CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet.pdf — Cupertino City Council, April 1, 2026 (part 5 of 9)

www.farallonconsulting.com
The Subject Property contains single-story residential buildings on approximately 2.54 acres of land. The redevelopment project entails demolition of the four existing single-family residences and the development of 51 townhome condominium units across 10, three-story buildings on the Subject Property.

KEY PHASE I ESA FINDINGS
Farallon identified the following pertinent Phase I ESA findings associated with the thirdparty review:

Recognized Environmental Condition (REC) – Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) A total of up to four USTs were suspected to have been present on the Subject Property. The property owners reported two 560-gallon steel USTs that were installed in 1972. Both tanks were observed on-site and believed to be filled with concrete. Regulatory databases (SWRCB’s SWEEPS and HIST UST listings) indicate up to four USTs, possibly due to administrative duplication or incomplete records. However, a geophysical survey conducted in 2023 (described below) confirmed the presence of only two USTs and no additional tanks or suspected tank anomalies were identified.

The USTs are reportedly abandoned in place and filled with concrete, but no formal closure records or sampling results were found.

Other Environmental Concern (OEC) – Historical Agricultural Use The Phase I ESA noted that historical aerial photographs indicate the Subject Property was previously used for agriculture. Consequently, there is a potential for legacy organochlorine pesticides, arsenic, and lead in shallow soils.

KEY PHASE II FINDINGS
AEI conducted a limited Phase II subsurface investigation. The work included advancing 11 borings and conducting geophysical scanning for USTs and piping. The investigation included the following:

Geophysical Survey
The geophysical survey confirmed the presence of only two USTs (identified on attached Figure 2). Reportedly the geophysical survey detected no additional tanks or suspect piping; however, some buried debris (concrete/wood) was noted.
1065
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1065 of 2331
David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.

July 25, 2025

Page 3 of 7 ends

www.farallonconsulting.com
Soil Sampling
Soil sampling was conducted near the USTs at depths of 6 and 12 feet below ground surface (bgs) to evaluate for the potential presence of fuel impacts associated with the abandoned-in-place USTs. Additionally, shallow soil sampling at depths of 1.5 feet bgs was conducted for pesticides and metals to evaluate the potential presence of impacts from historical agricultural usage. Locations of the soil samples are included on Figure 2.

A total of eight soil samples were collected from the UST areas during the Phase II investigation:
• Four borings were advanced near the two known USTs:
o SB-1 and SB-2A (adjacent to the western UST); and
o SB-3B and SB-4 (adjacent to the eastern UST).
• From each boring, two samples were collected:
o One at approximately 6 feet bgs (near the bottom of the UST); and o One at 12 feet bgs (below the UST).

Analytes evaluated included total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPH-g), as diesel (TPH-d), and as motor oil (TPH-mo), and volatile fuel compounds, including benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX). Results (provided in the attached tables) were compared against Environmental Screening Levels1 (ESLs) and indicated:
• Gasoline (TPH-g): Not detected above reporting limits; • Diesel (TPH-d): Detected up to 12.3 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) (well below its Tier I ESL of 260 mg/kg);
• Motor Oil (TPH-mo): Detected at 7.12 mg/kg (well below its ESL of 1,600 mg/kg); and • BTEX compounds (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene): Not detected.

AEI concluded that it does not appear that a significant release has occurred from the historical USTs at the Site.
1 Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) are not cleanup levels, but rather conservative concentrations of chemicals in soil, soil vapor, and groundwater used as screening tools to assess potential environmental concerns at contaminated sites. ESLs help expedite the identification of sites needing further investigation and cleanup, but they are not intended as definitive cleanup goals. 1066
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1066 of 2331
David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.

July 25, 2025

Page 4 of 7 ends

www.farallonconsulting.com
Seven soil samples were collected for analysis for pesticides and metals (arsenic and lead) during the Phase II investigation. The samples were taken from shallow borings SB-5 through SB-11 (Figure 2). Each boring was sampled at a depth of approximately 1.5 feet bgs, below any fill and within the native soil likely impacted by historical agricultural use.

Samples were analyzed for arsenic, lead, and organochlorine pesticides (OCPs). Results (provided in the attached tables) were compared against ESLs and indicated:
• Arsenic: Max = 3.55 mg/kg (within background level of ≤11 mg/kg for SF Bay Area soils);
• Lead: Max = 10.5 mg/kg (well below its ESL of 80 mg/kg for residential properties); • Pesticides (DDT and DDE):
o Detected in three of seven samples;
o p,p-DDE: Max = 0.0278 mg/kg; and
o p,p-DDT: Max = 0.0107 mg/kg.

AEI concluded that arsenic and lead were not detected above the known background level concentrations (arsenic) or applicable Tier I ESL, indicating that neither arsenic nor lead appears to be a significant concern. In addition, OCPs either were not detected above laboratory limits or were detected well below the Residential Direct Exposure ESLs.

SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL CONCERNS FOR DEVELOPERS
Concern Finding Relevance to
Redevelopment
Recommended Next
Step
UST History Two USTs still in
place; unknown
closure
documentation; old
age
Could delay
city/county permits or
trigger regulatory
involvement
Remove USTs with
regulatory oversight;
document clean
closure
Groundwater Not investigated
(low likelihood
based on existing
data set)
Unknown petroleum
plume potential; could
impact vapor intrusion
Conduct limited
groundwater
sampling if local
agencies require
1067
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1067 of 2331
David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.

July 25, 2025

Page 5 of 7 ends

www.farallonconsulting.com
Soil Vapor Not investigated
(low likelihood
based on existing
data set)
Low concern due to no
VOC detections, but
might be requested for
residential reuse
Optional: soil gas
screening for VOCs
to confirm absence
of vapor risk
Buried debris Detected near
garage (likely inert)
May interfere with
development grading
or utility trenching
Include during
geotech phase;
remove if intrusive
construction occurs
Shallow Soil Metals and
pesticides detected
below screening
levels
No concern for
exposure risk or need
for mitigation based on
concentrations
detected
No action necessary
Unknown
Conditions During
Redevelopment
Potential for
encountering
unknown or
deleterious
conditions
Could delay
development if not
properly managed
Prepare a Soil
Management Plan

CONCLUSIONS
Farallon conducted a third-party review of two due diligence environmental investigation reports for the properties located at 10857, 10867, 10877, and 10887 Linda Vista Drive in Cupertino, California to define appropriate mitigations for environmental impacts identified for the Plan Area in advance of planned redevelopment activities. Farallon offers the following conclusions:
• The Phase I and Limited Phase II documents prepared by AEI are generally consistent with the state of the practice regarding environmental investigations. • Data provided in the reports did not contain detections of chemicals indicative of significant environmental impact in the areas sampled as demonstrated by:
1068
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1068 of 2331
David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.

July 25, 2025

Page 6 of 7 ends

www.farallonconsulting.com
o Absence of significant petroleum or VOC contamination in soil around the two abandoned-in-place USTs;
o No elevated lead, arsenic, or pesticide concentrations above background concentrations or screening levels that a regulator would typically require additional action.
• No groundwater was encountered in the borings that extended to 12 feet bgs; and • The geophysical survey did not identify additional structures or UST anomalies that would suggest significant additional contamination sources.

RECOMMENDATIONS
Farallon offers the following recommendations:
• Documented removal of the two USTs should be conducted. Now that property access is available, the formerly abandoned-in-place USTs should be removed and properly disposed of, and the surrounding soils should be assessed through sampling and analytical testing.
• A Soil Management Plan should be developed to establish response measures for addressing unknown subsurface conditions encountered during construction.

LIMITATIONS
The conclusions contained in this report/assessment are based on professional opinions with regard to the subject matter. These opinions have been arrived at in accordance with currently accepted geologic and engineering practices applicable to this location. The conclusions contained herein are subject to the following inherent limitations:
• Accuracy of Information. Farallon obtained, reviewed, and evaluated certain information used in this report/assessment from sources that were believed to be reliable. Farallon’s conclusions, opinions, and recommendations are based in part on such information. Farallon’s services did not include verification of its accuracy or authenticity. Should the information upon which Farallon relied prove to be inaccurate or unreliable, Farallon reserves the right to amend or revise its conclusions, opinions, and/or recommendations.

For the foregoing reasons, Farallon cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that the Site is free of hazardous or potentially hazardous substances or conditions, or that latent or 1069
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1069 of 2331
David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.

July 25, 2025

Page 7 of 7 ends

www.farallonconsulting.com
undiscovered conditions will not become evident in the future. Farallon’s observations, findings, and opinions can be considered valid only as of the date of the report.

This report/assessment has been prepared in accordance with the contract for services between Farallon and David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. No other warranties, representations, or certifications are made.

Reliance by third parties is prohibited. This report/assessment has been prepared for the exclusive use of David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. to address the unique needs of David J.

Powers & Associates, Inc. at a specific point in time. The City of Cupertino is recognized as an intended user of this report/assessment, subject to the same limitations as David J.

Powers & Associates, Inc.

This is not a general grant of reliance. No one other than David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. may rely on this report unless Farallon agrees in advance to such reliance in writing. Any unauthorized use, interpretation, or reliance on this report/assessment is at the sole risk of that party and Farallon will have no liability for such unauthorized use, interpretation, or reliance.

CLOSING
Farallon appreciates the opportunity to provide environmental consulting services for this project and trusts that this letter provides sufficient information for your needs. Please contact the undersigned at (714) 421-1740 if you have questions or comments.

Sincerely,
Farallon Consulting, L.L.C.

Martin Hamman P.G.

Principal Geologist
Attachment: Selected figure and table from AEI Phase II report MH:cm
1070
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1070 of 2331
wwwww

1.800.801.3224
www.aeiconsultants.com
Limited Phase II Subsurface
Investigation Report
REPORT DATE: October 18, 2023

SITE INFORMATION
10857, 10867, 10877, and 10887 Linda Vista Drive
Cupertino, California 95014

PROJECT INFORMATION
AEI Project No. 482220

PREPARED FOR
Roy Evulich and Angela Evulich
Co-Trustees of the Evulich Living Trust dated
7-8-1980, as amended.
13616 Surrey Ln Saratoga, California 95070
Barris J Evulich and Sondrea Evulich
Co-Trustees of the Evulich 2000 Family UTD Trust
dated October 3, 2000, as amended.
2451 Fairway Village Drive, Park City, Utah, 84060

PREPARED BY
AEI Consultants
2500 Camino Diablo
Walnut Creek, California 94597
1071
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1071 of 2331

LEGEND SITE MAP
FIGURE 2
Project No. 482220
10857; -67; -77; and -87

LINDA VISTA DRIVE
CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA 95014
Approximate Site Boundary
Abandoned UST
Soil Boring Location
Shallow Soil Sample Location
0 30 60
SCALE: 1” ~ 60’
SB-9
SB-10
SB-11
SB-4
SB-6
SB-7
SB-5
SB-8
SB-1
SB-2
SB-3
10857
10877
10887
10867
1072
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1072 of 2331
TABLE 1: SOIL SAMPLE DATA SUMMARY - TPH AND VOCS
10857; -67; -77; and -87 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, California 95014 Total Remaining
Location Depth TPH-g TPH-d TPH-mo Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene Xylenes VOCs ID Date (feet bgs) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) SB-1 9/19/2023 5-6 <100 12.3 <5.0 <0.0098 <0.0098 <0.0098 <0.0186 <RL SB-1 9/19/2023 11-12 <100 3.07 <5.0 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.036 <RL SB-2 9/19/2023 5-6 <100 4.84 <5.0 <0.014 <0.014 <0.014 <0.028 <RL SB-2 9/19/2023 11-12 <100 3.22 <5.0 <0.013 <0.013 <0.013 <0.026 <RL SB-3 9/19/2023 5-6 <100 6.26 7.12 <0.013 <0.013 <0.013 <0.026 <RL SB-3 9/19/2023 11-12 <100 4.83 <5.0 <0.0090 <0.0090 <0.0090 <0.018 <RL SB-4 9/19/2023 5-6 <100 2.66 <5.0 <0.011 <0.011 <0.011 <0.022 <RL SB-4 9/19/2023 11-12 <100 5.53 <5.0 <0.014 <0.014 <0.014 <0.028 <RL Comparison Values:

ESL- Tier 1 100 260 1,600 0.025 3.2 0.43 2.1 Various
Notes:
mg/kg milligrams per kilogram
<RL less than the laboratory reporting limit
bgs below ground surface
TPH-g Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Gasoline
TPH-d Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel
TPH-mo Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Motor Oil
VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds
Comparison Values:

ESL Tier 1: Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) showing Tier 1 (most conservative) exposure risks from July 2019 (Rev. 2) ESL Summary Tables, prepared by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board AEI Project No. 482220 Page 1 of 1 AEI Consultants
1073
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1073 of 2331
TABLE 2: SOIL SAMPLE DATA SUMMARY - ARSENIC, LEAD, AND PESTICIDES 10857; -67; -77; and -87 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, California 95014 Remaining
Location Depth Arsenic Lead p,p-DDE p,p-DDD p,p-DDT Dieldrin Pesticides ID Date (feet bgs) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) SB-5 9/19/2023 1-1.5 2.75 6.85 0.00645 <0.0020 0.00563 <0.0020 <RL SB-6 9/19/2023 1-1.5 3.55 10.2 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <RL SB-7 9/19/2023 1-1.5 3.16 7.05 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <RL SB-8 9/19/2023 1-1.5 2.89 10.5 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <RL SB-9 9/19/2023 1-1.5 2.58 7.40 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <RL SB-10 9/19/2023 1-1.5 3.19 8.25 0.0278 0.00240 J 0.0107 0.00129 J <RL SB-11 9/19/2023 1-1.5 2.67 8.55 0.00469 <0.0020 0.00272 <0.0020 <RL Comparison Values:

ESL- Tier 1 0.067 1 32 0.33 2.7 0.0011 0.00046 Various
ESL Direct Exposure - R 0.067 1 80 1.8 1.8 1.9 0.037 Various Notes:
mg/kg
<RL
bgs
DDE
DDD Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane
DDT
1 Arsenic concentrations from Establishing Background Arsenic in Soil of the San Francisco Bay Region, December 2011 study indicate background levels of arsenic in California Bay Area soil typically range between 1.2 and 11 mg/kg.

J Indicates a value between the method MDL and PQL and that the reported concentration should be considered as estimated.

Comparison Values:

ESL Tier 1: Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) showing Tier 1 (most conservative) exposure risks from July 2019 (Rev. 2) ESL Summary Tables, prepared by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board ESL Direct Exposure - R: Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) showing Direct Exposure Human Health Residential (R) Use exposure risks from July 2019 (Rev. 2) ESL Summary Tables, prepared by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board milligrams per kilogram
less than the laboratory reporting limit
below ground surface
Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene
Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
AEI Project No. 482220 Page 1 of 1 AEI Consultants
1074
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1074 of 2331
1075
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1075 of 2331
1076
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1076 of 2331
555 12th Street, Suite 250 ■ Oakland, California 94607 ■ 1.415.967.6000 ■ www.rouxinc.com California ■ Illinois ■ Massachusetts ■ New Jersey ■ New York ■ Texas ■ Virginia 2954.0025S101/LR

June 9, 2025
Lindsay Gipe
Santa Clara County Fire Department
1315 Dell Avenue,
Campbell, California 95008
Re: Underground Storage Tank Closure Report
10857 through 10887 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, California Dear Ms. Gipe:

Roux Associates, Inc. (Roux) has prepared this Underground Storage Tank (UST) Closure Report for SummerHill Homes, LLC (Client) to document the removal of two USTs located at 10857, 10867, and 10877 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, California (Site; Figure 1). Based on the information provided by the previous property owner, the two 550-gallon USTs were used for gasoline storage for farming equipment on-Site, and were filled with concrete slurry in the mid-1980s. The locations of these two USTs, hereafter referred to as Tank 1 (Western tank) and Tank 2 (Eastern tank), are shown on Figure

2. Tank 1 was reportedly installed around 1970, situated between 10877 and 10857 Linda Vista Drive, and Tank 2 was reportedly installed around 1962, situated near Linda Vista Drive in the eastern portion of 10867 Linda Vista Drive.

Between May 6 and June 2, 2025, the two USTs were properly removed, cleaned, and recycled. In addition, confirmation sampling was conducted within the excavation areas before the excavations were backfilled with aggregate base from a quarry and native soil from the Site. A summary of field activities is provided below.

FIELD ACTIVITIES
UST Removal Activities
On May 5 and 6, 2025, Costera Waste & Environmental, Inc. (Costera), a California Contractors State License Board [CSLB] licensed contractor, mobilized to the Site with materials and equipment. Costera visually assessed the locations of the tanks, confirming the fill ports were filled with concrete to ground surface, and cleared the excavation areas for underground utilities.

On May 7, 2025, Costera began excavation to expose both Tanks 1 and 2, with excavated soil stockpiled on plastic adjacent to the excavation areas.

On May 8, 2025, under the observation of the Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD), a 3- by

5.5-foot section of steel was removed from the top of each tank utilizing an air-driven non-sparking toll with copper/beryllium bit, to reveal the tank interiors, which were confirmed to be filled with concrete.

The remaining riser pipe of Tank 1 and three remaining riser pipes of Tank 2 were removed prior to exposure of the tank internal contents. These riser pipes were each filled with concrete. A portable gas detector was used for gasoline Lower Explosive Limit (LEL) and oxygen concentration. Measurements were taken continuously in the breathing zone, as well as near the opening of the tanks and open excavations. Gasoline and oxygen were detected at 0% and 20.9%, respectively. Permit inspections by the SCCFD are included in Attachment 1.

Costera broke up and removed concrete from within the tanks by using a pressure vacuum breaker to dig out the concrete and load it into a 20 cubic-yard roll-off bin. Concrete samples were collected (ConTank-W from Tank 1 and Con-Tank-E from Tank 2) labelled, packaged and submitted to SunStar Laboratories, Inc. in West Sacramento, CA, for waste characterization analysis for the following:
1077
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1077 of 2331
Ms. Lindsay Gipe
June 9, 2025

Page 2 ends

ROUX  UST Closure Report 2965.0025S101/LR
• Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Method 8260;
• Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) as gasoline, diesel and motor oil by USEPA Method 8015; • CAM 17 Metals with Mercury by USEPA Method 6020/7471; and • Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) by USEPA Method 8082.

Laboratory analytical reports for concrete samples are included in Attachment 2. Management of concrete waste is described in the Waste Management section.

Tanks were pressure washed, triple rinsed with soapy water. Approximately 70 gallons of rinse water was used to clean/flush the tank and pumped into two 55-gallon steel drums. Management of rinseate waste is described in the Waste Management section.

On May 12, 2025, additional soil surrounding the tank sidewalls was excavated and stockpiled to provide better access to remove the USTs. Excavation bottom for Tank 1 measured at approximately 6.5 feet below ground surface (bgs) with sand surrounding the tank. Excavation bottom for Tank 2 measured at approximately 7.5 feet bgs with native soil surrounding the tank. Both tanks measured approximately 4 by 6 feet, and the excavation areas measured 8 by 10 feet to a depth of 6.5 and 7.5feet bgs, respectively, for Tanks 1 and 2 (Figure 2).

Under the SCCFD oversight, the two empty and cleaned single-walled steel 550-gallon USTs were removed from the excavations. LEL and oxygen gas readings collected from within both tanks detected at 0% and 20.9%, respectively, which was certified as non-hazardous by Costera. Condition of the tanks was observed to be fair: Tank 1 showed no damage, while Tank 2 had a few small holes due to corrosion. No staining of soil or petroleum odors were present within the tank excavation areas.

A Hazardous Waste Tank Closure Certification was issued documenting that the tanks are visually free from product, sludge, scale, rinseate, and debris, and is included as Attachment 3. It stated that the tanks previously held flammable or combustible materials, and cannot be reused and must be recycled or destroyed. Management of tanks for off-Site recycling is described in the Waste Management section.

Confirmation Sampling
On May 12, 2025, Costera collected two confirmation soil samples from the bottom of each tank excavation area: north and south for Tank 1 (CSP-Tank 1-NS and CSP-Tank 1-SS), and east and west for Tank 2 (CSP-Tank 2-WS and CSP-Tank 2-ES). Soil samples were collected approximately two to three feet below the bottom of each tank using an excavator bucket, estimated to be 9 and 8.5 feet for the north and south of Tank 1 from native soil material, and 9.5 feet for the east and west ends of Tank 2 from native soil material. The samples were collected from the approximate locations shown on Figure

2. The samples were labelled, packaged on ice, and transported to McCampbell Analytical in Pittsburg, California under chain of custody protocols for the following analyses:
• Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX), naphthalene, fuel oxygenates, ethylene dibromide/ethylene dichloride, ethanol and TPH as gasoline by USEPA 8260D; and
• Organic Lead (speciated) by USEPA 8270E.

No analytes were detected above laboratory reporting limits.

Backfill
On May 12, 2025, the excavations were backfilled with two feet of aggregate base at the base, and overburden native soil (removed and stockpiled from above tanks during excavation) to ground surface, 1078
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1078 of 2331
Ms. Lindsay Gipe
June 9, 2025

Page 3 ends

ROUX  UST Closure Report 2965.0025S101/LR
with compaction every foot. Native/virgin aggregate base was brought in from Stevens Creek Quarry for additional required backfill; approximately 6 tons of this material was used in each excavation. The weight ticket for backfill material mobilized to the Site on May 5, 2025, is included as Attachment 4.

Approximately 8 cubic yards of overburden soil was used to backfill each excavation.

Waste Management
Multiple waste streams were produced during UST removal, and were properly disposed of or recycled offsite as described below.
• Both UST tanks and associated piping were transported for recycling on May 12, 2025, weighing 1,020 pounds (0.45 ton) total, and were received by Sims Metal Management in Richmond, CA on May 13, 2025.
• Rinseate water from the tanks containing a mixture of oily water was characterized as nonResource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste and transported on May 13, 2025, to World Oil Recycling in Compton, CA for recycling under Generator USEPA ID number CAC00338410. The signed waste manifest was accepted by the waste facility on May 15, 2025.
• Concrete waste was characterized as non-hazardous based on analytical results (Attachment 2). Approximately 14 cubic yards (10.15 tons) of concrete rubble were transported in a 20 cubic yard roll-off bin on June 2, 2025, under non-hazardous waste manifest to Recology Hay Road in Vacaville, CA.

Waste manifests and weight tickets/bills of lading are included in Attachment 5.

CLOSING
Please contact the undersigned by telephone at (415) 967-6000, or by email listed below if you have any questions or require additional information.

Sincerely,
ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC.

Emily Siegel, P.G.-CA
Senior Geologist
[email protected]
Angela Liang Cutting, Ph.D., P.E.-CA
Principal Engineer/Vice President
[email protected]
Figures:

1. Site Location Map

2. UST Excavation and Sampling Locations
Attachments:

1. Permits Inspections

2. Laboratory Analytical Reports

3. Hazardous Waste Tank Closure Certification

4. Backfill Weight Ticket

5. Waste Manifests
1079
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1079 of 2331
UST Closure Report
10857 through 10887 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, California 2965.0025S101/CVRS ROUX

FIGURES

1. Site Location Map

2. UST Excavation & Sampling Locations
1080
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1080 of 2331
1081
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1081 of 2331
Prepared for: Title: Compiled by: Prepared by: Project Mgr: File: Date: Project: Scale: FIGURE 2 UST EXCAVATION AND SAMPLING LOCATIONS 10857 THROUGH 10887 LINDA VISTA DRIVE CUPERTINO, CA 95014 SUMMERHILL HOMES, LLC SI SI ES 09JUN2025 AS SHOWN 2965.0025S000 UST REMOVAL LOCATIONS.DWG S:\CLIENTS\SUMMERHILL\38-LINDA VISTA CUPERTINO\6-UST REMOVAL CLOSURE RPT\FIGURES\UST REMOVAL LOCATIONS.DWG 1082
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1082 of 2331
UST Closure Report
10857 through 10887 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, California 2965.0025S101/CVRS ROUX

ATTACHMENTS

1. Permit Inspections

2. Laboratory Analytical Reports

3. Hazardous Waste Tank Closure Certification

4. Waste Manifests
1083
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1083 of 2331
UST Closure Report
10857 through 10887 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, California 2965.0025S101/CVRS ROUX
ATTACHMENT 1
Permit Inspections
1084
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1084 of 2331
1085
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1085 of 2331
1086
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1086 of 2331
1087
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1087 of 2331
1088
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1088 of 2331
UST Closure Report
10857 through 10887 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, California 2965.0025S101/CVRS ROUX
ATTACHMENT 2
Laboratory Analytical Reports
1089
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1089 of 2331
WorkOrder:

Report Created for: Costera Waste & Environmental, Inc. 14 El Vaquero
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
Project Contact: Adam Burton
Project: Costera J# 9169-003; Cupertino UST Removal
Project P.O.: 9196-003
Project Received: 05/12/2025
Analytical Report reviewed & approved for release on 05/16/2025 by:

Tracy Babjar
2505753
The report shall not be reproduced except in full, without the written approval of the laboratory. The analytical results relate only to the items tested. Results reported conform to the most current regulatory standards, where applicable, unless otherwise stated in a case narrative.

Analytical Report
1534 Willow Pass Rd. Pittsburg, CA 94565 ♦ TEL: (877) 252-9262 ♦ FAX: (925) 252-9269 ♦ www.mccampbell.com CA ELAP 1644 ♦ NELAP 4033 ORELAP
Project Manager
Project Location: 10857 Linda Vista Dr, Cupertino, CA
McCampbell Analytical, Inc.
"When Quality Counts"

Page 1 of 25 ends

1090
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1090 of 2331
Glossary of Terms & Qualifier Definitions
Client: Costera Waste & Environmental, Inc.

Project: Costera J# 9169-003; Cupertino UST Removal
WorkOrder: 2505753
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Glossary Abbreviation
%D Serial Dilution Percent Difference
95% Interval 95% Confident Interval
CCV Continuing Calibration Verification.

CCV REC (%) % recovery of Continuing Calibration Verification.

CPT Consumer Product Testing not NELAP Accredited
DF Dilution Factor
DI WET (DISTLC) Waste Extraction Test using DI water
DISS Dissolved (direct analysis of 0.45 µm filtered and acidified water sample) DLT Dilution Test (Serial Dilution)
DUP Duplicate
EDL Estimated Detection Limit
ERS External reference sample. Second source calibration verification.

ITEF International Toxicity Equivalence Factor
LCS Laboratory Control Sample
LCS2 Second LCS for the batch. Spike level is lower than that for the first LCS; applicable to method 1633.

LQL Lowest Quantitation Level
MB Method Blank
MB IS/SS % Rec % Recovery of Internal Standard or Surrogate in Method Blank, if applicable MB SS % Rec % Recovery of Surrogate in Method Blank, if applicable MDL Method Detection Limit ¹
ML Minimum Level of Quantitation
MS Matrix Spike
MSD Matrix Spike Duplicate
NA Not Applicable
ND Not detected at or above the indicated MDL or RL
NR Data Not Reported due to matrix interference or insufficient sample amount.

PDS Post Digestion Spike
PF Prep Factor
RD Relative Difference
RL Reporting Limit ²
RPD Relative Percent Difference
RRT Relative Retention Time
RSD Relative Standard Deviation
SNR Surrogate is diluted out of the calibration range
¹ MDL is the minimum measured concentration of a substance that can be reported with 99% confidence that the measured concentration is distinguishable from method blank results. Definition and Procedure for the Determination of the Method Detection Limit, Revision 2, 40CFR, Part 136, Appendix B, EPA 821-R-16-006, December 2016. Values are based upon our default extraction volume/amount and are subject to change.
² RL is the lowest level that can be reliably determined within specified limits of precision and accuracy during routine laboratory operating conditions. (The RL cannot be lower than the lowest calibration standard used in the initial calibration of the instrument and must be greater than the MDL.) Values are based upon our default extraction volume/amount and are subject to change.

Page 2 of 25 ends

1091
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1091 of 2331
Glossary of Terms & Qualifier Definitions
Client: Costera Waste & Environmental, Inc.

Project: Costera J# 9169-003; Cupertino UST Removal
WorkOrder: 2505753
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" SPK Val Spike Value
SPKRef Val Spike Reference Value
SPLP Synthetic Precipitation Leachate Procedure
ST Sorbent Tube
TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leachate Procedure
TEQ Toxicity Equivalents
TNTC “Too Numerous to Count;” greater than 250 colonies observed on the plate.

TZA TimeZone Net Adjustment for sample collected outside of MAI's Coordinated Universal Time (UTC). (Adjustment for Daylight Saving is not accounted.)
WET (STLC) Waste Extraction Test (Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration) Analytical Qualifiers
a9 Reporting limit near, but not identical to, our standard reporting limit due to variable Encore, Terracore, or Solid sample weight.
c16 The internal standard recovery is below the lower limit. The target analyte(s) were Not Detected (ND); therefore, the data is reportable.

Quality Control Qualifiers
F2 LCS/LCSD recovery and/or RPD/RSD is out of acceptance criteria.

Page 3 of 25 ends

1092
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1092 of 2331
Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Costera Waste & Environmental, Inc.

Project: Costera J# 9169-003; Cupertino UST Removal
Date Received: 05/12/2025 13:40
Date Prepared: 05/12/2025
WorkOrder: 2505753
Extraction Method: SW5035
Analytical Method: SW8260D
Unit: mg/Kg
Ethanol [Encore Sampling]
CSP - Tank 1 - NS 2505753-001B Soil 05/12/2025 10:00 GC38 05142526.D 317159 Analytes Result RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Ethanol ND 0.84 1 05/15/2025 00:23
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): TW Analytical Comments: a9
DF
Dibromofluoromethane 98 70-140 1 05/15/2025 00:23
1,2-DCB-d4 65 40-140 1 05/15/2025 00:23
CSP - Tank 1 - SS 2505753-002B Soil 05/12/2025 10:30 GC38 05142527.D 317159 Analytes Result RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Ethanol ND 0.96 1 05/15/2025 01:01
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): TW Analytical Comments: a9,c16
DF
Dibromofluoromethane 99 70-140 1 05/15/2025 01:01
1,2-DCB-d4 68 40-140 1 05/15/2025 01:01
CSP - Tank 2 - ES 2505753-003B Soil 05/12/2025 11:00 GC38 05142528.D 317159 Analytes Result RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Ethanol ND 0.88 1 05/15/2025 01:38
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): TW Analytical Comments: a9,c16
DF
Dibromofluoromethane 101 70-140 1 05/15/2025 01:38
1,2-DCB-d4 67 40-140 1 05/15/2025 01:38
(Cont.)

Page 4 of 25 ends

1093
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1093 of 2331
Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Costera Waste & Environmental, Inc.

Page 5 of 25 ends

1094
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1094 of 2331
Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Costera Waste & Environmental, Inc.

Project: Costera J# 9169-003; Cupertino UST Removal
Date Received: 05/12/2025 13:40
Date Prepared: 05/12/2025
WorkOrder: 2505753
Extraction Method: SW5035
Analytical Method: SW8260D
Unit: mg/kg
TPH(g) [Encore Sampling]
CSP - Tank 1 - NS 2505753-001B Soil 05/12/2025 10:00 GC38 05142526.D 317159 Analytes Result RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID TPH(g) ND 0.42 1 05/15/2025 00:23
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): TW Analytical Comments: a9
DF
Dibromofluoromethane 94 70-140 1 05/15/2025 00:23
Benzene-D6 80 50-140 1 05/15/2025 00:23
CSP - Tank 1 - SS 2505753-002B Soil 05/12/2025 10:30 GC38 05142527.D 317159 Analytes Result RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID TPH(g) ND 0.48 1 05/15/2025 01:01
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): TW Analytical Comments: a9
DF
Dibromofluoromethane 96 70-140 1 05/15/2025 01:01
Benzene-D6 80 50-140 1 05/15/2025 01:01
CSP - Tank 2 - ES 2505753-003B Soil 05/12/2025 11:00 GC38 05142528.D 317159 Analytes Result RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID TPH(g) ND 0.44 1 05/15/2025 01:38
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): TW Analytical Comments: a9
DF
Dibromofluoromethane 97 70-140 1 05/15/2025 01:38
Benzene-D6 80 50-140 1 05/15/2025 01:38
(Cont.)

Page 6 of 25 ends

1095
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1095 of 2331
Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Costera Waste & Environmental, Inc.

Page 7 of 25 ends

1096
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1096 of 2331
Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Costera Waste & Environmental, Inc.

Project: Costera J# 9169-003; Cupertino UST Removal
Date Received: 05/12/2025 13:40
Date Prepared: 05/12/2025
WorkOrder: 2505753
Extraction Method: SW5035
Analytical Method: SW8260D
Unit: mg/Kg
Volatile Organics [Encore Sampling]
CSP - Tank 1 - NS 2505753-001B Soil 05/12/2025 10:00 GC38 05142526.D 317159 Analytes Result RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID tert-Amyl methyl ether (TAME) ND 0.0084 1 05/15/2025 00:23 Benzene ND 0.0084 1 05/15/2025 00:23
t-Butyl alcohol (TBA) ND 0.084 1 05/15/2025 00:23
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 0.00042 1 05/15/2025 00:23
1,2-Dichloroethane (1,2-DCA) ND 0.00042 1 05/15/2025 00:23 Diisopropyl ether (DIPE) ND 0.0084 1 05/15/2025 00:23
Ethylbenzene ND 0.0084 1 05/15/2025 00:23
Ethyl tert-butyl ether (ETBE) ND 0.0084 1 05/15/2025 00:23 Methyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE) ND 0.0084 1 05/15/2025 00:23 Naphthalene ND 0.0084 1 05/15/2025 00:23
Toluene ND 0.0084 1 05/15/2025 00:23
m,p-Xylene ND 0.0084 1 05/15/2025 00:23
o-Xylene ND 0.0084 1 05/15/2025 00:23
Xylenes, Total ND 0.0084 1 05/15/2025 00:23
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): TW Analytical Comments: a9
DF
Dibromofluoromethane 98 70-140 1 05/15/2025 00:23
Toluene-d8 114 70-140 1 05/15/2025 00:23
4-BFB 92 70-140 1 05/15/2025 00:23
Benzene-d6 82 50-140 1 05/15/2025 00:23
Ethylbenzene-d10 99 50-140 1 05/15/2025 00:23
1,2-DCB-d4 65 40-140 1 05/15/2025 00:23
CA ELAP 1644 • ORELAP (NELAP) 4033
(Cont.)

Page 8 of 25 ends

1097
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1097 of 2331
Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Costera Waste & Environmental, Inc.

Project: Costera J# 9169-003; Cupertino UST Removal
Date Received: 05/12/2025 13:40
Date Prepared: 05/12/2025
WorkOrder: 2505753
Extraction Method: SW5035
Analytical Method: SW8260D
Unit: mg/Kg
Volatile Organics [Encore Sampling]
CSP - Tank 1 - SS 2505753-002B Soil 05/12/2025 10:30 GC38 05142527.D 317159 Analytes Result RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID tert-Amyl methyl ether (TAME) ND 0.0096 1 05/15/2025 01:01 Benzene ND 0.0096 1 05/15/2025 01:01
t-Butyl alcohol (TBA) ND 0.096 1 05/15/2025 01:01
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 0.00048 1 05/15/2025 01:01
1,2-Dichloroethane (1,2-DCA) ND 0.00048 1 05/15/2025 01:01 Diisopropyl ether (DIPE) ND 0.0096 1 05/15/2025 01:01
Ethylbenzene ND 0.0096 1 05/15/2025 01:01
Ethyl tert-butyl ether (ETBE) ND 0.0096 1 05/15/2025 01:01 Methyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE) ND 0.0096 1 05/15/2025 01:01 Naphthalene ND 0.0096 1 05/15/2025 01:01
Toluene ND 0.0096 1 05/15/2025 01:01
m,p-Xylene ND 0.0096 1 05/15/2025 01:01
o-Xylene ND 0.0096 1 05/15/2025 01:01
Xylenes, Total ND 0.0096 1 05/15/2025 01:01
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): TW Analytical Comments: a9,c16
DF
Dibromofluoromethane 99 70-140 1 05/15/2025 01:01
Toluene-d8 113 70-140 1 05/15/2025 01:01
4-BFB 91 70-140 1 05/15/2025 01:01
Benzene-d6 82 50-140 1 05/15/2025 01:01
Ethylbenzene-d10 101 50-140 1 05/15/2025 01:01
1,2-DCB-d4 68 40-140 1 05/15/2025 01:01
CA ELAP 1644 • ORELAP (NELAP) 4033
(Cont.)

Page 9 of 25 ends

1098
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1098 of 2331
Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Costera Waste & Environmental, Inc.

Project: Costera J# 9169-003; Cupertino UST Removal
Date Received: 05/12/2025 13:40
Date Prepared: 05/12/2025
WorkOrder: 2505753
Extraction Method: SW5035
Analytical Method: SW8260D
Unit: mg/Kg
Volatile Organics [Encore Sampling]
CSP - Tank 2 - ES 2505753-003B Soil 05/12/2025 11:00 GC38 05142528.D 317159 Analytes Result RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID tert-Amyl methyl ether (TAME) ND 0.0088 1 05/15/2025 01:38 Benzene ND 0.0088 1 05/15/2025 01:38
t-Butyl alcohol (TBA) ND 0.088 1 05/15/2025 01:38
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 0.00044 1 05/15/2025 01:38
1,2-Dichloroethane (1,2-DCA) ND 0.00044 1 05/15/2025 01:38 Diisopropyl ether (DIPE) ND 0.0088 1 05/15/2025 01:38
Ethylbenzene ND 0.0088 1 05/15/2025 01:38
Ethyl tert-butyl ether (ETBE) ND 0.0088 1 05/15/2025 01:38 Methyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE) ND 0.0088 1 05/15/2025 01:38 Naphthalene ND 0.0088 1 05/15/2025 01:38
Toluene ND 0.0088 1 05/15/2025 01:38
m,p-Xylene ND 0.0088 1 05/15/2025 01:38
o-Xylene ND 0.0088 1 05/15/2025 01:38
Xylenes, Total ND 0.0088 1 05/15/2025 01:38
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): TW Analytical Comments: a9,c16
DF
Dibromofluoromethane 101 70-140 1 05/15/2025 01:38
Toluene-d8 112 70-140 1 05/15/2025 01:38
4-BFB 104 70-140 1 05/15/2025 01:38
Benzene-d6 82 50-140 1 05/15/2025 01:38
Ethylbenzene-d10 98 50-140 1 05/15/2025 01:38
1,2-DCB-d4 67 40-140 1 05/15/2025 01:38
CA ELAP 1644 • ORELAP (NELAP) 4033
(Cont.)

Page 10 of 25 ends

1099
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1099 of 2331
Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Costera Waste & Environmental, Inc.

Project: Costera J# 9169-003; Cupertino UST Removal
Date Received: 05/12/2025 13:40
Date Prepared: 05/12/2025
WorkOrder: 2505753
Extraction Method: SW5035
Analytical Method: SW8260D
Unit: mg/Kg
Volatile Organics [Encore Sampling]
CSP - Tank 2 - WS 2505753-004B Soil 05/12/2025 11:30 GC38 05142529.D 317159 Analytes Result RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID tert-Amyl methyl ether (TAME) ND 0.0096 1 05/15/2025 02:16 Benzene ND 0.0096 1 05/15/2025 02:16
t-Butyl alcohol (TBA) ND 0.096 1 05/15/2025 02:16
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 0.00048 1 05/15/2025 02:16
1,2-Dichloroethane (1,2-DCA) ND 0.00048 1 05/15/2025 02:16 Diisopropyl ether (DIPE) ND 0.0096 1 05/15/2025 02:16
Ethylbenzene ND 0.0096 1 05/15/2025 02:16
Ethyl tert-butyl ether (ETBE) ND 0.0096 1 05/15/2025 02:16 Methyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE) ND 0.0096 1 05/15/2025 02:16 Naphthalene ND 0.0096 1 05/15/2025 02:16
Toluene ND 0.0096 1 05/15/2025 02:16
m,p-Xylene ND 0.0096 1 05/15/2025 02:16
o-Xylene ND 0.0096 1 05/15/2025 02:16
Xylenes, Total ND 0.0096 1 05/15/2025 02:16
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): TW Analytical Comments: a9,c16
DF
Dibromofluoromethane 101 70-140 1 05/15/2025 02:16
Toluene-d8 113 70-140 1 05/15/2025 02:16
4-BFB 99 70-140 1 05/15/2025 02:16
Benzene-d6 83 50-140 1 05/15/2025 02:16
Ethylbenzene-d10 102 50-140 1 05/15/2025 02:16
1,2-DCB-d4 72 40-140 1 05/15/2025 02:16
CA ELAP 1644 • ORELAP (NELAP) 4033

Page 11 of 25 ends

1100
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1100 of 2331
Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Costera Waste & Environmental, Inc.

Project: Costera J# 9169-003; Cupertino UST Removal
Date Received: 05/12/2025 13:40
Date Prepared: 05/14/2025
WorkOrder: 2505753
Extraction Method: SW3550B
Analytical Method: SW8270E
Unit: mg/Kg
Organic Lead (speciated) by GC-MS
CSP - Tank 1 - NS 2505753-001A Soil 05/12/2025 10:00 GC46 F0514250116.D 317294 Analytes Result RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Tetraethyl Lead ND 0.0020 1 05/14/2025 20:34
Tetramethyl Lead ND 0.0020 1 05/14/2025 20:34
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): TD
DF
2-Fluorobiphenyl 100 50-150 1 05/14/2025 20:34
CSP - Tank 1 - SS 2505753-002A Soil 05/12/2025 10:30 GC46 F0514250119.D 317294 Analytes Result RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Tetraethyl Lead ND 0.0020 1 05/14/2025 21:57
Tetramethyl Lead ND 0.0020 1 05/14/2025 21:57
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): TD
DF
2-Fluorobiphenyl 101 50-150 1 05/14/2025 21:57
CSP - Tank 2 - ES 2505753-003A Soil 05/12/2025 11:00 GC46 F0514250120.D 317294 Analytes Result RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Tetraethyl Lead ND 0.0020 1 05/14/2025 22:25
Tetramethyl Lead ND 0.0020 1 05/14/2025 22:25
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): TD
DF
2-Fluorobiphenyl 100 50-150 1 05/14/2025 22:25
(Cont.)

Page 12 of 25 ends

1101
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1101 of 2331
Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Costera Waste & Environmental, Inc.

Page 13 of 25 ends

1102
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1102 of 2331
Quality Control Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Costera Waste & Environmental, Inc.

Project: Costera J# 9169-003; Cupertino UST Removal
Date Analyzed: 05/13/2025
Date Prepared: 05/12/2025
WorkOrder: 2505753
BatchID: 317159
Analytical Method: SW8260D
Unit: mg/Kg
Sample ID: MB/LCS/LCSD-317159
Instrument: GC49
Matrix: Soil
Extraction Method: SW5035
QC Summary Report for SW8260D (Encore)
Analyte MB
Result

MDL RL SPK
Val

MB IS/SS
%REC

MB IS/SS
Limits
Ethanol ND 0.24 1.0 - - -
Surrogate Recovery
Dibromofluoromethane 0.22 0.25 90 60-140
1,2-DCB-d4 0.15 0.2 73 70-140
Analyte LCS
Result
LCSD
Result
SPK
Val
LCS
%REC
LCSD
%REC

LCS/LCSD
Limits

RPD RPD
Limit
Ethanol 1.5 1.7 2 77 87 60-140 11.7 30
Surrogate Recovery
Dibromofluoromethane 0.23 0.23 0.25 91 92 60-140 0.877 30 1,2-DCB-d4 0.15 0.17 0.20 76 84 70-140 10.3 30

Page 14 of 25 ends

1103
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1103 of 2331
Quality Control Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Costera Waste & Environmental, Inc.

Project: Costera J# 9169-003; Cupertino UST Removal
Date Analyzed: 05/13/2025
Date Prepared: 05/12/2025
WorkOrder: 2505753
BatchID: 317159
Analytical Method: SW8260D
Unit: mg/Kg
Sample ID: MB/LCS/LCSD-317159
Instrument: GC38, GC49
Matrix: Soil
Extraction Method: SW5035
QC Summary Report for SW8260D
Analyte MB
Result

MDL RL SPK
Val

MB IS/SS
%REC

MB IS/SS
Limits
TPH(g) ND 0.50 0.50 - - -
Surrogate Recovery
Dibromofluoromethane 0.24 0.25 97 70-130
Benzene-D6 0.15 0.2 77 70-130
Analyte LCS
Result
LCSD
Result
SPK
Val
LCS
%REC
LCSD
%REC

LCS/LCSD
Limits

RPD RPD
Limit
TPH(g) 1.9 2.0 2 94 99 60-130 5.41 20
Surrogate Recovery
Dibromofluoromethane 0.24 0.24 0.25 96 96 70-130 0.847 20 Benzene-D6 0.16 0.16 0.20 79 79 70-130 0.0255 20

Page 15 of 25 ends

1104
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1104 of 2331
Quality Control Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Costera Waste & Environmental, Inc.

MDL RL SPK
Val

MB IS/SS
%REC

MB IS/SS
Limits
tert-Amyl methyl ether (TAME) ND 0.0015 0.010 - - -
Benzene ND 0.0017 0.010 - - -
t-Butyl alcohol (TBA) ND 0.021 0.10 - - -
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 0.00024 0.00050 - - -
1,2-Dichloroethane (1,2-DCA) ND 0.00028 0.00050 - - -
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 0.00030 0.010 - - -
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.0015 0.010 - - -
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.0024 0.010 - - -
1,1-Dichloropropene ND 0.0019 0.010 - - -
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.0013 0.010 - - -
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.0024 0.010 - - -
Diisopropyl ether (DIPE) ND 0.0016 0.010 - - -
Ethylbenzene ND 0.0022 0.010 - - -
Ethyl tert-butyl ether (ETBE) ND 0.0015 0.010 - - -
Freon 113 ND 0.0022 0.010 - - -
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 0.0024 0.010 - - -
Hexachloroethane ND 0.0013 0.010 - - -
2-Hexanone ND 0.0086 0.010 - - -
Isopropylbenzene ND 0.0028 0.010 - - -
4-Isopropyl toluene ND 0.0026 0.010 - - -
Methyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE) ND 0.0028 0.010 - - -
Methylene chloride ND 0.018 0.040 - - -
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) ND 0.0030 0.010 - - -
Naphthalene ND 0.0044 0.010 - - -
n-Propyl benzene ND 0.0032 0.010 - - -
Styrene ND 0.0034 0.010 - - -
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.0020 0.010 - - -
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.00056 0.010 - - -
Tetrachloroethene ND 0.00062 0.010 - - -
Toluene ND 0.0026 0.010 - - -
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.0034 0.010 - - -
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.0024 0.010 - - -
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 0.0017 0.010 - - -
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 0.0027 0.010 - - -
Trichloroethene ND 0.0016 0.010 - - -
Trichlorofluoromethane ND 0.0026 0.010 - - -
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND 0.00030 0.00050 - - -
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 0.0064 0.010 - - -
CA ELAP 1644 • ORELAP (NELAP) 4033
(Cont.)

Page 16 of 25 ends

1105
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1105 of 2331
Quality Control Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Costera Waste & Environmental, Inc.

MDL RL SPK
Val

MB IS/SS
%REC

MB IS/SS
Limits
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 0.0024 0.010 - - -
Vinyl Chloride ND 0.00026 0.00050 - - -
m,p-Xylene ND 0.0050 0.010 - - -
o-Xylene ND 0.0024 0.010 - - -
Surrogate Recovery
Dibromofluoromethane 0.22 0.25 90 60-140
Toluene-d8 0.29 0.25 115 60-140
4-BFB 0.023 0.025 91 60-140
Benzene-d6 0.18 0.2 91 70-140
Ethylbenzene-d10 0.23 0.2 114 70-140
1,2-DCB-d4 0.15 0.2 73 70-140
CA ELAP 1644 • ORELAP (NELAP) 4033
(Cont.)

Page 17 of 25 ends

1106
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1106 of 2331
Quality Control Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Costera Waste & Environmental, Inc.

LCS/LCSD
Limits

RPD RPD
Limit
tert-Amyl methyl ether (TAME) 0.025 0.026 0.040 63 66 50-140 5.30 30 Benzene 0.032 0.033 0.040 80 84 60-140 4.74 30
t-Butyl alcohol (TBA) 0.10 0.11 0.16 63 71 50-140 12.4 30 1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) 0.015 0.016 0.020 75 80 30-140 6.57 30 1,2-Dichloroethane (1,2-DCA) 0.027 0.029 0.040 67 72 60-140 6.67 30 1,1-Dichloroethene 0.035 0.037 0.040 86 93 60-140 7.57 30 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.034 0.036 0.040 85 91 60-140 6.76 30 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.036 0.039 0.040 90 96 60-140 7.43 30 1,1-Dichloropropene 0.034 0.036 0.040 85 90 60-140 6.58 30 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 0.033 0.035 0.040 83 87 60-140 5.30 30 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 0.033 0.035 0.040 83 87 60-140 5.39 30 Diisopropyl ether (DIPE) 0.029 0.031 0.040 72 78 60-140 7.95 30 Ethylbenzene 0.036 0.038 0.040 90 95 60-140 5.48 30
Ethyl tert-butyl ether (ETBE) 0.027 0.029 0.040 67 72 50-140 6.90 30 Freon 113 0.029 0.030 0.040 71 76 40-140 6.09 30
Hexachlorobutadiene 0.044 0.047 0.040 110 118 60-140 6.86 30 Hexachloroethane 0.041 0.045 0.040 104 112 60-140 7.50 30 2-Hexanone 0.023 0.021 0.040 58 53 40-140 9.32 30
Isopropylbenzene 0.047 0.051 0.040 118 127 60-140 6.95 30 4-Isopropyl toluene 0.047 0.050 0.040 116 125 60-140 7.05 30 Methyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE) 0.026 0.028 0.040 65 70 50-140 8.30 30 Methylene chloride 0.046 0.050 0.040 115 126 60-140 8.65 30 4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) 0.023 0.024 0.040 57 59 50-140 3.39 30 Naphthalene 0.0082 0.0093 0.040 20,F2 23,F2 30-140 13.5 30 n-Propyl benzene 0.048 0.053 0.040 121 132 60-140 8.63 30 Styrene 0.032 0.034 0.040 79 84 60-140 6.85 30
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.033 0.035 0.040 81 87 60-140 6.54 30 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.029 0.031 0.040 73 78 20-140 6.44 30 Tetrachloroethene 0.038 0.041 0.040 95 101 60-140 6.40 30 Toluene 0.037 0.039 0.040 92 98 60-140 5.89 30
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 0.013 0.015 0.040 33,F2 36,F2 40-140 8.80 30 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.020 0.021 0.040 51 52 50-140 2.58 30 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.032 0.034 0.040 80 86 60-140 7.32 30 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0.032 0.034 0.040 81 85 60-140 4.73 30 Trichloroethene 0.036 0.037 0.040 89 93 60-140 4.72 30
Trichlorofluoromethane 0.027 0.029 0.040 67 72 40-140 7.01 30 1,2,3-Trichloropropane 0.017 0.018 0.020 84 90 30-140 6.97 30 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 0.039 0.042 0.040 98 106 60-140 7.50 30 CA ELAP 1644 • ORELAP (NELAP) 4033
(Cont.)

Page 18 of 25 ends

1107
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1107 of 2331
Quality Control Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Costera Waste & Environmental, Inc.

LCS/LCSD
Limits

RPD RPD
Limit
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 0.043 0.046 0.040 107 116 60-140 8.25 30 Vinyl Chloride 0.013 0.014 0.020 63 70 30-130 9.45 30
m,p-Xylene 0.075 0.079 0.080 93 99 60-140 5.94 30
o-Xylene 0.032 0.034 0.040 81 85 60-140 5.50 30
Surrogate Recovery
Dibromofluoromethane 0.23 0.23 0.25 91 92 60-140 0.877 30 Toluene-d8 0.28 0.29 0.25 114 114 60-140 0.373 30
4-BFB 0.024 0.024 0.025 97 98 60-140 0.287 30
Benzene-d6 0.18 0.19 0.20 90 96 70-140 6.52 30
Ethylbenzene-d10 0.24 0.26 0.20 118 128 70-140 7.62 30
1,2-DCB-d4 0.15 0.17 0.20 76 84 70-140 10.3 30
CA ELAP 1644 • ORELAP (NELAP) 4033

Page 19 of 25 ends

1108
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1108 of 2331
Quality Control Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Costera Waste & Environmental, Inc.

Project: Costera J# 9169-003; Cupertino UST Removal
Date Analyzed: 05/14/2025
Date Prepared: 05/14/2025
WorkOrder: 2505753
BatchID: 317294
Analytical Method: SW8270E
Unit: mg/Kg
Sample ID: MB/LCS/LCSD-317294
2505753-001AMS/MSD
Instrument: GC46
Matrix: Soil
Extraction Method: SW3550B
QC Summary Report for Organic Lead by GC-MS
Analyte MB
Result

MDL RL SPK
Val

MB IS/SS
%REC

MB IS/SS
Limits
Tetraethyl Lead ND 0.0018 0.0020 - - -
Tetramethyl Lead ND 0.0015 0.0020 - - -
Surrogate Recovery
2-Fluorobiphenyl 0.20 0.2 100 30-150
Analyte LCS
Result
LCSD
Result
SPK
Val
LCS
%REC
LCSD
%REC

LCS/LCSD
Limits

RPD RPD
Limit
Tetraethyl Lead 0.12 0.12 0.10 118 123 50-150 4.22 30
Tetramethyl Lead 0.13 0.12 0.10 129 122 50-150 5.32 30
Surrogate Recovery
2-Fluorobiphenyl 0.20 0.19 0.20 99 97 50-150 2.35 30
Analyte MS
Result
MSD
Result
SPK
Val
SPKRef
Val
MS
%REC
MSD
%REC
MS/MSD
Limits

RPD RPD
Limit
MS
DF
Tetraethyl Lead 1 0.12 0.12 0.10 ND 120 120 50-150 0.197 30 Tetramethyl Lead 1 0.13 0.12 0.10 ND 128 125 50-150 2.76 30 Surrogate Recovery
2-Fluorobiphenyl 1 0.20 0.20 0.20 99 99 50-150 0.111 30

Page 20 of 25 ends

1109
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1109 of 2331
McCampbell Analytical, Inc.
1534 Willow Pass Rd
Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701
(925) 252-9262
CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY RECORD Page
Lab ID Matrix Collection Date Hold
Requested Tests (See legend below)
Report to:

Adam Burton
14 El Vaquero
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
415-533-0112 FAX:

PO: 9196-003
05/12/2025
ClientSampID
Project: Costera J# 9169-003; Cupertino UST
Removal
WorkOrder: 2505753
1 of 1
Date Logged:

Date Received: 05/12/2025
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Costera Waste & Environmental, Inc.

