STORYLINE Water

This storyline has only one article

Viewing thru of

Close timeline

No high resolution image exists...

Progress bar

Loading images
Slideshow image

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.

Liked this article? Share it with your friends:

Conversation Express your views, debate, and be heard with those in your area closest to the issue.RSS Feed

August 3, 2010 | 9:51 AM
"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."

Is that true when the product they are bottling IS the public's water?
4 0
REPLY
August 3, 2010 | 8:20 PM
The city attorney made no such claim as quoted in the article. Her opinion was based on the botched 'deal' that was cut with Nestle by whomever in the city's works, and then rescinded when no permits had been required, which would have been inevitable given CEQA requirements, which apparently were never enforced. The city attorney 'accommodated' as smooth a remedy as was possible under these circumstances -- but it was her decided opinion that permits should have been required initially.

Your reporting is not truthful.
1 0
REPLY
August 3, 2010 | 10:16 AM
How do we end up with bloviating publicity hounds like Kevin McCarty representing our city?

If Kevin is so concerned about water usage & bottling plants in the city, why was completely silent on the issue from his election in 2004 until Oct 2009? It is a pathetic excuse for leadership on McCarty's part to suddenly find fault when a particular business begins investing in our city after they received permits through all the proper channels.

McCarty is entitled to his views on water conservation, bottled water etc. I share many of those views. But to reactively delay businesses after they have invested only serves to make Sacramento look more anti-business/anti-job than it already is.

2 4
REPLY
edited on  August 3, 2010 | 10:25 AM
That's a false statement.

"... investing in our city after they received permits through all the proper channels."

That's a huge lie. You also ignore the resulting investigations and City staff departures.
5 1
REPLY
August 3, 2010 | 10:39 AM
"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"

apparently naga didn't read this part of the article.
0 2
REPLY
August 3, 2010 | 11:01 AM
that's the problem with oversimplifying the stories without background or informed readers. you're talking about different permits, different issues, applying one statement to something else, i.e. you don't know what you're talking about but have enough incomplete info to be arrogant about it.
1 1
REPLY
August 3, 2010 | 11:17 AM
oh i see, so the fact that i quoted the article which quotes the city attorney who says the plant was done legally is not enough for you. so then naga, you are saying the city attorney is wrong? so you think the mayor is always wrong, the city council is always wrong and now the city attorney is wrong. it must be nice to look in the mirror and know that you are right all of the time.
0 1
REPLY
August 3, 2010 | 11:52 AM
people are not as stupid as you think they are. your intentional disinformation is boring.
2 1
REPLY
August 3, 2010 | 12:51 PM
"disinformation" is that even a word? yes i intentially quoted the city attorney. shame on me and my quotations from the city's legal council.
0 3
REPLY
August 3, 2010 | 1:27 PM
What we have a here is just another failure from our city council that loves to grandstand on news of the day but is too lazy to actually drive policy.

This is the city council that wastes valuable taxpayer funded meeting to ban bottled water from council chambers.

You would think as the 9 of them were there basking in the glow of their pointless do-goodery, at least one of them would be bright enough to think maybe a half step ahead, and to wonder about Sacramento own rules regarding the bottling of water.

A pro-active city council would recognize that water is a valuable commodity, anticipate future challenges, and set policies accordingly.

Instead we have a reactive city council that completely misses key developments like this, and then tries to cover their lack of foresight with boneheaded attacks on particular business (Nestle in this case).
2 1
REPLY
August 3, 2010 | 1:59 PM
governmental agencies (i.e. city councils) are great at grandstanding on everything. aside from the whole water fiasco (where was everyone's concern 10 years ago?) they are great at puffing out their chest to save the environment until their palms get greased. or what about medical marijuana? for years we have heard that morally it is wrong, that is until state and local governments got into debt up to their eyeballs, now all of a sudden those personal vices aren't so bad as long as the government gets some tax revenue.

that is why people like naga, bbbbmer and the other hypocrites are so funny. they blast the political party they aren't affiliated with eventhough their party is sitting at the same table as the republicans and getting their pockets lined by the same corporations they supposedly are against. it must be nice to live and die by a political party only to know they are just as corrupt as their opponents.
3 1
REPLY
August 3, 2010 | 7:16 PM
no one believes your lies
1 0
REPLY
August 3, 2010 | 8:22 PM
Naga, remember that *some* are little more than dining room tables and not worth the investment of your obviously significant brainpower.
1 0
REPLY
August 4, 2010 | 1:41 AM
"Some" have infested SacPress, paid or not, with their willful ignorance. This site has so much more potential and -- according to the owner/operators -- aspires to more. The plants and operatives ARE the dead wood.
1 0
REPLY
August 3, 2010 | 11:52 AM
As the story states, the Community Development Department's Facilities Permit Program was suspended that night after the council and city officials learned work had started on the Nestlé plant without a formal building permit or a start-work authorization.

