Scamramento

10-29-09
Sacramento Bee
Sacramento let developers get jump-start before formal permits...Ryan Lillis
http://www.sacbee.com/topstories/story/2290221.html [1]
For three years, the city of Sacramento has allowed developers to start work on their projects before receiving formal permits.
The practice, covered by the controversial Facilities Permit Program (FPP), is now part of an expanding city investigation into the operations of its Community Development Department.
That investigation was launched after city officials said the son of a city councilman improperly allowed new homes to be built in the Natomas flood zone – months before permits for those homes were issued.
Questions about the permit program surfaced this week after city officials determined that construction of a new Nestlé water bottling plant was permitted to start with a verbal approval and authorization letter – and not a formal building permit.
As a result, the FPP program was suspended Tuesday.
City Attorney Eileen Teichert said at Tuesday's City Council meeting that current work on the Nestlé plant began weeks before the building permit for the work is scheduled to be issued Nov. 10.
"Under the city codes, that include the building code, the city requires that a building permit be in place before you do the work pursuant to that permit," Teichert said.
Acting city development director David Kwong told The Bee on Wednesday the practice of allowing construction to start before permits are issued probably violates city code.
He said projects under FPP are issued permits only after building inspection. He insisted FPP "is a good program" that "can be fixed with minor retooling."
Nestlé's current phase of construction – which includes work on the plant's electrical and utilities systems – was allowed to move forward under a verbal approval and an "Authorization to Start Work" dated Oct. 7, according to city officials and documents.
Kwong said Nestlé complied with city building regulations and was operating under FPP when it started construction last month.
"We were in full compliance with the city's processes that were set before us," said Chris Kemp, the Nestlé plant manager.
Councilman Kevin McCarty said Nestlé had "followed our crazy, fatally flawed rule." He urged that FPP be a part of the investigation and audits of the city's development department.
The new homes in Natomas were not approved under the permits program, officials said.
"This may be good for developers to go to work quickly, but it raises serious questions about the integrity and legality of the process," McCarty said.
FPP models a program used to stimulate development in Portland, Ore. City Manager Ray Kerridge and development department head Bill Thomas, who is on paid leave because of the Natomas investigation, both worked for the city of Portland.
In Sacramento, FPP is designed to push along development of commercial and industrial facilities by allowing companies to begin work on multiple aspects of their projects with a single building department approval. Projects are still subject to inspections, plan reviews and permit requirements, although permits are issued when work is completed, Kwong said.
FPP had been operating without the knowledge of some council members and had apparently never been approved by the council, they said Tuesday. McCarty said the city had "opened up a can of worms with this FPP program."
City building officials placed a stop work order on the Nestlé project last Friday while an ordinance to regulate beverage bottling plants was considered by the City Council so building inspectors could examine the Nestlé project's progress.
The stop work order was partially lifted Wednesday after Teichert ruled the project was grandfathered in under the city code because work had begun there.
The proposed ordinance was sent to committee for study.
Officials said FPP will be among the issues examined during a third-party audit of the Community Development Department.
The audit will be a "top-to-bottom, side-to-side complete audit of the (development) department to ensure they are in complete compliance with the (city) code," Assistant City Manager John Dangberg said.
While a separate, more immediate investigation by an outside law firm will concentrate on the new home permits in Natomas, Teichert said the FPP also "merits looking at."
"The investigation will start with the narrow issue of the permits in Natomas, but we will make sure that as evidence is developed and persons are interviewed, that if it logically needs to expand into other areas, then it shall," Teichert said.
In the Natomas case, Dan Waters – a supervisor with the development department and the son of Councilman Robbie Waters – granted a request by homebuilder K. Hovnanian to build 35 new homes in Natomas, an apparent violation of a federally mandated building ban, according to city officials. The ban is in place while levees are improved in the area.
Waters, along with Thomas, has been placed on paid leave.
According to a memo written by Teichert, K. Hovnanian was granted permission to begin construction on the new homes in April, but permits were not issued until September. K. Hovnanian officials have said they had permission from the city when they started work on the homes in May. 
Editorial: City leaders see no evil, read no evil
http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/v-print/story/2289817.html [2]
The city of Sacramento has an unsung hero in the Natomas permit scandal.
It was a Utilities Department employee, still unnamed, who noticed that someone in the development department had approved permits for new home construction in the Natomas flood zone in April – though a federally mandated building moratorium had been in effect since last December. The employee also noticed irregularities with the fees.
That person did the right thing, contacting Assistant City Manager John Dangberg, the city manager and the city attorney. The next day they all met. They realized immediately that this could affect federal funding for Sacramento's levees and flood insurance subsidies. They contacted the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
The city attorney drafted a memo on the issue, which was hand-delivered to the mayor and council members, the city manager, the assistant city manager and the head of the development department.
But – and this is the most important part – the public never would have known about that scandal in the development department if someone hadn't leaked the memo to The Bee. It would all have been hush-hush.
Unfortunately, Mayor Kevin Johnson went out of his way to champion secrecy over disclosure. He went so far as to label the leak a "crime" and unsuccessfully attempted to hold a closed session to ferret out the leaker. The council was told Tuesday that disclosure of the memo was not a crime. No closed session.