Bill to:

Adam Burton
Costera Waste & Environmental, Inc.
14 El Vaquero
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
Requested TAT: 5 days;
ClientCode: COST
Email: [email protected]
EDF EQuIS Email HardCopy ThirdParty
[email protected]
Excel
CLIP J-flag
cc/3rd Party: [email protected];
WaterTrax
Detection Summary
Dry-Weight
2505753-001 CSP - Tank 1 - NS Soil 5/12/2025 10:00 B B B A A B 2505753-002 CSP - Tank 1 - SS Soil 5/12/2025 10:30 B B B A A 2505753-003 CSP - Tank 2 - ES Soil 5/12/2025 11:00 B B B A A 2505753-004 CSP - Tank 2 - ES Soil 5/12/2025 11:30 B B B A A Prepared by:

NOTE: Soil samples are discarded 60 days after receipt unless other arrangements are made (Water samples are 30 days).

Hazardous samples will be returned to client or disposed of at client expense.

Comments: Added cost for 4 encore samplers picked up 5/9/25 JA 8260ETOH_E 8260GAS_E 8260VOC_E MAI_OPBMS_S
PRDisposal Fee PRENCORE SAMPLER
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8
9 10
Test Legend:
11 12
The following SampIDs: 001B, 002B, 003B, 004B contain testgroup Gas8260VOC_E.

Page 21 of 25 ends

1110
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1110 of 2331
LabID ClientSampID Collection Date
& Time
Date Logged:

Matrix Test Name Cont./ TAT
Comp.

WORK ORDER SUMMARY
Work Order: 2505753
Comments:

Client Name: COSTERA WASTE & ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. Project: Costera J# 9169-003; Cupertino UST Removal QC Level: LEVEL 2
Dry- Hold
Weight
Sub
Out
Bottle &
Preservative
5/12/2025
Sediment
Content
CLIP EDF Excel EQuIS Email HardCopy ThirdParty J-flag
Client Contact: Adam Burton
Contact's Email: [email protected]
WaterTrax
Head Test Due Date
Space
U**
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" 001A CSP-Tank 1 - NS Soil SW8270E - Organic Lead (speciated) 1 16OZ GJ, Unpres 5/12/2025 10:00 5 days 5/19/2025 001B CSP - Tank 1 - NS Soil TPH(g) & 8260 (Misc. Compounds) by 5/12/2025 10:00 5 days GCMS [Encore]
1 Encore Sampler 5/19/2025
SW8260D (Ethanol) (Encore) 5 days 5/19/2025
002A CSP - Tank 1 - SS Soil SW8270E - Organic Lead (speciated) 1 16OZ GJ, Unpres 5/12/2025 10:30 5 days 5/19/2025 002B CSP - Tank 1 - SS Soil TPH(g) & 8260 (Misc. Compounds) by 5/12/2025 10:30 5 days GCMS [Encore]
1 Encore Sampler 5/19/2025
SW8260D (Ethanol) (Encore) 5 days 5/19/2025
003A CSP - Tank 2 - ES Soil SW8270E - Organic Lead (speciated) 1 16OZ GJ, Unpres 5/12/2025 11:00 5 days 5/19/2025 003B CSP - Tank 2 - ES Soil TPH(g) & 8260 (Misc. Compounds) by 5/12/2025 11:00 5 days GCMS [Encore]
1 Encore Sampler 5/19/2025
SW8260D (Ethanol) (Encore) 5 days 5/19/2025
004A CSP - Tank 2 - ES Soil SW8270E - Organic Lead (speciated) 1 16OZ GJ, Unpres 5/12/2025 11:30 5 days 5/19/2025

Page 1 of 2 ends

* STLC and TCLP extractions require 2 days to complete; therefore, all TATs begin after the extraction is completed (i.e., One-day TAT yields results in 3 days from sample submission).

NOTES:
- MAI assumes that all material present in the provided sampling container is considered part of the sample - MAI does not exclude any material from the sample prior to sample preparation unless requested in writing by the client.

U** = An unpreserved container was received for a method that suggests a preservation in order to extend hold time for analysis. - Organic extracts are held for 40 days before disposal; Inorganic extract are held for 30 days. - ISM prep requires 5 to 10 days to complete; therefore, all TATs begin after the extraction is completed (i.e., One-day TAT yields results in 6 to 11 days from sample submission). Due date listed on WO summary will not accurately reflect the time needed for sample preparation.

Cont./Comp. = Containers /Composites

Page 22 of 25 ends

1111
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1111 of 2331
LabID ClientSampID Collection Date
& Time
Date Logged:

Matrix Test Name Cont./ TAT
Comp.

WORK ORDER SUMMARY
Work Order: 2505753
Comments:

Page 2 of 2 ends

* STLC and TCLP extractions require 2 days to complete; therefore, all TATs begin after the extraction is completed (i.e., One-day TAT yields results in 3 days from sample submission).

Cont./Comp. = Containers /Composites

Page 23 of 25 ends

1112
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1112 of 2331

Page 24 of 25 ends

1113
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1113 of 2331
Sample Receipt Checklist
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client Name: Costera Waste & Environmental, Inc.

WorkOrder №: 2505753
Date Logged: 5/12/2025
Matrix: Soil Logged by:

Carrier: Client Drop-In
Shipping container/cooler in good condition? Yes No
Custody seals intact on shipping container/cooler? Yes No NA Samples Received on Ice? Yes No
Chain of custody present? Yes No
Chain of custody signed when relinquished and received? Yes No Chain of custody agrees with sample labels? Yes No
Samples in proper containers/bottles? Yes No
Sample containers intact? Yes No
Sufficient sample volume for indicated test? Yes No
All samples received within holding time? Yes No NA
Sample/Temp Blank temperature NA
ZHS conditional analyses: VOA meets zero headspace Yes No NA requirement (VOCs, TPHg/BTEX, RSK)?
pH acceptable upon receipt (Metal: <2)? Yes No NA
Temp: 3.7°C
Chain of Custody (COC) Information
Sample IDs noted by Client on COC? Yes No
Date and Time of collection noted by Client on COC? Yes No Sampler's name noted on COC? Yes No
Sample Receipt Information
Sample Preservation and Hold Time (HT) Information
Sample labels checked for correct preservation? Yes No
Project: Costera J# 9169-003; Cupertino UST Removal
(Ice Type: WET ICE )
Comments:
pH tested and acceptable upon receipt (200.7: ≤2; 533: 6 - 8; 537.1: 6 - 8)?
Yes No NA
UCMR Samples:

Free Chlorine tested and acceptable upon receipt (<0.1mg/L) [not applicable to 200.7]?
Yes No NA
Date and Time Received: 5/12/2025 13:40
Received by: Valerie Alfaro
COC agrees with Quote? Yes No NA
Custody seals intact on sample bottles? Yes No NA

Page 25 of 25 ends

1114
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1114 of 2331

!"#$%&'()'#$%(*(+,-.&",/%,$'0(1(2'3%(4"&%#$ 5+6(!78%&$.,"(9:;(5%/"-'0(1(<=>?@(2.,A'(B.#$'(C& 2'3%(4"&%#$D(!E(FGHI= G?HF<(E$0',$.J(KJ%',(C&L EA'/(M7&$", N%OO(2%% P&"Q%J$(R','S%&
+,J0"#%A('&%($T%(&%#70$#("O(','0U#%#(O"&(#'/80%#(&%J%.-%A(VU($T%(0'V"&'$"&U(",(=?W<=WG?(<G6I<L(XO(U"7(T'-%( ',U(Y7%#$.",#(J",J%&,.,S($T.#(&%8"&$D(80%'#%(O%%0(O&%%($"(J",$'J$(/%L :.,J%&%0UD( G@(R'U(G=G?

!"#$ %&'()* +,- ()('!../ *0 1

23456

!).7&8"09, "#$*;(%'/. .&:%8:%&)8&' <=>?<@ABBCD@EFG HIJ@KLM@AINFODFI@P<QRS PTPUU=S<S@VWD PTPUU=S<>@KIX YIBN@ZE HI[I\@ZE ]IFX EI@YIBN ^_^H`aZA^H@bVca@Kc@Y^]VHbY EI@CFG !5#! 5%&%.7d!.) 4 .&:.7:%&)8.. .&:).:%&)%/) !5#! 5%&%.7d!.% 4 .&:.7:%&)8). .&:).:%&)%/) eff";
4
4"
;g- hijkljmnopmkqrkpiqmkljstlpkussovkptkpijkmuwsojmkuruovxjykqrkuzztlyurzjk{qpikpijkziuqrkt|k znmptyvkytznwjrp}khiqmkuruovpqzuokljstlpkwnmpk~jkljsltynzjykqrkqpmkjrpqljpv} )f%)

!"#$ %&'()* +,- ()('!../ *0 1

23456

!).7&8"09, "#$*;(%'/. .&:%8:%&)8&' <=>?<@ABBCD@EFG HIJ@KLM@AINFODFI@P<QRS PTPUU=S<S@VWD PTPUU=S<>@KIX EYZYAZ[\]^@^_``ab HIcId@[E aDINd LeN HFBF _DFL `W !5#! 5%&%.7f!.) ]L FDg ^IBN@[E )/!%7h,6+i TS ). :#
*7.)&1 ,!.' * TU= .-.&.
:# '.%.j!
4 1

R=S .-%&
:# '.%.j!
4 0

SU=R k

TP
QUl 22 ?Q "0 TUQ

m SUT? .-.&.
:# '.%.j!
4 m
0

?Ul .-%&
:# '.%.j!
4 # =? 4

?U< .-&.
:# '.%.j!
4 90

>< .-%&
:# '.%.j!
4 n =? !1
m
o SURR .-)%
:#
*7%'.1 6!.8 2kk SU>= !2m
o SU?T );/;&!5
km
o SURP );%;f!5
km
o ?UT 5
SU?Q
;2!pm SUT> .-%&
:#
*7%'.1 !pm SU<< .-)%
:#
*7%'.1 HIcId@[E aDINd LeN HFBF _DFL `W !5#! 5%&%.7f!.% ]L FDg ^IBN@[E %(!f.h +6+i >l ).
:#
*7.)&1 ,!.' *
m SURQ .-%&
:# '.%.j!
4 * =Ul .-.&.
:# '.%.j!
4 1

R=S .-%&
:# '.%.j!
4 0

SU=l k

==
qrr";
4
4"
;j- stuvwuxyz{xv|}v{t|xvwu~w{v~~zv{v{tuvx~zuxv}zuv|}v

w}
uv|{tv{tuv
t|}vv
yx{v
yu}{vst|xv}z{|
zvwu~w{vyx{vuvwu~wy
uv|}v|{xvu}{|wu{ %r%)

R=S .-%&
:# '.%.j!
4 0

SU=R k

TP
QUl 22 ?Q "0 TUQ

m SUT? .-.&.
:# '.%.j!
4 m
0

?Ul .-%&
:# '.%.j!
4 # =? 4

?U< .-&.
:# '.%.j!
4 90

R=S .-%&
:# '.%.j!
4 0

SU=l k

==
qrr";
4
4"
;j- stuvwuxyz{xv|}v{t|xvwu~w{v~~zv{v{tuvx~zuxv}zuv|}v

w}
uv|{tv{tuv
t|}vv
yx{v
yu}{vst|xv}z{|
zvwu~w{vyx{vuvwu~wy
uv|}v|{xvu}{|wu{ %r%) 1117
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1117 of 2331

!"#$ %&'()* +,- ()('!../ *0 1

23456

!).7&8"09, "#$*;(%'/. .&:%8:%&)8&' <=>?<@ABBCD@EFG HIJ@KLM@AINFODFI@P<QRS PTPUU=S<S@VWD PTPUU=S<>@KIX HIYIZ@[E \DINZ L]N HFBF ^DFL _W !5#! 5%&%.7`!.% aL FDb cIBN@[E >Ud .-%&
:# '.%.e!
4 22 <? "0 =US

f SU?> .-.&.
:# '.%.e!
4 f
0

?UQ .-%&
:# '.%.e!
4 # >< 4

?UT .-&.
:# '.%.e!
4 90

>d .-%&
:# '.%.e!
4 g QR h

SU=d .-&.
: 45"
*'.).1
ijj";
4
4"
;e- klmnompqrspntunsltpnomvwosnxvvrynswnslmnpxzvrmpnxuxry{m|ntunx}}wo|xu}mn~tslnslmn}lxtunwn }qpsw|yn|w}qzmusnkltpnxuxryst}xrnomvwosnzqpsnmnomvow|q}m|ntuntspnmustomsy /j%)

?UQ .-%&
:# '.%.e!
4 # >< 4

?UT .-&.
:# '.%.e!
4 90

>d .-%&
:# '.%.e!
4 g QR h

, .-%& m m m m m m
AIBFcB SU=R .-%& m m m m m m
AWBFcB TP .-%& m m m m m m
AdIN QU_ .-%& m m m m m m
A ?Q .-%& m m m m m m
HI TUQ .-%& m m m m m m
Ccg SUT? .-.&. m m m m m m
NgdDcB ?U_ .-%& m m m m m m
FCJN =? .-%& m m m m m m
aNDFcB ?U< .-&. m m m m m m
4 , .-%& m m m m m m
5Z

, .-%& m m m m m m
IDIFcB >< .-%& m m m m m m
FDC =? .-%& m m m m m m
AN@I@^XICFD@^V@>T>S>T>? ,
*8i8)* 4

Y .-).
:# ) %&
.%&) .&:)/:%& .&:)i:%&
";
4
4"
;-
x|{xx
x|}|xx}x
xxxx}|x
x
x
x}x {}x}{vx
xx|}|x{xx||}{xxx|v i%)

!"#$ %&'()* +,- ()('!../ *0 1

23456

!).7&8"09, "#$*;(%'/. .&:%8:%&)8&' <=>?<@ABBCD@EFG HIJ@KLM@AINFODFI@P<QRS PTPUU=S<S@VWD PTPUU=S<>@KIX * Y 6
"
1Z 62 3 ,
20 * Y[0
Z0 AD@\@]IDJ@\@^ ]<=<S_T\S?@`aFNb acDaI@HIdIFLM@eDCU VNfCWNFDI@gFWDfNL@df@^Vh@iW@_S_< * !).)' , .-.). :# ) %&
.%&( .&:)j:%& .&:)(:%&
*7.7% * !)%%) , .-.). k k k k k k
* !)%/% , .-.). k k k k k k
* !)%j% , .-.). k k k k k k
* !)%j7 , .-.). k k k k k k
* !)%&j , .-.). k k k k k k
* !)%'. , .-.). k k k k k k
wxyyz{|}~u~}y|zyzo~}|o
~~ sstsuv mnopqr l l l l
wxyyz{|}~u~|zyz~ sstnuv mnopqr l l l l
NIFN@IDFC@ABcDL@df@^Vh@iW@_<QSg 1

[ , .-)%
:# &. %&
.%%7 .&:)%:%& .&:)7:%&
*7%'.1 6!.8 1
Z
Z , .-)% k k k k k k 6!.8 1
0Z
Z , .-)% k k k k k k 6!.8 1

, .-)% k k k k k k 6!.8 1

Z , .-)% k k k k k k 6!.8 D\gcfNdDD SURR .-)% k k k k k k 6!.8 !1 Y
[ , .-)% k k k k k k 6!.8 !1
Y
[ , .-)% k k k k k k 6!.8
Z 0 , .-)% k k k k k k 6!.8 Z
[ , .-)% k k k k k k 6!.8 Z Z , .-)% k k k k k k 6!.8 Z , .-)% k k k k k k 6!.8 Z
Z , .-)% k k k k k k 6!.8 %!Z
, .-)% k k k k k k 6!.8 j!Z
, .-)% k k k k k k 6!.8 ,

Z
Z , .-)% k k k k k k 6!.8 );%!,

!/!Z 22 , .-%& k k k k k k 6!.8 );%!,

Z
,1 , .-)% k k k k k k 6!.8 ,

Z , .-)% k k k k k k 6!.8 );%!,Z
[ , .-)% k k k k k k 6!.8 );/!,Z
[ , .-)% k k k k k k 6!.8
";
4
4"
;- ~uy~x}uu}uy~zy}u|u}zu}~u|~u||~uu|zy|~u}u}~u|uzu x}zuzx~}tuu||}|uy~zy}ux}u~uy~yzx~uu}u~}y~}t &%)

0 , .-)% n n n n n n 6!.8 r22Y
[ , .-)% n n n n n n 6!.8 2!r22Y
, .-)% n n n n n n 6!.8
ZY Z 0 , .-&. n n n n n n 6!.8 sIWWIND SU>= .-)% n n n n n n 6!.8 D\ViNdDtD SU?T .-)% n n n n n n 6!.8 4Y , .-)% n n n n n n 6!.8 ););%;%!5Z Z , .-)% n n n n n n 6!.8 );););%!5Z Z , .-)% n n n n n n 6!.8 5Z Z , .-)% n n n n n n 6!.8 );%;/!5Z [ , .-)% n n n n n n 6!.8 );%;m!5Z
[ , .-)% n n n n n n 6!.8 ););%!5Z Z , .-)% n n n n n n 6!.8 ););)!5Z Z , .-)% n n n n n n 6!.8 5Z Z , .-)% n n n n n n 6!.8 5Z o
Z , .-)% n n n n n n 6!.8 );%;/!5Z 22 , .-)% n n n n n n 6!.8 ?MRM=\]FBWiNdDtD SURP .-)% n n n n n n 6!.8 ?M<MT\]FBWiNdDtD ?UT .-)% n n n n n n 6!.8 uoo";
4
4"
;r- vwxyzx{|}~{yy~w{yzxz~y}y~y~wxy{ }x{y}xyyzxy~wy~wxywyy |{~y| x~yvw{y}~}yzxz~y
|{~yxyzxz|xyy~{yx~zx~ 'o%)

Y # , .-%& m m m m m m 6!.8 %!opq
1rs , .-%& m m m m m m 6!.8
~xy z}{~ uvwxyz{| t t t t

~
|vwv~ u{wzyzv t t t t

~y z}z~ wyzzu t t t t
";
4
4"
;- ~~~~~
~~~
~

~~

~~~
~~ ~w~~

~~~~~~~w 8%)

Y # , .-%& m m m m m m 6!.8 %!opq
1rs , .-%& m m m m m m 6!.8
~xy z}{~ uvwxyz{| t t t t

~
|vwv~ u{wzyzv t t t t

~y z}z~ wyzzu t t t t
";
4
4"
;- ~~~~~
~~~
~

~~

~~~
~~ ~w~~

~~~~~~~w 8%) 1122 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1122 of 2331

, .-%& n n n n n n
AIBFcB SU=_ .-%& n n n n n n
AWBFcB == .-%& n n n n n n
AdIN >U_ .-%& n n n n n n
A <? .-%& n n n n n n
HI =US .-%& n n n n n n
oCch SU?> .-.&. n n n n n n
oNhdDcB ?UQ .-%& n n n n n n
FCJN >< .-%& n n n n n n
aNDFcB ?UT .-&. n n n n n n
4 , .-%& n n n n n n
5Z

, .-%& n n n n n n
IDIFcB >_ .-%& n n n n n n
FDC QR .-%& n n n n n n
a]HA@oINL@dh@QSSS>SSS@aFL@oWL 45"
* '.).1 AWBFcB SU=_ .-&.
: ) %&
./(' .&:%):%& .&:%8:%&
";
4
4"
;-
y}|yyy}~}yy~yyyyy~}yyyy~y |~y~|xy yy}~}y|yy}}~|yyy}x 7%)

!"#$ %&'()* +,- ()('!../ *0 1

23456

!).7&8"09, "#$*;(%'/. .&:%8:%&)8&' <=>?<@ABBCD@EFG HIJ@KLM@AINFODFI@P<QRS PTPUU=S<S@VWD PTPUU=S<>@KIX * Y 6
"
1Z 62 3 ,
20 * Y[0
Z0 AD@\@]IDJ@\@^ ]<=<S_T\S<@`aFNb acDaI@HIdIFLM@eDCU AN@fI@gXICFD@gVh@>T>Si>T>? , *8j8)* 4

Y .-).
:# ) %&
.%&) .&:)/:%& .&:)j:%& VNkCWNFDI@lFWDkNL@dk@gVh@mW@_S_< * !).)' , .-.). :# ) %&
.%&( .&:)j:%& .&:)(:%&
*7.7% * !)%%) , .-.). n n n n n n
* !)%/% , .-.). n n n n n n
* !)%j% , .-.). n n n n n n
* !)%j7 , .-.). n n n n n n
* !)%&j , .-.). n n n n n n
* !)%'. , .-.). n n n n n n
{|}}~y}
~}~rr vwxuyz pqrstu o o o o
{|}}~y

~}~ sxyz pqrstu o o o o
fNIFN@IDFC@ABcDL@dk@gVh@mW@_<QSl 1

[ , .-..%&
:# ) %&
.%%7 .&:)%:%& .&:)7:%&
*7%'.1 1
Z
Z , .-..%& n n n n n n
1
0Z
Z , .-..%& n n n n n n
1

, .-..%& n n n n n n
1

Z , .-..%& n n n n n n
!1
Y
[ , .-..%& n n n n n n
!1
Y
[ , .-..%& n n n n n n
!1
Y
[ , .-..%& n n n n n n

Z 0 , .-..%& n n n n n n
Z
[ , .-..%& n n n n n n
Z Z , .-..%& n n n n n n
Z
, .-..%& n n n n n n
Z
Z , .-..%& n n n n n n
%!Z
, .-..%& n n n n n n
j!Z
, .-..%& n n n n n n
,

Z
Z , .-..%& n n n n n n
);%!,

!/!Z 22 , .-..&. n n n n n n
);%!,

Z
,1 , .-..%& n n n n n n
";
4
4"
;- y}|yyy}~}yy~yyyyy

~}
yyy
y~y
|~y~
|xyy
y}~}y|yy}}~|
yyy}x (%)

!"#$ %&'()* +,- ()('!../ *0 1

23456

!).7&8"09, "#$*;(%'/. .&:%8:%&)8&' <=>?<@ABBCD@EFG HIJ@KLM@AINFODFI@P<QRS PTPUU=S<S@VWD PTPUU=S<>@KIX * Y 6
"
1Z 62 3 ,
20 * Y[0
Z0 AD@\@]IDJ@\@^ ]<=<S_T\S<@`aFNb acDaI@HIdIFLM@eDCU AN@fI@gXICFD@gVh@>T>Si>T>? , *8j8)* 4

Y .-).
:# ) %&
.%&) .&:)/:%& .&:)j:%& VNkCWNFDI@lFWDkNL@dk@gVh@mW@_S_< * !).)' , .-.). :# ) %&
.%&( .&:)j:%& .&:)(:%&
*7.7% * !)%%) , .-.). n n n n n n
* !)%/% , .-.). n n n n n n
* !)%j% , .-.). n n n n n n
* !)%j7 , .-.). n n n n n n
* !)%&j , .-.). n n n n n n
* !)%'. , .-.). n n n n n n
{|}}~y}
~}~rr vwxuyz pqrstu o o o o
{|}}~y

~}~ sxyz pqrstu o o o o
fNIFN@IDFC@ABcDL@dk@gVh@mW@_<QSl 1

[ , .-..%&
:# ) %&
.%%7 .&:)%:%& .&:)7:%&
*7%'.1 1
Z
Z , .-..%& n n n n n n
1
0Z
Z , .-..%& n n n n n n
1

, .-..%& n n n n n n
1

Z , .-..%& n n n n n n
!1
Y
[ , .-..%& n n n n n n
!1
Y
[ , .-..%& n n n n n n
!1
Y
[ , .-..%& n n n n n n

Z 0 , .-..%& n n n n n n
Z
[ , .-..%& n n n n n n
Z Z , .-..%& n n n n n n
Z
, .-..%& n n n n n n
Z
Z , .-..%& n n n n n n
%!Z
, .-..%& n n n n n n
j!Z
, .-..%& n n n n n n
,

Z
Z , .-..%& n n n n n n
);%!,

!/!Z 22 , .-..&. n n n n n n
);%!,

Z
,1 , .-..%& n n n n n n
";
4
4"
;- y}|yyy}~}yy~yyyyy

~}
yyy
y~y
|~y~
|xyy
y}~}y|yy}}~|
yyy}x (%) 1124
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1124 of 2331

0 , .-..%& n n n n n n
s22Y
[ , .-..%& n n n n n n
2!s22Y
, .-..%& n n n n n n

ZY Z 0 , .-.). n n n n n n
2ZZ , .-..%& n n n n n n
!2Y
[ , .-..%& n n n n n n
4Y , .-..%& n n n n n n
););%;%!5Z Z , .-..%& n n n n n n
);););%!5Z Z , .-..%& n n n n n n
5Z Z , .-..%& n n n n n n
);%;/!5Z
[ , .-..%& n n n n n n
);%;o!5Z
[ , .-..%& n n n n n n
););%!5Z Z , .-..%& n n n n n n
););)!5Z Z , .-..%& n n n n n n
5Z Z , .-..%& n n n n n n
5Z p

Z , .-..%& n n n n n n
tpp";
4
4"
;s- uvwxywz{|}zx~x}v~zxywy}x|x}x}vwxz|wzx| wx~xywx~}vx}vwxv~xx {z}x{w}xuv~zx|}~|xywy}x{z}xwxywy{wx~x~}zxw}~yw} ).p%)

0 , .-..%& n n n n n n
s22Y
[ , .-..%& n n n n n n
2!s22Y
, .-..%& n n n n n n

ZY
[ , .-..%& n n n n n n

;2!pY , .-..&. n n n n n n
!pY , .-..%& n n n n n n
* , .-..&. n n n n n n

ZY ZY # , .-..&. n n n n n n

Y # , .-..&. n n n n n n
%!qrs
1tu , .-..&. n n n n n n

z{

|} wxyz{|}~ v v v v

y w}y|{|x v v v v {

{ || y{||w v v v v
";
4
4"
;-
¡
¡¢¢
¢£¢
¢
¡
¢y¡¢

¢¡y ))%)

ZY
[ , .-..%& n n n n n n

;2!pY , .-..&. n n n n n n
!pY , .-..%& n n n n n n
* , .-..&. n n n n n n

ZY ZY # , .-..&. n n n n n n

Y # , .-..&. n n n n n n
%!qrs
1tu , .-..&. n n n n n n

z{

|} wxyz{|}~ v v v v

y w}y|{|x v v v v {

{ || y{||w v v v v
";
4
4"
;-
¡
¡¢¢
¢£¢
¢
¡
¢y¡¢

¢¡y ))%) 1126
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1126 of 2331

!"#$ %&'()* +,- ()('!../ *0 1

23456

!).7&8"09, "#$*;(%'/. .&:%8:%&)8&' <=>?<@ABBCD@EFG HIJ@KLM@AINFODFI@P<QRS PTPUU=S<S@VWD PTPUU=S<>@KIX 6
"
62 3 "
42# 6
4
Y6
Y6
"
6, 6, * Z "
[XICI\N@VN]B@^_CI\DL@\_@`S?=a@b@c]INF_@ADN d]DdI@HI\IFLM@eDCU aICW@<=[S<>?@b@[Vf@R==Sa@gA aNIDJ@h<=[S<>?baHi?j 20.&:)k:%&* Zl0.&:)&:%& '!)%mn6+o , ). :# )/!%7m,6+o p
%(!k.m
+6+o xyzz{|}~vz
wu q rss wu tuvrwu HAd@h<=[S<>?bad?j 20.&:)k:%&* Zl0.&:)&:%& )/!%7m,6+o k'. ). :# &.. (%-8 8&!)%& xyzz{|}~vz
u q rss u tuvrwu IFX@dFJ@h<=[S<>?bd?j d]C@<=<S``bS? 20.&:)k:%&* Zl0.&:)&:%& )/!%7m,6+o kk. ). :# &.. , 77-/ 8&!)%& xyzz{|}~vz
rs q rss rs tuvrwu IFX@dFJ@E]@h<=[S<>?bdE?j d]C@<=<S``bS? 20.&:)k:%&* Zl0.&:)&:%& )/!%7m,6+o k). ). :# &.. , 7)-( 8&!)%& 8-') %. xyzz{|}~vz
rr q rss rr tuvrwu
";
4
4"
;- zy~
~z{z~}~{~}}
}
}{z}
~~}
{ y~{{y
~}
}~}z{z~y~zz{y
~
~z~ )%%)

!"#$ %&'()* +,- ()('!../ *0 1

23456

!).7&8"09, "#$*;(%'/. .&:%8:%&)8&' <=>?<@ABBCD@EFG HIJ@KLM@AINFODFI@P<QRS PTPUU=S<S@VWD PTPUU=S<>@KIX 6
"
62 3 "
42# 6
4
Y6
Y6
"
6, 6, * Z "
[XICI\N@VN]B@^_CI\DL@\_@`S?=a@b@c]INF_@ADN d]DdI@HI\IFLM@eDCU aICW@<=[S<>?@b@[Vf@R==Sa@gA aNIDJ@h<=[S<>?baHi?j 20.&:)k:%&* Zl0.&:)&:%& '!)%mn6+o , ). :# )/!%7m,6+o p
%(!k.m
+6+o xyzz{|}~vz
wu q rss wu tuvrwu HAd@h<=[S<>?bad?j 20.&:)k:%&* Zl0.&:)&:%& )/!%7m,6+o k'. ). :# &.. (%-8 8&!)%& xyzz{|}~vz
u q rss u tuvrwu IFX@dFJ@h<=[S<>?bd?j d]C@<=<S``bS? 20.&:)k:%&* Zl0.&:)&:%& )/!%7m,6+o kk. ). :# &.. , 77-/ 8&!)%& xyzz{|}~vz
rs q rss rs tuvrwu IFX@dFJ@E]@h<=[S<>?bdE?j d]C@<=<S``bS? 20.&:)k:%&* Zl0.&:)&:%& )/!%7m,6+o k). ). :# &.. , 7)-( 8&!)%& 8-') %. xyzz{|}~vz
rr q rss rr tuvrwu
";
4
4"
;- zy~
~z{z~}~{~}}
}
}{z}
~~}
{ y~{{y
~}
}~}z{z~y~zz{y
~
~z~ )%%) 1127
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1127 of 2331

.-%& 1Z

22 "0

Z .-.&.
Z
0

.-%& # , .-%& 4

, .-&. 4
, .-%& 5l

m HAc@g<=^S<Sf`ec?i 20.&:.(:%&* Zj0.&:)&:%& * %)-/ .-.&. :# %&-. 7&-/ 7.!)%. 1

%/-' .-%& k %&-. (n-/ 7.!)%. 0

%)-' .-%& k %&-. 7'-& 7.!)%. l

%)-/ .-%& k %&-. 7&-) 7.!)%. "0 %n-n .-%& k %&-. (8-n 7.!)%. Z
0

%)-7 .-%& k %&-. 78-. 7.!)%. [IFX@cFJ@g<=^S<Sf`[c?i cbC@o<=<S<T`S? 20.&:.(:%&* Zj0.&:)&:%& * /(-n .-.&. :# %&-. 7-)7 )%& 8&!)%& 1

%&. .-%& k %&-. %%. ))( 8&!)%& 0

/%-' .-%& k %&-. .-)&. )/. 8&!)%& p
!.8 l

)n/ .-%& k %&-. ('-7 )7& 8&!)%& p
!.8 "0 /7-7 .-%& k %&-. (-nn ))8 8&!)%&
qrr";
4
4"
;s- tuvwxvyz{|yw}~w|u}ywxvx|w{w|w|uvwy{vyw~{v w}~wx
~vw}|uw|uvwu}~ww zy|
w
zv~|wtu}yw~{|}{wxvx|wzy|wvwxvx
zv
w}~w}|ywv~|}xv| )/r%)

.-%& 1Z

22 "0

Z .-.&.
Z
0

.-%& # , .-%& 4

, .-&. 4
, .-%& 5l

m HAc@g<=^S<Sf`ec?i 20.&:.(:%&* Zj0.&:)&:%& * %)-/ .-.&. :# %&-. 7&-/ 7.!)%. 1

%/-' .-%& k %&-. (n-/ 7.!)%. 0

%)-' .-%& k %&-. 7'-& 7.!)%. l

%)-/ .-%& k %&-. 7&-) 7.!)%. "0 %n-n .-%& k %&-. (8-n 7.!)%. Z
0

%)-7 .-%& k %&-. 78-. 7.!)%. [IFX@cFJ@g<=^S<Sf`[c?i cbC@o<=<S<T`S? 20.&:.(:%&* Zj0.&:)&:%& * /(-n .-.&. :# %&-. 7-)7 )%& 8&!)%& 1

%&. .-%& k %&-. %%. ))( 8&!)%& 0

/%-' .-%& k %&-. .-)&. )/. 8&!)%& p
!.8 l

!"#$ %&'()* +,- ()('!../ *0 1

23456

!).7&8"09, "#$*;(%'/. .&:%8:%&)8&' <=>?<@ABBCD@EFG HIJ@KLM@AINFODFI@P<QRS PTPUU=S<S@VWD PTPUU=S<>@KIX 6
"
62 3 "
42# 6
4
Y6
Y6
"
6, 6, * Z "
[INL@\]@^V_@QS<S@[W@`@abINF]@ADN cbDcI@HI\IFLM@dDCU eICW@<=^S<Sf@`@^V_@RS=Se [IFX@cFJ@Eb@g<=^S<Sf`[cE?h cbC@j<=<S<T`S? 20.&:.(:%&* Zi0.&:)&:%& * /(-% .-.&. :# %&-. 7-)7 )%k 8&!)%& .-'/' %. 1

%(8 .-%& l %&-. %%. /.( 8&!)%& )8-k %. m
!.8 0

/)-( .-%& l %&-. .-)&. )%8 8&!)%& %-.& %. m
!.8 n

)k7 .-%& l %&-. ('-7 %.' 8&!)%& /-'8 %. m
!.8 "0 /7-% .-%& l %&-. (-kk ))& 8&!)%& )-&' %. VL@cFJ@g<=^S<Sf`Vc?h cbC@j<=<S<T`S? 20.&:.(:%&* Zi0.&:)&:%& * 'k-/ :# %&-. 7-)7 %%& 7.!)%. m
!4 1

//( l %&-. %%. k88 7.!)%. m
!4 0

'.-% l %&-. .-)&. %k. 7.!)%. m
!4 n

)8. l %&-. ('-7 %(/ 7.!)%. m
!4 "0 'k-. l %&-. (-kk %)7 7.!)%. m
!4
opp";
4
4"
;q- rstuvtwxyzwu{|uzs{wuvt}~vzu}}yuz~uzstuw}ytwu|ytu{|u~v|tu {zsuzstus{|u~u xwz~u~xt|zurs{wu|yz{yuvt}~vzuxwzutuvt}v~xtu{|u{zwut|z{vtz )kp%)

!"#$ %&'()* +,- ()('!../ *0 1

23456

!).7&8"09, "#$*;(%'/. .&:%8:%&)8&' <=>?<@ABBCD@EFG HIJ@KLM@AINFODFI@P<QRS PTPUU=S<S@VWD PTPUU=S<>@KIX 6
"
62 3 "
42# 6
4
Y6
Y6
"
6, 6, * Z "
[INL@\]@^V_@QS<S@[W@`@abINF]@ADN cbDcI@HI\IFLM@dDCU eICW@<=^S<Sf@`@^V_@RS=Se [IFX@cFJ@Eb@g<=^S<Sf`[cE?h cbC@j<=<S<T`S? 20.&:.(:%&* Zi0.&:)&:%& * /(-% .-.&. :# %&-. 7-)7 )%k 8&!)%& .-'/' %. 1

%(8 .-%& l %&-. %%. /.( 8&!)%& )8-k %. m
!.8 0

/)-( .-%& l %&-. .-)&. )%8 8&!)%& %-.& %. m
!.8 n

)k7 .-%& l %&-. ('-7 %.' 8&!)%& /-'8 %. m
!.8 "0 /7-% .-%& l %&-. (-kk ))& 8&!)%& )-&' %. VL@cFJ@g<=^S<Sf`Vc?h cbC@j<=<S<T`S? 20.&:.(:%&* Zi0.&:)&:%& * 'k-/ :# %&-. 7-)7 %%& 7.!)%. m
!4 1

//( l %&-. %%. k88 7.!)%. m
!4 0

'.-% l %&-. .-)&. %k. 7.!)%. m
!4 n

!"#$ %&'()* +,- ()('!../ *0 1

23456

!).7&8"09, "#$*;(%'/. .&:%8:%&)8&' <=>?<@ABBCD@EFG HIJ@KLM@AINFODFI@P<QRS PTPUU=S<S@VWD PTPUU=S<>@KIX 6
"
62 3 "
42# 6
4
Y6
Y6
"
6, 6, * Z "
[\HA@]INL@^_@QSSS`>SSS@[FL@]WL@a@bcINF_@ADN [cD[I@HI^IFLM@dDCU eICW@<=fSRPQ@a@[\HA@HICWI eNIDJ@g<=fSRPQaeHh?i 20.&:%):%&* Zj0.&:%8:%& 0

, .-&.
: k

l
"0 HA[@g<=fSRPQae[?i 20.&:%):%&* Zj0.&:%8:%& 0

/8-/ .-&.
: m.-. (/-) 7.!)%. k

/'-( .-&. l m.-. (%-m 7.!)%. "0 /8-& .-&. l m.-. (/-8 7.!)%. ]IFX@[FJ@g<=fSRPQa][?i [cC@\<=?PPRaSQ 20.&:%):%&* Zj0.&:%8:%& 0

/'-' .-&.
: m.-. .-.&78 ()-/ 8&!)%& k

/'-/ .-&. l m.-. .-&'/ 7(-% 8&!)%& "0 m/-7 .-&. l m.-. ).-. 7m-' 8&!)%& ]IFX@[FJ@Ec@g<=fSRPQa][E?i [cC@\<=?PPRaSQ 20.&:%):%&* Zj0.&:%8:%& 0

/8-) .-&.
: m.-. .-.&78 (%-& 8&!)%& )-%7 %. k

/'-( .-&. l m.-. .-&'/ (.-7 8&!)%& )-'( %. "0 mm-( .-&. l m.-. ).-. 78-/ 8&!)%& %-m8 %. noo";
4
4"
;p- qrstusvwxyvtz{tyrzvtus|}uyt~||xty}tyrstv~|xsvt~{~xstz{t~}u~{stzyrtyrstr~z{t} t wvy}t}ws{ytqrzvt~{~xyz~xtus|}uytwvytstus|u}wstz{tzyvts{yzusy )&o%)

!"#$ %&'()* +,- ()('!../ *0 1

23456

!).7&8"09, "#$*;(%'/. .&:%8:%&)8&' <=>?<@ABBCD@EFG HIJ@KLM@AINFODFI@P<QRS PTPUU=S<S@VWD PTPUU=S<>@KIX 6
"
62 3 "
42# 6
4
Y6
Y6
"
6, 6, * Z "
[\HA@]INL@^_@QSSS`>SSS@[FL@]WL@a@bcINF_@ADN [cD[I@HI^IFLM@dDCU eICW@<=fSRPQ@a@[\HA@HICWI eNIDJ@g<=fSRPQaeHh?i 20.&:%):%&* Zj0.&:%8:%& 0

, .-&.
: k

l
"0 HA[@g<=fSRPQae[?i 20.&:%):%&* Zj0.&:%8:%& 0

/8-/ .-&.
: m.-. (/-) 7.!)%. k

/'-( .-&. l m.-. (%-m 7.!)%. "0 /8-& .-&. l m.-. (/-8 7.!)%. ]IFX@[FJ@g<=fSRPQa][?i [cC@\<=?PPRaSQ 20.&:%):%&* Zj0.&:%8:%& 0

/'-' .-&.
: m.-. .-.&78 ()-/ 8&!)%& k

/'-/ .-&. l m.-. .-&'/ 7(-% 8&!)%& "0 m/-7 .-&. l m.-. ).-. 7m-' 8&!)%& ]IFX@[FJ@Ec@g<=fSRPQa][E?i [cC@\<=?PPRaSQ 20.&:%):%&* Zj0.&:%8:%& 0

/8-) .-&.
: m.-. .-.&78 (%-& 8&!)%& )-%7 %. k

!"#$ %&'()* +,- ()('!../ *0 1

23456

!).7&8"09, "#$*;(%'/. .&:%8:%&)8&' <=>?<@ABBCD@EFG HIJ@KLM@AINFODFI@P<QRS PTPUU=S<S@VWD PTPUU=S<>@KIX 6
"
62 3 "
42# 6
4
Y6
Y6
"
6, 6, * Z "
AN@[I@\XICFD@\V]@>T>S^>T>?@_@`aINFb@ADN caDcI@HIdIFLM@eDCU fICW@<=\S<=?@_@\V]@>T>?]@cFN fNIDJ@g<=\S<=?_fHh?i 20.&:)/:%&* Zj0.&:)k:%&
Z , .-).
:# HAc@g<=\S<=?_fc?i 20.&:)/:%&* Zj0.&:)k:%&
Z .-/'& .-).
:# .-k)8 78-' 7.!)%. lIFX@cFJ@g<=\S<=?_lc?i caC@m<=<Sn=_S= 20.&:)/:%&* Zj0.&:)k:%&
Z .-'8& .-).
:# .-k)8 .-)(. ))8 7.!)%. lIFX@cFJ@Ea@g<=\S<=?_lcE?i caC@m<=<Sn=_S= 20.&:)/:%&* Zj0.&:)k:%&
Z .-'7k .-).
:# .-k)8 .-)(. ))( 7.!)%. )-%. %.
opp";
4
4"
;q- rstuvtwxyzwu{|uzs{wuvt}~vzu}}yuz~uzstuw}ytwu|ytu{|u~v|tu {zsuzstus{|u~u xwz~u~xt|zurs{wu|yz{yuvt}~vzuxwzutuvt}v~xtu{|u{zwut|z{vtz )'p%)

!"#$ %&'()* +,- ()('!../ *0 1

23456

!).7&8"09, "#$*;(%'/. .&:%8:%&)8&' <=>?<@ABBCD@EFG HIJ@KLM@AINFODFI@P<QRS PTPUU=S<S@VWD PTPUU=S<>@KIX 6
"
62 3 "
42# 6
4
Y6
Y6
"
6, 6, * Z "
AN@[I@\XICFD@\V]@>T>S^>T>?@_@`aINFb@ADN caDcI@HIdIFLM@eDCU fICW@<=\S<=?@_@\V]@>T>?]@cFN fNIDJ@g<=\S<=?_fHh?i 20.&:)/:%&* Zj0.&:)k:%&
Z , .-).
:# HAc@g<=\S<=?_fc?i 20.&:)/:%&* Zj0.&:)k:%&
Z .-/'& .-).
:# .-k)8 78-' 7.!)%. lIFX@cFJ@g<=\S<=?_lc?i caC@m<=<Sn=_S= 20.&:)/:%&* Zj0.&:)k:%&
Z .-'8& .-).
:# .-k)8 .-)(. ))8 7.!)%. lIFX@cFJ@Ea@g<=\S<=?_lcE?i caC@m<=<Sn=_S= 20.&:)/:%&* Zj0.&:)k:%&
Z .-'7k .-).
:# .-k)8 .-)(. ))( 7.!)%. )-%. %.
opp";
4
4"
;q- rstuvtwxyzwu{|uzs{wuvt}~vzu}}yuz~uzstuw}ytwu|ytu{|u~v|tu {zsuzstus{|u~u xwz~u~xt|zurs{wu|yz{yuvt}~vzuxwzutuvt}v~xtu{|u{zwut|z{vtz )'p%) 1131 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1131 of 2331

!"#$ %&'()* +,- ()('!../ *0 1

23456

!).7&8"09, "#$*;(%'/. .&:%8:%&)8&' <=>?<@ABBCD@EFG HIJ@KLM@AINFODFI@P<QRS PTPUU=S<S@VWD PTPUU=S<>@KIX 6
"
62 3 "
42# 6
4
Y6
Y6
"
6, 6, * Z "
VN[CWNFDI@\FWD[NL@][@^V_@`W@aSa<@b@cdINF[@ADN edDeI@HI]IFLM@fDCU \ICW@<=^S<=P@b@^V_@R==S\@VA\ \NIDJ@g<=^S<=Pb\Hh?i 20.&:)j:%&* Zk0.&:)(:%& * !).)' , .-.). :# * !)%%) l
* !)%/% * !)%j% * !)%j7 * !)%&j * !)%'. uvwwxyz{|}~|{wzxwxs|{zs || nonnt m nonpnn to qrsptn uvwwxyz{|}~|zxwx| nonnq oq HAe@g<=^S<=Pb\e?i 20.&:)j:%&* Zk0.&:)(:%& * !).)' .-.(7' .-.). :# .-).) (8-' j.!)/. * !)%'. .-))8 .-.). l .-).. ))8 j.!)/. uvwwxyz{|}~|{wzxwxs|{zs || nonnn m nonpnn no qrsptn uvwwxyz{|}~|zxwx| nonnq oq `IFX@eFJ@g<=^S<=Pb`e?i edC@<=<Sa=bSR 20.&:)j:%&* Zk0.&:)(:%& * !).)' .-)&8 .-.). :# .-).) , )&& j.!)/.
!.) * !)%'. .-)j/ .-.). l .-).. , )j/ j.!)/.
!.) uvwwxyz{|}~|{wzxwxs|{zs
|| nonnq m nonpnn oq qrsptn uvwwxyz{|}~|zxwx| nonnq qo `IFX@eFJ@Ed@g<=^S<=Pb`eE?i edC@<=<Sa=bSR 20.&:)j:%&* Zk0.&:)(:%& * !).)' .-)%/ .-.). :# .-).) , )%) j.!)/. %j-& /. * !)%'. .-)jj .-.). l .-).. , )jj j.!)/. .-')j /. !.) uvwwxyz{|}~|{wzxwxs|{zs
|| nonnn m nonpnn no qrsptn uvwwxyz{|}~|zxwx| nonnr ro
";
4
4"
;- |~w|v{~~{~w|xw{~z
~{x~{|~z|~zz
|~~zxwz|~{~{|~z~x~ v{x
~xv|{o~~zz
{z~w|xw{~v{~|~w|wxv|~~{~|{w|{
o )8%)

!"#$ %&'()* +,- ()('!../ *0 1

23456

!).7&8"09, "#$*;(%'/. .&:%8:%&)8&' <=>?<@ABBCD@EFG HIJ@KLM@AINFODFI@P<QRS PTPUU=S<S@VWD PTPUU=S<>@KIX 6
"
62 3 "
42# 6
4
Y6
Y6
"
6, 6, * Z "
VN[CWNFDI@\FWD[NL@][@^V_@`W@aSa<@b@cdINF[@ADN edDeI@HI]IFLM@fDCU \ICW@<=^S<=P@b@^V_@R==S\@VA\ \NIDJ@g<=^S<=Pb\Hh?i 20.&:)j:%&* Zk0.&:)(:%& * !).)' , .-.). :# * !)%%) l
* !)%/% * !)%j% * !)%j7 * !)%&j * !)%'. uvwwxyz{|}~|{wzxwxs|{zs || nonnt m nonpnn to qrsptn uvwwxyz{|}~|zxwx| nonnq oq HAe@g<=^S<=Pb\e?i 20.&:)j:%&* Zk0.&:)(:%& * !).)' .-.(7' .-.). :# .-).) (8-' j.!)/. * !)%'. .-))8 .-.). l .-).. ))8 j.!)/. uvwwxyz{|}~|{wzxwxs|{zs || nonnn m nonpnn no qrsptn uvwwxyz{|}~|zxwx| nonnq oq `IFX@eFJ@g<=^S<=Pb`e?i edC@<=<Sa=bSR 20.&:)j:%&* Zk0.&:)(:%& * !).)' .-)&8 .-.). :# .-).) , )&& j.!)/.
!.) * !)%'. .-)j/ .-.). l .-).. , )j/ j.!)/.
!.) uvwwxyz{|}~|{wzxwxs|{zs
|| nonnq m nonpnn oq qrsptn uvwwxyz{|}~|zxwx| nonnq qo `IFX@eFJ@Ed@g<=^S<=Pb`eE?i edC@<=<Sa=bSR 20.&:)j:%&* Zk0.&:)(:%& * !).)' .-)%/ .-.). :# .-).) , )%) j.!)/. %j-& /. * !)%'. .-)jj .-.). l .-).. , )jj j.!)/. .-')j /. !.) uvwwxyz{|}~|{wzxwxs|{zs
|| nonnn m nonpnn no qrsptn uvwwxyz{|}~|zxwx| nonnr ro
";
4
4"
;- |~w|v{~~{~w|xw{~z
~{x~{|~z|~zz
|~~zxwz|~{~{|~z~x~ v{x
~xv|{o~~zz
{z~w|xw{~v{~|~w|wxv|~~{~|{w|{
o )8%) 1132
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1132 of 2331

0 w22Z
n xqq";
4
4"
;w- yz{|}{~~||z~|}{
}||
|z{|~{~|{||
}{|z|z{|z|
| ~
|
{|yz~||}{
}|~|{|}{}
{||~|{}{ )7q%)

0 w22Z
n xqq";
4
4"
;w- yz{|}{~~||z~|}{
}||
|z{|~{~|{||
}{|z|z{|z|
| ~
|
{|yz~||}{
}|~|{|}{}
{||~|{}{ )7q%) 1133
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1133 of 2331

Z # %!uvw
1xy

{|{}{ z {|{}{{ ~}| {

{|{}~ z {|{}{{ | ~|}

{|{}{ { |~
ss";
4
4"
;o-
¡¡¡¢¡ ¡ ¡
| ¡

¡ | )(s%)

Z # %!uvw
1xy

{|{}{ z {|{}{{ ~}| {

{|{}~ z {|{}{{ | ~|}

{|{}{ { |~
ss";
4
4"
;o-
¡¡¡¢¡ ¡ ¡
| ¡

¡ | )(s%) 1134
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1134 of 2331

!"#$ %&'()* +,- ()('!../ *0 1

23456

!).7&8"09, "#$*;(%'/. .&:%8:%&)8&' <=>?<@ABBCD@EFG HIJ@KLM@AINFODFI@P<QRS PTPUU=S<S@VWD PTPUU=S<>@KIX 6
"
62 3 "
42# 6
4
Y6
Y6
"
6, 6, * Z "
[NIFN@\]IDFC@AB^DL@_`@aVb@cW@d<QSe@f@g^INF`@ADN h^DhI@HI_IFLM@iDCU eICW@<=aS<<d@f@aVb@=SRS@jAch HAh@k<=aS<<dfeh?l 20.&:)%:%&* Zm0.&:)8:%& n m .-.o'( .-..%&
:# .-.&.. (/-7 '&-%!)%o );)!,n n .-.o8% .-..%& p .-.&.. (o-o '.-(!)/) 5n n .-.&.' .-..%& p .-.&.. ).) '%-)!)%' 1m .-.&./ .-..%& p .-.&.. ).) '&-/!)%8 5 .-.&.& .-..%& p .-.&.. ).) 'o-/!)%% {|}}~vw
}~~|~}~ rsrvv q rsrtrr zs utsvwxyz {|}}~}~~|~}~ rsrvt zysr uysxwxt {|}}~~|w rsrvzu zzsv swxxu cIFX@hFJ@k<=aS<<dfch?l h^C@<=<SddfS? 20.&:)%:%&* Zm0.&:)8:%& n m .-./(. .-..%&
:# .-.&.. , 87-. '&-%!)%& );)!,n n .-.o%. .-..%& p .-.&.. , 7o-) '.-(!)/) 5n n .-.o&. .-..%& p .-.&.. , 7(-( '%-)!)%' 1m .-.o%( .-..%& p .-.&.. , 7&-7 '&-/!)%8 5 .-.o/o .-..%& p .-.&.. , 7'-( 'o-/!)%& {|}}~vw }~~|~}~ rsrtry q rsrtrr xrx utsvwxyz {|}}~}~~|~}~ rsrvzz zzs uysxwxt {|}}~~|w rsrtrr xrr swxxu cIFX@hFJ@E^@k<=aS<<dfchE?l h^C@<=<SddfS? 20.&:)%:%&* Zm0.&:)8:%& n m .-.o.. .-..%&
:# .-.&.. , 7.-) '&-%!)%& %-&7 %. );)!,n n .-.o%. .-..%& p .-.&.. , 7o-) '.-(!)/) .-.o8' %. 5n n .-.o'% .-..%& p .-.&.. , (%-& '%-)!)%' %-7) %. 1m .-.o/o .-..%& p .-.&.. , 7'-8 '&-/!)%8 )-.o %. 5 .-.oo% .-..%& p .-.&.. , 77-& 'o-/!)%& )-7& %. {|}}~vw }~~|~}~ rsrvzt q rsrtrr zzsr utsvwxyz {|}}~}~~|~}~ rsrv zsv uysxwxt {|}}~~|w rsrvzz zzs swxxu ";
4
4"
;- }|}~}~~}~ |~~|s}~}|}}~|}s %.%)

!"#$ %&'()* +,- ()('!../ *0 1

23456

!).7&8"09, "#$*;(%'/. .&:%8:%&)8&' <=>?<@ABBCD@EFG HIJ@KLM@AINFODFI@P<QRS PTPUU=S<S@VWD PTPUU=S<>@KIX 6
"
62 3 "
42# 6
4
Y6
Y6
"
6, 6, * Z "
[NIFN@\]IDFC@AB^DL@_`@aVb@cW@d<QSe@f@g^INF`@ADN h^DhI@HI_IFLM@iDCU eICW@<=aS<<d@f@aVb@=SRS@jAch HAh@k<=aS<<dfeh?l 20.&:)%:%&* Zm0.&:)8:%& n m .-.o'( .-..%&
:# .-.&.. (/-7 '&-%!)%o );)!,n n .-.o8% .-..%& p .-.&.. (o-o '.-(!)/) 5n n .-.&.' .-..%& p .-.&.. ).) '%-)!)%' 1m .-.&./ .-..%& p .-.&.. ).) '&-/!)%8 5 .-.&.& .-..%& p .-.&.. ).) 'o-/!)%% {|}}~vw
}~~|~}~ rsrvv q rsrtrr zs utsvwxyz {|}}~}~~|~}~ rsrvt zysr uysxwxt {|}}~~|w rsrvzu zzsv swxxu cIFX@hFJ@k<=aS<<dfch?l h^C@<=<SddfS? 20.&:)%:%&* Zm0.&:)8:%& n m .-./(. .-..%&
:# .-.&.. , 87-. '&-%!)%& );)!,n n .-.o%. .-..%& p .-.&.. , 7o-) '.-(!)/) 5n n .-.o&. .-..%& p .-.&.. , 7(-( '%-)!)%' 1m .-.o%( .-..%& p .-.&.. , 7&-7 '&-/!)%8 5 .-.o/o .-..%& p .-.&.. , 7'-( 'o-/!)%& {|}}~vw }~~|~}~ rsrtry q rsrtrr xrx utsvwxyz {|}}~}~~|~}~ rsrvzz zzs uysxwxt {|}}~~|w rsrtrr xrr swxxu cIFX@hFJ@E^@k<=aS<<dfchE?l h^C@<=<SddfS? 20.&:)%:%&* Zm0.&:)8:%& n m .-.o.. .-..%&
:# .-.&.. , 7.-) '&-%!)%& %-&7 %. );)!,n n .-.o%. .-..%& p .-.&.. , 7o-) '.-(!)/) .-.o8' %. 5n n .-.o'% .-..%& p .-.&.. , (%-& '%-)!)%' %-7) %. 1m .-.o/o .-..%& p .-.&.. , 7'-8 '&-/!)%8 )-.o %. 5 .-.oo% .-..%& p .-.&.. , 77-& 'o-/!)%& )-7& %. {|}}~vw }~~|~}~ rsrvzt q rsrtrr zzsr utsvwxyz {|}}~}~~|~}~ rsrv zsv uysxwxt {|}}~~|w rsrvzz zzs swxxu ";
4
4"
;- }|}~}~~}~ |~~|s}~}|}}~|}s %.%) 1135 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1135 of 2331

!"#$ %&'()* +,- ()('!../ *0 1

23456

!).7&8"09, "#$*;(%'/. .&:%8:%&)8&' <=>?<@ABBCD@EFG HIJ@KLM@AINFODFI@P<QRS PTPUU=S<S@VWD PTPUU=S<>@KIX YL@ID@EOFDFFDL@ 4!Z 4
[
0\
]0
-5]0^20
0
0
[\]

_`- 6!.8 62
\]
2
0_`]
0
\0
[0
]]
\\
2
0_` 0:
a\\- b
!4 5]2
[0:6,
02-6
20
0
22
[
]22# 0: 0
- b
!.8 5]2#
[0:6,^
02
\]
40:
4,-5]
]^20
02
"4
[- b
!.) 5]c
[
0\
]0
0

a\0:
2 0
0

a\\-5]
] ^20
02
"4
[- ,!.' 5]
2 ]
2]20

]\
00
0\d
- 4
2
200[^]
6, 6
,\\ 0[ 6 620 , * [ +5, 5 5
,

]2
,
5 * [,
5 5
,
e\\";
4
4"
;f- ghijkilmnoljpqjohpljkirskojtrrnujosjohijltvrniljtqtnuwixjpqjtyyskxtqyijzpohjohijyhtpqjs{j ymlosxujxsymviqo|jghpljtqtnuopytnjkirskojvmloj}ijkirksxmyixjpqjpoljiqopkiou| %)\%) 1136 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1136 of 2331
1137
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1137 of 2331
1138
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1138 of 2331

!"#$%
8
9:;&'(

)*+,
!"-./01#
23
4
8 9:<' =
; 5-56"..7 &!
; 8

2;0>-?>?.?07;@1;-/8A 8
9:AB
; CDD# ,(
+; EFGHIJKLMKGHILNLOPQRJFPSIPHKTLULVKWILXFJIGH YZKSL[\JHFP ]^_`aLYHTKPHRbLcbIKPLdJe VKWILXFJIGHfLEYL`]_gh iIbIRQIZL[jk VFllIZLmPL[jk dKHILd\Ik dKHILiIbIRQIZk dKHILVFllIZLmPk h^na`n]^LaokhhLp^LZKjLqYqr h^nahn]^La]kga h^na]n]^La^kss tK\TL[IJPIJ uKjTKLvKbKwRHKG xKSyTIGLiIbIRQIZLKHk @z0{& |!} 4' +|+ ~(

& EcEnVKwITGLYlJII E\GHFZjLxIKTG EFPHKRPIJGLmPHKbH tJIGIJQKHRFPLEFPRJSIZ IGF iIbIRQIZLcPLmbI IG +?0?./@".-&"+$"* !
* (!2.0>./>?0-1;..A+"./;..8:

D
: &:
=('!

