Due to personal issues I couldn't attend. I've seen that concept design for a bike park before. Oh yeah, I drew it back in 2008.

It's nice the concept of a Bike Park is being considered. We must remember that it is KTU+A that is considering the concept. This is a positive first step in the right direction but the fact remains that even if a Bike Park is included as a "concept" in the Master Plan it no way means that a Bike Park will be constructed.

The CAC has already created a project list for 2010-2020. It's safe to say the CAC may have projects they consider priorities. If the Bike Park concept is included in the Master Plan then the riding community will need to attend every CAC meeting, fill out a "Request to speak" form, and politely request the CAC move on this. Can you imagine 20-50 riders showing up requesting to speak? Every meeting? I can't either but maybe now things will change.

The bottom line: I don't think it's in the best interest of the riding community to hand over total control of our concept to the CAC. The reason why nothing has moved forward at MTRP is due to the lack of support from the riding community. We have chose the fate of our proposal. There's no reason why we can't change. If the CAC doesn't want a Bike Park all they have to say is "Sorry, no funds available at this time." Ball is still in our court. No one is going to hand us a Bike Park.

_________________
By choosing not to help the situation, you have chosen to be part of the problem.

That bike park drawing you showed was done by Jason Showalter or someone with SDMBA I thought I heard.
Im a +1 on what moondoggie dogg said. Even if 25% of this happens in 10 years it will be a huge step forward for the park.
TCB, we would have loved to have you. There are a few people that needed someone to cough on them. lol

Jay, you don't always have to be such a Negative Nancy about these things! But then again, I haven't been at this as long as you have. I might be the same way after a few years. But really, shutting everyone down all the time is not the best way to get people involved. Maybe a different approach might help? You did make some valid points in your post.

I spoke with the KTU+A rep briefly after the presentation because I wanted to talk to him about the feasibility of the bike park at the various locations that were suggested on the map.

It looks like the most viable spots are going to be off of Clairemont Mesa (where there are some existing jumps) and Deerfield. The location by Cowles isn't going to be that viable because there are much more hoops to jump through because the constraints are high in that area.

I also spoke to him about whether this bike park could really become a reality or if the liability and insurance issues really don't make it feasible and this bike park concept vignette is just a way to appease the riders during the process, knowing that it will never be a reality.

He did say that while eventually it is up to the city (?) to determine whether they want to approve the project or not... the Deerfield area is already a spot that is DESIGNATED as an area that allows high-risk activity, therefore that decreases the city's liability. Or something like that. I probably don't have the verbiage right, but that's kind of the gist of what I got from it. They also don't need to jump through too many hoops when it comes to the MSCP (Multiple Species Conservation Program) because of that area has already been designated as a spot for building that type of thing/high-risk activities. A "con" is that it's not conveniently accessible and parents may not like it because of that (i.e. should anyone get hurt).

He also mentioned that the 2nd option of acquiring the land off of Clairemont Mesa Blvd for the skills park is pretty viable, but there are more hoops to jump through because the land is not currently part of MTRP. Basically it's owned by a school district and it was mentioned that Jeff Harkness, the Planning Manager for the City of San Diego (I think that's his title) has already had conversations with the school district and that the district was very receptive to that idea of having a skills park on that location. I also asked about whether they know if that area will have any contraints to it (environmentally, physically, etc.), if it were to become part of MTRP, and he said it is likely to be a low constraint area. I think some pros to this area is that it is highly visible, so parents may feel more comfortable about it 'cause should anyone get hurt, it is easily accessible.

So the real choice for those that want to be involved with getting a bike park becomes:

1) Do we put our focus and energy on trying to get the Deerfield area improved because it already exists and it may be easier to make it a reality?
or
2) Do we try to put our focus on trying to get the skills park on the Clairemont plot because it's a better location, a larger area, etc... but it will take longer since it's not currently part of MTRP?

Because they can really only move forward with one of those options right now (should an option be considered and not tabled by the CAC or whoever is the final decision maker regarding the final MTRP Master Plan).

I was told that one of the reasons why the original BMX jumps were moved were because people (hikers) were complaining about the lack of parking near the visitor center. Is that true? There was talk of adding more parking adjacent to the Visitor Center at the meeting last night (it's part of the voting ballot).

Anyways, I don't know much about anything and I've just started to get into this whole advocacy thing, so I may be way off base with any of this. And while it's likely more feasible that the new re-routes, trails, etc. will happen, the skills park is more my passion, so I'm trying to focus my energy on that.

Can I get anyone else's thoughts on the skills park?

