Cupertino City Council
April 1, 2026

-2-
2026-03-31
• The minimum street side setback from the two-story homes from the Evulich Court right-of-way shall be (i) 2’-0 to porches and (ii) 3’-0” to the building mass. • The minimum front setback of the two-story homes shall be thirteen (13) feet from the Linda Vista Drive right-of-way.

If the Applicant determines in good faith that the Height Reduction cannot be accomplished without a material adverse impact on the project, the Applicant will not implement the Height Reduction in its development project. The following reasons, without limitation, constitute good faith reasons for the Applicant to determine that the Height Reduction will have a material adverse impact on the project:
inability to obtain all required permits and approvals for the Height Reduction; conflict of the Height Reduction with applicable laws, regulations, codes, or policies; delay of the project as a result of the Height Reduction; or modifications as a result of the Height Reduction that materially affect the size, placement, configuration, or footprints of the proposed homes in the project.

If the City Council imposes a condition requiring the Applicant to construct a connection to an offsitetrail without providing in-lieu park fee credits, the Applicant will not implement the voluntary Height Reduction proposed in this Condition.

Please contact me at [email protected] or (510)410-1188 if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
SummerHill Homes LLC
Steven Bull
Vice President of Development
Attached: Setback Exhibit
Copy: City Clerk
City Council

D STREET A STREET B STREET C STREET E STREET LINDA VISTA DRIVE (PUBLIC ROAD)

EVULICH COURT
(PUBLIC ROAD)
BLDG 6
BLDG 1 BLDG 2 BLDG 3 BLDG 4 BLDG 5
BLDG 7
BLDG 8 BLDG 9 BLDG 10
H:\3988-000\ACAD\EXHIBITS\XB-046_SITE PLAN_2-STORY_10 SETBACK.DWG

SETBACK SITE PLAN
10857 LINDA VISTA DRIVE

CITY OF CUPERTINO SANTA CLARA COUNTY CALIFORNIA
SCALE: 1" = 20' DATE: MARCH 17, 2026
0 20 40 60 CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS

SAN RAMON
WWW.CBANDG.COM

ROSEVILLE
(925) 866-0322
(916) 788-4456
LEGEND

ABBREVIATIONS
From: Lin, Austin
To: Emi Sugiyama
Cc: Bull, Steve; Ebrahimi, Kevin
Subject: 10857 Linda Vista Drive - Informational Evacuation Analysis Submittal Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2026 1:49:55 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
10857LindaVista_Evacuation_Analysis_2026-2-26.pdf
Re: 10857 Linda Vista Drive – Informational Evacuation Analysis Submittal Dear Emi:

In advance of this evening’s hearing, the applicant is submitting the attached memorandum titled Evacuation Analysis for the Proposed Townhomes at 10857 Linda Vista Drive, prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. This analysis is a voluntary, non-CEQA, informational assessment prepared at the request of the applicant for internal purposes to evaluate the project’s incremental contribution to evacuation conditions within the broader neighborhood context.

We would like to clarify the context of this document and address recent public comments suggesting that an evacuation study was prepared and withheld.

As reflected in the City’s staff report, the City of Cupertino does not have an adopted requirement or objective standard requiring a project-specific evacuation study, and no such study was required for this application. The project has been reviewed and found compliant with all applicable State fire safety requirements for development within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.

During the course of community outreach, a neighbor submitted an independent evacuation analysis raising questions about evacuation conditions in the area. In order to better understand the assumptions and conclusions presented in that analysis, and for our own internal planning purposes, the applicant voluntarily requested that the traffic consultant who prepared the project traffic analysis conduct a technical evaluation of evacuation conditions.

This evaluation was prepared for internal informational purposes only and to assist the applicant team in understanding the issues raised in light of community concerns. At the time of earlier meetings referenced by some commenters, this analysis had not yet been finalized, and no report was submitted to the City nor Fire Department because it was not required as part of the application. The attached memorandum was subsequently completed on February 26, 2026.

The findings of the analysis indicate that the project represents a small share of overall evacuation demand and would result in a minimal increase in estimated evacuation time, approximately two minutes, when compared to existing conditions.

Although not required, the applicant is providing this memorandum at this time in the interest of transparency.

Sincerely,
Austin Lin, PE
Development Manager
SummerHill Homes
Direct (510) 330-3064 | Mobile (408) 966-2278 | ✉️[email protected] www.summerhillhomes.com
6101 Bollinger Canyon Road, Suite 425, San Ramon, CA 94583 Follow Us:

All subject matter contained in this email is confidential and proprietary to SummerHill Homes LLC and should not be disclosed to any person not listed as an original recipient. SummerHill Homes LLC. All rights reserved.

Memorandum
Date: February 26, 2026
To: Mr. Steve Bull, Summerhill Homes
From: Shu hao (Ollie) Zhou, T.E.

Huy Tran, T.E.

Subject: Evacuation Analysis for the Proposed Townhomes at 10857 Linda Vista Drive in Cupertino, CA
Introduction
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. has completed an evacuation analysis for the proposed townhomes located at 10857 Linda Vista Drive in Cupertino, California. The project would demolish four existing single-family homes on-site and construct 51 townhomes, resulting in a net increase of 47 residential units. Figure 1 illustrates the project site location in relation to the surrounding roadway network. The purpose of this memorandum is to assess whether the proposed project may affect emergency evacuation conditions in the surrounding hillside neighborhood during a hypothetical wildfire event.

Scope of the Study
This evacuation evaluation is a non-CEQA technical assessment prepared to address community concerns regarding the proposed project’s potential effects on emergency evacuation operations in the Cupertino foothills. The analysis is not required by the City of Cupertino and is intended to provide an informational review of how the project would integrate with existing neighborhood circulation and evacuation routes during a hypothetical wildfire event.

The study defines a reasonable evacuation area based on proximity to the project site and the most likely travel paths connecting the neighborhood to the surrounding collector, arterial, and freeway roadway networks. The evaluation focuses on the project’s contribution to overall evacuation demand and evacuation time within this area during an emergency wildfire evacuation.

Background (Housing Element Environmental Assessment)
Wildfire hazards, emergency access, and evacuation planning were evaluated by the City of Cupertino as part of the 2023-2031 Housing Element Environmental Assessment (EA). The Housing Element EA concluded that implementation of the Housing Element would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
10857 Linda Vista Drive Evacuation Analysis February 26, 2026 P a g e | 2
Figure 1
Project Site Location, Evacuation Area, Routes, and Critical Intersection ist ing
esident ial nit s
ist ing
esident ial nit s
= Project Site Location

= Bubb Rd/McClellan Rd
Intersection
= Evacuation Route
= Evacuation Area
Rainbow Dr
McClellan Rd
Bubb Rd Bubb Rd
Stevens Creek Blvd
Foothill Blvd Foothill Blvd
S et vens Creek S et vens Creek
Terrace Dr
10857 Linda Vista Drive Evacuation Analysis February 26, 2026 P a g e | 3
Study Limitations
This memorandum provides a high-level evaluation of potential evacuation circulation conditions under a hypothetical wildfire scenario. No detailed traffic modeling or fire behavior simulations were conducted. Instead, this analysis qualitatively assesses the project’s relative contribution to overall evacuation demand based on available data, reasonable assumptions, and expected evacuation behavior.

Evacuation Scenario
This evaluation assumes a hypothetical wildfire scenario, presumed to be coming from the Cupertino foothills. There are many different types of emergencies that could require evacuation, and there are other emergencies that could require shelter in place. The wildfire scenario is picked as one of the common emergencies experienced in California requiring evacuations.

It is expected that residents would be receiving their emergency evacuation orders from AlertSCC, Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA), City of Cupertino website and social media channels, or other sources.
• AlertSCC: Santa Clara County’s official emergency alert system that provides notifications via text message, email, and voice call.
• Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA): A federal alert system that automatically sends notifications to all cell phones within the affected geographic area. • City of Cupertino Website and Social Media Channels: The City supplements official alerts with real-time updates on its website and verified social media platforms.

Evacuation Routes and Area
The City of Cupertino has identified Foothill Boulevard, Stevens Creek Boulevard, McClellan Road, and Bubb Road as evacuation routes serving the project area, per the City of Cupertino Housing Element Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Per the City’s General Plan Mobility Chapter, Foothill Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard are designated arterial roadways, while McClellan Road and Bubb Road are designated major collectors that provide connections between local neighborhoods and the regional roadway system.

In the project vicinity, evacuation traffic is generally expected to access the regional roadway system via one of three routes, depending on location: the Bubb Road/McClellan Road signalized intersection, the Foothill Boulevard/Stevens Creek Boulevard signalized intersection, or Rainbow Drive.

For the evacuation area that includes the project site, as shown in Figure 1, residents would most likely evacuate via the Bubb Road/McClellan Road signalized intersection. Therefore, this intersection was identified as the sole critical evacuation outlet evaluated in this analysis.

Residents located along Foothill Boulevard, west of Stevens Creek (the creek) and south of Stevens Creek Boulevard, would evacuate via the Foothill Boulevard/Stevens Creek Boulevard signalized intersection. Residents located south of Terrace Drive were assumed to evacuate via Rainbow Drive.

Neither of these areas would utilize the Bubb Road/McClellan Road signalized intersection; therefore, these areas were excluded from the project evacuation area.

Based on these routing assumptions, the evacuation area was defined to include the homes and neighborhoods most likely to evacuate via the Bubb Road/McClellan Road signalized intersection during a wildfire evacuation (see Figure 1). The evacuation area includes the project site and adjacent 10857 Linda Vista Drive Evacuation Analysis February 26, 2026 P a g e | 4
residential neighborhoods and is generally bounded by Almaden Avenue to the north, the Union Pacific Railroad tracks to the east, Terrace Drive to the south, and Stevens Creek (the creek) to the west.

The defined evacuation area contains 1,324 existing residential units (see Figure 1) and is predominantly residential in land use. A worst-case scenario in terms of evacuation traffic generation would occur when all the residents are at home instead of at work/school or other activities during the day. Therefore, the effect of the other land uses such as school, fitness clubs, and small commercial uses are not considered as part of this analysis.

Project Contribution
The proposed project consists of 47 net additional residential units located within an evacuation area containing 1,324 e isting residential units. Therefore the project’s share of total evacuation demand represents approximately 3.6% of the overall evacuation traffic expected to use these routes. It should be noted that not everyone would evacuate at the exact same time, and the duration can sometimes span over the course of hours. Therefore, given this minimal increase, the project would not significantly affect evacuation traffic volumes or conditions for this evacuation area when compared to existing conditions.

Evacuation Time Analysis
Evacuation times were estimated using a planning-level, capacity-based approach that evaluates traffic flow through the critical Bubb Road/McClellan Road signalized intersection serving the evacuation area.

Under Existing conditions, evacuation demand is estimated at approximately 2,648 vehicles, based on an assumption of 2.0 evacuation vehicles per household. Under Existing Plus Project conditions, the proposed project would add approximately 94 evacuation vehicles, resulting in a total evacuation demand of approximately 2,742 vehicles.

Evacuation capacity was estimated using a conservative saturation flow rate of 900 vehicles per hour per lane at the critical signalized intersection identified above. Under emergency operations, outbound traffic in the evacuation area would use the eastbound left-turn, eastbound through, and northbound through lanes at the Bubb Road/McClellan Road intersection. These three lanes would provide a combined evacuation capacity of approximately 2,700 vehicles per hour (vph).

Based on the estimated evacuation demand and available capacity, evacuation time is approximately 59 minutes under Existing conditions and would increase to approximately 61 minutes under Existing Plus Project conditions (see Table 1). This represents an increase of approximately two minutes and would not significantly affect evacuation operations when compared to existing conditions.

Sensitivity Analysis
A sensitivity analysis was conducted to compare evacuation demand and evacuation times for the proposed project with a theoretical residential development consistent with existing R-1 zoning.

Under a theoretical R-1 zoning scenario, the project site would include 11 residential units within an evacuation area containing 1,324 existing residential units, representing approximately 0.8% of total evacuation demand. As discussed above, the proposed project represents approximately 3.6% of total evacuation demand within the defined evacuation area. The difference in evacuation demand between the two scenarios is minimal.
10857 Linda Vista Drive Evacuation Analysis February 26, 2026 P a g e | 5
Table 1
Estimated Evacuation Times for the Evacuation Area
For evacuation time, the R-1 zoning scenario would generate approximately 22 evacuation vehicles, which, when added to the existing evacuation demand of approximately 2,648 vehicles, would result in a total evacuation demand of approximately 2,670 vehicles. When evaluated against an evacuation capacity of approximately 2,700 vehicles per hour, the estimated evacuation time would be the same as existing conditions at approximately 59 minutes. As discussed above, the proposed project would result in an estimated evacuation time of approximately 61 minutes under Existing Plus Project conditions.

The difference in evacuation time between the two scenarios would be minimal.

Overall, differences in evacuation demand and evacuation times between the proposed project and the theoretical R-1 zoning scenario are minimal, and evacuation conditions would be generally comparable under both scenarios.

Fire Prevention Features
The proposed project includes fire access and protection features consistent with the requirements of the City of Cupertino and the Santa Clara County Fire Department. The site layout extends Linda Vista Drive to provide internal circulation for the 51 townhomes and incorporates the following fire safety design elements:
• Emergency vehicle access that meets all applicable turning radius, width, and grade requirements.
• A Fire Department-approved hammerhead turnaround at the end of the private street. • Driveway and street designs that comply with California Fire Code standards for slope and emergency response clearance.

The proposed street network satisfies the City’s emergency access requirements and the hammerhead turnaround design has been reviewed and approved by the Fire Department.

Since the project is identified as being located in a Local Responsibility Area (LRA) Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, the project will be compliant with the requirements of California Residential Code Section R337, Materials and Methods for Exterior Wildfire Exposure to enhance the buildings’ fire-resistance and reduce wildfire vulnerability. In addition, the project will also provide defensible spaces in accordance with Cal Fire Defensible Space Guidelines and Recommendations.

Estimated
Total Vehicles per Total Evacuation Evacuation
Scenario Households Household 1 Vehicles Capacity (vph) 2 Time (mins) Existing 1,324 2.0 2,648 2,700 59
Proposed Project (Net) 47 2.0 94 -- --
Existing Plus Project 1,371 2.0 2,742 2,700 61
Notes:
1 Based on the City of Seaside Evacuation Study dated December 12, 2022 prepared by Hexagon and Rancho Cucamonga Evacuation Assessment dated October 26, 2021 prepared by Fehr & Peers. 2 Assumes 900 vehicles per hour per lane for for one eastbound left-turn lane, one eastbound through lane, and one northbound through lane at the Bubb Road/McClellan Road signalized intersection. 10857 Linda Vista Drive Evacuation Analysis February 26, 2026 P a g e | 6
Conclusion
This evacuation evaluation is informational and does not constitute a formal CEQA analysis.

The proposed project consists of adding 47 net residential units within an evacuation area containing 1,324 existing residential units. Project residents would use the same evacuation routes as surrounding neighborhoods, primarily McClellan Road and Bubb Road, which provide access to the critical Bubb Road/McClellan Road signalized intersection. The results of this evacuation analysis for a wildfire indicate the following:
• The proposed project represents approximately 3.6% of the total evacuation traffic expected to use these routes. Given this minimal increase, the project would not significantly affect evacuation traffic volumes or conditions for this evacuation area when compared to existing conditions.
• The evacuation time analysis indicates that the proposed project would increase overall evacuation time for the evacuation area by approximately two minutes compared to Existing conditions. This minimal increase would not significantly affect evacuation operations at the identified critical signalized intersection.
• The proposed project and a theoretical R-1 zoning scenario would result in similar evacuation demand and evacuation times, with only a minor incremental change in evacuation operations under either scenario.
www.coxcastle.com 107942\19311643v6 Los Angeles | Orange County | San Francisco Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP
50 California Street, Suite 3200
San Francisco, California 94111-4710
P: 415.262.5100 F: 415.262.5199
Margo N. Bradish
415.262.5101
[email protected]
File No. 107942
April 1, 2026

VIA E-MAIL
City Council
City of Cupertino
City Hall
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
Re: 10857, 10867, 10877, and 10887 Linda Vista Drive Townhome Project Approval Honorable Council Members:

At its February 24, 2026, hearing, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino (“City”) recommended that the City Council approve SummerHill Homes’ (“SummerHill”) proposed housing development project (“Project”) at 10857, 10867, and 10877 Linda Vista Drive (“Property”). At its March 17, 2026, meeting, the City Council continued the scheduled hearing on the Project until April 1, 2026, without substantive discussion. On March 30, 2026, the Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) issued a Letter of Support and Technical Assistance with regard to the Project (“HCD Support Letter”). (See attached Exhibit A.) We write to encourage the City Council to approve the Project at its April 1, 2026, hearing, in accordance with the City’s obligations under the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), and the Permit Streamlining Act (“PSA”). Please see our February 12, 2026, letter to Planning staff addressing these obligations (“February Letter”). (See attached Exhibit B.) This letter responds to (i) the March 16, 2026, letter from an attorney on behalf of a resident (“Attorney Letter”) asserting noncompliance of the Project with CEQA and the Subdivision Map Act (“Map Act”) and (ii) the March 27, 2026, letter from resident Vikram Saxena alleging factual discrepancies regarding CEQA compliance (“Saxena Letter”). As described below, the record before you demonstrates that (i) the Project is eligible for the AB 130 CEQA statutory exemption for infill housing projects; and (ii) the Project is consistent with the Map Act.

As noted in our February Letter, the City Council lacks a legal basis to disapprove the Project, and the City faces potentially substantial financial penalties should it do so. Pursuant to recently enacted AB 712, disapproval of the Project in violation of state housing laws would expose the City to fines of a minimum of $10,000 per unit (with enhanced penalties in the event of bad faith or prior noncompliance) and payment of Summerhill’s attorneys’ fees. We City Council
April 1, 2026

107942\19311643v6
encourage the City Council to approve the Project as proposed in accordance with applicable law.

1. Background
The Project is located within a newly designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (“VHFHSZ”) and therefore is subject to Public Resource Code Section 4290 and the State Minimum Fire Safe Regulations (14 C.C.R §§ 1270 et seq.) (“Fire Safe Regulations”), in addition to the generally applicable fire safety requirements of the California Building Code (“Building Code”). The Project is located in a local responsibility area (“LRA”) and therefore Public Resources Code Section 51182 is applicable to the Project (whereas Public Resources Code Section 4291 is applicable to buildings in state responsibility areas).

SummerHill applied to the Santa Clara County Fire Department (“Fire Department”) for a reduction of the 30-foot setback requirement of the Fire Safe Regulations adopted pursuant to Public Resource Code Section 4290 (“Alternative Means”), including submission of a justification for the request. (See attached Exhibit C.) After review in accordance with the Fire Safe Regulations, on January 1, 2026, the Fire Department issued comments stating that the Alternative Means “is APPROVED.” (See attached Exhibit C.) On January 27, 2026, the Fire Department issued comments on the Project stating, “Plans are APPROVED with conditions.” (See attached Exhibit D.) With regard to the Alternative Means, the Fire Department found that “non-conforming setbacks are mitigated through a combination of increased fire separation distance requirements and modified sprinkler systems.” (See attached Exhibit D, Plan Review Comment 1.) The conditions also include requirements for standard items routinely reviewed at the building permit and inspection stage, such as requirements for a “Final Fire Protection Plan”, turnaround installation, sprinkler installation, fire flow, rescue openings, fire access road specifications, fire lane identification, address identification, etc. These imposition of these conditions in no way affects the validity of the approval.

2. The Project Qualifies for the AB 130 CEQA Exemption. a. AB 130 CEQA Exemption Requirements for VHFHSZ
Public Resources Code Section 21080.66 (codified as Section 59 of AB 130) (“AB 130 CEQA Exemption”) includes site-specific criteria applicable to sites seeking to use the AB 130 CEQA Exemption, including, among other things, satisfying the requirements of Government Code Section 65913.4(a)(6).

As applicable to the Project, Section 65913.4(a)(6)(D) provides that the AB 130 CEQA Exemption generally does not apply to sites that are “Within a very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 51178, or within the state responsibility area, as defined in Section 4102 of the Public Resources Code.” This exclusion, however, does not apply if certain conditions are met. Specifically, the AB 130 CEQA Exemption provides the following regarding the exclusion:

City Council
April 1, 2026

107942\19311643v6
This subparagraph [i.e., the exclusion] does not apply to sites that have adopted fire hazard mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards or state fire mitigation measures applicable to the development, including, but not limited to, standards established under all of the following or their successor provisions:
(i) Section 4291 of the Public Resources Code or Section 51182, as applicable. (ii) Section 4290 of the Public Resources Code.
(iii) Chapter 7A of the California Building Code (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations).”
(Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(6)(D) (emphasis added).)
Importantly, this exception to the general exclusion provides that the exclusion does not apply to sites “that have adopted fire hazard mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards,” with the balance of the text being explanatory of this general requirement.

Notably, the listed standards apply as a matter of law to all projects in VHFHSZ, regardless of the use of AB 130. As part of the standard permit review process for all projects in VHFHSZ, building and fire staff routinely verify compliance with these requirements as a prerequisite to the issuance of building permits and inspection approvals. Projects in VHFHSZ cannot receive building permits or inspection approvals until the applicable requirements are met.

In accordance with CEQA case law, cities routinely rely on a project’s compliance with applicable law as a manner of demonstrating compliance with CEQA. (See Tracy First v City of Tracy (2009) 177 CA4th 912.) While SummerHill has substantially advanced its demonstration of compliance with the code requirements noted by AB 130 ahead of the required permit process to be responsive to community concerns, the obligation to comply with these laws, as confirmed at the permit stage, is itself sufficient to demonstrate CEQA compliance. Thus, the HCD Support Letter concludes, “For purposes of entitling AB-130 eligible projects, the City should assume compliance with local building codes. Whether the project is indeed code compliant should be determined at the post-entitlement phase. This prevents the entitlement review process from becoming bogged down in technical details that are strictly governed by other laws.” (HCD Support Letter, emphasis added.) While a code compliance determination is not required to establish AB 130 eligibility at the entitlement stage, the compliance of the Project with applicable code requirements nonetheless is addressed below for informational purposes. b. The Project Will Comply with Section 51182 of the Public Resources Code.

Public Resources Code Sections 4291 and 51182 address “defensible space” surrounding structures based on the combustibility of materials surrounding the structure, but generally not beyond the property line. As noted above, based on its location in an LRA, Section 51182 is applicable to the Project.

City Council
April 1, 2026

107942\19311643v6
Section 51182 requires a defensible space of 100 feet from each side and from the front and rear of the structure, but not beyond the property line except as specified in the statute, and specified maintenance. (See Pub. Res. Code § 51182(a)(1)(A).) Section 51182 states, “The amount of fuel modification necessary shall consider the flammability of the structure as affected by building material, building standards, location, and type of vegetation.” (Id.) The Project will comply with Section 51182, and compliance will be verified through the standard building permit plan check and inspection processes, as is done for every project in a VHFHSZ. For example, Section 701A.5 of the California Building Code requires that, “Prior to building permit final approval, the property shall be in compliance with the vegetation management requirements prescribed in California Fire Code Section 4906, including California Public Resources Code 4291 or California Government Code Section 51182.” Similarly, Sections 4907.2 and 4907.3 of the California Fire Code require:

Land designated in ordinance by local agencies as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone pursuant to Government Code Section 51179 are required to maintain the required defensible space. Vegetation and fuels around all buildings and structures shall be maintained and spaced at all times in accordance with the following laws and regulations.

Should a conflict of any requirements occur, the most restrictive requirement shall prevail: 1) Public Resources Code, Section 4291. 2) California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 1.5, Chapter 7, Subchapter 3, Article 3, Section 1299. 3) California Government Code, Section 51182. 4) California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 1, Chapter 7, Subchapter 1, Section 3.07. 5) The requirements of Chapter 49 and the Defensible Space and Fuel Modification Standards as issued and approved by the Fire Code Official.

As noted in the HCD Support Letter, “For purposes of entitling AB-130 eligible projects, the City should assume compliance with local building codes. Whether the project is indeed code compliant should be determined at the post-entitlement phase.” c. The Project Complies with Section 4290 of the Public Resources Code.

Public Resources Code Section 4290 requires the adoption of regulations implementing minimum fire safety standards related to defensible space in VHFHSZ, which are included in the Fire Safe Regulations. The Fire Safe Regulations provide as follows:
a) All parcels shall provide a minimum thirty (30) foot setback for all Buildings from all property lines and/or the center of a Road, except as provided for in subsection (b). (b) A reduction in the minimum setback shall be based upon practical reasons, which may include but are not limited to, parcel dimensions or size, topographic limitations, Development density requirements or other Development patterns that promote lowcarbon emission outcomes; sensitive habitat; or other site constraints, and shall provide City Council
April 1, 2026

107942\19311643v6
for an alternative method to reduce Structure-to-Structure ignition by incorporating features such as, but not limited to:
(1) non-combustible block walls or fences; or
(2) non-combustible material extending five (5) feet horizontally from the furthest extent of the Building; or
(3) hardscape landscaping; or
(4) a reduction of exposed windows on the side of the Structure with a less than thirty (30) foot setback; or
(5) the most protective requirements in the California Building Code, California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 7A, as required by the Local Jurisdiction.
(14 C.C.R. § 1276.01 (emphasis added).) In other words, compliance with Public Resources Code Section 4290 and Section 1276.01 of the Fire Safe Regulations can be established through either a 30-foot setback or a reduced setback combined with alternative methods.

As expressly permitted, the Project complies with Public Resources Code Section 4290 and Section 1276.01 of the Fire Safe Regulations through the second express option, a reduced setback for a portion of the Project combined with alternative methods to reduce structure-tostructure ignition, including added fire sprinklers and one-hour fire ratings of certain exterior walls and covered porches. Any suggestion by the Attorney Letter or Saxena Letter that this use of a reduced setback combined with alternative methods defeats compliance with Public Resources Code Section 4290 is inconsistent with the express regulatory provisions. i. The Fire Safe Regulations Authorize Use of Alternative Means.

Section 1270.07(a) of the Fire Safe Regulations confirms that exceptions to the Fire Safe Regulations may be approved by the Fire Department where the alternative means have the “same practical effect” as the regulations. Section 1270.07(a) states:

Upon request by the applicant, an Exception to standards within this Subchapter may be allowed by the Inspection entity in accordance with 14 CCR § 1270.06 (Inspections) where the Exceptions provide the Same Practical Effect as these regulations towards providing Defensible Space. Exceptions granted by the Local Jurisdiction listed in 14 CCR § 1270.06, shall be made on a case-by-case basis only. 14 C.C.R. § 1270.07(a). The Fire Safe Regulations define an exception as “An alternative to the specified standard requested by the applicant that may be necessary due to health, safety, environmental conditions, physical site limitations or other limiting conditions, such as recorded historical sites, that provides mitigation of the problem.” (14 C.C.R. § 1270.01(j) (emphasis added).)
City Council
April 1, 2026

107942\19311643v6
The Fire Department followed this process in approving the Alternative Means. Based on an analysis of the Project site and the Alternative Means, “County Fire staff determined that these measures provide appropriate alternative methods to reduce the risk of structure-tostructure ignition, and County Fire approved the Same Practical Effect exception request for the Application.” (Fire Department Memorandum to the Cupertino City Officials from Santa Clara Hector Estrada, Assistant Fire Chief, Re: Housing Development – Linda Vista Drive (emphasis added) (see attached Exhibit E).) In addition, “County Fire staff determined that the exception request provided appropriate access for emergency wildland fire equipment and safe civilian evacuation and that the exception request included fuel modification sufficient for civilian and firefighter safety.” (Id. (emphasis added).)
As noted above, SummerHill substantially advanced its demonstration of compliance with the code requirements noted by AB 130 ahead of the required building permit process to be responsive to community concerns. Based on this accelerated process, the Fire Department already has approved the Alternative Means requested for the Project. (See attached Exhibit C.).

Contrary to the assertion of the Attorney Letter and Saxena Letter, the use of Alternative Means is not a “shortcut” or an “avoidance” of code compliance. Instead, Alternative Means are a site-specific fire protection program authorized by the Fire Safe Regulations and approved by the Fire Department as having the “Same Practical Effect” as the Fire Safe Regulations. In other words, Alternative Means are an approved method of establishing code compliance. ii. Use of Alternative Methods Does Not Affect the Applicability of the AB 130 CEQA Exemption.

Alternative Means falls squarely within the statutory language of Section 65913.4(a)(6)(D), as referenced in the AB 130 CEQA Exemption. The Attorney Letter and Saxena Letter fail to recognize that the Project received approval of the exact type of sitespecific fire mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards contemplated by Section 65913.4(a)(6)(D).

The Attorney Letter and Saxena Letter curiously attempt to suggest that Alternative Means expressly authorized by the Fire Safe Regulations to establish code compliance somehow do not constitute code compliance under AB 130 CEQA Exemption. The Attorney Letter provides no support for its assertion that an approved methodology for establishing code compliance for the purpose of the code does not establish code compliance for purposes of the AB 130 CEQA Exemption. Nothing in the AB 130 CEQA Exemption states or even implies such a distinction.
d. The Project Will Comply with Chapter 7A of the Building Code Chapter 7A of the Building Code, “Materials and Construction Methods for Exterior Wildlife Exposure,” establishes minimum standards for building materials, systems, and assemblies used in the exterior design and construction of new buildings in the Wildland Urban City Council
April 1, 2026

107942\19311643v6
Interface, including requirements for ignition resistant construction, roofing, vents, exterior covering, exterior windows, skylights, and doors, decking, and accessory structures.

As a matter of standard plan check practice, the building official must confirm that project plans comply with the requirements of Chapter 7A prior to issuance of a building permit.

Specifically, Building Code Section 701A.4 requires that the “local building official shall, prior to construction, provide the owner or applicant a certification that the building as proposed to be built complies with all applicable state and local building standards, including those for materials and construction methods for wildfire exposure as described in [Chapter 7].

Similarly, as a matter of standard inspection practice, the building official must confirm that the project is constructed in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 7A. Specifically, Building Code Section 701A.4 requires that the “local building official shall, upon completion of construction, provide the owner or applicant with a copy of the final inspection report that demonstrates the building was constructed in compliance with all applicable state and local building standards, including those for materials and construction methods for wildfire exposure as described in [Chapter 7].” The foregoing requirements will ensure compliance with Chapter 7A, which is sufficient to demonstrate compliance with AB 130 with regard to Chapter 7A.

