CC 10-07-2025 Oral CommunicationsCC 10-07-2025
Oral
Communications
Written Comments
From:Jean Bedord
To:City Council; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Attorney"s Office; City Clerk
Subject:Oral Communications - Email Abuse, City Council, Oct. 7, 2025
Date:Sunday, October 5, 2025 7:27:46 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.
Please include in the public record for this meeting
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore, Councilmembers Fruen, Mohan and Wang,
At the Mayor Chao's Chat on Sept. 8, the Chair of the Planning Commission, Santosh Rao,
complained about lack of action regarding resident complaints, chastising staff for not getting
complaints resolved according to his timeline. Further investigation identified the real
problem - staff are spending an inordinate amount of time researching and responding to
city council emails, instead of doing their job of providing resident services. About 90%
of staff time is generally programmed to be spent on operations and services to
residents per the City Work Program.
A Public Records Act (PRA) identified the time sink –councilmembers,
particularly Mayor Liang Chao, have usurped staff time for extensive, often
intrusive, and personalized demands. PRA-195 provides a log of all
councilmember email requests from January to July, 2025, totaling 3,524 emails to
the city manager and other city staff, including the contract city attorney. Mayor
Liang Chao is by far the biggest offender, with 66% of total emails, many of which
tread deep into the realm of operational micromanagement at odds with the council-
manager form of government.
Total
emails Chao Moore Fruen Mohan Wang
January 362 292 13 10 27 20
February 314 230 24 10 30 20
March 402 282 51 12 37 20
April 559 381 82 15 30 51
May 766 561 66 27 53 59
June 578 306 129 12 30 101
July 543 269 185 9 47 33
7 months 3,524 2,321 550 95 254 304
Percentage 66%16%3%7%9%
Why is this abuse important? A report by the city’s own internal auditor Moss
Adams, Enterprise Leadership Assessment Report, specifically addresses abuse of
email beginning bottom of pg.12, extending to pg. 13 (ppg. 14-15 in PDF format).:
“In terms of communication, one of the most frequently cited ongoing
challenges is related to email requests from Council members. As
documented in the 2023 Internal Review and reported by interviewed staff,
several Council members have continued the practice of sending a high
volume of emails, averaging 50-70 initial emails per week, not counting any
follow-up emails. This practice is ineffective for communication purposes,
creates significant workload for staff, and is widely perceived to be an
obstruction tactic. Council members at times request responses to questions
posed by the public as if they were the Council members’ own. This pass-
through of information requests without vetting creates work efforts where it
may not be effective or even considered in the decision-making process.
The City’s Municipal Code provision § 2.17.043 clarifies that the City Manager
may determine when individual council member requests are overly onerous
(and thus should be directed to staff through a collective instruction from
the entire City Council). The code states that the following guidelines should
be considered when making this judgement:
A. Is the request specific and limited in scope so that staff can respond without
altering other priorities and with only minimal delay to other assignments?
B. Is the request a "one time" work requirement, as opposed to an on-going
work requirement?
C. Does the response to a request require a significant allocation of staff
resources (generally defined as consisting of more than one staff person, or a
single staff person working on the request in excess of two hours)?
However, staff report that it has been challenging to exercise these guidelines
in a practical, consistent, and productive way. Several interviewed staff
noted that it has been extremely challenging to accomplish operational
work given the number of staff hours required to respond to these
requests, in addition to preparing staff reports and materials for regular
Council meetings. As noted in the Meeting Cadence and Processes section,
the City management team has expanded the practice of offering 1:1
preparation meetings to City Council members as an option for more efficient
and direct communication.“
Based on this PRA response, Councilmembers appear to have returned to the habit
of intruding into the City Manager’s domain in violation of the Municipal Code. I
urge Mayor Chao to set up regular one-on-one meetings with the City Manager
instead of bombarding her and staff with a deluge of demanding emails This practice
of “governance by email” was specifically called out in the Civil Grand Jury Report
(pg. 7)and the follow-on Independent Investigator’s Fact Finding Report. (pg.14-15).
