South Boulder Neighborhood Caucus

September 23, 2010 Update

Guy Burgess
South Boulder Neighborhood Representative

September 13 Mountain Bike Meeting

During its September 13 meeting, the CCG focused exclusively on the mountain bike issue. At the end of the meeting, the CCG, which can only make decisions by consensus, concluded that it would be unable to reach consensus on this issue and that it would, therefore, refer the entire question to an alternative (and still unspecified, non-consensus OSMP process). I personally think that this process will probably ultimately involve the Board of Trustees and, quite possibly, the City Council.

As you probably know the mountain bike issue has been extremely controversial with lots of both strong supporters and strong opponents (see comment links in the right hand column). In the comments that I prepared for the meeting I outlined what I saw as the issues and suggested three possible routes toward compromise. In doing this my goal was to find some way of providing expanded mountain bike access (envisioned in the Visitor Master Plan) while also protecting the interests of Open Space visitors and neighbors.

During the meeting it became clear that there was inadequate support for any of my compromise ideas. Environmental representatives refused even consider the possibility of protecting the experience on existing trails by constructing a new, separate mountain bike trail.  NCAR is apparently refusing to even consider the possibility of routing the mountain bike trail away from neighborhoods and existing trails. And, the mountain bike community exhibited little interest in alternative mountain bike opportunities.

Given that I tried hard to find a compromise and nobody seemed interested, I did not think that I could agree to a proposal that would have completely neglected neighborhood concerns and the concerns of area trail users. Therefore, I agreed with the decision to send this to a non-consensus process. I also insisted that the full record of the debate (including all of the input the I’ve received) be conveyed to OSMP so that it can have it as a starting point for its deliberations.

Next: Consideration of Other South Boulder Area Issues

Over the next two meetings (September 28 and October 12) the CCG will consider other important issues related to the South Boulder neighborhood. If you haven't already posted your comments on these issues, I need them as soon as possible using the links in the right-hand column.

The biggest currently outstanding issue is what to do about the many popular, undesignated, social trails in the area. OSMP has made it clear that it would like to either close or formally designate these trails (which would add them to add to the official OSMP map). Furthermore, my impression is that they (and the environmentalists) would really prefer to close most if not all of these trails.

Based on comments that I've received thus far, my sense is that a great many neighbors and trail users would prefer to simply leave things as they are. They do not want to lose access to a lot of wonderful trails and, for the trails that might be designated, they do not want the substantial increase in use that would be likely to result.

As an alternative, many on the CCG have been arguing for a middle ground in which the highest-quality, social trails would be retained and maintained but not included on the map of official Open Space trails. The goal is to preserve the less-crowded nature of these areas while still continuing to provide access. In preparation for this discussion, it would be helpful for me to know which social trails you'd like to keep and which you think could be closed.

They are also likely to be a number of proposals to increase the level of environmental protection in the area -- sometimes to the point of restricting access. Again, it would be helpful to know where you think additional protection is warranted.

Finally, there are likely to be opportunities for the CCG to consider strategies for reducing the impact of access points and trails on neighbors. Possibilities that seem to enjoy strong support include highlighting and promoting mass transit-based access, providing bike parking (which is seen as less disruptive than automobile parking), improving (in consultation with immediate neighbors) trash facilities and cleanup services, and, perhaps routing some of the trails that are extremely close to houses further out to improve the visitor experience and reduce neighborhood impacts. That would be useful for me to know what people think of these ideas.

My goal is to provide equitable access in the least disruptive way possible. A map highlighting social trails that have been suggested for preservation and close-in neighborhood trails that might be rerouted is found here. NOTE: This map supersedes any older maps that may still be still floating around on various CCG related websites.