Written Communications (updated 4-7-26) — Cupertino City Council, April 1, 2026 (part 1 of 5)

CC 4-01-2026
#3
Linda Vista / Evulich
Project
Written Communications
From: Rhoda Fry
To: Public Comments
Subject: 4/1/2026 Agenda #3 Linda Vista - hold off on the details Date: Sunday, March 29, 2026 7:34:20 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council,
Apologies for the flurry of emails.

1. Please vote on the park-fee waiver separately. It should not be bundled into your vote on other aspects of the project.

2. Please require the developer to select a more appropriate tree. The developer proposes Chinese Pistache. Although it is more fire-resistant than some trees, it is very susceptible to Verticillium wilt which kills trees. Verticillium is very common in old orchards and this property is in an old orchard.

Thanks, Rhoda
From: Tania Chen
To: Public Comments; Public Comments; City Clerk; City Council; City Attorney"s Office Cc: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.

Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT - Evulich Court / 10857 Linda Vista Drive - MEETING DATE: APRIL 1, 2026 Date: Saturday, March 28, 2026 3:40:46 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council,
Due to a formatting issue in my previous email (text appearing in white font), I am resending my public comment to be included in the official administrative record for the April 1, 2026, City Council meeting.

I am a resident of the Linda Vista neighborhood directly impacted by the proposed Evulich Court development. I am submitting this formal objection for the administrative record based on substantial evidence already shared with the Planning Committee and the City through oral comments and written email that this project poses specific, adverse impacts to public health and safety that cannot be mitigated.

Executive Summary (Decision-Critical Risk)
Under California Government Code § 65589.5(j)(1)(Housing Accountability Act), the City has a non-discretionary duty to deny a project that creates an unmitigable, specific adverse safety impact.

Recent California appellate decisions (2023–2025 trendline) have materially raised the legal bar for wildfire and evacuation analysis under CEQA:

Courts now require realistic, data-driven evacuation modeling, not assumptions or generalized conclusions
Courts have invalidated approvals where agencies failed to analyze real-world conditions and community-wide evacuation constraints, not just project-level impacts
Courts have specifically rejected EIRs that fail to evaluate wildfire risk and evacuation impacts together and cumulatively
Implication: Approval without resolving these deficiencies creates clear legal exposure and administrative vulnerability.

1. Emergency Evacuation Failure (Life-Safety Risk)
The Linda Vista area is defined by:

Limited ingress/egress (Bubb Road and McClellan Avenue) Constrained roadway geometry
High congestion under emergency conditions (and can be expected to be worse during commute or school drop-off hours)
Evidence already submitted to the City—including the Fehr & Peers study (October 2025) and February planning materials—demonstrates:

Existing evacuation routes operating at ~200% capacity
Current evacuation time: ~26.5 minutes
Projected evacuation time with development (51 units, ~100+ vehicles): ~90 minutes Critical Benchmark:

Wildfire evacuation survivability thresholds in VHFHSZ conditions are ~30 minutes.

Legal Relevance (Case Law Alignment):

Courts have rejected analyses that fail to consider how new residents worsen evacuation delays on shared routes
Courts require quantitative, scenario-based evacuation modeling, not unsupported conclusions
Conclusion:

A projected ~90-minute evacuation is not a marginal impact—it is a systemic failure of life-safety infrastructure.

2. High Wildfire Risk Exposure
The project is located within:

Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ))
Risk amplifiers include:

Vegetation fuel load
Canyon/topographic fire spread dynamics
Limited defensible space
Recent Appellate Direction (2024):

In People ex rel. Bonta v. County of Lake (2024), the Court of Appeal emphasized that wildfire risks must be rigorously analyzed and cannot rely on uncertain or speculative mitigation measures
Courts recognize that adding population increases ignition risk and overall wildfire exposure
Implication:

This project increases both:

Probability of wildfire exposure severity
Evacuation demand and fatality

3. Inadequate Fire Setback (AMMR)
The proposed setback reduction from 30 feet to 10 feet:

Weakens a primary fire protection standard
Does not address ember intrusion or radiant heat
Does not mitigate evacuation constraints
Legal Context:

Recent CEQA rulings emphasize that mitigation must be effective, enforceable, and evidence-based—not speculative or design-based substitutes Conclusion:

This is a non-equivalent substitution of a critical safety control.

4. CEQA Compliance and Cumulative Impact Requirement
Under CEQA:

Agencies must evaluate whether a project impairs emergency evacuation plans Analysis must consider cumulative, community-wide evacuation impacts, not just project residents
Recent Case Law Reinforcement:

Courts have invalidated approvals where agencies failed to analyze regional evacuation system performance
Unsupported expert opinion without factual basis does not constitute substantial evidence
Key Deficiency in Current Record:

The City has not demonstrated that:

1. Evacuation meets acceptable safety thresholds

2. Fire risk is fully mitigated

3. Infrastructure capacity supports proposed density

5. Real-World Wildfire Evidence (Risk Realization)
Recent California wildfires demonstrate the real consequences of evacuation failure:

The 2025 Palisades Fire forced over 100,000 evacuations, with gridlocked roads and residents abandoning vehicles to flee on foot
Similar events highlight how constrained road networks fail under stress, validating the exact risk pattern identified in Linda Vista Implication:

The modeled evacuation failure scenario is not theoretical—it is empirically observed in recent California fires.

6. Fire Apparatus Access Failure (AutoTURN Deficiency)
The project relies on a hammerhead turnaround design on a dead-end roadway for emergency access.

Critical Missing Evidence:

There is no administrative record of an AutoTURN (or equivalent swept-path) simulation or analysis demonstrating that the largest responding fire apparatus can safely:

Enter the site
Navigate internal circulation
Execute a compliant turnaround within the hammerhead
Applicable Apparatus Standard (Santa Clara County)
The Santa Clara County Fire Department, which serves this area, operates tractor-drawn aerial (TDA) ladder trucks, including:
~101-foot aerial ladder (KME AerialCat platform)
Articulated tractor-trailer configuration (tiller-controlled) Extended wheelbase with complex swept-path requirements This is among the most demanding apparatus types for turning radius and maneuverability and must be used as the design vehicle for access validation.

Why This Matters:

California Fire Code § 503 requires that fire apparatus access roads support actual, real-world maneuverability, not theoretical layouts
Santa Clara County Fire standards require functional (not theoretical) access compliance
CEQA requires that safety conclusions be supported by substantial evidence, not assumptions
Failure Mode if Not Verified
Without validated swept-path analysis using a ~101’ ladder truck:

The apparatus may fail to complete the hammerhead turn
Fire crews may be forced to:

Back apparatus out over long narrow distances under active fire conditions with reduced visibility and civilians also evacuating (unsafe and time-prohibitive) Stage far from the incident and delayed fire suppression response This directly increases:

Structure ignition risk
Fire spread
Loss of life in evacuation-constrained conditions
Conclusion
In a constrained, single-access environment and not having a validated AutoTURN analysis using the largest responding fire apparatus (101’ ladder truck), it is a predictable failure mode that cab escalate rapidly into mass-casualty. Without it, the City cannot conclude that emergency access is feasible or compliant.

This is a fundamental life-safety gap and a clear lack of substantial evidence.

7. Council Responsibility and Liability Context
Approving this project would:

Acknowledge known evacuation and wildfire risks
Proceed despite documented infrastructure insufficiency The administrative record already includes:

Technical studies
Resident-submitted analyses
Prior public testimony
This establishes clear foreknowledge of risk, which courts increasingly scrutinize in CEQA litigation.

8. Requested Council Action
I respectfully request that the City Council:

1. Invoke the Housing Accountability Act Safety Exception due to unmitigatable life-safety risk.

2. Require peer-reviewed evacuation modeling and validated AutoTURN (or equivalent swept-path) analysis using the largest responding fire apparatus (~101- foot ladder truck) to confirm ingress, maneuverability, and turnaround access feasibility.

3. Confirm CAL FIRE WUI and fire hazard classifications and require full CEQA Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addressing wildfire risk, evacuation feasibility and cumulative impacts.

4. Deny or defer the project until all life-safety compliance is fully demonstrated with substantial evidence.

Conclusion
This is not opposition to development—it is a requirement for compliance with California law and basic life-safety standards.

The administrative record demonstrates:

Severely constrained evacuation capacity
Elevated wildfire exposure
Inadequate mitigation measures
A ~90-minute evacuation scenario in a VHFHSZ is not mitigable.

Under the Housing Accountability Act and reinforced by recent California appellate rulings, the City has a legal obligation to deny this project.

The Council must vote NO on Evulich Court.

Respectfully,
Tania Chen
From: Lea Chuang
To: Public Comments; City Clerk; City Council; City Attorney"s Office Cc: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.

Subject: Public Comment – Evulich Court Project (April 1 Decision) – CEQA Exemption & Wildfire Safety Concerns Date: Saturday, March 28, 2026 3:24:18 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I am submitting this public comment regarding the Evulich Court project for inclusion in the administrative record ahead of the April 1 hearing and decision.

This comment identifies substantial evidence in the record relevant to wildfire risk, evacuation feasibility, and emergency access under CEQA.

1. Wildfire Hazard Classification
The project site is located within the CAL FIRE Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ), the highest state wildfire hazard classification.

This designation requires project-level analysis of wildfire exposure under worst-case conditions, evacuation feasibility during emergency events, and fire suppression access constraints. The current record does not adequately analyze these conditions to support project approval under CEQA.

2. City-Commissioned Evacuation Evidence
The Fehr & Peers evacuation and transportation analysis commissioned by the City and included in the administrative record identifies that evacuation performance is highly sensitive to peak and concurrent demand conditions.

Despite this, the record does not include:

Scenario-based evacuation modeling under peak-load conditions Cumulative evacuation demand analysis with concurrent development Sensitivity analysis consistent with the City-commissioned methodology This constitutes substantial evidence that evacuation impacts have not been fully evaluated under foreseeable conditions.

3. Health and Safety Element Update
The City’s updated Health and Safety Element currently under review/adoption reflects strengthened policy direction regarding wildfire resilience, evacuation capacity, and lifesafety planning.

The environmental analysis does not evaluate project impacts in light of this updated framework or reconcile project assumptions with evolving safety standards relevant to cumulative hazard conditions.

4. Emergency Access and Fire Operations Constraints
The proposed reduced setbacks (approximately 10 feet) raise unresolved concerns regarding emergency response operations, including fire apparatus access and aerial ladder deployment under constrained site geometry.

Independent verification of emergency access feasibility is not included in the record.

5. CEQA Findings Deficiency – Requirement for EIR
Based on the above substantial evidence, the City cannot support findings that environmental impacts have been fully analyzed or mitigated to less-than-significant levels.

The record instead supports the need for a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addressing:

Wildfire impacts in a VHFHSZ under worst-case conditions Scenario-based evacuation modeling under peak and cumulative demand Emergency access and fire operations feasibility under constrained geometry Consistency with updated Health and Safety Element policy direction

6. CEQA Legal Standard – Requirement for Full Analysis
California courts have consistently held that CEQA requires meaningful, project-level analysis of reasonably foreseeable significant impacts and does not permit incomplete or deferred environmental review where substantial evidence exists.

In Save Our Access v. City of San Diego (Fourth Dist. Ct. App. 2025), the Court held that environmental review was deficient where it failed to adequately analyze significant impacts and improperly deferred analysis. This principle confirms that CEQA compliance requires full evaluation of foreseeable impacts supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record.

Conclusion
In advance of the April 1 hearing and decision, the administrative record contains substantial evidence of unresolved wildfire, evacuation, and emergency access impacts that have not been fully analyzed under CEQA. As currently constituted, the record does not support project approval without first completing a full Environmental Impact Report addressing these issues.

Sincerely,
Lea Chuang
From: Tania Chen
To: Public Comments; City Clerk; City Council; City Attorney"s Office Cc: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.

Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT - Evulich Court / 10857 Linda Vista Drive - MEETING DATE: APRIL 1, 2026 Date: Friday, March 27, 2026 11:47:55 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I request that this comment be included in the official administrative record for the April 1, 2026, City Council meeting.

I am a resident of the Linda Vista neighborhood directly impacted by the proposed Evulich Court development. I am submitting this formal objection for the administrative record based on substantial evidence already shared with the Planning Committee and the City through oral comments and written email that this project poses specific, adverse impact to public health and safety that cannot be mitigated.

Executive Summary (Decision-Critical Risk)
Under California Government Code § 65589.5(j)(1) (Housing Accountability Act), the City has a nondiscretionary duty to deny a project that creates an unmitigable, specific adverse safety impact.

Recent California appellate decisions (2023–2025 trendline) have materially raised the legal bar for wildfire and evacuation analysis under CEQA:

Courts now require realistic, data-driven evacuation modeling, not assumptions or generalized conclusions
Courts have invalidated approvals where agencies failed to analyze real-world conditions and community-wide evacuation constraints, not just project-level impacts Courts have specifically rejected EIRs that fail to evaluate wildfire risk and evacuation impacts together and cumulatively
Implication: Approval without resolving these deficiencies creates clear legal exposure and administrative vulnerability.

1. Emergency Evacuation Failure (Life-Safety Risk)
The Linda Vista area is defined by:

Existing evacuation routes operating at ~200% capacity
Current evacuation time: ~26.5 minutes
Projected evacuation time with development (51 units, ~100+ vehicles): ~90 minutes Critical Benchmark:

Wildfire evacuation survivability thresholds in VHFHSZ conditions are ~30 minutes.

Legal Relevance (Case Law Alignment):

A projected ~90-minute evacuation is not a marginal impact—it is a systemic failure of life-safety infrastructure.

2. Wildfire Risk and WUI Exposure
The project is located within:

Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ)
Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI)
Risk amplifiers include:

Vegetation fuel load
Canyon/topographic fire spread dynamics
Limited defensible space
Recent Appellate Direction (2024):

This project increases both:

Probability of wildfire exposure severity
Evacuation demand and fatality

3. Inadequate Fire Setback (AMMR)
The proposed setback reduction from 30 feet to 10 feet:

Weakens a primary fire protection standard
Does not address ember intrusion or radiant heat
Does not mitigate evacuation constraints
Legal Context:

Recent CEQA rulings emphasize that mitigation must be effective, enforceable, and evidence-based —not speculative or design-based substitutes
Conclusion:

This is a non-equivalent substitution of a critical safety control.

4. CEQA Compliance and Cumulative Impact Requirement
Under CEQA:

The City has not demonstrated that:

1. Evacuation meets acceptable safety thresholds

2. Fire risk is fully mitigated

3. Infrastructure capacity supports proposed density

5. Real-World Wildfire Evidence (Risk Realization)
Recent California wildfires demonstrate the real consequences of evacuation failure:

The modeled evacuation failure scenario is not theoretical—it is empirically observed in recent California fires.

6. Fire Apparatus Access Failure (AutoTURN Deficiency)
The project relies on a hammerhead turnaround design on a dead-end roadway for emergency access.

Critical Missing Evidence:

There is no administrative record of an AutoTURN (or equivalent swept-path) simulation or analysis demonstrating that the largest responding fire apparatus can safely:

Why This Matters:

California Fire Code § 503 requires that fire apparatus access roads support actual, real-world maneuverability, not theoretical layouts
Santa Clara County Fire standards require functional (not theoretical) access compliance CEQA requires that safety conclusions be supported by substantial evidence, not assumptions Failure Mode if Not Verified
Without validated swept-path analysis using a ~101’ ladder truck:

The apparatus may fail to complete the hammerhead turn
Fire crews may be forced to:

This is a fundamental life-safety gap and a clear lack of substantial evidence.

7. Council Responsibility and Liability Context
Approving this project would:

Acknowledge known evacuation and wildfire risks
Proceed despite documented infrastructure insufficiency The administrative record already includes:

Technical studies
Resident-submitted analyses
Prior public testimony
This establishes clear foreknowledge of risk, which courts increasingly scrutinize in CEQA litigation.

8. Requested Council Action
I respectfully request that the City Council:

1. Invoke the Housing Accountability Act Safety Exception due to unmitigatable life-safety risk.

2. Require peer-reviewed evacuation modeling and validated AutoTURN (or equivalent sweptpath) analysis using the largest responding fire apparatus (~101-foot ladder truck) to confirm ingress, maneuverability, and turnaround access feasibility.

3. Confirm CAL FIRE WUI and fire hazard classifications and require full CEQA Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addressing wildfire risk, evacuation feasibility and cumulative impacts.

4. Deny or defer the project until all life-safety compliance is fully demonstrated with substantial evidence.

Conclusion
This is not opposition to development—it is a requirement for compliance with California law and basic life-safety standards.

The administrative record demonstrates:

Severely constrained evacuation capacity
Elevated wildfire exposure
Inadequate mitigation measures
A ~90-minute evacuation scenario in a VHFHSZ is not mitigable.

Under the Housing Accountability Act and reinforced by recent California appellate rulings, the City has a legal obligation to deny this project.

The Council must vote NO on Evulich Court.

Respectfully,
Tania Chen
From: Vikram Saxena
To: Melissa Robertson
Subject: Re: Building Official Evaluation Required Under CBC 104.11 for AMMR for Evulich Court Date: Friday, March 27, 2026 12:17:20 AM
Attachments: image001.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Melissa,
Thank you for your message.

Yes, please include this in the written communications for the April 1 hearing.

Sincerely,
Vikram Saxena
On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 1:08 PM Melissa Robertson <[email protected]> wrote:

Good afternoon,
Did you want this to be included in the written communications for the upcoming council meeting?
Thank you,
Melissa Robertson
Administrative Assistant
City Manager's Office
[email protected]
(408)777-3148
From: Vikram Saxena <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2026 2:57 PM
To: Building <[email protected]>; Tina Kapoor <[email protected]>; Benjamin Fu <[email protected]>
Cc: City Attorney's Office <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]>; City of Cupertino Planning Commission <[email protected]>; [email protected]; DerChang Kau <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Mark Fantozzi <[email protected]> Subject: Building Official Evaluation Required Under CBC 104.11 for AMMR for Evulich Court CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Re: Alternate Means and Methods Request — 10857 Linda Vista Drive (TM2024-009 / ASA-2024-015) Building Official Evaluation Required Under CBC 104.11
Dear Cupertino City Building Department Officials:

I am writing regarding the Alternative Means and Methods Request (AMMR) for the Evulich Court project at 10857 Linda Vista Drive, which reduces the mandatory 30-foot wildfire setback under the Fire Safe Regulations (14 CCR §1276.01) to 10 feet along the project’s north and south boundaries.

The AMMR has not been signed by the Building Official. The Santa Clara County Fire Department’s own AMMR form requires evaluation and signature by both the Fire Official and the Building Official. The Fire Official signed on January 6, 2026. The Building Official signature line — corresponding to the City of Cupertino’s building authority — remains blank.

AMMR approval page: Fire Official signed. Building Official line blank.

This letter requests that, before you sign, you satisfy yourself that the applicable legal standard has been met — and I am enclosing documentation that raises substantial questions about whether it has.

Reducing that distance without demonstrating equivalent functional capacity defeats the statutory framework the regulation was designed to implement.

The standard you must apply: equivalency, not mitigation The AMMR functions as an “alternate means and methods” approval. It must therefore independently satisfy CBC §104.11 and CFC §104.10, each of which requires a finding of equivalency — not merely mitigation. Under CBC 104.11, the Building Official must determine that the proposed alternative is:
“not less than the equivalent of that prescribed in this code in quality, strength, effectiveness, fire resistance, durability and safety.” The SCCFD’s own plan review describes the reduced setbacks as “deficiencies to nonconforming 30’ setback requirements” to be “mitigated.” This language describes mitigation of a known shortfall. The code requires equivalency. These are not the same standard. Mitigation means the impact of a shortfall has been reduced. Equivalency means the same outcome has been achieved. Your determination must be the latter.

The regulatory chain: why the 30-foot setback is a system-level requirement
The AMMR narrowly cites 14 CCR §1276.01(a) — the 30-foot setback. But the authority and reference notes for §1276.01 state:
“Authority cited: Section 4290, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 4290 and 4291, Public Resources Code.”
The regulation the AMMR seeks to modify was adopted under the authority of both PRC §4290 (minimum fire safety standards for new development) and PRC §4291 (the requirement that every property owner maintain 100 feet of defensible space around structures at all times).

While §1276.01 is adopted under authority of both statutes, the 30-foot setback functions as the structural precondition necessary to enable compliance with PRC §4291’s defensible space requirements within property boundaries. PRC §4291 requires defensible space to be maintained “but not beyond the property line.” Zone 1 under PRC §4291 extends 30 feet from the structure — exactly the distance the setback requires.

Reduction of the 30-foot setback to 10 feet eliminates the ability to maintain required defensible space within property boundaries, thereby creating a direct conflict with PRC §4291.

At 10 feet, the project can only provide 10 feet of defensible space on its own land before reaching the property line. The remaining 90 feet of the required 100-foot defensible space zone falls on neighboring parcels that the developer, the HOA, and the fire department have no authority to manage. The project’s own Defensible Space Fire Zone Plan (Sheet L7.1) confirms this — Zone 2 is effectively absent along the north and south boundaries.

What “same practical effect” must cover
The Fire Safe Regulations allow exceptions only where the alternative provides the “same practical effect” (14 CCR §1270.01(aa)). The 30-foot setback is not an isolated dimensional standard. It is a system-level requirement that enables multiple functions simultaneously. “Same practical effect” must therefore be evaluated across all functions served by the 30-foot setback:

1. Structure-to-structure fire spread mitigation — reducing radiant heat flux below ignition thresholds for neighboring properties, not just protecting the new buildings from ignition

2. Firefighter access and staging — physical space for ground ladder deployment, defensive perimeter operations, and safe suppression tactics

3. Civilian evacuation interface — ensuring fire conditions at the perimeter do not impede evacuation from adjacent properties

4. Ability to maintain defensible space under PRC §4291 — providing sufficient space within property boundaries to comply with the 100-foot defensible space requirement
The AMMR mitigations address only the first function, and only from the perspective of protecting the new buildings. The applicant cannot satisfy the “same practical effect” standard by demonstrating equivalency in one function while leaving the remaining three unaddressed.

What the enclosed documentation shows
I am enclosing a technical analysis — “Why the 30-Foot Setback Exists and Why Reducing It to 10 Feet Creates a More Dangerous Fire Environment” — which documents the following concerns.

1. No radiant heat analysis in the record
The AMMR was filed January 5, accepted January 6, plan review completed January 7.

No radiant heat modeling or structure-to-structure analysis is documented.

2. Radiant heat flux at 10 feet is ~9x the level at 30 feet NIST research (TN 2205) found that increasing spacing from 10 to 30 feet increases fire spread resistance by a factor of ten. At 10 feet, radiant heat exceeds auto-ignition thresholds for the wood siding, vinyl, and older windows on neighboring 1950s homes.

3. The chimney effect
The 40-foot townhome wall rising 26 feet above a single-story neighbor’s roofline creates a vertical flue that draws fresh air into the base of the corridor — feeding oxygen to a burning fence and intensifying the fire at the height where the neighbor’s combustible siding, eaves, and windows are most exposed.

4. The tunnel effect
The 10-foot corridors run ~500 feet along the full north and south boundaries. Bounded by 40-foot fire-rated walls and combustible fencing, they channel wind-driven fire from the WUI along the entire boundary. Every neighboring home is exposed simultaneously.

5. Fire-hardening does not protect the neighbors
Fire-rated walls protect the townhomes from ignition but do not reduce outward radiant heat. A contained fire behind a rated assembly can sustain dangerous heat flux levels on the neighboring structure for an extended period.

6. Combustible fencing creates an uncontrolled fuel pathway Wooden fencing at the property line ignites from reflected radiant heat and carries fire laterally along the full boundary. No entity has authority to regulate fencing on neighboring parcels.

7. Window openings contradiction
The applicant claims R302.1(2) compliance while stating “we are not proposing modifications to the Openings (Windows) in Walls.” R302.1(2) governs protected openings at reduced separations.

8. Ground ladder access does not work in 10 feet
SCCFD’s own Comment 7 requires 75° ladder access. A 35-foot ladder at 75° needs ~11.5 feet. The setback is 10 feet, with bio-retention pads instead of firm ground.

9. Defensible space Zone 2 absent on reduced-setback boundaries Sheet L7.1 confirms Zone 2 is absent on the north and south boundaries — confirming the setback reduction makes PRC §4291 compliance physically impossible within property boundaries.

10. ADU development could reduce spacing to 14 feet
State ADU law allows 4-foot setbacks on neighboring parcels. Combined with 10 feet, actual structure-to-structure spacing could be 14 feet — less than half the required 30.

The SCCFD disclaimer
“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.”
The fire department has explicitly stated that its review is not a determination of code compliance. Your independent evaluation under CBC 104.11 is therefore not a formality.

The CEQA exemption depends on your determination
The project claims a CEQA exemption under PRC §21080.66 (AB 130), which applies only where fire hazard mitigation measures are implemented “pursuant to existing building standards.”
If the project relies on deviations from those standards — as it does through the AMMR’s reduction of the 30-foot setback — the exemption is valid only if those deviations demonstrably achieve equivalent safety under applicable fire and building codes.

If equivalency is not demonstrated across all required functions — including defensible space feasibility under PRC §4291 — the basis for the CEQA exemption is undermined.

Your determination of equivalency under CBC 104.11 is therefore not only a building code question — it is a predicate for the project’s environmental clearance.

My request
I respectfully request that, before signing the AMMR, you:

1. Apply the equivalency standard, not the mitigation standard — CBC §104.11 requires “not less than the equivalent.” The SCCFD plan review describes “deficiencies” to be “mitigated.” Your determination must go further.

2. Evaluate equivalency across all four functions served by the 30-foot setback:
fire spread mitigation (for the neighborhood), firefighter access, evacuation interface, and PRC §4291 defensible space feasibility.

3. Require a radiant heat analysis demonstrating equivalent protection for neighboring properties.

4. Address the chimney and tunnel effects created by the corridor geometry and the height differential.

5. Evaluate the window openings contradiction — R302.1(2) invoked but windows not modified.

6. Confirm firefighter ladder access is physically achievable in 10 feet, on the surfaces present.

7. Address the PRC §4291 conflict — whether the 10-foot setback eliminates the ability to maintain defensible space within property boundaries, and how the project can comply without relying on parcels it does not control.

The neighboring families built their homes decades before this project was proposed.

They have no fire-hardened construction, no ember protection, and no ability to modify the conditions on the project side of the property line. Your signature on this AMMR is the last point in the process where the City’s building authority can ensure that the standard has been met — not just for the developer’s buildings, but for the community the Fire Safe Regulations are designed to protect.

Thank you for your careful consideration.

Respectfully,
On behalf of many residents of Linda Vista Drive and Baxter Ct Vikram Saxena
11126 Linda Vista Drive
408-390-4036
Enclosures:
• Technical Analysis: “Why the 30-Foot Setback Exists”
• AMMR Approval
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City Clerk
Cc: [email protected]; City Council
Subject: Fwd: Community Meetings on SB 330 Projects, Especially Finch/Stevens Creek Hanover Project Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 7:54:18 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Clerk:

Please consider the following as Public Input for the April 1, 2026 City Council meeting.

Thank you.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Community Meetings on SB 330 Projects, Especially Finch/Stevens Creek Hanover Project
From: Jennifer Griffin <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2026, 7:51 AM
To: [email protected],[email protected]
CC: [email protected]
Dear City Council:
(Please include the following as Public Input for the Cupertino City Council Meeting on April 1, 2026.)
Can the city please have Community Meetings on the SB 330 Projects in the city? Can the city list
These meetings on the City Website and send postcards out about them? There is a huge SB 330
Project proposed for Finch Avenue and Stevens Creek Blvd. with 365 housing units. To date I have
heard nothing about it. Are there any Community Meetings planned? This project is going to be
A big problem with traffic and it will be getting rid of banks, retail stores, a daycare, a big office
Building and trying to fight for driveway space with Cupertino's Affordable Senior Housing project called
The Terraces further east down Stevens Creek Blvd.

How do we stay up to date on this SB 330 and other SB 330 projects we need to know about? The city used to send
postcards. That worked well. Let's start doing that again. The SB 330s are wrecking havoc with retail in
The city and the public needs to know how and where this is happening so we do not become victims of
SB 330, the "retail crisis" bill. Our state electeds also need to know what is happening in the aftermath of this
bill. I hope Cupertino will reach out to Senator Becker and Assemblyman Ahrens to let them know
About the problems associated with SB 330. Maybe they can fix these problems in the state level.

Also, our state representative should know also.

SB 330 (in its first incarnation) let the public have five Community Meetings about SB 330 projects.

Are we even getting those? I don't see a lot of effort to get even those meetings publicized. It is
also a hassle to see any plans of these projects or anything at all for that matter. Staff is trying their
Best with what limited means the state now allows, but you have a lot of the public or seniors who
can never see the plans. It is getting to be a ridiculous sort of a cover-up. Can the city ask what the
Current situation is of the "hide and seek" housing bill plan-sets is? Surely there are some current
decisions and rulings based on this. Common sense on these "building plans" availability has gone out the
window. Stick fighters drawn on a napkin by an architect would be a better substitution than what we
have now. I guess the housing bill authors don't want us to see housing plans. I get it. But, seriously, what
are they trying to hide? What are they trying to build any way? Please let there be Community Meetings on the SB 330 projects, especially the Finch/Stevens Creek
Blvd. Hanover SB 330 Project site. This SB 330 is going to be a major issue for Eastern Cupertino,
traffic, loss of retail, danger to students going to school or waiting for the bus, gridlock, infrastructure
Problems etc. etc. Residents need to know about all of this so they can be a part of the voice seeking
solutions for a better day.

Thank you.

Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
Eastern City Resident
From: James Choi
To: City Council
Cc: Public Comments
Subject: [City Council Hearing April 1, 2026] Opposition to SummerHill / Linda Vista Drive / Evulich Court Project for Public Safety, Evacuation Risks, and Notice Failures
Date: Monday, March 30, 2026 12:06:55 PM
Attachments: 2007 Linda Vista Hill Fire.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.

Written Communication for the April 1, 2026 City Council meeting for agenda item on Evulich Court / Linda Vista Dr / SummerHill Homes Project:

Dear Members of the Cupertino City Council,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed 51-unit SummerHill project on Linda Vista Drive. While the developer's counsel has made various legal claims, I urge the Council not to blindly accept these false and misleading statements (see other Linda Vista neighborhood residents' submitted written communications for why this is the case) or concede to the tactics used to threaten the Planning Commission on February 24th.

The Council has a fundamental responsibility to protect its citizens, and this project presents a clear threat to life and safety in our community.

1. Evacuation Constraints and Public Safety
Our neighborhood is already identified as "evacuation constrained." Adding 51 high-density units to this high-risk corridor will create gridlock during a fire emergency. We cannot allow a development that compromises the ability of families—including the many older residents in our area—to escape a wildfire. Furthermore, three major schools (Lincoln Elementary, Kennedy Middle School, and Monta Vista High) sit directly along this evacuation corridor, significantly increasing the human risk.

2. Proven Fire Risk
The "Very High Fire Hazard" classification for this area is not a mere theoretical warning; it is a documented reality. In 2007, a fire broke out on the Linda Vista Park hillside directly behind Baxley Ct and Evulich Court. The attached photos from that event serve as a stark reminder of the danger we face. We cannot rely on hand-picked, third-party safety analyses provided by SummerHill to prioritize our lives over their profit.

3. Inadequate Public Notice
The initial outreach for this development was fundamentally flawed and denied the community a meaningful say. None of the nearby residents knew this site was being upzoned from single-family to high-density due to the City not complying with statutory notification requirements or reasonable standards of transparency, leaving the most impacted residents unaware of the project until it was too late.