I urge the council to significantly reduce the number of emails using one-on-one
meetings to communicate, and let our very competent city staff do their jobs. Isn't it
time to be responsible?
Good governance advocate,
Jean Bedord
From:Santosh Rao
To:City Council; Tina Kapoor; City Clerk; Benjamin Fu
Subject:Future agenda item to permit mobile food operators (food trucks).
Date:Sunday, October 5, 2025 7:38:09 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 in written communications for the upcoming council meeting.
[Writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident]
Dear Mayor Chao and Council Members,
I respectfully urge you to please add a future council agenda item to modify the CupertinoMunicipal Code to explicitly establish a permitting process for mobile food operators (foodtrucks). Nearby cities such as Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, Milpitas, and San Jose alreadyprovide such opportunities, but Cupertino does not.
While food trucks may appear to compete with existing restaurants, they can in factcomplement them by drawing additional foot traffic to Cupertino. Visitors who come forfood trucks often stay longer, explore our restaurants, and shop at nearby businesses.Food trucks expand dining options, offer more affordable choices, and increase culinarydiversity—benefits that strengthen the overall local economy.
As Cupertino loses retail centers such as the erstwhile Oaks, the upcoming loss of Panera,and United Furniture sites, we also lose restaurants that once served those areas. Many ofthese businesses will not return, and it is important to plan ahead to ensure residents andvisitors continue to have diverse and accessible dining options. Allowing food trucks is apractical and flexible way to address this need.
I respectfully request that the City Council agendaize this item or, if feasible, refer it to thePlanning Commission to draft the necessary Municipal Code updates enabling food trucksin Cupertino.
Thank you for your consideration.
Thanks,
San Rao (writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident)
From:Susan
To:Tina Kapoor; Public Comments; Kitty Moore; Sheila Mohan; R "Ray" Wang; Liang Chao; J.R. Fruen
Subject:Mary Avenue Villa,
Date:Thursday, October 2, 2025 5:25:05 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.
Dear Ms. Kapoor, and City Council members,
Although recently I have been learning about the Mary Avenue Villas (MAV), I am still confused …. why there?
It is very concerning to hear disabled individuals, or any person, would want to live at the MVA. They would open
their door and be right on the street. There is no grass, bushes, nor trees, just the street with traffic in front of them,
and a retaining wall in the back. What happens if someone needs assistance to live there? Can they live there? And
parking will be limited, so how do family, friends, and caregivers visit?
Secondly, millions of dollars were spent by the city for the bicycle bridge. At the time it was built, the council stated
Mary Ave was safer than having a route on Stelling Road. Now apparently with neighborhood traffic, and trucks
from the city yard on the street, you consider Mary safe? Apparently, no one has seen how busy the street can be at
times.
The contractor has made changes to the corner of Stevens Creek and Mary. A 5 or 6 story building housing more
people is slated to be built there, which should only add to the congestion in the area. The city has decided to change
the original plans thus eliminating the underground parking, and reduce retail space by more than half. And where
are the occupants supposed to park? Don’t forget the city has decided to take away 89 parking spaces for the
Villas. My understanding is people who are to occupy the MAV are supposed to have shopping near them, was that
also forgotten?
Oh, and what about Memorial Park, the purpose of the city park is to bring our citizens together? There won’t be
nearby parking for the events. Living near the Park, any event there brings in lots of people, and they park on both
sides of the street from Memorial to the dog park. Do our citizens not matter?
The council seems to think we can do away with cars. Well, we can’t. Living and working here requires a car. I
know the parking lot for City Hall and the library is always full. Which means I’ve had to park on the side street
when visiting there.
I really believe in the need for such a project, but please consider the consequences. This is the wrong location, and
it will adversely affect so many people. I’m asking you to reconsider.
