News and History
COUNCIL RECINDS APPROVAL:
VALLEY'S EDGE TO GO TO PRIMARY VOTE
VALLEY'S EDGE TO GO TO PRIMARY VOTE
CHICO April 19. — Valley’s Edge has stirred emotions the past four months in the community and the Chico City Council Chambers. So it proved ironic that councilors’ deliberation on the referendum opposing the plan proved the calmest discussion Tuesday night.
Members of Valley’s Edge Resistance gathered outside at the start of closed session to urge the council to place the referendum on the ballot. (The other option: rescind approval.) Four-and-a-half hours later, councilors took 10 minutes to decide, unanimously, to let voters in the March 2024 election have the ultimate say on the Valley’s Edge Specific Plan, covering 1,448 acres in southeast Chico.
Members of Valley’s Edge Resistance gathered outside at the start of closed session to urge the council to place the referendum on the ballot. (The other option: rescind approval.) Four-and-a-half hours later, councilors took 10 minutes to decide, unanimously, to let voters in the March 2024 election have the ultimate say on the Valley’s Edge Specific Plan, covering 1,448 acres in southeast Chico.
CITY COUNCIL DEFERS ACTION
CHICO April 4— Valley’s Edge remains unfinished business from the Chico City Council meeting Tuesday night, with councilors seeking more information on referendum implications before deciding how to proceed.
On a unanimous vote of five members seated for the deliberation, the council instructed City Attorney Vince Ewing to determine the extent of changes that would turn a plan modification into a new project and City Clerk Debbie Presson to get a cost estimate of including a ballot measure in next year’s primary election.
Both the applicant and opposition supported the deferral. Valley’s Edge planning manager Bill Brouhard noted the complexity and magnitude of the council’s deliberation; referendum organizer Susan Tchudi said she had the same questions raised by the council.
Citizens filled the chambers, including opponents of Valley’s Edge — some bearing signs — lining the back wall. Five councilors heard the matter; Vice Mayor Kasey Reynolds missed the meeting due to illness, and Councilor Tom van Overbeek recused himself as a neighbor of the property.
Faced with a successful referendum effort, councilors considered how to proceed on the plan they approved for 1,448 acres in southeast Chico. The options: rescind their previous decision or let voters decide (during a special election, next March’s primary or next November’s general election).
Twenty-three public speakers addressed the issue — all but four voicing concerns about the Valley’s Edge Specific Plan the council approved in January.
Tchudi said Valley’s Edge is consistent with the general plan only by virtue of its designation as a special planning area, but “things have changed” since then. “We need a new paradigm for how we build.”
Fellow referendum organizer Jared Geiser called for infill development in 14 opportunity sites within the city rather than this location on the perimeter. Jesica Giannola, a council candidate in November, said Valley’s Edge “is not going to provide the housing that we need.”
Nichole Nava, another council candidate, challenged the objectivity of Councilor Addison Winslow, whom she said should have recused himself due to his opposition. (Winslow, the lone dissenter in the council’s approval vote, pointed out he owns no property near the site and accepted no campaign contributions from the applicant.)
Nava also criticized goals of opponents, saying: “No project is the silver bullet for affordable housing.”
Brouhard noted that the plan incorporates “input of thousands of people” and asserted that eliminating the city’s largest specific planning area would not create more affordable housing.
Councilors sought clarification of costs and implications.
Presson said the Butte County Elections Office estimated a special election would cost the city $266,000; a measure in the general election would cost $100,000, but she had no figure for the primary.
The council also sought clarity on the impact of actions. They learned that rescinding the decision allows the applicant to reapply in a year. Community Development Director Brendan Vieg said Valley’s Edge wouldn’t start from scratch but, even unchanged, would need to regain city approvals.
Unresolved was whether changes — and what amount of changes — would turn the plan into a new project.
Councilor Sean Morgan requested answers to those questions in a motion seconded by Deepika Tandon that quickly passed without dissent.
VALLEY’S EDGE REFERENDUM:
SIGNATURES VERIFIED
March 20, 2023
PUBLISHED: March 20, 2023 at 4:34 p.m. | UPDATED: March 20, 2023 at 4:51 p.m.CHICO — Valley’s Edge is heading back to the Chico City Council Chambers.
