mbohn
May 10 2007, 04:30 PM
This a copy of an email I received from my friend and disc golfer Lon Glazner, please take the time and try some the options he has offered to save our course :D
Lons message:
Here are five suggestions for things everyone can do to keep disc golf in Chico.
1. Email or write the Chico City Council and ask them to support disc golf TODAY!
(see this web page http://www.chico.ca.us/City_Council/Home_Page.asp)
2. Send supportive "Letters to the editor" to local press (this page has links http://www.chicodiscgolf.org/Chicodiscgolf/petition2.cfm).
3. Ask friends, family, and disc golfers to sign the online petition so they can get email updates:
http://www.chicodiscgolf.org/Chicodiscgolf/petition2.cfm
4. Email me photos of people playing so I can forward them to the City Council. If they�re going to remove disc golf they should see the people they�re taking out of the park. ([email protected]).
5. I have lots of bumper stickers if anyone wants more or would like to hand them out on the course.
Lon Glazner
As an example of what�s going on behind the scenes at the City, one of the Friends of Bidwell Park sent this email to multiple City Council members. The Friends of Bidwell Park demanded that the City spend $300,000+ on an environmental report for the disc golf course and Bidwell Park. That money had been earmarked for studies, baskets, tee pads as well as other park needs. Now that the money is gone they aren�t happy with the results.
Randy's Email (upper park disc golf site opponent)
(email start)
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 5:12 AM
Subject: A taste of the EIR, smoked for hours over a coconut wood fire, and drowned in ketchup like a good bureaucratic work should be
Sorry if some of you don't have an interest in this, I promise to refine my list of buddies receiving any of this before next email.
I've been reading the EIR portion of the plan for two days now and just finished reading through the first 209 pages, including the environmental impacts section that includes mitigation measures.
for now will list some highlights
� The existing conditions for the disc golf area (and the whole park) is pegged at the date when the NOP for the Update/EIR process was released: 10-14-04.
This is supposedly �according to language in the EIR, the norm for the CEQA process � backed up by court cases. This means the community may be [censored] out of luck in trying to get the EIR to even address the impacts of disc golf's presence on numerous aspects normally covered by the CEQA categories. In fact you'll note that at every turn, the DG proposal is described as lessening impacts of current unmitigated use.
� No project alternative that places only the number of fairways that can occur without impacts to wildflower fields is offered.
� The city council will need to chose the 'restoration alternative', if disc golf at the site is to be abandoned.
� The statement that 'disc golf has been played at the site since 1989', could be a challenge, despite the fact that a small handful ever played there before the current metal tone poles were installed.
I think the General Plan with its RCA designation was originally adopted in 1990, thusly the city might argue that DG pre-existed the RCA the same as all of Bidwell Park's other developed intensive recreational facilities.
Accompanying this is the recurring circular argument (paraphrased here) that the 'BPMMP must be consistent with the policies of the General Plan' , yet elsewhere we read (again paraphrased): 'the BPMMP is the most refined management guidance document' and therefore can contain its own standards, independent of the GP.
� Another shifty thing is that supposedly none of the 4 'park improvement' (aka development) projects will begin until there is adequate funding identified for their construction and long term maintenance.
That means business as usual if you ask me.
� There is a reference to setbacks from sidelcia robusta populations, but no clear definition of a fairway's proposed/expected edge
� Not clear yet about the setback from the cliff's edge mentioned, so no way to discern the effectiveness in thwarting the accumulation of lost discs below the cliffs (garbage)
� Another observation I've made is that Objectives and Implementation Strategies of section 3 are often quoted as reasons why no mitigation is needed for certain impacts � sort of like the mitigation is part and parcel of the management plan itself.
However, many of these Objectives and implementation strategies are not mandatory, and thusly I think the applicability of these as responses to impacts can't be used as mitigation.???
� The same can be said for the (unlisted) impact to sensitive resources by new, future unauthorized trails: there is no mandatory language that guarantees the city will monitor for nor necessarily close unofficial trails.
This is a great reminder of Jenny (of DFG) Marr's advice to identify Who, What, When, Why and Where before a supposed management strategy can be considered effective, along with 'mandatory (shall, must, etc) Language'.
� The EIR states flatly that 4 small vernal pools will be 'filled' as a result of Disc Golf Project development. I thought BEC's lawsuit put a stop to the loss of vernal pools?? No Off site mitigation or other mitigation is proposed for this impact.
Along with the usual denial of the Bidwell's intentions, the EIR is a real work of 'there's no problem here' rationalisation. I thought only Guys like Enron could afford this stuff....
