The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCC 01-19-2021 Oral Communications_Late Written CommunicationsCC 01-19-21 Oral Communications Written Comments 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Peggy Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 7:08 PM To:City Clerk Subject:Slide for Oral Communication-Peggy Griffin Attachments:Oral Communication Comments.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. ORAL COMMUNICATION When creating new laws  Educate rather than legislate  Solve the top 3 cases (majority of the problem)  Use OBJECTIVE standards 1 Cyrah Caburian From:City of Cupertino Written Correspondence Subject:FW: For Comments today From: Anjali Kausar <anjali@cupertino‐chamber.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 6:56 PM To: Kirsten Squarcia <KirstenS@cupertino.org> Subject: For Comments today 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. Can you please share when I do my public comments Thanks Anjali 2 1 Cyrah Caburian From:jim moore <cinco777@icloud.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 10:50 PM To:City Council Cc:City Clerk; Deborah L. Feng; Sue Moore; City Attorney's Office Subject:Ray Wang continues to have our full support as a commissioner on our Cupertino Planning Commission - please reappoint him 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, An assault on Ray Wang's character and competence began in April 2019. Sue and I responded via an e-mail to Council in August 2019 (included below). This fallacious attack on R. Wang was raised again today in Oral Communications by Richard Mehlinger of Sunnyvale, and also in "Written Communications" by Cupertino for All, an entity founded by JR Fruen in 2018 to advocate for Vallco and the Property Owner (VPO). Sue and I fully support Ray Wang for our Cupertino Planning Commission (CPC), and, if willing, want him to continue as a commissioner. We trust him to represent the best interests of residents. Sue records (DVR), and views, start to finish, nearly all CPC meetings. She shares the highlights. We are pleased that Kitty is our newest council member. However, we do miss her leadership as chair of the CPC. Re interviewing and selecting new commission members, we trust in the fairness of our City's process and in the five of you choosing the best candidate(s). Jim and Sue Moore 2 Resident volunteers *********** Please include in Public Records ************* ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Subject: Ray Wang has our full support as Chair of our Planning Commission Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2019 18:59:07 ‐0700 From: James Moore <cinco777@icloud.com> To: sscharf@cupertino.org, liangchao@cupertino.org, Jon Robert Willey <jwilley@cupertino.org>, dpaul@cupertino.org, manager@cupertino.org, cityattorney@cupertino.org CC: cityclerk@cupertino.org Dear Mayor Scharf, Vice-Mayor Chao, Council members Paul and Willey, City Manager Feng, and City attorneys, The repeated and relentless accusations levied against Planning Commissioner and Chair, Ray Wang, finally gained our attention Saturday night when Mike Malik distributed his anonymous orange flyer with its exaggerated claims at our Town Hall on Housing. We attended this Town Hall and the prior one, and find them informative, educational, and a worthy use of our Saturday evenings. Last Saturday night's exposure to Mike's fallacious claims re Ray Wang, Mayor Steven Scharf, and our in-progress City Code of Ethics, detracted from and interrupted the very desirable and neighborly atmosphere of this Town Hall. Although Jim continues to research and weigh the veracity of the various claims levied against Planning Commissioner, Ray Wang, by San Franciscan Steven Buss, Sunnyvalen Richard Mehlinger, Redwood City's Rosanne Foust, and local SHP/Vallco supporters Jean Bedord, Ian Greensides, and Mike Malik, our firm conclusion is that Commissioner Ray Wang is not guilty of the extreme claims levied against him by these individuals. Ray Wang will continue to receive our full support in his position of Planning Commission Chair. We have attended, spoken at, and viewed the Planning Commission meetings Ray has chaired, and find him friendly and honest to all, well informed on community issues and concerns, and adept at running an effective and efficient Planning meeting. We trust him to represent our interests and those of our neighbors. Our observation re Ray Wang is that: 1) he mistakenly believed that he could post to Nextdoor as a resident, and not be perceived by critics as a planning commissioner, and 2) he did not expect that his pro-resident stance against SHP's nearly 2M SF of office at Vallco and its insufficient housing would lead to vicious attacks from pro- developer media, YIMBY activists, SHP hirelings on Nextdoor, and others intent to bully and intimidate him for his articulate and well-reasoned views. Mike Malik's orange flyer is