HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 04-21-2026 Oral CommunicationsCC 4-21-2026
Oral
Communications
Written Comments
From:Jennifer Griffin
To:City Council; City Clerk
Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com
Subject:Too Many SB 330 Projects
Date:Tuesday, April 14, 2026 9:27:46 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 City Council:
(Please consider the following as public comment for the City Council meeting on 4/21/26.)
I am very concerned that there are so many SB 330 projects now that they are taking up most of
The City's time and nothing else can get done. The public is having a hard time following all
The projects and feel like they are being left behind and are not getting a chance to express
Their multiple concerns about the projects.
The SB 330 housing bill does not let the public discuss the projects and this is a very sad affair.
It is like no one can express their concerns to the city. These concerns have identified an exploding,
Overriding concern that retail is being lost at an alarming rate.
No one from the public in California ever got the ability to voice their concerns with SB 330 when the governor
Signed SB 330, and we are having to do it now. This bill had no beta testing before it was released onto
The public and we are doing the beta testing now. In the beta testing we are realizing that this bill in
Too much proliferation is causing a massive loss of retail. There is a growing concern about traffic impacts,
Emergency vehicle access, parking loss and school impacts.
There is an overall sense of confusion in the City and dismay over the many issues from the SB 330
projects. People are worried now about even finding a place to buy groceries or shop in the city.
Since the loss of Staples, I frequent computer supply stores and office supply stores in other cities,
including Santa Cruz.
The handwriting is on the wall. There will be no retail left in Cupertino if things continue on as
They are with the emergence of so many SB 330s. Retail should be put back into the mix required
at the SB 330 sites. Beta testing is almost complete after six SB 330s. We need to preserve retail
And we need to come up with ways to protect, promote and preserve retail.
Cupertino's main shopping area, when it was Westside, was the intersection of Sunnyvale-Saratoga
Road and Stevens Creek Blvd. It was called The Crossroads and that is where you went to buy things
You needed in farming and orchard days. The Crossroads should keep retail as retail has always been
There for the Cupertino Community.
We just need to put retail back into the equation as we beta test SB 330. The state did not beta test it.
We are having to do it now. Please help us get our concerns out about SB 330 and help us protect
retail in Cupertino.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
From:Vikram Saxena
To:City Clerk
Cc:Yung, Brandon@HCD; Wilcox, Mindy@HCD; davidcyan@gmail.com; lindavistatt@gmail.com; Liang Chao; Kitty
Moore; R "Ray" Wang; Floy Andrews; plee@awattorneys.com; Tina Kapoor; Coy, Melinda@HCD; Emi Sugiyama;
Luke Connolly
Subject:Re: Subject: Documentation of Administrative Record Inconsistencies: 10857 Linda Vista Cupertino
Date:Sunday, April 12, 2026 5:52:09 PM
Attachments:Attachment_Cox_Castle_HAA_CEQA_Letter_2026-02-12.pdf
CEQA Exemption Fire Safety Compliance Concerns-2.pdf
Cox Castle Letter City of Cupertino - 4-1-26.pdf
Estrada Raw Testimony.pdf
Intro letter to Brandon Yung HCD.pdf
Notice_of_Factual_Discrepancies_to_Cox_Castle-City.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.
Subject: FOR THE OFFICIAL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD: Evulich Court / 10857 Linda
Vista Drive - Supplemental Evidence for Reconsideration
Dear City Clerk,
Please find attached the recent correspondence between our neighborhood coalition and the
California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) regarding the
Evulich Court project.
I am formally requesting that this email and the attached PDF be entered into the Official
Administrative Record for the Evulich Court project. Furthermore, please append this
correspondence as supplemental evidence to our pending Petition for Reconsideration, so
that the City Council has it in their packet prior to their hearing on our petition.
Please confirm receipt and inclusion in the record.
Sincerely
-Vikram Saxena
On Thu, Apr 9, 2026 at 11:08 AM Coy, Melinda@HCD <Melinda.Coy@hcd.ca.gov> wrote:
Thank you
At this time we will not be reevaluating our letter. We are however monitoring as this project
moves forward.
Melinda
From: Vikram Saxena <vsaxena@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2026 2:32 AM
To: Coy, Melinda@HCD <Melinda.Coy@hcd.ca.gov>
Cc: Yung, Brandon@HCD <Brandon.Yung@hcd.ca.gov>; Wilcox, Mindy@HCD
<Mindy.Wilcox@hcd.ca.gov>; davidcyan@gmail.com; lindavistatt@gmail.com; Liang Chao
<lchao@cupertino.gov>; Kitty Moore <kmoore@cupertino.gov>; Ray Wang
<rwang@cupertino.gov>; floya@cupertino.gov; plee@awattorneys.com; Tina Kapoor
<tinak@cupertino.gov>
Subject: Re: Subject: Documentation of Administrative Record Inconsistencies: 10857 Linda Vista
Cupertino
Dear Ms. Coy, Thank you for the acknowledgment. To clarify the core issue: the project may proceed with a CEQA exemption using compliant 30-foot setbacks, or with 10-foot setbacks subject to full environmental review—but it cannot legally do
Dear Ms. Coy,
Thank you for the acknowledgment.
To clarify the core issue: the project may proceed with a CEQA exemption using compliant
30-foot setbacks, or with 10-foot setbacks subject to full environmental review—but it
cannot legally do both.
The current record reflects a clear breakdown in the information chain. The applicant’s Feb
12 letter—which asserted confirmed fire safety compliance—informed the City Staff
Report, which then shaped HCD’s guidance. Crucially, the applicant’s April 1
submission materially retracted that claim, admitting that compliance remains "to be
determined."
It is understandable that the City is still establishing a baseline for these overlapping
requirements, given that 1,600 acres in Cupertino were newly designated as High/Very High
Fire Hazard Severity Zones just as AB 130 became law in 2025. However, we request that
you re-evaluate your letter now that the underlying premise of the Feb 12 letter has been
withdrawn.
Sincerely,
Vikram Saxena
On Wed, Apr 8, 2026 at 12:54 PM Coy, Melinda@HCD <Melinda.Coy@hcd.ca.gov>
wrote:
I want to acknowledge receipt. We will review what you sent.
From: Vikram Saxena <vsaxena@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2026 11:30 AM
To: Coy, Melinda@HCD <Melinda.Coy@hcd.ca.gov>; Yung, Brandon@HCD
<Brandon.Yung@hcd.ca.gov>; Wilcox, Mindy@HCD <Mindy.Wilcox@hcd.ca.gov>
Cc: davidcyan@gmail.com; lindavistatt@gmail.com; Liang Chao <lchao@cupertino.gov>; Kitty
Moore <kmoore@cupertino.gov>; Ray Wang <rwang@cupertino.gov>; floya@cupertino.gov;
plee@awattorneys.com
Subject: Subject: Documentation of Administrative Record Inconsistencies: 10857 Linda Vista
Cupertino
Dear Ms. Coy, I am writing to follow up on my prior correspondence regarding the 10857 Linda Vista project in Cupertino and HCD’s March 30, 2026 technical assistance letter issued by your office. Given that residents have a limited period (10
Dear Ms. Coy,
I am writing to follow up on my prior correspondence regarding the 10857 Linda Vista
project in Cupertino and HCD’s March 30, 2026 technical assistance letter issued by your
office. Given that residents have a limited period (10 days from the April 1 decision) to
seek reconsideration, time is of the essence in clarifying whether HCD’s guidance was
applied based on a complete and accurate understanding of the record.
