CC 01-19-2021 Item No. 13 Bird Safety Ordinance_Written CommunicationsCC 01-19-21
#13
Bird Safety
Regulations
Municipal Code
Amendment
Written Comments
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Connie Cunningham <cunninghamconniel@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, January 9, 2021 1:51 PM
To:City Council
Subject:Bird-Safe Design and Dark Skies Ordinances--Urge support on Jan 19, 2021
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.
Bird‐Safe Design and Dark Skies Ordinances‐‐Urge support on Jan 19, 2021
Dear Mayor, Vice‐Mayor and Councilmembers, and City Manager:
Happy New Year! I attended the Chamber of Commerce meeting on January 8 and appreciated Mayor Paul’s words of
encouragement for the year ahead and that the City is in good financial shape despite the pandemic. I applaud the
Mayor’s commitment to Lawrence‐Mitty which adds park space to the City.
As the Bird‐Safe Design and Dark Skies Ordinances were discussed, a number of questions were raised by businesses to
understand the details of how the new regulations would work. As an advocate for birds, I was heartened by many
businesses who stated that they supported the goals of the ordinances, but wanted to get a few answers about details
that affect their businesses.
Piu Ghosh and Erick Serrano's presentations were excellent, covering the details that businesses are concerned about,
with good answers for their questions. It was good to hear that Cupertino is taking these steps for its own city projects
and street lighting, too. The Ordinances are reasonable. The ordinances are strong for bird safety and human safety,
while leaving flexibility for needs of businesses and residential owners.
One disappointing voice representing a large business was that of Reed Moulds from Sand Hill. He said that each person
at the meeting didn’t need to say they supported birds before they spoke, and then stated his questions.
I do not agree. Each person does need to specifically, openly and strongly state their support for the birds in our
City. For the Dark Skies Ordinance, each person needs to specifically, openly, and strongly state their support for the
humans in our city, too. I was disappointed because Reed Moulds had expressed support for Bird‐safe Design at an
earlier point in discussions about the Vallco project. Glass is expensive. Bird‐safe glass does not add appreciably to the
cost for a project. Perhaps use less glass? Considering that Sand Hill will be building the largest towers in Cupertino, it
is critical that its award‐winning design embraces Bird‐Safe Design and Dark Skies lighting requirements.
Damage of light pollution is not restricted to our birds. Our birds are literally the “canaries in the coal mines,” alerting us
to the dangers of light pollution on human beings. Time limits, ban on uplighting and use of lights rated at or less than
2700 Kelvin are key points. As many other large businesses such as FaceBook, in our region have done, Cupertino's large
business partners need to embrace the future, for our beautiful birds and for us mortal humans.
As I have urged many times, in community meetings, Planning Commission meetings, and City Council meetings, I urge
you, again, to support Cupertino’s Bird‐Safe Design and Dark Skies Ordinances that will come to you on Jan 19,
2021. Many residents support these ordinances, and have spoken to Council. These are excellent ordinances. They
continue Cupertino’s leadership in the environment. This Council can lay down a marker to the commitment of a well‐
run city that recognizes that our environmental future begins now.
Sincerely,
2
Connie L. Cunningham
Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society member
Cupertino resident of 34 years
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Peggy Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com>
Sent:Friday, January 15, 2021 5:44 PM
To:City Council
Cc:City Clerk
Subject:CC Agenda Item 13: Bird Safe Glass-PLEASE MODIFY ORDINANCE BEFORE PASSING!!!
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor Paul, Vice Mayor Chao and Council Members,
I beg you to vote NO on Agenda Item 13‐the second reading of the Bird Safe Development Ordinance. Send it back to be
modified!
I like birds and they do need to be protected from collisions but not with this ordinance! It needs to be modified for the
following reasons:
1. It applies to ALL GLASS in ALL R1 areas
a. Yet the Staff research says collisions are linked to LARGE EXPANSES of exposed or reflective or
transparent glass, not every single window in a house!
(Oct. 28, 2020 Study Session Staff Report, Page 3 of 5, “Analysis”)
CITY OF CUPERTINO ‐ File #: 19‐6342 (legistar.com)
b. Local glass shops DO NOT HAVE and DON’T KNOW about “bird safe glass”. (See my call notes below.) I
called 4 different local glass shops today and only 1 had heard about this glass but said it was only sold
in very expensive custom windows! I didn’t even try Lowe’s or Home Depot!
