The 4th meeting in the Red Rock Canyon Master Plan process was held last
Wednesday (4/14/4). The purpose of the meeting was to, "Give your response
to a draft concept plan."

The draft plan was presented by Rob Layton (Design Concepts), followed by
breaking up of the attendees into small groups to offer comments on the
draft plan. The groups comments were then summarized in front of all
attending. These comments will be taken into consideration in the formation
of the final plan, to be presented at the meeting on 5/5/4.

Some things worth noting (Unfortunately, the draft plan map is not up on the
City's website yet and we were not given copies to keep at the meeting, so I
may miss a few things in the summary):

- Parking lots off of Hwy 24, 31st St, and 26th St, as well as a smaller
lot at the Bock residence.
- Interpretive trail loops (History, Geology)
- 2 areas designated as group picnic/gathering areas (must reserve/register
to use; fees associated with use?), one near the ponds by the Bock
residence, one on the NW corner where previous residents had lived.
- No ballfields, etc.
- Freeride park located in tract E (Hwy 24 frontage tract) on the W side of
the arm that extends up RRC to the Bock residence.
- Contemplative trail (hiker only) on W side of the park.
- ADA trails (one of which extends up RRC to the Snyder Quarry).
- Off-leash trails for dogs on the Mesa above the High St (Hwy 24)
entrance.
- Rock climbing designated for the areas directly N & S of Snyder Quarry.
- One trail designated as crossing the closed landfill area (the road that
accesses the landfill from RRC) - City is not sure if this will be ok, but
it is the best access from RRC to the Eastern portion of the property.

As for the small groups' opinions on the draft plan, there were some common
themes:

- The contemplative trail (hiking only) on the W side of the property was
shown to utilize the singletrack that runs from Bevers Pl. in Crystal Hills
(SW corner of the property) to High St at the N end of the property. This
has historically been a multiuse trail that people living in Crystal Hills
have utilized (trespassing on private property, but highly trafficked
nonetheless - I confess my own guilt!) and this conflicts with the hiking
only designation. The opinion was often expressed that the contemplative
trail was desired to be on the W side of the sandstone fins in this area,
not on the E side where this singletrack runs. It was also pointed out that
the interpretive trails utilize this singletrack, so those on bikes/horses
can't do the interpretive loops if it remains hiking only. These views were
mentioned by virtually every small group and I really believe this was
simply oversight by the drafters of the plan, so I fully expect the
singletrack to remain multiuse and a new contemplative trail will be built
parallel to it on the W side of the fins.

- I pointed out that while the public had stated in the meeting 2 survey
results that they desired equal percentages of easy/intermediate/advanced
trails, the draft plan had over 11 mi of ADA & easy trails (some of the dirt
roads were even shown as intermediate based on slope - all of the roads are
graded & wide) and less than 5 mi were intermediate/advanced. There was
probably 2 mi of advanced trails, confined (if I remember correctly) to 2
trail segments. This shocked me, but my group was the only one that brought
it up. I think this is where the lack of bikers at this meeting really hurt
us.

- I also pointed out that there were not very many loop options in the
draft plan and that most of the loops necessitated the mixing of trail
levels, which will result in increased user conflict. Both of these points
were mentioned numerous times in public comments as being valuable and
necessary.

- Along similar lines, the lack of a greater number of bikers resulted in a
large number of the groups providing anti-bike commentary along the lines of
speed limits, keep them off more of the trails, erosion issues, etc. I did
not get the impression that the crowd was bike friendly at this particular
meeting, in contrast with many (if not all) of the others. I was hoping
that the final plan would move toward a more bike friendly stance, but after
the group comments, I think the only additional win we may get is having the
singletrack opened to multiuse, while we may move backwards in other areas.

- Some of the groups mentioned that the freeride area could be enlarged or
added to with other areas. I'm not optimistic about the addition of other
areas because they would most likely have to be added from the
TOPS-purchased parcel, which has the "passive use only" caveat due to the
TOPS ordinance.

- Climbers, dispersed among many of the groups (they were well organized
for the past several meetings!), claimed that the areas designated for
climbing in the draft plan were not where the best climbing was located.
They advocated adding the Eastern rim of RRC in order to have advanced
climbing areas. This was a common theme and I would not be surprised to see
it in the final plan.

- Equestrians were also quite well distributed and vocal. They mentioned
that the parking lot designated for their use in Garden of the Gods was
poorly designed (too small to be able to maneuver a trailer, paved instead
of dirt) and that these mistakes should be avoided here.

So, overall I thought the draft plan was a mixed bag. The freeride area was
a major win from a biking perspective - I'm not that familiar with the area
designated for this, so I don't know what kind of terrain exists there. I
think the singletrack will become multiuse in the final plan, which is good
since it is currently the only well established singletrack on the property.
The lack of adequate intermediate and advanced trails (less than 33%
combined, while ADA/easy trails total over 67%) has me quite down. The bulk
of the trails system outlined in the draft plan is smooth dirt road (think
yucca flats in Palmer Park). The blind curves will cause user conflict
nightmares since all of the roads run from the high end on the S to the low
end on the N (think high speed descents) and there don't appear to be any
alternative routes in the plan. Mixing of trail levels (I don't think you
can complete a loop by staying on a single ability level other than using
the dirt roads - all easy trails) will result in less desirable riding for
most bikers and more user conflict. I'm curious (and a bit apprehensive) to
see what the final plan will look like.

I would encourage all to contact the City with any concerns you may have,
but they might not be considered since you weren't at the meeting (but it is
worth a try). I'll let you know if I hear anything else regarding the final
plan, as well as when the draft plan is posted to the City's website.


Jim Yount
(719) 540-1505
jyount@...