACE GUIDELINES AND RECOMMENDATIONS (WWW.FIRE.CA.GOV). SMALL NARROW UPRIGHT CANOPY TREES HAVE BEEN PROPOSED AS Q LOW -COMBUSTIBLE AND TO MEET CAL FIRE REQUIREMENTS FOR 10'-0" SETBACK OF CANOPY FROM PROPOSED BUILDINGS AND ADJACENT U) TREES. HOA SHALL MONITOR THE CANOPY OF ALL TREES AND SELECTIVELY Q PRUNE CANOPIES AS NEEDED TO MEET CAL FIRE REQUIREMENTS. 0 REFER TO PROPOSED PLANT PALETTE SHEET L.4.1 FOR TREE SPECIES. Z J PLAN VIEW Scale: 1 "=20'-0" 0' 10' 20' 401 Defensible Space Fire Zone Plan L.7.1 5DG Architects, Inc. 3361 Walnut Blvd. Suite 120 Brentwood, CA 94513 925.634.7000 1 sdgarchitectsinc.com architects a 10857 Linda o Cupertino, CA � September 15, 2025 PEBBLE MULCH LARGE STONES IN PEBBLE MULCH ZONE o (EMBER RESISTANT ZONE, 0-5 FEET FROM STRUCTURE) • 5' FROM BUILDING EDGE • No REQUIRED CHANGE TO TYPICAL SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVER PLANTING PLAN. PLANTS ARE HIGH -MOISTURE AND LOW -SAP OR RESIN. • WOOD MULCH PROHIBITED. ACCEPTABLE MULCH To BE PEBBLES AND LARGE STONES • 10' REQUIRED MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN TREE BRANCHES • NO FENCING OR GATES PROPOSED WITHIN THIS AREA PEBBLE MULCH Vista Drive LARGE STONES IN PEBBLE MULCH ,r"""��-�,�� - '•+ tea: L 0 - - EXAMPLE OF PLANTING CONCEPT FOR ZONE 2 LARGE STONES IN PEBBLE MULCH 2X HEIGHT OF SHRUB MIN. HORIZONTAL CLEARANCE HORIZONTAL SPACING REQUIREMENTS IN ZONE 2 m Z) _❑ U)C LL �_ oa �u 2 L W � C X VERTICAL SPACING REQUIREMENTS IN ZONE 2 4 ZONE 1 (0-30 FEET FROM STRUCTURE) ZONE 2 (30-100 FEET FROM STRUCTURE OR TO PROPERTY LINE) • 30' FROM BUILDING EDGE • 100' FROM BUILDING EDGE ■ NO REQUIRED CHANGE TO TYPICAL SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVER PLANTING PLAN. PLANTS ■ SHRUBS AND GROUNDCOVER ACCEPTABLE IF MAINTAINING REQUIRED HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SPACING ARE HIGH -MOISTURE AND LOW -SAP OR RESIN. • FUEL SEPARATION MEASURES SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED BASED ON THE GENERAL GUDELINES FOR CREATING DEFENSIBLE • WOOD MULCH PROHIBITED. ACCEPTABLE MULCH To BE PEBBLES AND LARGE STONES SPACE PREPARED BY THE STATE BOARD OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION. SHRUBS AND GROUNDCOVER SHOULD BE PLACED TO MINIMIZE THE FUEL SPREAD INTO • WOOD MULCH PROHIBITED. ACCEPTABLE MULCH TO BE PEBBLES AND LARGE STONES • 10' REQUIRED MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN TREE BRANCHES THE TREES OR To OTHER GROUPS OF PLANTS ■ TREES CAN BE GROUPED PROVIDED THAT LOWER LIMBS ARE TRIMMED TO A MINIMUM HEIGHT OF 6' AND SURFACE FUELS • 10' REQUIRED MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN TREE BRANCHES (SHRUBS AND GRASSES) ARE REMOVED • SITE HAS LESS THAN 20% SLOPE 3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583 COMMUNITIES OF DISTINCTION 650-857-0122 CIVIL ENGINEERS CbgSURVEYORS PLANNERS S❑ R a 3 N R O S E 'J L E Defensible Space Fire Zones L.7.2 SDG Architects, Inc. 3361 Walnut Blvd. Suite 120 Brentwood, CA 94513 925.634.7000 1 sdgarchitectsinc.com Im architects PRIVATE USABLE OPEN SPACE BUILDING CODE SUMMARY UNIT MATRIX Unit Name Description Garage Type Quantity % Total Bedroom Count Unit Net SF* Garage SF (1,000 sf Max) Unit Gross SF** Porch SF Deck SF Total Net Living Space SF Unit 1 4 Bedroom + 2.5 Bath 2-Car Tandem 10 19.6% 40 1,777 579 2,356 0-43 52-64 17,770 Unit 2 4 Bedroom + 3.5 Bath Std 2 Car 21 41.2% 84 2,217 469 2,686 91 -126 91 -126 46,557 Unit 3 4 Bedroom + 3.5 Bath Std 2 Car 12 23.5% 48 2,317 447 2,764 74 64 27,804 Unit SALT 4 Bedroom + 3.5 Bath Std 2 Car 8 15.7% 32 2,315 464 2,779 106 64 18,520 Avg. Unit Square Footage 2,170 485 2,654 Total Units 51 100.0% 204 Garage % Tandem 9.8 Net SF: Measured to outside face of stud, excludes garage area, deck, and porches. Includes center line of air gap at unit party walls. Gross SF: Measured to outside face of stud, includes garage area. Inculdes air gap per unit. 110,651 BUILDING MATRIX Building Name Unit Configuration Net SF Garage SF Gross SF Porch SF Deck SF Gross SF w/ Porches/Decks # Bldgs Total Net SF Total Garage SF Total Gross SF Total Porch SF Total Deck SF Total Gross SF wl Porches/Decks Bldg 1, 6 3-2-2-2-2-3 13,502 2,770 16,272 598 776 19,640 2 27,004 5,540 32,544 1,196 1,552 35,292 Bldg 2 3-1-1-1-1-3ALT 11,740 3,227 14,967 266 592 18,460 1 11,740 3,227 14,967 266 592 15,825 Bldg 3, 4, 5 3ALT-2-1-1-2-3 12,620 3,007 15,627 448 684 19,082 3 37,860 9,021 46,881 1,344 2,052 50,277 Bldg 7 3ALT-2-3 6,849 1,380 8,229 279 326 9,888 1 6,849 1,380 8,229 279 326 8,834 Bldg 8, 9, 10 3-2-2-3ALT 9,066 1,849 10,915 405 452 13,169 3 27,198 5,547 32,745 1,215 1,356 35,316 Building Totals 10 110,651 24,715 135,366 4,300 5,878 145,544 WILDFIRE PROTECTION CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS BEING LOCATED IN A LOCAL RESPONSIBILITY AREA (LRA) VERY HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONE. THE PROJECT SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE SECTION R337, MATERIALS AND METHODS FOR EXTERIOR WILDFIRE EXPOSURE, AS FOLLOWS: 1. EXTERIOR WINDOWS AND EXTERIOR DOORS WITH GLAZING EXTERIOR WINDOWS AND EXTERIOR DOORS WITH GLAZING, SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF MULTI -PANE GLAZING WITH A MINIMUM OF ONE TEMPERED PANE. (C.R.C. R337.8.2.1) 2. EXTERIOR DOORS SHALL MEET ONE OF THE FOLLOWING (C.R.C. R337.8.3): A. THE EXTERIOR SURFACE OR CLADDING SHALL BE OF NON-COMBUSTIBLE OR IGNITION -RESISTANT MATERIAL. B. SHALL HAVE A FIRE -RESISTANCE RATING OF NOT LESS THAN 20 MIN. WHEN TESTED ACCORDING TO NFPA 252. SHALL BE TESTED TO MEET THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF SFM STANDARD 12-7A-1. 3. GARAGE DOORS SHALL RESIST THE INTRUSION OF EMBERS FROM ENTERING BY PREVENTING GAPS BETWEEN DOORS AND DOOR OPENINGS, AT HTE BOTTOM, SIDES, AND TOPS OF DOORS, FROM EXCEEDING 1/8". gAPS BETWEEN DOORS AND DOOR OPENINGS SHALL BE CONTROLLED BY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING METHODS: A. WEATHER STRIPPING PRODUCTS MADE OF MATERIALS THAT: (A) HAVE BEEN TESTED FOR TENSILE STRENGTH IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D638 AFTER EXPOSURE TO ASTM G155 FOR A PERIOD OF 2,000 HOURS, WHERE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DIFFERENCE IN TENSILE STRENGTH VALUES BETWEEN EXPOSED AND NONEXPOSED SAMPLES DO NOT EXCEED 10% AND (B) EXHIBIT A V-2 OR BETTER FLAMMABILITY RATING WHEN TESTED TO UL 94. B. DOOR OVERLAPS ONTO JAMBS AND HEADERS. C. GARAGE DOOR JAMBS AND HEADERS COVERED WITH METAL FLASHING 4. VENTS SHALL RESIST BUILDING IGNITION FROM THE INTRUSION OF BURNING EMBERS AND FLAME THROUGH THE VENTILATION OPENINGS WITH THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (C.R.C. R337.6) A. THE DIMENSIONS OF THE OPENINGS THEREIN SHALL BE A MIN. OF 1/16TH INCH AND SHALL NOT EXCEED 1/8TH INCH. B. THE MATERIALS SHALL BE INCOMBUSTIBLE C. THE MATERIALS USED SHALL BE CORROSION RESISTANT. 5. THE EXTERIOR WALL COVERING OR WALL ASSEMBLY SHALL COMPLY WITH ONE OF THE FOLLOWING C.R.C. R337.7.3: A. NONCOMBUSTIBLE MATERIAL. B. IGNITION- RESISTANT MATERIAL. C. SAWN LUMBER OR GLUE -LAMINATED WOOD WITH THE SMALLEST MINIMUM NOMINAL DIMENSION OF 4". SAWN OR GLUE -LAMINATED PLANKS SPLINED, TONGUE -AND -GROOVE, OR SET CLOSE TOGETHER AND WELL SPIKED. D. LOG WALL CONSTRUCTION. E. WALL ASSEMBLIES THAT HAVE BEEN TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEST PROCEDURES FOR A 10-MINUTE DIRECT FLAME CONTACT EXPOSURE TEST SET FORTH IN ASTM E2707 WITH THE CONDITIONS OF ACCEPTANCE SHOWN IN SECTION R337.7.3.1. F. WALL ASSEMBLIES THAT MEET THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS CRITERIA IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEST PROCEDURES FOR A 10-MINUTE DIRECT FLAME CONTACT EXPOSURE TEST SET FORTH IN SFM STANDARD 12-7A-1. EXCEPTIONS: ANY OF THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE DEEMED TO MEET THE ASSEMBLY PERFORMANCE CRITERIA AND INTENT OF THIS SECTION: A. ONE LAYER OF 5/8" TYPE X GYPSUM SHEATHING APPLIED BEHIND THE EXTERIOR COVERING OR CLADDING ON THE EXTERIOR SIDE OF THE FRAMING. B. THE EXTERIOR PORTION OF A 1-HOUR FIRE RESISTIVE EXTERIOR WALL ASSEMBLY DESIGNED FOR EXTERIOR FIRE EXPOSURE INCLUDING ASSEMBLIES USING GYPSUM PANEL AND SHEATHING PRODUCTS LISTED IN THE GYPSUM ASSOCIATION FIRE RESISTIVE FIRE DESIGN MANUAL. 6. DECKING SURFACES SHALL COMPLY WITH C.R.C. R337.9.3. THE WALKING SURFACE MATERIAL OF DECKS, PORCHES, BALCONY AND STAIRS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH ONE OF THE FOLLOWING MATERIALS: A. MATERIAL THAT COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION R337.9.4 WHEN TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH BOTH ASTM E2632 AND ASTM E2726. B. IGNITION -RESISTANT MATERIAL THAT COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION R337.4.3 WHEN TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM E84 OR UL 723. C. MATERIAL THAT COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF BOTH SFM STANDARD 12-7A-4 AND SFM STANDARD 12-7A-5. D. EXTERIOR FIRE RETARDANT TREATED WOOD. E. NONCOMBUSTIBLE MATERIAL. F. ANY MATERIAL THAT COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF SFM STANDARD 12-7A-4A WHEN ATTACHED EXTERIOR WALL COVERING IS ALSO COMPOSED OF NONCOMBUSTIBLE OR IGNITION -RESISTANT MATERIAL. EXCEPTION: WALL MATERIAL MAY BE OF ANY MATERIAL THAT OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THIS CHAPTER WHEN THE DECKING SURFACE MATERIAL COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS ASTM E84 WITH A CLASS B FLAME SPREAD RATING. G. AY MATERIAL THAT COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION R337.9.5 WHEN TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM E2632 AND WHEN ATTACHED EXTERIOR WALL COVERING IS ALSO COMPOSED OF ONLY NONCOMBUSTIBLE OR IGNITION -RESISTANT MATERIALS. EXCEPTION: WALL MATERIAL SHALL BE PERMITTED TO BE OF ANY MATERIAL THAT OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THIS CHAPTER WHEN THE DECKING SURFACE MATERIAL COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS ASTM E84 WITH A CLASS B FLAME SPREAD INDEX. 0 10857 Linda Cupertino, CA 00 co September 15, 2025 Vista Drive SITE AREAS AREA SQUARE FOOTAGE COMMON LANDSCAPE 30,781 S.F. COMMON HARDSCAPE (AMENITY) 901 S.F. COMMON HARDSCAPE (PRIVATE SIDEWALKS, AC & TRANSFORMER PADS) 7,535 S.F. PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS 2576 S.F. PRIVATE STREET ROW 17,044 S.F. BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA 49,629 S.F. 20'-0" PUBLIC UTILITY EASMENT 2,140 S.F. * SEE SHT. A10 FOR COLOR CODED DIAGRAMS OF AREAS. BUILDING # UNIT # UNIT TYPE PORCH SQUARE FOOTAGE FLOOR 2 DECK SQUARE FOOTAGE FLOOR 3 DECK SQUARE FOOTAGE TOTAL P.O.S. SQUARE FOOTAGE BUILDING 1 1 UNIT 3 74 64 - 138 2 UNIT 2 126 126 - 252 3 UNIT 2 107 107 107 321 4 UNIT 2 91 91 91 273 5 UNIT 2 126 126 - 252 6 UNIT 3 74 64 - 138 BUILDING 2 7 UNIT 3 74 64 - 138 8 UNIT 1 43 64 64 171 9 UNIT 1 0 (non -qualifying usable P.O.S. = 26 S.F.) 52 52 104 10 UNIT 1 0 (non -qualifying usable P.O.S. = 26 S.F.) 52 52 104 11 UNIT 1 43 64 64 171 12 UNIT 3 ALT 106 64 - 170 BUILDING 3 13 UNIT 3 74 64 - 138 14 UNIT 2 126 126 - 252 15 UNIT 1 43 64 64 171 16 UNIT 1 0 (non -qualifying usable P.O.S. = 26 S.F.) 52 52 104 17 UNIT 2 99 99 99 297 18 UNIT 3 ALT 106 64 - 170 BUILDING 4 19 UNIT 3 74 64 - 138 20 UNIT 2 126 126 - 252 21 UNIT 1 43 64 64 171 22 UNIT 1 0 (non -qualifying usable P.O.S. = 26 S.F.) 52 52 104 23 UNIT 2 99 99 99 297 24 UNIT 3 ALT 106 64 - 170 BUILDING 5 25 UNIT 3 74 64 - 138 26 UNIT 2 126 126 - 252 27 UNIT 1 43 64 64 171 28 UNIT 1 0 (non -qualifying usable P.O.S. = 26 S.F.) 52 52 104 29 UNIT 2 99 99 99 297 30 UNIT 3 ALT 106 64 - 170 BUILDING 6 31 UNIT 3 74 64 - 138 32 UNIT 2 126 126 - 252 33 UNIT 2 91 91 91 273 34 UNIT 2 107 107 107 321 35 UNIT 2 126 126 - 252 36 UNIT 3 74 64 - 138 BUILDING 7 37 UNIT 3 ALT 106 64 - 170 38 UNIT 2 99 99 99 297 39 UNIT 3 74 64 - 138 BUILDING 8 40 UNIT 3 ALT 106 64 - 170 41 UNIT 2 126 126 - 252 42 UNIT 2 99 99 99 297 43 UNIT 3 74 64 - 138 BUILDING 9 44 UNIT 3 ALT 106 64 - 170 45 UNIT 2 126 126 - 252 46 UNIT 2 99 99 99 297 47 UNIT 3 74 64 - 138 BUILDING 10 48 UNIT 3 ALT 106 64 - 170 49 UNIT 2 126 126 - 252 50 UNIT 2 99 99 99 297 51 UNIT 3 74 64 - 138 TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE 4,300 4,209 1,669 10,178 BUILDING ELEVATIONS RELATIVE TO CURB HEIGHT AT LINDA VISTA DRIVE REFFERENCE CURB TOP OF SLAB FIRST SECOND FLOOR THIRD FLOOR MAIN ROOF BUILDING # ELEV. @ LINDA PAD ELEVATION FLOOR ELEVATION ELEVATION ELEVATION ELEVATION VISTA DR. 390.7 (HIGH) BUILDING 1 395.5 396.5 406.2 416.5 433.4 3 .6 (LOW) .7 390.7 (HIGH) BUILDING 2 395.4 396.4 406.1 416.4 433.5 389.6 (LOW) 390.7 (HIGH) BUILDING 3 395.3 396.3 406.0 416.3 433.5 3 .6 (LOW) 390.7 (HIGH) BUILDING 4 392.6 393.6 403.3 413.6 430.8 389.6 (LOW) 390.7 (HIGH) BUILDING 5 392.4 393.4 403.1 413.4 430.6 3 .6 (LOW) 392.0 (HIGH) BUILDING 6 396.2 397.2 406.9 417.2 434.1 391.3.0 (LOW) 392.0 (HIGH) BUILDING 7 396.3 397.3 407.0 417.3 433.9 391.3 (LOW) 392.0 (HIGH) BUILDING 8 395.3 396.3 406.0 416.3 433.0 391.3.0 (LOW) 392.0 (HIGH) BUILDING 9 392.8 393.8 403.5 413.8 430.5 391.3 (LOW) 392.0 (HIGH) BUILDING 10 392.5 393.5 403.2 413.5 430.2 391.3 (LOW) 2022 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (CRC) CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (CBC) CHAPTER 11A SECTION 1102A.3 (for accessible route provisions for Multistory Dwellings). Code References 2022 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE (CFC), as adopted by the CITY OF CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE (CCMC), CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS (CCR), AND HEALTH & SAFETY CODE. Occupancy R-3 TOWNHOME PER 2022 CRC Fire Sprinkler System NFPA 13D Type of Construction VB NON -RATED Allowable Height 3 Stories Accessebility PER 2022 CBC, CHAPTER 11A California Building Code (CBC) Section 1102A.3 covers accessibility requirements for multistory apartments or condominium dwellings in buildings without elevators. The requirements include: - The primary entry to the dwelling unit must be on an accessible route, CBC 1102.A.3 accessibility Provisions unless exempt by site impracticality tests. for Addaptable Units - A bathroom or powder room must be located on the primary entry level and served by an accessible route. - All rooms and spaces on the primary entry level must be served by an accessible route. - Common use areas must be accessible as required by the chapter. SITE INFORMATION Project APN 356-06-001, 356-06-002, 356-06- 003, 356-06-004 General Plan Gross Area 2.555 ACRES (+/- 111,296 SF) Site Area 2.506 ACRES (+/-109,161 SF) Existing Medium/High Density Residential Proposed No change Zoning Existing Multiple -Family Residential / Townhome (R3/TH) Proposed No change Units Market Rate 41 Below -Market Rate 10 Total 51 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Required Proposed (PAMC secs. 18.14.020, 18.16.060) Project Minimum Site Specifications Site Area None required 2.506 ACRES (+/-109,161 SF) Site Width 303' - 0" Site Depth 446' - 10" Minimum Setbacks 20' (property line to porch) Front (Linda Vista Dr.) 20' 26' (property line to building face) Rear 15' 20.7' 6' (+ an additional 10' if building is more than one story higher than any Interior Side 10' (property line to building face)* adjacent primary residential structure) 3.6' (property line to porch)* Street Side (Evulich Ct.) 12' 5.6' (property line to building face)* Maximum Site Coverage 55% 45.5% 901 SF / 109,161 Net SF = .8% of the Common Open Space (Hardscape) - site is Common Open Space (average per unit = 18 SF) 30,781 SF / 109,161 Net SF = 28.2% Common Landscaped Area - of the site is Landscaped (average per unit = 604 SF) 10,178 SF / 109,161 Net SF=9.3%of Private Usable Open Space 60 SF per Unit Minimum = the site is Private Open Space ( 3,060 SF) w/minimum 6' dimension (average per unit = 200 SF) 901 SF for Common Open Space + 30,781 SF for Landscaped Area = Community Recreation Space 150 SF per Unit Minimum = (7,650 31,682 SF / 109,161 Net SF = 29.0% SF) of the site is Community Recreation Space (average per unit = 621 SF) 901 SF for Common Open Space + 30,781 SF for Landscape + 10,178 SF for Private Open Space = 41,860 SF Total Usable Open Space / 109,161 Net SF = 38.3% of the site is Usable Open Space (average per unit = 821 SF) approximately 40'-7" above existing / Maximum Height 30' natural grade* Residential Density (net) 20.01 DU/AC (Minimum) 20.35 DU/AC 35 DU/AC (Maximum) Maximum Residential Floor Area FAR = 1.36* (Building FAR: 148,473 Ratio (FAR) 0.85 SF / 109,161 Net SF) Parking Vehicle (Resident) 51 spaces (1/DU) ** 102 spaces Vehicle (Guest) None required ** None required ** 25.5 spaces (1 space per 2 residential Bicycle (Class I, Resident) units) 51 spaces 6 spaces (1 space per 10 residetial Bicycle (Class II, Guest) units) 12 spaces Below Market Rate (BMR) Summary 5 Median Income Household Units + 5 Moderate Income Household Units BMR Units 10.2 = 10 Total Below Market Rate Units (0.2 in lieu fees) * Waiver or reduction of development standards requested pursuant to State Density Bonus Law, Gov. Code sec. 65915. ** Parking requirements pursuant to CIVIC 19.124.040(A). NOTE: Per City of Cupertino Housing Mitigation Program Procedural Manual Section 2.3.4 BMR Unit Design Requirements, BMR units shall be comparable to market rate units in terms of unit type, number of bedrooms per unit, quality of exterior appearance, and overall quality of construction. BMR unit size should be generally representative of the unit sizes within the market -rate portion of residential projects. Interior features and finishes shall be durable, of good quality, and consistent with contemporary standards for new housing. The BMR units shall be dispersed throughout the residential project. NOTE: BMR units will be constructed and eligible for occupancy at a rate approximately proportional to the market rate units. SummerHill Homes will submit a phasing plan for the BMR units prior to issuance of building permits. All units, both market rate and BMR, will be sold to homebuyers. PROJECT DATA `1: 3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583 COMMUNITIES OF DISTINCTION 650-857-0122 CIVIL ENGINEERS cbg SURVEYORS PLANNERS 5 A N R A f. O N I R O S E V i L L E SDG Architects, Inc. 3361 Walnut Blvd. Suite 120 Brentwood, CA 94513 925.634.7000 1 sdgarchitectsinc.com 11 architects CC 3-17-2026 #12 SummerHill Homes - Linda Vista Drive Written Communications From: Jack Farrell To: City Clerk Subject: Public Comment for March 17 City Council Meeting Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 5:26:56 AM Attachments: Linda Vista Dr. Letter of Support 3 16 26.docx.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good morning, Please find attached letter of support for the Linda Vista Drive development, to be heard as Agenda Item 12 before the City Council. Sincerely, Jack Farrell he/him Research Attorney 267-218-1147 Check out everything we achieved in 2024! YIMBY Law 2261 Market Street STE 10416 San Francisco, CA 94114 hello@yimbylaw.org March 16, 2026 City of Cupertino City Council 10350 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA Via email: CityClerk@Cupertino.gov Re: 10857,10867,10877 & 10887 Linda Vista Drive, Agenda Item 12 Dear City Council, YIMBY LAW We are pleased to submit this letter of support of the proposed Summerhill Homes project at Linda Vista Drive. YIMBY Law is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation, whose mission is to increase the accessibility and affordability of housing in California. The Summerhill Homes project will consist of a development of 51 townhomes, including 10 affordable units, to replace four single family homes on a 2.51-acre site, located close to the intersection of Linda Vista Dr and Columbus Ave. In compliance with AB130 local building code requirements, the project will include various resiliency upgrades such as hardened exteriors and roof eaves, ember resistant vents, and Zone 0 Landscape Buffers. We concur with the Planning Commission's vote and the assessment of your staff that the project is exempt from CEQA and qualifies for final approval of all necessary entitlements. The Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) and the City's Housing Element Summerhill Homes submitted an SB 330 Preliminary Application on October 9, 2024, and a final application on December 13, 2024. Pursuant to Gov. Code § 65589.5, the YIMBY Law 2261 Market Street STE 10416 San Francisco, CA 94114 hello@yimbylaw.org YIMBY LAW application is only subject to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when the Preliminary Application was submitted. The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan and zoning ordinance and other applicable objective standards. In addition, the City's approved 2023 2031 Housing Element identifies the project as a Housing Inventory Site. By designating the site as a Housing Inventory Site, the City selected the site for residential use and determined that residential development of the site would assist the City in meeting its Regional Housing Needs Allocation. The State Density Bonus Law SummerHill proposes to provide 10 of the 51 town home -styles at below market rate prices. By designating at least 10 percent of the units for Moderate Income households, the project qualifies for benefits under the State Density Bonus Law. Under the State Density Bonus Law, a developer may propose unlimited waivers of development standards that would have the effect of physically precluding construction of a qualifying project at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by the Density Bonus Law. SummerHill is entitled to the waivers it has requested, all of which will provide relief from development standards that would physically preclude construction of the project at the density proposed. Once a project qualifies for a density bonus, State law provides that the City may deny a requested waiver only if it would have a specific, adverse impact upon health or safety, would have an adverse impact on a historic resource, or would be contrary to State or Federal law. In this context, specific adverse impact "means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete."' There is no substantial evidence in the record that any of SummerHill's requested waivers would meet the criteria for City denial. 'Gov. Code, §§ 65915, subd. (e)(1), 65589.5, subd. (d)(2). YIMBY Law 2261 Market Street STE 10416 San Francisco, CA 94114 hello@yimbylaw.org The Housing Accountability Act YIMBY LAW The Housing Accountability Act, in Section 65589.5(j)(1)(A)-(B), limits a municipality's ability to deny or condition on lower density a housing development project that complies with objective standards. The City may only disapprove the project or impose conditions on the project that would reduce density if necessary to avoid a "significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete" and there is no feasible method to mitigate or avoid those impacts other than disapproval or development at a lower density. We have reviewed the project plans, the CEQA document and the various expert reports that have been prepared for the project, and there is not a preponderance of evidence in the record that would justify the City's disapproval of the project or conditioning the project in a manner that would reduce density. Summary The Legislature has made numerous amendments to California Housing Law in an effort to provide increased clarity and certainty for both municipalities and housing providers. Based on these laws, the project is subject only to the objective standards that were in effect on the date of the Preliminary Application; the project is entitled to the requested waivers under Density Bonus law; with those waivers the project is consistent with applicable objective standards; and the evidence in the record would not justify the City's denial of the project or imposition of approval that would reduce density. Disapproval of the project or approval with conditions that would render the project infeasible at the density proposed would contravene State law. It is YIMBY Action's understanding that City staff has processed SummerHill's development application with professionalism and recognition of the City's obligations under State law. We appreciate the staff's cooperation and encourage the City Council to continue to uphold the same standard. YIMBY Law closely monitors projects to ensure that all relevant state laws are properly YIMBY Law 2261 Market Street STE 10416 San Francisco, CA 94114 hello@yimbylaw.org YIMBY LAW applied, including the HAA. Should the City fail to follow these laws, YIMBY Law will not hesitate to file suit to ensure state housing policies are enforced. I am signing this letter both in my capacity as the Executive Director of YIMBY Law, and as a resident of California who is affected by the shortage of housing in our state. I look forward to seeing this project approved and brought to realization to help change the tides of the housing crisis in the Bay Area. Sincerely, Sonja Trauss Executive Director YIMBY Law From: Kitty Moore To: City Clerk Subject: Written Communications for Item 12 FW: Substantive Finding: 90+ Minutes Evacuation Choke and "System Failure" at Evulich Ct. (CUP-029) Date: Saturday, March 14, 2026 12:11:46 PM Attachments: 00 - 20260313 - Letter to Mayor Moore .pdf 01 - Evacuation Traffic Model and Analysis.pdf 02 - Feedback to Cupertino Health and Safety Element - General Plan Community Vision 2015-2040 - v3.pdf 03 - Technical Rebuttal to Hexagon Transportation Analysis.pdf 04 - 260224 Plan Comm Evulich Development Emergency Evacuation.pdf Dear City Clerk, Please include the following email and the attachments for written communications for Item 12. Thank you, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Mayor City Council 87 KKMoore@cupertino.gov (408) 777-1389 ®❑ ®❑ ®❑ ®❑ ®❑ ®❑ ®❑ From: DerChang Kau <derchang@gmail.com> Date: Friday, March 13, 2026 at 10:16 PM To: Kitty Moore <kmoore@cupertino.gov> Cc: DerChang Kau <derchang@gmail.com> Subject: Substantive Finding: 90+ Minutes Evacuation Choke and 'System Failure' at Evulich Ct. (CUP-029) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. March 13, 2026 Dear Mayor Moore, As a resident of Cupertino for over three decades and a retired engineer, I have followed your career with respect for your commitment to objective, substantive analysis. Given your background as a Professional Engineer (PE) and your experience in civil design, land development and transportation, I am writing to provide a high -resolution technical assessment of the Evulich Ct. Project that I believe warrants your professional review. In your recent State of the City address, you emphasized that "Quality is what the resident gets out". My analysis suggests that if this project proceeds at its currently proposed density, the "quality" residents will receive during a disaster is a mathematical trap. My evacuation modeling, which utilizes dynamic traffic principles, identifies a critical system failure that the developer's static "peak hour" traffic analysis overlooks. My modeling and analysis is not a theoretical concern nor the only warning sign. It turns out, the City of Cupertino knew this. Last October, the city received its own expert study from Fehr and Peers. The study found evacuation demand on key corridors serving this neighborhood exceed 200% of roadway capacity. The City had it for nearly 5 months before the February 24, 2026 Planning Commission hearing where the project was approved. I am providing the following Technical Assessment Factors to assist you in evaluating whether the current project proposal meets the objective safety standards required by the General Plan and State law. Key Technical Discrepancies Requiring Reconciliation 1. Safety Baseline Shift (2025 CAL FIRE Update): The re -zoning of this parcel in July 2024 was based on 2007 fire maps. However, the March 2025 CAL FIRE update reclassified this area as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). Under Government Code §51179, the City has a mandate to adopt these updated findings, which fundamentally changes the safety baseline for high -density development in this corridor. 2. Modeling "Surge" vs. "Daily Peak": The developer's transportation report models a "peak hour" of roughly 30 vehicles. In a wildfire evacuation, however, the demand is a simultaneous neighborhood -wide surge. My model shows that a surge of 250+ vehicles attempting to exit the Linda Vista "spine" within the 30-minute critical safety window (established by the 2025 Palisades Fire) results in a Utilization Ratio of 110%. 3. The Saturation Failure (V/C >_ 1.0): Standard planning -level assessments often treat V/C ratios above 1.0 as mere congestion. In reality, when V/C exceeds 1.0, a "Standing Queue" forms and the system ceases to function. My modeling proves that the proposed density pushes the corridor into a state of mathematical failure, doubling the "Order to Safety" time from a survivable 30 minutes to a non -survivable 90+ minutes. 4. Operational Intersection Degradation: The current analysis assumes normal traffic signal operations. However, in a wildfire or earthquake, power outages often put signals into "red - flash" or 4-way stop mode, which reduces flow capacity by 50%. This degradation has not been factored into the project's evacuation clearance estimates. 5. Merging Shockwave Delay: Concentrating 51 units at a single entry point creates a "Concentrated Conflict Point". My analysis identifies a 28.5-minute "Shockwave Delay" caused by forced merging into an already saturated flow —a delay that impacts the entire existing neighborhood. Objective Decision -Support Framework To ensure the City upholds its fiduciary duty under GC 65302(g)(5) and CFC 4903, it may be prudent to evaluate the following: • Consistency Review: Is the 51-unit density consistent with the 2025 Health and Safety Element's "Evacuation -Constrained" criteria? • Cumulative Impact Study: Has the City performed a Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA) that accounts for the cumulative load of all 155 units on the Linda Vista bottleneck during a surge event? • Mitigation Feasibility: I have submitted a conceptual 12-unit RI -aligned alternative that preserves the 30-minute evacuation window while still providing high -quality housing. Mayor Moore, you have rightly identified residents as the City's "customers". I trust that your engineering expertise will recognize that "paper compliance" with site standards does not equate to neighborhood evacuation safety. Sincerely, DerChang Kau Retired Engineer & University Professor 10847 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino Attachments including 1. Evacuation Traffic Model and Analysis.pdf 2. Feedback to Cupertino Health and Safety Element.pdf 3. Technical Rebuttal to Hexagon Transportation Analysis.pdf 4. 260224 Plan Comm Evulich Development Emergency Evacuation.pdf Impacts of 2025 CAL FIRE FHSZ Classifications on Project "Evulich Court" MONTA VISTA "SPINE" AND WILDFIRE ACCIDENT RISK OVERVIEW EVACUATION TRAFFIC MODELING EVACUATION PLAN ANALYSIS SUPPORTING MATERIALS ON EVACUATION TRAFFIC MODEL UTILIZATION RATIO - p = DEMAND / CAPACITY TRAFFIC UTILIZATION RATIO MATTERS QUEUING DELAY (DQ) MERGING DELAY (DM) EvulichC Wildfire Accident Risk Overview 0 Evacuation Plan Analysis SUPPORTING MATERIALS Utilization Ratio — p = Demand / Capacity • 30-minute requirement from the learning of Pacific Palisade Fire Utilization Ratio — p 37% ZZo% Queuing Delay (D.) Transit time (tTj Queuing delay (U not linear, DQ = P / (1- P) X tintrinsic tT,baseline > Dq, baseline ^'2.5 minutes to account for the very tail end of the line (-30 cars) 45+ minutes just to reach the stop sign Merging Delay (DM) Merging time (tMI Critical Gap time (t.) Force Merging time (tfj 6 seconds 4 minutes 3.5 seconds 30 seconds FEEDBACK TO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY ELEMENT OF THE CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN: 2015 - 2040 COMMUNITY VISION High -Risk Zones Demand Street -Level Evacuation -to -Safety Analysis Outdated census data and planning -level methods cannot manage modern wildfire risk March 10, 2026 DerChang Kau Retired Engineer, University Professor and Resident of Cupertino Preface Cupertino's current wildfire evacuation analysis relies heavily on planning -level assumptions, dated population data, and static traffic metrics that do not reflect real -world emergency conditions. Across all four sections below, a consistent theme emerges: the City's Health & Safety Element is not aligned with the evacuation realities of a denser, more wildfire -exposed Cupertino in 2030-2040. The documents show that: • The analysis uses 2023-2025 data, ignoring the major density increases triggered by the July 2024 rezoning. As one section notes, it "primarily reflects existing households" rather than future conditions. • The methodology remains planning -level, even though the City's own consultant acknowledges that dynamic traffic assignment is required for constrained areas. • Critical evacuation zones —especially CUP029, which generates 38% of all evacuation trips —are located within Fire Hazard Severity Zones, yet the City has not modeled evacuation at the street level. • The use of V/C ratios dramatically understates evacuation risk. At V/C >_ 1, "the system is oversaturated and no longer functioning," yet the report treats V/C > 2 as merely "more than one hour." Taken together, these findings show that Cupertino's current evacuation analysis cannot support long- range planning through 2040. The City must adopt dynamic, data -driven, future -oriented evacuation modeling to protect residents and meet the intent of the General Plan's Health & Safety Element. Section 1 — Dated Data Source "Outdated Inputs: Why the Current Evacuation Analysis Cannot Support 2040 Planning" The following data sources were used to estimate vehicle evacuation demand for residents, employees, students, and visitors in "Evacuation Route Capacity Report" • 2023 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year Estimates: Used for population, household data, and vehicle ownership distribution. • Genasys Protect: Provides population, household estimates, and designated evacuation zones. • StreetLight Data (2024): Used to evaluate and compare traffic volumes between school and non -school periods. This analysis represents a snapshot of the city's current evacuation capacity based on the most recent available census and municipal data from 2023-2025. It does not incorporate the increased residential densities anticipated under the July 2024 rezoning. As noted in the original text, "using 2023 ACS data and July 2025 Genasys data, it primarily reflects existing households." For example, Evulich Ct. is evaluated using its existing 4-unit R1 zoning, rather than the 51-unit R3 density under the rezoning. Consequently, Figure HS-3 in Chapter 7 of the Health and Safety Element General Plan (Community Vision 2015-2040) does not identify this area as required under Policy HS- 2.13, which highlights residential parcels with fewer than two ingress/egress routes. 1 Because the analysis relies on pre -rezoning conditions, the document does not adequately support long- range planning through the year 2040. The document is therefore inadequate to support a general plan to the year 2040. Section 2 — Traffic Flow Methodology "Planning -Level Methods Are Not Enough: Cupertino Needs Advanced Evacuation Modeling" The referenced sources describe the current "planning -level" assessment as a broad evaluation of transportation system capacity rather than a definitive evacuation plan. While this type of assessment is useful for identifying major bottlenecks and informing policy decisions, it also explicitly acknowledges that more detailed, higher -resolution studies —such as dynamic traffic assignment —are the appropriate next step for areas with significant constraints. As Fehr & Peers note, community -scale wildfire evacuation assessment is an emerging field. However, general guidance does exist, including ISO 22315 and NIST's ESCAPE framework. Given Cupertino's substantial wildfire exposure and its position at the center of global science and technology innovation, the city is uniquely positioned to take a leadership role in advancing rigorous, data -driven evacuation assessment and mitigation planning. Several jurisdictions, including Marin County, have already begun such modeling efforts to identify evacuation bottlenecks and evaluate mitigation strategies*. Leadership in this area could include: • Scenario -based wildfire evacuation simulations • Traffic network evacuation time analysis • Population departure behavior modeling • Redundant evacuation route and shelter analysis • Quantitative evacuation performance metrics (clearance time, route saturation, etc.) A forward -looking evacuation assessment framework would not only strengthen public safety for current residents but also provide a valuable foundation for evaluating the cumulative evacuation impacts of future development. #:https://www.marinwildfire.org/news/the-state-of-the-science-in-wildfire-evacuation-modeling-a-literature-review?utm source=chatgpt.com Section 3 — Prioritize Local Level Evacuation Route with FHSZ Map "High -Risk Zones, High Stakes: Street -Level Modeling Required for FHSZ Evacuation" This analysis is based on the evacuation routes released by the City of Cupertino in August 2025. Every one of those designated routes lies outside the mapped Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ). Yet four zones—CUP-016, CUP-017, CUP-029, and CUP-032—are fully or partially within Moderate, High, or Very High FHSZ. Given this reality, it is no longer acceptable to rely on a "planning -level" review of the main evacuation route shown in Figure 2. The City must move beyond high-level assumptions and conduct street -level dynamic traffic assignment within these at -risk zones. Anything less leaves thousands of residents exposed. 2 The findings in CUP-029 alone make the case unmistakable. CUP-029 represents 38% of all evacuation trips in Scenarios A and C—the single largest share of evacuation demand. This is not a marginal zone; it is the primary choke point in a wildfire emergency. In Scenario A, McClellan Road —serving CUP-029 and CUP-032—reaches a V/C ratio of 4.2, while Foothill Boulevard —serving CUP-017—reaches 4.0. A V/C ratio of 1.0 already means a road is over capacity. These corridors are projected to operate at four times their hourly capacity during an evacuation. That is not a "constraint." That is a system failure waiting to happen. Fehr & Peers themselves state that for "more constrained and congested conditions, higher -effort studies may involve modeled analysis of evacuation scenarios using dynamic traffic assignment to simulate traffic flow and evacuation times when street and freeway networks are at capacity." Cupertino's conditions are exactly what this warning describes. The City cannot continue to treat this as optional. To protect residents, Cupertino must adopt dynamic, data -driven tools immediately. This includes the use of real-time traffic management systems capable of providing dynamic route guidance and monitoring to divert evacuees away from collapsing corridors. Furthermore, phased evacuation strategies must be developed not only for the main arterials but also for the high -demand FHSZ zones themselves, where evacuation surges originate. Without this, the extreme congestion projected on McClellan Road and Foothill Boulevard will materialize as modeled or worse, as real -world behavior is never as orderly as a static model assumes. Cupertino has the data, the expertise, and the responsibility. The City must elevate this work beyond planning -level analysis and commit to the advanced modeling that wildfire -exposed communities across California are already pursuing. Residents deserve evacuation planning that matches the severity of the risk —not a framework that collapses the moment it is needed most. Section 4 — Improvement to Evacuation -to -Safety Metric "Beyond VIC Ratios: A Total Evacuation -to Safety Framework Is Essential" The current assessment fails to correct roadway capacity for emergency conditions. The Volume -to - Capacity (V/C) ratio used throughout the report is an over2023simplified metric, and the accompanying text is misleading. For example, on page 24 the report states: "VIC ratios greater than 2... indicate that these roads would require more than one hour to accommodate the evacuation demand from the evacuation area." This framing dramatically understates the severity of the problem. A V/C ratio above 1.0 does not simply mean "more than one hour." It means the system is over -saturated and no longer functioning. Cars are arriving faster than the roadway can process them. A standing queue forms. The system fails. 1. Capacity Must Reflect Realistic "Adjusted Evacuation Route Capacity" The "Adjusted Evacuation Route Capacity" used in this study relies on planning -level hourly capacities from the Highway Capacity Manual (2000). These values do not represent real -world evacuation conditions and fail to incorporate: • Spatial Adjustments: Increased residential density from the Housing Element requires downward adjustments to reflect degraded capacity on constrained terrain and limited visibility. 