2 +
)* _h]hLqRHTIL]]LLlLosoa h^na`n]^La^khh ^ h`nh^n]^Laokhh ha^LEKJwFPLEKRP h^na`n]^La^khh h^n]]n]^Laokhh h]LtE[ ]_h +?0?./@".?&"+$"* !
* (!2.0>./>?0-1;-.A+"./;..8:

D
: &:
=('!

2 +
)* _h]hLqRHTIL]]LLlLosoa h^na`n]^La^khh ^ h`nh^n]^Laokah ha^LEKJwFPLEKRP h^na`n]^La^khh h^n]]n]^Laokah h]LtE[ ]_h |!} B
'(
:!'22

$
2
osohnoaLl _h]hLvIHKTGLwjLmEtUvx iIQRIIZL[j dKHI tKlILaLFLa

!"#$%
8
9:;&'(

)*+,
!"-./01#
23
4
8 9:<' =
; 5-56"..7 &!
; 8

& EcEnVKwITGLYlJII E\GHFZjLxIKTG EFPHKRPIJGLmPHKbH tJIGIJQKHRFPLEFPRJSIZ IGF iIbIRQIZLcPLmbI IG +?0?./@".-&"+$"* !
* (!2.0>./>?0-1;..A+"./;..8:

D
: &:
=('!

2 +
)* _h]hLqRHTIL]]LLlLosoa h^na`n]^La^khh ^ h`nh^n]^Laokhh ha^LEKJwFPLEKRP h^na`n]^La^khh h^n]]n]^Laokhh h]LtE[ ]_h +?0?./@".?&"+$"* !
* (!2.0>./>?0-1;-.A+"./;..8:

D
: &:
=('!

2 +
)* _h]hLqRHTIL]]LLlLosoa h^na`n]^La^khh ^ h`nh^n]^Laokah ha^LEKJwFPLEKRP h^na`n]^La^khh h^n]]n]^Laokah h]LtE[ ]_h |!} B
'(
:!'22

$
2
osohnoaLl _h]hLvIHKTGLwjLmEtUvx iIQRIIZL[j dKHI tKlILaLFLa 1139
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1139 of 2331
UST Closure Report
10857 through 10887 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, California 2965.0025S101/CVRS ROUX
ATTACHMENT 3
Hazardous Waste Tank Closure Certification
1140
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1140 of 2331
1141
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1141 of 2331
1142
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1142 of 2331
UST Closure Report
10857 through 10887 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, California 2965.0025S101/CVRS ROUX
ATTACHMENT 4
Backfill Weight Ticket
1143
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1143 of 2331
1144
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1144 of 2331
UST Closure Report
10857 through 10887 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, California 2965.0025S101/CVRS ROUX
ATTACHMENT 5
Waste Manifests
1145
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1145 of 2331
1146
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1146 of 2331
1147
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1147 of 2331
1148
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1148 of 2331
1149
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1149 of 2331
1150
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1150 of 2331
From:

To: Emi Sugiyama
Subject: [City of Cupertino] Assignment: Technical Concern: Cumulative Evacuation System Failure on the Linda Vista Corridor (re: Evulich Court Project)
Date: Monday, March 2, 2026 7:52:28 AM
Attachments: Technical Rebuttal to Hexagon Transportation Analysis.pdf Letter to Assistant Chief Hector Estrada.pdf
260224 PC Public Hearing - Emergency Evacuation, Evulich Project .pdf Evacuation Traffic Model and Analysis.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.

You have been assigned to this ticket (#156808).

DerChang Kau
Feb 27, 2026, 3:23 AM PST
To: Assistant Chief Hector Estrada, Santa Clara County Fire Department
CC: Cupertino City Council & Clark, Cupertino Planning
Commissioners & division, Mercury Newspaper, Alice Lin and Frank Swanson
From:

DerChang Kau
Date:Feb. 27, 2026
Subject:Technical Concern: Cumulative Evacuation System Failure on the Linda Vista Corridor (re: Evulich Court Project) Dear Assistant Chief Estrada,
I am DerChang, a 3-decade Cupertinian. I am writing to you as a resident of the Linda Vista corridor.I know you are a hands-on leader who prioritizes public safety and operational readiness over theoretical paperwork. This is why I am bringing a critical "cumulative impact" safety concern to your attention regarding the proposed 51-unit townhome development at 10857 Linda Vista Drive.

I am seeking your advocacy regarding the proposed 51-unit development at Evulich Court. Currently, your department’s "Finding of Consistency" is being used by the developer to bypass CEQA environmental review. However, that finding appears limited to the interior of the project site (hydrant pressure, turn radii, and hosepull).

We are deeply concerned that the “cumulative impact” on the Linda Vista "Spine" during a wildfire has not been modeled and the risk is not properly assessed. The implications for life safety are catastrophic.

The Tactical Reality: A Single-Point-of-Failure
Imagine a wind-driven wildfire encroaching from the South/Southwest (Stevens Creek County Park). The tree canopy over Linda Vista 1151
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1151 of 2331
becomes a "fuel tunnel." Residents have only one exit: North, funneling toward East bound of McClellan Road.

In this scenario, the Fire Department’s ability to defend the neighborhood depends on the residents being able to clear the road.

Our analytical modeling—based on the current VHFHSZ classification— shows that at the proposed R3 density, the addition of 51 high-density units will push the road Utilization Ratio of 110%. Mathematically, this creates a "System Failure." Once the evacuation surge begins, cars will be trapped in a standing queue.From an operational standpoint, this is a significant "trap hazard." If the road capacity is exceeded, the bottleneck at the intersection will prevent not just residents from leaving, but emergency vehicles from efficiently entering the corridor to stage for structure protection or rescue operations.

The Hexagon Report Gap: The developer's traffic study models only 30 cars per hour.

The Evacuation Reality: We are facing a surge of 250+
vehicles attempting to exit in a 30-minute window.

The Result: A mathematical "System Failure" where the exit rate at McClellan is slower than the arrival rate. This creates a standing queue that stretches the length of the spine.

Why the Current Assessment is Incomplete
The developer’s counsel argues that because the project meets internal Fire Code, it is exempt from further CEQA review. We believe this is an operational oversight.

1. Merging Shockwaves: Concentrating 51 units at one entry point creates a "forced merge" scenario. Our models show this adds 28 minutes of stutter-delay to the uphill residents already in the queue.

2. Order-to-Safety Time: Total evacuation time jumps from a survivable less than 30 minutes to 90+ minutes. In a fire moving 200 acres in 20 minutes, a 90 plus-minute bottleneck is a non-survivable event.

Our Request to the Fire Department
We believe this project cannot be adequately reviewed through a standard site-plan exemption. To ensure the safety of our neighborhood, we respectfully ask the Fire Department to:

1. Expand the Scope: Review the cumulative impact of this density on the entire Linda Vista evacuation corridor, rather than just the project interior.

2. Model the "Surge": Evaluate whether the egress route can maintain a "Total Order to Safety" time within the 30-minute critical fire-spread window (200 acres in 20 minutes) as established by recent regional wildfire events (eg. 2025 Pacific Palisade Fire).

If our neighborhood’s evacuation capacity is mathematically compromised, we believe this project does not meet the "safety 1152
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1152 of 2331
1153
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1153 of 2331
To: Assistant Chief Hector Estrada, Santa Clara County Fire Department CC: Cupertino City Council & Clark, Cupertino Planning Commissioners & division From: DerChang Kau
Date: Feb. 27, 2026
Subject: Technical Concern: Cumulative Evacuation System Failure on the Linda Vista Corridor (re: Evulich Court Project)
Dear Assistant Chief Estrada,
I am DerChang, a 3-decade Cupertinian. I am writing to you as a resident of the Linda Vista corridor. I know you are a hands-on leader who prioritizes public safety and operational readiness over theoretical paperwork.

This is why I am bringing a critical "cumulative impact" safety concern to your attention regarding the proposed 51-unit townhome development at 10857 Linda Vista Drive.

However, that finding appears limited to the interior of the project site (hydrant pressure, turn radii, and hose-pull).

The Tactical Reality: A Single-Point-of-Failure
Imagine a wind-driven wildfire encroaching from the South/Southwest (Stevens Creek County Park). The tree canopy over Linda Vista becomes a "fuel tunnel." Residents have only one exit: North, funneling toward East bound of McClellan Road.

In this scenario, the Fire Department’s ability to defend the neighborhood depends on the residents being able to clear the road. Our analytical modeling—based on the current VHFHSZ classification— shows that at the proposed R3 density, the addition of 51 high-density units will push the road Utilization Ratio of 110%.

Mathematically, this creates a "System Failure." Once the evacuation surge begins, cars will be trapped in a standing queue. From an operational standpoint, this is a significant "trap hazard." If the road capacity is exceeded, the bottleneck at the intersection will prevent not just residents from leaving, but emergency vehicles from efficiently entering the corridor to stage for structure protection or rescue operations. • The Hexagon Report Gap: The developer's traffic study models only 30 cars per hour. • The Evacuation Reality: We are facing a surge of 250+ vehicles attempting to exit in a 30-minute window.
• The Result: A mathematical "System Failure" where the exit rate at McClellan is slower than the arrival rate. This creates a standing queue that stretches the length of the spine.

1. Merging Shockwaves: Concentrating 51 units at one entry point creates a "forced merge" scenario.

Our models show this adds 28 minutes of stutter-delay to the uphill residents already in the queue. 1154
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1154 of 2331

1. Expand the Scope: Review the cumulative impact of this density on the entire Linda Vista evacuation corridor, rather than just the project interior.

If our neighborhood’s evacuation capacity is mathematically compromised, we believe this project does not meet the "safety requirements" necessary for a CEQA exemption. We cannot allow "paper compliance" to override the physical reality of a wildfire. We would welcome the opportunity to walk the corridor with you or a member of your team to show you the physical bottlenecks that our models have identified.

Again, our ask is your review of Emergency Evacuation Corridor Analysis for the entire "Spine," not just the project interior. Specifically, we request that the Fire Department clarify to the Planning Commission that:
• Internal site compliance does not equate to neighborhood evacuation safety. • A CEQA exemption is inappropriate without a Cumulative Evacuation Surge Study that accounts for the 155-unit total load on the Linda Vista bottleneck.

Attached you will find 4 documents

1. Detailing the evacuation model and assumption

2. Our plead to the public hearing of Cupertino City Planning Commission.

3. Technical Rebuttal to Hexagon Transportation Analysis

4. This letter
Thank you for your dedication to the safety of our community. We are eager to provide you with our full analytical data package to assist in your review.

Respectfully,
DerChang Kau
Intel Fellow (Ret)
Adjunct Professor, National Taiwan University
1155
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1155 of 2331
1156
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1156 of 2331
1157
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1157 of 2331
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 1158
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1158 of 2331
1159
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1159 of 2331
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 1160
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1160 of 2331
1161
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1161 of 2331
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
1162
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1162 of 2331
1163
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1163 of 2331
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 1164
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1164 of 2331
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]. 1165
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1165 of 2331
1166
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1166 of 2331
1167
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1167 of 2331
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) 1168
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1168 of 2331
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 1169
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1169 of 2331
Technical Rebuttal to Transportation Analysis by Hexagon Transportation Consultants Inc.

What the Hexagon Report Analyzes (Daily Operations)
— Trip Generation: 51 units, 375 daily vehicle trips, only 26 and 30 trips during the AM and PM peak hour correspondingly. — Intersection Delay: the "project-generated traffic" add < 1 second of delay to the Linda Vista/McClellan intersection. — Safety Assessment: limited to whether a garbage truck or fire truck can physically turn around on the new Evulich Court The Flaw in the Developer’s Study (Hexagon Memo)
— Metric Mismatch: Hexagon models 30 vehicles/hour (Daily Commute) — Disaster Reality: Wildfire evacuation requires modeling a 250+ vehicle surge in a 30-minute window. — Omission: The study ignores "Threshold 4" safety impacts during power outages such as the Linda Vista/McClellan intersection defaults to a 50% capacity 4-way stop
A Quantifiable Safety Violation
— The Hexagon report addresses "Daily Operations" but fails to provide a "Project-Specific Evacuation Plan". — The Hexagon report evaluates routine only traffic operations but not covers emergency surge evacuation performance. — We urge SummerHill Homes consulting with reputable agencies in wildfire evacuation analysis and protection planning.

Learn more on "Wildfire Evacuation Modeling and Traffic Analysis" — Youtube: FSEG evacuation simulation animations, National Fire Protection Association and PTV Group. — Research & Academic Presentations: "Simulating wildfires before they happen" (Google Research), How technology is transforming wildfire response in the WUI (Lund University/GHD) 5 Why standard "Peak Hour" metrics fail to protect the Linda Vista High Fire Hazard Corridor 1170
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1170 of 2331
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, 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
1171
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1171 of 2331
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
Cupertino, CA 95014

1172
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1172 of 2331
From:

To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; City of Cupertino Planning Commission; City Council; City Clerk Cc:

Subject: The Cupertino Wildfire Evacuation and Public Safety Critique Date: Tuesday, March 10, 2026 8:52:26 PM
Attachments: The Cupertino Wildfire Evacuation and Public Safety Critique.pdf Feedback to Cupertino Health and Safety Element - General Plan Community Vision 2015-2040 - v3.pdf Importance: High
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 10, 2026
TO:City of Cupertino Planning Staff and Planning Commission CC:Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: DerChang Kau, Resident of Cupertino
RE:

Feedback to the Health and Safety Element Update (General Plan: 2015–2040 Community Vision)
Dear Planning Staff and Commissioners,
As a retired engineer, university professor, and long-time resident of Cupertino, I am writing to express my grave concerns regarding the current wildfire evacuation analysis integrated into the City’s Health and Safety Element. While the existing analysis provides a useful "planning level" starting point, it is fundamentally insufficient for a community that is rapidly densifying and facing modern wildfire risks.

My review of the provided documents reveals four critical gaps that must be addressed before the General Plan can be considered adequate to protect residents through 2040:

Reliance on Outdated Data: The analysis utilizes 2023–2025 population data that does not account for the major density increases triggered by the July 2024 rezoning. For example, the evacuation demand for Evulich Court is modeled on its previous 4-unit density rather than the R3 up-zoned density. Consequently, the city is planning for 2040 safety using 2023 conditions.

Inadequate "Planning-Level" Methodology: The City’s own consultants acknowledge that constrained areas require Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA) to accurately simulate traffic flow. While peer jurisdictions like Marin County have already adopted these advanced tools, Cupertino continues to rely on broad evaluations that do not reflect real-world emergency behavior.

Neglect of High-Risk Fire Zones: Critical evacuation zones (CUP-016, 017, 029, and 032) lie within Moderate to Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ), yet they lack street-level modeling. Notably, CUP-029 generates 38% of all evacuation trips, yet its primary outlets— McClellan Road and Foothill Boulevard—are projected to reach V/C ratios of 4.2 and 4.0 respectively. These are not mere "constraints"; they represent total system failure. 1173
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1173 of 2331
Misleading Safety Metrics: The use of Volume-to-Capacity (V/C) ratios dramatically understates the danger. A V/C ratio of 1.0 indicates an over-saturated system where standing queues form and the network fails. Framing a V/C > 2 as merely "more than one hour" of delay obscures the reality that residents may be unable to reach safety in time.

Proposed Action: I urge the City to move beyond high-level assumptions and commit to a "Total Evacuation to Safety" framework. This must include street-level dynamic modeling, realistic capacity adjustments for factors like signal outages and poor visibility, and evacuation time estimates that reflect the density of the 2040 General Plan.

The detailed critique and recommendation is attached to this correspondence for your review and consideration.

Cupertino is a center of global innovation; we should be a leader, not a laggard, in data-driven public safety. Our residents deserve an evacuation plan that remains functional during the exact emergency it was designed to manage.

Respectfully,
DerChang Kau, Resident of Cupertino
1174
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1174 of 2331

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
1175
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1175 of 2331
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. 1176
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1176 of 2331
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.
1177
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1177 of 2331
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. 1178
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1178 of 2331
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. 1179
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1179 of 2331
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. 1180
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1180 of 2331
1181
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1181 of 2331
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&sectionNum=65302.&article=5.&hig hlight=true&keyword=Fire%20Hazard%20Severity%20Zone#:~:text=(5)%20Upon%20the%20next%20revision,revision %20of%20the%20safety%20element. ¶
1182
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1182 of 2331
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 1183
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1183 of 2331
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 1184
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1184 of 2331

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 1185
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1185 of 2331
1186
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1186 of 2331
©2026, DerChang Kau. All rights reserved. 7
5’ after Red Flag Warning issued 15’ after Red Flag Warning issued 1187
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1187 of 2331
©2026, DerChang Kau. All rights reserved. 8
30’ after Red Flag Warning issued 45’ after Red Flag Warning issued 1188
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1188 of 2331
1189
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1189 of 2331
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 1190
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1190 of 2331
March 10, 2026
TO: City of Cupertino Planning Staff and Planning Commission CC: Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: DerChang Kau, Resident of Cupertino
RE: Feedback to the Health and Safety Element Update (General Plan: 2015–2040 Community Vision)
Dear Planning Staff and Commissioners,
As a retired engineer, university professor, and long-time resident of Cupertino, I am writing to express my grave concerns regarding the current wildfire evacuation analysis integrated into the City’s Health and Safety Element. While the existing analysis provides a useful "planning level" starting point, it is fundamentally insufficient for a community that is rapidly densifying and facing modern wildfire risks.

My review of the provided documents reveals four critical gaps that must be addressed before the General Plan can be considered adequate to protect residents through 2040:
• Reliance on Outdated Data: The analysis utilizes 2023–2025 population data that does not account for the major density increases triggered by the July 2024 rezoning. For example, the evacuation demand for Evulich Court is modeled on its previous 4-unit density rather than the R3 up-zoned density. Consequently, the city is planning for 2040 safety using 2023 conditions. • Inadequate "Planning-Level" Methodology: The City’s own consultants acknowledge that constrained areas require Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA) to accurately simulate traffic flow.

While peer jurisdictions like Marin County have already adopted these advanced tools, Cupertino continues to rely on broad evaluations that do not reflect real-world emergency behavior.
• Neglect of High-Risk Fire Zones: Critical evacuation zones (CUP-016, 017, 029, and 032) lie within Moderate to Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ), yet they lack street-level modeling. Notably, CUP-029 generates 38% of all evacuation trips, yet its primary outlets— McClellan Road and Foothill Boulevard—are projected to reach V/C ratios of 4.2 and 4.0 respectively. These are not mere "constraints"; they represent total system failure. • Misleading Safety Metrics: The use of Volume-to-Capacity (V/C) ratios dramatically understates the danger. A V/C ratio of 1.0 indicates an over-saturated system where standing queues form and the network fails. Framing a V/C > 2 as merely "more than one hour" of delay obscures the reality that residents may be unable to reach safety in time.

The detailed critique and recommendation is attached to this correspondence for your review and consideration.

Respectfully,
DerChang Kau, Resident of Cupertino
1191
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1191 of 2331
From:

To: Luke Connolly; Emi Sugiyama
Subject: FW: Can you send me the letter from County Fire that was used to exempt the Linda Vista Project from CEQA? Date: Wednesday, March 4, 2026 7:34:17 AM
Importance: High
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 Luke,
Per our conversation last night, please email all fire department communications pertaining to the exemption.

Thanks,
Rhoda
From: Rhoda Fry
Sent: Monday, March 2, 2026 8:45 AM
To: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>
Subject: Can you send me the letter from County Fire that was used to exempt the Linda Vista Project from CEQA?
Hi Emi,
Can you send me the letter from County Fire that was used to exempt the Linda Vista Project from CEQA?

Page 12 ends

letter:

Santa Clara County Fire Department. Fire Prevention Plan Review Comments. January 27, 2026.

I would like to see that letter.

Thanks for your help,
Rhoda Fry
1192
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1192 of 2331
Planning Commission Written Communications can
be found here:
https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=E2&ID=
1360722&GUID=036B7890-925B-40D3-8AED851D23C3A5AD
1193
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1193 of 2331
From: Catherine Tarone (Cupertino Planning Department)
To: Emi Sugiyama
Subject: [City of Cupertino] Assignment: An urgent request to review the safety matter subject to Linda Vista Spine (ie. Evulich Court) housing development proposal
Date: Monday, February 2, 2026 7:26:23 AM
Attachments: Letter for Emi Sugiyama, City Planer, Jan, 16, 2026.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

You have been assigned to this ticket (#154285).

Vikram Saxena
Jan 30, 2026, 9:51 AM PST
Vikram Saxena was not explicitly added to the ticket by the requester or an agent. Learn more
Private note
Dear Emi, Planning Commission and City Council:

I wanted to follow up regarding the safety concerns raised by Mr.

Kau.

1. The lot where the development is located overlaps with a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Fire Safety should be a key factor in the city's decision.

2. The developer is asking for a height-waiver above the 30' allowed by R3/TH zoning. That should trigger Aerial access fire safety requirements. However, based on ifnormation we have, the current design is keeping the external walls under 30' to avoid triggering the fire safety requirements.

3. Please ask them to alter the design to use FLAT ROOFs which do not rise more than one or two feet above the exterior walls which are under 30'. This will not require a height waiver and will still allow them to meet their unit density goals.

4. Please maintain increased setbacks on the sides abutting neighboring homes to minimize the risk of fire spread. R1 zones typically require front/rear setbacks of at least 10 feet. Given this area's history (zoned R1 up to R3) and the fire risk, please enforce these setbacks.

To summarize:
1194
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1194 of 2331
-The developer can build the required density
without needing a height and setback waiver if they alter the design to use flat roofs instead of sloping roofs.
-The developer should increase setbacks on the sides
abutting existing residential homes to reduce fire risk. They may have to reduce the square footage of those homes but it is the compromise city should enforce to balance all interests.

Regards
-Vikram Saxena
Cupertino CA 95014
On Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 12:53 PM DerChang Kau
wrote:

Dear Emi,
With the sobering example of the Palisades Fire last year, how highdensity neighborhoods can become traps when a fire moves faster than traffic. The fire grew from 10 acres to 200 acres in just 20 minutes. While “Linda Vista Spine” is less than 30 acres in a narrow strip.

The heart of the Monta Vista neighborhood, bounded by the Deep Cliff and Blackberry Farm Golf Courses to the west and the Union Pacific Railroad tracks to the east, acts as the primary residential core for the community. The bounded neighborhood creates a 'peninsula' effect. In our analysis, the 250+ vehicles from a highdensity project would be merging into an already constrained flow of nearly 1,000 households all trying to cross the same few railroad exit points.

This analysis indicates the total evacuation during a wind-drive fire accident will more than double the time required (from less than 30 minutes to 60~90 minutes), let alone the high possibility of earthquake event at the center of the Monta Vista-Shannon fault system.

I would like to request your Safety Officers, Lead Engineers, and Project Decision-Makers to a dedicated and transparent working session with our neighborhood representatives for a safe and harmonic neighborhood development.

Please see the attached letter for our plead.

Thank you,
DerChang Kau
1195
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1195 of 2331
1196
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1196 of 2331
The City will be holding two public hearings for this project where decisionmakers will take comments from the public. The first hearing will be held before our Planning Commission who will make a recommendation to the City Council based on the
information presented to them. The second hearing will be held before the City Council who will be the final decision makers on this project.

Notices for these hearings will be sent to neighboring property owners via USPS mail and an email notification will also be sent to any person who has signed up through the City’s e-notification system. You can sign up here and select “Evulich Court
Townhomes” for this project: https://www.cupertino.gov/YourCity/Divisions/Communications/eNotification-Sign-Up -Emi
Emi Sugiyama
Senior Planner
Community Development
[email protected]
(408)777-3205
Emi Sugiyama
Senior Planner
Community Development
[email protected]
(408)777-3205
Emi Sugiyama (City of Cupertino)
Jan 29, 2026, 5:49 PM PST
Private note
Emi Sugiyama
Jan 29, 2026, 4:52 PM PST
1197
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1197 of 2331
Hello,
Thank you very much for following up and for your patience. Your correspondence will be added to the public record for this project.

In reviewing your email and attachment, I understand that you would like to have a meeting with City officials to discuss fire hazard concerns.

The City will be holding two public hearings for this project where decisionmakers will take comments from the public. The first hearing will be held before our Planning Commission who will make a recommendation to the City Council based on the
information presented to them. The second hearing will be held before the City Council who will be the final decision makers on this project.

I would appreciate hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely,
DerChang Kau
Cupertino
DerChang Kau
Jan 16, 2026, 12:53 PM PST
Dear Emi,
1198
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1198 of 2331
With the sobering example of the Palisades Fire last year, how highdensity neighborhoods can become traps when a fire moves faster than traffic. The fire grew from 10 acres to 200 acres in just 20 minutes. While “Linda Vista Spine” is less than 30 acres in a narrow strip.

In our analysis, the 250+ vehicles from a high-density project would be merging into an already constrained flow of nearly 1,000 households all trying to cross the same few railroad exit points.

Please see the attached letter for our plead.

Thank you,
DerChang Kau
Cupertino, CA
Attachment(s)
Letter for Emi Sugiyama, City Planer, Jan, 16, 2026.pdf 1199
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1199 of 2331
From: Catherine Tarone (Cupertino Planning Department)
To: Emi Sugiyama
Subject: [City of Cupertino] Assignment: Linda Vista Drive Development Date: Thursday, February 19, 2026 7:44:57 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.

You have been assigned to this ticket (#156253).

George Wang
Feb 18, 2026, 10:33 PM PST
To whom it may concern,
I am writing as a homeowner ( ) near the
proposed project on Linda Vista Drive to formally express my strong opposition to the 51-unit townhome-style condominium development currently under consideration.

As a recent homebuyer in this neighborhood, the primary factor in my decision to invest in this community was its quiet, low-density residential character. The current atmosphere of single-family homes provides a quality of life that is becoming increasingly rare, and it is specifically this peaceful environment that gives the area its value and appeal.

I have several significant concerns regarding the scale of this proposal:

Density and Neighborhood Character: Replacing four singlefamily homes with 51 units represents a massive increase in density that is in stark contrast with the surrounding
landscape. This transition will irrevocably alter the "suburban feel" that defines our neighborhood.

Reduced Attractiveness: The sheer scale of this project threatens to reduce the attractiveness of the entire area. A high-density complex in the middle of a low-density zone impacts the privacy, aesthetic harmony, and overall
desirability of the neighboring properties.

Infrastructure and Traffic: Linda Vista Drive and the
surrounding streets were not designed to accommodate the exponential increase in vehicle trips and street parking that 51 new households will inevitably bring.

Environmental Impact: The proposed removal of trees and the demolition of existing homes to make way for such a 1200
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1200 of 2331
dense footprint will have a negative impact on the local canopy and the quietude of our street.

While I understand the state's housing mandates, I believe that development must be balanced with the preservation of
established neighborhoods. The neighborhood around Monta Vista High School is one of the most expensive and attractive areas in Cupertino. This proposal, in its current form, is an overdevelopment that disregards the expectations and investments of existing residents and would destroy the premium and
attractiveness this area commands in the long term.

I urge the Commission to deny this application or, at the very least, require a significant reduction in the number of units to better align with the existing neighborhood density.Thank you for your time and for considering the voices of the residents who will be most impacted by this decision.

Best,
George Wang
1201
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1201 of 2331
From: Catherine Tarone (Cupertino Planning Department)
To: Emi Sugiyama
Subject: [City of Cupertino] Assignment: NEW SIGNIFICANT SAFETY INFORMATION – Impacts of 2025 CAL FIRE FHSZ Classifications on Project "Evulich Court"
Date: Monday, February 2, 2026 7:26:10 AM
Attachments: image.png
image.png
image.png
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.

You have been assigned to this ticket (#155131).

DerChang Kau
Jan 30, 2026, 1:54 PM PST
Hi Char,
Thank you for your feedback. I followed your instructions and turned off the FHSZ overlay. As shown below, the cursor for Evulich Ct falls on the border of 10847 and 10857. The ‘Evulich Court Townhouses’ site spans 2.55 acres from 10857 to 10887, which lies within the red zone. Fortunately, your home, mine, and Frank’s are in the orange zone, though we are still experiencing some impact on this year’s insurance premiums.

Regarding the safety mandates subject to the revision of FHSZ's March 2025 CAL FIRE LRA update I have requested that the City Planner provide the complete analysis associated with those requirements. In particular, I asked for a qualified evacuation time assessment for wind‑driven wildfire scenarios across different zoning densities (e.g., R1 vs. R3) within Zone CUP‑029. As noted during SummerHill’s meeting two days ago, they have not yet completed this safety analysis in response to my request.

The reason I refer to Linda Vista Drive as a ‘single‑exit, winding two‑lane road’—in 1202
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1202 of 2331
1203
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1203 of 2331
1204
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1204 of 2331
regarding the proposed 51-unit development at 10857–10887 Linda Vista Drive (Evulich Court/CUP-029).

While the re-zoning of this site to R3/TH in July 2024 was based on the 2007 Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) maps, the March 2025 CAL FIRE LRA update, Figure-1 attached below, has fundamentally changed the safety baseline for this parcel. As this new State classification was released after the initial re-zoning and project application, the City has a legal and fiduciary duty to reassess the project’s density through the lens of current wildfire risk.

New Material Facts and State Mandates
Between February 10 and March 24, 2025, the California State Fire Marshal released updated FHSZ classifications for Local Responsibility Areas (LRA).

These maps identify the Linda Vista corridor as a high-risk interface zone. Under Government Code §51179, the City is now required to adopt these findings, which trigger stricter fire-safety mandates that were not considered during the July 2024 Housing Element update.

Evacuation Constraints vs. Density
Our independent evacuation modeling, which was shared with Emi Sugiyama, Cupertino City Council and Planning department on Jan, 16, 2026 (also attached in this message), indicates that the current high-density plan of 51 units creates a "choke point" on the single-access Linda Vista "spine." July 2024 Baseline: Density was approved based on 20-year-old hazard data.

January 2026 Reality: Post-2025 State mapping confirms that this specific topography is prone to rapid fire spread (similar to the January 2025 Palisades Fire).

Adding ~85 vehicles to a single-exit, winding two-lane road in a high-hazard zone constitutes a "Specific, Adverse Impact upon Public Health and Safety" under the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code §65589.5(j)).

Formal Request for Action
In light of this new State data, we formally request the following:

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.

A conceptual design is attached below,
Figure-2. Using the dwelling at 10847 Linda Vista Drive as a template, the proof-of-concept proposal photo of the property with 12 family size homes is exhibited. The proposal includes a green-space in the center with shrubs, trees and benches similar to what is over at the Bubb Road percolation pond.

The safety of nearly 200 current residents depends on the City’s willingness to prioritize current State fire data over outdated 2024 planning assumptions. We look forward to a formal response regarding how the City intends to integrate the March 2025 FHSZ findings into the approval process for CUP-029.

Sincerely,
DerChang Kau Frank Swanson
&
Cupertino, CA Cupertino, CA
Also on behalf of the Residents of Linda Vista "Spine"
1205
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1205 of 2331
1206
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1206 of 2331
An urgent request to review the safety matter subject to Linda Vista Spine (ie. Evulich Court) housing development proposal .eml
Letter for Emi Sugiyama, City Planer, Jan, 16, 2026.pdf Letter to City Council and City Manager, R1, Jan 29, 2026.pdf 1207
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1207 of 2331
From: Catherine Tarone (Cupertino Planning Department)
To: Emi Sugiyama
Subject: [City of Cupertino] Assignment: Re: Application No. TM-2024-009, ASA-2024-015, TR-2024-044 Date: Wednesday, February 18, 2026 10:42:33 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.

You have been assigned to this ticket (#156154).

Catherine Tarone (City of Cupertino)
Feb 18, 2026, 10:42 AM PST
Private note
Khanh Nguyen
Feb 17, 2026, 4:52 PM PST
To the Cupertino Planning Commission,
I have reviewed the application and support building the 51 unit town home style condominium development at 10857, 10867, 10877, 10887 Linda Vista Drive.

We live on Linda Vista Place, close to the project location. While there may be unforeseen consequences for traffic and noise, I support policies that increase housing supply and make housing more affordable for members of our community. Those who may benefit include important community members— teachers, police, and potentially our own children if they choose to settle in the Bay Area.

Respectfully,
Khanh Nguyen
1208
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1208 of 2331
From:

To: City Council; City Clerk; Pamela Wu; Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Emi Sugiyama; City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject: [Urgent] Request for a Full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Proposed SummerHill Development at Evulich Court (Linda Vista)
Date: Tuesday, December 31, 2024 11:32:25 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 of Cupertino, Councilmembers, Staff and Planning Commission:

Please include in written communications for the next city council meeting on January 22, 2025. I also urge your immediate attention to this matter.

I am writing as a resident of Cupertino to formally request that the City require a full Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the proposed SummerHill development of 51 units at Evulich Court, also sometimes referred to interchangeably as "Linda Vista".

This project poses significant potential risks to the neighborhood, including impact to 60+ year old infrastructure, traffic, fire safety, drainage, and other critical concerns. A full EIR is the minimum standard necessary to ensure these risks are properly assessed, documented, and addressed. Without a comprehensive study, the full extent of the impact cannot be understood, let alone mitigated.

We also urge the City to categorically avoid issuing a waiver or adopting a negative declaration in lieu of a proper EIR. Both approaches would fail to provide the necessary scrutiny for a project of this magnitude in a longstanding and sensitive neighborhood. Without an EIR, there is no basis for informed decision-making or accountability to the community.

Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to your acknowledgement of this request.

Sincerely,
James Choi (
1209
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1209 of 2331
From:

To: Liang Chao; Sheila Mohan; R "Ray" Wang; Pamela Wu; City Council; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Luke Connolly; Emi Sugiyama; City of Cupertino Planning Commission; [email protected]; Kitty Moore Subject: *Request for a Full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Proposed Summerhill Development at Linda Vista Dr*
Date: Sunday, January 5, 2025 9:59:12 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City of Cupertino, Council members, Planning Staff and Planning Commission:

Please include in written communications for the next city council meeting. However, your immediate attention is called to this matter.

I am writing as a resident of Cupertino to formally request that the City require a full Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the proposed Summerhill development of 51 units at 10857 Linda Vista Dr, also sometimes referred to interchangeably as "Evulich Court" under application number ASA-2024-015.

We also urge the City to categorically avoid granting an exception or adopting a negative declaration in lieu of a proper EIR. Both approaches would fail to provide the necessary scrutiny for a project of this magnitude in a longstanding and sensitive neighborhood. Without an EIR, there is no basis for informed decision-making or accountability to the community.

Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to your acknowledgement of this request.

Sincerely,
Nancy Wu
1210
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1210 of 2331
From:

To: Emi Sugiyama; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; City of Cupertino Planning Commission Cc: Bull, Steve; Jack Farrell; Kevin Ebrahimi; Lin, Austin; Matt Larson Subject: 10857 Linda Vista Drive - Letter of Support
Date: Wednesday, February 18, 2026 5:21:23 PM
Attachments: Linda Vista Dr. Letter of Support 2-18-26.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi all,
On behalf of YIMBY Law, please see the attached letter of support for the Evulich Court/Summerhill Homes II project at 10857, 10867, 10877 & 10887 Linda Vista Drive.

This is for inclusion in the staff report to be shared on Thursday, February 19, 2026.

Thank you,
Courtney
Courtney Porcella she/her
Senior Manager, Industry Partnerships
1211
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1211 of 2331
From:

To: Emi Sugiyama
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Building Height Clarification and D105.1 Applicability (Linda Vista Drive) Date: Tuesday, February 17, 2026 9:09:52 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.

Emi,
I am requesting clarification and supporting documentation regarding the building height representations for this project and the applicability of Section D105.1 for the development at 10857,10867,10877, and 10887 Linda Vista Drive.

Section D105.1 of the California Fire Code (CFC D105.1) states:
“Where the vertical distance between the grade plane and the highest roof surface exceeds 30 feet (9144 mm), approved aerial fire apparatus access roads shall be provided. For purposes of this section, the highest roof surface shall be determined by measurement to the eave of a pitched roof, the intersection of the roof to the exterior wall, or the top of parapet walls, whichever is greater.”
Brad Fox, the Assistant Fire Marshall stated in a response to a resident inquiry “The typical building height for this project measures 29'-1.75" to this specific intersection.” The code, however, applies to the highest roof surface, not typical building height.

Because the Planning Department approves the building elevations and height representations for the project, confirmation of the maximum roof-to-wall intersection height reflected in the approved plan set is necessary to establish consistency with Section D105.1.

I’m copying Fire so height measurements and D105 applicability are aligned prior to Planning Commission consideration. We need more information about the proposed plan so that any concerns can be addressed before approval.

For clarity of the public record, please provide the following:

1. The maximum roof to exterior wall intersection height for each building type in the project, measured from the defined grade plane.

2. Confirmation that no building, pad condition, stepped grade, or end unit condition results in a roof to wall intersection exceeding 30 feet above grade plane.

3. The grade plane elevation used for each building type and the method of calculation 1212
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1212 of 2331
consistent with the code definition of grade plane.

4. The maximum ridge height for each building type and the dimensioned vertical distance between ridge and roof to wall intersection, shown on the stamped elevation sheets.

5. The elevation drawings that substantiate both the 43 foot maximum building height representation and the sub 30 foot roof to wall intersection measurement, measured from the same grade plane reference.

As written, D105.1 is triggered by the highest roof surface, not merely a typical condition.

Clear confirmation that the maximum roof to wall intersection across the entire project remains below 30 feet is necessary to establish compliance.

Please provide the referenced elevation sheets and calculations.

Thank you,
David
1213
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1213 of 2331
From: LindaVistaTT
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: Luke Connolly; Emi Sugiyama; Benjamin Fu; Tina Kapoor Subject: Fire Code Non-Compliance & Safety Hazards – Evulich Court (10857-10887 Linda Vista Dr, Cupertino) Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 9:30:43 PM
Attachments: image.png
image.png
image.png
Signatures-Pictures.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.

Fire Prevention Division
Santa Clara County Fire Department
Attn: Fire Chief Suwanna Kerdkaew, Fire Marshal
Attn: Assistant Chief Hector Estrada, Fire Prevention
1315 Dell Avenue
Campbell, CA 95008
Re: Fire Code Non-Compliance & Safety Hazards – Evulich Court (10857-10887 Linda Vista Dr, Cupertino) Dear Chief Kerdkaew and Assistant Chief Estrada,
I am writing to formally request your urgent review of the Site Plan (dated May 2, 2025) for the proposed "Evulich Court" townhome development by SummerHill Homes at 10857-10887 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, CA 95014.

On the Cupertino city website this development is called Evulich Court/Summerhill Homes II.

The current proposal includes townhomes which are going to be in excess of 40ft in height. As currently proposed, the project design appears to violate critical Aerial Fire Apparatus Accessrequirements mandated by the California Fire Code (CFC) Appendix D. These violations create a specific, unmitigated threat to public safety that cannot be resolved without significant changes to the building height or construction type.

1. The Aerial Apparatus Trigger (CFC D105.1)
The project proposes three-story townhomes, which will exceed 30 feet in vertical distance from grade to the highest roof surface. This height triggers the mandatory Aerial Fire Apparatus Access Road requirements of CFC Appendix D, Section D105.

Based on the May 2025 Site Plan, the project fails to meet these specific safety standards in three critical areas:

2. Failure to Provide Required Road Width (CFC D105.2)
Code Requirement: Aerial fire apparatus access roads must have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet.

Violation: The Site Plan explicitly notes road widths of 25'-0" (D Street) and approximately 22'-0" (E Street). These dimensions are physically insufficient for aerial operations and violate the 26-foot statutory minimum. Additionally, "A Street" and "B Street" (26'-6") are likely insufficient once curbs and potential obstructions are factored in, unless a strict "No Parking" fire lane is enforced across the entire complex.

3. Failure to Meet Proximity & Standoff Requirements (CFC D105.3) Code Requirement: The aerial access road must be located within a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building, positioned parallel to one entire side of the building.

Violation: The Site Plan repeatedly designates building setbacks of 10'-0" and 11'-0" from the drive aisle. This places the three-story structures too close to the fire lane, creating a "dead zone" where the angle of a ladder truck would be too steep to safely reach the roof or upper windows.

4. Insufficient Turnaround for Aerial Apparatus (CFC D103.4) Code Requirement: Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet requires a turnaround (cul-de-sac or hammerhead) capable of supporting heavy apparatus.
1214
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1214 of 2331
Violation: The proposed "hammerhead" configuration at the T-intersection of Evulich Ct and A Street appears geometrically insufficient for an aerial ladder truck to turn around, given the narrow 25-foot widths and the encroachment of parking aprons. Furthermore, because Buildings 1 and 6 at the ends of the turnaround are also >30 feet tall, the turnaround itself must meet the 15–30 foot standoff distance, which the current 10-foot setback fails to provide.

5. Linda Vista Drive Obstructions (CFC D105.4)
Additionally, the frontage along Linda Vista Drive faces significant challenges functioning as an aerial access point due to existing street parking widths and the presence of overhead utility lines, which are prohibited over aerial access roads under CFC D105.4.

The Solution: Enforce the Exception or Deny the Height
Given these violations, the site generally cannot support the proposed height safely. However, CFC Section D105.1provides the only legal exception that would allow the developer to bypass these aerial road width and setback requirements.

I respectfully request that your office reject the current site plan unless the developer agrees to construct the buildings in full compliance with the Section D105.1 Exception, which requires:

1. Type IA, IB, or IIA Construction (Steel or Concrete, not Wood Frame).

2. Commercial-Grade Automatic Sprinklers (NFPA 13 Standard per Section 903.3.1.1).

3. Enclosed Fire Fighter Access Stairways with Class I Standpipes to the roof.

If the developer is unwilling to upgrade the buildings to this commercial safety standard, the 40+-foot height creates an unavoidable adverse impact on public safety. In that case, I urge you to deny the height waiver and restrict the buildings to 30 feet, which would align with the existing road infrastructure and R-3 zoning.

Thank you for your dedication to the safety of our community.

Sincerely,
Signed by Cupertino Residents (The list of signatures is also in the attached document.) 1215
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1215 of 2331
1216
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1216 of 2331
Site Plan from cupertino.gov
(The picture above is also in the attached document.)
1217
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1217 of 2331
From:

To: Emi Sugiyama
Subject: Fw: 10857 Linda Vista Drive - plan for 50-60 town homes Date: Tuesday, August 6, 2024 2:06:58 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 Amy,
I'm forwarding the concern I have for this town homes development project to Mr. Bull (Summer Hill Homes) already. I just want to share my concerns with Cupertino City Planning as well.

Thank you for your help and please let me know if you have any questions.

Jane Chu
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Jane Chu
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2024 at 02:10:24 PM PDT
Subject: 10857 Linda Vista Drive - plan for 50-60 town homes Hi Steven,
We live at . for the last 45 yrs and we noticed there are lots of kids drop off and pick up to/from Kennedy Jr. High during the school year which makes the intersection at Linda Vista Dr. (traffic from McClellan ) and Hyannisport very busy already.

The traffic at Hynannisport and Bubb Rd. even worse, sometimes it'll take half an hour to pass the STOP sign at the intersection during rush hours.

We always tried to avoid the rush hour to come or leave the house already.

There are also lots of through traffic from McClellan to Linda Vista to Terrace to Bubb already during early morning and late afternoon too.

By adding another 50-60 town homes at 10857 Linda Vista Drive, it will add more traffic and noise problems in the neighborhood.

Do you plan to do some traffic and noise study for this project? We thought to share our thoughts with you. Do you have a plan to forward our comments and feedbacks to the city staff? If not, can you let me know who I can forward my feedback to them? Thank you.
1218
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1218 of 2331
Yen and Jane Chu
1219
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1219 of 2331
From: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.

To: Eva Momoki
Cc: Emi Sugiyama
Subject: FW: Application No. TM-2024-009, ASA-2024-015, TR-2024-044 Date: Wednesday, February 18, 2026 10:41:29 AM
Catherine Tarone
Permit Technician
Community Development
[email protected]
(408)777-3297
From: Khanh Nguyen
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2026 4:51 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Application No. TM-2024-009, ASA-2024-015, TR-2024-044 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

To the Cupertino Planning Commission,
I have reviewed the application and support building the 51 unit town home style condominium development at 10857, 10867, 10877, 10887 Linda Vista Drive.

We live on Linda Vista Place, close to the project location. While there may be unforeseen consequences for traffic and noise, I support policies that increase housing supply and make housing more affordable for members of our community. Those who may benefit include important community members—teachers, police, and potentially our own children if they choose to settle in the Bay Area.

Respectfully,
Khanh Nguyen
1220
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1220 of 2331
From: Piu Ghosh (she/her)
To: Emi Sugiyama
Subject: FW: Concerned about the proposed SummerHill Homes development on Evulich Ct.

Date: Monday, November 25, 2024 12:20:31 PM
Could you please respond and copy me? Thanks!
Piu
--
Piu Ghosh
Planning Manager
Community Development
[email protected]
(408) 777-3277
Piu Ghosh (she/her)
Planning Manager
Community Development
[email protected]
(408) 777-3277
-----Original Message-----
From: Santa Teresa Cupertino
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 11:42 AM
To: Piu Ghosh (she/her) ; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.

Subject: Concerned about the proposed SummerHill Homes development on Evulich Ct.

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 Piu,
I hope this message finds you well. I am a Cupertino resident living in the Linda Vista area, and many of my neighbors and I are deeply concerned about the proposed SummerHill Homes (SHH) development on Evulich Ct.

Understanding that our time to review the application may be limited, I wanted to reach out in advance to ask the following questions:

1. Has SummerHill Homes already submitted their application for the project on Evulich Ct?

2. If yes, how can the application be made accessible to area residents?

3. If no, when do you anticipate the application being submitted?

4. Is it possible for us to be notified within 24 hours of SHH's submission?

5. Could you please clarify the timeframe we will have to review the application and raise concerns?
Additionally, may I kindly request that this inquiry be included in all relevant written 1221
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1221 of 2331
communications regarding the SHH project?
Thank you for your assistance, and I look forward to your response.

Best regards,
Jen
Cupertino Resident
1222
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1222 of 2331
From: Piu Ghosh (she/her)
To: Emi Sugiyama
Subject: FW: Inquiry About SummerHill Homes Development on Evulich Ct Date: Monday, November 25, 2024 12:21:41 PM
Attachments: image009.png
image010.png
image011.png
image012.png
image013.png
image014.png
image015.png
image016.png
Same.

Piu Ghosh
Planning Manager
Community Development
[email protected]
(408) 777-3277
Piu Ghosh (she/her)
Planning Manager
Community Development
[email protected]
(408) 777-3277
From: Sam G
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 11:27 AM
To: Piu Ghosh (she/her)
Cc: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.

Subject: Inquiry About SummerHill Homes Development on Evulich Ct 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.

Understanding that our time to review the application may be limited, I wanted to reach out in advance to ask the following questions:

1. Has SummerHill Homes already submitted their application for the project on Evulich Ct?

2. If yes, how can the application be made accessible to area residents? 1223
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1223 of 2331

3. If no, when do you anticipate the application being submitted?

4. Is it possible for us to be notified within 24 hours of SHH's submission?

Best regards,
Ying Sosic
Cupertino resident
1224
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1224 of 2331
From: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.

To: Eva Momoki
Cc: Emi Sugiyama
Subject: FW: Linda Vista Drive Development
Date: Thursday, February 19, 2026 7:43:59 AM
Catherine Tarone
Permit Technician
Community Development
[email protected]
(408)777-3297
From: George Wang
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2026 10:33 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. <[email protected]> Subject: Linda Vista Drive Development
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

To whom it may concern,
I am writing as a homeowner ( near the proposed project on Linda Vista Drive to formally express my strong opposition to the 51-unit townhome-style condominium development currently under consideration.

I have several significant concerns regarding the scale of this proposal:

Density and Neighborhood Character: Replacing four single-family homes with 51 units represents a massive increase in density that is in stark contrast with the surrounding landscape. This transition will irrevocably alter the "suburban feel" that defines our neighborhood.
1225
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1225 of 2331
Reduced Attractiveness: The sheer scale of this project threatens to reduce the attractiveness of the entire area. A high-density complex in the middle of a lowdensity zone impacts the privacy, aesthetic harmony, and overall desirability of the neighboring properties.

Infrastructure and Traffic: Linda Vista Drive and the surrounding streets were not designed to accommodate the exponential increase in vehicle trips and street parking that 51 new households will inevitably bring.

Environmental Impact: The proposed removal of trees and the demolition of existing homes to make way for such a dense footprint will have a negative impact on the local canopy and the quietude of our street.

This proposal, in its current form, is an over-development that disregards the expectations and investments of existing residents and would destroy the premium and attractiveness this area commands in the long term.

Best,
George Wang
1226
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1226 of 2331
We are writing to formally submit new, significant safety data into the public record regarding the proposed 51-unit development at 10857–10887 Linda Vista Drive (Evulich Court/CUP-029).

These maps identify the Linda Vista corridor as a high-risk interface zone.

