Written Communications (Updated 04-22-2026) — Cupertino City Council, April 21, 2026

CC 4-21-2026
Oral
Communications
Written Comments
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City Council; City Clerk
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Too Many SB 330 Projects
Date: Tuesday, April 14, 2026 9:27:46 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council:
(Please consider the following as public comment for the City Council meeting on 4/21/26.) I am very concerned that there are so many SB 330 projects now that they are taking up most of The City's time and nothing else can get done. The public is having a hard time following all The projects and feel like they are being left behind and are not getting a chance to express Their multiple concerns about the projects.

The SB 330 housing bill does not let the public discuss the projects and this is a very sad affair.

It is like no one can express their concerns to the city. These concerns have identified an exploding, Overriding concern that retail is being lost at an alarming rate.

No one from the public in California ever got the ability to voice their concerns with SB 330 when the governor Signed SB 330, and we are having to do it now. This bill had no beta testing before it was released onto The public and we are doing the beta testing now. In the beta testing we are realizing that this bill in Too much proliferation is causing a massive loss of retail. There is a growing concern about traffic impacts, Emergency vehicle access, parking loss and school impacts.

There is an overall sense of confusion in the City and dismay over the many issues from the SB 330 projects. People are worried now about even finding a place to buy groceries or shop in the city.

Since the loss of Staples, I frequent computer supply stores and office supply stores in other cities, including Santa Cruz.

The handwriting is on the wall. There will be no retail left in Cupertino if things continue on as They are with the emergence of so many SB 330s. Retail should be put back into the mix required at the SB 330 sites. Beta testing is almost complete after six SB 330s. We need to preserve retail And we need to come up with ways to protect, promote and preserve retail.

Cupertino's main shopping area, when it was Westside, was the intersection of Sunnyvale-Saratoga Road and Stevens Creek Blvd. It was called The Crossroads and that is where you went to buy things You needed in farming and orchard days. The Crossroads should keep retail as retail has always been There for the Cupertino Community.

We just need to put retail back into the equation as we beta test SB 330. The state did not beta test it.

We are having to do it now. Please help us get our concerns out about SB 330 and help us protect retail in Cupertino.

Thank you.

Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
From: Vikram Saxena
To: City Clerk
Cc: Yung, Brandon@HCD; Wilcox, Mindy@HCD; [email protected]; [email protected]; Liang Chao; Kitty Moore; R "Ray" Wang; Floy Andrews; [email protected]; Tina Kapoor; Coy, Melinda@HCD; Emi Sugiyama; Luke Connolly
Subject: Re: Subject: Documentation of Administrative Record Inconsistencies: 10857 Linda Vista Cupertino Date: Sunday, April 12, 2026 5:52:09 PM
Attachments: Attachment_Cox_Castle_HAA_CEQA_Letter_2026-02-12.pdf CEQA Exemption Fire Safety Compliance Concerns-2.pdf
Cox Castle Letter City of Cupertino - 4-1-26.pdf
Estrada Raw Testimony.pdf
Intro letter to Brandon Yung HCD.pdf
Notice_of_Factual_Discrepancies_to_Cox_Castle-City.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Subject: FOR THE OFFICIAL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD: Evulich Court / 10857 Linda Vista Drive - Supplemental Evidence for Reconsideration Dear City Clerk,
Please find attached the recent correspondence between our neighborhood coalition and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) regarding the Evulich Court project.

I am formally requesting that this email and the attached PDF be entered into the Official Administrative Record for the Evulich Court project. Furthermore, please append this correspondence as supplemental evidence to our pending Petition for Reconsideration, so that the City Council has it in their packet prior to their hearing on our petition.

Please confirm receipt and inclusion in the record.

Sincerely
-Vikram Saxena
On Thu, Apr 9, 2026 at 11:08 AM Coy, Melinda@HCD <[email protected] > wrote:

Thank you

At this time we will not be reevaluating our letter. We are however monitoring as this project moves forward.

Melinda

From: Vikram Saxena <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2026 2:32 AM
To: Coy, Melinda@HCD <[email protected]>
Cc: Yung, Brandon@HCD <[email protected]>; Wilcox, Mindy@HCD <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; Liang Chao <[email protected]>; Kitty Moore <[email protected]>; Ray Wang <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; Tina Kapoor <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Subject: Documentation of Administrative Record Inconsistencies: 10857 Linda Vista Cupertino

Dear Ms. Coy, Thank you for the acknowledgment. To clarify the core issue: the project may proceed with a CEQA exemption using compliant 30-foot setbacks, or with 10-foot setbacks subject to full environmental review—but it cannot legally do Dear Ms. Coy,
Thank you for the acknowledgment.

To clarify the core issue: the project may proceed with a CEQA exemption using compliant 30-foot setbacks, or with 10-foot setbacks subject to full environmental review—but it cannot legally do both.

The current record reflects a clear breakdown in the information chain. The applicant’s Feb 12 letter—which asserted confirmed fire safety compliance—informed the City Staff Report, which then shaped HCD’s guidance. Crucially, the applicant’s April 1 submission materially retracted that claim, admitting that compliance remains "to be determined."
It is understandable that the City is still establishing a baseline for these overlapping requirements, given that 1,600 acres in Cupertino were newly designated as High/Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones just as AB 130 became law in 2025. However, we request that you re-evaluate your letter now that the underlying premise of the Feb 12 letter has been withdrawn.

Sincerely,
Vikram Saxena

On Wed, Apr 8, 2026 at 12:54 PM Coy, Melinda@HCD <[email protected] >
wrote:

I want to acknowledge receipt. We will review what you sent.

Melinda

From: Vikram Saxena <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2026 11:30 AM
To: Coy, Melinda@HCD <[email protected]>; Yung, Brandon@HCD <[email protected]>; Wilcox, Mindy@HCD <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Liang Chao <[email protected]>; Kitty Moore <[email protected]>; Ray Wang <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Subject: Documentation of Administrative Record Inconsistencies: 10857 Linda Vista Cupertino

Dear Ms. Coy, I am writing to follow up on my prior correspondence regarding the 10857 Linda Vista project in Cupertino and HCD’s March 30, 2026 technical assistance letter issued by your office. Given that residents have a limited period (10 Dear Ms. Coy,
I am writing to follow up on my prior correspondence regarding the 10857 Linda Vista project in Cupertino and HCD’s March 30, 2026 technical assistance letter issued by your office. Given that residents have a limited period (10 days from the April 1 decision) to seek reconsideration, time is of the essence in clarifying whether HCD’s guidance was applied based on a complete and accurate understanding of the record.

As I have not received a response, I am attaching a formal follow-up letter documenting material inconsistencies in the administrative record related to fire safety compliance and CEQA exemption eligibility.

I want to highlight one point in particular. During the April 1, 2026 City Council hearing, the Fire Department, through Assistant Fire Chief Estrada, provided direct testimony clarifying that key elements of fire safety compliance, including defensible space and evacuation impacts, had not been evaluated and were outside the scope of review. At the same time, prior written submissions had identified material discrepancies in the February 12, 2026 letter (from Summerhill's counsel) regarding the characterization of Fire Department prior approvals.

Notwithstanding this record, HCD’s March 30 guidance, particularly the direction that the City should “assume compliance” at the entitlement stage, was relied upon by the City Attorney as the central basis for advising approval of the project and its CEQA exemption. In effect, that guidance became the framework through which the Council evaluated its obligations. The Council applied this framework in a manner that allowed approval to proceed despite unresolved and documented factual conflicts in the record.

The attached letter connects the February 12 counsel letter, the Planning Commission Staff Report (referred by the HCD), the April 1 counsel submission, and prior resident notices, and explains how these were collectively relied upon in the City’s decision- making process.