As noted in the HCD Support Letter, “For purposes of entitling AB-130 eligible projects, the City should assume compliance with local building codes. Whether the project is indeed code compliant should be determined at the post-entitlement phase.”

3. The Project is Consistent with the Map Act.
a. The Project is Consistent with Applicable, Objective Public Health and Safety Standards.

The Project is entitled to the protection of the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), including the prohibition on disapproval of a housing development project that complies with “with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete.” (Government Code § 65589.5(j)(1) (emphasis added).) The HAA provides an exception to this prohibition if a preponderance of evidence demonstrates that the project would have “a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety,” defined as a “a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.” (Id.) For purposes of the HAA, “objective” means “involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official. (Id. § 65589.5(h)(9).) The Map Act identifies findings requiring disapproval of a project, as opposed to findings required for approval. (Government Code § 66474.). In other words, the City must deny a map if City Council
April 1, 2026

107942\19311643v6
substantial evidence supports one of the findings for disapproval. The Map Act finding requiring disapproval of a project where “the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems,” is not an objective standard as defined by the HAA, in that it involves subjective judgment and is not verifiable by reference to any external and uniform benchmark. In their review of the Project, neither the City nor the Fire Department have identified any applicable, objective standards related to public health and safety with which the Project would not comply. As such, the City cannot deny the Project tenative map based on this Map Act finding.

The Attorney letter incorrectly asserts that the Map Act requires the City to make findings pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.02. This provision of the Map Act applies only to counties and therefore is inapplicable to the City. b. There is Not Substantial Evidence that the Project Would Cause Serious Public Health Problems.

The draft resolution prepared by staff for approval of the Project tentative map includes a finding that “[t]he proposed subdivision design and improvements will not cause serious public health problems.” The Attorney Letter improperly asserts that the Project will result in “serious public health problems” with the meaning of the Map Act because it would lead to additional evacuation time. The Map Act, however, does not establish any objective standards regarding evacuation time. Further, as detailed in our February Letter, in their review of the Project, neither the City nor the Fire Department have identified any applicable, objective standards related to evacuation routes. The Fire Department, however, has found that the Alternative Means “provided appropriate access for emergency wildland fire equipment and safe civilian evacuation and that the exception request included fuel modification sufficient for civilian and firefighter safety.” (See attached Exhibit E.) As such, there is not substantial evidence in the record that the Project would have “serious public health problems” that would justify disapproval under the HAA.

Further, there is not substantial evidence in the record that the Project would have a significant impact on emergency evacuation times. The Attorney Letter does not identify substantial evidence that would support a finding under Government Code Section 66474(f).

Instead, the Attorney Letter makes several unsupported and factually incorrect assumptions regarding the roadway network to justify a conclusory statement that the Project would create an additional hour of evacuation time. Examples of the inaccuracies in the assumptions include both the extent of the applicable network and the volume that can be accommodated on the roadway.

While an evacuation study is not required, and there are no applicable objective standards for such a study, SummerHill voluntarily requested that the transportation consultant for the Project prepare an evacuation analysis for non-CEQA, internal review purposes. As explained in Hexagon Transportation Consultants’ February 26, 2026, Evacuation Analysis for the Proposed Townhomes at 10857 Linda Vista Drive in Cupertino, CA (“Hexagon Analysis”), the Project is City Council
April 1, 2026

107942\19311643v6
anticipated to add only 3.6 percent of overall evacuation traffic on expected evacuation routes in a hypothetical wildfire scenario. The Hexagon Analysis concludes, “given this minimal increase, the project would not significantly affect traffic evacuation volumes or conditions for the evacuation area when compared to existing conditions.” (Emphasis added.) The Hexagon Analysis further concludes that the Project would add approximately two minutes to evacuation times under existing conditions, which “would not significantly affect evacuation operations when compared to existing conditions.” (Emphasis added.) These minor changes do not rise to the level of a “serious public health problem” caused by the Project for purposes of the Map Act. * * *
In summary, the record before you demonstrates that (i) the Project is eligible for the AB 130 CEQA statutory exemption for infill housing projects; and (ii) the Project is consistent with the Map Act, both notwithstanding the use of Alternative Means as expressly authorized by the Fire Safe Regulations to achieve compliance with the code.

As noted in our February Letter, the City Council lacks a legal basis to disapprove the Project, and the City faces potentially substantial financial penalties, including AB 712 fines and attorneys’ fees, should it do so. We encourage the City Council to approve the Project as proposed, in accordance with applicable law.

Sincerely,
Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP
Margo N. Bradish
Partner
MNB
Attachments
City Council
April 1, 2026
107942\19311643v5
Exhibit A
HCD Support Letter
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
651 Bannon Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95811
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
March 30, 2026
Ben Fu, Community Development Director
Cupertino City Hall
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Dear Ben Fu:

RE: City of Cupertino – 10857 Linda Vista Drive – Letter Support and Technical Assistance
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) understands that on April 1, 2026, the City Council of the City of Cupertino will consider a Tentative Map, Architectural and Site Approval, and Tree Removal Permit for the construction of a housing development project that includes moderate income affordable units (Project) on a

2.53-acre site located at 10857 Linda Vista Drive (APNs: 356-06-001, -002, -003, and - 004). The purpose of this letter is to assist the City with its decision making by providing technical assistance related to the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) and State No Net Loss Law.

Background
HCD understands that the Project is proposing 51 for-sale townhome units, including 10 units deed restricted for moderate income households. The Project is located within the R-3/TH (Multiple-Family Residential, Townhome) zoning district and the Residential – Medium High Density General Plan Land Use Designation. The Project is utilizing the State Density Bonus Law (SDBL)1 to utilize five waivers and one concession from applicable standards of the General Plan and Zoning Code. HCD additionally understands that the Project is consistent with the General Plan,2 Zoning,3 and state and local regulations applicable to Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ). 4 On
February 24, 2026, the City’s Planning Commission voted to recommend the City Council approve the Project.5
1 Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (b)(1)(D).
2 City of Cupertino February 24, 2026, Planning Commission Hearing Staff Report on 10857 Linda Vista Drive, page 2.
3 Ibid. See page 3.
4 Ibid. See page 9: “The Santa Clara County Fire Department has found that the project has demonstrated consistency with these requirements.”
5 City of Cupertino February 24, 2026, Planning Commission Hearing Minutes.

Ben Fu, Community Development Director

Analysis
Housing Accountability Act
The Project meets the definition of a “housing development project” under the HAA.6 The Project may only be disapproved or approved at a lower density if the City makes written findings, supported by a preponderance of evidence on the record, that (1) a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety would result from the project and (2) mitigation of the adverse impact is not possible.7 Specific, adverse, impact means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions.8 “Objective” means, “involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official.”9 Additionally, the Legislature has clarified that these impacts are intended to arise “infrequently.”10
Housing Element No Net Loss Law
No Net Loss Law requires that a jurisdiction ensure there is development opportunity remaining throughout the planning period to accommodate the jurisdiction’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Because the approval of the Project would result in capacity becoming inadequate to accommodate the RHNA, the City will have up to 180 days from the approval to identify or rezone “sufficient additional, adequate, and available sites” to accommodate the remaining RHNA.
11 HCD understands that the Project site consists of four contiguous lots listed in the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element and the approval of the project may trigger a No Net Loss Law obligation for the City in the moderate income and lower-income categories. In the Planning Commission Staff Report for the Project, the City has stated that, while it “is unable to identify additional sites to accommodate its RHNA concurrently with this project’s approval, it is working toward being compliant with State law in a timely manner. 12” HCD reminds the City that Housing Element No Net Loss Law specifically provides that the City may not disapprove a housing project on the basis that approval of the development would trigger the identification or zoning of additional adequate sites to accommodate the remaining RHNA.13
6 Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (h)(2). 7 Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j)(1). 8 Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j)(1)(A).
9 Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (h)(9).
10 Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (a)(3).
11 Gov. Code, § 65863., subd. (c)(2).
12 City of Cupertino February 24, 2026, Planning Commission Hearing Staff Report on 10857 Linda Vista Drive, page 18.
13 See HCD’s October 2, 2019 No Net Loss Law Memo, page 1, available at:
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/housing-elementmemos/docs/sb-166-final.pdf.

Ben Fu, Community Development Director

Conclusion
For purposes of entitling AB 130-eligible projects, the City should assume compliance with local building codes. Whether the project is indeed code compliant should be determined at the post-entitlement phase. This prevents the entitlement review process from becoming bogged down in technical details that are strictly governed by other laws.

HCD informs the City that AB 712 (Government Code Section 65914.2.) went into effect on January 1, 2026. Among other things, the new law increases penalties that a court may impose on a local government if the local government was advised in writing prior to the commencement of a lawsuit brought by the Attorney General or HCD that the local government’s decision, action, or inaction would represent a violation of specified housing laws.

HCD hopes this technical assistance is helpful. HCD has enforcement authority over the HAA and Housing Element Law, among other state housing laws. Accordingly, HCD may review local government actions to determine consistency with these laws. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (j), if HCD finds that a jurisdiction’s actions do not comply with state law, HCD may notify the California Office of the Attorney General.

HCD remains committed to supporting the City of Cupertino in facilitating housing at all income levels and hopes the City finds this clarification helpful. If you have questions or need additional information, please contact Brandon Yung at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Melinda Coy
Housing Accountability Unit Chief
City Council
April 1, 2026
107942\19311643v5
Exhibit B
February Letter
Ih) COX CASTLE

www.coxcastle.com 107942\19229684v6 Los Angeles | Orange County | San Francisco Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP
50 California Street, Suite 3200
San Francisco, California 94111-4710
P: 415.262.5100 F: 415.262.5199
Margo N. Bradish
415.262.5101
[email protected]
File No. 107942
February 12, 2026
Emi Sugiyama, Senior Planner
Luke Connolly, Assistant Director
Community Development Department
City of Cupertino
City Hall
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
Re: 10857, 10867, 10877, and 10887 Linda Vista Drive Townhome Project Approval Dear Ms. Sugiyama and Mr. Connolly:

At its February 24, 2026, hearing, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino (“City”) will consider SummerHill Homes’ (“SummerHill”) proposed housing development project (“Project”) at 10857, 10867, and 10877 Linda Vista Drive (“Property”). We write to encourage the Planning Commission to timely recommend that the City Council approve the Project no later than April 4, 2026, in accordance with the City’s obligations under the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), and the Permit Streamlining Act (“PSA”).

The City’s Sixth Cycle Housing Element (“Housing Element”) Site Inventory lists the parcels that comprise the Property as Priority Housing Sites. SummerHill proposes to redevelop the Property with a new 51-unit townhome-style condominium community (including 10 units affordable to moderate income households). The proposed Project density is within the allowable density pursuant to the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code.

SummerHill submitted a preliminary application pursuant to SB 330 for the Project on October 9, 2024, and a formal application for the Project on December 13, 2024, seeking approval of Architectural and Site Approval (File # ASA-2024-015), a Tentative Map (File # TM-2024-009), and a Tree Removal Permit (File # TR-2024-044), including waivers under the State Density Bonus Law. The City determined the formal application complete on March 19, 2025.

Housing Accountability Act – Consistency Review Timeline Once an application is deemed complete, the HAA requires a local agency to notify the applicant, with supporting documentation and reasons, if the local agency considers the project Planning Commission
February 12, 2026

107942\19229684v6
to be “inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity” with applicable standards. (Gov.

Code § 65589.5(j)(2)(a).) For projects of 150 units or fewer, the HAA consistency review period expires 30 days after the housing development project application is determined to be complete. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(2)(A).) If the local agency fails to provide the required documentation within the deadline, the housing development project is deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity.

The consistency review period for the Project expired on April 18, 2025. On April 18, 2025, the City submitted comments to SummerHill asserting inconsistencies with regard to certain “standard City requirements” as well as comments from the Fire Department and the Department of Public Works. Notably, the City did not make any comments asserting any inconsistencies with regard to evacuation routes at that time. As of that time, the Project was deemed consistent with standards for which inconsistencies were not identified and documented (including with regard to evacuation routes).

Subsequently, the Fire Department confirmed that the Project complies with applicable Fire Code requirements with incorporation of required methods pursuant to the approved Application for Use of Alternate Materials, Methods of Construction, or Modification of Code for the Project. These methods include requirements for non-combustible landscaping material within defined areas, wildfire protective measures in accordance with the California Building Code, added sprinklers within defined areas, and stricter fire separation distances within defined areas. All of these methods have been incorporated into the Project plans. Concurrently with resolution of the Fire Department Comments, SummerHill worked with Public Works to address Public Works Department comments on the Project traffic study.

On January 28, 2026, City staff confirmed that the Public Works and the Fire Department reviews were complete with no additional comments. On February 10, 2026, City staff notified SummerHill that staff had completed consistency review in accordance with the HAA.

California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)
As amended by AB 130, CEQA establishes a statutory exemption for housing development projects meeting listed conditions (e.g., site size of not more than 20 acres, infill location, consistency with applicable general plan and zoning, satisfaction of minimum density, and satisfaction of certain site criteria) that complete a specified tribal consultation process. (Pub.

Res. Code § 21080.66.) On September 12, 2025, SummerHill formally notified the City of the eligibility of the Project for this exemption. On January 4, 2026, after complying with the statutory requirements, the City completed the tribal consultation process.

The AB 130 site criteria include requirements that sites within a very fire hazard severity zone be subject to mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards or state fire mitigation measures applicable to the development, including standards established under Public Resources Code Sections 4290 and 4291 and Chapter 7A of the Building Code. (Pub. Res. Code Planning Commission
February 12, 2026

107942\19229684v6
§ 21080.66(a)(6); Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(6)(D).) As part of the AB 130 process, the Fire Department confirmed that the Project complies with those standards.

Permit Streamlining Act – Project Approval Timeline
The PSA requires CEQA lead agencies to make a decision to approve or disapprove housing development projects within specified timelines (as well as imposing strict limitations on disapproval, discussed below). As amended by AB 130 and AB 158, the PSA requires a city make a decision on a housing development project that is exempt from CEQA pursuant to the AB 130 infill exemption within 30 days after the later of (a) the conclusion of the AB 130 infill exemption tribal consultation process or (b) the expiration of the HAA consistency review period. (Gov. Code § 65950(a)(7).) The PSA permits the applicant and the lead agency to mutually agree to one extension of not more than 90 days. (Gov. Code §§ 65950(b), 65957.) Failure of the lead agency to make a decision on the project within these time periods results in deemed approval of the project. (Gov. Code §§ 65957, 65956(b).) As applied to the Project, the City would have been required to make a decision on the Project by February 3, 2026, which is the date that was 30 days after the conclusion of the AB 130 tribal consultation process on January 4, 2026 (because tribal consultation concluded later than the expiration of the consistency review period on April 18, 2025). On February 2, 2026, however, the City and SummerHill agreed to a one-time 60-day extension, making April 4, 2026, the new deadline for the City to make a decision the Project. The City’s failure to make a decision on the Project by April 4, 2026, would result in the Project being deemed approved.

Housing Accountability Act
Prohibition on Disapproval or Density Reduction
The HAA prohibits local agencies from disapproving or rendering infeasible a housing development project at the density permitted on the site and proposed by the applicant, absent certain narrow findings. (Gov. Code § 65589.5.) The HAA broadly defines “disapproval” to include not only a final vote to disapprove entitlements, but also, for example, failure to act within applicable timelines, including PSA timelines, and failure to make a CEQA exemption determination. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(6).)
When a housing development project meets applicable, objective standards, the HAA prohibits a local agency from disapproving or reducing the density of the project absent findings, based on the preponderance of evidence, that the project would have “a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety” absent such disapproval or lower density, and that there is no feasible method to avoid or mitigate that impact other than disapproval or a reduction density. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(1).) The HAA defines a “specific, adverse impact” as “a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health Planning Commission
February 12, 2026

107942\19229684v6
or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.” (Id.)
We understand that some members of the public have raised concerns about emergency evacuation in the Project vicinity. As noted above, with incorporation of required methods pursuant to the approved Application for Use of Alternate Materials, Methods of Construction, or Modification of Code, the Fire Department confirmed that the Project complies with applicable Fire Code and AB 130 very high fire hazard severity area standards. Notably, in its review of the Project, the City has not identified any designated evacuation routes or other “objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions” related to evacuation routes. As such, there is not evidence that the Project would have “a specific adverse impact public on health and safety” as defined in the HAA with regard to evacuation routes. The HAA therefore prohibits the City from disapproving or a reducing the Project density based on concerns about evacuation routes.

Remedies for Improper Disapproval
The HAA gives courts broad power to compel local agencies to comply with housing laws, in some cases including directing local agencies to approve housing development projects. (See Gov. Code § 65589.5(k).) In addition, the HAA authorizes courts to impose fines on local agencies that act in bad faith and/or fail to comply with court orders compelling compliance with housing laws and/or. (Id.) Effective January 1, 2026, AB 712 additionally creates substantial financial consequences for local agencies found by a court to have violated state housing laws.

First, the agency must pay the applicant’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. (Gov. Code § 65914.2(b)(1).) Second, the agency is subject to fines under certain circumstances. If the Attorney General or the State Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) warns the agency before litigation is filed that the agency’s actions would violate state housing law and the applicant gives notice before filing litigation, the court must impose a minimum fine of $10,000 per housing unit. (Gov. Code §§ 65914.2(b)(2)(A)(i); 65589.5).) Penalties are enhanced by a factor of five in jurisdictions with prior violations of the same law. (Gov. Code §§ 65914.2(b)(2)(A)(ii); 65589.5).)
* * *
City staff has determined that the Project application is complete and that the Project is statutorily exempt from CEQA and has completed its consistency review. The PSA requires the City to make a decision on the Project by April 4, 2025, and failure to do so would result in a deemed approval. Because the Project is consistent with objective standards and would not have “a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety,” the HAA prohibits the City from disapproving or reducing the density of the Project. Violation of any of these housing laws would expose the City to substantial financial consequences pursuant to AB 712.

Margo SSradish
Planning Commission
February 12, 2026

107942\19229684v6
We respectfully request that the Planning Commission, at its February 24, 2026, hearing, recommend that the City Council approve the Project on or before April 4, 2026, in accordance with applicable housing laws.

Sincerely,
Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP
Margo Bradish
MNB
CC: Floy Andrews, City Attorney
Steve Bull, SummerHill Homes
Austin Lin, SummerHill Homes
City Council
April 1, 2026
107942\19311643v5
Exhibit C
Alternative Means Application & Approval

D STREET A STREET B STREET C STREET E STREET LINDA VISTA DRIVE (PUBLIC ROAD)

EVULICH COURT
(PUBLIC ROAD)
BLDG 6
BLDG 1 BLDG 2 BLDG 3 BLDG 4 BLDG 5
BLDG 7
BLDG 8 BLDG 9 BLDG 10
H:\3988-000\ACAD\EXHIBITS\XB-033_SETBACK SITE PLAN.DWG

SETBACK SITE PLAN
10857 LINDA VISTA DRIVE

CITY OF CUPERTINO SANTA CLARA COUNTY CALIFORNIA
SCALE: 1" = 20' DATE: SEPTEMBER 15, 2025
0 20 40 60 CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS

SAN RAMON
WWW.CBANDG.COM

ROSEVILLE
(925) 866-0322
(916) 788-4456
LEGEND

ABBREVIATIONS

381.07810857 Linda Vista Drive Cupertino, CA September 15, 2025 3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583 650-857-0122 PROJECT DATA A08 WILDFIRE PROTECTION CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS BEING LOCATED IN A LOCAL RESPONSIBILITY AREA (LRA) VERY HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONE. THE PROJECT SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE SECTION R337, MATERIALS AND METHODS FOR EXTERIOR WILDFIRE EXPOSURE, AS FOLLOWS: 1. EXTERIOR WINDOWS AND EXTERIOR DOORS WITH GLAZING EXTERIOR WINDOWS AND EXTERIOR DOORS WITH GLAZING, SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF MULTI-PANE GLAZING WITH A MINIMUM OF ONE TEMPERED PANE. (C.R.C. R337.8.2.1) 2. EXTERIOR DOORS SHALL MEET ONE OF THE FOLLOWING (C.R.C. R337.8.3): A. THE EXTERIOR SURFACE OR CLADDING SHALL BE OF NON-COMBUSTIBLE OR IGNITION-RESISTANT MATERIAL. B. SHALL HAVE A FIRE-RESISTANCE RATING OF NOT LESS THAN 20 MIN. WHEN TESTED ACCORDING TO NFPA 252. SHALL BE TESTED TO MEET THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF SFM STANDARD 12-7A-1. 3. GARAGE DOORS SHALL RESIST THE INTRUSION OF EMBERS FROM ENTERING BY PREVENTING GAPS BETWEEN DOORS AND DOOR OPENINGS, AT HTE BOTTOM, SIDES, AND TOPS OF DOORS, FROM EXCEEDING 1/8". gAPS BETWEEN DOORS AND DOOR OPENINGS SHALL BE CONTROLLED BY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING METHODS: A. WEATHER STRIPPING PRODUCTS MADE OF MATERIALS THAT: (A) HAVE BEEN TESTED FOR TENSILE STRENGTH IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D638 AFTER EXPOSURE TO ASTM G155 FOR A PERIOD OF 2,000 HOURS, WHERE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DIFFERENCE IN TENSILE STRENGTH VALUES BETWEEN EXPOSED AND NONEXPOSED SAMPLES DO NOT EXCEED 10% AND (B) EXHIBIT A V-2 OR BETTER FLAMMABILITY RATING WHEN TESTED TO UL 94. B. DOOR OVERLAPS ONTO JAMBS AND HEADERS. C. GARAGE DOOR JAMBS AND HEADERS COVERED WITH METAL FLASHING 4. VENTS SHALL RESIST BUILDING IGNITION FROM THE INTRUSION OF BURNING EMBERS AND FLAME THROUGH THE VENTILATION OPENINGS WITH THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (C.R.C. R337.6) A. THE DIMENSIONS OF THE OPENINGS THEREIN SHALL BE A MIN. OF 1/16TH INCH AND SHALL NOT EXCEED 1/8TH INCH. B. THE MATERIALS SHALL BE INCOMBUSTIBLE C. THE MATERIALS USED SHALL BE CORROSION RESISTANT. 5. THE EXTERIOR WALL COVERING OR WALL ASSEMBLY SHALL COMPLY WITH ONE OF THE FOLLOWING C.R.C. R337.7.3: A. NONCOMBUSTIBLE MATERIAL. B. IGNITION- RESISTANT MATERIAL. C. SAWN LUMBER OR GLUE-LAMINATED WOOD WITH THE SMALLEST MINIMUM NOMINAL DIMENSION OF 4". SAWN OR GLUE-LAMINATED PLANKS SPLINED, TONGUE-AND-GROOVE, OR SET CLOSE TOGETHER AND WELL SPIKED. D. LOG WALL CONSTRUCTION. E. WALL ASSEMBLIES THAT HAVE BEEN TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEST PROCEDURES FOR A 10-MINUTE DIRECT FLAME CONTACT EXPOSURE TEST SET FORTH IN ASTM E2707 WITH THE CONDITIONS OF ACCEPTANCE SHOWN IN SECTION R337.7.3.1. F. WALL ASSEMBLIES THAT MEET THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS CRITERIA IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEST PROCEDURES FOR A 10-MINUTE DIRECT FLAME CONTACT EXPOSURE TEST SET FORTH IN SFM STANDARD 12-7A-1. EXCEPTIONS: ANY OF THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE DEEMED TO MEET THE ASSEMBLY PERFORMANCE CRITERIA AND INTENT OF THIS SECTION: A. ONE LAYER OF 5/8" TYPE X GYPSUM SHEATHING APPLIED BEHIND THE EXTERIOR COVERING OR CLADDING ON THE EXTERIOR SIDE OF THE FRAMING. B. THE EXTERIOR PORTION OF A 1-HOUR FIRE RESISTIVE EXTERIOR WALL ASSEMBLY DESIGNED FOR EXTERIOR FIRE EXPOSURE INCLUDING ASSEMBLIES USING GYPSUM PANEL AND SHEATHING PRODUCTS LISTED IN THE GYPSUM ASSOCIATION FIRE RESISTIVE FIRE DESIGN MANUAL. 6. DECKING SURFACES SHALL COMPLY WITH C.R.C. R337.9.3. THE WALKING SURFACE MATERIAL OF DECKS, PORCHES, BALCONY AND STAIRS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH ONE OF THE FOLLOWING MATERIALS: A. MATERIAL THAT COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION R337.9.4 WHEN TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH BOTH ASTM E2632 AND ASTM E2726. B. IGNITION-RESISTANT MATERIAL THAT COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION R337.4.3 WHEN TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM E84 OR UL 723. C. MATERIAL THAT COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF BOTH SFM STANDARD 12-7A-4 AND SFM STANDARD 12-7A-5. D. EXTERIOR FIRE RETARDANT TREATED WOOD. E. NONCOMBUSTIBLE MATERIAL. F. ANY MATERIAL THAT COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF SFM STANDARD 12-7A-4A WHEN ATTACHED EXTERIOR WALL COVERING IS ALSO COMPOSED OF NONCOMBUSTIBLE OR IGNITION-RESISTANT MATERIAL. EXCEPTION: WALL MATERIAL MAY BE OF ANY MATERIAL THAT OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THIS CHAPTER WHEN THE DECKING SURFACE MATERIAL COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS ASTM E84 WITH A CLASS B FLAME SPREAD RATING. G. AY MATERIAL THAT COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION R337.9.5 WHEN TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM E2632 AND WHEN ATTACHED EXTERIOR WALL COVERING IS ALSO COMPOSED OF ONLY NONCOMBUSTIBLE OR IGNITION-RESISTANT MATERIALS. EXCEPTION: WALL MATERIAL SHALL BE PERMITTED TO BE OF ANY MATERIAL THAT OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THIS CHAPTER WHEN THE DECKING SURFACE MATERIAL COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS ASTM E84 WITH A CLASS B FLAME SPREAD INDEX.

City Council
April 1, 2026
107942\19311643v5
Exhibit D
Fire Department Project Plans Approval
1 FIRE PREVENTION PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
PROJECT INFO: PREPARED BY:

FIRE DEPT PLAN REVIEW #: NAME/TITLE:

CITY/COUNTY PROJECT #: EMAIL:

LOCATION: DATE:

PROJECT NAME:

The scope of this project includes the following:

Proposed new 10 building 51 unit multi-family residential subdivision.

Plans Status:

Plans are APPROVED with conditions.

Plan Review Comments
**1. PRC 4290: This project shall comply with PRC 4290 comments. Exception request to PRC 4290 approved. Non-conforming setbacks to be mitigated through a combination of increased fire separation distance requirements and modified sprinklers systems. See approved Exception Request.
**2. Provide a "Final Fire Protection Plan" at time of building permit submittal. The plan shall identify mitigation measures to address the project's specific wildfire risk and shall include the information required in CFC section 4903.2.1 including plan for maintenance of defensible space, access roads, and fire protection equipment. [CFC section 4903]

3. Fire Department Turnaround: Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications A-1 / D-1. Turnaround A to be installed. See sheet C6.0.

4. Fire Sprinklers Required: Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new and existing buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in this Section or in Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.18.

5. Fire Hydrants Required: Hydrant(s) required within 600 feet of all proposed budlings. -New hydrants are shown on sheet C6. Hydrants shall be installed prior to combustible construction and the minimum fire flow shall be met. -Hydrant authorization shall be approved by San Jose Water. 251740
TM-2024-009 / ASA-2024-015 / TR2024-044
Caleb Flanagan
[email protected]
10857 Linda Vista Dr 1/27/26
Multi-family subdivision
2 6. Required Fire Flow: The fire flow for this project is 1,375 GPM at 20 psi residual pressure since an automatic fire sprinkler system will be installed. Note: The minimum required number and spacing of the hydrants shall be in accordance with CFC Table C102.1. Fire flow detailed on sheet C6.
-Hydraulic analysis provided confirming minimum fire flow.

7. Ground ladder / Emergency Rescue Openings Required: Ground-ladder rescue from second and third floor rooms shall be made possible for fire department operations. Climbing angle of seventy-five degrees shall be demonstrated on the plans and maintained. Landscaping shall not be allowed to interfere with the required access (CFC Sec. 503 and 1031 NFPA 1932 Sec. 5.1.8 through 5.1.9.2). -Shown on sheet A22.

8. Buildings and Facilities Access / Fire Access Roadway: The fire apparatus access road shall comply with the requirements of this section and shall extend to within 200 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. [CFC, Section 503.1.1 and SCCFD A1 Standard].

9. Fire Lane Identification Required: The minimum clear width of fire department access roads shall be 20 feet. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designated and marked as a fire lane as set forth in Section 22500.1 of the California Vehicle Code. -Noted on sheet C6.

10. All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of the CFC Chapter 33 and our Standard Detail and Specification S1-7. Provide appropriate notations on subsequent plan submittals, as appropriate to the project. CFC Chp. 33.

11. Address identification: New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Where required by the fire code official, address numbers shall be provided in additional approved locations to facilitate emergency response. Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall be a minimum of 6 inches (101.6 mm) high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch (12.7 mm). Address numbers shall be maintained CFC Sec. 505.1.

This review shall not be construed to be an approval of a violation of the provisions of the California Fire Code or of other laws or regulations of the jurisdiction. A permit presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of the fire code or other such laws or regulations shall not be valid.

Any addition to or alteration of approved construction documents shall be approved in advance. [CFC, Ch. 1, 105.3.6]
City Council
April 1, 2026
107942\19311643v5
Exhibit E
Fire Department Memorandum

TO: Cupertino City Officials
FROM: Hector Estrada, Assistant Fire Chief
SUBJECT: Housing Development - Linda Vista Drive
As requested by City Manager Kapoor and in response to the questions from the Cupertino City Council, this supplemental staff report provides a summary of the process that led to the Santa Clara County Fire Department’s plan review comments on the Architectural and Site Approval Permit Application for the proposed subdivision at 10857 Linda Vista Drive.