Under Government Code §51179, the City is now required to adopt these findings, which trigger stricter fire-safety mandates that were not considered during the July 2024 Housing Element update.
*
Evacuation Constraints vs. Density
Our independent evacuation modeling, which was shared with Emi Sugiyama, Cupertino City Council and Planning department on Jan, 16, 2026 (also attached in this message), indicates that the current high-density plan of 51 units creates a "choke point" on the single-access Linda Vista "spine." * July 2024 Baseline: Density was approved based on 20-year-old hazard data.
*
January 2026 Reality: Post-2025 State mapping confirms that this specific topography is prone to rapid fire spread (similar to the January 2025 Palisades Fire).
*
Adding ~85 vehicles to a single-exit, winding two-lane road in a high-hazard zone constitutes a "Specific, Adverse Impact upon Public Health and Safety" under the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code §65589.5(j)). *
1227
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1227 of 2331
Formal Request for Action
In light of this new State data, we formally request the following:
* 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. A conceptual design is attached below, Figure2. Using the dwelling at 10847 Linda Vista Drive<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fmap.gridics.com%2fus%2fca%2fcupertino%3fenabledL eftOverlay%3dshowProperties%26layers%3d%257B%2522BASE%2bLAYER S%2522%253A%257B%2522fake-generalsubgroup%2522%253A%255B%2522ca-state-place0617610%2522%252C%2522property_record_city%2522%255D%257D%25 2C%2522PLANNING%2522%253A%257B%2522Zoning%2522%253A%255B %2522ca-city-land_use-a-0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land_usea215-0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land use-a140- 0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land_use-a143-
0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land use-ba0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land_use-bq0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land use-cg0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land_use-cgrg0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land use-fpo0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land_use-ml0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land use-mlrc0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land_use-oa0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land use-os0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land_use-p0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land use-pba0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land_use-pbqministor0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land use-pcg0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land_use-pcgmlbqres0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land use-pcgmloa0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land_use-pcgmlres35- 1228
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1228 of 2331
0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land_use-pcgmlres410-
0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land use-pcgmlres0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land_use-pcgoa0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land use-pcgopmlres0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land_use-pcgopres0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land use-pcgr3- 0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land_use-pcgr3th0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land use-pcgr4- 0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land_use-pcgres515-
0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land use-pcgres0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land_use-pcn0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land use-pcnmlres412- 0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land_use-photel0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land use-pinstitutional0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land_use-pml0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land use-pmlcg0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land_use-pmp0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land use-pmpcg0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land_use-poa0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land use-pop0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land_use-pr31020- 0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land use-pr102-
0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land_use-pr1-
0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land use-pr175-
0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land_use-pr1c0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land use-pr2- 0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land_use-pr2ministor0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land use-pr3- 0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land_use-pr3cg0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land use-precenter0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land_use-pres1020ministor0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land use-pres1020- 0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land_use-pres48-
0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land use-pres4412-
0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land_use-pres4477-
0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land use-pres510-
0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land_use-pres0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land use-pres70- 0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land_use-pr1229
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1229 of 2331
0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land_use-prer110-
0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land use-prebq0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land_use-prer175- 0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land use-prerhs0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land_use-pret0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land use-r31020- 0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land_use-r110-
0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land use-r110i0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land_use-r120- 0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land use-r122-
0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land_use-r1325-
0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land use-r15-
0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land_use-r16-
0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land use-r16e0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land_use-r16i0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land use-r17- 0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land_use-r175-
0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land use-r175i0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land_use-r18- 0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land use-r1a0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land_use-r1c0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land use-r1c25- 0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land_use-r1c29-
0617610%2522%252C%2522ca-city-land use-r1c32-0> as a template, the proof-of-concept proposal photo of the property with 12 family size homes is exhibited. The proposal includes a green-space in the center with shrubs, trees and benches similar to what is over at the Bubb Road percolation pond.

Sincerely,
DerChang Kau
Frank Swanson
&
Cupertino, CA Cupertino, CA
1230
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1230 of 2331
1231
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1231 of 2331
From: Luke Connolly
To: Emi Sugiyama
Subject: FW: Oppose Summer-Hill Homes and Vista Heights Project Date: Monday, October 7, 2024 11:19:54 AM
Luke Connolly
Assistant Director of Community Development
Community Development
[email protected]
(408)777-1275
From: Nancy Chang
Sent: Sunday, October 6, 2024 9:08 PM
To: City Clerk ; Benjamin Fu ; Luke Connolly ; Piu Ghosh (she/her) ; Pamela Wu ; City Council Subject: Re: Oppose Summer-Hill Homes and Vista Heights Project 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 and Members of the Cupertino City Council, Any update on next steps?
Regards,
Nancy Wu
Resident at St.,Cupertino
On Wed, Sep 4, 2024, 11:47 PM Nancy Chang wrote:

Dear City Clerk and Members of the Cupertino City Council, Please include in written communications for the next city council meeting. Thank you.

We are writing to express my deep concerns regarding the proposed redevelopment of 10857 Linda Vista Drive and Linda Vista Park (Summer-Hill Homes and Vista Heights) area into a higher-density residential neighborhood. While we understand the need for housing, we strongly believe that this project would significantly harm the quality of life in our community, which has long been cherished for its quiet and peaceful environment.

Traffic and Safety Concerns
Linda Vista Drive and its surrounding streets are small, residential roads that are not designed to handle the increased traffic that hundreds of additional housing units/cars would bring. The influx of cars would create significant congestion, particularly during school drop-off and pick-up times.

Our community is home to three schools where young children walk and bike to school every day.

The safety of these children should be our top priority. 1232
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1232 of 2331
In addition to the daily traffic, the construction phase of this project would introduce heavy machinery and trucks to our streets for several years. This not only endangers pedestrians, particularly young students, but also poses a serious risk of accidents. We must not forget the tragic death of Ethan Wong, a Monta Vista High School student on October 27, 2014, who lost his life after being struck by a construction truck while biking to school. The proposed development increases the likelihood of such heartbreaking incidents, bringing to light the serious safety risks that arise when construction and increased traffic intersect with areas heavily used by students.

This incident underscores the dangers that come with increased vehicle presence, particularly large construction trucks, in residential and school zones. The tragic loss of a young life is a stark reminder that safety must be prioritized when planning any developments in our community.

Environmental and Fire Safety Hazards
Cupertino is a community that values its natural environment, and the current low-density neighborhoods contribute to our city’s green spaces and tranquility. Increasing the density of housing in this area would put a strain on local infrastructure, including emergency services.

Higher density inevitably brings more people, more vehicles, and potentially more fires. In the event of an emergency, evacuation could become chaotic and life-threatening, particularly given the narrow streets that could easily become gridlocked. Increased congestion, both from residents and construction vehicles, can slow down emergency response times. In an emergency, even a few minutes can make the difference between a small emergency and a catastrophic one.

Moreover, higher density housing means more combustible materials in a smaller area, leading to a greater fire load. In the event of a fire, this could cause the fire to spread more quickly and intensely, making it harder for firefighters to control. The very nature of townhomes, often being built close together, increases the risk of a fire spreading from one unit to another. This close proximity reduces the effectiveness of firebreaks and makes it easier for flames to leap from roof to roof.

Moreover, the added pressure on our water supply, sewage systems, and other utilities could lead to long-term environmental degradation, reducing the livability of our community. This development could also disturb the local wildlife and increase pollution levels, further detracting from the peaceful and healthy living conditions we currently enjoy.

Impact on Community Character
The character of Cupertino has always been defined by its quiet, suburban feel—a refuge from the hustle and bustle of the surrounding urban areas. Transforming the Linda Vista area into a highdensity neighborhood would fundamentally alter this character. We would lose the very essence of what makes Cupertino special: a safe, family-friendly environment where neighbors know each other and where children can play outside without fear.

We urge the City Council to reconsider this proposal. While we recognize the need for additional housing, we believe that there are more appropriate areas in Cupertino for such developments— areas that would not compromise the safety of our children, the peace of our neighborhoods, or the environmental integrity of our city.

Thank you for considering our concerns. We look forward to your response and hope that you will prioritize the well-being of our community in your decision-making process.

Regards,
Nancy Wu
1233
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1233 of 2331
Resident at St.,Cupertino
1234
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1234 of 2331
From: Jon De Ridder
To: Emi Sugiyama
Subject: FW: Opposition to the Linda Vista Development Proposal Date: Tuesday, June 11, 2024 8:40:47 AM
FYI
Jon De Ridder
Administrative Assistant
Community Development
[email protected]
(408)777-1374
From: Albert38
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2024 8:29 AM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject: Opposition to the Linda Vista Development Proposal 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.

June 11, 2024
Dear Planning Commission members,
I have a strong urge to express my concern with the Linda Vista Development Proposal, as a resident of a home very close to the project site. Unfortunately, I am in Asia and thus cannot attend today’s meeting.

I have been seeing and hearing digging and soil removal of the hill right outside of my windows. My neighbors and I appreciate the tranquility and the natural beauty of our environment, and thus we chose living in our hillside area. The Development Proposal suggests a large scale damage to the original environment, and yet we the concerned community have not seen much transparency of the project to voice our opposition. As my neighbors have enumerated the problematic issues to be or have been presented to the Commission, I want to add my strong opposition to the proposed development.

I urge the Commission and the City Government to listen to our voices, and cautiously and carefully study the negative impacts of the development project before further irreparable damages are done. I thank you.

Dr. Albert Wu
1235
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1235 of 2331
1236
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1236 of 2331
From: Piu Ghosh (she/her)
To: Emi Sugiyama
Subject: FW: Proposed SummerHill Homes (SHH) development on Evulich Ct Date: Monday, November 25, 2024 12:20:51 PM
Attachments: image009.png
image010.png
image011.png
image012.png
image013.png
image014.png
image015.png
image016.png
Could you please respond and send me a copy?
Thanks!
Piu
Piu Ghosh
Planning Manager
Community Development
[email protected]
(408) 777-3277
Piu Ghosh (she/her)
Planning Manager
Community Development
[email protected]
(408) 777-3277
From: AR. Yazdi
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 11:52 AM
To: Piu Ghosh (she/her) ; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.

Subject: Proposed SummerHill Homes (SHH) development on Evulich Ct 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.

Understanding that our time to review the application may be limited, I wanted to reach out in advance to ask the following questions:

1. Has SummerHill Homes already submitted their application for the project on Evulich Ct?

2. If yes, how can the application be made accessible to area residents? 1237
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1237 of 2331

3. If no, when do you anticipate the application being submitted?

4. Is it possible for us to be notified within 24 hours of SHH's submission?

5. Could you please clarify the timeframe we will have to review the application and raise concerns?
Additionally, may I kindly request that this inquiry be included in all relevant written communications regarding the SHH project?
Thank you for your assistance, and I look forward to your response.Best regards, Ahmad R. Yazdi
1238
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1238 of 2331
1239
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1239 of 2331

5. Could you please clarify the timeframe we will have to review the application and raise concerns?
Additionally, may I kindly request that this inquiry be included in all relevant written communications regarding the SHH project?
Thank you for your assistance, and I look forward to your response.Best regards, Mehrnaz Yazdi
Cupertino resident
1240
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1240 of 2331
From: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.

To: Emi Sugiyama
Subject: FW: Request for Info RE Proposed 87-Unit New Construction Date: Tuesday, September 3, 2024 10:32:58 AM
Catherine Tarone
Permit Technician
Community Development
[email protected]
(408)777-3297
From: Jolyn Yao
Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2024 10:39 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.

Subject: Request for Info RE Proposed 87-Unit New Construction 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 Steven and Cupertino City Planning,
I am writing to request more information about the proposed 10857/10867/10877/10887 Linda Vista Dr. Rezoning & New Construction. I have several urgent questions and requests:

Postponed Meeting: The original August 6th meeting was postponed with extremely short notice, causing significant inconvenience for many residents, including myself. I had to cancel a business trip, risking my job, and am now facing financial losses and potential career repercussions. I urge you to provide ample notice for any future scheduled meetings or changes that may occur.

Submitted New Construction Proposal: Could you please provide detailed information about the new construction proposal? Access to this information is essential for residents to understand the potential impact of the project on our neighborhood.

Clear Definition of "Townhome": The term "Townhome" is not a concept existing in current ownership structures. I request clarification and a detailed development plan to be shared with the neighborhood.

Next Hearing and Proposal Sharing: When is the next hearing scheduled? I strongly request that new construction proposals be shared with the neighborhood at least six weeks in advance of any future hearings. This will allow residents adequate time to review the proposals and prepare informed comments.

Thank you for your attention to these urgent matters. I look forward to your prompt response and a transparent and inclusive process regarding this development project.

Sincerely,
Jolyn
1241
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1241 of 2331
From: LindaVistaTT <[email protected]>
Date: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 at 10:53 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>, Tina Kapoor <[email protected]>, City Attorney's Office <[email protected]>, City Clerk <[email protected]> Cc:

Subject: Request to Deny Density Bonus Approval for Summerhill Homes Development on Evulich Court
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Executive Summary
We, the residents, respectfully request that the Cupertino City Council deny approval of density bonus waiver incentives for the proposed Summerhill Homes development on Evulich Court. Recent devastating wildfires in Southern California and emerging fire safety research demonstrate that the proposed density bonuses—which would allow reduced setbacks and increased building heights beyond R3 zoning limits—create unacceptable fire risks in areas recently designated as Very High Fire Risk zones.

These changes materially alter the public safety profile of the development.

State law under Government Code § 65915(d)(2)(C) provides cities with discretion to deny waivers when they would result in a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety that 1242
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1242 of 2331
cannot be mitigated. Given the site's new designation as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone by Cal Fire in 2025, combined with topographical vulnerability and limited evacuation routes, Cupertino is on strong legal footing to not approve these waivers based on safety risk.

Background
The subject property on Evulich Court, located on Linda Vista Drive, was originally zoned for 11 single-family homes (R1) and later changed to R3 zoning. Summerhill Homes now proposes to construct 51 townhomes by utilizing California density bonus laws to:

Reduce required setbacks below R3 standards
Increase building heights beyond R3 limits
Critical Context: This neighborhood has recently been designated as Very High Fire Risk under CalFire's updated Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps, released following the analysis of the devastating January 2025 Eaton and Palisades fires. As documented in the City of Cupertino's own notification letter dated May 23, 2025, the City has received formal notification from CalFire about these recommendations and is required by CA Government Code Section 51175 to adopt the State's Fire Hazard Severity Zone designations by June 24, 2025.

Elevated Wildfire Vulnerability: The Evulich Court development site is particularly vulnerable to wildfire as it backs directly into open space areas including golf course and nature preserves. This wildland-urban interface (WUI) location creates heightened fire risk because:

Open space areas provide continuous fuel loads that can carry wildfire directly to structures
Golf courses and nature preserves often contain dry vegetation during fire season The interface between developed and undeveloped land is where most catastrophic structure losses occur
Key Findings from Recent Fire Research
Structure Density as a Major Fire Risk Factor
The Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS) preliminary report on the Eaton and Palisades fires identified structure density as a major risk factor, specifically noting:
"In tightly packed areas, flames leapt from home to home, overwhelming even some fire-resistant structures."
This finding is supported by scientific research from the Fire Safety Research Institute and NIST, which demonstrates that:
1243
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1243 of 2331
Radiant heat transfer from structure fires can cause neighboring structures to ignite Structure-to-structure fire spread significantly impacts loss of life and destruction of infrastructure
Residential structures can catch fire when exposed to fully involved structures located as close as 8 feet from the eaves
CalFire's Updated Recommendations
Following the Eaton and Palisades fires, CalFire and IBHS specifically recommend:
"Use setbacks to maximize the spacing between structures to the greatest extent possible"
Enhanced fire-resistant construction in dense areas
Elimination of "connective fuels" (fences, decks, landscaping) that enable fire spread between structures
These recommendations directly contradict the proposed density bonuses that would reduce setbacks and increase height. The proposed site plan allows minimal side and rear setbacks in a WUI zone, ignoring the core firebreak strategies recommended by fire agencies.

Fast-Moving Fire Risk
Research shows that 78% of structures destroyed in U.S. fires in the first two decades of the 21st century burned in fast-moving fires. The Eaton and Palisades fires rank among the fastest-growing fires on record, demonstrating that when fires move quickly, traditional fire suppression becomes impossible—making structure separation even more critical.

Policy Conflicts and Legal Considerations
California's Contradictory Policies
California has created a fundamental conflict between:

1. Housing density laws that encourage reduced setbacks and increased building height

2. Fire safety requirements that call for maximum structure separation in high-risk areas
These two policies are not harmonized in current law, creating a gray area that cities must resolve using § 65915(d)(2)(C) when life safety is at risk.

Local Authority to Protect Public Safety
California density bonus law specifically states that local governments are not required to grant waivers or density bonuses if they would:
1244
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1244 of 2331
"have a specific, adverse impact upon health, safety, or the physical environment, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact."
In this case, mitigation is not feasible because the hazard stems from the reduced setbacks and increased height demanded by the developer, not design details that can be engineered away.

City's Legal Responsibility as Local Responsibility Area (LRA): As stated in the City's own May 23, 2025 notification letter, Cupertino is designated as a Local Responsibility Area where "the local government, and not the State Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention, is responsible for wildfire protection." This places a direct legal duty on the City Council to prioritize fire prevention and protection measures.

Failure to Fulfill Legal Duty: Approving density bonuses that contradict fire safety science in a newly designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone would constitute a failure to discharge the City's legal responsibility for wildfire protection under CA Government Code Sections 51177-51179.

Specific Concerns for Cupertino

1. Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Risk
The Evulich Court location on Linda Vista Drive, backing into open space areas (golf course and nature preserve), places this development in the highest-risk wildland-urban interface (WUI) zone. Research consistently shows that:

Most catastrophic wildfire losses occur at the WUI where wildland meets developed areas
Open space vegetation provides continuous fuel loads that carry fire directly to structures
Golf courses and nature preserves, despite maintenance, contain seasonal dry vegetation that becomes highly flammable
Increasing structural density in WUI areas compounds fire risk by creating more targets for ignition and enabling rapid structure-to-structure spread due to reduced setbacks.

2. Recent Fire Risk Designation and Legal Timeline
The neighborhood's recent designation as Very High Fire Risk indicates that standard development practices are insufficient. As documented in the City's May 23, 2025 notification letter:

CalFire issued official Fire Hazard Severity Zone recommendations in February and March 2025
The City is legally required to adopt these designations by June 24, 2025 The City "may not reduce the recommended designations or boundaries included on the CAL FIRE maps"
These designations directly impact development standards and fire protection 1245
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1245 of 2331
requirements
Approving density bonuses that contradict this recent Very High Fire Risk designation would be inconsistent with the City's legal obligations under state fire safety law.

The change in designation was not known or accounted for during the Housing Element rezoning process in early 2023. Because density bonus entitlements are conditioned on prevailing health and safety standards, this new data materially alters the underlying calculus.

The City is not obligated to apply waivers or incentives under density bonus law when circumstances pose a “specific, adverse impact” on health and safety. The California Government Code explicitly provides that local jurisdictions may deny waivers or concessions when such impacts cannot be mitigated. In this case, the elevated risk is unmitigable under the current proposal, as density itself is the hazard.

3. Insurance Impact on Existing Residents
Insurance companies are increasingly using their own wildfire risk models that consider structure density and separation. Some models now apply a surcharge to all properties within a set radius of high-density nodes, meaning adjacent homeowners will bear financial consequences for a project they did not choose.

The proposed development could:

Increase fire risk ratings for the entire neighborhood
Lead to higher premiums or policy cancellations for existing residents Reduce property values due to increased fire risk

4. Evacuation Concerns
The proposed increase from 11 to 51 units creates significant evacuation challenges:

Wildlife Urban Interface limits the number of exit paths out of the area; Linda Vista drive is the only exit route, and there is no parallel street on the other side of the development.

Potential for evacuation bottlenecks that could prove fatal in fast-moving fires.

Cupertino’s current emergency evacuation modeling was based on low-density projections and does not account for a fivefold increase in residential units on this parcel.

5. Infrastructure Strain
Emergency services and fire suppression resources designed for lower-density development may be inadequate for the proposed high-density configuration under the new very high fire risk designation.

Recommendations
1246
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1246 of 2331
We respectfully request that the Cupertino City Council:

Immediate Action

1. Deny the density bonus application for the Summerhill Homes development based on fire safety concerns related to reduced setbacks and waiver of building height limits.

2. Reduce density of the site: The proposed site had one of the highest increases in permitted density; from R1 (5 DU/acre) to R3/TH (up to 35 DU/acre). The 7x increase in density was approved prior to the designation of the neighborhood as a Very High Fire Risk zone.

Long-Term Policy Development

1. Establish local fire safety standards that guide the interpretation of state density bonus provisions in Very High Fire Risk zones

2. Develop objective criteria for evaluating density bonus applications in fire-prone areas

3. Engage with regional partners to address the conflict between housing production and fire safety
Conclusion
The devastating Eaton and Palisades fires have provided clear evidence that increasing structural density in Very High Fire Risk zones can have catastrophic consequences. The proposed Summerhill Homes development, which relies on density bonuses to exceed safe development standards, directly contradicts current fire safety science and CalFire's updated recommendations.

The City's Legal Duty is Clear: As a Local Responsibility Area, Cupertino bears direct legal responsibility for wildfire protection under CA Government Code Sections 51177- 51179. The City's own May 23, 2025 notification letter acknowledges this responsibility and the requirement to adopt Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone designations by June 24, 2025.

We urge the City Council to prioritize public safety over housing production goals and deny the density bonus provisions for this development. Granting density bonuses that increase fire risk in a newly designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone would constitute a failure to discharge the City's legal duty to protect residents from wildfire.

The City has clear discretion to deny waivers that would erode defensible space, vertical separation, and emergency access in a known fire corridor. Cupertino would not be the first city to invoke § 65915(d)(2)(C) in a high-risk area. The state housing laws recognize that public safety must remain a non-negotiable floor.

The lessons learned from Southern California's recent fires must inform our local development decisions to protect our community from similar tragedies. 1247
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1247 of 2331
1248
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1248 of 2331
1249
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1249 of 2331
From: Piu Ghosh (she/her)
To: Emi Sugiyama
Subject: FW: Suggestion for the Euvlich Court red fire zone Date: Tuesday, December 16, 2025 3:11:46 PM
FYI…
Piu Ghosh (she/her)
Planning Manager
Community Development
[email protected]
(408) 777-3277
From: Benjamin Fu <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2025 2:52 PM
To: Henry Sang
Subject: RE: Suggestion for the Euvlich Court red fire zone Thank you, Henry, for forwarding your email. I will also share with my colleagues.

Regards,
Ben
Benjamin Fu
Director of Community Development
Community Development
[email protected]
(408) 777-3247
From: Henry Sang
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2025 2:43 PM
To: Benjamin Fu <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: Suggestion for the Euvlich Court red fire zone 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.

Benjamin,
1250
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1250 of 2331
I understand you lead the planning department. I sent this memo to the city council and realize you might want a copy
Henry
Sent from AT&T Yahoo Mail on Android
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "Henry Sang"
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Cc:

Sent: Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 2:39 PM
Subject: Fw: Suggestion for the Euvlich Court red fire zone I have sent this email message to the City Council Members. Please let it be part of the record of communications from the public.

I am happy to have a follow up discussion.

Henry
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Henry Sang
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Liang Chao <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Sheila Mohan <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2025 at 02:27:49 PM PST
Subject: Suggestion for the Euvlich Court red fire zone Madame Mayor, Vice Mayor and Councilmembers,
Some of you know me as a volunteer in our Community having lived here for 38 years.

And you may know that I have recently taken up an awareness and education campaign for wildfire safety in our City.

I want to thank the Mayor and Vice Mayor for attending the event by the Cupertino Library Foundation hosting CalFire and SCC FD. We got a good lesson on how the Fire Danger Zone maps are created and on mitigation and preparedness instruction.

You are probably aware that the Euvlich Court property is in a red zone. I assume that our staff will make sure everything is up to safety standards in the planning and construction.

This property is particularly exposed to danger because a large part of it runs along the trail connecting Linda Vista Park and McClelland Ranch. On the other side of the trail is a heavily brush laden hillside leading down to Deep Cliff Golf Course. 1251
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1251 of 2331
That hillside is not the verdant green lawn of the golf course and is riddled with the detritus that SCCFD instructed to be removed and maintained.

While this also affects several other SFH along that trail, this is probably the biggest interface and very close to Linda Vista Park which is likely an avenue for a fire event. (The hill behind Linda Vista burned about 20 years ago requiring an airplane spreading the red stuff and helicopters dropping buckets of water.)
I would like to suggest during negotiations with the property owner that they consider a fire proof fence along this trail and that they pay for the initial cleanup of that hillside.

It seems that all of the area except for the roadways will be in Zone 0 or 1 for these town and row houses. These are the recommended and soon to be required fire safety zones around a house. It is very important to adhere to these in the RED (VERY DANGEROUS) zone designations. Once one unit catches fire, it will domino spread to the others because of the short distances. The fuel load from a house then spreads heat and embers.

The density of the townhouses represents a fuel load that endangers the rest of the nearby houses much more so that individual houses situated 20-30 ft apart. Once they get started we can expect most of them to burn and that will put the rest of the houses at much higher risk. Wind coming down Stevens Canyon will spread embers for long distances, probably close to a mile out. Then even the non-fire zone houses are at risk. (Look at Altadena and Pacific Pallisades.)
Perhaps it also makes sense to have their other fences be fire proof or with at least an A rating for materials. Also, avoid wooden decks, wooden pergolas, and other such structures. SCC FD doesn't want flammable mats or furniture within 5 ft of the house or extended house areas. (Zone 0)
As such, I would like to suggest that strict guidelines for Zone 0 and 1 be maintained in this facility with annual surveys and remediation required as part of their HOA's CC&Rs.

Please note, I am NOT pushing to avoid building this project. While I personally think it is too dense for the neighborhood, that is not the issue at hand. The issue that I wish to raise regards proper fire safety for our Community and concrete things that might be done to decrease our risk.

Sincerely,
Henry Woo Sang, Jr.

Cupertino
1252
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1252 of 2331
From: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.

To: Emi Sugiyama
Subject: FW: Urgent - Transparency of Zone change for 10857/10867/10877/10887 Linda Vista Dr - PR24056 Received and Response
Date: Monday, September 9, 2024 5:07:20 PM
Attachments: CC 07-02-2024 (Special).pdf
CC 07-16-2024 (Special).pdf
CC Ordinance No. 24-2262 Rezoning Certain Sites in the City for Conformance with General Plan and Housing Element.pdf
Catherine Tarone
Permit Technician
Community Development
[email protected]
(408)777-3297
From: Melissa Robertson
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2024 2:47 PM
To: Jolyn Yao ; Pamela Wu ; Piu Ghosh (she/her) ; City of Cupertino Planning Dept. ; Luke Connolly ; Benjamin Fu
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: RE: Urgent - Transparency of Zone change for 10857/10867/10877/10887 Linda Vista Dr - PR24056 Received and Response
Good afternoon (City Council Bcc'd on this email),
The City of Cupertino responds to your request for records dated Monday, September 09, 2024 with responsive documents in accordance with the California Public Records Act, Government Code section 7920.000 et seq. Attached are the responsive documents to your request. The information provided fulfills the requirements of your Public Records Act request.

Best,
Melissa Robertson
Administrative Assistant
City Manager's Office
[email protected]
(408)777-3148
From: Jolyn Yao <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2024 11:11 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Pamela Wu <[email protected]>; Piu Ghosh (she/her) <[email protected]>; City of Cupertino Planning Dept. <[email protected]>; Luke Connolly <[email protected]>; Benjamin Fu <[email protected]>
Subject: Urgent - Transparency of Zone change for 10857/10867/10877/10887 Linda Vista Dr 1253
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1253 of 2331
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 Officials,
I am writing to express my serious concerns regarding the recent rezoning of 10857/10867/10877/10887 Linda Vista Dr.from R1 to R3 and the subsequent proposal for a 52-unit new construction project.

I would like to reiterate my request for the date of this zone change, as well as access to the related meeting minutes. It is imperative that residents are given the opportunity to voice their opinions and participate in decisions that directly impact our neighborhoods. As a concerned citizen, resident, and neighbor, I was not notified of this zoning change, which raises serious concerns about the transparency of city government operations.

The overall well-being of Cupertino depends on open communication and collaboration between the city government and its residents.

Jolyn
Sincerely,
Jolyn
1254
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1254 of 2331
From: Piu Ghosh (she/her)
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.

Cc: Emi Sugiyama
Subject: Fwd: Evulich Court
Date: Monday, December 2, 2024 11:35:14 AM
For Emi
Piu Ghosh (she/her)
Planning Manager
Community Development
[email protected]
(408) 777-3277
Begin forwarded message:

From:

Date: December 2, 2024 at 11:03:35 AM PST
To: "Piu Ghosh (she/her)" , "City of Cupertino Planning Dept." Subject: Evulich Court
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Piu -
We are Cupertino residents living in the Linda Vista area, and many of my neighbors and us are deeply concerned about the proposed SummerHill Homes (SHH) development on Evulich
Court.

With the understanding that our time to review the application may be limited, we wanted to reach out in advance to ask the following questions:

1. Has SHH already submitted their development application for the project on Evulich Court?
1255
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1255 of 2331

2. If yes, how can the application be made accessible to area residents?

3. If not, when do you anticipate the application being submitted?

4. Is it possible to be notified within 24 hours of SHH's submission?

5. Could you please clarify the timeframe we will have to review the application and raise concerns?
Additionally, in the future please include us in all relevant written communications regarding the SHH project.

Thank you for your cooperation and attention to this matter.

We look forward to your response.

Stephen and Anne Yang
1256
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1256 of 2331
From:

To: Pamela Wu; Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Emi Sugiyama; City of Cupertino Planning Commission Subject: Fwd: Request for a Full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Proposed Summerhill Development at Evulich Court (Linda Vista)
Date: Monday, December 30, 2024 8:14:19 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.

Begin forwarded message:

From: Ying Dillaha
Date: December 30, 2024 at 8:11:20 PM PST
To: [email protected], City Clerk
Subject: Request for a Full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Proposed Summerhill Development at Evulich Court (Linda Vista) Dear City of Cupertino:
*Please include in written communications for the next city council meeting on January 22, 2025, however your immediate attention is called to this matter* I am writing as a resident of Cupertino to formally request that the City require a full Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the proposed Summerhill development of 51 units at Evulich Court, also sometimes referred to interchangeably as "Linda Vista".

Residents expect that the City fully evaluates all potential impacts before making any decisions regarding this development. Anything less would fail to meet the City’s obligations to its residents and the principles of responsible planning. 1257
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1257 of 2331
Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to your acknowledgement of this request.

Sincerely,
Ying Sosic
1258
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1258 of 2331
From:

To: City Council; City Clerk; Pamela Wu; Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Emi Sugiyama; City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject: Fwd: Request for a Full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Proposed Summerhill Development at Evulich Court (Linda Vista)
Date: Tuesday, December 31, 2024 5:10:45 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 of Cupertino, Councilmembers, Staff and Planning Commission:

I urge your immediate attention to this matter and request inclusion of the following in written communications for the city council meeting on January 22, 2025:

As a resident of Cupertino, I formally request that the City require a full Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the proposed Summerhill development of 51 units at Evulich Court, sometimes also referred to as "Linda Vista."
A full EIR is the minimum standard necessary to ensure that all potential risks to the neighborhood from this project--including, but not limited to, impact to 60+ year-old infrastructure, traffic, fire safety, drainage--are properly assessed, documented, and addressed.

Without a comprehensive EIR study for a project of this magnitude in a longstanding and sensitive neighborhood, there can not be informed decision-making or accountability to the community and you open the door to future litigation.

Residents expect the City to fully evaluate all potential impacts before making any decisions regarding this development. Anything less would fail to meet the City’s obligations to its residents and the principles of responsible planning.

Please acknowledge receipt of this request.

Sincerely,
Seth Cohen
1259
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1259 of 2331
1260
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1260 of 2331
From:

To: Kitty Moore; R "Ray" Wang; J.R. Fruen; Liang Chao; Sheila Mohan Cc: City of Cupertino Planning Commission; Luke Connolly; Emi Sugiyama Subject: No to Vista Heights at Linda Vista
Date: Tuesday, December 16, 2025 12:25:31 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:

As the council meets today on the Vista Heights (Linda Vista Dr) Builders Remedy project, I am writing to encourage councilmembers to stand up for what is right for the residents. Over 700 nearby residents and growing have voiced opposition to this project.

It is imperative that the City lead from the front, not concede. The Builder’s Remedy was never intended to force high density hillside development in areas with severe fire risk, a designation which by the way, was updated in severity after the initial Vista Heights proposal.

Standing firm here matters not just for this project, but for every future proposal that tests the limits of what should be built and where.

Thank you for your time and for considering the voices of the community.

Respectfully,
David Yan
Cupertino Resident
1261
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1261 of 2331
From:

To: Piu Ghosh (she/her)
Cc: Emi Sugiyama; Luke Connolly; Kathie Tompkins
Subject: Re: Development on Lindy Lane
Date: Thursday, August 22, 2024 7:55:54 AM
Attachments: image017.png
image018.png
image019.png
image020.png
image021.png
image022.png
image023.png
image024.png
image025.png
image026.png
image027.png
image028.png
image029.png
image030.png
image031.png
image032.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.

Piu,
Somewhere in the many email I have sent it states that the city needed to create something like 4500 new homes (Can’t find the exact number), My basic question is how close to the number are we based on every currently approved project (Vallco, property on the corner of Foothill and Stevens Creek Blvd, etc.)? Somewhere you guys must have a rolling total? Also, what is the current zoning (R1 or R3, etc.) for the piece of property that sits at the junction of Regnant Canyon Road and Lindy lane. I can look up the number if you are not sure where I am talking about.

Thanks
John Tompkins
On Aug 21, 2024, at 3:05 PM, Piu Ghosh (she/her) wrote:

Dear Mr. Tompkins
In May 2024, the City Council allowed an increase in the residential density of the property to allow townhomes as part of the Housing Element. In July 2024, the City Council followed up with rezoning action to establish standards (setbacks and other development standards) to allow townhomes on the site. These actions were taken to implement the City’s Housing Element.

Per state law, every jurisdiction in California is required to have a Housing Element as part of its General Plan. State law also requires that cities update the Housing Element every 8 years. Cupertino completed this project in July 2024. The Housing Element update must be reviewed and certified as meeting the requirements of state law by the CA State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

The property owner is working with an applicant to develop the property with townhomes, as allowed on this property with the recently adopted 2023-2031 Housing Element. There are several reports that must be prepared and submitted to the City as a part of the application, including a geotechnical report. The fault testing that they are conducting currently is a part of that process.

It is my understanding that you have received confirmation from Monica Diaz, with the Code Enforcement Division, that the trenching has been coordinated with the Public Works Department and no permits are needed to perform the activity that they are undertaking currently.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions. For your information, Emi Sugiyama (copied on this email), is the project planner for any project proposed on this site. You may also contact her if you have any questions.

Regards
Piu
Piu Ghosh
Planning Manager
Community Development
[email protected]
(408) 777-3277
Piu Ghosh (she/her)
Planning Manager
Community Development
[email protected]
(408) 777-3277
From: John Tompkins
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2024 8:50 PM
To: Piu Ghosh (she/her) <[email protected]>
Cc: Emi Sugiyama <[email protected]>; Luke Connolly <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Development on Lindy Lane
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.

Piu,
Please find attached a letter that was posted on “Next Door” from Summerhill homes about a potential 50-60 townhome development at 10857 Linda Vista Drive. Turns out that many neighbors went to the proposed meeting only to find a note that said the meeting was canceled. I am just trying to find out what is really going on with this property. Today someone had a tractor and were digging some type of Ditch that the Code enforcement people said was a fault line test. I have lived in the neighborhood for about 45 years and never heard of anyone doing test like this. Perhaps the developer is concerned about fault lines and the 30 foot height restriction. No one from the city seems to know about the project. Just keeping you informed.

John Tompkins
On Aug 19, 2024, at 6:31 PM, Piu Ghosh (she/her) <[email protected]> wrote:

Good evening, John
We are not aware of any plans regarding the construction schedule for the proposed project.Until such time that permits are issued for demolition and construction, no activity is anticipated on the project.

Please sign up for updates on “Development projects” at e-notifications on the top right at Cupertino.org Regards
Piu
Piu Ghosh (she/her)
Planning Manager
Community Development
[email protected]
(408) 777-3277
1262
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1262 of 2331
> On Aug 19, 2024, at 11:41 AM, John Tompkins < wrote:
>
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. >
>
> Hello,
>
> It is my understanding that the owner of the 4 properties on Linda Vista drive has notified the tenants on the property that they need to vacate because construction was going to begin sometime in December. I have noticed that construction equipment has been offloaded on the property as of today. Has the project been approved? I know of no public forums discussing the project. What is going on?
>
> Regards,
>
> John Tompkins
> 11289 Terra Bella drive
> Cupertino, CA 95014
1263
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1263 of 2331
From: Emi Sugiyama
To:

Cc:

Subject: RE: Evulich Ct. development application completeness Date: Friday, January 24, 2025 2:54:00 PM
Hello Ying,
Our review was completed and you can now view the review comments on the website. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Emi Sugiyama
Associate Planner
Community Development
[email protected]
(408)777-3205
From: Ying Dillaha
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2025 11:07 AM
To: Emi Sugiyama
Cc: David Yan ;
Subject: Evulich Ct. development application completeness 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.

Eme,
I have a quick question regarding the Evulich Ct. application submitted by SummerHill Homes (SHH) to Cupertino.

Since the application was submitted on December 18, more than 30 days have passed. By now, the City should have notified SHH about the completeness of the application. However, I checked the City’s website and couldn’t find any updates.

Could you confirm if this notification has been sent, and if so, what the City’s message to SHH was? Thank you!
Ying Sosic
1264
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1264 of 2331
1265
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1265 of 2331
Hazard Severity Zone. Tighter spacing and taller buildings could worsen fire spread and evacuation challenges.

Location and Transit: Unlike sites along Stevens Creek or near transit corridors, Evulich Court is a cul-de-sac in a car-dependent neighborhood.

The neighborhood has reduced outlets since it backs into open spaces, does not have access roads on all sides and has limited nearby services.

Access and Infrastructure: All traffic, emergency access, and evacuation would funnel through one short, narrow street.

These factors were not fully known or considered when the Housing Element rezoned the site.

Key Questions for the City

1. Has the city documented the specific adverse impacts of construction in a very high severity fire zone which does not honor setbacks and height limits?

2. Public Safety Exception: State law allows denial only for “specific, adverse impacts” to health or safety. How is this defined in practice, and can wildfire associated with a very high fire risk area and evacuation risks with a neighborhood backing into wilderness and hence with reduced outlets qualify?

3. Safety Standards: Will Fire Department and Public Works staff formally evaluate whether reduced setbacks or extra height compromise fire code, road access, or evacuation?

4. Public Input: Since waivers are considered ministerial entitlements, what opportunities remain for residents to contribute local knowledge on safety and traffic?

5. City Discretion vs. State Mandate: What is the scope of the city's discretionary powers when it comes to reviewing these requests? Closing
I support Cupertino’s housing goals. My concern is ensuring that state housing 1266
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1266 of 2331
mandates do not override basic safety and infrastructure standards, especially at a site with limited access and high wildfire risk. Clear answers on the City’s authority and review process will help residents engage constructively.

Thank you for your time and service.

Sincerely,
Vikram Saxena
1267
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1267 of 2331
From: TSY Chuang
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2025 9:26 AM
To: Kitty Moore <[email protected]>; Liang Chao <[email protected]>; Sheila Mohan <[email protected]>; J.R. Fruen <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; R "Ray" Wang <[email protected]> Subject: Request for Clarification on Density Bonus Waivers – Evulich Court Development CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City of Cupertino Planning Staff and City Council Members, 1268
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1268 of 2331
I am a Cupertino resident writing about the proposed housing development at 10857- 10887 Linda Vista Drive (Evulich Court). The developer, SummerHill Homes, is requesting density bonus waivers under California’s Density Bonus Law (Government Code § 65915) to exceed R3/TH zoning standards for height, setbacks, floor area ratio (FAR), and outdoor space clearances, allowing 51 townhomes (including 10 belowmarket-rate units) on a 2.55-acre site. My fellow neighbors and I seek clarification on how these waivers will be evaluated, given the site’s unique challenges and recent updates to fire hazard designations that post-date the 2023 rezoning.

Background
The Evulich property was rezoned in 2023 as part of the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element to R3/TH standards, permitting up to approximately 30 dwelling units per acre with a 30-foot height limit and setbacks of 20 feet front/rear and 10 feet side for the first floor. The current proposal invokes the Density Bonus Law for a 20% affordability component, resulting in waivers that allow 3-4 story buildings and reduced setbacks, achieving a density of about 20 units per acre.

Why This Site is Different
• Fire Risk: In early 2025, CAL FIRE’s updated Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps expanded Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ) in Cupertino’s western hills, including areas near Linda Vista Drive bordering open spaces like Deep Cliff Golf Course and Stevens Creek Trail. Tighter spacing, taller buildings, and reduced setbacks could worsen fire spread, ember ignition, and evacuation challenges in this VHFHSZ. The project’s proposed NFPA 13D sprinklers may help, but do they fully mitigate risks without standard setbacks?
• Location and Transit: Unlike sites along Stevens Creek Boulevard or near transit corridors, Evulich Court is a cul-de-sac in a car-dependent hillside neighborhood with limited nearby services and no direct public transit access. • Access and Infrastructure: All traffic, emergency vehicles, and evacuations would funnel through one short, narrow (approximately 20-foot-wide) street, potentially adding hundreds of daily vehicle trips from 51 new units and over 100 parking spaces. The site backs into protected open spaces, reducing outlets and increasing isolation during emergencies.
• Environmental and Community Impacts: The development borders sensitive habitats 1269
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1269 of 2331
and trails; reduced setbacks could increase stormwater runoff into Stevens Creek, impact wildlife corridors, and require significant tree removal. Additionally, taller structures may cause shadowing, privacy loss, and view obstruction for adjacent singlefamily homes. Overcrowding in local schools (Cupertino Unified) and strain on water/utilities in this drought-prone area are also concerns.

These factors were not fully known or considered when the Housing Element designated this as a Priority Housing Site, particularly with the 2025 CAL FIRE updates.

Key Questions for the City
• Has the City documented the specific adverse impacts of construction in a VHFHSZ, including fire spread from reduced setbacks/height limits, and how these align with the public safety exception under Density Bonus Law?
• Public Safety Exception: State law allows denial or modification only for “specific, adverse impacts” to health or safety that cannot be mitigated. How is this defined in practice, and can wildfire risks in a VHFHSZ—combined with evacuation challenges from a single-access cul-de-sac backing into wilderness—qualify? • Safety Standards: Will Fire Department, Public Works, and Environmental Health staff formally evaluate whether waivers compromise fire code compliance, road access, evacuation routes, or CEQA requirements for environmental impacts? Has a traffic impact study been conducted to assess cumulative effects on the neighborhood? • Public Input: Since waivers are considered ministerial entitlements, what opportunities remain for residents to contribute local knowledge on safety, traffic, and environmental concerns? Could the City hold a community meeting or extend the review period, as seen in recent pauses for similar projects post-2025 fire map updates? • City Discretion vs. State Mandate: What is the scope of the City’s discretionary powers in reviewing these requests, including requiring additional mitigations (e.g., enhanced fire-resistant materials or secondary access)? Are there precedents where similar waivers were modified due to fire hazards?
Closing
I support Cupertino’s housing goals and recognize the need for affordable units.

However, my concern is ensuring that state mandates do not override basic safety, 1270
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1270 of 2331
infrastructure, and environmental standards, especially at a site with limited access, high wildfire risk, and proximity to protected open spaces. Clear answers on the City’s authority and review process—ideally in writing or via a public meeting—will help residents engage constructively.

Thank you for your time and service.

Sincerely,
Tania C.

Cupertino Resident
1271
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1271 of 2331
1272
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1272 of 2331
1273
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1273 of 2331
obligations to its residents and the principles of responsible planning.

Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to your acknowledgement of this request.

I am also re-copying below, an email that my husband Jim Lentfer sent earlier (and who has never received a response) regarding concerns about waivers requested by Summerhill for the project. Summerhill Homes has not demonstrated that the project becomes infeasible without them.

Sincerely, Veronica Lentfer
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Jim Lentfer
Date: Fri, Dec 20, 2024 at 10:53 AM
Subject: Fwd: Concern with builder proposed waivers in document “Preliminary Application, 10857 Linda Vista Drive, June 13, 2024”
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Councilmember Chao and Councilmember Moore:

Congratulations on your recent selections by the Council Members as our new Major and Vice-Major.

The following email was sent previously and (according to a neighbor) now that a project has been formally submitted, the comment period is open, and the email below is relevant.

I am also very happy to know that according to the recent Cupertino Courier:
'Chao said. "I will ensure we put residents first" '
It is unfortunate that the City's website, under "Major Projects" does not list Evulich as "Under Review". It is my understanding from a neighbor that Summerhill has provided a formal application and the project is under review. The City's lack of information on the website does not meet the Council's stated goal of public engagement & transparency:

How can Cupertino residents know that the project is in the short window for comments, if the City's website does not offer accurate project information, and thus the opportunity for engagement? Can you please look into the website information? 1274
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1274 of 2331
Can you also review the comments raised in the email below? Thank you,
Jim Lentfer, resident
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Jim Lentfer
Date: Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 10:57 PM
Subject: Fwd: Concern with builder proposed waivers in document “Preliminary Application, 10857 Linda Vista Drive, June 13, 2024”
To: Luke Connolly <[email protected]>, Pamela Wu <[email protected]> Hello Luke. I heard from a neighbor that summer hill has submitted plans. I believe my comments previously sent to you still have valid points. Please consider pushing back on these waivers as summerhill has not demonstrated that the project becomes infeasible without them.

Thank you, Jim Lentfer.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Jim Lentfer
Date: Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 12:10 PM
Subject: Concern with builder proposed waivers in document “Preliminary Application, 10857 Linda Vista Drive, June 13, 2024”
To: Luke Connolly <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Pamela Wu <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Dear City Clerk,
Please include the below as written communications for items not on agenda for the upcoming city council meeting.

Mayor Sheila Mohan
Cupertino City Council Members
City Manager Pamela Wu
City Planners Luke and Piu
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Subject: Document “Preliminary Application, 10857 Linda Vista Drive, June 13, 2024” Dear Mayor, Cupertino City Council Members, and City Manager Wu:

I am writing to express my concern regarding the proposed waivers shown in the 1275
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1275 of 2331
subject preliminary application for the project at Evulich Court. I believe that allowing these waivers will have severe impacts on the existing neighborhood. I do not believe that the builder has provided the necessary evidence that waivers of development standards are required (showing that otherwise the development standards would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of this new development at the densities required).

Please note that all adjoining homes to the Evulich Court properties are a mix of one and two story homes. Specifically, the builder is requesting multiple waivers that would significantly deviate from standard requirements:

1. Height Waiver: The proposal is for buildings up to 39 feet high, which is 9 feet higher than the current 30-foot limit for the R3 zone in the area, and significantly higher than other buildings in the neighborhood. I believe that the height can easily be reduced (without making the project infeasible) with modifications such as:
a. Reduction in story heights from 9 feet to 8 feet (this would have the additional benefit of smaller conditioned space volume leading to long term energy savings and reduction of global warming impact).
b. Utilizing low-slope gable or hip roofs, low-slope parapet roofs, mansard roofs, or dormer-style roofs, or a combination of these roof styles. c. Use of an underground parking structure.

2. Setback Waiver: The plan includes setbacks as small as 11 feet (first floor) and 15 feet (second floor) for Linda Vista Drive “front” street side, compared to the standard 20 feet for first and second floors. The builder could meet the required setback without waivers (without making the project infeasible) with modifications such as:
a. Revise the site plan to accommodate the required setback by pushing the project to the west.
b. Revise the floor plans to accommodate the required setback. c. Use of an underground parking structure.

3. Floor Area Coverage Waiver: The proposed floor area ratio is 127% of the net lot area, far exceeding the standard 70% maximum. The builder should be required to justify the need for this waiver, without which the project would become infeasible.

4. Parking Waiver: The plan proposes 2.6 parking spaces per unit, below the required

2.8 spaces per unit. The builder could meet the required parking requirements without waivers (without making the project infeasible) with modifications such as:
a. Revising the site plan to accommodate the required parking. b. Use of an underground parking structure
These builder proposed waivers would result in a development that is dramatically out of character with the surrounding neighborhood, and could lead to significant negative impacts:

1. The extreme contrast in building height and proximity to property lines will 1276
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1276 of 2331
significantly impact the privacy, sunlight, and overall quality of life for neighboring residents.

2. The reduced parking requirements could lead to increased street parking and traffic congestion in an area not designed for such density.

I believe modifications to the proposed development could provide a solution that addresses both the need for increased housing and the community's desire to preserve the essential character of the neighborhood, all while adhering to established development standards. There might also be long term energy savings and reduction in global warming.

In light of these concerns and the proposed alternative, I ask that the City Council maintain oversight of any waivers considered for the subject development, add agenda item(s) at the earliest possible meeting prior to formal responses to the builder, and to provide ample notice to all affected residents to ensure their participation in this crucial discussion.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your prompt response confirming the scheduling of any agenda items and to participating in a thorough discussion of these critical issues relating to waivers at Evulich Court.

Sincerely,
Jim Lentfer
1277
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1277 of 2331
From:

To: City Council; City Clerk; Pamela Wu; Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Emi Sugiyama; City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject: Re: Requesting full EIR review of the proposed Summerhill project (Evulich Court) Date: Tuesday, December 31, 2024 7:37:11 PM
Attachments: Request for EIR - Email.docx
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.

On Tue, Dec 31, 2024 at 6:38 PM Srinivas Raghvendra wrote:

Dear Council members and staff,
This is a formal request for a full EIR review for the Summerhill/Evulich Court project as fully detailed in the attached document.

Your neighbor,
Srinivas Raghvendra
Cupertino, CA 95014
1278
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1278 of 2331
1279
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1279 of 2331
1280
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1280 of 2331

1. I understand that the property has been rezoned from R1-7.5 to R3/TH. How did this happen without public notice and the opportunity for public comment? I don’t remember receiving any communication from the City of Cupertino about this rezoning.

How can this be possible for such a significant change to our neighborhood without public comment from those of us who live adjacent to and nearby this property? Rezoning a piece of property in a residential R1 neighborhood is a BIG deal, and it’s a CRITICAL step for certain developers such as SummerHill Homes to proceed with their plan. We were left out of the decision to rezone the Evulich property. Why?

2. All of us who live in this neighborhood received a letter from SummerHill Homes dated July 23, 2024 inviting us to an “open house format” meeting on August 6, 2024 to learn about their proposal for a new residential community on this property.

A few days before the scheduled meeting, some of us received a phone call that the meeting was cancelled and will be rescheduled
(reason: original venue was too small). Since then, we have heard NOTHING from SummerHill (Steven Bull, Vice President of Development signed the letter). When and where is the meeting?

3. Several of us who live nearby have seen some activity on the property last week. This prompted Alice Lin to inquire as to what our City has formally done that permits SH to begin preliminary site evaluation/preparation WITHOUT our opportunity to influence the development of the property. Now we know that the property was “quietly” rezoned allowing SH to forge ahead with their plan.

I read Jelani Mora’s reply to Alice that "there will likely be a public hearing”, but no commitment and place/time for one. Why not?

4. Regarding the rezoning from R1-7.5 to R3/TH, the 2.5 acre lot would potentially contain 70-80 town house units. Unbelievable in my opinion. Note: SH’s letter proposes building approximately 50-60 townhome-style condominiums - totally out of place in this neighborhood.

I would think that there are developers of single family homes just chopping at the bit to develop the Evulich property that has been vacant for as long as I’ve lived here. Has a developer inquired of the City for such a single family residence project now that the owners of the property are willing to sell it after all these years?

5. All this not to mention the additional vehicle traffic on our neighborhood streets and overnight parking spill-over onto Linda Vista Drive. Perhaps we’d learn a bit more from SH on these traffic issues if they had the “open house” meeting that they promised in their letter and the City had a public hearing. Traffic in the morning on Linda Vista Drive is horrendous already, let alone adding a whole lot more cars to the backup, and not to mention the general increase in traffic throughout the day and night. Also negatively impacted would be pedestrian and bicycle traffic as regards their safe use of our streets and crosswalks adjacent to the Evulich property. Has this traffic issue been discussed/resolved by the City Planning Department?

6. In my opinion, large developments such as what SH proposes should be located adjacent to major roadway thoroughfares and public transit, not in single family housing neighborhoods.

The Westport development is a prime example of good planning that meets these two transportation criteria - not the Evulich property.
1281
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1281 of 2331
My recommendation is that the Evulich property zoning should be reverted back to R1-7.5 so that the property can be developed with single family homes, and SH should be told to look for other more appropriate sites in Cupertino and elsewhere to build their townhome-style condominiums.

Sincerely,
— Frank and Bev Swanson
Cupertino, CA
1282
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1282 of 2331
From:

Subject: Request for a Full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Proposed Summerhill Development at Evulich Court (Linda Vista)
Date: Sunday, January 19, 2025 5:28:25 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 of Cupertino:
*Please include in written communications for the next city council meeting on January 22, 2025, however your immediate attention is called to this matter* ås a resident of Cupertino, I would like to formally request that the City require a full Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the proposed Summerhill development of 51 units at Evulich Court, also known as the "Linda Vista".

This project poses significant potential risks to the neighborhood, including 60+ year old infrastructure, as well as traffic, fire safety, drainage, and other critical concerns. A full EIR is the minimum standard necessary to ensure these risks are properly assessed, documented, and addressed. Without a comprehensive study, the full extent of the impact cannot be understood, let alone mitigated.

Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to your acknowledgement of this request.

Sincerely,--
Helena Cohen
1283
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1283 of 2331
From:

To: City Council; City Clerk; Pamela Wu; Pamela Wu; Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Emi Sugiyama; City of Cupertino Planning Commission; Liang Chao; Kitty Moore; R "Ray" Wang; Sheila Mohan; J.R. Fruen Subject: Request for a Full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Proposed Summerhill Development at Evulich Court (Linda Vista)
Date: Thursday, January 16, 2025 6:30:57 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 of Cupertino, Councilmembers, City Manager, Planning Staff and Planning Commission:

Please include in written communications for the next city council meeting. However, your attention is called to this urgent matter ahead of the meeting.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
David
1284
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1284 of 2331
From:

To: City Council; City Clerk; Pamela Wu; Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Emi Sugiyama; City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject: Request for a Full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Proposed Summerhill Development at Evulich Court (Linda Vista)
Date: Monday, January 13, 2025 10:27:03 AM
Attachments: Request for EIR (Evulich Court)- Email.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.

