2013-2014 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report the City of Palo Alto’s Actions Reduced Transparency and Inhibited

Conclusions 5

• CL1 Page 13
  From 1996 to 2005, the City of Palo Alto leased the Lee Gift Deed Property to an adjacent landowner for construction staging even though the property was required to be used for conservation, including parks and recreation.
• CL2 Page 13
  The City of Palo Alto leased the Lee Gift Deed Property without following its P&P 1-11/ASD regarding the Procedure for Leasing of City-Owned Real Property.
• CL3 Page 15
  The City of Palo Alto’s current system for tracking and documenting non-routine PRR and the City’s response to the request fails to capture all requests or responses.
• CL4 Page 14
  The City of Palo Alto does not consistently respond to requests for public records in a timely manner. 14
• CL5 Page 12
  The State of California has specific provisions in the Government Code and the City has developed its own P&P designed to provide the public a sense of assurance of governmental transparency and consistency. In fact, the City has prided itself, publicly and repeatedly, on the transparency of its government operations as evidenced in the Mayor’s Monthly Newsletter that begins with the statement “Open government means transparency and accountability to citizens.” Nevertheless, the Grand Jury has found that the City has failed to meet expectations of transparency with respect to the following: The lease and use of the Lee Gift Deed Property that had been given to the City to be used for “conservation, including park and recreation purposes.” Despite this restriction, the City leased the property to an adjacent landowner for approximately nine years, including holdovers, and allowed the lessee to use the property for construction staging; 12 The City held a closed session meeting to discuss the adjacent landowner/developer’s offer to buy the Lee Gift Deed Property. At that time, the Lee Gift Deed Property had not been determined to be surplus and therefore could not be legally sold; The City’s failure to engage the public in initial discussions pertaining to the 27 University Avenue proposal and the allocation of SUMC funds; and The City’s failure to consistently respond to requests for public records in a timely manner and operational deficiencies for tracking PRRs and responses. Findings and Recommendations Finding 1 From 1996 to 2005, the City of Palo Alto leased the Lee Gift Deed Property to an adjacent landowner for construction staging even though the property was required to be used for conservation, including parks and recreation. Recommendation 1 The City of Palo Alto should adhere to use restrictions of all property donated to the City. Finding 2 The City of Palo Alto leased the Lee Gift Deed Property without following its P&P 1-11/ASD regarding the Procedure for Leasing of City-Owned Real Property. Recommendation 2 The City of Palo Alto should follow its P&P 1-11/ASD regarding the Procedure for Leasing of City-Owned Real Property when leasing City-Owned Real Property. Finding 3 On September 18, 2012, the City of Palo Alto held a closed session meeting, under the real-estate negotiation exception to the Brown Act, to discuss price and terms of the sale of the Lee Gift Deed Property. Prior to the meeting, the public was not aware that the City was considering the sale of the Lee Gift Deed Property and had no opportunity for public debate on the future use or sale of the property. 13 Recommendation 3 The City of Palo Alto should seek public input about the disposition of surplus City-owned land before the City Council meets to discuss that property. Finding 4a The City of Palo Alto had not complied with its own Policy and Procedure 1- 48/ASD regarding the sale/transfer of surplus City-owned property when it discussed, in closed session, the price and terms of an offer to purchase the Lee Gift Deed Property. Finding 4b At the time of the closed session the Lee Gift Deed Property could not be sold because of the deed restriction and because it had not yet been declared surplus. Recommendation 4 The City of Palo Alto should always comply with its own Policy and Procedure 1- 48/ASD regarding the Sale/Transfer of Surplus City-Owned Real Property. Finding 5a The March 5, 2012, City Council meeting was the first time the public was made aware of a proposal to develop 27 University Avenue. Finding 5b The City of Palo Alto approved expenditure of Stanford University Medical Center funds for the 27 University Avenue proposal before the public had the opportunity for public debate on the proposal. Recommendation 5 The City of Palo Alto should obtain early input from its constituency about significant development proposals before allocating City funds to the proposals. Finding 6 The City of Palo Alto does not consistently respond to requests for public records in a timely manner. 14 Recommendation 6 The City of Palo Alto should consistently respond to requests for public records in a timely manner. Finding 7 The City of Palo Alto’s current system for tracking and documenting non-routine PRR and the City’s response to the request fails to capture all requests or responses. Recommendation 7 The City of Palo Alto should re-examine its system for handling non-routine PRR to ensure that it has a mechanism to evaluate compliance with the CPRA and its own P&P. 15

Agency Responses 1

Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.