The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCC 05-03-2022 Oral_Communications_Late_Written_CommunicationsCC 05-03-2022 Written Communications Oral Communications 2018 Vallco SB-35 vs The Rise 2022 Square Footage Comparison 2018 Vallco SB-35 vs. The Rise 2022 with “air space above 15 ft.” NOTES:  Total Residential Unit Area is 704,726 sf increase  Loss of Residential Amenity Area is -509,491 sf  Loss of Office Space of -7,953 sf  Loss of Retail Space of -56,504 sf  Total Floor Area increase of -92,644 sf 2018 Vallco SB-35 vs. The Rise 2022 without “air space above 15 ft.” NOTES:  Total Residential Unit Area is 664,674 sf increase in useable space!  Total Floor Area – 500,000 sq. ft. increase in useable space!  Loss of Residential Amenity Area is -439,380 sf in useable space  Increase of Office Space of 150,446 sf of useable space  Increase of Retail Space of 8,833 sf of useable space  Total Floor Area increase of 503,229 sf of useable space! SUMMARY:  Over 500,000 sf increase in useable space!  Previous employee counts are off due to this increase.  Previous residential counts are off due to this increase.  CUSD and FUHSD must re-do their demographics! There’s impacts to o Schools o Boundaries 2018 SB-35 Vallco Towers vs. 2022 SB-35 Towers BLOCK 9 BLOCK 10 2022 SB-35 Modification 2018 SB-35 Plan 2018 SB-35 Vallco Towers vs. 2022 SB-35 Towers BLOCK 3 BLOCK 2 From:Connie Cunningham To:City Council; City Clerk Subject:Oral Communications, May 3, 2022, City Council Meeting Date:Tuesday, May 3, 2022 7:39:18 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. This email is the written copy of my Oral Communications tonight about the Housing Element. 2022-5-3 Oral Communications, City Council Dear Mayor, Council, Manager, City Staff and Public: On 2022-4-26, I attended the Planning Commission meeting on the Housing Element. The Housing Element is due January 2023. It is the plan for adding 4588 housing units to Cupertino’s housing stock. I am particularly concerned with the possibility of displacement of people from their existing homes. Displacement Projects: The site inventory presented that night cited several possible building sites that would result in mass displacement of existing renters. (in some cases, without even adding more density!) One calculation shows 600+ families would be displaced under this plan as described that night. There was talk of culling sites from those on that site inventory list. Given the possibilities for displacement, it is appropriate to keep the numbers of sites large. I am very concerned about displacement. As you heard in a previous City Council meeting on another topic, there are 97 homes in Cupertino’s existing Below Market Rate (BMR) housing program that will be possibly maturing out of our system in the next four years. I urge that we look at sites for our Housing Element that will not displace people. Specific questions addressing this issue of culling sites. There were two lists: Recommended sites and Not recommended sites I asked that the report be revised to please tell us what the reasons were for including or not including sites on the list and map. Land use policies may be a reason that owners haven’t made offers of interest. Example: three sites together or independently would be excellent for new housing. Located on Stevens Creek Blvd near transit, shopping and education at De Anza College. --[if !supportLists]-->a. 20784 Stevens Creek Blvd – former Pizza Hut (empty for several years) is not on either list. Neither recommended nor not recommended. Why? --[if !supportLists]-->b.  20840 Stevens Creek Blvd – former Fontana’s Restaurant (empty) is on List of Not Recommended. Why ? --[if !supportLists]-->c. 20830 Steven Creek Blvd—existing Staples store is on list of Not Recommended. Have we approached the owner? Due to its location it could be merged with these two other properties for an excellent multi-family building. Lastly, I think that the Heart of the City is an excellent place to put multi-family housing because of transit along Stevens Creek Blvd, access to shopping and education at sites around the city, including De Anza College. Sincerely, Connie Cunningham, Housing Commission (self only) From:Kiran Chaudry To:City Clerk Subject:May 3, 2022 Oral Communications Date:Tuesday, May 3, 2022 5:01:18 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. For oral communications at City Council, May 3, 2022 Dear City Council: I watched the April 26th meeting of the Cupertino Planning Commission with dismay. An organized group of anti-affordable housing residents and non-residents were advocating for segregating housing by income level in Cupertino’s Housing Element. This goes