As I have not received a response, I am attaching a formal follow-up letter documenting
material inconsistencies in the administrative record related to fire safety compliance and
CEQA exemption eligibility.
I want to highlight one point in particular. During the April 1, 2026 City Council hearing,
the Fire Department, through Assistant Fire Chief Estrada, provided direct testimony
clarifying that key elements of fire safety compliance, including defensible space and
evacuation impacts, had not been evaluated and were outside the scope of review. At
the same time, prior written submissions had identified material discrepancies in the
February 12, 2026 letter (from Summerhill's counsel) regarding the characterization of
Fire Department prior approvals.
Notwithstanding this record, HCD’s March 30 guidance, particularly the direction that the
City should “assume compliance” at the entitlement stage, was relied upon by the City
Attorney as the central basis for advising approval of the project and its CEQA
exemption. In effect, that guidance became the framework through which the Council
evaluated its obligations. The Council applied this framework in a manner that allowed
approval to proceed despite unresolved and documented factual conflicts in the
record.
The attached letter connects the February 12 counsel letter, the Planning Commission
Staff Report (referred by the HCD), the April 1 counsel submission, and prior resident
notices, and explains how these were collectively relied upon in the City’s decision-
making process.
I have copied Mr. Yung for continuity.
Given the role HCD’s guidance played in the City’s decision, I would appreciate your
acknowledgment of receipt and any clarification HCD can provide after review.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Vikram Saxena
Attachments:
(1) CEQA Exemption Fire Safety Compliance Concerns (new letter)
(2) Intro letter to Brandon Yung HCD (sent this weekend to initiate contact)
(3) Cox Castle Letter of February 12
(4) Cox Castle Letter of April 1
(5) Notice_of_Factual_Discrepancies_to_Cox_Castle (March 27)
(6) Extracts from Assistant Fire Chief Hector Estrada's testimony at the April 1, city
council meeting
Ih) COX CASTLE
107942\19229684v6 www.coxcastle.com Los Angeles | Orange County | San Francisco
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
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
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 (“PSA”).
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
Planning Commission
February 12, 2026
Page 2
107942\19229684v6
to be “inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity” with applicable standards. (Gov.
Code § 65589.5(j)(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 § 65589.5(j)(2)(A).) If the local agency fails to provide the required documentation
within the deadline, the housing development 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 (“CEQA”)
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
Planning Commission
February 12, 2026
Page 3
107942\19229684v6
§ 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 SummerHill 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 April 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 density 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 § 65589.5(j)(1).) The HAA defines a “specific, adverse impact” as “a significant,
quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health
Planning Commission
February 12, 2026
Page 4
107942\19229684v6
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.
Margo SSradish
Planning Commission
February 12, 2026
Page 5
107942\19229684v6
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
Margo Bradish
MNB
CC: Floy Andrews, City Attorney
Steve Bull, SummerHill Homes
Austin Lin, SummerHill Homes
Dear Mr. Yung,
I write to follow up on my prior correspondence regarding the 10857 Linda Vista project and its
treatment as eligible for the AB 130 CEQA exemption within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity
Zone (VHFHSZ). In light of the absence of a response and the significance of the issues
identified, this letter is submitted to formally document material inconsistencies in the
administrative record that appear to have influenced both the City’s approval and HCD’s March
30, 2026 technical assistance letter.
This is not a policy objection to housing development or the Evulich Court project. Rather, it
concerns whether the decision-making process relied on a complete, accurate, and internally
consistent factual record—particularly with respect to threshold fire safety compliance
required for CEQA exemption.
1. Chain of Representation and the "Record of Circularity"
The record reflects a clear sequence of bootstrapping, through which an initial assertion was
progressively laundered into a controlling premise:
● The February 12, 2026 letter from project counsel asserted that the Fire Department
had “confirmed” compliance with Public Resources Code §§ 4290, 4291/51182, and
Chapter 7A.
● The February 24, 2026 Planning Commission Staff Report adopted this assertion as a
formal finding, stating that the project had “demonstrated consistency” with these
requirements.
● HCD’s March 30, 2026 letter, in turn, relied on the Staff Report to advise that
compliance may be assumed at the entitlement stage.
At no point does the record demonstrate independent verification of compliance. Instead, an
initial representation was adopted and relied upon without reconciliation against the underlying
Fire Department record, creating a record of circularity where the finding exists only because
the assertion was made, not because the facts support it.
2. Documented Discrepancies and Prior Notice
Before the City Council’s April 1, 2026 decision, residents submitted detailed written notices
identifying specific factual discrepancies in the underlying record. Supported by direct
citations to Fire Department documents, these notices established that:
● PRC § 4291 (defensible space) remained an outstanding, unapproved requirement, with
records explicitly stating “Plans are NOT APPROVED.”
● The Alternate Means and Methods Request (AMMR) was incomplete, lacking the
required Building Official approval.
● The Fire Department had approved an exception to PRC § 4290 setback requirements,
not compliance with them, characterizing the design as “non-conforming.”
The administrative record does not reflect that these discrepancies were resolved or
incorporated into the findings presented to decision-makers.
3. Subsequent Revision and Mooted Findings (April 1, 2026)
On April 1, 2026, the applicant submitted a letter that materially altered the basis of their earlier
representations. Where the February letter asserted "confirmed compliance," the April letter
stated that compliance “will be verified” at the building permit stage.
This shift effectively mooted the factual findings of the February Staff Report. By replacing a
representation of existing, verified compliance with a position that it is prospective and
unverified, the applicant withdrew the very factual predicate upon which the Staff Report
and HCD’s March 30 letter relied.
4. Jurisdictional Gaps and Physical Impossibility
Testimony from the Santa Clara County Fire Department at the April 1, 2026 hearing
established a jurisdictional gap. The Department confirmed that:
● Review addressed PRC § 4290 (setbacks/access).
● PRC § 4291 / § 51182 (defensible space) was not evaluated.
● Evacuation impacts were explicitly stated to be out of scope.
This distinction is material. Compliance with PRC § 4291 requires 100 feet of defensible space.
With proposed setbacks as low as 10 feet, the record raises a question of physical
impossibility. If the project footprint makes required defensible space physically unachievable
on-site, deferring verification to the "building permit stage" is a legal fiction; the footprint
cannot be moved after entitlement.
5. Effect on Decision Making
HCD’s March 30 letter—and its direction to “assume compliance” at the entitlement
stage—was expressly relied upon by the City Attorney as a central basis for advising approval.
This guidance was invoked to support the position that the City was not required to resolve
questions regarding fire safety at the entitlement stage, even where the record contained
affirmative evidence of non-compliance.
In effect, HCD’s guidance was applied in a manner that supplanted the need for evidentiary
resolution, even where the record contained documented contradictions. This raises a
threshold question as to whether HCD intended for its guidance to displace the requirement
for a complete and accurate factual record and to comply with the statute of AB 130’s CEQA
exemption requirements as written.
6. Request for Clarification
Given the above, I respectfully request that HCD:
● Clarify whether its March 30, 2026 letter relied on an understanding that the project had
already demonstrated compliance with PRC §§ 4290, 4291, and Chapter 7A.
