Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 04-01-2026 Item No. 3. SummerHill Homes Linda Vista Drive_Desk Item and Attachment ZCC 4-01-2026 #3 SummerHill Homes Linda Vista Drive Desk Item COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 CUPERTINO.GOV CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Desk Item Meeting: April 1, 2026 Agenda Item 3 Subject Consider a Tentative Map, Architectural and Site Approval, and Tree Removal Permit for the construction of a 51-unit townhome condominium development on Housing Element Priority Housing Sites 25 through 28. The project utilizes Senate Bill 330 and provisions of State Density Bonus law. (Application No(s): TM -2024-009, ASA-2024-015, TR-2024-044; Applicant: SummerHill Homes, LLC; Location: 10857, 10867, 10877, and 10887 Linda Vista Drive; APNs: 356-06-001, -002, -003, and -004). Recommended Action: Find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); 1. Make the required ffndings of No Net Loss (SB 166); and 2. Approve the following permits: a. Adopt Resolution No. 26-XXX approving Tentative Final Map (TM-2024-009) (Attachment A); b. Adopt Resolution No. 26-XXX approving Architectural & Site Approval Permit (ASA - 2024-015) (Attachment B); and c. Adopt Resolution No. 26-XXX approving Tree Removal Permit (TR-2024-044) (Attachment C). Background: A supplemental report was issued for this item on Monday March 30, which included a response from the Santa Clara County Fire Department (Attachment Z) answering questions regarding this item. This desk item is in response to additional questions received. The Fire Department response (Attachment Z) is also attached to this Desk Item in case it was missed. Staff’s responses to questions received from councilmembers are shown in italics. Q1: A number of emails we have received make comments to the efiect that the Evulich Court site was at some point "removed" from the (draft) Housing Element, and then subsequently "added" back in. My review of the Housing Element draft from its earliest site inventory discussion in 2022 through the detailed site choices in the summer of 2022, though the draft ordered updated and submitted in the fall of 2022, and through each subseq uent submission to HCD and consideration at the City Council, indicates that this site has always appeared in the sites inventory and was never "removed." Can you conffrm this chronology and whether the Evulich Court site was ever removed from any iteration of the current Housing Element from the ffrst sites inventory discussion onward? Staff Response: This chronology is correct. The Evulich Ct. site was never removed from consideration during establishment of the Priority Housing Sites list or during the review of the draft Housing Elements by HCD. The following information is available online at: Cupertino.gov/housingelement. • The Evulich site was identified in January 2022 as a Potential Housing Opportunity Site at the first Planning Commission (PC) Study Session regarding establishment of the Priority Housing Sites Inventory and remained on the list at the PC’s meetings on the subject in February, April, May and June 2022. • The PC made its recommendation on the Priority Housing Sites Inventory on June 28, 2022, which may be found online at: Planning Commission Recommended Priority Housing Sites Inventory. • The City Council considered the PC Recommended Priority Housing Sites Inventory at its August 16, August 29 and August 30, 2022 meetings. The City Council’s amendments to the list may be found online at: Minutes from August 30, 2022 meeting. The Priority Housing Sites Inventory as adjusted by the City Council may be found online at: August 2022 Priority Housing Sites Inventory. • The Priority Housing Sites Inventory included with each Draft Housing Element submitted to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) included the site. The three drafts (and revisions) submitted to HCD are available online at: Cupertino.gov/housingelement. • The final City Council adopted Priority Housing Sites Inventory is available online at: Final Priority Housing Sites Inventory. Q2: Can you conffrm that there was never a motion at the Planning Commission to recommend denial of this application? What motions were made? Staff Response: No motion was made to recommend denial of the application at the February 24, 2026 Planning Commission meeting. The following information is from the Minutes from the meeting: MOTION: Rao moved and Scharf seconded to move the staff recommendation with the following amendments: to deny the request for credit of park in-lieu fees for the construction of the proposed trail connection, to limit construction truck traiffc between the hours of 7:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. as per Municipal Code for the streets surrounding the project namely Linda Vista Drive, Hyannisport Drive, Bubb Road, and McClellan Road, and to include privacy shrubs if the applicant and the residents find this to be amenable. This motion was not voted on. FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: Lindskog made a friendly amendment to the motion to include the parkland in-lieu fee credit for the trail connection. (Rao did not accept this friendly amendment). SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Lindskog moved and Fung seconded to move the staff recommendation, including to accept the request for credit of park in-lieu fees for the trail connection to the Stevens Creek trail, with the