The referendum effort against the proposed 1,448-acre southeast Chico development has officially surpassed its target following verification of signatures, both Keaton Denlay, Butte County’s clerk-recorder, and Debbie Presson, Chico’s city clerk, confirmed Monday.
That means the Chico City Council, which approved Valley’s Edge at an emotionally charged meeting Jan. 3, will take the matter up again while considering the next steps April 4.
Valley’s Edge Resistance — encompassing the opposition group Smart Growth Associates and political action committee Save Our Hometown — filed two resolutions to overturn approvals by the City Council. The first sought to reverse changes to the city’s general plan, made to accommodate the Valley’s Edge proposal; the second was to block the Valley’s Edge Specific Plan itself.
Top Stories00:1901:00Thousands of dresses, hundreds of shoes in PromProject giveawayPresson said of the 8,373 signatures on the Specific Plan, 6,372 were deemed to be valid following review by the county clerk-recorder’s office. On the General Plan referendum, 6,444 signatures were valid. Both marks comfortably exceeded the 5,800 needed for success.
The referendum’s success means the council, which approved Valley’s Edge by a 5-1 vote Jan. 3 following 5-2 approval by the Chico Planning Commission a month earlier, has a couple of choices to make. It can rescind its approval; call for a special election; or place the item on the next regularly scheduled election, which wouldn’t take place until 2024.
Addison Winslow, the lone city councilor to oppose the development, said the referendum’s success was unprecedented in its scope.
“The volunteers behind the Valley’s Edge referendum blew it out of the water,” Winslow said. “We’ve never seen so many valid signatures collected for a municipal measure in Chico’s history. I hope developers learn the lesson that you can’t just write the working class out of the future of Chico. When anyone is offering to steward such a significant expansion of our city, we expect the plans to align with our community goals for affordability and sustainability.”
The referendum effort against the proposed 1,448-acre southeast Chico development has officially surpassed its target following verification of signatures, both Keaton Denlay, Butte County’s clerk-recorder, and Debbie Presson, Chico’s city clerk, confirmed Monday.
That means the Chico City Council, which approved Valley’s Edge at an emotionally charged meeting Jan. 3, will take the matter up again while considering the next steps April 4.
Valley’s Edge Resistance — encompassing the opposition group Smart Growth Associates and political action committee Save Our Hometown — filed two resolutions to overturn approvals by the City Council. The first sought to reverse changes to the city’s general plan, made to accommodate the Valley’s Edge proposal; the second was to block the Valley’s Edge Specific Plan itself.
Top Stories00:1901:00Thousands of dresses, hundreds of shoes in PromProject giveawayPresson said of the 8,373 signatures on the Specific Plan, 6,372 were deemed to be valid following review by the county clerk-recorder’s office. On the General Plan referendum, 6,444 signatures were valid. Both marks comfortably exceeded the 5,800 needed for success.
The referendum’s success means the council, which approved Valley’s Edge by a 5-1 vote Jan. 3 following 5-2 approval by the Chico Planning Commission a month earlier, has a couple of choices to make. It can rescind its approval; call for a special election; or place the item on the next regularly scheduled election, which wouldn’t take place until 2024.
Addison Winslow, the lone city councilor to oppose the development, said the referendum’s success was unprecedented in its scope.
“The volunteers behind the Valley’s Edge referendum blew it out of the water,” Winslow said. “We’ve never seen so many valid signatures collected for a municipal measure in Chico’s history. I hope developers learn the lesson that you can’t just write the working class out of the future of Chico. When anyone is offering to steward such a significant expansion of our city, we expect the plans to align with our community goals for affordability and sustainability.”
Lawsuit Filed
For Immediate Release, February 2, 2023
Contact:
J.P. Rose, Center for Biological Diversity, (408) 497-7675, jrose@biologicaldiversity.org
Barbara Vlamis, AquAlliance, (530) 895-9420, barbarav@aqualliance.net
Don Mooney, Sierra Club, (530) 758-2377, dbmooney@dcn.org
Lawsuit Challenges Sprawl Development in Northern California Wildfire Zone
Chico Project Would Put Thousands in Harm’s Way
CHICO, Calif.— A coalition of environmental groups sued the city of Chico today for approving a development with nearly 2,800 housing units without properly assessing or mitigating wildfire and other environmental risks. The Valley’s Edge project would bring nearly 5,700 residents to an area that has burned repeatedly and is adjacent to the town of Paradise, which was devastated by the 2018 Camp Fire.