Background
The Santa Clara County Fire Department (“County Fire”) provides fire safety plan review comments for land development in the City of Cupertino. Specifically, County Fire reviews Architectural and Site Approval Permit Applications for compliance with applicable state and local fire safety requirements related to site design.1 County Fire staff then prepares plan review comments and presents them to City officials to support the City’s decision to approve or deny an Architectural and Site Approval Permit Application.

Summary
In January 2026, County Fire staff provided plan review comments on the Architectural and Site Approval Permit Application for the proposed residential subdivision at 10857 Linda Vista Drive (ASA-2024-015) (the “Project” and the “Application”). Because the Project is located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, it is subject to the State Minimum Fire Safe Regulations (“Fire Safe Regulations”) (14 C.C.R. §§ 1270, et seq.), in addition to generally applicable fire safety requirements in the California Building Standards Code.2
The Fire Safe Regulations include an exception request process that allows projects to move forward even if they cannot meet specific site-design criteria.3 Specifically, the Fire Safe Regulations allow for the approval of exception requests on a case-by-case basis if the exception provides “the Same Practical Effect as these regulations towards providing Defensible Space.” (14 C.C.R. § 1270.07.)4 The Application includes a Same Practical Effect exception request for the thirty-foot setbacks required by Section 1276.01 of the Fire Safe Regulations. The applicant proposed the following measures to support the exception request:
(1) Non-combustible material extending five feet horizontally around the buildings. (2) Wildfire home hardening protective measures, including but not limited to a Class A roof, non-combustible exterior building material, protected eave vents, and double paned tempered glass.
1 At the building permit phase, County Fire reviews building permit applica:ons for compliance with addi:onal fire safety requirements, including those related to construc:on.
2 Public Resources Code Sec:on 4290 addresses the applicability of the Fire Safe Regula:ons in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones.
3 The process and standards for approving Same Prac:cal Effect excep:on requests in the Fire Safe Regula:ons are dis:nct from the process and standards for approving for Alternate Materials and Methods Requests (AMMR) in the California Building Standards Code.
4 The Fire Safe Regula:ons define “Same Prac:cal Effect” as “an Excep:on or alterna:ve with the capability of applying accepted wildland fire suppression strategies and tac:cs, and provisions for fire fighter safety, including: (1) access for emergency wildland fire equipment, (2) safe civilian evacua:on, (3) signing that avoids delays in emergency equipment response, (4) available and accessible water to effec:vely aWack Wildfire or defend a Structure from Wildfire, and (5) fuel modifica:on sufficient for civilian and fire fighter safety.” (14 C.C.R. § 1270.01(aa).)

(3) Exterior fire sprinkler heads protecting covered porches and decks that are within thirty feet of the property line.
(4) Fire resistance rated exterior elements within thirty feet of the property lines including:
a. Exterior Walls - Fire resistance rated for one hour. b. Projections (portions of the building protruding beyond exterior walls) - Fire resistance rated for one hour.
c. Penetrations (e.g., mechanical, electrical, plumbing services) - Protected to maintain fire resistance rated assemblies.

Section 1276.01 of the Fire Safe Regulations provides guidance on exception requests related to the thirty-foot setback requirement:

A reduction in the minimum setback shall be based upon practical reasons, which may include but are not limited to, parcel dimensions or size, topographic limitations, Development density requirements or other Development patterns that promote lowcarbon emission outcomes; sensitive habitat; or other site constraints, and shall provide for an alternative method to reduce Structure-to-Structure ignition by incorporating features such as, but not limited to:
(1) non-combustible block walls or fences; or
(2) non-combustible material extending five (5) feet horizontally from the furthest extent of the Building; or
(3) hardscape landscaping; or
(4) a reduction of exposed windows on the side of the Structure with a less than thirty (30) foot setback; or
(5) the most protective requirements in the California Building Code, California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 7A, as required by the Local Jurisdiction. (14 C.C.R. § 1276.01(b).)
Based on our analysis of the site and the combined impact of the measures proposed in the exception request, County Fire staff determined that these measures provide appropriate alternative methods to reduce the risk of structure-to-structure ignition, and County Fire approved the Same Practical Effect exception request for the Application. The Project includes two of the five measures identified in Section 1276.01 as alternative methods to reduce the risk of structure-to-structure ignition and two additional measures: exterior sprinklers and increased fire resistive rated exterior elements. Analyzing these measures based on accepted wildland fire suppression strategies and tactics and provisions for firefighter safety, County Fire staff determined that the exception request provided appropriate access for emergency wildland fire equipment and safe civilian evacuation and that the exception request included fuel modification sufficient for civilian and firefighter safety.

County Fire memorialized its approval of the exception request in its January 7 and January 27 plan review comments, which have been presented to the City Planning Commission and City Council.

County Fire’s plan review comments also notified the applicant that they will need to submit a final fire protection plan, onsite fire hydrant design specifications, and a construction site safety plan as part of their building permit application.

From: Kitty Moore
To: City Clerk; Lauren Sapudar
Subject: Written Communications Item 3 Evulich/Summerhill Date: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 3:17:59 PM
Attachments: image.png
image.png
Circulation Plan A06 Private Walkway.pdf
Fire Access Evulich - Combined Plan Set-2.pdf
Vesting Tentative Evulich.pdf
Dear City Clerk,
Please include the following and attachments as written communications for Item 3:

There is some confusion as to the Vesting Tentative Map Note 21:

Evulich Ct. ROW is owned by the City of Cupertino.

However, Note 21 and the Circulation Plan indicate that onsite streets are to be private and privately maintained with the Circulation Plan showing the sidewalk on City of Cupertino Public Right of Way as a private walkway.

Thank you,
Kitty Moore
Kitty Moore
Mayor
City Council
[email protected]
(408) 777-1389
From: Gauri Dwivedi
To: City Council; City Clerk
Subject: Evulich CT
Date: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 3:00:23 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.

I am against construction of summer hill homes on Evulich court due to fire hazard. There are three school nearby and these roads are already blocked during weekdays. More homes/traffic would be a safety hazard Gauri Dwivedi
Chadwick place
Sent from my iPhone

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
·
·
·

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. _________
From: DerChang Kau
To: City Clerk
Cc: Alice Lin
Subject: Presentation slides for April 1 City Council Meeting, Agenda #3. Evulich Ct. Project Date: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 2:31:37 PM
Attachments: 20260401 Wildfire Evac on City Council Hearing.pptx 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 Clark ,
Attached is the presentation slide deck "220260401 Wildfire Evac on City Council Hearing.pptx”.

The presentation slides will be used for oral comment to Agenda #3 of today’s City Council meeting.

The presenters are DerChang Kau and 4 residents of Cupertino.

Thank you
DerChang Kau

WILDFIRE EVACUATION IN VHFHSZ ON THE TOP OF ACTIVE FAULT

1. FROM ACKNOWLEDGING RISK TO AVOIDING RESPONSIBILITY

2. PROTECT THE PUBLIC. REJECT SUMMERHILL’S MISLEADING FICTION.

3. R3 ZONING ON LINDA VISTA CORRIDOR TRIGGERS WILDFIRE EVAC FAILURE.

DerChang Kau and on behalf of many Cupertino Residents
Prepared for Cupertino City Council Public Hearing, Apr 1, 2026 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA
Evulich Ct
Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps Fault Activity Map of California Evulich Ct.

Monta VistaShannon Fault
Mw 6.5~7.1
CEQA Triggers
The big Q: is there a 'specific, adverse impact on public safety' [1] –

FROM ACKNOWLEDGING RISK

TO AVOIDING RESPONSIBILITY
How SummerHill Homes architects "Evacuation Fiction" at Evulich Ct Flawed metric erase
neighbors from
survival map
Architect Fiction
Exploit Loophole 02/26/25
10/16/25 Baseline
03/24/25
Evulich Ct
Designated Evulich
Ct as VHFHSZ
Acknowledgement
10/10/25
Bull acknowledges
the need for an evac
route assessment
City provides “AB 130
Legal Hook” to
bypass peerreviewed safety
scrutiny
Ignore Warning
01/15/26
Good-faith meeting
held. 90+ min evac
risk data shared with
SH leadership team
Avoidance by Design –
Structure Hardening for
Evac Egress???
03/17/26
Hughes clearly states
code-compliant doesn’t
imply eliminating all
hazards and risks

SUMMERHILL HOMES BUILT A NARRATIVE,

NOT BUILT HOMES WITH A SAFETY PLAN
What has happened to one of the most reputable developers in Bay Area [2] –
EVACUATION FICTION VS. FACT
SummerHill Funded Study – Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. vs.

City Commissioned Expert – Fehr & Peers
Local – A typical school day afternoon pickup
periods and short-term curbside parking
severely reduce effective capacity
7 Pictures Taken @ 1:47pm March 17, 2026
Highway – Northbound Highway 85 traffic
before Fremont Avenue exit on a
Wednesday morning commute
Courtesy of Karl Mondon/Bay Area News Group
One Neighborhood,
Two Completely Different Assessment
A 200% capacity failure means vehicles are trapped in gridlock.

The developer completely ignores the reality of the community. 8 Hexagon’s Claim (Developer)
2 min adder to
59 min baseline
Fehr&Peers’ Reality (City)
Catastrophic
2X of capacity
Excluded Populations & Flawed Metrics
9 Hexagon (Developer) Fehr & Peers (City)
Volume
Capacity
2700 vph 570 vph
Protect the Public. Reject the Fiction.

Reject Developer-Funded Fiction
Mandate Independent Expertise
Prioritize Evacuation Survival
10 We cannot plan our survival based on a developer's spreadsheet that erases our children from the map. Demand data–driven safety today [3] –

THE PHYSICS OF ENTRAPMENT &

THE CONSEQUENCE OF WILDFIRE IN VHFHSZ
Why R3 Zoning on Linda Vista Corridor
Triggers a 93+ minutes Wildfire Evacuation Failure
Two Methodologies, Two Vastly Different Consequences
Hexagon Myth: Static Transportation
Metric: Vehicle Miles Traveled
Linda Vista Reality: Dynamic Transient
Metric: Total Clearance Time
12 Capacity degrades to just 1/6 of ideal capacity. R3 density triggers a state change.

Spine and Rib
Power Failure, Smoke, Fire
Engines, Force Merge
Evulich Ct – The 30-Minute Survival Window
Under Diablo wind conditions, fire
spreads at 200 feet per minute. This
means any spark within a 1.1-mile
radius reaches Evulich Ct in 30 minutes
or less
Nearly the entire local Fire Hazard
Severity Zone falls within this 30-
minute strike distance
13 1.1miles/30min
radius
Any wildfire in this FHSZ will spread to Evulich Ct. in 30 minutes or less Non-Linear “Delay” subject to V/C
14 Traffic delay is not linear
V/C < 1.0 : adding cars adds delay incrementally
V/C > 1.0 : System oversaturation drives exponential delay Evulich Ct Evulich Ct
Linda Vista Dr Linda Vista Dr
The Entrapment Reality: ASET vs. RSET
15 Variable Current* Planned*
Preparation 20 20
Clearance Time 6.5 73.5+
Evacuation time (RSET) 26.5 93.5
Survival Window (ASET) 30 30
THE GAP None 63.5
The proposed housing development triples the non-survivable windows.

The last 10% of cars and anyone stuck behind them will not escape! *: in minutes
16 Courtesy of Keith Mizuguchi/KQED
Courtesy of Aaron Samson via AP
Foothill Corridor (local) Evacuation –
Cumulative evacuation. Palisades Fire , Jan. 7, 2025
Arterial Evacuation –
Palisades Fire, Jan. 7, 2025
Wildfire outruns an over-saturated evacuation –
Lahaina wildfire, Aug 8, 2023
Courtesy of Office of Gov. Josh Green
It’s more than just a NUMBER
 City Staff Report Page 8 – “The city does not have any adopted standard”  Please don’t take the insult! It’s more than needing a legal hook to mandate such a study.
 It’s your moral obligation, your honesty, intellectual honesty and most of all, it’s your compassion, your love of the City. You are about making a decision with with Life-and-Death Consequences.
 You cannot ignore this!
You cannot dismiss your own expert study from Fehr and Peers! Before approving it, you are required to conduct a full CEQA review and adopt a mitigation plan
17 THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION

PLEASE VOTE NO
18 20
..it happened
Wildfire in Hills above Linda Vista
Stevens Fire started Aug 30, 2007, 151 acres 3 days to contain.

From: Liang Chao
To: City Clerk
Subject: Fw: Linda Vista - Supplemental Information
Date: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 2:27:02 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Linda Vista - Q & A summary FINAL.pdf
Please enter this into the written communication for the April 1 meeting.

Liang Chao
Vice Mayor
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192
From: Bull, Steve <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 11:05 AM
To: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Cc: Ebrahimi, Kevin <[email protected]>; Lin, Austin <[email protected]>; Matt Larson <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Linda Vista - Supplemental Information
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.

Vice Mayor Chao – I meant to include the attached Question & Answer Summary, too.

Thank you,
Steve
Steven Bull
Vice President of Development
SummerHill Homes
6101 Bollinger Canyon Road, Suite 425, San Ramon, CA 94583 Mobile (510) 410-1188
[email protected] / SummerHillHomes.com
All subject matter contained in this email is confidential and proprietary to SummerHill Homes/SummerHill Apartment Communities and should not be disclosed to any person not listed as an original recipient. SummerHill Homes/ SummerHill Apartment Communities. All rights reserved.

From: Bull, Steve
Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 10:44 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Ebrahimi, Kevin <[email protected]>; Lin, Austin <[email protected]>; Matt Larson <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Linda Vista - Supplemental Information
Dear Vice Mayor Chao:

We’re writing to provide you with supplemental information regarding our application for the Linda Vista project (a.k.a. Evulich Court). We had previously submitted some of this information to Staff in advance of the March 17, 2026 Hearing. The information is included within the Written Comment section of the Staff Report package.

To ensure that you are able to review the information, we’re also sending it directly to you. Please find the following information attached:

1. 2-Story Units – Proposed Site Plan and Conditions of Approval

2. Evacuation Analysis – Analysis and Cover Email sent on March 17, 2026

3. Cox Castle Response Letter - dated April 1, 2026

4. Fire Department memo – Included within March 30, 2026 Written Communications Please let us know if you have any questions.

Thank you,
Steve
Steven Bull
Vice President of Development
SummerHill Homes
6101 Bollinger Canyon Road, Suite 425, San Ramon, CA 94583 Mobile (510) 410-1188
[email protected] / SummerHillHomes.com
All subject matter contained in this email is confidential and proprietary to SummerHill Homes/SummerHill Apartment Communities and should not be disclosed to any person not listed as an original recipient. SummerHill Homes/ SummerHill Apartment Communities. All rights reserved.

Linda Vista Project
Questions & Answer Summary
April 1, 2026 City Council Hearing
The below summary is intended to respond to questions from the Councilmembers and community members. The responses to questions are organized as follows:

Section 1: Fire Safety / Code Compliance
Section 2: Evacuation / Emergency Access
Section 3: AB130 / CEQA Exemption
Section 4: Legal Standard (Housing Accountability Act (HAA) / Subdivision Map Act) Section 5: Miscellaneous Questions
Exhibit 1: HCD Letter of Technical Assistance
Section 1: Fire Safety / Code Compliance
Question 1: Does the project comply with Fire Code requirements? Answer:

Yes, the Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD) reviewed the project and approved it with conditions. As part of its review, SCCFD confirmed compliance with the applicable Fire Code requirements and mitigation measures. The review also confirmed compliance with the requirements of new construction in a Very High Fire Hazard Zone including Public Resources Code Sections 4290 (PRC 4290) and 51182 (PRC 51182) and Chapter 7A of the Building Code.

Public Resources Code Sections 4291 and 51182 address “defensible space” surrounding structures based on the combustibility of materials surrounding the structure, but generally not beyond the property line. Based on its location in a Local Responsibility Area (LRA), Section 51182 is applicable to the Project.

Among other applicable Fire Safety measures, the review confirmed compliance for emergency vehicle access and turnaround, ground ladder access, fire flow and fire hydrant spacing, and eave heights. The review also included the approval of a reduction of the 30’ setback requirement in accordance with the regulations implementing PRC 4290 as further described in the response to Question #2.

The conditions issued by the SCCFD will be complied with as part of the building permit review process.

Question 2: Is the project unsafe due to a reduction of the 30’ setback required by PRC 4290 Linda Vista
April 1, 2026 City Council Meeting
Questions and Answers

-2-
Answer:

No, the SCCFD approved a reduction of the 30’ setback to the property line in accordance with the regulations implementing PRC 4290 and through an Alternative Materials and Methods request (AMMR).

SCCFD confirmed that the design achieves an equivalent level of safety (same practical effect).

PRC 4290 requires the adoption of fire safety regulations in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Those regulations are in the California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 1.5, Chapter 7, Subchapter 2, Article 5, Section 1276.01 – Building and Parcel Siting and Setbacks (Section 1276.01).

Section (b) of Section 1276.01 expressly allows reductions of the 30’ setback due to practical reasons such as density and other site constraints if alternative measures to reduce Structure-to-Structure ignition are incorporated. Section (b) of Title 14 lists several potential (but not limited to) measures that can be incorporated as mitigation.

SummerHill Homes applied for an AMMR to the Santa Clara County Fire Department to formally document a reduction of the setback from 30’ to 20’ at the western property line and from 30’ to 10’ at the northern and southern property lines.

The AMMR application included added fire sprinklers, non-combustible landscape within 5’ of the homes, and increased fire rating of the exterior walls to mitigate the reduced setbacks.

The Santa Clara County Fire Department reviewed and approved the AMMR.

Please note that the AMMR was signed only by the Fire Department because the setback requirement it addresses is a Fire Code compliance item. The Building Department review will be conducted during the building permitting process to confirm the mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Construction Documents for the building construction.

Question 3: Is the project subject to different standards compared to other projects? Answer: No, the project is not subject to different standards compared to other projects.

Testimony from Fire Chief Brad Fox of the SCCFD during the February 17, 2026 Planning Commission Hearing explained that the SCCFD measures the requirements the same from project to project. Chief Fox explained that the standards for Aerial Access, Roadway Widths, Ladder Pads, Eave Heights, etc. are the same from project to project. In response to further questions from the Planning Commissioners, Linda Vista
April 1, 2026 City Council Meeting
Questions and Answers

-3-
Chief Fox also explained that SCCFD has reviewed other projects within Very High Fire Hazard Zones (VHFHZ) within its jurisdiction and applied the requirements of PRC 4290 consistently.

Section 2: Evacuation / Emergency Access
Question 4: Does the project require a project-specific evacuation study? Answer: No, the City does not have a requirement for a project specific evacuation analysis and has not adopted objective standards governing evacuation safety.

Evacuation is addressed at the General Plan / Housing Element level. The City does not have an Ordinance, Code, or Policy requiring Evacuation modeling for individual projects or establishing objective standards for evacuation safety. Therefore, evacuation safety cannot be used as a basis for denial or reduction in density of the project.

SummerHill Homes did commission an Evacuation Analysis by Hexagon Transportation Consultants (Hexagon), which was submitted to the City on March 17, 2026. The Evacuation Analysis was prepared for internal purposes for SummerHill to understand the evacuation context of the project site. The Hexagon Evacuation Analysis noted that the residents of Linda Vista Drive have multiple egress routes from the neighborhood beyond the single route identified in a study submitted by an adjacent homeowner. The Hexagon Evacuation Analysis also noted that the number of homes within the proposed project would constitute approximately 3.6% of the total number of homes within the vicinity that use the same egress routes and that the potential impact to evacuation times could be increased by a similar 3.6% amount, which the Hexagon analysis estimated to be approximately 2 minutes.

Question 5: Can the Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment prepared by Fehr & Peers commissioned by the City be used as a basis for denying the project?
Answer: No, the City commissioned the Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment as part of its ongoing update of its General Plan Health & Safety Element. The City has not adopted the Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment or any objective evacuation standards.

Section 1.2 of the Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment states that it is a Planning level analysis, should not be considered an evacuation plan, cannot guarantee the efficacy of information used in the assessment, cannot provide system adequacy guarantees, and there is no established standard methodology. Therefore, the Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment cannot be used as a basis for denial or reduction in density of the project.

Linda Vista
April 1, 2026 City Council Meeting
Questions and Answers

-4-
As an example, the Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment concludes that under certain scenarios, some of the potential evacuation routes in the City would be over capacity in a one-hour evacuation.

However, the City does not have an objective standard establishing a one-hour (or any other time period) evacuation criterion. As an example, the capacity ratios of the roads would be further exceeded if a shorter duration such as 30 minutes was used as the evacuation criterion. Conversely, the potential evacuation routes could be determined to be below capacity if a longer duration such as 2 hours was used as the evacuation criterion.

Question 6: Does the Fehr & Peers evacuation study constitute “substantial evidence” requiring denial under the Subdivision Map Act?
Answer: No, the Fehr & Peers Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment does not constitute “substantial evidence” requiring denial under the Subdivision Map Act.

The Subdivision Map Act requires denial of a subdivision where the design is likely to cause “serious public health problems.” The Fire Department’s approval of the AMMR, the testimony of Chief Fox, and the Hexagon Evacuation Analysis constitute substantial evidence that the project would not cause such problems.

Section 1.2 of the Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment describes its limitations as a “Planning level” assessment that is not based upon any “established standard methodology” and cannot guarantee the efficacy of the information. The Assessment does not evaluate the Project’s impact nor does it establish a defined threshold for safety failure. The Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment assesses existing conditions and does not identify any health problems that would be caused by the project. The generalized analysis in the Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment does not constitute substantial evidence of a project-specific public health issue.

Also see Answer to Question 12.

Question 7: Why doesn’t the project include more than one egress route? Answer: The number of units within the project is below the SCCFD requirement that would trigger the need for a second egress route.

Section IV.B of the SCCFD Standard Details for Fire Department Apparatus Access states that MultiFamily Residential Developments (R-1 & R-2 Occupancies) having more than 100 units shall be provided with two separate approved fire apparatus roads that comply with the requirements listed in this standard. The project includes 51 units.

Question 8: Why is the width of Evulich Court reduced?
Linda Vista
April 1, 2026 City Council Meeting
Questions and Answers

-5-
Answer: The reduced width at the intersection is to provide a visual enhancement to the Linda Vista streetscape, to provide area to naturally treat the stormwater runoff from the public street pavement, and to improve the pedestrian experience on Linda Vista Drive by shortening the intersection crossing distance at Evulich Court.

The pavement width of Evulich Court is reduced at the short segment adjacent to the intersection with Linda Vista Drive. A clear roadway width of 20’ is maintained through this segment in accordance with Section II.A of the SCCFD Standard Details for Fire Department Apparatus Access. The roadway width for the remainder of Evulich Court will be 36’ wide to accommodate a clear 20’ roadway and two 8’ parking lanes, one on each side. There will be no parking permitted at the 20’ roadway segment.

The reduced width at the intersection is consistent with the City of Cupertino General Plan Goal M-3 and associated policies to support a safe pedestrian and bicycle network for people of all ages and abilities.

Section 3: AB130 / CEQA Exemption
Question 9: Is the project eligible for the AB130 CEQA Exemption if it’s located within a Very High Fire Hazard Zone?
Answer: Yes, AB130 includes provisions for projects within Very High Fire Hazard Zones.

Public Resources Code Section 21080.66 (codified as Section 59 of AB 130) (the “AB 130 CEQA Exemption“) includes a number of site-specific criteria applicable to sites seeking to use the AB 130 CEQA Exemption, including, among other things, satisfying the requirements of Government Code Section 65913.4(a)(6).

As applicable to the Project, Section 65913.4(a)(6)(D) provides that the AB 130 CEQA Exemption generally does not apply to sites that are “Within a very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 51178, or within the state responsibility area, as defined in Section 4102 of the Public Resources Code.” This exclusion, however, does not apply if certain conditions are met. Specifically, the AB 130 CEQA Exemption provides the following regarding the exclusion:

This subparagraph [i.e., the exclusion] does not apply to sites that have adopted fire hazard mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards or state fire mitigation measures applicable to the development, including, but not limited to, standards established under all of the following or their successor provisions:
(i) Section 4291 of the Public Resources Code or Section 51182, as applicable.

Linda Vista
April 1, 2026 City Council Meeting
Questions and Answers

-6-
(ii) Section 4290 of the Public Resources Code.
(iii) Chapter 7A of the California Building Code (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations).”
(Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(6)(D) (emphasis added).)
Importantly, this exception to the general exclusion provides that the exclusion does not apply to sites “that have adopted fire hazard mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards,” with the balance of the text being explanatory of this general requirement.

Notably, the listed standards apply as a matter of law to all projects in VHFHSZ, regardless of the use of AB 130. As part of the standard building permit review process for all projects in VHFHSZ, building and fire staff routinely verify compliance with these requirements as a prerequisite to the issuance of building permits and inspection approvals. Projects in VHFHSZ cannot receive building permits or inspection approvals until the applicable requirements are met.

In accordance with CEQA case law, cities routinely rely on a project’s compliance with applicable law as a manner of demonstrating compliance with CEQA. While SummerHill has substantially advanced its demonstration of compliance with the code requirements noted by AB 130 ahead of the required building permit process to be responsive to community concerns, the obligation to comply with these laws, as confirmed at the building permit stage, is itself sufficient to demonstrate CEQA compliance.

The AB130 site criteria include requirements that sites within a Very High Fire Hazard severity zone be subject to mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards or state fire mitigation measures applicable to the development, including standards established under Public Resources Code (PRC) Sections 4290 and either 4291 or 51182 (regarding defensible space), and Chapter 7A of the Building Code (regarding materials and construction measures). (PRC Section 21080.66(a)(6); Government Code Section 65913.4(a)(6)(D)). As part of the AB130 process, SCCFD confirmed that the project complies with Section 4290. Compliance with Chapter 7A will be confirmed as part of the standard plan check and inspection process, and is a prerequisite to issuance of a building permit and inspection approval.

Question 10: Do other jurisdictions allow projects in Very High Fire Hazard severity zones? Yes. Please see the attached Letter of Technical Assistance from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) provided to the City of Jurupa Valley, California, which provides the same clarification as the response to Question 9 above.

Section 4: Legal Standard (HAA / SMA)
Question 11: Can the City deny the project based upon Health & Safety concerns? Linda Vista
April 1, 2026 City Council Meeting
Questions and Answers

-7-
Answer: No, the City does not have a basis on which to deny the project.

When a housing development project meets applicable, objective standards, the HAA prohibits a local agency from disapproving or reducing the density of the project absent findings based on the preponderance of evidence, that the project would have “a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety” absent such disapproval or lower density, and that there is no feasible method to avoid or mitigate that impact other than disapproval or a reduction density. (Government Code Section 65589.5(j)(1).) The HAA defines a “specific, adverse impact” as “a significant, quantifiable, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existing on the date the application was deemed complete.” (Id) City staff has determined that the Project application is complete and that the project is statutorily exempt from CEQA and has completed its consistency review. Because the Project is consistent with objective standards and would not have “a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety,” the HAA prohibits the City from disapproving or reducing the density of the Project. Violation of any of these housing laws would expose the City to substantial financial consequences pursuant to AB 712.

Section 5: Miscellaneous Questions
Question 12: 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 of state fire mitigation measures” to allow AB 130 exemption for this site?” Answer: The applicable codes are:
• Section 4291 of the Public Resources Code or Section 51182, as applicable. • Section 4290 of the Public Resources Code.
• Chapter 7A of the California Building Code (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations) Though AB130 is not contingent upon it, the City has adopted these Codes with its adoptions of the California Building and Fire Codes as described within Sections 16.04.010 and 16.40.010 of the Cupertino Municipal Code.

Question 13: All units of the project include 4-bedroom units “with individual units ranging in size from 2,356 square feet to 2,779 square feet.” Is there any requirement to mandate the large square footage per unit as this site? Or is it a design choice?
Linda Vista
April 1, 2026 City Council Meeting
Questions and Answers

-8-
Answer: As a clarification, the home sizes are as follows:
• Plan 1 = 1,777 square feet of living space + 579 square foot garage • Plan 2 = 2,217 square feet of living space + 469 square foot garage • Plan 3 = 2,317 square feet of living space + 447 square foot garage The living space (or habitable space) is what is quoted as “sellable area” within the real estate industry.

The existing homes surrounding the project are also measured in the same manner.

Question 14: Is the Project ineligible for AB 130 because the City has not adopted a separate wildfire mitigation “framework” for VHFHSZ areas?
Answer: No, AB130 does not include such a requirement.

Question 15: Does the use of an Alternative Materials and Methods request (AMMR) mean the Project relies on discretionary approvals and therefore cannot qualify under AB130? Answer: No, the use of an AMMR does not mean the project cannot qualify under AB130. Alternative Means falls within the statutory language of Section 65913.4(a)(6)(D), as referenced in the AB 130 CEQA Exemption. There is no requirement in AB 130 that a project not require discretionary approvals.

See Answers to Questions 2 and 9.

Question 16: Why does the AMMR include an asterisk that allows windows to remain within the 30’ setback?
Answer: In accordance with subsection (b) of Section 1276.01 and as discussed in the response to Question #2 above, SCCFD approved the AMMR because the proposed mitigation measures will provide the same practical effect as the 30’ setback.

Please note the applicable California Residential Code (CRC) Table R302.1(2) allows unlimited windows to within 3’ of the property line. The building setback is 10’, therefore allowing windows.

The alternative measures of the AMMR include design measure options for stricter separation requirements of Table R302.1(2) that would allow setbacks as small as 3’ or 0’ in the case of the walls, which are less than the 10’ setbacks provided by the project. Chief Brad Fox of SCCFD stated during the February 24, 2026 Planning Commission Hearing that in combination of active and passive fire protection measures and all of the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) requirements that the structures will be resilient to wildfire.

Please note that the exterior windows will be constructed of multi-pane glazing with a minimum of one tempered pane in accordance with CRC Section R337.8.2.1 as required within a Very High Fire Hazard Zone.

Linda Vista
April 1, 2026 City Council Meeting
Questions and Answers

-9-
Question 17: Does the Fehr & Peers evacuation study become an “objective standard” simply because if was prepared by the City’s consultant?
Answer: No, the Fehr & Peers study is neither objective nor a standard. Objective standards must involve subjective judgment and be based on a uniform, published criterion. The Fehr & Peers study reflects Fehr & Peer’s subjective judgment and is not based on uniform, public criterion regarding evacuation. . The Fehr & Peers Evacuation Capacity Assessment is informational and not adopted as a regulatory standard.

