Anda di halaman 1dari 266

Affordable housing has been an ongoing challenge in Oakland for many years, with significant cost escalations in

the mid- 2000s and again today. I recognize that we have a serious housing problem. At the same time, I am
concerned that the word crisis doesnt represent the full picture of all the positive work undertaken by City officials
and the Oakland community, past and present. For years, City leaders have enacted numerous policies and laws
that protect many of our residents from displacement and provide new affordable housing opportunities. Its clear
that we have citizens experiencing housing crises, but we also maintain a wide range of housing types and rents
throughout the City.

At the ULI Forum, I joined leaders from other major cities London, New York City, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and
Washington, D.C. to discuss many topics. I represented Oaklands housing advantages, in comparison to these
other cities. Im sorry that more of my comments were not reported because that would have placed my remarks
in context and revealed my genuine concerns about the serious affordable housing challenges before us and what
we are doing about them. Perhaps because I am so close to, and participating in, the many solutions being
enacted and planned, I see the housing situation through various lenses. That is what I presented at the Forum.

City leaders have enacted numerous policies and laws, in the past and recently, to address affordable housing and
they are listed here, as follows:

1. The City has always dedicated a significant amount of its federal, state, and local funds for new affordable
housing projects. From 2010-2014, 66% of all new housing built in Oakland is affordable and will be
protected for decades to come.
2. In 2013, City Council increased the amount of former redevelopment boomerang tax revenues
dedicated to the Citys Affordable Housing Trust Fund.
3. Last year our City passed stricter tenant protections to minimize displacement and to limit pass-through
expenses to tenants. This is managed through the Rent Adjustment Program (established in 1990) that
affords citizens an opportunity to address tenant issues.
4. The City enacted strong Foreclosure Prevention initiatives during the Great Recession to ensure that
qualifying residents remained in their homes.
5. City Council enacted a Jobs and Housing Impact Fee several years ago. These fees, assessed on new
commercial development projects, are dedicated to the Citys Affordable Housing Trust Fund.
6. The majority of the renters in Oakland (an estimated 65%) are protected by rent control. Landlords of
units built prior to 1983 cannot increase annual rent more than the CPI.
7. Condominium Conversion laws were passed by City Council to help protect renters from displacement.
8. The Zoning Code was revised to create an Affordable Housing Density Bonus for all residential
development to incentivize the creation of new affordable housing.
9. The City has been actively purchasing tax delinquent properties as part of the Community Housing Buying
Program. These homes are then dedicated to low-income residents.
10. The City is working to streamline zoning approvals and building permit applications to accelerate
production of new housing. Our goal is to meet demands for market rate housing and reduce the
pressure on Oaklands existing stock that is one of the causes of rent increases. Over 15,000 housing units
are approved for construction or are in the review stage (this includes market rate and affordable units).
If built, these units could result in new homes for nearly 40,000 residents (nearly 10% of our population of
415,000).
11. The City has enacted strong Code Enforcement and Receivership laws to ensure that affordable housing
remains safe and available.
12. The City has approved (or is in the process of approving) alternative types of housing that are typically
th
more affordable: 71 micro-Units at 2425 Valdez, Senior Co-housing units at 29 Avenue, Live-Work Units,
and new modular housing in Temescal.

Actions underway:

1. The Mayor has formed a Housing Cabinet to establish additional strong and effective affordable housing
policies and laws.
2. The City is developing new Affordable Housing Impact Fees, which City Council will vote on in early 2016.
3. The City is revising its Zoning Code to allow for more Secondary Units an affordable housing strategy for
residents and a source of income for owners to make their home more affordable.
4. The City is giving high priority to affordable housing (or in-lieu fees) on City-owned land for sale or lease.
5. The Mayor will soon be enacting proactive fire inspections and code enforcement inspections to protect
tenants who fear landlord retribution for filing complaints with the City.
6. Seismic Retrofit requirements are being developed to ensure that all housing is safe from earthquakes.
Only a portion of the retrofitting costs will be passed through to tenants over 25 years, thereby
significantly limiting the impact on rents of these essential safety improvements.

Oakland is improving daily: crime is down, our streets are cleaner and better maintained, and our neighborhoods
and commercial districts are becoming more active and vibrant. The improved quality of life in Oakland is making
our City more attractive to existing residents and new residents. As a result, housing in some areas of the City is
getting more expensive. One of the most vexing challenges in Oakland is how to continue to improve our
neighborhoods while not displacing our residents. I am committed to working with Mayor Schaaf, other leaders in
Oakland, and our citizens to meet this challenge.
I have read the letter from the East Bay Housing Alliance (EBHO), the Greenbelt Alliance, and TransForm, dated
th
October 16 and offer the following response, per their request.

First, I apologize to those I have offended for my comments at the Urban Land Institute (ULI) panel discussion on
th
October 6 . It was not my intention to offend anyone as I only wanted to shed light on the positive aspects of
affordable housing opportunities in Oakland.

I fully understand that Oakland has serious housing challenges and that many of our citizens are experiencing
various types of housing crises. The sharp rise in housing costs of late is resulting in the displacement of many
residents and many more are fearful about their housing future. I am aligned with Mayor Schaaf and our City
Council in addressing these issues and making affordable housing a top priority in Oakland.

At the ULI panel, I joined leaders from other cities London, New York City, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and
Washington, D.C. to discuss many topics. I represented that Oakland has many advantages as a City including a
wide range of housing types and prices. I cited some moderate downtown housing rental rates that these other
cities can no longer claim. This was the context of my comments, in that compared to these other cities Oakland
does not have a housing crisis. Again, I apologize to those I have offended by this statement.

I know that much work remains to be done to address affordability in Oakland and I am committed to that work.
My department works every day to protect our citizens through: 1) code enforcement to ensure that citizens
remain in safe and properly maintained rental housing that is affordable and accessible, 2) long-range planning
that addresses a wide-range of housing issues, particularly affordability, and 3) Impact Fees for affordable housing.
Staff is clear that we need to get an Impact Fee Ordinance to City Council, as promised, in December.

As Planning Director, I take the charge of addressing the housing crises of many of our citizens very seriously. I am
committed to the action steps of the Housing Equity Road Map and those that the Mayors Housing Cabinet will be
presenting shortly.

Below are the various policies and laws that have been enacted by the City:

1. The City has consistently dedicated a significant amount of its federal, state, and local funds for new
affordable housing projects. From 2010-2014, 66% of all new housing built in Oakland is affordable and
will be protected for decades to come.
2. In 2013, City Council increased the amount of former redevelopment boomerang tax revenues
dedicated to the Citys Affordable Housing Trust Fund.
3. Last year our City passed stricter tenant protections to minimize displacement and to limit pass-through
expenses to tenants. This is managed through the Rent Adjustment Program (established in 1990) that
affords citizens an opportunity to address tenant issues.
4. The City enacted strong Foreclosure Prevention initiatives during the Great Recession to ensure that
qualifying residents remained in their homes.
5. City Council enacted a Jobs and Housing Impact Fee several years ago. These fees, assessed on new
commercial development projects, are dedicated to the Citys Affordable Housing Trust Fund.
6. The majority of the renters in Oakland are protected by rent control. Landlords of units built prior to 1983
cannot increase annual rent more than the CPI.
7. Condominium Conversion laws were passed by City Council to help protect renters from displacement.
8. The Zoning Code was revised to create an Affordable Housing Density Bonus for all residential
development to incentivize the creation of new affordable housing.
9. The City has been actively purchasing tax delinquent properties as part of the Community Housing Buying
Program. These homes are then dedicated to low-income residents.
10. The City is working to streamline zoning approvals and building permit applications to accelerate
production of new housing. Our goal is to meet demands for market rate housing and reduce the
pressure on Oaklands existing stock that is one of the causes of rent increases. Over 15,000 housing units
are approved for construction or are in the review stage (this includes market rate and affordable units).
If built, these units could result in new homes for nearly 40,000 residents (nearly 10% of our population of
415,000).
11. The City has enacted strong Code Enforcement and Receivership laws to ensure that affordable housing
remains safe and available.
12. The City has approved (or is in the process of approving) alternative types of housing that are typically
th
more affordable: 71 micro-Units at 2425 Valdez, Senior Co-housing units at 29 Avenue, Live-Work Units,
and new modular housing in Temescal.

Actions underway:

1. The Mayor has formed a Housing Cabinet to establish additional strong and effective affordable housing
policies and laws.
2. The City is developing new Affordable Housing Impact Fees, which City Council will vote on in early 2016.
3. The City is revising its Zoning Code to allow for more Secondary Units an affordable housing strategy for
residents and a source of income for owners to make their home more affordable.
4. The City is giving high priority to affordable housing (or in-lieu fees) on City-owned land for sale or lease.
5. The Mayor will soon be enacting proactive fire inspections and code enforcement inspections to protect
tenants who fear landlord retribution for filing complaints with the City.
6. Seismic Retrofit requirements are being developed to ensure that all housing is safe from earthquakes.
Only a portion of the retrofitting costs will be passed through to tenants over 25 years, thereby
significantly limiting the impact on rents of these essential safety improvements.
Planning and Building
FY 2013-14 FTEs FY2014-15 FTEs

GPF 0 0 0 0
Non-GPF 21,322,043 114.75 21,648,739 111.75
Total: 21,322,043 114.75 21,648,739 111.75

Position Changes
Delete one Engineer, Assistant II
Delete one Engineer, Civil Supervisor
Delete one Engineer, Civil
Delete one Process Coordinator II
Delete one Specialty Combination Inspector, Senior
Delete four Specialty Combination Inspector
Delete one Public Service Representative
Delete one Administrative Analyst II
Delete one Planner I
Delete one Planner II

Service Impacts
Negative Impacts:
Less permits issued over the counter or within the 1-2 day period for minor permits (30% reduction)
Plan check reviews and permit issuance, for major projects, delayed by two or more weeks (25% reduction)
Less inspections conducted within a 24-hour period for new construction activity (20% reduction)
Less inspections conducted within 1-week period for Code Enforcement complaints (70% reduction)
Implementation of the new Accela system will be compromised given the high time-demand required of all inspectors and
plan checkers to test the new system and to provide the proper training
Property History:

The lot had a large 3-story Victorian home (built in 1892) Queen Anne style that was in keeping with the architecture of
the historic homes that still exist today on the block..
The City had received numerous complaints over the years, 1996 2010, regarding overgrown vegetation, trash, and non-
operable vehicles in the yard.
The property was purchased by MDB Construction (Pleasanton, CA) in September 2010.

A permit was obtained to remove interior lath and plaster on October 21, 2010.
During the appeal hearing to the Planning Commission on 8/6/14, the property owner, Robert Bob Brecht, indicated that
he had planned to shore up the foundation and renovate the house. He started by removing the lath and plaster to take
weight off the building prior to re-shoring the foundation of the house. However, while he was removing the lath and
plaster a gust of wind blew [the house] over. He then abandoned the renovation project and obtained a demolition permit
on March 8, 2011 after which the house was demolished. Bob Brecht also added that, We had sold the house to a doctor
at Alta Bates Hospital. He bought it for $100,000 more than we paid. We were going to renovate it for him, but then it
blew over. I lost money. There is no record of another purchaser of this house during this time frame.

The property was purchased three years late (April 2013) by 530 32nd Street, LLC (Pleasanton, CA).

Project Application:

A Pre-Application was submitted December 18, 2013 that illustrated a 5-unit building with a flat minimalist front faade.
See Attachment A. The building was oriented sideways on the lot with each unit facing the side yards and the neighboring
properties. A driveway ran along the length of the building, allowing access to 5 garages below each residential unit. Staff
recommended design changes to give the building a stronger street presence: front porch, balcony, faade recesses and
projections (bays), pitched roofs, etc. A formal application was submitted on January 23, 2014. See Attachment B1 and B2.
The revised design incorporated the recommendation to add a front porch, balcony and bays, but not the sloped roof.

Staff Review:

On February 11, 2014, staff forwarded to me e-mail correspondence between the applicant, Bob Brecht, and Lynette
McElhaney on 2/10/14 regarding design concerns. Bob indicated in his e-mail to Lynette, Youve voiced a privacy
concern with Maurice regarding my project. Lynette responded to him indicating that the communitys concerns are not
limited to privacy . . . the design must honor the historic character of the community. She also added concerns about the
raised building, in regards to the parking garages under the apartment building, and traffic and parking impact.

Lynette then contacted me sometime in mid-February to express her concerns about the project. She wanted to know what
the City requirements were in regards to this project. I contacted staff to check the status of the project and what
review/approval processes were required. Staff explained that the 5-unit density was the maximum density permitted and
that design review was required per Oakland Municipal Code (OMC) Section 17.136.050, Regular Design Review Criteria.
This code section states that the proposed design will create a building, or set of buildings, that are well related to the
surrounding area in their setting, scale, bulk, height, materials, and textures. In addition, it states that the proposed design
will protect, preserve, or enhance desirable neighborhood characteristics.

I did not think the proposed design fully adhered to the Citys Regular Design Review Criteria. Specifically, the block
where this house is located has several historic homes that are oriented toward the street (not the side yards) with raised
front porches, large front windows, and pitched roofs. The proposed design had not incorporated any of these design
features. It was not in keeping with the setting of the historic structures on the street nor did it contain certain desirable
neighborhood characteristics. I relayed my observations and design recommendations to staff and they relayed them to the
architect, Tim Alatorre, on March ??. The developer agreed to staffs recommendations to change the flat roof to pitched, to
raise the front porch, and to increase some of the window sizes facing south (toward the street). (Reduce window sizes
facing east?) I also requested that the units be flipped so that the living rooms/dining rooms/kitchens faced the west side
of the property, where a one-story structure was located, rather than facing east where a three story house located. The
developer would not agree to this recommendation due to solar and security reasons. Staff did not see any other
solutions to revise the sideways orientation of the structure on the property and still allow the permitted 5-unit structure to
fit on such a long and narrow lot. A public notice was issued on March 16, 2014 to neighbors within 300 of the property.
The City received one letter, on xx 2014, objecting to the project from Clarence McElhaney, who expressed concerns about
the orientation of the building and the number of units.
As a result, Scott Miller, Zoning Manager, approved the building design on April 2, 2014. This was the end of my
involvement on the redesign.
To: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
Subject: City Engineer & engineering Services
Date: October 20, 2014 Page 2

Appeal

An appeal was filed on April 14, 2014 by Tonya Boyce, who was representing Clarence McElhaney.
One of the major objections to the design was the fact that the living rooms, dining rooms, and kitchens of the five
condominiums faced the side yard and the neighbors 3-story house to the east. In addition, the appellants raised concerns
about safety and related CPTED (Community Policing through Environmental Design) issues specifically the eyes on the
street principle where units should face the street to monitor activity. CPTED checklists are available in the Planning
office for commercial, civic, and residential projects. Staff referenced the multi-family residential checklist for this
project. However, no checklist or CPTED form was in the file.

The appeal was heard on August 6, 2014 by the Planning Commission. Maurice Brenyah-Addow made the staff
presentation to the Commission. Tanya Boyce, the Appellants rep, then made her presentation to the Commission. The
Commission asked if the Applicant wanted to speak and both Bob Brecht and his architect, Tim Alatorre, made statements
to the Commission and answered their questions. Mr. Brecht indicated that he was willing to reduce the project from 5 units
to 4 units and had already shown Scott and Maurice a new design to reflect 4 units. The public hearing was opened to
speakers and nine (9) people spoke, including Clarence McElhaney and Lynette McElhaney. All but one (1) expressed
concerns about the staff-approved project. Comments included dismay about the loss of the original Victorian house,
questions about how it blew over after decades of surviving earthquakes and storms, the proposed number of units (5),
parking impacts on the street, the design of the building, and the orientation of the building to the side instead of the front of
the lot. The Commission deliberated and a motion was made by Commissioner Bonilla as follows, I move that we
continue this subject matter for further review and the meeting of the minds of the neighbor v. the developer . . . and
continue to no later than December 17, 2014. The motion was seconded and approved by a vote of 6-0. In summary, the
Planning Commission voted unanimously to continue the Appeal, until no later than 12/17/14, in order for the appellant and
applicant to meet and try to work out a solution.

Appeal Negotiations:

More than one (1) month later, on September 15, 2014, Tim Alatorre e-mailed a revised design to the Planning Commission
Chair, Chris Pattillo. Chair Pattillo said that she could support the revised design, but that she still wanted them to make a
good faith effort to meet with and address the neighbors concerns.
On September 30, 2014, Mr. Alatorre e-mailed the revised design to me and asked when the Planning Commission hearing
could be scheduled. He also left a voicemail indicating that he had discussed the project with Tanya Boyce and that her
clients preferred the revised design. I forwarded the revised design to Lynette McElhaney and asked if that was correct.
She said that she had not seen or approved a final design and that the applicant was supposed to meet with the neighbors to
discuss design options. She was going to have Ms. Boyce contact the architect to relay that message.
On October 1st and 2nd, Ms. Boyce sent us e-mails indicating that when she met with the architect, he showed her designs
that were front-oriented, not side-oriented. However, he later informed her that his client, Bob Brecht would not support the
front-oriented design and wanted to submit the original side-oriented design with 4-units, in lieu of 5-units. Ms. Boyce
again requested a meeting of the applicant and neighbors. On October 1, 2014, Mr. Alatorre e-mailed me, Maurice, and
Scott indicating that his client wanted to proceed to the Planning Commission without any further meetings with the
neighbors. I advised Mr. Alatorre on October 2, 2014 that the Commission could potentially reject the applicants revised
design if no meeting with the neighbors was held, given the Planning Commissions directive. The case planner, Maurice
Brenyah-Addow, e-mailed Ms. Boyce and Mr. Alatorre on October 2, 2014 stating that he would be willing to attend a
community meeting with them.
On October 28, 2014, Mr. Alatorre sent an e-mail stating, Our efforts to find consensus with the McElhaneys have been
unsuccessful. We would like to move forward with the attached plans. We are still working to revise the landscape
drawings but these are the complete architectural plans. How soon can we get back on the calendar to appear before the
planning commission? Scott Miller then directed Maurice Brenyah-Addow to schedule the item for the next available
Planning Commission meeting (December 3rd). On November 2, 2014, I again encouraged Mr. Alatorre to meet with the
neighbors. Both Mr. Alatorre and Ms. McElhaney responded and agreed that they wanted to meet and I directed Maurice
to schedule a meeting. On November 5th, Maurice e-mailed Tanya to ask when she would be available to meet with the
applicant. Tim and Tanya say indicate on November 5th that they are available anytime. Tanya adds that she wanted the
neighbors included in any meetings. On November 9th, I e-mailed Maurice about the status of the meeting. He said he has
To: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
Subject: City Engineer & engineering Services
Date: October 20, 2014 Page 3

not heard back from anyone. He e-mailed Tanya and Tim on November 12th about meeting. Tanya responded on
November 18th that shell check with her client.
On November 22nd, I e-mailed all parties and reminded them of the importance of a meeting to discuss any revisions with
the applicant. On November 24th, Tanya asked us to have Tim contact her directly and asked that we not request her client
to schedule a meeting. On November 24th, Tanya asked Tim about potential redesign issues. Tim responded that his client
requires the podium garages and side-orientation of the building but can make landscape changes. Tim requested a
meeting with the McElhaneys. On November 30th, Lynette e-mailed Tim indicating that she wanted to meet and requested
that the Planning Commission meeting be rescheduled to December 17th.
On December 1st Tim, Tanya, Clarence and Lynette McElhaney, Maurice, and I met to review the design but no major
changes are made. Tanya still had questions about the Citys CPTED review and her belief that the side-orientation would
not be permitted per CPTED. On December 1st, Maurice asked OPDs Eddie Simlin to conduct a CPTED review. On
December 3rd, Tim e-mailed the Planning Commissioners to meet on site. [I dont believe any of them met with Tim] On
December 15th, Tim asked Maurice about the CPTED review. Maurice indicated that he had not received any responses.
He e-mailed Eddie two more times. Eddie provided comments on December 17th, the day of the Planning Commission
meeting.

As a result of all the e-mail exchanges, phone calls, meetings, and CPTED review, the only substantial change to the design
was a reduced unit count from 5 to 4 as originally proposed at the Planning Commission appeal hearing on August 6,
2014. Each unit size was increased (from 1,100 sf each to 1,300 sf each). The overall size of the building was reduced by
180 square feet or 3% -- from xx sf to xx sf. The height of the building was lowered by 10.

The item returned to the Planning Commission on December 17, 2014.


Morten Jensen, a local architect, spoke against the proposed design. While the hearing proceeded, he hand sketched an
image of a 4-unit proposal that included a building facing the street with an arched opening through the center of the
building. The driveway was located under the arched opening and connected to a courtyard parking area and a second
building in the rear. Morten did not get a chance to show the sketch to the Commissioners.
The Commission approved the applicants design on December 17, 2014. They directed him to present final design details
to the Design Review Board after they had been designed by the architect.

Proposed Redesign:

Morten showed his design to me after the meeting and I found it to be a much better design solution for the neighborhood. I
was sorry staff and I had not thought of the central driveway idea during our review of the project design. It was a creative
solution that addressed the issues raised in the Citys Design Review Criteria. It related to the area setting and
neighborhood characteristics with its dominant faade along the street in keeping with the other historic homes on the
block. In addition, no garage doors were visible from the street. By comparison, the developers proposed design reflected
a motel orientation (given its long/linear building shape, sideways orientation, and parking/garage doors visible from the
street). If I had thought of the design (proposed by Morten), I would have required it of the developer back in February
prior to staff approval. His design also addressed the neighbors concerns by improving the CPTED eyes on the street
approach due to the main windows of the living spaces facing the street, not the side yards.

I thought it would be beneficial for the developer to see this proposed design, and consider it as an option, because it met all
of his criteria (4 units with garages underneath) and it met the neighbors criteria (front-orientation, not side-orientation).
We sent Mortens design to the architect and explained that since this design addressed everyones concerns and therefore
could prevent another appeal (to the Court). Court appeals are the last resort for citizen action regarding a project. We
emphasized that they were not required to redesign their project, as they already had approval. The developers architect
indicated that his client was not interested in the proposed design we sent them. No appeal was filed with the Court.

The Design Review Board (DRB) approved the design details on February 11, 2015. The developer has not constructed the
project or applied for building permits.
To: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
Subject: City Engineer & engineering Services
Date: October 20, 2014 Page 4

From: Flynn, Rachel


Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 8:39 PM
To: 'Tim Alatorre'
Cc: Miller, Scott; Brenyah-Addow, Maurice
Subject: RE: 530 32nd Street - Clarification on process

Hi Tim Thanks for contacting me for clarification. I was first made aware of the project about three weeks ago
when I was contacted by the neighbor, Lynette McElhaney, who expressed concerns about the project, given its
very close proximity to her house. She asked what requirements the City had in regards to this project. I
contacted Maurice for this information. He confirmed that the multi-unit use is allowed by-right, but that the
City is required to perform a design review (Code Section 17.136). I typically leave design review up to staff,
given the 100s of reviews they perform each year. But if I am contacted by a citizen who has concerns about a
project, I make a point to review the design myself. As the only registered architect on staff, I am frequently
asked to review designs particularly on highly visible projects and ones in which neighbors have concerns.

Section 17.136.050, Regular Design Review Criteria indicates that for residential facilities, the proposed design
will create a building or set of buildings that are well related to the surrounding area in their setting, scale, bulk,
height, materials, and textures. In addition, it states that the proposed design will protect, preserve, or
enhance desirable neighborhood characteristics. Given this criteria, I asked Maurice for photos of other
properties in the block to compare to your structure and then I visited the area last week. I noted several
characteristics in the architecture of this block that I didnt see reflected in the 530 design: raised front porches,
bay windows, pitched roofs, and wood siding (of varying styles). The first story of the 530 design looks out of
proportion with the rest of the building (and neighborhood) and appears squatty. This short first floor makes
the upper floors appear top heavy. The raised front porches along this block are a dominant characteristic,
setting the scale and overall massing (bulk) of the structure. A raised front porch (first floor) provides a strong
base, improving the overall scale of the structure. In addition, the prevalent bay windows and pitched roofs,
throughout the block, are defining characteristics that create a more residential scale to the structures. The
wood siding material (clap board of varying widths: 3 - 6 and shingle texture) are also distinguishing
characteristics of the residences. I sketched a drawing over your front faade that adds the elements described
above.

In addition, one of Ms. McElhaneys major concerns is the lack of privacy that she and her family will
experience, given that five units will now be facing her house. To address that, I suggest flipping the 2nd floor
plan, so that the main living area (kitchen, dining, living rooms) face the shorter one-story house, not the taller
three-story house (Ms. McElhaneys). That way only the bedrooms, that are used less often, will face her
property.

I apologize that I was apprised of this project in February, but I am obligated to respond to citizen concerns
when they are brought to my attention. I hope this information provides more clarity on the process and that
you are able to incorporate the suggestions provided. I would also suggest that you present the revised design
to Ms. McElhaney and any other interested neighbors, so that the final design can be completed and
approved. Thanks for taking our recommendations into consideration, Rachel

Rachel Flynn AIA


Director l Department of Planning & Building l City of Oakland
510 . 238 . 2229
To: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
Subject: City Engineer & engineering Services
Date: October 20, 2014 Page 5

From: tim@djaarc.com [mailto:tim@djaarc.com] On Behalf Of Tim Alatorre


Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 2:55 PM
To: Flynn, Rachel
Subject: 530 32nd Street - Clarification on process

Rachel,

I left you a message earlier this morning but I realize you are busy and so I'm following up
with this email.

As I mentioned, I understand that you are working on providing comments for our proposed
development at 530 32nd Street in addition to those that we received from our assigned
planner and his supervisor. On Friday we were notified of a few of your requested design
changes and their impacts on the project have greatly upset my client. We've spent
considerable time and gone through months of revisions with our assigned planner and their
supervisor to develop a design that complied with the city planning ordinance and additionally
one that all parties felt was compatible with and enhanced the neighborhood. Several times,
my client reviewed the design progress with as many neighboring property owners as
possible and we adjusted our design to respond to their concerns and suggestions as best as
possible. My client is frustrated by the process of having a design that was all but approved
and now to be receiving comments that would fundamentally change the design and possibly
make the project un-buildable.

Right now I'm confused as to where the project stands, how soon we are to receive a
response to our January 22nd submittal and who we should be communicating with. I would
very much like to set up a meeting for us all to discuss the status of the project. Please let me
know how we can make that happen.

Thank you,

Tim Alatorre, Architect, AIA, LEED AP BD+C


(m) 805 215 5846

de Jesus and Alatorre Architects - Architecture - Planning - Design


2015 - 2016
ALAMEDA COUNTY GRAND JURY
FINAL REPORT

ALAMEDA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS


District One Scott Haggerty, President
District Two Richard Valle
District Three Wilma Chan, Vice President
District Four Nate Miley
District Five Keith Carson

ALAMEDA COUNTY GRAND JURY


1401 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1104
Oakland, California 94612
Phone: (510) 272-6259 / FAX: (510) 465-9647
E-Mail: grandjury@acgov.org / Web: www.acgov.org/grandjury
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

2
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Alameda County Board of Supervisors 1
Table of Contents 3
Forepersons Letter 5
Grand Jury Members 7
Officers and Legal Staff 8
Grand Jury Committee Assignments 9
Grand Jury Photograph 10
Presiding Judges of the Alameda County Superior Court 11
Introduction to the Alameda County Grand Jury 13

Political Interference with Oakland Townhouse Project 19

City of Oaklands Costly Pursuit of Zero Waste Franchise Contracts 31

The Failure of Eden Township Healthcare Districts Mission 43

Alameda Local Agency Formation Commission 57

Oversight of County Funded Community Based Organizations 61

Constraints of the Measure A Oversight Committee 73

The Publics Right to Know: Electronic Records Retention and Access 79

The Oakland Unified School District and Charter Schools 85

Management Issues Within the City of Oakland Revenue Division 95

Jail Inspections
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Center - Juvenile Hall Inspection 103
Hayward Police Department Jail Inspection 107
Fremont Police Department Detention Facility Inspection 111
Wiley W. Manuel Courthouse Jail Inspection 115

Urban Shield 2015 119

APPENDIX

How to Respond to Findings & Recommendations 125


Citizen Complaint Guidelines 127
Grand Jury Citizen Complaint Form 129
Application to Become a Grand Juror 131

3
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

[This page intentionally left blank]

4
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

5
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

6
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

2015-2016 ALAMEDA COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY


MEMBER ROSTER

Name City
Barbara M. Barer Piedmont
Jaswant S. Bhatti Fremont
Janet M. Clark Oakland
Joseph Connell** Castro Valley
Sam Davis Berkeley
Dennis Gambs Livermore
Walter L. Johnson, Sr. Oakland
Timothy Jones** Livermore
Janet Kramer Oakland
Scott A. Law Oakland
Charlene Lewis-Blackwell Oakland
Isabelle R. McAndrews Fremont
William J. McGahan Oakland
Timothy J. McKeon^^ Alameda
Marsha Carpenter Peterson** Oakland
Sara Rozzano Fremont
Raymond A. Souza Oakland
Thomas J. Tuttle**^ Alameda
Aihua Zelinsky Castro Valley
** Jurors held over for a 2nd term by Presiding Judge Winifred Y. Smith

^ Resigned, October 2015

^^ Resigned, March 2016

7
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

2015-2016 ALAMEDA COUNTY GRAND JURY


OFFICERS and LEGAL STAFF

OFFICERS
FOREPERSON: Timothy Jones
FOREPERSON PRO TEM: Joseph Connell
SECRETARY: Barbara M. Barer
SECRETARY PRO TEM: Janet Kramer
SERGEANT AT ARMS: Sara Rozzano
SERGEANT AT ARMS PRO TEM: Charlene Lewis-Blackwell

LEGAL ADVISORY STAFF


Robert L. Warren, Assistant District Attorney
Cassie Barner, Legal Assistant

8
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

2015-2016 ALAMEDA COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY


COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS

GOVERNMENT LAW & JUSTICE


Isabelle R. McAndrews Chair Marsha Carpenter Peterson - Chair
Jaswant S. Bhatti Dennis Gambs
Janet M. Clark Secretary Pro Tem Janet Kramer Secretary
Dennis Gambs Chair Pro Tem Isabelle R. McAndrews
Scott A. Law William J. McGahan Chair Pro Tem
William J. McGahan Secretary Timothy J. McKeon*
Marsha Carpenter Peterson Sara Rozzano
Thomas J. Tuttle* Raymond A. Souza Secretary Pro Tem
Aihua Zelinsky Aihua Zelinsky

HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES EDUCATION & ADMINISTRATION

Joseph Connell Chair Sam Davis Chair


Barbara M. Barer Secretary Barbara M. Barer
Jaswant S. Bhatti Janet M. Clark Secretary
Sam Davis Joseph Connell
Walter L. Johnson, Sr. Walter L. Johnson, Sr. Chair Pro Tem
Scott A. Law Chair Pro Tem Janet Kramer
Charlene Lewis-Blackwell Charlene Lewis-Blackwell
Timothy J. McKeon* Secretary Pro Tem Raymond A. Souza Secretary Pro Tem
Sara Rozzano Thomas J. Tuttle*

* Jurors who resigned during the term

9
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

2015-2016 ALAMEDA COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY

Standing, left to right:

Raymond A. Souza, Sam Davis, Barbara M. Barer (Secretary), Dennis Gambs,


Isabelle R. McAndrews, Jaswant S. Bhatti, Janet Kramer (Secretary Pro Tem),
Sara Rozzano (Sergeant at Arms), Timothy Jones (Foreman), Aihua Zelinsky,
Joseph Connell (Foreman Pro Tem), Marsha Carpenter Peterson, Scott A. Law,
Janet M. Clark, Timothy J. McKeon, Charlene Lewis-Blackwell (Sergeant at Arms Pro Tem)

Seated, left to right:

William J. McGahan, Hon. Morris D. Jacobson (Presiding Judge), Walter L. Johnson, Sr.

Not Pictured:

Thomas J. Tuttle (Resigned October 2015)

10
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

PRESIDING JUDGES OF THE


ALAMEDA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

Honorable Morris D. Jacobson


January 1, 2016 Present

Honorable Winifred Y. Smith


January 1, 2014 December 31, 2015

11
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

[This page intentionally left blank]

12
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

INTRODUCTION TO THE
ALAMEDA COUNTY GRAND JURY
The Alameda County Grand Jury is mandated by Article 1, Section 23 of the
California Constitution. It operates under Title 4 of the California Penal Code,
Sections 3060-3074 of the California Government Code, and Section 17006 of
the California Welfare and Institutions Code. All 58 counties in California are
required to have grand juries.

In California, grand juries have several functions:


1) to act as the public watchdog by investigating and reporting on
the affairs of local government;
2) to make an annual examination of the operations, accounts and
records of officers, departments or functions of the county,
including any special districts;
3) to inquire into the condition and management of jails and prisons
within the county;
4) to weigh allegations of misconduct against public officials and
determine whether to present formal accusations requesting their
removal from office; and,
5) to weigh criminal charges and determine if indictments should be
returned.

Additionally, the grand jury has the authority to investigate the following:
1) all public records within the county;
2) books and records of any incorporated city or joint powers
authority located in the county;
3) certain redevelopment agencies and housing authorities;
4) special purpose assessing or taxing agencies wholly or partly
within the county;
5) nonprofit corporations established by or operated on behalf of a
public entity;
6) all aspects of county and city government, including over 100
special districts; and
7) the books, records and financial expenditures of any government
agency including cities, schools, boards, and commissions.

Many people have trouble distinguishing between the grand jury and a trial (or
petit) jury. Trial juries are impaneled for the length of a single case. In
California, most civil grand juries consist of 19 citizen volunteers who serve for
one year, and consider a number of issues. Most people are familiar with
criminal grand juries, which only hear individual cases and whose mandate is to
determine whether there is enough evidence to proceed with a trial.

This report was prepared by a civil grand jury whose role is to investigate all
aspects of local government and municipalities to ensure government is being
run efficiently, and that government monies are being handled appropriately.
While these jurors are nominated by a Superior Court judge based on a review
of applications, it is not necessary to know a judge in order to apply. From a
pool of 25-30 accepted applications (an even number from each supervisorial
district), 19 members are randomly selected to serve.
13
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

History of Grand Juries

One of the earliest concepts of a grand jury dates back to ancient Greece where
the Athenians used an accusatory body. Others claim the Saxons initiated the
grand jury system. By the year 1290, the accusing jury was given authority to
inquire into the maintenance of bridges and highways, the defects of jails, and
whether the sheriff had kept in jail anyone who should have been brought
before the justices.

The Massachusetts Bay Colony impaneled the first American Grand Jury in
1635 to consider cases of murder, robbery, and wife beating. Colonial grand
juries expressed their independence from the crown by refusing in 1765 to
indict leaders of the Stamp Act or bring libel charges against the editors of the
Boston Gazette. The union with other colonies to oppose British taxes was
supported by a Philadelphia grand jury in 1770. By the end of the colonial
period, the grand jury had become an indispensable adjunct of government.

Grand Jury Duties

The Alameda County Grand Jury is a constituent part of the Superior Court,
created for the protection of society and the enforcement of law. It is not a
separate political body or an individual entity of government, but is a part of the
judicial system and, as such, each grand juror is an officer of the court. Much
of the grand jury's effectiveness is derived from the fact that the viewpoint of its
members is fresh and unencumbered by prior conceptions about government.
With respect to the subjects it is authorized to investigate, the grand jury is free
to follow its own inclinations in investigating local government affairs.

The grand jury may act only as a whole body. An individual grand juror has no
more authority than any private citizen. Duties of the grand jury can generally
be set forth, in part, as follows:
1. To inquire into all public offenses committed or triable within the
county (Penal Code 917);
2. To inquire into the case of any person imprisoned and not indicted
(Penal Code 919(a));
3. To inquire into the willful or corrupt misconduct in office of public
officers of every description within the county (Penal Code 919(c));
4. To inquire into sales, transfers, and ownership of lands which might
or should revert to the state by operation of law (Penal Code 920);
5. To examine, if it chooses, the books and records of a special purpose,
assessing or taxing district located wholly or partly in the county and the
methods or systems of performing the duties of such district or
commission. (Penal Code 933.5);
6. To submit to the presiding judge of the superior court a final report of
its findings and recommendations that pertain to the county government
(Penal Code 933), with a copy transmitted to each member of the board
of supervisors of the county (Penal Code 928); and,
7. To submit its findings on the operation of any public agency subject to
its reviewing authority. The governing body of the public agency shall
comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and

14
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the


governing body and every elective county officer or agency head for which
the grand jury has responsibility (Penal Code 914.1) and shall comment
within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an
information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and
recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county
officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or
agency head supervises or controls. (Penal Code 933(c)).

Secrecy/Confidentiality

Members of the grand jury are sworn to secrecy and all grand jury proceedings
are secret. This secrecy guards the public interest and protects the
confidentiality of sources. The minutes and records of grand jury meetings
cannot be subpoenaed or inspected by anyone.

Each grand juror must keep secret all evidence presented before the grand jury,
anything said within the grand jury, or the manner in which any grand juror
may have voted on a matter (Penal Code 924.1). The grand jurors promise or
oath of secrecy is binding for life. It is a misdemeanor to violate the secrecy of
the grand jury room. Successful performance of grand jury duties depends
upon the secrecy of all proceedings. A grand juror must not divulge any
information concerning the testimony of witnesses or comments made by other
grand jurors. The confidentiality of interviewees and complainants is critical.

Legal Advisors

In the performance of its duties, the grand jury may ask the advice (including
legal opinions) of the district attorney, the presiding judge of the superior court,
or the county counsel. This can be done by telephone, in writing, or the person
may be asked to attend a grand jury session. The district attorney may appear
before the grand jury at all times for the purpose of giving information or
advice.

Under Penal Code section 936, the California Attorney General may also be
consulted when the grand jury's usual advisor is disqualified. The grand jury
has no inherent investigatory powers beyond those granted by the legislature.

Annual Final Report

At the end of its year of service, a grand jury is required to submit a final report
to the superior court. This report contains an account of its activities, together
with suggestions and recommendations. The final report represents the
investigations of the entire grand jury.

Citizen Complaints

As part of its civil function, the grand jury receives complaints from citizens
alleging government inefficiencies, suspicion of misconduct or mistreatment by
officials, or misuse of taxpayer money. Complaints are acknowledged and may
be investigated for their validity. All complaints are confidential. If the situation

15
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

warrants and corrective action falls within the jurisdiction of the grand jury,
appropriate solutions are recommended.

The grand jury receives dozens of complaints each year. With many
investigations and the time constraint of only one year, it is necessary for each
grand jury to make difficult decisions as to what it wishes to investigate during
its term. When the grand jury receives a complaint it must first decide whether
or not an investigation is warranted. The grand jury is not required by law to
accept or act on every complaint or request.

In order to maintain the confidentiality of complaints and investigations, the


Alameda County Grand Jury only accepts complaints in writing. Complaints
should include the name of the persons or agency in question, listing specific
dates, incidents or violations. The names of any persons or agencies contacted
should be included along with any documentation or responses received.
Complainants should include their names and addresses in the event the grand
jury wishes to contact them for further information. A complaint form has been
included in this report, and is also available on the grand jurys website at
www.acgov.org/grandjury.

Complaints should be mailed to: Alameda County Grand Jury, Attention:


Foreperson, 1401 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1104, Oakland, CA 94612, or
faxed to (510) 465-9647. An acknowledgment letter is routinely sent within one
week of receipt of a complaint.

How to Become a Grand Juror

Citizens who are qualified and able to provide one year of service, and who
desire to be nominated for grand jury duty, may send a letter with their resume
or complete a Civil Grand Jury Questionnaire (contained at the end of this
report) and mail it to: Office of the Jury Commissioner - Alameda County
Superior Court, Grand Jury Selection, 1225 Fallon Street, Room 100, Oakland, CA
94612; or by calling (510) 818-7575. On the basis of supervisory district, six
members from each district for a total of 30 nominees are assigned for grand
jury selection. After the list of 30 nominees is completed, the selection of 19
jurors who will actually be impaneled to serve for the year are selected by a
random drawing. This is done in late June before the jury begins its yearly term
on July 1. For more information, please visit the Alameda County Superior
Court website at www.alameda.courts.ca.gov and follow the link to jury then
grand jury.

Qualification of Jurors

Prospective grand jurors must possess the following qualifications pursuant to


Penal Code section 893: be a citizen of the United States; at least 18 years of
age; a resident of Alameda County for at least one year immediately before
being selected; possess ordinary intelligence, sound judgment and fair
character; and possess sufficient knowledge of the English language. Other
desirable qualifications include: an open mind with concern for others
positions and views; the ability to work well with others in a group; an interest
in community affairs; possession of investigative skills and the ability to write

16
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

reports; and a general knowledge of the functions and responsibilities of county


and city government.

A person may not serve on the grand jury if any of the following apply: the
person is serving as a trial juror in any court in the state; the person has been
discharged as a grand juror in any court of this state within one year; the
person has been convicted of malfeasance in office or any felony or other high
crime; or the person is serving as an elected public officer.

Commitment

Persons selected for grand jury service must make a commitment to serve a
one-year term (July 1 through June 30). Grand jurors should be prepared, on
average, to devote two days each week to grand jury meetings. Currently, the
grand jury meets every Wednesday and Thursday from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.,
with additional days if needed. Grand jurors are required to complete and file a
Statement of Economic Interest as defined by the states Fair Political Practices
Commission, as well as a Conflict of Interest form.

Grand jurors are paid $15.00 per day for each day served, as well as a county
mileage rate (currently 54 cents per mile) portal to portal, for personal vehicle
usage.

Persons selected for grand jury duty are provided with an extensive, month-long
orientation and training program in July. This training includes tours of county
facilities and orientation by elected officials, county and departments heads,
and others. The orientation and training, as well as the weekly grand jury
meetings, take place in Oakland.

An application is contained in this report for interested citizens. Selection for


grand jury service is a great honor and one that offers an opportunity to be of
value to the community.

17
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

[This page intentionally left blank]

18
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

POLITICAL INTERFERENCE
WITH OAKLAND TOWNHOUSE PROJECT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Grand Jury received a complaint that an Oakland city councilmember


improperly used her elected position to oppose city approval of a proposed
townhouse project next door to her Oakland residence. It was alleged that the
councilmember violated state ethics rules and city regulations by
inappropriately attempting to influence a city administrative decision, and that
the city council and the Oakland Public Ethics Commission (PEC) failed to take
action.

The State Political Reform Act and Oaklands Government Ethics Act were
established as minimum ethical standards to help ensure that public officials
serve as stewards of our public resources. The public expects their elected
officials to wield the power of their office with the publics best interests in
mind, rather than serving their personal interests.

The Grand Jury conducted a comprehensive investigation and found that the
councilmember had a conflict of interest that prohibited her from using her
elected position to influence an administrative decision on the townhouse
project. The councilmember violated ethics rules by privately contacting a
department head and city staff to argue personal objections, resulting in the
department head re-evaluating the project. This gave the appearance that the
department head was an advocate for the councilmember. City emails also
revealed that the councilmember improperly used city resources by having her
chief of staff draft a letter for her in opposition to the project for the
councilmember. The Grand Jury believes that was a misuse of city resources
solely intended to benefit the councilmember personally. Additionally, in
violation of city and state rules, during a planning commission hearing, the
councilmember inappropriately used her position to question city policy, to
challenge staff, and to interrupt proceedings.

The Grand Jury concludes that the failure of the Oakland City Council and the
Oakland Public Ethics Commission to recognize and address these breaches of
ethical standards is unacceptable.

BACKGROUND

The Grand Jury responded to a citizen complaint citing a news report of a


councilmember using city staff for her personal benefit to oppose a development
project. The complaint involved an Oakland property owner who proposed to

19
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

construct a number of townhouse units on his property next door to a city


councilmembers residence. The property owner invested a substantial amount
of time and money in amending his building application in response to multiple
levels of review within the citys Planning and Zoning Division.

Building applications fall under the purview of the Oakland Planning and
Zoning Division that operates within the citys Planning and Building
Department. It has the responsibility to process and issue zoning permits for
development projects within the city. The director of Planning and Building
(planning director), the department head for this umbrella agency, manages 135
employees and reports to the assistant city administrator.

Small building projects, such as the matter the Grand Jury investigated, are
approved by the zoning manager within the Planning and Zoning Division.
Case planners, supervised by the zoning manager, are assigned to individual
projects to ensure proposed designs comply with city zoning and planning
codes. Their decisions can be appealed to the Planning Commission by
opponents of any project.

INVESTIGATION

During the townhouse project investigation, the Grand Jury heard testimony
from several witnesses, including city employees, and reviewed numerous
documents, as follows:

Hundreds of emails pertaining to the townhouse project (obtained from


the city);

The Oakland Government Ethics Act;

The California Political Reform Act, Government Code section 87100 et


seq.;

The Oakland City Charter Section 218. Non-Interference in


Administrative Affairs;

Oaklands City Council Code of Ethics;

Oaklands City-wide Code of Conduct - for non-sworn employees,


Administrative Instruction 596;

City of Oakland Planning Commission meetings: staff reports, meeting


minutes, and video recordings;

Oaklands Design Review Committee staff agenda; and

California Fair Political Practices Commission opinion letters on conflict


of interest.

20
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

The Grand Jury acknowledges the councilmembers right to contact city staff
regarding the townhouse project for the sole purpose of making inquiries. The
Grand Jury also acknowledges the right of the councilmember to appeal the
staff approval of the project and to publicly testify at planning commission
hearings as a private citizen, but not as member of the city council. The Grand
Jury did not evaluate the merits of either the property owners proposed project
or the councilmembers objections to the project; rather, the Grand Jury
examined the councilmembers use of the power of her elected position to
oppose the project.

Townhouse Project

The owner of a vacant lot located in west Oakland proposed building a five-unit
townhouse project (later downsized to four units) as permitted under city
zoning. In November 2013, the property owner began working with a case
planner within the planning department to prepare a design that would meet
city requirements, including compatibility with neighboring properties. After
reaching out to neighbors and implementing city staff recommendations, the
owners architect drafted a plan that appeared to meet the citys requirements.
Shortly after submitting the building application on January 23, 2014, the
property owner was contacted by the next-door neighbor who stated that his
wife was an Oakland city councilmember and further stated that he and his
wife would be working to stop the project if the design was not changed to their
liking. This raised concerns for the property owner because his architect had
already incorporated city staff recommendations into the project plans and
approval of the townhouse project appeared imminent.

Soon thereafter, the councilmember contacted the citys Planning and Building
Department director (planning director) to voice objections to the townhouse
project. As a result, the planning director contacted the zoning manager and
the assigned case planner, notifying them that she would be conducting her
own design review of the project. After visiting the site, the planning director
determined that the project was poorly designed, despite the fact that the
project plans had already been evaluated by a group of city planners at a
regular staff meeting. Subsequent to conducting an independent review, the
planning director then suggested changes to the design plan. The director also
suggested that the property owner present the revised plans to the
councilmember and interested neighbors so that the final design could be
completed and approved by the city.

While the assigned case planner remained involved, the planning director
became the citys point of contact for the project. The Grand Jury heard
testimony from witnesses that it was highly unusual for the head of the city
Planning and Building Department to become directly involved with a project of

21
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

this relatively small size. The Grand Jury heard conflicting evidence as to
whether this was common practice.

On March 21, 2014, after making revisions requested by the planning director,
the property owner resubmitted the project plans. Shortly thereafter, the zoning
manager approved the design review after planning staff determined that the
proposed project complied with city zoning and other planning codes. Two
weeks later, an appeal of the approval was filed on behalf of the
councilmembers spouse.

Several months later, the appeal was considered by the Planning Commission
at its August 6, 2014 meeting. At this meeting, the commission delayed ruling
on the appeal and directed the property owner and appellants to try to find a
mutually acceptable solution.

After the property owner completed revisions to the project, the planning
director emailed the councilmember asking if the revisions were acceptable.
The councilmember responded that the revisions were not acceptable and
copied her staff in the email communication.

In November of 2014, the planning director emailed the property owners


architect warning him that, without a meeting (with the appellants and
neighbors) and consensus, there is a risk that the Planning Commission will
not approve the design. As documented in a number of emails, the property
owners architect had tried to meet with the councilmember and her husband,
as well as other neighbors; however, the councilmember did not want to meet
unless the property owner downsized the plan significantly and met other
concerns.

In December, eight months after filing the appeal, the Planning Commission
took final action. The property owners new design reduced the number of units
from five to four, and addressed privacy issues by facing some of the units away
from the councilmembers home. These units previously had downtown views,
but were now facing another neighbors home and a freeway sound wall. The
staff report for the Planning Commissions December 17th meeting noted that
the project was consistent with the citys general plan objectives and policies for
meeting current and future housing needs, encouraging infill development for
vacant sites, and providing affordable housing. Planning Commission video
from that meeting showed the councilmember broadly criticizing city policy.
Later in the meeting, the councilmember interrupted the commissioners by
abruptly speaking after the public comment period ended and indicated among
other things that she would obtain advice from the city attorney on the issue.
Ultimately, the staffs recommendation that the appeal be denied was approved

22
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

by the planning commission with the addition of some design review conditions.
This allowed the project to move forward.