● Confirm whether the "assumption of compliance" is appropriate when the record
contains affirmative evidence of non-compliance and documented physical
feasibility constraints.
● Review the Fire Department testimony from April 1, 2026, which establishes that the
core statutes required for CEQA exemption were never actually evaluated.
Closing
The issue presented is whether a threshold factual predicate—fire safety compliance required
for CEQA exemption—was established, or merely assumed in the presence of unresolved and
documented discrepancies. I would appreciate acknowledgment of this letter and any
guidance HCD can provide.
Sincerely,
Vikram Saxena
Cupertino Resident
Former Vice-Chair, Cupertino Planning Commission
107942\19311643v6www.coxcastle.com Los Angeles | Orange County | San Francisco
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
April 1, 2026
VIA E-MAIL
City Council
City of Cupertino
City Hall
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
Re:10857, 10867, 10877, and 10887 Linda Vista Drive Townhome Project Approval
Honorable Council Members:
At its February 24, 2026, hearing, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino
(“City”) recommended that the City Council approve SummerHill Homes’ (“SummerHill”)
proposed housing development project (“Project”) at 10857, 10867, and 10877 Linda Vista
Drive (“Property”). At its March 17, 2026,meeting,the City Council continued the scheduled
hearing on the Project until April 1, 2026, without substantive discussion. On March 30, 2026,
the Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) issued a Letter of Support
and Technical Assistance with regard to the Project (“HCD Support Letter”). (See attached
Exhibit A.) We write to encourage the City Council to approve the Project at its April 1,
2026, hearing, in accordance with the City’s obligations under the Housing Accountability
Act (“HAA”), the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), and the Permit
Streamlining Act (“PSA”).Please see our February 12, 2026, letter to Planning staff addressing
these obligations (“February Letter”). (See attached Exhibit B.)
This letter responds to (i)the March 16, 2026, letter from an attorney on behalf of a
resident (“Attorney Letter”) asserting noncompliance of the Project with CEQA and the
Subdivision Map Act (“Map Act”)and (ii)the March 27, 2026, letter from resident Vikram
Saxena alleging factual discrepancies regarding CEQA compliance (“Saxena Letter”). As
described below, the record before you demonstrates that (i) the Project is eligible for the
AB 130 CEQA statutory exemption for infill housing projects; and (ii) the Project is
consistent with the Map Act.
As noted in our February Letter, the City Council lacks a legal basis to disapprove the
Project,and the City faces potentially substantial financial penalties should it do so. Pursuant to
recently enacted AB 712, disapproval of the Project in violation of state housing laws would
expose the City to fines of a minimum of $10,000 per unit (with enhanced penalties in the event
of bad faith or prior noncompliance) and payment of Summerhill’s attorneys’ fees. We
City Council
April 1, 2026
Page 2
107942\19311643v6
encourage the City Council to approve the Project as proposed in accordance with applicable
law.
1.Background
The Project is located within a newly designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
(“VHFHSZ”)and therefore is subject to Public Resource Code Section 4290 and the State
Minimum Fire Safe Regulations (14 C.C.R §§ 1270 et seq.) (“Fire Safe Regulations”), in
addition to the generally applicable fire safety requirements of the California Building Code
(“Building Code”).The Project is located in a local responsibility area (“LRA”) and therefore
Public Resources Code Section 51182 is applicable to the Project (whereas Public Resources
Code Section 4291 is applicable to buildings in state responsibility areas).
SummerHill applied to the Santa Clara County Fire Department (“Fire Department”) for
a reduction of the 30-foot setback requirement of the Fire Safe Regulations adopted pursuant to
Public Resource Code Section 4290 (“Alternative Means”), including submission of a
justification for the request. (See attached Exhibit C.)After review in accordance with the Fire
Safe Regulations, on January 1, 2026, the Fire Department issued comments stating that the
Alternative Means “is APPROVED.”(See attached Exhibit C.)On January 27, 2026, the Fire
Department issued comments on the Project stating, “Plans are APPROVED with conditions.”
(See attached Exhibit D.)With regard to the Alternative Means, the Fire Department found that
“non-conforming setbacks are mitigated through a combination of increased fire separation
distance requirements and modified sprinkler systems.” (See attached Exhibit D, Plan Review
Comment 1.)The conditions also include requirements for standard items routinely reviewed at
the building permit and inspection stage, such as requirements for a “Final Fire Protection Plan”,
turnaround installation, sprinkler installation, fire flow, rescue openings, fire access road
specifications, fire lane identification, address identification, etc. These imposition of these
conditions in no way affects the validity of the approval.
2.The Project Qualifies for the AB 130 CEQA Exemption.
a. AB 130 CEQA Exemption Requirements for VHFHSZ
Public Resources Code Section 21080.66 (codified as Section 59 of AB 130) (“AB 130
CEQA Exemption”) includes site-specific criteria applicable to sites seeking to use the AB 130
CEQA Exemption, including, among other things, satisfying the requirements of Government
Code Section 65913.4(a)(6).
As applicable to the Project, Section 65913.4(a)(6)(D) provides that the AB 130 CEQA
Exemption generally does not apply to sites that are “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.” This exclusion, however, does not apply if certain conditions are met. Specifically, the
AB 130 CEQA Exemption provides the following regarding the exclusion:
City Council
April 1, 2026
Page 3
107942\19311643v6
This subparagraph [i.e., the exclusion] does not apply to sites that have 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:
(i) Section 4291 of the Public Resources Code or Section 51182, as applicable.
(ii) Section 4290 of the Public Resources Code.
(iii) Chapter 7A of the California Building Code (Title 24 of the California Code
of Regulations).”
(Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(6)(D) (emphasis added).)
Importantly, this exception to the general exclusion provides that the exclusion does not apply to
sites “that have adopted fire hazard mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards,”
with the balance of the text being explanatory of this general requirement.
Notably, the listed standards apply as a matter of law to all projects in VHFHSZ,
regardless of the use of AB 130. As part of the standard permit review process for all projects in
VHFHSZ, building and fire staff routinely verify compliance with these requirements as a
prerequisite to the issuance of building permits and inspection approvals. Projects in VHFHSZ
cannot receive building permits or inspection approvals until the applicable requirements are
met.
In accordance with CEQA case law, cities routinely rely on a project’s compliance with
applicable law as a manner of demonstrating compliance with CEQA. (See Tracy First v City of
Tracy (2009) 177 CA4th 912.)While SummerHill has substantially advanced its demonstration
of compliance with the code requirements noted by AB 130 ahead of the required permit process
to be responsive to community concerns,the obligation to comply with these laws,as confirmed
at the permit stage, is itself sufficient to demonstrate CEQA compliance.Thus, the HCD Support
Letter concludes, “For purposes of entitling AB-130 eligible projects, the City should assume
compliance with local building codes. Whether the project is indeed code compliant should be
determined at the post-entitlement phase. This prevents the entitlement review process from
becoming bogged down in technical details that are strictly governed by other laws.” (HCD
Support Letter, emphasis added.)While a code compliance determination is not required to
establish AB 130 eligibility at the entitlement stage, the compliance of the Project with
applicable code requirements nonetheless is addressed below for informational purposes.
b.The Project Will Comply with Section 51182 of the Public Resources Code.