against Cupertino’s efforts to promote inclusionary housing. We should not be trying to increase affordable housing in Cupertino by segregating low- income residents into the most over-crowded areas of our city. This would be a racist act, harking back to the red-lining of the 20th century. These over-crowded areas, which will become even more over-crowded once the Marina, Vallco, Hamptons, and Westport projects are completed, should not have any more units added. Low-income residents in subsidized housing should have access to the same good schools, nice parks, and other amenities as wealthier residents. The anti-affordable housing proponents had a script that continually pointed to the existence of the VTA 23 bus line as a justification for placing large amounts of Cupertino’s RHNA along Stevens Creek Boulevard. Are these groups naïve enough to believe that residents renting or buying housing units along Stevens Creek Boulevard are going to use VTA bus 23 for their transportation needs? This is absurd. Regardless of income, residents need vehicles to go to work, to go shopping, and for leisure activities. I urge you to select as many smaller RHNA sites as possible, spread across the City, for two reasons. First, the owners of the small sites are much more likely to actually build their entitlements. Second, equitably distributing the RHNA entitlements spreads housing, both affordable and market-rate, throughout the City, increasing diversity. Cupertino can create a Housing Element that meets HCD approval for AFFH (Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing) and that is respectful of residents regardless of income level. I was also disappointed that commissioner Muni Madhdhipatla was absent and commissioner R. Wang did not stay for the whole meeting. I understand that commissioner Madhdhipatla had a family emergency in India and commissioner Wang was traveling for his job, but the Housing Element is vitally important and all commissioners should be present and prepared. Finally, the consultant, EMC, hired by the City of Cupertino has performed abysmally. They are clueless, incompetent, and come to meetings unprepared. They should never be used by Cupertino again. Sincerely Kiran Chaudry chaudry.kiran.s@outlook.com, From:A Jasper To:A Jasper; City Clerk Subject:For May 3 Cupertino City Council meeting: comments from Cupertino Little League Board member regarding athletic fields fees Date:Tuesday, May 3, 2022 5:01:00 PM Attachments:image.png image.png image.png image.png image.png image.png image.png image.png 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. Re-sending my comments for tonight's meeting. Sincerely, Amy Jasper, Cupertino Little League Board member -----Original Message----- From: A Jasper <amyjasper@earthlink.net> Sent: Apr 19, 2022 7:51 PM To: <cityclerk@cupertino.org> Subject: comments from Cupertino Little League Board member Fw: [CLL Board] Fwd: City Council Meeting 4/19 - Fee Schedule Update Re-sending my comments for tonight's meeting. Dear City Clerk, Here are my comments regarding the increase of field use fees. Increased field use fees have caused increased registration fees whichcause lower enrollment. In short, we have to pass the increased costs toCupertino residents. Spring 2021, we had over 40 (maybe 50?) T-ball players.Spring 2022, we doubled registration fees and we have barely have halfthe number of players at 23 T-ball players.If a Cupertino resident sees an empty ball field and wants to use it, most likelythey will play on it Wwithout paying for it. Thank you, Amy Jasper, Cupertino Little League Board member amyjasper@earthlink.net cell 408-506-2913 -----Forwarded Message----- From: Steve Damozonio <president@cupertinolittleleague.org> Sent: Apr 17, 2022 6:03 PM To: CLL Board of Directors <board@cupertinolittleleague.org> Subject: [CLL Board] Fwd: City Council Meeting 4/19 - Fee Schedule Update Fee changes for next year are on the agenda. Steve ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Karen Levy <KarenL@cupertino.org> Date: Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 1:32 PM Subject: City Council Meeting 4/19 - Fee Schedule Update To: Hemant Buch (buchhemant@yahoo.com) <buchhemant@yahoo.com>, Aeron Lauv (laeron@gmail.com) <laeron@gmail.com>, Anurag Gupta - Golden Triangle Soccer <anuraggupta32@hotmail.com>, coachartzim@gmail.com <coachartzim@gmail.com>, Dave <dreuters@gmail.com>, Kenny C <mu95014@gmail.com>, Kinjal Buch (calcricket_academy@yahoo.com) <calcricket_academy@yahoo.com>, leighagillis@gmail.com <leighagillis@gmail.com>, Satheesh Madhathil (sat_k@yahoo.com) <sat_k@yahoo.com>, Steve Damozonio <president@cupertinolittleleague.org>, Veronica Sanchez <veronica@usyvl.org> Dear Youth Sports Organizations, The Fiscal Year 2022-23 Fee Schedule Update has been agendized for the Tuesday, April 19 City Council meeting that starts at 6:45 p.m. The meeting materials, including the agenda with information on how to join the meeting, can be found here. Please note, this meeting will be hybrid, the agenda gives information on in-person or virtual attendance. The Fee schedule update will include the field use fees approved by City Council at their May 4, 2021 meeting. The pertinent fee changes are highlighted below. Groups will now pay per hour. The fees for 7.1.21-6.30.22 are: Resident, nonprofit youth organizations --$5/hour/field Non-resident, nonprofit youth organizations--$15/hour/field When deciding on fees, City Council said fees would go to the original proposed numbers the following year (7.1.22-6.30.23). Resident, nonprofit youth organizations --$10/hour/field Non-resident, nonprofit youth organizations--$30/hour/field Thank you, Joanne Magrini Director of Parks and Recreation Parks and Recreation JoanneMa@cupertino.org (408) 777-3226 -- Steve Damozonio CLL President -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CLL Board of Directors" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to board+unsubscribe@cupertinolittleleague.org. CC 04-19-2022 Item No. 1 Consider a Study Session on the Capitol Improvements Program including review of the five-year CIP (FY 22-27 Written Communications Memorial Park Adopted Requrements -Proposed Conceptual Design Liang Chao Shared at May 3, 2022 Council Meeting Splash pad from Parks and Rec Master Plan Under “4.C Expand swimming and water play opportunities.” Item 4.C.i - "continue to operate Blackberry Farm pool complex" without expanding, but to "pursue expanding the swimming season". Item 4.C.iv - "Provide more water play features (splash pads/spray play areas/ interactive water features) for play in warm weather, geographically dispersed in the city." The splashpad at Blackberry Farm pool complex seeks to expand the pool complex without expanding the operating days. That is not complying with the item 4.C.i nor Item 4.c.iv in the Parks and Rec Master Plan. Parks and Rec Master Plan - Chapter 4 For Memorial Park: Immediate ●Develop a site master plan Short Term ●Pathway, seating, amphitheater, pond re-purposing Longer Term ●Improve existing facilities; add recreational opportunities Parks and Rec Master Plan - Chapter 5 For Memorial Park: ●Master Plan is a necessary first step BEFORE needed implemented can be made ●Master Plan effort will include a robust engagement process … for the community to weigh in. ●Then, move quickly to repurpose and renovate the inactive pond area ● Parks and Rec Master Plan - Chapter 4 Potential Elements at Memorial Park: ●Nature play ●Playable water channel ●Splash Pads ●Spray play area ●Sand play area In adopted FY19-20 CIP plan: Under “Existing and Completely Funded Projects” ●Memorial Park Master Plan & Parking Study” - $150,000 ○“A process to obtain community input and consensus will assist in formulating plans to renovate portions of the park including parking requirements and upgrades for surrounding facilities.” Under “Other Unfunded Projects” section ●Project: Memorial Park – Tennis Court Restroom Replacement - $625,000 ●Project: Memorial Park Phase 1 – Pond Removal - $1.5M ●Project: Memorial Park Phase 2 Improvements - Design $350,000 + Construction - $2,500,000 (p ●Project: Memorial Park Phase 3 Improvements - Design $350,000 + Construction - $2,425,000 In adopted FY19-20 CIP plan: Under “Existing and Completely Funded Projects” ●Memorial Park Master Plan & Parking Study” - $150,000 (done in house) ○“A process to obtain community input and consensus will assist in formulating plans to renovate portions of the park including parking requirements and upgrades for surrounding facilities.” Under “Other Unfunded Projects” section ●Project: Memorial Park – Tennis Court Restroom Replacement - $625,000 ●Project: Memorial Park Phase 1 – Pond Removal - $1.5M ●Project: Memorial Park Phase 2 Improvements - Design $350,000 + Construction - $2,500,000 (p ●Project: Memorial Park Phase 3 Improvements - Design $350,000 + Construction - $2,425,000 “Immediate” Step idenfied in Parks and Rec Master Plan Amphitheater Improvement “Short Term” Step idenfied in Parks and Rec Master Plan In adopted FY21-22 CIP plan: Only current projects are listed in the FY21-22 CIP plan. (No “other unfunded projects” list in this CIP plan.) ●Memorial Park – Pond Repurposing - $3M ●Memorial Park – Amphitheater Improvements - $1.15M ●Memorial Park – Specific Plan Design - $0.5M In adopted FY21-22 CIP plan: Only current projects are listed in