Question 18: Can the City rely on an unpublished or unadopted standard to deny a project under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA)?
Answer: No, the HAA requires the use of pre-existing, objective standards. The City may not apply new or ad hoc criteria, nor rely upon subjective studies not adopted as standards. Denial must be based upon uniform, objective criteria in effect at the time of the preliminary application.

Exhibit 1
Letter of Technical Assistance
California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) City of Jurupa Valley, California
June 24, 2022
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
June 24, 2022
Jose Perez, Director
Community Development Department
8930 Limonite Avenue
Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
RE: Camino Terrace Apartments – Letter of Technical Assistance Dear Jose Perez:

The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) received a request for technical assistance regarding the Camino Terrace Apartments (Project). HCD is aware of a recent determination by the City of Jurupa Valley (City) that the Project does not qualify for the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process created by Senate Bill (SB) 35 (Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017) and codified in Government Code section 65913.4. The purpose of this letter is to provide technical assistance related to the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process. HCD recognizes the challenge of interpreting ever-changing housing and land-use laws and appreciates the opportunity to provide technical assistance that may lead to better housing outcomes for California, as well as the City.

HCD’s Understanding of the Project
HCD understands the Project is proposed to consist of 80 units with a mix of 20 onebedroom units, 38 two-bedroom units and 22 three-bedroom units. The affordability levels will be between 30 percent and 60 percent of area median income (AMI) with an average of approximately 50 percent of AMI. To comply with the requirements of the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee (CDLAC) program and Multifamily Housing Program (MHP), most of the units will be at 30 percent of AMI. The Project will incorporate a community building with indoor common area spaces for the property management company and spaces for resident services and social interaction. The Project will also have appropriate outdoor common area spaces for passive and active recreation. An application under the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process (SB 35 Application) was submitted for the Project on February 18, 2022.

Statutory Exclusion of Sites within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone Government Code section 65913.4, subdivision (a), is broken into paragraphs that describe the eligibility requirements for a project to qualify for Streamlined Ministerial Approval Processing. Paragraph (6) enumerates a list of site characteristics that would exclude a site from eligibility from Streamlined Ministerial Approval Processing, and subparagraph (D) identifies the exclusion based on location in a “very high fire hazard severity zone” (VHFHSZ). The exact language is:

Jose Perez, Director

Within a very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 51178, or within a high or very high fire hazard severity zone as indicated on maps adopted by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 4202 of the Public Resources Code. This subparagraph does not apply to sites excluded from the specified hazard zones by a local agency, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 51179, or sites that have adopted fire hazard mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards or state fire mitigation measures applicable to the development. (Gov. Code, § 65913.4, subd. (a)(6)(D); emphasis added.) HCD understands the City determined the Project did not qualify for the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process based on its location in a VHFHSZ. However, subparagraph (D) does not apply to “sites that have adopted fire hazard mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards or state fire mitigation measures applicable to the development.” Applicable Building Standards and State Fire Mitigation Measures There are existing building standards and state fire mitigation measures applicable to this development. In consultation with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), HCD has confirmed that this project must conform with standards set forth in the Chapter 7A of the California Building Code (CBC), Chapter 49 of the California Fire Code (CFC), and the Minimum Fire Safe Regulations in the Public Resources Code Section 4290 (14 CCR 1270 et seq.). These codes have all been updated since the passage of SB 35 in 2017 to establish and/or strengthen development standards that govern residential development within Fire Hazard Severity Zones and Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Areas.

Both CBC Chapter 7A and CFC Chapter 49 require compliance with the requirements for defensible space and building in wildfire prone areas of Government Code sections 51175 through 51189.

Given the foregoing, the Project’s location in a VHFHSZ does not preclude the Project from eligibility for Streamlined Ministerial Approval Processing. Additionally, HCD is aware that a Fire Protection Plan has been prepared for the Project and will be submitted to the Riverside County Fire Department for review and approval to further ensure the Project meets all construction and infrastructure requirements resulting from a tailored fire risk assessment.

HCD appreciates the opportunity to provide information regarding the eligibility of the Camino Terrace Apartments under Government Code section 65913.4. Please feel free to contact Alex Contreras, at [email protected], with any questions.

Sincerely,
Shannan West
Housing Accountability Unit Chief
From: Liang Chao
To: City Clerk
Subject: Fw: Linda Vista - Supplemental Information
Date: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 2:27:00 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Linda Vista - Proposed COA for 2-story units -20260331.pdf 10857LindaVista_Evacuation_Analysis_2026-2-26 w Cover Email_20260317.pdf Letter to City of Cupertino - 4-1-26(19345502.1).pdf
Fire Department Memo.pdf
Please enter this into the written communication for the April 1 meeting.

Liang Chao
Mayor
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192
From: Bull, Steve <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 10:43 AM
To: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Cc: Ebrahimi, Kevin <[email protected]>; Lin, Austin <[email protected]>; Matt Larson <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Linda Vista - Supplemental Information
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 Vice Mayor Chao:

We’re writing to provide you with supplemental information regarding our application for the Linda Vista project (a.k.a. Evulich Court). We had previously submitted some of this information to Staff in advance of the March 17, 2026 Hearing. The information is included within the Written Comment section of the Staff Report package.

To ensure that you are able to review the information, we’re also sending it directly to you. Please find the following information attached:

1. 2-Story Units – Proposed Site Plan and Conditions of Approval

2. Evacuation Analysis – Analysis and Cover Email sent on March 17, 2026

3. Cox Castle Response Letter - dated April 1, 2026

4. Fire Department memo – Included within March 30, 2026 Written Communications Please let us know if you have any questions.

Thank you,
Steve
Steven Bull
Vice President of Development
SummerHill Homes
6101 Bollinger Canyon Road, Suite 425, San Ramon, CA 94583 Mobile (510) 410-1188
[email protected] / SummerHillHomes.com
All subject matter contained in this email is confidential and proprietary to SummerHill Homes/SummerHill Apartment Communities and should not be disclosed to any person not listed as an original recipient. SummerHill Homes/ SummerHill Apartment Communities. All rights reserved.

TO: Cupertino City Officials
FROM: Hector Estrada, Assistant Fire Chief
SUBJECT: Housing Development - Linda Vista Drive
As requested by City Manager Kapoor and in response to the questions from the Cupertino City Council, this supplemental staff report provides a summary of the process that led to the Santa Clara County Fire Department’s plan review comments on the Architectural and Site Approval Permit Application for the proposed subdivision at 10857 Linda Vista Drive.

Background
The Santa Clara County Fire Department (“County Fire”) provides fire safety plan review comments for land development in the City of Cupertino. Specifically, County Fire reviews Architectural and Site Approval Permit Applications for compliance with applicable state and local fire safety requirements related to site design.1 County Fire staff then prepares plan review comments and presents them to City officials to support the City’s decision to approve or deny an Architectural and Site Approval Permit Application.

Summary
In January 2026, County Fire staff provided plan review comments on the Architectural and Site Approval Permit Application for the proposed residential subdivision at 10857 Linda Vista Drive (ASA-2024-015) (the “Project” and the “Application”). Because the Project is located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, it is subject to the State Minimum Fire Safe Regulations (“Fire Safe Regulations”) (14 C.C.R. §§ 1270, et seq.), in addition to generally applicable fire safety requirements in the California Building Standards Code.2
The Fire Safe Regulations include an exception request process that allows projects to move forward even if they cannot meet specific site-design criteria.3 Specifically, the Fire Safe Regulations allow for the approval of exception requests on a case-by-case basis if the exception provides “the Same Practical Effect as these regulations towards providing Defensible Space.” (14 C.C.R. § 1270.07.)4 The Application includes a Same Practical Effect exception request for the thirty-foot setbacks required by Section 1276.01 of the Fire Safe Regulations. The applicant proposed the following measures to support the exception request:
(1) Non-combustible material extending five feet horizontally around the buildings. (2) Wildfire home hardening protective measures, including but not limited to a Class A roof, non-combustible exterior building material, protected eave vents, and double paned tempered glass.
1 At the building permit phase, County Fire reviews building permit applica:ons for compliance with addi:onal fire safety requirements, including those related to construc:on.
2 Public Resources Code Sec:on 4290 addresses the applicability of the Fire Safe Regula:ons in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones.
3 The process and standards for approving Same Prac:cal Effect excep:on requests in the Fire Safe Regula:ons are dis:nct from the process and standards for approving for Alternate Materials and Methods Requests (AMMR) in the California Building Standards Code.
4 The Fire Safe Regula:ons define “Same Prac:cal Effect” as “an Excep:on or alterna:ve with the capability of applying accepted wildland fire suppression strategies and tac:cs, and provisions for fire fighter safety, including: (1) access for emergency wildland fire equipment, (2) safe civilian evacua:on, (3) signing that avoids delays in emergency equipment response, (4) available and accessible water to effec:vely aWack Wildfire or defend a Structure from Wildfire, and (5) fuel modifica:on sufficient for civilian and fire fighter safety.” (14 C.C.R. § 1270.01(aa).)

(3) Exterior fire sprinkler heads protecting covered porches and decks that are within thirty feet of the property line.
(4) Fire resistance rated exterior elements within thirty feet of the property lines including:
a. Exterior Walls - Fire resistance rated for one hour. b. Projections (portions of the building protruding beyond exterior walls) - Fire resistance rated for one hour.
c. Penetrations (e.g., mechanical, electrical, plumbing services) - Protected to maintain fire resistance rated assemblies.

Section 1276.01 of the Fire Safe Regulations provides guidance on exception requests related to the thirty-foot setback requirement:

A reduction in the minimum setback shall be based upon practical reasons, which may include but are not limited to, parcel dimensions or size, topographic limitations, Development density requirements or other Development patterns that promote lowcarbon emission outcomes; sensitive habitat; or other site constraints, and shall provide for an alternative method to reduce Structure-to-Structure ignition by incorporating features such as, but not limited to:
(1) non-combustible block walls or fences; or
(2) non-combustible material extending five (5) feet horizontally from the furthest extent of the Building; or
(3) hardscape landscaping; or
(4) a reduction of exposed windows on the side of the Structure with a less than thirty (30) foot setback; or
(5) the most protective requirements in the California Building Code, California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 7A, as required by the Local Jurisdiction. (14 C.C.R. § 1276.01(b).)
Based on our analysis of the site and the combined impact of the measures proposed in the exception request, County Fire staff determined that these measures provide appropriate alternative methods to reduce the risk of structure-to-structure ignition, and County Fire approved the Same Practical Effect exception request for the Application. The Project includes two of the five measures identified in Section 1276.01 as alternative methods to reduce the risk of structure-to-structure ignition and two additional measures: exterior sprinklers and increased fire resistive rated exterior elements. Analyzing these measures based on accepted wildland fire suppression strategies and tactics and provisions for firefighter safety, County Fire staff determined that the exception request provided appropriate access for emergency wildland fire equipment and safe civilian evacuation and that the exception request included fuel modification sufficient for civilian and firefighter safety.

County Fire memorialized its approval of the exception request in its January 7 and January 27 plan review comments, which have been presented to the City Planning Commission and City Council.

County Fire’s plan review comments also notified the applicant that they will need to submit a final fire protection plan, onsite fire hydrant design specifications, and a construction site safety plan as part of their building permit application.

From: Liang Chao
To: City Clerk
Subject: Fw: HCD Letter of TA/Support Re: 10857 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino HAU-3207 Date: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 2:26:18 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Cupertino-HAU-033026.pdf
Please enter this into the written communication for the April 1 meeting.

Liang Chao Vice Mayor
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192
From: Tina Kapoor <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2026 3:04 PM
Cc: City Attorney's Office <[email protected]>; Floy Andrews <[email protected]>; Benjamin Fu <[email protected]>; Luke Connolly <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: HCD Letter of TA/Support Re: 10857 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino HAU-3207 Good afternoon, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Councilmembers (bcc’d):

I was just informed of a technical assistance letter from HCD that was sent to staff yesterday upon the request of the applicant. This is the second letter staff has received from HCD for the Evulich project.

The “Letter of Support/Technical Assistance Letter” is attached to this email. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Regards,
Tina
Begin forwarded message:

Tina Kapoor
City Manager
City Manager's Office
[email protected]
(408)777-7607
From: "Piu Ghosh (she/her)" <[email protected]>
Date: March 31, 2026 at 2:50:21 PM PDT
To: Tina Kapoor <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: HCD Letter of TA/Support Re: 10857 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino HAU-3207 Good afternoon, Tina
Please see the email below and the attached letter sent to the City from HCD as “Letter of Support/TA”. It appears to be a first of its kind and was sent, per the HCD staff, at the applicant’s request.

Regards
Piu
Piu Ghosh (she/her)
Planning Manager
Community Development
[email protected]
(408) 777-3277
Begin forwarded message:

From: "Piu Ghosh (she/her)" <[email protected]>
Date: March 30, 2026 at 3:38:00 PM PDT
To: Benjamin Fu <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: HCD Letter of TA/Support Re: 10857 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino HAU-3207 FYI..

Piu Ghosh (she/her)
Planning Manager
Community Development
[email protected]
(408) 777-3277
From: Yung, Brandon@HCD <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2026 3:34 PM
To: Luke Connolly <[email protected]>; Emi Sugiyama <[email protected]>; Piu Ghosh (she/her) <[email protected]> Cc: Wilcox, Mindy@HCD <[email protected]>; Heaton, Brian@HCD <[email protected]>; Zisser, David@HCD <[email protected]>; Coy, Melinda@HCD <[email protected]>
Subject: HCD Letter of TA/Support Re: 10857 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino HAU-3207 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 City of Cupertino staff,
Please find attached a letter of support and technical assistance for the project located at 10857 Linda Vista Drive prepared prior to a public hearing for the project on Wednesday, April 1. HCD requests that you share this letter with relevant staff/the decision-making body in advance of the hearing. A hard letter will also be sent to your office.

Please feel free to share any questions with me should they arise.

Thank you,
Brandon Yung
Housing Policy Analyst
Division of Housing Policy Development
Housing Accountability Unit
Phone: (916) 562-5948
Housing & Community Development
651 Bannon Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95811
From: Luke Connolly <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2026 12:11 PM
To: Yung, Brandon@HCD <[email protected]>; Emi Sugiyama <[email protected]> Cc: Wilcox, Mindy@HCD <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: HCD request for meeting re: 10857 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino Hello Brandon, If you have time this Thursday, 3/26, 1:00 or later, that would work well. If you cannot make that time slot please let me know and I will see what other times are available. Look forward to talking with you. Luke Connolly Assistant Hello Brandon,
If you have time this Thursday, 3/26, 1:00 or later, that would work well. If you cannot make that time slot please let me know and I will see what other times are available. Look forward to talking with you.

Luke Connolly Assistant Director of Community Development Community Development
[email protected]
(408)777-1275
[cupertino.org] [facebook.com] [twitter.com] [youtube.com] [nextdoor.com] [instagram.com] [linkedin.com] From: Yung, Brandon@HCD <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2026 3:09 PM
To: Emi Sugiyama <[email protected]>; Luke Connolly <[email protected]> Cc: Wilcox, Mindy@HCD <[email protected]>
Subject: HCD request for meeting re: 10857 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino 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 City of Cupertino staff,
My name is Brandon Yung and I am a housing policy analyst with the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Housing Accountability Unit. HCD recently received a request for a letter regarding a project located at 10857 Linda Vista Dr. prior to a public hearing on April 1.

HCD would like to request a meeting with your team. If possible, please provide several schedule availabilities next week. I can then send a 30-minute Microsoft Teams meeting.

Thank you,
Brandon Yung
Housing Policy Analyst
Division of Housing Policy Development
Housing Accountability Unit
Phone: (916) 562-5948
Housing & Community Development
651 Bannon Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95811
<image001.png>
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
651 Bannon Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95811
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
March 30, 2026
Ben Fu, Community Development Director
Cupertino City Hall
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Dear Ben Fu:

RE: City of Cupertino – 10857 Linda Vista Drive – Letter Support and Technical Assistance
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) understands that on April 1, 2026, the City Council of the City of Cupertino will consider a Tentative Map, Architectural and Site Approval, and Tree Removal Permit for the construction of a housing development project that includes moderate income affordable units (Project) on a

2.53-acre site located at 10857 Linda Vista Drive (APNs: 356-06-001, -002, -003, and - 004). The purpose of this letter is to assist the City with its decision making by providing technical assistance related to the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) and State No Net Loss Law.

Background
HCD understands that the Project is proposing 51 for-sale townhome units, including 10 units deed restricted for moderate income households. The Project is located within the R-3/TH (Multiple-Family Residential, Townhome) zoning district and the Residential – Medium High Density General Plan Land Use Designation. The Project is utilizing the State Density Bonus Law (SDBL)1 to utilize five waivers and one concession from applicable standards of the General Plan and Zoning Code. HCD additionally understands that the Project is consistent with the General Plan,2 Zoning,3 and state and local regulations applicable to Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ). 4 On
February 24, 2026, the City’s Planning Commission voted to recommend the City Council approve the Project.5
1 Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (b)(1)(D).
2 City of Cupertino February 24, 2026, Planning Commission Hearing Staff Report on 10857 Linda Vista Drive, page 2.
3 Ibid. See page 3.
4 Ibid. See page 9: “The Santa Clara County Fire Department has found that the project has demonstrated consistency with these requirements.”
5 City of Cupertino February 24, 2026, Planning Commission Hearing Minutes.

Ben Fu, Community Development Director

Analysis
Housing Accountability Act
The Project meets the definition of a “housing development project” under the HAA.6 The Project may only be disapproved or approved at a lower density if the City makes written findings, supported by a preponderance of evidence on the record, that (1) a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety would result from the project and (2) mitigation of the adverse impact is not possible.7 Specific, adverse, impact means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions.8 “Objective” means, “involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official.”9 Additionally, the Legislature has clarified that these impacts are intended to arise “infrequently.”10
Housing Element No Net Loss Law
No Net Loss Law requires that a jurisdiction ensure there is development opportunity remaining throughout the planning period to accommodate the jurisdiction’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Because the approval of the Project would result in capacity becoming inadequate to accommodate the RHNA, the City will have up to 180 days from the approval to identify or rezone “sufficient additional, adequate, and available sites” to accommodate the remaining RHNA.
11 HCD understands that the Project site consists of four contiguous lots listed in the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element and the approval of the project may trigger a No Net Loss Law obligation for the City in the moderate income and lower-income categories. In the Planning Commission Staff Report for the Project, the City has stated that, while it “is unable to identify additional sites to accommodate its RHNA concurrently with this project’s approval, it is working toward being compliant with State law in a timely manner. 12” HCD reminds the City that Housing Element No Net Loss Law specifically provides that the City may not disapprove a housing project on the basis that approval of the development would trigger the identification or zoning of additional adequate sites to accommodate the remaining RHNA.13
6 Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (h)(2). 7 Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j)(1). 8 Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j)(1)(A).
9 Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (h)(9).
10 Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (a)(3).
11 Gov. Code, § 65863., subd. (c)(2).
12 City of Cupertino February 24, 2026, Planning Commission Hearing Staff Report on 10857 Linda Vista Drive, page 18.
13 See HCD’s October 2, 2019 No Net Loss Law Memo, page 1, available at:
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/housing-elementmemos/docs/sb-166-final.pdf.

Ben Fu, Community Development Director

Conclusion
For purposes of entitling AB 130-eligible projects, the City should assume compliance with local building codes. Whether the project is indeed code compliant should be determined at the post-entitlement phase. This prevents the entitlement review process from becoming bogged down in technical details that are strictly governed by other laws.

HCD informs the City that AB 712 (Government Code Section 65914.2.) went into effect on January 1, 2026. Among other things, the new law increases penalties that a court may impose on a local government if the local government was advised in writing prior to the commencement of a lawsuit brought by the Attorney General or HCD that the local government’s decision, action, or inaction would represent a violation of specified housing laws.

HCD hopes this technical assistance is helpful. HCD has enforcement authority over the HAA and Housing Element Law, among other state housing laws. Accordingly, HCD may review local government actions to determine consistency with these laws. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (j), if HCD finds that a jurisdiction’s actions do not comply with state law, HCD may notify the California Office of the Attorney General.

HCD remains committed to supporting the City of Cupertino in facilitating housing at all income levels and hopes the City finds this clarification helpful. If you have questions or need additional information, please contact Brandon Yung at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Melinda Coy
Housing Accountability Unit Chief
From: Lin, Austin
To: Emi Sugiyama; City Clerk
Cc: Ebrahimi, Kevin; Bull, Steve
Subject: Jensen Hughes Letter and Statement of Qualifications for 4/1 City Council Written Communications Date: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 1:54:42 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
Linda Vista - City Council Letter - 20260401.pdf
LindaVista_JH_Quals.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 Emi & Cupertino City Clerk,
We respectfully submit the attached letter and statement of qualifications from Jensen Hughes for inclusion in Written Communications for the April 1, 2026 City Council hearing (Item #3) regarding the Linda Vista project. Jensen Hughes has conducted a review of the plans and have determined that the project satisfies all applicable criteria for the AB 130 CEQA exemption.

Thank you,
Austin Lin, PE
Development Manager
SummerHill Homes
Direct (510) 330-3064 | Mobile (408) 966-2278 | ✉️[email protected] www.summerhillhomes.com
6101 Bollinger Canyon Road, Suite 425, San Ramon, CA 94583 Follow Us:

All subject matter contained in this email is confidential and proprietary to SummerHill Homes LLC and should not be disclosed to any person not listed as an original recipient. SummerHill Homes LLC. All rights reserved. jensenhughes.com
Copyright ©2026 Jensen Hughes, Inc.

All Rights Reserved. T0123
April 1, 2026
Steve Bull
SummerHill Homes
6101 Bollinger Canyon Road, Suite 425, San Ramon, CA 94583 RE: Plan Review – Fire Hazard Severity Zone Requirements 10857 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, CA 95014
Dear Steve:

Jensen Hughes has reviewed the project application and associated plan set for the above-referenced development, located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VH FHSZ) in the Local Responsibility Area (LRA). Our review is based on the current combined plans (dated January 12, 2026) and ongoing coordination with the project team starting in August 2025. This evaluation is limited to code sections related to structural hardening and defensible space requirements for wildfire risk reduction, including CBC Chapter 7A and CFC Chapter 49, which details the defensible space regulations applicable to this property as required by Public Resources Code 4290.

The project is required to comply with all applicable VH FHSZ regulations, including:
+ California Public Resources Code Sections 4290 and 4291 (as applicable) o Section 4290 directs the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection to adopt defensible space standards.
o Section 4291 applies only to State Responsibility Areas (SRA) and is not applicable to this project.
+ California Government Code Section 51182
o Requires ongoing vegetation management and defensible space maintenance, including fuel modification zones around structures.
+ California Building Code Chapter 7A (as amended by the City of Cupertino and the Santa Clara County Fire Department)
o Establishes minimum ignition-resistant construction standards for buildings in Wildland-Urban Interface areas, including requirements for roofing, vents, exterior walls, windows, and attachments to reduce ember intrusion and flame spread. + California Fire Code Chapter 49 (as amended by the City of Cupertino and the Santa Clara County Fire Department)
o Establishes minimum defensible space, vegetation management, and wildfire risk reduction requirements, including fuel modification zones (Zone 0, 1, and 2).

Based on our review and analysis, it is our professional opinion that:
+ The project qualifies for CEQA streamlining consistent with AB 130 for a site located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VH FHSZ) if all requirements for new construction in a VH FHSZ (see above) are confirmed during the building permit stage.
+ The Alternative Materials and Methods Request (AMMR) has been appropriately applied and approved to address reduced setbacks.
+ The project plans are consistent with applicable structural hardening provisions. Detailed compliance items (e.g., vents, roofing, exterior wall assemblies, windows, and decking) will be fully implemented and verified at the building permit stage in accordance with Chapter 7A of the California Building Code. 10857 Linda Vista Drive Fire Hazard Severity Zone Requirements

All Rights Reserved.T0123
This letter reflects our professional opinion based on the information provided and is intended to support the project’s consistency with applicable wildfire structural hardening regulations and CEQA streamlining provisions.

Final compliance is subject to review and approval by the Authority Having Jurisdiction at the time of building permit. This review does not state or imply that the submittal is approved or disapproved by the City of Cupertino or Santa Clara County Fire Department. Information not presented in the submitted drawings or contained in the supporting materials are not part of this review. This review does not imply that compliance with relevant codes and standards eliminates all hazards and risks.

Please refer to our attached company qualifications for additional information regarding our wildfire risk and fire protection expertise.

Sincerely,
Jensen Hughes
B. Amelia Pludow, PhD
Wildfire Risk Mitigation Consultant
jensenhughes.com
Jensen Hughes, Inc.
1000 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 250
Los Angeles, CA 90017 USA
O: +1 213-412-1400
Copyright © 2025 Jensen Hughes, Inc.

All Rights Reserved. T0125
Firm Qualifications
Founded in 1980 as a corporation and headquartered in Columbia, Maryland, USA, Jensen Hughes is the global leader in fire engineering, consulting and technology services. We are dedicated to protecting what matters most through technical excellence. We are a global team of 1,700+ fire engineers, scientists, consultants, and wildfire practitioners dedicated to advancing the science of safety and risk management in over 100 countries and over 100 offices.

Using the diverse backgrounds of our fire safety engineers, consultants and risk specialists dedicated to protecting people, properties, assets and operations, our firm has developed expertise in understanding the increasingly complex range of hazards, risks, and vulnerabilities due to wildland fires in the built environment, as well as in natural landscapes. The Jensen Hughes team has backgrounds in the following:

Applicable Expertise + Experience
+ Wildfire Risk Mitigation
+ Wildfire Forensic Investigations
+ Wildfire Behavior Modelling
+ Community Wildfire Protection Planning
+ Fire Codes and Standards Committees
+ Fire Regulatory Compliance
+ Fire Engineering and Design
+ Fire Safety Inspections
+ Fire Hazard and Risk Assessments
+ Power Utility Fire Safety
+ Safety Management
+ Software Development and Deployment
+ Data Analytics and Machine Learning
+ Data Strategy Enhancements
+ Training and Technology
+ Emergency Management
Our experience includes all phases of wildland/WUI fire risk management (prevention, mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery) and building and urban-scale fire safety design, analysis and management. Our experts have extensive boots-on-the-ground experience in wildland fire and urban firefighting and in-depth knowledge and skills to apply the latest fire science and engineering tools in wildfire behavior, vegetation management, structural hardening, and in the development of Fire Protection Plans, CWPPs and other Wildfire Mitigation Plans.

Linda Vista Dr. – FHSZ Requirements 1BPL25001

All Rights Reserved.T0125
Our professionals have expert knowledge of fire safety codes and standards, with detailed knowledge of local, state and federal rules, regulations and guides related to wildfire safety, wildfire risk mitigation and emergency operations, including:
+ Disaster Mitigation Act (2000-present)
+ National Fire Plan (NFP) 2000
+ Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA)
+ State and Local Fire and Building Codes
+ Other relevant wildfire codes, standards, and legislation IWUI Code, IRC
NFPA 1, 1140
ASTM Standards (e.g., E119, E108, E84)
Utility wildfire safety (e.g., California PUC 8386, PUC 8389) Sample of relevant California codes and standards
 Public Resources Code Section 4290, 4291, 4102, 4125-4229, 4251-4255, 4290, 4292-4296  California wildfire legislation (e.g., SB 70, SB 167, SB 247, SB 901, AB 111, AB 1054, AB 3074)  Chapter 7A, Chapter 49
+ FEMA, NIST, IBHS, NFPA, APA, SFPE and other agencies and industry fire and wildfire publications + ANSI A300 Tree Care Operations: Standard Practices for Tree, Shrub, and Other Woody Plant Maintenance + Vegetation Management Planning Guide: Planning and Implementation for Developed Sites in USFS Region 2.

Industry Leadership
Our leadership is demonstrated by developing policy, supporting research, creating methods and then performing the necessary engineering evaluations. For more than 40 years, our team has supported the gathering and analysis of data and the research and development of new assessment methods and techniques through organizations such as State and Federal Agencies, Industry Consensus Standards committees, FEMA, NIST, and EPRI. This wealth of experience can help you meet your regulatory needs.

We are also actively involved in developing and improving fire safety policies, codes & standards, risk-informed regulation through our extensive committee involvement across the State and at the national level, while also serving on behalf of our clients in designing, inspecting and/or enforcing those regulations on a daily basis.

Our extensive involvement in technical committees and professional organizations demonstrates our commitment to advancing the fire safety industry. Involvements relative to wildfire risk include:
+ National Association of Fire Investigators (NAFI),
Wildland Fire Investigation Committee
+ International Association for Fire Safety Science
(IAFSS), Large Outdoor Fires and the Built
Environment Working Group
+ NFPA 1140, Standard for Wildland Fire Protection
+ (Former) NFPA 1141, Standard for Fire Protection
Infrastructure for Land Development in Wildland,
Rural and Suburban Areas
+ (Former) NFPA 1142, Standard on Water Supplies
for Suburban and Rural Fire Fighting
Linda Vista Dr. – FHSZ Requirements 1BPL25001

All Rights Reserved.T0125
+ International Organization for Standardization
(ISO), Large Outdoor Fires and the Built
Environment Working Group
+ Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE)
WUI Working Group
+ Southern California, Fire Prevention Officers,
WUI Committee
+ (Former) NFPA 1144, Standard for Reducing
Structure Ignition Hazards from Wildland Fire
+ NFPA 921, Guide for Fire and Explosion
Investigations, Chapter on Wildfire Investigations
Project Experience
Our team has completed multiple projects developing and auditing wildfire protection plans, comprehensive structure protection strategies, hazard and risk assessments, utility wildfire mitigation plans, CWPPs, wildfire evacuation studies and communication planning, multi-hazard evacuation assessments, vulnerability assessments and vegetation management strategies at different scales and levels of implementation for a range of clients. Our client list includes federal, state, and local agencies, national research labs, non-profits, electrical utilities, state-level utility wildfire regulators, private homeowners, large landowners, and commercial facilities.

The following map provides a snapshot of this experience and related wildfire risk management consulting.

