CC 3-17-2026
Oral
Communications
Written Comments
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City Clerk
Cc: [email protected]; City Council
Subject: Fwd: Retail on West Side of Saich Included in Lost Retail from Panera SB 330? Date: Wednesday, March 11, 2026 5:45:28 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 Clerk:
Please include the following as comments for the Cupertino City Council meeting on March 17, 2026.
Thank you.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Retail on West Side of Saich Included in Lost Retail from Panera SB 330? From: Jennifer Griffin <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2026, 5:42 PM
To: [email protected],[email protected]
CC: [email protected]
Dear City Council:
(Please include the following as public input for the March 17, 2026 Cupertino City Council meeting).
I am concerned that the active, newer retail buildings fronting the west side of Saich Avenue From Stevens Creek Blvd to Alves are going to be lost to the SB 330 housing complex proposed
at Panera/Voyager Coffee.
There are about six new prime retail shops in this area and many are active with retail now.
The eyeglass store is active and considered in a class of vital services for seniors and children and
indeed the general public. These buildings are attractive and new with good parking, and it would
be a shame to lose them. The large corner store space at the NW corner of Stevens Creek Blvd and
Saich is in a very prominent, highly visible location and is a prime retail site. It should be saved
As well as the other retail locations.
There is also a large daycare site at the corner of Alves and Saich. Will this be closed also? People
Need daycare etc. in the city.
Please make sure this retail on the West side of Saich is not lost. It is very important to keep Retail like this in our city as we are losing so much valuable retail from the other seven SB 330s
On Stevens Creek Blvd., our traditional shopping corridor.
This is even more critical as the Big Target location on the east side of Saich, south side of Alves
And West side of Bandley is up for sale and may wind up with no retail at all and just housing.
There has been a large box retailer in this site since Gemco was there from the 1950s on.
Thank you for being the Retail Champions City Council!
Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
Third Generation Cupertino Retail Shopping Family
From: Rhoda Fry
To: Public Comments
Cc: City Council
Subject: Oral Communications 3/17/2026 City Council Meeting Date: Sunday, March 15, 2026 3:04:12 PM
Attachments: 3 - Exhibit 2 - Evacuation_Route_Capacity_Analysis_Oct_2025.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Clerk,
Please include attachment in my oral comms.
Thanks, Rhoda Fry
Why did Cupertino not reveal its Evacuation Route Capacity Analysis? I am very upset to learn that the City of Cupertino has been sitting on evacuation information since last October without sharing it with the Council or us citizens until a week ago. Please find the evacuation information attached that shows McClellan Road being at 2 to 4X capacity.
This is a Public Safety issue that should have been shared. Furthermore, this information could have affected the Planning Commissioner’s vote on the housing project at Linda Vista. This is so wrong.
Who put paint on City-owned fences on the Linda Vista trail and left a spray paint can? Green paint was put on several parts of our city-owned fences. Who did it and when will it be fixed? Furthermore, whoever did this painting, also left a spray-paint can out which posed a public hazard to kids using the trail. I removed the can.
Cupertino
Evacuation Route
Capacity Assessment
Submitted to:
City of Cupertino
Submitted in:
October 2025
Cupertino
Evacuation Route
Capacity
Assessment
Prepared for: Submitted in:
City of Cupertino October 2025
P
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Study Purpose......................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Study Context........................................................................................................................................................ 1
1.3 Natural Hazards ....................................................................................................................................................2
1.3.1 Flood and Inundation Hazards ...............................................................................................................2
1.3.2 Seismic And Geologic Hazards ............................................................................................................3
1.3.3 Fire Hazards ...............................................................................................................................................4
1.3.4 Hazardous Waste And Materials ..........................................................................................................5
2. Background................................................................................................................................ 6
2.1 Legislative Requirements ..................................................................................................................................6
2.2 Emergency Planning in Cupertino.................................................................................................................6
3. Approach and Methods............................................................................................................. 8
3.1 Identify the Evacuation Scenarios ..................................................................................................................8
3.2 Define the Evacuation Area.............................................................................................................................11
3.3 Define Evacuation Routes................................................................................................................................11
3.4 Estimate Vehicle Trips......................................................................................................................................11
3.5 Assign Vehicle Trips.........................................................................................................................................14
3.6 Evacuation Route Assessment ......................................................................................................................15
3.6.1 Assessing Evacuation Route Capacity ..............................................................................................15
3.6.2 Distance to Evacuation Gateway.......................................................................................................17
4. Evacuation Route Assessment................................................................................................18
4.1 Estimate Evacuation Vehicle Trips................................................................................................................18
4.1.1 Resident and Employee Population ....................................................................................................18
4.1.2 Student Population .................................................................................................................................19
4.1.3 Visitor Population.................................................................................................................................. 20
4.1.4 Total Estimated Evacuation Demand.............................................................................................. 20
4.2 Evaluating Evacuation Route Capacity.......................................................................................................21
4.2.1 Scenario A (Quantitative Analysis).....................................................................................................21
4.2.2 Scenario B (Quantitative Analysis) ..................................................................................................23
4.2.3 Scenario C (Qualitative Analysis) .....................................................................................................27
4.3 Analyzing Distance to Evacuation Gateways ...........................................................................................27
5. Recommendations................................................................................................................... 29
5.1 Supply-Side Strategies ....................................................................................................................................29
5.2 Demand-Side Strategies............................................................................................................................... 30 P
5.3 Information-Side Strategies......................................................................................................................... 30
5.4 Additional Considerations ............................................................................................................................ 30 Appendices
Appendix A: Socioeconomic Data
Appendix B: Trip Distribution
List of Figures
Figure 1: Fire Hazard Severity Zones ......................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 2: Evacuation Routes.........................................................................................................................................13 Figure 3: Trip Distribution for Scenario A............................................................................................................... 22 Figure 4: Trip Distribution for Scenario B............................................................................................................... 25 Figure 5: Distances to Evacuation Gateways ........................................................................................................ 28 Figure A-1: Census Block Group and Census Tract Locations .........................................................................34 Figure A-2: Genasys Protect Zone Locations (highlighted numbers in study area)................................. 36 Figure A-3: Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) Locations (light blue indicates study area) ............... 38 List of Tables
Table 1: Scenario Definitions..........................................................................................................................................9 Table 2: Vehicle Demand Calculations in the Evacuation Area......................................................................... 14 Table 3: Planning Level Roadway Capacity per Hour per Lane ......................................................................... 15 Table 4: Evacuation Route Capacity ..........................................................................................................................16 Table 5: Composition of Evacuees by Scenario .................................................................................................... 18 Table 6: Resident Population and Evacuation Demand Vehicle Trips of the Evacuation Area .................19 Table 7: Employee Population and Evacuation Demand Vehicle Trips of the Evacuation Area ...............19 Table 8: Student Population and Evacuation Demand Vehicle Trips of the Evacuation Area................. 20 Table 9: Visitor Land Use and Evacuation Demand of the Evacuation Area ................................................ 20 Table 10: Total Estimated Evacuation Demand Vehicle Trips for the Evacuation Area............................. 20 Table 11: Evacuation Route Link Capacity Analysis (Scenario A)...................................................................... 23 Table 12: Evacuation Route Link Capacity Analysis (Scenario B) .................................................................... 26 Table A-1: Summary of Socioeconomic Data – Census1.................................................................................... 33 P
Table A-2: Summary of Socioeconomic Data – Genasys Protect1.................................................................. 35 Table A-3: Summary of Socioeconomic Data – Santa Clara County VMT Estimation Tool1....................37 Table A-4: School Enrollment Data .......................................................................................................................... 39 Table A-5: Estimated Student Evacuation Trips................................................................................................... 39 Table A-6: Estimated Visitor Evacuation Trips .....................................................................................................40 Table B-1: Trip Distribution Linked to Genasys Protect Zones (Scenario A) ................................................42 Table B-2: Trip Distribution Linked to Genasys Protect Zones (Scenario B)...............................................43 Table B-3: Trip Distribution Linked to Genasys Protect Zones (Scenario C) ..............................................44 Cupertino Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment | 1
1. Introduction
The City of Cupertino's comprehensive planning efforts make it appropriate to assess evacuation route capacity while simultaneously updating the General Plan and Emergency Operations Plan.
This assessment provides the City of Cupertino with emergency evacuation event information and is consistent with requirements outlined in Assembly Bill (AB) 747 (2019) and AB 1409 (2021), which specifically require local agencies to evaluate evacuation routes capacity and identify evacuation locations. This supplements the analysis that was prepared for the Draft Health and Safety Element Update (March 2025) regarding residential street accessibility to identify parcels in hazard areas with limited egress routes as required by Senate Bill (SB) 99.
1.1 Study Purpose
The following is a summary of the purpose of this evacuation study:
• Identify major evacuation routes and shelter locations/gateways; • Inform development of evacuation strategies and conduct evacuation route capacity assessment of wildfire evacuation scenarios with other hazards that could limit evacuation route capacity;
• Identify bottlenecks on major evacuation routes based on the evacuation route capacity assessment results;
• Identify evacuation strategies to improve performance of the road network during evacuations; and
• Identify potential future/ongoing efforts for a detailed Evacuation Plan.
1.2 Study Context
This assessment evaluates roadway capacity under certain described scenarios and should not be considered an evacuation plan. Emergency evacuations can be triggered by a number of events, and natural and man-made disasters can be as unpredictable as individual behavior related to evacuation events. As such, this assessment is intended to provide the City of Cupertino with a broad “planning level” assessment of transportation system capacity during worst case evacuation scenarios; it does not provide system adequacy guarantees, nor does it guarantee the findings are applicable to all situations. This assessment will help the City develop policies to prioritize evacuation routes and centers based on the findings of this analysis.
Moreover, because emergency evacuation assessment is an emerging field, there is no established standard methodology. We have utilized existing methods in transportation planning that, in our knowledge and experience, we believe offer the most appropriate planning level understanding of roadway capacity for evacuation events. Nevertheless, such methods are limited by the budgetary and time constraints in our scope of work, by the current state of the practice, and of our knowledge.
The City of Cupertino has requested this study to aid in planning and implementing potential evacuation plans/scenarios. This assessment should help the city be better prepared for those events; however, in no way can Fehr & Peers guarantee the efficacy of the information used in this assessment, as such would be beyond our professional duty and capability.
Cupertino Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment | 2
1.3 Natural Hazards
The Health and Safety Element Background Report (July 23, 2025) described the following potential natural hazards. For this assessment, we considered various natural hazards in the preparation of evacuation scenarios. The natural hazards are described
1.3.1 Flood and Inundation Hazards
Flooding is the rising and overflowing of water onto normally dry land. Floods are one of the most frequent natural hazards impacting Santa Clara County and among the costliest natural disasters in terms of human hardship and economic loss nationwide, causing substantial damage to structures, landscapes, and utilities, as well as life-safety issues. Flooding can be extremely dangerous; even six inches of moving water can knock a person over. Floodwaters can transport large objects downstream, damaging or removing stationary structures, such as dam spillways. Ground saturation can result in instability, collapse, or other damage that breaks utility lines and interrupts services.
Objects can also be buried or destroyed through sediment deposition from heavy flooding. Standing water can cause damage to roads, foundations, and electrical circuits, as well as spread vector-borne illnesses. Other problems connected with flooding and stormwater runoff include erosion, degradation of water quality, and losses of environmental resources.
Floods are usually caused by large amounts of stormwater, either from a period of very intense rainfall or a long period of steady rain. Historically, Cupertino has been at risk of flooding primarily during the winter and spring when stream systems swell with heavy rain. This type of flood results from prolonged, heavy rainfall and typically occurs due to high peak flows of moderate duration and a large volume of runoff. Flooding is more severe when prior rainfall has saturated the ground. The watersheds in the Santa Cruz Mountains feed into four major streambeds that traverse the city, Permanente Creek, Stevens Creek, Regnart Creek, and Calabazas Creek. These creeks collect surface runoff and drain into channels leading to the San Francisco Bay. During heavy rainfall, these creeks create a potential flooding risk in the city as water levels may exceed the top of the creekbank.
Occasionally, flash flooding from short-duration, high-intensity precipitation events (often during atmospheric river events) may occur. Atmospheric rivers are a relatively common weather pattern that brings southwest winds and heavy rain to California. Atmospheric rivers are long, narrow regions in the atmosphere that transport water vapor carried away from the tropics. These columns of vapor move with the weather, carrying large amounts of water vapor and strong winds. When the atmospheric rivers make landfall, they often release this water vapor in the form of rain or snow, often causing heavy rains that can lead to flooding and mudslide events. Flash floods can occur even during a drought. Such events can tear out trees, undermine buildings and bridges, and scour creek channels. In urban areas, flash flooding is an increasingly serious problem due to removing vegetation and replacing groundcover with impermeable surfaces such as roads, driveways, and parking lots.
The greatest risk from flash floods is occurrence with little to no warning.
1.3.1.1 Dam and Pipeline Failure
A dam failure is an uncontrolled release of water from a reservoir through a dam because of structural failures or deficiencies in the dam, usually associated with intense rainfall or prolonged flooding.
Water pipeline or aqueduct failures can create a similar sudden flood. Dam and pipeline failures can range from minor to catastrophic, potentially harming human life and property downstream from the failure. In addition, ecosystems and habitats can be destroyed by fast-moving floodwaters, debris, Cupertino Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment | 3
and sedimentation from inundation. Although dam and pipeline failures are very rare, these events are not unprecedented. There are four major causes of failures:
• Overtopping: These failures occur when a reservoir fills too high with water, especially in times of heavy rainfall, leaving water to rush over the top of the dam. Other causes of this type of failure include settling of the crest of the dam or spillway blockage. • Foundation defects: These failures occur as a result of settling in the foundation of the dam, instability of slopes surrounding the dam, uplift pressures, and seepage around the foundation. All these failures result in structural instability and potential dam failure. • Piping and seepage failures: These failures occur as a result of internal erosion caused by seepage and erosion along hydraulic structures, such as the spillways of a dam, or failures in the walls of a water pipeline. Animal burrows and cracks in the dam structure may also cause erosion. • Conduit and valve failure: These failures occur as a result of problems with valves and conduits in a dam or pipeline’s systems.
Many dam and pipeline failures are also the secondary result of other natural disasters, such as earthquakes, landslides, and extreme storms. Other causes include equipment malfunction, structural damage, and sabotage. Dams are constructed with safety features known as “spillways” that allow water to overtop the dam if the reservoir fills too quickly. Spillway overflow events, often referred to as “design failures”, result in increased discharges downstream and increased flooding potential. In a dam failure scenario, the greatest threat to life and property typically occurs in those areas immediately below the dam since flood depths and discharges generally decrease as the flood wave moves downstream. The primary danger associated with dam failure is the high-velocity flooding downstream of the dam and limited warning times for evacuation.
1.3.2 Seismic And Geologic Hazards
Seismic and geologic hazards are risks caused by the movement of different parts of the earth’s crust or surface. Seismic hazards include earthquakes and hazardous events caused by them. Geologic hazards are other hazards involving land movements that are not linked to seismic activity and can inflict harm to people or property. Additional information about seismic and geologic hazards in Cupertino, including development review coordination is in General Plan Appendix E, Geologic and Seismic Hazards.
1.3.2.1 Seismic Hazards
Seismic activity occurs along boundaries in the earth’s crust, called faults. Pressure along the faults builds over time and is ultimately released, resulting in ground shaking commonly referred to as an earthquake. Earthquakes can also trigger other hazards, including surface rupture (cracks in the ground surface), liquefaction (causing loose soil to lose its strength), landslides, and subsidence (sinking of the ground surface). Earthquakes and other seismic hazards often damage or destroy property and public infrastructure, including utility lines, and falling objects or structures pose a risk of injury or death.
1.3.2.1.1 EARTHQUAKES
While Cupertino is at risk from many natural and human-caused hazards, the event with the greatest potential for loss of life or property and economic damage is an earthquake. This risk is true for most of the San Francisco Bay Area region since damaging earthquakes affect widespread areas and trigger many secondary effects that can overwhelm the ability of local jurisdictions to respond.
Cupertino Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment | 4
Earthquakes in the Bay Area result from strain energy constantly accumulating across the region because of the motion of the Pacific Plate, relative to the North American Plate.
Earthquake risk is very high in Santa Clara County, including the City of Cupertino, due to the presence of three major active faults1in the region, the Hayward Fault, Calaveras Fault, and San Andreas Fault. Both the San Andreas and the Hayward Faults have the potential for experiencing major to great events.
1.3.2.1.2 OTHER SEISMIC HAZARDS
In addition to the direct physical damage that can result from the motion of an earthquake, damage can result from liquefaction. Liquefaction occurs primarily in saturated, loose, fine- to mediumgrained soils in areas where the groundwater table is within approximately 50 feet of the surface.
Shaking causes the soils to lose strength and behave as a liquid. Excess water pressure is vented upward through fissures and soil cracks and can result in a water-soil slurry flowing onto the ground surface. This subsurface process can lead to near-surface or surface ground failure that can result in property damage and structural failure. Groundwater that is less than 10 feet to the surface can cause the highest liquefaction susceptibility, with lower groundwater levels causing lower liquefaction risks.
1.3.2.2 Geologic Hazards
Landslides and rock falls may occur in sloped areas, especially areas with steep slopes, and usually in loose and fragmented soil areas. Slope stability depends on many factors and interrelationships, including rock type, pore water pressure, slope steepness, and natural or human-made undercutting.
Landslides, rockfalls, and debris flows occur continuously on all slopes; some processes act very slowly, while others occur very suddenly, often with disastrous results.
Landslides are often triggered by other natural hazards, such as heavy rain, floods, or wildfires, so landslide frequency is often related to the frequency of these other hazards. In Santa Clara County, landslides typically occur during and after severe heavy rainfall, so the risk of landslides often rises during and after sequential severe storms that saturate steep, loose soils. Landslides and mudslides are a common occurrence and have caused damage to homes, public facilities, roads, parks, and sewer lines.
1.3.3 Fire Hazards
Fire hazards include both wildfires and urban fires. The combination of complex terrain, climate, vegetation and development patterns contribute to an elevated risk of wildfire. The Community Wildfire Protection Plan 2023 (CWPP) describes how each of these variables contributes to fire risk, and describes how fire risk varies throughout the city. Historically, the fire season extended from early summer through late fall of each year during the hotter, dryer months, although it is increasingly a hazard that can occur year-round. Fire conditions arise from a combination of high temperatures, low moisture content in the air and plant matter, an accumulation of vegetation, and high winds.
Three types of fires are of concern to Cupertino: (1) wildfires, (2) wildland-urban interface fires, and (3) structural fires.
1 Active faults are defined by their current movement and deformation and their potential to cause earthquakes or other types of ground deformation in the future.
Cupertino Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment | 5
1.3.3.1 Wildfires
Wildfires occur on mountains, hillsides, and grasslands. Fuel, weather, and topography are primary factors that affect how wildland fires spread. In and around Cupertino, grassland and woodland habitat provide highly flammable fuel that is conducive to wildfires. These plant species are capable of regeneration after a fire, making periodic wildfires a natural part of the ecology of these areas.
The climate of Cupertino and the surrounding area keeps the grass dry and more readily combustible during fire season.
Wildfire potential for Santa Clara County is typically greatest in the months of August, September, and October, when dry vegetation coexists with hot, dry winds. During these times, controlling a fire becomes far more difficult. Areas adjacent to the city that are susceptible to wildfires are also of concern as these conditions could exacerbate vulnerabilities within the city. Grassland fires are easily ignited, particularly in dry seasons. These fires are relatively easily controlled if they can be reached by fire equipment, although after a fire, the burned slopes are highly subject to erosion and gullying. While brushlands are naturally adapted to frequent light fires, fire suppression in recent decades has resulted in heavy fuel accumulation on the ground. Wildland fires, particularly near the end of the dry season, tend to burn fast and very hot, threatening homes and leading to serious destruction of vegetative cover. In woodland and forested areas, a wildland fire can generate a destructive crown fire, which is a fire that burns materials at the top of trees, spreading from treetop to treetop. They can be very intense and difficult to contain.
Because areas of the city with natural vegetation are extremely flammable during late summer and fall, wildfire is a serious hazard in undeveloped hillside areas in the western portion of the city, as well as open space areas adjacent to the city. These areas include State Responsibility Area (SRA) lands west of the city, such as the Rancho San Antonio Open Space, Picchette Ranch Open Space, Stevens Creek County Park, Saratoga Creek County Park, Sanborn County Park, Fremont Older Open Space, as well as Local Responsibility Area (LRA) lands in the hillsides of Saratoga.
1.3.4 Hazardous Waste And Materials
Hazardous materials are materials that pose a significant risk to public safety, or human and environmental health. These include toxic chemicals, flammable or corrosive materials, petroleum products, and unstable or dangerously reactive materials. They can be released through human error, malfunctioning or broken equipment, or as an indirect consequence of other emergencies (e.g., if a flood damages a hazardous material storage tank). Hazardous materials can also be released accidentally during transportation because of vehicle accidents.
The release or spill of bulk hazardous materials could result in fire, explosion, toxic cloud, or direct contamination of water, people, and property. The effects may involve a local site or many square miles. Health problems may be immediate, such as corrosive effects on the skin and lungs, or gradual, such as the development of cancer from a carcinogen. Property damage could range from immediate destruction by explosion to permanent contamination by a persistent hazardous material. Most hazardous materials in the region are transported on truck routes along major roadways, such as I280 and SR-85 that pass through Cupertino. The most vulnerable areas along this route are considered the on-/off-ramps and interchanges. Since 1970, one reported roadway hazardous materials incident occurred in Cupertino.
Cupertino Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment | 6
2. Background
2.1 Legislative Requirements
Assembly Bill (AB) 747 (2019) and AB 1409 (2021) both mandate local jurisdictions to update their safety elements to include comprehensive evacuation planning. • AB 747 (2019) adds California Government Code Section 65302.15, which requires the safety element to be reviewed and updated, upon the next update of a local hazard mitigation plan (LHMP) after January 1, 2022, to identify evacuation routes and their capacity, safety, and viability under a range of emergency scenarios.2
• AB 1409 (2021) adds evacuation locations to Section 65302.15 of the California Government Code and requires the safety element to be reviewed and updated to identify evacuation locations.
Accordingly, this report considers:
• Identification of Evacuation Routes: The study identifies all evacuation routes and assesses their capacity, safety, and viability under various emergency scenarios. • Capacity Assessment: The study evaluates the capacity of evacuation routes to handle the expected volume of traffic and evacuees during an emergency. • Safety and Viability: The study considers the safety and viability of the identified routes and centers for use during emergencies.
• Mapping Evacuation Gateways: This involves mapping evacuation centers and shelters and/or shortest path to evacuation gateways to ensure they are accessible and adequately equipped.
• Policy Development: Policies to prioritize evacuation routes and centers based on the findings.
• Integration with Local Hazard Mitigation Plans (LHMP): Updates to the Health and Safety Element should be coordinated with the existing LHMP or other relevant emergency planning documents to ensure consistency and alignment.
2.2 Emergency Planning in Cupertino
This City of Cupertino maintains and publishes several emergency planning documents:3 The Emergency Operations Plan (2019)4 provides guidance on the City's response to the most likely and demanding emergency conditions. It outlines the incident management structure, legal compliance, whole community engagement, continuity of government, and other critical components.
2 The City of Cupertino participated in the Santa Clara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan which was approved by FEMA in February 2024 which triggered compliance with this requirement. 3 https://www.cupertino.gov/files/assets/city/v/1/your-city/documents 4 https://www.cupertino.gov/files/assets/city/v/1/your-city/documents/cupertino-emergency-operations-plan.pdf.
Accessed August 28, 2025.
Cupertino Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment | 7
The Health and Safety Element (last amended in 2005, with minor edits in 2015) 5 , a Chapter in
the General Plan, describes local hazards and mitigation measures. It identifies that people in the foothills and mountains of Cupertino’s planning area, covering approximately 16 square miles, are most at risk from fire. The City is currently updating the Health and Safety Element. The Health and Safety Element Update lists the following policies to prepare for and respond to disasters and emergencies:
• Policy HS-2.1: Building And Fire Code Compliance
• Policy HS-2.2: Promote Emergency Preparedness
• Policy HS-2.3: Emergency Operations And Training
• Policy HS-2.4: Volunteer Groups
• Policy HS-2.5: Emergency Public Information
• Policy HS-2.6: Fire Prevention And Emergency Preparedness • Policy HS-2.7: Hazard Preparedness
• Policy HS-2.8: Educational And Outreach Materials
• Policy HS-2.9: Poor Air Quality Event Assistance
• Policy HS-2.10: Disaster Medical Response
• Policy HS-2.11: Evacuation Routes
• Policy HS-2.12: Evacuation Awareness
• Policy HS-2.13: Ingress And Egress
• Policy HS-2.14: Secondary Ingress And Egress.
• Policy HS-2.15: Emergency Access
The City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) (February 21, 2024) 6 is an annex to the Santa
Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. It assesses potential hazard risks as well as mitigation measures to prevent loss of life, injury, and property damage. It identifies earthquake, severe weather, flood, landslide, and wildfire as hazards of greatest concern. In the LHMP, Table 17 lists the actions that comprise the City’s hazard mitigation action plan.
The Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) (2023)
7 describes projects from the Santa
Clara County CWPP (2023). These plans are required to be updated every five years to remain eligible for funding implementation projects through the Fire Safe Councils and CAL FIRE. 5 https://www.cupertino.gov/files/assets/city/v/1/your-city/documents/gp-chap-06-health.pdf. Accessed August 28, 2025.
6 https://oem.santaclaracounty.gov/multi-jurisdictional-hazard-mitigation-plan-mjhmp. Accessed October 24, 2025.
7 https://www.sccfd.org/santa-clara-county-community-wildfire-protection-plan/. Accessed October 24, 2025.
Cupertino Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment | 8
3. Approach and Methods
This analysis focuses on the transportation system capacity during a wildfire evacuation event. The following flow chart illustrates the steps in the process.
3.1 Identify the Evacuation Scenarios
Fehr & Peers, City of Cupertino staff, the Santa Clara County Fire Department, and the Santa Clara County Sherriff’s Office worked together to identify the hazard of highest concern for this assessment (wildfires in the Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ)) and three evacuation scenarios. In developing the evacuation scenarios, all hazards identified in Section 1.3 were considered. The defined evacuation scenarios represent hazards with the greatest potential to generate the largest number of vehicles requiring evacuation. Consideration was given to wildfire vulnerability, as well as access limitations that may occur due to compounding hazards such as a landslide or flood damage along an evacuation route.
Table 1 defines the evacuation scenarios. Scenarios A to C reflect Existing Conditions in year 2025.
This assessment conducted baseline analysis using existing socioeconomic conditions to establish current evacuation performance and identify potential constraints under present-day conditions. This provides a foundation for evaluating how future growth could affect evacuation route capacities.
When considering cumulative conditions with projected buildout, increased evacuation population would likely exacerbate bottlenecks identified in the baseline analysis.
These scenarios assume no evacuation population will “shelter in place” within the hazard area or evacuation area. Instead, these scenarios evaluate evacuation from the evacuation area using the shortest path.
Cupertino Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment | 9
• Scenario A was assessed quantitatively. It assumes a wildfire-triggered evacuation within the evacuation area at 2 PM on a school day. All roadways are assumed to be accessible to evacuees, which include residents, employees, students, and visitors. • Scenario B was assessed quantitatively. It assumes a wildfire-triggered evacuation following an earthquake at 6 AM, during a time when schools are not in session. McClellan Road at Club House Lane near the Deep Cliff Golf Course is assumed to be closed. Evacuees include residents and a small portion of employees.
• Scenario C was assessed qualitatively. It is based on Scenario A by assuming the same evacuation demand, but with additional roadway closures on Stevens Creek Boulevard at SR85 and SR-85 Southbound Ramps at Stevens Creek Boulevard because of an earthquake causing the wildfire.
Table 1: Scenario Definitions
Scenario A
(Quantitative)
Scenario B
(Quantitative)
Scenario C
(Qualitative)
Hazard Type(s) Wildfire Wildfire after
Earthquake
Wildfire after
Earthquake
Scale of Emergency Evacuation Area1 Evacuation Area1 Evacuation Area1 Time of Event Fall 2 PM
(School in session)
Summer 6 AM
(School not in session)
Fall 2 PM
(School in session)
Road Closures
due to Hazard All roadways open
McClellan Road at Club
House Lane near the
Deep Cliff Golf Course
due to earthquake
• Stevens Creek
Boulevard at SR85
• SR-85 Southbound
Ramps at Stevens
Creek Boulevard
Type of Evacuees
Residents, employees,
students, visitors
Residents, small
portion of employees
Residents, employees,
students, visitors
Notes:
1. The boundary of evacuation area is defined as the Genasys Protect zones within the fire hazard severity zone (FHSZ) lands in the western portions of the City and homes within the foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains, shown in Figure 1.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2025.
Fire Hazard Severity Zones
FIGURE 1
Figure S-9 Fire Hazard Severity Zones
Data Source: Health and Safety Element Background Report, July 23, 2025 Cupertino Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment | 11
3.2 Define the Evacuation Area
According to the Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 16.74.020, “Wildland‐Urban Interface (WUI) or Wildland‐Urban Interface Fire Area (WUIFA) mean a geographical area identified by the state as a Fire Hazard Severity Zone in accordance with the Public Resources Code Sections 4201 through 4204 and Government Code Sections 51175 through 51189, or other areas designated by the enforcing agency to be at a significant risk from wildfires”. The evacuation area is defined as the Genasys Protect8 zones within the WUI, or the moderate to very high FHSZ in Cupertino. Figure 1 illustrates the fire hazard severity zones included in the Health and Safety Element Background Report.
The safe area is established at SR-85 and I-280 and serves as the evacuation gateway, representing the boundary beyond which evacuees are considered to have exited the evacuation area, and are therefore no longer at immediate risk.
3.3 Define Evacuation Routes
This analysis uses the evacuation routes provided by the City of Cupertino in August 2025, developed as part of the City’s ongoing effort to update its Health and Safety Element. The evacuation routes for the City of Cupertino and surrounding unincorporated areas are used to transport evacuees using their own vehicle and transit dependent evacuees to temporary shelter. This analysis assumes that routes that provide the most direct path to evacuate the community with the least exposure to risk will be used by evacuees. The major evacuation routes consider the location of critical facilities (i.e., safety and security, health and medical, and communications) as well as residential, employment, school, and recreational uses. Figure 2 shows the evacuation routes provided by the City.
3.4 Estimate Vehicle Trips
The number of evacuation vehicle trips assigned to the roadway network are a combination of trips generated by residential households, employee trips, student trips, and visitor trips at the time of the evacuation. These trips include those generated by uses in the City as well as surrounding unincorporated areas including PG&E Trailhead, McClellan Ranch Preserve, Stevens Creek County Park, and Fremont Older Open Space Preserve.
Trips generated by residential households were informed by the most recent available data from the US Census Bureau and the California Department of Finance. This includes data on population, the number of households, persons per household, and vehicles per household. This data was crossreferenced with data in the Genasys Protect platform’s designated evacuation zones. The household data was then used to estimate evacuation vehicle trips based on the number of households, persons per household, auto-ownership information, population, and other factors that could affect the number of vehicles per household used during an evacuation event. 8 Genasys Protect is an evacuation management tool that helps communities and first responders plan, communicate, and conduct evacuations. It provides communications, situational awareness, and cross-agency coordination capabilities for emergency management. The platform delivers integrated hardware and software for proactive preparedness and multi-channel communication.
Cupertino Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment | 12
Table 2 describes data sources and equations used to estimate vehicle evacuation demand for residents, employees, students, and visitors. Data sources reviewed for this assessment include the 2023 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year Estimates, Genasys Protect, Santa Clara Countywide VMT Estimation Tool, and the adopted Housing Element. These sources provide population, household, and employment estimates that are within a similar range.
Evacuation Routes
FIGURE 2
280
280
280
85 85
yW ellivelleB
S Tantau Ave
evA thgirW
S Stelling Rd
Regnart Rd
evA hcniF
Prospect Rd
Saratoga Ave
dvlB aznA eD N
Doyle Rd
dR bbuB
S Blaney Ave
Moorpark Ave
Cox Ave
McClellan Rd
dR otiuQ
dvlB aznA eD S
S Mary Ave
evA relliM
N Tantau Ave
dvlB llihtooF S
Pruneridge Ave
W Homestead Rd E Homestead Rd
Johnson Ave
N Stelling Rd Hollenbeck Ave
dR efloW S
dR elavynnuS-agotaraS S
Vallco Pkwy
Rainbow Dr
Bollinger Rd
Stevens Creek Blvd
W Campbell Ave
dvlB llihtooF N
N Blaney Ave
dR efloW
Stevens Canyon Rd
Phil Ln
evA liauQ
Mount Eden Rd
Basemap
FIGURE 2
0 1 2
Miles
Cupertino City Boundary Evacuation Routes Cupertino City Boundary Evacuation Routes Evacuation Route (outside of City Boundary)
Evacuation Route (in Cupertino)
Fire H azard Severity Zones
FIGURE 1
Cupertino City Boundary Evacuation Routes
Evacuation Routes (in Cupertino)
Evacuation Routes (outside of City Boundary)
Data Source: Draft Health and Safety Element, 2025
Rodrigues Ave
Torre Ave
85 85
280
280
280
Cupertino Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment | 14
Table 2: Vehicle Demand Calculations in the Evacuation Area Evacuation Demand Variable Data Source Equation
1. Employment Santa Clara Countywide
VMT Estimation Tool Data source provided value.
2. Residential Population Genasys Protect* Data source provided value.
3. Household Genasys Protect* Population / Household size
4. Household Vehicle
Ownership Distribution Census Tract Number of households with 0, 1, 2, or 3+ vehicles / Total household
5. Household Vehicle
Ownership Steps 4 & 5 Household vehicle ownership distribution * Household
6. Student Education Data
Partnership Data source provided value1
7. Visitor Parking Spaces Available
from Google Maps Portion of parking spaces occupied2
8. Estimated Vehicle
Evacuation Demand Steps 1 & 6
Residents:
1 * zero-vehicle household +
1 * one-vehicle household +
2 * two-vehicle household +
2.5 * three-or-more vehicle household
Employees:
0.99 * employment
Students:
1 * drive-alone student +
0.5 * carpooling student +
1 * student picked up/dropped off
Visitors:
0.5 * visitor
Notes: Raw data is presented in Appendix A.
1. Educational Data Partnership shows school enrollment data for the following schools considered in the evacuation area: Abraham Lincoln Elementary School, Tessellations Elementary School, John F Kennedy Middle School, and Monta Vista High School.
2. Visitor presence considered at recreational attractions located within the evacuation area: PG&E Trailhead (50% of the Rancho San Antonio County Park parking spaces), Deep Cliff Golf Course (20% of the Linda Vista Park parking spaces), Rim Trail (45% of the Stevens Creek County Park Chestnut and Villa Maria parking lots), and Parker Ranch Trailhead (40% of the Fremont Older Open Space Preserve Prospect and Saratoga Country Club parking spaces).
Source: 2023 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year Estimates; Genasys Protect; Santa Clara Countywide VMT Estimation Tool; Educational Data Partnership; and Google Maps, Fehr & Peers, 2025.
3.5 Assign Vehicle Trips
The total resident, employee, student, and visitor evacuation trips are disaggregated into 14 different geographically designated evacuation zones in the Genasys Protect platform. Trips are routed from each zone to the nearest evacuation route. Once on a major evacuation route, trips are assigned to the most efficient path toward either SR-85 or I-280. The city limit is used as the evacuation Cupertino Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment | 15
gateways because it represents the boundary beyond which evacuees are considered to have exited the hazard area and the evacuation area, and are therefore no longer at immediate risk.
3.6 Evacuation Route Assessment
An evacuation route assessment can be completed in a variety of ways to determine the capacity and viability of key evacuation routes. An assessment, like this project, can use volume to capacity ratios under typical non-congested conditions. Under more constrained and congested conditions, higher effort studies may involve modeled analysis of evacuation scenarios using dynamic traffic assignment to simulate traffic flow and evacuation times when street and freeway networks are at capacity. This evacuation route capacity divides the vehicle demand volumes by the roadway evacuation capacity to estimate the volume to capacity ratio during an evacuation event. Furthermore, the evacuation route assessment measures the distance evacuees have to travel to reach evacuation gateways.
3.6.1 Assessing Evacuation Route Capacity
This analysis uses planning level roadway capacities based on the roadway cross section (e.g., two, four, or six travel lanes) with adjustments for the hilly nature of the evacuation routes in the evacuation area and anticipated lower visibility conditions present during an evacuation. These planning level roadway capacities are consistent with the level of planning for this AB 747/AB 1409 evacuation capacity analysis where the desired outcome is a list of policies and programs to integrate into the Health and Safety Element. Table 3 lists the peak one-hour planning capacity for each roadway type. These evacuation capacities do not incorporate contraflow, as the opposing direction is reserved for emergency responders.
Table 3: Planning Level Roadway Capacity per Hour per Lane Roadway Type Planning Capacity1
(Typical Day)
Planning Capacity
(Low Visibility)
Freeway 2,020 1,780
Divided Arterial 940 830
Undivided Arterial 890 780
Collector/Local 650 570
Notes:
1. Roadway planning capacity from Highway Capacity Manual (2000).
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2000; Fehr & Peers, 2025.
Additionally, during a fire or other emergency event, roadways typically operate at lower capacities due to changes in driver behavior and the presence of hazards such as low visibility due to smoke.
Baseline capacities for all evacuation roadways were reduced by 12 percent to account for these hazards, based on recommended capacity reductions due to low visibility (due to weather) provided by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Road Weather Management Program.9 9 How weather events impact roadways?
https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/weather/q1_roadimpact.htm#:~:text=Speed%20variance%20can%20fall%20by,12 %20percent%20in%20low%20visibility, accessed April 2025.
Cupertino Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment | 16
Table 4 presents the roadway types and total evacuation route capacity at designated screenlines and a few additional roadway segments. A screenline is an imaginary line on a map to evaluate the evacuation route capacity (see Figure 3 and Figure 4). This analysis uses a screenline east of the evacuation area, and another at SR-85 and I-280, which represent the defined evacuation gateways.
Table 4: Evacuation Route Capacity
Roadway Name Roadway
Type1
Outbound
Lanes
Evacuation
Route
Capacity
Adjusted
Evacuation
Route
Capacity2
1. East of the Evacuation Area Screenline
Cristo Rey Drive
west of Foothills Boulevard Collector 1 650 570
Foothill Boulevard
north of Alpine Drive Local 1 650 570
Stevens Creek Boulevard
east of Cupertino Road Collector 1 650 570
McClellan Road
east of Imperial Avenue Collector 1 650 570
Bubb Road
north of Hyannisport Drive Local 1 650 570
Rainbow Drive
west of Seven Springs Lane
Local 1 650 570
Prospect Road
east of Parker Ranch Trailhead Local 1 650 570
2. West of SR 85 Screenline
Foothill Boulevard
south of I-280
Undivided
Arterial 2 1,780 1,560
Stevens Creek Boulevard
west of SR-85
Undivided
Arterial 2 1,780 1,560
Bubb Road
south of Stevens Creek Boulevard Collector 1 650 570
McClellan Road
east of Bubb Road Collector 1 650 570
Stelling Road
north of Orion Lane Collector 1 650 570
South De Anza Boulevard
north of SR-85
Divided
Arterial 3 2,820 2,490
Prospect Road
east of S De Anza Boulevard Collector 2 1,300 1,140
Notes:
1. Roadway type determined by City of Cupertino Circulation Element (2025).
2. Vehicles per hour. Rounded to nearest 10.
Source: Circulation Element, 2025; Fehr & Peers, 2025.
Cupertino Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment | 17
3.6.2 Distance to Evacuation Gateway
For this analysis, evacuation population groups are considered to be evacuated when they have either accessed gateways to the east of SR-85 or north of I-280. To assist with identifying potentially vulnerable communities during an evacuation event it is also helpful to identify City neighborhoods that need to travel the furthest and thus are potentially the most exposed in an evacuation event. This analysis measures the distances from each point along the roadway network to designated evacuation gateways. Up to two best routes from each point to the gateways are included in this assessment.
Cupertino Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment | 18
4. Evacuation Route Assessment
This chapter evaluates the evacuation route capacity during a wildfire evacuation event for the evacuation area and routes identified in Chapter 3. This section also analyzes the distances from each point along the roadway network to designated evacuation gateways to help identify City neighborhoods that need to travel the furthest and thus are potentially the most exposed in an evacuation event.
4.1 Estimate Evacuation Vehicle Trips
Based on the identified scenarios, the areas requiring evacuation include the FHSZ since these areas are most vulnerable to wildfire hazards. The trips assigned to the transportation system are estimated based on household and employer demographics along with student and visitor population and assist with estimating evacuation demand during an evacuation event.
Table 5 lists the composition of evacuees for each quantitative scenario. Note that Scenario C is a qualitative assessment, which builds on Scenario A and, therefore, has the same evacuation demand as Scenario A.
Table 5: Composition of Evacuees by Scenario
Type of Evacuees Scenario A
(Quantitative)
Scenario B
(Quantitative)
Scenario C
(Qualitative)
Residents 46% 100% 46%
Employees 100% 2% 100%
Students 100% 0% 100%
Visitors 100% 0% 100%
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2025.
4.1.1 Resident and Employee Population
A worst-case condition was estimated where all residents, and retail and restaurant (estimated to be half of all employees in the area) in the evacuation area would need to be evacuated. The number of residents, anticipated vehicle ownership per household, employees, students in schools, and visitors in the evacuation area were used to estimate the number of evacuee vehicles. Because the raw data for households, population, and employment cover geographic areas that differ from the evacuation area, the data were adjusted to estimate land use and evacuation demand. Table A-1 to Table A-3 provide raw socioeconomic data.
Table 6 to Table 10 present the resident, employee, student, and visitor land uses and estimated evacuation demand in the evacuation area. As shown in Table 6, approximately one percent of households does not have access to a vehicle and would potentially confront mobility constraints during an evacuation event.
This assessment uses zero-vehicle households as a proxy to provide an estimate of persons with mobility constraints that may need evacuation assistance. These zero-vehicle households would Cupertino Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment | 19
require outside assistance. Although outside the scope of this assessment, the City may want to consider a program that ensures a more accurate accounting of households needing assistance and programs to facilitate their evacuation. This estimate also assumes employment centers would provide evacuation assistance to employees without access to a vehicle. Additionally, it was assumed that some households with more than two vehicles likely would not be able to utilize all of their vehicles during an evacuation event (e.g., homes with three or more vehicles but with only two licensed drivers).
Table 6: Resident Population and Evacuation Demand Vehicle Trips of the Evacuation Area Population1 Households2
Household Vehicle
Ownership2 Estimated Evacuation Demand3,4,5
0 1 2 3+ Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C
12,636 4,355
48 604 2,400 1,303
4,050 8,710 4,050
1% 14% 55% 30%
Notes:
1. The estimated population is obtained from Genasys Protect data provided by the City staff on July 25, 2025.
2. The estimated number of households and household vehicle ownership is derived from 2023 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates and adjusted according to the estimated population.
3. Assumption of number of vehicles that will evacuate: zero-vehicle household: 1 vehicle; one-vehicle household: 1 vehicle; two-vehicle household: 2 vehicles; three-or-more vehicle household: 2.5 vehicles.
4. Assume that daytime population from Genasys Protect consists of residents, employees, students, and visitors. Calculated as (daytime population - employees - students - visitors) / residents * 100%, The residents present in the evacuation area were estimated to be 46% and 100% of the population for Scenarios A and B respectively.
