City of Oakland

The Oakland City Council has no written plan or timetable for holding Oakland Fire Department accountable to annually complete all state-mandated fire inspections. City Response: The City agrees with the finding. City Explanation: There is no specific written plan or timetable created by the City Council to ensure the Fire Department is completing all state-mandated inspections. This has historically been the responsibility of the Fire Marshal and Chief of the department. Since becoming Fire Chief, Reginald Freeman has set a very clear goal for the Prevention Bureau that state mandated inspections were to be a top priority for the division, with staffing, schedules and weekly metrics aligned to complete 100% of these inspection types. Grand Jury

The Oakland Fire Department does not have an up-to-date inventory of buildings that require state-mandated inspections. City Response: The City disagrees with the finding. City Explanation: The updated building inventory is now available in our Accela database and being utilized daily for scheduling purposes. The Fire Prevention Bureau is working with other departments to develop a process to ensure that updates to property and occupancy type is reflected in the Accela platform. The goal is to ensure that the department maintains the most accurate and complete list of state mandated inspection. Grand Jury

The slow, uncoordinated, and incomplete implementation of Accela, throughout Oakland’s [C]ity departments including, but not limited to the Oakland Fire To: Edward D. Reiskin, City Administrator Subject: City’s Response to Alameda County Grand Jury Report on Fire Inspections September 26, 2022 Department, has greatly reduced the ability of the Fire Prevention Bureau to complete state- mandated fire inspections. City Response: The City disagrees with the finding. City Explanation: While Accela may prove to be a valuable tool to track and store inspection data, inspections of all types could have been completed utilizing the legacy program, One Step. The failure to efficiently implement Accela did not prevent inspections from occurring; rather it can be attributed in some years to a lack of sufficient staff and management oversight. The Fire Department has worked to fill vacant positions and to ensure that there is effective management of the Fire Prevention Bureau. Evidence of the effect of these changes includes the number of state mandated inspections completed in 2022 vs. prior years. The Fire Prevention Bureau completed 38% of state-mandated inspections in 2019, as compared to 14% in 2020. Based on current data for 2021, the inspection rate, annualized, is still only 41% which the Department recognizes is unacceptable. Fire Chief Freeman is aware of this issue and has improved performance in 2022, to meet the state-mandated inspection requirements with 100% compliance by the end of 2022. As of September 1, 2022, the bureau had completed 1,322 of the required state mandated inspections for the calendar year. Please see Chart 1, State Mandated Inspections below for more information. Grand Jury

Historically, the Oakland Fire Department has not provided sufficient training for fire inspectors. City Response: The City partially disagrees with the finding. City Explanation: Historically, the department has provided incoming Inspectors with California State Fire Marshal Fire Inspector Training, as it relates to the job of an inspector. As stipulated in their job descriptions, Inspectors may be certified by any of the following organizations: To: Edward D. Reiskin, City Administrator Subject: City’s Response to Alameda County Grand Jury Report on Fire Inspections September 26, 2022 • International Code Council (ICC); • California Office of the State Fire Marshal (OSFM); • National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). In addition, if a newly hired Inspector lacks a certification from any of the following organizations, they must obtain that certification during their probationary period, and must maintain that certification throughout the duration of their employment. Grand Jury

The [C]ity of Oakland presents a uniquely challenging environment for inspections which has resulted in high turnover of inspectors. City Response: The City disagree with the finding. City Explanation: The Fire Prevention Bureau has experienced a high turnover rate due to retirements, personnel who elected to move out of the area for various reasons, including to seek higher compensation. Meanwhile, the complexity of this city, in terms of diversity of property and inspection types, make Oakland an appealing employment destination for those seeking to gain their CA State Fire Marshal certifications, and becoming more well versed in their positions. Grand Jury

The [C]ity of Oakland’s slow and inefficient recruitment process results in hiring delays and fails to hire candidates with relevant experience. City Response: The City partially disagrees with the finding. City Explanation: Many factors play a role in determining the pace of recruitment and hiring new qualified candidates. The Fire Department is working with the Department of Human Resources Management on an ongoing basis to make sure the City is effectively promoting available positions to generate the largest possible pool of interested and qualified candidates to interview. Grand Jury

The Oakland Fire Department has not used the citation process for fire safety violations in a manner that results in immediate and substantive improvements to fire safety. City Response: The City partially disagrees with the finding, and it requires further evaluation. City Explanation: OFD does have a citation process that is used to identify non-compliant fire code violations. When the violations are identified, the property owner is informed with a timeframe for the violations to be corrected. OFD is currently working to improve the process so that the Fire Prevention Bureau can minimize the time that it takes to schedule re-inspections and verify that the violations have been corrected. This process is under review and the department is working with the Office of the City Attorney to ensure a reasonable due process for parcels to obtain compliance. Grand Jury

The Oakland Fire Department does not have sufficient administrative staff support for fire inspectors to aid in the citation process. To: Edward D. Reiskin, City Administrator Subject: City’s Response to Alameda County Grand Jury Report on Fire Inspections September 26, 2022 City Response: The City agrees with the finding. City Explanation: There are vacancies as identified in our organizational chart, and having more staff will make the process notification property and business owners, regarding inspection status, invoicing or rescheduling more efficient. Grand Jury

The [C]ity of Oakland does not have fire inspection information readily available on its website for public review. City Response: The City partially agrees with the finding. City Explanation: Most of the information on inspections pertains to the annual vegetation management program that is focused on properties located in the state-designated very high and high fire hazard severity zones. The Fire Prevention Bureau is currently working on listing inspection types on the City’s website and adding information to the website to educate the public on is the inspection process, and what is required under the City’s Fire Code. The Fire Department is overhauling the content of its web pages do be more current, especially regarding inspection-related content. This process is expected to be completed in December 2022 and rolled out to the public in January 2023. RESPONSE TO

