I got some feedback that the email address for Chris Lieber on the City's
RRC map page is incorrect, so here's one that does work. Please email him
today or tomorrow (Mon or Tues), as they are meeting this Wed to discuss any
changes to the draft plan.

clieber@...

Thanks,

Jim Yount

----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Yount <jyount@...>
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: Message from Medicine Wheel - Summary of RRC Master Plan 4th
meeting


> 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 utilized (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 address 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 Western/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
> singletrack 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/equestrian) 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@...
> >