“Tragically, Butte County knows far too well how destructive and unpredictable a fast-moving wildfire can be. Unfortunately, city leaders didn’t apply that knowledge when approving this risky project,” said J.P. Rose, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. “It’s too dangerous to wait until the next wildfire to test out evacuation plans. We have to make smart, science-based decisions now.”
Today’s lawsuit argues that the city failed to adequately analyze wildfire conditions and evacuation routes when it approved Valley’s Edge last month. The 1,400-acre project site is prone to wildfires, having burned in 1999, 2007 and 2018. The Camp Fire, the deadliest and most destructive fire in state history, spread to the eastern part of Chico, causing widespread evacuations and dangerous air pollution.
The lawsuit also asserts that the city failed to provide an adequate study on how the groundwater supply will be affected by this project and did not consider the harms to imperiled wildlife, including the Butte County meadowfoam, an endangered flower. The project, located in vernal pool habitat, would also harm the conservancy fairy shrimp, vernal pool fairy shrimp and vernal pool tadpole shrimp.
“We’re quickly losing what little remains of precious vernal pools to encroaching development and climate change,” said Barbara Vlamis, executive director of AquAlliance. “Since the early 1990s, the city of Chico, activists, and resource agencies sought to protect vernal pools in Butte County, but here we are today with a city council ignoring past commitments and efforts. Without more foresight and better planning, we’ll lose these Butte County gems forever and we’ll deeply regret it.”
“The lesson from past wildfires is that we need to plan and build much smarter,” said Don Mooney, an attorney for Sierra Club. “Bringing a sprawling development to a fire-prone area without considering the consequences is not smart planning. Chico deserves a safer project that doesn’t decimate the vernal wetlands we still have.”
Today’s lawsuit was filed in Butte County Superior Court by the Center, AquAlliance and Sierra Club. The coalition is challenging the city for violating the California Environmental Quality Act when approving this project.
The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than 1.7 million members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places.
AquAlliance is a non-profit public interest corporation based in Chico, California that was formed to protect waters in the northern Sacramento River’s watershed to sustain family farms, communities, creeks and rivers, native flora and fauna, vernal pools and the sensitive species that rely on them, and recreation.
The Sierra Club is one of the largest and most influential grassroots environmental organizations in the U.S., with more than 3.5 million members and supporters. In addition to protecting every person’s right to get outdoors and access the healing power of nature, the Sierra Club works to promote clean energy, safeguard the health of our communities, protect wildlife, and preserve our remaining wild places through grassroots activism, public education, lobbying, and legal action.
Contact:
J.P. Rose, Center for Biological Diversity, (408) 497-7675, jrose@biologicaldiversity.org
Barbara Vlamis, AquAlliance, (530) 895-9420, barbarav@aqualliance.net
Don Mooney, Sierra Club, (530) 758-2377, dbmooney@dcn.org
Lawsuit Challenges Sprawl Development in Northern California Wildfire Zone
Chico Project Would Put Thousands in Harm’s Way
CHICO, Calif.— A coalition of environmental groups sued the city of Chico today for approving a development with nearly 2,800 housing units without properly assessing or mitigating wildfire and other environmental risks. The Valley’s Edge project would bring nearly 5,700 residents to an area that has burned repeatedly and is adjacent to the town of Paradise, which was devastated by the 2018 Camp Fire.
“Tragically, Butte County knows far too well how destructive and unpredictable a fast-moving wildfire can be. Unfortunately, city leaders didn’t apply that knowledge when approving this risky project,” said J.P. Rose, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. “It’s too dangerous to wait until the next wildfire to test out evacuation plans. We have to make smart, science-based decisions now.”
