Forum on Smart Growth
On Thursday, February 27, Smart Growth Advocates and Green City Chico Coalition held a Forum entitled “Chico—How Do We Grow from Here?” The timing and the content of the Forum were selected 1) to commemorate the passage of the referendum to defeat the Valley’s Edge development and 2) to consider alternatives for growth that protect Chico from sprawl. Following are Steve Cismowski's summary of the forum and Susan Tchudi's "Editor for a Day" piece in the Enterprise Record critiquing the City's Growth and Community Development Committee.
Summary Comments
Steven Cismowski
As we have heard from our illustrious panel of speakers tonight, Chico’s Future Housing Growth needs to meet new, and adapting requirements to keep ahead of economic and environmental needs, while delivering safe, affordable, livable neighborhoods, and ensuring environmental responsiveness and wise resource use. This is challenging, but not impossible.
We need to support our leaders who scrutinize proposed developments to ensure optimal resource use and to ensure Master Planning goals are being met by each project. By challenging the status quo, removing barriers to infill development, identifying, securing and implementing funding to support development of “missing middle” housing, creative projects fulfilling all needs can begin happening. Future development must minimize negative impacts and community threats coming from pollution, traffic, excessive pavement, additional unfunded infrastructure, fire/flood risks, while preserving unique natural and agricultural resources. We must make it easier for small developers to make substantial enhancements to our livable city by supporting infill and mixed-use development on Opportunity Sites, through ideas like Form Based Codes.
Climate crisis and escalation of fires in the WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE require rethinking current development strategies that rely on ever-expanding greenfield developments occupying lands that provide invaluable emergency buffers protecting both our natural and built resources. When it comes to land use, another resource mantra applies – REDUCE, REUSE, RECYCLE!
Current development relying on car/vehicle access results in wasteful land use undermining our climate action goals. Compact development promoting multi-modal transportation is vital to help reduce the negative impacts to our planet and boost livability today.
Chico’s Housing Element clearly identifies we are not meeting our diverse housing goals and failing to live up to the goals of the general plan. While low-income housing needs prioritization, there is also the “Missing Middle” gap in housing that needs prioritization.
The City and local developers need to do better to secure the needed grant funding and financial incentives that make delivering the “Missing Middle” pencil out.
The General Plan’s vision is broadly supported by SGA, and clearly the majority of Chico voters. We demand developers and government leadership ensure stated goals included in the general plan are met.
Future sustainable, vibrant cities will share similar characteristics: the 10-minute city (compact urban form); diverse housing opportunities balancing all levels of affordability; thriving, independent business opportunities; people actively engaged in the public realm, streets, sidewalks, parks, open spaces, businesses.
Smart Growth Advocates, Green City Coalition, Butte Environmental Council, and numerous other individuals and advocacy groups are working together with Governmental leadership to ensure a sustainable future is possible. As with any group comprised of individuals, divergent ideas can present momentary challenges. What I know firsthand is that when divergent ideas are embraced and heard, the ultimate product is more creative and stronger than any one individual’s vision can produce. I have confidence in the expertise, passion and vision of the people to deliver a bright future.
Editorial Comment: Chico Enterprise Record
Susan Tchudi
On Thursday, February 27, Smart Growth Advocates and Green City Chico Coalition held a Forum entitled “Chico—How Do We Grow from Here?” The timing and the content of the Forum were selected 1) to commemorate the passage of the referendum to defeat the Valley’s Edge development and 2) to consider alternatives for growth that protect Chico from sprawl.
The Forum was also to be held in light of the City Council’s ad hoc Growth and Community Development committee, which had purported to be working on how Chico should grow. Members of Smart Growth Advocates believed that some of the ideas about smart growth were not given full consideration by this committee.
But before that . . .
On Tuesday, February 14—less than two weeks before Smart Growth Advocates Forum was held—“Believe in Chico, LLC”, the landowner and project applicant for Valley’s Edge, did an end run around the will of the people. “Believe in Chico” (that’s an ironic name given this move ignores the voters of Chico) has filed a claim against the city. The claim alleges violations of the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, known as SB 330, which prevents local governments from enacting policies restricting housing projects.
That means that the developers of Valley’s Edge are thumbing their noses at the referendum vote and pronouncing that they will go ahead with their plan to build despite citizens’ clear preference to the contrary.
I had great hopes when the Growth and Community Development ad hoc committee of the City Council was formed. Chico needs housing, and this committee could take a careful look at who needs housing, what sort of housing is needed, and where that housing could/should go. I was even more heartened when several members of the committee, including the co-chairs Addison Winslow and Tom van Overbeek asserted that this investigation would be data-based. Facts. Evidence. The committee included developers, planners, and smart growth advocates.
Alas, the data gathering has fallen well short of what we need. In fact, the subtext of a whole series of developer-oriented presentations was to resurrect the voter-rejected Valley’s Edge development. The charge of the committee was to look at development issues with an eye to adjusting the General Plan. But much of what we need to know has not been pursued.
The committee needs to seek further to answer questions. For example, the developers on the committee (and in the audience) have asserted—without factual evidence—that the demand in Chico is for three bedroom/two bathroom houses.Yet Smart Growth Advocates Marty Dunlap and Ann Bykerk-Kaufman, on the other hand, provided evidence that Chico has overbuilt above average income housing and under built housing for low-moderate and low income housing.
The current General Plan calls for infill and density in housing. But the developers on the committee have simply asserted that infill is not possible.
The fact is, large developers don’t want to be bothered by the small profits of infill projects. I’ve come to feel it’s all about the money, and not an effort to figure out how to house the people who live in Chico (whose median income is under $65,000 and who can’t afford a $450,000 house). I’ve come to feel that they really don’t care about housing needs in Chico.
The ad hoc committee could have done a thorough exploration to solve a problem, instead of going back to their old playbook that involves building out (with committee member Jim Stevens raising the question of developing beyond Chico’s carefully preserved Greenline!). An effective committee would be imaginative and truly investigative in their charge.
But, at a recent ad hoc committee meeting the subtext became text: Bring back Valley’s Edge, with developer Bill Brouhard presenting a full-color argument about why Valley’s Edge was the perfect planned community for Chico growth. Now at the end of the ad hoc committee’s “discovery” process, we are right back to square one: Valley’s Edge.
So where do things stand now? Eric Nilsson, a Smart Growth member of the Growth and Community Development Committee points out that “[t]he Chico City Council Ad Hoc Committee on Housing and Community Development is moving into the next stage of making recommendations to the City Council. SGA representatives Anne Bykirk-Kauffman and Eric Nilsson will be caucusing with Addison Winslow and Doug Guillon and Jim Stevens will be caucusing with Tom van Overbeek. Guillon is one of the investors in Valley’s Edge and Jim Stevens is an engineer associate with development in Chico and has also worked on the Valley’s Edge development.”
We don’t know what will happen next with Valley’s Edge. If “Believe in Chico” does sue the City, what will be the outcome? Will the City Council re-vote on Valley’s Edge? If the City is sued, can they win? Who knows? Different judge. Different Circumstances.
The Forum on April 27, presented ideas—fact-based and researched—about housing needs in Chico; about fire risk; about the impact of climate change; about the loss of habitat due to sprawl; about the value of, and need for, infill development; about policies that could allow for smarter development. Smart Growth Advocates hold to our view that Valley’s Edge does not meet our standards for growth in Chico.