1 From:
Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2026 4:54 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: City Mgr; City Attorney's Office
Subject: Planning Commission Appointment July 20, 2026
Honorable Council Members,
I, along with many of my fellow San Mateo residents, are simply tired of wasting our breath expressing easily verifiable facts supporting our valid objections to appointing Seema Patel back to the Planning Commission.
Three of you have not listened.
The City Attorney has informed you of your options.
The City Manager has informed you of your options.
Just remember:
No Trust = No Tax Increase
Regards,
Dave Cohen
1 From:
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2026 8:57 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Clerk; City Mgr; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: Request for Procedural Review Before Final Action on Planning Commission Appointment
Dear Mayor, City Council, and City Attorney:
I submit this letter to preserve the administrative record and to request corrective action before the City Council finalizes the proposed appointment of a Planning Commissioner.
Because the appointment has not yet been finalized, the City still has both the opportunity and the obligation to ensure that its decision complies with the San Mateo Municipal Code and the City’s mandatory ethical standards.
Applicable Legal and Ethical Standards
The San Mateo Municipal Code makes clear that ethics and integrity are not merely aspirational ideals; they are binding standards governing public oƯicers and the City’s appointment process.
Section 2.12.020, Municipal Code, Code of Ethics for OƯicers, declares that democratic government requires City oƯicers to be independent, impartial, and responsible to the people; that public oƯice must not be used for personal gain; and that the public must have confidence in the integrity of its government.
Section 2.12.030, Municipal Code, Code of Ethics for OƯicers, further provides that City oƯicers are agents of the public purpose who must observe the highest standards of morality, faithfully discharge the duties of oƯice regardless of personal considerations, and recognize that the public interest is their primary concern.
These provisions impose aƯirmative obligations on the City when determining whether an individual is fit to serve as a Planning Commissioner. The City cannot satisfy these requirements by evaluating only a candidate’s qualifications or experience while disregarding substantial evidence concerning ethics, judgment, temperament, impartiality, and respect for the public. Appointing an individual to public oƯice without addressing such evidence raises legitimate questions about whether the appointment process was conducted consistently with the Municipal Code and the City’s stated ethical objectives.
Although compliance with the Municipal Code is mandatory, selection from the alternate list is a non- binding procedure. The City therefore cannot rely on that procedure to avoid its independent obligation to evaluate whether the selected candidate satisfies the applicable ethical standards.
2 The Commissioner Conduct Standards reinforce these statutory duties. Chapter 6 requires commissioners to govern for the benefit of the entire community, avoid even the appearance of impropriety, conduct meetings with civility and respect, and treat all persons—including members of the public—with dignity, courtesy, and professionalism, both on and oƯ the dais. These standards exist because public confidence depends not only on technical competence, but also on ethical conduct and respect for the public.
Concerns Reflected in the Public Record
The public record reflects repeated concerns regarding Commissioner Seema Patel’s conduct and suitability. These concerns were raised by numerous speakers, including a former Police Chief and a former Planning Commissioner—individuals with firsthand knowledge of the standards expected of public oƯicials. Their testimony directly implicated issues of ethics, judgment, impartiality, and public trust, all of which the Municipal Code expressly requires the City to protect.
During Council deliberations, a Councilmember also stated on the record that a constituent was afraid to attend Planning Commission meetings. That statement is highly significant. If members of the public are deterred from participating because they fear the conduct of a commissioner, the City has an obligation to determine whether its ethical standards and duty to maintain public confidence have been compromised. Ignoring such evidence would be inconsistent with both the letter and purpose of Chapter
2.12. Need for a Clear Record Before Appointment
To date, the City has not explained whether these mandatory ethical standards were evaluated during the selection process, who performed that evaluation, what criteria were applied, or how the substantial public testimony concerning ethics and conduct was weighed before the Council selected its preferred candidate.
The City cannot appoint someone to public oƯice while disregarding the ethical standards that define fitness to serve. Those standards are not separate from the appointment decision; they must guide the City’s determination of whether a candidate is suitable for oƯice.
A conclusory assertion that the process complied with City procedures does not satisfy the City’s obligation to demonstrate compliance with its own Municipal Code.
The City must also address whether Ms. Patel can serve the full term in light of her candidacy for City Council.
