Written Communications (Updated 3-09-2023) — Cupertino City Council, March 7, 2023 (part 1 of 5)

CC 03-07-2023
Written
Communications
Oral
Communications
From: E. Poon
To: City Council; City Clerk
Subject: No illuminated sign on 280
Date: Friday, March 3, 2023 8:21:59 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 Cupertino City Council Members,
Please reconsider the decision regarding large illuminated sign visible from 280, as such signs are lacking in elegance and do not reflect the character of our city. 280 is a really beautiful freeway and we would like to keep it nice. Unfortunately, the addition of a big illuminated sign would open the way for other such signs. We should not tolerate even one such sign.

We would appreciate it if the City Council would take the steps to disallow such signs now and in the future.

Regards,
Emily Poon
Resident since 2007
From: Chris DeRoche
To: City Council
Subject: DOLA at Monta Vista
Date: Saturday, March 4, 2023 8:46:10 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.

Hello City Council Members,
I am writing in support of the DOLA at Monta Vista park. It has been great to let my dogs run in the allowed area.

We dog owners pay the same taxes everyone does and this is a very popular use of the park, same as tennis, or the baseball fields. We who use the DOLA have been vigilant in following the rules outlined. It would be a mistake for the city to take away the DOLA. Any decision to remove it is punishing those who have been using it responsibly.

I have heard there are complaints about DOLA dogs leaving the DOLA area. Dogs don't know the exact boundaries of the DOLA, though most of them do a good job of staying within the perimeter. Those of use who use the DOLA do our best to keep our dogs in the DOLA and are 99.9% successful. Every now and then there is a slip up, which is quickly corrected.

I cannot speak to what other dog owners outside the DOLA do. Those dog owners should be held responsible for their behaviors instead of punishing those of us who are following DOLA rules. Similarly, it would be unfair to punish me for the poor driving of my neighbors. I have no authority over them. It just doesn’t make any sense.

It would be helpful for the city to invest in making the DOLA a success. So far, the city set up signs. How about a small fence in strategic areas? Or some low shrubs to help define a perimeter. I notice there are fences around the tennis courts and the baseball fields. Those are there because the city recognizes that some citizens want to enjoy tennis or baseball, and they want to make sure other citizens can enjoy the park without worrying about the rare errant ball flying by. We should have the same consideration given to the DOLA.

Also, I would like to invite representatives from the city to come and observe the DOLA at Monta Vista. This would help the city be better informed on what is actually happening. This would be preferable to relying on a handful of phone calls from a small group of crotchety, animal-hating citizens.

Getting rid of the DOLAs isn't going to solve the problem of a small set of dog owners not obeying park and city rules around animal ownership. But it is going to punish the majority of local dog owners who are using the DOLA responsibly.

I'd like to appeal directly to Council Member Chao. I voted for Ms. Chao specifically because she came to Monta Vista park to talk to dog owners and support our push to have a DOLA. I am hoping she will still actively support our DOLA.

Thank you,
Christopher DeRoche
650.919.4614
Cupertino Resident
From: Peggy Griffin
To: City Council; Christopher Jensen
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 2023-03-07 City Council Mtg - ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - City"s Response to LWVCS lawsuit Oct 17 2022! Date: Saturday, March 4, 2023 1:04:42 AM
Attachments: LWVCS v City of Cupertino-Citys Response Oct 17 2022.pdf 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 this email and the attached document in the 3-7-2023 City Council Meeting Written Communications for ORAL COMMUNICATIONS.

Dear City Council and City Attorney Jensen,
The League of Women Voters lawsuit regarding the city’s lobbyist registration ordinance that was filed in July 2022 was “just in time for the election” fodder. There was a lot of publicity and noise regarding this from the LWVCS. Since the election there has been nothing said regarding the status of this lawsuit.

In searching for information/status regarding this lawsuit, I found that the City of Cupertino filed a response on Oct. 17, 2022 blowing away the LWVCS’s case. This was important information to have had during the election! It appears LWVCS has not responded to the city’s document.

Q1: What’s the status of this lawsuit?
Q2: Was this all an election ploy as it appears to have been? Please give the residents an update on the status of this and all the other lawsuits against the city (YIMBY Action, shed issue, etc.).

Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
Reply I/S/O Mot. To Dismiss
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
James M. Wagstaffe (95535)
Michael von Loewenfeldt (178665)
[email protected]

WAGSTAFFE, VON LOEWENFELDT,

BUSCH & RADWICK LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 2250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 357-8900
Fax: (415) 357-8910
Attorneys for Defendants

CITY OF CUPERTINO, DARCY PAUL, DIANE

THOMPSON, KIRSTEN SQUARCIA, CHRIS

JENSEN, LIANG CHAO, KITTY MOORE,
HUNG WEI, and JOHN WILLEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF

CUPERTINO-SUNNYVALE,
Plaintiff,
v.

CITY OF CUPERTINO, et al.

Defendants.

Case No. 22-cv-04189-JSW

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO

DISMISS
Date: December 2, 2022
Time: 9:00 a.m.

Ctrm: 5
Hon. Jeffrey S. White
Case 4:22-cv-04189-JSW Document 39 Filed 10/17/22 Page 1 of 19 - i -
Reply I/S/O Mot. to Dismiss
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1 II. ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................... 2 A. LWVCS’s Silence Is Louder Than Its Words....................................................... 2 B. LWVCS’s Arguments Are Not Based On The City’s Ordinance......................... 3 C. Lobbyist Registration And Disclosure Laws Are Subject To Exacting Scrutiny Not Strict Scrutiny .................................................................................. 4 D. The Business or Organization Lobbyist Provision Is Not Overbroad .................. 6 E. The Expenditure Lobbyist Provision Is Not Overbroad ..................................... 10 F. Any Purported Constitutional Issue Can Be Resolved By A Narrowing Interpretation ....................................................................................................... 13 III. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 14 Case 4:22-cv-04189-JSW Document 39 Filed 10/17/22 Page 2 of 19 - ii -
Reply I/S/O Mot. to Dismiss
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Astaire v. Best Film & Video Corp.,
116 F.3d 1297, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 41260 (9th Cir. June 20, 1997) ........................ 11 Berger v. City of Seattle,
569 F.3d 1029 (9th Cir. 2009) ........................................................................................ 13 Broadrick v. Oklahoma,
413 U.S. 601 (1973) ........................................................................................................ 13 Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC,
562 U.S. 223 (2011) ........................................................................................................ 11 Buckley v. Vallejo,
424 U.S. 1 (1976) .............................................................................................................. 5 Cal. Bldg. Indus. Ass’n v. State Water Res. Control Bd., 4 Cal. 5th 1032 (2018) .................................................................................................... 11 Citizens United v. FEC,
558 U.S. 310 (2010) .......................................................................................................... 5 City of Austin v. Reagan Nat’l Advert. of Austin, LLC,
142 S. Ct. 1464 (2022) ...................................................................................................... 4 Coates v. Cincinnati,
402 U.S. 611 (1971) ......................................................................................................... 2 Dumbrowski v. Pfister,
380 U.S. 479 (1965) ........................................................................................................ 13 Erzoznik v. City of Jacksonville,
422 U.S. 205 (1975) ........................................................................................................ 13 Fair Political Practices Com. v. Superior Court,
25 Cal. 3d 33 (1979) ............................................................................................. 4, 10, 12 Florida League of Professional Lobbyists v. Meggs,
87 F.3d 457 (11th Cir. 1996) ....................................................................................... 5, 10 Human Life of Wash., Inc. v. Brumsickle, 624 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2010) ............................................................................................ 5 Marquez-Reyes v. Garland, 36 F.4th 1195 (9th Cir. 2022) ......................................................................................... 14 Minn. Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc. v. Kelley, 427 F.3d 1106 (8th Cir. 2005) .......................................................................................... 5 Montanans for Cmty. Dev. v. Mangan,
735 Fed. Appx. 280 (9th Cir. 2018) .................................................................................. 5 Case 4:22-cv-04189-JSW Document 39 Filed 10/17/22 Page 3 of 19 - iii -
Reply I/S/O Mot. to Dismiss
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982) .......................................................................................................... 2 Ohio Right to Life Soc’y v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, No. 2:08-cv-00492, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79165 (S.D. Ohio Sep. 5, 2008) ................................................................................................... 6 Pierce v. Jacobsen, 44 F.4th 853 (9th Cir. 2022) ............................................................................................. 4 Police Dept. of City of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92 (1972) ............................................................................................................ 2 Prison Legal News v. Ryan, 39 F.4th 1121 (9th Cir. 2022) ..................................................................................... 9, 11 Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015) .......................................................................................................... 4 Sheridan Kalorama Historical Ass’n v. D.C. Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 229 A.3d 1246 (D.C. 2020) ............................................................................................. 8 Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000) .......................................................................................................... 2 Summit Bank v. Rogers, 206 Cal. App. 4th 669 (2012) ........................................................................................... 4 Turner Broad. Sys. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622 (1994) .......................................................................................................... 4 United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612 (1954) .................................................................................................... 4, 10 United States v. King, 24 F.4th 1226 (9th Cir. 2022) ......................................................................................... 11 United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (2010) ................................................................................................ 2, 9, 11 United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (2008) .......................................................................................................... 2 Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003) .......................................................................................................... 2 Watchtower Bible and Tract Socy. of New York v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150 (2002) .......................................................................................................... 5 Statutes
2 U.S.C. § 1603 ............................................................................................................................. 6 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3) .................................................................................................................... 8 26 U.S.C. § 501(h) ........................................................................................................................ 8 Case 4:22-cv-04189-JSW Document 39 Filed 10/17/22 Page 4 of 19 - iv -
Reply I/S/O Mot. to Dismiss
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Cal. Gov. Code § 86100 ................................................................................................................ 6 Cal. Gov. Code § 86115 ........................................................................................................ 10, 12 Cal. Gov. Code §§ 82039.5 ........................................................................................................... 6 Cupertino Municipal Code § 2.100.010 ...................................................................................... 14 Cupertino Municipal Code § 2.100.030(n) ................................................................................... 3 Cupertino Municipal Code § 2.100.030(o) ................................................................................... 3 Cupertino Municipal Code § 2.100.030(o)(2) .................................................................. 6, 7, 8, 9 Cupertino Municipal Code § 2.100.030(o)(3) .............................................................. 7, 9, 10, 12 Cupertino Municipal Code § 2.100.030(p)(2) ............................................................................ 11 Cupertino Municipal Code § 2.100.030(p)(9) .............................................................................. 7 Cupertino Municipal Code § 2.100.030(p)(10) ............................................................................ 8 Cupertino Municipal Code § 2.100.090 ........................................................................................ 9 Long Beach Mun. Code § 2.08.020(K)(2) .................................................................................... 6 Long Beach Mun. Code § 2.08.020(K)(3) ............................................................................ 10, 12 Sacramento Mun. Code § 2.15.050 ................................................................................... 6, 10, 12 San Diego Mun. Code § 27.4002 ............................................................................................ 6, 10 San Jose Mun. Code § 12.12.180(B) ............................................................................................ 6 San Jose Mun. Code § 12.12.180(C) .................................................................................... 10, 12 Santa Clara County Code § A3-62(j)(2) ....................................................................................... 6 Santa Clara County Code § A3-62(j)(3) ............................................................................... 10, 12 Santa Clara Mun. Code § 2.155.020(j)(2)..................................................................................... 6 Santa Clara Mun. Code § 2.155.020(j)(3)............................................................................. 10, 12 Other Authorities
Stemler, Platform Advocacy and the Threat to Deliberative Democracy, 78 Md. L. Rev. 105 (2018) ............................................................................................. 10 Case 4:22-cv-04189-JSW Document 39 Filed 10/17/22 Page 5 of 19 - 1 -
Reply I/S/O Mot. to Dismiss
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
I. INTRODUCTION
LWVCS’s opposition ignores the detailed statutory analysis presented in the moving papers. It makes no serious attempt to analyze the specific language of the Cupertino Lobbyist Registration Ordinance, how it compares to similar lobbying registration ordinances at the local, state, or federal level, or how it comports with the existing body of law on registration and reporting requirements. LWVCS does not even separately analyze each of the challenged definitions of lobbyist, address the policies supporting each, or discuss the fit between those policies and the Ordinance’s effect. Nor does LWVCS provide any legal analysis of why the hypothetical applications of the law it insists will occur—despite Cupertino’s contrary interpretation—would be unconstitutional in the first place.

Instead, LWVCS just declares ipse dixit that it is correct, and that the Ordinance is “dangerously overbroad,” “onerous,” “invasive,” “confusing,” and “astonishing.” Adjectives and hyperbole are no substitute for legal argument and provide no basis to facially invalidate a democratically enacted statute.

There is nothing unusual about Cupertino’s Ordinance. It is essentially identical to the County’s ordinance and those of other cities including the state capitol, Sacramento, and its challenged provisions are similar to both state and federal lobbying law. Cupertino has a legitimate, and indeed vital, interest in registration and disclosure of, not just “professional” contract lobbyists, but also businesses or organizations that direct their paid staff to lobby on their behalves, and expenditure lobbyists who fund “Astroturf” lobbying. LWVCS’s apparent belief that only professional lobbyists, lobbying firms, and partisan political actors can constitutionally be required to register as lobbyists has no basis in either constitutional law or common practice. Cupertino’s Ordinance is not unconstitutional in any application, much less in so many that it can be invalidated as facially overbroad. The Court should dismiss this action without leave to amend.

Case 4:22-cv-04189-JSW Document 39 Filed 10/17/22 Page 6 of 19 - 2 -
Reply I/S/O Mot. to Dismiss
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
II. ARGUMENT
A. LWVCS’S SILENCE IS LOUDER THAN ITS WORDS
Before addressing the arguments LWVCS presents in its opposition, it is important to note what LWVCS ignores.

LWVCS ignores the relevant registration and disclosure cases cited in the moving papers, and cites none of its own. Instead, LWVCS presents an argument-by-snippet, citing generic standards or isolated sentences from cases dealing with, for example, child pornography,1 picketing,2 animal cruelty,3 cross burning,4 and abortion.5 This is hardly an issue of first impression; indeed, LWVCS admits that “lobbyist registration requirements across the country have been upheld as constitutional.” Opp’n p. 2:7-8. LWVCS’ choice not to address any of the relevant case law on this topic is telling.

Similarly, LWVCS ignores the other local, state, and federal lobbying laws cited in the moving papers, including the basically identical laws enacted by the County in which Cupertino is located, two neighboring cities, and several others in California. LWVCS makes no attempt to show why Cupertino’s Ordinance is meaningfully different from these similar ordinances.

LWVCS also makes no attempt to distinguish between its eight causes of action, confirming Cupertino’s position that they are effectively identical. See Mot. § IV.C.

Finally, LWVCS makes no attempt to justify its claims against numerous city officials in their official capacity, presenting no opposition to the motion to dismiss those duplicative claims.

See Mot. § IV.B. With no further analysis required, the Court should dismiss each individual defendant from the case.
1 See New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982); United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (2008).
2 See Coates v. Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611 (1971); Police Dept. of City of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92 (1972).
3 United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (2010).
4 Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003).
5 See Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000).

Case 4:22-cv-04189-JSW Document 39 Filed 10/17/22 Page 7 of 19 - 3 -
Reply I/S/O Mot. to Dismiss
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
B. LWVCS’S ARGUMENTS ARE NOT BASED ON THE CITY’S ORDINANCE The arguments LWVCS does make are largely not tied to specific provisions of the challenged Ordinance. Instead of analyzing the statutory language, or responding to the City’s analysis of it, LWVCS continues to make exaggerated assertions about what the Ordinance requires.

LWVCS insists that “members” or “volunteers” are regulated by the Ordinance, despite no statutory language making them so. The opposition also adds “donors” to that baseless list. As discussed in the moving papers, an individual is only required to register as a lobbyist if he or she is a Contract Lobbyist (a category LWVCS does not challenge) or an Expenditure Lobbyist (a category that has nothing to do with being a member, volunteer, or donor of any organization).

Mot. § IV(E)(2)(a); §.030(o)(1)-(3).

LWVCS also claims that the Ordinance applies to people speaking “in their individual capacity” or making “personal complaints.” It cites no provision of the Ordinance for this baseless argument. LWVCS even wildly asserts that “any person” could somehow be considered a lobbyist based on a deliberate misreading of the definition section of the Ordinance:

The plain language of the Ordinance sweeps up far more than the “paid lobbyists” described in Cupertino’s Motion [citation] to designate a wide swath of interested citizens as “Lobbyists.” Under the Ordinance, a Lobbyist is any person who seeks to speak to an organ of Cupertino government “to influence a Legislative Action or Administrative Action of the City.” CMC § 2.100.030(n). As a result, any person who speaks to government, in any of its manifestations in the City, must consider [the Ordinance’s various requirements] in case the Ordinance is applied to them by Cupertino enforcement authorities.

Opp’n p. 9:1-10. This argument is a blatant misrepresentation, and amply illustrates the baseless nature of this lawsuit. Section .030(n) does not define Lobbyist, it defines Lobbying. The Ordinance does not regulate lobbying. It only regulates three specific categories of Lobbyists under section .030(o)(1)-(3). There are absolutely no requirements imposed on people who do not meet one of the three definitions of Lobbyist—Contract, Business or Organization, or Expenditure—whether or not they engage in speech that falls within the definition of lobbying.

Case 4:22-cv-04189-JSW Document 39 Filed 10/17/22 Page 8 of 19 - 4 -
Reply I/S/O Mot. to Dismiss
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
LWVCS argues that the Ordinance creates “confusion” about “whether a League member who has advocated for candidate forums must register to make her personal complaint about garbage collection.” Opp’n p. 10:20-22. There is no confusion. Nothing in the Ordinance requires anyone to register as a lobbyist before making personal complaints about anything. An ordinance is not unconstitutional just because someone aggressively insists on misreading it.

Nothing in Cupertino’s Ordinance requires individuals who want to speak to government on their own behalves, or without compensation for others, to register as lobbyists.

C. LOBBYIST REGISTRATION AND DISCLOSURE LAWS ARE SUBJECT TO EXACTING

SCRUTINY NOT STRICT SCRUTINY
In a footnote, LWVCS attempts to redefine the standard of review as strict scrutiny.

Opp’n p. 5 n.3. It argues ipse dixit that the clear rule from Citizens United discussed in the moving papers does not apply to lobbyist registration but to “a wholly different context with fundamentally different government interests.” LWVCS cites Pierce v. Jacobsen, 44 F.4th 853 (9th Cir. 2022), which invalidated a Montana ban on non-residents collecting signatures in support of ballot initiatives, id. at 863, and Summit Bank v. Rogers, 206 Cal. App. 4th 669 (2012), which invalidated a criminal bank libel statute as violating the First Amendment. Id. at 691-92. Later in its brief, Plaintiff also cites Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015)—a sign ordinance case6
—and Turner Broad. Sys. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622 (1994)—which held that a “must carry” provision in the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 was content-neutral.7
LWVCS is simply wrong. A lobbyist registration and disclosure ordinance does not restrict or prohibit any speech. United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612, 626 (1954); Fair Political Practices Com. v. Superior Court, 25 Cal. 3d 33, 47 (1979) (“FPPC”). Citizens United applied 6 Although not relevant given the clear law setting the standard for lobbyist registration and disclosure, we note that LWVCS over-simplifies Reed’s content based analysis. A law is not content based simply because the content of speech is relevant to the law’s application. See City of Austin v. Reagan Nat’l Advert. of Austin, LLC, 142 S. Ct. 1464, 1473-74 (2022) (sign ordinance was content-neutral even though the sign’s content was relevant). 7 LWVCS makes no attempt to defend the argument in its complaint that the Ordinance is somehow a “prior restraint” or compels speech. (See Mot. p. 7:3-13.) Case 4:22-cv-04189-JSW Document 39 Filed 10/17/22 Page 9 of 19 - 5 -
Reply I/S/O Mot. to Dismiss
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
“exacting scrutiny” to “disclaimer and disclosure requirements” for the same public policy reasons at issue in Harriss. Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, 366-67 (2010); see also Buckley v. Vallejo, 424 U.S. 1, 64-68, 80 (1976). Because they do not regulate what can be said, registration and disclosure requirements are governed by exacting scrutiny, not strict scrutiny.

See Florida League of Professional Lobbyists v. Meggs, 87 F.3d 457, 459-60 (11th Cir. 1996); Montanans for Cmty. Dev. v. Mangan, 735 Fed. Appx. 280, 284 (9th Cir. 2018); Human Life of Wash., Inc. v. Brumsickle, 624 F.3d 990, 1005 (9th Cir. 2010). 8 LWVCS does not cite any case that has invalidated a lobbyist or other politically related registration and reporting law as “content based.” Instead, it argues that Cupertino’s Ordinance is “hardly different from the regulations on solicitation struck down” in Watchtower Bible and Tract Socy. of New York v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150 (2002). Opp’n p. 8. Watchtower challenged an ordinance prohibiting “canvassers” “from going on private property for the purpose of explaining or promoting any ‘cause’” without a permit. The Supreme Court noted that “[f]or over 50 years, the Court has invalidated restrictions on door-to-door canvassing and pamphleteering.” Id. at 160. “It is offensive—not only to the values protected by the First Amendment, but to the very notion of a free society—that in the context of everyday public discourse a citizen must first inform the government of her desire to speak to her neighbors and then obtain a permit to do so.” Id. at 165-66.

The assertion that Cupertino’s commonplace lobbyist registration statute is akin to requiring anyone who wants to talk to a neighbor to get a permit before doing so is risible. As the Southern District of Ohio noted in rejecting the same argument, “Watchtower involved neither candidate election related disclosure, nor lobbying disclosure. The Watchtower Court struck down a municipal license requirement for door-to-door canvassing, but gave no consideration whatsoever to the unique government interests at stake in the context of candidate election 8 We note that the Eighth Circuit has upheld similar laws under strict scrunity without analyzing whether that standard applies. Minn. Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc. v. Kelley, 427 F.3d 1106, 1111 (8th Cir. 2005); Minn. State Ethical Practices Bd. v. Nat'l Rifle Asso., 761 F.2d 509, 511 (8th Cir. 1985).

Case 4:22-cv-04189-JSW Document 39 Filed 10/17/22 Page 10 of 19 - 6 -
Reply I/S/O Mot. to Dismiss
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
advertising and lobbying.” Ohio Right to Life Soc’y v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, No. 2:08-cv00492, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79165, at *31 (S.D. Ohio Sep. 5, 2008).

The appropriate standard here is exacting scrutiny. LWVCS does not even attempt to show that standard is not met.

D. THE BUSINESS OR ORGANIZATION LOBBYIST PROVISION IS NOT OVERBROAD As discussed in the moving papers, the Business or Organization Lobbyist provision regulates businesses or other non-natural persons that instruct their paid officers or employees to lobby on behalf of the business or organization. §.030(o)(2). This type of regulation is common in other cities,9 as well as in state and federal law. Cal. Gov. Code §§ 82039.5, 86100(a)(2); 2 U.S.C. § 1603(a)(1).

LWVCS does not cite any case finding such a provision to be unconstitutional. Indeed, LWVCS never really explains why it thinks the Business or Organization Lobbyist provision— section .030(o)(2)—is unconstitutional. It simply insists, without any legal analysis, that hypotheticals it posits show that it is. LWVCS makes no response to Cupertino’s showing of the interests promoted by the Ordinance. Mot. § IV.E.3. It presents no argument about how those interests are, or are not, met by the hypothetical applications of the Ordinance it poses.

Scattered through LWVCS’s opposition is the implication that the government is somehow only allowed to regulate “professional lobbyists” (Opp’n p. 10) or “corporate lobbying” (Opp’n pp. 10, 12), but cannot regulate non-profits. LWVCS also insists that it is somehow improper to regulate lobbying by “nonpartisan” or “apolitical” groups. Opp’n p. 1.

LWVCS cites no authority for these assertions. As discussed in the moving papers, the government’s interest extends well beyond “professional” lobbyists and similar laws frequently regulate non-profits. Mot. pp. 12-13 (citing authority). LWVCS makes no response on these points.
9 See Santa Clara County Code § A3-62(j)(2); San Jose Mun. Code § 12.12.180(B); Santa Clara Mun. Code § 2.155.020(j)(2); Long Beach Mun. Code § 2.08.020(K)(2); Sacramento Mun.

Code § 2.15.050; San Diego Mun. Code § 27.4002.

Case 4:22-cv-04189-JSW Document 39 Filed 10/17/22 Page 11 of 19 - 7 -
Reply I/S/O Mot. to Dismiss
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
LWVCS also continues to misrepresent the Business or Organization Lobbyist definition and exemptions. LWVCS repeatedly argues that if an organization is a lobbyist under section .030(o)(2), then its employees or members must also register. Opp’n p. 11:16-17, 13:25, 13:28.

As discussed above, an individual cannot—by definition—be a Business or Organization Lobbyist. Nor can donating to an organization make someone an Expenditure Lobbyist. §.030(o)(3) (“The five thousand dollar ($5,000.00) threshold shall not include … dues payments, donations, or other economic consideration paid to an Organization, regardless of whether the dues payments, donations or other economic consideration are used in whole or in part to lobby.”). Nothing in the Ordinance subjects individuals to any obligation or risk based on their relationship with a Business or Organization Lobbyist. LWVCS just makes that up.

Moreover, as discussed in the moving papers, because individuals are not regulated Business or Organization Lobbyists under that provision, the applicable exemptions that are geared toward individual action mean that such exempted action does not count for determining whether an organization is a lobbyist. Mot. p. 13. LWVCS makes no attempt to show why that acknowledgment is unreasonable. Nor does it explain why those exemptions would have any meaning if they only applied to the employees or officers themselves when such persons are, by definition, not regulated lobbyists in the first place.

Abandoning most of the hypotheticals discussed in the complaint and moving papers, LWVCS relies on four as allegedly “unconstitutional” applications of the Ordinance. It ignores Cupertino’s explanation that none are subject to the Ordinance in the first place and, in all events, fails to show how any would be unconstitutional.

First, LWVCS argues that a religious organization might send a minister to “speak to a councilmember to muster support for an affordable housing project.” Opp’n pp. 7, 12. As discussed in the moving papers, a religious organization is a 501(c)(3) and speech by its employee—the minister—is exempt under section .030(p)(9). Cupertino does not regulate this hypothetical conduct. But even if it did, LWVCS offers no authority for its assertion that the Constitution requires allowing religious organizations to pay their employees to lobby without Case 4:22-cv-04189-JSW Document 39 Filed 10/17/22 Page 12 of 19 - 8 -
Reply I/S/O Mot. to Dismiss
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
registration. LWVCS argues that registering would “jeopardize” the institution’s tax exemption.

But that argument confuses cause and effect.

Section 501(c)(3) provides tax exempt status to qualifying organizations if “no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation…” 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3). Section 501(h) allows some level of lobbying, but that exception does not apply to religious organizations. 26 U.S.C. § 501(h)(5)(A). It is thus substantial lobbying activity—as defined by federal tax law—that would jeopardize a 501(c)(3)’s tax exempt status, not registration under a local lobbyist registration statute. See Sheridan Kalorama Historical Ass’n v. D.C. Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 229 A.3d 1246, 1258 (D.C. 2020) (required registration with the Senate irrelevant to 501(c)(3) status where lobbying “was not substantial enough to threaten its tax exemption”.)
Second, LWVCS posits that a “neighborhood group” might “encourage all of its members to write to the Community Development Department to oppose” a building project.