the FY21-22 CIP plan. (No “other unfunded projects” list in this CIP plan.) ●Memorial Park – Pond Repurposing - $3M ●Memorial Park – Amphitheater Improvements - $1.15M ●Memorial Park – Specific Plan Design - $0.5M No master plan p r o c e s s t o “obtain commu n i t y i n p u t ” s o that “consens u s w i l l a s s i s t i n formulating pl a n s ” ? Memorial Park Pond Repurposing - scope changed in the CIP dashboard The project description for the "Memorial Park – Pond Repurposing" is changed from "preparing the site for future development" in FY19-20 and in FY21-22 to "turfed area and adequate irrigation to ensure quality surface" in the CIP dashboard. De Anza Sports Center Senior Center Quinlin Center Splash Pad Outdoor Event Space - Concrete Pavement Small Pond How about a plash pad and a Concrete area for Farmers’ Market or Outdoor Ping pong etc. These are all mentioned in Parks and Rec Master Plan for Memorial Park: -Splash pad -Playable water channel -Sand play -Nature Play -Event space Playable Water Channel Sand Play and Nature Play Splash Pad in Parks - simpler version Ideas from Parks and Rec Master Plan Splash Pad in Parks - simpler version Splash Pad in Parks - moderate Splash Pad in Parks - more elaborate Water Channel + Sand Play Playable Water Area + Sand Play Water + Sand + Nature Play Extras De Anza Senior Center Sports Center Quinlin Center There is already plenty turfed area City Hall Renovation - Not New City Hall -And Torre Ave. Building Liang Chao Shared at May 3, 2022 Council Meeting Aug. 2015 Council request Financing Plan for $70M, against spending $5M for design Council decided NOT to pursue a new City Hall after reviewing financing options Plan chosen includes underground parking & EOC FY21-22 CIP: “City Hall and Community Hall Improvements - Programming and Feasibility” (from the adopted FY21-22 CIP narratives) Project Description Programming, Feasibility and Community Outreach to form the basis of a renovation strategy for the buildings. Project Justification City Hall: The existing building does not meet current or projected needs for office space; structural, mechanical and other code-related modifications are needed to meet code standards. Community Hall: Use of the building could be maximized with the addition of conference space and remodeled kitchen space. Status and/or Projected Schedule In this fiscal year, the project goal is to complete programming, feasibility and cost studies, conceptual design. FY23 will focus on Design and Construction. FY21-22 CIP: “City Hall and Community Hall Improvements - Programming and Feasibility” (the FY21-22 CIP narrative from 2021-06-15 CC agenda) Project Description Programming, Feasibility and Community Outreach to form the basis of a renovation strategy for the buildings. Project Justification City Hall: The existing building does not meet current or projected needs for office space; structural, mechanical and other code-related modifications are needed to meet code standards. Community Hall: Use of the building could be maximized with the addition of conference space and remodeled kitchen space. Status and/or Projected Schedule In this fiscal year, the project goal is to complete programming, feasibility and cost studies, conceptual design. FY23 will focus on Design and Construction. No mention of a p a r k i n g g a r a g e , No mention of y e t a n o t h e r seismic analys i s , No mention a N e w C i t y H a l l 10455 Torre Avenue Improvements (City Hall Annex) - $3M (FY21-22 CIP project) 10455 Torre Avenue is a 5,730 square foot building purchased by the City in 2020 with about $3M dollars. Project Description (from FY21-22 CIP narrative) Program and plan facility improvements required for interim facility to accommodate staff when City Hall is remodeled, as well as the long-term use of this facility. The scope of work will include programming, planning and construction . Minor alterations may be necessary to accommodate current building lessees. Status and/or Projected Schedule (from FY21-22 CIP narrative) In this fiscal year, the project goal is to complete programming and conceptual design, and to implement strategic upgrades that do not adversely impact current lessees. 10455 Torre Avenue Improvements (City Hall Annex) - $3M (FY21-22 CIP project) 10455 Torre Avenue is a 5,730 square foot building purchased by the City in 2020. Project Description (from FY21-22 CIP narrative) Program and plan facility improvements required for interim facility to accommodate staff when City Hall is remodeled, as well as the long-term use of this facility. The scope of work will include programming, planning and construction . Minor alterations may be necessary to accommodate current building lessees. Status and/or Projected Schedule (from FY21-22 CIP narrative) In this fiscal year, the project goal is to complete programming and conceptual design, and to implement strategic upgrades that do not adversely impact current lessees. Where is the Co u n c i l d i r e c t i o n a n d the public inpu t o n “ t h e l o n g t e r m use of this faci l i t y ” f u n d e d w i t h $ 6 M taxpayer dolla r s ? 