Exhibit CC 06-20-2017 Closed Session Item No. 1 Written Communications Lauren Sapudar C C
From: Joseph Fruen <
Sent: Tuesday,June 20, 2017 3:37 PM
To: Barry Chang
Subject: For Public Comment on Agenda Item 1: Closed Session Conference with Legal Counsel
Council Member Chang:
Today's council meeting agenda includes a closed session to discuss anticipated litigation.Based on the June 13,2017 council discussion,I presume
that the topic at issue for this meeting is the potential for taking legal action over San Jose's plans for the Stevens Creek Urban Village(SCUV).
In today's session,I strongly encourage you to obtain exhaustive analysis from the City Attorney in order to adequately weigh the consequences of
pursuing this course of action.In particular,inquire as to what he believes the likely outcomes of any such action would be.Please ask him to provide
his best estimate of the probability of each outcome,and to elaborate on the likely cost of legal action across the range of different scenarios that could
result.Here,the concept of cost should embrace not only the monetary value of gathering evidence,drafting and filing pleadings,appearing in court,
etc.,but also the non-monetary costs of damaging relations between Cupertino and San Jose,up to and including the risk that San Jose would invoke
CEQA to disrupt current and planned development in Cupertino.
I urge you to balance the sum total of these risks and costs against what I fear will be the minimal likelihood of achieving a result more substantial than
mere delay of the SCUV plans.Just because Santa Clara has chosen to abuse CEQA does not mean that Cupertino must or should.Santa Clara obtains
leverage through its litigation that Cupertino lacks.
Surely we can find more productive means for furthering Cupertino's interests regarding the SCUV plans than joining the repetitive tit-for-tat presently
inflaming relations between San Jose and Santa Clara.I would hate to see Cupertino waste money on litigation unlikely to provide our residents with
real--if any--benefits.Similarly,I'm concerned that a legal battle over the SCUV plans would invite the ire of San Jose resulting in retaliatory litigation
against Cupertino,the subsequent delay of our own development plans,the diminution of our city's capacity to govern itself,and toxic relationships
with our neighbors.
I thank you for your careful and thoughtful consideration,
J.R.Fruen
Cupertino resident
Total Control Panel Loin
To:bchana(i,cunertino.om Message Score: 1 High(60): Pass
From: My Spam Blocking Level:High Medium(75):Pass
Low(90): Pass
Block this sender
Block gmail.com
This message was delivered because the contentfilter score did not exceed yourfilter level.
1
Lauren Sapudar CC (n
From: Joseph Fruen <
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 3:40 PM
To: Savita Vaidhyanathan
Cc: Grace Schmidt
Subject: For Public Comment on Agenda Item 1:Closed Session Conference with Legal Counsel
Mayor Vaidhyanathan:
Today's council meeting agenda includes a closed session to discuss anticipated litigation.Based on the June 13,2017 council discussion,I presume
that the topic at issue for this meeting is the potential for taking legal action over San Jose's plans for the Stevens Creek Urban Village(SCUV).
In today's session,I strongly encourage you to obtain exhaustive analysis from the City Attorney in order to adequately weigh the consequences of
pursuing this course of action.In particular,inquire as to what he believes the likely outcomes of any such action would be.Please ask him to provide
his best estimate of the probability of each outcome,and to elaborate on the likely cost of legal action across the range of different scenarios that could
result.Here,the concept of cost should embrace not only the monetary value of gathering evidence,drafting and filing pleadings,appearing in court,
etc.,but also the non-monetary costs of damaging relations between Cupertino and San Jose,up to and including the risk that San Jose would invoke
CEQA to disrupt current and planned development in Cupertino.
I urge you to balance the sum total of these risks and costs against what I fear will be the minimal likelihood of achieving a result more substantial than
mere delay of the SCUV plans.Just because Santa Clara has chosen to abuse CEQA does not mean that Cupertino must or should.Santa Clara obtains
leverage through its litigation that Cupertino lacks.
Surely we can find more productive means for furthering Cupertino's interests regarding the SCUV plans than joining the repetitive tit-for-tat presently
inflaming relations between San Jose and Santa Clara.I would hate to see Cupertino waste money on litigation unlikely to provide our residents with
real--if any--benefits.Similarly,I'm concerned that a legal battle over the SCUV plans would invite the ire of San Jose resulting in retaliatory litigation
against Cupertino,the subsequent delay of our own development plans,the diminution of our city's capacity to govern itself,and toxic relationships
with our neighbors.
I thank you for your careful and thoughtful consideration,
J.R.Fruen
Cupertino resident
Total Control Panel Loin
To:svaidhvanathan(a)cunertino.oria Remove this sender from my allow list
From:
You received this message because the sender is on your allow list.
1
Lauren Sapudar
From: on behalf of Jean Bedord <
Sent: Tuesday,June 20, 2017 3:58 PM
To: Savita Vaidhyanathan; Barry Chang; Rod Sinks
Subject: Public Comment input for Agenda Item 1: Closed Session Conference with Legal Counsel
Mme. Mayor and members of the City Council:
Today's council meeting agenda includes a special closed session to discuss anticipated litigation. Based on the June 13, 2017 council
discussion, my assumption is that the topic for this meeting is to consider taking legal action over San Jose's plans for the Stevens Creek
Urban Village(SCUV).
In this session, I strongly encourage you to obtain extensive analysis from the City Attorney to adequately weigh the consequences of
pursuing this course of action. In particular, inquire as to what he believes the likely outcomes of any such action would be. Frankly, I do
NOT see any outcomes that would benefit Cupertino, other than harassment of another government entity to further a personal political
agenda. The cities of both Cupertino and Santa Clara have already corresponded with San Jose about best harmonizing with
Cupertino's Heart of the City and border issues.
Please ask the city attorney to provide his best estimate of the probability of each outcome, and to elaborate on the likely cost of legal
action across the range of different scenarios that could result.This cost should embrace not only the monetary value of gathering
evidence, drafting and filing pleadings, appearing in court, etc., but also the non-monetary costs of damaqinq relations between
Cupertino and San Jose, up to and including the risk that San Jose would invoke CEQA to disrupt current and planned development in
Cupertino.
Please balance the sum total of these risks and costs against what is most likely simply minimal delay of the SCUV plans. Just because
Santa Clara has chosen to tread this path does not mean that Cupertino must or should. Santa Clara obtains leveraae throuah its
litigation that Cupertino lacks.
Surely the city of Cupertino can find more productive means for furthering our interests regarding the SCUV plans rather than joining the
repetitive tit-for-tat lawsuits that are currently inflaming relations between San Jose and Santa Clara. I hate to see Cupertino waste
monev on litigation hiqhlv unlikely to provide our residents with any real benefits. Similarly, I'm concerned that a legal battle over
the SCUV plans would invite the ire of San Jose resulting in retaliatory litigation against Cupertino, the subsequent delay of our own
development plans, and toxic relationships with our neighbors.
Thank you for your careful consideration,
Jean Bedord
Cupertino resident for over 20 years
Former library commissioner
Total Control Panel Login
To: svaidhvanathanacunertino.org Message Score: 15 High(60): Pa;s
1