📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report
This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.
Alameda County Grand Jury
• 2016-2017
Backroom Dealing in Developing City-Owned Properties in Oakland
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings 7 findings
17-1
Page 29
The Oakland City Council misapplies the real estate negotiation exception to the open- meeting requirements of the Brown Act and the Oakland Sunshine Ordinance, thereby shielding the deliberative processes – including discussions and debates regarding project vision, project scope, feasibility issues, community benefits, and the ultimate selection of a developer – from public scrutiny.
17-2
Page 29
The city’s closed session agendas for discussions of the 1911 Telegraph and 12th Street Remainder projects did not comply with disclosure requirements in the Brown Act and the Oakland Sunshine Ordinance.
17-3
Page 29
The Oakland City Council violates the city’s Sunshine Ordinance by failing to discuss publicly the advisability of selecting particular developers for projects on city-owned property before making final decisions (section 2.20.120(B)) and failing to disclose the parts of closed session discussions that were not confidential (section 2.20.130).
17-4
Page 29
Unauthorized closed sessions prevent the public from witnessing council deliberations, preclude public input into planning, and restrict public participation in the selection of appropriate developers for city-owned property.
17-5
Page 29
The city of Oakland unfairly applied the requirements of its RFP for 1911 Telegraph by allowing the successful proposer to wait until after it was chosen to provide required financial information.
17-6
Page 29
A developer was allowed to change the scope of its proposal for 1911 Telegraph at the last minute. This put the other proposers at a disadvantage, and resulted in the city choosing that developer without the benefits of staff analysis of the new proposal.
17-7
Page 30
Oakland City Councilmembers privately discuss projects with developers whose proposals are pending, and the communications are not disclosed publicly before one developer is selected. This compromises public scrutiny of the selection process because citizens have no ability to assess the strength or weakness of private arguments made by developers in support of their proposals.
Recommendations 6
-
17-1Page 30The city of Oakland must comply with the Brown Act and city of Oakland Sunshine Ordinance provisions relating to the real estate exception. The city must limit closed session discussions concerning proposed real estate development projects to price and terms of payment, and ensure that deliberations on matters such as project vision, project scope, feasibility issues, community benefits, and selection of a developer are conducted openly, allowing the public to be informed about and comment intelligently upon proposals for use of city-owned property.
-
17-2Page 30The city of Oakland must follow its Sunshine Ordinance by conducting open meetings in which councilmembers discuss publicly the advisability of any proposed disposition of city-owned property before making final decisions.
-
17-3Page 30The city of Oakland must update its training for public officials on open meeting laws to prevent the city from misapplying the real estate negotiation exception.
-
17-4Page 30The city of Oakland must enforce requirements of its RFPs even-handedly to create a level playing field for all proposers, and to allow city staff a full record with which to vet competing proposals.
-
17-5Page 30The city of Oakland must treat developers who respond to an RFP equitably by informing all RFP respondents whether changes to proposals after the submission date are permitted.
-
17-6Page 31The city of Oakland must adopt rules to address private communications between councilmembers and proposing developers before a developer is selected.