The draft master plan map is now up on the colorado springs website at
http://www.springsgov.com/Page.asp?NavID=4142
You only really need to look at the draft master plan map (the first one),
the others simply highlight specific trails that are on the main map.

Chris Lieber's email is also linked on that page (just below the draft map
links), so you can send him comments. I would highly encourage you to do so
(the sooner the better - they are working on the final plan as you read
this!). In addition, there will be a chance for public input at the
unveiling of the final plan at the RRC Mater Plan meeting on Wed, 5/5/4. I
think it is very important to express your opinion both by email comments
and by showing up at the meeting. Please take advantage of these last
opportunities

Looking over the map, I see 3 main issues (and I suggest potential
solutions):

1) The percentage of easy/intermediate/advanced trails. The public,
responding to a questionnaire distributed at the 2nd Master Plan meeting,
stated that roughly equal percentages of easy/intermediate/advanced trails
were desired (the final average numbers, shown here with the distributions
(http://www.springsgov.com/Page.asp?NavID=4164), are 35.3% easy/37.3%
intermediate/22.6% advanced. In addition, there were 16 comments in the
questionnaire from the 1st meeting
(http://www.springsgov.com/Page.asp?NavID=4177) that specifically requested
sufficient amounts of advanced trails). Understanding that the property
came with a large number of graded dirt roads (easy trails) and little else
in terms of trails, meeting the public's request means either some of the
roads will not be utlized (so a great number of intermediate/advanced trails
do not have to be built) or build a large number of intermediate/advanced
trails to even out the percentages. The answer is probably not at either
extreme, but the draft plan appears to utilize most of the roads while
building very little new (intermediate/advanced) trails, skewing the
percentages heavily towards easy trails - roughly 2/3 of the trails are some
level of ADA accessible (compare the amount of yellow and green trails to
blue and purple trails ).

I would suggest utilizing more of the existing social trails to increase the
number of intermediate/advanced trails. I am worried that since these
social trails already exist, they will be utilized anyway. Thus
incorporation of some of them into the plan will reduce illegal
trailbuilding/usage and also reduce user conflict due to fewer numbers of
advanced/intermediate cyclists on the easy trails. Please see the "social
trail and existing road" map for ideas
(http://www.springsgov.com/Page.asp?NavID=4142).


2) User conflict due to necessitated intermingling of
easy/intermediate/advanced trails in order to create trail loops (in other
words, no complete loops of just intermediate or advanced trails). The
Draft Plan map does not show any intermediate/advanced loops. The public
stated that loops, specifically of isolated ability level, were highly
desired and would reduce user conflict substantially (22 comments on the
meeting 1 questionnaire (http://www.springsgov.com/Page.asp?NavID=4177)).
This gets back to the problems stated in issue 1 in terms of amounts of
intermediate/advanced trails and how to deal with what we currently have on
the property.

Solutions to this issue would automatically adress the first issue of not
enough intermediate/advanced trails. Use of more of the existing social
trails to link the existing intermediate trails to form loops (predominantly
in the Wester/central portion of the open space - there are a large number
of social trails in this area, and if not, many of the legs that would need
to be constructed are relatively short). Another potential solution is to
extend the advanced trail along the Eastern ridge (social trails already
exist there, as well as old revegetated road beds) so that a loop can be
formed out of that ridge and the intermediate ridge trail directly to the
east of the advanced ridge. Please see the "social trail and existing road"
map for ideas (http://www.springsgov.com/Page.asp?NavID=4142).


3) Existing singletrack running from Bevers Place (Crystal Hills trailhead
at Westernmost point of RRC Open Space) to High Drive (entrance to RRC off
of Hwy 24). This singletrack (currently the only well established
singletract on the whole property - the Westernmost trail on the Draft Plan
map) is designated on the Draft Plan, from South to North, as intermediate,
easy (relaxed ADA), ADA (hiker only). Also, at the North end of the trail,
the existing trail was dropped off the map (the existing trail would be a ~
straight line from the S-shaped hook on the yellow ADA portion to the large
white arrow at the Hwy 24 entrance on the map - continuing the path just on
the right side of the visible fins). This trail has historically been
multiuse, and dropping it to hiker only (ADA), and using it as a
contemplative trail, removes easy access of various user groups to the Hwy
24 entrance/exit from the Western side of the property. The hiker only
designation also prevents these user groups (cyclists/equestriana) from
utilizing the interpretive trails which utilize this trail. Finally, the
ADA designation along this portion of the trail means that the singletrack
will be widened and improved, which is counter to public input that most/all
trails be narrow singletrack (The questionnaire results from meeting 1
(http://www.springsgov.com/Page.asp?NavID=4177) , as well as input at the
other meetings, indicated that this was important to the public).

There appeared to be unanimous public support at the unveiling of the Draft
Plan for keeping this trail designated multiuse, as well as moving the
contemplative trail (which could be designated as green/relaxed ADA) to the
Western side of the fins. A perfect starting point for this trail could be
the old roadbed that heads South from the designated group picnic area on
the Draft Plan map (it is a beautiful trail through a wooded area - canopy
of trees over the trail) This would allow the singletrack to remain narrow
singletrack and minimize user conflict. Keep the portion of the trail not
shown on the map open (multiuse).


You may have other issues and/or solutions (let me know if you do), but
please let the City know what you would like to see! Your remaining
opportunities are very limited - get involved now!

Please let me know if you have any questions, comments, etc.

Thanks,

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


----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Yount <jyount@...>
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 3:41 PM
Subject: Message from Medicine Wheel - Summary of RRC Master Plan 4th
meeting


> 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@...
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>