_________________
~I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody.
~Nothing from nothing is nothing.
~I'm allowed to be a pussy because I have one!

When I began to get a bit aggresive about Deerfield, I stated a couple of huge reasons why the bike park should happen there.
1. It is already a designated bike use area
2. all research that I did noted that it was an old quarry and was largely out of the boundaries of any natural resource issues (due to the fact that it was an old quarry).

No water and the dirt there sucks, it is gravel. But both of these can be addressed much more easily than the points above. Deerfield (in my opinion) remains the ideal area within the city to shoot for. It is also out of eye and earsight of most people, which has its benefits.

Jay is a good guy and has done a lot of work with this. We've been together and taken our own time only to be stood up and in similar situations. I understand some of the negativity that is shown.

However, the fact that there was a skills park display and there were items brought up on the "ballot" is very positive. The KTU+A guy I spoke with at both meetings seems sincere about wanting the public opinion to count. I've talked to Jeff from the city on multiple occasions as well. Both of these two somewhat seem to be interested in letting USERS of the park have a word and not just the "good old boy/girl" network run things.

Right now is when the public input is needed, across the board. Curse me for saying it but emails, phonecalls, handshakes, all if it is as important now as it has ever been. There is a lot of people who lack commitment in the riding community. It is sad to say but it is true.

edit:
Overall, I think a bike park is going to happen in the city. I am almost 95% sure of this. Maybe not tomorrow but within a few years, yes.

BKJ, stop by deerfield and scope it out when you have a chance. Take a bike, theres a few things to play on. Take a shovel, dirt should still be a tad wet. I'd be down to head over there next weekend sometime.

The thing with CAC's is that they are "advisory" commitees. The city can completely disregard them if they see fit. If a CAC has a good mix of user and preservation groups represented it has more legitimacy with regard to the "advice" it offers up. If user groups aren't represented on Mission Trails CAC then those user groups should be sure to offer their opinions to those politicians and land managers that the CAC "advises".

I sit on two CAC's (OK I'm an alternate on one but more often than not I'm the one at table for the meetings). My opinion doesn't or shouldn't count any more than your opinion.

It's a positive step in the right direction for a bike park to be included in the Master Plan. I'm not jumping up and down with excitement due to the fact that inclusion or not, we still have a long way to go with the City.

I can't stress the importance of active, organized support for the MTRP Bike Park proposal. The MTRP-CAC meets every other month. All one has to do is show up, fill out a "Request to Speak" form, and polietely address the CAC with your support for the proposal. If 20-30 riders showed up and did this each meeting, by the third or fourth meeting the CAC will realize they will no longer be going home early.

Councilwomen Emerald represents the MTRP area and sits on the MTRP task force. Writing her an email with your support for the MTRP proposal only takes minutes and costs nothing.

There are ways to make things happen. There are resources available that can be very effective in promoting our cause if called upon at the proper time. We must first demonstrate that we are committed for the long run, and the decision makers are our targets. Attending meetings and sending emails will help accomplish this.

Again, the ball is in our court.

_________________
By choosing not to help the situation, you have chosen to be part of the problem.

The PDFs of the maps showing the proposed alternatives are on the KTUA site,
http://www.ktuaprojects.com/mtrp/mtrpdoclist.html#PW1

Scroll down to "Public Workshop 2: Draft Alternatives." The maps are in the "Proposed Concepts" subsection.

I don't see the voting matrix.

According to the MTRP website, "The third workshop is currently planned for the end of May 2011 and will present the draft Master Plan update and serve as the Programmatic EIR Scoping Meeting."

_________________
"Those skilled at the unorthodox are infinite as heaven and earth, inexhaustible as the great rivers."
— Tzun Tzu

Here is a link to the documents presented at the second meeting if you would like to see what was proposed.

I completely agree with you. This IS a positive step, but we do have a long way to go. It probably feels much longer for you.

I also agree 100% with this statement. But we NEED leadership in this aspect. You can't just say "all one has to do is show up." If it's not organized, who knows when to show up, where, and what time? It's like setting up a ride at La Costa. Sure, a lot of people ride La Costa every weekend. But if you just say "all you have to do is show up one weekend" and someone just randomly shows up... they're not going to get on a group ride, unless they're lucky. Yes, there is a lack of commitment within the riding community, but you're not going to get people gung-ho about doing something if you don't give them enough information and you don't give them specific guidance. Most people, myself included, do NOT know how to address the CAC, what to say, how to say it. I know NOTHING about grant writing. All I have is passion. But isn't going to get me anywhere if I don't know what the hell to do or how. All I'm asking is for a bit more leadership and communication than what we've been receiving.