5. It should be noted that this information does not constitute a specific analysis of households with mobility challenges as it does not specifically account for people who have mobility impairments that preclude them from using a vehicle; it also does not specifically account for households that own one or more vehicles, but where not all members of the household may necessarily have access to them at all times (for example, a household with one vehicle which a household member drives to work, leaving other members of the household at home with no vehicle available).
Source: 2023 ACS 5-Year Estimates; Genasys Protect; Santa Clara Countywide VMT Estimation Tool; Fehr & Peers, 2025.
Table 7: Employee Population and Evacuation Demand Vehicle Trips of the Evacuation Area
Employment (A)1
Estimated Evacuation Demand2
Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C
556 550 10 550
Notes:
1. The estimated employment is obtained from the Santa Clara Countywide VMT Evaluation Tool, using 2025 as the baseline year.
2. Assumes that all the employees will evacuate with 0.99 vehicles per employee (one percent of evacuation area households are zero-vehicle households).
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2025.
4.1.2 Student Population
Within the designated evacuation area, several schools serve a substantial student population that would require timely evacuation in the event of an emergency at working hours. Schools located Cupertino Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment | 20
within the evacuation area include Abraham Lincoln Elementary School, Tessellations Elementary School, John F. Kennedy Middle School, and Monta Vista High School. Table 8 presents the estimated number of student evacuation trips during Scenario A. Table A-4 and Table A-5 show the school enrollment data and estimated student evacuation trips, categorized by mode of travel, including pick-up/drop-off by parents, carpooling, and individual student drivers.
Table 8: Student Population and Evacuation Demand Vehicle Trips of the Evacuation Area School Enrollment
Estimated Evacuation Demand Vehicle Trips
Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C
3,560 3,120 0 3,120
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2025.
4.1.3 Visitor Population
Table 9 presents the estimated number of visitor trips generated by recreational land uses that would require evacuation during an emergency. Additional details on how these visitor trip estimates were developed can be found in Table A-6.
Table 9: Visitor Land Use and Evacuation Demand of the Evacuation Area Visitors
Estimated Evacuation Demand Vehicle Trips
Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C
355 180 0 180
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2025.
4.1.4 Total Estimated Evacuation Demand
Considering the estimated trips generated in the evacuation area from all employees, residents, students and visitors, the total number of estimated trips during an evacuation event can be estimated. The total evacuation demand is 7,900 and 8,720 during Scenario A and Scenario B respectively, as shown in Table 10.
Table 10: Total Estimated Evacuation Demand Vehicle Trips for the Evacuation Area Type of Evacuees Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C
Residents 4,050 8,710 4,050
Employees 550 10 550
Students 3,120 - 3,120
Visitors 180 - 180
Total 7,900 8,720 7,900
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2025.
Cupertino Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment | 21
Figure 3 shows the distribution of the evacuation demand across two screenlines. These screenlines represent the edge of the hazard area (screenline 1) and the estimated evacuation edge (screenline 2).
4.2 Evaluating Evacuation Route Capacity
4.2.1 Scenario A (Quantitative Analysis)
The total estimated evacuation demand was distributed across the roadway network in proportion to the combined resident, employee, student, and visitor population data for each Genasys Protect zone10 within the evacuation area. Detailed percent trips assigned for each roadway can be found in Table B-1. The distance to evacuation gateways map (see Figure 5) was used to identify primary routes likely to be used by evacuees.
Traffic volume data for the roadway segments on the evacuation area were collected in July 2025.
These counts, combined with estimated demand, were used to calculate the total evacuation vehicle demand. StreetLight data from the same period in 2024 were collected and compared with data from October 2024 to evaluate the impact of school sessions versus non-school periods. For Scenario A, representing a typical Fall weekday at 2 PM, a factor of 1.2 was applied to account for the increased traffic associated with schools being in session.
Evacuation route capacity was assessed by dividing vehicle demand volumes by roadway evacuation capacity to calculate the volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio. As shown in Table 11, the results of the evacuation capacity assessment indicate that all evacuation routes have V/C ratios greater than 1 near the evacuation area except for Prospect Road. This indicates that these roads would require more than one hour to accommodate the evacuation demand from the hillside, making them bottlenecks during an evacuation.
Foothill Boulevard, Stevens Creek Boulevard and McClellan Road are the most critical bottlenecks with V/C ratio greater than 2. Prospect Road and Stelling Road have V/C ratios of 1, suggesting they are at capacity and should be prioritized for evacuation demand and supply strategies.
It is also important to note that emergency scenarios are often unpredictable (as well as driver behavior during the evacuation time period) and it is anticipated that evacuees would vacate at a rate that more closely resembles a bell curve from the time the evacuation order is issued. These are conditions which would affect the total estimated evacuation time in our assessment and are beyond the scope and budget of our assessment. There is also general unpredictability in operational issues, such as power issues that would trigger traffic signals to operate in “red flash mode” in which traffic would need to proceed through intersections in an all-way stop configuration. 10 A Genasys Protect zone is a predefined geographic area used during emergencies to streamline response efforts, reduce confusion, and optimize traffic flow.
Trip Distribution for Scenario A
FIGURE 3
280
280
280
85 85
yW ellivelleB
S Tantau Ave
evA thgirW
S Stelling Rd
Regnart Rd
evA hcniF
Prospect Rd
Saratoga Ave
dvlB aznA eD N
Doyle Rd
dR bbuB
S Blaney Ave
Moorpark Ave
Cox Ave
McClellan Rd
dR otiuQ
dvlB aznA eD S
S Mary Ave
evA relliM
N Tantau Ave
dvlB llihtooF S
Pruneridge Ave
W Homestead Rd E Homestead Rd
Johnson Ave
N Stelling Rd Hollenbeck Ave
dR efloW S
dR elavynnuS-agotaraS S
Vallco Pkwy
Rainbow Dr
Bollinger Rd
Stevens Creek Blvd
W Campbell Ave
dvlB llihtooF N
N Blaney Ave
dR efloW
Stevens Canyon Rd
Phil Ln
evA liauQ
Mount Eden Rd
Basemap
FIGURE 2
0 1 2
Miles
Cupertino City Boundary Evacuation Routes
Data Source: Fehr & Peers
Cupertino City Boundary
Evacuation Routes
West of SR-85 Screenline
East of the WUI Screenline
Trip Distribution | Scenario A
Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) Trip Distribution %
SR-85 Trip Distribution %
Rodrigues Ave
Torre Ave
5%
18%
21%
14%
14%
22%
6%
23%
21%
4%
24%
5%
17%
6%
Cupertino City Boundary
Evacuation Routes
Screenline
East of the WUI Screenline
West of SR-85 Screenline
Trip Distribution
Scenario A
SR-85 Trip Distribution %
Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) %
0 1 2
M i l
Cupertino Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment | 23
Table 11: Evacuation Route Link Capacity Analysis (Scenario A) Evacuation Route Link
Evacuation
Travel
Demand1
Existing
Hourly
Traffic
Total
Evacuation
Demand
Adjusted
Evacuation
Route
Capacity
V/C
Ratio2
1. East of the Evacuation Area Screenline
Cristo Rey Drive
west of Foothills Boulevard 400 239 639 570 1.1
Foothill Boulevard
north of Alpine Drive 1,420 883 2,303 570 4.0
Stevens Creek Boulevard
east of Cupertino Road 1,660 417 2,077 570 3.6
McClellan Road
east of Imperial Avenue 1,110 100 1,210 570 2.1
Bubb Road
north of Hyannisport Drive 1,110 234 1,344 570 2.4
Rainbow Drive
west of Seven Springs Lane
1,740 20 1,760 570 3.1
Prospect Road
east of Parker Ranch Trailhead 470 116 586 570 1.0
2. West of SR 85 Screenline
Foothill Boulevard
south of I-280 1,820 883 2,703 1,560 1.7
Stevens Creek Boulevard
west of SR-85 1,660 719 2,379 1,560 1.5
Bubb Road
south of Stevens Creek Boulevard 320 550 870 570 1.5
McClellan Road
east of Bubb Road 1,900 506 2,406 570 4.2
Stelling Road
north of Orion Lane 400 196 596 570 1.0
South De Anza Boulevard
north of SR-85 1,340 1,578 2,918 2,490 1.2
Prospect Road
east of S De Anza Boulevard 470 912 1,382 1,140 1.2
Note: Bolded text indicates roadways over one-hour evacuation capacity.
1. Rounded to nearest 10.
2. Total evacuation demand divided by adjusted outbound capacity.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2025.
4.2.2 Scenario B (Quantitative Analysis)
Scenario B assumes a wildfire-triggered evacuation following an earthquake at 6 AM, during a time when schools are not in session. The total estimated evacuation demand was distributed across the Cupertino Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment | 24
roadway network in proportion to the combined population, and employment population data for each Genasys Protect zone11 within the evacuation area. Detailed percent trips assigned for each roadway can be found in Table B-2. The distance to evacuation gateways map (see Figure 5) was used to identify primary routes likely to be used by evacuees.
The results of the evacuation capacity assessment in Table 11 indicate that all the roadways near the evacuation area except for Cristo Rey Drive, McClellan Road and Prospect Road have V/C ratios greater than 2. This indicates that these roads would require more than one hour to accommodate the evacuation demand from the evacuation area, making them bottlenecks during an evacuation.
This scenario is evaluated with a road closure on McClellan Road at Club House Lane near the Deep Cliff Golf Course, with schools not in session. When this segment of McClellan Road is closed, evacuees located east of Club House Lane can only travel eastbound along McClellan Road, while those west of the closure can only travel westbound. In other words, evacuees cannot cross the closed segment, which results in separate evacuation routes for areas on either side of the closure.
Under these conditions, evacuation demand on McClellan Road would decrease, with some trips shifted to Foothill Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard. As a result, McClellan Road would experience a lower V/C ratio.
Under Scenario B, evacuation demand is higher than under Scenario A, as summarized in Table 10.
However, because existing hourly traffic is lower at 6 AM under Scenario B, the total evacuation demand (i.e., the sum of evacuation travel demand and existing hourly traffic) on some roadways is lower under Scenario B than under Scenario A. A morning evacuation (6:00 AM) reflects conditions when most residents are at home, resulting in higher residential evacuation demand but relatively low existing traffic volumes on the roadways. In contrast, an afternoon evacuation (2:00 PM) occurs when many residents are at work or school, leading to lower residential evacuation demand but higher levels of existing traffic associated with general daytime travel activity. Scenario B has higher evacuation travel demand but lower existing traffic, resulting in a lower total evacuation demand on some roadways than Scenario A. As a result, these roadways show lower V/C ratios under Scenario B despite the higher evacuation travel demand.
11 A Genasys Protect zone is a predefined geographic area used during emergencies to streamline response efforts, reduce confusion, and optimize traffic flow.
Trip Distribution for Scenario B
FIGURE 4
280
280
280
85 85
yW ellivelleB
S Tantau Ave
evA thgirW
S Stelling Rd
Regnart Rd
evA hcniF
Prospect Rd
Saratoga Ave
dvlB aznA eD N
Doyle Rd
dR bbuB
S Blaney Ave
Moorpark Ave
Cox Ave
McClellan Rd
dR otiuQ
dvlB aznA eD S
S Mary Ave
evA relliM
N Tantau Ave
dvlB llihtooF S
Pruneridge Ave
W Homestead Rd E Homestead Rd
Johnson Ave
N Stelling Rd Hollenbeck Ave
dR efloW S
dR elavynnuS-agotaraS S
Vallco Pkwy
Rainbow Dr
Bollinger Rd
Stevens Creek Blvd
W Campbell Ave
dvlB llihtooF N
N Blaney Ave
dR efloW
Stevens Canyon Rd
Phil Ln
evA liauQ
Mount Eden Rd
Basemap
FIGURE 2
0 1 2
Miles
Cupertino City Boundary Evacuation Routes
Data Source: Fehr & Peers
Cupertino City Boundary
Evacuation Routes
West of SR-85 Screenline
East of the WUI Screenline
Trip Distribution | Scenario B
Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) Trip Distribution %
SR-85 Trip Distribution %
Rodrigues Ave
Torre Ave
6%
25%
25%
6%
12%
19%
7%
31%
25%
2%
16%
6%
13%
7%
Cupertino City Boundary
Evacuation Routes
Screenline
East of the WUI Screenline
West of SR-85 Screenline
Trip Distribution
Scenario B
SR-85 Trip Distribution %
Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) %
0 1 2
M i l
Cupertino Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment | 26
Table 12: Evacuation Route Link Capacity Analysis (Scenario B) Evacuation Route Link
Evacuation
Travel
Demand1
Existing
Hourly
Traffic
Total
Evacuation
Demand
Adjusted
Evacuation
Route
Capacity
V/C
Ratio2
1. East of the Evacuation Area Screenline
Cristo Rey Drive
west of Foothills Boulevard 520 31 551 570 1.0
Foothill Boulevard
north of Alpine Drive 2,180 283 2,463 570 4.3
Stevens Creek Boulevard
east of Cupertino Road 2,180 31 2,211 570 3.9
McClellan Road
east of Imperial Avenue 520 13 533 570 0.9
Bubb Road
north of Hyannisport Drive 1,050 64 1,114 570 2.0
Rainbow Drive
west of Seven Springs Lane
1,660 85 1,745 570 3.1
Prospect Road
east of Parker Ranch Trailhead 610 23 633 570 1.1
2. West of SR 85 Screenline
Foothill Boulevard
south of I-280 2,700 283 2,983 1,560 1.9
Stevens Creek Boulevard
west of SR-85 2,180 142 2,322 1,560 1.5
Bubb Road
south of Stevens Creek Boulevard 170 86 256 570 0.4
McClellan Road
east of Bubb Road 1,400 31 1,431 570 2.5
Stelling Road
north of Orion Lane 520 28 548 570 1.0
South De Anza Boulevard
north of SR-85 1,130 362 1,492 2,490 0.6
Prospect Road
east of S De Anza Boulevard 610 144 754 1,140 0.7
Note: Bolded text indicates roadways over one-hour evacuation capacity.
1. Rounded to nearest 10.
2. Total evacuation demand divided by adjusted outbound capacity.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2025.
Cupertino Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment | 27
4.2.3 Scenario C (Qualitative Analysis)
Scenario C assumes a wildfire-triggered evacuation following an earthquake at 2 PM on a school day.
Scenario C demonstrates the worst-case evacuation condition in which an earthquake initiates wildfire. Scenario C builds on Scenario A by assuming the same evacuation demand, but with additional roadway closures at the following roadways because of an earthquake causing wildfire:
• Stevens Creek Boulevard at SR-85
• SR-85 Southbound Ramps at Stevens Creek Boulevard
Due to the results of the baseline scenario, no further quantification was conducted for Scenario C.
However, in addition to the capacity constraints identified in Scenario A, the following evacuation route capacity issues have been noted:
• The closure on Stevens Creek Boulevard and SR-85 Southbound Ramps would divert 2,378 evacuees assigned to Stevens Creek Boulevard (refer to Table 11) to the adjacent routes. The updated trip distribution is shown in Table B-3. These alternative routes include Foothill Boulevard, McClellan Road, and De Anza Boulevard. Since these routes are already bottlenecks in Scenario A, the added volume would result in further congestion and increase the severity of the bottleneck causing more delay and queuing.
• Stevens Creek Boulevard also serves the evacuees from the entire corridor east and west of the FHSZ. A portion of the rerouted evacuation demand from Stevens Creek Boulevard is expected to shift towards Rainbow Drive and to Stelling Road or De Anza Boulevard, which serve as one of the key evacuation corridors to SR-85.
• Foothill Boulevard is already identified as a critical bottleneck with a V/C ratio exceeding 4 in both the scenarios. The rerouted evacuation demand due to the roadway closures would further exacerbate congestion and significantly affect evacuation efficiency.
4.3 Analyzing Distance to Evacuation Gateways
Distance to evacuation gateways is mapped in Figure 5. The map illustrates the primary evacuation routes likely to be used by evacuees. The distance for all the evacuation routes ranges from 0.9 to 2.5 miles with most falling between 1.5 to 2 miles. From each start point, there is one or two best routes to reach the gateways with similar distances.
Routes A, B, E, and F (via Cristo Rey Drive, Stevens Creek Boulevard, Rainbow Drive, and Prospect Road, respectively) are within two miles of the nearest evacuation gateways. According to Table 11 and Table 12, Cristo Rey Drive and Prospect Road are not expected to experience capacity constraints under Scenarios A and B. As a result, evacuees using these routes are expected to have relatively short evacuation times.
In contrast, Route D (via Bubb Road) is located 2 miles to the nearest evacuation gateway (Gateway 3), while Route C (via Foothills Boulevard) exceeds 2 miles in distance to the nearest gateway (Gateway 3). Given that Foothills Boulevard is projected to be over capacity (V/C > 4) under Scenarios A and B, and Bubb Road is over capacity (V/C > 2) under both scenarios, evacuees using these routes are likely to encounter significant traffic congestion and longer evacuation times.
Distances to Evacuation Gateways
FIGURE 5
280
280
280
85 85
yW ellivelleB
S Tantau Ave
evA thgirW
S Stelling Rd
Regnart Rd
evA hcniF
Prospect Rd
Saratoga Ave
dvlB aznA eD N
Doyle Rd
dR bbuB
S Blaney Ave
Moorpark Ave
Cox Ave
McClellan Rd
dR otiuQ
dvlB aznA eD S
S Mary Ave
evA relliM
N Tantau Ave
dvlB llihtooF S
Pruneridge Ave
W Homestead Rd E Homestead Rd
Johnson Ave
N Stelling Rd Hollenbeck Ave
dR efloW S
dR elavynnuS-agotaraS S
Vallco Pkwy
Rainbow Dr
Bollinger Rd
Stevens Creek Blvd
W Campbell Ave
dvlB llihtooF N
N Blaney Ave
dR efloW
Stevens Canyon Rd
Phil Ln
evA liauQ
Mount Eden Rd
Basemap
FIGURE 2
0 1 2
Miles
Cupertino City Boundary Cupertino City Boundary
Evacuation Routes
Distance to Evacuation Gateway
0 - 0.5 Miles 0.5 - 1 Miles 1 - 1.5 Miles 1.5 - 2 Miles 2.5 - 3 Miles Gateway
Start
A
B
C
D
E
F
1 2
3 4
5 6
0.9 miles
from Point F
to Gateway 6
1.1 miles
from Point F
to Gateway 5
1.3 miles
from Point B
to Gateway 1
1.4 miles
from Point E
to Gateway 4
1.6 miles
from Point E
to Gateway 5
1.6 miles
from Point B
to Gateway 2
1.9 miles
from Point A
to Gateway 1
2 miles
from Point D
to Gateway 3
2.2 miles
from Point D
to Gateway 4
2.4 miles
from Point C
to Gateway 3
2.5 miles
from Point C
to Gateway 1
Gateway
Start
Distance to Evacuation Gateway
0 - 0.5 Miles 0.5 - 1 Miles 1 - 1.5 Miles 1.5 - 2 Miles 2.5 - 3 Miles 0 1 2
M il
Rodrigues Ave
Torre Ave
Data Source: Fehr & Peers
Cupertino Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment | 29
5. Recommendations
The City of Cupertino has already implemented several key strategies that support evacuation readiness and enhance emergency response capabilities. These existing measures provide a strong foundation for coordinated and effective action during wildfire or other disaster events:
• Established multi-jurisdictional plans that enable Fire and Sheriff departments to operate seamlessly under a unified command structure. This coordination ensures faster decisionmaking, effective resource deployment, and a cohesive response across different agencies and jurisdictions.
• Traffic signals within the evacuation network are equipped with battery backup systems, allowing them to remain operational during power outages for up to eight hours. This functionality helps maintain orderly traffic flow, reduces confusion at intersections, and supports safer, more efficient evacuations.
• Strong coordination and communication among key agencies including Fire, Sheriff, and Public Works—facilitate real-time updates and operational alignment. These communication protocols enable swift sharing of situational information, ensuring a collaborative response during rapidly evolving emergency situations.
In addition to the recommended policies (Policy HS-2.1 to Policy HS-2.15) included in the Safety Element Update, the following recommendations are listed as potential measures that can enhance the evacuation process through the supply side (increasing evacuation capacity), demand side (managing evacuation volumes), and information side (improving awareness and communication).
These recommendations will be incorporated into future updates of the Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP), and Health and Safety Element Update to ensure consistency and alignment. Some recommendations can be implemented more readily through the EOP. Others may require additional coordination and formal adoption as part of the Safety Element Update or LHMP.
5.1 Supply-Side Strategies
Supply-side strategies aim to temporarily increase evacuation capacity at key bottleneck locations while balancing the everyday safety and function of the roadway system. • Increasing capacity through the use of contraflow lanes or dual purpose shoulder evacuation/protected bike lane widening by changing future roadway design, especially in areas with less accessibility and located on key evacuation routes. These areas are primarily located on I-280, Foothills Boulevard, Stevens Creek Boulevard, Bubb Road, and SR-85 corridors. These routes should consider incorporating design treatments such as painted medians (instead of raised medians) or other treatments that could assist in creating reversible lanes, or a dual-purpose shoulder to facilitate additional capacity in an evacuation event scenario.
• Extending water service into evacuation corridors strengthens firefighting capacity and longterm water investment ensures reliable resources that sustain evacuation operations under emergency conditions.
• Managed traffic control during evacuation, including turn restrictions and route or ramp closures, to maximize outflows from evacuation areas.
• Faster clearing of fire-induced road closures.
Cupertino Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment | 30
• Plan for street parking management on high hazard days.
5.2 Demand-Side Strategies
• The City of Cupertino can support vehicle volume reduction during an evacuation by encouraging carpooling and use of public transit;
• Encouraging a one car per household evacuation pledge (for households that must have second vehicles, an alternative could involve early off-site placement of a second car when advance wildfire warnings or other hazard requiring evacuation are available); • Identifying shelter locations within the City limits and outside the FHSZ to reduce demand on evacuation routes outside the FHSZ and plan/implement shelter facilities; and
5.3 Information-Side Strategies
The City of Cupertino can further support evacuation through the following measures:
• Enhance community evacuation programs to improve resident, employee, student, and visitor preparedness and familiarity with evacuation routes and processes. • Strengthen coordination of emergency response equipment and resources between neighboring jurisdictions, allowing for shared use based on operational needs rather than ownership.
• Enhance communication protocols between cities and elected officials to support unified decision-making, real-time information sharing, and coordinated emergency response across jurisdictional boundaries.
• Explore and deploy wildfire early detection systems (i.e., wildfire video surveillance cameras, drones, etc.) especially for constrained access parcels. • Use real-time traffic management tools to implement dynamic route guidance and monitoring to guide evacuees away from congested routes and encourage the use of secondary or tertiary routes to distribute traffic more evenly. • Study a phased evacuation process where different groups or areas evacuate at different times to prevent congestion on main evacuation routes. This can be based on factors like proximity to danger, traffic volume, or priority of evacuation. • Study and install vehicle monitoring devices and variable message signs to monitor evacuation programs and provide notification of any changes in evacuation routes or plans due to a change in the wildfire or incidents to motorists along the road.
5.4 Additional Considerations
This evacuation assessment includes trips generated by both employees and residents from the evacuation area and assumes all residents and employees will be evacuated using vehicles. A critical consideration for emergency personnel is to assist individual residents and employees who either do not have access to a vehicle or cannot drive, to ensure that compete evacuation is provided. The EOP includes provisions to coordinate with the VTA, Silicon Valley (SV) Hopper, and emergency services. Further research into strategies for evacuating people who do not have access to a vehicle is recommended. Options for assisting with evacuation in such situations could include, but not be limited to, the following:
• Neighborhood “buddy” program to link people needing assistance with people willing to assist.
Cupertino Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment | 31
• Partnership with transportation network companies (TNCs) like Uber and Lyft.
For individual students and visitors who do not have access to a vehicle, options for assisting with evacuation in such situations could include, but not be limited to, the following:
• Designated pick-up zones for TNCs or buses to ensure orderly evacuation. • Provide dedicated shuttle, school vans, or charter bus service, if available.
P
Appendix A:
Socioeconomic Data
P
Table A-1: Summary of Socioeconomic Data – Census1
Geographic Area Households Population Employment
Household Vehicle Ownership
0 1 2 3+
Census Tract 5077.01 1,216 4,092 1,526 90 217 515 394
Block Group 1; Census
Tract 5077.01 N/A 878 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Block Group 2;
Census Tract 5077.01 N/A 1,927 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Census Tract 5077.02 2,163 6,107 3,310 24 300 1,192 647 Block Group 1;
Census Tract 5077.02 N/A 2,052 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Block Group 2;
Census Tract 5077.02 N/A 1,704 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Block Group 3;
Census Tract 5077.02 N/A 2,351 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Census Tract 5077.04 1,214 3,466 1,453 150 299 457 308
Block Group 1;
Census Tract 5077.04 N/A 1,060 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Block Group 2;
Census Tract 5077.04 N/A 2,406 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Census Tract 5077.05 1,385 4,560 1,753 19 255 671 440
Block Group 1;
Census Tract 5077.05 N/A 1,952 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Block Group 2;
Census Tract 5077.05 N/A 1,373 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Block Group 3;
Census Tract 5077.05 N/A 1,235 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 5,978 35,613 8,042 283 1,071 2,835 1,789
Notes:
1. Census block group and census tract locations are illustrated in Figure A-1.
Source: 2023 ACS 5-year Estimates; Fehr & Peers, 2025.
P
Figure A-1: Census Block Group and Census Tract Locations P
Table A-2: Summary of Socioeconomic Data – Genasys Protect1 Geographic Area Total Population Total Daytime
Population Total Households
SCC-005 0 0 0
SCC-006 0 3 0
SCC-008 198 270 82
SCC-010 12 52 2
SCC-011 13 41 4
SCC-020 67 37 21
CUP-007 784 1,057 376
CUP-008 1,294 931 418
CUP-016 10 124 3
CUP-017 3,188 2,523 1,042
CUP-018 1,339 1,245 461
CUP-029 2,841 2,046 953
CUP-032 654 470 248
CUP-033 2,236 1,546 745
Total 12,636 10,345 4,355
Notes:
1. Genasys Protect zone locations are illustrated in Figure A-2.
Source: Genasys Protect; Fehr & Peers, 2025.
P
Figure A-2: Genasys Protect Zone Locations (highlighted numbers in study area) P
Table A-3: Summary of Socioeconomic Data – Santa Clara County VMT Estimation Tool1 Geographic Area Households Population Employment
TAZ 132 955 2,702 94
TAZ 130 0 0 0
TAZ 127 204 614 14
TAZ 128 231 693 25
TAZ 126 647 2,038 647
TAZ 103 193 530 77
TAZ 133 325 920 66
TAZ 102 278 749 55
TAZ 116 305 910 64
TAZ 115 1 3 1,448
TAZ 129 996 2,995 150
TAZ 105 413 1,240 5
TAZ 136 22 62 135
TAZ 122 328 1,033 0
TAZ 125 238 751 2
TAZ 131 273 822 5
TAZ 1334 661 1,880 55
TAZ 135 640 1,825 31
TAZ 134 677 1,916 7
TAZ 117 582 1,741 1,448
TAZ 123 466 1,472 0
Total 8,435 24,896 4,328
Notes:
1. TAZ locations are illustrated in Figure A-3.
Source: Santa Clara Countywide VMT Estimation Tool; Fehr & Peers, 2025.
P
Figure A-3: Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) Locations (light blue indicates study area) P
Table A-4: School Enrollment Data
School Name School Enrollment
Abraham Lincoln Elementary 700
John F Kennedy Middle 930
Tessellations Elementary School 270
Total (non-driving students) 1,9001
Monta Vista High School (can drive) 1,6602
Total Students 3,560
Notes:
1. Elementary and middle school students are assumed to evacuate either by carpooling with another student (20%) or by being picked up/dropped off individually (80%).
2. High school students are assumed to be able to drive and are therefore assigned the following evacuation mode shares: drive alone (20%), carpool (30%), and pick-up/drop-off (50%).
Table A-5: Estimated Student Evacuation Trips
Driving Condition
Percent Estimates
Number of
Students Factor1 Estimated Student Evacuation Trips 1,900 Students (Non- Driving)
1,660
Students
(Can Drive)
Drive Alone 0% 20% 330 1.0 330
Carpool 20% 30% 880 0.5 440
Drop-Off 80% 50% 2,350 1.0 2,350
Total 3,560 3,120
Notes:
1. Drive Alone trips assume one person per vehicle; Carpool trips assume two passengers per vehicle, excluding the driver; and Drop-Off trips assume one passenger per vehicle, with the driver not counted.
P
Table A-6: Estimated Visitor Evacuation Trips
Recreational Attractions Location Number of Visitors1
PG&E Trailhead East of Rancho San
Antonio County Park 200
Deep Cliff Golf Course North of Linda Vista Park 20
Rim Trail North of Stevens Creek
County Park 100
Parker Ranch Trailhead East of Fremont Older
Open Space Preserve 35
Total Visitors 355
Estimated Visitor Evacuation Trips2180
Notes:
1. The number of visitors is based on the percentage of parking spaces assumed during the study period. (Refer to Table 2 notes for the percentages assumed).
2. Visitors are assumed to carpool (two or more passengers per vehicle).
P
Appendix B: Trip
Distribution
P
Table B-1: Trip Distribution Linked to Genasys Protect Zones (Scenario A) Genasys Protect
Zones1 Population Population Distribution Connected Roadways Evacuation Trip Distribution SCC-0052 0 0% Foothills Boulevard 0%
SCC-006 0 0% Foothills Boulevard 0%
SCC-008 198 1% Foothills Boulevard 1%
SCC-010 12 0% Foothills Boulevard 0%
SCC-011 13 0% Prospect Road 0%
SCC-020 67 0% Prospect Road 0%
CUP-007 784 5% Cristo Rey Drive 5%
CUP-008 1,294 8%
Foothills Boulevard 5%
Stevens Creek
Boulevard 3%
CUP-016 10 0% McClellan Road 0%
CUP-017 3,188 20%
Foothills Boulevard 9%
Stevens Creek
Boulevard 10%
McClellan Road 1%
CUP-008 1,339 8%
Foothills Boulevard 5%
Stevens Creek
Boulevard 3%
CUP-029 2,841 38%
Stevens Creek
Boulevard 4%
McClellan Road 24%
Rainbow Drive 10%
CUP-032 654 4%
McClellan Road 2%
Rainbow Drive 2%
CUP-033 2,236 16%
Stelling Road 5%
Rainbow Drive 5%
Prospect Road 6%
Notes:
1. Genasys Protect zone locations are illustrated in Figure A-2.
2. SCC coded zones are located in Santa Clara County’s FHSZ.
Source: Genasys Protect; Fehr & Peers, 2025.
P
Table B-2: Trip Distribution Linked to Genasys Protect Zones (Scenario B) Genasys Protect
Zones1 Population Population Distribution
Connected
Roadways
Evacuation Trip
Distribution
SCC-005 0 0% Foothills
Boulevard 0%
SCC-006 0 0% Foothills
Boulevard 0%
SCC-008 198 2% Foothills
Boulevard 2%
SCC-010 12 0% Foothills
Boulevard 0%
SCC-011 13 0% Prospect Road 0%
SCC-020 67 1% Prospect Road 1%
CUP-007 784 6% Cristo Rey Drive 6%
CUP-008 1,294 10%
Foothills
Boulevard 7%
Stevens Creek
Boulevard 3%
CUP-016 10 0% McClellan Road 0%
CUP-017 3,188 25%
Foothills
Boulevard 10%
Stevens Creek
Boulevard 13%
McClellan Road 2%
CUP-008 1,339 11%
Foothills
Boulevard 8%
Stevens Creek
Boulevard 3%
CUP-029 2,841 22%
Stevens Creek
Boulevard 2%
McClellan Road 15%
Rainbow Drive 5%
CUP-032 654 5%
McClellan Road 3%
Rainbow Drive 2%
CUP-033 2,236 18%
Stelling Road 6%
Rainbow Drive 6%
Prospect Road 6%
Notes:
1. Genasys Protect zone locations are illustrated in Figure A-2.
2. SCC coded zones are located in Santa Clara County’s FHSZ.
Source: Genasys Protect; Fehr & Peers, 2025.
P
Table B-3: Trip Distribution Linked to Genasys Protect Zones (Scenario C) Genasys Protect
Zones1 Population Population Distribution Connected Roadways Evacuation Trip Distribution2 SCC-0053 0 0% Foothills Boulevard 0%
SCC-006 0 0% Foothills Boulevard 0%
SCC-008 198 1% Foothills Boulevard 1%
SCC-010 12 0% Foothills Boulevard 0%
SCC-011 13 0% Prospect Road 0%
SCC-020 67 0% Prospect Road 0%
CUP-007 784 5% Cristo Rey Drive 5%
CUP-008 1,294 8%
Foothills Boulevard 8%
Stevens Creek
Boulevard 0%
CUP-016 10 0% McClellan Road 0%
CUP-017 3,188 20%
Foothills Boulevard 15%
Stevens Creek
Boulevard 0%
McClellan Road 5%
CUP-008 1,339 8%
Foothills Boulevard 8%
Stevens Creek
Boulevard 0%
CUP-029 2,841 38%
Stevens Creek
Boulevard 0%
McClellan Road 26%
Rainbow Drive 12%
CUP-032 654 4%
McClellan Road 2%
Rainbow Drive 2%
CUP-033 2,236 16%
Stelling Road 5%
Rainbow Drive 5%
Prospect Road 6%
Notes:
1. Genasys Protect zone locations are illustrated in Figure A-2.
2. For Scenario C, due to road closure at Stevens Creek Boulevard at SR-85, trips assigned to Stevens Creek Boulevard under Scenario A were shifted to alternative roadways.
3. SCC coded zones are located in Santa Clara County’s FHSZ.
Source: Genasys Protect; Fehr & Peers, 2025.
From: Rhoda Fry
To: Public Comments
Subject: 3/17/2026 City Council non-agenda Oral Communications Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2026 7:39:20 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council,
Recusal Request for Councilmember Mohan: Regarding Public Hearing #12 on March 17, 2026, Sheila Mohan resides within 1000 feet of the Linda Vista project and this development project could impact the value of her property. Consequently, she should recuse.
Furthermore, I’d request that you reschedule portion of the March 17, 2026 City Council Meeting – non-consent action and public-hearing items. That would be 3 items.
REQUEST FOR POLICY CHANGE:
There are about 24 council meetings per year. Many of these meetings don’t have decisions.
Availability of council members is well-known prior to establishing schedules. My understanding is that it was well-known that councilmember Wang would be unable to attend the 3/17/2026 meeting. While I’m not especially concerned about informational and study session items that can be viewed later, and somewhat less about consent-calendar items, I don’t think that it is right that action items and especially public-hearing items should be heard when it is known well in advance that a councilmember is unable to attend. The residents voted for representation by councilmembers and the calendar should accommodate that as much as possible.
I just don’t think that it makes sense to have a public-hearing item when it is known that only three or four council-members can fully participate.
I would also like to remind you that in the past, a council meeting was rescheduled by Mayor Wei for her sister-city trip to Taiwan (and the City Manager) at very short notice. And it was rescheduled at the same time as a previously scheduled Planning Commission meeting. So two meetings were rescheduled for the Mayor. Other meetings were rescheduled multiple times in the past.
Consequently, I respectfully request that the public-hearing and hopefully the two action items, be deferred to another day and that consideration is made to availability of council members when setting the meeting calendar.
Regards, Rhoda Fry
From: Ying Dillaha
To: City Council; Tina Kapoor; City Clerk; Luke Connolly; Benjamin Fu; Chad Mosley Subject: No to rat poison use
Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2026 5:57:14 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 Clerk,
Please include the below in written communications for the upcoming city council meeting.
==
Good evening everyone,
I want to talk about something small that causes enormous harm—rat poison.
At first glance, it seems like a simple solution. You have a pest problem, you put out poison, and the rats disappear. Problem solved, right? But what actually happens is far more disturbing—and far more dangerous.
Most rat poisons used today are what’s called second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides. These are designed to be extremely potent.
They don’t kill instantly. Instead, they cause internal bleeding. The animal slowly hemorrhages from the inside. It becomes weak, disoriented, and thirsty. It can take days to die.
Days.
That poisoned rat doesn’t just disappear—it becomes easy prey.
Owls, hawks, foxes, snakes—even our pets—hunt weakened rodents.
But when they eat that poisoned rat, the toxin transfers into their bodies.
And the same slow, gruesome death begins again.
An owl—one of nature’s best natural pest controllers—might eat multiple poisoned rodents. The poison builds up. Soon, it can’t fly properly. It starves, or bleeds internally, just like the rat.
So instead of solving a problem, we create a cascade of suffering across the entire food chain.
And here’s the irony: by killing off predators, we actually make the rodent problem worse. Fewer owls and hawks mean more rats in the long run.
This isn’t just an environmental issue—it’s a community issue. Pets are at risk. Children can be exposed. And our local ecosystems are quietly being damaged.
That’s why I’m calling on the City of Cupertino to take action.
We need education—clear, accessible information that helps residents understand the real impacts of rat poison and the safer alternatives available.
We also need to make sure people are aware of the laws already in place. California has taken steps to restrict the most dangerous secondgeneration rat poisons, yet many residents still don’t know what is legal, what is restricted, or why these rules exist.
And we should consider stronger local action—whether that’s additional guidance, outreach, or further limits on the use of these high-risk poisons.
Because there are better solutions.
Sealing entry points. Managing waste properly. Using humane traps.
Supporting natural predators like owls by installing nesting boxes.
These approaches don’t just react—they prevent. They work with nature, not against it.
So next time we think about using rat poison, we need to remember:
We’re not just killing a rat.
We’re potentially killing an owl, a hawk, a fox—and damaging the balance of our entire ecosystem.
And we’re doing it in one of the slowest, most painful ways imaginable.
We can choose a smarter, more humane path.
And I urge Cupertino to lead the way—with education, awareness, and responsible action.
Thank you.
Ying Sosic
Cupertino Resident
CC 3-17-2026
#1-Study Session
Housing Development
at 10333 N. Wolfe Rd.
Written Communications
From: Steven Liao
To: Public Comments
Subject: Urgent Opposition to Opening [Wall/Access Point] Date: Sunday, March 15, 2026 7:38:08 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To the Honorable Mayor and City Council Members,
I am writing to strongly urge the City, County, and CalTrans to utilize Wolfe Road for secondary emergency access and to formally reject any proposals to open the existing wall or create through-traffic access at N. Blaney Ave, Merritt Dr, or Vista Dr.
My opposition is based on the following critical concerns:
Pedestrian Safety: 1. N. Blaney Ave and Merritt/Vista Dr serve as the primary conduits for students attending
Collins Elementary and Lawson Middle School.
Opening this access would introduce significant
traffic to areas heavily populated by walking and
biking children safety are at risk
2. Traffic Gridlock: These residential streets are already burdened by school-related congestion. Adding regional
cut-through traffic would result in total gridlock,
hindering residents and potentially delaying the very
emergency services the project intends to assist.
3. Superior Alternative: Wolfe Road is a secondary arterial specifically designed for higher traffic volumes and
provides a safer, more efficient route for emergency
access without compromising school zones.
I request that the council prioritizes the safety of our children and the integrity of our neighborhoods by
maintaining the current sound wall and focusing access
improvements on major transit corridors.
Sincerely
Steven (Resident)
From: Stuart Yahoo
To: Public Comments
Subject: Notes on study item 26-14827
Date: Sunday, March 15, 2026 3:39:35 PM
Attachments: image0.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
In County’s minutes: see page 3, Why not focus attention on bikeway along sound wall. What about Junipero Serra Channel, bikeway ( this will take students to both elementary and middle school). Let’s not put kids on street where there isn’t crossing guards. The bike group feedback was from out of the immediate area and may not appreciate a path like Regnart trail. This will be a class 4 bikeway and not have students going on the streets sooner. Don’t break the covenant on the wall.
Stuart Chessen
Portal - Auburn - Drake Block Leader
From: E. Poon
To: City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Commission; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; Piu Ghosh (she/her); City Clerk
Subject: Cupertino Evacuation Route Capacity (in DRAFT Health and Safety Element) Date: Friday, March 13, 2026 12:30:38 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Subject: URGENT: Integrating the Active Transportation Plan with Wildfire Evacuation Studies
Dear Mayor, Councilmembers, and Planning Staff,
I read from the City Manager's Newsletter that March 13 is the last day of comments for the DRAFT Health and Safety Element. The Cupertino Evacuation Route Capacity, or the Wildfire Evacuation Route Study, is part of that draft. I like "Wildfire Evacuation Route Study" as it needs no further explanation.
I am writing to express a critical concern regarding the lack of apparent coordination between two of Cupertino’s major planning efforts: the Wildfire Evacuation Route Study and the Active Transportation Plan (ATP).
While both initiatives aim to improve public safety, their physical implementations may be at odds. As the city may consider installing Class IV protected bike lanes on Stelling, Blaney and Finch, we must ensure that these permanent modifications do not inadvertently turn our evacuation routes into inescapable bottlenecks.
The Conflict: Capacity vs. Protection
The ATP’s proposal for Class IV protected lanes often involves permanent concrete barriers or curb separators. While beneficial in some ways for daily cyclist safety, these features can:
Restrict Roadway Elasticity: During an evacuation, every inch of asphalt is vital.
Fixed barriers prevent the temporary use of the full roadway width for multi-lane egress.
Hinder Emergency Response: Narrower lanes and physical dividers can limit the maneuvering space required for fire engines and ambulances to bypass stalled traffic.
Solidify 1950s Constraints: Our street network was designed for mid-century suburban access, not 21st-century disaster egress. Adding rigid infrastructure to these aging layouts without an evacuation "stress test" is a significant risk.
Localized Concerns
The Fehr and Peers Evacuation Study highlights harrowing projections, such as the 3 to 4- hour evacuation estimate for the bottleneck at Foothill Expressway and McClellan Road.
Furthermore, the school cluster (Monta Vista/Kennedy/Lincoln) off Bubb Road presents a unique nightmare scenario where parents rushing in to collect students will collide with residents trying to get out.
In any major evacuation, every street will be impacted. We can be sure of that.
Recommended Actions
To ensure a safe, coordinated future for Cupertino, I respectfully request that the City:
1. Do its own Cross-Consultant Review: City Council can review the Wildfire Evacuation and ATP proposals regarding our streets. Or the review can be done by staff, since they are finally responsible for measurements and street plans.
2. Conduct Evacuation Modeling: Use traffic simulation software to model how proposed Class IV bike corridors perform under "full-city" evacuation loads.
3. Explore Flexible Protection: Evaluate high-visibility, "knock-down" bollards or mountable curbs that provide daily protection for cyclists, and allow emergency vehicles to move along the streets without fixed impediments in a crisis.
We should not have to choose between a bikeable city and a survivable one. I urge the Council to ensure these two safety goals are balanced through integrated, data-driven planning. Thank you for your attention.
Regards,
Emily Poon
Resident since 2007
From: Dennis Park
To: City Council; City Clerk
Subject: Sound Wall Preservation regarding Wolfe Housing Project Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 3:03:10 PM
Attachments: PETITION package-N Portal Sound Wall_stamped received.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor Moore, Council Members, and City Clerk,
I'm Dennis Park, a resident of the N Portal community. Regarding the Study Session for the Eden Housing (Housing Development Project at 10333 N Wolfe Rd), I would like to remind you about our Petition opposing the opening of the Sound Wall (attached).