I have copied Mr. Yung for continuity.

Given the role HCD’s guidance played in the City’s decision, I would appreciate your acknowledgment of receipt and any clarification HCD can provide after review.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Vikram Saxena
Attachments:
(1) CEQA Exemption Fire Safety Compliance Concerns (new letter) (2) Intro letter to Brandon Yung HCD (sent this weekend to initiate contact) (3) Cox Castle Letter of February 12
(4) Cox Castle Letter of April 1
(5) Notice_of_Factual_Discrepancies_to_Cox_Castle (March 27) (6) Extracts from Assistant Fire Chief Hector Estrada's testimony at the April 1, city council meeting
Ih) COX CASTLE

107942\19229684v6 www.coxcastle.com Los Angeles | Orange County | San Francisco Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP
50 California Street, Suite 3200
San Francisco, California 94111-4710
P: 415.262.5100 F: 415.262.5199
Margo N. Bradish
415.262.5101
[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

Dear Mr. Yung,
I write to follow up on my prior correspondence regarding the 10857 Linda Vista project and its treatment

eligible

for

the

130

CEQA

exemption

within

Very

High

Fire

Hazard

Severity

Zone

(VHFHSZ).

light

the

absence

response

and

the

significance

the

issues

identified,

this

letter

submitted

formally

document

material

inconsistencies

the

administrative

record

that

appear

have

influenced

both

the

City’s

approval

and

HCD’s

March

30,

2026

technical

assistance

letter.

This is not a policy objection to housing development or the Evulich Court project. Rather, it concerns

whether

the

decision-making

process

relied

complete,

accurate,

and

internally

consistent

factual

record—particularly

with

respect

threshold

fire

safety

compliance

required

for

CEQA

exemption.

1. Chain of Representation and the "Record of Circularity" The record reflects a clear sequence of bootstrapping , through which an initial assertion was progressively

laundered

into

controlling

premise:
● The February 12, 2026 letter from project counsel asserted that the Fire Department had

“confirmed”

compliance

with

Public

Resources

Code

§§

4290,

4291/51182,

and

Chapter

7A.
● The February 24, 2026 Planning Commission Staff Report adopted this assertion as a formal

finding,

stating

that

the

project

had

“demonstrated

consistency”

with

these

requirements.
● HCD’s March 30, 2026 letter , in turn, relied on the Staff Report to advise that compliance

may

assumed

the

entitlement

stage.

At no point does the record demonstrate independent verification of compliance. Instead, an initial

representation

was

adopted

and

relied

upon

without

reconciliation

against

the

underlying

Fire

Department

record,

creating

record

circularity

where

the

finding

exists

only

because

the

assertion

was

made,

not

because

the

facts

support

it.

2. Documented Discrepancies and Prior Notice
Before the City Council’s April 1, 2026 decision, residents submitted detailed written notices identifying

specific

factual

discrepancies

the

underlying

record.

Supported

direct

citations

Fire

Department

documents,

these

notices

established

that:

● PRC § 4291 (defensible space) remained an outstanding, unapproved requirement, with records

explicitly

stating

“Plans

are

NOT

APPROVED.”
● The Alternate Means and Methods Request (AMMR) was incomplete, lacking the required

Building

Official

approval.

● The Fire Department had approved an exception to PRC § 4290 setback requirements, not

compliance

with

them,

characterizing

the

design

“non-conforming.”
The administrative record does not reflect that these discrepancies were resolved or incorporated

into

the

findings

presented

decision-makers.

3. Subsequent Revision and Mooted Findings (April 1, 2026) On April 1, 2026, the applicant submitted a letter that materially altered the basis of their earlier representations.

Where

the

February

letter

asserted

"confirmed

compliance,"

the

April

letter

stated

that

compliance

“will

verified”

the

building

permit

stage.

This shift effectively mooted the factual findings of the February Staff Report. By replacing a representation

existing,

verified

compliance

with

position

that

prospective

and

unverified,

the

applicant

withdrew

the

very

factual

predicate

upon

which

the

Staff

Report

and

HCD’s

March

30 letter

relied.

4. Jurisdictional Gaps and Physical Impossibility
Testimony from the Santa Clara County Fire Department at the April 1, 2026 hearing established

jurisdictional

gap
.

The

Department

confirmed

that:
● Review addressed PRC § 4290 (setbacks/access). ● PRC § 4291 / § 51182 (defensible space) was not evaluated . ● Evacuation impacts were explicitly stated to be out of scope.

This distinction is material. Compliance with PRC § 4291 requires 100 feet of defensible space.

With

proposed

setbacks

low

10 feet,

the

record

raises

question

physical

impossibility
.

the

project

footprint

makes

required

defensible

space

physically

unachievable

on-site,

deferring

verification

the

"building

permit

stage"

legal

fiction;

the

footprint

cannot

moved

after

entitlement.

5. Effect on Decision Making
HCD’s March 30 letter—and its direction to “assume compliance” at the entitlement stage—was

expressly

relied

upon

the

City

Attorney

central

basis

for

advising

approval.

This

guidance

was

invoked

support

the

position

that

the

City

was

not

required

resolve

questions

regarding

fire

safety

the

entitlement

stage,

even

where

the

record

contained

affirmative

evidence

non-compliance.

In effect, HCD’s guidance was applied in a manner that supplanted the need for evidentiary resolution
,

even

where

the

record

contained

documented

contradictions.

This

raises

threshold

question

whether

HCD

intended

for

its

guidance

displace

the

requirement

for

complete

and

accurate

factual

record

and

comply

with

the

statute

130’s

CEQA

exemption requirements as written.

6. Request for Clarification
Given the above, I respectfully request that HCD: ● Clarify whether its March 30, 2026 letter relied on an understanding that the project had already

demonstrated

compliance

with

PRC

§§

4290,

4291,

and

Chapter

7A.
● Confirm whether the "assumption of compliance" is appropriate when the record contains

affirmative

evidence

non-compliance

and

documented

physical

feasibility

constraints
.
● Review the Fire Department testimony from April 1, 2026, which establishes that the core

statutes

required

for

CEQA

exemption

were

never

actually

evaluated.

Closing
The issue presented is whether a threshold factual predicate—fire safety compliance required for

CEQA

exemption—was

established,

merely

assumed

the

presence

unresolved

and

documented

discrepancies.

would

appreciate

acknowledgment

this

letter

and

any

guidance

HCD

can

provide.

Sincerely, Vikram Saxena Cupertino Resident Former Vice-Chair, Cupertino Planning Commission 107942\19311643v6www.coxcastle.com Los Angeles | Orange County | San Francisco Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP
50 California Street, Suite 3200
San Francisco, California 94111-4710
P: 415.262.5100 F: 415.262.5199
Margo N. Bradish
415.262.5101
[email protected]
File No. 107942
April 1, 2026

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

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

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

Page 2 ends

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

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

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

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

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

City Council
April 1, 2026

Page 3 ends

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

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

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

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

City Council
April 1, 2026

Page 4 ends

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

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

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

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

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

Page 5 ends

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

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

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

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

Page 6 ends

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

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

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

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

Page 7 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 8 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 9 ends

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

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

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
651 Bannon Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95811
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov

M
arch 30, 2026

B
en Fu, Community Development Director
Cupertino City Hall
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014

Dear Ben Fu:

RE: City of Cupertino – 10857 Linda Vista Drive – Letter Support and Technical Assistance

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

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

Background

HCD understands that the Project is proposing 51 for-sale townhome units, including 10 units deed restricted for moderate income households. The Project is located within the R-3/TH (Multiple-Family Residential, Townhome) zoning district and the Residential – Medium High Density General Plan Land Use Designation. The Project is utilizing the State Density Bonus Law (SDBL)1 to utilize five waivers and one concession from applicable standards of the General Plan and Zoning Code. HCD additionally understands that the Project is consistent with the General Plan,2 Zoning,3 and state and local regulations applicable to Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ).4 On February 24, 2026, the City’s Planning Commission voted to recommend the City Council approve the Project.5

1 Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (b)(1)(D).
2 City of Cupertino February 24, 2026, Planning Commission Hearing Staff Report on 10857 Linda Vista Drive, page 2.
3 Ibid. See page 3.
4 Ibid. See page 9: “The Santa Clara County Fire Department has found that the project has demonstrated consistency with these requirements.”
5 City of Cupertino February 24, 2026, Planning Commission Hearing Minutes.