The Grand Jury heard testimony that a few days after the December appeals
hearing, the planning director contacted the property owner by phone. It was
alleged that the planning director urged the property owner to consider
alternative project plans proposed by an outside architect with ties to the
councilmember. Notwithstanding the denial of the appeal, it was also alleged
that the planning director told the property owner that he could be sued unless
a resolution was worked out with the neighbors.

In early January 2015, the citys planning staff sent the outside architects
plans to the property owners architect. In an email to the property owners
architect, the planning director stated, It would be good if your client would at
least consider an alternative design that addresses most of the neighbors
concerns...just so you know, the neighbors have the right to appeal the
Planning Commissions decision to the Superior Court. The planning director
further stated, If an alternative design could be agreed to by all parties, then
such an agreement would prevent further actions that could prolong the
review/approval process.

Since the project had already been approved by staff and the planning
commission had denied the councilmembers appeal, the property owner
decided not to make further major revisions to the design as recommended by
the outside architects plans. Finally, on February 11, 2015, the citys Design
Review Committee approved the final plans submitted by the property owner.

The property was then listed for sale and as of the writing of this report, the
project has not been built. The property owner is concerned that further battles
with the city may occur while attempting to obtain permits and constructing the
townhouse project. Witnesses to the Grand Jury testified that developers are
reluctant to purchase the property due to the councilmembers interference.
The Grand Jury heard testimony that real estate laws require the owner to
disclose opposition to the project to any potential purchasers of the property.

Applicable City and State Ethics Rules

Conflicts of Interests for Personal Gain

A public servant shall not make, participate in making, or seek to influence a


decision of the city in which the public servant has a financial interest within the
meaning of the California Political Reform Act and pursuant to the Oakland
Government Ethics Act.

23
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

As a public servant, elected officials are precluded from seeking to influence a


decision in which they have a financial interest. A public official has a financial
interest in a government decision if it is reasonably foreseeable that the
decision will have a material financial effect on the public officials interests.
The financial effect is material whenever the governmental decision affects real
property located within 500 feet of the officials property unless there would be
no reasonably foreseeable measurable impact on the property. In this case, the
councilmember has a material financial interest because the location of the
townhouse project is next door to the councilmembers primary residence.

The financial effect is also material if the decision would substantially alter
things such as traffic levels, view, privacy, and noise levels, among other
factors. Since the councilmembers complaints included many of these factors,
there is little question that the councilmember had a financial interest in the
decisions pertaining to the townhouse project.

Accordingly, the councilmember had a material financial interest in


governmental decisions based on the proximity of the townhouse project to her
residence and the likelihood that her privacy would be adversely impacted.

As a result, the Grand Jury concludes that the councilmember had a conflict of
interest and should have taken steps to ensure that she did not use her official
position to influence the decision regarding the townhouse project. While there
is an exception permitting a public official to appear as a member of the general
public during a public meeting, the exception is narrowly interpreted, requiring
the councilmember to limit comments to the specific project in question. An
elected official may not speak to general policies or in any official capacity on
matters in which the official has a conflict of interest. Additionally, a public
official may not directly contact city staff behind the scenes to influence a
government decision.

Here, the councilmember privately contacted a department head three levels


above the staff person handling the project to register discontent with the
project. This conduct directly violated ethics rules and alienated staff. The
councilmembers interference turned the department head into an intermediary
(or even an advocate) for the elected official, giving the appearance that the
public official was receiving special treatment.

Finally, when the councilmember spoke to the planning commission at the


December meeting, she did not identify herself as speaking as a private citizen;
rather, the councilmember spoke broadly, criticizing city policy. The Grand Jury
heard testimony that the councilmember interrupted the speakers several times
during the meeting and rose after public comment had closed, summarizing her
position and stating she would seek the city attorneys advice. This gave the

24
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

appearance that she had special access to city resources. State ethics rules are
intended to prevent such conduct that disrespects public process, city staff,
and the community.

Misuse of City Resources or Position for Private Gain

City ethics rules state that no public servant may use his or her position, or the
power or authority of his or her office or position, in any manner intended to
induce or coerce any person to provide any private advantage, benefit, or
economic gain to the city public servant or any other person. Use of public
resources includes city compensated time.

During this investigation, the Grand Jury learned that the councilmembers
chief of staff researched and prepared a letter using city resources for the
councilmember in his capacity as a city employee stating opposition to the
townhouse project. The chief of staff sent this letter, which was to be signed by
the councilmember, from his city email account to the councilmembers city
email address. The councilmember responded by thanking him. He, in turn,
suggested that the correspondence be sent from the councilmembers home
email address. This opposition letter was then sent the next day to the case
planner from the councilmembers husbands email address. This was a direct
misuse of city resources for the councilmembers private benefit.

The Grand Jury also learned that the councilmembers chief of staff prepared
talking points or notes using city time and resources for the councilmembers
opposition of the project in his capacity as chief of staff. He also had multiple
conversations with staff, including the department head, about the
councilmembers opposition to the project. The Grand Jury learned that he
never met or spoke with any other neighbors but relied on the councilmembers
representations regarding neighborhood sentiment.

It is common for the chief of staff to inquire with city staff about pending
development projects or to publicly comment in writing as a staff member. It is
also common to organize neighborhood meetings to notify the community about
such projects and the citys approval process. However, the Grand Jury believes
that the chief of staffs conduct in this instance went beyond normal constituent
services and thus the councilmember misused city resources to benefit herself
personally.

Non-Interference in Administrative Affairs

As prohibited by City Charter Section 218, except for the purpose of inquiry,
neither the council nor any councilmember shall give orders to any subordinate of
the City under the jurisdiction of the City Administrator or such other officers,

25
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

either publicly or privately; nor shall they attempt to coerce or influence the City
Administrator or such other officers, in respect to any administrative action.

The Grand Jury identified emails to city staff documenting the councilmembers
objections to the project. Specifically, the councilmember sent the planning
director an email stating, This process raises a series of serious concerns for
your department including how well you track and enforce the citys
procedures. The Grand Jury concludes that these communciations gave the
appearance that the councilmember was speaking not as a private citizen, but
rather, inappropriately wielding her power as a councilmember to influence an
administrative decision.

The councilmember also stated in her email, What is revealed here is


troublesomeI would hope that staff is sending a clear signal that the applicant
[property owner] needs to return with the appellants to demonstrate that both
parties have followed the process we agreed to at the hearing [August 6th
Planning Comission Meeting]What is happening here indicates the same level
of disregard and disrespect that has charcterized his [property owner]
interactions with this community prior to the appeal. This has citywide
implications. Id like to meet with you to discuss a better process for all
applicants and appellants. Lets include time for this in our next District
conversation. This is a councilmember using her status as a public official to
improperly influence senior staff for her own personal benefit.

Oakland Administrative Code for Employee Conduct

The city of Oakland Administrative Instruction AI 596 sets forth guidelines for
professional and courteous conduct by all non-sworn city employees while
conducting city business. Proper behavior includes impartial treatment of the
public. This guideline also reaffirms the City Charter section 218 prohibition
against employees taking direction from members of the council. If a
councilmember does give direction to an employee or attempts to coerce or
influence an employee regarding a contract, project, personnel matter or other
administrative action, the employee shall report the violation.

The planning director became the citys primary point of contact for the project
corresponding on numerous occasions with the property owners architect and
the councilmember. These emails had a pattern of advocating the
councilmembers interest while at the same time placing a burden on the
property owner to develop a mutually acceptable solution.

While the Grand Jury received information that the planning director may have
informed the city administrator about this project, there was no indication that
the director reported the councilmembers conflict of interest or inappropriate

26
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

interference with staff. Instead, the planning director continued to advocate for
a conclusion that satisfied the councilmember. This advocacy gave the
appearance that backroom conversations were taking place outside of the
property owners participation placing him at a disadvantage.

Remedies

The Oakland Public Ethics Commission and the city council both have the
authority and responsibility to address ethical violations.

Oakland Public Ethics Commission

The Oakland Public Ethics Commission (PEC) is a seven-member board of


Oakland residents. The PECs responsibilities include overseeing compliance
with the Oakland Government Ethics Act. Specific responsibilities include
educating city staff on ethics-related issues and ensuring policies are in place
and are being followed. The PEC is also authorized to conduct investigations
and impose fines and penalties as part of its compliance responsibilities.

The PEC was originally created by city charter amendment in 1996. While the
amendment appeared to set up a body of citizens with the goal of ensuring
fairness, openness, honesty and integrity in city government, the PEC had
very little enforcement authority and insufficient resources to carry out its
mission. In response to ethical violations by local elected officials in the last
decade, the citizens of Oakland took action by prioritizing the importance of
integrity and high ethical standards for their public officials.

In 2014, voters amended the city charter to strengthen their PEC, giving the
agency more authority and resources to educate and hold city leaders
accountable for their actions. The PEC now has expanded structure, staffing,
independence, and more importantly, authority to take action. As a result, the
PEC now has the authority, the capacity to investigate, and the ability to
enforce all of the ethical standards discussed earlier in this report.

City Council Censure

The city of Oakland also has a code of ethics that applies to councilmembers.
In part, it states that councilmembers must adhere to the American ideals of
government, the rule of law, the principles of public administration, and high
ethical conduct in the performance of public duties. The same code requires
councilmembers to represent and work for the common good of the city and not
for any private interest. Council members must also maintain the highest
standard of public conduct by refusing to condone breaches of public trust or
improper attempts to influence legislation, and must be willing to censure any

27
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

member who willfully violates the rules of conduct contained in the code of
ethics. Relevant portions of the city rules go further to mirror many of the state
rules governing conflicts of interests.

The power to censure allows the city council to publicly condemn a fellow
councilmember. Censure is a formal legislative resolution reprimanding
someone for specific conduct. The elected official who is the focus of the
censure has the right to be notified of the action and must be able to respond.
While the act of censuring a councilmember carries no penalty other than the
verbal reprimand itself, it is a sign that the political body is self-policing its own
members and making a statement that the conduct is unacceptable.

CONCLUSION

Political interference from elected officials can erode public confidence and trust
in government, thus damaging its effectiveness. Although the city of Oakland
has regulations in place to prevent interference from a city councilmember,
these regulations did not deter city officials from interfering with the approval
process for the townhouse project. The councilmember used her position and
office to advocate for private gain, and not for the common good of the city. The
planning director, in effect, became a collaborator with the councilmember by
advocating for design changes favorable to the councilmember while giving the
impression that the revised design needed the councilmembers concurrence.

Recent legislative changes to strengthen the Public Ethics Commission were


intended to combat such political interference. Now that the PEC is better
staffed, concrete steps can be taken to provide training and enforce these rules.
The PEC, which was created to ensure "fairness, openness, honesty and
integrity" in city government, needs to take action to enforce these rules. The
city council must also take action to ensure this conduct is acknowledged and
addressed. City employees, especially senior staff, need to report improper
conduct. Without proper checks and balances, residents and those investing in
the community will lose faith in the integrity of the political process. Backroom
dealing cannot be the standard by which the city of Oakland is governed.

28
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

FINDINGS

Finding 16-1:
The councilmember had a conflict of interest with the townhouse project and
interfered with the projects approval process.

Finding 16-2:
The councilmembers use of her city staff on the townhouse project was a
misuse of city resources for her personal benefit.

Finding 16-3:
The councilmember privately contacted senior city staff, attempting to
improperly influence decisions, which subverted the public process.

Finding 16-4:
The planning directors attempt to pacify the councilmember gave the
appearance that she was collaborating with the councilmember to obstruct the
property owner.

Finding 16-5:
The planning directors failure to report to the city administrators office or stop
the councilmembers ethical violations undermined city staff and the fair
treatment of those doing business with the city.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 16-1:
The city of Oakland Public Ethics Commission must conduct its own
investigation of facts surrounding the townhouse project and take appropriate
enforcement actions.

Recommendation 16-2:
The city of Oakland Public Ethics Commission must reinforce its ethics training
for elected officials and city employees regarding conflicts of interest, misuse of
city resources or position, and professional conduct, including reporting council
interference.

Recommendation 16-3:
The Oakland City Council must follow its Code of Ethics, including its mandate
to be willing to censure any member who willfully violates the rules of conduct
contained in the Code of Ethics.

29
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

RESPONSES REQUIRED
Responding Agencies - Please see page 125 for instructions

Oakland City Council:


Findings 16-1 through 16-5
Recommendation 16-3

Mayor, City of Oakland:


Findings 16-1 through 16-5
Recommendations 16-3

City of Oakland Public Ethics Commission:


Recommendations 16-1 and 16-2

30
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

CITY OF OAKLANDS COSTLY PURSUIT OF


ZERO WASTE FRANCHISE CONTRACTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Grand Jury received numerous citizen complaints concerning increases to


garbage and composting collection rates in the city of Oakland as a result of the
citys new Zero Waste franchise contracts. The Grand Jury also received citizen
complaints that these 2015 franchise agreements for garbage and recycling
collection had been awarded improperly; that garbage collection rates charged
to Oakland businesses violated California law; and that $30 million in franchise
fees paid to the city passed on to Oakland ratepayers are an alleged illegal tax.

The Grand Jury undertook a comprehensive investigation related to the


solicitation and award of the citys Zero Waste contracts. The Grand Jury
determined that: (1) although intended, the citys contracting process failed to
achieve a competitive bidding environment; (2) the citys contracting process
was for all intents and purposes abandoned by the city council before the
process was completed; (3) even though intended, the citys contracting process
lacked reasonable transparency; (4) collection rates paid by Oakland businesses
and multi-family residences were markedly higher than surrounding
communities; and (5) franchise fees paid by the citys garbage collection
contractor, passed on to Oakland ratepayers, are disproportionately higher than
franchise fees paid to other Bay Area municipalities and special districts.

A franchise agreement is an authorization granting an exclusive contract by a


government entity to a private enterprise enabling them to carry out specified
commercial activities. Oakland ratepayers are the primary beneficiaries of the
Zero Waste franchise contracts.

The city council owed a duty to, among other things, safeguard the ratepayers
financial interests. Nevertheless, the city council failed its duty. Reasonable
financial analysis of numerous ancillary collection services directly impacting
rates was not performed, and there was little to no public debate concerning
disproportionately high franchise fees.

BACKGROUND

In 2006, the city of Oakland enacted a Zero Waste policy and corresponding
strategic plan. The citys intent was to reduce refuse tonnage deposited in
landfills by 90%, from 400,000 tons in 2006, to 40,000 tons in 2020.

31
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

Over the next nine years the city implemented its Zero Waste strategic plan.
They designed a process and schedule for soliciting franchise contracts for
collection, diversion, recycling and landfill disposal services. These were
essential elements to achieving the citys environmental goals. These contracts
needed to be in place well in advance of June 2015, the expiration of an existing
citywide collection and disposal services contract with Waste Management of
Alameda County (WMAC), and a recycling collection contract with California
Waste Solutions (CWS) that covered a portion of Oakland. A lapse of service
between contracts would result in uncollected garbage creating a significant
public health crisis.

In 2009, the city hired a consulting firm to assist its public works staff in
developing and implementing a Request for Proposal (RFP) process for the
award of franchise contracts for: (1) garbage and compostables collection (in the
citys RFPs, garbage and compostable materials are referred to as Mixed
Material and Organics), (2) residential recycling collection, and (3) landfill
disposal services. In addition to setting forth the technical performance
requirements for the anticipated contracts, the citys RFPs also sought to foster
a competitive bidding environment. In short, the city hoped to receive multiple
contract proposals from a spectrum of potential contractors.

In the course of developing the RFP, the city council issued 32 policy directives
to public works staff. Specific directives required: that licensing recyclers serve
Oakland businesses; that franchise contracts include provisions on city policies
for equal benefits, living wage, and campaign contributions; that disclosure of a
felony history be eliminated from initial job applications; requirements to pay
competitive wages and benefits, defined as equivalent or better than collectively
bargained contracts in surrounding counties; inclusion to the maximum extent
possible of Oakland local business and employment of Oakland residents; labor
peace plans in the event of labor disputes or unrest; and requirement for a
customer service call center located within Alameda County. During the RFP
process, a specific policy directive mandated a cone of silence which was
imposed to safeguard the integrity of the citys RFP process by keeping
proposers from improperly influencing elected officials.

In 2012, the city issued two formal, comprehensive RFPs for: (1) collection of
garbage and compostables, and collection of residential recycling, and (2)
landfill disposal services. The citys two RFPs collectively numbered more than
500 pages of contract requirements and bid submission procedures. The city
issued fourteen addenda to the original RFPs for the two collection services
contracts, and seven addenda to the original RFP for landfill disposal services.
Most of the citys issued addenda answered bidders questions, clarified
contract provisions, or revised proposal submittal times.

32
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

On April 24, 2012, in a report to the city council, staff cautioned that
established industry standards for these types of Contracts necessitate
thoughtful application of provisions to secure the desired economic and social
benefits [and] the RFP process must strike a balance between securing
economic benefits for Oakland and achieving the best customer rates for the
services, it must guard against unintentional bias or infeasible requirements
that would suppress competition.

Over the course of the next three years, the city engaged in what can only be
described as a tortured procurement process. This process evolved dramatically
toward its conclusion and culminated in the award of three franchise contracts
to two incumbent firms. Even though the city started the contracting process in
2011, and with good intentions, the city ultimately ran out of time and thus lost
control of key final decisions. The citys goal was that the selection process be
open and transparent. However, the process moved to behind closed-door
negotiations between the two contractors. In the end, the public and even city
staff were left on the sidelines.

INVESTIGATION

During the course of its investigation the Grand Jury reviewed thousands of
pages of documents, screened several hours of Oakland City Council meeting
videos, reviewed statutes and ordinances, and interviewed city officials,
complainants and other citizens.

The documents examined by the Grand Jury included: RFPs for each of the
three franchise agreements, contract proposals submitted by WMAC and CWS,
best and final offers submitted by WMAC and CWS, Oakland Public Works staff
and consultants reports, city council meeting minutes, the Memorandum of
Agreement between WMAC and CWS, correspondence, and the final executed
franchise contracts awarded to WMAC and CWS.

The Grand Jury examined and analyzed hundreds of pages of garbage and
recycling collection rate sheets submitted to the city by WMAC and CWS,
including the final rate sheets incorporated into the executed franchise
contracts. In addition, the Grand Jury examined garbage, composting, and
recycling rates charged in other Alameda, San Francisco, and Contra Costa
communities, and examined franchise fees paid to other California
municipalities for comparable garbage, composting, and recycling services.

The City Received Only Two Responsive Contract Proposals

The RFP requirements never achieved the citys goal to create a competitive
bidding environment for the citys Zero Waste franchise contracts. Initially, six

33
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

potential bidders expressed interest for garbage and recycling collection


services, and five potential bidders for landfill disposal services. However, in
January 2013, the city received contract proposals from only two firms, the
incumbent entities CWS and WMAC. A third proposal was received that was
deemed unresponsive to the citys bidding requirements.

CWS submitted a contract proposal for garbage and recycling services, but not
for landfill disposal services. WMAC submitted a contract proposal for all three
franchise contracts. In its proposal, WMAC submitted a discounted, bundled
rate structure, conditioned on the city awarding all three franchise contracts to
WMAC. In the evaluation process, city staff raised questions whether the CWS
proposal was in fact responsive in light of infrastructure required to perform
garbage collection services and in the time frame required to perform the
service.

The Grand Jury reviewed documents showing that an innovative bid was
contemplated by a third contractor. This bidder indicated that they were
capable of providing the services, but the structure of the RFP was inflexible
after its release. For example, the contractor believed that the city might be
better served with a city-owned transfer station, but the RFP did not appear to
allow for such innovation.

As a non-incumbent contractor, this third potential bidder would need to


construct a transfer station, and observed its construction would be at a
significant capital cost. Furthermore, environmental requirements could take 3-
5 years to obtain approvals, which would delay a new transfer station being
operable until half-way through the contract period. In the interim, the
contractor would have to pay a third party a premium to perform that function.
It was apparent to this contractor that such an investment was too risky.
Unfortunately, the city did not recognize that the RFP favored an incumbent
bidder with an existing infrastructure until it was too late.

City Staff Was Under-Resourced and Lacked the Time to Manage the
Complexity of the RFP Process and Implementation of Oaklands Zero Waste
Strategic Plan

The Grand Jury heard testimony that the citys RFP process was the first of its
kind for the city of Oakland for establishing waste franchise contracts. No prior
existing process was in place, and public works staff was challenged by the
complexity and volume of what was required to evaluate and negotiate the
contract proposals received from WMAC and CWS.

For close to six months, from January to June 2013, public works staff and the
citys retained consultant evaluated proposals submitted by CWS and WMAC.

34
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

In June 2013, city staff presented its evaluation to the city council,
recommending that staff conduct separate contract negotiations in parallel
with CWS and WMAC. Acting on the city councils direction, public works staff
commenced negotiations with CWS and WMAC. Noteworthy, staffs parallel
negotiations would extend over the next year. Time for an ordered contract
transition was quickly running out. Likely unintended, this extended period of
negotiation also resulted in a vacuum of public information.

In May 2014, public works staff recommended the city award all three franchise
contracts to WMAC. Staff advised the city council that WMACs bundled rate
structure provided the lowest overall rate option for Oakland citizens. However,
the city council rejected those recommendations, directed staff to continue
contract negotiations, and to solicit best and final offers (BAFO) from CWS and
WMAC, and allowed CWS to expand its bid to include the landfill disposal
services.

On June 13, 2014, CWS and WMAC submitted best and final offers. For the
first time, CWS included in its BAFO a proposal for landfill disposal services. At
this juncture, with just a year to the expiration of existing collection contracts,
the contracting process started to devolve. New parties were injected into the
contract negotiations at the last hour. City staff was presented best and final
offers that were in many regards new contract proposals. Indeed, CWS BAFO
submission numbered more than 700 pages. The Grand Jury notes that initial
proposals had taken more than 18 months to evaluate and negotiate. City staff
was now asked to compress its evaluation and present final recommendations
in less than six weeks. At this point neither the complex process that had been
designed, nor the expertise of the consultants that had been hired, could be
sufficiently utilized.

Following its review and analysis of the contractors BAFO submissions, public
works staff again recommended that the citys most prudent option was to
award all three franchise contracts to WMAC. Staff pointedly advised the city
council that WMACs proposal would provide the best value for the Oakland
ratepayers and the best customer experience, while meeting the citys Zero
Waste Goal. Further, in its agenda report to the city council, staff identified
concerns that CWS lacked the existing infrastructure necessary to perform
services at the expiration of the existing contract. Despite staffs warning that it
risked a critical interruption to services at the expiration of the existing
contracts, the city council voted to award all three franchise contracts to CWS.

35
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

In Light of a Negotiated Settlement Between WMAC and CWS, The Citys


Contracting Process Was in Essence Abandoned, Moved Behind Closed Doors,
and Lacked Transparency

In August 2014 WMAC filed a lawsuit against the city and CWS alleging various
irregular actions related to the contracting process. WMAC sought to rescind
the ordinances awarding all three franchise agreements to CWS. At the same
time, WMAC began collecting signatures for a ballot referendum that asked
Oakland voters to invalidate the ordinances awarding the franchise contracts to
CWS. Had the measure qualified for the ballot, the final determination of the
Zero Waste contractor would have come after the existing contracts had
expired. The city was in danger of potentially losing garbage services, and
creating a public health crisis.

In September 2014, WMAC and CWS settled their dispute and as part of the
agreement, WMAC dropped its lawsuit and referendum efforts. The parties
signed a Memorandum of Agreement that provided WMAC would be awarded
franchise contracts for garbage and compostable collection, and
landfill/disposal services, and CWS would retain the portion of the new
franchise contract for residential recycling collection. The parties also agreed
that WMAC would pay a total of $15 million to CWS: $2.5 million in settlement
of all costs and fees and other claims and $12.5 million for a ten year right of
first refusal for any of CWS recycling businesses in Alameda County. The
parties Memorandum of Agreement was conditioned on the city council
amending its ordinance to award the franchise contracts as CWS and WMAC
had agreed.

Within days, the city council voted to adopt the agreement. With little time for
staff analysis, on September 29, 2014, the city council voted to amend its
ordinance to award a franchise contract for garbage and compostables
collection and landfill disposal services to WMAC, and to maintain the franchise
contract for residential recycling with CWS. Shortly thereafter, the city council
voted to extend the term for CWS franchise contract from an initial 10 year
term to 20 years pursuant to the MOA.

The Grand Jury investigated whether the city of Oakland was an integral party
to the settlement agreement between WMAC and CWS, but found no such
evidence. Instead, evidence presented to the Grand Jury suggests the city was
marginally involved, if at all, other than simply ratifying the end result of the
agreement.

The Grand Jury found that the city staffs initial recommendation, to award all
three franchise contracts to WMAC, was the least costly alternative for
ratepayers. City council repeatedly rejected staff recommendations, placing the

36
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

contracting process and timeline for award in jeopardy. This undermined the
contracting process and produced a non-competitive result.

Impact to Oakland Ratepayers Received Insufficient Attention from Public


Works Staff and the Oakland City Council.

From the onset, staff and city council knew that implementing the Zero Waste
policy would result in substantial increases for Oaklands ratepayers, thus
emphasizing the need for thorough cost and rate analysis. The Grand Jury
looked for evidence that analysis of the estimated costs of the services provided
under the franchise contracts bore a reasonable relationship to rates charged to
Oaklands citizens. The Grand Jury also sought evidence that numerous
economic provisions identified in the city councils 32 policy directives had been
analyzed to identify costs and corresponding impact to Oaklands ratepayers.
However, no evidence was presented to the Grand Jury indicating the value of
many ancillary service costs had been analyzed, or that other economic
provisions had been analyzed for potential impact to ratepayers. The Grand
Jury also heard testimony that no analysis was performed related to ancillary
collection services, such as bin push rates.

It appears to the Grand Jury that the city council paid minimal attention to the
impact of the cost for services provided to the ratepayers. The contract awarded
to WMAC for garbage collection and landfill disposal services includes the
following provisions directly impacting ratepayers:

(1) rates are adjusted annually to fully capture WMACs increased costs
based on new or increased franchise fees and government fees;

(2) rate adjustments include additional 1.5% over and above other
adjustments for the second through fifth contract years resulting in
lower first year costs;

(3) a special Local 6 labor wage adjustment for the second through fifth
contract years;

(4) proposal reimbursement fees of $750,000 paid to city;

(5) city may set other fees as it deems necessary, with garbage collection
service rates adjusted to include such other fees; and

(6) WMAC collections services for the city, as enumerated in the


contract, are provided without charge.

37
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

The city council neither requested, nor performed, its own analysis to determine
the corresponding economic impact to Oakland ratepayers for these contract
requirements.

In addition, again with no apparent economic impact analysis, the city council
required WMAC to subcontract for services that WMAC was capable of providing
on its own. WMAC was obligated to enter into a subcontract with a jobs training
nonprofit to provide organics collection for commercial ratepayers on a
subscription basis, and a subcontract with a local utility district for
processing and diversion of organics collected from commercial ratepayers.
Evidence presented to the Grand Jury indicated WMAC could self-perform these
services at a lower cost to ratepayers.

Public Not Clear How Rates Paid for Residential and Commercial Collection
Services Are Reasonably Related to the Actual Cost of Services

In order to establish the impact of the new contract rates on the citizens of
Oakland, the Grand Jury collected rate sheets for nine Alameda County cities.
The Grand Jury compared monthly rates for the standard residential single-
family dwelling garbage, recycling and organics collection as well as the rates
for commercial trash and organics collection for one to six cubic yard bins from
one to six times weekly.

The Grand Jurys comparison showed Oaklands rate for residential single-
family dwellings as well as the rates for commercial trash collection to be
toward the higher end, but reasonably similar to the other cities in the county.
However, at the time of the study by the Grand Jury, all rates for the collection
of organics from commercial ratepayers were 33% higher than average and the
highest in the county.

In response to the outcry of local small businesses and multi-unit residential


ratepayers, these rates have since been adjusted closer to the county average.
This rate reduction was achieved at the expense of a number of original
requirements the city council demanded, including a local call center, extension
of the contract term, community outreach, and options to increase rates further
in the future.

A second comparison study was also performed by the Grand Jury contrasting
the rates in the original proposals of both WMAC and CWS, their best and final
offers and the final contract awarded to WMAC by the city. This study clearly
shows reductions across the board for single family residential as well as
commercial waste collection and recycling, along with significant increases in
the rates for the collection of organics from those same commercial customers,
in an apparent attempt to balance out the needed reductions.

38
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

The Grand Jury also requested a recap of the total book of business (the
anticipated rates that would be collected under the core contract) resulting from
these contract negotiations. The city estimate was $111.3 million annually,
which was $655,000 more than WMACs original proposal and $1.4 million over
their best and final offer for each year.

The Franchise Fees Paid to the City Are Disproportionate in Size Compared to
Similar Fees Paid to Other Municipalities.

The franchise agreement awarded to WMAC provides for a $30 million


franchise fee, paid annually, and passed on per the agreement to ratepayers.
A franchise fee has been in existence in previous waste contracts. The Grand
Jury surveyed franchise fees paid to surrounding government entities and
found that the franchise fees paid to the city of Oakland by WMAC under its
contract are disproportionately higher than those surrounding government
entities. Over the life of this ten-year agreement, with annual increases as
provided, over $300 million in additional fees are to be absorbed by Oaklands
ratepayers.

The Grand Jury is troubled that these fees, which represent 30% of the
ratepayers monthly bills, were not transparently reported or openly discussed
with the public at any time during the contracting process.

CONCLUSION

Evidence presented to the Grand Jury indicates that significant resources were
allocated to design and achieve a competitive bidding environment for the citys
RFP without achieving its goals. The city of Oakland paid over $1 million for
consulting services for guidance in the RFP and contract award process.
Several years of work by city staff were also dedicated to the creation of a
competitive bidding process. Given the inordinate time and resources expended
during the course of the RFP process, and the substantial monetary value of the
anticipated franchise contracts, the city expected multiple bidders and
competitive contract proposals. However, the process was ultimately ineffective
and failed to achieve this result.

The process was originally designed to be independent of political influence with


every effort to ensure transparency. For example, the Zero Waste website
published every major document, staff report, and notices of meetings relating
to the process. It was a genuine effort to educate the community with
continuous updates on the process. In the end, this process was abandoned.
The final decisions about how the contracts would ultimately be awarded, the
rates, and the last minute payouts between contractors were a mystery to the

39
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

public and to the city. New rate tables and the contractors settlement were
distributed to staff and to the council. And, without meaningful analysis, the
contracts were approved by the Oakland City Council a short time later.

FINDINGS

Finding 16-6:
Financial analysis of numerous contract provisions providing for economic
benefits to the city was insufficient. Little or no analysis of the ultimate
financial impact to ratepayers was performed.

Finding 16-7:
The city of Oaklands contracting process failed to achieve a competitive bidding
environment.

Finding 16-8:
The city drafted RFP provisions that favored the incumbents and suppressed
competition.

Finding 16-9:
The citys official contracting process was abandoned and replaced by the
contractors closed-door negotiations.

Finding 16-10:
Public transparency was undermined by the contractors closed-door
negotiations.

Finding 16-11:
There was little to no public debate before the city council concerning
disproportionately high franchise fees.

Finding 16-12:
Collection rates paid by Oakland businesses and multi-family residences were
markedly higher than those in surrounding communities.

Finding 16-13:
Franchise fees paid by the citys garbage collection contractor, passed on to
Oakland ratepayers, are disproportionately higher than franchise fees paid to
other Bay Area municipalities and special districts.

40
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 16-4:
Given the complexity and enormous financial impact of the existing franchise
contracts, the city of Oakland should start planning and preparing to solicit
competitive bids for contracts to be in place sufficiently in advance of the
expiration of the existing agreements.

Recommendation 16-5:
The city of Oakland should ensure, when available, that the RFP processes be
flexible enough to allow potential vendors to propose alternative, innovative
responses.

Recommendation 16-6:
The city of Oakland must ensure that subsequent agreements are solicited and
awarded with complete transparency to the ratepayers, the parties whom
ultimately bear the cost of the services. Rates charged should be reasonably
related to the cost of the services provided.

Recommendation 16-7:
To ensure transparency, the city of Oakland must publicly report on and have
public discussion regarding franchise fees (and how those fees are to be used)
in any city contract.

Recommendation 16-8:
The Oakland City Council must ensure adequate resources to validate the
completeness and accuracy of contract proposals. This may require the support
of an independent financial analysis.

Recommendation 16-9:
The city of Oakland should immediately begin to consider a long term strategy
to correction of the short-comings of the current contract, including:
a) Specific timelines and milestones required to assure a truly competitive
process is developed;
b) Evaluation of innovations such as a city-owned transfer station;
c) Regular financial review and assessment focused on the actual cost of
services provided and ratepayer impact; and
d) Involvement of impacted communities and public transparency.

41
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

RESPONSES REQUIRED
Responding Agencies Please see page 125 for instructions

Mayor, City of Oakland:


Findings 16-6 through 16-13
Recommendations 16-4 through 16-9

Oakland City Council:


Findings 16-6 through 16-13
Recommendations 16-4 through 16-9

42
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

THE FAILURE OF EDEN TOWNSHIP


HEALTHCARE DISTRICTS MISSION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Grand Jury received a citizen complaint that the Eden Township
Healthcare District (ETHD, dba Eden Health District) does not adequately
provide for healthcare needs of its residents. The complaint also questioned
whether the district should continue to exist.

According to its Mission Statement, the district exists:

To improve the health of the people in our community by investing resources


in health and wellness programs that meet identified goals.

After a thorough investigation, the Grand Jury found that ETHD has failed
in its core mission effectiveness; that is, how the organization carries out its
planned goals and objectives. The district does not engage in advanced
strategic planning practices, but rather, has chosen to muddle through
governance and managerial responsibilities. Its poor management and
absence of innovation results in very little impact on the health of Alameda
County residents within the district.

ETHD is a multi-million dollar healthcare district. In examining the


districts financial statements, budgets, projections and planning
documents, the Grand Jury found that the district provides no direct
medical services and its forecasted grant awards to service providers
account for a mere 12% of the districts total expenses. The Grand Jury
found that 88% of the districts budget is spent on real estate,
administration, legal and consulting fees. In effect, ETHD is essentially a
commercial real estate management operation rather than an indirect (or
direct) healthcare provider for citizens of the community.

Having determined the districts ineffective execution of its mission, the


Grand Jury found the citizen complaint to be valid and questions whether
the Eden Township Healthcare District should continue to exist.

BACKGROUND

Eden Township Healthcare District is one of 78 healthcare districts in


California. Healthcare districts are among a broader class of special
districts which were created to deliver public health services to a resident
population. Virtually all healthcare districts today were once named
43
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

hospital districts with one common purpose: to construct and operate


community hospitals. Currently, only 40% of districts provide direct
healthcare services; for example, owning and operating hospitals, clinics,
assisted care or primary care facilities, ambulance transport, or senior
housing. Others, like ETHD, provide indirect services to residents through
third party healthcare providers; for example, providing funds to support
community based organizations. Funding district operations for these
services is usually achieved by resident-approved property tax assessments
and/or through for-profit business ventures.

The primary purpose and mission at the time of the districts founding in
1948 was to finance, construct and operate a community hospital in Castro
Valley, which subsequently opened in the fall of 1954 as Eden Medical
Center (EMC). Once the accumulation of capital for district expansion
projects was no longer needed during the 1960s and into the 1970s, the
district ceased levying taxes to fund its operations in 1977.

Eden Township Healthcare District boundaries include Castro Valley and


San Lorenzo, Hayward and San Leandro. District residents numbered over
360,000 in 2010, and that number is projected to increase to over 437,000
by 2035. ETHD does not currently levy taxes, although it is considering
levying a parcel tax on residents in the near future. Rather, it owns and
operates office buildings and generates rental income for district operations
and mission activities.

In 1994 the state mandated specific seismic upgrades for all hospitals. The
district had three options to comply: replace the old Eden Medical Center
(EMC) with a new hospital by 2013; retrofit EMC; or, close EMC operations
by 2020. ETHD needed $300 million to replace and construct a new
hospital in Castro Valley. It asked Sutter Health (a not-for-profit healthcare
system) to form a partnership to complete the project. In April 1997, district
voters authorized ETHD to sell its major assets (Eden Medical Center and
Laurel Grove Hospital) to Sutter Health for $80 million, on the condition
that the district retain Eden Medical Centers $57 million building fund and
its community health fund, valued at $37 million.

With these funds, ETHD purchased two medical office properties to


generate income. The district used funds and other capital derived from its
sale of assets to Sutter Health. The buildings that were purchased were:
the San Leandro Medical Arts Building in 2004 ($3.2 million) and the
Dublin Gateway Building in 2007 ($82 million). In 2013, the district
opened the Eden Medical Building ($7.2 million) that it built, owns, and
operates. Property purchases were partially financed by mortgages
amounting to $45.5 million.

44
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

In 2004, ETHD acquired San Leandro Hospital and immediately leased it to


Sutter, with an option to purchase. In 2009, Sutter exercised that option to
purchase, but ETHD refused to comply due to concerns by some in the
community that the emergency department would be closed. Sutter Health
soon after sued, alleging that ETHD violated their agreement. From 2009 to
2013, ongoing lawsuits and appeals resulted in the district not prevailing in
any of them. All in all, the judgment against ETHD was $19 million
including interest and fees. The district has made one payment, bringing
the current liability to $17.7 million.

INVESTIGATION

The Grand Jury initiated an investigation to determine: (1) whether the


purpose of ETHD is relevant since it no longer owns and operates a district
hospital or otherwise provides direct healthcare needs for district residents;
(2) whether the districts mission activities are effective; and (3) what factors,
if any, contribute to the question of whether or not ETHD should continue
to exist. The Grand Jury reviewed numerous reports, public documents and
heard witness testimony during its investigation.

Discussion

Eden Township Healthcare District has two main functions: 1) oversight


and management of its development and maintenance of property holdings,
leasing office units, and handling its investments; and 2) administering
grants and sponsorships to various organizations, which are more or less
associated with ETHDs purpose and mission. The districts oversight and
management of its real estate holdings currently contributes little, if any,
value to delivering healthcare services. However, the district spends a
disproportionate amount of time managing its holdings. Consequently, it
has little time to administer grants and sponsorships to various
organizations to provide healthcare services.

Business Enterprise Activity: Real Estate Ownership and Management

The Grand Jury heard testimony that the districts main business is in
rentals and investments, which consists of developing and maintaining the
organizations real-estate assets and lease operations. The districts three
income-generating medical office buildings are not managed by ETHD;
rather, ETHD pays third parties to manage building operations, including
tenant recruitment, lease executions, and staffing. These facilities are
expected to generate $2.8 million, $822,000, and $434,000 respectively in
lease income for 2016. Additionally, in March 2016, the district completed
the sale of a portion of one property (4000 Dublin Gateway) in the city of

45
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

Dublin for a sale price of $33.9 million, with all proceeds used to pay part of
the mortgage for that property.

Health and Wellness Projects

The district administers income generated from a $12 million cash


management portfolio and other investments for purposes of funding a
community grants program for the marginalized, underserved, high-risk
and special needs populations of the district.

Grants and sponsorships are awarded to third party, healthcare


community-based organizations (CBOs) or to government related agencies.
In the past three years, the district annually awarded between $200,000 to
$300,000 in grants, which is less than 5% of the organizations total
expenses. In the previous 15 years, ETHD dispersed $10 million in grants
to over 60 organizations. Current district policy is to allocate 65% of its
regulated investment proceeds to community grants.

The districts failure to perform advanced (strategic) planning has


jeopardized the districts ability to fund third party CBOs. For example, in
2010-2011, ETHD actually suspended grants to third party CBO health
providers. However, the Grand Jury noted that the district chose to make
two funding awards. The first was an award of $500,000 to the Davis Street
Family Resource Center for the purchase of a building. The second was a
$3 million loan to St. Rose Hospital in order for St. Rose to meet its payroll
expenses. St. Rose has since suspended repayment of the loan back to
ETHD.

The Grand Jury noted that Eden Township Healthcare District provided
partial funding for a diabetes education and health fair event in September
2015, which was co-sponsored by a multinational pharmaceutical
company. The event involved several local community health organizations.
A few other events were planned in the spring of 2016, each focusing on
health education issues. The stated purposes of these events were two-fold:
(a) to educate the general public and provide free resources for the
prevention, diagnosis and treatment of health issues such as diabetes; and
(b) to generate awareness of the purpose and mission of the ETHD. Given
the lack of follow-up data, however, the Grand Jury was unable to assess
the impact or value for all district residents.

In November 2015, the district entered into a partnership agreement with


Davis Street Family Resource Center to assist that organization in funding
community health needs. The agreement requires ETHD to commit
$250,000 annually, to be paid in monthly installments for a period of five

46
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

years. However, this agreement may be jeopardized due to the districts


pending lawsuit with Sutter. The lawsuit is subject to final resolution on
appeal, and until the appeal has been resolved, there remains a risk that
the district may be unable to fund the Davis Street project as required by
its agreement. The lawsuit poses a $17.7 million liability to the district. The
remaining issue on appeal is whether the district will be required to pay the
$17.7 million as a lump-sum payment or whether the district may satisfy
its liability through payments over ten years.

District Financial Summary

The districts recent sale of its Dublin property to a tenant, who exercised a
lease option to purchase, will materially impact its debt, asset, book value,
and cash flow. The figures for 2016 include adjustments to its original
budget provided by the district to the Grand Jury, and reflect
approximations for planning purposes. (Please refer to the chart on page 49 for
greater details.) In light of this sale and the information provided, the Grand
Jury notes ETHDs financial condition as follows:

1) An analysis of the 2015-2016 budget and audited financial


statements, indicate that ETHD has $12 million in cash reserves.
After the Dublin property sale, the district forecasted
approximately $800,000 in positive cash flow for FY2016,
reflecting a decrease in cash flow from approximately $2 million.

2) Only a minimal amount of profits derived from the real estate


activities are allocated for the districts mission-related
community grants program for the underserved or other district
residents. All real estate tenants are either medical professionals
or related medical operations, such as medical labs paying
market rate rents. There is no evidence that any of the spaces
leased in the districts office buildings are used by non-profit or
community based organizations.

3) A full 76% of the districts 2015-2016 operating budget is spent


on real estate activities (which includes paying down debt on
ETHDs medical office buildings, property management,
maintenance, administrative expenses and staffing), while an
additional 12% is spent on district administration, legal, and
consulting expenses. Total spending on items other than direct or
indirect healthcare programs is approximately 88% of the
districts total budget.

47
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

4) The long-term debt of the district is $29.3 million. This sum


includes:

$11.6 million mortgage debt remaining on medical office


buildings; and

$17.7 million remaining debt as a result of the failed


lawsuits and counter suits between the district and Sutter
Health.

5) Based on the ETHDs financial statements for budget years 2013-


2015, funds allocated for the organizations community grants
program has historically been in the range of 2% to 3.5% of
district expenses. After the recent Dublin Gateway property sale,
community grants would increase to 12% of the organizations
expenses with the revised FY2016 budget.

The Grand Jury is concerned that residents of the district are unaware of
ETHDs financial priorities and inability to provide a wide range of direct
healthcare and/or health related services. The failed Sutter lawsuit
continues to negatively impact the already precarious financial condition of
the district originally caused by a series of management and legal missteps
with Sutter Health. There is little evidence of ongoing, serious strategic
planning practices for the allocation and expenditure of public resources
that focus on meeting clearly identified goals. In the opinion of the Grand
Jury, the districts decision to prioritize its financial planning for real estate
management, rather than to deliver healthcare services for the benefit of its
residents, has led to an unfortunate misallocation of public resources.

On another note, in November 2015, ETHD officials were certified by the


Association of California Healthcare Districts for meeting high healthcare
district governance standards set for participating members in the
association. The district is one of twelve in the state to have received such
certification. Because of the commendable public transparency of the
district, the Grand Jury was able to study a variety of easily accessible
documents such as audited financial statements, planning documents,
budgets, board agendas, meeting minutes, and other information. The
availability of these documents enhanced the Grand Jurys investigation
into a citizens allegations against the districts purpose, mission and
operations. Thus, ETHD residents and other stakeholders have open access
to the districts current operational realities.

48
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

Summary of District Finances 2013 through 2016

4/6/2015 ETHD, $ 000's As of 3/22/2016


Audited Audited Audited Original Gateway Pro Forma
Plan Plan Estimate
2013 2014 2015 2016 2016 2016

Rental Income 3,763 4,306 4,708 4,854 2,230 2,624


Tenant Income 669 838 947 890 431 459
Taxes 0 0 0 0 0 0
Operating Income 4,432 5,144 5,655 5,744 2,661 3,083

Operating Expenses 6,762 6,693 6,789 6,584 2,156 4,428

Operating loss -2,330 -1,549 -1,134 -840 505 -1,345

Interest income 388 322 303 314 0 314


Other income 200 50 750 0 0 0

Gain/(loss) on invest -233 -46 -153 0 0 0


Interest Expense ** -1,480 -1,346 -1,378 -1,349 -733 -616
Legal settlement charge -19,673

Net Loss -3,455 -2,569 -21,285 -1,875 -228 -1,647

Depreciation & Amort 3,674 4,073 3,977 3,952 1,508 2,444


Legal settlement charge 0 0 19,673

Cash generated 219 1,504 2,365 2,077 1,280 797

Grants & Sponsorships 134 186 229 278 278


Davis Street Commitment 250 250
% of total expenses 2.0% 2.8% 3.4% 8.0% 11.9%
% of cash expenses 4.3% 7.1% 8.1% 10.6% 14.0%

** Note interest expense adjusted to reflect new estimate of $616,0000 on remaining


mortagage of 11,600,000 per ETHD projections

49
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

Lack of Advanced (Strategic) Planning Practices

In 2013, district officials adopted what they described as a five-year plan.


Prior to 2013, the last time ETHD conducted a plan review was 2009. The
Grand Jury found this planning to be insufficient. It failed to demonstrate
advanced planning practices within the organization as described by
Alameda Countys Local Agency Planning Commission (ALAFCo). Rather,
the planning stance of the district consists of wait-and-see or what the
Grand Jury concludes as one of muddling through. One witness testified
that district officials stand by and wait to respond to community health
needs so the organization may remain nimble. The Grand Jury finds that
the districts planning is anything but nimble; rather, it is fairly
characterized, at best, as plodding.

An example of negligent planning is shown in the results of a district survey


of residents in May 2012, titled Public Perception of ETHD. The surveys
purpose was designed to assess residents awareness and opinions about
the district. Survey results show that 55% of respondents prior to taking
the survey had never heard of Eden Township Healthcare District. An
additional 24% of respondents had heard of the organization, but had no
opinion about it. Only 18% of the responses were positive. The Grand Jury
found no evidence of formal planning by ETHD officials to remedy the
communitys unawareness of the district as revealed by the 2012 survey.

The Grand Jury reviewed ETHD and Alameda Local Agency Formation
Commission (ALAFCo) documents relating to the districts strategic plan
and goals. Beginning in 2013, district officials reported to ALAFCo on its
various plans and goals, attempting to articulate what had been
accomplished. (See Alameda Local Agency Formation Commission, page 57.) Since
there are insufficient advanced district-wide strategic plans, the Grand Jury
noted that many goals referring to future plans are not proactively
formulated from within the district. Rather, district goals are short-term
reactions, forced by unanticipated circumstances, or ideas from outside the
organization. For example:

District officials reported to ALAFCo during ETHDs November 13,


2015 oversight review meeting that it was exploring possibilities of
providing dental services in the city of Dublin. The Grand Jury
learned that this idea was not developed through internal planning
processes, but rather from an idea suggested by an elected Dublin
official.

50
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

The district publicized that it had loaned cash-strapped St. Rose


Hospital $3 million to make payroll, a loan that is still partially
outstanding. This took place only after the hospital reached out to
the district after being turned away from other funding sources.

It was reported that ETHD was considering asking voters to approve


a parcel tax. The Grand Jury learned that this was an idea that came
from a member of the Alameda County Board of Supervisors.

ETHD recently sold its Dublin Gateway office building and used the
money from the sale to pay down its debt. This action was not the
result of strategic planning from within ETHD, but rather, the
buildings tenant exercising its option to purchase the building.

The districts plan document, Strategic Plan Priorities, has seven priority
declarations that are not goal statements even though the organizations
mission states that it invests in resources that meet identified goals.
The priorities lack language that would inform residents and other
stakeholders that any mission-accomplishments of the district are planned
for and budgeted. The following list is a verbatim presentation of the
districts seven priorities:

(a) Providing educational programs to promote health among adults


and children in collaboration with schools, libraries and health
centers.

(b) Providing funding through the Community Health Fund for the
underserved population of the district.

(c) Providing services directly, such as urgent care or outpatient


psychiatric services, which are needed in the community.