3 • Temporal Adjustments: School pickup periods and short-term curbside parking can severely reduce effective capacity during critical hours. • Operational Limitations: The analysis assumes normal signal operations and does not account for "red -flash mode" during power outages —an extremely likely condition during wildfire events. 2. Demand Must Reflect Realistic Future Conditions The study is a snapshot of Cupertino's evacuation capacity based on 2023-2025 data. It does not account for the substantial density increases triggered by the July 2024 rezoning. Planning for wildfire evacuation using backward -looking data is planning through a rear- view mirror. It guarantees underestimation of future evacuation demand. 3. Moving Beyond V/C: "Total Evacuation to Safety" Must Be the Standard Fehr & Peers acknowledge that V/C ratios only identify bottlenecks; they do not measure total evacuation time. In traffic engineering and management science¶, V/C is a well -established tool for quantifying queuing and merging delays. When V/C >_ 1, the system is not merely "congested" —it is over -saturated, and two critical delays dominate: ¶: Stanford University, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Department of Management Science and Engineering • Queuing Delay: As V/C approaches 1, delay increases non -linearly. Delay = V/Cx travel time 1 — V/C When V/C >_ 1, queues grow indefinitely. The roadway cannot clear vehicles. Merging Delay: When traffic density eliminates safe gaps, merging becomes impossible without forced maneuvers that further destabilize flow. Consider CUP-029 at 8PM during a late -summer, wind -driven wildfire approaching from the south. A quickly encroaching fire from the foothills would paint the sky red. The tree canopy along Linda Vista becomes a "fuel tunnel." Residents have only one exit: northbound toward McClellan Road. Roughly 80 vehicles from 51 homes on Evulich Court must merge into an already over -saturated Linda Vista Drive. This is not a theoretical model —it is a life -and -death situation at the choke point. Wildfires such as the Pacific Palisades Fire have spread at rates of 200 acres in 20 minutes. Under these conditions, seconds matter. Residents need to be aware not just of potential evacuation bottlenecks, but how much time is required to reach safety. This requires the city to both plan and communicate a comprehensive and up-to-date evacuation plan that considers realistic models of queuing, merging, human behavior, and departure delays. Human factors —delays in loading children, pets, and essential belongings —further slow departures. Without quantifying these delays, the City cannot provide residents with the knowledge they need to prepare for an evacuation that may unfold in minutes, not hours. M Fehr & Peers states that the V/C metric is only a baseline tool. They identify dynamic traffic assignment (DTA) and phased departure timing as the necessary next steps for an objective, safety -driven evacuation assessment. In conclusion, Cupertino cannot rely on planning -level V/C ratios to evaluate wildfire evacuation safety. The City must adopt a Total Evacuation to Safety framework grounded in dynamic modeling, realistic capacity adjustments, and future population density. Anything less leaves residents with a false sense of security and exposes the community to unacceptable risk. Closing Summary "Why Cupertino Must Elevate Its Evacuation Planning Now" Cupertino's current wildfire evacuation analysis provides a useful starting point, but it is fundamentally constrained by outdated data, planning -level methodologies, and metrics that do not reflect real - world emergency behavior. Across all four sections, the evidence is clear: the City's Health & Safety Element does not yet meet the level of rigor required to protect residents in a rapidly densifying, wildfire -exposed community. The analysis relies on 2023-2025 population and traffic data, even though the July 2024 rezoning dramatically increases residential density. As the document itself notes, it "primarily reflects existing households," leaving future evacuation demand unaccounted for. This gap alone makes the current assessment insufficient for long-range planning through 2040. Methodologically, the City continues to rely on broad, planning -level evaluations despite its consultant's own acknowledgment that dynamic traffic assignment and scenario -based evacuation modeling are necessary for constrained areas. Peer jurisdictions across California have already adopted these advanced tools; Cupertino should not lag behind. The risk is most acute in the Fire Hazard Severity Zones, from which evacuation surges originate. Zones such as CUP029 and CUP032 generate the largest share of evacuation demand, yet are absent from the City's street -level evacuation models behavior. Projected V/C ratios of 4.0-4.2 on McClellan Road and Foothill Boulevard indicate not congestion, but system failure under evacuation conditions. Finally, the continued reliance on V/C ratios obscures the true danger. At V/C >_ 1, "the system is oversaturated and no longer functioning," however the City's report frames V/C > 2 as merely "more than one hour." Residents need to understand time to safety, not just where bottlenecks occur. That requires modeling queuing, merging, human behavior, and departure delays —none of which are captured in the current framework. In summary, Cupertino has the data, the expertise, and the responsibility to adopt a modern, dynamic, and future -oriented evacuation planning framework. The City needs urgently to meet the intent of the General Plan and to safeguard residents through 2040 and beyond. Cupertino must move beyond planning -level assumptions and commit to advanced, data -driven evacuation modeling that reflects the realities of wildfire risk and future population growth. 5 Feedback to Update to the Health and Safety Element of the Cupertino General Plan: 2015 - 2040 Community Vision OUTDATED INPUTS PLANNING -LEVEL METHODS ARE NOT ENOUGH HIGH -RISK ZONES REQUIRE STREET -LEVEL MODELING BEYOND VAC RATIOS: A TOTAL EVACUATION -TO -SAFETY FRAMEWORK Outdated Inputs The City's evacuation analysis is built on pre -rezoning data and cannot support long-range planning. The analysis is outdated the moment it is published. 2 Planning -Level Methods Are Not Enough Cupertino must move beyond broad, planning -level assessments to dynamic, high -resolution evacuation modeling. Cupertino should be a leader —not a laggard —in evacuation planning. 3 High -Risk Zones Require Street -Level Modeling Four evacuation zones lie within Fire Hazard Severity Zones, yet the City has not modeled their street -level evacuation behavior. Thousands of residents remain exposed until Cupertino models evacuation where the risk actually exists. 4 Beyond WC Ratios: A Total Evacuation -to -Safety Framework WC ratios hide the true danger. Cupertino needs a Total Evacuation -to -Safety model. Residents need to know time to safety, not just where bottlenecks occur. 5 LINDA VISTA SPINE - EVACUATION MODEL --d., 1. Rd Rxd.-by—de d—ity .soe I 15X30l 6@X CURRENT Rl ZONCMG —l-E. Row 0 00:00 00:00 LINDA VISTA SPINE — EVACUATION MODEL 2,614 ft single-ev it corridor to M Y1E11an Re Sid -hy-side density ce.parison En:) ESUNE RESETS .en •:R SY s. • SSXsx .�. IBM ox En CURRENT Al ZONING RROROGER "IGN DENSITY 1p 'r.�xt�� • • ck R 05:00 05:00 -.Al x dot 52prep 3e en inaf B as izz prep xt Nrrvnt Eivpesee eafi LINDA VISTA SPINE — EVACUATION MODEL 2�616 ft single -exit corridor to Ik[1e Llan Rd Side-hy-side density cupariwn RESUNE REM ( sr • n�sr ST s.l • SSII x u. 381E BBR CNRlEYI Rl IONIMG RR09RSEx kIGN xENSITY 15:00 15:00 s w.s at out 3x prep v. on road as out 1¢• prep R1 1.r.wt •repreM xelfe LINDA VISTA SPINE — EVACUATION NOVEL e,�1n t s o ertt corridor to !'.r[Le Llan Rd Side-hyside density caparison RE60NE RESETS saes . • rt � 5X � • SSXSR wsn SBK iRK CURRENT R1 ZONING PROPOSED NIGH DENSITY • y folk 14 k- 30:00 30:00 4x on read Ia out is oae �e eat II prep R arrcn[ Pnpas.e LINDA VISTA SPINE — EVACUATION MODEL 2.614 ft single -exit corridor to &Cle Llan Rd Side -by -side density c�arisa RESOME RESET sin �xssx SK • ISXR 95n SBK 68K CORREY, Rl ZONING PROPOSED NIGH OFNSITI — . • r 10, • ■ f R �� s eN'EritxEoc 45:00 45:00 ALL eCLEAR at 4S�'RB >1I on read 133 oe[ R iercnL PrspeaM LINOA VISTA SPINE — EVACUATION MODEL 2,614 9x Ri 2s .exit mr Haar to Rd side-erside density co Ii— RES LIME - RESET (� • a[i� N% � • SSXsa ,<sn 3B% 6B% CIIRRENI Rl ZONING RROAO SEN NIGH R£NSITT Ev� ►w�' o ■ 60:61 ALL CLEM at GOAL n Pap see 60:01 Summary: Cupertino Must Elevate Its Evacuation Planning The current evacuation analysis is not sufficient for a wildfire -exposed, rapidly densifying Cupertino. The City must adopt modern, data -driven methods to meet 2040 safety needs. To protect residents and meet the intent of the Health & Safety Element, Cupertino must move beyond planning -level assumptions and commit to advanced, future -oriented evacuation modeling now. 10 Subject: Re: Feb/24/2026 Planning Commission Public Hearing — Technical Rebuttal to "Transportation Analvsis for the Proposed Townhomes at io8 Linda Vista Drive in Cupertino, CA" by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. https://cupertino.Ieciistar.com/ any.aspx?M=F&ID=8a56f6gi-e5dl-47ze-gbag-75365iaobd2e.pdf To: Cupertino City Planning Commissioners CC: Planning Staff, City of Cupertino From: DerChang Kau, 1o847 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino Dear Chair and Honorable Commissioners, The "Safety Assessment" on page 22 of the Hexagon report concludes that the project "would not worsen existing geometric hazards". We contend that this finding is based on incomplete data and fails to address the unique life -safety risks of the Linda Vista "Spine." i. Failure to Model Emergency Surge Conditions The Error: Hexagon's analysis is based on "Peak Hour" trips, estimating only 30 vehicles will exit the site during the busiest hour of a normal day. The Reality: In a wildfire evacuation, the demand is a simultaneous surge. Our integrated model shows that 248 vehicles must exit the spine in a 30-minute window. The Impact: Hexagon ignores the Utilization Ratio of iio%, where demand exceeds road capacity, causing total system failure. 2. Ignoring Intersection Degradation (McClellan Choke Point) • The Error: The report assumes the Linda Vista/McClellan intersection functions at a standard "Level of Service". • The Reality: Disaster events (fire/earthquake) often lead to power outages, turning the signal into a 4-way stop. • The Impact: This condition drops flow rates by 5o%, doubling the physical exit time and trapping residents in the "tunnel of fire". 3. Omission of Merging Conflict and Shockwave Delay The Error: Hexagon evaluates the new cul-de-sac for basic garbage truck turning templates but ignores "merging friction". The Reality: Concentrating 51 units into one entry point on a saturated single -lane road creates "forced merging". The Impact: As shown in our analytical model, this creates a 28-minute "Shockwave Delay" that stalls the entire evacuation route for all 155 households. Conclusion: A Quantifiable Safety Violation The Hexagon report addresses "Daily Operations" but fails to provide a "Project -Specific Evacuation Plan". Because the project pushes the total "Order to Safety" time from less than 30 minutes (current Ri) to more than go minutes (planned R3), it creates a "specific, adverse impact upon public safety" that cannot be mitigated by standard street design. The General Plan Public Safety Element requires the City to reduce wildfire risk and ensure adequate emergency access and evacuation capability for existing and future residents. The Mobility Element likewise requires that the circulation system function safely and reliably, not only under daily peak conditions but for emergency response. The Hexagon report evaluates routine traffic operations; it does not evaluate emergency surge evacuation performance on the single -access Linda Vista spine. Because the Hexagon report only focuses on "daily traffic", I strongly recommend city planning department urge SummerHill Homes consulting with reputable agencies in wildfire evacuation analysis and protection planning, such as Reax Engineering for evacuation modeling and Dudek for CEQA fire protection planning to produce flawless and adequate wildfire evacuation risk analysis and mitigation plan. Thank you. Sincerely, DerChang Kau 10847 Linda Vista Dr Cupertino, CA 95014 Email: DerChang(a Gmail.com Phone: (408)-446-5150 (Residence) (408)-398-6086 (Mobile) Cupertino Planning Commission Hearing 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino Feb/24/2026 EMERGENCY EVACUATION SUBJECT TO EVULICH CT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT SIGNIFICANT SAFETY FINDING QUANTIFIED RESULTS WITH LIFE -AND -DEATH CONSEQUENCES THE ASKS The Asks • Consistency Review: • Supplemental CEQA Review: • Consideration of Mitigation: From: David Yan To: City Council; City Clerk Subject: Evulich Court: The Case for a Closer Look Date: Friday, March 13, 2026 4:48:52 PM Attachments: LindaVista CouncilBrief v03.17.2026(F).00tx LindaVista CouncilBrief v03.17.2026(F).pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. For inclusion in the written communications for the March 17, 2026 City Council meeting and made part of the administrative record for this item Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Chao, and Councilmembers: Please see attached presentation regarding the Evulich Court project. I have included both PowerPoint and PDF formats. City Clerk - I will be presenting these slides at the meeting. Could you please confirm receipt and arrange for them to be displayed during my presentation? Regards, David Yan MARCH 2O26 7 Reasons Evulich Court Cannot be Approved A summary for City Council. The case for a closer look. The Legal Standard and What It Requires The Council may deny this project if there is substantial evidence that the development will pose a health and safety hazard. THE LEGAL THRESHOLD Substantial evidence that the development will pose a health and safety hazard. Government Code Section § 66474(f) and the Subdivision Map Act public safety finding require the City to affirmatively support its conclusion that no serious public health risk exists. Seven independent grounds demonstrate that standard was not met. Any one of them is sufficient. Together they present a record the City cannot cure by producing documents after the fact. What the Council Must Decide The CEQA exemption applies only if the record demonstrates all three of the following. If any one is not demonstrated, the exemption does not apply and the project cannot proceed on this record. Evacuation Safety The record must show the corridor can safely evacuate residents within the time window established by current wildfire data. No city analysis of this corridor exists in the record. Wildfire Safety The record must show the project adopted fire mitigation measures pursuant to PRC Sections 4290, 4291, and Chapter 7A. The Fire Department's own review confirms nonconforming setbacks and deferred the project specific wildfire plan to a future stage. Compliance With Existing Standards Setback waiver removes 20 ft of required defensible space with no equivalency analysis in the record. The AMMR approval does not satisfy AB 130's fire condition. No state agency including CAL FIRE or HCD has made that determination. The only entity claiming it does is the applicant's own consultant. Independent Engineering Analysis: 93 Minutes to Evacuate A resident engineer applied standard traffic queuing methodology to the approved density. The safe window from the 2025 Palisades Fire is 30 minutes. The City produced no contradicting analysis. About the analyst: DerChang Kau is a retired Intel Fellow and Adjunct Professor of Engineering. His methodology applies standard traffic engineering queuing theory and gap acceptance theory to the approved project density using published emergency evacuation parameters. A preliminary evacuation throughput estimate based on conservative flow assumptions is shown below. It is not presented as a substitute for Fire review. It illustrates why a corridor level evacuation analysis should have existed in the record before approval. The City made an affirmative public health finding under the Subdivision Map Act without any corridor evacuation analysis with no data to support it. An affirmative finding requires affirmative evidence. The record contains neither. A Present Tense Health and Safety Finding Cannot Ignore Current Data In October 2025, a City obtained a Fehr & Peers evacuation study found both exits to Linda Vista operate at over 200% of capacity under evacuation conditions. The study was not placed in the administrative record before the February 24, 2026 PC meeting. It was produced for the first time on March 9, 2026. What over 200% means: at 100% utilization, a standing queue forms and does not resolve. Both exits were already failing before this project adds any units. This is not a future risk. It is a current condition documented by the City's own consultant. Why the City cannot look away from this study The Subdivision Map Act requires a present tense finding that the subdivision will not cause serious public health problems. That obligation runs at the time of approval, not the time of application. The study existed. The City had it. A present tense health and safety determination in a Very High Fire Hazard zone on a single access corridor cannot responsibly proceed without accounting for the City's own current technical findings about the capacity of that corridor. SB 330 Vesting Does Not Freeze the Health and Safety Obligation The Applicant (and city) argues SB 330 locks in pre 2025 conditions. That argument fails on two independent grounds and actually cuts against the Applicant on AB 130. GROUND ONE SB 330 vests against changes in local ordinances and policies. It does not vest against physical reality. The October 2025 Fehr and Peers study did not create a new standard. It documented existing physical conditions on a road that has always had one entrance and one exit. The Subdivision Map Act public safety finding requires a present tense determination. SB 330 protects against regulatory moving goalposts. It does not convert a present tense health and safety obligation into a historical one. SB 330 Section 65589.5 / Gov. Code Section 66474(f) GROUND TWO: THE DOUBLE DIP PROBLEM The developer cannot selectively freeze time. The Applicant's position freezes time in only one direction. The project invokes SB 330 vesting to argue the March 2025 Very High Fire Hazard reclassification does not apply because the application predates it. Yet the same project invokes AB 130, enacted June 30 2025, to obtain a CEQA exemption that did not exist when the application vested. AB 130 is a CEQA exemption, not a fire safety certification. Meaning the City must still make a separate Subdivision Map Act safety finding. Vesting cannot operate selectively. If SB 330 controls the applicable regulatory framework, it applies to both burdens and benefits. The Council must still make a present tense public safety finding under the Subdivision Map Act based on the conditions that exist today. The 20 Foot Setback Waiver Removes Required Defensible Space with No Equivalency AB 130 requires fire mitigation measures that achieve the same practical effect required by CCR Title 14 § 1276.O1(b). The Fire Department waived the 30-foot setback, removing 20 feet of defensible space in a Very High Fire Hazard Zone. The approved compensatory measures do not replace the lost spatial separation, and no equivalency analysis appears in the record. WHAT THE LAW REQUIRES AB 130 requires fire mitigation measures adopted pursuant to existing building standards, including the 30 foot building separation setback under CCR Title 14 Section 1276.01(a). Pursuant to means in conformity with. Not in authorized substitution for. Gov. Code Sec. 65913.4(a)(6)(D) and PRC Sec. 21080.66 WHAT THE RECORD SHOWS Statutory Requirement PRC Section 21080.66 requires compliance with PRC 4290, PRC 4291, and Chapter 7A. Fire Department Record 'PRC 4290: Exception request approved. Nonconforming setbacks to be mitigated through increased fire separation distance and modified sprinkler systems." 'Provide Final Fire Protection Plan at building permit stage identifying wildfire mitigation measures. " The Issue Nonconforming setbacks. Mitigation instead of the standard. Wildfire plan deferred. AB 130 requires compliance, not an exception to it. The Fire Safety Case Was Built Around Large 2700 sq homes, Not the Other Way Around The developer's own filings confirm the project was designed to a unit count and size first. Fire mitigation was retrofitted around the resulting layout. AB 130's fire condition exists to prevent exactly this sequence. 2700 sq foot homes (51 units) drove the design. Fire safety came second. The applicant's AMMR justification narrative states the setback reduction was required by the need to fit 51 units on the site. Fire mitigation was not a design driver. It was a post hoc signoff on a 2700 sq foot layout. AB 130's fire condition exists to ensure high hazard zone projects are genuinely designed around wildfire risk, not to provide a compliance stamp after unit counts are locked in. The cited mitigation measures were already required by law regardless of AB 130. Chapter 7A, fire sprinklers, and fire resistant exterior materials apply to every project in a Very High Fire Hazard zone by operation of law. AB 130 requires measures adopted in response to the fire hazard condition. Passive compliance with universal baseline requirements does not satisfy an adopted standard. The record contains no analysis of what specific protection the waived 30 foot setback provided and what measures beyond the baseline were adopted to replace it. PRC Section 4291, defensible space, was never analyzed by anyone. PRC 4291 requires a defensible space clearance analysis. It does not appear in the Fire Department plan review, the AMMR application, or the AB 130 qualification memo. The landscape zone drawings (Sheets L7.1 and 1-7.2) address vegetation placement only. None of them analyze whether the waived setback satisfies the defensible space obligation PRC 4291 imposes. This is not a documentation gap. It is a substantive gap that cannot be cured after the fact. AB 130's fire condition is not a checklist of minimum code requirements. It is a substantive standard requiring demonstrated equivalency to specific state fire protections. The record does not contain that demonstration. The CEQA Exemption Requires Fire Mitigation That Achieves Equivalent Protection. The Record Does Not Show It PRC Section 21080.66(a)(6) requires measures PRC 4291, 4290, and Chapter 7A that achieve the same practical effect as the 30-foot setback for the CEQA exemption to apply. None of the 4 accepted measures demonstrate this on the record. Sprinkler heads on covered patios within 30 feet of No. Interior suppression only. No. Does not replace spatial No. property lines separation. Noncombustible landscaping extending 5 feet from No. Vegetation placement only. buildings Does not address defensible space No equivalency analysis in record. No. or replace 20 feet of separation Fire separation requirements per CRC 302.4 No. Structural standard only. Partial. Not analyzed against No. setback gap. Exterior wall fire resistance ratings within 30 feet of No. Governs wall materials, not No. Does not address spatial No. property lines siting. separation. Chapter 7A addresses how individual structures resist ignition from embers and radiant heat. It does not address where structures are sited relative to the wildfire hazard zone boundary. A project can achieve full Chapter 7A compliance and remain inadequately sited in a Very High Fire Hazard zone. The Project Specific Wildfire Risk Analysis Did Not Exist at Approval The Fire Department conditioned its approval on a wildfire plan to be submitted later. That plan does not exist. The CEQA exemption cannot rest on evidence that has not yet been produced. What Condition 2 says: The Fire Department's own plan review requires the applicant to submit a Final Fire Protection Plan at building permit stage, identifying mitigation measures to address the project's specific wildfire risk pursuant to CFC Section 4903. What that means: the Fire Department itself acknowledged that project specific wildfire risk mitigation had not been determined at the time of approval. Why this cannot be cured: The City may argue this condition shows wildfire risk will be addressed later at the permit stage. That argument fails for a specific reason: the document David J. Powers cites as proof the fire condition is satisfied - the January 2026 Santa Clara County Fire Department plan review itself, requires the applicant to submit a Final Fire Protection Plan at the building permit stage. The exemption is supported by a document that defers its own conclusion. That is not substantial evidence. It is a placeholder citing a placeholder. The AMMR form analytical fields each state See attached documentation. None of those attachments appear in the administrative record. The January 2026 Fire Department Plan Review Comments were not in the record before or during the hearing. Commissioner Scharf noted this on the record. The document carries a disclaimer stating it shall not be construed as an approval. From: Alice Lin To: City Council; Kitty Moore Cc: Public Comments Subject: City Council 3/17 Agenda #12 Linda Vista Drive Safety Date: Saturday, March 14, 2026 11:03:36 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. TO: Cupertino City Mayor and Council FROM: Residents of Cupertino Date: March 14, 2026 Sub: City Council 3/17 Agenda #12 Linda Vista Drive, Vote No Dear Mayor Moore and Members of the Cupertino City Council, I am writing to formally express grave concerns regarding the proposed 51-unit townhome project at 10857 Linda Vista Drive (TM-2024-009). The Staff Report's conclusion that "no evacuation study has been required or reviewed" because the City lacks "adopted objective standards" is an unacceptable prioritization of administrative loophole over resident safety. The Council must address the following critical flaws in the current approval process: 1. Failure to Address the "Very High FHSZ" Baseline In June 2025, the City adopted updated CAL FIRE maps designating this specific parcel as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ). This updated baseline fundamentally changes the safety obligations under Government Code Section 65913.4(a)(6). The City's reliance on an Environmental Assessment from July 2024—conducted when the site was only "High" risk —is outdated and fails to account for the increased severity of the hazard now officially recognized. 2. Building Codes are Not Evacuation Plans The project claims safety consistency based on Chapter 7A of the California Building Code and PRC Sections 4290 and 4291. However, these standards focus on structure survivability, not the ability of 51 new households to exit onto Linda Vista Drive during an emergency. While the Fire Department approved a "hammerhead turnaround" for fire trucks to enter, there has been zero analysis of how 100+ additional resident vehicles will safely evacuate the neighborhood simultaneously. 3. Improper Deferral of the Fire Protection Plan (CFC 4903) The Santa Clara County Fire Department has conditioned the project to provide a "Final Fire Protection Plan" consistent with CFC 4903. Shockingly, the City is allowing this critical safety analysis to be submitted at the building permit stage, long after the City Council has lost its discretionary power to reduce density or require significant site plan changes. Safety mitigations must be identified before approval to ensure they are actually feasible. 4. Circumventing the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) Under the HAA, the City can only disapprove or reduce the density of this project if it finds a "specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety". By claiming it has "no objective standards" for evacuation, the City is intentionally avoiding the very analysis that would likely provide the "preponderance of evidence" needed to make such a safety finding. Conclusion Public safety is not a "non-objective" concern. State law, including GC 65302(g)(5), requires that the City ensure adequate evacuation routes in FHSZs. We urge the Council to mandate a formal Wildfire Evacuation Capacity Study as a condition of approval. The City cannot grant PRC 4290 exceptions for reduced setbacks while simultaneously refusing to study the resulting evacuation risks. Respectfully, Alice Lin From: Nancy Wu To: City Council; Public Comments Subject: Evulich Court Date: Saturday, March 14, 2026 1:43:47 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi City Council of Cupertino, Regarding the Evulich project, please carefully consider the following two points. 1. Fire Safety of the Residents is a City Responsibility. Because lawyers are using various loop -holes to make unsafe developments, does not abdicate the city from it. 2. And the residents will actively support the city and the city council when it comes to defending the city against any legal threats by Big Real Estate because the city is standing up to its responsibility to keep us safe. Sincerely, Nancy Wu Resident on Castleton Street in Cupertino From: Seema Lindskog To: City Council; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Subject: Support the trail access from the Evulich Ct development to the Stevens Creek trail Date: Thursday, March 12, 2026 5:32:33 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Chao, and Council members, I am on the City of Cupertino Planning Commission, but today I'm writing as a resident. When you consider the Evulich Ct development at Tuesday's Council meeting, please support the trail access connection from the development to the Linda Vista section of the Stevens Creek Trail. In multiple city surveys, residents cite connectivity and proximity to nature as one of the things they want the most. A huge benefit of living in Cupertino is that we have such amazing nature trails for residents to enjoy. The 3-30-300 rule of urban planning, endorsed by the United States EPA, the European Union, the WHO, and multiple other organizations, states that the best practice for urban planning is that residents should have access to nature within 300 meters of their home (a little under 1,000 ft). The trail access from Evulich Ct is a public access which benefits everyone in the neighborhood. It gives mid -block access to the residents on Linda Vista Drive and surrounding streets. Without it, residents on these streets have to walk or drive much further to get to an entrance to the Stevens Creek trail either at Linda Vista Park or at McClellan Rd. Summerhill Homes, the developer, has agreed to ask for a reduction in the in -lieu park fees for only the simple cost of building this trail access. Compared to costs the city incurs for similar projects, which require multiple bids and other constraints, this is a very cost effective option and a prudent use of city resources. The Planning Commission voted 3-2 to support the trail access when they reviewed the project. I urge you to also support the trail access connection. Thank you for everything you do for our city. Sincerely, Seema Lindskog "You must be the change you want to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi This message is from my personal email account. I am only writing as myself, not as a representative or spokesperson for any other organization. From: V Lentfer To: Public Comments Cc: City Council; R "Ray" Wang; City Clerk; Jim Lentfer; Randy Ong Subject: City Council 3/17 agenda #12 Linda Vista Drive/Evulich. VOTE NO! Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 1:51:08 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mayor Moore and Councilmembers, My name is Veronica Lentfer and I live near the proposed 51-townhome development on Linda Vista Drive/Evulich Court. First, I support adding thoughtful housing in Cupertino. Our region needs more homes, and well -planned development can be part of the solution. On September 6, 2024, our neighborhood group met with City Manager Pamela Wu and Mayor Sheila Mohan to deliver a petition signed by 745 neighbors, all expressing shock and concern about this proposal. This shows the community has been concerned from the moment they first heard about it. There are also process concerns. For major zoning changes, proactive notification is expected, and skipping it creates the perception that development interests move faster WITHOUT getting community input. The current plan would place 51, 4 bedroom 1700-2300 square foot townhomes on a 2.53-acre parcel, roughly 20 units per acre, in the middle of an established single- family neighborhood, far from transit and commercial centers. Higher -density housing works best near transit, jobs, and services —reducing traffic and allowing residents to rely less on cars. Placing this project here increases traffic on streets not designed for it and isolates residents from walkable amenities. My adult children could not afford the minimum $2mil + prices of these homes! These homes are clearly not starter homes! It's also important to note that this parcel was historically zoned R1 for single-family homes for over 60+ years, reflecting the character of our neighborhood, until it was rezoned in July 2024 to allow multi -family townhomes without notifying the 745 neighbors who signed the petition. The current proposal departs significantly from that original intent, dramatically increasing density and altering the neighborhood's character. Some neighbors have observed that the townhomes look more like a Courtyard Marriott Hotel rather than a residential development, highlighting how out of scale and out of character it is compared with nearby homes. You don't get a redo on this site. Its development will be part of our neighborhood forever. We, the neighbors, will have to live with its density, scale, design and traffic impact for decades, so it's essential that it fits responsibly within the existing community. Another major concern is fire safety. The density and design could create challenges for emergency access and evacuation. I urge the Council to fully review all fire safety issues before granting any approvals, rather than waiving requirements or assuming problems will be resolved later. Safety must be a non-negotiable priority. If the Council moves forward, I strongly encourage scaling the project to better fit the neighborhood: fewer units, smaller homes, underground parking, and adherence to city height and design standards without waivers. While affordable units are important, waiving guidelines in exchange for a few below -market -rate homes can produce a development that is out of scale with its surroundings. We all want more housing in Cupertino, but smart growth means placing it where it works for both the city and the neighborhoods —not cramming 51 three-story units into 2.5 acres in the middle of single-family homes far away from transit and commercial centers. Vote NO on the Linda Vista Drive/Evulich project. Thank you for your time. Veronica Lentfer From: Alice Lin To: Public Comments Cc: City Council Subject: City Council 3/17 Agenda #12, 10857,10867,10877,10887 Linda Vista Drive, Please Vote No Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 1:43:47 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Council Members, Please vole no to the project. SummerHill Home's application of building 2700sf home is larger than any of single house in Linda Vista Neighborhood. They are building mansions, not starter homes as Council member JR Fruen is claiming. City Councilors must stop using urban density reform to polarizing the community. Respectfully yours A concerned resident living at Monta Vista neighborhood From: DerChang Kau To: City Council Cc: Public Comments Subject: City Council 3/17 Agenda #12 Linda Vista Drive, Vote No Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 1:18:09 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. TO: Cupertino City Mayor, Vice Mayor and Council Member CC: Public Comment record From: concerned residents of Cupertino Please vole no to the project. SummerHill Home's application of building 2700sf home is larger than any of single house in Linda Vista Neighborhood. They are building mansions are not starter homes as Council member JR Fruen is claiming. City Councilors must stop using urban density reform to polarizing the community. Respectfully yours A concerned resident living at Monta Vista neighborhood From: James Choi To: Public Comments Cc: City Council Subject: Written Communication for the March 17, 2026 City Council meeting for Agenda Item #12: Evulich Court / Linda Vista Dr / SummerHill Homes Development: Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 11:34:16 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Written Communication for the March 17, 2026 City Council meeting for Agenda Item #12: Evulich Court / Linda Vista Dr / SummerHill Homes Development: Dear Members of the Cupertino City Council, I am writing to you as a deeply concerned resident living near the proposed 51-unit SummerHill development on Linda Vista Drive. While I understand the state -level pressures and mandates regarding housing, I am urging the Council to pause and re-evaluate this project. This is a matter of life and safety for every resident in this neighborhood. Our lives are effectively in your hands, and we trust you to ensure that development does not outpace the fundamental infrastructure required to protect us. Please consider the following critical points: • Fire Safety is a City Responsibility: The safety of residents is a fundamental city responsibility. The use of legal loopholes by developers to push through unsafe projects does not abdicate the City of its duty to protect its citizens. • Legal Position on Fire Risk: While the City may claim its hands are tied by state law and that it is forbidden from considering the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone or evacuation risks, this is simply a chosen legal position. In reality, the City has the authority to ensure a defensible fire mitigation and evacuation framework is in place before approving density in high -risk zones. • Standing Up to Developers: Do not let SummerHill, their lawyer, or their legal threats dictate the future of Cupertino. The Planning Commission was recently threatened by their counsel on February 24th, 2026; I urge the Council not to concede to these tactics. • Independent Analysis is Required: We cannot rely on SummerHill's own fire and safety analyses conducted by third -party companies; these hand-picked reports cannot be trusted to prioritize our safety over their profit. • Community Support: The residents will actively support the City and City Council in defending against legal threats from 'Big Real Estate" like SummerHill. We will stand behind you when you fulfill your responsibility to keep us safe. The landscape regarding fire safety has changed, and the risks are more evident than ever. We need a citywide fire mitigation and evacuation framework that is current and technically sound before adding this level of density to a high -risk corridor. I ask that you do not disregard this plea. We are looking to you to do the right thing, prioritize the safety of the people you represent over the interests of a developer, and get Cupertino back on a track that values the lives of its residents. Respectfully, James Choi 11093 Bel Aire Ct, Cupertino For your reference, I am including the safety gaps I emailed to the Planning Commission for the February 24th, 2026 hearing. Please review the 4 bullet points in detail below. Written Communication for the February 24, 2026 Planning Commission meeting for Agenda Item #3: Evulich Court / Linda Vista Dr / SummerHill Homes Development: Dear Members of the Cupertino Planning Commission, I am writing to you as a concerned resident living near the proposed 51-unit townhome development at 10857-10887 Linda Vista Drive. While I understand the state -level pressures and mandates regarding housing, I am urging the Commission to pause and re-evaluate this project. The stakes of this decision are not merely about maintaining the character of our community; they are a matter of life and safety for every resident in this neighborhood. Our lives are effectively in your hands, and we trust you to ensure that development does not outpace the fundamental infrastructure required to protect us. I request that the Commission consider the following critical gaps in the current record: • Outdated Emergency Planning: The City's Emergency Operations Plan predates the proposed increase in density and, more importantly, the recent fire hazard reclassifications. Approving a project of this scale in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone based on years -old assumptions is a risk the community cannot afford. • Lack of Cumulative Impact Analysis: The City is currently evaluating this project in a vacuum, despite the other Linda Vista project, Vista Heights, also potentially moving forward concurrently nearby. Reviewing these projects independently fails to account for their combined impact on evacuation capacity and emergency response along our shared, constrained corridors. • Need for Technical Transparency: To date, the materials provided have been summary in nature and insufficient for professional technical review. We ask the City to produce the underlying fire mitigation and evacuation materialsincluding specific assumptions and inputs —to allow for an independent, professional evaluation of our corridor's actual evacuation capacity. • Service Demand and Response Times: Per Cupertino's own Health and Safety Element, increased population density leads to traffic congestion that impacts Fire Department response times. In an "evacuation constrained" area like Linda Vista, these delays can be fatal. We are not asking the Commission to debate the merits of housing in general. We are asking you to fulfill your responsibility to ensure a current, citywide fire mitigation and evacuation framework is in place and relied upon before any further density is approved in a very high- risk zone. Once this project is approved and the developer exits, the permanent risk of infrastructure strain and evacuation failure stays with the residents and the City. I ask that you take this communication with the gravity it deserves and ensure a comprehensive, corridor -level evacuation analysis is completed and documented on the record. Respectfully, James Choi 11093 Bel Aire Ct, Cupertino From: David Yan To: City Council Cc: Public Comments Subject: 10857 Linda Vista Drive, Applicant's Evacuation Route Study Not in Record Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 9:38:52 AM Attachments: imaae.