From: David Yan
To: City Council
Cc: Public Comments; City Clerk
Subject: Evulich Court - Letters of Concern
Date: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 1:43:12 PM
Attachments: April 4th Deadline at Evulich Borrowed from an Exemption That Was Never Earned.pdf PRC 4291_Not Complied With_03.30.2026.pdf
Improper Upzoning_Evulich_03.30.2026.pdf
Evulich Ct - Stated Basis for Omitting an Evacuation Study Contradicted.pdf Ferh and Peers needs to be Considered for Evulich Safety_03.25.2026.pdf LindaVista_Hexagon Evacuation Analysis Concerns_03.24.2026.pdf AB130_CEQA Exemption Threshold 1 not Met_03.21.2026.pdf Fire Chief Response vs Applicant Claims_03.31.2026.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.

Please enter this email and all the attached letters into the administrative record for Agenda # 3 of the April 1, 2026 City Council meeting.

Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Chao and City Councilmembers,
I have significant concerns about the Evulich Court project - safety wise, procedurally, legally and beyond. Attached are my letters of concern.

Regards,
David
Outlook
Evulich Court Does Not Clear the AB 130 CEQA Exemption Eligibility Threshold From David Yan <[email protected]>
Date Sat 3/21/2026 10:51 AM
To Cupertino City Council <[email protected]>; Cupertino City Attorney <[email protected]> Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Chao, City Councilmembers, and City Attorney, This letter addresses a single threshold question: whether this project is eligible for the AB 130 CEQA exemption. It is not. The project does not clear the eligibility threshold. If the exemption does not apply, full CEQA review is required. The analysis ends at that threshold.

The question is not whether the project satisfies fire engineering requirements. The question is whether the statutory conditions for the exemption have been satisfied.

The Fire Department’s review addresses project-specific compliance. It does not establish the prior adoption of a wildfire mitigation framework applicable to development in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.

The Statute
Public Resources Code section 21080.66 incorporates Government Code section 65913.4(a)(6) to define eligibility. Section 65913.4(a)(6)(D) is explicit: a project located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone is ineligible for the exemption.

There is one narrow carveout. The exclusion does not apply only if the site has adopted fire hazard mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards or state fire mitigation measures applicable to the development.

That carveout has two independent requirements. The measures must be adopted. And they must be pursuant to existing standards applicable to the development. Both must be satisfied. Neither is.

The Site Is in a VHFHZ
This is not disputed. The City confirms that the project has been evaluated under the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone designation.

The Carveout Is Not Satisfied
The staff report identifies the supposed “adopted fire hazard mitigation measures” as provisions contained in Title 16 of the Cupertino Municipal Code, including the Residential Code, Wildland-Urban Interface Code, and Fire Code.
3/21/26, 3:07 PM Sent Items - David Yan - Outlook
https://outlook.live.com/mail/0/sentitems/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0ASCBZoD2K1ESoeHPbAXBacAAI6elWcAAA 1/4 That answer does not satisfy the statute.

If baseline building code adoption were sufficient, every jurisdiction would satisfy the carveout and the VHFHZ exclusion would have no effect. The exclusion would do no work. The City’s position reduces the carveout to a restatement of existing law. The Legislature created the VHFHZ exclusion precisely because wildfire danger operates at the corridor and community scale, not the parcel scale. The statute therefore requires an adopted, preexisting mitigation framework, not project‑specific judgments.

Those provisions are baseline building and fire codes. They apply to all development in hazard areas. They are not a wildfire mitigation framework governing development in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.

The project does not rely on any adopted framework. It relies on a project-specific Alternative Materials, Methods, and Requirements (AMMR) and discretionary determinations regarding setback and “practical effect.” An AMMR presumes a framework. It does not establish one.

The staff report does not identify any objective, pre-adopted standard governing these determinations.

Instead, in response to questions regarding the basis for these approvals, the City states that Fire Department staff “will be present at the Council meeting and can respond at that time.” This is a case by case determination instead of an adopted standard. The wrong legal standard is being used to approve the project.

A mitigation measure defined and approved during project review is not “adopted.” It is discretionary. There is a second and independent basis for this conclusion. The statute provides the carveout only where "the site has adopted fire hazard mitigation measures." In California land use law, "adopted" is a term of art referring to formal governmental action such as an ordinance, a general plan policy, a codified standard. It does not mean project level compliance approved through administrative review. The legislature's choice of "adopted" rather than "complies with" or "incorporates" is not accidental. Cupertino has adopted no city-wide fire hazard mitigation framework for development in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. A project specific AMMR approval is not adoption. It is a one time administrative exception. The carveout is not satisfied on this basis independently.

The statute requires that mitigation be adopted before the project seeks to rely on the exemption. A project cannot satisfy the threshold by pointing to approvals it receives during its own review process.

PRC 4290, PRC 4291, and Chapter 7A Operate Below This Threshold PRC sections 4290 and 4291 and Chapter 7A operate below the statutory threshold set by Government Code section 65913.4(a)(6)(D).

Those provisions define the substantive fire safety requirements that apply to development. They govern how a project is built. They are the content of a mitigation framework. They are not the adoption of one.

That threshold must be satisfied first. Only then do those standards come into play. 3/21/26, 3:07 PM Sent Items - David Yan - Outlook
https://outlook.live.com/mail/0/sentitems/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0ASCBZoD2K1ESoeHPbAXBacAAI6elWcAAA 2/4 This project reverses the statutory order. It points to compliance with, and deviations from, those standards as evidence that mitigation measures exist. That assumes the existence of an adopted framework that has not been established.

The SB 330 Argument Does Not Cure Eligibility
SB 330 and related vesting rights does not resolve the threshold issue. SB 330 vests against changes in local development standards. It does not freeze state level determinations of physical hazard conditions, including CAL FIRE’s designation of Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones.

More importantly, AB 130 itself was enacted after vesting attached. A developer cannot invoke a later enacted statute to obtain CEQA immunity while rejecting the eligibility conditions written into that same statute. The statute must be applied as written or not at all.

The Consequence
The site is in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The City has not adopted a wildfire mitigation framework applicable to development in that zone. The project relies instead on baseline building codes and project-specific discretionary approvals.

That fails Government Code section 65913.4(a)(6)(D).

The AB 130 CEQA exemption does not apply.

Sincerely,
David Yan
Cupertino Resident
Linda Vista Neighborhood
Appendix A: The Record Does Not Establish an Adopted Wildfire Mitigation Framework Government Code section 65913.4(a)(6)(D) permits an exception only where fire hazard mitigation measures have been adopted and are applicable to development. This is a threshold requirement. If it is not satisfied, the project is ineligible for the AB 130 CEQA exemption.

The administrative record does not establish that such a framework has been adopted in Cupertino.

The City’s supplemental staff report identifies the relevant “adopted fire hazard mitigation measures” as provisions contained in Title 16 of the Municipal Code, including the Residential Code, Wildland-Urban Interface Code, and Fire Code.

The record does not identify:
• any ordinance governing development in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones • any overlay district or zoning framework specific to such areas 3/21/26, 3:07 PM Sent Items - David Yan - Outlook
https://outlook.live.com/mail/0/sentitems/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0ASCBZoD2K1ESoeHPbAXBacAAI6elWcAAA 3/4 • any codified mitigation program or development standard applicable across projects in those zones • any General Plan provision that establishes a binding, zone-specific wildfire mitigation framework for development approval
Instead, the record shows that fire safety determinations for this project are made through projectspecific review.

The project seeks AMMR approval, discretionary setback/practical effect determinations without objective preadopted standards, and Fire Department testimony at the hearing proving case by case process, not an adopted VHFHZ framework.
3/21/26, 3:07 PM Sent Items - David Yan - Outlook
https://outlook.live.com/mail/0/sentitems/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0ASCBZoD2K1ESoeHPbAXBacAAI6elWcAAA 4/4 March 31, 2026
The April 4th Deadline at Evulich is Borrowed from an Exemption That Was Never Earned Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Chao, City Councilmembers:

The Applicant has represented that the project will be deemed approved by April 4, 2026 if the city doesn’t approve. April 4th is a date. It is not a foregone conclusion. If it were, what is the purpose of the city council meeting on April 1st? And why is the Applicant even planning on showing up?
The City has treated the Permit Streamlining Act (“PSA”) deadline as though it operates automatically and independently of whether this project actually qualifies for the statutory pathway that created it. It does not. A deemed approval deadline built on an AB 130 CEQA exemption that was never validly triggered is not a deadline at all. It is a legal fiction the applicant is asking this Council to treat as fact. The Council is not required to comply with a deadline that does not legally apply. It is required to make findings the record supports. Those are different obligations and conflating them is exactly what the applicant's counsel is counting on.

The PSA Deadline Is Premised on a Valid AB 130 CEQA Exemption The Permit Streamlining Act's accelerated decision timeline under Government Code Section 65950(a)(7) for projects exempt from CEQA (AB 130) applies specifically to housing development projects that are exempt from CEQA pursuant to the AB 130 infill exemption. The operative phrase is "exempt from CEQA pursuant to the AB 130 infill exemption." If the AB 130 exemption is legally unavailable on this record, the project is not exempt from CEQA pursuant to AB 130. The PSA's accelerated timeline never validly commenced. The April 4th deadline Applicant cites is premised entirely on the legal validity of the AB 130 exemption.

That premise is not established on this record.

The AB 130 CEQA Exemption Is Legally Unavailable
The AB 130 threshold eligibility letter submitted March 19, 2026 is referenced and establishes two independent grounds on which the AB130 CEQA exemption was never triggered:
● Cupertino has not adopted wildfire mitigation measures as a baseline applicable to development in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone in its municipal code, general plan, or any formally enacted local standard. Government Code Section 65913.4(a)(6)(D) conditions the AB 130 exemption on the site being subject to adopted fire hazard mitigation measures as that baseline. Project level fire code compliance does not substitute for an absent jurisdictional baseline.
● At least 1 of 3 fire code requirements were not signed off on by Fire. No analysis or documentation of PRC 4291 appears anywhere in the record. AB 130’s CEQA exemption requires compliance with PRC 4290, 4291 and 7A. The review of 4291 is not mentioned by Fire, the City’s Consultants, or the Applicant’s Consultants. Jensen Hughes, a Consultant to the Applicant confirmed in their own words that their scope was limited to PRC 4290 and Chapter 7A. A recent letter dated March 30, 2026 from Chief Estrada confirms similarly that PRC 4291 is absent from the record entirely. The AMMR granted pertains only to PRC 4290 as evidenced on multiple forms.

Either ground independently renders the AB 130 exemption legally unavailable. The April 4, 2026 deadline built on that exemption did not validly commence.

The Developer Cannot Have It Both Ways on SB 330 and AB 130 The developer cannot simultaneously invoke SB 330 vesting to avoid the VHFHSZ designation and invoke AB 130, a statute enacted more than a year after vesting attached, to claim complete CEQA immunity. If AB 130 applies, vesting does not freeze the VHFHSZ designation and the eligibility conditions written into AB 130 apply in full. The applicant cannot import the deadline while discarding the constraints that come with it.

The Argument Inverts the Statute
The Permit Streamlining Act was enacted to prevent cities from sitting on complete, compliant applications as a delay tactic. It was not enacted to compel approval of applications that do not satisfy the legal prerequisites for their claimed CEQA exemption.

Using a statutory deadline as a threat to force approval of a noncompliant application is unwarranted. The Permit Streamlining Act gives applicants a remedy against cities that obstruct compliant projects. It does not give applicants a weapon to compel approval of projects that have not met the law's requirements. The Applicant’s and its advisors reference AB 712 financial penalties and a deemed approval deadline in the same letter. That combination directed at a municipality evaluating a project with documented life safety deficiencies, is precisely the kind of pressure the legislature did not intend and the Council should not reward.

Even if the applicant were to assert a deemed approval, the City retains full enforcement authority. The City may refuse to issue grading, building, or occupancy permits; issue stop work orders; and seek declaratory and injunctive relief. Any reliance on an unlawful deemed approval is at the Applicant’s own risk.

The City's Exposure Runs the Other Way
The Council faces a straightforward choice. Approve on the basis of a PSA deadline premised on a CEQA exemption that was never validly triggered, over substantial evidence of evacuation failure and an incomplete fire safety record. Or deny on the basis of that same record, supported by Government Code Section 66474(f), which independently requires an affirmative safety finding this record cannot support. The deadline does not make that finding for the Council. Only the record does. And the record does not support approval.

A denial supported by substantial evidence is legally defensible. By contrast, a deadline does not reduce the City's legal exposure. It increases it.

If this Council approves because it believes April 4th leaves no choice, the administrative record will tell a different story. It will show the Council was informed in writing, before the vote, that the deadline was premised on a CEQA exemption that was never validly triggered. It will show the Council possessed the City's own evacuation study finding the corridor already failing at over 200% of capacity. It will show the Council was told the fire compliance record was incomplete and PRC 4291 was never analyzed. And the record will reflect that it was made with full knowledge of the safety evidence the Council chose to set aside.

Regards,
David Yan
Linda Vista Neighborhood Resident
March 29, 2026
Evulich Ct: Applicant's Stated Basis for Omitting an Evacuation Study Is Contradicted by the Record
The Applicant claims it never commissioned an evacuation study because the City raised no evacuation objection during the HAA consistency review, which closed in April 2025. That story is contradicted by the record.

On October 10, 2025, six months after that supposed clearance, the Applicant's VP of Development, Steve Bull emailed Cupertino Senior Planner Emi Sugiyama asking her to provide criteria for an evacuation route study by Monday. Bull's email notes the Applicant had met with Fehr and Peers the prior week and that the traffic report submitted that afternoon did not yet include the evacuation route analysis. The Applicant was actively working toward commissioning an evacuation study. The question was not closed.

What the City Told the Applicant
On October 16, 2025, Ms. Sugiyama responded. She told the Applicant that under AB 130, the City was no longer requiring an evacuation study to address fire safety concerns under CEQA. If the Applicant chose to provide one voluntarily, the City would not require it to meet any criteria and would not peer review it.

The email exchange is reproduced below (read from bottom for initial email to top - response).

That response shut down an evacuation study the Applicant was in the process of commissioning. Ms. Sugiyama knew the Applicant had just met with Fehr and Peers about this specific site.

Why Ms. Sugiyama’s Answer Was Legally Incomplete
Ms. Sugiyama is using a limited rule to escape a universal safety obligation. AB 130 is not the only legal basis for requiring an evacuation study. Section 66474 imposes independent, mandatory obligations on tentative map approval under the Subdivision Map Act. It requires the City to make affirmative findings that the proposed subdivision will not cause serious public health problems before a map can be approved. That obligation exists entirely outside CEQA.

Staff’s reliance on AB 130 created a legal blind spot: they answered a CEQA question while completely ignoring a mandatory public health finding required for map approval. AB 130 does not amend it. HAA deemed consistency does not satisfy it.

Ms. Sugiyama answered a CEQA question. The correct answer was that AB 130 addressed one basis for requiring the study, and the Subdivision Map Act imposed another, and the second was untouched. The Applicant was told the issue was closed.

The February 2026 Story Was Built Backward
When residents raised evacuation at the the January 28, 2026 residents’ meeting with the Applicant ahead of the February 24, 2026 Planning Commission hearing, the Applicant needed an explanation for the missing study. Cox Castle's February 12, 2026 letter provided one: the Applicant relied on the April 2025 HAA clearance, evacuation was not flagged at that time, and the project was therefore deemed consistent on evacuation routes.

The October 2025 email makes that account impossible. The Applicant does not meet with Fehr and Peers about a site specific evacuation study in October 2025 if it resolved the evacuation question through an April 2025 HAA clearance. The Applicant does not ask the City planner for evacuation criteria in October 2025 if it believed that question was settled 6 months earlier. The Applicant's own conduct proves the April reliance theory was not the reason it skipped the study. It was the reason constructed after evacuation became a threat to the project's approval.

What This Means for the City Council
The evacuation question was never resolved. The Applicant was moving toward an analysis. City staff stopped it, citing only AB130. The Subdivision Map Act obligation was never addressed.

When the omission became a liability, the Applicant reached back eight months to manufacture a justification that its own October emails contradict.

The Subdivision Map Act requires an affirmative safety finding before this map can be approved. That finding has never been made. The Council has the October email and the Cox Castle letter in front of it. They cannot be read together and produce approval.

Lastly, please refer to separate letters by me and other members of the community on the applicability of AB 130 CEQA exemption to this project as we demonstrate exhaustively that the exemption does not apply.

Regards,
David Yan
Linda Vista Drive Neighborhood Resident
March 26, 2026
Ferh & Peers Evacuation Study Required to be Considered for Evulich Project This correspondence will be submitted to the administrative record in advance of the April 1 hearing.

Use of the Fehr and Peers Evacuation Study in the Subdivision Map Act Safety Finding This letter addresses whether the City may disregard the Fehr and Peers Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment on the grounds that it was prepared for a future Safety Element update rather than for this specific project. The argument that the study is irrelevant because it was commissioned for a different purpose is not supported by the Subdivision Map Act, administrative law principles, or the City’s own evidentiary practices.

Government Code section 66474 requires the City to deny a subdivision map if the design of the subdivision is likely to cause serious public health or safety problems. To approve a map, the City must make an affirmative finding that the subdivision does not create such a risk. That finding must be supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. The Fehr and Peers study is substantial evidence directly relevant to whether residents can safely evacuate the Linda Vista corridor under existing conditions. The purpose for which the study was originally commissioned does not alter its evidentiary value. The content of the study addresses the physical capacity of the evacuation routes serving this corridor. That is the same factual question the City must evaluate under section 66474.

The Subdivision Map Act requires the City to consider all relevant substantial evidence in its possession
Section 66474 does not limit the City to evidence prepared for a specific project. It requires the City to determine whether the subdivision would create a serious public health or safety problem. If the City possesses evidence that bears directly on that question, the City must consider it. Courts do not permit agencies to disregard relevant evidence simply because it was generated in a different context.

The Fehr and Peers study evaluates the evacuation capacity of the same roads that serve the project site. It finds both exits of Linda Vista Drive operating at more than twice their physical capacity under evacuation conditions. These findings speak directly to whether residents can safely evacuate. The City cannot ignore this evidence without creating an arbitrary record.

The City has relied on citywide studies to make project level decisions The City Attorney’s position that the Fehr and Peers study cannot be used because it was prepared for a Safety Element update is inconsistent with the City’s own practice. However, the City has relied on citywide and programmatic studies to evaluate specific development applications. For example, in the Housing Element Rezoning (2022 to 2024):

During the Housing Element rezoning cycle, the City used the Housing Element Environmental Assessment, the citywide hazard mitigation plan, and the citywide emergency operations plan to evaluate parcel level wildfire exposure and evacuation constraints. These documents were not prepared for individual parcels. They were citywide planning documents used to justify parcel‑specific zoning decisions. The City cannot exclude the Fehr and Peers study while relying on programmatic documents for other project‑level determinations.

The City uses broader planning studies when they are relevant to the physical conditions that affect a project. The City’s position on Ferh and Peers should be no different.

The Applicant’s own statements make the Fehr and Peers study more relevant, not less At the Planning Commission hearing on February 24, the Applicant stated that the City cannot evaluate evacuation because no evacuation plan has been adopted. If that were correct, then the City could not rely on the Housing Element Environmental Assessment or the Hexagon analysis, both of which reference the same emergency planning framework.

The Applicant cannot argue that the City lacks an adopted plan for purposes of rejecting the Fehr and Peers study, while simultaneously relying on the Housing Element assessment to claim clearance. These positions cannot be reconciled. If the absence of an adopted plan prevents the City from evaluating evacuation, then the City cannot make the safety finding required by section 66474. If the City can evaluate evacuation, then the Fehr and Peers study is directly relevant.

Further, the Applicant's counsel argues in her February 12, 2026 letter that because the City did not flag evacuation during the HAA consistency review period that expired April 18, 2025, the project is deemed consistent with evacuation standards. That argument conflates two separate legal obligations and misrepresents what the April 2025 review actually evaluated.

The HAA consistency review is a procedural snapshot. It evaluates whether a project is consistent with written local standards as they existed at that moment. The Subdivision Map Act requires an independent affirmative safety finding based on the record as it exists at the time of the vote. Those are different obligations measured at different times against different evidence.

The City's procedural silence on evacuation in April 2025 does not satisfy the substantive safety finding required in April 2026.

More importantly the physical conditions being measured did not change between April 2025 and October 2025. The roads were the same roads. The capacity was the same capacity. What changed was the City's knowledge of conditions that already existed. A procedural determination made before that knowledge existed does not establish that the underlying physical condition was safe. It establishes that nobody had looked. Deemed consistent on an unmeasured condition is not a safety clearance. It is a gap in the record. The City Council is not obligated to ratify a gap that Planning created by failing to evaluate evacuation before the consistency window closed. The Subdivision Map Act exists precisely to catch what earlier review missed. This is that moment.

The Fehr and Peers study is more probative than the Hexagon analysis The City Attorney’s argument would require the City to disregard a peer reviewed, City commissioned study in favor of a last minute, applicant commissioned analysis that was not peer reviewed and that evaluates only a portion of the evacuation system. The Fehr and Peers study measures the actual capacity of the evacuation routes. Hexagon measures only the throughput of a single intersection under ideal conditions.

If the City excludes the Fehr and Peers study on the basis of purpose, it must apply the same standard to the Hexagon analysis. The Hexagon study was not prepared for this project, was not reviewed by the City, and was submitted hours before the hearing. If purpose is the test, Hexagon fails it. If relevance is the test, Fehr and Peers meets it.

The City cannot adopt a standard that excludes its own consultant’s work while admitting the Applicant’s.

Applicant's counsel additionally argues that no 'objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions' related to evacuation routes exist, and therefore no specific adverse impact finding can be made under the HAA. That representation is factually incorrect. The Fehr and Peers Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment is precisely what the HAA definition describes as an objective, identified, written analysis of public health and safety conditions commissioned by the City of Cupertino. The HAA argument premised on the absence of such a document fails because the document exists.

The City cannot make the required safety finding without considering the Fehr and Peers study
The City must determine whether residents can safely evacuate. The Fehr and Peers study provides the only peer reviewed, City commissioned analysis of the evacuation capacity of the corridor. It finds that both exits operate at more than twice their physical capacity under existing conditions. The Hexagon analysis does not evaluate the corridor and does not address whether the existing baseline is safe.

If the City disregards the Fehr and Peers study, it removes the only evidence that evaluates the actual evacuation routes. Without that evidence, the City lacks substantial evidence to support a finding of safety. Approval without such evidence would violate section 66474.

Conclusion
There is no record of Cupertino excluding relevant evidence because it was prepared for a different purpose. The City has repeatedly relied on citywide studies to inform project‑level decisions. The Applicant itself relies on a programmatic citywide study. The City Attorney’s argument is therefore inconsistent with City practice and cannot serve as a basis for disregarding the Fehr and Peers evacuation analysis. The study is substantial evidence directly relevant to the safety finding required under Government Code section 66474.

March 31, 2026
Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Chao, City Councilmembers:

This letter responds to the supplemental memo submitted by Assistant Fire Chief Hector Estrada on March 30, 2026.

What the Applicant’s Attorney Claimed Fire Did
In its February 12, 2026 letter, the Applicant through its Attorney, made the following representation to this Council:
“As part of the AB 130 process, the Fire Department confirmed that the Project complies with those standards” — referring specifically to PRC 4290, PRC 4291, and Chapter 7A as a conjunctiveset required for AB 130 eligibility.

That is the representation the Applicant’s Attorney made to this Council. It is the foundation of their AB 130 exemption claim.

The table below shows what the Applicant’s Attorney claimed against what Chief Estrada’s memo actually says.

Requirement Applicant’s Attorney Claimed
(Feb 12, 2026)
What Estrada’s Memo Actually
Shows (Mar 30, 2026)
PRC 4290 (Setback
— distance
between buildings
and property lines)
Fire confirmed compliance with
applicable Fire Code and AB 130
VHFHSZ standards.

APPROVED. Same Practical Effect
exception request for 30-foot
setback under Section 1276.01.

Explicit written approval signed by
Fire Official.

PRC 4291
(Defensible Space
— cleared
vegetation buffer
around each
structure)
Fire confirmed compliance with
standards established under PRC
4291 as part of the AB 130 process.

Not mentioned. Not reviewed. Not
analyzed. Four structural hardening
measures approved — all Chapter
7A. No vegetation clearance, no
Zone 1/Zone 2 analysis, no
defensible space feasibility
determination.

Chapter 7A
(Structural
Hardening —
building materials
and construction
standards)
Fire confirmed compliance with
Chapter 7A standards.

Addressed through the four
structural hardening measures in the
exception request. These are
Chapter 7A measures.

What Chief Estrada Actually Said
Chief Estrada’s memo describes one approval: a Same Practical Effect exception request under Section 1276.01 of the Fire Safe Regulations for the thirty-foot setback requirement under PRC 4290. PRC 4290 governs the required distance between buildings and property lines eg. setback. His memo is precise and professional. It describes exactly what Fire reviewed and approved.

It does not mention PRC 4291. It does not analyze Zone 1 or Zone 2 clearance for any building. It does not evaluate whether the proposed site configuration can achieve the required defensible space distances around each structure. PRC 4291 governs defensible space.

Chief Estrada did not claim to have reviewed PRC 4291. The Applicant claimed he did.

Chief Estrada states: “County Fire memorialized its approval of the exception request in its January 7 and January 27 plan review comments, which have been presented to the City Planning Commission and City Council.” A review of those underlying documents confirms the same scope. The January 27 comments state explicitly: “Alternate Means/Methods Application for an exception request to PRC 4290.” Plan Status: “The exception request to PRC 4290 methods request is APPROVED.” PRC 4291 does not appear in either document.

The Same Practical Effect Argument Does Not Extend to PRC 4291 Chief Estrada’s memo references the Same Practical Effect standard under 14 C.C.R. § 1270.07, which includes “fuel modification sufficient for civilian and firefighter safety” as one of five elements. This language addresses the PRC 4290 setback exception. It does not constitute a PRC 4291 defensible space feasibility analysis.

Chief Estrada’s four approved measures consist entirely of structural hardening, non-combustible materials, ignition-resistant building components, sprinklers, and fire-rated exterior assemblies. These are Chapter 7A measures. Chapter 7A governs how a building is constructed to resist ignition.

PRC 4291 requires a structure-level evaluation of whether each building can independently maintain Zone 1: the 30-foot managed clearance zone and Zone 2: the 30 to 100-foot reduced fuel zone given the actual site configuration. That analysis requires examining each building’s geometry, its proximity to adjacent structures, and whether the required clearance distances are physically achievable. Chief Estrada’s memo contains none of that.

The Applicant demonstrated they know how to obtain a Same Practical Effect exception. They did it for PRC 4290 a written application, a narrative, a Fire Authority review, a signed approval via an AMMR (Alternate Means/Methods). If the Same Practical Effect standard were equally available for PRC 4291, the natural question is why they didn't simply file the same request for 4291 as they did for 4290? A site specific PRC 4291 feasibility analysis would have required demonstrating that each building can independently achieve the required clearance distances given the actual configuration - 10 buildings on

2.5 acres with setbacks reduced to 10 feet. That is a question the site geometry cannot answer favorably.

The absence of a PRC 4291 exception request by the Applicant was not an oversight. It is the answer.

Why No PRC 4291 Exception Request Was Filed
The answer is in the Applicant’s own submission to Fire. The formal application submitted by the Applicant to the Santa Clara County Fire Department cited Section 1276.01 of the Fire Safe Regulations, the PRC 4290 setback requirement as the sole basis for the request. The description of request was for a reduction of the 30 foot setback. PRC 4291 is not referenced anywhere in the Applicants request of Fire. Fire reviewed what it was asked to review. The gap in the record is not Fire’s failure. It is the Applicant’s fractional request of Fire.

See below for the Applicant’s own application to Fire, scoped entirely to PRC 4290 setback:
continued on next page
The applicant filed a formal exception request for PRC 4290. That process produced a written application, a narrative justification, a Fire Authority review, and a signed approval. That is how exception requests work when they are properly submitted.

No equivalent process was followed for PRC 4291. No application. No narrative. No Fire Authority review scoped to defensible space feasibility. The same process that produced a documented PRC 4290 exception was never initiated for PRC 4291.

There is a geometric reason for this. The AMMR that reduced the required setback from 30 feet to 10 feet under PRC 4290 physically consumed the space PRC 4291 requires. Zone 1 requires 30 feet of managed vegetation clearance from each structure. On the northern, southern, and western property boundaries, the AMMR reduced available space to 10 feet. Zone 2 which runs from 30 to 100 feet from each structure has no room to begin where Zone 1 cannot exist. The applicant’s own Defensible Space Fire Zone Plan confirms this: Zone 2 appears only at the outer perimeter of the site. It is geometrically absent from every interior-facing facade.

This is not a paperwork gap. It is a geometry problem. Complying with PRC 4290 via the AMMR and complying with PRC 4291 are in direct tension on this site. A proper PRC 4291 feasibility analysis would surface that tension. That analysis was never submitted to Fire because submitting it would require answering a question the site geometry cannot answer favorably.

Chief Estrada states that “County Fire approved the Same Practical Effect exception request for the Application.” The exception request submitted by the Applicant was for PRC 4290 setback. County Fire approved what it was asked to review. The record contains no indication that a PRC 4291 defensible space feasibility review was ever requested or submitted.

Conclusion
Chief Estrada’s memo is a professional and accurate description of what Fire reviewed. The problem is not what he said. The problem is what the Applicant claims he said.

The Applicant through its Attorney told the City of Cupertino that Fire confirmed compliance with all three AB 130 fire standards. Chief Estrada’s memo confirms Fire reviewed one, the PRC 4290 setback. The AB 130 exemption requires all three to be adopted before the exemption is granted. That standard has not been met.

Regards,
David Yan
Linda Vista Neighborhood Resident
March 30, 2026
On the Improper Rezoning of 10857 -10887 Linda Vista Drive from R1 to R3 This letter looks at whether the City of Cupertino actually complied with the legal notification requirements in rezoning 10857-10887 Linda Vista Drive, sometimes called “Evulich Court,” from R1 to R3. This analysis is based on a chronological review of the City’s documents and their consistency with California Government Code Sections 65090 and 65091.

The City had seven opportunities to reach the people most affected and failed at every one.

Summary
Compliance with state housing mandates does not excuse procedural violations. In fact, ensuring public participation and transparency is critical to achieving the equitable housing goals envisioned by state law.

