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.

Former RULE Member Announces Sutter Emeryville Hospital Complex Is Ill-Suited For Proposed Site

 Letter to the Tattler: City Council Should Reconsider Approval of the Sutter Hospital Proposal at Hollis Street Site

The Tattler offers citizens with news worthy stories about Emeryville to submit letters for publication for the 'Letters to the Tattler' feature.

Judith Timmel, a 34 year Emeryville resident and co-founder of the former resident activist group Residents United for a Livable Emeryville (RULE), opines about the proposed billion dollar Sutter Health 325 bed hospital proposed for a 12 acre site on Hollis Street (at 53rd).  Sutter recently purchased the former bio-tech site by use of a City Council initiated change to Emeryville’s charter.  The hospital and its administration complex will host the tallest building in Emeryville if Sutter completes its build out.  The “temporary infusion of cash into our city coffers” that Ms Timmel refers to is the $11 million one time real estate transfer tax the City imposed upon the sale. 

To the City Council members-

 I attended the meeting Sutter recently held regarding their proposed project.  I have to say I was shocked and dismayed to find that the city council members had given a preliminary approval to this totally unacceptable development in our neighborhood.  What I appreciate about my neighborhood is livability and small-scale development which fosters community and a sense of safety.  This project is totally outside of any precepts in the General Plan and the hopes I have for our community that I thought that you all shared.

The looming presence of a huge tower would destroy our sunlight, our sense of neighborhood and aesthetics that we now enjoy.  The ambulances, shuttles and helicopters, not to mention the 4 years of construction noise, would destroy our peace and quiet, seriously disrupt our streets and destroy our bike boulevard.  Students going to and from school on 53rd St would be endangered and residents become even more inconvenienced by the increased traffic.  The streets surrounding the proposed project are not meant for this level of traffic and would become over-burdened.

It seems you have been swayed by the temporary infusion of cash into our city coffers.  I submit that this gain is short-lived and short-sighted.  What will be gained by the city after the project’s completion? Sutter’s non-profit status renders them exempt from many taxes.

I support Sutter’s taking over and re-purposing the existing buildings for medical uses. I would support a small-scale building on the vacant property.  What I will not support is a huge hulking monstrosity wedged into an inappropriate space in an incongruous neighborhood.

Alternative location for this hospital? Why not Site B?  Could a trade be made? As long as the height is reduced, and it could be with a larger footprint, it seems a more accessible and less disruptive location.

I urge you to reconsider, and I will be spending considerable time and energy to inform the residents of Emeryville of this impending disruption in their lives.

Respectfully submitted, 

Judith T, resident

Sutter hospital site at Hollis and 53rd Street looking northwest.