Ben Fu, Community Development Director

Page 2 ends

Analysis

H
ousing Accountability Act

T
he Project meets the definition of a “housing development project” under the HAA.6 The Project may only be disapproved or approved at a lower density if the City makes written findings, supported by a preponderance of evidence on the record, that (1) a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety would result from the project and (2) mitigation of the adverse impact is not possible.
7 Specific, adverse, impact means a
significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions. 8 “Objective” means,
“involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official.” 9 Additionally, the Legislature has clarified that these impacts are intended to arise “infrequently.”10

H
ousing Element No Net Loss Law

N
o Net Loss Law requires that a jurisdiction ensure there is development opportunity remaining throughout the planning period to accommodate the jurisdiction’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Because the approval of the Project would result in capacity becoming inadequate to accommodate the RHNA, the City will have up to 180 days from the approval to identify or rezone “sufficient additional, adequate, and available sites” to accommodate the remaining RHNA.
11 H
CD understands that the Project site consists of four contiguous lots listed in the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element and the approval of the project may trigger a No Net Loss Law obligation for the City in the moderate income and lower-income categories. In the Planning Commission Staff Report for the Project, the City has stated that, while it “is unable to identify additional sites to accommodate its RHNA concurrently with this project’s approval, it is working toward being compliant with State law in a timely manner. 12” HCD reminds the City that Housing Element No Net Loss Law specifically provides that the City may not disapprove a housing project on the basis that approval of the development would trigger the identification or zoning of additional adequate sites to accommodate the remaining RHNA.
13 6 Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (h)(2).
7 Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j)(1).
8 Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j)(1)(A).
9 Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (h)(9).
10 Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (a)(3).
11 Gov. Code, § 65863., subd. (c)(2).
12 City of Cupertino February 24, 2026, Planning Commission Hearing Staff Report on 10857 Linda Vista Drive, page 18.
13 See HCD’s October 2, 2019 No Net Loss Law Memo, page 1, available at:
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/housing-element- memos/docs/sb-166-final.pdf.

Ben Fu, Community Development Director

Page 3 ends

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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

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

City Council
April 1, 2026
107942\19311643v5
Exhibit C
Alternative Means Application & Approval

D STREET

A STREET

B STREET

C STREETE 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
6040200 CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS

SAN RAMON
WWW.CBANDG.COM

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

ABBREVIATIONS

381.078
10857 Linda Vista Drive
Cupertino, CA
September 15, 2025
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583
650-857-0122

PROJECT DATA
A08

WILDFIRE PROTECTION CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS
THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS BEING LOCATED IN A LOCAL RESPONSIBILITY AREA (LRA) VERY HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONE.

THE PROJECT SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE SECTION R337, MATERIALS AND METHODS FOR EXTERIOR WILDFIRE EXPOSURE, AS FOLLOWS:

1. EXTERIOR WINDOWS AND EXTERIOR DOORS WITH GLAZING EXTERIOR

WINDOWS AND EXTERIOR DOORS WITH GLAZING, SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF MULTI-PANE GLAZING WITH A MINIMUM OF ONE TEMPERED PANE. (C.R.C.

R337.8.2.1)

2. EXTERIOR DOORS SHALL MEET ONE OF THE FOLLOWING (C.R.C. R337.8.3):

A. THE EXTERIOR SURFACE OR CLADDING SHALL BE OF NON-COMBUSTIBLE OR IGNITION-RESISTANT MATERIAL.

B. SHALL HAVE A FIRE-RESISTANCE RATING OF NOT LESS THAN 20 MIN.

WHEN TESTED ACCORDING TO NFPA 252.

SHALL BE TESTED TO MEET THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF SFM STANDARD 12-7A-1.

3. GARAGE DOORS SHALL RESIST THE INTRUSION OF EMBERS FROM ENTERING

BY PREVENTING GAPS BETWEEN DOORS AND DOOR OPENINGS, AT HTE BOTTOM, SIDES, AND TOPS OF DOORS, FROM EXCEEDING 1/8". gAPS BETWEEN

DOORS AND DOOR OPENINGS SHALL BE CONTROLLED BY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING METHODS:

A. WEATHER STRIPPING PRODUCTS MADE OF MATERIALS THAT: (A) HAVE BEEN TESTED FOR TENSILE STRENGTH IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D638 AFTER EXPOSURE TO ASTM G155 FOR A PERIOD OF 2,000 HOURS, WHERE THE

MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DIFFERENCE IN TENSILE STRENGTH VALUES BETWEEN EXPOSED AND NONEXPOSED SAMPLES DO NOT EXCEED 10% AND (B) EXHIBIT A V-2 OR BETTER FLAMMABILITY RATING WHEN TESTED TO UL 94.

B. DOOR OVERLAPS ONTO JAMBS AND HEADERS.

C. GARAGE DOOR JAMBS AND HEADERS COVERED WITH METAL FLASHING

4. VENTS SHALL RESIST BUILDING IGNITION FROM THE INTRUSION OF BURNING

EMBERS AND FLAME THROUGH THE VENTILATION OPENINGS WITH THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (C.R.C. R337.6)
A. THE DIMENSIONS OF THE OPENINGS THEREIN SHALL BE A MIN. OF 1/16TH INCH AND SHALL NOT EXCEED 1/8TH INCH.

B. THE MATERIALS SHALL BE INCOMBUSTIBLE
C. THE MATERIALS USED SHALL BE CORROSION RESISTANT.

5. THE EXTERIOR WALL COVERING OR WALL ASSEMBLY SHALL COMPLY WITH ONE OF THE FOLLOWING C.R.C. R337.7.3:

A. NONCOMBUSTIBLE MATERIAL.

B. IGNITION- RESISTANT MATERIAL.

C. SAWN LUMBER OR GLUE-LAMINATED WOOD WITH THE SMALLEST MINIMUM NOMINAL DIMENSION OF 4". SAWN OR GLUE-LAMINATED PLANKS SPLINED, TONGUE-AND-GROOVE, OR SET CLOSE TOGETHER AND WELL SPIKED.

D. LOG WALL CONSTRUCTION.

E. WALL ASSEMBLIES THAT HAVE BEEN TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEST PROCEDURES FOR A 10-MINUTE DIRECT FLAME CONTACT EXPOSURE TEST SET FORTH IN ASTM E2707 WITH THE CONDITIONS OF ACCEPTANCE SHOWN IN SECTION R337.7.3.1.

F. WALL ASSEMBLIES THAT MEET THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS CRITERIA IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEST PROCEDURES FOR A 10-MINUTE

DIRECT FLAME CONTACT EXPOSURE TEST SET FORTH IN SFM STANDARD 12-7A-1.

EXCEPTIONS: ANY OF THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE DEEMED TO MEET THE ASSEMBLY PERFORMANCE CRITERIA AND INTENT OF THIS SECTION:

A. ONE LAYER OF 5/8" TYPE X GYPSUM SHEATHING APPLIED BEHIND THE EXTERIOR COVERING OR CLADDING ON THE EXTERIOR SIDE OF THE FRAMING.