The City of Cupertino's rezoning of Evulich Court did not comply with statutory notification requirements or reasonable standards of transparency. The City's documents, when analyzed chronologically, reveal significant procedural deficiencies:

1. January 2022 Citywide Mailing: An initial mailing predated the inclusion of Evulich Court in the Housing Element and failed to notify residents of any specific rezoning plans.

2. June 5, 2024 Housing Element Rezoning Meeting eNotification: An electronic notification sent to subscribers lacked specificity about Evulich Court and did not reach nonsubscriber residents.

3. June 18, 2024 Affidavit of Mailing Notice: The City mailed notices to an "interested parties" list that did not include residents directly affected by the rezoning.

4. June 21, 2024 Public Hearing Display Ad: A newspaper ad in the Cupertino Courier was insufficient in reach and did not adequately inform residents of the specific rezoning.

5. June 27, 2024 City Council Meeting eNotification: Another electronic notification suffered from the same limitations as prior e-notifications.

6. July 2, 2024 City Council Meeting: The City proceeded with rezoning despite inadequate notification and public participation.

7. September 2024: Disregarded Community Petition: The city disregarded a petition signed by 745 about concerns about the rezoning of Euvulich Court, yet it was neither acknowledged nor placed on the City Council agenda for discussion.

Two facts really stand out here. First: the City produced a mailing list for the Evulich Court rezoning that names the parcel owner and does not include a single residential neighbor within 300 feet. The list reached school districts, water agencies, and commercial landlords across the region. It did not reach the street next door. Second:
the City’s own Assistant Director of Community Development stated in writing on November 5, 2024 that when the Evulich parcels were rezoned in July 2024, there was no citywide mailed notification to residents, and that the City instead relied on newspaper publication, its website, and opt-in e-notifications. That is in the administrative record. On top of that, there’s also a serious conflict of interest issue. The council member who cast a deciding vote on July 2, 2024 of the upzoning, Councilmember Sheila Mohan, resided approximately 959 feet from Evulich Court and did not recuse, despite a reasonably foreseeable material financial effect on her property under FPPC Regulations. Residents were excluded before the meeting while a materially interested councilmember participated in the vote that concluded it.

Every other deficiency documented below compounds those facts.

Legal Requirements for Rezoning Notification
A. California Government Code Sections 65090-65091
● Section 65090: Requires that notices of public hearings be published in a newspaper of general circulation and mailed to all owners of real property within a 300 foot radius of the subject property at least 10 days prior to the hearing. ● Section 65091: Mandates that notices must include the date, time, and place of the hearing, a general explanation of the matter to be considered, and a description of the property under consideration.

HUD Requirements for Disclosure Framework
The Housing Element Sites Inventory framework, mandated by HUD, requires jurisdictions to disclose site-specific data by street address and assessor parcel number, not by internal application codes. Cupertino's notices identified the Evulich Court rezoning only through application numbers such as “MCA-2023-001” or “SPA2023-001” (as per the relied upon documents) with no street name or parcel reference a resident could independently locate or verify. That choice was inconsistent with the transparency the framework requires.

B. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Requirements ● Section 8899.50 imposes a separate and independent mandatory duty on all public agencies to administer housing programs in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing. This duty applies to notification practices. A process that directs mailed notice to commercial landlords and government agencies across the region while sending nothing to the residential neighbors most directly affected by the rezoning is not one that affirmatively furthers fair housing.

Chronological Analysis of City's Documents
Each of the notice actions described above fails to meet the requirements of Sections 65090 and 65091. Taken together, they demonstrate that no compliant notice was ever provided.

1. January 2022 Citywide Mailing
● The City mailed a postcard to approximately 20,000 residents in January 2022 announcing the kickoff of the Housing Element update. This mailing had serious problems.
● Timing: The mailing occurred before Evulich Court was added to the Housing Element in February 2022; therefore, it could not have notified residents of the specific rezoning plans.
● Passage of Time: There is a long lapse between the January 2022 mailing and the July 2024 rezoning. Normal residential turnover, compounded by the significant time gap, likely means many current residents never received any initial communication about the rezoning process. ● Lack of Specificity: The mailing did not mention Evulich Court, Linda Vista Drive, or any specific sites proposed for rezoning.

2. June 5, 2024 Housing Element Rezoning Meeting eNotification ● On June 5, 2024, the City sent an email notification to subscribers of Cupertino General News, Housing, or Planning Commission Meetings, announcing a meeting about the Housing Element rezoning. This is insufficient by any reasonable standard.
● Limited Audience: Only reached residents who had subscribed to receive such notifications, excluding those unaware of the subscription process.

Relying on digital notifications disproportionately excludes certain populations, such as older residents or those with limited access to digital resources.
● Lack of Specificity: Did not mention Evulich Court or Linda Vista Drive, instead referring generally to the Housing Element rezoning.

3. June 18, 2024 Affidavit of Mailing Notice
● On June 18, 2024, the City filed an affidavit stating that it mailed a Notice of Public Hearing for the July 2, 2024 City Council meeting to parties on an "interested parties" list. This mailing list was a major failure. ● Inadequate Mailing List: The “interested parties” list includes regional agencies and commercial property owners with no nexus to Linda Vista Drive such as the West Valley Mission Community College District of Saratoga and Cupertino Bowl LLC. It includes the Evulich parcel owner, confirming the City could identify site specific owners when it chose to. It does not include a single residential neighbor within 300 feet.

4. June 21, 2024 Public Hearing Display Ad
● On June 21, 2024, the City published a public hearing notice in the Cupertino Courier regarding the July 2, 2024 City Council meeting. This ad falls way short. ● Limited Circulation: The Cupertino Courier does not have a demonstrable reach within the Linda Vista Drive neighborhood.
● Ambiguity: The notice referred to application numbers like "MCA-2023- 001" without mentioning Evulich Court or Linda Vista Drive.

5. June 27, 2024 City Council Meeting eNotification
● On June 27, 2024, the City sent an email to subscribers announcing the July 2, 2024 City Council meeting. Again, clearly deficient.
● Same Issues as Prior eNotifications: Limited to subscribers, excluding many residents. Low engagement (31% unique opens and 3% click rate), further highlighting its insufficiency as a notification method. ● Lack of Specificity: Failed to mention Evulich Court, relying instead on cryptic application numbers.

6. July 2, 2024 City Council Meeting
● The City Council proceeded with the rezoning of Evulich Court on July 2, 2024 without evidence of proper notification to affected residents. The City later confirmed this in its own words. Four months after the councile meeting, in an email, the City’s Assistant Director of Community Development confirmed that no mailed notice was sent and that the City relied on publication, its website, and opt in eNotifications.

Email screenshot on next page for reference.

7. Conflict of Interest at the Point of Decision
Councilmember Sheila Mohan (Mayor at the time) participated in and voted in favor of the July 2, 2024 upzoning without recusing herself, despite residing approximately 959 feet from the Evulich Court site. Under California FPPC Regulation 18702.2(a)(8), a public official has a disqualifying financial interest when a governmental decision will have a reasonably foreseeable material financial effect on real property in which the official holds an interest, when that property lies between 500-1000 feet, if the effect is individually and materially distinguishable from its effect on the public generally. The rezoning of an immediately adjacent parcel from single family to high density does exactly that. It changes the character of the surrounding neighborhood in ways that directly and measurably affect proximate property values. Councilmember Mohan voted on this rezoning without disclosing or recusing on either. The City may argue that recusal was impractical because the vote was structured as a single ordinance. That argument is unavailable here. The July 2 vote covered five specific priority housing sites, not a general citywide policy. Recusal on the Evulich component while voting on the remaining four sites was procedurally available to Councilmember Mohan. She did not avail herself of that option. The notification failures locked residents out before the meeting. The conflict of interest tainted the vote that concluded it. The process failed at both ends.

8. August - September 2024 Petition Submission
● Disregard for a Community Submitted Petition: A petition signed by 745 residents was submitted in August and September 2024, after the July 2 vote. That timing matters: the upzoning was already complete, and the petition gave the City a clear opportunity to acknowledge the notification failures and initiate corrective action. It did neither. The petition was never acknowledged and never placed on a City Council agenda.
● On the Relevance of This Issue in 2026: One might try to argue that notification deficiencies are moot because residents now know about the project. The right to notice is not a right to eventually find out. It is a right to participate before an irreversible decision is made. Proper notification under Sections 65090-65091 would have enabled affected residents to appear at the July 2, 2024 hearing, submit written comments, seek advice, present objections before the Council voted and raise concerns about fire safety and evacuation that we are doing now.

By the time most residents learned of the rezoning, the upzoning had already occurred. The harm is that the window for meaningful participation opened and closed without the residents who had the most at stake ever being told it existed.

Subsequent awareness does not retroactively cure the deprivation of that opportunity. Courts have consistently held that the purpose of notice requirements is prospective, not remedial.
● To Make an Analogy of It: Real estate disclosure law makes the same point from a different angle. A seller cannot bury a known material defect in fine print and claim the buyer was informed. The City knew exactly which parcels were being upzoned; the residents did not. Requiring them to decode internal application numbers and search municipal databases mirrors the kind of information asymmetry that disclosure law is designed to prevent.

The record shows a consistent pattern: no direct notice, no site specific disclosure, and no meaningful opportunity for affected residents to participate.

Legal Implications
A. Violation of California Sections 65090-65091 as discussed above.

B. Challenge of Zoning Procedure is Supported by Case Law ● In Horn v. County of Ventura (1979) 24 Cal.3d 605, the California Supreme Court held that land use decisions which constitute a “substantial or significant deprivation of the property rights of other landowners” require that affected persons receive reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard before the decision occurs. The court further held that these due process requirements “are not rooted in statute but are compelled by the stronger force of constitutional principle.” In other words, even where a statutory procedure exists, the Constitution independently demands meaningful notice to those whose property interests are at stake. The City cannot satisfy this floor by pointing to newspaper publication or subscriber email lists. Those methods did not reach the residents whose property would be most directly and materially affected by the rezoning of the adjacent parcel.
● In Scott v. City of Indian Wells (1972) 6 Cal.3d 541, the California Supreme Court held that adjacent property owners have standing to challenge a land use decision where the city failed to notify them of a public hearing, and that a city owes a duty to consider the interests of neighboring owners even when, as in that case, they reside outside city limits. The facts of Scott are instructive well beyond standing doctrine. The City of Indian Wells issued a conditional use permit for a large residential development on land formerly zoned R-1 single family. No neighboring owners outside city limits were notified. One owner appeared at the council meeting and attempted to submit a petition bearing 45 signatures from neighboring property owners within 300 feet. The petition was refused and, in the court’s words, “totally ignored.” The California Supreme Court found this deeply problematic and reversed the lower court’s dismissal. The parallels to Evulich Court are direct. A petition bearing 745 signatures, 16x the number at issue in Scott, was submitted and was never acknowledged, never placed on a City Council agenda, and never addressed. The court held that proper notice is a substantive due process safeguard, not a procedural technicality, and that ignoring the voices of affected neighbors is not a harmless error.

Conclusion
The record is what the City created. It speaks for itself.

March 24, 2026
10857 - 10887 Linda Vista Dr “Evulich Court”, Rebuttal of Hexagon Evacuation Analysis This correspondence will be submitted to the administrative record in advance of the April 1 hearing.

The Hexagon Evacuation Analysis submitted by the Applicant does not demonstrate that this corridor is safe for evacuation. It demonstrates that the corridor already fails to meet the survivable window for a wildfire, before this project is added to the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The question is not whether 51 units add delay. It is whether this corridor is safe today. Hexagon never asked that question.

The Evidentiary Record Is Not Neutral
Before addressing the methodology, the Council should understand how the evidentiary record was assembled.

The City's own consultant, Fehr and Peers, submitted a report 6 months ago, in October 2025 to study evacuation capacity covering this corridor. That study found both exits of Linda Vista Dr which are McClellan Rd and Bubb Rd, operating at over 200% of capacity under evacuation conditions. It has been routed to the Health and Safety Element process.

The Applicant submitted the Hexagon study to the City hours before the hearing. The City's Senior Planner forwarded it to the City Clerk at 2:46 PM with a cover note explicitly stating: the study is not considered part of the project's application materials, was prepared without City input, and has not undergone the City's 3rd party peer review process.

The Council is therefore in the following position: the Applicant's self commissioned, not peer reviewed, submitted last minute study is in the record for this project. Yet, the City's own professionally commissioned study which it had 6 months prior, which found the corridor at over 200% of capacity, is not being considered for this project. That asymmetry warrants scrutiny.

Furthermore, evacuation was not part of the project’s evaluation until it was raised through independent analysis submitted by a resident. It is a subsequent analysis prepared after the issue was identified, using a framework that evaluates incremental impact rather than baseline safety. The sequence matters because it explains why the analysis focuses on whether the project adds marginal delay, rather than whether the corridor can safely evacuate under existing conditions.

Hexagon Never Evaluated Whether the Existing Baseline Is Safe Hexagon's own analysis shows evacuation takes 59 minutes under existing conditions, excluding travel time along Linda Vista Drive before reaching the intersection. Hexagon never asks whether 59 minutes is safe.

Instead, Hexagon cites the City's 2023 -2031 Housing Element Environmental Assessment, which concluded that implementation of the Housing Element would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. That was a programmatic, citywide finding made before the City commissioned the far more detailed Fehr and Peers Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment. A finding about a citywide housing program is not a safety clearance for a specific project on a specific road in a fire hazard zone. The Applicant has previously stated at a Planning Commission (February 24, 2026) that the City cannot evaluate evacuation because no evacuation plan has been adopted by the City. They cannot have it both ways. They're saying the evacuation plan is too incomplete to evaluate against, but complete enough to claim clearance from.

Evacuation safety is part of the City’s obligation to determine whether a project would create a serious public health risk under Government Code § 66474(f). If the City lacks substantial evidence that residents can safely evacuate, it cannot make that finding. Therefore, lets look at the data.

Hexagon Contradicts the City's Own Consultant Without Explanation Hexagon's own Table 1 shows evacuation demand of 2,648 vehicles against a stated capacity of 2,700 vehicles per hour. With the project they cite 2,742 vehicles bringing the V/C ratio to 1.01, meaning demand exceeds the intersection's own stated capacity. Fehr and Peers, assessed the V/C ratio for these exact same roads at over 2.00, meaning the volume is double the physical capacity of the road.

These two studies are analyzing the exact same streets and reaching conclusions that differ by a factor of > 2. A technical analysis that ignores directly contrary findings from the City's own expert consultant is one sided.

Hexagon (Applicant) Fehr and Peers (City)
V/C Ratio at Critical Exit Paths of
Linda Vista Dr

0.98 existing or, 1.01 with
project (see footnote A below)
> 2.0 (200% capacity) existing
Evacuation Time 59 min existing, 61 min with
project
Both exits over 200% capacity
under existing conditions
Compared to 30-min safety
window
Not addressed Fails by factor of 2+
Peer reviewed No Yes
Commissioned by Applicant City of Cupertino
Footnote A: Existing: 2,648 vehicles divided by 2,700 vph capacity = 0.98. With project: 2,742 vehicles divided by 2,700 vph capacity = 1.015, rounded to 1.01. Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Evacuation Analysis for the Proposed Townhomes at 10857 Linda Vista Drive, February 26, 2026, Table 1.

Even using Hexagon’s own assumptions, the system is at or beyond capacity. The City’s consultant shows it is already well beyond it. Hexagon frames the project's contribution as moving the V/C ratio from 0.98 to 1.01, a change of 3%. In an evacuation it is not negligible. A V/C ratio below 1.0 means the system can eventually clear. Above 1.0 it cannot. A standing queue forms that will not resolve because in a wildfire evacuation demand does not drop when residents are leaving simultaneously. The project does not add 3% to a functioning system. It pushes a system already at 98% of capacity past the point of no return. Once you exceed capacity, the queue only grows. That queue forms on Linda Vista Dr itself, not at the intersection, blocking residents before they ever reach an exit.

The Analysis Relies on Intersection Capacity Rather Than Corridor Evacuation Constraints Hexagon estimates evacuation capacity at approximately 2,700 vehicles per hour based on three operational lanes at the Bubb Rd and McClellan Rd intersection. Fehr and Peers measured the capacity of the evacuation routes themselves. McClellan Rd and Bubb Rd each have a capacity of approximately 570 vehicles per hour. That downstream capacity governs the evacuation system.

As a result, the intersection functions as an upstream release point feeding into a constrained corridor.

Even if vehicles clear the intersection, they immediately enter a roadway operating at multiples of its capacity, causing queues that propagate backward through the system.

Fehr and Peers Table 4 below documents the actual roadway capacity of the evacuation routes serving this corridor. The system cannot evacuate faster than its slowest segment.

Hexagon counts three outbound movements at the Bubb/McClellan intersection: "the eastbound leftturn, eastbound through, and northbound through", at 900 vph each. 900 + 900 + 900 = 2,700 vph, by their calculation. But for each of those three movements, Fehr and Peers measured the roads (McClellan and Bubb) at 570 vph. 570 + 570 + 570 = 1,710 vph. Not 2,700. Hexagon 2,700 vph does measure intersection capacity, not route capacity per Ferh and Peers. That distinction proves an important point that releasing 2,700 vehicles per hour through an intersection into roads that can only absorb 1,710 vph does not evacuate 2,700 vehicles per hour.

Fehr and Peers Table 4: Evacuation Route Capacity Fehr and Peers Table 4 reports downstream evacuation route capacity, not intersection throughput. McClellan Road and Bubb Road operate as single outbound lane collectors at approximately 570 vehicles per hour. That segment capacity governs evacuation once vehicles clear the intersection.

Hexagon Assumed Ideal Conditions for a Non Ideal Scenario Hexagon's capacity estimate assumes there are three lanes at Bubb and McClellan fully operational with normal signal timing throughout the evacuation. Wildfires can cause power outages. When traffic signals fail, intersections revert to four way stop operations. Capacity at a four way stop is a fraction of capacity at a functioning signal. Hexagon does not model this scenario. It does not mention power outages. It does not acknowledge that the scenario it is evaluating, a wildfire emergency, is precisely the scenario most likely to degrade the infrastructure its capacity estimate depends on.

The Corridor Fails Well Beyond the Intersection
Even after clearing the intersection, conditions worsen. Fehr and Peers Table 11 (below) shows evacuation route link capacity. McClellan Road east of Bubb Road operates at a V/C ratio of 4.2 under evacuation conditions. Every vehicle that clears the Bubb/McClellan intersection immediately enters a road operating at 420 percent of capacity going east, or 240% going north. Hexagon modeled the gate, not the corridor beyond it.

Fehr and Peers Table 11: Evacuation Route Link Capacity Analysis. McClellan Road east of Bubb Road (green) reaches a V/C ratio of 4.2. McClellan Road east of Imperial Avenue and Bubb Road north of Hyannisport Drive (yellow) reach 2.1 and 2.4 respectively. These are existing conditions before this project is built.

Hexagon Modeled an Intersection, Not a Corridor
Adding 51 units to the middle of Linda Vista Dr does not just add vehicles to the intersection count. It inserts a new conflict point into the center point of the corridor, where Evulich Ct traffic must merge into a standing queue of Linda Vista Dr residents already attempting to evacuate.

As discussed above, evacuation is constrained by corridor capacity, not intersection throughput. In a real wildfire evacuation the pipe matters as much as the gate. If the only two exits from Linda Vista Drive are operating over 200% of capacity, the queue does not form at the intersection. It forms on Linda Vista Drive itself, trapping residents before they ever reach the gate.

Am I saying housing can never be built on a street with a high V/C ratio? No, absolutely not. A road with a 2.0 V/C ratio on Stevens Creek Blvd is an inconvenience. The same V/C ratio on a street exiting a VHFHS Zone is a trap.

Evacuation Time Must Include Both the Corridor and the Intersection Evacuation from this corridor occurs in sequence, first along Linda Vista Drive and then through the Bubb/McClellan intersection. Table 1 from the Hexagon report shows that at a V/C ratio of 1.01, evacuation time is 61 minutes, but that estimate reflects only clearance through the intersection.

DerChang Kau, a veteran engineer and Adjunct Professor of Engineering, applied standard queuing methodology to estimate evacuation time along the Linda Vista corridor at approximately 93 minutes.

This analysis evaluates the Linda Vista spine, which is not included in Hexagon’s estimate.

Hexagon estimates clearance through the Bubb/McClellan intersection, while Mr. Kau evaluates clearance along Linda Vista Drive before vehicles reach that intersection. Both segments must be traversed in sequence during an evacuation. As a result, even accepting Hexagon’s assumptions, the 61 minute estimate does not represent total evacuation time to safety.

Lastly, having defined the Bubb/McClellan intersection as the critical evacuation outlet, the Applicant cannot treat the roadway segments feeding that intersection as out of scope. The capacity of those segments is precisely what Fehr and Peers measured. This is one of multiple independent reasons the Fehr and Peers evacuation analysis must be included in the record.

What the Council Should Require
You have all the evidence that evacuation of the Linda Vista Dr corridor cannot safely evacuate residents in a wildfire of this Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.

Under Government Code Section 66474(f) of the Subdivision Map Act, the Council may deny this project if there is substantial evidence that it would cause serious public health or safety problems.

The Council has both the authority and the obligation to act on it. Approval without evidence of safety violates the Subdivision Map Act.

Sincerely,
David Yan
Linda Vista Neighborhood Resident
March 30, 2026
Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Chao, City Councilmembers:

The CEQA exemption under AB130 requires compliance with PRC 4291. The Santa Clara County Fire Authority signed off on PRC 4290. Not 4291. This letter addresses a separate and independent issue from the threshold eligibility argument I submitted on March 21 2026 10:51am PST. Each stands on its own.

AB130 Existing Standards Framework
AB 130's fire hazard mitigation criteria are conjunctive. Government Code Section 65913.4(6)(D) requires compliance with all of the following: PRC 4291, PRC 4290, and Chapter 7A. The statute uses the word "all."
The Conflation Problem
The applicant has treated PRC 4290 setback and PRC 4291 defensible space as the same requirement. They are not.

PRC 4290 governs setback, the distance between structures or property lines. PRC 4291 governs defensible space, the clearance of vegetation around structures. They address different risks.

In plain terms: setback is about how close buildings sit to each other. Defensible space is about whether there is enough cleared vegetation around those buildings for occupants to survive a wildfire.

The David J. Powers AB 130 Qualification Memo, dated February 18, 2026 which is the City’s own qualifying document makes this conflation explicit. On page 12, under Condition 7, their entire fire hazard mitigation showing consists of: Chapter 7A compliance, noncombustible landscaping, fire sprinklers within 30 feet of the property line, enhanced exterior materials, and the AMMR reducing the required 30 foot setback. PRC 4291 is not mentioned once.

Why the Setback Reduction Makes This More Urgent
The AMMR reduced the required setback from 30 feet to 10 feet. PRC 4291 independently requires 100 feet of defensible space clearance around structures. These are not the same measurement addressing the same concern. The setback reduction compressed buildings together. Whether the resulting site configuration of buildings 10 feet apart on a 2.5 acre parcel in a VHFHSZ can support the required defensible space clearance is precisely the analysis that was required before the exemption was granted. A site with buildings separated by 10 feet must still provide up to 100 feet of defensible space around each structure. The record contains no analysis demonstrating that this is physically achievable on a 2.5 acre site. Without that showing, compliance with PRC 4291 is speculative.

What the Record Actually Shows
The David J. Powers memo states that the Santa Clara County Fire Department "has determined that appropriate fire hazard mitigation measures have been incorporated by the project." That determination was scoped to PRC 4290. Footnote 5 cites only the Fire Prevention Plan Review Comments dated January 27, 2026. Those comments do not mention PRC 4291.

The Fire Authority reviewed setback. It did not review defensible space.

Meanwhile, Jensen Hughes, the Applicant’s consultant scoped their review to structural hardening and defensible space requirements "as required by Public Resources Code 4290," alongside Chapter 7A. The Fire Authority's scope mirrors Jensen Hughes exactly. Both reviewed 4290. Neither reviewed 4291. This is not an oversight in the paperwork. It is the boundary of what was actually evaluated.

Chapter 7A: Reviewed by Jensen Hughes.

PRC 4290: Reviewed by Jensen Hughes via the AMMR.

PRC 4291: No analysis by any party. Absent from the record entirely.

There is therefore no document in the record that supports a finding that the project complies with PRC 4291.

See below from Jensen Hughes own memo:

Distinguishing Conceptual Landscape Zoning From PRC 4291 Compliance PRC 4291 compliance is not a landscaping question. It is a feasibility question: can each proposed structure independently maintain the required clearance distances given the actual site configuration? A zone diagram showing Zone 0, Zone 1, and Zone 2 on a site plan does not answer that question. The record contains no analysis demonstrating that the required clearance conditions can be met for each building without overlap or conflict from adjacent structures placed 10 feet apart on a 2.5 acre parcel. That feasibility showing was required before the exemption was granted. It is absent.

Absence of PRC 4291 Analysis Renders the "All" Requirement Unmet The anticipated response is that PRC 4291 carries an ongoing maintenance obligation rather than a preapproval signoff, and therefore its absence from the record is unremarkable. That argument misses the point.

PRC 4291 does impose an ongoing maintenance obligation on property owners. But that obligation presupposes a site configuration capable of supporting compliance. An ongoing maintenance requirement does not fix a feasibility or geometry problem. This is precisely why PRC 4291 is signed off at both pre-approval as well as post build. AB 130 requires that fire hazard mitigation measures, including PRC 4291 be adopted as a condition of eligibility, not deferred to the permit stage.

If the record contains no evidence addressing whether the configuration can meet those conditions, the Council has no basis to conclude that PRC 4291 is satisfied. The Council must be able to make a finding, based on the record before it, that the proposed site configuration can satisfy PRC 4291. No document in the record shows how the proposed layout satisfies PRC 4291 for each structure.

Because the applicant may point to various diagrams as “defensible space,” Appendix 2 includes those exhibits and demonstrates why none of them satisfy PRC 4291 or establish the required feasibility finding.

The Ask
The record before this Council contains no PRC 4291 analysis. That is not a resident's interpretation. It is confirmed by the applicant's own consultant in their own words. The AB 130 exemption the City has allowed to stand was granted without the analysis the statute requires.

Because AB 130 requires compliance with PRC 4291, the Council must be able to support that finding with evidence in the record. The record contains none. Any after the fact letter or conclusory signoff does not substitute for evidence already in the record supporting that finding.

If the record does not contain such evidence, the Council cannot make the required eligibility determination and the exemption must be withdrawn.

The two independent grounds for withdrawing the AB 130 exemption are in this letter and in my March 21st submission. Both stand on their own and either is sufficient. The City of Cupertino is better protected by getting this right before April 1 than by defending it afterward.

Regards,
David Yan
Linda Vista Neighborhood Resident
Appendix 1
Government Code Section 65913.4(6)(D)
Conjunctive Fire Hazard Criteria
The statute requires compliance with all of the following as a conjunctive set: Section 4291 of the Public Resources Code, Section 4290 of the Public Resources Code, and Chapter 7A of the California Building Code. The word "all" is in the statute itself. These are not alternative pathways. A project in a VHFHSZ must satisfy each one.

Appendix 2 - Why the Applicant’s Exhibits Do Not Constitute PRC 4291 Compliance (from Fire PRA)
The applicant may point to various diagrams and plan sheets as evidence of PRC 4291. For clarity and completeness, each of the four relevant exhibits is reproduced below, followed by a brief explanation of why none of them individually or collectively satisfy PRC 4291 or the AB 130 eligibility requirement to demonstrate defensible space feasibility before granting an exemption.

Additionally, none of the applicant’s fire-related exhibits reference PRC 4291 or perform the defensible space feasibility analysis the statute requires.

Continued on next page
Exhibit 1 - Setback Site Plan (PRC 4290)
Why Exhibit 1 is not PRC 4291: This sheet is a setback diagram, which falls under PRC 4290, not PRC 4291.

Continued on next page
Exhibit 2 - Conceptual Landscape Zoning – NOT SIGNED OFF BY FIRE This exhibit shows defensible space zones around the proposed buildings. PRC 4291 applies at the structure level, requiring clearance outward from each building. For interior buildings, that clearance is constrained by adjacent structures. The plan does not show how those buildings achieve the Zone 2 requirement under those conditions.

Why this is not PRC 4291:

This is a conceptual landscape architect zoning diagram, not a statutory feasibility analysis.

It shows:
• Zone 0 / Zone 1 / Zone 2 coloring
• tree canopy spacing
• generic CAL FIRE “guidelines and recommendations”
PRC 4291 applies at the structure level and requires clearance outward from each building. For interior buildings, that clearance is constrained by adjacent structures.

The exhibit shows Zone 2 generally across the site, but does not show how interior buildings achieve the required clearance where surrounding buildings limit outward space. In these areas, defensible space is effectively shared and is effectively restricted to Zones 0 and 1. The Zone 2 areas shown are primarily at the site edges. For example, between buildings 3 and 4, and along the interior areas north of buildings 1-5 and south of buildings 6-10, Zone 2 appears only in limited and fragmented areas. The plan does not show a clear Zone 2 area for each building in those locations.

Lastly, this is a design intent exhibit, not evidence supporting a finding that the project complies with PRC 4291 or one that shows the Fire performed a detailed review or measurements.

Continued on next page
Exhibit 3 — Landscape Materials and Planting Guidance Sheet Why this is not PRC 4291:

This sheet provides general materials and spacing guidance for vegetation. It defines Zone 2 as an area extending outward from each structure.

Zone 2 is defined as an outward area from each structure. For interior buildings, that outward area is cut off by adjacent buildings and circulation space. The plan does not show where the Zone 2 area described in this sheet exists for those buildings.

Continued on next page
Exhibit 4 — Wildfire Construction Requirements (Chapter 7A / CRC R337) Why this is not PRC 4291:

This sheet addresses structural hardening:
• ember resistant vents
• tempered glazing
• noncombustible siding
• ignition-resistant materials
PRC 4291 is not about building materials.

Aggregate Conclusion
These exhibits show the site layout, defensible space zones, vegetation standards, and construction requirements.

Exhibit 1 shows where the buildings are placed. This is a 4290 not 4291 requirement.

Exhibit 2 shows defensible space zones across the site.

Exhibit 3 defines how those zones are intended to function.

