CC 12-15-2020 Oral Communications_Late Written CommunicationsCC 12-15-20
Oral
Communications
Written Comments
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:City of Cupertino Written Correspondence
Subject:FW: procedural standards 2021
Attachments:Cupertino City Council - Mayor Paul Procedural Standards 2021.pdf
From: Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 5:31 PM
Subject: procedural standards 2021
Darcy Paul
Mayor
City Council
DPaul@cupertino.org
(408) 777-3195
CupertinoCityCouncil
MayorPaul(December2020–December2021)
ProceduralStandards
BasicProceduralRequirements
1.SpeakthroughtheChair.
2.Don’tinterruptsomeoneelsewhoisspeaking.
OrderandTimeLimits*ofAgendaItems
1)StaffReport.Theterm“StaffReport”includesanyandallreportsontheitemfromCityStaffaswell
asanypresentationscoordinatedbyStaffaspartoftheagendaitem.AllowStafftoprovideanddirect
theStaffReportuninterrupted.SaveallquestionsuntilaftertheStaffReportisover.
2)CouncilQuestions–Thetotaltimeislimitedto3minutesforeachCouncilmember(CM).Therewillbe
atimerforeachCM.Timeincludesthetimethatittakestoanswerquestions.ACMcanbreakupthe
time,utilizingsometimeinitiallyandaskingmorequestionslaterfollowingotherCMquestions,butthe
totalamountallocatedtoeachCMwillbe3minutes.TheMayorwillkeeptimeinitially,untilwehave
thetechnicalcapabilitytoprojectallfivetimersonthescreen.
3)PublicComment–3mineach;willallowinteractionwithStaff,butthatwillbepartofthethree
minutes.
4)Mayorwillaskforamotion.
5)CouncilDeliberations–5minuteseach,willsetatimerforeachCMandcanbreakupthetime.In
otherwords,useoneminutenow,stillhavefourminuteslater.
*ExtensionoradjustmentoftimelimitsaresubjecttothediscretionoftheMayor,buttherequestisto
takeeveryefforttoadheretothestatedlimits.
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Peter Chu <peterchu@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, December 15, 2020 8:31 PM
To:City Council; Cupertino City Manager's Office
Subject:City Council Meeting Peter Chu's prepared statement on 12/15/2020 (plus some closing statements
that I didn't make at the 3 minute cutoff)
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
To Mayor, Vice Mayor and City Council Members
CC: City Manager
My name is Peter Chu, and I spoke in last month's City Council meeting, and since then the
number of 5G small cell sites across Cupertino has grown from under 50 to over 100, more
than doubled, and this is largely Verizon installations accounting for about 90% of the sites.
Based on many conversations and further research, I would like to make a plea to the City
Council to act with urgency to respond to this growing concern with 3 relatively straight
forward changes to our City's guidelines. This is a growing concern because as pointed out by
City Manager, Deb Feng, that there will be hundreds of lamp posts with 5G installations going
forward. Also because carriers such as Verizon have carefully crafted
their notification strategy to only notify a select pool of residents at a
time and thereby managing to stagger the complaints over a period of
time to keep it out of sight of the City Council and Manager.
Representing at least 30 households (and some of the 30 represents 10- 20 households near
them) that have discussed our concerns following the last Council Meeting, is to take 3 actions
ASAP:
1) Increase the minimum requirements Create a 100' setback between any small cell site and
residences. Our Guidelines currently require 100' setbacks from schools and playgrounds, but 20'
from residences. Why would we not apply the same logic for residences. Especially since our
residences ARE THE schools for the near term future.
California cities such as Calabasas, Petaluma have setbacks from residences of at least 500' ‐
1500'. Mill Valley forbids residential zone installations. Cupertino's guidelines require only 20'
from residences, so our minimum distance does not match up by all means.
2) Require 5G small cell sites to be 500' apart from any other cell sites and NOT have the
restriction be limited to cell sites from the same carrier. Similarly, other cities where they have
2
cell tower density restrictions use the language to say any cell sites from any carrier should not be
within 500' ‐ 1500' of one another.
Both of these asks are logical implementations of what had been intended in the draft guidelines,
but amended for logic and consistency.
3) If it is not already the case, Cupertino should only grant limited time, 3 year provisional permits
because 5G deployment has only started recently and cities are now learning and reacting. We
can learn much from what others will do in the next year or 2. Thus, a provisional permit would
offer Cupertino the opportunity to review our standards in a year or 2 and make appropriate
adjustments based on best practices a year or two from now. More data will mean better
decisions especially for new, pervasive technologies such as 5G.
I urge the City Council to review the current Guidelines drafted by the City Manager's team,
and make these quick changes to reflect logic and consistency. In fact, I believe there are
council members that would support adopting these as ordinances to have real impact.
5G is an important infrastructure for all cities, but it is new and therefore we should take
a learning attitude. Start by remedying the 3 key shortcomings that are significantly below the
standards of other progressive California cities. We need the City to take action.
As is, Verizon (and likely other carriers) is taking advantage and abusing our current lax
requirements. For example, while the guidelines have clear preference for
commercial and semi‐commercial zones over residential as well as 5
levels of residential street locations starting from high traffic connectors
to low traffic residential streets. Additionally the Guidelines states "The
City also prefers placement of wireless facilities on streetlight poles
that are the most distant from occupied structures." But what we are
seeing is that in this earliest phase of deployment, Verizon has
repeatedly pushed the limits to place multiple cell sites at less than 25
feet (closest distance) from residences on a (least preferred)
residential street. So, as residents we are stuck with minimum
guidelines and an aggressive carrier taking maximum advantage of
the situation.