Please see attached.

Thank you.

Stephen and Anne Yang
1285
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1285 of 2331
From:

To: Kitty Moore; Liang Chao; R "Ray" Wang; Sheila Mohan; [email protected]; Pamela Wu; Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Emi Sugiyama; City of Cupertino Planning Commission Subject: Request for a Full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Proposed Summerhill Development at Evulich Court (Linda Vista)
Date: Sunday, January 5, 2025 6:04:29 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 of Cupertino, Councilmembers, Staff and Planning Commission:

Please include in written communications for the next city council meeting on January 22, 2025. However, I urge your immediate attention to this matter.

I am writing as a resident of Cupertino to formally request that the City require a full Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the proposed Summerhill development of 51 units at EvulichCourt, also sometimes referred to interchangeably as "Linda Vista".

Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to your acknowledgement of this request.

Sincerely,
Selvi Sathya
Cupertino, CA 95014
1286
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1286 of 2331
From:

To: Kitty Moore; Liang Chao; Sheila Mohan; [email protected]; R "Ray" Wang; Pamela Wu; Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Emi Sugiyama; City of Cupertino Planning Commission Subject: Request for a Full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Proposed Summerhill Development at Evulich Court (Linda Vista)
Date: Sunday, January 5, 2025 5:57:30 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.

Dear City of Cupertino, Councilmembers, Staff and Planning Commission:

Please include in written communications for the next city council meeting on January 22, 2025. However, I urge your immediate attention to this matter.

I am writing as a resident of Cupertino to formally request that the City require a full Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the proposed Summerhill development of 51 units at EvulichCourt, also sometimes referred to interchangeably as "Linda Vista".

Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to your acknowledgement of this request.

Sincerely,
Saba Sathya
Cupertino, CA 95014
1287
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1287 of 2331
From:

To: Liang Chao; Sheila Mohan; R "Ray" Wang; Pamela Wu; Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Emi Sugiyama; City of Cupertino Planning Commission; [email protected]; Kitty Moore Subject: Request for a Full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Proposed Summerhill Development at Linda Vista Dr
Date: Saturday, January 4, 2025 8:57:14 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 of Cupertino, Councilmembers, Planning Staff and Planning Commission:

Please include in written communications for the next city council meeting. However, your immediate attention is called to this matter.

Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to your acknowledgement of this request.

Sincerely,
Santa Teresa Cupertino Resident
1288
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1288 of 2331
From:

To: Liang Chao; Kitty Moore; Sheila Mohan; J.R. Fruen; R "Ray" Wang; Pamela Wu; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Emi Sugiyama; City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject: Request for a Full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Proposed Summerhill Development at Linda Vista Dr
Date: Friday, January 3, 2025 11:41:32 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City of Cupertino, Councilmembers, City Manager, Planning Staff and Planning Commission:

Your immediate attention is called to this matter. Separately, please also include in written communications for the next city council meeting.

Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to your acknowledgement of this request.

Sincerely,
Nicholas
1289
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1289 of 2331
From:

To: Liang Chao; Sheila Mohan; R "Ray" Wang; Pamela Wu; Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Emi Sugiyama; City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc:

Subject: Request for a Full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Proposed Summerhill Development at Linda Vista Dr
Date: Friday, January 3, 2025 10:37:19 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 of Cupertino, Councilmembers, Planning Staff and Planning Commission:

Please include in written communications for the next city council meeting. However, your immediate attention is called to this matter.

Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to your acknowledgement of this request.

Sincerely,
Yiming chung
1290
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1290 of 2331
From:

To: Liang Chao; Sheila Mohan; R "Ray" Wang; Pamela Wu; Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Emi Sugiyama; City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject: Request for a Full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Proposed Summerhill Development at Linda Vista Dr
Date: Friday, January 3, 2025 9:44:06 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City of Cupertino, Councilmembers, Planning Staff and Planning Commission:

Please include in written communications for the next city council meeting. However, your immediate attention is called to this matter.

Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to your acknowledgement of this request.

Sincerely,
Yinghua
1291
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1291 of 2331
From:

To: City Council; City Clerk; Pamela Wu; Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Emi Sugiyama; City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject: Request for a Full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Proposed Summerhill Development at Evulich Court (Linda Vista)
Date: Wednesday, January 1, 2025 12:10:46 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City of Cupertino, Councilmembers, Staff and Planning Commission:

Please include in written communications for the next city council meeting on January 22, 2025. However, I urge your immediate attention to this matter.

I am writing as a resident of Cupertino to formally request that the City require a full Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the proposed Summerhill development of 51 units at EvulichCourt, also sometimes referred to interchangeably as "Linda Vista".

Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to your acknowledgement of this request.

Sincerely,
Mir B Ghaderi
Cupertino, CA 95014
1292
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1292 of 2331
From:

To: City Council; City Clerk; Pamela Wu; Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Emi Sugiyama; City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject: Request for a Full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Proposed Summerhill Development at Evulich Court (Linda Vista)
Date: Tuesday, December 31, 2024 12:58:15 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 of Cupertino, Councilmembers, Staff and Planning Commission:

Please include in written communications for the next city council meeting on January 22, 2025. However, I urge your immediate attention to this matter.

I am writing as a resident of Cupertino to formally request that the City require a full Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the proposed Summerhill development of 51 units at Evulich Court, also sometimes referred to interchangeably as "Linda Vista".

Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to your acknowledgement of this request.

Sincerely,
Mehrnaz Yazdi
1293
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1293 of 2331
From:

To: City Council; City Council; City Clerk; City of Cupertino Planning Commission; Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Emi Sugiyama
Subject: Request for a Full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Proposed Summerhill Development at Evulich Court (Linda Vista
Date: Tuesday, December 31, 2024 11:44:14 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 of Cupertino, Councilmembers, Staff and Planning Commission:

Please include in written communications for the next city council meeting on January 22, 2025. However, I urge your immediate attention to this matter.

I am writing as a resident of Cupertino to formally request that the City require a full Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the proposed Summerhill development of 51 units at Evulich Court, also sometimes referred to interchangeably as "Linda Vista".

Without a comprehensive study, the full extent of the impact cannot be understood, let alone mitigated.

Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to your acknowledgement of this request.

Sincerely,
- Ahmad R. Yazdi
1294
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1294 of 2331
Cupertino CA 95014
1295
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1295 of 2331
From:

To: City Council; City Clerk; Pamela Wu; Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Emi Sugiyama; City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject: Request for a Full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Proposed Summerhill Development at Evulich Court (Linda Vista)
Date: Tuesday, December 31, 2024 10:48:44 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 of Cupertino, Councilmembers, Staff and Planning Commission:

Please include in written communications for the next city council meeting on January 22, 2025. However, I urge your immediate attention to this matter.

I am writing as a resident of Cupertino to formally request that the City require a full Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the proposed Summerhill development of 51 units at Evulich Court, also sometimes referred to interchangeably as "Linda Vista".

Residents expect that the City fully evaluates all potential impacts before making any decisions regarding this development. Anything less would fail to meet the City's obligations to its residents and the principles of responsible planning.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your acknowledgement of this request.

Sincerely,
Sandeep Chopra
Cupertino, CA 95014
1296
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1296 of 2331
From:

To: City Council; City Clerk; Luke Connolly; Pamela Wu; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Emi Sugiyama; City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject: Request for a Full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Summerhill Development at Evulich Ct. (lLinda Vista)
Date: Wednesday, January 22, 2025 10:12:20 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 of Cupertino:

I am writing as a resident of Cupertino to formally request that the City require a full Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the proposed Summerhill development of 51 units at Evulich Ct. also referred to interchangeably as "Linda Vista".

This project poses significant potential risks to the neighborhood, including impact to a 60+ year old infrastructure, traffic, fire safety, drainage and other critical concerns. A full EIR is the minimum standard necessary to ensure these risks are properly assessed, documented, and addressed. Without a comprehensive study, the full extent of the impact cannot be understood, let alone mitigated.

We also urge the City to categorically avoid issuing a waiver and adopting a negative declaration in lieu of a proper EIR. Both approaches would fail to provide the necessary scrutiny for a project of this magnitude in a longstanding neighborhood. Without an EIR, there is no basis for decision making or accountability to the community.

Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to your acknowledgement of this request. Please include this in the written communication for the next City Council Meeting January 22,2025.

Sincerely,
Craig and Joan Cummings
1297
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1297 of 2331
From:

To: City Council; City Clerk; Pamela Wu; Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Emi Sugiyama; City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject: Request for Comprehensive EIR and Immediate Action on Fire Risks for Evulich Ct Date: Tuesday, March 4, 2025 1:24:27 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council Members and Planning Commission:

Please include in written communications for today's city council meeting on March 4, 2025.

We previously requested a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Evulich Ct project, a development of 51 dense units in a small single family home neighborhood due to significant concerns about fire, traffic, safety, and infrastructure.

The State Fire Marshal’s recent (Feb 2025) designation of the area surrounding Evulich Ct, particularly around Linda Vista Dr, as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone validates our point of view and makes performing proper due diligence and mitigation instead of performative action and strict adherence to housing element goals even more imperative. It is important to emphasize that this “Very High Risk” fire designation does not apply to the majority of Cupertino, which makes the risks for this neighborhood especially alarming. The City must ensure that developments in such very high risk zones are met with equally high standards of safety and due diligence.

While we recognize the City's obligations to comply with state housing laws, including SB 330 and housing element requirements, compliance alone cannot justify moving forward with the Evulich Ct project without a comprehensive EIR and fire safety review. The heightened fire risks and other safety concerns specific to this site demand a far more rigorous review. Simply meeting baseline requirements without thoroughly addressing these unique dangers would fail to protect current residents. The City must prioritize public safety and financial security for existing homeowners. Moving forward responsibly means pausing approvals until all risks are transparently and comprehensively assessed.

The proposed density of 51 units would significantly increase traffic on narrow roads such as McClellan, Bubb, and Hyannisport, Columbus, Santa Teresa, Wilkinson, Terrace and beyond, which are already strained by existing traffic. This is particularly concerning given the proximity of three schools in the area, which exacerbates traffic challenges and complicates emergency evacuations. The increased density would not only heighten the risk of traffic bottlenecks during an emergency but also severely impact emergency response times. In a 1298
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1298 of 2331
very high fire risk zone, where every second counts, overlooking these factors would be a serious mistake. A comprehensive EIR is essential to fully assess these risks and ensure that the project does not compromise the safety of residents. Given the State Fire Marshal's designation we also urge the City not to grant density bonus waivers for height and setbacks at Evulich Ct. Allowing these waivers would increase fire risks and complicate emergency access and evacuation. Prioritizing fire safety in very high-risk zones is essential.

There are also significant financial risks that must be considered. The recent fire hazard designation raises serious concerns about home insurance availability and cost. Insurers are increasingly withdrawing from high-risk areas or dramatically raising premiums, which could leave many residents either uninsured or facing skyrocketing costs. This is not a hypothetical risk but a very real and pressing concern for homeowners in this area. The EIR must thoroughly assess these risks to prevent residents from being left in a financially untenable position, potentially making their homes unsellable. These risks make the Evulich Ct project fundamentally incompatible with the safety and financial security of current residents. Moving forward with this project would expose residents to severe financial burdens that cannot be adequately mitigated, further underscoring the need to halt approvals until a comprehensive EIR fully addresses these threats.

Given these significant risks and unresolved issues, we urge the City Council to suspend further approvals for the Evulich Ct project until a full EIR is completed and all fire risk assessments are thoroughly addressed. It is also crucial to reassess the feasibility of accommodating 51 units on the site, considering the heightened fire hazard, evacuation challenges, and infrastructure limitations.

Approving this project without addressing these risks would not only endanger residents but could also lead to severe financial consequences for our community. The safety and well-being of Cupertino residents must come first. We look forward to your response and to seeing decisive actions that prioritize our community's safety. 1299
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1299 of 2331
From:

To: Kitty Moore; Liang Chao; R "Ray" Wang; J.R. Fruen; Sheila Mohan; City of Cupertino Planning Commission; Emi Sugiyama; Pamela Wu; Piu Ghosh (she/her)
Subject: Request for Comprehensive EIR and Immediate Action on Fire Risks for Evulich Ct Date: Tuesday, March 4, 2025 2:08:42 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council Members, City Manager and Planning Commission:

Please include in written communications for today's city council meeting on March 4, 2025.

The proposed density of 51 units would significantly increase traffic on narrow roads such as McClellan, Bubb, and Hyannisport, Columbus, Santa Teresa, Wilkinson, Terrace and beyond, which are already strained by existing traffic. This is particularly concerning given the proximity of three schools in the area, which exacerbates traffic challenges and complicates emergency evacuations. The increased density would not only heighten the risk of traffic bottlenecks during an emergency but also severely impact emergency response times. In a 1300
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1300 of 2331
very high fire risk zone, where every second counts, overlooking these factors would be a serious mistake. A comprehensive EIR is essential to fully assess these risks and ensure that the project does not compromise the safety of residents. Given the State Fire Marshal's designation we also urge the City not to grant density bonus waivers for height and setbacks at Evulich Ct. Allowing these waivers would increase fire risks and complicate emergency access and evacuation. Prioritizing fire safety in very high-risk zones is essential.

Thanks for your consideration
1301
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1301 of 2331
From:

To: City Council; City Clerk; Pamela Wu; Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Emi Sugiyama; City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject: Requesting full EIR review of the proposed Summerhill project (Evulich Court) Date: Wednesday, January 1, 2025 10:36:06 AM
Attachments: Request for EIR - Email.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.

Dear Council members and staff,
This is a formal request for a full EIR review for the Summerhill/Evulich Court project as fully detailed in the attached document.

Your neighbor,
-Vidya Raghvendra
1302
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1302 of 2331
From:

To: City Council; City Clerk; Pamela Wu; Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Emi Sugiyama; City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject: Requesting full EIR review of the proposed Summerhill project (Evulich Court) Date: Wednesday, January 1, 2025 11:11:51 AM
Attachments: EIR request.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 Council members and staff,
This is a formal request for a full EIR review for the Summerhill/Evulich Court project as fully detailed in the attached document.

Your neighbor,
-Shubha Raghvendra
1303
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1303 of 2331
From:

To: City Council; City Clerk; Pamela Wu; Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Emi Sugiyama; City of Cupertino Planning Commission; Liang Chao
Cc:

Subject: Subject: Urgent Request for Comprehensive EIR and Immediate Action on Fire Risks for Evulich Ct Date: Tuesday, March 4, 2025 12:24:53 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 Liang Chao, City Council Members and Planning Commission:

Please include in written communications for the next city council meeting on March 4, 2025.

We previously requested a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Evulich Ct project, a
development of 51 dense units in a small single family home neighborhood due to significant concerns about fire, traffic, safety, and infrastructure.

Here is a Mercury News article about this:
https://www.mercurynews.com/2025/02/24/new-bay-area-fire-hazard-maps-is-your-cityamong-those-seeing-striking-increases/ It is important to emphasize that this “Very High Risk” fire designation does not apply to the majority of Cupertino,
which makes the risks for this neighborhood especially alarming. The City must ensure that developments in such very high risk zones are met with equally high standards of safety and due diligence. While we recognize the City's obligations to comply with state housing laws, including SB 330
and housing element requirements, compliance alone cannot justify moving forward with the Evulich Ct project without a comprehensive EIR and fire safety review. The heightened fire risks
and other safety concerns specific to this site demand a far more rigorous review. Simply meeting baseline requirements without thoroughly addressing these unique dangers would fail to protect current residents. The City must prioritize public safety and financial security for
existing homeowners. Moving forward responsibly means pausing approvals until all risks are
transparently and comprehensively assessed.

The proposed density of 51 units would significantly increase traffic on narrow roads such as McClellan, Bubb, and Hyannisport, Columbus, Santa Teresa, Wilkinson, Terrace and beyond, which are already strained by existing traffic. This is particularly concerning given the proximity
of three schools in the area, which exacerbates traffic challenges and complicates emergency evacuations. The increased density would not only heighten the risk of traffic bottlenecks during
an emergency but also severely impact emergency response times. In a very high fire risk zone,
where every second counts, overlooking these factors would be a serious mistake. A comprehensive EIR is essential to fully assess these risks and ensure that the project does not compromise the safety of residents. Given the State Fire Marshal's designation, we also urge the
City not to grant density bonus waivers for height and setbacks at Evulich Ct. Allowing these waivers would increase fire risks and complicate emergency access and evacuation.

Prioritizing
fire safety in very high-risk zones is essential.

There are also significant financial risks that must be considered. The recent fire hazard designation raises serious concerns about home insurance availability and cost. Insurers are increasingly withdrawing from high-risk areas or dramatically raising premiums, which could leave many residents either uninsured or facing skyrocketing costs. This is not a hypothetical risk but a very real and pressing concern for homeowners in this area. The EIR must thoroughly
assess these risks to prevent residents from being left in a financially untenable position, potentially making their homes unsellable. These risks make the Evulich Ct project fundamentally incompatible with the safety and financial security of current residents. Moving forward with this project would expose residents to severe financial burdens that cannot be adequately mitigated, further underscoring the need to halt approvals until a comprehensive EIR
fully addresses these threats. Given these significant risks and unresolved issues, we urge the City Council to suspend
further approvals for the Evulich Ct project until a full EIR is completed and all fire risk assessments are
thoroughly addressed. It is also crucial to reassess the feasibility of accommodating 51 units on
the site, considering the heightened fire hazard, evacuation challenges, and infrastructure limitations.

Approving this project without addressing these risks would not only endanger residents but could also lead to severe financial consequences for our community. The safety and wellbeing of Cupertino residents must come first. We look forward to your response and to seeing decisive
actions that prioritize our community's safety.

Sincerely,
1305
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1305 of 2331
Veronica Lentfer, Cupertino resident
1306
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1306 of 2331
From:

To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission; Emi Sugiyama Subject: Support - Linda Vista Project
Date: Monday, February 9, 2026 4:29:16 PM
Attachments: Outlook-Logo Desc.png
Outlook-Text Desc.png
Outlook-Logo, icon.png
Outlook-Icon Desc.png
Outlook-Icon Desc.png
Cupertino - 10857 Linda Vista.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City of Cupertino Planning Commission,
Please see the attached support letter for the SummerHill Homes Linda Vista Project from the Bay Area Council. If you should have any questions about our letter, please don't hesitate to let me know.

Best,
Louis
Louis Mirante
Senior Vice President of Public Policy, Housing
www.bayareacouncil.org
1307
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1307 of 2331
From:

To: City Council; City Clerk; Pamela Wu; Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Emi Sugiyama; City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject: Urgent Request for Comprehensive EIR and Immediate Action on Fire Risks for Evulich Ct Date: Tuesday, March 4, 2025 3:00:28 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 Council Members and Planning Commission:

Please include in written communications for the next city council meeting on March 4, 2025.

Additionally, the Evulich Ct site has already been the subject of inadequate notifications. This remains a liveissue that over 700 nearby residents 1308
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1308 of 2331
are well aware of and remain deeply concerned about. In fact, a working session by the Council on March 3, 2025 addressed on its agenda this very issue of inadequate notifications to nearby residents. It is imperative that the city council does not compound the problem by missing this urgent opportunity to understand and mitigate fire risk to our community.

The proposed density of 51 units would significantly increase traffic on narrow roads such as McClellan, Bubb, and Hyannisport, Columbus, Santa Teresa, Wilkinson, Terrace and beyond, which are already strained by existing traffic. This is particularly concerning given the proximity of three schools in the area, which exacerbates traffic challenges and complicates emergency evacuations. The increased density would not only heighten the risk of traffic bottlenecks during an emergency but also severely impact emergency response times. In a very high fire risk zone, where every second counts, overlooking these factors would be a serious mistake. A comprehensive EIR is essential to fully assess these risks and ensure that the project does not compromise the safety of residents. Given the State Fire Marshal's designation we also urge the City not to grant density bonus waivers for height and setbacks at EvulichCt. Allowing these waivers would increase fire risks and complicate emergency access and evacuation.

Prioritizing fire safety in very high-risk zones is essential.

Moving forward with this project would expose residents to severe financial burdens that cannot be adequately mitigated, further underscoring the need to halt approvals until a comprehensive EIR fully addresses these threats.

Approving this project without addressing these risks would not only 1309
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1309 of 2331
endanger residents but could also lead to severe financial consequences for our community. The safety and well-being of Cupertino residents must come first. We look forward to your response and to seeing decisive actions that prioritize our community's safety.

Sincerely,
Ying Sosic
Cupertino resident
1310
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1310 of 2331
From:

Subject: Urgent Request for Comprehensive EIR and Immediate Action on Fire Risks for Evulich Ct Date: Tuesday, March 4, 2025 1:11:15 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council Members and Planning Commission:

Please include in written communications for the next city council meeting on March 4, 2025.

We previously requested a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Evulich Ct. project, a
development of 51 dense units in a small single family home neighborhood due to significant concerns about fire, traffic, safety, and infrastructure.

The State Fire Marshal’s recent (Feb 2025) designation of the area surrounding Evulich Ct., particularly around Linda Vista Dr, as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone validates our point
of view and makes performing proper due diligence and mitigation, instead of performative action and strict adherence to housing element goals even more imperative. It is important to emphasize that this “Very High Risk” fire designation does not apply to the majority of Cupertino,
which makes the risks for this neighborhood especially alarming. The City must ensure that developments in such very high risk zones are met with equally high standards of safety and due diligence.

While we recognize the City's obligations to comply with state housing laws, including SB 330
and housing element requirements, compliance alone cannot justify moving forward with the Evulich Ct. project without a comprehensive EIR and fire safety review. The heightened fire risks
and other safety concerns specific to this site demand a far more rigorous review. Simply meeting baseline requirements without thoroughly addressing these unique dangers would fail to protect current residents. The City must prioritize public safety and financial security for existing homeowners. Moving forward responsibly means pausing approvals until all risks are transparently and comprehensively assessed.

It is imperative that the city council does not compound the problem by missing this urgent opportunity to understand
and mitigate fire risk to our community.
1311
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1311 of 2331
The proposed density of 51 units would significantly increase traffic on narrow roads such as McClellan, Bubb, and Hyannisport, Columbus, Santa Teresa, Wilkinson, Terrace and beyond, which are already strained by existing traffic. This is particularly concerning given the proximity
of three schools in the area, which exacerbates traffic challenges and complicates emergency evacuations. The increased density would not only heighten the risk of traffic bottlenecks during
an emergency but also severely impact emergency response times. In a very high fire risk zone,
where every second counts, overlooking these factors would be a serious mistake. A comprehensive EIR is essential to fully assess these risks and ensure that the project does not compromise the safety of residents. Given the State Fire Marshal's designation we also urge the
City not to grant density bonus waivers for height and setbacks at Evulich Ct. Allowing these waivers would increase fire risks and complicate emergency access and evacuation.

Prioritizing
fire safety in very high-risk zones is essential.

There are also significant financial risks that must be considered. The recent fire hazard designation raises serious concerns about home insurance availability and cost. Insurers are increasingly withdrawing from high-risk areas or dramatically raising premiums, which could leave many residents either uninsured or facing skyrocketing costs. This is not a hypothetical risk but a very real and pressing concern for homeowners in this area. The EIR must thoroughly
assess these risks to prevent residents from being left in a financially untenable position, potentially making their homes unsellable. These risks make the Evulich Ct project fundamentally incompatible with the safety and financial security of current residents. Moving forward with this project would expose residents to severe financial burdens that cannot be adequately mitigated, further underscoring the need to halt approvals until a comprehensive EIR
fully addresses these threats.

Given these significant risks and unresolved issues, we urge the City Council to suspend further
approvals for the Evulich Ct project until a full EIR is completed and all fire risk assessments are
thoroughly addressed. It is also crucial to reassess the feasibility of accommodating 51 units on
the site, considering the heightened fire hazard, evacuation challenges, and infrastructure
limitations.

Approving this project without addressing these risks would not only endanger residents but could also lead to severe financial consequences for our community. The safety and wellbeing of Cupertino residents must come first. We look forward to your response and to seeing decisive
actions that prioritize our community's safety.
1312
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1312 of 2331
Sincerely,
Helena Cohen
1313
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1313 of 2331
From:

To: City Council; City Clerk; Pamela Wu; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Emi Sugiyama; City of Cupertino Planning Commission Subject: Urgent Request for Comprehensive EIR and Immediate Action on Fire Risks for Evulich Ct Date: Tuesday, March 4, 2025 11:04:37 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.

Subject: Urgent Request for Comprehensive EIR and Immediate Action on Fire Risks for Evulich Ct
Dear City Council Members and Planning Commission:

Please include in written communications for the next city council meeting on March 4, 2025.

The City must prioritize public safety and financial security for existing homeowners.

Moving forward responsibly means pausing approvals until all risks are transparently and comprehensively assessed.

Additionally, the Evulich Ct site has already been the subject of inadequate notifications. This remains a live issue that over 700 nearby residents are well aware of and remain deeply concerned about. In fact, a working session by the Council on March 3, 2025 addressed on its agenda this very issue of inadequate notifications to nearby residents. It is imperative that the city council does not compound the problem by missing this urgent opportunity to understand and mitigate fire risk to our community.
1314
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1314 of 2331
The proposed density of 51 units would significantly increase traffic on narrow roads such as McClellan, Bubb, and Hyannisport, Columbus, Santa Teresa, Wilkinson, Terrace and beyond, which are already strained by existing traffic. This is particularly concerning given the proximity of three schools in the area, which exacerbates traffic challenges and complicates emergency evacuations. The increased density would not only heighten the risk of traffic bottlenecks during an emergency but also severely impact emergency response times. In a very high fire risk zone, where every second counts, overlooking these factors would be a serious mistake. A comprehensive EIR is essential to fully assess these risks and ensure that the project does not compromise the safety of residents. Given the State Fire Marshal's designation we also urge the City not to grant density bonus waivers for height and setbacks at Evulich Ct. Allowing these waivers would increase fire risks and complicate emergency access and evacuation. Prioritizing fire safety in very high-risk zones is essential.

Approving this project without addressing these risks would not only endanger residents but could also lead to severe financial consequences for our community.

The safety and well-being of Cupertino residents must come first. We look forward to your response and to seeing decisive actions that prioritize our community's safety.

Sincerely,
Ahmad R. Yazdi
1315
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1315 of 2331
From:

To: City Council; City Clerk; Pamela Wu; Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Emi Sugiyama; City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject: Urgent Request for Comprehensive EIR and Immediate Action on Fire Risks for Evulich Ct Date: Tuesday, March 4, 2025 6:09:42 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council Members and Planning Commission:

Please include in written communications for the next city council meeting on March 4, 2025.

Additionally, the Evulich Ct site has already been the subject of inadequate notifications.

This remains a live issue that over 700 nearby residents are well aware of and remain deeply concerned about. In fact, a working session by the Council on March 3, 2025 addressed on its agenda this very issue of inadequate notifications to nearby residents. It is imperative that the city council does not compound the problem by missing this urgent opportunity to understand and mitigate fire risk to our community.

The proposed density of 51 units would significantly increase traffic on narrow roads such as McClellan, Bubb, and Hyannisport, Columbus, Santa Teresa, Wilkinson, Terrace and beyond, which are already strained by existing traffic. This is particularly concerning given the proximity of three schools in the area, which exacerbates traffic challenges and complicates emergency evacuations. The increased density would not only heighten the 1316
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1316 of 2331
risk of traffic bottlenecks during an emergency but also severely impact emergency response times. In a very high fire risk zone, where every second counts, overlooking these factors would be a serious mistake. A comprehensive EIR is essential to fully assess these risks and ensure that the project does not compromise the safety of residents. Given the State Fire Marshal's designation we also urge the City not to grant density bonus waivers for height and setbacks at Evulich Ct. Allowing these waivers would increase fire risks and complicate emergency access and evacuation. Prioritizing fire safety in very high-risk zones is essential.

Approving this project without addressing these risks would not only endanger residents but could also lead to severe financial consequences for our community. The safety and wellbeing of Cupertino residents must come first. We look forward to your response and to seeing decisive actions that prioritize our community's safety.

Sincerely,
Nancy Wu
Cupertino Resident
1317
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1317 of 2331
From: Brad Fox
To: Emi Sugiyama
Subject: Fwd: Linda Vista project inquiry
Date: Monday, February 23, 2026 12:05:22 PM
Attachments: 29020.png
29021.png
29022.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.

FYI...

Brad Fox, P.E.

Assistant Fire Marshal
Fire Prevention Division
Santa Clara County Fire Department
Office: 408-341-4420 | Direct: 408-341-4493
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Brad Fox <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, Feb 3, 2026 at 5:11 PM
Subject: Linda Vista project inquiry
To: < >
Good evening Mr. Sang,
I am the Assistant Fire Marshal in Fire Prevention. I am responding to your inquiry on behalf of our Department.

Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD) is familiar with the referenced project on Linda Vista, and our review is part of Cupertino's permitting process. We are also aware that Cupertino's adoption of new local fire hazard severity zone maps changes the designation to a very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ) for the proposed project.

The developer is aware that the proposed project is subject to VHFHSZ requirements including but not limited to:
(i) Section 4291 of the Public Resource Code or Government Code Section 51182, as applicable.
(ii) Section 4290 of the Public Resource Code.
(iii) The 2025 California Wildland Urban Interface Code (Title 24 of the California Code of 1318
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1318 of 2331
1319
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1319 of 2331
1320
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1320 of 2331
1321
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1321 of 2331
1322
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1322 of 2331
1323
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1323 of 2331
From:

To: Emi Sugiyama
Subject: [City of Cupertino] Assignment: Linda Vista Drive Development Date: Thursday, February 19, 2026 7:44:57 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.

You have been assigned to this ticket (#156253).

George Wang
Feb 18, 2026, 10:33 PM PST
To whom it may concern,
I am writing as a homeowner (22204 McClellan) near the
proposed project on Linda Vista Drive to formally express my strong opposition to the 51-unit townhome-style condominium development currently under consideration.

I have several significant concerns regarding the scale of this proposal:

Environmental Impact: The proposed removal of trees and the demolition of existing homes to make way for such a 1324
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1324 of 2331
dense footprint will have a negative impact on the local canopy and the quietude of our street.

Best,
George Wang
1325
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1325 of 2331
Memorandum
Date: December 15, 2025
To: Mr. Steve Bull, Summerhill Homes
From: Shu hao (Ollie) Zhou
Gary Black
Subject: Transportation Analysis for the Proposed Townhomes at 10857 Linda Vista Drive in Cupertino, CA
Introduction
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. has completed a transportation analysis for the proposed townhomes located at 10857 Linda Vista Drive in Cupertino, California. The project would demolish four existing single-family homes on-site and construct 51 townhomes. Access to the townhomes would be provided via a new public cul-de-sac that would intersect Linda Vista Drive. The project site location and surrounding study area are shown on Figure 1. Figure 2 shows the project site plan.

Scope of the Study
This study was conducted for the purpose of identifying the potential transportation impacts and operational issues related to the proposed development. The transportation impacts of the project were evaluated following the standards and methodologies established in the City of Cupertino’s Transportation Analysis Guidelines. This transportation analysis consists of a Local Transportation Analysis (LTA) per the City of Cupertino’s Transportation Analysis Guidelines (January 2025).

Based on the City’s TA Guidelines, traffic studies are separated into 3 tiers:
• Tier 1: Less than 110 daily trips
• Tier 2: Between 110 and 1,000 daily trips and less than 100 peak hour trips • Tier 3: Great than 1,000 daily trips or greater than 100 peak hour trips The proposed project would generate 299 net new daily trips and 21/22 net new trips during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively (see Table 1 below). Based on the City’s TA Guideline, a Tier 2 transportation study was conducted for the proposed development including site plan review, site access assessment for all travel modes, and off-site intersection evaluation.

The LTA includes an analysis of weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions at key intersections in the vicinity of the site. The AM peak hour typically occurs between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM and the PM peak hour typically occurs between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM on a regular weekday. It is during these periods that the most congested traffic conditions occur on a typical weekday. The list of study intersections (shown below) was approved by City of Cupertino staff.

Study Intersections:

1. Linda Vista Drive & Hyannisport Drive (unsignalized)

2. Fort Baker Drive & Hyannisport Drive (unsignalized)

3. Bubb Road & Hyannisport Drive (unsignalized)
1326
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1326 of 2331
Cupertino
1 2 3
Union Pacific Railroad (UPPR) Union Pacific Railroad (UPPR) Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) McClellan Rd
Bubb Rd
Columbus Ave
Hyannisport Dr
Rae Ln
Linda Vista Dr
Wilkinson Ave
Fort Baker Dr
Linda Vista Dr
Linda Vista
Park
McClellan
Ranch
Preserve
Monta Vista
High School
Abraham Lincoln
Elementary School
John F. Kennedy
Middle School
X = Study Intersection
= Site Location
LEGEND
Stevens Creek Trail
Stevens Creek Trail
10857 Linda Vista Drive
Figure 1
Site Location and Study Intersections
1327
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1327 of 2331
10857 Linda Vista Drive Transportation Analysis Memo
Figure 2
Project Site Plan
1328
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1328 of 2331
10857 Linda Vista Drive Transportation Analysis Memo December 15, 2025 Page | 4
Traffic conditions at the study intersections were evaluated for the following scenarios:
• Existing Conditions
• Existing Plus Project Conditions
Project Trip Generation
The magnitude of traffic produced by a new development and the locations where that traffic would appear are estimated using a three-step process: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip assignment. In determining project trip generation, the magnitude of traffic entering and exiting the site is estimated for the AM and PM peak hours. As part of the project trip distribution, the directions to and from which the project trips would travel are estimated. In the trip assignment, the project trips are assigned to specific streets and intersections. These procedures are described below.

Trip Generation
Trips generated by any new development are typically estimated based on counts of existing developments of the same land use type. A compilation of typical trip generation rates can be found in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. Project trip generation was estimated by applying to the size and use of the proposed development the appropriate trip generation rates obtained from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 12th Edition (2025).

Trips that would be generated by the residential project were estimated using the ITE average trip rates for “Single-Family Attached Housing” (ITE Land Use 215) located in a General Urban/ Suburban setting.

Existing Trip Credits
Trips that are generated by existing occupied uses can be subtracted from the gross project trip generation estimates. Accordingly, trips generated by the four existing single-family homes on the site were estimated using the ITE average trip rates for “Single-Family Detached Housing” (ITE Land Use 210).

Net Project Trips
After applying the appropriate ITE trip rates and existing trip credits, the proposed residential project is estimated to generate 299 net new daily vehicle trips, with 21 new trips (5 inbound trips and 16 outbound trips) occurring during the AM peak hour and 22 new trips (13 inbound trips and 9 outbound trips) occurring during the PM peak hour (see Table 1). 1329
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1329 of 2331
10857 Linda Vista Drive Transportation Analysis Memo December 15, 2025 Page | 5
Table 1
Project Trip Generation Estimates
Existing Transportation Conditions
The existing transportation system in the project study area is described below. Included are descriptions of the existing roadway network, transit service, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

Existing Roadway Network
Regional access to the project site is provided via SR 85 and I-280. Local access to the site is provided via Linda Vista Drive, Hyannisport Drive, and Bubb Road. These facilities are described below.

SR 85 is a six-lane freeway with two mixed-flow lanes and one high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in both directions in the vicinity of the project site. SR 85 extends north through Mountain View, connecting with US 101, and south through San Jose, connecting again with US 101. Access to the project site is provided via its interchange with Stevens Creek Boulevard.

Interstate 280 is an eight-lane freeway with three mixed-flow lanes and one HOV lane in both directions in the vicinity of the project site. I-280 extends north through San Francisco, connecting with US 101, and east through San Jose, where it transitions to I-680. Access to the project site is provided via its interchange with SR 85.

Linda Vista Drive is a two-lane residential street providing direct access to the project site. It extends southward from its intersection with Hyannisport Drive/Rae Lane to where it bends to the east and terminates at Santa Teresa Drive. Linda Vista Drive has a speed limit of 25 mph and has sidewalks on both sides of the street. It serves single-family homes in the surrounding neighborhood.

Hyannisport Drive is a two-lane residential street serving the surrounding neighborhood and nearby schools: Monta Vista High School and John F. Kennedy Middle School. It begins at Bubb Road and extends westward, transitioning into Rae Lane west of Linda Vista Drive. Hyannisport Drive has a posted speed limit of 25 mph, has sidewalks on both sides of the street, and has highvisibility yellow ladder style crosswalks near the schools. There are also speed humps installed along Hyannisport Drive.

Columbus Avenue is a two-lane residential street beginning at Linda Vista Drive in the west, and extending east past Bubb Road where it transitions to Val Avenue. It serves residential uses along the street and provides access to the project via its intersection with Linda Vista Drive. Columbus Avenue has a posted speed limit of 25 mph, has sidewalks on both sides of the street, and speed humps along the eastern half of the street.

Land Use Trips In Out Total In Out Total
Proposed Use
Townhome 1 51 Units 6.57 335 0.47 6 18 24 0.51 15 11 26 Existing Use
Single Family Homes 2 4 Units 9.09 36 0.70 1 2 3 0.93 2 2 4 Net Project Trips: 299 5 16 21 13 9 22
Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual, 12th Edition, 2025.

Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Trip
Rate
Trip
Rate
Trips Trip
Rate
Trips
Size

1. Single-Family Attached Housing (Land Use 215): average trip rates in trips per unit.

1. Single-Family Detached Housing (Land Use 210): average trip rates in trips per unit. 1330
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1330 of 2331
10857 Linda Vista Drive Transportation Analysis Memo December 15, 2025 Page | 6
Bubb Road is a two-lane street that begins at Stevens Creek Boulevard and extends southward, transitioning into Upland Way south of Rainbow Drive. It serves residential uses near the project site and to the south and serves mostly commercial uses north of McClellan Road. Bubb Road has a posted speed limit of 30 mph south of McClellan Road and 35 mph north of McClellan Road. It has sidewalks and striped bike lanes (Class II bike facilities) on both sides along its entirety.

Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
Pedestrian facilities consist of sidewalks, ADA compliant curb ramps, and crosswalks at many of the nearby unsignalized intersections. In the vicinity of the project site, standard width continuous sidewalks exist along Linda Vista Drive, Hyannisport Drive, Columbus Avenue, and Bubb Road.

High-visibility ladder style crosswalks are provided at multiple intersections along Hyannisport Drive.

None of the nearby streets have bike lanes or Sharrows (bike routes with shared lane markings).

The closest on-street bicycle facilities (Class II bike lanes) are provided along Bubb Road and McClellan Road. Both streets are situated approximately a half-mile from the project site.

The project site is situated adjacent to the Stevens Creek Trail. The Stevens Creek Trail is a scenic, multi-use trail that runs for about 5 miles, stretching from the southern edge of Cupertino to the north near the San Francisco Bay. It follows the path of Stevens Creek and is shared by pedestrians and bicyclists.

Existing Transit Services
Existing transit service to the City of Cupertino is provided by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). However, there are no transit services within a half-mile of the project site. The closest bus stop is located approximately 1.25 miles from the project site.

Existing Lane Configurations and Traffic Volumes
The existing lane configurations at the study intersections were obtained from field observations and previous studies (see Figure 3).

Existing traffic volumes were obtained from turning movement counts collected on conducted on November 14, 2024. The existing peak-hour intersection volumes are shown in Figure 3. The intersection turning-movement counts conducted for this analysis are presented in Appendix A.

Existing Intersection Levels of Service
The level of service (LOS) at the key study intersections under existing conditions and existing plus project conditions were evaluated using Synchro software for informational purposes. The latest Highway Capacity Manual’s (HCM) methodology was employed.

The results of the intersection level of service analysis (see Table 3) show that the three unsignalized study intersections are currently operating at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours of traffic.
1331
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1331 of 2331
10857 Linda Vista Drive Transportation Analysis Memo December 15, 2025 Page | 7
Table 2
Existing Intersection Levels of Service
# Unsignalized Intersection LOS 1
AM 11/14/24 7.4 A
PM 11/14/24 5.4 A
AM 11/14/24 11.5 B
PM 11/14/24 8.0 A
AM 11/14/24 14.0 B
PM 11/14/24 12.6 B
Notes:

Unsignalized Intersection LOS (Source: HCM 7th Edition) 1 LOS A = 10.0 sec or less LOS D = 25.1 to 35.0 sec
LOS B = 10.1 to 15.0 sec LOS E = 35.1 to 50.0 sec
LOS C = 15.1 to 25.0 sec LOS F = greater than 50.0 sec
3 Bubb Road & Hyannisport Drive
Count Date
Existing
1 2
Linda Vista Drive & Hyannisport Drive
Fort Baker Drive & Hyannisport Drive
Peak
Hour
Avg. Delay
(sec)
1332
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1332 of 2331
Cupertino
1 2 3
Union Pacific Railroad (UPPR) Union Pacific Railroad (UPPR) Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) McClellan Rd
Bubb Rd
Columbus Ave
Hyannisport Dr
Rae Ln
Linda Vista Dr
Wilkinson Ave
Fort Baker Dr
Linda Vista Dr
30(45)
47(5)
72(66)
5(0)
0(0)
60(9)
85(20)
72(17)
95(27)
166(56) 15(11) 121(9)
203(437)
196(169)
6(17)
68(20) 125(56)
234(68) 224(68)
Linda Vista
Park
McClellan
Ranch
Preserve
STOP

STOP STOP STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
Monta Vista
High School
Abraham Lincoln
Elementary School
John F. Kennedy
Middle School
X = Study Intersection
= Site Location
LEGEND
= AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes
= Stop Sign
XX(XX)
Stevens Creek Trail
Stevens Creek Trail
STOP
10857 Linda Vista Drive
Figure 3
Existing Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations
Rae
Ln
Hyannisport
Dr
Fort
Baker
Dr
LindaVistaDr
Hyannisport
Dr
Hyannisport
Dr
BubbRd
123
1333
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1333 of 2331
10857 Linda Vista Drive Transportation Analysis Memo December 15, 2025 Page | 9
Field Observations
Existing conditions at the study intersections were observed on Tuesday March 18, 2025. AM observations occurred 30 minutes before the start of school at the neighboring high school and middle school (7:30 – 8:20 AM). PM observations occurred from 4:00-4:30 PM.

During the AM peak hour, the intersection of Linda Vista and Hyannisport Drive had light traffic, and no operational issues were observed.

The intersection of Fort Baker and Hyannisport Drive had light traffic, and no operational issues were observed until about 7:50 AM. Minor queues were observed during the peak 10 minutes of student drop off at the John F. Kennedy Middle School. A crossing guard was present at this intersection and most pedestrians used the west leg crosswalk.

At the intersection of Bubb Road and Hyannisport Drive, a crossing guard was present. Minor queuing was observed during the peak 15 minutes of student drop off. There were instances where the northbound queue from Bubb Road and McClellan Road spilled into the Hyannisport Drive intersection, but queues were able to dissipate quickly once the northbound traffic received the green light at the McClellan Road intersection. After the schools started, there were no operational issues observed.

During the PM peak hour, all intersections had light traffic, and no operational issues were observed.

Existing Plus Project Transportation Conditions
Project Trip Distribution and Assignment
The trip distribution pattern for the residential project was estimated based on the existing counts, which reflect existing travel patterns on the surrounding roadway network during the weekday AM and PM peak commute periods. The peak hour vehicle trips generated by the project were assigned to the roadway network in accordance with the trip distribution pattern. Traffic distributed to Bubb Road to the south was assigned to Hyannisport Drive. In reality, some may instead choose to use Columbus Avenue or Terrace Drive. Overall, this represents about 6 trips during the AM peak hour and 7 trips during the PM peak hour to be distributed amongst these three roadways. As a conservative measure, the traffic was assigned to Hyannisport Drive, which has school traffic, to evaluate the worst-case traffic scenario for this neighborhood. Figure 4 shows the project trip distribution pattern and net project trip assignment.

Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes
Existing plus project conditions reflect traffic volumes with completion of the project. Existing plus project traffic volumes were estimated by adding to existing traffic volumes the additional trips generated by the project (see Figure 5).

Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service
The results of the analysis show that the three unsignalized study intersections would continue to operate acceptably under existing plus project conditions (see Table 4). The project would have no effect on intersection LOS. The detailed Synchro LOS calculations are included in Appendix B. 1334
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1334 of 2331
Cupertino
1 2 3
Union Pacific Railroad (UPPR) Union Pacific Railroad (UPPR) Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) McClellan Rd
Bubb Rd
Columbus Ave
Hyannisport Dr
Rae Ln
Linda Vista Dr
Wilkinson Ave
Fort Baker Dr
Linda Vista Dr 10%
20% 70%
4(12)
4(12)
1(1)
4(12)
1(3)
2(1)
14(8)
14(8)
14(8)
3(2)
3(9)
11(6)
Linda Vista
Park
McClellan
Ranch
Preserve
Monta Vista
High School
Abraham Lincoln
Elementary School
John F. Kennedy
Middle School
X
= Trip Distribution
= Study Intersection
= Site Location
LEGEND
XX%
XX(XX) = AM(PM) Peak-Hour Trips
Stevens Creek Trail
Stevens Creek Trail
10857 Linda Vista Drive
Figure 4
Project Trip Distribution Pattern and Trip Assignment
1335
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1335 of 2331
Cupertino
1 2 3
Union Pacific Railroad (UPPR) Union Pacific Railroad (UPPR) Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) McClellan Rd
Bubb Rd
Columbus Ave
Hyannisport Dr
Rae Ln
Linda Vista Dr
Wilkinson Ave
Fort Baker Dr
Linda Vista Dr
34(57)
47(5)
76(78)
5(0)
61(12)
0(0)
99(28)
72(17)
95(27)
180(64) 15(11) 121(9)
203(437)
196(169)
6(17)
71(22) 128(65)
235(74)
Linda Vista
Park
McClellan
Ranch
Preserve
Monta Vista
High School
Abraham Lincoln
Elementary School
John F. Kennedy
Middle School
X = Study Intersection
= Site Location
LEGEND
XX(XX) = AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes
Stevens Creek Trail
Stevens Creek Trail
10857 Linda Vista Drive
Figure 5
Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes
1336
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1336 of 2331
10857 Linda Vista Drive Transportation Analysis Memo December 15, 2025 Page | 12
Table 3
Intersection Level of Service Summary
Site Access and Circulation Plan Review Checklist
The City’s Transportation Analysis Guidelines requires all studies to review various elements as outlined in the Site Access and Circulaion Plan Review Checklist (Table A-7 in the Guidelines).

General Plan Consistency
As stated in the Guidelines’ checklist, the project needs to be evaluated against goals, policies, and actions set forth in the following documents, as they relate to transportaion topics:
• Plan Bay Area 2050
• Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authoirty VTP 2050
• Santa Clara County Active Transportation Plan
• Congestion Management Program Monitoring and Comformance Report • Cupertino General Plan
• City of Cupertino Climate Action Plan
• City of Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
• City of Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan
• City of Cupertino Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study • Cupertino Municipal Code
• City of Cupertino Local Roadway Safety Plan
• Cupertino Vision Zero Action Plan
• City of Cupertino Active Transportation Plan
Plan Bay Area 2050
The project is consistent with the Plan Bay Area 2050’s following Transportation Strategies:
• T8 Build a Complete Street Network: The project proposes to install a crosswalk across Evulich Court and proposes to install sidewalks along the entirety of Evulich Court, thus connecting the project to the local pedestrian network. • T9 Advance regional Vision Zero policy through street design and reduced speeds:

The project proposes to narrow the Evulich Court’s throat width and install chokers on Evulich Court at the intersection with Linda Vista Drive. This improvement would reduce pedestrian exposure to vehicular traffic.
# Unsignalized Intersection LOS 1 LOS 1
AM 11/14/24 7.4 A 7.6 A
PM 11/14/24 5.4 A 5.9 A
AM 11/14/24 11.5 B 11.9 B
PM 11/14/24 8.0 A 8.2 A
AM 11/14/24 14.0 B 14.5 B
PM 11/14/24 12.6 B 13.0 B
Notes:

Unsignalized Intersection LOS (Source: HCM 7th Edition) 1 LOS A = 10.0 sec or less LOS D = 25.1 to 35.0 sec
LOS B = 10.1 to 15.0 sec LOS E = 35.1 to 50.0 sec
LOS C = 15.1 to 25.0 sec LOS F = greater than 50.0 sec
3 Bubb Road & Hyannisport Drive
Avg. Delay
Count Date (sec)
Existing Existing + Project
1 2
Linda Vista Drive & Hyannisport Drive
Fort Baker Drive & Hyannisport Drive
Peak
Hour
Avg. Delay
(sec)
1337
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1337 of 2331
10857 Linda Vista Drive Transportation Analysis Memo December 15, 2025 Page | 13
• Other strategies as outlined in the Plan Bay Area 2050 are regional efforts and are not applicable to the proposed project.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority VTP 2050
The VTP 2050 is Santa Clara County’s county-level plan, and includes a list of planned infrastructure projects. The project would not affect any of the listed projects.

Santa Clara County Active Transportation Plan
The Santa Clara County Active Transportation Plan outlines a set of goals and priority projects for county-maintained roads. Within the immediate vicinity of the project site, there are no countymaintained roads. Therefore, this plan is not applicable to the proposed project.

VTA Congestion Management Program Monitoring and Comformance Report VTA’s Congestion Management Program (CMP) seeks to reduce congestion at a regional scale through a multimodal approach. The CMP evaluates transportation infrastructure congestion for a list of roadways and intersections. For development projects that generate 100 or more peak hour trips, an evaluation following the CMP guidelines and of the CMP transportation facilities is required. The project (see Table 1) would not generate 100 or more peak hour trips. Therefore, this document is not applicable to the proposed project.

Cupertino General Plan
The project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan’s Mobility Element. See a detailed discussion below.

Policy M-1.2 Evaluate new development and
redevelopment projects pursuant to
the City’s adopted Transportation
Study Guidelines evaluation criteria.

Consistent. This study is conducted to satisfy
the City’s Transportation Study Guidelines
Strategy M1.2.1New development and
redevelopment projects shall meet
the VMT thresholds and reduction
strategies described in the Cupertino
Municipal Code.

Not Applicable. The project in pursuant to AB
130 is not required to conduct a VMT
analysis.

Strategy M2.3.1Require new development and
redevelopment to provide inter-block
connectivity to allow improved
access to all sites on the block from
secondary streets, access to the
street network via controlled
intersections, minimize conflicts with
pedestrian and bicycle traffic on
primary streets, and convenient
access for service vehicles.

Consistent. The project incorporates
improvements to Evulich Court, a public road,
to serve as the primary access to the site and
proposes the use of a controlled intersection.

Policy M-2.5 Ensure all new public and private
streets are publicly accessible to
improve walkability and reduce
impacts on existing streets.

Consistent. The project will be conditioned to
provide public access along Street A and
Evulich Court. This will exclude any paved
areas used exclusively as a driveway to
residences, with no pedestrian access.
1338
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1338 of 2331
10857 Linda Vista Drive Transportation Analysis Memo December 15, 2025 Page | 14
Policy M-3.2 Require new development and
redevelopment to increase
connectivity through direct and safe
pedestrian connection to public
amenities, neighborhoods, shopping,
and employment destinations
throughout the city.

Consistent. The project incorporates sidewalk
improvements on Evulich Court and Linda
Vista Drive which allows for pedestrian
connection to the neighborhood.

The project includes a connection between
the proposed development and the existing
trail which would provide pedestrian and
bicycle access between the proposed
development and community facilities.

The applicant has also requested that the
City Council consider the approval of
payment of a park land dedication in-lieu fee
with the estimated cost of the proposed trail
connection applied to this fee up to the
amount of $377,000.

The project will be conditioned to maintain
the design of approved plans, including the
proposed trail connection.

Policy M-3.3 Enhance pedestrian and bicycle
crossings and pathways at key
locations across physical barriers
such as creeks, highways and road
barriers.

Consistent. A pedestrian and bicycle crossing
(i.e. crosswalk) has been provided across
Evulich Court at the Linda Vista Drive
intersection.

Policy M-3.5 Minimize the number and the width
of driveway openings.

Consistent. Buildings have been oriented to
make use of a shared street/drive aisle which
reduces the total number of driveway
openings required along Evulich Court.

Strategy M3.5.2Require properties with frontages on
major and secondary streets to
provide direct pedestrian and
vehicular access to driveways from
the secondary street.

Consistent. Access to private shared
roads/driveways is provided from Evulich
Court.

Policy M-3.8 Require new development and
redevelopment to provide public and
private bicycle parking.

Consistent. Public bicycle parking is provided
in a shared outdoor area and private bicycle
parking is provided in each residence’s
garage.

Policy M-4.4 Work with VTA and/or major
developments to ensure all new
development projects include
amenities to support public transit
including bus stop shelters, space
for transit vehicles as appropriate
and attractive amenities such as
trash receptacles, signage, seating
and lighting.

Consistent. VTA comments received and
addressed.

See discussion for Policy M-3.2 for additional
information related to the proposed trail
connection.
1339
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1339 of 2331
10857 Linda Vista Drive Transportation Analysis Memo December 15, 2025 Page | 15
Strategy M8.2.1Require new development to include
shared amenities that encourage the
use of transit, bicycling, or walking
as alternative modes of
transportation.

Consistent. Proposed shared walkways
connect to the street sidewalk and shared
bicycle parking facilities are provided on site.

Strategy M8.2.2Require new development to provide
pedestrian pathways to entrances,
and orient buildings and entrances
to the street, to encourage
pedestrian activity.

Consistent. Pedestrian pathways to
entrances provided and connected to Evulich
Court. Buildings along Linda Vista Drive and
Evulich Court have entrances oriented to the
street.

Strategy M8.2.4Require new residential or mixeduse developments to provide shared bicycle parking and bike repair
stations at locations close to
entrances.

Consistent. A bicycle repair station is
proposed between Buildings 3 and 4, as
shown on sheet L2.2 and sheet L8.1.