following amendments: to limit construction truck traiffc between the hours of 7:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. as per Municipal Code for the streets surrounding the project namely Linda Vista Drive, Hyannisport Drive, Bubb Road, and McClellan Road, and to ask that the applicant include privacy shrubs if the applicant and the residents find this to be amenable. The motion carried with the following vote: Ayes: Kosolcharoen, Fung, Lindskog. Noes: Rao and Scharf. Abstain: None. Absent: None. Q3: Emails and comments received about the Evulich Court site underscore concern and frustration about the how the neighborhood was noticed about the inclusion of the site in the Housing Element and about its eventual rezoning. Can you provide a description of how noticing works (1) for the Housing Element sites inventory, (2) for sites being rezoned in compliance with the Housing Element, and (3) how that difiers from an ordinary spot-rezoning of a parcel? Staff Response: Development and adoption of a Housing Element, including the policies and Priority Housing Sites Inventory, is a citywide process. Under State law requirements for noticing, when the number of notices that would need to be mailed to individual property owners exceeds 1,000, noticing may be provided in a newspaper of general circulation in a minimum 1/8th page ad. The City complied with the requirements of state law. In addition to the required notices under state law, the City had established a website to facilitate public outreach through which interested persons were provided with the ability to sign up for e-notifications. Overall, between two notification platforms, there were over 10,000 engaged subscribers (with some potential duplication). Q4: There is considerable and understandable commentary about evacuation risks in the public comments and emails received. A resident has ofiered an analysis of those risks based on his credentials. The analysis appears to be aimed at providing substantial evi dence to deny the project application on public health and safety grounds under either the HAA or the DBL (or both). Similar questions have been raised about draft documents (by Fehr & Peers) prepared in association with the updates to the draft revision of the Health and Safety Element. With that in mind, can you answer the following two questions: a) Why can or cannot this analysis/document(s) constitute "substantial evidence" under the HAA or DBL (or both)? Staff Response: As noted in the Planning Commission Staff Report for the Project, an evacuation study is not required to be conducted as part of the Project’s CEQA review and the City does not have any adopted objective standards pertaining to evacuation in the event of a major fire or other environmental emergency. To deny the Project, the HAA requires that the City find that such project pose a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety and that such impact cannot be avoided unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. A “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. As such, any concerns related to evacuation risks cannot constitute a proper basis for denial, because (1) an evacuation study has not been required or reviewed by the Fire Department or the City and (2) the City does not have any adopted objective standards pertaining to evacuation. b) The resident-prepared analysis appears to rely entirely on egress points from the greater neighborhood through McClellan. Does the fact that the resident -prepared analysis does not address either the potential scope of necessary evacuation, or evacuation routes out of the neighborhood southward down Bubb Road to Rainbow Drive, which sits entirely outside any ffre hazard severity zone, impact potential reliance per (a) above on the resident-prepared analysis? Staff Response: See response to 4(a). Q5: The Evulich property had an EDR HIST Auto shop from 2002-2008, 4 underground storage tanks, 2 removed within the past year or so, multiple hazmat drums, a 300-gallon AST for diesel, and two landffll pits with unknown contents. The agenda packet includes some pages from the SCCFD showing they inspected the removal of 2 USTs, however this is not standard practice, they are the Program Agency not the Certiffed Uniffed Program Agency which is Santa Clara County Department of Environ mental Health, and our Municipal Code states that other agencies would be the regulator (see below). Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 9 Objective Standard Questions regarding storage of Hazardous Materials: a) Did the owner have a permit for the hazardous materials being stored on site according to Chapter 9 of the Cupertino Municipal Code? b) Did the owners have an approved HMMP per Ch. 9? c) Did the owners have a HMIS (inventory statement)? Staff Response for (a) through (c): A permit for the storage of hazardous materials does not appear at this site. Additionally, the proposed project does not include a proposal for a new hazardous material use and, therefore, a new hazardous materials permit is not required. d) Did the owners submit a Closure Plan? Staff Response: A Closure Plan was submitted to the Santa Clara County Fire Department prior to the removal of the identified underground storage tanks. e) Did the owners obtain a permit from the City to have two buried landffll sites over 5’ in depth? Does the City allow homeowners to create private onsite landfflls? f) How are onsite landfflls typically closed? Would