STORYLINE Facilities Permit Program

This storyline has only one article

Viewing thru of

Close timeline

McCarty: Questions must be answered

by Suzanne Hurt, published on November 12, 2009 at 9:15 PM

No high resolution image exists...

Progress bar

Loading images
Slideshow image

Sacramento officials need to know a lot more about the Community Development Department's construction approval process and a suspended commercial building program before any action should be considered, Sacramento City Councilmember Kevin McCarty said Thursday.

Renne Sloan Holtzman Sakai, a law firm hired by the city to investigate the Community Development Department, must investigate how construction on a Nestlé water-bottling plant began in McCarty's district without building permits, how home-building permits were issued for a Natomas flood zone, when these practices began and how pervasive they are, he said.

Two weeks ago, the department's Facilities Permit Program was suspended after questions about the approval process for the plant revealed that Nestlé and contractors began construction work with verbal approval only. McCarty called the problems with the FPP and the practice of allowing construction without building permits the "second strike" against the department.

"We're investigating the department for wrongdoing in the Natomas Permit Program. We've asked that they look at this FPP process as well to see what was going on there as far as any wrongdoing," McCarty said. "By looking at Nestlé, we were able to bring to light some illegal activity that's been done maybe for a very long time."

The FPP is intended to speed approval for tenant improvements or renovation of commercial and industrial buildings involving businesses that do a lot of business in Sacramento and have established relationships with the city. The program may have "improved the city's relationships with developers," McCarty said, "but at what cost? At what expense to taxpayers? To residents?"

David Kwong, acting head of the Community Development Department, said last week that staff will ask the council to amend city code 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. The longtime practice, which predates the program, helped bring about the suspension of the FPP two weeks ago.

Any proposal involving the FPP is premature before the conclusion of the investigation, McCarty said.

"We owe it to our residents to make sure that our development department follows the law," he said. "We need to evaluate what's been going on with this FPP process and how long it's been going on. Then, and only then, should we talk about Mr. Kwong's proposal going forward."

Department staff want to "pull the program back, take a temporary pause" and bring to the City Council a "retooled FPP," department spokesperson Maurice Chaney said Thursday.

Retooling would happen "in concert with council just to make sure that the program is vetted thoroughly through the City Council and that they understand what the program is about," he said. "So, not only getting the appropriate info out to them, but just making sure that we’re transparent and open during that whole thing.”

The main question is whether the program is legal, said McCarty, who is proposing to change city code to require Planning Commission and City Council oversight of proposals for new water-bottling plants or any industrial facilities that use water for resale purposes.

Other cities allow construction with a start-work authorization only and the practice was incorporated into the FPP when that program was brought here from Portland several years ago, Kwong said. Sacramento City Manager Ray Kerridge developed the FPP for Portland 10 years ago when he managed that city's commercial inspections. Phoenix was the only other city in the country known to have a similar program at that time.

Meanwhile, Councilwoman Sandy Sheedy said the FPP's role has expanded over time. When the program started, it provided businesses a way to make tenant improvements quickly, she said. Now, it’s not being used in the way it was designed, she added.

“It morphed into something else that was completely different,” Sheedy said.

The city doesn’t want to be “unfriendly” to businesses, she said, but needs to be “cognizant” of how it works with them. Sheedy noted that she hopes the program can be made workable.

McCarty said he would like water-bottling facilities to require conditional use permits. Environmental reviews and public hearings are required for proposed development projects only if there's a request for a land-use change or a conditional use permit, he said. Neither were required for the renovation of the warehouse Nestlé is leasing.

The council was supposed to consider McCarty's proposal as an urgency ordinance on Oct. 27. But City Attorney Eileen Teichert said Nestlé hadn't done anything illegal. However, she determined that the department's practice of allowing construction to start without a building permit violates city and state codes.

"We screwed up so bad handing out building permits through this crazy FPP program, no court of law would find they (Nestle) did anything illegal," McCarty said.

Plenty of million-dollar projects never go before the council if there are no requests for zoning changes or conditional uses. Developer John Saca's failed 53-story Towers at Capitol Mall project never went before the council, he said.

McCarty and other councilmembers have said they knew nothing about the plant until a grassroots organization, Save Our Water Sacramento, contacted them in September. Councilmembers Rob Fong, Steve Cohn and Lauren Hammond said Wednesday they did not know about the program until after a stop-work order was posted on the door of the Nestlé plant Oct. 23.