(d) Continuing to maintain investment properties that serve a medical or


health purpose or provide revenue that may support such a purpose.

(e) Strategically manage and divesting itself of properties that may


better promote the districts other strategies.

(f) Increasing awareness of the districts purpose and value to the


residents of the district as evidenced by substantial increase in the
number of people of the district who understand its purpose and its
services to the community.

51
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

(g) Remaining financially sound and manage its operations towards


this goal.

These priorities fail to articulate, or to detail in any reasonable fashion, how


and when the district intends to accomplish its core mission: to deliver
health services to the community.

Examples of Lack of Planning

In a planning-related document obtained by the Grand Jury, and from


corroborating information gathered from witness testimony, the Grand Jury
learned that:

In the fall of 2015, the district pivoted from providing direct


healthcare to indirectly providing loosely defined programs and
services. The Grand Jury observed that such a major decision was
executed in the absence of advanced planning. ETHD failed to
provide information to the community and did not provide
opportunities for public input.

The Grand Jury heard testimony that ETHD officials do not believe
that promoting or creating public awareness, such as marketing of
the organization, is necessary for its mission.

The Grand Jury found no evidence that the district integrates its
planning to achieve meaningful collaboration with Alameda County
Healthcare Services, the government organization mandated to serve
the needs of the poor and underserved in Alameda County.

The Grand Jury found that district residents and other stakeholders
have little information on how the district correlates grant awards
and sponsorships in order to meet the health needs of the
community.

District officials leverage resources through the formation of third


party partnerships to indirectly deliver health programs and services
to district residents. The Grand Jury found little or no evidence that
ETHD performed meaningful evaluations to determine if these third
party providers achieved the specific intended outcomes for which
they were funded.

52
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

CONCLUSION

Strategic plans describe what an organization intends to be in the future


(the vision), and how it intends to achieve that vision (the plan).

Strategic planning is essential. It is what elected officials and managers of


governmental agencies are expected to do for the efficiency, effectiveness,
and economical delivery of public services. And it is equally essential to
ensure transparency and accountability. In the case of the Eden Township
Healthcare District, it neither has a vision nor a mission plan consisting of
stated goals, objectives, and strategies that describe how the district
expects to navigate its future existence and be relevant for the citizens it
serves.

In the absence of meaningful strategic planning practices, ETHDs elected


officials govern the organizations mission from a reactive perspective. The
Grand Jury believes district residents and other stakeholders appear to be
unaware of the implications of this situation.

ETHD spends 88% of its resources managing its real estate holdings and
only 12% on mission-related activities. With this balance of resource
allocation, the district struggles to deliver (directly or indirectly) adequate
healthcare services for all residents. There is minimal evidence of active,
informed citizen participation in district affairs. Agency officials do not
solicit district-wide feedback or input from other healthcare organizations to
evaluate and plan for greater mission effectiveness. Equally troublesome,
there is no meaningful strategic planning in place to correct these matters.

The districts original purpose is no longer relevant since ETHD no longer


owns and operates a district hospital or other direct care assets to deliver
acute healthcare solutions. Unless ETHD has a clear vision and a defined
strategic plan to be relevant, it should be dissolved.

The citizens complaint, which initiated the Grand Jurys investigation, is


warranted. It reflects accurate perceptions concerning the mission-realities
of the Eden Township Healthcare District.

FINDINGS

Finding 16-14:
The Eden Township Healthcare District lacks a clear vision of its future as a
viable governmental agency.

53
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

Finding 16-15:
The execution of the Eden Township Healthcare Districts mission is
ineffective because it does not engage in advanced strategic planning
practices. The district lacks information concerning the needs of its
residents and fails to take steps to assess those needs.

Finding 16-16:
The amount of resources devoted to the Eden Township Healthcare
Districts primary mission is only 12% of its total expenses. Although an
improvement over the historical 5%, this ratio is an indication that the
districts attention has been diverted away from its primary mission, which
is to improve the health of the people in our community.

Finding 16-17:
Survey data showing that district residents have little or no knowledge or
opinion of ETHDs existence demonstrates ETHDs failure to deliver on its
stated mission.

Finding 16-18:
Eden Township Healthcare Districts current priorities lack concrete action
plans, timelines, funding sources, or a rationale that would inform
residents how and when plan priorities will be achieved.

Finding 16-19:
ETHDs stated priority to provide direct healthcare services to the
community is unachievable under its current operating structure. This
problem highlights the fact that the district has not aligned its strategic
priorities with the reality of its operating structure.

Finding 16-20:
The Eden Township Healthcare Districts passive approach to planning has
resulted in a lack of short- and long-term objectives. It reduces the
organization to haphazardly funding its priorities on a reactionary or
politically driven basis.

Finding 16-21:
There is little or no evidence of collaboration between the Eden Township
Healthcare District and the Alameda County Health Care Services Agency.
Lack of collaboration is wasteful and detrimental to the community the
district serves.

54
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 16-10:
The Eden Township Healthcare District must conduct community
assessments giving all district residents and other stakeholders the
opportunity to provide input for strategic planning purposes.

Recommendation 16-11:
The Eden Township Healthcare District must create and articulate a clear
vision for the district that serves as a basis for advanced strategic planning
practices that meet the expectations of residents and other stakeholders.

Recommendation 16-12:
The Eden Township Healthcare District must take steps to correlate its
grant programs to meet specific identified needs of the diverse demographic
of its residents.

Recommendation 16-13:
The Eden Township Healthcare District must collaborate with the Alameda
County Health Care Services Agency and show evidence that they have
identified short- and long-term priorities that address the districts core
mission and functions.

Recommendation 16-14:
The Eden Township Healthcare District must take additional steps to
publicly provide health information, educational resources, news and
community events to all district residents.

Recommendation 16-15:
In conjunction with Eden Township Healthcare Districts next board
election, the district must provide the electorate with a choice to vote on
whether the district should continue to exist.

RESPONSES REQUIRED
Responding Agencies Please see page 125 for instructions

Eden Township Healthcare District Board of Directors:


Findings 16-14 through 16-21
Recommendations 16-10 through 16-15

55
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

[This page intentionally left blank]

56
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

ALAMEDA LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Pursuant to state mandate, the Eden Township Healthcare District (ETHD,


dba Eden Health District) falls within the oversight jurisdiction of the
Alameda Local Agency Formation Commission (ALAFCo). During the Grand
Jurys investigation of ETHD, ALAFCos oversight role in relation to the
district came into question (See The Failure of Eden Township Healthcare
Districts Mission, page 43). The Grand Jury sought to determine whether
ALAFCos oversight of the districts advanced (strategic) planning processes
initiated by the 2013 Municipal Service Review (MSR) was adequate.

The findings and conclusions from the Grand Jurys ETHD investigation
suggest the district does not implement advanced (strategic) planning
practices. As a consequence, there is no accountability system to monitor
the spending of public resources that are earmarked to provide effective
healthcare deliverables to all district residents, including, most importantly,
the marginalized and underserved.

As a result of the Grand Jurys investigation, it was found that there has
been insufficient monitoring of the 2013 MSR and of ALAFCos follow-up
protocols for 2013, 2014, and 2015. Additionally, ALAFCo lacked political
will to confront the reality of ETHDs ineffective execution of its mission and
delivery of services. The districts residents cannot be assured that the Eden
Township Healthcare District provides meaningful and inclusive public
health services as stated in its mission.

BACKGROUND

In 1963, the California Legislature created and mandated that each of the
states 58 counties establish a regulatory boundary agency called a Local
Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo). All LAFCos are political
subdivisions of the state created by the legislature made up of appointees
representing counties, cities, special districts and the public. Commissions
oversee and establish procedures for changes in the organization of local
governments within their jurisdictions for purposes of shaping and
increasing local governmental efficiencies in the delivery of public services.

57
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

The legislative intent of Local Agency Formation Commissions is to:


Encourage orderly growth of governmental agencies.
Promote efficient and orderly formation of local governmental
agencies.
Contribute to logical and reasonable development.
Shape development of local agencies to provide for present and
future needs of the county and its communities.
Ensure efficient, sustainable public services.
Preserve agricultural land resources, open space and discourage and
prevent urban sprawl.

In California, LAFCos oversee 2,109 independent special districts. By


comparison, there are only 482 city governments and 58 county
governments in the state. These agencies conduct municipal service reviews
every five years for special districts and other local jurisdictions within their
respective counties. Each LAFCo is required to review and report that local
governments provide balanced, effective public services and that the
delivery of those services is done efficiently and economically.

INVESTIGATION

The findings of the Grand Jurys investigation into a citizens complaint


pertaining to the ineffectiveness and execution of the mission of the Eden
Township Healthcare District led to the Jurys questioning the oversight
role ALAFCo has played in recent years. Specifically, the Grand Jury needed
to establish whether ALAFCos oversight of ETHDs 2013 MSR has been
adequate for residents served by the district.

Including witness testimony, the Grand Jury analyzed the following ALAFCo
documents: (a) 2004 Sphere of Influence Service Review of ETHD; (b) ETHD
2013 MSR; (c) Resolution 2013-14: Adopting Municipal Service Review
Determinations, Sphere of Influence Determinations, and Updating the Sphere
of Influence for the Eden Township Healthcare District; (d) Resolution 2014-
07: Updating the Sphere of Influence for the Eden Township Healthcare
District; and (e) Staff memo dated November 5, 2015 to the commissioners
regarding ETHD CEOs status report updating Resolution 2014-07 for the
commissioners November 12, 2015 meeting.

The Grand Jury determined that ETHD does not engage in advance
strategic planning practices, and spends too little of its resources on its
primary mission. As a result of this investigation, the Grand Jury found (a)
that ALAFCo missed opportunities to authenticate and identify these
problems; and (b) the responses to ETHDs annual 2013 follow-up reports

58
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

did not appear to be aligned with or responsive to ALAFCos earlier


demands.

Critics of LAFCos claim the commissions have a bias towards maintaining


local governmental agencies. As a result of that bias, LAFCos rarely if ever
muster the political will to dissolve or consolidate special districts even if
the districts purpose and mission are no longer justified. ALAFCos lack of
awareness and verification that ETHD district officials have not and do not
participate in sufficient advanced planning practices to guide its mission
and future operations is unfortunate. This lack of attention gives credence
to LAFCo critics about a bias of maintaining the status quo.

CONCLUSION

The Alameda Local Agency Formation Commission has provided inadequate


oversight of the Eden Township Healthcare District resulting in maintaining
the status quo of a public agency whose purpose and mission are no longer
relevant or effective.

FINDINGS

Finding 16-22:
As a result of ALAFCos lack of oversight of ETHDs advanced (strategic)
planning practices, residents and other stakeholders of the district are
unaware whether ETHD has long-term capacity, or even the intent, to
provide well-planned delivery of efficient and sustainable health programs
and services.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 16-16:
The Alameda Local Agency Formation Commission must ensure that the
Eden Township Healthcare Districts strategic planning aligns with ETHDs
current operational structure.

Recommendation 16-17:
The Alameda Local Agency Formation Commission must provide greater
scrutiny and oversight of the Eden Township Healthcare District to ensure
that current and future Municipal Service Reviews are effectively
constructed to meet the districts adherence to advanced (strategic)
planning practices and on-going reporting to residents and other
stakeholders of successful mission outcomes.

59
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

Recommendation 16-18:
The Alameda Local Agency Formation Commission must employ its
initiatory powers (planning and regulatory) to decide the public value of the
Eden Township Healthcare District in light of the overall needs of the
district and act accordingly by either recommending dissolution or
consolidation.

RESPONSES REQUIRED
Responding Agencies Please see page 125 for instructions

Alameda Local Agency Formation Commission Board


Finding 16-22
Recommendations 16-16 through 16-18

60
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

OVERSIGHT OF COUNTY FUNDED


COMMUNITY BASED ORGANIZATIONS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Four years ago, the Grand Jury examined how both the Alameda County Social
Services Agency (SSA) and the Health Care Services Agency (HCSA) monitored
and evaluated the nearly half billion dollars in contracts that it had with
community based organizations (CBOs). Ultimately, the Grand Jury
recommended that the county bolster their oversight efforts by adopting
results-based accountability (RBA). As a result, the county accepted the Grand
Jurys recommendations, and both agencies took concrete steps to improve
their oversight of contracts they had with community organizations. Currently,
an estimated 60% of all CBO contracts with the county have some reporting
requirement on outcomes. This figure is too low.

The 2015-2016 Grand Jury examined these departments progress in the


implementation of this improved oversight method. There still appears to be
insufficient resources assigned to this effort and key champions who initiated
these programs have left their positions. The Grand Jury has found that many
county contracts are still being renewed, year-after-year without competitive
rebidding or, at the very least, without meaningful evaluation of outcomes.
There is little to indicate that under-performing CBOs are being held
accountable. Nearly a half billion dollars a year has been committed to fund
CBO programs, but the Alameda County Board of Supervisors (BOS) approves
these contracts without having any certainty that the money has been or will be
well spent.

BACKGROUND

The US Census Bureau estimates that more than 200,000 people, or 13% of
Alameda Countys population, live in poverty. The county government has the
primary responsibility to act as the safety net for those residents. In response,
Alameda County provides an impressive range of health and social services to
the countys most vulnerable populations.

The $1.4 billion combined budgets of the Alameda County Social Services
Agency (SSA) and the Alameda County Health Care Services Agency (HCSA)
(including nearly half billion contracted to CBOs), as well as the dedication of
county staff, are testaments to the countys commitment to serving citizens in
need. Some of those dollars go directly to fund traditional programs such as
General Assistance, CalFRESH (food stamps), and In-Home Support Services.

61
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

The county also contracts with over 200 local non-profit community based
organizations to provide direct services to the needy. For example, SSA
contracts with over 30 CBOs, spending $30 million annually related to
CalWORKS, and over 45 CBOs, spending another $30 million annually on
children and family services.

There are several reasons why the county relies upon CBOs to provide direct
services to those in need. These contracted organizations are best equipped to
meet the needs of those served within their diverse communities and are often
already embedded into the communities they serve. Many CBOs are relatively
small organizations and therefore can easily adapt to changing conditions and
needs of their target populations. Since contracts with CBOs are usually only
1-3 years, the county has the flexibility to discontinue programs as needs
change, although there is little evidence this occurs. By not being the direct
provider, the county reduces the number of permanent full-time employees
needed while also reducing its pension obligation. Fewer permanent staff also
reduces the need for office space. Finally CBOs are part of a place-based
economic development strategy. They can facilitate the flow of capital into
communities that then leads to potential employment opportunities.

The procurement, contracting, and managing of so many independent entities


is a large and complex undertaking. The Grand Jury heard testimony ranging
from staff being overwhelmed, to the oversight of programs not being properly
resourced or funded. More than one witness described the countys range of
services as rich, but, primarily due to staffing issues, poorly managed in some
areas.

Since the Grand Jurys recommendations in 2012, SSA established the Program
Evaluation and Research Unit (PERU) to develop performance-based metrics for
the CBOs under contract. PERU also began developing computer programs that
provide real time outcome data for some of the agencies. SSA also trained staff
and senior administrators regarding results-based accountability. In August of
2015, the BOS approved a Health Care Services Agency proposal to spend $1
million over four years to improve the oversight of nonprofit contractors using
result-based accountability. A portion of these funds is used by HCSAs
Community Assessment, Planning, and Evaluation Unit to train managers in
results-based accountability.

INVESTIGATION

The Grand Jury interviewed numerous witnesses including county elected


officials, administrators in the Social Services Agency, the Health Care Services
Agency, the General Services Agency, staff from community based
organizations, and experts in the field of CBO oversight and evaluation. The

62
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

Grand Jury visited service centers throughout the county wherein both county
employees and CBOs provide information and services, and attended public
meetings wherein county services were discussed. In addition, the Grand Jury
reviewed county procurement rules, the administrative code, CBO contracts,
selected contracting and bidding documents, board approval letters, oversight
and evaluation documents, and CBO results-based accountability data.

The Grand Jury heard testimony that while contracting with CBOs offers many
advantages, the oversight, evaluation, and consistency of so many independent
entities requires far more thoroughness and rigor than is occurring. Much of
the problem is due to a lack of resources, a lack of continuity in leadership
positions in SSA and HCSA, and a lack of the political will to demand objective
data on the efficacy of programs.

How CBO Contracting Works

Just as government funding sources are diverse, so is the manner in which


CBOs are selected. Normally, programing staff within SSA and HCSA or federal
and state policy makers determine the health and social service needs within
the community. Oftentimes, the state or the federal government provides funds
for specific target populations, and the county agencies respond by proposing
programs that fulfill the funding guidelines. Local dollars, such as Measure A
funds (See Constraints of the Measure A Oversight Committee, page 73) which are
generated through an Alameda County cent sales tax, are also used to fund
such programs. In most circumstances, once funding is identified or assigned, a
request for proposal (RFP) is issued outlining the program scope, the dollar
amount of a contract, its duration, and its reporting requirements. The countys
General Services Agency is responsible for developing county procurement
policies and can help individual departments manage the bidding process.

Typically, a panel of outside experts evaluates the responses to the RFP. The
proposals are ranked on a numerical scoring system covering a variety of
measures. There are no site visits currently required by the county procurement
rules. Staff prepares a letter for the BOS with its recommendations and
rankings of the bidders. Any contract award above $25,000 must be approved
by the board of supervisors.

The Grand Jury is concerned that a large percentage of existing contracts are
renewed, year after year, without requiring a new RFP. A review of the BOS
agenda each week reveals how many of the contracts that go before the board
are augmentations or extensions of existing contracts. Some contracts are
renewed because county staff believes a CBO is performing well, but the Grand
Jury heard from multiple witnesses that many others are renewed because
county staff is simply overwhelmed.

63
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

Testimony revealed that once under contract, few CBOs are non-renewed or de-
funded by the county. Several reasons were provided; chief among them is that
there has been little data other than anecdotal information that justifies a
termination of a contract or a non-renewal. Another reason given for retention
of a suspected under-performing CBO was that the county would rather help
them improve through assistance and training, particularly if the CBO has a
capacity to serve a specific population in need. More than one witness
suggested that there is political pressure from the board of supervisors to retain
some CBOs if a particular CBO is important to a constituency in their district,
particularly if there is no data suggesting poor performance. This echoes
evidence heard by the 2011-2012 Grand Jury.

The Grand Jury repeatedly heard that decision makers at all levels know to a
degree which CBOs are under-performing. Meaningful evaluations provide
county leaders with the necessary leverage to make change. The Grand Jury
heard testimony that it is not uncommon to hear comments such as, We just
spent this much money to get what? The county should not be beholden to
mediocre work when significant funds are intended to save lives.

Request for Proposal Innovations

Preparing a response to an RFP does not necessarily correspond to the capacity


of a CBO to actually provide high-quality services. While some CBOs have
longstanding staff and consistency within their organization, the Grand Jury
learned that others do not. Some CBOs hire professional writers. As a result,
they may be awarded contracts merely on the ability to submit an effective
response to an RFP, without having the ability to deliver the services effectively.

Witnesses testified that the selection process has to be more thorough to ensure
the capabilities of an organization and its professional staffing. The RFP should
include a statement by the CBO as to staff training, development, and how
people within the organization are encouraged to innovate to accomplish its
mission.

CBOs are given very little latitude to develop innovative programs in the current
RFP and renewal process. One suggestion made to the Grand Jury was that the
county describe the problem, not the solution, and then seek the CBO that
presents the most compelling program to address the issue. Another suggestion
was that those in the community should be involved in developing some RFPs
as they have insights and understanding of the types of interventions that
might work in a particular neighborhood. The Grand Jury acknowledges that
some funding agencies prescribe program methodologies that limit innovation.

64
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

Data Collection: Measuring Outputs Not Outcomes

When assessing the performance of CBOs, Alameda County has traditionally


focused on output or number of clients served. This data provides little
information about whether anyone is better off. It was not uncommon for
county staff to question the accuracy of the numbers, but because results-
based accountability reporting was not a part of the CBO contract with the
county, staff was left with little leverage to hold anyone accountable. In many
contracts, multiple state and federal funding agencies determine the metrics
and data collected to fulfill legal and audit requirements. This data generally
measures output and is required in order to comply with the law. This is
especially a factor in HCSA programs.

As an example of the need to reorient data to outcomes, the Grand Jury heard
evidence of a CBO with a contract to provide 104,010 hours of service spanning
34 different programs. Its report to the county for fiscal year 2014-2015
documented the provision of 99,980 hours of service to 2,343 eligible clients.
Such a report tells nothing of how the services helped the client, but rather
simply how many people were accessed. Witness testimony suggested that it
would be far more effective to monitor and report on client progress throughout
the treatment program. This may be accomplished in many ways. For example,
in the case of behavioral and mental health programs, a CBO could document
the length of stay in a facility, the treatment progress, and reason for discharge.
In a job placement program, data would include what type of job was obtained,
if the job was full-time, and how long the client remained employed.

The same is true in child protective services. Simply reporting on how many
families were served tells nothing about whether anyone is better off.

The Grand Jury acknowledges that the collection of more meaningful outcome
data has improved within both SSA and HCSA since the 2011-2012 Grand Jury
Final Report. The reporting requirements in new contracts have begun to
increase the emphasis on outcomes in addition to outputs. In SSA, for example,
evaluation requirements embodied in CBO contracts now appear to focus on
these basic concepts:

How much was done? (output)


How well was it done? (outcome)
Is anyone better off? (outcome)

Currently, an estimated 60% of all CBO contracts with the county have some
reporting requirement on outcomes. The Grand Jury concludes that this figure
is too low given the four years since the board of supervisors acknowledged the
need for results-based accountability.

65
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

In addition to helping write RBA outcome measures into CBO contracts, the
SSAs Planning, Evaluation and Research Unit (PERU) has the responsibility to
periodically evaluate certain federal and state grant programs and provide those
reports to the granting agencies. Although they only complete a handful of these
evaluations each year, the Grand Jury was impressed with the two
comprehensive reports it examined. The following is a summary of one
evaluation by PERU, dated July of 2014. The Grand Jury views this type of
report as essential in monitoring CBOs.

The Gathering Place (TGP) is a visitation center for children in foster


care to visit with their families. It is a collaboration between Alameda
County Department of Children and Family Services, Alameda County
Behavioral Health Care Services, and CBO contractor Alternative
Family Services. It opened in Oakland in April of 2011 and in
Pleasanton in March of 2012 with a budget for fiscal year 2013-14 of
approximately $1 million. It provides three types of visitation,
therapeutic, supervised, or observed, each with appropriate
professional counselors. The goal is to help families progress to
unsupervised visitation and to facilitate early, stable reunification, and
permanence.

The evaluation report includes the complete description of the clientele,


sixteen key findings of the program since its inception, and makes
seven recommendations based on surveys of parents, child welfare
workers, and focus groups. The report specifies areas with high levels
of satisfaction, areas for improvement, and suggestions for
improvement. It also includes quotes from parent participants.

The aforementioned report is very thorough, complete with numbers,


graphs and descriptive material that critically evaluates if participants are
better off with the services received. The above report provides a detailed
analysis of the therapeutic and supervised visits. The conclusion includes
describing both the efficacy of the program as well as concerns regarding
less impressive findings.

Both SSA and HCSA are also beginning to rely on dashboards (a computer
program used to display data collected from CBOs). These dashboards provide
statistical snapshots of a program that allows staff to monitor CBOs and more
easily ascertain performance, particularly by comparing with similar CBOs.
Program staff may make periodic visits to CBOs under their purview, but the
Grand Jury learned that more on-site visits early in the contract period would
help identify data collection issues that could then be corrected before a
reporting deadline.

66
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

Data Collection Issues

The Grand Jury heard testimony that developing outcome measures must be
individualized for different types of contracts. With hundreds of contracts, this
process can be difficult if the effort is not properly staffed and funded. The
Grand Jury learned that too many measures can be overly burdensome. Within
SSA, outcome measures are developed by PERU, which collaborates with
programming staff who oversee the day-to-day operations of the CBOs, the
contracts department which writes the contracts, along with the finance
department.

These four different departments within SSA had little contact with each other
before the results-based accountability program was initiated. There were
concerns and tension that PERU was spying over the other departments work
but the Grand Jury heard testimony that as relationships developed, their
interaction only strengthened the overall mission of the Social Services Agency.
The Grand Jury believes there is insufficient staff to create the measurement
tools, make them operational, and then evaluate the results. Because county
staff is beleaguered managing the existing system, they are unable to undertake
new procedures or innovations. There is also a difference of opinion within
agencies of what can and should be measured and no culture of collaboration
to resolve these differences.

Including RBA measures in CBO contracts in itself is insufficient. CBOs must


have the capacity to collect and report necessary outcome data. The data must
be evaluated and then passed on to programming staff to determine the needs
of the community. This provides leverage to determine if the CBO has fulfilled
its mission.

One major concern that the Grand Jury has identified is that several
champions of RBA have left their departments, and the programs may no longer
be a top priority. Without commitment to results-based accountability
throughout the organization and without the support of the Alameda County
Board of Supervisors, little will change.

Management of CBOs

Over $485 million was expended by Alameda County this year to contract with
256 CBOs. The procurement, contracting, and management of so many
independent entities is a large and complex endeavor.

The Grand Jury heard testimony from several witnesses that the number of
CBOs makes it near impossible, given the number of staff within SSA and
HCSA, to assure that each is performing well and providing the highest level of

67
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

service to the public. Some of these CBOs have highly professional staff with
long-term employment and excellent management systems that include
employee training, promotion and retention. Some have a high level of technical
expertise to support data acquisition, analysis, and reporting, and have
excellent reputations within the communities they serve. Many of these CBOs
have contracts with other agencies outside the county and are supported in
large part through grants, other public funding, and philanthropy. However,
many are small, have high staff turnover, rely primarily on county funding, and
have little technical capacity.

Generally, if a CBO is struggling to provide contracted services, county staff


may not be aware until it is time for contract renewal, as some CBOs provide
insufficient or inaccurate performance data. The Grand Jury heard testimony
that while the county can and does provide some assistance, it is the CBOs
responsibility to train its staff and provide professional development within its
organization.

The Grand Jury heard evidence that many of the smaller CBOs do not have the
in-house capability to adopt new data systems if required by a county contract.
The Grand Jury believes that the county must provide more administrative and
technology support for CBOs. This will not only help these organizations evolve,
but also improve the quality of services they offer.

Witnesses suggested a variety of strategies to strengthen those CBOs with less


service capacity and few professional staff. One such strategy is to provide more
technical support for a group of contracted CBOs with contracts under
$1 million. For example, the county could provide a specialized CBO
management team that would evaluate staff needs and detect problems quickly.
Such support would include employee development, data collection, analysis,
and reporting.

Based on testimony, the Grand Jury suggests that the overall organization of
CBOs be reconsidered. Rather than the county contracting individually with so
many different entities, it could cluster smaller CBOs under one umbrella CBO
which would then subcontract to providers in a given program area, such as for
youth services. The main contractor would then be responsible for collecting,
analyzing and disseminating data among all the subcontracted CBOs and the
county. This strategy would also reduce the oversight required by county staff,
allowing them to focus on program development, increasing CBO capacity, and
strengthening its RFP management. A further benefit is that CBOs, when
working collaboratively, may approach services with more innovation.

68
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

The Grand Jury heard testimony from multiple sources that there is too little
collaboration among different county agencies contracting for the same services.
This leads to the concept of blending funds, so that larger, more coordinated
contracts may be provided to fewer CBOs. For example, several funded
programs for child support services could be combined and then contracted to
fewer CBOs for this set of services.

CONCLUSION

Given the hundreds of CBOs contracted with Alameda County, it takes


considerable county staff time to monitor the entire enterprise. The Grand Jury
is convinced that if there were more innovative management strategies, and
better performance data, Alameda County would see substantial improvement
in services provided by individual programs and CBOs.

The Grand Jury concludes that a far more concerted effort to improve the
metrics, collection, and analysis of performance data is necessary to allow
CBOs to focus on outcomes and thereby best serve their clients. The
improvement of outcome data and analysis will strengthen the RFP and renewal
process. While this is beginning to occur, there are far too few resources to have
sufficient impact or to provide county leaders and the board of supervisors with
meaningful data to make difficult contract closure and to make CBO
replacement decisions. There are not enough champions in either HCSA or SSA
leading the effort for data-driven performance evaluation. Without a strong
commitment from both the Alameda County Board of Supervisors and county
agencies to results-based accountability, little will change.

FINDINGS

Finding 16-23:
Some CBOs responding to an RFP have little or no outcome/output data.
Others are renewed with no evaluation report and without a re-issued RFP.
Decision makers are left without sufficient information to make sound
judgments.

Finding 16-24:
There are insufficient requirements in the RFP process to assess a CBO as to its
staff training, development, and how people within the CBO are encouraged to
innovate to accomplish the mission. This would ensure more confidence that
the contracted CBO could efficiently and effectively fulfill its long-term goals
and to adequately do the job.

69
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

Finding 16-25:
The RFP process often limits the ability for CBOs to have innovative solutions
for the provision of services.

Finding 16-26:
The amount of funding and personnel devoted to the results-based
accountability effort is insufficient for the scale of the task. The PERU group
(Planning, Evaluation and Research Unit) reports on too few CBOs each year
among all the CBOs under contract. When fully staffed, the group is only five
people (out of the 2400 employees within SSA). A comparable group within
HCSA is not yet fully operational. There are too few resources in both
departments to effectively evaluate CBO performance.

Finding 16-27:
Too few CBO contracts with Alameda County include results-based
accountability requirements to measure effectiveness and to inform decision
makers during the renewal process.

Finding 16-28:
Output data (number of people serviced) provided by some CBOs can be
unreliable.

Finding 16-29:
Many smaller CBOs lack infrastructure to innovate and adopt new reporting
systems that could lead to both incomplete and inaccurate data being provided
to the county.

Finding 16-30:
There are an insufficient number of on-site visits to CBOs during the term of
the contracts limiting the ability of county officials to identify, evaluate, and
address problems early on.

Finding 16-31:
There is political pressure from the Alameda County Board of Supervisors to
retain some under-performing CBOs. This undermines confidence in the
contracting process.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 16-19:
Alameda County must ensure that all CBO contracts have outcome and output
measures.

70
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

Recommendation 16-20:
Alameda County must ensure that no CBO contract be re-issued or extended
without either a full report on its performance or results-based accountability
analysis available to the decision makers.

Recommendation 16-21:
Site visits by county evaluators must be required during the selection process of
any CBO applying for a contract of over $1 million. If the infrastructure does
not yet exist, the site visit must occur within the first six months of the
contract.

Recommendation 16-22:
The Alameda County Board of Supervisors must assign a full-time professional
with sufficient supporting staff and budget to lead the countywide efforts on
results-based accountability.

Recommendation 16-23:
As a test case, SSA and HCSA should provide a master contract to a well-
established CBO that would then subcontract to a cluster of smaller CBOs that
deliver comparable services. The CBOs with the master contracts would be
responsible for the data collection and analysis of all subcontractors under its
purview.

Recommendation 16-24:
Alameda County, or those organizations with master contracts, must provide
CBOs with sufficient administrative support/training for collecting, reporting,
and analyzing performance data, and for employee development within those
organizations.

Recommendation 16-25:
As a pilot project, and whenever allowable by funding sources, an RFP should
define the problem and allow a CBO the latitude to propose using best practices
and innovative approaches for the provision of services.

RESPONSES REQUIRED
Responding Agencies Please see page 125 for instructions

Alameda County Board of Supervisors:


Findings 16-23 through 16-31
Recommendations 16-19 through 16-25

71
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

[This page intentionally left blank]

72
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

CONSTRAINTS ON THE MEASURE A


OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE

INTRODUCTION

In March 2004, county voters passed Measure A, a cent sales tax increase for
Alameda County residents. This measure provides additional financial support
for emergency medical, hospital in-patient, out-patient, public health, mental
health and substance abuse services to indigent, low-income and uninsured
adults, children, families and seniors. Subsequent to the initial passage, the tax
was extended through June 2034. This sales tax generates over
$120 million each year. The measure requires an annual fiscal review by a
citizens oversight committee to ensure that the funds are spent appropriately.

The Grand Jury learned that the Measure A Oversight Committee is severely
restricted in its ability to evaluate the expenditures of county-funded agencies
that provide needed health care services to impoverished residents of Alameda
County. The committee is bound by legislation that limits its role in assessing
program efficacy and cost-effectiveness, and simply allows for an annual review
of expenditures after the fact. The annual reports of the oversight committee
indicate that its members view their role as essentially a rubber stamp
committee with no control of the quality of services, nor how the funds are
allocated.

BACKGROUND

The Alameda Health System, which includes Highland Hospital and other
county medical facilities, receives $90 million of the funds generated by the
Measure A sales tax. The Alameda County Board of Supervisors (BOS) oversees
the other $30 million, most of which is allocated to community based
organizations (CBOs) under the management of the Alameda County Health
Care Service Agency (HCSA). Included in this $30 million is $750,000 that is
distributed ostensibly for health care services, at the discretion of the board of
supervisors, each of whom allocates $150,000.

The Measure A Oversight Committee, as of this writing, consists of 17 members.


Five are appointed by the board of supervisors (one from each district), two from
the labor council of Alameda County, two from the League of Women Voters,
two from the City Managers Association, one from the city of Berkeley, four
representing various medical associations, and one seat in abeyance to
represent the Alameda County Taxpayers Association, Inc. There is one full-
time staff member who supports the committees operations.

73
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

The Grand Jury finds that the Measure A Oversight Committee members have a
wide range of expertise and are committed to improving health care in the
county. Members represent the medical professions, city administration,
unions, public health commission, community activists and other vital
organizations, all of whom can be of great benefit to decision makers in how
funds are allocated.

The committee is charged to annually review each recipients expenditures of


the Measure A funds for the prior year and report to the board of supervisors on
the conformity of expenditures to the ordinance. The committee meets monthly
and publishes a final report based on individual reports submitted by fund
recipients at the end of each year. The Measure A Oversight Committee bases
its work on self-reported information provided by the approximately 70 different
recipients of the funds, most of which are CBOs. The committee does not make
on-site visits of these organizations, although a limited number of agencies
make a presentation to the committee each year. When the committee
determines that the reporting is insufficient, it seeks more definitive
information.

Members of the oversight committee annually prepare a substantial report for


the BOS that includes a summary of each agencys program, how it used its
Measure A funding, and highlights of the program. The report also incorporates
any concerns regarding the use of Measure A funds.

The 2011-2012 Grand Jury recommended that the Alameda County Health
Care Services Agency include evaluations of Measure A programs as part of its
initiative to improve oversight and outcomes in all of its programs. While this
recommendation was endorsed, and some progress has been made, there
continues to be little or no information on the efficiency of programs, as well as
a lack of resources to fund a staff person to undertake more extensive reviews
and evaluations of these programs. (See Oversight of County Funded Community
Based Organizations, page 61, for further details.)

INVESTIGATION

The Grand Jury heard testimony that there is frustration with the way the
Measure A ordinance is sparsely written resulting in the oversight committees
inability to oversee how the funds are allocated. In essence, the committee lacks
any authority or power in making recommendations. The Grand Jury
interviewed several witnesses from HCSA, members of the oversight committee,
elected officials, attended a Measure A Oversight Committee meeting, and
reviewed meeting minutes, annual reports, and a previous 2011-2012 Grand
Jury investigation of Community Based Organization Oversight.

74
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

In response to a recommendation from the previous Grand Jury investigation


relevant to the Measure A Oversight Committee, the board of supervisors
explained that:

Language in the statute established an oversight committee, but limits


its role to retrospective review of whether expenses conform to purposes
set forth within the statute, not whether the service delivery performance
was adequate.

While testimony from witnesses acknowledged these limitations in the


ordinance, they saw no reason why the BOS could not expand the role of the
oversight committee, to provide it with added powers independent of the
ordinance, or at least appoint another committee to provide input into the
distribution of funds. In the absence of evaluation data, decisions on fund
distributions may be subjective, or a result of a constituent group lobbying for a
particular program.

From a review of the 6th annual report (FY2011/2012) from the oversight
committee, a recurring issue was that Measure A recipients often do not offer
any information as to whether the service being provided targets or benefits the
population as stated in the Measure A ordinance. For example, it was noted
that the providers report does not include measureable objectives, nor does it
specify whether those served by the program are indigent, low income and/or
uninsured as specified in Measure A.

A recurring concern throughout the Measure A annual reports to the BOS is the
finding that the use of Measure A funds for a particular agencys purpose
appears to fall outside the scope of the ordinance. The providers often include
no specific measurements or statistics to indicate the effectiveness of the
program. The lack of meaningful data has been noted in several reports.

Multiple provider reports listed objectives that are not measureable and/or
stated positive outcomes without quantifying the statements. For example,
Behavior Health Care Services at the Juvenile Justice Center notes
increased coping skills and a great benefit from court-ordered
evaluations, without quantifying these statements. The Mind Body
Awareness Project was unable to collect data during the reporting period
due to organizational transitions, which made it difficult for the Committee
to determine program effectiveness. (report #7- FY2012/2013)

The Measure A Oversight Committee recommends that HCSA create a process


for recipients of Measure A funds to certify that they are appropriately using the
funds to serve the populations listed in the measure. This would involve
training CBOs on how to effectively collect and report demographic data on the
populations they serve, and the effectiveness of their services. The committee

75
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

advocates that HCSA be sufficiently staffed to successfully implement such a


training program for the CBOs under contract.

The Grand Jury learned that there is insufficient accountability for the
$750,000 distributed directly by the board of supervisors, as these funded
programs have even less oversight than other Measure A programs. There is an
inherent conflict when political decisions take precedence over well-informed,
data-supported evaluations.

CONCLUSION

The Grand Jury concludes that the role of the Measure A Oversight Committee
should be expanded to include input into the selection and retention of CBOs.
Such an expanded role would benefit taxpayers, and care recipients, by
providing more transparency in how funds are allocated and spent.

FINDINGS

Finding 16-32:
The Measure A Oversight Committee is reactive, not proactive. It is limited by
legislation that restricts it from making recommendations regarding the
efficiency of programs funded, or how the funds should be expended.

Finding 16-33:
The Grand Jury finds that both the Health Care Services Agency and the
Measure A Oversight Committee are underfunded for administrative staff
needed to oversee the effective use of public funds distributed to the widespread
range of community based organizations.

Finding 16-34:
The Measure A ordinance so limits the Measure A Oversight Committee that its
current role is insufficient to assure taxpayers that the funds are providing the
services that are needed.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 16-26:
The Alameda County Board of Supervisors must expand the role of the Measure
A Oversight Committee to include its input into the decision-making of funding
allocations. While the Measure A ordinance specifies the role of the Oversight
Committee, the Board of Supervisors could expand that role, or appoint a
separate committee with the same membership to undertake the task.

76
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

Recommendation 16-27:
The Alameda County Board of Supervisors must provide the Health Care
Services Agency with sufficient funding that will allow for additional staff to
oversee the collection and analysis of both outcome and output data on those
receiving Measure A funds.

RESPONSES REQUIRED
Responding Agencies Please see page 125 for instructions

Alameda County Board of Supervisors


Findings 16-32 through 16-34
Recommendations 16-26 and 16-27

77
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

[This page intentionally left blank]

78
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

THE PUBLICS RIGHT TO KNOW:


ELECTRONIC RECORDS RETENTION AND ACCESS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

One year ago, the Grand Jury investigated complaints about one citys e-mail
retention policies and how the city limited the publics access to emails. After
that Grand Jurys Report was made public, the Grand Jury received additional
complaints about the same city systematically forwarding city business emails
to the personal accounts of councilmembers. This policy insulated those
records from public access thus circumventing the Public Records Act (PRA).
The purpose of the act is to allow public access to information enabling citizens
to monitor government operations and decision making.

Given the multiple complaints about this one citys handling of email
communications, the current Grand Jury decided to explore how all cities in the
county interpret the PRA as related to electronic data in their possession. As a
result, the Grand Jury surveyed all fourteen cities within Alameda County to
determine their practices.

The survey results indicated that most cities have uniform standards for
keeping all city related email, including those of elected officials, for at least two
years. This is consistent with the state retention statute. However, the Grand
Jury learned that several cities still systematically destroy city related email
within 60 to 90 days, unless specifically saved by individual city employees.
Other cities forward elected officials email to their private email accounts,
making that information inaccessible to pubic inquiry or accessible only after
examination and release by the public official holding the documents. The
Grand Jury believes that such practices are inconsistent with the spirit of the
California Public Records Act and the states records retention statute.

BACKGROUND

Each of the fourteen cities in Alameda County operates as an independent


governmental institution. While they must conduct business within the
boundaries of the law, they are able to set their own policies and often govern
and manage in very different ways from neighboring jurisdictions. One example
is how each city applies and interprets the California Public Records Act and
corresponding public records retention statute.

The Public Records Act is a cornerstone of Californias efforts to ensure open


government by giving citizens access to information, thereby providing

79
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

opportunities for public oversight of governmental operations. The law provides


the public with the right to obtain records (including emails) from government
agencies which helps to explain how and why important decisions are made.

While the California Public Records Act is designed to give the public access to
information and data held by public agencies, there are exceptions to disclosing
some kinds of information. For example, medical and personnel records are
kept confidential to protect an individuals right to privacy. Other exceptions
include attorney-client discussions, access to preliminary drafts, and
documents revealing the deliberative process.

While the Public Records Act governs disclosure of public documents, it does
not govern how long these records must be retained by the public agencies.
Government Code section 34090 addresses this issue, and is referred to as the
states records retention statute. The statute requires that nearly all public
records be retained for at least two years.

INVESTIGATION

Because of the concern for effective transparency in government, the current


Grand Jury developed and circulated a questionnaire of ten questions to all
cities in Alameda County. Every city in Alameda County responded to the
questionnaire with significant detail and specificity. The Grand Jury appreciates
the thoroughness of their answers and the amount of effort involved in
producing this data. An analysis of these responses revealed which cities have
policies and practices that provide the most transparency and access to its
citizens, particularly with regard to the use of emails in conducting official
business.

Any electronic management system and communication retention procedure


that limits or minimizes easy and ready access by the public to information is
not within the spirit of the law. This is true whenever information is not made
public, as when public officials use private email accounts, or when public
communications are retained for only brief periods.

The survey responses were grouped into four categories:

1. Who has an official email address that is used for public business?
2. Who determines what should be retained?
3. What is the retention period for email?
4. How easy is it for the public to gain access to records?

80
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

Official Email Accounts for Public Business

Cities cannot be responsive to PRA requests or even internal data searches if


their records are inaccessible, being kept in personal accounts or subject to
personal deletion. The Grand Jury holds that in order to fulfill the spirit of the
public records laws, cities must issue public email accounts for all city staff,
appointed and elected officials who use email correspondence, and require that
these accounts be used for all official business. The Grand Jury acknowledges
exceptions, such as employees who do not use email accounts as part of their
official duties.

The Grand Jury learned that most cities within the county do issue city email
accounts for public related business to nearly all employees and public officials.

Two exceptions are the cities of Newark and Union City. Newark issues email
addresses to council members but automatically forwards all email the council
members receive to their personal email accounts. The city does not retain the
contents of those emails and thus cannot fulfill public records requests unless
they receive cooperation from the individual council member. This automatic
forwarding of information is called an email relay. PRA requests must be
fulfilled by the individual elected who is subject to the request. This is troubling
because there is no oversight or independent determination that the officials
response is accurate, complete and honest.

Union City also issues email addresses to their council members. Emails sent to
those addresses are automatically forwarded to the council members personal
email accounts but that data is archived in the city email system for two years.
Unfortunately, email sent by the council members from their personal email
accounts, which includes responses they send regarding city related issues, are
not archived by the city. Again, the city must rely on individual officials to fulfill
any PRA requests related to email sent from their personal accounts. The Grand
Jury believes this special treatment invites unequal application of the Public
Records Act and calls into question the integrity of the citys processes.

Emeryville offers city email accounts to all employees and elected officials. Yet,
the city allows elected officials to choose whether to use city email accounts or
their own personal email accounts for city business. Again, the Grand Jury
believes that elected officials should not receive special protection from the PRA.

It should be noted that the city of Fremont has recently revised its practices
and has issued email accounts to all elected officials and is no longer relaying
city-related emails to private accounts. The contents of those emails are now
archived with other city email.

81
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

Determining Which Email Records Should Be Retained

Most cities automatically archive all city related email, meaning that individual
employees do not have to make judgment calls as to what documents must be
saved as the law requires.

The Grand Jury is concerned with the practices of those cities which
systematically purge email prior to the two year retention requirement for
public records (Berkeley, Hayward, Newark and Pleasanton). For example, city
of Berkeley employees must examine all email they receive with the complicated
rules of the PRA in mind. They must then take the time to individually save or
print each public record prior to its being automatically purged from the email
server after 90 days.

The Grand Jury is further concerned about how the city of Berkeley defines
emails in its administrative regulations. The regulation defines emails as being
generally preliminary drafts and states emails shall be deleted as soon as the
information is no longer required.

The Grand Jury finds that these are poor policies. All employees cannot be
expected to have appropriate legal knowledge, leading to the danger of
inconsistent application of the PRA rules. An individual who deletes email could
be perceived as purposely hiding information to which the public has a right.
Furthermore, requiring individuals to make retention determinations is an
undue burden.

It is the view of the Grand Jury that all records should be automatically
retained without regard to content or format. This ensures the greatest
transparency while being simple and cost-effective.

Retention of Email for Two Years Minimum

According to the California Retention Statute, most public records must be


retained by public agencies for a minimum of two years. Those records include
emails relating to the conduct of the publics business that are prepared,
owned, used or retained by local agencies.
As stated previously, most cities have decided to automatically archive all
emails for at least two years. This protects against accidental, negligent or even
intentional destruction of public documents.

Four cities have chosen another path. The city of Pleasanton purges all unsaved
email after 60 days. The city of Hayward automatically purges all unsaved
emails after 60 days except for those of elected officials and higher-level staff
that are saved for longer periods. The city of Berkeley purges all unsaved email
after 90 days. Finally, Newark purges all deleted and sent email after 30 days

82
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

and all other email in an inbox after 60 days. The Grand Jury is troubled by
these policies. The Grand Jury learned of many complaints by public employees
that they neither have the expertise nor the time to make appropriate decisions
to save these documents.

Without diligent and impartial efforts by each city employee and elected
officials, key documents are lost forever. The public would have no access to
retrace crucial decisions and even wrongdoing. It is poor policy to give potential
investigative targets the control over what information is saved and released.

Public Access to Records

In order for government to be truly transparent, it is not enough to retain


documents. The public should have easy access to records created in the
course of city business. All cities now have on-line request forms. Some are
easier to navigate than others, and some have more streamlined response
protocols than others.

Oaklands Sunshine Ordinance distinguishes the citys openness by making its


public records requests and responses available for anyone to search online.
Oakland benefited from working with Code for America, whose resident fellows
developed a web application that allows the public to track the progress of PRA
requests and once the request is fulfilled, the documents are posted online. This
public records management system allows easy search and viewing of current
and past public records requests. This innovation reduces the time and effort
spent by city employees filling duplicate PRA requests.

CONCLUSION

As a result of the inquiry into city email retention practices, the Grand Jury
found that some cities stand out as positive examples of government
transparency and fulfill the letter and the spirit of both the Public Records Act
and the retention statute. The Grand Jury advises the following as best
practices for all cities in Alameda County to ensure transparency in public
records:

Conduct business only on city issued email accounts;


Eliminate the use of email relays to private email accounts;
Preserve all emails for a minimum of two years; and
Make public records easily accessible.

83
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS None


RESPONSES REQUIRED None

84
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

THE OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT


AND CHARTER SCHOOLS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Oakland has far more charter schools than any other city in Alameda County.
These schools enroll 24.4% of the public school children in the city while the
national average is 6%. Given this unusually large number, and because
charter schools receive public funds, the Grand Jury examined the local
approval and oversight process governing charter schools. The Grand Jury also
examined the renewal procedures to determine if they are sufficient to protect
taxpayers and to ensure that all students are receiving equitable and sufficient
educational resources.

Charter schools were originally intended as educational laboratories wherein


new methods and approaches could be developed and tested. While some
charter schools do offer unique programs that differ from traditional district
schools in their communities, the increasing number of charters in the city of
Oakland is primarily a response to what many see as the diminished quality of
traditional public schools.

The Grand Jurys investigation disclosed that although the office of charter
schools in the city of Oakland is doing an adequate job in complying with the
current standards required by the State Board of Education, the number and
type of charter schools in the city have out-paced both the current legislation
and the administrative process to oversee their activities.

BACKGROUND

The Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) is comprised of 95 K-12 schools


with an enrollment of approximately 48,000 students. Of the public schools
within the city of Oakland, thirty-seven (37) are charter schools with a total
enrollment of approximately 12,000 students. This represents nearly 25% of the
total enrollment of the district.

Charter schools are public schools funded by taxpayer dollars allocated


according to the same guidelines and in the same amount as district public
schools. State of California funding for all public schools, charter and
traditional, is based on the number of students enrolled. However, charter
schools are not governed by the local school district and an elected board of
education, but rather, managed by independent governing boards.