Opp’n p. 7. Unless a neighborhood group hired its “members” as employees to do so—i.e. paid them to lobby—the group is not a lobbyist under .030(o)(2) in the first place. And members of neighborhood groups are expressly exempt under .030(p)(10) in any event. Nothing supports LWVCS’s assertion that a neighborhood group must register as a lobbyist even where there is no lobbying governed by the Ordinance because any activity is exempt. And, again, LWVCS offers no explanation for why the Constitution would prohibit the City from requiring a group that paid its members to lobby to register as a lobbyist, even if exemption .030(p)(10) did not exist.

Similarly, LWVCS argues that “a school PTA asking its members to meet with their councilmembers about road construction” would make the PTA a lobbyist. Opp’n p. 7. Parents pay to join the PTA, not the other way around. PTA members are not employees of the PTA or paid by the PTA to do anything, and thus the PTA is not a lobbyist under .030(o)(2)—unless, of course, the PTA directs paid employees to engage in lobbying on its behalf, in which case it would be subject to the same rules as any other entity that pays for lobbying.

LWVCS also argues that it cannot send a representative to discuss the advertisement of polling locations. As explained in the moving papers, that is not lobbying at all because it does Case 4:22-cv-04189-JSW Document 39 Filed 10/17/22 Page 13 of 19 - 9 -
Reply I/S/O Mot. to Dismiss
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
not involve Legislative Action or Administrative Action, and, unless LWVCS is paying that representative more than just reasonable expenses, such contact would not make LWVCS a lobbyist in any event. Mot. p. 9. LWVCS just ignores these points in its opposition.

LWVCS is a 501(c)(4) entity that is allowed to lobby. But it argues that a related 501(c)(3) Fund—not a party to this case—would have its tax exempt status “jeopardized” if it had to register as a lobbyist. Opp’n pp. 13-14. LWVCS provides no meaningful explanation for why the Fund would ever qualify as a lobbyist under section .030(o)(2). It argues that providing support to LWVCS would make the Fund a lobbyist because the term “influencing” is defined broadly. Opp’n p. 14. But the Ordinance does not regulate “influencing;” it regulates lobbyists.

Neither §.030(o)(2) nor §.030(o)(3) make an entity a lobbyist because it provides financial support to another entity.

And, as discussed above, substantial lobbying activity is what jeopardizes a 501(c)(3)’s tax exemption, not registration. In all events, LWVCS provides no authority for its assertion that the tax-exempt status of an entity is a relevant consideration for whether a lobbyist registration law is constitutional.

LWVCS also argues that the Fund should not be required to disclose its donor and membership lists. Opp’n p. 14. Nothing in the Ordinance requires any registered Business or Organization Lobbyists to disclose their donors or membership lists. §.090. Once again, LWVCS just invents this strawman to attack it.

In sum, none of LWVCS’ strained hypotheticals address conduct regulated by the Ordinance, but even if they did, LWVCS does not show that any such application would violate the Constitution. And in all events, the fact that there could be some hypothetical unconstitutional application of the Ordinance does not support LWVCS’s claims. As LWVCS admits, this is a facial overbreadth challenge. A law may be facially challenged for First Amendment overbreadth only if “a substantial number of its applications are unconstitutional, judged in relation to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep.” Stevens, 559 U.S. at 473; Prison Legal News v. Ryan, 39 F.4th 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 2022). LWVCS does not come close to showing that a substantial number of the Ordinance’s applications are unconstitutional when Case 4:22-cv-04189-JSW Document 39 Filed 10/17/22 Page 14 of 19 - 10 -
Reply I/S/O Mot. to Dismiss
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
compared to its legitimate sweep. It does not even try to do so. Thus, LWVCS’s facial overbreadth claim must also be denied on this basis.

E. THE EXPENDITURE LOBBYIST PROVISION IS NOT OVERBROAD
The other challenged provision—Expenditure Lobbyist—regulates persons who pay for advertising or public relations to cause other people to lobby state officials directly. § .030(o)(3).

Again, similar provisions exist in other cities,10 and in state law. Cal. Gov. Code § 86115(b); FPPC, 25 Cal.3d at 46. Indeed, LWVCS admits in its complaint that this provision “fall[s] more or less within the traditional definition of lobbying, meaning influencing city action for compensation.” Complaint ¶ 42. This provision protects the government interest in identifying the source of legislative pressure and informing the public of the same. Harriss, 347 U.S. at 620, 625; Fla. League of Prof’l Lobbyists, 87 F.3d at 461; Minn. State Ethical Practices Bd., 761 F.2d at 513; see Stemler, Platform Advocacy and the Threat to Deliberative Democracy, 78 MD. L.

REV. 105 (2018).

LWVCS makes no effort to show that these interests do not apply or that they are somehow not advanced by Cupertino’s Ordinance. LWVCS’s entire argument against the Expenditure Lobbyist provision seems to be that one of its “members” publishes a newsletter called “Cupertino Matters” which, among other things, urges residents to contact their public officials about various matters. LWVCS claims that the newsletter’s author no longer advocates such action because she is “chilled” by “uncertainty” over whether she needs to register as an Expenditure Lobbyist.

First, even if we were to assume arguendo that the Ordinance cannot constitutionally be applied to the author of this newsletter, one example does not make the Expenditure Lobbyist provision overbroad. LWVCS makes no attempt to show that “a substantial number of [this provision’s] applications are unconstitutional, judged in relation to the statute’s plainly legitimate 10 See Santa Clara County Code § A3-62(j)(3); San Jose Mun. Code § 12.12.180(C); Santa Clara Mun. Code § 2.155.020(j)(3); Long Beach Mun. Code § 2.08.020(K)(3); Sacramento Mun.

Code § 2.15.050; San Diego Mun. Code § 27.4002.

Case 4:22-cv-04189-JSW Document 39 Filed 10/17/22 Page 15 of 19 - 11 -
Reply I/S/O Mot. to Dismiss
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
sweep.” Stevens, 559 U.S. at 473; Prison Legal News, 39 F.4th at 1129. The Court does not need to address this example in the absence of the requisite larger showing.

Second, as Cupertino has already explained, this newsletter is exempt under the media exemption, section .030(p)(2).
11 Desperate to justify its lawsuit, LWVCS insists that the media exemption only applies to “professional journalists.” Opp’n p. 11. Once again, LWVCS just ignores the statutory language, which says nothing about professional journalists.

Section .030(p)(2) exempts “The Media, when limiting its action to the ordinary course of news gathering or editorial activity, as carried out by members of the press. ‘Media’ shall mean newspapers or any other regularly published periodical, radio or television station or network or information published on the Internet. This exemption does not apply to individuals conducting media activities when that individual would otherwise qualify as a Contract Lobbyist under this chapter.” §.30(p)(2).

A newsletter regularly “published on the Internet” falls within the defined meaning of “Media” in section .030(p)(2). The exemption applies to such a newsletter if it contains “news gathering or editorial activity, as carried out by members of the press.” “As carried out by members of the press” does not mean that only professional journalists qualify; it explains what “news gathering or editorial activity” means: the type of activity carried out by members of the press. As described in the complaint and the opposition, the “Cupertino Matters” newsletter clearly publishes the type of news gathering and editorial information anticipated by this provision. Nothing in the Ordinance limits this exemptions application to “professional journalists.” LWVCS just makes that up.
11 LWVCS claims that the Cupertino Matters publication was “specifically called out” by one councilmember. Opp’n p. 11; Complaint ¶ 34. California law is clear: “we do not consider the motives or understandings of individual legislators who voted for a statute when attempting to construe it.” Cal. Bldg. Indus. Ass’n v. State Water Res. Control Bd., 4 Cal. 5th 1032, 1042-43 (2018); Astaire v. Best Film & Video Corp., 116 F.3d 1297, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 41260, at *17-18 (9th Cir. June 20, 1997). LWVCS also claims that the same councilmember opined in 2022 that news media were engaged in lobbying. Complaint ¶ 38. Post-enactment statements by legislators are also “not a legitimate tool of statutory interpretation.” United States v. King, 24 F.4th 1226, 1232 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC, 562 U.S. 223, 242 (2011)).

Case 4:22-cv-04189-JSW Document 39 Filed 10/17/22 Page 16 of 19 - 12 -
Reply I/S/O Mot. to Dismiss
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
LWVCS also argues that there is some uncertainty about whether its annual expenses are aggregated with this one member’s for purposes of whether she is an Expenditure Lobbyist because she is a member of LWVCS. LWVCS invents that concern too. It points to no language in the Ordinance even suggesting that members of an organization are treated as personally responsible for expenditures of the organization. Finally, insisting that its member is not covered by the press exemption, LWVCS argues that she “may continue to call for community action but only to the extent that doing so costs her less than $5,000.” Opp’n p. 12. LWVCS calls this “astonishing” but makes no legal argument as to why $5,000 per year is an impermissible threshold to require registration of expenditure lobbyists. Nor, as discussed above, does LWVCS make any legal argument that requiring expenditure lobbyists to register is generally unconstitutional.

There is nothing “astonishing” about this threshold. The law upheld in FPPC required registration for spending more than $250 in any month ($3,000 per year) on lobbying activities.

FPPC, 25 Cal. 3d at 46. California Government Code section 86115 currently triggers at $5,000 per quarter, but that covers activity across the whole state, not just one small city. Cal. Gov.

Code § 86115(b). Long Beach, Sacramento, Santa Clara County, Santa Clara City, and San Jose all have the same $5,000 a year threshold as Cupertino. 12 And the Ordinance does not apply to any “call for community action.” It only applies to “soliciting or urging, directly or indirectly, other Persons to communicate directly with any City Official in order to attempt to influence Legislative Action or Administrative Action.” §.030(o)(3).

LWVCS thus makes no showing that any application of the Expenditure Lobbyist provision is unconstitutional, much less that its unconstitutional sweep is so broad as to justify striking down the Ordinance as facially overbroad.
12 See Santa Clara County Code § A3-62(j)(3); San Jose Mun. Code § 12.12.180(C); Santa Clara Mun. Code § 2.155.020(j)(3); Long Beach Mun. Code § 2.08.020(K)(3); Sacramento Mun. Code § 2.15.050.

Case 4:22-cv-04189-JSW Document 39 Filed 10/17/22 Page 17 of 19 - 13 -
Reply I/S/O Mot. to Dismiss
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
F. ANY PURPORTED CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE CAN BE RESOLVED BY A

NARROWING INTERPRETATION
As discussed above, LWVCS fails to show any unconstitutional application of the Business or Organization Lobbyist or Expenditure Lobbyist provisions of Cupertino’s Lobbying Ordinance. That should end the inquiry and warrant granting this motion to dismiss. But even if the Court has some reservations about a particular hypothetical, it should resolve them by construing the statute in a manner that preserves its constitutionality.

A law cannot be facially invalidated as overbroad where “a limiting construction has been or could be placed on the challenged statute.” Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 613 (1973). “It is a well-established principle that statutes will be interpreted to avoid constitutional difficulties. Thus, where an unconstitutionally broad statute is readily subject to a narrowing construction that would eliminate its constitutional deficiencies, we accept that construction.” Berger v. City of Seattle, 569 F.3d 1029, 1046 (9th Cir. 2009) (cleaned up).

LWVCS insists without meaningful discussion that the Ordinance cannot be construed in a constitutional manner, citing Erzoznik v. City of Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205 (1975), and Dumbrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479 (1965). Opp’n p. 15. Neither case is in any way analogous.

Erzoznik invalidated an ordinance prohibiting drive-in theaters from showing movies containing nudity. 422 U.S. at 206-07. That restriction went far beyond what the Court’s obscenity jurisprudence allows. Id. at 213. As for a limiting construction, none was presented to the Court and prior state cases applying the ordinance had not imposed one. Id. at 216-17 & n.15.

Similarly, Dumbrowski allowed civil rights workers to challenge the Louisiana Subversive Activities and Communist Control Law and the Communist Propaganda Control Law, finding, in relevant part, that making it a felony to support “any subversive organization” was unconstitutionally vague. 380 U.S. at 494. The Court unsurprisingly could not conceive of a proper limiting construction for these offensive laws that were being used “to discourage appellants’ civil rights activities.” Id. at 490-91.

Neither case bears any relationship to this one. Cupertino has clearly presented its reasonable interpretation of the Ordinance in its moving papers. That interpretation—which does Case 4:22-cv-04189-JSW Document 39 Filed 10/17/22 Page 18 of 19 - 14 -
Reply I/S/O Mot. to Dismiss
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
not regulate most, if not all, of the conduct LWVCS claims requires registration—is both a reasonable interpretation of any ambiguous language and consistent with the Ordinance’s express intent “to impose registration and disclosure requirements on those engaged in efforts to influence the decisions of City policy makers for Compensation.” §.010. To the extent the Court finds any portions of the Ordinance ambiguous in a manner that calls into question its constitutionality, the Court should—as required—construe the Ordinance in a constitutional manner.

III. CONCLUSION
“[O]verbreadth is ‘strong medicine’ that is not to be ‘casually employed.’” MarquezReyes v. Garland, 36 F.4th 1195, 1201 (9th Cir. 2022) (citation omitted). Here, LWVCS has failed to show any unconstitutional application of the Cupertino Lobbyist Registration Ordinance, much less that it is fatally overbroad. Nor does it argue that these legal questions can be altered by alleging additional facts. Cupertino’s motion should be granted, and this action dismissed without leave to amend.

Respectfully submitted,
DATED: October 17, 2022 WAGSTAFFE, VON LOEWENFELDT,

BUSCH & RADWICK LLP
By

MICHAEL VON LOEWENFELDT
Attorneys for Defendants

CITY OF CUPERTINO, DARCY PAUL, DIANE

THOMPSON, KIRSTEN SQUARCIA, CHRIS

JENSEN, LIANG CHAO, KITTY MOORE,
HUNG WEI, and JOHN WILLEY
Case 4:22-cv-04189-JSW Document 39 Filed 10/17/22 Page 19 of 19 From: Peggy Griffin
To: Christopher Jensen; City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: RE: Lawsuit status Case#23CV410817 - Yimby Law and CA HDF vs. City of Cupertino Date: Saturday, March 4, 2023 12:26:08 AM
Attachments: YIMBY Action Trademark Issue - Attorney JR Fruen.pdf 2023-02-17 Proof of Summons by Anne Paulson.pdf
CalHDF & YIMBY v. Cupertino Petition Stamped.pdf
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 this REVISED email and all attachments as part of the 3-7-2023 City Council Meeting Written Communication for ORAL COMMUNICATIONS.

Dear City Council and City Attorney Jensen,
I forgot to include the link to the YIMBY Action trademark dispute that appears to be still active.

US Trademark Dispute: https://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91269608 I’ve also attached a PDF with the information. Councilmember Fruen is the attorney representing YIMBY Action. Please note that on Page 4 of 7 of “YIMBY Action Trademark Issue – Attorney JR Fruen.pdf”, top of page, #3 “YIMBY Action maintains a network of chapters and affiliated organizations throughout California and the United States who share some or all of its policy aims, and with whom it shares information and expertise.”
As their attorney, Councilmember Fruen should not be involved in any actions or decisions regarding this lawsuit.

Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
From: Peggy Griffin <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 4, 2023 12:13 AM
To: 'Christopher Jensen' <[email protected]>; 'City Council' <[email protected]> Cc: 'City Clerk' <[email protected]>
Subject: Lawsuit status Case#23CV410817 - Yimby Law and CA HDF vs. City of Cupertino Please include this email and all attachments as part of the 3-7-2023 City Council Meeting Written Communication for ORAL COMMUNICATIONS.

Dear City Council and City Attorney Jensen,
I’m sure you are aware that a suit was filed against the City of Cupertino by Yimby Law and California Housing Defense Fund. Nothing has been mentioned in ANY city meeting and there has not been any Closed Session pertaining to this suit. According to public documents, the city was served on 2/17/2023.

REQUEST: Please bring the public and Council up to date on the status of this lawsuit.

CONCERN: I am concerned about the close association of Councilmember Fruen with the petitioners.

He has done work with them and should possibly be recused from participating in any Closed Sessions. All other members of Council should be reminded that information received during a Closed Session should not leave the room or be shared with anyone.

Attached are:

CalHDF and YIMBY v. Cupertino Petition Stamped (filed 2/3/2023) 2023-02-17 Proof of Summons by Anne Paulson (hand delivered to Cupertino on 2-17-2023) Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. https://estta.uspto.gov ESTTA Tracking number: ESTTA1137160
Filing date: 05/29/2021

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Notice of Opposition
Notice is hereby given that the following party opposes registration of the indicated application.

Opposer Information
Name YIMBY Action
Granted to Date
of previous extension
05/29/2021
Address 1260 MISSION ST
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103

UNITED STATES
Attorney information

JOSEPH RYAN FRUEN

MARKS MATTER - SP
6445 BOLLINGER RD
CUPERTINO, CA 95014

UNITED STATES
Primary Email: [email protected]
Secondary Email(s): [email protected]
4088282859
Docket Number
Applicant Information
Application No. 88805531 Publication date 03/30/2021
Opposition Filing
Date
05/29/2021 Opposition Period Ends05/29/2021
Applicant Fedak, Nikolai
1 WEST STREET, APARTMENT 2408
NEW YORK, NY 10004

UNITED STATES
Goods/Services Affected by Opposition
Class 037. First Use: 2011/09/28 First Use In Commerce: 2011/09/28 All goods and services in the class are opposed, namely: Providing information and commentary inthe field of real estate development
Grounds for Opposition
The mark is merely descriptive Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1) No use of mark in commerce before application
or amendment to allege use was filed
Trademark Act Sections 1(a) and (c)
The mark is not inherently distinctive and has not
acquired distinctiveness
Trademark Act Sections 1, 2 and 45; and Section
2(f)
Fraud on the USPTO In re Bose Corp., 580 F.3d 1240, 91 USPQ2d 1938 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
Related ProceedingsOpposer YIMBY Action has a pending application for a composite mark containing the literal element YIMBY under serial number 90155913 Attachments Opposer YIMBY Action - Notice of Opposition to Serial No 88805531 as filed.pdf(1807615 bytes )
Signature /Joseph Ryan Fruen/
Name JOSEPH RYAN FRUEN
Date 05/29/2021

Electronically Filed
by Superior Court of CA,
County of Santa Clara,
on 2/27/2023 11:49 AM
Reviewed By: R. Fleming
Case #23CV410817
Envelope: 11289413
23CV410817
Santa Clara – Civil
R. Fleming
POS-O
A'ITORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and addlem): FOR COURT us Keith Dlggs (State Bar #3441 82) ouLv YIMBY Law
57 Post Street #908 San Francisco, CA 94104
TELEPHONE N0; (703) 409—5198 FAX No. (Optional):

E.MAIL ADDRESS (Optional): [email protected]
ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Yes In My Back Yard SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA STREET ADDRESS: 191 First Street
MAILINGADDRESS: 191 First Street cm AND ZIP CODE: San Jose, CA 951 13 BRANCH NAME: Downtown Superior Court
PLAINTIFFIPETITIONER: (w/Califomia Housing Defense Fund) Yes In My Back Yard CASE NUMBER: DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: City of Cupertino 230V“ 081 Ref. No. or File No.: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS
(Separate proof of service is required for each party served.)

1. At the time of service was at least 18 years of age and not party to this action.

2. sewed copies of:
a. summons
complaint
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) package
Civil Case Cover Sheet (served in complex cases only)
cross-oomplaint
other (specfiy documents): Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate; Civil Lawsuit Notice Party served (special name of party as shown on documents served):

City of Cupenino
b. Person (other than the party in item 3a) served on behalf of an entity or as an authorized agent (and not person under item 5b on whom substituted service was made) (specify name and relationship to the party named in item 3a): Lauren Sapudar, Deputy C'rty Clerk

4. Address where the party was sewed:
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupeflino. CA 95014

5. served the party (check proper box)
a. by personal service. personally delivered the documents listed in item to the party or person authorized to receive service of process for the party (1) on (date): 2/1 7/2023 (2) at (time): 11:10am wrhsvszpv
b. by substituted service. On (date): at (time): left the documents listed in item with or in the presence of (name and title or relationship to person indicated in item 3):
(1): (business) person at least 18 years of age apparently in charge at the office or usual place of business of the person to be sewed. infomed him or her of the general nature of the papers. (2) (home) competent member of the household (at least 18 years of age) at the dwelling house or usual place of abode of the party. informed him or her of the general nature of the papers. (3) (physical address unknown) person at least 18 years of age apparently in charge at the usual mailing address of the person to be sewed, other than United States Postal Service post office box. informed him or her of the general nature of the papers. (4) thereafter mailed (by first-class, postage prepaid) copies of the documents to the person to be served at the place where the copies were left (Code Civ. Proc., 41 5.20). mailed the documents on (date): from (city): or: declaration of mailing is attached. (5) attach declaration of diligence stating actions taken first to attempt personal service.

Page10f2 FTmfiimfll'fifmcm“ PROOF 0F SERVICE 0F summons CWWCiW-Pmm- “171° Pos-mo [Rem Jammy 1.2007}
POS-O1
PLAINTIFFIPETITIONER: (wlCalifomia Housing Defense Fund) Yes In My Back Yard CASE NUMBER: DEFENDANTIRESPONDENT: City of Cupertino 236V41 081

5. c. by mail and acknowledgment of receipt of service. mailed the documents listed in item to the party, to the address shown in item 4, by first—class mail, postage prepaid, (1) on (date): (2) from (city):
(3) with two copies of the Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt and postage-paid retum envelope addressed to me. (Attach completed Notice and Acknowledgement of Receipt.) (Code Civ. Proc., 41 5.30.) (4) to an address outside California with return receipt requested. (Code Civ. Proc.. 415.40.) d. by other means (specify means of service and authorizing code section):

Additional page describing service is attached.

6. The "Notice to the Person Sewed" (on the summons) was completed as follows:
a. as an individualdefendant.
b. as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify):
c. as occupant.
d. On behalf of (specify): under the following Code of Civil Procedure section:
416.10 (corporation) 415.95 (business organization, form unknown) 416.20 (defunct corporation) 416.60 (minor)
416.30 (ioint stock oompany/association) [j 416.70 (ward or conservatee) 416.40 (association or partnership) 41 6.90 (authorized person) 416.50 (public entity) 415.46 (occupant)
other:

7. Person who served papets
a. Name: Anne Paulson
Address: 1299 Eva Avenue, Los Altos, CA 94024
Telephone number: (650) 279-7743 The fee for service was:

9.0-9.0"
am:
(1) not registered Califomia process server.
(2) exempt from registration under Business and Professions Code section 22350(b). (3) registered California process sewer:
(i) owner [j employee independent contractor.
(ii) Registration No.:
(iii) County:

8. declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. or

9. am California sheriff or marshal and certify that the foregoing is true and curred. '25 Date:

Anne Paulson (£7fJ/jM/f7m
{NAME OF PERSON WHO SERVED PAPERSISHERIFF 0R MARSHAL) (SIGNATURE; Posmo [Rn January 1. 20071 PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS "9”“ For your protection and privacy, please press the Clear ms Form button afteryou have printedthe form. Printthis form Save this form] Clearthis form -1-

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Dylan Casey

CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEFENSE FUND
360 Grand Avenue #323
Oakland, CA 94160
(443) 223-8231
No fax number
[email protected]
State Bar No. 325222
Attorney for Petitioner California Housing Defense Fund Keith E. Diggs

YIMBY LAW
57 Post Street #908
San Francisco, CA 94104
(703) 409-5198
No fax number
[email protected]
State Bar No. 344182
Attorney for Petitioner Yes In My Back Yard

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEFENSE FUND, a
California nonprofit public benefit corporation;
and YES IN MY BACK YARD, a California
nonprofit public benefit corporation;
Petitioners,
v.

CITY OF CUPERTINO,
Respondent.

Case No.:

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF

MANDATE
(Code Civ. Proc. § 1085; Gov. Code §§ 65587,
65751)
Petitioners CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEFENSE FUND and YES IN MY BACK YARD allege as follows:

1. “California has a housing supply and affordability crisis of historic proportions.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5, subd. (a)(2).)1

2. To address this crisis, the State’s Housing Element Law (Gov. Code §§ 65580 et seq.) required Bay Area cities and counties to adopt the sixth revisions of their housing elements by January 31, 2023. 1 Subsequent references are to the Government Code unless otherwise specified.

Electronically Filed
by Superior Court of CA,
County of Santa Clara,
on 2/3/2023 10:13 AM
Reviewed By: L. Quach-Marcellana
Case #23CV410817
Envelope: 11102865
23CV410817
Santa Clara – Civil
23CV410817
-2-

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

3. The City of Cupertino did not meet this deadline.

4. On behalf of the public interest in alleviating the housing crisis, the California Housing Defense Fund and Yes In My Back Yard petition the Court for a writ of mandate compelling the City to adopt a revised housing element.

PARTIES

5. Petitioner California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) is a California nonprofit public benefit corporation.

6. CalHDF’s mission is to promote housing growth and affordability in California through education and legal advocacy. As part of this mission CalHDF monitors local government policies related to the availability and growth of housing.

7. Petitioner Yes In My Back Yard is a California nonprofit public benefit corporation.

8. Yes In My Back Yard litigates for housing through its project YIMBY Law, whose mission is to end the housing shortage and achieve affordable, sustainable, and equitable housing for all.

9. Respondent City of Cupertino (“the City”) is an incorporated city in Santa Clara County.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

10. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction under Sections 65587 and 65751 of the Government Code and Section 1085 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

11. The Court has personal jurisdiction over the City consistent with Section 410.10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

12. Venue is proper under Sections 394–395 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

13. California’s Housing Element Law (Gov. Code §§ 65580 et seq.) is the State’s main policy for addressing the housing crisis.

14. A “housing element” is a mandatory element of a county’s or city’s general plan. (§ 65302, subd. (c).)

15. “Notwithstanding subdivision (a)” of Section 65700, all the provisions of the Housing Element Law apply to general-law and charter cities alike. (§ 65700, subd. (b).) //
-3-

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

16. The Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) is the State agency that administers the Housing Element Law. (See Health & Saf. Code §§ 50400, 50459.)

17. The driving mechanism of the Housing Element Law is known as the “regional housing need allocation” or “RHNA.” (Gov. Code §§ 65584.03, subd. (d); 65584.04, subd. (g)(2); 65584.05, subd. (e)(1); 65584.06, subd. (f); 65584.07, subd. (b)(1); 65584.08, subd. (a)(4)–(5); 65584.09, subd. (a).)

18. Housing elements are updated on a cyclical basis. (See § 65588.)

19. Bay Area governments are now entering their sixth cycle of housing-element revisions.

20. Each cycle, HCD “determine[s] the existing and projected need for housing for each region” in the State. (§§ 65584, subd. (a)(1); 65584.01.)

21. HCD allocates this RHNA to the regional council of governments, as applicable. (See §§ 65584– 65584.02.)

22. The regional council of governments then distributes its RHNA among its local governments. (See §§ 65584.04–.05.)

23. HCD distributes the RHNA among local governments where no council exists. (§ 65584.06.)

24. With its share of the RHNA assigned, a locality must revise its housing element with a plan to “make adequate provision for the [housing] needs of all economic segments of the community.” (§ 65583.)

