The Alma Plaza Learning Curve: First Responders [Part 2 of 5]

The following guest opinion is part of our weeklong coverage of transparency within local government as part of Sunshine Week 2012.

The bad taste left by the Alma Plaza applicant team’s last-minute submittal to the April, 2007 City Council hearing and the unfortunate council proceeding that followed was not completely lost on at least some at the dais.

But first, let’s review some casualties to the public trust from the events of that evening:

A revision from an applicant was submitted to city council members just before the item was to be discussed. There was no time for staff review, integration into the staff report, and guidance to the council. The public was completely bypassed.

The council failed to use its authority to halt the proceeding and return the matter to staff or another body rather than move forward.

The public was left with the perception that the late revision and its placement as a motion before the city council may have been discussed and coordinated by one or more council members with the applicant team in private before the meeting.

Could or should anything be done about the specifics of the council vote on Alma Plaza?

What safeguards could be implemented to prevent a repetition?

As it turned out, the council would have an immediate chance to make adjustments at both levels. Would they take advantage of it?

Another Look at the PC

As per the municipal code, almost all ordinances approved by the council must return for another vote (“a second reading”) a minimum of 10 days later. These items are placed on the council’s consent calendar and voted on as a block without discussion unless specifically removed by the action of two council members.

But in this case, the city attorney explained that the ordinance that had been before the council for consideration was the one based on the Planning Commission’s recommendation. None was created based on the applicant's denied proposal. A rewritten ordinance based on the council’s vote would have to be created by staff and would come back to the council for an initial ("first") reading.

Staff went to work on the ordinance, but assuming it perfunctory, placed it on the consent calendar.

Council member Larry Klein took the lead toward making adjustments. In a lengthy letter to staff, he expressed his concerns that the city council did not have sufficient information to approve the PC. He included a long list of questions for staff clarification so that the council would be ready to take action, if desired.

At the May 2007 hearing, Klein moved for the item to be removed from the consent calendar. He then made a motion, which included adjusting the size of the grocery store upward by 50 percent, increasing protections that this public benefit would indeed be provided, and incorporating a deadline for applicant approval lest the matter be returned to the Planning Commission for rezoning as a neighborhood commercial zone.

Extended discussion commenced. Amendments were presented both to weaken and strengthen the motion; all failed. Klein’s initial motion passed 8-0.

At the second reading, Klein again called for the item to removed from the consent calendar. Then he again proposed revisions – these of a more clarifying – and they were incorporated.

Private Communications

By coincidence, one week prior to the initial April Alma Plaza hearing, which was marked by the late submission, the council held its annual meeting together with the Planning & Transportation Commission. During the meeting, the commission explained its policy on private communications outside of a public hearing.

That policy, first proposed by Karen Holman, then a planning commissioner and now a member of the council, strongly discouraged direct conversations or correspondence with an applicant, an applicant’s agent, or any other interested party outside of a public hearing on both Planned Community (PC) and quasi-judicial matters.

The council’s written policy did not extend to PCs. It only addressed quasi-judicial matters, which covered other exception-seeking requests, such as home improvement exceptions, variances, and conditional use permits.

In practice, however, the council made no distinction between PCs and quasi-judicial matters. Their written policy of discouraging private communications was blatantly disregarded.

But at the Planning Commission, the net result of its policy was that during the commission’s deliberations on Alma Plaza there was public confidence that everything would be handled in public: no private communications of any substance on the matter.

Two weeks after the joint meeting – the first council meeting since the late submission – Council Members LaDoris Cordell and Dena Mossar brought forth a colleague's memo asking the council to review its policy on outside  communications. Their motion failed via a 4-4 vote.

Six months went by, and 2007 ended without any further attempts at institutional reform. Four new members joined the council at the start of 2008. An additional 18 months passed with no new initiatives.

In over two years since the infamous Alma Plaza hearing, no changes related to what happened there had been institutionalized into city policies.

Was it a mere case of wishful thinking on the council that it would not happen again? If so, the theory would soon be tested, as another PC, one with an eerie resemblance to Alma Plaza, was making its way toward the council. 

We will get to that part of the story tomorrow.

to read Part One of 'The Alma Plaza Learning Curve.'

For more news about Palo Alto and surrounding areas, including Stanford and East Palo Alto, follow us on Twitter and "like" us on Facebook.

Get Patch in your inbox by signing up for our morning newsletter here.