Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Commission Ethics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and commissioners clash over planning commission conduct; calls for oversight and discipline
Summary
Public speakers and a planning commissioner described a dispute between Planning Commission Chair Santosh Rao and Commissioner Sima Linscog that led to sheriff deputies appearing at a meeting. Speakers asked the City Council to investigate and consider discipline; the chair denied requesting deputies.
Several residents and appointed officials urged the Cupertino City Council to investigate alleged misconduct and false statements by Planning Commission Chair Santosh Rao after a controversy in early September led to sheriff’s deputies attending a planning commission meeting.
During public comment, Planning Commissioner Sima Linscog said she had been the target of “defamatory claims and threatening actions” by Rao, which prompted the sheriff’s office to be called during a September 9 meeting. Linscog said the incident left her feeling unsafe and asked the council to “conduct its oversight responsibility and discipline Santosh Rao up to and including removing him from his position on the planning commission.”
Multiple speakers echoed Linscog’s request. Jennifer Sharon said Rao had targeted her and a minor by name with false statements and asked the council to require Rao to apologize publicly and attend additional ethics training. Joel Wolf, who identified himself as a member of the Cupertino Bike-Ped Commission, said he did not observe disruptive behavior by the named residents at prior meetings and described the complaints as inconsistent with his observations.
Chair Rao addressed the council during the public-comment period to dispute those accounts. “At no time during the planning commission or before that did I ask for deputies,” Rao said, adding that staff are aware he did not request law-enforcement presence. He called for Linscog to consult with staff to understand how deputies came to be present and said he had not stated he felt unsafe in Linscog’s presence.
Legal and procedural context: Commenters referenced Penal Code section 148.5 (making a false police report) and raised concerns about misuse of city resources and the potential chilling effect on public participation. Mayor Chow and council members noted the Brown Act’s constraints and the need to avoid ad hoc deliberation outside a publicly agendized item.
Council response: Mayor Chow said she could not adjudicate the dispute during oral communications and emphasized that commissioners report to the council; she encouraged the complainants to provide written documentation. The council did not take formal action on the allegations during the meeting but acknowledged the seriousness of the claims and the need for staff follow-up.
What remains open: The council did not schedule any formal investigatory or disciplinary action during the meeting. Several speakers asked the council to place the matter on a future agenda so it can consider oversight and corrective measures.
Public-record details: Sima Linscog described the September 9 sequence as resulting in three sheriff’s deputies present during a planning commission meeting; she identified the allegation as a possible misuse of public resources that may involve a false report. Santosh Rao told the council he and Linscog have worked “amicably and respectfully” and asked Linscog to verify facts with staff.
The council asked staff to accept written materials and said it would consider follow-up steps if an agendized oversight item is requested.