Cupertino Climate Action Plan
The City of Cupertino’s Climate Action Plan 2.0 documents the City’s efforts in reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and mitigating climate change impacts. The plan outlines a list of GHG emissions reduction measures. None of the measures are applicable to the proposed project from a transportation perspective.

City of Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan, Pedestrian Transportation Plan, Local Roadway Safety Plan, Vision Zero Action Plan
The project is located along Linda Vista Drive, which is a residential street. This street is not identified on the City’s High Injury Network. The City’s Local Roadway Safety Plan does not identify improvement projects along this street either. There are also no identified bicycle or pedestrian improvements along the project frontage identified in the Bicycle Transportation Plan or Pedestrian Transportation Plan. The City’s 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan and the 2018 Pedestrian Transportation Plan both identify an improvement to extend Stevens Creek Trail at Deep Cliff Golf Course. The proposed alignment would require an easment along the edge of the Deep Cliff Golf Course, and would be west of the project property. No easement is requested along the project frontage.

City of Cupertino Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study The Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study (Nexus Study) provides the City of Cupertino with the necessary technical documentation to support the adoption of a Citywide Transportation Impact Fee Program (TIF Program). The improvements identified in the TIF Nexus Study are not along the project frontage, and the project would not conflict with the implementation of these improvements. The project will be required to pay its TIF fee. Therefore, the project is consistent with the TIF Nexus Study.
1340
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1340 of 2331
10857 Linda Vista Drive Transportation Analysis Memo December 15, 2025 Page | 16
Cupertino Municipal Code
The Cupertino Municipal Code outlines various provisions related to transportation. The project is consistent with the Cupertino Municipal Code. Code sections relating to transportation that are applicable to the proposed project are discussed below:
• Chapter 14.04 Street Improvements. This chapter requires developments to construct or fund the street, sidewalk and utility improvements necessary to support safe and adequate public infrastructure around their project. The project proposes to construct sidewalks consistent with the City’s Standard Detail 1-19. The project also proposes to narrow the throat of Evulich Court as it intersects with Linda Vista and install choker to narrow the curbto-curb width down to 20 feet. These improvements would reduce the pedestrian exposure to vehicular traffic as they cross Evulich Court.
• Section 17.04.040 (C) Vehicle Miles Traveled Technical Report Requirements. Project applicants shall prepare a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis, which shall include a comparison of existing VMT and project-generated VMT, for review and approval prior to project approval, indicating that the project meets the standards in Section 17.08.040 (Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Standards). This code section is not applicable to the proposed project since the project, pursuant to AB 130, is not required to conduct a VMT analysis.
• Chapter 17.08 Evaluation of Transportation Impacts Under the California Environmental Quality Act. Similar to the discussion for Section 17.04.040(C), this code section is not applicable to the proposed project since the project is not required to conduct a VMT analysis.
• Section 19.36.070(J) No parking shall be permitted in a setback area where the lot adjoins property located in a single-family (R-1) zoning district. The project is consistent because no parking is proposed within the setback areas adjoining the R1 zoning district. • Section 19.46.070(F) Vehicular parking shall not be located along primary frontage. The project is consistent because vehicular parking is not located along the primary frontage (Linda Vista Drive).
• Section 19.46.070(G) Corner Triangle and Sidewalk Site Triangle shall remain free and clear of all buildings or portions thereof. The project is consistent with the requirements (see Figure 7 below).
• Section 19.46.070 (J) No more than two vehicular entries/exits per street frontage between the residential development and the public right-of-way. The project is consistent because no more than two vehicular entries/exits are proposed per frontage of Evulich Court. • Section 19.124.030 (A)(2) Vehicles may be placed, kept or parked in the front yard, Street side setback area or within 12 feet of a public right-of-way in a rear yard area, provided a minimum clearance of three feet is maintained from any structure. The project is consistent because no parking within setbacks or within 12 feet of right of way is proposed. • Section 19.124.040 Townhomes require one space per unit (1 covered or garage) of 9.5’ x 20’. And if no on-street parking is available, two additional off-street spaces are required.

The project is consistent because parking is provided at the required rate and street parking is provided on Evulich Court and additional parking spaces are proposed for each unit. 1341
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1341 of 2331
10857 Linda Vista Drive Transportation Analysis Memo December 15, 2025 Page | 17
Parking
The proposed project is located in a multi-family residential (R-3) and Townhome Combining District. The City of Cupertino minimum parking requirement for townhomes per the City’s Zoning Code (Table 19.124.040(A)) is one parking space per dwelling unit for townhomes. Based on the parking code, this would equate to 51 required parking spaces. According to the site plan, the project is proposing to provide two garage parking spaces per unit. This equates to a total of 102 parking spaces, which exceeds the City’s minimum parking requirement for townhomes.

The City’s zoning code does not have bicycle parking requirements for townhome developments.

Residents would be able to store their bicycles inside the two-car garage that has been proposed for each unit. The project would install bicycle storage hoist assist mechanism products in all units’ garages (see Figure 6).

On-Site Circulation
The site access and on-site circulation evaluation is based on the project’s combined plan set submitted to the City on September 15, 2025 (see Figure 2 for an excerpt from the plan set). It should be noted that the plan set has been reviewed by City staff and is deemed consistent with City requirements. The rest of this on-site circulation discussion provides a summary of key topics requested by the City’s Transportation Analysis Guidelines.

Site access was evaluated to determine the adequacy of the site plan with regard to geometric design, sight distance, and general operations. On-site vehicular circulation and parking layout were reviewed in accordance with generally accepted traffic engineering standards and transportation planning principles. Truck access and on-site circulation were also evaluated.

Driveway Design and Operations
The City’s Transportation Analysis Guidelines (Table A-7) state the following regarding driveway placements:

Indicate whether driveways are proposed on the following facilities:
• High-injury networks (refer to the Local Roadway Safety Plan and the Vision Zero Action Plan)
• High-pedestrian activity zones
• Existing or planned Class IV cycle tracks
• Frequent transit networks or major transit stops
Driveways are not prohibited on these streets; however, they should be avoided when possible and prioritize safety and movement of people walking, bicycling, and riding transit when avoidance is infeasible. Driveways should be located on minor streets and alleyways when possible.

The project proposes to build new curb returns (30 feet radii) on Linda Vista Drive to construct a new public street: Evulich Court serving the project site only. The project proposes to install chokers to narrow the roadway width from the existing 36 feet down to 20 feet, which minimizes the pedestrian exposure to vehicles. Evulich Court would also provide a cul-de-sac at its western end for vehicles to turn around. Linda Vista Drive is a local street serving single-family homes in the surrounding neighborhood. Both Linda Vista Drive and the new street are minor streets without any of the above-mentioned safety concerns.
1342
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1342 of 2331
Figure 6
Proposed Bicycle Storage Hoist Mechanism
10857 Linda Vista Drive Transportation Analysis Memo
1343
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1343 of 2331
10857 Linda Vista Drive Transportation Analysis Memo December 15, 2025 Page | 19
The geometric design features of the intersection are consistent with the existing residential roadway network in the area as well as the City of Cupertino Standard Details. The new street west of the proposed chokers is shown to be 20 feet wide with 8 feet of parking on both sides (36-foot curb-to-curb width), and is consistent with the City of Cupertino Standard Details. Five 20-foot-wide private drive aisles (A – E Streets) along Evulich Court would provide access to the townhomes.

The new street and the private drive aisles would meet the 20-foot minimum width requirement for emergency vehicle access. The drive aisles would have a standard curb cut design (“dustpan” style driveways).

The project-generated trips that are estimated to access Evulich Court from Linda Vista Drive are 6 inbound trips and 18 outbound trips during the AM peak hour and 15 inbound trips and 11 outbound trips during the PM peak hour (see Figure 4). Due to the low number of AM and PM peak hour project-generated trips and the low traffic volumes along Linda Vista Drive, operational issues related to vehicle queueing or delays would not occur at the new unsignalized intersection.

Similarly, at the individual private street driveways on site, the trips would be further dispersed. It is also expected that pedestrian and bicycle activities along Evulich Court would be low since it only serves the project site. Therefore, there would also be no operational issues for vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic at the individual private driveways.

Sight Distance
Per the City’s Standard Detail 7-2, Corner Sight Distance at Controlled Intersections, for a street with a speed limit of 25 mph, the required corner sight distance is 275 feet. This applies at the intersection of Linda Vista Drive and Evulich Court. As shown on Figure 7, there would only be trees and potentially parked cars within the line of sight. Trees with high canopies are not considered sight obstructions and drivers are able to see around the tree trunks. There are no other landscaping or visual obstructions along Linda Vista Drive that would block the line of sight. Onstreet parking should be prohibited within the corner sight distance triangles.

Recommendation: Per City’s Standard Detail 7-2, trees’ lower branches shall be trimmed up to 8 feet 6 inches from the street grade. As part of ongoing maintenance, it is recommended that the tree branches be maintained as such. On-street parking should be prohibited within the corner sight distance triangles.

On-Site Vehicular Circulation and Parking Layout
On-site vehicular circulation was reviewed in accordance with generally accepted traffic engineering standards. Access to the townhome two-car garages would be provided via private drive aisles accessed from the new public Evulich Court. No parking would be provided along the private drive aisles. Ten street parking spaces would be provided along Evulich Court.

All private drive aisles are shown to be 20 feet wide with 5 feet buffer on each side. The proposed width is adequate for two-way circulation and would provide sufficient room for vehicles to back out of the garages. Each private drive aisle serving the townhomes would contain a dead-end.

However, since none of the private driveways would provide guest parking, the dead-end aisles would not cause any issues for residents accessing their garages. There are generally 5.5 feet of space at the end of each of the private streets from the last home’s parking garage for vehicles to turn around, if needed. This space is adequate for vehicles to back out of the garages. 1344
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1344 of 2331
10857 Linda Vista Drive Transportation Analysis Memo
Figure 7
Sight Distance Triangles
1345
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1345 of 2331
10857 Linda Vista Drive Transportation Analysis Memo December 15, 2025 Page | 21
Emergency Vehicle Access
The City of Cupertino Fire Department requires a minimum driveway width of 20 feet, requires turnarounds for driveways more than 150 feet in length, and requires a minimum of 13.5 feet of vertical clearance. The project driveways are shown to be 20 feet wide and would all be less than 150 feet in length. Therefore, the project would meet the City’s fire access requirements.

No turn around space would be provided along the internal drive aisles B to E for large delivery trucks or emergency vehicles to turn around. Therefore, large delivery trucks would need to either pull in/back out or back in/pull out of each drive aisle. Fire trucks could service the homes on the new public street: Evulich Court. A hammerhead turnaround space is provided at the end of Evulich Court for fire truck turnaround. The design has been reviewed and approved by the City’s Fire Department.

Garbage Collection
Trash bins would be stored within each individual townhome unit. Trash bins would need to be wheeled out to the drive aisles on garbage collection days. All garbage collection activities would occur on-site. Garbage trucks would need to either pull in/back out or back in/pull out of each drive aisle, since turnaround space is not provided on-site. Figure 8 shows that per Cupertino’s standard garbage truck template, garbage trucks could adequately turn around at the end of Evulich Court.

Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities in the project area consist primarily of sidewalks along the streets and crosswalks with ADA compliant curb ramps at intersections within the neighborhood. High-visibility ladder style crosswalks are provided at multiple intersections along Hyannisport Drive. The existing network of sidewalks and crosswalks provides adequate connectivity for pedestrians between the project site and other points of interest such as nearby schools.

The project would construct a new 5-foot-wide sidewalk along Evulich Court, which is consistent with the City’s Standard Detail 1-19 for monolithic sidewalk. Detached sidewalk per City’s Standard Detail 1-19 is proposed along the project frontage along Linda Vista Drive. According to the site plan, the project would provide a complete network of sidewalks throughout the site that would connect directly to Evulich Court and Linda Vista Drive. The project would not affect the existing pedestrian access in the area. The project provides adequate pedestrian facilities on site connecting pedestrians to the rest of the City’s pedestrian facilities.

Bicycle Facilities
The closest on-street bicycle facilities (Class II bike lanes) are provided along Bubb Road and McClellan Road. Both streets are situated approximately a half-mile from the project site. Although none of the nearby streets have bike lanes or Sharrows, all the roadways in the immediate vicinity of the site are residential streets with relatively low traffic volumes. Thus, the neighborhood streets could be used to access the nearby schools via bicycle, including Abraham Lincoln Elementary School, JFK Middle School, and Monta Vista High School. The project would not affect any proposed bicycle facilities, nor would it conflict with any bicycle plans identified in the City of Cupertino 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan.

Transit Services
Existing transit service to the City of Cupertino is provided by the VTA. As previously stated, there are no transit services within a half-mile of the project site. As such, it’s unlikely that future residents of the project would utilize public transit on a regular basis. The proposed residential project would not negatively affect the existing pedestrian, bicycle, or transit facilities in the study area. 1346
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1346 of 2331
10857 Linda Vista Drive Transportation Analysis Memo December 15, 2025 Page | 22
Safety Assessment
The project would construct a new public street: Evulich Court to intersect Linda Vista Drive, which would provide access to the project site. The new street would be designed in accordance with city standards. The project would generate mostly passenger vehicles, and the surrounding roadway system is designed to accommodate these vehicles. Per discussion above regarding the site plan review, the project would not worsen existing geometric hazards or create new geometric hazards. 1347
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1347 of 2331
10857 Linda Vista Drive Transportation Analysis Memo
Figure 8
Garbage Truck Turning Template
1348
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1348 of 2331
*
*
*
*
*
1 2
3 4
5 6
31 32
33 34
35 36
7 8
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 37
40 44
48 41 45 49
42 46 50
43 47 51
38 39
21 22 OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW

OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW

OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW
>
BLDG 2
FF 396.4
PAD 395.4
BLDG 10
FF 393.5
PAD 392.5
BLDG 9
FF 393.8
PAD 392.8
BLDG 8
FF 396.3
PAD 395.3 BLDG 7
FF 397.3
PAD 396.3
BLDG 1
FF 396.5
PAD 395.5
BLDG 6
FF 397.2
PAD 396.2
BLDG 4
FF 393.6
PAD 392.6
BLDG 3
FF 396.3
PAD 395.3
BLDG 5
FF 393.4
PAD 392.4
BLDG HT. = 37'-0" BLDG HT. = 39'-3" BLDG HT. = 40'-6 1
2" BLDG HT. = 39'-3"
BLDG HT. = 40'-0 1
2"
BLDG HT. = 37'-6"
BLDG HT. = 38'-9"
BLDG HT. = 39'-4 1
2" BLDG HT. = 37'-10 1
2" BLDG HT. = 38'-3 1
4"
9 10

A A D STREET A STREET B STREET C STREET E STREET

EVULICH COURT (PUBLIC ROAD)
SEE NOTE 6 SEE NOTE 6
SEE NOTE 6
SEE NOTE 6
SEE NOTE 6 SEE NOTE 6 SEE NOTE 6 SEE NOTE 6
SEE NOTE 6
SEE NOTE 6
B
B
*
23 LINDA VISTA DRIVE (PUBLIC ROAD)

TYPICAL EVULICH COURT STREET SECTION

TYPICAL A-E STREET SECTION

TYPICAL LINDA VISTA STREET SECTION
LEGEND
10857 LINDA VISTA DRIVE
Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583
650-857-0122
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN C2.0
*
SCALE 1" = 20'
20' 0' 10' 20' 40'

VICINITY MAP
SITE

PROPOSED PARCELS GROSS/LOT AREAS

PARCEL GROSS
(1) SF NET(2) SF
1349
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1349 of 2331

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308
CUPERTINO.GOV

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
SUPPLEMENTAL 1
Meeting: March 17, 2026
Agenda Item #12
Subject
Consider a Tentative Map, Architectural and Site Approval, and Tree Removal Permit for the construction of a 51-unit townhome condominium development on Housing Element Priority Housing Sites 25 through 28. The project utilizes Senate Bill 330 and provisions of State Density Bonus law. (Application No(s): TM-2024-009, ASA-2024-015, TR-2024-044; Applicant: SummerHill Homes, LLC; Location: 10857, 10867, 10877, and 10887 Linda Vista Drive; APNs: 356-06-001, -002, -003, and -004).

Recommended Action

1. Find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA);

2. Make the required findings of No Net Loss (SB 166); and

3. Approve the following permits:
a. Adopt Resolution No. 26-XXX approving Tentative Final Map (TM-2024-009) (Attachment A);
b. Adopt Resolution No. 26-XXX approving Architectural & Site Approval Permit (ASA2024-015) (Attachment B); and c. Adopt Resolution No. 26-XXX approving Tree Removal Permit (TR-2024-044) (Attachment C).

Background:

Staff’s responses to questions received from councilmembers are shown in italics.

Q1: Does the March 2025 Very High Fire Hazard classification apply to this project? Staff response: The City adopted the State Fire Marshall’s recommendations regarding Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) in June 2025 as required by state law. The project has been evaluated utilizing the Very High FHSZ designation due to its reclassification in June 2025. 1350
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1350 of 2331
Q2: Regarding "E - AB 130 CEQA Exemption Memo.pdf", it recognizes that AB 130 exemption requires "Most of the project site is located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone". Thus, the project does not qualify for AB 130 exemption unless the "sites that have adopted fire hazard mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards or state fire mitigation measures applicable to the development". Where are the previously "adopted fire hazard mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards or state fire mitigation measures" to allow AB 130 exemption for this site?
Staff response: The fire hazard mitigation measures applicable to the site are adopted in Title 16 of the City’s Municipal Code in different chapters, including but not limited to Chapters 16.06 (Residential Code), 16.10 (Wildland Urban Interface Code) and 16.40 (Fire Code).

Q3-1: For the proposed mitigation measures in "F - Alternative Means and Methods Request Approval.pdf", what documents, adopted by any agency as standards, can demonstrate that they satisfy "the same practical effect of the minimum 30’ setback requirement of CCR Section 1276.01"?
Staff Response: Fire Department staff will be present at the Council meeting and can respond at that time.

Q3-2: Would the proposed mitigation measures have the same "practical effect" as 20-foot setback? 10-foot setback? 5-foot setback? How is the "practical effect" measured, through some theoretical model or empirical data?
Staff Response: Fire Department staff will be present at the Council meeting and can respond at that time.

Q4-1: What's the approval process for the "Application for Use of Alternative Materials, Methods of Construction, or Modification of Code" by the Fire Department? Staff Response: Fire Department staff will be present at the Council meeting and can respond at that time.

Q4-2: Any objective standards adopted by the Fire Department on what "Alternative Materials, Methods of Construction, or Modification of Code" would be sufficient for "practical effect"? Or, is the approval based on opinions of the reviewer?
Staff Response: Fire Department staff will be present at the Council meeting and can respond at that time.

Q5: All units of the project include 4 bedrooms, "with individual units ranging in size from 2,356 square feet to 2,779 square feet." Is there any requirement to mandate these large square footage per unit at this site? Or is it a design choice?
Staff Response: The City does not have a minimum size requirement for units proposed at this site. The unit size proposed is at the applicant’s design choice.

Q6: All units of the project are 4-bedroom units with two car garages? Is there any requirement to mandate 4 bedrooms or more? Or is it a design choice? Staff Response: All units have two-car garages. The unit type proposed is at the applicant’s design choice.

Q7: Board of Forestry Fire Safe Regulations (14 CCR §1276.01) states "A reduction in the minimum setback shall be based upon practical reasons, which may include but are not limited to, parcel 1351
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1351 of 2331
dimensions or size, topographic limitations". Is there any analysis to show that 30 feet setback requirement is "not feasible"?
Staff Response: Fire Department staff will be present at the Council meeting and can respond at that time.

Q8-1: Google AI states "The average size of a 4-bedroom townhouse typically ranges between 1,800 and 2,500 square feet. " and "The average size of a 3-bedroom townhouse generally falls between 1,200 and 2,000 square feet." In the attachment "F - Alternative Means and Methods Request Approval.pdf", the justification for not providing 30-foot setback is "the development density requirement and site constraints due to existing public right-of-way...", which means a minimum unit count requirement of 51 units. How come the project cannot provide smaller units, which are also more affordable, so that they can comply with the 30-foot setback requirement? Staff Response: Fire Department staff will be present at the Council meeting and can respond at that time.

Q8-2: It is a design choice to provide larger 4-bedroom units, rather than smaller units, rather than any density requirement. Is it a valid "practical reason" required under Board of Forestry Fire Safe Regulations (14 CCR §1276.01) to waive the 30-foot setback requirement? Staff Response: Fire Department staff will be present at the Council meeting and can respond at that time.

Q9-1: Can the project provide lower than 51 units, the minimum unit requirement? Staff Response: Under state housing law, the project must meet the minimum residential density at the site.

Q9-2: What would be the approval process if the project had to reduce the number of units in order to provide better fire safety in the High Fire Severity Zone? Staff Response: The City would have to amend the General Plan and Housing Element in order to reduce the number of residential units that could be developed on this site.

Q10: Since there is no 30-foot setback requirement as required by Board of Forestry Fire Safe Regulations (14 CCR §1276.01), would the insurance rate for the newly built townhomes and the adjacent single-family homes increase or make it challenging to get fire insurance? Staff Response: Insurance rates/coverage and availability are determined by private insurance companies.

City staff do not have any information on insurance requirements.

Q11-1: Please include the evaluation study conducted by Cupertino, which appears to show evacuation demand on key corridors serving this neighborhood exceed 200% of roadway capacity.

Staff Response: The Evacuation Study prepared by the City’s Consultant, Fehr and Peers, does not pertain to the proposed residential development under consideration. It is a citywide study prepared for planning purposes to address requirements of state law, prepared in conjunction with a separate project to update the City’s Health and Safety Element. The study may be used to identify areasin which future efforts related to evacuation planning to address potential existing constraints may be directed, and to identify additional policies to address evacuation in the event of an emergency. Policies have been incorporated into the Public Draft Health and Safety Element to address evacuation as a result of this study. The Evacuation study and the Draft Health and Safety Element is available online at: Cupertino.gov/healthandsafetyelement. 1352
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1352 of 2331
Q11-2: How many homes are adjoining Linda Vista Drive today? What would be the impact of the project on the evacuation time from this area, given the Cupertino? Staff Response: There are approximately 34 homes with a Linda Vista Dr. address between Columbus Dr and Santa Teresa Dr, with an additional 12 homes on Mount Crest Place. In addition, there are 30 homes (including 4 at the project site) with a Linda Vista Dr. address between Columbus Dr. and Hyannisport, with 14 additional homes around Baxley Ct.

There are no applicable objective thresholds for evacuation citywide. As a result, project review did not require the project proponent to prepare, and for city staff to peer review, any evacuation plan specific to the project. Additionally, the project is eligible for a statutory exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which precludes the city from requiring a project specific evacuation study. Under state law, special studies that do not pertain to the allowable exemption under CEQA may not be required.

Attachments Provided with Original Staff Report:

A. Draft Resolution for TM-2024-009
B. Draft Resolution for ASA-2024-015
C. Draft Resolution for TR-2024-044
D. Applicable Standards Matrix
E. AB 130 CEQA Exemption Memorandum
F. Alternative Means and Method Request Approval
G. County Fire Review Letter
H. Geotechnical Report
I. Geotechnical Report Peer Review
J. Biological Report
K. Biological Report Peer Review
L. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
M. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
N. Phase I and Phase II ESA Applicant Review
O. Phase I and II ESA Peer Review
P. Underground Storage Tank Closure Report
Q. Public Comments (2-25-2026 to 3-10-2026)
R. Public Comments (01-01-2024 to 2-24-2026)
S. Final Transportation Study
T. Project Site Plan
1353
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1353 of 2331
1354
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1354 of 2331
1355
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1355 of 2331
381.07810857 Linda Vista Drive
Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
1356
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1356 of 2331
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583
650-857-0122

EXISTING SITE & SURROUNDING CONTEXT
A04

PROJECT SITE
4 3
6 8
9 1
5 10
1 2
2 3
4 5 6
7 9
8 10
7 381.07810857 Linda Vista Drive
Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
1357
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1357 of 2331
381.07810857 Linda Vista Drive
Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
1358
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1358 of 2331
381.07810857 Linda Vista Drive
Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
1359
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1359 of 2331
1360
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1360 of 2331
40 37 41
42 43
38 39 47
46 45
44 24
23 22
20 19
15 21
11 10
9 8
7 12
36 35
34 33
32 31
6 5
4 3
2 1
48 49
50 51
25 26
29 18 30
17 14
13 28
27 FIRE SEPARATION LINE,
TYP.

EVULICH CT.
6C PLEX
BLDG 1
4 PLEX
BLDG 10
*
*
*
*
*
*
22'-0"
25'-0" 11'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 11'-0" 6'-9" 4'-9" LINDA VISTA RD. A STREET B STREET D STREET C STREET E STREET 16'-0" 15'-0" 25'-2 1/2"
31'-2 1/2"
22'-11 1/2"
28'-11" 6'-9" 6'-9 1/2" 4'-9 1/2" 11'-0" 10'-0" 11'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 11'-0" 5'-7" 3'-7" 3'-7" 5'-7" 5'-7" 3'-7" 21'-0"
20'-0"
29'-11"
25'-1"
PROPERTY LINE, TYP.
26'-6"
22'-0"
26'-0"
22'-0"
26'-0"
22'-0"
8 MOD
10 MOD
21 MOD
28 MOD
16 MOD
9 MED
11 MED
15 MED
22 MED
27 MED
6B PLEX
BLDG 2
6A PLEX
BLDG 3
6A PLEX
BLDG 4
6A PLEX
BLDG 5
3 PLEX
BLDG 7
4 PLEX
BLDG 8
6C PLEX
BLDG 6
4 PLEX
BLDG 9
N89°49'17"E 446.83'
N89°49'50"E 438.62'
N25°30'00"W 33.28'
N05°30'00"W 100.87' N03°45'00"E 172.96' N00°10'20"W 107.00' N00°10'10"W 120.00' N89°49'50"E 205.50'
N89°49'50"E 222.08' 4'-9"
Δ
R =
04 0. ' =
242°11'40" L
=
169.08'
CS2
CS3
CS2
CS1
CS3
CS1
CS2
CS3
CS2
CS3
CS1
CS2
CS2
CS1
CS3
CS1
CS2
CS1
CS1
CS2
CS1
CS3
CS2
CS3
CS1
CS1
CS3
CS2
CS3
CS3
CS2
CS3
CS1
CS2
CS1
CS3
CS2
CS3
CS1
CS2
CS1
CS3
CS3
CS2
CS1
CS3 CS2 CS1
CS1
CS1
CS2
PRIVATE SIDE YARD (1 OF 5), TYP. 381.07810857 Linda Vista Drive Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583
650-857-0122

ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN
A07
NORTH
0 6' 12'18'24'30' 60'
NOTE:

1. Refer to Civil sheets for all property lines, easements, site dimensions, accessible unit locations, etc.

2. Refer to project data sheet A08 for all site summary info

3. Refer to Landscape sheets for landscape design, dimensions and detailed information
#
SITE KEY:
- UNIT NUMBER
- PROPERTY LINE
- FIRE SEPARATION LINE
- WALL PACK
- WALL SCONCE
- UNIT 1
- UNIT 2
- UNIT 3_ALT
*
- MODERATE INCOME UNIT
- MEDIAN INCOME UNIT
NOTE: BMR LOCATIONS ARE PRELIMINARY AND
SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
#
MOD
#
MED
- BELOW-MARKET RATE UNIT
(10 TOTAL) BMR

BMR UNIT SUMMARY

ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLD
INCOME
UNIT #
9, 11, 15,
22, 27

PLAN TYPE
PLAN 1

BEDROOMS
4 4
LIVING

AREA (SF)
80% - 100%
of AMI
X
PLAN 1 X
100% - 120%
of AMI
1,777
1,777

BMR MIX

ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLD
INCOME
5 10
50%

UNITS PERCENTAGE
100%
5 80% - 100% of AMI 50%
TOTAL
100% - 120% of AMI
- UNIT 3
- ADAPTABLE UNIT (6 TOTAL)
8, 10, 16,
21, 28
- COLOR SCHEME 1
- COLOR SCHEME 3
- COLOR SCHEME 2
CS3
CS2
CS1
- STREET LIGHT
1361
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1361 of 2331
EVULICH CT.
*
*
*
*
*
PROPERTY LINE, TYP. 32'-3 3/4" 16'-10" 16'-7" 29'-10" 32'-4 1/4" 32'-3 3/4" 29'-10" 16'-10" 16'-7" 32'-4 1/4" 28'-6 3/4" 17'-9 1/2" 19'-3" 17'-9 1/2" 32'-9 1/4" 45'-4 1/4" 23'-6 3/4" 23'-7" 29'-10" 36'-6 1/2" 45'-4 1/2" 11'-5" 17'-9 1/2" 17'-3 1/2" 32'-4" BLDG 1
6C PLEX
BLDG 2
6B PLEX
BLDG 3
6A PLEX
BLDG 4
6A PLEX
BLDG 5
6A PLEX
BLDG 6
6C PLEX
BLDG 7
3 PLEX
BLDG 8
4 PLEX
BLDG 9
4 PLEX
BLDG 10
4 PLEX
40 37
41 42
43 38
39 47
46 45
44 24
23 22
20 19
21 16
15 11
10 9
8 7
12 36
35 34
33 32
31 6
5 4
3 2
1 48
49 50
51 25
29 18 30
17 14
13 28
27 A STREET B STREET D STREET C STREET E STREET 23'-7" 29'-10" 36'-6 1/2" 45'-4 1/2"11'-5" 17'-9 1/2" 17'-3 1/2"32'-4" 26 8
MOD
9 MED
10 MOD 16
MOD
21 MOD
28 MOD
11 MED
15 MED
22 MED
27 MED
* LINDA VISTA RD.
111'-2 1/4" 43'-9" 111'-3"
111'-3 1/4" 40'-9" 111'-3" 381.07810857 Linda Vista Drive Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583
650-857-0122

WALL SCONCE LOCATIONS
A07.1
NORTH
0 6' 12'18'24'30' 60'
NOTE:

1. Refer to Civil sheets for all property lines, easements, site dimensions, accessible unit locations, etc.

2. Refer to project data sheet A08 for all site summary info

3. Refer to Landscape sheets for landscape design, dimensions and detailed information
NOTE: PRIOR TO FINAL - EXT LIGHTING:

Prior to final occupancy all exterior lighting shall be kept to a minimum and shall be down directed fixtures that will not reflect or encroach onto adjacent properties. All lighting shall utilize shields so that no bulb is visible and to ensure that the light is directed to the ground surface and does not spill light onto neighboring parcels or produce glare when seen from nearby homes. No flood lights shall be used unless it can be demonstrated that they are needed for safety or security.

FRONT PORCH LIGHTING FIXTURE
GARDCO PWS-196L-450-NW-G3-2-UNV @ 8'
#
LEGEND:
- UNIT NUMBER
- PROPERTY LINE
- WALL PACK (SEE

PHOTOMETRIC STUDY)
- WALL SCONCE AT PORCH
*
- ADAPTABLE UNIT (6 TOTAL)
- STREET LIGHT

GARAGE WALL PAK LIGHTING FIXTURE
1362
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1362 of 2331
381.07810857 Linda Vista Drive Cupertino, CA January 12, 2026 3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583 650-857-0122 PROJECT DATA A08 WILDFIRE PROTECTION CONSTRUCTION MEAUSURES: THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS BEING LOCATED IN A LOCAL RESPONSIBILITY AREA (LRA) VERY HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONE. THE PROJECT SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE SECTION R337, MATERIALS AND METHODS FOR EXTERIOR WILDFIRE EXPOSURE, AS FOLLOWS: 1. EXTERIOR WINDOWS AND EXTERIOR DOORS WITH GLAZING EXTERIOR WINDOWS AND EXTERIOR DOORS WITH GLAZING, SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF MULTI-PANE GLAZING WITH A MINIMUM OF ONE TEMPERED PANE. (C.R.C. R337.8.2.1) 2. EXTERIOR DOORS SHALL MEET ONE OF THE FOLLOWING (C.R.C. R337.8.3): A. THE EXTERIOR SURFACE OR CLADDING SHALL BE OF NON-COMBUSTIBLE OR IGNITION-RESISTANT MATERIAL. B. SHALL HAVE A FIRE-RESISTANCE RATING OF NOT LESS THAN 20 MIN. WHEN TESTED ACCORDING TO NFPA 252. SHALL BE TESTED TO MEET THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF SFM STANDARD 12-7A-1. 3. GARAGE DOORS SHALL RESIST THE INTRUSION OF EMBERS FROM ENTERING BY PREVENTING GAPS BETWEEN DOORS AND DOOR OPENINGS, AT HTE BOTTOM, SIDES, AND TOPS OF DOORS, FROM EXCEEDING 1/8". gAPS BETWEEN DOORS AND DOOR OPENINGS SHALL BE CONTROLLED BY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING METHODS: A. WEATHER STRIPPING PRODUCTS MADE OF MATERIALS THAT: (A) HAVE BEEN TESTED FOR TENSILE STRENGTH IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D638 AFTER EXPOSURE TO ASTM G155 FOR A PERIOD OF 2,000 HOURS, WHERE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DIFFERENCE IN TENSILE STRENGTH VALUES BETWEEN EXPOSED AND NONEXPOSED SAMPLES DO NOT EXCEED 10% AND (B) EXHIBIT A V-2 OR BETTER FLAMMABILITY RATING WHEN TESTED TO UL 94. B. DOOR OVERLAPS ONTO JAMBS AND HEADERS. C. GARAGE DOOR JAMBS AND HEADERS COVERED WITH METAL FLASHING 4. VENTS SHALL RESIST BUILDING IGNITION FROM THE INTRUSION OF BURNING EMBERS AND FLAME THROUGH THE VENTILATION OPENINGS WITH THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (C.R.C. R337.6) A. THE DIMENSIONS OF THE OPENINGS THEREIN SHALL BE A MIN. OF 1/16TH INCH AND SHALL NOT EXCEED 1/8TH INCH. B. THE MATERIALS SHALL BE INCOMBUSTIBLE C. THE MATERIALS USED SHALL BE CORROSION RESISTANT. 5. THE EXTERIOR WALL COVERING OR WALL ASSEMBLY SHALL COMPLY WITH ONE OF THE FOLLOWING C.R.C. R337.7.3: A. NONCOMBUSTIBLE MATERIAL. B. IGNITION- RESISTANT MATERIAL. C. SAWN LUMBER OR GLUE-LAMINATED WOOD WITH THE SMALLEST MINIMUM NOMINAL DIMENSION OF 4". SAWN OR GLUE-LAMINATED PLANKS SPLINED, TONGUE-AND-GROOVE, OR SET CLOSE TOGETHER AND WELL SPIKED. D. LOG WALL CONSTRUCTION. E. WALL ASSEMBLIES THAT HAVE BEEN TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEST PROCEDURES FOR A 10-MINUTE DIRECT FLAME CONTACT EXPOSURE TEST SET FORTH IN ASTM E2707 WITH THE CONDITIONS OF ACCEPTANCE SHOWN IN SECTION R337.7.3.1. F. WALL ASSEMBLIES THAT MEET THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS CRITERIA IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEST PROCEDURES FOR A 10-MINUTE DIRECT FLAME CONTACT EXPOSURE TEST SET FORTH IN SFM STANDARD 12-7A-1. EXCEPTIONS: ANY OF THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE DEEMED TO MEET THE ASSEMBLY PERFORMANCE CRITERIA AND INTENT OF THIS SECTION: A. ONE LAYER OF 5/8" TYPE X GYPSUM SHEATHING APPLIED BEHIND THE EXTERIOR COVERING OR CLADDING ON THE EXTERIOR SIDE OF THE FRAMING. B. THE EXTERIOR PORTION OF A 1-HOUR FIRE RESISTIVE EXTERIOR WALL ASSEMBLY DESIGNED FOR EXTERIOR FIRE EXPOSURE INCLUDING ASSEMBLIES USING GYPSUM PANEL AND SHEATHING PRODUCTS LISTED IN THE GYPSUM ASSOCIATION FIRE RESISTIVE FIRE DESIGN MANUAL. 6. DECKING SURFACES SHALL COMPLY WITH C.R.C. R337.9.3. THE WALKING SURFACE MATERIAL OF DECKS, PORCHES, BALCONY AND STAIRS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH ONE OF THE FOLLOWING MATERIALS: A. MATERIAL THAT COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION R337.9.4 WHEN TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH BOTH ASTM E2632 AND ASTM E2726. B. IGNITION-RESISTANT MATERIAL THAT COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION R337.4.3 WHEN TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM E84 OR UL 723. C. MATERIAL THAT COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF BOTH SFM STANDARD 12-7A-4 AND SFM STANDARD 12-7A-5. D. EXTERIOR FIRE RETARDANT TREATED WOOD. E. NONCOMBUSTIBLE MATERIAL. F. ANY MATERIAL THAT COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF SFM STANDARD 12-7A-4A WHEN ATTACHED EXTERIOR WALL COVERING IS ALSO COMPOSED OF NONCOMBUSTIBLE OR IGNITION-RESISTANT MATERIAL. EXCEPTION: WALL MATERIAL MAY BE OF ANY MATERIAL THAT OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THIS CHAPTER WHEN THE DECKING SURFACE MATERIAL COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS ASTM E84 WITH A CLASS B FLAME SPREAD RATING. G. AY MATERIAL THAT COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION R337.9.5 WHEN TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM E2632 AND WHEN ATTACHED EXTERIOR WALL COVERING IS ALSO COMPOSED OF ONLY NONCOMBUSTIBLE OR IGNITION-RESISTANT MATERIALS. EXCEPTION: WALL MATERIAL SHALL BE PERMITTED TO BE OF ANY MATERIAL THAT OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THIS CHAPTER WHEN THE DECKING SURFACE MATERIAL COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS ASTM E84 WITH A CLASS B FLAME SPREAD INDEX. ADDITIONAL WILDFIRE PROTECTION MITIGATION MEASURES · PROVIDE AN ADDED FIRE SPRINKLER HEAD WITHIN EACH OF THE PORCHES AND DECKS OF THE TOWNHOMES AS SHOWN ON SHEET A08.2. · DESIGN TO STRICTER FIRE SEPARATION DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS PER CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE R302.1 (2), AS FOLLOWS: a. EXTERIOR WALL ELEMENTS - 1 HR. RATED FIRE RESISTANT ASSEMBLY b. PROJECTIONS - 1 HR. RATED FIRE RESISTANT ASSEMBLY c. PENETRATIONS - COMPLY WITH SECTION 302.4 THESE MITIGATION MEASURES WILL BE IMPLEMENTED AT THE EXTERIOR WALLS FACING THE NORTH & SOUTH PERIMETER OF THE SITE, SPECIFICALLY AT UNITS 1, 7, 13, 19, & 25 (NORTH PERIMETER), AND AT UNITS 36, 39, 43, 47, & 51 (SOUTH PERIMETER), AND UNITS 2-6 AND 35-31(WEST PERIMETER) AS SHOWN ON SHEET A08.2 · PLEASE NOTE: THERE ARE NO PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO WINDOW OPENINGS IN THE EXTERIOR WALLS NOTED ABOVE.

V:\381078_SHH Linda Vista\03_CAD\381078\04_Sheets\DRB\A08 PROJECT DATA.dwg, 1/13/2026 10:24:04 AM, MThomas 1363
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1363 of 2331
381.07810857 Linda Vista Drive
Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583
650-857-0122

FIRE AMMR
A08.1
1364
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1364 of 2331
381.07810857 Linda Vista Drive
Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583
650-857-0122

AMMR SITE PLAN
A08.2
1365
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1365 of 2331
NET LOT AREA = 109,161 S.F.

BUILDING COVERAGE:

BUILDING 1 & 6 = 5,962 S.F. EA. x 2 BLDGS. = 11,924 S.F.

BUILDING 2 = 5,471 S.F. EA. x 1 BLDG. = 5,471 S.F.

BUILDING 3, 4, & 5 = 5,743 S.F. EA. x 3 BLDGS. = 17,229 S.F.

BUILDING 7 = 2,986 S.F. EA. x 1 BLDG. = 2,986 S.F.

BUILDING 8, 9 & 10 = 4,006 S.F. EA. x 3 BLDGS. = 12,018 S.F.

TOTAL COVERAGE OF LOT = 49,628 S.F.

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL BUILDING COVERAGE TO NET LOT AREA = 45.5% BLDG 1
6C PLEX
BLDG 2
6B PLEX
BLDG 3
6A PLEX
BLDG 4
6A PLEX
BLDG 5
6A PLEX
BLDG 6
6C PLEX
BLDG 7
3 PLEX
BLDG 8
4 PLEX
BLDG 9
4 PLEX LINDA VISTA RD.

EVULICH CT. A STREET B STREET D STREET C STREET E STREET PROPERTY LINE, TYP.

TOTAL LOT S.F. = 111,296 S.F.

BLDG 10
4 PLEX 381.07810857 Linda Vista Drive
Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583
650-857-0122

LOT COVERAGE
A09
NORTH
0 6' 12'18'24'30' 60'
NOTE:

1. Refer to Civil sheets for all property lines, easements, site dimensions, accessible unit locations, etc.

2. Refer to project data sheet A08 for all site summary info

3. Refer to Landscape sheets for landscape design, dimensions and detailed information
BUILDING 3, 4 & 5
(3 BUILDING ON SITE)

LOT COVERAGE AREA PER CITY CODE
CALCULATION = 5,743 SQ. FT. X 3 = 17,229 SQ. FT.

NOTE: BUILDING AREAS FOR PURPOSES OF

LOT COVERAGE ARE THE TOTAL LAND AREA

THAT IS COVERED BY BUILDINGS, BUT

EXCLUDING ALL PROJECTIONS, GROUND

LEVEL PAVING, LANDSCAPE FEATURES,

AND OPEN RECREATIONAL FACILITIES PER
CMC 19.08.030 DEFINITIONS.

BUILDING 2
(1 BUILDING ON SITE)

LOT COVERAGE AREA PER CITY CODE
CALCULATION = 5,471 SQ. FT.

BUILDING 1 & 6
(2 BUILDING ON SITE)

LOT COVERAGE AREA PER CITY CODE
CALCULATION = 5,962 SQ. FT. X 2 = 11,924 SQ. FT.

BUILDING 8, 9 & 10
(3 BUILDING ON SITE)

LOT COVERAGE AREA PER CITY CODE
CALCULATION = 4,006 SQ. FT. X 3 = 12,018 SQ. FT.

BUILDING 7
(1 BUILDING ON SITE)

LOT COVERAGE AREA PER CITY CODE
CALCULATION = 2,986 SQ. FT.
1366
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1366 of 2331
A1
A2
A3
A7 A6 A4
A8 A5
A9
A10
A11
A12 A13 A14 A15 A16 A17 A18 A22 A19 A20 A21
A14
A1
A3
A4
A5
A6
A7 A8
A9
A10
A11 A12
A15 A16 A17 A18 A19
A13 A2
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583
650-857-0122
BUILDING 1 & 6 FIRST & SECOND FLOOR FAR DIAGRAMS
A09.1
0 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'

FAR CALCULATION
BLDG 1 & 6 x 2 35,952 SF
BLDG 2 x 1 16,199 SF
BLDG 3, 4 & 5 x 3 51,249 SF
BLDG 7 x 1 9,049 SF
BLDG 8, 9 & 10 x 3 36,024 SF
TOTAL 148,473 SF
NET AREA 148,473 / 109,161 = 1.36
5,997 SF

FIRST FLOOR PLAN

SECOND FLOOR PLAN
6,242 SF
130'-7" x 35'-5"
1'-0" x 9'-9"
12'-3" x 8'-8"
AREA-A1 4624.82 SQ. FT.

9.75 SQ. FT.
106.16 SQ. FT.
10'-4 1/2" x 6'-9" 70.03 SQ. FT.

AREA-A2
AREA-A3
AREA-A4
4'-5" x 8'-3"
16'-8" x 14'-9"
AREA-A5

36.43 SQ. FT.
245.83 SQ. FT.
21'-0" x 6" 10.50 SQ. FT.

AREA-A6
AREA-A7
AREA-A8
16'-7" x 13'-9"
21'-2" x 14'-3"
AREA-A9
228.02 SQ. FT.

36.43 SQ. FT.
301.62 SQ. FT.
10'-4 1/2" x 6'-9" 70.03 SQ. FT.

AREA-A10
AREA-A11
AREA-A12
TOTAL FAR:

BUILDING 1 & 6

SECOND FLOOR
6242.06 SQ. FT.
21'-2" x 14'-3" 301.62 SQ. FT.
12'-3" x 8'-8" 106.16 SQ. FT.

AREA-A13 1'-0" x 9'-9" 9.75 SQ. FT.

AREA-A14 10'-9 1/2" x 1'-0" 10.79 SQ. FT.

AREA-A15
21'-1" x 1'-0" 21.08 SQ. FT.

AREA-A16
4'-5" x 8'-3"
AREA-A17
21'-2" x 1'-6" 31.75 SQ. FT.

10.79 SQ. FT.

AREA-A18
AREA-A19
21'-0" x 6" 10.50 SQ. FT.
130'-7" x 39'-8"
1'-0" x 9'-9"
13'-2" x 3'-4 1/2"
AREA-A1 5179.80 SQ. FT.

9.75 SQ. FT.

44.43 SQ. FT.
21'-2" x 8'-6" 179.91 SQ. FT.

AREA-A2
AREA-A3
AREA-A4
16'-7" x 8'-0"
4'-5" x 2'-6"
AREA-A5
132.66 SQ. FT.

11.04 SQ. FT.

4.33 SQ. FT.

AREA-A6
AREA-A7
AREA-A8
16'-8" x 9'-0"
13'-2" x 3'-4 1/2"
AREA-A9
150.00 SQ. FT.
179.91 SQ. FT.

44.43 SQ. FT.
1'-0" x 9'-9" 9.75 SQ. FT.

AREA-A10
AREA-A11
AREA-A12
TOTAL FAR:

BUILDING 1 & 6

FIRST FLOOR
5997.17 SQ. FT.
4'-5" x 2'-6" 11.04 SQ. FT.
4'-3 1/2" x 1'-6" 6.43 SQ. FT.

AREA-A13 1'-11 1/2" x 1'-6" 2.93 SQ. FT.

AREA-A14 2'-2" x 2'-0" 4.33 SQ. FT.

AREA-A15
4'-3" x 1'-0" 4.25 SQ. FT.

AREA-A16
21'-2" x 8'-6"
AREA-A17
2'-1" x 1'-0" 2.08 SQ. FT.
2'-2" x 2'-0" 4.33 SQ. FT.

AREA-A18
AREA-A19
2'-1" x 1'-0" 2.08 SQ. FT.

AREA-A20 4.33 SQ. FT.
4'-3 1/2" x 1'-6" 6.43 SQ. FT.

AREA-A21
AREA-A22
1'-11 1/2" x 1'-6" 2.93 SQ. FT.
2'-2" x 2'-0"
2'-2" x 2'-0"
10'-9 1/2" x 1'-0" 381.07810857 Linda Vista Drive
Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
1367
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1367 of 2331
A3
A1
A9
A2
A5 A4
A6
A7
A10 A8
A11
A12 A14
A15
A16 A18
A19
A21 A22
A23
A17
A20
A24 A25 A26 A27 A28 A29
A13
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583
650-857-0122
BUILDING 1 & 6 THIRD FLOOR FAR DIAGRAM
A09.2
0 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'
5,737 SF

THIRD FLOOR PLAN
130'-7" x 22'-7"
3'-11" x 3'-1"
1'-5 1/2" x 9'-9"
AREA-A1 2949.00 SQ. FT.

12.07 SQ. FT.

14.21 SQ. FT.
3'-5 1/2" x 2'-7 1/2" 9.07 SQ. FT.

AREA-A2
AREA-A3
AREA-A4
22'-7 1/2" x 13'-10 1/2"
17'-6 1/4" x 15'-4 1/2"
AREA-A5
313.92 SQ. FT.
269.38 SQ. FT.
368.51 SQ. FT.

AREA-A6
AREA-A7
AREA-A8
12'-3" x 1'-11"
7'-2 1/2" x 5'-7"
AREA-A9

23.47 SQ. FT.

68.54 SQ. FT.
271.80 SQ. FT.
60'-2 1/4" x 5'-8 1/2"

40.24 SQ. FT.

AREA-A10
AREA-A11
AREA-A12
TOTAL FAR:

BUILDING 1 & 6

THIRD FLOOR
5736.56 SQ. FT.
4'-9 1/2" x 2'-6 1/2" 12.17 SQ. FT.
343.57 SQ. FT.

AREA-A13 3'-7 3/4" x 1'-0" 3.64 SQ. FT.

AREA-A14 13'-0 1/4" x 6'-6" 84.63 SQ. FT.

AREA-A15
22'-7 1/2" x 13'-10 1/2"
202.64 SQ. FT.

AREA-A16
13'-0 1/4" x 20'-10 1/2"
AREA-A17 35'-6" x 5'-8 1/2"
269.38 SQ. FT.
12'-3" x 1'-11" 23.47 SQ. FT.

AREA-A18
AREA-A19
313.92 SQ. FT.

AREA-A20 14.21 SQ. FT.

12.17 SQ. FT.

AREA-A21
AREA-A22
3'-5 1/2" x 2'-7 1/2" 9.07 SQ. FT.
17'-5 3/4" x 21'-1"
1'-5 1/2" x 9'-9"
TOTAL AREA = 17,976 SF
2 x 17,976 SF = 35,952 SF
4'-9 1/2" x 2'-6 1/2"
10'-9 1/2" x 1'-0" 10.79 SQ. FT.

AREA-A23
AREA-A24
3'-11" x 3'-1" 12.07 SQ. FT.

AREA-A25 10.50 SQ. FT.

21.08 SQ. FT.

AREA-A26
AREA-A27
21'-2" x 1'-6" 31.75 SQ. FT.
21'-0" x 6"

10.79 SQ. FT.

AREA-A28
AREA-A29

10.50 SQ. FT.
4'-5 1/2" x 15'-4 1/2"
17'-6 1/4" x 15'-4 1/2"
21'-1" x 1'-0"
21'-0" x 6"
10'-9 1/2" x 1'-0" 381.07810857 Linda Vista Drive
Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
1368
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1368 of 2331
A1
A3
A5 A4
A7
A8 A6
A9
A10
A11 A12 A14 A15 A16 A17 A19
A20
A2
A13 A18
A1
A3 A4
A7
A6 A5 A8 A9
A10 A11
A14 A15 A17
A13 A16
A12 A2
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583
650-857-0122
BUILDING 2 FIRST & SECOND FLOOR FAR DIAGRAMS
A09.3
0 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'
5,502 SF

FIRST FLOOR PLAN

SECOND FLOOR PLAN
5,423 SF
115'-0 1/2" x 39'-8"
6 1/2" x 15'-2"
2'-6 1/2" x 10'-9 1/2"
AREA-A1 4563.31 SQ. FT.

8.21 SQ. FT.

27.42 SQ. FT.
3'-0" x 2'-4 1/2" 7.12 SQ. FT.

AREA-A2
AREA-A3
AREA-A4
12'-8" x 1'-0"
68'-5" x 10'-6"
AREA-A5

12.67 SQ. FT.
718.38 SQ. FT.

1.46 SQ. FT.

AREA-A6
AREA-A7
AREA-A8
AREA-A9
AREA-A10
TOTAL FAR:

BUILDING 2

FIRST FLOOR
13'-2" x 3'-4 1/2" 44.43 SQ. FT.
1'-0" x 9'-9" 9.75 SQ. FT.

AREA-A11 4'-3 1/2" x 1'-6" 6.43 SQ. FT.

AREA-A12 2'-0 1/2" x 1'-6" 3.06 SQ. FT.

AREA-A13
3'-0 1/4" x 1'-0" 3.02 SQ. FT.

AREA-A14
AREA-A15
13'-5 3/4" x 1'-0" 13.47 SQ. FT.

AREA-A16
AREA-A17
AREA-A18
6 1/2" x 1'-11 1/2" 1.06 SQ. FT.

AREA-A19
AREA-A20
4'-9" x 1'-6" 7.12 SQ. FT.
1'-5 5/8" x 1'-0"
114'-7" x 33'-11"
1'-0" x 9'-9"
12'-3" x 8'-8"
AREA-A1 3886.27 SQ. FT.

9.75 SQ. FT.
106.16 SQ. FT.
10'-4 1/2" x 6'-9" 70.03 SQ. FT.

AREA-A2
AREA-A3
AREA-A4
11'-6 1/2" x 4'-6 1/2"
11'-6 1/2" x 4'-6 1/2"
AREA-A5

52.41 SQ. FT.

52.41 SQ. FT.
23'-2 1/2" x 1'-6" 34.81 SQ. FT.

AREA-A6
AREA-A7
AREA-A8
68'-5" x 11'-3"
AREA-A9
769.68 SQ. FT.

65.11 SQ. FT.

AREA-A10
AREA-A11
AREA-A12
TOTAL FAR:

BUILDING 2

SECOND FLOOR
5423.44 SQ. FT.
11'-9" x 5'-6 1/2" 65.11 SQ. FT.

AREA-A13
AREA-A14 34'-8 3/4" x 1'-6" 52.09 SQ. FT.

AREA-A15
AREA-A16
11'-9" x 5'-6 1/2"
AREA-A17
12'-8" x 1'-0" 12.67 SQ. FT.
13'-2" x 3'-4 1/2" 44.43 SQ. FT.
13'-5 3/4" x 1'-0" 13.47 SQ. FT.
1'-5 5/8" x 1'-0" 1.46 SQ. FT.
2'-0 1/2" x 1'-6" 3.06 SQ. FT.
10'-9 1/2" x 1'-0" 10.79 SQ. FT.
10'-4 1/2" x 6'-9" 70.03 SQ. FT.
12'-3" x 8'-8" 106.16 SQ. FT.
1'-0" x 9'-9" 9.75 SQ. FT.
34'-8 3/4" x 1'-6" 52.09 SQ. FT.
10'-9 1/2" x 1'-0" 10.79 SQ. FT.
5502.00 SQ. FT. 381.07810857 Linda Vista Drive
Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
1369
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1369 of 2331
A2
A1 A3
A21
A24
A26
A23
A22
A20
A18
A17 A13
A15
A14
A11
A9
A7
A8
A6
A4
A28
A27 A29
A16 A12
A25 A5
A19 A10
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583
650-857-0122
BUILDING 2 THIRD FLOOR FAR DIAGRAM
A09.4
0 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'
5,274 SF

THIRD FLOOR PLAN
34'-8 3/4" x 22'-7"
45'-1 1/2" x 24'-6 1/2"
AREA-A1 784.29 SQ. FT.
1107.44 SQ. FT.
3'-11" x 3'-2" 12.40 SQ. FT.