4. Formal Request for Recusal of Councilmember Sheila Mohan I am formally requesting the recusal of Councilmember Sheila Mohan from the vote on the SummerHill project due to a disqualifying conflict of interest regarding her property's proximity to the site as learned from neighbors.

Conclusion
Before you cast your vote, I ask you to answer one question: If this project is approved and a wildfire occurs where people cannot escape, who will be held responsible? The use of legal loopholes by developers to push through unsafe projects does not abdicate the City of its duty to protect its citizens. The City has the authority to ensure a sound fire mitigation and evacuation framework is in place before approving density in high-risk zones.

The residents will actively support the City and City Council in defending against legal threats from "Big Real Estate" like SummerHill. We will stand behind you when you fulfill your responsibility to keep us safe. Please do the right thing and prioritize the safety of the people you represent over the interests of a developer.

Respectfully,
James Choi
Linda Vista Neighborhood Resident (Bel Aire Ct)

From: David Yan
To: City Council
Cc: Public Comments
Subject: On the Improper Rezoning of Evulich Ct from R1 to R3 Date: Monday, March 30, 2026 12:41:40 AM
Attachments: Improper Upzoning_Evulich_03.30.2026.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.

City Councilmembers,
My most recent communications to the City Council about Evulich have focused on Fire compliance, Evacuation, and the AB 130 CEQA exemption process. This letter is on a separate but related matter that predates all of it.

Attached is a letter documenting procedural deficiencies in the City's notification process for the July 2, 2024 upzoning of the Evulich Court parcels from R1 to R3. This is the foundational zoning action that enabled everything that has followed. It is worth examining on its own terms.

The letter identifies two findings that I believe the Council should have before it as it considers the pending development application. First, the City's own mailing list for the Evulich Court rezoning did not include a single residential neighbor within 300 feet of the site. The list reached government agencies and commercial landlords across the region. It did not reach the street next door. Second, the City's Assistant Director of Community Development confirmed in writing on November 5, 2024 that no direct mailed notification was sent to residents for the July 2024 rezoning actions.

A Yes vote on April 1 would not resolve the questions raised in this letter. The procedural deficiencies in the July 2024 upzoning remain uncured. If the development is approved and subsequently challenged in court, the validity of the underlying zoning will be in play alongside the fire safety and exemption questions already in the record.

I am submitting this attached letter for inclusion in the administrative record in connection with the April 1 hearing.

Regards,
David Yan
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 notificaiton 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. Failure to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
● Section 8899.50, enacted by AB 686 in 2018 and effective January 1, 2019, imposes a mandatory duty on all California public agencies to administer housing and community development programs in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing. The statute defines affirmatively furthering fair housing as taking meaningful actions that address significant disparities in housing needs and access to opportunity, overcome patterns of segregation, and foster inclusive communities. Section 8899.50(b)(2) states explicitly that a public agency “shall have a mandatory duty to comply.” This is not aspirational language. It is an enforceable obligation. HCD’s AFFH Guidance Memo, issued pursuant to AB 686, specifies that jurisdictions must make a “diligent effort” to “equitably include all community stakeholders” in the housing element public participation process.

The City’s notification process for the July 2, 2024 rezoning did the opposite. It mailed notices to government agencies in San Francisco and Oakland, and commercial landlords in Redwood City. It mailed nothing to a single neighbor of Evulich Court. A process that excluded the most affected stakeholders while reaching institutional and commercial recipients across the region is not one that affirmatively furthers fair housing but instead affirmatively bypasses it.

D. 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.

From: [email protected]
To: City Clerk
Cc: City Council; City Attorney"s Office
Subject: Written Communications-SummerHill, LLC 10857, 10867, 10877, and 10887 Linda Vista Drive Townhomes Date: Sunday, March 29, 2026 10:42:09 PM
Attachments: City Council Letter_April_1_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.

Dear City Clerk, Honorable Mayor, Councilmembers, and City Attorney, Please accept the attached letter as written communication regarding:

Project: SummerHill - Evulich Ct. Townhomes;
Application Number: TM-2024-009, ASA-2024-015, TR-2024-044; Agenda Item: 12;
scheduled for consideration on April 1, 2026.

I respectfully request that this documents be:

1. Posted to the public agenda packet as written communication, and

2. Distributed to the full City Council for their review.

Please confirm receipt and posting at your earliest convenience.

Thank you for your attention and for ensuring these materials are included in the public record.

Sincerely,
Mark W. Fantozzi, PE
Cupertino
[email protected]
March 29, 2026
City Clerk, Honorable Mayor, Council Members, City Attorney City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Ave.

Cupertino, CA 95014
Re: SummerHill-Homes Linda Vista Drive

VIA EMAIL
On August 11, 2024, I wrote a letter to the City Council expressing my concern over the upzoning of the Evulich property on Linda Vista Drive. My assessment was made based on my engineering background as a registered professional engineer in the State of California. Once I was able to review the Planning Staff report prior to the February 24, 2026 Planning Commission public hearing, I found that my concerns were well founded. A few of us in the neighborhood began analyzing the project in more detail in preparation of the March 17 Council meeting and we found numerous failures by Staff, Fire and SummerHill in the analysis of this project. Further research has shown that the project has serious issues over how the project was determined to be in conformance with standards and how Staff ignored public safety.

This Council did not create this situation. But it is being asked to ratify it. The Evulich property was quietly added to the Housing Element after a legal settlement, without meaningful notice to the neighborhood most affected. Planning then shepherded it through a process that systematically deferred, omitted, and concealed the analyses that would have exposed its deficiencies. The result is a project before this Council with an incomplete safety record, an unsupported CEQA exemption, and unresolved fire and evacuation risks in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. A yes vote does not just approve 51 townhomes. It ratifies every step that brought this project here.

I think it is important to understand how we got here. The Evulich property was put on the list of properties to be considered for the Housing Element back in 2022. However, the property was removed from the list prior to the city-wide notification that went out in 2022. I received that notice and the Evulich property was not shown. The Evulich property was zoned R1 Single Family with a minimum lot size of 7500 sq ft. The infrastructure in our neighborhood was built over 60 years ago and designed to support 11 houses on this property. The proposed development would put 5 times the demand on the infrastructure in place. The property simply could not support upzoning and the conditions for a CEQA review made it untenable.

On January 10, 2024, The City settled a law suit with YIMBY over the delay in the City submitting its Housing Element plan. As part of the settlement, the City agreed to waive CEQA for rezoning properties that are designated as part of the Housing Element. In February 2024, the Evulich property was put back on the Housing Element and rezoned to R3.

One of the many complaints I and my neighbors have about this project was the lack of notification of the zoning change on the property. We had several neighborhood meetings with Luke Connoly and staff from Planning. Each time they claimed the city did an extensive public outreach. However, from public records we determined

1. The Evulich property was added after the general notification of properties placed under the Housing Element.

2. The Evulich property notification was done by a posted notice at City Hall, a post card mailing that did not go to anyone in the neighborhood and the City website. Furthermore, only the APN was provided, no street address.

Do any of you know your APN number? Do any of you know your neighbor’s APN? This notification may have satisfied the process allowed under the current housing laws but it was not in any way extensive as described by Luke Connoly. An effective outreach would have insured those most affected by the rezoning were notified in writing similar to what we received for the public hearing on the project. As I research this incident, it is clear that there was a concerted effort by Planning to conceal from the neighborhood the addition of the Evulich property to the Housing Element and subsequent rezoning.

Understanding how we got here is important because it shows a pattern by Planning to conceal information that may jeopardize project approval. In addition, the exclusion of the property from the original Housing Element list and the subsequent addition of the property as a result of the YIMBY settlement made it clear that Planning was aware of the challenges this site has with respect to higher density.

It's also important to consider the timing of events.

1. Waiver of CEQA as part of the YIMBY settlement in January 2024,

2. Addition of the property to the Housing Element in February 2024

3. Approval of the upzoning by City Council in early summer 2024

4. SummerHill filing of the project in August 2024.

The sequence of events is not coincidental. It evidences outside influence put on the City to move on this property. It suggests a Planning Department that is more interested in pushing a project through instead of honoring a commitment to the community to ensure transparency, accountability, and fairness in the decision-making processes.

Based on my review of the project documents and Staff Report, it is clear the Council must deny the project or at a minimum require a full CEQA review and completion of all life-safety, environmental, and mobility analyses before any approval is considered. I have previously submitted detailed descriptions of the deficiencies found in Planning and Fire determinations as written communications and are summarized below.

1. This site is in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, and the safety record is incomplete
Your own record confirms the site sits in a VHFHSZ and that the project’s safety case is unfinished. The Fire Department’s conditional notes still require a Final Fire Protection Plan, acknowledge non-conforming setbacks, and call for a compliant turnaround—proof that key fire-safety issues remain outstanding today, not at some future building-permit stage. [Transporta...Study E&O | PDF], [ESA Review...O Findings | PDF]
Despite this, the applicant provided no wildfire evacuation analysis for a neighborhood with single-egress constraints and documented bottlenecks, which is directly contrary to the Fire Code, PRC 4290, and CEQA’s wildfire impact requirements. [Transporta...Study E&O | PDF], [Biological Errors | PDF] Bottom line: You cannot make current, defensible findings on fire safety or evacuation on this record. [Biological Errors | PDF]
2) Fire-flow and water-supply reliability were not demonstrated (modeling isn’t proof)
The submittals do not include:
 Hydrant flow tests or on-the-ground verification of residual pressure and duration,  Peak-demand, PSPS, or multi-structure fire scenarios, and  Hydrant spacing/placement and redundancy verification for a hillside VHFHSZ subdivision. [Transporta...Study E&O | PDF]
Your integrated exhibits log documents 17 fire-flow, 9 fire-access, and 17 water-supply deficiencies— structural, not clerical. These are mandatory life-safety elements under CFC Appendix B/C/D and PRC 4290—not optional. [ESA Review...O Findings | PDF]
Hydraulic models are only as valid as their assumptions and boundary conditions; without physical flow tests and reliability checks, they can be easily skewed. In a VHFHSZ with a 50-year-old water main and no redundancy, that is unacceptable. [ESA Review...O Findings | PDF] I’ve done extensive computer modeling in my work. Computer models are only as good as the assumptions made on the boundary conditions used. You can vary the results to achieve a desired result by simply changing the assumptions and/or boundary conditions. Testing is the only why to verify your model. Without field testing, there needs to be a review of the safety factors used and system redundancies to account for inaccuracies in the computer model. As an example, in structural engineering, certain connections used in the lateral force resisting systems of a building can be modeled as part of the analysis, but to be able to use the full capacity of the connection as modeled, there needs to physical testing of the connection.

Ask: Require field hydrant flow testing, reliability modeling for peak/PSPS, and a water-main capacity/ redundancy plan before any approvals. [Transporta...Study E&O | PDF], [ESA Review...O Findings | PDF]
3) Evacuation and access: no study, single egress, known bottlenecks The record shows no wildfire evacuation analysis—even though the corridor is single egress (Evulich → Linda Vista) with known choke points, and even though the Fire Code and PRC 4290 require safe ingress/egress. The City’s own policy framework and recent evacuation capacity work underscore these constraints. [Transporta...Study E&O | PDF], [Biological Errors | PDF] Planning staff’s reliance on a claim that the City lacks an “adopted evacuation plan” does not excuse the project’s duty to demonstrate safe evacuation now, particularly in a VHFHSZ. [Transporta...Study E&O | PDF]
Ask: Require a CEQA-level evacuation analysis with clearance times, network performance under wildfire loading, and mitigation/secondary access feasibility before action. [Biological Errors | PDF] 4) CEQA exemption is legally unsupportable on this record CEQA exemptions fail where unusual circumstances raise a reasonable possibility of significant impact:

VHFHSZ location, discretionary PRC 4290 exception, missing wildfire/evacuation/water-reliability analyses, and conditional fire approval. All are present here. [Biological Errors | PDF] Moreover, because a PRC 4290 exception is discretionary, the project is not ministerial for CEQA purposes. CEQA does not allow approval premised on future mitigation such as a later Fire Protection Plan. [Biological Errors | PDF]
The reason this property was removed from the original Housing Element list was the challenges a CEQA review would uncover and the resulting mitigations would make the project infeasible. The timing of the reinstatement following the YIMBY settlement is not coincidental.

Ask: Direct staff to prepare a full CEQA analysis (wildfire behavior, evacuation, water reliability, biological, hazardous materials, and transportation updates). [Biological Errors | PDF] 5) General Plan consistency cannot be found
Under Government Code §§65300.5 and 65860, you must make General Plan consistency findings regardless of CEQA status. You cannot do so here: the project lacks verified evacuation capacity, fire-flow reliability, and present (not deferred) hazard mitigation—all core Safety Element requirements. [ESA Review...O Findings | PDF]
Ask: Until the safety record is complete and consistent, General Plan findings cannot be made. [ESA Review...O Findings | PDF]
6) Environmental & Biological E&O: data gaps that matter in the field  Phase II ESA tested only organochlorines (8081A); it did not test for organophosphates like parathion or dithiocarbamates like ziram—pesticide classes commonly present in legacy orchard soils. The corrective action is straightforward: run supplemental sampling/analysis (e.g., 8321B/validated OP/DTC suites), compare to SF Bay RWQCB ESLs, and issue a Phase II Addendum. Approving without this is a CEQA-level gap. [ESA Review...O Findings | PDF]  Biological report omissions: no species-level analysis for red-tailed hawk (a protected raptor), no acoustic bat surveys despite suitable structures, and no bird-safe design (glass/lighting/pets) or cumulative foraging assessment—each a standard expectation for CEQA biology in this setting. [Biological Errors | PDF] I grew up on a farm in Morgan Hill. As part of our farming operation, we farmed several hundred acres of fruit orchards much like what was here prior to development. I am familiar with the pesticides and fungicides used in orchards, and parathion and ziram were widely used up until the 70’s. Developers are required to test for all legacy chemicals used as part of the historical use of the property.

Ask: Require the ESA addendum and complete biological surveys/mitigation (raptor nesting, bat surveys, bird-safe measures) before hearing reconsideration. [ESA Review...O Findings | PDF], [Biological Errors | PDF]
7) Transportation E&O: safety, code, and CEQA posture problems The Transportation Study contains numerous errors and omissions:
 Parking minimums mis-stated; bicycle parking obligations omitted; both are material to plan compliance.
 Missing intersections (e.g., Columbus/Terrace) even though the report itself says some trips will use them; skewing impact location.
 Invalid CEQA/VMT posture (mis-reliance on AB 130); must either meet the new PRC §21080.66 infill criteria or follow Cupertino’s 2025 Guidelines for VMT screening/analysis.  Sight-distance/school-area controls not translated into enforceable striping/signage exhibits (CA MUTCD). [Transporta...Study E&O | PDF]
Ask: Require a corrected LTA: add the missing intersections/assignments, fix parking/bike parking, provide the AB 130/PRC §21080.66 compliance memo or VMT analysis, and submit stamped sight-triangle/ school-area control sheets. [Transporta...Study E&O | PDF] 8) “Vesting” does not freeze public safety; PRC 4290 exception needs evidence—incl. financials
Staff suggested “vesting” insulates the project from updated safety rules. That is incorrect. SB 330 does not vest fire-safety, evacuation, water-supply, or VHFHSZ regulations—these are police-power standards that remain fully applicable. [Transporta...Study E&O | PDF] Further, a PRC 4290 exception is discretionary and requires findings of equivalent fire safety, no feasible alternative, General Plan consistency, and not deferring mitigation. Your record also explains when financial disclosure is warranted—if an exception confers a financial benefit, the City may require pro formas and cost comparisons to evaluate feasibility claims prior to granting any safety deviation. [Biological Errors | PDF], [Biological Errors | PDF] SummerHill intends to sell the market units for $2.2M to $2.6M. The construction costs are fixed regardless where the project is built in the Bay Area. Land costs may vary but the land cost is known up front and once known is considered fixed. The soft costs are variable. By providing exceptions to standards, the City is providing SummerHill a financial benefit by reducing their soft costs. This goes directly to profit. A profit made by sacrificing the health and safety of the public, and jeopardizing property is not acceptable. The City has the authority to require SummerHill to disclose the financials on the project.

Ask: Do not grant or rely on any PRC 4290 exception without a complete evidentiary record, including applicant financials if they assert compliance is infeasible. [Biological Errors | PDF], [Biological Errors | PDF]
9) About “peer review” and why it doesn’t cure missing evidence At the Planning Commission, SummerHill argued that reports were vetted by staff and “peer reviewed.” But peer review is not a substitute for required data. The Millennium Tower was expert-designed and peer-reviewed—and still failed, with taxpayers paying tens of millions. The question is not whether a report exists—it’s whether the record contains the required analyses and verified data to support your findings today. Here, it does not. [ESA Review...O Findings | PDF] 10) The stakes: insurance, property values, and City liability Approving a 51-unit project in a VHFHSZ without verified evacuation, fire-flow reliability, ESA/biology completeness, and corrected transportation safety will drive insurance costs up and property values down while increasing the City’s exposure in foreseeable wildfire scenarios. The prudent course is to complete the analyses first. [Transporta...Study E&O | PDF], [ESA Review...O Findings | PDF], [Biological Errors | PDF], [Transporta...Study E&O | PDF] SummerHill is aware the project will not withstand a CEQA review. The reports they filed for this project are deeply flawed and we have demonstrated that the reports will not stand up to scrutiny. In an effort to get conciliatory approval by some of the neighbors, they offered concessions to two of my neighbors in advance of the March 17 Council meeting. SummerHill refused to consider these same concessions when asked by one of the Commissioners at the Planning Commission meeting, claiming they “could not make the project work.” This confirms why the Evulich property was removed from the Housing Element back in 2022 when CEQA was required for rezoning, and why it was added back only after the CEQA waiver was granted by the City. This property should never have been upzoned in the first place and the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone only makes it worse for upzoning.

As registered professional engineer, I am mandated by law to protect the health and safety of the public.

This applies to the work I design. However, when I see the failure of a government agency to fulfill its duty to protect public safety and verify compliance, I feel it is my duty to identify the problems and demand compliance. Planning has clearly demonstrated indifference to public safety to the benefit of developers to simply meet a quota. This Council should not. The risks documented in this letter are now part of the public record regardless of how this Council votes. Supporting housing is defensible.

Approving housing in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone without completing the required safety record is a different matter. If residents are trapped on Linda Vista Drive in a wildfire, the administrative record will show exactly what was known, who was told, and how each member voted. That record does not expire with a term.

Please deny the project, or continue the hearing and direct staff to:

1. Prepare a full CEQA review addressing wildfire/evacuation, water-supply reliability, ESA addendum, complete biological surveys/mitigation, and a corrected transportation analysis. [Biological Errors | PDF], [ESA Review...O Findings | PDF], [Biological Errors | PDF], [Transporta...Study E&O | PDF]

2. Require a Final Fire Protection Plan now, not at building-permit stage; include verified hydrant flow tests, peak/PSPS reliability, and redundancy measures. [Transporta...Study E&O | PDF], [ESA Review...O Findings | PDF]

3. Require PRC 4290 exception findings supported by substantial evidence, including financial disclosure if the applicant claims safety compliance is infeasible. [Biological Errors | PDF], [Biological Errors | PDF]

4. Confirm General Plan consistency cannot be made until all safety and environmental requirements are satisfied on the record. [ESA Review...O Findings | PDF] Sincerely,
Mark W. Fantozzi, PE
From: Rhoda Fry
To: Public Comments
Cc: Tina Kapoor; City Council
Subject: 4/1/2026 Agenda #3 Linda Vista - APRIL DATE IS A SHAM Date: Sunday, March 29, 2026 6:47:58 AM
Attachments: april 1 deadline.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 Council,
Summerhill’s April Date is a sham.

City Planning calculated a final date of May 4.

Summerhill wanted April 1 to meet their own needs, it had NOTHING to do with AB130.

The City is allowing themselves to be bullied – this is not okay.

One January 30, 2026, Steve Bull wrote:
“I ask this because we’re concerned about a potential push until May because our contract requires us to go hearing by April 1.”
Please see attached extracted from PRA NR 26-73
Regards,
Rhoda

From: Rhoda Fry
To: Public Comments; City Attorney"s Office
Subject: 4/1/2026 Agenda #3 Linda Vista Recusal Request Date: Saturday, March 28, 2026 6:12:44 PM
Attachments: liang chao advice letter.pdf
kitty moore advice letter.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 Council and City Attorney,
Recusal Request for Councilmember Mohan: Regarding Public Hearing #3 on April 1, 2026 regarding proposed Linda Vista project, Sheila Mohan resides within 1000 feet of the Linda Vista project and this development project could impact the value of her property due to alteration of the neighborhood’s character and, more importantly, further impacting the ability to evacuate from a wild fire (per Cupertino’s recent assessment). Consequently, she should recuse.

Please find attached advice letters from the FPPC pertaining to councilmembers Liang Chao and Kitty Moore recusing due to their proximity to projects in 2020 and 2025, respectively that illustrate the need to recuse.

Additionally, “For decisions impacting property between 500 and 1,000 feet from an official’s real property, a decision’s effect on an official’s real property interest is material if the decision would change the parcel’s market value, development potential, income producing potential, highest and best use, or character by substantially altering traffic levels, intensity of use, parking, view, privacy, noise levels, or air quality. (Regulation 18702.2(a)(8).)” (source: Cupertino’s former law firm: https://www.smwlaw.com/2019/08/29/tips-forcomplying-with-the-fppcs-revised-500-foot-rule-addressing-when-public-officials-have-aconflict-of-interest-in-decisions-potentially-affecting-their-realproperty/#:~:text=For%20decisions%20impacting%20property%20between,on%20an%20offic ial's%20real%20property )
Sincerely, Rhoda Fry
PS – see map below

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION
1102 Q Street • Suite 3000 • Sacramento, CA 95811
(916) 322-5660 • Fax (916) 322-0886
July 1, 2020
Heather Minner
City Attorney
City of Cupertino
1300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
Re: Your Request for Advice
Our File No. A-20-072
Dear Ms. Minner:

This letter responds to your request for advice regarding the conflict of interest provisions of the Political Reform Act (the “Act”).1 Please note that we are only providing advice under the conflict of interest provisions of the Act and not under other general conflict of interest prohibitions such as common law conflict of interest or Section 1090. Also note that we are not a finder of fact when rendering advice (In re Oglesby (1975) 1 FPPC Ops. 71), and any advice we provide assumes your facts are complete and accurate. If this is not the case or if the facts underlying these decisions should change, you should contact us for additional advice.

You are the City Attorney for the City of Cupertino seeking advice on behalf of Cupertino Councilmember Liang Chao. You ask whether Councilmember Chao may take part in future closed session City decisions involving strategy for litigation against the City that challenges recent General Plan and Zoning Code Amendments for the Vallco Shopping District Special Area.

Councilmember Chao previously sought advice from the Commission regarding participation in governmental decisions concerning two mixed-use development projects (the Vallco SB 35 project and the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan project) on the Vallco site, the nearest boarder of which is located 939 feet away from her residence. (See Minner Advice Letter, No. A-19-032.)2 There, the Sand Hill Property Company planned to develop a mixed-use project located mainly on the site of the current Vallco Shopping Mall, which is approximately 58 acres.

The mall began to decline in the early 2000’s and by 2018, it had an approximately 76% vacancy rate.

Both proposals were similarly substantial in size: 1) the SB 35 project proposed 2,402 housing units, 1.8 million square feet of office space and 400,000 square feet of retail, with building heights of up to 240 feet; and 2) the Specific Plan project proposed 2,923 housing units, 1,750,000 1 The Political Reform Act is contained in Government Code Sections 81000 through 91014. All statutory references are to the Government Code, unless otherwise indicated. The regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission are contained in Sections 18110 through 18997 of Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations. All regulatory references are to Title 2, Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations, unless otherwise indicated. 2 We note that Councilmember Chao was the Vice Mayor at the time the Minner letter was issued.

File No. A-20-072
Page No. 2
square feet of office space, 400,000 square feet of retail, and 191 hotel rooms, with building heights of up to 22 stories. (Minner, supra.)
The Commission concluded that although Councilmember Chao had a conflict of interest in governmental decisions concerning both proposed projects, the public generally exception applied to allow her to take part in the decisions.3(Ibid.)
The City Council has since rescinded its approval of the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan and the associated General Plan Amendment and Development Agreement in response to certified referendum petitions challenging their approvals. With respect to the SB 35 project, the Santa Clara County Superior Court issued a ruling that upheld the City’s approval of it on May 6, 2020. The deadline for Petitioners to appeal that decision has not yet expired.

The 2019 Vallco General Plan and Zoning Amendments and Litigation On August 20, 2019, the City Council adopted General Plan Amendments that amended land use regulations for the 58-acre Vallco site and on September 3, 2019, the City Council adopted corresponding Zoning amendments (collectively the “GPA”). Councilmember Chao recused herself from those decisions. The new GPA made the following changes:
1) Removed “office” as a permitted use for the Vallco Shopping District Special Area; 2) Established a 60-foot height limit for the entire site; 3) Permits a maximum of 620 residential units 13.1 acres to the east of Wolfe Road, and limited ground floor commercial uses are also permitted, but not required, in connection with residential development.

The General Plan Amendments did not change other allowed uses and General Plan policies for the site. On the remaining roughly 45-acres (designated Regional Shopping), the following mix of non-residential uses are still allowed:
1) 1,207,704 square feet of commercial; and
2) 339 hotel rooms.

General Plan policies requiring: (1) a specific plan, (2) a minimum of 600,000 square feet of retail use and no more than 30 percent of commercial spaced developed with entertainment uses, and (3) development in a street grid with improved pubic street connections to encourage development in the form of a town center are also retained for the Reginal Shopping designation.

The City Council also made corresponding changes to the zoning code, and adopted a second addendum to the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for the 2014 General Plan, finding that no subsequent environmental review is required for these actions because there are no substantial changes to the project or the circumstances under which the project is to be undertaken that would result in new or substantially more severe environmental impacts requiring major revisions to the Final EIR. Additionally, it found there is no new information that involves new 3 The Commission further advised that Councilmember Chao should seek additional advice if the City Council were asked to consider a potential alternative Specific Plan proposal with similar or less impacts than the current Specific Plan proposal.

File No. A-20-072
Page No. 3
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified environmental effects that would require preparation of a subsequent EIR.

Finally, the City Council directed staff to initiate a Specific Planning process for the portion of the site designated “Regional Shopping” by the General Plan amendments and consider as part of that process a plan that would include a maximum of 1,500 units of housing for the entire site and reduce the amount of required retail within the area to 400,000 square feet.

The property owner of approximately 51 acres of the Vallco site has since filed a petition for writ of mandate in Santa Clara County Superior Court, challenging the City’s approval of the GPA on several grounds. The GPA Lawsuit is currently stayed by agreement of the parties and the Court, until 30 days after a final judgment in the lawsuit challenging the Vallco SB 35 project. As mentioned, in its ruling dated May 6, 2020, the Santa Clara County Superior Court upheld the City’s approval of the Vallco SB 35 project. Judgement was filed on May 22nd and the deadline for Petitioners to appeal that decision has not yet expired.

The City Council will need to make a number of decisions regarding the GPA lawsuit, including litigation strategy if the case proceeds, and you expect there will be future closed sessions to provide updates on the case, facilitate discussions, and receive direction from Council.

Initially, we must determine whether it is reasonably foreseeable that a project under the new GPA could have a material financial effect on Councilmember Chao’s residence 939 feet away. As we explained with respect to foreseeability and materiality in our previous advice:

The Vice Mayor’s interest in her residence is not explicitly involved in any of the decisions at issue. Therefore, with respect to this interest, the effect of each of those decisions is reasonably foreseeable if it can be recognized as a realistic possibility and more than hypothetical or theoretical.
…
Under Regulation 18702.2(a)(8), a decision’s effect on an official’s real property interest is material if the decision involves property located more than 500 but less than 1,000 feet from the property line of the official’s parcel, and the decision would change the parcel’s market value, development potential, income producing potential, highest and best use, or character by substantially altering traffic levels, intensity of use, parking, view, privacy, noise levels, or air quality.
(Minner Advice Letter, supra.)
In your previous advice request, we concluded that based on the facts provided, including the massive scale of both proposed projects, governmental decisions concerning either the Specific Plan Project or the SB 35 Project would have a reasonably foreseeable material financial effect on the Vice Mayor’s interest in her residence. (Ibid.)
File No. A-20-072
Page No. 4
Our conclusion is the same in the present matter. Even though any project under the new GPA would be considerably smaller than both the Specific Plan Project and the SB 35 Project, a project under the new GPA on the largely vacant Vallco site that proposed approximately 620 residential units, over 1,000,000 square feet of commercial, and 339 hotel rooms is still a substantial project that would likewise have a reasonably foreseeable and material financial effect on the Councilmember’s residence 939 feet from the project.

The determinative question therefore is whether the public generally exception would apply to allow Councilmember Chao to take part in decisions concerning litigation strategy with respect to the lawsuit challenging the new GPA. We conclude that it does not.

For the exception to apply, Regulation 18703(a) provides:

A governmental decision’s financial effect on a public official’s financial interest is indistinguishable from its effect on the public generally if the official establishes that a significant segment of the public is affected and the effect on his or her financial interest is not unique compared to the effect on the significant segment.

For purposes of the exception, 25-percent or more of the residential real property within an official’s jurisdiction constitutes a “significant segment of the public.” (Regulation 18703(b).) In the previous advice request, you provided a map showing that approximately 25-percent of the residential units in the City are within 3,800 feet of the Project. (Minner Advice Letter, supra.) Concluding that the public generally exception applied, we stated:

Given the massive size of this Project, which will add
thousands of new housing units and jobs to the Project site that is expected to become a regional destination, it appears that the Project will affect all the residences identified in the significant segment within 3,800 feet of the Project. Furthermore, while some of the properties in closer proximity may be affected disproportionately, there is no indication that the foreseeable impacts, such as increased property value, increased traffic on several main thoroughfares, intensity of use or views, will have a unique or disproportionate effect on Vice Mayor Chao’s residence, which is 929 feet from the Project, in comparison to the other properties within 3,800 feet of the project. (Ibid.)
There are two important differences between the present situation and the previous one.

First, as mentioned, any project under the new GPA will be significantly smaller than the massive Specific Plan and SB 35 projects, which both proposed well over 2,000 new housing units and almost 2 million square feet of office space. Here, there can only be a maximum of 620 housing units and office space is not even permitted. Second, there was an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) prepared as a result of the proposed projects in the previous advice request that contained important factual information concerning the specific impacts of those projects on which we could File No. A-20-072
Page No. 5
base our conclusion that the public generally exception applied. No such EIR was prepared in the present matter because under the updated GPA “there is no new information that involves new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified environmental effects that would require preparation of a subsequent EIR.” Therefore, Councilmember Chao has not established that the public generally exception applies in the present situation.

Accordingly, the Act’s conflict of interest provisions prohibit Councilmember Chao from taking part in future closed session City decisions involving strategy for litigation against the City that challenges recent General Plan and Zoning Code Amendments for the Vallco Shopping District Special Area.

If you have other questions on this matter, please contact me at (916) 322-5660.

Sincerely,
Dave Bainbridge
General Counsel
By: Jack Woodside
Jack Woodside
Senior Counsel, Legal Division
JW:aja

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION
1102 Q Street • Suite 3050 • Sacramento, CA 95811
(916) 322-5660 • Fax (916) 322-0886
June 12, 2025
Kitty Moore
Cupertino Vice Mayor
Cupertino City Hall
10300 Torre Ave.

