News

Committee: 'Discourage' private talks on projects

City Council's Policy and Services Committee recommends changing policy to 'discourage' ex parte meetings, bar last-minute application changes

Seeking to bring more transparency to Palo Alto's development process, a City Council committee is calling for an end to last-minute changes to development applications and private meetings between council members and applicants with projects in the pipeline.

The council's four-member Policy and Services Committee unanimously recommended on Tuesday night changing the council policies to "discourage" members from privately meeting developers whose applications are undergoing reviews by the city's Architectural Review Board or Planning and Transportation Commission.

The policy was prompted by concerns from council members, commissioners and neighborhood leaders that developers are short-circuiting the city's process by ignoring the commissioners' recommendations, and lobbying council members directly.

"The problem being addressed by this policy is a perception that there's backroom dealing, or there's a bias on the part of council members who have these exchanges," Interim City Attorney Don Larkin said Tuesday.

Land-use watchdogs Tom Jordan and Bob Moss and College Terrace resident Fred Balin all urged the committee to support the changes.

Moss pointed to last year's example of Alma Plaza, John McNellis' mixed-use development. The developer, he said, submitted changes to the application just before the City Council meeting, make it impossible for city officials and members of the public to review the changes.

"Staff had no chance to look at it. The community had no chance to look at it. It's not a way to do business," Moss said.

If the full council approves the committee's recommendation, developers will be required to submit all materials no later than five days before the release of the council packet. The packets, which include staff reports for the council's Monday meetings, typically get released on the Wednesdays before the meeting.

While no one opposed the new deadlines, former Mayor Jean McCown urged the council to not discourage the ex parte meetings. McCown said the council should be "encouraging communication with the public and citizens, not discouraging them."

The policy change would send the wrong message to the community, she said.

"The implication of it to me is that the City Council can't be trusted to gather information or talk to people and hear opinions about the projects other than in public settings," McCown said. "That's a very negative message to send."

But the committee decided to back the changes, with Councilwoman Karen Holman saying they will "provide good process, transparency and fairness for all parties." Her committee colleagues, Yiaway Yeh, Nancy Shepherd and Gail Price, agreed.

The full council is scheduled to consider the committee's recommendations early next year.

Comments

Like this comment
Posted by Don
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Dec 15, 2010 at 1:59 pm

Yes. Back room deals, last minute submission of changes to a development, private talks, all can lead to suspicion of what should be a process which protects all parties. If there is no hidden motive that would not be in the best interest of the community, why should anyone fear transparency?


Like this comment
Posted by svatoid
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Dec 15, 2010 at 2:15 pm

"Councilwoman Karen Holman saying they will "provide good process, transparency and fairness for all parties.""

Like the "process" that was followed when they tried ramming the Historic Ordinance down our throats?
The question is will this new "feel good" policy actually lead to any changes with the Palo Alto Process? Or will we still be taking years to make decisions, with the council afraid to make a final decision lest they upset the "usual suspects"?
I am sure the council can consider this as another one of their "accomplishments" for the year--another round of pats on the back is called for!!


Like this comment
Posted by No backroom deals
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 15, 2010 at 2:36 pm

The commissioners and svatoid who want to protect backroom negotiations are the ones who make money off of increased development.
Why else would they want to keep those meetings secret?


Like this comment
Posted by No Backroom Deals
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 15, 2010 at 2:46 pm

Come to think of it, where is the League of Women Voters on this open-government issue? Have they spoken or have they completely sold out to the developers?


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

He said – she said – who is lying? Justice Brett Kavanaugh or PA resident Christine Ford
By Diana Diamond | 71 comments | 3,631 views

Global Warming Diet
By Laura Stec | 6 comments | 1,358 views

Couples: "Taming Your Gremlin" by Richard Carson
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,246 views

Preparing for kindergarten
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 701 views

Let's Talk Internships
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 0 comments | 211 views

 

Race is tomorrow!

​On Friday, September 21, join us at the Palo Alto Baylands for a 5K walk, 5K run, 10K run, or—for the first time—half marathon! All proceeds benefit local nonprofits serving children and families.

Learn More