STORYLINE Sacramento City Hall / Politics

This storyline has only one article

Viewing thru of

Close timeline

City Council informed of permit program in 2006

by Kathleen Haley, published on November 16, 2009 at 10:21 PM

No high resolution image exists...

Progress bar

Loading images
Slideshow image

Several members of the Sacramento City Council said last week they were unaware of a city permitting program used for Nestlé’s controversial water bottling project, but the program was outlined to councilmembers in 2006. 

Shawn Eldredge, a general contractor and candidate for the 3rd District City Council seat, pointed out that elected officials learned about the Facilities Permit Program during a council meeting on April 25, 2006. Eldredge, who has worked on two projects approved through the FPP program, said the program helps builders and contractors avoid lengthy delays.

The Development Oversight Commission, made up of community members who have been appointed by the City Council, wrote a report for the 2006 meeting. It includes a section on the Facilities Permit Program, noting that it is a project of the Development Services Department, now known as the Community Development Department.

“The DSD has taken the novel approach of assigning a plan review and inspection team to a particular development or building,” the report said. “The team will review and inspect all projects within the development, in some cases even performing the plan reviews at the job site. This is much more efficient and economical than the traditional approach of assigning the project to the next review team in line without regard to their familiarity or experience with the particular building.”

Eldredge said that builders who use the program are required to follow code requirements and pay fees. The inspectors who review the plans visit the construction sites, he said. “When [the inspectors] come to see you, they know the building,” Eldredge said. That knowledge improves and speeds the permitting process, he added.

“For politicians to be attacking the program means they don’t understand what works in this city.”

David Kwong, the city’s planning division director, said recently that the FPP is intended to speed approval for tenant improvements or renovation of commercial and industrial buildings involving businesses that often work with the city.

The informal approval process used in the Nestlé project has drawn attention to the FPP.

In the case of Nestlé, the company and its contractors received verbal approval from the city to start construction. 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 declared recently that it is illegal for the city to approve the start of construction for projects that do not have building permits, Kwong said.

Councilmembers, meanwhile, responded Monday to a question about why they claimed no knowledge of the FPP when they were told about the program in 2006.

Councilwoman Lauren Hammond said the 2006 report did not address the current controversial practice of allowing construction to start without a building permit. “I still don’t remember anyone describing to the mayor and council an approval process for building before actual permits are granted,” she wrote in an e-mail.

Councilman Kevin McCarty said that whether or not the Development Oversight Commission discussed the program, the city needs to address the FPP's legality. “In the meantime, it still appears that the council and city never legally authorized the FPP,” he said.

Councilwoman Sandy Sheedy said she didn’t remember hearing about the FPP in 2006, noting that councilmembers receive extensive amounts of information. Regardless of when it was discussed, it should have been presented to the City Council as an ordinance “because it was a major change and it was policy,” she said.

Councilman Steve Cohn said it wouldn’t surprise him if there had been a briefing on FPP “years ago” and that now councilmembers don't remember the program’s name. Cohn said last week that he didn’t know specifically about FPP, but that he did know the city had been working to streamline the permitting process. He said the City Council has received “quite a few” briefings over the last few years on changes that would streamline permitting.

Councilmembers Bonnie Pannell and Rob Fong also said last week that they had not been informed about the program. They were not immediately available Monday afternoon.

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 16, 2009 | 10:31 PM
Ms. Haley, what are the two projects referenced by candidate Eldredge: "who has worked on two projects approved through the FPP program, said the program helps builders and contractors avoid lengthy delays" and "builders who use the program are required to follow code requirements and pay fees."
0 0
REPLY
November 17, 2009 | 10:03 AM
Eldredge said he worked on two projects at the MARRS building: Mr. Pickle and Asha Yoga. The MAARS building is an FPP project, he said.
0 0
REPLY
edited on  November 17, 2009 | 6:36 AM
This story's title is misleading. While Councilmembers may have been 'informed' of the program's existence ONCE in an obscure section of an annual report from FOUR YEARS AGO, with no mention since, to label this as 'informing Council' is ludicrous...