AREA-A2
AREA-A3
AREA-A4
8'-8 1/2" x 9'-8"
4'-0" x 1'-11"
AREA-A5

84.18 SQ. FT.

7.66 SQ. FT.
556.01 SQ. FT.

AREA-A6
AREA-A7
AREA-A8
8'-3" x 8'-8"
11'-7 3/4" x 4'-6"
AREA-A9

71.50 SQ. FT.

15.54 SQ. FT.

52.40 SQ. FT.
26'-0 1/4" x 19'-7"

11.75 SQ. FT.

AREA-A10
AREA-A11
AREA-A12
TOTAL FAR:

BUILDING 2

THIRD FLOOR
5273.52 SQ. FT.
1'-0" x 9'-9" 9.75 SQ. FT.
509.57 SQ. FT.

AREA-A13 23'-3 1/2" x 4'-6 1/2" 105.78 SQ. FT.

AREA-A14 9'-1" x 12'-4" 112.02 SQ. FT.

AREA-A15
AREA-A16
1'-10 1/2" x 8'-3 1/2"
AREA-A17
AREA-A18
AREA-A19
AREA-A20
AREA-A21
AREA-A22
26'-11 1/2" x 20'-7 1/2"
TOTAL AREA = 16,199 SF
AREA-A23
AREA-A24
AREA-A25
AREA-A26
AREA-A27
AREA-A28
AREA-A29
23'-2 1/2" x 1'-6" 34.81 SQ. FT.
11'-9" x 1'-0"
10'-9 1/2" x 1'-0" 10.79 SQ. FT.
34'-8 3/4" x 22'-7" 784.29 SQ. FT.
11'-9" x 1'-0" 11.75 SQ. FT.
23'-3 1/2" x 4'-6 1/2" 105.78 SQ. FT.
9'-1" x 12'-4" 112.02 SQ. FT.
1'-10 1/2" x 8'-3 1/2" 15.54 SQ. FT.
11'-7 3/4" x 4'-6" 52.40 SQ. FT.
26'-0 1/4" x 19'-7" 509.57 SQ. FT.
4'-0" x 1'-11" 7.66 SQ. FT.
8'-3" x 8'-8" 71.50 SQ. FT.
8'-8 1/2" x 9'-8" 84.18 SQ. FT.
1'-0" x 9'-9" 9.75 SQ. FT.
3'-11" x 3'-2" 12.40 SQ. FT.
10'-9 1/2" x 1'-0" 10.79 SQ. FT. 381.07810857 Linda Vista Drive Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
1370
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1370 of 2331
A15 A21 A23
A2
A3 A11 A9
A24
A1
A22 A16 A18 A19 A20 A14
A13
A17
A4
A5
A6
A8
A10
A12
A7
A16
A1 A2
A4 A5
A6
A7
A8 A9
A11 A10
A12 A13
A18 A19 A17 A20
A15
A14 A3
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583
650-857-0122
BUILDING 3, 4 & 5 FIRST & SECOND FLOOR FAR DIAGRAMS
A09.5
0 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'
5,776 SF

FIRST FLOOR PLAN

SECOND FLOOR PLAN
5,817 SF
123'-0 1/2" x 39'-8"
1'-0" x 9'-9"
AREA-A1 4880.65 SQ. FT.

9.75 SQ. FT.

44.43 SQ. FT.
21'-1" x 3'-0" 63.25 SQ. FT.

AREA-A2
AREA-A3
AREA-A4
12'-8" x 1'-0"
16'-7" x 3'-0"
AREA-A5

12.67 SQ. FT.

49.75 SQ. FT.

7.12 SQ. FT.

AREA-A6
AREA-A7
AREA-A8
34'-3" x 5'-0"
AREA-A9
171.25 SQ. FT.

AREA-A10
AREA-A11
AREA-A12
TOTAL FAR:

BUILDING 3, 4 & 5

FIRST FLOOR
5775.62 SQ. FT.
71'-11" x 5'-6" 395.54 SQ. FT.
2'-6 1/2" x 10'-9 1/2" 27.42 SQ. FT.

AREA-A13 6 1/2" x 15'-2" 8.21 SQ. FT.

AREA-A14 6 1/2" x 1'-11 1/2" 1.06 SQ. FT.

AREA-A15
2'-1" x 1'-0" 2.08 SQ. FT.

AREA-A16
AREA-A17
2'-0 1/2" x 1'-6" 3.06 SQ. FT.

AREA-A18
AREA-A19
AREA-A20
AREA-A21
AREA-A22
2'-2" x 2'-0" 4.33 SQ. FT.
4'-9" x 1'-6"
4'-6" x 2'-6" 11.25 SQ. FT.
13'-2" x 3'-4 1/2" 44.43 SQ. FT.

7.12 SQ. FT.
3'-7 5/8" x 1'-0" 3.63 SQ. FT.
13'-5 3/4" x 1'-0" 13.47 SQ. FT.
1'-5 5/8" x 1'-0" 1.46 SQ. FT.
55'-9 3/4" x 35'-5"
66'-9 1/4" x 33'-11"
12'-3" x 8'-8"
AREA-A1 1976.69 SQ. FT.
2264.64 SQ. FT.
106.16 SQ. FT.
10'-4 1/2" x 6'-9" 70.03 SQ. FT.

AREA-A2
AREA-A3
AREA-A4
55'-3" x 11'-3"
11'-6 1/2" x 4'-6 1/2"
AREA-A5
621.56 SQ. FT.

52.41 SQ. FT.

AREA-A6
AREA-A7
AREA-A8
AREA-A9
AREA-A10
AREA-A11
AREA-A12
TOTAL FAR:

BUILDING 3, 4 & 5

SECOND FLOOR
5816.77 SQ. FT.
21'-2" x 3'-0" 63.50 SQ. FT.

AREA-A13
AREA-A14 1'-0" x 9'-9" 9.75 SQ. FT.

AREA-A15
AREA-A16
11'-9" x 5'-6 1/2"
AREA-A17
12'-3" x 8'-8" 106.16 SQ. FT.
16'-8" x 14'-3" 237.50 SQ. FT.
4'-6" x 1'-6" 6.75 SQ. FT.
14'-10 1/2" x 6'-9" 100.40 SQ. FT.

17.34 SQ. FT.
21'-1" x 6" 10.54 SQ. FT.
4'-3 1/2" x 1'-6" 6.43 SQ. FT.

AREA-A23
AREA-A24
1'-11 1/2" x 1'-6" 2.93 SQ. FT.

AREA-A18
AREA-A19
AREA-A20 12'-4 1/2" x 1'-6" 18.56 SQ. FT.
10'-9 1/2" x 2'-6" 26.97 SQ. FT.
13'-2" x 3'-4 1/2"
3'-0" x 2'-4 1/2"

4.33 SQ. FT.
1'-0" x 9'-9" 9.75 SQ. FT.

65.11 SQ. FT.
10'-9 1/2" x 1'-0" 10.79 SQ. FT.
11'-6 3/4" x 1'-6"
21'-1" x 2'-0" 42.16 SQ. FT.
2'-2" x 2'-0" 381.07810857 Linda Vista Drive
Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
1371
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1371 of 2331
A4
A1 A2
A3
A5
A6
A7
A8
A9
A12
A13 A14
A15
A16
A11
A10
A18
A17
A19
A23
A21 A20
A24 A22
A25
A26
A28
A31 A32 A33 A34
A27
A29 A30
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583
650-857-0122
BUILDING 3, 4 & 5 THIRD FLOOR FAR DIAGRAM
A09.6
0 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'
5,490 SF

THIRD FLOOR PLAN
55'-9 3/4" x 22'-7"
66'-9 1/4" x 21'-1"
AREA-A1 1260.42 SQ. FT.
1407.74 SQ. FT.
3'-11" x 3'-2" 12.40 SQ. FT.

AREA-A2
AREA-A3
AREA-A4
8'-8 1/2" x 9'-8"
4'-0" x 1'-11"
AREA-A5 84.18 SQ. FT.

7.66 SQ. FT.

15.67 SQ. FT.

AREA-A6
AREA-A7
AREA-A8
8'-3" x 8'-8"
13'-5 3/4" x 15'-3 1/2"
AREA-A9

71.50 SQ. FT.

97.51 SQ. FT.
206.11 SQ. FT.
17'-6 1/4" x 1'-6"

19.01 SQ. FT.

AREA-A10
AREA-A11
AREA-A12
TOTAL FAR:

BUILDING 3, 4 & 5

THIRD FLOOR
5490.38 SQ. FT.
1'-0" x 9'-9" 9.75 SQ. FT.

26.28 SQ. FT.

AREA-A13 11'-9" x 8'-7 1/2" 101.34 SQ. FT.

AREA-A14 11'-6 1/2" x 7'-7 1/2" 88.00 SQ. FT.

AREA-A15
AREA-A16
17'-1" x 5'-8 1/2"
AREA-A17
AREA-A18
AREA-A19
AREA-A20
AREA-A21
AREA-A22
5'-1" x 3'-1"
AREA-A23
AREA-A24
AREA-A30
AREA-A31
AREA-A32
AREA-A33
AREA-A34
6'-2" x 3'-1"
21'-1" x 2'-0" 42.16 SQ. FT.
20'-8 1/4" x 9'-3" 191.35 SQ. FT.
13'-5 3/4" x 8'-3 1/2" 111.76 SQ. FT.
24'-3 1/2" x 3'-5 1/2" 84.00 SQ. FT.
3'-7 1/4" x 2'-3" 8.10 SQ. FT.
3'-7 3/4" x 6'-1" 22.17 SQ. FT.
13'-0 1/4" x 7'-6" 97.65 SQ. FT.
4'-6" x 1'-6" 6.75 SQ. FT.
31'-10 3/4" x 19'-7" 624.62 SQ. FT.
4'-0" x 1'-11" 7.66 SQ. FT.
21'-1" x 6" 10.54 SQ. FT.
11'-6 3/4" x 1'-6" 17.34 SQ. FT.
12'-4 1/2" x 1'-6" 18.50 SQ. FT.

TOTAL AREA = 17,083 SF
3 x 17,083 SF = 51,249 SF
AREA-A25
AREA-A26
AREA-A27
AREA-A28
AREA-A29
3'-11" x 3'-2" 12.40 SQ. FT.
1'-0" x 9'-9" 9.75 SQ. FT.
8'-3" x 8'-8" 71.50 SQ. FT.
8'-8 1/2" x 9'-8" 84.18 SQ. FT.
10'-9 1/2" x 1'-0" 10.79 SQ. FT.
31'-10 3/4" x 19'-7" 624.62 SQ. FT.
10'-9 1/2" x 2'-6" 26.97 SQ. FT. 381.07810857 Linda Vista Drive Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
1372
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1372 of 2331
A9 A10 A11
A8 A2
A1
A5
A3
A4
A7 A6
A16
A2
A11 A12 A13 A10
A15 A14
A1
A3
A4
A5 A6 A7
A8
A9
A18 A20
A16 A3
A1
A12 A7
A4
A5
A6
A9 A10
A8
A2
A11
A15
A14
A13
A17
A19
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583
650-857-0122
BUILDING 7 FAR DIAGRAMS
A09.7
0 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'
3,008 SF

FIRST FLOOR PLAN

THIRD FLOOR PLAN
2,978 SF
67'-9 1/2" x 39'-8"
1'-0" x 9'-9"
AREA-A1 2689.06 SQ. FT.

9.75 SQ. FT.

44.43 SQ. FT.
16'-8" x 8'-6" 141.66 SQ. FT.

AREA-A2
AREA-A3
AREA-A4
13'-2" x 3'-4 1/2"
2'-6 1/2" x 10'-9 1/2"
AREA-A5

44.43 SQ. FT.

27.42 SQ. FT.

3.06 SQ. FT.

AREA-A6
AREA-A7
AREA-A8
3'-0" x 2'-4 1/2"
AREA-A9

7.12 SQ. FT.

AREA-A10
AREA-A11
AREA-A12
TOTAL FAR:

BUILDING 7

FIRST FLOOR
3008.22 SQ. FT.
4'-6" x 2'-6" 11.25 SQ. FT.
2'-0 1/2" x 1'-6" 3.06 SQ. FT.

AREA-A13 2'-1" x 1'-0" 2.08 SQ. FT.

AREA-A14
AREA-A15
AREA-A16 4'-3 1/2" x 1'-6" 6.43 SQ. FT.
6 1/2" x 15'-2" 8.21 SQ. FT.
6 1/2" x 1'-11 1/2" 1.06 SQ. FT.

7.12 SQ. FT.
13'-2" x 3'-4 1/2"
4'-9" x 1'-6"
67'-4" x 35'-5"
12'-3" x 1'-11"
AREA-A1 2384.72 SQ. FT.

23.47 SQ. FT.
66'-5" x 6'-9" 448.31 SQ. FT.

AREA-A2
AREA-A3
AREA-A4
10'-9 1/2" x 1'-0"
AREA-A5

10.79 SQ. FT.

AREA-A6
AREA-A7
AREA-A8
AREA-A9
AREA-A10
AREA-A11
TOTAL FAR:

BUILDING 7

SECOND FLOOR
3063.30 SQ. FT.
16'-8" x 7'-6" 125.00 SQ. FT.
4'-6" x 1'-6" 6.75 SQ. FT.
1'-0" x 9'-9" 9.75 SQ. FT.
3,063 SF

SECOND FLOOR PLAN
TOTAL FAR:

BUILDING 7

THIRD FLOOR
2977.74 SQ. FT.

AREA-A1 67'-4" x 22'-7" 1520.60 SQ. FT.

AREA-A2 3'-11" x 3'-2" 12.40 SQ. FT.

AREA-A3
AREA-A4 8'-8 1/2" x 9'-8"
4'-0" x 1'-11"
AREA-A5

84.18 SQ. FT.

AREA-A6 7.66 SQ. FT.

AREA-A7
AREA-A8
8'-3" x 8'-8"
4'-6" x 1'-6"
AREA-A9

71.50 SQ. FT.

97.65 SQ. FT.

6.75 SQ. FT.

AREA-A10
AREA-A11
AREA-A12
1'-0" x 9'-9" 9.75 SQ. FT.

AREA-A13 4'-0" x 1'-11" 7.66 SQ. FT.

AREA-A14
AREA-A15
AREA-A16
13'-0 1/4" x 7'-6"
AREA-A17
AREA-A18
AREA-A19
AREA-A20
10'-9 1/2" x 1'-0" 10.79 SQ. FT.
21'-0" x 6" 10.50 SQ. FT.

TOTAL AREA = 9,049 SF
2'-0 1/2" x 1'-6"
2'-1" x 1'-0" 2.08 SQ. FT.
21'-0" x 6" 10.50 SQ. FT.
10'-9 1/2" x 1'-0" 10.79 SQ. FT.
12'-3" x 1'-11" 23.47 SQ. FT.
1'-0" x 9'-9" 9.75 SQ. FT.
14'-5" x 19'-7" 282.32 SQ. FT.
3'-7 1/4" x 5'-8 1/2" 20.57 SQ. FT.
3'-7 3/4" x 6'-1" 22.17 SQ. FT.
31'-10 3/4" x 19'-7" 624.62 SQ. FT.
8'-3" x 8'-8" 71.50 SQ. FT.
8'-8 1/2" x 9'-8" 84.18 SQ. FT.
1'-0" x 9'-9" 9.75 SQ. FT.
3'-11" x 3'-2" 12.40 SQ. FT.
10'-9 1/2" x 1'-0" 10.79 SQ. FT. 381.07810857 Linda Vista Drive Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
1373
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1373 of 2331
A11 A18
A10
A12 A13 A15 A14 A16 A17
A1 A2
A3
A4 A5
A8 A6
A7 A9
A19
A10 A12
A9 A2
A1
A5
A3
A4
A6
A7
A8
A11
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583
650-857-0122
BUILDING 8, 9 & 10 FIRST & SECOND FLOOR FAR DIAGRAMS
A09.8
0 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'
4,033 SF

FIRST FLOOR PLAN

SECOND FLOOR PLAN
4,121 SF
88'-10 1/2" x 39'-8"
6 1/2" x 15'-2"
AREA-A1 3525.37 SQ. FT.

8.21 SQ. FT.

27.42 SQ. FT.
3'-0" x 2'-4 1/2" 7.12 SQ. FT.

AREA-A2
AREA-A3
AREA-A4
21'-2" x 8'-6"
16'-8" x 8'-6"
AREA-A5
179.91 SQ. FT.
141.66 SQ. FT.

AREA-A6
AREA-A7
AREA-A8
4'-5" x 2'-6"
AREA-A9

11.04 SQ. FT.

AREA-A10
AREA-A11
AREA-A12
TOTAL FAR:

BUILDING 8, 9 & 10

FIRST FLOOR
4032.76 SQ. FT.
13'-2" x 3'-4 1/2" 44.43 SQ. FT.
2'-0 1/2" x 1'-6" 3.06 SQ. FT.

AREA-A13
AREA-A14
AREA-A15
1'-11 1/2" x 1'-6" 2.93 SQ. FT.

AREA-A16
AREA-A17
AREA-A18
AREA-A19
1'-0" x 9'-9" 9.75 SQ. FT.

6.43 SQ. FT.
4'-9" x 1'-6" 7.12 SQ. FT.
6 1/2" x 1'-11 1/2" 1.06 SQ. FT.
88'-5" x 35'-5"
12'-3" x 1'-11"
AREA-A1 3131.42 SQ. FT.

23.47 SQ. FT.
87'-6" x 6'-9" 590.62 SQ. FT.

AREA-A2
AREA-A3
AREA-A4
16'-8" x 7'-6"
AREA-A5
125.00 SQ. FT.

AREA-A6
AREA-A7
AREA-A8
AREA-A9
AREA-A10
AREA-A11
AREA-A12
TOTAL FAR:

BUILDING 8, 9 & 10

SECOND FLOOR
4121.47 SQ. FT.
4'-5" x 1'-6" 6.62 SQ. FT.
10'-9 1/2" x 1'-0" 10.79 SQ. FT.
42'-1" x 6" 21.04 SQ. FT.
10'-9 1/2" x 1'-0" 10.79 SQ. FT.
2'-6 1/2" x 10'-9 1/2"
4'-3 1/2" x 1'-6"
1'-0" x 9'-9" 9.75 SQ. FT.
13'-2" x 3'-4 1/2" 44.43 SQ. FT.
2'-1" x 1'-0" 2.08 SQ. FT.
2'-1" x 1'-0" 2.08 SQ. FT.
2'-2" x 2'-0" 4.33 SQ. FT.
2'-2" x 2'-0" 4.33 SQ. FT.
21'-2" x 7'-6" 158.75 SQ. FT.
12'-3" x 1'-11" 23.47 SQ. FT.
1'-0" x 9'-9" 9.75 SQ. FT. 381.07810857 Linda Vista Drive Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
1374
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1374 of 2331
A19 A20 A21
A17 A3
A1
A2
A4
A5
A6
A7
A8
A10
A12 A11
A13
A14
A15
A16
A18
A9
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583
650-857-0122
BUILDING 8, 9 & 10 THIRD FLOOR FAR DIAGRAM
A09.9
0 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'
3,854 SF

THIRD FLOOR PLAN
AREA-A1 88'-5" x 22'-7" 1996.74 SQ. FT.

AREA-A2
AREA-A3
AREA-A4
AREA-A5
AREA-A6
AREA-A7
AREA-A8
AREA-A9
AREA-A10
AREA-A11
AREA-A12
TOTAL FAR:

BUILDING 8, 9 & 10

THIRD FLOOR
3853.51 SQ. FT.

AREA-A13
AREA-A14
AREA-A15
AREA-A16
AREA-A17
AREA-A18
AREA-A19
AREA-A20
AREA-A21
3'-11" x 3'-2" 12.40 SQ. FT.
8'-8 1/2" x 9'-8"
4'-0" x 1'-11"

84.18 SQ. FT.

7.66 SQ. FT.
8'-3" x 8'-8" 71.50 SQ. FT.
140.92 SQ. FT.
17'-6 1/4" x 1'-6"
1'-0" x 9'-9" 9.75 SQ. FT.

26.28 SQ. FT.
24'-8 1/4" x 5'-8 1/2"
31'-10 3/4" x 19'-7" 624.62 SQ. FT.

TOTAL AREA = 12,008 SF
3 x 12,008 SF = 36,024 SF
4'-0" x 1'-11" 7.66 SQ. FT.
8'-3" x 8'-8" 71.50 SQ. FT.
8'-8 1/2" x 9'-8" 84.18 SQ. FT.
1'-0" x 9'-9" 9.75 SQ. FT.
3'-11" x 3'-2" 12.40 SQ. FT.
10'-9 1/2" x 1'-0" 10.79 SQ. FT.
42'-1" x 6" 21.04 SQ. FT.
10'-9 1/2" x 1'-0" 10.79 SQ. FT.
17'-5 3/4" x 15'-4 1/2" 268.74 SQ. FT.
13'-0 1/4" x 6'-0" 78.12 SQ. FT.
3'-7 3/4" x 6'-1" 22.17 SQ. FT.
14'-5" x 19'-7" 282.32 SQ. FT. 381.07810857 Linda Vista Drive Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
1375
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1375 of 2331
COMMON LANDSCAPE:
(GREEN AREA) = 29,231 S.F.

COMMON HARDSCAPE (AMENITY):
(YELLOW AREA) = 901 S.F.

SITE AREAS
PRIVATE SIDE YARDS (5) AREA
= 1,550 S.F.
(HARDSCAPE = 1,046 S.F.; LANDSCAPE = 504 S.F.)

COMMON HARDSCAPE (PRIVATE SIDEWALKS,
AC & TRANSFORMER PADS):
(ORANGE AREA) = 7,535 S.F.

PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS:
(RED AREA) = 2,576 S.F.

PRIVATE STREET ROW:
(BLUE AREA) = 17,044 S.F.

BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA:
= 49,629 S.F.

SEE SHT. A09 FOR SQ. FTG. FOR BUILDING

COVERAGE DIAGRAMS
20'-0" PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT:
(CROSS HATCH) = 2,140 S.F.

SEE CIVIL SHT. TM1.0 FOR MORE INFORMATION 381.07810857 Linda Vista Drive Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583
650-857-0122

LOT AREAS
A10
NORTH
0 6' 12'18'24'30' 60'
NOTE:

1. Refer to Civil sheets for all property lines, easements, site dimensions, accessible unit locations, etc.

2. Refer to project data sheet A08 for all site summary info

3. Refer to Landscape sheets for landscape design, dimensions and detailed information

PRIVATE USABLE OPEN SPACE

SQUARE FOOTAGE
* SEE BUILDING PLANS FOR PRIVATE OPEN SPACE AND DIMENSIONS

AT INDIVIDUAL UNITS
UNIT # PORCH
FLOOR 2
DECK
1 2
3 ALT
0 - 43 S.F.
106 S.F.
52 - 64 S.F.
64 S.F.
4,300 S.F. 4,209 S.F.
11,728 S.F.

TOTAL
91 - 126 S.F. 91 - 126 S.F.

TOTAL PRIVATE USABLE OPEN SPACE

UNIT TOTAL
104 - 171 S.F.
252 - 321 S.F.
170 S.F.
3 74 S.F. 64 S.F.

PRIVATE

SIDE YARDS
0 S.F.
0 S.F.
1,550 S.F.
0 S.F.
318 - 321 S.F.

FLOOR 3
DECK
52 - 64 S.F.
0 S.F.
1,669 S.F.
0 - 107 S.F.
0 S.F. 412 - 459 S.F.
1376
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1376 of 2331
64 GAL. 64 GAL. 64 GAL. 50'-6"
17'-0" 50'-6" 37'-9" 12'-9" 17'-0" 20'-6 1/2"
PORCH

SEE BLDG FOR AREA
ENTRY
UP
2-CAR

TANDEM GARAGE
11'-1" x 37'-0" 7'-5 1/2"
5'-8" 11'-4"
BEDROOM 4
10'-7" x 9'-11"
17'-0"
11'-1" 37'-0" 5'-6"

LINE OF
FLOOR
ABOVE

LINE OF
DECK
ABOVE
M.C.
17'-0" 35'-8 1/2" 46'-0" 9'-3 1/2"
FAMILY
16'-5" x 10'-11"
DINING
12'-8" x 7'-5"
UP
DN 46'-0"
BA 3 BEDROOM 3
10'-9" x 11'-0" 14'-1 1/2" 31'-10 1/2"
17'-0"
DECK

SEE BLDG FOR AREA
KITCHEN 1'-0"
5'-6 1/4" 11'-5 3/4"
M.C.

M.C.
17'-0" 45'-0" 46'-0" 11'-1" 9'-3 1/2" 11'-11 1/2" 15'-3 1/2" 7'-8" 17'-0"
BEDROOM 2
10'-9" x 14'-6"
LNDY
DN

PRIMARY

BEDROOM
16'-5" x 11'-6" 11'-11 1/2" 5'-0" 18'-9"
BA 2

PRIMARY
BATH
LINEN

WALK-IN
CLOSET

WALK-IN
CLOSET
DECK

SEE BLDG FOR AREA
5'-6 1/4" 11'-5 3/4"

FIRST FLOOR PLAN SECOND FLOOR PLAN THIRD FLOOR PLAN
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583
650-857-0122
UNIT 1 (BELOW MARKET

RATE) SQUARE FOOTAGES

FIRST FLOOR

SECOND FLOOR

THIRD FLOOR

TOTAL LIVING

TANDEM GARAGE
247 SQ. FT.
780 SQ. FT.
750 SQ. FT.
1777 SQ. FT.
579 SQ. FT. UNIT 1 (BELOW MARKET RATE) FLOOR PLANS
A11
0 1' 2' 3' 4' 8' 381.07810857 Linda Vista Drive
Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
1377
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1377 of 2331
R1
S1
T1
U1
V1
Q1
A1
B1
C1
F1
E1
D1
H1
J1
K1
G1
L1
M1
N1
P1
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583
650-857-0122
UNIT 1 (BELOW MARKET RATE) SQUARE FOOTAGE DIAGRAMS
A11.1
0 1' 2' 3' 4' 8'

AREAS COUNTED
FOR

UNCONDITIONED
GARAGE

AREAS COUNTED

FOR UNIT SQUARE FIRST FLOOR PLAN SECOND FLOOR PLAN THIRD FLOOR PLAN FOOTAGE 11'-5" x 5'-0"
AREA-B1 13'-2 1/4" x 8'-5 1/2"
AREA-C1
111.54 SQ. FT.

57.08 SQ. FT.

GARAGE 580.04 SQ. FT.

FIRST FLOOR 254.56 SQ. FT. 874 SQ. FT.

AREA-F1 3'-10 3/4" x 8'-5 1/2"32.95 SQ. FT.

AREA-E1 5'-8" x 5'-0" 28.33 SQ. FT.

AREA-A1 17'-1" x 24'-1" 411.42 SQ. FT.

AREA-D1 17'-1" x 7'-7 1/2" 130.26 SQ. FT.

AREA-M1 17'-1" x 45'-2" 771.60 SQ. FT.

SECOND FLOOR 783.20 SQ. FT.
849 SQ. FT.

AREA-L1 11'-7 1/4" x 1'-0" 11.60 SQ. FT.
17'-1" x 12'-4"
AREA-R1 17'-1" x 24'-6 1/2"
AREA-T1
419.25 SQ. FT.
210.69 SQ. FT.

THIRD FLOOR 753.30 SQ. FT.
819 SQ. FT.

AREA-Q1
AREA-S1 13'-5 3/4" x 8'-3 1/2"111.76 SQ. FT.

UNIT 1: TOTAL SQ. FT. CONTRIBUTING TO F.A.R. = 2,542 SQ. FT. 11'-7 1/4" x 1'-0" 11.60 SQ. FT.

PORCH 30.94 SQ. FT.

AREA-H1 5'-7 1/2" x 5'-6" 30.94 SQ. FT.

F.A.R. TOTAL AREA (FIRST FLOOR LIVING + EXTERIOR
PROJECTIONS + PORCH + GARAGE)
AREA-K1 1'-6 1/8" x 1'-0" 1.51 SQ. FT.

EXTERIOR PROJECTIONS 8.25 SQ. FT.

AREA-J1 6'-8 7/8" x 1'-0" 6.74 SQ. FT.

DECK 60.29 SQ. FT.

AREA-N1 11'-11 1/2" x 5'-0 1/2"60.29 SQ. FT.

EXTERIOR PROJECTIONS 5.80 SQ. FT.

AREA-P1 11'-7 1/4" x 6" 5.80 SQ. FT. DECK
AREA-U1

EXTERIOR PROJECTIONS
AREA-V1
F.A.R. TOTAL AREA (SECOND FLOOR LIVING + EXTERIOR
PROJECTIONS + DECK)
F.A.R. TOTAL AREA (THIRD FLOOR LIVING + EXTERIOR
PROJECTIONS + DECK)
11'-11 1/2" x 5'-0 1/2"60.29 SQ. FT.

60.29 SQ. FT.

5.80 SQ. FT.
11'-7 1/4" x 6" 5.80 SQ. FT.

AREA-G1 11'-5 1/2" x 5'-6" 63.02 SQ. FT. 381.07810857 Linda Vista Drive Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
1378
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1378 of 2331
W
D
M.C.

M.C.

PRIMARY

BEDROOM
11'-5" x 14'-11"
BEDROOM 2
10'-1" x 12'-0"
BEDROOM 3
9'-10" x 10'-9"

WALK-IN
CLOSET

DN LINEN

PRIMARY
BATH BA 2 44'-0"
21'-0"

LNDY LINEN
DECK

SEE BUILDING FLOOR

PLANS FOR AREA
10'-10" 44'-0"11'-11" 15'-1 1/2" 15'-4 1/2" 13'-7 1/2"
21'-0" 18'-5 1/2" 13'-6"
10'-2"
11'-11 3/4" 5'-5 1/2" 3'-6 3/4"
DINING
9'-8" x 20'-7"
FAMILY
10'-7" x 20'-7"
DECK
UP

DN PANTRY

SEE BUILDING FLOOR

PLANS FOR AREA
21'-0" 44'-0"
PWDR
KITCHEN 15'-2" 44'-0" 21'-5 1/2"
21'-0" 3'-9 1/2" 3'-7"
M.C.
64 GAL. 64 GAL. 64 GAL.
21'-0" 42'-0"
BEDROOM 4
11'-10" x 10'-11"
ENTRY
2-CAR GARAGE
20'-5" x 20'-1"
UP
PORCH

SEE BUILDING FLOOR

PLANS FOR AREA
BA 3 42'-0" 23'-3" 18'-9" 20'-7" 11'-4" 10'-1"
12'-3" 8'-9"
21'-0"
20'-5" 20'-1 1/2"

FIRST FLOOR PLAN SECOND FLOOR PLAN THIRD FLOOR PLAN
UNIT 2 SQUARE FOOTAGES

FIRST FLOOR

SECOND FLOOR

THIRD FLOOR

TOTAL LIVING
2-CAR GARAGE
416 SQ. FT.
928 SQ. FT.
873 SQ. FT.
2217 SQ. FT.
469 SQ. FT. UNIT 2 FLOOR PLANS
A12
0 1' 2' 3' 4' 8'
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583
650-857-0122 381.07810857 Linda Vista Drive
Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
1379
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1379 of 2331
M2
L2
K2
H2
J2
A2
C2 B2
D2
E2
F2 G2
UNIT 2 SQUARE FOOTAGE DIAGRAMS
A12.1
0 1' 2' 3' 4' 8'
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583
650-857-0122

AREAS COUNTED
FOR

UNCONDITIONED
GARAGE

AREAS COUNTED

FOR UNIT SQUARE

FOOTAGE

FIRST FLOOR PLAN SECOND FLOOR PLAN THIRD FLOOR PLAN
AREA-B2 13'-2 3/4" x 2'-8" 35.28 SQ. FT.

GARAGE 471.00 SQ. FT.

FIRST FLOOR 418.01 SQ. FT.
848 SQ. FT.

AREA-D2 21'-1" x 18'-10" 397.07 SQ. FT.

AREA-C2 7'-10 1/4" x 2'-8" 20.94 SQ. FT.

AREA-A2 21'-1" x 20'-8" 435.72 SQ. FT.

SECOND FLOOR 931.18 SQ. FT.
1,031 SQ. FT.

AREA-H2 21'-1" x 44'-2" 931.18 SQ. FT.

AREA-L2 17'-5 3/4" x 15'-4 1/2"268.74 SQ. FT.

THIRD FLOOR 875.76 SQ. FT.
976 SQ. FT.

AREA-K2
UNIT 2: TOTAL SQ. FT. CONTRIBUTING TO F.A.R. = 2,855 SQ. FT. 21'-1" x 28'-9 1/2" 607.02 SQ. FT.

PORCH 99.75 SQ. FT.

AREA-E2 16'-7 1/2" x 6'-0" 99.75 SQ. FT.

F.A.R. TOTAL AREA (FIRST FLOOR LIVING + EXTERIOR
PROJECTIONS + PORCH + GARAGE)
AREA-G2 2'-1 1/2" x 1'-0" 2.12 SQ. FT.

EXTERIOR PROJECTIONS 4.24 SQ. FT.

AREA-F2 2'-1 1/2" x 1'-0" 2.12 SQ. FT.

DECK
AREA-J2
DECK
AREA-M2
F.A.R. TOTAL AREA (SECOND FLOOR LIVING + DECK)
F.A.R. TOTAL AREA (THIRD FLOOR LIVING + DECK)
16'-7 1/2" x 6'-0"
16'-7 1/2" x 6'-0" 99.75 SQ. FT.

99.75 SQ. FT.

99.75 SQ. FT. 381.07810857 Linda Vista Drive
Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
1380
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1380 of 2331
M.C. M.C.

M.C.

W
D

PRIMARY

BEDROOM
12'-11" x 12'-3"

PRIMARY
BATH
LNDY
BA 2
BEDROOM 3
10'-2" x 11'-6"
BEDROOM 2
11'-2" x 12'-10"
DN
23'-0" 44'-11"

WALK-IN
CLOSET

WALK-IN
CLOSET
LINEN 44'-11" 5'-3 1/2" 1'-0" 7'-3" 12'-7 1/2" 8'-4"
22'-6 1/2" 2'-11" 13'-0" 5'-10 1/2" 15'-9"
12'-1" 10'-5 1/2"
13'-10" 9'-2" 17'-9 1/2"

KITCHEN
UP
DN
PWDR
FAMILY
22'-3" x 16'-0"
DINING
11'-0" x 9'-1"
DECK

SEE BUILDING FLOOR

PLANS FOR AREA
24'-0" 43'-0"
PANTRY 43'-0" 6'-9 1/2" 18'-10 1/2"
24'-0" 5'-6" 3'-2 1/2" 1'-0" 4'-1"
1'-5 1/2" 12'-1" 10'-5 1/2" 3'-6 1/2" 16'-0 1/2" 26'-11 1/2" 64 GAL. M.C. 64 GAL. 64 GAL. 2-CAR GARAGE
20'-1" x 20'-1"
UP
BA 3
ENTRY
BEDROOM 4
10'-3" x 11'-6"
PORCH
24'-0" 39'-6"

SEE BUILDING FLOOR

PLANS FOR AREA
1'-0" 39'-6" 20'-6 1/2" 5'-9" 14'-0" 2'-6 1/2" 5'-5 1/2" 12'-0" 11'-0" 10'-2"
23'-0" 13'-2 1/2" 4'-1 1/2" 3'-2 1/2"
1'-0"
24'-0"
20'-1" 20'-1"
UNIT 3 SQUARE FOOTAGES

FIRST FLOOR

SECOND FLOOR

THIRD FLOOR

TOTAL LIVING
2-CAR GARAGE
404 SQ. FT.
943 SQ. FT.
970 SQ. FT.
2317 SQ. FT.
447 SQ. FT.
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583
650-857-0122

FIRST FLOOR PLAN SECOND FLOOR PLAN THIRD FLOOR PLAN
UNIT 3 FLOOR PLANS
A13
0 1' 2' 3' 4' 8' 381.07810857 Linda Vista Drive
Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
1381
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1381 of 2331
64 GAL. M.C. 64 GAL. 64 GAL.
2-CAR GARAGE
20'-1" x 20'-1"
UP
BA 3
ENTRY
BEDROOM 4
10'-3" x 11'-6"
PORCH
24'-0" 39'-6"

SEE BUILDING FLOOR

PLANS FOR AREA
1'-0" 39'-6" 20'-6 1/2" 5'-9" 14'-0" 2'-6 1/2" 5'-5 1/2" 12'-0" 11'-0" 10'-2"
23'-0" 13'-2 1/2" 4'-1 1/2" 3'-2 1/2"
1'-0"
24'-0" 381.07810857 Linda Vista Drive
Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583
650-857-0122
UNIT 3 PARTIAL FIRST FLOOR PLAN
A13.1
0 1' 2' 3' 4' 8'

PARTIAL FIRST FLOOR PLAN
@ UNITS 1, 7, 19, 39 & 47
1382
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1382 of 2331
M.C. M.C.

M.C.

W
D

PRIMARY

BEDROOM
12'-11" x 12'-3"

PRIMARY
BATH
LNDY
BA 2
BEDROOM 3
10'-2" x 11'-6"
BEDROOM 2
11'-2" x 12'-10"
DN

WALK-IN
CLOSET

WALK-IN
CLOSET
LINEN
23'-0" 44'-11" 44'-11" 5'-3 1/2" 1'-0" 7'-3" 12'-7 1/2" 8'-4" 22'-6 1/2" 2'-11" 13'-0" 5'-10 1/2" 15'-9"
12'-1" 10'-5 1/2"
13'-10" 9'-2" 17'-9 1/2"

SEE BUILDING FLOOR

PLANS FOR AREA

KITCHEN
UP
DN
PWDR
FAMILY
22'-3" x 16'-0"
DINING
11'-0" x 9'-1"
DECK
PANTRY
24'-0" 43'-0" 43'-0" 6'-9 1/2" 18'-10 1/2"
24'-0" 5'-6" 3'-2 1/2" 1'-0" 4'-1"
1'-5 1/2" 12'-1" 10'-5 1/2" 16'-0 1/2" 26'-11 1/2" 3'-6 1/2" 64 GAL. M.C.

WH64 GAL. 64 GAL.
2-CAR GARAGE
20'-1" x 20'-1"
UP
BA 3
ENTRY BEDROOM 4
10'-3" x 11'-4"
PORCH

SEE BUILDING FLOOR

PLANS FOR AREA
24'-0" 39'-6" 39'-6" 20'-6 1/2" 5'-9" 14'-0" 3'-8"
7'-7 1/2" 11'-0" 10'-2" 13'-2 1/2"3'-5 1/2" 6'-10"3'-0" 1'-4 1/2" 2'-4 1/2" 24'-0"
20'-1" 20'-1"
UNIT 3ALT SQUARE

FOOTAGES

FIRST FLOOR

SECOND FLOOR

THIRD FLOOR

TOTAL LIVING
2-CAR GARAGE
402 SQ. FT.
943 SQ. FT.
970 SQ. FT.
2315 SQ. FT.
464 SQ. FT. 381.07810857 Linda Vista Drive
Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583
650-857-0122

FIRST FLOOR PLAN SECOND FLOOR PLAN THIRD FLOOR PLAN
UNIT 3 ALT FLOOR PLANS
A13.2
0 1' 2' 3' 4' 8'
1383
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1383 of 2331
AH3
AL3
AM3
AN3 AP3
AR3
AT3
AJ3
AK3
AV3
AY3
AU3
AX3
AW3
AQ3
AS3
A3
B3
C3 D3
F3
E3
H3
J3
G3
M3
L3
K3 381.07810857 Linda Vista Drive
Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583
650-857-0122
UNIT 3 ALT

FIRST FLOOR PLAN
UNIT 3 FIRST FLOOR SQUARE FOOTAGE DIAGRAMS
A13.3
0 1' 2' 3' 4' 8'

FIRST FLOOR PLAN
AREA-AK3 4'-5 1/2" x 3'-7 1/2" 16.16 SQ. FT.

GARAGE 469.17 SQ. FT.

FIRST FLOOR 404.83 SQ. FT.

AREA-AP3 10'-0" x 6'-10" 68.33 SQ. FT.

AREA-AN3 11'-1 1/2" x 8'-2 1/2"91.31 SQ. FT.

AREA-AJ3 3'-3" x 6'-11" 22.47 SQ. FT.

AREA-AH3 20'-10 1/2" x 20'-7 1/2"430.54 SQ. FT.

AREA-AM3 24'-1 1/2" x 7'-2 1/2"173.90 SQ. FT.

AREA-AL3 19'-8" x 3'-7 1/2" 71.29 SQ. FT. PORCH 111.50 SQ. FT.

AREA-AU3 2'-0" x 2'-7" 5.16 SQ. FT.

AREA-AS3 3'-0" x 3'-9" 11.25 SQ. FT.

AREA-AR3 12'-0" x 4'-9" 57.00 SQ. FT.

AREA-AQ3 1'-2" x 3'-4 1/2" 3.93 SQ. FT.

AREA-AT3 5'-0" x 6'-10" 34.16 SQ. FT.

EXTERIOR PROJECTIONS 48.30 SQ. FT.

AREA-AY3 2'-0" x 1'-6" 3.00 SQ. FT.

AREA-AX3 4'-9" x 1'-6" 7.12 SQ. FT.

AREA-AW3 6 1/2" x 1'-11 1/2" 1.06 SQ. FT.

AREA-AV3 2'-8 1/2" x 13'-8 1/2"37.12 SQ. FT.
1,034 SQ. FT.

F.A.R. TOTAL AREA (FIRST FLOOR LIVING + EXTERIOR
PROJECTIONS + PORCH + GARAGE)
AREA-C3 3'-5 1/2" x 3'-7 1/2" 12.53 SQ. FT.

GARAGE 456.14 SQ. FT.

FIRST FLOOR 407.04 SQ. FT.

AREA-G3 11'-1 1/2" x 2'-6 1/2"28.27 SQ. FT.

AREA-F3 23'-1 1/2" x 12'-10 1/2"297.73 SQ. FT.

AREA-B3 2'-5" x 6'-10" 16.51 SQ. FT.

AREA-A3 20'-8 1/2" x 20'-7 1/2"427.10 SQ. FT.

AREA-E3 1'-0" x 9'-9" 9.75 SQ. FT.

AREA-D3 19'-8" x 3'-7 1/2" 71.29 SQ. FT.

PORCH 74.93 SQ. FT.

AREA-J3 13'-2" x 3'-4 1/2" 44.43 SQ. FT.

AREA-H3 12'-0" x 2'-6 1/2" 30.50 SQ. FT.

EXTERIOR PROJECTIONS 42.75 SQ. FT.

AREA-M3 2'-0" x 1'-6" 3.00 SQ. FT.

AREA-L3 4'-3 1/2" x 1'-6" 6.43 SQ. FT.

AREA-K3 2'-5" x 13'-9 1/2" 33.32 SQ. FT.
981 SQ. FT.

F.A.R. TOTAL AREA (FIRST FLOOR LIVING + EXTERIOR
PROJECTIONS + PORCH + GARAGE)

AREAS COUNTED
FOR

UNCONDITIONED
GARAGE

AREAS COUNTED

FOR UNIT SQUARE

FOOTAGE
1384
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1384 of 2331
W3
X3
AA3
Y3
Z3
AB3
AC3 AD3
AF3
AE3
AG3
P3
Q3
R3
T3
U3
S3
V3 N3 381.07810857 Linda Vista Drive
Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583
650-857-0122

SECOND FLOOR PLAN THIRD FLOOR PLAN
UNIT 3 SECOND & THIRD FLOOR SQUARE FOOTAGE DIAGRAMS
A13.4
0 1' 2' 3' 4' 8'
UNIT 3 ALT: TOTAL SQ. FT. CONTRIBUTING TO F.A.R. = 3,051 SQ. FT.

UNIT 3: TOTAL SQ. FT. CONTRIBUTING TO F.A.R. = 2,998 SQ. FT. 1,016 SQ. FT.

F.A.R. TOTAL AREA (SECOND FLOOR LIVING + EXTERIOR
PROJECTIONS + DECK)
1,001 SQ. FT.

F.A.R. TOTAL AREA (THIRD FLOOR LIVING + EXTERIOR

PROJECTIONS)
SECOND FLOOR 950.61 SQ. FT.

AREA-S3 11'-1 1/2" x 6'-9" 75.09 SQ. FT.

AREA-Q3 24'-1 1/2" x 9'-9" 235.21 SQ. FT.

AREA-P3 23'-1 1/2" x 25'-8" 593.54 SQ. FT.

AREA-N3 9'-9" x 1'-0" 9.75 SQ. FT.

AREA-R3 11'-6 1/2" x 3'-2 1/2"37.02 SQ. FT. DECK 64.34 SQ. FT.

AREA-U3 8 1/2" x 1'-11" 1.35 SQ. FT.

AREA-T3 11'-6 1/2" x 5'-5 1/2"62.99 SQ. FT.

1.00 SQ. FT.

AREA-V3 1'-0" x 1'-0" 1.00 SQ. FT.

EXTERIOR PROJECTIONS
THIRD FLOOR 978.09 SQ. FT.

AREA-AC3 4'-0" x 2'-11" 11.66 SQ. FT.

AREA-AA3 14'-5" x 18'-7" 267.90 SQ. FT.

AREA-Z3 8'-8 1/2" x 6'-4" 55.15 SQ. FT.

AREA-Y3 3'-11" x 3'-2" 12.40 SQ. FT.

AREA-AB3 8'-3" x 12'-0" 99.00 SQ. FT.

AREA-X3 23'-1 1/2" x 22'-7" 522.23 SQ. FT.

AREA-W3 9'-9" x 1'-0" 9.75 SQ. FT.

EXTERIOR PROJECTIONS 22.68 SQ. FT.

AREA-AG3 1'-0" x 1'-0" 1.00 SQ. FT.

AREA-AE3 1'-5 1/2" x 3'-4" 4.86 SQ. FT.

AREA-AD3 10'-5" x 1'-0" 10.41 SQ. FT.

AREA-AF3 1'-0" x 6'-5" 6.41 SQ. FT.

AREAS COUNTED
FOR

UNCONDITIONED
GARAGE

AREAS COUNTED

FOR UNIT SQUARE

FOOTAGE
1385
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1385 of 2331
M.C.
64 GAL. 64 GAL. 64 GAL. 64 GAL. M.C. 64 GAL. 64 GAL.

M.C.
64 GAL. 64 GAL. 64 GAL.

M.C.
64 GAL. 64 GAL. 64 GAL. 64 GAL. M.C. 64 GAL. 64 GAL.

M.C.
64 GAL. 64 GAL. 64 GAL.
36x36
CONC.

A/C PAD,
TYP.
36x72
LADDER
ACCESS
PAD, TYP.
132'-5" 42'-0"
UNIT 2
PORCH
21'-0" x 6'-0" ELEC.
126 SF
UNIT 3
PORCH
13'-0" x 5'-11" 74 SF UNIT 2
PORCH
21'-0" x 6'-0"
UNIT 2
PORCH
16'-6" x 6'-6"
UNIT 2
PORCH
16'-6" x 5'-6" 126 SF
107 SF
91 SF
UNIT 3
PORCH
13'-0" x 5'-11" 74 SF E E E E
E E 50'-6"
UNIT 2
DECK
21'-0" x 6'-0" 126 SF UNIT 2
DECK
16'-6" x 6'-6"
UNIT 2
DECK
16'-6" x 5'-6"
UNIT 2
DECK
21'-0" x 6'-0"
UNIT 3
DECK
12'-1" x 5'-5" 64 SF UNIT 3
DECK
12'-1" x 5'-5" 64 SF
91 SF 107 SF
126 SF
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583
650-857-0122
BUILDING 1 & 6 FIRST & SECOND FLOOR PLANS
A14
0 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'

FIRST FLOOR PLAN

REFER TO UNIT FLOOR PLANS FOR ADDITIONAL DIMENSIONS

SECOND FLOOR PLAN
UNIT 3 UNIT 2 UNIT 2 UNIT 2R UNIT 2R UNIT 3R
UNIT 3 UNIT 2 UNIT 2 UNIT 2R UNIT 2R UNIT 3R
KEY MAP - N.T.S.
397.2
406.9
417.2
BUILDING 1
1st FLOOR

ELEVATION
2nd FLOOR

ELEVATION
3rd FLOOR

ELEVATION
BUILDING 6
1st FLOOR

ELEVATION
2nd FLOOR

ELEVATION
3rd FLOOR

ELEVATION
396.5
406.2
416.5
NOTE: THESE

ELEVATIONS

REFLECT THE USGS

VERTICAL DATUM

AND ARE ALSO

SHOWN ON THE

EXTERIOR

ELEVATION SHEET
A14.3. 381.07810857 Linda Vista Drive
Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
1386
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1386 of 2331
W D
M.C. M.C. M.C. M.C. M.C.

W D
M.C. M.C. W DM.C. M.C. M.C. M.C. M.C.

W D
M.C. M.C.

UNIT 2
DECK
16'-6" x 5'-6" 91 SF
E
E
E
E
E
E
E E
E

E E E E E E E E E
UNIT 2
DECK
16'-6" x 6'-6" 107 SF
RIDGE
HIP
VALLEY 4 :12
4 :12 4 :124 :12 RIDGE
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP

HIP RIDGE RIDGE RIDGE RIDGE
H.

H. RIDGE RIDGE

RIDGE RIDGE
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY

VALLEY VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY

VALLEYVALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY RIDGE 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12
4 :12
4 :12
4 :12 4 :12
4 :12
4 :12
4 :12
4 :12 4 :12
4 :12
4 :12 R.
4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12
VALLEY
VALLEY
133'-5" 53'-6"
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583
650-857-0122
BUILDING 1 & 6 THIRD FLOOR & ROOF PLANS
A14.1
0 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'

THIRD FLOOR PLAN

REFER TO UNIT FLOOR PLANS FOR ADDITIONAL DIMENSIONS

ROOF PLAN
UNIT 3 UNIT 2 UNIT 2 UNIT 2R UNIT 2R UNIT 3R
UNIT 3 UNIT 2 UNIT 2 UNIT 2R UNIT 2R UNIT 3R
KEY MAP - N.T.S.

NOTE: THERE IS NO ROOFTOP MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT IN THIS PROJECT. MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT IS HOUSED IN UNIT ATTICS.
397.2
406.9
417.2
BUILDING 1
1st FLOOR

ELEVATION
2nd FLOOR

ELEVATION
3rd FLOOR

ELEVATION
BUILDING 6
1st FLOOR

ELEVATION
2nd FLOOR

ELEVATION
3rd FLOOR

ELEVATION
396.5
406.2
416.5
NOTE: THESE

ELEVATIONS

REFLECT THE USGS

VERTICAL DATUM

AND ARE ALSO

SHOWN ON THE

EXTERIOR

ELEVATION SHEET
A14.3. 381.07810857 Linda Vista Drive
Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
1387
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1387 of 2331
381.07810857 Linda Vista Drive
Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
1388
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1388 of 2331
1389
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1389 of 2331
64 GAL. M.C. 64 GAL. 64 GAL. 64 GAL. 64 GAL. 64 GAL. 64 GAL. 64 GAL. 64 GAL. 64 GAL. 64 GAL. 64 GAL. 64 GAL. 64 GAL. 64 GAL. 64 GAL. M.C.

WH64 GAL. 64 GAL.

UNIT 1
PORCH
5'-9" x 6'-0"
36x36
CONC.

A/C PAD,
TYP.
36x72
LADDER
ACCESS
PAD, TYP.
118'-5" 45'-0" ELEC.

UNIT 3 ALT
PORCH
16'-0" x 11'-7"
UNIT 3
PORCH
13'-0" x 5'-11" 74 SF E E
43 SF UNIT 1
PORCH
5'-4" x 5'-0" 26 SF UNIT 1
PORCH
5'-4" x 5'-0" 26 SF UNIT 1
PORCH
5'-9" x 6'-0" 43 SF
106 SF 52'-6"
116'-5"

E E E E
M.C. M.C. M.C. M.C.

UNIT 3 ALT
DECK
12'-1" x 5'-5" 64 SF UNIT 1
DECK
11'-7" x 5'-6"
64 SF UNIT 1
DECK
11'-6" x 4'-6" 52 SF
64 SF UNIT 1
DECK
11'-6" x 4'-6" 52 SF UNIT 1
DECK
11'-7" x 5'-6" 64 SF
UNIT 3
DECK
12'-1" x 5'-5"

E E E E
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583
650-857-0122
BUILDING 2 FIRST & SECOND FLOOR PLANS
A15

FIRST FLOOR PLAN
0 2' 4' 6' 8' 16' REFER TO UNIT FLOOR PLANS FOR ADDITIONAL DIMENSIONS

SECOND FLOOR PLAN
UNIT 3 UNIT 1R UNIT 1 UNIT 1R UNIT 1 UNIT 3R ALT
UNIT 3 UNIT 1R UNIT 1 UNIT 1R UNIT 1 UNIT 3R ALT
KEY MAP - N.T.S.

BMR BMR BMR BMR

BMR BMR BMR BMR
NOTE: SEE SHT. A07 FOR UNIT 1 BELOW
MARKET RATE DISTRIBUTION ACROSS THE SITE.

BUILDING 2
1st FLOOR

ELEVATION
2nd FLOOR

ELEVATION
3rd FLOOR

ELEVATION
396.4
406.1
416.4
NOTE: THESE

ELEVATIONS

REFLECT THE USGS

VERTICAL DATUM

AND ARE ALSO

SHOWN ON THE

EXTERIOR

ELEVATION SHEET
A15.3. 381.07810857 Linda Vista Drive
Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
1390
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1390 of 2331
4 :12
HIP

HIP RIDGE RIDGE

RIDGE VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY 4 :12 4 :12
4 :12
4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12
VALLEY
VALLEY
4 :12
HIP
HIP

HIP RIDGE RIDGE
HIP
RIDGE
RIDGE
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY 4 :12 4 :12
4 :12
4 :12
4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12
VALLEY
4 :12
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP

VALLEYVALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY

VALLEYVALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY RIDGE RIDGE RIDGE R. R.

