Let Us Proceed, Quibbles Aside!

Former California Recall 2003 gubernatorial candidate Diana Foss points out that former California Recall 2003 gubernatorial candidate Cheryl Bly-Chester is making waves again:

Last year - on Sept. 16, to be precise - the state Reclamation Board, a relatively obscure state agency that oversees flood protection levees, approved a potentially far-reaching policy to intercede when local governments and developers propose residential subdivisions behind levees designed to protect farmland.

... Ten days later, before the new policy could be finally adopted, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger fired the entire board and replaced it with seven new appointees, most of whom had strong ties to land developers. Ever since, skeptics of building homes behind agricultural levees - including deposed members of the Reclamation Board - have wondered aloud whether the new board would be more favorably disposed toward development interests.

The issue was settled, it would seem, late last month, when the Reclamation Board voted to allow the developer of an immense subdivision on a Delta island south of Stockton to begin widening the existing levee and - ignoring warnings from the board's attorney that it was violating state open-meeting laws - expanded the developer's permit to indirectly allow construction of luxury, riverview homes atop the widened levee.

A transcript of the board's April 21 meeting reveals that two of the board's members - Cheryl Bly-Chester, who owns a Roseville engineering firm that does work for developers, and Teri Rie, a Contra Costa County public works engineer - pushed hard to expand the permit sought by Cambay Group, the developer of the River Islands project.

The development on Stewart Tract, a Delta island that flooded in 1997 when a levee broke, envisions a community of 11,000 residential units, two golf courses, several marinas and 5 million square feet of commercial space. Cambay, owned by British financier F. Allan Chapman, has already obtained the enthusiastic support of the small city of Lathrop, whose boundaries include Stewart Tract.

Cambay - acceding to the board staff - had sought just a permit to begin shoring up and widening the existing levee, but the firm had made no secret of its unhappiness with the board staff's go-slow approach under which the levee expansion would occur first and the issue of what could be built atop the levee would be taken up later. Cambay project director Susan Dell'Osso complained that the company was reluctant to do the levee work without assurances that home construction would be allowed, and that became the board's bone of contention during a lengthy and often rambling debate.

Member Butch Hodgkins, former director of the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency, tried to delay a decision on housing, but Bly-Chester and Rie eventually prevailed on a 5-1 vote even though the board's counsel, Scott Morgan, warned repeatedly that altering the permit to imply approval of housing atop the levee would violate rules against taking up issues not on the agenda. Hodgkins actually voted with the majority in the end. The only dissenter was Rose Burroughs, owner of a Denair livestock company.

[Updated 05/12/06, 4:00 p.m.] There definitely would be a downside to projects like these if they are as described in Walters' article. Placing premium houses on top of levees would increase the state's liability and add to the cost of levee maintenance.

Nevertheless, this project apparently intends to place houses on fill behind the levees, not on the levees proper (this distinction causes confusion). Project costs are likely to be heavy, however, because of all the earthmoving, and without the ability to sell premium lots on fill, the project itself would be jeopardized.:

VICE PRESIDENT BLY-CHESTER: Thank you, Susan.

What I've heard -- and I want to make sure the rest of the Board members really heard this -- is that the only way they can afford to do this multi-million dollar flood improvement project for the State of California is if they have lot premiums that they can sell. They cannot sell lot premiums if they don't know how close to the levee edge they can build.

So they cannot afford to do this. The state will not get the benefit of this project. And it's free levee protection, is what it is, for the State, as far as the state's concerned.

So this project is not going to be worth it to the applicant if they cannot do lot premiums. They can to lot premiums unless they know where they can build their buildings. We need to give them some direction here so they can do this project.