I believe a more apt title would be FPP BURIED IN 2005 ANNUAL REPORT OF DOC - WITH NO MENTION SINCE...

Let's make it CLEAR...

The FPP was mentioned ONCE in the past four years... ONCE! And THAT, buried in the bowels of a 2005 Annual Report. And there has been NO MENTION of it since...

Every other program of the DOC is reported out via the Annual Report. But the FPP has no such report out containing statistics on the use and relevance of the program...

Shawn Eldredge may CLAIM that he's used the FPP, but I find that fallacious since the DOC hasn't provided publication of the programs statistics, and because Eldredge is not quite disciplined when it comes to facts...

Shawn Eldredge is also NOT Nestle, and Nestle's use of the FPP was most definitely inappropriate in avoiding CEQA requirements, including an EIR, for the USE it intends for its bottling plant... even though their contractors may have used the program properly in outfitting Nestle's building...
3 2
REPLY
edited on  November 17, 2009 | 10:02 AM
fallacious?? (are you saying i am lying?) The two build outs under the program were at the marrs bulding ( top culture yogurt and ash yoga) ( also if you watch the council presentation from april 2006 , Mr Nunan gave a detailed description of the program..)
also there was a news letter sent out by the DOC (every two months) to all staff and council i am looking at one dated august and september of 2007,which has a detailed article about the FPP program.
I dont know why this is considerd a secret .. If anyone is building things in this city or involved in building things in this city they know about the FPP program .. This discussiomn should be about how the city staff and its electeds communicate about things happening in thier district etc. Attacking a program that is working does not address the issue surrounding the Nestle project.
Now the discussion should be about how our electeds behave when faced with doing their jobs.
When permits arent issued , or work is prevented from starting, people arent working ,things arent being built & we all suffer.. ( this has nothing to do with the environmental impact of bottling plants for which there are many here in sacramento)
bbbmer have you ever stated your name ?

still in need of spell chk
Shawn
2 1
REPLY
November 17, 2009 | 1:02 PM
'Shawn',

No, I haven't stated my name, and I'm not about to here... If you think that's some form of 'manning up', so be it.... To me, it's just the ridiculousness of assaulting a point of view without bothering about the merits...

Your claimed use was not cited in its first instance, and because when you appear in public you are excruciatingly ill-informed and inarticulate, I didn't believe your initial assertion.

Now that I know who you are, your comments here from time to time are in keeping with what I believe about you already...

Now, that being said, the FPP was appropriately used for smaller projects with known contractors -- and Nestle does NOT qualify. Because Nestle relied on the word of the department, they became 'vested' after the fact, and because of THIS the City could have incurred potential liability had they not allowed Nestle to go ahead with their build, even though their USE would mostly certainly have been subject to CEQA impositions.

With regard to public information about the FPP, this citizen is not in routine receipt of DOC 'newsletters' or other documents regarding the program -- all that I've been made aware of, and all Council has been made aware of, apparently, are the DOC's annual reports, which bear only ONE REFERENCE to the FPP, and provide NOTHING in subsequent public presentation...

I have watched the video of the April 25, 2006 meeting, and the FPP was not discussed per se -- but rather the broader topic of DOC activities in general, consistent with their annual report -- in fact, the entirety of their presentation was based on the annual report, with little side information whatsoever... And it was a relatively quick presentation, as well...

So an attempt to assert that 'electeds' are not doing their job when faced with the MULTITUDES of documents they digest in their respective roles, glossing over a program only referenced once in five years is hardly something to register such ridiculous claims against them...

Where the negligence lies is in the annual reports of the DOC in not presenting information on the 'success' or lack thereof of the FPP, its applications, and those served by it...

If, as you say, 'if anyone is building things...in this city they know about the FPP program...' Perhaps THEY do -- but it's been kept quite quiet before Council members...