reminiscent of the fallacious SHP/Vallco funded "Rotten Apple" flyer attacking Liang Chao in the 2018 election. Jim researched and showed this flyer's accusations were baseless and 100% false. We have reached a similar conclusion for those claims levied against Ray. He is being harassed and bullied for speaking in support of the residents. For the record, we are not friends nor acquaintances of Ray Wang. We know him from attending, speaking at, and viewing Planning Commission meetings. Jim and Sue Moore Residents since 1976/1980 3 **** Please make this part of the Public Record **** To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Virus-free. www.avg.com CC 01-19-21 13 Bird Safety Regulations Municipal Code Amendment Written Comments 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Connie Cunningham <cunninghamconniel@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 7:15 PM To:City Clerk Subject:2021-1-19 Agenda 13: Subject: Second reading of Ordinance No. 20-2219,Bird Safety Attachments:PastedGraphic-1.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. January 19,2021 City Council Subject: Second Reading of Ordinances: Agenda Item 13: Subject: Second reading of Ordinance No. 20‐2219 adopting Municipal Code Amendments to CMC to adopt bird safety development regulations to implement the Fiscal Year 2020/21City Council Work Program items related to bird safety. (Application No. MCA‐2019‐004; Applicant: City of Cupertino; Location: Citywide) Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor and Councilmembers: I was excited and proud when, over a year ago, Cupertino took the step to add Bird‐safe Design and Dark Skies to the City Work Plan . It was a clear signal that the City was moving forward on its sustainability and environmental goals. Our City has been a leader on the behalf of the environment in many ways. Ex: in 2020, Cupertino was awarded the Platinum Beacon Vanguard Award for Leadership on Climate Change from the Institute of Local Government. Bird‐safe Design is a natural fit with this leadership. Cupertino has a proud tradition of an urban tree canopy. Residents passionately have supported trees in our City at many, many City Council meetings over the years. That tree canopy is an integral part of the Sustainability Commission’s project Climate Change 2.0. With that tree canopy, we offer food, shelter and rest for migratory birds along the Pacific Flyway. (See Photo 3 below) These birds fly at night for hundreds of miles. In offering that respite, a key related responsibility is to provide safety. Many people are not aware that their homes and their businesses may be dangerous to birds. They may not know how important their safety is to our natural world. On Feb 19, 2019, I addressed the City Council in support Bird Safe Design. My purpose was to encourage the city to include Bird Safety Design and Materials in their checklist for approval for all projects. The month before, on January 15, 2019, the City had given gateway approval to a hotel on the Goodyear site. Along with other residents, I addressed the tree canopy, by encouraging the requirement of large trees on the property. I, specifically, mentioned spruce trees, because a darling little bird, the Ruby‐Crowned Kinglet likes spruce trees. This 4.25 inch bird weighs 1/4 of an ounce (or 6.5 grams). He migrates at night to Cupertino in the winter, and summers in Alaska or Canada. Photo 1 below. We are all now aware that millions of birds collide with windows every year. Overall numbers of birds in the United States have declined by 30%. Residential homes are are responsible for 44%‐90% of bird strikes. Photo 2 below is a Ruby‐Crowned Kinglet who died running into a window. Photo #3 below shows that Cupertino, and the Bay Area sit in the middle of the most intensive bird migration of the Pacific Flyway. Your support will go a long way to educating all residents of the role we play in the long‐term health of our environment and saving the lives of birds who bring us the thrill of flight, life and color in small packages. 2 I urge the Council to support Cupertino’s environment, and vote to approve this Second Reading of the Bird‐safe Design Ordinance. People and businesses will often make changes when asked personally. With this vote, the Council will be asking all residents and businesses to make these changes as a community. We then will step together toward the future. Sincerely, Connie L. Cunningham 34 years living in Cupertino Over a decade as a Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society Member (SCVAS) Ruby‐Crowned Kinglet 3 4 Pacific Flyway in RED. Cupertino and Bay Area show a major amount of activity. • • • • CC 01-19-21 #15 Mobile Vending Regulations Ordinance Written Comments 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Kirsten Squarcia Sent:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 9:44 PM To:Peggy Griffin Cc:City Clerk