Rules Committee advances three planning nominations; one draws ethics questions

The Board of Supervisors Rules Committee on June 25 advanced three nominations to San Francisco advisory bodies, forwarding the reappointment of James Haas to the City Hall Preservation Advisory Commission and the reappointment of Commissioner Catherine Moore to the Planning Commission without objection, and sending Commissioner Sachi Sugaya’s renomination to the full Board after a roll-call vote and sustained questioning about conflict-of-interest appearances.

Chair David Campos opened the meeting, and the committee briefly reviewed procedural rules before taking up the consent and nomination items. When Item 1 was called, Mr. James Haas appeared and summarized his background in historic preservation, citing past roles including work on the Mills Act and service with the Federal Advisory Commission on historic preservation. Supervisor Eric Marr and other committee members said the materials submitted met the threshold of qualifications for the designated preservation-professional seat. After public comment urging a higher bar for the specialized seat, Supervisor Marr moved to recommend Haas; the motion was taken without objection and will be forwarded as a committee report.

Item 2, President David Chu’s nomination of Commissioner Catherine Moore to the Planning Commission for a four-year term, drew extensive public support. Moore described her work as an urban designer and planning commissioner and emphasized “authentic dialogue” and social and environmental equity in planning. A long line of neighborhood and professional advocates — including representatives of neighborhood associations and preservation groups — testified in favor of her reappointment. Supervisor Alioto Pierce moved Moore’s nomination with recommendation to the full Board; the committee took that motion without objection.

Item 3, President Chu’s nomination of Sachi (Bill) Sugaya to the Planning Commission, prompted extended committee questioning about his firm’s work and the appearance of a conflict tied to projects that had been before the Planning Commission. Supervisor Alioto Pierce asked whether a client might select a firm because a principal serves on the Planning Commission and cited a specific project in which Sugaya voted on an initial continuance and later recused himself when his firm became involved.

Sugaya replied that he consults the City Attorney’s Office whenever potential conflicts arise and provided a numerical accounting: he said there were three instances where he recused on environmental impact report (EIR) discussions tied to area plans and seven instances where his firm prepared historic-resource reports prompting recusal from a particular decision. Deputy City Attorney Andrew Shen confirmed that Sugaya had contacted the city attorney’s office on multiple occasions for advice. The ethics exchange produced a split reaction among supervisors: Supervisor Marr and Chair Campos expressed confidence that Sugaya had sought counsel when appropriate, while Supervisor Alioto Pierce said she would like additional clarification from the city attorney before the full Board.

Supervisor Marr moved a positive recommendation for Sugaya as a committee report. Clerk roll call recorded Supervisor Alioto Pierce voting No and Supervisors Marr and Campos voting Aye; the motion passed and the nomination will go to the full Board with the committee’s recommendation.

What’s next: The committee forwarded all three nominations to the full Board of Supervisors. Supervisors said they welcome additional documentation or City Attorney clarification on recusals and appearances of conflicts before the full-board confirmation votes.

Sources and attribution: Quotes and attributions in this article are drawn from remarks on the public record at the Rules Committee meeting and from speakers who addressed the committee during Items 1–3.