Loading...
CC 2-19-19 Closed Session written communications� �� � fr, &~ �� 11��^ � From: LaurenSaoudar Sent: Tuesday, February l9,2O199:29AK4 To: Marilyn K4onrea| Subject: FW: Measure Litigation Attorney's Fees Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Closed Session 1c - Confirm this one with GnaB/Kkrsten, From: Ian Greensides [ian@greensides.com] Sent: Saturday, February 16,2U199:18PM To: City Council Cc: Cupertino City Manager's Office; City Office Subject: Measure C Litigation - Attorney's Fees Dear Council Members, |amwriting to call onthe City Council to seek to recover attorney's fees against the Defendants in the Measure C litigation, including the Committee Supporting Cupertino Citizens' Sensible Growth, Steven Scharf, XiengchenXu, and lGmvindTatachah. Asyou know, this case lost in the Superior Court, lost in the Appellate Court, and then Supreme Court denied review. This case lacked merit, and constitutes frivolous litigation against the City ofCupertino, and caused the city toincur over $200,000 in attorney's fees. The court ruled that the Measure Cballot language was factually correct, and that the Plaintiffs' petition was time barred, because they did not seek a writ of mandate to amend or delete the ballot language within the required 10 day time limit. The city made the resolution and ballot questions publicly available for comment on April 6, 2016. The Plaintiffs waited until June 13,201Gtofile awrit ofmandate. The court denied the writ petition nnAugust 1O, 2016. One week after this, Plaintiffs filed and emergency writ of mandate with the Appellate Court. This writ was summarily denied onAugust 23,2D16 Measure C lost overwhelming at the polls in November 2016, with 61% of the voters rejecting it. |nspite ofthis, Plaintiffs persisted with appellate review, and asserted that "Appellants accept that the election has passed, and that Measure Cfailed, thus putting Appellants' substantive claims inthe trial court beyond the Court's power togrant aneffective remedy." Appellants contended that the court should nonetheless rule on their claims because they raised "several statutory issues of great relevance to the initiative process for the benefit of initiative proponents and opponents, election officials, legal practitioners and courts." The court ruled, "We are not persuaded." The Appellate Court pointed out that the Plaintiffs waited until August 2O17tVfile anopening brief, more than one year after the writ was denied by the Superior Court. This litigationvvasdeadVfhvo|ous,andintended0oinflicthnanda|dom8geupnntheCit«DfCUperdno,toretaiatefor Kisnot clear from the public record whether ornot the CityAttorney's office oroutside counsel served emotion on plaintiffs, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 128.7, which would provide for sanctions and attorney's fees, after the final resolution ofthe case. Even if this motion was not served, or was not an available remedy to a public entity, I encourage the city to consider the filing of a lawsuit against plaintiffs for abuse of process, in order to recover its attorney's fees. If this remedy is not available to a public entity, I urge the city to take any legal steps available to request that the court classify this litigation as having been vexatious and without merit. I understand that the City may have already had these conversations in closed session, and that this issue may have already been addressed. It is deeply troubling that Steven Scharf, as a council member and now as mayor, would maintain a frivolous lawsuit against the city for over two years. I ask that you hold him accountable for the financial damage that he has inflicted upon the city, if there are any remedies available to the city to accomplish this. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Ian R. Greensides l��z ���mm�� To: Message Score: l High (60): Nss prvm:iou@greouuidcw.vmn |MySpam Blocking Level: High Medium (75):Pass Block this sender lDu�cgreomido .com This n7essqgeras delivered because the mntemfilter score did not exceed yourfilter leveL 2 James Moore Vallco Town Center Presentation to 2/19/2019 :3 Closed Session Feb9, 201914:151*07 PM Jarnes Moore Last Friday, I shared the results of my analysis, a Best Case analysis favoring B all o, of the 1,779 residential nit "pre -bonus" Alco Town Center prqiect, I hope OLi had a chance to reMew it, On Sunday, I started to analyze the 2,402 residential units project re its claimed numbers. In addition to my nurn r -based analysis, I've discovered some oddities that may interest you, 1 -he first is how mca square fejet of garage space, on ever age, i allocated per unit. That umber is 598 square feet, and is equivalent get to do the same to inflate the size of our houses, and make them appear larger for selling purposes.