Subject:RE: Request-Copy of presentation for CC Agenda Item 15 mobile vendors Attachments:CC 01-19-2021 Item No. 15 Mobile Vending Ordinance_Staff Presentation.pdf Hi Peggy, Please see attached and we will make sure to update the website. Thanks, Kirsten Kirsten Squarcia City Clerk City Manager's Office KirstenS@cupertino.org (408) 777-3225 From: Peggy Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 9:40 PM To: City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Subject: Request‐Copy of presentation for CC Agenda Item 15 mobile vendors 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, Could you post and send copies of the slide presentation for Item 15 Mobile Vendors please? It’s not included in the Presentation downloaded. Thanks, Peggy Griffin 1 City Council Meeting Mobile Vending Ordinance January 19, 2021 Jeff Tsumura, Associate Planner Piu Ghosh, Planning Manager Angela Tsui, Economic Development Manager Consider amendments to Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) to: Modify existing Mobile Vending regulations for in compliance with SB 946 Conforming edits to Titles 5 and 13 of CMC Item 2 1 2 CC 1-19-2021 Item No. 15 2 Economic Development Strategic Plan (EDSP) adopted in October 2016 Motorized Mobile Vendor (food trucks and other mobile services) Regulations identified as key issue due to: Growing popularity and Increased reliance by consumers As part of work on EDSP initiatives, Mobile Vendors Regulations and/or standards included in the City’s work program since FY17/18 Background 3 SB 946 (eff. Jan. 1, 2019) adopted in 2018 established limitations to local regulations for sidewalk vending Changes to Cupertino’s muni code are required Background 4 3 4 3 Adopt regulations for sidewalk vending ONLY Comments re: not adopting motorized mobile vendor regulations: Regulations too lenient; would negatively impact existing brick and mortar businesses, already impacted by pandemic Regulations too restrictive; would disallow services (such as mobile hairdressers, mobile dentists, mobile car washing etc.) on exclusively non-residential property. PC Recommendation (3-2-0 vote) 5 1. Conform to SB 946, which includes updating use of existing terms for consistency (e.g., “solicitors” and “peddlers”) 2. Establish process and regulations for how use will be regulated by City in order to allow proper enforcement and compliance. Purpose of Mobile Vendors Ordinance Update 6 5 6 4 SB 946 Safe Sidewalk Vending Act Background on SB 946 7 SB 946 defines “sidewalk vendor” as a person who sells food or merchandise from a pushcart, stand, display, pedal-driven cart, wagon, showcase, rack or other nonmotorized conveyance, or from one's person, on a public sidewalk or other pedestrian path. Sidewalk Vendors Definition 8 7 8 5 Stationary sidewalk vendor Fixed location Defined period during day and Removes facility daily Roaming sidewalk vendor Moves from place to place and Stops only to complete a transaction Sidewalk Vendors Definition 9 Local Regulations for SB 946 10 9 10 6 Mobile Vending Ordinance Updates 11 Type of vendors Location Hours of operation Duration Prohibited Locations Sidewalk Vendors as Required by SB 946 12 Locations Exclusively Non-Residential Exclusively Residential Parks Stationary Allowed on sidewalks Prohibited on sidewalks Allowed, except if park has concessions contract with another party Roaming Allowed, sidewalks Allowed, sidewalks Allowed, sidewalks 11 12 7 Sidewalk Vendors as Required by SB 946 13 Hours and Duration Exclusively Non-Residential Exclusively Residential Parks Sidewalks On Private Property Sidewalks On Private Property Stationary 7 AM- 11 PM 7 AM- 11 PM N/A N/A Open hours for parks Roaming 7 AM- 11 PM* 7 AM- 11 PM* 9 AM- 8 PM* N/A Open hours for parks* Total duration at any location is limited to the duration of the transaction, up to a maximum of 15 minutes. Exempt from CEQA by: Section 15378 Section 15061(b)(3) Environmental Review 14 13 14 8 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) Public Noticing and Outreach 15 Introduce and conduct the first reading of the draft ordinance to: Find the proposed actions exempt from CEQA; Adopt regulations to allow sidewalk vending in compliance with SB 946; Find that the restrictions and requirements contained in the regulations are directly related to objective health, safety, and/or public welfare concerns Recommended Action 16 15 16 9 Provide direction: Should draft regulations to allow and/or restrict certain Motorized Mobile) Vendors consistent with FY 20/21 Work Program Item be presented at a later time? Recommended Action (cont.) 17 Questions? 