Five years of internal conflict Five years of internal conflict (April 12, 2002)

Timeline of some key events mentioned during Ambra trial Timeline of some key events mentioned during Ambra trial (April 12, 2002)

By Bill D'Agostino

November, 1996: Ambra wins spot on council

The voters of Mountain View elect Mario Ambra to the city council. He takes office in January, 1997.

Ambra's attorney, Ken Robinson, said the election was historically significant for the city because four new council members were elected (there are seven total). The top city council appointees _ the city manager and city attorney _ were threatened by the new majority, Robinson argued, and wanted to make the new council happy in order to retain their jobs.
Mid to late, 1997: Neighbor's inspection

Ambra had, for years, complained about code violations occurring on a neighbor's property; he told city officials about live wires and propane tanks sitting on the property, according to City Attorney Michael Martello. After trying unsuccessfully and repeatedly to contact the property owner, the city gets an inspection warrant and warns the owner of the impending inspection.

Eventually, the property is searched by various city officials but fewer code violations are found than was anticipated.
December, 1998: Search warrant

A member of Ambra's family _ who had been a passenger in a stolen car _ flees from police into Ambra's home. Police obtain a search warrant to enter the Ambra property. Incensed, Ambra storms into City Manager Kevin Duggan's office and demands to know why he hadn't been alerted to the warrant beforehand, according to Duggan.

Duggan told Ambra that nobody can legally be told of a search warrant on their property before it is served. Ambra then orders Duggan to fire the police chief, Duggan told the jury. "It was very clear, very direct," Duggan testified. "He was very upset and angry and serious."

Duggan said he threatened to take the matter to the city council; Ambra then reportedly apologized. Eventually, Duggan decided not to refer the matter to the council since the only way they could address the issue was publicly. "I decided to give the incident the benefit of the doubt," he said.

Ambra's attorney Ken Robinson said that Ambra expected to be notified of the search warrant since he knew that his neighbor had been warned ahead of time about the inspection warrant on his property in 1997.

Ambra, Robinson said, only has a high-school education and was unable to distinguish between the two types of warrants.
Sept., 2000: The best evidence to convict?

On Tuesday morning, the jury asked to hear, once again, the testimony of the city's Principal Planner Michael Percy about a conversation he had with Ambra in mid-September.

Ambra did not have an appointment with Percy when he walked into his office on the first floor of city hall; upon entering, Ambra closed the door behind him, Percy remembered.

The conversation reportedly began by Ambra asking about the "highest and best use" for his family's land and the properties near that land. He also asked about ways the city could encourage putting all the properties together, according to Percy.

Eventually though, the tenor of the conversation changed from Ambra asking him questions about the property, to Ambra telling him to do things _ for instance, to initiate a study into changing the property's zoning, Percy testified.

Robinson only briefly cross-examined Percy, a 30-year veteran of the city who emailed his superior about the conversation shortly afterward.

In his closing statement, Robinson said that Ambra didn't do anything that an average citizen couldn't do. Larsen countered that Ambra, since he was an elected council member, was required to adhere to a different set of rules than any regular citizen in regards to contact with city staff.
September to December, 2000: Tow yard proposal

Around this time, a neighbor proposes to build a tow yard on property adjacent to the Ambra family's plot. Duggan said he alerted Ambra to this proposal due to the sensitive nature of the request.

The project, however, was not favored by City Attorney Michael Martello. Assistant City Attorney Jannie Quinn testified that Martello pressured her to reject the proposal due to his questions about how appropriate a tow yard would be near residential homes. Ultimately, the project is withdrawn by the applicant.

Robinson argued that Martello and Duggan were trying to "curry favor" with Ambra by telling him about the project and then applying pressure to have the proposal rejected.
November, 2000:Re-election

Ambra is re-elected. In January, the council appoints Ambra to be Mountain View's mayor for 2001. When he became mayor, he got his own office in city hall as well as a bloated sense of entitlement, Prosecutor Bill Larsen said in closing arguments.
February, 2001: "Don't park"

For a while, Ambra had wanted "don't park" markings _ similar to what is on the street in front of police and fire buildings _ on the street where he lived, according to Duggan.

Then in February, Ambra once again brought the idea to members of the public works department. Duggan reported that he told Ambra the city could not do that "unless the council wanted to change its policy in regard to street markings."

Ambra was also displeased with the job that Community Development Director Kathy Lazarus was doing, according to Duggan.

Around this time, Duggan starts keeping a journal on Ambra's activity with staff.
April 26, 2001: The crane incident

In mid-morning, Ambra walks into Ron Geary's office, closes the doors, and then, according to Geary, demands that he shut down the Tishman Speyer office building being erected next to city hall. Ambra feared the crane used to lift supplies to the upper floors of the construction site was unsafe.

But Geary told the jury that Ambra was also interested in shutting down the property because he said he wanted to teach a lesson to Tishman Speyer, which was getting too influential in the city.

Robinson alleged Ambra had first tried to contact Duggan and Martello _ the two people with whom he may legally discuss this type of policy matter _ before going to Geary, but both were out of the office, attending a Giants game.

Robinson also said that Ambra was simply looking out for public safety. Larsen argued that there was no evidence to suggest that Ambra had first sought Duggan and Martello.

Geary didn't remember the exact date of the incident until conferring with Duggan and Martello shortly before testifying. Robinson said that Geary's credibility was "severely suspect."

In his journal a few days after the alleged incident, Duggan writes about Ambra, "I don't think he will ever learn."

June, 2001: Final straw for Duggan and Martello

Around this time, Ambra learned of a proposal _ on property adjacent to his family's _ to build a 12-story research office building.

This angered him, according to Martello, since he wanted to develop the property himself.

On June 14, Duggan said he received a very loud, angry phone call from Ambra who wanted to know why he hadn't been given advance notice of the proposal.

Five days later, Ambra and Duggan met in the mayor's office. Ambra, Duggan said, wanted restrictions put on the property to kill the proposal. Duggan recalled being "flabbergasted" by the request.

Around the same time, Martello said Ambra told him that he wanted to fire Duggan and Costello because they had "no vision" for the property where the office building was being constructed. "Mario, we're not having this conversation, we can't have this conversation," Martello remembered telling Ambra.

The office building project was approved by the council on September 25, 2001; Ambra abstained from voting to avoid a conflict of interest.
June 22, 2001:Turning him in

On June 22, Martello with Santa Clara County District Attorney George Kennedy to discuss Ambra's alleged actions. Soon after, Larsen was assigned to the case and investigator Joe Brockman interviewed city staffers and others involved a few days later.
October 29-30, 2001: Grand Jury trial

Eight city staffers testify about Ambra's actions in front of the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury. On November 19, 2001, the grand jury formally accuses Ambra of four counts of corrupt misconduct. Shortly before the trial began in March, however, three of those counts _ dealing with the possibility that Ambra's alleged actions were aimed at helping him increase his property value _ were dropped by Larsen when he learned that Ambra's father owns the property, not Ambra himself.
March 27, 2002: No clear delineation in the law's application?

In a series of emails, Geary and Zoning Administrator Whitney McNair ask Duggan if members of the city council could give them questions, concerns and observations they have about a proposed city ordinance. Duggan sent those emails to the city council.

Robinson said that the emails were proof that there was no fixed line in the city's interpretation of the charter provision _ that Ambra was charged with violating _ which prohibits members of the city council from giving orders to lower city employees.

But Larsen said the series of emails was an example of how the city charter was supposed to work. Duggan did not direct the council to give orders to McNair and Geary, Larsen said. Instead, he acted as a gatekeeper between the council and the city employees and then authorized contact with those lower officials.