Public Resources Code Sections 4291 and 51182 address “defensible space” surrounding
structures based on the combustibility of materials surrounding the structure, but generally not
beyond the property line. As noted above, based on its location in an LRA, Section 51182 is
applicable to the Project.
City Council
April 1, 2026
Page 4
107942\19311643v6
Section 51182 requires a defensible space of 100 feet from each side and from the front
and rear of the structure, but not beyond the property line except as specified in the statute, and
specified maintenance. (See Pub. Res. Code § 51182(a)(1)(A).) Section 51182 states, “The
amount of fuel modification necessary shall consider the flammability of the structure as affected
by building material, building standards, location, and type of vegetation.” (Id.)
The Project will comply with Section 51182, and compliance will be verified through the
standard building permit plan check and inspection processes, as is done for every project in a
VHFHSZ. For example, Section 701A.5 of the California Building Code requires that, “Prior to
building permit final approval, the property shall be in compliance with the vegetation
management requirements prescribed in California Fire Code Section 4906, including California
Public Resources Code 4291 or California Government Code Section 51182.” Similarly,
Sections 4907.2 and 4907.3 of the California Fire Code require:
Land designated in ordinance by local agencies as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity
Zone pursuant to Government Code Section 51179 are required to maintain the required
defensible space. Vegetation and fuels around all buildings and structures shall be
maintained and spaced at all times in accordance with the following laws and regulations.
Should a conflict of any requirements occur, the most restrictive requirement shall
prevail: 1) Public Resources Code, Section 4291. 2) California Code of Regulations, Title
14, Division 1.5, Chapter 7, Subchapter 3, Article 3, Section 1299. 3) California
Government Code, Section 51182. 4) California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division
1, Chapter 7, Subchapter 1, Section 3.07. 5) The requirements of Chapter 49 and the
Defensible Space and Fuel Modification Standards as issued and approved by the Fire
Code Official.
As noted in the HCD Support Letter, “For purposes of entitling AB-130 eligible projects,
the City should assume compliance with local building codes. Whether the project is indeed code
compliant should be determined at the post-entitlement phase.”
c.The Project Complies with Section 4290 of the Public Resources Code.
Public Resources Code Section 4290 requires the adoption of regulations implementing
minimum fire safety standards related to defensible space in VHFHSZ, which are included in the
Fire Safe Regulations. The Fire Safe Regulations provide as follows:
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).
(b)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
City Council
April 1, 2026
Page 5
107942\19311643v6
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 (emphasis added).) In other words, compliance with Public Resources
Code Section 4290 and Section 1276.01 of the Fire Safe Regulations can be established through
either a 30-foot setback or a reduced setback combined with alternative methods.
As expressly permitted, the Project complies with Public Resources Code Section 4290
and Section 1276.01 of the Fire Safe Regulations through the second express option, a reduced
setback for a portion of the Project combined with alternative methods to reduce structure-to-
structure ignition, including added fire sprinklers and one-hour fire ratings of certain exterior
walls and covered porches.Any suggestion by the Attorney Letter or Saxena Letter that this use
of a reduced setback combined with alternative methods defeats compliance with Public
Resources Code Section 4290 is inconsistent with the express regulatory provisions.
i.The Fire Safe Regulations Authorize Use of Alternative Means.
Section 1270.07(a) of the Fire Safe Regulations confirms that exceptions to the Fire Safe
Regulations may be approved by the Fire Department where the alternative means have the
“same practical effect” as the regulations. Section 1270.07(a) states:
Upon request by the applicant, an Exception to standards within this Subchapter may be
allowed by the Inspection entity in accordance with 14 CCR § 1270.06 (Inspections)
where the Exceptions provide the Same Practical Effect as these regulations towards
providing Defensible Space. Exceptions granted by the Local Jurisdiction listed in 14
CCR § 1270.06, shall be made on a case-by-case basis only.
14 C.C.R. §1270.07(a). The Fire Safe Regulations define an exception as “An alternative to the
specified standard requested by the applicant that may be necessary due to health, safety,
environmental conditions, physical site limitations or other limiting conditions, such as recorded
historical sites, that provides mitigation of the problem.” (14 C.C.R. §1270.01(j)(emphasis
added).)
City Council
April 1, 2026
Page 6
107942\19311643v6
The Fire Department followed this process in approving the Alternative Means. Based on
an analysis of the Project site and the Alternative Means, “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.” (Fire Department Memorandum to the Cupertino City Officials from Santa Clara
Hector Estrada, Assistant Fire Chief, Re: Housing Development –Linda Vista Drive (emphasis
added) (see attached Exhibit E).) In addition, “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.” (Id. (emphasis added).)
As noted above, SummerHill substantially advanced its demonstration of compliance
with the code requirements noted by AB 130 ahead of the required building permit process to be
responsive to community concerns. Based on this accelerated process, the Fire Department
already has approved the Alternative Means requested for the Project. (See attached Exhibit C.).
Contrary to the assertion of the Attorney Letter and Saxena Letter, the use of Alternative
Means is not a “shortcut” or an “avoidance” of code compliance. Instead, Alternative Means are
a site-specific fire protection program authorized by the Fire Safe Regulations and approved by
the Fire Department as having the “Same Practical Effect” as the Fire Safe Regulations. In other
words, Alternative Means are an approved method of establishing code compliance.
ii.Use of Alternative Methods Does Not Affect the Applicability of the AB
130 CEQA Exemption.
Alternative Means falls squarely within the statutory language of Section
65913.4(a)(6)(D), as referenced in the AB 130 CEQA Exemption.The Attorney Letter and
Saxena Letter fail to recognize that the Project received approval of the exact type of site-
specific fire mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards contemplated by Section
65913.4(a)(6)(D).
The Attorney Letter and Saxena Letter curiously attempt to suggest that Alternative
Means expressly authorized by the Fire Safe Regulations to establish code compliance somehow
do not constitute code compliance under AB 130 CEQA Exemption.The Attorney Letter
provides no support for its assertion that an approved methodology for establishing code
compliance for the purpose of the code does not establish code compliance for purposes of the
AB 130 CEQA Exemption. Nothing in the AB 130 CEQA Exemption states or even implies such
a distinction.
d. The Project Will Comply with Chapter 7A of the Building Code
Chapter 7A of the Building Code, “Materials and Construction Methods for Exterior
Wildlife Exposure,” establishes minimum standards for building materials, systems, and
assemblies used in the exterior design and construction of new buildings in the Wildland Urban
City Council
April 1, 2026
Page 7
107942\19311643v6
Interface, including requirements for ignition resistant construction, roofing, vents, exterior
covering, exterior windows, skylights, and doors, decking, and accessory structures.
As a matter of standard plan check practice, the building official must confirm that
project plans comply with the requirements of Chapter 7A prior to issuance of a building permit.
Specifically, Building Code Section 701A.4 requires that the “local building official shall, prior
to construction, provide the owner or applicant a certification that the building as proposed to be
built complies with all applicable state and local building standards, including those for materials
and construction methods for wildfire exposure as described in [Chapter 7].