You should have heard from about 100-300+ households directly or via representative
speakers such as myself. This number will grow, and I urge the City to take this item up for
3
action immediately. Can we expect a proactive City Council to act now as this is a potential
health and wellness issue of great concern for many in our City.
PS: If you would like further information on references I have made regarding other cities,
please let me know.
Best Regards,
Peter Chu
CC 12-15-20
#1
Postponement,
Bird-Safe Dark Sky
Municipal Code
Amendment
Written Comments
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Liana Crabtree <lianacrabtree@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, December 15, 2020 5:33 PM
To:Darcy Paul; Liang Chao; Kitty Moore; Hung Wei; Jon Robert Willey
Cc:City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager's Office; Kerri Heusler
Subject:Written Communication, Special Meeting, Agenda Item 1, 12/15/2020, Plan to End Homelessness
2020-2025: Written Communication, Agenda Item 3, 10/22/2020 meeting of the SCC Unhoused Task
Force
Attachments:Written_Communication_Agenda_Item_3_20201022.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.
Honorable Mayor Paul, Vice Mayor Chao, and Council Members Moore, Wei, and Willey:
Attached, please find my comments regarding the Plan to End Homelessness 2020-2025 previously
sent to the Unhoused Task Force of Santa Clara County on 10/21/2020. For those who received my
comments in October, I apologize for the redundancy. My comments stand.
The Plan to End Homelessness 2020-2025 is primarily a plan to offer humanitarian assistance to
those who are most vulnerable to the brutality of not having sufficient wealth or income to be able to
afford safe, stable, long-term homes in Santa Clara County.
The Plan to End Homelessness 2020-2025 is a document that describes necessary support, but the
solutions offered within will not "end homelessness". I encourage Council to suggest a more accurate
name for the document under consideration tonight, such as "Santa Clara County Community Plan to
Provide Humanitarian Relief to Individuals and Families Denied Access to Adequate Homes 2020-
2025".
Regarding humanitarian assistance, please consider adding regular scheduled visits of mobile
shower and laundry services to unhoused encampments in Council's resolution this evening. Portable
toilets, hand washing stations, and scheduled trash collection are necessary but not sufficient
humanitarian services for unhoused residents.
Sincerely,
Liana Crabtree
Cupertino residents
representing myself only
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Liana Crabtree <lianacrabtree@yahoo.com>
To: Boardoperations@cob.sccgov.org <Boardoperations@cob.sccgov.org>
Cc: Deborah L. Feng <debf@cupertino.org>; Kerri Heusler <kerrih@cupertino.org>; Consuelo Hernandez
<consuelo.hernandez@hhs.sccgov.org>; Jones, Linda (OSH) <linda.jones@hhs.sccgov.org>
2
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020, 11:07:01 PM PDT
Subject: Written Communication, Agenda Item 3, 10/22/2020 meeting of the SCC Unhoused Task Force
In blind copy, I have included the Cupertino City Council, Housing Commission, and others who may
have advocated on behalf of the needs and interests of inadequately housed or marginalized
residents of Santa Clara County and beyond.
Honorable Chairperson Chavez, Vice Chairperson Ellenberg, and Representatives of the County of
Santa Clara Unhoused Task Force:
Please include my communication here and attached
(Written_Communication_Agenda_Item_3_20201022.pdf) as written communication for the
10/22/2020, 6:30 pm PDT, meeting of the Unhoused Task Force, Agenda Item 3:
Unhoused Task Force meeting details, 10/22/2020
The agenda and the materials for the 10/22/2020 meeting are posted online and can be viewed by
clicking on the following link: http://sccgov.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=12897
The "Santa Clara County Community Plan to End Homelessness 2020-2025" is included as an
attachment (3a.) to the agenda and begins on PDF page 24.
http://sccgov.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=4&ID=207193&MeetingID=12897
Sincerely,
Liana Crabtree
Santa Clara County resident
representing myself only
"The house, you can buy, sell, buy, sell. The asset built on that house, you
can sell it in less than a second. You can sell it 35 times in an hour if you
are dealing with high-frequency trading...Finance is very different from the
bank. We all need banks. That's fine. It sells something. We pay money
for that. Finance is totally different. I always say 'Finance sells something it
does not have.' And in doing that it needs to actually invent brilliant
instruments that allow it to invade other sectors. And that means that
finance is basically an extractive sector. It might as well be mining. And
the difference between finance as mining and the traditional bank is that
the traditional bank wants the sons and daughters of its current clients to
do better because it's commerce. Finance, it's like mining, once it has
extracted what it needs, it doesn't care what happens to the rest."
Saskia Sassen
Robert S. Lynd Professor of Sociology, Columbia University
Leading Theorist on Global Cities
"Push" the film (2019) 0:32:00 to 0:35:xx
Resources
"Push" the film (2019). "Push" can be streamed for online viewing in the US thru 10/29/2020 via AFI
Silver or The Nightlight Cinema. See: https://www.pushthefilm.com/us-events/
3
PUSHBACK Talks podcast (archive + new shows posted every Friday). See: https://www.make-
the-shift.org/pushback/
The Shift "The global movement to secure the human right to housing". Learn more at Make-
the-Shift #RIGHT2HOUSING: https://www.make-the-shift.org/
"Homewreckers: How a Gang of Wall Street Kingpins, Hedge Fund Magnates, Crooked Banks,
and Vulture Capitalists Suckered Millions Out of Their Homes and Demolished the American
Dream" (2019) by Aaron Glantz
"The System: Who Rigged It, How We Fix It" (2020) by Robert B. Reich
"Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World" (2019) by Anand Giridharadas
"Angrynomics" (2020) by Eric Lonergan and Mark Blyth
LavaMaeX "a non-profit accelerator changing the way the world sees and serves our
unhoused neighbors". See: https://lavamaex.org/
Choosing to See the Invisible | Doniece Sandoval | TEDxBerkeley. Watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=UMW1TwEVzrs
1 / 5 10/21/2020
October 21, 2020
County of Santa Clara
Unhoused Task Force
by Virtual Teleconference Only
Honorable Chairperson Chavez, Vice Chairperson Ellenberg, and Representatives of the Unhoused Task
Force of Santa Clara County:
Please include this letter as written communication for the 10/22/2020, 6:30 pm, meeting of the
Unhoused Task Force, Agenda Item 3.