But the mayor isn't alone in a penchant for secrecy. Council member Steve Cohn suggested at Tuesday's council meeting that the city attorney no longer should provide copies of memos to council members. Address issues in closed session, he recommended: "No copy given." Lauren Hammond chimed in, "Just don't put it in writing to us anymore."
Was that a directive to the city attorney? We hope not.
Don't council members want to have information before they meet on important issues? Don't they want to be able to read supporting documents, and think about them? Or do they simply want to make snap judgments on things without any preparation? This hankering after secrecy – urging the city attorney to dispense with documentation rather than face potential public disclosure – not only is harmful to good public decision-making, it is utterly impractical.
Just what are Cohn and Hammond afraid their constituents, the public, will find out? The council on Tuesday approved a good plan for an independent investigation of the Natomas permit fiasco (which could expand into other areas) and, separately, an audit of the development department.
The council, however, has far to go in demonstrating commitment to open government. Public officials should not keep information confidential merely because they might be embarrassed by it.
The utilities department employee acted appropriately in flagging the Natomas permits. And others did the same in making sure the larger public would learn about it.
What truly destroys confidence is punishing people who bring mistakes, missteps and mischief to light. The mayor, Cohn, Hammond and others on the council should know that.
10-9-09
Delta bill could drive up Sacramento sewage rates...Matt Weiser
http://www.sacbee.com/ourregion/story/2241614.html [3]
Sacramento officials worry that state legislation to reform management of Delta water could subject city ratepayers to steep new sewage-treatment fees.
The concern highlights the numbing complexity in water laws now being negotiated by California lawmakers.
At issue is whether the budding water bill, Senate Bill 68, will require the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District to pay for more rigorous treatment.
The last draft of the bill says nothing about Sacramento's treated sewage or even sewage effluent in general. But Sacramento officials worry it could nevertheless trigger a chain of events harmful to ratepayers.
"It would be a domino effect," said Stan Dean, chief of policy and planning for the sewer district.
The district collects sewage from the capital metro area's 1.4 million people, and discharges treated effluent into the Sacramento River at Freeport.
That happens to be near the planned location of several new intakes for a proposed water diversion canal. Once known as the peripheral canal, it would divert a portion of the Sacramento River's flow across the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta directly to state and federal water export pumps near Tracy.
Some 23 million Californians and nearly 2 million acres of farmland across the state depend on that water, which today is pumped from Delta channels. That supply has become increasingly unreliable due to vulnerable levees in the Delta and the estuary's environmental decline.
The canal would protect water diversions from natural disasters and isolate wildlife from the pumping systems.
But new canal intakes on the Sacramento River would alter its flow, effectively providing less dilution for treated sewage discharged into the river. This could cause the sanitation district to violate its effluent discharge standards, Dean said. That could then lead to a need for costly additional treatment.
"It would only be because of the location of a peripheral canal that we would have to do something different than we do today," Dean said.
The district has come under scrutiny over the past year concerning ammonia in its treated wastewater. Sacramento's effluent is the single largest source of ammonia in the estuary.
The chemical, a byproduct of human waste, is being studied as a possible contributor to disruptions in the Delta food chain. No clear connection has been proved.
The water bill neither authorizes nor prevents construction of a canal. It appears to leave that decision in the hands of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, a separate program designed to gain approval for the canal under the Endangered Species Act. But other programs in the bill might be triggered or influenced by the outcome of the conservation plan.
In a letter Oct. 2 to legislative leaders, the sewer district and other local water agencies said they want language added that guarantees all impacts to Delta-area communities are "fully mitigated." Dean said this is meant to include any ratepayer costs resulting from programs in the bill.
The letter also asserts that any costs to Sacramento's sewage system resulting from a new Delta canal should be paid for by those who divert water from the canal.
The letter was addressed to Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, who is leading negotiations over the water bills. Steinberg represents Sacramento, but so far it does not appear his local constituents are getting any special attention in the water debate.
Phil Isenberg, a former assemblyman representing Sacramento, wasn't surprised.
"He's the leader of the state Senate. He is obviously not just an elected representative of the Sacramento region," said Isenberg, who chaired a task force appointed by the governor to study Delta problems. "So much of water is about regional interests, regional antagonism. It's hard to get through all of that to the major public policy concerns."
Negotiators met again Thursday in an effort to reach legislative agreement on the water bills. It was unknown if Sacramento's concerns came up.
The water bill was largely negotiated in secret without participation from Northern California water interests, which also have no vote in the Bay Delta Conservation Plan.
Southern California agencies that rely on Delta water have a central role in both processes. These include the Westlands Water District and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.
Metropolitan General Manager Jeffrey Kightlinger said his agency has no intention of paying to clean up Sacramento's effluent. He said Sacramento's concerns should not delay a water deal.
"They shouldn't have to pay to treat the water for our drinking water needs," he said. "If they're having an impact on the ecosystem, they should pay to treat that. If it's established they're having no impact, that's another story."