B. THE EXTERIOR PORTION OF A 1-HOUR FIRE RESISTIVE EXTERIOR WALL

ASSEMBLY DESIGNED FOR EXTERIOR FIRE EXPOSURE INCLUDING ASSEMBLIES

USING GYPSUM PANEL AND SHEATHING PRODUCTS LISTED IN THE GYPSUM ASSOCIATION FIRE RESISTIVE FIRE DESIGN MANUAL.

6. DECKING SURFACES SHALL COMPLY WITH C.R.C. R337.9.3. THE WALKING

SURFACE MATERIAL OF DECKS, PORCHES, BALCONY AND STAIRS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH ONE OF THE FOLLOWING MATERIALS:

A. MATERIAL THAT COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION R337.9.4 WHEN TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH BOTH ASTM E2632 AND ASTM E2726.

B. IGNITION-RESISTANT MATERIAL THAT COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION R337.4.3 WHEN TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM E84 OR UL 723.

C. MATERIAL THAT COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF BOTH SFM STANDARD 12-7A-4 AND SFM STANDARD 12-7A-5.

D. EXTERIOR FIRE RETARDANT TREATED WOOD.

E. NONCOMBUSTIBLE MATERIAL.

F. ANY MATERIAL THAT COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF SFM STANDARD 12-7A-4A WHEN ATTACHED EXTERIOR WALL COVERING IS ALSO COMPOSED OF NONCOMBUSTIBLE OR IGNITION-RESISTANT MATERIAL.

EXCEPTION: WALL MATERIAL MAY BE OF ANY MATERIAL THAT OTHERWISE

COMPLIES WITH THIS CHAPTER WHEN THE DECKING SURFACE MATERIAL COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS ASTM E84 WITH A CLASS B FLAME SPREAD RATING.

G. AY MATERIAL THAT COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION R337.9.5 WHEN TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM E2632 AND

WHEN ATTACHED EXTERIOR WALL COVERING IS ALSO COMPOSED OF ONLY NONCOMBUSTIBLE OR IGNITION-RESISTANT MATERIALS.

EXCEPTION: WALL MATERIAL SHALL BE PERMITTED TO BE OF ANY MATERIAL

THAT OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THIS CHAPTER WHEN THE DECKING

SURFACE MATERIAL COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS ASTM E84 WITH A CLASS B FLAME SPREAD INDEX.

City Council
April 1, 2026
107942\19311643v5
Exhibit D
Fire Department Project Plans Approval

1 FIRE PREVENTION PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS PROJECT INFO: PREPARED BY: FIRE DEPT PLAN REVIEW #: NAME/TITLE: CITY/COUNTY PROJECT #: EMAIL: LOCATION: DATE: PROJECT NAME: The scope of this project includes the following: Proposed new 10 building 51 unit multi-family residential subdivision. Plans Status: Plans are APPROVED with conditions. Plan Review Comments **1. PRC 4290: This project shall comply with PRC 4290 comments. Exception request to PRC 4290 approved. Non-conforming setbacks to be mitigated through a combination of increased fire separation distance requirements and modified sprinklers systems. See approved Exception Request. **2. Provide a "Final Fire Protection Plan" at time of building permit submittal. The plan shall identify mitigation measures to address the project's specific wildfire risk and shall include the information required in CFC section 4903.2.1 including plan for maintenance of defensible space, access roads, and fire protection equipment. [CFC section 4903] 3. Fire Department Turnaround: Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications A-1 / D-1. Turnaround A to be installed. See sheet C6.0. 4. Fire Sprinklers Required: Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new and existing buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in this Section or in Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.18. 5. Fire Hydrants Required: Hydrant(s) required within 600 feet of all proposed budlings. -New hydrants are shown on sheet C6. Hydrants shall be installed prior to combustible construction and the minimum fire flow shall be met. -Hydrant authorization shall be approved by San Jose Water. 251740 TM-2024-009 / ASA-2024-015 / TR-2024-044
Caleb Flanagan [email protected] 10857 Linda Vista Dr 1/27/26 Multi-family subdivision

2 6. Required Fire Flow: The fire flow for this project is 1,375 GPM at 20 psi residual pressure since an automatic fire sprinkler system will be installed. Note: The minimum required number and spacing of the hydrants shall be in accordance with CFC Table C102.1. Fire flow detailed on sheet C6. -Hydraulic analysis provided confirming minimum fire flow. 7. Ground ladder / Emergency Rescue Openings Required: Ground-ladder rescue from second and third floor rooms shall be made possible for fire department operations. Climbing angle of seventy-five degrees shall be demonstrated on the plans and maintained. Landscaping shall not be allowed to interfere with the required access (CFC Sec. 503 and 1031 NFPA 1932 Sec. 5.1.8 through 5.1.9.2). -Shown on sheet A22. 8. Buildings and Facilities Access / Fire Access Roadway: The fire apparatus access road shall comply with the requirements of this section and shall extend to within 200 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. [CFC, Section 503.1.1 and SCCFD A1 Standard]. 9. Fire Lane Identification Required: The minimum clear width of fire department access roads shall be 20 feet. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designated and marked as a fire lane as set forth in Section 22500.1 of the California Vehicle Code. -Noted on sheet C6. 10. All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of the CFC Chapter 33 and our Standard Detail and Specification S1-7. Provide appropriate notations on subsequent plan submittals, as appropriate to the project. CFC Chp. 33. 11. Address identification: New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Where required by the fire code official, address numbers shall be provided in additional approved locations to facilitate emergency response. Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall be a minimum of 6 inches (101.6 mm) high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch (12.7 mm). Address numbers shall be maintained CFC Sec. 505.1. This review shall not be construed to be an approval of a violation of the provisions of the California Fire Code or of other laws or regulations of the jurisdiction. A permit presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of the fire code or other such laws or regulations shall not be valid. Any addition to or alteration of approved construction documents shall be approved in advance. [CFC, Ch. 1, 105.3.6] City Council
April 1, 2026
107942\19311643v5
Exhibit E
Fire Department Memorandum

Page 1 of 2 ends

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

Page 2 of 2 ends

(3) Exterior fire sprinkler heads protecting covered porches and decks that are within thirty feet of the property line. (4) Fire resistance rated exterior elements within thirty feet of the property lines including: a. Exterior Walls - Fire resistance rated for one hour. b. Projections (portions of the building protruding beyond exterior walls) - Fire resistance rated for one hour. c. Penetrations (e.g., mechanical, electrical, plumbing services) - Protected to maintain fire resistance rated assemblies. Section 1276.01 of the Fire Safe Regulations provides guidance on exception requests related to the thirty-foot setback requirement: A reduction in the minimum setback shall be based upon practical reasons, which may include but are not limited to, parcel dimensions or size, topographic limitations, Development density requirements or other Development patterns that promote low-carbon emission outcomes; sensitive habitat; or other site constraints, and shall provide for an alternative method to reduce Structure-to-Structure ignition by incorporating features such as, but not limited to: (1) non-combustible block walls or fences; or (2) non-combustible material extending five (5) feet horizontally from the furthest extent of the Building; or (3) hardscape landscaping; or (4) a reduction of exposed windows on the side of the Structure with a less than thirty (30) foot setback; or (5) the most protective requirements in the California Building Code, California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 7A, as required by the Local Jurisdiction. (14 C.C.R. § 1276.01(b).) Based on our analysis of the site and the combined impact of the measures proposed in the exception request, County Fire staff determined that these measures provide appropriate alternative methods to reduce the risk of structure-to-structure ignition, and County Fire approved the Same Practical Effect exception request for the Application. The Project includes two of the five measures identified in Section 1276.01 as alternative methods to reduce the risk of structure-to-structure ignition and two additional measures: exterior sprinklers and increased fire resistive rated exterior elements. Analyzing these measures based on accepted wildland fire suppression strategies and tactics and provisions for firefighter safety, County Fire staff determined that the exception request provided appropriate access for emergency wildland fire equipment and safe civilian evacuation and that the exception request included fuel modification sufficient for civilian and firefighter safety. County Fire memorialized its approval of the exception request in its January 7 and January 27 plan review comments, which have been presented to the City Planning Commission and City Council. County Fire’s plan review comments also notiﬁed the applicant that they will need to submit a ﬁnal ﬁre protection plan, onsite ﬁre hydrant design speciﬁcations, and a construction site safety plan as part of their building permit application.

