1 From: Rick Bonilla
Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2026 12:28 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo); Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah Subject: “Special Meeting” Planning commissioner selection Good afternoon,
I know about the issue with the appointed Planning Commissioner. I’m writing to urge that you stick to the policy and the plans which you have created and which should flow smoothly, without any controversy.
It says something that I should even feel that I may need to send this message.
I know that you were elected by district, but it is time to think about the good of the entire city. Not just these people, or those people, every single resident of city.
Order is in order.
Rick Bonilla
1 From: Doug D'Anna <
Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2026 12:36 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Clerk
Subject: Before Monday's Study Session on Item 1 — A process question worth 2 minutes
Mayor Loraine and Members of the Council,
Monday’s decision is really two decisions:
• Who fills this seat
• How that decision gets made
The second shapes whether the first is trusted — regardless of outcome.
One quesƟon worth holding before the facts below: what process best serves San Mateo — not just tonight, but the next
Ɵme this happens?
• June 1: Council appointed Mr. Horsman; placed Ms. Patel and Mr. Braham on a 6-month eligibility list for future vacancies.
• June 10: Mr. Horsman resigned — 9 days later, due to a scheduling conflict with his employment. • Tonight’s choice: Per the staff report and Rules §2.J.1, the Council “may” appoint from that list — or “may” direct a new recruitment. It’s discreƟonary, not automaƟc.
Both paths are valid under these rules.
But that eligibility list was created for future vacancies in general — not for the very seat it helped fill reopening within days.
And two other things are true tonight that weren’t true three weeks ago:
• This seat reopened just 9 days aŌer it was filled
• It comes with real public controversy aƩached
That combinaƟon deserves the same deliberate consideraƟon as the alternaƟve — not a quicker one.
My ask:
• Agendize this as its own noƟced discussion
• Deliberate on it using the exisƟng interview record — no need for anything new • Don’t resolve it as part of tonight’s rouƟne acƟon
Taking one more meeƟng costs liƩle. Geƫng it wrong costs trust.
Not a request for a parƟcular outcome. A request for the same standard already met once.
2 Respecƞully,
Doug D’ Anna
1 From:
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2026 2:00 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: June 15 Special Meeting Study Session Item 1
Unprecedented Times Require Unprecedented Actions
You have before you what could be regarded as a simple matter; a planning commissioner resigned and the “alternate” who is on the current appointment list is ready and available to fill the position.
Really simple, yes?
NO, it is not.
The irregularities surrounding the interview and selection process, as well as the palpable outcry from the public, the residents of San Mateo, regarding the conduct of the former (and “alternate”) Planning Commissioner cannot be ignored. From the curious reason for the resignation of the originally selected commissioner, to the hateful postings by the “alternate”, many questions are raised that must be answered before any appointment is made.
When was the last time there was an unplanned vacancy within days of an appointment?
Were there violations of the requirements for a transparent process? Was the interview process and ranking soiled by misinformation knowingly provided by the successful candidate? Maybe no, maybe yes. Can the city afford the appearance of impropriety? No, it cannot.
The City Council would fail their duties by not questioning the events that have occurred.
A few points:
● The terminology used by Loraine during the interview and recommendation meeting, insisting on an “alternate”, has no meaning and I believe is part of the manipulation we are seeing play out.
● The use of numerical rankings has been employed to sort out the preferences of the interview committee. The candidate amassing the most votes would be recommended for appointment to the full City Council when one opening needs filling. If there are two ope nings, the candidate
with the second most votes would be recommended to fill the second commission seat. Again, it is important to call out that there is no mention of an “alternate” in any rules, processes, procedures or law.
● There is no "protocol" or "precedence.” Any prior use of the "qualified" list pre-dates the adoption of the recently revised rules. The following rules are law:
Chapter 11, Section 2.J.1 of the City Council's adopted Rules and Procedures for Board and Commissions outlines a process for unscheduled vacancies, this provides that:
2 Subject to the Maddy Act (Government Code Section 54970), the City Council may fill an unscheduled vacancy by either:
1. Appointing an individual from an existing eligibility list, if available; or
2. Directing staff to conduct a new recruitment process
● The law provides that the Council is not required to appoint the candidate who has the second number of votes from the selection committee, or the so-called “alternate”, from the list.
Anyone on the qualified list may be appointed.