Since the petition is submitted nearly a year ago, we have not received meaningful updates about the plan for alternative emergency exit, other than the stakeholders are trying to engage with CalTran on this matter. We want this clearly addressed in the Study Session. Thank you Dennis
March 18, 2025
Cupertino City Council
10300 Torre Ave.
Cupertino, CA 95014
Subject: Submission of Petition Opposing the Opening of the N. Portal Sound Wall Dear Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore, and Councilmembers Fruen, Mohan, and Wang, We are writing on behalf of the residents of the Portal neighborhood to formally submit the attached petition, signed by over 500 community members, opposing any proposal to open the Sound Wall separating N. Portal from Wolfe Road Housing development and The Rise.
As detailed in the petition, the opening of the sound wall would significantly impact the character, safety, and livability of our neighborhood. The scale of the adjacent development—introducing over 3,000 residential units, nearly 2 million square feet of office space, and hundreds of thousands of square feet of retail—necessitates careful planning to mitigate adverse effects on surrounding residential areas. The Sound Wall has long served as a critical buffer, preserving the integrity of our R-1 zoned neighborhood by preventing excessive traffic, noise pollution, parking overflow, and security concerns.
The strong community response reflected in this petition underscores the deep concerns shared by our residents. We urge the City Council to uphold existing zoning protections, honor the long-standing covenant maintaining the sound wall, and conduct thorough environmental and traffic impact assessments before considering any changes that could fundamentally alter our neighborhood.
We appreciate your time and attention to this matter and welcome the opportunity to engage in an open dialogue to explore alternative solutions that support urban connectivity without compromising community welfare. Please feel free to reach out if further discussion is needed.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
North Portal Neighborhood
Each RED DOT represents ONE OR MORE signatures.
From: Debbie Timmers
To: Public Comments; City Council; City Clerk
Subject: Eden Housing (Special Meeting - Study Session) Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 3:57:41 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Chao, and Councilmembers,
I am a Cupertino resident with grandchildren at Stevens Creek and Kennedy Schools. I fully support the Eden Housing plan and hope that you will accept the staff proposal. Many teachers, who are now retiring, were able afford to live here. However, now they are being replaced by recent graduates who cannot. They simply do not earn enough money to purchase or rent in the area, and many have to live an hour away! For this reason, it is hard for them to stay after school to help kids or work on after-school programs. I want my grandchildren to have the same enriching after-school experiences (clubs, sports, etc.) that I had.
It is also important to note that this is a Housing Element site. As Cupertino is not yet meeting its State goals, this would help to pull us out of the deficit, especially since this involves below market rate housing.
Please approve this plan. We want the best for our kids! Debra Timmers
From: Alex Shoor
To: City Council; Public Comments; Benjamin Fu; Jelani Mora; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Sarah Vaccaro; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: from Catalyze SV: PUBLIC COMMENT - STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEM 1 - March 17, 2026 Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 3:57:36 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Cupertino Mayor Moore, Cupertino Councilmembers & the County of Santa Clara Office of Supportive Housing,
I write to you today on behalf of the members of Catalyze Silicon Valley with respect to tomorrow’s study session.
Background on Catalyze SV:
Catalyze SV is a local nonprofit organization that has existed since 2017, with members from across our region, including in Cupertino.
Our goal is to create sustainable, vibrant, and equitable places for people in Silicon Valley. We do that through programs like community education events, community engagement services, and policy advocacy.
Another program of ours, one of our foundational ones, is advocating around specific development proposals. For the last decade, our members have evaluated, scored, and advocated for over 70 proposed projects in Silicon Valley.
Our Members Score and Now Support Wolfe Road Housing Project:
In September 2025, we joined with Cupertino for All to score our first-ever project in Cupertino — the Wolfe Road Housing proposal — because we believe it is one members from both our respective organizations would like to see as a key addition to Cupertino.
Sure enough, when our members gathered together to evaluate the project, we rated it highly.
Catalyze SV members scored it a 4.14 out of 5.
Cupertino for All members scored it a 4.67 out of 5.
Any project scoring 3.5 out of 5 or higher is eligible for our support. So on behalf of Catalyze SV and our members, I write to tell you that our organization joins Cupertino for All in enthusiastically supporting the Wolfe Road Housing project being built! Features We Really Like about the Current Design:
Interfaces with the planned Tamien Innu Trail on its edge Includes a resident-serving playground and a dog park
Has a higher number of bike parking spaces
Includes a lot of affordable housing
Retains as many trees as possible
Improvement Developers Made After Our Input:
We’re grateful to the development team for adding solar panels to the roof of Building 7 of the proposal, which is in line with one of our recommendations.
Features We'd Still Like to See Improved:
As you consider and discuss the project at tomorrow’s study session, we’d like to invite the Cupertino City Council and the development team to support the following improvements to the proposal before it is finalized:
1. An emergency vehicle plan that enables people to walk and bike between this new development and the Portal neighborhood, not walling it off from the neighborhood. This is something only the Cupertino City Council can actualize, so we urge you to make it so!
2. Because of how hard it is for folks making less money to secure stable housing, we want the housing units to be as affordable as possible, ideally for folks making 80% or less of our area median income, which is currently about $111,000.
3. We'd prefer to see the project include more homes overall by increasing its density/height.
We need all the homes we can get in this Valley!
4. To encourage walking, biking, and public transit, we urge you to add more crosswalks, protected bike lanes, and/or free transit passes for residents.
Please help ensure the above 4 improvements are made through your words and/or deeds.
Public Land Standard:
Since this project is on public land we all own, our government needs to ensure the project has the most positive impact possible. The bar for a project must be higher when it is land owned by the taxpayers.
Our Ask of You:
So at tomorrow’s study session, we urge the Cupertino City Council:
a) echo the aforementioned input of Catalyze SV members / Cupertino for All members to the County; and
b) update the vehicle emergency plan by allowing bikes and pedestrians to pass through the wall.
Thank you so much for considering our perspective, Catalyze SV is grateful that Cupertino and the County are advancing Wolfe Road Housing forward.
Yours in community,
Alex
--
Alex Shoor
Executive Director | Catalyze SV
www.CatalyzeSiliconValley.org
Schedule time w/Alex
From: Peggy Griffin
To: Public Comments; City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 2026-03-17 City Council Study Session - Item #1 Wolfe Road Housing-DO NOT OPEN WALL Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 3:57:05 PM
Attachments: PETITION map of N Portal signatures.pdf
The Rise bike maps-2024-02-16 approved plans for Portal hood.pdf tamien-innu-map.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
PLEASE INCLUDE THIS EMAIL AND ALL ATTACHMENTS AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATION FOR THE ABOVE MEETING AGENDA ITEM.
Dear Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Chao, Councilmembers, Staff and County Representatives, Please do everything you can to speed up securing the secondary emergency access directly to Wolfe Road through the Caltrans Right-of-Way. From the project email we received on February 23, 2026 from Victoria Via at FORA Architects (see attached), their priority is obtaining this access.
I support this project but DO NOT support opening the wall in any way, at any location. Some of the many reasons are:
Safety of BOTH the neighborhood and the project residents– prevent large emergency vehicles coming quickly down residential streets when there is a better way to access the project area that is better equipped for larger vehicles.
Prevent overflow parking from projects with inadequate parking resources.
Noise prevention – The N. Portal neighborhood, as with all areas bordering the I-280 sound wall experience significant noise already. Opening the wall allows additional noise into the neighborhood. One reason for this wall was to mitigate sound! Security – adding an opening in the wall adds another way for access and escape when committing crimes.
Encourage the use of already planned bike and pedestrian trails that have cost millions of dollars!
The Tamien Innu Trail is right beside this project and the trailhead is right there, easily accessible to project residents for both bike and pedestrian uses. A separate multi-use trail is much safer than traveling on any street could ever be.
The Rise has a Class I Bikeway off-street Bike Path planned that connects to both sidewalks along Stevens Creek Blvd AND a Class IV Bikeway along Stevens Creek.
The N. Portal neighborhood is strongly against opening the wall. Attached is a map of homes where one or more residents over 18 signed a petition against opening the wall in any location. (See attached map)
REQUEST: I am requesting that our City Council to
1. please help the County to speed up securing the secondary emergency access through CalTrans Right-of-Way AND
2. Direct the project designers to NOT include any opening through the wall.
3. Encourage the use of the Tamien Innu Trail and the bikeways along the wall to Stevens Creek Blvd.
Thank you!
Peggy Griffin
P.S. I’ve attached the following files
Map of all the North Portal homes that signed the petition in person to NO OPEN THE WALL.
A 2024-2-16 The Rise approved plans Page 49 of 190 – Bicycle Circulation P-0504 (NOTE – these plans may have been changed since then. I have not had time to check them.) Link to Tamien Innu Trail map and here’s the link too https://www.cupertino.gov/YourCity/Departments/Public-Works/Transportation-Mobility/Projects/Tamien-Innu Each RED DOT represents ONE OR MORE signatures.
From: Pam Hershey
To: Public Comments; City Council; City Clerk
Cc: City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject: Fw:
Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2026 1:13:40 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Please include this email as part of the written communication for for City Council Study
Session- item #1 Wolfe Road Housing-DO NOT
OPEN SOUND WALL
Dear Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Chao, Councilmembers , Staff and County Representatives:
First , we would like to thank the County of Santa Clara and the architect firm FORA for committing to community engagement which includes educators like myself.
One of our concerns is opening the sound wall for the residents of the
Eden Housing project and anyone that wants to use it as a short cut and the path only leads into a neighborhood.
The city enforced a covenant for a reason when the Vallco Shopping Center was
built. The reason was to protect the residents in
the neighborhood from noise, safety, and pollution from a commercial site which should never change.
We understand that the residents might want to send their children the schools on
Portal and Blaney Ave, but they could be impacted at that time.
As superintendent Yao from the Cupertino School District stated she does not know what the enrollment will be when the project is complete . The fact is that Collins is impacted today as my neighbor has to drive her child to Eaton Elementary as there is not a spot for her daughter.
Also, there is no guarantee that there will be working positions at those two schools at
the time of completion .
A very valid question is, "How do we know if people/ tenants will use the neighborhood
street parking as there is not enough parking spaces
for the tenants and visitors ?"
We are not against Affordable housing and are supporting the project but are
not in favor of opening the wall to anyone that wants to use it as a short cut .
Another issue is this Housing development will have short term tenants as their
Pay scale will change with time and they will have to move . We are long term residents that will be affected for many years . Not to mention that impact it will have on our everyday lives as the ony way out of this track is driving onpubliccomment Blaney or Portal Aveues.
One more of many issues is that it will be a nightmare when bikers and other hikers drive to the wall opening and park their cars on the street in order to use the bike trail.
We are not against Affordable housing and are supporting the project but are
not in favor ofopening the wall to anyone that wants to use it as a short cut .
Therefore , we are Strongly encouraging you to keep the sound wall for our protection and keep the covenant !
Thank you for your consideration.
Pamela and Bill Hershey
N. Portal Residents
Sent from my iPhone
From: Anne Ezzat
To: Public Comments; City Clerk; City Council
Subject: Special Meeting Comment on Eden Housing Project on Wolfe Road Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2026 11:17:01 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Chao, Council Member Mohan, Council Member Fruen, and Council Member Wang,
The City of Cupertino has a history of listening to everyone but the residents; it would be nice for the City to make an exception and honor the City's long-term commitment to keep the Vallco sound wall in place. The reasons for keeping the sound wall in place are the same today as they were when the city made the commitment to its residents. Less credence should be given to the voices of the unpaid lobbyists who want the wall removed than the residents whose homes abut the wall. or who live in the neighborhood near the wall.
While outside voices have value, they do not and should not have more value than the voices of the residents who pay the bills and foot the consequences. The continued concessions the City has made to developers and outside special interests has resulted in a lower quality of life for the residents, and a diaspora of retail and working-class residents.
Please do the right thing- honor the covenant and keep the wall.
Best regards,
Brooke Ezzat
From: louise saadati
To: City Council; City Clerk
Subject: Eden Housing
Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2026 1:20:41 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Please include this email in Written Communications for the Special Meeting on 3/17/26.
Dear Mayor Moore, Vice-Mayor Chao and Councilmembers:
Please support and expedite the Eden Housing Project.
This is a Housing Element site and must be expedited in order to help meet the HCD requirements for housing including below market housing by the deadline in June 2026.
Most school employees don’t make high salaries and we need to make affordable housing available to them.
Could the council focus on completing the transportation plan for this project? Could coordination with VTA enable the improvement of the VTA bus service on line 56 which is 0.5 miles from the site? Could transit passes be made available for residents to encourage transit use.
The project needs to integrate with adjacent neighbourhoods, rather than having walls that stop the growth of community and promote silos. We need to increase the bike ability and walkability of this development through the Portal
neighbourhood including for the school children.
Areas that have cars speeding by on interrupted sidewalks need to be improved for safe walking and biking.
I would like to commend the County of Santa Clara and the architect firm, FORA for all the community engagement they have made.
Thank you for your service in making our city and it’s
communities safer and more integrated and open.
Louise Saadati
40 year resident of Cupertino
Sent from my iPhone
From: Alex Shoor
To: City Clerk
Subject: Re: from Catalyze SV: PUBLIC COMMENT - STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEM 1 - March 17, 2026 Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 11:22:51 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.
City Clerk — Can you please verify that the below email made it to the City Council today? I didn’t see it uploaded yet to the agenda.
Thank you,
Alex
--
Alex Shoor
Executive Director | Catalyze SV
www.CatalyzeSiliconValley.org
Schedule time w/Alex
On Mar 16, 2026, at 3:57 PM, Alex Shoor <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Cupertino Mayor Moore, Cupertino Councilmembers & the County of Santa Clara Office of Supportive Housing,
I write to you today on behalf of the members of Catalyze Silicon Valley with respect to tomorrow’s study session.
Background on Catalyze SV:
Catalyze SV is a local nonprofit organization that has existed since 2017, with members from across our region, including in Cupertino.
Our goal is to create sustainable, vibrant, and equitable places for people in Silicon Valley. We do that through programs like community education events, community engagement services, and policy advocacy.
Another program of ours, one of our foundational ones, is advocating around specific development proposals. For the last decade, our members have evaluated, scored, and advocated for over 70 proposed projects in Silicon Valley.
Our Members Score and Now Support Wolfe Road Housing Project:
In September 2025, we joined with Cupertino for All to score our first-ever project in Cupertino — the Wolfe Road Housing proposal — because we believe it is one members from both our respective organizations would like to see as a key addition to Cupertino.
Sure enough, when our members gathered together to evaluate the project, we rated it highly.
Catalyze SV members scored it a 4.14 out of 5.
Cupertino for All members scored it a 4.67 out of 5.
Any project scoring 3.5 out of 5 or higher is eligible for our support. So on behalf of Catalyze SV and our members, I write to tell you that our organization joins Cupertino for All in enthusiastically supporting the Wolfe Road Housing project being built!
Features We Really Like about the Current Design:
Interfaces with the planned Tamien Innu Trail on its edge Includes a resident-serving playground and a dog park
Has a higher number of bike parking spaces
Includes a lot of affordable housing
Retains as many trees as possible
Improvement Developers Made After Our Input:
We’re grateful to the development team for adding solar panels to the roof of Building 7 of the proposal, which is in line with one of our recommendations.
Features We'd Still Like to See Improved:
As you consider and discuss the project at tomorrow’s study session, we’d like to invite the Cupertino City Council and the development team to support the following improvements to the proposal before it is finalized:
1. An emergency vehicle plan that enables people to walk and bike between this new development and the Portal neighborhood, not walling it off from the neighborhood. This is something only the Cupertino City Council can actualize, so we urge you to make it so!
2. Because of how hard it is for folks making less money to secure stable housing, we want the housing units to be as affordable as possible, ideally for folks making 80% or less of our area median income, which is currently about $111,000.
3. We'd prefer to see the project include more homes overall by increasing its density/height. We need all the homes we can get in this Valley!
4. To encourage walking, biking, and public transit, we urge you to add more crosswalks, protected bike lanes, and/or free transit passes for residents.
Please help ensure the above 4 improvements are made through your words and/or deeds.
Public Land Standard:
Since this project is on public land we all own, our government needs to ensure the project has the most positive impact possible. The bar for a project must be higher when it is land owned by the taxpayers.
Our Ask of You:
So at tomorrow’s study session, we urge the Cupertino City Council:
a) echo the aforementioned input of Catalyze SV members / Cupertino for All members to the County; and
b) update the vehicle emergency plan by allowing bikes and pedestrians to pass through the wall.
Thank you so much for considering our perspective, Catalyze SV is grateful that Cupertino and the County are advancing Wolfe Road Housing forward.
Yours in community,
Alex
--
Alex Shoor
Executive Director | Catalyze SV
www.CatalyzeSiliconValley.org
Schedule time w/Alex
From: Joseph Chen
To: Public Comments; City Council; City Clerk
Subject: 3-17-2026 City Counsil Study Session- item - DO NOT OPEN WALL Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 8:01:52 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Chao, Councilmembers,
My name is Joseph Chen and my family has been living in the North Portal neighborhood for over 30 years. I am writing to you to petition that our entire neighborhood is against the opening of the wall in our neighborhood and we request that the County focuses on the Wolfe Road secondary access.
Opening the wall will bring lots of issues to our neighborhood including increased traffic, notices, passersby, and other security issues. We are very concerned about the unknown situations in our neighborhood should the wall were to open.
Thank you in advance for your consideration of our concerns, Joseph Chen
10570 Cypress Drive,
Cupertino, CA 95014
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
From: Yvonne Strom
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: March 17 - Study session for Educator Workforce Housing Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 7:46:30 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Esteemed Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor, and Councilmembers,
I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the Educator Workforce Housing at 10333 Wolfe Rd. As you know, quality education is highly valued in Cupertino and residents have consistently committed funding for education over the years. This housing project is highly important to retain and support quality staff at our schools, and many design elements have been carefully planned.
However, I am concerned there is not sufficient consideration in the plan for children to have safe routes to school. For example, it is not reasonable to maintain an old wall and force children to walk on busy streets when a much safer route through an adjacent neighborhood could be made available.
I will use a terrifying example from my personal experience to illustrate how bad street design led directly to my 10 year old daughter falling off her bike directly into a lane of traffic on Rainbow Drive. I attached three photos to illustrate the problem.
1. Rainbow Drive is almost 5 lanes wide with a speed limit of 35 mph between Stelling Rd. and De Anza Blvd. The speed limit abruptly changes to 25 mph between Stelling Rd. and Bubb Rd. and the street is reduced to 2 lanes with many curves. There is no buffer between the traffic and the sidewalk that children used to get to and from Regnart Elementary school.
2. On garbage collection days the garbage cans obstruct the sidewalk. My daughter's accident occured when her bike handle brushed one of the garbage cans as she tried to ride past it. She and her bike tumbled into the adjacent lane of traffic. Thankfully, the driver of the oncoming car stopped and helped her pick up her twisted bike and helped her get home.
3. This section of Rainbow Dr. was very poorly designed for safety. The traffic passes much too close to the sidewalk and there was no plan to deal with the garbage can hazards.
Please don't make the same type of mistake for this new Educator Housing. Be diligent in designing to keep children safe.
Sincerely,
Yvonne Thorstenson
From: Connie Cunningham
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 2026-03-17 CC Study Session Eden Housing Project Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 5:39:26 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
2026-03-17 CC Study Session Eden Housing Project, N. 10333 Wolfe Road, Cupertino, CA
Dear Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor, and Councilmembers:
I was pleased on March 25, 2024, when the County of Santa Clara identified this location for its support of development of homes for teachers and workers under the 2016 Measure A Affordable Housing Bond. Also, this site was selected as a Cupertino Housing Element (HE) site, so it is a City priority. Santa Clara County is an excellent collaborator and partner for homes for educators and workers. Cupertino is not yet meeting its targets for all incomes, including Below Market Rate (BMR), under the HE. I am excited to see this step forward on the proposed Eden Housing Project.
I commend Santa Clara County and their Architect firm, FORA, for their commitment to deep community engagement, including educators. They incorporated community feedback into its attractive design.
Transportation is a critically important aspect of this location. This project needs to integrate with existing neighborhoods, rather than keeping walls, fences, or gates that stop growth of community.
a. Major concern is the emergency vehicle plan because it will discourage the bike-ability, and walkability of this development through the Portal neighborhood. The Portal neighborhood is the most likely location of schools that the new neighborhood children will attend. b.Good idea is the higher number of bike parking spaces included in the project, especially with the site being adjacent to the planned Tamien Innu Trail
c.The transportation plan for this project is incomplete.
I. Can we coordinate with VTA to improve service on bus line 56?
2. More crosswalks. More bike infrastructure,-such as protected bike lanes-would improve safety and encourage walking/biking.
3. Propose transit passes for residents, which can be a boost in encouraging transit ridership.
I commend the project for its focus on affordability for teachers and workers.
I am optimistic that this Study Session will inform Cupertino’s partnership with Santa Clara County toward success of this significant housing project. Thank you to Santa Clara County, FORA, and Eden for their engagement to date.
Sincerely,
Connie L Cunningham
Chair, Housing Commission, speaking for myself only
38 year resident
CC 3-17-2026
#10
Potential Revenue Ballot
Measure Options
Written Communications
From: Rhoda Fry
To: Public Comments
Cc: City Council
Subject: 3/17/2026 Council Meeting Agenda #10 Ballot Measure Date: Friday, March 13, 2026 4:48:36 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council,
Regarding 3/17/2026 Council Meeting Agenda #10 Ballot Measure, Another way to raise $! Consider Big Construction Conditions of Approval: We need to consider collecting use taxes for large projects. My understanding is that Cupertino became the point-of-sale location for construction materials when building the Apple Campus. We need to do this for developers as well and capture the taxes paid on those materials. Perhaps that can be included as a condition of approval.
UUT – Disproportionally impacts lower-income households. Higher-income households have solar and resources for all-electric homes. Lower-income households do not. I just don’t see the nexus in increasing the UUT. Regarding the history of the UUT, it was voted for to pay for Blackberry Farm pool/picnic/golf/blue pheasant. The ads for the purchase was for saving the oak trees and the property from potential development. I recall the UUT was going to end someday.
Use Tax (looks like Sales Tax): I don’t know whether a use tax will fly – a new tax was just voted in for the County. My recollection is that Cupertino voted no. I think that the staff should have mentioned how the vote went on this up front – I don’t see it but maybe I didn’t look carefully enough.
Head Tax, I’ve mentioned this at several City Council meetings in the past, Cupertino is lower than other cities for head taxes. Please also take a look at Menlo Park - - - note that Facebook also subsidizes additional police for its campus. So it would be interesting to look at their head tax as well. It actually looks surprisingly low:
https://www.menlopark.gov/files/sharedassets/public/v/1/administrativeservices/documents/finance/bl_taxguide_202003051245421195.pdf Regards,
Rhoda Fry
CC 3-17-2026
#11
Blesch Property Study
Written Communications
From: Peggy Griffin
To: Public Comments; City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 2026-03-17 City Council Meeting-ITEM 11 Blesch Property Date: Sunday, March 15, 2026 5:30:20 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
PLEASE INCLUDE THIS EMAIL AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE ABOVE MEETING AGENDA ITEM.
Dear Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Chao, Councilmembers and Staff, The Blesch Property is located between the Black Berry Farm Golf Course parking lot (on Stevens Creek Blvd) and the entrance to the Stevens Creek Trail (on Stevens Creek Blvd). As the Staff Report states that:
The property and structure are in very bad shape and not up to present day standards.
It’s located in a flood plane so building something would require careful planning, significant costs, more time with limited options.
Also, not mentioned is that this property is in a VERY NOISY area. You can barely hear or talk to anyone if you are standing on the sidewalk in front of this property. It is NOISY! REQUEST: Direct staff to
1. further evaluate the costs associated with demolition of the existing structure and
2. convert the property to a passive park with NO structures, MINIMAL grading to avoid floodway impacts.
3. DO NOT consider a labyrinth because it is in the wrong area. It is TOO NOISY! It is not peaceful. No one would enjoy spending much time here.
4. SERIOUSLY consider a pollinator garden oriented less for people and more for creatures.
5. Before spending/allocating any of the Park-in-Lie Fund money for this, ask what land is being considered for acquisition and development of parkland. Acquiring more parkland should take precedence because land is becoming more scarce and more costly as time goes on. Doing something with this land could be put “on-hold” with a plan but not executed.
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
From: Rhoda Fry
To: Public Comments
Cc: City Council; Rachelle Sander
Subject: MORE: 3/17/2026 Council Meeting Agenda #11 Blesch Property Date: Friday, March 13, 2026 7:24:10 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
MORE: 3/17/2026 Council Meeting Agenda #11 Blesch Property Short Message: Blesch is a bad location for labyrinth.
Longer Message: I just went for a walk through the orange orchard and well before I arrived at the Blesch Property I was hearing traffic from Stevens Creek. It just isn’t peaceful.
Consequently, I don’t think that this is an appropriate location for a labyrinth. It needs to be in a calmer location.
Regards,
Rhoda Fry
From: Rhoda Fry
To: Public Comments
Cc: City Council; Rachelle Sander
Subject: 3/17/2026 Council Meeting Agenda #11 Blesch Property Date: Friday, March 13, 2026 3:33:02 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council and Parks & Rec Director Sander,
Regarding 3/17/2026 Council Meeting Agenda #11 Blesch Property Short Message –
1. Please consider bus-turnout in the area like at McClellan Ranch
2. Please consider additional parking for the golf/blue pheasant/trail-use Please look at this project holistically with the adjacent golf/blue pheasant property. As mentioned in the staff report, it had been considered for parking. It would be good to see some sort of reconfiguration at the golf/blue pheasant in order to have a bus turnout (note there is one on the McClellan Ranch side). Presently, buses seem to drop-off a bit uphill. Another consideration that was probably not considered when the property was purchased is the continued interconnectivity between the City and County open spaces. At the time of the purchase, the orchard/Blackberry/McClellan trail was not yet completed. Now we have a connection into Linda Vista Park and there is a possibility of connecting from there into the County Park. Going in the other direction, there has been a trail into Varian Park that could later become a permanent trail. So, as much as we want people to stop using cars, I do think that we need to allow for flexibility in parking.
Perhaps there is an opportunity for having some dual uses. And I really think we need to have some flexibility around parking. As to the labyrinth idea, I think of labyrinths as opportunity for quiet reflection and I’m unsure whether that is possible on this property. Stevens Creek gets pretty busy – noise, smelly cars/trucks, and visually. Perhaps there is more room on the back portion of the property next to McClellan Ranch.
As to storage, there are presently a number of storage sheds at the orange orchard.
Regards,
Rhoda Fry
From: Anne Ezzat
To: Public Comments; City Council; City Clerk
Subject: Item #11 Bleech Property
Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2026 3:25:35 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Chao, Council Member Mohan, Council Member Fruen, and Council Member Wang,
I am writing to urge the Council to reconsider the proposed paver labyrinth. Given the challenges of climate change, increasing the amount of concrete in our community is counterproductive.
As the property is located within a floodplain and would be difficult to renovate, a more sustainable use of the land would be to integrate it into the surrounding parkland or establish a small pollinator garden.
Best regards,
Brooke Ezzat
From: Peggy Griffin
To: Public Comments; City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 2026-03-17 City Council Meeting - ITEM 11 Blesch Property and a Labyrinth Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2026 2:58:41 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
PLEASE INCLUDE THIS EMAIL IN THE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE ABOVE MEETING AGENDA ITEM.
Dear Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Chao, Councilmembers and Staff, In my previous email regarding this agenda item, I wrote that I didn’t think this site was appropriate for a labyrinth due to the noise level at the site. That said, I think a labyrinth in some other location that is quiet and peaceful would be a neat idea and I would hope a lowcost addition to an area.
Please keep the idea of a labyrinth in mind for some future site that is already quiet and peaceful.
Thank you,
Peggy Griffin
CC 3-17-2026
#12
SummerHill Homes - Linda
Vista Drive
Written Communications
From: Jack Farrell
To: City Clerk
Subject: Public Comment for March 17 City Council Meeting Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 5:26:56 AM
Attachments: Linda Vista Dr. Letter of Support 3_16_26.docx.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Good morning,
Please find attached letter of support for the Linda Vista Drive development, to be heard as Agenda Item 12 before the City Council.
Sincerely,
Jack Farrell he/him
Research Attorney
267-218-1147
Check out everything we achieved in 2024!
YIMBY Law
2261 Market Street STE 10416
San Francisco, CA 94114
[email protected]
March 16, 2026
City of Cupertino
City Council
10350 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA
Via email: [email protected]
Re: 10857, 10867, 10877 & 10887 Linda Vista Drive, Agenda Item 12 Dear City Council,
We are pleased to submit this letter of support of the proposed Summerhill Homes project at Linda Vista Drive. YIMBY Law is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation, whose mission is to increase the accessibility and affordability of housing in California. The Summerhill Homes project will consist of a development of 51 townhomes, including 10 affordable units, to replace four single family homes on a 2.51-acre site, located close to the intersection of Linda Vista Dr and Columbus Ave. In compliance with AB130 local building code requirements, the project will include various resiliency upgrades such as hardened exteriors and roof eaves, ember resistant vents, and Zone 0 Landscape Buffers.
We concur with the Planning Commission’s vote and the assessment of your staff that the project is exempt from CEQA and qualifies for final approval of all necessary entitlements.
The Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) and the City’s Housing Element Summerhill Homes submitted an SB 330 Preliminary Application on October 9, 2024, and a final application on December 13, 2024. Pursuant to Gov. Code § 65589.5, the YIMBY Law
2261 Market Street STE 10416
San Francisco, CA 94114
[email protected]
application is only subject to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when the Preliminary Application was submitted.
The proposed project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and zoning ordinance and other applicable objective standards. In addition, the City’s approved 2023–2031 Housing Element identifies the project as a Housing Inventory Site. By designating the site as a Housing Inventory Site, the City selected the site for residential use and determined that residential development of the site would assist the City in meeting its Regional Housing Needs Allocation.
The State Density Bonus Law
SummerHill proposes to provide 10 of the 51 town home-styles at below market rate prices. By designating at least 10 percent of the units for Moderate Income households, the project qualifies for benefits under the State Density Bonus Law. Under the State Density Bonus Law, a developer may propose unlimited waivers of development standards that would have the effect of physically precluding construction of a qualifying project at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by the Density Bonus Law. SummerHill is entitled to the waivers it has requested, all of which will provide relief from development standards that would physically preclude construction of the project at the density proposed.
Once a project qualifies for a density bonus, State law provides that the City may deny a requested waiver only if it would have a specific, adverse impact upon health or safety, would have an adverse impact on a historic resource, or would be contrary to State or Federal law. In this context, specific adverse impact “means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.”
1 There is no substantial evidence in the record that any of SummerHill’s requested waivers would meet the criteria for City denial. 1Gov. Code, §§ 65915, subd. (e)(1), 65589.5, subd. (d)(2).
YIMBY Law
2261 Market Street STE 10416
San Francisco, CA 94114
[email protected]
The Housing Accountability Act
The Housing Accountability Act, in Section 65589.5(j)(1)(A)-(B), limits a municipality’s ability to deny or condition on lower density a housing development project that complies with objective standards. The City may only disapprove the project or impose conditions on the project that would reduce density if necessary to avoid a “significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete” and there is no feasible method to mitigate or avoid those impacts other than disapproval or development at a lower density.
We have reviewed the project plans, the CEQA document and the various expert reports that have been prepared for the project, and there is not a preponderance of evidence in the record that would justify the City’s disapproval of the project or conditioning the project in a manner that would reduce density.
Summary
The Legislature has made numerous amendments to California Housing Law in an effort to provide increased clarity and certainty for both municipalities and housing providers.
Based on these laws, the project is subject only to the objective standards that were in effect on the date of the Preliminary Application; the project is entitled to the requested waivers under Density Bonus law; with those waivers the project is consistent with applicable objective standards; and the evidence in the record would not justify the City’s denial of the project or imposition of approval that would reduce density. Disapproval of the project or approval with conditions that would render the project infeasible at the density proposed would contravene State law.
It is YIMBY Action’s understanding that City staff has processed SummerHill’s development application with professionalism and recognition of the City’s obligations under State law. We appreciate the staff’s cooperation and encourage the City Council to continue to uphold the same standard.
YIMBY Law closely monitors projects to ensure that all relevant state laws are properly YIMBY Law
2261 Market Street STE 10416
San Francisco, CA 94114
[email protected]
applied, including the HAA. Should the City fail to follow these laws, YIMBY Law will not hesitate to file suit to ensure state housing policies are enforced. I am signing this letter both in my capacity as the Executive Director of YIMBY Law, and as a resident of California who is affected by the shortage of housing in our state. I look forward to seeing this project approved and brought to realization to help change the tides of the housing crisis in the Bay Area.
Sincerely,
Sonja Trauss
Executive Director
YIMBY Law
From: Kitty Moore
To: City Clerk
Subject: Written Communications for Item 12 FW: Substantive Finding: 90+ Minutes Evacuation Choke and "System Failure" at Evulich Ct. (CUP-029)
Date: Saturday, March 14, 2026 12:11:46 PM
Attachments: 00 - 20260313 - Letter to Mayor Moore .pdf 01 - Evacuation Traffic Model and Analysis.pdf
02 - Feedback to Cupertino Health and Safety Element - General Plan Community Vision 2015-2040 - v3.pdf 03 - Technical Rebuttal to Hexagon Transportation Analysis.pdf 04 - 260224 Plan Comm Evulich Development Emergency Evacuation.pdf Dear City Clerk,
Please include the following email and the attachments for written communications for Item
12. Thank you,
Kitty Moore
Kitty Moore
Mayor
City Council
[email protected]
(408) 777-1389
From: DerChang Kau <[email protected]>
Date: Friday, March 13, 2026 at 10:16 PM
To: Kitty Moore <[email protected]>
Cc: DerChang Kau <[email protected]>
Subject: Substantive Finding: 90+ Minutes Evacuation Choke and 'System Failure' at Evulich Ct. (CUP-029)
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
March 13, 2026
Dear Mayor Moore,
As a resident of Cupertino for over three decades and a retired engineer, I have followed your career with respect for your commitment to objective, substantive analysis. Given your background as a Professional Engineer (PE) and your experience in civil design, land development and transportation, I am writing to provide a high-resolution technical assessment of the Evulich Ct.
Project that I believe warrants your professional review.
In your recent State of the City address, you emphasized that "Quality is what the resident gets out". My analysis suggests that if this project proceeds at its currently proposed density, the "quality" residents will receive during a disaster is a mathematical trap. My evacuation modeling, which utilizes dynamic traffic principles, identifies a critical system failure that the developer’s static "peak hour" traffic analysis overlooks.
My modeling and analysis is not a theoretical concern nor the only warning sign. It turns out, the City of Cupertino knew this. Last October, the city received its own expert study from Fehr and Peers.
The study found evacuation demand on key corridors serving this neighborhood exceed 200% of roadway capacity. The City had it for nearly 5 months before the February 24, 2026 Planning Commission hearing where the project was approved.
I am providing the following Technical Assessment Factors to assist you in evaluating whether the current project proposal meets the objective safety standards required by the General Plan and State law.
Key Technical Discrepancies Requiring Reconciliation
1. Safety Baseline Shift (2025 CAL FIRE Update): The re-zoning of this parcel in July 2024 was based on 2007 fire maps. However, the March 2025 CAL FIRE update reclassified this area as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). Under Government Code §51179, the City has a mandate to adopt these updated findings, which fundamentally changes the safety baseline for high-density development in this corridor.
2. Modeling "Surge" vs. "Daily Peak": The developer’s transportation report models a "peak hour" of roughly 30 vehicles. In a wildfire evacuation, however, the demand is a simultaneous neighborhood-wide surge. My model shows that a surge of 250+ vehicles attempting to exit the Linda Vista "spine" within the 30-minute critical safety window (established by the 2025 Palisades Fire) results in a Utilization Ratio of 110%.
3. The Saturation Failure (V/C ≥ 1.0): Standard planning-level assessments often treat V/C ratios above 1.0 as mere congestion. In reality, when V/C exceeds 1.0, a "Standing Queue" forms and the system ceases to function. My modeling proves that the proposed density pushes the corridor into a state of mathematical failure, doubling the "Order to Safety" time from a survivable 30 minutes to a non-survivable 90+ minutes.
4. Operational Intersection Degradation: The current analysis assumes normal traffic signal operations. However, in a wildfire or earthquake, power outages often put signals into "redflash" or 4-way stop mode, which reduces flow capacity by 50%. This degradation has not been factored into the project’s evacuation clearance estimates.
5. Merging Shockwave Delay: Concentrating 51 units at a single entry point creates a "Concentrated Conflict Point". My analysis identifies a 28.5-minute "Shockwave Delay" caused by forced merging into an already saturated flow—a delay that impacts the entire existing neighborhood.
Objective Decision-Support Framework
To ensure the City upholds its fiduciary duty under GC 65302(g)(5) and CFC 4903, it may be prudent to evaluate the following:
Consistency Review: Is the 51-unit density consistent with the 2025 Health and Safety Element’s "Evacuation-Constrained" criteria?
Cumulative Impact Study: Has the City performed a Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA) that accounts for the cumulative load of all 155 units on the Linda Vista bottleneck during a surge event?
Mitigation Feasibility: I have submitted a conceptual 12-unit R1-aligned alternative that preserves the 30-minute evacuation window while still providing high-quality housing.
Mayor Moore, you have rightly identified residents as the City’s "customers". I trust that your engineering expertise will recognize that "paper compliance" with site standards does not equate to neighborhood evacuation safety.
Sincerely,
DerChang Kau Retired Engineer & University Professor 10847 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino Attachments including
1. Evacuation Traffic Model and Analysis.pdf
2. Feedback to Cupertino Health and Safety Element.pdf
3. Technical Rebuttal to Hexagon Transportation Analysis.pdf
4. 260224 Plan Comm Evulich Development Emergency Evacuation.pdf MONTA VISTA "SPINE” AND WILDFIRE ACCIDENT RISK OVERVIEW
EVACUATION TRAFFIC MODELING
EVACUATION PLAN ANALYSIS
SUPPORTING MATERIALS ON EVACUATION TRAFFIC MODEL
UTILIZATION RATIO – ρ = DEMAND / CAPACITY
TRAFFIC UTILIZATION RATIO MATTERS
QUEUING DELAY (DQ)
MERGING DELAY (DM)
About the author
DerChang Kau, a resident of Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino Technical Credential (if it matters)
Retired Intel Fellow, Technology and Manufacturing
Adjunct Professor, Graduate School of Advance Technology, National Taiwan University Impacts of 2025 CAL FIRE FHSZ Classifications on Project “Evulich Court” The Monta Vista neighborhood of Cupertino
In the Monta Vista neighborhood of Cupertino, residents between 10807 and 11197 Linda Vista Drive are located in a unique geography where the road essentially acts as a single spine. Because Linda Vista Drive is a winding road with several "dead-end" side streets and restricted access points, the evacuation strategy must account for the fact that the primary route is northward toward McClellan Road. — Primary Route: Follow Linda Vista Drive north. This will take you directly to McClellan Road. From McClellan, you can head east toward the more urban parts of Cupertino (away from the foothills). — Secondary/Alternative: Depending on where the fire is located, some residents near the 11000 block may attempt to exit via Canyon Vista Drive to connect back to Linda Vista or other neighborhood arteries, but eventually, almost all traffic must funnel toward McClellan Road or Stevens Creek Blvd.
2 Evulich Court
Evulich Court
Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) maps, the March 2025 CAL FIRE LRA update Wildfire Accident Risk Overview
Hyper-Local Risks for 10807–11197 Linda Vista
The "Choke Point": The lower part of Linda Vista Drive (closer to McClellan) can become congested. If you receive an Evacuation Warning, it is highly recommended to leave early, especially if you have trailers, pets, or large vehicles.
Vegetation Overhang: This stretch of road has significant tree canopy. In a high-wind fire event, "spotting" (embers jumping ahead of the fire) can ignite trees along the road, potentially blocking the only exit. Dead-End Cul-de-Sacs: If you live on a side street off this stretch (like Baxley Court or various private drives), you must be aware that you have zero "rear" exits.
Evacuation Density Risks
The density is a major point of concern for fire safety because:
Funneling: All 150+ households (plus residents on side streets like Rae Lane and Baxley Court ) must use Linda Vista Drive to reach McClellan Road.
The Park Choke Point: The entrance to Linda Vista Park is expected to be the sole entry/exit for the new Vista Heights development, adding concentrated traffic to the middle of your evacuation route. Vehicle Load: With an average of 2.9 to 3.1 people per household in Monta Vista, a full evacuation of just this street segment could involve 450+ people and 250+ vehicles attempting to exit simultaneously onto a winding two-lane road.
3 Evacuation Traffic Modeling
Boundary Conditions & Variables
Segment Geography: A single-access, winding, two-lane road acting as a "single-point-of-failure". Baseline (R1): 70 existing units (approx. 112 vehicles). Proposed (R3): 155 total units (approx. 248 vehicles). Critical Safety Window: 30 minutes, based on a 20-minute fire spread rate of 200 acres (Pacific Palisade Fire Data) Evacuation Analytical Model & Results
4 Baseline(R1 Status) Planned (R3 Status) Logic & Boundary Conditions Total Units (N) 70 Units 155 Units Includes Evulich & Vista Heights.
Vehicle Load (V) 112 Cars 248 Cars Constant: 1.6 vehicles/HH consolidation.
Capacity (μ) 600 Cars/Hr 450 Cars/Hr
Constant: Winding road capacity.
R3 assumes 4-way stop failure.
Utilization (ρ) 37% 110%
Formula: [Demand / Capacity].
ρ>1.0 = System Failure.
Queuing Delay (DQ) 2.5 mins 45.0+ mins
Formula: [(ρ / (1-ρ)) * intrinsic delay Time].
Exponential delay at saturation.
Merging Delay (DM) 4.0 mins 28.5 mins
Based on "Critical Gap Acceptance" for 51
units entering the spine.
Human Factor (DH) 20.0 mins 20.0 mins Constant: Time from alert to vehicle in gear.
TOTAL ORDER TO SAFETY 26.5 mins 93.5+ mins Sum of: [DQ+DM+DH].
Evacuation Plan Analysis
Current Neighborhood (Approx. 70 Homes)
— At an average of 1.6 vehicles per household (typical for emergency evacuations where families try to consolidate), there are roughly 120 vehicles that must exit this specific stretch. — Flow Rate: A single lane of a winding residential road under stress typically handles 600–800 vehicles per hour.
— Physical Exit Time: Technically, 120 cars could pass a single point in about 12–15 minutes. — The "Human Factor" Delay: In reality, total evacuation time includes "mobilization time" (packing, hitching trailers, getting pets). For 70 homes, the neighborhood would likely be clear in 30 minutes from the time the order is issued, assuming no road blockages. Expanded Neighborhood (Planned ~150+ Units)
— With the addition of the Evulich Court (51 units) and Vista Heights (35 units) projects, the vehicle count jumps to approximately 240–260 vehicles.
— The Bottleneck: The main issue isn't just the number of cars; it’s the intersection of Bubb Road and McClellan. If traffic lights are out, this intersection becomes a four-way stop, which can drop flow rates by 50%.
— Estimated Time: Under these conditions, the physical exit time doubles. Adding in the complexity of more neighbors merging from high-density driveways, the total time to clear the street would likely stretch to 90+ minutes.
