STORYLINE Facilities Permit Program

This storyline has only one article

Viewing thru of

Close timeline

No high resolution image exists...

Progress bar

Loading images

The Sacramento City Council soon may be asked to amend city code to legalize a longtime practice that helped bring about the suspension of the Facilities Permit Program.

In the next few weeks, city staff want to ask the council to allow FPP construction projects to start before building permits are issued — as long as a business has a written start-work authorization from the building division, said David Kwong, the city's Planning Division director.

Staff is working with the city attorney's office to learn if the practice and the building code amendment would be legal, Kwong said.

"What I'd like to do is vet that form with the city attorney's office, make some tweaks and take that to the council," said Kwong, who is also serving as head of the Community Development Department, which oversees the planning and building permits divisions.

The department's director, Bill Thomas, and department supervisor Dan Waters, son of Councilman Robbie Waters, are on paid leave while the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the city and an outside law firm hired by the city look into the department and home building permits approved for the Natomas flood zone despite a ban.

The FPP is intended to speed approval for tenant improvements or renovation of commercial and industrial buildings involving businesses that already have established relationships with the city, Kwong said. If the change were approved, the FPP could resume within about two months, he added.

The city suspended the FPP on Oct. 27 after questions about the program arose in relation to the Nestlé Waters North America water-bottling plant. A stop-work order had been posted on the plant's door Oct. 23 while Councilman Kevin McCarty and other city officials inquired into plant construction.

That's when city officials learned that Nestlé and contractors had begun the first phase of construction work without a formal building permit or start-work authorization. A building inspector who coordinates the FPP had given verbal approval only.

A Nestlé official said at the time that the company had complied with the city's building laws.

The city attorney's office, led by Eileen Teichert, determined the practice was not legal, and that allowing construction to start without a building permit violates city and state codes, Kwong said.

Teichert was out of town and not available to comment.

The use of start-work authorizations rather than building permits for some commercial construction predates the FPP in Sacramento.

"We found there was a common practice dating back to 1992 or 1995," Kwong said. "It seemed like an acceptable practice for 14 years, and they went forward with that."

The practice is used in other cities and was incorporated into the FPP when that program was brought to Sacramento from Portland about four years ago, said Kwong. "It's not something we invented," he said.

As planning division director for four and a half years, Kwong was not involved in building services until three weeks ago.

Sacramento City Manager Ray Kerridge, hired in 2004 as an assistant city manager in charge of development, brought Thomas with him from Portland after developers criticized Sacramento's development application and building permit processes as laborious and confusing.

The two have developed programs to speed the application process and encourage development in Sacramento.

Kerridge began his career in Portland as a building inspector in 1979. After becoming manager of commercial inspections, he developed Portland's Facilities Permit Program and the Commercial Combination Inspection Program.

Portland's FPP was designed to match one building inspection team with a building or group of buildings. That team would do all plan review, permitting and inspections of interior tenant improvements to speed improvements or renovations. Phoenix was the only other city in the country known to have a similar program when Portland's began in 1998.

In Sacramento, an inspection team may be replaced by one building inspector certified in several areas, Kwong said.

According to the city of Sacramento's website, "The FPP facilitates a rapid approval process for tenant alterations and improvements of commercial and industrial facilities, (including) minor tenant improvements, including maintenance, repair and minor alterations; and major interior tenant improvements and remodels. This includes tenant improvements to new and existing structures.

"The FPP is available to owners of commercial and industrial buildings, building management companies, and/or their tenants. The program best serves customers who have on-going interior tenant improvements and where facility maintenance, upgrade and renovation is frequent. A good example is a large shopping center with multiple tenants."

As a newcomer to Sacramento, Nestlé would not fit the program. However, Buzz Oates Real Estate Co., which is leasing the warehouse to Nestlé, or Panattoni Construction, which is overseeing the work, would fit the program as established customers, Kwong said.