Q: Where are we supposed to get it and how much is it going to cost!?!?!
c. Most cities only require it in or near open space, water or vegetated park.
(Oct. 28, 2020 Study Session Staff Report, Page 3 of 5, “Applicability”)
2. You’ve got it backwards on the height!
a. “…most bird strikes occur closer to the ground…some jurisdictions specify…applicable up to a height
between 40‐60 ft from the ground.”
(Oct. 28, 2020 Study Session Staff Report, Page 4 of 5, 1st paragraph)
CITY OF CUPERTINO ‐ File #: 19‐6342 (legistar.com)
b. Yet MC 19.102.030 (B)(1) requires MORE above 60 ft.
c. Yet MC 19.102.030 (B)(3) exempts ALL first floor commercial storefronts up to 15 ft.
d. This proposal treats home windows as more dangerous than large store front windows! This goes
against the Staff Report research!
3. The Staff has not presented a formal list of its “acceptable bird‐safe treatments”.
a. MC 19.102.030 (B)(2) Mentions a “list of acceptable bird‐safe treatments” but it was never presented! If
this ordinance is ready‐to‐go then this list must exist. Where is it? What’s it look like? Where’d they
get it?
b. The above section also only mentions the National Audubon Society as providing input to this list. If a
homeowner finds a different group with a different list then the homeowner has to pay for a review at
more cost!
c. When does this list get updated? Why can’t the Planning Commission review it so the public can
provide input to updates?
2
d. There are lots of ways to make a window “bird safe” without the high cost of special glass! The Cornell
Lab of Ornithology’s “All About Birds” website lists lots of ways to prevent bird strikes WITHOUT
requiring special glass such as:
i. Soap markings
ii. Decals
iii. Bird tape
iv. Bird/Zen Keepers
v. Screens
vi. Netting
vii. Transparent film
viii. External shutters
ix. Awnings over windows
4. The change to Chapter 19.08 Definitions for the definition of “Bird‐sensitive area” is NOT OBJECTIVE!
a. The Staff never presented a map of what constituted the “Bird‐sensitive areas” in our city .
b. When discussing which areas this law would cover, a map is critical!
c. Part of the proposed definition of “Bird‐sensitive area” includes “parks that are dominated by
vegetation”. It is not clear if these “parks” include parks that are schools, pocket parks, park strips and
trails. A map of what parts of the city are in this “bird‐sensitive area” would make it VERY CLEAR and
not be left to the interpretation of others.
5. It should NOT apply to existing R1 homes!
a. If someone accidently breaks a window or glass door in their home, they have to make just that window
different.
b. 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.
c. You want to encourage residents to upgrade to energy efficient windows. This means replacing all their
windows WITHOUT a remodel‐WITHOUT requiring special glass treatments!
d. If someone adds‐on a room, those windows will look different than the rest of the house.
e. Reselling a house with a hodgepodge of windows will reduce the sale price.
6. Laws that are too restrictive are not followed!
a. People will replace windows without permits.
b. Enforcement will be lax.
c. City will not benefit!
This proposed law is an example of onerous over‐regulation! Please follow the science. Encourage residents through
education but don’t require them.
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
NOTES FROM CALLING LOCAL GLASS SHOPS
I called 4 local glass shops on Friday, January 15, 2021 asking them if they carried “bird‐safe glass”. I wanted to see how
easy it would be to replace a broken window or door! I found out it would be IMPOSSIBLE.
1‐Bull’s Glass and Screen Door
408‐725‐4070
1362 S. De Anza Blvd., San Jose, CA 95129
Spoke to Johnny.
He’s never heard of “bird`‐safe glass” and tried to sell me tempered glass instead.
2‐Able Glass
408‐496‐9960
850 Aldo Ave., Santa Clara, CA 95054
3
Diamond Certified company
Spoke to John
They don’t carry bird‐safe glass but have tempered glass.
3‐Green’s Glass and Screens
3889 Butte St., Santa Clara, CA 95051
408‐390‐8666
Spoke to Robert Green. Been in the business for over 40 years.
Heard about it 1 month ago from a lady ordering a big picture window.
None of his distributors carry it!
Marvin Windows is one that makes it but it’s for new, custom windows. High‐end product. Very expensive.