this be under SCCDEH regulatory oversight? Staff Response to 5(e) through 5(f): The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) identified two locations with undocumented fill/assumed debris. The City does not anticipate undocumented fill as a primary or accessory use on residential property and, therefore, no permits are on record for this activity at this site. At this time, no hazardous materials have been identified at the undocumented fill locations. As a condition of approval, the applicant is required to conduct additional testing as part of the geotechnical evaluation, prior to issuance of any building permits. Should any hazardous materials be found, the project is required, as a condit ion of approval, to provide a Soil Management Plan (SMP), which will identify the appropriate oversight body. The SMP will be subject to third-party review at the expense of the applicant through the City. Q6: Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 17 Objective Standard Questions regarding Hazardous Materials, USTs, and soils disturbing activities: a) Did the owners follow the Hazardous Material Permit Requirement to contact either EPA, DTSC, RWQCB, or the CUPA which is SCCDEH, and enter into an oversight agreement? This appears to need to be done prior to the approval of a project. Staff Response: Based on the results of the confirmation sampling conducted following the removal of the two underground storage tanks (UST) and outlined in the UST Closure Report, no analytes were detected above laboratory reporting limits. As such, additional oversight from a regulatory agency was not required. Further, the proposed project does not include the storage of Hazardous Materials or installation of any Underground Storage Tanks. As a result, no Hazardous Material Permit is required. b) Did the owners obtain a permit from the City to dig up and remove the Underground Storage Tanks? Staff Response: The property owner obtained a Building Permit from the City of Cupertino and a Closure Permit from the Santa Clara County Fire Department. Q7: Geotechnical questions: The site has had two tanks removed and has two landfflls with unknown contents, did the Geotechnical Report evaluate these areas with regards to foundation design? Staff Response: See response to questions 5(e) and 5 (f) above. Additionally, based on the geotechnical evaluation, the geotechnical engineer may request that this undocumented fill be removed and replaced with fill to ensure structural stability, and would review structural plans to ensure that the foundation design is adequate. Q8: Does the Civil Engineer believe that a passive 30' setback for mitigating fire spread vs. a 10' setback reliant on a mechanical, subject to failure, sprinkler system which may have electrical and water pressure failures at a critical moment along with the high likelihood of having flammable items placed on the exposed decks which can further spread embers to the surrounding homes, is safer? Staff Response: These determinations are subject to the State Fire Marshal, not the City Engineer. Q9: The cul de sac is not a dead-end street but a strange bulb out with another street attached (E Street). Drivers will likely hit the pointed curb leaving from the south of E street and/or drive into oncoming traffic. The radius is too narrow for a 48' s weep or a 46' long ladder fire truck and the proposed exemption from the standard radius is to allow the fire truck to drive on a 6' wide sidewalk. a) Has the Civil Engineer drawn a sweep map to show that the sidewalk is adequate for the turning radius of the ffre truck? Staff Response: Private streets B, C, D, & E are of a length that fire vehicle access is unnecessary. b) How will the public know they are in a ffre lane when walking on the sidewalk, as in will you require the sidewalk to be painted red in this area? Staff Response: The cul-de-sac is not the oiffcial fire department turnaround. Curb will be painted red where appropriate to ensure adequate clearance for emergency vehicle access as well as consumer vehicle access. c) Will the ffre truck hit the street light on the south side of the street when turning around? Staff Response: The utilities are situated outside of areas needed for emergency vehicle access and should be easily avoided. d) What is the Cupertino Standard Diameter for a cul de sac in the VHFSZ requiring a ladder truck? Staff Response: 40’ radius unless a lesser diameter is approved by the fire department. However, the cul-de-sac is not the oiffcial fire department turnaround. Q10: The cul de sac is not designed to the objective standards of the City, curb, park strip, sidewalk, the design requirements provide safety to pedestrians. The Cul de sac is not designed according to the objective standard of 36' curb radius and the Pro perty line needs to be 46' radius and not the 30'/40' dimensions on the VTM. Staff Response: The standard 36-foot paved cul-de-sac radius was originally established to accommodate fire department turnarounds. However, the City has allowed reduced 30 -foot radii in cases where a turnaround is either unnecessary or provided through alternative means. A recent example is the cul-de- sac on Pruneridge Avenue, east of Wolfe Road, which demonstrates that a 30-foot radius provides sufficient space for vehicle maneuvering. In this case, the driveway into the Hamptons serves as the designated fire department turnaround, supporting the reduced radius. Similarly, Evulich Court, which