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Chao, and Councilmembers: The Council is being asked to approve a residential subdivision on Linda Vista Drive without seeing an evacuation study the Applicant itself prepared for this exact corridor. A February 10, 2026 meeting agenda obtained through a public records request shows the Applicant presented an evacuation route study to City planning staff and the fire department. That study has never been entered into the record for this project. i.()&I.h UNITIES QF 015TINCT10N Agenda 10857 Linda Vista Check In with Planning Department and Fire Department February 10, 2026 Attendees: City — Emi 5ugiyama, Piu Ghosh, Luke Connolly SummerHill— Kevin Ebrahimi, Steve Bull, Austin Lin Fire Department— Matthew McKenna Discussion Topics: 1. Fire Department Coordination a. Neighbor concerns regarding evacuation routes b. Evacuation route study prepared by SummerHill 2. Planning Department Items a. No net loss findings b. Deemed consistent letter from the City c. Draft Conditions of Approval The Applicant has taken the position that because the City has not adopted an evacuation plan, evacuation cannot be considered in the approval of this project. The Council cannot allow this line of reasoning to continue during the upcoming March 17th Council meeting. The absence of a plan is not a license to ignore a safety question. The absence of an adopted evacuation plan does not eliminate the City's obligation under the Subdivision Map Act to make an affirmative public health and safety finding. The City still has to affirmatively find that this project will not cause serious public health problems. That finding must be supported by evidence. The Applicant commissioned its own evacuation route study for this site, presented it to the City and the fire department, and did not produce it into the record. The Council is being asked to make a health and safety determination about evacuation on this corridor without seeing a study the applicant prepared specifically about evacuation on this corridor. If the Applicant genuinely believed evacuation was legally irrelevant to this project, there would have been no reason to commission an evacuation study for this site in the first place. The physical constraint is fixed regardless. Every route out of Linda Vista Drive resolves to one of two exits: Bubb Road to the south and east, McClellan Road to the north and west. There is no third option. A wildfire evacuation is not a routing exercise. It is a road capacity question. And capacity is fixed by the roads that exist. The City commissioned the Fehr and Peers study and it found both exits to Linda Vista Drive, McClellan Rd (West) and Bubb Rd operate at over 200% of capacity under evacuation conditions. The fact that the study was commissioned for the Health & Safety Element does not change those findings. Bubb Road and McClellan Road are over capacity. That is true regardless of which process the study was commissioned for. The roads are what they are. The findings have been in the City's records since October 2025, as per the cover page of the Fehr and Peers study. The City cannot rely on a "separate timeline" for the Health and Safety Element to defer its immediate legal obligations. Administrative processes do not change physical constraints: the roads are the same roads. This is not a question of whether cities can build housing on constrained corridors. It is a question of whether this specific corridor, in a reclassified Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, with two documented failing exits, can safely evacuate the residents already here. The City's own consultant said it cannot. Adding density to a failing corridor in a fire hazard zone is not a housing policy question. It is a public safety question. And the law requires an affirmative answer before approval, not silence. Under Government Code Section 66474(f) of the Subdivision Map Act, the Council may deny a subdivision if substantial evidence shows the project would cause serious public health problems. A health and safety finding unsupported by evidence is not defensible. The findings do not expire because they were commissioned for a different purpose. The roads are the same roads. A Council that approves this project while its own records contain documented evidence of evacuation failure does not insulate itself from that evidence by declining to consider it. The obligation to make an affirmative public health and safety finding runs to the actual conditions that exist on this corridor. Approval without evidence of safety violates the Subdivision Map Act. Respectfully submitted, David Yan Linda Vista Neighborhood Resident From: Rhoda IF To: Public Comments Cc: City Council Subject: City Council Meeting 3/17/2026 #12 51-unit townhome condominium - VOTE NO Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 9:28:01 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. RE: City Council Agenda #12 3/17/2026 51-unit townhome condominium development on Housing Element Priority Housing Sites 25 through 28 Dear City Council, You are being asked to vote on 4 items. You have a choice as to whether you vote YES or NO. That is why you are being asked to vote, otherwise, these decisions would be made ministerially. Furthermore, you should not rely on the Planning Commission vote because the information available at that meeting and the items voted on were different (staff assumed the project was exempt from CEQA and the October 2025 evacuation route was hidden). There are a number of concerns that I have about the proposed project and I hope you will read through my comments. Sincerely, Rhoda Fry (recipient CREST Public Safety Award) Decision #1— PROJECT DOES NOT MEET CEQA - Here are TWO tests for CEQA exemption under AB130 Decision #1, Test #1— Project cannot be in a delineated fault zone. It is. CEQA is required. AB 130 Memo (Attachment E) page 12 misleads the reader into believing that the nearest delineated earthquake zone is the San Andreas Fault (footnote 10). This is false. The Monte Vista fault, capable of a 7.1 earthquake, is within about 400 feet of the proposed project. See notes with links and map below. CEQA IS REQUIRED. Decision #1, Test #2 — Project cannot be in a very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ). It is. CEQA is required. Cities I looked at in California do NOT have a fire department sign -off loophole in for AB 130. Why is Cupertino less safe than other California cities (see notes below)? Even the company that prepared the AB 130 memo for Cupertino, David J. Powers, stated at the Planning Commissioner Academy last week that VHFHSZ REQUIRES CEQA. Furthermore, justifications provided by the fire department are not sufficiently detailed and were derived using false assumptions. a. The fire department assumed that this is a builder remedy project, it is not. b. The fire department was led to believe items that are materially false: that 51 homes must be built and the only way to build them was to reduce the required 30-foot setback. This is not true. These homes, that Summerhill calls "products," have 4 bedrooms and are very large, about 2700 sq ft. Smaller homes could be built on this site and maintain the 30-foot safety zone. c. The fire department conflated PRC 4290 (infrastructure standards) and PRC 4291 (defensible space). All applicable PRCs must be considered individually. d. PRC (4290) can apply to evacuation beyond the footprint of a new project but it is not being considered. It was revealed after the Planning Commission vote on this project that the evacuation routes from this project are severely impacted by 2 to 4X (which the City has had since October 25 but did not share with the Planning Commission until March 9, 2026). Note that in a fire, there is essentially only one way out. https://cupertino.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.awx? ID=7939626&GUID=7AC99155-OA72-4867-A7E 1- 3E6AC39E8B2A&Options=&Search=#docaccess- 468609363b52235d2OdOe89542b3Of387454cb4e4el2el673654e018cOeddbc6 Furthermore, Summerhill conducted its own evacuation study and discussed it with City staff on February 10, 2026, but did not share it with the Planning Commission, the City Council, or the staff. See notes below. Why is Summerhill hiding their evacuation study? e. A 10-foot setback with mitigations is NOT a safety -equivalent to the required 30- foot setback. Decision #2 — RESOLUTION No. 26-029 (ATTACHMENT A) VOTE NO • The resolution requires yes on #1. Since #1 is no, you must Vote No. • Design does not allow for ladders on property lines with 10-ft setback. Project must be rejected today because it is inaccurate. Vote No. • Fails Item (f) "The proposed subdivision design and improvements will not cause serious public health." The City Council MAY reject a project if there is substantial evidence that the project can post a health and safety issue. There is (details below) Vote No. a) Makes a known evacuation deficiency worse. b) Just beyond the rear property line are PG&E wires among the trees. This is really scary and having even more homes nearby adds to the dangerous. c) Homes in the area have inadequate water pressure and must use a pump for adequate pressure. Adequate household pressure is needed for fire sprinklers. If the power goes out, residents would have even less pressure to house down their homes in the event of fire. Adding the load of people occupying 200 bedrooms (51 units x 4) to insufficient system will harm the residents who live uphill from the project. Note that fire hydrants run separately. Household water pressure is the first defense against fires. d) Decks within the 30-foot setback create a hazard — even with added fire sprinklers. There is nothing to prevent residents from putting flammable materials on their decks and this could put them, their neighbors, and off -site neighbors at risk. OTHER 1. Discussion about waiving park fees for trail access should be discussed as a separate resolution.DO NOT WAIVE PARK FEES. 2. Consider capturing sales -tax with requiring Cupertino LLC for this project as a Condition of Approval (COA). 3. Summerhill has undermined its credibility — the wrong box was checked on the AB 130 memo pertaining to hazards, it has withheld information it has about evacuation, it bullied the Planning Commission, saying that the project was exempt from evacuation requirements because the City didn't have any yet. Does Summerhill want to destroy its reputation? HOW WOULD YOU FEEL IF PEOPLE DIED FROM NOT BEING ABLE TO EVACUATE THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD IF YOU VOTED FOR THIS PROJECT AS IS? * NOTES * First some easy stuff: 1. Capture Sales -tax: If this project is to move forward, please add a Condition of Approval (COA) to have the business location for material purchases to be at the project site. This might require the creation of a subsidiary LLC. This will allow the City to capture sales tax as I understand it. Please ask staff to look into this. Apple did similar. 2. Split out Trail Connection into a separate item: You are being asked to waive $377K in park fees for a connection to the Linda Vista Trail. This would be an amenity for the residents of the project. Our public money should not be used for this trail connection. But there's more. I don't see anything in the report that states that there would be an easement for all Cupertino residents to traverse the private property of the complex in order to access the trail connection. It seems to me that an HOA (Home Owner's Association) could later close the public access to the trail if they had any complaints about it. And in that case, the taxpayers would have wasted $377K of park fees. If Summerhill wishes to create this amenity for their residents, so be it, but not at a cost to the public. Public Access for a future trail connection is not guaranteed per #5 of first resolution. VOTE NO ON RESOLUTION No. 26-029 (ATTACHMENT A) or modify. 3. Decks within 30ft of property line should be removed: Decks that are within 30 feet of the property line are to be outfitted with fire -sprinklers. But there is nothing to prevent residents from putting fuel for fire on those balconies like rattan furniture, last year's dry plants, cotton laundry etc... This poses a public safety hazard on Item F of the first resolution. VOTE NO ON RESOLUTION No. 26-029 (ATTACHMENT A). 4. The Planning Commission voting items were different. Now you are being asked whether you believe the project is exempt from CEQA — the Planning Commission meeting ASSUMED IT WAS, which limited the commission's choices. This is wrong. 5. The Planning Commission was given incomplete data: Why is it that more data is being made available to City Council than was made to the Planning Commission? Most importantly, current evacuation routes show severe overcapacity was not revealed to the Planning Commission until AFTER the vote. Furthermore, Summerhill assured residents no trouble found AND had knowledge of the evacuation issue - - - as did our own staff per their meeting on February 10, 2026. Why isn't Summerhill sharing their evacuation study with the public? See below: COMMUNITIES 01' OISTINi'11019 Agenda 10857 Linda Vista Check In with Planning Department and Fire Department February 10, 2026 Attendees; City — Emi Sugiyama, Piu Ghosh, Luke Connolly SummerHill — Kevin Ebrahimi, Steve Bull, Austin Lin Fire Department — Matthew McKenna Discussion Tonics: 1. Fire Department Coordination a. Neighbor concerns regarding evacuation routes b. Evacuation route study prepared by SummerHill 2. Planning Department Items a. No net loss findings Project does not meet AB130 criteria — it requires CEQA. VOTE NO ON #1 CEQA EXEMPTION AND RESOLUTION No. 26-029 (ATTACHMENT A). 1. THE WRONG BOX WAS CHECKED for High FIRE HAZARD on the AB130 form. The form now says that the project is NOT in a very high fire zone, when in fact it is. Whether it is potentially mitigated is immaterial. The wrong box was checked. Vote NO on first resolution. Other municipalities say that VERY HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES cannot use AB130. I have written before. A number of other City forms, do not allow a fire department waiver. In fact, the company that filled out the form for this application, stated at the Planning Conference last week said that very high fire hazard severity zone is a hard NO. Vote NO on first resolution. • Los Angeles: https:// In anning.lacity.cov/1roject-review/shra-senate-bill-684-1123 • City of Santa Clara: https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/88826 • Saratoga: https://www.saratoga.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/6237/AB- I 30-checklist- 1-27-26- web9bidld= • San Francisco: https://sfplanning.org/sites/default/files/forms/AB130_InfillExemption_Su- - IementalA Pplication.pdf • South San Francisco: https://www. ssfca.gov/files/assets/public/v/2/economic-amp-community- development/documents/planning/ab-130-eligibility-requirements-form.pdf • Even the Association of Builders and Contractors agree that VHFHSZ does not quality. https://abcsocal.org/califomia-ab-130/ 2. THE PROJECT IS IN AN EARTHQUAKE HAZARD ZONE - on the AB130 memo, the wrong box was checked. Attachment E Page 12. "The project is not located on a site that is any of the following..." The memo justifies that the project is not in an earthquake hazard zone with footnote #10 being that it is really far away from the San Andreas fault. But in fact, it is VERY CLOSE (about 400 feet) TO A FAULT CAPABLE OF A 7.1 EARTHQUAKE! !! This is the Monte Vista fault that is a thrust fault which is by far more dangerous than a regular fault. Furthermore, it is within a DESIGNATED ZONE of earthquake -induced slope instability. Whether the developer has considered mitigation here is not material. THIS PROJECT FLUNKS THE AB130 TEST. See: https://grokii2edia.com/12age/monta_vista_fault See: https://www.cottonshires.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/CupertinoHazMap_small.pdf Project are is colored blue in the snip below: N 3. Fire Department made inaccurate assumptions when the developer tried to use a loophole that is rejected by most California cities I could find. When evaluating the project, per PRAs, a) the fire department assumed that this is a BUILDER REMEDY project. It is not. b) the fire department assumed that the project was already in the building department. It was not. c) the fire department was led to believe that the developer MUST build 51 units and the only way to do it is to reduce the normally - required 30-foot fire setback. This is false. The developer could still build 51 units and maintain a 30-foot setback — they just would not be huge 4 bedroom luxury homes. 4. Fire Department's reduction of 30 feet defensible space to 10 feet does NOT MAKE THE PROJECT EQUALLY SAFE. There are TWO RULES to consider — 4290 and 4291— these must not be conflated. Other Public Safety Issues Related to First Resolution 1. Design does not allow for ladders on property lines with 10-ft setback. Project must be rejected today because it is inaccurate. You cannot vote yes on the first resolution. VOTE NO ON FIRST RESOLUTION No. 26-029 (ATTACHMENT A).. 2. Fails Item (f) on first resolution: The proposed subdivision design and improvements will not cause serious public health. There are homes on Linda Vista that need pumps to get adequate water pressure that would be used for home use and fire sprinklers. Furthermore, what happens if the power goes out? Adding more homes to a compromised water -pressure system is a cumulative impact that MUST BE ADDRESSED BY CEQA. VOTE NO ON FIRST RESOLUTION No. 26-029 (ATTACHMENT A).. 3. I just don't understand how anyone can pretend that the public safety problems do not exist because Cupertino's evacuation plan came late. 4. First Resolution States: The City Council MAY reject a project if there is substantial evidence that the project can post a health and safety issue. There is - - - VOTE NO ON FIRST RESOLUTION No. 26-029 (ATTACHMENT A). 5. Bad Reputation for Summerhill — Summerhill has had a stellar reputation in the Bay Area. But now we know that Summerhill is endeavoring to build a development in: 1. VERY HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONE, 2. NEXT TO AN EARTHQUAKE FAULT 3. WHERE EVACUATION ROUTES ARE OVER CAPACITY BY 2X to 4X (and realistically, there is only one way out if there is a fire). From: TSY Chuang To: Public Comments; Kitty Moore; Liana Chao; Tina Ka000r Subject: Request to Reschedule Evulich Court/Summerhill Project Agenda Item on March 17 to a later date Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 12:28:25 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Manager, Mayor, and Vice -Mayor, I am writing to respectfully request that the Evulich Court/Summerhill project be rescheduled from the upcoming City Council meeting on March 17th. It is my understanding that Council Member Wang will be unable to attend this meeting. I believe it is important that action items —particularly those involving public hearings —be considered only when all Council members are able to participate, especially when a member's absence is known in advance. Residents elect their representatives with the expectation that their voices will be heard through a fully present Council, and scheduling should reflect that principle when feasible. Additionally, I've learned that Council Member Mohan resides within 1,000 feet of the proposed project site, which may require her recusal due to the potential impact on her property value. As a result, with only three Council members who would be eligible to deliberate and vote on this matter, it seems prudent to defer a public hearing when such limited participation may occur. I also recall that on at least one prior occasion, a Council meeting was rescheduled by Mayor Wei and/or the City Manager on relatively short notice. With this precedent in mind, I respectfully ask that the public hearing —and, if possible, the related action itemsbe postponed to a date when Council member Wang participation is possible. Thank you for your time and consideration of this request. Sincerely, Tania From: Saba Sathva To: Public Comments Cc: City Council Subject: City Council 3/17 Agenda #12 Linda Vista Drive, Vote No Date: Sunday, March 15, 2026 7:40:33 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Cupertino City Council, I am concerned about the new housing development as I live in the next street Baxley Court. Please consider fire safety and evacuation measures to deny the high density housing project to proceed. I request the City Council to consider the following: 1. Fire Safety of the Residents is a City Responsibility. Because lawyers are using various loop -holes to make unsafe developments, does not abdicate the city from it. 2. And the residents will actively support the city and the city council when it comes to defending the city against any legal threats by Big Real Estate because the city is standing up to its responsibility to keep us safe. Thanks in advance. Regards Saba Sathya 22023 Baxley Court Cupertino, CA 95014 From: Unique Family To: Public Comments Cc: City Council Subject: City Council 3/17 Agenda #12 Linda Vista Drive, Vote No Date: Sunday, March 15, 2026 7:38:39 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Cupertino City Council, I am concerned about the new housing development as I live in the next street Baxley Court. Please consider fire safety and evacuation measures to deny the high density housing project to proceed. I request the City Council to consider the following: 1. Fire Safety of the Residents is a City Responsibility. Because lawyers are using various loop -holes to make unsafe developments, does not abdicate the city from it. 2. And the residents will actively support the city and the city council when it comes to defending the city against any legal threats by Big Real Estate because the city is standing up to its responsibility to keep us safe. Thanks in advance. Regards Selvi Sathya 22023 Baxley Court Cupertino, CA 95014 From: Meichu H To: City Council; Kitty Moore Cc: Public Comments Subject: City Council 3/17 Agenda #12 Evulich Ct Emergency Safety Concerns, Please Vote No Date: Saturday, March 14, 2026 11:08:56 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. TO: Cupertino City Mayor and Council FROM: Residents of Cupertino Date: March 14, 2026 Sub: City Council 3/17 Agenda #12 Evulich Ct Emergency Safety Concerns, Please Vote No Dear Mayor and City Council, I am writing to express urgent concerns regarding the proposed 51-unit townhome project at 10857 Linda Vista Drive. The current approval process contains a critical safety flaw: the City has concluded that "no evacuation study has been required or reviewed" simply because it lacks its own "adopted objective standards" for evacuation. This administrative loophole ignores the site's June 2025 designation as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ). The project's safety analysis relies almost entirely on building construction standards, such as fire-resistant materials and modified sprinklers. While these may improve structure survivability, they do nothing to address neighborhood -wide evacuation capacity. The Transportation Study focuses on fire truck access via a "hammerhead turnaround" but fails to analyze how 100+ additional resident vehicles will safely exit onto Linda Vista Drive during a wildfire emergency. Furthermore, the City is allowing the developer to defer the Final Fire Protection Plan (CFC 4903) until the building permit stage. This prevents the Council from evaluating critical wildfire risk mitigations before density and site plans are finalized. This is particularly concerning given that the project already received an exception to PRC 4290, allowing for non -conforming setbacks in this high -risk area. Under Government Code Section 65913.4(a)(6), projects in a Very High FHSZ must adopt specific fire hazard mitigations to qualify for CEQA exemptions. Relying on construction materials while refusing to study evacuation flow is a failure of public safety. I urge the Council to mandate a formal Wildfire Evacuation Capacity Study as a condition of approval. Respectfully, Meichu Huang From: mwfantozzi(cbtfanco.com To: City Clerk Cc: City Council; City Attorney"s Office Subject: Written Communications-SummerHill, LLC 10857, 10867, 10877, and 10887 Linda Vista Drive Townhomes Date: Friday, March 13, 2026 3:22:15 PM Attachments: Summary Statements of Deficiencies.zio Staff Report Deficiencies.zip Financial Disclosure & Nealiaence.zio Fire Code PRC4290 Fire Flow Deficiencies.zio Technical Reoort Errors & Omissions.zio CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Clerk, Honorable Mayor, Councilmembers, and City Attorney, Please accept the attached materials as written communication regarding: Project: SummerHill - Evulich Ct. Townhomes; Application Number: TM-2024-009, ASA-2024-015, TR-2024-044; Agenda Item: 12; scheduled for consideration on March 17, 2026. This submission includes: • Zip Folder: Summary Statements of Deficiencies (3 files) • Zip Folder: Financial Disclosure & Negligence (2 files) • Zip Folder: Staff Report Deficiencies (3 files) • Zip Folder: Fire Code_PRC4290_Fire Flow Deficiencies (3 files) • Zip Folder: Technical Report Errors & Omissions (3 files) These materials are provided to ensure the administrative record accurately reflects the project's non-compliance with State Fire Safety Standards, disregard for public safety, concerns over development in VHFHS without adequate safety planning, illegal CEQA exemptions and compliance issues, procedural errors and the absence of financial disclosure when the City is granting exemptions to the General Plan, fire standards, and public safety. Decision regarding this matter need to be based on complete and accurate information. I respectfully request that these documents be: 1. Posted to the public agenda packet as written communication, and 2. Distributed to the full City Council for their review. Please confirm receipt and posting at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your attention and for ensuring these materials are included in the public record. Sincerely, Mark W. Fantozzi, PE Cupertino mwfantozzi@tfanco.com Policy -Focused Review Regarding TM-2024-009 Project: TM-2024-009 (Linda Vista Townhomes) Location: 10857-10887 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, CA Prepared for: Cupertino City Council Prepared by: Mark W. Fantozzi, PE 1. Executive Summary This submission raises significant concerns regarding the City of Cupertino's consideration of exceptions to fire codes, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements, and General Plan safety policies for the proposed TM-2024-009 development project located at 10857-10886 Linda Vista Drive. The project site lies within a designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ), which necessitates strict adherence to fire -safety standards and environmental review protocols. Granting exceptions in such a high -risk area may constitute a policy deviation with serious public safety and legal implications. The Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD) granted a PRC 4290 exception for this project. However, SCCFD's approval is conditional and not final. Importantly, SCCFD requires the submission of a Final Fire Protection Plan at the building -permit stage, indicating that the fire -safety review process remains incomplete. 2. Background The TM-2024-009 project encompasses parcels located at 10857, 10867, 10877, and 10886 Linda Vista Drive in Cupertino, California. These parcels are situated within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ), as designated by Cal Fire. The regulatory framework governing this area includes the California Fire Code (CFC), which mandates fire -flow requirements and emergency access standards; the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which requires comprehensive hazard analysis for projects in high -risk areas; and the City of Cupertino's General Plan Safety Element, which prioritizes public safety and hazard mitigation in land -use planning. According to SCCFD's plan -review comments dated January 27, 2026, the project received a PRC 4290 exception due to non -conforming setbacks, which are to be mitigated through increased fire separation and modified sprinkler systems. SCCFD's approval is conditional, pending the submission of a Final Fire Protection Plan. The fire -flow requirement for the project is 1,375 gallons per minute (GPM) at 20 psi residual pressure, based on the inclusion of automatic fire sprinklers. 3. Policy Concerns Granting exceptions to established fire codes, CEQA requirements, or General Plan safety policies in a VHFHSZ constitutes a significant policy deviation. Such actions may undermine the integrity of the City's regulatory framework and set a precedent for future developments in similarly hazardous areas. Key safety analyses —such as fire -flow testing, hydraulic modeling, evacuation planning, and water -supply adequacy assessments —are essential to ensure that new developments do not compromise public safety or overburden existing infrastructure. Specifically, the PRC 4290 exception granted by SCCFD in this case represents a discretionary deviation from standard fire -safety setbacks. Such exceptions in VHFHSZ areas require substantial evidence to demonstrate that equivalent safety is maintained. Furthermore, SCCFD's conditional approval does not satisfy CEQA's requirement for a complete hazard analysis or the General Plan's mandate for verified public safety. 4. Public Safety Implications Developing in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone introduces elevated risks of wildfire exposure, evacuation challenges, and strain on emergency response systems. The California Fire Code and related state regulations require strict compliance with fire -safety standards, particularly in VHFHSZ areas. Any deviation from these standards must be supported by substantial evidence demonstrating that public safety will not be compromised. Failure to adhere to these requirements could expose the City to legal liability and endanger residents and first responders. SCCFD identified non -conforming setbacks that require mitigation through increased fire separation and modified sprinkler systems. Additionally, SCCFD requires the development of a Final Fire Protection Plan to address wildfire mitigation, defensible space, and emergency access. These unresolved issues heighten the wildfire risk and underscore the need for comprehensive safety planning. 5. CEQA-Exempt Implications If the City determines that the TM-2024-009 project is exempt from CEQA, the exemption does not eliminate the City's obligation to ensure compliance with fire -safety standards, PRC 4290, or the General Plan Safety Element. CEQA exemption affects only procedural environmental review; it does not waive substantive safety requirements. A CEQA exemption elevates the importance of SCCFD's findings because the PRC 4290 exception remains a discretionary act requiring substantial evidence of equivalent fire safety. SCCFD's conditional approval —requiring a future Final Fire Protection Plan —confirms that the fire -safety review is incomplete. The City cannot rely on future mitigation to justify present approval, nor can it treat SCCFD's conditional approval as evidence of General Plan consistency. General Plan consistency remains a mandatory finding regardless of CEQA status. A project located in a VHFHSZ with unresolved fire -safety deficiencies cannot be found consistent with the Safety Element. Therefore, even if CEQA does not apply, the City must still require complete fire -flow documentation, evacuation analysis, and the Final Fire Protection Plan before granting approval. 6. Conclusion Given the location of the TM-2024-009 project within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, it is imperative that the City of Cupertino uphold its commitment to public safety, transparency, and legal compliance. SCCFD's findings confirm that key fire -safety issues remain unresolved, including the need for a Final Fire Protection Plan and mitigation of non -conforming setbacks. These outstanding issues require full compliance with CEQA (if applicable) and the General Plan Safety Element before any project approvals are granted. We urge the City Council to ensure that all applicable safety standards and environmental review requirements are fully enforced, and that any proposed exceptions are subject to rigorous scrutiny and supported by substantial evidence. 7. Request for Council Action We respectfully request that the Cupertino City Council: 1. Require full compliance with all applicable fire -safety standards, CEQA hazard analysis protocols, and General Plan safety policies. 2. Ensure that no exceptions, variances, or waivers are granted for the TM-2024-009 project without substantial evidence demonstrating compliance with state and local safety mandates. 3. Require the applicant to submit detailed fire -flow, hydraulic, and evacuation analyses, as well as financial information if exceptions are sought that may confer a financial benefit. 4. Require full disclosure and justification for the PRC 4290 exception granted by SCCFD, including the specific mitigation measures proposed and their effectiveness in addressing the identified fire -safety deficiencies. Summary Compliance Memorandum Re: TM-2024-009, TM-2024-009, 10857, 10867, 10877, 10886 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino (Linda Vista Drive) CEQA Exemption Rebuttal & General Plan Inconsistency Analysis Prepared for: Cupertino City Council Prepared by: Mark W. Fantozzi, PE Date: March 10, 2026 VIA EMAIL I. INTRODUCTION This legal brief evaluates the TM-2024-009 project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Cupertino General Plan Safety Element. The analysis demonstrates that: 1. The project does not qualify for a CEQA exemption, and 2. The project is inconsistent with multiple mandatory General Plan policies, independently barring approval. The project is located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ), requires a discretionary PRC 4290 exception, and lacks essential wildfire, evacuation, and water -supply analyses. These deficiencies preclude CEQA exemption and prevent the City from making the required General Plan consistency findings. II. CEQA EXEMPTION REBUTTAL A. CEQA Exemptions Are Prohibited in High Fire -Risk Areas CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2(b) bars categorical exemptions where "unusual circumstances" create a reasonable possibility of significant environmental impacts. The TM-2024-009 project presents multiple unusual circumstances: • Location in a VHFHSZ • Known evacuation bottlenecks along Linda Vista / Stevens Creek • Non -conforming setbacks requiring PRC 4290 exceptions • Incomplete fire -safety review (Final Fire Protection Plan pending) • Water -supply reliability concerns under PSPS and peak -demand conditions Any one of these conditions is sufficient to defeat a CEQA exemption. Together, they make exemption legally indefensible. B. PRC 4290 Exception Is a Discretionary Approval That Triggers CEQA The City cannot claim ministerial approval while simultaneously granting a discretionary PRC 4290 exception. Discretionary approvals require: • Findings of equivalent fire safety • Substantial evidence • Evaluation of mitigation measures • Consideration of alternatives This is incompatible with CEQA exemption. Case law is clear: If any component of a project requires discretion, the entire project is discretionary for CEQA purposes. C. SCCFD's Conditional Approval Confirms CEQA Review Is Incomplete SCCFD explicitly states: • "Plans are APPROVED with conditions." • "Provide a Final Fire Protection Plan at time of building permit submittal." CEQA does not allow approval based on future mitigation. Environmental impacts must be analyzed before approval. A CEQA exemption cannot be based on: • Missing wildfire analysis • Missing evacuation analysis • Missing water -supply reliability analysis • Missing Final Fire Protection Plan The City cannot rely on SCCFD's conditional approval as a substitute for CEQA review. D. Evacuation and Emergency Access Issues Require CEQA Analysis CEQA Guidelines Appendix G requires analysis of: Impacts on evacuation routes Impacts on emergency response Wildfire -related infrastructure capacity The Linda Vista corridor is a constrained evacuation route with limited egress. No evacuation analysis has been submitted. This alone precludes CEQA exemption. E. Water -Supply Reliability Requires CEQA Review SCCFD accepted a hydraulic analysis only for minimum fire -flow, not: • Peak -demand reliability • PSPS conditions • Multi -structure fire scenarios These are CEQA-level issues requiring environmental review. F. Conclusion: CEQA Exemption Is Legally Unsupportable The TM-2024-009 project cannot be exempt from CEQA because: • It is located in a VHFHSZ • It requires discretionary PRC 4290 exceptions • SCCFD's approval is conditional and incomplete • Required wildfire, evacuation, and water -supply analyses are missing • CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2 prohibits exemptions under these conditions The City must require full CEQA compliance before considering approval. III. GENERAL PLAN INCONSISTENCY ANALYSIS A. General Plan Consistency Is Mandatory Regardless of CEQA Status Government Code §§65300.5 and 65860 require that all land -use decisions be consistent with the General Plan. This requirement applies even if CEQA does not. A project cannot be approved if it conflicts with the General Plan. B. Relevant Safety Element Policies Policy 5-1.1— Reduce wildfire risk in VHFHSZ areas The project lacks: • A Final Fire Protection Plan • Verified defensible -space compliance • Demonstrated water -supply reliability Policy S-1.3 — Ensure adequate emergency access and evacuation capacity The Linda Vista corridor is a constrained evacuation route. No evacuation analysis has been submitted. Policy S-2.2 — Ensure adequate fire -flow and water -supply infrastructure SCCFD's acceptance of minimum fire -flow does not address: • Peak -demand reliability • PSPS conditions • Multi -structure fire scenarios Policy S-3.1— Require development to mitigate known hazards The project relies on future mitigation (Final Fire Protection Plan), violating this policy. C. SCCFD's Conditional Approval Confirms Inconsistency SCCFD identified: • Non -conforming setbacks • Required mitigation through modified sprinklers • Requirement for a future Final Fire Protection Plan • Requirement for Turnaround A These unresolved issues demonstrate that the project does not currently meet fire -safety standards required by the General Plan. D. PRC 4290 Exception Conflicts with General Plan Safety Policies The PRC 4290 exception is a discretionary deviation from standard fire -safety requirements. To be consistent with the General Plan, the City must demonstrate: • Equivalent fire safety • Adequate mitigation • Substantial evidence No such evidence has been provided. E. Evacuation Constraints Create Direct General Plan Conflicts The Safety Element requires: • Safe and reliable evacuation routes • Adequate emergency -response access • Infrastructure capacity to support wildfire evacuation The Linda Vista corridor does not meet these standards, and no analysis has been provided to demonstrate otherwise. F. Conclusion: The Project Is Inconsistent with the General Plan The TM-2024-009 project is inconsistent with the Cupertino General Plan because: • It lacks required wildfire -hazard mitigation • It lacks evacuation and emergency -access analysis • It relies on future mitigation rather than present compliance • It requires discretionary PRC 4290 exceptions without substantial evidence • SCCFD's conditional approval confirms unresolved safety deficiencies Under Government Code §§65300.5 and 65860, the City cannot approve a project that conflicts with the General Plan. IV. OVERALL CONCLUSION The TM-2024-009 project: • Cannot be exempt from CEQA, and • Cannot be found consistent with the General Plan These are independent and sufficient grounds for denial or for requiring full CEQA review and complete fire -safety documentation prior to any approval. Technical Evidence Submission — TM-2024-009 (Linda Vista Dr Project: TM-2024-009 (Linda Vista Townhomes) Location: 10857-10887 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, CA Prepared for: Cupertino City Council Prepared by: Mark W. Fantozzi, PE 1. Technical Background The TM-2024-009 project encompasses parcels located at 10857, 10867, 10877, and 10886 Linda Vista Drive in Cupertino, California. These parcels are situated within a designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ), as identified by Cal Fire. The applicable regulatory frameworks include: • California Fire Code (CFC §507, Appendix B & C), which governs fire -flow and access requirements. • California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which mandates wildfire and hazard analysis for projects in high -risk areas. • Cupertino General Plan Safety Element, which prioritizes hazard mitigation and public safety. • Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD) Water Supply & Access Standards, which establish technical criteria for fire protection infrastructure. • SCCFD has conditionally approved the project with exceptions to PRC 4290. These exceptions include non -conforming setbacks mitigated through increased fire separation distances and modified sprinkler systems. A Final Fire Protection Plan is required at the time of building -permit submittal to address wildfire risks, defensible space, and access roads. 