And its use on behalf of Nestle was indeed inappropriate, and potentially illegal...
3 2
REPLY
November 17, 2009 | 9:04 AM
Some information that was passed along to me that might be of interest to this discussion. Please note #3 from the FAQ’s

FPP in Portland

http://www.portlandonline.com/bds/index.cfm?c=37047

Notable Quotes from site

The program is not intended to relax code requirements, or to provide lower inspection or licensing standards than that required under State of Oregon Statutes, Administrative Rules or City of Portland Municipal Titles. The goal is to provide inspection and plan review services as efficiently and effectively as possible to FPP participants.

FAQ's
Owners/Architects/PM's
1) What type of work can be done under the Facility Permit Program?
The program is limited to interior tenant improvements, and maintenance and repair work.

3) Does the Facility Program eliminate the need for project, or individual Trade Permits?
No. The FPP is designed to streamline the permit process, not eliminate it. We've found that issuing a permit is the best way to inform builders that the project construction has been authorized.

8) How are fees assessed on permitted projects?
Traditional permit fees are not typically assessed. Facility Permit fees are based on an hourly rate for all program services, and are billed directly to the facility owner. However, Standard fees will be charged if the valuation of the project exceeds $600k.

Contractors

9) How long will my permit take to issue?
Permit issuance is directly related to the complexity of the project. On the average the time period ranges from 3 days to 2 weeks. The completeness of the submittal will also effect this time line.
5 0
REPLY
November 17, 2009 | 10:53 AM
"We've found that issuing a permit is the best way to inform builders that the project construction has been authorized."
4 0
REPLY
edited on  November 17, 2009 | 11:50 AM
So, if I'm reading and concluding this correctly, the Portland FPP which Kerridge and Thomas created when working there is not the FPP here or at least is not being used the same way.

That is, FPP is supposed to be for internal improvements/changes for whatever reasons, such as Shawn did, but the Nestles project was a shell of a building installing some totally new operation--therefore not qualifying for FPP.
4 0
REPLY
November 17, 2009 | 1:05 PM
Exactly.

The USE by Nestle is the question. Not the building itself, which contractors were no doubt familiar with the FPP and subject to its provisions.

I don't believe this matter is over... I believe the open question involving use is still only tacitly approved due to 'vesting' of Nestle's project...
3 0
REPLY
November 17, 2009 | 4:47 PM
I'm a little confused here. There seem to be two different discussions going on.
The first is about the FPP process. The second is about the Nestle plant.

As to the FPP process...It seems that there are apologists for the City Council that forgive them for not knowing about this process as it was "buried" in a report. I would suggest it is their job to know these things, or at the very least to have staff keep them apprised of things going on in their own departments. It's like the old saying goes, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." I find it hard to believe that no one on the Council had any idea about this program. Kind of like how Reagan claimed to have no odea about Iran-Contra back in the day. Any reasonable person would look at the facts and conclude either, a) someone is lying to give themselves cover, or b) these people are not doing their jobs as stewards of the city. If a or b, then that is an issue the Council needs to own up to.

As for Nestle...one ought not to muddle the discussion about the FPP process (the real topic of the article). Feel how you want about the project, it doesn't take away from the impression that the Council seems to be using their ignorance of the FPP process for political cover on the Nestle project.
1 0
REPLY
November 17, 2009 | 6:27 PM
Unfortunately life is acted out in the 'gray zone' -- muddling and all...
1 1
REPLY
November 17, 2009 | 8:40 PM
Actually Mr. Moreno has it backwards--the council's relative ignorance of the FPP program became an excuse to sneak the Nestle plant through the back door, even though Nestle did not qualify as an appropriate use of the FPP. The FPP program was started with the best of intentions, obviously, but it creates gigantic loopholes that facilitate corrupt behavior. That kind of loophole is typical of the DOC--remember, the DOC is the same organization that tried to get rid of the Design Commission. The DOC was originally established to explore process simplification for Mayor Serna, and staffed by developers and those in the building indsustry. Their job is done. It's time to do away with the Development Oversight Commission.
3 1
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