Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Recusal Quorum topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Two commissioners recuse themselves, leaving commission without a quorum for nonprofit arts zoning item

Historic Preservation Commission (San Francisco) · October 18, 2023
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Commissioners Wright and Nagas Warren recused themselves from an arts-education special-use district item because of disclosed conflicts; the motion to recuse passed 5-0 and left the Historic Preservation Commission without a quorum to hear the item, which may proceed without an HPC recommendation or be delayed until a sixth commissioner is seated.

The Historic Preservation Commission voted to accept two recusal requests on Oct. 18, removing itself from deliberation on a proposed planning code and zoning map amendment for a nonprofit arts-education special-use district.

Commissioner Nagas Warren said she was a salaried employee of Fort Mason Center and cited a potential conflict related to SFAI bankruptcy matters; Commissioner Wright said his private practice is a preservation consultant to a potential buyer on the same project. "I am a salaried employee of Fort Mason Center…there would be a conflict of interest under the State Political Reform Act," Nagas Warren said.

A motion to recuse both commissioners passed unanimously, 5-0. The clerk explained that, with two recusals, the commission lacked a quorum and therefore could not hear or continue the hearing on the item. Staff advised that the matter could be postponed until another commissioner was seated or that it could move forward through the Planning Commission and Board without an HPC recommendation.

Commissioners and staff discussed limited options under the timeline: "Because we have 2 recusals…we've lost a quorum," the clerk said. Staff noted the potential for postponement if a sixth commissioner were seated by Nov. 1; otherwise the item would advance through the planning review process.

The recusal vote and resulting loss of quorum were procedural and reactive to disclosed conflicts; no substantive action on the zoning amendment occurred at the hearing.