25. A housing element must provide “[a]n inventory of land” with zoned capacity “to meet the locality’s housing need for [each] designated income level” by the end of the cycle. (§§ 65583, subd. (a)(3).)

26. The site inventory must meet detailed and justiciable statutory requirements. (See § 65583.2.)

27. Where existing zoned capacity is insufficient to meet the RHNA, the locality must rezone for sufficient capacity within three years (if timely and adequately revised) or one year (if not). (§ 65583, subd. (c)(1)(A).)

28. A housing element must, in its site inventory and otherwise, “affirmatively further fair housing.” (§§ 65583, subds. (a)(3), (b), (c)(1), (c)(5), (c)(10)(A); 65583.2, subd. (c); see § 8899.50 [definition].) //
//
-4-

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

29. A housing element must also “remove governmental . . . constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing . . . for all income levels” where “appropriate and legally possible.” (§ 65583, subd. (c)(3).)

30. A revision to a housing element must be prepared long before its adoption.

31. Housing Element Law spells out detailed requirements for public and administrative review.

32. “[T]he first draft revision of a housing element” must be made “available for public comment for at least 30 days.” (§ 65585, subd. (b)(1).)

33. “[I]f any comments are received, the local government shall take at least 10 business days after the . . . public comment period to consider and incorporate public comments into the draft.” (Ibid.)

34. “At least 90 days prior to adoption of a revision of its housing element,” the locality must submit the draft to HCD for administrative review. (Ibid.)

35. HCD then makes “written findings” as to whether the draft “substantially complies” with the Housing Element Law. (Id., subd. (d).)

36. Only after HCD has had time to review a draft may the locality adopt it.

37. If HCD finds that a draft “does not substantially comply,” the locality can either “[c]hange” its draft to comply or “[a]dopt” with “written findings” rebutting HCD’s findings. (Id., subd. (f).)

38. Housing Element Law specifies consequences for failure to substantially comply.

39. A locality without a “revised housing element . . . in substantial compliance” is prohibited from using its general plan and zoning standards to “disapprove” or “render[] . . . infeasible” any housing development project meeting certain affordability requirements. (§ 65589.5, subds. (d)(5), (h)(3).)

40. As described above, a locality that fails to obtain HCD’s finding of substantial compliance within 120 days of the statutory deadline must complete all required rezoning within one rather than three years. (§ 65583, subd. (c)(1)(A); see above ¶ 27.)

41. “[A]ny interested party” may petition for a writ of mandate compelling “compliance with the provisions” of the Housing Element Law. (§ 65587, subd. (b); see also § 65751.)

42. “[I]f the court” in such a proceeding enters “final judgment in favor of the . . . petitioner,” then the locality must “bring its . . . [housing] element . . . into compliance . . . within 120 days.” (§ 65754.) //
-5-

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

43. “The court shall include” in such a judgment “one or more” additional specified provisions, including suspension of nonresidential building permits and mandatory approval of residential building permits, “until the [locality] has substantially complied.” (§ 65755, subds. (a)(1), (a)(4).)

44. “[T]he court may, upon a showing of probable success on the merits, grant the relief provided in Section 65755 as temporary relief.” (§ 65757.)

45. “Notwithstanding . . . Section 65585,” a locality subject to a writ of mandate must submit a draft revision of its housing element to HCD “at least 45 days prior to . . . adoption.” (Id., subd. (a).)

46. The locality must then conform its zoning ordinance within 120 days of adoption. (Id., subd. (b).)

47. “[A]ny action necessary” to comply with the writ is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. (§ 65759, subd. (a); see also Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000 et seq.)

STATEMENT OF FACTS

48. Bay Area governments, including the City, were due to adopt the sixth revision of their housing elements on January 31, 2023. (See HCD, Housing Element Update Schedule, https://www.hcd.ca.gov/ community-development/housing-element/docs/6th-web-he-duedate.pdf, p.5.)

49. “At least 90 days prior” to this statutory deadline (Gov. Code § 65585, subd. (b); see above ¶¶ 31–36), the City had not submitted a draft revision of its housing element to HCD.

50. The City has not adopted a sixth revision of its housing element.

51. Together with another housing organization, Petitioners contacted the City about its failure and inability to comply with Housing Element Law.

52. In their letter to the City, Petitioners offered to “forgo immediate litigation” against the City if the City would acknowledge in writing that it would:
a. “not be in substantial compliance” by the statutory deadline; b. “be prohibited from rejecting any [affordable] housing development project based on subdivision (d)(1) or (d)(5) of the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), Government Code Section 65589.5,” from February 1, 2023, until such time as the City adopts a substantially compliant housing element; and
//
//
-6-

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
c. “be estopped” from invoking those subdivisions in any litigation arising from “any such project that is the subject of an application or preliminary application submitted” during that same period of time.

53. This letter was sent by email on December 16, 2022, to the City’s manager, community development director, attorney, and council.

54. The City’s attorney responded and engaged Petitioners’ counsel in settlement discussions, but the parties did not reach an agreement.

BENEFICIAL INTEREST

55. “The availability of housing is of vital statewide importance . . . .” (§ 65580, subd. (a).)

56. The Legislature has declared that the City has a “responsibility” to “make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community.” (Id., subd. (d).)

57. Legalizing “the development of housing” is “essential” to achieving this goal. (Id., subd. (f).)

58. The Legislature intends that housing elements “move toward” this goal. (§ 65581, subd. (b).)

59. The writ of mandate is sought in this action to enforce the City’s public duty.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Writ of Mandate to Compel Compliance with Housing Element Law (Gov. Code §§ 65587, 65751; Code Civ. Proc. § 1085)

60. Petitioners incorporate and reallege all of the foregoing paragraphs.

61. Section 65587 of the Government Code, subdivision (b), provides that “any interested party” may bring an action “to review the [City’s] conformity with the [Housing Element Law].”

62. Petitioners are “interested part[ies]” under the Housing Element Law. (Ibid.)

63. Section 65587, together with Section 65751, provides that such an action “shall be brought pursuant to Section 1085 of the Code of Civil Procedure.” (Ibid.)

64. Because the City has not adopted a sixth revision of its housing element, and its statutory deadline has passed, the City is out of compliance with the Housing Element Law.

65. Petitioners have no available administrative remedies.

66. Petitioners have no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, other than those sought herein.
-7-

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

67. Petitioners are thus entitled to a writ of mandate.

DEMAND FOR JUDGMENT
WHEREFORE, Petitioners demand judgment against Respondent as follows:

1. A writ of mandate directing the City to adopt a sixth revised housing element according to the schedule in Section 65754.

2. An injunction or order providing relief under Section 65755.

3. A declaration that:
a. the City is out of compliance with the Housing Element Law from February 1, 2023, until the City lawfully adopts a sixth revision of its housing element that substantially complies with the Housing Element Law;
b. the City must rezone as necessary to execute such sixth revision of its housing element by the deadlines set forth in Articles 10.6 and 14 of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code;
c. the City may not rely on paragraphs (1) or (5) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5 of the Government Code, also known as the Housing Accountability Act or “HAA,” to disapprove a housing development project—or condition approval in a manner that renders such project infeasible—so long as such project meets the affordability requirements described in paragraph (3) of subdivision (h) of the HAA;

4. Costs of suit;

5. Attorneys’ fees under Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.5 and as otherwise allowed by law; and

6. Such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Dated: February 2, 2023. CALIFORNIA HOUSING

DEFENSE FUND
___________________________
By: Dylan Casey
Attorney for Petitioner California
Housing Defense Fund

YIMBY LAW
___________________________
By: Keith E. Diggs
Attorney for Petitioner Yes In My
Back Yard
-8-

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

VERIFICATION
I, Dylan S. Casey, declare:

1. I am an employee of and hold the position of Executive Director at Petitioner California Housing Defense Fund, and am familiar with the matters discussed in the foregoing Petition.

2. I have read the Petition and know the contents thereof. The statements of fact therein are true and correct of my own knowledge.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on February 2, 2023 at Alameda, California.
_______________________________
Dylan S. Casey
1 VERIFICATION
2 I, Sonja K. Trauss, declare:
3 1. I am the Executive Director of Yes In My Back Yard, the Petitioner in this action. 4 2. I have read the foregoing Petition, and know the stated facts to be true of my own knowledge. 5 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 6 Executed on February 2, 2023 at Oakland, California . 7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
. ~_l---__ __
By: Sonja K. Trauss
Executive Director, Yes In My Back Yard
-9-

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
From: Peggy Griffin
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 2023-03-07 City Council Mtg - Oral Communications-Kylie Clark is censured in Los Gatos Date: Friday, March 3, 2023 11:45:11 PM
Attachments: 2023-02-24 Los Gatos grapples with _attack on whiteness_ controversy-Kylie Clark.pdf 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 this email and the attached PDF as part of the 3-7-2023 City Council Meeting Written Communications for ORAL COMMUNICATIONS.

Dear City Council,
I would like to bring to your attention that Kylie Clark, a Los Gatos Planning Commissioner was recently censored by the Los Gatos Town Council for racist language. Please note:

This was done after an investigation and proof was collected and reviewed.

This Kylie Clark was involved with West Valley Community Services and our Housing Element! Did she also send HCD derogatory emails regarding Cupertino while getting paid to help Cupertino with their Housing Element?
https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/los-gatos-grapples-with-attack-on-whiteness-17796970.php Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin

"
#$ %

&'
!(
)&
$

*+!
,
-.
/!
0 $&
"

& 0! &
!01 1$

!!
*

''
*!0

'22

3$
456789:;<;=7
,' >

*!0
'* ? +
!* !?
!

)
@ABCDDEDFGHIIEJJEHDKLEDMHJNCOHJPCJGKDJQLKRSTOUKOHPDGHQDGEBVHLPLEOEDFCDKICEBOHCJOCOKCFKDGTOUCOEDGBQRKRPUCOJHIK JCTEJLCGEJOBCDFQCFKOHPCLRPUEOKAKHABK W:5=X5Y;Z[\:]^_`Wab
cKSdefgehei
jklmnkomnpqrsrtsuvpmwxsyz{|uszwklmk}~kvzwkvnsmvouskmsk}pwvqzmmpmnkrrpvvpkmsuvqzvwlss}kulupwpmzm srzpqwxzwpmnqoslxzwvkrsvz{pvuznpvwqzmozswklzulxpwsskqs

klrkuswxzmzlssqzwsuwxsnkrrpvvpkmsu{qpsqzupvvwpqqszqpmlpwxwxs}zqqkowk}wxswklmnkomnpqvotqpn ustos
kmw}ssqvz}skpmwkvkrsk}wxsrsswpmvwxzwovswktsnzovszqkwk}wxsnkrrompw{rsrtsuvlxkzuswxsrkvwzmu{ zwrszuspmwxsrvkwxzwvtssmvkrswxpmwxzwvpmk}nxzmsztkowr{qp}svpmnswxsmqzuvzppmzmpmwsupsllpwx |j
UKMHJNCOHJMESLCLTd@ABCDDEDFGHIIEJJEHDKLEDMHJNCOHJPCJGKDJQLKRSTOUKOHPDGHQDGEBVHLPLEOEDF CDKICEBOHCJOCOKCFKDGTOUCOEDGBQRKRPUCOJHIKJCTEJLCGEJOBCDFQCFKOHPCLRPUEOKAKHABKd cN@ECNHHFBK

KPJBKOOKLJ

#

!

"

$

&'
(

)* *+

&'

!

,
!

. */
(

!

!

0

1

0

!
!

234567478953
:;<=>;?@.

*A

B;CD@

E.

FGH<I@J

J
(

0

0 K<>G;@
"LM

"

N

OP

P
!
! Q

E

RP

RJ

P
R
P

P

S

SP

P

Q

LEP

T
(

&'S

UVW

XA/W

S

P

OQ

LN

T
O

T
'

S

S

YZ[\]^_Z

"# $

!

&
&'

"

!!

!

(

!

)*+,-./01234*++-25

6789
:'

"

!

6

; "

=>
!
!

!

?

;!
! @

!! 6
A

!
'

!
A

!
!

! !!

C

D
EF$$$

G$$$@

"

"

!!

!

<!
!

!

6

! !

> "%

<!

!
!

I
!

!!

<

!

!
!

A

7
!

!
?9

!

!

J*K.L20M-NN*OPQ+L./M4P0RLNNPQS*2*0.4P./T-20K-M.L0P J*K.L20PPSL55-PU*5PQ0-23VW*QK2XPQYZ[[M4-0\PP/P2X ]-02P^+L./-25M-+0WQ*RL+LQ/+Q*
_`abcde`

"

#

$

!
%
&

'

(
')

*

+,-./0-12034.45.4606340748198,-:5;-54034;0421:6344<-1,=;606-:20=431:26347>1:6034?-06.@1:56><-/4AB340-12 6344C74.14:843-06-;53634.6>=4<>.48-.4D;,5>1:5D>.?-.2E=;6034-,0>0-1216F0,4D634.D44,1:50,1536,@4<7>?4.42?34:
168><406>6-8/,1:56348><7,18-6423>;01:5100;401:G>0H-6>0A IJ346>?:3-07;616006-/41:6345.>;:2-:203>?:?34.41610>:63404100;40E-:263-6100><4631:563-6?-07;6>;6634.4 D>.4K4.@=>2@6>044EI0340-12AIB>EL631:/16F08,4-.63-6634.4F0-,>6>D?>./6>2>E-:2L/:>?-,>6>D74>7,4?3>?-:66>2> 63-6?>./AL6044<0,1/4-,>6>D74>7,46>>/6341.61<46>8><46>63-6<4461:5E4K4:1D634@?4.48><1:56>074-/-5-1:06<4E 0>L631:/634.4-.4-,>6>D74>7,4?3>-.45>1:56>=47;661:5-,>6>D61<41:6>6310AI MNOPPQRST
UVWXYWZ[\]^V
_Q`abcdQaeR
fgNheij`RT
kQNilemnlQ
oNOp`aTqePOaQ
hcqePOaQ`PheddQaPOeR
regNhcoNOp`aT_OsbPltubORQPbQvOsbPw
xccyRzglPNTfjPfgP
h`NQQNl
czpQNPOlORs
hglPeiQNuQNpOaQ
{|}~
}{

!
"

#$%&'(%)'*
+,-./.0123456,03789:;<:-<,=>[email protected]<7CDC8E
FGHGI

L
MNOPQRSN
From: Peggy Griffin
To: City Clerk
Cc: City Council
Subject: 3-7-2023 City Council Mtg-Agenda Item15
Date: Friday, March 3, 2023 6:34:04 PM
Attachments: Chamber Summary.pdf
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 also include the attached PDF as part of the 3-7-2023 City Council Written Communications for Item 15. We are forced to speak on this during Oral Communications yet if we’re lucky Council might hear it under Agenda Item 15. So, I’d like it listed under both items.

Thank you,
Peggy Griffin
City of Cupertino and
Cupertino Chamber of
Commerce:

Recent City Practices
Overview
• 501(c)(6) for the benefit of their members, not the public in general • City has over 2,400 licensed businesses, Chamber members represent a small fraction and include Apple, Recology, Rotary, Sand Hill Property, and others • Lobbies City Council on behalf of their members
• Has Contributed hundreds of thousands of $$$ to Campaign for Council Members largely with Developer Money
• City Staff has given away decades of Free Facility Use • City Staff has given away decades of Free Funding with no Contracts • 4 seats on Former Economic Development Committee with no other Business Community Members granted seats
• Liability Waivers for Chamber to use facility signed off on by the former Economic Development Manager (not the Chamber using the facility) • Allowing candidates to campaign at festivals against City policy & when City waived fees
• City gave $65k to Chamber to build themselves a website 501(c)(6): Non-profit Membership
Organization
• 501(c)(3) Serves the Public
• 501(c)(6) Serves their Members
• Who are some of their biggest Members?
• Apple (small business?)
• Sand Hill Property Company – Vallco, Main Street
• Recology – City Contracts with
• De Anza College
• Rotary – City has waived fees for facility use
• San Jose Water – City Contracts with
• The City of Cupertino has over 2,400 licensed businesses, more than 2,000 are not members of the Chamber
Lobbying and Campaigning
• Chamber writes Council on bills to take a position on • Chamber has endorsed candidates
• Chamber has utilized a Political Action Committee to contribute to campaigns, in 2016 “94% of their PAC funding came from Sand Hill Property Company” – San Jose Spotlight
• Chamber contributed $120,000 to support Hung Wei’s campaign in 2018.
• Chamber has accepted PAC contributions from San Jose Water, which has a contract with the City
City Gives Chamber Decades of Free Facility
Use
• City has inequitably given free use of Memorial Park with staff and sheriffs for various of their fundraising festivals such as Holi and Diwali at approximately $13,000 each
• City has inequitably given free use of Community Hall with staff and video support. Former Economic Development Manager would sign the Liability Waivers off for the Chamber.

City Pays Chamber on Invoices with no
Contract
• City pays Chamber $16,000/year with no contract and just a guess for what the money has been for
• City paid the Chamber $65,000 for them to make a website. The Chamber had the website logo Trademarked by JR Fruen and registered to them.

Former Economic Development Committee
• Previous seats held by
• 4 Chamber of Commerce Members
• 4 City Staff Members
• 2 City Council Members
• 1 Planning Commissioner
• Chamber and Staff outnumbered City Council
• Only Chamber business members were on the Committee
• There are about 2,000 non-Chamber businesses
Issues
• Chamber members have enjoyed hundreds of thousands of dollars of City funds and benefits for decades
• City Staff has paid on invoices from the Chamber with no contracts • Staff decides to waive festival fees for Chamber and others with no Council involvement, financial cap, or report on equity. Chamber festivals are fundraisers, Diwali, for example, nets over $70k, the City waives the fees. • City Staff had been signing off on the Liability Waiver for Chamber to use Community Hall • Chamber is a membership organization with limited reach to the wider business community
• Chamber supports their members who include companies the City contracts with (water, garbage), developers (Sand Hill, Tersini), and very large businesses (Apple) • When the City Staff gifts the Chamber, they are funding them to lobby the City Council, and influence City decisions for the benefit of their members From: Janny Choy
To: City Clerk
Subject: for the written record - March 7, 2023
Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 7:25:45 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.

Mayor Wei and Councilmembers:

Thank you so much for all of your work in support of nature. When we save natureincluding the native plants, animals, and small organisms that are its components- we are really saving ourselves.

I understand that the Council has directed staff to refine the tree canopy list to include California native trees. I am really pleased to hear that, because we desperately need to make changes in our urban environment to create habitat wherever we can. The City of Cupertino has an urban tree canopy of 23%, which means there’s a lot of opportunity to help ameliorate climate change by planting trees - not just any trees - but native trees that check all the boxes of carbon sequestration, air quality improvements, noise abatement, shade, AND crucial habitat for all the insects and birds that evolved in tandem.

California is one of the great biodiversity hotspots in the world, and as such, we are blessed with many native trees species big and small that are suitable as street trees that can be added to the tree list - from our own local valley, coast live, and blue oaks on the bigger end to the smaller western redbud and mountain mahogany. According to the historical ecology of the South Bay done by the San Francisco Estuary Institute, the area that is now Cupertino was oak woodland, oak savanna, and chaparral.

Today, almost half of the City of Cupertino- about 48% - is covered by impervious surfaces. Let’s think about how we can bring more nature back into the remaining half.

With Cupertino at the heart of Silicon Valley, with all the technological marvels we’ve created, I am positive that we can apply some of that creativity and ingenuity towards creating an urban environment that better integrates with nature. Let’’s prioritize the little guys that run the world, to paraphrase entomologist Doug Tallamy. Professor Tallamy’s research shows the importance of caterpillars and insects, and the native plants they’ve evolved with, as the basis of our entire ecosystem.

I also want to say that night lighting can be very disorienting and detrimental to our nocturnal insects and birds. Street lights and other urban lightings should be kept to what is essential, brightness should be appropriate the need, and lights should be pointed downwards, with rims on lighting fixtures to prevent lights spiling over a large area.

Thank you again for all the work you are doing for nature on behalf of all of us.

From: Connie Cunningham
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: Fwd: 23-3-7 Oral Communications; Council Procedures Manual Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 7:07:51 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 add this to Written Communications .

Connie
From Connie's iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: Connie Cunningham <[email protected]>
Date: March 7, 2023 at 3:19:58 PM PST
To: Cunningham Connie <[email protected]>
Subject: 23-3-7 Oral Communications; Council Procedures Manual 23-3-7 Oral Communications; Council Procedures Manual
Good evening Mayor Wei, Vice-Mayor Mohan, and Councilmembers:

Councilmember Chao and Councilmember Moore are not following the Council Procedures Manual.Their actions at Council on February 21, showed intention to stall discussions of City business, to the detriment of residents.

Point One: Paragraph 8.8.3 of the Manual states that there will be five minutes of discussion. If necessary, the Mayor MAY allow additional time. The correct framing is that the speaker is being allowed EXTRA time.

Councilmember Moore has framed the Mayor’s decision as “cutting off discussion”.Not accurate. Discussion is properly over after five minutes. It is at the discretion of the Mayor to allow EXTRA time.

Point Two:The Manual requires that pulled routine Consent Items be discussed after other non-routine Agenda Items.This allows staff, Council, applicants, and residents, to hear the scheduled non-routine Agenda Items at the expected time.

Because they are routine, Consent Items are expected to be voted on as a group without discussion. All questions can be handled by Staff prior to the meeting.Councilmembers Chao and Moore pull Consent Items regularly.They discuss each one at length.After discussion, they often use “friendly amendments” and “substitute motions” to continue discussion.Both techniques add time and stall decisions.

On Feb 21, Consent Items 5 & 6 were pulled.

Consent Item (5) about a new Bench Donation policy was discussed in detail.

Councilmembers Chao and Moore each put in, either a “friendly amendment,” or a ”substitute motion,” to this policy.Both techniques failed to add substance, in addition to adding nearly an hour to this discussion.

Since only 2 benches have ever been donated previously this is not a major issue.

The applicant had been waiting since last June for a decision. This Council meeting had to be extended two times due to these delaying actions.

As Mayor Wei stated so well, our excellent Staff is capable of creating such a policy without long discussion or suggestions from the dais.

Pulled Consent Item (6) about missing data on a monthly report was easily explained. The reason for pulling it was clearly to point out a mistake and disrespect Staff.Councilmembers Chao and Moore showed us again what was meant by the Grand Jury report about some Councilmembers disrespecting Staff, causing a hostile work environment.

Since City Council agendas have many non-routine matters to consider, this poor use of time is disrespectful of everyone involved, including residents.

Councilmembers Chao and Moore are both well-educated.They read the items ahead of time.All the answers are included in the Written Communications.Residents of Cupertino can see and hear what this is about.

Micromanagement and unwillingness to accept Staff answers even though other Councilmembers have.Stalling and Disrespect
Thank you, City Council, for reforming the Council Procedures Manual to place pulled Consent Items after the noticed Agenda items.

Thank you for this time to speak.

Connie
Excerpt from Council Procedures Manual

8.8.3 Council Questions and Deliberations. Councilmembers may obtain the floor by seeking recognition from the Mayor. Following presentations to Council on an agenda item, Councilmembers shall each be given five minutes to ask questions of any presenter. The Mayor may allow additional time for questions where appropriate. Following public comment, the Mayor may request that a motion be made and seconded. After the motion has been stated to the Council and seconded, any member of the Council has a right to discuss the motion after obtaining the floor. A member who has been recognized shall limit their time to five minutes. The Mayor may allow additional time for deliberations where appropriate. This rule shall displace any conflicting rule in the City’s adopted rules of procedure.

See also 8.8.4, 8.8.5 Civility, and 8.8.6 Role of the Mayor. ***end of email***
From: Jamie Katayama
To: Hung Wei
Cc: Sheila Mohan; J.R. Fruen; Liang Chao; Kitty Moore; City Clerk; City Council Subject: Re: No Illuminated Public Storage Signs facing the Freeway Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 6:46:28 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 Madam Mayor,
It was so nice to chat with you this morning. Thank you for listening to my concerns.

Let me recap and reiterate it.

The building lights from Public Storage are very bright in the living room windows of my condo unit and they are disrupting a peaceful and quiet living. I attach the photo herewith.

Even a small flood light from Cupertino Storage from two stories down is frankly annoying. If the illuminated signs are approved, I'm sure other businesses, including Cupertino Storage, want to follow and build more illuminations; and our neighborhood will be full of lights. I believe you would agree that the residents' quality of living matters. I sincerely hope the illuminated sign request won't be approved.

Please advise me anything further if you would need from my end. I am happy to accommodate them to keep the living space comfortable.

Thank you for your attention to my and all the neighbors' concerns.

Jamie Katayama, (408) 598-7184
On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 9:32 PM Jamie Kata <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello again,
Please find the attached photo. I thought it was a good idea how the new building looks from the windows. It’s flashy as it stands, not very harmonious in our residential area.

I hope this would take to the better decisions.

Jamie
Sent from my iPhone
> On Feb 14, 2023, at 8:29 PM, Jamie Katayama <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Dear City Council,
>
> Please do not allow Public Storage to have illuminated signage facing the freeway until 11pm daily. This signage would be visible from my property. It will surely disrupt the quality of life.
>
> The proposed lighted sign is 165 square feet on an orange background measuring over 800 square feet. In October, the Planning Commission denied any signage facing the freeway per CMC 19.104; in February, the City Council ignored their decision. >
> As a compromise, I am respectfully requesting that the signage have no illumination. The sign does not help prospective customers to find the building and is big enough for advertising the business during daylight hours.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jamie Katayama
> (408) 598-7184
From: [email protected]
To: Hung Wei; Sheila Mohan; J.R. Fruen; Liang Chao; Kitty Moore; City Clerk; City Council Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Please rescind approval for Public Storage"s illuminated sign Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 4:26:35 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 Council:

We are deeply disappointed and troubled that the City Council has allowed Public Storage to install very large illuminated signage, that will face the 280 freeway and our condo at the De Anza Forge.

We implore you to please rescind the approval, since the huge bright sign will be detrimental for the residents and homeowners of the De Anza Forge community.

The bright and disturbing indoor lights of the Public Storage buildings, which are left on 24/7, are already really disruptive for the De Anza Forge residents. However, adding huge illuminated lettering, spelling out “Public Storage”, would only further increase the buildings brightness and make it an even bigger visual eyesore. Public storage doesn’t care about what their impact is on the neighborhood or community, they only care about making money. Nor can they be trusted to follow Cupertino Sign Ordinances, which require them to turn off their illuminated signs at 11pm. Public Storage currently has an east-facing sign, which is illuminated all night long and shines directly into the windows of the adjacent condos. We fear this same scenario will occur with the newly approve sign. The illuminated sign shouldn’t have been allowed, nor should Public Storage’s bright indoor lights be allowed to be left on all night long.

When the newly approved sign is erected, it will further increase the amount of light pollution the De Anza Forge residents will be subjected to, coming inside our homes. Not to mention, it will make our homes less desirable and decrease our property values, if we were to rent or sell it in the future.

The light emanating from the Public Storage buildings and sign are not a nightlight we want in our homes.