utilizes a hammerhead turnaround, presents a comparable condition. Based on these examples, a 30 -foot cul-de-sac radius is adequate. Q11: The developer is creating a choke point at the entrance, does the Civil Engineer believe that it is safer to have the bioretention along both sides of the street eliminating the bottleneck, or does the Civil Engineer believe it is safer to create a bottleneck? Staff Response: The design of the bio retention facilities provides adequate space to facilitate both vehicular and emergency access into the development. Q12: Since the project already has a hammerhead turnaround, it seems like a much better design would be to not have the irregular bulb ending and have the street simply be a Tee and remove the potential for vehicles to park in the Fire Lane area of the 'cu l de sac'. The Tee design would eliminate the safety hazard for pedestrians. Does the Civil Engineer believe that the current design is superior from a safety standpoint, or does the Civil Engineer believe it is less safe? Staff Response: The cul-de-sac will act as a turnaround for consumer vehicles. The hammerhead turn around is for emergency vehicles. The design provides for adequate safety. Q13: For pedestrian safety, having the sidewalk 5' away from the curb with a parkway separating it, would be safer for them. a) Does the Civil Engineer believe the conffguration is in accordance with all of our pedestrian safety standards when it is not a standard detail? Staff Response: The sidewalk is adequately designed to provide safety for pedestrians. The City has monolithic sidewalk in many places throughout the City. b) There is no bike lane in this project, or even a sharrow, is this in accordance with all of our bicycle safety standards? Staff Response: This is a dead end residential street. Neither bike lanes nor sharrows are necessary. Bicycles are permitted and encouraged to share the road with vehicles. c) Are there any pedestrian or bicycle safety standards which are not being met? Staff Response: No. Q14: Private taking of Public land by the VTM is not allowed - See Note 21 on the VTM. a) Evulich Ct. ROW would require an appraisal, then Vacation and Surplus Land Act hearings and make the land available for housing developers and we can get fair market value for it...Putting Note 21 on the map and not signposting the intent, and potential failure of the Vacation (someone else can buy Evulich Ct.) is really odd. Staff Response: Evulich Ct. is Public, Streets A through E are private. b) The Vesting Tentative Map shows Evulich Ct. as a Public Road, but then has note 21 on it which tries to privatize the road without following the proper process described above. Staff Response: Evulich Ct. is Public, Streets A through E are private. c) Attempting an unlawful Gift of Public Funds under the California Constitution (Art. XVI, § 6) Staff Response: No gift of public funds or land is being provided. d) Circulation Plan A06 shows the sidewalks on Evulich Ct. as private walkway - conffrming the intent of Note 21. Staff Response: A6 is not part of the tentative map. The sheet index on TM1.0 shows the plans that consist of the tentative map submittal. These plans do not show the sidewalk as private. Refer to Attachment U for the project plan set. e) The Housing Element sites inventory mentions that the city could sell Evulich Ct. to developers, demonstrating the City thought they/we owned it. Staff Response: It appears the City owns Evulich Ct. in fee and could sell it if there was interest in doing so. f) Note 21 is in conflict with the dedication of Evulich Ct. by Joseph Evulich to the City for Public Roadway and safety purposes. Staff Response: Evulich Ct. is Public, Streets A through E are private. Q15: Per my prior email, the dedication of the entire Evulich Ct. does not appear to have been completed unless the Title or some other map shows the turn around area was owned by Joseph Evulich, he could not dedicate land a sibling or some other family me mber owned. While all of the Lands of Evulich can be called that, it would have been better to have the full names on the plats. Staff Response: Official Record Book 8620 p 501 shows the dedication to the City. Q16: Vesting Tentative Minor Incompleteness - The Vesting Tentative needs to have the addresses of the actual owners on it per CMC requirements, possibly signatures as well. Staff Response: Showing the owner’s address is not typically needed on a Tentative Map , (though showing the property address or legal designation of the property typically is), and is not required by the Subdivision Map Act. Q17: Environmental - Do the following points, along with the VHFSZ designation, multiple exceptions to code, constitute 'unusual circumstances' for CEQA review? a) There were underground storage tanks removed from the site last year and somehow signed ofi on in a very non -standard process I would like an explanation of in a supplemental report please, it looks like a way of getting around city oversight. Staff Response: The underground storage tanks (USTs) were removed by the applicant following approval of a Closure Plan by the County Fire Department (see attached). Subsequently, the applicant applied for, and obtained, a Building Permit for UST removal (BLD-2025-1588). The required documents, including a geotechnical review letter, were reviewed by City staff. Based on the requirements outlined in Public Resources Code Section 21080.66, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review