CC 04-29-25 Item No. 1 City Manager Performance Evaluation_Late Written CommunicationsCC 04-29-2025
Item #1
City Manager Evaluation
Written Communications
From:Lisa Warren
To:City Council; City Clerk
Cc:City Attorney"s Office; Floy Andrews
Subject:City Council Meeting CLOSED SESSION agenda item City Manager
Date:Tuesday, April 29, 2025 3:44:11 PM
Attachments:Exception to Brown Act for closed session Real Estate transaction discussion .DOC.docx
summary of key points from Supl Rpt re PULLED consent #12 CC mtg June 18, 2024.docx
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 REQUEST THAT THIS EMAIL COMMUNICATION AND ATTACHMENTS BE
INCLUDED THIS AS WRITTEN COMMUNICATION FOR THE April 29, 2025 CLOSED
SESSION MEETING OF CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL.
Note: This was information shared at a previous Closed Session performance review for
City Manager Pamela Wu. July 9, 2024
Please note the two attachments to this email, in addition to the Turnkey
definitions below. They are meant to be informational and available to the
public in relation to today's closed session agenda.
As you already know, I have great concerns related to the misrepresentation
that Cupertino City Manager used in the Supplemental 'slide deck' that was in
no way part of the June 18, 2024 agenda* - consent item 12.
*The supplemental came into play when members of the public and city
councilmember 'pulled' the consent item for discussion.
Thankfully the item was able to be openly discussed, but I believe that the
claims made by CM Wu were false and misleading.
NEW COMMENT 2025.... The discussion and consent item related to a
commercial building purchase for any purpose, has been dormant IN PUBLIC
view for months.
Tax payers were paying for consultants and staff time for a never publicly
discussed potential real estate purchase that we seriously mis represented by
CM Wu.
I do very much hope that such discussions are not still being held out of public
view.
Definition of Turnkey property
…
what is a turnkey property
A turnkey property is one that you can buy and immediately occupy. That's because it is fully renovated
What Is a Turnkey Property?
A turnkey property is a fully renovated home or apartment building, or other commercial building that
an investor can purchase and immediately rent out. A turnkey home is often a property purchased from a
company that specializes in the restoration of older properties. Those same firms may also offer property
management services to buyers, minimizing the amount of time and effort they have to put into the rental.
--- Lisa Warren
and repaired.
The Real-Estate-Negotiations Exception To The Brown Act Permits
Closed-Session Discussion Of The Amount Of Consideration The Public
Agency Is Willing To Pay, The Form, Manner, And Timing Of Payment, And
Items Essential To Arriving At Authorized Price And Payment Terms
By Heather DeBlanc
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
Apr 12, 2012
The Attorney General has issued an opinion as to what items may be discussed under
the real-estate-negotiations exception to the open meeting requirements of the Ralph
M. Brown Act. The Brown Act permits a governing body to meet in closed session with
its real estate negotiator "to grant authority to its negotiator regarding the price and
terms of
payment" for a proposed purchase, sale, exchange, or lease of identified real property.
The real-estate-negotiations exception does not permit closed-session discussion of
any and all aspects of a proposed transaction that could effect price or payment terms.
The wisdom of the proposed transaction cannot be discussed in closed session. The
Attorney General opined that the real-estate-negotiations exception to the open
meeting requirements of the Brown Act permits closed-session discussion of the
following:
1. the amount of consideration the local agency is willing to pay or accept in exchange
for the real property rights to be acquired or transferred in the particular transaction;
2. the form, manner, and timing of how that consideration will be paid; and
3. items essential to arriving at the authorized price and payment terms, such that their
public disclosure would be tantamount to revealing the information that the exception
permits to be kept confidential.
The agenda item must specify the property, identification of agency negotiator, names
of negotiating parties, and whether the negotiation concerns, price, terms of payment,
or both. The Attorney General noted that the word "terms" is modified by "of payment"
which rules out the possibility that all terms of the transaction as a whole may be
discussed under the exception.
The AG concluded that "a closed-session discussion regarding price or terms of
payment must allow a public agency to consider the range of possibilities for payment
that the agency might be willing to accept, including how low or how high to start the
negotiations with the other party, the sequencing and strategy of offers or
counteroffers, as well as various payment alternatives. Information designed to assist
the agency in determining the value of the property in question, such as the sales or
rental figures for comparable properties, should also be permitted, because that
information is often essential to the process of arriving at a negotiating price."
Attorney General Opinion No. 10-206 (Dec. 27, 2011) [2011 WL 6917511].
This article was written by Heather DeBlanc, an attorney with the full service education
law firm of Liebert Cassidy Whitmore. Ms. DeBlanc is an Associate in the Los Angeles
office and can be reached at (310) 981-2000 or at hdeblanc@lcwlegal.com. For more
information regarding the information above or our firm please visit our website at
www.lcwlegal.com, or contact one of our offices below.