Similarly, as a matter of standard inspection practice, the building official must confirm
that the project is constructed in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 7A. Specifically,
Building Code Section 701A.4 requires that the “local building official shall, upon completion of
construction, provide the owner or applicant with a copy of the final inspection report that
demonstrates the building was constructed in compliance with all applicable state and local
building standards, including those for materials and construction methods for wildfire exposure
as described in [Chapter 7].” The foregoing requirements will ensure compliance with Chapter
7A, which is sufficient to demonstrate compliance with AB 130 with regard to Chapter 7A.
As noted in the HCD Support Letter, “For purposes of entitling AB-130 eligible projects,
the City should assume compliance with local building codes. Whether the project is indeed code
compliant should be determined at the post-entitlement phase.”
3.The Project is Consistent with the Map Act.
a.The Project is Consistent with Applicable, Objective Public Health and Safety
Standards.
The Project is entitled to the protection of the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”),
including the prohibition on disapproval of a housing development project that complies with
“with applicable,objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria,
including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed
complete.” (Government Code § 65589.5(j)(1) (emphasis added).) The HAA provides an
exception to this prohibition if a preponderance of evidence demonstrates that the project would
have “a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety,” defined as a “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.” (Id.) For purposes of the HAA, “objective” means “involving no personal or
subjective judgment by a public official and being 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.(Id. § 65589.5(h)(9).)
The Map Act identifies findings requiring disapproval of a project, as opposed to findings
required for approval. (Government Code § 66474.). In other words, the City must deny a map if
City Council
April 1, 2026
Page 8
107942\19311643v6
substantial evidence supports one of the findings for disapproval. The Map Act finding requiring
disapproval of a project where “the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to
cause serious public health problems,”is not an objective standard as defined by the HAA, in
that it involves subjective judgment and is not verifiable by reference to any external and
uniform benchmark. In their review of the Project, neither the City nor the Fire Department have
identified any applicable, objective standards related to public health and safety with which the
Project would not comply. As such,the City cannot deny the Project tenative map based on this
Map Act finding.
The Attorney letter incorrectly asserts that the Map Act requires the City to make
findings pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.02. This provision of the Map Act applies
only to counties and therefore is inapplicable to the City.
b.There is Not Substantial Evidence that the Project Would Cause Serious Public
Health Problems.
The draft resolution prepared by staff for approval of the Project tentative map includes a
finding that “[t]he proposed subdivision design and improvements will not cause serious public
health problems.” The Attorney Letter improperly asserts that the Project will result in “serious
public health problems”with the meaning of the Map Act because it would lead to additional
evacuation time.The Map Act, however, does not establish any objective standards regarding
evacuation time. Further,as detailed in our February Letter, in their review of the Project, neither
the City nor the Fire Department have identified any applicable, objective standards related to
evacuation routes. The Fire Department, however, has found that the Alternative Means
“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.” (See attached Exhibit E.) As such, there is not substantial evidence in the record that the
Project would have “serious public health problems”that would justify disapproval under the
HAA.
Further, there is not substantial evidence in the record that the Project would have a
significant impact on emergency evacuation times. The Attorney Letter does not identify
substantial evidence that would support a finding under Government Code Section 66474(f).
Instead, the Attorney Letter makes several unsupported and factually incorrect assumptions
regarding the roadway network to justify a conclusory statement that the Project would create an
additional hour of evacuation time.Examples of the inaccuracies in the assumptions include both
the extent of the applicable network and the volume that can be accommodated on the roadway.
While an evacuation study is not required, and there are no applicable objective standards
for such a study, SummerHill voluntarily requested that the transportation consultant for the
Project prepare an evacuation analysis for non-CEQA, internal review purposes.As explained in
Hexagon Transportation Consultants’ February 26, 2026, Evacuation Analysis for the Proposed
Townhomes at 10857 Linda Vista Drive in Cupertino, CA (“Hexagon Analysis”), the Project is
City Council
April 1, 2026
Page 9
107942\19311643v6
anticipated to add only 3.6 percent of overall evacuation traffic on expected evacuation routes in
a hypothetical wildfire scenario. The Hexagon Analysis concludes, “given this minimal increase,
the project would not significantly affect traffic evacuation volumes or conditions for the
evacuation area when compared to existing conditions.” (Emphasis added.) The Hexagon
Analysis further concludes that the Project would add approximately two minutes to evacuation
times under existing conditions, which “would not significantly affect evacuation operations
when compared to existing conditions.” (Emphasis added.) These minor changes do not rise to
the level of a “serious public health problem” caused by the Project for purposes of the Map Act.
* * *
In summary, the record before you demonstrates that (i) the Project is eligible for the AB
130 CEQA statutory exemption for infill housing projects; and (ii) the Project is consistent with
the Map Act, both notwithstanding the use of Alternative Means as expressly authorized by the
Fire Safe Regulations to achieve compliance with the code.
As noted in our February Letter, the City Council lacks a legal basis to disapprove the
Project,and the City faces potentially substantial financial penalties, including AB 712 fines and
attorneys’ fees,should it do so. We encourage the City Council to approve the Project as
proposed,in accordance with applicable law.
Sincerely,
Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP
Margo N. Bradish
Partner
MNB
Attachments
City Council
April 1, 2026
107942\19311643v5
Exhibit A
HCD Support Letter
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
651 Bannon Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95811
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
March 30, 2026
Ben Fu, Community Development Director
Cupertino City Hall
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Dear Ben Fu:
RE: City of Cupertino – 10857 Linda Vista Drive – Letter Support and Technical
Assistance
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) understands
that on April 1, 2026, the City Council of the City of Cupertino will consider a Tentative
Map, Architectural and Site Approval, and Tree Removal Permit for the construction of a
housing development project that includes moderate income affordable units (Project) on a
2.53-acre site located at 10857 Linda Vista Drive (APNs: 356-06-001, -002, -003, and -
004). The purpose of this letter is to assist the City with its decision making by providing
technical assistance related to the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) and State No Net
Loss Law.
Background
HCD understands that the Project is proposing 51 for-sale townhome units, including 10
units deed restricted for moderate income households. The Project is located within the
R-3/TH (Multiple-Family Residential, Townhome) zoning district and the Residential –
Medium High Density General Plan Land Use Designation. The Project is utilizing the
State Density Bonus Law (SDBL)1 to utilize five waivers and one concession from
applicable standards of the General Plan and Zoning Code. HCD additionally understands
that the Project is consistent with the General Plan,2 Zoning,3 and state and local
regulations applicable to Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ).4 On
February 24, 2026, the City’s Planning Commission voted to recommend the City Council
approve the Project.5
1 Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (b)(1)(D).
2 City of Cupertino February 24, 2026, Planning Commission Hearing Staff Report on
10857 Linda Vista Drive, page 2.
3 Ibid. See page 3.
4 Ibid. See page 9: “The Santa Clara County Fire Department has found that the project
has demonstrated consistency with these requirements.”