HIP
HIP
RIDGE
RIDGE R. R. 4 :12
4 :12 4 :12
4 :12 4 :12 4 :12
4 :12 4 :12
4 :12 4 :12
4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12
4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12
4 :12
4 :12
119'-11" 55'-0 1/2" 4 :12
4 :12 4 :12 M.C. M.C. M.C.

M.C.

M.C. M.C. M.C. M.C.

UNIT 1
DECK
11'-7" x 5'-7"
E
E
E
E E
E
E
E

E E E E EE
64 SF UNIT 1
DECK
11'-7" x 5'-7" 64 SF UNIT 1
DECK
11'-6" x 4'-6" 52 SF UNIT 1
DECK
11'-6" x 4'-6" 52 SF
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583
650-857-0122
BUILDING 2 THIRD FLOOR & ROOF PLANS
A15.1

THIRD FLOOR PLAN
0 2' 4' 6' 8' 16' REFER TO UNIT FLOOR PLANS FOR ADDITIONAL DIMENSIONS

ROOF PLAN
UNIT 3 UNIT 1R UNIT 1 UNIT 1R UNIT 1 UNIT 3R ALT
UNIT 3 UNIT 1R UNIT 1 UNIT 1R UNIT 1 UNIT 3R ALT
KEY MAP - N.T.S.

NOTE: THERE IS NO ROOFTOP MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT IN THIS PROJECT. MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT IS HOUSED IN UNIT ATTICS.

BMR BMR BMR BMR

BMR BMR BMR BMR
NOTE: SEE SHT. A07 FOR UNIT 1 BELOW
MARKET RATE DISTRIBUTION ACROSS THE SITE.

BUILDING 2
1st FLOOR

ELEVATION
2nd FLOOR

ELEVATION
3rd FLOOR

ELEVATION
396.4
406.1
416.4
NOTE: THESE

ELEVATIONS

REFLECT THE USGS

VERTICAL DATUM

AND ARE ALSO

SHOWN ON THE

EXTERIOR

ELEVATION SHEET
A15.3. 381.07810857 Linda Vista Drive
Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
1391
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1391 of 2331
381.07810857 Linda Vista Drive
Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
1392
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1392 of 2331
1393
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1393 of 2331
M.C.
64 GAL. 64 GAL. 64 GAL. 64 GAL. 64 GAL. 64 GAL.

M.C.
64 GAL. 64 GAL. 64 GAL. 64 GAL. 64 GAL. 64 GAL. 64 GAL. M.C. 64 GAL. 64 GAL. 64 GAL. M.C.

WH64 GAL. 64 GAL.
106 SF UNIT 3 ALT
PORCH
16'-0" x 11'-7"
99 SF UNIT 2
PORCH
16'-6" x 6'-0" 126 SF UNIT 2
PORCH
UNIT 1
21'-0" x 6'-0"
PORCH
5'-4" x 5'-0" 26 SF UNIT 1
PORCH
5'-9" x 6'-0" 43 SF
UNIT 3
PORCH
13'-0" x 5'-11" 74 SF
36x36
CONC.

A/C PAD,
TYP.
36x72
LADDER
ACCESS
PAD, TYP.

E
E E
E ELEC.
126'-5" 45'-0" 53'-0"
124'-5"
E E
M.C. M.C.

UNIT 3 ALT
DECK
12'-1" x 5'-5" 64 SF UNIT 2
DECK
16'-6" x 6'-0" 99 SF UNIT 1
DECK
11'-6" x 4'-7" 52 SF
UNIT 2
DECK
20'-8" x 6'-0" UNIT 1 126 SF DECK
11'-7" x 5'-6" 64 SF
UNIT 3
DECK
11'-7" x 5'-5" 64 SF
E E
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583
650-857-0122
BUILDING 3, 4 & 5 FIRST & SECOND FLOOR PLANS
A16
0 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'

FIRST FLOOR PLAN

REFER TO UNIT FLOOR PLANS FOR ADDITIONAL DIMENSIONS

SECOND FLOOR PLAN
UNIT 3 ALT UNIT 2 UNIT 1R UNIT 1 UNIT 2R UNIT 3R
UNIT 3 ALT UNIT 2 UNIT 1R UNIT 1 UNIT 2R UNIT 3R
KEY MAP - N.T.S.

BMR BMR

BMR BMR
NOTE: SEE SHT. A07 FOR UNIT 1 BELOW
MARKET RATE DISTRIBUTION ACROSS THE SITE.

BUILDING 3
1st FLOOR

ELEVATION
2nd FLOOR

ELEVATION
3rd FLOOR

ELEVATION
BUILDING 4
1st FLOOR

ELEVATION
2nd FLOOR

ELEVATION
3rd FLOOR

ELEVATION
BUILDING 5
1st FLOOR

ELEVATION
2nd FLOOR

ELEVATION
3rd FLOOR

ELEVATION
396.3
406.0
416.3
393.6
403.3
413.6
393.4
403.1
413.4
NOTE: THESE

ELEVATIONS

REFLECT THE USGS

VERTICAL DATUM

AND ARE ALSO

SHOWN ON THE

EXTERIOR

ELEVATION SHEET
A16.3. 381.07810857 Linda Vista Drive
Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
1394
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1394 of 2331
W D
M.C. M.C.

M.C.

W D
M.C. M.C.

M.C.

M.C. M.C. M.C. M.C. M.C. M.C. M.C.

E
E E
E E
E
E
E
E
E E
E E
E E E
UNIT 2
DECK
16'-6" x 6'-0" 99 SF UNIT 1
DECK
11'-6" x 4'-6" 52 SF UNIT 1
DECK
11'-7" x 5'-6" 64 SF
4 :12 4 :12
4 :12 4 :12
4 :12 4 :124 :12
4 :12
4 :12 4 :12 4 :12
4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12
4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12
4 :12
4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12
4 :12 4 :12 4 :12
4 :12 4 :12
4 :12
4 :12
4 :12
4 :12 4 :12
4 :12 4 :12
4 :12
RIDGE
VALLEY
HIP
RIDGE
RIDGE
RIDGE

RIDGE RIDGE RIDGE
RIDGE
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP

HIP HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP

HIP VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY

VALLEY VALLEY
HIP
HIP
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
RIDGE H. H.

H. RIDGERIDGE RIDGE RIDGE R.

VALLEY HIP
VALLEY
VALLEY

VALLEY RIDGE RIDGE
VALLEY
127'-11" 55'-0 1/2" 4 :12
4 :12 4 :12
4 :12
V. V.
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583
650-857-0122
BUILDING 3, 4 & 5 THIRD FLOOR & ROOF PLANS
A16.1
0 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'

THIRD FLOOR PLAN

REFER TO UNIT FLOOR PLANS FOR ADDITIONAL DIMENSIONS

ROOF PLAN
UNIT 3 ALT UNIT 2 UNIT 1R UNIT 1 UNIT 2R UNIT 3R
UNIT 3 ALT UNIT 2 UNIT 1R UNIT 1 UNIT 2R UNIT 3R
KEY MAP - N.T.S.

NOTE: THERE IS NO ROOFTOP MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT IN THIS PROJECT. MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT IS HOUSED IN UNIT ATTICS.

BMR BMR

BMR BMR
NOTE: SEE SHT. A07 FOR UNIT 1 BELOW
MARKET RATE DISTRIBUTION ACROSS THE SITE.

BUILDING 3
1st FLOOR

ELEVATION
2nd FLOOR

ELEVATION
3rd FLOOR

ELEVATION
BUILDING 4
1st FLOOR

ELEVATION
2nd FLOOR

ELEVATION
3rd FLOOR

ELEVATION
BUILDING 5
1st FLOOR

ELEVATION
2nd FLOOR

ELEVATION
3rd FLOOR

ELEVATION
396.3
406.0
416.3
393.6
403.3
413.6
393.4
403.1
413.4
NOTE: THESE

ELEVATIONS

REFLECT THE USGS

VERTICAL DATUM

AND ARE ALSO

SHOWN ON THE

EXTERIOR

ELEVATION SHEET
A16.3. 381.07810857 Linda Vista Drive
Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
1395
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1395 of 2331
381.07810857 Linda Vista Drive
Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
1396
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1396 of 2331
1397
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1397 of 2331
M.C.
64 GAL. 64 GAL. 64 GAL. 64 GAL. M.C. 64 GAL. 64 GAL. 64 GAL. M.C.

WH64 GAL. 64 GAL.
36x36
CONC.

A/C PAD,
TYP.
36x72
LADDER
ACCESS
PAD, TYP.
71'-2" 42'-0"
UNIT 2
PORCH
16'-6" x 6'-0" 99 SF ELEC.

UNIT 3
PORCH
13'-0" x 5'-11" 74 SF UNIT 3 ALT
PORCH
16'-0" x 11'-7" 106 SF E
E
E
69'-2" 49'-6"
99 SF UNIT 2
DECK
16'-6" x 6'-0"
64 SF 64 SF UNIT 3
DECK
12'-1" x 5'-5"
UNIT 3 ALT
DECK
12'-1" x 5'-5"
W D
M.C. M.C. M.C. M.C. M.C. M.C. M.C. M.C.

UNIT 2
DECK
16'-6" x 6'-0" 99 SF
E
E
E
E
E
E
E E E
VALLEY
4 :12
HIP

HIP RIDGE RIDGE
RIDGE
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
4 :12
4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12
VALLEY
4 :12
HIP
HIP

HIP RIDGE RIDGE
RIDGE
RIDGE
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY 4 :12 4 :12
4 :12
4 :12
4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12
VALLEY
HIP
VALLEY
VALLEY
HIP RIDGE R. HIP 4 :12
4 :12 4 :12
4 :12
4 :12
4 :12
72'-8" 52'-6"

FIRST FLOOR PLAN
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583
650-857-0122
BUILDING 7 FLOOR & ROOF PLANS
A17
0 2' 4' 6' 8' 16' REFER TO UNIT FLOOR PLANS FOR ADDITIONAL DIMENSIONS

SECOND FLOOR PLAN

THIRD FLOOR PLAN ROOF PLAN
UNIT 3 ALT UNIT 2 UNIT 3R
UNIT 3 ALT UNIT 2 UNIT 3R UNIT 3 ALT UNIT 2 UNIT 3R
UNIT 3 ALT UNIT 2 UNIT 3R
KEY MAP - N.T.S.

NOTE: THERE IS NO ROOFTOP

MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT IN
THIS PROJECT. MECHANICAL

EQUIPMENT IS HOUSED IN UNIT
ATTICS.

BUILDING 7
1st FLOOR

ELEVATION
2nd FLOOR

ELEVATION
3rd FLOOR

ELEVATION
397.3
407.0
417.3
NOTE: THESE

ELEVATIONS

REFLECT THE USGS

VERTICAL DATUM

AND ARE ALSO

SHOWN ON THE

EXTERIOR

ELEVATION SHEET
A17.2. 381.07810857 Linda Vista Drive
Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
1398
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1398 of 2331
381.07810857 Linda Vista Drive
Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
1399
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1399 of 2331
1400
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1400 of 2331
M.C.
64 GAL. 64 GAL. 64 GAL. 64 GAL. M.C. 64 GAL. 64 GAL.

M.C.
64 GAL. 64 GAL. 64 GAL. 64 GAL. M.C.

WH64 GAL. 64 GAL.
92'-3" 42'-0"
36x36
CONC.

A/C PAD,
TYP.
36x72
LADDER
ACCESS
PAD, TYP. ELEC.
74 SF UNIT 3 E
PORCH
13'-0" x 5'-11"
99 SF UNIT 2
PORCH
16'-6" x 6'-0" 126 SF UNIT 2
PORCH
21'-0" x 6'-0"
E E
E
106 SF UNIT 3 ALT
PORCH
16'-0" x 11'-7"
90'-3" 50'-0"
64 SF UNIT 3
DECK
12'-1" x 5'-5"
99 SF UNIT 2
DECK
16'-6" x 6'-0" 126 SF UNIT 2
DECK
21'-0" x 6'-0"
64 SF UNIT 3
DECK
11'-7" x 5'-5"
W D
M.C. M.C. M.C. M.C. M.C.

W D
M.C. M.C. M.C. M.C. M.C.

E
E
E
E
E
E

E E E EE E
99 SF UNIT 2
DECK
16'-6" x 6'-0" 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12
4 :12 4 :12
4 :12
4 :12
4 :12 4 :12
4 :12
4 :12 4 :12 4 :12
4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12
4 :12
4 :12 4 :12
VALLEY 4 :12
HIP R.

HIP
HIP
HIP
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY

RIDGE RIDGE

RIDGE RIDGE RIDGE VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
HIP
HIP
HIP
H. H. RIDGE RIDGE

HIP RIDGE RIDGE
93'-9" 52'-6"
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583
650-857-0122
BUILDING 8, 9 & 10 FLOOR & ROOF PLANS
A18

FIRST FLOOR PLAN
0 2' 4' 6' 8' 16' REFER TO UNIT FLOOR PLANS FOR ADDITIONAL DIMENSIONS

SECOND FLOOR PLAN

THIRD FLOOR PLAN ROOF PLAN
UNIT 3 UNIT 2R UNIT 2R UNIT 3R ALT UNIT 3 UNIT 2R UNIT 2R UNIT 3R ALT UNIT 3 UNIT 2R UNIT 2R UNIT 3R ALT UNIT 3 UNIT 2R UNIT 2R UNIT 3R ALT KEY MAP - N.T.S.

NOTE: THERE IS NO ROOFTOP MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT IN THIS PROJECT. MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT IS HOUSED IN UNIT ATTICS.

BUILDING 8
1st FLOOR

ELEVATION
2nd FLOOR

ELEVATION
3rd FLOOR

ELEVATION
396.3
406.0
416.3
BUILDING 9
1st FLOOR

ELEVATION
2nd FLOOR

ELEVATION
3rd FLOOR

ELEVATION
BUILDING 10
1st FLOOR

ELEVATION
2nd FLOOR

ELEVATION
3rd FLOOR

ELEVATION
393.8
403.5
413.8
393.5
403.2
413.5
NOTE: THESE

ELEVATIONS

REFLECT THE USGS

VERTICAL DATUM

AND ARE ALSO

SHOWN ON THE

EXTERIOR

ELEVATION SHEET
A18.2. 381.07810857 Linda Vista Drive
Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
1401
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1401 of 2331
381.07810857 Linda Vista Drive
Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
1402
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1402 of 2331
1403
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1403 of 2331

PORCH ENTRY TANDEM GARAGE
2-CAR
DECK FAMILY BA 3

BEDROOM

PRIMARY
DECK BA 2 8'-6" 8'-0" 9'-1" 9'-1" 8'-0"
T.O. PL
HD. HT.

T.O. SF.

T.O. PL
HD. HT.

T.O. SF.

T.O.S. +/- 29'-9 11/16"
EAVE HT.8'-0"

PROPOSED GRADE
1'-0"
1'-0"
1'-0"
5 1/2"
PORCH ENTRY 2-CAR GARAGE

DECK FAMILY
BA 2 BEDROOM 3 8'-6" 8'-0" 9'-1" 9'-1" 8'-0"
T.O. PL
HD. HT.

T.O. SF.

T.O. PL
T.O. PL
HD. HT.

T.O. SF.

T.O.S. +/- 29'-9 11/16"
EAVE HT.

PROPOSED GRADE
1'-0"
2'-0"
1'-0"
1'-0"
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583
650-857-0122
UNIT 1 & 2 SECTIONS
A19
UNIT 2 - SECTION UNIT 1 - SECTION
0 1' 2' 3' 4' 8'

SEE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS

FOR BUILDING HEIGHTS FROM
EXISTING & PROPOSED GRADES 381.07810857 Linda Vista Drive Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
1404
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1404 of 2331
8'-6" 8'-0" 9'-1" 9'-1" 8'-0"
T.O. PL
HD. HT.

T.O. SF.

T.O. PL
T.O. PL
HD. HT.

T.O. SF.

T.O.S. +/- 29'-9 11/16"
EAVE HT.

PROPOSED GRADE
PORCH ENTRY 2-CAR GARAGE

DECK KITCHEN FAMILY
BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM

PRIMARY
1'-0"
1'-6"
5 1/2"
6"
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583
650-857-0122
UNIT 3 SECTION
A19.1
UNIT 3 - SECTION
0 1' 2' 3' 4' 8'

SEE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS

FOR BUILDING HEIGHTS FROM
EXISTING & PROPOSED GRADES 381.07810857 Linda Vista Drive Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
1405
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1405 of 2331
UNIT 3
BA 3
UNIT 3
DINING
UNIT 3
BA 2
UNIT 2
BA 3
UNIT 2

KITCHEN
UNIT 2
LNDY

PRIMARY
BATH
UNIT 2
UNIT 2
BA 2
UNIT 2

KITCHEN
UNIT 2
LNDY

PRIMARY
BATH
UNIT 2
UNIT 2
BA 2
UNIT 3
BA 3
UNIT 3
DINING
UNIT 3
BA 2
UNIT 2
BA 3
UNIT 2

KITCHEN
UNIT 2
LNDY

PRIMARY
BATH
UNIT 2
UNIT 2
BA 2
UNIT 2

KITCHEN
UNIT 2
LNDY

PRIMARY
BATH
UNIT 2
UNIT 2
BA 2
UNIT 2
2-CAR GARAGE
UNIT 2
2-CAR GARAGE
UNIT 2
2-CAR GARAGE
UNIT 2
2-CAR GARAGE
UNIT 2
BA 3
UNIT 2
BA 3 9'-1" 9'-1" 8'-6"
T.O. PL
T.O. PL
T.O. PL
T.O. SF.

T.O. SF.

FIN. FLR.

MAX. HT. +/- 36'-10 3/4"
6 1/2" 6 1/2"
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583
650-857-0122
BUILDING 1 & 6 SECTION
A20
0 1' 2' 3' 4' 8'

BUILDING - SECTION

SEE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS

FOR BUILDING HEIGHTS FROM
EXISTING & PROPOSED GRADES 381.07810857 Linda Vista Drive Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
1406
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1406 of 2331
UNIT 3
BEDROOM 4
UNIT 3

KITCHEN
UNIT 3
BEDROOM 2
MAX. HT. +/- 37'-1 3/4" 9'-1" 9'-1" 8'-6"
T.O. PL
T.O. PL
T.O. PL
T.O. SF.

T.O. SF.

FIN. FLR.

ALT
PORCH
UNIT 3
UNIT 3 ALT
ENTRY
UNIT 3 ALT
BEDROOM 4
UNIT 3
ENTRY
2-CAR

TANDEM GARAGE
UNIT 1
2-CAR

TANDEM GARAGE
UNIT 1
UNIT 3
PWDR
UNIT 1
DINING
UNIT 1
DINING
UNIT 1
DINING
UNIT 1
DINING
UNIT 3 ALT

KITCHEN
ALT
PWDR
UNIT 3
UNIT 3
BEDROOM 3
UNIT 3 ALT
BEDROOM 3
UNIT 3 ALT
BEDROOM 2

PRIMARY
BATH
UNIT 1

PRIMARY
BATH
UNIT 1 6" 6"
1'-0"
3'-0"
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583
650-857-0122
BUILDING 2 SECTION
A20.1
0 1' 2' 3' 4' 8'

BUILDING - SECTION

SEE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS

FOR BUILDING HEIGHTS FROM
EXISTING & PROPOSED GRADES 381.07810857 Linda Vista Drive Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
1407
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1407 of 2331
UNIT 3 ALT
BA 3
UNIT 2
BA 3
UNIT 2

KITCHEN
UNIT 2
LNDY

PRIMARY
BATH
UNIT 2
UNIT 2
BA 2
UNIT 2
2-CAR GARAGE
ALT
BA 2
UNIT 3 ALT
DINING
UNIT 1

KITCHEN
2-CAR

TANDEM GARAGE
UNIT 1

PRIMARY
BATH
UNIT 1
UNIT 3
BA 3
UNIT 2
BA 3
UNIT 2

KITCHEN
UNIT 2
LNDY

PRIMARY
BATH
UNIT 2
UNIT 2
BA 2
UNIT 2
2-CAR GARAGE
UNIT 3
BA 2
UNIT 3
DINING
UNIT 1

KITCHEN
2-CAR

TANDEM GARAGE
UNIT 1

PRIMARY
BATH
UNIT 1
MAX. HT. +/- 37'-1 3/4" 9'-1" 9'-1" 8'-6"
T.O. PL
T.O. PL
T.O. PL
T.O. SF.

T.O. SF.

FIN. FLR.

UNIT 3
6 1/2"
1'-0"
6 1/2"
2'-0"
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583
650-857-0122
BUILDING 3, 4 & 5 SECTION
A20.2
0 1' 2' 3' 4' 8'

BUILDING - SECTION

SEE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS

FOR BUILDING HEIGHTS FROM

EXISTING & PROPOSED GRADES
, 381.07810857 Linda Vista Drive
Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
1408
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1408 of 2331
UNIT 3 ALT
BA 3
UNIT 2
BA 3
UNIT 2

KITCHEN
UNIT 2
LNDY

PRIMARY
BATH
UNIT 2
UNIT 2
BA 2
UNIT 2
2-CAR GARAGE
ALT
BA 2
UNIT 3 ALT
DINING
UNIT 3
UNIT 3
BA 3
UNIT 3
BA 2
UNIT 3
DINING
MAX. HT. +/- 36'-7 3/4" 9'-1" 9'-1" 8'-6"
T.O. PL
T.O. PL
T.O. PL
T.O. SF.

T.O. SF.

FIN. FLR.
6 1/2"
1'-0"
6 1/2"
2'-0"
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583
650-857-0122
BUILDING 7 SECTION
A20.3
0 1' 2' 3' 4' 8'

BUILDING - SECTION

SEE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS

FOR BUILDING HEIGHTS FROM
EXISTING & PROPOSED GRADES 381.07810857 Linda Vista Drive Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
1409
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1409 of 2331
UNIT 2
BA 3
UNIT 2

KITCHEN
UNIT 2
LNDY

PRIMARY
BATH
UNIT 2
UNIT 2
BA 2
UNIT 2
2-CAR GARAGE
UNIT 3
BA 3
UNIT 3
BA 2
UNIT 3
DINING
UNIT 3 ALT
BA 3
ALT
BA 2
UNIT 3 ALT
DINING
UNIT 3
UNIT 2
BA 3
UNIT 2

KITCHEN
UNIT 2
LNDY

PRIMARY
BATH
UNIT 2
UNIT 2
BA 2
UNIT 2
2-CAR GARAGE
MAX. HT. +/- 36'-8" 9'-1" 9'-1" 8'-6"
T.O. PL
T.O. PL
T.O. PL
T.O. SF.

T.O. SF.

FIN. FLR.
6 1/2" 6 1/2"
1'-0"
2'-0"
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583
650-857-0122
BUILDING 8, 9 & 10 SECTION
A20.4
0 1' 2' 3' 4' 8'

BUILDING - SECTION
, 381.07810857 Linda Vista Drive
Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
1410
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1410 of 2331
RIDGE
HIP
VALLEY
4 :12 4 :12
RIDGE
HIP
HIP
HIP

HIP HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP
RIDGE
RIDGE
RIDGE
RIDGE
H.

RIDGE RIDGE
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
4 :12
4 :12
4 :12 4 :12
VALLEY
VALLEY
HIP
HIP
HIP
RIDGE
RIDGE

HIP RIDGE RIDGE
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
4 :12
4 :12
4 :12 4 :12
VALLEY
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
RIDGE
RIDGE
RIDGE
R.

HIP

HIP RIDGE RIDGE
R.

R.
4 :12
4 :12
4 :12
4 :12
4 :12
4 :12
4 :12
4 :12
PROPERTY LINE, TYP. 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :124 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12

CITY OF CUPERTINO
APN: 356-05-005

CUPERTINO HILLS SWIM & RACQUET CLUB
APN: 356-07-027
EVULICH CT.

R. 9'-6" 9'-6" 3'-7"
21'-10 3/4"
4 :12 4 :12 4 :12
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583
650-857-0122
BUILDING 1 & 2 ROOF PLAN TO PROPERTY LINE
A21
0 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'
BUILDING 1
UNIT 3R
UNIT 2
UNIT 2R
UNIT 2R
UNIT 2
UNIT 3
KEY MAP - N.T.S.

NOTE: THERE IS NO ROOFTOP MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT IN THIS PROJECT. MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT IS HOUSED IN UNIT ATTICS.

BUILDING 2
UNIT 3R ALT
UNIT 1R
UNIT 3
UNIT 1
UNIT 1R
UNIT 1
BMR
BMR
BMR
BMR
N
NOTE: DIMENSIONS ARE SHOWING THE

EXTENT OF THE ROOF EAVE TO THE
PROPERTY LINE. TO SEE BUILDING SET
BACK DIMENSIONS, SEE SHT. A07. 381.07810857 Linda Vista Drive Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
1411
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1411 of 2331
PROPERTY LINE, TYP.

CUPERTINO HILLS SWIM & RACQUET CLUB - APN: 356-07-027
4 :12
4 :12
4 :12
4 :12 4 :12
4 :12 4 :12
VALLEY

HIP RIDGE RIDGE RIDGE RIDGE RIDGE
HIP
HIP
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
H.

RIDGE
RIDGE
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
R. 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12
4 :12
H. RIDGE
H.
4 :12

VALLEY HIP
VALLEY
HIP
HIP
HIP 4 :12
VALLEY
VALLEY
RIDGE 4 :12 4 :12 RIDGE 4 :12 4 :12
R.

HIP
HIP
VALLEY
RIDGE 4 :12
4 :12
4 :12
4 :12 4 :12
H.

HIP
HIP
HIP

HIP VALLEY

VALLEY VALLEY
HIP
HIP
VALLEY
VALLEY
RIDGE
R.
4 :12

HIP VALLEY RIDGE RIDGE
4 :12
4 :12
4 :12
4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12
4 :12
4 :12
4 :12 4 :12
4 :12 4 :12
VALLEY

HIP RIDGE RIDGE RIDGE RIDGE RIDGE
HIP
HIP
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
H.

RIDGE
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12
4 :12
H. RIDGE
H.

VALLEY 4 :12
VALLEY
VALLEY
RIDGE 4 :12 4 :12 RIDGE 4 :12 4 :12
R.

HIP
HIP
VALLEY
RIDGE 4 :12
4 :12
4 :12 4 :12
H.

VALLEY HIP
RIDGE
4 :12 HIP

VALLEY RIDGE RIDGE
4 :12
4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12
4 :12
4 :12
4 :12
4 :12 4 :12
4 :12 4 :12
VALLEY

HIP RIDGE RIDGE RIDGE RIDGE RIDGE
HIP
HIP
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
H.

RIDGE
RIDGE
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
R. 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12
4 :12
H. RIDGE
H.
4 :12

VALLEY HIP
VALLEY
HIP
HIP
HIP 4 :12
VALLEY
VALLEY
RIDGE 4 :12 4 :12 RIDGE 4 :12 4 :12
R.

HIP
HIP
VALLEY
RIDGE 4 :12
4 :12
4 :12
4 :12 4 :12
H.

HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
HIP
HIP
VALLEY
VALLEY
RIDGE
R.
4 :12
HIP

VALLEY RIDGE RIDGE
4 :12
4 :12
4 :12
4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12
H.
4 :12
4 :12
4 :12 RIDGE 4 :12
HIP
HIP
VALLEY
HIP
HIP
VALLEY
VALLEY HIP 4 :12
R.

HIP
VALLEY
HIP
HIP
4 :12
4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12
DERCHANG - APN: 356-07-036
EVULICH CT. LINDA VISTA DR. 9'-6" 9'-6" 9'-6"
19'-5 1/2" 2'-7" 2'-7" 2'-7" 4 :12
4 :12 V.
4 :12 V. 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12
4 :12 V.
4 :12 4 :12
V. 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 V.

V. 4 :12
4 :12
4 :12
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583
650-857-0122
BUILDING 3, 4 & 5 ROOF PLAN TO PROPERTY LINE
A21.1
0 2' 4' 6' 8' 16' BUILDING 3
KEY MAP - N.T.S.

NOTE: THERE IS NO

ROOFTOP MECHANICAL

EQUIPMENT IN THIS
PROJECT. MECHANICAL

EQUIPMENT IS HOUSED
IN UNIT ATTICS.

N
BUILDING 4 BUILDING 5
UNIT 1R
UNIT 3 ALT
UNIT 2
UNIT 1
UNIT 2R
UNIT 3R
BMR
BMR
UNIT 1R
UNIT 3 ALT
UNIT 2
UNIT 1
UNIT 2R
UNIT 3R
BMR
BMR
UNIT 1R
UNIT 3 ALT
UNIT 2
UNIT 1
UNIT 2R
UNIT 3R
BMR
BMR
NOTE: DIMENSIONS ARE

SHOWING THE EXTENT

OF THE ROOF EAVE TO
THE PROPERTY LINE.

TO SEE BUILDING SET

BACK DIMENSIONS, SEE
SHT. A07. 381.07810857 Linda Vista Drive
Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
1412
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1412 of 2331
PROPERTY LINE, TYP.

CITY OF CUPERTINO
APN: 356-05-005
EVULICH CT.

BARRY - APN: 356-06-026 KOPARDEKAR - APN: 356-00-025 RODRIGUES - APN: 356-06-024 RIDGE HIP
VALLEY
4 :12 4 :12
RIDGE
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP
RIDGE
RIDGE
RIDGE
RIDGE
H.

H. RIDGE RIDGE RIDGE RIDGE
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
4 :12 RIDGE
4 :12
4 :12
4 :12
4 :12
4 :12
R.
4 :12 4 :12
4 :12 4 :12
VALLEY
VALLEY 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :124 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 R. 4 :12
4 :12 4 :12 RIDGE
HIP
VALLEY4 :12 4 :12 RIDGE RIDGE
RIDGE
RIDGE
RIDGE
RIDGE
RIDGE
R.

HIP
VALLEY
HIP
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP
VALLEY 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12
4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12
4 :12
4 :12 4 :12
4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 9'-6" 7'-11"
24'-2"
26'-9" 14'-6"
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583
650-857-0122
0 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'
BUILDING 6
UNIT 3R
UNIT 2
UNIT 2R
UNIT 2R
UNIT 2
UNIT 3
KEY MAP - N.T.S.

NOTE: THERE IS NO ROOFTOP MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT IN THIS PROJECT. MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT IS HOUSED IN UNIT ATTICS.

BUILDING 7
N
UNIT 3 ALT
UNIT 3R
UNIT 2
BUILDING 6 & 7 ROOF PLAN TO PROPERTY LINE
A21.2
NOTE: DIMENSIONS ARE SHOWING THE

EXTENT OF THE ROOF EAVE TO THE
PROPERTY LINE. TO SEE BUILDING SET
BACK DIMENSIONS, SEE SHT. A07. 381.07810857 Linda Vista Drive Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
1413
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1413 of 2331
EVULICH CT.
4 :12
4 :12
4 :12
4 :12
4 :12
4 :12 4 :12
4 :12
4 :12 4 :12

VALLEY HIP
R.

HIP
HIP
HIP
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY

VALLEY RIDGE RIDGE RIDGE RIDGE
RIDGE
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
HIP
HIP
HIP
H.

RIDGE
RIDGE
HIP 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 RIDGE 4 :12
RIDGE 4 :124 :12
4 :12
4 :12 4 :12
4 :12
4 :12 4 :12

VALLEY HIP
R.

HIP
HIP
HIP
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY

VALLEY RIDGE RIDGE RIDGE RIDGE

RIDGE VALLEY VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
HIP
HIP
HIP
H.

RIDGE
RIDGE
HIP 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 RIDGE 4 :12
RIDGE 4 :124 :12
4 :12
4 :12
4 :12
4 :12
4 :12
4 :12 4 :12
4 :12
4 :12 4 :12

VALLEY HIP
R.

HIP
HIP
HIP
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY

VALLEY RIDGE RIDGE RIDGE RIDGE
RIDGE
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
HIP
HIP
HIP
H.

RIDGE
RIDGE
HIP 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 4 :12 RIDGE 4 :12
RIDGE 4 :124 :12
4 :12
4 :12
4 :12
4 :12

RODRIGUES
APN: 356-06-024

FANTOZZI
APN: 356-06-020 LINDA VISTA DR. 9'-6" 9'-6" 9'-6" 3'-9" 3'-9" 3'-9 1/2" 18'-11 1/2"
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583
650-857-0122
BUILDING 8, 9 & 10 ROOF PLAN TO PROPERTY LINE
A21.3
0 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'
KEY MAP - N.T.S.

NOTE: THERE IS NO ROOFTOP

MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT IN THIS
PROJECT. MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT
IS HOUSED IN UNIT ATTICS.

BUILDING 8
N
BUILDING 9 BUILDING 10
UNIT 3R ALT
UNIT 2R
UNIT 3
UNIT 2R
UNIT 3R ALT
UNIT 2R
UNIT 3
UNIT 2R
UNIT 3R ALT
UNIT 2R
UNIT 3
UNIT 2R
NOTE: DIMENSIONS ARE SHOWING

THE EXTENT OF THE ROOF EAVE TO
THE PROPERTY LINE. TO SEE

BUILDING SET BACK DIMENSIONS,
SEE SHT. A07. 381.07810857 Linda Vista Drive
Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
1414
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1414 of 2331
2%
SLOPE
75° +/- 29'-9 3/4" EAVE HEIGHT
2%
SLOPE +/- 29'-9 3/4" EAVE HEIGHT
75°
2%
SLOPE +/- 29'-9 3/4" EAVE HEIGHT
75°
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583
650-857-0122

LADDER PAD EXHIBIT
A22
0 1' 2' 3' 4' 8'
C
TYP. @ BUILDINGS 3, 4, 5 & 7

RIGHT ELEVATION B
TYP. @ BUILDINGS 2, 8, 9, & 10

RIGHT ELEVATION A
BUILDING 1 & 6
RIGHT ELEVATION NOTE: EAVE HEIGHT IS

MEASURED TO THE

INTERSECTION OF THE WALL
AND ROOF, PER SCCFD. 381.07810857 Linda Vista Drive
Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
1415
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1415 of 2331
123 123
123 123
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583
650-857-0122
0 1' 2' 3' 4' 8'

ARCHITECTURAL EXTERIOR MATERIALS & DETAILS
A23

CLAY TILE GABLE
ACCENT
"S"-TILE ROOFING
2x8 WOOD RAKE
BOARD

DECORATIVE SHAPED

HIGH DENSITY FOAM
CORBEL

CERAMIC TILE
ACCENT

DECORATIVE SHAPED

HIGH DENSITY FOAM
CORBEL

METAL RAILING VINYL SLIDING

GLASS DOOR

SCUPPER

ARCHED RECESSED

STUCCO SOFFIT

WALL SCONCE
LIGHT

BACKLIT ADDRESS

FIBERGLASS FRONT
DOOR

DECORATIVE SHAPED

HIGH DENSITY FOAM
CORBEL
"S"-TILE ROOFING

CLAY TILE GABLE
ACCENT

FIBERGLASS FRONT
DOOR

DECORATIVE SHAPED

HIGH DENSITY FOAM
CORBEL

SECTIONAL FLUSH

PANEL ROLL-UP

GARAGE DOOR

GSM FASCIA GUTTER
2x6 SMOOTH FOAM

TRIM, PAINT TO
MATCH
2x6 SMOOTH

FOAM TRIM,

PAINT TO MATCH
2x4 SMOOTH FOAM

TRIM, PAINT TO
MATCH
2x4 SMOOTH

FOAM TRIM,

PAINT TO MATCH

SLOPED STUCCO

SHELF & RECESS

DECORATIVE TRELLIS

STUCCO RECESS

INSULATED VINYL
WINDOW

WALL PACK LIGHT
2x4 SMOOTH

FOAM TRIM, PAINT

TO MATCH

INSULATED VINYL
WINDOW

STUCCO COLUMN
STUCCO w/ MEDIUM

DASH FINISH
STUCCO w/ MEDIUM

DASH FINISH
2x6 SMOOTH

FOAM TRIM, PAINT

TO MATCH

METAL POT SHELF

ARCHED RECESSED

STUCCO SOFFIT

VINYL SLIDING
GLASS DOOR 381.07810857 Linda Vista Drive
Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
1416
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1416 of 2331
123 123
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583
650-857-0122

ARCHITECTURAL EXTERIOR MATERIALS & DETAILS
A23.1
0 1' 2' 3' 4' 8'
"S"-TILE ROOFING

GSM FASCIA GUTTER

STUCCO COLUMN
2x4 SMOOTH FOAM

TRIM, PAINT TO MATCH

METAL RAIL

SCUPPER

DECORATIVE SHAPED

HIGH DENSITY FOAM
CORBEL

WALL SCONCE
LIGHT

BACKLIT ADDRESS

FIBERGLASS FRONT DOOR
2x4 SMOOTH FOAM

TRIM, PAINT TO
MATCH
2x6 SMOOTH FOAM

TRIM, PAINT TO MATCH

INSULATED VINYL
WINDOW
STUCCO w/ MEDIUM

DASH FINISH
2x6 SMOOTH

FOAM TRIM, PAINT

TO MATCH

METAL POT SHELF

VINYL SLIDING GLASS
DOOR
W.I. GABLE ACCENT

BICYCLE STORAGE HOIST ASSIST MECHANISM BY RAD CYCLE
PRODUCTS (AMAZON.COM) AT UNITS 1, 2, 3 & 3 ALT. 381.07810857 Linda Vista Drive Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
1417
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1417 of 2331
381.07810857 Linda Vista Drive
Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
1418
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1418 of 2331

LINDA VISTA DRIVE (PUBLIC ROAD)
EVULICH CT.
(PUBLIC ROAD)
LOT 6
LOT 1
LOT 2 LOT 3 LOT 4 LOT 5
LOT 7 LOT 8 LOT 9 LOT 10

PARCEL A

PARCEL B PARCEL C

PARCEL D PARCEL E
10857 LINDA VISTA DRIVE
Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583
650-857-0122
GRAPHIC SCALE 1" = 30'
30' 0' 15' 30' 60'
VESTING TENTATIVE MAP FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES TM1.0

CONTACTS

VICINITY MAP
LEGEND

GENERAL NOTES

SHEET INDEX
SHEET NO. DESCRIPTION
SITE
TRACT NO. _________
1419
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1419 of 2331

LINDA VISTA DRIVE (PUBLIC ROAD) OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW

OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW

OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW
>

EVULICH COURT (PUBLIC ROAD)
10857 LINDA VISTA DRIVE
Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583
650-857-0122
EXISTING CONDITIONS C1.0
LEGEND
NOTE:

OHW
SCALE 1" = 30'
30' 0' 15' 30' 60'
1420
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1420 of 2331

LINDA VISTA DRIVE (PUBLIC ROAD)

EVULICH COURT (PUBLIC ROAD)
10857 LINDA VISTA DRIVE
Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583
650-857-0122
EXISTING TREE INVENTORY PLAN C1.1
LEGEND
NOTE:

TREE INVENTORY TABLE
TREE
NO. SPECIES
TRUNK

DIAMETER
(IN.)

PROTECTED

PROPOSED
ACTION
BASE

ELEVATION
(FEET±)
SCALE 1" = 20'
30' 0' 15' 30' 60'
1421
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1421 of 2331
*
*
*
*
*
1 2
3 4
5 6
31 32
33 34
35 36
7 8
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 37
40 44
48 41 45 49
42 46 50
43 47 51
38 39
21 22 OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW

OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW

A A D STREET A STREET B STREET C STREET E STREET

EVULICH COURT (PUBLIC ROAD)
SEE NOTE 6 SEE NOTE 6
SEE NOTE 6
SEE NOTE 6
SEE NOTE 6 SEE NOTE 6 SEE NOTE 6 SEE NOTE 6
SEE NOTE 6
SEE NOTE 6
B
B
*
23 LINDA VISTA DRIVE (PUBLIC ROAD)

TYPICAL EVULICH COURT STREET SECTION

TYPICAL A-E STREET SECTION

VICINITY MAP
SITE

PROPOSED PARCELS GROSS/LOT AREAS

PARCEL GROSS
(1) SF NET(2) SF
1422
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1422 of 2331
1 2
3 4
5 6
31 32
33 34
35 36
7 8
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
37 40
44 48
41 45 49
42 46 50
43 47 51
38 39
21 22
BLDG 2
FF 396.4
PAD 395.4
BLDG 10
FF 393.5
PAD 392.5
BLDG 9
FF 393.8
PAD 392.8
BLDG 8
FF 396.3
PAD 395.3 BLDG 7
FF 397.3
PAD 396.3
BLDG 1
FF 396.5
PAD 395.5
BLDG 6
FF 397.2
PAD 396.2
BLDG 4
FF 393.6
PAD 392.6
BLDG 3
FF 396.3
PAD 395.3
BLDG 5
FF 393.4
PAD 392.4
BLDG HT. = 37'-0" BLDG HT. = 39'-3" BLDG HT. = 40'-6 1
2" BLDG HT. = 39'-3"
BLDG HT. = 40'-0 1
2"
BLDG HT. = 37'-6"
BLDG HT. = 38'-9"
BLDG HT. = 39'-4 1
2" BLDG HT. = 37'-10 1
2" BLDG HT. = 38'-3 1
4"
9 10 D STREET A STREET B STREET C STREET E STREET LINDA VISTA DRIVE (PUBLIC ROAD)

EVULICH COURT (PUBLIC ROAD)
SEE NOTE 6 SEE NOTE 6
SEE NOTE 6
SEE NOTE 6
SEE NOTE 6 SEE NOTE 6 SEE NOTE 6 SEE NOTE 6
SEE NOTE 6
SEE NOTE 6
LEGEND
10857 LINDA VISTA DRIVE
Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583
650-857-0122
C2.1
SCALE 1" = 20'
20' 0' 10' 20' 40'

VICINITY MAP
SITE

ABBREVIATIONS

CONTEXTUAL PLAN
1423
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1423 of 2331
EVULICH CT.
(PUBLIC ROAD)
BLDG 6
BLDG 1
BLDG 2
BLDG 3 BLDG 4 BLDG 5
BLDG 7
BLDG 8 BLDG 9 BLDG 10
> LINDA VISTA DRIVE (PUBLIC ROAD) B STREET C STREET D STREET E STREET A STREET 10857 LINDA VISTA DRIVE
Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583
650-857-0122
SCALE 1" = 20'
20' 0' 10' 20' 40'
PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN C3.0

PROPOSED DESCRIPTION
LEGEND:

ABBREVIATIONS

EXISTING
UTILITY NOTES:

TYPICAL TOWNHOME SERVICE DETAIL
1424
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1424 of 2331
LINDA VISTA DRIVE (PUBLIC ROAD)A STREET D STREET E STREET B STREET C STREET * *
*
*
*
*
A A
C
B
B
C
BLDG 2
FF 396.4
PAD 395.4
BLDG 10
FF 393.5
PAD 392.5
BLDG 9
FF 393.8
PAD 392.8
BLDG 8
FF 396.3
PAD 395.3
BLDG 7
FF 397.3
PAD 396.3
BLDG 1
FF 396.5
PAD 395.5
BLDG 6
FF 397.2
PAD 396.2
BLDG 4
FF 393.6
PAD 392.6
BLDG 3
FF 396.3
PAD 395.3
BLDG 5
FF 393.4
PAD 392.4
BLDG HT. = 37'-0" BLDG HT. = 39'-3" BLDG HT. = 40'-6 1
2" BLDG HT. = 39'-3"
BLDG HT. = 40'-0 1
2"
BLDG HT. = 37'-6"
BLDG HT. = 38'-9"
BLDG HT. = 39'-4 1
2" BLDG HT. = 37'-10 1
2" BLDG HT. = 38'-3 14"
SEE NOTE 6 SEE NOTE 6 SEE NOTE 6 SEE NOTE 6
SEE NOTE 6
SEE NOTE 6 SEE NOTE 6
SEE NOTE 6
SEE NOTE 6
SEE NOTE 6
10857 LINDA VISTA DRIVE
Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583
650-857-0122
SCALE 1" = 30'
30' 0' 15' 30' 60'
PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN C4.0

EXISTING PROPOSED DESCRIPTION
LEGEND:

ABBREVIATIONS
*

EARTHWORK SUMMARY

DESCRIPTION CUT FILL NET
1425
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1425 of 2331
A STREET 123
123
123 B STREET C STREET
123
123 123 123 123 123
123
123 123 EVULICH CT. 123
10857 LINDA VISTA DRIVE
Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583
650-857-0122
PRELIMINARY GRADING SECTIONS C4.1

SECTION C SECTION D

SECTION B-B

SECTION A-A
SCALE 1" = 10'
10' 0' 5' 10' 20'
SCALE 1" = 20'
20' 0' 10' 20' 40'
1426
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1426 of 2331
DMA 2
DMA 4
DMA 7
DMA 12
DMA 16
DMA 15
DMA 17
DMA 18
DMA 19
DMA 20
DMA 23
DMA 25
DMA 26
DMA 27
DMA 28
DMA 29
DMA 30
DMA 31
DMA 32
DMA 3
DMA 5
DMA 6
DMA 8
DMA 13
DMA 11
DMA 9
DMA 10
DMA 14
EVULICH CT.
(PUBLIC ROAD) A STREET D STREET E STREET B STREET C STREET BLDG 6
BLDG 1
BLDG 2
BLDG 3 BLDG 4 BLDG 5
BLDG 7
BLDG 8 BLDG 9 BLDG 10 LINDA VISTA DRIVE (PUBLIC ROAD)
DMA 1
DMA 21
DMA 22
DMA 24
DMA 34
DMA 33
10857 LINDA VISTA DRIVE
Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583
650-857-0122
NOTE
LEGEND
DMA 1

ABBREVIATIONS
SCALE 1" = 20'
20' 0' 10' 20' 40'
PRELIMINARY STORMWATER CONTROL PLAN C5.0
1427
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1427 of 2331
TYPICAL BIO-RENTENTION DETAIL 1 (BRD 1) TYPICAL BIO-RETENTION DETAIL 3 (BRD 3) TYPICAL BIO-RETENTION DETAIL 2 (BRD 2) TYPICAL BIO-RETENTION DETAIL 4 (BRD 4)

SELF RETAINING AREA DETAIL
PRELIMINARY STORMWATER CONTROL PLAN DETAILS C5.1
10857 LINDA VISTA DRIVE
Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583
650-857-0122

PRELIMINARY STORMWATER TREATMENT SUMMARY TABLE

DMA TREATMENT
TYPE
DMA
AREA
(SF)

IMPERVIOUS

AREA (SF)

PERVIOUS

AREA (SF)

EFFECTIVE

IMPERVIOUS AREA
(SF) (IMPERVIOUS +
PERVIOUS X 0.1)
SIZING
METHOD

REQUIRED

BIORETENTION
(SF)

PROVIDED

BIORETENTION
(SF)
DETAIL

REFERENCE
NOTE

EQUIVALENT OFFSITE TREATMENT AREA SUMMARY

CRITERIA AREA (SF)
1428
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1428 of 2331

SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE TRUCK

SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE TRUCK LINDA VISTA DRIVE (PUBLIC ROAD) EVULICH CT.
(PUBLIC ROAD) A STREET D STREET E STREET B STREET C STREET BLDG 6
BLDG 1
BLDG 2 BLDG 3 BLDG 4 BLDG 5
BLDG 7 BLDG 8 BLDG 9 BLDG 10
10857 LINDA VISTA DRIVE
Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583
650-857-0122
GRAPHIC SCALE 1" = 20'
20' 0' 10' 20' 40'
PRELIMINARY FIRE ACCESS PLAN C6.0
LEGEND:

NOTE

SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE TRUCK
BUILDING FIRE FLOW:
1,875 GPM
·
·
·
1429
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1429 of 2331

T R O T R O T R O CUPPERTINO GARBAGE TRUCK LINDA VISTA DRIVE (PUBLIC ROAD) EVULICH CT.
(PUBLIC ROAD) D STREET E STREET C STREET B STREET
BLDG 6
BLDG 1
BLDG 2 BLDG 3 BLDG 4 BLDG 5
BLDG 7 BLDG 8 BLDG 9 BLDG 10 T R O T R O T R O T R O T R O T R O T R O T R O T R O T R O T R O T R O T R O T R O T R O T R O T R O T R O T R O T R O T R O T R O T R O T R O T R O T R O T R O T R O T R O T R O T R O T R O T R O T R O T R O T R O T R O T R O T R O T R O T R O T R O T R O T R OT R O T R O T R O T R OT R O T R O T R O A STREET CUPPERTINO GARBAGE TRUCK 1 2
3 4
5 6
31 32
33 34
35 36
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
37 40
44 48
41 45 49
42 46 50
43 47 51
38 39
10857 LINDA VISTA DRIVE
Cupertino, CA
January 12, 2026
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583
650-857-0122
SCALE 1" = 20'
20' 0' 10' 20' 40'
PRELIMINARY TRASH MANAGEMENT PLAN C7.0
LEGEND
T R O
T
R
O
NOTE

TYPICAL GARBAGE BIN CONFIGURATION DETAIL

TYPICAL GARBAGE BIN CONFIGURATION DETAIL
1430
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1430 of 2331
1431
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1431 of 2331
1432
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1432 of 2331
1433
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1433 of 2331
1434
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1434 of 2331
1435
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1435 of 2331
1436
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1436 of 2331
1437
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1437 of 2331
1438
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1438 of 2331
1439
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1439 of 2331
1440
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1440 of 2331
1441
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1441 of 2331
1442
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1442 of 2331
1443
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1443 of 2331
1444
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1444 of 2331
1445
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1445 of 2331
1446
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1446 of 2331
1447
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1447 of 2331
1448
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1448 of 2331
1449
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1449 of 2331
1450
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1450 of 2331
1451
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1451 of 2331

GIACALONE
1452
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1452 of 2331

GIACALONE
1453
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1453 of 2331

GIACALONE
1454
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1454 of 2331

GIACALONE
1455
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1455 of 2331
BESS INFO 08-01-2025 POTHOLE 1 - COMM
EG 389.42± DEPTH 11" TO TOP OF PIPE

EX TOP OF 2" PVC: 388.50 EX INV OF 2" PVC: 388.33 BESS INFO 08-01-2025 POTHOLE 2 - COMM EG 389.58± DEPTH 19" TO TOP OF PIPE

EX TOP OF 1" PVC: 388.00 EX INV OF 1" PVC: 387.91
BESS INFO 08-01-2025 POTHOLE 3 - COMM
EG 390.29± DEPTH 18" TO BOTTOM OF CONC ENCASEMENT EX INV OF CONC BOX: 388.79 BESS INFO 08-01-2025 POTHOLE 4 - COMM
EG 390.54± DEPTH 18" TO BOTTOM OF CONC ENCASEMENT EX INV OF CONC BOX: 389.04 GIACALONE 1456
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1456 of 2331

GIACALONE
1457
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1457 of 2331
BESS INFO 08-01-2025 POTHOLE 1 - COMM
EG 389.42± DEPTH 11" TO TOP OF PIPE

EX TOP OF 2" PVC: 388.50 EX INV OF 2" PVC: 388.33 BESS INFO 08-01-2025 POTHOLE 2 - COMM EG 389.58± DEPTH 19" TO TOP OF PIPE

0.26 0.09 0.78 0.19 0.38 0.09

0.99 0.20 2.46 0.39 0.95 0.17

2.24 0.32 2.59 0.40 1.07 0.18

1.49 0.26 0.89 0.22 0.48 0.12

0.47 0.14 0.22 0.12 0.18 0.09

0.18 0.09 0.10 0.13 0.11 0.13

0.22 0.11 0.12 0.31 0.18 0.42

0.71 0.20 0.21 0.91 0.39 1.87

1.92 0.34 0.33 1.64 0.69 3.73

1.99 0.37 0.34 1.04 0.61 2.30

0.88 0.28 0.14

0.76 0.27 0.14 0.13

1.64 0.34 0.15 0.13

1.90 0.35 0.14 0.12

0.78 0.21 0.11 0.47 0.56 0.46 0.53

0.26 0.13 0.25 0.32 0.23 0.29

0.21 0.11 0.13 0.19 0.11 0.17

0.56 0.15 0.11 0.23 0.10 0.19

1.60 0.27 0.15 0.52 0.12 0.39

1.98 0.30 0.23 1.25 0.17 0.85

0.80 0.18 0.23 1.35 0.18 0.95

0.24 0.10 0.16 0.57 0.13 0.45

0.15 0.08 0.14 0.21 0.15 0.21

0.34 0.11 0.31 0.16 0.42 0.21

1.07 0.20 1.16 0.25 1.89 0.38

1.99 0.29 2.71 0.40 3.81 0.62

1.09 0.20 1.86 0.31 2.28 0.41

0.33 0.10 0.52 0.15 0.50 0.18

0.10 0.13

0.13 0.16 0.22 0.32 0.56 0.46 0.40 0.31 0.26 0.23 0.23 0.24 0.28 0.35 0.53 0.81 0.42 0.36

0.14 0.20 0.30 0.46 0.67 0.75 0.65 0.48 0.34 0.27 0.25 0.27 0.35 0.49 0.69 0.81 0.67 0.48 0.33 0.29 0.34

0.13 0.18 0.30 0.49 0.70 0.73 0.71 0.51 0.34 0.25 0.22 0.25 0.33 0.50 0.70 0.74 0.69 0.32

0.25 0.26 0.20

0.41 0.41 0.27

0.62 0.61 0.38

0.74 0.77 0.49

0.73 0.75 0.48

0.63 0.62 0.40

0.49 0.48 0.36

0.41 0.42 0.34

0.39 0.41 0.36

0.38 0.45 0.44

0.38 0.55 0.59

0.43 0.69 0.75

0.47 0.77 0.77

0.38 0.63 0.71

0.27 0.44 0.49

0.20 0.29 0.30

0.15 0.19 0.18

0.11 0.13 0.12

0.89 0.08 0.09 0.08

9.89 0.88

0.19 4.66

2.35 0.08

1.76 7.68

0.39 0.46

7.46 6.91

0.37 0.36

Cupertino City CouncilApril 1, 2026

Cupertino City Council
April 1, 2026