Cupertino, CA 95014
Re: Your Request for Formal Advice
Our File No. A-25-084
Dear Ms. Moore:

Also note that we are not a finder of fact when rendering advice (In re Oglesby (1975) 1 FPPC Ops. 71), and any advice we provide assumes your facts are complete and accurate. If this is not the case or if the facts underlying these decisions should change, you should contact us for additional advice.

QUESTION
Under the Act, may you, as a member of the Cupertino City Council, take part in governmental decisions relating to the acquisition and development of a vacant parcel of land (the “Finch Parcel”) that would create a new City Park located approximately 600 feet from your residence?

CONCLUSION
No, given the scope of the decision, which involves the replacement of a currently fenced, vacant parcel with a new City park, and the proximity to your property, it appears that the decisions relating to the acquisition of the Finch Parcel, and its subsequent development, would impact the market value and income-producing potential of your property. Therefore, it is reasonably 1 The Political Reform Act is contained in Government Code Sections 81000 through 91014. All statutory references are to the Government Code, unless otherwise indicated. The regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission are contained in Sections 18104 through 18998 of Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations. All regulatory references are to Title 2, Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations, unless otherwise indicated.

File No. A-25-084
Page No. 2
foreseeable that decisions relating to the acquisition and development of the Finch Parcel may have a material financial effect on your property and the Act prohibits you from taking part in the decisions.

FACTS AS PRESENTED BY REQUESTER
You are the Vice Mayor of the City of Cupertino. The City will soon consider the potential purchase of a vacant property from the Cupertino Union School District for a potential park. The property in question is a vacant lot adjacent to, but fenced off from, Sedgwick Elementary School, a public pre-5th grade school. In a follow up email, you stated that the parcel is approximately 1.48 acres. A portion of the lot would likely be vacated to align the street with the rest of Phil Lane and allow for on street parking adjacent to the site. The school district purchased the property several years ago, tore down the existing home, did environmental cleanup, and has left it fenced off.

You state that the vacant property is located slightly more than 600 feet from your home.

You also note that, to access the property, due to permanent barriers (homes, fences, school), you would need to travel a minimum of 1,500 feet to get to the vacant parcel.

You state that there is no foreseeable impact to traffic, noise, air quality, or view from your home because the Finch Parcel is on a separate street from the elementary school, with on-street parking and a parking lot, and that your view of the Finch Parcel is blocked by houses and mature trees. You also note that your home is near Hyde Middle School with open fields and track, Sedgwick Elementary, Creekside Park with soccer fields and playgrounds, and Cupertino High School.

ANALYSIS
Under Section 87100 of the Act, “[a] public official at any level of state or local government shall not make, participate in making or in any way attempt to use the official’s position to influence a governmental decision in which the official knows or has reason to know the official has a financial interest.” “A public official has a financial interest in a decision within the meaning of Section 87100 if it is reasonably foreseeable that the decision will have a material financial effect, distinguishable from its effect on the public generally, on the official, a member of the official’s immediate family,” or on certain specified economic interests. (Section 87103.) Among those specified economic interests is “[a]ny real property in which the public official has a direct or indirect interest worth two thousand dollars ($2,000) or more.” (Section 87103(b).) Regulation 18701(a) provides the applicable standard for determining the foreseeability of a financial effect on an economic interest explicitly involved in the governmental decision. It states, “[a] financial effect on a financial interest is presumed to be reasonably foreseeable if the financial interest is a named party in, or the subject of, a governmental decision before the official or the official’s agency. A financial interest is the subject of a proceeding if the decision involves the issuance, renewal, approval, denial or revocation of any license, permit, or other entitlement to, or contract with, the financial interest, and includes any governmental decision affecting a real property financial interest as described in Regulation 18702.2(a)(1)-(6).” File No. A-25-084
Page No. 3
Where an official’s economic interest is not explicitly involved in the governmental decision, the applicable standard for determining the foreseeability of a financial effect on the economic interest is found in Regulation 18701(b). That regulation provides, “[a] financial effect need not be likely to be considered reasonably foreseeable. In general, if the financial effect can be recognized as a realistic possibility and more than hypothetical or theoretical, it is reasonably foreseeable. If the financial result cannot be expected absent extraordinary circumstances not subject to the public official’s control, it is not reasonably foreseeable.” The reasonably foreseeable financial effect of a governmental decision on a parcel of real property in which an official has a financial interest, other than a leasehold interest, is material whenever the governmental decision involves property located more than 500 feet but less than 1,000 feet from the property line of the parcel, and the decision would change the parcel’s:
(A)Development potential;
(B)Income producing potential;
(C) Highest and best use;
(D)Character by substantially altering traffic levels, intensity of use, parking, view, privacy, noise levels, or air quality; or
(E) Market value.
(Regulation 18702.2(a)(8).)
Given Regulation 18702.2(a)(8)’s reference to “the property line of the parcel,” the relevant distance between a public official’s real property and the real property at issue in a governmental decision, for purposes of the Act, is the distance measuring directly from parcel to parcel or “as the crow flies.”
With respect to a potential change to the character of your real property, you state that you do not believe the acquisition of property and the creation of a new park in place of a vacant parcel could foreseeably impact traffic levels, noise, air quality, or view from your home. While these are factors in determining whether a decision may affect the character of your property, they are not the only factors that must be considered. Based on the facts you have provided, it is unnecessary to reach a conclusion regarding whether the decisions would change the character of your real property, given the potential impact on market value and income-producing potential.

More specifically, the decisions at issue would involve the acquisition of a vacant parcel for the construction of a new 1.48-acre City park, a decision made even more significant by the fact that the proposal would involve the redevelopment of a parcel that has been vacant and fenced off for several years. Considering these facts and the proximity to your property, it appears that the replacement of a vacant, fenced-off parcel with a new neighborhood amenity in the form of a 1.48- acre public park would impact the market value and income-producing potential of your real property. Therefore, it is reasonably foreseeable that the decision to acquire the Finch Parcel, may have a material financial effect on your real property, and the Act prohibits you from taking part in the decision.

If you have other questions on this matter, please contact me at [email protected].

Sincerely,
File No. A-25-084
Page No. 4
Dave Bainbridge
General Counsel
Zachary W. Norton
By: Zachary W. Norton
Senior Counsel, Legal Division
ZWN:aja
From: Vikram Saxena
To: [email protected]
Cc: City of Cupertino Planning Commission; City Council; City Clerk; City Attorney"s Office; DerChang Kau; [email protected]
Subject: [URGENT] Notice of Factual Discrepancies — February 12, 2026 Letter Re: 10857 Linda Vista Drive (File #26- 14876)
Date: Friday, March 27, 2026 1:02:03 PM
Attachments: Notice_of_Factual_Discrepancies_to_Cox_Castle-City.pdf Attachment_Cox_Castle_HAA_CEQA_Letter_2026-02-12.pdf
Attachment_SCCFD_Plan_Review_Comments_2025-12-29.pdf
F - Alternative Means and Methods Request Approval.pdf
Attachment_4_SCCFD_Plan_Review_250800.pdf
Attachment_5_SummerHill_AMMR_Narrative.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 Ms. Bradish,
Please find attached a letter identifying specific factual discrepancies between the representations in your February 12, 2026 correspondence to the City of Cupertino and the administrative record published for the March 17, 2026 City Council meeting.

The City Council hearing on this project is scheduled for April 1, 2026. I respectfully request a response by March 30, 2026.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely, Vikram Saxena
Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino

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

Page 2 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 3 ends

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

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

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

Page 4 ends

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

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

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

Margo SSradish
Planning Commission
February 12, 2026

Page 5 ends

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

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]

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.

VIA EMAIL: [email protected]
March 27, 2026
Margo N. Bradish
Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP
50 California Street, Suite 3200
San Francisco, CA 94111-4710
Re:Notice of Factual Discrepancies — February 12, 2026 Letter Re: 10857 Linda Vista Drive (File #26-14876)
Dear Ms. Bradish:

I write as a resident of Linda Vista Drive regarding your correspondence dated February 12, 2026, to the City of Cupertino. Your letter represents that the Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD) “confirmed that the Project complies” with Public Resources Code (PRC) Sections 4290 and 4291. You rely on this assertion of present compliance to invoke the AB 130 CEQA exemption and to threaten the City with AB 712 financial penalties of at least $10,000 per housing unit.

The administrative record—specifically the files published for the March 17, 2026, City Council meeting and obtained via PRA Request NR 26-78—directly contradicts these assertions. This letter identifies the specific discrepancies between your representations and the documentary record, and requests that you correct them.

1. PRC §4291 (Defensible Space): “Plans are NOT APPROVED” Your letter claims the Fire Department “confirmed compliance” with PRC §4291 as part of the AB 130 process. However, the SCCFD Plan Review dated December 29, 2025, explicitly states:
“Plans are NOT APPROVED.” That review identifies a “Preliminary Fire Protection Plan” addressing defensible space under PRC §4291 as an outstanding requirement. Characterizing an unfulfilled, “not approved” status as “confirmed compliance” is a material misrepresentation of a life-safety record.

2. AMMR Scope: Zero Reference to PRC §4291
Your letter asserts the Alternate Means and Methods Request (AMMR) process confirmed the project complies with “those standards,” explicitly including PRC 4291. A review of the AMMR Application (filed January 5, 2026) reveals it contains zero reference to PRC §4291. The

Page 1 ends

application is limited exclusively to structure setbacks under PRC §4290/14 CCR §1276.01.

Using a document that does not even mention a code section to certify compliance with that section is factually and legally indefensible.

3. The Incomplete AMMR: Missing Building Official Validation You represent the AMMR as a completed, “approved Application.” However, the AMMR form itself states: “The Building and Fire Official must evaluate information” regarding the modification. While a Fire Official signed on January 6, 2026, the Building Official signature and date lines remain entirely blank. Under CBC 104.11, the Building Official has an independent, non-delegable duty to validate such modifications. An unsigned, partially executed document is not an “approved application.”

4. “Exception” Mischaracterized as “Compliance” (PRC §4290) Your letter asserts the project “complies” with fire requirements. The SCCFD’s actual determination characterizes the project as having “deficiencies to non-conforming 30’ setback requirements.” The Department approved an exception, not compliance. Approving a deviation from a safety standard due to documented deficiencies is not an affirmation of compliance.

Request for Correction
Your letter invokes AB 712 to threaten the City with financial penalties of at least $10,000 per housing unit—a total exposure exceeding half a million dollars for 51 units—and cites AB 130 to demand bypass of CEQA environmental review. These are exercises of the coercive power of the state directed at a municipality and its residents. The invocation of such power should require a correspondingly high evidentiary bar: documented, verified compliance with each cited standard. The discrepancies identified above suggest that bar has not been met.

The residents of this neighborhood will bear the consequences of any fire safety shortcuts for decades. When a legal demand compels a city to waive environmental review and approve a project on the basis of fire compliance that the Fire Department’s own records do not support, the resulting harm falls not on the developer or its counsel, but on the families who live adjacent to these structures.

The questions raised in this letter are not matters of legal interpretation or good-faith differences of opinion. Whether the Fire Department issued a document confirming PRC §4291 compliance is a binary factual question. No such document exists. Whether the AMMR approved compliance with PRC §4290 or an exception to it is answered by the Fire Department’s own words:
“exception request” and “deficiencies to non-conforming.” Whether the Building Official signed the AMMR is visible on the face of the document.

Page 2 ends

The City Council hearing on this project is scheduled for April 1, 2026. Please provide, no later than March 30, 2026:

1. The specific factual basis for your representation that the Fire Department “confirmed compliance” with PRC §4291 and Chapter 7A; or

2. Confirmation that you will formally correct the record with the City of Cupertino by withdrawing or amending the factual assertions identified in this letter.

I trust that a review of the documents referenced below will confirm the discrepancies identified in this letter, and that a correction will follow promptly.

Sincerely,
Vikram Saxena
Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino
cc:Floy Andrews, City Attorney, City of Cupertino
Cupertino City Council, Cupertino Planning Commission, City Manager City Clerk

Page 3 ends

EXHIBIT A: EVIDENCE LOG OF MATERIAL DISCREPANCIES
Counsel’s Claim (Feb 12
Letter)
Administrative Fact (March
17 Record)
Primary Source Citation
Fire Dept “confirmed” compliance
with PRC 4291.

SCCFD issued a status of “Plans
are NOT APPROVED”; 4291 is an
outstanding requirement.

SCCFD Plan Review #251740
The AMMR is a completed
“approved Application.”
The Building Official signature is
BLANK; dual review is required
by the form and CBC 104.11.

SCCFD AMMR Form
AMMR process confirmed
compliance with PRC 4291.

The AMMR Application has ZERO
reference to PRC 4291.

AMMR Application Narrative
The Project “complies” with Fire
Code requirements.

Project has “deficiencies” and is
“non-conforming”; approved only
as an “exception.”
SCCFD Plan Review #250800

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
• Attachment 1: Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP Letter dated February 12, 2026. • Attachment 2: SCCFD Fire Prevention Plan Review #251740 (December 29, 2025), explicitly stating “Plans are NOT APPROVED.”
• Attachment 3: SCCFD AMMR Application and Approval Form (January 6, 2026), showing blank Building Official signature.
• Attachment 4: SCCFD Fire Prevention Plan Review #250800 (January 7, 2026), characterizing setbacks as “non-conforming.”
• Attachment 5: SummerHill Homes AMMR Narrative (Revised December 19, 2025), confirming scope is limited to PRC 4290.

Page 4 ends

From: Vikram Saxena
To: City Attorney"s Office; Tina Kapoor
Cc: City Clerk; Kitty Moore; R "Ray" Wang; Liang Chao; [email protected]; DerChang Kau; [email protected]
Subject: [URGENT] Request for Notice of Regulatory Discrepancy: Cox Castle Letter of February 12, 2026 Date: Friday, March 27, 2026 12:37:55 AM
Attachments: Request_for_Notice_of_Regulatory_Discrepancy.pdf Attachment_Cox_Castle_HAA_CEQA_Letter_2026-02-12.pdf
Attachment_SCCFD_Plan_Review_Comments_2025-12-29.pdf
F - Alternative Means and Methods Request Approval.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 Attorney Andrews:

Please find the attached memorandum documenting material discrepancies between the factual assertions in the Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP letter dated February 12, 2026, and the administrative record for the Evulich Court project at 10857 Linda Vista Drive.

I request that the City Attorney issue a formal notice of regulatory discrepancy to SummerHill's counsel and require a correction of these factual assertions before the City relies on them for any approval findings.

With the hearing scheduled for April 1, 2026, time is of the essence.

The Cox Castle letter claims the Fire Department confirmed the project's compliance with PRC 4290, PRC 4291, and Chapter 7A of the California Building Code. However, the attached analysis demonstrates the following:
- PRC 4291 (Defensible Space): This is not mentioned in the AMMR application, approval form, or the SCCFD Fire Prevention Plan Review. The only Fire Department reference identifies PRC 4291 as an outstanding, unfulfilled requirement. - PRC 4290: The Fire Department approved an exception reducing the 30-foot setback to 10 feet, characterizing the project as having "deficiencies to non-conforming" standards rather than confirming compliance.
- AMMR Approval Form: The form requires signatures from both the Fire Official and the Building Official; however, the Building Official signature line remains blank.

These misrepresented facts are the foundation for the assertion that the project qualifies for the AB 130 CEQA exemption and for the threat of AB 712 financial penalties against the City.

Respectfully,
Vikram Saxena
On behalf of Linda Vista neighborhood
Ih) COX CASTLE

Page 2 ends

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

Page 3 ends

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.

Page 4 ends

Margo SSradish
Planning Commission
February 12, 2026

Page 5 ends

Sincerely,
Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP
Margo Bradish
MNB
CC: Floy Andrews, City Attorney
Steve Bull, SummerHill Homes
Austin Lin, SummerHill Homes

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.

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

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
From: Vikram Saxena
To: Building; Tina Kapoor; Benjamin Fu
Cc: City Attorney"s Office; City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Commission; [email protected]; DerChang Kau; [email protected]; Mark Fantozzi
Subject: Building Official Evaluation Required Under CBC 104.11 for AMMR for Evulich Court Date: Friday, March 20, 2026 2:58:23 PM
Attachments: image.png
Why the 30-Foot Setback Exists.pdf
F - Alternative Means and Methods Request Approval.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.

AMMR approval page: Fire Official signed. Building Official line blank.

The core issue
The 30-foot setback is not merely a design preference — it is the minimum spatial condition necessary to allow compliance with California’s defensible space law within private property boundaries. Reducing that distance without demonstrating equivalent functional capacity defeats the statutory framework the regulation was designed to implement.

Reduction of the 30-foot setback to 10 feet eliminates the ability to maintain required defensible space within property boundaries, thereby creating a direct conflict with PRC §4291.

1. Structure-to-structure fire spread mitigation — reducing radiant heat flux below ignition thresholds for neighboring properties, not just protecting the new buildings from ignition

2. Firefighter access and staging — physical space for ground ladder deployment, defensive perimeter operations, and safe suppression tactics

3. Civilian evacuation interface — ensuring fire conditions at the perimeter do not impede evacuation from adjacent properties

4. Ability to maintain defensible space under PRC §4291 — providing sufficient space within property boundaries to comply with the 100-foot defensible space requirement The AMMR mitigations address only the first function, and only from the perspective of protecting the new buildings. The applicant cannot satisfy the “same practical effect” standard by demonstrating equivalency in one function while leaving the remaining three unaddressed.

1. No radiant heat analysis in the record
The AMMR was filed January 5, accepted January 6, plan review completed January 7. No radiant heat modeling or structure-to-structure analysis is documented.

If equivalency is not demonstrated across all required functions — including defensible space feasibility under PRC §4291 — the basis for the CEQA exemption is undermined.

Your determination of equivalency under CBC 104.11 is therefore not only a building code question — it is a predicate for the project’s environmental clearance.

My request
I respectfully request that, before signing the AMMR, you:

2. Evaluate equivalency across all four functions served by the 30-foot setback: fire spread mitigation (for the neighborhood), firefighter access, evacuation interface, and PRC §4291 defensible space feasibility.

3. Require a radiant heat analysis demonstrating equivalent protection for neighboring properties.

4. Address the chimney and tunnel effects created by the corridor geometry and the height differential.

5. Evaluate the window openings contradiction — R302.1(2) invoked but windows not modified.

6. Confirm firefighter ladder access is physically achievable in 10 feet, on the surfaces present.

The neighboring families built their homes decades before this project was proposed. They have no fire-hardened construction, no ember protection, and no ability to modify the conditions on the project side of the property line. Your signature on this AMMR is the last point in the process where the City’s building authority can ensure that the standard has been met — not just for the developer’s buildings, but for the community the Fire Safe Regulations are designed to protect.

Thank you for your careful consideration.

Request for Notice of Regulatory Discrepancy
Executive Summary
The letter submitted by Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP on February 12, 2026, asserts that the Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD) confirmed the project’s compliance with state fire safety standards, thereby mandating City approval. On page 3 of the letter, counsel states:
“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 § 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.”
The documentary record—including the AMMR application, the AMMR approval form, and the SCCFD’s own project determinations—establishes three material misrepresentations in this assertion:
• PRC 4291 (Defensible Space): PRC 4291 does not appear in the AMMR application, the AMMR approval form, or the SCCFD Fire Prevention Plan Review that approved the exception. The only Fire Department reference to PRC 4291 is in the December 29, 2025 Plan Review, which identifies it as an outstanding, unfulfilled requirement. No Fire Department document confirms compliance with PRC 4291.
• Incomplete AMMR Approval: The Cox Castle letter presents the AMMR as a completed “approved Application.” The AMMR form requires dual evaluation by both the Fire Official and the Building Official. The Fire Official signed; the Building Official signature line is blank. The dual review required by CFC 104.10 and CBC 104.11 was never completed.
• PRC 4290 (Structure Setbacks): The Fire Department did not confirm compliance with PRC 4290. It approved an exception reducing the required 30-foot setback to 10 feet, characterizing the project as having “deficiencies to non-conforming 30’ setback requirements.” Approving a deviation from a standard is the opposite of confirming compliance with it.

These misrepresentations form the factual predicate for the letter’s claim that the project is exempt from CEQA under AB 130, which in turn triggers the Permit Streamlining Act timeline, the HAA prohibition on denial, and the threat of AB 712 financial penalties—$10,000 or more per housing unit, with a 5x multiplier for repeat violations.

AB 712 was enacted to empower HCD and the Attorney General to enforce housing laws against non-compliant local agencies. By asserting fabricated regulatory predicates to invoke these enforcement mechanisms, the letter effectively leverages the coercive power of a state enforcement framework on a false factual basis.

Given the material discrepancies between the Cox Castle letter and the administrative record, the City Attorney should demand that SummerHill’s counsel issue a formal correction of the factual errors identified. Allowing these misrepresentations to remain uncorrected in the record exposes the City to the risk of making findings on a defective factual basis.

Should counsel decline to correct the record, the continued reliance on misrepresented facts to compel an official act under threat of state-backed penalties may raise questions under California Rule of Professional Conduct 8.3, which addresses conduct involving reckless or intentional misrepresentation.

1. PRC 4291 (Defensible Space): Outstanding, Not
“Confirmed”
The Claim
The Cox Castle letter asserts that “the Fire Department confirmed that the Project complies” with PRC 4291 as part of the AB 130 process.

The Record
PRC 4291 appears in no Fire Department determination document. A document-by-document review of the complete AMMR record and SCCFD determinations confirms that PRC 4291 (defensible space) is entirely absent from every document in which the Fire Department acted on this project:
• AMMR Application (January 5, 2026): Filed by SummerHill Homes (Steven Bull). Cites only 14 CCR §1276.01—the structure setback standard under PRC 4290. PRC 4291 is not mentioned.
• AMMR Approval Form (January 6, 2026): Accepted by Fire Official Brad Fox for AC Estrada. The form addresses only the setback reduction request under PRC 4290. PRC 4291 is not mentioned.
• SCCFD Fire Prevention Plan Review #250800 (January 7, 2026): Scope: “Alternate Means/Methods Application for an exception request to PRC 4290.” Approves the PRC 4290 exception only. PRC 4291 is not mentioned.
• SummerHill AMMR Narrative (October 28, 2025, revised December 19, 2025):

Details the justification for setback reduction under §1276.01 and proposes mitigation measures (sprinklers, fire-rated walls, non-combustible landscaping). These are building-level measures under PRC 4290. PRC 4291 defensible space is not addressed.

The only Fire Department reference to PRC 4291 identifies it as an outstanding requirement:
• SCCFD Fire Prevention Plan Review #251740 (December 29, 2025): States “Plans are NOT APPROVED.” Requires the developer to provide a “Preliminary Fire Protection Plan” to address “defensible space requirements in accordance with PRC 4291 or Government Code 51182.” This document identifies PRC 4291 compliance as an unfulfilled condition—not a completed review.
• No Subsequent Resolution: There is no document in the administrative record indicating that the required Preliminary Fire Protection Plan addressing PRC 4291 was submitted, reviewed, or approved.

Assessment: The Cox Castle letter claims Fire Department confirmation of compliance with PRC 4291. PRC 4291 does not appear in the AMMR application, the AMMR approval, or any SCCFD determination that acted on this project. The sole Fire Department reference to PRC 4291 identifies it as an outstanding, unfulfilled requirement. Characterizing this as “confirmation of compliance” is a material misrepresentation of the regulatory status.

2. The “Dual Review” Gap: Legally Incomplete Approval
The Claim
The letter repeatedly presents the AMMR as a completed, “approved Application.” The Record
• Mandatory Dual Validation: The Fire Department’s own form states: “The Building and Fire Official must evaluate information” regarding the proposed modification. • Independent Obligations: State law (CFC 104.10 and CBC 104.11) assigns independent responsibilities to the Fire Official and the Building Official to find that an alternative is equivalent to the code.
• Incomplete Execution: While the Fire Official signed the AMMR on January 6, 2026, the Building Official signature and date lines remain blank.

Assessment: Because the dual review required by the form and state law was never completed, the document is only partially executed. Presenting it as a final determination is a misrepresentation of the legal record.

3. Conflating an “Exception” with “Compliance” (PRC 4290) The Claim
The letter states the Fire Department “confirmed that the Project complies with applicable Fire Code requirements” through the approved Alternate Means and Methods Request (AMMR).

The Record
• Acknowledged Deficiencies: The SCCFD’s approval of the AMMR explicitly characterizes the project as having “deficiencies to non-conforming 30’ setback requirements.”
• Request for Reduction: The AMMR application is a “Request [for] a reduction in the minimum 30’ setback” to as little as 10 feet.
• Mitigation vs. Compliance: The developer proposed Chapter 7A wildfire construction standards merely as a mitigation to justify this reduction, not as evidence of standard compliance.

Assessment: Approving a deviation from a standard due to “deficiencies” is the opposite of confirming compliance with that standard.

Conclusion: Legal Consequence
The AB 130 CEQA exemption requires that sites within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone be subject to mitigation measures “pursuant to existing building standards,” including PRC 4290 and 4291. Because the administrative record shows that PRC 4291 compliance is an outstanding requirement and the Building Official has not validated the AMMR, the factual foundation for the CEQA exemption—and the subsequent AB 712 penalty threats—does not exist.

Document Sources: AMMR Application (January 5, 2026); AMMR Approval Form (SCCFD, January 6, 2026); SCCFD Fire Prevention Plan Review #250800 (January 7, 2026); SCCFD Fire Prevention Plan Review #251740 (December 29, 2025); SummerHill Homes AMMR Narrative (October 28, 2025, revised December 19, 2025); Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP Letter (February 12, 2026).

Why the 30-Foot Setback Exists
And Why Reducing It to 10 Feet Creates a More Dangerous Fire Environment The 30-foot setback is not merely a design preference—it is the minimum spatial condition necessary to allow compliance with California’s defensible space law within private property boundaries. Reducing that distance without demonstrating equivalent functional capacity defeats the statutory framework the regulation was designed to implement.

The regulatory standard: a system-level requirement
The Fire Safe Regulations (14 CCR §1276.01) require a 30-foot setback from property lines for all buildings in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The authority and reference notes for §1276.01 cite both PRC §4290 (minimum fire safety standards for new development) and PRC §4291 (the requirement that every property owner maintain 100 feet of defensible space around structures at all times, but not beyond the property line).

While §1276.01 is adopted under authority of both statutes, the 30-foot setback functions as the structural precondition necessary to enable compliance with PRC §4291’s defensible space requirements within property boundaries. Zone 1 under PRC §4291 extends 30 feet from the structure—exactly the distance the setback requires. Reducing the setback to 10 feet eliminates the ability to provide Zone 1 defensible space on the project’s own land, pushing 90 feet of the 100-foot requirement onto neighboring parcels that the developer, the HOA, and the fire department have no authority to manage.

The regulations define Defensible Space as protection for the “neighborhood or community” against both approaching wildfire and “escaping Structure fires” (14 CCR §1270.01(f)). The standard is not limited to protecting the new development—it encompasses the impact on adjacent properties.

A reduction is permitted only if the alternative provides the “same practical effect” (§1270.01(aa)).

The 30-foot setback is not an isolated dimensional standard. It is a system-level requirement that enables multiple functions simultaneously. “Same practical effect” must be evaluated across all functions served by the setback:

1. Structure-to-structure fire spread mitigation—reducing radiant heat below ignition thresholds for neighboring properties, not just the new buildings

2. Firefighter access and staging—physical space for ladder deployment, defensive perimeter, and suppression tactics

3. Civilian evacuation interface—ensuring fire conditions at the perimeter do not impede evacuation from adjacent properties

4. Ability to maintain defensible space under PRC §4291—sufficient space within property boundaries to comply with the 100-foot defensible space requirement An alternative that demonstrates equivalency in one function—such as fire resistance of the new buildings—while leaving the remaining three unaddressed does not meet this standard. The code requires equivalency, not merely mitigation of a known shortfall.

What the 30-foot setback does: energy dissipation
Radiant heat flux follows an inverse-square relationship with distance. At 30 feet from a burning structure, the radiant heat flux on a receiving surface drops to roughly one-ninth of what it is at 10 feet.

NIST research (TN 2205) has found that increasing spacing from approximately 10 feet to 30 feet increases resistance to fire spread by a factor of ten.

At 30 feet, the geometry is open. Radiant energy disperses in all directions. Convective plumes rise freely and dissipate in open air. There is room for firefighters to deploy ladders, apply water, and establish a defensive perimeter. The fence at the property line sits far enough away that radiant heat from a structure fire remains below the ignition threshold for wood.

The 30-foot standard works because it provides four things simultaneously: thermal distance (heat flux drops below ignition thresholds), open geometry (energy disperses rather than concentrating), operational space (firefighters can physically work along the perimeter), and defensible space feasibility (sufficient room within property boundaries to comply with PRC §4291’s 100-foot requirement).

What a 10-foot setback creates: a fire corridor
Reducing the setback to 10 feet does not simply reduce the buffer. It fundamentally changes the fire environment by creating a narrow corridor that concentrates thermal energy rather than allowing it to dissipate. Two specific effects make the 10-foot corridor significantly more dangerous than the absence of 20 additional feet would suggest.

The chimney effect (vertical)
The proposed townhomes are 40 feet tall. The neighboring single-family homes are 12–16 feet (one story) or 24–28 feet (two stories). With a one-story neighbor, the townhome wall rises 26 feet above the neighbor’s roofline—creating a vertical flue.

The 40-foot townhome wall rising above a single-story neighbor’s roofline creates a chimney flue that draws fresh air into the base of the 10-foot corridor—feeding oxygen to a burning fence and intensifying the fire at precisely the height where the neighbor’s combustible siding, eaves, and windows are most exposed—while preheating tree canopy overhead into a secondary ignition source.

On one side of the corridor: a fire-rated, non-combustible townhome wall that reflects radiant energy back into the gap. On the other side: a 6-foot wooden fence at the property line, with mature tree canopy from the neighboring parcel overhead. The non-combustible wall does not absorb heat—it bounces it back toward the fence and the neighbor’s home. The fence absorbs it and ignites. The hot gases rise along the tall townhome wall, pulling fresh air in at ground level, feeding the fire from below. This is the same physics that makes a fireplace chimney work.

Figure 1: Cross-section comparison (to scale). Top: 10-foot setback with chimney effect. Bottom: 30-foot setback with natural dissipation.

The tunnel effect (horizontal)
The 10-foot corridors run the full length of the north and south property boundaries—approximately 500 feet each. Bounded on one side by 40-foot fire-rated townhome walls and on the other by combustible wood fencing, these corridors create tunnels that channel wind-driven fire from the wildland-urban interface on the west along the entire property boundary.

A wildfire approaching from the west—the direction of the WUI—enters the corridor and accelerates through the narrow channel. The fence ignites progressively along its full length. Heat reflects off the non-combustible townhome wall back onto the fence and neighboring homes. Every home along the boundary is exposed simultaneously, not sequentially. This is fundamentally different from the 30-foot setback, where fire energy entering from the west would disperse across open space well before reaching the fence line.

Figure 2: Plan view comparison. Top: 10-foot corridors channel fire along full boundary. Bottom: 30-foot buffer allows fire energy to dissipate.

Fire-hardening the new building does not protect the neighbors The AMMR mitigations—fire-rated walls, patio sprinklers, non-combustible landscaping—protect the new townhomes from ignition. They are sound building practices. But they do not reduce the thermal energy radiated outward if a townhome does become fully involved. Modern residential interiors—synthetic materials, engineered wood products, dense furnishings—burn hotter and faster than older construction. The fire-rated exterior may delay ignition from outside, but once a fire is burning inside, the wall radiates heat outward for the duration.

