Planners want to meet with developers in public Planners want to meet with developers in public (June 20, 2003)

Private meetings to discuss development will be discouraged

by Don Kazak

The threat of back-room dealings with developers is gone.

The Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission reached agreement at a retreat Wednesday night that when developers want to use commission members as sounding boards for possible development ideas, it will happen in public.

"I'm concerned about the perception of the public," said Annette Bialson, commission chairman. "I agree that this is our protocol."

The commission will formally adopt the policy at a later commission meeting.

"It will be a great stroke for public confidence if we get this," said City Attorney Ariel Calonne, who was at the commission retreat.

"I think it's fabulous," said Mayor Dena Mossar when told the commission's intent. "I hope the council does the same thing." The commission -- and city -- were stung two weeks ago when the commission scheduled a meeting with a developer, Truemark, which is exploring the idea of redeveloping the large Tan Apartment complex next to Greer Park. Truemark originally contacted the seven commission members and nine City Council members hoping to hold private meetings with both groups. But when Truemark's intent became public, the commission quickly scheduled a public meeting.

Because the public noticing requirement for the meeting was not met, it was just as quickly cancelled.

"They did not want a formal meeting," Bialson said of the Truemark people, suggesting that developers who want private meetings with commission members would be reluctant to do that in public.

The fiasco called into question the commission members' practice of meeting with developers to discuss upcoming projects behind closed doors.

But developers won't like being told they can't talk in private with city officials.

John McNellis, developer of the proposed Alma Plaza project, wasn't at the retreat Wednesday but said the commission was going in the wrong direction.

"I think it's a mistake," he said. "It's good for the community to have good developers doing good projects." He added that "there is nothing nefarious" with having private meetings to discuss future projects with city officials.

If everything has to be out in the open, "it would mean more dollars and more delays" in finalizing development ideas that are acceptable, McNellis said.

In the Truemark case, only one commission member, Bonnie Packer, met with the developer in private.

"I felt they were trying to get to know us so they could do their lobbying," she said. "Afterward, I felt I shouldn't have done it."

Giving developers such special treatment isn't fair, said Commission member Pat Burt. "We have to treat applicants and other advocates the same way."

In that vein, the commission could give developers the option to present their preliminary plans at the end of an agendized meeting, suggested Planning Director Steve Emslie. However, commission feedback wouldn't be permitted.

"If they don't want to do that, it's their tough luck," Burt said. "This is not something that is just an option, it is their only option."

Still, Bialson said, she had heard, "If the council members do this, why can't you?" referring to private talks with developers.

Don Kazak can be e-mailed at dkazak@paweekly.com