One routine document the City just admitted in discovery it prepares after the pre-PLUM meeting occurs is a briefing memo intended to be read by all of the City Councilmembers on the City Council’s Planning Land Use Management (PLUM ) Committee (5 members of City Council). It is called by the Chief Legislative Analyst (“CLA”) who writes it: “PLUM Notes for [date of the public PLUM Meeting]”. We are informed that the PLUM Notes are a secret staff report, containing the CLA’s summary of the already public documents in the City Council file. But when the CLA forwards the PLUM Notes to each of the Chief Deputies or Planning Deputies of each City Councilmember on the PLUM Committee, it is forwarded in PDF form (not easily edited) and in Word form (easily opened and edited). There may be a line drawn across the page and blank space below each PLUM item, including land use appeals, where the deputies can add their own information before forwarding the PLUM Notes on to their bosses to have in front of them at the public PLUM Meeting. It appears these documents may sometimes contain the position of the Councilmember in whose district a project on the meeting agenda lies.

The City has admitted that “sometimes” someone attending the pre-PLUM meeting of City staff discloses the position of a City Councilmember in whose district a project lies. But the City’s attorneys are claiming that there is no routine communication of the comments or positions of other City Councilmembers to each other outside of the public meeting or prior to a constitutionally required land use hearing. However, just a few weeks ago, in our pending litigation, the City’s attorneys now revealed that they will withhold from the litigants all of the PLUM notes and all of the edited PLUM notes passed on by the deputies to their City Councilmember bosses. In essence, the deputy City Attorneys are claiming that all the content of PLUM Notes are confidential and privileged – that they do not have to be put into the evidence in cases challenging City Council project approvals. In other words, the deputy City Attorneys are currently obstructing the ability to verify their claims that there is no routine communication system via Council deputies.

Another routine document the City just admitted in discovery it prepares after the pre-PLUM meeting occurs is a script for the upcoming public PLUM Committee meeting. The PLUM meeting script, according to City admissions, is overseen by the deputies of the Chair of the PLUM Committee (Mr. Harris Dawson). If you ever noticed that it seems that the Chair, the deputy City Attorney, the CLA, and the City Clerk all look down at their desk and read pre-written wording, that is a reading from the PLUM meeting script. Much of the script might very well be innocuous, and just a way for the City to run the meeting.

But we are informed that the PLUM Meeting script, as to items on the PLUM meeting agenda, including land use appeals, may have a recommendation for the outcome of the items of business. What is the source of this recommendation? Is it a pre-PLUM staff recommendation or is it a staff recommendation informed by already knowing what the position is of the City Councilmember in whose district the project lies? If that is true, how was the position of the City Councilmember on an item, including a land use appeal, communicated to Mr. Harris Dawson’s deputies who prepared the PLUM meeting script? In the current litigation, we will be in the near future deposing under oath Mr. Harris-Dawson’s deputies.