In some respects, a fire-rated wall that contains a fire but radiates heat is worse for the neighbor than a wall that fails: a contained fire behind a rated assembly can sustain high radiant output for longer, maintaining dangerous heat flux levels on the neighboring structure across the 10-foot gap for an extended period.

The mitigations protect the developer’s buildings. They do not replicate the attenuation effect of 30 feet of open separation for the surrounding community.

Summary
Factor 30-foot setback 10-foot setback
Radiant heat flux at
neighbor
~1/9th intensity; below wood ignition
threshold
~9x intensity; above auto-ignition
threshold for wood siding
Geometry Open air; energy disperses in all
directions
Narrow corridor; heat trapped and
reflected between walls
Chimney effect None; heat rises freely 40-ft wall above neighbor’s roof creates vertical flue drawing fresh air into fire
Tunnel effect None; wind-driven fire disperses over
distance
500-ft corridor channels fire along
entire boundary simultaneously
Fence at property line Below ignition threshold from radiant heat
Ignites from radiant heat; fire runs
laterally along full boundary
Tree canopy Outside primary heat zone Preheated by rising gases in corridor; secondary ignition risk
Firefighter access Room for ladder operations and
defensive perimeter
Corridor untenable during fire;
bio-retention pads, not firm ground
PRC §4291 defensible
space
Zone 1 (30 ft) achievable within
property; Zone 2 extends onto managed
land
Only 10 ft on own land; 90 ft of required
100 ft falls on uncontrolled neighboring
parcels
Neighbor impact Protected by thermal distance and open
geometry
Combustible 1950s home receives
concentrated radiant heat at close range
The question under the Fire Safe Regulations: “Same practical effect” must be evaluated across all four functions served by the 30-foot setback: fire spread mitigation for the neighborhood, firefighter access, evacuation interface, and defensible space feasibility under PRC §4291. A 10-foot corridor—bounded by a fire-rated wall that reflects heat, a combustible fence that ignites, and a chimney geometry that accelerates fire—does not achieve equivalency in any of them. Mitigation of a known deficiency is not equivalency. The physics says no. The geometry says no. The statutory framework says no.

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

CC 3-17-2026
#12
SummerHill Homes - Linda
Vista Drive
Written Communications
From: Jack Farrell
To: City Clerk
Subject: Public Comment for March 17 City Council Meeting Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 5:26:56 AM
Attachments: Linda Vista Dr. Letter of Support 3_16_26.docx.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Good morning,
Please find attached letter of support for the Linda Vista Drive development, to be heard as Agenda Item 12 before the City Council.

Sincerely,
Jack Farrell he/him
Research Attorney
267-218-1147
Check out everything we achieved in 2024!
YIMBY Law
2261 Market Street STE 10416
San Francisco, CA 94114
[email protected]
March 16, 2026
City of Cupertino
City Council
10350 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA
Via email: [email protected]
Re: 10857, 10867, 10877 & 10887 Linda Vista Drive, Agenda Item 12 Dear City Council,
We are pleased to submit this letter of support of the proposed Summerhill Homes project at Linda Vista Drive. YIMBY Law is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation, whose mission is to increase the accessibility and affordability of housing in California. The Summerhill Homes project will consist of a development of 51 townhomes, including 10 affordable units, to replace four single family homes on a 2.51-acre site, located close to the intersection of Linda Vista Dr and Columbus Ave. In compliance with AB130 local building code requirements, the project will include various resiliency upgrades such as hardened exteriors and roof eaves, ember resistant vents, and Zone 0 Landscape Buffers.

We concur with the Planning Commission’s vote and the assessment of your staff that the project is exempt from CEQA and qualifies for final approval of all necessary entitlements.

The Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) and the City’s Housing Element Summerhill Homes submitted an SB 330 Preliminary Application on October 9, 2024, and a final application on December 13, 2024. Pursuant to Gov. Code § 65589.5, the YIMBY Law
2261 Market Street STE 10416
San Francisco, CA 94114
[email protected]
application is only subject to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when the Preliminary Application was submitted.

The proposed project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and zoning ordinance and other applicable objective standards. In addition, the City’s approved 2023–2031 Housing Element identifies the project as a Housing Inventory Site. By designating the site as a Housing Inventory Site, the City selected the site for residential use and determined that residential development of the site would assist the City in meeting its Regional Housing Needs Allocation.

The State Density Bonus Law
SummerHill proposes to provide 10 of the 51 town home-styles at below market rate prices. By designating at least 10 percent of the units for Moderate Income households, the project qualifies for benefits under the State Density Bonus Law. Under the State Density Bonus Law, a developer may propose unlimited waivers of development standards that would have the effect of physically precluding construction of a qualifying project at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by the Density Bonus Law. SummerHill is entitled to the waivers it has requested, all of which will provide relief from development standards that would physically preclude construction of the project at the density proposed.

Once a project qualifies for a density bonus, State law provides that the City may deny a requested waiver only if it would have a specific, adverse impact upon health or safety, would have an adverse impact on a historic resource, or would be contrary to State or Federal law. In this context, specific adverse impact “means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.”
1 There is no substantial evidence in the record that any of SummerHill’s requested waivers would meet the criteria for City denial. 1Gov. Code, §§ 65915, subd. (e)(1), 65589.5, subd. (d)(2).

YIMBY Law
2261 Market Street STE 10416
San Francisco, CA 94114
[email protected]
The Housing Accountability Act
The Housing Accountability Act, in Section 65589.5(j)(1)(A)-(B), limits a municipality’s ability to deny or condition on lower density a housing development project that complies with objective standards. The City may only disapprove the project or impose conditions on the project that would reduce density if necessary to avoid a “significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete” and there is no feasible method to mitigate or avoid those impacts other than disapproval or development at a lower density.

We have reviewed the project plans, the CEQA document and the various expert reports that have been prepared for the project, and there is not a preponderance of evidence in the record that would justify the City’s disapproval of the project or conditioning the project in a manner that would reduce density.

Summary
The Legislature has made numerous amendments to California Housing Law in an effort to provide increased clarity and certainty for both municipalities and housing providers.

Based on these laws, the project is subject only to the objective standards that were in effect on the date of the Preliminary Application; the project is entitled to the requested waivers under Density Bonus law; with those waivers the project is consistent with applicable objective standards; and the evidence in the record would not justify the City’s denial of the project or imposition of approval that would reduce density. Disapproval of the project or approval with conditions that would render the project infeasible at the density proposed would contravene State law.

It is YIMBY Action’s understanding that City staff has processed SummerHill’s development application with professionalism and recognition of the City’s obligations under State law. We appreciate the staff’s cooperation and encourage the City Council to continue to uphold the same standard.

YIMBY Law closely monitors projects to ensure that all relevant state laws are properly YIMBY Law
2261 Market Street STE 10416
San Francisco, CA 94114
[email protected]
applied, including the HAA. Should the City fail to follow these laws, YIMBY Law will not hesitate to file suit to ensure state housing policies are enforced. I am signing this letter both in my capacity as the Executive Director of YIMBY Law, and as a resident of California who is affected by the shortage of housing in our state. I look forward to seeing this project approved and brought to realization to help change the tides of the housing crisis in the Bay Area.

Sincerely,
Sonja Trauss
Executive Director
YIMBY Law
From: Kitty Moore
To: City Clerk
Subject: Written Communications for Item 12 FW: Substantive Finding: 90+ Minutes Evacuation Choke and "System Failure" at Evulich Ct. (CUP-029)
Date: Saturday, March 14, 2026 12:11:46 PM
Attachments: 00 - 20260313 - Letter to Mayor Moore .pdf 01 - Evacuation Traffic Model and Analysis.pdf
02 - Feedback to Cupertino Health and Safety Element - General Plan Community Vision 2015-2040 - v3.pdf 03 - Technical Rebuttal to Hexagon Transportation Analysis.pdf 04 - 260224 Plan Comm Evulich Development Emergency Evacuation.pdf Dear City Clerk,
Please include the following email and the attachments for written communications for Item

12. Thank you,
Kitty Moore
Kitty Moore
Mayor
City Council
[email protected]
(408) 777-1389
From: DerChang Kau <[email protected]>
Date: Friday, March 13, 2026 at 10:16 PM
To: Kitty Moore <[email protected]>
Cc: DerChang Kau <[email protected]>
Subject: Substantive Finding: 90+ Minutes Evacuation Choke and 'System Failure' at Evulich Ct. (CUP-029)
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

March 13, 2026
Dear Mayor Moore,
As a resident of Cupertino for over three decades and a retired engineer, I have followed your career with respect for your commitment to objective, substantive analysis. Given your background as a Professional Engineer (PE) and your experience in civil design, land development and transportation, I am writing to provide a high-resolution technical assessment of the Evulich Ct.

Project that I believe warrants your professional review.

In your recent State of the City address, you emphasized that "Quality is what the resident gets out". My analysis suggests that if this project proceeds at its currently proposed density, the "quality" residents will receive during a disaster is a mathematical trap. My evacuation modeling, which utilizes dynamic traffic principles, identifies a critical system failure that the developer’s static "peak hour" traffic analysis overlooks.

My modeling and analysis is not a theoretical concern nor the only warning sign. It turns out, the City of Cupertino knew this. Last October, the city received its own expert study from Fehr and Peers.

The study found evacuation demand on key corridors serving this neighborhood exceed 200% of roadway capacity. The City had it for nearly 5 months before the February 24, 2026 Planning Commission hearing where the project was approved.

I am providing the following Technical Assessment Factors to assist you in evaluating whether the current project proposal meets the objective safety standards required by the General Plan and State law.

Key Technical Discrepancies Requiring Reconciliation

1. Safety Baseline Shift (2025 CAL FIRE Update): The re-zoning of this parcel in July 2024 was based on 2007 fire maps. However, the March 2025 CAL FIRE update reclassified this area as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). Under Government Code §51179, the City has a mandate to adopt these updated findings, which fundamentally changes the safety baseline for high-density development in this corridor.

2. Modeling "Surge" vs. "Daily Peak": The developer’s transportation report models a "peak hour" of roughly 30 vehicles. In a wildfire evacuation, however, the demand is a simultaneous neighborhood-wide surge. My model shows that a surge of 250+ vehicles attempting to exit the Linda Vista "spine" within the 30-minute critical safety window (established by the 2025 Palisades Fire) results in a Utilization Ratio of 110%.

3. The Saturation Failure (V/C ≥ 1.0): Standard planning-level assessments often treat V/C ratios above 1.0 as mere congestion. In reality, when V/C exceeds 1.0, a "Standing Queue" forms and the system ceases to function. My modeling proves that the proposed density pushes the corridor into a state of mathematical failure, doubling the "Order to Safety" time from a survivable 30 minutes to a non-survivable 90+ minutes.

4. Operational Intersection Degradation: The current analysis assumes normal traffic signal operations. However, in a wildfire or earthquake, power outages often put signals into "redflash" or 4-way stop mode, which reduces flow capacity by 50%. This degradation has not been factored into the project’s evacuation clearance estimates.

5. Merging Shockwave Delay: Concentrating 51 units at a single entry point creates a "Concentrated Conflict Point". My analysis identifies a 28.5-minute "Shockwave Delay" caused by forced merging into an already saturated flow—a delay that impacts the entire existing neighborhood.

Objective Decision-Support Framework
To ensure the City upholds its fiduciary duty under GC 65302(g)(5) and CFC 4903, it may be prudent to evaluate the following:

Consistency Review: Is the 51-unit density consistent with the 2025 Health and Safety Element’s "Evacuation-Constrained" criteria?
Cumulative Impact Study: Has the City performed a Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA) that accounts for the cumulative load of all 155 units on the Linda Vista bottleneck during a surge event?
Mitigation Feasibility: I have submitted a conceptual 12-unit R1-aligned alternative that preserves the 30-minute evacuation window while still providing high-quality housing.

Mayor Moore, you have rightly identified residents as the City’s "customers". I trust that your engineering expertise will recognize that "paper compliance" with site standards does not equate to neighborhood evacuation safety.

Sincerely,
DerChang Kau Retired Engineer & University Professor 10847 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino Attachments including

1. Evacuation Traffic Model and Analysis.pdf

2. Feedback to Cupertino Health and Safety Element.pdf

3. Technical Rebuttal to Hexagon Transportation Analysis.pdf

4. 260224 Plan Comm Evulich Development Emergency Evacuation.pdf MONTA VISTA "SPINE” AND WILDFIRE ACCIDENT RISK OVERVIEW

EVACUATION TRAFFIC MODELING

EVACUATION PLAN ANALYSIS

SUPPORTING MATERIALS ON EVACUATION TRAFFIC MODEL
UTILIZATION RATIO – ρ = DEMAND / CAPACITY

TRAFFIC UTILIZATION RATIO MATTERS

QUEUING DELAY (DQ)

MERGING DELAY (DM)
About the author
DerChang Kau, a resident of Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino Technical Credential (if it matters)
Retired Intel Fellow, Technology and Manufacturing
Adjunct Professor, Graduate School of Advance Technology, National Taiwan University Impacts of 2025 CAL FIRE FHSZ Classifications on Project “Evulich Court” The Monta Vista neighborhood of Cupertino
In the Monta Vista neighborhood of Cupertino, residents between 10807 and 11197 Linda Vista Drive are located in a unique geography where the road essentially acts as a single spine. Because Linda Vista Drive is a winding road with several "dead-end" side streets and restricted access points, the evacuation strategy must account for the fact that the primary route is northward toward McClellan Road. — Primary Route: Follow Linda Vista Drive north. This will take you directly to McClellan Road. From McClellan, you can head east toward the more urban parts of Cupertino (away from the foothills). — Secondary/Alternative: Depending on where the fire is located, some residents near the 11000 block may attempt to exit via Canyon Vista Drive to connect back to Linda Vista or other neighborhood arteries, but eventually, almost all traffic must funnel toward McClellan Road or Stevens Creek Blvd.
2 Evulich Court
Evulich Court
Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) maps, the March 2025 CAL FIRE LRA update Wildfire Accident Risk Overview
Hyper-Local Risks for 10807–11197 Linda Vista
The "Choke Point": The lower part of Linda Vista Drive (closer to McClellan) can become congested. If you receive an Evacuation Warning, it is highly recommended to leave early, especially if you have trailers, pets, or large vehicles.
Vegetation Overhang: This stretch of road has significant tree canopy. In a high-wind fire event, "spotting" (embers jumping ahead of the fire) can ignite trees along the road, potentially blocking the only exit. Dead-End Cul-de-Sacs: If you live on a side street off this stretch (like Baxley Court or various private drives), you must be aware that you have zero "rear" exits.

Evacuation Density Risks
The density is a major point of concern for fire safety because:
Funneling: All 150+ households (plus residents on side streets like Rae Lane and Baxley Court ) must use Linda Vista Drive to reach McClellan Road.
The Park Choke Point: The entrance to Linda Vista Park is expected to be the sole entry/exit for the new Vista Heights development, adding concentrated traffic to the middle of your evacuation route. Vehicle Load: With an average of 2.9 to 3.1 people per household in Monta Vista, a full evacuation of just this street segment could involve 450+ people and 250+ vehicles attempting to exit simultaneously onto a winding two-lane road.
3 Evacuation Traffic Modeling
Boundary Conditions & Variables
Segment Geography: A single-access, winding, two-lane road acting as a "single-point-of-failure". Baseline (R1): 70 existing units (approx. 112 vehicles). Proposed (R3): 155 total units (approx. 248 vehicles). Critical Safety Window: 30 minutes, based on a 20-minute fire spread rate of 200 acres (Pacific Palisade Fire Data) Evacuation Analytical Model & Results
4 Baseline(R1 Status) Planned (R3 Status) Logic & Boundary Conditions Total Units (N) 70 Units 155 Units Includes Evulich & Vista Heights.

Vehicle Load (V) 112 Cars 248 Cars Constant: 1.6 vehicles/HH consolidation.

Capacity (μ) 600 Cars/Hr 450 Cars/Hr
Constant: Winding road capacity.

R3 assumes 4-way stop failure.

Utilization (ρ) 37% 110%
Formula: [Demand / Capacity].
ρ>1.0 = System Failure.

Queuing Delay (DQ) 2.5 mins 45.0+ mins
Formula: [(ρ / (1-ρ)) * intrinsic delay Time].

Exponential delay at saturation.

Merging Delay (DM) 4.0 mins 28.5 mins
Based on "Critical Gap Acceptance" for 51
units entering the spine.

Human Factor (DH) 20.0 mins 20.0 mins Constant: Time from alert to vehicle in gear.

TOTAL ORDER TO SAFETY 26.5 mins 93.5+ mins Sum of: [DQ+DM+DH].

Evacuation Plan Analysis
Current Neighborhood (Approx. 70 Homes)
— At an average of 1.6 vehicles per household (typical for emergency evacuations where families try to consolidate), there are roughly 120 vehicles that must exit this specific stretch. — Flow Rate: A single lane of a winding residential road under stress typically handles 600–800 vehicles per hour.
— Physical Exit Time: Technically, 120 cars could pass a single point in about 12–15 minutes. — The "Human Factor" Delay: In reality, total evacuation time includes "mobilization time" (packing, hitching trailers, getting pets). For 70 homes, the neighborhood would likely be clear in 30 minutes from the time the order is issued, assuming no road blockages. Expanded Neighborhood (Planned ~150+ Units)
— With the addition of the Evulich Court (51 units) and Vista Heights (35 units) projects, the vehicle count jumps to approximately 240–260 vehicles.
— The Bottleneck: The main issue isn't just the number of cars; it’s the intersection of Bubb Road and McClellan. If traffic lights are out, this intersection becomes a four-way stop, which can drop flow rates by 50%.
— Estimated Time: Under these conditions, the physical exit time doubles. Adding in the complexity of more neighbors merging from high-density driveways, the total time to clear the street would likely stretch to 90+ minutes.
5 SUPPORTING MATERIALS
6 Utilization Ratio – ρ = Demand / Capacity
Traffic is like running water in the pipe. The Utilization Ratio is the pressure in that system. When ρ exceeds 1.0, the "pipes" burst—meaning the line of cars stops moving, and the time to exit becomes theoretically infinite unless the demand is reduced.

Demand – λ
30-minute requirement is the safety leave window from the learning of Pacific Palisade Fire. R1 Case: λbaseline = 70 Units × 1.6 vehicles/household / 0.5 hours = 224 cars / hour R3 Case: λplanned = 155 Units × 1.6 vehicles/household / 0.5 hours = 496 cars / hour.

Capacity – Ideal flow rate, µideal = 700 cars/hour.
The intersection of Bubb Road and McClellan is the only exit in an "Emergency State”. — Power is out, the traffic signals are dead and the intersection functions as a 4-Way Stop. Higher density creates a "standing queue” and degrades 4-way stop intersection efficiency from ~85% to ~60% — R1 Case: µbaseline = 600 cars / hour
— R3 Case: µplanned = 450 cars / hour.

Metric Baseline (R1 status) Planned (R3 status) Analytical Meaning Demand – λ 224 cars/hr 496 cars/hr The "Pressure"
Capacity – µ 600 cars/hr 450 cars/hr The "Pipe Size"
Utilization Ratio – ρ 37% 110% Result
Why and How Traffic Utilization Ratio Matters
R1 scenario – the traffic Utilization ratio (ρbaseline) is 37% — The system is "Under-Saturated." Cars arrive much slower than the intersection can process them. — There is no queue; you drive straight to the stop sign and leave. R3 scenario – the traffic Utilization ratio (ρplanned) is 110% — The system is "Over-Saturated." Cars are arriving faster than the intersection can process them — When ρ > 1.0, a "Standing Queue" forms; the line of cars gets longer. è System Failure. 8 Linking to delays to safety
Queuing Delay: Because the R3 Utilization is 110%, the queue never clears. You are now waiting for the cars ahead of you to clear a "bottleneck" that is physically too small for the crowd. This is a mathematical proof that the road cannot physically clear the neighborhood in under 30 minutes.
Merging Delay:The 51-unit project creates a Concentrated Conflict Point that adds

28.5 minutes of 'Shockwave Delay' to the evacuation. This is not a subjective preference; it is a mathematical consequence of forcing high-density merging into a saturated, single-lane 'spine' during a surge event."
Queuing Delay (DQ)
Queue will be formed when transit time between cars in traffic flow is shorter than Queuing Delay Transit time (tT) is inverse of flow rate at the demand capacity (λ) Queuing delay (DQ) @ 50% utilization ratio (ρ) is defined as intrinsic delay Time (tintrinsic), 8 seconds is used for this analysis • Queuing delay is not linear, DQ = ρ / (1- ρ) x tintrinsic R1 scenario – the system is ”Quiet." There are plenty of gaps between cars. tT,baseline = 1 / λbaseline = 16 sec/car vs. DQ, baseline = 4.6 sec/ cars tT,baseline > Dq, baseline è the "backlog" never builds up ~2.5 minutes to account for the very tail end of the line (~30 cars) R3 scenario – the system is "Over-Saturated." Cars are arriving faster than the intersection can process them. "Standing Queue" forms. 248 cars want to leave in 30 mins. vs. µplanned@ 450 cars/hr flow rate, the intersection can only handle 225 cars in 30 mins 23 cars are physically unable to leave the street during the safe window.

Those 23 cars, plus the massive slow-down caused by the 225 cars ahead of them crawling at a 110% saturation rate, results in a queue that stretches nearly the entire length of the Linda Vista "spine." In "Over-Saturation” traffic simulation, the average wait time for the last car in line jumps to 45+ minutes just to reach the stop sign.

Baseline (112 cars , R1) Planned (248 cars, R3)
Utilization 37% 110%
Wait per Car ~5 Seconds Infinite/Growing
Wait Time Logic You wait for 5-10 cars. You wait for 247 cars to clear a 1-lane exit.

Resulting Delay 2.5 minutes 45+ mins
Merging Delay (DM)
Based on Gap Acceptance Theory in traffic engineering – the difficulty of a car find a ‘gap’ entering a moving stream of traffic.

Merging time (tm): A driver pulls up to their driveway, waits an average tm (3.5 seconds used) for one car to pass, and merges.

Critical Gap time (tg): if cars on the road are closer than tg, (6 seconds used) apart, you cannot merge Force Merging time (tf): A driver pulls up to their driveway, forced merge their way into main road due to bumper-to-bumper traffic.

This causes the car on the main road to slam on its brakes creating a shockwave. An average of tf (30 seconds used) for one driveway to successfully "force merge" into the saturated line, pass and merges.

R1 scenario – Because the utilization is low (37%), there are ample gaps between cars Across the 70 homes, the "stutter" caused by people pulling out is minimal. Not subject to tg impact The total "friction" added to the system is only about 4 minutes (3.5 seconds * 70 driveway) for the entire neighborhood to clear.

R3 scenario – the "spine" is saturated (Utilization 110%). This creates a "Wall of Cars." A massive concentration at R3 Evulich Court try to exit one single point onto Linda Vista which is already at 110% capacity.

There are zero natural gaps. The "forced merge" effect take place at Evulich Court.

The total forced merging delay time = tf x 51 units = 25.5 minutes Additional 3 minutes delay need to be added for the rest of cars from R1 homes è 28.5 minutes of merging delay is used Baseline (R1) Planned (R3) Analytical Assessment
Merging Type Distributed Concentrated 51 units create a massive "conflict point." Gap Probability High (80%) Low (<5%) High density eliminates natural gaps.

Avg. Wait per Merge 3.5 Seconds 30.0 Seconds "Forced merging" stops the main flow.

Total Merging Delay 4.0 Mins 28.5 Mins [Wait per Merge * No. of Units].

FEEDBACK TO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY ELEMENT
OF THE CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN: 2015 -
2040 COMMUNITY VISION
March 10, 2026
DerChang Kau
Retired Engineer, University Professor and Resident of Cupertino High-Risk Zones Demand Street-Level Evacuation-to-Safety Analysis Outdated census data and
planning-level methods
cannot manage modern wildfire risk
1 Preface
Cupertino’s current wildfire evacuation analysis relies heavily on planning-level assumptions, dated population data, and static traffic metrics that do not reflect real-world emergency conditions. Across all four sections below, a consistent theme emerges: the City’s Health & Safety Element is not aligned with the evacuation realities of a denser, more wildfire-exposed Cupertino in 2030–2040.

The documents show that:
● The analysis uses 2023–2025 data, ignoring the major density increases triggered by the July 2024 rezoning. As one section notes, it “primarily reflects existing households” rather than future conditions.
● The methodology remains planning-level, even though the City’s own consultant acknowledges that dynamic traffic assignment is required for constrained areas. ● Critical evacuation zones—especially CUP029, which generates 38% of all evacuation trips—are located within Fire Hazard Severity Zones, yet the City has not modeled evacuation at the street level.
● The use of V/C ratios dramatically understates evacuation risk. At V/C ≥ 1, “the system is oversaturated and no longer functioning,” yet the report treats V/C > 2 as merely “more than one hour.”
Taken together, these findings show that Cupertino’s current evacuation analysis cannot support longrange planning through 2040. The City must adopt dynamic, data-driven, future-oriented evacuation modeling to protect residents and meet the intent of the General Plan’s Health & Safety Element.

Section 1 — Dated Data Source
“Outdated Inputs: Why the Current Evacuation Analysis Cannot Support 2040 Planning” The following data sources were used to estimate vehicle evacuation demand for residents, employees, students, and visitors in “Evacuation Route Capacity Report” ● 2023 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year Estimates: Used for population, household data, and vehicle ownership distribution.
● Genasys Protect: Provides population, household estimates, and designated evacuation zones. ● StreetLight Data (2024): Used to evaluate and compare traffic volumes between school and non-school periods.

This analysis represents a snapshot of the city’s current evacuation capacity based on the most recent available census and municipal data from 2023–2025. It does not incorporate the increased residential densities anticipated under the July 2024 rezoning. As noted in the original text, “using 2023 ACS data and July 2025 Genasys data, it primarily reflects existing households.” For example, Evulich Ct. is evaluated using its existing 4-unit R1 zoning, rather than the 51-unit R3 density under the rezoning. Consequently, Figure HS-3 in Chapter 7 of the Health and Safety Element | General Plan (Community Vision 2015–2040) does not identify this area as required under Policy HS2.13, which highlights residential parcels with fewer than two ingress/egress routes. 2 Because the analysis relies on pre-rezoning conditions, the document does not adequately support longrange planning through the year 2040. The document is therefore inadequate to support a general plan to the year 2040.

Section 2 — Traffic Flow Methodology
“Planning-Level Methods Are Not Enough: Cupertino Needs Advanced Evacuation Modeling” The referenced sources describe the current “planning-level” assessment as a broad evaluation of transportation system capacity rather than a definitive evacuation plan. While this type of assessment is useful for identifying major bottlenecks and informing policy decisions, it also explicitly acknowledges that more detailed, higher-resolution studies—such as dynamic traffic assignment—are the appropriate next step for areas with significant constraints.

As Fehr & Peers note, community-scale wildfire evacuation assessment is an emerging field. However, general guidance does exist, including ISO 22315 and NIST’s ESCAPE framework. Given Cupertino’s substantial wildfire exposure and its position at the center of global science and technology innovation, the city is uniquely positioned to take a leadership role in advancing rigorous, data-driven evacuation assessment and mitigation planning. Several jurisdictions, including Marin County, have already begun such modeling efforts to identify evacuation bottlenecks and evaluate mitigation strategies‡.

Leadership in this area could include:
● Scenario-based wildfire evacuation simulations
● Traffic network evacuation time analysis
● Population departure behavior modeling
● Redundant evacuation route and shelter analysis
● Quantitative evacuation performance metrics (clearance time, route saturation, etc.) A forward-looking evacuation assessment framework would not only strengthen public safety for current residents but also provide a valuable foundation for evaluating the cumulative evacuation impacts of future development.
‡:https://www.marinwildfire.org/news/the-state-of-the-science-in-wildfire-evacuation-modeling-a-literature-review?utm_source=chatgpt.com Section 3 — Prioritize Local Level Evacuation Route with FHSZ Map “High-Risk Zones, High Stakes: Street-Level Modeling Required for FHSZ Evacuation” This analysis is based on the evacuation routes released by the City of Cupertino in August 2025. Every one of those designated routes lies outside the mapped Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ). Yet four zones—CUP-016, CUP-017, CUP-029, and CUP-032—are fully or partially within Moderate, High, or Very High FHSZ. Given this reality, it is no longer acceptable to rely on a “planning-level” review of the main evacuation route shown in Figure 2. The City must move beyond high-level assumptions and conduct street-level dynamic traffic assignment within these at-risk zones. Anything less leaves thousands of residents exposed.
3 The findings in CUP-029 alone make the case unmistakable. CUP-029 represents 38% of all evacuation trips in Scenarios A and C—the single largest share of evacuation demand. This is not a marginal zone; it is the primary choke point in a wildfire emergency. In Scenario A, McClellan Road—serving CUP-029 and CUP-032—reaches a V/C ratio of 4.2, while Foothill Boulevard—serving CUP-017—reaches 4.0. A V/C ratio of 1.0 already means a road is over capacity. These corridors are projected to operate at four times their hourly capacity during an evacuation. That is not a “constraint.” That is a system failure waiting to happen.

Fehr & Peers themselves state that for “more constrained and congested conditions, higher-effort studies may involve modeled analysis of evacuation scenarios using dynamic traffic assignment to simulate traffic flow and evacuation times when street and freeway networks are at capacity.” Cupertino’s conditions are exactly what this warning describes. The City cannot continue to treat this as optional.

To protect residents, Cupertino must adopt dynamic, data-driven tools immediately. This includes the use of real-time traffic management systems capable of providing dynamic route guidance and monitoring to divert evacuees away from collapsing corridors. Furthermore, phased evacuation strategies must be developed not only for the main arterials but also for the high-demand FHSZ zones themselves, where evacuation surges originate. Without this, the extreme congestion projected on McClellan Road and Foothill Boulevard will materialize as modeled or worse, as real-world behavior is never as orderly as a static model assumes.

Cupertino has the data, the expertise, and the responsibility. The City must elevate this work beyond planning-level analysis and commit to the advanced modeling that wildfire-exposed communities across California are already pursuing. Residents deserve evacuation planning that matches the severity of the risk—not a framework that collapses the moment it is needed most.

Section 4 — Improvement to Evacuation-to-Safety Metric
“Beyond V/C Ratios: A Total Evacuation-to-Safety Framework Is Essential” The current assessment fails to correct roadway capacity for emergency conditions. The Volume-toCapacity (V/C) ratio used throughout the report is an over2023simplified metric, and the accompanying text is misleading. For example, on page 24 the report states:
“V/C ratios greater than 2… indicate that these roads would require more than one hour to accommodate the evacuation demand from the evacuation area.”
This framing dramatically understates the severity of the problem. A V/C ratio above 1.0 does not simply mean “more than one hour.” It means the system is over-saturated and no longer functioning. Cars are arriving faster than the roadway can process them. A standing queue forms. The system fails.

1. Capacity Must Reflect Realistic “Adjusted Evacuation Route Capacity” The “Adjusted Evacuation Route Capacity” used in this study relies on planning-level hourly capacities from the Highway Capacity Manual (2000). These values do not represent real-world evacuation conditions and fail to incorporate:
● Spatial Adjustments: Increased residential density from the Housing Element requires downward adjustments to reflect degraded capacity on constrained terrain and limited visibility. 4 ● Temporal Adjustments: School pickup periods and short-term curbside parking can severely reduce effective capacity during critical hours.
● Operational Limitations: The analysis assumes normal signal operations and does not account for “red-flash mode” during power outages—an extremely likely condition during wildfire events.