Unfortunately, the two newly-built, 4-story Public Storage buildings are now the first thing you see when you look out of our bedroom and living-room widows, since they are now at eye level with our condo. We bought our condo in 1985, even before the Cupertino Hotel (formerly Cupertino Inn) was built, when our condo still had the beautiful unobstructed views of the mountains and there was a lot more greenery. I think around that time, the one-story Public Storage facility was originally built, as well. In fact, in all the 40 years that it’s been at that location, Public Storage has never had a sign facing the freeway to advertise its location, much less needed one that was illuminated. We don’t think it should have been necessary for them to have one now. Plus, due to the large size of both buildings and their trademark burnt orange and grey color, they are very hard to be missed from the freeway and have easy brand recognition from the building’s color scheme. The buildings are the sign. (A sign that sticks out like a sore thumb.)
The problem is, we have put the wants of a corporation over the wellbeing of the Cupertino residents. We fear, we are also setting a dangerous precedent for future businesses to erect similar, very large illuminated signs, at the expense of the community. Once completed, Vallco will surely be the next location, where businesses will be requesting freeway-visible sign approval from the City Council. Let’s leave the bright lights and lit signs for Las Vegas and not Cupertino. The only entity benefiting from the approved illuminated signage is Public Storage; not OUR overall community. We respectfully implore you to please rescind the approval of Public Storage’s illuminated sign.

Sincerely,
Rolf and Karin Meyer
20271 Reinell Place
Cupertino, CA 9504
Owners of:
20696 Celeste Circle
Cupertino, CA 95014
From: Rhoda Fry
To: Kirsten Squarcia; City Clerk
Subject: FOR CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 3/7/2023 Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 4:00:11 PM
Attachments: Presentation1.pptx
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.

Hi Kirsten,
FOR CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 3/7/2023 Thank You!
Rhoda
“The Sign Ordinance provides the regulations that the City has adopted to ensure that signage does not impinge upon the aesthetics of the city and does not inconvenience the public”
https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/community-development/planning/non-residential-mixed-use-development/sign-information Public Storage already has a FREEWAY-FACING sign and it is a Public Nuisance The lights are on ALL NIGHT LONG and shining into resident’s homes next door (Light on sign appears brighter than the building)
Aerial View – off of the picture is De
Anza. Next to the “P” are adjacent
condos
Daytime Highway View
Lights and Sign are off
Nightime Highway View
Existing sign is prominent
Interior lighting facing condos
are prominent
What the People Across the
Freeway See at Night
upper stories illuminated
But here is the very modest directional sign on Valley Green and the back of the building during the day and at night Now they want an even BIGGER sign facing Highway 280!
4’6” tall letters until 11PM (the other is on all night long – not okay) < - - - - - - - - - - - - - 51’ 4” - - - - - - - - - - - - - > fdasfdsafdsa Not In My City
|
|
11’
6”
|
|
Person is about 6’ tall
Let’s Fix this!
Turn off the lights on the side of the building adjacent to the condos. It is good enough for someone looking for the building Turn off the lights inside of the building so that residents are not bothered at night No not allow a big new freeway facing sign
If you allow a freeway-facing sign - - - then everyone will want one! We don’t want Cupertino to look like Las Vegas.

In 2006, the Planning Department recommended against a replacement that would have been 3X the original size (the new building is 4X larger!).

Staff was concerned that a new 3-story tall building would be prominently visible from Interstate 280. “The proposed ministorage facility is a non-office use that does not promote these General Plan policies for maintaining cohesive office parks and, therefore, staff believes that the project, which will significantly intensify the use of the site as a mini-storage facility by almost tripping the amount of existing mini-storage building area, will conflict with these policies.” . . . the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has not satisfied the following requirements:
1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; 2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of this title; and
3) The proposed development is consistent with the North De Anza Boulevard Special Center area.

WHAT HAPPENED?
My Theory – Fewer Eyes
Reduction of Design Review
and Environmental Review
meetings. And moving forward
there will be none!
Original 2006 2019
Square Feet 53,890 155,253 263,671
Stories 1 3 4
Parking 80 32
Units 1168 2600
Tree Removal 0 17 Protected Trees
What Now? City Must Keep the 2019 Promise Resolution No. 19- 072 • Minimize Impact of Lighting
“Lighting for the development has been reviewed and design to minimize impacts to adjacent developments by preventing spillover light to adjacent properties.” • Advertising Signs in Harmony with Neighborhood
The number, location, color, size, height, lighting and landscaping of outdoor advertising signs and structures shall minimize traffic hazards and shall positively affect the general appearance of the neighborhood and harmonize with adjacent development • Protect Residents from Light and Visually Intrusive Effects With respect to new projects within existing residential: neighborhoods, new development should be designed to protect residents from noise, traffic, light and visually intrusive effects . . .
• Improve Look of Building Facing Adjacent Condos
EAST ELEVATION The applicant shall work with the City to neutralize the building color and materials along the eastern elevation, and shall modify the vegetation, as necessary, to improve the aesthetics of the project. The modification shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to the issuance of building permits.

Adding Insult to Injury – no reason to have lights on the building on the upper stories annoying residents across freeway
Applicant’s Desires are at odds with Community’s Needs
We don’t want to turn 280 into Las Vegas
If you approve this, then you will have a hard time rejecting other freeway signs What makes Public Storage different?
Faces Residents
Non-Conforming Use – needs to look like an office
The sign parallel to the freeway is not needed to find the business Take a Tour and See for Yourself
WE CAN FIX THIS!!! : )
From: Tessa Parish
To: City Clerk; City Attorney"s Office; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Council Subject: Electronics during City Council Meetings?
Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 7:56:09 PM
Attachments: IMG-6922.PNG
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.

I’m not saying that this is happening but I have heard some public say it appears comments are being exchanged during the City Council meeting. Please remember it could a Brown Act Violation if there is a chain message or 3 members on the same topic. This is from the Ethics course 1234 Local.

CC 3-7-2023
Item No. 3
Consider approval of February
21 City Council minutes
Written Communications
From: Peggy Griffin
To: City Council; City Clerk
Subject: 2023-03-07 City Council Mtg Agenda Item 3 - DRAFT Minutes from Feb 21 2023 misleading Date: Sunday, March 5, 2023 5:30:55 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.

Please include this email as part of the 3-7-2023 City Council Meeting Written Communications for Agenda Item #3 DRAFT Minutes for Feb 21, 2023 City Council Meeting.

Dear City Council and City Clerk,
In reviewing the DRAFT Minutes for the Feb. 21, 2023 City Council meeting, the description of Agenda Items #12 (Monthly Treasurer’s Report) and #13 (Main Street Retail Square Footage) are misleading. These 2 items were also skipped so they should also indicate that “Council did not hear this item.” Just like it says for all the other items that were skipped that night. If you do not add this statement, it implies it was heard which is false.

The Council just ended the meeting without covering the remainder of the meeting from “COUNCIL REPORTS AND COMMENTS” on down to “ADJOURNMENT”. The minutes need to reflect that in the minutes!
REQUEST: For Items 12 and 13, please add “Council did not hear this item.” In front of the existing sentence “The information was provided to Council.”
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin

CC 3-7-2023
Item No. 4
Consider amending the
Cupertino Municipal Code to
repeal ERC, DRC, and EDC
Written Communications
From: Peggy Griffin
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 2023-03-07 City Council Mtg Agenda Item 4 - FIRST READING of committee eliminations and changes Date: Saturday, March 4, 2023 3:45:43 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 this email as part of the 3-7-2023 City Council Meeting Written Communications for Agenda Item 4 on CONSENT CALENDAR.

Dear City Council,
When reading the agenda for the upcoming City Council Meeting, it was not clear to me that Agenda Item #4 was a SECOND READING. Nothing in the description of this agenda item specified that it was a SECOND READING.

SUGGESTION: In the future, please indicate FIRST and SECOND readings of ordinances in their agenda item description.

For people who attend meetings sporadically, this is very important and will save time and reduce frustrations. Also, since just about anything has appeared under the Consent Calendar recently, it can’t be assumed that just because an item is under Consent that it is actually a second reading.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
From: Jenny Griffin
To: City Clerk
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: City Council Agenda Issues
Date: Saturday, March 4, 2023 3:44:12 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.

FYI. Please add to the Public Record for the City Council Agenda on March 7, 2023, Especially per items (currently 11 ) concerning the removal of Mr. Wang from the Planning Commission, Item Number 4 on Consent Calendar concerning dissolving the ERC, the DRC, the LRC and the Audit Committees, Item 10 on the Consent Calendar About the Housing Element Consultants and Item Number 15 about the Chamber of Commerce.

Thank you very much.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: City Council Agenda Issues
From: Jenny Griffin <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 4, 2023, 3:36 PM
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]
Dear City Council:

The Cupertino City Council Agenda for March 7, 2023 is unprofessional and confusing.

The item (now 11) attempting to remove Mr. Wang from his Planning Commission seat is extremely
unprofessional in every sense of the word. This is bordering on a creating a circus scandal in the City
Council Chambers. This item should be removed from the agenda.

Why is Number 4 on the Consent Calendar again? This item is attempting to dissolve the ERC, the DRC ,
The LRC and the Audit Committee. No one from the public can pull the item to discuss it So why is it back on the Consent Calendar? To just show the public they can't speak on anything
Anymore and every commission t hat we had in the city has been dissolved? Again, why is Item 10 under the Consent Calendar? No one from the public can talk about the Housing Element or the Consultants? So the public spent a great deal of their time and effort Participating in the supposed public meetings from the Housing Elements. We did our time.

We
Did our duty. We sat through through meeting after meeting as dictated by the Housing Element agenda. We apparently wasted our time as we are apparently not going to be allowed To speak on the Housing Element now. This item needs to be pulled to allow the public to Speak or I guess we wasted our entire spring, summer and fall and winter of 2022 attending to The tirades of the RHNA and the never ending rules from HCD over the Housing Element.

The Housing Element apparently tells the public when they get to say anything about what happens
In their city.

Also, why is Item 15 under an Informational item? Doesn't the public get to ask questions on Things pertaining to such things as the Chamber of Commerce or as was listed in the last City Council Agenda under informational The request to increase restaurant space at Main Street? What ever happened to that item?
Please put the City Council Agenda back to the sensible order that it used to have and please Remove the highly embarrassing and unprofessional item (Now Number 11) accusing Mr.

Wang of all manner of outrageous things and trying to remove him from his Planning Commission seat. This item is highly irregular, unorthodox and deeply disturbing to be Appearing in a City Council Agenda. Indeed, it is highly shocking.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Griffin
CC 03-07-2023
#5

Accounts Payable
Response to
Councilmember Questions
Desk Item
3/7//2023 City Council Meeting Item #5 Consider ratifying Accounts Payable for the periods ending… Staff’s responses to questions received from councilmember are shown in italics.

Q1: Please note that Accounts Payable reports SHALL BE presented to City Council for ratification “not less often than once a month”. These reports continue to be late! It’s March and Staff is presenting January’s Accounts Payable reports. Even the report ending Feb. 3, 2023 is late.

Q1: When will this be corrected?
(Wei)
Staff response:

Q1: Per Resolution 5939, “All checks so issued shall be serially numbered and a report thereof as to date, payee, amount and purpose shall be presented to the City Council not less often than once a month for ratification.” In the preceding 12 months Accounts payable have been reported monthly in all but two occasions. In March 2022 as the City transitioned after the Finance Manager resigned and reporting was delayed and December 2022, when the reports were moved from the December 20, 2022, agenda to the January 17, 2023, agenda.

In addition, at the July 19, 2022, City Council approved recommendations the by the Treasurers Report subcommittee that included to have Audit Committee review the Accounts Payable as part of the Treasurers Report before coming to City Council.

The accounts payables included in the 3/7/2023 agenda were presented to the Audit Committee on February 27, 2023. The March 7, 2023, Council meeting is the earliest these could be brought before the City Council.

Lastly, staff has placeholders in future agendas thru October 2023 to ensure consistent reporting.

CC 3-7-2023
Item No. 5
Consider ratifying Accounts
Payable for the periods ending
Jan. 6, 13, 20, 27, and Feb. 3,
2023
Written Communications
From: Peggy Griffin
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 2023-03-07 City Council Mtg Agenda Item 5 - Accounts Payable Reports Continue to be late:

Date: Saturday, March 4, 2023 9:06:39 PM
Attachments: image001.png
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 this email in the 3-7-2023 City Council Meeting Written Communications for Agenda Item #5 Accounts Payable for the periods ending Jan. 6, 2023 through Feb. 3, 2023.

Dear City Council and City Manager,
During the Feb. 21, 2023 when Agenda Item #5 Accounts Payable for Nov. 22, 2022 was discussed (months late), the frequency of the Accounts Payable reports coming to Council was brought up to Staff. City Manager Wu insisted that these reports would adhere to the requirements specified in Resolution 5939, Section D Number 3. She repeatedly said this.

Below is a summary of City Council Resolution 5939:

Please note that Accounts Payable reports SHALL BE presented to City Council for ratification “not less often than once a month”.These reports continue to be late!
It’s March and Staff is presenting January’s Accounts Payable reports. Even the report ending Feb. 3, 2023 is late.

Q: When will this be corrected?
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
CC 03-07-2023
#8

SCVURPPP Amendment
Response to
Councilmember Questions
Desk Item
3/7/2023 City Council Meeting Item #8 SCVURPPP Amendment Staff’s responses to questions received from councilmember are shown in italics.

Q1: If the current permit ends in 2027, why do we want to extend by one fiscal year now? (Mohan) Staff response: The City’s current MOA with SCVURPPP covers the term of the previous Municipal Regional Permit (MRP 2.0) plus one additional year, which results in the MOA expiring June 30, 2023.

MRP3.0 went into effect July 1, 2022 and is anticipated to expire June 30, 2027. Staff is requesting that City Council approve an amendment to the MOA, which would extend the term of the agreement to one year beyond the expiration of MRP3.0, which would result in an anticipated end date of the MOA to June 30, 2028.

CC 03-07-2023
#9

Contract with Nomad
Transit LLC
Response to
Councilmember Questions
Desk Item
3/7/2023 City Council Meeting Item #9 Contract with Nomad Transit LLC (Via) Staff’s responses to questions received from councilmember are shown in italics.

Q1: Will this be going out to bid? If so, when? If not, why? (Moore) Staff response: The charging station construction work would go out to bid per the public contracting code. This will be put out to bid as soon as is feasible, but design drawings need to be prepared before that can happen.

Q2: Is there a City cost to expanding Via to Santa Clara plus 2 sites in Mtn View? (Mohan) Staff response: There is no cost (to Cupertino) to expand into Santa Clara. Adding the Mountain View Caltrain and El Camino Hospital stops may necessitate more driver hours be allocated to the project. If more hours are needed, there would be an additional cost. Cupertino would be responsible for 25% of this additional cost (50% to TIRCP, 25% to Santa Clara, 25% to Cupertino).

Q3: I would like to know how the cost share formula is determined between Cupertino and Santa Clara? Will it be adjusted periodically based on usage data. (Chao) Staff Response: The Cost Share Formula was based on anticipated ridership. Cupertino has an established ridership which has taken a few years to grow, and Santa Clara will need to grow their program. This is why Cupertino has a higher allocation in years 1 through 3. It is anticipated that Santa Clara may have larger usage in year 4, and thus has a larger allocation then.

It should be noted that phase 1 of Santa Clara expansion includes approximately ½ of the area of the City. Phase 2 would incorporate approximately another 25% of the City so that after year 4, the expansion would include ¾ of the City area.

After year 4, contracts with both Via and Santa Clara would be renegotiated providing for an opportunity to true up usage data and therefore potential cost allocations in the future. However, the allocations indicated in the staff report are set by the terms of the TIRCP Grant and are “not to exceed” amounts. The totals between the Cities are independent of each other, meaning that Cupertino would pay only for those costs associated with Cupertino trips, and Santa Clara would pay for those trips in Santa Clara.

CC 3-7-2023
Item No. 9
Consider a four-year contract
with Nomad Transit LLC (Via)
for the Transit & Intercity Rail
Capitol Program
Written Communications
From: Peggy Griffin
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 2023-03-07 City Council Mtg Agenda Item 9-Via Shuttle Expansion-EV stations out to bid? Date: Saturday, March 4, 2023 8:01:03 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 this email in the 3-7-2023 City Council Meeting Written Communications for Agenda Item 9-Extension of Via Shuttle.

Dear City Council,
I am in support of this expansion of Via and the addition stops at El Camino Hospital and the Mountain View CalTrain station.

At the bottom of Page 4 of 5 of the Staff Report (Fiscal Impact) it indicates that staff is requesting $350,000 to pay for the installation of EV charging stations at the Cupertino Sports Center.

Q: Will this be going out to bid?
If so, when?
If not, why?
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
CC 3-7-2023
Item No. 10
Consider a contract with
Placeworks for the remainder
of Housing Element
Written Communications
From: Jenny Griffin
To: City Clerk
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: City Council Agenda Issues
Date: Saturday, March 4, 2023 3:44:12 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.

The Cupertino City Council Agenda for March 7, 2023 is unprofessional and confusing.

The Housing Element apparently tells the public when they get to say anything about what happens
In their city.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Griffin
CC 3-7-2023
Item No. 11
Removal of Planning
Commissioner R Wang
Written Communications
From: J.R. Fruen
To: City Clerk; Kirsten Squarcia
Cc: Pamela Wu; Christopher Jensen; City Council
Subject: Documentary Memorandum for Written Communications, Item No. 11 Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 3:57:30 PM
Attachments: Wang Memo.pdf
Ms. Squarcia:

Please include the attached for written communications for today’s meeting at Item No. 11.

Many thanks,
J.R. Fruen
Councilmember
City Council
[email protected]
(408)777-1316
To: City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia, City of Cupertino
CC: City Manager Pamela Wu
City Attorney Christopher Jensen
City Council
By email only
Documentary Memorandum for Written Communications for Regular City Council Meeting of March 7, 2023, re Item No. 11
Honorable colleagues:

The purpose of this memorandum is to offer a more fulsome record for the consideration of Item No. 11 on tonight’s agenda. I’ve undertaken to locate the following documents and sources that have been referenced at various times in public communications to the City Council with respect to the behavior and actions of Planning Commissioner R “Ray” Wang. My intention herewith is to provide context around relevant documents so that Council is well situated to make a decision. I will not be engaging in a lengthy narrative, rather cataloging the various claims made and the sources and documents that support them that are available in the public realm.

1. Persistent misapprehension of the role of the Planning Commission and its members The Municipal Code defines the Planning Commission and its functions at Section

2.23.070. Various parallel provisions of the Government Code enumerate the powers of planning commissions. As such, neither individual commissioners, nor commissions as a whole have any power to direct the City Manager or the City Attorney. The Municipal Code assigns no power to Planning Commission to conduct oversight of staff activities.

The Commissioner’s Handbook (at pp. 2 & 9) reaffirms the advisory role that the Planning Commission performs.
a. Despite the above, Commissioner Wang, during a Planning Commission meeting emphatically insisted that oversight of staff and consultants is part of his job on the Planning Commission. (See Video of Planning Commission Meeting of May 24, 2022, Item 1 at 35:45.) During the exchange, he repeatedly talked over the Chair and the Assistant City Attorney, ignoring the attorney’s advice to remain on the agendized subject.
b. On February 17, 2021, Commissioner Wang sent an email to then-City Manager Deb Feng claiming powers over the agenda of the Planning Commission as a basis for filing a complaint against the Assistant City Manager. (See Tran Nguyen, “Cupertino official faces calls to quit” San Jose Spotlight, March 4, 2023 (reproducing said email).)
c. Numerous form emails submitted in relation to today’s item demand that Commissioner Wang should be retained to perform oversight that is not part of the Commission’s remit.

2. Creating exposure to litigation risk
a. On December 14, 2021, Commissioner Wang publicly excoriated Senior Planner Eric Serrano because he was dissatisfied with Mr. Serrano’s performance and the Commission’s inability to reject two residential projects: Employees such as Mr.

Serrano, represented by a collective bargaining unit are entitled to contractually defined processes if they are to be reprimanded.
b. On September 13, 2022, and December 14, 2021 (among other occasions), Commissioner Wang voted against recommending the approval of legally compliant housing projects protected by the Housing Accountability Act (McClellan Road; Bateh Brothers). See Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of September 13, 2022 at Item 4; Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of November 23, 2021 at Item 2. As recently as last October, Commissioner Wang voted to deny a commercial sign application acting in a quasi-judicial capacity in a decision the City Attorney described from the dais as “not legally justifiable.” (See Video of Cupertino City Council Meeting of February 7, 2023, part 1, at 2:07:10.)
c. On September 14, 2021, Commissioner Wang pressed for the city to violate AB 2345 and reject amendments to its Density Bonus Ordinance that would comply with the law.

3. Alleged violations of the Ethics Policy
The Ethics Policy requires the following of commissioners per Resolution 20-011; councilmembers and the public may compare these policies against the actions cited above.
a. Per Paragraph A: City elected/appointed officials and staff comply with the laws of the nation, the State of California and the City in the performance of their public duties. These laws include, but are not limited to: the United States and California constitutions, the Cupertino Municipal Code, City ordinances and policies, and laws pertaining to conflicts of interest, election campaigns, financial disclosures, employer responsibilities and open processes of governments. The City ensures its elected/appointed officials and staff receive regular training on ethics as required by state law.
b. Per Paragraph B: The professional and personal conduct of City elected/ appointed officials and staff should be respectful of others, recognizing that individuals can respectfully disagree with each other. City elected/appointed officials and staff should refrain from abusive conduct, personal charges, or verbal attacks upon the character or motives of others, including members of the Council, boards and commissions, the staff, or the public. c. Per Paragraph C: City elected/appointed officials and staff perform their duties in accordance with various processes and rules of order established from time to time by the City Council governing the deliberation of public policy issues, conduct of quasi-judicial proceedings, meaningful involvement of the public, and implementation of policy decisions of the City Council by City staff d. Per Paragraph J: City elected/appointed officials and staff support the maintenance of a positive and constructive work place environment for City employees and for citizens and businesses dealing with the City. City elected/ appointed officials recognize their special role in dealings with City staff, taking care not to create any perception of inappropriate direction to staff.

4. Claims surrounding comportment toward the public
a. On or about June 22, 2019, Commissioner Wang wrote on Nextdoor to encourage locals to attend a meeting featuring a representative of the Vallco property owner discussing the project. See The Fly, “Cupertino Planning Official Faces Backlash for Calling Pro-Growth Activists ‘Neoliberal Fascists’,” San Jose Inside, July 3, 2019 (reproducing initial Nextdoor and Twitter posts). Said Nextdoor post was reposted on Twitter, where housing advocate Richard Mehlinger commented calling it an “unhinged rant.” By way of response, Commissioner Wang menaced: “Well that’s fun =) we’ll have to talk to Richard’s employer, DropBox. =)” Later, he expanded, “Next time you get harassed by a YIMBY track down their employer and send their HR, Legal, and CEO a letter outlining their YIMBY stance, and all their tweets, their digital and social comms to show their lack of civility. It goes a long way to getting them reprimanded and in some cases a dose of reality.”
b. On November 12, 2019, when Commissioner Wang was challenged by a resident, again on Nextdoor, this time about his criminal history and acts in relation to then-Redwood City Planning Commissioner Rosanne Foust, he responded by threatening legal process against said resident. (See J. Bitters, “Cupertino commissioner threatens lawsuit for Nextdoor posts,” San Jose Spotlight, November 15, 2019 (reproducing cease-and-desist letter).) c. As recently as the last two days, Commissioner Wang similarly forwarded legal correspondence from his attorney to three specific commissioners and admonishing them to be mindful of what they say. See Email of R Wang dated March 6, 2023; Attachment 1. It’s clear that at least one said commissioner regarded the comments as an attempt at intimidation. See Email of Jennifer Shearin dated March 6, 2023.; Attachment 2.

5. Claims surrounding prior criminal conviction
Two separate cases, one civil and one criminal involving Commissioner Wang’s actions in relation to then-Redwood City Planning Commissioner Rosanne Foust. The criminal case record is attached herewith (Attachment 3) and highlighted below. a. Ms. Foust details her experience first-hand in a letter submitted to council with respect to today’s item. Attachment 4; see also Civil Complaint, Attachment 5 b. On September 19, 2003, the District Attorney in San Mateo County filed a criminal action against Mr. Wang for two felony counts, including one for identity theft, and one misdemeanor count under a cyberstalking statute. c. On the eve of trial, Mr. Wang pled no contest to the misdemeanor cyberstalking charge as part of a negotiated plea deal to avoid trial on the felony charges. A no contest plea results in a conviction as a matter of law. d. Mr. Wang was provided with a custodial sentence, with said jail time subsequently commuted to community service.
e. Despite a later expungement proceeding, the criminal record remains with California Department of Justice and must be disclosed in order to access certain public benefits.
f. Subsequent to these proceedings, Mr. Wang changed his domicile from San Mateo County to Santa Clara County and changed his name from “Ray” to the single letter “R”. See Name Change Petition filed March 22, 2006; Attachment 6.

Submitted by,
Councilmember J.R. Fruen
1 J.R. Fruen
From: R Wang
Sent: Sunday, March 5, 2023 10:11 AM
To: John Zhao; Connie Cunningham; Jennifer Shearin
Cc: City Clerk; Kirsten Squarcia; City Council
Subject: With regards to the facts
Attachments: 20230302_KLB_Cupertino_City_Council.pdf
I thought I'd share with you some facts from my lawyer. I wanted to make sure you have the latest information that the city councili has before you continue to speak in public or write to the council, or even become quoted in the press.

I wouldn't want you to be accused of violating any provisions of our new ethics handbook with regards to attacking another member or public without the facts.

Please feel free to ask me any questions.

R Wang
Planning Commissioner
[email protected]
1 J.R. Fruen
From: J Shearin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 10:35 AM
To: City Council; Cupertino City Manager's Office; City Clerk Subject: Agenda item #11, Personal Experience regarding Commissioner R Wang 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 Honored City Council Members and Mayor Wei:

I write to you regarding agenda item number 11 for the City Council meeting on March 7, 2023. I am writing today only as a resident of Cupertino and not on behalf of any other body or organization.

There are ethical and neighborly people on the sides of every issue in our city, including development and city policies.

However, this agenda item is not about development or city policies, as was clear from the public comment prior to its placement on this month’s Council meeting agenda. It is instead about the conduct of a commissioner toward the public and city staff.

People in our city may not always agree on issues, but we have generally been able to maintain appropriate conduct towards one another regardless of that disagreement. The Commissioner’s handbook has more stringent rules than just trying to be polite. It requires:
“The professional and personal conduct of City elected/appointed officials and staff should be above reproach and avoid even the appearance of impropriety. City elected/appointed officials and staff should refrain from abusive conduct, personal charges, and verbal attacks upon the character or motives of others, including members of the Council, boards, and commission, the staff, or the public.”
It does not say that these requirements can be ignored if you write afterward, “speaking for myself.” My personal experience with Commissioner R Wang has shown me that he has not and is not meeting this standard that is required of all commissioners.

Over the last few years, I have been rudely dismissed and belittled by Mr. Wang on NextDoor on several occasions and was a witness to the same behavior toward other residents. I was also threatened with a lawsuit via a direct personal message because I mentioned a publicly available Mercury News article.

