Sutter Hospital Says NO Community Benefits Agreement For Their Emeryville Project

 Sutter: Willing to Meet With The City of Emeryville Directly But Not The Community

Local residents will have no say in what, if anything, they'll receive in exchange for welcoming a new hospital complex in Emeryville.  A high level Sutter Health official announced last week the firm will not participate in a Community Benefits Agreement concerning the proposed campus along Horton Street.  

Sutter Health Vice President of External Affairs, Melissa White surprised community leaders when she announced the corporation will not take part in a Community Benefits Agreement (CBA) associated with their proposed billion dollar Emeryville hospital project proposal.  The surprising announcement places the City of Emeryville in the hot seat after City Hall's Senior Planning Manager Miroo Dessai assured community members earlier a CBA for the project would in fact be expected.

Melissa White
Sutter's Vice President
of External Affairs
Sutter will not negotiate directly
with the community.

While a community benefits agreement is not mandatory, these types of covenants have become common with large development projects and assure local residents are compensated in some way for perceived burdens.

CBAs are legally binding contracts signed by community groups and a real estate developer that requires the developer to provide specific amenities and/or mitigations to the local community or neighborhood.  They can be construed as coming from a loss of full faith by the community in the local government as a partner.  Thus, cities are not signatories on CBAs and they are not supposed to have any influence in negotiations between the community and the developer.

Accordingly, if Sutter refuses to take part in a community benefits agreement, there will be no community benefits agreement associated with the Emeryville Sutter Hospital.

Emeryville resident Brandon Soublet, who is running for city council in November expressed shock by the directness of the Sutter email, “I’m shocked but not surprised. I’ve been in every public meeting about this project and saw no desire from the Sutter team to meaningfully engage with the community” he said. 

Sutter began to back away from the community benefits agreement idea in August when Ms White claimed her corporation could not even enter into a community agreement if they wanted because of internal structures at Sutter, “A CBA is intended for developers and for-profit development projects. We are neither, we are a nonprofit organization, not a developer; our role is to provide healthcare services to the community” she said in an August 28th email.   After that, on September 2nd, Sutter confirmed there will be no CBA for the Emeryville hospital.

However, non-profit status doesn’t preclude a corporation from entering into a CBA and in fact it is quite common.  The claim that Sutter Health is not the developer of the Sutter Emeryville project is also factually untrue.  It is unlikely Sutter is unaware of these conditions and so their refusal to meet with the community to negotiate a CBA is probably their preference.  They would rather negotiate only with the City of Emeryville through a Development Agreement (DA), the document produced through standard negotiation processes between developers and municipalities.  Development Agreements are between cities and developers whereas CBAs are between the community and developers.  Both DAs and CBAs run concurrent with each other. 

Brandon Soublet
City Council Candidate
Shocked but not surprised
at the Sutter decision to
exclude the community.

CBAs usually arise when the community loses faith in the city to produce a DA that faithfully represents the community’s interests.  Over the years, Emeryville has earned a reputation for being business friendly and the Sutter CBA pull out represents a marginalizing of the community that will likely produce blowback.

Indeed, the local citizen activist group Emeryville Neighbors United (ENU) is already weighing in on the Sutter announcement.   Judith Timmel, a 34 year Emeryville resident and founding member of the group told the Tattler,  “This is not a response that one would hope to get from a  developer partner for the City of Emeryville. While I am opposed to the Sutter proposal for a 330 foot tower tucked away in a small corner of my city, if such a thing were to come to fruition, I would expect that the community, the residents, the workers would have a voice in measures to help remediate the overwhelming consequences of such a decision on the part of the city.”

Lillian Schroth, also a founding member of ENU said, “Sutter’s response is unfortunate and seems very disingenuous. Call it a community benefits agreement or something else – the principle behind it is the same: that Sutter is willing to work with the community to mitigate some of the huge impacts that this project is going to have on our neighborhoods.”

Council candidate Soublet indicated he is having trouble understanding Sutter’s ‘no CBA’ goal, he questioned, “Will pride in having a state-of-the-art nonprofit medical center cut our city’s budget deficit, help our housing problem, or improve the quality of life for the average Emeryville resident without a CBA?”

Plans to strengthen parts of Berkeley Alta Bates Hospital against earthquakes and add new facilities have long been stalled by Berkeley neighbors over construction, noise and traffic, prompting the non-profit hospital chain to study relocating to a medical center proposed at Horton and 53rd streets in Emeryville.  Sutter also operates facilities on Oakland's Pill Hill.

