Three recusals leave board unable to hear appeal of 601 East Montecito Street

Assistant city attorney John Duhemes opened the item on the appeal of 601 East Montecito Street by asking board members to disclose any conflicts. Three seated board members said they had potential conflicts tied to a possible purchase of the property, leaving the board without a quorum to hear the appeal.

Duhemes explained the procedural consequence: with three recusals on a six-member board and two other seats unfilled or absent, the board could not lawfully conduct the appeal hearing under the Brown Act. He told the appellant that the city would prepare a written record explaining why the board could not hear the matter and that the appellant could pursue judicial review by filing a writ of mandate. "It is an impossibility for this board to have a hearing," Duhemes said.

The recusals were based on disclosed ties to Access Central Coast and potential involvement in negotiating the property's price. One member said she served on Access Central Coast's board of directors and that the board's decision could affect the property's market value; another said she was vice president of Access Central Coast and had engaged in discussions about a purchase. Chair Elizabeth Zorkman likewise said she had participated in preliminary talks about buying the building with one of the interested parties and therefore would not participate.

Appellant Tony Fisher told the board he had hoped for a hearing before the board and expressed concern about the practical consequences of taking the dispute to court. Fisher said a city press release had announced removal of red tags by city departments and that he had asked staff which items remained under "phase 2" review; Fisher said he received no substantive written list of remaining items. He urged the city to consider continuation and an expedited remedy so the matter could be addressed without court intervention.

Duhemes outlined two options for the appellant: wait until the board has enough members appointed to form a quorum and rehear the appeal at a future public meeting, or proceed with a writ of mandate in court. He also said the city would provide a written determination of the procedural impossibility and that the city would state that it waived the defense of exhaustion of administrative remedies so the appellant could file a writ within the statutory period. The attorney noted that any filing would generally have a 90-day clock for a writ of mandate.

With the board unable to proceed, no evidentiary hearing or decision on the merits took place. The board adjourned following the procedural discussion; staff said it would follow up with written notice explaining next steps and the record available for any judicial filing.