2. Demand Must Reflect Realistic Future Conditions
The study is a snapshot of Cupertino’s evacuation capacity based on 2023–2025 data. It does not account for the substantial density increases triggered by the July 2024 rezoning.

Planning for wildfire evacuation using backward-looking data is planning through a rearview mirror. It guarantees underestimation of future evacuation demand.

3. Moving Beyond V/C: “Total Evacuation to Safety” Must Be the Standard Fehr & Peers acknowledge that V/C ratios only identify bottlenecks; they do not measure total evacuation time. In traffic engineering and management science¶, V/C is a well-established tool for quantifying queuing and merging delays. When V/C ≥ 1, the system is not merely “congested”—it is over-saturated, and two critical delays dominate:
¶: Stanford University,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Department of Management Science and Engineering
● Queuing Delay: As V/C approaches 1, delay increases non-linearly.

𝐷𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑦 = 𝑉/𝐶
1 − 𝑉/𝐶
× 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑙 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒
When V/C ≥ 1, queues grow indefinitely. The roadway cannot clear vehicles. ● Merging Delay: When traffic density eliminates safe gaps, merging becomes impossible without forced maneuvers that further destabilize flow.

Consider CUP-029 at 8PM during a late-summer, wind-driven wildfire approaching from the south. A quickly encroaching fire from the foothills would paint the sky red. The tree canopy along Linda Vista becomes a “fuel tunnel.” Residents have only one exit: northbound toward McClellan Road. Roughly 80 vehicles from 51 homes on Evulich Court must merge into an already over-saturated Linda Vista Drive.

This is not a theoretical model—it is a life-and-death situation at the choke point.

Wildfires such as the Pacific Palisades Fire have spread at rates of 200 acres in 20 minutes. Under these conditions, seconds matter. Residents need to be aware not just of potential evacuation bottlenecks, but how much time is required to reach safety. This requires the city to both plan and communicate a comprehensive and up-to-date evacuation plan that considers realistic models of queuing, merging, human behavior, and departure delays.

Human factors—delays in loading children, pets, and essential belongings—further slow departures.

Without quantifying these delays, the City cannot provide residents with the knowledge they need to prepare for an evacuation that may unfold in minutes, not hours. 5 Fehr & Peers states that the V/C metric is only a baseline tool. They identify dynamic traffic assignment (DTA) and phased departure timing as the necessary next steps for an objective, safety-driven evacuation assessment.

In conclusion, Cupertino cannot rely on planning-level V/C ratios to evaluate wildfire evacuation safety.

The City must adopt a Total Evacuation to Safety framework grounded in dynamic modeling, realistic capacity adjustments, and future population density. Anything less leaves residents with a false sense of security and exposes the community to unacceptable risk.

Closing Summary
“Why Cupertino Must Elevate Its Evacuation Planning Now” Cupertino’s current wildfire evacuation analysis provides a useful starting point, but it is fundamentally constrained by outdated data, planning-level methodologies, and metrics that do not reflect realworld emergency behavior. Across all four sections, the evidence is clear: the City’s Health & Safety Element does not yet meet the level of rigor required to protect residents in a rapidly densifying, wildfire-exposed community.

The analysis relies on 2023–2025 population and traffic data, even though the July 2024 rezoning dramatically increases residential density. As the document itself notes, it “primarily reflects existing households,” leaving future evacuation demand unaccounted for. This gap alone makes the current assessment insufficient for long-range planning through 2040.

Methodologically, the City continues to rely on broad, planning-level evaluations despite its consultant’s own acknowledgment that dynamic traffic assignment and scenario-based evacuation modeling are necessary for constrained areas. Peer jurisdictions across California have already adopted these advanced tools; Cupertino should not lag behind.

The risk is most acute in the Fire Hazard Severity Zones, from which evacuation surges originate. Zones such as CUP029 and CUP032 generate the largest share of evacuation demand, yet are absent from the City’s street-level evacuation models behavior. Projected V/C ratios of 4.0–4.2 on McClellan Road and Foothill Boulevard indicate not congestion, but system failure under evacuation conditions.

Finally, the continued reliance on V/C ratios obscures the true danger. At V/C ≥ 1, “the system is oversaturated and no longer functioning,” however the City’s report frames V/C > 2 as merely “more than one hour.” Residents need to understand time to safety, not just where bottlenecks occur. That requires modeling queuing, merging, human behavior, and departure delays—none of which are captured in the current framework.

In summary, Cupertino has the data, the expertise, and the responsibility to adopt a modern, dynamic, and future-oriented evacuation planning framework. The City needs urgently to meet the intent of the General Plan and to safeguard residents through 2040 and beyond. Cupertino must move beyond planning-level assumptions and commit to advanced, data-driven evacuation modeling that reflects the realities of wildfire risk and future population growth.

OUTDATED INPUTS

PLANNING-LEVEL METHODS ARE NOT ENOUGH

HIGH-RISK ZONES REQUIRE STREET-LEVEL MODELING
BEYOND V/C RATIOS: A TOTAL EVACUATION-TO-SAFETY FRAMEWORK March 9, 2026
DerChang Kau
Resident of the City of Cupertino
Feedback to Update to the Health and Safety Element of the Cupertino General Plan:
2015 - 2040 Community Vision
1 Outdated Inputs
The City’s evacuation analysis is built on pre-rezoning data and cannot support long-range planning.
Uses 2023 ACS, 2025 Genasys, and 2024 StreetLight data — “Primarily reflects existing households” — not future density Fails to identify parcels with single ingress/egress as required by California Government Code Section 65302(g)(5)¶
— Evulich Ct. modeled as 4 units, not 51 units allowed under rezoning
A 2040 General Plan cannot rely on 2023 conditions
The analysis is outdated the moment it is published.
2 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=65302.&article=5.&hig hlight=true&keyword=Fire%20Hazard%20Severity%20Zone#:~:text=(5)%20Upon%20the%20next%20revision,revision %20of%20the%20safety%20element. ¶
2 Planning-Level Methods Are Not Enough
Cupertino must move beyond broad, planning-level assessments to dynamic, high-resolution evacuation modeling.
Current method is a “broad evaluation,” not a plan
— Fehr & Peers: constrained areas require dynamic traffic assignment (DTA) DTA has been adopted widely
— National guidance exists: ISO 22315, NIST ESCAPE
— Peer jurisdictions (e.g., Marin County) already use advanced modeling Needed tools:
— Scenario-based simulations, Evacuation time analysis, Departure-behavior modeling, Redundant route & shelter analysis, Quantitative performance metrics
Cupertino should be a leader—not a laggard—in evacuation planning. 3 3
High-Risk Zones Require Street-Level Modeling
Four evacuation zones lie within Fire Hazard Severity Zones, yet the City has not modeled their street-level evacuation behavior. All designated evacuation routes lie outside FHSZ
But CUP016, CUP017, CUP029, CUP032 lie inside Moderate–Very High FHSZ — CUP029 alone = 38% of all evacuation trips
— McClellan Road V/C = 4.2; Foothill Blvd V/C = 4.0
— These are not “constraints”—they are system failures
City must adopt:
— Street-level DTA, Real-time traffic management, Phased evacuation strategies for FHSZ zone
Thousands of residents remain exposed until
Cupertino models evacuation where the risk actually exists. 4 4
Beyond V/C Ratios: A Total Evacuation-to-Safety Framework V/C ratios hide the true danger.

Cupertino needs a Total Evacuation-to-Safety model.
V/C > 1 means oversaturation — “the system fails”
Current study uses planning-level capacities from year 2000 Missing adjustments:
— Spatial (density, terrain, visibility), Temporal (school pickup, curbside parking), Operational (signal outages, red-flash mode)
Real evacuation requires modeling:
— Queuing delays, Merging delays, Human behavior, Departure lag Residents need to know time to safety, not just where bottlenecks occur. 5 5
Evulich Ct. : Evacuation to Safety Modeling
6 The visual animation is courtesy of David Yan, yet another resident of Cupertino Based on
2023 American Community
Survey (Used for population,
household data, and vehicle
ownership distribution). è
Does not include 2024 re-zoning
Include 2024 re-zoning of
Evulich Ct., a.k.a.
10857~10887 Linda Vista Dr
to R3 (51 units in red box)
6 ©2026, DerChang Kau. All rights reserved. 7
5’ after Red Flag Warning issued 15’ after Red Flag Warning issued 7 ©2026, DerChang Kau. All rights reserved. 8
30’ after Red Flag Warning issued 45’ after Red Flag Warning issued 8 ©2026, DerChang Kau. All rights reserved. 9
60’ after Red Flag Warning issued
Pre-2024 re-zoning
Entire Linda Vista spine safely
evacuated in 30 minutes or less
Post-2024 re-zoning
More than 1 ½ hours required
for Evacuation to Safety
9 Summary: Cupertino Must Elevate Its Evacuation Planning The current evacuation analysis is not sufficient for
a wildfire-exposed, rapidly densifying Cupertino.

The City must adopt modern, data-driven methods to meet 2040 safety needs. Dated data source
Over simplified methods despite known constraints and consultant guidance High-risk zones (CUP016, 17, 29, 32) require street-level modeling V/C ratios mask true danger — oversaturation means system failure, not delay Residents need time-to-safety modeling, not bottleneck identification Peer jurisdictions already use dynamic traffic assignment & scenario-based tools To protect residents and meet the intent of the Health & Safety Element, Cupertino must move beyond planning-level assumptions and commit to advanced, future-oriented evacuation modeling now. 10 Subject: Re: Feb/24/2026 Planning Commission Public Hearing – Technical Rebuttal to “Transportation Analysis for the Proposed Townhomes at 10857 Linda Vista Drive in Cupertino, CA” by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. https://cupertino.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=8a56f691-e5d1-472e-9ba9-753651a0bd2e.pdf To: Cupertino City Planning Commissioners
CC: Planning Staff, City of Cupertino
From: DerChang Kau, 10847 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino
Dear Chair and Honorable Commissioners,
The "Safety Assessment" on page 22 of the Hexagon report concludes that the project "would not worsen existing geometric hazards". We contend that this finding is based on incomplete data and fails to address the unique life-safety risks of the Linda Vista "Spine."

1. Failure to Model Emergency Surge Conditions
• The Error: Hexagon’s analysis is based on "Peak Hour" trips, estimating only 30 vehicles will exit the site during the busiest hour of a normal day. • The Reality: In a wildfire evacuation, the demand is a simultaneous surge. Our integrated model shows that 248 vehicles must exit the spine in a 30-minute window. • The Impact: Hexagon ignores the Utilization Ratio of 110%, where demand exceeds road capacity, causing total system failure.

2. Ignoring Intersection Degradation (McClellan Choke Point) • The Error: The report assumes the Linda Vista/McClellan intersection functions at a standard "Level of Service".
• The Reality: Disaster events (fire/earthquake) often lead to power outages, turning the signal into a 4-way stop.
• The Impact: This condition drops flow rates by 50%, doubling the physical exit time and trapping residents in the "tunnel of fire".

3. Omission of Merging Conflict and Shockwave Delay
• The Error: Hexagon evaluates the new cul-de-sac for basic garbage truck turning templates but ignores "merging friction".
• The Reality: Concentrating 51 units into one entry point on a saturated single-lane road creates "forced merging".
• The Impact: As shown in our analytical model, this creates a 28-minute "Shockwave Delay" that stalls the entire evacuation route for all 155 households.

Conclusion: A Quantifiable Safety Violation
The Hexagon report addresses "Daily Operations" but fails to provide a "Project-Specific Evacuation Plan". Because the project pushes the total "Order to Safety" time from less than 30 minutes (current R1) to more than 90 minutes (planned R3), it creates a "specific, adverse impact upon public safety" that cannot be mitigated by standard street design.

The General Plan Public Safety Element requires the City to reduce wildfire risk and ensure adequate emergency access and evacuation capability for existing and future residents. The Mobility Element likewise requires that the circulation system function safely and reliably, not only under daily peak conditions but for emergency response. The Hexagon report evaluates routine traffic operations; it does not evaluate emergency surge evacuation performance on the single-access Linda Vista spine.

Because the Hexagon report only focuses on "daily traffic", I strongly recommend city planning department urge SummerHill Homes consulting with reputable agencies in wildfire evacuation analysis and protection planning, such as Reax Engineering for evacuation modeling and Dudek for CEQA fire protection planning to produce flawless and adequate wildfire evacuation risk analysis and mitigation plan.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
DerChang Kau
10847 Linda Vista Dr
Cupertino, CA 95014
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (408)-446-5150 (Residence)
(408)-398-6086 (Mobile)

EMERGENCY EVACUATION SUBJECT TO EVULICH CT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

SIGNIFICANT SAFETY FINDING

QUANTIFIED RESULTS WITH LIFE-AND-DEATH CONSEQUENCES

THE ASKS
DerChang Kau
10847 Linda Vista Drive
Cupertino
Cupertino Planning Commission Hearing
10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino
Feb/24/2026
Significant Safety Finding re the Proposed Evulich Ct Project 2025 CAL FIRE LRA update fundamentally changed the
safety baseline for this parcel.
— Re-zoning of this site to R3/TH in July 2024 was
based on the 2007 (FHSZ) maps.
Total evacuation during a wind-drive wildfire accident will more than double the Critical Safety Window
— Critical Safety Window: 30 minutes, based on a 20-
minute fire spread rate of 200 acres (Pacific Palisade
Fire Data)
— Total evacuation time more than double
from less than 30 minutes with current status
to 60~90 minutes or more with R3/TH at Evulich Ct
2 Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) maps,
the March 2025 CAL FIRE LRA update
Evulich Ct
Mathematically Rigorous, Objective Results with Life-and-Death Consequences 3 Traffic Utilization Ratio Matters
— Baseline @ 37%: The system is "Under-Saturated." No
queue; you drive straight to the stop sign and leave.
— Planned @ 110% : The system is "Over-Saturated." a
"Standing Queue" forms; the line of cars gets longer.

Delays to Safety
— Queuing Delay: Because the R3 Utilization is 110%, the queue never clears. You are now waiting for the cars
ahead of you to clear a "bottleneck" that is physically too small for the crowd. This is a mathematical proof that the road cannot physically clear the neighborhood in under 30 minutes.
— Merging Delay: The 51-unit project creates a Concentrated Conflict Point that adds 28.5 minutes of 'Shockwave Delay' to the evacuation. This is not a subjective preference; it is a mathematical consequence of forcing high-density
merging into a saturated, single-lane 'spine' during a surge event."
All conclusions derived from transparent assumptions, validated models, and reproducible calculations.

Baseline Planned Logic & Boundary
Conditions
Total Units (N) 70 Units 155 Units Includes Evulich &
Vista Heights.

Vehicle Load (V) 112 Cars 248 Cars 1.6 vehicles/HH
Capacity (μ) 600 Cars/Hr 450 Cars/Hr Road capacity.

Utilization (ρ) 37% 110% Demand / Capacity.

Queuing Delay
(DQ) 2.5 mins 45.0+ mins Exponential delay at saturation.

Merging Delay
(DM) 4.0 mins 28.5 mins "Critical Gap Acceptance” model Human Factor
(DH) 20.0 mins 20.0 mins Time from alert to vehicle in gear.

Total Evacuation 26.5 mins 93.5+ mins Sum of: [DQ+DM+DH].

Critical Safety Window: 30 minutes, based on a 20-minute fire spread rate of 200 acres (Pacific Palisade Fire Data) The Asks
Consistency Review: A formal analysis by the Fire Marshal to determine if 51 units is consistent with the 2025 Health and Safety Element Update and its "Evacuation-Constrained" criteria. Supplemental CEQA Review: A re-evaluation of the project’s impacts on emergency evacuation plans, given the change in the
environmental hazard baseline as of March 2025.
Consideration of Mitigation: We propose that a lower-density, R1- aligned project of 12 single-family homes serves as the only feasible mitigation to preserve the "Vista" in Linda Vista while maintaining a safe, 30-minute evacuation window.
4 From: David Yan
To: City Council; City Clerk
Subject: Evulich Court: The Case for a Closer Look
Date: Friday, March 13, 2026 4:48:52 PM
Attachments: LindaVista_CouncilBrief_v03.17.2026(F).pptx LindaVista_CouncilBrief_v03.17.2026(F).pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

For inclusion in the written communications for the March 17, 2026 City Council meeting and made part of the administrative record for this item Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Chao, and Councilmembers:

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

City Clerk - I will be presenting these slides at the meeting. Could you please confirm receipt and arrange for them to be displayed during my presentation? Regards,
David Yan
MARCH 2026
7 Reasons Evulich Court
Cannot be Approved
A summary for City Council. The case for a closer look.

EVULICH COURT 1 / 9
The Legal Standard and What It Requires
The Council may deny this project if there is substantial evidence that the development will pose a health and safety hazard.

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

Government Code Section § 66474(f) and the Subdivision Map Act public safety finding require the City to affirmatively support its conclusion that no serious public health risk exists.

Seven independent grounds demonstrate that standard was not met.

Any one of them is sufficient. Together they present a record the City cannot cure by producing documents after the fact.

SEVEN INDEPENDENT GROUNDS

1. The road cannot safely evacuate this neighborhood

2. The City's own study found both exits at over 200% capacity

3. SB 330 vesting does not freeze the health and safety obligation

4. Setback waiver removes required defensible space with no equivalency

5. Fire safety was built around large 51 townhomes, not fire safety

6. Mitigation measures fail AB 130’s required protective effect

7. The project's specific wildfire risk analysis did not exist at approval

EVULICH COURT
What the Council Must Decide
The CEQA exemption applies only if the record demonstrates all three of the following. If any one is not demonstrated, the exemption does not apply and the project cannot proceed on this record.
01 Evacuation Safety
The record must show the corridor can safely evacuate residents within the time window established by current wildfire data. No city analysis of this corridor exists in the record.
02 Wildfire Safety
The record must show the project adopted fire mitigation measures pursuant to PRC Sections 4290, 4291, and Chapter 7A. The Fire Department's own review confirms nonconforming setbacks and deferred the project specific wildfire plan to a future stage. 03 Compliance With Existing Standards
Setback waiver removes 20 ft of required defensible space with no equivalency analysis in the record.

The AMMR approval does not satisfy AB 130's fire condition. No state agency including CAL FIRE or HCD has made that determination. The only entity claiming it does is the applicant's own consultant.

EVULICH COURT 2 / 9
Independent Engineering Analysis: 93 Minutes to Evacuate A resident engineer applied standard traffic queuing methodology to the approved density. The safe window from the 2025 Palisades Fire is 30 minutes.

The City produced no contradicting analysis.
93 min
Total evacuation time
With added corridor density
30 min
Safe window
2025 Palisades Fire benchmark
110%
Road utilization
Failure threshold is 100%
0 City corridor evacuation
analyses in the record
Across the entire proceeding
About the analyst: DerChang Kau is a retired Intel Fellow and Adjunct Professor of Engineering. His methodology applies standard traffic engineering queuing theory and gap acceptance theory to the approved project density using published emergency evacuation parameters. A preliminary evacuation throughput estimate based on conservative flow assumptions is shown below. It is not presented as a substitute for Fire review. It illustrates why a corridor level evacuation analysis should have existed in the record before approval.

The City made an affirmative public health finding under the Subdivision Map Act without any corridor evacuation analysis with no data to support it. An affirmative finding requires affirmative evidence. The record contains neither.

EVULICH COURT 3 / 9
A Present Tense Health and Safety Finding Cannot Ignore Current Data
In October 2025, a City obtained a Fehr & Peers evacuation study found both exits to Linda Vista operate at over 200% of capacity under evacuation conditions. The study was not placed in the administrative record before the February 24, 2026 PC meeting.

It was produced for the first time on March 9, 2026.

Over 200%
McClellan Road capacity under
evacuation conditions
City commissioned Fehr and Peers study, Oct. 2025
Over 200%
Bubb Road capacity under
evacuation conditions
City commissioned Fehr and Peers study, Oct. 2025
What over 200% means: at 100% utilization, a standing queue forms and does not resolve. Both exits were already failing before this project adds any units. This is not a future risk. It is a current condition documented by the City's own consultant.

Why the City cannot look away from this study
The Subdivision Map Act requires a present tense finding that the subdivision will not cause serious public health problems. That obligation runs at the time of approval, not the time of application. The study existed. The City had it. A present tense health and safety determination in a Very High Fire Hazard zone on a single access corridor cannot responsibly proceed without accounting for the City's own current technical findings about the capacity of that corridor.

EVULICH COURT 4 / 9
SB 330 Vesting Does Not Freeze the Health and Safety Obligation The Applicant (and city) argues SB 330 locks in pre 2025 conditions. That argument fails on two independent grounds and actually cuts against the Applicant on AB 130.

GROUND ONE
SB 330 vests against changes in local ordinances and
policies. It does not vest against physical reality.

The October 2025 Fehr and Peers study did not create a new standard. It documented existing physical conditions on a road that has always had one entrance and one exit. The Subdivision Map Act public safety finding requires a present tense determination. SB 330 protects against regulatory moving goalposts. It does not convert a present tense health and safety obligation into a historical one.

SB 330 Section 65589.5 / Gov. Code Section 66474(f)
GROUND TWO: THE DOUBLE DIP PROBLEM
The developer cannot selectively freeze time.

The Applicant’s position freezes time in only one direction.

The project invokes SB 330 vesting to argue the March 2025 Very High Fire Hazard reclassification does not apply because the application predates it.

Yet the same project invokes AB 130, enacted June 30 2025, to obtain a CEQA exemption that did not exist when the application vested.

AB 130 is a CEQA exemption, not a fire safety certification. Meaning the City must still make a separate Subdivision Map Act safety finding.

Vesting cannot operate selectively. If SB 330 controls the applicable regulatory framework, it applies to both burdens and benefits.

The Council must still make a present tense public safety finding under the Subdivision Map Act based on the conditions that exist today.

EVULICH COURT 5 / 9
The 20 Foot Setback Waiver Removes Required Defensible Space with No Equivalency
AB 130 requires fire mitigation measures that achieve the same practical effect required by CCR Title 14 § 1276.01(b). The Fire Department waived the 30-foot setback, removing 20 feet of defensible space in a Very High Fire Hazard Zone. The approved compensatory measures do not replace the lost spatial separation, and no equivalency analysis appears in the record.

WHAT THE LAW REQUIRES
AB 130 requires fire mitigation measures adopted pursuant to existing building standards, including the 30 foot building separation setback under CCR Title 14 Section 1276.01(a).

Pursuant to means in conformity with. Not in authorized substitution for.

Gov. Code Sec. 65913.4(a)(6)(D) and PRC Sec. 21080.66
Result: Setback reduced from 30 to 10 feet. Twenty feet of defensible space removed from a reclassified Very High Fire Hazard zone. No state agency including CAL FIRE or HCD has determined that an AMMR approval satisfies AB 130's fire condition. The only entity making that interpretive leap is the applicant's own consultant.

WHAT THE RECORD SHOWS
Statutory Requirement
PRC Section 21080.66 requires compliance with PRC 4290, PRC 4291, and Chapter 7A.

Fire Department Record
"PRC 4290: Exception request approved. Nonconforming setbacks to be mitigated through increased fire separation distance and modified sprinkler systems." "Provide Final Fire Protection Plan at building permit stage identifying wildfire mitigation measures."
The Issue
Nonconforming setbacks. Mitigation instead of the standard. Wildfire plan deferred. AB 130 requires compliance, not an exception to it.

EVULICH COURT 6 / 9
The Fire Safety Case Was Built Around Large 2700 sq homes, Not the Other Way Around
The developer's own filings confirm the project was designed to a unit count and size first. Fire mitigation was retrofitted around the resulting layout. AB 130's fire condition exists to prevent exactly this sequence. 01 2700 sq foot homes (51 units) drove the design. Fire safety came second.

The applicant's AMMR justification narrative states the setback reduction was required by the need to fit 51 units on the site. Fire mitigation was not a design driver. It was a post hoc signoff on a 2700 sq foot layout. AB 130's fire condition exists to ensure high hazard zone projects are genuinely designed around wildfire risk, not to provide a compliance stamp after unit counts are locked in. 02 The cited mitigation measures were already required by law regardless of AB 130.

Chapter 7A, fire sprinklers, and fire resistant exterior materials apply to every project in a Very High Fire Hazard zone by operation of law. AB 130 requires measures adopted in response to the fire hazard condition. Passive compliance with universal baseline requirements does not satisfy an adopted standard.

The record contains no analysis of what specific protection the waived 30 foot setback provided and what measures beyond the baseline were adopted to replace it.
03 PRC Section 4291, defensible space, was never analyzed by anyone.

PRC 4291 requires a defensible space clearance analysis. It does not appear in the Fire Department plan review, the AMMR application, or the AB 130 qualification memo. The landscape zone drawings (Sheets L7.1 and L7.2) address vegetation placement only. None of them analyze whether the waived setback satisfies the defensible space obligation PRC 4291 imposes. This is not a documentation gap. It is a substantive gap that cannot be cured after the fact.

AB 130's fire condition is not a checklist of minimum code requirements. It is a substantive standard requiring demonstrated equivalency to specific state fire protections. The record does not contain that demonstration.

EVULICH COURT 7 / 9
The CEQA Exemption Requires Fire Mitigation That Achieves Equivalent Protection. The Record Does Not Show It
PRC Section 21080.66(a)(6) requires measures PRC 4291, 4290, and Chapter 7A that achieve the same practical effect as the 30-foot setback for the CEQA exemption to apply. None of the 4 accepted measures demonstrate this on the record.

Measure Accepted by Fire Addresses PRC 4291
Defensible Space?
Addresses PRC 4290
Setback Equivalency?
Independently in
Administrative Record?
Sprinkler heads on covered patios within 30 feet of
property lines No. Interior suppression only. No. Does not replace spatial separation. No.

Noncombustible landscaping extending 5 feet from
buildings
No. Vegetation placement only.

Does not address defensible space
or replace 20 feet of separation
No equivalency analysis in record. No.

Fire separation requirements per CRC 302.4 No. Structural standard only. Partial. Not analyzed against setback gap. No.

Exterior wall fire resistance ratings within 30 feet of property lines
No. Governs wall materials, not
siting.

No. Does not address spatial
separation. No.

Chapter 7A addresses how individual structures resist ignition from embers and radiant heat. It does not address where structures are sited relative to the wildfire hazard zone boundary. A project can achieve full Chapter 7A compliance and remain inadequately sited in a Very High Fire Hazard zone.

EVULICH COURT 8 / 9
The Project Specific Wildfire Risk Analysis Did Not Exist at Approval
The Fire Department conditioned its approval on a wildfire plan to be submitted later. That plan does not exist. The CEQA exemption cannot rest on evidence that has not yet been produced.

What Condition 2 says:

The Fire Department's own plan review requires the applicant to submit a Final Fire Protection Plan at building permit stage, identifying mitigation measures to address the project's specific wildfire risk pursuant to CFC Section 4903.

What that means: the Fire Department itself acknowledged that project specific wildfire risk mitigation had not been determined at the time of approval.

Why this cannot be cured:

The City may argue this condition shows wildfire risk will be addressed later at the permit stage. That argument fails for a specific reason: the document David J.

Powers cites as proof the fire condition is satisfied - the January 2026 Santa Clara County Fire Department plan review itself, requires the applicant to submit a Final Fire Protection Plan at the building permit stage. The exemption is supported by a document that defers its own conclusion. That is not substantial evidence.

It is a placeholder citing a placeholder.

ADDITIONALLY: DOCUMENTATION IN THE RECORD
The AMMR form analytical fields each state See attached documentation. None of those attachments appear in the administrative record. The January 2026 Fire Department Plan Review Comments were not in the record before or during the hearing. Commissioner Scharf noted this on the record. The document carries a disclaimer stating it shall not be construed as an approval.

From: Alice Lin
To: City Council; Kitty Moore
Cc: Public Comments
Subject: City Council 3/17 Agenda #12 Linda Vista Drive Safety Date: Saturday, March 14, 2026 11:03:36 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

TO:Cupertino City Mayor and Council
FROM: Residents of Cupertino
Date: March 14, 2026
Sub:City Council 3/17 Agenda #12 Linda Vista Drive, Vote No Dear Mayor Moore and Members of the Cupertino City Council, I am writing to formally express grave concerns regarding the proposed 51-unit townhome project at 10857 Linda Vista Drive (TM-2024-009). The Staff Report’s conclusion that "no evacuation study has been required or reviewed"because the City lacks "adopted objective standards" is an unacceptable prioritization of administrative loophole over resident safety.

The Council must address the following critical flaws in the current approval process:

1. Failure to Address the "Very High FHSZ" Baseline In June 2025, the City adopted updated CAL FIRE maps designating this specific parcel as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ). This updated baseline fundamentally changes the safety obligations under Government Code Section 65913.4(a)(6). The City’s reliance on an Environmental Assessment from July 2024—conducted when the site was only "High" risk—is outdated and fails to account for the increased severity of the hazard now officially recognized.

2. Building Codes are Not Evacuation Plans The project claims safety consistency based on Chapter 7A of the California Building Code and PRC Sections 4290 and 4291. However, these standards focus on structure survivability, not the ability of 51 new households to exit onto Linda Vista Drive during an emergency. While the Fire Department approved a "hammerhead turnaround" for fire trucks to enter, there has been zero analysis of how 100+ additional resident vehicles will safely evacuate the neighborhood simultaneously.

3. Improper Deferral of the Fire Protection Plan (CFC 4903) The Santa Clara County Fire Department has conditioned the project to provide a "Final Fire Protection Plan" consistent with CFC 4903. Shockingly, the City is allowing this critical safety analysis to be submitted at the building permit stage, long after the City Council has lost its discretionary power to reduce density or require significant site plan changes. Safety mitigations must be identified before approval to ensure they are actually feasible.

4. Circumventing the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) Under the HAA, the City can only disapprove or reduce the density of this project if it finds a "specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety". By claiming it has "no objective standards" for evacuation, the City is intentionally avoiding the very analysis that would likely provide the "preponderance of evidence" needed to make such a safety finding.

Conclusion Public safety is not a "non-objective" concern. State law, including GC 65302(g)(5), requires that the City ensure adequate evacuation routes in FHSZs. We urge the Council to mandate a formal Wildfire Evacuation Capacity Study as a condition of approval. The City cannot grant PRC 4290 exceptions for reduced setbacks while simultaneously refusing to study the resulting evacuation risks.

Respectfully,
Alice Lin
From: Nancy Wu
To: City Council; Public Comments
Subject: Evulich Court
Date: Saturday, March 14, 2026 1:43:47 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi City Council of Cupertino,
Regarding the Evulich project, please carefully consider the following two points.

1. Fire Safety of the Residents is a City Responsibility. Because lawyers are using various loop-holes to make unsafe developments, does not abdicate the city from it.

2. And the residents will actively support the city and the city council when it comes to defending the city against any legal threats by Big Real Estate because the city is standing up to its responsibility to keep us safe.

Sincerely,
Nancy Wu
Resident on Castleton Street in Cupertino
From: Seema Lindskog
To: City Council; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Subject: Support the trail access from the Evulich Ct development to the Stevens Creek trail Date: Thursday, March 12, 2026 5:32:33 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Chao, and Council members,
I am on the City of Cupertino Planning Commission, but today I'm writing as a resident.

When you consider the Evulich Ct development at Tuesday's Council meeting, please support the trail access connection from the development to the Linda Vista section of the Stevens Creek Trail.

In multiple city surveys, residents cite connectivity and proximity to nature as one of the things they want the most. A huge benefit of living in Cupertino is that we have such amazing nature trails for residents to enjoy.