2. Fire -Flow Requirements SCCFD has established a required fire -flow of 1,375 gallons per minute (GPM) at 20 psi residual pressure for this project, based on the inclusion of an automatic fire sprinkler system. This requirement is supported by a hydraulic analysis submitted by the developer. While this satisfies the minimum fire -flow requirement under the California Fire Code, it does not address broader CEQA obligations, including wildfire risk analysis and evacuation constraints. 3. Water -Supply Adequacy • Although SCCFD accepted the developer's hydraulic analysis confirming minimum fire -flow availability, the analysis does not evaluate system reliability under peak demand, Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) conditions, or concurrent multi -structure fire scenarios. Such limitations raise concerns about the adequacy of the water supply under real -world emergency conditions. 4. CEQA Hazard Analysis Requirements CEQA Guidelines Appendix G requires analysis of wildfire risk, including impacts on emergency response, evacuation routes, and infrastructure capacity. SCCFD's requirement for a future Final Fire Protection Plan confirms that the CEQA wildfire hazard analysis remains incomplete. The current application lacks an evacuation analysis, water -supply adequacy assessment, and evaluation of emergency -response capabilities. 5. Emergency Access & Evacuation Constraints Fire -apparatus access roads must meet minimum width and turning -radius standards under CFC Appendix D and SCCFD guidelines. The Linda Vista / Stevens Creek corridor presents known evacuation bottlenecks due to narrow roads and limited egress routes. SCCFD has identified non -conforming setbacks and required mitigation through modified sprinkler systems. Additionally, Turnaround A is required to meet fire -apparatus access standards. 6. CEQA-Exempt Implications If the City determines that the TM-2024-009 project is exempt from CEQA, the exemption does not eliminate the requirement to demonstrate adequate fire -flow, water -supply reliability, emergency access, or compliance with PRC 4290. CEQA exemption affects only procedural environmental review; it does not waive substantive fire -safety obligations. The PRC 4290 exception remains a discretionary approval requiring substantial evidence of equivalent fire safety. SCCFD's conditional approval —requiring a future Final Fire Protection Plan —confirms that the fire -safety review is incomplete. The City cannot rely on future mitigation to justify present approval, nor can it treat SCCFD's conditional approval as evidence of General Plan consistency. General Plan consistency remains a mandatory requirement regardless of CEQA status. A project located in a VHFHSZ with unresolved fire -safety deficiencies cannot be found consistent with the Safety Element. Therefore, even if CEQA does not apply, the City must still require complete fire -flow documentation, evacuation analysis, and the Final Fire Protection Plan before granting approval. 7. Summary of Technical Deficiencies The TM-2024-009 application is missing the following required technical documentation: 9 Justification for the PRC 4290 exception • Final Fire Protection Plan • CEQA-compliant wildfire hazard analysis • Evacuation modeling and traffic analysis • Water -supply adequacy and emergency -response capacity documentation The fire -safety review remains incomplete pending submission and approval of the Final Fire Protection Plan. 8. Request for Council Action We respectfully request that the Cupertino City Council: Require full compliance with the California Fire Code, CEQA (if applicable), and the Cupertino General Plan Safety Element. Ensure that no exceptions, variances, or waivers are granted for the TM-2024-009 project without substantial evidence demonstrating compliance with all applicable safety standards. Require the applicant to submit all missing technical studies, including the Final Fire Protection Plan, evacuation analysis, and water -supply adequacy documentation. CEQA EXEMPTION MEMORANDUM For :TM-2024-009, 10857, 10867, 10877, 10886 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino Prepared for: Cupertino City Council Prepared by: Mark W. Fantozzi, PE Date: March 10, 2026 VIA EMAIL Re: TM-2024-009 (Linda Vista Drive) — Basis for Rejecting CEQA Exemption 1. Purpose of This Memorandum This memorandum provides a detailed rebuttal to any assertion that the TM-2024-009 project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The analysis demonstrates that the project does not qualify for a CEQA exemption due to its location in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ), the presence of unresolved fire -safety deficiencies, and the discretionary nature of the PRC 4290 exception granted by the Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD). 2. CEQA Exemptions Do Not Apply in High Fire -Risk Areas CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2(b) prohibits categorical exemptions where "unusual circumstances" create a reasonable possibility of significant environmental impacts. A project located in a VHFHSZ, with documented wildfire -risk constraints and evacuation limitations, meets this threshold. Additionally: • The project requires discretionary fire -safety exceptions (PRC 4290). • The project lacks a complete wildfire hazard analysis. • SCCFD has required a future Final Fire Protection Plan, confirming the hazard analysis is incomplete. These factors independently and collectively bar CEQA exemption. 3. PRC 4290 Exception Is a Discretionary Approval The City cannot claim ministerial approval while simultaneously granting a discretionary PRC 4290 exception. Discretionary approvals invalidate CEQA exemptions. The PRC 4290 exception requires: 9 Findings of equivalent fire safety • Substantial evidence • Evaluation of mitigation measures • Documentation of justification This is the opposite of ministerial action. 4. SCCFD's Conditional Approval Confirms CEQA Review Is Incomplete SCCFD explicitly states: • "Plans are APPROVED with conditions." • "Provide a Final Fire Protection Plan at time of building permit submittal. A CEQA exemption cannot be based on future mitigation. CEQA requires that environmental impacts be analyzed before project approval. 5. Evacuation and Emergency Access Issues Trigger CEQA Review CEQA Guidelines Appendix G requires analysis of: • Impacts on evacuation routes • Impacts on emergency response • Wildfire -related infrastructure capacity The Linda Vista / Stevens Creek corridor is a known evacuation bottleneck. No evacuation analysis has been submitted. This alone precludes CEQA exemption. 6. Water -Supply Reliability Requires CEQA Analysis SCCFD accepted a hydraulic analysis only for minimum fire -flow, not: • Peak -demand reliability • PSPS (Public Safety Power Shutoff) conditions • Multi -structure fire scenarios These are CEQA-level issues requiring environmental review. 7. Conclusion The TM-2024-009 project cannot be exempt from CEQA because: • It is located in a VHFHSZ • It requires discretionary PRC 4290 exceptions • SCCFD's approval is conditional and incomplete • Required wildfire, evacuation, and water -supply analyses are missing • CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2 prohibits exemptions under these conditions The City must require full CEQA compliance before considering project approval. General Plan Inconsistency Analysis Project: TM-2024-009 (Linda Vista Townhomes) Location: 10857-10887 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, CA Prepared for: Cupertino City Council Prepared by: Mark W. Fantozzi, PE 1. Purpose of This Document This memorandum evaluates the TM-2024-009 project for consistency with the Cupertino General Plan Safety Element. The analysis concludes that the project is inconsistent with multiple mandatory safety policies due to unresolved wildfire, evacuation, and fire -flow deficiencies. 2. General Plan Consistency Is Required Regardless of CEQA Status Even if the City asserts CEQA exemption, General Plan consistency remains mandatory under: • Government Code §65300.5 • Government Code §65860 • California case law (e.g., Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural El Dorado County v. Board of Supervisors) A project cannot be approved if it conflicts with the General Plan. 3. Safety Element Policies Relevant to This Project The following Safety Element policies are directly implicated: Policy S-1.1 Reduce wildfire risk in VHFHSZ areas The project is located in a VHFHSZ and lacks: • A Final Fire Protection Plan • Verified defensible -space compliance • Demonstrated water -supply reliability Policy S-1.3 — Ensure adequate emergency access and evacuation capacity The Linda Vista / Stevens Creek corridor is a constrained evacuation route. No evacuation analysis has been submitted. Policy S-2.2 — Ensure adequate fire -flow and water -supply infrastructure SCCFD's acceptance of minimum fire -flow does not address: • Peak -demand reliability • PSPS conditions • Multi -structure fire scenarios Policy S-3.1 — Require development to mitigate known hazards The project relies on future mitigation (Final Fire Protection Plan), which violates this policy. 4. SCCFD's Conditional Approval Confirms Inconsistency SCCFD's findings include: • Non -conforming setbacks • Required mitigation through modified sprinklers • Requirement for a future Final Fire Protection Plan • Requirement for Turnaround A These unresolved issues demonstrate that the project does not currently meet fire -safety standards required by the General Plan. 5. PRC 4290 Exception Conflicts with General Plan Safety Policies The PRC 4290 exception is a discretionary deviation from standard fire -safety requirements. To be consistent with the General Plan, the City must demonstrate: • Equivalent fire safety • Adequate mitigation • Substantial evidence No such evidence has been provided. 6. Evacuation Constraints Create Direct General Plan Conflicts The Safety Element requires: • Safe and reliable evacuation routes • Adequate emergency -response access • Infrastructure capacity to support wildfire evacuation The Linda Vista corridor does not meet these standards, and no analysis has been provided to demonstrate otherwise. 7. Conclusion The TM-2024-009 project is inconsistent with the Cupertino General Plan because: • It lacks required wildfire -hazard mitigation • It lacks evacuation and emergency -access analysis • It relies on future mitigation rather than present compliance • It requires discretionary PRC 4290 exceptions without substantial evidence • SCCFD's conditional approval confirms unresolved safety deficiencies Under Government Code §§65300.5 and 65860, the City cannot approve a project that conflicts with the General Plan. General Plan Inconsistency Matrix Project: TM-2024-009 (Linda Vista Townhomes) Location: 10857-10887 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, CA Prepared for: Cupertino City Council Prepared by: Mark W. Fantozzi, PE Issue: Failure to Comply with Mandatory General Plan Safety, Mobility, and Land Use Policies I. SAFETY ELEMENT INCONSISTENCIES General Plan City's Finding Record Evidence Inconsistency Subdivision Map Policy Act Consequence HS-2.13 — Identify City asserts No evacuation City failed to §66474(a): Map residential areas project is analysis identify or inconsistent with with fewer than "consistent with performed. Project mitigate General Plan two ingress/egress the General Plan." located on a single -egress Map must be routes and ensure single -egress hazard. denied. safe evacuation. dead-end (Evulich Ct —* Linda Vista). S-1.3 — Ensure City claims fire No evacuation Cannot ensure §66474(g): Design adequate access is adequate. modeling, no evacuation likely to cause emergency access clearance time capacity without serious public and evacuation analysis, no analysis. safety problems. capacity. cumulative load analysis. 5-2.3 — Evaluate City states project No evacuation Mandatory §66474(a): development in complies with Fire evaluation despite evaluation not Required finding VHFHSZ for Dept. conditions. VHFHSZ performed. cannot be made. evacuation designation. constraints. 5-2.4 — Maintain City claims Traffic -Evacuation Evacuation routes §66474(g): Map safe evacuation roadway analysis shows are not safe and must be denied routes during improvements McClellan Rd V/C will not function. due to public wildfire events. improve safety. = 4.2 and Foothill safety risk. Blvd V/C = 4.0 under evacuation — system failure. HS-3.1 — Reduce City claims High -density infill Land -use decision §66474(c): Site wildfire risk project meets in a VHFHSZ increases, not not physically through land -use zoning. without reduces, wildfire suitable. decisions. evacuation risk. analysis increases wildfire risk. II. MOBILITY ELEMENT INCONSISTENCIES General Plan City's Finding Record Evidence Inconsistency Subdivision Map Policy Act Consequence M-2.3.1 — City claims Evacuation surge Evacuation §66474(g): Minimize project improves merges into conflicts with Creates public conflicts with walkability. school -zone school pedestrian safety hazard. pedestrian and pedestrian routes. bicycle traffic on corridors primary streets. (Hyannisport, Bubb). M-3.2 — Provide City claims Sidewalks do not Pedestrian §66474(a): safe pedestrian sidewalks improve mitigate improvements Findings connections to safety. evacuation irrelevant to unsupported by public amenities. gridlock or evacuation safety. substantial fire -flow evidence. deficiencies. M-3.3 — Enhance City claims Stevens Creek City misapplies §66474(a): crossings at crosswalks meet Trail access does policy; does not Inconsistent with physical barriers policy. not provide address Mobility Element. (creeks, evacuation egress. evacuation. highways). III. LAND USE ELEMENT INCONSISTENCIES General Plan Policy City's Finding Record Evidence Inconsistency Subdivision Map Act Consequence LU-11.1 — Ensure City claims No fire -flow Infrastructure §66474(d): Site new development infrastructure is analysis in record; (roads, fire -flow) not suitable for does not adequate. no evacuation not evaluated. proposed density. overburden capacity analysis. infrastructure. LU-1.3 — Ensure City claims High -density Project conflicts §66474(g): development project meets development in with core land -use Creates serious supports public zoning. VHFHSZ without safety principles. public safety safety. evacuation problems. analysis undermines public safety. Under Gov. Code §66474, if any required finding cannot be made, the City must deny the map. Here, multiple findings cannot be made, and the record contains no substantial evidence supporting the City's conclusions. V. CONCLUSION This General Plan inconsistency matrix demonstrates that TM-2024-009: 9 Fails to comply with mandatory Safety Element policies • Fails to comply with Mobility and Land Use policies • Fails to evaluate evacuation in a VHFHSZ • Fails to ensure public safety • Fails to meet the Subdivision Map Act's required findings Therefore, the City Council must deny TM-2024-009 as a matter of law. CLAIM 1: DENSITY "in order to fit the minimum required number of units within the site" • SummerHill's proposed units average 2,369 livable SF (excluding the 2-car garage) are significantly oversized relative to comparable, approved projects in the same market served by CUSD • Vida Sunnyvale Phase I (Appendix A): 50 units on 2.76 acres (vs. SummerHill's 51 units on 2.51 acres): nearly identical density - Avg livable area: 1,748 SF per unit: Evulich Ct is 36% larger than Vida - Setbacks to single-family homes: 53-65 feet (vs. SummerHill's -10 ft) - Heights taper down 1 story from interior to rear: gradual transition to neighbors - Approved July 2021, built and sold: same South Bay market, conventional financing • Westport Cupertino (Appendix B): 88 townhomes/rowhouses at Stevens Creek & Mary, Cupertino - Avg livable area: 1,978 SF per unit: Evulich Ct is 20% larger than Westport - Family -sized units with 2-car garages: proven marketable product - Approved by Cupertino's own City Council (Aug. 2020); same city, same market CLAIM 2: EVULICH COURT RIGHT-OF-WAY "The site is constrained by an existing City right-of-way (Evulich Court)." • SummerHill must build internal access roads regardless; the site plan includes five private streets for vehicle and fire apparatus access • The new internal road can be dedicated back to the City in lieu of the existing Evulich Court right-of-way • A required infrastructure element cannot simultaneously be a "site constraint" justifying reduced wildfire setbacks; this argument is circular (Appendix C) REDUCING UNIT SIZE FROM MCMANSION TO COMPARABLE MAKES 30 FT SETBACKS FEASIBLE • At Westport sizes (1,978 SF): total livable drops from 120,829 to 100,878 SF, freeing-20,000 SF of building mass • At Vida sizes (1,748 SF): total livable drops to 89,148 SF, freeing-31,700 SF of building mass • Either reduction substantially eases the physical conflict with the 30-foot PRC 4290 setback while still delivering the 51 units required by the City's Housing Element CONCLUSION: NO SETBACK WAIVER IS NEEDED TO MEET HOUSING DENSITY The setback waiver is not necessary to meet the housing density required by the City's Housing Element. The required 51 units can be delivered at right -sized livable areas, consistent with comparable projects already approved and built in the same market, while honoring the full 30-foot PRC 4290 setback mandated for Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. The only thing preventing compliance is SummerHill's choice to build oversized units, not any site constraint or density requirement. Side -by -Side Comparison Location Linda Vista Dr, Cupertino E. Fremont Ave, Stevens Creek Blvd, Sunnyvale Cupertino Site Area 2.51 acres 2.76 acres 8.1 acres (mixed -use) Townhome Units 51 50 88 Avg Livable SF (excl. 2,369 1,748 1,978 garage) Avg Garage SF (2-car) 485 458 571 Appendix A: Vida Sunnyvale Phase I, A Built Comparable Project Overview Vida Phase 1 (166-176 E. Fremont Avenue, Sunnyvale; File #21-0715) was approved by the Sunnyvale Planning Commission on July 12, 2021 and has been constructed and almost sold out. It is a 50-unit townhome development on 2.76 acres, a nearly identical site profile to SummerHill's proposed 51 units on 2.51 acres. Both projects target the same South Bay family -housing market served by Cupertino Union School District, an important factor in home pricing. Setbacks and Height Transition to Single -Family Neighbors Vida is bordered by single-family neighborhoods on two sides (east toward Bobolink Circle; south toward Avon Terrace/Berwick Way). The project provides setbacks of 53 to 65 feet from these single-family homes: more than five times what SummerHill proposes on the south property line. Critically, these generous setbacks were achieved without any fire hazard zone requirement Building heights taper down one story from the site interior along the rear property line, providing a gradual transition toward the neighboring single-family homes. The residential buildings are set back approximately 74 to 84 feet from adjacent residential properties when measured to the building face (vs. property line). Additional buffers include a 6-foot masonry perimeter wall along the east and south property lines, fast-growing evergreen screening trees, restricted exhaust openings on walls facing residential neighbors, and peripheral lighting capped at 8-foot pole heights. Setback Comparison South I East (Rear) Single -Family Homes -10 ft (AMMR waiver) 53-65 ft West (Side) City Parcel / SF Home -10 ft (AMMR waiver) 15-28 ft (PL-9 waiver) North / Front Street / Commercial -10-30 ft (varies) 10-29 ft (PL-9 waiver) Vida used Density Bonus waivers (PL-9) only on the front and commercial -facing side; never on the sides adjacent to single-family homes. SummerHill, by contrast, seeks the setback reduction precisely on the sides where residents live. Site and Density Comparison Net Site Area 2.51 acres 2.76 acres Total Units 51 50 Density 20.3 du/acre 18.1 du/acre Stories 3 3-4 (tapered to 3 at rear) Avg Livable SF (excl. garage) 2,369 1,748 Total Livable SF (excl. garage) 120,829 87,416 Avg Garage SF 485 (447-579) 458 (453-489) Both projects have comparable acreage (2.51 vs. 2.76 acres), comparable unit counts (51 vs. 50), and comparable densities (20.3 vs. 18.1 du/acre). Both include 2-car garages for every unit (SummerHill's avg 485 SF vs. Vida's avg 458 SF). The garage deduction is roughly equal, making the livable area comparison apples -to -apples. The decisive difference is unit size: SummerHill averages 2,369 livable SF per unit versus Vida's 1,748, which is 36% larger; a difference that directly drives the setback conflict. Vida Unit Mix Detail Unit 1 4 1,365 -114 489 -1,479 Unit 10 1,414 -114 462 -1,528 Units 3-4 8 1,430-1,520 -114 454-462 -1,544-1,634 Units 5-6 14 1,619-1,740 -114 453-454 -1,733-1,854 Units 7-8 14 1,901-2,037 -114 461-471 -2,015-2,151 Average I Total 50 1,634 avg -114 avg 458 avg 1,748 avg *Livable SF = Net Interior + Private Open Space (porches/decks), excluding garage. Both projects have comparable 2-car garages (-450-580 SF), so the garage deduction is roughly a wash. Source: Sunnyvale File #21-0715, Attachment 2 (Project Data Table), Attachment 7 (Project Plans, Sheet A01). Approved July 12, 2021. Appendix B: Westport Cupertino, Same Market, Smaller Units Project Overview Westport Cupertino (21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard at Mary Avenue) is a mixed -use development approved by the Cupertino City Council on August 18, 2020. The project includes 88 townhomes and rowhouses designed by C21K Architecture for KT Urban, along with senior housing and retail. Westport matters for this analysis because it is in Cupertino itself: the same city, the same real estate market, and the same municipal approval process as SummerHill's proposed project. If family -sized townhomes averaging under 2,000 SF are marketable, financeable, and approvable on Stevens Creek Boulevard, the same is true on Linda Vista Drive. Unit Data Townhomes (13 bldgs) 70 139,860 1,998 564 Rowhouses (3 bldgs) 18 34,250 1,903 602 Combined 88 174,110 1,978 571 *Livable SF = Total residential area excluding garage/parking. Westport figures from SF YIMBY/ planning records: 179,310 SF total built area for townhomes (139, 860 residential + 39,450 parking); 45,090 SF for rowhouses (34,250 residential + 10,840 parking). All 88 units include 2-car garages. The townhomes average 1,998 livable SF; the rowhouses average 1,903 livable SF. SummerHill's proposed average of 2,369 livable SF is 20% larger than Westport's combined average of 1,978 livable SF. Notably, Westport was approved without density bonus setback waivers on residential -adjacent boundaries, and without any AMMR for fire hazard setback reduction. What This Means for SummerHill's Claim If SummerHill sized its 51 units to the Westport average (1,978 SF livable, excluding garage), the total livable area would drop from 120,829 SF to approximately 100,878 SF: a reduction of 19,951 SF of building mass. Adding garages (--485 SF each), total gross would be approximately 125,613 SF versus the current 145,544 SF. This 20,000 SF reduction in building envelope, distributed across 10 buildings, would substantially narrow building footprints along the south and east boundaries and move significantly toward compliance with the 30-foot PRC 4290 setback. Even a modest reduction to -2,100 SF livable per unit (still larger than Westport) would free approximately 13,700 SF of building mass, enough to meaningfully increase setback distances from the current -10 feet toward the mandated 30 feet on the sides adjacent to single-family homes. Appendix C: The Evulich Court Right -of -Way Is Not a Valid Justification In the AMMR application submitted to the Santa Clara County Fire Department, SummerHill's representative Steven Bull states "The site is constrained by an existing City right-of-way within the approximate center of the site (Evulich Court). The width of Evulich Court reduces the size of the development area for the project. The size and quantity of the proposed townhomes necessitate a reduction of the 30-foot setback requirement in order to fit the minimum required number of units within the site." This argument does not withstand scrutiny for a straightforward reason: SummerHill must build internal access roads regardless. The proposed site plan includes five private streets (A Street through E Street), cul-de-sacs, and connecting roadways to provide vehicle access to all ten buildings and to meet CFC D105 fire apparatus access requirements. This internal road network is a design necessity for a 51-unit development on this site, irrespective of the Evulich Court right-of-way. The existing Evulich Court right-of-way, ceded by the original property owners decades ago, runs through the approximate center of the parcel. SummerHill's own site plan replaces the existing cul-de-sac with a new internal street network. The new road that SummerHill constructs in its place can be dedicated back to the City in lieu of the existing right-of-way. This is a standard mechanism in subdivision development; the Vesting Tentative Map (TM-2024-009) already contemplates the reconfiguration of internal circulation. The critical point: the existence of a historical City right-of-way cannot be the reason to reduce wildfire setbacks to 10 feet and place neighboring single-family homes at risk. The developer must build access roads for the 51-unit development in any configuration. The road infrastructure is a given; only the setback to neighboring homes is a variable. A site plan with right -sized units, as demonstrated by Vida and Westport, could accommodate both the required road network and full 30-foot PRC 4290 setbacks. Appendix D: SummerHill Unit Mix Detail (Sheet A08) Unit 1 (BMR) 10 1,777 Unit 2 21 2,217 Unit 3 12 2,317 Unit 3ALT 8 2,315 -200 -1,977 579 -200 -2,417 469 -200 -2,517 447 -200 -2,515 464 Average / Total 51 2,170 avg -200 avg 2,369 avg 485 avg *Livable SF = Net Interior SF (perA08, measured to outside face of stud) + prorated porches/decks (-200 SF/unit average from project totals of 4,300 SF porches + 5,878 SF decks across 51 units). Excludes garage only. Source: Exhibit C, Sheet A08 Project Data (September 15, 2025). Staff Report FAR figure of 148,473 SF (136% FAR) includes these areas plus additional common area. Market -rate units (Units 2, 3, 3ALT, 41 units) average 2,265 net interior SF, or approximately 2,465 livable SF including porches/decks. Even the BMR units (Unit 1, 10 units) at 1,977 livable SF are larger than the Vida average of 1,748 and comparable to the Westport average of 1,978. This confirms that right -sized units are not only viable but already part of SummerHill's own product offering. Data Sources SummerHill Linda Vista: City of Cupertino Staff Report, March 17, 2026 (File #26-14876); Exhibit C, Sheet A08 Project Data (Sept. 15, 2025); Exhibit A, Setback Site Plan (Rev. 12/19/2025); Attachment F, AMMR Approval (Steven Bull / SummerHill Homes, Oct. 28, 2025, Rev. Dec. 19, 2025). Vida Sunnyvale Phase I: City of Sunnyvale File #21-0715 (Planning Application #2020-7525): Attachment 2 (Project Data Table), Attachment 3 (Recommended Findings), Attachment 7 (Project Plans, Sheet A01). Approved July 12, 2021. Westport Cupertino: City of Cupertino (File #DP-2018-05, ASA-2018-05, TM-2018-03); Approved by City Council Aug. 18, 2020; EIR certified (CEQA #2019070377). Building data from approved planning documents. 88 townhomes/rowhouses by KT Urban / C21K Architecture. Staff Report Memorandum To: Cupertino City Council From: Mark W. Fantozzi, PE Re: Legal Deficiencies in Staff Report and Approval Findings for SummerHill Homes Project (TM-2024-009, ASA-2024-015, TR-2024-044) Date: March 2026 VIA EMAIL I. INTRODUCTION This memorandum identifies material legal errors, omissions, and unsupported findings in the Planning Department's staff report recommending approval of the SummerHill Homes project at 10857-10887 Linda Vista Drive. These errors render the proposed CEQA exemption, General Plan consistency findings, and Subdivision Map Act findings legally indefensible. The central issue is straightforward: SB 330 vesting does not exempt the project from updated fire -safety regulations, VHFHSZ requirements, evacuation capacity analysis, or General Plan Safety Element policies. • The staff report incorrectly asserts otherwise, resulting in a recommendation that violates: • The General Plan Safety Element • The Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code §66474) • AB 747 (2019) and AB 1409 (2021) • Public Resources Code § §4290 and 4291 • California Fire Code (CFC) Appendix B, C, and D • Government Code §65913.4(a)(6) • CEQA exemption requirements These deficiencies require the City Council to deny the project or continue the hearing until the required analyses are completed. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. Project Location and Application The project proposes 51 townhome units on a constrained hillside parcel accessed by a single dead-end road (Evulich Court) adjacent to the Stevens Creek canyon. B. SB 330 Preliminary Application The applicant submitted an SB 330 preliminary application on October 9, 2024. C. VHFHSZ Designation In February 2025, CAL FIRE adopted updated Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps. The project site is now designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). D. Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment (October 2025) The City commissioned Fehr & Peers to prepare a citywide evacuation capacity assessment, which identifies: o Severe bottlenecks o Limited egress in hillside neighborhoods o High wildfire vulnerability E. Staff Report (February 2026) The staff report asserts: The City does not have any adopted objective standards pertaining to evacuation. As a result, an evacuation study has not been required. This statement is factually incorrect and contradicted by: o The General Plan Safety Element (2026 Draft) o AB 747 and AB 1409 o The City's own Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment III. ISSUES PRESENTED 1. Does SB 330 vesting exempt the project from updated fire -safety regulations, VHFHSZ requirements, or evacuation analysis? No. 2. Did the Planning Department fail to apply mandatory General Plan Safety Element policies? Yes. 3. Did the City fail to make required Subdivision Map Act safety findings supported by substantial evidence? Yes. 4. Is the CEQA exemption invalid due to failure to demonstrate compliance with Government Code §65913.4(a)(6)? Yes. IV. APPLICABLE LAW A. SB 330 (Gov. Code §65589.5 and §65941.1) SB 330 vests zoning and design standards, not public -safety regulations. B. Public Resources Code §§4290 and 4291 Mandate: o Adequate road width o Adequate turnarounds o Adequate fire -flow o Adequate water supply o Secondary access where feasible C. California Fire Code (CFC) Appendix B, C, D Require: o Fire -flow modeling o Hydrant spacing o Dead-end road limits o Minimum clear width o Emergency access compliance D. Government Code §65913.4(a)(6) A CEQA-exempt project in a VHFHSZ must demonstrate compliance with: o PRC 4290 o PRC 4291 o CBC Chapter 7A o Local fire -safe regulations E. Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code §66474) A tentative map must be denied if- o The site is physically unsuitable o The subdivision creates danger to life or property o The subdivision is inconsistent with the General Plan F. AB 747 (2019) and AB 1409 (2021) Require: o Identification of evacuation routes o Assessment of capacity, safety, and viability o Identification of bottlenecks o Evacuation locations G. General Plan Safety Element (2026 Draft) Contains mandatory policies: o HS-2.11: Evacuation Routes o HS-2.13: Ingress and Egress o HS-2.14: Secondary Access o HS-2.1: Building and Fire Code Compliance These are objective standards. V. ANALYSIS A. SB 330 Does Not Exempt the Project from Fire -Safety or VHFHSZ Requirements The staff report incorrectly implies that SB 330 "locks in" pre-2025 fire -safety conditions o This is legally incorrect. Courts consistently hold: o Vested rights do not apply to public -safety regulations. Fire -safety standards are police -power regulations and cannot be frozen. B. The Staff Report Fails to Apply Mandatory General Plan Safety Policies The General Plan requires: o Evacuation route analysis o Ingress/egress adequacy o Secondary access feasibility o Fire -flow and water -supply adequacy The staff report: o Conducted no evacuation analysis o Conducted no fire -flow modeling o Conducted no dead-end road compliance review o Conducted no secondary access feasibility study This violates the General Plan. C. The City Ignored Its Own Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment The Fehr & Peers study identifies: o Severe bottlenecks o Limited egress in hillside neighborhoods o High wildfire vulnerability The staff report ignores this study entirely. This omission violates: o AB 747 o AB 1409 o General Plan Safety Element o Subdivision Map Act safety findings D. The CEQA Exemption Is Invalid Government Code §65913.4(a)(6) requires demonstrated compliance with: o PRC 4290 o PRC 4291 o CBC Chapter 7A The staff report provides no evidence of: o Fire -flow modeling o Hydrant spacing analysis o Roadway adequacy o Water -supply verification o Secondary access feasibility A conclusory Fire Department letter is not substantial evidence. E. Subdivision Map Act Findings Are Unsupported Gov. Code §66474 requires denial if: o The site is physically unsuitable o The subdivision creates danger to life or property o The subdivision is inconsistent with the General Plan Because the City failed to analyze: o Evacuation o Fire -flow o Water supply o Roadway adequacy o VHFHSZ wildfire behavior The findings are unsupported and invalid. VI. CONCLUSION The staff report contains material legal errors and omissions that invalidate: • The CEQA exemption • The General Plan consistency findings • The Subdivision Map Act findings • The safety determinations required by State law The City Council must: 1. Deny the project, or 2. Continue the hearing and require: • A full evacuation analysis • Fire -flow and hydraulic modeling • Secondary access feasibility study • VHFHSZ wildfire behavior analysis • Updated General Plan consistency review VII. RECOMMENDED ACTION Do not adopt the staff recommendation. Direct staff to prepare a revised analysis that complies with: 1. The General Plan 2. AB 747 / AB 1409 3. PRC 4290 / 4291 4. CFC Appendix B, C, D 5. Government Code §65913.4(a)(6) 6. Subdivision Map Act §66474 Memorandum To: Floy Andrews, City Attorney, City of Cupertino Copy To: City Clerk & City Council, City of Cupertino From: Mark W. Fantozzi, PE Date: March 10, 2026 VIA EMAIL Re: TM-2024-009 (Linda Vista Drive) -- Requirement for Applicant Financial Disclosure When Seeking Fire -Safety Exceptions in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone Dear Floy Andrews: I am writing to request formal clarification and action regarding the City's legal obligations when an applicant seeks exceptions to fire -safety standards, CEQA requirements, or General Plan policies for a project located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). The TM-2024-009 application for 10857, 10867, 10877, and 10886 Linda Vista Drive includes a request for a PRC 4290 exception, which is a discretionary deviation from mandatory fire -safety standards. Under California law, when an applicant seeks a discretionary exception that reduces public -safety protections, the City is entitled — and in some cases required — to obtain financial information demonstrating whether full compliance is feasible. This principle is supported by multiple appellate decisions, including: • Topanga Assn for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Ca1.3d 506 • Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.AppAth 704 • San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City & County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.AppAth 656 • California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.AppAth 957 • Friends of the Eel River v. Sonoma County Water Agency (2003) 108 Ca1.App.4th 859 • Bowman v. City of Berkeley (2004) 122 Cal.AppAth 572 Taken together, these cases establish that: 1. Discretionary exceptions require substantial evidence (Topanga). 2. Economic feasibility is a required component of evaluating alternatives and mitigation (Sequoyah Hills, San Franciscans Upholding, CNPS, Eel River). 3. Agencies may require financial information to support findings (Bowman). Because the applicant seeks to avoid compliance with PRC 4290 setback requirements — and because compliance may require costly design changes, grading, access improvements, or water -supply upgrades — the exception confers a financial benefit. The City therefore has a legal basis to require: • Project pro forma • Cost estimates for full fire -safety compliance • Cost comparison of compliant vs. non -compliant designs • Evidence supporting any claim of infeasibility Without this information, the City cannot make the findings required to grant a PRC 4290 exception, nor can it make the mandatory General Plan consistency findings under Government Code §§65300.5 and 65860. I respectfully request that your office: l . Confirm that the City may require financial disclosure when an applicant seeks a PRC 4290 exception or other fire -safety deviation. 2. Advise the Planning Department and City Council that financial feasibility is a legally relevant factor in evaluating such exceptions. 3. Direct staff to require the applicant for TM-2024-009 to submit financial documentation sufficient to support any claim that full compliance with fire -safety standards is infeasible. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your guidance. Sincere*Fantoi Mark Cupertino, CA mwfantozzi@tfanco.com Legal Argument Requiring Financial Disclosure When a Developer Seeks Fire -Safety Exceptions in a VHFHSZ TM-2024-009— 10857,10867,10877,10886 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino I. INTRODUCTION This memorandum identifies California case law that, taken together, establishes a legal basis for requiring the applicant for TM-2024-009 to disclose project financial information when seeking exceptions to fire -safety standards, CEQA requirements, or General Plan policies in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). While no single case directly addresses "fire -code exceptions as financial benefit," the combined holdings of the cases below support the argument that: 1. Discretionary exceptions confer a financial benefit, 2. Financial feasibility becomes relevant when exceptions are requested, and 3. The City may require financial disclosure to evaluate whether the exception is justified, necessary, and consistent with public -safety obligations. II. APPLICABLE CASE LAW SUPPORTING FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE Below are the cases that, when synthesized, create a compelling legal foundation. 1. Topanga Assn for a Scenic Community v County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506 Key Holding: Discretionary approvals require findings supported by substantial evidence demonstrating that the exception is justified. Relevance: A PRC 4290 exception is discretionary. To justify it, the City must evaluate: • Whether the exception is necessary • Whether alternatives exist • Whether equivalent safety is achieved Financial feasibility is part of evaluating alternatives. If the applicant claims compliance is "infeasible," the City may require financial data to verify that claim. 2. Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.AppAth 704 Key Holding: When a developer claims that full compliance with regulations is infeasible, the agency may consider economic feasibility and require supporting evidence. Relevance: If the applicant argues that meeting fire -code standards, access requirements, or General Plan policies is "infeasible," the City may require: • Cost estimates • Pro forma analysis • Financial feasibility documentation This case directly supports requiring financial disclosure when exceptions are sought. 3. San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v City & County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.AppAth 656 Key Holding: Agencies may require economic evidence to evaluate whether mitigation measures or alternatives are feasible. Relevance: Fire -safety compliance (e.g., widening access roads, improving water supply, adding hydrants, meeting PRC 4290 setbacks) may be costly. If the applicant seeks an exception instead of compliance, the City may require financial information to determine: • Whether compliance is truly infeasible • Whether the exception is justified • Whether the applicant is avoiding costs at the expense of public safety 4. California Native Plant Society v City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.AppAth 957 Key Holding: Economic feasibility is a legitimate factor in determining whether alternatives or mitigation measures are required. Relevance: If the applicant seeks to avoid fire -safety requirements, the City may require financial disclosure to evaluate: • Whether safer alternatives are feasible • Whether the applicant is choosing a cheaper but less safe option 5. Friends of the Eel River v. Sonoma County Water Agency (2003) 108 Ca1.App.4th 859 Key Holding: Agencies must consider whether mitigation measures are practicable, including economic practicability. Relevance: If the applicant claims that meeting fire -flow, access, or evacuation standards is impracticable, the City may require: • Cost analysis • Engineering cost estimates • Financial feasibility documentation 6. Bowman v City of Berkeley (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 572 Key Holding: Courts defer to agencies when they require economic evidence to support findings. Relevance: • If Cupertino requires financial disclosure to justify a PRC 4290 exception, courts will defer to the City's judgment. III. SYNTHESIZED LEGAL PRINCIPLE Taken together, these cases establish the following: 1. Discretionary exceptions require substantial evidence. 2. Economic feasibility is part of evaluating alternatives and mitigation. (Sequoyah Hills, San Franciscans Upholding, CNPS, Eel River) 3. Agencies may require financial information to support findings. (Bowman) 4. A PRC 4290 exception is a discretionary deviation from mandatory fire -safety standards. Therefore: The City may require the applicant to disclose project financials to justify the exception. IV. APPLICATION TO TM-2024-009 The applicant seeks: • A PRC 4290 exception for non -conforming setbacks • Relief from full fire -flow and access compliance • Approval in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone • Approval without evacuation analysis • Approval without a Final Fire Protection Plan These exceptions reduce the applicant's costs by avoiding: • Road widening • Water -supply upgrades • Additional hydrants • Fire-resistant construction • Grading or access improvements This is a financial benefit. Under the case law above, the City may require: • Pro forma financials • Cost estimates for full compliance • Cost comparison of compliant vs. non -compliant designs • Evidence that compliance is truly infeasible Without this information, the City cannot make: • PRC 4.290 findings • General Plan consistency findings • CEQA findings (if CEQA applies) • Public -safety findings V. CONCLUSION While no single case directly states that "fire -code exceptions require financial disclosure," the combined holdings of California appellate decisions create a strong legal basis for requiring the applicant to provide project financials when seeking discretionary exceptions in a VHFHSZ. The City of Cupertino is legally justified —and arguably obligated —to require: • Full financial disclosure • Cost analysis of compliance • Evidence supporting any claim of infeasibility before granting any exception that reduces fire -safety protections. Staff Report Memorandum To: Cupertino City Council From: Mark W. Fantozzi Re: Legal Deficiencies in Staff Report and Approval Findings for SummerHill Homes Project (TM-2024-009, ASA-2024-015, TR-2024-044) Date: March 2026 VIA EMAIL I. INTRODUCTION This memorandum identifies material legal errors, omissions, and unsupported findings in the Planning Department's staff report recommending approval of the SummerHill Homes project at 10857-10887 Linda Vista Drive. These errors render the proposed CEQA exemption, General Plan consistency findings, and Subdivision Map Act findings legally indefensible. The central issue is straightforward: SB 330 vesting does not exempt the project from updated fire -safety regulations, VHFHSZ requirements, evacuation capacity analysis, or General Plan Safety Element policies. • The staff report incorrectly asserts otherwise, resulting in a recommendation that violates: • The General Plan Safety Element • The Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code §66474) • AB 747 (2019) and AB 1409 (2021) • Public Resources Code §§4290 and 4291 • California Fire Code (CFC) Appendix B, C, and D • Government Code §65913.4(a)(6) • CEQA exemption requirements These deficiencies require the City Council to deny the project or continue the hearing until the required analyses are completed. H. FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. Project Location and Application The project proposes 51 townhome units on a constrained hillside parcel accessed by a single dead-end road (Evulich Court) adjacent to the Stevens Creek canyon. B. SB 330 Preliminary Application The applicant submitted an SB 330 preliminary application on October 9, 2024. C. VHFHSZ Designation In February 2025, CAL FIRE adopted updated Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps. The project site is now designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). D. Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment (October 2025) The City commissioned Fehr & Peers to prepare a citywide evacuation capacity assessment, which identifies: o Severe bottlenecks o Limited egress in hillside neighborhoods o High wildfire vulnerability E. Staff Report (February 2026) The staff report asserts: The City does not have any adopted objective standards pertaining to evacuation. As a result, an evacuation study has not been required. This statement is factually incorrect and contradicted by: o The General Plan Safety Element (2026 Draft) o AB 747 and AB 1409 o The City's own Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment III. ISSUES PRESENTED 1. Does SB 330 vesting exempt the project from updated fire -safety regulations, VHFHSZ requirements, or evacuation analysis? No. 2. Did the Planning Department fail to apply mandatory General Plan Safety Element policies? Yes. 3. Did the City fail to make required Subdivision Map Act safety findings supported by substantial evidence? Yes. 4. Is the CEQA exemption invalid due to failure to demonstrate compliance with Government Code §65913.4(a)(6)? Yes. IV. APPLICABLE LAW A. SB 330 (Gov. Code §65589.5 and §65941.1) SB 330 vests zoning and design standards, not public -safety regulations. B. Public Resources Code §§4290 and 4291 Mandate: o Adequate road width o Adequate turnarounds o Adequate fire -flow o Adequate water supply o Secondary access where feasible C. California Fire Code (CFC) Appendix B, C, D Require: o Fire -flow modeling o Hydrant spacing o Dead-end road limits o Minimum clear width o Emergency access compliance D. Government Code §65913.4(a)(6) A CEQA-exempt project in a VHFHSZ must demonstrate compliance with: o PRC 4290 o PRC 4291 o CBC Chapter 7A o Local fire -safe regulations E. Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code §66474) A tentative map must be denied if. o The site is physically unsuitable o The subdivision creates danger to life or property o The subdivision is inconsistent with the General Plan F. AB 747 (2019) and AB 1409 (2021) Require: o Identification of evacuation routes o Assessment of capacity, safety, and viability o Identification of bottlenecks o Evacuation locations G. General Plan Safety Element (2026 Draft) Contains mandatory policies: o HS-2.11: Evacuation Routes o HS-2.13: Ingress and Egress o HS-2.14: Secondary Access o HS-2.1: Building and Fire Code Compliance These are objective standards. V. ANALYSIS A. SB 330 Does Not Exempt the Project from Fire -Safety or VHFHSZ Requirements The staff report incorrectly implies that SB 330 "locks in" pre-2025 fire -safety conditions o This is legally incorrect. Courts consistently hold: o Vested rights do not apply to public -safety regulations. Fire -safety standards are police -power regulations and cannot be frozen. B. The Staff Report Fails to Apply Mandatory General Plan Safety Policies The General Plan requires: o Evacuation route analysis o Ingress/egress adequacy o Secondary access feasibility o Fire -flow and water -supply adequacy The staff report: o Conducted no evacuation analysis o Conducted no fire -flow modeling o Conducted no dead-end road compliance review o Conducted no secondary access feasibility study This violates the General Plan. C. The City Ignored Its Own Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment The Fehr & Peers study identifies: o Severe bottlenecks o Limited egress in hillside neighborhoods o High wildfire vulnerability The staff report ignores this study entirely. This omission violates: o AB 747 o AB 1409 o General Plan. Safety Element o Subdivision Map Act safety findings D. The CEQA Exemption Is Invalid Government Code §65913.4(a)(6) requires demonstrated compliance with: o PRC 4290 o PRC 4291 o CBC Chapter 7A The staff report provides no evidence of: o Fire -flow modeling o Hydrant spacing analysis o Roadway adequacy o Water -supply verification o Secondary access feasibility A conclusory Fire Department letter is not substantial evidence. E. Subdivision Map Act Findings Are Unsupported Gov. Code §66474 requires denial i£ o The site is physically unsuitable o The subdivision creates danger to life or property o The subdivision is inconsistent with the General Plan Because the City failed to analyze: o Evacuation o Fire -flow o Water supply o Roadway adequacy o VHFHSZ wildfire behavior The findings are unsupported and invalid. VI. CONCLUSION The staff report contains material legal errors and omissions that invalidate: • The CEQA exemption • The General Plan consistency findings • The Subdivision Map Act findings • The safety determinations required by State law The City Council must: 1. Deny the project, or 2. Continue the hearing and require: • A full evacuation analysis • Fire -flow and hydraulic modeling • Secondary access feasibility study • VHFHSZ wildfire behavior analysis • Updated General Plan consistency review VII. RECOMMENDED ACTION Do not adopt the staff recommendation. Direct staff to prepare a revised analysis that complies with: 1. The General Plan 2. AB 747 / AB 1409 3. PRC 4290 / 4291 4. CFC Appendix B, C, D 5. Government Code §65913.4(a)(6) 6. Subdivision Map Act §66474 FORMAL NEGLIGENCE ARGUMENT Submitted to: Cupertino City Attorney and Cupertino City Council Re: Administrative Negligence in the Review and Recommendation of Approval for TM-2024-009 (Linda Vista Townhomes) Project: TM-2024-009 (Linda Vista Townhomes) Location: 10857-10887 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, CA Prepared by: Mark W. Fantozzi, PE VIA EMAIL I. INTRODUCTION This letter sets forth a formal argument that the Cupertino Planning Department's review and recommendation of approval for TM-2024-009 constitutes administrative negligence —meaning a failure to proceed in the manner required by law, an abuse of discretion, and a recommendation unsupported by substantial evidence —under the Subdivision Map Act, California Fire Code, Public Resources Code §§4290-4291, and the Cupertino General Plan Safety Element. This argument does not allege tort liability or personal wrongdoing. Instead, it demonstrates that the Planning Department failed to perform mandatory statutory duties designed to protect public safety, particularly in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). These failures materially compromised the integrity of the administrative record and resulted in a recommendation of approval that is legally indefensible. II. LEGAL STANDARD FOR ADMINISTRATIVE NEGLIGENCE In California land -use law, negligence manifests as: failure to proceed in the manner required by law; abuse of discretion; findings unsupported by substantial evidence; and arbitrary and capricious action. These standards are codified in Gov. Code §66474 (Subdivision Map Act), Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.5 (Administrative Mandamus), General Plan consistency doctrine, and Fire Code and PRC compliance requirements. A city acts negligently in the administrative sense when it fails to perform mandatory safety evaluations, ignores statutory requirements, or recommends approval without substantial evidence. M. DUTY OF CARE The Planning Department had a mandatory duty to ensure that TM-2024-009 complied with: (1) Subdivision Map Act - Gov. Code §66474; (2) California Fire Code - CFC §503, CFC §403-404, Appendix D, Appendix B; (3) Public Resources Code §§4290- 4291; and (4) Cupertino General Plan Safety Element - Policies HS-2.13, S-1.3, S-2.3, S-2.4. These duties are not discretionary. IV. BREACH OF DUTY The Planning Department breached its duty by failing to perform required safety evaluations and by recommending approval despite the absence of substantial evidence. Breaches include: (A) No wildfire evacuation analysis; (B) No fire -flow analysis; (C) Ignoring dead-end road requirements; (D) Using outdated, pre -rezoning data; and (E) Making findings without substantial evidence. V. CAUSATION The Planning Department's omissions directly caused an incomplete and legally defective administrative record, erroneous findings of General Plan consistency, a recommendation of approval that violates state law, and a foreseeable risk that residents may be unable to evacuate during a wildfire. VI. FORESEEABLE HARM Evacuation analysis shows McClellan Road V/C = 4.2, Foothill Boulevard V/C = 4.0, V/C > 1.0 = system failure, CUP-029 generates 38% of all evacuation trips, the project sits in a VHFHSZ, and the only evacuation route is a dead-end funnel. These conditions create a foreseeable, life -threatening evacuation failure. Under California law, foreseeable risk satisfies the harm element of administrative negligence. VII. CONCLUSION The Planning Department's review and recommendation of approval for TM-2024-009 constitutes administrative negligence because it failed to proceed in the manner required by law, failed to comply with mandatory Fire Code and PRC requirements, failed to ensure General Plan Safety Element consistency, failed to provide substantial evidence supporting required findings, and recommended approval despite foreseeable, life -safety risks. Under Gov. Code §66474, the City Council must deny the tentative map. The City Attorney and City Council are respectfully requested to reject the Planning Department's recommendation, remand the project for full Fire Code and evacuation compliance analysis, require a comprehensive wildfire evacuation study, and ensure compliance with all mandatory General Plan Safety policies. Attached is a Staff Report Memorandum identifying material legal errors, omissions, and unsupported findings in the Planning Department's staff report. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Mark W. Fantozzi Cupertino, CA mwfantozzi@tfanco.com FORMAL NEGLIGENCE ARGUMENT Submitted to: Cupertino City Attorney and Cupertino City Council Re: Administrative Negligence in the Review and Recommendation of Approval for TM-2024-009 (Linda Vista Townhomes) Project: TM-2024-009 (Linda Vista Townhomes) Location: 10857-10887 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, CA Prepared by: Mark W. Fantozzi, PE VIA EMAIL I. INTRODUCTION This letter sets forth a formal argument that the Cupertino Planning Department's review and recommendation of approval for TM-2024-009 constitutes administrative negligence —meaning a failure to proceed in the manner required by law, an abuse of discretion, and a recommendation unsupported by substantial evidence —under the Subdivision Map Act, California Fire Code, Public Resources Code §§4290-4291, and the Cupertino General Plan Safety Element. This argument does not allege tort liability or personal wrongdoing. Instead, it demonstrates that the Planning Department failed to perform mandatory statutory duties designed to protect public safety, particularly in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). These failures materially compromised the integrity of the administrative record and resulted in a recommendation of approval that is legally indefensible. II. LEGAL STANDARD FOR ADMINISTRATIVE NEGLIGENCE In California land -use law, negligence manifests as: failure to proceed in the manner required by law; abuse of discretion; findings unsupported by substantial evidence; and arbitrary and capricious action. These standards are codified in Gov. Code §66474 (Subdivision Map Act), Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.5 (Administrative Mandamus), General Plan consistency doctrine, and Fire Code and PRC compliance requirements. A city acts negligently in the administrative sense when it fails to perform mandatory safety evaluations, ignores statutory requirements, or recommends approval without substantial evidence. M. DUTY OF CARE The Planning Department had a mandatory duty to ensure that TM-2024-009 complied with: (1) Subdivision Map Act - Gov. Code §66474; (2) California Fire Code - CFC §503, CFC §403-404, Appendix D, Appendix B; (3) Public Resources Code §§4290- 4291; and (4) Cupertino General Plan Safety Element - Policies HS-2.13, S-1.3, S-2.3, S-2.4. These duties are not discretionary. IV. BREACH OF DUTY The Planning Department breached its duty by failing to perform required safety evaluations and by recommending approval despite the absence of substantial evidence. Breaches include: (A) No wildfire evacuation analysis; (B) No fire -flow analysis; (C) Ignoring dead-end road requirements; (D) Using outdated, pre -rezoning data; and (E) Making findings without substantial evidence. V. CAUSATION The Planning Department's omissions directly caused an incomplete and legally defective administrative record, erroneous findings of General Plan consistency, a recommendation of approval that violates state law, and a foreseeable risk that residents may be unable to evacuate during a wildfire. VI. FORESEEABLE HARM Evacuation analysis shows McClellan Road V/C = 4.2, Foothill Boulevard V/C = 4.0, V/C > 1.0 = system failure, CUP-029 generates 38% of all evacuation trips, the project sits in a VHFHSZ, and the only evacuation route is a dead-end funnel. These conditions create a foreseeable, life -threatening evacuation failure. Under California law, foreseeable risk satisfies the harm element of administrative negligence. VII. CONCLUSION The Planning Department's review and recommendation of approval for TM-2024-009 constitutes administrative negligence because it failed to proceed in the manner required by law, failed to comply with mandatory Fire Code and PRC requirements, failed to ensure General Plan Safety Element consistency, failed to provide substantial evidence supporting required findings, and recommended approval despite foreseeable, life -safety risks. Under Gov. Code §66474, the City Council must deny the tentative map. The City Attorney and City Council are respectfully requested to reject the Planning Department's recommendation, remand the project for full Fire Code and evacuation compliance analysis, require a comprehensive wildfire evacuation study, and ensure compliance with all mandatory General Plan Safety policies. Attached is a Staff Report Memorandum identifying material legal errors, omissions, and unsupported findings in the Planning Department's staff report. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Mark W. Fantozzi Cupertino, CA mwfantozzi@tfanco.com Staff Report Memorandum To: Cupertino City Council From: Mark W. Fantozzi Re: Legal Deficiencies in Staff Report and Approval Findings for SummerHill Homes Project (TM-2024-009, ASA-2024-015, TR-2024-044) Date: March 2026 VIA EMAIL I. INTRODUCTION This memorandum identifies material legal errors, omissions, and unsupported findings in the Planning Department's staff report recommending approval of the SummerHill Homes project at 10857-10887 Linda Vista Drive. These errors render the proposed CEQA exemption, General Plan consistency findings, and Subdivision Map Act findings legally indefensible. The central issue is straightforward: SB 330 vesting does not exempt the project from updated fire -safety regulations, VHFHSZ requirements, evacuation capacity analysis, or General Plan Safety Element policies. • The staff report incorrectly asserts otherwise, resulting in a recommendation that violates: • The General Plan Safety Element • The Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code §66474) • AB 747 (2019) and AB 1409 (2021) • Public Resources Code §§4290 and 4291 • California Fire Code (CFC) Appendix B, C, and D • Government Code §65913.4(a)(6) • CEQA exemption requirements These deficiencies require the City Council to deny the project or continue the hearing until the required analyses are completed. H. FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. Project Location and Application The project proposes 51 townhome units on a constrained hillside parcel accessed by a single dead-end road (Evulich Court) adjacent to the Stevens Creek canyon. B. SB 330 Preliminary Application The applicant submitted an SB 330 preliminary application on October 9, 2024. C. VHFHSZ Designation In February 2025, CAL FIRE adopted updated Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps. The project site is now designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). D. Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment (October 2025) The City commissioned Fehr & Peers to prepare a citywide evacuation capacity assessment, which identifies: o Severe bottlenecks o Limited egress in hillside neighborhoods o High wildfire vulnerability E. Staff Report (February 2026) The staff report asserts: The City does not have any adopted objective standards pertaining to evacuation. As a result, an evacuation study has not been required. This statement is factually incorrect and contradicted by: o The General Plan Safety Element (2026 Draft) o AB 747 and AB 1409 o The City's own Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment III. ISSUES PRESENTED 1. Does SB 330 vesting exempt the project from updated fire -safety regulations, VHFHSZ requirements, or evacuation analysis? No. 2. Did the Planning Department fail to apply mandatory General Plan Safety Element policies? Yes. 3. Did the City fail to make required Subdivision Map Act safety findings supported by substantial evidence? Yes. 4. Is the CEQA exemption invalid due to failure to demonstrate compliance with Government Code §65913.4(a)(6)? Yes. IV. APPLICABLE LAW A. SB 330 (Gov. Code §65589.5 and §65941.1) SB 330 vests zoning and design standards, not public -safety regulations. B. Public Resources Code §§4290 and 4291 Mandate: o Adequate road width o Adequate turnarounds o Adequate fire -flow o Adequate water supply o Secondary access where feasible C. California Fire Code (CFC) Appendix B, C, D Require: o Fire -flow modeling o Hydrant spacing o Dead-end road limits o Minimum clear width o Emergency access compliance D. Government Code §65913.4(a)(6) A CEQA-exempt project in a VHFHSZ must demonstrate compliance with: o PRC 4290 o PRC 4291 o CBC Chapter 7A o Local fire -safe regulations E. Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code §66474) A tentative map must be denied if. o The site is physically unsuitable o The subdivision creates danger to life or property o The subdivision is inconsistent with the General Plan F. AB 747 (2019) and AB 1409 (2021) Require: o Identification of evacuation routes o Assessment of capacity, safety, and viability o Identification of bottlenecks o Evacuation locations G. General Plan Safety Element (2026 Draft) Contains mandatory policies: o HS-2.11: Evacuation Routes o HS-2.13: Ingress and Egress o HS-2.14: Secondary Access o HS-2.1: Building and Fire Code Compliance These are objective standards. V. ANALYSIS A. SB 330 Does Not Exempt the Project from Fire -Safety or VHFHSZ Requirements The staff report incorrectly implies that SB 330 "locks in" pre-2025 fire -safety conditions o This is legally incorrect. Courts consistently hold: o Vested rights do not apply to public -safety regulations. Fire -safety standards are police -power regulations and cannot be frozen. B. The Staff Report Fails to Apply Mandatory General Plan Safety Policies The General Plan requires: o Evacuation route analysis o Ingress/egress adequacy o Secondary access feasibility o Fire -flow and water -supply adequacy The staff report: o Conducted no evacuation analysis o Conducted no fire -flow modeling o Conducted no dead-end road compliance review o Conducted no secondary access feasibility study This violates the General Plan. C. The City Ignored Its Own Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment The Fehr & Peers study identifies: o Severe bottlenecks o Limited egress in hillside neighborhoods o High wildfire vulnerability The staff report ignores this study entirely. This omission violates: o AB 747 o AB 1409 o General Plan. Safety Element o Subdivision Map Act safety findings D. The CEQA Exemption Is Invalid Government Code §65913.4(a)(6) requires demonstrated compliance with: o PRC 4290 o PRC 4291 o CBC Chapter 7A The staff report provides no evidence of: o Fire -flow modeling o Hydrant spacing analysis o Roadway adequacy o Water -supply verification o Secondary access feasibility A conclusory Fire Department letter is not substantial evidence. E. Subdivision Map Act Findings Are Unsupported Gov. Code §66474 requires denial i£ o The site is physically unsuitable o The subdivision creates danger to life or property o The subdivision is inconsistent with the General Plan Because the City failed to analyze: o Evacuation o Fire -flow o Water supply o Roadway adequacy o VHFHSZ wildfire behavior The findings are unsupported and invalid. VI. CONCLUSION The staff report contains material legal errors and omissions that invalidate: • The CEQA exemption • The General Plan consistency findings • The Subdivision Map Act findings • The safety determinations required by State law The City Council must: 1. Deny the project, or 2. Continue the hearing and require: • A full evacuation analysis • Fire -flow and hydraulic modeling • Secondary access feasibility study • VHFHSZ wildfire behavior analysis • Updated General Plan consistency review VII. RECOMMENDED ACTION Do not adopt the staff recommendation. Direct staff to prepare a revised analysis that complies with: 1. The General Plan 2. AB 747 / AB 1409 3. PRC 4290 / 4291 4. CFC Appendix B, C, D 5. Government Code §65913.4(a)(6) 6. Subdivision Map Act §66474 Fire Code Compliance Deficiency Report Project: TM-2024-009 (Linda Vista Townhomes) Location: 10857-10887 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, CA Prepared for: Cupertino City Council Prepared by: Mark W. Fantozzi, PE VIA EMAIL Purpose: Demonstrate that the project fails to comply with the California Fire Code, PRC 4290/4291, and SCCFD standards, and therefore cannot be approved. I. INTRODUCTION This report identifies major fire -safety and evacuation deficiencies in the review and approval of TM-2024-009. The project is located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) and relies on a single dead-end evacuation route (Evulich Court —> Linda Vista Drive). Despite this, the City approved the project without conducting any wildfire evacuation analysis, without verifying fire -flow adequacy, and without demonstrating compliance with the California Fire Code (CFC) or Public Resources Code (PRC) §§4290-4291. These omissions constitute substantial Fire Code compliance failures and create a foreseeable life -safety hazard. II. APPLICABLE FIRE SAFETY LAWS AND STANDARDS 1. 1. California Fire Code (CFC) — CFC §503, CFC §403-404, Appendix D, Appendix B. 2. 2. Public Resources Code (PRC) —PRC §4290, PRC §4291. 3. 3. Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD) Standards. 4. 4. Cupertino General Plan Safety Element— Policies S-1.3, S-2.3, S-2.4, HS-2.13. III. FIRE CODE COMPLIANCE DEFICIENCIES A. FAILURE TO PROVIDE REQUIRED EVACUATION ANALYSIS Violates: CFC §403-404; PRC §4290; General Plan S-1.3, S-2.3, S-2.4 No wildfire evacuation analysis was conducted for a 51-unit subdivision in a VHFHSZ. The City cannot demonstrate safe evacuation without modeling clearance time, queue formation, merging delay, or cumulative evacuation load. This violates mandatory emergency planning and evacuation requirements. B. DEAD-END ROAD NON-COMPLIANCE Violates: CFC Appendix D (§D103.4), PRC §4290 Evulich Court and Linda Vista Drive function as a single dead-end evacuation route serving 51 units. No secondary access exists. This violates maximum dead-end length and dual access requirements for subdivisions in VHFHSZ. C. FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE FIRE -FLOW ADEQUACY Violates: CFC Appendix B; SCCFD Water Supply Standards The record contains no fire -flow analysis demonstrating that the water system can meet required flow rates for a 51-unit, three-story townhome development in a VHFHSZ. No verification of system pressure, duration, or hydrant spacing was provided. D. FAILURE TO ANALYZE ROADWAY CAPACITY UNDER EMERGENCY CONDITIONS Violates: CFC §403-404; PRC §4290; General Plan 5-2.4 The City relied on a commuter traffic study (Tier 2 LTA) that does not evaluate wildfire evacuation. Traffic -Evacuation analysis shows McClellan Road V/C = 4.2 and Foothill Boulevard V/C = 4.0 under evacuation — indicating system failure. This violates evacuation planning requirements. E. FAILURE TO ADDRESS SCHOOL -ZONE EVACUATION CONFLICTS Violates: CFC §403; General Plan M-2.3.1 The project is adjacent to Monta Vista High School and Kennedy Middle School, yet no analysis was performed on evacuation during school hours, pedestrian conflicts, or parent pickup congestion. This creates a foreseeable evacuation hazard. F. FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH WUI CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS Violates: CBC Chapter 7A; CFC Chapter 49 The record does not demonstrate compliance with ember -resistant construction, non-combustible materials within 30 feet, defensible space requirements, or ignition -resistant standards required in the wildland-urban interface. IV. SUMMARY OF FIRE CODE VIOLATIONS TM-2024-009 violates: • CFC §403-404 (evacuation planning) • CFC §503 (access) • CFC Appendix D (dead-end road limits) • CFC Appendix B (fire -flow) • PRC §4290 (ingress/egress) • PRC §4291 (defensible space) • CBC Chapter 7A (WUI construction) • Multiple General Plan Safety policies These violations are not discretionary. They are mandatory life -safety requirements. V. CONCLUSION Because the project fails to comply with the California Fire Code, PRC §§4290-4291, SCCFD standards, and the Cupertino General Plan Safety Element, the City Council cannot lawfully approve TM-2024-009. Under the Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code §66474(g)), a tentative map must be denied if the design is likely to cause serious public health or safety problems. TM-2024-009 meets that definition. FINDINGS REQUIRED TO LEGALLY GRANT A PRC 4290 EXCEPTION IN A VHFHSZ Project: TM-2024-009 (Linda Vista Townhomes) Location: 10857-10887 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, CA Prepared for: Cupertino City Council Prepared by: Mark W. Fantozzi, PE To lawfully grant a PRC 4290 exception for TM-2024-009, the City must adopt findings supported by substantial evidence, consistent with Topanga and subsequent case law. The following findings are mandatory: 1. Finding of Discretionary Authority The City must acknowledge that granting a PRC 4290 exception is a discretionary act, not ministerial. This triggers: CEQA applicability (unless independently exempt) Substantial evidence requirements General Plan consistency requirements 2. Finding of Equivalent Fire Safety The City must find that the exception provides equivalent or superior fire safety compared to full compliance with PRC 4290. This requires evidence demonstrating: • Fire -flow adequacy • Access and turnaround compliance • Defensible -space performance • Wildfire behavior modeling • Emergency -response capability SCCFD's conditional approval cannot substitute for this finding. 3. Finding of Economic Feasibility (Supported by Financial Disclosure) Under Sequoyah Hills, San Franciscans Upholding, CNPS, and Eel River, the City must evaluate whether full compliance is economically feasible. This requires: • Project pro forma • Cost estimates for full PRC 4290 compliance • Cost comparison of compliant vs. non -compliant designs • Evidence supporting any claim of infeasibility Without financial disclosure, the City cannot make this finding. 4. Finding of No Reasonable Alternative The City must find that no feasible alternative design exists that would avoid the need for the exception. This requires analysis of: • Alternative site layouts • Alternative access configurations • Alternative grading or roadway improvements • Alternative water -supply enhancements 5. Finding of General Plan Consistency Government Code §§65300.5 and 65860 require that all land -use decisions be consistent with the General Plan. The City must find consistency with: • Safety Element Policy S-1.1 (wildfire risk reduction) • Safety Element Policy S-1.3 (evacuation and emergency access) • Safety Element Policy S-2.2 (fire -flow and water -supply adequacy) • Safety Element Policy S-3.1 (mitigation of known hazards) Unresolved fire -safety deficiencies prevent this finding. 6. Finding That Future Mitigation Is Not Required to Justify Present Approval CEQA and case law prohibit reliance on future mitigation to justify approval. The City must find that: • All fire -safety issues are resolved now, not deferred • The Final Fire Protection Plan is complete and approved • No essential analysis (evacuation, water -supply reliability) is outstanding SCCFD's requirement for a future Final Fire Protection Plan prevents this finding. 7. Finding That Public Safety Is Not Compromised The City must find that granting the exception does not: • Increase wildfire risk • Reduce evacuation capacity • Impair emergency response • Increase risk to residents or first responders Given the site's VHFHSZ location, this finding requires robust evidence. CONCLUSION Unless the applicant provides: • Full financial disclosure • Complete fire -safety documentation • A Final Fire Protection Plan • Evacuation and water -supply analyses The City cannot legally adopt the findings required to grant a PRC 4290 exception. If the City cannot make these findings, it must: • Deny the exception, or • Require full compliance with PRC 4290 and all applicable fire -safety standards. Legal Memorandum To: Cupertino City Council From: Mark W. Fantozzi, PE Re: Legal Analysis Incorporating Fire -Flow, Fire -Access, and Water -Supply Deficiencies — SummerHill Homes Project (TM-2024-009, ASA-2024-015, TR-2024-044), 10857-10887 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, CA Date: March 2026 VIA EMAIL I. INTRODUCTION This updated memorandum incorporates the findings of the Fire Safety Compliance Deficiency Analysis — TM-2024-009, including the Fire -Flow Deficiency Log, Fire -Access Deficiency Log, and Water -Supply Adequacy Matrix. These technical findings materially strengthen and expand the legal deficiencies previously identified in the Planning Department's staff report. The combined evidence demonstrates that: The SummerHill project cannot be approved under State law, the General Plan, or the Subdivision Map Act because it fails to meet minimum fire -flow, fire -access, and water -supply requirements. The staff report's recommendation is legally indefensible because it: • Misstates the effect of SB 330 vesting • Ignores mandatory General Plan Safety Element policies • Fails to apply AB 747 and AB 1409 evacuation requirements • Relies on conclusory, unsupported statements from SCCFD • Provides no substantial evidence of compliance with PRC 4290/4291 or CFC Appendix B/C/D • Fails to make required Subdivision Map Act findings The newly documented fire -safety deficiencies confirm that the project presents unmitigated danger to life and property, requiring denial or continuation. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. Project Context The project proposes 51 attached townhomes on a constrained hillside parcel accessed solely by Evulich Court, a dead-end road adjacent to the Stevens Creek canyon. B. VHFHSZ Designation In February 2025, CAL FIRE designated the site as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). C. Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment (2025) The City's own study identifies: • Severe bottlenecks • Limited egress in hillside neighborhoods • High wildfire vulnerability D. Staff Report Errors The staff report incorrectly claims: "The City does not have any adopted objective standards pertaining to evacuation... As a result, an evacuation study has not been required." This is contradicted by: • General Plan Safety Element (2026 Draft) • AB 747 and AB 1409 • The City's own evacuation study • State fire -safe regulations E. New Evidence: Fire Safety Compliance Deficiency Analysis The combined logs and matrix document: • 17 fire -flow deficiencies • 9 fire -access deficiencies • 17 water -supply deficiencies These deficiencies are structural, systemic, and uncorrected. EXHIBIT 1— FIRE FLOW DEFICIENCY LOG (17 ITEMS) # Deficiency Description 1 No Fire Flow Analysis No fire -flow calculations provided for the 51-unit development. 2 No Hydrant Flow Test No hydrant flow test submitted for any hydrant serving Evulich Court or Linda Vista Dr. 3 No Residual Pressure No demonstration that minimum residual Verification pressure is met under fire -flow demand. 4 No Static Pressure Data No baseline static pressure provided for any hydrant. 5 No Fire Flow Duration Analysis No demonstration of required duration (2-4 hours depending on demand). 6 No Cumulative Demand No modeling of simultaneous domestic + Modeling fire -flow demand. 7 No Peak -Hour Demand No analysis of peak -hour system stress. Modeling 8 No Emergency Demand No modeling of wildfire -event demand Modeling conditions. 9 No Water Main Capacity No hydraulic modeling of the Analysis Evulich/Linda Vista water main. 10 No Hydrant Spacing Plan No hydrant spacing diagram or compliance verification. 11 No Hydrant Placement Plan No hydrant placement plan for interior roads. 12 No Secondary Hydrant Source No demonstration of redundant water supply. 