Facebook to dominate the oversight board? I am hardly surprised by this. Always follow the money and you will find who pulls the strings.

I have never been comfortable with Facebook's monetary relationship and philanthropy with the City. If FB wants to give us money, let them put it into the City's unrestricted general fund. Better yet, let's not cut them or any other companies any sweet zoning deals or tax breaks.

The monetary coziness with FB via the police department and the MPFD smells fishy to me. Cooperation is one thing and should be pursue. But when money gets involved, special treatment or the appearance of special treatment follows.

And let's not forget that many Americans are very disturbed by the corporate culture of FB and its failure to address the widespread abuses of its systems, which provide many great benefits to millions users but at a staggering price to truth, goodwill, and harmony. At the end of the day, FB is about the money while they try to lipstisk the pig through PR, donations, and chump change.

A couple of simple questions to answer might be:

1. "When was this development agreement signed?"
2. "Were the terms of the creation of the Housing Innovation Fund oversight board not clearly delineated in the agreement?"

If not, "What was said (and by whom) during the creation of the agreement draft?"

The developer agreements all need more scrutiny and review, such as by the City's Advisory Commissions and Committees, before Council reviews them. That's because they are dense documents with a lot of fine print. More eyes reviewing them would help. The prior process needs transparency and a full Council discussion as to what improvements are needed.

The legal reviews should focus on making sure that these agreements serve the City and public's interests first -- not the developer! On a related note, it's time for an article updating the public about the City's process related to choosing a new City Attorney. Our current and prior City Attorney work at a law firm that serves developers and municipalities. In the past, and perhaps still currently, the same same lawyers work in both practice areas. I've yet to hear about any "firewalls" between the practice areas. To me, a better solution would be a law firm that only served non profits and municipalities.

The developer agreements are difficult to find. The Ordinance Table often (always?) titles them in vague terms and there is no link to the agreement. Council does not receive an annual "holistic" report with summary level details of each agreement. They go annually (individually) before the Planning Commission (at minimum) but the PC does not review them holistically. It's also possible that more review would surface items (such as mitigation measures) that the developer might not be in compliance with.

The Developer Agreements should be put together in one place at the City's website and the Ordinance Table should label them in more meaningful terms (and provide links to them).

This article points out problems with one agreement that appears to favor Facebook over the City's and the public's interest. A careful review might surface other problems.

For example, when the City updates its Housing Element -- David Bohonnon, a major developer, gets a seat on the Advisory Committee as part of the Menlo Gateway Development Agreement. The document positions this as a "public benefit" but this seems more like spin to me. If a developer is needed for such a committee than I think a better choice would be a developer who builds affordable housing (Mid-Pen) or dense housing units such as Greystar.

According to provision 5.13 in the Menlo Gateway Developer Agreement Ordinance No. 971 (Menlo Gateway), “Developer [David Bohonnon] agrees to participate in a resident advisory committee to assist City in identifying future housing sites within the City when the city updates the Housing Element of the General Plan or if the City decides to create such a Committee. Such participation shall include utilizing its contacts within the commercial brokerage community to assist the City's efforts as well as such other expertise as many be reasonable in assisting the City to locate and identify land that may be available for housing sites.”

Ordinance No 971 was approved by four Council members on June 22, 2010 and signed by the then City Clerk. Ordinance No. 971 is listed in the City's Ordinance table (found by googling Municipal Code and going to the end) but there is no link to specifics. The title is also extremely vague. Ordinance 971 should also be available at the Menlo Gateway page. I see a link to the Developer Agreement, but this document is different than the details in Ordinance 971. Web Link.

Bohonnon had a seat on the last Housing Element Update Advisory Committee.

He also had a seat seat on the Connect Menlo Advisory Committee where he helped to oversee zoning decisions in the Belle Haven (M2) area where he was a major property owner. I view this as a major conflict of interest that should have been flagged. That's because Bohonnon gained materially due to the Connect Menlo zoning decisions.

It's time for more transparency into development agreements.