Today’s lawsuit argues that the city failed to adequately analyze wildfire conditions and evacuation routes when it approved Valley’s Edge last month. The 1,400-acre project site is prone to wildfires, having burned in 1999, 2007 and 2018. The Camp Fire, the deadliest and most destructive fire in state history, spread to the eastern part of Chico, causing widespread evacuations and dangerous air pollution.
The lawsuit also asserts that the city failed to provide an adequate study on how the groundwater supply will be affected by this project and did not consider the harms to imperiled wildlife, including the Butte County meadowfoam, an endangered flower. The project, located in vernal pool habitat, would also harm the conservancy fairy shrimp, vernal pool fairy shrimp and vernal pool tadpole shrimp.
“We’re quickly losing what little remains of precious vernal pools to encroaching development and climate change,” said Barbara Vlamis, executive director of AquAlliance. “Since the early 1990s, the city of Chico, activists, and resource agencies sought to protect vernal pools in Butte County, but here we are today with a city council ignoring past commitments and efforts. Without more foresight and better planning, we’ll lose these Butte County gems forever and we’ll deeply regret it.”
“The lesson from past wildfires is that we need to plan and build much smarter,” said Don Mooney, an attorney for Sierra Club. “Bringing a sprawling development to a fire-prone area without considering the consequences is not smart planning. Chico deserves a safer project that doesn’t decimate the vernal wetlands we still have.”
Today’s lawsuit was filed in Butte County Superior Court by the Center, AquAlliance and Sierra Club. The coalition is challenging the city for violating the California Environmental Quality Act when approving this project.
The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than 1.7 million members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places.
AquAlliance is a non-profit public interest corporation based in Chico, California that was formed to protect waters in the northern Sacramento River’s watershed to sustain family farms, communities, creeks and rivers, native flora and fauna, vernal pools and the sensitive species that rely on them, and recreation.
The Sierra Club is one of the largest and most influential grassroots environmental organizations in the U.S., with more than 3.5 million members and supporters. In addition to protecting every person’s right to get outdoors and access the healing power of nature, the Sierra Club works to promote clean energy, safeguard the health of our communities, protect wildlife, and preserve our remaining wild places through grassroots activism, public education, lobbying, and legal action.
city council approves valley's edge Plans
SGA referendum comes next
|
Sadly, but predictably, the City Council on January 3 passed two resolutions enabling Valley's Edge to move forward. Council member Addison Winslow subjected city staff to rigorous questioning that pointed out the numerous flaws in the plans, but the resolutions passed by a 5-1 vote. Smart Growth Advocates and other groups are launching a referendum campaign to stop the project from moving forward further. Following are the details of the meeting and of SGA's press conference (left) and a front page story in the Enterprise Record (right)
|
Read the text of the resolutions
approved by City Council Resolution 8-23 Approving Valley's Edge General Plan Amendment Resolution 9-23 Adopting the Valleys Edge Specific Plan http://chico-ca.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=1101 |
|
Press Conference Details
On Tuesday, January 3, the Chico City Council approved the Valley’s Edge Specific Plan. In a packed chamber room and an additional room for overflow, the City Council voted 5-1 to approve the project. On Friday, January 6, Smart Growth Advocates held a press conference. At this press conference, six citizens representing Smart Growth Advocates, the Altacal Audubon Society, and Friends of Butte Creek provided fact-based and detailed evidence demonstrating the deep flaws in the VESP. Susan Tchudi began with the SGA’s response the the Statement of Overriding Considerations: The Final Environmental Impact Report for Valley’s Edge found two impacts that can not be mitigated--greenhouse gas emissions and aesthetics. On that basis alone, the Valley’s Edge development should not go forward. Greenhouse gas emissions and the continued production of CO2 in our atmosphere create an existential threat. Recognizing this threat, Chico’s Climate Action Plan set a goal for reaching net zero emissions by 2045. Chico’s City Council passed the CAP unanimously. The City’s efficiency target is 2.76 MT CO2e per capita per year. However the GHG emissions for Valley’s Edge are estimated to be around 3.13 per capita. The Valley’s Edge Specific Plan is thus inconsistent with the City’s Climate Action Plan. A second impact that cannot be mitigated is aesthetics. With 1446 acres chewed up by 2777 housing units, Chico will lose the precious view up the rangeland and into the foothills east of Chico. We are already losing views as housing encroaches on our wild spaces. For our health, wellness, and happiness we need to maintain the natural beauty. In order to approve Valley’s Edge with its two unmitigatable impacts, the City was required to provide a Statement of Overriding Considerations. It provides six reasons the project should go ahead; opponents of Valley’s Edge find all six reasons faulty. 