5 SUPPORTING MATERIALS
6 Utilization Ratio – ρ = Demand / Capacity
Traffic is like running water in the pipe. The Utilization Ratio is the pressure in that system. When ρ exceeds 1.0, the "pipes" burst—meaning the line of cars stops moving, and the time to exit becomes theoretically infinite unless the demand is reduced.
Demand – λ
30-minute requirement is the safety leave window from the learning of Pacific Palisade Fire. R1 Case: λbaseline = 70 Units × 1.6 vehicles/household / 0.5 hours = 224 cars / hour R3 Case: λplanned = 155 Units × 1.6 vehicles/household / 0.5 hours = 496 cars / hour.
Capacity – Ideal flow rate, µideal = 700 cars/hour.
The intersection of Bubb Road and McClellan is the only exit in an "Emergency State”. — Power is out, the traffic signals are dead and the intersection functions as a 4-Way Stop. Higher density creates a "standing queue” and degrades 4-way stop intersection efficiency from ~85% to ~60% — R1 Case: µbaseline = 600 cars / hour
— R3 Case: µplanned = 450 cars / hour.
Metric Baseline (R1 status) Planned (R3 status) Analytical Meaning Demand – λ 224 cars/hr 496 cars/hr The "Pressure"
Capacity – µ 600 cars/hr 450 cars/hr The "Pipe Size"
Utilization Ratio – ρ 37% 110% Result
Why and How Traffic Utilization Ratio Matters
R1 scenario – the traffic Utilization ratio (ρbaseline) is 37% — The system is "Under-Saturated." Cars arrive much slower than the intersection can process them. — There is no queue; you drive straight to the stop sign and leave. R3 scenario – the traffic Utilization ratio (ρplanned) is 110% — The system is "Over-Saturated." Cars are arriving faster than the intersection can process them — When ρ > 1.0, a "Standing Queue" forms; the line of cars gets longer. è System Failure. 8 Linking to delays to safety
Queuing Delay: Because the R3 Utilization is 110%, the queue never clears. You are now waiting for the cars ahead of you to clear a "bottleneck" that is physically too small for the crowd. This is a mathematical proof that the road cannot physically clear the neighborhood in under 30 minutes.
Merging Delay:The 51-unit project creates a Concentrated Conflict Point that adds
28.5 minutes of 'Shockwave Delay' to the evacuation. This is not a subjective preference; it is a mathematical consequence of forcing high-density merging into a saturated, single-lane 'spine' during a surge event."
Queuing Delay (DQ)
Queue will be formed when transit time between cars in traffic flow is shorter than Queuing Delay Transit time (tT) is inverse of flow rate at the demand capacity (λ) Queuing delay (DQ) @ 50% utilization ratio (ρ) is defined as intrinsic delay Time (tintrinsic), 8 seconds is used for this analysis • Queuing delay is not linear, DQ = ρ / (1- ρ) x tintrinsic R1 scenario – the system is ”Quiet." There are plenty of gaps between cars. tT,baseline = 1 / λbaseline = 16 sec/car vs. DQ, baseline = 4.6 sec/ cars tT,baseline > Dq, baseline è the "backlog" never builds up ~2.5 minutes to account for the very tail end of the line (~30 cars) R3 scenario – the system is "Over-Saturated." Cars are arriving faster than the intersection can process them. "Standing Queue" forms. 248 cars want to leave in 30 mins. vs. µplanned@ 450 cars/hr flow rate, the intersection can only handle 225 cars in 30 mins 23 cars are physically unable to leave the street during the safe window.
Those 23 cars, plus the massive slow-down caused by the 225 cars ahead of them crawling at a 110% saturation rate, results in a queue that stretches nearly the entire length of the Linda Vista "spine." In "Over-Saturation” traffic simulation, the average wait time for the last car in line jumps to 45+ minutes just to reach the stop sign.
Baseline (112 cars , R1) Planned (248 cars, R3)
Utilization 37% 110%
Wait per Car ~5 Seconds Infinite/Growing
Wait Time Logic You wait for 5-10 cars. You wait for 247 cars to clear a 1-lane exit.
Resulting Delay 2.5 minutes 45+ mins
Merging Delay (DM)
Based on Gap Acceptance Theory in traffic engineering – the difficulty of a car find a ‘gap’ entering a moving stream of traffic.
Merging time (tm): A driver pulls up to their driveway, waits an average tm (3.5 seconds used) for one car to pass, and merges.
Critical Gap time (tg): if cars on the road are closer than tg, (6 seconds used) apart, you cannot merge Force Merging time (tf): A driver pulls up to their driveway, forced merge their way into main road due to bumper-to-bumper traffic.
This causes the car on the main road to slam on its brakes creating a shockwave. An average of tf (30 seconds used) for one driveway to successfully "force merge" into the saturated line, pass and merges.
R1 scenario – Because the utilization is low (37%), there are ample gaps between cars Across the 70 homes, the "stutter" caused by people pulling out is minimal. Not subject to tg impact The total "friction" added to the system is only about 4 minutes (3.5 seconds * 70 driveway) for the entire neighborhood to clear.
R3 scenario – the "spine" is saturated (Utilization 110%). This creates a "Wall of Cars." A massive concentration at R3 Evulich Court try to exit one single point onto Linda Vista which is already at 110% capacity.
There are zero natural gaps. The "forced merge" effect take place at Evulich Court.
The total forced merging delay time = tf x 51 units = 25.5 minutes Additional 3 minutes delay need to be added for the rest of cars from R1 homes è 28.5 minutes of merging delay is used Baseline (R1) Planned (R3) Analytical Assessment
Merging Type Distributed Concentrated 51 units create a massive "conflict point." Gap Probability High (80%) Low (<5%) High density eliminates natural gaps.
Avg. Wait per Merge 3.5 Seconds 30.0 Seconds "Forced merging" stops the main flow.
Total Merging Delay 4.0 Mins 28.5 Mins [Wait per Merge * No. of Units].
FEEDBACK TO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY ELEMENT
OF THE CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN: 2015 -
2040 COMMUNITY VISION
March 10, 2026
DerChang Kau
Retired Engineer, University Professor and Resident of Cupertino High-Risk Zones Demand Street-Level Evacuation-to-Safety Analysis Outdated census data and
planning-level methods
cannot manage modern wildfire risk
1 Preface
Cupertino’s current wildfire evacuation analysis relies heavily on planning-level assumptions, dated population data, and static traffic metrics that do not reflect real-world emergency conditions. Across all four sections below, a consistent theme emerges: the City’s Health & Safety Element is not aligned with the evacuation realities of a denser, more wildfire-exposed Cupertino in 2030–2040.
The documents show that:
● The analysis uses 2023–2025 data, ignoring the major density increases triggered by the July 2024 rezoning. As one section notes, it “primarily reflects existing households” rather than future conditions.
● The methodology remains planning-level, even though the City’s own consultant acknowledges that dynamic traffic assignment is required for constrained areas. ● Critical evacuation zones—especially CUP029, which generates 38% of all evacuation trips—are located within Fire Hazard Severity Zones, yet the City has not modeled evacuation at the street level.
● The use of V/C ratios dramatically understates evacuation risk. At V/C ≥ 1, “the system is oversaturated and no longer functioning,” yet the report treats V/C > 2 as merely “more than one hour.”
Taken together, these findings show that Cupertino’s current evacuation analysis cannot support longrange planning through 2040. The City must adopt dynamic, data-driven, future-oriented evacuation modeling to protect residents and meet the intent of the General Plan’s Health & Safety Element.
Section 1 — Dated Data Source
“Outdated Inputs: Why the Current Evacuation Analysis Cannot Support 2040 Planning” The following data sources were used to estimate vehicle evacuation demand for residents, employees, students, and visitors in “Evacuation Route Capacity Report” ● 2023 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year Estimates: Used for population, household data, and vehicle ownership distribution.
● Genasys Protect: Provides population, household estimates, and designated evacuation zones. ● StreetLight Data (2024): Used to evaluate and compare traffic volumes between school and non-school periods.
This analysis represents a snapshot of the city’s current evacuation capacity based on the most recent available census and municipal data from 2023–2025. It does not incorporate the increased residential densities anticipated under the July 2024 rezoning. As noted in the original text, “using 2023 ACS data and July 2025 Genasys data, it primarily reflects existing households.” For example, Evulich Ct. is evaluated using its existing 4-unit R1 zoning, rather than the 51-unit R3 density under the rezoning. Consequently, Figure HS-3 in Chapter 7 of the Health and Safety Element | General Plan (Community Vision 2015–2040) does not identify this area as required under Policy HS2.13, which highlights residential parcels with fewer than two ingress/egress routes. 2 Because the analysis relies on pre-rezoning conditions, the document does not adequately support longrange planning through the year 2040. The document is therefore inadequate to support a general plan to the year 2040.
Section 2 — Traffic Flow Methodology
“Planning-Level Methods Are Not Enough: Cupertino Needs Advanced Evacuation Modeling” The referenced sources describe the current “planning-level” assessment as a broad evaluation of transportation system capacity rather than a definitive evacuation plan. While this type of assessment is useful for identifying major bottlenecks and informing policy decisions, it also explicitly acknowledges that more detailed, higher-resolution studies—such as dynamic traffic assignment—are the appropriate next step for areas with significant constraints.
As Fehr & Peers note, community-scale wildfire evacuation assessment is an emerging field. However, general guidance does exist, including ISO 22315 and NIST’s ESCAPE framework. Given Cupertino’s substantial wildfire exposure and its position at the center of global science and technology innovation, the city is uniquely positioned to take a leadership role in advancing rigorous, data-driven evacuation assessment and mitigation planning. Several jurisdictions, including Marin County, have already begun such modeling efforts to identify evacuation bottlenecks and evaluate mitigation strategies‡.
Leadership in this area could include:
● Scenario-based wildfire evacuation simulations
● Traffic network evacuation time analysis
● Population departure behavior modeling
● Redundant evacuation route and shelter analysis
● Quantitative evacuation performance metrics (clearance time, route saturation, etc.) A forward-looking evacuation assessment framework would not only strengthen public safety for current residents but also provide a valuable foundation for evaluating the cumulative evacuation impacts of future development.
‡:https://www.marinwildfire.org/news/the-state-of-the-science-in-wildfire-evacuation-modeling-a-literature-review?utm_source=chatgpt.com Section 3 — Prioritize Local Level Evacuation Route with FHSZ Map “High-Risk Zones, High Stakes: Street-Level Modeling Required for FHSZ Evacuation” This analysis is based on the evacuation routes released by the City of Cupertino in August 2025. Every one of those designated routes lies outside the mapped Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ). Yet four zones—CUP-016, CUP-017, CUP-029, and CUP-032—are fully or partially within Moderate, High, or Very High FHSZ. Given this reality, it is no longer acceptable to rely on a “planning-level” review of the main evacuation route shown in Figure 2. The City must move beyond high-level assumptions and conduct street-level dynamic traffic assignment within these at-risk zones. Anything less leaves thousands of residents exposed.
3 The findings in CUP-029 alone make the case unmistakable. CUP-029 represents 38% of all evacuation trips in Scenarios A and C—the single largest share of evacuation demand. This is not a marginal zone; it is the primary choke point in a wildfire emergency. In Scenario A, McClellan Road—serving CUP-029 and CUP-032—reaches a V/C ratio of 4.2, while Foothill Boulevard—serving CUP-017—reaches 4.0. A V/C ratio of 1.0 already means a road is over capacity. These corridors are projected to operate at four times their hourly capacity during an evacuation. That is not a “constraint.” That is a system failure waiting to happen.
Fehr & Peers themselves state that for “more constrained and congested conditions, higher-effort studies may involve modeled analysis of evacuation scenarios using dynamic traffic assignment to simulate traffic flow and evacuation times when street and freeway networks are at capacity.” Cupertino’s conditions are exactly what this warning describes. The City cannot continue to treat this as optional.
To protect residents, Cupertino must adopt dynamic, data-driven tools immediately. This includes the use of real-time traffic management systems capable of providing dynamic route guidance and monitoring to divert evacuees away from collapsing corridors. Furthermore, phased evacuation strategies must be developed not only for the main arterials but also for the high-demand FHSZ zones themselves, where evacuation surges originate. Without this, the extreme congestion projected on McClellan Road and Foothill Boulevard will materialize as modeled or worse, as real-world behavior is never as orderly as a static model assumes.
Cupertino has the data, the expertise, and the responsibility. The City must elevate this work beyond planning-level analysis and commit to the advanced modeling that wildfire-exposed communities across California are already pursuing. Residents deserve evacuation planning that matches the severity of the risk—not a framework that collapses the moment it is needed most.
Section 4 — Improvement to Evacuation-to-Safety Metric
“Beyond V/C Ratios: A Total Evacuation-to-Safety Framework Is Essential” The current assessment fails to correct roadway capacity for emergency conditions. The Volume-toCapacity (V/C) ratio used throughout the report is an over2023simplified metric, and the accompanying text is misleading. For example, on page 24 the report states:
“V/C ratios greater than 2… indicate that these roads would require more than one hour to accommodate the evacuation demand from the evacuation area.”
This framing dramatically understates the severity of the problem. A V/C ratio above 1.0 does not simply mean “more than one hour.” It means the system is over-saturated and no longer functioning. Cars are arriving faster than the roadway can process them. A standing queue forms. The system fails.
1. Capacity Must Reflect Realistic “Adjusted Evacuation Route Capacity” The “Adjusted Evacuation Route Capacity” used in this study relies on planning-level hourly capacities from the Highway Capacity Manual (2000). These values do not represent real-world evacuation conditions and fail to incorporate:
● Spatial Adjustments: Increased residential density from the Housing Element requires downward adjustments to reflect degraded capacity on constrained terrain and limited visibility. 4 ● Temporal Adjustments: School pickup periods and short-term curbside parking can severely reduce effective capacity during critical hours.
● Operational Limitations: The analysis assumes normal signal operations and does not account for “red-flash mode” during power outages—an extremely likely condition during wildfire events.
2. Demand Must Reflect Realistic Future Conditions
The study is a snapshot of Cupertino’s evacuation capacity based on 2023–2025 data. It does not account for the substantial density increases triggered by the July 2024 rezoning.
Planning for wildfire evacuation using backward-looking data is planning through a rearview mirror. It guarantees underestimation of future evacuation demand.
3. Moving Beyond V/C: “Total Evacuation to Safety” Must Be the Standard Fehr & Peers acknowledge that V/C ratios only identify bottlenecks; they do not measure total evacuation time. In traffic engineering and management science¶, V/C is a well-established tool for quantifying queuing and merging delays. When V/C ≥ 1, the system is not merely “congested”—it is over-saturated, and two critical delays dominate:
¶: Stanford University,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Department of Management Science and Engineering
● Queuing Delay: As V/C approaches 1, delay increases non-linearly.
𝐷𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑦 = 𝑉/𝐶
1 − 𝑉/𝐶
× 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑙 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒
When V/C ≥ 1, queues grow indefinitely. The roadway cannot clear vehicles. ● Merging Delay: When traffic density eliminates safe gaps, merging becomes impossible without forced maneuvers that further destabilize flow.
Consider CUP-029 at 8PM during a late-summer, wind-driven wildfire approaching from the south. A quickly encroaching fire from the foothills would paint the sky red. The tree canopy along Linda Vista becomes a “fuel tunnel.” Residents have only one exit: northbound toward McClellan Road. Roughly 80 vehicles from 51 homes on Evulich Court must merge into an already over-saturated Linda Vista Drive.
This is not a theoretical model—it is a life-and-death situation at the choke point.
Wildfires such as the Pacific Palisades Fire have spread at rates of 200 acres in 20 minutes. Under these conditions, seconds matter. Residents need to be aware not just of potential evacuation bottlenecks, but how much time is required to reach safety. This requires the city to both plan and communicate a comprehensive and up-to-date evacuation plan that considers realistic models of queuing, merging, human behavior, and departure delays.
Human factors—delays in loading children, pets, and essential belongings—further slow departures.
Without quantifying these delays, the City cannot provide residents with the knowledge they need to prepare for an evacuation that may unfold in minutes, not hours. 5 Fehr & Peers states that the V/C metric is only a baseline tool. They identify dynamic traffic assignment (DTA) and phased departure timing as the necessary next steps for an objective, safety-driven evacuation assessment.
In conclusion, Cupertino cannot rely on planning-level V/C ratios to evaluate wildfire evacuation safety.
The City must adopt a Total Evacuation to Safety framework grounded in dynamic modeling, realistic capacity adjustments, and future population density. Anything less leaves residents with a false sense of security and exposes the community to unacceptable risk.
Closing Summary
“Why Cupertino Must Elevate Its Evacuation Planning Now” Cupertino’s current wildfire evacuation analysis provides a useful starting point, but it is fundamentally constrained by outdated data, planning-level methodologies, and metrics that do not reflect realworld emergency behavior. Across all four sections, the evidence is clear: the City’s Health & Safety Element does not yet meet the level of rigor required to protect residents in a rapidly densifying, wildfire-exposed community.
The analysis relies on 2023–2025 population and traffic data, even though the July 2024 rezoning dramatically increases residential density. As the document itself notes, it “primarily reflects existing households,” leaving future evacuation demand unaccounted for. This gap alone makes the current assessment insufficient for long-range planning through 2040.
Methodologically, the City continues to rely on broad, planning-level evaluations despite its consultant’s own acknowledgment that dynamic traffic assignment and scenario-based evacuation modeling are necessary for constrained areas. Peer jurisdictions across California have already adopted these advanced tools; Cupertino should not lag behind.
The risk is most acute in the Fire Hazard Severity Zones, from which evacuation surges originate. Zones such as CUP029 and CUP032 generate the largest share of evacuation demand, yet are absent from the City’s street-level evacuation models behavior. Projected V/C ratios of 4.0–4.2 on McClellan Road and Foothill Boulevard indicate not congestion, but system failure under evacuation conditions.
Finally, the continued reliance on V/C ratios obscures the true danger. At V/C ≥ 1, “the system is oversaturated and no longer functioning,” however the City’s report frames V/C > 2 as merely “more than one hour.” Residents need to understand time to safety, not just where bottlenecks occur. That requires modeling queuing, merging, human behavior, and departure delays—none of which are captured in the current framework.
In summary, Cupertino has the data, the expertise, and the responsibility to adopt a modern, dynamic, and future-oriented evacuation planning framework. The City needs urgently to meet the intent of the General Plan and to safeguard residents through 2040 and beyond. Cupertino must move beyond planning-level assumptions and commit to advanced, data-driven evacuation modeling that reflects the realities of wildfire risk and future population growth.
OUTDATED INPUTS
PLANNING-LEVEL METHODS ARE NOT ENOUGH
HIGH-RISK ZONES REQUIRE STREET-LEVEL MODELING
BEYOND V/C RATIOS: A TOTAL EVACUATION-TO-SAFETY FRAMEWORK March 9, 2026
DerChang Kau
Resident of the City of Cupertino
Feedback to Update to the Health and Safety Element of the Cupertino General Plan:
2015 - 2040 Community Vision
1 Outdated Inputs
The City’s evacuation analysis is built on pre-rezoning data and cannot support long-range planning.
Uses 2023 ACS, 2025 Genasys, and 2024 StreetLight data — “Primarily reflects existing households” — not future density Fails to identify parcels with single ingress/egress as required by California Government Code Section 65302(g)(5)¶
— Evulich Ct. modeled as 4 units, not 51 units allowed under rezoning
A 2040 General Plan cannot rely on 2023 conditions
The analysis is outdated the moment it is published.
2 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV§ionNum=65302.&article=5.&hig hlight=true&keyword=Fire%20Hazard%20Severity%20Zone#:~:text=(5)%20Upon%20the%20next%20revision,revision %20of%20the%20safety%20element. ¶
2 Planning-Level Methods Are Not Enough
Cupertino must move beyond broad, planning-level assessments to dynamic, high-resolution evacuation modeling.
Current method is a “broad evaluation,” not a plan
— Fehr & Peers: constrained areas require dynamic traffic assignment (DTA) DTA has been adopted widely
— National guidance exists: ISO 22315, NIST ESCAPE
— Peer jurisdictions (e.g., Marin County) already use advanced modeling Needed tools:
— Scenario-based simulations, Evacuation time analysis, Departure-behavior modeling, Redundant route & shelter analysis, Quantitative performance metrics
Cupertino should be a leader—not a laggard—in evacuation planning. 3 3
High-Risk Zones Require Street-Level Modeling
Four evacuation zones lie within Fire Hazard Severity Zones, yet the City has not modeled their street-level evacuation behavior. All designated evacuation routes lie outside FHSZ
But CUP016, CUP017, CUP029, CUP032 lie inside Moderate–Very High FHSZ — CUP029 alone = 38% of all evacuation trips
— McClellan Road V/C = 4.2; Foothill Blvd V/C = 4.0
— These are not “constraints”—they are system failures
City must adopt:
— Street-level DTA, Real-time traffic management, Phased evacuation strategies for FHSZ zone
Thousands of residents remain exposed until
Cupertino models evacuation where the risk actually exists. 4 4
Beyond V/C Ratios: A Total Evacuation-to-Safety Framework V/C ratios hide the true danger.
Cupertino needs a Total Evacuation-to-Safety model.
V/C > 1 means oversaturation — “the system fails”
Current study uses planning-level capacities from year 2000 Missing adjustments:
— Spatial (density, terrain, visibility), Temporal (school pickup, curbside parking), Operational (signal outages, red-flash mode)
Real evacuation requires modeling:
— Queuing delays, Merging delays, Human behavior, Departure lag Residents need to know time to safety, not just where bottlenecks occur. 5 5
Evulich Ct. : Evacuation to Safety Modeling
6 The visual animation is courtesy of David Yan, yet another resident of Cupertino Based on
2023 American Community
Survey (Used for population,
household data, and vehicle
ownership distribution). è
Does not include 2024 re-zoning
Include 2024 re-zoning of
Evulich Ct., a.k.a.
10857~10887 Linda Vista Dr
to R3 (51 units in red box)
6 ©2026, DerChang Kau. All rights reserved. 7
5’ after Red Flag Warning issued 15’ after Red Flag Warning issued 7 ©2026, DerChang Kau. All rights reserved. 8
30’ after Red Flag Warning issued 45’ after Red Flag Warning issued 8 ©2026, DerChang Kau. All rights reserved. 9
60’ after Red Flag Warning issued
Pre-2024 re-zoning
Entire Linda Vista spine safely
evacuated in 30 minutes or less
Post-2024 re-zoning
More than 1 ½ hours required
for Evacuation to Safety
9 Summary: Cupertino Must Elevate Its Evacuation Planning The current evacuation analysis is not sufficient for
a wildfire-exposed, rapidly densifying Cupertino.
The City must adopt modern, data-driven methods to meet 2040 safety needs. Dated data source
Over simplified methods despite known constraints and consultant guidance High-risk zones (CUP016, 17, 29, 32) require street-level modeling V/C ratios mask true danger — oversaturation means system failure, not delay Residents need time-to-safety modeling, not bottleneck identification Peer jurisdictions already use dynamic traffic assignment & scenario-based tools To protect residents and meet the intent of the Health & Safety Element, Cupertino must move beyond planning-level assumptions and commit to advanced, future-oriented evacuation modeling now. 10 Subject: Re: Feb/24/2026 Planning Commission Public Hearing – Technical Rebuttal to “Transportation Analysis for the Proposed Townhomes at 10857 Linda Vista Drive in Cupertino, CA” by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. https://cupertino.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=8a56f691-e5d1-472e-9ba9-753651a0bd2e.pdf To: Cupertino City Planning Commissioners
CC: Planning Staff, City of Cupertino
From: DerChang Kau, 10847 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino
Dear Chair and Honorable Commissioners,
The "Safety Assessment" on page 22 of the Hexagon report concludes that the project "would not worsen existing geometric hazards". We contend that this finding is based on incomplete data and fails to address the unique life-safety risks of the Linda Vista "Spine."
1. Failure to Model Emergency Surge Conditions
• The Error: Hexagon’s analysis is based on "Peak Hour" trips, estimating only 30 vehicles will exit the site during the busiest hour of a normal day. • The Reality: In a wildfire evacuation, the demand is a simultaneous surge. Our integrated model shows that 248 vehicles must exit the spine in a 30-minute window. • The Impact: Hexagon ignores the Utilization Ratio of 110%, where demand exceeds road capacity, causing total system failure.
2. Ignoring Intersection Degradation (McClellan Choke Point) • The Error: The report assumes the Linda Vista/McClellan intersection functions at a standard "Level of Service".
• The Reality: Disaster events (fire/earthquake) often lead to power outages, turning the signal into a 4-way stop.
• The Impact: This condition drops flow rates by 50%, doubling the physical exit time and trapping residents in the "tunnel of fire".
3. Omission of Merging Conflict and Shockwave Delay
• The Error: Hexagon evaluates the new cul-de-sac for basic garbage truck turning templates but ignores "merging friction".
• The Reality: Concentrating 51 units into one entry point on a saturated single-lane road creates "forced merging".
• The Impact: As shown in our analytical model, this creates a 28-minute "Shockwave Delay" that stalls the entire evacuation route for all 155 households.
Conclusion: A Quantifiable Safety Violation
The Hexagon report addresses "Daily Operations" but fails to provide a "Project-Specific Evacuation Plan". Because the project pushes the total "Order to Safety" time from less than 30 minutes (current R1) to more than 90 minutes (planned R3), it creates a "specific, adverse impact upon public safety" that cannot be mitigated by standard street design.
The General Plan Public Safety Element requires the City to reduce wildfire risk and ensure adequate emergency access and evacuation capability for existing and future residents. The Mobility Element likewise requires that the circulation system function safely and reliably, not only under daily peak conditions but for emergency response. The Hexagon report evaluates routine traffic operations; it does not evaluate emergency surge evacuation performance on the single-access Linda Vista spine.
Because the Hexagon report only focuses on "daily traffic", I strongly recommend city planning department urge SummerHill Homes consulting with reputable agencies in wildfire evacuation analysis and protection planning, such as Reax Engineering for evacuation modeling and Dudek for CEQA fire protection planning to produce flawless and adequate wildfire evacuation risk analysis and mitigation plan.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
DerChang Kau
10847 Linda Vista Dr
Cupertino, CA 95014
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (408)-446-5150 (Residence)
(408)-398-6086 (Mobile)
EMERGENCY EVACUATION SUBJECT TO EVULICH CT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
SIGNIFICANT SAFETY FINDING
QUANTIFIED RESULTS WITH LIFE-AND-DEATH CONSEQUENCES
THE ASKS
DerChang Kau
10847 Linda Vista Drive
Cupertino
Cupertino Planning Commission Hearing
10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino
Feb/24/2026
Significant Safety Finding re the Proposed Evulich Ct Project 2025 CAL FIRE LRA update fundamentally changed the
safety baseline for this parcel.
— Re-zoning of this site to R3/TH in July 2024 was
based on the 2007 (FHSZ) maps.
Total evacuation during a wind-drive wildfire accident will more than double the Critical Safety Window
— Critical Safety Window: 30 minutes, based on a 20-
minute fire spread rate of 200 acres (Pacific Palisade
Fire Data)
— Total evacuation time more than double
from less than 30 minutes with current status
to 60~90 minutes or more with R3/TH at Evulich Ct
2 Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) maps,
the March 2025 CAL FIRE LRA update
Evulich Ct
Mathematically Rigorous, Objective Results with Life-and-Death Consequences 3 Traffic Utilization Ratio Matters
— Baseline @ 37%: The system is "Under-Saturated." No
queue; you drive straight to the stop sign and leave.
— Planned @ 110% : The system is "Over-Saturated." a
"Standing Queue" forms; the line of cars gets longer.
Delays to Safety
— Queuing Delay: Because the R3 Utilization is 110%, the queue never clears. You are now waiting for the cars
ahead of you to clear a "bottleneck" that is physically too small for the crowd. This is a mathematical proof that the road cannot physically clear the neighborhood in under 30 minutes.
— Merging Delay: The 51-unit project creates a Concentrated Conflict Point that adds 28.5 minutes of 'Shockwave Delay' to the evacuation. This is not a subjective preference; it is a mathematical consequence of forcing high-density
merging into a saturated, single-lane 'spine' during a surge event."
All conclusions derived from transparent assumptions, validated models, and reproducible calculations.
Baseline Planned Logic & Boundary
Conditions
Total Units (N) 70 Units 155 Units Includes Evulich &
Vista Heights.
Vehicle Load (V) 112 Cars 248 Cars 1.6 vehicles/HH
Capacity (μ) 600 Cars/Hr 450 Cars/Hr Road capacity.
Utilization (ρ) 37% 110% Demand / Capacity.
Queuing Delay
(DQ) 2.5 mins 45.0+ mins Exponential delay at saturation.
Merging Delay
(DM) 4.0 mins 28.5 mins "Critical Gap Acceptance” model Human Factor
(DH) 20.0 mins 20.0 mins Time from alert to vehicle in gear.
Total Evacuation 26.5 mins 93.5+ mins Sum of: [DQ+DM+DH].
Critical Safety Window: 30 minutes, based on a 20-minute fire spread rate of 200 acres (Pacific Palisade Fire Data) The Asks
Consistency Review: A formal analysis by the Fire Marshal to determine if 51 units is consistent with the 2025 Health and Safety Element Update and its "Evacuation-Constrained" criteria. Supplemental CEQA Review: A re-evaluation of the project’s impacts on emergency evacuation plans, given the change in the
environmental hazard baseline as of March 2025.
Consideration of Mitigation: We propose that a lower-density, R1- aligned project of 12 single-family homes serves as the only feasible mitigation to preserve the "Vista" in Linda Vista while maintaining a safe, 30-minute evacuation window.
4 From: David Yan
To: City Council; City Clerk
Subject: Evulich Court: The Case for a Closer Look
Date: Friday, March 13, 2026 4:48:52 PM
Attachments: LindaVista_CouncilBrief_v03.17.2026(F).pptx LindaVista_CouncilBrief_v03.17.2026(F).pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
For inclusion in the written communications for the March 17, 2026 City Council meeting and made part of the administrative record for this item Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Chao, and Councilmembers:
Please see attached presentation regarding the Evulich Court project. I have included both PowerPoint and PDF formats.
City Clerk - I will be presenting these slides at the meeting. Could you please confirm receipt and arrange for them to be displayed during my presentation? Regards,
David Yan
MARCH 2026
7 Reasons Evulich Court
Cannot be Approved
A summary for City Council. The case for a closer look.
EVULICH COURT 1 / 9
The Legal Standard and What It Requires
The Council may deny this project if there is substantial evidence that the development will pose a health and safety hazard.
THE LEGAL THRESHOLD
Substantial evidence that the development will
pose a health and safety hazard.
Government Code Section § 66474(f) and the Subdivision Map Act public safety finding require the City to affirmatively support its conclusion that no serious public health risk exists.
Seven independent grounds demonstrate that standard was not met.
Any one of them is sufficient. Together they present a record the City cannot cure by producing documents after the fact.
SEVEN INDEPENDENT GROUNDS
1. The road cannot safely evacuate this neighborhood
2. The City's own study found both exits at over 200% capacity
3. SB 330 vesting does not freeze the health and safety obligation
4. Setback waiver removes required defensible space with no equivalency
5. Fire safety was built around large 51 townhomes, not fire safety
6. Mitigation measures fail AB 130’s required protective effect
7. The project's specific wildfire risk analysis did not exist at approval
EVULICH COURT
What the Council Must Decide
The CEQA exemption applies only if the record demonstrates all three of the following. If any one is not demonstrated, the exemption does not apply and the project cannot proceed on this record.
01 Evacuation Safety
The record must show the corridor can safely evacuate residents within the time window established by current wildfire data. No city analysis of this corridor exists in the record.
02 Wildfire Safety
The record must show the project adopted fire mitigation measures pursuant to PRC Sections 4290, 4291, and Chapter 7A. The Fire Department's own review confirms nonconforming setbacks and deferred the project specific wildfire plan to a future stage. 03 Compliance With Existing Standards
Setback waiver removes 20 ft of required defensible space with no equivalency analysis in the record.
The AMMR approval does not satisfy AB 130's fire condition. No state agency including CAL FIRE or HCD has made that determination. The only entity claiming it does is the applicant's own consultant.
EVULICH COURT 2 / 9
Independent Engineering Analysis: 93 Minutes to Evacuate A resident engineer applied standard traffic queuing methodology to the approved density. The safe window from the 2025 Palisades Fire is 30 minutes.
The City produced no contradicting analysis.
93 min
Total evacuation time
With added corridor density
30 min
Safe window
2025 Palisades Fire benchmark
110%
Road utilization
Failure threshold is 100%
0 City corridor evacuation
analyses in the record
Across the entire proceeding
About the analyst: DerChang Kau is a retired Intel Fellow and Adjunct Professor of Engineering. His methodology applies standard traffic engineering queuing theory and gap acceptance theory to the approved project density using published emergency evacuation parameters. A preliminary evacuation throughput estimate based on conservative flow assumptions is shown below. It is not presented as a substitute for Fire review. It illustrates why a corridor level evacuation analysis should have existed in the record before approval.
The City made an affirmative public health finding under the Subdivision Map Act without any corridor evacuation analysis with no data to support it. An affirmative finding requires affirmative evidence. The record contains neither.
EVULICH COURT 3 / 9
A Present Tense Health and Safety Finding Cannot Ignore Current Data
In October 2025, a City obtained a Fehr & Peers evacuation study found both exits to Linda Vista operate at over 200% of capacity under evacuation conditions. The study was not placed in the administrative record before the February 24, 2026 PC meeting.
It was produced for the first time on March 9, 2026.
Over 200%
McClellan Road capacity under
evacuation conditions
City commissioned Fehr and Peers study, Oct. 2025
Over 200%
Bubb Road capacity under
evacuation conditions
City commissioned Fehr and Peers study, Oct. 2025
What over 200% means: at 100% utilization, a standing queue forms and does not resolve. Both exits were already failing before this project adds any units. This is not a future risk. It is a current condition documented by the City's own consultant.
Why the City cannot look away from this study
The Subdivision Map Act requires a present tense finding that the subdivision will not cause serious public health problems. That obligation runs at the time of approval, not the time of application. The study existed. The City had it. A present tense health and safety determination in a Very High Fire Hazard zone on a single access corridor cannot responsibly proceed without accounting for the City's own current technical findings about the capacity of that corridor.
EVULICH COURT 4 / 9
SB 330 Vesting Does Not Freeze the Health and Safety Obligation The Applicant (and city) argues SB 330 locks in pre 2025 conditions. That argument fails on two independent grounds and actually cuts against the Applicant on AB 130.
GROUND ONE
SB 330 vests against changes in local ordinances and
policies. It does not vest against physical reality.
The October 2025 Fehr and Peers study did not create a new standard. It documented existing physical conditions on a road that has always had one entrance and one exit. The Subdivision Map Act public safety finding requires a present tense determination. SB 330 protects against regulatory moving goalposts. It does not convert a present tense health and safety obligation into a historical one.
SB 330 Section 65589.5 / Gov. Code Section 66474(f)
GROUND TWO: THE DOUBLE DIP PROBLEM
The developer cannot selectively freeze time.
The Applicant’s position freezes time in only one direction.
The project invokes SB 330 vesting to argue the March 2025 Very High Fire Hazard reclassification does not apply because the application predates it.
Yet the same project invokes AB 130, enacted June 30 2025, to obtain a CEQA exemption that did not exist when the application vested.
AB 130 is a CEQA exemption, not a fire safety certification. Meaning the City must still make a separate Subdivision Map Act safety finding.
Vesting cannot operate selectively. If SB 330 controls the applicable regulatory framework, it applies to both burdens and benefits.
The Council must still make a present tense public safety finding under the Subdivision Map Act based on the conditions that exist today.
EVULICH COURT 5 / 9
The 20 Foot Setback Waiver Removes Required Defensible Space with No Equivalency
AB 130 requires fire mitigation measures that achieve the same practical effect required by CCR Title 14 § 1276.01(b). The Fire Department waived the 30-foot setback, removing 20 feet of defensible space in a Very High Fire Hazard Zone. The approved compensatory measures do not replace the lost spatial separation, and no equivalency analysis appears in the record.
WHAT THE LAW REQUIRES
AB 130 requires fire mitigation measures adopted pursuant to existing building standards, including the 30 foot building separation setback under CCR Title 14 Section 1276.01(a).
Pursuant to means in conformity with. Not in authorized substitution for.
Gov. Code Sec. 65913.4(a)(6)(D) and PRC Sec. 21080.66
Result: Setback reduced from 30 to 10 feet. Twenty feet of defensible space removed from a reclassified Very High Fire Hazard zone. No state agency including CAL FIRE or HCD has determined that an AMMR approval satisfies AB 130's fire condition. The only entity making that interpretive leap is the applicant's own consultant.
WHAT THE RECORD SHOWS
Statutory Requirement
PRC Section 21080.66 requires compliance with PRC 4290, PRC 4291, and Chapter 7A.
Fire Department Record
"PRC 4290: Exception request approved. Nonconforming setbacks to be mitigated through increased fire separation distance and modified sprinkler systems." "Provide Final Fire Protection Plan at building permit stage identifying wildfire mitigation measures."
The Issue
Nonconforming setbacks. Mitigation instead of the standard. Wildfire plan deferred. AB 130 requires compliance, not an exception to it.
EVULICH COURT 6 / 9
The Fire Safety Case Was Built Around Large 2700 sq homes, Not the Other Way Around
The developer's own filings confirm the project was designed to a unit count and size first. Fire mitigation was retrofitted around the resulting layout. AB 130's fire condition exists to prevent exactly this sequence. 01 2700 sq foot homes (51 units) drove the design. Fire safety came second.
The applicant's AMMR justification narrative states the setback reduction was required by the need to fit 51 units on the site. Fire mitigation was not a design driver. It was a post hoc signoff on a 2700 sq foot layout. AB 130's fire condition exists to ensure high hazard zone projects are genuinely designed around wildfire risk, not to provide a compliance stamp after unit counts are locked in. 02 The cited mitigation measures were already required by law regardless of AB 130.
Chapter 7A, fire sprinklers, and fire resistant exterior materials apply to every project in a Very High Fire Hazard zone by operation of law. AB 130 requires measures adopted in response to the fire hazard condition. Passive compliance with universal baseline requirements does not satisfy an adopted standard.
The record contains no analysis of what specific protection the waived 30 foot setback provided and what measures beyond the baseline were adopted to replace it.
03 PRC Section 4291, defensible space, was never analyzed by anyone.
PRC 4291 requires a defensible space clearance analysis. It does not appear in the Fire Department plan review, the AMMR application, or the AB 130 qualification memo. The landscape zone drawings (Sheets L7.1 and L7.2) address vegetation placement only. None of them analyze whether the waived setback satisfies the defensible space obligation PRC 4291 imposes. This is not a documentation gap. It is a substantive gap that cannot be cured after the fact.
AB 130's fire condition is not a checklist of minimum code requirements. It is a substantive standard requiring demonstrated equivalency to specific state fire protections. The record does not contain that demonstration.
EVULICH COURT 7 / 9
The CEQA Exemption Requires Fire Mitigation That Achieves Equivalent Protection. The Record Does Not Show It
PRC Section 21080.66(a)(6) requires measures PRC 4291, 4290, and Chapter 7A that achieve the same practical effect as the 30-foot setback for the CEQA exemption to apply. None of the 4 accepted measures demonstrate this on the record.
Measure Accepted by Fire Addresses PRC 4291
Defensible Space?
Addresses PRC 4290
Setback Equivalency?
Independently in
Administrative Record?
Sprinkler heads on covered patios within 30 feet of
property lines No. Interior suppression only. No. Does not replace spatial separation. No.
Noncombustible landscaping extending 5 feet from
buildings
No. Vegetation placement only.
Does not address defensible space
or replace 20 feet of separation
No equivalency analysis in record. No.
Fire separation requirements per CRC 302.4 No. Structural standard only. Partial. Not analyzed against setback gap. No.
Exterior wall fire resistance ratings within 30 feet of property lines
No. Governs wall materials, not
siting.
No. Does not address spatial
separation. No.
Chapter 7A addresses how individual structures resist ignition from embers and radiant heat. It does not address where structures are sited relative to the wildfire hazard zone boundary. A project can achieve full Chapter 7A compliance and remain inadequately sited in a Very High Fire Hazard zone.
EVULICH COURT 8 / 9
The Project Specific Wildfire Risk Analysis Did Not Exist at Approval
The Fire Department conditioned its approval on a wildfire plan to be submitted later. That plan does not exist. The CEQA exemption cannot rest on evidence that has not yet been produced.
What Condition 2 says:
The Fire Department's own plan review requires the applicant to submit a Final Fire Protection Plan at building permit stage, identifying mitigation measures to address the project's specific wildfire risk pursuant to CFC Section 4903.
What that means: the Fire Department itself acknowledged that project specific wildfire risk mitigation had not been determined at the time of approval.
Why this cannot be cured:
The City may argue this condition shows wildfire risk will be addressed later at the permit stage. That argument fails for a specific reason: the document David J.
Powers cites as proof the fire condition is satisfied - the January 2026 Santa Clara County Fire Department plan review itself, requires the applicant to submit a Final Fire Protection Plan at the building permit stage. The exemption is supported by a document that defers its own conclusion. That is not substantial evidence.
It is a placeholder citing a placeholder.
ADDITIONALLY: DOCUMENTATION IN THE RECORD
The AMMR form analytical fields each state See attached documentation. None of those attachments appear in the administrative record. The January 2026 Fire Department Plan Review Comments were not in the record before or during the hearing. Commissioner Scharf noted this on the record. The document carries a disclaimer stating it shall not be construed as an approval.
From: Alice Lin
To: City Council; Kitty Moore
Cc: Public Comments
Subject: City Council 3/17 Agenda #12 Linda Vista Drive Safety Date: Saturday, March 14, 2026 11:03:36 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
TO:Cupertino City Mayor and Council
FROM: Residents of Cupertino
Date: March 14, 2026
Sub:City Council 3/17 Agenda #12 Linda Vista Drive, Vote No Dear Mayor Moore and Members of the Cupertino City Council, I am writing to formally express grave concerns regarding the proposed 51-unit townhome project at 10857 Linda Vista Drive (TM-2024-009). The Staff Report’s conclusion that "no evacuation study has been required or reviewed"because the City lacks "adopted objective standards" is an unacceptable prioritization of administrative loophole over resident safety.
The Council must address the following critical flaws in the current approval process:
1. Failure to Address the "Very High FHSZ" Baseline In June 2025, the City adopted updated CAL FIRE maps designating this specific parcel as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ). This updated baseline fundamentally changes the safety obligations under Government Code Section 65913.4(a)(6). The City’s reliance on an Environmental Assessment from July 2024—conducted when the site was only "High" risk—is outdated and fails to account for the increased severity of the hazard now officially recognized.
2. Building Codes are Not Evacuation Plans The project claims safety consistency based on Chapter 7A of the California Building Code and PRC Sections 4290 and 4291. However, these standards focus on structure survivability, not the ability of 51 new households to exit onto Linda Vista Drive during an emergency. While the Fire Department approved a "hammerhead turnaround" for fire trucks to enter, there has been zero analysis of how 100+ additional resident vehicles will safely evacuate the neighborhood simultaneously.
3. Improper Deferral of the Fire Protection Plan (CFC 4903) The Santa Clara County Fire Department has conditioned the project to provide a "Final Fire Protection Plan" consistent with CFC 4903. Shockingly, the City is allowing this critical safety analysis to be submitted at the building permit stage, long after the City Council has lost its discretionary power to reduce density or require significant site plan changes. Safety mitigations must be identified before approval to ensure they are actually feasible.