He later googled bird‐safe glass and found a company in Germany that makes it.
4‐Los Altos Glass Repair and Replacement
650‐443‐4973
4546 El Camino Real #217, Los Altos, CA 94022
Spoke to Virginia
They offer regular and tempered glass.
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Peggy Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com>
Sent:Sunday, January 17, 2021 2:51 PM
To:City Council
Cc:City Clerk; Deborah L. Feng; Piu Ghosh
Subject:2021-01-19 CC Agenda Item 13-bird safety REQUEST/SUGGESTIONS
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor Paul, Vice Mayor Chao and Council Members,
During the Dec. 15, 2020 City Council meeting one Agenda Item 11, after all public comment and after most of the
Council deliberations, you made a last minute change to the proposed ordinance to remove 2 exceptions to the bird‐safe
glass ordinance:
1. Residential development in R1 zoning districts outside of Bird‐Sensitive Areas
2. 100% affordable housing developments
These changes have significant consequences to residents! Please re‐think this decision.
REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
1. Vote NO on this second reading so that this ordinance can be modified.
2. R1 zones
a. Put back in the exception to R1 zones outside of Bird‐Sensitive Areas
b. OR – exempt existing R1 homes and exempt all their window replacements (to allow energy upgrades)
c. OR ‐ Don’t require all windows – specify a square foot size i.e. big picture windows, etc.
3. Correct subjective definitions:
a. Fix “Bird‐Sensitive Areas” – specify exact locations with a map of the city (see definition below)
b. Add “bird‐safe glass” – Clearly define it. Does this require specifically manufactured glass, or does it
include bird‐safe treatments to ordinary glass? If so, reference the list. It is not clear whether Bird‐Safe
Treatments may be used in lieu of bird‐safe glass.
c. Add “Highly reflective glass” – specify an exact reflectivity index
d. Add “Highly transparent glass” – specify an exact transparency index
4. Provide the “List of Acceptable Bird‐Safe Treatments” in the ordinance
a. with date and revision dates
b. with periodic public review by the Planning Commission
5. Holiday lights…rather than trying to legislate specific dates and also risking omitting some religion or celebration
you are not aware of, just allow them all year but turn them off at 11pm unless an event is in progress. Very
simple.
a. Section 19.102.030 (D)(10) The date range of October 15 to January 15 for holiday lights does not cover
Diwali and Chinese New Year dates! This year’s Chinese New Years is Jan. 25th! Diwali Oct. 12, 2023!
i. Diwali date ranges
Diwali Dates for 2018, 2019, 2020 till 2040 (theholidayspot.com)
ii. Chinese New Year date ranges
Dates Chinese New Year in 2021 to 2030 (theholidayspot.com)
6. Fix table at top of ordinance column 2 (Applicable Sections), row 6 refers to “(D)(14)” which does not exist.
7. Educate don’t legislate!
a. Many people will fix problems on their own if they are informed.
b. Have articles in the Cupertino Scene, Senior Center newsletter, City website, etc.
2
c. Presentations at the library, by the City, Senior Center, Audubon Society, schools, etc.
d. Inform local glass companies and window replacement companies!!!
8. Separate out laws for glass from laws for lighting.
a. There is so much overlap between bird‐safety and dark skies.
b. Have one law for glass. It can consider bird‐safety and dark skies.
c. Have a separate law for lighting. It can consider bird‐safety and dark skies.
d. This makes it easier for residents, contractors and builders, too.
e. Intermingling lighting in both a bird‐safe and a dark‐sky law will
i. risk having conflicts
ii. it’s hard to maintain and keep consistent.
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
From Attachment A Draft Ordinance, Page 10 of 11 – VERY SUBJECTIVE!
“Bird‐sensitive area”, for purposes of Chapter 19.102, Glass and Lighting Standards, means parcels that are in or
within 300 feet of the Wildland Urban Interface; within 300 feet of watercourses; in Residential Hillside areas;
and within 300 feet of public and private, open spaces and parks that are dominated by vegetation, including
vegetated landscaping, forest, meadows, grassland, or wetlands.
‐ What does “dominated by vegetation” mean?
‐ Which parks are “dominated by vegetation”?
‐ Are some pocket parks included?
‐ Landscaping typically is “vegetated” so what does this mean?
