Bullfight

Dan--

Mary Flynn's request is certainly worth considering, in my judgment. The issues facing the downtown are increasingly urgent, yet the council manages to avoid taking any action that might upset any interest group. The fact is that there has been enough vituperation and enmity (couple of dandy Scrabble entries there, by the way) expended on these issues, and successful downtown strategies in other communities point to a more comprehensive planning and development process.

Certainly, as I commented earlier, Berkeley has demonstrated the effectiveness of isolating the downtown planning process to a group of stakeholders that works together on solutions. If Berkeley can do it, surely Chico can.

And the timing is right. Greg Jones was very much opposed to the formation of citizen commissions, due to the staff time they take up, but I believe that this process could significantly decrease the commitment of staff resources, since staff would not have to put so much time into these issues repeatedly as they come before the council, only to be kicked back to committee, or rescinded until a time limit is reached and the issue is resurrected.

As for Tom's request, I think it is certainly worthwhile to hear what the CPD is doing to respond to the wave of violent crime in recent weeks.

Finally, we've seen again and again how the obstructive left in Chico will resort to litigation when it fails to get its way. The Bidwell Park master plan is sound, and evolved from a collaborative process involving stakeholders from across the political spectrum. If the council votes to approve the funds necessary to withstand yet another vexatious litigation, it will be a testament (ahem) to their courage as a deliberative body.

Hello Dan,

Just been told that the contract for the BPMMP and DEIR did not include consultant response to public commnents. Apparently from the outset a separate contract was anticipated.

It would have been helpul if Dennis B. shared that bit of information before.

Still doesn't seem necessary to spend $100,000 to address relatively straightforward questions to what is being presented by The City as fully adequate/complient analysis.

Also, accounting for professional errors and ommissions under the first contract is a far different matter than the normal answering of public questions/comments (required by CEQA)under a new contract.

If the analysis and documents are as inadequate as the retained CEQA attorny states, perhaps the consultant's fulfillment of the original contract should be the issue of discussion. This should be resolved before any new consultant contract is even talked about.

If the City is willing to pay $500,000 of taxpayer money for a project-level CEQA compliant analysis/document (as they claim the case to be), you'd think they'd insist on actually getting one!

John

Finding: After proclaiming September 22, 2007 as “Car-Free Day” during the proclamation part of tonight’s meeting, all Councilors and City staff will drive home when the meeting concludes.

Response: Disagree. Vice Mayor Schwab will be riding her trusty Trek cruiser home from tonight's meeting.

Ann,

I stand corrected. Safe biking!

John,

The City has done a poor job "project managing" some high-profile projects and contractors over the past few years.

The City Council may need to insist on greater oversight on future projects, which is typically a staff responsibility.

Alan,

I concur that the more people talk and discuss issues facing downtown, some good things can come out of those discussions.

There's plenty of past studies and reports to help frame the focus of any future Downtown Study Group.

Having a time certain deadline for recommendations and a limited life span for any study group will help move the issue forward beyond just talk.

By the way, you're right. It's unfortunate that obstructive lefty developers like Tom Fogarty resort to litigation when failing to get his way on Oak Valley and Humboldt Road Burn Dump.

In all seriousness, if the City and its consultants feel threatened by questions raised about the adequacy of the EIR, it's likely because they didn't do a sufficient job to adequately prepare the EIR in the first place.

And this begs the question of whether the City and its consultants properly managed and executed on the scope of work to finalize the BPMMP.

Alan -

Finally, we've seen again and again how the obstructive left in Chico will resort to litigation when it fails to get its way.

Perhaps if law-breaking government and law-breaking developers would stop breaking the law, the "obstructive left" wouldn't have to litigate.

Dan--

Not entirely sure what the Fogarty reference is intended to illustrate; people suffering actual damages sue, regardless of their political inclination. That is not the case with the BPMMP; parties collaborated in good faith on the plan, compromises were made, but when the FOBP didn't get all they came for, they resorted to the all-too-familiar tactic of threatening costly and time-wasting litigation. They know they will never prevail in this cause, and this threatened lawsuit should be recognized for what it is; petty vindictiveness and contempt for the public good. We're talking about people tossing frisbees, for crying out loud. What's next? A holy war against hacky-sack? A jihad on jumping rope?

Fortunately, the Council made the right decision last night (at least on the request for more resources to finish the plan). The FOBP can do the right thing by backing off, and letting those taxpayer dollars go unspent, but I'm not holding my breath.