for the project would not have been any different, no r would the City’s conditions of approval have been different, had the UST’s not been removed earlier. b) Proposed Street Design Fire Safety Hazard i. The proposed plan has a choke point/bottleneck right at the Evulich/Linda Vista intersection due to hazardous design of the bioretention swales. Staff Response: The Bioretention swales do not constitute a hazardous design. The design of the bioswales facilitates 20’ clear, and two 10’ vehicle travels. They also align with the projection of the parking spaces on Evulich Ct. ii. Were the City to agree to a Vacation and privitization of Evulich, we would be placing the safety/maintenance issues into the hands of the HOA, and allowing the developer to have less stringent safety measures and design requirements it seems - such as setbacks and bioretention swales. a) Can we require the developer to design the curb/swale/sidewalk like we did at Alan Rowe/Bateh Brothers (recent precedent) - because it is not a private street, they need to follow city standards. Staff Response: The Alan Row project has bioretention in the public right of way that provides treatment of the public roadway. This project also provides bioretention in the Public Road (Evulich Ct) that treats the impervious surfaces of the public portio n of the project. These requirements are new with MRP3.0. b) Instead of them creating a bottleneck, they can run the bioretention swales along both sides of Evulich Ct. and free up the ingress/egress to the project from having the bottleneck. Red curb one side of the street as a ffre lane, remove the 5 parking spaces, and provide a clear and safe path for vehicles and ffre truck access. Staff Response: This is not necessary, as the bioretention facilities as designed provide adequate clearance for vehicles. iii. Only one ffre truck turn around is on the ffre truck map when the Fire Chief said there are two. Staff Response: The hammerhead turn around is the designated fire turnaround for the project. iv. Point 4.b.iii. below about having only one Fire Access turnaround is important because they do not grant a public access easement for the area the ffre truck needs to use to turn around in, and there is the lingering question as to whether the 1969 dedication to the City actually included the cul de sac or did a relative of Joseph Evulich actually own that land and it has never been dedicated properly. I believe the VTM needed a public ingress/egress easement for possibly the cul de sac area (depending on ownership, need the Title Report) but I think deffnitely for the pink hammerhead turnaround shown here, red curb paint on private property is not a substitute for a legally enforceable rights for the Fire Truck to be able to turn around: Staff Response: Evulich Ct falls within the dedicated Public Road area (a public access easement is not necessary). The pink fire department turnaround shown on Sheet C6.0 falls within the Emergency Vehicle Access Easement shown on Sheet TM1.0. Refer to Att achment U for the project plan set. The Title Report is attached as Attachment V. Attachments Provided with Original Stafi Report: A. Draft Resolution for TM-2024-009 B. Draft Resolution for ASA-2024-015 C. Draft Resolution for TR-2024-044 D. Applicable Standards Matrix E. AB 130 CEQA Exemption Memorandum F. Alternative Means and Method Request Approval G. County Fire Review Letter H. Geotechnical Report I. Geotechnical Report Peer Review J. Biological Report K. Biological Report Peer Review L. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment M. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment N. Phase I and Phase II ESA Applicant Review O. Phase I and II ESA Peer Review P. Underground Storage Tank Closure Report Q. Public Comments (2-25-2026 to 3-10-2026) R. Public Comments (01-01-2024 to 2-24-2026) S. Final Transportation Study T. Project Site Plan U. Supplemental Report (031726) and Project Plan Set Attachments Provided with Supplemental Report: V. Title Report W. APN Map – Markup X. Dedication of Real Property Y. Parcel Map Book 258 p. 52 Z. Santa Clara County Fire Department Response to Supplemental Questions Attachments Provided with this Desk Item: Z. Santa Clara County Fire Department Response to Supplemental Questions (same as above). Page 1 of 2 TO: Cupertino City Officials FROM: Hector Estrada, Assistant Fire Chief SUBJECT: Housing Development - Linda Vista Drive As requested by City Manager Kapoor and in response to the questions from the Cupertino City Council, this supplemental staff report provides a summary of the process that led to the Santa Clara County Fire Department’s plan review comments on the Architectural and Site Approval Permit Application for the proposed subdivision at 10857 Linda Vista Drive. Background The Santa Clara County Fire Department (“County Fire”) provides fire safety plan review comments for land development in the City of Cupertino. Specifically, County Fire reviews Architectural and Site Approval Permit Applications for compliance with applicable state and local fire safety requirements related to site design.1 County Fire staff then prepares plan review comments and presents them to City officials to support the City’s decision to approve or deny an Architectural and Site Approval Permit Application. Summary In January 2026, County Fire staff provided plan review comments on the Architectural and Site Approval Permit Application for the proposed