PQ/Tunnels Public planning meeting. September 18th at 6 PM

I can appreciate their apprehension. Take them out for a ride big man. It may be the only way to cut through the stereotype.

Due to the obvious negative connotations, perhaps we should refrain from the term 'mountain bikers' in any official language, instead use 'trail riders'. (as in wheat grass drinking, granola eating, grande decaf Komodo Dragon mocha latte, easy on the froth and an apple bran muffin on the side addicted trail riders!- oh, did I forget the lycra?)

And oh yeah, the speakers killed it!

 

Erik,

Will a copy of the current and proposed trail maps be made available on the multi-use group site? I'm sure everyone would like a better look at it.

 

I have, and do.

 

Yeah. I guess we're all going to have to work on our cyclocross skills :bang:

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by b5driver
I thought it was interesting that he didn't want to get into whether foot traffic was limited to human foot traffic.

Oh, and I thought you were talking about a Yeti.

 

You might be on to something. If I'm riding my Yeti, is that considered foot traffic?:lol:

 

1. I thought it was clear at the end that neither is final, and the CAC, representing the citizens (us), can only make recommendations to the official agencies. The CAC has no actual power, only an advisory function. We hope they go with the SDMBA / MUTC map! And that the agencies listen.

2. Yeah, that would be good...more work for the folks who've done so much already. Thanks in advance!

 

Exactly.

 

Thank you for clearing that up Dan. I was in the back of the room, and no, the sequence of administrative hoops, and who determines the final map was not clear to me.

So, would a SDMBA/STR petition to the "official agencies" be of any help in advancing our cause?

Just asking. Sorry. I'll just bow out.

 

:-s I thought it was funny, Dan's response. Another response might be that there are two potential sites, but neither are hosting the maps quite yet. That would be SDMBA and MTC (a yahoooo group).

 

Maybe I took it the wrong way. Sort of a back off and let these guys do their thing. Which I can appreciate as everything has been whipped up to a frenzy these past few days.

Looking forward to seeing them.

When the time comes, just let us know what we can do, or to whom we should address a letter, to better promote the proposal.

 

A petition is a good idea; Mountain bikers would be speaking as one voice, I will ask SDMBA if they can put up a petition on the SDMBA website.

 

The further we go from the source, there will likely be a decrease in the number of parties in the decision process that are either knowledgeable or concerned about our issue (unlike at the LPQ meeting last night). A politician who has zero interest in an issue may take notice of a petition carrying several hundred names.

At least I guess that's how it works. Never could stay awake in social studies. Hey, who knew that stuff would be practical some day? Seriously?

...or we could just give a campaign contribution.

 

Not what I meant...

jSatch -- Sorry, I wrote that in a hurry at work. It was not meant to be sarcastic! This is what I meant:

2. Yeah, that would be good! But more work for the folks who've done so much already, so thanks to them in advance, because I'd like to see it posted too.

 

My fault Dan. I should have known better. I read it in a hurry at work too. Bad day. Office of Research Oversight (ORO) is coming next week and have already threatened to shut down the labs. Welcome to the Bush war against science. Anyway, let's not go there. I need a ride to burn it off.

More importantly, yes, these guys really did a lot of work on this project. And that was quite apparent at the presentation. Erik presented a concise, well thought out package that took into consideration far more aspects than the preceding package that was presented. They were not even in the same league. Obviously a big team effort. The collaboration of this package with the SD trails manager really iced it.

To quote Erik from the mtbr.com site, aspects taken into consideration include (for those that may not have seen it on the mtbr site):
1) Identify and Assess all trails in the area for consideration. The Rangers did this, too, be we mapped and considered more trails because Rob Mikuteit is actually a cyborg. The resulting map used all yellow lines to depict trails.

2) Overlay published MSCP locations with sensitive areas onto the resulting map. "Redline" any trail that directly violates those standards and locations.

3) Apply IMBA and San Diego trail quality standards in an assessment of trails for design, sustainability, redundancy and connectivity. "Redline" all trails that "fail" the tests.

4) Apply IMBA and San Diego trail quality standards, along with input and experience from trail runners, equestrians and cyclists to identify the best and highest quality trails. Prioritize those trails, and then apply the land-management agencies' standards for minimum width, impact and number of trails to create a list of the "most desirable" trails.

5) Redline every remaining "not most desirable" trail, thereby creating a projection for the elimination of the majority of trails in existence while keeping the most desireable trails. The resulting map showed the entire trails network, either in red (red means dead) or color (means desirable) with an overlay of all MSCP vernal pools and sensitive lands.

6) Create an easy to read map of only the proposed trails to keep, ie the dead-bang minimum recommendation for a well-planned, sustainable trails system, open to all non-motorized users in every place other than where the Ranger staff will not allow pack animals/equestrians.


I'm still in awe how comprehensive this package is.

_______________________________

Maybe I'll run into you again tomorrow morning Dan. :wave:

Best, Joe

 

MSCP info

By the way, there was quite a bit of talk about the Multiple Species Conservation Plan and its binding agreement amongst the agencies. I had always wondered how such a plan, that seems very beneficial for habitat protection (according to everything I read in the papers over the years), could exist in a developer-run place like San Diego. Well, duh, it exists for the benefit of the developers! That becomes plain upon reading it.

And you can read it here if you're curious:

http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/mscp/docsmaps/index.shtml

Edit: Yes, this is the same link that started this thread and that SDMBA has on their website. I went back and explored it some more. It contains the Implementing Agreement which I had skipped over. And who else had to keep themselves from laughing out loud at the slide they put up that said " Due to...pristine condition...of...Deer Canyon" . Hard to believe it was pristine even as far back as 1997. (But I won't argue the value as habitat...those oaks are why we love it, right?).

 

Well, if you were at the meeting, ride The Shire with "new eyes" this weekend.

 

And keep those "new eyes" peeled for any fat 'ol boys on horses, with chainsaws and such...

Might even be a good idear to ride with a camera, if you got one.....

 

SDMBA Meeting summary

SDMBA has posted a meeting report on their website at

http://sdmba.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=138&Itemid=19

(thanks Skip on emptybeer for posting it first)

 

Un-f@#$ing-believable.

Someone is still building illegal trails on Del Mar Mesa/Tunnels ](*,), the Rangers have found a newly constructed trail and closed the trail with the help of two volunteers, the next time you ride in the area and you see someone building a new trail or building jumps please ask them to stop or it will jeopardize the success of the proposed trails plan as well as access to this area.