Newest articles on The Sacramento Press tagged as "community development department"

Community centers get $459K to keep their doors open

2011-08-27T01:32:30Z

Community centers in Sacramento got a boost Tuesday when the City Council approved more than $459,000 in funding to close the gap between what the centers have and what they need to stay open until next year’s budget is passed.

Council members voted unanimously to take $459,188 from the city’s Economic Uncertainty Reserve – money that initially came from cell phone tower profits in each district – to pay for labor, supplies and services necessary for the remainder of the fiscal year.

The total funding necessary to maintain operation of the city’s 15 community centers was $917,000 in the 2010-11 fiscal year, according to Dave Mitchell, division manager for the Dept. of Parks and Recreation.

When the City Council passed the 2011-12 budget, there were more than $39 million in cuts, reducing or eliminating services throughout the city, including the funding needed to keep community centers open.

When department staff made their presentation to City Council in May, Mitchell said, they told council members that, by partnering with community organizations and re-assigning staff, they could come up with $457,812 of the $917,000 needed to keep the centers open.

“But we still needed $459,188 to keep the lights on,” Mitchell said.

Throughout the budget process, members of the public came to City Council meetings to express their concern for the fate of the community centers and public pools and to ask council members to minimize budget cuts that would affect those facilities.

“Our kids need safe havens, centers of collaboration and meccas of education,” said Mark Howard at the June 7 City Council meeting. Howard is the director of Target Resources, a youth and parent-focused nonprofit organization.

“If we close the centers, what is their alternative?” Howard said. “Closure is not an option.

Rick Jennings, a South Sacramento resident, told council members at a June council meeting that kids see the centers as “a place to play,” seniors see them as “places to socialize” and parents see them as “safe places” for their children after school.

“We’ve invested millions of dollars in these centers,” Jennings said. “As a community, we will find a way to keep the doors open.”

After much debate about center funding, the City Council ultimately directed Interim City Manager Bill Edgar to work with Jim Combs, director of the Department of Parks and Recreation, which oversees the city’s community centers, to find some way to keep all of the centers open – without the $459,000 of funding needed to fill the gap.

Edgar and Combs were faced with a dilemma.

“We were told to keep (the centers) open,” Edgar told council members Tuesday, “but you didn’t give us any money to do it.”

So, they had to get creative, Edgar said.

Combs and city staff from the Neighborhood Services Department began reaching out to private and nonprofit groups to create partnerships with the community that would keep the centers open.

Community partners such as charter schools, local charity organizations or nonprofits would pay rent on the facilities and provide services to the community such as classes and recreational activities, Combs said, and the city would pay the costs of operational needs such as electricity, maintenance and other basic services at each facility.

“It’s not reasonable to expect the nonprofits to pay for (that),” Combs told council members Tuesday. “So we’re going to need some money.”

Edgar and Combs recommended that the city augment the new community partner agreements with enough funds to pay for basic utilities and larger maintenance projects.

“We know you don’t like to spend money,” Edgar said, “but in order to comply with (your) request, we felt this was important at this time.”

Councilman Steve Cohn said the entire council is committed to keeping both pools and community centers open “as much as we can.”

Cohn said city staff is working on ideas to do that, so volunteers and community members who support and use the centers should “definitely not give up.”

The Parks Department is in negotiation on four leases and partnership agreements, Combs said, and with additional community outreach, staff will be able to find more businesses and groups interested in working with the city to keep the centers open.

“The Parks Department director has done a remarkable job in scrambling to line up lessees,” said Craig Powell, president of the local political watchdog agency Eye on Sacramento, at the council meeting Tuesday, “and several other (partnerships) that are in the incubation stage.”

As part of its mission to “look out for the public interest,” Eye on Sacramento monitors how City Council handles both revenue and spending, Powell said.

Powell congratulated council members for taking cell phone tower revenue out of council members’ discretionary funds and putting it into emergency fund for “just this sort of thing.”

The approved funding, along with the community partner support, will meet the minimum costs of keeping community centers operating for the remainder of the year – but not beyond that.

“It sets a baseline of operation until next year,” Councilman Kevin McCarty said.

Further funding will have to be approved in next year’s budget for the centers to continue operating beyond 2012.

Melissa Corker is a Staff Reporter for The Sacramento Press. Follw her on Twitter @MelissaCorker.

Checkup on city's development department

2011-03-03T02:10:39Z

Five months after a consultant released a scathing audit of the city’s Community Development Department, the department is making headway on correcting its practices, according to City Auditor Jorge Oseguera. However, it’s still unclear when or if the city can obtain $2.3 million in developer fees that the department did not collect.

Oseguera presented a report on the department’s overhaul to the City Council on Tuesday. The council accepted Oseguera’s report and did not take any formal action on it.

The October audit, conducted by Sjoberg Evashenk Consulting, Inc., faulted the department for not collecting more than $2.3 million in fees in recent years. The firm also accused city employees of violating state and city laws. The audit examined the department’s work from fiscal years 2007 through 2010.

Oseguera noted in his report that it’s still unknown if the city can collect the $2.3 million.

“According to the attorney’s office, the city is still evaluating whether the city may successfully recoup some or all of the previously noted $2.3 million in uncollected fees,” the report said.

Attempts to contact City Attorney Eileen Teichert on Wednesday afternoon for more information were unsuccessful.

Oseguera, who managed the consultant’s work on the audit, is also responsible for checking to see how the department applies the audit’s 40 recommended changes.

He gave the department positive reviews for its work to change its practices.

The recommendations cover an array of areas, including the department’s operations, policies, permitting practices and fee collection practices.

One of the recommendations, to verify that expired permits are voided, is fully in effect, according to Oseguera’s report. The department has “partly implemented” 35 percent of the changes, according to his report. CDD has begun work on 55 percent of the recommendations, while work on 10 percent of them has not yet begun, the report said.

“Overall, we are pleased to report that the Community Development Department has made substantial progress towards implementing the recommendations given the relatively short time that has transpired since the report’s release in October, 2010,” Oseguera told the City Council.

Oseguera said the department has made a “good start” on the work of applying the recommendations, but noted that he expects a “lengthy period” of time for the department to finish all the work.

The consolidation of Code Enforcement with the CDD, city budget cuts and the need for the CDD to form new policies and procedures are some factors that will lengthen the amount of time to finish the overhaul, according to Oseguera.

Councilwoman Sandy Sheedy praised Oseguera for providing an in-depth update on the department.

“I think this is going to help immensely,” she said.

Oseguera’s report briefly summarizes the department’s work on each of the 40 recommendations. One recommendation the department has “partly implemented” calls for it to create “an organizational culture that places importance on adhering to proper policies and processes while also meeting service level goals.”

The recommendation further says that the department’s leaders should show zero tolerance for violating permitting and fee rules. It calls for a new “tone at the top.”

One of the recommendations not yet applied says the department should examine how revenues were used in the past.

“Conduct a review of past Building Services’ revenues to analyze how the monies were utilized and determine whether the usage was appropriate, complied with regulations, and was in the best interest of CDD and Building Services’ operations,” according to the audit.

The city auditor’s office will assist the CDD on how to carry out that task, according to Oseguera’s report.

Read Oseguera’s report on the Community Development Department here.

Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.

City, county faced grim year

2010-12-31T01:35:08Z

Sacramento’s city and county governments confronted grim budget situations throughout 2010. The city faced a $43 million budget gap, while the county struggled with a $181 million hole.

Local government employees felt the pain of budget cuts: Sacramento County laid off about 380 employees during the summer.

The county also slashed 29 positions in its engineering department in September. The county will no longer hire engineers for those spots.

City officials laid off 12 workers represented by Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 447, city spokeswoman Amy Williams said in September. The layoffs occurred after talks between the city and the union failed.

However, the city’s job loss situation could have been worse. City officials and Stationary Engineers Local 39 negotiated a contract during the summer that saved at least 80 jobs.

Budget cuts hit Sacramento’s Fire Department, but the blow was lighter than expected. The City Council decided in June to increase from one to two “rolling brownouts” for the department. An earlier plan called for four rolling brownouts.

The term “rolling brownouts” refers to taking certain fire trucks and engines out of service at various times, former Fire Department spokesman Jim Doucette said in June.

A variety of city programs faced cuts, including the city’s 311 information line and youth program.

Consolidations of several city departments and offices took place as well. Code Enforcement, formerly a department, became a division of the Community Development Department. Neighborhood Services became a division of the Parks and Recreation Department, while Human Resources joined with Labor Relations.

Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.

City officials here today, gone tomorrow

2010-12-23T22:18:39Z

The past year was a big one for resignations, promotions and elections of Sacramento city officials. Twelve personnel changes took place at City Hall involving elected and appointed leaders and city staffers in 2010.

A major change was in the city manager position, which was replete with drama and press conferences.

When former City Manager Ray Kerridge resigned in March, the city was wrestling with a host of issues. The Sacramento County Grand Jury had released a report in January saying the city may have broken state law Proposition 218. Utilities fees from ratepayers must correspond to the costs of delivering the utilities services, the law states.

At the same time, the city was dealing with a sticky situation over building permits that a staffer in the Community Development Department gave to a housing developer. The feds had barred the city from giving out permits in that area.

On top of that headache, more concerns with the development department had cropped up, such as claims that the department didn’t collect developer fees and even accusations of “potential quid pro quo,” according to a Jan. 26 report from the offices of the city manager and city attorney.

There were controversies surrounding Kerridge’s decision to resign. Mayor Kevin Johnson said a negative attitude among other council members in part caused Kerridge to pack his bags. Johnson held a press conference in which he described Kerridge as a “great talent.” Councilman Robbie Waters voiced support for Kerridge at Johnson’s press conference. Kerridge was also popular among businesspeople, who said he created a customer-service environment at the development department.

When Kerridge left Sacramento City Hall, he said he intended to take a job in the private sector. But he was picked up by Roseville in May to be its next city manager.

Shortly before Kerridge resigned, former development department director Bill Thomas resigned. Thomas and Kerridge had worked together in both the cities of Portland and Sacramento.

Responding to Kerridge’s resignation, the City Council promoted Gus Vina, who was an assistant city manager, to be interim city manager in March.

Max Fernandez, the former head of code enforcement for the city, was promoted to be the director of the development department in early July. With Vina and Fernandez in charge, the development department is undergoing a remodel to tighten its procedures.

The city auditor’s office faced a year of changes, as well. The City Council hired Jorge Oseguera to be the new city auditor in March, after that spot had been vacant for almost one year.

Oseguera hired deputy auditor Gerald Silva in March, but Silva resigned in July. Silva resigned after The Sacramento Press asked him to comment on a sexual harassment dispute that involved him when he served as the city auditor of San Jose.

It wasn’t just the city manager and development director positions that were in upheaval in 2010 – a big shake-up also occurred on the City Council.

Council incumbents Ray Tretheway and Robbie Waters both lost to newcomers in June, while Councilwoman Lauren Hammond didn’t run for reelection.

New councilwoman Angelique Ashby took Ray Tretheway’s District 1 seat in June, but two runoffs were required for the District 5 and District 7 seats. The runoffs featured newbies in both cases – the incumbents had already lost in June.

Darrell Fong won his District 7 runoff battle against candidate Ryan Chin, while Jay Schenirer beat opponent Patrick Kennedy in the November runoff for District 5.

Photos of Tretheway, Vina and Fernandez by Kathleen Haley. Photo of Kerridge by Anthony Bento. Photo of Ashby by Brandon Darnell.

Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.

City Hall: The year in scandals

2010-12-22T02:45:51Z

Scandals shook Sacramento City Hall throughout 2010. A review of the past year in local politics shows city leaders in turmoil over debacles at the Community Development and Utilities departments.

The troubles in the development department prompted City Councilwoman Sandy Sheedy to declare in January that council members should find out what has “gone wrong” at City Hall. Before we ring in a new year, let’s take a look at the scandals that shaped city politics over the past 12 months.

Troubles with the feds
A scandal that began in 2009 involving the city’s development department and a Natomas flood zone continued full-throttle until the end of 2010. City employee Dan Waters, son of recently-retired Councilman Robbie Waters, gave permits to K. Hovnanian Homes to develop an area of Natomas that the federal government had defined as a flood zone, according to city officials.

City officials said Waters broke Federal Emergency Management Agency rules by giving the permits to the builder in 2009.

The crisis made waves all through 2010 as FEMA and the city wrestled with how to resolve the breach of federal rules. The City Council approved an expensive solution to the problem just weeks ago, at a Nov. 16 meeting. It will cost $350,000 in general fund dollars to correct the blunder and take several actions to follow FEMA rules.