The 3-30-300 rule of urban planning, endorsed by the United States EPA, the European Union, the WHO, and multiple other organizations, states that the best practice for urban planning is that residents should have access to nature within 300 meters of their home (a little under 1,000 ft).

The trail access from Evulich Ct is a public access which benefits everyone in the neighborhood. It gives mid-block access to the residents on Linda Vista Drive and surrounding streets. Without it, residents on these streets have to walk or drive much further to get to an entrance to the Stevens Creek trail either at Linda Vista Park or at McClellan Rd.

Summerhill Homes, the developer, has agreed to ask for a reduction in the in-lieu park fees for only the simple cost of building this trail access. Compared to costs the city incurs for similar projects, which require multiple bids and other constraints, this is a very cost effective option and a prudent use of city resources.

The Planning Commission voted 3-2 to support the trail access when they reviewed the project. I urge you to also support the trail access connection.

Thank you for everything you do for our city.

Sincerely,
Seema Lindskog
___________________________________________________________________ "You must be the change you want to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi This message is from my personal email account. I am only writing as myself, not as a representative or spokesperson for any other organization.

From: V Lentfer
To: Public Comments
Cc: City Council; R "Ray" Wang; City Clerk; Jim Lentfer; Randy Ong Subject: City Council 3/17 agenda #12 Linda Vista Drive/Evulich. VOTE NO! Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 1:51:08 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor Moore and Councilmembers,
My name is Veronica Lentfer and I live near the proposed 51-townhome development on Linda Vista Drive/Evulich Court.

First, I support adding thoughtful housing in Cupertino. Our region needs more homes, and well-planned development can be part of the solution.

On September 6, 2024, our neighborhood group met with City Manager Pamela Wu and Mayor Sheila Mohan to deliver a petition signed by 745 neighbors, all expressing shock and concern about this proposal. This shows the community has been concerned from the moment they first heard about it.

There are also process concerns. For major zoning changes, proactive notification is expected, and skipping it creates the perception that development interests move faster WITHOUT getting community input.

The current plan would place 51, 4 bedroom 1700-2300 square foot townhomes on a

2.53-acre parcel, roughly 20 units per acre, in the middle of an established singlefamily neighborhood, far from transit and commercial centers. Higher-density housing works best near transit, jobs, and services—reducing traffic and allowing residents to rely less on cars. Placing this project here increases traffic on streets not designed for it and isolates residents from walkable amenities. My adult children could not afford the minimum $2mil + prices of these homes! These homes are clearly not starter homes!
It’s also important to note that this parcel was historically zoned R1 for single-family homes for over 60+ years, reflecting the character of our neighborhood, until it was rezoned in July 2024 to allow multi-family townhomes without notifying the 745 neighbors who signed the petition. The current proposal departs significantly from that original intent, dramatically increasing density and altering the neighborhood’s character.

Some neighbors have observed that the townhomes look more like a Courtyard Marriott Hotel rather than a residential development, highlighting how out of scale and out of character it is compared with nearby homes.

You don’t get a redo on this site. Its development will be part of our neighborhood forever. We, the neighbors, will have to live with its density, scale, design and traffic impact for decades, so it’s essential that it fits responsibly within the existing community.

Another major concern is fire safety. The density and design could create challenges for emergency access and evacuation. I urge the Council to fully review all fire safety issues before granting any approvals, rather than waiving requirements or assuming problems will be resolved later. Safety must be a non-negotiable priority.

If the Council moves forward, I strongly encourage scaling the project to better fit the neighborhood: fewer units, smaller homes, underground parking, and adherence to city height and design standards without waivers. While affordable units are important, waiving guidelines in exchange for a few below-market-rate homes can produce a development that is out of scale with its surroundings.

We all want more housing in Cupertino, but smart growth means placing it where it works for both the city and the neighborhoods—not cramming 51 three-story units into 2.5 acres in the middle of single-family homes far away from transit and commercial centers.

Vote NO on the Linda Vista Drive/Evulich project.

Thank you for your time.

Veronica Lentfer
From: Alice Lin
To: Public Comments
Cc: City Council
Subject: City Council 3/17 Agenda #12, 10857,10867,10877,10887 Linda Vista Drive, Please Vote No Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 1:43:47 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Council Members,
Please vole no to the project. SummerHill Home’s application of building 2700sf home is larger than any of single house in Linda Vista Neighborhood. They are building mansions, not starter homes as Council member JR Fruen is claiming. City Councilors must stop using urban density reform to polarizing the community.

Respectfully yours
A concerned resident living at Monta Vista neighborhood From: DerChang Kau
To: City Council
Cc: Public Comments
Subject: City Council 3/17 Agenda #12 Linda Vista Drive, Vote No Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 1:18:09 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

TO: Cupertino City Mayor, Vice Mayor and Council Member CC: Public Comment record
From: concerned residents of Cupertino
Please vole no to the project. SummerHill Home’s application of building 2700sf home is larger than any of single house in Linda Vista Neighborhood. They are building mansions are not starter homes as Council member JR Fruen is claiming. City Councilors must stop using urban density reform to polarizing the community.

Respectfully yours
A concerned resident living at Monta Vista neighborhood From: James Choi
To: Public Comments
Cc: City Council
Subject: Written Communication for the March 17, 2026 City Council meeting for Agenda Item #12: Evulich Court / Linda Vista Dr / SummerHill Homes Development:

Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 11:34:16 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Written Communication for the March 17, 2026 City Council meeting for Agenda Item #12:

Evulich Court / Linda Vista Dr / SummerHill Homes Development:

Dear Members of the Cupertino City Council,
I am writing to you as a deeply concerned resident living near the proposed 51-unit SummerHill development on Linda Vista Drive. While I understand the state-level pressures and mandates regarding housing, I am urging the Council to pause and re-evaluate this project. This is a matter of life and safety for every resident in this neighborhood. Our lives are effectively in your hands, and we trust you to ensure that development does not outpace the fundamental infrastructure required to protect us.

Please consider the following critical points:

Fire Safety is a City Responsibility: The safety of residents is a fundamental city responsibility. The use of legal loopholes by developers to push through unsafe projects does not abdicate the City of its duty to protect its citizens.

Legal Position on Fire Risk: While the City may claim its hands are tied by state law and that it is forbidden from considering the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone or evacuation risks, this is simply a chosen legal position. In reality, the City has the authority to ensure a defensible fire mitigation and evacuation framework is in place before approving density in high-risk zones.

Standing Up to Developers: Do not let SummerHill, their lawyer, or their legal threats dictate the future of Cupertino. The Planning Commission was recently threatened by their counsel on February 24th, 2026; I urge the Council not to concede to these tactics.

Independent Analysis is Required: We cannot rely on SummerHill’s own fire and safety analyses conducted by third-party companies; these hand-picked reports cannot be trusted to prioritize our safety over their profit.

Community Support: The residents will actively support the City and City Council in defending against legal threats from "Big Real Estate" like SummerHill. We will stand behind you when you fulfill your responsibility to keep us safe.

The landscape regarding fire safety has changed, and the risks are more evident than ever. We need a citywide fire mitigation and evacuation framework that is current and technically sound before adding this level of density to a high-risk corridor.

I ask that you do not disregard this plea. We are looking to you to do the right thing, prioritize the safety of the people you represent over the interests of a developer, and get Cupertino back on a track that values the lives of its residents.

Respectfully,
James Choi
11093 Bel Aire Ct, Cupertino
------------------------------------------
For your reference, I am including the safety gaps I emailed to the Planning Commission for the February 24th, 2026 hearing. Please review the 4 bullet points in detail below.

Written Communication for the February 24, 2026 Planning Commission meeting for Agenda Item #3: Evulich Court / Linda Vista Dr / SummerHill Homes Development:

Dear Members of the Cupertino Planning Commission,
I am writing to you as a concerned resident living near the proposed 51-unit townhome development at 10857–10887 Linda Vista Drive. While I understand the state-level pressures and mandates regarding housing, I am urging the Commission to pause and re-evaluate this project.

The stakes of this decision are not merely about maintaining the character of our community; they are a matter of life and safety for every resident in this neighborhood. Our lives are effectively in your hands, and we trust you to ensure that development does not outpace the fundamental infrastructure required to protect us.

I request that the Commission consider the following critical gaps in the current record:

Outdated Emergency Planning: The City’s Emergency Operations Plan predates the proposed increase in density and, more importantly, the recent fire hazard reclassifications. Approving a project of this scale in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone based on years-old assumptions is a risk the community cannot afford.

Lack of Cumulative Impact Analysis: The City is currently evaluating this project in a vacuum, despite the other Linda Vista project, Vista Heights, also potentially moving forward concurrently nearby. Reviewing these projects independently fails to account for their combined impact on evacuation capacity and emergency response along our shared, constrained corridors.

Need for Technical Transparency: To date, the materials provided have been summary in nature and insufficient for professional technical review. We ask the City to produce the underlying fire mitigation and evacuation materials—including specific assumptions and inputs—to allow for an independent, professional evaluation of our corridor’s actual evacuation capacity.

Service Demand and Response Times: Per Cupertino’s own Health and Safety Element, increased population density leads to traffic congestion that impacts Fire Department response times. In an "evacuation constrained" area like Linda Vista, these delays can be fatal.

We are not asking the Commission to debate the merits of housing in general. We are asking you to fulfill your responsibility to ensure a current, citywide fire mitigation and evacuation framework is in place and relied upon before any further density is approved in a very high- risk zone. Once this project is approved and the developer exits, the permanent risk of infrastructure strain and evacuation failure stays with the residents and the City.

I ask that you take this communication with the gravity it deserves and ensure a comprehensive, corridor-level evacuation analysis is completed and documented on the record.

Respectfully,
James Choi
11093 Bel Aire Ct, Cupertino
From: David Yan
To: City Council
Cc: Public Comments
Subject: 10857 Linda Vista Drive, Applicant"s Evacuation Route Study Not in Record Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 9:38:52 AM
Attachments: image.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Chao, and Councilmembers:

The Council is being asked to approve a residential subdivision on Linda Vista Drive without seeing an evacuation study the Applicant itself prepared for this exact corridor.

A February 10, 2026 meeting agenda obtained through a public records request shows the Applicant presented an evacuation route study to City planning staff and the fire department. That study has never been entered into the record for this project.

The Applicant has taken the position that because the City has not adopted an evacuation plan, evacuation cannot be considered in the approval of this project. The Council cannot allow this line of reasoning to continue during the upcoming March 17th Council meeting. The absence of a plan is not a license to ignore a safety question. The absence of an adopted evacuation plan does not eliminate the City's obligation under the Subdivision Map Act to make an affirmative public health and safety finding. The City still has to affirmatively find that this project will not cause serious public health problems. That finding must be supported by evidence.

The Applicant commissioned its own evacuation route study for this site, presented it to the City and the fire department, and did not produce it into the record. The Council is being asked to make a health and safety determination about evacuation on this corridor without seeing a study the applicant prepared specifically about evacuation on this corridor. If the Applicant genuinely believed evacuation was legally irrelevant to this project, there would have been no reason to commission an evacuation study for this site in the first place.

The physical constraint is fixed regardless. Every route out of Linda Vista Drive resolves to one of two exits: Bubb Road to the south and east, McClellan Road to the north and west.

There is no third option. A wildfire evacuation is not a routing exercise. It is a road capacity question. And capacity is fixed by the roads that exist.

The City commissioned the Fehr and Peers study and it found both exits to Linda Vista Drive, McClellan Rd (West) and Bubb Rd operate at over 200% of capacity under evacuation conditions. The fact that the study was commissioned for the Health & Safety Element does not change those findings. Bubb Road and McClellan Road are over capacity. That is true regardless of which process the study was commissioned for. The roads are what they are.

The findings have been in the City's records since October 2025, as per the cover page of the Fehr and Peers study.

The City cannot rely on a "separate timeline" for the Health and Safety Element to defer its immediate legal obligations. Administrative processes do not change physical constraints: the roads are the same roads.

This is not a question of whether cities can build housing on constrained corridors. It is a question of whether this specific corridor, in a reclassified Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, with two documented failing exits, can safely evacuate the residents already here. The City's own consultant said it cannot. Adding density to a failing corridor in a fire hazard zone is not a housing policy question. It is a public safety question. And the law requires an affirmative answer before approval, not silence.

Under Government Code Section 66474(f) of the Subdivision Map Act, the Council may deny a subdivision if substantial evidence shows the project would cause serious public health problems. A health and safety finding unsupported by evidence is not defensible. The findings do not expire because they were commissioned for a different purpose. The roads are the same roads.

A Council that approves this project while its own records contain documented evidence of evacuation failure does not insulate itself from that evidence by declining to consider it. The obligation to make an affirmative public health and safety finding runs to the actual conditions that exist on this corridor. Approval without evidence of safety violates the Subdivision Map Act.

Respectfully submitted,
David Yan
Linda Vista Neighborhood Resident
From: Rhoda Fry
To: Public Comments
Cc: City Council
Subject: City Council Meeting 3/17/2026 #12 51-unit townhome condominium - VOTE NO Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 9:28:01 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

RE: City Council Agenda #12 3/17/2026 51-unit townhome condominium development on Housing Element Priority Housing Sites 25 through 28
Dear City Council,
You are being asked to vote on 4 items. You have a choice as to whether you vote YES or NO.

That is why you are being asked to vote, otherwise, these decisions would be made ministerially. Furthermore, you should not rely on the Planning Commission vote because the information available at that meeting and the items voted on were different (staff assumed the project was exempt from CEQA and the October 2025 evacuation route was hidden). There are a number of concerns that I have about the proposed project and I hope you will read through my comments.

Sincerely, Rhoda Fry (recipient CREST Public Safety Award) Decision #1 – PROJECT DOES NOT MEET CEQA - Here are TWO tests for CEQA exemption under AB130
Decision #1, Test #1 – Project cannot be in a delineated fault zone. It is. CEQA is required.

AB130 Memo (Attachment E) page 12 misleads the reader into believing that the nearest delineated earthquake zone is the San Andreas Fault (footnote 10). This is false. The Monte Vista fault, capable of a 7.1 earthquake, is within about 400 feet of the proposed project. See notes with links and map below. CEQA IS REQUIRED.

Decision #1, Test #2 – Project cannot be in a very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ). It is. CEQA is required.

Cities I looked at in California do NOT have a fire department sign-off loophole in for AB130.

Why is Cupertino less safe than other California cities (see notes below)? Even the company that prepared the AB130 memo for Cupertino, David J. Powers, stated at the Planning Commissioner Academy last week that VHFHSZ REQUIRES CEQA.

Furthermore, justifications provided by the fire department are not sufficiently detailed and were derived using false assumptions.
a. The fire department assumed that this is a builder remedy project, it is not. b. The fire department was led to believe items that are materially false: that 51 homes must be built and the only way to build them was to reduce the required 30-foot setback.

This is not true. These homes, that Summerhill calls “products,” have 4 bedrooms and are very large, about 2700 sq ft. Smaller homes could be built on this site and maintain the 30-foot safety zone.
c. The fire department conflated PRC 4290 (infrastructure standards) and PRC 4291 (defensible space). All applicable PRCs must be considered individually. d. PRC (4290) can apply to evacuation beyond the footprint of a new project but it is not being considered. It was revealed after the Planning Commission vote on this project that the evacuation routes from this project are severely impacted by 2 to 4X (which the City has had since October 25 but did not share with the Planning Commission until March 9, 2026). Note that in a fire, there is essentially only one way out. https://cupertino.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx? ID=7939626&GUID=7AC99155-0A72-4867-A7E1-
3E6AC39E8B2A&Options=&Search=#docaccess468609363b52235d20d0e89542b30f387454cb4e4e12e1673654e018c0eddbc6 Furthermore, Summerhill conducted its own evacuation study and discussed it with City staff on February 10, 2026, but did not share it with the Planning Commission, the City Council, or the staff. See notes below. Why is Summerhill hiding their evacuation study?
e. A 10-foot setback with mitigations is NOT a safety-equivalent to the required 30- foot setback.

Decision #2 – RESOLUTION No. 26-029 (ATTACHMENT A) VOTE NO The resolution requires yes on #1. Since #1 is no, you must Vote No.

Design does not allow for ladders on property lines with 10-ft setback. Project must be rejected today because it is inaccurate. Vote No.

Fails Item (f) “The proposed subdivision design and improvements will not cause serious public health.” The City Council MAY reject a project if there is substantial evidence that the project can post a health and safety issue. There is (details below) Vote No.
a) Makes a known evacuation deficiency worse.
b) Just beyond the rear property line are PG&E wires among the trees. This is really scary and having even more homes nearby adds to the dangerous. c) Homes in the area have inadequate water pressure and must use a pump for adequate pressure. Adequate household pressure is needed for fire sprinklers. If the power goes out, residents would have even less pressure to house down their homes in the event of fire. Adding the load of people occupying 200 bedrooms (51 units x 4) to insufficient system will harm the residents who live uphill from the project. Note that fire hydrants run separately. Household water pressure is the first defense against fires. d) Decks within the 30-foot setback create a hazard – even with added fire sprinklers.

There is nothing to prevent residents from putting flammable materials on their decks and this could put them, their neighbors, and off-site neighbors at risk.

OTHER

1. Discussion about waiving park fees for trail access should be discussed as a separate resolution.DO NOT WAIVE PARK FEES.

2. Consider capturing sales-tax with requiring Cupertino LLC for this project as a Condition of Approval (COA).

3. Summerhill has undermined its credibility – the wrong box was checked on the AB130 memo pertaining to hazards, it has withheld information it has about evacuation, it bullied the Planning Commission, saying that the project was exempt from evacuation requirements because the City didn’t have any yet. Does Summerhill want to destroy its reputation?

HOW WOULD YOU FEEL IF PEOPLE DIED FROM NOT BEING ABLE TO

EVACUATE THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD IF YOU VOTED FOR THIS PROJECT AS IS?
* NOTES *
First some easy stuff:

1. Capture Sales-tax: If this project is to move forward, please add a Condition of Approval (COA) to have the business location for material purchases to be at the project site. This might require the creation of a subsidiary LLC. This will allow the City to capture sales tax as I understand it. Please ask staff to look into this. Apple did similar.

2. Split out Trail Connection into a separate item: You are being asked to waive $377K in park fees for a connection to the Linda Vista Trail. This would be an amenity for the residents of the project. Our public money should not be used for this trail connection.

But there’s more. I don’t see anything in the report that states that there would be an easement for all Cupertino residents to traverse the private property of the complex in order to access the trail connection. It seems to me that an HOA (Home Owner’s Association) could later close the public access to the trail if they had any complaints about it. And in that case, the taxpayers would have wasted $377K of park fees. If Summerhill wishes to create this amenity for their residents, so be it, but not at a cost to the public. Public Access for a future trail connection is not guaranteed per #5 of first resolution. VOTE NO ON RESOLUTION No. 26-029 (ATTACHMENT A) or modify.

3. Decks within 30ft of property line should be removed: Decks that are within 30 feet of the property line are to be outfitted with fire-sprinklers. But there is nothing to prevent residents from putting fuel for fire on those balconies like rattan furniture, last year’s dry plants, cotton laundry etc… This poses a public safety hazard on Item F of the first resolution. VOTE NO ON RESOLUTION No. 26-029 (ATTACHMENT A).

4. The Planning Commission voting items were different. Now you are being asked whether you believe the project is exempt from CEQA – the Planning Commission meeting ASSUMED IT WAS, which limited the commission’s choices. This is wrong.

5. The Planning Commission was given incomplete data: Why is it that more data is being made available to City Council than was made to the Planning Commission? Most importantly, current evacuation routes show severe overcapacity was not revealed to the Planning Commission until AFTER the vote. Furthermore, Summerhill assured residents no trouble found AND had knowledge of the evacuation issue - - - as did our own staff per their meeting on February 10, 2026. Why isn’t Summerhill sharing their evacuation study with the public? See below:

Project does not meet AB130 criteria – it requires CEQA. VOTE NO ON #1 CEQA EXEMPTION AND RESOLUTION No. 26-029 (ATTACHMENT A).

1. THE WRONG BOX WAS CHECKED for High FIRE HAZARD on the AB130 form. The form now says that the project is NOT in a very high fire zone, when in fact it is. Whether it is potentially mitigated is immaterial. The wrong box was checked.

Vote NO on first resolution.

Other municipalities say that VERY HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONEs cannot use AB130. I have written before. A number of other City forms, do not allow a fire department waiver. In fact, the company that filled out the form for this application, stated at the Planning Conference last week said that very high fire hazard severity zone is a hard NO.

Vote NO on first resolution.

Los Angeles:
https://planning.lacity.gov/project-review/shra-senate-bill-684-1123 City of Santa Clara:
https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/88826 Saratoga:
https://www.saratoga.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/6237/AB-130-checklist-1-27-26- web?bidId=
San Francisco:
https://sfplanning.org/sites/default/files/forms/AB130_InfillExemption_SupplementalA pplication.pdf
South San Francisco:
https://www.ssfca.gov/files/assets/public/v/2/economic-amp-communitydevelopment/documents/planning/ab-130-eligibility-requirements-form.pdf Even the Association of Builders and Contractors agree that VHFHSZ does not quality. https://abcsocal.org/california-ab-130/

2. THE PROJECT IS IN AN EARTHQUAKE HAZARD ZONE - on the AB130 memo, the wrong box was checked. Attachment E Page 12. “The project is not located on a site that is any of the following…”
The memo justifies that the project is not in an earthquake hazard zone with footnote #10 being that it is really far away from the San Andreas fault. But in fact, it is VERY CLOSE (about 400 feet) TO A FAULT CAPABLE OF A 7.1 EARTHQUAKE!!! This is the Monte Vista fault that is a thrust fault which is by far more dangerous than a regular fault. Furthermore, it is within a DESIGNATED ZONE of earthquake-induced slope instability. Whether the developer has considered mitigation here is not material.

THIS PROJECT FLUNKS THE AB130 TEST.

See: https://grokipedia.com/page/monta_vista_fault
See: https://www.cottonshires.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/CupertinoHazMap_small.pdf Project are is colored blue in the snip below:

3. Fire Department made inaccurate assumptions when the developer tried to use a loophole that is rejected by most California cities I could find. When evaluating the project, per PRAs, a) the fire department assumed that this is a BUILDER REMEDY project. It is not. b) the fire department assumed that the project was already in the building department. It was not. c) the fire department was led to believe that the developer MUST build 51 units and the only way to do it is to reduce the normallyrequired 30-foot fire setback. This is false. The developer could still build 51 units and maintain a 30-foot setback – they just would not be huge 4 bedroom luxury homes.

4. Fire Department’s reduction of 30 feet defensible space to 10 feet does NOT MAKE THE PROJECT EQUALLY SAFE. There are TWO RULES to consider – 4290 and 4291– these must not be conflated.

Other Public Safety Issues Related to First Resolution

1. Design does not allow for ladders on property lines with 10-ft setback. Project must be rejected today because it is inaccurate. You cannot vote yes on the first resolution. VOTE NO ON FIRST RESOLUTION No. 26-029 (ATTACHMENT A)..

2. Fails Item (f) on first resolution: The proposed subdivision design and improvements will not cause serious public health. There are homes on Linda Vista that need pumps to get adequate water pressure that would be used for home use and fire sprinklers. Furthermore, what happens if the power goes out? Adding more homes to a compromised water-pressure system is a cumulative impact that MUST BE ADDRESSED BY CEQA. VOTE NO ON FIRST RESOLUTION No. 26-029 (ATTACHMENT A)..

3. I just don’t understand how anyone can pretend that the public safety problems do not exist because Cupertino’s evacuation plan came late.

4. First Resolution States: The City Council MAY reject a project if there is substantial evidence that the project can post a health and safety issue. There is - - - VOTE NO ON FIRST RESOLUTION No. 26-029 (ATTACHMENT A).

5. Bad Reputation for Summerhill – Summerhill has had a stellar reputation in the Bay Area. But now we know that Summerhill is endeavoring to build a development in:

1. VERY HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONE,

2. NEXT TO AN EARTHQUAKE FAULT

3. WHERE EVACUATION ROUTES ARE OVER CAPACITY BY 2X to 4X (and realistically, there is only one way out if there is a fire).

From: TSY Chuang
To: Public Comments; Kitty Moore; Liang Chao; Tina Kapoor Subject: Request to Reschedule Evulich Court/Summerhill Project Agenda Item on March 17 to a later date Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 12:28:25 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Manager, Mayor, and Vice-Mayor,
I am writing to respectfully request that the Evulich Court/Summerhill project be rescheduled from the upcoming City Council meeting on March 17th. It is my understanding that Council Member Wang will be unable to attend this meeting.

I believe it is important that action items—particularly those involving public hearings—be considered only when all Council members are able to participate, especially when a member’s absence is known in advance. Residents elect their representatives with the expectation that their voices will be heard through a fully present Council, and scheduling should reflect that principle when feasible.

Additionally, I’ve learned that Council Member Mohan resides within 1,000 feet of the proposed project site, which may require her recusal due to the potential impact on her property value. As a result, with only three Council members who would be eligible to deliberate and vote on this matter, it seems prudent to defer a public hearing when such limited participation may occur.

I also recall that on at least one prior occasion, a Council meeting was rescheduled by Mayor Wei and/or the City Manager on relatively short notice. With this precedent in mind, I respectfully ask that the public hearing—and, if possible, the related action items—be postponed to a date when Council member Wang participation is possible.

Thank you for your time and consideration of this request.

Sincerely,
Tania
From: Saba Sathya
To: Public Comments
Cc: City Council
Subject: City Council 3/17 Agenda #12 Linda Vista Drive, Vote No Date: Sunday, March 15, 2026 7:40:33 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Cupertino City Council,
I am concerned about the new housing development as I live in the next street Baxley Court.

Please consider fire safety and evacuation measures to deny the high density housing project to proceed.

I request the City Council to consider the following:

1. Fire Safety of the Residents is a City Responsibility. Because lawyers are using various loop-holes to make unsafe developments, does not abdicate the city from it.

Thanks in advance.

Regards
Saba Sathya
22023 Baxley Court
Cupertino, CA 95014
From: Unique Family
To: Public Comments
Cc: City Council
Subject: City Council 3/17 Agenda #12 Linda Vista Drive, Vote No Date: Sunday, March 15, 2026 7:38:39 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Cupertino City Council,
I am concerned about the new housing development as I live in the next street Baxley Court.

Please consider fire safety and evacuation measures to deny the high density housing project to proceed.

I request the City Council to consider the following:

1. Fire Safety of the Residents is a City Responsibility. Because lawyers are using various loop-holes to make unsafe developments, does not abdicate the city from it.

Thanks in advance.

Regards
Selvi Sathya
22023 Baxley Court
Cupertino, CA 95014
From: Meichu H
To: City Council; Kitty Moore
Cc: Public Comments
Subject: City Council 3/17 Agenda #12 Evulich Ct Emergency Safety Concerns, Please Vote No Date: Saturday, March 14, 2026 11:08:56 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

TO:Cupertino City Mayor and Council
FROM: Residents of Cupertino
Date: March 14, 2026
Sub:City Council 3/17 Agenda #12 Evulich Ct Emergency Safety Concerns, Please Vote No Dear Mayor and City Council,
I am writing to express urgent concerns regarding the proposed 51-unit townhome project at 10857 Linda Vista Drive. The current approval process contains a critical safety flaw: the City has concluded that "no evacuation study has been required or reviewed" simply because it lacks its own "adopted objective standards" for evacuation. This administrative loophole ignores the site’s June 2025 designation as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ).

The project’s safety analysis relies almost entirely on building construction standards, such as fire-resistant materials and modified sprinklers. While these may improve structure survivability, they do nothing to address neighborhood-wide evacuation capacity. The Transportation Study focuses on fire truck access via a "hammerhead turnaround" but fails to analyze how 100+ additional resident vehicles will safely exit onto Linda Vista Drive during a wildfire emergency.

Furthermore, the City is allowing the developer to defer the Final Fire Protection Plan (CFC 4903) until the building permit stage. This prevents the Council from evaluating critical wildfire risk mitigations before density and site plans are finalized. This is particularly concerning given that the project already received an exception to PRC 4290, allowing for non-conforming setbacks in this high-risk area.

Under Government Code Section 65913.4(a)(6), projects in a Very High FHSZ must adopt specific fire hazard mitigations to qualify for CEQA exemptions. Relying on construction materials while refusing to study evacuation flow is a failure of public safety. I urge the Council to mandate a formal Wildfire Evacuation Capacity Study as a condition of approval.

Respectfully,
Meichu Huang
From: [email protected]
To: City Clerk
Cc: City Council; City Attorney"s Office
Subject: Written Communications-SummerHill, LLC 10857, 10867, 10877, and 10887 Linda Vista Drive Townhomes Date: Friday, March 13, 2026 3:22:15 PM
Attachments: Summary Statements of Deficiencies.zip
Staff Report Deficiencies.zip
Financial Disclosure & Negligence.zip
Fire Code_PRC4290_Fire Flow Deficiencies.zip
Technical Report Errors & Omissions.zip
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Clerk, Honorable Mayor, Councilmembers, and City Attorney, Please accept the attached materials as written communication regarding:

Project: SummerHill - Evulich Ct. Townhomes;
Application Number: TM-2024-009, ASA-2024-015, TR-2024-044; Agenda Item: 12;
scheduled for consideration on March 17, 2026.

This submission includes:

Zip Folder: Summary Statements of Deficiencies (3 files) Zip Folder: Financial Disclosure & Negligence (2 files) Zip Folder: Staff Report Deficiencies (3 files)
Zip Folder: Fire Code_PRC4290_Fire Flow Deficiencies (3 files) Zip Folder: Technical Report Errors & Omissions (3 files) These materials are provided to ensure the administrative record accurately reflects the project’s non-compliance with State Fire Safety Standards, disregard for public safety, concerns over development in VHFHS without adequate safety planning, illegal CEQA exemptions and compliance issues, procedural errors and the absence of financial disclosure when the City is granting exemptions to the General Plan, fire standards, and public safety.

Decision regarding this matter need to be based on complete and accurate information.

I respectfully request that these documents be:

1. Posted to the public agenda packet as written communication, and

2. Distributed to the full City Council for their review.

Please confirm receipt and posting at your earliest convenience.

Thank you for your attention and for ensuring these materials are included in the public record.

Sincerely,
Mark W. Fantozzi, PE
Cupertino
[email protected]
Policy-Focused Review Regarding TM-2024-009
Project: TM‑2024‑009 (Linda Vista Townhomes)
Location: 10857–10887 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, CA
Prepared for: Cupertino City Council
Prepared by: Mark W. Fantozzi, PE

1. Executive Summary
This submission raises significant concerns regarding the City of Cupertino’s consideration of exceptions to fire codes, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements, and General Plan safety policies for the proposed TM-2024-009 development project located at 10857–10886 Linda Vista Drive. The project site lies within a designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ), which necessitates strict adherence to fire-safety standards and environmental review protocols. Granting exceptions in such a high-risk area may constitute a policy deviation with serious public safety and legal implications.

The Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD) granted a PRC 4290 exception for this project. However, SCCFD’s approval is conditional and not final. Importantly, SCCFD requires the submission of a Final Fire Protection Plan at the building-permit stage, indicating that the fire-safety review process remains incomplete.

2. Background
The TM-2024-009 project encompasses parcels located at 10857, 10867, 10877, and 10886 Linda Vista Drive in Cupertino, California. These parcels are situated within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ), as designated by Cal Fire. The regulatory framework governing this area includes the California Fire Code (CFC), which mandates fire-flow requirements and emergency access standards; the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which requires comprehensive hazard analysis for projects in high-risk areas; and the City of Cupertino’s General Plan Safety Element, which prioritizes public safety and hazard mitigation in land-use planning.

