 |
|
|
|
|
Council Chooses Partnership Of Distant Firms As City Attorney
New attorney had a hand in 1996 Measure G battle
Nick Streit disapproved
By Steve Enders
Months ago, when the City Council chose to replace City Attorney Mike Riback, it decided to find someone steeped in all the things a city attorney must deal with on a regular basis--someone who could handle contract law and land-use issues and, moreover, someone who had a solid background in municipal government. What's more, the council wanted someone based in Santa Clara County.
What the city gets instead is an attorney from San Francisco who, although he's said to be extremely well versed in land-use and environmental law, has little civic experience and had to bring another attorney from Santa Cruz with him to make sure all the city's bases are covered.
Mayor Jim Shaw announced at the regular July 7 council meeting that the council had hired a new attorney, Richard Taylor, of San Francisco's Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger. Shaw also noted that the council's vote, taken weeks ago in closed session, was not unanimous.
Councilman Nick Streit cast that lone, dissenting vote. "Their appointment made absolutely no sense," Streit said after the meeting. "I argued this point for weeks. We wanted a full-service firm and someone who was qualified to be an all-around city attorney. But when we got into the process, we got someone who's never been a city attorney."
Streit did stress, however, that he will do everything he can to help Taylor become the best he can possibly be for the city, and will support him now that he's on board.
The replacement of Riback comes with a few twists, because also in on the deal is another firm, Wittwer and Parkin of Santa Cruz. Jonathan Wittwer will assist Taylor with various portions of his job as the two see fit, and will sit in on most Planning Commission items and help the Community Development Department. Taylor will primarily serve the City Council.
The new attorneys will begin sitting in on council matters during the next month, and will officially take over all city attorney duties on Aug. 1.
Although neither attorney has served a city specifically, both have experience with cities, counties and special districts. Wittwer has long held a position in the Santa Cruz County Counsel's office.
But it also turns out that Richard Taylor's firm knew city leaders well before last week's appointment. Taylor was instrumental in drafting Measure G, and provided legal services to the support group Save Our Neighborhoods Initiative Committee, which was co-founded by Shaw.
Shaw told the Saratoga News that he (Shaw) came in late to the drafting of Measure G and said he did not have an intimate relationship with the law firm. "Their help was technical in reviewing the general plan; they didn't provide strategic advice on how to get [Measure G] implemented. They did a wonderful job; it worked."
Measure G requires a public vote for rezoning parkland commercial or residential or for replacing a parcel designation with one more dense.
Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger collected $481 for "legal services" from SONIC, according to a 1996 campaign expenditure report filed with the city. Asked about the low legal fee, Shaw said, "The $481 wasn't a total payment. There were probably other payments before the group evolved into SONIC, but I'm not privy to any of those details."
Shaw said that the council's decision was based on a number of potential land-use issues coming soon and that the majority wanted an attorney who could handle them.
Shaw said he sees the annexation of the Mountain Winery as one possible issue in the future, adding that no official discussions on the topic have taken place.
At a Saratoga Business Development Council meeting in May, that idea was brought before winery owner Bill Hirschman, who said he would be willing to discuss the idea with city officials. Shaw said the issue has not come up since then.
Shaw also said the City Council has its eyes on the coming development of the Sisters of Notre Dame property above the Madronia Cemetery as another potential hot-button issue. There, local developer John Sobrato is proposing a new neighborhood of sidewalks and single-family homes.
The city's contract lies specifically with Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger, with duties performed by Wittwer to be paid out by the primary firm, according to City Manager Larry Perlin.
Perlin said that Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger have a great deal of experience in land-use issues, environmental law and matters regarding the California Environmental Quality Act.
Perlin said he's optimistic for the new relationship, even though the firm has never represented a city government. "This is sort of a new direction for them," Perlin said. "We'll be the first client of theirs for which they'll serve as city attorney."
Perlin added that he thought the City Council was able to look beyond the firm's lack of experience, and felt that hiring it would best serve the city's interest.
Still, he remains slightly cautious.
"I have a few concerns about their lack of experience and their ability to provide the full range of services we need," Perlin said. "But I also know they're very experienced attorneys that have worked in the public sector for years.
"If an issue comes up," Perlin said, "I'm sure they have the ability to know that and will have the know-how to seek outside counsel to get the job done."
Taylor said his firm has worked with Wittwer in the past, and is now working on two cases with Wittwer's firm. He said Wittwer has solid administrative experience that will pair up well with what he can provide, and will give the city sound advice.
There have been signs for some time that Riback would be replaced. He hasn't performed regular city attorney duties since April, and has been relatively unseen at council meetings over the past few weeks.
Instead, Liane Randolph, another attorney with Riback's firm, has been assisting the city. Perlin said she's done a good job and has sought advice from Riback on occasion.
Perlin also said that Riback "stepped aside" when the council began its search for a new attorney earlier this year. Riback also took other clients for his firm and had a time conflict with regular City Council meetings.
His departure from public view and the settlement of the Saratoga Creek case pretty much coincided. In April, councilmembers claimed success at the bargaining table with the plaintiffs after attorneys were removed from talks, and the two parties in the suit began settling the case face-to-face.
Riback's name was never mentioned by the City Council during congratulatory remarks made on the settlement.
At the time the hunt for a new attorney began, Riback said he didn't feel the search was a reflection on his job performance, but speculation had already ensued that the council may have been unhappy with the way the creek case was handled.
|
|
|
|
Saratoga, California Since 1975