In 2015, the number of people denied adequate housing in Santa Clara County is recorded as 6,556
residents. (source: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/opa/nr/Pages/Homeless-Count-2015.aspx)
In 2016, Santa Clara County voters passed Measure A, a $950 million affordable housing bond.
In 2019, the number of people denied adequate housing in Santa Clara County is recorded as 9,706
residents, a 48% increase since 2015 and since the 2016 passage of nearly a billion dollars to build and
maintain affordable housing.
(Source: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/osh/ContinuumofCare/ReportsandPublications)
I intend no disrespect to anyone or their work product when I assert that the report "Santa Clara County
Community Plan to End Homelessnesss 2020-2025" is inadequate and will not resolve homelessness for
the majority of Santa Clara County residents who are denied adequate housing today.
I do believe the individuals who drafted the report acted with competence and in good faith to deliver
the report they were asked to prepare.
My assertion is directed at a systemic failure of government to acknowledge and address the root causes
of the daily suffering of 9,700 people in Santa Clara County and 1.6 billion people worldwide who do
not have sufficient wealth or income to pay for the housing available for rent or sale in the communities
where they live.
Despite the fact that the report references "root cause" multiple times, the report includes no
interrogation of the essential questions:
•Why is housing so expensive?
•What levers manipulate the cost of "market rate" housing?
•What is "the market" we are measuring when we count homes and the people who need
housing? How many homes are there and how many are used today to provide long-term
residences for people?
•What are local governments doing to protect Housing as a Human Right?
2 / 5 10/21/2020
It is not possible to "end" any problem—much less the needless tragedy of eviction and homelessness
caused by people's inability to pay for available housing—without identifying the root causes of the
problem and addressing those causes directly.
I expect that the Unhoused Task Force will approve the report "Santa Clara County Community Plan to
End Homelessnesss 2020-2025" as it should because Santa Clara County has a significant and growing
humanitarian disaster as more and more people are denied adequate housing. And, it is today’s report
that is the tool available to blunt ever so gently the human suffering caused by inadequate housing in
our communities.
Before the report is approved, I do request the Unhoused Task Force reinforce its commitment to
humanitarian relief by considering the following changes to the documents under review for Agenda
Item 3:
(1) 10/22/2020 Agenda Packet, Attachment A, PDF page 10: Program Type "Sanctioned
Encampments" note for Column 4 "Annual Operating Cost per Household"
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
CCurrent Note:
"Services include case management, toilets, and garbage service"
Suggested Change:
"Services include case management; twice-weekly (minimum) service of established toilets, hand
washing stations, and garbage service; twice-weekly (minimum) visits from mobile hygiene providers
to include showering and clothes washing services; bi-monthly (minimum) visits from mobile dental
care and haircut providers"
Update the affected fields (start-up costs, timeframe, annual operating costs) for the "Sanctioned
Encampment" item to reflect the suggested change.
"One way of putting it is: this is not at all about housing. The buildings, they function as assets. You want those houses to be empty and unused
because then you can play with them. Can you imagine? I mean these dark, empty buildings and they are making money! So, when people think,
'poor investor, something went wrong. ' Hell no!"
Saskia Sassen
Robert S. Lynd Professor of Sociology, Columbia University
Leading Theorist on Global Cities
"Push" the film (2019) 0:18:00 to 0:19:xx
3 / 5 10/21/2020
(2) 10/22/2020 Agenda Packet, report "Santa Clara County Community Plan to End Homelessnesss
2020-2025", PDF page 28, report title:
CCurrent Report Title:
"Santa Clara County Community Plan to End Homelessness 2020-2025"
Suggested Change:
"Santa Clara County Community Plan to Provide Humanitarian Relief to Individuals and Families
Denied Access to Adequate Homes 2020-2025"
Update the affected references elsewhere in the report to reflect the suggested change.
"My first reaction to learning about this phenomenon of vacant dwellings, I was pretty outraged. I remain outraged. In a Human Rights' framework
and through the (United Nations) system it is very clear who is accountable: States (Nations). States are responsible. They have international Human
Rights’ obligations. They sign treaties and they make commitments to the international community that they will uphold national Human Rights,
which include the right to adequate housing."
Leilani Farha
United Nations Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing, 2014-2020
Founder of "The Shift" #MakeTheShift
"Push" the film (2019) 0:19:20 to 0:20:xx
"The first type of sign that I noticed when I came here was this very limited opening hours. They show their tenants that they are waiting to meet
them and this is 3 hours per week on Tuesday. (The property owner, now Hembla AB, was) the Swedish arm of (a US-based private equity
alternative investment management firm). So many signs that they actually don't bother much here. But this is a typical example of the type of
estates they are interested in. So, every time an apartment is vacant, they start this renovation, whereby they can increase the rents roughly 50%. But
these increased rents have no connection at all to the actual costs. This is why this is very, very profitable for them.”
