CC 02-01-2022 Oral Communications_ Late_Written Communications (Laserfiche)CC 02-01-2022
Oral
Communications
Written Comments
1
Melissa Robertson
From:Jean Bedord <Jean@bedord.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 1, 2022 8:43 PM
To:City Clerk
Subject:Agenda Item #9 Vallco Legal Expenses - Potential litigation - City Council, February 1, 2022
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.
Please include my oral comments in Written Communications for this meeting
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Good evening, Mayor Paul and council members
My name is Jean Bedord and am a long time Cupertino resident. I asked to have this
Agenda Item 9, Accounts Payable ending January 3, 2022 pulled for clarification.
I am requesting additional explanation for Item # 33273, an invoice paid to Aleshire
and Wynder, LLP for $15,049.62.
My understanding is that this is payment for the services of attorney Sunny Soltani,
who was present at the closed session on January 27 regarding potential litigation
concerning Vallco. I’ve reviewed Accounts Payable records for this law firm. The city of
Cupertino has paid invoices totaling approximately $400,000 to this firm.
My first question is whether this litigation expense is included in the nearly $2 million
budget for the City Attorney?
If this $400,000 is not included in the City Attorney budget, where is it
budgeted? Where is the line item for litigation in our city budget? I do not
remember seeing this rather substantial item in the approved budget for this fiscal year
or last year.
Please provide answers, and more importantly, provide transparency for expenditures
of taxpayer dollars. There is a cost to litigation and residents are entitled to know how
this city council is spending their hard earned money.
2
Thank you.
Jean Bedord
Cupertino resident
1
Melissa Robertson
From:Richard Sandoval <sandovalrichard888@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 1, 2022 7:00 PM
To:City Council; City Clerk; Kirsten Squarcia; City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Oral Communications for February 1st 2022 City Council Meeting
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.
Please have the City Clerk read this during oral communications at the February 1st 2022 City Council
Meeting
Honorable Mayor Paul and City Council members:
Last week I watched the Housing Element Study Session during the Cupertino Planning Commission
meeting. I do not live in Cupertino, I live across the border in West San Jose, but I am concerned
about the Housing Element in Cupertino because it affects west San Jose.
Santa Clara County has 23 active Superfund sites, the most of any county in America. It looks like
there should be a 24th Superfund site, in Cupertino, at the old Vallco Mall. It gets worse every month.
Please address the issue of how future Housing Element sites will be pre-screened for toxic
contamination so the City does not experience a repeat of the fiasco at Vallco. The City should also
do soil testing at the Westport site.
Cupertino dodged a bullet by discovering the Vallco contamination, that the property owner tried to
hide, prior to construction beginning. Building on contaminated land would be as bad as what
happened with the sinking Millennium Tower in San Francisco, costing hundreds of millions of dollars
to remediate. I drove down Wolfe Road this morning and witnessed the excavation taking place to
remove contaminated soil. I wonder where all this toxic soil will be dumped.
Cupertino is extremely fortunate that the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health
has been diligently working to ensure that the site contamination at the Vallco site is remediated. This
is despite County officials coming under enormous pressure, by lobbyists for the property owner, to
direct the Department of Environmental Health to not do their job in an honest, unbiased, and
thorough manner.
Please ensure that the City creates a Housing Element, that meets our RHNA, using sites that are
safe for housing.
No housing, regardless of cost, or income level of the occupants, should be at risk from toxic
contamination. We do not want another Hinkley or Love Canal in our county.
Sincerely
2
Richard Sandoval
West San Jose Resident