CC 07-03-2018 Item No. 1 Closed Session - Written CommunicationGrace Schmidt
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Joseph Fruen <jrfruen@gmail.com>
Tuesday, July 03, 2018 4:57 PM
City Attorney's Office
City Clerk; Grace Schmidt
Cc 7/s /y
# { cJo p.d_fa_s s .
Subject: Re : Today's closed session on pending litigation: Friends of Better Cupertino v. City of
Cupertino
To the Acting City Attorney and those concerned:
I note that today's closed session of city council includes discussion of an action brought against the City of
Cupertino last Monday by Friends of Better Cupertino (writ petition verified by Caryl Gorska) and Cupertino
residents Kitty Moore, Ignatius Ding, and Peggy Griffin. Owing to Councilmember Steven Scharfs association
with Better Cupertino and its relationship to Friends of Better Cupertino (to the extent that a meaningful
distinction between these two exists), including Mr. Scharfs own litigation against the City of Cupertino now
pending before the Court of Appeal (Committee Supporting Cupertino Citizen's Sensible Growth Initiative, et
al. v. City of Cupertino, et al., Case No . H043940) on his own behalf and in support of Better Cupertino, I ask
that your office carefully consider the potential for waiver of the city's litigation privileges in this matter
through disclosure to a presumed member of the organization presently bringing action against the City of
Cupertino.
As the scope of any waiver of privilege is generally narrowly construed (Manela v. Superior Court, 177 Cal.
App. 4th 1139 (2009)), please carefully consider the nature and extent of any information to be disclosed in
today's session to ensure that the city's litigation privileges may be preserved in future should the Friends of
Better Cupertino action continue. In particular, I highlight the precedents laid down in Rodriguez v . Superior
Court, 14 Cal. App. 4th 1260 (1993), and People v. Hayes , 21 Cal. 4th 1211 (1999), which illustrate how the
disclosure of some information need not constitute a waiver as to all privileged information.
Many thanks for your time and attention,
J.R. Fruen, Esq.
Cupertino resident
408-828-2859
Total Control Panel
To : graces@cupertin o.org
From : jrfrue n@ gmail.com
Remove this sender from my allow list
You received this message because th e sender is on your allo w list.
Grace Schmidt
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Ignatius Y. Ding <ignatius.ding@gmail.com>
Tuesday, July 03, 2018 5:02 PM
Darcy Paul
City Council; City Attorney's Office; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager's Office
Resident communication --re : Item 1 of Special meeting on July 3, 2018 (Legal matter
regarding litigation "Friends of Better Cupertion," et al vs City of Cupertino.
** Please please this letter in the city record archive for future
reference. Thank you.
Dear Mayor Paul and members of the Cupertino City Council,
Despite of repeated clear verbial and written warnings from Cupe1iino residents, based on a
series of extensive research , study, thorough investigation and close analysis in the past few
months , the city staff, who are in charge of the ministerial review and approval of the
development plan for the "Valko Site" submitted by developer/owner Sand Hill Property under
the state legislation SB35 , have chosen to overlook or ignore the colossal failure to meet
many critical criteria stipulated by the California state laws, including SB35.
That has made it necessary for the residents and a community organization, i.e. the "Friends of
Better Cupertino," to file a "Mandamus Petition" in the Superior Court of the Santa Clara
County to demand the city to perform it ~Judicial duty to properly examine the said
development proposal according to all lelevant government codes, regulations and laws.
The lawsuit is now pending between "Friends of Better Cupertino" and the City of Cupe1iino.
The City Council has the legal obligation and responsibility to the voters to provide oversight
and guidance in this matter that would have tremendous impact to the future of the city and the
quality of life of all current and future Cupertino residents .
. . . Among other things, this court petition details why the proposed "Vallco Site"
development project is NOT eligible for SB35 benefits because
1. it does not offer 2/3 residential square footage; and
11. the site is listed on the statewide hazardous waste site list
1
Also, as noted on p. 22 of the document, the Valko project does not comply with
the General Plan in that some of the proposed buildings offer no first-floor
commercial facilities.
Numerous other eligibility issues are discussed in detail in Exhibits 5, 6 and 7.
Under the SB35 statute, the entire application fails if any one of the eligibility
criteria is not satisfied.
We demand the city to do its due diligence!!
In short ...
By filing the "writ of mandamus petition" before the legal 90 day deadline in
conjunction with City's filing of its formal response, i.e. "the eligibility letter for the
Vallco Town Center SB 35 Application," the "Friends of Better Cupertino" has, in
turn, preserved its right to challenge the substantive aspects of the City 's "eligibility
approval" of the application.
Filing this Petition has become necessary all because either the city staff, including the acting
city manager and the planning staff, are completely incompetent or unconscionably colluding
with the developer, or both to fail performing their legally required duty to ascertain the
applicant of the Vallco project to fully comply with the state laws, including the paiiicular
criteria mandated by the SB35 that developer is trying to take advantage of.
A majority of the council members has repeatedly obstructed the eff01i to remove
the provisional 2 million square feet of office space allocation at the Vallco site.
We are all painfully aware the ongoing and rapidly deteriorating housing sho1iage
crisis in Cupertino and in the Greater San Francisco Bay Area. The deliberate attempt
by the city staff and ce1iain members of the city council to collude with commercial
developers to push an agenda to continue building more offices, while there is no
demand or shortage nor it's desirable or supp01ied by the majority of the Cupe1iino
residents ( as demonstrated in the defeat of Measure D in 2016), it would gravely
worsen the imbalance of the office and housing supply ratio as time and again warned
by various experts and nonpaiiisan independent organizations.
We strongly urge the city council to take immediate corrective actions to remedy its
own failure.
Thanks you for your attention .
Ignatius Y. Ding
2
41-year resident of Cupertino
T otal C ontrol Pa ne l
To: cityclerk(rv.cu pertino.o rg
From: ignatius .ding@gmail.com
Remove this sender from my allow list
You received this message because the sender is on your allow li st.
3