On Thursday, Sheedy said she was unaware of the program until it was debated during the Nestlé controversy. Councilwoman Bonnie Pannell also said she had been in the dark.

“I knew nothing about the Facilities Permit Program before the Nestlé company’s move to Sacramento,” she said in an e-mail Thursday. “I’m looking forward to learning about how the program works. I will keep an open mind.”

There's much more the council needs to learn about the program, McCarty said, adding, "I'm proud that by bringing this Nestlé issue forward, we uncovered this very inappropriate activity in the city of Sacramento."


Staff reporter Kathleen Haley contributed to this report. Photo by Anthony Bento. 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 13, 2009 | 6:44 AM
This is an EXCELLENT report! Our town owes a great debt of gratitude to Mr. McCarty for continuing to question the viability and efficacy of the FPP program, especially in light of potential legal jeopardy against the City in violating local and state law and procedure.

It may seem 'bureaucratic' to *some*, but there are very salient reasons why building permits are required prior to a start-work grant. Further, there are pertinent reasons why use permits should be required in cases like the Nestle scandal, especially to inform the public regarding the impacts such uses have on precious community owned resources, like the water WE PAY FOR being sold off on the cheap to corporate bad actors like Nestle.

Thank you Mr. McCarty!!!
5 3
REPLY
November 13, 2009 | 9:06 AM
Let's understand why the city of McCloud sent Nestle' packing. You would think a smaller city would want new business to bolster their economy. Why is Nestle' covertly setting up here?
3 2
REPLY
November 15, 2009 | 1:18 AM
The story of McCloud's water issues are thoroughly presented in the documentaries 'Flow: for the Love of Water" and again in "Tapped", which was recently shown at the Crest Theater...

Nestle's incursion into the water bottling business is insidious, and nearly every municipal source they've attempt to 'tap' (sorry) has chased them out of town...

*SOMETHING* was done behind the scenes by KJ and his ilk, though they are not forthcoming about just what they engineered to cause Nestle to 'vest' under the FPP... Hopefully the investigation will shed light on these backroom deals...

But once again, this is just the kind of shadiness that will become routinized should KJ's SMI prevail in next June's primary election, if it isn't withdrawn from the ballot first...
3 0
REPLY
November 13, 2009 | 9:41 AM
Regardless if the Facility Permits Program is right or wrong, it has been before council several times via the Development Oversight Commission Annual Report. I am thinking that this reporter should have done some fact checking.
3 1
REPLY
November 13, 2009 | 12:22 PM
Um, I may be a dolt, but could you please cite any reference to the FPP in the DOC's Annual Reports for the past four years??? They're listed below, and I just don't see any such reference...

http://www.cityofsacramento.org/dsd/meetings/commissions/development-oversight/documents/2008-09_DOCANNUAL_FINAL_part2.pdf

http://www.cityofsacramento.org/dsd/meetings/commissions/development-oversight/documents/2007-2008DOCAnnualReport-BothDigitalSignature.pdf

http://www.cityofsacramento.org/dsd/meetings/commissions/development-oversight/2007/documents/doc-annual-report-2006-2007.pdf

http://www.cityofsacramento.org/dsd/pdf-archive/2005AnnualReportoftheDevelopmentOversightCommission.pdf
1 0
REPLY
November 13, 2009 | 7:41 PM
bbbbmer dude check out april 25th 2006 in black and white
1 1
REPLY
November 13, 2009 | 10:26 AM
Really great story Suzanne! Your coverage of the Nestle plant, and the issues surrounding it, has been incredibly comprehensive and is a great service to our community.
2 0
REPLY
November 13, 2009 | 10:28 AM
"Any proposal involving the FPP is premature before the conclusion of the investigation, McCarty said.
<----->
City Attorney Eileen Teichert "determined that the department's practice of allowing construction to start without a building permit violates city and state codes."


Thank you Council Member McCarty and any other representatives who want to represent the public interest, for the good of the community, SUSTAINABILITY (core of the General Plan) and those developers who are not unscrupulous..
5 1
REPLY
edited on  November 13, 2009 | 1:17 PM
bbbmer - page 16 of the 2005 link. I also believe the year before that report. I will have to look I recall attending a DOC meeting then when it was discussed.
0 0
REPLY
edited on  November 13, 2009 | 2:03 PM
...and yet not one word about it since... hmmm.. One paragraph out of the MOUNTAINS of documents the Council must peruse...

