Loading...
CC 09-16-2025 Oral Communications _2CC 09-16-2025 Oral Communications Written Comments From:Seema Lindskog To:City Council; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Subject:Fwd: Defamatory claims and intimidating actions targeting me by Planning Commission Chair Santosh Rao Date:Tuesday, September 16, 2025 11:00:54 AM 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. Resending this email with a few edits. City Clerk, please add to the public record for today's council meeting. I plan to speak to it in oral communications. Thanks, Seema ___________________________________________________________________ Dear City Councilmembers and Interim City Manager Kapoor, I have recently been made aware of defamatory claims and intimidating actions specifically targeting me by Planning Commission Chair Santosh Rao to the City Council and to the Sheriff’s office in the week of September 8, 2025. Given the seriousness of the defamatory behavior and claims, I am writing this email to set the record straight and ask for protection from further attacks by Chair Rao. Moreover, his repeated misrepresentations and misuse of his office violate the Cupertino Code of Ethics and Conduct for Elected and Appointed Officials, and I ask that you require him to apologize to me unreservedly and further ask that you take disciplinary action against him, up to and including his removal from the Planning Commission. With regard to the Monday Mayor’s Chat on September 8, 2025 – Chair Rao sent an email to the City Council accusing me and other residents who are known to actively support bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure of having been “rude, condescending and disrespectful” toward the Mayor. I unequivocally reject this false and defamatory assertion and there are several witnesses who would be happy to confirm as much under oath. While there was passionate discussion, everyone raised a hand to speak, there were never any raised voices, and no one spoke in a hostile or condescending manner. When a resident in the audience objected to the discussion with the bike ped supporters, Mayor Chao defended it and said it was a good opportunity for back and forth dialogue and she welcomed it. She then continued to debate with the bike ped supporters for several minutes after that. After the meeting ended, Mayor Chao mingled with bike ped supporters for 15 minutes, chatting and laughing, and handing out reflective bands as city gifts. In the same email to Council, Chair Rao also mentions the community meeting held by the city last year on the De Anza Boulevard buffered bike lanes on September 12, 2024. Recollections clearly vary significantly on this. My recollection is that it was Chair Rao and his friends who were heckling David Stillman, Public Works Manager, and shouting him down to the extent that Director of Public Works Chad Mosley stepped up and asked them to refrain from this behavior. They nonetheless persisted in shouting down and heckling Mr Stillman, at which point City Manager Pamela Wu had to step up and ask them to stop their disruptive and rude behavior. Again, I have multiple witnesses who will swear to this under oath. Mayor Chao subsequently sent an email to the City Attorney and the Vice Mayor on Thursday September 11, where she confirmed that nothing inappropriate happened during the Mayor's Chat, directly refuting and negating Santosh Rao's assertions. In her email, she remarked: "I do not think anyone was out of line or rude in their questions at the Mayor's meeting. They were asking questions that I would have asked if I were in their shoes. I probably would be as passionate as they were in the tone of voice if not more so." Chair Rao’s twisting of these facts for his own purposes is a deliberately misleading and malicious attack on my character and reputation. He then made things worse by weaponizing this false narrative to claim he felt unsafe because of the Monday exchange with the Mayor, resulting in a request that Sheriff’s deputies be present at the Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday September 9, 2025. Chair Rao’s prompting of this response is a misuse of the powers of his office to attempt to threaten and intimidate me by having me face three Sheriff’s deputies for two hours while participating in the Planning Commission meeting. As you may know, making a false police report is a misdemeanor offense under Penal Code 148.5. Chair Rao knowingly provided false information of a threat to his personal safety resulting in the wasting of public resources, and the hindering of the Sheriff’s office’s ability to pursue actual, critical public safety work. As to Chair Rao’s second letter to the City Council in the same week defaming my character and reputation. Chair Rao attended the Safe Routes to School Working Group meeting on Wednesday September 10, 2025. I was also an attendee in that meeting. While the meeting was in progress, Chair Rao sent an email to the City Council where he stated “There are also Jennifer Shearin and Seema Lindskog attending this and having undue influence and it is unclear what their role is.” How exactly does Chair Rao define “undue influence”? I have been a Safe Routes to School parent representative for about twelve years when my son was at Eaton Elementary, then Lawson Middle School, then Cupertino High School. I am currently a SRTS parent representative for Cupertino High School. I have a right and a duty to be in that meeting and I’m frankly appalled and disheartened by Chair Rao’s attack on my presence there as having “undue influence” without the slightest attempt at backing this up with any substantial reasoning or proof. It is beneath the dignity of his office to be slinging unfounded and disrespectful accusations at a fellow commissioner and this behavior has to stop. Chair Rao uses the fig leaf of “writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident” on his inflammatory and defamatory emails, but that does not protect him as he is transparently using the powers of his office and his relationships with councilmembers to attack me for his own personal gains. Through the behavior cited above, he has – over and over – clearly violated the City of Cupertino Code of Ethics and Conduct for Elected and Appointed Officials (adopted November 7, 2023). The relevant provisions from the Code of Ethics