Just a few days ago, I faced further intimidation as a commissioner through an email from Mr. Wang entitled, “With Regard to the Facts” with an attachment from his lawyer. It is well known that Mr. Wang is a very wealthy individual and has previously sued other individuals. It was clearly meant to intimidate me.

For those that don’t consider personal testimony believable, I have screen shots of these incidents.

Wang’s positions on development, it is still important that his conduct in the performance of his duties be above 2 reproach and without any personal charges or attacks. I have now given you several instances where he has not met this standard that all commissioners are required to meet. I ask that you consider this information in your decision.

Thank you for considering my concerns, and your work on behalf of the City of Cupertino and its residents.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Shearin
19511 Howard Court, Cupertino
-----------------------------------
This message is from my personal email account and I only am writing as myself, not as a representative or spokesperson for any other organization.

Case Information
SM328047A | The People of the State of California vs. RAY KUANG WANG Case Number
SM328047A
Court
Criminal
File Date
09/19/2003
Case Type
Complaint
Case Status
Adjudicated
Party
Defendant

WANG, RAY KUANG
DOB

XX/XX/XXXX
Charge
Charges

WANG, RAY KUANG
Description
Statut
e Level Date
00 1
PC653M(B)-MISD-ANNOYING TELEPHONE CALL TO

PLACE OF WORK
653M(
B)
Misdemea
nor
06/26/2
003
00 2
PC529(3)-FEL-PERSONATE TO MAKE OTHER LIABLE 529(3) Felony 06/26/2
003
00 3
PC530.5-FEL-UNAUTHORIZED USE OF PERSONAL

IDENTIFICATION
530.5 Felony
06/26/2
003
Disposition Events
01/13/2004 Plea
Judicial Officer

SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE, SAN MATEO COUNTY
00 1
PC653M(B)-MISD-ANNOYING TELEPHONE CALL TO PLACE OF
WORK
No Contest / Nolo
Contendere
10/27/2003 Plea
Judicial Officer

SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE, SAN MATEO COUNTY
002 PC529(3)-FEL-PERSONATE TO MAKE OTHER LIABLE Not Guilty 10/27/2003 Plea
Judicial Officer

SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE, SAN MATEO COUNTY
003 PC530.5-FEL-UNAUTHORIZED USE OF PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION Not Guilty 03/13/2006 Disposition
001 PC653M(B)-MISD-ANNOYING TELEPHONE CALL TO PLACE OF WORK Dismissal: 1203.4 01/13/2004 Disposition
002 PC529(3)-FEL-PERSONATE TO MAKE OTHER LIABLE Dismissal: Negotiated Plea 01/13/2004 Disposition
00 3
PC530.5-FEL-UNAUTHORIZED USE OF PERSONAL

IDENTIFICATION
Dismissal: Negotiated
Plea
Events and Hearings
• 09/19/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
FDSAW: DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY IN SUPPORT OF ARREST WARRANT, FILED.
• 09/19/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
MISEN: FILE SENT TO JUDGE ELLIS
• 09/19/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
OTHER: TO SIGN A/W
• 09/22/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
MIRFL: FILE RETURNED TO CLERK'S OFFICE.
• 09/22/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
AWAWA: ARREST WARRANT ISSUED TO RC ON 09/22/2003 . BAIL SET AT $5,000.00 . WARRANT SIGNED BY ELLIS, H. JAMES .
• 09/23/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
MISEN: FILE SENT TO JUDGE ELLIS
• 09/23/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
OTHER: SENT MEMO TO JUDGE ELLIS REQUESTING THAT ARREST
WARRANT BE RECALLED DUE TO D.A.'S ERROR IN ASKING FOR
ARREST WARRANT RATHER THAN AN NTA.
• 09/25/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
MIRFL: FILE RETURNED TO CLERK'S OFFICE.
• 09/25/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
OTHER: PER JUDGE ELLIS,O.K. TO RECALL ARREST WARRANT.
• 09/25/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
WWIRO: ARREST WARRANT ISSUED ON 09/22/2003 . RECALLED ON 09/25/2003 .
• 10/14/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
SHNTC: NOTICE TO APPEAR SENT TO DEFENDANT ON 10/14/2003 TO APPEAR ON 10/27/2003 AT 9:00 A.M. IN SUPERIOR COURT SOUTHERN BRANCH DEPT. AR FOR MISDEMEANOR ARRAIGNMENT .
• 10/24/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
SHRES: CASE SHIFTED FROM HEARING ON 10/27/2003 AT 9:00 A.M. IN

DEPARTMENT AR OF SUPERIOR COURT SOUTHERN BRANCH TO
HEARING ON 10/27/2003 AT 9:00 A.M. IN DEPARTMENT 32 OF SUPERIOR COURT SOUTHERN BRANCH .
• 10/27/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
HHELD: HEARING HELD ON 10/27/03 AT 9:00 A.M. IN SUPERIOR COURT SOUTHERN BRANCH , D- 32 . HON. SUSAN GREENBERG, COURT
COMMISSIONER , PRESIDING. CLERK: ROSA VEGA . REPORTER: BETTY GALIN . CLERK2: SARAI MORENO . DEPUTY D.A. FORD . DEFENSE COUNSEL PRESENT: PLISKA .
• 10/27/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
HHMAR: MISDEMEANOR ARRAIGNMENT
• 10/27/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
FDSPT: STIPULATION RE: JUDGE PRO TEMPORE HEARING MATTER. • 10/27/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
APAFD: DEFENDANT NOT PRESENT, BUT IS REPRESENTED BY
ATTORNEY PLISKA .
• 10/27/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
ARWVD: ARRAIGNMENT AND ADVICE OF RIGHTS WAIVED.
• 10/27/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
PLCEA: DEFENDANT THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL ENTERS A PLEA OF NOT GUILTY TO ALL COUNTS.
• 10/27/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
JTDEM: DEFENDANT DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY.
• 10/27/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
WTIMJ: TIME WAIVED FOR JURY TRIAL.
• 10/27/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
SHOTA: CASE CONTINUED TO 12/30/2003 AT 8:30 A.M. IN REDWOOD CITY IN DEPT. PT FOR PRETRIAL CONFERENCE. .
• 10/27/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
SHOTA: CASE CONTINUED TO 01/20/2004 AT 9:00 A.M. IN REDWOOD CITY IN DEPT. JT FOR JURY TRIAL. .
• 10/27/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
MIENT: ENTERED BY S.MORENO ON 10/27/2003 .
• 10/31/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
SHSET: APPEARANCE SET ON 11/05/2003 AT 9:00 A.M. IN SUPERIOR COURT SOUTHERN BRANCH DEPT. AR FOR TO SET AT REQUEST OF ATTORNEY .
• 11/04/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
SHRES: CASE SHIFTED FROM HEARING ON 11/05/2003 AT 9:00 A.M. IN

DEPARTMENT AR OF SUPERIOR COURT SOUTHERN BRANCH TO
HEARING ON 11/05/2003 AT 9:00 A.M. IN DEPARTMENT 32 OF SUPERIOR COURT SOUTHERN BRANCH .
• 11/05/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
HHELD: HEARING HELD ON 11/05/03 AT 9:00 A.M. IN SUPERIOR COURT SOUTHERN BRANCH , D- 32 . HON. SUSAN GREENBERG, COURT
COMMISSIONER , PRESIDING. CLERK: ROSA VEGA . REPORTER: JENELL MULLANEL . CLERK2: MICHAEL BOLANDER . DEPUTY D.A. JOO .

DEFENSE COUNSEL PRESENT: PLISKA .
• 11/05/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
HHTOS: TO SET
• 11/05/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
FDSPT: STIPULATION RE: JUDGE PRO TEMPORE HEARING MATTER. • 11/05/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
APAFD: DEFENDANT NOT PRESENT, BUT IS REPRESENTED BY
ATTORNEY PLISKA .
• 11/05/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
WTIMD: TIME CONTINUES TO BE WAIVED BY DEFENDANT/COUNSEL. • 11/05/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
SHOTA: CASE CONTINUED TO 01/06/2004 AT 8:30 A.M. IN REDWOOD CITY IN DEPT. PT FOR PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE AND TO SET .
• 11/05/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
SHOTA: CASE CONTINUED TO 01/13/2004 AT 9:00 A.M. IN REDWOOD CITY IN DEPT. AR FOR DISPOSITION AND TO SET .
• 11/05/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
MIVJT: JURY TRIAL SET ON 01/20/2004 AT 9:00 A.M. ORDERED VACATED.
• 11/05/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
MIVOT: PRETRIAL CONFERENCE. SET ON 12/30/2003 AT 8:30 A.M.

ORDERED VACATED.
• 11/05/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
MIENT: ENTERED BY MBOLANDER ON 11/05/2003 .
• 01/05/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
SHRES: CASE SHIFTED FROM HEARING ON 01/06/2004 AT 8:30 A.M. IN

DEPARTMENT PT OF SUPERIOR COURT SOUTHERN BRANCH TO
HEARING ON 01/06/2004 AT 8:30 A.M. IN DEPARTMENT 29 OF SUPERIOR COURT SOUTHERN BRANCH .
• 01/06/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
HHELD: HEARING HELD ON 01/06/04 AT 8:30 A.M. IN SUPERIOR COURT SOUTHERN BRANCH , D- 29 . HON. JOSEPH N GRUBER, COURT
COMMISSIONER , PRESIDING. CLERK: SARAI MORENO . REPORTER:

TRACY WOOD . CLERK2: LISABETH FALLS . DEPUTY D.A. FEASEL .

DEFENSE COUNSEL PRESENT: PLISKA .
• 01/06/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
HHPTE: PRE TRIAL CONFERENCE AND TO SET
• 01/06/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
FDSPT: STIPULATION RE: JUDGE PRO TEMPORE HEARING MATTER. • 01/06/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
APWAT: DEFENDANT APPEARED WITH ATTORNEY PLISKA .
• 01/06/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
APNAD: NEITHER ATTORNEY NOR DEFENDANT PRESENT WHEN
MATTER HEARD ON THE RECORD.
• 01/06/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
SHPDS: PREVIOUS DATES REMAIN AS SET.
• 01/06/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
MIENT: ENTERED BY L FALLS ON 01/06/2004 .
• 01/12/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
SHRES: CASE SHIFTED FROM HEARING ON 01/13/2004 AT 9:00 A.M. IN

DEPARTMENT AR OF SUPERIOR COURT SOUTHERN BRANCH TO
HEARING ON 01/13/2004 AT 9:00 A.M. IN DEPARTMENT 31 OF SUPERIOR COURT SOUTHERN BRANCH .
• 01/13/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
HHELD: HEARING HELD ON 01/13/04 AT 9:00 A.M. IN SUPERIOR COURT SOUTHERN BRANCH , D- 31 . HON. CLARK LESLIE, COURT
COMMISSIONER , PRESIDING. CLERK: IRMA LOPEZ-OCEGUEDA .

REPORTER: RHONDA GUESS . CLERK2: LISABETH FALLS . DEPUTY D.A.

FORD . DEFENSE COUNSEL PRESENT: PLISKA .
• 01/13/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
HHDOS: DISPOSITION AND TO SET
• 01/13/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
FDSPT: STIPULATION RE: JUDGE PRO TEMPORE HEARING MATTER. • 01/13/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
APAFD: DEFENDANT NOT PRESENT, BUT IS REPRESENTED BY
ATTORNEY PLISKA .
• 01/13/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
PLCEF: DEFENDANT THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL ENTERS A PLEA OF NOLO CONTENDERE TO COUNT 1 . DEFENDANT FOUND GUILTY BY
COURT.
• 01/13/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
FDWOR: DEFENDANT IS ADVISED OF, UNDERSTANDS, AND

KNOWINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY WAIVES ALL THE FOLLOWING
RIGHTS: WAIVES THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL; TO TRIAL BY JURY; TO CONFRONT AND CROSS-EXAMINE ADVERSE WITNESSES; THE
PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION. THE COURT FINDS THAT

THE DEFENDANT UNDERSTANDS THE NATURE OF THE CHARGES, THE

ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE, THE DEFENSE THERETO, THE
CONSEQUENCES OF PLEAS AND THE RANGE OF PENALTIES THERETO.

WAIVER OF RIGHTS SIGNED.
• 01/13/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
CDFRC: UPON MOTION OF PEOPLE ALL REMAINING COUNTS
DISMISSED. REASON: NEGOTIATED PLEA.
• 01/13/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
WTSTB: TIME WAIVED FOR SENTENCING.
• 01/13/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
ARWFS: DEFENDANT WAIVES FORMAL ARRAIGNMENT FOR
SENTENCING.
• 01/13/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
SESCB: COUNT 1 IMPOSITION OF SENTENCE SUSPENDED. DEFENDANT IS PLACED ON COURT PROBATION FOR 2 YEARS; 0 MONTHS; 0 DAYS. • 01/13/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
SECJL: AS TO COUNT 1 , DEFENDANT TO SERVE 0 YEAR(S), 0 MONTH(S), 2 DAY(S), 0 HOUR(S) IN THE COUNTY JAIL.
• 01/13/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
SESEJ: DEFENDANT TO SURRENDER TO COUNTY JAIL ON 02/28/2004 AT 10:00 A.M. .
• 01/13/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
SESWP: DEFENDANT IS RECOMMENDED TO THE SHERIFF'S WORK
PROGRAM.
• 01/13/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
SEPFX: TOTAL FINE AMOUNT PAYABLE, INCLUDING ALL
ASSESSMENTS, IS $1,230.00 .
• 01/13/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
SERET: DEFENDANT ORDERED TO PAY $110.00 TO STATE RESTITUTION FUND. THIS PAYMENT IS A CONDITION OF PROBATION
• 01/13/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
SEPRC: DEFENDANT TO PAY FINE AND ASSESSMENTS THROUGH
MUNICIPAL COURT CLERK'S OFFICE.
• 01/13/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
SEOAL: OBEY ALL LAWS. FOLLOW ALL ORDERS OF THE
COURT/PROBATION OFFICER AND REPORT AS DIRECTED. NOTIFY THE

COURT/ PROBATION OFFICER IMMEDIATELY OF ANY CHANGE OF
RESIDENCE ADDRESS.
• 01/13/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
SENOC: DEFENDANT NOT TO CONTACT, CALL OR OTHERWISE
COMMUNICATE WITH VICTIM .
• 01/13/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
MIATS: ATTORNEY MAY SIGN.
• 01/13/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
MIASE: ALL SENTENCE ELEMENTS FOR THIS PROCEEDING ENTERED. • 01/13/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
MIENT: ENTERED BY L FALLS ON 01/13/2004 .
• 01/30/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
SEFCN: FINE PAID THROUGH CLERK'S OFFICE ON 01/30/2004 . RECEIPT NUMBER 41-0005 . AMOUNT PAID $1,230.00 .
• 01/30/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
SEFCR: $110.00 RESTITUTION FUND PAID THROUGH THE CLERKS OFFICE.
• 02/11/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
HHMOD: MODIFICATION OF SENTENCE
• 02/11/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
SECSB: DEFENDANT ORDERED TO COMPLETE 50 HOURS OF PUBLIC SERVICE WORK ON OR BEFORE 08/11/2004 AS DIRECTED BY THE PUBLIC SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE.
• 02/11/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
SEPSA: SUBMIT PROOF OF COMPLETION OF PUBLIC SERVICE WORK TO THE COURT BY 08/11/2004 .
• 02/11/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
MIENT: ENTERED BY IRMA ON 02/11/2004 .
• 04/21/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
CERTC: CERTIFIED COPY OF DOCUMENTS SENT TO DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE . $0.00 FEE PAID.
• 07/27/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
MISEN: FILE SENT TO DEPT 29
• 08/04/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
SHSET: APPEARANCE SET ON 08/10/2004 AT 9:00 A.M. IN SUPERIOR COURT SOUTHERN BRANCH DEPT. 29 FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. AT REQUEST OF ATTY PLISKA .
• 08/10/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
HHELD: HEARING HELD ON 08/10/04 AT 9:00 A.M. IN SUPERIOR COURT SOUTHERN BRANCH , D- 29 . HON. JOSEPH N GRUBER, COURT
COMMISSIONER , PRESIDING. CLERK: ROSA VEGA . REPORTER: TRACY WOOD . CLERK2: BIANCA NEDELCU . DEPUTY D.A. BAUM . DEFENSE COUNSEL PRESENT: PLISKA .
• 08/10/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
HHFUR: FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
• 08/10/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
FDSPT: STIPULATION RE: JUDGE PRO TEMPORE HEARING MATTER. • 08/10/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
APWAT: DEFENDANT APPEARED WITH ATTORNEY PLISKA .
• 08/10/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
PROBE: PROBATION IS MODIFIED.
• 08/10/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
SEOTH: PUBLIC SHERRIF'S WORK SEEMED COMPLETED .
• 08/10/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
MIASE: ALL SENTENCE ELEMENTS FOR THIS PROCEEDING ENTERED. • 08/10/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
MIENT: ENTERED BY B NEDELCU ON 08/10/2004 .
• 03/10/2006 Conversion Event
Comment
OTHER: EXPUNGEMENT FEE OF $60.00 PAID. RECEIPT #41-0013 • 03/13/2006 Conversion Event
Comment
MIRFL: FILE RETURNED TO CLERK'S OFFICE.
• 03/13/2006 Conversion Event
Comment
FDPDC: PETITION TO DISMISS COUNT 1 PURSUANT TO SECTION
1203.4/1203.4A PENAL CODE FILED.
• 03/13/2006 Conversion Event
Comment
FDCOM: ORDER GRANTING AND DISMISSING COUNT 1 PURSUANT TO SECTION 1203.4/1203.4A PENAL CODE, FILED.
• 03/13/2006 Conversion Event
Comment
FDACI: AMENDED CII FORWARDED TO ARRESTING AGENCY.

From: Kenneth Solnit
To: City Council
Subject: Written communication, Council Meeting, 3/7/2023, Agenda Item 11, in support of Planning Commissioner R "Ray" Wang
Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 1:55:17 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.

All Cupertino City Council,
Dear Cupertino City Council, City Attorney, City Manager, and City Clerk Please include my letter as written communication for the 3/7/2023 City Council meeting, Agenda Item 11, RETAIN, do not remove, Planning Commissioner Ray Wang." Stop The Divisiveness And Dirty Politics - Do Not Remove Planning Commissioner Wang The attempted removal of Commissioner Wang is unjust and politically motivated by the two newly elected City Council member Sheila Mohan and J.R. Fruen, who was elected by a thin margin of less one percent of votes casted. But under the leadership of Mayor Hung Wei, this 3-person WMF (Wei, Mohan, Fruen) Council Majority has taken swift actions to change longstanding city practices in less than 3 months. They are causing massive levels of mistrust.

Your actions are divisive for Cupertino residents and in total disregard to the few thousand residents who voted for your opponents, We are your constituents too. Will you do everything in your power to gain majority control, not only in the City Council, but also in every commission? Are you this shameless?
The 2023 WMF Council Majority :
-have removed the resident-focused council members from key committees. -have adopted procedures to shut down commissions where their views do not prevail. -have adopted procedures to silence public commentary on agenda items at council and - commission meetings in the "name of efficient meetings" You have lost the community's trust and faith by breaking your campaign promises to be collaborative and be inclusive and to bring the community together. Instead, every action you have taken so far seems to show that you are unwilling to compromise and work with the other side, which still represents almost 50% of Cupertino residents.

I urge you to do due diligence to investigate any allegations made against a city official so that your one-sided perception, often taken out of context, and often politically motivated won’t become the grounds for your decision to remove a beloved Planning Commissioner.

I urge you to give any city official a warning with findings and recommendations based on solid evidence before you take any formal action for removing anyone from their appointed position.

This is the basic decency that Cupertino voters expected of you, yet you were so eager to agendize this item without a proper inquiry.

As the City Attorney has confirmed that in the “A House Divided” report, the Civil Grand Jury’s accusation of a Council member’s action to direct staff was mistaken. Many of the other claims made in the Civil Grand Jury’s report about the City of Cupertino were false too since they rely on one-sided interviews without any cross examination. The Civil Grand Jury is limited in what they could do, but Cupertino City Council has the ability to conduct an investigation. Why have you not done so?
The City of Los Gatos has formed a subcommittee to investigate an accusation on their Planning Commissioner, even when the accusation is based on an email with written evidence.

Eventually the Los Gatos City Council decided to censure the Commissioner.

The accusations you have received on Planning Commissioner R. Wang have been anecdotal and made by people with clear political motives (follow the money and the donations in the last election). We have the campaign disclosure forms.

Wouldn’t it be much more necessary for Cupertino to form a subcommittee with balanced members to investigate the accusations made before the Council take any formal action? Anything less would appear to demonstrate that the WMF Cupertino City Council is politically motivated to remove a commissioner for political gain and that the Cupertino City Council does not care about the truth nor cares about hurting the reputation of one of their own citizens based on potentially false accusations by a vindictive council member in Sunnyvale and one in Cupertino?
Mayor Wei, can we put our renewed trust in you to do the right thing and not remove a Planning Commissioner without an investigation to establish evidence? Vice Mayor Mohan and council member Fruen, can we put our trust in you that you will serve ALL Cupertino residents whether they support your political views or not? Can we trust all of you to do the diligence before taking drastic actions, in response to those who are politically motivated to remove their opponents? Here are all the contributions of Commissioner Wang, which you should take into consideration before taking any action:
+ Continued perseverance, hard work and determination to represent the resident's interests. + Wang and the current planning commissioners Steven Scharf and Muni Madhdhipatla have worked hard for sensible growth:
- Approved the Westport Project, which provides a large contingent of the housing that is mandated by the State of California. The project is sensible because it does not jeopardize future housing elements by adding excessive office space. - Approved the new hotel at Cupertino Village, which provides a plentiful tax revenue stream to Cupertino.
- Approved the Bateh Brothers site for new mixed-use housing. The developer followed appropriate processes and did not insist on overbuilding. - Completed their duty in housing element site selection. + Commissioner Wang has a long history of defending his community from developers and business interests who seek to take advantage of residents and their rights. Wang has been a strong advocate for resident-focused causes and keeping the city staff accountable. + Wang questioned why staff have taken no action to create 5G tower architectural standards to protect our neighborhoods. The community has been frustrated with the lack of action by the city.
+ Wang asks tough questions that both the residents and the decision makers need in order to have sufficient information. Wang pushes to get more information and to speed up the site selection for Housing Element, while providing ample time for the residents to comment. + His care for public concerns are well appreciated by many who spend time attending these meetings.
+ We need officials like Wang who keep the consultants and staff accountable in order to provide excellent services to the city residents.
+ We need more residents like Wang who represent the interests of residents. We feel Wang has represented us well and should continue to serve as our voice on the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Wang should serve out his term and continue his oversight of the cities planning activities.

Please reconsider the council’s actions to remove Wang from the Planning Commission.

Do not remove him!
Kenneth Solnit
[email protected]
21103 Fenway Ct
Cupertino, California 95014
From: Marilyn Sherry
To: City Clerk
Subject: Requesting the Removal of Planning Commissioner Ray “R” Wang Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 3:47:59 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.

City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia,
I am a Cupertino homeowner.

I am writing to support the removal of R. Wang as Cupertino Planning Commissioner.

By his actions he has brought shame on our city, impeded progress in our city's development, and mistreated staff and members of the public. This is intolerable.

I trust in Cupertino's new leadership to continue to show by its actions the future ethical and democratic direction of our fair city by holding Commissioner Wang accountable.

Thank you for your attention. Together, let's bring dignity back to Cupertino.

Marilyn Sherry
[email protected]
10213 Miller Ave
Cupertino, California 95014
From: Munisekar
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; Muni
Subject: Agenda Item 11 from City Council Meeting March 7, 2023 Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 3:08:09 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.

Good evening Mayor and the City Council.

My name is Muni Madhdhipatla, and I am a Cupertino Resident. I also serve on the Planning Commission, but I am here today representing myself as a concerned resident.

I humbly request and encourage you to vote NO on agenda item 11 as it is a politically motivated vindictive item. Ray is being accused of harassing staff in the May 24th 2022 planning commission meeting. I attended that meeting and watched the video again today before this meeting. In my humble opinion, Ray was demanding accountability from the staff and the consultants as there was literally no progress over a month. Please note we were paying thousands of tax-payers $$s to these consultants. BTW, these consultants were fired subsequently by the staff.

It is a politically motivated agenda item to remove Mr. Ray Wang because one of the council members and his founding organization hate Ray for standing up for residents.

Ray Wang is a well accomplished individual, founder and chairman of well-respected technology research firm called Constellation Research. Ray is often seen live on CNBC and Fox Business channels commenting about the latest industry direction.

I worked in the Tech Industry for over 20+ years in various leadership roles and I know the difference between holding someone accountable vs. harassment. Those that are accusing Ray of harassment probably haven’t held any meaningful job in their life.

Please don’t bring vindictive politics into Cupertino; we are better than that. Let us keep the civility of elected and appointed offices intact.

Thank you for your consideration; hopefully, you will do the right thing.

Warm Regards
Muni Madhdhipatla
Cupertino Resident
From: Pam Hershey
To: City Council; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Subject: Commissioner Ray Wang
Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 2:34:06 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.

Mayor Wei and Council Members,
Tonight, I am requesting you to NOT remove commissioner Ray Wang from the planning committee.

There are many reasons I state that but the one nearest and dearest to my heart is the Vallco project site.

I live within a stone throw away from Vallco, therefore, what is going to be built there impacts me every
moment of the day as it is literally in my front yard.

Thankfully, Ray was also critical of the fact that certain council members and staff had no qualms about putting residents in harms way on the Vallco site – now a listed Cortese site for hazardous materials. That site needs to be cleaned up before anyone can build yet we have legislators trying to write in a way to bypass the cleanup and a builder who attempted to cover it up rather than clean it up.

Covering it up is not acceptable to my family or the residents of Cupertino.

That is why we need a commissioner like Ray that is focused on the health and safety of the current and future residents of Cupertino and does not cave in to big money from developers.

Please keep Ray Wang!
Thank you
Pamela Hershey resident since 1967
From: Rpxamme Beverstein
To: City Council
Subject: Written communication, Council Meeting, 3/7/2023, Agenda Item 11, in support of Planning Commissioner R "Ray" Wang
Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 2:45:32 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.

I urge you to give any city official a warning with findings and recommendations based on solid evidence before you take any formal action for removing anyone from their appointed position.

This is the basic decency that Cupertino voters expected of you, yet you were so eager to agendize this item without a proper inquiry.

Eventually the Los Gatos City Council decided to censure the Commissioner.

Commissioner Wang should serve out his term and continue his oversight of the cities planning activities.

Please reconsider the council’s actions to remove Wang from the Planning Commission.

Do not remove him!
Rpxamme Beverstein
[email protected]
1061 November Dr.,
Cupertino, California 95014
From: Xiaolin Du
To: City Council
Subject: My Opinion to Council Meeting, 3/7/2023, Agenda Item 11 Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 2:23:10 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.

The attempted removal of Commissioner Wang is unjust without deliberation.