Exhibit 4 addresses building materials. This is a 7A not 4291, requirement Exhibit 3 defines Zone 2 as an outward area from each structure. In the layout shown that outward area is limited for interior buildings by adjacent structures and circulation space. The plan does not show where the Zone 2 area exists for those. Based on the spacing between interior buildings, the outward area required by Zone 2 is not present for those structures.

The plan does not show that PRC 4291 is satisfied. No document in the record shows that the Fire Authority evaluated or approved compliance with PRC 4291.

From: Vikram Saxena
To: City Attorney"s Office; Kitty Moore; Tina Kapoor; City Clerk Cc: DerChang Kau; [email protected]; [email protected]; Mark Fantozzi Subject: Legal Incompatibility of AB 130 Ministerial Exemption with Discretionary Fire Safety Findings – 10857 Linda Vista Drive
Date: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 12:03:51 PM
Attachments: Attachment_Z_SCCFD_Response_Hector_Estrada.pdf Memo_Gaps_In_Estrada_SCCFD_Response_Revised-3.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor Moore and City Attorney Andrews:

The project at 10857 Linda Vista Drive cannot legally use the AB 130 CEQA exemption.

State law requires projects in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone to have “adopted fire hazard mitigation measures” under all three state fire standards: PRC 4290, PRC 4291, and Chapter 7A of the Building Code (Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(6) (D)). This project does not comply with PRC 4290—it has an exception from it.

The Fire Department’s own approval is titled “Application for Use of Alternate Materials, Methods of Construction, or Modification of Code.” A modification of the code is not compliance with the code.

Beyond this threshold statutory problem, the approval process itself is incompatible with the ministerial pathway AB 130 requires.

Legal Argument: Failure to Meet Ministerial Criteria
Ministerial Streamlining Requirement: AB 130 is designed specifically to streamline housing projects that are ministerial, meaning they must be approved based on a checklist of objective standards without the exercise of personal or professional judgment.

VHFHSZ Exclusion: Projects located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) are explicitly excluded from the AB 130 exemption unless they satisfy specific state fire mitigation measures.

Non-Compliance with Objective Setbacks: The state’s primary objective fire safety standard for these zones is a mandatory 30-foot setback from all property lines (14 C.C.R. § 1276.01).

Discretionary “Exception” Pathway: Rather than meeting this objective 30- foot requirement, the developer is seeking a reduction to as little as 10 feet.

This requires a finding of “Same Practical Effect,” which is a discretionary exception process under 14 C.C.R. § 1270.07.

Legal Incompatibility: Because the project’s fire safety compliance depends on a discretionary “exception” and a subjective “determination” by fire officials, it fails the “objective planning standards” test required for a ministerial CEQA exemption.

Discretionary Judgment vs. Objective Standards in the Estrada Memo The supplemental report from Assistant Fire Chief Hector Estrada (the “Estrada Memo”) confirms that the Fire Department’s analysis is based on professional judgment rather than the application of fixed, objective rules:

1. Qualitative Determinations: The memo explicitly states that staff “determined” the proposed mitigation measures provided “appropriate” alternatives. In a ministerial process, staff should only confirm if a project meets a specific number (e.g., 30 feet); deciding what is “appropriate” is a discretionary act.

2. Subjective Sufficiency: The Fire Department concluded the fuel modification was “sufficient” for safety. “Sufficiency” is a matter of professional opinion and interpretation, not a binary, objective standard.

3. Admitted Deficiencies: The Department’s own internal plan review labels the 10-foot setback as a “deficiency” that is “non-conforming.” Mitigating a documented deficiency through a negotiated set of alternative measures is the definition of a discretionary approval process.

4. Case-by-Case Evaluation: The Estrada Memo confirms that “Same Practical Effect” requests are approved on a “case-by-case basis.” Any process that varies case-by-case based on staff analysis is discretionary and ineligible for a ministerial streamline.

Procedural and Technical Deficiencies
Beyond the discretionary nature of the approval, there are l questions regarding the Estrada Memo’s findings that remain unaddressed. As detailed in the residents’ memorandum of March 31, 2026, these evidentiary gaps include:

An unsupported evacuation finding that lacks any documented traffic modeling or data to back its conclusions.

A failure to reconcile findings with the City’s own Fehr & Peers study, which shows the Linda Vista evacuation corridor is already operating at four times its design capacity.

The omission of two out of five mandatory components required by law to prove “Same Practical Effect” under 14 C.C.R. § 1270.01—specifically water accessibility and fire/address signing.

The missing signature of the City Building Official on the required Alternate Means and Methods Request (AMMR) form, which is a violation of CBC § 104.11.

The City cannot legally rely on a discretionary fire safety “exception”—whose validity has not been tested by technical experts and is based on conclusory statements rather than documented analysis—to justify a ministerial CEQA exemption.

I respectfully request that the Council direct the City Attorney to evaluate whether these discretionary findings, which the record shows suffer from significant evidentiary deficiencies, disqualify the project from its current approval pathway.

Sincerely,
Vikram Saxena
On behalf of Linda Vista Drive Residents

TO: Cupertino City Officials
FROM: Hector Estrada, Assistant Fire Chief
SUBJECT: Housing Development - Linda Vista Drive
As requested by City Manager Kapoor and in response to the questions from the Cupertino City Council, this supplemental staff report provides a summary of the process that led to the Santa Clara County Fire Department’s plan review comments on the Architectural and Site Approval Permit Application for the proposed subdivision at 10857 Linda Vista Drive.

Background
The Santa Clara County Fire Department (“County Fire”) provides fire safety plan review comments for land development in the City of Cupertino. Specifically, County Fire reviews Architectural and Site Approval Permit Applications for compliance with applicable state and local fire safety requirements related to site design.1 County Fire staff then prepares plan review comments and presents them to City officials to support the City’s decision to approve or deny an Architectural and Site Approval Permit Application.

Summary
In January 2026, County Fire staff provided plan review comments on the Architectural and Site Approval Permit Application for the proposed residential subdivision at 10857 Linda Vista Drive (ASA-2024-015) (the “Project” and the “Application”). Because the Project is located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, it is subject to the State Minimum Fire Safe Regulations (“Fire Safe Regulations”) (14 C.C.R. §§ 1270, et seq.), in addition to generally applicable fire safety requirements in the California Building Standards Code.2
The Fire Safe Regulations include an exception request process that allows projects to move forward even if they cannot meet specific site-design criteria.3 Specifically, the Fire Safe Regulations allow for the approval of exception requests on a case-by-case basis if the exception provides “the Same Practical Effect as these regulations towards providing Defensible Space.” (14 C.C.R. § 1270.07.)4 The Application includes a Same Practical Effect exception request for the thirty-foot setbacks required by Section 1276.01 of the Fire Safe Regulations. The applicant proposed the following measures to support the exception request:
(1) Non-combustible material extending five feet horizontally around the buildings. (2) Wildfire home hardening protective measures, including but not limited to a Class A roof, non-combustible exterior building material, protected eave vents, and double paned tempered glass.
1 At the building permit phase, County Fire reviews building permit applica:ons for compliance with addi:onal fire safety requirements, including those related to construc:on.
2 Public Resources Code Sec:on 4290 addresses the applicability of the Fire Safe Regula:ons in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones.
3 The process and standards for approving Same Prac:cal Effect excep:on requests in the Fire Safe Regula:ons are dis:nct from the process and standards for approving for Alternate Materials and Methods Requests (AMMR) in the California Building Standards Code.
4 The Fire Safe Regula:ons define “Same Prac:cal Effect” as “an Excep:on or alterna:ve with the capability of applying accepted wildland fire suppression strategies and tac:cs, and provisions for fire fighter safety, including: (1) access for emergency wildland fire equipment, (2) safe civilian evacua:on, (3) signing that avoids delays in emergency equipment response, (4) available and accessible water to effec:vely aWack Wildfire or defend a Structure from Wildfire, and (5) fuel modifica:on sufficient for civilian and fire fighter safety.” (14 C.C.R. § 1270.01(aa).)

(3) Exterior fire sprinkler heads protecting covered porches and decks that are within thirty feet of the property line.
(4) Fire resistance rated exterior elements within thirty feet of the property lines including:
a. Exterior Walls - Fire resistance rated for one hour. b. Projections (portions of the building protruding beyond exterior walls) - Fire resistance rated for one hour.
c. Penetrations (e.g., mechanical, electrical, plumbing services) - Protected to maintain fire resistance rated assemblies.

Section 1276.01 of the Fire Safe Regulations provides guidance on exception requests related to the thirty-foot setback requirement:

A reduction in the minimum setback shall be based upon practical reasons, which may include but are not limited to, parcel dimensions or size, topographic limitations, Development density requirements or other Development patterns that promote lowcarbon emission outcomes; sensitive habitat; or other site constraints, and shall provide for an alternative method to reduce Structure-to-Structure ignition by incorporating features such as, but not limited to:
(1) non-combustible block walls or fences; or
(2) non-combustible material extending five (5) feet horizontally from the furthest extent of the Building; or
(3) hardscape landscaping; or
(4) a reduction of exposed windows on the side of the Structure with a less than thirty (30) foot setback; or
(5) the most protective requirements in the California Building Code, California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 7A, as required by the Local Jurisdiction. (14 C.C.R. § 1276.01(b).)
Based on our analysis of the site and the combined impact of the measures proposed in the exception request, County Fire staff determined that these measures provide appropriate alternative methods to reduce the risk of structure-to-structure ignition, and County Fire approved the Same Practical Effect exception request for the Application. The Project includes two of the five measures identified in Section 1276.01 as alternative methods to reduce the risk of structure-to-structure ignition and two additional measures: exterior sprinklers and increased fire resistive rated exterior elements. Analyzing these measures based on accepted wildland fire suppression strategies and tactics and provisions for firefighter safety, County Fire staff determined that the exception request provided appropriate access for emergency wildland fire equipment and safe civilian evacuation and that the exception request included fuel modification sufficient for civilian and firefighter safety.

County Fire memorialized its approval of the exception request in its January 7 and January 27 plan review comments, which have been presented to the City Planning Commission and City Council.

County Fire’s plan review comments also notified the applicant that they will need to submit a final fire protection plan, onsite fire hydrant design specifications, and a construction site safety plan as part of their building permit application.

Memorandum: Evidentiary Deficiencies in SCCFD Supplemental Response

MEMORANDUM
TO:Cupertino City Council
FROM:Linda Vista Neighborhood Residents
DATE:March 31, 2026
RE:Evidentiary Deficiencies in the SCCFD Supplemental Memorandum of Assistant Fire Chief Estrada Regarding the Same Practical Effect Exception for the Proposed Development at 10857 Linda Vista Drive (ASA-2024-015)
I. Introduction and Summary
This memorandum responds to the supplemental report submitted by Assistant Fire Chief Hector Estrada of the Santa Clara County Fire Department (“SCCFD”), dated March 2026 and included as Attachment Z in the supplemental packet for the April 1, 2026 City Council hearing on the proposed 51-unit residential development at 10857 Linda Vista Drive.

The Estrada memorandum purports to explain and defend SCCFD’s approval of a Same Practical Effect exception under the State Minimum Fire Safe Regulations (14 C.C.R. §§ 1270 et seq.) for the reduction of mandatory 30-foot setbacks to as little as 10 feet. The memorandum concludes that the exception “provided appropriate access for emergency wildland fire equipment and safe civilian evacuation.”
We submit that this conclusion is unsupported by the evidence, contradicted by the City’s own adopted data, and fails to satisfy the evidentiary standard required for the AB 130 CEQA exemption (PRC § 21080.66) in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Specifically, the memorandum suffers from five critical deficiencies:

1. Unsupported evacuation finding. The memorandum asserts that safe civilian evacuation has been provided but offers no data, analysis, methodology, or modeling to support that conclusion.

2. Failure to address contrary evidence. The memorandum does not reference, address, or reconcile its evacuation finding with the City’s own Fehr & Peers Health and Safety Element Update, which documents that the Linda Vista Drive evacuation corridor operates at approximately four times its design capacity.

3. Incomplete application of the regulatory standard. The memorandum narrows its analysis to structure-to-structure ignition mitigation while the regulatory definition of “Same Practical Effect” requires a five-part finding that includes safe civilian evacuation, emergency equipment access, signing, water supply, and fuel modification.

Memorandum: Evidentiary Deficiencies in SCCFD Supplemental Response

4. Impermissible deferral of compliance. The memorandum defers key fire safety compliance to the building permit phase, while the AB 130 CEQA exemption requires that fire hazard mitigation measures be adopted at the entitlement stage.

5. Procedural recharacterization of the approval process. The memorandum recharacterizes the approval as a Fire Safe Regulations exception rather than an Alternative Means and Methods Request (AMMR). This shift has the effect of bypassing the dual sign-off requirement that the Building Official has not satisfied under CBC § 104.11.

Each of these deficiencies is analyzed below.

II. The Evacuation Finding Is Unsupported by Any Evidence in the Record The final substantive paragraph of the Estrada memorandum states:

County Fire staff determined that the exception request provided appropriate access for emergency wildland fire equipment and safe civilian evacuation and that the exception request included fuel modification sufficient for civilian and firefighter safety.

This sentence is the only statement in the entire memorandum addressing evacuation. It is a bare conclusion. The memorandum provides:
• No evacuation study or analysis;
• No traffic modeling or vehicle count data;
• No volume-to-capacity analysis of the evacuation corridor; • No assessment of the impact of adding 51 units and 102 vehicles to a single-access cul-de-sac;
• No reference to any methodology by which “safe civilian evacuation” was evaluated; and • No explanation of what “safe civilian evacuation” means in the context of a corridor the City’s own data shows is already failing.

Under established principles of California administrative law, a conclusory statement by an agency, unsupported by evidence in the record, does not constitute substantial evidence. (Topanga Ass’n for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 515 [implicit in the substantial evidence standard is the requirement that the agency must set forth findings to bridge the analytic gap between raw evidence and the ultimate decision].) The Estrada memorandum does not set forth the findings necessary to bridge the analytic gap between the evidence in the record and the evacuation conclusion, as Topanga requires.

Memorandum: Evidentiary Deficiencies in SCCFD Supplemental Response III. The Finding Contradicts the City’s Own Adopted Evacuation Data The Estrada memorandum does not merely fail to provide evidence for its evacuation finding. It makes that finding in the face of contrary evidence already in the City’s possession.

The City’s Health and Safety Element Update, prepared by Fehr & Peers, documents the following conditions for evacuation zone CUP-029, which includes the Linda Vista Drive corridor serving the project site:
• McClellan Road, the primary evacuation outlet: volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio of 4.2 • Foothill Boulevard: V/C ratio of 4.0
• Evacuation zone CUP-029 generates 38% of all modeled evacuation trips A volume-to-capacity ratio above 1.0 indicates an oversaturated roadway. Ratios of 4.0 to 4.2 mean the corridor is operating at approximately four times its design capacity during a wildfire evacuation — at current densities. The Fehr & Peers study models the project site at its existing 4-unit residential density. It does not account for the proposed 51-unit development with 102 on-site parking spaces, which would approximately double the evacuation vehicle load generated from this parcel.

SCCFD’s memorandum does not mention this data. It does not distinguish it. It does not explain why its conclusion is consistent with it. An agency finding that is contradicted by evidence in the administrative record, and that provides no explanation for the contradiction, does not constitute substantial evidence. (Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 516 [requiring agencies to disclose “the analytic route the agency traveled from evidence to action”].) IV. The Memorandum Applies the Wrong Standard
A. The Regulatory Definition of “Same Practical Effect” The Fire Safe Regulations define “Same Practical Effect” at 14 C.C.R. § 1271.00 (formerly § 1270.01(aa)) as follows:
“Same Practical Effect: As used in this subchapter, means an exception or alternative with the capability of applying accepted wildland fire suppression strategies and tactics, and provisions for fire fighter safety, including: (a) access for emergency wildland fire equipment, (b) safe civilian evacuation, (c) signing that avoids delays in emergency equipment response, (d) available and accessible water to effectively attack wildfire or defend a structure from wildfire, and (e) fuel modification sufficient for civilian and fire fighter safety.” SCCFD acknowledges this definition. Footnote 4 of the Estrada memorandum reproduces it in full. The memorandum therefore cannot claim ignorance of the standard.

Memorandum: Evidentiary Deficiencies in SCCFD Supplemental Response B. The Analysis Addresses Only One of Five Required Elements Despite reproducing the five-part definition, the substantive analysis in the body of the memorandum focuses almost entirely on a single element: structure-to-structure ignition. The memorandum devotes two paragraphs to explaining how the four proposed mitigation measures reduce “the risk of structure-to-structure ignition.” It identifies which measures correspond to the alternatives listed in § 1276.01(b). This analysis is detailed and specific.

By contrast, the evacuation finding consists of a single sentence with no supporting analysis. The memorandum provides no discussion of:
• How a 51-unit development on a dead-end cul-de-sac satisfies the requirement for “safe civilian evacuation”;
• Whether the existing road network can support simultaneous emergency equipment access and civilian evacuation, as required by § 1273.00; • Whether the signing requirements of element (c) have been satisfied; • Whether the water supply requirements of element (d) have been evaluated at the entitlement stage; or
• How the four proposed mitigation measures — which address building materials and construction standards — provide any capability for civilian evacuation.

The evacuation finding is unsupported by any technical analysis in the memorandum, in contrast to the detailed substantiation provided for the structure-to-structure ignition mitigation. This disparity creates an internally inconsistent record in which building-level safety is documented but corridor-wide life safety is addressed only by assertion.

C. The Proposed Mitigations Have No Functional Relationship to Evacuation The four mitigation measures identified in the Estrada memorandum are: (1) Class A fire-rated roofing, (2) non-combustible exterior wall siding, (3) tempered glass windows, and (4) automatic fire sprinkler systems. Each of these measures addresses structure-to-structure ignition resistance. None of them increases the width of a road, adds an evacuation route, reduces the vehicle count on the Linda Vista Drive corridor, or otherwise has any functional relationship to evacuation capacity.

A finding that reduced setbacks achieve the “same practical effect” as the 30-foot requirement must address all five elements of § 1271.00, including safe civilian evacuation. Mitigations that harden buildings against radiant heat do not, by themselves, demonstrate that residents can safely evacuate through a corridor already operating at four times its design capacity. The memorandum does not explain how building-level mitigations substitute for the evacuation capacity that the 30-foot setback requirement was, in part, designed to protect.

Memorandum: Evidentiary Deficiencies in SCCFD Supplemental Response D. Article 2 of the Fire Safe Regulations Requires Concurrent Evacuation Capacity The Estrada memorandum does not reference Article 2 of the Fire Safe Regulations (§§ 1273.00–1273.09), which governs emergency access and egress. Section 1273.00 states:
“Roads and driveways, whether public or private, unless exempted under 14 CCR § 1270.02(d), shall provide for safe access for emergency wildfire equipment and civilian evacuation concurrently, and shall provide unobstructed traffic circulation during a wildfire emergency.”
This is not a general aspiration. It is a mandatory standard: roads serving the development must support firefighting access and civilian evacuation at the same time. The Fehr & Peers data shows that the Linda Vista Drive corridor is already at approximately four times its design capacity for evacuation alone, before accounting for concurrent emergency vehicle access. The Estrada memorandum does not address whether the Evulich Court cul-de-sac and the Linda Vista Drive corridor can meet this requirement, either at current densities or with the proposed 51-unit addition.

V. The Memorandum Impermissibly Defers Compliance to the Building Permit Stage
Footnote 1 of the Estrada memorandum states: “At the building permit phase, County Fire reviews building permit applications for compliance with additional fire safety requirements, including those related to construction.” The final paragraph further states that the applicant “will need to submit a final fire protection plan, onsite fire hydrant design specifications, and a construction site safety plan as part of their building permit application.” This deferral creates a legal problem for the AB 130 CEQA exemption. Government Code § 65913.4(a)(6)(D) provides that the VHFHSZ exclusion “does not apply to sites that have adopted fire hazard mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards or state fire mitigation measures.” The operative word is “adopted” — past tense. The fire hazard mitigation measures must be in place at the time the CEQA exemption is claimed, not promised for a future permitting stage.

The items deferred to the building permit phase — a final fire protection plan, onsite fire hydrant design specifications, and a construction site safety plan — are not ministerial verification tasks.

They involve substantive design decisions that determine whether the mitigation measures actually achieve the same practical effect as the 30-foot setback. If the fire protection plan has not been finalized, the City cannot assess at the entitlement stage whether the mitigation measures are adequate. This is precisely the problem identified in case law regarding deferred mitigation.

Memorandum: Evidentiary Deficiencies in SCCFD Supplemental Response A CEQA exemption determination is made at the entitlement stage. If material fire safety compliance is deferred to the building permit stage, the exemption condition has not been satisfied at the time the exemption is invoked. The City cannot rely on future compliance to justify a present exemption. (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 306–307 [agency cannot defer mitigation to future date when adequacy of mitigation cannot be assessed at time of project approval].)
VI. The Recharacterization of the Approval Process Sidesteps the Missing Building Official Signature
Footnote 3 of the Estrada memorandum states: “The process and standards for approving Same Practical Effect exception requests in the Fire Safe Regulations are distinct from the process and standards for approving for Alternate Materials and Methods Requests (AMMR) in the California Building Standards Code.”
This footnote is procedurally significant. The AMMR form used by the applicant includes signature lines for both the Fire Official and the Building Official. The Fire Official (SCCFD) has signed. The Building Official (City of Cupertino) has not. Under the California Building Code (§ 104.11) and the California Fire Code (§ 104.10), both officials must independently determine that the proposed alternative is “not less than the equivalent” of the code standard.

By recharacterizing the approval as a Fire Safe Regulations exception under § 1270.06 rather than a Building Code AMMR, the Estrada memorandum establishes a framework in which the Building Official’s signature is not required. This recharacterization should be scrutinized for three reasons:
• The applicant submitted an AMMR form — not a § 1270.06 exception request. The form itself requires dual sign-off.
• The DJP AB 130 qualification memorandum references the AMMR, not a Fire Safe Regulations exception, as the basis for the fire safety compliance finding. • Regardless of the regulatory pathway, the Building Official retains an independent obligation under CBC § 104.11 to evaluate and approve any departure from building standards. That obligation is not discharged by SCCFD’s approval under a different regulatory framework.

The recharacterization does not eliminate the Building Official’s independent review authority over building setbacks and fire-resistive construction. Because the AMMR form remains unsigned by the Building Official, the dual-approval requirement of CBC § 104.11 remains unfulfilled, rendering the current fire safety approval procedurally incomplete.

VII. The AB 130 CEQA Exemption Cannot Rest on This Memorandum

Memorandum: Evidentiary Deficiencies in SCCFD Supplemental Response The AB 130 CEQA exemption (PRC § 21080.66) requires that the project satisfy the site requirements of Government Code § 65913.4(a)(6). For sites in a VHFHSZ, § 65913.4(a)(6)(D) requires that the project have “adopted fire hazard mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards or state fire mitigation measures applicable to the development, including, but not limited to, standards established under Section 4291 of the Public Resources Code.” The DJP AB 130 qualification memorandum relies on SCCFD’s approval as the evidence that fire hazard mitigation measures have been adopted. The Estrada memorandum is the most detailed articulation of that approval in the record. If the Estrada memorandum does not constitute substantial evidence that the state fire mitigation measures have been satisfied — and we submit it does not, for the reasons stated above — then the AB 130 exemption lacks its evidentiary foundation.

The deficiency is particularly acute with respect to evacuation. The Fire Safe Regulations define “Same Practical Effect” to include “safe civilian evacuation” (§ 1271.00). Article 2 requires roads to support evacuation and emergency access concurrently (§ 1273.00). PRC § 4291, specifically named in the statute, was returned as “NOT APPROVED” by SCCFD. The Estrada memorandum asserts evacuation safety but provides no evidence. The City’s own Fehr & Peers data contradicts the assertion. Under these circumstances, where the project’s primary defensible space requirements (PRC § 4291) were marked as “NOT APPROVED” and the evacuation finding is at odds with the City’s own traffic data, the record does not support a finding that “fire hazard mitigation measures” have been legally adopted as required by Government Code § 65913.4(a)(6)(D).

VIII. Request
For the foregoing reasons, we respectfully request that the City Council:

1. Decline to approve the project under the AB 130 CEQA exemption until the evidentiary deficiencies in the fire safety record are addressed, including a documented evacuation analysis that accounts for the proposed density increase on the Linda Vista Drive corridor;

2. Direct staff to obtain from SCCFD a written analysis — not a conclusory statement — explaining how the Same Practical Effect exception satisfies the five-part definition at § 1271.00, with specific attention to safe civilian evacuation under the conditions documented in the Fehr & Peers study;

3. Require the Building Official to complete the evaluation required under CBC § 104.11 and either sign or decline to sign the AMMR form, as the Building Code requires; and

4. If the Council determines it must approve the project notwithstanding these deficiencies, amend the resolution to acknowledge the unresolved evacuation and fire safety concerns,

Memorandum: Evidentiary Deficiencies in SCCFD Supplemental Response as proposed in the separate memorandum submitted by these residents on March 31, 2026.

Respectfully submitted,
Linda Vista Neighborhood Residents

From: Nick Kau
To: City Clerk
Subject: 4/1 Cupertino City Council Document Submission Date: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 12:03:15 PM
Attachments: 20260401 Safety, Privacy and Noise.pptx
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.

I am submitting the following documents to be shared @ Cupertino's City Council Meeting today @ 6:30 for agenda item 3.

Thanks,
Nick
1 Key Issues
• Privacy Impact
• Upper-story windows directly facing neighboring homes • Elevated sightlines eliminate yard and swimming pool
(Cupertino Club) privacy
• Height, Massing, and Setback on Fire Safety Concerns
• Proposed buildings exceed surrounding 1–2 story
context
• 2700 sf homes are not ”starter” homes
• Vertical mass near property lines creates shadowing,
dominance, and safety concerns
• Multi-story structures radiate higher heat load during fire • SummerHill project plan fundamentally inconsistent
with SCCFD Safety recommendation per AC Estrada’s
letter
• Interface Risk Between New and Existing Homes –
• Noise transmission
• height transition
2 Requested
Approval
Conditions
• 2-story limit and roof eaves ≤ 25 ft adjacent to R1
homes
• No windows facing existing residences
• ≥15 ft setback from neighboring structures
• 8-ft fire-resistant Class-A perimeter fence
• Fence construction + maintenance funded by HOA
3 From: DerChang Kau
To: Kitty Moore; City Council
Cc: Floy Andrews; Tina Kapoor; Public Comments; City Clerk Subject: Re: PUBLIC COMMENT - Evulich Court / 10857 Linda Vista Drive - MEETING DATE: APRIL 1, 2026 Agenda #3 Date: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 11:46:04 AM
Attachments: 20260401 - Written Communication and Oral Presentation to Apr-1 CC meeting Agenda 3.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.

This correspondence is submitted to the administrative record in advance of the April 1 City Council meeting on Agenda #3
To:City Mayor Moore and Council
Cc:City Attorney Andrews and Manager Kapoor
City Clerk and Public Comment
From:DerChang Kau, Resident of Cupertino
Date:April 1, 2026
Subject: Written Communication for Oral Presentation in Public Comment of Apr/1 City Council Meeting, Agenda #3
<Please see attached pdf file>
To: City Mayor Moore and Council
Cc: City A1orney Andrews and Manager Kapoor
City Clerk and Public Comment
From: DerChang Kau, Resident of Cuper@no
Date: April 1, 2026
Subject: Wri1en Communica@on for Oral Presenta@on in Public Comment of Apr/1 City Council Mee@ng, Agenda #3 This correspondence is submitted to the administrative record in advance of the April 1 City Council meeting on Agenda #3 Dear Mayor Moore and Council members,
I’m DerChang Kau, speaking for many Cuper@no residents. This project sits in one of the highest wildfire-risk zones in the city, directly on the Monta Vista–Shannon Fault. Tonight, I’ll show how the developer moved from acknowledging these risks to avoiding responsibility for them — and why this creates a real, specific danger to public safety.

1. The EvacuaEon Problem Is Real — and It Was Acknowledged The developer originally admi1ed Evulich Court is in the red wildfire-risk zone. But aZer that acknowledgment, the focus shiZed to only the 51 units, ignoring the cumula@ve risk to the en@re Linda Vista corridor.

In October 2025, SummerHill’s officers recognized the evacua@on problem. I later met with them and walked through my analysis showing a Required Safe Egress Time of more than 90 minutes. That warning was set aside. Their consultants used assump@ons that effec@vely erase our neighbors from the evacua@on map.

Even their own third-party reviewer, Jensen Hughes, stated: “Compliance with codes does not eliminate all hazards and risks.” That is their reviewer saying the plan is not enough.

2. FicEon vs. Fact
The developer’s traffic model claims this project adds only two minutes to evacua@on @me. But the City’s expert, Fehr & Peers, shows something very different: a 200% capacity failure. When a system is opera@ng at double its capacity, cars do not move — they are trapped.

Why the discrepancy?
• The developer counts only residents.
• The City’s expert counts the real popula@on: students from three schools, employees from Apple and many local business, and visitors to see the legend of Silicon Vally.
• The developer assumes perfect condi@ons — clear skies, no smoke, no panic. • The City’s expert uses wildfire condi@ons, where capacity drops from 3 lanes of 900 vehicles per lane to about 570 total.

One is a spreadsheet. The other reflects reality.

3. The Physics of Entrapment
The developer uses a sta@c model, as if traffic flows like a highway. But Linda Vista is a spine-and-rib system. In a wildfire triggered by an earthquake, we face power failure, smoke, blocked lanes, and fire engines. Roadway capacity can fall to one-sixth of ideal.

Fire under Diablo winds spreads 200 feet per minute. A spark within 1.1 miles reaches Evulich Court in 30 minutes. That is our survival window.

Today, evacua@on takes about 26 minutes — barely inside that window. With this project, evacua@on @me jumps to 93.5 minutes.

That creates a 63-minute “death gap.” The last 10% of cars will not escape.

We have seen this pa1ern in real fires: when evacua@on demand exceeds capacity, wildfire outruns the roadway.

4. Your Responsibility
City staff wrote, “The city does not have any adopted standard.” That does not remove your responsibility — it heightens it. When there is no single number, you must rely on expert analysis. And your own expert, Fehr & Peers, shows a catastrophic failure.