Requested Corrective Action
Accordingly, before the Council votes to make the appointment, I respectfully request that the City take the following actions:
Identify the Municipal Code provisions and Commissioner Conduct Standards governing the ethical evaluation of applicants.
3 Explain how the City applied Sections 2.12.020 and 2.12.030 of the Municipal Code, Code of Ethics for OƯicers, during the selection process.
Explain how the City considered and weighed testimony from the former Police Chief, the former Planning Commissioner, and other members of the public.
State for the record whether Ms. Patel satisfies the requirements of Section 2.12, Municipal Code, Code of Ethics for OƯicers, notwithstanding the substantial evidence in the record. Preserve this correspondence and the City’s response as part of the administrative record. Delay the appointment until the Council can demonstrate that it has fully complied with the mandatory ethical requirements of the Municipal Code and has meaningfully considered the evidence presented regarding the selected candidate’s fitness to serve.
Reservation of Rights
Because the appointment has not yet been made, the City can still ensure that its decision complies with its legal and ethical obligations. Proceeding without demonstrating compliance with the Municipal Code would undermine public confidence in the integrity of the process and could expose the City’s action to legal challenge.
Nothing in this letter waives any rights or remedies available under California law. If the Council proceeds with the appointment without addressing these issues, I reserve all rights to pursue appropriate administrative and judicial remedies.
Respectfully,
Lisa M. Maley
Cc: City Manager
1 From: Vikash Bhagwandin
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2026 3:31 PM
To: Martin McTaggart
Cc: Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: Re: ***Urgent*** Grievance - Planning Commission Selection Tampering Attachments: Grievance - Planning Commission Tampering.pdf Thank you Martin, the letter requests for the city council to put a pause on the swearing-in until after the investigation has been completed. Attached is an updated version with a few corrections.
Please confirm receipt.
Best,
Vikash
On Mon, Jul 20, 2026 at 3:28 PM Martin McTaggart <[email protected]> wrote:
Good afternoon, Vikash,
Thank you for your email.
Confirming this has been received and will be appended as written public comment to the record associated with this agenda item.
Best wishes,
Martin
From: Vikash Bhagwandin >
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2026 3:11 PM
To: Martin McTaggart <[email protected]>; Prasanna Rasiah <[email protected]> Subject: ***Urgent*** Grievance - Planning Commission Selection Tampering
Dear City Clerk Martin and City Attorney Rasiah,
2 As a concerned and lifelong resident of the City of San Mateo, with deep sadness, I am submitting a grievance and request into the investigation of an alleged planning commission selection process tampering.
Attached is my formal grievance. Please confirm receipt of this email.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Best regards,
Vikash J. Bhagwandin, Ph.D.
* PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message, together with any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is confidential and prohibited from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or by return e-mail and delete this message along with any attachments from your computer. Thank you.
July 30, 2026
Re: Grievance; Alleged conflict of interest and collusion by planning commissioner with developer for the Fish Market development.
Dear City Clerk and City Attorney,
In reference to the City of San Mateo Municipal Code, Chapter 2.57 PERSONNEL SYSTEM, I am requesting a formal investigation into the alleged conflict of interest and collusion by former planning commissioner Seema Patel with the developer on the Fish Market housing development project.
In the backdrop of Measure T being written, former planning commissioner Seema Patel met with developer Windy Hill, possibly multiple times, about the Fish Market development site while advocating for Measure T.
Importantly, she advocated personally for Measure T, which includes three sites, 3rd Avenue and Norfolk Street, 19th Avenue and Norfolk Street, and Hillsdale and Norfolk Street, knowing they were not located on a transit corridor, but continued to advocate for the approval, which in my view will disenfranchise and create a negative impact of traffic and pollution on an equity priority community. In addition, it is my suspicion that she has signed off on the proposal by Windy Hill knowing the contents of Measure T.
Although the former planning commissioner was exercising her right to free speech on her advocacy for Measure T, in this specific context and with her obligation to the San Mateo City Code of Ethics, she had the option to recuse herself from interacting with Windy Hill yet she did not.
In order to maintain the integrity of our city code of ethics, prevent conflicts of interests like collusion, rules and procedures and prevent further alleged behavior by others in the future, I believe it is imperative to put a pause on the reappointment of Seema Patel to the planning commission until a proper and thorough investigation has been conducted.
Sincerely,
Vikash J. Bhagwandin, Ph.D.