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Shani Kleinhaus <shani@scvas.org>
Sent:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 11:50 AM
To:City Council
Cc:Piu Ghosh; Erick Serrano; Kirsten Squarcia; Dashiell Leeds; James Eggers; Matthew Dodder
Subject:SCVAS and SC: Bird safety and Dark Sky (Items 13 and 16 on your agenda tonight)
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.
January 19, 2021
Dear Mayor Paul, Vice Mayor Chao and Cupertino Council Members
On behalf of the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society and the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter we thank you
for the extensive discussion of Bird Safety and Dark Sky. We encourage Cupertino to move ahead and adopt
the two ordinances. We appreciate staff’s work on these ordinances, but request that you reject the proposed
modification to lighting requirements.
In this letter, we provide information on Items 13 and 16 on your agenda tonight, and on our request:
Item 13: Second reading of Ordinance No. 20-2219 adopting Municipal Code Amendments to CMC to adopt bird safety
development regulations to implement the Fiscal Year 2020/21 City Council Work Program items related to bird safety.
We would like to draw your attention to the hot-off-the press publication by the American Bird Conservancy
titles “Glass Collisions Products and Solutions Database” which includes dozens of products for building
professionals and for homeowners, for new construction and for retrofits.
https://abcbirds.org/glass-collisions/products-database
In addition, the ordinance provides flexibility in allowing the use of window muntins and screens and allowing
alternative recommendations by biologists. We believe there is adequate flexibility in bird-safe solutions for
homeowners and hope the ordinance will sail though second hearing tonight.
Item 16: Municipal Code Amendments to adopt lighting regulations to implement the Fiscal Year 2019/20 City
Council Work Program items related to Dark Sky.
We urge you to:
Retain the
2700K requirement for outdoor lighting.
Staff proposes changing the heat temperature to 3000K, based on existing dark sky ordinances, and
availability of lighting fixtures and lamps.
2
We asked a landscaping architect, a lighting designer and a construction electrician about the
availability of lighting fixtures and lamps, and they all disputed the suggestion that there are serious
restrictions on selection and availability. They compared the choice of heat temperature to the choice of
the model and the color of a new car, where the availability of models is vast, and the cost is similar no
matter what color is chosen. A homeowner who recently installed 2700K outdoor lighting told us that
the selection was somewhat different, but it was “not a big deal”.
Increasingly, scientific evidence implicates cold lighting (>2700K) in a plethora of ecological disruptions
and human health issues. We hope that Cupertino will continue demonstrating the City’s environmental
leadership and set an example in requiring a maximum of 2700K.
Limit interior
window display lighting for retail uses
Migratory birds fly at night, and many alight and find a place to rest in the predawn hours. Since many
migratory birds are attracted to light, turning the lights off helps them avoid the urban core and avoid
the hazards associated with it (lack of food and water, collision with buildings).
We are not opposed to extending the hours when interior window display lighting for retail uses can
remain illuminated in hours when people are active, but please limit this extension to those hours and
ensure that by 2AM at the latest, the lights are turned off.
We also would like to bring to your attention some very recent media stories regarding light pollution and
efforts to dial it back. These are just from this last week! The pervasiveness of light pollution is now almost
daily nesa, and Cupertino is not alone looking to address the issue. Your leadership is desperately needed in
the Bay area and beyond.
- https://www.dw.com/en/light-pollution-the-dangers-of-bright-skies-at-night/a-56209536 (January 14,
2021)
- https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-15/wa-housing-developments-may-be-forced-to-adopt-light-
policy/13061130 (January 15, 2021)
‐ https://www.denverpost.com/2021/01/17/colorado‐dark‐skies‐preservation/ (January 18, 2021)
We appreciate your consideration of our comments.
Thank you,
Shani Kleinhaus, Environmental Advocate, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society
Dashiell Leeds, Conservation Assistant, Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Rick Kitson <rick@cupertino-chamber.org>
Sent:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 9:11 AM
To:City Council; Kirsten Squarcia
Subject:Re Item #13, on the January 19, 2021 Agenda Letter to the Cupertino City Council regarding the
Bird Safe Ordinance
Attachments:20210116 Bird Safe.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.
To the Cupertino City Council from the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce regarding Item 13 on the January 19, 2021
agenda.
