It is interesting though to see what the requirements for a “good” course are considered to be by the PDGA community. It is felt that fairways need to be at least 100 ft wide, because if holes crowd on each other it “can be dangerous to play”. One person stated as fact that even on 100 ft wide fairways, 40% of the drives will fly out of bounds. Consensus appears to be that minimum space for a good 7000 ft course is about 18 acres. Cost to install a ‘good’ course, assuming the land is free and requires minimal landscaping, is estimated at about $20,000.

In fact, from photos on the website it is apparent that a serious tournament has to be able to handle large crowds milling around observing the play, walking between holes, etc. Just like a “real” golf tournament. The best place would be a large meadow area with a relatively low density of trees – ie more like areas on the other side of route 4, not the narrow, heavily wooded strip bordering Bloods Creek (and private homes of course).

There is an interactive map on the pdga website that shows existing course locations. There are an incredible number of these things in Northern California! I’m sure only a portion are considered “tournament” level but it isn’t at all obvious that a world full of experienced disk golfers with money burning in their pockets will be hurrying up to BV to play for a few days, even if we have a slightly bigger and better course. Not that any of us place much credence in claims of significant local business benefits from this venture anyway.

1. I’m confused as to why we would open our common areas which are supposed to be held for the enjoyment of the residents to non-residents. I have to pay $100 a year to use the Lake, but non-residents can use other common areas for free???? And, how will we keep these non-residents out of the Lake that the rest of us pay to maintain and use?

2. An argument that I have heard in favor of the course is that it would substantially benefit the business community by bringing in non-residents. I question whether the folks who would come from out of town to play for “free” are going to contribute in a “substantial” way. They may buy a beer and pizza from the pub or a sandwich from the GS, but after a long, sweaty game, I don’t think they’ll be eating in Headwaters, Grizzly or Creekside, nor do I think they’re going to plunk down a down payment on a piece of property or buy an expensive pair of skis from the Sport Shop.

3. Another argument that I’ve heard is that this will be good for the children of BV. It is highly unlikely that “children” are going to be able to play on a tournament level course – teenagers, maybe. What is likely is that children will no longer be able to walk and play in the meadow as they do now or that their parents will feel comfortable letting them out to play in an area where there is the potential of an active game going on for safety reasons. This isn’t going to be good for our children and grandchildren, it will deprive them of a safe play area.

4. Last week I watched a fellow playing on the current course – he threw a frisbee that sailed over highway 4 and through the trees on the other side toward the end of the runway. How will the homes facing the course be protected from the frisbees hitting their homes, potentially knocking plants off the decks, damaging deck furniture, etc. How will the players retrieve their frisbees if the homeowners aren’t home – climb up onto the decks?? Who will be patrolling to provide security for these homeowners and their property? If the residents aren’t home, they can’t call the sheriff themselves!

5. Who is going to be responsible for sanitation, maintenance, etc., i.e, who’s picking up the beer bottles, cigarette butts and food wrappers, not to mention the obvious sanitation issues.

6. If the use of the course is free, who will be paying for putting the course in ( my understanding is each one of the poles and chains is app $500) and again, maintaining it.

I’m very concerned about the apparent disregard for the intended use of our common areas, i.e., for the enjoyment of the residents. Residents chose their lots and homes along the common areas to be able to take advantage of the peaceful, natural scenery. As residents and homeowners we need to be good stewards of these beautiful areas that exist throughout our community and the flora and fauna that thrive there – they are part of what makes Bear Valley the unique mountain village that we love. If we don’t take care of them, who can we expect to do it? Tasteful, planned development is necessary for Bear Valley, but allowing this course in this location is not responsible stewardship. If this project is allowed to go through, what’s the next piece of our beautiful forest and open spaces that will be taken from us for a use that was not originally intended and is questionable to a significant number of the nearby residents???

I strongly urge you to vote no on this project in this location.