Following the scandal, Waters was not fired, but was moved to a code enforcement job from a community development department position. Community development and code enforcement were separate departments at the time Waters was transferred in 2009. The departments have since consolidated.

A Dec. 1 Sacramento Bee story quoted anonymous sources to report that the city’s management was preparing to fire Waters. City spokeswoman Amy Williams would not confirm the Bee’s report, saying that the city does not comment on personnel matters.

What happened to $2 million?
The development department faced a second scandal this year that involved more than $2 million in fees. City Attorney Eileen Teichert and independent firm Renne Sloan Holtzman Sakai encountered a number of issues relating to fees at the department when they investigated the problems with FEMA and the building permits for the flood zone.

Teichert received the information about the fees, but did not investigate the claims. Instead, Teichert handed over the information on fees to a third-party auditor, Sjoberg Evashenk Consulting, Inc., which conducted an audit of the department. The audit, released in October, said the department did not collect more than $2.3 million in fees from developers. The amount is a significant sum in light of the city’s ongoing budget woes.

The issue is likely to rage on at City Hall in 2011. Councilman Rob Fong has been pushing for the City Council to do a separate investigation of the problems at the department. He also has said he wants to find out if the City Council can get the money back.

Grand Jury rips Utilities Department

The Sacramento County Grand Jury claimed in a January report that the Utilities Department may have broken state law Proposition 218. The law says that utilities fees from ratepayers must correspond to the costs of delivering the utilities services.

Partly in response to the Prop. 218 issue, a citizens’ group placed a measure on the November ballot to roll back city utilities rates. But Measure B failed at the polls.

Mayor Kevin Johnson and Councilman Kevin McCarty both said on Oct. 13 that the Utilities Department should be audited. McCarty and Councilman Steve Cohn actively campaigned against Measure B.

Look for the next installment of our year-end review in the coming days. We’ll refresh you on the resignations and promotions of city officials in 2010.

Photos of Natomas homes by Kathleen Haley. Photos of council members by Brandon Darnell. Photo of Measure B sign by Suzanne Hurt.
Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.

Local media: Dan Waters to be fired

2010-12-02T02:28:32Z

The Sacramento Bee is quoting anonymous sources to report that city officials are now taking steps to fire Dan Waters, a city employee who was embroiled in a scandal at the Community Development Department last year.

City officials have said that Waters approved 35 building permits for a Natomas flood zone last year.

When Waters granted the Natomas permits to K. Hovnanian Homes, he violated federal flood regulations, according to city officials. Waters’ action carried a high price tag: The city is paying up to $350,000 to correct its violations of federal flood rules and comply with the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Bee reporter Ryan Lillis cites anonymous sources to report that the city gave Waters a dismissal letter last week.

The Bee did not report whether other employees face disciplinary action in relation to the scandal.

City spokeswoman Amy Williams would not confirm the Bee’s report. “We do not comment on personnel matters,” she wrote in an e-mail Wednesday.

The department is facing other upheavals in addition to the problems from the 35 Natomas permits. In another scandal, an audit said the department did not collect more than $2.3 million in fees from developers.

Interim City Manager Gus Vina did not return a phone call Wednesday afternoon. Phone messages left with Waters’ city phone number Wednesday afternoon were not returned.

City Councilman Rob Fong recently told The Sacramento Press that the city should take further action against Waters and others involved in the troubles at the Community Development Department.

Photo by Brandon Darnell.

Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.

Fong: Clean out development department

2010-11-19T03:03:50Z

Sacramento City Councilman Rob Fong said in an interview Thursday that further actions should be taken against city employees, including code division employee Dan Waters, who were involved in the recent scandals at the city’s Community Development Department.

Waters approved 35 building permits in a Natomas flood zone last year. Officials with the city and the Federal Emergency Management Agency say that Waters’ action to give the permits to K. Hovnanian Homes broke federal regulations. The City Council agreed earlier this week to pay up to $350,000 to correct its violations and comply with FEMA. The violations related to 38 permits – Waters approved 35 of them, according to city spokeswoman Amy Williams.

Waters, the son of outgoing City Councilman Robbie Waters, is still employed by the city. He is a customer service supervisor at the city’s code division with a base salary of roughly $62,278, according to Williams. Specifically, he works in the neighborhood code compliance section, she said.

In an interview, Fong commented on the FEMA violations and the department’s other major scandal: an audit that says the department failed to collect more than $2.3 million in fees from developers.

“If I were running that department, they wouldn’t be working for the city of Sacramento anymore,” Fong said.

He noted the City Council cannot fire city employees. Under the city’s charter, firing is conducted by the city manager’s office.

Fong said the department’s troubles need further investigation beyond the audit. The audit calculated the fee problems, but it did not name names.

Fong also said he thinks there are other people responsible for the department’s messes in addition to Waters.

“My strong suspicion is there was some other folks involved in the chain of command,” Fong said. “And I think we need to figure out how far that went.”

He declined to name any names himself, saying that the city does not have evidence to show who was responsible and how they were involved in the department’s problems. He said he recently directed city officials and the city attorney’s office to provide a framework for how the City Council can investigate the people who were involved in the incidents at the department.

In response to questions about Waters, city spokeswoman Williams said: “We cannot share details about personnel matters. The City Manager’s Office is aggressively reviewing the audit report with the Community Development Department and Labor Relations, and we are investigating to determine if disciplinary action or further investigation of any employee is warranted.

“All disciplinary action necessary will be taken when appropriate,” she said. “Disciplinary actions are the responsibility of the city manager.”

Williams noted that the city transferred Waters to a different position last year. “Under the previous administration, Dan Waters was reassigned to Code Enforcement last calendar year,” she said. “As part of the consolidation efforts to save money, Code and Community Development Departments merged, and code became a division where he now resides.”

The local media has reported that Waters was temporarily suspended last year.

Meanwhile, Waters’ work at the development department is also being investigated by the state Fair Political Practices Commission, according to reports in The Sacramento Bee.

Vina said at an Oct. 12 City Council meeting that the FPPC had concerns about the city’s development department, although he did not mention Waters’ name.

FPPC Executive Director Roman Porter was unavailable for comment Thursday.

Waters did not return three phone messages left by The Sacramento Press Thursday afternoon.

Photo by Brandon Darnell.

Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.

Fixing FEMA violations costs city $350K

2010-11-17T06:07:05Z

The Sacramento City Council agreed on Tuesday night to shell out as much as $350,000 in general fund dollars to correct past violations of federal flood management laws.

City officials have acknowledged that Dan Waters, a Community Development Department staffer and the son of outgoing City Councilman Robbie Waters, broke Federal Emergency Management Agency rules when he provided 35 building permits to a developer in a Natomas flood zone last year.

Councilman Waters recused himself from the vote on the “corrective action plan” Tuesday night, while the eight other members approved it.

Fong said that it was important to support the action plan to send a message to FEMA to ensure that the city is in compliance with federal rules. However, he noted that the $350,000 is a significant amount of money to pay.

“It’s a really hard thing at this time in our budget life,” he said.

Nancy Ward, a regional administrator for FEMA, complimented city staffers for working with the federal agency. “I, certainly, from a federal agency perspective, have gotten the true meaning of the word ‘partnership‘ from this city in terms of their hard work and their tenacity ... in humoring FEMA through its challenging program requirements.”

The plan includes several steps the city must take. In Natomas, four partially built homes, one completely built home and a multi-car garage must be torn down, according to a city staff report. Two fire-damaged homes will receive private flood insurance paid by the city, said Department of Utilities spokeswoman Jessica Hess. The Community Development Department must also have a certified floodplain manager on staff, according to the report.

“We clearly made a very, very serious mistake,” Tretheway said.

Read the report and all the steps the city must take here.

Photo by Kathleen Haley.

Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.

Development department investigations continue

2010-10-13T05:53:37Z

The Sacramento City Council’s Tuesday-night discussion made it clear that the investigations of the city’s development department are not over.

Seven council members spoke at length about the Oct. 6 audit, which found that the Community Development Department broke city and state laws. Council members also indicated that they want to claim the money that the department failed to charge developers – a sum of more than $2.3 million, according to the audit.

Councilman Steve Cohn was absent from the meeting, and Councilman Robbie Waters recused himself from the discussion of the audit’s findings. Waters’ son, Dan, is a former employee of the department who was involved in an earlier investigation of the department.

The subject of the audit was the department’s work from fiscal years 2007 through 2010. Sacramento firm Sjoberg Evashenk Consulting, Inc. conducted the audit.

“I’m most concerned with making sure this won’t happen again,” Mayor Kevin Johnson said.

The City Council’s auditor, Jorge Oseguera, told the council members that the city attorney’s office will explore whether some of the $2.3 million can be collected. He said he would follow up with the council on that issue.

Councilman Rob Fong said collecting the money is “my No. 1 priority.”

Councilwoman Lauren Hammond said city rules need to apply to all developers equally. The department should not have a culture that allows a “good ol’ boy network,” she also said.

Interim City Manager Gus Vina indicated that disciplinary measures for department employees may be on the table. “As I look at the audit in great detail, I will take whatever disciplinary actions are necessary,” he told the council.

The City Council and city staff also discussed investigations of the department that are still under way.

Sandra Talbott, an attorney with City Attorney Eileen Teichert’s office, said the investigation into allegations of quid pro quo in the department is ongoing. The quid pro quo investigation is distinct from the audit, Talbott said. “It has not been concluded at this point.”

In response to a question from Councilman Ray Tretheway about continuing investigations, Vina said that the California Fair Political Practices Commission has concerns about the department.

In addition, Fong said the City Council should lead its own investigation into the department. He said he considered the audit to be “an important piece” of a City Council investigation.

Fong also said he wanted to explore the role of top managers in the past problems at the department. He did not specify names of current or former city officials in his comment.

“I’d certainly like to know what recourse we have against them, if any,” he said.

Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.

Photo by Brandon Darnell.

Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.

Development department audit raises questions

2010-10-07T00:26:55Z

An audit report stating that the city’s development department failed to collect more than $2.3 million in fees from developers raises a host of questions. The audit’s finding that city employees broke state and city laws makes the situation even more complex.

The audit, prepared by Sacramento firm Sjoberg Evashenk Consulting, Inc., investigated the department’s work from fiscal years 2007 through 2010.

“In summary, the weak system of internal controls allowed employees to disregard state and city building laws, codes, and regulations aimed at protecting the public’s health, safety, and general welfare,” the audit states.

Read the full audit report here.

The City Council is expected to discuss the audit’s findings on Oct. 12.

City Councilman Rob Fong said Wednesday that he will focus on obtaining the lost revenue to the city. The report’s findings are “outrageous and shocking and incredibly disappointing,” he said. “My priority is getting the money back.”

Interim City Manager Gus Vina on Wednesday answered a series of questions from reporters on issues relating to the $2.3 million in uncollected funds, violations of laws, the culture of the department and possible disciplinary actions.

Journalists from The Sacramento Press, Fox 40, KCRA, News 10, CBS 13 and Capital Public Radio posed the following questions to Vina at the Wednesday press conference.

Q: Do you find that these lapses were well-intentioned? Or, is there indication that there’s perhaps corruption involved?

Gus Vina: It’s difficult to answer that. Part of my job now is to look at some of the specific issues that the audit report has highlighted. I will need to dig a little further into that very question. We know at a minimum that because of the lack of rules and policies and the fact that the decision-making was being made at an extremely low level in the organization, we need to explore that very question.

Q: What is the likelihood that you’re going to get any of this $2.3 million back?

GV: We’re working with the city attorney’s office to answer that question. This is as fresh to us, really, as it is to you. So we need a little time to dissect it. But we are going to work with the attorney’s office on what can we do to go after some of the revenue that was not collected.

Q: As city manager, is it your hope that we might get some revenue as the result of this investigation?

GV: We will be as aggressive on that as the law allows.

Q: If the city had this $2 million, could any layoffs have been prevented in Fiscal year 09 or in FY 10/11?

GV: I suspect that we could have probably minimized some of the layoffs with the revenue having been collected. I think that what’s important to note is that when we look at staffing in Community Development, it’s not just the revenue that you look at ... it’s workload. The report spent some considerable amount of time looking at that workload. We’ve had over 70 percent decrease in some of our workload in Community Development. Obviously, this recession has had a profound impact on our business. And, so, we would have been in a declining mode in terms of our workforce two, three, four years, anyway.

Q: These lower level (employees) — why were they allowed to make these big decisions?