10455 Torre Avenue Improvements (City Hall Annex) - $3M (FY21-22 CIP project) Update to the “10455 Torre Avenue Improvements” project from the 2022-05-03 CIP Study Session The CIP project includes programming, planning and building improvements to facilitate use of the facility. The proposed use is to house a portion of community-serving staff functions both during and after anticipated construction work at City Hall. Programming and initial planning have been completed, with final design and construction are anticipated to take place in 2022 – 2023. The intent of design is to create flexible workspace with conference rooms. Update to the “10455 Torre Avenue Improvements” project from the 2022-05-03 CIP Study Session The CIP project includes programming, planning and building improvements to facilitate use of the facility. The proposed use is to house a portion of community-serving staff functions both during and after anticipated construction work at City Hall. Programming and initial planning have been completed, with final design and construction are anticipated to take place in 2022 – 2023. The intent of design is to create flexible workspace with conference rooms. 10455 Torre Avenue Improvements (City Hall Annex) - $3M (FY21-22 CIP project) The “programm i n g a n d i n i t i a l planning have b e e n c o m p l e t e d ” , b u t the Council an d t h e p u b l i c h a s n o t weighed in yet o n “ t h e l o n g t e r m u s e of this facility” . Unfunded Major Projects -City Hall - $70M -Memorial Park Improvement -Bike path projects: I-280 trail, Pacific railway trail, Stevens Creek/De Anza and Bollinger infrastructure, Carmen Bridge -Renovation and earthquake retrofits of other city buildings and community centers -Implementation of Parks and Rec Master Plan -Major recreation facilities: Aquatics, -Blackberry Golf Course - improve or redo -Stevens Creek Corridor Plan - From:Peggy Griffin To:City Council Cc:City Clerk Subject:2022-05-03 CC Study Session CIP - City Owned Properties-Add Torre Ave Date:Tuesday, May 3, 2022 5:10:06 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Council, The last new CIP Project for FY22-23 that is listed are for “Inspection Reports and Analysis” of the Stocklmeir, Bryne and Blesch properties. REQUEST: Add the new Torre Ave property to this list! Sincerely, Peggy Griffin From:Peggy Griffin To:City Council Cc:City Clerk Subject:2022-05-03 CC Study Session CIP - New CIP Projects #5 replace with Memorial Park Master Plan! Date:Tuesday, May 3, 2022 5:03:57 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Council, New CIP Projects for FY 2022-23 #5 Major Recreation Facilities: Use and Market Analysis #5 “Major Recreation Facilities…” What happened to the Master Plan for Memorial Park? The public has been waiting for public outreach and to provide comments but instead, bits and pieces of it are being worked on in-lieu of a master plan! PLEASE replace this item with a Master Plan for Memorial Park then we can break up the improvements into yearly chunks. Sincerely, Peggy Griffin From:Peggy Griffin To:City Council Cc:City Clerk Subject:2022-05-03 CC Study Session CIP - CITY HALL & LIBRARY PARKING GARAGE-3 STORIES!!! Date:Tuesday, May 3, 2022 4:43:52 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Council, Another FY22-23 New CIP Project is “City Hall Renovation/Replacement and Library Parking Garage: Design and Construction” First, there is NO PUBLIC SUPPORT for a 3-story above ground parking garage. The city is about finished with the Regnart Creek Trail that goes along the creek so people can enjoy nature and walk/ride bikes and now you are going to turn it into a CONCRETE CANYON!!! What’s natural about that? What about the residents that this 3-story garage will loom over? Is it 3 floors plus parking on the top, too? That always is snuck in so it becomes 3-story but 4 floors of parking. So at night, car lights will shine over the homes. So much for dark skies! LIBRARY FIELD…Are they planning to take another chunk out of it? It needs to become a park so that snippets of it don’t keep disappearing! Second, the City Hall…Yes, it needs to be addressed but where was the public comment? There was a design; money spent on a design; what about it? That previous design had