Alan,

The Fogarty reference by me was a joke meant to illustrate that people other than environmentalists sue the City to advance their cause.

Environmentalists who sue (FOBP has not sued the City, by the way) the City are labeled obstructionists by critics, yet others (whether developers or other parties) are simply exercising their right to sue?

I've advocated reducing the current disc golf footprint to minimize damage, while making improvements on the existing disc golf course - in addition to vigorously finding another site closer to town.

But I also recognize that the most vocal critics of the current disc golf site are not anti-disc golf, although some people would like to paint them that way.

They sincerely believe that the damages to the park caused by the disc golf location - and I think we can agree there has been repetitive damage to trees and soil, among other problems - are motivating factors to close down the current site and find another site.

The notion of "public good" is complex - some people believe the "public good" is protecting the environment, providing more housing, supporting job creation, or other general goals. Sometimes those goals are aligned, while other times they are in conflict.

I believe that some damages can be mitigated with improvements and changes to the existing site, but I also acknowledge that some damages will be unmitigated.

But nevertheless, this disc golf debate is not just about people "tossing frisbees." The substantive debate is over where those frisbees should be tossed.

For example, the City recently passed an ordinance against skateboarding in the City Plaza. Many people who supported this ordinance are not against skateboarding, but against skateboarding in that particular location for safety reasons.

Bottom line: The disc golf issue, at least to me, is not as simple as whether you are in favor or against disc golf. There are competing interests and issues that must be balanced - and people perceive that balance differently based on how much they value one issue over another.

Alan, you're shooting the messengers. Better instead, study the BPMMP and DEIR documents (you might need a lawyer to figure it out). Then go to FOBP webpage and study the specific issues brought up during the mandatory public scoping period. Then go to the City's Webpage and study all of the other public comments (I think they've been posted). Then talk about specifics. I'm suggesting this to anybody "blaming" FOBP. If you haven't done the research, you really should.

People should think hard about what's being proposed. Try yourself to answer the questions posed there. Then honestly assess how well thought-out this proposed disc golf course project is. Honestly. Are the project parameters spelled out? Are the mitigation measures well thought out? Are costs and funding realities addressed? We aren't even told what the project exactly "is". You don't need a CEQA attorny or $100,000 to see that the issue isn't simply kids throwing frisbees and petty tree-huggers.

And regarding good faith on behalf of The City; considering gross viewshed violations (at one time I actually caught personal blame for that one!), unmaintained meadowfoam preserves (Ask Anthony), and what can only be called deception regarding past Negative Declarations in park planning (ask me), you'de have to be fairly naive to operate on blind faith that without concerned citizens keeping watch, The City will always "do it right".

What's really ironic is that some of the very people you're blaming had offered a volunteer team of top-notch resource specialists/consultants to conduct the majority of the Bidwell Park environmental analysis for the EIR for free, to be finished in under two years. This was offered to the Council so that money and time could be saved. Saved money would be used to retain a high quaility recreation and trail planner to complete the analysis and the BPMMP could be updated (not rewritten) in under three years. It's on the record.

Instead, a few very vocal pet-project proponents managed to cloud issues to the extent that Bertagna et. al., would not even hear the offer (my three minutes in front of the Council were even interrupted by Bertagna!). After I talked with Bertagna about details and what his decision actually meant for the park, he apologetically told me "There's a lot of political B******T flying on the winds and unfortunately buddy, it looks like you got sprayed"!

Talk about wasted money and time! David Little's "Hits and Misses" that week actually characterized us...yup you might have guessed it..."threatening legal action so our consulting bussiness gets City Contracts". Go figure.

An offer of free quality services and a fast-track revision of the old BPMMP (which was a good document..just not followed) all in under three years, has transformed into a $600,000 expenditure now dragging past 5 years from the free offer. Now a substandard product is the subject of debate. Bummer no? But not the fault of FOBP.

Also, exactly which "compromises" on behalf of the disc golf community are you referring to? As far as I can see, it's been south-flowing resources for that project since its inception; they ask...they recieve. Compromise means something is given up in turn for something else. I keep hearing a few guys saying there "have been compromises made and FOBP should be happy". Which compromises exactly?

You can study the documents and comments and intelligently address the issues...or much, much more easily, leave the details for others to deal with and simply blame FOBP.