Below are the full, unedited raw transcripts extracted directly from the record of the April 1, 2026,

meeting.

These

include

all

verbal

fillers

("uh,"

"um"),

stutters,

and

the

full

context

the

questions

asked.

1. Neighbor Impact ("Outside of Scope") Timestamps: – Council Member Wang: "can you help me walk us through the process when you receive the developers

request

reduce

the

setback

from

30 ft

10 ft

along

property

lines

what

factors

did

you

personally

weigh

deciding

that

the

proposal

mitigations

were

sufficient

specifically

did

all

your

evaluation

consider

the

fire

safety

impact

existing

homes

along

the

southern

and

northern

boundaries

yeah

the

Barry

the

Cobra

Decker

the

Rodriguez

and

the

Fantosi

properties"

Assistant Fire Chief Estrada: "so I'm going to go ahead and start with no the thing is is that all of

those

things

specifically

are

not

identified

components

what

did

essentially

received

the

request

come

and

when

comes

presents

the

conditions

presents

the

actual

code

that

needs

reviewed

and

then

have

relied

the

definitions

and

the

standards

that

are

set

out

section

1270.1

zone

one

the

fires

safe

regulations

the

also

the

section

127601

fire

safe

regulations

are

referred

and

rely

the

relevant

codes

that

have

that's

the

fire

code

building

code

could

residential

code

4290

4291

anything

that's

appropriate

that's

been

accepted

and

adopted

through

the

through

Certino...

you're

focused

the

safety

the

new

building

right

4290

specifically

intended

take

look

the

setback

for

that

building

and

that

parcel

will

through

the

evaluation

for

that

level

off-site

improvements

off-site

focus

one

those

things

that

outside

scope

for

that

evaluation
"

2. PRC § 4291 Status (Defensible Space) Timestamps: – Council Member Wang: "is that a sign off or no sign off on 4291 uh please are you are you signing

off

4291

not"

Assistant Fire Chief Estrada: "no 4290 i understand i'm just the sign off you mean for our project

exception

request

yes

yeah

talk

about

basically

come

with

agreement

did

you

sign

off

4291

not...

thank

you

council

member

clear

429

4290

the

state

minimum

fire

safe

rags

correct

and

4291

relates

the

defensible

space

requirements

didn't

see

sign

off

4291

that's

why

wanted

clear

correct

the

setback

requirement

outlined

4290

the

exception

request

application

was

for

4290

not

4291
"

3. Subjective Nature ("Professional Judgment") Timestamps: – Council Member Wang: "at 10 ft radiant heat exposure increases roughly ninefold the AMMR requires

1-hour

fire

rated

walls

the

new

buildings

but

the

existing

neighborhood

homes

have

standard

woodframe

construction

with

enhanced

fire

rating

when

you

determined

that

the

mitigation

package

was

adequate

what

analysis

did

you

rely

conclude

that

the

increased

radiant

heat

reaching

those

unprotected

neighborhood

structures

was

acceptable

was

there

quantitative

modeling

this

based

your

professional

judgment"

Assistant Fire Chief Estrada: "so uh thank you for the question the uh it's a combination of uh basically

those

requirements

that

are

set

forth

get

the

standard

for

the

evaluation

4290

within

4290

we've

been

dealing

with

this

for

several

years...

the

cumulative

effect

these

multiple

mitigation

strategies

expected

provide

the

same

practical

effect...

this

based

not

just

the

code

it's

not

and

based

experience

and

our

basically

our

engineering

staff's

credential

and

their

experience

well
"

4. Evacuation Safety ("Outside of Scope") Timestamps: – Council Member Wang: "The city's own fair and peter study uh pure study fair and pure study shows

that

foothill

has

volume

capacity

ratio

4.0 which

high

and

Stevens

Creek

Boulevard

3.6...

How

you

reconciled

your

determination

with

that

data?

Did

you

review

the

fair

and

pure

study?"

Assistant Fire Chief Estrada: "no absolutely not so what we had um we evaluate the what's in 4290

for

the

site

stated

earlier

with

that

the

evacuation

for

those

people

that

live

that

site...

this

was

out

scope

for

this

particular

evaluation

and

evacuation

routes

were

out

scope

this

evaluation

just

clear
"

5. Enforcement Limits (Property Line) Timestamps: – Vice Mayor Chao: "how do you determine that 30 on when the existing homes are built in the 50s

i'm

sorry

don't

understand

when

the

homes

around

the

property

was

built

the

50s...

I'm

trying

comprehend

how

the

proposed

measures

can

provide

the

same

practical

effect

30-foot

setback

especially

when

you

are

older

neighborhood"

Assistant Fire Chief Estrada: "the homes in the neighborhood exist but they do not have whatever

wasn't

actually

added

them

modified

those

are

components

that

particular

property owner land use and other rights are some of one of those things that we have to make

sure

that

these

things

and

our

observations

and

our

requests

our

enforcement

stops

the

property

line

with

that

the

property

line's

10t

away

actually

don't

have

10 foot

the

zone

you

have

least

14"

6. Design Choice vs. Site Constraint Timestamps: – Vice Mayor Chao: "site constraints means con physical constraint of the site it it means in context

that

other

site

constraints

apply

and

therefore

they

do...

these

are

design

choices

you

have

mentioned

that

doesn't

change

what

says

other

site

constraints

and

that's

what

would

say

that's

not

sight

constraint

because

they

could

build

smaller

units...

how

would

you

justify

that

they

meet

the

justification

requirement

for

practical

reasons"

Assistant Fire Chief Estrada: " i don't disagree with anything you said this is a design choice

this

for

the

applicant

and

the

builder

answer

with

that

agree

did

not

mean

you

should

not

approve

the

what

did

was

accepted

exception

request

because

there

was

deficiency...

agree

with

the

design

decision

that

the

applicant

has

nothing

with

us"

7. Maintenance Deferral Timestamps: –
Council Member Wang: "Normally 4291 is at the permit stage and under AB130 it's required to exempt

from

SQA

what

didn't

get

evaluation

4291"

Assistant Fire Chief Estrada: "4291 does but is not part of the building process you still have to

observe

will

now

observing

for

this

particular

project

until

gets

memorialized

current

accepted

standard...

won't

see

the

sprinkler

plans

until

later

which

also

the

vegetation

the

landscaping

plans

are

going

something

that

see

little

bit

later

well"

To: Brandon Yu
Housing

Accountability

Unit,

California

Department

Housing

and

Community

Development

Subject: 10857 Linda Vista Project (Cupertino) – Clarification of Fire Safety Record and CEQA

Eligibility

Dear Mr. Yu,
I am writing as a Cupertino resident and former Vice-Chair of the Cupertino Planning Commission,

(served

during

the

Housing

Element

adoption

for

this

site).

Having

served

that

role,

familiar

with

both

the

policy

intent

and

regulatory

framework

governing

this

project.

