Public comment information
From:Annonomus FCResident
To:Foster City Public Comment; cshaker@smcgov.org
Cc:Foster City City Manager"s Office; jnibbelin@smcgov.org; Rob Lasky; Aaron Siu; Austin Walsh; Priscilla Schaus;
Sandy Loi; Alexis Garcia-Dawson
Subject:Request Recusal from upcoming Public Hearing. 7/16/2026 items 6.2 & 8.1
Date:Monday, July 13, 2026 1:00:04 PM
Attachments:image.png
image.png
Dear Foster City Attorney via City Manager and interested parties,
On 7/13/2026 Planning Commission Vice Chair Shankar Kenkre made a Facebook post in
which he has made a public determination, of something that is currently agenized before him
to make a decision on, before the public hearing has taken place regarding San Mateo
County's inquiry into 1065 East Hillsdale Blvd Foster City, CA 94404 [APN: 094-524-180].
The meeting is scheduled for 7/16/2026.
Note Vice Chair Kenkre states the use "is not consistent with Foster City's General Plan or
current zoning" ; a photo of his statement is attached.
In his role on a planning commission, a quasi judicial legal body in the State of California, the
Vice Chair should now be required to recuse himself from the publicly agendized upcoming
hearing item 6.2 Thursday, July 16, 2026 and potentially item 8.1 also in that 1065 E Hillsdale
is also discussed in that item's staff report.
This is a violation of the applicants Constitutional Procedural Due Process (governing fair
hearings). The above statement constitutes legal precommitment. California courts look for an
"unacceptable probability of actual bias." If a commissioner shows they have closed their
mind to any other possibility before the public hearing, they are disqualified from
participating. ref: Nasha v. City of Los Angeles (2004) & Woody’s Group, Inc. v. City of
Newport Beach (2015).
There is also a question as to the Brown Act in that Vice Chair Kenkre is also running a
change.org petition (ref: https://www.change.org/p/say-no-to-san-mateo-county-s-acquisition-
of-1065-east-hillsdale-blvd-in-foster-city). Within that petition, there can be a private
discussion on an item agendized before him. There is no way to view the, as of 7/13/2026, 84
'verified signatures' of the petition any one of which could create a Brown Act Conflict with
Vice Chair Kenkre should one have communicated or one is perhaps another member of the
commission.
The change.org petition contains extensive, written text outlining the commissioner's specific
policy arguments, legal interpretations, & evidence against the agendized item. As other
commissioners read it, the authoring commissioner has essentially delivered a non-agendized,
one-way argument to the rest of the body to influence their vote before the public hearing.
If the Vice Chair refuses to recuse himself, he must, at a bare minimum, enter the entire
petition, its comments, and its signature count into the public record as an ex parte
communication, so to open the discussion to open cross-examination in the public meeting.
Should the vice chair not recuse himself, the entire decision made by the Planning
Commission is now legally tainted. The applicant can sue the city, and a judge will likely
invalidate the vote, forcing the city to pay attorney's fees and start the process completely
over.
All ex parte communication between commissioners, commissioners and council members
and especially anything behind the change.org account & petition that the Vice Chair controls
should be disclosed into the public record.
Recusal is appropriate.
Signed,
Anonymous