Wouldn’t it be much more necessary for Cupertino to form a subcommittee with balanced members to investigate the accusations made before the Council take any formal action? Otherwise, your actions would be divisive for Cupertino residents and in total disregard to the few thousand residents who voted for your opponents, We are your constituents too. Will you do everything in your power to gain majority control, not only in the City Council, but also in every commission?
I urge you to give any city official a warning with findings and recommendations based on solid evidence before you take any formal action for removing anyone from their appointed position.

This is the basic decency that Cupertino voters expected of you, yet you were so eager to agendize this item without a proper inquiry.

Here are some of the contributions of Commissioner Wang, which I greatly appreciated:
+ We need officials like Wang who keep the consultants and staff accountable in order to provide excellent services to the city residents.
+ We need more residents like Wang who represent the interests of residents. We feel Wang has represented us well and should continue to serve as our voice on the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Wang should serve out his term and continue his oversight of the cities planning activities.

Please reconsider the council’s actions to remove Wang from the Planning Commission.

Do not remove him!
Xiaolin Du
[email protected]
Vicksburg Drive
Cupertino, California 95014
From: Lisa Warren
To: Kirsten Squarcia; Lauren Sapudar
Subject: Please include this informational item in the written comments for March 7, 2023 City Council Reg Meeting Item #11 Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 1:58:19 PM
Attachments: 851af6e1-29ca-47bc-a88c-e69ce02c1917.png
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 this informational item in the written comments for March 7, 2023 City Council Reg Meeting Item #11
Thank you.
---------
Begin forwarded message:

From: "J.R. Fruen" <[email protected]>
Subject: [Today] Requesting your support to defend democracy Date: March 7, 2023 at 8:50:37 AM PST
To:

Dear Community Member,
As always, I am grateful for everything you have done to get to this point–I am honored to serve as your Councilmember. As things begin to stabilize, I hope to soon be able to provide regular updates on where we are as a city and the opportunities available to you to stay engaged..

Now, today is a big day for Cupertino–at tonight’s City Council meeting, we will be voting on whether to remove Cupertino Planning Commissioner Ray “R” Wang, who has demonstrated a repeated pattern of unethical behavior toward members of our community. This will be item 11 on the agenda. For the most recent news, see this Spotlight article.

Will you come give public comment, either in-person or ZOOM to ensure his removal? I would not be making this ask unless I truly felt that I needed your support on this. But I am getting numerous hostile emails demanding I resign or that I be recalled for demanding basic decency and supporting his removal. Your voice will be crucial to this process.

This is a man who has threatened others’ jobs for exercising their First Amendment rights; someone who routinely attacks our most venerable community organizations, like the Rotary Club; someone who belittles our very able staff during televised public meetings, damaging our reputation, recruitment, and service levels. This is not someone who should be in one of the most powerful leadership positions in our town. Our democracy deserves better. You deserve better.

The meeting begins at 6:45, but public comment is likely to begin between 7-7:30.

If you would like to speak in person, come to Cupertino Community Hall (10350 Torre Ave, Cupertino, CA 95014). If you can only speak via ZOOM, here is the link:
https://cityofcupertino.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_qjAbNad7Srqs5BuCMmU8MQ I am no longer in the leadership of Cupertino for All, but I support much of their language and advice for speaking tomorrow. You can find their summary post with facts, helpful suggestions and more:
https://www.cupertinoforall.org/updates/news/march-7-show-up-to-removecommissioner-ray-wang Thank you,
J.R. Fruen
Councilmember, Cupertino
From: Creighton Galloway
To: City Council
Subject: Written communication, Council Meeting, 3/7/2023, Agenda Item 11, in support of Planning Commissioner R "Ray" Wang
Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 1:01:45 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.

I urge you to give any city official a warning with findings and recommendations based on solid evidence before you take any formal action for removing anyone from their appointed position.

This is the basic decency that Cupertino voters expected of you, yet you were so eager to agendize this item without a proper inquiry.

Eventually the Los Gatos City Council decided to censure the Commissioner.

Commissioner Wang should serve out his term and continue his oversight of the cities planning activities.

Please reconsider the council’s actions to remove Wang from the Planning Commission.

Do not remove him!
Creighton Galloway
[email protected]
20924 Elenda Dr.

Cupertino, California 95014
From: Christopher Robinson
To: City Clerk
Subject: In Support of Removal of Planning Commissioner Ray “R” Wang Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 12:49:17 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.

City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia,
I am a Cupertino community member. This community means a lot to me, and I believe we are home to some of the brightest and most compassionate minds in California. Unfortunately, we are still recovering from prior leadership that has greatly damaged our reputation, including the past actions of Planning Commissioner R. Wang. That is why I am here today to voice my strong support for the removal of Planning Commissioner R. Wang.

While a sitting Planning Commissioner City official, he urged fellow residents to call the employers of pro-housing activists to try to get them fired from their jobs. He has disrespected, insulted, and alleged conspiracy theories against core community partners like Cupertino Rotary and the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce. He continually harassed a City Councilmember in Redwood City (was a planning commissioner), signing her up for porn.

Instead of admitting the truth, he lied that developer interests hacked his computer.

Please honor the lived experiences of those who have been personally harmed by Mr. Wang and do the right thing. Please honor the intelligence and character of our good residents, who deserve to have genuine trust in their officials.

Thank you for your time. It’s time to bring dignity back to Cupertino.

Christopher Robinson
[email protected]
Cupertino, California 95014
From: Holly Loc
To: City Council
Subject: Written communication, Council Meeting, 3/7/2023, Agenda Item 11, in support of Planning Commissioner R "Ray" Wang
Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 12:32:55 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.

I urge you to give any city official a warning with findings and recommendations based on solid evidence before you take any formal action for removing anyone from their appointed position.

This is the basic decency that Cupertino voters expected of you, yet you were so eager to agendize this item without a proper inquiry.

Eventually the Los Gatos City Council decided to censure the Commissioner.

Commissioner Wang should serve out his term and continue his oversight of the cities planning activities.

Please reconsider the council’s actions to remove Wang from the Planning Commission.

Do not remove him!
Holly Loc
[email protected]
10225 Glencoe Dr
Cupertino , California 95014
From: Henry Huang
To: City Council
Subject: Written communication, Council Meeting, 3/7/2023, Agenda Item 11, in support of Planning Commissioner R "Ray" Wang
Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 12:31:42 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.

I urge you to give any city official a warning with findings and recommendations based on solid evidence before you take any formal action for removing anyone from their appointed position.

This is the basic decency that Cupertino voters expected of you, yet you were so eager to agendize this item without a proper inquiry.

Eventually the Los Gatos City Council decided to censure the Commissioner.

Commissioner Wang should serve out his term and continue his oversight of the cities planning activities.

Please reconsider the council’s actions to remove Wang from the Planning Commission.

Do not remove Ray Wang!
Henry Huang
[email protected]
Cupertino, California 95014
From: Kevin Xu
To: City Council
Subject: Written communication, Council Meeting, 3/7/2023, Agenda Item 11, in support of Planning Commissioner R "Ray" Wang
Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 12:20:51 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.

I urge you to give any city official a warning with findings and recommendations based on solid evidence before you take any formal action for removing anyone from their appointed position.

This is the basic decency that Cupertino voters expected of you, yet you were so eager to agendize this item without a proper inquiry.

Eventually the Los Gatos City Council decided to censure the Commissioner.

Commissioner Wang should serve out his term and continue his oversight of the cities planning activities.

Please reconsider the council’s actions to remove Wang from the Planning Commission.

Do not remove him!
Kevin Xu
[email protected]
Cupertino , 95014
From: Peter Loc
To: City Council
Subject: Written communication, Council Meeting, 3/7/2023, Agenda Item 11, in support of Planning Commissioner R "Ray" Wang
Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 12:20:39 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.

I urge you to give any city official a warning with findings and recommendations based on solid evidence before you take any formal action for removing anyone from their appointed position.

This is the basic decency that Cupertino voters expected of you, yet you were so eager to agendize this item without a proper inquiry.

Eventually the Los Gatos City Council decided to censure the Commissioner.

Commissioner Wang should serve out his term and continue his oversight of the cities planning activities.

Please reconsider the council’s actions to remove Wang from the Planning Commission.

Do not remove him!
Peter Loc
[email protected]
10225 Glencoe Dr
Cupertino, California 95014
From: Peter Loc
To: Kirsten Squarcia
Subject: Written communication, Council Meeting, 3/7/2023, Agenda Item 11, in support of Planning Commissioner R "Ray" Wang
Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 12:20:37 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.

City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia,
Dear Cupertino City Council, City Attorney, City Manager, and City Clerk Please include my letter as written communication for the 3/7/2023 City Council meeting, Agenda Item 11, RETAIN, do not remove, Planning Commissioner Ray Wang." Stop The Divisiveness And Dirty Politics - Do Not Remove Planning Commissioner Wang The attempted removal of Commissioner Wang is unjust and politically motivated by the two newly elected City Council member Sheila Mohan and J.R. Fruen, who was elected by a thin margin of less one percent of votes casted. But under the leadership of Mayor Hung Wei, this 3-person WMF (Wei, Mohan, Fruen) Council Majority has taken swift actions to change longstanding city practices in less than 3 months. They are causing massive levels of mistrust.

I urge you to give any city official a warning with findings and recommendations based on solid evidence before you take any formal action for removing anyone from their appointed position.

This is the basic decency that Cupertino voters expected of you, yet you were so eager to agendize this item without a proper inquiry.

Eventually the Los Gatos City Council decided to censure the Commissioner.

Commissioner Wang should serve out his term and continue his oversight of the cities planning activities.

Please reconsider the council’s actions to remove Wang from the Planning Commission.

Do not remove him!
Peter Loc
[email protected]
10225 Glencoe Dr
Cupertino, California 95014
From: Allison Marin
To: City Council
Subject: Written communication, Council Meeting, 3/7/2023, Agenda Item 11, in support of Planning Commissioner R "Ray" Wang
Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 12:18:11 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.

I urge you to give any city official a warning with findings and recommendations based on solid evidence before you take any formal action for removing anyone from their appointed position.

This is the basic decency that Cupertino voters expected of you, yet you were so eager to agendize this item without a proper inquiry.

Eventually the Los Gatos City Council decided to censure the Commissioner.

Commissioner Wang should serve out his term and continue his oversight of the cities planning activities.

Please reconsider the council’s actions to remove Wang from the Planning Commission.

Do not remove him!
Allison Marin
[email protected]
22802 Longdown Rd
Cupertino, California 95014
From: Bingxi Wood
To: City Council
Subject: Written communication, Council Meeting, 3/7/2023, Agenda Item 11, in support of Planning Commissioner R "Ray" Wang
Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 12:12:21 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.

I urge you to give any city official a warning with findings and recommendations based on solid evidence before you take any formal action for removing anyone from their appointed position.

This is the basic decency that Cupertino voters expected of you, yet you were so eager to agendize this item without a proper inquiry.

Eventually the Los Gatos City Council decided to censure the Commissioner.

Commissioner Wang should serve out his term and continue his oversight of the cities planning activities.

Please reconsider the council’s actions to remove Wang from the Planning Commission.

Do not remove him!
Bingxi Wood
[email protected]
7723 Seeber Ct
Cupertino, California 95014
From: Concerned Citizen
To: City Council
Subject: Written communication, Council Meeting, 3/7/2023, Agenda Item 11, in support of Planning Commissioner R "Ray" Wang
Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 12:11:07 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.

I urge you to give any city official a warning with findings and recommendations based on solid evidence before you take any formal action for removing anyone from their appointed position.

This is the basic decency that Cupertino voters expected of you, yet you were so eager to agendize this item without a proper inquiry.

Eventually the Los Gatos City Council decided to censure the Commissioner.

Commissioner Wang should serve out his term and continue his oversight of the cities planning activities.

Please reconsider the council’s actions to remove Wang from the Planning Commission.

Do not remove him!
Concerned Citizen
[email protected]
Cupertino, California 95014
From: Tiffany Colantuono
To: Kirsten Squarcia
Subject: Written communication, Council Meeting, 3/7/2023, Agenda Item 11, in support of Planning Commissioner R "Ray" Wang
Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 12:09:58 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.

I urge you to give any city official a warning with findings and recommendations based on solid evidence before you take any formal action for removing anyone from their appointed position.

This is the basic decency that Cupertino voters expected of you, yet you were so eager to agendize this item without a proper inquiry.

Eventually the Los Gatos City Council decided to censure the Commissioner.

Commissioner Wang should serve out his term and continue his oversight of the cities planning activities.

Please reconsider the council’s actions to remove Wang from the Planning Commission.

Do not remove him!
Tiffany Colantuono
[email protected]
Cupertino, California 94086
From: Tiffany Colantuono
To: City Council
Subject: Written communication, Council Meeting, 3/7/2023, Agenda Item 11, in support of Planning Commissioner R "Ray" Wang
Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 12:09:58 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.

I urge you to give any city official a warning with findings and recommendations based on solid evidence before you take any formal action for removing anyone from their appointed position.

This is the basic decency that Cupertino voters expected of you, yet you were so eager to agendize this item without a proper inquiry.

Eventually the Los Gatos City Council decided to censure the Commissioner.

Commissioner Wang should serve out his term and continue his oversight of the cities planning activities.

Please reconsider the council’s actions to remove Wang from the Planning Commission.

Do not remove him!
Tiffany Colantuono
[email protected]
Cupertino, California 94086
From: Cathy Chamberlain
To: City Clerk
Subject: In Support of Removal of Planning Commissioner Ray “R” Wang Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 11:58:15 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.

Instead of admitting the truth, he lied that developer interests hacked his computer.

Thank you for your time. It’s time to bring dignity back to Cupertino.

Cathy Chamberlain
[email protected]
10268 Creston Dr
Cupertino , California 95014
From: Latha Govindaraju
To: City Council
Subject: Written communication, Council Meeting, 3/7/2023, Agenda Item 11, in support of Planning Commissioner R "Ray" Wang
Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 11:47:15 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.

I urge you to give any city official a warning with findings and recommendations based on solid evidence before you take any formal action for removing anyone from their appointed position.

This is the basic decency that Cupertino voters expected of you, yet you were so eager to agendize this item without a proper inquiry.

Eventually the Los Gatos City Council decided to censure the Commissioner.

Commissioner Wang should serve out his term and continue his oversight of the cities planning activities.

Please reconsider the council’s actions to remove Wang from the Planning Commission.

Do not remove him!
Latha Govindaraju
[email protected]
Cupertino , California 95014
From: Rajat Mehndiratta
To: City Clerk
Subject: [2023/03/07] [In Support of Item 11] We can"t wait another day; let"s get rid of Creepy Ray! Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 11:42:24 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.

City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia,
Howdy y'all!
I live in Cupertino, actively participate in our community, and speak here for myself and myself alone. As someone who lives here, I feel I have a strong interest in the competence and character of our city government.

To cut to the chase, I write this letter in support of Item 11, the removal of Ray "R" Wang as Cupertino's Planning Commissioner. Independent of our agreements and disagreements on political issues, I'm deeply uncomfortable with Ray Wang's actions, his approach to political conflict, and his general treatment of people.

You've likely already received many letters about abstract concepts like "aggressive development" and "dignity and decency in politics," but I hope to use mine to ground this discussion in the actions and revealed incompetence of Ray Wang.

As you already know, as a grown man in a position of power, Ray signed up a Redwood City Council member up for pornography as retaliation for disagreement on some minor local dispute. You've heard a lot about what that means in terms of freedom of speech, workplace harassment, and dignified governance, but I'd like to step back and ask a much simpler question: "Who does that?" What kind of person thinks it's a good idea to harass a colleague and then sign them up for porn over a tiny disagreement on a local issue? For that same incident, Ray Wang pled no contest to a cyberstalking/harassment charge; then, he denied the incident by saying his computer was hacked by property developers. What I hope y'all ask yourselves here is: "Who thinks this is a believable defense?" What kind of person repeats this blatant, fantastical alibi to the public with a straight face? Moving to more recent times, as a public official in Cupertino, Ray Wang has pushed for people to get fired over political disagreements on local and state issues. Now, in our state of California, employees are legally protected from workplace retaliation over political engagement outside of work. In other words, not only is Ray Wang's approach to political conflict undignified, but it's also a foolish, misguided attempt to get people to break the law.

Let's step back and once again ask ourselves: What kind of person thinks this is a good response to political disagreement? What kind of person deals with political opponents like this? What kind of person thinks this is a smart thing to do? What kind of person has this pattern of retaliatory harassment over local issues?
What kind of person corners people after in-person public comment on city council meetings? What kind of person trafficks in wild conspiracy theories about- of all things- Rotary Club? What kind of person rants about "neo liberal fascists" over the slightest disagreement on local issues?
What kind of person intimidates, berates, and attempts to humiliate city staff in public meetings?
What kind of person dismisses legal advice and gets the city sued? What kind of person compares California's anti-segregation housing laws to elections in the genocidal, totalitarian Soviet Union?
What kind of man has to change his legal name to the letter "R" to run from his past? Cupertino has no shortage of brilliant, sensible people. This city raises some of the smartest kids on earth; its economy is driven by some of the most brilliant talent in America; and it's known worldwide due to nurturing some of the most brilliant entrepreneurs of all time. Surely, we have much better candidates for this role, with much clearer thinking and much higher standards in terms of character, civility and competence than Ray Wang.

I hope y'all don't let yourselves get intimidated by Ray Wang, the folks who have empowered this man and kept him in power, and the confused residents who have been manipulated into thinking this is about "aggressive development." I hope y'all ask yourselves: What kind of people become complacent & complicit about Ray Wang? What kind of people do the right thing in spite of an intimidation campaign to protect an abuser? Which kind of people do y'all want to be?
No matter the anger and political pressure y'all may face today- for doing the right thing- I hope y'all remember that Cupertino is full of brilliant, well-adjusted, sensible people, and most all of them have got much better things to do on a Tuesday night than speak at city council. I promise you, this city as a whole will appreciate having a Planning Commissioner with character and competence.

Cupertino has a lot of things to be proud of. Let's make our city government one of them! Thank you for your time & the care with which you execute your responsibilities.

Faithfully,
Rajat Mehndiratta
PS: Commissioner Wang, if you ever read this, please feel free to contact me for my employer's information; you can email me at [email protected]. I would love to have something new to laugh about with my manager.

Rajat Mehndiratta
[email protected]
19608 Pruneridge Avenue #8303
Cupertino, California 95014
From: Eric Schaefer
To: City Council; City Clerk; Pamela Wu; City Attorney"s Office Cc: Phyllis Dickstein
Subject: Written communication, Council Meeting, 3/7/2023, Agenda Item 11, in support of Planning Commissioner R "Ray" Wang
Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 11:26:49 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 Cupertino City Council, City Attorney, City Manager, and City Clerk Please include my letter as written communication for the 3/7/2023 City Council meeting, Agenda Item 11, RETAIN, do not remove, Planning Commissioner Ray Wang." I am posting the following message on behalf of a neighbor.

Thank you.

Eric Schaefer
-------------------
Dear Council Members,
With respect to agenda item 11, I should like to remind you that Council membership changes from term to term, but common decency does not.

When resident-focused members held a 4-1 majority, they did not remove Commission members who disagreed with their views mid-term. Nor did they seek to inhibit the freedom of expression or the freedom to seek information of their fellow Council members or members of the public. They did not seek to change the rules of the game in their favor. They behaved like ladies and gentlemen.

I sincerely hope that members of the current Council will do the same.

Sincerely,
Phyllis Dickstein
Resident, Travigne Villas
--------------------
From: Michaela Murphy
To: City Clerk
Subject: In Support of Removal of Planning Commissioner Ray “R” Wang Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 11:18:44 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.

Instead of admitting the truth, he lied that developer interests hacked his computer.

Thank you for your time. It’s time to bring dignity back to Cupertino.

Michaela Murphy
[email protected]
Los Angeles, California 90046
From: Li Chen
To: City Council
Subject: Written communication, Council Meeting, 3/7/2023, Agenda Item 11, in support of Planning Commissioner R "Ray" Wang
Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 11:18:08 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.

I urge you to give any city official a warning with findings and recommendations based on solid evidence before you take any formal action for removing anyone from their appointed position.

This is the basic decency that Cupertino voters expected of you, yet you were so eager to agendize this item without a proper inquiry.

Eventually the Los Gatos City Council decided to censure the Commissioner.

Commissioner Wang should serve out his term and continue his oversight of the cities planning activities.

Please reconsider the council’s actions to remove Wang from the Planning Commission.

Do not remove him!
Li Chen
[email protected]
Cupertino, California 95014
From: Jerry Lu
To: City Council
Subject: Written communication, Council Meeting, 3/7/2023, Agenda Item 11, in support of Planning Commissioner R "Ray" Wang
Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 11:16:01 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.

I urge you to give any city official a warning with findings and recommendations based on solid evidence before you take any formal action for removing anyone from their appointed position.

This is the basic decency that Cupertino voters expected of you, yet you were so eager to agendize this item without a proper inquiry.

Eventually the Los Gatos City Council decided to censure the Commissioner.

Commissioner Wang should serve out his term and continue his oversight of the cities planning activities.

Please reconsider the council’s actions to remove Wang from the Planning Commission.

Do not remove him!
Jerry Lu
[email protected]
1152 Candlelight Way
Cupertino, California 95014
From: [email protected]
To: City Clerk
Subject: In Support of Removal of Planning Commissioner Ray “R” Wang Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 11:14:52 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.

City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia,
I am a long-time Cupertino community member. I want Ray Wang out. b (betsy collins shafer, Cupertino)
[email protected]
19919 Pear Tree Ln, 19919 Pear Tree Lane
Cupertino, California 95014
From: Betsy Shafer
To: City Council
Subject: Written communication, Council Meeting, 3/7/2023, Agenda Item 11 Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 11:11:57 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.

All Cupertino City Council,
Dear Cupertino City Council, City Attorney, City Manager, and City Clerk Please include my letter as written communication for the 3/7/2023 City Council meeting, Agenda Item 11, RETAIN, do not remove, Planning Commissioner Ray Wang." Please remove him (Ray Wang)!
betsy collins shafer, Cupertino
Betsy Shafer
[email protected]
19919 Pear Tree Ln
Cupertino, California 95014
From: Al-Husein Madhany
To: City Council
Subject: Written communication, Council Meeting, 3/7/2023, Agenda Item 11, in support of Planning Commissioner R "Ray" Wang
Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 11:06:37 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.

I urge you to give any city official a warning with findings and recommendations based on solid evidence before you take any formal action for removing anyone from their appointed position.

This is the basic decency that Cupertino voters expected of you, yet you were so eager to agendize this item without a proper inquiry.

Eventually the Los Gatos City Council decided to censure the Commissioner.

Commissioner Wang should serve out his term and continue his oversight of the cities planning activities.

Please reconsider the council’s actions to remove Wang from the Planning Commission.

Do not remove him!
Al-Husein Madhany
[email protected]
Cupertino, California 95014
From: Anjana Choudhury
To: City Council
Subject: Written communication, Council Meeting, 3/7/2023, Agenda Item 11, in support of Planning Commissioner R "Ray" Wang
Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 10:50:27 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.

All Cupertino City Council,
Dear Cupertino City Council, City Attorney, City Manager, and City Clerk Please include my letter as written communication for the 3/7/2023 City Council meeting, Agenda Item 11, RETAIN, do not remove, Planning Commissioner Ray Wang." Stop The Divisiveness And Dirty Politics - Do Not Remove Planning Commissioner Wang The attempted removal of Commissioner Wang is unjust and politically motivated by the two newly elected City Council members. But under current Mayor's leadership, this 3-person WMF (Wei, Mohan, Fruen) Council Majority has taken swift actions to change long-standing city practices in less than 3 months. They are causing massive levels of mistrust.

I urge you to give any city official a warning with findings and recommendations based on solid evidence before you take any formal action for removing anyone from their appointed position.

This is the basic decency that Cupertino voters expected of you, yet you were so eager to agendize this item without a proper inquiry.

Eventually the Los Gatos City Council decided to censure the Commissioner.

Commissioner Wang should serve out his term and continue his oversight of the cities planning activities.

Please reconsider the council’s actions to remove Wang from the Planning Commission.

Do not remove him!
Anjana Choudhury
[email protected]
7475 Rainbow Drive
Cupertino, California 95014
From: Kishore Choudhury
To: City Council
Subject: Written communication, Council Meeting, 3/7/2023, Agenda Item 11, in support of Planning Commissioner R "Ray" Wang
Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 10:46:10 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.

All Cupertino City Council,
Dear Cupertino City Council, City Attorney, City Manager, and City Clerk Please include my letter as written communication for the 3/7/2023 City Council meeting, Agenda Item 11, RETAIN, do not remove, Planning Commissioner Ray Wang." Stop The Divisiveness and Dirty Politics - Do Not Remove Planning Commissioner Wang The attempted removal of Commissioner Wang is unjust and politically motivated by the two newly elected City Council member Sheila Mohan and J.R. Fruen, who was elected by a thin margin of less one percent of votes casted. But under the leadership of Mayor Hung Wei, this 3-person WMF (Wei, Mohan, Fruen) Council Majority has taken swift actions to change longstanding city practices in less than 3 months. They are causing massive levels of mistrust.

Your actions are divisive for Cupertino residents and in total disregard to the few thousand residents who voted for your opponents, we are your constituents too. Will you do everything in your power to gain majority control, not only in the City Council, but also in every commission? Are you this shameless?
The 2023 WMF Council majority :
-have removed the resident-focused council members from key committees. -have adopted procedures to shut down commissions where their views do not prevail. -have adopted procedures to silence public commentary on agenda items at council and - commission meetings in the "name of efficient meetings" You have lost the community's trust and faith by breaking your campaign promises to be collaborative and be inclusive and to bring the community together. Instead, every action you have taken so far seems to show that you are unwilling to compromise and work with the other side, which still represents almost 50% of Cupertino residents.

I urge you to give any city official a warning with findings and recommendations based on solid evidence before you take any formal action for removing anyone from their appointed position.

This is the basic decency that Cupertino voters expected of you, yet you were so eager to put this item in agenda without a proper inquiry.

Eventually the Los Gatos City Council decided to censure the Commissioner.

Commissioner Wang should serve out his term and continue his oversight of the cities planning activities.

Please reconsider the council’s actions to remove Wang from the Planning Commission.

Do not remove him!
Kishore Choudhury
[email protected]
7475 Rainbow Drive
Cupertino, California 95014
From: Marieann Shovlin
To: City Clerk
Subject: In Support of Removal of Planning Commissioner Ray “R” Wang Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 10:45:24 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.

City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia,
I am a Cupertino community member for over 49 years. This community means a lot to me, and I believe we are home to some of the brightest and most compassionate minds in California. Unfortunately, we are still recovering from prior leadership that has greatly damaged our reputation, including the past actions of Planning Commissioner R. Wang. That is why I am here today to voice my strong support for the removal of Planning Commissioner R. Wang.

Those elected and appointed for city, county or state government have an obligation to represent their constituents in a respectful and professional manner. Using insulting and/or disrespectful language while serving in any representative capacity violates all norms of conduct and indicates the need for removal from this role.

Following the Golden Rule of treating others as you yourself want to be treated is a valid guideline. Commissioner Wang should resign or be removed from any City role.

I believe in Cupertino and its future–that’s why I am here speaking for democracy and for ethical leadership. It’s past time for the Council to hold Commissioner Wang accountable.