Sue Hauser
Resident for ~ 50 years
Sent from my iPad
From:Santosh Rao
To:City Council; Tina Kapoor; City Clerk; Luke Connolly; Benjamin Fu
Subject:Fw: Questions on city obligations due to Mary Ave Villas.
Date:Thursday, October 2, 2025 12:00:35 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.
Dear City Clerk,
Please include the below in written communications for the upcoming city council meeting.
Dear Mayor Chao, Council Members,
Writing as a resident only on my own behalf.
I implore you to please agendaize Mary Ave Villas for one or more study sessions to study the
below previously sent questions and related issues along these lines.
The Mary Ave Villas project is a financial and legal boondoggle for the city. These financial
and legal risks must be fully studied and assessed. Past legal precedent must be carefully
studied albeit in closed session if necessary.
This project cannot move to a ministerial hearing until the financial and legal boondoggle
aspects of it are fully studied and the public hears the responses and can participate with
input.
City council may be negligent of your duty to protect the city from financial and legal risks if
you do not fully evaluate the financial and legal liabilities this project and ground lease will
create and the precedent it sets.
Please urgently agendaize study sessions for this. Further please consider sending this to
planning commission for study sessions and recommendations before sending it back to
council for study sessions.
Finally a new council in November 2026 may decide to undo any hurried passing of this right
now. Please consider the consequences of that and ensure that if you do proceed that any
ground lease contract is written so that it could be terminated at any time and funding clawed
back at any time with the recipient of the funding expected to be able to only drawdown on
funding in stages and with ability to retract and claw back funding provided.
You can be fully 00% assured this will be a November 2026 election campaign issue. While
some who have completed their re-election may feel this does not impact them it
is assured those still up for re-election will have to hear from residents that have long
memories. In 2024 the Linda Vista, Scofeld and McClellan neighborhoods proved that with
their turnout against incumbent and past office bearers who ran. In 2026 they will be joined by
Garden Gate neighborhood as well as all the neighborhoods and residents impacted by the
bike lane projects to ensure that incumbent office bearers hear clearly from them via their
Please do not rush through approvals on Mary Ave Villas. Please send this first to planning
commission for study sessions. Please allow the proceedings of planning commission study
sessions to feed into further council study sessions. Please hold additional community
meetings that are conducted by the city. I believe the city as ground lease owner needs to hold
these meetings and not Charities who are not owners of the land.
Thank you for paying careful attention to the financial and legal liabilities of this project to the
city.
Thanks,
San Rao (representing myself only as a Cupertino resident)
Begin forwarded message:
On Saturday, July 19, 2025, 6:57 AM, Santosh Rao <santo_a_rao@yahoo.com> wrote:
[Writing on behalf of myself only, as a Cupertino resident]
Dear Mayor Chao, Acting Manager Kapoor, CAO and Director Fu, Deputy
Director Connolly, Director Mosley,
I asked a number of questions during public comment on Mary Ave Villas. How
does the community get answers to these questions.
The council voted to move ahead with a number of topics that were not
deliberated on. You owe it to residents and taxpayers to thoroughly debate and
deliberate on those questions and protect the city from any issues both fiscally and
legally.
My public comment is here again for your recap:
Cupertino City Council Meeting - July 15, 2025 (Part 2)
Cupertino City Council Meeting - July
15, 2025 (Part 2)
A number of questions:
1. There is case precedent on Article 34 applying to projects involving a city
ground lease that was run by a third party operator with city financial support,
either with BMR funds or bond money. There are multiple case precedents in fact.
Why do these not apply. Please be very thoughtful and deliberate on this so as to
protect the city from liabilities.
2. Will the city hold title on the ground lease and in documents with debt and
equity providers. If so is the city partly liable for issues arising from operator
insolvency, operator non-compliance to financial or state/federal/county law
obligations.
