A watered-down version of TreeAction's tree ordinance was adopted by the City of Chico a couple weeks ago, requiring property owners of undeveloped lots larger than 10,000 square feet to obtain a permit to remove a tree 18" in diameter or greater.

Umm, yay?

A good start, but I would have liked to have seen trees down to 12" protected, or even better, a clause that addresses the number of trees that can be removed from a given location based on the total number of trees and their respective sizes. For example, a site that has lain fallow for 20 years may have numerous young valley oaks less than 18"; if would be good to see some of them be allowed to continue to grow and mature. The goal: Insure that the urban forest canopy continues to improve and provide shade, oxygen, beauty, and CO2 sequestration for future generations to enjoy.

On a related note the approved ordinance will also require future parking lot developers to include shade trees in parking lot designs if the lot holds 25 or more vehicles.

Looks great on paper, I would like to see it enforced in practice.

I went on a tour of the Comanche Creek area on Saturday morning, walking through a woodland that stretches from E. Park Street and Meyers to the end of Otterson Drive and beyond. There is more to this stretch of public land than a disputed substation for the Butte County Mosquito and Vector Control District.

For those that don't know, Comanche Creek historically was a seasonal waterway, supporting a riparian ecosystem similar to Lindo Channel and Little Chico Creek. Over the years irrigation needs diverted water into the drainage, such that with few exceptions Comanche Creek now enjoys a year-round flow.

Paralleling the drainage is the railroad bed that once carried wood from Sterling City to the Diamond Match Factory which serves as a fine walking path. As we strolled I was taken by the Bidwell Park - sized oaks and a delightful palette of fall colors, courtesy of wild grapes and black walnut.

The question that will be addressed in the not-do-distant future is what to do with this resource.

My first thought has to do with "balanced anonymity": Let it remain anonymous enough such that it can remain litter-free and allow nature to do what it may, but let it not be so forgotten such that one day we blink only to find that it has been turned into a double row of industrial warehouses, each backing up to a disrespected muddy ditch.

Okay, so maybe dishing out $1,000,000 to purchase cleaner-burning wood stoves is a bit far-fetched, but here are the requests that I would make of the biggest retailer in the known universe:

--Annual discounts to all teachers purchasing school supplies for their classes

--Discounts on any item that will be used in a school or community garden

--20% off for anyone who shows up on a bicycle or via public transportation

--"Farmer's Market Sundays": On Saturday afternoon Walmart purchases all of the remaining Saturday Farmer's Market produce from local growers and then sells it the following day at a competitive price.

--Conversely, should they expand to sell fresh produce, refuse to sell product shipped in from south of the equator (i.e. New Zealand apples in March).

--Demonstration of attractive, drought-tolerant landscaping using native plants

--Use of permeable concrete in the parking lot

--Charge 10 cents per disposable bag used, with the proceeds going towards cleanup efforts in nearby Little Chico Creek (including removal of plastic bags)

--Include a label on domestically-sourced foods that identifies county and state of origin

Many ask, why pick on Walmart? What about K-mart, Costco, etc? My answer is simply that we have to start somewhere. We have passed that threshold where it is okay for people and companies to continually take without giving back. Walmart has the resources to be a leader in this regard, and I for one applaud the Chico City Council for pushing them to do so.

Just over a year ago, I wrote a blog entry about the fact that if your property in the city of Chico is zoned R1, then a Use Permit is required to legally keep chickens. I learned that the price tag for this permit is $1,363. I found this completely ridiculous.

On July 13 of this year I did submit a letter to the Planning Services Director of the City of Chico regarding this issue, and received a timely and polite response from Angela Spain, Assistant Planner. She wrote that "Staff will consider modifying the requirements for the keeping of fowl" as a part of the General Plan update, and that the zoning code will also be revised in coordination with this update. She also passed on that the fee for a Use Permit Application is $1,416. (Inflation? Or perhaps I misread the literature the first time around?).

At this point I could have chosen to submit my letter to the City Council in hopes that they might move forward on this most pressing issue of poultry ownership in advance of the General Plan Update, but the reality is that it is unlikely that my need to be a keeper of chickens will outpace the finalization of the General Plan document.

I chose instead to submit the following letter to be included for consideration in the General Plan Update:

In residential homes over the last five decades, the location of the garage in relation to the front door and has defined the last two generations.

When my wife and I went house hunting in Chico in 2006, this wasn't a major factor in our search, but it was something we kept in mind: When guests arrived at our house, what would they see first--the front door, or the garage door? Would they have to amble across the driveway to get to our house, or would the front walk originate from the sidewalk?

