Ethics commission urges Planning Commissioner Johnson to recuse, will request any written city-attorney opinion

The San Francisco Ethics Commission voted unanimously on a motion to transmit a letter to Planning Commissioner Christina Johnson urging her to recuse herself from upcoming low-income housing matters and to ask the city attorney whether any written advice exists about her participation.

The motion, moved by Commissioner Kopp and seconded, asked staff to draft a letter with a preamble explaining that the matter arose since the last posted agenda. Commission members said the step was necessary because Johnson is reported to have accepted a position with SPUR, an organization that has publicly taken a position on the policy coming before the Planning Commission.

Larry Bush of Friends of Ethics told the commission the matter ‘‘needs to be re-vetted’’ and said the commission should consider the appearance of a conflict even when a direct financial tie is not present. ‘‘We believe that she should resign from the commission,’’ Bush said in public comment, arguing that SPUR’s role creates a problematic overlap with the Planning Commission’s duties.

Commissioners debated procedure and legal constraints. City Attorney Shen cautioned that because the topic was not agendized there are Brown Act notice considerations, and he said the city attorney could hold individual conversations or provide general guidance at a properly noticed meeting. The chair accepted a friendly amendment to include a short preamble in the letter explaining why the commission was acting on an expedited basis.

After discussion and public comments urging both urgency and caution, the commission approved the motion unanimously. Chair Keane said he and Commissioner Kopp will work with staff on the letter wording and that the commission will also request that the city attorney disclose whether any written opinion exists and, if so, provide a copy.

The commission framed the action as a call for transparency and public notice, not as a formal finding of misconduct. Commissioners also agreed to agendize a fuller review of conflict-of-interest policies at a future meeting to consider whether the Ethics Commission should have independent counsel and to clarify how appearance-of-conflict rules should be applied.