Date:
August 27, 2026
To:
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From:
Glen Googins, 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 necessary to identify every potential conflict; however, they occasionally disclose financial interests, employment relationships, or other positions that warrant further review. The purpose of this memorandum is to highlight potential issues disclosed by the applications, taking into account the duties of the Planning Commission. This review is limited to the information provided in the applications and readily available public information is not intended to be a 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 providing input on the capital improvement program.
Legal Conflicts that May Preclude Vote or Participation Certain financial interests or relationships may require a commissioner to refrain from participating in a Planning Commission decision. While this list is not exhaustive, potential disqualification issues generally arise in one or more of the following situations:
An applicant has an interest in real property that could be materially affected by a decision coming before the Commission; An applicant has received income of $500 or more within the 12 months preceding a governmental decision from an entity that could be financially affected by the decision, making that entity a source of income under the Political Reform Act; An applicant is an officer or employee of an entity that could be financially affected by a matter coming before the Commission; or An applicant has a business or professional interest that could experience a reasonably foreseeable and material financial effect from a Commission decision that is distinguishable from the public generally.
Appearance of Bias
Even when no statutory financial conflict requires disqualification, an applicant’s relationships, prior involvement, or other circumstances may raise concerns regarding impartiality. The Code of Ethics and Values requires Commissioners to “make impartial decisions, free of . . . financial and other personal interests that impair [one’s] independence of judgment or action.” Depending on the facts, such circumstances may warrant disclosure, consultation with the City Attorney’s Office, or recusal from a particular matter.
Review of Applicants
Set forth below are the applicants and any apparent conflict-of-interest, incompatible-office, or impartiality issues identified from the applications and the limited public information reviewed.
Najmul Hai is a Director of Engineering at Verint Systems, an enterprise software company focused primarily on customer-service operations, call centers, and customer-experience automation. The application discloses neither incompatible offices nor apparent conflicts of interest.
A standard question on the application form asks: “City policy directs all advisory body members not to vote on matters where there exists a potential conflict of interest. Would you be willing to abstain from voting if such a conflict arises?” Mr. Hai responded “no”. This may have been a simple error, but this would need to be confirmed during the interview because a commissioner is legally required to refrain from participating when a disqualifying conflict exists.
Jonathan Marinaro is a Director of Technical Sales at Celerium, a cybersecurity company. His employment does not present an apparent conflict of interest. Mr. Marinaro is the current Vice Chair of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC). He has previously served for two terms on the Cultural Commission, including a term as Chair.
The BPAC’s duties include making recommendations on comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian master plans, and providing advice on modifying, expanding, and maintaining the City's public bicycle and pedestrian transportation systems. The BPAC acts only in an advisory capacity, but it is possible that the Planning Commission, at some point, may review a draft plan or policy prepared by the BPAC. As a result, there is a potential for an incompatible office conflict if Mr. Marinaro were to remain on the BPAC when serving on the Planning Commission. It would likely be necessary for Mr. Marinaro to resign from his BPAC seat, should he receive the position on the PC.
Jeffrey “Jeff” Poddraza is a realtor with eXp Realty, which conducts real-estate transactions in Santa Clara and throughout the Bay Area. A realtor may serve on a planning commission, but active real-estate work can create recurring, fact-specific disqualification risks. Under the Political Reform Act, the real-estate license itself is not disqualifying. Instead, particular decisions must be evaluated for reasonably foreseeable and material financial effects on the commissioner’s real-property interests, brokerage business, commission-income sources, clients, or prospective employment arrangements. For example, in Downey Cares v. Downey Community Development Commission, 196 Cal. App. 3d 983 (1987), a planning commissioner who was the sole proprietor of a Century 21 office employing 32 salespersons and who owned multiple parcels of real property in a redevelopment area was found to have a disqualifying conflict when voting on a redevelopment plan.
Realtors have served on the Santa Clara Planning Commission in the past. If Mr. Poddraza is appointed, staff would work with him on a case-by-case basis to identify potentially disqualifying financial interests before matters are heard by the Commission.
Nicholas Repetto is an installer for Earth Electric, a solar and electrical contractor. Earth Electric has installed a number photovoltaic systems at residences in Santa Clara in recent years. If a matter before the Planning Commission would have a reasonably foreseeable and material financial effect on Earth Electric—for example, because Earth Electric is a contractor on the project—Mr. Repetto could be required to recuse himself based on his employment and resulting source-of-income interest. Other than this fact-specific possibility, the application discloses no incompatible offices or apparent conflict of interest.
Shawn Williams is a truck driver for 1-800-GOT-JUNK and also works at Musik Ink Studios, which leases studio space for music rehearsals and production in San Jose. Mr. Williams previously served a partial term on the Santa Clara Planning Commission from late 2018 to early 2019. The application discloses neither incompatible offices nor apparent conflicts of interest.
Conclusion
The City Council may wish to consider the above comments in making its appointment to the Commission. These observations are preliminary and based on the applications and limited public information reviewed; any future disqualification determination would depend on the facts of the particular matter before the Planning Commission. cc:
Jovan Grogan, City Manager
Nora Pimentel, MMC, Assistant City Clerk
Conflicts Review – Planning Commission Applicants
August 27, 2026
City Attorney’s OfficeMemorandumCity Attorney’s OfficeMemorandum City Attorney’s Office
Memorandum
City Attorney’s Office
Memorandum