1. The City’s staff report claims that Valley’s Edge provides a variety of housing needed by the City. In fact, the “variety” of housing is virtually all middle and low density and virtually all for middle to upper class residents, with only nine acres of multifamily dwellings. Chico needs affordable housing. While the developer has declared (at the Planning Commission meeting and at the 1/3/23 City Council meeting) that he will include workforce housing and small cottages, the analysis included in the Housing report in this packet reveals that the numbers don’t pencil out. The houses in Valley’s Edge will be unaffordable for moderate and low income people. 2. The staff report touts the 36-acre CARD park as a reason for approving the project. This park represents a small percentage of total acreage of this project. Moreover, the staff report claims that the VESP “also includes neighborhood parks and other usable open space for the Project’s residents,” failing to add that the open space and parks are exclusively for the HOA residents of Valley’s Edge. While the developer has said he would consider allowing use for others who would pay a fee, this simply underlines the exclusivity of Valley’s Edge. The loss of this open space to Butte County residents puts this consideration in the loss category, not the gain category. 3. The staff report claims using dubious data that the VESP will help the economy by creating jobs. There are a number of problems with this claim. While acreage is set aside for a commercial village, there are no specifics about what might go there. At the 1/3/23 City Council Meeting, the developer added an image to his report, showing a small local grocery store, another aspirational element added to placate critics who pointed out that residents would have to travel for goods and services. Moreover, while there is no way to know what might inhabit that space, it is more than likely that cashiers, tellers, baggers, and clerks will not be able to afford homes in Valley’s Edge. 4. The staff report claims that VESP will manage the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI), using Land Planning, Fire Fighting Capability, Fire Resistant Materials and Building Standards, Fuel Reduction Management, and Emergency Preparedness. The VESP claims that the HOA of VE will be responsible for maintaining standards and fuel reduction. Those who have lived through recent fires in our region know that these are inadequate measures because of the intensity of the fires, their speed, and their heat. Chico’s official Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) identifies virtually all parcels on the eastern edge of the existing City limits as areas with the highest risk for wildfire. This area has burned three times in the past 19 years. 5. The staff report claims that the VESP will generate revenue through property taxes and retail sales tax. However, the huge pressure on Chico’s infrastructure through the addition of 6000 new residents will easily eat up any gains in revenue. According to Environmental Defence: “Our governments subsidize sprawl by building infrastructure that supports low density development such as highways. But, studies show that low density development doesn’t pay its way. Municipal councils often think that development charges cover the cost of growth, but they only cover the capital costs. Ongoing maintenance, operations and replacement are left out of the equation." 6. The staff report states that the VESP will help implement the City’s 2030 General Plan. While the General Plan established Special Planning Areas for growth in the future, Chico is not growing enough to require development in this SPA. Chico doesn’t require housing sprawl to meet its housing needs. The General Plan also calls for density and infill, for walkable, bikeable neighborhoods. Chico needs to up-zone, rezone, and look to all of the places that require urban renewal for any new housing plans. Marty Dunlap (using data compiled by Kathy Coots) demonstrated that the true need in Chico is for affordable housing, not above market priced housing. Jared Geiser (representing Altacal Audubon) described how the destruction of the various habitats contained within the 1446 acres will affect the wildlife in this area, including many birds and creatures that are already in decline. Jacque Chase described the inadequacies of the plans in Valley’s Edge to create fire resistance and fire response. Allen Harthorn (representing Friends of Butte Creek) demonstrated the impact of all of the housing and road building on the quality of water. Marty Dunlap described the impact on water availability. Drawing on groundwater from the Vina Basin/Tuscan aquifer will stress the water availability on an aquifer that is already in overdraft. Marty Dunlap announced that Smart Growth Advocates will pursue a Referendum to stop Valley’s Edge. The signature gathering will begin somewhere around the middle of January. If you want to participate, please contact smartgrowthchico@gmail.com. |