85
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

While charter schools are operated independently of the local school district,
each must be authorized by a local school board. A charter school may also be
authorized by a county for countywide charters, or by the state. If a local school
board denies a petition, it may seek authorization from the county or ultimately
the state.

According to current legislation, charter school approvals are subject to the


following conditions:

1. An existing private school may not be converted to a charter school.


2. A charter school must be nonsectarian.
3. A charter school may not discriminate, nor can it charge tuition.
4. No pupil can be required to attend a charter school, nor can teachers be
required to work in a charter school.
5. A charter school must have highly qualified, credentialed teachers in all
core subjects.

Charter schools must admit all students who wish to attend; however, if the
number of students exceeds the schools capacity, attendance may be
determined by a public random drawing. Certain attendance preferences are
available under state law.

The state also requires that the agency that granted the charter, be it a school
district, county, or the state, is obligated to monitor that charter school. Among
the authorizers responsibilities are:

1. Visit each school annually.


2. Ensure compliance with all reporting requirements.
3. Monitor fiscal conditions.
4. Notify the State Department of Education if a charter is granted or
denied, a charter is revoked, or if a charter will cease operating.

Every charter school must seek re-authorization every five years. The state
determines pupil academic achievement, primarily through standardized test
data, for the purposes of charter renewal. The authorizing entity (e.g. the school
district) submits its report containing renewal documentation, test results,
financial review, and other performance assessments to the State Department
of Education.

INVESTIGATION

The Grand Jury examined state law governing charter authorization and
renewal, several charter applications and renewals approved by the Oakland
Unified School District, and OUSD board minutes and staff reports. The Grand

86
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

Jury heard testimony from OUSD charter office staff and district
administrators, a charter school administrator, and outside experts with a
background in both OUSD and charter school management. The Grand Jury
also examined test results from both the current California Assessment of
Student Performance and Progress (CASPP) as well as Academic Performance
Index (API) results for prior years.

Why Charter Schools?

Through witness testimony and public documents the Grand Jury determined
that the proliferation of charter schools in the city of Oakland has occurred in
direct response to the decline in confidence in the school system and the crisis
leading to a take-over by the State of California in the 1990s. Seven
underperforming district schools became charter schools at that time.
Subsequently, additional charters have been authorized in neighborhoods with
underperforming schools either by concerned local groups or by professional
charter school management organizations. This growth in charter schools has
altered the original intention of the charter movement from experimental
laboratories to one that attempts to address the sub-par results in district
schools.

Witnesses described the major advantages of charter schools as compared to


traditional public schools. Chief among these is autonomy from the
bureaucracy of the district office, labor groups, and the politics of the elected
school board. The Grand Jury heard testimony from several witnesses that
many people involved in local charter schools today are teachers and
administrators formerly with OUSD who were frustrated by the districts
inability to innovate and govern. This autonomy also allows charter schools to
place teachers in classrooms based on skills and not seniority. Charter schools
can also employ additional assessment tools and methods not used in the
district schools.

Regular school days in charter schools are typically longer than those in OUSD.
OUSD schools are limited to 6.75 hours per day for grade schools, and 7.15
hours per day for high schools, as negotiated by local labor groups. Charter
schools can be in session as many as 55 days per year longer than OUSD
schools. This extended class time is seen by many as a major advantage of
charters.

Witnesses testified that the shorter school days and school year, as well as the
seniority rules for the assignment of teachers, are a result of the local labor
groups focus of taking care of their membership. Many see this as being an
obstacle to the provision of quality education for our children in public schools,
and as one of the main reasons for the growth of charter schools. Seniority may

87
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

be a factor in teacher placement, but it should not be the primary determinant.


Because charters are not constrained by seniority rules, they are more able to
create collaborative teams with a variety of skills and expertise that are
essential to successful education.

However, the autonomy and independence granted to charter schools come at a


cost. Charters operate without the same scrutiny as their district counterparts
by the tax paying public. For example, a charter may change curricula,
teaching methods, and budget allocation without approval from the authorizing
district superintendent or the elected school board. They are also able to
determine their own achievement standards, accountability, and systems of
discipline or transfers between schools.

Issues And Concerns About Charter Schools And The Authorization Process

Testimony from several witnesses indicate that the OUSD Office of Charter
Schools is performing well given the limitations of staffing levels and legislation
currently in effect. However, there are several issues with the authorization and
oversight process given the prevalence of charter schools in Oakland. This is of
particular concern since the number of charter schools in Oakland is likely to
continue to grow.

Using the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress Test


Results for English Language Arts/Literacy and Mathematics for 2015, the
Grand Jury determined that of the 37 Oakland charter schools that
participated, 17 scored below the blended average of all Oakland unified public
schools and 24 scored below the statewide average in English. Nineteen scored
below OUSD averages and 23 scored below the statewide average in
mathematics. Within these results, there were 15 Oakland charter schools that
scored below OUSD averages in both categories. Many of these charter schools
have been in Oakland for years and scored similarly on the previous API tests
that are no longer in use.

The Grand Jury acknowledges that test scores are not the only measure of
success, as many other factors such as school culture and non-academic
support personnel, must be taken into consideration. Nevertheless, it is a
concern that some charters are not achieving expected results and yet may still
be re-authorized.

Authorization and renewal

Current legislation requires the authorizer to monitor fiscal condition of


charters, but beyond an annual financial audit, there is no oversight of charter
schools long term financial planning or budgeting.

88
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

The Grand Jury heard testimony that the state standards restrict authorizers
ability to adequately hold low performing charters accountable. At least one
charter school had been granted renewal even though the OUSD Office of
Charter Schools determined it should not. Renewal was ultimately granted
because the school met minimum state requirements.

The OUSD Office of Charter Schools is understaffed and underfunded.


Although they are managing to successfully comply with the current laws, it
will be increasingly difficult to ensure the future success of the charter school
program in the city of Oakland. The state provides a formula for authorizer
staffing levels that would require 13 full time employees to support Oaklands
charter schools. Current staffing was recently raised from five to six people.

Safety and welfare of students in charter schools

Charter schools are not required to comply with the same safety regulations as
traditional district schools. While many charter schools share buildings with
their district counterparts, or occupy buildings formerly used by the district,
others are in alternative spaces. These alternative spaces need not comply with
the states Field Act that mandates a higher level of earthquake resistant
construction for schools.

Equitable treatment and funding of students

A charter school is responsible for the maintenance only of the building, or


portion of a building it occupies. Most charter schools are fully enrolled and
therefore occupy space efficiently. This allows a charter to focus funds on
teaching. On the other hand, OUSD is responsible for 130 buildings, many of
which are under-enrolled schools that are far below maximum occupancy.
Furthermore, each school must be staffed. Without closing or consolidating
schools, the district must continue to maintain many of these underused
structures, thereby diverting funds from the classroom.

In 1977, all school districts and county school offices were mandated to form
consortiums in geographical regions to provide for the special education needs
of children. Each region within a Special Education Local Plan Area (SELPA)
developed its plan on how it would provide these special education services.
Such plans considered the type and scope of services that were needed for the
entire public school population in both traditional schools and charter schools.

Funding for special education services in each region is provided by the state on
a per student basis. In 2010, the state allowed charter schools to withdraw from
their SELPA district, and join any other such district they chose. Twenty-five of
Oaklands 37 charter schools withdrew from the Oakland SELPA reducing the

89
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

funds available. These 25 charter schools continue to receive equivalent funds


from their chosen district.

Because a SELPA district is intended to form collaborations and share special


needs education resources across many schools, the departure from its SELPA
of so many charter schools resulted in fewer funds for OUSD that still must
serve the same broad range of special needs students including those with the
most severe needs. The Grand Jury heard testimony that individual charter
schools have fewer severely disabled students. The Grand Jury views this as
creating an inequity for special needs students in Oaklands district schools.

A recurrent issue addressed by witnesses is the existing multiple enrollment


systems whereby OUSD schools and each charter school must be accessed
separately. The Grand Jury views this as an undue burden on families to seek
out each school separately and enroll using that schools unique application
and apply by its deadline. The Office of Charter Schools is a proponent of the
common enrollment concept currently being evaluated by the Oakland Unified
School District. This system allows families to review and select their desired
choices from a single integrated process thereby providing an equitable access
for all Oakland students.

There is no reporting or tracking to monitor potential wrongful expulsion or


dismissal of less desirable students by charter schools. The Grand Jury heard
testimony that some charter schools may counsel a student to leave that school
for a variety of reasons including recurrent misbehavior or lack of achievement.
Witnesses testified that this procedure would be unknown were it not for
whistleblowers.

Governance and Management

A charter school is governed by a board of directors that is not publicly elected.


Members of such a board may have no expertise in education or have any
particular qualifications for that role.

There is no requirement that the superintendent of the school district, or any


member of the elected school board, attend charter school board meetings. The
only oversight is through the current authorization and renewal process that
requires some site visits throughout the school year.

Relationship Of District And Charter Schools

At present there is only a tangential relationship between the two types of


schools. However, the Grand Jury heard testimony that a more collaborative
approach would benefit both. OUSD has also initiated a Charter School

90
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

Compact, a document that attempts to focus all schools in OUSD on similar


missions and goals. And although 87% of Oaklands charter schools have
signed on, they are not required to participate. More than one witness testified
that each entity could and should support the other, particularly in the sharing
of teaching methodologies and best practices.

One element of this collaboration, in addition to the Charter School Compact, is


the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that may be negotiated as part of
the authorization of a charter. This MOU may include sharing of student data,
tests, and using a common financial and procurement software.

There is no plan in place in OUSD to manage the proliferation of charter


schools and no policy in place to manage or regulate growth. Such a plan would
include facilities management, safety standards, and expected student
outcomes.

The Grand Jury heard testimony that there is a definite desire on the part of
OUSD administration to enact a common enrollment plan to ensure that every
student in OUSD, regardless of the school they attend, is given an equal
opportunity to be successful, but there are significant obstacles to achieving
this goal. Chief among them are the labor agreements that limit the hours and
days in the classroom and restrict administrators from forming collaborative
teaching teams.

Furthermore, witnesses testified that members of the board of education see


their responsibility primarily to their constituents and not necessarily in the
best interests of all students, and this makes it less likely that they will
champion new ideas and innovations that may be unpopular. In order to ensure
the future success of OUSD, the board will need the political will to make the
needed changes.

CONCLUSION

The number and type of charter schools in the Oakland Unified School District
have out-paced current legislation, and as a result, the administrative process
in place to oversee their activities is insufficient.

Charter schools in Oakland have a distinct competitive advantage over OUSD


traditional schools. Their independence from OUSD labor agreements allows
them to select teachers according to best practices, and have longer and more
school days. They can also focus their budgets on teaching rather than on
facilities.

91
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

The Grand Jury believes that charter schools within the Oakland Unified School
District require more rigorous oversight and a more collaborative relationship
with district schools in order to better serve the interests of all of Oaklands
students.

FINDINGS

Finding 16-35:
While charter schools use public funding, they are insulated from adequate
public oversight.

Finding 16-36:
The current authorization and evaluation systems of charter schools are
insufficient to ensure that each provides equitable opportunities for all
students.

Findings 16-37:
There is no plan in place in the Oakland Unified School District to manage the
proliferation of charter schools.

Finding 16-38:
There is a desire on the part of the Oakland Unified School District
administration to enact a plan to ensure that every student in OUSD,
regardless of the school they attend, is given an equal opportunity to be
successful, but there are significant obstacles to achieving this goal.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Grand Jury did not investigate any individual charter school or charter
school organization, but rather focused on the need for more rigorous oversight
by the Oakland Unified School District. Considering the number of Oakland
students enrolled in charter schools and the public funds supporting them, the
Grand Jury recommends:

Recommendation 16-28:
The Oakland Unified School District must increase the staffing of the Office of
Charter Schools to allow more thorough oversight of charter schools.

Recommendation 16-29:
The Oakland Unified School District, Office of Charter Schools, must increase
its number of on-site visits to charter schools.

92
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

Recommendation 16-30:
The Oakland Board of Education, the Office of Charter Schools, and OUSDs
superintendent must attend charter board meetings to ensure compliance with
state law and procedures, and to better assess the management and priorities
of each school.

Recommendation 16-31:
The Oakland Unified School District must not authorize or renew a charter
school unless that charter agrees to join the superintendents proposed
Oakland Equity Pledge, and to adhere to the same accountability system for
measuring achievement.

Recommendation 16-32:
There must be a facilities review to ensure that all Oakland Unified School
District charter school venues are safe and comply with appropriate safety and
building codes.

Recommendation 16-33:
The Oakland Unified School District, in collaboration with its charter schools,
must prepare a comprehensive strategic plan to ensure that the future growth
of charter schools in the city will continue to improve student outcomes. The
plan should address OUSDs expected outcomes, efficient use of available
resources and maximize the uses of tax dollars for the benefit of all students.

Recommendation 16-34:
The Oakland Unified School District should seek independent legal counsel as
well as advice from the state to ascertain how to exercise more rigor in the
charter school renewal and approval process.

Recommendation 16-35:
The Oakland Unified School District should focus its lobbying efforts to seek
state revision of charter school legislation to improve the authorization process.

RESPONSES REQUIRED
Responding Agencies Please see page 125 for instructions

Oakland Unified School District Board of Education:


Findings 16-35 through 16-38
Recommendations 16-28 through 16-35

Superintendent, Oakland Unified School District:


Findings 16-35 through 16-38
Recommendations 16-28 through 16-35

93
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

[This page intentionally left blank]

94
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

MANAGEMENT ISSUES WITHIN THE


CITY OF OAKLAND REVENUE DIVISION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Grand Jury received complaints alleging mismanagement by certain


current and former city of Oakland Revenue Division employees. The complaint
alleged that certain revenues were not being collected because of a failure to
follow good business practices and that interest charges and fees were
improperly waived. As the investigation proceeded, additional allegations
concerning the Revenue Division surfaced; cronyism and termination of
employee access to essential software were asserted. The Grand Jury combined
all of these allegations into a single investigation.

The Grand Jury investigation started during the administration of a former


revenue manager. As is typical with any new administration, the former
manager brought in new faces and new ideas, including different accountability
procedures. The Grand Jury heard testimony indicating that many employees
were disaffected with these changes and confused about expectations within the
Revenue Division.

The investigation led the Grand Jury to conclude that some of the allegations
were without foundation, while a few had merit. The Grand Jury found that
poor communication contributed to a dysfunctional work environment. In
addition, there were instances of undocumented policies and lax oversight by
senior executives. Finally, the division lacked a written penalty waiver policy.

BACKGROUND

The Revenue Division is responsible for collecting municipal business taxes and
fees, which are forecasted as $150 million in the proposed FY2016 Oakland city
budget. The Revenue Division also serves as the collection agency for all city
departments for past due fees and fines, which are forecast as $24 million in
the FY2016 Oakland City Budget. The Revenue Division prepares reports and
performs audits on entities that are obligated to pay for business licenses,
garbage collection, utility consumption, transit occupancy, parking and
occupancy taxes. In addition, the Revenue Division is responsible for collecting
taxes from marijuana dispensaries, and certain delinquent fees. The Revenue
Division has approximately 56 employees, including several collection officers,
revenue analysts, accountants, auditors and tax enforcement officers. The
division is part of the citys finance department as shown in the organizational
chart below.

95
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

In recent years, the finance department has experienced significant changes at


the senior management levels. Indeed, during one extended period, the finance
director position was vacant. High turnover in the city administrator position
has also affected the Revenue Division. Currently, the Revenue Division is
managed by a senior administrator who reports to the finance director, who in
turn reports to one of the assistant city administrators.

To provide services to the public, the Revenue Division relies on various


software tools to track the taxes and fees collected. For reporting, accounting
and auditing purposes, multiple tools are employed. Ultimately, the revenue
data is fed into the citys treasury and general ledger accounting systems.

INVESTIGATION

In conducting its investigation, the Grand Jury reviewed the following:

Hundreds of pages of documents, including city financial, audit and


budget reports; policies and procedures related to the citys financial and
budget processes; ordinances; city organizational charts; and, pertinent
correspondence concerning the citys Revenue Division;

Financial policies and procedures of similarly situated municipalities;

96
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

Minutes and videos of several public meetings; and

Testimony from numerous witnesses, including public officials and city


employees.

Oakland Revenue Division Management and Oversight

Leadership Turnover in Finance Department Leads to Confusion

The Revenue Division manager reports to the finance director as indicated by


the organizational chart above. During the past five years, there were four
different finance directors and five city administrators. The Grand Jury did not
investigate the cause of the management turnover. However, without a finance
director to oversee the Revenue Division manager, an organizational gap
evolved, leading to organizational confusion.

In any organization as large as the city of Oakland, management turnover of


this magnitude will create confusion regarding continuity of processes, strategy,
and planning that is vital for efficient functioning. The frequent turnover
inevitably led to turmoil that jeopardized the smooth operation of a division that
is critical to collecting and accounting for city revenue. Consequently, the
employees filed numerous grievances and their union petitioned the city council
for relief. While the Grand Jury did not fully investigate any of these grievances,
the Grand Jury did hear testimony that the city council was aware of employee
discontent in the Revenue Division.

Lack of Effective Communication and Allegations of Cronyism

The former manager hired several former associates to assist with division
supervisorial duties. When one of the associates suspended the practice of
conducting field investigations with insufficient explanation, division employees
became confused and discontented. Additionally, the Grand Jury heard
testimony that employees faced new requirements for detailed time tracking
with insufficient explanation. Management's alleged failure to clearly
communicate changes in work procedures led to misunderstandings that
resulted in an escalation of formal grievances including allegations of cronyism.
After interviewing several witnesses, the Grand Jury did not find evidence that
any of these newly hired employees were unqualified to perform revenue-related
duties. Further, all new employees were hired through the standard civil service
procedures. Thus, the Grand Jury did not uncover any evidence substantiating
the allegation of cronyism.

The Grand Jury heard testimony that employee morale in the division
plummeted, as reflected in approximately 90 complaints filed through the union
grievance process. Union leadership summarized several of these issues in a
letter to the mayor and to other city leaders. The Grand Jury found that the

97
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

significant number of grievances was attributable to leadership turnover and


the ineffective communication by the former manager.

Eventually, in September of 2015, a new manager was promoted from within


the division.

In summary, there was misunderstanding regarding the implementation of


certain financial and management practices, and confusion regarding the
rationale, goals and expected outcomes of these changes. The root cause of this
misunderstanding appears to be the management style of the former manager
of the Revenue Division.

Financial and Process Issues Investigated by the Grand Jury

Violation of Policy on Penalties/Fee Waivers for Business Taxes

The Grand Jury heard testimony that the finance director has the authority to
waive interest fees or penalties for late tax payments. However, the Grand Jury
learned there is no approved written policy setting forth authority and
procedures for interest and penalty waivers. Based on witness testimony and
various audit reports, it appeared to the Grand Jury that the former Revenue
Division manager had on occasion waived interest fees and penalties, despite
lacking written authority to execute such waivers. At times during that
manager's tenure, the city of Oakland was operating without a finance director,
and it appeared that city administrators were unaware of the occurrence of the
waivers.

The Grand Jury reviewed the Revenue Division's draft waiver policy that is now
under consideration by senior management. The Grand Jury applauds the city's
efforts to draft a waiver policy that requires waivers of penalties to be submitted
in writing, but is concerned regarding the length of time it has taken to
implement. To ensure that penalties are properly waived, the final waiver policy
should clearly state: 1) the steps that must be taken by the taxpayer to request
a waiver, including to whom the waiver request must be submitted; 2) whether
the revenue manager can act unilaterally in waiving penalties; and 3) who can
waive penalties in the absence of a finance director. These clarifications would
produce an improved policy that can be consistently implemented by senior
management.

Denial of Critical System Access to Employees

The Grand Jury heard testimony that there were limits placed on access to
certain software tools within the Revenue Division. The Grand Jury found the
software tools at issue were used for preliminary research purposes, rather
than for transactional processing or financial reporting. These software tools
enabled staff to research possible business sites; however, such information
was not linked to transactional processing. Moreover, access to the tools was
98
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

later restored. Consequently, the Grand Jury found that restricting employees
from using the specific software tools did not impede the effectiveness of the
employees' collection duties.

Critical Business Software Licensing Issues

The Grand Jury heard testimony regarding issues concerning the possible
availability of the tax collection software. The software is used by the Revenue
Division to process the citys business, parking, and transient occupancy taxes.
The software license agreement expired during the tenure of the former
manager. Without a license, any future changes in functionality of the software
or solutions for outages may not be supported by the vendor. The Revenue
Division and the city IT department are currently engaged in finding a
replacement. The Grand Jury is concerned that until the replacement software
is implemented, the city may be at risk of revenue collection problems should
the software fail.

Efficient Billing and Collection of Business Taxes

The Grand Jury found no substantial evidence of lax or inefficient processes in


business tax collections by the Revenue Division. However, as revealed by
various city council meetings, there is an apparent lack of trust between the
city council and the Revenue Division administration on the validity of the
division's revenue projections. The root cause of this mistrust may be due to the
lack of clear benchmarks to measure the division's effectiveness in collecting
city revenue.

Senior management should address members of the city councils skepticism


toward the Revenue Divisions revenue forecasts, especially with regard to
budget planning. Specifically, the finance director and Revenue Division
manager should establish metrics that are based on industry accepted
economic and demographic assumptions. Both the assumptions and the
metrics should be clearly communicated to city council and the city
administrator in order to enable city leaders to evaluate the city's fiscal
condition.

CONCLUSION

Under prior management of the Revenue Division, clear communication was the
exception rather than the norm, and numerous changes were implemented
without sufficient explanation. To enhance morale, the finance director and
revenue manager should collaborate in drafting division goals and objectives.
These goals and objectives should be regularly discussed with employees to
strengthen overall work culture.

99
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

The Revenue Division's current rules regulating the granting of penalty waivers
are ambiguous and need to be revised. The lack of a clear written penalty
waiver policy raises concerns regarding the integrity of the Revenue Division's
written financial policies. The Grand Jury is concerned that the proposed
waiver policy fails to clearly describe: 1) the steps that must be taken by the
taxpayer to request a waiver, including to whom the waiver request must be
submitted; 2) whether the revenue manager can act unilaterally in waiving
penalties; and 3) who can waive penalties in the absence of a finance director.
Once a clear policy is developed and approved, it should be instituted as soon
as possible.

The Grand Jury is concerned with the expiration of a key collection software
license. In order to protect against harmful system outages, the Revenue
Division should ensure that the licensing issue is fully addressed.

In late 2015, a new manager was appointed to the Revenue Division. This
manager has started to implement changes that are intended to improve the
departments business practices.

FINDINGS

Finding 16-39:
City managements failure to effectively communicate process and
organizational changes from the period of 2012 through August 2015 caused
turmoil in the Oakland Revenue Division and adversely impacted employee
morale.

Finding 16-40:
Management turnover and undocumented policies for fee and penalty waivers
left the Oakland Revenue Division without clear direction.

Finding 16-41:
The lack of a current tax collection software license put the city at risk.

100
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 16-36:
The current city of Oakland finance director and Revenue Division manager
must update division goals and objectives, which must be communicated to
employees.

Recommendation 16-37:
A new waiver policy for tax or penalty waivers must be implemented by the city
of Oakland. The new policy should clarify to whom the waiver request must be
submitted and who has waiver authority in the absence of a finance director.

Recommendation 16-38:
The city of Oaklands tax collection software issue must be addressed by either
re-authorizing the license for the current software or implementing software
from a new vendor.

RESPONSES REQUIRED
Responding Agencies Please see page 125 for instructions

Mayor, City of Oakland:


Findings 16-39 through 16-41
Recommendations 16-36 through 16-38

Oakland City Council:


Findings 16-39 through 16-41
Recommendations 16-36 through 16-38

101
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

[This page intentionally left blank]

102
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

ALAMEDA COUNTY JUVENILE JUSTICE CENTER


JUVENILE HALL INSPECTION

INTRODUCTION

On September 29, 2015, the Grand Jury inspected the Juvenile Justice Center
(JJC), which is located in San Leandro at 2500 Fairmont Drive and operated by
the Alameda County Probation Department. The Alameda County Juvenile
Justice Center contains a 24-hour secure detention facility capable of housing
358 minors who are wards of the court awaiting adjudication of their pending
criminal matters. The facility is staffed by juvenile institutional officers who
supervise the minors and are responsible for their care, custody and control.
On the day of the Grand Jurys inspection, 100 males and 15 females were in
residence.

INSPECTION

The facilitys superintendent and assistant superintendent accompanied the


Grand Jury on its inspection. The Grand Jury also heard testimony from a
number of staff members of the Alameda County Probation Department as well
as two members of the Alameda County Office of Education.

The Grand Jury was allowed access to all areas of the facility. The jurors toured
housing units, the medical facility, gym, outdoor areas, food preparation
kitchens and classrooms. The booking area and courtroom holding areas were
also inspected.

Physical Plant

The Grand Jury found no problems or issues with the facility during the
inspection. The facility was in immaculate condition. Opened in 2007, the
buildings and grounds are well maintained. Detainee rooms, common areas,
showers (five per unit) and restrooms, kitchens, classrooms, library and public
spaces were spotless. During the inspection, a burned out lightbulb was noted
by the superintendent and was addressed immediately.

Health Care

Basic health care is provided at the facility at an adequately equipped and


sizable medical clinic operated through a contract with Benioff Childrens
Hospital of Oakland. Medical personnel (registered nurses) are on duty on a 24-
hour basis to provide around-the-clock medical assessments, support and care
of the youth. While there is no full-time medical doctor on site, detainees can
receive supplemental medical and mental health assistance from Benioff

103
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

Childrens Hospital in Oakland by using tele-medicine technology. There is no


separate medical unit to house youth. Detainees with more serious medical
issues are taken directly to Benioff Childrens Hospital. There is, however, a
separate unit for detainees with communicable diseases (such as TB, the flu,
hepatitis, etc.). All medications are dispensed by medical personnel to
detainees. Medications, medical files, and supplies are securely stored in the
clinic.

All youth are medically screened upon entry to the JJC and are provided with a
clean set of clothes, bedding, towels, a toothbrush, toothpaste, soap, and
shampoo. Personal belongings and personal clothing are bagged and stored in a
designated area unless they are determined to be evidence related to criminal
investigations. The medical screening determines any health issues, food
allergies, or special medical needs of the youth. Linen is cleaned once per week
and detainee clothing is washed and exchanged daily. Youth are required to
practice proper hygiene while being held at the JJC. While the Grand Jury did
not physically inspect the condition of mattresses, the facility and detainees
rooms appeared to be very clean and well maintained.

Detainees suspected of being under the influence of alcohol or drugs are not
accepted at the JJC, and instead are first examined/treated at Benioff
Childrens Hospital. While the JJC accepts pregnant youth, there were none in
custody at the time of the Grand Jurys inspection. The Grand Jury was advised
that special care and nutrition for pregnant detainees is provided upon entry to
the facility. If a youth gives birth while housed at the JJC, special care and
visiting time is provided to facilitate the bonding between baby and mother.

There is a small but adequate optical center on site at the JJC, equipped with
donated eyeglasses. An optometrist visits the center twice a week to provide eye
care services to the youth. Glasses can be obtained at the optometry clinic.

The Alameda County Behavioral Health Care Services Guidance Clinic (BHCS
clinic) is located on site. The BHCS clinic provides mental health services to the
youth housed at the JJC and to other youth referred from the Juvenile Court of
Alameda County. The services BHCS provides includes court ordered psycho-
diagnostic evaluations, assessment, crisis intervention, and individual, group,
and family counseling. The BHCS clinic also has an adolescent sex offender
treatment program that provides individual, group and family therapy to
adjudicated sex offenders who reside in the community.

Overall, the health care at the JJC appears good, and is enhanced by the
therapeutic care provided on site.

104
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

Food Service

Food is provided by Revolution Foods (based in Oakland), which supplies both


cold and hot meals to the youth. Breakfast, lunch and dinner are delivered daily
and stored in a large refrigerated room. Hot meals are heated on site. Special
diet meals (for example, lactose intolerant, religious restrictions, kosher or
vegetarian needs) as well as fresh fruits and vegetables are provided by Kidango
Foods. The Grand Jury reviewed a dietary binder, which included individual
youths names, unit numbers, and detailed records of any dietary restrictions.
The binder appeared well maintained and was up-to-date. The Grand Jury
noticed large cartons in the refrigerated food storage area labeled Up to Day 1,
Up to Day 2, and Up to Day 3 that contained fresh fruit that needed to be
rotated by date, and never served beyond day three of storage. The refrigerated
area was neat and well labeled for efficient food storage and use.

The Grand Jury noted emergency earthquake supplies in a separate storage


area, including over 300 bottles of water that are replaced according to
expiration date. There was also a large supply of dry cereal for emergency use.

The Grand Jury found no issues with the food service areas and noted that the
JJC passed their most recent state inspection in this area.

Other Observations

Youths are booked at the JJC and the Grand Jury noted no issues with the
booking area. It takes approximately 30 minutes to book one detainee. After
booking, youths are housed according to age, gender, gang affiliation (if any),
mental and/or health issues, and other considerations for the safety and well-
being of the detainees.

Phones were in working order, and detainees can make collect calls while
housed at the JJC. Detainees are checked every 15 minutes while in their
rooms, and all rooms are private and not shared. There is a complaint and
discipline policy and each detainee is given a copy of the policies upon entry.

Detainees are required to attend school in on-site classrooms. The Grand Jury
learned that very few detainees are not in school during the day. Detainees who
have graduated high school have the opportunity to take college classes online,
and there are also volunteer opportunities. Eight detainees recently received
their high school diploma while at the JJC.

Visiting takes place on Saturday or Sunday, based on the detainees last name.
If the detainee and family are non-violent, they can spend time together in a
large room, otherwise they have access to a traditional visitation room.

During the inspection, the Grand Jury asked about recidivism rates for juvenile
offenders in Alameda County. The Grand Jury was advised that recidivism data

105
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

is not tracked. However, the Grand Jury understands that the Probation
Department does collect extensive data relating to each detainees prior criminal
history. It appears that this information could be used to track recidivism rates.
The Grand Jury believes this data could be used to evaluate the success or
failures of JJC programs and should also be made available to the public.

CONCLUSION

The Grand Jury noted no security issues during the inspection, and staff
appeared to be engaged, promoting a positive atmosphere. It appears that
disciplinary procedures are maintained at all times. The Grand Jury learned
that the number of youths being housed was low because of a concerted effort
to place as many youths as possible under GPS (ankle bracelet) or house arrest
in lieu of detention at the JJC. At the time of the Grand Jurys inspection, 166
juveniles under the supervision of the Probation Department were monitored
using these methods. As a result, two 60-bed units were closed, reducing staff
overtime, which has been an issue in recent years at the JJC.

There appears to be a conscious effort to de-institutionalize the environment


while maintaining strict order at the JJC. The youth wear uniforms, khakis,
green tees and gray sweatshirts. The staff does not carry weapons or wear
police uniforms. The staff greets each other formally by their surnames. The
atmosphere appeared relaxed and staff morale appeared to be high. It was
apparent that the staff is sensitive to the fact that they are dealing with youths.

In conclusion, the Grand Jury found the Alameda County Juvenile Justice
Center to be efficient and well maintained. There appears to be strong and
positive leadership at the JJC, exemplified by the superintendent and staff who
were engaged, knowledgeable and responsive during our inspection.

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS None


RESPONSES REQUIRED None

106
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

HAYWARD POLICE DEPARTMENT


JAIL INSPECTION

INTRODUCTION

On October 13, 2015, the Grand Jury inspected the Hayward Police
Department Jail, located at 300 West Winton Avenue in Hayward, California.
The jail administrator accompanied the Grand Jury during the inspection. The
jail was built in 1978, with upgrades to the building last occurring in 1982. The
Hayward Jail is a Type 1 facility, a local detention facility used for the detention
of not more than 96 hours after booking, excluding holidays. The jail also
serves the California State University East Bay police department.

INSPECTION

The Hayward Jail is staffed by correctional officers. They receive correctional


training and certification. They are not sworn officers and do not carry firearms,
although some jail staff do carry Tasers. Police officers secure their weapons in
lockers with keys at various entry points prior to entering the jail facility.

The Hayward Jail is an older building that shows some signs of wear, but
otherwise the Grand Jury found the jail to be in good condition and well
maintained. Arrestees are booked, released or held for a pre-arraignment
hearing at this facility. Telephone translation services are available when there
are no officers to translate for non-English speaking detainees. The average stay
for an arrestee at this facility is typically less than 24 hours. Upon entry to the
jail, the detainees personal belongings are inventoried, and the detainee is
given a copy of that inventory.

The jail has temporary holding cells, as well as cells that accommodate 30 beds.
There is a total maximum holding capacity of 85 detainees. A toilet, wash basin
and fountain are available in the booking area and most of the jail cells. A
shower is also available in the booking area. The jail has separate cells for
female detainees, individuals with special needs, violent arrestees, and those
who need sobering. All cells are equipped with emergency buttons for detainees
to call for staff. The cells and surrounding areas are cleaned daily by a
custodian.

Upon entry, all arrestees are asked about their medical condition, including
whether they have TB or other communicable diseases. Responses to medical
questions, visual observation, prisoner classification and other information are
entered into a database. Detainees are given a toothbrush, soap and shampoo
upon request. Linens are also provided, and the Grand Jury noted that
mattresses appear to be in good shape.

107
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

Those who arrive with prescription medication have their medication verified
and delivered as directed (detainees keep asthma inhalers with them at all
times). Jail staff may contact a detainees family to verify any request for
medication. The family would then be requested to bring the medication to the
jail. If injured, or when requiring further medical assistance, a detainee may be
transported to St. Rose Hospital in Hayward, to John George Psychiatric
Facility, or to Santa Rita Jail for evaluation and treatment.

The Grand Jury was told that all correctional officers are current in first aid
and CPR training, and that every employee is provided with a CPR mask.
Jurors observed that only one CPR mask was mounted in a prominent location
within the facility. The Grand Jury noted that the location of first aid kits was
not clearly marked, although they were well stocked. A private vendor disposes
of jail hazardous waste. Disposable clothing is provided to detainees who need a
change of clothes, and disposable gloves are provided to staff.

Staff conducts a safety check of cells every 30 minutes. Visitation of detainees


is through a video camera. Attorneys may visit detainees in a special private
cell. At the time of the inspection, security cameras and audio equipment were
found to be in good working condition.

Telephones are located in most cells and in adjoining hallways. Detainees are
provided a minimum of three free phone calls. The number of collect calls is not
limited.

Although there is no formal written complaint procedure, detainees can make


verbal complaints to correctional officers. Complaints may be investigated by
the Hayward Police Departments Internal Affairs division.

A vendor provides food for detainees. Meals are delivered weekly and heated by
jail staff in microwave ovens or stoves. The food area is very clean. Snacks are
provided to detainees when booked late at night, and additional snacks may be
purchased from vending machines with staff assistance.

In the event of an emergency evacuation, the detainees are handcuffed, escorted


outside of the jail, and held along a fence line outside of the building in a secure
yard. If needed, the jail calls for assistance from the Hayward Police
Department or the sheriffs office at the Hayward Court, located next door to the
jail.

CONCLUSION

The Grand Jury found the Hayward Police Department Jail to be efficiently run
and in good condition. A review of the first aid kit signage should be completed
to ensure ready access if needed, and a written complaint procedure for
detainees should be considered.

108
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS None


RESPONSES REQUIRED None

109
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

[This page intentionally left blank]

110
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

FREMONT POLICE DEPARTMENT


DETENTION FACILITY INSPECTION

INTRODUCTION

On October 20, 2015, the Grand Jury inspected the Fremont Police Detention
Facility located at 1990 Stevenson Boulevard in Fremont, California. A police
lieutenant serving as the detention facility manager, and two detention staff
members escorted the Grand Jury throughout the facility. The detention facility
serves the city of Fremont and occasionally houses prisoners for the following
organizations: BART Police Department, CHP (California Highway Patrol), the
California Department of Corrections (State Parole), East Bay Regional Park
District, Newark Police Department, Union City Police Department, and the U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). This facility opened in 2002.

INSPECTION

The facility has a total of 96 holding cells. A toilet, washbasin and drinking
fountain are available in each cell. Showers are available in each common area.
The facility has five common areas called pods that connect to jail cells.
Separate pods are provided for females and males. Persons with special needs
may be placed in separate areas (cells or pods) for their protection. Violent
detainees and gang members are housed in separate maximum-security areas.
The pods include TVs, tables with built-in seating and telephones. Playing
cards, reading materials, and board games are also available for detainees to
use.

Visits are conducted in booths equipped with telephone handsets and a glass
partition that separates the detainee from his/her visitor(s). Detainees are
allowed three free phone calls with a five-minute limit for each call. The number
of paid calls (money card or collect calls) is unlimited.

The Fremont jail is clean. Detainees are provided with soap and toothpaste after
booking and receive clean towels daily. Detainees with soiled clothing are given
a change of clothes. Verified prescriptions for detainees are stored in a secured
control room. Staff is trained in CPR and first aid procedures. The location of
first aid kits is prominently displayed within the facility. Upon booking, all
detainees are screened and observed for mental and physical health issues.
Detainees in need of detoxification, or who are determined to have significant
medical needs, are sent to Santa Rita Jail, John George Psychiatric Pavilion, or
Washington Hospital.

111
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

A phone number for interpreter services is listed in the processing area in the
event an interpreter is needed to communicate for a detainee. In addition,
procedures and safety rules are conspicuously displayed in the processing area
for detainees to read.

There are approximately 20 security cameras at this facility that are monitored
continuously. Each cell has an emergency button. Officers conduct a safety
check on cells twice each hour. Detainees who are a threat to their own safety
are not housed at this facility, but are taken directly to John George Psychiatric
Pavilion, Washington Hospital, or Santa Rita Jail.

Prior to entering the secure jail area, police officers lock their weapons in a sally
port (a secure transition area). Jail staff do not carry firearms but have access
to pepper spray. The Fremont Police Department is adjacent to this facility and
may be called upon if a serious or dangerous situation arises with detainees.

At booking, detainees' personal items are inventoried, logged in the presence of


the detainee, heat sealed, and then locked in a property room. Belongings not
held for evidentiary purposes are returned to the detainee when the detainee is
released from the facility.

A food service company delivers meals for detainees, served three times daily.
No special meals are provided for any allergies, but detainees can select what
food is acceptable to them. There are several convection ovens, a refrigerator
and storage area. The kitchen facility is very clean. Upon a detainees late
arrival, sandwiches are available. Additional food is available upon request.
The Grand Jury noted that a July 8, 2015 county food inspection report made
minor recommendations regarding food preparation. The Grand Jury confirmed
that the jail was in compliance with these recommendations.

The Grand Jury found that emergency procedures are in place at this facility.
For example, in the event of a large earthquake, misdemeanor offenders would
be released, but felony offenders would be taken to the sally port.

The Fremont Jail has a unique program called Pay to Stay, which enables
those eligible to elect to pay to serve their time at the Fremont Jail rather than a
larger, potentially more dangerous jail. The time served at Fremont is in a
smaller and quieter pod (cell) at a cost of $155 per day to the detainee, for up to
four consecutive days at a time. This smaller pod has a capacity for up to four
prisoners and contains a microwave oven, magazines, TV, and a shower. On the
day of the Grand Jury's inspection, a detainee from another state was
occupying this pod.

112
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

CONCLUSION

The Grand Jury found the Fremont Police Detention Facility to be very clean
and well managed. It was further observed that the detention facility employees
enjoyed their work and had high morale. Management and staff are to be
commended for contributing to a positive environment for detainees housed at
this facility.

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS None


RESPONSES REQUIRED None

113
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

[This page intentionally left blank]

114
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

WILEY W. MANUEL COURTHOUSE


JAIL INSPECTION

INTRODUCTION

On November 13, 2015 the Grand Jury inspected the holding cells and support
areas of the Wiley Manuel Courthouse Jail located at 661 Washington Street in
Oakland. These jail holding cells provide a secure environment for incarcerated
individuals awaiting appearance in court. The jail operation is staffed entirely
by sworn Alameda County deputy sheriffs who supervise the detainees and are
responsible for their care, custody and control while in the courthouse. On the
day of the Grand Jurys inspection 107 detainees were being held.

INSPECTION

A lieutenant in charge of court services led the Grand Jurys inspection, along
with two of the deputies on duty. The Grand Jury received an overview of the
operation and asked specific questions for our report. Afterward, the jurors
reviewed the video surveillance center and watched two deputies monitoring
each of the cells where detainees were held. In addition to the continuous
observation, physical checks of the cells are performed every hour or more
frequently depending on the classification of detainees under their supervision.

There are 36 holding cells in the courthouse, each with a maximum capacity of
12 to 16 people, with a total maximum capacity of 494. The number of
detainees on any given day is approximately 125. There were 107 detainees
held on the day of the Grand Jurys inspection.

The facility was clean. The holding cells are in need of paint, and the Grand
Jury was informed that this project is on the schedule for this year. Holding
cells are equipped with benches, a basin and toilet. The cells were also clean
and in working order. The jurors observed generally six to eight detainees in a
cell with a few occupied by only one or two. Cell determinations are made daily
and are based on the classification of the detainees scheduled to appear.
Detainees are assigned to cells based on various criteria behavioral issues,
gang affiliations, etc. Sheriffs deputies carry firearms, batons, pepper spray and
stun guns.

Detainees cannot make phone calls. All cells have two functioning cameras with
two-way audio, so that detainees can communicate with the officers in charge of
monitoring the cameras.

115
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

The Grand Jury was told that detainee complaints are rare, but when they
occur they are usually related to a facility issue. Wiley Manuel Courthouse is
owned by the state of California, therefore complaints about the physical plant
are forwarded to the state representative managing the facility. This
representative is responsible for remedying the problem.

Detainees can meet with their attorneys at the courthouse, and the Grand Jury
inspected several representative meeting rooms. These rooms were not ADA
compliant, but the Grand Jury was advised that there are ADA compliant cells
and meeting rooms in the facility. The deputies accompanying the Grand Jury
noted that Wiley W. Manual has a policy to ensure that special needs detainees
are able to meet with their attorneys in a safe, private manner. Detainees with
special needs receive assistance from deputies navigating small elevators and
narrow hallways.

Detainees who are believed to be a threat to their own safety may be sent to
Wiley W. Manuel. They are housed separately and put on a suicide watch. If
they are unable to appear in court due to their state of mind or behavior and
need medical attention, they are taken via a secure route to the adjacent North
County jail, where they are provided with immediate care or taken to a medical
facility.

There are no food preparation facilities but bag lunches are distributed to the
detainees at the beginning of each day.

The court screens, in advance, for whether a non-English speaking detainee


needs an interpreter. There are several bilingual deputies on staff.

The court has a deputy assigned to maintain safety equipment. The court has
an emergency evacuation plan.

Juvenile detainees are seldom brought to the courthouse, but when they are,
they are segregated from the adult detainees and kept under a continuous
watch.

CONCLUSION

The Grand Jury found that the Wiley W. Manuel Courthouse holding cells are
run in an efficient manner. The mix of detainees on a daily basis poses a
number of challenges for the deputies, but staff appears to have an efficient
system in place.

116
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS None


RESPONSES REQUIRED None

117
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

[This page intentionally left blank]

118
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

URBAN SHIELD 2015

INTRODUCTION

Urban Shield is an annual regional disaster preparedness exercise coordinated


by the Alameda County Sheriffs Office. It is comprehensive in the scope of
catastrophic scenarios presented to participating law enforcement, firefighter
and emergency medical response agencies. It is staged and executed in a
competitive format to enhance training experience, and to evaluate performance
of participating responder teams under stress induced, real-world scenarios.

The Grand Jury was invited by the Alameda County Sheriffs Office (ACSO) to
observe the 2015 Urban Shield exercises. The sheriff, along with ASCO
command staff, led the Grand Jury on a tour of the Alameda County Emergency
Operations Center. The Grand Jury observed live video feed of Urban Shield
exercises, during which command staff highlighted and explained strategic
objectives. The tour concluded with ASCO command staff answering the Grand
Jurys questions concerning Urban Shield.

REVIEW

The tragic events of September 11, 2001 forever altered the landscape in which
law enforcement, fire and other medical emergency responders perform their
duties. Major catastrophic events require manpower and resources beyond the
ability of any single agency or organization. Communication and cooperation
are essential when lives and communities are at risk.

The Alameda County Sheriffs Office created Urban Shield in 2007, to train and
test first responders and their departments using realistic scenarios, and to
prepare them to address these events in the most efficient, cost-effective way
possible. Urban Shield has expanded to train first responders and agencies
beyond the local area to those from all over the United States and around the
world.

Urban Shield stages multiple real-world situations simulating catastrophic


events. Many of these scenarios run concurrently, 24 hours a day, over the
course of the event. Teams move swiftly from one completed scenario to the
next. While first responders are in the field, they are in constant contact with
their command teams. Because multiple teams from diverse agencies are
participating, they must develop common ways to gather key information in
real-time, determine what resources are needed and how to deploy those
resources to get them to the first responders in a timely manner. This

119
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

interaction builds strong relationships across multiple municipalities and


districts.

In 2015, law enforcement, fire and emergency medical teams were deployed to
56 different training exercise sites within the geographical boundaries of
Alameda, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties. In
addition, full-scale exercises also engaged Emergency Operations Centers in
Monterey, San Benito, Santa Cruz and Sonoma counties.

As an example, one scenario involved a coordinated response to a derailed


chemical train. First responders needed to discover what chemicals were
present, what the hazards were, whether there was a chemical plume and if so,
where it was headed and how long it would take to dissipate. They learned to
ascertain who was nearby, who needed to be evacuated and who needed to be
sheltered in place. Once completed, decontamination of people, search dogs or
equipment had to be addressed. Through this exercise, Urban Shield allowed
our first responders and their agencies to safely discover, solve and plan for
such potential problems in advance, instead of at an actual scene where
missteps may come at a high price to the safety and health of those on the
scene.

The 24-hour nature of Urban Shield allows first responders to train for both day
and night conditions, and enables teams to transition command operations.
Those in command during the 12-hour day shift develop a list of goals and
objectives to hand off to the commanders of the night shift, and they in turn do
the same for the next day shift. These communication techniques better prepare
responders to prevent situations in which exhausted individuals could make
serious mistakes.

Costs and Participants

Urban Shield receives much of its funding from the Department of Homeland
Security. In 2015 the program cost $1.5 million. Over 6,200 participants took
part in the training which included volunteers and support personnel. Regional,
state and international law enforcement teams competed in the exercises. Fire
first responders, HAZMAT, land and water based search and rescue, and urban
search and rescue teams also competed. Other participants represented
hospitals and emergency medical personnel, local government public works and
GSA staff.

Reality Based Training for Real-World Situations

Urban Shield provides an opportunity for agencies around the Bay Area and
beyond to meaningfully interact under realistic conditions. As a result of their

120
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

participation in Urban Shield, responders have developed a strong support


network throughout the area. First responder agencies can now quickly muster
and stage needed personnel and assets to respond to situations as they occur.
These situations could be an isolated problem such as a plane crash at the San
Francisco airport, or several wide-spread problems, such as we faced in the
Loma Prieta earthquake and the Oakland Hills fire.

Urban Shield has yielded tangible real world benefits as well. In San Francisco,
training from Urban Shield to execute a line rescue was applied to the actual
rescue of a window washing team trapped on a downtown San Francisco high
rise.

At the Boston Marathon bombing, first responders had participated in past


Urban Shield exercises. As a result, they were on the scene swiftly and were
well organized to respond in the most efficient manner. The public was able to
see, first-hand, how quickly the injured were given medical aid, and how the
bombers were caught at minimal risk to people and property.

In Japan, a robot tested at Urban Shield was used at the Fukushima Daiichi
nuclear power plant to determine the extent of the damage. Without this robot
and training, humans would have been exposed to lethal levels of radiation.

Technology Innovation Through Private/Public Partnerships

The Grand Jury learned that Urban Shield 2015 continued its private/public
partnerships through integrating life safety and technology-based products and
services into Urban Shield exercise scenarios. By subjecting new and existing
technologies to real world applications, products have been improved to meet
the critical needs of first responders. Over 70 corporate vendors participated in
Urban Shield 2015.

One example of technology that has come into common use as the result of
testing at Urban Shield is the body camera. The first generation camera tested
proved to be too bulky and cumbersome. After repeated field tests at Urban
Shield and other sites, body cameras are now smaller, lighter, easier to use and
have more features.

Another product actively used at Urban Shield is the live body mannequin.
This mannequin helps EMTs and other first responders save lives by
realistically modeling major injuries as might be seen in a natural disaster or a
terrorist attack.

121
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

CONCLUSION

Urban Shield provides critical training, coordination, and agency collaboration


to prepare Bay Area first responders and agencies from around the world for
catastrophic events. An analysis of the lessons learned during Urban Shield
exercises has demonstrated that first responders are better prepared, trained
and equipped for actual events under high stress situations.

