Tag Cloud
Friday, February 10, 2012
Nestlé can legally set up bottling plant, city attorney says
by Kathleen Haley, published on October 27, 2009 at 10:35 PM
Storyline: Sacramento City Hall / Politics
Loading images
Nestlé has a green light in Sacramento, according to the city attorney’s office.
The Nestlé company’s work to set up a water bottling plant in Sacramento is allowed under the city’s existing laws, City Attorney Eileen Teichert’s office said Tuesday.
It was clear at Tuesday’s City Council meeting that the City Council and city staff are on-board with the Nestlé company’s plans to bottle and sell tens of millions of gallons of Sacramento’s water.
The city had placed a stop-work order on Friday at the plant on Nestlé intends to use for its operations. The city said it wanted to verify whether Nestlé had broken any of the city’s permitting and building laws. In turn, Nestle had said the city’s decision to release a stop-work order may have been illegal.
The stop-work order will now be removed. Some of the work that was being carried out at the site can continue as soon as tomorrow, according to Acting Community Development Director David Kwong. He said the company must still follow a process and timeline with the city to start work on other tasks to retrofit the plant, which is located at 8670 Younger Creek Drive.
The city is stopping the Facilities Permit Program that Nestlé was accepted under. City staff officials told the City Council Tuesday that the permitting program is not up to date with city building codes. Councilman Kevin McCarty indicated in a phone interview after the meeting that there may be significant problems with the program, calling it a "can of worms that's being opened."
During the meeting, Shaina Meiners of Sacramento spoke against Nestlé’s water bottling business. “I am aghast that Nestlé can come in, in this very secretive way,” Meiners said.
Matt Mahood of the Sacramento Metro Chamber was in favor of Nestle’s plant. He noted that the unemployment rate in Sacramento is approaching 12 percent. Rules cannot be changed on companies mid-stream, he said.
Councilwoman Bonnie Pannell said staff did not inform the City Council about early developments with Nestle’s plans to build in Sacramento. She asked, “Why weren’t we briefed?”
The discussion at the City Council meeting changed in light of Teichert’s analysis that Nestlé did not break laws. Councilman Kevin McCarty had proposed an interim urgency ordinance to mandate special permits for beverage bottling plants in the city. The ordinance would enable the Planning Commission or City Council to examine plans to expand or build beverage bottling plants. Nestle’s plans were not considered by the Planning Commission or the City Council; the city’s current rules did not require Nestle to go through that step.
McCarty’s proposal no longer applied to Nestlé after Teichert’s legal opinion.
However, McCarty’s proposal is not dead. Instead, it will consider future water bottling plants. The proposal will be moved to the city’s Law and Legislation Committee.
Along with McCarty’s proposal, the council decided it also wanted Law and Legislation to examine the issue of tiered water rates.
Photo by Anthony Bento.
Staff reporter Suzanne Hurt contributed to this report. Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.
Conversation Express your views,
debate, and be heard with those in your area closest
to the issue.
Leave a Comment
The phrase "on-board" is somewhat unclear in this context: Are the Council and staff enthisiastically supportive or are they simply in agreement, perhaps reluctantly, regarding the legality of the plans?
Or somewhere in between those interpretations?
"Revolving door: One of the Mayor's top advisors goes to work for Nestle "
" Michelle Smira, one of Kevin Johnson’s top volunteer advisors, is leaving city hall, and going to work as a consultant for Nestle."
"Smira gave her resignation last week, on October 22, ..."
"She told SN&R that she’s giving up her role as an official volunteer advisor to the mayor in order to work on Johnson’s strong mayor initiative. She also said that she was not leaving her City Hall role because of any legal conflict of interest, but because she would not otherwise have time to run her public relations business, MMS Strategies. "
Read it all at:
http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/snog/blogs
Based on what was communicated at the meeting, both verbally and non-verbally, I would say that Vice Mayor Hammond is the only councilmember who objects to the idea of the City selling its public water to be bottled and sold for profit.
Councilmember McCarty, of course, has also expressed concern, and did so again tonight. He said he thought the Council owed it to the public to get the issue right. Councilmember Pannell expressed confusion at why the Council had not been informed by Community Development Department about the project before things progressed so far, and she warned Dept. Manager Kwong not to "do this in my district."
Councilmember Sheedy spoke up only once to question Save Our Water Sacramento's Evan Tucker when he claimed City staff, upon being asked for more information on the project, had told him to speak to Nestle's PR firm.
Councilmembers Tretheway, Cohn, and Waters, and Mayor Johnson were very concerned that the City had stopped work at the plant and they wanted answers from Development Dept. Manager Kwong right away as to how much longer Nestle would have to wait. After Nestle got everything it wanted, Mayor Johnson apologized to them.
I don't recall Councilmember Fong saying anything.
I know who i will not for in my district on our next elections.
What a shame. What a sham.
"The city is stopping the Facilities Permit Program that Nestlé was accepted under. City staff officials told the City Council Tuesday that the permitting program is not up to date with city building codes."
"Councilman Kevin McCarty indicated in a phone interview after the meeting that there may be significant problems with the program, calling it a "can of worms that's being opened." "
Sounds like it's a can of worms that's being closed.