!"+ ' %+ $*
*& ')!$%
"
,,,*& ')!$% # '%'
&#%",*)
! - *)!+ ! '
&& !%' (! $)
&'( #'$# $! # '
#
)"*(+ ') ## !) ()' (! $)
#-$!!
%, "''&'' (! $)" )
)%&( #$ $(!
"+!)& )! ' (! $)!$$
$& %!'
'
")" '&)! ' (! $)
%%!
#
)$ )*"&"! ' (! $)
&#&$%&( '
'!&") %%"! ' (! $)
$!$ ,
" ! %!
!
+ '
'&&,*+"&
)%&( #$ '($& !$ (,)')"
'%%/'-
&"$#(# $# $$! '(& (
+! )"& ! &
((&"
#')&#
&" %%
'))
& +'(& (# $#
+ /
)%&( #$# $# $$! '(& (
,% .)
,(( $)'
)"*+"&"%% )
#(&()%&( #$
&!'
'&&"##(
'*! %'
'(!!,$"")# (,&* '
!%".& ! &
#%%!
'!&&
# $'(&$"%#,
!.5!29
50%24)./)49/5.#),
/22%6%.5%
50%24)./!,)&/2.)!
)2$ !&%2$).!.#%
%!2!9/2 !5,!.$/5.#),-%-"%23
)4(4()3,%44%24(%50%24)./(!-"%2/&/--%2#%7)3(%34/%802%33)43
#/.4).5%$#/.#%2./6%24(%02/0/3%$.%7)2$ !&%2$).!.#%
(),%4(%).4%.4/&4(%/2$).!.#%)35.)6%23!,,93500/24%$4(%,!.'5!'%/&
4(%/2$).!.#%%)4(%2#,%!2,9).$)#!4%3/2342/.',935''%3434(!4-/34
#(!.'%3/2)-02/6%-%.434/!3)4%7),,!,3/2%15)2%02/()")4)6%!$$)4)/.!,
#(!.'%3./42%,!4%$4/4(%02/*%#4/2%8!-0,%
• .%72%4!).).'7!,,;%73)4%#/.3425#4)/.<7/5,$!00%!24/!,3/
2%15)2%35"3%15%.4#/-0,)!.#%7)4("/4(")2$3!&%492%15)2%-%.43
%#
!.$/54$//2,)'(4).'2%15)2%-%.43 %#
• (%).34!,,!4)/./&.%7#(!2').'34!4)/.3!,3/(!34(%3)'.)&)#!.4
$)3).#%.4)6%/&!#4)6!4).'"/4(")2$3!&%!.$$!2+3+92%42/&)43
• (% 4!.$!2$/-0,)!.#% 2%!4-%.432%&%22%$4/).4(%/2$).!.#%
%#
$/./49%4%8)34
• /#/2.%27).$/73/.!.9.%7#/.3425#4)/.).50%24)./ %#
• ##/2$).'4/34!&&02%3%.4!4)/.3%.%2!, %.!.4-02/6%-%.43
35#(!3-/6).'%,%#42)#!,0,5'3/2!$$).'!,)'(4&)8452%7/5,$!,3/
42)''%2',!:).'2%42/&)44/-%%44(%.%734!.$!2$
52).'4(%3%02/&/5.$,95.#%24!).4)-%3).!$6!.#%7%3(/5,$')6%/52
"53).%33#/--5.)4)%3!4(/2/5'(5.$%234!.$).'/&4(%0/4%.4)!,
#/-0,%8)49/&4(%3%2%15)2%-%.43
3#522%.4,9$2!&4%$4(%-/3402/&/5.$!.$-%!352!",%)-0!#4/&4(%
02/0/3%$/2$).!.#%7),,"%4/#2%!4%!#/-02%(%.3)6%$)3).#%.4)6%4/
-!+%02/0%249)-02/6%-%.43!.$")2$3!&%#(!.'%3
%30%#4&5,,99/523
(9!- !.#(!,
2%3)$%.4/!2$/&)2%#4/23
50%24)./(!-"%2/&/--%2#%
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Lisa Warren <la-warren@att.net>
Sent:Monday, January 18, 2021 9:34 PM
To:Darcy Paul; Liang Chao; Jon Robert Willey; Hung Wei; Kitty Moore
Cc:Erick Serrano; Ellen Yau; Deborah L. Feng
Subject:Important Bird Safe and Dark Sky pre Jan 19 mtg
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 Mayor, Vice Mayor and City Council Members,
I am writing this brief message because I don't know if time will allow for me to
elaborate on the idea prior to tomorrow's 5:30 meeting start. I am mid-Zoom now.