Stig Westerdahl
Specialist in Affordable Housing in Sweden
during a walkabout of an affordable housing development in Uppsala, Sweden
"Push" the film (2019) 0:30:00 to 0:31:xx
4 / 5 10/21/2020
(3) 10/22/2020 Agenda Packet, report "Santa Clara County Community Plan to End Homelessnesss
2020-2025", PDF p 34: graph "Affordable & Rental Homes 'Per 100 Renter Households'"
CCurrent Graph Title:
"Affordable & Rental Homes 'Per 100 Renter Households''"
Suggested Change:
"Hypothetical Assessment of Housing Availability 'Per 100 Renter Households' at Different Income
Levels* and Compared with the Range of Rental List Prices Limited to Homes Offered for Rent
*Assumes a Housing Expenditure of 30% of Total Household Income"
CCurrent Graph Label:
"0 to Extremely Low-income Threshold"
Suggested Change:
"0 to 30% of Area Median Income (AMI)"
CCurrent Note:
None
Suggested Change:
"Note: Data in this graph do not represent the inventory of "real homes" in Santa Clara County. Data
included in this graph do not reflect homes included in today's available housing inventory if those
homes are not offered for rent as long-term housing, even if the homes are vacant. Reasons homes
may be excluded from the long-term rental market include, but are not limited to: (1) homes are used
for short-stay or 'hoteling' use; or (2) property owners prefer to keep investment homes vacant for
personal convenience or so the property can be sold or developed quickly in the future, according the
investment property owners' interests."
Finally, I encourage all representatives serving on the Unhoused Task Force to work in your local
jurisdictions to advocate for legislation that recognizes Housing Is a Human Right and protects the
housing supply for its necessary and intended use as safe, stable, long-term homes for people.
5 / 5 10/21/2020
How many homes (single family detached, town homes, condominiums, apartments, accessory dwelling
units) in your respective jurisdictions are:
•approved but not permitted for construction because the property owner banks land use
entitlement as investment potential but refuses to pull permits to actually build homes for
people?
•constructed or under construction but sold to business entities whose core competency is
unrelated or only peripherally related to long-term residential real estate management?
•constructed but never listed for rent or for sale?
•constructed but used for short-stay rental or "hoteling" use, not for long-term housing?
•occupied, but the owner is in arrears due to pandemic-induced financial hardship and now on a
track to foreclosure? (who is the likely next owner of that pending foreclosed home? what can be
done help distressed homeowners ride out pandemic-induced economic hardship and retain
ownership of their homes?)
•vacant?
How will we know how much housing is available until we count existing homes that are not used for
long-term housing?
What legislation has your jurisdiction enacted to protect your community's existing housing supply and
to increase the likelihood that homes will be used as safe, long-term shelter for people?
As a next step for local governments determined to protect the housing supply for its necessary use to
provide homes for people, please reference guidance documents (Attachments A and B) offered by The
Shift and Canada Urban Institute. Visit make-the-shift.org/righttohome to learn more.
Sincerely,
Liana Crabtree
Santa Clara County resident
representing myself only
Attachment A (1 page, not numbered): summary letter “Right to Home: A Municipal Call to Action”
Attachment B (5 pages, not numbered): entire letter “Right to Home: A Municipal Call to Action”
"They (those who believe 'markets solve all problems') thought that if we privatized, stripped away regulations, lowered taxes, growth would go up.
Everybody would get more. Some people would get a lot more at the top. But, putting aside envy, everybody would get a bigger piece of the pie. Yet,
ignored the many instances where markets do not work well...Milton Friedman gave them an economic argument for why they should be
unconcerned about morality. After a third of a century of this experiment, we now know that it's wrong. That you can make money by destroying the
world. And, there's something wrong with that."
Joseph Stiglitz
Professor at Columbia University
Nobel Laureate in Economic Sciences
"Push" the film (2019) 1:07:30 to 1:09:xx
10/21/2020
Attachment A
The COVID-19 pandemic has laid bare the cracks in our social and economic systems. It has amplified the housing crisis and
exposed it as a human rights crisis by demonstrating that now, more than ever, access to an adequate, secure, and affordable
home is a matter of life and death.
HOW CAN YOU PAY RENT IF YOU’VE LOST YOUR JOB?
HOW CAN YOU WASH YOUR HANDS REGULARLY WITHOUT ACCESS TO WATER?
HOW CAN YOU #STAYHOME IF YOU DON’T HAVE ONE?
People living in street homelessness, shelters, and encampments. Women and children experiencing spikes in violence.
Renters living paycheque to paycheque. COVID-19 is exposing society’s most vulnerable people to even greater human
rights harms. Between a lack of access to housing, and soaring rents and housing prices, hundreds of thousands across
Canada are facing unprecedented risk.
Cities are the frontline of this crisis, and it is municipal governments who are closest to the communities they represent and
most intimate with the strategies that will best serve their constituents.
OUR CITIES ARE POSITIONED TO BE THE AGENTS OF TRANSFORMATIONAL CHANGE THAT
WILL ENABLE CANADA TO BECOME A HUMAN RIGHTS LEADER FOR THE 21ST CENTURY.
BUT THEY NEED THE COLLECTIVE SUPPORT OF ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT TO SUCCEED.
It is this fundamental premise that has brought together municipal leaders from across Canada to form the Right to Home
municipal working group. Convened by The Shift and the Canadian Urban Institute, the group seeks to address the
intersecting emergencies of the pandemic and its economic fallout, as well as increasing levels of homelessness, housing
unaffordability, income inequality, and discrimination.
RIGHT TO HOME
A MUNICIPAL CALL TO ACTION
People’s lives and well being are at stake in ways we never imagined. The status quo is no longer viable. Cities need
additional resources and capacity to be nimble and responsive to everyone during this exceedingly challenging time, and
especially to those who need help most.
NOW IS THE TIME FOR BOLD ACTION.
The Right to Home working group brings together elected officials and city staff from across Canada committed to securing the right to
housing. It is convened by The Shift and the Canadian Urban Institute. Visit maketheshift.org/righttohome to learn more.
