New Search
COREY Kurt A <br />From: MEDLIN Johnny R <br />Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 1:49 PM <br />To: COREY Kurt A <br />Cc: RINER Andrea G; RICHARDSON Philip S <br />Subject: RE: Additional re: Zane and Elaine Cornett <br /> <br />Cornett letter.doc SEN -Canyon Drive <br />(l1 M6) Trail head.... <br />Attached above are electronic copies from my files of two letters which went out on this topic. One to the Cornett's <br />and another to Kevin Matthews. <br />think these are final editions but I'm not certain of that. They may be my last drafts prior to giving them to Therese for <br />final editing and sending out. So they may not be exactly worded as the "sent" edition but they will give all the concept <br />information. I also sent you separately the letter from Tom C. where he clarified this issue not being one needing land <br />use action. <br />Therese is not in today so if you want to forward these attachments we should get the final edition of attachments from <br />Therese when she returns. <br />Philip has additional material on direct emails to the Cornett's and public information material presented if you think <br />that might be helpful <br />Questions for the Cornetts: <br />1. Other than to park planners, to whom is it important to build a connector between Rexius (which is a flat, <br />walking/jogging trail) and the Ridgeline system (which is a steeper, hiking trail)? Is there documented demand or <br />interest? It is my believe we have received significant public comment in the current comprehensive plan process <br />as well as the 1989 Park Plan and the Rivers To Ridges plan that supports a system of connected trails. <br />2. If there is known interest, why build the trail along an area that was purchased with dollars specifically <br />designated for protecting watershed (money managed by Audubon from Hynix settlement and City stormwater <br />funds), when at least one other alternative is available? Particularly when alternatives are already getting used as <br />walking routes? This is the issue around using the trail on the undeveloped road r/w through Beverly instead of <br />this location. When we purchased the corridor in question we always intended to place a trail on it. I believe <br />another part of the answer is we do not purchase property solely to preserve and lock it away from the public. Our <br />mission also includes providing public access and education. This is true in both the stormwater as well as the <br />parks programs. <br />3. If there were truly no other alternatives, what will be done to prevent further erosion in an area that already <br />sends silt to the creek every time there is a 1/2 inch or more of rain? There are always some impacts from <br />disturbance and construction. I think the best answer to this is that trail is being designed to minimize erosion to <br />the greatest extent practicable. <br />4. Is there money already designated to maintain a trail in this environmentally sensitive area, to prevent <br />further degradation to the watershed and water quality? We ask this because maintenance of the nearby Rexius <br />trail is definitely falling behind and it isn't nearly as environmentally sensitive as this new trail vvould be. Trail <br />maintenance is a sensitive issue regarding available funding. There isn't any "new" money for this. We work an <br />the trail system with resources available and prioritize where it is most needed. We also work with volunteers and <br />look for grants for this type of work. Kurt, I suspect. you can answer this as well as any of us for any additional <br />here.. <br />5. What meaningful measures are you going to employ to keep mountain bikes from using the trail and <br />hikers (and dogs) from cutting across switchbacks, which will exacerbate the problems? We have this issue on <br />most all trails. We do not have enforcement capability to guarantee mountain bikes are not going to use trails not <br />