The system in place for authorizing, assigning, checking, and verifying reported overtime for expedited plan checks in Oakland’s Department of Planning and Building is ineffective. City Response: The City disagrees wholly with the finding. City Explanation: The Planning and Building Department uses an Overtime Plan Check Request Form submitted by the applicant to authorize to begin the overtime review process. The Process Coordinator receives the overtime request form, then seeks a Plan Checker who is available to work overtime on that project since overtime is performed on a voluntary basis. The Plan Check supervisor is then requested to authorize the assignment after confirming the Plan Checker’s availability and current workload. On of the report, the Grand Jury notes that “given the solitary nature of the plan check work and the physical layout of the facility, managers are not typically positioned to directly observe the work of their team members.” However, Plan Checkers work within the scope of their expertise and require minimal direct supervision. The Plan Check supervisor verifies the overtime hours worked based on the scope and complexity of the work and affixes his signature on the Plan Checker’s Overtime Authorization Form, which accompanies the Plan Checker’s timesheet. This system allowed for the detection of overtime reporting irregularities by one individual whose actions were documented and ultimately reported by the Department to the City Auditor. Grand Jury

The extended vacancy of the [D]eputy [D]irector/[C]hief [B]uilding [O]fficial position in Oakland’s Department of Planning and Building contributes to the undermanagement of the expedited plan check service. To: Edward D. Reiskin, City Administrator Subject: City’s Response to the 2021-22 Alameda County Grand Jury Report on Building Plan Check Procedures September 28, 2022 City Response: The City disagrees wholly with the finding. City Explanation: The position is not vacant and is being filled by an Acting Chief Building Official since January 2021, during which time the City has conducted two recruitments for the Deputy Director/Chief Building Official, and a permanent selection is pending. Furthermore, the Chief Building Official does not assign overtime work, which is delegated in the manner described in response to “Finding 22-56”. The Grand Jury’s representation that the delegation of Bureau responsibility to an Acting Chief Building Official Status adversely affects the Expedited Plan Check service is uncorroborated. Grand Jury

The fees currently charged by Oakland for expedited service of plan checks are likely inconsistent with the requirements of Proposition 26. City Response: The City disagrees wholly with the finding. City Explanation: This finding is not informed or supported by a Cost Allocation Study. The City is currently contracted with a firm to update the 2015 Cost Allocation Study (Attachment A) that was done for Planning and Building Department fees. To determine reasonableness of a fee’s consistency with Proposition 26, the courts have examined fees collectively (i.e., among all payors), while avoiding demanding precision with respect to the benefit any individual fee payor receives. See Griffith v. City of Santa Cruz, 207 Cal. App. 4th 982, 997 (2012). As a matter of law, while permissible fees must be related to the overall cost of the governmental regulation, courts have held that fees are not finely calibrated to the precise benefit each individual fee payor might derive. (Id.) The Grand Jury’s Report, in general, and Grand Jury Finding 22-58, in particular, seems to suggest a different standard, which is contrary to law. Grand Jury

The plan check function in Oakland’s Department of Planning and Building does not actively monitor productivity within the plan check team and currently does not collect data on hours worked by project to enable this analysis. City Response: The City disagrees partially with the finding. City Explanation: The Department tracks the number of hours spent on a project submitted for Expedited (overtime) Plan Check within Accela, its permit tracking system, and it is recorded in the Overtime Authorization Form submitted to the payroll department as described in the response to “Finding 22-56”. The City does not track the number of hours spent on work performed during normal business hours, which is consistent with common practice among other local jurisdictions and with State law as cited in explanation of response to Grand Jury Finding 22-58. Moreover, if the City were to adopt such a process, then the City would need to confer with affected labor groups depending on the extent of the tracking to be implemented under this

Supply of plan checking resources in Oakland’s Department of Planning and building is not aligned with demand for those resources in part because there is no attempt to forecast anticipated supply and demand and provide decision makers with the information with sufficient lead time to address anticipated gaps. To: Edward D. Reiskin, City Administrator Subject: City’s Response to the 2021-22 Alameda County Grand Jury Report on Building Plan Check Procedures September 28, 2022 City Response: The City disagrees wholly with the finding. City Explanation: Starting in 2016, the Department procured On-Call Plan Check Services (“On- Call”) in direct response to a projected demand for inspection services, and began looking at pipeline trends for future needs. The Department works with the City’s Department of Human Resources Management (DHRM) to recruit and hire staff within the Plan Check Division to meet demand surges; however, the labor market is experiencing an unprecedented dearth in candidates to fill positions. Nonetheless, the Department was authorized to add 8.5 additional full time positions via the 2022-23 Mid-Cycle Budget Process in response to forecasted trends. Grand Jury

Exclusive reliance on internal resources for providing plan check services in Oakland’s Department of Planning and Building limits the ability of the Planning and Building Department to ensure service commitments to applicants are consistently achieved. City Response: The City disagrees wholly with the finding. City Explanation: As noted in the response to “Finding 22-60”, the City did procure On-Call Plan Check services starting in 2016 and utilizes those services when demand for Plan Check services exceeds staff capacity. Furthermore, the Department has expanded its On-Call capacity by entering into contract with five (5) firms in 2019 and has been utilizing those contracts accordingly. RESPONSE TO