The project is being treated as eligible for CEQA exemption in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone

under

AB130

even

though

proposing

setbacks

10ft

against

the

30ft

setback

required

law

VHFHSZ.

The

administrative

record

for

the

Linda

Vista

project

appears

show

that

required

fire

safety

standards—particularly

Public

Resources

Code

§§

4290

and

4291

51182,

whichever

applicable

—were

not

fully

evaluated

satisfied,

while

significant

deviations

from

those

standards

were

approved

based

design

choices

rather

than

site

constraints.

During the April 1, 2026 City Council hearing, evidence was presented by Assistant Fire Chief Estrada

(SCC

FD)

where

explicitly

states

the

evaluation

exemption

from

CEQA

AB130

was
“not in scope” (Timestamp-1:20:08) in response to Council Member Ray Wang’s question “ Okay, great. Thank you. Um the the the exemption from from CEQA not in scope for us” The Council’s deliberations during the April 1 meeting, were dominated by concern over potential

HCD

enforcement,

and

safety

issues

were

explicitly

ignored.

the

point

that

the

City

Attorney

had

fallback

City’s

Legal

Immunity

answer

Wang’s

question

about

any

future
fire related risk (Timestamp-1:26:30)). This was followed by Council Member Fruen stating that not finding the project exempt from CEQA would expose the city to legal risk.

I am concerned that your office may have relied on an incomplete or materially inconsistent characterization

the

record,

partly

due

city-staff’s

errors,

and

partly

due

exaggerated

claims

the

developer's

attorney.

This pattern is not new; the city had commissioned an evacuation study showing two failing exits

over

200%

capacity

Linda

Vista

which

was

available

October

2025,

but

was

not

presented

the

planning

commission

until

after

their

deliberation

this

project

(February

24,

2026)

I respectfully highlight the following key issues for your consideration:

1. VHFHSZ Requirements and Setback Reduction The project site is located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). In such zones, 30-foot setbacks under Public Resources Code § 4290 are a foundational, science-based

requirement

reduce

radiant

heat

transfer

and

structure-to-structure

fire

spread.

In this project, setbacks are reduced to 10 feet along property lines directly adjacent to 55+ year-old

single-family

homes,

which

were

not

built

modern

fire-resistant

standards.

Despite

this

material

deviation

from

established

safety

standards,

the

project

being

treated

compliant

for

purposes

CEQA

exemption

under

130.

2. AMMR Justification: Design Optimization, Not Housing Necessity The project relies on an Alternative Means and Methods Request (AMMR) under 14 CCR § 1276.01

justify

reducing

setbacks

from

the

required

30 feet

10 feet.

The

AMMR

emphasizes

fire-hardening

new

structures,

and

references

housing

density

justification,

but

provides

evidence

that:

● The same number of units cannot be achieved with 30-foot setbacks ● Site constraints necessitate the reduced setbacks ● Alternative compliant layouts were infeasible Instead, the project proposes significantly larger townhome units (approximately 20–35% larger

than

comparable

nearby

developments),

indicating

that

the

setback

reduction

being

used

maximize

unit

size

and

saleable

area,

not

unit

count.

The

exemption

for

reduced

setbacks

does

not

meet

any

the

eligibility

criteria

specified

14 CCR

1276.01(b).

I urge you to watch this segment [1:42:56] of the city council meeting on April 1, where Vice Mayor Chao builds the case for smaller, more affordable units, and Fire Chief Estrada agrees [1:44:00] that this setback reduction was driven by design choice and not any practical constraints.

I support HCD’s mandate to facilitate housing production. However, the record does not demonstrate

that

maintaining

compliant

setbacks

would

reduce

unit

count,

only

that

may

affect

unit

size

and

design.

conservative

estimate

based

the

difference

between

compliant

unit

configurations

and

the

proposed

larger

units

suggests

discretionary

value

increase

approximately

$30

million
;

the

cost

fire-safety.

3. Inability to Demonstrate Compliance with Public Resources Code § 4291 or § 51182

(whichever

applicable)
The staff report states that the project demonstrates consistency with §4290 and §4291/$51182.

However,

Fire

Department

testimony

establishes

that:

● The review addressed § 4290 only ( Timestamp ~1:08:52) ● § 4291 (defensible space) was not evaluated , and ● Key fire safety elements remain subject to future review Critically, §4291/§51182. requires 30 feet of Zone 1 defensible space, which cannot be physically achieved

where

structures

are

placed

10 feet

from

property

lines.

The

laws

physics

not

allow

for

30-foot

managed

fuel

zone

within

10-foot

physical

setback.

This

not

matter

professional

judgment,

but

basic

spatial

constraints.

The

defensible

space

important

since

the

review

done

the

fire

department

does

not
include the impact of reduced setback on the neighboring properties (Timestamp-1:04:50). The AMMR which reduced the setback under §4290 consumed the defensible space required for

§4291/§51182.

Because compliance with PRC § 4291 is a prerequisite for the statutory exemption under AB 130,

the

Fire

Department’s

admission

that

4291

was

not

evaluated

raises

fundamental

question

whether

the

project

satisfies

the

conditions

required

for

CEQA

exemption.

4. Incomplete Information and Non-Objective Safety Evaluation The administrative record reflects a critical gap in the evaluation of fire safety risks. The staff report

confirms

that

evacuation

study

was

conducted.

Assistant

Fire

Chief

Estrada

further

testified

that

for

the

Fire

Department:

● Evaluation of exemption from CEQA AB130 was “not in scope” (Timestamp-1:20:08) ● Evacuation capacity and roadway constraints were “out of scope” (Timestamp ~1:20:00) ● Impacts to neighboring homes were also “ not evaluated” (Timestamp-1:04:50) Request for Direct Review Given the extent to which HCD’s position influenced the City Council’s deliberations, I respectfully

request

that

you

review

the

underlying

Fire

Department

testimony

directly.

particular,

encourage

you

listen

Assistant

Fire

Chief

Estrada’s

testimony

from

the

April

1 City

Council

hearing,

focusing

the

timestamps

noted

above.

His

statements

provide

critical

context

that,

view,

differs

materially

from

how

the

record

has

been

characterized.

would

welcome

the

opportunity

discuss

these

findings

further

ensure

that

fire-safety

not

compromised

while

work

further

our

housing

availability

goals.

The

objective

here

ensure

the

project

gets

built

without

compromising

the

safety

the

neighbors.

You

can

also

reach

408

390

4036.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Vikram Saxena
Cupertino

Resident

Former Vice-Chair, Cupertino Planning Commission
(Served during Housing Element adoption for this site 2018-2023)

Attachments / References

1. Fire Department Plan Review, AMMR Materials and Estrada Memo (3 documents) 2. Setback Viability Memo 3. April 1, 2026 City Council Hearing Transcript – Assistant Fire Chief Estrada 4. Letter from Planning Commission Chair Tracy Kosolcharoen in Public Comments for City Council

Meetings,

outlining

the

information

gap.

VIA EMAIL: [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,

the

City

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

this

assertion

present

compliance

invoke

the

130

CEQA

exemption

and

threaten

the

City

with

712

financial

penalties

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

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

“Preliminary

Fire

Protection

Plan”

addressing

defensible

space

under

PRC

§4291

outstanding

requirement
.

Characterizing

unfulfilled,

“not

approved”

status

“confirmed

compliance”

material

misrepresentation

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.

review

the

AMMR

Application

(filed

January

2026)

reveals

contains

zero

reference

PRC

§4291
.

The

Page 1 ends

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

Using

document

that

does

not

even

mention

code

section

certify

compliance

with

that

section

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

Fire

Official

signed

January

2026,

the

Building

Official

signature

and

date

lines

remain

entirely

blank
.