● It is difficult to believe that the originally appointed candidate did not know that a time conflict may have been pending, or existed, at the time of the interviews. To not know of the potential conflict and then be published on his “new” employer’s website two weeks after the interviews and 9 days after his appointment would be quite an anomaly.
● Most importantly, Council must consider that if the selected candidate had disclosed this potential conflict at the time of his interview, would their votes have been different?
These irregularities call for a new interview process.
The interviews and discussions must be public and a proper recording of the session made, under the control of the city. The process must be in accordance with the rules and free of manipulative wording, such as “alternate.”
Is this too much to ask of our city officials? The residents of the city deserve this modicum of respect.
We do not want to be played, and we will certainly make it known when we are.
Unprecedented, yes. Necessary and justified, absolutely.
Dave Cohen
San Mateo Resident
1 From: Gary Germano <
Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2026 9:07 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Martin McTaggart
Subject: Re: No Further Term For Seema Patel
Dear City Council Members,
I am re-sending this letter below because I understand that person who was selected last month has declined the nomination/position, and you are re-selecting.
Again, due to the issues I listed below, I formally request that you do not vote for Seema Patel for planning commissioner.
Gary Germano
Born in San Mateo Resident
From: Gary Germano
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2026 6:39 AM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: No Further Term For Seema Patel
Dear City Council members,
I understand that you are in the process of interviewing to select planning commissioners.
I am most importantly very concerned about the long term sustainability of our City, as well as the short term current deficit spending issues we have.
Our infrastructure is already undersized, and we need people who can put those three top priority issues as the "deal breaker" for every project or proposal that "comes across the table".
That being said, I formally request that you do not vote for Seema Patel for planning commissioner.
Thank you for your attention to these important issues,
Gary Germano
Born in San Mateo Resident
1 From: Uma Krishnan <
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2026 3:47 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: Reappoint Seema Patel (round 2)
Dear Members of the San Mateo City Council, Mayor Lorraine, and Deputy Mayor Fernandez,
I'm writing as the President of the SMC AAPI Alliance. I was flabbergasted and disappointed upon learning that Seema was not reappointed to the Planning Commission. She has been an asset not just to her city but to others; she is one of the most knowledgeable people I have ever met when it comes to land use, policy, and building housing. I understand that she is the first alternate for the Planning Commission, and I believe that per the rules the first alternate is the individual to take the seat upon a commissioner's resignation. Therefore, Seema should be on Planning. I believe that you should follow existing city policy.
Part of the reason that we founded the AAPI Alliance was to help uplift AAPI voices in civics and policy, and seeing one of our community leaders wrongfully taken out was a blow to our community. As I'm sure you're aware, we are looking at a massive rise in AAPI hate, specifically racism and violence directed towards the South Asian community and South Asian leadership matters a lot to our community.
It's my hope that you can do the right thing and stick to the book and appoint the first alternate.
I hope tonight's meeting goes smoothly, so then you can enjoy a beautiful evening in San Mateo.
Uma Rao Krishnan
1 From: Rick
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2026 3:35 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo); Alex Khojikian
Cc: Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: Do NOT appoint Seema Patel to Planning Commission, Part 2 Do NOT appoint Seema Patel to Planning Commission
Here we go again. You have received and are currently receiving hundreds of emails and calls on both sides of this issue. This by itself tells us that this is a controversial appointment and EXTREMELY DIVISIVE. No prospective commissioner should have or has had hundreds of supporters and detractors. We do not need more polarization of our city and its residents. We need fair, even-
minded commissioners that will study all sides of an issue and do what is best for the City of San Mateo and not solely represent special interest groups and developers. Her misdeeds and transgressions have been widely documented, this is not what the City needs. Seema Patel is not someone who reaches out to heal and build consensus and listens to all sides of an issue.
The sudden resignation of James Horsman bears an investigation.
respectfully,
Rick Sakuda
1 From: Daniel Schonberg
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2026 3:27 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: Seema Patel for planning commission
I've learned about the change in facts that mean Seema will again be considered for the planning commission. I wanted to write to express my support for restoring Seema to the commission. Seema's competence and knowledge is an asset to the city. The opposition to Seema is driven by anger and hurt, but not by a consideration for what's best for San Mateo. Please do what's right. Appoint Seema to the planning commission.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Daniel Schonberg