Ann R. Hicks

I’d note that anyone who hasn’t played frisbee golf in BV, but for due diligence is planning to join the pre-meeting walk-through of the proposed tournament course, might also want to tour the existing course and if possible watch players on it (especially watch some of us amateurs). Indeed these small frisbees are relatively difficult to control, tend to veer well off-course in the hands of the less-skilled, and are very hard to find in brushy areas (the searchers cumulatively leaving such areas looking as if Bruce’s cattle had inadvertantly passed through). As Phill notes the frisbees must be thrown with great force to achieve fairway distances (up to nearly 200 yards), and given their weight and narrow profile could prove hazardous to any others in the vicinity who aren’t attentive to the game being played. And these frisbees do have a great tendency to lodge themselves in trees, with the asssociated expressions of annoyance by players and the throwing of objects in an attempt to dislodge the disks.

If proponents can come up with a location outside the New Subdivision I’ll wish them well, but this use of our common area is increasingly looking like a very bad idea.

Initially when Bruce Orvis planned the Bear Valley development, he intentionally provided green belts and common area open spaces throughout the new subdivision. With the impending impact of the proposed condos, these open spaces are much more important and needed to preserve the ambiance and the atmosphere of the residential areas we have all enjoyed over the years.

If this common space is converted to organized recreational use to the public, why do we as residents and taxpayers have to pay to use the lake? If this common space is converted for use of the public, why wouldn’t BVRI open up the lake to every camper and drive-by who wants to use it?

Please talk to Ann Hicks, whose son, Darren, has a home at Clear Lake right across from a Frisbee course. Darren has advised us that there is constant bombardment of loud comments, including four-letter swear words, when one of the players gets mad or misses a hole!

Once the trees are clear cut, as 90 of them were during the garbage trail incident using the excuse that “the woods need to be thinned anyway”, the poles are put in and the meadow and adjacent properties become trampled down by players retrieving wayward Frisbees’, what is the likelihood that the affected properties will return to their prior state if “things don’t work out” in a year or two?

If neighborhood opposition doesn’t mean anything now, why would it carry any weight after the investment is made and the users pronounce it a big success?

What’s the likelihood that the school kids are going to be qualified to play on a tournament level course? Why isn’t the present course good enough for young kids?

The Frisbee course is arranged so that the players don’t have to cross paths with one another. Is it anyone’s belief that players won’t mind hikers, photographers, dog walkers and other nature lovers crossing their course?

What is to keep the players from walking back and forth across the common area and over the creek, trampling the beautiful flowers and flora, and into people’s private space when their Frisbees travel off course?

Why would BVRI not consider the temptation that the unoccupied homes will have to certain nonresident members of the general public as they travel up and down the course?

What are the unsightly and unpleasant aspects of a porta-potty to the area?

Why would BVRI even consider converting the most beautiful accessible tranquil sanctuary of natural flora and fauna in the Bear Valley residential area? It is used daily by homeowners and friends in a quiet non-disruptive way for walks, photography, etc. It is a ridiculous idea to even consider.

Frisbee play takes place during the day, after working hours and weekends, when in the summer, many of us are entertaining on our decks and while young children are at play in the common area and on the adjacent properties. Who would be liable if one of them gets hit in the head and injured by a wayward Frisbee? Who would be liable if one of our homes gets damaged or windows broken and we are not in residence?

What justification can BVRI give to the affected homeowners for the loud voices, swearing, yelling and sound of Frisbee’s hitting the poles with chains that they will have to endure? All houses have been carefully and purposely placed to take advantage of the view and solitude.

Is BVRI aware that normal talking can be heard from people’s decks? Are they aware of the sound that the garbage dumpster lids make? A few days ago, we were entertaining a guest on our deck when she was startled by what she thought were gunshots emanating from the meadow. It was the sound of the garbage dump lids slamming closed. Is BVRI aware of how sound travels from the subject common area up and out over the residential area?

The impact of having the General Public using the meadow will immensely increase the use of our garbage dumpsters. They are many times filled to capacity as it is. Once the word spreads about the tournament level course, open to the public, there will be no way to control, know or project the impact of the increased dumpster usage and expense resident taxpayers will have to incur.

