STORYLINE Sacramento City Hall / Politics

This storyline has only one article

Viewing thru of

Close timeline

Cohn, Hammond, Fong say they didn't know about permit program

by Kathleen Haley, published on November 11, 2009 at 8:53 PM

No high resolution image exists...

Progress bar

Loading images
Slideshow image

Some members of the City Council said Wednesday they were unaware of the permitting program that played a key role in the recent controversy over the Nestlé company’s efforts to set up a water bottling plant in Sacramento.

The city closed down its Facilities Permit Program Oct. 27 during the public debate over Nestlé’s plans. Nestlé’s project was greenlighted through the FPP.

With the FPP, businesses that work with the city on an ongoing basis can receive quick approval for tenant improvements or remodeling of commercial and industrial buildings, said David Kwong, the city’s planning division director.

In the case of Nestlé, the company and its contractors received verbal approval from the city to start construction work. But the company and its contractors did not have a city building permit or “start-work authorization.”

Nestlé has said it followed city laws. 

The city attorney’s office recently declared that it is illegal for the city to approve the start of construction for projects that do not have building permits, Kwong said.

Now, Kwong plans to ask the City Council to weigh in on the FPP program. Kwong said city staff will ask the council to let businesses begin work on their FPP construction projects before they receive building permits. However, businesses would need to obtain a written start-work order from the city before they begin work, he said.

He expects to bring the issue to the council in a few weeks. 

When city staffers approach the City Council, they will be addressing at least three members who told The Sacramento Press they did not know about the FPP before the Nestlé controversy. 

“I definitely am looking forward to this coming back to council,” Councilman Rob Fong said Wednesday. “We’ve not been briefed on this. We didn’t know there was such a program.” 

Councilwoman Lauren Hammond had a similar comment. “I knew nothing about it,” she said.

Councilman Steve Cohn said that while he didn’t know about the FPP specifically, he knew the city was taking actions to streamline the building permit process. 

While Hammond said she “wasn’t happy” that she was not informed about the FPP, she said she does not believe the mayor and City Council need to know about “every single thing” the city does. She suggested that it would be impossible for the city’s elected officials to know about every item in the municipal government, asking: “How could we possibly [know everything the city government does]?”

She noted that the city has monetary thresholds. If a program exceeds $100,000, it needs to come before the City Council, she said.

Mayor Kevin Johnson said earlier this week that the results of the audit of the Community Development Department will be key to his views of the FPP. Johnson, who said the FPP program has been effective, has talked about resuming it, with possible changes.

Photo by Anthony Bento.

Sacramento Press staff reporter Suzanne Hurt contributed to this story. Kathleen Haley 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 11, 2009 | 9:09 PM
And meanwhile, Nestle continues doing what they're doing.
4 0
REPLY
November 11, 2009 | 9:13 PM
I was told by a member of the Develpoment Oversight Comittee that they briefed the council on the FPP almost 18 mos ago . I wil do some research to confirm.
2 1
REPLY
November 13, 2009 | 7:47 PM
april 25th 2006 it was prensented to council in the annual doc report
and to truthbtold below panatonni who ishte contractor has a record with the city
0 1
REPLY
November 12, 2009 | 6:17 AM
"With the FPP, businesses that work with the city on an ongoing basis can receive quick approval for tenant improvements or remodeling of commercial and industrial buildings, said David Kwong, the city’s planning division director."

Can Kwong explain how Nestle, who is new to doing business in Sacramento, qualified for FFP?

5 0
REPLY
November 12, 2009 | 8:15 AM
Apparently KJ's paw prints are all over this mess -- it was he who 'greenlighted' the Nestle project, per this morning's SNR Editorial...

http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/content?oid=1317595

But what is more disconcerting is that the Council was never briefed at all regarding the FPP process itself in general... and not just with regard to the Nestle scandal... This could have serious legal consequences, and not just in terms of procedure...

California law and the UBC requires building permits prior to start of construction. Obtaining building permits can be fast-tracked, but permits are required as a condition to construction. Kwong's request to be able to issue start construction prior to the issuance of permits should be dismissed out of hand by the Council (if there is any semblance of justice left at City Hall)...

But the Mayor should NEVER be able to 'greenlight' a construction without building permits, or to short-circuit a project's pursuit of building permits... PERIOD.

Process and procedure require Council sanction, and this Mayor seems to be oblivious to both requirements under the law AND just plain good manners...
8 0
REPLY
edited on  November 12, 2009 | 11:28 AM
And who will explain how a quasi-legal "program" intended for "inor tenant improvements, including maintenance, repair and minor alterations; major interior tenant improvements and remodels" was utilized to turn a BUZZBOX into an INDUSTRIAL AMERICAN RIVER WATER DIVERSION FACILITY.

And after being stopped, WHY was Nestle allowed to start up again. It's NOT legal. This IS Business As Usual, Mr. Johnson, illegal acts committed as quickly as possible so if and when they're caught, it's too late to undo or the emails have disappeared.........



http://www.cityofsacramento.org/dsd/building/permits/facilities-permit-program.cfm

Facilities Permit Program (FPP)
The Facility Permit Program facilitates a rapid approval process for tenant alterations and improvements of commercial and industrial facilities:
• minor tenant improvements, including maintenance, repair and minor alterations
• major interior tenant improvements and remodels
This includes tenant improvements to new and existing structures.
Who can use the FPP?
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.
How does the FPP work?
The FPP is handled by a team of inspectors experienced in building, plumbing/mechanical, electrical, and fire inspections. All aspects of your project are reviewed by the team as a whole, thus expediting the process.
How to register for the program
Please fill out the Facilities Permit Program Registration Letter . Please send your information to:
Sean Burke
300 Richards Blvd.
3rd Floor
Sacramento, CA 95811
How to apply for a building permit under FPP
Please use the FPP Permit Application Form.
Have more questions?
If you would like additional information, please email the program at facilitypermits@cityofsacramento.org, contact the Sean Burke at 916-808-5337, or visit the Permit Counter.


http://www.cityofsacramento.org/dsd/building/permits/documents/DSD-0306_Facility_Permit_Reg._Letter.pdf
4 0
REPLY
edited on  November 12, 2009 | 4:36 PM
Nestle was 'vested' after the fact, largely due to KJ's and staff's premature (more like IMmature) o.k., and dollars they had already spent on site renovation, as an accommodation, and to avoid a lawsuit against the City, they were allowed to proceed -- even though under normal circumstances, even within the bounds of the FPP, Nestle would have been subject to CEQA impacts regarding the use of municipal water for resale..

As in all things KJ, yet another cloud circles overhead due to his ignorance and/or denial of procedures that were intended to protect all of us, so that he can strut about an 'achievement' that will in the end be so very detrimental for the town he's supposed to represent... What a putz!
5 0
REPLY
November 12, 2009 | 12:34 PM
or as he calls it "Accountability."
4 1
REPLY
November 12, 2009 | 4:34 PM
~~ha ha ha~~....
3 0
REPLY
November 13, 2009 | 8:40 AM
The site where Nestle plans to bottle our water and sell it back to us should be considered hight priority for locating the Arena we've been hearing about for the last 10 years.
1 0
REPLY
November 15, 2009 | 1:08 AM
The Nestle Water Dome... yep, yep, it has a ring to it...
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