are cited below: Section 3. Conduct of City Officials. The professional and personal conduct of City Officials while exercising their office should be above reproach and avoid situations that create the appearance of impropriety. Officials shall refrain from abusive conduct, personal charges, or verbal attacks upon the character or motives of other City Officials, City staff, or the public. Section 16. Positive Workplace Environment. City Officials should support a positive and constructive workplace environment for City employees and for citizens and businesses dealing with the City. Members should recognize their special role with City employees and in no way create the perception of inappropriate direction to staff. Section 17 (b). City Officials’ Conduct with Each Other in Public Meetings and Private Encounters - Practice civility and decorum in discussions and debate. Difficult questions, challenges, and disagreements with a particular point of view, and criticism of ideas and information are legitimate elements of debate and public discourse of a free democracy in action. Robust discussion and free debate, however, do not justify making belligerent, personal, impertinent, slanderous, threatening, abusive, or disparaging comments. Section 17 (d). City Officials’ Conduct with Each Other in Public Meetings and Private Encounters - Demonstrate effective problem-solving approaches. City Officials have a public stage and have the responsibility to show how individuals with different points of view can find common ground and seek a compromise that benefits the community as a whole. Chair Rao and I have served amicably together on the Planning Commission for almost a year. It is unfortunate that, despite this, he did not choose to simply pick up the phone and call me to discuss his concerns, which would have been the more appropriate behavior of one colleague towards another. Instead, he chose to get the Sheriff’s office involved, in a shocking and unwarranted escalation. That is not a productive way to resolve a perceived concern in any work environment. Making a false police report against me and requesting three sheriff’s deputies to attend the Planning Commission in a blatant attempt to threaten and intimidate a fellow commissioner is clearly a misuse of his office and of public resources by Chair Rao for his own personal vendetta. Because of his behavior, I feel unsafe being in a meeting with Chair Rao, afraid of what false accusations he will make against me or whether he will try to get me arrested on false charges. At a minimum, his behavior is an extraordinary violation of the Cupertino Code of Ethics and Conduct for Elected and Appointed Officials. Accordingly, I ask that Council conduct its oversight responsibility and discipline Chair Rao–up to and including removing him from his position on the Planning Commission. Regards, Seema Lindskog Planning Commissioner City of Cupertino ___________________________________________________________________ "You must be the change you want to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi This message is from my personal email account. I am only writing as myself, not as a representative or spokesperson for any other organization. From:Santosh Rao To:City Clerk; City Council; Tina Kapoor; Rachelle Sander Subject:Fw: City’s General Fund is subsidizing non-residents. Date:Tuesday, September 16, 2025 10:49:04 AM 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 Clerk, Please include the below in written communications for items not on agenda for the 09/16/25 city council meeting. Thanks, San Rao (writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident) [Writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident] Dear Mayor Chao, Council Members, Interim Manager Kapoor, Cupertino General fund is used to fund the Cupertino Senior Center whereas other parks and rec facilities are funded by the Enterprise Fund. Unlike other parks and rec facilities the Senior Center is not required to cover its costs. 50% of Cupertino Senior Center are non-residents. What is the city subsidizing out of the General Fund per non-resident. I ask you to agendaize this item or work with Interim Manager Kapoor and Director Sander to address this with the goal that the city does not spend any dollars subsidizing non-residents. The Senior Center is a crown jewel of Cupertino. We must subsidize our resident seniors. We are under no obligation to spend our general fund dollars subsidizing non-residents. Please share what is the subsidy per member, and what is the plan to raise fees on non-residents to cover all costs and maybe even cover the costs of our seniors. We should significantly raise pricing on non-residents to where this center is not being burdened by non-residents. Our residents cannot get enrolled in Senior Center programs when enrollment opens. Please also have this looked into so that enrollment opens for residents a few days ahead of enrollment for non-residents. Thank you. San Rao (writing on behalf of myself only, as a Cupertino resident) From:Henry Widjaja To:Public Comments Cc:City Council; Liang Chao; Kitty Moore; Sheila Mohan; J.R. Fruen; R "Ray" Wang Subject:Brown Act Concern Regarding Public Comment Time Limit Date:Tuesday, September 16, 2025 10:38:23 AM 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 Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore, and Councilmembers Fruen, Mohan, and Wang: I am writing today under written communications to express concern regarding Mayor Chao's modification of public comment time and on a singular item during the September 3rd City Council meeting. Additionally, I seek to address the fact that one public speaker was permitted 2 minutes and 15 seconds of speaking time while everyone else was permitted 1 minute. Specifically, I am addressing the reduction from three minutes to one minute regarding the discussion of the 9/3 City Council Meeting's Item 19: Options on Commission Oversight of Transportation Matters. For reference, this is listed as Item 22 on the upcoming meeting agenda. Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore, and Councilmember Wang voted YES on a motion to modify the time spontaneously. Councilmembers Mohan and Fruen voted NO. Under California Government Code § 54954.3(b)(1) of the Brown Act: "The legislative body of a local agency may adopt reasonable regulations to ensure that the intent of subdivision (a) is carried out, including, but not limited to, regulations limiting the total amount of time allocated for public testimony on particular issues and for each individual speaker.", where (a) states that every regular meeting agenda must provide an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item within the legislative body’s jurisdiction. Per this statute, legislative bodies may adopt reasonable regulations to manage public comment, including time limits. However, the statute's definition of "reasonable" has been defined by past Case Law and statutory language to be content-neutral, reasonably justified, and pre-established, rather than imposed spontaneously. Mayor Chao's action taken during the meeting raises multiple concerns under these standards. Case law, including Baca v. Moreno Valley Unified School District and Acosta v. City of Costa Mesa, makes clear that selectively suppressing public comment on a specific item is impermissible. Ribakoff v. City of Long Beach supported that actions against public comment MUST be content-neutral. The reduction applied only to Item 19 at the end of the meeting, limiting public input on that particular issue. Additionally, Mayor Chao and the City Clerk permitted speaker Jennifer Griffin 2 minutes and 15 seconds of speaking time. This is in clear violation of reasonable regulations as Griffin was allotted a disproportionately large amount of time to provide public comment. This, alongside previous Case Law, makes the public comment limitation content and viewpoint specific. As noted in Ribakoff v. City of Long Beach, time limits must be applied to facilitate meeting efficiency, but only when such limits are reasonable and enforced under content neutrality. The 9/3 City Council meeting could have been extended to accommodate full three-minute comments for all speakers. In fact, City Council meetings have run later than they did in the last meeting. In this instance, there were multiple speakers, but ample time existed to extend the meeting, so reducing speaking time was not necessary, and therefore not justified. In addition, spontaneous and unjustified changes imposed during a meeting, especially during the discussion of an item are inherently unreasonable. They prevent meaningful participation, apply selectively to specific agenda items, and disrupt the predictability of the public comment process. The change was decided and announced during the meeting itself, giving no prior notice to speakers, a limit on public comment effectiveness and implicitly preventing full participation. Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore, and Councilmember Wang voted YES on this motion spontaneously. Brown Act precedent emphasizes that alterations of public comment rules, and especially under spontaneity, undermine transparency and public access. With respect to the Brown Act concerns, the modification of public comment time also conflicts with internal policies governing Council meetings. Mayor Chao’s Policies on Public Comment, Section 4 states: “For items on the agenda, I will make every effort not to shorten speaking times unless there is an extraordinary number of speakers requiring such a measure.” City Council Procedures Manual, Section 8.5 – Public Comment states: “Each individual speaker will ordinarily have up to three minutes to address the Council. … If a large number of speakers wish to address Council on an item, the Mayor may reduce the time allotted to each speaker consistent with the Brown Act.” In this case, while there were multiple speakers, there was sufficient time to extend the meeting. Reducing speaking time on the spot therefore did not comply with Mayor Chao nor City Council's own stated policies. Although there were multiple speakers, the reduction to one minute was not consistent with either the Brown Act or the Council’s own procedures, as the meeting could have been extended and the reduction was applied selectively to a single agenda item. It is also ironic that Mayor Chao did not implement Section 4 of her policies when Jennifer Griffin was allotted 2 minutes and 15 seconds of speaking time - as implementing Section 4 would have allotted all other speakers a respective 2 minutes and 15 seconds. Taken together, these policy violations compound a possible limitation on public participation, which is both procedurally and legally problematic under the Brown Act. By spontaneously reducing public comment speaking time for Item 19 and ending the meeting immediately afterward, Mayor Chao caused a significant limitation of public input on the agenda item. I ask Mayor Chao and the involved members of City Council in this decision - namely Vice Mayor Moore and Councilmember Wang - to consider reviewing the implementation of public comment time limits to ensure compliance with legal standards and to honor the public’s right to meaningfully comment on all agenda items, including the upcoming Item 22 discussion. Sincerely, Henry Widjaja -----Original Message----- From: Richard Lowenthal <richard@lowenthal.com> Sent: Monday, September 15, 2025 11:21 PM To: City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>; City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org>; Cupertino City Manager's Office <citymanager@cupertino.org> Subject: Petition All - Here’s a petition I’m planning on presenting to you tomorrow. These are people who would like me to donate a parcel of land to the City to extend Varian Park. I’m up for doing that if you want it. All the best, Richard Lowenthal From:Caroline Gupta To:City Clerk Subject:Oral Comments - City Council 09/16/25 Date:Tuesday, September 16, 2025 2:24:36 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. Hello, I am not sure if this is possible but as part of the public comments I would very much appreciate it if you could play part of this video. It is the City Council session from December 5th, 2022. I would like the part from 2:18:30 to 2:21:07 to be played. The person speaking is Tatiana Mejia, part of the Tessellations family. This is a 3 min testimonial. Best, Caroline Caroline Gupta Director of Facility & Operations Pronouns: she/her/hers Email: caroline.gupta@tessellations.school https://www.name-coach.com/caroline-gupta Curious about what's happening at school this week? Check out our social media feed!