BEC and the New High School

There is a long history to the Schmidbauer property that the Chico Unified School District (CUSD) has decided is their number one choice for a new high school. Despite the headline in the Enterprise Record on 12/2/99 inflaming a simple boundary line appeal by BEC into another "stopping the high school" claim, the issue could all have been settled if the consultant representing Schmidbauer would have let the Habitat and Resource Plan (HRCP) end all the debates about where to build homes and what resources would be protected. The federal and state agencies that are responsible for wetland and endangered species protection were all on-board with the HRCP and preparing to issue a regional general permit that would have set aside conservation areas and also allowed development projects to proceed with only local oversight. The HRCP would also have eliminated the General Plan requirements since it would have adequately protected the environment in the Resource Management Areas. It would have been easier for developers, but then some consultants wouldn’t make money, would they?

Everyone participating in the General Plan update and the HRCP knew that the Schmidbauer property was heavily constrained by wetlands and Butte County meadowfoam. Everyone, including the CUSD, knew this since the 1993 surveys were done for the Chico General Plan, way before the number one choice was picked. Since Schmidbauer’s consultant has hit a brick wall with the state and federal resource agencies now, he needs to find a local scapegoat for his failed attempts to receive state and federal permits. Whipping up hysteria has fit the bill since taking responsibility for failure would be humiliating and costly. BEC has appealed the boundary line modification to permit a public discussion of the requirements from the Chico General Plan and the California Environmental Quality Act that pertain to property changes of this kind. This appeal does NOTHING to slow down the still necessary discussions and permit requirements with the resource agencies that will be arduous and time consuming.

Below is a little history about the HRCP effort that demonstrates who has benefited most from subverting the community endeavor to end battles over natural resources in Chico. It certainly hasn’t been the school district or the community.

At the October 28, 1997 Chico City Council meeting, without truly understanding the benefits of the HRCP for all segments of the community, the developer-backed council majority stopped the HRCP process. After hearing from "the big six," as David Guzzetti called the powerful developers, the Council-appointed HRCP committee was disbanded and community planning dumped for Andrews’, Bertagna’s, Keene’s, and Johnston’s handful of influential buddies and campaign donors.

The HRCP started in 1995, when the Chico City Council (Andrews, Hubert, King, Keene, Guzzetti, McGinnis, and Owens) authorized City staff to facilitate the preparation of an HRCP and allocated $200,000 in the budget to cover the costs of the Plan creation. Jones and Stokes Associates (JSA) of Sacramento was awarded the consulting contract and the first meeting of interested parties was held in June 1995. At that time, the City acknowledged in a cover letter its interest in the Plan’s preparation and enactment:

"The City of Chico, as part of the implementation of the recently adopted General Plan, will prepare a Comprehensive Habitat and Resource Conservation Plan for the Chico Urban Area. The purpose of the plan is to develop a comprehensive strategy to ensure that natural resources are preserved and protected as the community grows. In preparing that plan, the City is committed to providing maximum opportunities for the participation of affected landowners and the community. The City will also work closely with the regulatory agencies to ensure that the comprehensive plan addresses the requirements of those agencies and simplifies the permitting process for individual projects."

So what went wrong at the October meeting when the sitting Chico City Council bailed out on the HRCP project as it was nearing completion? That question is best answered by the same response delivered to Council Member Bill Johnston when he asked that night why developers wouldn’t buy into the HRCP if it was so helpful to them? "Ignorance!" And greed, of course.

Behind the scenes, a local consultant and a Sacramento attorney who earns his keep selling the environment down the river, worked hard developing clients. They knew you can’t make money with landowners with environmentally constrained property who are anxious to maximize their profits with urban development, without making grandiose promises to them. Many large landowners were convinced by this developer duo that they could cut a better deal individually with the state and federal agencies who regulate wetlands and endangered species. Even if false promises were given, money was and is being made by the promise-makers.

For landowners, the HRCP would have eliminated the need for consultants and attorneys because the wetland and endangered species permitting process would have been a done deal. Property owners would have known exactly where they were permitted to build, what their obligation was to the environment, and what the costs were without employing middle-men and without years (sometimes more) of federal review for permits and five to ten years of mitigation monitoring costs. Developers are already paying $40,000 to $70,000 an acre just to mitigate wetland destruction, and that doesn’t include the money spent waiting years for permits, pre-project surveys conducted in multiple years, or consultant fees.

The environmental community was hopeful that the HRCP would review the cumulative impacts to wetlands and endangered species in a comprehensive manner and mitigate the losses by creating larger, more biologically viable preserves. The Chico General Plan requires this review and the HRCP. Past project-by-project requirements by the local government and the federal and state agencies have frequently left postage-stamp preserves which are constantly threatened by urban encroachment and pollutants, resulting in impacted watersheds. Environmentalists had their own concerns over the HRCP, such as allowing too many acres of wetlands to be filled and the creeks in the Chico Urban Area were not receiving sufficient attention in the process.

Clearly the major shortcoming in the HRCP effort was the lack of education for the Council, property owners, and the public. The Council meeting on October 28th was a long overdue attempt to bring the policy makers and the viewing public a very short (and therefore incomplete) picture of the potential benefits and pitfalls of the HRCP. Without the comprehensive education component as outlined in the JSA proposal, the Council and the public were presented with a myopic view of the benefits for both the environment and the developers without a clue of the current impacts, process, costs, and losses.

The Chico Enterprise-Record also contributed to the lack of information. The coverage of the HRCP in articles and editorials emphasized the highest cost possible under one option and neglected to mention other options, current costs, and never truly revealed the benefits that would accrue to the community, environment, and the developers. But this was not a surprise.

The community does not have the benefit of long range planning for sensitive habitats and species as mandated in the General Plan due to the shortsighted, developer-driven Council majority. The old project-by-project battles will continue and you can count on pro-development Council members and developers to whine to the skies when there are battles and lawsuits. There will not be any reflection by these people, of their responsibility in ending the HRCP, a community solution to balance housing and environmental health and sustainability.

This article first appeared in December 1999 in the Chico Examiner.