GV: Let’s talk about culture change for a minute. If you go back, say, three (or) four years, we brought in folks to Community Development to in fact look at the bureaucracy, and how difficult was it to work with the city on development projects. There was a lot of excitement created around a “Get the Customer to Success” theme, and looking at how we might streamline some of the processes. What this report is now pointing to, is that that probably went a little too far. The technology that was put in place ended up being too open to decision-making without policy in place. That’s the bridge now. We still want to provide good service to our developers. And we don’t need unnecessary red tape and bureaucracy. It needs to be streamlined. But the bridge to success here now is policy, training, and decisions that are consistent.

Q: Does this at all, in your mind, tarnish the legacy of Ray Kerridge? His big thing was “bring the customer to success” and make it easier to build and develop here.

GV: I respectfully am not going to comment on that. I’m not going to speculate on Ray Kerridge’s legacy, and I wish him well in Roseville.

Q: Will there be any disciplinary actions taken? And, if so, when...will the public learn about that?

GV: If, as I review the report, there’s a need to go down the disciplinary road, then I will certainly do that.

Q: Will that information be made public?

GV: Most of the time, personnel matters are not.

Q: The report though says flat-out that laws were broken.

GV: What you need to look at, is why were laws broken? And what I’ve read so far in the report is that it speaks to lack of policy that led to decisions that were inconsistent with the law. So, motivation is important. And that’s what we need to find out next — what was the motivation?

Q: Is it your opinion that the city attorney should look at these findings to see if any criminal charges should be brought?

GV: I will be working closely with the city attorney’s office and Labor Relations office as necessary.

Q: What does that mean?

GV: That means I don’t know enough to tell you whether there’s criminal charges or not. I would be speculating and I’m not going to speculate.

Q: When a low-level employee doesn’t comply with the law, how do you figure out if it’s their fault, or it’s the culture of the department and the fault of someone higher up? Or both?

GV: That’s exactly my next step: What was violated, what were the reasons and at what level? And the report has been pretty clear that decisions were being made at a low level due to lack of policy and procedures in place.

Photo: Vina and Councilwoman Lauren Hammond at the July 13 City Council meeting.

Photo by Brandon Darnell.

Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.

Development department audit out; $2.3 million uncollected

2010-10-06T20:34:07Z

An audit of the city's Community Development Department released Wednesday reports that the department did not collect more than $2.3 million in fees. The audit was conducted by Sacramento firm Sjoberg Evashenk Consulting Inc.

Read the audit here.

The Sacramento Press will provide further coverage of the audit.

Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.

Fernandez explains changes at city's development department

2010-09-11T01:20:42Z

Policies. Procedures. Controls.

Max Fernandez uses those three words frequently to describe the overhaul he’s leading at the city’s Community Development Department (CDD).

Fernandez, the new director of the department, sat down with The Sacramento Press this week to discuss how he’s changing the culture and tightening rules at the department after it faced a host of recent crises with fees and building permits.

The CDD director job was a promotion for Fernandez, who was the former director of Code Enforcement. He started work at CDD in early July.

“A big change that we’ve had since I’ve been here is we’ve implemented all these policies and procedures,” Fernandez said. “That was a big issue that the city manager’s office and City Council wanted to see.”

Fernandez took over the director job from Bill Thomas, who had been on paid leave for months before he resigned in March. In 2009, when Thomas was in charge, building permits for development in a Natomas flood zone were approved by a CDD staffer. The flood zone was under the jurisdiction of Federal Emergency Management Agency rules, which the staffer disregarded, according to city officials.

Fees and planning rules are linked to other problems at the department. Claims that the the department violated city planning rules and did not collect fees from developers are being investigated in a third-party audit. The audit from Sjoberg Evashenk Consulting Inc. of Sacramento is expected to be released in the next few weeks, according to City Auditor Jorge Oseguera.

On top of these problems, the landscape of the Community Development Department changed dramatically earlier this summer. In a budget-cutting move, city officials altered Code Enforcement to become a division of CDD. Several other departments consolidated, as well.

The city manager’s office and City Council members have said they want the department’s permit processing and fee collection to be “very regimented and accountable,” Fernandez said.

In response to their wishes, Fernandez said he’s working to tighten the rules at CDD. “We’re putting systems and controls in to make sure that people are processing the paperwork and permits appropriately and consistently,” he said.

The new rule changes represent a “cultural change” at the department, he said. He explained how the culture has shifted: “I think (it’s) the culture of having a policy and procedure, having something written down in black and white, whether it’s fees or processing paperwork, or processing a permit, is down in writing and there’s a way to do it ... without a lot of ambiguity, with a real clear direction on how this needs to be done. It just makes everybody’s job easier.”

Fernandez also said the department will pay attention to the results of the upcoming audit. The department is “going to use the audit as a map to make sure that we’re on the right track, that we’re going in the right direction, that we’re making the changes that need to be made ... and that if anything is identified that we don’t know about, that we go ahead and effect these changes.”

Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.

Council OK's infrastructure study

2010-08-18T17:54:45Z

The Sacramento City Council agreed to fund a $150,000 study of downtown's infrastructure Tuesday night.

The purpose is to collect up-to-date information about the core's aging and sometimes outdated infrastructure and identify improvements needed to eliminate obstacles to the kind of infill development outlined in the city's 2030 General Plan and the Downtown Activation Strategy. It was adopted by the council in January.

The study is needed to make sure downtown is primed for the development and investment that's expected as the economy picks up. The data also will help the city apply for state and federal funding. An R Street infrastructure study done years ago has been used to get funding and begin infrastructure work to encourage development there, said Sheri Smith, senior project manager with the Economic Development Department.

"When you have some downtime and in a down economy, it's a good time to prepare yourself for the future," Smith said. "Right now is the time to do the study. Then it becomes a really useful tool for potential projects as the uptick happens."

The need for infrastructure upgrades can turn out to be a costly obstacle to redevelopment. Detailed, current data is crucial to developers in the early stages of planning and financing, especially for projects in downtown Sacramento. Getting financing is easier if developers know what kind of infrastructure work is needed in advance.

"Most development projects don't know that until (further) down the line," she said. "If it's a big enough ticket item, it could kill a project."

For instance, the cost of adding a transformer for a downtown building — sometimes required by the Sacramento Municipal Utility District — is $500,000 to $1 million. Recent downtown projects such as the 800 J Lofts and light rail additions have uncovered a "spaghetti" of different pipes and other utility services. Some infrastructure wasn’t expected, and others were missing, City Councilman Ray Tretheway said earlier Tuesday.

"Downtown's pretty old. So some of our infrastructure is extremely outdated," said Tretheway, whose district includes part of downtown. "The surprises are very expensive. This will be a real asset to anybody who's considering reinvesting in downtown. We can show them up front what we have for them in the way of services and what we don't have for them."

The council agreed to have Nolte Associates, Inc., determine the condition and capacity of existing sewer, water, electrical and telecommunications systems, as well as streetscape and historic infrastructure for the area from I to N streets and from Third to 15th streets.

While some of downtown's water and sewer pipes have been replaced recently, a significant amount is at least 80 years old, according to the utilities department.

Streetscape needs, which include streets, sidewalks and alleys, and historic infrastructure including buildings and underground sidewalks, would also be mapped so developers can know how they might impact certain projects. H Street won't be included to keep the study cost down.

The company's analysis will include expected costs and priorities for scheduling upgrades.

Five companies submitted bids to handle the study. A committee made up of staff from the Economic Development Department, Community Development Department and the Department of Utilities chose Nolte, which performed an R Street infrastructure study for the Capitol Area Development Authority.

Funding will come from the Community Development Department's Shovel Ready Sites Program as part of the Downtown Activation Strategy. The council approved funds for that project last October.

Nolte is expected to begin the study immediately and be completed by spring 2011.

Photo Credits: Aerial photo by Eric Whalen. Sacramento night scene by Kati Garner. K Street infrastructure work photo by Suzanne Hurt, a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.

River District plan unveiled

2010-08-05T05:24:44Z

The city of Sacramento's Preservation Commission on Wednesday got the first look at a draft of the new plan intended to guide redevelopment of the River District north of the central city.

Commission members gave the first round of feedback Wednesday evening to the city's Community Development and Economic Development departments, which led the multi-department project encompassing about three years of work. The draft River District Specific Plan was unveiled online last week.

Commissioners were concerned with proposals to allow 250-foot hotels along the Sacramento River, demolishing the state's printing plant building without exploring its historic landmark eligibility and the need to consider whether a section of North 16th Street could be a registered historic district.

"It concerns me (there could be) a Miami Beach wall of buildings right next to the water ... and a lost opportunity to connect with the river by building a wall of buildings," Commissioner Melissa Mourkas said.

The plan addresses zoning, infrastructure, circulation, parks and open space, historic preservation and urban design within the district. The plan is an update to the renamed Richards Boulevard Area Plan, adopted in 1990 and last revamped in 1994, said Project Manager Evan Compton with the Community Development Department.

A revised plan was needed to allow for parts of the industrial-zoned area to be rezoned for mixed-use development and to incorporate planning changes contained in other plans adopted more recently, including the Railyards Specific Plan. That plan included a new street network and relocated a future regional transportation facility from North B and North Seventh streets to the downtown railyards, near the existing train station.

Staff is recommending city officials allow height changes in the district that would allow buildings up to 250 feet high in two limited areas, the first in a transition area from the Railyards along North B Street and the other in a hotel zone along the river adjacent to the planned Powerhouse Science Center. Public access to the river and viewing decks would have to be included in the hotel zone if such height were allowed, said Greg Taylor, a senior urban designer in the city's Community Development Department.

"We don't see this as a district that would compete with downtown," he said.

They also propose allowing new buildings up to 45 feet high in the historic district, where buildings average 25 to 30 feet high. The idea would be to allow one or two stories for retail and possibly a third story for housing to "invigorate" development without too much building height or pushing up land values, he said.

The plan also calls for a new historic district tentatively called the North 16th Street Historic District, a "ribbon" of parks and a "Two Rivers Trail" along 2.6 miles of riverfront, a street grid connecting through the future Railyards development to downtown and beyond, pathways for pedestrians and bikes, and a range of housing, employers and entertainment. City staff expect the number of housing units could grow to more than 8,000, and the number of hotel rooms could triple by 2035, Compton told the commission.

New buildings would need to be designed to be consistent with existing architecture, in keeping with the city's general plan and design guidelines. Redevelopment of historic buildings would have to protect the character of the buildings, Taylor said.

"We see the opportunity for adaptive reuse within the district to be quite strong and quite exciting," he said.

The roughly 748-acre district has been dominated by warehouses, industrial businesses and distribution centers, especially for produce, that became established near the confluence of the American and Sacramento rivers, railroad tracks and the adjacent highway. The area was largely isolated for years because it was bounded by rivers and river levees on two sides and the old Southern Pacific railyards to the south. Motels, as well as shelters and other services for homeless people, also sprang up in the area.

The district has grown to include office buildings and city, county and state government agencies, retail and wholesalers, and a small amount of housing, 386 units containing about 600 people. The area has seen change in recent years, especially after Seventh Street was extended from downtown into the River District in 2004. Over the next 25 years, retail and office space would be expected to triple in size, industrial would shrink, and parks and open spaces would grow from 16 acres to 55.5, according to the plan.

A new light rail line is being constructed to link downtown with the River District and, eventually, the airport. Three transit stations are expected to be built. Construction of a temporary Greyhound terminal is expected to start this fall. Other construction plans include a mixed-use area called Township 9 on Richards Boulevard and the conversion of the historic Pacific Gas & Electric power station into a $50 million riverfront science and space museum.

Mourkas and Commission Vice Chair Karen Jacques, who chaired the meeting, agreed with Sacramento Old City Association board member Bill Burg's concern that the plan calls for demolishing the state printing plant to allow construction of a new street grid before determining whether the building could be registered as a national, state or city historic landmark. The general plan's guidelines on preservation and sustainability seem to require such a determination, Jacques said.

"If the building is a potential landmark, we need to discuss that first...before we decide to demolish it," she said. "So we stop filling our landfills with the bones of buildings that might really be used for adaptive reuse."

The plan's draft is scheduled for review and comment at three more public meetings: the Parks Commission at 7 p.m. Thursday; the Planning Commission at 5:30 p.m. Thursday, Aug. 12; and the Design Commission at 5:30 p.m. Wednesday, Aug. 18. City staff are taking comments until Sept. 9.

