CHICO — Opponents to Chico’s decision to approve the Valley’s Edge Specific Plan presented their case in a forum Friday evening at the Chico Women’s Club on why they thought 1,448 acres of land should be conserved instead of using it for homes, commercial and park space.
The forum, hosted by Smart Growth Advocates, gained a full house after rescheduling twice. Guests took pamphlets, paid for by campaign committee Stop Valley’s Edge urging residents to vote no on local Measure O and Measure P.
Maps of Chico, placed around the hall, highlighted areas of potential infill and special planning development — Valley’s Edge was marked with a red X.
Discussion was moderated by Chico State professor Mark Stemen. Panelists included Jared Geiser with Altacal Audubon Society, Chico Councilor Addison Winslow, retired nurse David Welch, Allen Harthorn with Friends of Butte Creek, Susan Tchudi with Smart Growth Advocates, Eric Nilsson, board chair at Inspire School of Arts and Sciences; Chico State professor Jackie Chase and attorney Marty Dunlap.
Arguments
Opponents gave their takes on potential environmental, traffic and fire consequences of development; and their opinions on possible alternatives to housing and commercial for the growing city.
Nilsson spoke about two components unavoidable to development of the area — greenhouse gas emissions, which he said the “sprawl development of this kind makes little sense” knowing emissions have a significant impact on climate change. Second, that habitat and aesthetics may be destroyed.
“This is Chico’s opportunity to preserve these 1,448 acres for the wellbeing of the entire community knowing we have the capacity to provide housing without the sprawled development that is Valley’s Edge,” Nilsson said.
Dunlap spoke about the alternative to Valley’s Edge: building on infill lots.
She said Chico’s projected housing needed through 2045 is 9,500 units, and that 9,400 can be built out excluding Valley’s Edge. Dunlap also argued most homes planned at Valley’s Edge will be too expensive to purchase for a median-income household in Chico — and that Chico’s listed need of 68% of all housing to be affordable won’t be met if only 6% of Valley’s Edge units are considered affordable.
“The proponents claim that Chico needs housing and that Valley’s Edge will have housing for every budget. We agree Chico needs housing, but we don’t agree on the primary type of housing Chico needs nor the location of the housing,” Dunlap said.
Winslow covered the topic of greenhouse gas emissions; that traffic emissions and paving over carbon sequestering grasslands impacts Chico’s targets for emission reductions. He said some houses are two miles away from the nearest commercial zone — and that low density around those commercial spaces means there will likely not be “neighborhood serving retail.”
Chase spoke about wildfire risk, stating she thinks the wildfire risk analysis on Valley’s Edge isn’t well done; that planners have chosen to overlook warnings from the insurance industry and fire researchers; and that residents and homeowners associations are assumed to be vigilant about keeping their areas fire safe.
“This project will destroy this buffer of land that could protect the city from spreading wildfire coming from forested areas,” Chase said.
Harthorn focused his time on Mima mounds, a rare type of ecosystem found between small watersheds consisting of a thick layer of damp soil growing much taller grasses than normal grasslands.
“They can’t build on the streams; they can’t take out all the trees … but they’re going to build on this land in between these little drainages,” Harthorn said. “We learned these areas are called Mima mounds … it’s something very few people know about. It’s a pretty impressive system that I think everyone needs to be aware of. This is something we can lose 100%.”
Geiser criticized a proponent’s claim that there will be 0% impact to endangered species. He spoke about the importance of preserving oak woodlands and the habitat they provide for other species; and how the disappearance of wildland in general leads to habitat loss.
Tchudi pleaded with Chico residents to look at Chico with “new eyes” and imaginative thinking, to look at empty lots like the former K-Mart building as opportunities to grow the city.
“Those abandoned buildings; those large asphalt areas that can be turned into livable spaces for diverse people who live in Chico,” Tchudi said. “This is the alternative to Valley’s Edge.”
Canceled
Before panelists began their plea, Dunlap and Stemen prefaced the circumstances of this panel discussion, which was canceled twice after attempts to hold it at Chico State. Also, the League of Women Voters was not able to host an impartial forum in the scheduled time.
Dunlap acknowledged the panel did not have representation by proponents for the Valley’s Edge Specific Plan. She said the Chico Chamber of Commerce held an online panel Jan. 16 with nine people in favor of Valley’s Edge, and upon her asking to participate in the discussion, was told it was too late to join and there was no more room. Winslow said his request was declined, too.
“As you heard, all the speakers on that panel supported the project. And that is fine. We all can gain a greater understanding with in-depth discussions like that and I encourage you to visit those websites and why they supported the project. The folks here tonight feel differently about the proposed development,” Stemen said. “Once again you must decide what you believe about the project yourself.”
Proponents of Valley’s Edge did not make themselves apparent Friday evening to make counterpoints or submit questions critical to panelists’ points, but a minority did attend.
Van Overbeek responds
Chico Councilor Tom van Overbeek, a proponent of Valley’s Edge, said by phone Saturday he sees opportunity costs in arguments made against the development. He said growth is unavoidable, not just in Chico, and that communities outside of Chico may very well be developed into urban sprawls that opponents aim to avoid. What would be a two-minute commute in Chico may turn into a 30-minute drive from Oroville, he said.
“The idea that it’s better for the environment to not build Valley’s Edge is nonsensical. Because those people are going to make longer commutes and we’re going to have more sprawl. Frankly, the arguments on the other side I’m struggling to understand,” van Overbeek said.
As far as habitat, van Overbeek said conservation is a “ridiculous” argument that was used when Cal Park was proposed for development. He said climate mitigation can be achieved by having shorter car trips to Chico — not driving from far away.
“People are going to live somewhere. There’s a question of where they live there in Valley’s Edge where it’s contiguous to existing developments or they live 10 or 15 miles away,” van Overbeek said. “The same issue — they need space to live. That’s just the reality of life.”
Van Overbeek said he agrees infill should be developed and thinks it’s a great idea, but that building infill lots and homes at Valley’s Edge aren’t mutually exclusive. All housing development types are needed to meet housing demand in the very long term, van Overbeek said, and developing infill has its own challenges like finding suitable land.
“We either try to plan for the future or we just let it happen to us,” he said. “The difference between building Valley’s Edge, which is a plan for the next 30 or 40 years to accommodate some of the growth that happens here, and the opponents — we just throw up our hands and we’ll figure it out as we go along. That’s not how you ensure the future of your town.”