5 City of Cupertino February 24, 2026, Planning Commission Hearing Minutes.
Ben Fu, Community Development Director
Page 2
Analysis
Housing Accountability Act
The Project meets the definition of a “housing development project” under the HAA.6 The
Project may only be disapproved or approved at a lower density if the City makes written
findings, supported by a preponderance of evidence on the record, that (1) a specific,
adverse impact upon the public health or safety would result from the project and (2)
mitigation of the adverse impact is not possible.7 Specific, adverse, impact means a
significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified
written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions.8 “Objective” means,
“involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being 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.”9
Additionally, the Legislature has clarified that these impacts are intended to arise
“infrequently.”10
Housing Element No Net Loss Law
No Net Loss Law requires that a jurisdiction ensure there is development opportunity
remaining throughout the planning period to accommodate the jurisdiction’s Regional
Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Because the approval of the Project would result in
capacity becoming inadequate to accommodate the RHNA, the City will have up to 180
days from the approval to identify or rezone “sufficient additional, adequate, and available
sites” to accommodate the remaining RHNA.11
HCD understands that the Project site consists of four contiguous lots listed in the City’s
6th Cycle Housing Element and the approval of the project may trigger a No Net Loss Law
obligation for the City in the moderate income and lower-income categories. In the
Planning Commission Staff Report for the Project, the City has stated that, while it “is
unable to identify additional sites to accommodate its RHNA concurrently with this project’s
approval, it is working toward being compliant with State law in a timely manner. 12” HCD
reminds the City that Housing Element No Net Loss Law specifically provides that the City
may not disapprove a housing project on the basis that approval of the development would
trigger the identification or zoning of additional adequate sites to accommodate the
remaining RHNA.13
6 Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (h)(2).
7 Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j)(1).
8 Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j)(1)(A).
9 Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (h)(9).
10 Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (a)(3).
11 Gov. Code, § 65863., subd. (c)(2).
12 City of Cupertino February 24, 2026, Planning Commission Hearing Staff Report on
10857 Linda Vista Drive, page 18.
13 See HCD’s October 2, 2019 No Net Loss Law Memo, page 1, available at:
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/housing-element-
memos/docs/sb-166-final.pdf.
Ben Fu, Community Development Director
Page 3
Conclusion
For purposes of entitling AB 130-eligible projects, the City should assume compliance with
local building codes. Whether the project is indeed code compliant should be determined
at the post-entitlement phase. This prevents the entitlement review process from becoming
bogged down in technical details that are strictly governed by other laws.
HCD informs the City that AB 712 (Government Code Section 65914.2.) went into effect on
January 1, 2026. Among other things, the new law increases penalties that a court may
impose on a local government if the local government was advised in writing prior to the
commencement of a lawsuit brought by the Attorney General or HCD that the local
government’s decision, action, or inaction would represent a violation of specified housing
laws.
HCD hopes this technical assistance is helpful. HCD has enforcement authority over the
HAA and Housing Element Law, among other state housing laws. Accordingly, HCD may
review local government actions to determine consistency with these laws. Pursuant to
Government Code section 65585, subdivision (j), if HCD finds that a jurisdiction’s actions
do not comply with state law, HCD may notify the California Office of the Attorney General.
HCD remains committed to supporting the City of Cupertino in facilitating housing at all
income levels and hopes the City finds this clarification helpful. If you have questions or
need additional information, please contact Brandon Yung at Brandon.Yung@hcd.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
Melinda Coy
Housing Accountability Unit Chief
City Council
April 1, 2026
107942\19311643v5
Exhibit B
February Letter
Ih) COX CASTLE
107942\19229684v6 www.coxcastle.com Los Angeles | Orange County | San Francisco
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
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
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 (“PSA”).
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
Planning Commission
February 12, 2026
Page 2
107942\19229684v6
to be “inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity” with applicable standards. (Gov.
Code § 65589.5(j)(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 § 65589.5(j)(2)(A).) If the local agency fails to provide the required documentation
within the deadline, the housing development 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 (“CEQA”)
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
Planning Commission
February 12, 2026
Page 3
107942\19229684v6
§ 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 SummerHill 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 April 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 density 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 § 65589.5(j)(1).) The HAA defines a “specific, adverse impact” as “a significant,
quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health
Planning Commission
February 12, 2026
Page 4
107942\19229684v6
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.
Margo SSradish
Planning Commission
February 12, 2026
Page 5
107942\19229684v6
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
Margo Bradish
MNB
CC: Floy Andrews, City Attorney
Steve Bull, SummerHill Homes
Austin Lin, SummerHill Homes
City Council
April 1, 2026
107942\19311643v5
Exhibit C
Alternative Means Application & Approval
D
S
T
R
E
E
T
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
B
S
T
R
E
E
T
C
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
S
T
R
E
E
T
LI
N
D
A
V
I
S
T
A
D
R
I
V
E
(P
U
B
L
I
C
R
O
A
D
)
EVULICH COURT(PUBLIC ROAD)
BLDG 6
BLDG 1 BLDG 2 BLDG 3 BLDG 4 BLDG 5
BLDG 7
BLDG 8 BLDG 9 BLDG 10
H:\3988-000\ACAD\EXHIBITS\XB-033_SETBACK SITE PLAN.DWG
SETBACK SITE PLAN
10857 LINDA VISTA DRIVE
CITY OF CUPERTINO SANTA CLARA COUNTY CALIFORNIA
SCALE: 1" = 20'DATE: SEPTEMBER 15, 2025
6040200 CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
SAN RAMON
WWW.CBANDG.COM
ROSEVILLE
(925) 866-0322
(916) 788-4456
LEGEND
ABBREVIATIONS
38
1
.
0
7
8
10857 Linda Vista Drive
Cupertino, CA
September 15, 2025
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583
650-857-0122
PROJECT DATA
A08
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.
City Council
April 1, 2026
107942\19311643v5
Exhibit D
Fire Department Project Plans Approval
1
FIRE PREVENTION PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
PROJECT INFO: PREPARED BY:
FIRE DEPT PLAN REVIEW #: NAME/TITLE:
CITY/COUNTY PROJECT #: EMAIL:
LOCATION: DATE:
PROJECT NAME:
The scope of this project includes the following:
Proposed new 10 building 51 unit multi-family residential subdivision.
Plans Status:
Plans are APPROVED with conditions.
Plan Review Comments
**1. PRC 4290: This project shall comply with PRC 4290 comments. Exception request
to PRC 4290 approved. Non-conforming setbacks to be mitigated through a
combination of increased fire separation distance requirements and modified sprinklers
systems. See approved Exception Request.
**2. Provide a "Final Fire Protection Plan" at time of building permit submittal. 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 including plan for maintenance
of defensible space, access roads, and fire protection equipment. [CFC section 4903]
3. Fire Department Turnaround: Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications
A-1 / D-1. Turnaround A to be installed. See sheet C6.0.
4. Fire Sprinklers Required: Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new and existing
buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in this Section or in
Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.18.
5. Fire Hydrants Required: Hydrant(s) required within 600 feet of all proposed budlings.
-New hydrants are shown on sheet C6. Hydrants shall be installed prior to
combustible construction and the minimum fire flow shall be met.
-Hydrant authorization shall be approved by San Jose Water.
251740
TM-2024-009 / ASA-2024-015 / TR-
2024-044
Caleb Flanagan
Caleb.flanagan@sccfd.org
10857 Linda Vista Dr 1/27/26
Multi-family subdivision
2
6. Required Fire Flow: The fire flow for this project is 1,375 GPM at 20 psi residual
pressure since an automatic fire sprinkler system will be installed. Note: The minimum
required number and spacing of the hydrants shall be in accordance with CFC Table
C102.1. Fire flow detailed on sheet C6.
-Hydraulic analysis provided confirming minimum fire flow.