Right to Home September 21, 2020
IN ORDER TO SECURE THE RIGHT TO HOUSING AND CONFRONT THIS CALAMITY SWIFTLY
AND STRATEGICALLY, RIGHT TO HOME HAS ISSUED A LETTER CALLING UPON THE FEDERAL,
PROVINCIAL, AND TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS TO INCREASE SUPPORT FOR MUNICIPAL
GOVERNMENTS THROUGH THE FOLLOWING:
Greater collaboration, communication, and coordination among all levels of government to address our ever-
expanding housing crisis as a human rights crisis, especially in light of the compounding effects of COVID-19.
The provision of adequate resources to develop and implement policies and programs that are consistent with
human rights standards and respond to the pandemic by:
• Ending homelessness through supportive housing
• Protecting renters and small landlords
• Preventing a wave of evictions
• Providing increased social assistance to
match actual living costs
•
Read the Right to Home working group’s full Municipal Call to Action here.
• Curbing unsustainable debt due to arrears
• Addressing discrimination against those living in
homelessness or social housing
• Safeguarding our housing stock from speculative
investors
10/21/2020
Attachment B
Canadian Municipal Working Group 1
RIGHT TO HOME
A Municipal Call to Action
[1] The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed that access to an adequate home is undeniably necessary for the
preservation of human life, health, and well-being. Canada’s housing crisis has been made more acute during
the pandemic and has put at even greater risk those living in street homelessness, shelters, and encampments;
families and women experiencing violence; tenants; and all of those living in precarious housing. Cities in every
corner of the country are on the frontline of both the housing crisis and the pandemic and are therefore key
actors in finding solutions. The urgency facing cities led to the convening of the Right to Home working group
on Housing, Homelessness and COVID-19.* From this working group, a pan-Canadian consensus is emerging.
[2] Cities agree that in order to effectively address this crisis, all orders of government must develop enhanced
coordination, and housing must be treated as a human right rather than a matter of inconsistent social policy,
charity, or financial instrument.
[3] In 2019, the Government of Canada adopted the National Housing Strategy Act (NHSA), which states that the
housing policy of Canada recognizes that housing is a fundamental human right. Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corporation recently committed to ensuring that everyone in Canada has a secure, affordable place
to call home by 2030. The Government of Canada also has long-standing international human rights obligations
with respect to housing arising from the UN Sustainable Development Goals and numerous international
treaties.
[4] The right to housing, as recognized in the NHSA, means the right to live in security, peace, and dignity, and
requires that progressive steps be taken in as short a time as possible to eliminate homelessness and to
ensure that: evictions do not result in homelessness; housing is affordable based on household income; the
financialization of residential real estate does not undermine the right to housing; and resources are
allocated in a manner compliant with human rights standards.
[5] It is our consensus opinion that human rights are transformational and their implementation necessary if
Canada is going to reposition itself for the 21st century by reducing income inequality and pursuing a green
recovery.1 For this to be achieved, all orders of government must work in concert in new and creative ways,
within Canada’s constitutional framework so that cities receive the support needed to ensure the Federal
Government’s human rights commitments are realized in the area of housing. To this end, we have outlined four
points of action of particular urgency in light of the pandemic.
* The Right to Home working group was convened by The Shift and the Canadian Urban Institute and is comprised of elected officials
and city staff from Victoria, Vancouver, Yellowknife, Edmonton, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, London, Ottawa, Toronto, Kitchener, and
Fredericton.
1 With residential real estate having become a dominant investment instrument while rents and rates of homelessness increase, housing
has become both a driver and a reflection of income inequality. Executing a green recovery requires that we find new solutions to the
housing crisis, where repurposing and acquisition are pursued rather than focusing solely on new construction, which contributes heavily
to Canada’s carbon emissions.
Canadian Municipal Working Group 2
2 235,000 people experience homelessness in Canada every year, and 35,000 will experience homelessness on any given night. In
2017/2018, 68,000 women and children were admitted to domestic violence shelters, and we know that domestic violence has only
increased in 2020 since the beginning of the pandemic.
3 A poll released in August 2020 showed that 16% of households are worried about paying housing costs and 25% of renters are worried
about making rent.
4 Data shows that social assistance rates are currently grossly inadequate across the country and a major contributor to housing instability
and homelessness.
1. STRENGTHEN INTERJURISDICTIONAL COOPERATION SO CITIES CAN
EFFECTIVELY IMPLEMENT THE RIGHT TO HOUSING
[6] Canadian cities are dependent on the fluctuating political decisions of federal, provincial, and territorial (FPT)
governments, which at times impedes our long-term planning to secure access to housing for our constituents.
In light of the urgency created by COVID-19, the Government of Canada must work specifically to ensure
cities—those closest to the needs of all people—have the necessary capacities and tools to achieve the goals
enshrined in the NHSA. This will require stronger interjurisdictional cooperation, as occurred under the National
Housing Act of 1944, when the federal government responded to the acute housing, slum, and eviction crisis
facing the nation during a wartime period.