I look forward to when homes are once again built that downplay the importance of the automobile, and when buyers more actively seek out such homes.

I've stayed mum on Chico's other hot-button eco-issues of the summer--BEC and Wal-Mart-- but I will chime in on the proposed relocation of the Saturday Farmers Market.

First of all, I really can't imagine a real difference in terms of congestion, parking challenges, impact to downtown businesses or visibility if one were to move the market a whopping 2 blocks.

There will still be hundreds of folks in the downtown area convening on a central location every Saturday, arriving on foot, by bike, or by car.

Contrary to the Farmers Market Board, I am certainly not concerned that the market will lose customers because they can't find the new market--I give Chicoans more credit than that.

And while some downtown business owners have expressed a desire to see the market move, the fact that the Downtown Chico Business Association has publicly stated that they have no position on the matter is telling.

Of bigger concern to me is the idea that moving the market to the Municipal Building Parking lot could result in the loss of 10-15 vendors, according to Charles Clark, who manages the Wednesday market at North Valley Plaza. I look forward to seeing the results of the analysis that has been so generously volunteered by Professor LaDona Knigge (LaDona, you rock!), that will hopefully provide additional verification of these numbers.

If anything, I feel the Saturday Market needs a central location that provides room for expansion, and not the reverse. In my ideal world, the market would have more bike parking, and a space to sit down and relax for a few minutes while eating your breakfast burrito and sipping coffee. In addition to the present offerings, I would also like to see more vendors selling things such as:
--locally produced diary products (raw milk, yogurt)
--locally grown and milled rice flour, corn meal, and wheat flour
--farm-raised "sea"food (catfish, tilapia, trout, crayfish)
--heirloom seed packets (I only seen one vendor, Mike, selling seed packets--his product is good, but I would like to see more diversity of options)
--Locally-made value-added products such as canned fruits, salsas, and tomato sauces (especially in winter)

I am sure that readers can come up with many other potential offerings that are presently absent from the market.

Safety--Yes, I believe safety is a legitimate concern, though in my limited experience I have seen more courtesy than conflict among vehicles, bikes and pedestrians at the intersection of 2nd and Wall. Could an improvement be as simple as a volunteer crossing guard to two?

And finally, parking. The times that I have driven to the market, I have arrived early enough such that parking hasn't been a problem for me. Did anyone at Tuesday's City Council Internal Affairs Committee meeting suggest the idea of a free shuttle to move people to and from a more remote parking lot and the market?

There is currently space for 4600 trees to be planted within Chico's public right-of-way, and thousands of more spots available in parking lots and on private residential property.

Those with homes in older areas of Chico can attest to the value of the tree canopy in both reducing the need for air conditioning as well as improving the general ambiance of the community.

The city lacks the funds to plant and maintain 4600 new trees, but that doesn't mean that folks can't take the plunge and plant their own trees in the space between the sidewalk and the street in front of their homes. I would recommend native valley oaks or California sycamores, however other good choices are presented on the Chico General Services website.

(Drawing from Chico Enterprise Record, October 14, 1999)

My daughter's first ever visit to a Chico Farmer's Market was by bike. With her buckled into a car seat that was firmly secured into the bike trailer, she gazed intently at the scenery as we cruised along at a modest 5-10 miles per hour.

We used the bike lane on Warner Avenue, but we had no choice in slowing down traffic on Third Street for a few blocks.

The debate continues as to how to approach future transportation needs in Chico. As far as downtown is concerned, I am actually pretty pleased with how things work at the moment, and feel safer biking downtown than in other parts of Chico. The lights on Main an Broadway are timed at about 22 mph, so rarely do I see vehicles going much faster then 25 mph. Also, with so much bike and pedestrian activity downtown, I feel that drivers tend to drive more defensively than in other parts of Chico.

While I like Karen Goodwin's bold strategy of exercising her right to bike on any road in Chico--which she hopes will lead to drivers in other parts of town being just as aware of cyclists--I am not ready to take the bike trailer on to Mangrove/Cohasset, Park, Nord,or East Avenue any time soon.

What does the future hold for transportation in Chico? City planners must balance the needs for people to have convenient access downtown businesses, residential through traffic making their way down the full lengths of Main or Broadway, bikes and vehicles sharing the same streets (with pedestrians crossing these streets), and a growing population to boot. Other parts of Chico have additional challenges.