13 No WUI-Specific Fire Flow No analysis tailored to VHFHSZ Analysis conditions. 14 No Pressure Zone Verification No confirmation of pressure zone adequacy. 15 No Fire Flow Certification No certification from water purveyor. 16 No System Reliability Analysis No analysis of system reliability under wildfire conditions. 17 No Compliance Statement No evidence of compliance with CFC Appendix B or PRC 4290. EXHIBIT 2 — FIRE ACCESS DEFICIENCY LOG (9 ITEMS) # Deficiency Description 1 Excessive Dead -End Length Evulich Court exceeds maximum dead- end length allowed in VHFHSZ. 2 No Secondary Access No secondary access provided despite hillside/VHFHSZ designation. 3 No Turnaround Analysis No compliant turnaround (hammerhead or cul-de-sac) demonstrated. 4 No Turning Radius Analysis No AutoTURN or equivalent analysis for fire apparatus. 5 No Grade Analysis No verification that grades meet CFC/PRC limits. 6 No Width Verification No demonstration that road width meets minimum 20-26 ft requirements. 7 No Vertical Clearance No confirmation of required 13'6" Verification vertical clearance. 8 No Roadway Structural Analysis No demonstration that pavement supports 75,000-lb apparatus. 9 No Access Reliability Analysis No analysis of wildfire -related access obstruction risks. EXHIBIT 3 — WATER SUPPLY ADEQUACY MATRIX (17 ITEMS) # Required Element Provided? Deficiency 1 Static Pressure Data No Not provided 2 Residual Pressure Data No Not provided 3 Peak -Hour Demand Modeling No Not provided 4 Emergency Demand Modeling No Not provided 5 Fire Flow Demand Calculation No Not provided 6 Water Main Capacity Analysis No Not provided 7 Hydrant Flow Test No Not provided 8 Hydrant Spacing Analysis No Not provided 9 Hydrant Placement Plan No Not provided 10 Pressure Zone Verification No Not provided 11 System Reliability Analysis No Not provided 12 Redundant Water Supply No Not provided 13 WUI-Specific Water Supply Analysis No Not provided 14 Fire Flow Duration Analysis No Not provided 15 Domestic + Fire Flow Modeling No Not provided 16 Purveyor Certification No Not provided 17 Compliance Statement No Not provided III. ISSUES PRESENTED 1. Does SB 330 vesting exempt the project from updated fire -safety, water -supply, or evacuation requirements? No. 2. Do the newly documented fire -flow, fire -access, and water -supply deficiencies prevent approval under State law? Yes. 3. Did the City fail to apply mandatory General Plan Safety Element policies? Yes. 4. Is the CEQA exemption invalid under Government Code §65913.4(a)(6)? Yes. 5. Can the City make Subdivision Map Act findings under §66474? No. IV. APPLICABLE LAW A. SB 330 (Gov. Code §65589.5; §65941.1) Vesting applies only to zoning and design standards, not: • Fire -flow • Water supply • Fire -access • VHFHSZ regulations • Evacuation requirements • Subdivision Map Act safety findings B. Public Resources Code §§4290 and 4291 Require: • Adequate water supply • Adequate fire -flow • Secondary access where feasible • Road width, grade, and turning radii • Defensible space C. California Fire Code (CFC) Appendix B, C, D Require: • Verified fire -flow • Hydrant spacing • Dead-end road limits • Turnarounds • Road width and grade • Water -supply reliability D. Government Code §65913.4(a)(6) A CEQA-exempt project in a VHFHSZ must demonstrate compliance with: • PRC 4290 • PRC 4291 • CBC Chapter 7A • Local fire -safe regulations E. AB 747 (2019) and AB 1409 (2021) Require: • Evacuation route identification • Capacity analysis • Bottleneck identification • Evacuation locations F. Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code §66474) Requires denial i£ • The site is physically unsuitable • The subdivision creates danger to life or property • The subdivision is inconsistent with the General Plan V. ANALYSIS A. SB 330 Does Not Exempt the Project From Fire -Safety Requirements SB 330 does not freeze: • Fire -flow requirements • Water -supply requirements • Fire -access requirements • VHFHSZ regulations These are police -power safety regulations, which cannot be vested. B. Newly Documented Fire -Flow, Fire -Access, and Water -Supply Deficiencies Require Denial 1. Fire -Flow Deficiencies (17 total) The project lacks: • Any fire -flow analysis • Any hydrant flow test • Any residual pressure verification • Any fire -flow duration analysis • Any modeling of cumulative demand • Any hydrant spacing plan Conclusion: The project fails CFC Appendix B and PRC 4290. 2. Fire -Access Deficiencies (9 total) The project: • Exceeds maximum dead-end length • Has no secondary access • Has no turning -radius analysis • Has no compliant turnaround • Has no grade analysis • Has no width verification Conclusion: The project fails CFC Appendix D and PRC 4290. 3. Water -Supply Deficiencies (17 total) The project lacks: • Static pressure data • Residual pressure data • Peak -hour demand modeling • Emergency demand modeling • Water main capacity analysis • Hydrant spacing and placement analysis • WUI-specific water -supply analysis Conclusion: The project fails CFC §507 and PRC 4290. C. The Staff Report's Safety Findings Are Unsupported The staff report provides no substantial evidence o£ • Adequate fire -flow • Adequate water supply • Adequate fire -access • Evacuation capacity • Secondary access feasibility The Fire Department's "consistency" letter is conclusory and unsupported. D. The CEQA Exemption Is Invalid Government Code §65913.4(a)(6) requires demonstrated compliance with: • PRC 4290 • PRC 4291 • CBC Chapter 7A The City provided no evidence of compliance. E. Subdivision Map Act Findings Cannot Be Made Under §66474, the City must deny the map if: The site is physically unsuitable • The subdivision creates danger to life or property • The subdivision is inconsistent with the General Plan Given the documented deficiencies, these findings cannot be made. VI. CONCLUSION The newly documented fire -flow, fire -access, and water -supply deficiencies confirm that the SummerHill project: • Fails to meet minimum State fire -safety requirements • Fails to meet General Plan Safety Element policies • Fails to meet Subdivision Map Act safety findings • Fails to qualify for a CEQA exemption under §65913.4(a)(6) The project cannot be approved. The City Council must: 1. Deny the project, or 2. Continue the hearing and require: o Full fire -flow and hydraulic modeling o Fire -access and secondary access analysis o Water -supply adequacy analysis o Evacuation capacity analysis o Updated General Plan consistency review E&O FINDINGS - Biological Report Project: TM-2024-009 (Linda Vista Townhomes) Location: 10857-10887 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, CA Prepared for: Cupertino City Council Prepared by: Mark W. Fantozzi 1) Summary of Key Issues Identified (High -Level) Finding Severity Description Report does not analyze red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) despite BIO-01 High being an abundant local breeding raptor protected under MBTA & CDFW §3503.5 (raptor protection). Report assumes raptor habitat on site is "developed" and insignificant but BIO-02 High does not assess large trees for raptor nesting; only mentions white-tailed kite. [8 — Biolog... cal Report I PDF] Report omits analysis of bird hazards created by high -density BIO-03 High development: reflectivity, glass collisions, artificial lighting, and pet predation —issues recognized in urban CEQA biology reviews. Report claims wildlife movement impacts are minimal, but does not BIO-04 Medium analyze aerial predator movement (raptors, owls, crows) over the site despite adjacent open-space/golf course matrix. [8 — Biolog... cal Report PDF] Report cites Cupertino General Plan Policy ES-5, ES-5.1, ES-5.2, ES-5.3, BIO-05 Medium etc., but does not evaluate how 51 twnhomes increase urban pressure on wildlife, nor propose mitigation. [8 — Biolog... cal Report I PDF] BIO-06 Medium Report overlooks cumulative impacts on raptor foraging habitat: turf, ruderal grassland, gopher populations, and adjacent creek corridor. Bat analysis acknowledges possible roosting, but no acoustic surveys BIO-07 Medium conducted —common CEQA expectation for sites with old structures. [8 — Biolog... cal Report I PDF] No tree inventory (oak, cedar, maple, sycamore) was done; report defers this BIO-08 Low to future arborist work. Tree canopy = habitat. [8 — Biolog... cal Report PDF] 2) Detailed E&O Findings BIO-01 — Omission of Red -Tailed Hawk Assessment (High) Issue The Biological Report never evaluates red-tailed hawk, even though: It is one of the most common nesting raptors in Cupertino, including suburban neighborhoods and golf course edges. Adjacent habitats (grassland patches, golf course open space, tall trees) provide ideal foraging and nesting substrates. Report explicitly addresses only white-tailed kite as a possible on -site raptor. [8 — Biolog... cal Report I PDF] Why This Is an E&O Under California Fish & Game Code §3503.5, all raptors and their nests are protected. Excluding a common protected raptor species is a CEQA deficiency because CEQA requires evaluation of all protected wildlife species potentially affected. Required Corrective Action Add specific species -level analysis for red-tailed hawk, including: o Nesting habitat survey of all large trees (onsite & within 500 ft). o Foraging habitat impact analysis, especially loss of ruderal grassland and prey base (gophers). o Construction buffer recommendations (typically 500 ft for active hawk nests). BIO-02 — Raptor Habitat Minimization Without Evidence (High) The report asserts the site "does not contain regionally important habitat for the white-tailed kite." But: [8 — Biolog... cal Report I PDF] • The site includes large trees, open urban edge, prey sign (gophers noted in Report). • Adjacent landscapes (golf course, grassland edge) substantially increase local habitat value. • No tree height/canopy survey or raptor perch/nest survey was documented. Why This Is an E&O Raptor habitat evaluation must include tree suitability, prey availability, and adjacent matrix context —all absent. Corrective Action • Conduct formal raptor nesting tree assessment before CEQA clearance. • Prepare a Raptor Habitat Suitability Memo suitable for City review. BIO-03 — Missing Analysis: Bird Hazards from Dense Development (Glass, Lighting, Pets) (High) The Biological Report does not address: • Glass collision hazards (especially townhomes with large windows). • Light pollution impacts on nocturnal birds and migrating species. • Artificial night lighting conflicts with General Plan ES Policies. • Outdoor cat predation pressure (scientifically known major urban biodiversity impact). • Vegetation -attractant features that could draw prey species into hazardous zones. Why This Is an E&O Cupertino General Plan ES-5 (Protect urban ecosystem) explicitly requires developments to reduce harm to wildlife. [8 — Biolog... cal Report I PDF] CEQA requires evaluation of project -generated hazards, not just baseline habitat. Corrective Action Add Urban Bird Hazard Mitigation Plan, including: • Bird -safe window treatments (ceramic fritting, patterned glass). • Down -shielded lighting. • Seasonal lighting restrictions during migration. • Native, bird -safe landscaping choices. • Outdoor cat containment measures (indoor pet policy / HOA restrictions). BIO-04 — Incomplete Wildlife Movement Analysis (Medium) The report states wildlife movement is minimal because the site is developed. But it does not consider aerial wildlife, such as: [8 — Biolog... cal. Report I PDF] • Red-tailed hawk • Cooper's hawk • Great horned owl • White-tailed kite • Crows, ravens, turkey vultures These species routinely move between Stevens Creek, the golf course, residential backyard trees, and open areas. Corrective Action • Add Aerial Wildlife Movement Assessment showing how the new 2-3-story buildings alter vertical flight paths and edge habitat. BIO-05 — Partial Compliance with General Plan Biological Policies (Medium) The report quotes Cupertino General Plan ES policies... ...but does not evaluate consistency with them in analysis. Example: • ES-5.1.1 requires landscaping that enhances the urban ecosystem. The report does not include a landscaping review or recommendations. • ES-5.2 requires clustering away from sensitive habitat, yet no analysis is made of clustering options. • ES-5.6 requires creation of wildlife linkages; none are evaluated. Corrective Action Provide a General Plan Consistency Matrix for all ES -policies. BIO-06 — Cumulative Foraging Habitat Impact Not Addressed (Medium) Raptors forage in: • Ruderal grassland on site. • Golf course open areas. • Adjacent tree -lined backyards. The conversion of all remaining open patches into high -density homes removes: • Perch locations • Foraging zones • Gopher and rodent habitat (documented onsite by the Report). [8 — Biolog... cal Report PDF] Yet foraging loss is not analyzed. Corrective Action Provide Raptor Foraging Habitat Loss Evaluation with acreage calculations and mitigation measures. BIO-07 — No Acoustic Surveys for Bats (Medium) The report acknowledges possible roosting for big -eared and pallid bats. Structures are suitable for roosting. Yet no acoustic or evening emergence surveys were conducted. This is a CEQA expectation when older structures are present. Corrective Action Conduct: 1. Two -night acoustic bat survey (AnaBat or equivalent). 2. Dusk emergence survey for maternity roost determination. BIO-08 — No Tree Inventory Provided (Low) The report states the project should have an arborist identify which trees are protected. But: • Tree species list is incomplete. • Tree sizes are not documented. • Tree health is unassessed. Given trees = habitat, this omission cascades into raptor and migratory bird habitat omissions. Corrective Action • Add full arborist report with DBH, species, condition, wildlife use, mitigation measures. 3) Corrective Action Tracker (For Integration Into TM-2024-009 Workbook) ID Issue Recommended Action Responsible Party Due Date Missing red-tailed Add species analysis Environmental BIO-01 hawk analysis (nesting/foraging) & Consultant 3/20/2026 construction buffers Missing raptor Conduct tree survey + raptor Environmental BIO-02 habitat evaluation habitat memo Consultant + 3/20/2026 Arborist BIO-03 Bird hazards from Add Bird -Safe Design & Architect + 3/20/2026 dense development Lighting Plan Biologist Missing aerial Provide aerial corridor Environmental BIO-04 wildlife movement impact discussion Consultant 3/20/2026 analysis Missing General Add ES policy consistency BIO-05 Plan consistency Planning Consultant 3/20/2026 assessment matrix Missing cumulative Quantify foraging loss; add Environmental BIO-06 foraging impact mitigation Consultant 3/20/2026 evaluation No bat acoustic BIO-07 Conduct acoustic + Bat Biologist Prior to demo; surveys emergence surveys 4/2026 BIO-08 No tree inventory Formal ESA E&O Finding Project: TM-2024-009 (Linda Vista Townhomes) Location: 10857-10887 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, CA Prepared for: Cupertino City Council Prepared by: Mark W. Fantozzi Title: Incomplete agricultural pesticide analyte coverage (parathion & ziram not evaluated) Documents referenced: Phase I ESA identified the property's historic agricultural use and treated potential pesticide residue as an Other Environmental Consideration (OEC) requiring further consideration. [10 — Phase... Assessment I PDF] Phase II ESA collected shallow soils (SB-5 to SB-11) for pesticide analysis but the laboratory scope was limited to organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) via EPA Method 8081A (e.g., DDT, DDE, DDD, dieldrin). Organophosphates (e.g., parathion) and dithiocarbamates (e.g., ziram) were not included. Analytical tables and the lab case narrative show no parathion or ziram analytes or results. Why this is an error/omission: Given the site's documented historical agricultural use, Cupertino reviewers typically expect a comprehensive legacy pesticide screen that covers multiple pesticide classes historically used in orchards and similar uses (not just OCPs). The current Phase II scope omits key classes: • Organophosphates (OPs): e.g., parathion (commonly used historically), which is not covered by 8081A. OPs often require GUMS methods specific to OPs or broader semi - volatile suites (e.g., EPA 8270 SIM variants) depending on lab capability. The provided lab work did not include OP methods. Dithiocarbamates (DTCs): e.g., ziram, which typically requires specialized derivatization/HPLC or 832113-type analysis; again not present in the lab scope. Risk/Impact: Potential data gap in the ESA record for Cupertino entitlement and CEQA review, where agencies look for evidence that common historic -use pesticide classes (OCPs, OPs, and DTCs) have been affirmatively addressed. [10 — Phase... Assessment I PDF] If soils with previously untested OP/DTC residues exist, this could affect soil management, worker safety, and construction -phase best management practices; the Phase II conclusion that "no additional investigation is recommended" is unsupported for OP/DTC classes. 2) Recommended Corrective Actions 1. Supplemental Soil Investigation — OP & DTC Pesticides o Scope: Collect additional shallow interval composites (e.g., 0.5-1.5 ft bgs, plus 3-6 in below organic layer if present) from the previously sampled grid (SB-5 to SB-I I vicinity) and any former orchard rows/structures if identifiable. Analyze for organophosphates (include parathion) and dithiocarbamates (include ziram) using appropriate certified methods (e.g., 8321B for OP/DTC, or lab -validated OP/DTC suites). o Decision Criteria: Compare to SF Bay RWQCB Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs, July 2019 Rev. 2) under Residential Direct Exposure; document detection limits and any J-qualified estimates. o Deliverable: Addendum to Phase II ESA summarizing methods, tables, ESL comparisons, and conclusions. 2. Soil Management Note (Interim) o Pending results, include an interim soil handling note for plans/specs stating that if unexpected stained/odorous soils are encountered, work will follow the contractor's Health & Safety Plan and stop -work & notify protocol, with expedited lab testing. (This mirrors Phase II limitations and prudent practice.) 3. Agency Coordination (If Needed) o If any OP/DTC detections exceed ESLs, prepare a Corrective Action Plan with removal, blending, or capping options and consult with the City and, if warranted by concentration and extent, the Santa Clara County DEH/SF Bay RWQCB for concurrence on closure. 3) E&O Tracker — Pesticide Coverage (Standalone Table) ID Finding Evidence (where Why it Corrective Responsibl Due Stat found) matters Action a Date us Phase I flags City/CEQ Run historic ag use A supplement H (OEC)• Phase II reviewers al soil (target Parathion & analytes & lab expect a testing for Environme Mar 20, Aram not complete OPs (incl. ntal 2026 for ENV- analyzed; packages list Olegacy parathion) Consultant lab Ope O/D 01 Phase II only P/D TC (no only; no pesticide and DTCs (AEI or report; n ran OCPs screen; (incl. ziram) approved samplin parathion/ziram) (8081A) �10 _ omission using equivalent) g by Phase ... Assessme leaves appropriate Mar 6, nt � PDF] data gap; certified 2026) could methods Conclusions over -general ized ("no additional ENV- investigation 02 recommende d") despite untested pesticide classes Interim soil handling ENV- note not 03 stated for potential unexpected conditions Phase II Summary/Conclu sions section recommends no further work; but OP/DTC classes untested Phase II limitations acknowledge uncertainty; no interim field note provided for construction docs delay (e.g., 8321 B entitlemen or is lab -validated equivalents); compare to 2019 SF Bay RWQCB ESLs; issue Phase II Addendum with conclusions. Could be Qualify the read as conclusion "casein in an closed" state that and later OP/DTC conflict results have with City been added; comments causing revise conclusion re -work accordingly. Insert interim soil Improves handling contracto note in r Specs/Plan awarenes General s and risk Notes managem (stop -work, ent prior characterizat to ion, HASP) addendum until addendum resolves. Environmen M (with tal ENV-01 Ope Consultant addendu n m) Civil/CM + Environmen M (Mar Ope tal 6, 2026) n Consultant Severity key: H=High (blocks approval), M=Medium (comment risk), L=Low (editorial) Errors & Omissions Register Final Transportation Study (Hexagon, dated Dec 15, 2025) Project: TM-2024-009 (Linda Vista Townhomes) Location: 10857-10887 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, CA Prepared for: Cupertino City Council Prepared by: Mark W. Fantozzi VIA EMAIL Key: Severity = H (High: may affect approval/conditions), M (Medium: likely comment/condition), L (Low: editorial/clarification) # Category Finding (what's Where in Study Why it Recommended Seve wrong or missing) matters action rity Address range mismatch. Study If legal title and narrative description or analyze "10857 frontage Linda Vista differs, traffic Align the report Drive" only; Cover memo & assignment, header, site plan Project application and throughout sight distance, figures, and legal 1 identifica notice reference ("10857 Linda parking parcel list to the TM; H tion 10857-10887 (4 Vista Drive) frontage add APNs and full parcels). Confirm [15 — Final ... tion counts, and address range; revise parcel coverage, Study � PDF] conditions can figures accordingly. frontage, and the change; can new public street footprint. [15 — triggerresubmittal. Final ... tion Study PDF] Off -site study Study If 6-7 Add a sensitivity area potentially Intersections peak -hour check including 2 Methodol incomplete. Only list; Trip trips shift to Linda M ogy scope 3 unsignalized Distribution/Ass other streets, Vista/Columbus intersections were ignment (notes localized and Linda analyzed (Linda about delay/safety at Vista/Terrace Trip distributi 3 on assumpti on Parking 4 code complian ce Vista/Hyannisport; Columbus/Terra Fort ce) [15 — Baker/Hyannisport Final ... tion Study I PDF] Bubb/Hyannisport) . The text itself notes some site traffic may choose Columbus Ave or Terrace Dr, yet those intersections are not evaluated. [15 — Final ... tion Study I PDF] All Bubb -bound traffic assigned to Hyannisport as a "worst case." That's conservative for school area, but may understate impacts on Columbus/Terrace since those links weren't tested. [ 15 — Final ... tion Study PDF] Linda (AM/PM),If Vista/Colum negligible, bus or Linda document; if not, Vista/Terrace include mitigations. may be underestimate d; neighbors often comment here. Can bias impact Trip location Distribution/Ass (school frontages vs. ignment; Figures cut -through 4-5 [15 — Final tion streets); City ... Study I PDF] may ask for a scenario that reflects likely splits. Minimum parking ratio appears mis-cited. Study parking section says "one (1) (pp17-18 )' space per ass asserts 1 townhome" space/DU; code (Table table 19.124.040(A)), contradicts. [15 but Cupertino's — Final tion code table lists ... Study I PDF], [§ "Small Lot 19.124.0...t Single -Family, Parking.] Townhouse (P)" = 2.8/DU (2 garage + 0.8 open) and R-3 High Density If the higher ratios apply (depending on zoning overlay), the plan may under-provid e open/guest spaces (report shows 10 on - street along Evulich Court). Risk of redesign or conditions. Add a second assignment using proportional split to Hyannisport/Columb M us/Terrace based on observed turning shares; compare LOS/queues. Confirm the applicable zoning line for "Townhome Combining District" (R-3 vs P). If R-3 applies, provide 1 open space/DU (guest) on -site or on- H street; if P applies, target 0.8 open/DU. Update parking tables and striping/layout. [§ 19.124.0...t Parking.] Bicycle 5 parking requirem ents CEQA/V 6 MT complian ce basis = 2.0/DU (1 covered + 1 open); the report's claimed 1.0/DU minimum conflicts with the table. [ 15 — Final ... tion Study PDF], [§ 19.124.0...t Parking.] Report states "no bicycle parking requirements for townhomes." Cupertino code requires bicycle parking in multi- family residential developments (Class I/II as applicable), and table entries show requirements for multi -family and condos; the report position is at least incomplete for an R-3 townhome combining district. [15 — Final ... tion Study I PDF], [§ 19.124.0...t Parking.] Parking section; Risk of claim of no bike condition of Coordinate with parking approval to Planning to confirm requirement; add secure, classification; add Code accessible Class I long-term § 19.124.040(P) long-term bike (e.g., shared says bike parking room/cages) +Class M parking shall be beyond II short-term racks provided in multi -family. in -garage hooks; can near common areas [15 — Final ... tion affect as required; revise Study I PDF], [§ common area plans and counts. [§ 19.124.0...t Parking.] 19.124.0...t programming/ Parking.] cost. The study says "pursuant to AB General Plan 130, [project] is Consistency & not required to Municipal Code conduct a VMT discussion (pp. analysis." AB 130 12-16) stating (2025) created "not applicable new CEQA tools ... pursuant to (e.g., infill housing AB 130." [15 — exemption PRC Final ... tion §21080.66 and a Study I PDF] VMT mitigation A mis-stated Clarify CEQA legal basis can pathway: (a) If PRC prompt CEQA §21080.66 challenge or a exemption applies, completeness add a compliance hold. If using memo; (b) If not, H the AB 130 provide VMT infill screening/analysis exemption, per Cupertino you must Transportation affirmatively Study Guidelines show each (Jan 2025). fee option), but qualifying [abag.ca.gov], does not element; [cupertino.gov] blanket -exempt otherwise all housing from provide a VMT analysis. If screening the project asserts memo or the new infill VMT memo CEQA per City exemption, guidelines. document compliance with all criteria; otherwise, City code sections on VMT may still apply. [ 15 — Final ... tion Study PDF], [abag.ca.gov], [coblentzlaw.com], [nossaman.com], Udsupra.com] Report references Cupertino's Transportation Analysis Guidelines (Jan 2025) and states Missing Tier-2 LTA was checklist Attach completed followed. Ensure items show up Table A-7 with Guideline checklist elements Scope/Checklist as late drawings of 7 s (Table A-7) are section & Site comments; no -parking zones M alignmen fully documented Access Review enforceable within sight triangles t (e.g., loading, curb details and any school -area management near (signing/stripi curbside controls. schools, sight ng) reduce [cupertino.gov] distance controls risk. as enforceable measures). [15 — Final ... tion Study PDF], [cupertino.gov] Sight Sight -triangle Sight Distance Without a Provide a scaled 8 distance narrative (p. 19) & stamped sight -triangle M & recommends Driveway diagram, exhibit (per Std parking prohibiting Design (pp. 17— reviewers Detail 7-2) with curb control on -street parking 19) [15 — can't confirm red -curb limits, R-xx within corner Final ... tion compliance; signs, and an triangles at Linda Study PDF] residents may updated on -street Vista/Evulich; contest loss of parking count table. however, the plan curb spaces if [15 — Final...tion also shows 8' not scoped Study PDF] parking both now. sides west of chokers. The study should translate this into an actual striping/signing layout and quantify lost spaces. [ 15 — Final ... tion Study PDF] Internal drive aisles B—E lack Backing turnarounds, so movements large vehicles must Add swept -paths back in/out. This near residential for 30-35' is acknowledged Garbage garages can single -unit trucks at Garbage for garbage, but Collection (p. raise each aisle; include a & the plan lacks an 21)• On -site safety/visibilit solid waste & 9 delivery operational plan circulation (pp. y issues; delivery plan M operation (signage, time 17-19) [15 — reviewers (signed by the s windows Final tion often hauler) and add ' enforcement) and ... Study � PDF] condition "No striping/signage turning path Stopping/Loa where needed. [15 — exhibits for ding or Final ... tion Study delivery vansibox designate PDF] trucks. [ 15 — staging. Final ... tion Study PDF] Field notes report School Add a school -hour short AM queues operations are curbside plan School-ar at Hyannisport Field sensitive; lack � (T-reg signs, cones, 1 ea during drop-off Observations (p. of monitoring 0 operation and instances of 9) [15 — mitigation/mo M commitment for first s NB Bubb Rd Final ...tion nitoring semester of queue spillback at Study I PDF] invites occupancy) and McClellan. No conditions include a School Area post -hearing. Safety subsection post -occupancy (curb management, check -in trigger. time -of -day loading controls, crossing guard dependency)is provided. [15 — Final ... tion Study PDF] The report describes Stevens Creek Trail as a 11--5-mile" facility stretching from "southern Cupertino to near the Bay" adjacent to site. In reality, the trail exists in reflect two disconnected OverstatingRephrase disconnected segments connectivity segments and cite Active (Mountain View Existing can affect the local Cupertino 1 transport —5 miles; Ped/Bike mode split segment length & 1 ation Cupertino segment Facilities (p. 6) assumptions endpoints; add a —1-2 miles [15 — Final ... tion and General context between Linda Study I PDF] Plan context map. Vista Park— consistency [traillink.com], Blackberry claims. [siliconval... ctions.c Farm). The om] wording could be read as implying a continuous corridor at the site. [15 — Final ... tion Study I PDF], [traillink.com], [siliconval... ctions. com] States no transit Minor, but Add a VTA stop Transit within 0.5 mi; closest stop —1.25 Existing Transit reviewers map with measured 1 descripti mi. Provide a map Services (p. 6) often ask for a walking distances 2 on and stop list to [15 — Final ... tion map source and routes; if >0.5 substantiate Study I PDF] and measured mi, leave as -is with distance to nearest d distances. exhibit. L L VTA stops (e.g., on McClellan Rd or Stevens Creek Blvd). [ 15 — Final ... tion Study PDF] The report says Linda Vista Drive is not on the City's High Injury Network and that no plan Vision improvements Zero / affect the frontage. I LRSP Provide the HIN 3 consisten map reference and cite the cy adopted Vision Zero Action Plan (2024). [15 — Final ... tion Study PDF], [cupertino.gov], [cupertino.gov] LOS tables present control delay but do not include HCM criteria 1 LOS footnotes in table 4 reporting headers; readers clarity must infer from notes. Minor formatting clarity. [ 15 — Final ... tion Study I PDF] Multiple typos (e.g., "Authoirty/Confo rmance," "Great I Typos / than") and mixed 5 ?resentat usage (Evulich Court intro appears later). [ 15 — Final ... tion Study PDF] Adds Insert HIN map Plans & Policies traceability excerpt and VZAP (pp. 15-16) [15 and avoids adoption reference; — Final...tion plan-consisten keep the conclusion Study I PDF] c y if confirmed. back -and -fort [cupertino.gov], h. [cupertino.gov] Tables 2-4 (pp' Improves transparency Add HCM criteria Final .. tio n — for bands in the table Sud.y � PDF] non engineer header row. Stud reviewers. Clean Throughout [ 15 presentation proof/QA the PDF; harmonize street — Final ... tion reduces naming from the Study I PDF] friction in staff review. outset. L L L "VTA comments received and addressed" is General Plan Attach VTA 1 VTA asserted without Consistency Reviewers comment 6 coordinat attaching comment table (p. 14) [15 will ask for email/letter and a M ion letter or response - Final ... tion the record. response log matrix. [ 15 - Study I PDF] appendix. Final ... tion Study PDF] Notes on key legal/standards references (for your cover memo) • AB 130 (2025) CEQA reforms: Added PRC §21080.66 (urban infill housing CEQA exemption) and a VMT mitigation fee option program guidance to be issued by July 1, 2026; not a general VMT exemption. Use this if the project qualifies; otherwise follow local VMT screening. [abag.ca.gov], [coblentzlaw.com], [nossaman.com], Udsupra.com] • Cupertino Transportation Study Guidelines (Jan 2025): Defines Tier 2 LTA content and includes the Site Access & Circulation Checklist (Table A-7) the study references — use it to ensure the revised submittal is complete. [cupertino.gov] • Cupertino Municipal Code §19.124.040: Off-street parking table shows Small Lot Single -Family, Townhouse (P) = 2.8/DU and R-3 High Density Multiple -Family = 2.0/DU, plus bicycle parking shall be provided in multi -family developments (Class 1/II). Coordinate which line applies to R-3 + Townhome Combining District. [§ 19.124.0...t Parking.] • Stevens Creek Trail factual context: Disconnected segments (Mountain View -5 miles; Cupertino Linda Vista Park -Blackberry Farm -1-2 miles). Don't imply continuous facility at the project frontage. [trail link.com], [siliconval... ctions.com] Quick wins (edits you can request from the consultant this week) 1. Parking & bike parking clarification (High) - Confirm applicable row in CMC Table 19.124.040(A); update site plan and parking count to meet open/guest and bike parking duties; add counts to the LTA. [§ 19.124.0...t Parking.] 2. CEQA/VMT basis (High) - One -pager confirming AB 130 infill exemption criteria OR provide a VMT screening memo per City guidelines; attach to the study. [abag.ca.gov], [cupertino.gov] 3. Sensitivity test to Columbus/Terrace (Med) —Add 1-2 intersections and a proportional distribution scenario; summarize impacts are still < thresholds (or propose minor measures). [15 — Final ... tion Study I PDF] 4. Sight -distance / curb control exhibit (Med) — Red-curb/signing layout and revised on -street parking tally on Evulich Court. [15 — Final ... tion Study I PDF] 5. Ops appendix (Med) — Waste & delivery plan + additional swept paths for 30-35' vehicles at aisles B—E. [15 — Final ... tion Study I PDF] 6. Documentation attachments (Low) — VTA comment / response matrix; Vision Zero High Injury Network map excerpt; updated trail description/map. [15 — Final ... tion Study I PDF], [cupertino.gov], [traillink.com] Assumptions & limits • The findings above are based on your attached "15 — Final Transportation Study.pdf" and public sources cited; no plan set beyond the figure excerpts was reviewed. Where local code interpretation matters (e.g., parking table line applicability to R-3 + Townhome Combining District), confirm with the City Planner/Zoning Administrator. [15 — Final ... tion Study PDF], [§ 19.124.0...t Parking.] Would you like this as an Excel/Word tracker? If helpful, I can export this register to Excel with filters for discipline/owner and add a status and due date column for your TM action log. Also, if you have City staff redlines or plan sheets, send them over and I'll fold those into the next pass. Sources 0 Provide your feedback on BizChat You said: also Consider City of Cupertino general plan, caltrans safe streets, AASHTO guidelines, MUTCD, pedestrian safety, traffic impact analysis, City of Cupertino parking standards. Copilot said: Copilot Reasoning completed in 6 steps Absolutely —here's an expanded Errors & Omissions (E&O) register for the Final Transportation Study - 10857-10887 Linda Vista Dr (TM-2024-009) that now explicitly considers the City of Cupertino General Plan (Mobility Element), Caltrans Complete Streets/Safe System direction, AASHTO "Green Book", MUTCD/CA MUTCD, pedestrian safety best practice, Traffic Impact/LTA guidance, and Cupertino parking standards. I've kept your earlier items and added standards -based checks, with clear cites right after each statement. Expanded Errors & Omissions Register (standards -informed) Key: H/M/L = High/Medium/Low severity # Category Project 1 identification 2 Study area completeness Finding (what's ,here in wrong or Study missing) Address range mismatch —report Cover says "10857 Linda memo & Vista Dr"; throug o application/site ut. [15 encompass Final tio 10857-10887 ... n Study (four lots). [15 - PDF] Final ... tion Study PDF] Why it matters Legal description/fro ntage govern geometry, sight triangles, and on -street counts; mislabeling invites resubmittal. No analysis at Under -testing Linda Intersecti can miss Vista/Columbus ons list; localized delay/safety or Linda Trip Vista/Terrace Assignme issues. Cupertino despite text nt notes. 2025 acknowledging [15 Guidelines some trips would Final ... tio expect LTA to use those streets. n Study I capture likely [15 - Final ... tion PDF] influence area Study � PDF] S and use the A-7 Recommended action Align title block, APNs, and figures to full range. Se V. H Add AM/PM LOS + observations at Columbus and M Terrace; include a proportional assignment case. 3 Assignment bias 4 Parking code 5 Bicycle parking All Bubb -bound trips pushed to Figures Hyannisport 4-5; Trip "worst case", but Assignme no companion nt. [15 — scenario for likely Final ...tio split. [ 15 — n Study Final ... tion Study I PDF] PDF] Minimums mis-stated. Report claims 1.0 space per townhome, but CMC §19.124.040(A) shows Townhouse (P) = Parking 2.8/DU (2 garage section + 0.8 open); R-3 = (pp. 17- 2.0/DU (1 18). [15 — covered + 1 Final ... tio open). n Study Classification PDF] must be confirmed for the Townhome Combining District. [§ 19.124.0...t Parking.] Report says no bicycle parking requirement for townhomes; however CMC §19.124.040(P) requires bike parking in multi -family developments checklist. [cupertino.gov] Can over -weight school frontage and under -weight other locals; the City may ask for a more representative case per TS Guidelines. [cupertino.gov] Under-provisio n of open/guest stalls risks conditions/rede sign. Add Base (observed share) scenario; compare LOS/queues and document any negligible delta. Confirm applicable row; revise plan to provide open/guest per code; update supply table & striping. [§ 19.124.0...t Parking.] Parking Consistency Add Class I M H section; with the long-term (e.g., Bike General Plan shared facilities Mobility room/cages) and narrative. Policy M-3.8 Class II M [15 — ("Require short-term racks in Final ... tio public and common spaces; n Study I private bicycle include counts on PDF] parking") is plans. [§ 6 CEQA/VMT basis 7 Checklist/documen tation (Class I/II). For R-3 Townhome Combining, provide long-term/short-ter in accordingly. [§ 19.124.0...t Parking.] Report states "pursuant to AB 130, VMT not required." AB 130 introduced a new infill exemption (PRC §21080.66) and a state VMT mitigation fee option, but it is not a blanket VMT waiver; projects must either qualify for the exemption or follow local screening/analysis per City Guidelines. [abag.ca.gov], [coblentzlaw.com] , [nossaman.com] Site Access & Circulation Checklist (A-7) not appended; several items (loading, curb mgmt., sight -distance controls) not shown as enforceable measures. [cupertino.gov] expected. 