underground parking. What are the requirements? Shouldn’t these be discussed in public? This is public land, public space and the public uses it a lot! I agree that “something” needs to be done but requirements need to be publicly discussed and a list first. Sincerely, Peggy Griffin From:Peggy Griffin To:City Council Cc:City Clerk Subject:2022-05-03 CC Study Session CIP - SPLASH PAD Date:Tuesday, May 3, 2022 4:31:37 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Council, In looking at the New Projects for FY 22-23, #1 was a Splash Pad for Blackberry Farm at a budget of $500k! The description says it replaces the “slide feature” which is at one end of the pool so $500k didn’t make sense until I saw this video below: https://www.constructorasenqueretaro.com/how-to-build/how-much-does-it-cost-to-build-a- commercial-splash-pad.html Now, I’m wondering if this means the entire pool is going to be replaced by this “Splash Pad”? If so, where’s the public comment on changing Blackberry Farm – the “master plan”? If it’s not replacing the pool, how big is this pad? Where’s it going? What space is being taken over by this pad? Safety, contamination… Is this cleaner than a pool? From the above descriptions, it grossed me out! Please ask questions regarding this CIP Project. Sincerely, Peggy Griffin CC 05-03-2022 Item No. 22 Consider proposed resolutions for submission to the United States Conference of Mayors Annual Meeting held from June 3-6, 2022 Written Communications Cupertino City Council Meeting May 3rd, 2022 Item 22 lftU1 ~ 22.. Cl f-J-22.. f1t--1 or f CA. u I S1+ oi. -1-e wiu,.. +-- Statement of Mayor Darcy Paul Regarding Proposed Resolutions by the City of Cupertino to the United States Conference of Mayors Thank you to my colleagues on the Cupertino City Council for considering my proposed Resolutions to the upcoming United States Conference of Mayors, which will be taking place next month, from June 2nd to June 6th. With regard to the proposed Resolutions set forth this evening, I appreciate your leave to make a few comments. These three proposed Resolutions are entitled, first, "Accurate Public Information in a Digital Age"; second, "Financial Disclosure of Special-Interest Lobbying"; and third, "Democratic Principles for Open and Effective Public Discourse." Colleagues, I am not asking for monetary support with these proposed Resolutions, but I do very strongly believe that the principles represented and espoused within them are critically important for us, not just as a community, but as a society, to be able to function effectively. Let me share with you a recent experience along these lines. People often say to me, "Why doesn't our local newspaper cover local news of import to the community?" That is an excellent question. From my perspective, it is not for a lack of trying. I have repeatedly during my terms in elected office asked our local reporters to cover our local events of significance. But instead of doing so, it frequently turns out to be the case that there is no interest in doing so. In fact, exactly this happened last week. I was asked by a reporter for a local publication about prior comments during a study session on Cupertino's lobbying ordinance, which does exist and which is not unique. You would think that the ability to have some actual efficacy to an ordinance that requires people who are being paid to represent special interests to disclose the fact that they are being paid to affect the decisions of government officials would not even be remotely newsworthy. You would think that, instead, the Library in our City, which sees nearly a million patrons a year despite being the only Library in the Santa Clara County Library system not having a dedicated public-meeting space, would make news when we go through years- long community-wide efforts to deliver precisely that type of space to the community and public, would be newsworthy. But no. Apparently a request to cover the latter is not even worth the courtesy of a response from the reporter. That is one reason why I think that we need to support the proposed Resolution regarding lobbying. We need to stand with the side of disclosure if moneyed interests are seeking to determine decision-making in our democratic process. That is an absolute pre-requisite to intelligent and informed decision-making. That is the subject of my second proposed Resolution. Similarly, the first Resolution, regarding accurate public information, is also critically necessary to support. This is self-evident. If the public is being presented with inaccurate and untruthful information posing as, for instance, news, then this is a disservice to our democratic process. This is about efficacy