Staff also said they plan to present information about the historic district and recommended landmarks to the Preservation Commission in October. A consultant has recommended the city pursue getting individual buildings, such as the Pipeworks Building — which holds a climbing gym —listed with the National Register of Historic Places, rather than an entire district.

However, Commissioner Tim Brandt and Jacques encouraged city staff to consider the benefits of trying to get the entire district listed if it's eligible.

The final plan is expected to go before the Sacramento City Council in November.

Graphics provided by city of Sacramento Community Development Department. Suzanne Hurt is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.

Bottling water: City report Thursday

2010-08-03T00:39:36Z

On Thursday, Sacramento planning department staff will recommend against requiring a special land use permit for water and beverage bottling companies.

However, city officials and staff will continue to consider creating tiered water rates that could take effect in 2012 or sooner.

Staff from the city's Community Development Department will report to the City Council's Law & Legislation Committee, in response to requests made by council members Kevin McCarty and Lauren Hammond involving Nestlé Waters North America last October.

Bottling plants are permitted in zones approved for light industrial, heavy commercial and heavy industrial businesses in Sacramento. A staff survey found that conditional use permits, which are subject to approval from planning commissions and city councils, aren't required by 28 other California cities with at least one bottling operation. Nestlé operates in only one other city on the list.

"Planning staff finds that a beverage bottling facility is not unique in its water consumption when compared to other commercial and industrial uses and the land use impacts of the use in an industrial zone do not warrant the need for a special permit," staff wrote in a report to the committee.

Officials with the city's Department of Utilities have indicated they'd like to collect water-use data and hire a water rate consultant to help develop a tiered water rate fee structure.

Such data could be available by 2012 as 45,000 residential water customers — about 36 percent of residential clients — transition to metered water rates, according to the report.

McCarty said he will press to implement a tiered structure before 2012 when he soon meets with the city manager's office and utilities department.

"The real issue is what do we charge for our water?" McCarty said Monday. "Water is an increasingly valuable and diminishing commodity, and we ought to be making smart decisions on what we do with our municipal water."

The City Council was not involved in the decision to approve Nestlé opening a plant in McCarty's district in South Sacramento.

The council discussed the plant for the first time Oct. 27 after McCarty and Hammond proposed an emergency ordinance to consider amending the city's zoning code to immediately require a special permit and thus, environmental review, for bottling companies to operate in the city. McCarty also recommended the council consider tiered water rates for such companies.

City Attorney Eileen Teichert told the council that night Nestlé's plant was legal under the city's zoning codes and that a special permit requirement wouldn't apply. At the same time, the Community Development Department's Facilities Permit Program was suspended after the council and city officials learned work had started on the Nestlé plant without a formal building permit or a start-work authorization.

Save Our Water Sacramento, a group formed to oppose the plant, had sought a temporary City Council moratorium on beverage bottling plants in Sacramento at that time.

Hammond, who is on the committee, could not be reached for comment Monday.

The City Council's Law & Legislation Committee meeting will be held at 3 p.m. Thursday at City Hall, 915 I St.

Suzanne Hurt is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.

Max Fernandez promoted to lead Community Development Department

2010-07-10T04:14:49Z

Max Fernandez, former director of the city’s Code Enforcement Department, has been promoted to lead the Community Development Department.

In one of several recent consolidations of city departments, Code Enforcement became a division of Community Development.

Fernandez started his new post July 6.

A third-party firm is auditing the department. Auditors from Sjoberg Evashenk Consulting Inc. of Sacramento are analyzing numerous issues at the department, including claims that it broke the city's planning rules and did not gather fees from developers.

“Obviously, there have been issues” at the department, Fernandez said Friday.

The department is working on a plan to retrain its employees, he said. The plan also will cover “the cultural change” process, Fernandez said, and the logistics of moving Code into Community Development.

Interim City Manager Gus Vina has said the department needs to change its culture. The city’s slogan, “Get the Customer to Success,” was “somewhat misunderstood” by the development department, he said at a May 17 Neighborhood Advisory Group meeting.

Fernandez said the results of the audit, which may be completed in September, will be a key part of reshaping the department.

The audit will “give us some ideas on where we need to fix up things that were not going as well as we hoped,” he said.

Bill Thomas, previous director of Community Development, resigned from his post in March and had been on paid leave for months before that. During his watch, a staffer approved building permits in a Natomas flood zone last year. The city said the staffer broke federal rules.

David Kwong, who recently served as acting director of the Community Development Department, will stay with the department. He manages the department’s planning division.

Photo by Brandon Darnell.

Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.

My experience building the Bulls downtown

2010-07-05T21:53:59Z

Building in the inner city – the old Midtown athletic club racquetball court – is headed toward becoming another of Sacramento’s popular inner city entertainment areas.

April Fools’ Day – what a day for a permit or project to begin.

The business owner had already posted her liquor license application about 60 days prior and received several letters in protest for which she had started the stressful mitigation process*.Once the conditions imposed by the Alcoholic Beverage Control were met, based on a few neighbors concerns living in one multi-unit Victorian apartment building— six units maybe – located behind the business in the predominantly commercial corridor of downtown. ( 1300 H street across from Brew it up & city parking garage )

BTW , this occurs after spending a good sum of money on a very detailed set of architectural drawings by DC Architects, bidding the project out, massive value engineering to fit budget restrictions, Then choosing and awarding the build-out to a contractor(me). And, lest I forget, paying planning review fees of $1,479 (and two more fees later in Plan of $140 each), building permit fees of $3883.80, sewer impact of $3878.40**, county health fees totaling $1,758, $1,500 to fire for flow testing and analysis, flush testing fees... It was time to start.

April 1 was a Thursday, and anticipating the arrival of the permit, I had already arranged for the concrete to be cut in this 1960s concrete tilt-up.

Friday morning, we discovered the secrets below the 1960s-era slab. (Mr. Burg or someone may be able to tell us what was once on this site.) We found huge old footings under the existing slab (approx. 6 feet in diameter and more than 6 feet in depth — we never saw the bottom, all of which came at the expense of the plumber and I (in our desire to move forward rather than fight for a change order etc.) had to be mitigated.

By Tuesday we were laying underground pipe; by Friday we were calling for inspection, pouring back concrete and cleaning up the site all weekend as to be ready for framing on Monday the 12th. Yee Haw! Up with the steel studs, rough electrical and plumbing.

As with all projects, there were many weird issues. We value-engineered the removal of the upstairs storage area for a project savings of about $20,000 or more. Because of this change, we needed to resubmit plans—Eeek. The architect and I headed to the Development Services Department.

It was 9am. We arrived and spoke with Ed Oswald, the recent appointee in place of Dan Waters. We needed to highlight and remove anything on the plans referring to the removed storage area, make copies, then get signatures from all disciplines.

We had the paper portion done by 11:30 or so yet still needed copies and signatures. Plan review is only open from 1-3 p.m. After lunch, we met with Mr. Oswald again. He was awesome . He made us copies, arranged for the individual plan reviewers to each come to the counter, review, and sign. I paid my $140 review fee, and by 3 p.m. we were back in business and ready for rough wall inspection by late in the third week of April.

I was fortunate with the inspections. I beleive I have a good relationship with most of the inspectors. It is obvious I don’t know them all, but most of the downtown folks for sure.

It’s my first building inspection at this location, and it’s a sheetrock nail inspection on a firewall (splitting the building in half, which needed to be complete and signed off on prior to our framing inspection, which was a day or two away).

The inspector, David Philips, took out a tape measure to ensure there were 8 inches between screws.I was not feeling good about our first encounter, yes , panic was setting in ( BTW there were 6 screws on every short side of the drywall sheets) I continued to show Phillips the rest of the project, my areas of concern and seek counsel on those areas, inform him of my upcoming schedule, and he signed off. Whew, first meeting survived!

After he left, the whole crew immediately asked what I did to make him so mad he would pull a tape measure on a drywall inspection. I played it off and went on in good faith.

We got the rough walls inspected by the 23rd, electrical and plumbing within the next few days, and then it was off to drywall (another sheetrock inspection with no tape measure this time ).

The balance of the project went pretty normally, had some issues with the sprinkler and monitoring system, as this was contracted with the building owner, and there were some conflicts in schedules as well as inspections on existing equipment, etc.

I had to submit for fire approval on an upgraded monitoring system, which took place on the Monday after the Thursday I had spent getting the resubmission of the removal of the storage area.

After getting fire sign-off on the monitoring system, I receive a bill for the plan review of $140 along with a second charge of $140. I question the second charge. The second charge according to Mr Oswald (once again the man in charge of the counter) said it was “From when you were here last week. We forgot to bill you.”

Hmmmm really ? I paid the bill and got back to work.

Things were progressing well, and it was on to finishes. Reclaimed lumber from the old cannery being demolished in the Township 9 Project was acquired and used.

I established a relationship with the owner of a mechanical bull manufacturing company and learned all about the equipment aspect (It uses a 10-horsepower electric motor running a Weg hydraulic pump) and the fine art of operating and riding a mechanical bull.

I discovered the little Knox boxes that house keys for the fire department are $300 and can only be acquired through one distributor with the fire department’s authorization. I also had a visit from three city staffers all doing the designer stare at the front of the building.

Sites, Crouch and Sanchez – all three deciding how and where the sign would look best (I never knew they were designers too).

In summary, the permit was pulled on April 1. We had our fire sign-off on June 15, which could’ve happened almost a week sooner had we gotten an earlier appointment from AT&T for the phone lines for the fire alarm.

That’s 75 days from start to finish for construction. Impressive, huh? I am impressed, and I would like to say it is due to my aggressive work ethic and talented crew. However, I am writing this to acknowledge all those in the Development Services Department (which has been abused lately in the press) who truly helped me every step of the way.

Yes, the architect’s willingness to be so attentive to help mitigate every change or surprise requirement was huge, but just as much so was the willingness to educate me and my subcontractors in exactly what was needed to get everything passed and signed off quickly and efficiently by DSD staff. (Mr. Philips is now a valued asset, not a scary measuring tape wielding inspector).

Yes, Sacramento has a lot to learn about helping business owners do business in our city. However, the DSD has some fantastic folks who are very helpful, and I want to thank them as well as tell others that despite the cutbacks and bad press, overall we have great DSD staff we can be proud of.

*This process is so scary for an owner; an entire business plan’s success or failure (someone’s lifelong dream, not to mention life savings in many cases) can hinge on ABC restrictions that can come from neighbors’ complaints (20 or one) or police department concerns, etc. Additionally, by the time a business owner gets to the point of posting, he or she has, in most cases, already signed a lease with a building owner or bought a building, as well spent thousands on a liquor license, building designs, architectural plans and other entitlements.

**Another weird, kinda-unknown is sewer Impact fees. They have to do with what was there before you as well what and how much you are going to be putting into the sewer. The fees are big: for a new small coffee shop, for example, they can be as much as $9,000. However, the city and its Economic Development Department in their wisdom and grace can also issue credits based on your economic impact to the city (e.g. how many employees and how much sales tax revenue is generated). There is a great guy (Trevor) there to assist in the calculation of these credits, thus your net fee.

Development department audit may be ready in September

2010-06-29T04:13:20Z

An audit of the city's Community Development Department could be finished in September, said Kurt Sjoberg, one of the consultants working on the project.

Sjoberg Evashenk Consulting Inc. of Sacramento is carrying out the audit of the department. Auditors from the firm are tackling numerous issues at the department, including claims that the department broke the city's planning rules and did not gather fees from developers. The City Council voted to hire Sjoberg in April.

In a June 10 oral report to the city’s audit committee, Oseguera said the Sjoberg auditors are developing findings that they think will be “very useful to the city.” Oseguera declined to elaborate on that statement Monday.

When the auditors finish their work, they will issue a report, Oseguera said. He noted that the report will be made public.

If the report contains concerns about city employees, those issues would be communicated to the appropriate city department, Oseguera said.

One of the roles of the city's Labor Relations Department is to address disciplinary measures for employees.

When the report is complete, the city's audit committee will discuss it, Oseguera said. Then, the committee will likely send the report to the City Council for the council's consideration, Oseguera said. The audit committee is comprised of four council members: Steve Cohn, Ray Tretheway, Lauren Hammond and Robbie Waters.

Details of the audit will not be released until the report is complete, Oseguera said.

A separate investigation led to the audit. City Attorney Eileen Teichert and the law firm Renne Sloan Holtzman Sakai investigated city building permits that were approved last year for a Natomas flood zone. Witnesses from that investigation made claims about further issues at the department, according to Teichert. Those issues are now being studied in Sjoberg's audit.

Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.

Vina: Development department employees to be re-trained

2010-05-18T06:10:09Z

The city’s development department will face a culture change, according to Sacramento Interim City Manager Gus Vina.

Employees at the Community Development Department will go through a re-training process, Vina told residents Monday at a Neighborhood Advisory Group meeting in Midtown.

The development department has been immersed in controversies in recent months. Employees will be informed about the results of a third-party audit when it is complete, Vina said.

An outside firm is examining claims that the department let developers sidestep fee payments to the city.

“All the employees need to be very aware of the audit findings” and the culture for the department that the city wants, Vina said.

The city’s slogan, “Get the Customer to Success,” was “somewhat misunderstood” by the development department, Vina told neighborhood activists.

That slogan was promoted by former City Manager Ray Kerridge, who is transitioning to a new job as Roseville’s new city manager.

Outside the meeting, Vina added: "Customer service needs to be consistent with good policy."

Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.

Roseville mayor on city's decision to hire Ray Kerridge

2010-05-07T01:55:33Z

After resigning from the city of Sacramento in March, controversial former City Manager Ray Kerridge did not travel far for his next major assignment: He’s now the city manager of Roseville.

The Roseville City Council chose Kerridge for the position Thursday in a 4-1 vote. Kerridge was the choice out of 63 candidates for the job.

Roseville Mayor Gina Garbolino said in an interview Thursday that Kerridge is the “right person for Roseville at this time.”

Various Sacramento officials offered differing reasons in February for why Kerridge decided to leave the city. Sacramento city spokeswoman Amy Williams said Kerridge resigned from his post because he had dedicated more than 35 years to public service and felt it was a good time to transition to a private sector position.

Meanwhile, Mayor Kevin Johnson said Kerridge’s resignation was in part due to a negative atmosphere at City Hall. At a Feb. 18 press conference, Johnson and City Councilman Robbie Waters blamed other council members for creating a hostile work environment and complimented Kerridge on his work for the city of Sacramento.

Johnson admitted to being partly to blame for the negative atmosphere among City Council members.

The city was also facing significant controversies with its Community Development and Utilities departments at the time of Kerridge’s resignation. When Kerridge was leading the city, Sacramento was in trouble with both the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Sacramento County Grand Jury. The city acknowledged it broke FEMA rules by allowing building permits in a flood zone in Natomas.

The Grand Jury has claimed that actions by the city’s Utilities Department violated state law Proposition 218.

And, the Sacramento City Council recently hired a third-party auditing firm to examine whether the city has been allowing developers to bypass fee payments in recent years.

Attempts to contact Kerridge through the city of Roseville Thursday afternoon were unsuccessful.

Reacting to Kerridge’s new move, Mayor Kevin Johnson said in an e-mail through his spokesman that the city of Sacramento is operating in a “broken system.” While Johnson did not specifically mention a “strong mayor” form of government would be the cure, he is leading an effort to give the mayor more power in Sacramento.

"Unfortunately, this news is the latest example of why we need to reform City Hall,” Johnson said. “Ray's resignation was a major loss to Sacramento, and I remain troubled by the atmosphere at City Hall that likely played a role in his decision. We can't afford to keep losing our best people because of a broken system.

“Our loss is Roseville's gain. Ray will further the city's already impressive work to create jobs and foster a positive business climate. I congratulate Ray on his new role and wish him well," Johnson said.

Roseville’s Garbolino acknowledged that Kerridge had faced controversies in Sacramento.

“We knew what was in the paper,” Garbolino said, noting that there are “other sides of stories.”

Garbolino said the Roseville City Council conducted an extensive search that included input from 150 city employees. City employees and community members said they wanted their new city manager to have vision, leadership skills and an attitude of quality customer service, Garbolino said.

Kerridge was the best candidate, Garbolino said. “Obviously, he has a reputation for customer service.”

Garbolino noted that her city adheres to laws. “Roseville has always followed the book,” she said. “We don’t veer from that. That’s non-negotiable.”

Councilman Waters said in an interview Thursday that Kerridge made major improvements to the city of Sacramento’s development department when he oversaw it. Kerridge’s move to Roseville is “a great loss to the city of Sacramento,” Waters said.

At its May 19 meeting, the Roseville City Council will decide Kerridge’s salary and determine his first day of work, according to Roseville's website. Kerridge earned $215,000 as Sacramento's city manager.

Photo courtesy of the city of Roseville.

Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.

Sacramento Zoo looks for new home

2010-04-30T04:47:29Z

Residents gathered Wednesday evening at the Hart Senior Center to find a new home for the Sacramento Zoo. After 83 years, the zoo is looking to ditch its current Land Park location in order to gain more space. The two most probable locations are Sutter’s Landing and the Natomas area.

Merely 14 acres in size, the current zoo doesn’t allow for expansion. Many of the animals—including elephants, rhinos, polar bears and cheetahs—had to be relocated to different zoos because of the small size of the enclosures in Sacramento. In order to keep their accreditation with the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, the zoo has to keep up with the changing standards of the association by continuously updating its current animal exhibits.

Despite the fact that collection of animals at the Sacramento Zoo is shrinking, the staff has had to gradually raise admission fees to $11 due to construction costs associated with updating the exhibits. Mary Healy, director and CEO of the zoo, said, “We can’t be a $30 zoo with only 14 acres.”

One option being explored is relocating the zoo to Sutter’s Landing, an area that used to be a landfill that now holds a small community park with river access. The Sutter’s Landing Feasibility Study, conducted to decide if the park would be a good place for the zoo, concluded that the location would not be suitable.

Scot Mende, new growth manager at the Community Development Department, said the current road running into the park, B Street, is not clear or safe for the amount of traffic that a new zoo would bring because of the big hill and railroad tracks it features. A new roadway and freeway exit could cost more than $100 million.

The cost of construction in a former landfill area can also cost the zoo an extra $30 million on top of regular construction prices. It could also take an additional 17 years for the methane in the east end of the park to settle. All these factors combined make the probability of building a zoo at Sutter’s Landing decrease immensely. “Doing anything is a lot more difficult when it used to be a landfill,” City Councilman Steve Cohn said.

Other locations were discussed as possibilities. One was the Natomas Joint Vision Area, a 10,000-acre location currently being planned with an allocation of open space, something the zoo may be able to fit into. The city-owned, 100-acre area north of Arco Arena, where a partially built River Cats stadium now stands, was also discussed, as well as an area of the Job Corps site in Meadowview that may get surplussed in the next few years by the federal government.

Expanding the zoo at its current Land Park location is unlikely. Healy recognized that the zoo is landlocked. “Our best option is to look for a new site,” she said. A City Council resolution passed in 1988 determined that the zoo’s current boundaries within Land Park will remain as its permanent boundaries.

But the topic was still explored. Healy suggested a possible way of expanding the zoo would be to get rid of the “spaghetti” streets outside of the zoo and replace them with a roundabout, exchanging asphalt for space while improving traffic and making school bus drop-offs a lot easier. Healy also talked about creating a separate entrance for a café and gift shop to let patrons explore those areas without paying for zoo admission, as well as creating a round-trip train stop that would run from Old Sacramento to the zoo.

The senior center, located at 915 27th St., was filled with over 60 concerned citizens of the Sutter’s Landing area. Residents worried about increased traffic, as well as a possible disruption of the natural wildlife at the river. Like many Sutter’s Landing residents, Stella Meaney, of Friends of the River Banks, emphasized the importance of the river as a natural asset. “We want the environmental, the ecological, the animals,” Meaney said. “What a great asset to have a stretch of river that’s wild.”

The next community meeting about the zoo’s future will be held at 7 p.m. July 1, at the Parnell Community Center, 2450 Meadowview Rd., with another tentative meeting slated for mid-summer. The Sacramento Parks and Recreation, Community Development Department, and the Sacramento Zoological Society hope these meetings will help them gain public feedback on the different options explored so far.

Sacramento's Business or Monkey Business

2010-04-23T06:52:09Z

Sacramentans participated on Wednesday to discuss the Sacramento Zoo's plans: Should it relocate or find a way to improve its current location? The meeting was held at the Belle Cooledge Center in Land Park, and hosted by the Sacramento Zoological Society, the Community Development Department, and the Parks & Recreation Department.

The meeting was the first in a series intended to obtain feedback. The main topic was the Sutter's Landing Feasibility Study, a proposed relocation of the zoo to Midtown. The majority of Sutter's Landing, which is only accessible from the 28th Street entrance, is owned by the city of Sacramento. Other parts of Sutter's Landing are occupied by the Blue Diamond Company, SMUD, an 172-acre landfill, and the Harbor Sand and Gravel Co.

"Harbor Sand and Gravel would have to be acquired or move sites" to execute the Sacramento Zoo's relocation, said Scot Mende, new growth manager for the Community Development Department.

Mende also said that in order to have a successful zoo, "park access needs to be fairly obvious." Keeping the current entrance to Sutter's Landing for zoo use would overwhelm the city, imposing on a quiet corner of Midtown. The Sacramento Zoo receives more than 500,000 visitors per year. The city proposed a new exit for Sutter's Landing from Highway 160 if the zoo were to relocate. It is estimated a basic execution will cost $17 million. However, if the city decided to make a more attractive and welcoming exit for the zoo, it could cost anywhere from $40 to $80 million.

In addition to the cost of a new entrance, construction of the zoo is estimated at $625,000 an acre. Mary Healy, director and chief executive officer of the zoo, estimated that 100 acres will be needed for a world-class zoo. That means a cost more than $30 million for 50 acres. The high cost of construction is partly because of the required reinforcement of Sutter's Landing's ground, the result of years of landfill compost settling. Seattle's newly expanded Woodland Zoo, considered world class, requires $8 to $10 million a year simply to cover daily operations.

Other relocation areas also were discussed at the meeting, including the 10,000-acre Natomas Joint Vision Area, an area 100 acres north of Arco Arena that is the site of the first, partially-built River Cats Stadium, and the Job Corps site in Meadowview.

There is also the possibility of expanding the current location, although it is hemmed in. A map at the meeting showed how close the zoo is to Fairytale Town, Funderland Amusement Park, the William Land Park Golf Course and Holy Cross School. The zoo occupies a 14-acre lot, so any modifications would have to be modest. One downside to the zoo is an inability to house larger animals. Past expansions were responsible for the reduction of the primate exhibit and the zoo's lost of its rhinos and bears.

Healy contacted the Urban Land Institute for options on improving the current site. Small adjustments were suggested because there was no room for grander moves. The zoo has "no intention of violating the integrity of Fairytale Town, the ball fields, or the golf course," said Healy. Possible improvements include a "friendlier" entrance with a cafe/souvenir shop that would be separate from the zoo and open earlier, a train stop for the zoo that would be accessible from Old Sacramento and turning the stop in front of the entrance into a roundabout so school kids could be dropped off. The bus stop now is across the street, requiring thousands of kids a year to cross the street.

After the speakers representing the city and zoo finished their presentation, they turned the floor over to the public for what became an emotional forum. At one point, residents called the zoo's proposal a mere extension of a board proposition made 22 years ago. Several of the 90 people in the audience approached the front to make their voices heard.

Scott Rose Craig Powell, vice president of the Land Park Community Association, said that "even though the zoo lost some of their bigger animals, their attendance hasn't suffered." The LPCA is against the zoo's expansion because it could move into nearby parks. Rose Powell said it was former Mayor William Land's wish, for whom the park is named, to use the area for the "recreation sport of children and a pleasure ground for the poor." The zoo, which began as a free park, was meant to be used by all. Rose Powell concluded by saying, "If you put a wrought-iron fence around 40 more acres, you will have done a great violence to the will of William Land."

The next community meetings about the feasibility study will be April 28 at 6 p.m. in the Hart Multipurpose Senior Center, 915 27th Street, and June 3 at 7 p.m. at the Robertson Community Center, 3525 Norwood Avenue.

City Council unanimously agrees to hire consultant for audit

2010-04-23T05:06:17Z

Sacramento consulting firm Sjoberg Evashenk Consulting Inc. will audit the city’s Community Development Department, the City Council decided Thursday.

The vote to hire the firm was unanimous. Four candidates were interviewed by city staff for the job.

Jorge Oseguera, city auditor, wrote in a report to the council that Sjoberg was the “highest ranking competitor and most responsive bidder.”

The city will pay Sjoberg as much as $66,424 for the audit, according to Oseguera’s report. That amount is within the auditor’s budget, Oseguera said.

The idea of hiring Sjoberg drew criticism from some of Mayor Kevin Johnson’s critics.

