The State Comptroller has started a probe into alleged irregularities in the permit granted to Intel Israel, to expand its Haifa R&D center.
The probe involves the planning and contractual processes to develop a 5-acre area of land that Intel Israel bought in the southern area of Haifa for $27 million.
TheMarker has learned that the State Comptroller is looking into how the land was rezoned, which had been classified for public use. Moreover, it was sold to Intel without a tender process, and the company also received permission to build a private bridge, all issues that the watchdog feels need further clarification.
The Haifa municipality confirms that it fast-tracked the plan in order to beat India, which Intel considered as a viable alternative location for its new facility.
Intel Israel was inaugurated in 1974, becoming the chipmaking giant's first R&D facility outside the U.S. It owns its headquarters in the Matam Park of Haifa and rents several other buildings, which house its 1,900 employees.
Intel had asked Haifa city for an allocation of land to expand its facilities. There was a plan to build advanced industry on a 105-acre area by the Matam Park, but Intel wanted a different area not zones for industry at all. The state had taken control of the area in question from private owners, and zoned it for public use.
That is where the company wanted to build a new place, and it also wanted to build a private bridge for its workers only to pass between the headquarters and the facility-to-be.
The local planning committee in Haifa received the plan on May 30, 2005. Two months later it was approved and brought before the district planning committee for further handling.
The land in question had to be rezoned, from "tourism and leisure" to "industry", requiring a change in the master plan for the area. The issue therefore reached the national planning committee, which approved the requests in a day.
But not all went smoothly. Protests arose, mainly by the "Eshkol Shelanu" association in Haifa, which among other things pointed out that the plan ignored the 105 acres next door which had been zoned for hi-tech. It ignored the effect the change of plan would have on the already congested traffic of the area. Also, Intel would only be using 5 acres, leaving 10 unused.
But the objections were rejected on February 13, 2006. On March 1, the plan was published in the press - but that was two days before it should have been, according to the law. People are supposed to have a 15-day window of time to protest.
In practice, the land is already being prepared and the State Comptroller wants to know how it could take only nine months for a plan to pass all the stages of the local, regional and national planning committees, protests, appeals and so on. Could it be a rare case of efficiency among the planning bodies - or an illegal collaboration to gain approval for a plan ridden with problems?
The Haifa district planning committee commented: "Advancing the plan did not depend on itself alone, but on the response times of the local committee and the plan's authors." It said that the Ministry of Transport had looked at the plan's impact on traffic and approved it. also, regarding ownership of the land, the city had bought it for full price, and in short, the committee feels that the changes to traffic patterns in south Haifa make the proposed plant an integral part of the hi-tech industrial zone.
As for the bridge, the committee said it had learned that because of the security inspections all entrants to Intel had to undergo, and the connections between the Intel facilities, it was the answer."
Haifa city commented that it was advancing the Intel plan without getting bogged down in red tape, and is expediting it in keeping with the rules set by Mayor Yona Yahav. "The efficiency of the city in advancing the plan vanquished the Indian government, which had pressed the international Intel management to transfer the Haifa facility to India."
However, all rules and laws had been strictly obeyed, the city added.
Intel: "Intel is not the address for the above claims, which should address the relevant parties. Intel has always adhered to the law and did so in this case as well. It will also do so in the future."
