City Attorney’s Office
Memorandum
Date: June 13, 2023
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Alexander Abbe, Assistant City Attorney
Luis M. Haro, Deputy City Attorney
Subject: Conflicts Review – Planning Commission Applicants
Background
The City Attorney’s Office has been asked to review applications to City Boards and Commissions regarding potential conflicts of interest. The applications generally do not provide complete information regarding potential conflicts; however, they do occasionally disclose potential conflicts of interest or incompatible offices. The purpose of this memorandum is to highlight areas of potential conflict that are disclosed by the application. This review is limited to the information provided on the applications and is not intended to be comprehensive investigation of potential conflicts involving the applicants.
Commission Duties
Pursuant to the City Charter and the City Code, the Planning Commission is responsible for recommending the adoption, amendment, or repeal of the General Plan and Specific Plans; the application of the zoning and land use regulations of the City and recommending revisions and amendments; the processing of subdivision maps and property development applications; and provid ing input on the capital improvement program.
Legal Conflicts that May Preclude Vote or Participation
Certain positions may preclude a commissioner from participating in a commission discussion or from voting if a matter involving the entity comes before the commission. While this list is not complete, these types of conflicts generally fall within one or more of the following situations:
• An applicant has an interest in property the value of which could be affected by a decision coming before the Commission
• An application shows entities that are “sources of income” to a potential commissioner within the 12 months preceding the start of the commission term, as defined under the Political Reform Act, • An applicant is an officer or employee of an entity that could be involved in a matter coming before the commission, or
• An applicant engages in a profession serving the local market that is likely to realize financial benefits or detriments, distinguishable from the public generally, that would result from the work performed by the Commission
Appearance of Bias
There may be facts which would not amount to a legal conflict of interest requiring a commissioner to recuse him- or herself from a commission vote or discussion, however the relationship could cre ate an Conflicts Review – Planning Commission Applicants
June 13, 2023June 8, 2023
appearance of bias on the part of the commissioner. The Code of Ethics and Values requires that Commissioners “make impartial decisions, free of . . . financial and other personal interests that impair [one’s] independence of judgment or action.” Accordingly, a situation may arise that may require a commissioner to recuse him- or herself if the facts could reasonably lead one to conclude that the applicant would be biased for or against an entity or entities.
Review Of Applicants
None of the four applicants work in fields that are likely to present potential conflicts of interest for planning commissioners. The following is a list of the applicants and their employers:
• Eric Crutchlow is a Senior Project Manager for CrowdStrike, a cybersecurity technology company based in Sunnyvale.
• Jennie DeGuzman is a Design Engineer for Exatron Inc., a San Jose company that manufactures electronic products, including device handlers, automated programming systems, and test equipment.
• Rachael Maria Ervin works for the U.S. Postal Service in downtown San Jose. • Kaushal K Varshney is a Director of Global Technical Enablement at Netskope Inc., a cybersecurity technology company located in Santa Clara.
Three of the applicants work for corporations; in the unlikely event that the City ever contracted with any of those corporations, the contracts would not be subject to Planning Commission review, so no conflict would result. Kaushal Varsheny’s employer, Netskope Inc., is based in Santa Clara, and so if Netskope ever required a permit subject to Planning Commission review, Mr. Varshney would need to abstain from participating in consideration of that permit.
None of the applicants disclosed membership on any other governmental bodies, and so no incompatible office conflicts would occur. In addition, none of the applications identified any potential sources of bias.
Conclusion
The City Council may wish to consider the above comments in making its appointments to the Commission.
cc: Jovan Grogan, City Manager
Nora Pimentel, MMC, Assistant City Clerk