In recent comments on The Sacramento Press, the mayor's critics claimed that the audit would be compromised because the law group Bell, McAndrews and Hiltachk has been a client of Sjoberg’s firm. Thomas Hiltachk, managing partner at Bell, McAndrews and Hiltachk, wrote the strong mayor initiative.

Johnson led the campaign in support of the initiative, which was thrown out in a January ruling by Sacramento County Superior Court.

But Oseguera said in an interview Tuesday that Sjoberg does not have a conflict of interest.

After reading the comments by Johnson's critics, Oseguera talked to Kurt Sjoberg and Marianne Evashenk. They said their work for Hiltachk’s law firm was not related to the strong mayor initiative and was completed years before Hiltachk worked with Johnson on the measure, according to Oseguera.

Earlier this week, Sjoberg said his firm had not worked with Hiltachk’s group since 2004.

Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.

Johnson critics raise concerns about consulting firm, audit

2010-04-21T03:12:57Z

Critics of Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson are raising concerns over a consulting firm’s ability to conduct an objective audit of the Community Development Department. But City Auditor Jorge Oseguera said Tuesday that Sacramento firm Sjoberg Evashenk Consulting Inc. does not have a conflict of interest.

Oseguera will ask the City Council on Thursday to hire Sjoberg to conduct the audit. Some of Johnson’s critics pointed out in comments on The Sacramento Press that Sjoberg has worked with the law group Bell, McAndrews and Hiltachk. That group's managing partner, Thomas Hiltachk, wrote the strong mayor initiative.

Johnson would have obtained more authority from the initiative, which was struck down by Sacramento County Superior Court in January.

In their comments, Johnson critics Marion Millin and Rhonda Erwin urged residents to ask their representatives on the City Council to reject Sjoberg for the auditing job.

“I sent my letter to my council member and I also sent it to additional council members,” wrote community activist Erwin. “I've asked each to read — in full — your comments and how a vote for this firm for the CDD Audit is more than concerning.”

Oseguera said he read the comments and then spoke with Kurt Sjoberg and Marianne Evashenk about the concerns that were raised.

“I thought it would be prudent to follow up and make sure everything was in order,” he said in an interview Tuesday.

Sjoberg and Evashenk said their work for Hiltachk’s law firm was completed several years ago -- before Hiltachk worked with Johnson on the strong mayor initiative -- and was not related to it, according to Oseguera.

Johnson spokesman Joaquin McPeek said the hiring of the third-party auditing firm will be conducted openly. "Fortunately for the city, this will be a very transparent, open and accountable process."

Sjoberg declined comment on the concerns that were raised, saying that questions should be directed to Oseguera.

He did say, however, that the last time his firm worked for Bell, McAndrews and Hiltachk was in 2004.

Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.

City Council may hire firm for CDD audit Thursday

2010-04-17T01:24:39Z

The city auditor’s office will ask the City Council Thursday to hire a consulting firm to audit the Community Development Department.

City Auditor Jorge Oseguera’s office wants the auditing job to go to Sacramento firm Sjoberg Evashenk Consulting Inc.

In a report to the City Council, Oseguera wrote that Sjoberg is “the highest ranking competitor and most responsive bidder.” City staff interviewed four candidates for the job.

Oseguera proposes that the city pay up to $66,424 to the firm for the audit.

The City Council is scheduled to decide whether to hire the firm Thursday.

Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.

Part 1: Neighborhood questions for Interim City Manager Gus Vina

2010-04-13T06:10:15Z

The Sacramento Press has gathered questions from neighborhood activists for Interim City Manager Gus Vina. In an April 9 interview, The Sacramento Press asked Vina to respond to questions from six neighborhood activists.

Here are Vina’s responses to questions from three citizens involved in neighborhood issues. Check The Sacramento Press Wednesday for more of Vina’s responses to neighborhood-related questions.

Question from Sacramento resident Karen Jacques:
What can (Vina) tell us about the ongoing investigation of the Community Development Department? Does he know when that investigation will be complete and how much of it will be made public? (Are there) any other comments he can make about it?

Interim City Manager Gus Vina:
It’s really an audit now, not an investigation. And that audit is being managed by our new city auditor. (City Auditor Jorge Oseguera) [is] in the process of making a final selection on an audit firm. And how long it takes — I don’t know yet ... Whatever comes out of (the audit), obviously we’re going to get right on top of implementing any recommendations that make sense for the city.

Question from an Alkali Flat resident:
I would like to know if (Vina) supports and will help to implement a downtown exclusive franchise for commercial garbage hauling. Supporting such a bid for one hauler downtown will likely result in reduced commercial garbage service rates and provide more efficient service — such as one or two days a week service rather than the current pattern of heavy trucks on our roads five days a week.

GV:
First of all, I’m not going to get ahead of the mayor and council — and it’s really their policy call at the end of the day .... And, the issues we’re trying to solve are not hauling all the way to Nevada ... and all of the green issues that are related to that.

It’s still a little early in the process, and we’ll be going to the council with a recommendation on how can we save money — which translates into better rates for our customers — and it will include a very good discussion on the commercial side of the hauling.

Question from Sacramento resident LaTisha Lawson:
(The) elimination of so many programs and resources (is causing) stress and strain on my Sacramento families. How is the city working with other agencies or encouraging departments to partner to continue to provide needed services?

GV:
Obviously, the entire world is in a huge economic slump. I would say we really need to focus and understand that this is an issue not unique to just Sacramento — this is a global issue. The Sacramento region is suffering considerably — when you look at a 13 percent unemployment rate. So, we’ve got a lot of people out of work. We had one of the worst foreclosure rates in the nation. We’re one of five states that have the biggest budget problems at the state level.

So, we have plenty of challenges here that are going to have an impact on services. And, we will do our best to continue to provide (the) services that we can. But I can guarantee you, it won’t be everything that we’re doing today. We have a budget to balance as well.

In terms of working with other agencies, we are actively working with the county on any consolidations or efficiencies that we can develop by working together. Of course, the focus is to continue to provide services at the best level that we possibly can. But it is important for the community to understand that there will be service-level impacts.

Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.

Claims of unpaid fees raise questions about past layoffs

2010-04-07T02:30:48Z

Claims that the city’s development department did not retrieve fees from developers in recent years have raised questions of whether some of last year’s layoffs could have been avoided.

At one point last year, the city had a $50 million budget gap. The Community Development Department was hit with 27 of the city’s 102 layoffs, according to economic development spokesman Maurice Chaney.

Sacramento is now struggling with a $35 million-$40 million budget hole for the 2010/2011 fiscal year.

A third-party auditor will investigate claims that the development department waived, undercharged, deferred or did not retrieve development fees, City Auditor Jorge Oseguera said.

In a phone interview last week, City Councilwoman Sandy Sheedy asked whether the possibility of unpaid fees could be linked to the situation last year that resulted in layoffs.

“We laid off a lot of city staff,” Sheedy said.

An official with a union that represents city employees also connected the two issues of layoffs and claims of unpaid fees. Joan Bryant, director of public employees for Stationary Engineers Local 39, said the union is seeking more information about fee issues at the department.

Photo by Anthony Bento.

Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.

City keeps quiet on claims of quid pro quo at department

2010-04-06T03:41:12Z

The city attorney’s office is not providing information on how the city will respond to claims of potential quid pro quo in the development department.

Allegations of possible quid pro quo at the Community Development Department were mentioned in a Jan. 26 report from the offices of the city attorney and the city manager.

But it’s unknown when an investigation into the allegations may begin.

In a Monday e-mail response to questions from The Sacramento Press, City Attorney Eileen Teichert referred to the claims of possible quid pro quo as a “personnel issue.” She indicated in her response that some information about the issue may eventually become public depending on whether the city takes disciplinary actions.

Questions for the city attorney

The Sacramento Press asked Teichert the following questions in an April 2 e-mail:

Which body will investigate that issue (the potential quid pro quo)? When will the investigation (of) this issue begin? Will information from the investigation be made public? If not, why?

Teichert’s response

Teichert responded to the above questions in an April 5 e-mail:

"Pursuant to Council direction all matters meriting further audit or investigation, that did not involve personnel issues, were provided to the City Council. I understand that the third-party auditing firm (yet to be selected) will be tasked with looking at these matters provided to the City Council. The timing for such audit is unknown and the results will be public.

"As for personnel issues, the City cannot divulge information regarding any such investigation, as to do so would compromise the investigation and would infringe on the subject's rights of privacy. At such time as the investigation is complete and if findings are made resulting in discipline, the nature of the discipline and a description of the basis for imposing the discipline will be make public."

Making sense of CDD investigations

The possible quid pro quo is among several issues that may affect the department, according to the Jan. 26 report.

The city has taken a variety of responses to numerous issues at the department. It may be helpful to break down recent city actions to understand the issues.

To begin with, a city employee last year gave permits to K. Hovnanian Homes to build in a Natomas flood area, according to a Dec. 15 letter Teichert’s office sent to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Teichert’s office and Renee Sloan Holtzman Sakai, an outside law firm, investigated that issue. City officials have admitted that the employee’s decision broke FEMA rules.

Then, several more issues were mentioned in the Jan. 26 report on the Teichert and Renee Sloan investigation of the building permits problem. These issues included the possible quid pro quo, claims of unpaid development fees and problems with the department’s culture, among other concerns.

City officials released a 2,529-page document on the issues March 25. A third-party auditor will investigate the issues in the document, according to City Auditor Jorge Oseguera.

But the status of the possible quid pro quo concern remains unclear. Teichert’s e-mail to The Sacramento Press indicates that many details surrounding that issue will not be made public.

At a Jan. 26 City Council meeting, Assistant City Manager John Dangberg and Courtney McAlister, an attorney for K. Hovnanian Homes, both said there was no quid pro quo between Hovnanian Homes and the city.

Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.

Access doc on development department issues here

2010-03-31T20:22:52Z

The Sacramento Press has made a 2,529-page document on issues at the city’s Community Development Department available to the public.

Members of the public can download the entire document here.

City officials released the document on a compact disc March 25. Issues addressed in the document include the noncollection, waiver, underassessment and deferral of developer fees. Other issues mentioned in the document relate to the department’s culture, a possible violation of the California Environmental Quality Act, claims that development projects began before city procedures were completed and possible violations of planning rules.

The document includes information about the following developers:

John Saca, Towers on Capitol Mall, LLC

Bob Leach and Captain’s Table Hotel LLC

Kobra Properties, Abe Alizadeh

500 Capitol Mall LLC and George Tsakopoulos

Ose Properties, Inc. and Doug Ose

Tarik Taeha, S360 Development Services

Nathan and Erica Cunningham

Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.

Sheedy, McCarty ask if city can collect unpaid developer fees

2010-03-31T04:55:31Z

At least two Sacramento City Council members don’t want to let bygones be bygones when it comes to fees that the city’s community development department may not have collected from developers in recent years.

Council members Sandy Sheedy and Kevin McCarty said Tuesday that they want the city to see if it can retrieve unpaid fees from development projects that took place in the past few years.

Sacramento City Attorney Eileen Teichert released a 2,529-page document last week containing claims about the department’s noncollection, waiver, underassessment and deferral of development fees.

The discussion of fees takes place as the city faces a $35 million-$40 million budget gap.

McCarty said in an interview that waivers on fees should be decided by the City Council. “We shouldn’t have staff somewhat arbitrarily doing these fee waivers.”

The city should find out if it can retroactively collect the fees, he said.

Sheedy made a similar comment, saying that the the city should wait on results from an upcoming third-party audit and then examine if it can gather the fees.

The issues presented in the document will be investigated by an outside auditor. City Auditor Jorge Oseguera said he is holding interviews later this week with prospective third-party auditors.

The City Council will be involved in the process of hiring the outside auditor, according to Oseguera. He said he hopes to have an outside auditor starting in May.

The document released last week also includes other concerns aside from fee-related issues. Among other issues, the concerns involve the culture of the department, a possible violation of the California Environmental Quality Act, claims that development projects began before completion of city procedures and possible violations of planning rules.

Teichert noted in a media statement last week that her office has not investigated the information presented in the document.

The information in the lengthy document comes from witnesses in a separate but related investigation, according to Teichert. That investigation was concerned with building permits approved for a Natomas flood area.

Developers mentioned in the document include:
John Saca, Towers on Capitol Mall, LLC
Bob Leach and Captain’s Table Hotel LLC
Kobra Properties, Abe Alizadeh
500 Capitol Mall LLC and George Tsakopoulos
Ose Properties, Inc. and Doug Ose
Tarik Taeha, S360 Development Services
Nathan and Erica Cunningham

Photo by Anthony Bento

Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.