The citizens and communities of Alameda County and beyond are directly
benefited and are measurably safer as a result of Urban Shield. Furthermore,
the Alameda County Sheriffs Office is to be commended for the vision,
execution and accomplishments of this activity.

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS None


RESPONSES REQUIRED None

122
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

Appendix

123
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

[This page intentionally left blank]

124
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

HOW TO RESPOND TO FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS


IN THIS REPORT

Pursuant to the California Penal Code section 933.05, the person or entity
responding to each grand jury finding shall indicate one of the following:

1. The respondent agrees with the finding.


2. The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in
which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding
that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons
therefore.

The person or entity responding to each grand jury recommendation shall


report one of the following actions:

1. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary


regarding the implemented action.
2. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be
implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.
3. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an
explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study,
and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by
the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated
or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency
where applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months
from the date of publication of the grand jury report.
4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not
warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore.

SEND ALL RESPONSES TO:


Presiding Judge Morris D. Jacobson
Alameda County Superior Court
1225 Fallon Street, Department One
Oakland, California 94612

A COPY MUST ALSO BE SENT TO:


Cassie Barner c/o
Alameda County Grand Jury
1401 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1104
Oakland, California 94612

All responses for the 2015-2016 Grand Jury Final Report must be submitted no
later than 90 days after the public release of the report.

125
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

[This page intentionally left blank]

126
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

CITIZEN COMPLAINT GUIDELINES

The Alameda County Grand Jury welcomes communication from the public as
it can provide valuable information regarding matters for investigation. Receipt
of all complaints will be acknowledged. The information provided will be
carefully reviewed to assist the Grand Jury in deciding what action, if any, to
take. If the Grand Jury determines that a matter is within the legally
permissible scope of its investigative powers and would warrant further inquiry,
additional information may be requested. If the matter is determined not to be
within the Grand Jurys authority to investigate (e.g., a matter involving federal
or state agencies or institutions, courts or court decisions, or a private dispute),
there will be no further contact by the Grand Jury.

By law, the Grand Jury is precluded from communicating the results of its
investigation, except in one of its formal public reports. All communications are
considered, but may not result in any action or report by the Grand Jury.

The jurisdiction of the Alameda County Grand Jury includes the following:

Consideration of evidence of misconduct by officials within Alameda


County.
Investigation and reports on operations, accounts, and records of the
officers, departments or functions of the county and cities, including
special districts and joint powers agencies.
Inquiry into the condition and management of jails within the county.

Annual reports and additional information about the Grand Jury can be found
at: http://acgov.org/grandjury

127
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

[This page intentionally left blank]

128
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

CITIZEN COMPLAINT FORM


Alameda County Grand Jury
1401 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1104
Oakland, California 94612
Voice: 510-272-6259 Fax: 510-465-9647

Date

Your Name

Phone

Address

Email address

Your complaint is confidential. Disclosure of your complaint by the Grand Jury is a


misdemeanor. A complaint should only be submitted to the Grand Jury after all attempts
to correct the situation have been fully explored. This may include, but is not limited to
appealing to a supervisor or department head and requesting intervention by the District
Attorney or Board of Supervisors.

What agency, city, district or county department are you complaining about?

Is the complaint regarding a specific official or local government employee of a city,


district or county department?

Official or Employee Name

Please explain the nature of your complaint providing as many details as you can,
including dates, times, and places where the events you are complaining about took place.
Describe specific instances instead of broad statements. Include any available
photographs, correspondence or documentation supporting this complaint. Please attach
additional sheets of paper if necessary.

129
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

Please list other persons or agencies you have contacted about this complaint and the
result.

What do you believe should be the proper outcome of the Grand Jury involvement in this
complaint?

Provide names and telephone numbers of others who can substantiate your allegations or
provide more information, including citizens and agency employees.

Attach additional sheets if necessary. All communications to the Grand Jury are
confidential.

Signature

Please mail your complaint to:

Alameda County Grand Jury


Attention: Foreman
1401 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1104

130
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

131
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

132
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

133
2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report

Rene C. Davidson Courthouse, 1225 Fallon Street, Oakland, California


Photograph courtesy of Seth Gaines, Germantown, Maryland
[Used with permission.]

134
POLITICAL INTERFERENCE
WITH OAKLAND TOWNHOUSE APARTMENT
BUILDING PROJECT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Grand Jury received a complaint that an Oakland city councilmember


improperly used her elected position to oppose city approval of a proposed
townhouse project next door to her Oakland residence. It was alleged that the
councilmember violated state ethics rules and city regulations by
inappropriately attempting to influence a city administrative decision, and that
the city council and the Oakland Public Ethics Commission (PEC) failed to take
action.

The State Political Reform Act and Oaklands Government Ethics Act were
established as minimum ethical standards to help ensure that public officials
serve as stewards of our public resources. The public expects their elected
officials to wield the power of their office with the publics best interests in
mind, rather than serving their personal interests.

The Grand Jury conducted a comprehensive investigation and found that the
councilmember had a conflict of interest that prohibited her from using her
elected position to influence an administrative decision on the townhouse
project. The councilmember violated ethics rules by privately contacting a
department head and city staff [correspondence was documented on public
e-mail, which was sent to the applicant, his architect, and some Planning
Commissioners] to argue personal objections [and neighborhood objections],
resulting in the department head re-evaluating the [design of the] project. This
gave the appearance that the department head was an advocate for the
councilmember [the neighbors, and the neighborhood]. City emails also
revealed that the councilmember improperly used city resources by having her
chief of staff draft a letter for her in opposition to the project for the
councilmember. The Grand Jury believes that was a misuse of city resources
solely intended to benefit the councilmember personally. Additionally, in
violation of city and state rules, during a planning commission hearing, the
councilmember inappropriately used her position to question [and disagree
with] city policy, to challenge staff [she also complimented staff at the Planning
Commission meeting], and to interrupt proceedings [we did not see evidence of
this on the DVD of the appeal hearing, however, the applicant interrupted
proceedings and the Planning Commission Chair asked him to refrain from
interrupting].

The Grand Jury concludes that the failure of the Oakland City Council and the

20
Oakland Public Ethics Commission to recognize and address these breaches of
ethical standards is unacceptable.

BACKGROUND

The Grand Jury responded to a citizen complaint citing a news report of a


councilmember using city staff for her personal benefit to oppose a development
project. The complaint involved an Oakland property owner who proposed to
construct a number of townhouse units on his property next door to a city
councilmembers residence. The property owner invested a substantial amount
of time and money in amending his building application in response to multiple
levels of review within the citys Planning and Zoning Division. [Disagree with
this statement, as only one (1) month was added to the process prior to
staff approval]

Building Planning and zoning applications fall under the purview of the
Oakland Planning and Zoning Division that operates within the citys
Planning and Building Department. It has the responsibility to process and
issue zoning permits for development projects within the city. The director of
Planning and Building (planning director), the department head for this
umbrella agency, manages 135 employees and reports to the assistant city
administrator. [Over the course of this case, reported to the Assistant City
Administrator, the City Administrator, the Deputy City Administrator, and then
the City Administrator.]

Small building projects, such as the matter the Grand Jury investigated, are
approved by the zoning manager within the Planning and Zoning Division.
Case planners, supervised by the zoning manager, are assigned to individual
projects to ensure proposed designs comply with city zoning and planning
codes. Their decisions can be appealed to the Planning Commission by
opponents of any project.

INVESTIGATION

During the townhouse project investigation, the Grand Jury heard testimony
from several witnesses, including city employees, and reviewed numerous
documents, as follows:

Hundreds of emails pertaining to the townhouse project (obtained from


the city);

The Oakland Government Ethics Act;

The California Political Reform Act, Government Code section 87100 et


seq.;

The Oakland City Charter Section 218. Non-Interference in


20
Administrative Affairs;

Oaklands City Council Code of Ethics;

Oaklands City-wide Code of Conduct - for non-sworn employees,


Administrative Instruction 596;

City of Oakland Planning Commission meetings: staff reports, meeting


minutes, and video recordings;

Oaklands Design Review Committee staff agenda; and

California Fair Political Practices Commission opinion letters on conflict


of interest.

20
The Grand Jury acknowledges the councilmembers right to contact city staff
regarding the townhouse project for the sole purpose of making inquiries [that
was the primary purpose of her contact with staff]. The Grand Jury also
acknowledges the right of the councilmember to appeal the staff approval of
the project and to publicly testify at planning commission hearings as a
private citizen, but not as member of the city council. The Grand Jury did not
evaluate the merits of either the property owners proposed project or the
councilmembers objections to the project; rather, the Grand Jury examined
the councilmembers use of the power of her elected position to oppose
the [design of the] project.

Townhouse Project

The owner of a vacant lot located in west Oakland proposed building a five-unit
townhouse project (later downsized to four units) as permitted under city
zoning. In November 2013, the property owner began working with a case
planner within the planning department to prepare a design that would meet
city requirements, including compatibility with neighboring properties. After
reaching out to neighbors and implementing city staff recommendations, the
owners architect drafted a plan that appeared to meet the citys the case
planners requirements, [not the Oakland Code requirements, Regular Design
Review Criteria Section 17.136.050, Regular Design Review Criteria indicates that for
residential facilities, the proposed design will create a building or set of buildings that are well
related to the surrounding area in their setting, scale, bulk, height, materials, and textures. In
addition, it states that the proposed design will protect, preserve, or enhance desirable
neighborhood characteristics. . Shortly after [and prior to] submitting the
building zoning application on January 23, 2014, the property owner was
contacted by the next-door neighbor who stated that his wife was an
Oakland city councilmember and further stated that he and his wife would
be working to stop the project if the design was not changed to their liking.
This raised concerns for the property owner because his architect had
already incorporated city staff recommendations into the project plans [but
not neighbors concerns voiced prior to the application] and approval of the
townhouse project appeared imminent.

Soon thereafter, the councilmember contacted the citys Planning and Building
Department director (planning director) to voice objections to the townhouse
project [and inquire about City regulations and processes pertaining to this
project see e-mail dated xx 2014]. As a result, the planning director
contacted the zoning manager and the assigned case planner, notifying them
that she would be conducting her own design review of the project [inquiring
about City regulations and processes pertaining to this project and why the
Design Review regulations were not applied to this case.] After visiting the site,
the planning director determined that the project was poorly designed,
despite the fact that the project plans had already been evaluated by a
4
group of city planners at a regular staff meeting. Subsequent to
conducting an independent review, in conjunction with the case planner and
the zoning manager, the planning director then suggested changes to the
design facades and plan, per the Regular Design Review Criteria. The director
also suggested that the property owner present the revised plans to the
councilmember and interested neighbors so that the final design could be
completed and approved by the city.

While the assigned case planner remained involved, the planning director
became the citys point of contact for the project. This is incorrect. The case
planner and zoning manager remained the points of contact for the project
along with the Director. The case planner presented at the Planning
Commission appeal hearing on August 6, 2014. In addition, both he and the
zoning manager were the only staffers to answer questions/make comments at
this hearing. The Grand Jury heard testimony from witnesses [the case
planner and who else?] that it was highly unusual for the head of the city
Planning and Building Department to become directly involved with a project of
this relatively small size. [The case planner does not monitor the Directors
schedule or case load and therefore cannot know of all the relatively small size
projects the Director deals with on an almost daily basis. See attached e-mails
sent to the Grand Jury, along with other e-mails, that show ample evidence of
the many small projects the Director has addressed on a regular basis.] The
Grand Jury heard conflicting evidence as to whether this was common
practice.

On March 21, 2014, after making revisions requested by the planning director,
the property owner resubmitted the project plans. [This was only one week after
the applicants architect first contacted the Director regarding the suggested
design changes. The changes were supported by the case planner and the
zoning manager] Shortly thereafter, [on April 2, 2014] the zoning manager
approved the design review after planning staff determined that the proposed
project complied with city zoning and other planning codes. Two weeks
later, [on April 14, 2014] an appeal of the approval was filed on behalf of the
councilmembers spouse.

Several [four] months later [a common time frame for appeals], the appeal was
considered by the Planning Commission at its August 6, 2014 meeting. At this
meeting, the commission delayed ruling on the appeal and directed the
property owner and appellants to try to find a mutually acceptable solution.

After the property owner completed revisions to the project, the planning
director emailed the councilmember asking if the revisions were acceptable.
The councilmember responded that the revisions were not acceptable and
copied her staff in the email communication.
[The above paragraph omits critical communications that transpired after the
Planning Commission hearing of 8/6/14. The complete story is as follows: The
5
owners architect met with the appellants representative on xx, 2014 and
discussed possible design revisions that would be acceptable to both parties.
However, when the architect presented them to his client, Bob Brecht, he
rejected the design revisions that Tim and Tanya discussed/considered. He
directed his architect on xx, 2014 to return directly to the Planning Commission
with his preferred design with no further communication with the appellant or
appellants rep. The owners architect then contacted the Planning Commission
Chair (Chris Pattillo) directly, via e-mail, on September 15, 2014 asking if she
could support the revised design submitted to her on behalf of his client. Chair
Pattillo said she could support the revised design, but that she still wanted them
to make a good faith effort to meet with and address the neighbors concerns.
On September 30, 2014, Mr. Alatorre e-mailed the revised design directly to me
(not at my directive or request) without copying the case planner or the zoning
manager and asked when the Planning Commission hearing could be
scheduled. He attached his clients proposed design. He also left a voicemail
with me, indicating that he had discussed the project with Tanya Boyce and that
her clients preferred the revised design they were submitting. I forwarded the
revised design to Lynette McElhaney and asked if that was correct. She said
that she had not seen or approved any final design and that the applicant was
supposed to meet with the neighbors to discuss design options. She was going
to have Ms. Boyce contact the architect to relay that message.]

In November of 2014, the planning director emailed the property owners


architect warning him that, without a meeting (with the appellants and
neighbors) and consensus, there is a risk that the Planning Commission will
not approve the design. [per Chair Pattillos directive to the architect on
September 15, 2014 and the Planning Commissions directive on August 6,
2014.] As documented in a number of emails, the property owners architect
had tried to meet with the councilmember and her husband, as well as other
neighbors; however, the councilmember did not want to meet unless the
property owner downsized the plan significantly and met other concerns. [As
documented in a number of emails, the appellants representative tried to meet
with the architect, owner, neighbors, and her client but the owner, Bob Brecht,
would not agree to meet to discuss any further design revisions.]

In December, eight months after filing the appeal, the Planning Commission
took final action. The property owners new design reduced the number of units
from five to four, and addressed privacy issues by facing some [one] of the units
away from the councilmembers home. These [ this] units previously had
downtown views, but were now facing another neighbors home [above the
neighbors roof line to views of the SF Bay] and a freeway sound wall [blocked
by the adjoining houses]. The staff report for the Planning Commissions
December 17th meeting noted that the project was consistent with the citys
general plan objectives and policies for meeting current and future housing
needs, encouraging infill development for vacant sites, and providing
affordable housing [this project is not considered affordable housing].
Planning Commission video from that meeting showed the councilmember
broadly criticizing city policy [disagree with this statement]. Later in the
6
meeting, the councilmember interrupted the commissioners by abruptly
speaking after the public comment period ended [disagree with this statement]
and indicated among other things that she would obtain advice from the city
attorney on the issue. Ultimately, the staffs recommendation that the appeal
be denied was approved by the planning commission with the addition of some
design review conditions. This allowed the project to move forward.

The Grand Jury heard testimony that a few days after the December appeals
hearing, the planning director contacted the property owner by phone. It was
alleged that the planning director urged the property owner to consider
alternative project plans proposed by an outside architect with ties to the
councilmember. Notwithstanding the denial of the appeal, it was also
alleged that the planning director told the property owner that he could be sued
[this is an incorrect statement] unless a resolution was worked out with the
neighbors. [I indicated that the applicant had an approved project, per the City
process, but that the appellant had the right to further pursue their appeal in
Superior Court. This revised design might avert further appeal and time delays
and result in a win-win for both sides. The architect spoke with his client and
the client, Bob Brecht, rejected the idea. When I asked him why his client
wouldnt consider it, he said due to lawyers getting involved. After that, staff
began getting public records requests for case documentation.]

In early January 2015, the citys planning staff sent the outside architects
plans to the property owners architect. In an email to the property owners
architect, the planning director stated, It would be good if your client would at
least consider an alternative design that addresses most of the neighbors
concerns...just so you know, the neighbors have the right to appeal the
Planning Commissions decision to the Superior Court. The planning director
further stated, If an alternative design could be agreed to by all parties, then
such an agreement would prevent further actions that could prolong the
review/approval process.

Since the project had already been approved by staff and the planning
commission had denied the councilmembers appeal, the property owner
decided not to make further major revisions to the design as recommended by
the outside architects plans. Finally, on February 11, 2015, the citys Design
Review Committee approved the final plans submitted by the property owner.

The property was then listed for sale and as of the writing of this report, the
project has not been built. The property owner is concerned that further battles
with the city may occur while attempting to obtain permits and constructing the
townhouse project. Witnesses to the Grand Jury testified that developers are
reluctant to purchase the property due to the councilmembers interference.
The Grand Jury heard testimony that real estate laws require the owner to
disclose opposition to the project to any potential purchasers of the property.

7
Applicable City and State Ethics Rules

Conflicts of Interests for Personal Gain

A public servant shall not make, participate in making, or seek to influence a


decision of the city in which the public servant has a financial interest within the
meaning of the California Political Reform Act and pursuant to the Oakland
Government Ethics Act.

As a public servant, elected officials are precluded from seeking to influence a


decision in which they have a financial interest. A public official has a financial
interest in a government decision if it is reasonably foreseeable that the
decision will have a material financial effect on the public officials interests.
The financial effect is material whenever the governmental decision affects real
property located within 500 feet of the officials property unless there would be
no reasonably foreseeable measurable impact on the property. In this case, the
councilmember has a material financial interest because the location of the
townhouse project is next door to the councilmembers primary residence.

The financial effect is also material if the decision would substantially alter
things such as traffic levels, view, privacy, and noise levels, among other
factors. Since the councilmembers complaints included many of these factors,
there is little question that the councilmember had a financial interest in the
decisions pertaining to the townhouse project.

Accordingly, the councilmember had a material financial interest in


governmental decisions based on the proximity of the townhouse project to her
residence and the likelihood that her privacy would be adversely impacted.

As a result, the Grand Jury concludes that the councilmember had a conflict of
interest and should have taken steps to ensure that she did not use her official
position to influence the decision regarding the townhouse project. While there
is an exception permitting a public official to appear as a member of the general
public during a public meeting, the exception is narrowly interpreted, requiring
the councilmember to limit comments to the specific project in question. An
elected official may not speak to general policies or in any official capacity on
matters in which the official has a conflict of interest. Additionally, a public
official may not directly contact city staff behind the scenes to influence a
government decision.

Here, the councilmember privately contacted a department head three levels


above the staff person handling the project to register discontent with the
project. This conduct directly violated ethics rules and alienated staff. The
councilmembers interference turned the department head into an intermediary
(or even an advocate) for the elected official, giving the appearance that the
public official was receiving special treatment.
8
Finally, when the councilmember spoke to the planning commission at the
December meeting, she did not identify herself as speaking as a private citizen;
rather, the councilmember spoke broadly, criticizing city policy. The Grand Jury
heard testimony that the councilmember interrupted the speakers several times
during the meeting and rose after public comment had closed, summarizing her
position and stating she would seek the city attorneys advice. This gave the
appearance that she had special access to city resources. State ethics rules are
intended to prevent such conduct that disrespects public process, city staff,
and the community.

Misuse of City Resources or Position for Private Gain

City ethics rules state that no public servant may use his or her position, or the
power or authority of his or her office or position, in any manner intended to
induce or coerce any person to provide any private advantage, benefit, or
economic gain to the city public servant or any other person. Use of public
resources includes city compensated time.

During this investigation, the Grand Jury learned that the councilmembers
chief of staff researched and prepared a letter using city resources for the
councilmember in his capacity as a city employee stating opposition to the
townhouse project. The chief of staff sent this letter, which was to be signed by
the councilmember, from his city email account to the councilmembers city
email address. The councilmember responded by thanking him. He, in turn,
suggested that the correspondence be sent from the councilmembers home
email address. This opposition letter was then sent the next day to the case
planner from the councilmembers husbands email address. This was a direct
misuse of city resources for the councilmembers private benefit.

The Grand Jury also learned that the councilmembers chief of staff prepared
talking points or notes using city time and resources for the councilmembers
opposition of the project in his capacity as chief of staff. He also had multiple
conversations with staff, including the department head, about the
councilmembers opposition to the project. The Grand Jury learned that he
never met or spoke with any other neighbors but relied on the councilmembers
representations regarding neighborhood sentiment.

It is common for the chief of staff to inquire with city staff about pending
development projects or to publicly comment in writing as a staff member. It is
also common to organize neighborhood meetings to notify the community about
such projects and the citys approval process. However, the Grand Jury believes
that the chief of staffs conduct in this instance went beyond normal constituent
services and thus the councilmember misused city resources to benefit herself
personally.

Non-Interference in Administrative Affairs


9
As prohibited by City Charter Section 218, except for the purpose of inquiry,
neither the council nor any councilmember shall give orders to any subordinate of
the City under the jurisdiction of the City Administrator or such other officers,
either publicly or privately; nor shall they attempt to coerce or influence the City
Administrator or such other officers, in respect to any administrative action.

The Grand Jury identified emails to city staff documenting the councilmembers
objections to the project. Specifically, the councilmember sent the planning
director an email stating, This process raises a series of serious concerns for
your department including how well you track and enforce the citys
procedures. The Grand Jury concludes that these communications gave the
appearance that the councilmember was speaking not as a private citizen, but
rather, inappropriately wielding her power as a councilmember to influence an
administrative decision.

The councilmember also stated in her email, What is revealed here is


troublesomeI would hope that staff is sending a clear signal that the applicant
[property owner] needs to return with the appellants to demonstrate that both
parties have followed the process we agreed to at the hearing [August 6th
Planning Commission Meeting]What is happening here indicates the same
level of disregard and disrespect that has characterized his [property owner]
interactions with this community prior to the appeal. This has citywide
implications. Id like to meet with you to discuss a better process for all
applicants and appellants. Lets include time for this in our next District
conversation. This is a councilmember using her status as a public official to
improperly influence senior staff for her own personal benefit.

Oakland Administrative Code for Employee Conduct

The city of Oakland Administrative Instruction AI 596 sets forth guidelines for
professional and courteous conduct by all non-sworn city employees while
conducting city business. Proper behavior includes impartial treatment of the
public. This guideline also reaffirms the City Charter section 218 prohibition
against employees taking direction from members of the council. If a
councilmember does give direction to an employee or attempts to coerce or
influence an employee regarding a contract, project, personnel matter or other
administrative action, the employee shall report the violation.

The planning director became the citys primary point of contact for the project
corresponding on numerous occasions with the property owners architect and
the councilmember. These emails had a pattern of advocating the
councilmembers interest while at the same time placing a burden on the
property owner to develop a mutually acceptable solution.

While the Grand Jury received information that the planning director may have
10
informed the city administrator about this project, there was no indication that
the director reported the councilmembers conflict of interest or inappropriate
interference with staff. Instead, the planning director continued to advocate for
a conclusion that satisfied the councilmember. This advocacy gave the
appearance that backroom conversations were taking place outside of the
property owners participation placing him at a disadvantage.

Remedies

The Oakland Public Ethics Commission and the city council both have the
authority and responsibility to address ethical violations.

Oakland Public Ethics Commission

The Oakland Public Ethics Commission (PEC) is a seven-member board of


Oakland residents. The PECs responsibilities include overseeing compliance
with the Oakland Government Ethics Act. Specific responsibilities include
educating city staff on ethics-related issues and ensuring policies are in place
and are being followed. The PEC is also authorized to conduct investigations
and impose fines and penalties as part of its compliance responsibilities.

The PEC was originally created by city charter amendment in 1996. While the
amendment appeared to set up a body of citizens with the goal of ensuring
fairness, openness, honesty and integrity in city government, the PEC had
very little enforcement authority and insufficient resources to carry out its
mission. In response to ethical violations by local elected officials in the last
decade, the citizens of Oakland took action by prioritizing the importance of
integrity and high ethical standards for their public officials.

In 2014, voters amended the city charter to strengthen their PEC, giving the
agency more authority and resources to educate and hold city leaders
accountable for their actions. The PEC now has expanded structure, staffing,
independence, and more importantly, authority to take action. As a result, the
PEC now has the authority, the capacity to investigate, and the ability to
enforce all of the ethical standards discussed earlier in this report.

City Council Censure

The city of Oakland also has a code of ethics that applies to councilmembers.
In part, it states that councilmembers must adhere to the American ideals of
government, the rule of law, the principles of public administration, and high
ethical conduct in the performance of public duties. The same code requires
councilmembers to represent and work for the common good of the city and not
for any private interest. Council members must also maintain the highest
standard of public conduct by refusing to condone breaches of public trust or
improper attempts to influence legislation, and must be willing to censure any
11
member who willfully violates the rules of conduct contained in the code of
ethics. Relevant portions of the city rules go further to mirror many of the state
rules governing conflicts of interests.

The power to censure allows the city council to publicly condemn a fellow
councilmember. Censure is a formal legislative resolution reprimanding
someone for specific conduct. The elected official who is the focus of the
censure has the right to be notified of the action and must be able to respond.
While the act of censuring a councilmember carries no penalty other than the
verbal reprimand itself, it is a sign that the political body is self-policing its own
members and making a statement that the conduct is unacceptable.

CONCLUSION

Political interference from elected officials can erode public confidence and trust
in government, thus damaging its effectiveness. Although the city of Oakland
has regulations in place to prevent interference from a city councilmember,
these regulations did not deter city officials from interfering with the approval
process for the townhouse project. The councilmember used her position and
office to advocate for private gain, and not for the common good of the city. The
planning director, in effect, became a collaborator with the councilmember by
advocating for design changes favorable to the councilmember while giving the
impression that the revised design needed the councilmembers concurrence.

Recent legislative changes to strengthen the Public Ethics Commission were


intended to combat such political interference. Now that the PEC is better
staffed, concrete steps can be taken to provide training and enforce these rules.
The PEC, which was created to ensure "fairness, openness, honesty and
integrity" in city government, needs to take action to enforce these rules. The
city council must also take action to ensure this conduct is acknowledged and
addressed. City employees, especially senior staff, need to report improper
conduct. Without proper checks and balances, residents and those investing in
the community will lose faith in the integrity of the political process. Backroom
dealing cannot be the standard by which the city of Oakland is governed.

12
FINDINGS

Finding 16-1:
The councilmember had a conflict of interest with the townhouse project and
interfered with the projects approval process.

Finding 16-2:
The councilmembers use of her city staff on the townhouse project was a
misuse of city resources for her personal benefit.

Finding 16-3:
The councilmember privately contacted senior city staff, attempting to
improperly influence decisions, which subverted the public process.

Finding 16-4:
The planning directors attempt to pacify the councilmember gave the
appearance that she was collaborating with the councilmember to obstruct the
property owner.

Finding 16-5:
The planning directors failure to report to the city administrators office or stop
the councilmembers ethical violations undermined city staff and the fair
treatment of those doing business with the city.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 16-1:
The city of Oakland Public Ethics Commission must conduct its own
investigation of facts surrounding the townhouse project and take appropriate
enforcement actions.

Recommendation 16-2:
The city of Oakland Public Ethics Commission must reinforce its ethics training
for elected officials and city employees regarding conflicts of interest, misuse of
city resources or position, and professional conduct, including reporting council
interference.

Recommendation 16-3:
The Oakland City Council must follow its Code of Ethics, including its mandate
to be willing to censure any member who willfully violates the rules of conduct
contained in the Code of Ethics.

13
RESPONSES REQUIRED
Responding Agencies - Please see page 125 for instructions

Oakland City Council:


Findings 16-1 through 16-5
Recommendation 16-3

Mayor, City of Oakland:


Findings 16-1 through 16-5
Recommendations 16-3

City of Oakland Public Ethics Commission:


Recommendations 16-1 and 16-2

30
HOW TO RESPOND TO FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
IN THIS REPORT

Pursuant to the California Penal Code section 933.05, the person or entity
responding to each grand jury finding shall indicate one of the following:

1. The respondent agrees with the finding.


2. The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in
which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding
that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons
therefore.

The person or entity responding to each grand jury recommendation shall


report one of the following actions:

1. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary


regarding the implemented action.
2. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be
implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.
3. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an
explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study,
and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by
the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated
or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency
where applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months
from the date of publication of the grand jury report.
4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not
warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore.

SEND ALL RESPONSES TO:


Presiding Judge Morris D. Jacobson
Alameda County Superior Court
1225 Fallon Street, Department One
Oakland, California 94612

A COPY MUST ALSO BE SENT TO:


Cassie Barner c/o
Alameda County Grand Jury
1401 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1104
Oakland, California 94612

All responses for the 2015-2016 Grand Jury Final Report must be submitted no
later than 90 days after the public release of the report.

15
A B C D E F G H I J K
Total City
Number Affordable Senior Constr Expected Participation/
1 Project Address of Units Units Units Developer Start Completion Value Comments Status
2
3 2016 - Completed
4
5 The Hive 2323 Broadway 70 Signature Development 2015 2016 Completed
6 4429 Piedmont 4429 Piedmont 9 Lorenzo Frediani 2016 2016 Completed
7
8 TOTAL UNDER CONSTRUCTION 79 - -
9 0%
10
11 2016 Under Construction
12
13 Former Bay Chevrolet 3093 Broadway 435 Blackstone-CityView 2016 2017 Construction
14 Valdez & 23rd 2302 Valdez Street 193 Wood Partners 2016 2017 Construction
15 Station House - Phase I 1401 Wood Street 171 CityVentures 2015 2017 Construction
16 The Courthouse 2935 Telegraph Avenue 162 Madison Park - Curtis 2016 2017 Construction
17 Merrill Gardens Assisted Living 5101 Broadway 127 127 SRM 2015 2016 Construction
18 The Temescal 4901 Broadway 126 SRM Construction 2016 2017 Construction
19 Jefferson Apartments 612 18th Street 84 Bay West Development 2015 2017 Construction
20 Micro-Units 2425 Valdez Street 71 71 Trestle Company 2015 2016 Construction
21 Prosperity Place 1110 Jackson Street 71 71 EBALDC 2015 2016 $ 2,750,000 Construction
22 Derby Lofts 2985 Ford St/25 Derby St 63 Madison Park 2016 2017 Construction
23 Jingletown 3014 Chapman 41 Madison Park 2016 2017 Demo Work
24 Valley & 23rd 459 23rd Street 65 Signature 2016 2017 Construction
25 Kingfish 5227 Claremont Avenue 33 Signature 2016 2016 Construction
26 632 14th Street 632 14th Street 40 40 Meta Housing 2016 2017 $ 2,575,000 Construction
27 Broadway & 8th - 459 8th Street Broadway & 8th Street 48 St. Regis Properties 2016 2017 Construction
28 Temescal 4801 Shattuck Avenue 42 Nautilus 2016 2017 Modular Construction
29 Temescal 4700 Telegraph Avenue 48 Nautilus 2016 2017 Modular Demo Work
30 528 Berkley Way (20th @ Telegr) 528 Thomas L. Berkley Way 25 CRC Development 2015 2016 Construction
31 285 Lee Street 285 Lee Street 27 285 Lee St LLC 2016 2017 Rehab Construction
A B C D E F G H I J K
Total City
Number Affordable Senior Constr Expected Participation/
1 Project Address of Units Units Units Developer Start Completion Value Comments Status
32 388 12th Street 388 Twelfth Street 25 25 Michael Kuang 2014 2016 Construction
33 1400 Wood Street 1400 Wood Street 10 Dogtown Development 2016 2017 Construction
34 3235 Louise 3235 Louise Street 6 CS Development 2016 2017 Construction
35 32nd & Helen Streets 1490 32nd Street 6 Workshop1 2016 2017 Construction
36 5500 Lowell 5500 Lowell Street 8 Wilson 2015 2016 Construction
37 5801 Lowell 5801 Lowell Street 15 Wilson 2015 2016 Construction
38 4425 Piedmont 4425 Piedmont 3 Blair Banker 2016 2016 Construction
39 4435 Piedmont 4435 Piedmont 25 Dave Herskowitz 2016 2016 Construction
40 4449-4467 Howe Street 4449-4467 Howe Street 10 Thomas Anthony 2016 2016 Construction
41 Webster & 4th Street - JLS 400 Webster 8 Carlos Palozeda 2016 2017 Construction
42 94th & International 9400 International Blvd 59 59 Related CA - Acts Full Gospe 2017 2018 $ 7,747,000 Permitted
43 Leona Quarry Townhouses 6493 Bayview Drive 10 DeSilva Group 2016 2016 Construction
44 Single Family Dwellings Varies 65 Varies 2016 2016 Construction
45 Duplexes (4) Varies 8 Varies 2016 2016 Construction
46 Triplexes (2) Varies 6 Varies 2016 2016 Construction
47 Four-plex (1) Varies 4 Varies 2016 2016 Construction
48
49 TOTAL UNDER CONSTRUCTION 2,140 266 127
50 12%
51
52 Expected to Start in 2016
53
54 27th & Broadway 2630 Broadway - 325 27th St 255 The Hanover Company 2016 2018 Bldg Permit Review
55 1700 Webster 1700 Webster 206 Gerding Edlen 2016 2018 Demo Bldg Permit Review
56 Broadway & 2nd 201 Broadway 48 The Austin Group 2016 2018 Bldg Permit Review
57 4th & Madison 200 Fourth Street 330 Carmel Partners 2016 2018 Bldg Permit Review
58 6809 Skyview Drive 6809 Skyview Drive 6 2016 2018 Condos Permitted
59
60 TOTAL 845 0
61 0%
A B C D E F G H I J K
Total City
Number Affordable Senior Constr Expected Participation/
1 Project Address of Units Units Units Developer Start Completion Value Comments Status
62
63 2017
64
65 Brooklyn Basin - Phase 1 845 Embarcadero (@ 9th Av) 241 ZOHP 2017 2018 Zoning Review
66 Broadway & 17th 1640 Broadway 254 Lennar-Joe Hernon 2017 2019 Bldg Permit Review
67 Brooklyn Basin Embarcardero & 9th Avenue 465 465 City/CDC 2019 2020 City Review
68 MacArthr Transt Village, Parcel A 40th Street 286 18 Bridge Housing 2017 2018 Entitled
69 MacArthr Transt Village, Parcel B Turquoise Street 400 45 Terry McGrath-Boston Pr 2017 2019 Zoning Review
70 MacArthr Transt Village, Parcel C Turquoise Street 96 Bridge Housing 2017 2018 Entitled
71 Valley & 23rd 456 23rd Street 34 Signature 2017 2018 Bldg Permit Review
72 Kia Dealership 2401 Broadway 146 Signature 2017 2018 36k comm'l Bldg Permit Review
73 Icehouse 950 W. Grand Avenue 126 City Ventures 2017 2018 Bldg Permit Review
74 Mews House - Site 1A Frontage Road 47 City Ventures 2017 2018 CEQA Appeal
75 Hannah Street 2868 Hannah Street 47 Madison Park 2017 2018 Bldg Permit Review
76 Hollis Street 3250 Hollis Street 94 Madison Park 2017 2018 Bldg Permit Review
77 570 21st 570 21st Street 78 Junction Properties 2017 2018
78 4690 Tompkins 4690 Tompkins Avenue 40 Urban Green 2017 2016 Bldg Permit Review
79 2201 Brush 2201 Brush Street 59 59 EBALDC 2017 2018 Entitled
80 2100 MLK Way 2100 MLK Way 100 100 RCD 2017 2018 Entitled
81 3268 San Pablo 3268 San Pablo 40 40 SAHA 2017 2018 Zoning Review
82 Broadway & 17th 1640 Broadway 254 Lennar-Joe Hernon 2017 2019 Bldg Permit Review
83 Bay Alarm - Chinatown 325 7th Street 160 Bay Alarm (Yui Hay Lee) 2017 2018 Entitled
84 2855 Broadway 2855 Broadway 212 Lowe Enterprises 2017 2018 Zoning Review
85 3000 Broadway 3000 Broadway 128 M&M Properties 2017 2018 Zoning Review
86 Coliseum Place 905 72nd Street & Hawley 59 59 Resources for CD 2017 2018 Entitled
87 377 2nd Street - JLS 377 2nd Street 134 Mill Creek 2017 2018 Entitled
88 335 3rd Street - JLS 335 3rd Street 18 AMG - Alexis G 2017 2018 Zoning Review
89 1801 Wood Street 1801 Wood Street 100 100 City of Oakland 2017 2018 City land Issuing RFP
90 2450 Valdez 2450 Valdez Street 225 The Hanover Company 2017 2019 23,000 retail CEQA Appeal
91 Acura Site 277 27th Street 437 Holland Development 2017 2019 65,000 retail Appeal to CC
A B C D E F G H I J K
Total City
Number Affordable Senior Constr Expected Participation/
1 Project Address of Units Units Units Developer Start Completion Value Comments Status
92 1721 Webster 1721 Webster 250 Holland Development 2017 2019 Zoning Review
93 The Webster 2315 Valdez Street 235 36 Thompson Dorfman 2017 2019 City land Entitled
94 The Union Union & 5th Streets - W.O. 110 Holliday Development 2017 2018 Modular Pre-App 2016
95 Central Station 2001 Wood Street 235 Holliday Development 2017 2018 Modular Entitled
96 2538 Telegraph Avenue 2538 Telegraph Avenue 97 Sandringham Properties 2017 2018 Entitled-Revise
97 T5-6 1100 Clay Street 250 20 Strada ($1.8m - aff hsg) 2017 2019 City land Entitled
98 Jack London Square Broadway & 3rd 260 CIM 2017 2019 Entitled
99 Alice & 14th 250 14th Street 125 Bay Development 2017 2019 Entitled
100 Alice & 13th 226 13th Street 200 Wood Partners 2017 2019 Appeal to CC
101 12th & Webster "W12" (339/77) 301 12th Street 416 The Martin Group 2017 2019 26k retail Appeal to CC
102 3927 Wattling 3927 Wattling Street 79 79 Oak Partners 2017 2018 Zoning Review
103 Hannah Park Residence 2850 Hannah Street 92 Riaz, Inc. 2017 2018 Entitled
104 Church Rehab 1638 47th Avenue 60 60 Riaz Inc 2017 2018 Entitled
105 Lucasey Lofts 2744 E 11th Street 200 Riaz Inc 2017 2019 Zoning Review
106 Alice & 17th Alice Street @ 17th St 150 Rosetti - CRC Developt 2017 2019 Zoning Review
107 718 Clay Street 718 Clay Street 24 Clayton Court 2017 2018 Zoning Review
108 53rd & San Pablo 5300 San Pablo Avenue 16 Dogtown Development 2017 2018 Subdivision Rev
109 34th & Louise 1437 34th Street 8 Dogtown Development 2017 2018 Demo Permit Rev
110 Chase Street Chase Street 12 Dogtown Development 2017 2018 Tentative Map
111 2242 Magnolia 2242 Magnolia 16 Dogtown Development 2017 2018 Zoning Review
112 4200 Filbert Street 4200 Filbert Street 55 Tom Dolan 2017 2018 Zoning Review
113 1437 34th Street 1437 34th Street 8 Matt Baran 2017 2018 Entitled
114 2503 Adeline 2503 Adeline 9 Bob Richerson 2017 2018 Zoning Review
115 40th & Shafter 3946 Shafter Avenue 51 Ken Lowney 2017 2018 Zoning Review
116 2805 Park Blvd 2805 Park Blvd 20 4 AMG - Alexis G 2017 2018 Entitled
117 2126 MLK Way 2126 MLK Way 62 62 Resources for CD 2017 2018 $ 29,000,000 Entitled
118 Coliseum Transit Village 70th Ave @ Snell Street 110 55 Urban Core 2017 2018 Entitled
119 Single Family Dwellings Varies 50 Estimated
120
121 TOTAL 7,480 1202
A B C D E F G H I J K
Total City
Number Affordable Senior Constr Expected Participation/
1 Project Address of Units Units Units Developer Start Completion Value Comments Status
122 16%
123
124 2018
125
126 657 W MacArthur Blvd 657 W MacArthur Blvd 41 9 BuildZig 2018 2019 Zoning Review
127 Webster - Harrison 1810 Webster - 301 19th St 224 Lennar 2018 2019 Zoning Review
128 1508 Webster - On Hold 1508 Webster Street 12 Michael Liu 2013 2019 Constrtn On-hold
129 1518 MLK Way 1518 MLK Way 140 Jakon Investment Group 2018 2019 Zoning Review
130 3129 Elmwood Avenue 3129 Elmwood Avenue 30 Eduardo Axtle 2018 2019 Zoning Review
131 40th & Telegraph 490 40th Street 19 Mark Becker 2018 2019 Zoning Review
132 5325 San Pablo 5325 San Pablo Avenue 18 Stephen Tong 2018 2019 Zoning Review
133 3884 MLK Way 3884 MLK Way 40 Jorge De Quesada 2018 2019 Zoning Review
134 2970 Summit 2970 Summit 8 Enea Properties 2018 2019 Zoning Review
135 Merchants Garage Site 1314 Franklin 575 Carmel Partners 2018 2019 Zoning Review
136 Webster & 15th 1433 Webster 176 Nautilus 2018 2019 60k office Zoning Review
137 Harrison & 13th 1261 Harrison 250 Ronnie Turner 2018 2019 Zoning Review
138 MacArthur BART Village Telegraph & 40th - Phase IV 152 Bridge Hsg 2018 2019 Entitled
139 Brooklyn Basin Embarcardero & 9th Ave 400 ZOHP 2018 2019
140 2305 Webster 2305 Webster 200 Avi Nevo 2018 2019
141 Parcel 4 Site 1911 Telegraph Avenue 250 100 Oliver McMillan 2018 2019 City land ENA
142 335 3rd Street 335 3rd Street 18 Rebecca Fiedberg 2018 2019 Entitled
143 12th Street Remainder 12th Street & 1st Avenue 330 150 EBALDC & Urban Core 2018 2020 ENA
144 19th & Harrison 301 19th Street 220 Lennar 2018 2020 Zoning Review
145 14th & Harrison 226 13th Street 250 Wood Partners 2018 2020 Zoning Review
146 Jack London Square Webster & 3rd 400 CIM 2018 2020 Entitled
147 West Oakland BART Area 500 Kirkham 417 Jabari Herbert 2018 2020 Entitled
148 Uptown Housing 2000 Telegraph - NE Corner 220 Lane Partners 2018 2019
149 Uptown Housing 2001 Telegraph - NW Corner 110 Lane Partners 2018 2019
150 1900 Broadway 1910 Broadway 300 Seth Hamalian 2018 2020 Entitled
151 Oak Knoll - Phase I Mountain View 200 Sun Cal 2018 2020 Zoning Review
A B C D E F G H I J K
Total City
Number Affordable Senior Constr Expected Participation/
1 Project Address of Units Units Units Developer Start Completion Value Comments Status
152 Redwood Hill 4856 Calaveras Avenue 28 28 SAHA 2018 2020 $ 4,418,600
153 Single Family Dwellings Varies 50 Estimated
154
155 TOTAL 5,078 287
156 6%
157
158 2020+
159
160 Brooklyn Basin Embarcardero & 9th Avenue 1,935 ZOHP 2018-25 2020-30
161 Broadway Valdez Tower 2270 Broadway 250 Invesco 2018 2020 Entitled
162 International & 105th Avenue Intl & 105th Ave 300 AMG - Alexis G 2018 2019
163 Camino 23 23rd & International 50 50 2018 2019
164 Fruitvale Village 12th Street & 35th Avenue 275 92 Unity Council 2018 2019
165 Red Start Yeast Site 5th Street 50 TBD 2018 2019
166 Broadway Valdez - VW Site 2700 Broadway 273 TBD 2019 2020
167 Telegraph Plaza 2100 Telegraph Avenue 250 50 Lane Partners - SUDA 2019 2020
168 Emerald Views 19th & Alice 370 Joe O'Donoghue 2019 2020
169 Oak Knoll - Later Phases Mountain View 700 Sun Cal 2019 2020-25
170 1331 Harrison 1331 Harrison Street 166 BuildZig 2019 2020 27 stories
171 1800 San Pablo 1800 San Pablo 200 50 TBD 2019 2020 City Owned RFP Issued
172 Siena Hill Keller Av @ Greenridge & Rilea 32 Kevin Kwok
173 Single Family Dwellings 50 Estimated
174
175 TOTAL 4,901 242
176 5%
177
178 GRAND TOTAL IN PIPELINE 20,444 1,997
179 (including units under constructn) 10%
180
Property History:

The lot had a large 3-story Victorian home (built in 1892) Queen Anne style that was in keeping with the architecture of
the historic homes that still exist today on the block..
The City had received numerous complaints over the years, 1996 2010, regarding overgrown vegetation, trash, and non-
operable vehicles in the yard.
The property was purchased by MDB Construction (Pleasanton, CA) in September 2010.

A permit was obtained to remove interior lath and plaster on October 21, 2010.
During the appeal hearing to the Planning Commission on 8/6/14, the property owner, Robert Bob Brecht, indicated that
he had planned to shore up the foundation and renovate the house. He started by removing the lath and plaster to take
weight off the building prior to re-shoring the foundation of the house. However, while he was removing the lath and
plaster a gust of wind blew [the house] over. He then abandoned the renovation project and obtained a demolition permit
on March 8, 2011 after which the house was demolished. Bob Brecht also added that, We had sold the house to a doctor
at Alta Bates Hospital. He bought it for $100,000 more than we paid. We were going to renovate it for him, but then it
blew over. I lost money. There is no record of another purchaser of this house during this time frame.

The property was purchased three years late (April 2013) by 530 32nd Street, LLC (Pleasanton, CA).

Project Application:

A Pre-Application was submitted December 18, 2013 that illustrated a 5-unit building with a flat minimalist front faade.
See Attachment A. The building was oriented sideways on the lot with each unit facing the side yards and the neighboring
properties. A driveway ran along the length of the building, allowing access to 5 garages below each residential unit. Staff
recommended design changes to give the building a stronger street presence: front porch, balcony, faade recesses and
projections (bays), pitched roofs, etc. A formal application was submitted on January 23, 2014. See Attachment B1 and B2.
The revised design incorporated the recommendation to add a front porch, balcony and bays, but not the sloped roof.

Staff Review:

On February 11, 2014, staff forwarded to me e-mail correspondence between the applicant, Bob Brecht, and Lynette
McElhaney on 2/10/14 regarding design concerns. Bob indicated in his e-mail to Lynette, Youve voiced a privacy
concern with Maurice regarding my project. Lynette responded to him indicating that the communitys concerns are not
limited to privacy . . . the design must honor the historic character of the community. She also added concerns about the
raised building, in regards to the parking garages under the apartment building, and traffic and parking impact.

Lynette then contacted me sometime in mid-February to express her concerns about the project. She wanted to know what
the City requirements were in regards to this project. I contacted staff to check the status of the project and what
review/approval processes were required. Staff explained that the 5-unit density was the maximum density permitted and
that design review was required per Oakland Municipal Code (OMC) Section 17.136.050, Regular Design Review Criteria.
This code section states that the proposed design will create a building, or set of buildings, that are well related to the
surrounding area in their setting, scale, bulk, height, materials, and textures. In addition, it states that the proposed design
will protect, preserve, or enhance desirable neighborhood characteristics.

I did not think the proposed design fully adhered to the Citys Regular Design Review Criteria. Specifically, the block
where this house is located has several historic homes that are oriented toward the street (not the side yards) with raised
front porches, large front windows, and pitched roofs. The proposed design had not incorporated any of these design
features. It was not in keeping with the setting of the historic structures on the street nor did it contain certain desirable
neighborhood characteristics. I relayed my observations and design recommendations to staff and they relayed them to the
architect, Tim Alatorre, on March ??. The developer agreed to staffs recommendations to change the flat roof to pitched, to
raise the front porch, and to increase some of the window sizes facing south (toward the street). (Reduce window sizes
facing east?) I also requested that the units be flipped so that the living rooms/dining rooms/kitchens faced the west side
of the property, where a one-story structure was located, rather than facing east where a three story house located. The
developer would not agree to this recommendation due to solar and security reasons. Staff did not see any other
solutions to revise the sideways orientation of the structure on the property and still allow the permitted 5-unit structure to
fit on such a long and narrow lot. A public notice was issued on March 16, 2014 to neighbors within 300 of the property.
The City received one letter, on xx 2014, objecting to the project from Clarence McElhaney, who expressed concerns about
the orientation of the building and the number of units.
As a result, Scott Miller, Zoning Manager, approved the building design on April 2, 2014. This was the end of my
involvement on the redesign.
To: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
Subject: City Engineer & engineering Services
Date: October 20, 2014 Page 2

Appeal

An appeal was filed on April 14, 2014 by Tonya Boyce, who was representing Clarence McElhaney.
One of the major objections to the design was the fact that the living rooms, dining rooms, and kitchens of the five
condominiums faced the side yard and the neighbors 3-story house to the east. In addition, the appellants raised concerns
about safety and related CPTED (Community Policing through Environmental Design) issues specifically the eyes on the
street principle where units should face the street to monitor activity. CPTED checklists are available in the Planning
office for commercial, civic, and residential projects. Staff referenced the multi-family residential checklist for this
project. However, no checklist or CPTED form was in the file.