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore publishes the Business and Facilities Update as a service to
our clients and other friends for informational purposes only. It is not intended to be
used as a substitute for specific legal advice or opinions and the transmission of this
information is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship between sender and
receiver. You should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.
Read on lcwlegal.com
##################################################################################
Comments from another source:
The starting point for our analysis is, necessarily, the language of the
exception itself, together with related provisions of the Brown Act.15
The real-estate-negotiations exception provides, in relevant part, as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a legislative body of a
local agency may hold a closed session with its negotiator prior to the
purchase, sale, exchange, or lease of real property by or for the local agency
to grant authority to its negotiator regarding the price and terms of payment
for the purchase, sale, exchange, or lease.
However, prior to the closed session, the legislative body of the local
agency shall hold an open and public session in which it identifies its
negotiators, the real property or real properties which the
negotiations may concern, and the person or persons with whom its
negotiators may negotiate.
16 The disclosure requirement set forth in the second quoted
sentence mirrors a more general Brown Act provision to the same effect.
17 Both of these notice provisions reinforce the Act’s general notice
requirement that, “[a]t least 72 hours before a regular meeting, the
legislative body of the local agency, or its designee, shall post an agenda
containing a brief general description of each item of business to be
transacted or discussed at the meeting, including items to be discussed in
closed session.”
18 14 Id. 15 See Shapiro v. San Diego City Council, 96 Cal. App. 4th at 924.
16 § 54956.8. 17 § 54957.7(a) (“Prior to holding any closed session, the
legislative body of the local agency shall disclose, in an open meeting, the
item or items to be discussed in the closed session . . . .”) 18 § 54954.2(a)
(emphasis added). 4 10-206 With regard to the real-estate-negotiations
exception, the Act provides that it is sufficiently specific (or within a “safe
harbor”) to describe the agenda item as follows:
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Property: (Specify
street address, or if no street address, the parcel number or other unique
reference, of the real property under negotiation.) Agency negotiator:
(Specify names of negotiators attending the closed session.) (If
circumstances necessitate the absence of a specified negotiator, an agent or
designee may participate in place of the absent negotiator so long as the
name of the agent or designee is announced at an open session held prior to
the closed session.) Negotiating parties: (Specify name of party (not
agent).) Under negotiation: (Specify whether instruction to negotiator will
concern price, terms of payment, or both.)
19 The Act provides that, “in the closed session, the legislative body may
consider only those matters covered in its [agenda] statement.”
The [agenda] statement
Type: Consent Calendar Status: Agenda Ready
File created: 6/5/2024 In control: City Council
On agenda: 6/18/2024 Final action:
Title: Subject: Consider acquisition of property located at 19400 Stevens Creek Blvd,
and appointment of real property negotiator for acquisition of property
CC 06-18-2024
#12
Consider acquisition of property located at 19400 Stevens Creek Blvd
Bullet points from slide #4 of ‘Supplemental Report’ to Consent Item
#12 on June 18 City Council meeting Agenda
Key Elements and Opportunities
• Turnkey office space located at 19400 Stevens Creek Boulevard
• 1.2-acre lot, 20,700 square feet of office
• Accessible location for the community
• Could serve as an interim City Hall while potential partnership and
funding options are explored for current site
From:chitrasv@yahoo.com
To:City Council; City Clerk; City Attorney"s Office
Subject:Concerns Regarding City Manager Pamela Wu’s Conduct and Use of City Resources
Date:Tuesday, April 29, 2025 7:52:36 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.
Dear Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore, and Respected Councilmembers,
I am a Cupertino resident of Indian origin who cares deeply about the proper use of public funds and the respectful
functioning of our city government. I am writing to express my serious concerns about the conduct and decisions of
City Manager Pamela Wu.
One issue that stood out to me, especially as someone familiar with India, is Ms. Wu’s recent trip to India using city
funds. This trip included airfare, hotel, and salary expenses paid by the City of Cupertino. What is especially
troubling is that she spent part of this trip in Bangalore, even though Cupertino’s sister city is Bhubaneshwar.
As someone who knows the geography and cost of travel in India, I can say clearly that there is no valid reason to
travel to Bangalore when the official purpose is to visit Bhubaneshwar. The two cities are far apart and unrelated. It
is well known that Bangalore is one of the most expensive cities in India, and staying at the Ritz Carlton only adds
to unnecessary cost. Spending a weekend in Bangalore at city expense does not align with any reasonable city
business and appears more like a personal side trip. This is extremely disappointing, especially when residents are
being told the city cannot afford basic services and facilities.
In addition to this, I would like to highlight several other concerns about Ms. Wu’s leadership:
She has spoken disrespectfully to Mayor Chao and Vice Mayor Moore during public meetings. Her tone is often
dismissive and unprofessional.
She frequently changes rules for public comments and communications, making it harder for residents to participate
in council meetings.
She allowed $50 million to sit in low-interest accounts for a long time. Even when this was pointed out, she only
took minimal steps to improve the situation, causing the city to lose out on much-needed interest income.
