Tag Cloud
Friday, February 10, 2012
Council to decide on new version of permit program
by Kathleen Haley, published on December 11, 2009 at 4:09 PM
Storyline: Sacramento City Hall / Politics
Loading images
The City Council will discuss Tuesday a new version of a permitting program that became part of the recent debate over the Nestlé’s company’s move to Sacramento. The city shuttered its Facilities Permit Program Oct. 27 to investigate whether the program breaks laws.
City Attorney Eileen Teichert declared recently that the FPP was being used illegally because the city was not directing builders to obtain formal building permits before starting construction work, according to David Kwong, the city’s acting planning division director.
The previous version of the FPP offered businesses -- those that worked with the city on an ongoing basis -- a way to receive quick approval for tenant improvements or remodeling of commercial and industrial buildings, Kwong said last month.
Now, Kwong is presenting the remodeled FPP. One of the main revisions is a rule for formal building permits.
“The original program allowed individuals to start work with an oral or written ‘Authorization to Start Work,’” according to a report that Kwong is presenting to the City Council Tuesday. “The revised program requires that a building permit is issued before work is started as required by city code.”
Kwong plans to start the program again Dec. 16. It will be renamed the Facilitated Permit Program. An in-depth guide to the new program will be drafted by the Community Development Department in January, according to Kwong’s report.
Read the full report on changes to the program under Item 30 at the city's website.
The link between the FPP and Nestlé
Nestlé is setting up a bottling plant in Sacramento with plans to sell tens of millions of gallons of the city’s water. The city used the FPP to approve the bottling plant.
Nestlé’s plans drew protests from a citizen’s group called Save Our Water Sacramento, which opposed the city’s approval of the plant without a public hearing or an environmental impact report.
At the same time, a conflict surfaced over whether a building permit should have been used with Nestlé’s project. City Attorney Eileen Teichert said in October that Nestlé did not break any laws as it worked to build its bottling plant. But her office declared that the FPP involved illegal procedures, Kwong said in November.
Teichert said the city acted illegally because it allowed project construction even though Nestlé and its contractors did not have a building permit.
While Nestlé and its contractors received verbal approval from the city to start building the plant, that type of approval does not meet legal requirements, according to Teichert’s analysis.
Nestlé has said it followed city laws.
Photo by Sacramento Press reporter Suzanne Hurt. 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
That isn't exactly what Teichert said. She said that Nestle started work based on a 'start work' order issued by the City, and acted in reliance upon that -- that Nestle was 'vested' (by having spent money in reliance on the City's permission) in the project relying on the City's grant, but the City's permission was in violation of both local and State laws.
So, Nestle followed that which was told to them, and approved for them by City officials, but that was in effect illegal because of the City's violations.
Teichert's opinion seemed an accommodation to avoid potential litigation by Nestle due to reliance, and to avoid potential litigation by the City against Nestle, for exercising poor legal judgment in light of their multi-national corporate status with access to counsel that should have precluded starting work in the absence of building permits, and CEQA conformance -- including the intended USE of the facility as a rebottler of municipal water, and the environmental iimpact thereof.
And it is this USE that seems at the heart of this matter...
So, " the previous version of the FPP offered businesses -- those that worked with the city on an ongoing basis -- a way to receive quick approval for tenant improvements or remodeling of commercial and industrial buildings"
OK, I can see how that could be helpful. If the city has worked with a business often and knows the players and the type of work they do, I could see how this may work. What I want to know is how did Nestle qualify for this? I have never heard of them doing business with our city before -- it's for businesses the city has worked with often. It seems fishy to me - especially with the Buzz Oates, Smira, KJ connections.