Community Benefits Agreement Looming for Controversial Onni Project Says RULE

The Emeryville resident advocacy group known as Residents United for a Livable Emeryville has announced it is considering plans to negotiate directly with the developer of the proposed Christie Avenue Onni apartment tower project, skipping the City of Emeryville, by means of a Community Benefits Agreement to deliver a more resident friendly project than is being proposed.  In an August 17th letter to its members, RULE's steering committee indicated they have requested the City host a town hall type meeting to address resident concerns about the controversial 650 unit Onni project to be followed by a RULE facilitated Community Benefits Agreement (CBA) with the developer, depending on the outcome of the town hall.

A CBA is a legally binding contract signed by the community and a real estate developer that requires the developer to provide certain amenities or mitigations to the proposed project in exchange for the community’s acceptance of the project.  Often, the community forms a coalition with labor organizations and environmental groups.  CBAs are open processes and the whole community is encouraged to attend meetings and engage.  Usually CBAs accompany the largest development projects.

The Proposed Onni Project
At 700 feet, the Onni tower would be
America's tallest residential building
west of the Mississippi River.

RULE, extant for more than 10 years, is open to all Emeryville residents and even out of town residents (in a non voting capacity).  The only group excluded from RULE meetings have been City Council members although they have been allowed in by invitation.  However a RULE facilitated CBA would likely allow out of town groups to have the same legitimacy as Emeryville residents.

The Vancouver-based Onni developer is entangled in a FBI bribery allegation after officials accused a Los Angeles Councillor of accepting money from Onni in exchange in 2018 for a positive vote on a pending LA Onni project.

In Emeryville, Onni plans an all rental 650 unit 700 foot tall apartment tower joined by a bridge with a 200 foot office tower.  The City Council has been working to help the developer, voting to remove existing ‘tower separation’ regulations from the books in July.   Additionally, the Council will seek to overturn existing family housing regulations at the request of the developer who claims he can’t afford build the towers if he is required to build family housing as other developers in Emeryville are.  These regulation rollbacks were chronicled in a Tattler story exposing City Hall of ‘regulatory capture’ and has contributed to a lack of trust among the residents, helping fuel a push for a CBA.

CBAs have a checkered history in Emeryville.  In 2016, a private group of property owning neighbors formed the Park Avenue Residents Committee (PARC) for the sole purpose of negotiating a CBA with the developer of the Sherwin Williams project, a 500 unit development on Sherwin Street slated to begin construction later this year.  The City assisted PARC with the "CBA" and ultimately the City Council used it to justify approving that project.  However, the Sherwin Williams "CBA" turned out to be out of character for a CBA; the PARC group operated behind closed doors and only invited guests could attend their meetings.  No other community members or labor or environmental groups were permitted to take part in the negotiations.  Regardless that the final document produced by PARC and Sherwin Williams didn't fit the description of a CBA, the City proclaimed it as such.
The RULE/Onni CBA by contrast will be democratic and transparent, says members of the steering committee.

How They Voted

Hear Ideas On Helping School Funding?

At the Tattler, we've noticed the city council and other deliberative bodies in Emeryville make controversial votes that sometimes get forgotten by the residents over time. In deference to the general edification of public policy and to strengthen Emeryville's democratic institutions, we will publish occasional short reminders on how the Power Elite in town have voted on these controversial issues.

In 2010, the vote before the School Board was:

Should the Board hear a presentation by a citizens coalition on  how to increase school funding by a 'Community Benefits' developer agreement?

Josh Simon - NO

Melodi Dice - NO

Cheryl Webb - NO

Pat Hooper - NO

Miguel Dwin - NO

The community group known as Residents United for a Livable Emeryville (RULE), concerned that the city council backed proposed expansion of the Bay Street Mall won't benefit Emeryville residents, conducted a town hall meeting to discuss the issue in 2009.  More than 100 residents participated.  The group also conducted a city-wide survey of over 400 residents about what benefits the new mall expansion should deliver for the city.  Residents put increased financial support of the schools at the top of their lists in their survey responses.

RULE then proposed a Community Benefits Agreement (CBA), an agreement between the developer of the mall, Madison Marquette Corporation and the residents themselves.  RULE identified more school funding at the top of the list in the CBA.

After compiling the CBA, RULE requested to make a presentation to the school district at a school board meeting but the school board members voted NO to even hearing about more money for the schools.  The Parent Teacher Organizations in town likewise said NO to hearing about more money for the schools.

The city council majority is vehemently against a Community Benefits Agreement, presumably because it represents a vote of 'no confidence' in the council, by the residents.  They no doubt see RULE as meddling.  The council's unwarranted effect on the school board is evident by this absurd vote of NO to even hearing about possible free money for the schools made by the school board.