4. Circumventing the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) Under the HAA, the City can only disapprove or reduce the density of this project if it finds a "specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety". By claiming it has "no objective standards" for evacuation, the City is intentionally avoiding the very analysis that would likely provide the "preponderance of evidence" needed to make such a safety finding.
Conclusion Public safety is not a "non-objective" concern. State law, including GC 65302(g)(5), requires that the City ensure adequate evacuation routes in FHSZs. We urge the Council to mandate a formal Wildfire Evacuation Capacity Study as a condition of approval. The City cannot grant PRC 4290 exceptions for reduced setbacks while simultaneously refusing to study the resulting evacuation risks.
Respectfully,
Alice Lin
From: Nancy Wu
To: City Council; Public Comments
Subject: Evulich Court
Date: Saturday, March 14, 2026 1:43:47 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi City Council of Cupertino,
Regarding the Evulich project, please carefully consider the following two points.
1. Fire Safety of the Residents is a City Responsibility. Because lawyers are using various loop-holes to make unsafe developments, does not abdicate the city from it.
2. And the residents will actively support the city and the city council when it comes to defending the city against any legal threats by Big Real Estate because the city is standing up to its responsibility to keep us safe.
Sincerely,
Nancy Wu
Resident on Castleton Street in Cupertino
From: Seema Lindskog
To: City Council; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Subject: Support the trail access from the Evulich Ct development to the Stevens Creek trail Date: Thursday, March 12, 2026 5:32:33 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Chao, and Council members,
I am on the City of Cupertino Planning Commission, but today I'm writing as a resident.
When you consider the Evulich Ct development at Tuesday's Council meeting, please support the trail access connection from the development to the Linda Vista section of the Stevens Creek Trail.
In multiple city surveys, residents cite connectivity and proximity to nature as one of the things they want the most. A huge benefit of living in Cupertino is that we have such amazing nature trails for residents to enjoy.
The 3-30-300 rule of urban planning, endorsed by the United States EPA, the European Union, the WHO, and multiple other organizations, states that the best practice for urban planning is that residents should have access to nature within 300 meters of their home (a little under 1,000 ft).
The trail access from Evulich Ct is a public access which benefits everyone in the neighborhood. It gives mid-block access to the residents on Linda Vista Drive and surrounding streets. Without it, residents on these streets have to walk or drive much further to get to an entrance to the Stevens Creek trail either at Linda Vista Park or at McClellan Rd.
Summerhill Homes, the developer, has agreed to ask for a reduction in the in-lieu park fees for only the simple cost of building this trail access. Compared to costs the city incurs for similar projects, which require multiple bids and other constraints, this is a very cost effective option and a prudent use of city resources.
The Planning Commission voted 3-2 to support the trail access when they reviewed the project. I urge you to also support the trail access connection.
Thank you for everything you do for our city.
Sincerely,
Seema Lindskog
___________________________________________________________________ "You must be the change you want to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi This message is from my personal email account. I am only writing as myself, not as a representative or spokesperson for any other organization.
From: V Lentfer
To: Public Comments
Cc: City Council; R "Ray" Wang; City Clerk; Jim Lentfer; Randy Ong Subject: City Council 3/17 agenda #12 Linda Vista Drive/Evulich. VOTE NO! Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 1:51:08 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor Moore and Councilmembers,
My name is Veronica Lentfer and I live near the proposed 51-townhome development on Linda Vista Drive/Evulich Court.
First, I support adding thoughtful housing in Cupertino. Our region needs more homes, and well-planned development can be part of the solution.
On September 6, 2024, our neighborhood group met with City Manager Pamela Wu and Mayor Sheila Mohan to deliver a petition signed by 745 neighbors, all expressing shock and concern about this proposal. This shows the community has been concerned from the moment they first heard about it.
There are also process concerns. For major zoning changes, proactive notification is expected, and skipping it creates the perception that development interests move faster WITHOUT getting community input.
The current plan would place 51, 4 bedroom 1700-2300 square foot townhomes on a
2.53-acre parcel, roughly 20 units per acre, in the middle of an established singlefamily neighborhood, far from transit and commercial centers. Higher-density housing works best near transit, jobs, and services—reducing traffic and allowing residents to rely less on cars. Placing this project here increases traffic on streets not designed for it and isolates residents from walkable amenities. My adult children could not afford the minimum $2mil + prices of these homes! These homes are clearly not starter homes!
It’s also important to note that this parcel was historically zoned R1 for single-family homes for over 60+ years, reflecting the character of our neighborhood, until it was rezoned in July 2024 to allow multi-family townhomes without notifying the 745 neighbors who signed the petition. The current proposal departs significantly from that original intent, dramatically increasing density and altering the neighborhood’s character.
Some neighbors have observed that the townhomes look more like a Courtyard Marriott Hotel rather than a residential development, highlighting how out of scale and out of character it is compared with nearby homes.
You don’t get a redo on this site. Its development will be part of our neighborhood forever. We, the neighbors, will have to live with its density, scale, design and traffic impact for decades, so it’s essential that it fits responsibly within the existing community.
Another major concern is fire safety. The density and design could create challenges for emergency access and evacuation. I urge the Council to fully review all fire safety issues before granting any approvals, rather than waiving requirements or assuming problems will be resolved later. Safety must be a non-negotiable priority.
If the Council moves forward, I strongly encourage scaling the project to better fit the neighborhood: fewer units, smaller homes, underground parking, and adherence to city height and design standards without waivers. While affordable units are important, waiving guidelines in exchange for a few below-market-rate homes can produce a development that is out of scale with its surroundings.
We all want more housing in Cupertino, but smart growth means placing it where it works for both the city and the neighborhoods—not cramming 51 three-story units into 2.5 acres in the middle of single-family homes far away from transit and commercial centers.
Vote NO on the Linda Vista Drive/Evulich project.
Thank you for your time.
Veronica Lentfer
From: Alice Lin
To: Public Comments
Cc: City Council
Subject: City Council 3/17 Agenda #12, 10857,10867,10877,10887 Linda Vista Drive, Please Vote No Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 1:43:47 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Council Members,
Please vole no to the project. SummerHill Home’s application of building 2700sf home is larger than any of single house in Linda Vista Neighborhood. They are building mansions, not starter homes as Council member JR Fruen is claiming. City Councilors must stop using urban density reform to polarizing the community.
Respectfully yours
A concerned resident living at Monta Vista neighborhood From: DerChang Kau
To: City Council
Cc: Public Comments
Subject: City Council 3/17 Agenda #12 Linda Vista Drive, Vote No Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 1:18:09 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
TO: Cupertino City Mayor, Vice Mayor and Council Member CC: Public Comment record
From: concerned residents of Cupertino
Please vole no to the project. SummerHill Home’s application of building 2700sf home is larger than any of single house in Linda Vista Neighborhood. They are building mansions are not starter homes as Council member JR Fruen is claiming. City Councilors must stop using urban density reform to polarizing the community.
Respectfully yours
A concerned resident living at Monta Vista neighborhood From: James Choi
To: Public Comments
Cc: City Council
Subject: Written Communication for the March 17, 2026 City Council meeting for Agenda Item #12: Evulich Court / Linda Vista Dr / SummerHill Homes Development:
Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 11:34:16 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Written Communication for the March 17, 2026 City Council meeting for Agenda Item #12:
Evulich Court / Linda Vista Dr / SummerHill Homes Development:
Dear Members of the Cupertino City Council,
I am writing to you as a deeply concerned resident living near the proposed 51-unit SummerHill development on Linda Vista Drive. While I understand the state-level pressures and mandates regarding housing, I am urging the Council to pause and re-evaluate this project. This is a matter of life and safety for every resident in this neighborhood. Our lives are effectively in your hands, and we trust you to ensure that development does not outpace the fundamental infrastructure required to protect us.
Please consider the following critical points:
Fire Safety is a City Responsibility: The safety of residents is a fundamental city responsibility. The use of legal loopholes by developers to push through unsafe projects does not abdicate the City of its duty to protect its citizens.
Legal Position on Fire Risk: While the City may claim its hands are tied by state law and that it is forbidden from considering the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone or evacuation risks, this is simply a chosen legal position. In reality, the City has the authority to ensure a defensible fire mitigation and evacuation framework is in place before approving density in high-risk zones.
Standing Up to Developers: Do not let SummerHill, their lawyer, or their legal threats dictate the future of Cupertino. The Planning Commission was recently threatened by their counsel on February 24th, 2026; I urge the Council not to concede to these tactics.
Independent Analysis is Required: We cannot rely on SummerHill’s own fire and safety analyses conducted by third-party companies; these hand-picked reports cannot be trusted to prioritize our safety over their profit.
Community Support: The residents will actively support the City and City Council in defending against legal threats from "Big Real Estate" like SummerHill. We will stand behind you when you fulfill your responsibility to keep us safe.
The landscape regarding fire safety has changed, and the risks are more evident than ever. We need a citywide fire mitigation and evacuation framework that is current and technically sound before adding this level of density to a high-risk corridor.
I ask that you do not disregard this plea. We are looking to you to do the right thing, prioritize the safety of the people you represent over the interests of a developer, and get Cupertino back on a track that values the lives of its residents.
Respectfully,
James Choi
11093 Bel Aire Ct, Cupertino
------------------------------------------
For your reference, I am including the safety gaps I emailed to the Planning Commission for the February 24th, 2026 hearing. Please review the 4 bullet points in detail below.
Written Communication for the February 24, 2026 Planning Commission meeting for Agenda Item #3: Evulich Court / Linda Vista Dr / SummerHill Homes Development:
Dear Members of the Cupertino Planning Commission,
I am writing to you as a concerned resident living near the proposed 51-unit townhome development at 10857–10887 Linda Vista Drive. While I understand the state-level pressures and mandates regarding housing, I am urging the Commission to pause and re-evaluate this project.
The stakes of this decision are not merely about maintaining the character of our community; they are a matter of life and safety for every resident in this neighborhood. Our lives are effectively in your hands, and we trust you to ensure that development does not outpace the fundamental infrastructure required to protect us.
I request that the Commission consider the following critical gaps in the current record:
Outdated Emergency Planning: The City’s Emergency Operations Plan predates the proposed increase in density and, more importantly, the recent fire hazard reclassifications. Approving a project of this scale in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone based on years-old assumptions is a risk the community cannot afford.
Lack of Cumulative Impact Analysis: The City is currently evaluating this project in a vacuum, despite the other Linda Vista project, Vista Heights, also potentially moving forward concurrently nearby. Reviewing these projects independently fails to account for their combined impact on evacuation capacity and emergency response along our shared, constrained corridors.
Need for Technical Transparency: To date, the materials provided have been summary in nature and insufficient for professional technical review. We ask the City to produce the underlying fire mitigation and evacuation materials—including specific assumptions and inputs—to allow for an independent, professional evaluation of our corridor’s actual evacuation capacity.
Service Demand and Response Times: Per Cupertino’s own Health and Safety Element, increased population density leads to traffic congestion that impacts Fire Department response times. In an "evacuation constrained" area like Linda Vista, these delays can be fatal.
We are not asking the Commission to debate the merits of housing in general. We are asking you to fulfill your responsibility to ensure a current, citywide fire mitigation and evacuation framework is in place and relied upon before any further density is approved in a very high- risk zone. Once this project is approved and the developer exits, the permanent risk of infrastructure strain and evacuation failure stays with the residents and the City.
I ask that you take this communication with the gravity it deserves and ensure a comprehensive, corridor-level evacuation analysis is completed and documented on the record.
Respectfully,
James Choi
11093 Bel Aire Ct, Cupertino
From: David Yan
To: City Council
Cc: Public Comments
Subject: 10857 Linda Vista Drive, Applicant"s Evacuation Route Study Not in Record Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 9:38:52 AM
Attachments: image.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Chao, and Councilmembers:
The Council is being asked to approve a residential subdivision on Linda Vista Drive without seeing an evacuation study the Applicant itself prepared for this exact corridor.
A February 10, 2026 meeting agenda obtained through a public records request shows the Applicant presented an evacuation route study to City planning staff and the fire department. That study has never been entered into the record for this project.
The Applicant has taken the position that because the City has not adopted an evacuation plan, evacuation cannot be considered in the approval of this project. The Council cannot allow this line of reasoning to continue during the upcoming March 17th Council meeting. The absence of a plan is not a license to ignore a safety question. The absence of an adopted evacuation plan does not eliminate the City's obligation under the Subdivision Map Act to make an affirmative public health and safety finding. The City still has to affirmatively find that this project will not cause serious public health problems. That finding must be supported by evidence.
The Applicant commissioned its own evacuation route study for this site, presented it to the City and the fire department, and did not produce it into the record. The Council is being asked to make a health and safety determination about evacuation on this corridor without seeing a study the applicant prepared specifically about evacuation on this corridor. If the Applicant genuinely believed evacuation was legally irrelevant to this project, there would have been no reason to commission an evacuation study for this site in the first place.
The physical constraint is fixed regardless. Every route out of Linda Vista Drive resolves to one of two exits: Bubb Road to the south and east, McClellan Road to the north and west.
There is no third option. A wildfire evacuation is not a routing exercise. It is a road capacity question. And capacity is fixed by the roads that exist.
The City commissioned the Fehr and Peers study and it found both exits to Linda Vista Drive, McClellan Rd (West) and Bubb Rd operate at over 200% of capacity under evacuation conditions. The fact that the study was commissioned for the Health & Safety Element does not change those findings. Bubb Road and McClellan Road are over capacity. That is true regardless of which process the study was commissioned for. The roads are what they are.
The findings have been in the City's records since October 2025, as per the cover page of the Fehr and Peers study.
The City cannot rely on a "separate timeline" for the Health and Safety Element to defer its immediate legal obligations. Administrative processes do not change physical constraints: the roads are the same roads.
This is not a question of whether cities can build housing on constrained corridors. It is a question of whether this specific corridor, in a reclassified Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, with two documented failing exits, can safely evacuate the residents already here. The City's own consultant said it cannot. Adding density to a failing corridor in a fire hazard zone is not a housing policy question. It is a public safety question. And the law requires an affirmative answer before approval, not silence.
Under Government Code Section 66474(f) of the Subdivision Map Act, the Council may deny a subdivision if substantial evidence shows the project would cause serious public health problems. A health and safety finding unsupported by evidence is not defensible. The findings do not expire because they were commissioned for a different purpose. The roads are the same roads.
A Council that approves this project while its own records contain documented evidence of evacuation failure does not insulate itself from that evidence by declining to consider it. The obligation to make an affirmative public health and safety finding runs to the actual conditions that exist on this corridor. Approval without evidence of safety violates the Subdivision Map Act.
Respectfully submitted,
David Yan
Linda Vista Neighborhood Resident
From: Rhoda Fry
To: Public Comments
Cc: City Council
Subject: City Council Meeting 3/17/2026 #12 51-unit townhome condominium - VOTE NO Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 9:28:01 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
RE: City Council Agenda #12 3/17/2026 51-unit townhome condominium development on Housing Element Priority Housing Sites 25 through 28
Dear City Council,
You are being asked to vote on 4 items. You have a choice as to whether you vote YES or NO.
That is why you are being asked to vote, otherwise, these decisions would be made ministerially. Furthermore, you should not rely on the Planning Commission vote because the information available at that meeting and the items voted on were different (staff assumed the project was exempt from CEQA and the October 2025 evacuation route was hidden). There are a number of concerns that I have about the proposed project and I hope you will read through my comments.
Sincerely, Rhoda Fry (recipient CREST Public Safety Award) Decision #1 – PROJECT DOES NOT MEET CEQA - Here are TWO tests for CEQA exemption under AB130
Decision #1, Test #1 – Project cannot be in a delineated fault zone. It is. CEQA is required.
AB130 Memo (Attachment E) page 12 misleads the reader into believing that the nearest delineated earthquake zone is the San Andreas Fault (footnote 10). This is false. The Monte Vista fault, capable of a 7.1 earthquake, is within about 400 feet of the proposed project. See notes with links and map below. CEQA IS REQUIRED.
Decision #1, Test #2 – Project cannot be in a very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ). It is. CEQA is required.
Cities I looked at in California do NOT have a fire department sign-off loophole in for AB130.
Why is Cupertino less safe than other California cities (see notes below)? Even the company that prepared the AB130 memo for Cupertino, David J. Powers, stated at the Planning Commissioner Academy last week that VHFHSZ REQUIRES CEQA.
Furthermore, justifications provided by the fire department are not sufficiently detailed and were derived using false assumptions.
a. The fire department assumed that this is a builder remedy project, it is not. b. The fire department was led to believe items that are materially false: that 51 homes must be built and the only way to build them was to reduce the required 30-foot setback.
This is not true. These homes, that Summerhill calls “products,” have 4 bedrooms and are very large, about 2700 sq ft. Smaller homes could be built on this site and maintain the 30-foot safety zone.
c. The fire department conflated PRC 4290 (infrastructure standards) and PRC 4291 (defensible space). All applicable PRCs must be considered individually. d. PRC (4290) can apply to evacuation beyond the footprint of a new project but it is not being considered. It was revealed after the Planning Commission vote on this project that the evacuation routes from this project are severely impacted by 2 to 4X (which the City has had since October 25 but did not share with the Planning Commission until March 9, 2026). Note that in a fire, there is essentially only one way out. https://cupertino.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx? ID=7939626&GUID=7AC99155-0A72-4867-A7E1-
3E6AC39E8B2A&Options=&Search=#docaccess468609363b52235d20d0e89542b30f387454cb4e4e12e1673654e018c0eddbc6 Furthermore, Summerhill conducted its own evacuation study and discussed it with City staff on February 10, 2026, but did not share it with the Planning Commission, the City Council, or the staff. See notes below. Why is Summerhill hiding their evacuation study?
e. A 10-foot setback with mitigations is NOT a safety-equivalent to the required 30- foot setback.
Decision #2 – RESOLUTION No. 26-029 (ATTACHMENT A) VOTE NO The resolution requires yes on #1. Since #1 is no, you must Vote No.
Design does not allow for ladders on property lines with 10-ft setback. Project must be rejected today because it is inaccurate. Vote No.
Fails Item (f) “The proposed subdivision design and improvements will not cause serious public health.” The City Council MAY reject a project if there is substantial evidence that the project can post a health and safety issue. There is (details below) Vote No.
a) Makes a known evacuation deficiency worse.
b) Just beyond the rear property line are PG&E wires among the trees. This is really scary and having even more homes nearby adds to the dangerous. c) Homes in the area have inadequate water pressure and must use a pump for adequate pressure. Adequate household pressure is needed for fire sprinklers. If the power goes out, residents would have even less pressure to house down their homes in the event of fire. Adding the load of people occupying 200 bedrooms (51 units x 4) to insufficient system will harm the residents who live uphill from the project. Note that fire hydrants run separately. Household water pressure is the first defense against fires. d) Decks within the 30-foot setback create a hazard – even with added fire sprinklers.
There is nothing to prevent residents from putting flammable materials on their decks and this could put them, their neighbors, and off-site neighbors at risk.
OTHER
1. Discussion about waiving park fees for trail access should be discussed as a separate resolution.DO NOT WAIVE PARK FEES.
2. Consider capturing sales-tax with requiring Cupertino LLC for this project as a Condition of Approval (COA).
3. Summerhill has undermined its credibility – the wrong box was checked on the AB130 memo pertaining to hazards, it has withheld information it has about evacuation, it bullied the Planning Commission, saying that the project was exempt from evacuation requirements because the City didn’t have any yet. Does Summerhill want to destroy its reputation?
HOW WOULD YOU FEEL IF PEOPLE DIED FROM NOT BEING ABLE TO
EVACUATE THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD IF YOU VOTED FOR THIS PROJECT AS IS?
* NOTES *
First some easy stuff:
1. Capture Sales-tax: If this project is to move forward, please add a Condition of Approval (COA) to have the business location for material purchases to be at the project site. This might require the creation of a subsidiary LLC. This will allow the City to capture sales tax as I understand it. Please ask staff to look into this. Apple did similar.
2. Split out Trail Connection into a separate item: You are being asked to waive $377K in park fees for a connection to the Linda Vista Trail. This would be an amenity for the residents of the project. Our public money should not be used for this trail connection.
But there’s more. I don’t see anything in the report that states that there would be an easement for all Cupertino residents to traverse the private property of the complex in order to access the trail connection. It seems to me that an HOA (Home Owner’s Association) could later close the public access to the trail if they had any complaints about it. And in that case, the taxpayers would have wasted $377K of park fees. If Summerhill wishes to create this amenity for their residents, so be it, but not at a cost to the public. Public Access for a future trail connection is not guaranteed per #5 of first resolution. VOTE NO ON RESOLUTION No. 26-029 (ATTACHMENT A) or modify.
3. Decks within 30ft of property line should be removed: Decks that are within 30 feet of the property line are to be outfitted with fire-sprinklers. But there is nothing to prevent residents from putting fuel for fire on those balconies like rattan furniture, last year’s dry plants, cotton laundry etc… This poses a public safety hazard on Item F of the first resolution. VOTE NO ON RESOLUTION No. 26-029 (ATTACHMENT A).
4. The Planning Commission voting items were different. Now you are being asked whether you believe the project is exempt from CEQA – the Planning Commission meeting ASSUMED IT WAS, which limited the commission’s choices. This is wrong.
5. The Planning Commission was given incomplete data: Why is it that more data is being made available to City Council than was made to the Planning Commission? Most importantly, current evacuation routes show severe overcapacity was not revealed to the Planning Commission until AFTER the vote. Furthermore, Summerhill assured residents no trouble found AND had knowledge of the evacuation issue - - - as did our own staff per their meeting on February 10, 2026. Why isn’t Summerhill sharing their evacuation study with the public? See below:
Project does not meet AB130 criteria – it requires CEQA. VOTE NO ON #1 CEQA EXEMPTION AND RESOLUTION No. 26-029 (ATTACHMENT A).
1. THE WRONG BOX WAS CHECKED for High FIRE HAZARD on the AB130 form. The form now says that the project is NOT in a very high fire zone, when in fact it is. Whether it is potentially mitigated is immaterial. The wrong box was checked.
Vote NO on first resolution.
Other municipalities say that VERY HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONEs cannot use AB130. I have written before. A number of other City forms, do not allow a fire department waiver. In fact, the company that filled out the form for this application, stated at the Planning Conference last week said that very high fire hazard severity zone is a hard NO.
Vote NO on first resolution.
Los Angeles:
https://planning.lacity.gov/project-review/shra-senate-bill-684-1123 City of Santa Clara:
https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/88826 Saratoga:
https://www.saratoga.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/6237/AB-130-checklist-1-27-26- web?bidId=
San Francisco:
https://sfplanning.org/sites/default/files/forms/AB130_InfillExemption_SupplementalA pplication.pdf
South San Francisco:
https://www.ssfca.gov/files/assets/public/v/2/economic-amp-communitydevelopment/documents/planning/ab-130-eligibility-requirements-form.pdf Even the Association of Builders and Contractors agree that VHFHSZ does not quality. https://abcsocal.org/california-ab-130/
2. THE PROJECT IS IN AN EARTHQUAKE HAZARD ZONE - on the AB130 memo, the wrong box was checked. Attachment E Page 12. “The project is not located on a site that is any of the following…”
The memo justifies that the project is not in an earthquake hazard zone with footnote #10 being that it is really far away from the San Andreas fault. But in fact, it is VERY CLOSE (about 400 feet) TO A FAULT CAPABLE OF A 7.1 EARTHQUAKE!!! This is the Monte Vista fault that is a thrust fault which is by far more dangerous than a regular fault. Furthermore, it is within a DESIGNATED ZONE of earthquake-induced slope instability. Whether the developer has considered mitigation here is not material.
THIS PROJECT FLUNKS THE AB130 TEST.
See: https://grokipedia.com/page/monta_vista_fault
See: https://www.cottonshires.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/CupertinoHazMap_small.pdf Project are is colored blue in the snip below:
3. Fire Department made inaccurate assumptions when the developer tried to use a loophole that is rejected by most California cities I could find. When evaluating the project, per PRAs, a) the fire department assumed that this is a BUILDER REMEDY project. It is not. b) the fire department assumed that the project was already in the building department. It was not. c) the fire department was led to believe that the developer MUST build 51 units and the only way to do it is to reduce the normallyrequired 30-foot fire setback. This is false. The developer could still build 51 units and maintain a 30-foot setback – they just would not be huge 4 bedroom luxury homes.
4. Fire Department’s reduction of 30 feet defensible space to 10 feet does NOT MAKE THE PROJECT EQUALLY SAFE. There are TWO RULES to consider – 4290 and 4291– these must not be conflated.
Other Public Safety Issues Related to First Resolution
1. Design does not allow for ladders on property lines with 10-ft setback. Project must be rejected today because it is inaccurate. You cannot vote yes on the first resolution. VOTE NO ON FIRST RESOLUTION No. 26-029 (ATTACHMENT A)..
2. Fails Item (f) on first resolution: The proposed subdivision design and improvements will not cause serious public health. There are homes on Linda Vista that need pumps to get adequate water pressure that would be used for home use and fire sprinklers. Furthermore, what happens if the power goes out? Adding more homes to a compromised water-pressure system is a cumulative impact that MUST BE ADDRESSED BY CEQA. VOTE NO ON FIRST RESOLUTION No. 26-029 (ATTACHMENT A)..
3. I just don’t understand how anyone can pretend that the public safety problems do not exist because Cupertino’s evacuation plan came late.
4. First Resolution States: The City Council MAY reject a project if there is substantial evidence that the project can post a health and safety issue. There is - - - VOTE NO ON FIRST RESOLUTION No. 26-029 (ATTACHMENT A).
5. Bad Reputation for Summerhill – Summerhill has had a stellar reputation in the Bay Area. But now we know that Summerhill is endeavoring to build a development in:
1. VERY HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONE,
2. NEXT TO AN EARTHQUAKE FAULT
3. WHERE EVACUATION ROUTES ARE OVER CAPACITY BY 2X to 4X (and realistically, there is only one way out if there is a fire).
From: TSY Chuang
To: Public Comments; Kitty Moore; Liang Chao; Tina Kapoor Subject: Request to Reschedule Evulich Court/Summerhill Project Agenda Item on March 17 to a later date Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 12:28:25 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Manager, Mayor, and Vice-Mayor,
I am writing to respectfully request that the Evulich Court/Summerhill project be rescheduled from the upcoming City Council meeting on March 17th. It is my understanding that Council Member Wang will be unable to attend this meeting.
I believe it is important that action items—particularly those involving public hearings—be considered only when all Council members are able to participate, especially when a member’s absence is known in advance. Residents elect their representatives with the expectation that their voices will be heard through a fully present Council, and scheduling should reflect that principle when feasible.
Additionally, I’ve learned that Council Member Mohan resides within 1,000 feet of the proposed project site, which may require her recusal due to the potential impact on her property value. As a result, with only three Council members who would be eligible to deliberate and vote on this matter, it seems prudent to defer a public hearing when such limited participation may occur.
I also recall that on at least one prior occasion, a Council meeting was rescheduled by Mayor Wei and/or the City Manager on relatively short notice. With this precedent in mind, I respectfully ask that the public hearing—and, if possible, the related action items—be postponed to a date when Council member Wang participation is possible.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
Tania
From: Saba Sathya
To: Public Comments
Cc: City Council
Subject: City Council 3/17 Agenda #12 Linda Vista Drive, Vote No Date: Sunday, March 15, 2026 7:40:33 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Cupertino City Council,
I am concerned about the new housing development as I live in the next street Baxley Court.
Please consider fire safety and evacuation measures to deny the high density housing project to proceed.
I request the City Council to consider the following:
1. Fire Safety of the Residents is a City Responsibility. Because lawyers are using various loop-holes to make unsafe developments, does not abdicate the city from it.
2. And the residents will actively support the city and the city council when it comes to defending the city against any legal threats by Big Real Estate because the city is standing up to its responsibility to keep us safe.
Thanks in advance.
Regards
Saba Sathya
22023 Baxley Court
Cupertino, CA 95014
From: Unique Family
To: Public Comments
Cc: City Council
Subject: City Council 3/17 Agenda #12 Linda Vista Drive, Vote No Date: Sunday, March 15, 2026 7:38:39 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Cupertino City Council,
I am concerned about the new housing development as I live in the next street Baxley Court.
Please consider fire safety and evacuation measures to deny the high density housing project to proceed.
I request the City Council to consider the following:
1. Fire Safety of the Residents is a City Responsibility. Because lawyers are using various loop-holes to make unsafe developments, does not abdicate the city from it.
2. And the residents will actively support the city and the city council when it comes to defending the city against any legal threats by Big Real Estate because the city is standing up to its responsibility to keep us safe.
Thanks in advance.
Regards
Selvi Sathya
22023 Baxley Court
Cupertino, CA 95014
From: Meichu H
To: City Council; Kitty Moore
Cc: Public Comments
Subject: City Council 3/17 Agenda #12 Evulich Ct Emergency Safety Concerns, Please Vote No Date: Saturday, March 14, 2026 11:08:56 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
TO:Cupertino City Mayor and Council
FROM: Residents of Cupertino
Date: March 14, 2026
Sub:City Council 3/17 Agenda #12 Evulich Ct Emergency Safety Concerns, Please Vote No Dear Mayor and City Council,
I am writing to express urgent concerns regarding the proposed 51-unit townhome project at 10857 Linda Vista Drive. The current approval process contains a critical safety flaw: the City has concluded that "no evacuation study has been required or reviewed" simply because it lacks its own "adopted objective standards" for evacuation. This administrative loophole ignores the site’s June 2025 designation as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ).
The project’s safety analysis relies almost entirely on building construction standards, such as fire-resistant materials and modified sprinklers. While these may improve structure survivability, they do nothing to address neighborhood-wide evacuation capacity. The Transportation Study focuses on fire truck access via a "hammerhead turnaround" but fails to analyze how 100+ additional resident vehicles will safely exit onto Linda Vista Drive during a wildfire emergency.
Furthermore, the City is allowing the developer to defer the Final Fire Protection Plan (CFC 4903) until the building permit stage. This prevents the Council from evaluating critical wildfire risk mitigations before density and site plans are finalized. This is particularly concerning given that the project already received an exception to PRC 4290, allowing for non-conforming setbacks in this high-risk area.
Under Government Code Section 65913.4(a)(6), projects in a Very High FHSZ must adopt specific fire hazard mitigations to qualify for CEQA exemptions. Relying on construction materials while refusing to study evacuation flow is a failure of public safety. I urge the Council to mandate a formal Wildfire Evacuation Capacity Study as a condition of approval.
Respectfully,
Meichu Huang
From: [email protected]
To: City Clerk
Cc: City Council; City Attorney"s Office
Subject: Written Communications-SummerHill, LLC 10857, 10867, 10877, and 10887 Linda Vista Drive Townhomes Date: Friday, March 13, 2026 3:22:15 PM
Attachments: Summary Statements of Deficiencies.zip
Staff Report Deficiencies.zip
Financial Disclosure & Negligence.zip
Fire Code_PRC4290_Fire Flow Deficiencies.zip
Technical Report Errors & Omissions.zip
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Clerk, Honorable Mayor, Councilmembers, and City Attorney, Please accept the attached materials as written communication regarding:
Project: SummerHill - Evulich Ct. Townhomes;
Application Number: TM-2024-009, ASA-2024-015, TR-2024-044; Agenda Item: 12;
scheduled for consideration on March 17, 2026.
This submission includes:
Zip Folder: Summary Statements of Deficiencies (3 files) Zip Folder: Financial Disclosure & Negligence (2 files) Zip Folder: Staff Report Deficiencies (3 files)
Zip Folder: Fire Code_PRC4290_Fire Flow Deficiencies (3 files) Zip Folder: Technical Report Errors & Omissions (3 files) These materials are provided to ensure the administrative record accurately reflects the project’s non-compliance with State Fire Safety Standards, disregard for public safety, concerns over development in VHFHS without adequate safety planning, illegal CEQA exemptions and compliance issues, procedural errors and the absence of financial disclosure when the City is granting exemptions to the General Plan, fire standards, and public safety.
Decision regarding this matter need to be based on complete and accurate information.
I respectfully request that these documents be:
1. Posted to the public agenda packet as written communication, and
2. Distributed to the full City Council for their review.
Please confirm receipt and posting at your earliest convenience.
Thank you for your attention and for ensuring these materials are included in the public record.
Sincerely,
Mark W. Fantozzi, PE
Cupertino
[email protected]
Policy-Focused Review Regarding TM-2024-009
Project: TM‑2024‑009 (Linda Vista Townhomes)
Location: 10857–10887 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, CA
Prepared for: Cupertino City Council
Prepared by: Mark W. Fantozzi, PE
1. Executive Summary
This submission raises significant concerns regarding the City of Cupertino’s consideration of exceptions to fire codes, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements, and General Plan safety policies for the proposed TM-2024-009 development project located at 10857–10886 Linda Vista Drive. The project site lies within a designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ), which necessitates strict adherence to fire-safety standards and environmental review protocols. Granting exceptions in such a high-risk area may constitute a policy deviation with serious public safety and legal implications.
The Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD) granted a PRC 4290 exception for this project. However, SCCFD’s approval is conditional and not final. Importantly, SCCFD requires the submission of a Final Fire Protection Plan at the building-permit stage, indicating that the fire-safety review process remains incomplete.
2. Background
The TM-2024-009 project encompasses parcels located at 10857, 10867, 10877, and 10886 Linda Vista Drive in Cupertino, California. These parcels are situated within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ), as designated by Cal Fire. The regulatory framework governing this area includes the California Fire Code (CFC), which mandates fire-flow requirements and emergency access standards; the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which requires comprehensive hazard analysis for projects in high-risk areas; and the City of Cupertino’s General Plan Safety Element, which prioritizes public safety and hazard mitigation in land-use planning.
According to SCCFD’s plan-review comments dated January 27, 2026, the project received a PRC 4290 exception due to non-conforming setbacks, which are to be mitigated through increased fire separation and modified sprinkler systems. SCCFD’s approval is conditional, pending the submission of a Final Fire Protection Plan. The fire-flow requirement for the project is 1,375 gallons per minute (GPM) at 20 psi residual pressure, based on the inclusion of automatic fire sprinklers.
3. Policy Concerns
Granting exceptions to established fire codes, CEQA requirements, or General Plan safety policies in a VHFHSZ constitutes a significant policy deviation. Such actions may undermine the integrity of the City’s regulatory framework and set a precedent for future developments in similarly hazardous areas. Key safety analyses—such as fire-flow testing, hydraulic modeling, evacuation planning, and water-supply adequacy assessments—are essential to ensure that new developments do not compromise public safety or overburden existing infrastructure.
Specifically, the PRC 4290 exception granted by SCCFD in this case represents a discretionary deviation from standard fire-safety setbacks. Such exceptions in VHFHSZ areas require substantial evidence to demonstrate that equivalent safety is maintained. Furthermore, SCCFD’s conditional approval does not satisfy CEQA’s requirement for a complete hazard analysis or the General Plan’s mandate for verified public safety.
4. Public Safety Implications
Developing in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone introduces elevated risks of wildfire exposure, evacuation challenges, and strain on emergency response systems. The California Fire Code and related state regulations require strict compliance with fire-safety standards, particularly in VHFHSZ areas. Any deviation from these standards must be supported by substantial evidence demonstrating that public safety will not be compromised. Failure to adhere to these requirements could expose the City to legal liability and endanger residents and first responders.
SCCFD identified non-conforming setbacks that require mitigation through increased fire separation and modified sprinkler systems. Additionally, SCCFD requires the development of a Final Fire Protection Plan to address wildfire mitigation, defensible space, and emergency access. These unresolved issues heighten the wildfire risk and underscore the need for comprehensive safety planning.
5. CEQA-Exempt Implications
If the City determines that the TM-2024-009 project is exempt from CEQA, the exemption does not eliminate the City’s obligation to ensure compliance with fire-safety standards, PRC 4290, or the General Plan Safety Element. CEQA exemption affects only procedural environmental review; it does not waive substantive safety requirements.
A CEQA exemption elevates the importance of SCCFD’s findings because the PRC 4290 exception remains a discretionary act requiring substantial evidence of equivalent fire safety.
SCCFD’s conditional approval—requiring a future Final Fire Protection Plan—confirms that the fire-safety review is incomplete. The City cannot rely on future mitigation to justify present approval, nor can it treat SCCFD’s conditional approval as evidence of General Plan consistency.
General Plan consistency remains a mandatory finding regardless of CEQA status. A project located in a VHFHSZ with unresolved fire-safety deficiencies cannot be found consistent with the Safety Element. Therefore, even if CEQA does not apply, the City must still require complete fire-flow documentation, evacuation analysis, and the Final Fire Protection Plan before granting approval.
6. Conclusion
Given the location of the TM-2024-009 project within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, it is imperative that the City of Cupertino uphold its commitment to public safety, transparency, and legal compliance. SCCFD’s findings confirm that key fire-safety issues remain unresolved, including the need for a Final Fire Protection Plan and mitigation of non-conforming setbacks.
These outstanding issues require full compliance with CEQA (if applicable) and the General Plan Safety Element before any project approvals are granted. We urge the City Council to ensure that all applicable safety standards and environmental review requirements are fully enforced, and that any proposed exceptions are subject to rigorous scrutiny and supported by substantial evidence.
7. Request for Council Action
We respectfully request that the Cupertino City Council:
1. Require full compliance with all applicable fire-safety standards, CEQA hazard analysis protocols, and General Plan safety policies.
2. Ensure that no exceptions, variances, or waivers are granted for the TM-2024-009 project without substantial evidence demonstrating compliance with state and local safety mandates.
3. Require the applicant to submit detailed fire-flow, hydraulic, and evacuation analyses, as well as financial information if exceptions are sought that may confer a financial benefit.
4. Require full disclosure and justification for the PRC 4290 exception granted by SCCFD, including the specific mitigation measures proposed and their effectiveness in addressing the identified fire-safety deficiencies.
Summary Compliance Memorandum
Re: TM-2024-009, TM-2024-009, 10857, 10867, 10877, 10886 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino (Linda Vista Drive)
CEQA Exemption Rebuttal & General Plan Inconsistency Analysis Prepared for: Cupertino City Council
Prepared by: Mark W. Fantozzi
Date: March 10, 2026
VIA EMAIL
I. INTRODUCTION
This legal brief evaluates the TM-2024-009 project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Cupertino General Plan Safety Element. The analysis demonstrates that:
1. The project does not qualify for a CEQA exemption, and
2. The project is inconsistent with multiple mandatory General Plan policies, independently barring approval.
The project is located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ), requires a discretionary PRC 4290 exception, and lacks essential wildfire, evacuation, and water-supply analyses. These deficiencies preclude CEQA exemption and prevent the City from making the required General Plan consistency findings.
II. CEQA EXEMPTION REBUTTAL
A. CEQA Exemptions Are Prohibited in High Fire-Risk Areas CEQA Guidelines §15300.2(b) bars categorical exemptions where “unusual circumstances” create a reasonable possibility of significant environmental impacts. The TM-2024-009 project presents multiple unusual circumstances:
Location in a VHFHSZ
Known evacuation bottlenecks along Linda Vista / Stevens Creek Non-conforming setbacks requiring PRC 4290 exceptions Incomplete fire-safety review (Final Fire Protection Plan pending) Water-supply reliability concerns under PSPS and peak-demand conditions Any one of these conditions is sufficient to defeat a CEQA exemption. Together, they make exemption legally indefensible.
, PE
B. PRC 4290 Exception Is a Discretionary Approval That Triggers CEQA The City cannot claim ministerial approval while simultaneously granting a discretionary PRC 4290 exception. Discretionary approvals require:
Findings of equivalent fire safety
Substantial evidence
Evaluation of mitigation measures
Consideration of alternatives
This is incompatible with CEQA exemption.
Case law is clear: If any component of a project requires discretion, the entire project is discretionary for CEQA purposes.
C. SCCFD’s Conditional Approval Confirms CEQA Review Is Incomplete SCCFD explicitly states:
“Plans are APPROVED with conditions.”
“Provide a Final Fire Protection Plan at time of building permit submittal.” CEQA does not allow approval based on future mitigation. Environmental impacts must be analyzed before approval.
A CEQA exemption cannot be based on:
Missing wildfire analysis
Missing evacuation analysis
Missing water-supply reliability analysis
Missing Final Fire Protection Plan
The City cannot rely on SCCFD’s conditional approval as a substitute for CEQA review.
D. Evacuation and Emergency Access Issues Require CEQA Analysis CEQA Guidelines Appendix G requires analysis of:
Impacts on evacuation routes
Impacts on emergency response
Wildfire-related infrastructure capacity
The Linda Vista corridor is a constrained evacuation route with limited egress. No evacuation analysis has been submitted.
This alone precludes CEQA exemption.
E. Water-Supply Reliability Requires CEQA Review
SCCFD accepted a hydraulic analysis only for minimum fire-flow, not:
Peak-demand reliability
PSPS conditions
Multi-structure fire scenarios
These are CEQA-level issues requiring environmental review.
F. Conclusion: CEQA Exemption Is Legally Unsupportable
The TM-2024-009 project cannot be exempt from CEQA because:
It is located in a VHFHSZ
It requires discretionary PRC 4290 exceptions
SCCFD’s approval is conditional and incomplete
Required wildfire, evacuation, and water-supply analyses are missing CEQA Guidelines §15300.2 prohibits exemptions under these conditions The City must require full CEQA compliance before considering approval.
III. GENERAL PLAN INCONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
A. General Plan Consistency Is Mandatory Regardless of CEQA Status Government Code §§65300.5 and 65860 require that all land-use decisions be consistent with the General Plan. This requirement applies even if CEQA does not.
A project cannot be approved if it conflicts with the General Plan.
B. Relevant Safety Element Policies
Policy S-1.1 — Reduce wildfire risk in VHFHSZ areas
The project lacks:
A Final Fire Protection Plan
Verified defensible-space compliance
Demonstrated water-supply reliability
Policy S-1.3 — Ensure adequate emergency access and evacuation capacity The Linda Vista corridor is a constrained evacuation route. No evacuation analysis has been submitted.
Policy S-2.2 — Ensure adequate fire-flow and water-supply infrastructure SCCFD’s acceptance of minimum fire-flow does not address:
Peak-demand reliability
PSPS conditions
Multi-structure fire scenarios
Policy S-3.1 — Require development to mitigate known hazards The project relies on future mitigation (Final Fire Protection Plan), violating this policy.
C. SCCFD’s Conditional Approval Confirms Inconsistency
SCCFD identified:
Non-conforming setbacks
Required mitigation through modified sprinklers
Requirement for a future Final Fire Protection Plan
Requirement for Turnaround A
These unresolved issues demonstrate that the project does not currently meet fire-safety standards required by the General Plan.
D. PRC 4290 Exception Conflicts with General Plan Safety Policies The PRC 4290 exception is a discretionary deviation from standard fire-safety requirements. To be consistent with the General Plan, the City must demonstrate:
Equivalent fire safety
Adequate mitigation
Substantial evidence
No such evidence has been provided.
E. Evacuation Constraints Create Direct General Plan Conflicts The Safety Element requires:
Safe and reliable evacuation routes
Adequate emergency-response access
Infrastructure capacity to support wildfire evacuation The Linda Vista corridor does not meet these standards, and no analysis has been provided to demonstrate otherwise.
F. Conclusion: The Project Is Inconsistent with the General Plan The TM-2024-009 project is inconsistent with the Cupertino General Plan because:
It lacks required wildfire-hazard mitigation
It lacks evacuation and emergency-access analysis
It relies on future mitigation rather than present compliance It requires discretionary PRC 4290 exceptions without substantial evidence SCCFD’s conditional approval confirms unresolved safety deficiencies Under Government Code §§65300.5 and 65860, the City cannot approve a project that conflicts with the General Plan.