The appeal was heard on August 6, 2014 by the Planning Commission. Maurice Brenyah-Addow made the staff
presentation to the Commission. Tanya Boyce, the Appellants rep, then made her presentation to the Commission. The
Commission asked if the Applicant wanted to speak and both Bob Brecht and his architect, Tim Alatorre, made statements
to the Commission and answered their questions. Mr. Brecht indicated that he was willing to reduce the project from 5 units
to 4 units and had already shown Scott and Maurice a new design to reflect 4 units. The public hearing was opened to
speakers and nine (9) people spoke, including Clarence McElhaney and Lynette McElhaney. All but one (1) expressed
concerns about the staff-approved project. Comments included dismay about the loss of the original Victorian house,
questions about how it blew over after decades of surviving earthquakes and storms, the proposed number of units (5),
parking impacts on the street, the design of the building, and the orientation of the building to the side instead of the front of
the lot. The Commission deliberated and a motion was made by Commissioner Bonilla as follows, I move that we
continue this subject matter for further review and the meeting of the minds of the neighbor v. the developer . . . and
continue to no later than December 17, 2014. The motion was seconded and approved by a vote of 6-0. In summary, the
Planning Commission voted unanimously to continue the Appeal, until no later than 12/17/14, in order for the appellant and
applicant to meet and try to work out a solution.

Appeal Negotiations:

More than one (1) month later, on September 15, 2014, Tim Alatorre e-mailed a revised design to the Planning Commission
Chair, Chris Pattillo. Chair Pattillo said that she could support the revised design, but that she still wanted them to make a
good faith effort to meet with and address the neighbors concerns.
On September 30, 2014, Mr. Alatorre e-mailed the revised design to me and asked when the Planning Commission hearing
could be scheduled. He also left a voicemail indicating that he had discussed the project with Tanya Boyce and that her
clients preferred the revised design. I forwarded the revised design to Lynette McElhaney and asked if that was correct.
She said that she had not seen or approved a final design and that the applicant was supposed to meet with the neighbors to
discuss design options. She was going to have Ms. Boyce contact the architect to relay that message.
On October 1st and 2nd, Ms. Boyce sent us e-mails indicating that when she met with the architect, he showed her designs
that were front-oriented, not side-oriented. However, he later informed her that his client, Bob Brecht would not support the
front-oriented design and wanted to submit the original side-oriented design with 4-units, in lieu of 5-units. Ms. Boyce
again requested a meeting of the applicant and neighbors. On October 1, 2014, Mr. Alatorre e-mailed me, Maurice, and
Scott indicating that his client wanted to proceed to the Planning Commission without any further meetings with the
neighbors. I advised Mr. Alatorre on October 2, 2014 that the Commission could potentially reject the applicants revised
design if no meeting with the neighbors was held, given the Planning Commissions directive. The case planner, Maurice
Brenyah-Addow, e-mailed Ms. Boyce and Mr. Alatorre on October 2, 2014 stating that he would be willing to attend a
community meeting with them.
On October 28, 2014, Mr. Alatorre sent an e-mail stating, Our efforts to find consensus with the McElhaneys have been
unsuccessful. We would like to move forward with the attached plans. We are still working to revise the landscape
drawings but these are the complete architectural plans. How soon can we get back on the calendar to appear before the
planning commission? Scott Miller then directed Maurice Brenyah-Addow to schedule the item for the next available
Planning Commission meeting (December 3rd). On November 2, 2014, I again encouraged Mr. Alatorre to meet with the
neighbors. Both Mr. Alatorre and Ms. McElhaney responded and agreed that they wanted to meet and I directed Maurice
to schedule a meeting. On November 5th, Maurice e-mailed Tanya to ask when she would be available to meet with the
applicant. Tim and Tanya say indicate on November 5th that they are available anytime. Tanya adds that she wanted the
neighbors included in any meetings. On November 9th, I e-mailed Maurice about the status of the meeting. He said he has
To: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
Subject: City Engineer & engineering Services
Date: October 20, 2014 Page 3

not heard back from anyone. He e-mailed Tanya and Tim on November 12th about meeting. Tanya responded on
November 18th that shell check with her client.
On November 22nd, I e-mailed all parties and reminded them of the importance of a meeting to discuss any revisions with
the applicant. On November 24th, Tanya asked us to have Tim contact her directly and asked that we not request her client
to schedule a meeting. On November 24th, Tanya asked Tim about potential redesign issues. Tim responded that his client
requires the podium garages and side-orientation of the building but can make landscape changes. Tim requested a
meeting with the McElhaneys. On November 30th, Lynette e-mailed Tim indicating that she wanted to meet and requested
that the Planning Commission meeting be rescheduled to December 17th.
On December 1st Tim, Tanya, Clarence and Lynette McElhaney, Maurice, and I met to review the design but no major
changes are made. Tanya still had questions about the Citys CPTED review and her belief that the side-orientation would
not be permitted per CPTED. On December 1st, Maurice asked OPDs Eddie Simlin to conduct a CPTED review. On
December 3rd, Tim e-mailed the Planning Commissioners to meet on site. [I dont believe any of them met with Tim] On
December 15th, Tim asked Maurice about the CPTED review. Maurice indicated that he had not received any responses.
He e-mailed Eddie two more times. Eddie provided comments on December 17th, the day of the Planning Commission
meeting.

As a result of all the e-mail exchanges, phone calls, meetings, and CPTED review, the only substantial change to the design
was a reduced unit count from 5 to 4 as originally proposed at the Planning Commission appeal hearing on August 6,
2014. Each unit size was increased (from 1,100 sf each to 1,300 sf each). The overall size of the building was reduced by
180 square feet or 3% -- from xx sf to xx sf. The height of the building was lowered by 10.

The item returned to the Planning Commission on December 17, 2014.


Morten Jensen, a local architect, spoke against the proposed design. While the hearing proceeded, he hand sketched an
image of a 4-unit proposal that included a building facing the street with an arched opening through the center of the
building. The driveway was located under the arched opening and connected to a courtyard parking area and a second
building in the rear. Morten did not get a chance to show the sketch to the Commissioners.
The Commission approved the applicants design on December 17, 2014. They directed him to present final design details
to the Design Review Board after they had been designed by the architect.

Proposed Redesign:

Morten showed his design to me after the meeting and I found it to be a much better design solution for the neighborhood. I
was sorry staff and I had not thought of the central driveway idea during our review of the project design. It was a creative
solution that addressed the issues raised in the Citys Design Review Criteria. It related to the area setting and
neighborhood characteristics with its dominant faade along the street in keeping with the other historic homes on the
block. In addition, no garage doors were visible from the street. By comparison, the developers proposed design reflected
a motel orientation (given its long/linear building shape, sideways orientation, and parking/garage doors visible from the
street). If I had thought of the design (proposed by Morten), I would have required it of the developer back in February
prior to staff approval. His design also addressed the neighbors concerns by improving the CPTED eyes on the street
approach due to the main windows of the living spaces facing the street, not the side yards.

I thought it would be beneficial for the developer to see this proposed design, and consider it as an option, because it met all
of his criteria (4 units with garages underneath) and it met the neighbors criteria (front-orientation, not side-orientation).
We sent Mortens design to the architect and explained that since this design addressed everyones concerns and therefore
could prevent another appeal (to the Court). Court appeals are the last resort for citizen action regarding a project. We
emphasized that they were not required to redesign their project, as they already had approval. The developers architect
indicated that his client was not interested in the proposed design we sent them. No appeal was filed with the Court.

The Design Review Board (DRB) approved the design details on February 11, 2015. The developer has not constructed the
project or applied for building permits.
To: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
Subject: City Engineer & engineering Services
Date: October 20, 2014 Page 4

From: Flynn, Rachel


Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 8:39 PM
To: 'Tim Alatorre'
Cc: Miller, Scott; Brenyah-Addow, Maurice
Subject: RE: 530 32nd Street - Clarification on process

Hi Tim Thanks for contacting me for clarification. I was first made aware of the project about three weeks ago
when I was contacted by the neighbor, Lynette McElhaney, who expressed concerns about the project, given its
very close proximity to her house. She asked what requirements the City had in regards to this project. I
contacted Maurice for this information. He confirmed that the multi-unit use is allowed by-right, but that the
City is required to perform a design review (Code Section 17.136). I typically leave design review up to staff,
given the 100s of reviews they perform each year. But if I am contacted by a citizen who has concerns about a
project, I make a point to review the design myself. As the only registered architect on staff, I am frequently
asked to review designs particularly on highly visible projects and ones in which neighbors have concerns.

Section 17.136.050, Regular Design Review Criteria indicates that for residential facilities, the proposed design
will create a building or set of buildings that are well related to the surrounding area in their setting, scale, bulk,
height, materials, and textures. In addition, it states that the proposed design will protect, preserve, or
enhance desirable neighborhood characteristics. Given this criteria, I asked Maurice for photos of other
properties in the block to compare to your structure and then I visited the area last week. I noted several
characteristics in the architecture of this block that I didnt see reflected in the 530 design: raised front porches,
bay windows, pitched roofs, and wood siding (of varying styles). The first story of the 530 design looks out of
proportion with the rest of the building (and neighborhood) and appears squatty. This short first floor makes
the upper floors appear top heavy. The raised front porches along this block are a dominant characteristic,
setting the scale and overall massing (bulk) of the structure. A raised front porch (first floor) provides a strong
base, improving the overall scale of the structure. In addition, the prevalent bay windows and pitched roofs,
throughout the block, are defining characteristics that create a more residential scale to the structures. The
wood siding material (clap board of varying widths: 3 - 6 and shingle texture) are also distinguishing
characteristics of the residences. I sketched a drawing over your front faade that adds the elements described
above.

In addition, one of Ms. McElhaneys major concerns is the lack of privacy that she and her family will
experience, given that five units will now be facing her house. To address that, I suggest flipping the 2nd floor
plan, so that the main living area (kitchen, dining, living rooms) face the shorter one-story house, not the taller
three-story house (Ms. McElhaneys). That way only the bedrooms, that are used less often, will face her
property.

I apologize that I was apprised of this project in February, but I am obligated to respond to citizen concerns
when they are brought to my attention. I hope this information provides more clarity on the process and that
you are able to incorporate the suggestions provided. I would also suggest that you present the revised design
to Ms. McElhaney and any other interested neighbors, so that the final design can be completed and
approved. Thanks for taking our recommendations into consideration, Rachel

Rachel Flynn AIA


Director l Department of Planning & Building l City of Oakland
510 . 238 . 2229
To: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
Subject: City Engineer & engineering Services
Date: October 20, 2014 Page 5

From: tim@djaarc.com [mailto:tim@djaarc.com] On Behalf Of Tim Alatorre


Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 2:55 PM
To: Flynn, Rachel
Subject: 530 32nd Street - Clarification on process

Rachel,

I left you a message earlier this morning but I realize you are busy and so I'm following up
with this email.

As I mentioned, I understand that you are working on providing comments for our proposed
development at 530 32nd Street in addition to those that we received from our assigned
planner and his supervisor. On Friday we were notified of a few of your requested design
changes and their impacts on the project have greatly upset my client. We've spent
considerable time and gone through months of revisions with our assigned planner and their
supervisor to develop a design that complied with the city planning ordinance and additionally
one that all parties felt was compatible with and enhanced the neighborhood. Several times,
my client reviewed the design progress with as many neighboring property owners as
possible and we adjusted our design to respond to their concerns and suggestions as best as
possible. My client is frustrated by the process of having a design that was all but approved
and now to be receiving comments that would fundamentally change the design and possibly
make the project un-buildable.

Right now I'm confused as to where the project stands, how soon we are to receive a
response to our January 22nd submittal and who we should be communicating with. I would
very much like to set up a meeting for us all to discuss the status of the project. Please let me
know how we can make that happen.

Thank you,

Tim Alatorre, Architect, AIA, LEED AP BD+C


(m) 805 215 5846

de Jesus and Alatorre Architects - Architecture - Planning - Design


XV
ULI SAN FRANCISCO YOUNG LEADERS GROUP

2016 LFTB Mentors: Thursday, September 22, 2016


Yat-Pang Au, Veritas Investments, Inc. 5:30 p.m. 8:30 p.m.
Melissa Duffy, STUDIOS Architecture
Matt Field, TMG Partners 500 Pine Street
Rachel Flynn, City of Oakland San Francisco, CA 94108
Ivy Greaner, FivePoint
John Herr, Lincoln Property Company
Phil Kerr, City Ventures
Bob Lavey, AECOM
Matt Lituchy, Jay Paul Company
Jon McNeal, Snhetta
Mark Myers, Wells Fargo
Kevin Ratner, Forest City REIT
Meg Spriggs, Shorenstein
Gayle Starr, Prologis
Janice Thacher, Wilson Meany
Event Format
Fifteen of the regions leading real estate industry executives At the end of 20-25 minutes, time will be called and the YLG
will hold three consecutive 20-25 minute roundtable members will rotate to a new table of their choice while the
discussions on topics ranging from lessons learned, tricks of Mentor remains seated. A new Steering Committee Moderator
the trade, career paths, and personal anecdotes. will join the Mentor at the table.

In addition to our esteemed speakers, each table will hold one Tables will fill up on a first come, first served basis. This process
member of the Young Leaders Group Steering Committee will occur three times throughout the event, so that each
and approximately 10 other YLG members. The Steering participant will have the opportunity to learn from three
Committee member will assist as a Moderator. different Mentors. The event will be followed by a hosted
reception with appetizers and beverages.
After all participants find a table, the Moderator will start off
each roundtable discussion by introducing the Mentor. The
Mentor will begin the discussion with a brief summary of his or
her career path followed by an open discussion with the table.

Agenda
5:30-6:00 p.m. Registration
6:00-6:30 p.m. Welcome and Speaker Introductions
6:30-7:30 p.m. Roundtable Discussions
7:30-8:30 p.m. Cocktail Reception in Penthouse
Featured Mentors relationships with STUDIO Architectures clients. She has led
management and design efforts for large, complex projects with
multi-layered client and consultant teams, such as Lyft, Expedia,
Neustar, Barclays Global Investors (now BlackRock), and the
Yat-Pang Au
multi-building, 1.6 million gsf commercial development Foundry
Veritas Investments, Inc.
Square. She has also worked with university clients on major new
building projects such as the Arts and Technology Building at
YatPang Au is the Founder and Chief
the University of Texas at Dallas, and UCLAs 500-unit Weyburn
Executive Officer of Veritas Investments
Terrace Graduate Student Housing and Commons project.
Inc., one of the largest owner operators of
apartments in San Francisco with several
thousands of units and $2 billion in assets
Matt Field
under management. Prior to founding
TMG Partners
Veritas in 2007, Mr. Au served as the Chief
Executive Officer of AEC Alarms and held various executive
Matt Field, Chief Investment Officer,
positions at technology and services firms. He also has been a
joined TMG in 1993. He has 30 years
longtime private investor in apartment and retail properties located
of commercial real estate experience,
throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. Mr. Au is committed
including development, entitlements, debt
to transforming San Franciscos housing stock and revitalizing
and equity finance, leasing, and project
neighborhoods by providing innovative amenities and building
management. Mr. Field is responsible for
ecofriendly, vibrant communities. Veritas is a verticallyintegrated,
managing acquisitions and dispositions, while supporting the
multifamily investment manager and provides a full range of
firms development activities with lead responsibility for the real
operational and leasing services through its whollyowned
estate portfolio. Mr. Field also chairs this Investment Committee.
affiliates GreenTree Property Management and RentSFNow.
He has been responsible for over $3 billion of acquisitions and
dispositions for TMG since 2003. Previously, he was responsible
Mr. Au is an Advisory Board Member of the Fisher Center for managing complex entitlement and development projects.
for Real Estate and Urban Economics and a Board Member
of two nonprofits he is passionate about Self Help for the Prior to TMG, Mr. Field worked at Catellus Development Corporation
Elderly and International Technological University. He is an in corporate financial analysis and major asset acquisitions and
active member of Coalition for Better Housing, San Francisco dispositions. His prior experience also includes work at Sedway
Apartment Association, Bay Area Council, National Multi Associates and Halcyon Real Estate Advisors. Mr. Field is an active
Housing Council, Young Presidents Organization (YPO), Urban member of the Urban Land Institute, NAIOP, and currently sits on
Land Institute (ULI), and Pension Real Estate Association the local boards of two non-profits, BuildOn and Oakland Lacrosse.
(PREA). Additionally, Mr. Au participates in many community
and charitable activities with the American Red Cross, Asia
Society, and Hong Kong Association of Northern California. Rachel Flynn
City of Oakland

Mr. Au holds a B.S. in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Rachel Flynn joined the City of Oakland in
from University of California at Berkeley, an M.S. in Information 2013 as Director of Planning and Building.
Networking from Carnegie Mellon University, and a Master Ms. Flynn is currently transitioning into
of Business Administration from Harvard Business School. the role of Vice President of Planning
for FivePoint. She has thirty years of
experience in architecture, urban planning,
Melissa Duffy and design. Ms. Flynn is a licensed
STUDIOS Architecture architect and practiced in the private
sector with Cannon Design in New York City, Boston, Toronto,
Tel Aviv, and Washington, D.C. Ms. Flynn previously served as
Melissa Duffy joined STUDIOS in 1998
Director of Planning and Development for Richmond, Virginia,
and has been Principal since 2011. In
as well as for Lynchburg, Virginia. Prior to Ms. Flynns arrival in
addition to leading projects, she serves
Oakland, she was Director of Planning for Otak International
as the Managing Principal of the San
in its Abu Dhabi office. Ms. Flynn has led multiple efforts on
Francisco office. During her tenure, she
master plans, zoning ordinance updates, historic preservation,
has been a tremendous asset to the firm,
and downtown/waterfront redevelopment. In addition, she has
establishing and cultivating long-term
received multiple awards and recognitions from entities such John Herr
as the American Institute of Architects, the American Planning Lincoln Property Company
Association, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Sierra Club. Ms.
Flynn is a graduate of Catholic University and Harvard University. John Herr joined Lincoln Property
Company in 1999. Mr. Herr has over
25 years of experience in real estate
Ivy Greaner investment and development. He
FivePoint has been directly responsible for the
development of over 5 million square
Ms. Greaner is a Regional Vice President at feet of commercial property, having
FivePoint, a position she assumed when built corporate campuses for many technology leaders such
her prior role as Chief Operating Officer in as Cisco, Sun, Applied Materials and Novell. He has directed
Lennar Commercials Bay Area Urban division the investment in commercial property of over $2 billion,
transitioned into FivePoint in July 2016. In more than half of which has been in the Silicon Valley. He
both her current and most recent positions, was formerly the Senior Vice President, Market Officer for
she oversees the commercial strategy and Carr America Realty Corporation in Northern California and
operations for the platform responsible for the San Francisco served in that capacity from 1996, during which time he was
Shipyard, Candlestick Point, Treasure Island and the Concord Naval responsible for the acquisition and development of 7 million sf
Weapons Station projects. Ms. Greaner joined Lennar Commercial of office and technology buildings.
in January 2014 as Executive Vice President responsible for Lennar
Mr. Herr formerly served as the President and Chief Executive
Commercials operations.
Officer of Simeon Commercial Properties in San Francisco.
Previously, Mr. Herr spent eight years with Trammell Crow
Ms. Greaner attended Boston University and brings over 30 years
Company, serving as Principal and Executive Vice President
of commercial real estate and operations experience. From 1978
in San Francisco for two years; Partner in Richmond, Virginia
- 1985, she managed multiple retail operations in the northeast
for three years, and Marketing Representative in Washington
US. Ms. Greaner joined Mainstreet Investments in South Florida
D.C. for four years. Mr. Herr served over seven years on active
in 1985, where she specialized in the marketing and development
duty in the U.S. Navy flying the Lockheed P-3C Orion in both
of residential single-family properties. In 1988, she established
an operational and instructional capacity in support of anti-
her own Miami-based real estate company as Managing Partner
submarine warfare efforts on a worldwide basis.
developing multiple locations for Walgreens, Publix and other
national retailers, in addition to overseeing asset management Mr. Herr holds a Masters in Business Administration from
and leasing for shopping centers and suburban offices throughout Stanford University and a Bachelors degree from the U.S. Naval
Florida. In 1999, Ms. Greaner merged with Ram Realty Services, Academy.
a midsized firm with a southeast U.S. footprint, to create Rams
commercial development, leasing and asset management division.
As the companys Chief Operating Officer, she oversaw company
Phil Kerr
operations, actively served as a member on the Investment
City Ventures
Committee, oversaw multifamily assets and directed all commercial
activities for retail and office including asset management,
Phil Kerr is the Chief Executive Officer of
leasing, property management, redevelopment and ground up
City Ventures Homebuilding, the leading
development. Throughout her tenure at Ram Realty, she actively
infill homebuilder in California, with over
sourced opportunities and played a key role in fundraising for two
2,100 homes currently in various stages
of the companys private equity funds
of construction across California and 26
projects actively selling. Mr. Kerr has a
Ms. Greaner is an active member of the International Council of
successful track record of leading the
Shopping Centers (ICSC), served as the ICSC Government Relations
development process for residential and mixed use developments
Chair for the State of Florida, participates in government relations
in Bay Area communities. Mr. Kerr actively works with land owners,
for the organization at the federal level and currently serves
communities, agencies, and cities to develop high quality multi-
on ICSCs National Economic Committee. She is involved in a
family infill communities. He was responsible for the acquisition,
variety of mentor programs for young real estate professionals,
design, entitlement, and construction for the Bay Area townhome
is on the Florida State University Real Estate Advisory Board, and
and mid-rise division on Intracorp. Prior to Intracorp, Mr. Kerr was
holds real estate broker licenses in Florida and North Carolina.
with The Olsen Company where he managed the development
team for the East and South Bay markets and was responsible
for all entitlement and development projects in those markets. Matt Lituchy
Jay Paul Company
Mr. Kerr was introduced to urban development as a means to
preserve open space with smarter, more dense infill growth. Matt Lituchy joined Jay Paul Company in
At City Ventures, Mr. Kerr is responsible for land acquisition, 2000. In his capacity as Chief Investment
asset management, project design, and entitlement for Officer, he oversees acquisitions, dispositions
new infill communities throughout Northern California. and new business opportunities as well as
all capital and financing activities for the
Mr. Kerr holds a Master in Business Administration from Harvard company.
Business School and a Bachelors degree from Dartmouth College.
With over 30 years of commercial real estate experience, Matt
has raised over $4 billion in project financing and acquired in
excess of $1 billion of commercial real estate for investment or
Bob Lavey
redevelopment in Silicon Valley and San Diego County.
AECOM
Prior to joining Jay Paul Company, Matt was a Senior Vice President
Bob Lavey, AIA, is the regional Managing and District Manager at KeyCorp Real Estate Capital and previously
Principal for the Building + Places held management positions in commercial real estate finance in
business line in the LA Metro+ region, San Francisco and New York.
including Los Angeles, Orange, San
Diego, Las Vegas, and Honolulu. Bob Matt sits on the Board of Directors of the San Diego and Silicon
oversees a diverse group of professionals, Valley chapters of NAIOP where he served as the 2013 Chapter
including Architects, Interior Designers, President.
Engineers, Urban Planners, and Strategists.

Based in the downtown Los Angeles office, Bob focuses on


strengthening AECOMs strong partnerships with business Jon McNeal
lines and regions in design leadership, market strategy, client Snhetta
development, practice excellence, staff and project leadership,
and overall Buildings+Places business line growth in the region. Jon joined Snhetta in 2013, working
intensely on the Construction
Most recently, Bob was Managing Partner of Steinberg, a Documentation and Administration
multidisciplinary architecture, urban planning, and interior for the SFMOMA Expansion. Jon
design firm. At Steinberg, in addition to leading the Los Angeles has extensive experience designing
office, Bob led the higher education practice where he grew and coordinating large, complex
a nationally recognized organization by winning projects in projects featuring a mix of community
California, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Pennsylvania. Bob engagement, exhibit and performance spaces with
was instrumental in doubling the size of the Los Angeles studio atypical and specialized security requirements.
through focused business development, practice diversification,
design leadership, talent recruitment, and project delivery. Prior to his time at Snhetta, Jon worked on a number of cultural
and civic projects on the West Coast and internationally.
Prior to Steinberg, Bob was firm-wide Health Science Education
practice leader and West Coast Regional Higher Education practice Jon received his Bachelor of Architecture and Bachelor of Arts from
leader for Perkins+Will. Bob helped grow the firms Los Angeles Rice University.
office from a start up of four people to a thriving practice.

Bob holds a Bachelors degree in Architecture from California


State Polytechnic University, Pomona. He is a licensed
architect in California and a LEED Accredited Professional.
He is a member of the American Institute of Architects, U.S.
Green Building Council, Society for College and University
Planning, and the Community College Facility Coalition.
Mark Myers urban neighborhoods through public/private partnerships.
He is dedicated to the communities in which ForestCity
Wells Fargo
works and has participated in many public policy forums.

Mark Myers is an Executive Vice President Ratner is continuing the family tradition of real estate development
and heads the Wells Fargo Commercial following his grandfather and father into the family business.
Real Estate Group. Operating through Max Ratner founded ForestCity in 1921 in Cleveland, Ohio,
Wells Fargos network of client relationship which is still the companys corporate headquarters. Today,
teams and regional offices throughout ForestCity has established a national reputation as a master
the United States as well as international developer and property owner of some of Americas largest, and
operations in Toronto and London, most prestigious, urban and suburban real estate projects.
Commercial Real Estate provides a comprehensive platform of
banking and financing solutions to regional/national owners, Ratner graduated from the University of Wisconsin with a BA
operators and developers, institutional real estate funds and REITs. degree and holds a Masters in Real Estate Development from the
University of Southern California. Ratner serves as Chairman of
During Marks 30-year affiliation with Wells Fargo, he has held The California Infill Builders Federation (CIBF). He is also on
a number of senior leadership positions in the Real Estate, the Board of Directors for the Hammer Museum, SCI-Arc, and
Corporate, Capital Markets and Special Situation Groups. Mark American Jewish University. Ratner is an Advisory Board Member
is also a member of Wells Fargos Management Committee. of the UCLA Ziman Center for Real Estate and an Executive
Committee Member of the USC Lusk Center for Real Estate.
Mark earned his B.S. degree from the University of California,
Berkeley.

He currently serves on the Board of Trustees of the International Meg Spriggs


Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC), a Trustee of the Urban Land Shorenstein
Institute (ULI), is a member of the Real Estate Roundtable and is
on the Policy Advisory Board Executive Committee of the Fisher Meg Spriggs joined Shorenstein in
Center for Real Estate at the University of California, Berkeley. 2013. In her role as Managing Director,
Meg is responsible for overseeing
multifamily housing transactions for
the Shorenstein family. This includes
Kevin Ratner sourcing and evaluating, as well as
Forest City REIT financing, acquiring, entitling, developing,
managing and divesting of assets, and supporting other
Kevin L. Ratner is President of Shorenstein professionals in the evaluation and execution of
ForestCity West, a subsidiary of Forest mixed-use projects with a multifamily component. Ms. Spriggs
City Enterprises, Inc. ForestCity is an has received recognition as an innovative and influential
owner, developer and manager of a business leader, most recently she was among the San Francisco
diverse portfolio of premier real estate Business Times Most Influential Women in Bay Area Business
located throughout the nation, with for years 2014 and 2015, and in 2013 she was in the top 40 list
approximately $10.9 billion in total assets. for the Bay Areas brightest rising stars under the age of 40.

Ratner is responsible for ForestCitys commercial and residential Ms. Spriggs is a member of the Urban Land Institute, Lambda
businesses on the West Coast. In addition to the development Alpha International, and the San Francisco Urban Planning and
of market rate, affordable, and high-density urban housing, both Research Association. Ms. Spriggs also serves on the board
new and through the adaptive re-use or pre-existing structures, of directors for the Yerba Buena Center for the Arts, and is a
Ratner and his team are currently involved with several mixed- founding board member of ArtCare, in support of the public
use developments in Los Angeles and San Francisco with a focus and civic arts programs of the San Francisco Arts Commission.
on technologys impact on the built environment and todays
innovation economy. Ratner has worked in ForestCitys Los Prior to joining Shorenstein, Ms. Spriggs was Vice President
Angeles office since 1998 and has been extensively involved of Development for AvalonBay Communities, Inc. where she
in the development of more than 5,000 multi-housing units, was responsible for land acquisition, design, entitlement, and
including several high-profile redevelopment projects in permitting, as well as oversight of the construction and lease-up
Southern California. Ratner has significant expertise in revitalizing of multifamily properties in the San Francisco Bay Area region.
to the Port of San Francisco. Before joining AMB, Janice was a
Ms. Spriggs graduated from University of Oregon with partner with the Trammell Crow Company in Southern California.
a B.A. and from Columbia University with an M.S.
She holds a Bachelor of Arts in Economics from the
University of California, Los Angeles and a Master of
Gayle Starr Management from the J.L. Kellogg Graduate School
Prologis of Management at Northwestern University.

Gayle Starr is Managing Director, Capital


Markets at Prologis. She is responsible
for the corporate lines of credit as
well as overseeing all non-public debt
internationally and domestically for
Prologis and its co-investment funds.
Ms. Starr has successfully designed and
originated complex finance structures across eight funds globally
and has orchestrated the corporate- and property-level financing
for currencies in 14 countries, totaling approximately $4 to $6
billion in capital markets transactions on an annual basis, as
well as being responsible for over 40 lender relationships.

Prior to joining Prologis, Ms. Starr was vice president of


financial asset management for a national development
company responsible for major lease negotiations, partnership
structuring, finance and dispositions. She holds a bachelors
degree from the University of California at San Diego
and a J.D. from the University of California at Davis.

Janice Thacher
Wilson Meany

Janice Thacher has comprehensive


experience in real estate development
with specialization in entitlements, project
management, lease negotiation and
financing. As a Partner at Wilson Meany,
Janice leads development efforts ranging
from the preliminary stages of project
conceptualization and entitlements through construction.
Current projects include Bay Meadows, an 83-acre mixed use
development in San Mateo, California and Hollywood Park, a
283-acre mixed use development in Inglewood, California.

Recently, Janice also oversaw the relocation of the Exploratorium to


the San Francisco waterfront, a project that recently received ULIs
Global Award for Excellence. Previously, Janice was a managing
partner for the corporate real estate practice for AMB Property
Corporation and represented clients in the acquisition and
disposition of assets, portfolio evaluation and lease negotiations.
She was also responsible for the development of Pier 1, an award-
winning historic rehabilitation project on San Franciscos waterfront
designed to serve as AMBs corporate headquarters and home
ULI San Francisco
1 California Street, Suite 2500
San Francisco, CA 94111
415.268.4048
sanfrancisco@uli.org
sf.uli.org
XV
uli.org
From: Lauren Krause
To: Flynn, Rachel
Subject: Big Thank You!
Date: Monday, September 26, 2016 3:11:29 PM

Rachel,

Thank you again for speaking at Learn from the Best. I had many YLGers specifically tell me how
much they appreciated your feedback and open discussion. Good luck as you transition to FivePoint,
sounds like you will have your hands full!

One final item; you will receive an email from Cali with a brief survey about the event. Were always
trying to improve so please let us know how you think we could have elevated the format, content,
and space.

Thank you again,


Lauren

Lauren Krause
Senior Development Manager
Grosvenor Americas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct: 415-268-4070
Cell: 310-508-0870
Email: lauren.krause@grosvenor.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.grosvenor.com

DISCLAIMER: This message is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended


solely for the addressee and access to this message by anyone else is unauthorised. If you have
received the message in error, please notify us immediately and delete it, as any disclosure,
copying, distribution or any other use is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the
addressee, you must not disclose its contents to anyone, retain, copy, distribute or take action
in reliance upon it. This message is provided for informational purposes and should not be
construed as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any securities or related financial instruments.
E-Mails are not secure and may contain software viruses which could damage your own
computer systems. While Grosvenor has taken every reasonable precaution to minimise this
risk, we cannot accept liability for any damage which you sustain as a result of software
viruses. Grosvenor Group Limited - Registered in England No. 3219943 Wheatsheaf
Investments Limited - Registered in England No. 3221116. Registered office: 70 Grosvenor
Street, London W1K 3JP, United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0) 20 7408 0988 and Fax: +44 (0) 20
7629 9115 The above comprise all subsidiaries including Grosvenor Limited (Registered in
England and Wales No 2874626, Registered office as above), and Grosvenor Investment
Management Limited (GIML) (Registered in England and Wales No 2774291, Registered
office as above). GIML is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority to
conduct investment business.
Rachel Flynn joined the City of Oakland in 2013 as Director of Planning and Building. She has over
thirty years of experience in architecture, urban planning, and design. She is a licensed architect and
practiced in the private sector with Cannon Design in New York City, Boston, Toronto, Tel Aviv, and
Washington, D.C.

Rachel served as Director of Planning and Development for Richmond, the capital of Virginia, as well
as Lynchburg, Virginia. Prior to her arrival in Oakland, she was Director of Planning for Otak
International in their Abu Dhabi office.

She has led multiple efforts on master plans, zoning ordinance updates, historic preservation, and
downtown/waterfront redevelopment and has received multiple awards and recognitions from entities
such as the American Institute of Architects, the American Planning Association, the Chamber of
Commerce, and the Sierra Club.

She has served on numerous boards, including an appointment by the Governor of Virginia to the
Board of Historic Resources, Sweet Briar College, and Holy Names University.

Rachel is a graduate of Catholic University and Harvard University.


Rachel Flynn joined the City of Oakland in 2013 as Director of Planning and Building. Rachel has
thirty years of experience in architecture, urban planning, and design and is a licensed architect. She
has worked in both the public and private sectors in New York, Washington, D.C., Virginia, Toronto,
and Abu Dhabi. She is a graduate of Catholic University and Harvard University.

During Rachels tenure in Oakland, the department has focused on five specific plans to direct future
growth in the City and has updated countless ordinances and implemented new technology to
expedite permit approval processes.

Rachel will be joining FivePoint in October to lead the redevelopment of the former site of the Concord
Naval Weapons Station for mixed use development.
Rachel Flynn joined the City of Oakland in 2013 as Director of Planning and Building. Rachel has
thirty years of experience in architecture, urban planning, and design and is a licensed architect. She
has worked in both the public and private sectors in New York, Washington, D.C., Virginia, Toronto,
and Abu Dhabi. She is a graduate of Catholic University and Harvard University.

During Rachels tenure in Oakland, the department has focused on five specific plans to direct future
growth in the City and has updated countless ordinances and implemented new technology to
expedite permit approval processes.

Rachel will be joining FivePoint in October to lead the redevelopment of the former site of the Concord
Naval Weapons Station for mixed use development.
San Francisco Chronicle Column by Chip Johnson; Ice Cream Parlor Permit Hassles Chilling 09-09-13

Tuesday is inspection day for building owner John Vicars.

Hes got a commercial property on College Avenue, right in the heart of Oaklands busiest shopping district.
His quest is simple: to see an ice cream parlor opened on the ground floor of the building.

But his journey has been a regulatory nightmare.


We would have to disagree. The Planner on this project, Mike Rivera, responded quickly and kept the
applicant well informed on all issues that he was required to address per the original 1988 conditional use
permit (CUP) and subsequent CUP revisions.
In addition, our Economic Development staff has informed us that Smitten Ice Cream has been very pleased
with the City and all of the positive and prompt services they have received.

Its taken him nine months to prepare 1,700 square feet of retail space to the citys satisfaction at least to
where they were satisfied enough to actually come out to inspect it.
Jon Vicars submitted his application on February 13, 2013, and was approved on July 8, 2013, which is less
than 5 months. Staff immediately processed the application and issued the required Public Notice in three
weeks. City code requires that we send public notices to people who own property within 300 of the
applicants site and requires that we post the building. These notices were issued/posted on March 8,
2013. The City received very strong concerns from the adjoining property owner (whose house abuts the
back alley of Jon Vicars site). In addition, we received responses from nine other property owners as well as
the Rockridge Community Planning Council (RCPC) and nearly all complained that Mr. Vicars has not been
adhering to the original conditions of the CUP (parking, trash management, noise management). The original
1988 CUP was not obtained by John Vicars, but by the former property owner. Mr. Vicars purchased the
property in 1996.

It all started in December, when Vicars forked over $3,500 for the right to apply for a conditional use permit
that would allow him to change uses in the space occupied by the Great Harvest Bread Co. since the early
1990s.
Jon Vicars applied for his CUP on February 13, 2013 (not December 2012) and paid $3,379. He requested a
change of use of the corner space from retail to limited service restaurant. At the time, he was
considering a restaurant/caf use, but did not have a specific tenant agreement at the time.

He plans to lease the space to Smitten, a locally owner ice cream shop with a single store in San Franciscos
Hayes Valley.

Oakland officials told Vicars the permit application process would take about three months. But when he
submitted his plans to the city, the questions just kept on coming.
Typically, an application of this type would take 3-4 months; however, the City received numerous complaints
about non-compliance of the CUP for existing businesses in addition to concerns about adding another
restaurant at this location. As a result, staff had to work closely with the applicant to address existing non-
compliance issues; trash and recycling kept outdoors (this was required to be kept indoors), landscaping that
had died over the years, and fencing in disrepair.
In the back of the building, Vicars planted shrubs, vines, plants, and an irrigation system on a small patch of
curb that sits between a sidewalk and a retaining wall.
The original landscaping was planted by the former owner; however, over the years it died and/or was
removed. A landscaping plan, prepared by a landscape architect, (with specific plant types and sizes) was
required per the 1988 CUP. The landscaping was required to be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate
of Occupancy (CO) and is required to be maintained in perpetuity. Given the fact that the original
landscaping has not been maintained, staff required that Jon Vicars replant the landscape beds to meet the
conditions of the original CUP.

Thats when the zoning officer assigned to the project told Vicars he was concerned.
That was just one of several concerns.

The plan for the rear of the building would require a detailed description of the size and species name of the
plants, shrubs and vines for species review, said the notice sent by the city.
Landscaping is a common requirement for development projects. Owners are required to list the type and
size of plants and trees to be installed. This is a particularly important issue for buffer landscaping that
adjoins another land use. In this case a commercial use (CN1 Zoning District) abuts a residential (RM Zoning
District).

And that wasnt the half of it.

Vicars was informed that the ice cream shop would also be prohibited from emptying bottles in the back of
the business, you know, where the recycling dumpsters are kept. The reason? The sound of clinking bottles
could disturb the neighbors.
The 1993-approved CUP revision states that the applicant is required to keep waste containers and recycling
materials inside and no bottle dumping shall occur behind the building at any time. Currently, trash and
recycling containers are located in the open, on the rear alley, that adjoins a residential property.
In addition, staff received strong complaints from the neighbors about the trash and recycling. In a letter
from the immediately adjoining neighbor at 5826 Birch Court, Ellen Koch, writes, the homeless/scavengers
have figured out that there are bottles in the recycling bin behind the building. The container is
approximately 10 feet from my house, directly below my bedroom window. They are coming at all hours of
the day and night to root through the bin. They apparently are living in the space at night since there is no
locked gate to keep them out. The biggest problem for me personally is that I dont get any sleep. I am also
concerned about my safety. Until there is a lock on the gate, I am collecting the bottles and storing them in
my locked backyard. RCPC writes that garbage and recycling accumulating in the area behind the building
attracts itinerant scavengers who go through the trash during the early morning hours, creating a noise
nuisance for neighbors as well as sometimes strewing garbage around the area.

Thats a bit of a problem because state law requires businesses to recycle and if they cant do it in the back of
the building where the recycling bins sit, its either inside the store or out front on the sidewalk.
The property owner agreed to the terms of the original CUP and its subsequent revisions (see above).

And the kicker? Before Smitten is welcomed to the neighborhood, the building owners must come up with a
plan for valet parking between 5 and 8 p.m. on Saturday nights.
The 1991 CUP revision required the use of valet parking because the strip of shops did not meet the
minimum parking requirements per City Code when the property added a restaurant (in 1991). Neighbors
were concerned, and continue to be concerned, that overflow parking will appear in front of their homes and
throughout the neighborhood. This is a common concern where commercial uses are close to residents.
Each additional restaurant has been required to provide valet parking. The reason for valet parking is that
there is minimal parking on site. It is located in a below-grade garage and has 24 spaces (which can
accommodate up to 39 spaces through the use of valet parking).

For an ice cream shop.

If this were a pot dispensary, Im sure it would have been a less exhaustive process.
This is incorrect. We have clear requirements for a cannabis dispensary and are limited in the City (four
maximum City-wide). These approvals go through the City Administrators Office.

The entire episode makes you wonder exactly what Oaklands plan for economic growth is based on or if it
even has one.

Oakland has long held to a policy that it is better to grow small, locally owned businesses rather than go the
corporate franchise route and for years it did exactly that.
If this ice cream store was a corporate franchise, i.e., Baskin-Robbins, we would have the same requirements.

Thats why bringing a Walmart or a Target store to Oakland took years and years to accomplish never mind
that both stores are now swamped with customers. The city is losing millions of dollars in potential sales tax
revenues and licensing taxes but those arent the only potential losses.

In a city clamoring for employment opportunities, delaying or denying business openings for the most trivial
reasons only exacerbates the problem.

The owners of Smitten plan to employ at least 30 people when it opens, Vicars said. Its just bizarre. If you
want to get a sense for why Oakland has such huge fiscal problems, there you go, he said.

For a city that wants more retail stores, more sale tax revenues and more jobs, this is a very strange way of
going about it.
From: Flynn, Rachel
To: 1rachel.flynn@gmail.com
Subject: Chronology
Date: Friday, September 30, 2016 5:10:00 PM
Attachments: 530 Chronology.doc
Argyropoulos - 03-13-15.pdf
Alameda comments to LM EIR.pdf
Bio - Flynn 2016.doc
Bio Brief -- Flynn 2016.doc
Chronicle Column-Johnson & City Response 09-09-13.docx
Alameda letter 11-4-13.pdf
Comments - Statement RF.docx
Comments - Statement.docx
Department slides-Planning and Building.ppt
Grand Jury Articles.pptx
Grand Jury Chronology.doc
Grand Jury Report - Word Response.docx
Grand Jury Report - Word.docx
Oakland Hsg Develoment 2016 + Pipeline.xlsx

Rachel Flynn AIA


Director l Planning & Building Department l City of Oakland
510 . 238 . 2229

To: Boyd, Karen (KBoyd@oaklandnet.com)


Subject: Comment
Date: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 2:27:41 PM

Hi Karen, How is this for a comment:

I am excited about my new role at FivePoint in creating a major new development in Concord. At
the same time, I am sorry to be leaving my position as Director of Planning and Building. We have
made a lot of progress these last three and a half years thanks to the hard work of my great staff,
an enthusiastic community and a strong Mayor who has a wonderful vision for Oakland. Its been an
honor to serve this City and I will miss this work greatly.

Rachel Flynn AIA


Director l Planning & Building Department l City of Oakland
510 . 238 . 2229

From: Johnson, Greg


To: Flynn, Rachel
Subject: Congratulations
Date: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 4:17:23 PM

Hi Rachel -
I just got off a plane and saw the wire of your new role with Five Point. This is very exciting for you and I know
that they are lucky to have you on their team!
All the best,
Gj

Greg Johnson, AIA


Associate Principal
Perkins + Will
(415) 987-7141
Sent from my iPhone
From: Flynn, Rachel
To: Greg.Johnson@perkinswill.com
Subject: Congratulations
Date: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 8:46:00 PM

Thanks so much Greg. I'm looking forward to this new adventure.

Hoping all is well at P+W. Rachel

From: Johnson, Greg [mailto:Greg.Johnson@perkinswill.com]


Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 4:17 PM
To: Flynn, Rachel
Subject: Congratulations

Hi Rachel -
I just got off a plane and saw the wire of your new role with Five Point. This is very exciting for you
and I know that they are lucky to have you on their team!
All the best,
Gj

Greg Johnson, AIA


Associate Principal
Perkins + Will
(415) 987-7141
Sent from my iPhone
From: John McNulty
To: Flynn, Rachel
Subject: Connect Media: CRE - California Commercial Real Estate News
Date: Thursday, September 15, 2016 11:36:33 AM
Attachments: image930000.png
image982001.png

Once and architect always an architect!!!

Congratulations Rachel. We know quite a few of the folks at Five Point. You will make a tremendous difference.

Best wishes.

John

http://www.connect.media/flynn-departs-top-oakland-post-lennars-6b-concord-base-redev/?
utm_term=Top%20Story&utm_campaign=NGKF%20Hires%20Feld%20as%20Vice%20Chairman&utm_content=email&utm_source=Act-
On+Software&utm_medium=email&cm_mmc=Act-On%20Software-_-email-_-NGKF%20Hires%20Feld%20as%20Vice%20Chairman-
_-Top%20Story

JohnMcNulty, Architect
foundingprincipal

960atlanticavenuealameda,ca945015108658663m5105013212
johnm@mbharch.commbharch.com
From: Lauren Krause
To: Matt Lituchy; mfield@tmgpartners.com; Ivy.Greaner@fivepoint.com; robert.lavey@aecom.com;
zmyers@wellsfargo.com; KevinRatner@forestcity.net; Flynn, Rachel; jherr@lpc.com; phil@cityventures.com;
mspriggs@shorenstein.com; JThacher@wilsonmeany.com; jon.mcneal@snohetta.com; mduffy@studios.com;
pang@veritasinv.com; GStarr@prologis.com
Cc: Jason Bernstein; Cali Slepin; Sarah Gammill; Julie Champion; Eve Myers (emyers@eastdilsecured.com); Anny Li;
Lindsey, Colleen; Renee Adams; Michelle Abuyaghi
Subject: FW: ULIsf Learn From The Best Tomorrow!
Date: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 4:54:07 PM
Attachments: 2016 Learn From the Best Flyer FINAL.pdf

Good Afternoon Mentors,

We are very much looking forward to tomorrows event! We have over 150 people registered and
its sure to be a packed house. Attached is the program circulated this afternoon to the Young
Leaders in attendance. Registration begins at 5:30 p.m. so it would be optimal if we could meet in
the lobby at 5:15 p.m. to review the logistics and answer any final questions.

Thank you again and please do not hesitate to reach out with any questions. My cell phone number
is below.

Thank you,
Lauren

Lauren Krause
Senior Development Manager
Grosvenor Americas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct: 415-268-4070
Cell: 310-508-0870
Email: lauren.krause@grosvenor.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.grosvenor.com

From: Cali Slepin [mailto:Cali.Slepin@ULI.org]


Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 4:04 PM
To: Cali Slepin
Subject: ULIsf Learn From The Best Tomorrow!

Good Afternoon,

I hope that you are getting as excited as we are for Learn From the Besttomorrow from 5:30-8:30 at 500
Pine St. Attached is tomorrows program which has each of the mentors bios. Please read this before you
come so you know which table conversations will most interest you!

Best,
--
Cali Slepin lAssociate
Urban Land Institute San Francisco

Direct: (415) 268-4072


Cell: (415) 497-2893
cali.slepin@uli.org

One California Street, Suite 2500


San Francisco, CA 94111
http://sf.uli.org/

Register Today for ULI Fall Meeting


Connect with the world of real estate
Oct. 24-27, 2016 | Dallas, Texas | fall.uli.org

DISCLAIMER: This message is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended


solely for the addressee and access to this message by anyone else is unauthorised. If you have
received the message in error, please notify us immediately and delete it, as any disclosure,
copying, distribution or any other use is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the
addressee, you must not disclose its contents to anyone, retain, copy, distribute or take action
in reliance upon it. This message is provided for informational purposes and should not be
construed as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any securities or related financial instruments.
E-Mails are not secure and may contain software viruses which could damage your own
computer systems. While Grosvenor has taken every reasonable precaution to minimise this
risk, we cannot accept liability for any damage which you sustain as a result of software
viruses. Grosvenor Group Limited - Registered in England No. 3219943 Wheatsheaf
Investments Limited - Registered in England No. 3221116. Registered office: 70 Grosvenor
Street, London W1K 3JP, United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0) 20 7408 0988 and Fax: +44 (0) 20
7629 9115 The above comprise all subsidiaries including Grosvenor Limited (Registered in
England and Wales No 2874626, Registered office as above), and Grosvenor Investment
Management Limited (GIML) (Registered in England and Wales No 2774291, Registered
office as above). GIML is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority to
conduct investment business.
From: Flynn, Rachel
To: 1rachel.flynn@gmail.com
Subject: Fwd: Anton DevCo + Affordable Housing
Date: Monday, September 26, 2016 3:57:13 PM
Attachments: image002.png
ATT00001.htm
Zach Anderson.vcf
ATT00002.htm

From: Zach Anderson <ZAnderson@antondev.com>


Date: September 26, 2016 at 1:33:54 PM PDT
To: "Flynn, Rachel" <RFlynn@oaklandnet.com>
Subject: Re: Anton DevCo + Affordable Housing

Hi Rachel,

Great to see you at the ULI Learn From The Best event last Thursday, and congrats
again on the new job!