Make it easy on everyone and tell us what's her email, what should be put in the email, etc. It's been done in other threads for other things and has elicited the actions of those (myself included) who don't typically have the time to put towards all this research. People want to be involved, even if it's in a little way.


Tell us what to do, where to go, how to do it... specifically. Show us commitment to leadership and you'll get committed supporters.


I say the ball, right now, is in your court.

P.S. I don't mean to come off so harsh. I honestly don't know what you've been through behind the scenes for as long as you have. I just have people tell me here and there that you've been going at it for a while so they can see why you might be jaded or whatever. And maybe that's it. I DON'T know exactly what you've been through and what you've done so far. SHARE with us what your struggles are... what you are doing, what we can literally do to help. The more communication, the better I think.

_________________
~I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody.
~Nothing from nothing is nothing.
~I'm allowed to be a pussy because I have one!

There is a link at the bottom of this page to complete the survey that was presented at the meeting. You know the Sierra Club will be spreading to their members. Here is your chance to give pro-trail and pro-bike input.
http://www.mtrp.org/master_plan.asp

My votes are in. Thank God I didn't have to turn in my chicken-scratch of a hardcopy.

_________________
"Those skilled at the unorthodox are infinite as heaven and earth, inexhaustible as the great rivers."
— Tzun Tzu

Are there any specific items on there that we should support more than others? Basically, most people aren't going to read through all the maps and line them up with all the numbers. But if someone could provide a sort of a cheat sheet, that would be helpful.

I don't know the trail system well enough to make educated "votes."

Example: My main focus is obviously the bike park, so I am suggesting expanding Deerfield with acquiring the land off Clairemont Mesa a close priority. Abandon the idea of the Cowles Mtn location because there are too many constraints with that area.

_________________
~I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody.
~Nothing from nothing is nothing.
~I'm allowed to be a pussy because I have one!

The lady who spoke out, about a lack of information for the meetings was Sierra Club. She mentioned that she didn't think they had an idea of any of the proposed changes. I'd expect more involvement from them in the near future. I spoke with her afterward for a while, this looked to be the case.


Here is district 7. In my experience, the more people you cc on the email, the more likely to get a response. The important two are Chris Pearson and Marti. Now I've spoken to her staff before and they've mentioned that if efforts were coordinated, more could get done, rather than just answering emails. I'm over believing that.
http://www.sandiego.gov/citycouncil/cd7 ... ndex.shtml
My email list for this topic would be:
martiemerald@sandiego.gov (Marti Emerald)
cpearson@sandiego.gov (Chris Pearson)
jharkness@sandiego.gov (Jeff Harkness)

Issues to highlight:
Money brought to the local businesses. (Not just bikes, food, beverages, parts, gasoline purchased, etc)
Deerfield is an approved bike/jump site
(the following is huge, following the presentation)
According to the maps from KTU+A, there should be little to no environmental impact by using Deerfield.

As you mentioned. Ask for what you think is sensible, drop the rest. (What you've written above is more than sensible)

I am thankful that you are on board and pushing for answers and involvement. To date only a few of us, possibly only a couple (Jay included) have been hitting these avenues of approach.

As for the organization and overall deal. This has been very tough. It is a long battle. I know Jay put in significant time and handing everything over isn't feasible. I also know others have shown little to no interest for quite a while. Could we be more productive? Yes. Based on experience are we going to be? Maybe not. Feel free to provide your input as an individual and continue to provide your input. I appreciate it and I know others (who are slient across the board) do as well. In fact, right now is the time to be very vocal about this.

I haven't been able to push it to the key "leaders" in the park enough. This isn't something that is just wanted by "a few punks on bikes". We are talking about old, young, male, famle, professionals, students, bums and everything in between.

Run with what you feellike running with. If you need info, contacts, etc, let me know.

That is a good point, I'm working on getting a suggested voters guide. I think it is really important that we get as many pro votes as possible and making it easy should help. All of us should get everyone we know to vote.

My thoughts on West Sycamore. Trail ideas look good, but I would (in red):
add A to avoid a steep section of SDGE road
add B to create better loop options
could drop C or D if it would help get B
add E at the edge of the housing fire break (low environmental impact, creates loop and connects to steep paved emergency fire exit
rehab old fall line fire breaks with native vegetation


I will likely mail mine in so I can include my map changes.

_________________
strava:instagram:activejunky