residential subdivision at 10857 Linda Vista Drive (ASA-2024-015) (the “Project” and the “Application”). Because the Project is located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, it is subject to the State Minimum Fire Safe Regulations (“Fire Safe Regulations”) (14 C.C.R. §§ 1270, et seq.), in addition to generally applicable fire safety requirements in the California Building Standards Code.2 The Fire Safe Regulations include an exception request process that allows projects to move forward even if they cannot meet specific site-design criteria.3 Specifically, the Fire Safe Regulations allow for the approval of exception requests on a case-by-case basis if the exception provides “the Same Practical Effect as these regulations towards providing Defensible Space.” (14 C.C.R. § 1270.07.)4 The Application includes a Same Practical Effect exception request for the thirty-foot setbacks required by Section 1276.01 of the Fire Safe Regulations. The applicant proposed the following measures to support the exception request: (1) Non-combustible material extending five feet horizontally around the buildings. (2) Wildfire home hardening protective measures, including but not limited to a Class A roof, non-combustible exterior building material, protected eave vents, and double paned tempered glass. 1 At the building permit phase, County Fire reviews building permit applica:ons for compliance with addi:onal fire safety requirements, including those related to construc:on. 2 Public Resources Code Sec:on 4290 addresses the applicability of the Fire Safe Regula:ons in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. 3 The process and standards for approving Same Prac:cal Effect excep:on requests in the Fire Safe Regula:ons are dis:nct from the process and standards for approving for Alternate Materials and Methods Requests (AMMR) in the California Building Standards Code. 4 The Fire Safe Regula:ons define “Same Prac:cal Effect” as “an Excep:on or alterna:ve with the capability of applying accepted wildland fire suppression strategies and tac:cs, and provisions for fire fighter safety, including: (1) access for emergency wildland fire equipment, (2) safe civilian evacua:on, (3) signing that avoids delays in emergency equipment response, (4) available and accessible water to effec:vely aWack Wildfire or defend a Structure from Wildfire, and (5) fuel modifica:on sufficient for civilian and fire fighter safety.” (14 C.C.R. § 1270.01(aa).) Page 2 of 2 (3) Exterior fire sprinkler heads protecting covered porches and decks that are within thirty feet of the property line. (4) Fire resistance rated exterior elements within thirty feet of the property lines including: a. Exterior Walls - Fire resistance rated for one hour. b. Projections (portions of the building protruding beyond exterior walls) - Fire resistance rated for one hour. c. Penetrations (e.g., mechanical, electrical, plumbing services) - Protected to maintain fire resistance rated assemblies. Section 1276.01 of the Fire Safe Regulations provides guidance on exception requests related to the thirty-foot setback requirement: A reduction in the minimum setback shall be based upon practical reasons, which may include but are not limited to, parcel dimensions or size, topographic limitations, Development density requirements or other Development patterns that promote low- carbon emission outcomes; sensitive habitat; or other site constraints, and shall provide for an alternative method to reduce Structure-to-Structure ignition by incorporating features such as, but not limited to: (1) non-combustible block walls or fences; or (2) non-combustible material extending five (5) feet horizontally from the furthest extent of the Building; or (3) hardscape landscaping; or (4) a reduction of exposed windows on the side of the Structure with a less than thirty (30) foot setback; or (5) the most protective requirements in the California Building Code, California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 7A, as required by the Local Jurisdiction. (14 C.C.R. § 1276.01(b).) Based on our analysis of the site and the combined impact of the measures proposed in the exception request, County Fire staff determined that these measures provide appropriate alternative methods to reduce the risk of structure-to-structure ignition, and County Fire approved the Same Practical Effect exception request for the Application. The Project includes two of the five measures identified in Section 1276.01 as alternative methods to reduce the risk of structure-to-structure ignition and two additional measures: exterior sprinklers and increased fire resistive rated exterior elements. Analyzing these measures based on accepted wildland fire suppression strategies and tactics and provisions for firefighter safety, County Fire staff determined that the exception request provided appropriate access for emergency wildland fire equipment and safe civilian evacuation and that the exception request included fuel modification sufficient for civilian and firefighter safety. County Fire memorialized its approval of the exception request in its January 7 and January 27 plan review comments, which have been presented to the City Planning Commission and City Council. County Fire’s plan review comments also notified the applicant that they will need to submit a final fire protection plan, onsite fire hydrant design specifications, and a construction site safety plan as part of their building permit application.