Upfront
Grand jury ÂVÂœÂ˜ĂŒÂˆÂ˜Ă•i`ĂŠvĂ€ÂœÂ“ĂŠÂŤ>}iĂŠxÂŽ
dards for transparency. The negotiations with Arrillaga on both subjects, the Grand Jury found, were “done in a manner that was permissible but undertaken in a way to avoid public scrutiny, unlike other similar large-scale projects.� The report, titled “The City of Palo Alto’s Actions Reduced Transparency and Inhibited Public Input and Scrutiny on Important Land Issues,� takes a close look at the 7.7-acre park site, which was gifted to the city by the Lee Family Trust in 1981. Though the deed specifies that the land would be used for “conservation, including park and recreation purposes,� the city in 2012 considered an offer from Arrillaga to buy it for $175,000. As part of the discussion, council members took trips to the site in groups of three to avoid violating the Brown Act, which requires public disclosure when a majority of the council meets. The Weekly learned about these meetings in late 2012 after filing a Public Records Act request and receiving emails between staff and council members arranging the meetings. The Grand Jury found that the city did not follow its own procedures in discussing the sale of what is called “surplus public land.� Palo Alto’s policy requires the city to
identify a surplus site, notify city departments and other public agencies about the land and declare the property as “surplus� through an “open and competitive bid process,� the Grand Jury notes. The city would also have to give first priority to local agencies seeking to buy the land for public use. In this case, neither other agencies nor the public at large were notified about the discussion of sale until September 2012, when the council hastily arranged a closed session to discuss Arrillaga’s offer. The Grand Jury concludes, “It would have been more appropriate and transparent for the City Council to first discuss whether property could or should be declared surplus in a public meeting before convening a closed session to discuss price and terms.� The report also condemns the city’s handling of 27 University Ave., which would have significantly exceeded the city’s zoning restrictions and required changes to the Comprehensive Plan. All four proposed office buildings would have been well above the city’s 50foot height limit, with two of them slated to be more than 100 feet tall. The Grand Jury learned that the city received in September 2011 renderings of Arrillaga’s initial proposal for an office complex, which staff found to be unacceptable because of their design and height. Later, the city received the four-tower proposal, which
someday
Page 14ĂŠUĂŠ Ă•Â˜iÊÓÇ]ÊÓä£{ĂŠUĂŠ*>Â?ÂœĂŠ Â?ĂŒÂœĂŠ7iiÂŽÂ?ÞÊUĂŠĂœĂœĂœÂ°*>Â?Âœ Â?ĂŒÂœ"˜Â?ˆ˜i°Vœ“
also included an offer to build a performing-arts theater that would have been occupied by the nonprofit TheatreWorks. The plan also included various improvements to the downtown transit center next to 27 University Ave. These plans didn’t come to light until March 12, 2012, when the council first discussed Arrillaga’s proposal. At that time, the council agreed to spend $250,000 for design work associated with the
‘The negotiations ... were “done in a manner that was permissible but undertaken in a way to avoid public scrutiny.�’ —Santa Clara County Grand Jury Arrillaga proposal. The Grand Jury noted in its report that the allocation was made despite the fact that no formal application had ever been filed by Arrillaga. “Such a large expenditure of public funds and staff time for a design study linked to development of 27 University Avenue, for which no land use application had been filed, raises questions about the wisdom of spending the SUMC (Stanford University Med-
ical Center) funds in this manner,� the report states, referring to money the medical center gave to the city as part of a development agreement that permitted expansion of the Stanford hospitals. In addition, the report criticizes the city for failing to respond to several public-records requests from residents. After reviewing several such requests, the Grand Jury found that some “remained unanswered for several months, or were not responded to at all.� “In one case, in a follow-up request, a response to the PRR (public-record request) was received only after the city was cited sections of the CPRA (California Public Records Act),� the Grand Jury wrote. “The city could not explain why it failed to respond to these multiple PRRs.� In its recommendations, the Grand Jury calls for the city to follow its own rules about leasing and selling city property, “seek public input about the disposition of surplus City-owned land before the City Council meets to discuss that property,� and “consistently respond to requests for public records in a timely manner.� In his response to the report, City Manager James Keene acknowledged many of the shortcomings that the Grand Jury identified in its investigation, which was prompted by citizen complaints. The process, Keene said in a statement, “could have been better, and we have been
clear about that.� “That said, the City’s intention was always to try to guide the preliminary project in a better direction,� Keene said. “While the project as initially proposed by Mr. Arrillaga was focused on new office buildings, the city saw the opportunity to begin the master plan and redesign the transit center and road network at this gateway entrance to the City.� He also noted that the proposal never came to pass and that the site will be evaluated during the city’s public update of the Comprehensive Plan. He defended the city’s responses to public-records requests, saying that the city receives “many requests for information every single day and we do a really good job of responding to the public.� He said the city has recently added a webpage for people to formally file and track publicrecords requests. The city is also looking at software, he wrote, that can be deployed across the organization to manage requests. On the concerns about the Foothills site, Keene noted that the issues involving the Lee gift go back 30 years, and the city is “accountable for contemporary decisions on this land today.� To that end, he wrote, the council directed staff in March to dedicate the land as parkland. “The city is in the process of preparing that dedication for formal council action,� Keene wrote. N