Respectfully,
John

Great answer Dan!

JD

Hi John, since I've rarely seen you at any disc golf/City meetings, it is understandable that you may not see it all in context.

Compromise:
When a course was proposed, laid out and planned for the woods by Five Mile, it was contested by concerned equestrians. We agreed to relocate down by the freeway overpass, instead.

Compromise:
A condition for this proposal and the new layout plans was to give up the existing Hwy. 32 site due to access complications. We agreed.

Compromise:
Even with a great deal of community support, and a mitigated negative environmental review, other concerned citizens were against this site. Meetings were held to explore other locations. Dennis proposed a course at the Walnut Orchards which brought out even more neighborhood resistance.

Compromise:
After all parties were included in more public meetings, the unanimous agreement was to keep the courses at the existing site and deal with the access problems. We agreed.

Compromise:
In response to our requests to do trail maintenance and impact mitigation, we were asked to hold off until an environmental review could be complete. An experimental paving block tee pad was asked to be removed. We agreed.

Compromise:
After a completed mitigated Neg. Dec the Park Commission and Council unanimously approved and funded the course improvements that would have addressed increasing impacts. The Sierra Club endorsed the project. The Friends discussed further improvements to the plans. We agreed.

Compromise:
The entire project then stopped due to unforeseen Friends legal threats. Volunteer trail maintenance and layout adjustments were still disallowed after even more requests until after the completion of the whole Park Master Plan and EIR. We agreed.

Compromise:
The entire design was drastically changed to avoid plant species that were not consistently mitigated for in any other part of the park. We were asked by the environmental consultant to make these extra concessions as a good will gesture. We agreed.

An important thing to also keep in mind is that every issue and example of impact cited against the course was planned, approved and funded to be dealt with years ago. The inability for the City to follow through with these plans, due to legal threats, have continued to much worsen these impacts, many of which would otherwise not exist today.

This additional expense in time and money has produced no further information previously unknown about the site. The stalling of the driveway access improvements to the park and footbridge access across the creek could cost people's lives.

Great Answer Gregg!

Really, I wasn't aware of most of those details/facts. Thanks for providing them. Some are easily subject to debate though regarding interpretation/constituting compromise.

Past being the past, the matter remains that despite good intentions, efforts and lots of funds, the site is degrading, there are really some serious shortcomings in the analysis/plan, and most of the proposed mitigation measures are problematic.

Lots of relatively simple questions need to be answered. Go to the FOBP and City Webpages and see.

John

I can only imagine that there is more to the story from the Friends point of view. I admit that at this point I do struggle with my objectivity. It's plain to see I'm not the only one.

Dan--

You write "Environmentalists who sue (FOBP has not sued the City, by the way) the City are labeled obstructionists by critics, yet others (whether developers or other parties) are simply exercising their right to sue?"

Fogarty was severely damaged financially by an illegal action of the council. The FOBP didn't get everything they wanted in a negotiated compromise. You don't see the distinction?

When the environmental activist groups exhaust the various appeals and arbitration efforts in pursuit of their goals, which invariably mean preventing humans activities on public property, they resort to vaxatious litigation. This is obstructive by definition. It's not a matter of characterization; it's a matter of accurately describing their conduct.

--Ax

Alan,

There's a difference, but fundamentally people sue because they don't get their way - whether they are environmentalists, developers, or others.

In the case of Fogarty, he has filed at least two lawsuits on two separate issues.

Regarding Oak Valley, he claims the City Council took an illegal action to move housing lots to a lower elevation, but the courts dismissed the lawsuit on technical grounds. Therefore, you can make a claim of illegality, like Fogarty, but no court has weighed in on that decision and likely won't.

In short, we'll likely never know if the Council action was legitimate based on a court ruling, but people can speculate one way or another.

Fogarty also has a pending lawsuit on Humboldt Road Burn Dump which, from my perspective, can be viewed as obstructionist according to your vague definition, which is not entirely clear to me but your criteria has something to do with exhausting legal options.

Once again, you're casting too wide of a net. FOBP is not attempting to prevent "human activities on public property," but they'd like to prevent certain type of activities, like disc golf, on that particular location which they believe cause significant and irreparable damage to the environment.

I don't need to defend their position, which I have some disagreements with. But I believe some characterizations of their position has been grossly distorted by claiming that they just don't want people in the park or that they are anti-disc golf.