Important contracts and real estate decisions have been rushed to the council without enough time for review or
transparency. The public is often left in the dark.
Her behavior shows signs of political bias. She favors certain councilmembers and residents while dismissing
others. This is not how a city manager should operate.
These are serious issues. If Ms. Wu is not already on a performance improvement plan, I request that the Council
consider placing her on one. If there is no improvement, the Council should begin a search for a new City Manager
who puts residents first, treats everyone equally, and uses public money carefully.
Thank you for your time and for listening to the concerns of ordinary residents like me.
Sincerely,
Chitra Iyer
Cupertino Resident
Indian-American Community Member
From:Alex Mao
To:Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Clerk; City Council
Subject:Support Good Governance — End the Harassment of Our City Manager
Date:Tuesday, April 29, 2025 7:50:33 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, Councilmembers,
I'm here to strongly oppose this second closed-session evaluation of City Manager Pamela
Wu.
Ms. Wu just had her annual evaluation in November 2024 — and another review just a few
weeks ago, on April 2nd. Now, once again, she’s being dragged into another evaluation
with no clear justification. This repeated targeting creates the appearance of
harassment, not professional oversight.
Pamela Wu has steered Cupertino through major crises with skill and professionalism:
She led the city through a financial crisis with an open, transparent budget process.
She secured Housing Element certification, protecting us from unwanted Builder’s
Remedy projects.
She helped move forward the long-stalled Vallco development after years of legal
gridlock.
Under her leadership, staff turnover has dropped, morale has improved, and stability has
returned — after years of chaos when Cupertino had seven different city managers in four
years.
Some recent emails attacking Ms. Wu have been personal, inaccurate, and repetitive —
calling her “arrogant” or “communist” — with no basis in her actual job performance. Public
employees should be evaluated based on their results and professionalism, not political
bias or personal grudges.
Ms. Wu has appropriately managed council meetings, giving accurate answers or referring
questions to the right departments when needed. That’s not disrespect — it’s competence
and caution, ensuring that council and the public get correct information.
I urge the Council to reject this pattern of antagonism. Leadership comes with the
responsibility to foster a respectful environment for staff and residents alike. We
must focus on moving Cupertino forward, not falling into cycles of instability that hurt
everyone.
--
Alexander Mao
From:Elanthenral E
To:City Council; City Clerk; City Attorney"s Office
Subject:Attn: closed session Pamela Wu
Date:Tuesday, April 29, 2025 5:38:18 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 Members,
I would like to share my concerns regarding the performance and actions of Cupertino City Manager Pamela Wu,
ahead of her closed session evaluation today.
It has come to my attention that Ms. Wu has undertaken multiple international trips funded by taxpayer money,
including a recent visit to Bangalore, where she stayed at the Ritz Carlton and flew business class. This trip, costing
approximately $3,200, was conducted without prior approval from the City Council. Additionally, Bangalore is not
a sister city to Cupertino, raising questions about the relevance of this expenditure to her role as City Manager.
Furthermore, there have been instances of significant spending on expensive meals, such as $425 at Breaking Dawn
brunch in Los Gatos and over $300 at Khanh’s, while simultaneously cutting costs on resident amenities like coffee
and snacks at council meetings and restroom cleaning at city facilities.
These actions appear to deviate from the original purpose of city programs and responsible fiscal management. I
urge the City Council to thoroughly review these matters during the evaluation process and ensure accountability for
the use of taxpayer funds.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Regards,
Elan
Cupertino Resident
From:Neil Park-McClintick
To:City Clerk; City Council; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject:In Opposition to Today"s City Manager Review Session
Date:Tuesday, April 29, 2025 5:01:07 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.
Dear Mayor and Council,
My name is Neil, and I am a former longtime resident. I grew up in Cupertino and lived there
as a young adult, recently leaving due to a lack of housing options and opportunties for joy
and community for young adults like myself. My family still lives there, and I care genuinely
care about the future of the city.
My hopes lie in a future where I can trust that Cupertino will be well run as a city, and do its
part to solve the housing crisis, while also opening its doors to future families and young
adults.
Unfortunately, Council actions like today's wholly unnecessary performance review
jeopardize that future, and necessitate that all current and former community members stand
up against abuse of power.
I do not know City Manager Wu very well, and neither do advocacy groups like Cupertino for
All, nor do we need to. But she is the executive of the city with years of professional
experience and has helped lead the city through extremely challenging times—whether it be
the housing element or the CDTFA rule change on collecting revenues, which had the
potential to fiscally decimate the city.
The perception of Cupertino in political circles is that it is a place of chaos, instability, and
unnecessary scandal, and that is not because of its City Manager. We had 7 city managers in 4
years, and today's session only reinforces and increasingly moves us backward into that
narrative. That perception hinders our ability to achieve social and economic good, and
damages our partnerships at a local and regional level.
Let's do better as a City.
-Neil Park-McClintick