Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

San Francisco Planning Commission asserts attorney client privilege in closed session

May 23, 2024 | San Francisco City, San Francisco County, California



Black Friday Offer

Get Lifetime Access to Full Government Meeting Transcripts

Lifetime access to full videos, transcriptions, searches, and alerts at a county, city, state, and federal level.

$99/year $199 LIFETIME
Founder Member One-Time Payment

Full Video Access

Watch full, unedited government meeting videos

Unlimited Transcripts

Access and analyze unlimited searchable transcripts

Real-Time Alerts

Get real-time alerts on policies & leaders you track

AI-Generated Summaries

Read AI-generated summaries of meeting discussions

Unlimited Searches

Perform unlimited searches with no monthly limits

Claim Your Spot Now

Limited Spots Available • 30-day money-back guarantee

This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

San Francisco Planning Commission asserts attorney client privilege in closed session
In a special closed session hearing on May 23, 2024, the San Francisco Planning Commission convened to discuss matters of legal counsel, emphasizing the importance of maintaining attorney-client privilege. The session began with a roll call, confirming the presence of six commissioners, while Commissioner Koppel was noted as absent.

Public comments were invited, with one speaker, Georgia Shutish, urging the commission to consider transparency regarding the UDU (Underground Development Unit), which she identified as a central issue. She expressed concern about the public's right to be informed, suggesting that discussions should be opened to public scrutiny after the closed session.

Following public comments, the commission unanimously voted to assert attorney-client privilege concerning the matters discussed. This decision was made with a motion from Vice President Moore, which received support from all present commissioners. The session then transitioned into a closed format, with the public asked to leave the chambers.

Upon reconvening, the commission reported that no actions were taken during the closed session. They subsequently voted to not disclose any details from the discussions, again passing the motion unanimously. This decision underscores the commission's commitment to confidentiality in legal matters, while also highlighting ongoing tensions between public transparency and legal protections.

The meeting concluded without any further announcements, leaving the community awaiting future updates on the UDU and other planning issues. The commission's actions reflect a cautious approach to sensitive legal discussions, balancing the need for privacy with public interest.

View full meeting

This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.

View full meeting

Sponsors

Proudly supported by sponsors who keep California articles free in 2025

Scribe from Workplace AI
Scribe from Workplace AI
Family Portal
Family Portal