Nestlé is the building permit applicant. Panattoni received a start-work authorization for the plant renovation's second phase on Oct. 7.

This is the first time the City Council has been asked to weigh in on the FPP.

State building codes must be reviewed to see if FPP practices would be in violation, or to align new city code with the state. City staff also will look for precedents in other cities and counties that use the start-work authorization form, Kwong said.

 

Suzanne Hurt is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.

 

Liked this article? Share it with your friends:

Conversation Express your views, debate, and be heard with those in your area closest to the issue.RSS Feed

November 10, 2009 | 5:21 AM
Buzz Oates and Panattoni may qualify, or be 'vested', under the FPP, but what is at question is the USE by Nestle -- NOT the permits for construction -- which would have, even under FPP, had the City applied their own past practices, required CEQA conformance of Nestle, including an extensive EIR regarding the impact of the municipal water used in its bottling operations.

Had this been done properly, as acknowledged two weeks ago by the City Attorney, Nestle's proposed operations would have been precluded until completion of this process, and Sacramentans would have learned of the corporation's intent and history and cozy agreements with the Mayor's office long prior to their having been 'vested' in this project.

THIS is what would/could happen routinely under the SMI -- covert insider deals with absolutely no public vetting or hearing -- to the detriment, in Nestle's case, of our municipal water supply, and potentially worse...

Let's hope the City Attorney keeps a good tight watch over the FPP process in the future so that these type of abuses can be avoided...
7 0
REPLY
November 10, 2009 | 7:38 AM
Good reporting, Suzanne. I love that SacPress is following these issues.

Personally, I'm a little frustrated that we've got senior city employees on *paid* leave while they're being investigated. So much for our tax dollars at work. More like our tax dollars paying for somebody's vacation.
4 0
REPLY
November 10, 2009 | 11:54 AM
As someone who has built projects under the FPP program i hope it is re instated quickly . Its not as if anyone gets to subvert code or fees under the FPP program . It just assists in avoiding long expensive delays during the plan review process. As well I agree Stella we need Dan and Mr. Thomas back on the job. Additionally the council was briefed on the FPP program by the Development Oversight Commission aprox two years ago. ( were hey not paying attention then ?) Also it is my understanding staff brought the nestle project to the attention of Kevin Mc Carty months ago.. (must be an election cycle). I hope any future developers or other fortune 500 companies arent running away from sacramento as we speak.. We have to get better. Please dont mis construe.. Sacramento should also implement a bottling company ordinace of some sort to protect both our city resources as well our environmnet. However , it should not be handled as poorly as this event was.
2 6
REPLY
edited on  November 10, 2009 | 1:29 PM
I believe the staff did NOT inform Council of Nestle's project or intentions, and at least four council members have confirmed this.

I agree that future projects should be handled more effectively and more consistently with code requirements than this one was -- but that was the domain of the very people you cite as being 'needed on the job'... And this time, they kind of screwed things up... Where's THEIR 'accountability'??? and was the mayor involved in any of this???
5 0
REPLY
edited on  November 10, 2009 | 7:21 PM
r8rs1, can you support this statement? Since you have worked on various projects, you may have some substantiation for your certainty?

"Its not as if anyone gets to subvert code or fees under the FPP program "

That's exactly what the Nestle project did. And reportedly, many of the projects slid through FPP are too big to meet the requirements.

You're not aware that the development community in Sacramento has a long history of evading permits, fees and code compliance, which has been enhanced by Matrix and turbocharged under FPP?

You're unaware of projects that have not been in compliance, up to and including opening for business and beyond, remaining resistant to codes, fees and compliance?

You're unaware of the scofflaw environment cultivated by exactly this sort of quasi legal program?

Now that it's been exposed as corrupt, the City is coming back to try to make it legit? That's what all the permit/planning/code violators do, if and when they get caught.