7. Ground ladder / Emergency Rescue Openings Required: Ground-ladder rescue
from second and third floor rooms shall be made possible for fire department
operations. Climbing angle of seventy-five degrees shall be demonstrated on the plans
and maintained. Landscaping shall not be allowed to interfere with the required access
(CFC Sec. 503 and 1031 NFPA 1932 Sec. 5.1.8 through 5.1.9.2).
-Shown on sheet A22.
8. Buildings and Facilities Access / Fire Access Roadway: The fire apparatus access
road shall comply with the requirements of this section and shall extend to within 200
feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of
the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or
facility. [CFC, Section 503.1.1 and SCCFD A1 Standard].
9. Fire Lane Identification Required: The minimum clear width of fire department
access roads shall be 20 feet. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designated and
marked as a fire lane as set forth in Section 22500.1 of the California Vehicle Code.
-Noted on sheet C6.
10. All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of the CFC Chapter
33 and our Standard Detail and Specification S1-7. Provide appropriate notations on
subsequent plan submittals, as appropriate to the project. CFC Chp. 33.
11. Address identification: New and existing buildings shall have approved address
numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that
is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers
shall contrast with their background. Where required by the fire code official, address
numbers shall be provided in additional approved locations to facilitate emergency
response. Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers
shall be a minimum of 6 inches (101.6 mm) high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5
inch (12.7 mm). Address numbers shall be maintained CFC Sec. 505.1.
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]
City Council
April 1, 2026
107942\19311643v5
Exhibit E
Fire Department Memorandum
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.
Below are the full, unedited raw transcripts extracted directly from the record of the April 1,
2026, meeting. These include all verbal fillers ("uh," "um"), stutters, and the full context of the
questions asked.
1. Neighbor Impact ("Outside of Scope")
Timestamps: –
Council Member Wang: "can you help me walk us through the process when you receive the
developers request to reduce the setback from 30 ft to 10 ft along property lines what factors did
you personally weigh in deciding that the proposal mitigations were sufficient specifically did all
your evaluation consider the fire safety impact on existing homes along the southern and
northern boundaries um yeah the Barry the Cobra Decker the Rodriguez and the Fantosi
properties"
Assistant Fire Chief Estrada: "so I'm going to go ahead and start with no the thing is is that all
of those things specifically are not identified as components what we did is we essentially
received the request to come in and when it comes in it is uh it presents the uh the conditions it
presents the actual code that needs to be uh reviewed and then we have uh we have relied on
the definitions and the standards that are set out in section uh 1270.1 or or zone one of the um
of the fires safe regulations so the also the u section 127601 uh in fire safe regulations are are
referred to and we rely on the relevant codes that we have so that's the fire code building code
um could be residential code 4290 4291 so anything that's appropriate that's been accepted and
adopted through the through Certino... you're you're focused on the safety of the new building
right it is 4290 is specifically intended to take a look at in the setback for that building and that
parcel um we will go through the evaluation uh for that level off-site improvements or off-site
focus is one of those things that is outside of scope for for that evaluation"
2. PRC § 4291 Status (Defensible Space)
Timestamps: –
Council Member Wang: "is that a sign off or no sign off on 4291 uh please are you are you
signing off on 4291 or not"
Assistant Fire Chief Estrada: "no 4290 i understand i'm just the sign off you mean for our
project on a on an exception request yes yeah we talk about it we basically come up with a
agreement we did you sign off on 4291 or not... thank you council member um to be clear 429
4290 is the state minimum fire safe rags correct and 4291 relates to the defensible space
requirements i didn't see a sign off on 4291 that's why I wanted to be clear correct the um
setback requirement is outlined in 4290 so the exception request application was was for
4290 not 4291"
3. Subjective Nature ("Professional Judgment")
Timestamps: –
Council Member Wang: "at 10 ft radiant heat exposure increases roughly ninefold the AMMR
requires 1-hour fire rated walls on the new buildings but the existing neighborhood homes have
standard woodframe construction with no enhanced fire rating when you determined that the
mitigation package was adequate uh what analysis did you rely on to conclude that the
increased radiant heat reaching those unprotected neighborhood structures was acceptable
was there quantitative modeling or is this based on your professional judgment"
Assistant Fire Chief Estrada: "so uh thank you for the question the uh it's a combination of uh
basically those requirements that are set forth so we get the standard for the uh the evaluation
of 4290 within 4290 uh we've been dealing with this for several years... the cumulative effect of
these multiple mitigation strategies is expected to provide the same practical effect... this is
based on on not just uh the the code it's not b and uh it is based on experience and our
um our um basically our our engineering staff's credential and their experience as well"
4. Evacuation Safety ("Outside of Scope")
Timestamps: –
Council Member Wang: "The city's own fair and peter study uh pure study fair and pure study
shows that foothill has a volume to capacity ratio of 4.0 which is high and Stevens Creek
Boulevard at 3.6... How you reconciled your determination with that data? Did you review the
fair and pure study?"
Assistant Fire Chief Estrada: "no absolutely not so what we had um we evaluate the what's in
4290 for the site u as I stated earlier so with that the evacuation is for those people that live in
that in that site... this was out of scope for this particular evaluation and so evacuation
routes were out of scope in this evaluation just to be clear"
5. Enforcement Limits (Property Line)
Timestamps: –
Vice Mayor Chao: "how do you determine that 30 on when the existing homes are built in the
50s i'm sorry I don't understand when the the homes around the property is was built in the
50s... I'm trying to comprehend how the proposed measures can provide the same practical
effect as 30-foot setback especially when you are in an older neighborhood"
Assistant Fire Chief Estrada: "the homes in the neighborhood exist but they do not have
whatever wasn't actually added to them or modified those are components of that particular
property owner land use and other rights are some of one of those things that we have to
make sure that these things and our observations and our requests or our enforcement
stops at the property line so with that uh the property line's 10t away we actually don't have 10
foot as the zone you have at least 14"
6. Design Choice vs. Site Constraint
Timestamps: –
Vice Mayor Chao: "site constraints means con physical constraint of the site it it means in
context that other site constraints apply and therefore they do... these are design choices as you
have mentioned that doesn't change what it says it says other site constraints and that's what I
would say that's not sight constraint because they could build smaller units... how would you
justify that they meet the justification requirement for practical reasons"
Assistant Fire Chief Estrada: "i don't disagree with anything you said this is a design
choice this is for the applicant and the builder to answer so with that agree we did not mean
you should not approve the MR what we did was we accepted an exception request because
there was a deficiency... I agree with the design decision is that of the applicant it has nothing to
do with us"
7. Maintenance Deferral
Timestamps: –
Council Member Wang: "Normally 4291 is at the permit stage and under AB130 it's required to
exempt us from SQA so what do we do if we didn't get an evaluation on 4291"
Assistant Fire Chief Estrada: "4291 does but is not part of the building process you still have
to observe we will now be observing for this particular project until it gets memorialized in a
current accepted standard... we won't see the sprinkler plans until later which is also the
vegetation the landscaping plans are going to be something that we see a little bit later on as
well"
To: Brandon Yu
Housing Accountability Unit, California Department of Housing and Community Development
Subject: 10857 Linda Vista Project (Cupertino) – Clarification of Fire Safety Record and
CEQA Eligibility
Dear Mr. Yu,
I am writing as a Cupertino resident and former Vice-Chair of the Cupertino Planning
Commission, (served during the Housing Element adoption for this site). Having served in that
role, I am familiar with both the policy intent and regulatory framework governing this project.