This is not about finding a legal hook. It is about moral obliga@on, intellectual honesty, and compassion for the people who live here. You are making a life-and-death decision.

Before approving this project, you must require a full CEQA review and a real mi@ga@on plan.

Closing
History shows this danger is not theore@cal. The Stevens Fire in 2007 happened right here in these hills.

For the safety of our residents, our children, and our elderly, I urge you: Please vote NO unEl a full CEQA review and miEgaEon plan are completed.

Thank you.

From: David Yan
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: Presentation Slides for Agenda Item 3 (Evulich Court) for April 1, 2026 City Council meeting Date: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 11:44:40 AM
Attachments: Evulich Court City Council_Presentation_04.01.2026.pdf Evulich Court City Council_Presentation_04.01.2026.pptx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

For inclusion in the written communications for the April 1st, 2026 City Council meeting and made part of the administrative record for agenda item 3 Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Chao, and Councilmembers:

Please see attached presentation regarding the Evulich Court project. I have included both PowerPoint and PDF formats.

City Clerk - I will be presenting these slides at the meeting. Could you please confirm receipt and arrange for them to be displayed during my presentation? Regards,
David Yan
EVULICH COURT | 10857 LINDA VISTA DRIVE, CUPERTINO
A Case for a Closer Look.

A summary for City Council. April 1, 2026.

What the Council Must Find and What the Record Shows

THE THRESHOLD
Substantial evidence
that the project will
pose a health and
safety hazard.

Government Code Section 66474(f)
Subdivision Map Act
Any one of these grounds
is sufficient for denial.
01 The AB 130 CEQA exemption was never legally available to this project. 02 3 minimum fire requirements for a fire hazard zone were diluted to 1 03 The evacuation corridor was already failing before this project adds a single unit.
04 The stated reason for skipping an evacuation study is contradicted by Applicant and City emails.
05 The City's own study documented that failure and was kept out of the record.
06 The upzoning that created this project was approved without required notice and with an undisclosed conflict of interest.

Ground 1 The AB 130 Exemption Was Never Legally Available

THE RULE
A project in a Very High Fire Hazard
Severity Zone is ineligible for the AB 130
CEQA exemption.

PRC Section 21080.66
Government Code Section 65913.4(a)(6)(D)
BUT

THE NARROW CARVEOUT
There is one exception. It applies only if the site has adopted fire hazard mitigation measures pursuant to
existing standards — measures that must be formally
adopted before the project invokes the exemption.

WHAT THE CITY CLAIMED
Title 16 of the Cupertino Municipal Code satisfies the
carveout: the baseline Residential Code, Wildland Urban Interface Code, and Fire Code.

These are baseline codes that apply to every project in every jurisdiction in California. If they satisfied the carveout, the exclusion would have no effect.

The Legislature would have written it for nothing.

WHY THE CARVEOUT IS NOT MET
Cupertino has no adopted wildfire mitigation framework for Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones: no ordinance, no
overlay, no general plan policy.

The statute uses the word "adopted" a formal governmental act. Project level compliance approved during your own
review is not adoption.

The Application proposed accepts all AB130’s benefits while discarding its most basic requirements.

Ground 2 Three Separate Minimum Fire Signoffs Became Diluted into One AB 130 requires compliance with all three: PRC 4290, PRC 4291, and Chapter 7A. The statute uses the word “ALL." They are not alternatives.
7A – Building Materials

REVIEWED
Reviewed by: Jensen Hughes
Structural hardening: ember resistant
vents, tempered glazing, noncombustible
siding, ignition resistant materials. Governs
how buildings are built.
4290 - Setback

USED ALTERNATE MEANS
Reviewed by: Jensen Hughes / Fire Authority
Setback and building separation distance.

A 30 foot requirement was reduced to 10
feet via an Alternative Means and
Methods Report exception.
4291 – Defensible Space

NOT REVIEWED BY ANYONE
Reviewed by: No party
Defensible space: Zone 0 – 2 clearance
around each structure.

Absent from:
- Applicant consultant memo
- Fire Signoff,
- Assistant Chief Estrada memo
- David J. Powers AB 130 qualification
memo.

Not mentioned once.

The Fire Authority's scope mirrors Jensen Hughes exactly. Both reviewed 4290. Neither reviewed 4291. That is the boundary of what was actually evaluated.

Ground 3 The Evacuation Corridor Was Already Failing
All data below is from the Fehr and Peers Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment, commissioned by the City of Cupertino, October 2025. >200%
McClellan Road
capacity under
evacuation conditions
Fehr and Peers Table 11
>200%
Bubb Road
capacity under
evacuation conditions
Fehr and Peers Table 11

4.2x
V/C ratio on McClellan
Road east of Bubb Road
under evacuation load
420% of physical capacity
ZERO
Corridor evacuation
analyses in the record
before project approval
Across the entire proceeding
WHAT OVER 200% MEANS
At 100% utilization a standing queue forms and does not resolve. Both exits to Linda Vista Drive, McClellan Road and Bubb Road were already at more than 2X their physical capacity under evacuation conditions before this project adds a single vehicle. The queue does not form at the intersection. It forms on Linda Vista Drive itself, trapping residents before they ever reach an exit.

This is not a future risk. It is a current condition documented by the City's own consultant 6 months before the Planning Commission hearing. Linda Vista Drive has not changed in 50 years. No application date, project clearance or vesting predates the conditions.

Ground 4 The Justification for Not Studying Evacuation Was Built Backward THE DEVELOPER'S CLAIM (FEB 12, 2026)
Applicant’s February 12, 2026 attorney letter states the developer relied on the April 2025 HAA consistency
clearance.

No evacuation study was commissioned because evacuation was not flagged during that review window, the project was deemed consistent.

In other words: the question was resolved in April
2025. There was no reason to commission a study
after that.

VS
WHAT THE RECORD SHOWS (OCT 10, 2025)
But in October 10, 2025 six months after that supposed
clearance, Summerhill emailed the Cityr to ask for criteria for an evacuation route study.

The City’s Planner replied on October 16, 2025 that an
Evacuation Study was no longer needed under AB 130 CEQA Exemption. This is the real reason evacuation was not
studied.

That interpretation is incorrect as CEQA is not the only requirement for Evacuation. Ignores the Subdivision Map Act.

A developer does not commission an evacuation study in October 2025 if it resolved the evacuation question in April 2025. The October email makes the April reliance story impossible. It was not the reason the study was skipped. It was the reason constructed after evacuation became a threat to the project's approval.

They cannot be read together and produce approval.

Ground 5 The City Had the Evidence and Kept It Out of the Record OCTOBER 2025
City receives Fehr and Peers study.

Both exits at over 200% of physical capacity under evacuation conditions. The City routed the study to the Safety Element update process.

FEBRUARY 24, 2026
Planning Commission approves the project without being provided the study The Fehr and Peers study is not in the administrative record. It was not disclosed to commissioners. It was not disclosed to the public. The vote was taken without the City's own technical findings about the corridor's evacuation capacity.

MARCH 9, 2026
Study produced for the first time on March 9th.

Two weeks after the Planning Commission vote, the Fehr and Peers study was produced as part of the Health and Safety element. Despite its direct relevance to Evulich, the City plans on ignoring it.

The Subdivision Map Act requires a present tense safety finding at the time of approval. The study exists. The City to consider it for Evulich.

When Residents Raised Evacuation, the Applicant Submitted a Study Hours Before the Planned March 17, 2026 Meeting. It Measured the Wrong Thing
LEG 1: Linda Vista Drive to Bubb or McClellan LEG 2: Bubb / McClellan intersection START
51 units
add
INTER

SECT EXIT
Residents queued
on Linda Vista Drive
New conflict point
inserted mid-corridor
Hexagon's
measurement scope

WHAT HEXAGON MEASURED
Clearance time through the Bubb Road / McClellan Road
intersection: 61 minutes with the project. but already failing even by their own account.

Hexagon counted 3 outbound lanes at the of Bubb / McClellan

1.1 miles away 900 vehicles per hour each - 2,700 total.

McClellan Road and Bubb Road each only carry 570 vehicles per hour the Fehr and Peers report the City wants to ignore.

Hexagon did not.

WHAT HEXAGON LEFT UNMEASURED
The time to travel along Linda Vista Drive before reaching the intersection was not measured at all.

DerChang Kau, a Professor of Engineering, applied standard traffic queuing modeling to estimate clearance of the Linda Vista corridor at approx. 93 minutes. This is not a competing estimate.

It is the upstream leg Hexagon omitted. Both legs must be completed in sequence.

Hexagon's 61 minutes begins only after Kau's 93 minutes end.

The true evacuation time materially exceeds 61 minutes
Ground 6 The Upzoning That Created This Project Was Procedurally Invalid

TWO INDEPENDENT FAILURES
1 No mailed notice reached a single neighbor.

Code Sections 65090 and 65091 require mailed notice to all property owners within 300 feet.

Not a single resident received a notification.
2 Councilmember Mohan voted with an
undisclosed conflict of interest.

A property between 500 and 1,000 feet triggers a
disqualifying interest when the decision has a reasonably foreseeable material financial effect.

Rezoning an adjacent parcel from R1 to R3 does exactly that.

Recusal on the Evulich was procedurally available. She did not take it.

Email | November 5, 2024 | From: Luke Connolly, Asst. Director, Community Development
Subject: RE: request for copy of mailer/postcard to residents regarding rezoning
Let me clarify what I said at the August 22 meeting... There was a citywide mailing done in January 2022 when the Housing Element update was kicking off...
"In July of this year when the four Evulich parcels were rezoned, along with 54 other parcels in the City, there was not a similar citywide mailed notification to residents..." ...notice was provided through newspaper publication, the City's website and e-notifications to residents who had signed up to receive notification of public meetings.

Luke Connolly
Assistant Director of Community Development
City of Cupertino
The City's own Assistant Director of Community Development confirmed in writing that no mailed notice was sent to residents when the Evulich parcels were upzoned. 745 residents later signed a petition.

It was never acknowledged.

THE RECORD
The Council cannot approve
this project on this record.
01 The AB 130 CEQA exemption does not apply. Cupertino never adopted a wildfire mitigation framework for Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones beyond baseline minimum standards already in existence. 02 PRC 4291 was never reviewed or approved by any party. This is 1 of 3 required approvals. 03 Both evacuation exits operate at over 200% of physical capacity under existing conditions. The corridor fails today, before a single unit is added.
04 The City's own Fehr and Peers study documented that failure and was kept out of the record before the Planning Commission hearing. It must be considered now.
05 The developer's justification for skipping an evacuation study was constructed after the fact. The October 2025 email makes their explanation impossible.
06 The upzoning was approved without legally required mailed notice to nearby residents and with an undisclosed conflict of interest at the deciding vote.

Any one of these grounds independently requires denial. Together, they leave no room for a lawful approval.

From: Emi Sugiyama
To: City Clerk
Subject: FW: AB 130 & VHFSZ
Date: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 11:11:40 AM
Attachments: AB 130 VHFSZ-3.24.26 - signed.pdf
For inclusion in written communication.

Emi Sugiyama
Senior Planner
Community Development
[email protected]
(408)777-3205
From: Kristy Weis <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 4:52 PM
To: Emi Sugiyama <[email protected]>
Cc: Nick Towstopiat <[email protected]>
Subject: AB 130 & VHFSZ
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Emi,
Please see the attached.

Best,
Kristy
Kristy L. Weis | Vice President & Principal PM
David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.
1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 | San José, CA 95126
Main: 408.248.3500 | Direct: 408.454.3428
[email protected]
DJP&A is a certified Green Business, DBE, and MWBE
Note: I will be out of office April 13-17
1 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com March 25, 2026
Emi Sugiyama, Senior Planner
City of Cupertino
Community Development
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Sent via email to: [email protected]
RE: AB 130 Qualification for Sites Located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone Dear Emi Sugiyama:

We at David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. are writing to provide clarification regarding the qualification of housing projects located within Very High Fire Severity Zones (VHFHSZ) under Assembly Bill 130 (AB 130).

AB 130 exempts qualifying housing projects from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). AB 130 became effective on June 30, 2025 and is codified in Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080.66.

Per PRC Section 21080.66(a)(6), projects must satisfy the requirements specified in paragraph (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4 of the Government Code. Per Government Code Section 65913.4(a)(6):

The development is not located on a site that is any of the following…(D) Within a very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 51178, or within the state responsibility area, as defined in Section 4102 of the Public Resources Code. This subparagraph does not apply to sites that have adopted fire hazard mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards or state fire mitigation measures applicable to the development, including but not limited to, standards established under all of the following or their successor provisions: (i) Section 4291 of Public Resources Code or Section 51182, as applicable. (ii) Section 4290 of the Public Resources Code. (iii) Chapter 7A of the California Building Code (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations).
2 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com In other words, AB 130 does not prohibit development within VHFHSZ, rather, development proposed within VHFHSZ are permitted under AB 130 provided that applicable fire mitigation measures are implemented.

Thank you for this opportunity to provide clarity on this issue.

Respectfully,
Kristy L. Weis
Vice President/Principal Project Manager
Shannon George
Vice President/Principal Project Manager
AB 130 VHFSZ-3.24.26
Final Audit Report 2026-03-25
Created: 2026-03-25
By: Kristy Weis ([email protected])
Status: Signed
Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAADaLVYKNFgh8qfJhMVe9cFNiAZXUWcXBw "AB 130 VHFSZ-3.24.26" History
Document created by Kristy Weis ([email protected]) 2026-03-25 - 11:32:29 PM GMT
Document emailed to Kristy Weis ([email protected]) for signature 2026-03-25 - 11:32:33 PM GMT
Email viewed by Kristy Weis ([email protected])
2026-03-25 - 11:32:54 PM GMT
Document e-signed by Kristy Weis ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2026-03-25 - 11:33:06 PM GMT - Time Source: server Document emailed to Shannon George ([email protected]) for signature 2026-03-25 - 11:33:08 PM GMT
Email viewed by Shannon George ([email protected]) 2026-03-25 - 11:47:28 PM GMT
Document e-signed by Shannon George ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2026-03-25 - 11:47:40 PM GMT - Time Source: server Agreement completed.
2026-03-25 - 11:47:40 PM GMT
From: Vikram Saxena
To: City Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Evulich Court: Response to Hector Estrada Memo Date: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 10:58:56 AM
Attachments: Memo_Gaps_In_Estrada_SCCFD_Response_Revised.docx Attachment_Z_SCCFD_Response_Hector_Estrada.pdf
F - Alternative Means and Methods Request Approval.pdf
Attachment_SCCFD_Plan_Review_Comments_2025-12-29.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Clerk:

Please do enter this into Written Communications for the Evulich court -Summerhill agenda item.

And thans for keeping up with the flurry of emails from the residents :) -Vikram
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Vikram Saxena <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 11:14 AM
Subject: Evulich Court: Response to Hector Estrada Memo To: Kitty Moore <[email protected]>, Tina Kapoor <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Cc: DerChang Kau <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, City Clerk <[email protected]> Dear Mayor Moore, City Manager Kapoor, and City Attorney Andrews, Please find attached our response to Assistant Fire Chief Hector Estrada's letter regarding the Evulich Court project.

AB130 is not supposed to apply to VHFHSZ and the bar for any exception must be high, and the evidence should demonstrate that risk to public safety is mitigated. The enclosed document identifies why the memo does not address significant concerns, and is not sufficient to permit an approval under AB 130.

I urge you to review these points.

I also empathize with the challenges the City Attorney and the Council faces, and suggest that, if felt appropriate, the city consider additional technical/legal counsel on this matter prior to the upcoming meeting.

Your Sincerely,
Vikram Saxena on behalf of Linda Vista Neighborhood Residents Attached:

1. Gap in Estrada Response

2. Estrada Response

3. AMMR (part of packet)

4. Dec 29 SCC FD Review (via PRA)

fra) SANTA E DEPARTMENT
1315 Dell Avenue, Campbell, CA 95008 | (408) 378-4010 | SCCFD.org

FIRE PREVENTION PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS

PROJECT

FIRE DEPT
INFO:

PLAN REVIEW #:|

251740

PREPARED
NAME/TITLE:|
BY:

Caleb Flanagan
CITY/COUNTY PROJECT #:|

™-2024-009 /ASA-2024-015/TR- | EMAIL:|

[email protected]

2024-044
LOCATION:| 10857 Linda Vista Dr DATE: 12/29/25

PROJECT NAME:| Multi-family subdivision
The scope of this project includes the following:

Proposed new 10 building 51 unit multi-family residential subdivision.

Plans Status:

Plans are NOT APPROVED. Revise and resubmit drawings and provide a response letter addressing comments on this plan review.

Plan Review Comments
**1. PRC 4290: This project shall comply with PRC 4290 comments. Exception request to PRC 4290 submitted and under review.

**2. Provide a "Preliminary Fire Protection Plan". This plan shall address fire department access, egress, road and address signage, water supply in addition to fuel reduction in accordance with Public Resources Code (PRC) 4290; the defensible space requirements in accordance with PRC 4291 or Government Code 51182; and the applicable building codes and standards for wildfire safety. The plan shall identify mitigation measures to address the project's specific wildfire risk and shall include the information required in CFC section 4903.2.1. [CFC section 4903] This review shall not be construed to be an approval of a violation of the provisions of the California Fire Code or of other laws or regulations of the jurisdiction. A permit presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of the fire code or other such laws or regulations shall not be valid.

Any addition to or alteration of approved construction documents shall be approved in advance. [CFC, Ch. 1, 105.3.6]

TO: Cupertino City Officials
FROM: Hector Estrada, Assistant Fire Chief
SUBJECT: Housing Development - Linda Vista Drive
As requested by City Manager Kapoor and in response to the questions from the Cupertino City Council, this supplemental staff report provides a summary of the process that led to the Santa Clara County Fire Department’s plan review comments on the Architectural and Site Approval Permit Application for the proposed subdivision at 10857 Linda Vista Drive.

Background
The Santa Clara County Fire Department (“County Fire”) provides fire safety plan review comments for land development in the City of Cupertino. Specifically, County Fire reviews Architectural and Site Approval Permit Applications for compliance with applicable state and local fire safety requirements related to site design.1 County Fire staff then prepares plan review comments and presents them to City officials to support the City’s decision to approve or deny an Architectural and Site Approval Permit Application.

Summary
In January 2026, County Fire staff provided plan review comments on the Architectural and Site Approval Permit Application for the proposed residential subdivision at 10857 Linda Vista Drive (ASA-2024-015) (the “Project” and the “Application”). Because the Project is located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, it is subject to the State Minimum Fire Safe Regulations (“Fire Safe Regulations”) (14 C.C.R. §§ 1270, et seq.), in addition to generally applicable fire safety requirements in the California Building Standards Code.2
The Fire Safe Regulations include an exception request process that allows projects to move forward even if they cannot meet specific site-design criteria.3 Specifically, the Fire Safe Regulations allow for the approval of exception requests on a case-by-case basis if the exception provides “the Same Practical Effect as these regulations towards providing Defensible Space.” (14 C.C.R. § 1270.07.)4 The Application includes a Same Practical Effect exception request for the thirty-foot setbacks required by Section 1276.01 of the Fire Safe Regulations. The applicant proposed the following measures to support the exception request:
(1) Non-combustible material extending five feet horizontally around the buildings. (2) Wildfire home hardening protective measures, including but not limited to a Class A roof, non-combustible exterior building material, protected eave vents, and double paned tempered glass.
1 At the building permit phase, County Fire reviews building permit applica:ons for compliance with addi:onal fire safety requirements, including those related to construc:on.
2 Public Resources Code Sec:on 4290 addresses the applicability of the Fire Safe Regula:ons in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones.
3 The process and standards for approving Same Prac:cal Effect excep:on requests in the Fire Safe Regula:ons are dis:nct from the process and standards for approving for Alternate Materials and Methods Requests (AMMR) in the California Building Standards Code.
4 The Fire Safe Regula:ons define “Same Prac:cal Effect” as “an Excep:on or alterna:ve with the capability of applying accepted wildland fire suppression strategies and tac:cs, and provisions for fire fighter safety, including: (1) access for emergency wildland fire equipment, (2) safe civilian evacua:on, (3) signing that avoids delays in emergency equipment response, (4) available and accessible water to effec:vely aWack Wildfire or defend a Structure from Wildfire, and (5) fuel modifica:on sufficient for civilian and fire fighter safety.” (14 C.C.R. § 1270.01(aa).)

(3) Exterior fire sprinkler heads protecting covered porches and decks that are within thirty feet of the property line.
(4) Fire resistance rated exterior elements within thirty feet of the property lines including:
a. Exterior Walls - Fire resistance rated for one hour. b. Projections (portions of the building protruding beyond exterior walls) - Fire resistance rated for one hour.
c. Penetrations (e.g., mechanical, electrical, plumbing services) - Protected to maintain fire resistance rated assemblies.

Section 1276.01 of the Fire Safe Regulations provides guidance on exception requests related to the thirty-foot setback requirement:

A reduction in the minimum setback shall be based upon practical reasons, which may include but are not limited to, parcel dimensions or size, topographic limitations, Development density requirements or other Development patterns that promote lowcarbon emission outcomes; sensitive habitat; or other site constraints, and shall provide for an alternative method to reduce Structure-to-Structure ignition by incorporating features such as, but not limited to:
(1) non-combustible block walls or fences; or
(2) non-combustible material extending five (5) feet horizontally from the furthest extent of the Building; or
(3) hardscape landscaping; or
(4) a reduction of exposed windows on the side of the Structure with a less than thirty (30) foot setback; or
(5) the most protective requirements in the California Building Code, California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 7A, as required by the Local Jurisdiction. (14 C.C.R. § 1276.01(b).)
Based on our analysis of the site and the combined impact of the measures proposed in the exception request, County Fire staff determined that these measures provide appropriate alternative methods to reduce the risk of structure-to-structure ignition, and County Fire approved the Same Practical Effect exception request for the Application. The Project includes two of the five measures identified in Section 1276.01 as alternative methods to reduce the risk of structure-to-structure ignition and two additional measures: exterior sprinklers and increased fire resistive rated exterior elements. Analyzing these measures based on accepted wildland fire suppression strategies and tactics and provisions for firefighter safety, County Fire staff determined that the exception request provided appropriate access for emergency wildland fire equipment and safe civilian evacuation and that the exception request included fuel modification sufficient for civilian and firefighter safety.

County Fire memorialized its approval of the exception request in its January 7 and January 27 plan review comments, which have been presented to the City Planning Commission and City Council.

County Fire’s plan review comments also notified the applicant that they will need to submit a final fire protection plan, onsite fire hydrant design specifications, and a construction site safety plan as part of their building permit application.

D STREET A STREET B STREET C STREET E STREET LINDA VISTA DRIVE (PUBLIC ROAD)

EVULICH COURT
(PUBLIC ROAD)
BLDG 6
BLDG 1 BLDG 2 BLDG 3 BLDG 4 BLDG 5
BLDG 7
BLDG 8 BLDG 9 BLDG 10
H:\3988-000\ACAD\EXHIBITS\XB-033_SETBACK SITE PLAN.DWG

SETBACK SITE PLAN
10857 LINDA VISTA DRIVE

CITY OF CUPERTINO SANTA CLARA COUNTY CALIFORNIA
SCALE: 1" = 20' DATE: SEPTEMBER 15, 2025
0 20 40 60 CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS

SAN RAMON
WWW.CBANDG.COM

ROSEVILLE
(925) 866-0322
(916) 788-4456
LEGEND

ABBREVIATIONS

381.07810857 Linda Vista Drive Cupertino, CA September 15, 2025 3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583 650-857-0122 PROJECT DATA A08 WILDFIRE PROTECTION CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS BEING LOCATED IN A LOCAL RESPONSIBILITY AREA (LRA) VERY HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONE. THE PROJECT SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE SECTION R337, MATERIALS AND METHODS FOR EXTERIOR WILDFIRE EXPOSURE, AS FOLLOWS: 1. EXTERIOR WINDOWS AND EXTERIOR DOORS WITH GLAZING EXTERIOR WINDOWS AND EXTERIOR DOORS WITH GLAZING, SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF MULTI-PANE GLAZING WITH A MINIMUM OF ONE TEMPERED PANE. (C.R.C. R337.8.2.1) 2. EXTERIOR DOORS SHALL MEET ONE OF THE FOLLOWING (C.R.C. R337.8.3): A. THE EXTERIOR SURFACE OR CLADDING SHALL BE OF NON-COMBUSTIBLE OR IGNITION-RESISTANT MATERIAL. B. SHALL HAVE A FIRE-RESISTANCE RATING OF NOT LESS THAN 20 MIN. WHEN TESTED ACCORDING TO NFPA 252. SHALL BE TESTED TO MEET THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF SFM STANDARD 12-7A-1. 3. GARAGE DOORS SHALL RESIST THE INTRUSION OF EMBERS FROM ENTERING BY PREVENTING GAPS BETWEEN DOORS AND DOOR OPENINGS, AT HTE BOTTOM, SIDES, AND TOPS OF DOORS, FROM EXCEEDING 1/8". gAPS BETWEEN DOORS AND DOOR OPENINGS SHALL BE CONTROLLED BY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING METHODS: A. WEATHER STRIPPING PRODUCTS MADE OF MATERIALS THAT: (A) HAVE BEEN TESTED FOR TENSILE STRENGTH IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D638 AFTER EXPOSURE TO ASTM G155 FOR A PERIOD OF 2,000 HOURS, WHERE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DIFFERENCE IN TENSILE STRENGTH VALUES BETWEEN EXPOSED AND NONEXPOSED SAMPLES DO NOT EXCEED 10% AND (B) EXHIBIT A V-2 OR BETTER FLAMMABILITY RATING WHEN TESTED TO UL 94. B. DOOR OVERLAPS ONTO JAMBS AND HEADERS. C. GARAGE DOOR JAMBS AND HEADERS COVERED WITH METAL FLASHING 4. VENTS SHALL RESIST BUILDING IGNITION FROM THE INTRUSION OF BURNING EMBERS AND FLAME THROUGH THE VENTILATION OPENINGS WITH THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (C.R.C. R337.6) A. THE DIMENSIONS OF THE OPENINGS THEREIN SHALL BE A MIN. OF 1/16TH INCH AND SHALL NOT EXCEED 1/8TH INCH. B. THE MATERIALS SHALL BE INCOMBUSTIBLE C. THE MATERIALS USED SHALL BE CORROSION RESISTANT. 5. THE EXTERIOR WALL COVERING OR WALL ASSEMBLY SHALL COMPLY WITH ONE OF THE FOLLOWING C.R.C. R337.7.3: A. NONCOMBUSTIBLE MATERIAL. B. IGNITION- RESISTANT MATERIAL. C. SAWN LUMBER OR GLUE-LAMINATED WOOD WITH THE SMALLEST MINIMUM NOMINAL DIMENSION OF 4". SAWN OR GLUE-LAMINATED PLANKS SPLINED, TONGUE-AND-GROOVE, OR SET CLOSE TOGETHER AND WELL SPIKED. D. LOG WALL CONSTRUCTION. E. WALL ASSEMBLIES THAT HAVE BEEN TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEST PROCEDURES FOR A 10-MINUTE DIRECT FLAME CONTACT EXPOSURE TEST SET FORTH IN ASTM E2707 WITH THE CONDITIONS OF ACCEPTANCE SHOWN IN SECTION R337.7.3.1. F. WALL ASSEMBLIES THAT MEET THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS CRITERIA IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEST PROCEDURES FOR A 10-MINUTE DIRECT FLAME CONTACT EXPOSURE TEST SET FORTH IN SFM STANDARD 12-7A-1. EXCEPTIONS: ANY OF THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE DEEMED TO MEET THE ASSEMBLY PERFORMANCE CRITERIA AND INTENT OF THIS SECTION: A. ONE LAYER OF 5/8" TYPE X GYPSUM SHEATHING APPLIED BEHIND THE EXTERIOR COVERING OR CLADDING ON THE EXTERIOR SIDE OF THE FRAMING. B. THE EXTERIOR PORTION OF A 1-HOUR FIRE RESISTIVE EXTERIOR WALL ASSEMBLY DESIGNED FOR EXTERIOR FIRE EXPOSURE INCLUDING ASSEMBLIES USING GYPSUM PANEL AND SHEATHING PRODUCTS LISTED IN THE GYPSUM ASSOCIATION FIRE RESISTIVE FIRE DESIGN MANUAL. 6. DECKING SURFACES SHALL COMPLY WITH C.R.C. R337.9.3. THE WALKING SURFACE MATERIAL OF DECKS, PORCHES, BALCONY AND STAIRS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH ONE OF THE FOLLOWING MATERIALS: A. MATERIAL THAT COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION R337.9.4 WHEN TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH BOTH ASTM E2632 AND ASTM E2726. B. IGNITION-RESISTANT MATERIAL THAT COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION R337.4.3 WHEN TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM E84 OR UL 723. C. MATERIAL THAT COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF BOTH SFM STANDARD 12-7A-4 AND SFM STANDARD 12-7A-5. D. EXTERIOR FIRE RETARDANT TREATED WOOD. E. NONCOMBUSTIBLE MATERIAL. F. ANY MATERIAL THAT COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF SFM STANDARD 12-7A-4A WHEN ATTACHED EXTERIOR WALL COVERING IS ALSO COMPOSED OF NONCOMBUSTIBLE OR IGNITION-RESISTANT MATERIAL. EXCEPTION: WALL MATERIAL MAY BE OF ANY MATERIAL THAT OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THIS CHAPTER WHEN THE DECKING SURFACE MATERIAL COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS ASTM E84 WITH A CLASS B FLAME SPREAD RATING. G. AY MATERIAL THAT COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION R337.9.5 WHEN TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM E2632 AND WHEN ATTACHED EXTERIOR WALL COVERING IS ALSO COMPOSED OF ONLY NONCOMBUSTIBLE OR IGNITION-RESISTANT MATERIALS. EXCEPTION: WALL MATERIAL SHALL BE PERMITTED TO BE OF ANY MATERIAL THAT OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THIS CHAPTER WHEN THE DECKING SURFACE MATERIAL COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS ASTM E84 WITH A CLASS B FLAME SPREAD INDEX.

Memorandum: Evidentiary Deficiencies in SCCFD Supplemental Response