If rising oil and gas prices are indeed in the future, then the problem of too many cars may solve itself. Even if some of these vehicles are replaced by hybrids or electric vehicles, at least they will likely tend to be smaller.

In the mean time, please be aware of me and my daughter slowing down traffic a bit. We have a right to the road too, and we don't always have the luxury of a bike lane.

And I thought we were done with yard signs for 2008.

Last week at a social engagement a friend connected me with a gentleman wearing the black "Restore Disc Golf" t-shirt. He said: "You two should talk."

I really didn't want to.

But they asked me if I was in favor of restoring disc golf to Upper Bidwell Park, so I replied. I began by prefacing that I had never been up to the site (which is why I haven't blogged about it until this point), but went on to say that I had played disc golf in other locations, and knew that the bottom line was that despite one's best intentions of hitting the target, you go where your disc goes. As a result, the impact of disc golf on a site is much greater than the impact of trail-based activities such as hiking and mountain biking. I believe that Upper Bidwell, with its relatively thin soils, is especially sensitive to off-trail human impact.

As such, I explained that considering the large number of people now playing disc golf in Chico, I felt that Upper Bidwell probably isn't the best place for a course, though I do hope that more appropriate location can be found.

The gentleman then went on to give his 5-minute spiel of why disc golf should be restored, perhaps in hopes that I, as a relative newcomer to Chico, I would change my mind.

I didn't.

I did counter by stating that I felt it was a shame that so much time, energy and money was being spent on decided where people should and shouldn't be allowed to throw a piece of rubber, as I think there are so many other more important local issues in which people should be engaged: If, how, and where Chico should grow; the state of cafeteria lunches in our schools; homelessness in our town; and water resources, to name just a few.

"But it's the City that has made disc golf an issue!" And he went on for another two minutes.

If the fervor of disc golfers could be tapped for a source of renewable energy, then I would be all for further discussion and debate.

Otherwise, can we talk about something else?

I put my absentee ballot in the mail last week. Though my choices will not surprise many people, if you're still curious, here they are:

1A: Yes
Though a high-speed passenger train system is expensive, I don't believe that the present economic crisis is a reason our children and grandchildren should be denied a fuel-efficient, environmentally friendly modern transportation system.

2: Yes
How we treat and respect other creatures is a reflection of who we are as a society.

3: Yes

4: No

5: No

6: No

7: No
I will vote for renewable energy initiatives that make sense. Based on what I have read, this one doesn't.

8: No
The only political sign in our front yard is a "No On 8" banner. Many excellent opinion pieces have been written on this topic. Other than the sign, I have nothing new to add besides my emphatic "No" vote.

9: No

10: No
See 7.

11: Yes

12: Yes

Partisan Offices: I voted Democrat.
Many are concerned that too many Democrats in our government will upset the value of our "balanced" two-party system. I have seen the results (or lack there of) of this philosophy too many times since 1980, and with few exceptions, I have not been overly impressed.

School District: Jann Reed, Zane Schreder.
I almost voted for Liz Griffin over Schreder, as she also seems like a good candidate. The News and Review made a good argument that Schreder's professional background would present a conflict of interest in regards to school development projects, and would thus prevent him from voting on many key issues. However, I still think that his wisdom and insight in these matters will make him a valuable member of the school board.

CARD: Mark Sweany, Jerry Hughes

City Council: Jim Walker, Ali Sarsour, Ann Schwab, Andy Holcomb.
There is criticism that voting for these candidates will result in a development-hostile environment for Chico, which could have serious repercussions for our local economy. I don't think that any city councilor--progressive, conservative, liberal, traditional, sustainable, or otherwise--can deny that development is one of the key elements of Chico's future. The recent 7-0 vote to allow for the expansion of Chico Volkswagen attests to this.

However, I believe a progressive council will look at development critically with an eye towards the long-term welfare of our community. Perhaps they will make demands of contractors and builders that might not have been made ten years ago, such as requiring the use of permeable concrete for all new construction or expecting that housing developments be designed to better accommodate pedestrian and bike traffic than those built in the 80's and '90's.

I think developers looking to ply their trade in Chico will buy into the fact that Chico is a great place to do business for a multitude of reasons, and it will be worth jumping through these additional hoops to operate here.

And if the existing development community thinks that this state of affairs isn't worth the trouble and wants to move on, I am sure that there are other, more progressive builders who will see this as an opportunity.

Yes, I am optimist; I find it more pleasant than the alternative.