According to SCCFD’s plan-review comments dated January 27, 2026, the project received a PRC 4290 exception due to non-conforming setbacks, which are to be mitigated through increased fire separation and modified sprinkler systems. SCCFD’s approval is conditional, pending the submission of a Final Fire Protection Plan. The fire-flow requirement for the project is 1,375 gallons per minute (GPM) at 20 psi residual pressure, based on the inclusion of automatic fire sprinklers.

3. Policy Concerns
Granting exceptions to established fire codes, CEQA requirements, or General Plan safety policies in a VHFHSZ constitutes a significant policy deviation. Such actions may undermine the integrity of the City’s regulatory framework and set a precedent for future developments in similarly hazardous areas. Key safety analyses—such as fire-flow testing, hydraulic modeling, evacuation planning, and water-supply adequacy assessments—are essential to ensure that new developments do not compromise public safety or overburden existing infrastructure.

Specifically, the PRC 4290 exception granted by SCCFD in this case represents a discretionary deviation from standard fire-safety setbacks. Such exceptions in VHFHSZ areas require substantial evidence to demonstrate that equivalent safety is maintained. Furthermore, SCCFD’s conditional approval does not satisfy CEQA’s requirement for a complete hazard analysis or the General Plan’s mandate for verified public safety.

4. Public Safety Implications
Developing in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone introduces elevated risks of wildfire exposure, evacuation challenges, and strain on emergency response systems. The California Fire Code and related state regulations require strict compliance with fire-safety standards, particularly in VHFHSZ areas. Any deviation from these standards must be supported by substantial evidence demonstrating that public safety will not be compromised. Failure to adhere to these requirements could expose the City to legal liability and endanger residents and first responders.

SCCFD identified non-conforming setbacks that require mitigation through increased fire separation and modified sprinkler systems. Additionally, SCCFD requires the development of a Final Fire Protection Plan to address wildfire mitigation, defensible space, and emergency access. These unresolved issues heighten the wildfire risk and underscore the need for comprehensive safety planning.

5. CEQA-Exempt Implications
If the City determines that the TM-2024-009 project is exempt from CEQA, the exemption does not eliminate the City’s obligation to ensure compliance with fire-safety standards, PRC 4290, or the General Plan Safety Element. CEQA exemption affects only procedural environmental review; it does not waive substantive safety requirements.

A CEQA exemption elevates the importance of SCCFD’s findings because the PRC 4290 exception remains a discretionary act requiring substantial evidence of equivalent fire safety.

SCCFD’s conditional approval—requiring a future Final Fire Protection Plan—confirms that the fire-safety review is incomplete. The City cannot rely on future mitigation to justify present approval, nor can it treat SCCFD’s conditional approval as evidence of General Plan consistency.

General Plan consistency remains a mandatory finding regardless of CEQA status. A project located in a VHFHSZ with unresolved fire-safety deficiencies cannot be found consistent with the Safety Element. Therefore, even if CEQA does not apply, the City must still require complete fire-flow documentation, evacuation analysis, and the Final Fire Protection Plan before granting approval.

6. Conclusion
Given the location of the TM-2024-009 project within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, it is imperative that the City of Cupertino uphold its commitment to public safety, transparency, and legal compliance. SCCFD’s findings confirm that key fire-safety issues remain unresolved, including the need for a Final Fire Protection Plan and mitigation of non-conforming setbacks.

These outstanding issues require full compliance with CEQA (if applicable) and the General Plan Safety Element before any project approvals are granted. We urge the City Council to ensure that all applicable safety standards and environmental review requirements are fully enforced, and that any proposed exceptions are subject to rigorous scrutiny and supported by substantial evidence.

7. Request for Council Action
We respectfully request that the Cupertino City Council:

1. Require full compliance with all applicable fire-safety standards, CEQA hazard analysis protocols, and General Plan safety policies.

2. Ensure that no exceptions, variances, or waivers are granted for the TM-2024-009 project without substantial evidence demonstrating compliance with state and local safety mandates.

3. Require the applicant to submit detailed fire-flow, hydraulic, and evacuation analyses, as well as financial information if exceptions are sought that may confer a financial benefit.

4. Require full disclosure and justification for the PRC 4290 exception granted by SCCFD, including the specific mitigation measures proposed and their effectiveness in addressing the identified fire-safety deficiencies.

Summary Compliance Memorandum
Re: TM-2024-009, TM-2024-009, 10857, 10867, 10877, 10886 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino (Linda Vista Drive)
CEQA Exemption Rebuttal & General Plan Inconsistency Analysis Prepared for: Cupertino City Council
Prepared by: Mark W. Fantozzi
Date: March 10, 2026

VIA EMAIL
I. INTRODUCTION
This legal brief evaluates the TM-2024-009 project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Cupertino General Plan Safety Element. The analysis demonstrates that:

1. The project does not qualify for a CEQA exemption, and

2. The project is inconsistent with multiple mandatory General Plan policies, independently barring approval.

The project is located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ), requires a discretionary PRC 4290 exception, and lacks essential wildfire, evacuation, and water-supply analyses. These deficiencies preclude CEQA exemption and prevent the City from making the required General Plan consistency findings.

II. CEQA EXEMPTION REBUTTAL
A. CEQA Exemptions Are Prohibited in High Fire-Risk Areas CEQA Guidelines §15300.2(b) bars categorical exemptions where “unusual circumstances” create a reasonable possibility of significant environmental impacts. The TM-2024-009 project presents multiple unusual circumstances:
 Location in a VHFHSZ
 Known evacuation bottlenecks along Linda Vista / Stevens Creek  Non-conforming setbacks requiring PRC 4290 exceptions  Incomplete fire-safety review (Final Fire Protection Plan pending)  Water-supply reliability concerns under PSPS and peak-demand conditions Any one of these conditions is sufficient to defeat a CEQA exemption. Together, they make exemption legally indefensible.
, PE
B. PRC 4290 Exception Is a Discretionary Approval That Triggers CEQA The City cannot claim ministerial approval while simultaneously granting a discretionary PRC 4290 exception. Discretionary approvals require:
 Findings of equivalent fire safety
 Substantial evidence
 Evaluation of mitigation measures
 Consideration of alternatives
This is incompatible with CEQA exemption.

Case law is clear: If any component of a project requires discretion, the entire project is discretionary for CEQA purposes.

C. SCCFD’s Conditional Approval Confirms CEQA Review Is Incomplete SCCFD explicitly states:
 “Plans are APPROVED with conditions.”
 “Provide a Final Fire Protection Plan at time of building permit submittal.” CEQA does not allow approval based on future mitigation. Environmental impacts must be analyzed before approval.

A CEQA exemption cannot be based on:
 Missing wildfire analysis
 Missing evacuation analysis
 Missing water-supply reliability analysis
 Missing Final Fire Protection Plan
The City cannot rely on SCCFD’s conditional approval as a substitute for CEQA review.

D. Evacuation and Emergency Access Issues Require CEQA Analysis CEQA Guidelines Appendix G requires analysis of:
 Impacts on evacuation routes
 Impacts on emergency response
 Wildfire-related infrastructure capacity
The Linda Vista corridor is a constrained evacuation route with limited egress. No evacuation analysis has been submitted.

This alone precludes CEQA exemption.

E. Water-Supply Reliability Requires CEQA Review
SCCFD accepted a hydraulic analysis only for minimum fire-flow, not:
 Peak-demand reliability
 PSPS conditions
 Multi-structure fire scenarios
These are CEQA-level issues requiring environmental review.

F. Conclusion: CEQA Exemption Is Legally Unsupportable
The TM-2024-009 project cannot be exempt from CEQA because:
 It is located in a VHFHSZ
 It requires discretionary PRC 4290 exceptions
 SCCFD’s approval is conditional and incomplete
 Required wildfire, evacuation, and water-supply analyses are missing  CEQA Guidelines §15300.2 prohibits exemptions under these conditions The City must require full CEQA compliance before considering approval.

III. GENERAL PLAN INCONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
A. General Plan Consistency Is Mandatory Regardless of CEQA Status Government Code §§65300.5 and 65860 require that all land-use decisions be consistent with the General Plan. This requirement applies even if CEQA does not.

A project cannot be approved if it conflicts with the General Plan.

B. Relevant Safety Element Policies
Policy S-1.1 — Reduce wildfire risk in VHFHSZ areas
The project lacks:
 A Final Fire Protection Plan
 Verified defensible-space compliance
 Demonstrated water-supply reliability
Policy S-1.3 — Ensure adequate emergency access and evacuation capacity The Linda Vista corridor is a constrained evacuation route. No evacuation analysis has been submitted.

Policy S-2.2 — Ensure adequate fire-flow and water-supply infrastructure SCCFD’s acceptance of minimum fire-flow does not address:
 Peak-demand reliability
 PSPS conditions
 Multi-structure fire scenarios
Policy S-3.1 — Require development to mitigate known hazards The project relies on future mitigation (Final Fire Protection Plan), violating this policy.

C. SCCFD’s Conditional Approval Confirms Inconsistency
SCCFD identified:
 Non-conforming setbacks
 Required mitigation through modified sprinklers
 Requirement for a future Final Fire Protection Plan
 Requirement for Turnaround A
These unresolved issues demonstrate that the project does not currently meet fire-safety standards required by the General Plan.

D. PRC 4290 Exception Conflicts with General Plan Safety Policies The PRC 4290 exception is a discretionary deviation from standard fire-safety requirements. To be consistent with the General Plan, the City must demonstrate:
 Equivalent fire safety
 Adequate mitigation
 Substantial evidence
No such evidence has been provided.

E. Evacuation Constraints Create Direct General Plan Conflicts The Safety Element requires:
 Safe and reliable evacuation routes
 Adequate emergency-response access
 Infrastructure capacity to support wildfire evacuation The Linda Vista corridor does not meet these standards, and no analysis has been provided to demonstrate otherwise.

F. Conclusion: The Project Is Inconsistent with the General Plan The TM-2024-009 project is inconsistent with the Cupertino General Plan because:
 It lacks required wildfire-hazard mitigation
 It lacks evacuation and emergency-access analysis
 It relies on future mitigation rather than present compliance  It requires discretionary PRC 4290 exceptions without substantial evidence  SCCFD’s conditional approval confirms unresolved safety deficiencies Under Government Code §§65300.5 and 65860, the City cannot approve a project that conflicts with the General Plan.

IV. OVERALL CONCLUSION
The TM-2024-009 project:
 Cannot be exempt from CEQA, and
 Cannot be found consistent with the General Plan
These are independent and sufficient grounds for denial or for requiring full CEQA review and complete fire-safety documentation prior to any approval.

Technical Evidence Submission – TM-2024-009
(Linda Vista Dr
Project: TM‑2024‑009 (Linda Vista Townhomes)
Location: 10857–10887 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, CA
Prepared for: Cupertino City Council
Prepared by: Mark W. Fantozzi, PE

1. Technical Background
The TM-2024-009 project encompasses parcels located at 10857, 10867, 10877, and 10886 Linda Vista Drive in Cupertino, California. These parcels are situated within a designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ), as identified by Cal Fire.

The applicable regulatory frameworks include:
 California Fire Code (CFC §507, Appendix B & C), which governs fire-flow and access requirements.
 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which mandates wildfire and hazard analysis for projects in high-risk areas.
 Cupertino General Plan Safety Element, which prioritizes hazard mitigation and public safety.
 Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD) Water Supply & Access Standards, which establish technical criteria for fire protection infrastructure.  SCCFD has conditionally approved the project with exceptions to PRC 4290. These exceptions include non-conforming setbacks mitigated through increased fire separation distances and modified sprinkler systems. A Final Fire Protection Plan is required at the time of building-permit submittal to address wildfire risks, defensible space, and access roads.

2. Fire-Flow Requirements
 SCCFD has established a required fire-flow of 1,375 gallons per minute (GPM) at 20 psi residual pressure for this project, based on the inclusion of an automatic fire sprinkler system. This requirement is supported by a hydraulic analysis submitted by the developer. While this satisfies the minimum fire-flow requirement under the California Fire Code, it does not address broader CEQA obligations, including wildfire risk analysis and evacuation constraints.

3. Water-Supply Adequacy
 Although SCCFD accepted the developer’s hydraulic analysis confirming minimum fire-flow availability, the analysis does not evaluate system reliability under peak demand, Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) conditions, or concurrent multi-structure fire scenarios. Such limitations raise concerns about the adequacy of the water supply under real-world emergency conditions.

4. CEQA Hazard Analysis Requirements
 CEQA Guidelines Appendix G requires analysis of wildfire risk, including impacts on emergency response, evacuation routes, and infrastructure capacity. SCCFD’s requirement for a future Final Fire Protection Plan confirms that the CEQA wildfire hazard analysis remains incomplete. The current application lacks an evacuation analysis, water-supply adequacy assessment, and evaluation of emergency-response capabilities.

5. Emergency Access & Evacuation Constraints
 Fire-apparatus access roads must meet minimum width and turning-radius standards under CFC Appendix D and SCCFD guidelines. The Linda Vista / Stevens Creek corridor presents known evacuation bottlenecks due to narrow roads and limited egress routes. SCCFD has identified non-conforming setbacks and required mitigation through modified sprinkler systems. Additionally, Turnaround A is required to meet fire-apparatus access standards.

6. CEQA-Exempt Implications
 If the City determines that the TM-2024-009 project is exempt from CEQA, the exemption does not eliminate the requirement to demonstrate adequate fire-flow, water-supply reliability, emergency access, or compliance with PRC 4290. CEQA exemption affects only procedural environmental review; it does not waive substantive fire-safety obligations.
 The PRC 4290 exception remains a discretionary approval requiring substantial evidence of equivalent fire safety. SCCFD’s conditional approval—requiring a future Final Fire Protection Plan—confirms that the fire-safety review is incomplete. The City cannot rely on future mitigation to justify present approval, nor can it treat SCCFD’s conditional approval as evidence of General Plan consistency.
 General Plan consistency remains a mandatory requirement regardless of CEQA status. A project located in a VHFHSZ with unresolved fire-safety deficiencies cannot be found consistent with the Safety Element. Therefore, even if CEQA does not apply, the City must still require complete fire-flow documentation, evacuation analysis, and the Final Fire Protection Plan before granting approval.

7. Summary of Technical Deficiencies
The TM-2024-009 application is missing the following required technical documentation:
 Justification for the PRC 4290 exception
 Final Fire Protection Plan
 CEQA-compliant wildfire hazard analysis
 Evacuation modeling and traffic analysis
 Water-supply adequacy and emergency-response capacity documentation The fire-safety review remains incomplete pending submission and approval of the Final Fire Protection Plan.

8. Request for Council Action
We respectfully request that the Cupertino City Council:
 Require full compliance with the California Fire Code, CEQA (if applicable), and the Cupertino General Plan Safety Element.
 Ensure that no exceptions, variances, or waivers are granted for the TM-2024-009 project without substantial evidence demonstrating compliance with all applicable safety standards.
 Require the applicant to submit all missing technical studies, including the Final Fire Protection Plan, evacuation analysis, and water-supply adequacy documentation.

CEQA EXEMPTION MEMORANDUM
For :TM-2024-009, 10857, 10867, 10877, 10886 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino Prepared for: Cupertino City Council
Prepared by: Mark W. Fantozzi, PE
Date: March 10, 2026

VIA EMAIL
Re: TM-2024-009 (Linda Vista Drive) — Basis for Rejecting CEQA Exemption

1. Purpose of This Memorandum
This memorandum provides a detailed rebuttal to any assertion that the TM-2024-009 project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The analysis demonstrates that the project does not qualify for a CEQA exemption due to its location in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ), the presence of unresolved fire-safety deficiencies, and the discretionary nature of the PRC 4290 exception granted by the Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD).

2. CEQA Exemptions Do Not Apply in High Fire-Risk Areas CEQA Guidelines §15300.2(b) prohibits categorical exemptions where “unusual circumstances” create a reasonable possibility of significant environmental impacts. A project located in a VHFHSZ, with documented wildfire-risk constraints and evacuation limitations, meets this threshold.

Additionally:
 The project requires discretionary fire-safety exceptions (PRC 4290).  The project lacks a complete wildfire hazard analysis.  SCCFD has required a future Final Fire Protection Plan, confirming the hazard analysis is incomplete.

These factors independently and collectively bar CEQA exemption.

3. PRC 4290 Exception Is a Discretionary Approval
The City cannot claim ministerial approval while simultaneously granting a discretionary PRC 4290 exception. Discretionary approvals invalidate CEQA exemptions.

The PRC 4290 exception requires:
 Findings of equivalent fire safety
 Substantial evidence
 Evaluation of mitigation measures
 Documentation of justification
This is the opposite of ministerial action.

4. SCCFD’s Conditional Approval Confirms CEQA Review Is Incomplete SCCFD explicitly states:
 “Plans are APPROVED with conditions.”
 “Provide a Final Fire Protection Plan at time of building permit submittal.

A CEQA exemption cannot be based on future mitigation. CEQA requires that environmental impacts be analyzed before project approval.

5. Evacuation and Emergency Access Issues Trigger CEQA Review CEQA Guidelines Appendix G requires analysis of:
 Impacts on evacuation routes
 Impacts on emergency response
 Wildfire-related infrastructure capacity
The Linda Vista / Stevens Creek corridor is a known evacuation bottleneck. No evacuation analysis has been submitted.

This alone precludes CEQA exemption.

6. Water-Supply Reliability Requires CEQA Analysis
SCCFD accepted a hydraulic analysis only for minimum fire-flow, not:
 Peak-demand reliability
 PSPS (Public Safety Power Shutoff) conditions
 Multi-structure fire scenarios
These are CEQA-level issues requiring environmental review.

7. Conclusion
The TM-2024-009 project cannot be exempt from CEQA because:
 It is located in a VHFHSZ
 It requires discretionary PRC 4290 exceptions
 SCCFD’s approval is conditional and incomplete
 Required wildfire, evacuation, and water-supply analyses are missing  CEQA Guidelines §15300.2 prohibits exemptions under these conditions The City must require full CEQA compliance before considering project approval.

General Plan Inconsistency Analysis
Project: TM‑2024‑009 (Linda Vista Townhomes)
Location: 10857–10887 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, CA
Prepared for: Cupertino City Council
Prepared by: Mark W. Fantozzi, PE

1. Purpose of This Document
This memorandum evaluates the TM-2024-009 project for consistency with the Cupertino General Plan Safety Element. The analysis concludes that the project is inconsistent with multiple mandatory safety policies due to unresolved wildfire, evacuation, and fire-flow deficiencies.

2. General Plan Consistency Is Required Regardless of CEQA Status Even if the City asserts CEQA exemption, General Plan consistency remains mandatory under:
 Government Code §65300.5
 Government Code §65860
 California case law (e.g., Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural El Dorado County v. Board of Supervisors)
A project cannot be approved if it conflicts with the General Plan.

3. Safety Element Policies Relevant to This Project
The following Safety Element policies are directly implicated:

Policy S-1.1 — Reduce wildfire risk in VHFHSZ areas
The project is located in a VHFHSZ and lacks:
 A Final Fire Protection Plan
 Verified defensible-space compliance
 Demonstrated water-supply reliability
Policy S-1.3 — Ensure adequate emergency access and evacuation capacity The Linda Vista / Stevens Creek corridor is a constrained evacuation route. No evacuation analysis has been submitted.

4. SCCFD’s Conditional Approval Confirms Inconsistency
SCCFD’s findings include:
 Non-conforming setbacks
 Required mitigation through modified sprinklers
 Requirement for a future Final Fire Protection Plan
 Requirement for Turnaround A
These unresolved issues demonstrate that the project does not currently meet fire-safety standards required by the General Plan.

5. PRC 4290 Exception Conflicts with General Plan Safety Policies The PRC 4290 exception is a discretionary deviation from standard fire-safety requirements. To be consistent with the General Plan, the City must demonstrate:
 Equivalent fire safety
 Adequate mitigation
 Substantial evidence
No such evidence has been provided.

6. Evacuation Constraints Create Direct General Plan Conflicts The Safety Element requires:
 Safe and reliable evacuation routes
 Adequate emergency-response access
 Infrastructure capacity to support wildfire evacuation The Linda Vista corridor does not meet these standards, and no analysis has been provided to demonstrate otherwise.

7. Conclusion
The TM-2024-009 project is inconsistent with the Cupertino General Plan because:
 It lacks required wildfire-hazard mitigation
 It lacks evacuation and emergency-access analysis
 It relies on future mitigation rather than present compliance  It requires discretionary PRC 4290 exceptions without substantial evidence  SCCFD’s conditional approval confirms unresolved safety deficiencies Under Government Code §§65300.5 and 65860, the City cannot approve a project that conflicts with the General Plan.

General Plan Inconsistency Matrix
Project: TM‑2024‑009 (Linda Vista Townhomes)
Location: 10857–10887 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, CA
Prepared for: Cupertino City Council
Prepared by: Mark W. Fantozzi, PE
Issue: Failure to Comply with Mandatory General Plan Safety, Mobility, and Land Use Policies
I. SAFETY ELEMENT INCONSISTENCIES
General Plan
Policy
City’s Finding Record Evidence Inconsistency Subdivision Map Act Consequence
HS‑2.13 – Identify
residential areas
with fewer than
two ingress/egress
routes and ensure
safe evacuation.

City asserts
project is
“consistent with
the General Plan.”
No evacuation
analysis
performed. Project
located on a
single‑egress
dead‑end (Evulich
Ct → Linda
Vista).

City failed to
identify or
mitigate
single‑egress
hazard.
§66474(a): Map
inconsistent with
General Plan →
Map must be
denied.

S‑1.3 – Ensure
adequate
emergency access
and evacuation
capacity.

City claims fire
access is adequate.

No evacuation
modeling, no
clearance time
analysis, no
cumulative load
analysis.

Cannot ensure
evacuation
capacity without
analysis.
§66474(g): Design
likely to cause
serious public
safety problems.

S‑2.3 – Evaluate
development in
VHFHSZ for
evacuation
constraints.

City states project
complies with Fire
Dept. conditions.

No evacuation
evaluation despite
VHFHSZ
designation.

Mandatory
evaluation not
performed.
§66474(a):

Required finding
cannot be made.

S‑2.4 – Maintain
safe evacuation
routes during
wildfire events.

City claims
roadway
improvements
improve safety.

Traffic‑Evacuation
analysis shows
McClellan Rd V/C
= 4.2 and Foothill
Blvd V/C = 4.0
under evacuation
— system failure.

Evacuation routes
are not safe and
will not function.
§66474(g): Map
must be denied
due to public
safety risk.

HS‑3.1 – Reduce
wildfire risk
through land‑use
decisions.

City claims
project meets
zoning.

High‑density infill
in a VHFHSZ
without
evacuation
analysis increases
wildfire risk.

Land‑use decision
increases, not
reduces, wildfire
risk.
§66474(c): Site
not physically
suitable.

II. MOBILITY ELEMENT INCONSISTENCIES
General Plan
Policy
City’s Finding Record Evidence Inconsistency Subdivision Map Act Consequence
M‑2.3.1 –
Minimize
conflicts with
pedestrian and
bicycle traffic on
primary streets.

City claims
project improves
walkability.

Evacuation surge
merges into
school‑zone
pedestrian
corridors
(Hyannisport,
Bubb).

Evacuation
conflicts with
school pedestrian
routes.
§66474(g):

Creates public
safety hazard.

M‑3.2 – Provide
safe pedestrian
connections to
public amenities.

City claims
sidewalks improve
safety.

Sidewalks do not
mitigate
evacuation
gridlock or
fire‑flow
deficiencies.

Pedestrian
improvements
irrelevant to
evacuation safety.
§66474(a):

Findings
unsupported by
substantial
evidence.

M‑3.3 – Enhance
crossings at
physical barriers
(creeks,
highways).

City claims
crosswalks meet
policy.

Stevens Creek
Trail access does
not provide
evacuation egress.

City misapplies
policy; does not
address
evacuation.
§66474(a):

Inconsistent with
Mobility Element.

III. LAND USE ELEMENT INCONSISTENCIES
General Plan
Policy
City’s Finding Record Evidence Inconsistency Subdivision Map Act Consequence
LU‑11.1 – Ensure
new development
does not
overburden
infrastructure.

City claims
infrastructure is
adequate.

No fire‑flow
analysis in record;
no evacuation
capacity analysis.

Infrastructure
(roads, fire‑flow)
not evaluated.
§66474(d): Site
not suitable for
proposed density.

LU‑1.3 – Ensure
development
supports public
safety.

City claims
project meets
zoning.

High‑density
development in
VHFHSZ without
evacuation
analysis
undermines public
safety.

Project conflicts
with core land‑use
safety principles.
§66474(g):

Creates serious
public safety
problems.

Under Gov. Code §66474, if any required finding cannot be made, the City must deny the map.

Here, multiple findings cannot be made, and the record contains no substantial evidence supporting the City’s conclusions.

V. CONCLUSION
This General Plan inconsistency matrix demonstrates that TM‑2024‑009:
 Fails to comply with mandatory Safety Element policies  Fails to comply with Mobility and Land Use policies
 Fails to evaluate evacuation in a VHFHSZ
 Fails to ensure public safety
 Fails to meet the Subdivision Map Act’s required findings Therefore, the City Council must deny TM‑2024‑009 as a matter of law.

CLAIM 1: DENSITY “in order to fit the minimum required number of units within the site” • SummerHill’s proposed units average 2,369 livable SF (excluding the 2-car garage) are significantly oversized relative to comparable, approved projects in the same market served by CUSD
• Vida Sunnyvale Phase I (Appendix A): 50 units on 2.76 acres (vs. SummerHill’s 51 units on 2.51 acres): nearly identical density – Avg livable area: 1,748 SF per unit: Evulich Ct is 36% larger than Vida – Setbacks to single-family homes: 53–65 feet (vs. SummerHill’s ~10 ft) – Heights taper down 1 story from interior to rear: gradual transition to neighbors – Approved July 2021, built and sold: same South Bay market, conventional financing • Westport Cupertino (Appendix B): 88 townhomes/rowhouses at Stevens Creek & Mary, Cupertino – Avg livable area: 1,978 SF per unit: Evulich Ct is 20% larger than Westport – Family-sized units with 2-car garages: proven marketable product – Approved by Cupertino’s own City Council (Aug. 2020); same city, same market CLAIM 2: EVULICH COURT RIGHT-OF-WAY “The site is constrained by an existing City right-of-way (Evulich Court).” • SummerHill must build internal access roads regardless; the site plan includes five private streets for vehicle and fire apparatus access
• The new internal road can be dedicated back to the City in lieu of the existing Evulich Court right-of-way • A required infrastructure element cannot simultaneously be a “site constraint” justifying reduced wildfire setbacks; this argument is circular (Appendix C)
REDUCING UNIT SIZE FROM MCMANSION TO COMPARABLE MAKES 30 FT SETBACKS FEASIBLE • At Westport sizes (1,978 SF): total livable drops from 120,829 to 100,878 SF, freeing ~20,000 SF of building mass • At Vida sizes (1,748 SF): total livable drops to 89,148 SF, freeing ~31,700 SF of building mass • Either reduction substantially eases the physical conflict with the 30-foot PRC 4290 setback while still delivering the 51 units required by the City’s Housing Element
CONCLUSION: NO SETBACK WAIVER IS NEEDED TO MEET HOUSING

DENSITY
The setback waiver is not necessary to meet the housing density required by the City’s Housing Element. The required 51 units can be delivered at right-sized livable areas, consistent with comparable projects already approved and built in the same market, while honoring the full 30-foot PRC 4290 setback mandated for Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. The only thing preventing compliance is SummerHill’s choice to build oversized units, not any site constraint or density requirement.

Side-by-Side Comparison
SummerHill (Proposed) Vida Sunnyvale Westport Cupertino Location Linda Vista Dr, Cupertino E. Fremont Ave,
Sunnyvale
Stevens Creek Blvd,
Cupertino
Site Area 2.51 acres 2.76 acres 8.1 acres (mixed-use)
Townhome Units 51 50 88
Avg Livable SF (excl.
garage)
2,369 1,748 1,978
Avg Garage SF (2-car) 485 458 571
Appendix A: Vida Sunnyvale Phase I, A Built Comparable
Project Overview
Vida Phase I (166–176 E. Fremont Avenue, Sunnyvale; File #21-0715) was approved by the Sunnyvale Planning Commission on July 12, 2021 and has been constructed and almost sold out. It is a 50-unit townhome development on 2.76 acres, a nearly identical site profile to SummerHill’s proposed 51 units on 2.51 acres. Both projects target the same South Bay family-housing market served by Cupertino Union School District, an important factor in home pricing.

Setbacks and Height Transition to Single-Family Neighbors Vida is bordered by single-family neighborhoods on two sides (east toward Bobolink Circle; south toward Avon Terrace/Berwick Way). The project provides setbacks of 53 to 65 feet from these single-family homes: more than five times what SummerHill proposes on the south property line. Critically, these generous setbacks were achieved without any fire hazard zone requirement.

Building heights taper down one story from the site interior along the rear property line, providing a gradual transition toward the neighboring single-family homes. The residential buildings are set back approximately 74 to 84 feet from adjacent residential properties when measured to the building face (vs. property line). Additional buffers include a 6-foot masonry perimeter wall along the east and south property lines, fast-growing evergreen screening trees, restricted exhaust openings on walls facing residential neighbors, and peripheral lighting capped at 8-foot pole heights.

Setback Comparison
Boundary Adjacent Use SummerHill Proposed Vida Actual
South / East (Rear) Single-Family Homes ~10 ft (AMMR waiver) 53–65 ft West (Side) City Parcel / SF Home ~10 ft (AMMR waiver) 15–28 ft (PL-9 waiver) North / Front Street / Commercial ~10–30 ft (varies) 10–29 ft (PL-9 waiver) Vida used Density Bonus waivers (PL-9) only on the front and commercial-facing side; never on the sides adjacent to single-family homes. SummerHill, by contrast, seeks the setback reduction precisely on the sides where residents live.

Site and Density Comparison
Site Metric SummerHill Linda Vista Vida Sunnyvale Phase I Net Site Area 2.51 acres 2.76 acres
Total Units 51 50
Density 20.3 du/acre 18.1 du/acre
Stories 3 3–4 (tapered to 3 at rear)
Avg Livable SF (excl. garage) 2,369 1,748
Total Livable SF (excl. garage) 120,829 87,416
Avg Garage SF 485 (447–579) 458 (453–489)
Both projects have comparable acreage (2.51 vs. 2.76 acres), comparable unit counts (51 vs. 50), and comparable densities (20.3 vs. 18.1 du/acre). Both include 2-car garages for every unit (SummerHill’s avg 485 SF vs. Vida’s avg 458 SF). The garage deduction is roughly equal, making the livable area comparison apples-to-apples. The decisive difference is unit size: SummerHill averages 2,369 livable SF per unit versus Vida’s 1,748, which is 36% larger; a difference that directly drives the setback conflict.

Vida Unit Mix Detail
Unit Type Qty Net Interior SF Open Space
SF
Garage SF Livable SF*
Unit 1 4 1,365 ~114 489 ~1,479
Unit 2 10 1,414 ~114 462 ~1,528
Units 3–4 8 1,430–1,520 ~114 454–462 ~1,544–1,634
Units 5–6 14 1,619–1,740 ~114 453–454 ~1,733–1,854
Units 7–8 14 1,901–2,037 ~114 461–471 ~2,015–2,151
Average / Total 50 1,634 avg ~114 avg 458 avg 1,748 avg *Livable SF = Net Interior + Private Open Space (porches/decks), excluding garage. Both projects have comparable 2-car garages (~450–580 SF), so the garage deduction is roughly a wash.