in decision-making. We have a system that is about freedom, but page 1 of 3 Statement of Mayor Darcy Paul it is also about self-governance and informed decision-making. Do we have a problem? My answer to this is, yes, we absolutely have a problem, and we need as a society to address the spread of misinformation and lies in our electoral process in a manner that preserves our freedoms, on the one hand, but also recognizes that the underlying core value of the notion that we have a democracy of the people, by the people and for the people, is that the people must be able to have trust in the information set forth in front of them when engaging in the process of democratic decision-making. Finally, I ask your support for the third proposed Resolution, which relates to how we are to proceed not just with preventing the corruption of our system, but realizing and continuing to enhance its promise. We are so very fortunate to have each other. I absolutely and unwaveringly acknowledge that point. And I know that our system is premised upon, among other factors, checks and balances to ensure that, for instance, the agglomeration of power does not adhere towards smaller and smaller groups in the population. But I also believe that if we look at any given issue that may seem intractable, we can also break that issue down into parts dealing with currently existing interests, theoretical solutions, and then policy-making that can help address the influences and requirements of the former and encourage the development of the latter. My point here is that, if we have open and honest conversations, that is precisely what our system of governance is about. I have been most opposed in my experiences in public office to those instances where any of these parts have devolved. Where we mislead for personal or financial gain . Where we smear for no reason other than not even a sense that the ends justify the means but because we want what we want and we think that some person or people are getting in the way, but because we go down this road too far, we lose our ability to think at all. Where we don't think through the steps needed to go about solving a problem comprehensively and successfully. And this is exactly where we stand right now, colleagues. We are at a critical inflection point in democracy. Do we allow paid-for outright lies, on any and every side of an issue, to continue to erode our conversations? Do we allow moneyed interests to continue with activities heedless of the actual repercussions of undisclosed paid-for lobbying? Do we allow the system to become so corrupted that those who are fighting and sacrificing to solve our problems are the ones who are pilloried? Is every mechanism that we have to enlighten, to elevate and to improve, subject to greed and gaslighting to a degree that the quality of the conversation and the results mean nothing at all? I submit to you, respectfully, that if we let this continue, then it is not a community that is at stake and in jeopardy. It is every community. It is the system itself. On the other hand, if we remember our starting principles, and we remember why we are spending the time here today, communicating with each other, trying to bring to light and air concerns, trying to understand not in the vacuum of accuracy or informed by enmity causing us to attack each other anonymously, then we have something unique, worth preserving, worth sacrificing for, and worth constantly re-examining and improving. We have a system that strives to listen and to understand, and we are every one of us then truly lucky to have each other as colleagues in bringing forth these types of understandings and solutions. Cupertino City Council Meeting, Item 22 May 3, 2022 page 2 of 3 Statement of Mayor Darcy Paul Thank you for your kind and thoughtful consideration of these proposed Resolutions. While the proposed Resolutions are perhaps not of a typical style in that they do not ask for financial support, everything in my background and experience tells me that they are the principles that we as a society must support, and that this is the time, this inflection point in technology, in health, and in congregation, to take such a stand. And I thank you, my fellow Councilmembers, for standing with me as we have worked together to reach out to each and every part of this community and beyond in order to have more open and direct communications. We all know what the real work entails, and that it is not always easy or pleasant, which is to say that mostly it is difficult and stressful. I thank you for your fellowship and integrity, and I ask for your support here. Cupertino City Council Meeting, Item 22 May 3, 2022 page 3 of 3