IV. OVERALL CONCLUSION
The TM-2024-009 project:
Cannot be exempt from CEQA, and
Cannot be found consistent with the General Plan
These are independent and sufficient grounds for denial or for requiring full CEQA review and complete fire-safety documentation prior to any approval.
Technical Evidence Submission – TM-2024-009
(Linda Vista Dr
Project: TM‑2024‑009 (Linda Vista Townhomes)
Location: 10857–10887 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, CA
Prepared for: Cupertino City Council
Prepared by: Mark W. Fantozzi, PE
1. Technical Background
The TM-2024-009 project encompasses parcels located at 10857, 10867, 10877, and 10886 Linda Vista Drive in Cupertino, California. These parcels are situated within a designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ), as identified by Cal Fire.
The applicable regulatory frameworks include:
California Fire Code (CFC §507, Appendix B & C), which governs fire-flow and access requirements.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which mandates wildfire and hazard analysis for projects in high-risk areas.
Cupertino General Plan Safety Element, which prioritizes hazard mitigation and public safety.
Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD) Water Supply & Access Standards, which establish technical criteria for fire protection infrastructure. SCCFD has conditionally approved the project with exceptions to PRC 4290. These exceptions include non-conforming setbacks mitigated through increased fire separation distances and modified sprinkler systems. A Final Fire Protection Plan is required at the time of building-permit submittal to address wildfire risks, defensible space, and access roads.
2. Fire-Flow Requirements
SCCFD has established a required fire-flow of 1,375 gallons per minute (GPM) at 20 psi residual pressure for this project, based on the inclusion of an automatic fire sprinkler system. This requirement is supported by a hydraulic analysis submitted by the developer. While this satisfies the minimum fire-flow requirement under the California Fire Code, it does not address broader CEQA obligations, including wildfire risk analysis and evacuation constraints.
3. Water-Supply Adequacy
Although SCCFD accepted the developer’s hydraulic analysis confirming minimum fire-flow availability, the analysis does not evaluate system reliability under peak demand, Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) conditions, or concurrent multi-structure fire scenarios. Such limitations raise concerns about the adequacy of the water supply under real-world emergency conditions.
4. CEQA Hazard Analysis Requirements
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G requires analysis of wildfire risk, including impacts on emergency response, evacuation routes, and infrastructure capacity. SCCFD’s requirement for a future Final Fire Protection Plan confirms that the CEQA wildfire hazard analysis remains incomplete. The current application lacks an evacuation analysis, water-supply adequacy assessment, and evaluation of emergency-response capabilities.
5. Emergency Access & Evacuation Constraints
Fire-apparatus access roads must meet minimum width and turning-radius standards under CFC Appendix D and SCCFD guidelines. The Linda Vista / Stevens Creek corridor presents known evacuation bottlenecks due to narrow roads and limited egress routes. SCCFD has identified non-conforming setbacks and required mitigation through modified sprinkler systems. Additionally, Turnaround A is required to meet fire-apparatus access standards.
6. CEQA-Exempt Implications
If the City determines that the TM-2024-009 project is exempt from CEQA, the exemption does not eliminate the requirement to demonstrate adequate fire-flow, water-supply reliability, emergency access, or compliance with PRC 4290. CEQA exemption affects only procedural environmental review; it does not waive substantive fire-safety obligations.
The PRC 4290 exception remains a discretionary approval requiring substantial evidence of equivalent fire safety. SCCFD’s conditional approval—requiring a future Final Fire Protection Plan—confirms that the fire-safety review is incomplete. The City cannot rely on future mitigation to justify present approval, nor can it treat SCCFD’s conditional approval as evidence of General Plan consistency.
General Plan consistency remains a mandatory requirement regardless of CEQA status. A project located in a VHFHSZ with unresolved fire-safety deficiencies cannot be found consistent with the Safety Element. Therefore, even if CEQA does not apply, the City must still require complete fire-flow documentation, evacuation analysis, and the Final Fire Protection Plan before granting approval.
7. Summary of Technical Deficiencies
The TM-2024-009 application is missing the following required technical documentation:
Justification for the PRC 4290 exception
Final Fire Protection Plan
CEQA-compliant wildfire hazard analysis
Evacuation modeling and traffic analysis
Water-supply adequacy and emergency-response capacity documentation The fire-safety review remains incomplete pending submission and approval of the Final Fire Protection Plan.
8. Request for Council Action
We respectfully request that the Cupertino City Council:
Require full compliance with the California Fire Code, CEQA (if applicable), and the Cupertino General Plan Safety Element.
Ensure that no exceptions, variances, or waivers are granted for the TM-2024-009 project without substantial evidence demonstrating compliance with all applicable safety standards.
Require the applicant to submit all missing technical studies, including the Final Fire Protection Plan, evacuation analysis, and water-supply adequacy documentation.
CEQA EXEMPTION MEMORANDUM
For :TM-2024-009, 10857, 10867, 10877, 10886 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino Prepared for: Cupertino City Council
Prepared by: Mark W. Fantozzi, PE
Date: March 10, 2026
VIA EMAIL
Re: TM-2024-009 (Linda Vista Drive) — Basis for Rejecting CEQA Exemption
1. Purpose of This Memorandum
This memorandum provides a detailed rebuttal to any assertion that the TM-2024-009 project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The analysis demonstrates that the project does not qualify for a CEQA exemption due to its location in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ), the presence of unresolved fire-safety deficiencies, and the discretionary nature of the PRC 4290 exception granted by the Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD).
2. CEQA Exemptions Do Not Apply in High Fire-Risk Areas CEQA Guidelines §15300.2(b) prohibits categorical exemptions where “unusual circumstances” create a reasonable possibility of significant environmental impacts. A project located in a VHFHSZ, with documented wildfire-risk constraints and evacuation limitations, meets this threshold.
Additionally:
The project requires discretionary fire-safety exceptions (PRC 4290). The project lacks a complete wildfire hazard analysis. SCCFD has required a future Final Fire Protection Plan, confirming the hazard analysis is incomplete.
These factors independently and collectively bar CEQA exemption.
3. PRC 4290 Exception Is a Discretionary Approval
The City cannot claim ministerial approval while simultaneously granting a discretionary PRC 4290 exception. Discretionary approvals invalidate CEQA exemptions.
The PRC 4290 exception requires:
Findings of equivalent fire safety
Substantial evidence
Evaluation of mitigation measures
Documentation of justification
This is the opposite of ministerial action.
4. SCCFD’s Conditional Approval Confirms CEQA Review Is Incomplete SCCFD explicitly states:
“Plans are APPROVED with conditions.”
“Provide a Final Fire Protection Plan at time of building permit submittal.
A CEQA exemption cannot be based on future mitigation. CEQA requires that environmental impacts be analyzed before project approval.
5. Evacuation and Emergency Access Issues Trigger CEQA Review CEQA Guidelines Appendix G requires analysis of:
Impacts on evacuation routes
Impacts on emergency response
Wildfire-related infrastructure capacity
The Linda Vista / Stevens Creek corridor is a known evacuation bottleneck. No evacuation analysis has been submitted.
This alone precludes CEQA exemption.
6. Water-Supply Reliability Requires CEQA Analysis
SCCFD accepted a hydraulic analysis only for minimum fire-flow, not:
Peak-demand reliability
PSPS (Public Safety Power Shutoff) conditions
Multi-structure fire scenarios
These are CEQA-level issues requiring environmental review.
7. Conclusion
The TM-2024-009 project cannot be exempt from CEQA because:
It is located in a VHFHSZ
It requires discretionary PRC 4290 exceptions
SCCFD’s approval is conditional and incomplete
Required wildfire, evacuation, and water-supply analyses are missing CEQA Guidelines §15300.2 prohibits exemptions under these conditions The City must require full CEQA compliance before considering project approval.
General Plan Inconsistency Analysis
Project: TM‑2024‑009 (Linda Vista Townhomes)
Location: 10857–10887 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, CA
Prepared for: Cupertino City Council
Prepared by: Mark W. Fantozzi, PE
1. Purpose of This Document
This memorandum evaluates the TM-2024-009 project for consistency with the Cupertino General Plan Safety Element. The analysis concludes that the project is inconsistent with multiple mandatory safety policies due to unresolved wildfire, evacuation, and fire-flow deficiencies.
2. General Plan Consistency Is Required Regardless of CEQA Status Even if the City asserts CEQA exemption, General Plan consistency remains mandatory under:
Government Code §65300.5
Government Code §65860
California case law (e.g., Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural El Dorado County v. Board of Supervisors)
A project cannot be approved if it conflicts with the General Plan.
3. Safety Element Policies Relevant to This Project
The following Safety Element policies are directly implicated:
Policy S-1.1 — Reduce wildfire risk in VHFHSZ areas
The project is located in a VHFHSZ and lacks:
A Final Fire Protection Plan
Verified defensible-space compliance
Demonstrated water-supply reliability
Policy S-1.3 — Ensure adequate emergency access and evacuation capacity The Linda Vista / Stevens Creek corridor is a constrained evacuation route. No evacuation analysis has been submitted.
Policy S-2.2 — Ensure adequate fire-flow and water-supply infrastructure SCCFD’s acceptance of minimum fire-flow does not address:
Peak-demand reliability
PSPS conditions
Multi-structure fire scenarios
Policy S-3.1 — Require development to mitigate known hazards The project relies on future mitigation (Final Fire Protection Plan), which violates this policy.
4. SCCFD’s Conditional Approval Confirms Inconsistency
SCCFD’s findings include:
Non-conforming setbacks
Required mitigation through modified sprinklers
Requirement for a future Final Fire Protection Plan
Requirement for Turnaround A
These unresolved issues demonstrate that the project does not currently meet fire-safety standards required by the General Plan.
5. PRC 4290 Exception Conflicts with General Plan Safety Policies The PRC 4290 exception is a discretionary deviation from standard fire-safety requirements. To be consistent with the General Plan, the City must demonstrate:
Equivalent fire safety
Adequate mitigation
Substantial evidence
No such evidence has been provided.
6. Evacuation Constraints Create Direct General Plan Conflicts The Safety Element requires:
Safe and reliable evacuation routes
Adequate emergency-response access
Infrastructure capacity to support wildfire evacuation The Linda Vista corridor does not meet these standards, and no analysis has been provided to demonstrate otherwise.
7. Conclusion
The TM-2024-009 project is inconsistent with the Cupertino General Plan because:
It lacks required wildfire-hazard mitigation
It lacks evacuation and emergency-access analysis
It relies on future mitigation rather than present compliance It requires discretionary PRC 4290 exceptions without substantial evidence SCCFD’s conditional approval confirms unresolved safety deficiencies Under Government Code §§65300.5 and 65860, the City cannot approve a project that conflicts with the General Plan.
General Plan Inconsistency Matrix
Project: TM‑2024‑009 (Linda Vista Townhomes)
Location: 10857–10887 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, CA
Prepared for: Cupertino City Council
Prepared by: Mark W. Fantozzi, PE
Issue: Failure to Comply with Mandatory General Plan Safety, Mobility, and Land Use Policies
I. SAFETY ELEMENT INCONSISTENCIES
General Plan
Policy
City’s Finding Record Evidence Inconsistency Subdivision Map Act Consequence
HS‑2.13 – Identify
residential areas
with fewer than
two ingress/egress
routes and ensure
safe evacuation.
City asserts
project is
“consistent with
the General Plan.”
No evacuation
analysis
performed. Project
located on a
single‑egress
dead‑end (Evulich
Ct → Linda
Vista).
City failed to
identify or
mitigate
single‑egress
hazard.
§66474(a): Map
inconsistent with
General Plan →
Map must be
denied.
S‑1.3 – Ensure
adequate
emergency access
and evacuation
capacity.
City claims fire
access is adequate.
No evacuation
modeling, no
clearance time
analysis, no
cumulative load
analysis.
Cannot ensure
evacuation
capacity without
analysis.
§66474(g): Design
likely to cause
serious public
safety problems.
S‑2.3 – Evaluate
development in
VHFHSZ for
evacuation
constraints.
City states project
complies with Fire
Dept. conditions.
No evacuation
evaluation despite
VHFHSZ
designation.
Mandatory
evaluation not
performed.
§66474(a):
Required finding
cannot be made.
S‑2.4 – Maintain
safe evacuation
routes during
wildfire events.
City claims
roadway
improvements
improve safety.
Traffic‑Evacuation
analysis shows
McClellan Rd V/C
= 4.2 and Foothill
Blvd V/C = 4.0
under evacuation
— system failure.
Evacuation routes
are not safe and
will not function.
§66474(g): Map
must be denied
due to public
safety risk.
HS‑3.1 – Reduce
wildfire risk
through land‑use
decisions.
City claims
project meets
zoning.
High‑density infill
in a VHFHSZ
without
evacuation
analysis increases
wildfire risk.
Land‑use decision
increases, not
reduces, wildfire
risk.
§66474(c): Site
not physically
suitable.
II. MOBILITY ELEMENT INCONSISTENCIES
General Plan
Policy
City’s Finding Record Evidence Inconsistency Subdivision Map Act Consequence
M‑2.3.1 –
Minimize
conflicts with
pedestrian and
bicycle traffic on
primary streets.
City claims
project improves
walkability.
Evacuation surge
merges into
school‑zone
pedestrian
corridors
(Hyannisport,
Bubb).
Evacuation
conflicts with
school pedestrian
routes.
§66474(g):
Creates public
safety hazard.
M‑3.2 – Provide
safe pedestrian
connections to
public amenities.
City claims
sidewalks improve
safety.
Sidewalks do not
mitigate
evacuation
gridlock or
fire‑flow
deficiencies.
Pedestrian
improvements
irrelevant to
evacuation safety.
§66474(a):
Findings
unsupported by
substantial
evidence.
M‑3.3 – Enhance
crossings at
physical barriers
(creeks,
highways).
City claims
crosswalks meet
policy.
Stevens Creek
Trail access does
not provide
evacuation egress.
City misapplies
policy; does not
address
evacuation.
§66474(a):
Inconsistent with
Mobility Element.
III. LAND USE ELEMENT INCONSISTENCIES
General Plan
Policy
City’s Finding Record Evidence Inconsistency Subdivision Map Act Consequence
LU‑11.1 – Ensure
new development
does not
overburden
infrastructure.
City claims
infrastructure is
adequate.
No fire‑flow
analysis in record;
no evacuation
capacity analysis.
Infrastructure
(roads, fire‑flow)
not evaluated.
§66474(d): Site
not suitable for
proposed density.
LU‑1.3 – Ensure
development
supports public
safety.
City claims
project meets
zoning.
High‑density
development in
VHFHSZ without
evacuation
analysis
undermines public
safety.
Project conflicts
with core land‑use
safety principles.
§66474(g):
Creates serious
public safety
problems.
Under Gov. Code §66474, if any required finding cannot be made, the City must deny the map.
Here, multiple findings cannot be made, and the record contains no substantial evidence supporting the City’s conclusions.
V. CONCLUSION
This General Plan inconsistency matrix demonstrates that TM‑2024‑009:
Fails to comply with mandatory Safety Element policies Fails to comply with Mobility and Land Use policies
Fails to evaluate evacuation in a VHFHSZ
Fails to ensure public safety
Fails to meet the Subdivision Map Act’s required findings Therefore, the City Council must deny TM‑2024‑009 as a matter of law.
CLAIM 1: DENSITY “in order to fit the minimum required number of units within the site” • SummerHill’s proposed units average 2,369 livable SF (excluding the 2-car garage) are significantly oversized relative to comparable, approved projects in the same market served by CUSD
• Vida Sunnyvale Phase I (Appendix A): 50 units on 2.76 acres (vs. SummerHill’s 51 units on 2.51 acres): nearly identical density – Avg livable area: 1,748 SF per unit: Evulich Ct is 36% larger than Vida – Setbacks to single-family homes: 53–65 feet (vs. SummerHill’s ~10 ft) – Heights taper down 1 story from interior to rear: gradual transition to neighbors – Approved July 2021, built and sold: same South Bay market, conventional financing • Westport Cupertino (Appendix B): 88 townhomes/rowhouses at Stevens Creek & Mary, Cupertino – Avg livable area: 1,978 SF per unit: Evulich Ct is 20% larger than Westport – Family-sized units with 2-car garages: proven marketable product – Approved by Cupertino’s own City Council (Aug. 2020); same city, same market CLAIM 2: EVULICH COURT RIGHT-OF-WAY “The site is constrained by an existing City right-of-way (Evulich Court).” • SummerHill must build internal access roads regardless; the site plan includes five private streets for vehicle and fire apparatus access
• The new internal road can be dedicated back to the City in lieu of the existing Evulich Court right-of-way • A required infrastructure element cannot simultaneously be a “site constraint” justifying reduced wildfire setbacks; this argument is circular (Appendix C)
REDUCING UNIT SIZE FROM MCMANSION TO COMPARABLE MAKES 30 FT SETBACKS FEASIBLE • At Westport sizes (1,978 SF): total livable drops from 120,829 to 100,878 SF, freeing ~20,000 SF of building mass • At Vida sizes (1,748 SF): total livable drops to 89,148 SF, freeing ~31,700 SF of building mass • Either reduction substantially eases the physical conflict with the 30-foot PRC 4290 setback while still delivering the 51 units required by the City’s Housing Element
CONCLUSION: NO SETBACK WAIVER IS NEEDED TO MEET HOUSING
DENSITY
The setback waiver is not necessary to meet the housing density required by the City’s Housing Element. The required 51 units can be delivered at right-sized livable areas, consistent with comparable projects already approved and built in the same market, while honoring the full 30-foot PRC 4290 setback mandated for Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. The only thing preventing compliance is SummerHill’s choice to build oversized units, not any site constraint or density requirement.
Side-by-Side Comparison
SummerHill (Proposed) Vida Sunnyvale Westport Cupertino Location Linda Vista Dr, Cupertino E. Fremont Ave,
Sunnyvale
Stevens Creek Blvd,
Cupertino
Site Area 2.51 acres 2.76 acres 8.1 acres (mixed-use)
Townhome Units 51 50 88
Avg Livable SF (excl.
garage)
2,369 1,748 1,978
Avg Garage SF (2-car) 485 458 571
Appendix A: Vida Sunnyvale Phase I, A Built Comparable
Project Overview
Vida Phase I (166–176 E. Fremont Avenue, Sunnyvale; File #21-0715) was approved by the Sunnyvale Planning Commission on July 12, 2021 and has been constructed and almost sold out. It is a 50-unit townhome development on 2.76 acres, a nearly identical site profile to SummerHill’s proposed 51 units on 2.51 acres. Both projects target the same South Bay family-housing market served by Cupertino Union School District, an important factor in home pricing.
Setbacks and Height Transition to Single-Family Neighbors Vida is bordered by single-family neighborhoods on two sides (east toward Bobolink Circle; south toward Avon Terrace/Berwick Way). The project provides setbacks of 53 to 65 feet from these single-family homes: more than five times what SummerHill proposes on the south property line. Critically, these generous setbacks were achieved without any fire hazard zone requirement.
Building heights taper down one story from the site interior along the rear property line, providing a gradual transition toward the neighboring single-family homes. The residential buildings are set back approximately 74 to 84 feet from adjacent residential properties when measured to the building face (vs. property line). Additional buffers include a 6-foot masonry perimeter wall along the east and south property lines, fast-growing evergreen screening trees, restricted exhaust openings on walls facing residential neighbors, and peripheral lighting capped at 8-foot pole heights.
Setback Comparison
Boundary Adjacent Use SummerHill Proposed Vida Actual
South / East (Rear) Single-Family Homes ~10 ft (AMMR waiver) 53–65 ft West (Side) City Parcel / SF Home ~10 ft (AMMR waiver) 15–28 ft (PL-9 waiver) North / Front Street / Commercial ~10–30 ft (varies) 10–29 ft (PL-9 waiver) Vida used Density Bonus waivers (PL-9) only on the front and commercial-facing side; never on the sides adjacent to single-family homes. SummerHill, by contrast, seeks the setback reduction precisely on the sides where residents live.
Site and Density Comparison
Site Metric SummerHill Linda Vista Vida Sunnyvale Phase I Net Site Area 2.51 acres 2.76 acres
Total Units 51 50
Density 20.3 du/acre 18.1 du/acre
Stories 3 3–4 (tapered to 3 at rear)
Avg Livable SF (excl. garage) 2,369 1,748
Total Livable SF (excl. garage) 120,829 87,416
Avg Garage SF 485 (447–579) 458 (453–489)
Both projects have comparable acreage (2.51 vs. 2.76 acres), comparable unit counts (51 vs. 50), and comparable densities (20.3 vs. 18.1 du/acre). Both include 2-car garages for every unit (SummerHill’s avg 485 SF vs. Vida’s avg 458 SF). The garage deduction is roughly equal, making the livable area comparison apples-to-apples. The decisive difference is unit size: SummerHill averages 2,369 livable SF per unit versus Vida’s 1,748, which is 36% larger; a difference that directly drives the setback conflict.
Vida Unit Mix Detail
Unit Type Qty Net Interior SF Open Space
SF
Garage SF Livable SF*
Unit 1 4 1,365 ~114 489 ~1,479
Unit 2 10 1,414 ~114 462 ~1,528
Units 3–4 8 1,430–1,520 ~114 454–462 ~1,544–1,634
Units 5–6 14 1,619–1,740 ~114 453–454 ~1,733–1,854
Units 7–8 14 1,901–2,037 ~114 461–471 ~2,015–2,151
Average / Total 50 1,634 avg ~114 avg 458 avg 1,748 avg *Livable SF = Net Interior + Private Open Space (porches/decks), excluding garage. Both projects have comparable 2-car garages (~450–580 SF), so the garage deduction is roughly a wash.
Source: Sunnyvale File #21-0715, Attachment 2 (Project Data Table), Attachment 7 (Project Plans, Sheet A01). Approved July 12, 2021.
Appendix B: Westport Cupertino, Same Market, Smaller Units Project Overview
Westport Cupertino (21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard at Mary Avenue) is a mixed-use development approved by the Cupertino City Council on August 18, 2020. The project includes 88 townhomes and rowhouses designed by C2K Architecture for KT Urban, along with senior housing and retail.
Westport matters for this analysis because it is in Cupertino itself: the same city, the same real estate market, and the same municipal approval process as SummerHill’s proposed project. If family-sized townhomes averaging under 2,000 SF are marketable, financeable, and approvable on Stevens Creek Boulevard, the same is true on Linda Vista Drive.
Unit Data
Component Units Total Residential SF Avg Livable SF* Avg Garage SF Townhomes (13 bldgs) 70 139,860 1,998 564
Rowhouses (3 bldgs) 18 34,250 1,903 602
Combined 88 174,110 1,978 571
*Livable SF = Total residential area excluding garage/parking. Westport figures from SF YIMBY / planning records: 179,310 SF total built area for townhomes (139,860 residential + 39,450 parking); 45,090 SF for rowhouses (34,250 residential + 10,840 parking).
All 88 units include 2-car garages. The townhomes average 1,998 livable SF; the rowhouses average 1,903 livable SF. SummerHill’s proposed average of 2,369 livable SF is 20% larger than Westport’s combined average of 1,978 livable SF. Notably, Westport was approved without density bonus setback waivers on residential-adjacent boundaries, and without any AMMR for fire hazard setback reduction.
What This Means for SummerHill’s Claim
If SummerHill sized its 51 units to the Westport average (1,978 SF livable, excluding garage), the total livable area would drop from 120,829 SF to approximately 100,878 SF: a reduction of 19,951 SF of building mass. Adding garages (~485 SF each), total gross would be approximately 125,613 SF versus the current 145,544 SF. This 20,000 SF reduction in building envelope, distributed across 10 buildings, would substantially narrow building footprints along the south and east boundaries and move significantly toward compliance with the 30-foot PRC 4290 setback.
Even a modest reduction to ~2,100 SF livable per unit (still larger than Westport) would free approximately 13,700 SF of building mass, enough to meaningfully increase setback distances from the current ~10 feet toward the mandated 30 feet on the sides adjacent to single-family homes.
Appendix C: The Evulich Court Right-of-Way Is Not a Valid Justification In the AMMR application submitted to the Santa Clara County Fire Department, SummerHill’s representative Steven Bull states:
“The site is constrained by an existing City right-of-way within the approximate center of the site (Evulich Court). The width of Evulich Court reduces the size of the development area for the project. The size and quantity of the proposed townhomes necessitate a reduction of the 30-foot setback requirement in order to fit the minimum required number of units within the site.” This argument does not withstand scrutiny for a straightforward reason: SummerHill must build internal access roads regardless. The proposed site plan includes five private streets (A Street through E Street), cul-de-sacs, and connecting roadways to provide vehicle access to all ten buildings and to meet CFC D105 fire apparatus access requirements. This internal road network is a design necessity for a 51-unit development on this site, irrespective of the Evulich Court right-of-way.
The existing Evulich Court right-of-way, ceded by the original property owners decades ago, runs through the approximate center of the parcel. SummerHill’s own site plan replaces the existing cul-de-sac with a new internal street network. The new road that SummerHill constructs in its place can be dedicated back to the City in lieu of the existing right-of-way. This is a standard mechanism in subdivision development; the Vesting Tentative Map (TM-2024-009) already contemplates the reconfiguration of internal circulation.
The critical point: the existence of a historical City right-of-way cannot be the reason to reduce wildfire setbacks to 10 feet and place neighboring single-family homes at risk. The developer must build access roads for the 51-unit development in any configuration. The road infrastructure is a given; only the setback to neighboring homes is a variable. A site plan with right-sized units, as demonstrated by Vida and Westport, could accommodate both the required road network and full 30-foot PRC 4290 setbacks.
Appendix D: SummerHill Unit Mix Detail (Sheet A08)
Unit Type Qty Net Interior SF Porches/Decks Livable SF* Garage SF Unit 1 (BMR) 10 1,777 ~200 ~1,977 579
Unit 2 21 2,217 ~200 ~2,417 469
Unit 3 12 2,317 ~200 ~2,517 447
Unit 3ALT 8 2,315 ~200 ~2,515 464
Average / Total 51 2,170 avg ~200 avg 2,369 avg 485 avg *Livable SF = Net Interior SF (per A08, measured to outside face of stud) + prorated porches/decks (~200 SF/unit average from project totals of 4,300 SF porches + 5,878 SF decks across 51 units). Excludes garage only.
Source: Exhibit C, Sheet A08 Project Data (September 15, 2025). Staff Report FAR figure of 148,473 SF (136% FAR) includes these areas plus additional common area.
Market-rate units (Units 2, 3, 3ALT, 41 units) average 2,265 net interior SF, or approximately 2,465 livable SF including porches/decks. Even the BMR units (Unit 1, 10 units) at 1,977 livable SF are larger than the Vida average of 1,748 and comparable to the Westport average of 1,978. This confirms that right-sized units are not only viable but already part of SummerHill’s own product offering.
Data Sources
SummerHill Linda Vista: City of Cupertino Staff Report, March 17, 2026 (File #26-14876); Exhibit C, Sheet A08 Project Data (Sept. 15, 2025); Exhibit A, Setback Site Plan (Rev. 12/19/2025); Attachment F, AMMR Approval (Steven Bull / SummerHill Homes, Oct. 28, 2025, Rev. Dec. 19, 2025).
Vida Sunnyvale Phase I: City of Sunnyvale File #21-0715 (Planning Application #2020-7525): Attachment 2 (Project Data Table), Attachment 3 (Recommended Findings), Attachment 7 (Project Plans, Sheet A01). Approved July 12, 2021.
Westport Cupertino: City of Cupertino (File #DP-2018-05, ASA-2018-05, TM-2018-03); Approved by City Council Aug. 18, 2020; EIR certified (CEQA #2019070377). Building data from approved planning documents. 88 townhomes/rowhouses by KT Urban / C2K Architecture.
Staff Report Memorandum
To: Cupertino City Council
From: Mark W. Fantozzi, PE
Re: Legal Deficiencies in Staff Report and Approval Findings for SummerHill Homes Project (TM-2024-009, ASA-2024-015, TR-2024-044)
Date: March 2026
VIA EMAIL
I. INTRODUCTION
This memorandum identifies material legal errors, omissions, and unsupported findings in the Planning Department’s staff report recommending approval of the SummerHill Homes project at 10857–10887 Linda Vista Drive. These errors render the proposed CEQA exemption, General Plan consistency findings, and Subdivision Map Act findings legally indefensible.
The central issue is straightforward:
SB 330 vesting does not exempt the project from updated fire‑safety regulations, VHFHSZ requirements, evacuation capacity analysis, or General Plan Safety Element policies.
The staff report incorrectly asserts otherwise, resulting in a recommendation that violates:
The General Plan Safety Element
The Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code §66474)
AB 747 (2019) and AB 1409 (2021)
Public Resources Code §§4290 and 4291
California Fire Code (CFC) Appendix B, C, and D
Government Code §65913.4(a)(6)
CEQA exemption requirements
These deficiencies require the City Council to deny the project or continue the hearing until the required analyses are completed.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. Project Location and Application
The project proposes 51 townhome units on a constrained hillside parcel accessed by a single dead‑end road (Evulich Court) adjacent to the Stevens Creek canyon.
B. SB 330 Preliminary Application
The applicant submitted an SB 330 preliminary application on October 9, 2024.
C. VHFHSZ Designation
In February 2025, CAL FIRE adopted updated Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps. The project site is now designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ).
D. Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment (October 2025)
The City commissioned Fehr & Peers to prepare a citywide evacuation capacity assessment, which identifies:
o Severe bottlenecks
o Limited egress in hillside neighborhoods
o High wildfire vulnerability
E. Staff Report (February 2026)
The staff report asserts:
The City does not have any adopted objective standards pertaining to evacuation. As a result, an evacuation study has not been required.
This statement is factually incorrect and contradicted by:
o The General Plan Safety Element (2026 Draft)
o AB 747 and AB 1409
o The City’s own Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment
III. ISSUES PRESENTED
1. Does SB 330 vesting exempt the project from updated fire‑safety regulations, VHFHSZ requirements, or evacuation analysis?
No.
2. Did the Planning Department fail to apply mandatory General Plan Safety Element policies?
Yes.
3. Did the City fail to make required Subdivision Map Act safety findings supported by substantial evidence?
Yes.
4. Is the CEQA exemption invalid due to failure to demonstrate compliance with Government Code §65913.4(a)(6)?
Yes.
IV. APPLICABLE LAW
A. SB 330 (Gov. Code §65589.5 and §65941.1)
SB 330 vests zoning and design standards, not public‑safety regulations.
B. Public Resources Code §§4290 and 4291
Mandate:
o Adequate road width
o Adequate turnarounds
o Adequate fire‑flow
o Adequate water supply
o Secondary access where feasible
C. California Fire Code (CFC) Appendix B, C, D
Require:
o Fire‑flow modeling
o Hydrant spacing
o Dead‑end road limits
o Minimum clear width
o Emergency access compliance
D. Government Code §65913.4(a)(6)
A CEQA‑exempt project in a VHFHSZ must demonstrate compliance with:
o PRC 4290
o PRC 4291
o CBC Chapter 7A
o Local fire‑safe regulations
E. Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code §66474)
A tentative map must be denied if:
o The site is physically unsuitable
o The subdivision creates danger to life or property
o The subdivision is inconsistent with the General Plan F. AB 747 (2019) and AB 1409 (2021)
Require:
o Identification of evacuation routes
o Assessment of capacity, safety, and viability
o Identification of bottlenecks
o Evacuation locations
G. General Plan Safety Element (2026 Draft)
Contains mandatory policies:
o HS‑2.11: Evacuation Routes
o HS‑2.13: Ingress and Egress
o HS‑2.14: Secondary Access
o HS‑2.1: Building and Fire Code Compliance
These are objective standards.
V. ANALYSIS
A. SB 330 Does Not Exempt the Project from Fire‑Safety or VHFHSZ Requirements
The staff report incorrectly implies that SB 330 “locks in” pre‑2025 fire‑safety conditions o This is legally incorrect.
Courts consistently hold:
o Vested rights do not apply to public‑safety regulations.
Fire‑safety standards are police‑power regulations and cannot be frozen.
B. The Staff Report Fails to Apply Mandatory General Plan Safety Policies The General Plan requires:
o Evacuation route analysis
o Ingress/egress adequacy
o Secondary access feasibility
o Fire‑flow and water‑supply adequacy
The staff report:
o Conducted no evacuation analysis
o Conducted no fire‑flow modeling
o Conducted no dead‑end road compliance review
o Conducted no secondary access feasibility study
This violates the General Plan.
C. The City Ignored Its Own Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment The Fehr & Peers study identifies:
o Severe bottlenecks
o Limited egress in hillside neighborhoods
o High wildfire vulnerability
The staff report ignores this study entirely.
This omission violates:
o AB 747
o AB 1409
o General Plan Safety Element
o Subdivision Map Act safety findings
D. The CEQA Exemption Is Invalid
Government Code §65913.4(a)(6) requires demonstrated compliance with:
o PRC 4290
o PRC 4291
o CBC Chapter 7A
The staff report provides no evidence of:
o Fire‑flow modeling
o Hydrant spacing analysis
o Roadway adequacy
o Water‑supply verification
o Secondary access feasibility
A conclusory Fire Department letter is not substantial evidence.
E. Subdivision Map Act Findings Are Unsupported
Gov. Code §66474 requires denial if:
o The site is physically unsuitable
o The subdivision creates danger to life or property
o The subdivision is inconsistent with the General Plan Because the City failed to analyze:
o Evacuation
o Fire‑flow
o Water supply
o Roadway adequacy
o VHFHSZ wildfire behavior
The findings are unsupported and invalid.
VI. CONCLUSION
The staff report contains material legal errors and omissions that invalidate:
The CEQA exemption
The General Plan consistency findings
The Subdivision Map Act findings
The safety determinations required by State law
The City Council must:
1. Deny the project, or
2. Continue the hearing and require:
A full evacuation analysis
Fire‑flow and hydraulic modeling
Secondary access feasibility study
VHFHSZ wildfire behavior analysis
Updated General Plan consistency review
VII. RECOMMENDED ACTION
Do not adopt the staff recommendation.
Direct staff to prepare a revised analysis that complies with:
1. The General Plan
2. AB 747 / AB 1409
3. PRC 4290 / 4291
4. CFC Appendix B, C, D
5. Government Code §65913.4(a)(6)
6. Subdivision Map Act §66474
Memorandum
To: Floy Andrews, City Attorney, City of Cupertino
Copy To: City Clerk & City Council, City of Cupertino
From: MarkW. Fantozzi, PE
Date: March 10,2026
VIA EMAIL
Re: TM-2024-009 (Linda Vista Drive) * Requirement for Applicant Financial Disclosure When Seeking Fire-Safety Exceptions in a Very High Fire H:aizard Severity Zone Dear Floy Andrews:
I am writing to request formal clarification and action regarding the City's legal obligations when an applicant seeks exceptions to fire-safety standards, CEQA requirements, or General Plan policies for a project located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFIISZ). The TM-2024-009 application for 10857, 10867, 10877, and 10886 Linda Vista Drive includes a request for a PRC 4290 exception, which is a discretionary deviation from mandatory fi re-safety standards.
Under California law, when an applicant seeks a discretionary exception that reduces public-safety protections, the City is entitled
-
and in some cases required
-
to obtain
financial information demonstrating whether full compliance is feasible. This principle is supported by multiple appellate decisions, including:
. Topanga Ass'nfor a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles {1974) 1 I Cal.3d 506 . Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Ass'n v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th7}4 . San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City & County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656
. California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App,4th957 . Friends of the Eel River v. Sonoma County l{ater Agency (2003) 108 Cal.App,4th 859 . Bowman v. City of Berkeley (2004) 122 Cal.App.Ath 572 Taken together, these cases establish that:
l. Discretionary exceptions require substantial evidence (Topanga).
2. Economic feasibility is a required component of evaluating alternatives and mitigation (Sequoyah Hills, San Franciscans Upholding, Cly'PS, Eel River).
3. Agencies may require financial information to support findings (Bowman).
Because the applicant seeks to avoid compliance with PRC 429A setback requirements -
and
because compliance may require costly design changes, grading, access improvements, or water-supply upgrades
-
the exception confers a financial benefit. The City therefore has a legal basis to require:
n Project pro forma
o Cost estimates for full fire-safety compliance
. Cost comparison of compliant vs. non-compliant designs . Evidence supporting any claim of infeasibility
Without this information, the City cannot make the findings required to grant a PRC 4290 exception, nor can it make the mandatory General Plan consistency findings under Government Code $$65300.5 and 65860.
I respectfully request that your office:
1. Confirm that the City may require financial disclosure when an applicant seeks a PRC 4290 exception or other fire-safety deviation.
2. Advise the Planning Department and City Council that financial feasibility is a legally relevant factor in evaluating such exceptions.
3. Direct staff to require the applicant for TM-2024-A09 to submit financial documentation sufficient to support any claim that full compliance with fire-safety standards is infeasible.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your guidance.
Cupertino, CA
mw f anto zzi@ tfanc o. c o m
Legal Argument
Requiring Financiol Disclosure When o Developer Seeks Fire-Safety Exceptions in a VHFHSZ
TM-2024-009
-
10857, 10867, 10877, 10886 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino I.INTRODUCTION
This memorandum identifres California case law that, taken together, establishes a legal basis for requiring the applicant for TM-2024-009 to disclose project financial information when seeking exceptions to fire-safety standards, CEQA requirements, or General Plan policies in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ).
While no single case directly addresses "fire-code exceptions as financial benefit,'o the combined holdings of the cases below support the argument that:
1. Discretionary exceptions confer a financial benefit,
2. Financial feasibility becomes relevant when exceptions are requested, and
3. The City may require financial disclosure to evaluate whether the exception is justified, necessary, and consistent with public-safety obligations.
II. APPLICABLE CASE LAW SUPPORTING FINANICIAL DISCLOSURE Below are the cases that, when synthesized, create a compelling legal foundation.
1. Topanga Ass'nfor a Scenic Community v. Coungt of Los Angeles (1974) 1l Cal3d 506
Key Holding:
Discretionary approvals require findings supported by substantial evidence demonstrating that the exception is justified.
Relevance:
A PRC 4290 exception is discretionary. To justify it, the City must evaluate:
. Whether the exception is necessary
. Whether alternatives exist
. Whether equivalent safety is achieved
Financial feasibility is part of evaluating alternatives. If the applicant claims compliance is "infeasible," the City may require financial data to verify that claim.
2. Sequayah Hills Homeowners Ass'n v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704
Key Holding:
When a developer claims that full compliance with regulations is infeasible, the agency may consider economic feasibility and require supporting evidence.
Relevance:
If the applicant argues that meeting fire-code standards, access requirements, or General Plan policies is "infeasible," the City may require:
. Cost estimates
. Pro forma analysis
. Financial feasibility documentation
This case directly supports requiring financial disclosure when exceptions are sought.
3. San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City & Counly of Sun Francisco (2002) 102 Cat.App.4th 656
Key llolding:
Agencies may require economic evidence to evaluate whether mitigation measures or alternatives are feasible.
Relevance:
Fire-safety compliance (e.g., widening access roads, improving water supply, adding hydrants, meeting PRC 4290 setbacks) may be costly. If the applicant seeks an exception instead of compliance, the City may require financial information to determine:
. Whether compliance is truly infeasible
. Whether the exception is justified
. Whether the applicant is avoiding costs at the expense of public safety
4. Californiu Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957
Key Holding:
Economic feasibility is a legitimate factor in determining whether alternatives or mitigation measures are required.
Relevance:
If the applicant seeks to avoid fire-safety requirements, the City may require financial disclosure to evaluate:
. Whether safer altematives are feasible
. Whether the applicant is choosing a cheaper but less safe option
5. Friends of the Eel River v. Sonoma County Water Agencl (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 859
Key Holding:
Agencies must consider whether mitigation measures are practicable, including economic practicability.
Relevance:
If the applicant claims that meeting fire-flow, access, or evacuation standards is impracticable, the City may require:
. Cost analysis
. Engineering cost estimates
. Financialfeasibilitydocumentation
6. Bowman v. CiU of Berkeley (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 572 Key Holding:
Courts defer to agencies when they require economic evidence to support findings.
Relevance:
. If Cupertino requires financial disclosure to justify a PRC 4290 exception, courts will defer to the City's judgment.
III. SYNTHESIZED LEGAL PRINCIPLE
Taken together, these cases establish the following:
1. Discretionary exceptions require substantial evidence.
2. Economic feasibility is part of evaluating alternatives and mitigation. (Sequoyah Hills, San Franciscans Upholding, CNPS, Eel River)
3. Agencies may require financial information to support findings. (Bowman)
4. A PRC 4290 exception is a discretionary deviation from mandatory fire-safety standards.
Therefore:
The City may require the applicant to disclose project financials to justify the exception.
tV. APPLICATION TO TM-2024-OO9
The applicant seeks:
. A PRC 4290 exception for non-conforming setbacks
. Relief from full fire-flow and access compliance
. Approval in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
. Approval without evacuation analysis
. Approval without a Final Fire Protection Plan
These exceptions reduce the applicant's costs by avoiding:
. Road widening i Water-supplyupgrades
. Additional hydrants
. Fire-resistantconstruction
. Grading 0r access improvements
This is a financial benefit.
Under the case law above, the City may require:
. Pro forma financials
. Cost estimates for full compliance
. Cost comparison of compliant vs. non-compliant designs . Evidence that compliance is truly infeasible
Without this information, the City cannot make:
. PRC 4290 findings
. General Plan consistency findings
. CEQA findings (if CEQA applies)
. Public-safetyfindings
V. CONCL,USION
While no single case directly states that "fire-code exceptions require financial disclosure," the combined holdings of California appellate decisions create a strong legal basis for requiring the applicant to provide project financials when seeking discretionary exceptions in a VHFHSZ.
The City of Cupertino is legally justified
-
and arguably obligated
-
to require:
. Full financial disclosure
. Cost analysis of compliance
. Evidence supporting any claim of infeasibility
before granting any exception that reduces fire-safety protections.
Staff Report Memorandum
To: Cupertino City Council
From: Mark W. Fantozzi
Re: Legal Deficiencies in Staff Report and Approval Findings for SummerHill Homes Proj ect (T M-2024 -009, A SA-2 0 24 -0 I 5, T R-2024 -044) Date: March2026
VIA EMAIL
I.INTRODUCTION
This memorandum identifies material legal errors, omissions, and unsupported findings in the Planning Department's staff report recommending approval of the SummerHill Homes project at 10857-10887 Linda Vista Drive. These errors render the proposed CEQA exemption, General Plan consistency findings, and Subdivision Map Act findings legally indefensible.
The central issue is straightforward:
SB 330 vesting does not exempt the project from updated fire-safety regulations, VHFHSZ requirements, evacuation capacity analysis, or General Plan Safety Element policies.
. The staffreport incorrectly asserts otherwise, resulting in a recommendation that violates:
o The General Plan Safety Element
e The Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code 866474)
o AB 747 (2019) and AB 1409 (2021)
. Public Resources Code $$4290 and 4291
o California Fire Code (CFC) Appendix B, C, and D
. Govemment Code 965913.4(a)(6)
o CEQA exemption requirements
These deficiencies require the City Council to deny the project or continue the hearing until the required analyses are completed.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUIID
A. Project Location and Application
The project proposes 5l townhome units on a constrtrined hillside parcel accessed by a single dead-end road (Evulich Court) adjacent to the Stevens Creek canyon.