Source: Sunnyvale File #21-0715, Attachment 2 (Project Data Table), Attachment 7 (Project Plans, Sheet A01). Approved July 12, 2021.

Appendix B: Westport Cupertino, Same Market, Smaller Units Project Overview
Westport Cupertino (21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard at Mary Avenue) is a mixed-use development approved by the Cupertino City Council on August 18, 2020. The project includes 88 townhomes and rowhouses designed by C2K Architecture for KT Urban, along with senior housing and retail.

Westport matters for this analysis because it is in Cupertino itself: the same city, the same real estate market, and the same municipal approval process as SummerHill’s proposed project. If family-sized townhomes averaging under 2,000 SF are marketable, financeable, and approvable on Stevens Creek Boulevard, the same is true on Linda Vista Drive.

Unit Data
Component Units Total Residential SF Avg Livable SF* Avg Garage SF Townhomes (13 bldgs) 70 139,860 1,998 564
Rowhouses (3 bldgs) 18 34,250 1,903 602
Combined 88 174,110 1,978 571
*Livable SF = Total residential area excluding garage/parking. Westport figures from SF YIMBY / planning records: 179,310 SF total built area for townhomes (139,860 residential + 39,450 parking); 45,090 SF for rowhouses (34,250 residential + 10,840 parking).

All 88 units include 2-car garages. The townhomes average 1,998 livable SF; the rowhouses average 1,903 livable SF. SummerHill’s proposed average of 2,369 livable SF is 20% larger than Westport’s combined average of 1,978 livable SF. Notably, Westport was approved without density bonus setback waivers on residential-adjacent boundaries, and without any AMMR for fire hazard setback reduction.

What This Means for SummerHill’s Claim
If SummerHill sized its 51 units to the Westport average (1,978 SF livable, excluding garage), the total livable area would drop from 120,829 SF to approximately 100,878 SF: a reduction of 19,951 SF of building mass. Adding garages (~485 SF each), total gross would be approximately 125,613 SF versus the current 145,544 SF. This 20,000 SF reduction in building envelope, distributed across 10 buildings, would substantially narrow building footprints along the south and east boundaries and move significantly toward compliance with the 30-foot PRC 4290 setback.

Even a modest reduction to ~2,100 SF livable per unit (still larger than Westport) would free approximately 13,700 SF of building mass, enough to meaningfully increase setback distances from the current ~10 feet toward the mandated 30 feet on the sides adjacent to single-family homes.

Appendix C: The Evulich Court Right-of-Way Is Not a Valid Justification In the AMMR application submitted to the Santa Clara County Fire Department, SummerHill’s representative Steven Bull states:
“The site is constrained by an existing City right-of-way within the approximate center of the site (Evulich Court). The width of Evulich Court reduces the size of the development area for the project. The size and quantity of the proposed townhomes necessitate a reduction of the 30-foot setback requirement in order to fit the minimum required number of units within the site.” This argument does not withstand scrutiny for a straightforward reason: SummerHill must build internal access roads regardless. The proposed site plan includes five private streets (A Street through E Street), cul-de-sacs, and connecting roadways to provide vehicle access to all ten buildings and to meet CFC D105 fire apparatus access requirements. This internal road network is a design necessity for a 51-unit development on this site, irrespective of the Evulich Court right-of-way.

The existing Evulich Court right-of-way, ceded by the original property owners decades ago, runs through the approximate center of the parcel. SummerHill’s own site plan replaces the existing cul-de-sac with a new internal street network. The new road that SummerHill constructs in its place can be dedicated back to the City in lieu of the existing right-of-way. This is a standard mechanism in subdivision development; the Vesting Tentative Map (TM-2024-009) already contemplates the reconfiguration of internal circulation.

The critical point: the existence of a historical City right-of-way cannot be the reason to reduce wildfire setbacks to 10 feet and place neighboring single-family homes at risk. The developer must build access roads for the 51-unit development in any configuration. The road infrastructure is a given; only the setback to neighboring homes is a variable. A site plan with right-sized units, as demonstrated by Vida and Westport, could accommodate both the required road network and full 30-foot PRC 4290 setbacks.

Appendix D: SummerHill Unit Mix Detail (Sheet A08)
Unit Type Qty Net Interior SF Porches/Decks Livable SF* Garage SF Unit 1 (BMR) 10 1,777 ~200 ~1,977 579
Unit 2 21 2,217 ~200 ~2,417 469
Unit 3 12 2,317 ~200 ~2,517 447
Unit 3ALT 8 2,315 ~200 ~2,515 464
Average / Total 51 2,170 avg ~200 avg 2,369 avg 485 avg *Livable SF = Net Interior SF (per A08, measured to outside face of stud) + prorated porches/decks (~200 SF/unit average from project totals of 4,300 SF porches + 5,878 SF decks across 51 units). Excludes garage only.

Source: Exhibit C, Sheet A08 Project Data (September 15, 2025). Staff Report FAR figure of 148,473 SF (136% FAR) includes these areas plus additional common area.

Market-rate units (Units 2, 3, 3ALT, 41 units) average 2,265 net interior SF, or approximately 2,465 livable SF including porches/decks. Even the BMR units (Unit 1, 10 units) at 1,977 livable SF are larger than the Vida average of 1,748 and comparable to the Westport average of 1,978. This confirms that right-sized units are not only viable but already part of SummerHill’s own product offering.

Data Sources
SummerHill Linda Vista: City of Cupertino Staff Report, March 17, 2026 (File #26-14876); Exhibit C, Sheet A08 Project Data (Sept. 15, 2025); Exhibit A, Setback Site Plan (Rev. 12/19/2025); Attachment F, AMMR Approval (Steven Bull / SummerHill Homes, Oct. 28, 2025, Rev. Dec. 19, 2025).

Vida Sunnyvale Phase I: City of Sunnyvale File #21-0715 (Planning Application #2020-7525): Attachment 2 (Project Data Table), Attachment 3 (Recommended Findings), Attachment 7 (Project Plans, Sheet A01). Approved July 12, 2021.

Westport Cupertino: City of Cupertino (File #DP-2018-05, ASA-2018-05, TM-2018-03); Approved by City Council Aug. 18, 2020; EIR certified (CEQA #2019070377). Building data from approved planning documents. 88 townhomes/rowhouses by KT Urban / C2K Architecture.

Staff Report Memorandum
To: Cupertino City Council
From: Mark W. Fantozzi, PE
Re: Legal Deficiencies in Staff Report and Approval Findings for SummerHill Homes Project (TM-2024-009, ASA-2024-015, TR-2024-044)
Date: March 2026

VIA EMAIL
I. INTRODUCTION
This memorandum identifies material legal errors, omissions, and unsupported findings in the Planning Department’s staff report recommending approval of the SummerHill Homes project at 10857–10887 Linda Vista Drive. These errors render the proposed CEQA exemption, General Plan consistency findings, and Subdivision Map Act findings legally indefensible.

The central issue is straightforward:

SB 330 vesting does not exempt the project from updated fire‑safety regulations, VHFHSZ requirements, evacuation capacity analysis, or General Plan Safety Element policies.
 The staff report incorrectly asserts otherwise, resulting in a recommendation that violates:
 The General Plan Safety Element
 The Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code §66474)
 AB 747 (2019) and AB 1409 (2021)
 Public Resources Code §§4290 and 4291
 California Fire Code (CFC) Appendix B, C, and D
 Government Code §65913.4(a)(6)
 CEQA exemption requirements
These deficiencies require the City Council to deny the project or continue the hearing until the required analyses are completed.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. Project Location and Application
The project proposes 51 townhome units on a constrained hillside parcel accessed by a single dead‑end road (Evulich Court) adjacent to the Stevens Creek canyon.

B. SB 330 Preliminary Application
The applicant submitted an SB 330 preliminary application on October 9, 2024.

C. VHFHSZ Designation
In February 2025, CAL FIRE adopted updated Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps. The project site is now designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ).

D. Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment (October 2025)
The City commissioned Fehr & Peers to prepare a citywide evacuation capacity assessment, which identifies:
o Severe bottlenecks
o Limited egress in hillside neighborhoods
o High wildfire vulnerability
E. Staff Report (February 2026)
The staff report asserts:

The City does not have any adopted objective standards pertaining to evacuation. As a result, an evacuation study has not been required.

This statement is factually incorrect and contradicted by:
o The General Plan Safety Element (2026 Draft)
o AB 747 and AB 1409
o The City’s own Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment
III. ISSUES PRESENTED

1. Does SB 330 vesting exempt the project from updated fire‑safety regulations, VHFHSZ requirements, or evacuation analysis?
No.

2. Did the Planning Department fail to apply mandatory General Plan Safety Element policies?
Yes.

3. Did the City fail to make required Subdivision Map Act safety findings supported by substantial evidence?
Yes.

4. Is the CEQA exemption invalid due to failure to demonstrate compliance with Government Code §65913.4(a)(6)?
Yes.

IV. APPLICABLE LAW
A. SB 330 (Gov. Code §65589.5 and §65941.1)
SB 330 vests zoning and design standards, not public‑safety regulations.

B. Public Resources Code §§4290 and 4291
Mandate:
o Adequate road width
o Adequate turnarounds
o Adequate fire‑flow
o Adequate water supply
o Secondary access where feasible
C. California Fire Code (CFC) Appendix B, C, D
Require:
o Fire‑flow modeling
o Hydrant spacing
o Dead‑end road limits
o Minimum clear width
o Emergency access compliance
D. Government Code §65913.4(a)(6)
A CEQA‑exempt project in a VHFHSZ must demonstrate compliance with:
o PRC 4290
o PRC 4291
o CBC Chapter 7A
o Local fire‑safe regulations
E. Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code §66474)
A tentative map must be denied if:
o The site is physically unsuitable
o The subdivision creates danger to life or property
o The subdivision is inconsistent with the General Plan F. AB 747 (2019) and AB 1409 (2021)
Require:
o Identification of evacuation routes
o Assessment of capacity, safety, and viability
o Identification of bottlenecks
o Evacuation locations
G. General Plan Safety Element (2026 Draft)
Contains mandatory policies:
o HS‑2.11: Evacuation Routes
o HS‑2.13: Ingress and Egress
o HS‑2.14: Secondary Access
o HS‑2.1: Building and Fire Code Compliance
These are objective standards.

V. ANALYSIS
A. SB 330 Does Not Exempt the Project from Fire‑Safety or VHFHSZ Requirements
The staff report incorrectly implies that SB 330 “locks in” pre‑2025 fire‑safety conditions o This is legally incorrect.

Courts consistently hold:
o Vested rights do not apply to public‑safety regulations.

Fire‑safety standards are police‑power regulations and cannot be frozen.

B. The Staff Report Fails to Apply Mandatory General Plan Safety Policies The General Plan requires:
o Evacuation route analysis
o Ingress/egress adequacy
o Secondary access feasibility
o Fire‑flow and water‑supply adequacy
The staff report:
o Conducted no evacuation analysis
o Conducted no fire‑flow modeling
o Conducted no dead‑end road compliance review
o Conducted no secondary access feasibility study
This violates the General Plan.

C. The City Ignored Its Own Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment The Fehr & Peers study identifies:
o Severe bottlenecks
o Limited egress in hillside neighborhoods
o High wildfire vulnerability
The staff report ignores this study entirely.

This omission violates:
o AB 747
o AB 1409
o General Plan Safety Element
o Subdivision Map Act safety findings
D. The CEQA Exemption Is Invalid
Government Code §65913.4(a)(6) requires demonstrated compliance with:
o PRC 4290
o PRC 4291
o CBC Chapter 7A
The staff report provides no evidence of:
o Fire‑flow modeling
o Hydrant spacing analysis
o Roadway adequacy
o Water‑supply verification
o Secondary access feasibility
A conclusory Fire Department letter is not substantial evidence.

E. Subdivision Map Act Findings Are Unsupported
Gov. Code §66474 requires denial if:
o The site is physically unsuitable
o The subdivision creates danger to life or property
o The subdivision is inconsistent with the General Plan Because the City failed to analyze:
o Evacuation
o Fire‑flow
o Water supply
o Roadway adequacy
o VHFHSZ wildfire behavior
The findings are unsupported and invalid.

VI. CONCLUSION
The staff report contains material legal errors and omissions that invalidate:
 The CEQA exemption
 The General Plan consistency findings
 The Subdivision Map Act findings
 The safety determinations required by State law
The City Council must:

1. Deny the project, or

2. Continue the hearing and require:
 A full evacuation analysis
 Fire‑flow and hydraulic modeling
 Secondary access feasibility study
 VHFHSZ wildfire behavior analysis
 Updated General Plan consistency review
VII. RECOMMENDED ACTION
Do not adopt the staff recommendation.

Direct staff to prepare a revised analysis that complies with:

1. The General Plan

2. AB 747 / AB 1409

3. PRC 4290 / 4291

4. CFC Appendix B, C, D

5. Government Code §65913.4(a)(6)

6. Subdivision Map Act §66474
Memorandum
To: Floy Andrews, City Attorney, City of Cupertino
Copy To: City Clerk & City Council, City of Cupertino
From: MarkW. Fantozzi, PE
Date: March 10,2026

VIA EMAIL
Re: TM-2024-009 (Linda Vista Drive) * Requirement for Applicant Financial Disclosure When Seeking Fire-Safety Exceptions in a Very High Fire H:aizard Severity Zone Dear Floy Andrews:

I am writing to request formal clarification and action regarding the City's legal obligations when an applicant seeks exceptions to fire-safety standards, CEQA requirements, or General Plan policies for a project located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFIISZ). The TM-2024-009 application for 10857, 10867, 10877, and 10886 Linda Vista Drive includes a request for a PRC 4290 exception, which is a discretionary deviation from mandatory fi re-safety standards.

Under California law, when an applicant seeks a discretionary exception that reduces public-safety protections, the City is entitled
-
and in some cases required
-
to obtain
financial information demonstrating whether full compliance is feasible. This principle is supported by multiple appellate decisions, including:
. Topanga Ass'nfor a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles {1974) 1 I Cal.3d 506 . Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Ass'n v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th7}4 . San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City & County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656
. California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App,4th957 . Friends of the Eel River v. Sonoma County l{ater Agency (2003) 108 Cal.App,4th 859 . Bowman v. City of Berkeley (2004) 122 Cal.App.Ath 572 Taken together, these cases establish that:
l. Discretionary exceptions require substantial evidence (Topanga).

2. Economic feasibility is a required component of evaluating alternatives and mitigation (Sequoyah Hills, San Franciscans Upholding, Cly'PS, Eel River).

3. Agencies may require financial information to support findings (Bowman).

Because the applicant seeks to avoid compliance with PRC 429A setback requirements -
and
because compliance may require costly design changes, grading, access improvements, or water-supply upgrades
-
the exception confers a financial benefit. The City therefore has a legal basis to require:
n Project pro forma
o Cost estimates for full fire-safety compliance
. Cost comparison of compliant vs. non-compliant designs . Evidence supporting any claim of infeasibility
Without this information, the City cannot make the findings required to grant a PRC 4290 exception, nor can it make the mandatory General Plan consistency findings under Government Code $$65300.5 and 65860.

I respectfully request that your office:

1. Confirm that the City may require financial disclosure when an applicant seeks a PRC 4290 exception or other fire-safety deviation.

2. Advise the Planning Department and City Council that financial feasibility is a legally relevant factor in evaluating such exceptions.

3. Direct staff to require the applicant for TM-2024-A09 to submit financial documentation sufficient to support any claim that full compliance with fire-safety standards is infeasible.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your guidance.

Cupertino, CA
mw f anto zzi@ tfanc o. c o m
Legal Argument
Requiring Financiol Disclosure When o Developer Seeks Fire-Safety Exceptions in a VHFHSZ
TM-2024-009
-
10857, 10867, 10877, 10886 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino I.INTRODUCTION
This memorandum identifres California case law that, taken together, establishes a legal basis for requiring the applicant for TM-2024-009 to disclose project financial information when seeking exceptions to fire-safety standards, CEQA requirements, or General Plan policies in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ).

While no single case directly addresses "fire-code exceptions as financial benefit,'o the combined holdings of the cases below support the argument that:

1. Discretionary exceptions confer a financial benefit,

2. Financial feasibility becomes relevant when exceptions are requested, and

3. The City may require financial disclosure to evaluate whether the exception is justified, necessary, and consistent with public-safety obligations.

II. APPLICABLE CASE LAW SUPPORTING FINANICIAL DISCLOSURE Below are the cases that, when synthesized, create a compelling legal foundation.

1. Topanga Ass'nfor a Scenic Community v. Coungt of Los Angeles (1974) 1l Cal3d 506
Key Holding:

Discretionary approvals require findings supported by substantial evidence demonstrating that the exception is justified.

Relevance:

A PRC 4290 exception is discretionary. To justify it, the City must evaluate:
. Whether the exception is necessary
. Whether alternatives exist
. Whether equivalent safety is achieved
Financial feasibility is part of evaluating alternatives. If the applicant claims compliance is "infeasible," the City may require financial data to verify that claim.

2. Sequayah Hills Homeowners Ass'n v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704
Key Holding:

When a developer claims that full compliance with regulations is infeasible, the agency may consider economic feasibility and require supporting evidence.

Relevance:

If the applicant argues that meeting fire-code standards, access requirements, or General Plan policies is "infeasible," the City may require:
. Cost estimates
. Pro forma analysis
. Financial feasibility documentation
This case directly supports requiring financial disclosure when exceptions are sought.

3. San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City & Counly of Sun Francisco (2002) 102 Cat.App.4th 656
Key llolding:

Agencies may require economic evidence to evaluate whether mitigation measures or alternatives are feasible.

Relevance:

Fire-safety compliance (e.g., widening access roads, improving water supply, adding hydrants, meeting PRC 4290 setbacks) may be costly. If the applicant seeks an exception instead of compliance, the City may require financial information to determine:
. Whether compliance is truly infeasible
. Whether the exception is justified
. Whether the applicant is avoiding costs at the expense of public safety

4. Californiu Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957
Key Holding:

Economic feasibility is a legitimate factor in determining whether alternatives or mitigation measures are required.

Relevance:

If the applicant seeks to avoid fire-safety requirements, the City may require financial disclosure to evaluate:
. Whether safer altematives are feasible
. Whether the applicant is choosing a cheaper but less safe option

5. Friends of the Eel River v. Sonoma County Water Agencl (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 859
Key Holding:

Agencies must consider whether mitigation measures are practicable, including economic practicability.

Relevance:

If the applicant claims that meeting fire-flow, access, or evacuation standards is impracticable, the City may require:
. Cost analysis
. Engineering cost estimates
. Financialfeasibilitydocumentation

6. Bowman v. CiU of Berkeley (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 572 Key Holding:

Courts defer to agencies when they require economic evidence to support findings.

Relevance:
. If Cupertino requires financial disclosure to justify a PRC 4290 exception, courts will defer to the City's judgment.

III. SYNTHESIZED LEGAL PRINCIPLE
Taken together, these cases establish the following:

1. Discretionary exceptions require substantial evidence.

2. Economic feasibility is part of evaluating alternatives and mitigation. (Sequoyah Hills, San Franciscans Upholding, CNPS, Eel River)

3. Agencies may require financial information to support findings. (Bowman)

4. A PRC 4290 exception is a discretionary deviation from mandatory fire-safety standards.

Therefore:

The City may require the applicant to disclose project financials to justify the exception.
tV. APPLICATION TO TM-2024-OO9
The applicant seeks:
. A PRC 4290 exception for non-conforming setbacks
. Relief from full fire-flow and access compliance
. Approval in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
. Approval without evacuation analysis
. Approval without a Final Fire Protection Plan
These exceptions reduce the applicant's costs by avoiding:
. Road widening i Water-supplyupgrades
. Additional hydrants
. Fire-resistantconstruction
. Grading 0r access improvements
This is a financial benefit.

Under the case law above, the City may require:
. Pro forma financials
. Cost estimates for full compliance
. Cost comparison of compliant vs. non-compliant designs . Evidence that compliance is truly infeasible
Without this information, the City cannot make:
. PRC 4290 findings
. General Plan consistency findings
. CEQA findings (if CEQA applies)
. Public-safetyfindings
V. CONCL,USION
While no single case directly states that "fire-code exceptions require financial disclosure," the combined holdings of California appellate decisions create a strong legal basis for requiring the applicant to provide project financials when seeking discretionary exceptions in a VHFHSZ.

The City of Cupertino is legally justified
-
and arguably obligated
-
to require:
. Full financial disclosure
. Cost analysis of compliance
. Evidence supporting any claim of infeasibility
before granting any exception that reduces fire-safety protections.

Staff Report Memorandum
To: Cupertino City Council
From: Mark W. Fantozzi
Re: Legal Deficiencies in Staff Report and Approval Findings for SummerHill Homes Proj ect (T M-2024 -009, A SA-2 0 24 -0 I 5, T R-2024 -044) Date: March2026

VIA EMAIL
I.INTRODUCTION
This memorandum identifies material legal errors, omissions, and unsupported findings in the Planning Department's staff report recommending approval of the SummerHill Homes project at 10857-10887 Linda Vista Drive. These errors render the proposed CEQA exemption, General Plan consistency findings, and Subdivision Map Act findings legally indefensible.

The central issue is straightforward:

SB 330 vesting does not exempt the project from updated fire-safety regulations, VHFHSZ requirements, evacuation capacity analysis, or General Plan Safety Element policies.
. The staffreport incorrectly asserts otherwise, resulting in a recommendation that violates:
o The General Plan Safety Element
e The Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code 866474)
o AB 747 (2019) and AB 1409 (2021)
. Public Resources Code $$4290 and 4291
o California Fire Code (CFC) Appendix B, C, and D
. Govemment Code 965913.4(a)(6)
o CEQA exemption requirements
These deficiencies require the City Council to deny the project or continue the hearing until the required analyses are completed.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUIID
A. Project Location and Application
The project proposes 5l townhome units on a constrtrined hillside parcel accessed by a single dead-end road (Evulich Court) adjacent to the Stevens Creek canyon.

B. SB 330 Preliminary Application
The applicant submiffed an SB 330 preliminary application on October 9,2024.

C. VHFHSZ Designation
In February 2025, CAL FIRE adopted updated Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps. The project site is now designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ).

D. Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment (October 2025)
The Cify commissioned Fehr & Peers to prepare a citywide evacuation capacity assessment, which identifies:
o Severe bottlenecks
o Limited egress in hillside neighborhoods
o High wildfire wlnerability
E. Staff Report (February 2026)
The staff report asserts:

The Cify does not have any adopted objective standards pertaining to evacuation. As a result, an evacuation study has not been required.

This statement is factually incorrect and contradicted by:
o The Ceneral Plan Safety Element (2026 Draft)
o AB 747 and AB 1409
o The City's own Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment
III.ISSUES PRESENTEI)

1. Does SB 330 vesting exempt the project from updated fire-safety regulations, VHFHSZ requirements, or evacuation analysis?
No.

2. Did the Planning Department fail to apply mandatory General Plan Safety Element policies?
Yes.

3. Did the City fail to make required Subdivision Map Act safety findings supported by substantial evidence?
Yes.

4. Is the CEQA exemption invalid due to failure to demonstrate compliance with Government Code $659 1 3.4(a)(6)?
Yes.

IV. APPLICABLE LAW
A. SB 330 (Gov. Code $65589.5 and $6594r.1)
SB 330 vests zoning and design standards, not public-safety regulations.

B. Public Resources Code $$4290 and 4291
Mandate:
o Adequate road width
o Adequate turnarounds
o Adequate fire-flow
o Adequate water supply
o Secondary access where feasible
C. California Fire Code (CFC) Appendix B, C, D
Require:
o Fire-flow modeling
o Hydrant spacing
o Dead-end road limits
o Minimum clear width
o Emergency access compliance
D. Government Code $65913.a(a)(6)
A CEQA-exempt project in a VHFHSZ must demonstrate compliance with:
o PRC 4290
o PRC 4291
o CBC Chapter 7A
o Local fire-safe regulations
E. Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code $66474)
A tentative map must be denied if:
o The site is physically unsuitable
o The subdivision creates danger to life or property
o The subdivision is inconsistent with the General Plan F. AB 747 (2019\ and AB 1409 (2021)
Require:
o Identification of evacuation routes
o Assessment of capacity, safety, and viability
o Identification of bottlenecks
o Evacuation locations
G. General Plan Safety Element (2026 Draft)
Contains mandatory policies:
o HS-2.1 1: Evacuation Routes
o HS-2.13: Ingress and Egress
o HS-2.14: Secondary Access
o HS-2.1: Building and Fire Code Compliance
These are objective standards.

V. AIIALYSIS
A. SB 330 Does Not Exempt the Project from Fire-Safety or VHFHSZ Requirements
The staff report incorrectly implies that SB 330 "locks in" prc-2025 fire-safety conditions o This is legally incorrect.

Courts consistently hold:
o Vested rights do not apply to public-safety regulations.

Fire-safety standards are police-power regulations and cannot be frozen.

B. The Staff Report Fails to Apply Mandatory General Plan Safefy Policies The General Plan requires:
o Evacuation route analysis
o lngress/egressadequacy
o Secondary access feasibility
o Fire-flow and water-supply adequacy
The staff report:
o Conducted no evacuation analysis
o Conducted no fire-flow modeling
o Conducted no dead-end road compliance review
o Conducted no secondary access feasibility study
This violates the General Plan.

This omission violates:
o 48747
o AB 1409
o General Plan Safety Element
o Subdivision Map Act safety findings
D. The CEQA Exemption Is Invalid
Govemment Code $6591 3.4(a)(6) requires demonstrated compliance with:
o PRC 4290
o PRC429l
o CBC Chapter 7A
The staffreport provides no evidence of:
o Fire-flow modeling
o Hydrant spacing analysis
o Roadway adequacy
o Water-supply verification
o Secondary access feasibility
A conclusory Fire Department letter is not substantial evidence.

E. Subdivision Map Act Findings Are Unsupported
Gov. Code 566474 requires denial if:
o The site is physically unsuitable
o The subdivision creates danger to life or property
o The subdivision is inconsistent with the General Plan Because the City failed to analyze'.
o Evacuation
o Fire-flow
o Water supply
o Roadway adequacy
o VHFHSZ wildfire behavior
The findings are unsupported and invalid.

VI. CONCLUSION
The staff report contains material legal errors and omissions that invalidate:
e The CEQA exemption
o The General Plan consistency findings
o The Subdivision Map Act findings
o The safety determinations required by State law
The City Council must:

1. Deny the project, or

2. Continue the hearing and require:
o A full evacuation analysis
o Fire-flow and hydraulic modeling
o Secondary access feasibility study
o VHFHSZ wildfire behavior analysis
o Updated General Plan consistency review
VII. RECOMMENDED ACTION
Do not adopt the staff recommendation.

Direct staff to prepare a revised analysis that complies with:
l. The General Plan

2. A8747 I ABt409

3. PRC 4290 I 4291

4. CFC Appendix B, C, D

5. Govemment Code $65913.a(a)(6)

6. Subdivision MaP Act 566474

FORMAL NEGLIGENCE ARGUMENT
Submitted to: Cupertino City Attorney and Cupertino City Council Re: Administrative Negligence in the Review and Recommendation of Approval for TM-2024-009 (Linda Vista Townhomes)
Project: TM-2A24-009 (Linda Vista Townhomes)
Location: 10857-10887 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, CA
Prepared by: Mark W. Fantozzi, PE

VIA EMAIL
I.INTRODUCTION
This letter sets forth a formal argument that the Cupertino Planning Department's review and recommendation of approval for TM-2024-009 constitutes administrative negligence-meaning a failure to proceed in the manner required by law, an abuse of discretion, and a recommendation unsupported by substantial evidence-under the Subdivision Map Act, Califomia Fire Code, Public Resources Code 9942904291, and the Cupertino General Plan Safety Element, This argument does not allege tort liability or personal wrongdoing. Instead, it demonstrates that the Planning Department failed to perform mandatory statutory duties designed to protect public safety, particularly in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). These failures materially compromised the integrity of the administrative record and resulted in a recommendation of approval that is legally indefensible.

II. LEGAL STANDARD FOR ADMINISTRATIVB NEGLIGENCE
In Califomia land-use law, negligence manifests as: failure to proceed in the manner required by law; abuse of discretion; findings unsupporled by substantial evidence; and arbitrary and capricious action. These standards are codified in Gov. Code $66474 (Subdivision Map Act), Code of Civil Procedure $1094.5 (Administrative Mandamus), General Plan consistency doctrine, and Fire Code and PRC compliance requirements. A city acts negligently in the administrative sense when it fails to perform mandatory safety evaluations, ignores statutory requirements, or recommends approval without substantial evidence.

III. DUTY OF CARE
The Planning Department had a mandatory duty to ensure that TM-2024-009 complied with: (1) Subdivision Map Act - Gov. Code $66474; (2) California Fire Code - CFC $503, CFC $403-404, Appendix D, Appendix B; (3) Public Resources Code $$4290- 4291; and (4) Cupertino General Plan Safety Element - Policies HS-2.13, S- 1.3, S-2.3, S-2.4. These duties are not discretionary.

IV. BREACH OF DUTY
The Planning Department breached its duty by failing to perform required safety evaluations and by recommending approval despite the absence of substantial evidence.

Breaches include: (A) No wildfire evacuation analysis; (B) No fire-flow analysis; (C) Ignoring dead-end road requirements; (D) Using outdated, pre-rezoning data; and (E) Making findings without substantial evidence.

V. CAUSATION
The Planning Department's omissions directly caused an incomplete and legally defective administrative record, erroneous findings of General Plan consistency, a recommendation of approval that violates state law, and a foreseeable risk that residents may be unable to evacuate during a wildfire.

VI. FORESEEABLE HARM
Evacuation analysis shows McClellan Road V/C : 4.2, Foothill Boulevard YIC: 4.0, V lC > 1.0 = system failure, CUP-029 generates 38o/o of all evacuation trips, the project sits in a VHFHSZ, and the only evacuation route is a dead-end funnel. These conditions create a foreseeable, life-threatening evacuation failure. Under Califomia law, foreseeable risk satisfies the harm element of administrative negligence.

VII. CONCLUSION
The Planning Department's review and recommendation of approval for TM-2024-009 constitutes administrative negligence because it failed to proceed in the manner required by law, failed to comply with mandatory Fire Code and PRC requirements, failed to ensure General Plan Safety Element consistency, failed to provide substantial evidence supporting required findings, and recommended approval despite foreseeable, life-safety risks. Under Gov. Code $66474, the City Council must deny the tentative map. The City Attomey and City Council are respectfully requested to reject the Planning Department's recommendation, remand the project for full Fire Code and evacuation compliance analysis, require a comprehensive wildfire evacuation study, and ensure compliance with all mandatory General Plan Safety policies. Attached is a StaffReport Memorandum identifuing material legal errors, omissions, and unsupported findings in the Planning Department's staff report.

Thank you for your attention to this matter,
Sincerely,
Mark W. Fantozzi
Cupertino, CA
mw f anto zzi@ tfan c o. c o m

IV. BREACH OF DUTY
The Planning Department breached its duty by failing to perform required safety evaluations and by recommending approval despite the absence of substantial evidence.

Thank you for your attention to this matter,
Sincerely,
Mark W. Fantozzi
Cupertino, CA
mw f anto zzi@ tfan c o. c o m
Staff Report Memorandum
To: Cupertino City Council
From: Mark W. Fantozzi
Re: Legal Deficiencies in Staff Report and Approval Findings for SummerHill Homes Proj ect (T M-2024 -009, A SA-2 0 24 -0 I 5, T R-2024 -044) Date: March2026