The project is being treated as eligible for CEQA exemption in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity
Zone under AB130 even though it is proposing setbacks of 10ft against the 30ft setback
required by law in a VHFHSZ. The administrative record for the Linda Vista project appears to
show that required fire safety standards—particularly Public Resources Code §§ 4290 and 4291
or 51182, whichever is applicable —were not fully evaluated or satisfied, while significant
deviations from those standards were approved based on design choices rather than site
constraints.
During the April 1, 2026 City Council hearing, evidence was presented by Assistant Fire Chief
Estrada (SCC FD) where he explicitly states the evaluation of exemption from CEQA AB130 was
“not in scope” (Timestamp-1:20:08) in response to Council Member Ray Wang’s question
“Okay, great. Thank you. Um the the the exemption from from CEQA not in scope for us”
The Council’s deliberations during the April 1 meeting, were dominated by concern over
potential HCD enforcement, and safety issues were explicitly ignored. To the point that the City
Attorney had to fallback to City’s Legal Immunity to answer Wang’s question about any future
fire related risk (Timestamp-1:26:30)). This was followed by Council Member Fruen stating that
not finding the project exempt from CEQA would expose the city to legal risk.
I am concerned that your office may have relied on an incomplete or materially inconsistent
characterization of the record, partly due to city-staff’s errors, and partly due to exaggerated
claims by the developer's attorney.
This pattern is not new; the city had commissioned an evacuation study showing two failing
exits at over 200% capacity to Linda Vista Dr which was available by October 2025, but was not
presented to the planning commission until after their deliberation on this project (February 24,
2026)
I respectfully highlight the following key issues for your consideration:
1. VHFHSZ Requirements and Setback Reduction
The project site is located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). In such
zones, 30-foot setbacks under Public Resources Code § 4290 are a foundational,
science-based requirement to reduce radiant heat transfer and structure-to-structure fire
spread.
In this project, setbacks are reduced to 10 feet along property lines directly adjacent to 55+
year-old single-family homes, which were not built to modern fire-resistant standards. Despite
this material deviation from established safety standards, the project is being treated as
compliant for purposes of CEQA exemption under AB 130.
2. AMMR Justification: Design Optimization, Not Housing Necessity
The project relies on an Alternative Means and Methods Request (AMMR) under 14 CCR §
1276.01 to justify reducing setbacks from the required 30 feet to 10 feet. The AMMR
emphasizes fire-hardening of new structures, and references housing density as justification,
but provides no evidence that:
● The same number of units cannot be achieved with 30-foot setbacks
● Site constraints necessitate the reduced setbacks
● Alternative compliant layouts were infeasible
Instead, the project proposes significantly larger townhome units (approximately 20–35%
larger than comparable nearby developments), indicating that the setback reduction is being
used to maximize unit size and saleable area, not unit count. The exemption for reduced
setbacks does not meet any of the eligibility criteria specified by 14 CCR § 1276.01(b).
I urge you to watch this segment [1:42:56] of the city council meeting on April 1, where Vice
Mayor Chao builds the case for smaller, more affordable units, and Fire Chief Estrada agrees
[1:44:00] that this setback reduction was driven by design choice and not any practical
constraints.
I support HCD’s mandate to facilitate housing production. However, the record does not
demonstrate that maintaining compliant setbacks would reduce unit count, only that it may
affect unit size and design. A conservative estimate based on the difference between
compliant unit configurations and the proposed larger units suggests a discretionary value
increase of approximately $30 million; at the cost of fire-safety.
3. Inability to Demonstrate Compliance with Public Resources Code § 4291 or §
51182 (whichever is applicable)
The staff report states that the project demonstrates consistency with §4290 and
§4291/$51182. However, Fire Department testimony establishes that:
● The review addressed § 4290 only ( Timestamp ~1:08:52)
● § 4291 (defensible space) was not evaluated, and
● Key fire safety elements remain subject to future review
Critically, §4291/§51182. requires 30 feet of Zone 1 defensible space, which cannot be physically
achieved where structures are placed 10 feet from property lines. The laws of physics do not
allow for a 30-foot managed fuel zone within a 10-foot physical setback. This is not a
matter of professional judgment, but of basic spatial constraints.
The defensible space is important since the review done by the fire department does not
include the impact of reduced setback on the neighboring properties (Timestamp-1:04:50).
The AMMR which reduced the setback under §4290 consumed the defensible space required
for §4291/§51182.
Because compliance with PRC § 4291 is a prerequisite for the statutory exemption under AB
130, the Fire Department’s admission that § 4291 was not evaluated raises a fundamental
question as to whether the project satisfies the conditions required for CEQA exemption.
4. Incomplete Information and Non-Objective Safety Evaluation
The administrative record reflects a critical gap in the evaluation of fire safety risks. The staff
report confirms that no evacuation study was conducted. Assistant Fire Chief Estrada further
testified that for the Fire Department:
● Evaluation of exemption from CEQA AB130 was “not in scope” (Timestamp-1:20:08)
● Evacuation capacity and roadway constraints were “out of scope” (Timestamp ~1:20:00)
● Impacts to neighboring homes were also “not evaluated” (Timestamp-1:04:50)
Request for Direct Review
Given the extent to which HCD’s position influenced the City Council’s deliberations, I
respectfully request that you review the underlying Fire Department testimony directly. In
particular, I encourage you to listen to Assistant Fire Chief Estrada’s testimony from the April 1
City Council hearing, focusing on the timestamps noted above. His statements provide critical
context that, in my view, differs materially from how the record has been characterized.
I would welcome the opportunity to discuss these findings further to ensure that fire-safety is
not compromised while we work to further our housing availability goals. The objective here is
to ensure the project gets built without compromising the safety of the neighbors.
You can also reach me at 408 390 4036.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Vikram Saxena
Cupertino Resident
Former Vice-Chair, Cupertino Planning Commission
(Served during Housing Element adoption for this site 2018-2023)
Attachments / References
1. Fire Department Plan Review, AMMR Materials and Estrada Memo (3 documents)
2. Setback Viability Memo
3. April 1, 2026 City Council Hearing Transcript – Assistant Fire Chief Estrada
4. Letter from Planning Commission Chair Tracy Kosolcharoen in Public Comments for City
Council Meetings, outlining the information gap.
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 unit—a 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
Letter)
Administrative Fact (March
17 Record)
Primary Source Citation
Fire Dept “confirmed” compliance
with PRC 4291.
SCCFD issued a status of “Plans
are NOT APPROVED”; 4291 is an
outstanding requirement.
SCCFD Plan Review #251740
The AMMR is a completed
“approved Application.”
The Building Official signature is
BLANK; dual review is required
by the form and CBC 104.11.
SCCFD AMMR Form
AMMR process confirmed
compliance with PRC 4291.
The AMMR Application has ZERO
reference to PRC 4291.
AMMR Application Narrative
The Project “complies” with Fire
Code requirements.
Project has “deficiencies” and is
“non-conforming”; approved only
as an “exception.”
SCCFD Plan Review #250800
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