It is abundantly clear that Nestle is a bad actor in its practices to invade the quality water systems of unsuspecting or malevolently managed cities to the detriment of the citizens of such jurisdictions. The films 'FLOW: FOR THE LOVE OF WATER', and last week's 'TAPPED', demonstrate quite clearly just how insidious the corporation's practices are, how deceptive they are, and how their corporate conduct can be RUINOUS of basic community owned resources...
It was absolutely NAUSEATING to watch KJ lecture last night about 'accountability' on the whole Natomas debacle, while at the same time exercising NONE with regard to this role in this affair with Nestle... THIS should be investigated as well as the Natomas permit scandal, and HE HIMSELF should be held ACCOUNTABLE for spearheading this invasion upon Sacramento's fundamental right to clean water!
Good look watching those jobs disappear to out of towners!
The 15 - 40 'jobs' claimed by Nestle will not materialize if past practice is any indicator... based on the documentaries referenced in my earlier comment.
The detailed coverage by SacPress has been excellent. Can you clarify the "can of worms" aspect of the permitting questions? Was that addressed last night or swept under the rug?
It appears the info provided here was correct, the permitting was not completed correctly. The Stop Work order was legal. The process also should not have been applied for under a particular program that is now being ended.
Where is the accountability here? If the process was followed correctly, it's important to know that. Otherwise, this is a huge end run around the public and the process.
Thank you.
"The city had placed a stop-work order on Friday at the plant on Nestlé intends to use for its operations. The city said it wanted to verify whether Nestlé had broken any of the city’s permitting and building laws. In turn, Nestle had said the city’s decision to release a stop-work order may have been illegal.
"The stop-work order will now be removed. Some of the work that was being carried out at the site can continue as soon as tomorrow, according to Acting Community Development Director David Kwong. He said the company must still follow a process and timeline with the city to start work on other tasks to retrofit the plant, which is located at 8670 Younger Creek Drive.
"The city is stopping the Facilities Permit Program that Nestlé was accepted under. City staff officials told the City Council Tuesday that the permitting program is not up to date with city building codes. Councilman Kevin McCarty indicated in a phone interview after the meeting that there may be significant problems with the program, calling it a "can of worms that's being opened." "
Thank you for the reply and SacPress' excellent coverage.
We already are rationed, and someday will all be billed according to the amount of water we use. It is hard to imagine the future impact of our environment, since no study was done...but doesn't it seem obvious that somewhwere downstream this will be harmful?
Almost as important is the disgust many taxpayers (& future taxpayers) with the process that predeeded Tuesday's meeting. Our democratic system has been undermined again regarding water rights and big contracts without our input. Why is the Mayor even asking for more power when something like this can occur without even the Council being better informed so they can better inform us?
OK, so I object to it politically & environmentally.. But that's not all.
I'm writing to remind us that water in plastic bottles is a convenience we've become too accustomed to. I'm not an expert, but please check out the impact these plastic bottles cause already. I don't want my city to contribute to this mess. Though I occasionally find it to be the only source of water (I can't drink tap water due to an allergic reaction caused by something in it), I've stopped purchasing it & refill glass bottles with filtered water. I realize I'm blessed to even have this choice.
If you have the choice to stop purchasing water in plastic bottles, please do so. Unfortunately when our political system fails us we must act on our own to solve the problem. Let's make it less profitable for Nestle by not purchasing their water. They wouldn't be here if we didn't demand their product.
What you're really starting discussion on here is the ultimate "can of worms". How can we individually help improve our quality of life and pass it on to further generations? Wow! There's a topic that should get more attention. But I don't want to stray too far from the matter at hand. Is there still a way to stop this project? Will Sacramento ever be able to "just say no" to this like we did when we voted to close a nuclear plant?
http://www.sacfortourists.com/post/226275672/k-j-cares-more-about-nestle-than-sacramentans
It's reduced to another braindead soundbite: "Jobs is good."
http://www.babymilkaction.org/ram/ilrf06/childslavery06.html and more specifically related to Sacramento, Nestle's predatory practices wherever they set-up a water plant. See www.stopnestlewaters.org This is a very poor decision whether it creates jobs or not. You just climbed in bed with a devil.
This can also be imposed by litigation against Nestle by the Save Our Water group, if the group demonstrates reasonable cause that Nestle violates a material and substantive environmental code, and with a friendly judge who might be inclined to weigh for the community and impose injunctive relief against Nestle while battling this cause out in court, it could mean that Nestle would depart out the same back door they entered into this town...
Let us pray....
Remember, if we ban water many will just replace it with what is convenient...high fructose corn syrup soft drinks and that isn’t a healthy choice.
I think a more realistic approach is to encourage companies like Nestle to design their products to be more environmentally friendly and design their products to be used, reused, and recycled and when the life their water bottle is over, it can be reclaimed into a harmless substance.
Banning bottled water has become the latest fad and we hear that water bottles are responsible for everything from supporting nasty military juntas to causing every cancer known to mankind. With so much misinformation and hype it is no wonder that consumers are confused. Remember, it is a business and if it isn’t selling…it won’t last.
The bottom line to me is that consumers should have the choice to purchase which ever beverage they desire. However, I believe that in the cases where plastic containers are used, they should be more earth friendly. Containers should be used, reused, recycled and reclaimed.
Banning sounds like a quick fix, before we take that step, let’s look at the unintended consequences which might actually cause worse problems.
Max
http://www.ensobottles.com