CHICO — The Chico Chamber of Commerce held an online panel discussion and forum via Zoom on Tuesday to go over the Valley’s Edge Specific Plan.
Chamber Chairman Elect Brandon Slater of Slater and Son kicked off the discussion and spoke on Measures O and P, which will be voted on in March and will directly impact the plans for the massive project currently planned for southeast Chico.
A recent referendum moved the project to the ballot box. If approved by voters, Valley’s Edge will go forward as expected in the master plan but if voters shy away from it, the project will have to take a different route.
“The reason why this project, or this initiative, this measure, is important to the Chico Chamber of Commerce is over the last several years we’ve been hearing — and it’s been one of our top priorities and complaints from our members — that there is not enough housing available for people who are working for our members,” Slater said. “And that’s been a detriment to our members.”
Slater went on to call the 2,700 housing units expected to come with Valley’s Edge “significant.”
The nine-person panel consisted of Chico Community Development Director Brendan Vieg, Chico Area Recreation and Park District General Manager Annabel Grimm, real estate broker Brandi Laffins, Butte County Housing Authority Executive Director Ed Mayer, president of consulting firm Economic Forensics and Analytics Robert Eyler, retired Northstar engineer Jim Stevens, Chico Planning Commissioner Toni Scott, sustainability and energy consultant Joshua Pierce and former Chico Fire Chief Bill Hack.
Questions for the panel came directly from the chamber’s members as opposed to those watching remotely. The chamber’s CEO and President Mike Egbert was the moderator for the event.
Vieg explained that Valley’s Edge is one of five special planning areas allowed in the city’s master plan, and it is the first to begin development. Vieg compared the long-term project to other previous developments.
“So Valley’s Edge is a master plan area that would be built out over several decades, similar to how Cal Park did 50 years ago as well as the currently actively developing areas of the Northwest Chico Specific Plan and the Meriam Park areas that were approved in the mid-2000s,” Vieg said.
The question arose as to whether the development project would considerably increase traffic both in the area of Valley’s Edge, and also Chico as a whole. Stevens said studies showed that the impact on traffic would be less than significant and that the development itself would have amenities within it, further limiting the use of roadways outside of Valley’s Edge.
“Without it, without these housing opportunities, there’s going to be people required to commute into Chico,” Stevens said. “Chico is the region’s largest employment center and what happens there is we’re going to get the same increased congestion and we will have the same wear and tear on our street network.”
Eyler shared his input on the lasting effects of the housing shortage.
“It’s going to increase the local cost of living when there’s a housing shortage,” Eyler said. “It will reduce housing choice in the sense that when you have a housing shortage it usually means there’s some shift in the mix of demand versus what’s supplied and then you have this sort of race to whatever units are available, especially in the single-family home market.”
The topic of parks also came up and was directed toward Grimm who said CARD parks are free to the public. Valley’s Edge is slated to have one CARD park but others could be overseen by home owners associations.
Valley’s Edge has become a controversial topic in the past two years and several Chico residents have spoken out against it, leading to the referendum that pushed the development project to the ballot. Most of the panelists disputed points made by the opposition.
Chico Chico City Councilor Addison Winslow sat in on the discussion but originally had requested to be on the panel.
“I asked if I could participate either as a panelist for an alternative pro-housing view or offer a rebuttal and the organizers politely declined,” Winslow said.
Winslow went on to say that he had considerable respect for the panelists but wanted to share what he believed to be inaccuracies during the discussion.
Related Articles
Where are California’s rent bargains? They’re not cheap
Court upholds preliminary injunction in San Francisco homeless encampment case
California continues to stink at attracting new residents
California rents dipped 1% last year, first drop since 2020
California housing costs at 7-year low, relatively speaking
“Climate change went unmentioned,” Winslow said. “Toni Scott, chair of the Planning Commission at the time of the approval of Valley’s Edge, incorrectly stated that viewshed and traffic were the two environmental impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable. Actually, it was viewshed — or aesthetics — and greenhouse gas emissions. Because transportation analyses are now based on vehicle miles traveled instead of level of service — delay at intersections — the environmental impact report said nothing about traffic impacts.”
Winslow was the one who wrote the transportation section for the Butte Environmental Council’s comments on Valley’s Edge.
“The transportation analysis in the Valley’s Edge was very shoddy, taking every opportunity to discount the amount of driving required of Valley’s Edge residents, including claiming that seniors drive 50% as much as anyone else, granting a whopping 25% reduction to estimated driving, since half of the housing is reserved for seniors 55 plus,” Winslow said. “Never mind that 55 will still be working age for our generation. The transportation impact was still found to be significant, but low enough that it could be mitigated with a transportation management program.”
Valley’s Edge will be on the March 25 ballot which will determine the direction the development project goes down the line.
+ There are no comments
Add yours