Attorney issues 2,529-page document on development department issues

2010-03-26T05:10:22Z

A series of issues at the city’s Community Development Department — including the noncollection, waiver, underassessment and deferral of fees charged to developers — are presented in a 2,529-page document the city attorney’s office released Thursday.

The document is an offshoot from a separate investigation by City Attorney Eileen Teichert’s office and the law firm Renee Sloan Holtzman Sakai.

In that investigation, Teichert and Renee Sloan examined city building permits that were approved last year for a flood zone in Natomas. As they investigated that issue, they discovered other issues at the department. These issues are the subject of the lengthy document released Thursday.

City officials made the document available to the media in the form of a compact disc Thursday. In a written statement to the media, Teichert clarifies that the document presents information on the new issues, but her office has not investigated them.

"The records relate to 16 development projects that witnesses in the Natomas Central investigation brought to the attention of the city attorney’s office as having issues meriting further review," Teichert wrote. "These records were provided to the city attorney’s office during the investigation or previously by CDD and other city staff.

"The city attorney’s office has neither investigated any of the issues nor independently gathered records regarding these projects, except to download certain records from the CDD building permit database Accela."

The document claims that fee issues surround development projects including the Towers on Capitol Mall, a mixed-use project; A-1 U-Stor on Stockton Blvd., a self-storage project; Le Rivage Hotel on Riverside Blvd.; a Sonic drive-through and TGI Friday’s restaurant on North Freeway Blvd; the Natomas Landing project in North Natomas; and the Villa Terrassa housing development at Abramo Walk and Monaldo Walk.

The document also describes other concerns at the department aside from fee-related issues. Among other issues, the non-fee related concerns involve the culture of the department, a possible violation of the California Environmental Quality Act, claims that development projects began before completion of city procedures and possible violations of planning rules.

A third-party auditor is expected to investigate the issues in the document.

The Sacramento Press is planning further coverage of the issues discussed in the document. In addition, staffers with The Sacramento Press are examining methods of uploading the 2,529-page file to make it available on the website.

Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.

Post-Kerridge: Will development department change?

2010-03-14T22:11:39Z

Sacramento’s business community has said repeatedly that former City Manager Ray Kerridge established a customer-service culture in the city’s development department. At the same time, the department is wracked with investigations into possible breaches of laws. Now that Kerridge has left the city — March 11 12 was his last day of work — how will the culture of the Community Development Department change?

New leadership and the findings from an audit are two upcoming developments that may change the department. The recent resignations of Kerridge and department director Bill Thomas have created job openings.

At this point, both positions are being held by interim officials. Gus Vina is interim city manager; David Kwong is acting director of the Community Development Department.

A third-party audit of the department is on the horizon. An outside auditor will follow up on issues from an earlier joint investigation by City Attorney Eileen Teichert’s office and the law firm Renee Sloan Holtzman Sakai.

The auditor will analyze several issues identified by the Teichert/Renee investigation. They include possible violations of the city’s planning rules and possible decisions to bypass, delay or lower fees.

A Jan. 21 report from the offices of the city attorney and the city manager on the Teichert/Renee investigation also listed “potential quid quo” in the department as an issue that should be studied in more depth.

The Teichert/Renee investigation centered on another highly controversial issue: the 35 permits that the department approved last year for construction in a Natomas flood zone. The Jan. 21 report said a department employee broke federal rules by distributing the permits.

The city placed former department director Thomas on paid leave in October. He resigned March 1.

A Customer-Friendly Culture

The department had a poor reputation among developers before Kerridge’s arrival in 2005, according to a March 28, 2008 Sacramento Business Journal article. In 2003, members of the local building industry said in a Business Journal survey Sacramento's building department was the most problematic of all similar city and county departments in the area. Five years later, the industry said in the survey that Sacramento's building department was the area's best.

Kerridge served as assistant city manager for development before being promoted in 2006 to city manager.

Despite the department’s crises, Sacramento developers have praised Kerridge for his work to establish a customer-focused culture.

Developer Mark Friedman was one of the members of the business community who invited Kerridge to leave his job with the city of Portland and come to work for Sacramento.

“I think (Kerridge) did a great job,” said Friedman, whose company, Fulcrum Property, owns Arden Fair Mall. “He streamlined the building department processes and made the organization more customer-friendly than it had been.”

Richard Rich, development director for Thomas Enterprises, Inc., expressed a similar sentiment in a Jan. 25 comment on The Sacramento Press. Thomas Enterprises is developing the downtown Railyards.

“This department isn’t perfect but its people, including Bill Thomas, deserve credit for creating a culture of public service,” Rich said.

Elected Leaders Praise Customer-Service Attitude Toward Development

Mayor Kevin Johnson and several City Council members also applauded Kerridge for his customer-service framework at a March 9 council meeting. Their comments indicate that there is political support to maintain the customer-service environment at the Community Development Department.

“And this whole notion of ‘getting the customer to success’ is something I think we’re all proud of,” Johnson told Kerridge at the March 9 meeting. “And that’s going to be with us, Ray, for many years to come.”

Some council members, though, are running for re-election. Depending on the results of their races, they may not have much time to make decisions affecting the department. The City Council incumbents running for re-election are Ray Tretheway, Steve Cohn and Robbie Waters.

Councilwoman Lauren Hammond is running for Assemblyman Dave Jones’ seat against fellow council member Kevin McCarty. Sacramento County Supervisor Roger Dickinson also is running for the seat. Hammond will leave the City Council.

McCarty’s seat is not up for re-election.

Hammond and Waters praised Kerridge for his work revamping the culture of the department. Waters said Kerridge “turned (the department) around” in a short period of time.

Councilwoman Bonnie Pannell commented that developers were Kerridge fans. “It’s obvious by the developers — who really want to keep you here — that you changed the way Sacramento does business.”

Councilwoman Sandy Sheedy spoke of Kerridge’s view of city growth. “You taught us how to look at this city as something that could grow and be something bigger,” she said. “And it can be, and it will be.”

Cohn said Kerridge led the customer-service culture change in city government, which is a forward-looking approach.

The errors that people may point out in Sacramento’s government “have been errors of trying to be proactive,” he added.

In his speech to the City Council, Kerridge said the business community has been “a great source of strength” for him.

Like Johnson, Kerridge thinks greatness is in store for Sacramento.

“Sacramento has a destiny,” Kerridge said. “Its destiny is to become a great American city.”

How Do Top City Staffers View the Department?

Interim City Manager Gus Vina will run the department for nine months to a year, at which time a city manager will be named.

Vina told The Sacramento Press last week that he is interested in the permanent city manager position.

He said his priority will be on “best practices and a culture that gets the job done.”

Assistant City Manager John Dangberg said in a March 12 interview that the department can simultaneously help builders and abide by laws.

“Our level of customer service for people who want to invest in our city is of paramount importance,” Dangberg said.

The city wants to ensure that it’s adhering to laws and that buildings are safe, he said.

Meanwhile, Vina said in a March 9 interview that the upcoming audit of the department will be key to the next steps for the department. “We definitely need to regroup,” he said. “We don’t want to go to a bureaucracy that ... doesn’t deliver for the customer. But if the audit says, by the way, you got a little too loose on policy ... we’ve got to bring that back to the middle.”

He said the city needs to examine the audit’s findings, then ask: “Do we need to change rules? Are they too loose? Are they too tight?"

Photo of Mayor Kevin Johnson and city council members by Anthony Bento.

Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.

Jorge Oseguera becomes the new city auditor

2010-03-10T05:58:17Z

The city auditor’s office — vacant for nearly a year — has been brought back to life.

Mayor Kevin Johnson and three council members announced at a Tuesday morning press conference that Jorge Oseguera is the city's new internal auditor.

Most recently, Oseguera was a senior program performance auditor for the city of San Jose. He began work at the city of Sacramento Monday.

“I think the audit function is an essential element of the public’s accountability, and I look forward to meeting my objectives in meeting the public’s accountability,” Oseguera said.

He also said he would participate in preparations for an upcoming audit of the Community Development Department. The investigation will be conducted by an outside auditing firm.

The three council members — Robbie Waters, Lauren Hammond and Steve Cohn — joined Johnson to praise Oseguera.

Waters explained that the city received applications from about 12 people for the auditor position. After an interview process, the committee selected three candidates for in-depth consideration. At that point, the committee asked the entire City Council to weigh in on the three candidates, according to Waters.

Oseguera was "hands above all the candidates," Waters said.

Cohn, chair of the City Council’s audit committee, pointed out that Oseguera will be the first auditor for the city of Sacramento to be supervised by the City Council. The former auditor, Marty Kolkin, reported to the city manager.

Kolkin resigned from his position in May to accept a new job in Santa Monica.

Council members decided last year that the City Council — not the city manager — should supervise the city auditor. During a meeting in April, council members said that it would be a more transparent process for an auditor to report to the City Council, rather than the city manager.

“We look forward to working with Jorge to make sure we have the most efficient operations possible and that our citizens -- our taxpayers -- can have confidence that we are running a tight ship,” Cohn said.

At San Jose, Oseguera investigated building security, grant oversight and debt management, among other areas, according to that city’s website.

Oseguera earned his master’s degree in public administration at Syracuse University and his bachelor’s degree from California State University, Stanislaus.

Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.

City Council to address Natomas permits investigation

2010-01-24T00:25:23Z

An investigation into the Sacramento development department’s approval of building permits in a flood zone will be considered by the City Council on Tuesday.

City Attorney Eileen Teichert and a third party-law firm, Renee Sloan Holtzman Sakai, have been investigating the Community Development Department’s decision last year to greenlight 35 building permits in a Natomas area regulated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. At the Tuesday meeting, the city attorney’s office will make a presentation on the investigation.

Teichert’s office acknowledged in a Dec. 15 letter to the FEMA office in Oakland that the city broke federal rules by authorizing the permits.

Councilman Steve Cohn noted that the approval of the permits appears to be a “very limited issue,” not part of a widespread pattern.

Recommendations for how the city can prevent similar situations in the future may be part of Tuesday’s discussion, Cohn said.

Robert Graswich, special assistant to Mayor Kevin Johnson, said the mayor believes the city should work with FEMA and protect the city’s best interests. Graswich said city personnel did not intend to break rules, noting that “any transgressions were minor and certainly unintentional.”

The City Council’s Tuesday meeting starts at 6 p.m. and will be held at 915 I St.

Photo by Anthony Bento.

Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.

Facilities Permit Program raises controversy

2009-12-16T06:09:39Z

Questions and concerns — as well as support — have been raised over a city of Sacramento planning and building department program suspended after it was illegally used to fast-track the Nestlé water-bottling plant.

The little-known Facilities Permit Program came to light in late October when Nestlé's renovation of a South Sacramento warehouse was temporarily halted and a city investigation revealed work had started without legally required building permits.

Many people, including those criticizing some aspects of the current building approval process, said city staff have worked hard in the last few years to become more developer-friendly by improving the building approval process and resolving issues with developers earlier in their projects, which is especially needed for urban infill projects.

The FPP is intended to speed up approval for tenant improvements or renovation of existing buildings by businesses already established with the city.

Developers view the program as an "entrepreneurial" effort between development professionals and city Community Development Department staff to accelerate the building approval process, said Michael Heller, who transformed a former state agency building into the MARRS Building on 20th Street.

"It's overall a very worthy, innovative program. If there are some modifications to make it better, we would all support that," Heller said. "But we certainly would not like to see it disbanded."

While builders praised the FPP for streamlining and hastening the building approval process, others expressed confusion over the program, how it works and who benefits.

Chief among those expressing concerns was former Mayor Heather Fargo, who said she knew nothing about the program, which was adopted while she was mayor, until the city suspended it Oct. 27. During her administration, she was not aware of city staff giving the kind of verbal approval that was used to expedite the water-bottling plant without a formal building permit, which is illegal.

"Not with my knowledge and not with my support. I find it outrageous," said Fargo, who said she would have required the FPP be put on the city council agenda and discussed publicly if she'd known anything about it.

"It's a very public process — development is. It should be," she said.

Several people, including architects and developers who have worked on infill projects, said they didn't know or understand the FPP.

"I don't think anybody is familiar enough with that program — including the city itself," said one person.

Under the FPP and a similar program known as the Matrix, one team or building inspector is put in charge of a project from the beginning of a builder's effort to win a building permit. The Community Development Department's building division reviews construction plans, provides feedback and approves building permits.