Where are the other of 'several' instances you mention???

Just how was the Council supposed to divine any ongoing FPP program activity??? It's 2005 mention was only one paragraph out of a 42 page report... This wouldn't even hold up as 'judicial notice' in court due to its remoteness in institutional memory and because no subsequent Annual Report mentions it specifically or in context of any actual projects or other use of the program...

Small wonder Council members don't recall such a program that wasn't even worth the significance of an 'honorable mention' in subsequent reports...
2 1
REPLY
November 13, 2009 | 5:18 PM
My understanding of the FPP program, went it first began, was that it was put in place to allow a building owner that does frequent business with the city to make minor changes in tenant improvements, on a specific building, without starting a whole new permit application. For example, an office building that has frequent changes of tenants would not require a new application with full documentation for minor changes to non-load bearing wall locations as tenant configurations changed.

It does seem fairly obvious that with the customer friendly regime at city hall and the "give an inch, take a mile" attitude of most developers, that it could morph into something much bigger than its original purpose... the Nestle project, for example. Buzz Oates Enterprises has probably instituted the FPP program at many of their buildings but the scope of the Nestle project should not allow it to fall under the FPP process.

I would be surprised if the City Council was never made aware of the program at some point or had individual projects in each of their districts that availed themselves of the process. The whole "start work" concept, prior to permit issuance, would almost certainly be something that council members would have heard of frequently.
0 0
REPLY
November 13, 2009 | 10:56 PM
It's in print at the referenced sites -- one 'mention' in 2005, and NOTHING later -- not even the projects that employed the FPP to avoid the normal permit process...

The whole Nestle scandal was CLEARLY one of an accommodation, and CLEARLY by the hand of this mayor and his suckups, to provide the citizentry with yet another 'bright shiny object' to divert attention from their inherent corruption.....

Now, talk your way out of THAT KJ!!! Or better yet, have your mouthpiece do so... That is, of course, if he's not already drunker than a skunk...
4 0
REPLY
edited on  November 15, 2009 | 2:40 PM
r8rs,.... 'dude'??? That's so 1992 and 'Clueless'... I'm betting you're a little too old for that term.. eh???

Actually your citation referring to an April 25, 2006 meeting was that of the CITY COUNCIL, which you didn't mention, which I went ahead and dug up, which obviously you did not, for the Agenda and Summary and Video from that Council meeting ONLY moved and accepted the DOC's annual report, and THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE FPP per se -- NONE...

Here's the meeting summary for your edification... http://sacramento.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=6936cde63b1bae1153fdb4e8a577a5f3.pdf

Ok, that's two citations, one of which was mentioned in one buried paragraph of a four year old DOC annual report, one of which appears to be buried in meeting minutes/agendas, which you don't bother to cite WHICH FAILED TO MENTION THE FPP IN PARTICULAR ALTOGETHER.

The claim was that the FPP was mentioned SEVERAL times to Council IN THE ANNUAL REPORTS... This appears not to be the case, despite trying to prove me, and the author of this very important article, wrong.

CLEARLY the FPP was not a flagship program, so much so that it didn't even merit an 'honorable mention' in the DOC's annual reports, which had been cited as evidence of Council notice...

To blame Council for the mismanagement of the FPP, in particular for the mishandling of the Nestle scandal is preposterous, to say the least.

For Council to claim that they knew little or nothing about the program, given its near nonexistence in the official annual reporting of the DOC to Council, OR the program's role in the Nestle scandal, is credible to me.

It seems KJ's supporters have to work extremely hard to support their claims about opponents and usually just make up crap loosely tied to esoteric facts to paint a portrait of glittering bright shiny objects to divert attention from their rather sinister use of public policy on behalf of their backers...

This simply won't do...

It sounds MORE like KJ's supporters who seek to blame Council for the Nestle scandal need to do some of THEIR OWN 'homework' and fact checking BEFORE making such easily exposed and deceptive statements...
5 0
REPLY
edited on  November 14, 2009 | 3:21 PM
or as he calls it "Accountability"



Isn't that what FPP stands for? "Fu** Public Policy."
3 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