B. SB 330 Preliminary Application
The applicant submiffed an SB 330 preliminary application on October 9,2024.
C. VHFHSZ Designation
In February 2025, CAL FIRE adopted updated Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps. The project site is now designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ).
D. Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment (October 2025)
The Cify commissioned Fehr & Peers to prepare a citywide evacuation capacity assessment, which identifies:
o Severe bottlenecks
o Limited egress in hillside neighborhoods
o High wildfire wlnerability
E. Staff Report (February 2026)
The staff report asserts:
The Cify does not have any adopted objective standards pertaining to evacuation. As a result, an evacuation study has not been required.
This statement is factually incorrect and contradicted by:
o The Ceneral Plan Safety Element (2026 Draft)
o AB 747 and AB 1409
o The City's own Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment
III.ISSUES PRESENTEI)
1. Does SB 330 vesting exempt the project from updated fire-safety regulations, VHFHSZ requirements, or evacuation analysis?
No.
2. Did the Planning Department fail to apply mandatory General Plan Safety Element policies?
Yes.
3. Did the City fail to make required Subdivision Map Act safety findings supported by substantial evidence?
Yes.
4. Is the CEQA exemption invalid due to failure to demonstrate compliance with Government Code $659 1 3.4(a)(6)?
Yes.
IV. APPLICABLE LAW
A. SB 330 (Gov. Code $65589.5 and $6594r.1)
SB 330 vests zoning and design standards, not public-safety regulations.
B. Public Resources Code $$4290 and 4291
Mandate:
o Adequate road width
o Adequate turnarounds
o Adequate fire-flow
o Adequate water supply
o Secondary access where feasible
C. California Fire Code (CFC) Appendix B, C, D
Require:
o Fire-flow modeling
o Hydrant spacing
o Dead-end road limits
o Minimum clear width
o Emergency access compliance
D. Government Code $65913.a(a)(6)
A CEQA-exempt project in a VHFHSZ must demonstrate compliance with:
o PRC 4290
o PRC 4291
o CBC Chapter 7A
o Local fire-safe regulations
E. Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code $66474)
A tentative map must be denied if:
o The site is physically unsuitable
o The subdivision creates danger to life or property
o The subdivision is inconsistent with the General Plan F. AB 747 (2019\ and AB 1409 (2021)
Require:
o Identification of evacuation routes
o Assessment of capacity, safety, and viability
o Identification of bottlenecks
o Evacuation locations
G. General Plan Safety Element (2026 Draft)
Contains mandatory policies:
o HS-2.1 1: Evacuation Routes
o HS-2.13: Ingress and Egress
o HS-2.14: Secondary Access
o HS-2.1: Building and Fire Code Compliance
These are objective standards.
V. AIIALYSIS
A. SB 330 Does Not Exempt the Project from Fire-Safety or VHFHSZ Requirements
The staff report incorrectly implies that SB 330 "locks in" prc-2025 fire-safety conditions o This is legally incorrect.
Courts consistently hold:
o Vested rights do not apply to public-safety regulations.
Fire-safety standards are police-power regulations and cannot be frozen.
B. The Staff Report Fails to Apply Mandatory General Plan Safefy Policies The General Plan requires:
o Evacuation route analysis
o lngress/egressadequacy
o Secondary access feasibility
o Fire-flow and water-supply adequacy
The staff report:
o Conducted no evacuation analysis
o Conducted no fire-flow modeling
o Conducted no dead-end road compliance review
o Conducted no secondary access feasibility study
This violates the General Plan.
C. The City Ignored Its Own Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment The Fehr & Peers study identifies:
o Severe bottlenecks
o Limited egress in hillside neighborhoods
o High wildfire vulnerability
The staff report ignores this study entirely.
This omission violates:
o 48747
o AB 1409
o General Plan Safety Element
o Subdivision Map Act safety findings
D. The CEQA Exemption Is Invalid
Govemment Code $6591 3.4(a)(6) requires demonstrated compliance with:
o PRC 4290
o PRC429l
o CBC Chapter 7A
The staffreport provides no evidence of:
o Fire-flow modeling
o Hydrant spacing analysis
o Roadway adequacy
o Water-supply verification
o Secondary access feasibility
A conclusory Fire Department letter is not substantial evidence.
E. Subdivision Map Act Findings Are Unsupported
Gov. Code 566474 requires denial if:
o The site is physically unsuitable
o The subdivision creates danger to life or property
o The subdivision is inconsistent with the General Plan Because the City failed to analyze'.
o Evacuation
o Fire-flow
o Water supply
o Roadway adequacy
o VHFHSZ wildfire behavior
The findings are unsupported and invalid.
VI. CONCLUSION
The staff report contains material legal errors and omissions that invalidate:
e The CEQA exemption
o The General Plan consistency findings
o The Subdivision Map Act findings
o The safety determinations required by State law
The City Council must:
1. Deny the project, or
2. Continue the hearing and require:
o A full evacuation analysis
o Fire-flow and hydraulic modeling
o Secondary access feasibility study
o VHFHSZ wildfire behavior analysis
o Updated General Plan consistency review
VII. RECOMMENDED ACTION
Do not adopt the staff recommendation.
Direct staff to prepare a revised analysis that complies with:
l. The General Plan
2. A8747 I ABt409
3. PRC 4290 I 4291
4. CFC Appendix B, C, D
5. Govemment Code $65913.a(a)(6)
6. Subdivision MaP Act 566474
FORMAL NEGLIGENCE ARGUMENT
Submitted to: Cupertino City Attorney and Cupertino City Council Re: Administrative Negligence in the Review and Recommendation of Approval for TM-2024-009 (Linda Vista Townhomes)
Project: TM-2A24-009 (Linda Vista Townhomes)
Location: 10857-10887 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, CA
Prepared by: Mark W. Fantozzi, PE
VIA EMAIL
I.INTRODUCTION
This letter sets forth a formal argument that the Cupertino Planning Department's review and recommendation of approval for TM-2024-009 constitutes administrative negligence-meaning a failure to proceed in the manner required by law, an abuse of discretion, and a recommendation unsupported by substantial evidence-under the Subdivision Map Act, Califomia Fire Code, Public Resources Code 9942904291, and the Cupertino General Plan Safety Element, This argument does not allege tort liability or personal wrongdoing. Instead, it demonstrates that the Planning Department failed to perform mandatory statutory duties designed to protect public safety, particularly in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). These failures materially compromised the integrity of the administrative record and resulted in a recommendation of approval that is legally indefensible.
II. LEGAL STANDARD FOR ADMINISTRATIVB NEGLIGENCE
In Califomia land-use law, negligence manifests as: failure to proceed in the manner required by law; abuse of discretion; findings unsupporled by substantial evidence; and arbitrary and capricious action. These standards are codified in Gov. Code $66474 (Subdivision Map Act), Code of Civil Procedure $1094.5 (Administrative Mandamus), General Plan consistency doctrine, and Fire Code and PRC compliance requirements. A city acts negligently in the administrative sense when it fails to perform mandatory safety evaluations, ignores statutory requirements, or recommends approval without substantial evidence.
III. DUTY OF CARE
The Planning Department had a mandatory duty to ensure that TM-2024-009 complied with: (1) Subdivision Map Act - Gov. Code $66474; (2) California Fire Code - CFC $503, CFC $403-404, Appendix D, Appendix B; (3) Public Resources Code $$4290- 4291; and (4) Cupertino General Plan Safety Element - Policies HS-2.13, S- 1.3, S-2.3, S-2.4. These duties are not discretionary.
IV. BREACH OF DUTY
The Planning Department breached its duty by failing to perform required safety evaluations and by recommending approval despite the absence of substantial evidence.
Breaches include: (A) No wildfire evacuation analysis; (B) No fire-flow analysis; (C) Ignoring dead-end road requirements; (D) Using outdated, pre-rezoning data; and (E) Making findings without substantial evidence.
V. CAUSATION
The Planning Department's omissions directly caused an incomplete and legally defective administrative record, erroneous findings of General Plan consistency, a recommendation of approval that violates state law, and a foreseeable risk that residents may be unable to evacuate during a wildfire.
VI. FORESEEABLE HARM
Evacuation analysis shows McClellan Road V/C : 4.2, Foothill Boulevard YIC: 4.0, V lC > 1.0 = system failure, CUP-029 generates 38o/o of all evacuation trips, the project sits in a VHFHSZ, and the only evacuation route is a dead-end funnel. These conditions create a foreseeable, life-threatening evacuation failure. Under Califomia law, foreseeable risk satisfies the harm element of administrative negligence.
VII. CONCLUSION
The Planning Department's review and recommendation of approval for TM-2024-009 constitutes administrative negligence because it failed to proceed in the manner required by law, failed to comply with mandatory Fire Code and PRC requirements, failed to ensure General Plan Safety Element consistency, failed to provide substantial evidence supporting required findings, and recommended approval despite foreseeable, life-safety risks. Under Gov. Code $66474, the City Council must deny the tentative map. The City Attomey and City Council are respectfully requested to reject the Planning Department's recommendation, remand the project for full Fire Code and evacuation compliance analysis, require a comprehensive wildfire evacuation study, and ensure compliance with all mandatory General Plan Safety policies. Attached is a StaffReport Memorandum identifuing material legal errors, omissions, and unsupported findings in the Planning Department's staff report.
Thank you for your attention to this matter,
Sincerely,
Mark W. Fantozzi
Cupertino, CA
mw f anto zzi@ tfan c o. c o m
FORMAL NEGLIGENCE ARGUMENT
Submitted to: Cupertino City Attorney and Cupertino City Council Re: Administrative Negligence in the Review and Recommendation of Approval for TM-2024-009 (Linda Vista Townhomes)
Project: TM-2A24-009 (Linda Vista Townhomes)
Location: 10857-10887 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, CA
Prepared by: Mark W. Fantozzi, PE
VIA EMAIL
I.INTRODUCTION
This letter sets forth a formal argument that the Cupertino Planning Department's review and recommendation of approval for TM-2024-009 constitutes administrative negligence-meaning a failure to proceed in the manner required by law, an abuse of discretion, and a recommendation unsupported by substantial evidence-under the Subdivision Map Act, Califomia Fire Code, Public Resources Code 9942904291, and the Cupertino General Plan Safety Element, This argument does not allege tort liability or personal wrongdoing. Instead, it demonstrates that the Planning Department failed to perform mandatory statutory duties designed to protect public safety, particularly in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). These failures materially compromised the integrity of the administrative record and resulted in a recommendation of approval that is legally indefensible.
II. LEGAL STANDARD FOR ADMINISTRATIVB NEGLIGENCE
In Califomia land-use law, negligence manifests as: failure to proceed in the manner required by law; abuse of discretion; findings unsupporled by substantial evidence; and arbitrary and capricious action. These standards are codified in Gov. Code $66474 (Subdivision Map Act), Code of Civil Procedure $1094.5 (Administrative Mandamus), General Plan consistency doctrine, and Fire Code and PRC compliance requirements. A city acts negligently in the administrative sense when it fails to perform mandatory safety evaluations, ignores statutory requirements, or recommends approval without substantial evidence.
III. DUTY OF CARE
The Planning Department had a mandatory duty to ensure that TM-2024-009 complied with: (1) Subdivision Map Act - Gov. Code $66474; (2) California Fire Code - CFC $503, CFC $403-404, Appendix D, Appendix B; (3) Public Resources Code $$4290- 4291; and (4) Cupertino General Plan Safety Element - Policies HS-2.13, S- 1.3, S-2.3, S-2.4. These duties are not discretionary.
IV. BREACH OF DUTY
The Planning Department breached its duty by failing to perform required safety evaluations and by recommending approval despite the absence of substantial evidence.
Breaches include: (A) No wildfire evacuation analysis; (B) No fire-flow analysis; (C) Ignoring dead-end road requirements; (D) Using outdated, pre-rezoning data; and (E) Making findings without substantial evidence.
V. CAUSATION
The Planning Department's omissions directly caused an incomplete and legally defective administrative record, erroneous findings of General Plan consistency, a recommendation of approval that violates state law, and a foreseeable risk that residents may be unable to evacuate during a wildfire.
VI. FORESEEABLE HARM
Evacuation analysis shows McClellan Road V/C : 4.2, Foothill Boulevard YIC: 4.0, V lC > 1.0 = system failure, CUP-029 generates 38o/o of all evacuation trips, the project sits in a VHFHSZ, and the only evacuation route is a dead-end funnel. These conditions create a foreseeable, life-threatening evacuation failure. Under Califomia law, foreseeable risk satisfies the harm element of administrative negligence.
VII. CONCLUSION
The Planning Department's review and recommendation of approval for TM-2024-009 constitutes administrative negligence because it failed to proceed in the manner required by law, failed to comply with mandatory Fire Code and PRC requirements, failed to ensure General Plan Safety Element consistency, failed to provide substantial evidence supporting required findings, and recommended approval despite foreseeable, life-safety risks. Under Gov. Code $66474, the City Council must deny the tentative map. The City Attomey and City Council are respectfully requested to reject the Planning Department's recommendation, remand the project for full Fire Code and evacuation compliance analysis, require a comprehensive wildfire evacuation study, and ensure compliance with all mandatory General Plan Safety policies. Attached is a StaffReport Memorandum identifuing material legal errors, omissions, and unsupported findings in the Planning Department's staff report.
Thank you for your attention to this matter,
Sincerely,
Mark W. Fantozzi
Cupertino, CA
mw f anto zzi@ tfan c o. c o m
Staff Report Memorandum
To: Cupertino City Council
From: Mark W. Fantozzi
Re: Legal Deficiencies in Staff Report and Approval Findings for SummerHill Homes Proj ect (T M-2024 -009, A SA-2 0 24 -0 I 5, T R-2024 -044) Date: March2026
VIA EMAIL
I.INTRODUCTION
This memorandum identifies material legal errors, omissions, and unsupported findings in the Planning Department's staff report recommending approval of the SummerHill Homes project at 10857-10887 Linda Vista Drive. These errors render the proposed CEQA exemption, General Plan consistency findings, and Subdivision Map Act findings legally indefensible.
The central issue is straightforward:
SB 330 vesting does not exempt the project from updated fire-safety regulations, VHFHSZ requirements, evacuation capacity analysis, or General Plan Safety Element policies.
. The staffreport incorrectly asserts otherwise, resulting in a recommendation that violates:
o The General Plan Safety Element
e The Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code 866474)
o AB 747 (2019) and AB 1409 (2021)
. Public Resources Code $$4290 and 4291
o California Fire Code (CFC) Appendix B, C, and D
. Govemment Code 965913.4(a)(6)
o CEQA exemption requirements
These deficiencies require the City Council to deny the project or continue the hearing until the required analyses are completed.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUIID
A. Project Location and Application
The project proposes 5l townhome units on a constrtrined hillside parcel accessed by a single dead-end road (Evulich Court) adjacent to the Stevens Creek canyon.
B. SB 330 Preliminary Application
The applicant submiffed an SB 330 preliminary application on October 9,2024.
C. VHFHSZ Designation
In February 2025, CAL FIRE adopted updated Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps. The project site is now designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ).
D. Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment (October 2025)
The Cify commissioned Fehr & Peers to prepare a citywide evacuation capacity assessment, which identifies:
o Severe bottlenecks
o Limited egress in hillside neighborhoods
o High wildfire wlnerability
E. Staff Report (February 2026)
The staff report asserts:
The Cify does not have any adopted objective standards pertaining to evacuation. As a result, an evacuation study has not been required.
This statement is factually incorrect and contradicted by:
o The Ceneral Plan Safety Element (2026 Draft)
o AB 747 and AB 1409
o The City's own Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment
III.ISSUES PRESENTEI)
1. Does SB 330 vesting exempt the project from updated fire-safety regulations, VHFHSZ requirements, or evacuation analysis?
No.
2. Did the Planning Department fail to apply mandatory General Plan Safety Element policies?
Yes.
3. Did the City fail to make required Subdivision Map Act safety findings supported by substantial evidence?
Yes.
4. Is the CEQA exemption invalid due to failure to demonstrate compliance with Government Code $659 1 3.4(a)(6)?
Yes.
IV. APPLICABLE LAW
A. SB 330 (Gov. Code $65589.5 and $6594r.1)
SB 330 vests zoning and design standards, not public-safety regulations.
B. Public Resources Code $$4290 and 4291
Mandate:
o Adequate road width
o Adequate turnarounds
o Adequate fire-flow
o Adequate water supply
o Secondary access where feasible
C. California Fire Code (CFC) Appendix B, C, D
Require:
o Fire-flow modeling
o Hydrant spacing
o Dead-end road limits
o Minimum clear width
o Emergency access compliance
D. Government Code $65913.a(a)(6)
A CEQA-exempt project in a VHFHSZ must demonstrate compliance with:
o PRC 4290
o PRC 4291
o CBC Chapter 7A
o Local fire-safe regulations
E. Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code $66474)
A tentative map must be denied if:
o The site is physically unsuitable
o The subdivision creates danger to life or property
o The subdivision is inconsistent with the General Plan F. AB 747 (2019\ and AB 1409 (2021)
Require:
o Identification of evacuation routes
o Assessment of capacity, safety, and viability
o Identification of bottlenecks
o Evacuation locations
G. General Plan Safety Element (2026 Draft)
Contains mandatory policies:
o HS-2.1 1: Evacuation Routes
o HS-2.13: Ingress and Egress
o HS-2.14: Secondary Access
o HS-2.1: Building and Fire Code Compliance
These are objective standards.
V. AIIALYSIS
A. SB 330 Does Not Exempt the Project from Fire-Safety or VHFHSZ Requirements
The staff report incorrectly implies that SB 330 "locks in" prc-2025 fire-safety conditions o This is legally incorrect.
Courts consistently hold:
o Vested rights do not apply to public-safety regulations.
Fire-safety standards are police-power regulations and cannot be frozen.
B. The Staff Report Fails to Apply Mandatory General Plan Safefy Policies The General Plan requires:
o Evacuation route analysis
o lngress/egressadequacy
o Secondary access feasibility
o Fire-flow and water-supply adequacy
The staff report:
o Conducted no evacuation analysis
o Conducted no fire-flow modeling
o Conducted no dead-end road compliance review
o Conducted no secondary access feasibility study
This violates the General Plan.
C. The City Ignored Its Own Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment The Fehr & Peers study identifies:
o Severe bottlenecks
o Limited egress in hillside neighborhoods
o High wildfire vulnerability
The staff report ignores this study entirely.
This omission violates:
o 48747
o AB 1409
o General Plan Safety Element
o Subdivision Map Act safety findings
D. The CEQA Exemption Is Invalid
Govemment Code $6591 3.4(a)(6) requires demonstrated compliance with:
o PRC 4290
o PRC429l
o CBC Chapter 7A
The staffreport provides no evidence of:
o Fire-flow modeling
o Hydrant spacing analysis
o Roadway adequacy
o Water-supply verification
o Secondary access feasibility
A conclusory Fire Department letter is not substantial evidence.
E. Subdivision Map Act Findings Are Unsupported
Gov. Code 566474 requires denial if:
o The site is physically unsuitable
o The subdivision creates danger to life or property
o The subdivision is inconsistent with the General Plan Because the City failed to analyze'.
o Evacuation
o Fire-flow
o Water supply
o Roadway adequacy
o VHFHSZ wildfire behavior
The findings are unsupported and invalid.
VI. CONCLUSION
The staff report contains material legal errors and omissions that invalidate:
e The CEQA exemption
o The General Plan consistency findings
o The Subdivision Map Act findings
o The safety determinations required by State law
The City Council must:
1. Deny the project, or
2. Continue the hearing and require:
o A full evacuation analysis
o Fire-flow and hydraulic modeling
o Secondary access feasibility study
o VHFHSZ wildfire behavior analysis
o Updated General Plan consistency review
VII. RECOMMENDED ACTION
Do not adopt the staff recommendation.
Direct staff to prepare a revised analysis that complies with:
l. The General Plan
2. A8747 I ABt409
3. PRC 4290 I 4291
4. CFC Appendix B, C, D
5. Govemment Code $65913.a(a)(6)
6. Subdivision MaP Act 566474
Fire Code Compliance Deficiency Report
Project: TM‑2024‑009 (Linda Vista Townhomes)
Location: 10857–10887 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, CA
Prepared for: Cupertino City Council
Prepared by: Mark W. Fantozzi, PE
VIA EMAIL
Purpose: Demonstrate that the project fails to comply with the California Fire Code, PRC 4290/4291, and SCCFD standards, and therefore cannot be approved.
I. INTRODUCTION
This report identifies major fire‑safety and evacuation deficiencies in the review and approval of TM‑2024‑009. The project is located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) and relies on a single dead‑end evacuation route (Evulich Court → Linda Vista Drive). Despite this, the City approved the project without conducting any wildfire evacuation analysis, without verifying fire‑flow adequacy, and without demonstrating compliance with the California Fire Code (CFC) or Public Resources Code (PRC) §§4290–4291. These omissions constitute substantial Fire Code compliance failures and create a foreseeable life‑safety hazard.
II. APPLICABLE FIRE SAFETY LAWS AND STANDARDS
1. 1. California Fire Code (CFC) – CFC §503, CFC §403–404, Appendix D, Appendix B.
2. 2. Public Resources Code (PRC) – PRC §4290, PRC §4291.
3. 3. Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD) Standards.
4. 4. Cupertino General Plan Safety Element – Policies S‑1.3, S‑2.3, S‑2.4, HS‑2.13.
III. FIRE CODE COMPLIANCE DEFICIENCIES
A. FAILURE TO PROVIDE REQUIRED EVACUATION ANALYSIS
Violates: CFC §403–404; PRC §4290; General Plan S‑1.3, S‑2.3, S‑2.4 No wildfire evacuation analysis was conducted for a 51‑unit subdivision in a VHFHSZ.
The City cannot demonstrate safe evacuation without modeling clearance time, queue formation, merging delay, or cumulative evacuation load. This violates mandatory emergency planning and evacuation requirements.
B. DEAD‑END ROAD NON‑COMPLIANCE
Violates: CFC Appendix D (§D103.4), PRC §4290
Evulich Court and Linda Vista Drive function as a single dead‑end evacuation route serving 51 units. No secondary access exists. This violates maximum dead‑end length and dual access requirements for subdivisions in VHFHSZ.
C. FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE FIRE‑FLOW ADEQUACY
Violates: CFC Appendix B; SCCFD Water Supply Standards
The record contains no fire‑flow analysis demonstrating that the water system can meet required flow rates for a 51‑unit, three‑story townhome development in a VHFHSZ. No verification of system pressure, duration, or hydrant spacing was provided.
D. FAILURE TO ANALYZE ROADWAY CAPACITY UNDER EMERGENCY
CONDITIONS
Violates: CFC §403–404; PRC §4290; General Plan S‑2.4
The City relied on a commuter traffic study (Tier 2 LTA) that does not evaluate wildfire evacuation. Traffic‑Evacuation analysis shows McClellan Road V/C = 4.2 and Foothill Boulevard V/C = 4.0 under evacuation – indicating system failure. This violates evacuation planning requirements.
E. FAILURE TO ADDRESS SCHOOL‑ZONE EVACUATION CONFLICTS
Violates: CFC §403; General Plan M‑2.3.1
The project is adjacent to Monta Vista High School and Kennedy Middle School, yet no analysis was performed on evacuation during school hours, pedestrian conflicts, or parent pickup congestion. This creates a foreseeable evacuation hazard.
F. FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH WUI
CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS
Violates: CBC Chapter 7A; CFC Chapter 49
The record does not demonstrate compliance with ember‑resistant construction, non‑combustible materials within 30 feet, defensible space requirements, or ignition‑resistant standards required in the wildland‑urban interface.
IV. SUMMARY OF FIRE CODE VIOLATIONS
TM‑2024‑009 violates:
CFC §403–404 (evacuation planning)
CFC §503 (access)
CFC Appendix D (dead‑end road limits)
CFC Appendix B (fire‑flow)
PRC §4290 (ingress/egress)
PRC §4291 (defensible space)
CBC Chapter 7A (WUI construction)
Multiple General Plan Safety policies
These violations are not discretionary. They are mandatory life‑safety requirements.
V. CONCLUSION
Because the project fails to comply with the California Fire Code, PRC §§4290–4291, SCCFD standards, and the Cupertino General Plan Safety Element, the City Council cannot lawfully approve TM‑2024‑009. Under the Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code §66474(g)), a tentative map must be denied if the design is likely to cause serious public health or safety problems. TM‑2024‑009 meets that definition.
FINDINGS REQUIRED TO LEGALLY GRANT
A PRC 4290 EXCEPTION IN A VHFHSZ
Project: TM‑2024‑009 (Linda Vista Townhomes)
Location: 10857–10887 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, CA
Prepared for: Cupertino City Council
Prepared by: Mark W. Fantozzi, PE
To lawfully grant a PRC 4290 exception for TM-2024-009, the City must adopt findings supported by substantial evidence, consistent with Topanga and subsequent case law. The following findings are mandatory:
1. Finding of Discretionary Authority
The City must acknowledge that granting a PRC 4290 exception is a discretionary act, not ministerial. This triggers:
CEQA applicability (unless independently exempt)
Substantial evidence requirements
General Plan consistency requirements
2. Finding of Equivalent Fire Safety
The City must find that the exception provides equivalent or superior fire safety compared to full compliance with PRC 4290.
This requires evidence demonstrating:
Fire-flow adequacy
Access and turnaround compliance
Defensible-space performance
Wildfire behavior modeling
Emergency-response capability
SCCFD’s conditional approval cannot substitute for this finding.
3. Finding of Economic Feasibility (Supported by Financial Disclosure) Under Sequoyah Hills, San Franciscans Upholding, CNPS, and Eel River, the City must evaluate whether full compliance is economically feasible.
This requires:
Project pro forma
Cost estimates for full PRC 4290 compliance
Cost comparison of compliant vs. non-compliant designs Evidence supporting any claim of infeasibility
Without financial disclosure, the City cannot make this finding.
4. Finding of No Reasonable Alternative
The City must find that no feasible alternative design exists that would avoid the need for the exception.
This requires analysis of:
Alternative site layouts
Alternative access configurations
Alternative grading or roadway improvements
Alternative water-supply enhancements
5. Finding of General Plan Consistency
Government Code §§65300.5 and 65860 require that all land-use decisions be consistent with the General Plan.
The City must find consistency with:
Safety Element Policy S-1.1 (wildfire risk reduction) Safety Element Policy S-1.3 (evacuation and emergency access) Safety Element Policy S-2.2 (fire-flow and water-supply adequacy) Safety Element Policy S-3.1 (mitigation of known hazards) Unresolved fire-safety deficiencies prevent this finding.
6. Finding That Future Mitigation Is Not Required to Justify Present Approval
CEQA and case law prohibit reliance on future mitigation to justify approval.
The City must find that:
All fire-safety issues are resolved now, not deferred The Final Fire Protection Plan is complete and approved No essential analysis (evacuation, water-supply reliability) is outstanding SCCFD’s requirement for a future Final Fire Protection Plan prevents this finding.
7. Finding That Public Safety Is Not Compromised
The City must find that granting the exception does not:
Increase wildfire risk
Reduce evacuation capacity
Impair emergency response
Increase risk to residents or first responders
Given the site’s VHFHSZ location, this finding requires robust evidence.
CONCLUSION
Unless the applicant provides:
Full financial disclosure
Complete fire-safety documentation
A Final Fire Protection Plan
Evacuation and water-supply analyses
The City cannot legally adopt the findings required to grant a PRC 4290 exception.
If the City cannot make these findings, it must:
Deny the exception, or
Require full compliance with PRC 4290 and all applicable fire-safety standards.
Legal Memorandum
To: Cupertino City Council
From: Mark W. Fantozzi, PE
Re: Legal Analysis Incorporating Fire-Flow, Fire-Access, and Water-Supply Deficiencies – SummerHill Homes Project (TM-2024-009, ASA-2024-015, TR-2024-044), 10857–10887 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, CA
Date: March 2026
VIA EMAIL
I. INTRODUCTION
This updated memorandum incorporates the findings of the Fire Safety Compliance Deficiency Analysis – TM-2024-009, including the Fire-Flow Deficiency Log, Fire-Access Deficiency Log, and Water-Supply Adequacy Matrix. These technical findings materially strengthen and expand the legal deficiencies previously identified in the Planning Department’s staff report.
The combined evidence demonstrates that:
The SummerHill project cannot be approved under State law, the General Plan, or the Subdivision Map Act because it fails to meet minimum fire-flow, fire-access, and water-supply requirements.
The staff report’s recommendation is legally indefensible because it:
Misstates the effect of SB 330 vesting
Ignores mandatory General Plan Safety Element policies Fails to apply AB 747 and AB 1409 evacuation requirements Relies on conclusory, unsupported statements from SCCFD Provides no substantial evidence of compliance with PRC 4290/4291 or CFC Appendix B/C/D
Fails to make required Subdivision Map Act findings
The newly documented fire-safety deficiencies confirm that the project presents unmitigated danger to life and property, requiring denial or continuation.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. Project Context
The project proposes 51 attached townhomes on a constrained hillside parcel accessed solely by Evulich Court, a dead-end road adjacent to the Stevens Creek canyon.
B. VHFHSZ Designation
In February 2025, CAL FIRE designated the site as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ).
C. Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment (2025)
The City’s own study identifies:
Severe bottlenecks
Limited egress in hillside neighborhoods
High wildfire vulnerability
D. Staff Report Errors
The staff report incorrectly claims:
“The City does not have any adopted objective standards pertaining to evacuation… As a result, an evacuation study has not been required.”
This is contradicted by:
General Plan Safety Element (2026 Draft)
AB 747 and AB 1409
The City’s own evacuation study
State fire-safe regulations
E. New Evidence: Fire Safety Compliance Deficiency Analysis The combined logs and matrix document:
17 fire-flow deficiencies
9 fire-access deficiencies
17 water-supply deficiencies
These deficiencies are structural, systemic, and uncorrected.
EXHIBIT 1 — FIRE FLOW DEFICIENCY LOG (17 ITEMS)
# Deficiency Description
1 No Fire Flow Analysis No fire-flow calculations provided for the 51-unit development.
2 No Hydrant Flow Test No hydrant flow test submitted for any hydrant serving Evulich Court or Linda
Vista Dr.
3 No Residual Pressure
Verification
No demonstration that minimum residual
pressure is met under fire-flow demand.
4 No Static Pressure Data No baseline static pressure provided for any hydrant.
5 No Fire Flow Duration Analysis No demonstration of required duration (2–4 hours depending on demand).
6 No Cumulative Demand
Modeling
No modeling of simultaneous domestic +
fire-flow demand.
7 No Peak-Hour Demand
Modeling
No analysis of peak-hour system stress.
8 No Emergency Demand
Modeling
No modeling of wildfire-event demand
conditions.
9 No Water Main Capacity
Analysis
No hydraulic modeling of the
Evulich/Linda Vista water main.
10 No Hydrant Spacing Plan No hydrant spacing diagram or compliance verification.
11 No Hydrant Placement Plan No hydrant placement plan for interior roads.
12 No Secondary Hydrant Source No demonstration of redundant water supply.
13 No WUI-Specific Fire Flow
Analysis
No analysis tailored to VHFHSZ
conditions.
14 No Pressure Zone Verification No confirmation of pressure zone adequacy.
15 No Fire Flow Certification No certification from water purveyor. 16 No System Reliability Analysis No analysis of system reliability under wildfire conditions.
17 No Compliance Statement No evidence of compliance with CFC Appendix B or PRC 4290.
EXHIBIT 2 — FIRE ACCESS DEFICIENCY LOG (9 ITEMS)
# Deficiency Description
1 Excessive Dead-End Length Evulich Court exceeds maximum deadend length allowed in VHFHSZ. 2 No Secondary Access No secondary access provided despite hillside/VHFHSZ designation.
3 No Turnaround Analysis No compliant turnaround (hammerhead or cul-de-sac) demonstrated.
4 No Turning Radius Analysis No AutoTURN or equivalent analysis for fire apparatus.
5 No Grade Analysis No verification that grades meet CFC/PRC limits.
6 No Width Verification No demonstration that road width meets minimum 20–26 ft requirements.
7 No Vertical Clearance
Verification
No confirmation of required 13’6”
vertical clearance.
8 No Roadway Structural Analysis No demonstration that pavement supports 75,000-lb apparatus.
9 No Access Reliability Analysis No analysis of wildfire-related access obstruction risks.
EXHIBIT 3 — WATER SUPPLY ADEQUACY MATRIX (17 ITEMS)
# Required Element Provided? Deficiency
1 Static Pressure Data No Not provided
2 Residual Pressure Data No Not provided
3 Peak-Hour Demand Modeling No Not provided
4 Emergency Demand Modeling No Not provided
5 Fire Flow Demand Calculation No Not provided
6 Water Main Capacity Analysis No Not provided
7 Hydrant Flow Test No Not provided
8 Hydrant Spacing Analysis No Not provided
9 Hydrant Placement Plan No Not provided
10 Pressure Zone Verification No Not provided
11 System Reliability Analysis No Not provided
12 Redundant Water Supply No Not provided
13 WUI-Specific Water Supply
Analysis
No Not provided
14 Fire Flow Duration Analysis No Not provided
15 Domestic + Fire Flow Modeling No Not provided
16 Purveyor Certification No Not provided
17 Compliance Statement No Not provided
III. ISSUES PRESENTED
1. Does SB 330 vesting exempt the project from updated fire-safety, water-supply, or evacuation requirements? No.
2. Do the newly documented fire-flow, fire-access, and water-supply deficiencies prevent approval under State law? Yes.
3. Did the City fail to apply mandatory General Plan Safety Element policies? Yes.
4. Is the CEQA exemption invalid under Government Code §65913.4(a)(6)? Yes.
5. Can the City make Subdivision Map Act findings under §66474? No.
IV. APPLICABLE LAW
A. SB 330 (Gov. Code §65589.5; §65941.1)
Vesting applies only to zoning and design standards, not:
Fire-flow
Water supply
Fire-access
VHFHSZ regulations
Evacuation requirements
Subdivision Map Act safety findings
B. Public Resources Code §§4290 and 4291
Require:
Adequate water supply
Adequate fire-flow
Secondary access where feasible
Road width, grade, and turning radii
Defensible space
C. California Fire Code (CFC) Appendix B, C, D
Require:
Verified fire-flow
Hydrant spacing
Dead-end road limits
Turnarounds
Road width and grade
Water-supply reliability
D. Government Code §65913.4(a)(6)
A CEQA-exempt project in a VHFHSZ must demonstrate compliance with:
PRC 4290
PRC 4291
CBC Chapter 7A
Local fire-safe regulations
E. AB 747 (2019) and AB 1409 (2021)
Require:
Evacuation route identification
Capacity analysis
Bottleneck identification
Evacuation locations
F. Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code §66474)
Requires denial if:
The site is physically unsuitable
The subdivision creates danger to life or property
The subdivision is inconsistent with the General Plan V. ANALYSIS
A. SB 330 Does Not Exempt the Project From Fire-Safety Requirements SB 330 does not freeze:
Fire-flow requirements
Water-supply requirements
Fire-access requirements
VHFHSZ regulations
These are police-power safety regulations, which cannot be vested.
B. Newly Documented Fire-Flow, Fire-Access, and Water-Supply Deficiencies Require Denial
1. Fire-Flow Deficiencies (17 total)
The project lacks:
Any fire-flow analysis
Any hydrant flow test
Any residual pressure verification
Any fire-flow duration analysis
Any modeling of cumulative demand
Any hydrant spacing plan
Conclusion: The project fails CFC Appendix B and PRC 4290.
2. Fire-Access Deficiencies (9 total)
The project:
Exceeds maximum dead-end length
Has no secondary access
Has no turning-radius analysis
Has no compliant turnaround
Has no grade analysis
Has no width verification
Conclusion: The project fails CFC Appendix D and PRC 4290.
3. Water-Supply Deficiencies (17 total)
The project lacks:
Static pressure data
Residual pressure data
Peak-hour demand modeling
Emergency demand modeling
Water main capacity analysis
Hydrant spacing and placement analysis
WUI-specific water-supply analysis
Conclusion: The project fails CFC §507 and PRC 4290.
C. The Staff Report’s Safety Findings Are Unsupported
The staff report provides no substantial evidence of:
Adequate fire-flow
Adequate water supply
Adequate fire-access
Evacuation capacity
Secondary access feasibility
The Fire Department’s “consistency” letter is conclusory and unsupported.
D. The CEQA Exemption Is Invalid
Government Code §65913.4(a)(6) requires demonstrated compliance with:
PRC 4290
PRC 4291
CBC Chapter 7A
The City provided no evidence of compliance.
E. Subdivision Map Act Findings Cannot Be Made
Under §66474, the City must deny the map if:
The site is physically unsuitable
The subdivision creates danger to life or property
The subdivision is inconsistent with the General Plan Given the documented deficiencies, these findings cannot be made.
VI. CONCLUSION
The newly documented fire-flow, fire-access, and water-supply deficiencies confirm that the SummerHill project:
Fails to meet minimum State fire-safety requirements
Fails to meet General Plan Safety Element policies
Fails to meet Subdivision Map Act safety findings
Fails to qualify for a CEQA exemption under §65913.4(a)(6) The project cannot be approved.
The City Council must:
1. Deny the project, or
2. Continue the hearing and require:
o Full fire-flow and hydraulic modeling
o Fire-access and secondary access analysis
o Water-supply adequacy analysis
o Evacuation capacity analysis
o Updated General Plan consistency review
E&O FINDINGS – Biological Report
Project: TM‑2024‑009 (Linda Vista Townhomes)
Location: 10857–10887 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, CA
Prepared for: Cupertino City Council
Prepared by: Mark W. Fantozzi
1) Summary of Key Issues Identified (High-Level)
Finding Severity Description
BIO-01 High
Report does not analyze red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) despite being an abundant local breeding raptor protected under MBTA & CDFW §3503.5 (raptor protection).
BIO-02 High
Report assumes raptor habitat on site is “developed” and insignificant but does not assess large trees for raptor nesting; only mentions white-tailed kite. [8 – Biolog...cal Report | PDF]
BIO-03 High
Report omits analysis of bird hazards created by high-density development: reflectivity, glass collisions, artificial lighting, and pet predation—issues recognized in urban CEQA biology reviews.
BIO-04 Medium
Report claims wildlife movement impacts are minimal, but does not analyze aerial predator movement (raptors, owls, crows) over the site despite adjacent open-space/golf course matrix. [8 – Biolog...cal Report | PDF]
BIO-05 Medium
Report cites Cupertino General Plan Policy ES-5, ES-5.1, ES-5.2, ES-5.3, etc., but does not evaluate how 51 townhomes increase urban pressure on wildlife, nor propose mitigation. [8 – Biolog...cal Report | PDF] BIO-06 Medium Report overlooks cumulative impacts on raptor foraging habitat: turf, ruderal grassland, gopher populations, and adjacent creek corridor.
BIO-07 Medium
Bat analysis acknowledges possible roosting, but no acoustic surveys conducted—common CEQA expectation for sites with old structures. [8 – Biolog...cal Report | PDF]
BIO-08 Low
No tree inventory (oak, cedar, maple, sycamore) was done; report defers this to future arborist work. Tree canopy = habitat. [8 – Biolog...cal Report | PDF]
2) Detailed E&O Findings
BIO-01 – Omission of Red-Tailed Hawk Assessment (High)
Issue
The Biological Report never evaluates red-tailed hawk, even though:
It is one of the most common nesting raptors in Cupertino, including suburban neighborhoods and golf course edges.
Adjacent habitats (grassland patches, golf course open space, tall trees) provide ideal foraging and nesting substrates.
Report explicitly addresses only white-tailed kite as a possible on-site raptor. [8 – Biolog...cal Report | PDF]
Why This Is an E&O
Under California Fish & Game Code §3503.5, all raptors and their nests are protected.
Excluding a common protected raptor species is a CEQA deficiency because CEQA requires evaluation of all protected wildlife species potentially affected.
Required Corrective Action
Add specific species-level analysis for red-tailed hawk, including:
o Nesting habitat survey of all large trees (onsite & within 500 ft). o Foraging habitat impact analysis, especially loss of ruderal grassland and prey base (gophers).
o Construction buffer recommendations (typically 500 ft for active hawk nests).
BIO-02 – Raptor Habitat Minimization Without Evidence (High) The report asserts the site “does not contain regionally important habitat for the white-tailed kite.”
But: [8 – Biolog...cal Report | PDF]
The site includes large trees, open urban edge, prey sign (gophers noted in Report). Adjacent landscapes (golf course, grassland edge) substantially increase local habitat value.
No tree height/canopy survey or raptor perch/nest survey was documented.
Why This Is an E&O
Raptor habitat evaluation must include tree suitability, prey availability, and adjacent matrix context—all absent.
Corrective Action
Conduct formal raptor nesting tree assessment before CEQA clearance. Prepare a Raptor Habitat Suitability Memo suitable for City review.
BIO-03 – Missing Analysis: Bird Hazards from Dense Development (Glass, Lighting, Pets) (High)
The Biological Report does not address:
Glass collision hazards (especially townhomes with large windows). Light pollution impacts on nocturnal birds and migrating species. Artificial night lighting conflicts with General Plan ES Policies. Outdoor cat predation pressure (scientifically known major urban biodiversity impact). Vegetation-attractant features that could draw prey species into hazardous zones.
Why This Is an E&O
Cupertino General Plan ES-5 (Protect urban ecosystem) explicitly requires developments to reduce harm to wildlife. [8 – Biolog...cal Report | PDF] CEQA requires evaluation of project-generated hazards, not just baseline habitat.
Corrective Action
Add Urban Bird Hazard Mitigation Plan, including:
Bird-safe window treatments (ceramic fritting, patterned glass). Down-shielded lighting.
Seasonal lighting restrictions during migration.
Native, bird-safe landscaping choices.
Outdoor cat containment measures (indoor pet policy / HOA restrictions).
BIO-04 – Incomplete Wildlife Movement Analysis (Medium) The report states wildlife movement is minimal because the site is developed.
But it does not consider aerial wildlife, such as: [8 – Biolog...cal Report | PDF] Red-tailed hawk
Cooper’s hawk
Great horned owl
White-tailed kite
Crows, ravens, turkey vultures
These species routinely move between Stevens Creek, the golf course, residential backyard trees, and open areas.
Corrective Action
Add Aerial Wildlife Movement Assessment showing how the new 2–3-story buildings alter vertical flight paths and edge habitat.
BIO-05 – Partial Compliance with General Plan Biological Policies (Medium) The report quotes Cupertino General Plan ES policies…
…but does not evaluate consistency with them in analysis.
Example:
ES-5.1.1 requires landscaping that enhances the urban ecosystem.
The report does not include a landscaping review or recommendations. ES-5.2 requires clustering away from sensitive habitat, yet no analysis is made of clustering options.
ES-5.6 requires creation of wildlife linkages; none are evaluated.
Corrective Action
Provide a General Plan Consistency Matrix for all ES-policies.
BIO-06 – Cumulative Foraging Habitat Impact Not Addressed (Medium) Raptors forage in:
Ruderal grassland on site.
Golf course open areas.
Adjacent tree-lined backyards.
The conversion of all remaining open patches into high-density homes removes:
Perch locations
Foraging zones
Gopher and rodent habitat (documented onsite by the Report). [8 – Biolog...cal Report | PDF]
Yet foraging loss is not analyzed.
Corrective Action
Provide Raptor Foraging Habitat Loss Evaluation with acreage calculations and mitigation measures.