Per your suggestion, I wanted to follow up re: the Concord Naval Weapons Station.
Anton Development Co. (http://antondev.com/) would love the opportunity to work
with Five Point on any affordable housing project(s) required as part of your
entitlements. I realize this is a long ways off, but figured I would plant the seed now.
Our company has a twenty-year track record of building affordable housing
communities throughout California, and it continues to be a significant part of our
business model today. Our company is vertically-integrated, so we have expertise in
designing, entitling, financing, building, and managing our affordable projects, or
anything in between.

As a point of reference, we are under construction on our second, large affordable
project with The Irvine Company in SoCal, and we have an open dialogue with them
about additional affordable deals in both the Bay Area and Orange County; they have
come to think of us as their affordable solution, which is a win-win. I can easily
envision us playing a similar role with Five Point in Concord and throughout the state.

Good luck with your transition, and let me know if/when you would like to discuss this
further. My contact info attached for your records.

Thanks,

Zach Anderson, Director of Land Acquisitions
From: San Francisco Bisnow
To: Flynn, Rachel
Subject: Last Call! See the 300+ attending tomorrow"s Bay Area Power Women
Date: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 1:27:07 PM

Don't see images? Click Here To ensure delivery, please add "newsletter@bisnow.com" to your address book. Learn How

BAY AREA POWER WOMEN


PRESENTED BY: ALLEN
MATKINS
San Francisco
Wed Sep 21, 2016 The Sir Francis Drake 94

BECOME A SPONSOR **Price may not reflect real-time ticket price,


prices are changed as thresholds are met.
**Bisnow is now a cashless, checkless operation.
Please only submit payment via credit card.

Share this Event:


Attendees

Nicholas Adams Rebecca Aguilar


NINICO Communications Kilroy Realty

Sharon Alberts Jonathan Allen


Talus Construction, Inc. Avison Young

Dave Alpert Brian Alward


SAA Comfy

Raeleen Ancog Steve Arnold


Pankow Builders Skender Construction

Erin Azevedo Andrea Beard


Cupertino Electric, Inc. Build Group

Veena Beglinger Roxanne Bell


Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP DFS Green

Sarah Bernhisel Kathleen Blake


JLL SilRay

Ruby Bolaria Terri Boutwell


FivePoint Terra Search Partners

Faye Brandin Anne Brummett


FivePoint Communities Cupertino Electric,

Mai Bui Becky Burad


Kwan Henmi Architecture & Planning DZH Phillips

Anissa Burnley Margarett Buschkamp


Red Oak Pankow Builders

Angela Bushong Leigh Chang


Sleepy Hollow Management Group i

Sophia Chang Kyla Chin


Lubin Olson & Niewiadomski LLP SSL Law Firm LLP

Amanda Chorro-Predes Amanda Chorro-Predes


Oakwood Worldwide Oakwood Worldwide

Frances Choun Heather Chung


McCarthy Building Companies, Inc. SmithGroupJJR

Carla Collins Leticia Colon


Signet Testing Laboratories, Inc. Stewart Title - Commercial Services

Jennifer Crawford Denise Darrin


Syska Hennessy Group Perkins+Will

Terri Davis Oliver Davis


Oakwood Worldwide FivePoint

Kristy Davis Pat Davisson


American Institute of Steel Construction Chicago Title

Sara DeSimone Nickie Diggs


Skender Construction PCCP, LLC

Tom Donnelly Sherry Dorodian


Donnelly Design Hudson Pacific Properties, Inc.

Jennifer Duffield Laura Dulski


Haley & Aldrich Kwan Henmi Architecture & Planning

Donna Dupuy Laura Ellington


SideMark Build Group

Katy Faix Michelle Feldman


Holmes Culley Holmes Fire CORT

Rhonda Felicity Bret Firebaugh


Teknion Pankow Builders

Diane Fischer Manuel Fishman


WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Buchalter Nemer

Brian Flaherty Jamie Flaherty-Evans


ENGEO Colliers International

Jordan Flanders Anton Foss


Allen Matkins HOK

John Franco Eva Gabrielsen


SANDIS YourHQ

Susan Gallardo Angeles Garcia-Tapia


Haley & Aldrich McCarthy Building Companies, Inc.
Sherry Geyer Morgan Glier
First Republic Bank Rentlytics

Leslie Golden Lulu Gordon


Golden Associates EB5 Capital

Amanda Gossai Molly Griffin


Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP Knoll

Beth Grote Laurie Gustafson


HOK Sedgwick Law

Aimee Hallgrimson Mona Hamilton


XL Construction Oakwood Worldwide

Amy Hanlon Karl Heiman


M Moser TelePacific Communication

Michelle Hernandez Daniel Herriott


Hudson Pacific Properties, Inc. HOK

Alison Hill Reenita Hora


Prologis Bloomberg Media

Perry Hung Charlise Hyatt


Ernst & Young LLP DZH Phillips

Alyssa Jacobson Linda Jansen


BKF Engineers Lending Club

Bruce Jett Ann Marie Joel


JETT Landscape Architecture + Design Ritchie Commercial

Michelle Jones Ron Jones


RIM Architects Hunt Hale Jones Architects

Marcus Keay Amelie Keller


WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Kwan Henmi Architecture & Planning

Carlyn Kelley Linda Klein


WB Engineers + Consultants Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP

Sarah Kuchera Pam Lakey


WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff SSL Law Firm LLP

James Lampkin Jessica Lancy


PARAGON MECHANICAL INC City of Hope

Leslie Lazarotti Hanna Lee


WRA, Inc. VTS

Min Lee Rachel Legnitto


Ernst & Young LLP Gould Evans, Inc.

Mandy Leung Carol Leytem


FivePoint Rossi Builders

Lesley Lighthiser Margaret Liu


DCI Engineers Coldwell Banker Commercial

Kristi Loui Ruth Ma


Gensler Montgomery Lands Inc.

Lauren Maass Cory MacKenzie Ervin-Stewart


Gould Evans, Inc. YWCA San Francisco & Marin

Rick Mallory Barbara Mark


Allen Matkins Full Circle Institute

Marisa Marr Stephanie Marshall


Premier Properties Commercial Real Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP
Estate

Bridget Martinez Amanda McCarthy


Build Group WRA, Inc.

Mary McCarthy Thomas McDonough


Terra Search Partners Burnham Nationwide

Shawn McGarry Kate McMahon


Hudson Pacific Properties, Inc. Sundt Construction

John McNulty Catherine Meng


MBH Architects Kwan Henmi Architecture & Planning

Brenna Moorhead Natalia Morales


Lubin Olson Hudson Pacific Properties, Inc.

Jill Moritz Nancy Morse


WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Newmark Cornish & Carey

Steve Morton Diane Moseley


HOK Baran Studio Architecture

Sharon Muir Tulsee Nathu


Collins Collins Muir + Stewart Marcus & Millichap
Dan Neber Alice Nguyen
AEI Consultants McCarthy Building Companies, Inc.

Kim Nguyen Avneesh Nigam


Cupertino Electric, Inc. San Francisco Chamber of Commerce

Jessica Nowlin Kristina Nugent


Marsh DCI Engineers

Kristina Nugent Caroline O'Loughlin


DCI Engineers T3 Advisors

Heather Olinto Katie Olson-Kenny


City of Hope JLL

Kaven Oltman Clare Ota


PPM Allen Matkins

Liz Pardi Katie Parker


Dome Construction Palladian Capital Advisors

Cynthia Parker Vanessa Pelletier


BRIDGE Housing Corporation FME Architecture + Design

Carly Perez Sara Peschel


Kilroy Realty Groundworks Office

Joe Peters Kate Pickering


Maximus RE Partners Baran Studio Architecture

Gary Pike Meg Pirouz


Pike & Company Glumac

Dan Polito Nicholas Pounder


Skender Construction Burnham Nationwide

Kaitlin Prendergast Carleigh Price


Dome Construction Ferguson Partners

Holly Neber Ginger Bryant


AEI Consultants Sares Regis Group

Angelique Brunner Caroline Quick


EB5 Capital T3 Advisors

Alison Hill Randi Gerson


Prologis FivePoint

Jill Broadhurst Elizabeth Hearle


East Bay Rental Housing Association JLL

Kristina Lawson Janice Sears


Manatt, Phelps & Phillips Swig, BioMed, Essex

Teresa Marks Gayle Starr


Hudson Pacific Properties Prologis

Connie Moore Matin Zargari


BRE Properties Gensler

Mary Hines Amy Price


Newmark Cornish & Carey Bentall Kennedy

Cynthia Parker Rhonda Diaz Caldewey


BRIDGE Housing Cushman & Wakefield

Jacqueline Dompe Joy Ou


JLL Group I

Darcy Mackay Kay Sargent


CBRE HOK

Nancy Lundeen Alexa Arena


Allen Matkins Lendlease

Sylvia Kwan Kim Diamond


Kwan Henmi Architecture/Planning 7x7 Development

Katie O Brien Meg Spriggs


Build Inc. Shorenstein Properties

Deborah Boyer Pamela Kershaw


The Swig Company Port of Oakland

Janice Thacher Leina Zimmerman


Wilson Meany Clune Construction

Nancy Morse Frances Choun


Newmark Cornish & Carey McCarthy Building Companies

Georgia Collins Amber Schiada


CBRE JLL

Margaret Duskin Jodi Fedor


Cushman & Wakefield SSL Law Firm LLP
Merredith Treaster Sarah Zdarko
The John Buck Company Pankow Builders

Ashley Shawlee Dale Green


Pankow Builders Sleep Hollow Investment Co

Lydia Tan Karen Vincent


Bentall Kennedy Pardigm

Claudia Folzman Shelley Doran


Iron Construction WEBCOR Builders

Kristin Anderson Nina Tran


Eric F. Anderson Veritas Investments

Gaye Quinn Catherine House


Westlake Urban SVN | QAV & Associates

BECOME A SPONSOR
**Price may not reflect real-time ticket price,
prices are changed as thresholds are met.
**Bisnow is now a cashless, checkless operation.
Please only submit payment via credit card.

Ginger Bryant Alison Hill Amy Price Angelique Brunner

Ginger Bryant Alison Hill Amy Price Angelique Brunner


COO Managing Director COO President
Sares Regis Group Prologis Bentall Kennedy EB5 Capital

Caroline Quick Holly Neber Elizabeth Hearle Cynthia Parker

Caroline Quick Holly Neber Elizabeth Hearle Cynthia Parker


VP CEO Market Director CEO
T3 Advisors AEI Consultants JLL BRIDGE Housing
Randi Gerson Jill Broadhurst Kristina Lawson Janice Sears

Randi Gerson Jill Broadhurst Kristina Lawson Janice Sears


Director - Development Executive Director Partner Board of Directors
FivePoint East Bay Rental Housing Manatt, Phelps & Phillips Swig, BioMed, Essex
Association

Teresa Marks Gayle Starr Connie Moore Matin Zargari

Teresa Marks Gayle Starr Connie Moore Matin Zargari


Portfolio Manager Managing Director Corporate Director Principal & Managing
Hudson Pacific Prologis BRE Properties Director
Properties Gensler

Mary Hines Jacqueline Dompe Joy Ou

Mary Hines Rhonda Diaz Jacqueline Dompe Joy Ou


Executive Managing Caldewey Managing Director Founder
Director Managing Director JLL Group I
Newmark Cornish & Cushman & Wakefield
Carey

Darcy Mackay Kay Sargent Nancy Lundeen Alexa Arena

Darcy Mackay Kay Sargent Nancy Lundeen Alexa Arena


President Senior Principal Partner Executive GM
CBRE HOK Allen Matkins Lendlease
Sylvia Kwan Kim Diamond Katie O'Brien Meg Spriggs

Sylvia Kwan Kim Diamond Katie O'Brien Meg Spriggs


Chairman Principal VP Managing Director
Kwan Henmi 7x7 Development Build Inc. Shorenstein Properties
Architecture/Planning

Deborah Boyer Claudia Folzman Leina Zimmerman Pamela Kershaw

Deborah Boyer Claudia Folzman Leina Zimmerman Pamela Kershaw


EVP COO GM Director
The Swig Company Iron Construction Clune Construction Port of Oakland

Janice Thacher Nancy Morse Shelley Doran Frances Choun

Janice Thacher Nancy Morse Shelley Doran Frances Choun


Partner Senior Managing SVP VP
Wilson Meany Director WEBCOR Builders McCarthy Building
Newmark Cornish & Companies
Carey

Georgia Collins Amber Schiada Margaret Duskin Jodi Fedor

Georgia Collins Amber Schiada Margaret Duskin Jodi Fedor


Senior Managing VP Executive Director Partner
Director JLL Cushman & Wakefield SSL Law Firm LLP
CBRE
Sarah Zdarko Ashley Shawlee Dale Green Lydia Tan

Sarah Zdarko Ashley Shawlee Dale Green Lydia Tan


Corporate Lean Manager Senior Project Manager Asset Manager SVP
Pankow Builders Pankow Builders Sleep Hollow Investment Bentall Kennedy
Co

Merredith Treaster Kristin Anderson Karen Vincent Nina Tran

Merredith Treaster Kristin Anderson Karen Vincent Nina Tran


SVP CEO West Region Area CFO
The John Buck Company Eric F. Anderson Leader Veritas Investments
Pardigm

Gaye Quinn Catherine House

Gaye Quinn Catherine House


Managing Director Co-Founder & Managing
Westlake Urban Director
SVN | QAV & Associates

Field Construction Crew SF

Pankow HOK
Iron Construction

Agenda

Time Activity
Bisnow's Power Women Initiative Aims
8:00 AM - 8:30 AM Pre-Event Coffee Networking to Shine a Bright Light On the Women
A Few Words From Our Power Making a Big Impact on the
8:30 AM - 9:15 AM
Players Commercial Real Estate Industry.
9:15 AM - 9:35 AM Honoree Award Recognitions
Studies Show That Women Make Up a
Fraction of The C-Suite Positions in
Bay Area Power Women - Our Industry. Fortunately, Women (and
9:35 AM - 10:00 AM
Breakfast Networking
Men) of Influence At Forward-Thinking
Companies Are Working to Change
That.

Over The Last Few Years, Bisnow has


Celebrated Hundreds of Women at
The Sir Francis Drake Events in New York, Atlanta, San Diego
450 Powell St and more. Now We Bring This Effort to
San Francisco, CA 94102 San Francisco. Please Join Us for a
Lovely Affair to Celebrate & Recognize
Ballroom: Empire Ballroom These Trailblazers in Our Business.

Breakfast Networking & Schmoozing

To Follow!

GET DIRECTIONS ADD TO CALENDAR

94
**Price may not reflect real-time ticket
price, prices are changed as thresholds
are met.
**Bisnow is now a cashless, checkless
SpacRight Arrow

BECOME A SPONSOR

Registration Questions:
202-293-0370
eventregistration@bisnow.com
operation. Please only submit payment
via credit card.
Share this Event:
VISIT BISNOW.COM
The email address for your subscription is: rflynn@oaklandnet.com
SHARE
ABOUT US | CONTACT US | EMAIL PREFERENCES | UNSUBSCRIBE
COPYRIGHT 2016 BISNOW. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
SPONSOR OUR EVENTS
From: NAI Northern California
To: Flynn, Rachel
Subject: NAI Northern California Newsletter
Date: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 9:18:44 AM

Hi, just a reminder that you're receiving this email because you have expressed an interest in NAI Northern
California. Don't forget to add kglovsky@nainorcal.com to your address book so we'll be sure to land in
your inbox!

You may unsubscribe if you no longer wish to receive our emails.

September 21, 2016


Global reach, local expertise.
NAI Northern California is a progressive, full service commercial real estate firm serving the Northern California Bay Area.
Recognized as one of the Top 25 Commercial Real Estate Firms by the East Bay and San Francisco Business Times, NAI
Northern California's commitment to the Bay Area is long-term and dedicated to delivering the best results for our clients.

Congratulations!
NAI Northern California is pleased to announce the promotion of Shivu Srinivasan to the position
of Vice President. Since joining the company in 2014 as an Investment Advisor, Shivu's
exceptional dedication to success has been undeniable. He has quickly become a top producer,
grossing nearly $38M in sales volume in less than two years. We are proud to work with him and
wish him continued success.
MARKET UPDATE
NEW LISTINGS

FOR SALE FOR SALE


Office Land
6.6% Cap 11.3 acres
Richmond
San Francisco
Contact Advisor
Contact Advisor

FOR SALE FOR SALE


Retail Multifamily
12,370 SF 5 Units
Concord Alameda

Contact Advisor Contact Advisor

RECENTLY CLOSED

SOLD SOLD
Multifamily Multifamily
12 Units 5.9% Cap
Berkeley Oakland

Contact Advisor Contact Advisor

SOLD
SOLD
Multifamily
Multifamily
5 Units
6.3% Cap
Berkeley
Concord
Contact Advisor
Contact Advisor

IN THE NEWS
San Francisco
Pacific Waterfront Partners sells The Piers development on San Francisco's waterfront for
$103 million

Invesco Real Estateis buying The Piers, an office and retail development at historic Piers 1, 3 and 5, fromPacific
Waterfront PartnersLLC for $103 million, according to property records.At that price, the buyer is paying a stunning $1,254
per square foot, one of the highest paid in San Francisco, for the 82,158-square-foot property...The developer will stay on to
manage the properties for Invesco, an Atlanta-based global investor with more than $73.1 billion in real estate assets in its
portfolio. In recent years, the firm has also invested in other San Francisco properties such as41 Tehama St., an apartment
tower site in San Francisco's Transbay district,and 101 Second St., a 24-story, 388,370-square-foot Class A office
tower.Read More

Oakland
Oakland's planning director leaves to join mega-developer Lennar's affiliate

"Rachel Flynn, director of Oakland's planning and building department, is leaving city government to lead the$6 billion
redevelopment of the Concord Naval Base.Flynn will become vice president of planning at naval base developer FivePoint,
whose majority owner isLennar Corp.,one of the country's largest homebuilders, a company spokesman confirmed. She
starts on Oct. 3.It's unclear who will replace Flynn as Oakland's top official overseeing real estate development in the city, a
crucial role as Oakland sees record-high real estate prices and dozens of new large project proposals." Read More

Palo Alto
Fast-growing software company inks huge headquarters lease in Palo Alto

"Cloudera, a data management and analytics company, leased up all of the 225,000 square feet in 395 Page Mill Road in
Palo Alto, a three-story building within walking distance of Caltrain and the city's downtown.The deal marks one of the
largest office leases this year in Palo Alto, a city with high demand and soaring rents for office space.Cloudera plans to
move its headquarters into the building, owned byJay Paul Co., next year and sublease excess space...Vacancy for Class A
office space in Palo Alto was 3.2 percent during the second quarter of 2016, according to brokerage JLL, and asking rents
for that kind of space were around $103 per square foot - higher than San Francisco's $73 per square foot average asking
rate." Read More

We are considering highly motivated applicants to join our team.


Visit our Careers Page today.

San Francisco Oakland San Jose


101 California Street, Suite 850 475 14th Street, Suite 700 99 Almaden Blvd, 6th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111 Oakland, CA 94612 San Jose, CA 95113
415 481 0984 510 336 4712 408 740 7225

STAY CONNECTED

www.nainorcal.com

NAI Northern California, 47514thStreet, Suite700,Oakland,CA94612

SafeUnsubscribe rflynn@oaklandnet.com
Forward this email|Update Profile|About our service provider
Sent by kglovsky@nainorcal.com in collaboration with

Constant Contact

Try it free today


From: RFlynn@oaklandnet.com
To: Charles Bryant
Subject: Re: AC Planning Director"s Meetings
Date: Monday, September 26, 2016 3:56:43 PM

Actually on the Concord Project.

On Sep 26, 2016, at 1:52 PM, Charles Bryant <cbryant@emeryville.org> wrote:

Cool. Are you going to be working with Kofi Bonner on the Shipyard?

Charlie

From: Flynn, Rachel [mailto:RFlynn@oaklandnet.com]
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 12:43 PM
To: Charles Bryant
Subject: Re: AC Planning Director's Meetings

I'll be working for a developer in the Bay Area, called FivePoint.

On Sep 26, 2016, at 8:58 AM, Charles Bryant <cbryant@emeryville.org> wrote:

Rachel,

No, I hadnt heard. Where are you going? We will miss you.

Charlie

<image003.jpg> Charles S. Bryant, AICP
Community Development Director, City of Emeryville
1333 Park Avenue, Emeryville, CA 94608-3517
510-596-4361 (direct) 510-658-8095 (fax)
cbryant@emeryville.org


From: Flynn, Rachel [mailto:RFlynn@oaklandnet.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2016 1:57 PM
To: Charles Bryant
Cc: Ranelletti, Darin
Subject: AC Planning Director's Meetings

Hi Charlie, As youve probably heard by now, I will be leaving my position
with the City of Oakland to return to the private sector.

As such, could you please remove me from the distribution list for
Alameda County Planning Directors and add Darin Ranelletti? He will be
serving as Acting Director of the Planning & Building Department.

Thanks and it has been great to work with you over these last 3.5 years.
I know you will be a great resource to Darin. Rachel

From: Charles Bryant [mailto:cbryant@emeryville.org]


Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 7:53 PM
To: Adam Weinstein; Albert Lopez; Alex Amoroso; Alisa Shen; Andres
Mogensen; Andrew Thomas; Anne Hersch; Carmela Campbell; Carol Johnson;
Charles Bryant; Chester Nakahara; Chris Bazar; Christy Leffall; Cynthia
Battenberg; Ranelletti, Darin; David Rizk; Debbie Potter; Diana Keena; Gerry
Beaudin; Ingrid Rademaker; Jeff Baker; Jeff Bond; Jeff Schwob; Joan Malloy;
Johnny Jaramillo; Ken Kirkey; Kevin Jackson; Kristie Wheeler; Luke Sims;
Mark Shorett; Matt Maloney; Miriam Chion; Miroo Desai; Paul Spence; Flynn,
Rachel; Sara Buizer; Saravana Suthanthira; Miller, Scott; Shannon Allen;
Stephan Kiefer; Terrence Grindall; Tess Lengyel; Tom Liao
Subject: RE: Alameda County Planning Director's meeting on September 23

All,

Our Alameda County Planning Directors meeting is coming up this Friday,


September 23, at 12 noon at Hayward City Hall. The agenda is attached.

Please RSVP if you havent already done so, so I can get a head count for
lunch. So far, I have confirmations from:

<!--[if !supportLists]--> <!--[endif]-->Tom Liao, San Leandro


<!--[if !supportLists]--> <!--[endif]-->Kristie Wheeler, Fremont
<!--[if !supportLists]--> <!--[endif]-->David Rizk and Sara Buizer,
Hayward
<!--[if !supportLists]--> <!--[endif]-->Carmela Campbell, Union City
<!--[if !supportLists]--> <!--[endif]-->Saravana Suthanthira, ACTC
<!--[if !supportLists]--> <!--[endif]-->Ken Kirkey and Matt Maloney,
MTC
<!--[if !supportLists]--> <!--[endif]-->Me, Miroo Desai, and Diana
Keena, Emeryville

A number of others have sent me emails recently about the roster, but
havent explicitly said they were planning on attending on the 23rd, so if
your name isnt listed above and you ARE planning on attending, please
send me an email to let me know. Wouldnt want to be short on lunches!

Also attached is an updated roster. I noticed that the names on this list
didnt exactly match the distributions for our most recent emails, so I
combined the two, eliminating people who are no longer involved, and
updating all the contact information as best I could. Please look it over
and let me know if there is anyone missing that should be added, anyone
who should be removed from the list, or any other changes.

As was suggested by Tom Liao, I have compiled this roster into an Outlook
Contact Group. However, I will hold off on forwarding that until I get any
corrections to the list.

See you Friday!

Charlie

<image004.jpg> Charles S. Bryant, AICP


Community Development Director, City of Emeryville
1333 Park Avenue, Emeryville, CA 94608-3517
510-596-4361 (direct) 510-658-8095 (fax)
cbryant@emeryville.org

From: Charles Bryant


Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 11:37 AM
To: 'Liao, Thomas'; Adam Weinstein; Albert Lopez; Alex Amoroso; Andrew
Thomas; Anne Hersch; Carmela Campbell; Chris Bazar; Christy Leffall;
Battenberg, Cynthia; David Rizk; Debbie Potter; Gerry Beaudin; Ingrid
Rademaker; Jeff Baker; Jeff Bond; Jeff Schwob; Joan Malloy; Johnny
Jaramillo; Johnson, Carol; Katy Ramirez; Kristie Wheeler; Luke Sims; Mark
Shorett; Paul Spence; Rachel Flynn; Sara Buizer; Terrence Grindall; Kevin
Jackson (kjackson@ci.piedmont.ca.us); Tess Lengyel; Mogensen, Andrew;
Shen, Alisa (AShen@ci.berkeley.ca.us); Sallen@ci.berkeley.ca.us
Subject: Alameda County Planning Director's meeting on September 23

All,

The next meeting of the Alameda County Planning Directors will be on


Friday, September 23, at 12 noon in the usual place at Hayward City Hall.
Emeryville will host.

So far, we have an update on Plan Bay Area on the agenda, as well as an


update on whats going on in Emeryville. Anything else folks would like to
discuss?

Im attaching the latest spreadsheet of our distribution list, which was


updated by Hayward last year. Please mark it up with any changes, and Ill
create an new version.

In that vein, please forward this email to anyone Ive missed.

Please RSVP to me so I can get a headcount for lunch.

Thanks! See you on September 23.

Charlie

<image005.jpg> Charles S. Bryant, AICP


Community Development Director, City of Emeryville
1333 Park Avenue, Emeryville, CA 94608-3517
510-596-4361 (direct) 510-658-8095 (fax)
cbryant@emeryville.org

From: Flynn, Rachel


To: Charles Bryant
Subject: Re: AC Planning Director"s Meetings
Date: Monday, September 26, 2016 12:42:39 PM

I'll be working for a developer in the Bay Area, called FivePoint.

On Sep 26, 2016, at 8:58 AM, Charles Bryant <cbryant@emeryville.org> wrote:

Rachel,

No, I hadnt heard. Where are you going? We will miss you.

Charlie

<image003.jpg> Charles S. Bryant, AICP
Community Development Director, City of Emeryville
1333 Park Avenue, Emeryville, CA 94608-3517
510-596-4361 (direct) 510-658-8095 (fax)
cbryant@emeryville.org


From: Flynn, Rachel [mailto:RFlynn@oaklandnet.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2016 1:57 PM
To: Charles Bryant
Cc: Ranelletti, Darin
Subject: AC Planning Director's Meetings

Hi Charlie, As youve probably heard by now, I will be leaving my position with the City
of Oakland to return to the private sector.

As such, could you please remove me from the distribution list for Alameda County
Planning Directors and add Darin Ranelletti? He will be serving as Acting Director of the
Planning & Building Department.

Thanks and it has been great to work with you over these last 3.5 years. I know you
will be a great resource to Darin. Rachel

From: Charles Bryant [mailto:cbryant@emeryville.org]
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 7:53 PM
To: Adam Weinstein; Albert Lopez; Alex Amoroso; Alisa Shen; Andres Mogensen; Andrew
Thomas; Anne Hersch; Carmela Campbell; Carol Johnson; Charles Bryant; Chester
Nakahara; Chris Bazar; Christy Leffall; Cynthia Battenberg; Ranelletti, Darin; David Rizk;
Debbie Potter; Diana Keena; Gerry Beaudin; Ingrid Rademaker; Jeff Baker; Jeff Bond; Jeff
Schwob; Joan Malloy; Johnny Jaramillo; Ken Kirkey; Kevin Jackson; Kristie Wheeler; Luke
Sims; Mark Shorett; Matt Maloney; Miriam Chion; Miroo Desai; Paul Spence; Flynn, Rachel;
Sara Buizer; Saravana Suthanthira; Miller, Scott; Shannon Allen; Stephan Kiefer; Terrence
Grindall; Tess Lengyel; Tom Liao
Subject: RE: Alameda County Planning Director's meeting on September 23

All,

Our Alameda County Planning Directors meeting is coming up this Friday, September
23, at 12 noon at Hayward City Hall. The agenda is attached.

Please RSVP if you havent already done so, so I can get a head count for lunch. So far, I
have confirmations from:

<!--[if !supportLists]--> <!--[endif]-->Tom Liao, San Leandro


<!--[if !supportLists]--> <!--[endif]-->Kristie Wheeler, Fremont
<!--[if !supportLists]--> <!--[endif]-->David Rizk and Sara Buizer, Hayward
<!--[if !supportLists]--> <!--[endif]-->Carmela Campbell, Union City
<!--[if !supportLists]--> <!--[endif]-->Saravana Suthanthira, ACTC
<!--[if !supportLists]--> <!--[endif]-->Ken Kirkey and Matt Maloney, MTC
<!--[if !supportLists]--> <!--[endif]-->Me, Miroo Desai, and Diana Keena,
Emeryville

A number of others have sent me emails recently about the roster, but havent
explicitly said they were planning on attending on the 23rd, so if your name isnt listed
above and you ARE planning on attending, please send me an email to let me know.
Wouldnt want to be short on lunches!

Also attached is an updated roster. I noticed that the names on this list didnt exactly
match the distributions for our most recent emails, so I combined the two, eliminating
people who are no longer involved, and updating all the contact information as best I
could. Please look it over and let me know if there is anyone missing that should be
added, anyone who should be removed from the list, or any other changes.

As was suggested by Tom Liao, I have compiled this roster into an Outlook Contact
Group. However, I will hold off on forwarding that until I get any corrections to the list.

See you Friday!

Charlie

<image004.jpg> Charles S. Bryant, AICP


Community Development Director, City of Emeryville
1333 Park Avenue, Emeryville, CA 94608-3517
510-596-4361 (direct) 510-658-8095 (fax)
cbryant@emeryville.org

From: Charles Bryant


Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 11:37 AM
To: 'Liao, Thomas'; Adam Weinstein; Albert Lopez; Alex Amoroso; Andrew Thomas; Anne
Hersch; Carmela Campbell; Chris Bazar; Christy Leffall; Battenberg, Cynthia; David Rizk;
Debbie Potter; Gerry Beaudin; Ingrid Rademaker; Jeff Baker; Jeff Bond; Jeff Schwob; Joan
Malloy; Johnny Jaramillo; Johnson, Carol; Katy Ramirez; Kristie Wheeler; Luke Sims; Mark
Shorett; Paul Spence; Rachel Flynn; Sara Buizer; Terrence Grindall; Kevin Jackson
(kjackson@ci.piedmont.ca.us); Tess Lengyel; Mogensen, Andrew; Shen, Alisa
(AShen@ci.berkeley.ca.us); Sallen@ci.berkeley.ca.us
Subject: Alameda County Planning Director's meeting on September 23

All,

The next meeting of the Alameda County Planning Directors will be on Friday,
September 23, at 12 noon in the usual place at Hayward City Hall. Emeryville will host.

So far, we have an update on Plan Bay Area on the agenda, as well as an update on
whats going on in Emeryville. Anything else folks would like to discuss?

Im attaching the latest spreadsheet of our distribution list, which was updated by
Hayward last year. Please mark it up with any changes, and Ill create an new version.

In that vein, please forward this email to anyone Ive missed.

Please RSVP to me so I can get a headcount for lunch.

Thanks! See you on September 23.

Charlie

<image005.jpg> Charles S. Bryant, AICP


Community Development Director, City of Emeryville
1333 Park Avenue, Emeryville, CA 94608-3517
510-596-4361 (direct) 510-658-8095 (fax)
cbryant@emeryville.org

From: RFlynn@oaklandnet.com
To: Charles Bryant
Subject: Re: AC Planning Director"s Meetings
Date: Monday, September 26, 2016 12:42:38 PM

I'll be working for a developer in the Bay Area, called FivePoint.

On Sep 26, 2016, at 8:58 AM, Charles Bryant <cbryant@emeryville.org> wrote:

Rachel,

No, I hadnt heard. Where are you going? We will miss you.

Charlie

<image003.jpg> Charles S. Bryant, AICP
Community Development Director, City of Emeryville
1333 Park Avenue, Emeryville, CA 94608-3517
510-596-4361 (direct) 510-658-8095 (fax)
cbryant@emeryville.org


From: Flynn, Rachel [mailto:RFlynn@oaklandnet.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2016 1:57 PM
To: Charles Bryant
Cc: Ranelletti, Darin
Subject: AC Planning Director's Meetings

Hi Charlie, As youve probably heard by now, I will be leaving my position with the City
of Oakland to return to the private sector.

As such, could you please remove me from the distribution list for Alameda County
Planning Directors and add Darin Ranelletti? He will be serving as Acting Director of the
Planning & Building Department.

Thanks and it has been great to work with you over these last 3.5 years. I know you
will be a great resource to Darin. Rachel

From: Charles Bryant [mailto:cbryant@emeryville.org]
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 7:53 PM
To: Adam Weinstein; Albert Lopez; Alex Amoroso; Alisa Shen; Andres Mogensen; Andrew
Thomas; Anne Hersch; Carmela Campbell; Carol Johnson; Charles Bryant; Chester
Nakahara; Chris Bazar; Christy Leffall; Cynthia Battenberg; Ranelletti, Darin; David Rizk;
Debbie Potter; Diana Keena; Gerry Beaudin; Ingrid Rademaker; Jeff Baker; Jeff Bond; Jeff
Schwob; Joan Malloy; Johnny Jaramillo; Ken Kirkey; Kevin Jackson; Kristie Wheeler; Luke
Sims; Mark Shorett; Matt Maloney; Miriam Chion; Miroo Desai; Paul Spence; Flynn, Rachel;
Sara Buizer; Saravana Suthanthira; Miller, Scott; Shannon Allen; Stephan Kiefer; Terrence
Grindall; Tess Lengyel; Tom Liao
Subject: RE: Alameda County Planning Director's meeting on September 23

All,

Our Alameda County Planning Directors meeting is coming up this Friday, September
23, at 12 noon at Hayward City Hall. The agenda is attached.

Please RSVP if you havent already done so, so I can get a head count for lunch. So far, I
have confirmations from:

<!--[if !supportLists]--> <!--[endif]-->Tom Liao, San Leandro


<!--[if !supportLists]--> <!--[endif]-->Kristie Wheeler, Fremont
<!--[if !supportLists]--> <!--[endif]-->David Rizk and Sara Buizer, Hayward
<!--[if !supportLists]--> <!--[endif]-->Carmela Campbell, Union City
<!--[if !supportLists]--> <!--[endif]-->Saravana Suthanthira, ACTC
<!--[if !supportLists]--> <!--[endif]-->Ken Kirkey and Matt Maloney, MTC
<!--[if !supportLists]--> <!--[endif]-->Me, Miroo Desai, and Diana Keena,
Emeryville

A number of others have sent me emails recently about the roster, but havent
explicitly said they were planning on attending on the 23rd, so if your name isnt listed
above and you ARE planning on attending, please send me an email to let me know.
Wouldnt want to be short on lunches!

Also attached is an updated roster. I noticed that the names on this list didnt exactly
match the distributions for our most recent emails, so I combined the two, eliminating
people who are no longer involved, and updating all the contact information as best I
could. Please look it over and let me know if there is anyone missing that should be
added, anyone who should be removed from the list, or any other changes.

As was suggested by Tom Liao, I have compiled this roster into an Outlook Contact
Group. However, I will hold off on forwarding that until I get any corrections to the list.

See you Friday!

Charlie

<image004.jpg> Charles S. Bryant, AICP


Community Development Director, City of Emeryville
1333 Park Avenue, Emeryville, CA 94608-3517
510-596-4361 (direct) 510-658-8095 (fax)
cbryant@emeryville.org

From: Charles Bryant


Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 11:37 AM
To: 'Liao, Thomas'; Adam Weinstein; Albert Lopez; Alex Amoroso; Andrew Thomas; Anne
Hersch; Carmela Campbell; Chris Bazar; Christy Leffall; Battenberg, Cynthia; David Rizk;
Debbie Potter; Gerry Beaudin; Ingrid Rademaker; Jeff Baker; Jeff Bond; Jeff Schwob; Joan
Malloy; Johnny Jaramillo; Johnson, Carol; Katy Ramirez; Kristie Wheeler; Luke Sims; Mark
Shorett; Paul Spence; Rachel Flynn; Sara Buizer; Terrence Grindall; Kevin Jackson
(kjackson@ci.piedmont.ca.us); Tess Lengyel; Mogensen, Andrew; Shen, Alisa
(AShen@ci.berkeley.ca.us); Sallen@ci.berkeley.ca.us
Subject: Alameda County Planning Director's meeting on September 23

All,

The next meeting of the Alameda County Planning Directors will be on Friday,
September 23, at 12 noon in the usual place at Hayward City Hall. Emeryville will host.

So far, we have an update on Plan Bay Area on the agenda, as well as an update on
whats going on in Emeryville. Anything else folks would like to discuss?

Im attaching the latest spreadsheet of our distribution list, which was updated by
Hayward last year. Please mark it up with any changes, and Ill create an new version.

In that vein, please forward this email to anyone Ive missed.

Please RSVP to me so I can get a headcount for lunch.

Thanks! See you on September 23.

Charlie

<image005.jpg> Charles S. Bryant, AICP


Community Development Director, City of Emeryville
1333 Park Avenue, Emeryville, CA 94608-3517
510-596-4361 (direct) 510-658-8095 (fax)
cbryant@emeryville.org

From: Charles Bryant


To: Flynn, Rachel
Subject: RE: AC Planning Director"s Meetings
Date: Monday, September 26, 2016 1:52:31 PM

Cool. Are you going to be working with Kofi Bonner on the Shipyard?

Charlie

From: Flynn, Rachel [mailto:RFlynn@oaklandnet.com]


Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 12:43 PM
To: Charles Bryant
Subject: Re: AC Planning Director's Meetings

I'll be working for a developer in the Bay Area, called FivePoint.

On Sep 26, 2016, at 8:58 AM, Charles Bryant <cbryant@emeryville.org> wrote:

Rachel,

No, I hadnt heard. Where are you going? We will miss you.

Charlie

<image003.jpg> Charles S. Bryant, AICP
Community Development Director, City of Emeryville
1333 Park Avenue, Emeryville, CA 94608-3517
510-596-4361 (direct) 510-658-8095 (fax)
cbryant@emeryville.org


From: Flynn, Rachel [mailto:RFlynn@oaklandnet.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2016 1:57 PM
To: Charles Bryant
Cc: Ranelletti, Darin
Subject: AC Planning Director's Meetings

Hi Charlie, As youve probably heard by now, I will be leaving my position with the City
of Oakland to return to the private sector.

As such, could you please remove me from the distribution list for Alameda County
Planning Directors and add Darin Ranelletti? He will be serving as Acting Director of the
Planning & Building Department.

Thanks and it has been great to work with you over these last 3.5 years. I know you
will be a great resource to Darin. Rachel

From: Charles Bryant [mailto:cbryant@emeryville.org]
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 7:53 PM
To: Adam Weinstein; Albert Lopez; Alex Amoroso; Alisa Shen; Andres Mogensen; Andrew
Thomas; Anne Hersch; Carmela Campbell; Carol Johnson; Charles Bryant; Chester
Nakahara; Chris Bazar; Christy Leffall; Cynthia Battenberg; Ranelletti, Darin; David Rizk;
Debbie Potter; Diana Keena; Gerry Beaudin; Ingrid Rademaker; Jeff Baker; Jeff Bond; Jeff
Schwob; Joan Malloy; Johnny Jaramillo; Ken Kirkey; Kevin Jackson; Kristie Wheeler; Luke
Sims; Mark Shorett; Matt Maloney; Miriam Chion; Miroo Desai; Paul Spence; Flynn, Rachel;
Sara Buizer; Saravana Suthanthira; Miller, Scott; Shannon Allen; Stephan Kiefer; Terrence
Grindall; Tess Lengyel; Tom Liao
Subject: RE: Alameda County Planning Director's meeting on September 23

All,

Our Alameda County Planning Directors meeting is coming up this Friday, September
23, at 12 noon at Hayward City Hall. The agenda is attached.

Please RSVP if you havent already done so, so I can get a head count for lunch. So far, I
have confirmations from:

Tom Liao, San Leandro


Kristie Wheeler, Fremont
David Rizk and Sara Buizer, Hayward
Carmela Campbell, Union City
Saravana Suthanthira, ACTC
Ken Kirkey and Matt Maloney, MTC
Me, Miroo Desai, and Diana Keena, Emeryville

A number of others have sent me emails recently about the roster, but havent
explicitly said they were planning on attending on the 23rd, so if your name isnt listed
above and you ARE planning on attending, please send me an email to let me know.
Wouldnt want to be short on lunches!

Also attached is an updated roster. I noticed that the names on this list didnt exactly
match the distributions for our most recent emails, so I combined the two, eliminating
people who are no longer involved, and updating all the contact information as best I
could. Please look it over and let me know if there is anyone missing that should be
added, anyone who should be removed from the list, or any other changes.

As was suggested by Tom Liao, I have compiled this roster into an Outlook Contact
Group. However, I will hold off on forwarding that until I get any corrections to the list.

See you Friday!

Charlie

<image004.jpg> Charles S. Bryant, AICP


Community Development Director, City of Emeryville
1333 Park Avenue, Emeryville, CA 94608-3517
510-596-4361 (direct) 510-658-8095 (fax)
cbryant@emeryville.org

From: Charles Bryant


Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 11:37 AM
To: 'Liao, Thomas'; Adam Weinstein; Albert Lopez; Alex Amoroso; Andrew Thomas; Anne
Hersch; Carmela Campbell; Chris Bazar; Christy Leffall; Battenberg, Cynthia; David Rizk;
Debbie Potter; Gerry Beaudin; Ingrid Rademaker; Jeff Baker; Jeff Bond; Jeff Schwob; Joan
Malloy; Johnny Jaramillo; Johnson, Carol; Katy Ramirez; Kristie Wheeler; Luke Sims; Mark
Shorett; Paul Spence; Rachel Flynn; Sara Buizer; Terrence Grindall; Kevin Jackson
(kjackson@ci.piedmont.ca.us); Tess Lengyel; Mogensen, Andrew; Shen, Alisa
(AShen@ci.berkeley.ca.us); Sallen@ci.berkeley.ca.us
Subject: Alameda County Planning Director's meeting on September 23

All,

The next meeting of the Alameda County Planning Directors will be on Friday,
September 23, at 12 noon in the usual place at Hayward City Hall. Emeryville will host.

So far, we have an update on Plan Bay Area on the agenda, as well as an update on
whats going on in Emeryville. Anything else folks would like to discuss?

Im attaching the latest spreadsheet of our distribution list, which was updated by
Hayward last year. Please mark it up with any changes, and Ill create an new version.

In that vein, please forward this email to anyone Ive missed.

Please RSVP to me so I can get a headcount for lunch.

Thanks! See you on September 23.

Charlie

<image005.jpg> Charles S. Bryant, AICP


Community Development Director, City of Emeryville
1333 Park Avenue, Emeryville, CA 94608-3517
510-596-4361 (direct) 510-658-8095 (fax)
cbryant@emeryville.org

From: Flynn, Rachel


To: Charles Bryant
Subject: Re: AC Planning Director"s Meetings
Date: Monday, September 26, 2016 3:56:44 PM

Actually on the Concord Project.

On Sep 26, 2016, at 1:52 PM, Charles Bryant <cbryant@emeryville.org> wrote:

Cool. Are you going to be working with Kofi Bonner on the Shipyard?

Charlie

From: Flynn, Rachel [mailto:RFlynn@oaklandnet.com]
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 12:43 PM
To: Charles Bryant
Subject: Re: AC Planning Director's Meetings

I'll be working for a developer in the Bay Area, called FivePoint.

On Sep 26, 2016, at 8:58 AM, Charles Bryant <cbryant@emeryville.org> wrote:

Rachel,

No, I hadnt heard. Where are you going? We will miss you.

Charlie

<image003.jpg> Charles S. Bryant, AICP
Community Development Director, City of Emeryville
1333 Park Avenue, Emeryville, CA 94608-3517
510-596-4361 (direct) 510-658-8095 (fax)
cbryant@emeryville.org


From: Flynn, Rachel [mailto:RFlynn@oaklandnet.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2016 1:57 PM
To: Charles Bryant
Cc: Ranelletti, Darin
Subject: AC Planning Director's Meetings

Hi Charlie, As youve probably heard by now, I will be leaving my position
with the City of Oakland to return to the private sector.

As such, could you please remove me from the distribution list for
Alameda County Planning Directors and add Darin Ranelletti? He will be
serving as Acting Director of the Planning & Building Department.

Thanks and it has been great to work with you over these last 3.5 years.
I know you will be a great resource to Darin. Rachel

From: Charles Bryant [mailto:cbryant@emeryville.org]


Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 7:53 PM
To: Adam Weinstein; Albert Lopez; Alex Amoroso; Alisa Shen; Andres
Mogensen; Andrew Thomas; Anne Hersch; Carmela Campbell; Carol Johnson;
Charles Bryant; Chester Nakahara; Chris Bazar; Christy Leffall; Cynthia
Battenberg; Ranelletti, Darin; David Rizk; Debbie Potter; Diana Keena; Gerry
Beaudin; Ingrid Rademaker; Jeff Baker; Jeff Bond; Jeff Schwob; Joan Malloy;
Johnny Jaramillo; Ken Kirkey; Kevin Jackson; Kristie Wheeler; Luke Sims;
Mark Shorett; Matt Maloney; Miriam Chion; Miroo Desai; Paul Spence; Flynn,
Rachel; Sara Buizer; Saravana Suthanthira; Miller, Scott; Shannon Allen;
Stephan Kiefer; Terrence Grindall; Tess Lengyel; Tom Liao
Subject: RE: Alameda County Planning Director's meeting on September 23

All,

Our Alameda County Planning Directors meeting is coming up this Friday,


September 23, at 12 noon at Hayward City Hall. The agenda is attached.

Please RSVP if you havent already done so, so I can get a head count for
lunch. So far, I have confirmations from:

<!--[if !supportLists]--> <!--[endif]-->Tom Liao, San Leandro


<!--[if !supportLists]--> <!--[endif]-->Kristie Wheeler, Fremont
<!--[if !supportLists]--> <!--[endif]-->David Rizk and Sara Buizer,
Hayward
<!--[if !supportLists]--> <!--[endif]-->Carmela Campbell, Union City
<!--[if !supportLists]--> <!--[endif]-->Saravana Suthanthira, ACTC
<!--[if !supportLists]--> <!--[endif]-->Ken Kirkey and Matt Maloney,
MTC
<!--[if !supportLists]--> <!--[endif]-->Me, Miroo Desai, and Diana
Keena, Emeryville

A number of others have sent me emails recently about the roster, but
havent explicitly said they were planning on attending on the 23rd, so if
your name isnt listed above and you ARE planning on attending, please
send me an email to let me know. Wouldnt want to be short on lunches!

Also attached is an updated roster. I noticed that the names on this list
didnt exactly match the distributions for our most recent emails, so I
combined the two, eliminating people who are no longer involved, and
updating all the contact information as best I could. Please look it over
and let me know if there is anyone missing that should be added, anyone
who should be removed from the list, or any other changes.

As was suggested by Tom Liao, I have compiled this roster into an Outlook
Contact Group. However, I will hold off on forwarding that until I get any
corrections to the list.

See you Friday!

Charlie

<image004.jpg> Charles S. Bryant, AICP


Community Development Director, City of Emeryville
1333 Park Avenue, Emeryville, CA 94608-3517
510-596-4361 (direct) 510-658-8095 (fax)
cbryant@emeryville.org

From: Charles Bryant


Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 11:37 AM
To: 'Liao, Thomas'; Adam Weinstein; Albert Lopez; Alex Amoroso; Andrew
Thomas; Anne Hersch; Carmela Campbell; Chris Bazar; Christy Leffall;
Battenberg, Cynthia; David Rizk; Debbie Potter; Gerry Beaudin; Ingrid
Rademaker; Jeff Baker; Jeff Bond; Jeff Schwob; Joan Malloy; Johnny
Jaramillo; Johnson, Carol; Katy Ramirez; Kristie Wheeler; Luke Sims; Mark
Shorett; Paul Spence; Rachel Flynn; Sara Buizer; Terrence Grindall; Kevin
Jackson (kjackson@ci.piedmont.ca.us); Tess Lengyel; Mogensen, Andrew;
Shen, Alisa (AShen@ci.berkeley.ca.us); Sallen@ci.berkeley.ca.us
Subject: Alameda County Planning Director's meeting on September 23

All,

The next meeting of the Alameda County Planning Directors will be on


Friday, September 23, at 12 noon in the usual place at Hayward City Hall.
Emeryville will host.

So far, we have an update on Plan Bay Area on the agenda, as well as an


update on whats going on in Emeryville. Anything else folks would like to
discuss?

