City claims Warren v. Chico agreement “unworkable,” seeks judicial relief

CHICO — The City of Chico is proposing new conditions in its Warren v. Chico settlement agreement to supersede current enforcement procedures, according to a press release Wednesday afternoon.

One of three proposed conditions of a new agreement would change city anti-camping enforcement procedures to be consistent with the June 28 Supreme Court decision on Grants Pass v. Johnson, ruling that municipalities may enforce anti-camping laws without regard to available shelter spaces.

According to the press release, Chico claimed the Warren v. Chico settlement agreement been “unworkable” for the city by restraining the city’s ability to address public health and safety issues on public property — similar to other cities in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The city proposed new conditions Monday to Legal Services of Northern California, which represents Warren in the agreement. They include:

• Continuing to fund and operate the Genesis Emergency Non-congregate Housing Site through at least the end of the settlement term in January 2027.

• Providing a single alternate site at a location of the city’s choosing until the end of 2024.

• Making anti-camping enforcement procedures consistent with local, state and federal laws, and the Supreme Court ruling on Grants Pass v. Johnson.

Legal Services of Northern California replied to the proposition in a letter Tuesday, stating it strongly disagrees that the Grants Pass v. Johnson decision would warrant massive changes to the current Warren v. Chico settlement agreement, offering “no legal authority or argument for this position.”

The letter suggested the city send a complete revised agreement so that the law firm would have sufficient information to discuss with its homeless clients.

“At this point, we have a mere three sentences in which you assert are the terms of the City’s new proposed settlement agreement,” the letter stated.

In the press release, Chico stated it would seek judicial relief pursuant to rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Procedure “considering that response.”