The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCC 12-16-2025 Oral Communications_2CC 12-16-2025 Oral Communications Written Comments From:Henry Sang To:City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Subject:Fw: Suggestion for the Euvlich Court red fire zone Date:Tuesday, December 16, 2025 2:39:13 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I have sent this email message to the City Council Members. Please let it be part of the record of communications from the public. I am happy to have a follow up discussion. Henry 408-821-5152 ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Henry Sang <henry_sang@sbcglobal.net> To: kmoore@cupertino.gov <kmoore@cupertino.gov>; Liang Chao <lchao@cupertino.gov>; jrfruen@cupertino.gov <jrfruen@cupertino.gov>; Sheila Mohan <smohan@cupertino.gov>; rwang@cupertino.gov <rwang@cupertino.gov> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2025 at 02:27:49 PM PST Subject: Suggestion for the Euvlich Court red fire zone Madame Mayor, Vice Mayor and Councilmembers, Some of you know me as a volunteer in our Community having lived here for 38 years. And you may know that I have recently taken up an awareness and education campaign for wildfire safety in our City. I want to thank the Mayor and Vice Mayor for attending the event by the Cupertino Library Foundation hosting CalFire and SCC FD. We got a good lesson on how the Fire Danger Zone maps are created and on mitigation and preparedness instruction. You are probably aware that the Euvlich Court property is in a red zone. I assume that our staff will make sure everything is up to safety standards in the planning and construction. This property is particularly exposed to danger because a large part of it runs along the trail connecting Linda Vista Park and McClelland Ranch. On the other side of the trail is a heavily brush laden hillside leading down to Deep Cliff Golf Course. That hillside is not the verdant green lawn of the golf course and is riddled with the detritus that SCCFD instructed to be removed and maintained. While this also affects several other SFH along that trail, this is probably the biggest interface and very close to Linda Vista Park which is likely an avenue for a fire event. spreading the red stuff and helicopters dropping buckets of water.) I would like to suggest during negotiations with the property owner that they consider a fire proof fence along this trail and that they pay for the initial cleanup of that hillside. It seems that all of the area except for the roadways will be in Zone 0 or 1 for these town and row houses. These are the recommended and soon to be required fire safety zones around a house. It is very important to adhere to these in the RED (VERY DANGEROUS) zone designations. Once one unit catches fire, it will domino spread to the others because of the short distances. The fuel load from a house then spreads heat and embers. The density of the townhouses represents a fuel load that endangers the rest of the nearby houses much more so that individual houses situated 20-30 ft apart. Once they get started we can expect most of them to burn and that will put the rest of the houses at much higher risk. Wind coming down Stevens Canyon will spread embers for long distances, probably close to a mile out. Then even the non-fire zone houses are at risk. (Look at Altadena and Pacific Pallisades.) Perhaps it also makes sense to have their other fences be fire proof or with at least an A rating for materials. Also, avoid wooden decks, wooden pergolas, and other such structures. SCC FD doesn't want flammable mats or furniture within 5 ft of the house or extended house areas. (Zone 0) As such, I would like to suggest that strict guidelines for Zone 0 and 1 be maintained in this facility with annual surveys and remediation required as part of their HOA's CC&Rs. Please note, I am NOT pushing to avoid building this project. While I personally think it is too dense for the neighborhood, that is not the issue at hand. The issue that I wish to raise regards proper fire safety for our Community and concrete things that might be done to decrease our risk. Sincerely, Henry Woo Sang, Jr. 21975 Hyannisport Drive Cupertino From:Santosh Rao To:City Council; Tina Kapoor; City Clerk; Floy Andrews; Public Comments Subject:Restore Residents’ Right to Pull Consent Calendar Items Date:Tuesday, December 16, 2025 12:32:58 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Clerk, Would you please kindly include the below in written comments for items not on agenda for the 12/16/25 council meeting. Thank you. [Writing on behalf of myself only as Cupertino resident] Subject: Restore Residents’ Right to Pull Consent Calendar Items Dear Cupertino City Council, CM Kapoor, Interim City Attorney Andrews, I write to raise a matter of procedure regarding the consent calendar. Under the current Council Procedures Manual, only Council Members may remove consent calendar items. Residents have no direct means to do so. Since this rule came into effect, Vice- Mayor Chao has been the sole Council Member to act on such requests. If she chooses not to, residents are left with no recourse to have items pulled to be explicitly discussed. This arrangement places disproportionate control in the hands of individual Council Members and diminishes accountability to Cupertino residents. It effectively restricts their ability to ensure matters of concern receive proper attention. I urge the Council to amend the Council Procedures Manual. Residents should be able to request removal of consent calendar items themselves, both before and during city council meetings, and for both in‑person and remote attendees. Restoring this right will reinforce accountability of the city to Cupertino residents and ensure residents can hold council acceptable to fully engage with staff on explicit Council deliberations on agenda items rather than blanket approvals via consent calendar. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely San Rao (Writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino Resident) From:Santosh Rao To:City Council; Floy Andrews; City Attorney"s Office; City Clerk; Tina Kapoor; Public Comments; Chad Mosley; Benjamin Fu; Luke Connolly; Gian Martire Subject:Mary Avenue Villas – Inverse Condemnation Liability and City Risk Date:Tuesday, December 16, 2025 10:12:48 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Clerk, Please include in written comments for items not on agenda for the 12/16/25 city council meeting. [ Writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident] Subject: Mary Avenue Villas – Inverse Condemnation Liability and City Risk Dear Cupertino City Council, Interim City Attorney Andrews, CAO, CM Kapoor, I am a Cupertino resident writing on my own behalf. The proposed Mary Avenue Villas project, including narrowing Mary Avenue and removing approximately 89 on-street parking spaces, raises serious legal and financial risks for the City. These changes could materially impair access along the public right-of-way, affecting residents, visitors, service vehicles, and emergency responders. California law recognises that substantial impairment of roadway access can give rise to inverse-condemnation liability, even when the roadway remains technically open. Black-letter rules from California precedent include: Protected Access Right: Users of a public roadway have a protected right to reasonable access (Bacich v. Board of Control, 1943; Breidert v. Southern Pacific Co., 1964). Substantial Impairment: Liability arises where access is materially degraded in safety, convenience, or functionality, even if access technically exists (Breidert; People v. Ayon, 1960). Property-Specific Burden: Roadway reconfigurations imposing a severe, location- specific burden on ingress or egress may support compensable claims (Clay v. City of Los Angeles, 1971; Border Business Park v. City of San Diego, 2006). Causation Requirement: The impairment must result from deliberate public action affecting the roadway, not from general traffic or unrelated factors. Based on these principles, narrowing Mary Avenue and removing on-street parking could materially degrade safe and convenient access, creating a real risk of legal claims and unpredictable financial exposure for the City. In light of these foreseeable risks, the City would be prudent to reject the project as proposed or require modifications that fully preserve safe, reasonable access along Mary Avenue. I respectfully urge Council, City Attorney, and City Manager to prioritize protection of the City from liability by carefully considering these access-impairment risks before any further approvals or implementation. Thank you for your attention. Yours sincerely, San Rao (writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident)