San Francisco Planning Commission unanimously invokes attorney–client privilege, meets in closed session and votes to withhold disclosure

The San Francisco Planning Commission on Feb. 16, 2023, voted unanimously to assert attorney–client privilege and go into closed session to consult with legal counsel on matters listed on the agenda. An unidentified speaker moved to adopt the motion, which the commission approved 7–0.

The vote set the commission to confer with legal counsel under the attorney–client privilege. After the closed session, the hearing host reported, “I can report that there was no action taken.” The commission then considered whether to disclose any part of the closed-session discussion; commissioners voted unanimously to withhold disclosure.

Commission business opened with routine remote-participation instructions and a roll call that recorded seven commissioners present: Commission President Tanner, Vice President Moore, and Commissioners Braun, Diamond, Imperial, Coppell, and Ruiz. Under Item 2 the motion before the commission was described in the meeting as a motion “to assert the attorney client privilege regarding the matters listed below as conference with legal counsel.” An unidentified speaker moved to adopt the motion; the chair then announced the motion passed unanimously, 7–0.

After the closed session, the host reported publicly that no action was taken in closed session and the commission moved to a subsequent procedural motion to not disclose the closed-session discussions. That motion likewise passed by a recorded unanimous vote of 7–0. The meeting then concluded and the broadcast indicated the session was adjourned.

The transcript does not specify the maker or seconder of the motions. The record shows the commission exercised attorney–client privilege and chose not to disclose the substance of the closed session; it also shows the commission reported that the closed session produced no formal action.