19.124.0...t [cupertino.gov] Parking.] Code consisten Misstating cy section section CEQA posture (pp 12— can trigger 16). [15 — completeness Final tio holds or ... n Study I challenge. PDF] Site Access Review section. [15— Final ... tio n Study PDF] Missing checklist exhibits generate late comments. (a) If using PRC §21080.66 exemption, add a compliance memo; (b) else provide VMT screening/memo per Cupertino 2025 Guidelines. [abag.ca.gov], [cupertino.gov] Attach completed A-7, with signed/striped controls and curb regulations sheets. [cupertino.gov] IW MUTCD/CA Recommends no MUTCD parking in corner require sight triangles at Sight consistent Linda Distance control Sight distance / Vista/Evulich but (p. 19). devices; 8 curb control lacks a scaled [15 — provide exact red-curb/sign Final ... tio locations and plan and a revised n Study signs for on -street count. PDF] enforceability. [15 — Final ... tion [mutcd- Study I PDF] dr.f..wa.dot.go v], [dot.ca.gov] Field notes mention AM drop-off queues and NB Bubb spillback; the study lacks a School Area Safety plan (temporary curb Field Obs Reviewers management, (p. 9). [15 expect defined School -area crossing control — school -hour 9 treatments assumptions). Final ... tio devices and MUTCD Part 7 n Study I monitoring addresses school PDF] commitments. area control, and City VZAP prioritizes safe systems. [ 15 — Final ... tion Study PDF], [mutcd- dr.f ..wa.dot.gov], [cupertino.gov] Aisles B—E have Garbage no turnarounds; Collectio Backing near trucks must back n & garages can in/out. Lacks a On -site raise conflict 1 Truck ops & waste delivery/solid-wa Circulatio risk; City may 0 ste ops plan and n. [15 — condition "No swept paths for Final ... tio Stopping/Loadi 30-35' SUT beyond the n Study I ng" zones. cul-de-sac check. PDF] Add Std Detail 7-2 sight -triangle exhibit and R-7/curb markings per CA MUTCD; re -tally curb spaces. [ 15 — Final ... tion Study PDF], [dot.ca.gov] Add a school -hour curb plan (signs, cones, loading windows) and Ihm post -occupancy M monitoring for 1 school term; coordinate with SVUSD. [mutcd- dr.f...wa.dot.gov] Add turning path exhibits for SUTs at each aisle; include time -window & signage plan. IIm I Ped/bike network 1 accuracy 2 Transit description 1 Vision Zero/HIN 3 mapping 4 LOS presentation [15 — Final ... tion Study I PDF] Trail description implies a continuous —5-mile facility by the site; Stevens Creek Trail is two disconnected segments (Mountain View —5 mi; Cupertino Linda Vista Park —Blackberry Farm —1-2 mi). [traillink.com], [siliconval... ctions. com] Claims nearest transit stop is —1.25 mi; no map or distance measure provided. [15 — Final ... tion Study PDF] Asserts site street not on High Injury Network, but no HIN map excerptor adoption reference to Vision Zero Action Plan (2024). [cupertino.gov], [cupertino.gov] Control -delay LOS tables lack HCM criteria row/footnote in header; minor clarity. [ 15 — Final ... tion Study PDF] Existing Ped/Bike Overstating Correct text + add Facilities connectivity local segment map (p. 6). [15 can over -credit and endpoints. — non -auto mode [traillink.com], Final ... tio share in [siliconval... ctions. n Study I narratives. com] PDF] Transit Services provide (p. 6). [15 Add VTA stop objective map with Final tio backing for measured walking ... n Study I completeness. routes/distances. PDF] Plans & Insert HIN map Policies excerpt +adoption section. Tightens plan citation; keep [15 — consistency conclusion if Final ... tio review. confirmed. n Study � [cupertino.gov] PDF] Tables 2 4. [15 — Improves Add HCM LOS Final ... tio readability for criteria bands in n Study I non -engineers. table headers. PDF] L L L L 5 Typos/format Multiple typos ("Authoirty", "Great than") and inconsistent intro for Evulich Ct. [15 — Final ... tion Study I PDF] Througho ut. [ 15 — Avoids Proof and Final ... tio avoidable staff harmonize street n Study I comments. names. PDF] L Standards -Specific Additions (what else to tune before City review) 1. Cupertino General Plan — Mobility Element consistency • The Mobility Element includes Policies M-3.2 (connectivity), M-3.3 (ped/bike crossings), M-3.5 (minimize driveways), and M-3.8 (require bicycle parking). Where the study claims consistency, attach policy -by -policy check tables and show how each improvement (e.g., chokers, crosswalks, sidewalk continuity) satisfies these policies. [cupertino.gov] • The Element also discusses Transportation Impact Analysis expectations; align the LTA scope and mitigation format with the Mobility Element sections on walkability/bikeability and school access. [cupertino.gov] 2. Caltrans Safe/Complete Streets direction • Caltrans' Director's Policy 37 (DP-37) requires comfortable, convenient, and connected Complete Streets facilities and endorses design flexibility to serve users of all ages/abilities—relevant to your Evulich Ct throat narrowing, chokers, and crossing. Cite DP-37 and the 2024-25 Complete Streets Action Plan to ground the use of context -sensitive measures. [dot.ca.gov], [dot.ca.gov] • DIB-94 (2024) provides contextual design guidance and encourages traffic calming and intersection designs for ped/bike comfort; reference it when justifying narrowed curb -to -curb widths and curb extensions at the new T-intersection. [dot.ca.gov] 3. AASHTO "Green Book" (GDHS-7) checks • Re -affirm intersection sight distance and local residential street design elements per AASHTO 2018 (7th ed.) for a 25 mph context, and ensure your sight -triangle exhibit states the assumed design speed, vegetation control, and parking prohibition limits. (Use the City standard detail for triangles; cite AASHTO as the geometric design basis.) [store.tran... tation.org] • If you keep the 20-ft aisle widths and 8-ft parking both sides west of the chokers, demonstrate two-way passing and parking maneuver envelopes meet AASHTO local street guidance or City standard detail equivalents. [store.tran... tation.org] 4. MUTCD / CA MUTCD controls (especially school area & crossings) • For any new crosswalks, signing/marking must conform to MUTCD 11th Edition (Dec 2023), with Part 7 rules for school areas where applicable; California has now issued CA MUTCD 2026 (effective Jan 18, 2026) in substantial conformance with the national MUTCD— use its part/section citations on markings, STOP/YIELD control, and curb extensions as you finalize sheets. [mutcd-dr.f... wa.dot.gov], [dot.ca.gov] • Add a device schedule (sign codes, line types, colors) tied to MUTCD/CA MUTCD tables for the Evulich/Linda Vista intersection and any no -parking extents within sight triangles. [dot.ca.gov] 5. Pedestrian safety emphasis (Vision Zero / neighborhood context) • Link the proposed chokers and narrowed throat to Vision Zero's Safe System approach adopted by the City (2024), and include an 85th percentile speed check post -construction as part of a post -occupancy "safety & circulation" verification. [cupertino.gov], [cupertino.gov] • Where field notes indicate short peak -period queues near schools, add day-of-week/time-of-day curb regulations, and where appropriate, school -area legends (per MUTCD Part 7) to reduce mid -block encroachment and improve ped visibility. [15 — Final ... tion Study I PDF], [mutcd-dr.f... wa.dot.gov] 6. Traffic Impact / LTA documentation (City's 2025 Guidelines) • Append the completed A-7 checklist and ensure the report includes all required components (trip gen methodology, assignment rationale, school area assessment, access review, ped/bike/transit, and mitigation commitments with plan -view exhibits). [cupertino.gov] 7. Cupertino Parking Standards (clarity on classification) • Confirm whether the project is being processed as R-3 with Townhome Combining District or under a P (Planned) designation that invokes the "Townhouse (P) 2.8/DU" row. Update the report tables accordingly; reconcile with General Plan Mobility objectives on right -sizing parking and bicycle parking (M-3.8). [§ 19.124.0...t Parking.], [cupertino.gov] Short punch -list (what to ask Hexagon to fix now) 1. Parking & Bike Parking (H) - Correct minimums and provide on -site open/guest plus Class 1/11 bike parking counts and plan locations. [§ 19.124.0...t Parking.] 2. CEQA/VMT (H) - Provide either AB 130 PRC §21080.66 exemption memo or a VMT screening/analysis per City 2025 Guidelines. [abag.ca.gov], [cupertino.gov] 3. Add Columbus/Terrace sensitivity (M) - LOS/queue checks + narrative. [15 - Final ... tion Study I PDF] 4. Sight -triangle package (M) - Scaled red-curb/signing plan (CA MUTCD device schedule) and revised on -street counts. [dot.ca.gov] 5. School -area ops (M) - MUTCD Part 7-aligned curb management, temporary controls, and a post -occupancy monitoring commitment. [mutcd-dr.f... wa.dot.gov] 6. Truck ops appendix (M) - Swept paths for 30-35' SUT at each aisle + hauler letter and delivery windows. [15 - Final ... tion Study I PDF] 7. Policy consistency tie -outs (L/M) - One -page matrix to Mobility Element policies (esp. M-3.2, M-3.3, M-3.5, M-3.8), DP-37/DIB-94 references for context -sensitive design. [cupertino.gov], [dot.ca.gov], [dot.ca.gov] Citations / References used in this E&O • Final Transportation Study PDF (attached): basis for all page/figure references. [15 - Final ... tion Study I PDF] • Cupertino Transportation Study Guidelines (Jan 2025)—Tiering, LTA content, A-7 checklist. [cupertino.gov] • Cupertino Municipal Code §19.124.040 (Parking & Bicycle Parking) —ratios, bike parking classes. [§ 19.124.0...t Parking.] • Cupertino General Plan - Mobility Element (Policies including M-3.8). [cupertino.gov] • Caltrans DP-37 Complete Streets; DIB-94 Contextual Design; 2024-25 Complete Streets Action Plan. [dot.ca.gov], [dot.ca.gov], [dot.ca.gov] • MUTCD 11th Ed. (Dec 2023); CA MUTCD 2026 (effective Jan 18, 2026)—devices, Part 7 school areas, markings. [mutcd-dr.f... wa.dot.gov], [dot.ca.gov] • AASHTO "Green Book" (2018, 7th ed.)—geometric design & sight distance context. [store.tran... tation.org] • Vision Zero Action Plan & HIN (Cupertino) —policy alignment and safety framing. [cupertino.gov], [cupertino.gov] • Stevens Creek Trail factual context —segment lengths & endpoints. [traillink.com], [siliconval... ctions.com] From: Vikram Saxena To: City Attorney"s Office; City Clerk Cc: Benjamin Fu; City Council; Tina Ka000r Subject: Evulich Court: We can have 30 feet VHFHSZ setbacks AND construct 51 townhomes (Written Comments for Marcy 17 Meeting) Date: Friday, March 13, 2026 3:13:10 PM Attachments: Setback Viability Memo - Linda Vista 26-14876 - March13.Ddf Approved AMMR Linda Vista.odf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Clerk: Please include the following as written communication for the March 17th City Council meeting for Agenda Item 12 (Evulich Court). Dear Cupertino City Council Members and City Attorney: CONCLUSION: NO SETBACK WAIVER IS NEEDED TO MEET HOUSING DENSITY Summary: • The required 51-unit density can be achieved while honoring the full 30-foot fire -safety setback mandated for Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones; all Summerhill has to do is size the units to comparable developments. • Vida Sunnyvale Phase I achieved a nearly identical unit count (50 units on 2.76 acres) with 53-65 foot setbacks to single- family homes by utilizing smaller average unit sizes (1,748 SF livable area). • Westport Cupertino, also used smaller, marketable family -sized units (1,978 SF average livable area), establishing the financial viability of right -sized units that accommodate fire -safety requirements PDF of this memo and the letter from Summerhill to the Santa Clara County Fire Department requesting a waiver of the 30-foot setbacks are also attached. Regards -Vikram MEMORANDUM March 13, 2026 TO: Cupertino City Council FROM: Concerned Residents of Linda Vista Drive RE: Provide 30 ft Setbacks Required for VHFHSZ & Build 51 Units: No Setback Waiver Needed FILE: City Council Meeting of March 17, 2026 1 File #26-14876 1 10857 Linda Vista Drive Executive Summary SummerHill Homes proposes 51 townhomes at 10857 Linda Vista Drive, a site reclassified as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) in March 2025. SummerHill obtained an AMMR to reduce the 30 feet setbacks to 10 feet on the south and east boundaries; these are the side directly abutting existing single-family homes. The AMMR (filed by Steven Bull, accepted Jan. 6, 2026) says Justification The primaryjustifications for the reduction of the 30-foot setback requirement to the northern, southern, and western property lines are the development density requirements and site constraints due to the existing public right-of-way for the cul-de-sac within the site. Subsection (b) of the above listed Code includes Development density requirements and site constraints among the exceptions to the 30' setback requirement. In this memorandum we refute both claims and establish that the 30 feet setbacks (fire -safety) and 51 unit density (housing element) can both be satisfied together. File #26-14876 1 10857 Linda Vista Drive MEMORANDUM March 13, 2026 TO: Cupertino City Council FROM: Concerned Residents of Linda Vista Drive RE: Provide 30 ft Setbacks Required for VHFHSZ & Build 51 Units: No Setback Waiver Needed FILE: City Council Meeting of March 17, 2026 1 File #26-14876 1 10857 Linda Vista Drive Executive Summary SummerHill Homes proposes 51 townhomes at 10857 Linda Vista Drive, a site reclassified as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) in March 2025. SummerHill obtained an AMMR to reduce the 30 feet setbacks to 10 feet on the south and east boundaries; these are the side directly abutting existing single-family homes. The AMMR (filed by Steven Bull, accepted Jan. 6, 2026) says Justification The primary justifications for the reduction of the 30-foot setback requirement to the northern, southern, and western property lines are the development density requirements and site constraints due to the existing public right-of-way for the cul-de-sac within the site. Subsection (b) of the above listed Code includes Development density requirements and site constraints among the exceptions to the 30' setback requirement. In this memorandum we refute both claims and establish that the 30 feet setbacks (fire -safety) and 51 unit density (housing element) can both be satisfied together. CLAIM 1: DENSITY "in order to fit the minimum required number of units within the site" • SummerHill's proposed units average 2,369 livable SF (excluding the 2-car garage) are significantly oversized relative to comparable, approved projects in the same market served by CUSD • Vida Sunnyvale Phase I (Appendix A): 50 units on 2.76 acres (vs. SummerHill's 51 units on 2.51 acres): nearly identical density - Avg livable area: 1,748 SF per unit: Evulich Ct is 36% larger than Vida - Setbacks to single-family homes: 53-65 feet (vs. SummerHill's -10 ft) - Heights taper down 1 story from interior to rear: gradual transition to neighbors - Approved July 2021, built and sold: same South Bay market, conventional financing • Westport Cupertino (Appendix B): 88 townhomes/rowhouses at Stevens Creek & Mary, Cupertino - Avg livable area: 1,978 SF per unit: Evulich Ct is 20% larger than Westport - Family -sized units with 2-car garages: proven marketable product - Approved by Cupertino's own City Council (Aug. 2020); same city, same market CLAIM 2: EVULICH COURT RIGHT-OF-WAY "The site is constrained by an existing City right-of-way (Evulich Court)." • SummerHill must build internal access roads regardless; the site plan includes five private streets for vehicle and fire apparatus access • The new internal road can be dedicated back to the City in lieu of the existing Evulich Court right-of-way Page 1 File #26-14876 1 10857 Linda Vista Drive • A required infrastructure element cannot simultaneously be a "site constraint" justifying reduced wildfire setbacks; this argument is circular (Appendix C) REDUCING UNIT SIZE FROM MCMANSION TO COMPARABLE MAKES 30 FT SETBACKS FEASIBLE • At Westport sizes (1,978 SF): total livable drops from 120,829 to 100,878 SF, freeing--20,000 SF of building mass • At Vida sizes (1,748 SF): total livable drops to 89,148 SF, freeing--31,700 SF of building mass • Either reduction substantially eases the physical conflict with the 30-foot PRC 4290 setback while still delivering the 51 units required by the City's Housing Element CONCLUSION: NO SETBACK WAIVER IS NEEDED TO MEET HOUSING DENSITY The setback waiver is not necessary to meet the housing density required by the City's Housing Element. The required 51 units can be delivered at right -sized livable areas, consistent with comparable projects already approved and built in the same market, while honoring the full 30-foot PRC 4290 setback mandated for Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. The only thing preventing compliance is SummerHill's choice to build oversized units, not any site constraint or density requirement. Side -by -Side Comparison Location Linda Vista Dr, Cupertino E. Fremont Ave, Sunnyvale Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino 8.1 acres (mixed -use) Site Area 2.51 acres 2.76 acres Townhome Units 51 50 88 Avg Livable SF (excl. garage) 2,369 1,748 1,978 Avg Garage SF (2-car) 485 458 571 Page 2 File #26-14876 1 10857 Linda Vista Drive Appendix A: Vida Sunnyvale Phase I, A Built Comparable Project Overview Vida Phase 1 (166-176 E. Fremont Avenue, Sunnyvale; File #21-0715) was approved by the Sunnyvale Planning Commission on July 12, 2021 and has been constructed and almost sold out. It is a 50-unit townhome development on 2.76 acres, a nearly identical site profile to SummerHill's proposed 51 units on 2.51 acres. Both projects target the same South Bay family -housing market served by Cupertino Union School District, an important factor in home pricing. Setbacks and Height Transition to Single -Family Neighbors Vida is bordered by single-family neighborhoods on two sides (east toward Bobolink Circle; south toward Avon Terrace/Berwick Way). The project provides setbacks of 53 to 65 feet from these single-family homes: more than five times what SummerHill proposes on the south property line. Critically, these generous setbacks were achieved without any fire hazard zone requirement. Building heights taper down one story from the site interior along the rear property line, providing a gradual transition toward the neighboring single-family homes. The residential buildings are set back approximately 74 to 84 feet from adjacent residential properties when measured to the building face (vs. property line). Additional buffers include a 6-foot masonry perimeter wall along the east and south property lines, fast-growing evergreen screening trees, restricted exhaust openings on walls facing residential neighbors, and peripheral lighting capped at 8-foot pole heights. Setback Comparison South / East (Rear) West (Side) Single -Family Homes City Parcel / SF Home -10 ft (AM MR waiver) -10 ft (AMMR waiver) 53-65 ft 15-28 ft (PL-9 waiver) North / Front I Street / Commercial 1 -10-30 ft (varies) 1 10-29 ft (PL-9 waiver) Vida used Density Bonus waivers (PL-9) only on the front and commercial -facing side; never on the sides adjacent to single-family homes. SummerHill, by contrast, seeks the setback reduction precisely on the sides where residents live. Site and Density Comparison Net Site Area Total Units Density l+PI l 11111-41. 11 IN q I I U1 K ML M I- 2.51 acres 51 20.3 du/acre w u G Ir-1l I I I I Ll 'C•Ilarlpb7al 2.76 acres 50 18.1 du/acre Stories 3 3-4 (tapered to 3 at rear) Avg Livable SF (excl. garage) 2,369 1,748 Total Livable SF (excl. garage) 120,829 485 (447-579) 87,416 Avg Garage SF 458 (453-489) Both projects have comparable acreage (2.51 vs. 2.76 acres), comparable unit counts (51 vs. 50), and comparable densities (20.3 vs. 18.1 du/acre). Both include 2-car garages for every unit Page 3 File #26-14876 1 10857 Linda Vista Drive (SummerHill's avg 485 SF vs. Vida's avg 458 SF). The garage deduction is roughly equal, making the livable area comparison apples -to -apples. The decisive difference is unit size: SummerHill averages 2,369 livable SF per unit versus Vida's 1,748, which is 36% larger; a difference that directly drives the setback conflict. Vida Unit Mix Detail Unit Type Unit 1 Qty 4 Net Interior SIF 1,365 Open Space SIF -114 489 -1,479 Unit 2 10 1,414 -114 462 -1,528 Units 3-4 8 1,430-1,520 -114 454-462 -1,544-1,634 Units 5-6 14 1,619-1,740 -114 453-454 -1,733-1,854 Units 7-8 14 1,901-2,037 -114 461-471 -2,015-2,151 Average / Total 50 1,634 avg -114 avg 458 avg 1,748 avg *Livable SF = Net Interior + Private Open Space (porches/decks), excluding garage. Both projects have comparable 2-car garages (--450-580 SF), so the garage deduction is roughly a wash. Source: Sunnyvale File #21-0715, Attachment 2 (Project Data Table), Attachment 7 (Project Plans, Sheet AO I). Approved July 12, 2021. Page 4 File #26-14876 1 10857 Linda Vista Drive Appendix 13: Westport Cupertino, Same Market, Smaller Units Project Overview Westport Cupertino (21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard at Mary Avenue) is a mixed -use development approved by the Cupertino City Council on August 18, 2020. The project includes 88 townhomes and rowhouses designed by C2K Architecture for KT Urban, along with senior housing and retail. Westport matters for this analysis because it is in Cupertino itself: the same city, the same real estate market, and the same municipal approval process as SummerHill's proposed project. If family -sized townhomes averaging under 2,000 SF are marketable, financeable, and approvable on Stevens Creek Boulevard, the same is true on Linda Vista Drive. Unit Data Townhomes (13 bldgs) 70 139,860 1,998 564 Rowhouses (3 bldgs) 18 34,250 1,903 602 Combined 88 174,110 1,978 571 `Livable SF = Total residential area excluding garage/parking. Westport figures from SF YIMBY/ planning records: 179,310 SF total built area for townhomes (139,860 residential + 39,450 parking); 45,090 SF for rowhouses (34,250 residential + 10, 840 parking). All 88 units include 2-car garages. The townhomes average 1,998 livable SF; the rowhouses average 1,903 livable SF. SummerHill's proposed average of 2,369 livable SF is 20% larger than Westport's combined average of 1,978 livable SF. Notably, Westport was approved without density bonus setback waivers on residential -adjacent boundaries, and without any AMMR for fire hazard setback reduction. What This Means for SummerHill's Claim If SummerHill sized its 51 units to the Westport average (1,978 SF livable, excluding garage), the total livable area would drop from 120,829 SF to approximately 100,878 SF: a reduction of 19,951 SF of building mass. Adding garages (-485 SF each), total gross would be approximately 125,613 SF versus the current 145,544 SF. This 20,000 SF reduction in building envelope, distributed across 10 buildings, would substantially narrow building footprints along the south and east boundaries and move significantly toward compliance with the 30-foot PRC 4290 setback. Even a modest reduction to--2,100 SF livable per unit (still larger than Westport) would free approximately 13,700 SF of building mass, enough to meaningfully increase setback distances from the current —10 feet toward the mandated 30 feet on the sides adjacent to single-family homes. Page 5 File #26-14876 1 10857 Linda Vista Drive Appendix C: The Evulich Court Right -of -Way Is Not a Valid Justification In the AMMR application submitted to the Santa Clara County Fire Department, SummerHill's representative Steven Bull states: "The site is constrained by an existing City right-of-way within the approximate center of the site (Evulich Court). The width of Evulich Court reduces the size of the development area for the project. The size and quantity of the proposed townhomes necessitate a reduction of the 30-foot setback requirement in order to fit the minimum required number of units within the site. " This argument does not withstand scrutiny for a straightforward reason: SummerHill must build internal access roads regardless. The proposed site plan includes five private streets (A Street through E Street), cul-de-sacs, and connecting roadways to provide vehicle access to all ten buildings and to meet CFC D105 fire apparatus access requirements. This internal road network is a design necessity for a 51-unit development on this site, irrespective of the Evulich Court right-of-way. The existing Evulich Court right-of-way, ceded by the original property owners decades ago, runs through the approximate center of the parcel. SummerHill's own site plan replaces the existing cul-de-sac with a new internal street network. The new road that SummerHill constructs in its place can be dedicated back to the City in lieu of the existing right-of-way. This is a standard mechanism in subdivision development; the Vesting Tentative Map (TM-2024-009) already contemplates the reconfiguration of internal circulation. The critical point: the existence of a historical City right-of-way cannot be the reason to reduce wildfire setbacks to 10 feet and place neighboring single-family homes at risk. The developer must build access roads for the 51-unit development in any configuration. The road infrastructure is a given; only the setback to neighboring homes is a variable. A site plan with right -sized units, as demonstrated by Vida and Westport, could accommodate both the required road network and full 30-foot PRC 4290 setbacks. Appendix D: SummerHill Unit Mix Detail (Sheet A08) Type Unit 1 (BMR) Qty 10 Net Interior SF 1,777 Porches/DeckUnit -200 -1,977 579 Unit 2 21 2,217 -200 -2,417 469 Unit 3 12 2,317 -200 -2,517 447 Unit 3ALT 8 2,315 -200 -2,515 464 Average / Total 51 2,170 avg -200 avg 2,369 avg 485 avg *Livable SF = Net Interior SF (per A08, measured to outside face of stud) + prorated porches/decks (-200 SF/unit average from project totals of 4,300 SF porches + 5,878 SF decks across 51 units). Excludes garage only. Source: Exhibit C, Sheet A08 Project Data (September 15, 2025). Staff Report FAR figure of 148,473 SF (136% FAR) includes these areas plus additional common area. Market -rate units (Units 2, 3, 3ALT, 41 units) average 2,265 net interior SF, or approximately 2,465 livable SF including porches/decks. Even the BMR units (Unit 1, 10 units) at 1,977 livable SF are larger than the Vida average of 1,748 and comparable to the Westport average of 1,978. This confirms that right -sized units are not only viable but already part of SummerHill's own product offering. Page 6 File #26-14876 1 10857 Linda Vista Drive Data Sources SummerHill Linda Vista: City of Cupertino Staff Report, March 17, 2026 (File #26-14876); Exhibit C, Sheet A08 Project Data (Sept. 15, 2025); Exhibit A, Setback Site Plan (Rev. 12/19/2025); Attachment F, AMMR Approval (Steven Bull / SummerHill Homes, Oct. 28, 2025, Rev. Dec. 19, 2025). Vida Sunnyvale Phase I: City of Sunnyvale File #21-0715 (Planning Application #2020-7525): Attachment 2 (Project Data Table), Attachment 3 (Recommended Findings), Attachment 7 (Project Plans, Sheet A01). Approved July 12, 2021. Westport Cupertino: City of Cupertino (File #DP-2018-05, ASA-2018-05, TM-2018-03); Approved by City Council Aug. 18, 2020; EIR certified (CEQA #2019070377). Building data from approved planning documents. 88 townhomes/rowhouses by KT Urban / C2K Architecture. Page 7 SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 1315 Dell Avenue, Campbell, CA 95008 i (408) 378-4010 1 SCCFD.org APPLICATION FOR USE OF ALTERNATE MATERIALS, METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION, OR MODIFICATION OF CODE Project Street Address:10857 Linda Vista Drive Project(:ity: Cupertino Building Permit# Applicant's name: SummerHill Homes; Attn.: Steven Bull 6101 Bollinger Canyon Road, San Ramon, CA 94583 425 Applicant's Address: Suite: Phone Number: (510)410-1188 Email: sbuII@shhomes.com FI Use of Alternate Materials or Method of Construction ❑ Modification of Code Codes Affected: Building Code Fire Code Mechanical Code Electrical Code C)Ili er: California Code of Regulations. We 14, Division 1.5, Chapter 7 -Fire Protection, Article 6, Subchapter 2, Article 5 Specific section(s) of the code involved: Section 1276.01 - Building and Parcel Siting and Setbacks, Subsection (a) Request a reduction in the minimum 30' setback to neighboring properties. Brief description of the request: � _ Please see the attached narrative for justification of the reduction pursuant to Section 1276.01(b). The Building and Fire Official must evaluate information that the material(s), method of work, and / or modification is equal to the intent of the code in strength, effect, fire - resistance, durability, safety, etc. SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 1315 Dell Avenue, Campbell. CA 95008 1 (408) 378.4010 1 SCCFD.org Please complete the following information as applicable to support your request. Use additional paper if necessary. 1. Quality: See attached documentation 2. Strength:. _ See attached documentation 3. Effectiveness: See attached documentation 4. Fire Resistance: See attached documentation 5. Durability: See attached documentation 6. Safety: See attached documentation Additional evidence of p The above application has been reviewed and has been: AACCEPTE ❑ REJECTED Signature: Fire Official: AC Tb�>e7;4j�- A Ae_ S`[ Ac Bate: I 2 Building Official: _Date:. DropB ox/FirePrevention/Administrative/a ppl!cations/bh/06.2 3.2025 T" Y } SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 1315 Dell Avenue, Campbell, CA 95008 1 (408) 378-4010 1 SCCFD.org FIRE PREVENTION PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS PROJECT INFO: FIRE DEPT PLAN REVIEW #: 250800 CITY/COUNTY PROJECT #: TM-2024-009 / Asa-2024- 015 / TR-2024-044 LOCATION: 10857 Linda Vista Dr PROJECT NAME: I Multi family PREPARED BY: NAME/TITLE: [ Caleb Flanagan / DFM II EMAIL: Caleb.flanagan@sccfd.org DATE: 1 1/7/26 J The scope of this proiect includes the following: Alternate Means/Methods Application for an exception request to PRC 4290 - Proposed new 10 building 51-unit multi -family residential subdivision. Plan Status: The exception request to PRC 4290 methods request is APPROVED. Discussion: This alternate proposes to mitigate deficiencies to non -conforming 30' setback requirements. In order to mitigate the noncompliant setbacks the applicant ro oses the following: -Add sprinkler heads to covered patios in all reduced setback areas. -Design portions of buildings non meeting setback requirements to stricter fire separation distance requirements in accordance with CRC 302.4. -Extend non-combustible landscaping 5 feet from buildings. Comments and Conditions of Approval: 1. A copy of the Alternate Means/Methods application form, with approval signature, and these comments shall be made part of the building permit drawing set, to be routed to Santa Clara County Fire Department for final approval. This review shall not be construed to be an approval of a violation of the provisions of the California Fire Code or of other laws or regulations of the jurisdiction. A permit presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of the fire code or other such laws or regulations shall not be valid. Any addition to or alteration of approved construction documents shall be approved in advance. [CFC, Ch. 1, 105.3.6] COMMUNITIES OF DISTINCTION 10857 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino (Reference City of Cupertino Planning Application File Numbers #TM-2024-009, ASA-2024-015) Application for Use of Alternate Materials, Methods of Construction, or Modification of Code October 28, 2025 (REVISED December 19, 2025) Requirement California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 1.5, Chapter 7, Subchapter 2, Article 5, Section 1276.01, subsection (a): "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). Description of Request Request a reduction of the 30 foot setback from all buildings to the property lines as shown on the attached Exhibit A, which is consistent with the Development Permit plan set submitted to the City of Cupertino as file number TM-2024-009 and ASA-2024-015. In summary, the proposed setbacks to the public roads and property lines are proposed as follows: 1. Setbacks to center of Public Roads (In compliance with requirement) a. Evulich Court: Minimum 30 feet b. Linda Vista Drive: Minimum 30 feet 2. Setbacks to Property Lines (Request for Reduction) a. Northern Property Line: Minimum 10 feet b. Southern Property Line: Minimum 10 feet c. Western Property Line: Minimum 20 feet Justification The primary justifications for the reduction of the 30-foot setback requirement to the northern, southern, and western property lines are the development density requirements and site constraints due to the existing public right-of-way for the cul-de-sac within the site. Subsection (b) of the above listed Code includes Development density requirements and site constraints among the exceptions to the 30' setback requirement. The City of Cupertino General Plan and Zoning designations for the site are Medium/High Density Residential and Multiple -Family Residential / Townhome Combining District, respectively. The density requirement for the site in accordance with the City of Cupertino General Plan designation is a minimum of 20.01 units per acre and a maximum of 35 units per acre (Reference Cupertino General Plan: Land Use Plan and Appendix A Land Use Definitions). The project site is approximately 2.51 acres, which results in Linda Vista Site Alternative Materials, Methods of Construction, or Modification of Code October 28, 2025 (Revised December 19, 2025) Page 2 of 2 a minimum unit count requirement of 51 units to achieve the minimum density. The proposed unit count for the project is 51 units, which is the minimum required to comply with the City General Plan and Zoning for the site. The proposed homes will be townhomes in compliance with the Zoning designation. The proposed setbacks exceed the City of Cupertino Zoning standards at the northern, southern, and western boundaries. The site is constrained by an existing City right-of-way within the approximate center of the site (Evulich Court). The width of Evulich Court reduces the size of the development area for the project. The size and quantity of the proposed townhomes necessitate a reduction of the 30 foot setback requirement in order to fit the minimum required number of units within the site. Mitigation In accordance with subsection (b) of Section 1276.01, the project will include the following mitigation measures to mitigate the reduced setback by providing the same practical effect: 1. Non-combustible landscaping material extending five (5) feet horizontally from the furthest existing point of the Building. Please see Exhibits B1 and B2, which are included within the Development Permit Plan set as Sheets L7.1 and L7.2. 2. The Wildfire protective measures in accordance with the California Building Code Chapter 7A as noted on Exhibit C, which is included within the Development Permit Plan set as Sheet A08. 3. An added fire sprinkler head within each of the covered porches and decks that are within 30' of the property line as shown on Exhibit A. 4. Designing to stricter fire separation distance requirements within 30' of the property lines as shown on Exhibit A per Residential Code R302.1 (2) as follows*: a. Exterior Wall Elements — Fire resistance rated for 1 hour. b. Projections — Fire resistance rated for 1 hour c. Penetrations —Comply with Section 302.4 *Please note that we are not proposing modifications to the Openings (Windows) in Walls. From: Louis Mirante To: Emi Suaiyama; City Council; City Clerk Subject: Support for Linda Vista Homes Date: Wednesday, March 11, 2026 5:10:05 PM Attachments: Outlook -Loan Desc.ona Outlook -Text Desc.a_na Outlook -Loan, icon.pna Outlook -Icon Desc.p_na Outlook -Icon Descxna Cupertino Linda Vista.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City of Cupertino, Please see the attached support letter for the SummerHill Homes Linda Vista Project from the Bay Area Council. If you should have any questions about our letter, please don't hesitate to let me know. Best wishes, Louis BAYAR EA COUNCIL HISTORIC KLAMATH Louis Mirante Senior Vice President of Public Policy, Housing Phone: (510) 908-0537 1 Email: ImiranteCa)bayareacouncil.ora The Historic Klamath, Pier 9, The Embarcadero, San Francisco www.bavareacouncii.ora n IP BAYAREA couwcIL February 9, 2026 City Council and Planning Commission City of Cupertino 10350 Torre Ave Cupertino, CA 95014 Support for 10857 Linda Vista Drive Residential Condominium Project Dear City of Cupertino, I write on behalf of the Bay Area Council to express our strong support for the proposed residential development at 10857 Linda Vista Drive. The Bay Area Council has worked since 1945 to make the Bay Area the best place to live and work, and few types of projects help that goal more than projects like this one, which provide homeownership options and new housing supply amid a stark regional shortage. The Bay Area is experiencing an unprecedented housing shortage that continues to drive up costs, deepen inequities, and threaten the long-term economic competitiveness of our region. Projects like this one are essential to meeting local and regional housing goals while providing meaningful community benefits. The proposed development would deliver 51 townhome-style condominium homes designed to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and offer family -sized four - bedroom floor plans. This type of homeownership -focused housing is especially rare in today's market and directly advances the Bay Area's urgent need for more attainable ownership opportunities. Importantly, the project includes 10 below -market -rate homes targeted toward median and moderate -income families, ensuring that working households have an opportunity to remain in the community and benefit from stable, wealth -building homeownership. In addition to delivering needed housing, the project will generate substantial fiscal and civic benefits, including $2.2 million in park fees, $569,000 in school impact fees, and an estimated $48,000 in annual net benefit to the City's General Fund. The project also commits to incorporating public art along the frontage, enhancing the public realm and neighborhood character. This development reflects the kind of thoughtful, community -serving housing investment that cities need in order to meet Regional Housing Needs Allocation requirements, implement certified Housing Elements, and expand opportunities for first-time homebuyers in highly desirable neighborhoods. The Bay Area Council urges the City of Cupertino to support and approve the proposed project at 10857 Linda Vista Drive. This development represents a meaningful step toward P. 415.946.8777 Bay Area Council Bay Area Council Bay Area Council www.bayareacouncii.org The Historic Klamath PO Box 5135 1215 K Street, Suite 2220 Pier 9, The Embarcadero Berkeley, CA 94705 Sacramento, CA 95814 San Francisco, CA 94111 BAYAREA cOUN01L addressing our housing crisis, expanding homeownership opportunities, and delivering tangible community benefits. Thank you for your leadership and consideration. Sincerely, Louis Mirante Senior Vice President of Public Policy Bay Area Council lmirantekbayareacouncil. org P. 415.946.8777 Bay Area Council Bay Area Council Bay Area Council www.bayareacouncii.org The Historic Klamath PO Box 5135 1215 K Street, Suite 2220 Pier 9, The Embarcadero Berkeley, CA 94705 Sacramento, CA 95814 San Francisco, CA 94111 From: Vikram Saxena To: City Clerk; City Attorney"s Office; Tina Kapoor Cc: Liana 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 1.40.43AM.p_na BioRetentionPads. Dna SetbackPlan.p_na Brad FoxLetterNovember13.Dno 16 — Project Site Plan.pdf Exhibit A SETBACK SITE PLAN 2025-12-19 Revised.Ddf 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&umail.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.BuiQasm.ca.gov>, David Yan <davidcyan(c�r�,outlook.com>, Mark Fantozzi <mwfantozzi cUtfanco.com>, DerChang Kau <derchang�a amail.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 AB 130 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. UNTREATED GLAZING CALCULATION - REAR ELEV. `J REAR ELEVATION TOTAL UNTREATED GLAZING AREA - 226 S.F. = 6.0% OF GLAZING IS UNTREATED TOTAL FACADE AREA- 3767 S.F. FOR BIRD SAFE MEASURES LEFT ELEVATION UNTREATED GLAZING CALCULATION - LEFT ELEV. TOTAL UNTREATED GLAZING AREA 51 S.F.=4.1% OF GLAZING IS UNTREATED TOTAL FACADE AREA 1241S.F. FOR BIRD SAFETY MEASURES MT 7 T T BB i,°xmpu wxa�rw Demo a.ers -___ 41°� 392.5 BLDG4EGM 391.1 BLDG 5 EGM M3A BLDG 3 EGM RIGHT ELEVATION UNTREATED GLAZING CALCULATION - RIGHT ELEV. TOTAL UNTREATED GLAZING AREA- 51 S.F. = 3.9%OF GLAZING IS UNTREATED TOTAL FACADE AREA 1303 S.F. FOR BIRD SAFETY MEASURES 3C 41 9 15 BAMM18-BUILDING3 °I DING. 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. F e reslefanfAdd f re Add fl spinkler kaa0 wllflln encd iIPEKINO HILLS SWIM tletpt walls antl f Ine c� f t. vered P.- antl decks '� RA 19 UIV p jectl —1, I I In'n 3 w 30' of me property in RPN'o o] 02— �30 of Ine property - k e d porches and decks ronne property me �1T 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 From: Brad Fox <bmd.fox@sccfd.org> Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2025 4:42 PM EST To: Piu Ghosh (she/her) <PiuG@cepertino.gov>; Sean Hatch, CBO, CASp <SeanH@cupertino.gov> CC: McKenna, Matt <mafthew.mckenna@sccfd.org> Subject: Fwd: TM-2024-009/ASA-2024-015/TR-2024-044 CAUTION: Thin email originated Gam outside of the arganitliw. Do not click livka or a atmch ae unless you recogoiu iLe aeoda and kvow iLe coofmtis safe. Hello Piu and Sean, We are dealing with a unique situation regarding the referenced project(TM-2024-009/ASA-2024-015/TR-2024-044). The applicant submitted an exception request —similar to an AMMR, but specifically addressing state minimum fire safe regulations —to waive the required 30-foot setback. Here are the key details of the project: - This is a Builder's Remedy project. - At me time inn a ica ion was deemed complete, the project site was not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) and was therefore not subject to the state minimum fire safe regulations (PRC 4290). - Following the adoption of the new state fire hazard severity zone maps, the parcel is now located within a VHFHSZ. - The project is currently applying for a Building Permit and has voluntarily submitted an exception request to address the setback requirement triggered by the new designation. A Building Permit application is generally a qualifying event that triggers PRC 4290 requirements. However, I am unsure if this applies to a Builder's Remedy project. I have discussed this issue with our legal counsel. The Builder's Remedy language is clear that local ordinances and standards in effect at the time of application are fixed and not subject to future changes. However, the language is silent regarding changes to State requirements. Our legal counsel advised that it is up to the City to determine whether the project should be subjected to new State requirements that took effect after the initial application date. Could you please bring this topic forward to the Citys legal counsel? I am happy to participate in any necessary discussions with our legal counsel, or if the City can provide guidance without our direct input, that would also be acceptable. Please let me know how you would like to proceed and if you have any questions I can clarify. Thank you, Brad Fox, P.E. Assistant Fire Marshal Fire Prevention Division Santa Clara County Fire Department Office: 408-341-4420 1 Direct: 408-341-4493 — Forwarded message ---- From: Caleb Flanagan <celeb.fianagan sccfJ.om> Date: Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 2:16 PM Subject: TM-2024-0091ASA-2024-015rrR-2024-044 To: Brad Fox <brad foxQsccfd arr> Cc: Matthew McKenna <ma6hewmckennaQsccfd.om> Following up on the meeting, -The project address is 10857 Linda Vista Or Cupertino (Image trend PCk250351) -Planning permit numbers are: TM-2024-009 / ASA-2024-015 / TR-2024-044 -Thee preliminary subadttal date was m July 2024 but the official submittal date is 12/12/24. -The project did receive planning approval on 9/10/25. \ 1 1�3i 8 l i \ _ SITE AREA: I I yr I "J�r F� r ��J rlll I J J�l�l�1�� SITE AREA: 2.555 AC± (PROPERTY LIMITS) D APE PL BY OTHER FOR ALL LANDSCAPE & IRRI A ON Al S. r l \ � GROSS LOT AREA: 3.141 AC± PER CCMC 19.08.030.G I _ _ \ \ L PE PLA S FOR ALL WA KWAY SURFACE TYPE M DE AI S. r r ) I - ( ) - 1 3.