"This program is designed to expedite the plan review and permitting process to facilitate a timely process," according to the department. "The most significant differences between the FPP and the normal building permit process is the ability to begin a project at the time of plan submittal and perform inspections with concurrent plan review, by using a team doing both the plan review and the inspections."

Those eligible to participate in the FPP have included building owners or management companies, tenants and contractors, according to the department. Participants must register each year. The size and cost of a project or building has no impact on participation, according to the department.

While mayor, Fargo had supported creating "permit-free" zones in areas that desperately needed to be redeveloped, but not without public knowledge, she said. She also worked to get the "pain" taken out of the building approval process for small business owners after her own experience in the 1990s. She and her husband, a general contractor at that time, had to go through more than 100 people who gave conflicting directions to get a permit to build a small shop and driveway on commercial property in North Sacramento.

Some business owners have given up on business projects in the middle of building approval processes that were going nowhere, she said.

Others who have opened businesses in rehabbed buildings within the last two to three years said their businesses were in danger of failing because of the costly delays and other problems involved in getting permits from the city. Some would not talk on the record for fear of retribution by city staff, they said.

"You put some people through hell and other people don't even have to get a permit? It's ridiculous," Fargo said. "It sounds out of control to me."

Some criticized the city for not issuing permits in a "rational" way.

"We have been concerned with what we've seen for years as a real disparity — a grossly unlevel playing field in terms of how the city handles different kinds of applications. People who are well-connected and have lots of money behind them get lots of favors, and have for years, even before the FPP," said one source. "On the other side, folks who aren't well-connected, who don't have a lot of money behind them... cannot get the city to issue them a permit for the simplest things.

"The FPP seems like a way of formalizing this verbal-agreement approach that has been going on for awhile," according to the source."You don't want it to be a free-for-all where the guys who have the juice get whatever they want and the other people get screwed."

Working through the FPP, the Swiss company Nestlé and its local contractors began construction work on an existing warehouse at 8670 Younger Creek Drive with only verbal approval from a building inspector who coordinates the program. The contractor, Panattoni Construction, is a participant in the FPP, rather than Nestlé, said David Kwong, acting head of the Community Development Department.

"Plans were submitted and verbal approval was granted on this project because of the plan's limited scope (i.e., work only included demising walls and pluming in an existing building)," according to information provided by the department.

Building permit applicants must pay fees to support the FPP and inspectors' time. Nestlé has paid $175,494 in fees for all three phases of the warehouse renovation, according to the Community Development Department.

Nestlé's water-bottling operations are expected to begin in January. The company had protested the stop-work order by saying the city's established process had been followed. The stop-work order was lifted in three business days.

Before the program was suspended, all FPP participants were given start-work authorizations or verbal approval as soon as plans were submitted to the city, as long as the work would not impact buildings' structural integrity, according to the department. The work was later inspected for compliance with city and state building codes.

While state law may not prohibit verbal approvals from replacing building permits, California Building Standards Commission Executive Director Dave Walls said he's not aware of any cities that allow building inspectors to issue permits verbally or in the field.

"I don't know of any local administrative procedures that would permit such a thing," he said. "Most will say you don't start work until you get a permit."

Various state agencies have oversight and can cite for violations of state code regarding the building of homes, schools and hospitals. The state legislature hasn't given any agency, including the Building Standards Commission, the power to enforce codes for commercial construction, Walls said.

Under state law known as the California Building Standards Code, the use of a phase permit program to fast-track a project is done so at the applicant's risk. Permits may be issued for phases of a project before another phase is designed or approved. But the applicant — not the approval-granting agency — takes all the risk for any work done before full approval is given for the entire project, Walls said.

Developers and other business people — including those who recruited Ray Kerridge as an assistant city manager — have met in recent weeks to strategize how to support the FPP and Kerridge, who brought the program from Portland and is now the city manager.

Developers once ranked the city of Sacramento as the worst place to do business in this region. Projects were stymied by the involvement of numerous departments with different agendas, which made developers feel like "a mouse on a treadmill," said Sotiris Kolokotronis, who developed the L Street Lofts.

"By 2005, it (Sacramento) was one of the best places to do business," Kolokotronis said. "I saw in the city some really good things happen."

Developers who seek a speedier process to renovate buildings or make tenant improvements under the FPP know they still must build to code and be in line with the building permit, and that they are assuming all financial risk, Heller said.

"I think that's fair," Heller said. "If a developer is going to benefit from an expedited process, they have to be willing to take that risk."

Suzanne Hurt is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.

McCarty: Questions must be answered

2009-11-13T05:15:33Z

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.

City staff seek building code changes

2009-11-10T05:27:54Z

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.

Mayor clashes with city staff over Nestlé decision-making

2009-10-27T20:12:53Z

Mayor Kevin Johnson said the city’s order to halt construction work at the plant Nestlé plans to use for a water-bottling operation is bad for business in Sacramento.

Johnson has praised the jobs that Nestlé will bring to Sacramento, while Councilman Kevin McCarty opposes the plant's plan to bottle and sell water from the American River. Councilwoman Lauren Hammond has also raised concerns about Nestlé's plans.

The city’s Community Development Department placed a stop-work order on Friday on two phases of construction at 8670 Younger Creek Drive, the plant’s site. The city is checking to see whether Nestlé broke any of the city’s permitting and building laws. Nestlé said it has not violated any laws. In fact, Nestlé is saying the city may be taking illegal action with its stop-work order.

Read staff reporter Suzanne Hurt's Oct. 26 story to learn more about the details of the stop-work order.

Johnson told reporters at his Tuesday press conference that he was concerned that the city is “changing the rules” with Nestlé as it carries out plans to set up the plant.

“What concerns me is we can’t create an environment where we do not look like a city that’s friendly to business,” Johnson said. “We’ve got to create a business climate that makes sense."

Johnson pointed out that he was not informed of the Community Development Department’s decision to release a stop-work order. “I didn’t get briefed on this work order that was stopped,” Johnson said. “I didn’t hear about it until sometime yesterday.”

Photo by Anthony Bento.

Staff reporter Suzanne Hurt contributed to this report. Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.

City To Demolish Landmark "Bel-Vue" Building

2009-07-03T21:28:18Z

The city of Sacramento has announced its plans to demolish the Bel-Vue Apartments, a registered city landmark, in order to clear land on 8th Street for a potential future parking structure.

Located adjacent to the now-vacant corner of 8th and K Street, the Bel-Vue was built in 1910 as the American Cash Apartments. Built in the Craftsman style with Asian overtones, the three-story brick building contains apartments above a commercial ground floor. When the Bel-Vue was built, it was one of many downtown apartment buildings. If it was built today, the Bel-Vue would be described as a mixed-use, transit-oriented infill project. The building is currently owned by the city of Sacramento’s housing and redevelopment agency, the result of a complex land exchange between Mohammed “Mo” Mohanna, Z Gallerie owner Joe Zeiden, and the city of Sacramento. This land exchange was part of the currently stalled plans to rehabilitate the 700 block of K Street.

The city’s plan is to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) containing two possible alternatives for buildings to be built on the site, and then demolish the existing buildings. One alternative is a pair of residential towers 300 feet high, running from K Street to L Street along 8th, originally proposed by former owner Mohanna and developers John Saca (of the failed 301 Capitol Mall project) and John Lambeth. The other alternative is a 300 foot hotel tower at the corner of 8th and K, currently vacant, and a six-story parking structure on the site of the Bel-Vue and the other buildings at the corner of 8th and L. There is no developer or investor specified in the EIR notice of preparation; the city of Sacramento plans to create the EIR and demolish the Bel-Vue and nearby buildings on speculation, in case a developer appears who is interested in constructing the buildings the city has proposed for the site.

When the city of Sacramento acquired the Bel-Vue building and its neighbors, it was an occupied apartment building with several retail tenants on the ground floor. There were also commercial tenants in the adjacent buildings, and apartments above most of those buildings. The city of Sacramento evicted the residents, and today only one retail establishment, a Chinese restaurant, occupies the Bel-Vue, aside from a parking garage in one of the buildings facing L Street.

All of the buildings on the site have a role in local history. 815 L Street, constructed in 1915, was most recently the site of a nightclub of the same name. In 1957, the site was one of the original Sam’s Hof Brau locations. The side of the building, invisible from the street, still bears a painted mural advertising Sam’s. La Rosa, an Italian restaurant opened in 1927, occupied the site before the Hof Brau. On the corner of 8th and L is the Feldhusen Building, a two-story building with ground floor retail and residences upstairs. It was built in 1895 and remodeled in 1954. It was home to many businesses including grocery stores, dressmakers, and the Diamond Club Tavern card room.
Buildings like the Bel-Vue were once commonplace in Sacramento, but over the years they have become very rare.

Today, some developers seek out historic buildings for residential projects, converting them into modern apartments or condominiums. Local companies like D&S Development (http://www.dandsdev.com) have completed projects like the Old Sacramento iLofts and 1409 R, and are now restoring the historic Maydestone Apartments at 16th & J Street. Architect Mike Malinowski, contractor Bruce Booher and CFY Development helped convert the Globe Mills grain mill complex into unique residential lofts. At the Railyards, developer Thomas Enterprises will make the historic Southern Pacific shops buildings the focal point of a new downtown neighborhood. Other adaptive reuse projects like the Citizen Hotel, MARRS, the Cosmopolitan and the Firestone Building show how vacant historic buildings can be made into exciting, unique urban destinations. Projects like these are often more popular than newly-built projects because they offer one-of-a-kind places to live, work and play in an urban setting. They appeal to those who want to be close to the action of the central city and their downtown workplaces, or just like the unique character of historic buildings. Instead of demolishing the Bel-Vue, the building could easily be repaired and returned to its role as a place to live, with businesses on the street to serve downtown’s residents. Restoration of historic buildings is also a greener option than new construction, as it needs far fewer building materials and requires far less landfill space (where the demolished building’s components would end up.) If sales of recent projects like the 1409 R lofts (opened in April and already two-thirds sold) are any indication, these projects are popular even in slow economic markets, while urban infill projects in new buildings are far less successful. Historic buildings can also qualify for tax credits and other incentives that can make rehabilitation cheaper than demolition and new construction. In the right hands, the Bel-Vue could be a gorgeous, attainable new home for Sacramento’s residents for another hundred years.

In recent years, the city of Sacramento has seen many proposed projects fail to materialize. The failure of projects like John Saca’s 301 Capitol Mall towers at 3rd and Capitol resulted in ugly, gaping pits in our city’s urban fabric. Projects like the 700/800 block, bogged down by unexpected resistance and a poor economy, sit languishing, waiting for a better plan to appear. Projects that encourage the demolition of landmarks encourage speculators to allow their historic downtown properties to sit vacant, deteriorating for years or even decades, with the hope of an eventual skyscraper-shaped payoff that may never arrive. More forward-thinking developers could turn the same buildings into Sacramento's urban showpieces.

No developer or investor has been named by the city to actually build this project or pay for it, and even if a developer and/or investor does arrive, if they want to make significant changes to the plan they would need to complete a new environmental document, making this effort worthless. The sacrifice of one of Sacramento’s irreplaceable historic buildings would be for nothing. And even if the city’s long shot is successful, and a developer does build the project, we will lose a historic landmark and a quarter-block of potentially useful buildings for a six-story parking garage in a neighborhood with many underutilized parking garages.

To give public comment about this issue, contact Jennifer Hageman of the City of Sacramento’s Community Development Department at jhageman@cityofsacramento.org or (916)808-5538. Written comments should be sent to Jennifer Hageman, City of Sacramento Community Development Department, 300 Richards Boulevard, Sacramento, CA 95811. Comments are due before 4:00 PM on July 27, 2009.

City's development department consolidated, renamed

2009-05-02T20:45:28Z

The city’s Development Services Department has a new name. It’s now known as the Community Development Department (CDD).

City records manager and acting spokeswoman Wendy Klock-Johnson explained that the new department brings together long-range planning staff and development services staff. The administrative change is an efficiency, she said.

The city’s 2009/2010 proposed budget includes a plan to move Planning Department employees. Under the plan, the Planning Department would move 26 full-time positions and $2.4 million to the new CDD “as part of the consolidation of planning services,” the budget states. Of the 26 positions, one is not funded and the remaining 25 are funded.

The new CDD includes the following services: planning, administration, customer service, building, infill and new growth.

Sacramento's City Council will address the proposed budget at its May 19 meeting.

Read more of Sacramento Press' budget coverage here.