BIO-07 – No Acoustic Surveys for Bats (Medium)
The report acknowledges possible roosting for big-eared and pallid bats.
Structures are suitable for roosting.
Yet no acoustic or evening emergence surveys were conducted.
This is a CEQA expectation when older structures are present.
Corrective Action
Conduct:
1. Two-night acoustic bat survey (AnaBat or equivalent).
2. Dusk emergence survey for maternity roost determination.
BIO-08 – No Tree Inventory Provided (Low)
The report states the project should have an arborist identify which trees are protected.
But:
Tree species list is incomplete.
Tree sizes are not documented.
Tree health is unassessed.
Given trees = habitat, this omission cascades into raptor and migratory bird habitat omissions.
Corrective Action
Add full arborist report with DBH, species, condition, wildlife use, mitigation measures.
3) Corrective Action Tracker (For Integration Into TM-2024-009 Workbook) ID Issue Recommended Action Responsible Party Due Date
BIO-01 Missing red-tailed
hawk analysis
Add species analysis
(nesting/foraging) &
construction buffers
Environmental
Consultant 3/20/2026
BIO-02 Missing raptor
habitat evaluation
Conduct tree survey + raptor
habitat memo
Environmental
Consultant +
Arborist
3/20/2026
BIO-03 Bird hazards from
dense development
Add Bird-Safe Design &
Lighting Plan
Architect +
Biologist 3/20/2026
BIO-04
Missing aerial
wildlife movement
analysis
Provide aerial corridor
impact discussion
Environmental
Consultant 3/20/2026
BIO-05
Missing General
Plan consistency
assessment
Add ES policy consistency
matrix Planning Consultant 3/20/2026
BIO-06
Missing cumulative
foraging impact
evaluation
Quantify foraging loss; add
mitigation
Environmental
Consultant 3/20/2026
BIO-07 No bat acoustic
surveys
Conduct acoustic +
emergence surveys
Bat Biologist
Prior to
demo;
4/2026
BIO-08 No tree inventory
Formal ESA E&O Finding
Project: TM‑2024‑009 (Linda Vista Townhomes)
Location: 10857–10887 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, CA
Prepared for: Cupertino City Council
Prepared by: Mark W. Fantozzi
Title: Incomplete agricultural pesticide analyte coverage (parathion & ziram not evaluated) Documents referenced:
Phase I ESA identified the property’s historic agricultural use and treated potential pesticide residue as an Other Environmental Consideration (OEC) requiring further consideration. [10 – Phase...Assessment | PDF]
Phase II ESA collected shallow soils (SB-5 to SB-11) for pesticide analysis but the laboratory scope was limited to organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) via EPA Method 8081A (e.g., DDT, DDE, DDD, dieldrin). Organophosphates (e.g., parathion) and dithiocarbamates (e.g., ziram) were not included. Analytical tables and the lab case narrative show no parathion or ziram analytes or results.
Why this is an error/omission:
Given the site’s documented historical agricultural use, Cupertino reviewers typically expect a comprehensive legacy pesticide screen that covers multiple pesticide classes historically used in orchards and similar uses (not just OCPs). The current Phase II scope omits key classes:
Organophosphates (OPs): e.g., parathion (commonly used historically), which is not covered by 8081A. OPs often require GC/MS methods specific to OPs or broader semivolatile suites (e.g., EPA 8270 SIM variants) depending on lab capability. The provided lab work did not include OP methods.
Dithiocarbamates (DTCs): e.g., ziram, which typically requires specialized derivatization/HPLC or 8321B-type analysis; again not present in the lab scope.
Risk/Impact:
Potential data gap in the ESA record for Cupertino entitlement and CEQA review, where agencies look for evidence that common historic-use pesticide classes (OCPs, OPs, and DTCs) have been affirmatively addressed. [10 – Phase...Assessment | PDF] If soils with previously untested OP/DTC residues exist, this could affect soil management, worker safety, and construction-phase best management practices; the Phase II conclusion that “no additional investigation is recommended” is unsupported for OP/DTC classes.
2) Recommended Corrective Actions
1. Supplemental Soil Investigation – OP & DTC Pesticides o Scope: Collect additional shallow interval composites (e.g., 0.5–1.5 ft bgs, plus 3–6 in below organic layer if present) from the previously sampled grid (SB-5 to SB-11 vicinity) and any former orchard rows/structures if identifiable.
Analyze for organophosphates (include parathion) and dithiocarbamates (include ziram) using appropriate certified methods (e.g., 8321B for OP/DTC, or lab-validated OP/DTC suites).
o Decision Criteria: Compare to SF Bay RWQCB Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs, July 2019 Rev. 2) under Residential Direct Exposure; document detection limits and any J-qualified estimates.
o Deliverable: Addendum to Phase II ESA summarizing methods, tables, ESL comparisons, and conclusions.
2. Soil Management Note (Interim)
o Pending results, include an interim soil handling note for plans/specs stating that if unexpected stained/odorous soils are encountered, work will follow the contractor’s Health & Safety Plan and stop-work & notify protocol, with expedited lab testing. (This mirrors Phase II limitations and prudent practice.)
3. Agency Coordination (If Needed)
o If any OP/DTC detections exceed ESLs, prepare a Corrective Action Plan with removal, blending, or capping options and consult with the City and, if warranted by concentration and extent, the Santa Clara County DEH/SF Bay RWQCB for concurrence on closure.
3) E&O Tracker — Pesticide Coverage (Standalone Table)
ID Finding Evidence (where
found)
Why it
matters
Corrective
Action
Responsibl
e
Due
Date
Stat
us
ENV01
Parathion &
ziram not
analyzed;
Phase II only
ran OCPs
(8081A)
Phase I flags
historic ag use
(OEC); Phase II
analytes & lab
packages list
OCPs only; no
OP/DTC (no
parathion/ziram)
[10 –
Phase...Assessme
nt | PDF]
City/CEQ
A
reviewers
expect a
complete
legacy
pesticide
screen;
omission
leaves
data gap;
could
Run
supplement
al soil
testing for
OPs (incl.
parathion)
and DTCs
(incl. ziram)
using
appropriate
certified
methods
Environme
ntal
Consultant
(AEI or
approved
equivalent)
H
(target
Mar 20,
2026 for
lab
report;
samplin
g by
Mar 6,
2026)
Ope
n
delay
entitlemen
ts
(e.g., 8321B
or
lab-validated
equivalents);
compare to
2019 SF
Bay
RWQCB
ESLs; issue
Phase II
Addendum
with
conclusions.
ENV02
Conclusions
over-general
ized (“no
additional
investigation
recommende
d”) despite
untested
pesticide
classes
Phase II
Summary/Conclu
sions section
recommends no
further work; but
OP/DTC classes
untested
Could be
read as
“case
closed”
and later
conflict
with City
comments
, causing
re-work
Qualify the
conclusion
in an
Addendum;
state that
OP/DTC
results have
been added;
revise
conclusion
accordingly.
Environmen
tal
Consultant
M (with
ENV-01
addendu
m)
Ope
n
ENV03
Interim soil
handling
note not
stated for
potential
unexpected
conditions
Phase II
limitations
acknowledge
uncertainty; no
interim field note
provided for
construction docs
Improves
contracto
r
awarenes
s and risk
managem
ent prior
to
addendum
Insert
interim soil
handling
note in
Specs/Plan
General
Notes
(stop-work,
characterizat
ion, HASP)
until
addendum
resolves.
Civil/CM +
Environmen
tal
Consultant
M (Mar
6, 2026)
Ope
n
Severity key: H=High (blocks approval), M=Medium (comment risk), L=Low (editorial) Errors & Omissions Register — Final
Transportation Study (Hexagon, dated Dec 15,
2025)
Project: TM‑2024‑009 (Linda Vista Townhomes)
Location: 10857–10887 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, CA
Prepared for: Cupertino City Council
Prepared by: Mark W. Fantozzi
VIA EMAIL
Key:
Severity = H (High: may affect approval/conditions), M (Medium: likely comment/condition), L (Low:
editorial/clarification)
# Category Finding (what’s
wrong or missing) Where in Study Why it matters
Recommended
action
Seve
rity
1 Project
identifica
tion
Address range
mismatch. Study
title and narrative
analyze “10857
Linda Vista
Drive” only;
application and
notice reference
10857–10887 (4
parcels). Confirm
parcel coverage,
frontage, and the
new public street
footprint. [15 –
Final...tion Study |
PDF]
Cover memo &
throughout
(“10857 Linda
Vista Drive”)
[15 – Final...tion
Study | PDF]
If legal
description or
frontage
differs, traffic
assignment,
sight distance,
parking
frontage
counts, and
conditions can
change; can
trigger
resubmittal.
Align the report
header, site plan
figures, and legal
parcel list to the TM;
add APNs and full
address range; revise
figures accordingly.
H
2 Methodol
ogy scope
Off-site study
area potentially
incomplete. Only
3 unsignalized
intersections were
analyzed (Linda
Study
Intersections
list; Trip
Distribution/Ass
ignment (notes
about
If 6–7
peak-hour
trips shift to
other streets,
localized
delay/safety at
Add a sensitivity
check including
Linda
Vista/Columbus
and Linda
Vista/Terrace
M
Vista/Hyannisport;
Fort
Baker/Hyannisport
;
Bubb/Hyannisport)
. The text itself
notes some site
traffic may choose
Columbus Ave or
Terrace Dr, yet
those intersections
are not evaluated.
[15 – Final...tion
Study | PDF]
Columbus/Terra
ce) [15 –
Final...tion
Study | PDF]
Linda
Vista/Colum
bus or Linda
Vista/Terrace
may be
underestimate
d; neighbors
often
comment
here.
(AM/PM). If
negligible,
document; if not,
include mitigations.
3 Trip
distributi
on
assumpti
on
All Bubb-bound
traffic assigned to
Hyannisport as a
“worst case.”
That’s
conservative for
school area, but
may understate
impacts on
Columbus/Terrace
since those links
weren’t tested. [15
– Final...tion Study
| PDF]
Trip
Distribution/Ass
ignment; Figures
4–5 [15 –
Final...tion
Study | PDF]
Can bias
impact
location
(school
frontages vs.
cut-through
streets); City
may ask for a
scenario that
reflects likely
splits.
Add a second
assignment using
proportional split to
Hyannisport/Columb
us/Terrace based on
observed turning
shares; compare
LOS/queues.
M
4 Parking
code
complian
ce
Minimum
parking ratio
appears
mis-cited. Study
says “one (1)
space per
townhome”
(Table
19.124.040(A)),
but Cupertino’s
code table lists
“Small Lot
Single-Family,
Townhouse (P)” =
2.8/DU (2 garage
+ 0.8 open) and
R-3 High Density
Parking section
(pp. 17–18);
asserts 1
space/DU; code
table
contradicts. [15
– Final...tion
Study | PDF], [§
19.124.0...t
Parking.]
If the higher
ratios apply
(depending on
zoning
overlay), the
plan may
under-provid
e open/guest
spaces (report
shows 10 onstreet along
Evulich
Court). Risk
of redesign or
conditions.
Confirm the
applicable zoning
line for “Townhome
Combining District”
(R-3 vs P). If R-3
applies, provide 1
open space/DU
(guest) on-site or onstreet; if P applies,
target 0.8 open/DU.
Update parking
tables and
striping/layout. [§
19.124.0...t Parking.]
H
= 2.0/DU (1
covered + 1
open); the report’s
claimed 1.0/DU
minimum conflicts
with the table. [15
– Final...tion Study
| PDF], [§
19.124.0...t
Parking.]
5 Bicycle
parking
requirem
ents
Report states “no
bicycle parking
requirements for
townhomes.”
Cupertino code
requires bicycle
parking in multifamily residential
developments
(Class I/II as
applicable), and
table entries show
requirements for
multi-family and
condos; the report
position is at least
incomplete for an
R-3 townhome
combining district.
[15 – Final...tion
Study | PDF], [§
19.124.0...t
Parking.]
Parking section;
claim of no bike
parking
requirement;
Code
§19.124.040(P)
says bike
parking shall be
provided in
multi-family.
[15 – Final...tion
Study | PDF], [§
19.124.0...t
Parking.]
Risk of
condition of
approval to
add secure,
accessible
long-term bike
parking
beyond
in-garage
hooks; can
affect
common area
programming/
cost.
Coordinate with
Planning to confirm
classification; add
Class I long-term
(e.g., shared
room/cages) + Class
II short-term racks
near common areas
as required; revise
plans and counts. [§
19.124.0...t Parking.]
M
6 CEQA/V
MT
complian
ce basis
The study says
“pursuant to AB
130, [project] is
not required to
conduct a VMT
analysis.” AB 130
(2025) created
new CEQA tools
(e.g., infill housing
exemption PRC
§21080.66 and a
VMT mitigation
General Plan
Consistency &
Municipal Code
discussion (pp.
12–16) stating
“not applicable
… pursuant to
AB 130.” [15 –
Final...tion
Study | PDF]
A mis-stated
legal basis can
prompt CEQA
challenge or a
completeness
hold. If using
the AB 130
infill
exemption,
you must
affirmatively
show each
Clarify CEQA
pathway: (a) If PRC
§21080.66
exemption applies,
add a compliance
memo; (b) If not,
provide VMT
screening/analysis
per Cupertino
Transportation
Study Guidelines
(Jan 2025).
H
fee option), but
does not
blanket-exempt
all housing from
VMT analysis. If
the project asserts
the new infill
CEQA
exemption,
document
compliance with
all criteria;
otherwise, City
code sections on
VMT may still
apply. [15 –
Final...tion Study |
PDF],
[abag.ca.gov],
[coblentzlaw.com],
[nossaman.com],
[jdsupra.com]
qualifying
element;
otherwise
provide a
screening
memo or
VMT memo
per City
guidelines.
[abag.ca.gov],
[cupertino.gov]
7 Guideline
s
alignmen
t
Report references
Cupertino’s
Transportation
Analysis
Guidelines (Jan
2025) and states
Tier-2 LTA was
followed. Ensure
checklist elements
(Table A-7) are
fully documented
(e.g., loading, curb
management near
schools, sight
distance controls
as enforceable
measures). [15 –
Final...tion Study |
PDF],
[cupertino.gov]
Scope/Checklist
section & Site
Access Review
Missing
checklist
items show up
as late
comments;
enforceable
details
(signing/stripi
ng) reduce
risk.
Attach completed
Table A-7 with
drawings of
no-parking zones
within sight triangles
and any school-area
curbside controls.
[cupertino.gov]
M
8 Sight
distance
&
Sight-triangle
narrative
recommends
Sight Distance
(p. 19) &
Driveway
Without a
stamped
diagram,
Provide a scaled
sight-triangle
exhibit (per Std
M
parking
control
prohibiting
on-street parking
within corner
triangles at Linda
Vista/Evulich;
however, the plan
also shows 8'
parking both
sides west of
chokers. The study
should translate
this into an actual
striping/signing
layout and
quantify lost
spaces. [15 –
Final...tion Study |
PDF]
Design (pp. 17–
19) [15 –
Final...tion
Study | PDF]
reviewers
can’t confirm
compliance;
residents may
contest loss of
curb spaces if
not scoped
now.
Detail 7-2) with curb
red-curb limits, R-xx
signs, and an
updated on-street
parking count table.
[15 – Final...tion
Study | PDF]
9 Garbage
&
delivery
operation
s
Internal drive
aisles B–E lack
turnarounds, so
large vehicles must
back in/out. This
is acknowledged
for garbage, but
the plan lacks an
operational plan
(signage, time
windows,
enforcement) and
turning path
exhibits for
delivery vans/box
trucks. [15 –
Final...tion Study |
PDF]
Garbage
Collection (p.
21); On-site
circulation (pp.
17–19) [15 –
Final...tion
Study | PDF]
Backing
movements
near
residential
garages can
raise
safety/visibilit
y issues;
reviewers
often
condition “No
Stopping/Loa
ding” or
designate
staging.
Add swept-paths
for 30–35’
single-unit trucks at
each aisle; include a
solid waste &
delivery plan
(signed by the
hauler), and add
striping/signage
where needed. [15 –
Final...tion Study |
PDF]
M
1 0
School-ar
ea
operation
s
Field notes report
short AM queues
at Hyannisport
during drop-off
and instances of
NB Bubb Rd
queue spillback at
McClellan. No
School Area
Field
Observations (p.
9) [15 –
Final...tion
Study | PDF]
School
operations are
sensitive; lack
of
mitigation/mo
nitoring
invites
conditions
post-hearing.
Add a school-hour
curbside plan
(T-reg signs, cones,
monitoring
commitment for first
semester of
occupancy) and
include a
M
Safety subsection
(curb management,
time-of-day
loading controls,
crossing guard
dependency) is
provided. [15 –
Final...tion Study |
PDF]
post-occupancy
check-in trigger.
1 1
Active
transport
ation
context
The report
describes Stevens
Creek Trail as a
“~5-mile” facility
stretching from
“southern
Cupertino to near
the Bay” adjacent
to site. In reality,
the trail exists in
two disconnected
segments
(Mountain View
~5 miles;
Cupertino segment
~1–2 miles
between Linda
Vista Park–
Blackberry
Farm). The
wording could be
read as implying a
continuous
corridor at the site.
[15 – Final...tion
Study | PDF],
[traillink.com],
[siliconval...ctions.
com]
Existing
Ped/Bike
Facilities (p. 6)
[15 – Final...tion
Study | PDF]
Overstating
connectivity
can affect
mode split
assumptions
and General
Plan
consistency
claims.
Rephrase to reflect
disconnected
segments and cite
the local Cupertino
segment length &
endpoints; add a
context map.
[traillink.com],
[siliconval...ctions.c
om]
L
1 2
Transit
descripti
on
States no transit
within 0.5 mi;
closest stop ~1.25
mi. Provide a map
and stop list to
substantiate
distance to nearest
Existing Transit
Services (p. 6)
[15 – Final...tion
Study | PDF]
Minor, but
reviewers
often ask for a
map source
and measured
distances.
Add a VTA stop
map with measured
walking distances
and routes; if >0.5
mi, leave as-is with
exhibit.
L
VTA stops (e.g.,
on McClellan Rd
or Stevens Creek
Blvd). [15 –
Final...tion Study |
PDF]
1 3
Vision
Zero /
LRSP
consisten
cy
The report says
Linda Vista Drive
is not on the
City’s High
Injury Network
and that no plan
improvements
affect the frontage.
Provide the HIN
map reference
and cite the
adopted Vision
Zero Action Plan
(2024). [15 –
Final...tion Study |
PDF],
[cupertino.gov],
[cupertino.gov]
Plans & Policies
(pp. 15–16) [15
– Final...tion
Study | PDF]
Adds
traceability
and avoids
plan-consisten
cy
back-and-fort
h.
Insert HIN map
excerpt and VZAP
adoption reference;
keep the conclusion
if confirmed.
[cupertino.gov],
[cupertino.gov]
L
1 4
LOS
reporting
clarity
LOS tables present
control delay but
do not include
HCM criteria
footnotes in table
headers; readers
must infer from
notes. Minor
formatting clarity.
[15 – Final...tion
Study | PDF]
Tables 2–4 (pp.
7, 12) [15 –
Final...tion
Study | PDF]
Improves
transparency
for
non-engineer
reviewers.
Add HCM criteria
bands in the table
header row.
L
1 5
Typos /
presentat
ion
Multiple typos
(e.g.,
“Authoirty/Confo
rmance,” “Great
than”) and mixed
usage (Evulich
Court intro appears
later). [15 –
Final...tion Study |
PDF]
Throughout [15
– Final...tion
Study | PDF]
Clean
presentation
reduces
friction in
staff review.
Proof/QA the PDF;
harmonize street
naming from the
outset.
L
1 6
VTA
coordinat
ion
“VTA comments
received and
addressed” is
asserted without
attaching comment
letter or response
matrix. [15 –
Final...tion Study |
PDF]
General Plan
Consistency
table (p. 14) [15
– Final...tion
Study | PDF]
Reviewers
will ask for
the record.
Attach VTA
comment
email/letter and a
response log
appendix.
M
Notes on key legal/standards references (for your
cover memo)
AB 130 (2025) CEQA reforms: Added PRC §21080.66 (urban infill housing CEQA exemption) and a VMT mitigation fee option program guidance to be issued by July 1, 2026; not a general VMT exemption. Use this if the project qualifies; otherwise follow local VMT screening. [abag.ca.gov], [coblentzlaw.com], [nossaman.com], [jdsupra.com] Cupertino Transportation Study Guidelines (Jan 2025): Defines Tier 2 LTA content and includes the Site Access & Circulation Checklist (Table A-7) the study references — use it to ensure the revised submittal is complete. [cupertino.gov] Cupertino Municipal Code §19.124.040: Off-street parking table shows Small Lot Single-Family, Townhouse (P) = 2.8/DU and R-3 High Density Multiple-Family =
2.0/DU, plus bicycle parking shall be provided in multi-family developments (Class I/II).
Coordinate which line applies to R-3 + Townhome Combining District. [§ 19.124.0...t Parking.]
Stevens Creek Trail factual context: Disconnected segments (Mountain View ~5 miles; Cupertino Linda Vista Park–Blackberry Farm ~1–2 miles). Don’t imply continuous facility at the project frontage. [traillink.com], [siliconval...ctions.com] Quick wins (edits you can request from the consultant
this week)
1. Parking & bike parking clarification (High)
– Confirm applicable row in CMC Table 19.124.040(A); update site plan and parking count to meet open/guest and bike parking duties; add counts to the LTA. [§ 19.124.0...t Parking.]
2. CEQA/VMT basis (High)
– One-pager confirming AB 130 infill exemption criteria OR provide a VMT screening memo per City guidelines; attach to the study. [abag.ca.gov], [cupertino.gov]
3. Sensitivity test to Columbus/Terrace (Med)
– Add 1–2 intersections and a proportional distribution scenario; summarize impacts are still < thresholds (or propose minor measures). [15 – Final...tion Study | PDF]
4. Sight-distance / curb control exhibit (Med)
– Red-curb/signing layout and revised on-street parking tally on Evulich Court. [15 – Final...tion Study | PDF]
5. Ops appendix (Med)
– Waste & delivery plan + additional swept paths for 30–35’ vehicles at aisles B–E. [15 – Final...tion Study | PDF]
6. Documentation attachments (Low)
– VTA comment / response matrix; Vision Zero High Injury Network map excerpt; updated trail description/map. [15 – Final...tion Study | PDF], [cupertino.gov], [traillink.com] Assumptions & limits
The findings above are based on your attached “15 – Final Transportation Study.pdf” and public sources cited; no plan set beyond the figure excerpts was reviewed. Where local code interpretation matters (e.g., parking table line applicability to R-3 + Townhome Combining District), confirm with the City Planner/Zoning Administrator. [15 – Final...tion Study | PDF], [§ 19.124.0...t Parking.]
Would you like this as an Excel/Word tracker?
If helpful, I can export this register to Excel with filters for discipline/owner and add a status and due date column for your TM action log. Also, if you have City staff redlines or plan sheets, send them over and I’ll fold those into the next pass.
Sources
Provide your feedback on BizChat
You said:
also Consider City of Cupertino general plan, caltrans safe streets, AASHTO guidelines, MUTCD, pedestrian safety, traffic impact analysis, City of Cupertino parking standards.
Copilot said:
Copilot
Reasoning completed in 6 steps
Absolutely—here’s an expanded Errors & Omissions (E&O) register for the Final Transportation Study – 10857–10887 Linda Vista Dr (TM-2024-009) that now explicitly considers the City of Cupertino General Plan (Mobility Element), Caltrans Complete Streets/Safe System direction, AASHTO “Green Book”, MUTCD/CA MUTCD, pedestrian safety best practice, Traffic Impact/LTA guidance, and Cupertino parking standards. I’ve kept your earlier items and added standards-based checks, with clear cites right after each statement.
Expanded Errors & Omissions Register
(standards-informed)
Key: H/M/L = High/Medium/Low severity
# Category
Finding (what’s
wrong or
missing)
Where in
Study
Why it
matters
Recommended
action
Se
v.
1 Project
identification
Address range
mismatch—report
says “10857 Linda
Vista Dr”;
application/site
encompass
10857–10887
(four lots). [15 –
Final...tion Study |
PDF]
Cover
memo &
througho
ut. [15 –
Final...tio
n Study |
PDF]
Legal
description/fro
ntage govern
geometry, sight
triangles, and
on-street
counts;
mislabeling
invites
resubmittal.
Align title block,
APNs, and figures
to full range.
H
2 Study area
completeness
No analysis at
Linda
Vista/Columbus
or Linda
Vista/Terrace
despite text
acknowledging
some trips would
use those streets.
[15 – Final...tion
Study | PDF]
Intersecti
ons list;
Trip
Assignme
nt notes.
[15 –
Final...tio
n Study |
PDF]
Under-testing
can miss
localized
delay/safety
issues.
Cupertino
2025
Guidelines
expect LTA to
capture likely
influence area
and use the A-7
Add AM/PM LOS
+ observations at
Columbus and
Terrace; include a
proportional
assignment case.
M
checklist.
[cupertino.gov]
3 Assignment bias
All Bubb-bound
trips pushed to
Hyannisport
“worst case”, but
no companion
scenario for likely
split. [15 –
Final...tion Study |
PDF]
Figures
4–5; Trip
Assignme
nt. [15 –
Final...tio
n Study |
PDF]
Can
over-weight
school frontage
and
under-weight
other locals;
the City may
ask for a more
representative
case per TS
Guidelines.
[cupertino.gov]
Add Base
(observed share)
scenario; compare
LOS/queues and
document any
negligible delta.
M
4 Parking code
Minimums
mis-stated. Report
claims 1.0 space
per townhome,
but CMC
§19.124.040(A)
shows
Townhouse (P) =
2.8/DU (2 garage
+ 0.8 open); R-3 =
2.0/DU (1
covered + 1
open).
Classification
must be confirmed
for the
Townhome
Combining
District. [§
19.124.0...t
Parking.]
Parking
section
(pp. 17–
18). [15 –
Final...tio
n Study |
PDF]
Under-provisio
n of
open/guest
stalls risks
conditions/rede
sign.
Confirm
applicable row;
revise plan to
provide
open/guest per
code; update
supply table &
striping. [§
19.124.0...t
Parking.]
H
5 Bicycle parking
Report says no
bicycle parking
requirement for
townhomes;
however CMC
§19.124.040(P)
requires bike
parking in
multi-family
developments
Parking
section;
Bike
facilities
narrative.
[15 –
Final...tio
n Study |
PDF]
Consistency
with the
General Plan
Mobility
Policy M-3.8
(“Require
public and
private bicycle
parking”) is
Add Class I
long-term (e.g.,
shared
room/cages) and
Class II
short-term racks in
common spaces;
include counts on
plans. [§
M
(Class I/II). For
R-3 Townhome
Combining,
provide
long-term/short-ter
m accordingly. [§
19.124.0...t
Parking.]
expected.
[cupertino.gov]
19.124.0...t
Parking.]
6 CEQA/VMT basis
Report states
“pursuant to AB
130, VMT not
required.” AB
130 introduced a
new infill
exemption (PRC
§21080.66) and a
state VMT
mitigation fee
option, but it is
not a blanket
VMT waiver;
projects must
either qualify for
the exemption or
follow local
screening/analysis
per City
Guidelines.
[abag.ca.gov],
[coblentzlaw.com]
, [nossaman.com]
Code
consisten
cy
section
(pp. 12–
16). [15 –
Final...tio
n Study |
PDF]
Misstating
CEQA posture
can trigger
completeness
holds or
challenge.
(a) If using PRC
§21080.66
exemption, add a
compliance
memo; (b) else
provide VMT
screening/memo
per Cupertino
2025 Guidelines.
[abag.ca.gov],
[cupertino.gov]
H
7 Checklist/documen
tation
Site Access &
Circulation
Checklist (A-7)
not appended;
several items
(loading, curb
mgmt.,
sight-distance
controls) not
shown as
enforceable
measures.
[cupertino.gov]
Site
Access
Review
section.
[15 –
Final...tio
n Study |
PDF]
Missing
checklist
exhibits
generate late
comments.
Attach completed
A-7, with
signed/striped
controls and curb
regulations sheets.
[cupertino.gov]
M
8 Sight distance /
curb control
Recommends no
parking in corner
sight triangles at
Linda
Vista/Evulich but
lacks a scaled
red-curb/sign
plan and a revised
on-street count.
[15 – Final...tion
Study | PDF]
Sight
Distance
(p. 19).
[15 –
Final...tio
n Study |
PDF]
MUTCD/CA
MUTCD
require
consistent
control
devices;
provide exact
locations and
signs for
enforceability.
[mutcddr.f...wa.dot.go
v], [dot.ca.gov]
Add Std Detail
7-2 sight-triangle
exhibit and
R-7/curb
markings per CA
MUTCD; re-tally
curb spaces. [15 –
Final...tion Study |
PDF], [dot.ca.gov]
M
9 School-area
treatments
Field notes
mention AM
drop-off queues
and NB Bubb
spillback; the
study lacks a
School Area
Safety plan
(temporary curb
management,
crossing control
assumptions).
MUTCD Part 7
addresses school
area control, and
City VZAP
prioritizes safe
systems. [15 –
Final...tion Study |
PDF], [mutcddr.f...wa.dot.gov],
[cupertino.gov]
Field Obs
(p. 9). [15
–
Final...tio
n Study |
PDF]
Reviewers
expect defined
school-hour
devices and
monitoring
commitments.
Add a
school-hour curb
plan (signs, cones,
loading windows)
and
post-occupancy
monitoring for 1
school term;
coordinate with
SVUSD. [mutcddr.f...wa.dot.gov]
M
1 0
Truck ops & waste
Aisles B–E have
no turnarounds;
trucks must back
in/out. Lacks a
delivery/solid-wa
ste ops plan and
swept paths for
30–35’ SUT
beyond the
cul-de-sac check.
Garbage
Collectio
n &
On-site
Circulatio
n. [15 –
Final...tio
n Study |
PDF]
Backing near
garages can
raise conflict
risk; City may
condition “No
Stopping/Loadi
ng” zones.
Add turning path
exhibits for SUTs
at each aisle;
include
time-window &
signage plan.
M
[15 – Final...tion
Study | PDF]
1 1
Ped/bike network
accuracy
Trail description
implies a
continuous
~5-mile facility by
the site; Stevens
Creek Trail is
two disconnected
segments
(Mountain View
~5 mi; Cupertino
Linda Vista
Park–Blackberry
Farm ~1–2 mi).
[traillink.com],
[siliconval...ctions.
com]
Existing
Ped/Bike
Facilities
(p. 6). [15
–
Final...tio
n Study |
PDF]
Overstating
connectivity
can over-credit
non-auto mode
share in
narratives.
Correct text + add
local segment map
and endpoints.
[traillink.com],
[siliconval...ctions.
com]
L
1 2
Transit description
Claims nearest
transit stop is
~1.25 mi; no map
or distance
measure
provided. [15 –
Final...tion Study |
PDF]
Transit
Services
(p. 6). [15
–
Final...tio
n Study |
PDF]
Provide
objective
backing for
completeness.
Add VTA stop
map with
measured walking
routes/distances.
L
1 3
Vision Zero/HIN
mapping
Asserts site street
not on High
Injury Network,
but no HIN map
excerpt or
adoption reference
to Vision Zero
Action Plan
(2024).
[cupertino.gov],
[cupertino.gov]
Plans &
Policies
section.
[15 –
Final...tio
n Study |
PDF]
Tightens plan
consistency
review.
Insert HIN map
excerpt + adoption
citation; keep
conclusion if
confirmed.
[cupertino.gov]
L
1 4
LOS presentation
Control-delay
LOS tables lack
HCM criteria
row/footnote in
header; minor
clarity. [15 –
Final...tion Study |
PDF]
Tables 2–
4. [15 –
Final...tio
n Study |
PDF]
Improves
readability for
non-engineers.
Add HCM LOS
criteria bands in
table headers.
L
1 5
Typos/format
Multiple typos
(“Authoirty”,
“Great than”) and
inconsistent intro
for Evulich Ct.
[15 – Final...tion
Study | PDF]
Througho
ut. [15 –
Final...tio
n Study |
PDF]
Avoids
avoidable staff
comments.
Proof and
harmonize street
names.
L
Standards-Specific Additions (what else to tune before
City review)
1. Cupertino General Plan – Mobility Element consistency The Mobility Element includes Policies M-3.2 (connectivity), M-3.3 (ped/bike crossings), M-3.5 (minimize driveways), and M-3.8 (require bicycle parking). Where the study claims consistency, attach policy-by-policy check tables and show how each improvement (e.g., chokers, crosswalks, sidewalk continuity) satisfies these policies. [cupertino.gov] The Element also discusses Transportation Impact Analysis expectations; align the LTA scope and mitigation format with the Mobility Element sections on walkability/bikeability and school access. [cupertino.gov]
2. Caltrans Safe/Complete Streets direction
Caltrans’ Director’s Policy 37 (DP-37) requires comfortable, convenient, and connected Complete Streets facilities and endorses design flexibility to serve users of all ages/abilities—relevant to your Evulich Ct throat narrowing, chokers, and crossing. Cite DP-37 and the 2024–25 Complete Streets Action Plan to ground the use of context-sensitive measures. [dot.ca.gov], [dot.ca.gov]
DIB-94 (2024) provides contextual design guidance and encourages traffic calming and intersection designs for ped/bike comfort; reference it when justifying narrowed curb-to-curb widths and curb extensions at the new T-intersection. [dot.ca.gov]
3. AASHTO “Green Book” (GDHS-7) checks
Re-affirm intersection sight distance and local residential street design elements per AASHTO 2018 (7th ed.) for a 25 mph context, and ensure your sight-triangle exhibit states the assumed design speed, vegetation control, and parking prohibition limits. (Use the City standard detail for triangles; cite AASHTO as the geometric design basis.) [store.tran...tation.org]
If you keep the 20-ft aisle widths and 8-ft parking both sides west of the chokers, demonstrate two-way passing and parking maneuver envelopes meet AASHTO local street guidance or City standard detail equivalents. [store.tran...tation.org]
4. MUTCD / CA MUTCD controls (especially school area & crossings) For any new crosswalks, signing/marking must conform to MUTCD 11th Edition (Dec 2023), with Part 7 rules for school areas where applicable; California has now issued CA MUTCD 2026 (effective Jan 18, 2026) in substantial conformance with the national MUTCD— use its part/section citations on markings, STOP/YIELD control, and curb extensions as you finalize sheets. [mutcd-dr.f...wa.dot.gov], [dot.ca.gov] Add a device schedule (sign codes, line types, colors) tied to MUTCD/CA MUTCD tables for the Evulich/Linda Vista intersection and any no-parking extents within sight triangles. [dot.ca.gov]
5. Pedestrian safety emphasis (Vision Zero / neighborhood context) Link the proposed chokers and narrowed throat to Vision Zero’s Safe System approach adopted by the City (2024), and include an 85th percentile speed check post-construction as part of a post-occupancy “safety & circulation” verification. [cupertino.gov], [cupertino.gov]
Where field notes indicate short peak-period queues near schools, add day-of-week/time-of-day curb regulations, and where appropriate, school-area legends (per MUTCD Part 7) to reduce mid-block encroachment and improve ped visibility. [15 – Final...tion Study | PDF], [mutcd-dr.f...wa.dot.gov]
6. Traffic Impact / LTA documentation (City’s 2025 Guidelines) Append the completed A-7 checklist and ensure the report includes all required components (trip gen methodology, assignment rationale, school area assessment, access review, ped/bike/transit, and mitigation commitments with plan-view exhibits). [cupertino.gov]
7. Cupertino Parking Standards (clarity on classification) Confirm whether the project is being processed as R-3 with Townhome Combining District or under a P (Planned) designation that invokes the “Townhouse (P) 2.8/DU” row. Update the report tables accordingly; reconcile with General Plan Mobility objectives on right-sizing parking and bicycle parking (M-3.8). [§ 19.124.0...t Parking.], [cupertino.gov] Short punch-list (what to ask Hexagon to fix now)
1. Parking & Bike Parking (H) – Correct minimums and provide on-site open/guest plus Class I/II bike parking counts and plan locations. [§ 19.124.0...t Parking.]
2. CEQA/VMT (H) – Provide either AB 130 PRC §21080.66 exemption memo or a VMT screening/analysis per City 2025 Guidelines. [abag.ca.gov], [cupertino.gov]
3. Add Columbus/Terrace sensitivity (M) – LOS/queue checks + narrative. [15 – Final...tion Study | PDF]
4. Sight-triangle package (M) – Scaled red-curb/signing plan (CA MUTCD device schedule) and revised on-street counts. [dot.ca.gov]
5. School-area ops (M) – MUTCD Part 7-aligned curb management, temporary controls, and a post-occupancy monitoring commitment. [mutcd-dr.f...wa.dot.gov]
6. Truck ops appendix (M) – Swept paths for 30–35’ SUT at each aisle + hauler letter and delivery windows. [15 – Final...tion Study | PDF]
7. Policy consistency tie-outs (L/M) – One-page matrix to Mobility Element policies (esp.
M-3.2, M-3.3, M-3.5, M-3.8), DP-37/DIB-94 references for context-sensitive design. [cupertino.gov], [dot.ca.gov], [dot.ca.gov]
Citations / References used in this E&O
Final Transportation Study PDF (attached): basis for all page/figure references. [15 – Final...tion Study | PDF]
Cupertino Transportation Study Guidelines (Jan 2025)—Tiering, LTA content, A-7 checklist. [cupertino.gov]
Cupertino Municipal Code §19.124.040 (Parking & Bicycle Parking)—ratios, bike parking classes. [§ 19.124.0...t Parking.]
Cupertino General Plan – Mobility Element (Policies including M-3.8). [cupertino.gov] Caltrans DP-37 Complete Streets; DIB-94 Contextual Design; 2024–25 Complete Streets Action Plan. [dot.ca.gov], [dot.ca.gov], [dot.ca.gov]
MUTCD 11th Ed. (Dec 2023); CA MUTCD 2026 (effective Jan 18, 2026)—devices, Part 7 school areas, markings. [mutcd-dr.f...wa.dot.gov], [dot.ca.gov] AASHTO “Green Book” (2018, 7th ed.)—geometric design & sight distance context. [store.tran...tation.org]
Vision Zero Action Plan & HIN (Cupertino)—policy alignment and safety framing. [cupertino.gov], [cupertino.gov]
Stevens Creek Trail factual context—segment lengths & endpoints. [traillink.com], [siliconval...ctions.com]
From: Vikram Saxena
To: City Attorney"s Office; City Clerk
Cc: Benjamin Fu; City Council; Tina Kapoor
Subject: Evulich Court: We can have 30 feet VHFHSZ setbacks AND construct 51 townhomes (Written Comments for Marcy 17 Meeting) Date: Friday, March 13, 2026 3:13:10 PM
Attachments: Setback Viability Memo - Linda Vista 26-14876 - March13.pdf Approved AMMR Linda Vista.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Clerk:
Please include the following as written communication for the March 17th City Council meeting for Agenda Item 12 (Evulich Court).
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Dear Cupertino City Council Members and City Attorney:
CONCLUSION: NO SETBACK WAIVER IS NEEDED TO MEET HOUSING
DENSITY
Summary:
The required 51-unit density can be achieved while honoring the full 30-foot fire-safety setback mandated for Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones; all Summerhill has to do is size the units to comparable developments.
Vida Sunnyvale Phase I achieved a nearly identical unit count (50 units on 2.76 acres) with 53–65 foot setbacks to singlefamily homes by utilizing smaller average unit sizes (1,748 SF livable area).
Westport Cupertino, also used smaller, marketable family-sized units (1,978 SF average livable area), establishing the financial viability of right-sized units that accommodate fire-safety requirements PDF of this memo and the letter from Summerhill to the Santa Clara County Fire Department requesting a waiver of the 30-foot setbacks are also attached.
Regards
-Vikram
_____________
MEMORANDUM March 13, 2026
TO: Cupertino City Council
FROM: Concerned Residents of Linda Vista Drive
RE: Provide 30 ft Setbacks Required for VHFHSZ & Build 51 Units:
No Setback Waiver Needed
FILE: City Council Meeting of March 17, 2026 | File #26-14876 | 10857 Linda Vista Drive
Executive Summary
SummerHill Homes proposes 51 townhomes at 10857 Linda Vista Drive, a site reclassified as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) in March 2025. SummerHill obtained an AMMR to reduce the 30 feet setbacks to 10 feet on the south and east boundaries; these are the side directly abutting existing single-family homes. The AMMR (filed by Steven Bull, accepted Jan. 6, 2026) says
Justification
The primary justifications for the reduction of the 30-foot setback requirement to the northern, southern, and western property lines are the development density requirements and site constraints due to the existing public right-of-way for the cul-de-sac within the site. Subsection (b) of the above listed Code includes Development density requirements and site constraints among the exceptions to the 30’ setback requirement.
In this memorandum we refute both claims and establish that the 30 feet setbacks (fire-safety) and 51 unit density (housing element) can both be satisfied together.
File #26-14876 | 10857 Linda Vista Drive
MEMORANDUM March 13, 2026
TO: Cupertino City Council
FROM: Concerned Residents of Linda Vista Drive
RE: Provide 30 ft Setbacks Required for VHFHSZ & Build 51 Units:
No Setback Waiver Needed
FILE: City Council Meeting of March 17, 2026 | File #26-14876 | 10857 Linda Vista Drive
Executive Summary
SummerHill Homes proposes 51 townhomes at 10857 Linda Vista Drive, a site reclassified as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) in March 2025. SummerHill obtained an AMMR to reduce the 30 feet setbacks to 10 feet on the south and east boundaries; these are the side directly abutting existing single-family homes. The AMMR (filed by Steven Bull, accepted Jan. 6, 2026) says Justification
The primary justifications for the reduction of the 30-foot setback requirement to the northern, southern, and western property lines are the development density requirements and site constraints due to the existing public right-of-way for the cul-de-sac within the site. Subsection (b) of the above listed Code includes Development density requirements and site constraints among the exceptions to the 30’ setback requirement.
In this memorandum we refute both claims and establish that the 30 feet setbacks (fire-safety) and 51 unit density (housing element) can both be satisfied together.
CLAIM 1: DENSITY “in order to fit the minimum required number of units within the site” • SummerHill’s proposed units average 2,369 livable SF (excluding the 2-car garage) are significantly oversized relative to comparable, approved projects in the same market served by CUSD • Vida Sunnyvale Phase I (Appendix A): 50 units on 2.76 acres (vs. SummerHill’s 51 units on 2.51 acres): nearly identical density
– Avg livable area: 1,748 SF per unit: Evulich Ct is 36% larger than Vida – Setbacks to single-family homes: 53–65 feet (vs. SummerHill’s ~10 ft) – Heights taper down 1 story from interior to rear: gradual transition to neighbors – Approved July 2021, built and sold: same South Bay market, conventional financing • Westport Cupertino (Appendix B): 88 townhomes/rowhouses at Stevens Creek & Mary, Cupertino – Avg livable area: 1,978 SF per unit: Evulich Ct is 20% larger than Westport – Family-sized units with 2-car garages: proven marketable product – Approved by Cupertino’s own City Council (Aug. 2020); same city, same market CLAIM 2: EVULICH COURT RIGHT-OF-WAY “The site is constrained by an existing City right-of-way (Evulich Court).”
• SummerHill must build internal access roads regardless; the site plan includes five private streets for vehicle and fire apparatus access
• The new internal road can be dedicated back to the City in lieu of the existing Evulich Court right-of-way