17 18 CC 01-19-21 16 Dark Sky Policies Municipal Code Amendment Written Comments 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Connie Cunningham <cunninghamconniel@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 4:58 PM To:Darcy Paul; Liang Chao; Kitty Moore; Jon Robert Willey; Wei Hung Subject:Fwd: 2021 Jan 19, Agenda item 16: Dark Skies 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, vice mayor, and council members, I missed the 4:30 cutoff for being included in your package. Our electricity went out! It is back on, so I will be joining you later. Sincerely, Connie Cunningham From Connie's iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Connie Cunningham <cunninghamconniel@gmail.com> Date: January 19, 2021 at 4:36:58 PM PST To: citycouncil@cupertino.org Subject: 2021 Jan 19, Agenda item 16: Dark Skies Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor and City Councilmembers, I am writing is support of the Dark Skies Ordinance, Item 16. I urge you to use the Kelvin 2700 rating in lieu of that in the current version before you. I urge you to add a limit of some kind to the time for interior window display lighting to remain on. Would 1 am cover the time need at the various malls in the City? The term “anytime” is just too broad. Birds need to be free of lights that distract them from their destinations. All birds are small and cannot survive long detours from their routes. Our electricity has just gone out, so I will send this now, and add details later. Sincerely, Connie L Cunningham Audubon Member over a decade Have lived in Cupertino 34 years. ⡈⡉⡊⡋⡌⡍⡎⡏Watch out for typos; Siri might be on duty. 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Peggy Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 9:29 PM To:City Council; Erick Serrano; Ellen Yau Cc:Deborah L. Feng; Piu Ghosh Subject:2021-01-19 CC Agenda Item 16-Dark Skies comments and suggestions Attachments:Dark Skies questions and suggestions.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Council Members and Staff, I realize the Dark Skies ordinance has been postponed. I have included my questions and suggestions on the ordinance below and in a PDF. I am FOR both preventing bird collisions and reducing the lights in our city so I’m looking forward to the improvements to the upcoming ordinances. Thank you, Peggy Griffin ISSUE 1: Does this ordinance address the BIG light emitting situations in our city such as ‐ Street lights (our street looks like an airport runway!) ‐ Shopping Centers (Main Street, Old Mervyn’s Shopping Center, Safeway on Homestead area, Target, etc.) ‐ Offices at night including Apple, City Hall, Library, etc. ‐ Parking lots ‐ Schools ISSUE 2: Does ANY permit trigger full compliance? (see below Staff Report and Attachment C) Q1: Does this mean that if a resident upgrades their circuit breaker box then ALL their existing lighting must comply? Q2: Does this mean that ANY permit (water heater, replacing windows, plumbing, etc.) triggers compliance? Staff Report, Page 2, Bullet 1 Attachment C – Redline Ordinance, Page 13, MC 19.102.020 Applicability of regulations ISSUE 3: Hillsides can get exemption without showing it’s not detrimental to the environment (birds/dark skies). 2 SUGGESTION: Change MC 19.40.080 (1) to be “nor be detrimental to the public health, safety and the environment.” (to cover birds and dark skies) ISSUE 4: Are office buildings such as those like Apple’s Infinity Loop required to turn office lights OFF at night? I can’t figure out if this would be required. ISSUE 5: Add definitions  “Low Voltage” – specify lumens or watts  “High intensity lights” – specify lumens, watts or something specific  “Highly reflective glass” – specify an index  “Highly transparent glass” – specify an index Agenda Item #16 – Dark Skies Comments and Suggestions ISSUE 1: Does this ordinance address the BIG light emitting situations in our city such as - Street lights (our street looks like an airport runway!) - Shopping Centers (Main Street, Old Mervyn’s Shopping Center, Safeway on Homestead area, Target, etc.) - Offices at night including Apple, City Hall, Library, etc. - Parking lots - Schools ISSUE 2: Does ANY permit trigger full compliance? (see below Staff Report and Attachment C) Q1: Does this mean that if a resident upgrades their circuit breaker box then ALL their existing lighting must comply? Q2: Does this mean that ANY permit (water heater, replacing windows, plumbing, etc.) triggers compliance? Staff Report, Page 2, Bullet 1 Attachment C – Redline Ordinance, Page 13, MC 19.102.020 Applicability of regulations ISSUE 3: Hillsides can get exemption without showing it’s not detrimental to the environment (birds/dark skies). SUGGESTION: Change MC 19.40.080 (1) to be “nor be detrimental to the public health, safety and the environment.” (to cover birds and dark skies) ISSUE 4: Are office buildings such as those like Apple’s Infinity Loop required to turn office lights OFF at night? I can’t figure out if this would be required. ISSUE 5: Add definitions  “Low Voltage” – specify lumens or watts  “High intensity lights” – specify lumens, watts or something specific  “Highly reflective glass” – specify an index  “Highly transparent glass” – specify an index