Randy Abbott
(email end)
Lons message:
Here are five suggestions for things everyone can do to keep disc golf in Chico.
1. Email or write the Chico City Council and ask them to support disc golf TODAY!
(see this web page http://www.chico.ca.us/City_Council/Home_Page.asp)
2. Send supportive "Letters to the editor" to local press (this page has links http://www.chicodiscgolf.org/Chicodiscgolf/petition2.cfm).
3. Ask friends, family, and disc golfers to sign the online petition so they can get email updates:
http://www.chicodiscgolf.org/Chicodiscgolf/petition2.cfm
4. Email me photos of people playing so I can forward them to the City Council. If they�re going to remove disc golf they should see the people they�re taking out of the park. ([email protected]).
5. I have lots of bumper stickers if anyone wants more or would like to hand them out on the course.
Lon Glazner
As an example of what�s going on behind the scenes at the City, one of the Friends of Bidwell Park sent this email to multiple City Council members. The Friends of Bidwell Park demanded that the City spend $300,000+ on an environmental report for the disc golf course and Bidwell Park. That money had been earmarked for studies, baskets, tee pads as well as other park needs. Now that the money is gone they aren�t happy with the results.
Randy's Email (upper park disc golf site opponent)
(email start)
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 5:12 AM
Subject: A taste of the EIR, smoked for hours over a coconut wood fire, and drowned in ketchup like a good bureaucratic work should be
Sorry if some of you don't have an interest in this, I promise to refine my list of buddies receiving any of this before next email.
I've been reading the EIR portion of the plan for two days now and just finished reading through the first 209 pages, including the environmental impacts section that includes mitigation measures.
for now will list some highlights
� The existing conditions for the disc golf area (and the whole park) is pegged at the date when the NOP for the Update/EIR process was released: 10-14-04.
This is supposedly �according to language in the EIR, the norm for the CEQA process � backed up by court cases. This means the community may be [censored] out of luck in trying to get the EIR to even address the impacts of disc golf's presence on numerous aspects normally covered by the CEQA categories. In fact you'll note that at every turn, the DG proposal is described as lessening impacts of current unmitigated use.
� No project alternative that places only the number of fairways that can occur without impacts to wildflower fields is offered.
� The city council will need to chose the 'restoration alternative', if disc golf at the site is to be abandoned.
� The statement that 'disc golf has been played at the site since 1989', could be a challenge, despite the fact that a small handful ever played there before the current metal tone poles were installed.
I think the General Plan with its RCA designation was originally adopted in 1990, thusly the city might argue that DG pre-existed the RCA the same as all of Bidwell Park's other developed intensive recreational facilities.
Accompanying this is the recurring circular argument (paraphrased here) that the 'BPMMP must be consistent with the policies of the General Plan' , yet elsewhere we read (again paraphrased): 'the BPMMP is the most refined management guidance document' and therefore can contain its own standards, independent of the GP.
� Another shifty thing is that supposedly none of the 4 'park improvement' (aka development) projects will begin until there is adequate funding identified for their construction and long term maintenance.
That means business as usual if you ask me.
� There is a reference to setbacks from sidelcia robusta populations, but no clear definition of a fairway's proposed/expected edge
� Not clear yet about the setback from the cliff's edge mentioned, so no way to discern the effectiveness in thwarting the accumulation of lost discs below the cliffs (garbage)
� Another observation I've made is that Objectives and Implementation Strategies of section 3 are often quoted as reasons why no mitigation is needed for certain impacts � sort of like the mitigation is part and parcel of the management plan itself.
However, many of these Objectives and implementation strategies are not mandatory, and thusly I think the applicability of these as responses to impacts can't be used as mitigation.???
� The same can be said for the (unlisted) impact to sensitive resources by new, future unauthorized trails: there is no mandatory language that guarantees the city will monitor for nor necessarily close unofficial trails.
This is a great reminder of Jenny (of DFG) Marr's advice to identify Who, What, When, Why and Where before a supposed management strategy can be considered effective, along with 'mandatory (shall, must, etc) Language'.
� The EIR states flatly that 4 small vernal pools will be 'filled' as a result of Disc Golf Project development. I thought BEC's lawsuit put a stop to the loss of vernal pools?? No Off site mitigation or other mitigation is proposed for this impact.
Along with the usual denial of the Bidwell's intentions, the EIR is a real work of 'there's no problem here' rationalisation. I thought only Guys like Enron could afford this stuff....
Randy Abbott
(email end)