Click on that link and others in the story to read more.
2 0
REPLY
August 3, 2010 | 1:42 PM
I agree with Cogmeyer, "A pro-active city council would recognize that water is a valuable commodity, anticipate future challenges, and set policies accordingly."

I also agree with Suzanne: "...read more."

There's a lot more to the story than what appears in the news, and if you want to understand the nuances and details, then you do have to dig deeper. This is clearly a complex and contentious issue, but one thing is certain: the people of Sacramento are truly concerned.

I think Nestle can do a lot of great things in the community. Perhaps the issue of permits simply needs to have an audit and reissue provision that sets out terms under which such authorizations can be extended or revoked based on measurable evidence the people of Sacramento think is appropriate.
4 2
REPLY
August 3, 2010 | 3:51 PM
http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/16430/City_halts_Nestl_work

http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/17892/Part_I_Nestl_at_the_City_Council_Public_Discussion_or_Backroom_Deal
http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/17893/Part_II_Nestl_at_the_City_Council_Public_Discussion_or_Backroom_Deal

http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/17888/Group_to_file_Nestl_appeal

http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/17021/Top_Johnson_Advisor_Resigns_To_Work_For_Nestle

http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/16437/Mayor_clashes_with_city_staff_over_Nestl_decisionmaking

http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/19316/Facilities_Permit_Program_raises_controversy

http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/19807/City_attorney_answers_questions_about_investigation

http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/22736/Kerridge_says_goodbye_to_development_commission_comments_on_Bill_Thomas_resignation

http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/26427/Roseville_mayor_on_citys_decision_to_hire_Ray_Kerridge
3 0
REPLY
August 3, 2010 | 4:02 PM
"The stop-work order may be temporary. A draft ordinance was still being finalized by the city attorney's office late Monday afternoon. The draft goes to council members before being made public, said Amy Williams, spokeswoman for the city manager's office." - from your first website

oh and again from THIS article:

"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"

naga, you can cite as many websites as you want, but they all say "temporary investigation". this article states the city attorney (i.e. the city's legal advisor) states THE PLANT IS LEGAL UNDER CURRENT ZONING CODES. how many more ways does it need to be made clear to you?
0 0
REPLY
August 3, 2010 | 5:28 PM
It wasn't the zoning that was the issue, Rich, it was the start of work without a permit.
3 0
REPLY
August 3, 2010 | 7:17 PM
yes Rich, "how many more ways does it need to be made clear to you?"
0 0
REPLY
August 3, 2010 | 8:23 PM
dining room table
0 0
REPLY
August 4, 2010 | 1:42 AM
dead wood
0 0
REPLY
August 4, 2010 | 6:11 AM
naga, you didn't make that point in ANY WAY!!!! please show me one comment you made that is synonymous to mr. burg's?

william, that IS an excellent point, however it is one even our city council doesn't get. for example:

"'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."

this excerpt is from the article above. how can the city council not be involved in building a plant within the city limits? aside from the permit issue, there is the use of local water, tax revenue, etc. these are questions even "naga" fails to make in his/her/its anonymity. the city council is concerned about the increased powers the SMI would give the mayor, yet they aren't involved with building a water bottling plant, and they leave all of the responsibility to the building department? sounds back-asswards to me....
0 0
REPLY
August 4, 2010 | 7:33 AM
Rich E., you not so cleverly and deliberately twist facts to support your point of view casting aside the history of this whole Nestle thing -- you are obviously ill-informed about the events leading up to the city attorney's opinion, and then make claims about the council's role in the affair when they were deliberately kept out of the loop of communications that enabled Nestle to build and operate free of permit oversight, and in particular, a CEQA EIR and other requirements that SHOULD have been imposed, per the city attorney, had it not been for the way this matter was handled in the first place.