This is the game of the well connected. The little guy who does things on the up and up is held to the fire every step of the way. The legit folks who you may relate to would like the process more streamlined. But you can't seriously claim to be unaware of how much, how often and how flagrantly the process is violated by those who already have their wheels greased because of who they know. They ARE the problem.

The collusion with the City does NOT deserve to be rewarded and made legitimate AFTER the fact. The Nestle Water Diversion is bad enough monument to this wink-and-a-handshake level of Sacramento corruption.

And, if you are going to take shots at a candidate on SacPress, with all due respect, when will you comment with your own name?
6 0
REPLY
edited on  November 11, 2009 | 7:34 AM
Actually, r8rs1, I didn't say I thought they should be "back on the job." I think they need to be put on unpaid leave while the investigation is going on. We're rewarding people for poor performance (or worse, depending on the outcome of the investigation).
1 0
REPLY
edited on  November 11, 2009 | 8:21 PM
so many topics mentioned above,, i am sorry i havent checked back on this thread sooner. I assume everyone knows who i am ( should never assume) I also do not see where i have taken a shot at a candidate (being one myself) . I have built two small projects myself under the FPP program . It allows builders to proceed without waiting for the long plan review process which if youve been to city hall recently you would know is taking forever . Under the fpp project you still have to meet state code requirements , you still fall under normal inspection schedules and the city bills you not only based on standard permit fees but also for inspector and plan review time .If it is a long project with lots of changes etc. the builder pays .If you build something that the city decides through their wisdom is outside code limits then you have to fix it at your expense etc. ( it is an "at risk process" to proceed prior to final plan review). I also know the city actually gleans their records and will re bill if they find hours they may have missed etc. .
I also know staff notified Mr Mc Carty of the project early on .(months prior to the council mtg)
This is mostly politics goin on here not developer & staff corruption.! please see this.
I am not aware of projects too large slipping through (facilities permit program is intended for large projects with on going smaller projects within them ). All the projects i am aware of have had to meet all state building codes and have to pay all the many appropriate fees.
I want all of you to know that when a permit is not issued or the city drags a project through weeks of beauracracy . People are not working . Money is not being spent but lost. Peoples lives are affected. Our city was getting people to success as the sign says . This is not the case today. Today people are getting angry and losing precious dollars. The staff is short handed (thus,my wanting dan and bill to get back to work ,they are getting paid they should be working) and afraid to make a decision . We need to make things happen (nothing to do with nestle) in this city not find ways to stop things . What we need to do is stop playing politics and start running the city !! Politicians are playing games at the expense of the city ..
Shawn ( still in need of spell check) Eldredge
1 1
REPLY
November 12, 2009 | 11:45 AM
Thanks Shawn. I guess you really CAN "seriously claim to be unaware of how much, how often and how flagrantly the process is violated by those who already have their wheels greased because of who they know. They ARE the problem."

That level of denial isn't believable. The public is much more aware and the public records are available. The current scandal PROVES the system is corrupt and not serving the best interests of the community as a whole. It's enabled and enriched those developers who think rules are for suckers.

0 0
REPLY
November 10, 2009 | 1:03 PM
I would much rather have Bill Thomas out of the office until until he is hopefully fired. Agreed, he shouldn't get his pay but that is how the system works - innocent until proven guilty so for now his guilt is only alleged. I do hope this is resolved soon and we have a new director of development services / community development..
5 0
REPLY
November 11, 2009 | 6:41 PM
Great reporting Suzanne. Keep up the good work!
0 0
REPLY
Leave a Comment
User icon
Type your comment in the box below Edit your comment in the box below

Type tags into the box below.
Use commas to separate your tags.

Cancel Submit

Please Log in or Sign up

Existing Members

Sign In Progress bar Forgot Password?

New Users Create an Account Here
Progress bar
Verification email has been sent. To validate your account open the link provided in the message.
There was a problem sending your verification email. Please contact support@sacramentopress.com
Progress bar Login background Tag cloud top Tag cloud background Tag cloud bottom Login manager background