3. Is the project operations funded from cash from operations. Or does it depend
on ongoing city BMR funds in part. What financial ongoing obligations may the
city potentially incur in an unforeseen manner due to this project.
4. What happens if Charities goes insolvent / declared bankruptcy on this project.
5. What happens if the Rotary cannot meet its obligations in any form including
financially for the project including ongoing operations.
6. Can the city be sued by occupants, vendors, residents or anyone else or
someone representing them as the city is the land owner. Please investigate this
thoroughly as there is precedent here.
6. What prevents Charities from selling this property to another commercial party
that will no longer operate the intended use but convert to regular multifamily.
How will you mandate this parcel remain 100% affordable and for IDD in
proposed form.
7. Will the city have to takeover operations if no operator can be found.
8. Will the city have to handle move out of occupants if Charities files for
bankruptcy on this project and no operator can be found.
9. Will the city need to subsidize this project for operations or for future operators
to continue should Charities be unable to.
10. What is the history of any past project like this. What is the longest tenure of a
third party operator successfully operating such a project in a public agency
ground lease without a sale, change of use, bankruptcy, or needing ongoing public
agency support from the land owner.
By City of Cupertino
11. What are the covenant clauses that place obligations on the city from debt and
from any state and federal laws involving this type of housing.
12. You have set a precedent where any buffered bike lane with side walk or
parking could be converted into a parcel and handed over by-right to an operator
in the name of affordable housing only to be sold in a few years for regular
commercial use. Is that your understanding as well. If not what prevents this. You
just reduced a road lane on DeAnza. By the precedent set you could have set any
number of parcels could be created from that DeAnza Blvd road lane you
reclaimed. What would prevent that.
13. Please share contact information for Charities so residents may separately ask
these and other questions to them
Please ensure questions are thoroughly deliberated and thoughtfully addressed
rather than prematurely dismissed.
Thank you.
Thanks,
San Rao (writing in behalf of myself only, as a Cupertino resident)
From:Vidya Gurikar
To:City Clerk; City Council; Chad Mosley; Matt Schroeder; Tina Kapoor; David Stillman
Subject:ATP
Date:Monday, September 29, 2025 1:20:40 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.
> Dear City Clerk,
>
> Please include in written communications for upcoming council meeting. Please include as feedback for ATP.
>
> Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
>
> ATP is focussed on active transportation such as bike lanes, walking etc. It does not do anything for roadways,
traffic management etc.
>
> Majority of the Cupertino residents rely on cars for their transportation. As such the city should keep these
residents needs in all transportation planning.
>
> Please scale back on continued bike lane projects, removal of street parking, removal of right turns on red,
removal of right turn roadway space and capability due to concrete cinder block bike lanes etc.
>
> Please defund and cancel ATP and focus instead on road safety with technology such as speeding cameras, red
light cameras, cross walk sensors and in-crosswalk LEDs, traffic management, retention of street parking, retention
of right turn capability on roads, increased traffic patrolling.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Shrividya Gurikar
>
>
From:Mahesh Gurikar
To:City Clerk; City Council; David Stillman; Matt Schroeder; Tina Kapoor; Chad Mosley
Subject:ATP
Date:Monday, September 29, 2025 1:06:55 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.
Dear City Clerk,
Please include in written communications for upcoming council meeting. Please include as feedback for ATP.
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
ATP is focussed on active transportation such as bike lanes, walking etc. It does not do anything for roadways,
traffic management etc.
Majority of the Cupertino residents rely on cars for their transportation. As such the city should keep these residents
needs in all transportation planning.
Please scale back on continued bike lane projects, removal of street parking, removal of right turns on red, removal
of right turn roadway space and capability due to concrete cinder block bike lanes etc.
Please defund and cancel ATP and focus instead on road safety with technology such as speeding cameras, red light
cameras, cross walk sensors and in-crosswalk LEDs, traffic management, retention of street parking, retention of
right turn capability on roads, increased traffic patrolling.
Thank you,
Mahesh Gurikar