Under

CBC

104.11,

the

Building

Official

has

independent,

non-delegable

duty

validate

such

modifications.

unsigned,

partially

executed

document

not

“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

having

“deficiencies

non-conforming

30’

setback

requirements.”

The

Department

approved

exception
,

not

compliance.

Approving

deviation

from

safety

standard

due

documented

deficiencies

not

affirmation

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

million

dollars

for

51 units—and

cites

130

demand

bypass

CEQA

environmental

review.

These

are

exercises

the

coercive

power

the

state

directed

municipality

and

its

residents.

The

invocation

such

power

should

require

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

legal

demand

compels

city

waive

environmental

review

and

approve

project

the

basis

fire

compliance

that

the

Fire

Department’s

own

records

not

support,

the

resulting

harm

falls

not

the

developer

its

counsel,

but

the

families

who

live

adjacent

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

document

confirming

PRC

§4291

compliance

binary

factual

question.

such

document

exists.

Whether

the

AMMR

approved

compliance

with

PRC

§4290

exception

answered

the

Fire

Department’s

own

words:

“exception

request”

and

“deficiencies

non-conforming.”

Whether

the

Building

Official

signed

the

AMMR

visible

the

face

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;

2. Confirmation that you will formally correct the record with the City of Cupertino by withdrawing

amending

the

factual

assertions

identified

this

letter.

I trust that a review of the documents referenced below will confirm the discrepancies identified in

this

letter,

and

that

correction

will

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: jzw97
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Re: time sensitive!Request for Support, Restoration of Communication, and lift the "political prisoner/hostage"/Fair Treatment from the City
Date: Tuesday, April 21, 2026 4:54:56 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.

Please publish. Thank you!!
Left few messages this month but haven’t received a response from the city manager’s office yet.
-------- Original message --------
From: jzw97 <[email protected]>
Date: 4/7/26 3:05 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: [email protected]
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: time sensitive!Request for Support, Restoration of Communication, and lift the 'political prisoner/hostage'/Fair Treatment from the City Please publish.

We are requesting immediate assistance from the Cupertino City Council regarding property taken in early 2016 and without notice property plus belonings again at the end of 2021, which has still not been returned. I have made multiple attempts to resolve this matter, including requests for meetings, but have received no response.

I am asking the Council to (1) investigate the removal of my property, (2) facilitate its return if still in the City’s possession, and (3) stop all on-going retaliation/ ensure there is no further retaliation for raising this issue. We are ready to meet with a City official as soon as possible to resolve this and expect the return of the property and an end to the retaliation we have experienced since bringing this forward.

Regards,
Residence Huang family
Sent from my Device
-------- Original message --------
From: Huang family
Date: 2/19/26 1:44 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: citycouncil
Cc: City Clerk
Please publish. Thank you!
We request the immediate return of all property and belongings taken from us. Additionally, we ask that all sanctions and any prosecutorial overreach—both to date and ongoing—be lifted as soon as possible.

On Tuesday, December 2, 2025 at 06:57:42 PM PST, j w <[email protected]> wrote:

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: j w <[email protected]>
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 at 02:47:24 PM PST
Subject: Re: time sensitive!Request for Support, Restoration of Communication, and lift the 'political prisoner/hostage'/Fair Treatment from the City
Dear City Clerk,
Please confirm it is published. Thank you!
From: j w <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 4, 2025 4:55 PM
To: Liang Chao <[email protected]>; Cupertino City Manager's Office <[email protected]>
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Subject: time sensitive!Request for Support, Restoration of Communication, and lift the 'political prisoner/hostage'/Fair Treatment from the City

lease include in the public record for next meeting-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore, Councilmembers Fruen, Mohan and Wang, On Monday, November 3, 2025 at 11:27:26 PM PST, j w <[email protected]> wrote:On Monday, October 20, 2025 at 03:51:05 PM PDT, j w <[email protected]> wrote:

Subject: Request for Support, Restoration of Communication, and Fair Treatment from the City Dear Mayor,
I would like to share some background and respectfully request that the City treat our situation with the fairness, dignity, and compassion it extends to all residents.

Our family lives at the bottom edge of the city’s economic and social margins. We are doing our best to hold on — even now, part of our roof requires patching every few months just to keep things livable. Years ago, we were misled by an Indian real estate agent, which led to major losses and hardship. Despite this, we took full responsibility and followed the proper path through the City Planning and Building Department. We worked with licensed, experienced professionals to carry out an approved plan for the 2nd time.

Unfortunately, a complaint from the 1st construction — made by someone who has since left their position — led to retaliation on the 2nd one, and lack of the communication as stated below caused more confusion. We did our best to stand up, but over time, we lost everything: the property, our belongings, and the sense of home we built over years as long-standing residents. It felt like persecution. And the pain didn’t stop there — we were falsely labeled, our rights stripped away, and our lives disrupted in ways that had nothing to do with the original matter. These labels have followed us into every corner of life.

It has reached a point so tragic and unjust that criminals were able to attack us, but we could not fight back — not legally, not financially, not even emotionally — because of how the court accepted the City's false narrative. The damage from these untrue labels has led to severe mental and emotional decline for our family. The refusal of the courts to hear our side, to look at the full truth, has left us in a state of hopelessness and fear.

Making things worse, the lack of communication from the City over the past several years has deepened the hardship. We were not able to schedule even a single in-person meeting, despite repeated efforts. One of our elder family members is now immobile, and the sense of isolation and exclusion has been profound. We’ve been forced to pay unnecessary legal fees, not only for the property matter, but also for broader issues where City sanctions were misapplied or extended beyond their scope — even into private disputes, turning what should have been civil into something resembling a political prisoner situation. We’ve had to spend even more money six figure just to settle matters that were never ours to begin with, nothing to do with city, but couldn't defend since city hold as 'prisoner' on all unrelated matter.

We have no place else to turn. We have always believed in the City Council’s mission to support residents. We believe in redemption and renewal. We accepted the outcome the first time and tried to rebuild. But now, I’m asking — from the deepest part of my heart — that you extend that same belief to us.

No one — no matter their flaws — deserves to be forgotten in the system, lost in endless procedures, enduring punishment far beyond what justice requires. Please see us. Please give us the opportunity to be heard and to heal.

We respectfully ask that this be treated as a high-priority matter, and that steps be taken to restore open communication, offer fair support, and ensure no resident is left behind.

Thank you for your time and your service to the people of this City.

Jane for Huang family
4086731820
CC 4-21-2026
#5
Accounts Payable for March
13 & March 27, 2026
Written Communications
From: Santosh Rao
To: City Council; City Clerk; Tina Kapoor; Chad Mosley; Benjamin Fu; Rachelle Sander; Jonathan Orozco, CPA Subject: Please pull agenda item 5 from consent calendar.

Date: Tuesday, April 21, 2026 6:39:59 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.
(Myself only as a Cupertino resident)
Dear Mayor Moore and Councilmembers,
Please pull Agenda Item 5 from the consent calendar. It warrants a public discussion and clear, accountable decision-making.

This is not a routine budget environment. The City is under fiscal strain.

That reality must be reflected in how spending decisions are reviewed and approved.

Expenditures above $10,000 should receive explicit Council scrutiny.

Departments should be expected to justify necessity, timing, and measurable benefit. Repeated proposals to expand spending during a constrained period raise legitimate concerns about alignment with the City’s financial condition.

Accountability must be consistent and visible. Department directors should be evaluated on prudent stewardship of public funds, including their ability to prioritize core services and defer non-essential costs. The City Manager plays a critical role in setting and enforcing this standard across the organization.

Prioritization matters. Programs and expenditures that do not directly serve residents, or that can be restructured for full cost recovery, should be reconsidered first. Where appropriate, non-resident participation should reflect full cost recovery, and resident access should be protected.