We already have a Frisbee playing area. Why not extend the current course to area in front of the Old Subdivision where there are no common areas or CC&R’s, or put the additional 9 holes across the highway into the meadow and on up into Wheeler Ridge?

Why would BVRI even consider not maintaining the separation of organized public recreation from the residential areas?

No amount of compensation should be contemplated in exchange for the conversion of any common areas in our Residential areas, now or for ever more!

Bill and Kathie

If a new “championship” course were built, my kids and I would probably be among those happily playing on it, though we’d also be entirely content with what now exists.

I am, however, specifically concerned about the role BVRI might play in endorsing (even lobbying for), or opposing, the modification of this special riparian area bordering a number of family homes.

I believe that BVRI – which I understand to have been created primarily to administer the New Sub CC&Rs and certain common areas (ie the beaches) – only truly earns the right to exist if it advocates the interests of Bear Valley home (and lot) owners, the vast majority of whom do not have their primary residence in BV and are only occasionally, if at all, able to immerse themselves directly in local politics. In this role, BVRI can give all homeowners a voice which can be heard alongside the voices of developers, local business owners, governmental entities, and outside interests, who are all seeking to sway decision-makers in pursuit of their own particular goals.

With that in mind, how should BVRI formulate positions on various proposals which may impact homeowners?

Certainly, BVRI should only endorse those proposals which provide discernible (direct) net benefits to the homeowners in aggregate. BVRI should oppose proposals which create net negative impacts on homeowners, or create worrisome risks of such net adverse impacts. If neither of these is the case, BVRI should take no position (leave it to individuals to make their own voices heard). When opposing a proposal, BVRI should in effect negotiate for accomodations that fully mitigate adverse impacts on homeowners.

This should be obvious. A trickier question arises when an aggregate net benefit to homeowners may exist, but the proposal entails adverse impacts, possibly great, on a small subset of the homeowners (or when most homeowners will suffer a slight adverse impact, while a few enjoy great advantages from a change). I believe that when a small group of homeowners, or even a single homeowner, is faced with discernible negative impacts, and the benefits to most others are modest, indirect, or vague, then BVRI must oppose the change until and unless the adverse impacts on the unfortunate few can be ameliorated.

I know too little of the specifics of this “championship frisbee golf course” proposal to to suggest what BVRI’s position on this should be. I am certain BVRI should have a position however. From the little I have heard, the homeowners adjacent to the proposed course have particular reason to be concerned, and a great burden of proof should be placed on proponents to convince those homeowners that they will suffer no adverse impacts; BVRI should not support a change unless those homeowners are reasonably satisfied. Of course, many other objections may also be raised by other homeowners who use the common area for other puposes, or who fear the potential damage to the riparian habitat, or who simply wish to halt the recent trend in Bear Valley of select interests being granted free use of community land.

In any event, there need be no hurry to construct this course. If any homeowners have serious concerns about the proposal, they probably cannot be resolved between now and the end of the annual meeting on Labor Day weekend (considering most of us will first see and hear details during the BVRI meeting). If this is the case (and the previous entries incline me to believe it is) then BVRI should firmly demand more time from proponents before this goes before County decision-makers, and failing that BVRI should vigorously oppose any such proposal.

I thought the county was in financial straits. Where is the money coming from to do this? Doesn’t Alpine County already have a Championship Frisbee Golf Course in Turtle Rock Park? Do we really need two?

Has Rick addressed any of these issues? Personally, I feel very uncomfortable the Sheriff is making this request.

Wouldn’t the Frisbee Golf Course result in a dimunition in value for the homes directly affected by it? Wouldn’t this constitute an unlawful taking since homeowners probably paid extra for the site?

Finally, even though I am not directly affected by this proposal, I do look out on a common space area. I would not want my common space used for organized recreational purposes. What happens to the meadow, happens to all us in the new subdivision.