It’s time to return respect and dignity in government to Cupertino.

Thank you,
Marieann Shovlin
Marieann Shovlin
[email protected]
10277 Vista Knoll Blvd.

Cupertino, California 95014
From: Cupertino ForAll
To: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Council Subject: Joint Letter: Organizations Call on Council to Remove R Wang Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 10:02:26 AM
Attachments: Sign on letter .pdf
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 Cupertino City Council,
Please see the attached letter from several organizations in our region calling for the removal of Planning Commissioner R Wang. This is in support of item #11.

Cupertino for All
Democratic Activists for Women Now—DAWN
South Bay YIMBY
Silicon Valley Young Democrats
South Bay Youth Changemakers
Silicon Valley Asian Pacific American Democratic Club
Ava Chiao, Teacher, Cupertino resident
Community Letter: Removal of Planning Commissioner R “Ray” Wang
We support the March 7 Cupertino City Council agenda item to remove Planning Commissioner R “Ray” Wang—a long overdue ordeal as he has repeatedly abused his position of power to harass residents and leaders in the community. Cupertino needs elected and appointed representatives to adopt an approach to public policy that is fair, unlocks opportunity for all, commits to conducting the people’s business in public, and ensures City Hall represents all of Cupertino, not just a chosen few. To be clear–this is not an instance 20 years ago; this is a repeated pattern of behavior.

Cupertino is a role model for other cities to follow–with a newly-elected, strong, diverse city council, and excellent city staff. Unfortunately, it is still recovering from prior leadership that has greatly damaged its reputation, including the past actions of Planning Commissioner Wang.

The new City Council has begun to undo the damage of the former Council with a powerful governance reform package and a response to the Civil Grand Jury Report which reprimanded the former Council. For Cupertino and its democracy to truly move forward–where all voices feel valued and respected–they must hold their appointed officials accountable for past actions. That is why Cupertino voices have repeatedly demanded the removal of Planning Commissioner R Wang.

The repeated behaviors of Commissioner Wang exhibit an inability to work with others in a leadership capacity–he aggressively lashes out at others who disagree with him and seeks to damage others’ livelihood when he does not get what he wants. His actions are wide-ranging, showing intent to intimidate and stifle public participation. Specifically:

1. Alleged Sexual Harassment
Commissioner Wang harassed a City Councilmember in Redwood City (who was a planning commissioner at the time), signing her up for porn. Instead of admitting the truth, he lied that developer interests hacked his computer. He took a plea deal, avoiding felony charges for impersonation and unauthorized use of another person’s personal identification. He also placed a threatening call to this same individual. He took a negotiated plea deal, allowing him to avoid trial on felony identity theft charges and pled no contest to a cyberstalking misdemeanor for which he was originally given a custodial sentence (jail time).

2. Harassment of Community Members
While a Planning Commissioner, Wang urged fellow residents to call the employers of pro-housing activists to try to get them fired from their jobs. He said, verbatim (“Next time you get harassed by a YIMBY, track down their employer and send their HR, Legal, and CEO a letter outlining their YIMBY stance, and all their tweets, their digital and social comms to show their lack of civility. It goes a long way to getting them reprimanded and in some cases a dose of reality.”)

3. Antagonized key City Staff using his role as Planning Commissioner On May 24, 2022, Commissioner Wang used his position as Planning Commissioner at a Planning Commission meeting to try to rudely discredit the work of the Housing Element Consultant and City staff. He also excoriated Senior Planner Eric Serrano during the Canyon Crossing and Bateh Brothers project review at the Planning Commission.

4. Violations of Commissioner’s Handbook
On February 17, 2021, as Chair of the Planning Commission, R Wang wrote a letter directly to the City Manager with scathing input on the performance of a 2 high level employee. He acted well outside the bounds of his authority as stated in the 2021 Commissionier’s Handbook. The Handbook clearly states that Commissioners cannot direct, prioritize, or supervise city staff.

5. Spreading Lies
On the Vallco redevelopment—he said that we must “save the suburbs from an onslaught of anarchists and YIMBY Neo Liberal fascists.” This is a clear misrepresentation of activists’ honest attempts to engage in meaningful dialogue pertaining to issues of affordable housing.

When the City sought to fix a density bonus ordinance to comply with state law, he compared this to “free and fair democratic elections in the Soviet Union.”
He has downplayed the reality of the housing crisis, spreading lies such as:
“Just to correct the record, we don’t have a homeless problem… We had a manufactured homeless crisis sponsored by some individuals." We support the Agenda Item to remove Planning Commissioner R “Ray” Wang.

In Community,
Cupertino for All
Democratic Activists for Women Now—DAWN
South Bay YIMBY
Silicon Valley Young Democrats
South Bay Youth Changemakers
Silicon Valley Asian Pacific American Democratic Club
Ava Chiao, Teacher, Cupertino resident
3 4
From: Rosanne Foust
To: City Council; Hung Wei; Sheila Mohan; J.R. Fruen; Liang Chao; Kitty Moore Subject: Fwd: City Council Meeting March 7 2023 Agenda Item #11 Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 9:59:09 AM
Attachments: Cupertino City Council Meeting 3.7.2023 Item 11 Comments.pdf 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 see the attached that was sent yesterday to the [email protected] email address. Thank you.
---------- Original Message ----------
From: Rosanne Foust <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Date: 03/06/2023 1:11 PM
Subject: City Council Meeting March 7 2023 Agenda Item #11 Please see my attached letter to the Cupertino City Council for Item #11 on March 7, 2023.

Thank you,
Rosanne Foust

From: Norma Goorvitch
To: City Clerk
Subject: In Support of Removal of Planning Commissioner Ray “R” Wang Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 9:48:25 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.

Instead of admitting the truth, he lied that developer interests hacked his computer.

Thank you for your time. It’s time to bring dignity back to Cupertino.

Norma Goorvitch
[email protected]
22116 Linda Vista Place
Cupertino , California 95014
From: Adrienne Harber
To: City Clerk
Subject: In Support of Removal of Planning Commissioner Ray “R” Wang Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 9:30:28 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.

City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia,
I am a proud Cupertino community member. This community means a lot to me; we are home to some of the best and most compassionate minds in California. Unfortunately, we are still recovering from prior leadership that has damaged our reputation, including the past actions of Planning Commissioner R. Wang. That is why I strongly support the removal of Planning Commissioner R. Wang.

While he was a sitting Planning Commissioner City official, he urged fellow residents to call the employers of pro-housing activists to try to get them fired from their jobs. He has disrespected, insulted, and alleged conspiracy theories against core community partners like Cupertino Rotary and the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce. He continually harassed a City Council member in Redwood City (who was a planning commissioner), signing her up for porn. Instead of admitting the truth, he lied that developer interests had hacked his computer.

Commissioner Wang even acts on misinformation to propel his political agenda, instead of listening to legal advice, putting the city at risk of being sued. For example, when the City sought to fix a density bonus ordinance to comply with state law, he compared this to "free and fair democratic elections in the Soviet Union.”
I believe in Cupertino and its future – that’s why I am here speaking for democracy and for ethical leadership, which we have in our current Council and Mayor. It is past time for the Council to hold Commissioner Wang accountable. Please honor the experiences of those who have been personally harmed by Mr. Wang and remove him from his current position. Honor the intelligence and character of our residents, who deserve to have genuine trust in their officials. This is not a political move, as Mr. Wang claims, but one that is needed to re-establish our city's integrity.

It’s time to bring dignity back to Cupertino.

Adrienne Harber
[email protected]
18900 Pendergast Ave
Cupertino, California 95014
From: Yi Ding
To: City Council
Subject: on the subject of the Cupertino Planning Commission Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 9:15:55 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 Council Members of the City of Cupertino,
I understand you are considering the composition of your planning commission tonight.

Unfortunately I will not be able to attend, but wanted to offer a few comments:

Surely tonight you will hear many details about the virtues and vices of Mr. Wang and I will not bother to repeat them here.

The more important issue, in my opinion, is the proper functioning of your planning commission, an essential government organ for every city. Since governance is your primary charge, I hope you keep that top of mind tonight. From my outsider perspective, and indeed by any objective measure, your previous planning commission has demonstrated a complete lack of aptitude and indeed inclination to not only follow the relevant laws, but also discharge the basic responsibilities of the planning commission. This, of course, has caused many difficulties for the administration of your city, and I'm sure your staff would gladly discuss those with you at length. Therefore, I would urge you to seriously consider removing all three holdovers from the previous commission.

Good governance is important. Sometimes the only way to achieve that is with a clean start.

Respectfully,
Yi Ding
From: Joan Bodway
To: City Clerk
Subject: In Support of Removal of Planning Commissioner Ray “R” Wang Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 9:12:50 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.

Instead of admitting the truth, he lied that developer interests hacked his computer.

Thank you for your time. It’s time to bring dignity back to Cupertino.

Joan Bodway
[email protected]
20142 Pacifica Drive
Cupertino, California 95014
From: Archana Chilukuri
To: City Council
Subject: Written communication, Council Meeting, 3/7/2023, Agenda Item 11, in support of Planning Commissioner R "Ray" Wang
Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 8:24:56 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.

I urge you to give any city official a warning with findings and recommendations based on solid evidence before you take any formal action for removing anyone from their appointed position.

This is the basic decency that Cupertino voters expected of you, yet you were so eager to agendize this item without a proper inquiry.

Eventually the Los Gatos City Council decided to censure the Commissioner.

Commissioner Wang should serve out his term and continue his oversight of the cities planning activities.

Please reconsider the council’s actions to remove Wang from the Planning Commission.

Do not remove him!
Archana Chilukuri
[email protected]
10275 moretti dr
Cupertino , California 95014
From: Bing Rui
To: City Council
Subject: Written communication, Council Meeting, 3/7/2023, Agenda Item 11, in support of Planning Commissioner R "Ray" Wang
Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 8:11:25 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.

I urge you to give any city official a warning with findings and recommendations based on solid evidence before you take any formal action for removing anyone from their appointed position.

This is the basic decency that Cupertino voters expected of you, yet you were so eager to agendize this item without a proper inquiry.

Eventually the Los Gatos City Council decided to censure the Commissioner.

Commissioner Wang should serve out his term and continue his oversight of the cities planning activities.

Please reconsider the council’s actions to remove Wang from the Planning Commission.

Do not remove him!
Bing Rui
[email protected]
Cupertino , California 95014
From: Veronica Harris
To: City Clerk
Subject: In Support of Removal of Planning Commissioner Ray “R” Wang Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 7:59:13 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.

City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia,
I am a Cupertino community member and long time student of De Anza College. This community means a lot to me, and I believe we are home to some of the brightest and most compassionate minds in California. Unfortunately, we are still recovering from prior leadership that has greatly damaged our reputation, including the past actions of Planning Commissioner R. Wang. That is why I am here today to voice my strong support for the removal of Planning Commissioner R. Wang.

Instead of admitting the truth, he lied that developer interests hacked his computer. As a survivor of sexual assault myself, I do not believe these actions should be taken so lightly that they may be swept under the rug.

Thank you for your time. It’s time to bring dignity back to Cupertino.

Veronica Harris
[email protected]
Campbell, California 95008
From: Charlsie Chang
To: City Clerk
Subject: In Support of Removal of Planning Commissioner Ray “R” Wang Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 7:59:11 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.

City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia,
As a community member that lives on Wolfe Road, I am writing to voice my strong support for the removal of planning commissioner Ray Wang.

As a sitting planning commissioner, he has called our neighbors “anarchists” and “Neo Liberal fascists,” and has even urged residents to call the employers of those that have differing opinions than him to try to get them fired from their jobs. While our opinions can differ on how we might feel is the right course of action, rather than listening to these opinions, he has continuously resorted to intimidation, bullying, and harassment of people whose opinions do not align with his. To belittle those that you don’t agree with is not conducive to a democratic society, and it dissuades everyday people from taking part in the political process. In fact, in all honestly, I was nervous to write this email because I considered the retribution I could face. But that isn’t how anyone should have to feel engaging in government.

The behavior he resorts to, the type of language he uses, and the polarization he exacerbates is unbecoming of a planning commissioner. I am especially disheartened that Cupertino leadership has continued to give further leadership opportunities to a person who has been shown to antagonize others, including women in leadership roles. He has a demonstrated pattern of harassment — including a time he had a female Redwood City planning commissioner’s business email sent porn. An investigation connected his home computer IP address to the pornographic email, and instead of apologizing for his actions, he blatantly lied and blamed developer interests for hacking his computer.

How can we meaningfully address our issues when our appointed officials resort to deflection, misdirection, and flat out lying?
While I feel that his removal is long overdue, as his behavior has demonstrated little remorse time and time again, I believe this is a necessary action and I thank you for your consideration.

Charlsie Chang
[email protected]
1382 S Wolfe Road
Sunnyvale, California 94087
From: Jayson Chao
To: City Clerk
Subject: In Support of Removal of Planning Commissioner Ray “R” Wang Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 7:47:45 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.

Instead of admitting the truth, he lied that developer interests hacked his computer.

Thank you for your time. It’s time to bring dignity back to Cupertino.

Jayson Chao
[email protected]
22334 Cupertino Road
Cupertino, California 95014
From: Susan Candell
To: Kirsten Squarcia
Subject: Written communication, Council Meeting, 3/7/2023, Agenda Item 11, in support of Planning Commissioner R "Ray" Wang
Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 7:31:35 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.

I urge you to give any city official a warning with findings and recommendations based on solid evidence before you take any formal action for removing anyone from their appointed position.

This is the basic decency that Cupertino voters expected of you, yet you were so eager to agendize this item without a proper inquiry.

Eventually the Los Gatos City Council decided to censure the Commissioner.

Commissioner Wang should serve out his term and continue his oversight of the cities planning activities.

Please reconsider the council’s actions to remove Wang from the Planning Commission.

Do not remove him!
Signed,
Susan Candell
Susan Candell
[email protected]
1085 Martino Road
Lafayette, California 94549
From: Jim Wheeler
To: City Council
Subject: Written communication, Council Meeting, 3/7/2023, Agenda Item 11, in support of Planning Commissioner R "Ray" Wang
Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 6:56:37 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.

I urge you to give any city official a warning with findings and recommendations based on solid evidence before you take any formal action for removing anyone from their appointed position.

This is the basic decency that Cupertino voters expected of you, yet you were so eager to agendize this item without a proper inquiry.

Eventually the Los Gatos City Council decided to censure the Commissioner.

Commissioner Wang should serve out his term and continue his oversight of the cities planning activities.

Please reconsider the council’s actions to remove Wang from the Planning Commission.

Do not remove him!
Jim Wheeler
[email protected]
22238 Hammond Way
Cupertino, 9t014
From: Punam Verma
To: City Council
Subject: Written communication, Council Meeting, 3/7/2023, Agenda Item 11, in support of Planning Commissioner R "Ray" Wang
Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 6:46:53 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.

Here are all the contributions of Commissioner Wang, which you should take into consideration before taking any action:
+ Continued perseverance, hard work and determination to represent the resident's interests. + Wang and the current planning commissioners Steven Scharf and Muni Madhdhipatla have worked hard for sensible growth:
- Approved the Westport Project, which provides a large contingent of the housing that is mandated by the State of California. The project is sensible because it does not jeopardize future housing elements by adding excessive office space. - Approved the new hotel at Cupertino Village, which provides a plentiful tax revenue stream to Cupertino.
- Approved the Bateh Brothers site for new mixed-use housing. The developer followed appropriate processes and did not insist on overbuilding. - Completed their duty in housing element site selection. + Commissioner Wang has a long history of defending his community from developers and business interests who seek to take advantage of residents and their rights. Wang has been a strong advocate for resident-focused causes and keeping the city staff accountable. + Wang questioned why staff have taken no action to create 5G tower architectural standards to protect our neighborhoods. The community has been frustrated with the lack of action by the city.
+ Wang asks tough questions that both the residents and the decision makers need in order to have sufficient information. Wang pushes to get more information and to speed up the site selection for Housing Element, while providing ample time for the residents to comment. + His care for public concerns are well appreciated by many who spend time attending these meetings.
+ We need officials like Wang who keep the consultants and staff accountable in order to provide excellent services to the city residents.
+ We need more residents like Wang who represent the interests of residents. We feel Wang has represented us well and should continue to serve as our voice on the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Wang should serve out his term and continue his oversight of the cities planning activities.

Please reconsider the council’s actions to remove Wang from the Planning Commission.

Do not remove Commissioner Wang.

Punam Verma
[email protected]
1158 Stafford Dr
Cupertino, California 95014
From: Aastha Upadhyay
To: City Council
Subject: Written communication, Council Meeting, 3/7/2023, Agenda Item 11, in support of Planning Commissioner R "Ray" Wang
Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 6:43:25 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.

I urge you to give any city official a warning with findings and recommendations based on solid evidence before you take any formal action for removing anyone from their appointed position.

This is the basic decency that Cupertino voters expected of you, yet you were so eager to agendize this item without a proper inquiry.

Eventually the Los Gatos City Council decided to censure the Commissioner.

Commissioner Wang should serve out his term and continue his oversight of the cities planning activities.

Please reconsider the council’s actions to remove Wang from the Planning Commission.

Do not remove him!
Aastha Upadhyay
[email protected]
Cupertino , California 95014
From: Ankita Upadhyay
To: City Council
Subject: Written communication, Council Meeting, 3/7/2023, Agenda Item 11, in support of Planning Commissioner R "Ray" Wang
Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 6:40:23 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.

I urge you to give any city official a warning with findings and recommendations based on solid evidence before you take any formal action for removing anyone from their appointed position.

This is the basic decency that Cupertino voters expected of you, yet you were so eager to agendize this item without a proper inquiry.

Eventually the Los Gatos City Council decided to censure the Commissioner.

Commissioner Wang should serve out his term and continue his oversight of the cities planning activities.

Please reconsider the council’s actions to remove Wang from the Planning Commission.

Do not remove him!
Ankita Upadhyay
[email protected]
Cupertino , California 95014
From: Ajaykumar Upadhyay
To: City Council
Subject: Written communication, Council Meeting, 3/7/2023, Agenda Item 11, in support of Planning Commissioner R "Ray" Wang
Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 6:38:41 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.

I urge you to give any city official a warning with findings and recommendations based on solid evidence before you take any formal action for removing anyone from their appointed position.

This is the basic decency that Cupertino voters expected of you, yet you were so eager to agendize this item without a proper inquiry.

Eventually the Los Gatos City Council decided to censure the Commissioner.

Commissioner Wang should serve out his term and continue his oversight of the cities planning activities.

Please reconsider the council’s actions to remove Wang from the Planning Commission.

Do not remove him!
Ajaykumar Upadhyay
[email protected]
Cupertino , California 95014
From: Krishna Maheshwari
To: City Council
Subject: Written communication, Council Meeting, 3/7/2023, Agenda Item 11, in support of Planning Commissioner R "Ray" Wang
Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 6:25:52 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.

I urge you to give any city official a warning with findings and recommendations based on solid evidence before you take any formal action for removing anyone from their appointed position.

This is the basic decency that Cupertino voters expected of you, yet you were so eager to agendize this item without a proper inquiry.

Eventually the Los Gatos City Council decided to censure the Commissioner.

Commissioner Wang should serve out his term and continue his oversight of the cities planning activities.

Please reconsider the council’s actions to remove Wang from the Planning Commission.

Do not remove him!
Krishna Maheshwari
[email protected]
10367, Menhart Lane
Cupertino, California 95014
From: Amor Roldan Willey
To: City Council
Subject: Written communication, Council Meeting, 3/7/2023, Agenda Item 11, in support of Planning Commissioner R "Ray" Wang
Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 6:17:36 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.

I urge you to give any city official a warning with findings and recommendations based on solid evidence before you take any formal action for removing anyone from their appointed position.

This is the basic decency that Cupertino voters expected of you, yet you were so eager to agendize this item without a proper inquiry.

Eventually the Los Gatos City Council decided to censure the Commissioner.

Commissioner Wang should serve out his term and continue his oversight of the cities planning activities.

Please reconsider the council’s actions to remove Wang from the Planning Commission.

Do not remove him!
Amor Roldan Willey
[email protected]
18870 Tilson Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
From: Shirish Seetharam
To: City Council
Subject: Written communication, Council Meeting, 3/7/2023, Agenda Item 11, in support of Planning Commissioner R "Ray" Wang
Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 5:47:36 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.

I urge you to give any city official a warning with findings and recommendations based on solid evidence before you take any formal action for removing anyone from their appointed position.

This is the basic decency that Cupertino voters expected of you, yet you were so eager to agendize this item without a proper inquiry.

Eventually the Los Gatos City Council decided to censure the Commissioner.

Commissioner Wang should serve out his term and continue his oversight of the cities planning activities.

Please reconsider the council’s actions to remove Wang from the Planning Commission.

Do not remove him!
Shirish Seetharam
[email protected]
10198 Richwood Dr
Cupertino, California 95014
From: Thaddeus Tarshis
To: City Clerk
Subject: In Support of Removal of Planning Commissioner Ray “R” Wang Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 2:22:12 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.

Instead of admitting the truth, he lied that developer interests hacked his computer.

Thank you for your time. It’s time to bring dignity back to Cupertino.

Thaddeus Tarshis
[email protected]
22079 San Fernando Ct.

Cupertino, California 95014
From: Liana Crabtree
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: written communication: 3/7/2023 Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, RETAIN Planning Commissioner R "Ray" Wang for the remainder of his term
Date: Monday, March 6, 2023 11:58:16 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.

Honorable Mayor Wei, Vice Mayor Mohan, and Council Members Chao, Fruen, and Moore:

Please include this letter as written communication for the 3/7/2023 Council meeting, Agenda Item 11 "Removal of Planning Commissioner R Wang".

I oppose any decision to remove R "Ray" Wang from the Planning Commission, with or without cause.

Some have cited Commissioner Wang's comments provided at the 5/24/2022 Planning Commission meeting as "justification" for his removal from the commission.

However, a determined majority Council is not required to provide a reason to remove an appointed city official. A majority Council's will to remove a commissioner for reasons of political expediency is sufficient.

I have listened to the May 24, 2022 Planning Commission meeting and agree with the concerns Commissioner Wang expressed during the meeting. Specifically, the contractor hired to prepare the Housing Element submission had put the City at risk of missing deadlines by not providing basic deliverables, such as a project timeline with dates and an updated spreadsheet identifying potential housing development sites.

I noted that of the 4 members of the public who commented on the Housing Element agenda item during the 5/24/2022 Planning Commission meeting, 3 expressed support for or thanked Commissioner Wang for his comments.

What stays with me about the 5/24/2022 meeting, however, were Commissioner Wang's prescient comments during the agenda setting-portion of the meeting.

Here are the comments of Chair Scharf, Senior Assistant City Attorney Woo, and Commissioner Wang's during the discussion of future agenda items (time stamp, 1:59:47, 5/24/2022 meeting recording):

Chair Scharf: Let me ask the City Attorney, for a future agenda item based on what we heard from the public and from some commissioners, can we put an item on the agenda to discuss the timeline and the performance of our consultant, in regards to the Housing Element? Since we obviously were not allowed to discuss it tonight.

Senior Assistant City Attorney Woo: Yeah, so Chair you had the discretion to add something to an agenda and then in consultation with the Planning Manager who can set when that will occur, on which agenda.

Chair Scharf: Okay, well, yeah we don't have a lot of time here, so, right, I know I can put things on the agenda, so I will do that for the next agenda.

Senior Assistant City Attorney Woo: I just want to clarify, I'm sorry, I apologize, but you know it's certainly within your discretion to elect to add an item to an agenda in the future. And when that is actually scheduled, it's a function of a discussion between you and the liaison to the commission, which is the Planning Manager.

Commissioner Wang: May I ask a question to the Senior Assistant City Attorney? Chair Scharf: Go.

Commissioner Wang: I believe that is the case. However, City Council and a council member, I know some of the council members are here, can also request and have that meeting with the City Manager to make sure that is on the agenda. Is that correct as well?
Senior Assistant City Attorney Woo: The City Council Members can and should talk to the City Manager, that is correct.

Commissioner Wang: Okay. I would encourage that to happen because the performance of this is jeopardizing our ability to be compliant with HCD (Department of Housing and Community Development). And if the idea here is to fail us, fail us, and have HCD take over, I'm very concerned. So, it is a matter of diligence. And, and, I really think it's important that we do our due diligence on our end. So, I would encourage any city council person here to make this a performance issue item, and ask for that to be put on our agenda.

Eight months later, Commissioner Wang's predictions were, regrettably, proven correct. Cupertino failed to meet its Housing Element obligations--including draft and final submission deadlines--and now must deal with litigation from opportunistic groups who favor State control of land use decisions for Cupertino.

Cupertino is fortunate to have dedicated volunteers serve on our city commissions and committees. Planning Commissioner Wang has served the community admirably and should be allowed to complete his term.

Sincerely,
Liana Crabtree
Cupertino resident
From: Donald Williamson
To: City Clerk
Subject: In Support of Removal of Planning Commissioner Ray “R” Wang Date: Monday, March 6, 2023 11:37:31 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.

City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia,
I have been a Cupertino resident for 39 years. The Cupertino community means a lot to me, and I believe we are home to some of the brightest and most compassionate minds in California. Unfortunately, we are still recovering from prior leadership that has greatly damaged our reputation, including the past actions of Planning Commissioner R. Wang. That is why I am here today to voice my strong support for the removal of Planning Commissioner R. Wang.

Instead of admitting the truth, he lied that developer interests hacked his computer.

Thank you for your time. It’s time to bring dignity back to Cupertino.

Donald Williamson
[email protected]
1088 Milky Way
Cupertino, California 95014
From: Christine Cheng
To: City Council
Subject: Written communication, Council Meeting, 3/7/2023, Agenda Item 11, in support of Planning Commissioner R "Ray" Wang
Date: Monday, March 6, 2023 10:55:00 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.

I urge you to give any city official a warning with findings and recommendations based on solid evidence before you take any formal action for removing anyone from their appointed position.

This is the basic decency that Cupertino voters expected of you, yet you were so eager to agendize this item without a proper inquiry.

Eventually the Los Gatos City Council decided to censure the Commissioner.

Commissioner Wang should serve out his term and continue his oversight of the cities planning activities.

Please reconsider the council’s actions to remove Wang from the Planning Commission.

Do not remove him!
Sincerely,
Christine & Issac
Christine Cheng
[email protected]
Cupertino , California 95014
From: Patricia Chen
To: City Council
Subject: Written communication, Council Meeting, 3/7/2023, Agenda Item 11, in support of Planning Commissioner R "Ray" Wang
Date: Monday, March 6, 2023 10:54:37 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.

I urge you to give any city official a warning with findings and recommendations based on solid evidence before you take any formal action for removing anyone from their appointed position.

This is the basic decency that Cupertino voters expected of you, yet you were so eager to agendize this item without a proper inquiry.

Eventually the Los Gatos City Council decided to censure the Commissioner.

Commissioner Wang should serve out his term and continue his oversight of the cities planning activities.

Please reconsider the council’s actions to remove Wang from the Planning Commission.

Do not remove him!
Patricia Chen
[email protected]
19503 Howard Ct
Cupertino, California 95014
From: Rattan Raina
To: City Council
Subject: Written communication, Council Meeting, 3/7/2023, Agenda Item 11, in support of Planning Commissioner R "Ray" Wang
Date: Monday, March 6, 2023 10:39:22 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.