Im attaching the latest spreadsheet of our distribution list, which was


updated by Hayward last year. Please mark it up with any changes, and Ill
create an new version.

In that vein, please forward this email to anyone Ive missed.

Please RSVP to me so I can get a headcount for lunch.

Thanks! See you on September 23.

Charlie

<image005.jpg> Charles S. Bryant, AICP


Community Development Director, City of Emeryville
1333 Park Avenue, Emeryville, CA 94608-3517
510-596-4361 (direct) 510-658-8095 (fax)
cbryant@emeryville.org

From: Zach Anderson


To: Flynn, Rachel
Subject: Re: Anton DevCo + Affordable Housing
Date: Monday, September 26, 2016 1:34:22 PM
Attachments: image002.png
Zach Anderson.vcf

Hi Rachel,

Great to see you at the ULI Learn From The Best event last Thursday, and congrats again on the
new job!

Per your suggestion, I wanted to follow up re: the Concord Naval Weapons Station. Anton
Development Co. (http://antondev.com/) would love the opportunity to work with Five Point on any
affordable housing project(s) required as part of your entitlements. I realize this is a long ways off,
but figured I would plant the seed now. Our company has a twenty-year track record of building
affordable housing communities throughout California, and it continues to be a significant part of
our business model today. Our company is vertically-integrated, so we have expertise in designing,
entitling, financing, building, and managing our affordable projects, or anything in between.

As a point of reference, we are under construction on our second, large affordable project with The
Irvine Company in SoCal, and we have an open dialogue with them about additional affordable deals
in both the Bay Area and Orange County; they have come to think of us as their affordable
solution, which is a win-win. I can easily envision us playing a similar role with Five Point in Concord
and throughout the state.

Good luck with your transition, and let me know if/when you would like to discuss this further. My
contact info attached for your records.

Thanks,

Zach Anderson, Director of Land Acquisitions

950 Tower Lane, Suite 1225


Foster City, California94404
o 650.549.1606
m 415.828.0202
ZAnderson@AntonDev.com

From: Flynn, Rachel


To: Roland Li
Subject: RE: Concord?
Date: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 8:39:00 PM

Hi Roland, Yes, its true!

I wasnt looking to leave my position in Oakland, but was approached by FivePoint with a remarkable
opportunity and decided to take it. I have really enjoyed my work here in Oakland. While its
challenging, it is also incredibly rewarding. I have a remarkable staff and am proud to say that we
have accomplished much together. These are exciting times for Oakland and I will miss being part
of the City team that oversees the growth in jobs and housing.

At the same time, Im thrilled about this new opportunity at FivePoint working with Kofi Bonner,
his team, and the City of Concord to create a new master planned community on the site of the
former Naval Weapons Station. Truth be told, there are very few sites of this magnitude remaining
in major metropolitan areas and which are on major public transit routes like BART. Developments
of this size make possible the continued growth and prosperity in the Bay Area. I look forward to
being part of this remarkable effort.

Thanks, Rachel

From: Roland Li [mailto:rli@bizjournals.com]


Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 10:00 AM
To: Flynn, Rachel
Subject: Concord?

Hi Rachel,

I got a tip that you might be leaving the city to work on the Concord Naval Base redevelopment. Any
accuracy there?

Best,

Roland Li
Real Estate Reporter
San Francisco Business Times
rli@bizjournals.com
Twitter: @rolandlisf
O 415-288-4969
C 914-819-7549
275 Battery Street, Suite 600
San Francisco, CA 94111
From: Flynn, Rachel
To: Cheryl O"Connor
Subject: RE: Congrats on new position
Date: Sunday, September 25, 2016 2:39:00 PM

Thank you Cheryl and I hope the DreamCatcher project is a success. Its very important work that
you are doing for folks in need. Thank you for that. And see you around the hood, as they say!
Rachel

From: Cheryl O'Connor [mailto:coconnor@homeaidnc.org]


Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 2:40 PM
To: Flynn, Rachel
Subject: Congrats on new position

Rachel,

Thanks for all of your help with our DreamCatcher and Claires House projects in Oakland.
Congratulations on your new position with FivePoint. I am sure our paths will cross again.

Cheryl OConnor
HomeAid Northern California
Executive Director
1350 Treat Blvd., Suite 140
Walnut Creek, California 94597
925.768.0234
Homeaidnc.org

From: Flynn, Rachel


To: Joshua Simon
Subject: RE: Congratulations on your move to FivePoint
Date: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 6:01:00 PM

Thanks Josh. Youve always been a trusted colleague and I hope well have the opportunity to work
together again. Rachel

From: Joshua Simon [mailto:jsimon@ebaldc.org]


Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 1:50 PM
To: Flynn, Rachel
Subject: Congratulations on your move to FivePoint

Dear Rachel,
Congratulations on your move to FivePoint!
Kofi is fortunate to have you on his team.
Josh

Joshua Simon
Executive Director
East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation
1825 San Pablo Avenue, Suite 200, Oakland, CA 94612
DIRECT (510) 606-1840 EMAIL jsimon@ebaldc.org WEB www.ebaldc.org

This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast.
For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com
From: Jason Overman
To: Flynn, Rachel
Subject: Re: Congratulations...
Date: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 6:04:45 PM

Suspense! Excited for you!

Jason Overman|Director|Lighthouse Public Affairs


MAIN(415) 364-0000|MOBILE(510) 847-7622

On June 1, 2016, Barbary Coast Consulting and Goodyear Peterson Hayward & Associates merged,
formingLighthouse Public Affairs. Please note my new email address:jason@lh-pa.com.

On Sep 13, 2016, at 6:03 PM, Flynn, Rachel <RFlynn@oaklandnet.com> wrote:

Dont know yet.



From: Jason Overman [mailto:Jason@lh-pa.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 5:51 PM
To: Flynn, Rachel
Subject: Re: Congratulations...

Nice. Any sense of who will step into your Very Big Shoes?

Jason Overman|Director|Lighthouse Public Affairs


MAIN(415) 364-0000|MOBILE(510) 847-7622

On June 1, 2016, Barbary Coast Consulting and Goodyear Peterson Hayward &
Associates merged, formingLighthouse Public Affairs. Please note my new email
address:jason@lh-pa.com.

On Sep 13, 2016, at 5:50 PM, Flynn, Rachel <RFlynn@oaklandnet.com> wrote:

Thanks Jason! I start in early October.



From: Jason Overman [mailto:Jason@lh-pa.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 2:19 PM
To: Flynn, Rachel
Subject: Congratulations...

and I know the Fivepoint folks a little bit, so good stuff. When do
you make the transition?

Jason Overman | Director | Lighthouse Public Affairs


MAIN (415) 364-0000| MOBILE (510) 847-7622
On June 1, 2016, Barbary Coast Consulting and Goodyear Peterson Hayward &
Associates merged, forming Lighthouse Public Affairs. Please note my new email
address: jason@lh-pa.com.

From: Sholl, Jay @ San Francisco DT


To: Flynn, Rachel
Subject: RE: Exclusive: Lennar hires away Oakland planning director to oversee massive project
Date: Monday, September 19, 2016 4:48:27 PM

Rachel

No worries, I understand. We need to be close to being done by the end of this week. The accountants are risk adverse and
want to see our presentation in advance. If you want, send me your raw deck, Ill edit it and return to you for comments.
Either way, lets target the end of day on Thursday, 9/22 to review the draft deck.

Thanks for your insights.

Jay L. Sholl| Senior Vice President |Lic. 01164561


CBRE |Advisory & TransactionServices
101 California St, Suite 4400| San Francisco,CA94111
T 415 7720371 | F 415 7720459 | C 415531 4703
jay.sholl@cbre.com | www.cbre.com
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
This email may contain information that is confidential or attorney-client privileged and may constitute inside information. The contents of this email are intended only for the
recipient(s) listed above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are directed not to read, disclose, distribute or otherwise use this transmission. If you have received this
email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the transmission. Delivery of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privileges.

From: Flynn, Rachel [mailto:RFlynn@oaklandnet.com]


Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 4:27 PM
To: Sholl, Jay @ San Francisco DT; Rachel Flynn
Subject: RE: Exclusive: Lennar hires away Oakland planning director to oversee massive project

Jay, You can use my current title, which is effective through September 30th. I start with FivePoint on October 3rd. Ill send
the PowerPoint in a couple of days. Sorry for the delay. Its been rather hectic with my pending departure.

You might check with Gabe Metcalf about a speaker. He knows everyone or it could even be him. Rachel

From: Sholl, Jay @ San Francisco DT [mailto:Jay.Sholl@cbre.com]


Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 3:52 PM
To: Flynn, Rachel; Rachel Flynn
Subject: FW: Exclusive: Lennar hires away Oakland planning director to oversee massive project

Hi Rachel

E&Y wants confirmation on your title for their announcement, see below and please advise. Terry Wood now has a conflict
and cant attend. Im working to figure out who to fill in. I welcome any suggestions you may have.

When do you plan to send me your slide deck?

I look forward to catching up later this week.

Thanks.

Jay L. Sholl| Senior Vice President |Lic. 01164561


CBRE |Advisory & TransactionServices
101 California St, Suite 4400| San Francisco,CA94111
T 415 7720371 | F 415 7720459 | C 415531 4703
jay.sholl@cbre.com | www.cbre.com
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
This email may contain information that is confidential or attorney-client privileged and may constitute inside information. The contents of this email are intended only for the
recipient(s) listed above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are directed not to read, disclose, distribute or otherwise use this transmission. If you have received this
email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the transmission. Delivery of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privileges.

From: Eric J Entringer [mailto:Eric.Entringer@ey.com]


Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 1:04 PM
To: Sholl, Jay @ San Francisco DT
Cc: Perry Hung
Subject: RE: Exclusive: Lennar hires away Oakland planning director to oversee massive project

Jay - are we good to continue to market Rachel as a City of Oakland employee? Also, any replacements for Terry as
yet? Happy to help if need be.

Thanks.

-- Eric Entringer
415-894-8823 (o)
520-275-1878 (c)

From: Sholl, Jay @ San Francisco DT <Jay.Sholl@cbre.com>


Sent: Friday, September 16, 2016 1:17:21 PM
To: Eric J Entringer
Subject: RE: Exclusive: Lennar hires away Oakland planning director to oversee massive project

Eric

She didnt mention anything when we met on Wednesday. I do know, shes on board with the City of Oakland until
September 30th; October 1st is her first day with Lennar. I suggest we leave her in her current position. Ill ask her if we
should re-label her later today, when she delivers her draft to the slide deck.

Jay L. Sholl| Senior Vice President |Lic. 01164561


CBRE |Advisory & TransactionServices
101 California St, Suite 4400| San Francisco,CA94111
T 415 7720371 | F 415 7720459 | C 415531 4703
jay.sholl@cbre.com | www.cbre.com
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
This email may contain information that is confidential or attorney-client privileged and may constitute inside information. The contents of this email are intended only for the
recipient(s) listed above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are directed not to read, disclose, distribute or otherwise use this transmission. If you have received this
email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the transmission. Delivery of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privileges.

From: Eric J Entringer [mailto:Eric.Entringer@ey.com]


Sent: Friday, September 16, 2016 9:51 AM
To: Sholl, Jay @ San Francisco DT
Cc: Perry Hung
Subject: RE: Exclusive: Lennar hires away Oakland planning director to oversee massive project

Jay did Rachel say anything about what her title should be for our presentation? Also, we are sending out another reminder
email on Tuesday. Should her title be updated for that email blast?

I can call you this afternoon to discuss if need be.

Thanks,
--
Eric Entringer | Senior Vice President | US Real Estate Investment Banking

Ernst & Young Capital Advisors, LLC


Office: +1 415 894 8823 | eric.entringer@ey.com
From: Sholl, Jay @ San Francisco DT [mailto:Jay.Sholl@cbre.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 2:06 PM
To: Eric J Entringer <Eric.Entringer@ey.com>
Cc: Perry Hung <Perry.Hung@ey.com>; Mark E Bookman <mark.bookman@ey.com>; Javier Garcia <Javier.Garcia@ey.com>
Subject: RE: Exclusive: Lennar hires away Oakland planning director to oversee massive project

Eric

I just sent her a congratulatory message myself. Im schedule to meet in her office tomorrow at 4:00pm to review our
presentation. I think we are good to go.

Jay L. Sholl| Senior Vice President |Lic. 01164561
CBRE |Advisory & TransactionServices
101 California St, Suite 4400| San Francisco,CA94111
T 415 7720371 | F 415 7720459 | C 415531 4703
jay.sholl@cbre.com | www.cbre.com
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
This email may contain information that is confidential or attorney-client privileged and may constitute inside information. The contents of this email are intended only for the
recipient(s) listed above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are directed not to read, disclose, distribute or otherwise use this transmission. If you have received this
email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the transmission. Delivery of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privileges.

From: Eric J Entringer [mailto:Eric.Entringer@ey.com]


Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 1:51 PM
To: Sholl, Jay @ San Francisco DT
Cc: Perry Hung; Mark E Bookman; Javier Garcia
Subject: FW: Exclusive: Lennar hires away Oakland planning director to oversee massive project

Jay - will Rachel still be able to speak as a panelist for our event?

Great news for her! I assume congratulations are in order.

Thanks.

-- Eric Entringer
415-894-8823 (o)
520-275-1878 (c)

From: Eric Entringer <eentringer@msn.com>


Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 4:48:21 PM
To: Eric J Entringer
Subject: Fwd: Exclusive: Lennar hires away Oakland planning director to oversee massive project

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: San Francisco Business Times <reply@mail-1.bizjournals.com>


Date: September 13, 2016 at 4:20:28 PM EDT
To: <eentringer@msn.com>
Subject: Exclusive: Lennar hires away Oakland planning director to oversee massive project
Reply-To: <reply-75773882-201924@mail-1.bizjournals.com>
Rachel Flynn, director of Oakland's planning and building department, is leaving city government to lead a $6 billion redevelopment project in the East Bay.

Exclusive September 13, 2016

Exclusive: Oakland's planning director leaves to join affiliate of


megadeveloper Lennar

Rachel Flynn, director of Oakland's planning and building department, is leaving city government
to lead a $6 billion redevelopment project in the East Bay.

Read the full story


Related news:
Oaklands real estate boom pads city budget but doesnt silence critics
As development comes to Oakland's Chinatown, community groups demand more money
Exclusive: Two more towers could join the downtown Oakland crowd

If you are having trouble viewing this email, click here

Cancel Email Subscription

You may change your email address, your preferences, or unsubscribe from this email at any time by visiting bizjournals.com:
https://www.bizjournals.com/account/

If you need other assistance, please let us know or contact: bizjournals.com customer service, bizjournals 120 W. Morehead St., Charlotte,
North Carolina 28202

2016 American City Business Journals, Inc. and its licensors. All rights reserved. The material on this may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the written permission of bizjournals.

________________________________________________________________________
The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify Ernst & Young Capital Advisors,
LLC (EYCA) immediately by replying to the message and delete it from your computer.

E-mail messages may contain computer viruses or other defects, may not be accurately replicated on other systems, or
may be intercepted, deleted or interfered with without the knowledge of the sender or the intended recipient. EYCA
makes no warranties in relation to these matters. EYCA and its affiliates reserve the right to intercept, monitor, and
retain e-mail messages to and from its systems as permitted by applicable law. Any U.S. tax advice contained in the
body of or attachments to this message was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by the recipient for
the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state or local
tax law provisions.

EYCA is a FINRA member broker-dealer registered with the U.S. SEC providing investment banking advisory
services and is an affiliate of Ernst & Young LLP.
________________________________________________________________________
Any U.S. tax advice contained in the body of this e-mail was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used,
by the recipient for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or
applicable state or local tax law provisions.
________________________________________________________________________
The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the
message and deleting it from your computer.

Notice required by law: This e-mail may constitute an advertisement or solicitation under U.S. law, if its primary
purpose is to advertise or promote a commercial product or service. You may choose not to receive advertising and
promotional messages from Ernst & Young LLP (except for Ernst & Young Online and the ey.com website, which
track e-mail preferences through a separate process) at this e-mail address by forwarding this message to no-more-
mail@ey.com. If you do so, the sender of this message will be notified promptly. Our principal postal address is 5
Times Square, New York, NY 10036. Thank you. Ernst & Young LLP
________________________________________________________________________
The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify Ernst & Young Capital Advisors,
LLC (EYCA) immediately by replying to the message and delete it from your computer.

E-mail messages may contain computer viruses or other defects, may not be accurately replicated on other systems, or
may be intercepted, deleted or interfered with without the knowledge of the sender or the intended recipient. EYCA
makes no warranties in relation to these matters. EYCA and its affiliates reserve the right to intercept, monitor, and
retain e-mail messages to and from its systems as permitted by applicable law. Any U.S. tax advice contained in the
body of or attachments to this message was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by the recipient for
the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state or local
tax law provisions.

EYCA is a FINRA member broker-dealer registered with the U.S. SEC providing investment banking advisory
services and is an affiliate of Ernst & Young LLP.
________________________________________________________________________
Any U.S. tax advice contained in the body of this e-mail was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used,
by the recipient for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or
applicable state or local tax law provisions.
________________________________________________________________________
The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the
message and deleting it from your computer.

Notice required by law: This e-mail may constitute an advertisement or solicitation under U.S. law, if its primary
purpose is to advertise or promote a commercial product or service. You may choose not to receive advertising and
promotional messages from Ernst & Young LLP (except for Ernst & Young Online and the ey.com website, which
track e-mail preferences through a separate process) at this e-mail address by forwarding this message to no-more-
mail@ey.com. If you do so, the sender of this message will be notified promptly. Our principal postal address is 5
Times Square, New York, NY 10036. Thank you. Ernst & Young LLP
________________________________________________________________________
The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify Ernst & Young Capital Advisors,
LLC (EYCA) immediately by replying to the message and delete it from your computer.

E-mail messages may contain computer viruses or other defects, may not be accurately replicated on other systems, or
may be intercepted, deleted or interfered with without the knowledge of the sender or the intended recipient. EYCA
makes no warranties in relation to these matters. EYCA and its affiliates reserve the right to intercept, monitor, and
retain e-mail messages to and from its systems as permitted by applicable law. Any U.S. tax advice contained in the
body of or attachments to this message was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by the recipient for
the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state or local
tax law provisions.

EYCA is a FINRA member broker-dealer registered with the U.S. SEC providing investment banking advisory
services and is an affiliate of Ernst & Young LLP.
________________________________________________________________________
Any U.S. tax advice contained in the body of this e-mail was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used,
by the recipient for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or
applicable state or local tax law provisions.
________________________________________________________________________
The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the
message and deleting it from your computer.

Notice required by law: This e-mail may constitute an advertisement or solicitation under U.S. law, if its primary
purpose is to advertise or promote a commercial product or service. You may choose not to receive advertising and
promotional messages from Ernst & Young LLP (except for Ernst & Young Online and the ey.com website, which
track e-mail preferences through a separate process) at this e-mail address by forwarding this message to no-more-
mail@ey.com. If you do so, the sender of this message will be notified promptly. Our principal postal address is 5
Times Square, New York, NY 10036. Thank you. Ernst & Young LLP
From: Flynn, Rachel
To: sbloom@rentv.com
Subject: RE: Info for RENTV"s September 29th Oakland/East Bay State of the Market Conference
Date: Saturday, September 24, 2016 2:31:00 PM
Attachments: Bio Brief -- Flynn 2016.doc

Steve, Thanks for providing the details for next week. This sounds fine. Attached is my bio and the
City logo.

I will send you my PowerPoint via Dropbox. It will be the bulk of my talk, since many people like to
see visuals of actual development in the City. It will be about 90 slides, but not to worry! Most of
the images I fly through and the presentation takes about 12-15 minutes.

Thanks, Rachel

From: sbloom@rentv.com [mailto:sbloom@rentv.com]


Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 9:35 AM
To: Flynn, Rachel
Subject: Info for RENTV's September 29th Oakland/East Bay State of the Market Conference

Hello Rachel:

1 - First, let me thank you again for participating and helping make it a great event.

2 - The entire event is from 7:55 AM till noon. I have your presentation scheduled for 10:45
AM - 11:05 AM, followed by the Multifamily Panel. I hope that time is OK.

3 - Location - Hilton Garden Inn, San Francisco/Oakland Bay Bridge, 1800 Powell Street, Emeryville.

4 - If you have any slides/visuals, we can have your slides at the ready to show during that part of the
panel and then go back when you refer to them. Get me those files as soon as you can.

5. Please send me a short bio for the directory as well as a City logo.

6. Also, we want you to be able to bring quests, so please get me the names/companies/emails of as
many people as you want to bring for the guest list.

If you have any questions or need anything at all, email me back or call me on my cell at 310-213-6409.

Thanks again and I look forward to the discussion.

Steve

Steven Bloom
President, CEO
RENTV.COM, INC.
Cutting Edge Commercial Real Estate Media Coverage
Sublease.com
The Commercial Space Marketplace
310-242-8613 - o
310-213-6409 - c
5757 W. Century Blvd #700
Los Angeles, CA 90045
sbloom@rentv.com

From: Flynn, Rachel


To: Jason Bernstein
Subject: RE: Information: Learn from the Best
Date: Thursday, September 15, 2016 1:51:00 PM
Attachments: image001.png

Thanks for the prompt response, Jason. Looking forward to it!

From: Jason Bernstein [mailto:jason@CityVentures.com]


Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 1:49 PM
To: Flynn, Rachel
Subject: FW: Information: Learn from the Best

Hi Rachel,

Thank you for giving me a call back. As you can see from Laurens email below, the venue is 500 Pine
Street in San Francisco.

Also, it says below that the event goes to 8:30pm, but that includes an hour long reception that you
can come to if you have the time.

Thank you!
Jason

Jason Bernstein
Development Manager
444 Spear Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94105
{direct} 415.298.3325
{email} Jason@cityventures.com

www.cityventures.com
Twitter | Facebook

From: Lauren Krause [mailto:Lauren.Krause@Grosvenor.com]


Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 3:25 PM
To: mspriggs@shorenstein.com; zmyers@wellsfargo.com; mlituchy@jaypaul.com;
KevinRatner@forestcity.net; Alexa.arena@lendlease.com; jherr@lpc.com; pang@veritasinv.com;
Ivy.Greaner@fivepoint.com; ajball@suffolk.com; robert.lavey@aecom.com;
RFlynn@oaklandnet.com; Philip Kerr <phil@cityventures.com>; JThacher@wilsonmeany.com;
GStarr@prologis.com; jon.mcneal@snohetta.com; mfield@tmgpartners.com
Cc: Kristin Molano <kmolano@jaypaul.com>; Cali Slepin <Cali.Slepin@ULI.org>; Claire Herr
<CHerr@LPC.com>; Jason Bernstein <jason@CityVentures.com>; keisenberg@veritasinv.com; Ron
Heckmann <ron@heckmanncomms.com>; RAdams@wilsonmeany.com; Kelly@snohetta.com
Subject: Information: Learn from the Best

Hello speakers,

Thank you in advance for your participation in this years Learn from the Best event. As you are
aware, LFTB is a signature Young Leader Group event that sells out and has been replicated
nationally. The events success is due to folks like you dedicating your time to share experiences with
those of us under 35.

Here are the logistical details:

Date: September 22, 2016


Location: 500 Pine Street
Time: 5:30p-8:30p
Draft Event Timeline:
o 5:30-6:00 Registration
o 6:00-6:30 Welcome and Speaker Introductions
o 6:30-7:30 Roundtable discussions
o 7:30-8:30 Cocktail reception in Penthouse

Additional details can be found on the events registration page: http://sf.uli.org/event/ylg-presents-


2016-learn-best/. We already have over 80 people registered!

We will be preparing a book with your headshots and brief bios. Id love to have this information by
September 9, 2016. Please let me know if I can provide additional clarification on this request or if
you have an assistant youd like me to coordinate with.

Ill be sending out additional details as we get closer to the event. Please reach out with any
questions. Thank you again!

Lauren Krause
Senior Development Manager
Grosvenor Americas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct: 415-268-4070
Cell: 310-508-0870
Email: lauren.krause@grosvenor.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.grosvenor.com

DISCLAIMER: This message is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended


solely for the addressee and access to this message by anyone else is unauthorised. If you have
received the message in error, please notify us immediately and delete it, as any disclosure,
copying, distribution or any other use is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the
addressee, you must not disclose its contents to anyone, retain, copy, distribute or take action
in reliance upon it. This message is provided for informational purposes and should not be
construed as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any securities or related financial instruments.
E-Mails are not secure and may contain software viruses which could damage your own
computer systems. While Grosvenor has taken every reasonable precaution to minimise this
risk, we cannot accept liability for any damage which you sustain as a result of software
viruses. Grosvenor Group Limited - Registered in England No. 3219943 Wheatsheaf
Investments Limited - Registered in England No. 3221116. Registered office: 70 Grosvenor
Street, London W1K 3JP, United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0) 20 7408 0988 and Fax: +44 (0) 20
7629 9115 The above comprise all subsidiaries including Grosvenor Limited (Registered in
England and Wales No 2874626, Registered office as above), and Grosvenor Investment
Management Limited (GIML) (Registered in England and Wales No 2774291, Registered
office as above). GIML is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority to
conduct investment business.
From: Mike Pyatok
To: Flynn, Rachel
Subject: RE: Loeb panel discussion
Date: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 1:38:07 PM
Attachments: image001.png

I see that you will be with Lennars Five Point in Concord. Well, we are doing a project for Lennar at
the Shipyard in SF.

Ive known Kofi since he got out of school and was staff with Fei Tsen to our fledgling non-profit,
Oakland Community Housing in the 80s. Then his career took off like a rocket. And another small
world itemRandi Gerson who heads up development for Five Star, I think now at Treasure Island,
was a former student of mine in the later 80sand we are still friends!

I wish all the best in your new and exciting assignment!

Michael Pyatok, FAIA


510-465-7010 ext 118
510-410-0260 Mobile

From: Flynn, Rachel [mailto:RFlynn@oaklandnet.com]


Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 12:53 PM
To: Mike Pyatok
Subject: Loeb panel discussion

Hi Mike, I dont know if you heard the news, but I will be leaving my position in Oakland and
returning to the private sector. My last day as Director is 9/30.

Id be glad to present to the Loeb Fellows, but I wont be a City official at that point. Do you want
me to see if one of my senior planners can present? Or do you want me to talk about what I did in
the past, as Planning Director. Im fine either way.

Thanks, Rachel

From: Mike Pyatok [mailto:mpyatok@pyatok.com]


Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 10:43 AM
To: Flynn, Rachel
Cc: cristopher calott (calott@berkeley.edu); Gerald Green
Subject: Loeb panel discussion

Hi Rachel

just wanted to check in with you again and remind you of your participation on the panel discussion
for Saturday, October 15, 9am-11am. There will be about 100-150 Loeb fellows attending. Mayor
Schaaf will introduce the morning with a few remarks and then Robert Ogilvie will facilitate the
conversation. Here are the panelists:

Yourself representing the Citys efforts to shepherd development within the policy
guidelines set by the Council. You have 5-6 minutes to give an overview of what its like
trying to walk the line between facilitating development and abiding by public policy
attempting to achieve more equitable developmentor whatever else you would like to
say!
For-profit developer: John Protopappas giving a developers view of what it takes these
days to get projects completed
Non-profit developer: Josh Simon of EBALDChow are non-profit developers faring in this
climate
Affordable housing advocates: Gloria Bruce and Jeff Levine, of EBHO, talking about what it
takes to get policies in place to protect the interests of lower income households
Tenant advocates: James Vann and Vanessa Riles as activists talking from their perspective
on how they think things are moving along for lower income communities in this heated real
estate market

After each presents their thoughts, Robert will facilitate a discussion between the panelists and then
with the audience. There will be a light breakfast available for all attendees.

Afterwards there will be a number of options from which the Loeb fellows can choose: tours in SF,
the South Bay, and 2 walking tours through downtown Oakland. I attached the maps of the Oakland
tours. If you have the time, it would be great if you could attend one of these. We are expecting
maybe a dozen people on each of them.

Againthanks so much for agreeing to do this! you can reach me on my cell if you have any
questions. I will be in touch again as the time approaches. Ive ccd my two Loeb colleagues in
Oakland who have also been helping to organize this event.

Michael Pyatok, FAIA


510-465-7010 ext 118
510-410-0260 Mobile

From: Flynn, Rachel


To: Denise Pinkston
Subject: RE: News
Date: Monday, September 19, 2016 6:08:00 PM

Thanks Denise! I've sent you an e-mail from my personal account, so you'll have that address.

Also, I was wondering if you would be available to attend a meeting next regarding a possible streetcar on
Broadway. It's a longterm dream, but the guy handling it would like to meet with property owners along Broadway
to get their thoughts.

I'm trying to help him schedule it before I leave. Are you around next week? Thanks, Rachel

-----Original Message-----
From: Denise Pinkston [mailto:DPinkston@tmgpartners.com]
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 3:35 PM
To: Flynn, Rachel
Subject: RE: News

Hey send me your new email address. And other contact info. Congrats again!

Denise Pinkston
Partner
dpinkston@tmgpartners.com
415.400.2453 direct dial
415.341.6058 cell

TMG Partners
100 Bush Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
415.772.5900 T
415.772.5911 F

visit our new website:


www.tmgpartners.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Flynn, Rachel [mailto:RFlynn@oaklandnet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 10:33 AM
To: Denise Pinkston
Subject: News

Hi Denise, I wanted to let you know that it's official -- I'm going to FivePoint (Lennar).

Thanks for your advice about this move. It was enormously helpful.

See you around town, I'm sure.

Rachel
From: Michelle Malanca Frey
To: Flynn, Rachel
Subject: Re: Reschedule
Date: Monday, September 26, 2016 10:02:24 AM

Hi Rachel,
Absolutely! I completely understand. We will be at the ULI Fall Meeting in the last week of October.
How about Nov 1, 3 or 4. Where will you be based still in the east bay?

Best wishes for the new job!

Michelle

From: "Flynn, Rachel" <RFlynn@oaklandnet.com>


Date: Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 2:16 PM
To: Michelle Malanca Frey <michelle.frey@uli.org>
Subject: Reschedule

Hi Michelle, Next week is my last week with the City of Oakland and it will be incredibly hectic.
Would it be okay if we rescheduled for some time in late October after I am settled into my new job
at FivePoint?

Thanks so much, Rachel

Rachel Flynn AIA


Director l Planning & Building Department l City of Oakland
510 . 238 . 2229

Register Today for ULI Fall Meeting


Connect with the world of real estate
Oct. 24-27, 2016 | Dallas, Texas | fall.uli.org
From: Egon Terplan
To: Flynn, Rachel
Subject: Re: Richmond, VA
Date: Monday, September 19, 2016 10:59:06 PM

My apologies - but my response was sitting in a draft folder.

Hello Rachel,

Thank you so much for your quick response. Much appreciated.


Ill let you know if it would be helpful to talk with more people in Richmond. My brother is
involved with public health (mostly focused on drug use and pregnancy) so there are certainly
some overlaps with planning issues.

I am definitely looking forward to talking about Concord. Its one of the major opportunity
areas in the region.

Thanks

Regards,
Egon

Egon Terplan
Regional Planning Director
SPUR Ideas + Action for a Better City
415.644.4284
eterplan@spur.org

SPUR|Blog|Facebook|Twitter|Join

Join our movement for a better city.


Become a member of SPUR >>

On Sep 13, 2016, at 9:23 AM, Flynn, Rachel <RFlynn@oaklandnet.com> wrote:

Hi Egon, That's actually where I lived in Richmond (201 Hull Street - one block
from 3rd and Decatur). It remains a n'hood in transition and it will be a while
until there is a critical mass of nearby amenities/services. However, it's right on
the James River -- and downtown is just across the Manchester Bridge. It's also
the best industrial area for residential -- if they're looking for the grunge factor.

The most walkable n'hood to grocery stores/restaurants/services is the Museum


District adjacent to Carytown. It's between Boulevard and Nansemond -- and
Broad and Cary Street. But it's very traditional and a far car from the hipness of
Manchester.
Another interesting n'hood is Carver -- adjacent to Virginia Commonwealth
University (VCU). It was more of a working class area, but is now mixed
income. Totally walkable - although they lost the grocery store (Ukrop's) about 5
years ago. I don't know if a new one has opened in the area. They do have a
Lowe's!

If you want names of people to call, let me know. Is your brother going to work
at VCU Health?

When I make the move to FivePoint (a new spin-off from Lennar) -- we'll have to
talk about the Concord site and plans for the future.

Thanks, Rachel

On Sep 12, 2016, at 10:38 PM, Egon Terplan <eterplan@spur.org> wrote:

Hello Rachel,

It was good to see you last week at the SPUR discussion with the
other planning directors.

I wanted to follow up briefly about Richmond (if you have a minute).


Ive been speaking with my brother who is looking to move to Old
Manchester. In particular they were intrigued by the industrial area
northeast of Commerce Road (on Decatur near E. 3rd). He asked me
if that area might become more residential over the next decade (and
thus more walkable and with nearby services). My assumption would
be that such changes are likely slow. But I wanted to ask you about
what you thought of that area as well as how it is evolving (and if
there is anyone in Richmond that would be good to ask about that
with).

Also, I am not sure if it is public yet. But I wanted to say


congratulations on the new move.
As SPURs Regional Planning Director, I look forward to connecting
further in your new role.

Thanks

Regards,
Egon

Egon Terplan
Regional Planning Director
SPUR Ideas + Action for a Better City
415.644.4284
eterplan@spur.org

SPUR|Blog|Facebook|Twitter|Join
Join our movement for a better city.
Become a member of SPUR >>
From: RFlynn@oaklandnet.com
To: Egon Terplan
Subject: Re: Richmond, VA
Date: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 9:23:37 AM

Hi Egon, That's actually where I lived in Richmond (201 Hull Street - one block from 3rd and
Decatur). It remains a n'hood in transition and it will be a while until there is a critical mass of
nearby amenities/services. However, it's right on the James River -- and downtown is just
across the Manchester Bridge. It's also the best industrial area for residential -- if they're
looking for the grunge factor.

The most walkable n'hood to grocery stores/restaurants/services is the Museum District


adjacent to Carytown. It's between Boulevard and Nansemond -- and Broad and Cary Street.
But it's very traditional and a far car from the hipness of Manchester.

Another interesting n'hood is Carver -- adjacent to Virginia Commonwealth University


(VCU). It was more of a working class area, but is now mixed income. Totally walkable -
although they lost the grocery store (Ukrop's) about 5 years ago. I don't know if a new one has
opened in the area. They do have a Lowe's!

If you want names of people to call, let me know. Is your brother going to work at VCU
Health?

When I make the move to FivePoint (a new spin-off from Lennar) -- we'll have to talk about
the Concord site and plans for the future.

Thanks, Rachel

On Sep 12, 2016, at 10:38 PM, Egon Terplan <eterplan@spur.org> wrote:

Hello Rachel,

It was good to see you last week at the SPUR discussion with the other planning
directors.

I wanted to follow up briefly about Richmond (if you have a minute). Ive been
speaking with my brother who is looking to move to Old Manchester. In
particular they were intrigued by the industrial area northeast of Commerce Road
(on Decatur near E. 3rd). He asked me if that area might become more residential
over the next decade (and thus more walkable and with nearby services). My
assumption would be that such changes are likely slow. But I wanted to ask you
about what you thought of that area as well as how it is evolving (and if there is
anyone in Richmond that would be good to ask about that with).

Also, I am not sure if it is public yet. But I wanted to say congratulations on the
new move.
As SPURs Regional Planning Director, I look forward to connecting further in
your new role.

Thanks
Regards,
Egon

Egon Terplan
Regional Planning Director
SPUR Ideas + Action for a Better City
415.644.4284
eterplan@spur.org

SPUR|Blog|Facebook|Twitter|Join

Join our movement for a better city.


Become a member of SPUR >>
From: RFlynn@oaklandnet.com
To: David Martin
Subject: Re: Tell me it is not so...
Date: Friday, September 09, 2016 11:35:38 AM

FivePoint

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 8, 2016, at 4:11 PM, David Martin <david@themartingroup.com> wrote:

Who are you joining?

From: <Flynn>, Rachel Flynn <RFlynn@oaklandnet.com>


Date: Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 3:38 PM
To: J David Martin <david@themartingroup.com>
Subject: RE: Tell me it is not so...

Thanks Dave. I appreciate your generous offer.



I was approached by a private sector firm and decided it was an offer worth taking.
Oakland has been a very rewarding experience, so no regrets or anything like that.

I hope to see you before I leave, but if not, Ill still be in the Bay Area. Rachel

From: David Martin [mailto:david@themartingroup.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 4:09 PM
To: Flynn, Rachel
Subject: Tell me it is not so...

Anything I can do to help?

My cell is 310-401-4800.

David Martin
From: Flynn, Rachel
To: David Martin
Subject: Re: Tell me it is not so...
Date: Friday, September 09, 2016 11:35:38 AM

FivePoint

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 8, 2016, at 4:11 PM, David Martin <david@themartingroup.com> wrote:

Who are you joining?

From: <Flynn>, Rachel Flynn <RFlynn@oaklandnet.com>


Date: Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 3:38 PM
To: J David Martin <david@themartingroup.com>
Subject: RE: Tell me it is not so...

Thanks Dave. I appreciate your generous offer.



I was approached by a private sector firm and decided it was an offer worth taking.
Oakland has been a very rewarding experience, so no regrets or anything like that.

I hope to see you before I leave, but if not, Ill still be in the Bay Area. Rachel

From: David Martin [mailto:david@themartingroup.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 4:09 PM
To: Flynn, Rachel
Subject: Tell me it is not so...

Anything I can do to help?

My cell is 310-401-4800.

David Martin
From: Flynn, Rachel
To: Adhi Nagraj
Subject: RE: Treasure Island article on Chris Meany
Date: Friday, June 24, 2016 10:26:00 AM

Thanks Adhi. Very informative.

From: Adhi Nagraj [mailto:anagraj@bridgehousing.com]


Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2016 2:17 PM
To: Flynn, Rachel
Subject: Treasure Island article on Chris Meany

(and Kofi)

Treasure Island is set to become San


Francisco's new $5 billion neighborhood
Wilson Meany, Lennar and their partners are keying up 8,000 homes, 500
hotel rooms, retail and parks on Treasure Island

SUBSCRIBER CONTENT: Jun 23, 2016, 12:19pm PDT

Paolo Vescia 2016

Chris Meany (left) and Kofi Bonner (right) on Treasure Island.

After nearly two decades of planning, negotiations and legal battles, a new community is
finally starting to rise in the middle of the San Francisco Bay.

Man-made Treasure Island and adjoining Yerba Buena Island are being prepped for an
addition of up to 8,000 new homes, 500 hotel rooms, 300 acres of parks and open space,
140,000 square feet of retail and 100,000 of office space to be built over the next 20 years at a
cost close to $5 billion.

We knew it would take time, but we might not have thought it would take 12 to 15 years to
get approvals, said Chris Meany, principal of Wilson Meany, one of the four development
partners working on Treasure Island. The other three are Lennar Corp., Kenwood Investments
and Stockbridge Capital Group.

Work on infrastructure for the first phase kicked off this spring. That means demolishing
existing buildings, bringing in a huge amount of new dirt, making the site seismically sound,
and building out infrastructure such as roads, utilities and sewer lines.

Developers estimate that just making the land suitable for new construction will cost $1.6
billion over the entire build out. But it promises to bring thousands of homes to San Francisco
at a time when continued job and population growth are expected to keep pushing rents and
home prices higher. And its a chance to build a new neighborhood from the ground up.

The project will be built in phases with the first new housing projects starting construction
next year and residents moving in within two to three years. The first phase of the project is
slated to include up to 2,100 housing units.

Some of our brethren look at us as if we have two horns and a tail and wonder, Why are
these guys doing that? said Kofi Bonner, head of FivePoint Communities, a subsidiary of
Lennar that is working on the Treasure Island project. Its because we look forward to these
specific times when actual development happens and dirt gets turned and homes get conceived
and families ultimately move in and what we conceived over the years actually becomes a
reality.

Underused asset

Even some lifelong San Franciscans have never set foot on Treasure Island. It was built in the
late 1930s as a location to host the 1939 Worlds Fair. It served as naval base from 1942 until
1997. After the base was decommissioned, planning to redevelop the island began. In the
meantime, the City of San Francisco has used former military homes as rental housing.

The development team secured approval for the project in 2011, but were then hit with a
lawsuit from a group led by then-former San Francisco supervisor Aaron Peskin (see related
story, page 36). That halted progress until the suit was resolved in 2014.

The lengthy process had some benefits.

As a result, the plan is a better plan, said Fei Tsen, president of the Treasure Island
Development Authority board of directors. It was really important to get community buy-in
in the overall masterplan. We also had to put time into the environmental evaluation and toxic
remediation.

The Navy is responsible for completing environmental cleanup of the site, some areas of
which had high levels of radioactive contamination and were uninhabitable for years.

As the clean up process moves along, the Navy has begun transferring chunks of the land to
the developers for a total purchase price of $55 million for about 450 acres.

Exciting engineering

Building on Treasure Island has its own set of environmental and seismic challenges. But
those challenges resulted in a design for a greener, safer neighborhood than in many parts of
the Bay Area.
This is a rare opportunity to build something to the highest standards of sustainability,
Meany said

The new development is designed to be as energy efficient as possible with a solar farm and
solar panels on homes, said Kheay Loke of Wilson Meany, the project manager for Treasure
Island. The buildings will be positioned to soak up the most warmth from the sun and thus,
require less energy to heat. The development will have its own wastewater treatment system
and make use of recycled water.

Making the land more resistant to earthquakes and rising sea levels requires compacting the
soil and then adding more dirt on top to raise the elevation by about three feet. At that level,
the development sites on Treasure Island will be four feet higher than on the Embarcadero in
San Francisco, Loke said. This will require millions of cubic feet of new soil.

Wilson Meany and Lennar plan to build at least 60 percent of the new market-rate housing and
most of the commercial space other than the hotels. Some of the land will be auctioned off to
other housing developers. Construction is expected to extend into the 2030s.

Economic integration

Treasure Island isnt just trailblazing with environmental and seismic design; its also pushing
boundaries by creating a mixed-income community.

The island currently has about 250 units for the formerly homeless that house about 700
people and about 650 market-rate apartments. The new development plan calls for 435 units
for the formerly homeless out of the estimated 2,000 units that will be set aside for low-
income residents. City officials will select developers for the affordable housing later on.

Replacement housing for the formerly homeless residents will be built by the time their
existing homes need to be demolished. That means tenants wont have to leave the island
during the redevelopment, said Sherry Williams, executive director of the Treasure Island
Homeless Development Initiative.

Weve been waiting for this moment for a long time, she said of the site preparation starting.
There are enormous opportunities to serve low-income San Franciscans.

The agency has also been working to recruit and train people to work on the construction,
which is expected to generate about 1,100 jobs during the course of the buildout.

The affordable housing is integrated with the market-rate housing, not in separate areas, said
Williams, who has been involved in the planning efforts since the mid-1990s. Its really a
vision of creating a neighborhood of mixed-income residents.

The ability to build a substantial number of new homes will be significant for San Francisco,
said John Stewart, who heads the John Stewart Co., which has managed the market-rate
apartments on the islands. He said the project has the potential to vastly improve life on the
island with more transit options and a larger community.

You can generate a lot more housing in the middle of the bay in a beautiful setting, he said.

Current market-rate tenants have slowly been moving out as their leases expire and the
infrastructure work ramps up. Last summer, some residents of Yerba Buena Island protested
having to leave their units even though they were offered a cash payment or another unit on
Treasure Island.

Many were concerned that when new housing is built, the prices will be far higher than current
rents that range from about $2,400 to $2,700 per month for a two- to four-bedroom much
lower than other areas of San Francisco.

Prices for the future homes havent been set, but Meany said they will serve a variety of
incomes because they range in size from small apartments to large houses. And, for first time,
for-sale housing will be available on Treasure and Yerba Buena islands.

Ultimately, houses sell at what the market rate is for those houses, Meany said about the
cost of the future units.

Public amenities to bloom

The new development will offer many more amenities to residents than the current housing
does, Bonner said. That includes more transit, more parks, more retail and more services such
as schools, childcare and healthcare.

Building out all 8,000 planned units could bring in some 20,000 residents and generate about
2,200 permanent jobs in the new commercial space. To accommodate all those people, plans
call for adding ferry service and increasing bus service to downtown San Francisco, adding
bus service to the East Bay and a free on-island shuttle. The new development will also
include more bike lanes and pedestrian connections.

You want to minimize the automobile so folks really have a different way of living in a dense
urban neighborhood, Bonner said.

Creating a new critical mass of residents will help attract vendors for the retail space that will
both serve locals and visitors. Part of the challenge with the project was to foster a
neighborhood feel and become a regional destination, Meany said.

One big wild card: A museum. Filmmaker George Lucas, creator of the Star Wars franchise, is
reportedly considering Treasure Island as the site for a museum celebrating his work after
other locations in San Francisco and Chicago have not panned out. The museum could fit into
a parcel zoned for a cultural institution in the southwest corner of Treasure Island.

Treasure Island developers said the museum would be a great addition to the islands
attractions along with stunning views, parks, bike trails, wineries, retail and community
events, such as the Treasure Island Music Festival.

Given the world-class nature of the community we are building and given the potential of a
Lucas museum to be a world-class, iconic institution, Bonner said, we owe it to the island
and our community and certainly to the city, should they wish to pursue this, to work with the
Lucas folks to see if this can be accommodated.

Reimagining treasure island

The redevelopment will create new neighborhoods across Yerba Buena and Treasure islands.
Yerba Buena offers steep hillsides. The western edge of Treasure Island faces downtown San
Francisco offering views of the skyline, but has much more wind than the eastern side, which
looks out to the East Bay.

Eastside

The Eastside district at the southeastern corner of Treasure Island will encompass a residential
neighborhood accented with the Eastside Commons park and pedestrian connections to the
Island Center district.

Cityside

One of two primarily residential neighborhoods, Cityside will offer views of San Francisco,
Angel Island, Alcatraz and both of San Franciscos iconic bridges.

Island center

The Island Center District on the southern edge of Treasure Island will be a hub with
connections to transit, parks, public spaces, plazas, retail and proximity to the marina.

Yerba buena island

Yerba Buena will incorporate new housing, a hotel, bike paths, hiking trails and Hilltop Park
to emphasize the islands topography.

Timeline

1939: Man-made Treasure Island is completed for the worlds fair. It is adjoined to Yerba
Buena Island with an isthmus.

1942-1997: Navy operates a base on Treasure Island.

2011: San Francisco Board of Supervisors approve a development proposal for Treasure
Island.

2016: Infrastructure work begins to transform the island into a new neighborhood.

2017: Construction on the first new housing units will begin.

2018-2019: First residents will move into new housing.

2032: Estimated date of completion.

Sea level rise

Scientists are predicting that sea levels could rise as a result of a warming climate. To prepare
for a rise in sealevel, the Treasure Island development team came up with three approaches:

Development sites will be elevated by 3 feet.


New development structures will be set back at least 300 feet from the shore so that if heavy
storms create higher waves, structures wont be flooded.
Reserve funding to pay for future needs. A portion of property taxes from the new
developments will be set aside to fund projects such as construction of seawalls or levies.

By the numbers

Infrastructure costs to prepare the site for development: $1.6B

Homes, with 6,000 of them market-rate and 2,000 affordable: 8,000

Hotel rooms: 500

Square feet of retail and commercial space and up to 100,000 square feet of office space:
140,000

Projected population growth from the existing 2,000: 20,000

Total acreage for redevelopment, including 300 acres of open space and 150 acres of
developed areas: 450

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adhi Nagraj | Development Director Northern California
BRIDGE Housing | 600 California Street, Suite 900 | San Francisco, CA 94108
T: 415.321.3523 | bridgehousing.com

From: Flynn, Rachel


To: 1rachel.flynn@gmail.com
Subject: ULI - Reschedule
Date: Monday, September 26, 2016 5:23:00 PM

From: Michelle Malanca Frey [mailto:michelle.frey@uli.org]


Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 10:02 AM
To: Flynn, Rachel
Subject: Re: Reschedule

Hi Rachel,
Absolutely! I completely understand. We will be at the ULI Fall Meeting in the last week of October.
How about Nov 1, 3 or 4. Where will you be based still in the east bay?

Best wishes for the new job!

Michelle

From: "Flynn, Rachel" <RFlynn@oaklandnet.com>


Date: Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 2:16 PM
To: Michelle Malanca Frey <michelle.frey@uli.org>
Subject: Reschedule

Hi Michelle, Next week is my last week with the City of Oakland and it will be incredibly hectic.
Would it be okay if we rescheduled for some time in late October after I am settled into my new job
at FivePoint?

Thanks so much, Rachel

Rachel Flynn AIA


Director l Planning & Building Department l City of Oakland
510 . 238 . 2229

Register Today for ULI Fall Meeting


Connect with the world of real estate
Oct. 24-27, 2016 | Dallas, Texas | fall.uli.org