[7] To this end, we urge the Government of Canada to use its capacities and resources, and work collaboratively
with us and the provinces and territories to:
i. End Homelessness.
a. Establish a nationally-mandated ‘Right to Home’ program that is adequately and robustly
resourced by the Government of Canada and made available to those cities that commit to
implementing the right to housing and ending homelessness through supportive housing
programs and other human rights compliant measures. This could be administered in the same
way as the Reaching Home program, with investment flowing directly to cities as well as a
monitoring mechanism to ensure compliance with human rights.2
b. Establish a national acquisition strategy, as outlined by the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities (FCM), to expand the supply of deeply affordable and supportive housing unit
that may be used to permanently house the most vulnerable.
ii. Promote Tenants’ Human Rights. Declare, as a matter of the Government of Canada’s housing
policy, a prohibition on evictions during the pandemic on the basis that they are contrary to the right to
housing, in accordance with the NHSA. Where such a prohibition on evictions is in place, necessary
support must be provided to small-scale landlords as well as landlords who can demonstrate
substantial personal economic hardship so that they are not disproportionately affected by this
measure.
iii. Assistance with Household Debt. Initiate a federal government-backed renegotiation of
household debt due to mortgage or rental arrears accrued as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and
its economic effects. This could be facilitated through the development of a program, with the
engagement of housing providers, to ensure that no more than 30% of monthly household income is
devoted to rental payments or debt servicing and that any debt incurred is exempt from incurring
punitive interest.3
iv. Stabilize Income Support. The Government of Canada must issue a top-up of social assistance
rates to reduce housing instability.4 This can be achieved by modifying transfer payments through
measures such as increases, earmarking, or conditionality.
Canadian Municipal Working Group 3
v. Regulate Financialization. The Government of Canada must regulate institutional investors in
residential real estate to ensure their compliance with human rights standards in the area of housing.5
To this end, the Government could undertake a national audit of housing stock ownership, implement
tax reform (with respect to Real Estate Investment Trusts, for example), and curb individual ownership
rates of rental housing units by any one owner or their subsidiaries.
2. ENSURE THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS TO ADDRESS HOMELESSNESS AND
HOUSING IS BASED IN HUMAN RIGHTS STANDARDS
[8] Cities in Canada rely on FPT governments for the necessary resources to tackle the housing crisis, but these
funds are often insufficient and flow sporadically. Because cities are on the frontlines, city officials know what
steps are needed to address the housing crisis. For example, adequate resources are required to provide
long-term supportive housing for those living in homelessness or encampments, for new acquisitions, and to
ensure that women and children experiencing violence have access to necessary services. Provincial and
territorial governments play an important role in ensuring the necessary resources for cities in this regard and
benefit from these allocations, as they are cost-saving measures in other areas, such as health and the criminal
justice system.
[9] In keeping with a human rights approach to the allocation of funds, we expect that:
i. All expenditures that affect housing be vetted for their human rights outcomes.
ii. Funding support from FPT governments match the urgency and scale of the housing crisis.
iii. All orders of government in Canada mobilize the maximum of their available resources proportionate to
their revenue-raising capacities.
iv. FPT governments address disincentives affecting the development of affordable housing, including
those related to taxation. Additionally, tools that allow cities to expand public housing units, like the right
of first refusal with respect to purchasing available properties, be extended wherever possible.
v. Insofar as cities continue to bear substantial responsibility for addressing the housing crisis without
sufficient resources from FPT governments, we require new revenue-raising opportunities to leverage
diverse resources, such as congestion pricing, excise taxes, municipal income tax, tourist tax, or the
allocation of PST generated in municipalities to those same municipalities. This may require reviewing
existing municipal acts and implementing enabling legislation to strengthen cities’ revenue-generating
capacity.
3. EMPOWER CITIES TO ACT ON AN URGENT BASIS TO PREVENT POTENTIAL
VIOLATIONS OF THE RIGHT TO HOUSING
[10] During the pandemic, cities have experienced a number of jurisdictional barriers impeding our ability to
provide, on an urgent basis, access to safe, secure, and adequate housing for the most vulnerable. For
example, in some instances we have had to decrease the number of shelter spaces—in compliance with
COVID-19 health policy—without having the resources to secure sufficient housing units for those displaced.
This has resulted in a rise of homeless encampments, contrary to human rights principles.
5 Approximately 20% of Canada’s rental housing stock is now owned by institutional investors, contributing to the unaffordability of
housing in cities.
Canadian Municipal Working Group 4
6 Subsidiarity can be understood as articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada in its 2001 Spraytech decision: “law-making and
implementation are often best achieved at a level of government that is not only effective, but also closest to the citizens affected and
thus most responsive to their needs, to local distinctiveness, and to population diversity”, 114957 Canada Ltée (Spraytech, Société
d’arrosage) v. Hudson (Town), 2001 SCC 40 at para 3.
7 Relevant partners could include cities’ housing and equity departments, provincial human rights bodies, the Canadian Human Rights
Commission, and the Housing Advocate and Council (once appointed).
[11] In order to ensure cities can act swiftly in a situation where human rights are at stake, we recommend the
principle of subsidiarity be deployed. For example, the principle could be relied upon to ensure cities can
secure emergency housing for those in need during the pandemic and recovery period. Any jurisdictional
disputes arising, including those related to resources, would be determined after the human rights violation has
been remedied.6
4. WORK WITH CITIES TO COMBAT HOUSING-BASED DISCRIMINATION
[12] Discrimination and stigmatization of low-income households and those experiencing homelessness or living
in encampments has created a significant barrier for cities to secure affordable housing and integrating social
services and supports for these populations. Too often, when cities attempt to create new low-income housing,
shelters, or support services, or when we provide services for encampments in keeping with human rights
norms, we receive complaints from other constituents, including threats to withhold property taxes and
demands for police intervention.
[13] In keeping with the National Housing Strategy, we believe that addressing this discrimination requires a national
and concerted approach. In particular, we recommend that:
i. A nationally-led coalition of stakeholders7 develop and launch a countrywide-campaign aimed at
dispelling myths about people based on their housing status and informing the public about housing as
a human right.
Canadian Municipal Working Group 5
The Right to Home working group brings together elected officials and city staff from across Canada committed to
securing the right to housing. It is convened by The Shift and the Canadian Urban Institute.
Visit maketheshift.org/righttohome to learn more.