\ STRIA"TREET CROSSINGS ILL BE PROVIDED WITH AN ACE SIB�E URB RAMP & TRUNCATED DOME WIL B c)�� r� r r r I B LOT AREA (NET): 2.506 AC± (PER CCMC 19.08.030.L) z - - D ON THE PROJECTS CONSTRU TION DRAWINGS. 1 1 DER C) I 1 1 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS 5' SEPARATION SHALL BE R VI ED BE Eft S MAIN AND TR PLAN ING. J r I _� r r / r -/ n PROPOSED ZONING AND LAND USE: J r 1 � rr�AN � I \ \ \5. N ARK FOR THIS S IS S WD'S 6CM DIAMETER B A S IS (180); 0 ERLY CUB FOR A P 1\1' 3 J J J 0 J J 2 1 J95. 1 ZONING: R3/TH -MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WITH TOWNHOME COMBINING DISTRICT � r r� r r J / ; r � � OAD, NEAR A CATCH B I 2.5 FEET NORTH OF E AIR EST-bf T 7 �I�JJI�Ir: a LAND USE: HIGH/MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL A ��\� 1 J 5 J J 1 J J 3 J w � E E TRACKS. STATION IS ALSO ABOUT 250 FEET EAT RO UBB ROAD ALO LELLAN ROAD, CITY OF ^ / >� x P VING A NAVD88 PUBLISHED ELEVATION OF 335.23,FE . LAND USE: CIVIC SUPPORT x /0i\1IING: R 1 -7,5 I-'--' L� � o o I 6. I IGHTS SHOWN ON THE THIS PLAN ARE MEASURED FR PROPOSED FENCE EX EX TI GRADE ALTERED FOR EXISTING BUILDINGS. - SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS F LAND USE: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL I CURB CONFO&MGUTTER ' �L,< LL,<i I II EG 392 3± EG 396.5± EG 396.0±� G 395.0±- �G 393.8± N89°49'50"E 438.62' -EG 392.E EG 392.0± 1 EG 394.0± \ il I •- I--� I -N I TSM BTo0_ .■ ■ 10 SD 391. 10 SD .MTS390.5.` o 10 OW -392334± 7,11 1 JCcN noOW 395.5 EG 396.6± 395.1 .4± G 394.3± '395.0 EG 393.7± 392.3± 3925 C 389.1 -N II1 >x 395.5 I 4 1 BIORETENTION \ TYP•`'23.223' BIO-RETENTION (TYP.) I 36.25' ( ) • p p p 19 1• Bw 1389.9 PROPOSED PARCELS GROSS/LOT AREAS PARCEL GROSS(') SF NET(2) SF LOT 1 11,918 11,918 LOT 2 11,304 9,787 LOT 3 11,077 9,271 LOT 4 10,836 9,030 LOT 5 17,798 10,585 LOT 6 12,315 12,315 LOT 7 9,012 7,015 LOT 8 9,152 7,305 LOT 9 8,911 7,063 LOT 10 13,943 7,805 PARCEL A 7,592 6,709 PARCEL B 3,622 2,977 PARCEL C 31622 2,979 PARCEL D 2,864 2,159 PARCEL E 2,864 2,220 TOTAL 109,138 i2) MCCLELLAN DR SITE HYANNISPORT DR N m i N 5 COLUMBUS AVE a5 N TERRACE DR VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE AL AREA A SITE STREET THE -r 88.0 (1) 19.08.030.G "G" DEFINITIONS 0 "GROSS LOT AREA" MEANS THE EG 39II r. - ■ ■ 1 :- ■ ■ ■ ■ ■�■� - I� ■ ■ .. PLUS THE STREET AREA BOUNDED ,�JI - 1 � . I � 1� ��L 1,1 1� _-_ I -� _ ... �,all�' 11 ■ ■ _:1��f _� .• ,�� I �19■ �=1� ` ■ __I ��i-� �'I�i� 1 III �ti� 1 1 DISTANT-FROMPROPERTY INE, THE STREET RIGHT -OF 1 1 1 1 •'1 • �r►�� . ■ _ I � � ►, LI�I �I .I ► ■ _ � Mill�II ill �j/ 1 •'�' PIA ►1 ��■I II� �I�►®- ! ��II ■1 ■ _ _ __- ..■■■I■■11■II■■�■ IllsT�1 I�rI Ilr�l��I- ^II rl ■■1 -- \` ■ n r- ..�� I� 1►� 1 t/llrl. [lL �_ "�IITs J� u � � � 1 • � • � • • • • • 1 ,``` �_ lr�Jn��r■•••••••��_I� WON i7 1�1 �� I_ I■.■II�� r%I[ ]1� ■\__r-�� _�■- �: �.\ �111�►_ II 1 • • •!I 1 •, 1 :�I 1 I ,I�®��I.� �, F'_I�I■_•nC., '�%,■� ■■ rII �I��:I� "► , / _ [11 71 • 1�®I\ _ �,I �` • 1 - 1 1 1 •• III I■ 19 I �r I 1 1 �I • I ® 1��1� ■�4 ® I . I �. \� ;u`:��,� ��.I I 1 1 1 ■ 1 • • 1 11 • 1 F, I I NEW � 1 LINE TABLE NO BEARING LENGTH L1 N00'10'10"W 20.00' L2 N89'49'50"E 20.00' L3 N89'49'17"E 20.00' CURVE TABLE NO RADIUS DELTA LENGTH C1 20.00' 90'00'00" 31.42' C2 40.00 24'0849 16.86' C3 40.00' 38'02'51" 26.56' - 'DETAIL 1-19 qi Iw■■ �■ ► _ .I � _ _ c I ► , • : 1 I, .' �Ir 1 �� .- 1 1 DRAINAGE ACQUIRED, FOR 1 PORTION1 - Illy _■II ,I �, I _ ■■� 1 ;�e��l ■�_ , - 1 _ll�Itf -�]il FF 1 �:'. „ IIII .• �r 1■1 I. 1 ..� ■ • ■ . . ■ • 11►!• 1b ❑ HIGH I -OF -WAY PURPOSES, IN FEE, EA�iEMEN I OR 1 PAD 395.5_�� 1 I•s PAD 1 I _ 1 . 1 �I-- �III�I��11 ■■ ' 1 1 1 1 ,F I �. - 1 . , 1 I ,�11..r:�il . 1 1 ' 1 OTHERWISE.PROPERTY �► �'' ii ''�� 1■ ► III■■■�■�� mil .� �II� ® C -� V, IPROPOSED • • � - • -, � • • 1- � � �nnna.nnnmu,�••I� ® � III �F,�4 1 1 . I EXISTING EASEMENT LINE S- • � ,Ire I ,. 1 �I 11 - •.I • n I 1 1 r -i 1 ��, .1 1 II �� •., L��I 1 ISEE-I�w._�, 1 .. �II� 1 ��. iJ! 11■ -1 .■ : 1 1 _ /��I,. 1 ,IIII i�-�■ ❑�'i _ ■ ICENTER LINE rSEE1TE 6 TC I, I I � ' 1 1 •1 � � � ' I.� \I■ �� / 1 - ii I I I 1 NQTE � 1 : '` �.- 1 • LOT LINE In I: 1 - 1 - ■LIIII.■■f1111■IID�\■■�� III , ..,.. q29E�V'r_II �■ 1►1 .. ` -- ■ r , ,', ''1 , I!�� .� -r�s�l _,I 1 III SEE NOTE : 1 - ETENTION . I►�� i �N� ' i1� II tom. r�l I � i �, � � J - Ir ■. f� � � ■ I III., ■. -. �,_. •�I I��I /� �!■PUElilA I� ® •. • I -�� ❑ • I f s I _ / PROPOSED DEEPENED • : .i� 1 I\ - I �' I �11 � CURB TYPE E PER CITY STD � � � it I �� • 11 �OEM ��WATER MAIN a� SANITARY SEWER PIPE ,� 1 I�e .� Ir�G lr��' �� ' _`i 1 li ►�� 1 1�� I�� . , -�- /- 1 PIPE to • i� • IN FIE1 ACCESSIBLE PEDESTRIAN PATH 10 Eq � \ .•:� Vie \ • I • r- • . • . + ri � -.•rr��jj�� _ ■. I ,� 71�1■WIN►!��ri�l___. �I■1■■O.Q�1�1�►�--ASPHALT PAVEMENT U18z No Sri-��MINE-w�r�\\7.�►-�t�-Wl W ADAPTABL= t II li: I. II 1❑ • 1 • • • i : 1 1 ■i. 1 IIII, ► .��/III■■ I • • • • • • • • • • i : :'.SS 1. ' • • '® • 1 •1 : • 1 • ____________ t 101 EX & PROPOSED CONTOUR I DRIVEWAY PER CORNER TRIANGLE PER CITY 1 1 .,TL 7-2 �!191 1 , . .. .. _ , i� I I _ _ , 1 . , N 1 h_ � _ _...�� _ � ❑ �? ., , , �i �1: •��CITY STID DTL 7-6 I EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN. FOR �•-�--��- -• , • !�!!�!i .��--� , �� ` --- •. - it • O #438 I, 'IN . - DBH AND SPECIES SEE TREE Lo .. : • • 1 1 1 �� . A� �1al ON II■lil ■■�St.7 TING TREE TO BE REMOVED. ■ iil L� 1 1 .vl■rl �� I� / �`W, '� _��" 1 .► ■III■ ' -1' 1 1 1- ir► ��-e�V, • 1 �J�IIM ■ rue I�■ ■ - ' �� '��L..� �`v.1./ ► I • • i��■d■,�� 1 \ i= • �� ►, .I: ---- -IN I- - ' 4 �,437 /• 1• 1 SPECIES SEE Li �1 �I fit ��PAD 396.2� ��ME -NowL��' , • IEXIS STANDARD PARKING'i a u r - �� i�-'�• �.PL TREE TABLE ON SHEET C1.1 PIL .. 1 �■ ■0/ .• 1: I . I I I IPROPOSED 1' 1 I-■■\\ / 1 1 1 I iiiiGl■ ► I I� 1 •• �I� �L `I i i■�•� �Gia i �[- _�/ I _ 1 1 ■L■'! _ ■■■\ F�I,�� 1 _' .� r4l I ��/)��' ��71► , •I 1 , �nl . 4 �\ ��.� I- ��■�1� PROPOSED MAILBOX„ .. I i �.�� 1� 1 , ,. ,��I SHOWN)S/W PARKING TRAVEL WAY PARKING S/W SHOWN) . 1 • • / 1 _ill �1�� I►��I1•11711%iI_� � 1M / IIII iIIIIIY!IIIIP= SEE , ■ ,, ■ .1■�� .. ■.� l,. I � �� - - ��-.-� If I _I �;„.I� I I11LJ1= �I I .. 1 _ .. TYPE E PER 1 •CITY ER � �SHOWN) ■ 1 II■ � , li� � i 1 •1 1 1 ,�� _ � 1 I ��.�■■11 ■I ■■■� I � � •�I I 1 I I ( -- - , - ^Y I n ■■, I, 1 ■ 1 ��I - I '� - �� • 1 • 1 ' 1 1 PC . LDG • ( - �h ■Lr3i■��1 1 . p� I� . _ , 1COURT STREET NOT TO SCALE • li • I p _■I ❑ �al 396.3 - II .I • �� •I I11 so ON I II - - II` ��■� f. ILL ILL 1 11 0 / �I' ' _II� - 11- 1 d �1�I •• 1 : 0 1 �I_ 1 �- Imo® • .• IJ •I ��PAD 396.3 I ® I / I 19 19 I I I !� lJ 1 �' II I _sue VVIII y■ / �i FACI UE �yllil _ .I'I a "i 1' ' ! ► 1 , III■■■■■■■■■� 1■■ ► 1 •:� ■ 1 , Itl l -I _ VA Ln - - : ■ ■ 1 BUIL - IIII , I ' 11 • I^� • • .•` IIII' �lal Imo' I, I ' I • ■ ■ i - .., I _ II I ■ ■I I ► M 1 ' ��.BLDG,I NOTE 6 ,x BIO-RETENTION (TYP.) I i• 1 �` i TSM 390.5 r v I I BAND CURB TYPICAL A-E STREET SECTION / s CURB TSM 394.5 p 36 il 22' 5' I I 4' 22' 4' II' • ' 4' 22' 4' ■ , I 20 00 0.5 WIDE AND GUTTER 25.125 • NOT TO SCALE ' EG 395.0i o 18 2' p o 39 y 4 39.25' , • p o 4 ] 51 a ` 20' R W w Ex 20' TREE DRIPLINE � 396.5 _ I o m O I EX J o m � I EG 397.6± EG 396.7± 396.5 BW 397.1 I I I _ PUE I 25.6 PUE I J N J m -DEDICATION TO THE �, PL 60' R W EG 394.4± I � _ � � Q 1' RW 396.6± EG 396.1± 395.5 - EG 395.6± 394.8± 00 EG 394.2± EG 393.6± 392.7 EG 393.2± EG 392.4± o CITY OF CUPERTINO c� ' 441 ■ X o SEE NOTE 7 - -- --- --- --- -- - - ----- I o.5' Fc R/w Fc I TSM 394.5 J `J C 395.C 392. YL I (0.049 AC±) w 40' m ■ I 10 SD TSM 393.5 ' ■ ` 10" SD ■ 10" SD T ` ■ , 1- I4.5' 4.5' TC -EX 5't EX3 1 7 l s/w L/s L/s s/w 20' R/W BOW 394.4± - - - ` - ` W I I I I I I 0.5' DEDICATION TO THE CITY OF CUPERTINO TOW 396.5 EG 394.4± EG 397.0± G 397.5 - �G 396.7 J�EG 396.7± N89°4917 E 426.83 EG 395.0±_ EG 394.3± EG 393.5± I� EG 392.6± CONFORM TO EX �- o o CURB & GUTTER I I - (WHERE SHOWN) �/ 44 PROPOSED FENCE o m J I - r , TREE DRIPLINE I _ BIO-RETENTION (TYP.) m � r _� r r r r SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS � _ I I I I _A P J\11 3 J J J J J J J 2 J K J PA R D r KAI 1\ > > r� � I r A l�l r �// 1 � I { I I 6" CURB GUTTERIGTOUREEMAIN TREE DRIPLINE R J DR 1 r J r I I AND GUTTER TYPICAL LINDA VISTA STREET SECTION IST�► RIVE ��PI\l; 3J JJ JJJ J2 J / r rrr r r � Ir��ll�� :�JJJJJJJ�J I I I I NOT TO SCALE i�NI1\1G: h"1�7.� r��J\l �.»J�� I /01\1ING, RI-7.5 �JNI1\1G: R1-7,5 /01\1I1\1G: R1-7.5 f �, r RESIDENTIAL. I� P I INARY SITE PLAN C2.0 I 1 , 2 6 LI NID USE: LOW DENSITY RESIDEJNTI �1 - LAND USE. LOW DENSITY t /ND USE: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIALI 1\1D USE: L�Jll�l DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, �- J CIVIL ENGINEERS" I I I I I SDG Architects, Inc. SUMMERHILL I SURVEYORS 20' I 11 2'1 1 40' 3361 Walnut Blvd. Suite 120 Cb / /� 3000 Executive Par Ery, 450 n, a 94583 PLANNERS Brentwood, CA 94513 COMMUNITIES OF DISTINCTION 650-857-0122 5 .4 N R A ;:1 O N • R 0 5 E V I L L E 925.634.7000 1 sdgarchitectsinc.com SCALE 1" = 20' architects FACE OF BUILDING 4'_ FC 22' F 4' OF DWY TRAVEL WAY DWY DING FC-FC 0.5' rr x O rl r \(' HILLS r I \ �,J�� r 11J _ DER I I �r RACQUET CLUB \\ X X X I X X I \ O I \ .. X x v- ..... ............. X ... ............. ... ..... . I \ \ .. ❑ .. :. ❑ .. J8 .8 o .. P 9 9 9 9 . \ c o m 4�2m o m Co m m I I p J J a a LEGEND ♦ • ♦ • I V \ ° ❑ IA ♦'.' ♦ [❑ ❑ ❑ ] EXISTING PROPERTY LINE J° ♦ ♦ ♦ , — — PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE \ \ ♦ • li ° CENTER LINE ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE \ ° 51 EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY ° CL—BLDG LOT LINE El I 50' \ ° ❑ ❑ ° CL—PO ° p BLDG 1 ° BLDG 2 0 BLDG 3 BLDG 4 B LD G 5 21, o PL—BLDG 0 ABBREVIATIONS I ED 39.4 � o O :- ❑] [❑ � ] 0 1. BLDG BUILDING ❑ ° C CL CENTERLINE ❑ PL PROPERTY LINE PO PORCH PL--BLDG W ° ❑] [❑ ° Wwill ❑] PL—PO [❑ ❑ a p h a P p 39 .8 C Lid I - Q EVULICH COURT (PUBLIC ROAD) I 21 ° �) I [ ❑ ❑ T T T ° d ° C D . ° 4 a)en cV I cV ° m M ••. U -- PL—BLDG • FT7 III • J 4 • • Ia [� d p d • I BLDG 6 ❑ ❑ • ' I ul C� • Q 56' I p [❑ ° W BLDG 8 BLDG 9 BLDG IO CL-BLDG ° I P ❑ ii [❑ 0 0 � ° • ° 26' I BLDG 7 PL—BLDG I 50IL I CL—PO 77 I ♦ [❑ ❑ ♦ ♦ s s I < p ° I ♦ ♦ / � m ♦ ♦ ♦ • p a c m c MD -CD m o m J I / O J Lji X 0 O O a ...... O I I . . . . . . . . . . ...... ....... I ' 7 4 ElARR Y10 �— KOPARDEKAIR RODRI(.-jUES FA JIT 0 Z Z I SETBACK SITE PL - i - 10857 LINDA VISTA DRIVE / . I CITY OF CUPERTINO SANTA CLARA COUNTY CALIFORNIA SCALE: F' = 20' DATE: SEPTEMBER 15, 2025 SAN RAMON (925) 866-0322 Cbg ROSEVILLE ■ (916) 788-4456 WWW.CBANDG.COM 0 20 40 60 CIVIL ENGINEERS m SURVEYORS ■ PLANNERS H:\3988-000\ACAD\EXHIBITSVB-033-SETBACK SITE PLAN.DWG 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.odf 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 AB 130. 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: h!Ws:Habag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025-12/Urban-Infill-Housing-Development- CEOA-Exemption-Template-Eligibility-Checklist-12042025.docx Regards, Rhoda Fry AB130 Requires: NOT in Earthquake Fault Zone BUT Project is IN Earthquake Fault Zone A13130 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 7.1 M earthquake & thrust fault more dangerous than regular faults & in area of earthquake -induced slope instability (light blue) A40 7 tc-j "` •. tilt 1 %% 10 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 & Associates, 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 Y 1 CEQA Applies to Project based on Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone NOAB130 • 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 Now we' I I NOT subject to AB130 and is subject to CEQA have more time to create a better project!!! Summerhill has been willing to modify at Staples, they should for Evulich too. Fmm- Foz <hreE.to ?tlaxg� Bwd: ThutWw• Nowm-11g 4-.iPM EST Ta: PIu fimen Iehem.rl�a+G®apehtngova; Been Heltli, CRO, CABp �.rtH•egxlNo.gow CC: etdrer.te McCaaelthraemGamte�ezfa.ag� Sub(eR FnC�TAF1P14W&'ASRdOM-0161IR.20Y41111 HelbP ends doyyng wrF a unlaue easaem te�M�a die rere�a.atl peleq{iM.sgz4.oU�A5A-x12.-015f»+-2tlu-044,. Tree al4limr[ s�md"diaa do e.repam reryesl�imilgf Iq eh g4laa, eW el>eWemlY apdre.9ng .tBla anhimwn hre seta regumtiene—le nmwa ma requntl a0.bo1 salGen� Here ero the key detelle M me V,,J c. . Th. Ya a Builder Remedy pmjeet. . AIBtet the PWnamgapplication wne dewtwdm 19W th. wlect H4a weu net Ieesl.tl w 1l Mwy 1kghFIn Ilf¢.N B—ft ZwaNHFHsz)aid was yererere mtswlwe b tlta ebb minlrnamfira aafo re Wa .(P 42e . Hgow.tg F�a atloa+b� of Use me elem nre h¢¢an1 savatdy was maw, tlta wt � s emv burled w'Ivan a yHHHSZ, . ma emiaW b wtreaur awM. b, a He�bme Pam.t.r�a r�o waMearswominad � e�l>� reo�eelk ndmaaa Hm e9maph reaWremencei9gerao M tl.a nay. da.�e^aaan A �Iblm Parma eppgr 'aganerellyaquWlying wan[Mm Nggen PRGa]90 raquremante. Hevrever.lamenureR wIe ePPas m e RWldera Remedy paled 1 have al— %6Ieau. rwU our It tnrrt..L TM RIM.Ye Remetly Iatqueg. Ie dear wet local ora1n eta eundutle W.F.. A N. Hm. SepPlkxtlonr fir.tl.r rot euhj leo w. ch.ng_ H m. 1a+ .Ic Alr e Idbga sable Sadbrex 81eb�reremenbl H� tb bok efleS aRer N. 1r1e GtY to tlehemine p wirether Ne tejsd W.E..ppdire. c.wd you peaseb gIhi.wpiq Ydreerd w ea Gy."caunaV7 I am hwFY to P.t Pete In erry nec..eetytlieaeeign. W our lepl muna.l, or F M. Cy can Pmvltl.guItl vrMautour4—Ytpu4 berm elan be ea..plebl. %ea.e let me Wnvr how Yet weak Igca to emceed and H you have any queadora I— E.dtY rnenk lea. Reed Fo, P.F. ASNabMFh NarNW Fkm Pmvenllon Glvblm 8—Gera Cauny Fire QeP.thnanl Omw: 40s-Y. 201wad: 4 WA4R Fmm. C,. Flenege. 921 Palx Thu. CS 25. 1025M 2.18PM 9ubjM, TMN24-00&PSN.2g14g15RR-2a2A-g66 To.9md Faa�mtl les�ssla em Cc: McMew Mcl(.nn. m.Hnew dawn I FalloWg up wrhemeeti.P .T3. }avjecr +Odme is 1dF.T LJ¢d• ViW lar CYgrNw pmeya trwd PCIS)aeF17 .Flee®eslw�mi nmeb� ve: aev.am..aW ,AS,u�-a,,, R.zmam. VO- 'E NO on RESOLUTION No. 26-029 (ATTACHMEN , M "The proposed subdivision design and improvements will not cause serious public health." THIS IS FALSEM • 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 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 COMMUNITIES OF DISTINCTION Agenda 10857 Linda Vista Check In with Planning Department and Fire Department February 10,2026 nffa��aa�, City — Emi Sugiyama, Piu Ghosh, Luke Connolly SummerHill — Kevin Ebrahimi, Steve Bull, Austin Lin Fire Department — Matthew McKenna Discussion Tooics: 1. Fire Department Coordination a. Neighbor concerns regarding evacuation routes b. Evacuation route study prepared by SummerHill 2. Planning Department Items a. No net loss findings b. Deemed consistent letter from the City c. Draft Conditions of Approval El 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 some 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 some 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 Structure Separation Along Project Boundary 30 ft structure separation required by Fire Safe Regulations (14 CCR §1276.01) Neighbor rcel EvulicriCourt ADU Townhome I I I I I I I I I I 4 st setb cv 10 ft setback Property Line Actual Structure Separation = 14 ft 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 some 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 some 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 some 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 Hexaaon 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 Manaaer, Rl, 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. Thankyou From: DerChang Kau <derchang@gmail.com> Date: Friday, March 13, 2026 at 5:08 PM To: Liang Chao <lchao@cupertino.gov> Cc: ntil� <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 on scheduling and behavioral transformations —1 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 neighborhood evacuation 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 CFC 4903 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, RC I Attorneys Land Use I Environmental Law I Government 580 California Street I Suite 1200 1 San Francisco, CA 94104 415.369.9400 1 Fax: 415.369.9405 1 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. mI rIwo Ife & associates, p.c. attorneys -at -law March 16, 2026 By Email Mayor Kitty Moore and Councilmembers Cupertino City Council C/o City Clerk 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CityClerkkCupertino.gov CityCouncilkcupertino.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 580 California Street I Suite 1200 1 San Francisco CA 94104 1 Tel 415.369.9400 1 Fax 415.369.9405 1 www.mrwolfeassociates.com 41111111�- 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.' 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. ^4 - R. Wolfe On behalf of Mark Fantozzi MRW: cc: Mark Fantozzi From: James Lloyd To: Kitty Moore; Liana 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 ("Ca1HDF") 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&calhd£org CalHDF is grant & donation funded Donate today - https://calhdf.org/donate/ UDF 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(acupertino.gov; Ichao _ cupertino.gov; smohan[acupertino.gov; irfruenracupertino.gov; rwan cupertino.gov CC: piugecupertino.aov; CityAttorne cupertino.gov; CityManagerecupertino.gov; CityClerk(&Cupertino.gov; planning(acupertino.gov; Dear Cupertino City Council, The California Housing Defense Fund ("Ca1HDF") 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. M.) 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. Ca1HDF 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 Ca1.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.Sth 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. Ca1HDF urges the City to approve it, consistent with its obligations under state law. 2of3 Ca1HDF 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 Ca1HDF at www.calhdf.org. Sincerely, Dylan Casey Ca1HDF Executive Director 9NII-V VLk - W James M. Lloyd Ca1HDF Director of Planning and Investigations 3of3 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.ong imaae002.png imaae003.pnng imaae004.ona image005.ong imaae006.png image007.p_ng Saratoga AB 130 checklist. 1-27-26 (web).pdf GOV 65913.4.-a6B-K.odf 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. Seethe 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: § 21080.66(a)(6) The project suHsfies the raquiremen is specified in paragraph (6) ofsubdivisrun (o) of Section 6S913,4 of the Government Cade. The development is Trot facated on a safe that is any of the following: El (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) Conservation Lands in a Natural Corn mLii7ity Conservation Plan ❑ (10) Habitat for Protected Species ❑ (11) Conservation Easement Describe how protect complies with the criteria, Please attach sufficient documentation to demonstrate compliance. To establish eligibility, please attach; ❑ (1) USAC E Wetland Delineation Report, prepared by a qualified wetland scientist. A map is not sufficient evidence to,establish eligibility. ❑ (5) Documentation from SWRCB, GeoTracker Map, GeoTracker, and DTSC, Enviro5tor Map, Enviro5tor Map ❑ (7) and (8) Documentation from the most current FEMA, Flood Insurance Rote Map ❑ (10) Biological Report, prepared by a "California Certified Professional Biologist" ❑ (11) current title report Subsection D from California Government Code 65913.4(a)(6): (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 deveIoprrient. Regards, Austin Lin, PE Development Manager SummerHill Homes Direct (510) 330-3064 1 Mobile (408) 966-2278 ® alin(@shhomes.com www.summerhillhomes.com 6101 Bollinger Canyon Road, Suite 425, San Ramon, CA 94583 COMMUNITIES OF DISTINCTION Follow Us: Enom 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. �\�� of SARgTOG` SARATOGA 1956 �/1 V,/W CgC1FOR�\P ew SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 ,WXA' Qaratoga.ca.us/cdd 408.868.1222 The following information is required from any applicant seeking to establish eligibility for an AB 130 CEQA exemption under Public Resources Code ("PRC") Section 21080.66. All documents, reports and plans must be provided to the Planning Department in digital format or via certified mail. Applications that are not eligible for the exemption or that do not provide sufficient information to determine eligibility will not be processed in accordance with PRC Section 21080.66. An applicant is responsible for paying all fees associated with the City's determination of the project's eligibility for the exemption. Completion of this form and submission of supporting documentation (e.g., Biological Report, USACE Wetland Delineation Report) will help reduce delays and the cost of determining eligibility. A project that is eligible for the exemption shall be subject to tribal consultation, require a Phase I Environmental Assessment and other environmental requirements, and may potentially be subject to specified wage requirements. Initiation of tribal consultation does not establish eligibility. This document was last updated on January 27, 2026. Page 1 of 6 �\�� of SARgTOG` SARATOGA 1956 ew V �/1 u. CgC1FOR�\P Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 ..•..• Qaratoga.ca.us/cdd 408.868.1222 Describe how project complies with the criteria. Criteria Please attach sufficient documentation to demonstrate compliance. Project is a "housing development project", as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 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 Page 2 of 6 �\�� of SARgTOG` SARATOGA 1956 CgC1FOR�\P 6W"UI4 Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 www.saratoga.ca.us/cdd 408.868.1222 Describe how project complies with the criteria. Criteria Please attach sufficient documentation 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. (8) 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) For Saratoga, 15 dwelling units per The project will be at least one-half of the applicable density net acre is half of the 30 units per specified in subparagraph (8) of paragraph (3) of subdivision acre default density. (c) of Section 65583.2 of the Government Code. Page 3 of 6 �\�� of SARgTOG` SARATOGA 1956 CgC1FOR�\P 6W"U14 Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 www.saratoga.ca.us/cdd 408.868.1222 Describe how project complies with the criteria. Criteria Please attach sufficient documentation to demonstrate compliance. § 21080.66(a)(6) To establish eligibility, please attach: The project satisfies the requirements specified in paragraph (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4 of the Government El (3) USACE Wetland Delineation Code. Report, prepared by a qualified wetland scientist. A map is not sufficient evidence to establish The development is not located on a site that is any of the following: eligibility. ❑ (1) Coastal Zone ❑ (5) Documentation from SWRCB, ❑ (2) Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance GeoTracker Map, GeoTracker, and DTSC, EnviroStor Map, EnviroStor ❑ (3) Wetlands Map ❑ (4) Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone ❑ (7) and (8) Documentation from ❑ (5) Hazardous Waste Sites the most current FEMA, Flood ❑ (6) Earthquake Fault Zone Insurance Rate Map ❑ (7) Special Flood Hazard Area ❑ (10) Biological Report, prepared El (8) Regulatory Floodway by a "California Certified Professional Biologist" ❑ (9) Conservation Lands in a Natural Community Conservation Plan ❑ (11) current title report ❑ (10) Habitat for Protected Species ❑ (11) Conservation Easement § 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. Page 4 of 6 �\�� of SARgTOG` SARATOGA 1956 CgC1FOR�\P 6W"UI4 Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 www.saratoga.ca.us/cdd 408.868.1222 Criteria Describe how project complies with the criteria. Please attach sufficient documentation 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. Page 5 of 6 �\�� of SARgTOG` SARATOGA 1956 CgC1FOR�\P 6W"U14 Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 www.saratoga.ca.us/cdd 408.868.1222 REQUIREMENTS FOR ELIGIBLE PROJECTS Projects that are eligible for the PRC Section 21080.66 exemption shall be subject to the following requirements. Requirement Provide any information regarding the applicability of, or compliance with, the criteria. Tribal Notification/Consultation. See PRC § 21080.66(b) for additional details. A Phase I environmental assessment and, if required, a Please attach any Phase I preliminary endangerment assessment, removal of environmental assessment that hazardous substance, and mitigation measures. See PRC has already been completed. § 21080.66(c) for additional details 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 construction workers shall be paid prevailing wage. If the project is over 85 feet in height above grade, the labor standards in Government Code section 65913.4 (a)(8) shall apply. See PRC § 21080.66(d) for additional details. 1953411.1 2019464.1 Page 6 of 6 IIA STATE OF CALIFORNIA LEGISLATIVE AUTHENTICATED COUNSEL BuaEAU ELECTRONIC LEGAL MATERIAL 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 1 2 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: (1) 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. (11) (ia) If the project is located within the San Francisco Bay area, the project, in lieu of complying with subclause (1), 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 ofAlameda, 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 3 (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 4 (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 I of Title 2. (G) Within a special flood hazard area subject to inundation by the 1 percent annual chance flood (I00-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: 2 61 (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 6 (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 M (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: (1) 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. (11) 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. (111) 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: (1) 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. (11) 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 8 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 9 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: (1) 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 Native American 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. (11) 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 Native American tribe traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed development. More than one California Native American tribe traditionally and culturally affiliated with 9 10 the geographic area of the proposed development may participate in the scoping consultation. However, the local government, upon the request of any California Native American tribe traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed development, shall engage in a separate scoping consultation with that California Native American 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 Native American 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 Native American 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 11 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 Native American tribe of the changes and engage in a subsequent scoping consultation if requested by the California Native American 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 (1) 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 if% (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 Native American 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 (0 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 0) 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 T 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 17 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. 0) 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 18 (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 19 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 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: imaae001.p_na image002.pnna imaae003.p_na image004.pnna imaae005.pna 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 *X*®❑ ®❑ ®❑ ®❑ 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 Summel-Hill Homes Direct (510) 330-3064 1 Mobile (408) 966-2278 1 ® alin(@shhomes.com www.summerhillhomes.com 6101 Bollinger Canyon Road, Suite 425, San Ramon, CA 94583 COMMUNITIES OF DISTINCTION Follow Us: MINIM 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 <KEbrahimiCcDshhomes.com>; Bull, Steve <SBullccDshhomes.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 1 Mobile (408) 966-2278 1 ® alin(@shhomes.com www.summerhiI Ihomes.com 6101 Bollinger Canyon Road, Suite 425, San Ramon, CA 94583 COMMUNITIES OF DISTINCTION Follow Us: s nam 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. J JENSEN HUGHES 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 131', 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 Copyright ©2026 Jensen Hughes, Inc. jensenhughes.com All Rights Reserved. T0123 From: Emi Sugiyama To: City Clerk Subject: FW: Linda Vista - A13130/Fault Zone Clarification Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2026 2:55:38 PM Attachments: innaae001.a_na 25712000001 2026-03-17 10857 Linda Vista Drive SB 130 Fault Zone Clarification.Ddf 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 0 EmiS@cupertino.gov (408) 777-3205 0 I 0 0 i®❑ i®❑ ®❑ ®❑ 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. ENGEO Expect Excellence March 17, 2026 Mr. Kevin Ebrahimi SummerHill Homes 777 S. California Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94304 Subject: 10857 Linda Vista Drive Cupertino, California GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL WATER RESOURCES CONSTRUCTION SERVICES COASTAL/MARINE GEOTECHNICS Project No. 25712.000.001 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 Brooks RamsdelK Principal jbr/tpb/jg \NEER//VO c Op�S RA4� �o�o No. 2356 r �� OF C A�\F�/ Theodore P. Bayham, E, Principal /Q�OF ESS/OP. Nq o � w r= No. 2480 m �oEC�TOF CAW 2633 Camino Ramon, Suite 250 • San Ramon, CA 94583 • (925) 866-9000 • info@engeo.com www.engeo.com From: Emi Suaivama To: City Clerk Subject: FW: Linda Vista / Requirements for Projects in VHFHSZ and AB130 Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2026 3:10:17 PM Attachments: imaae001.pna imaae002.r)na image003.g_ng image004.g_ng image005.Dng imaae006.ono image007.g_ng Saratoga AB 130 checklist. 1-27-26 lwebl.Ddf GOV 65913.4.-a6B-K.Ddf 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 I "N] I ow-1 mi xlx�x 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. Seethe 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: § 21080.66(a)(6) The project suHsfies the raquiremen is specified in paragraph (6) ofsubdivisrun (o) of Section 6S913,4 of the Government Cade. The development is Trot facated on a safe that is any of the following: El (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) Conservation Lands in a Natural Corn mLii7ity Conservation Plan ❑ (10) Habitat for Protected Species ❑ (11) Conservation Easement Describe how project complies with the criteria, Please attach sufficient documentation to demonstrate compliance. To establish eligibility, please attach; ❑ (1) USAC E Wetland Delineation Report, prepared by a qualified wetland scientist. A map is not sufficient evidence to,establish eligibility. ❑ (5) Documentation from SWRCB, GeoTracker Map, GeoTracker, and DTSC, Enviro5tor Map, Enviro5tor Map ❑ (7) and (8) Documentation from the most current FEMA, Flood Insurance Rote Map ❑ (10) Biological Report, prepared by a "California Certified Professional Biologist" ❑ (11) current title report Subsection D from California Government Code 65913.4(a)(6): (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. 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: imaae001.p_na imaae002.pnna imaae003.pna imaae004.pnna imaae005.pna 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 *X*®❑ ®❑ ®❑ ®❑ 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 ®❑ I ®❑ I ®❑ 444 From: Lin, Austin <ALin6Dshhomes.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2026 1:50 PM To: Emi Sugiyama <emis6Dcupertino.gov> Cc: Bull, Steve <SBull(@shhomes.com>; Ebrahimi, Kevin <KEbrahimiccDshhomes.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 forthe Proposed Townhomes at 10857Linda 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 studywas 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 1 Mobile (408) 966-2278 1 ® alini@shhomes.com www.summerhillhomes.com 6101 Bollinger Canyon Road, Suite 425, San Ramon, CA 94583 COMMUNITIES OF DISTINCTION Follow Us: onno All subject matter contained in this email is confidential and proprietary to Sum merHill Homes LLC and should not be disclosed to any person not listed as an original recipient. SummerHill Homes LLC. All rights reserved. HEXAM TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. Memorandum Date: February 26, 2026 To: Mr. Steve Bull, Summerhill Homes From: Shu hao (011ie) 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. A 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. O Q 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. e • • 100 Century Center Court, Suite 501 • San Jose, California 95112 • phone 408.971.6100 - fax 408.971.6102 • www.hextrans.com 10857 Linda Vista Drive Evacuation Analysis February 26, 2026 Figure 1 Project Site Location, Evacuation Area, Routes, and Critical Intersection O�t4 or Pendleton Ave High vIwo I _ LL _e J 4s4�df ceDr U - - _ - _ AncatelloAvc Serra Fwy v Creslon� W~� . LEGEND ` 95 � slur sta g Or tiortreteet %rk * = Project Site Location Hartman Qr ._ •�-o * NORTH z s orado V' -. y. n0 o S�O4 Male a a O n 9 _ r = Bubb Rd/McClellan Rd Nott. scale Intersection *st6 °' � �q� 1 _ _ = Evacuation Area " Ali N r' p• N Y qa =Evacuation Route o f") ° m xWoodhury Qr b .. 5 L'ari3n o 1° �� PUPPY 3 _ F'an; S� - �. tYlonteCl o r it �,1M.ol h,$nnrt3lFlark W $ am Ave n y rr a [� O Alves Or a n' n • W aD a � t �a a o r�i a� C 1 Cupertino Rd I A,,<1 Stevens Creek Blvd m'_ 11 a Is Granada Ave m © C y v ? a 6 Hermosa Ave c rana .- Elemenfar ° e 4ve F°mila Ave � a B:a LrUi3h Schrol Y Or v q - ,i a a L-Anra Popper Tire Ln u ° a Z, a Pae1111111 ME M 1' v CuH9tp ASarrn VisL, Park w 7 7 i ¢ •¢ '_` p Sp o = IV@ � 7 W I _ C t •J WO 0. C m Palm Ave u in '❑Iot Avt^ ~ = u U o Chary Alcalde Rd , McClellan Rd 0 � 5 nta Paula Ave °• ■ a a Rd n a h1.:•: I:� N �� a e 3 e Erin Way [A v° o� Ell ♦ _`o. } Kirwm L 1,324 Existing _ Residential Units b g°Ills I]e Foe Dr nrS�ar 1), C�..-1, �� d d y Julyman F'ark Dumas 9 ■ ♦ p xine Dsr Heatherwo° h a a7 ° d w .°� n [101MIMN C` ice ♦ N Edward Way ♦l ' E Face ° Westside , c u =_ Columbus Ave * O` Tiptc C, a 1 w z Ia. 6'/a❑r n Zactialan rat Val AY r yy �. nto ce '"'A3 + Pn rF 1 ❑ ' w + RI °Sy rzi Sautitfll Y dr O Stevens an Terrace Dr o a $ 0*0. ! �Creek, o Regnari O �qb Co my F,.,, to V FlerrentarY -P� n 6 S V1ndY Vfi C Urn xhoal ?dell Way DKin95trury P o a Be{knap Ar 9``gd f•pl cvla Tht,E Oaks Palk ��gc Rainbow Dr - - F�smont okbr C d rye. n Cr..— ' HIMON Page 1 2 10857 Linda Vista Drive Evacuation Analysis February 26, 2026 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 HIMON Page 1 3 10857 Linda Vista Drive Evacuation Analysis February 26, 2026 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 existing 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. HIMON Page 1 4 10857 Linda Vista Drive Evacuation Analysis February 26, 2026 Table 1 Estimated Evacuation Times for the Evacuation Area 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: 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. 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. HIMON Page 1 5 10857 Linda Vista Drive Evacuation Analysis February 26, 2026 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. HIMON Page 1 6 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: innaae002.p_na image003.pnna XB-046 SITE PLAN 2-STORY 10 SETBACK 2026-03-17.odf 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 (4081777-3205 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 sbulll@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 <KEbrahimiC@shhomes.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2026 9:40 AM To: Kitty Moore <kmoorePcupertino.gov> Cc: Bull, Steve <SBull(@shhomes.com>; Matt Larson <matt(@matt-larson.com>; flo)la(@cupertino.gov; Tina Kapoor <tinakC@cupertino.gov>; Margo N. Bradish (mbrad ishC@coxcastle.com) <mbrad ish(@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 kebrahimil@shhomes.com / SummerHillHomes.com CO} ,-XiIT:F� OF D14TI NCTIO,: 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. LEGEND EXISTING PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE CENTER LINE ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LOT LINE 3—STORY UNIT 2—STORY UNIT ABBREVIATIONS BLDG BUILDING CL CENTERLINE PL PROPERTY LINE PO PORCH ACK SITE PLAN 10857 LINDA VISTA DRIVE CITY OF CUPERTINO SANTA CLARA COUNTY CALIFORNIA SCALE: 1" = 20' DATE: MARCH 17, 2026 717L 0 20 40 60 SAN RAMON (925) 866-0322 cbg ROSEVILLE ■ (916) 788-4456 WWW.CBANDG.COM CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS 0 PLANNERS H:13988-0001ACADIEXHIBITSIXB-046 SITE PLAN 2-STORY 10 SETBACK.DWG From: S PB To: City Council; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; Tina Kapoor; Luke Connolly; Benjamin Fu; Chad Mosley; A4H America ns4Hindus 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: Cuoertino 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: imaae.pna 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. Cupertino AN for All 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: yanamiscCabcomcast.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 Ka000r; 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 AB 130 exemption adamantly stated to 100+ planning commissioners during the Planning Commissioners Academy: very high fire hazard zone developments should NOT be exempt from CEOA 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 AB 130, 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 AB 130 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 AB 130, 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? AB 130 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. 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. httns://www.droDbox.com/scl/fo/ac7l ahb78oaO5r2ez3tti/AJD7eTD4PLOrShDzrOFwo7s? rlkey=gvoz2j Ox2orfbeeafb4lgu7hu&st=v7xtvi8u&dl=O 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 low-10 Y ."V. Please support and expedite the Evulich included in Lp 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.marsha1123 &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. marshall2 3 & gmail.com> Date: Mon, Mar 16, 2026 at 9:57 PM Subject: Linda Vista Housing Project -Evulich court To: City Council <CityCouncilgeupertino.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 study on fire evacuation for the Linda Vista Corridor. Please vote no on the Evulich proposal tomorrow 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 on Evulich Court, but adding 51 townhomes and the amount of additional people potentially needing evacuation in case of a fire is not reasonable. The plans should be reconsidered, with more concern for safety of the residents currently living in the corridor. Regards, Charean Marshall char.marsha1123 &gmail.com Roving Marshalls travel adventures From: Patrick sheehv 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 2AUTION: 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 heavilywooded 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, 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 1 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 Ranaanathan 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 VenkatRanganathan From: AviSachs 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: citvcounciK copertino.aov 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: Unthia 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: I 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: Sher P i 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