Fiscal discipline is not about reducing service quality. It is about focusing resources where they deliver the greatest community value and ensuring long-term stability.

I urge the Council to use this item as an opportunity to demonstrate strong oversight, reinforce expectations, and align spending with current fiscal realities.

Thank you for your consideration.

CC 4-21-2026
#6
Service Center EV
Infrastructure Project
e
Written Communications
From: Santosh Rao
To: City Council; City Clerk; Public Comments; Jonathan Orozco, CPA; Chad Mosley; Kirsten Squarcia; Tina Kapoor Subject: Please pull agenda item 6 from consent calendar.

Date: Monday, April 20, 2026 7:42:12 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
(Myself only as a Cupertino resident)
Dear Mayor Moore, City Manager Kapoor, and Members of the Council, I am writing as a resident focused on fiscal discipline and the City’s long- term financial stability.

The proposed expenditure of $592,475 under Agenda Item 6 warrants fuller discussion and should not be placed on the consent calendar. At a time when the City is managing a structural budget imbalance and evaluating potential revenue measures, it is important that discretionary spending be reviewed with transparency and care.

I respectfully request that this item be pulled from the consent calendar to allow for open deliberation and a clear justification of need, timing, and alternatives.

More broadly, this is an opportunity to reassess ongoing operational costs.

The City should continue evaluating ways to reduce expenditures, including reviewing fleet size, vehicle replacement policies, and associated costs such as maintenance and charging infrastructure. Exploring cost- efficient alternatives, where operationally feasible, would demonstrate prudent stewardship of public funds.

This is not a moment for business as usual. Careful prioritization and disciplined spending will help maintain public trust and ensure the City remains on stable financial footing.

Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully,
San Rao (myself only as a resident)
CC 4-21-2026
#12
Second Amendment with
Cupertino Chamber of
Commerce
e
Written Communications
From: Santosh Rao
To: City Council; Tina Kapoor; City Clerk; Public Comments Subject: Please pull agenda item 12 from consent calendar.

Date: Monday, April 20, 2026 11:01:29 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
(Myself only as a Cupertino resident)
Dear Mayor Moore and Members of the Council,
I request that Agenda Item 12 be pulled from the consent calendar for full public discussion.

The agreement should be amended to remove the following provision:
“Provided Chamber membership to the City, including registration for two City staff as well as all Councilmembers at events hosted by the Chamber.” Providing memberships and event access to Councilmembers and staff raises clear concerns about impartiality and the appearance of preferential access. Benefits of this nature should be evaluated under the City’s ethics framework, including applicable gift, disclosure, and recusal requirements.

If this provision is retained, then it is important that the Council explicitly address how these benefits will be treated and ensure full compliance with disclosure and recusal obligations. Where appropriate, members should recuse themselves from consideration of this item.

Additionally, any Councilmember with current or recent affiliations, participation, or speaking engagements with the Chamber should disclose those relationships on the record to ensure transparency.

Residents expect decisions to be made on a level playing field, without the perception of special access or influence. Removing or clearly governing such provisions is necessary to maintain public trust.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thanks,
San Rao (myself only as a Cupertino resident)
CC 4-21-2026
#13
Fiscal Year (FY) 2026-27
Fee Schedule Update
Written Communications
From: Jean Bedord
To: City Council; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Subject: Agenda Item No. 13: Bingo Permit fee on FY2026-27 Fee Schedule Date: Sunday, April 19, 2026 11:40:47 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.

Mayor Moore, Vice-Mayor Chao, Councilmembers Fruen, Mohan and Wang, I am requesting that the Bingo Permit fee in Schedule A be set at $50 a year, rather than the proposed $268.22
There are only two bingo permits in Cupertino: (1) the Senior Center and (2) St.

Joseph’s church In both cases, the players are seniors in our community, and this is an important social activity, particularly for those with diminished physical and mental abilities.

The fee has to be recovered by increasing the price of the bingo sheets. Our Cupertino players complained bitterly about the previous increases, since many are on fixed incomes. In the past, the fee has been waived completely for the senior center.

Other small cities set their bingo permits at more reasonable rates:

Morgan Hill fee = $50
Application https://www.morganhill.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/39267/2024- Bingo-Permit-Application
Population 44,478
Saratoga fee= $56
https://www.saratoga.ca.us/184/Fee-Schedule
(search for Bingo in the PDF)
Population 29,607
These fees are collected by code enforcement, rather than parks and recreation. The justification for reducing the fee for seniors is on page 286 of the downloadable packet for April 21, 2026 council meeting, specifically in Attachment J entitled - User Fee Cost Recovery Policy, Section 5.

5. Discounted Rates and Surcharges
a. Rates may be discounted to accommodate lower income groups or groups who
are the target of the service, such as senior citizens or residents.

I would appreciate your consideration on behalf of the Cupertino Senior Center Advisory Council.

Warm regards,
Jean Bedord
—------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Process of establishing user fee cost recovery levels
The following factors will be considered when setting service fees and cost recovery levels:

1. Community-wide vs. private benefit
a. The use of general purpose revenue is appropriate for community- wide services while user fees are appropriate for services that are of private benefit to individuals or groups. Full cost recovery is not always appropriate.

2. Service recipient vs. service driver
a. Particularly for services associated with regulated activities ( development review, code enforcement), from which the community eventually benefits, cost recovery from the "driver" of the need for the service ( applicant, violator) is appropriate.

3. Consistency with City public policies and objectives a. City policies and Council goals focused on long-term improvements to community quality of life may also impact desired fee levels, as fees can be used to change community behaviors, promote certain activities, or provide funding for the pursuit of specific community goals, for example, health and safety, environmental stewardship.

4. Impact on demand ( elasticity)
a. Pricing of services can significantly impact demand. At full cost recovery, for example, the City is providing services for which there is a genuine market not over- stimulated by artificially low prices. Conversely, high- cost recovery may negatively impact lower- income groups, and this can work against public policy outcomes, especially if the services are specifically designed to serve particular groups.

5. Discounted Rates and Surcharges
a. Rates may be discounted to accommodate lower income groups or groups who
are the target of the service, such as senior citizens or residents. b. Higher rates are considered appropriate for non-residents to further reduce general fund subsidization of services.

6. Feasibility of Collection
a. It may be impractical or too costly to establish a system to appropriately identify and charge each user for the specific services received. The method of assessing and collecting fees should be as simple as possible in order to reduce the administrative cost of collection.

From: Jean Bedord
To: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: Agenda Item No. 13: Bingo Permit fee on FY2026-27 Fee Schedule - Fwd: The proposed Bingo fee of $268.22 Date: Monday, April 20, 2026 8:29:09 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.

Please include this in Written Communications for the April 21, 2026, Council meeting Jean Bedord
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Roslyn Davis <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 1:25 PM
Subject: The proposed Bingo fee of $268.22
To: <[email protected]
>
I am advocating against the proposed $268.22 bingo fee for the Cupertino Senior Center which I feel cannot be justified.

Other cities near Cupertino only charge $50 to $60 for a similar Bingo program.

There should be a discounted rate for the Senior Center to support Bingo on Fridays, consider the Senior Population in Cupertino
It is 1 of the most beneficial programs we have to help maintain a level of connectivity, engagement and communication with and among our Seniors, enhancing their mental and social skills The Demand for this program exists at the highest level Please consider keeping the Bingo fee @$50, a reasonable cost to us $268.22 is not a reasonable fee.

Thank you for considering this matter
Sincerely,
Roslyn Davis
VP Senior Advisory Council
I speak for all seniors at the Senior Center.

Cupertino City CouncilApril 21, 2026

Cupertino City Council
April 21, 2026