ALBERTA
EDMONTON
Christel Kjenner
Director Housing and Homelessness
BRITISH COLUMBIA
VICTORIA
Mayor Lisa Helps
Alison James
Head of Strategic Operations, Mayor’s Office
VANCOUVER
Jean Swanson
City Councillor
MANITOBA
WINNIPEG
Cindy Gilroy
City Councillor
NEW BRUNSWICK
FREDERICTON
Mayor Mike O’Brien
Kate Rogers
City Councillor
NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
YELLOWKNIFE
Mayor Rebecca Alty
ONTARIO
TORONTO
Deputy Mayor Ana Bailão
OTTAWA
Catherine McKenney
City Councillor
LONDON
Maureen Cassidy
City Councillor
Craig Cooper
Manager, Homeless Prevention
Arielle Kayabaga
City Councillor
Debbie Kramers
Manager Homeless Prevention
Adam Thompson
Manager, Government and External Relations
KITCHENER
Mayor Berry Vrbanovic
Karen Cooper
Manager of Strategic & Business Planning
SASKATCHEWAN
SASKATOON
Hilary Gough
City Councillor
Michael Kowalchuk
Planning and Development
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Connie Cunningham <cunninghamconniel@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, December 15, 2020 6:48 PM
To:City Clerk
Subject:Dec 15, 2020, Agenda Item 1, Postponement: Bird-Safe and Dark Sky Regulations
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Hello Kirsten, Can you show these photos when I speak on this? If you can allow 10 seconds per
photo. Thanks Connie
Agenda Item 1: POSTPONEMENT: Subject: Municipal Code Amendments to adopt glazing and
lighting regulations to implement the Fiscal Year 2019/20 City Council Work Program items related to
Dark Sky and Bird‐Safe Design. (Application No. MCA‐2019‐003and MCA‐2019‐004; Applicant: City
of Cupertino; Location: City‐wide)
Ruby‐Crowned Kinglet—Migratory
Cedar Waxwing—Migratory
American Robin — Migratory
2
Hooded Oriole — Migratory
White‐Crowned Sparrow — Migratory
Golden‐crowned Sparrow‐Migratory
3
Yellow‐rumped Warbler‐Migratory
CC 12-15-20
#11
Bird-Safe Dark Sky
Municipal Code
Amendment
Alternate
Presentation
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Erick Serrano
Sent:Thursday, December 17, 2020 10:54 AM
To:City Clerk
Subject:Update on Item #11
Attachments:BSDS_CC_12.15.2020_Dark Sky Portion.pdf; Bird-Safe CC Presentation 12152020.pdf
Hi City Clerk,
Attached is the updated presentations for the Bird Safe/Dark Sky item.
Erick Serrano
Senior Planner
Community Development
ErickS@cupertino.org
(408) 777-3205
Dark Sky Updates
භ Exposed String Lights
භ Solar Pathway Lights
භ Lighting in the Public ROW
භ “Watt”
Dark Sky Updates Continued
භ Color Temperature
භ Critical Areas of Illumination
December 15, 2020
Bird-Safety Regulations
Background
භ FY 19/20 Council Work Program Item
භ CEQA
භ Basis for adoption
භ Consistency with General Plan
Why Regulations?
භ Bird-safe Regulations Intent
භ Factors Linked to Bird Mortality
භ Building Design Trends
භ Night-time lighting
භ Policies and ordinances in other
cities
PC Study Session and Outreach
භ October 28, 2019 – Study Session
භ Use existing professionally accepted standards
භ Importance of educational materials
භ Importance of light impacts on environment
and health
භ Importance adequate security lighting
භ Preventing light trespass
භ February 2020 – Two Community-wide
Outreach Meetings
භ August 11, 2020:
භ Cost of applying regulations
භ Reduce applicability of bird safe treatment
භ Exempt 100% affordable housing and single-family
homes outside Bird Sensitive areas
භ Concerns about enforcing indoor lighting in
residential projects
භ Outdoor lighting for late night activities
භ On October 27, 2020 recommended
approval (4-1-0)
PC Recommendation
Bird-Safe
Regulation Basics
Bird-Safe Regulations Intent
භ Reduce building design elements
and lighting features that are
hazardous to birds
භ Help protect natural environment
Bird Hazards
භ Exposed reflective glass
Bird Hazards
භ Large expanse of highly transparent glass
Bird Hazards
භ Bright lighting
Cities with Bird-Safe Policies
භ San Francisco
භ Toronto
භ Portland
භ Alameda
භ Santa Cruz
භ Oakland
භ Sunnyvale
Bird-Safe Solutions
Bird-Safe Proposed Applicability
9 New or remodel of primary or
accessory buildings
9 Replacement of glass windows and
features
9 Building permit OR development
project
Bird-Safe Exemptions
භ Historic structures
භ First floor commercial storefronts, up
to a height of 15’
භ Residential development in R1 zoning
districts outside of Bird-Sensitive Areas
භ 100% affordable housing
developments
Bird-Safety – Glass Treatment Area
භ Standards apply to facades
භ No more than 10% is untreated
glass between ground and 60’
above
භ No more than 5% is untreated
glass 60’ above ground and up
Bird-Safety - Glass
භ Standard Compliance Treatments
භ Window muntins
භ Fritting
භ Exterior insect screens
භ Alternative Compliance Method
recommended by qualified biologist
and approved by Director
Bird-Safety - Lighting
භ Non-residential Indoor Lighting
Requirements:
භ Require time switch control devices or
automatic occupancy sensors
භ Off by 11 pm or 2 hours after close of
business
Bird Safety - Lighting
භ Outdoor lighting – Shielded, Directed
භ Exceptions - Low voltage landscape
lighting; Arch. Features; Public Art;
Historic lighting
භ Night Hours
භ Extinguish or motion sensor after 11 p.m.
