Dear Council,
I am writing with input into your closed session tonight to discuss matters pertaining to City Attorney billing methods. I want you to be able to speak candidly. I also think the Council should follow the guidance of the current City Attorney in terms of what's appropriate for a closed session.
The stated concern pertains to billing fees charged for development projects before the City. Are they higher now than what they were under the former City Attorney? Comparing billing methods seems reasonable. However, the comparison should be an apples-to-apples comparison. t should also factor in the amount of development. To me, the pace of development has increased significantly over the past 2 years. Please see the attached two charts. One focuses on District 1 and the other Districts 2-5. The more development, the more legal fees being paid.
To me, the central issue is the quality of the legal advice. I also want to trust that the City Attorney is focused on serving the public good. The City Attorney is the main legal protection for residents in terms of the City following all applicable laws. These laws help to protect the rights of residents. The City Attorney should also consider new laws pending. For example, the former City Attorney should have realized that SB1000 was passed due to the type of environmental injustice that the City was about to approve with its ConnectMenlo exercise. I would like to see all applicable laws followed. I would also like to see a City Attorney focused on increasing ethics in our local government.
Under the former City Attorney arrangement, the City of Menlo Park did not follow multiple laws. We violated the Fair Housing Act by concentrating low-income housing in District 1. ConnectMenlo was an illegal substitution for the California requirements for an authentic general plan update. There are others. I consider following laws as the basic foundation for an ethical City government. Conflicts of interest should also be avoided. The former City Attorney allowed a major property owner in District 1 to have a seat on the ConnectMenlo Advisory Committee. That developer gained materially from the zoning changes. Under the prior City Attorneys, all coming from the same law firm, the City's 50 (or so) public-private partnerships lacked transparency. We were told that they were mostly parks and recreation related and that they were minor. However, we are starting to see more transparency into these arrangements. The transparency into one allowed to me "connect-the-dots" (with other information) and I see a major conflict of interest along with a limited public benefit. Unfortunately, the matter won't be reviewed again for roughly 20 years. These arrangements all need a public vetting based on complete information. The prior City Attorney was lauded for his "institutional memory." To me that is no substitute for what should have been documented and been available for future city attorneys.
Lynne Bramlett