Essentially, I am asking that you vote NOT to approve the Bird Safe Ordinance as it was
amended, and passed, on December 15.
I have been a supporter of the idea of bird safety measures and dark sky/light pollution
remedies as long as Dashiell and Shani have been speaking at Cupertino meetings about
the subject(s). I have publicly voiced support.
I attended one of the workshops that Erick and Ellen held.
I believe, for numerous reasons, that the Council amendments made to Staff's proposed
ordinance for bird safety were a huge mistake.
I watched from home in December, with no way of being able to speak after the motion
was made and 'friendly amendments' were made, and ultimately voted on. 4-1
Please stop the amended version of the ordinance from going any further by voting NO
to the second reading.
I hope to have time to add to this message by early afternoon, but if not, then at least
my 'main point' has been communicated to you here , in time for you to read.
I know of no one who thinks the amendments are a good idea.
Our 'ordinary' R1 areas, especially single story residences, should not be subject to
what has been suggested, and re-written. I believe that Staff understands that and am
concerned because that significant change had virtually no real relevant discussion or
opportunity for the public to comment, or 'by-products' vetted.
Thank you,
Lisa
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Sue Moore <suemmo@comcast.net>
Sent:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 1:27 PM
To:City Council
Cc:City Clerk
Subject:CC Meeting 1/19/21 - Agenda Item 13- please modify Bird the Safe Glass Ordinance
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor Paul, Vice Mayor Chao and Council Members,
I am requesting you to vote NO tonight on Agenda item 13, the Second Reading of the Bird Safe Ordinance due to the
last minute changes that were made with regards to residential windows at the 12/15/20 meeting.
These R1 requirements are unnecessary and burdensome to homeowners. Requiring expensive windows or glass
treatments that are not readily available is not realistic. Residential windows could be looked at sometime in the future
if and when bird safe window/glass are more readily available and economical feasible for residents. Plus, there are
many low tech/low cost measures that can be taken if there are particular problem areas.
Other Cupertino residents have pointed out addition tweaking of the full ordinance and I agree this should be done,
also.
Thank you and the staff for all the time and energy you have spent on this issue.
I totally support the need for bird safety.
Sincerely,
Susan Moore
40 year Cupertino resident
Sent from my iPad
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Jim Moore <maxcinco@comcast.net>
Sent:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 3:04 PM
To:City Council
Cc:City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager's Office; City Attorney's Office; Sue Moore
Subject:1/19/2021 Agenda Items #13 and #16,: Ordinances #20-2219 and #21-2221 need modifications
before passing
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor Paul, Vice Mayor Chao, and council members Willey, Moore,
and Wei,
As a 45-year resident of Cupertino and lover of all animals and
birds (except gophers and crows), I applaud the objective of each of these
proposed ordinances. Each ordinance, however, needs modifications
before passing.
Sue and I are members of the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society. We
follow its bird safety and dark sky recommendations, and have immense
respect and trust in Shani Kleinhaus, its local environmental
advocate. We joined the Friday, 1/15, Zoom meeting to hear Shani's
presentation on current recommendations and stayed for the
Q&As. Peggy Griffin and Lisa Warren participated along with other
residents.
I have thoroughly reviewed Peggy's e-mailed suggested modifications of
1/17/2021, 2:51PM, and fully agree with her detailed analyses and specific
recommendations. Please send these ordinances back to City Staff to
clarify their currently imprecise terminology, and to rethink and redo the
exceptions.
One exception which defies my critical thinking skills is the exclusion of
first floor commercial store fronts up to 15'. Why is this even being
2
considered for an exemption? How will birds tell the difference between
commercial store front glass and residential or office building glass?
4. Exemptions: The following are exempted from subsection
19.102.030(B):
a. Any historic structure, either as set forth in the General Plan Figure
LU-3 Historic Resources or listed on the State or National Historical
Registers; and
b. First floor commercial storefronts, up to a height of 15’.
Thank you for your service to Cupertino.
Jim Moore,
Resident volunteer
Virus-free. www.avg.com