භ Exceptions – building code, businesses
open past 11:00 p.m., solar path lights
Bird Safety - Lighting
භ Refer existing lighting standards in
Municipal Code
භ Automated sensors for lights with
motion sensors
භ Security Lighting allowed
භ Service Station Canopies
Bird Safety - Lighting
භ Prohibited Lighting
භ HID lamps, uplighting, spot lighting,
flood lighting etc
භ Exemptions
භ Right of way lights, holiday seasonal
lighting, construction/emergency and
temporary lighting, lighting required by
Building or Fire Code or state law
Bird-Safety - Site Planning & Building
Design
භ Avoid funneling flight paths towards
building façade
භ Avoid use of highly reflective glass or highly
transparent glass
භ Shall not include glass features, transparent
building corners, free-standing glass walls
Environmental Review
භ Exempt from CEQA by:
භ Section 15308
භ Section 15301
භ Section 15305
භ Section 15061 (b) (3)
භ Section 15300.2
Public Noticing and Outreach
Notice of Public Hearing, Site
Notice & Legal Ad
Agenda
Legal ad placed in
newspaper (at least 10
days prior to hearing)
Display ad placed in
newspaper (at least 10
days prior to hearing)
Posted on the City's official
notice bulletin board (four
days prior to hearing)
Posted on the City of
Cupertino’s Web site (four
days prior to hearing)
Recommended Action
භ Conduct the public hearing and
භ Adopt draft resolution recommending that
Council:
භ Find actions exempt from CEQA; and,
භ Amend Municipal Code by adding a new
Chapter 19.102 to adopt regulations to
implement Bird-Safety goals.
Recommended Action Cont.
Whenever an applicant is required to obtain a
building permit or a Permit pursuant to Title 19,
or whenever exterior lighting is added or
replaced (whether temporary or permanent), the
project shall meet the requirements of this
Chapter. The following table indicates the
applicability of regulations by type of project:
CC 12-15-20
#11
Bird-Safe Dark Sky
Municipal Code
Amendment
Written Comments
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Peggy Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com>
Sent:Tuesday, December 15, 2020 11:04 PM
To:City Council
Cc:City Clerk
Subject:Bird Safe Glass in R1 zones-NO PUBLIC INPUT!
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,
I am appalled at what you did regarding the last minute “friendly amendment” to the Bird Safe Design regarding R1
zones! The City may have noticed residents BUT what we were noticed with had an EXCEPTION for the R1 zoning
districts outside of Bird‐Sensitive Areas. What you passed impacts ALL residential homes.
AFTER all public comment was over THEN you make this massive change after no member of the public can make a
comment on it! That’s not transparent. It also was not thoroughly vetted. It impacts EVERY home in our city without
proper insight or notice!
The impact of this change means:
‐ If someone accidently breaks a window in their home, they have to make just that window different.
‐ If someone has been upgrading their windows to be energy efficient and is halfway through their windows, the
remainder of the windows will look different.
‐ If someone adds‐on a room, those windows will look different than the rest of the house.
‐ Reselling a house with a hodgepodge of windows will reduce the sale price.
All this will make it so people will replace their windows without permits or they won’t switch to energy efficient
windows at all! You did not get public input on this MASSIVE CHANGE to our ordinance.
I am really, really disappointed. Stop writing laws on the fly without vetting them with the public!
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
CC 12-15-20
#12
Affordable Housing
Density Bonus
Written Comments
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Jennifer Griffin <grenna5000@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, December 15, 2020 10:44 PM
To:City Council; City Clerk
Subject:High Density Housing Laws in California
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:
The public has every right to understand where the Big Money is
coming from to keep backing these housing bills. There is a huge
attempt to keep the real roots of these backers covered up.
Money is coming in from other states to attempt to control California
politics and attempts to take away local control of the neighborhoods
and the control of the cities. Lets get some daylight on these Big Money
Backers.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Griffin
CC 12-15-20
#13
Franchise
Agreement,
Recology
Written Comments
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Peggy Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com>
Sent:Tuesday, December 15, 2020 11:46 PM
To:Kirsten Squarcia
Cc:City Clerk
Subject:REVISED SLIDES 2020-12-15 CC Agenda Item 13-Recology Peggy's Slides
Attachments:Agenda Item 13-Peggy Griffin Slides2.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Kirsten,
Please use this updated slides, if possible. Just revised my slides for my comment.
Peggy
From: Peggy Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 9:01 PM
To: Kirsten Squarcia <KirstenS@cupertino.org>
Cc: 'City Clerk' <CityClerk@cupertino.org>
Subject: 2020‐12‐15 CC Agenda Item 13‐Recology Peggy's Slides
Hi Kirsten,
I plan to speak on Item #13 regarding Renewal of Recology’s 10‐year contract. Attached is the 1‐page slide I’d like
displayed when I speak.
You may have to shift down as I speak. Not sure.
Thanks for your help,
Peggy Griffin
Renewal of Recology’s 10-year Contract
Thank Ursula Syrova, Environmental Programs Manager for providing
answers to my detailed questions.
Recology has provided excellent service over the years.
Very concerned about the increases over the next 10-years.
COMMENTS/OBSERVATION ON CONTRACT:
- Q1: Is the City guaranteeing Recology a 10% profit every year?
o Salaries, if you are lucky to have one, do not have this
guarantee.
- Q2: Is the City is guaranteeing we’ll cover their costs
o Q2a: What incentives are there for them to reduce their costs?
- The cost of “landfill disposal of garbage” will be moved from a City
cost to a Recology cost.
o Q3: Doesn’t this mean this cost moves to the customers?
o Q3a: Doesn’t this add to the increase of our rates?
- Please discuss how the fund to smooth our rates would be used in
years 1, 2, 3, and 4