You seem very very confused, to say the least.
1 1
REPLY
August 4, 2010 | 8:06 AM
dshore, actually my point is how could the city council not have been involved, which is exactly what this article stated. i am addressing the article directly. i guess that point WAS missed by you. but thanks for trying. now if you want to be the opposite of naga and address something specific i have said with a factual argument, then i would be happy to engage in that discussion. if you want to throw out blanket statements like "you are obviously ill-informed about the events leading up to the city attorney's opinion..." and not address something i have said directly, then you and naga have fun in the corner together. i am not interested in arguing opinion.
1 1
REPLY
August 4, 2010 | 8:17 AM
and for the record, i never claimed to be an expert on the nestle deal. but if the entire permit issue was such a big problem from the beginning, then how could the city council not know the proper permits weren't established and allow a bottling plant that would use city resources like water, power and property to move forward?

again i will quote the article:

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

do you think i am so blind as to think absolutely no one on the city council knew a bottling plant was going to be built? as if one day, mccarty is driving down the street and says "hey wait a minute, how did that nestle bottling plant get there?" come on man, get real. of course someone knew. but this is OUR city council, and they and their staff did not do their due diligence to make sure proper permits were pulled. dshore, you say proper requirements should have been imposed, well how did OUR city council not impose them? who is the blame here nestle or the city council?

dshore, you are right, i am not 100% informed on the nestle property acquisition, but then again i don't sit on the city council and it seems like they aren't informed either. how can we allow a city council to be so ill-informed?
1 1
REPLY
August 4, 2010 | 11:14 AM
"naga, you didn't make that point in ANY WAY!!!! please show me one comment you made that is synonymous to mr. burg's?"

That would be in my first response to you:

"that's the problem with oversimplifying the stories without background or informed readers. you're talking about different permits, different issues, applying one statement to something else, i.e. you don't know what you're talking about but have enough incomplete info to be arrogant about it."

The onus is on you and others to be informed, not just show up on SacPress comments and make verbal diarrheic comments stinking up the place with limited and misinformed statements, made as aggressive statements of truth.

I am not going to hold your hand or help you read between the lines. You want someone to spell everything out for you -- and in the meantime keep spewing total BS.

For the convenience of anyone who wants to be a little more informed, I did cut and paste some SacPress links.



"do you think i am so blind as to think absolutely no one on the city council knew a bottling plant was going to be built?... dshore, you are right, i am not 100% informed on the nestle property acquisition, but then again i don't sit on the city council and it seems like they aren't informed either. how can we allow a city council to be so ill-informed?"

Good questions. Which makes it more nonsensical for you to ignore the facts, the investigations and the departures of the City Manager and his Planning crony that left their jobs (Thomas was fired) soon after several simultaneous scandals -- including the Nestle debacle -- and before the investigations and audits are complete.
1 0
REPLY
August 4, 2010 | 12:47 PM
naga, one would expect when you make ambiguous comments like you do, you would have some sort of proof of comment. but hiding behind your anonymoty allows you to stay ambiguous.

"that's the problem with oversimplifying the stories without background or informed readers. you're talking about different permits, different issues, applying one statement to something else, i.e. you don't know what you're talking about but have enough incomplete info to be arrogant about it."


so by your comment here, this is suppose to tell me the city council was illinformed? gotcha. thanks. next time just put your comment in one of those posterboards that were popular in the 90s. you know, the ones where you had to stare at it long enough and maybe you would see a space ship pop out.

"I am not going to hold your hand or help you read between the lines. "

so i am suppose to be a mind reader. you make ambiguous, non-factually supportive comments and i am suppose to know what you mean. great. you must be a hoot at pictionary.
0 1
REPLY
August 4, 2010 | 9:51 PM
"you're talking about different permits, different issues, applying one statement to something else."

Inform yourself.
1 0
REPLY
August 5, 2010 | 6:31 AM
back up your points with facts
0 0
REPLY
August 11, 2010 | 5:53 AM
Rich (or Randy), maybe if YOU'd do the same, others would follow. It seems that YOU don't practice what you preach. Are you a local version of Newt Gingrich?
0 0
REPLY
August 5, 2010 | 10:00 AM
Inform yourself. Back up your points with facts.
0 0
REPLY
August 5, 2010 | 10:56 AM
so the websites, books and quotations i have given you in other discussions just aren't factual enough for you? oh please oh mighty god of information, please tell me what qualifies as facts in your world?
0 1
REPLY
August 5, 2010 | 8:18 PM
enough of your games
0 0
REPLY
August 6, 2010 | 6:26 AM
yes, enough of my backing up claims with websites, books and quotations. let's live in your fantasy world where those things just don't matter. kind of ironic you blast me for not reading and educating myself on topics and when i give your a resource backing up a statement i have made, all of a sudden that is playing games.
0 1
REPLY
Leave a Comment
User icon
Type your comment in the box below Edit your comment in the box below

Type tags into the box below. Use commas to separate your tags.

Please Log in or Sign up

Existing Members

Sign In Progress bar Forgot Password?

New Users Create an Account Here
Progress bar
Verification email has been sent. To validate your account open the link provided in the message.
There was a problem sending your verification email. Please contact support@sacramentopress.com
Progress bar Login background Tag cloud top Tag cloud background Tag cloud bottom Login manager background