From the Enterprise Record,1-9- 2023
Valley’s Edge in next phase
Council approval triggers referendum, litigation CHICO >> Susan Tchudi has issues with Valley’s Edge. Ask her, and she’ll speak at length about water, traffic, greenhouse gases, wildfire, wildlife — a list of ways her advocacy group, Smart Growth Advocates, and partner organizations say the project will impact Chico. Tchudi made her case to the Chico City Council last Tuesday (Jan. 3) at a public hearing in which twice as many opponents, like her, than supporters spoke on the development. After three and a half hours, councilors approved Valley’s Edge on a 5-1 vote. “We did anticipate that that’s what would happen,” Tchudi said Saturday afternoon. “It wasn’t a surprise, and we were pretty prepared for it.” Preparations included a plan to challenge the council’s decision. As announced at a news conference Friday, Smart Growth Advocates has started the process for a referendum — and, with support from the Sierra Club, intends to file a lawsuit to stop the project. The referendum organizers need 5,600 signatures to get their measure on the ballot, in a special election. Tchudi said their target is 7,000 to ensure they qualify. Organizers have 30 days after the city responds to their challenge, filed Friday with City Attorney Vince Ewing, to collect the required signatures. That’s roughly 233 signatures a day between mid-January and mid-February. Tchudi called the signature effort “daunting” but said her group is drawing range of volunteers beyond Smart Growth Advocates’ 20 core members. The project applicant also cited a broad base in a statement to this newspaper. “The Valley’s Edge Specific Plan represents the input of thousands of people working for over 14 years to create a plan that meets the future needs of Chico,” the statement says. “The plan evolved with feedback from residents, organizations, and government representatives, leading to project approval…. “We are extremely proud of this citywide collaboration. We believe any further effort to delay it is unreasonable and will unfairly punish Chico residents wishing to own homes by limiting choice, resulting in higher home prices.” At issue Valley’s Edge encompasses 1,448 acres between East 20th Street and the Skyway from Stilson Canyon Road to Honey Run Road. The project site abuts Stonegate, the 700-home development approved for construction along Bruce Road. Smart Growth Advocates formed six years ago in response to Stonegate, Tchudi said. For Valley’s Edge, the council approved a conceptual plan, called a specific plan, and a 20-year development agreement for the site. The specific plan calls for 28 acres of very low-density residential (20,000-square-foot lots), 131 acres of low-density residential (15,000 square feet), 334 acres of low-density single-family housing, 101 acres of medium-density residential, and 9 acres medium/high-density residential. All told, these would yield 2,777 units. The plan also includes a community core of mixed uses, including apartments and a school; a 419-acre regional park; and 267 acres of open space with three community parks. “In addition to housing and other benefits, Valley’s Edge will provide the largest parkland dedication since Bidwell Park was gifted to the city in 1905,” according to the statement. Developer Bill Brouhard also has pledged to preserve natural resources and historical features, such as rock walls, on the property. Referendum organizers assert the development, which would bring 6,000 residents or more to that edge of town, will do irreversible harm. They point to findings in the final environmental impact report that Valley’s Edge cannot mitigate two significant impacts, greenhouse-gas emissions and aesthetic changes to the viewshed. Other impacts detailed by the group include traffic and congestion from 23,000 to 28,000 additional trips a day, including on the Skyway, a Paradise Ridge escape route; further stress on the Lower Tuscan Aquifer to provide water to the development; stormwater runoff into environmentally sensitive areas in the Butte Creek watershed; and encroachment into wildlife habitats. Tchudi said Smart Growth Advocates has financial backing for its legal challenge from Sierra Club and partners such as Friends of Butte Creek. “We’ve got to get a lot of people,” she said of the referendum drive, “but we feel like the tide has kind of turned. It took a long time to get attention to Valley’s Edge. “I’m optimistic, but I do feel it’s daunting.” https://edition.pagesuite.com/popovers/dynamic_article_popover.aspx?guid=8f6e314e-ff11-4e56-9ec5-f7a9fd96bda6&appcode=ERE610&eguid=187461fc-eee6-4ab9-86c6-edb238e963d9&pnum=3# |