I urge you to give any city official a warning with findings and recommendations based on solid evidence before you take any formal action for removing anyone from their appointed position.

This is the basic decency that Cupertino voters expected of you, yet you were so eager to agendize this item without a proper inquiry.

Eventually the Los Gatos City Council decided to censure the Commissioner.

Commissioner Wang should serve out his term and continue his oversight of the cities planning activities.

Please reconsider the council’s actions to remove Wang from the Planning Commission.

Do not remove him!
Rattan Raina
[email protected]
cupertino, California 95014
From: Neha Raina
To: City Council
Subject: Written communication, Council Meeting, 3/7/2023, Agenda Item 11, in support of Planning Commissioner R "Ray" Wang
Date: Monday, March 6, 2023 10:38:11 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.

I urge you to give any city official a warning with findings and recommendations based on solid evidence before you take any formal action for removing anyone from their appointed position.

This is the basic decency that Cupertino voters expected of you, yet you were so eager to agendize this item without a proper inquiry.

Eventually the Los Gatos City Council decided to censure the Commissioner.

Commissioner Wang should serve out his term and continue his oversight of the cities planning activities.

Please reconsider the council’s actions to remove Wang from the Planning Commission.

Do not remove him!
Neha Raina
[email protected]
cupertino, California 95014
From: Liping Huang
To: City Council
Subject: Written communication, Council Meeting, 3/7/2023, Agenda Item 11, in support of Planning Commissioner R "Ray" Wang
Date: Monday, March 6, 2023 10:23:25 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.

I urge you to give any city official a warning with findings and recommendations based on solid evidence before you take any formal action for removing anyone from their appointed position.

This is the basic decency that Cupertino voters expected of you, yet you were so eager to agendize this item without a proper inquiry.

Eventually the Los Gatos City Council decided to censure the Commissioner.

Commissioner Wang should serve out his term and continue his oversight of the cities planning activities.

Please reconsider the council’s actions to remove Wang from the Planning Commission.

Do not remove him!
Liping Huang
[email protected]
1600. 19 Ave
San Francisco , California 94112
From: Joan Trampenau
To: City Clerk
Subject: In Support of Removal of Planning Commissioner Ray “R” Wang Date: Monday, March 6, 2023 10:16:36 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.

Instead of admitting the truth, he lied that developer interests hacked his computer.

It’s past time for the Council to hold Commissioner Wang accountable. Please honor the lived experiences of those who have been personally harmed by Mr. Wang and do the right thing.

Please honor the intelligence and character of our good residents, who deserve to have genuine trust in their officials.

Thank you for your time. It’s time to bring dignity back to Cupertino.

Joan Trampenau
[email protected]
10141 Colby Ave
Cupertino, California 95014-2419
From: Raymond Chiu
To: City Council
Subject: Written communication, Council Meeting, 3/7/2023, Agenda Item 11, in support of Planning Commissioner R "Ray" Wang
Date: Monday, March 6, 2023 10:04:42 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.

I urge you to give any city official a warning with findings and recommendations based on solid evidence before you take any formal action for removing anyone from their appointed position.

This is the basic decency that Cupertino voters expected of you, yet you were so eager to agendize this item without a proper inquiry.

Eventually the Los Gatos City Council decided to censure the Commissioner.

Commissioner Wang should serve out his term and continue his oversight of the cities planning activities.

Please reconsider the council’s actions to remove Wang from the Planning Commission.

Do not remove him!
Raymond Chiu
[email protected]
20030 Forest Ave
Cupertino , California 95014
From: Marilyn Beck
To: City Clerk
Subject: In Support of Removal of Planning Commissioner Ray “R” Wang Date: Monday, March 6, 2023 9:56:45 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.

City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia,
I live in Cupertino. This community means a lot to me, and I believe we are home to some of the brightest and most compassionate minds in California. Unfortunately, we are still recovering from prior leadership that has greatly damaged our reputation, including the past actions of Planning Commissioner R. Wang. That is why I am here today to voice my strong support for the removal of Planning Commissioner R. Wang.

Instead of admitting the truth, he lied that developer interests hacked his computer.

Thank you for your time. It’s time to bring dignity back to Cupertino.

Marilyn Beck
[email protected]
Cupertino, California 95014
From: xinhua wang
To: City Council
Subject: Written communication, Council Meeting, 3/7/2023, Agenda Item 11, in support of Planning Commissioner R "Ray" Wang
Date: Monday, March 6, 2023 9:49:55 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.

I urge you to give any city official a warning with findings and recommendations based on solid evidence before you take any formal action for removing anyone from their appointed position.

This is the basic decency that Cupertino voters expected of you, yet you were so eager to agendize this item without a proper inquiry.

Eventually the Los Gatos City Council decided to censure the Commissioner.

Commissioner Wang should serve out his term and continue his oversight of the cities planning activities.

Please reconsider the council’s actions to remove Wang from the Planning Commission.

Do not remove him!
xinhua wang
[email protected]
866 Betlin Ave
Cupertino, California 95014-4547
From: Byron P Rovegno
To: City Council
Subject: March 7th Agenda Item #11
Date: Monday, March 6, 2023 9:14:09 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 Councilmembers,
I am writing to concur with your decision to remove R. Wang from the Planning Commission. We need people on the commission who will work with the council and city staff to solve our housing problem and meet state requirements. There is no excuse for us being in the news as poster boy for how not to do things. Furthermore, I understand that the commissioners are appointed by the council and serve at the pleasure of the council. A public discussion was not held when R. Wang was appointed so it would appear that a public discussion about termination is unnecessary. I think you have better uses for your time and ours.

Thank you for listening.

Sincerely,
Byron Rovegno
Sent from Mail for Windows
From: Susana Lee
To: City Clerk
Subject: Agenda 11 - Keep Wang - Censure Fruen For Bad Behavior And Divisive Politics - Stop Dividing Ourselves Date: Monday, March 6, 2023 8:51:58 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.

City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia,
I am a Cupertino community member. I went to high school in Cupertino and then stayed in the area at Santa Clara University. Today I work for a tech company and love my community.

This community means a lot to me, and I believe we are home to some of the brightest and most compassionate minds in California I live with my parents because I am saving up for a house in the nearby area.

I went to high school with Neil Park McClintock and people like JR Fruen, Connie Cunningham, and John Zhao. As a member of the LGBQT+ community we all faced massive discrimination in school. Some of us are still angry, others of us have found peace of who we are and know that society now embraces all types of people.

I believe JR Fruen, Richard Mehlinger, and Neil Park McClintock are still angry. I remember a discussion I had where there was a lot of anger at high performing Asians in school. This anger is common among my college classmates in the community. They are taught in school to hate a nuclear family, fight against single family homes, mock high performing AP classes, hate cars, and fight the Cis-Males and Cis Females who are successful. This is not a way to live.

I hope my brothers and sisters in the community find peace and stop their version of discrimination. We should be inclusive of all types of people. But when I hear many of the Cupertino For All people talk, there seems to be a sense of discrimination and bias towards our cis-friends. This is unacceptable. We are one community. We need to hear different voices. We need to respect different views.

The attack on whoever Wang is seems to be motivated by this hate. There is no due process.

I've looked at the arguments from both sides. I dislike the smearing of another human being without proof. This vilification of Wang is not right. He's also a human. He hasn't done anything wrong other than espouse a different view of housing.

I share his view. I should not be entitled to live in Cupertino. I have to earn my way hear. I save up and live with my parents so I can build my own life.

I believe in Cupertino and its future–that’s why I am here speaking for democracy and for ethical leadership.

While I voted for JR because he supports my LGBQT+ views, I now am ashamed of his behavior trying to set Wang up for removal. That is not what I voted for. That is not who I thought JR was.

Please do not remove Mr. Wang for political reasons. Please don't let people like JR smear people for no reason other than pure discrimination.

It’s past time for the Council to hold Councilmember Fruen accountable. Please honor the lived experiences of those who have been personally harmed by JR in this smear campaing and do the right thing.

Please honor the intelligence and character of our good residents, who deserve to have genuine trust in their officials.

Do NOT remove Wang. Please censure JR Fruen for bad behavior.

Thank you for your time. It’s time to bring dignity back to Cupertino and this is the right thing to do!
Susana Lee
[email protected]
Monte Vista, Baden-Württemberg 95015
From: ketaki joshi
To: City Clerk
Subject: In Support of Removal of Planning Commissioner Ray “R” Wang Date: Monday, March 6, 2023 8:15:28 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.

Instead of admitting the truth, he lied that developer interests hacked his computer.

Thank you for your time. It’s time to bring dignity back to Cupertino. ketaki joshi
[email protected]
10129 S. Blaney Ave
Cupertino, California 95014
From: Vidhaath Deepak
To: City Council
Subject: Written communication, Council Meeting, 3/7/2023, Agenda Item 11, in support of Planning Commissioner R "Ray" Wang
Date: Monday, March 6, 2023 7:39:02 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.

I urge you to give any city official a warning with findings and recommendations based on solid evidence before you take any formal action for removing anyone from their appointed position.

This is the basic decency that Cupertino voters expected of you, yet you were so eager to agendize this item without a proper inquiry.

Eventually the Los Gatos City Council decided to censure the Commissioner.

Commissioner Wang should serve out his term and continue his oversight of the cities planning activities.

Please reconsider the council’s actions to remove Wang from the Planning Commission.

Do not remove him!
Vidhaath Deepak
[email protected]
Cupertino, California 95014
From: Vishresh Deepak
To: City Council
Subject: Written communication, Council Meeting, 3/7/2023, Agenda Item 11, in support of Planning Commissioner R "Ray" Wang
Date: Monday, March 6, 2023 7:38:03 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.

I urge you to give any city official a warning with findings and recommendations based on solid evidence before you take any formal action for removing anyone from their appointed position.

This is the basic decency that Cupertino voters expected of you, yet you were so eager to agendize this item without a proper inquiry.

Eventually the Los Gatos City Council decided to censure the Commissioner.

Commissioner Wang should serve out his term and continue his oversight of the cities planning activities.

Please reconsider the council’s actions to remove Wang from the Planning Commission.

Do not remove him!
Vishresh Deepak
[email protected]
Cupertino, California 95014
From: Swaphna Srihari
To: City Council
Subject: Written communication, Council Meeting, 3/7/2023, Agenda Item 11, in support of Planning Commissioner R "Ray" Wang
Date: Monday, March 6, 2023 7:35:40 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.

I urge you to give any city official a warning with findings and recommendations based on solid evidence before you take any formal action for removing anyone from their appointed position.

This is the basic decency that Cupertino voters expected of you, yet you were so eager to agendize this item without a proper inquiry.

Eventually the Los Gatos City Council decided to censure the Commissioner.

Commissioner Wang should serve out his term and continue his oversight of the cities planning activities.

Please reconsider the council’s actions to remove Wang from the Planning Commission.

Do not remove him!
Swaphna Srihari
[email protected]
Cupertino, California 95014
From: Deepak Balasubramaniam
To: City Council
Subject: Written communication, Council Meeting, 3/7/2023, Agenda Item 11, in support of Planning Commissioner R "Ray" Wang
Date: Monday, March 6, 2023 7:34:24 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.

I urge you to give any city official a warning with findings and recommendations based on solid evidence before you take any formal action for removing anyone from their appointed position.

This is the basic decency that Cupertino voters expected of you, yet you were so eager to agendize this item without a proper inquiry.

Eventually the Los Gatos City Council decided to censure the Commissioner.

Commissioner Wang should serve out his term and continue his oversight of the cities planning activities.

Please reconsider the council’s actions to remove Wang from the Planning Commission.

Do not remove him!
Deepak Balasubramaniam
[email protected]
Cupertino, California 95014
From: Gauri Chawla
To: City Clerk
Subject: In Support of Removal of Planning Commissioner Ray “R” Wang Date: Monday, March 6, 2023 7:18:55 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.

Instead of admitting the truth, he lied that developer interests hacked his computer.

Thank you for your time. It’s time to bring dignity back to Cupertino.

Gauri Chawla
[email protected]
20488 , Stevens Creek Blvd.

Cupertino, California 95014
From: Kathy Wu
To: City Council
Subject: Written communication, Council Meeting, 3/7/2023, Agenda Item 11, in support of Planning Commissioner R "Ray" Wang
Date: Monday, March 6, 2023 7:03:13 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.

I urge you to give any city official a warning with findings and recommendations based on solid evidence before you take any formal action for removing anyone from their appointed position.

This is the basic decency that Cupertino voters expected of you, yet you were so eager to agendize this item without a proper inquiry.

Eventually the Los Gatos City Council decided to censure the Commissioner.

Commissioner Wang should serve out his term and continue his oversight of the cities planning activities.

Please reconsider the council’s actions to remove Wang from the Planning Commission.

Do not remove him!
Kathy Wu
[email protected]
18th Ave
SF, California 94116
From: Eric Crouch
To: City Clerk
Subject: In Support of Removal of Planning Commissioner Ray “R” Wang Date: Monday, March 6, 2023 5:59:25 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.

City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia,
Good evening,
The actions of Planning Commissioner R. Wang both during and prior to his time as a commissioner have rendered him unfit to represent Cupertino. That is why I support Cupertino City Council exercising its power to remove Commissioner R. Wang.

While a sitting Planning Commissioner City official, he urged fellow residents to call the employers of local community members with whom he had political disagreements to try to get them fired from their jobs. He contributed to the hostile working environment that led to Cupertino's dysfunction as reported in the Grand Jury Report. He continually harassed a Redwood City planning commissioner by signing her up for porn to undercut her planned run for City Council. Even while pleading no contest to the charge, he lied that developer interests hacked his computer.

Commissioner Wang has also showed that he lacks judgement necessary to help guide Cupertino's planning decisions. For example, when the City sought to fix a density bonus ordinance to comply with state law and avoid legal liability, he compared the decision to comply with state law to Soviet autocracy.

Democracy requires accountability. Please protect Cupertino and its residents by holding Mr.

Wang accountable.

Thank you for your time.

Eric Crouch
Eric Crouch
[email protected]
10221 Phar Lap Drive,
Cupertino, California 95014
From: Ranju Rajan
To: City Council
Subject: Written communication, Council Meeting, 3/7/2023, Agenda Item 11, in support of Planning Commissioner R "Ray" Wang
Date: Monday, March 6, 2023 5:40:01 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.

I urge you to give any city official a warning with findings and recommendations based on solid evidence before you take any formal action for removing anyone from their appointed position.

This is the basic decency that Cupertino voters expected of you, yet you were so eager to agendize this item without a proper inquiry.

Eventually the Los Gatos City Council decided to censure the Commissioner.

Commissioner Wang should serve out his term and continue his oversight of the cities planning activities.

Please reconsider the council’s actions to remove Wang from the Planning Commission.

Do not remove him!
Ranju Rajan
[email protected]
10447 N Blaney Ave
Cupertino, California 95014
From: Alex Mao
To: City Clerk
Subject: In Support of Removal of Planning Commissioner Ray “R” Wang Date: Monday, March 6, 2023 5:28:12 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.

Instead of admitting the truth, he lied that developer interests hacked his computer.

Thank you for your time. It’s time to bring dignity back to Cupertino.

Alex Mao
[email protected]
10316 Denison Ave
Cupertino, California 95014
From: Prem Sharma
To: City Council
Subject: Written communication, Council Meeting, 3/7/2023, Agenda Item 11, in support of Planning Commissioner R "Ray" Wang
Date: Monday, March 6, 2023 4:02:48 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.

I urge you to give any city official a warning with findings and recommendations based on solid evidence before you take any formal action for removing anyone from their appointed position.

This is the basic decency that Cupertino voters expected of you, yet you were so eager to agendize this item without a proper inquiry.

Eventually the Los Gatos City Council decided to censure the Commissioner.

Commissioner Wang should serve out his term and continue his oversight of the cities planning activities.

Please reconsider the council’s actions to remove Wang from the Planning Commission.

Do not remove him!
Prem Sharma
[email protected]
Cupertino, California 95014
From: Krista De La Torre
To: City Clerk
Subject: In Support of Removal of Planning Commissioner Ray “R” Wang Date: Monday, March 6, 2023 3:11:35 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.

Instead of admitting the truth, he lied that developer interests hacked his computer.

Thank you for your time. It’s time to bring dignity back to Cupertino.

Krista De La Torre
[email protected]
4 North Second St
San Jose, California 95113
From: Romandha Celestin
To: City Clerk
Subject: In Support of Removal of Planning Commissioner Ray “R” Wang Date: Monday, March 6, 2023 3:11:06 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.

Instead of admitting the truth, he lied that developer interests hacked his computer.

Thank you for your time. It’s time to bring dignity back to Cupertino.

Romandha Celestin
[email protected]
415 E Taylor St, Apt 1117
San Jose, California 95112
From: Juliana Park
To: City Clerk
Subject: In Support of Removal of Planning Commissioner Ray “R” Wang Date: Monday, March 6, 2023 3:09:40 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.

City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia,
I am a South Bay community member. This community means a lot to me, and I believe we are home to some of the brightest and most compassionate minds in California. Unfortunately, we are still recovering from prior leadership that has greatly damaged our reputation, including the past actions of Planning Commissioner R. Wang. That is why I am here today to voice my strong support for the removal of Planning Commissioner R. Wang.

Instead of admitting the truth, he lied that developer interests hacked his computer.

Thank you for your time. It’s time to bring dignity back to Cupertino.

Juliana Park
[email protected]
343 Cereza Pl
San Jose, California 95112
From: Vinod Balakrishnan
To: City Council
Subject: Written communication, Council Meeting, 3/7/2023, Agenda Item 11, in support of Planning Commissioner R "Ray" Wang
Date: Monday, March 6, 2023 2:40:50 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.

I urge you to give any city official a warning with findings and recommendations based on solid evidence before you take any formal action for removing anyone from their appointed position.

This is the basic decency that Cupertino voters expected of you, yet you were so eager to agendize this item without a proper inquiry.

Eventually the Los Gatos City Council decided to censure the Commissioner.

Commissioner Wang should serve out his term and continue his oversight of the cities planning activities.

Please reconsider the council’s actions to remove Wang from the Planning Commission.

Do not remove him!
Vinod Balakrishnan
[email protected]
10447 N Blaney Ave
Cupertino, California 95014
From: Ramesh NAIR
To: City Council
Subject: Written communication, Council Meeting, 3/7/2023, Agenda Item 11, in support of Planning Commissioner R "Ray" Wang
Date: Monday, March 6, 2023 2:27:56 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.

I urge you to give any city official a warning with findings and recommendations based on solid evidence before you take any formal action for removing anyone from their appointed position.

This is the basic decency that Cupertino voters expected of you, yet you were so eager to agendize this item without a proper inquiry.

Eventually the Los Gatos City Council decided to censure the Commissioner.

Commissioner Wang should serve out his term and continue his oversight of the cities planning activities.

Please reconsider the council’s actions to remove Wang from the Planning Commission.

Do not remove him!
Ramesh NAIR
[email protected]
Cupertino, California 95014
From: Pamela Campos
To: City Clerk
Subject: In Support of Removal of Planning Commissioner Ray “R” Wang Date: Monday, March 6, 2023 12:24:59 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.

City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia,
I am a Cupertino community member. As a former De Anza College student, this community means a lot to me, and I believe Cupertino is home to some of the brightest and most compassionate minds in California. Unfortunately, we are still recovering from prior leadership that has greatly damaged our reputation, including the past actions of Planning Commissioner R. Wang. That is why I am here today to voice my strong support for the removal of Planning Commissioner R. Wang.

Instead of admitting the truth, he lied that developer interests hacked his computer.

Thank you for your time. It’s time to bring dignity back to Cupertino.

Pamela Campos
[email protected]
434 Hyde Park Drive
San Jose, California 95136
From: Jean Bedord
To: City Council; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Attorney"s Office; City Clerk Subject: Agenda Item #11 Ray Wang, Mar. 7, 2023 Fwd: Written Communications: Unacceptable behavior at Planning Commission, May 24, 2022
Date: Monday, March 6, 2023 11:47:29 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.

Mayor Wei, Vice-Mayor Mohan and councilmembers,
I urge you to vote to remove Commissioner Ray Wang for misconduct and harassment of residents, staff and consultants. In June, I wrote this email to complain to the previous city council about this unacceptable behavior at a Planning Commission meeting, but there was no response and no action taken. This was not the first time that I have observed abuse of staff by Commissioner Wang - it is a consistent pattern of abusive behavior that has been well documented. https://sanjosespotlight.com/cupertino-official-faces-calls-toquit/ Councilmembers Kitty Moore and Liang Chao are complicit in the failure of the council to ensure commissioners adhere to the minimal Ethics Policy that they approved.

Here are the relevant timestamps, keeping in mind that the night before the same staff had been engaged in the AFFH community outreach headed by Councilmember Moore, then Vice-Mayor Chao, Planning Commission Chair Steven Scharf, and Housing Chair Tessa Parish.

Timestamp 35:36https://www.youtube.com/live/AC4wMTqW7lA?feature=share&t=2136 Ray Wang ranting at staff and EMC consulting at beginning of meeting,overriding the chair and legal counsel.

Timestamp 57:41 https://www.youtube.com/live/AC4wMTqW7lA?feature=share&t=3461 Resident rebuke to Ray's rant
Time stamp 1:04:19 https://www.youtube.com/live/AC4wMTqW7lA?feature=share&t=3864 Continued attack
I urge this council to unanimously approve removal of Ray Wang from the Planning Commission.

Thank you for taking action on this matter.

Jean Bedord
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Jean Bedord <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, Jun 12, 2022 at 9:49 PM
Subject: Written Communications: Unacceptable behavior at Planning Commission, May 24, 2022
To: City Council <[email protected]>, City of Cupertino Planning Dept. <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Cupertino City Manager's Office <[email protected]>, City Attorney's Office <[email protected]> Mayor Paul and councilmembers, Planning Commission and Planning Department I was deeply dismayed at the conduct of this meeting. An inordinate amount of time was spent complaining about the delay in providing minutes for the previous meeting and lack of updates to the Housing Site Selection Inventory, with Commissioner Wang particularly vocal, overriding Chair Scharf and the city attorney. He openly chastised the consultants and staff, clashing over the extent of commission authority vs. council. Chair Steven Scharf knew in advance that the material on the agenda had not changed from the April 26 meeting, yet chose to schedule an unnecessary meeting with no measurable contribution to the Housing Element.A member of the public then gave a very articulate response to Commissioner Wang's "rant" , clearly stating a viewpoint consistent with other members of the public engaged with the Housing Element, including myself.

Council has consistently made changes that impact timelines for the Housing Element, and disrupted the process. Council, not EMC or staff, is responsible for the delays which may result in failure to achieve a certified housing element.

Staff and the consultants were diverted to the council-led Strategic Advisory Committee for the previous evening's (May 23) Community Meeting on Cupertino Housing Element, a required component of the Housing Element to meet AFFH guidelines.

The YouTube recording of the April 26 planning commission meeting was available on the City of Cupertino channel. This provides a transcript with much better detail than the summary minutes (provided for approval for the June 14 meeting), so the four absent / unengaged commissioners had ample time to review public input in advance of the May 24 meeting. There was no indication that the Planning Commissioners actually visited potential housing sites in the interim between meetings.

I am requesting that the council take action with regard to Commissioner Wang's behavior and stop micromanaging the Housing Element process.As noted in the Moss Adams internal audit report, there is confusion about the role of council members as well as the advisory role of commissions, a major governance risk for the city.

Thank you for your attention to this very serious matter.

Jean Bedord
Cupertino resident over 30 years
From: Dorothy Levitan
To: City Clerk
Subject: In Support of Removal of Planning Commissioner Ray “R” Wang Date: Monday, March 6, 2023 11:30:51 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.

Instead of admitting the truth, he lied that developer interests hacked his computer.

Thank you for your time. It’s time to bring dignity back to Cupertino.

Dorothy Levitan
[email protected]
10150 Torre Ave. Apt 251
Cupertino95014, California 95014
From: Stanley Young
To: City Clerk
Subject: In Support of Removal of Planning Commissioner Ray “R” Wang Date: Monday, March 6, 2023 11:16:07 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.

Instead of admitting the truth, he lied that developer interests hacked his computer.

Thank you for your time. It’s time to bring dignity back to Cupertino.

Stanley Young
[email protected]
Los Gatos, California 95032
From: J Shearin
To: City Council; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Clerk Subject: Agenda item #11, Personal Experience regarding Commissioner R Wang Date: Monday, March 6, 2023 10:35:01 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 Honored City Council Members and Mayor Wei:

I write to you regarding agenda item number 11 for the City Council meeting on March 7, 2023. I am writing today only as a resident of Cupertino and not on behalf of any other body or organization.

There are ethical and neighborly people on the sides of every issue in our city, including development and city policies. However, this agenda item is not about development or city policies, as was clear from the public comment prior to its placement on this month’s Council meeting agenda. It is instead about the conduct of a commissioner toward the public and city staff.

People in our city may not always agree on issues, but we have generally been able to maintain appropriate conduct towards one another regardless of that disagreement. The Commissioner’s handbook has more stringent rules than just trying to be polite. It requires:
“The professional and personal conduct of City elected/appointed officials and staff should be above reproach and avoid even the appearance of impropriety. City elected/appointed officials and staff should refrain from abusive conduct, personal charges, and verbal attacks upon the character or motives of others, including members of the Council, boards, and commission, the staff, or the public.”
It does not say that these requirements can be ignored if you write afterward, “speaking for myself.”
My personal experience with Commissioner R Wang has shown me that he has not and is not meeting this standard that is required of all commissioners.

Just a few days ago, I faced further intimidation as a commissioner through an email from Mr.

Wang entitled, “With Regard to the Facts” with an attachment from his lawyer. It is well known that Mr. Wang is a very wealthy individual and has previously sued other individuals.

It was clearly meant to intimidate me.

For those that don’t consider personal testimony believable, I have screen shots of these incidents.

These conduct issues are not about Saving Cupertino from Aggressive Development, as the title of the email campaign in support of Mr. Wang states or anything political at all. It is rather about whether a commissioner has consistently violated the standard of conduct expected and required per our city’s Ethics code.
“The ends do not justify the means” is a common phrase, and it is apt here. Regardless of whether you agree with Mr. Wang’s positions on development, it is still important that his conduct in the performance of his duties be above reproach and without any personal charges or attacks. I have now given you several instances where he has not met this standard that all commissioners are required to meet. I ask that you consider this information in your decision.

Thank you for considering my concerns, and your work on behalf of the City of Cupertino and its residents.

From: Ram Sharma
To: City Council
Subject: Written communication, Council Meeting, 3/7/2023, Agenda Item 11, in support of Planning Commissioner R "Ray" Wang
Date: Monday, March 6, 2023 8:56:28 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.

I urge you to give any city official a warning with findings and recommendations based on solid evidence before you take any formal action for removing anyone from their appointed position.

This is the basic decency that Cupertino voters expected of you, yet you were so eager to agendize this item without a proper inquiry.

Eventually the Los Gatos City Council decided to censure the Commissioner.

Cupertino City CouncilMarch 7, 2023

Cupertino City Council
March 7, 2023