Mastering the master plan.

Imagine this: your department is responsible for the management of one of the most beautiful and popular parks in the United States. It is apparent that the park needs a new master plan to deal with ever-increasing traffic, competing uses and restoration of deteriorating natural resources. However, the park is loved by so many citizens, that even one proposed change could become a major controversy. In fact, two previous master planning efforts in the last 20 years have failed. How do you proceed?

This scenario describes what the Colorado Springs Parks and Recreation Department faced in its third attempt to plan for the management and preservation of Garden of the Gods Park. Because of the first two failed attempts, staff decided to proceed very carefully and to preplan for success. They evaluated what went wrong in the 1976 and the 1987 attempts and conscientiously prepared to remedy those errors.

What emerged as the biggest problem of the former master plan attempts was the lack of citizen involvement, which led to misunderstandings, controversy and anger over proposed changes. The following text provides background information and a checklist of how the park staff prepared for and conducted the year-long master planning process. It was a process based on very active citizen participation, which ultimately proved to be the key to its success.

Background

Garden of the Gods Park stretches the traditional definition of a city park. In many ways, it is both a nationally and internationally significant area. Annually, over one million visitors from all 50 states and over 60 foreign countries discover the compelling beauty and history of the 1,367-acre natural park. They are drawn to its awe-inspiring views of red sandstone spires, deep blue skies and snowcapped Pikes Peak towering 14,000 feet in the distance.

Garden of the Gods is listed as a National Natural Landmark by the Department of the Interior for its biological and geological features. The park is a unique biological crossroads where the grasslands of the Great Plains meet the pinonjuniper woodlands characteristic of the American Southwest, and merge with the evergreen forests of the Rocky Mountains. Three hundred million years of geologic history are exposed in the vertical rock formations, making Garden of the Gods a favorite "outdoor classroom" for geologists nationwide. Additionally, Rock Ledge Ranch Historic Site, a living historical farm that depicts life in the Pikes Peak Region between 1860 and 1920, is located within the park's boundaries.

The park's original 480 acres were donated to the City of Colorado Springs in 1909 by the family of Charles E. Perkins. The deed stipulated that the park acreage should remain "free to all the world." Today, 86 years later, the original Perkins land donation, "a gift of inestimable value," forms the center of Garden of the Gods. It is now one of over 140 parks in the Colorado Springs Parks and Recreation Department system, and carries no entrance fee.

Obviously, a spectacular natural park that has no entry fee, and is located within a two-hour drive of more than 1.5 million Colorado residents, is subject to heavy use. To help solve the increasing problems of concentrated and cumulative use, and to better balance the dual issues of use and preservation, the park staff undertook the challenge of a public master plan process. Months before the first public meeting, staff began preparing. Their planning process is detailed in the following checklist.

Preparation:

[check] 1. Assemble an experienced team.

Knowing that a public master plan process is not for the faint of heart, Terry Putman, master plan team leader and manager of Planning and Development for the Parks and Recreation Department, assembled a team of park professionals who had first-hand knowledge of the problems and were totally committed to working with the public to find solutions. The team included veteran staff with several different areas of expertise, including maintenance, landscaping planning, interpretation, park trails, natural resource management, and public communications.

Even though there were differences of opinion about some part issues, each team member respectfully listened to others and to hundreds of citizens during the process. Patience was definitely a virtue.

[check] 2. Develop a comprehensive inventory and evaluation of the park's natural and historical features.

In order for the Parks Department and citizens to make tough decisions regarding park uses, it was necessary to thorougly evaluate the park's resources.

Fortunately for the master plan budget, several local college and university professors volunteered their expertise in completing this important step. The results of each survey were mapped according to the "design with nature" process developed by Ian McHarg. Specific surveys included vegetation, aesthetics, wildlife, archaeology, existing culture, gradients, hydrography, soils, and erosion potential. All survey information was made available to the public. In this way, citizens were provided with all of the same information that staff had. This allowed them to work together as partners and to make decisions based on the park's actual condition and real needs, not just emotion.

[check] 3. Conduct traffic, community and on-site visitor surveys.

Since automobiles seemed to be taking over the park, a traffic survey was essential. The survey included video taping of over-crowded parking lots, parking along roadways, and near collisions on narrow, two-lane roads. The video images helped the public and the park staff to clearly see the problems and to begin discussing how to decrease the impact of traffic on the sensitive areas of the park.

Rocky Mountain Research Group was hired to design both a community telephone survey and a park visitor on-site survey. Over 60 volunteers assisted with the week-long park visitor survey, by interviewing the occupants of every fourth vehicle leaving the park (sometimes it was a bus or a bicycle) and trail-users. Survey results indicated that preservation of the part was a high priority, both for local citizens and for out-of-town visitors.

[check] 4. Address specific concerns of individuals and groups.

When change is proposed for a park it is important to promptly address specific concerns which may be unknown until the master plan process is underway. Possible examples include: a horticulture group may want to save a particular grove of trees where a parking lot is proposed; the police department may be concerned about access, if roads are to be rerouted or closed; or a history club may know about a pioneer irrigation system that they want to preserve. It makes sense to "expect the unexpected" and to work with citizens to find solutions to their concerns.

Since Garden of the Gods and the Colorado Springs area are part of the ancestral home of the Ute and other Native American Indians, it became apparent that their concerns needed to be addressed in the process. Communication was established with the Elders of the Southern Ute and other Native Americans to address issues such as depiction of native cultures in future exhibits or educational materials, and protection and repatriation of any artifacts that may be found in the park.

[check] 5. Hire professional facilitators.

One of the problems of the previous master planning attempts was the lack of professional facilitation. With difficult decisions to make, meetings sometimes became contentious, with citizens and park staff seeming to be on opposite sides of issues. This time, professional facilitators kept the planning meetings on schedule, knew how to guide citizens from personal interests to compromise and allowed the park staff to serve as information experts. More often than not, citizens and park staff viewed themselves as a team working together for the future of the park. In short, excellent facilitation was a crucial element to the success of this master plan process.

The Process

The Garden of the Gods master plan process was designed with citizen participation as one of its top priorities. The meetings were open to the public, rather than to a selected citizen planning committee. All interested citizens were able to participate in this imperfect, yet ultimately successful, "fish bowl" planning method. A checklist of details and execution are described in the following paragraphs.

[check] 1. Select and publicize meeting times and location to maximize citizen participation.

Public meeting times were set for 4:00 pm-6:00 pm every other Tuesday, with occasional meetings from 7:00 pm-9:00 pm. The closest junior high school to Garden of the Gods was chosen as the meeting location for several reasons: it was well-lighted and handicap accessible; it was in the same neighborhood area as the park and it had separate meeting spaces--an auditorium, a music room, a cafeteria and classrooms. Sometimes, all meeting spaces were used simultaneously for small group "break-out" sessions.

In addition to publicizing each meeting in the local media, the staff identified 125 groups and individuals as having particular interest in the park. These "potentially affected interests" (PAls) included groups such as homeowners' associations, local environmental groups, active trail-user clubs (running, horseback riding, bicycling, etc.), tourism industry representatives, and volunteer groups associated with the park. The PAls were sent letters inviting them to participate in the planning process. Approximately once a month, a master plan meeting report was mailed to the PAI's and to every citizen participant, to summarize the month's planning efforts.

[check] 2. Set a "guiding principle" with the citizen planning group.

On the first public planning meeting, attended by over 100 citizens, the facilitator led the group in a goal-setting discussion. The individuals at the meeting were asked to vocalize their greatest hopes and their greatest fears for the future of Garden of the Gods. The group agreed that the following philosophy would be used to guide all discussions and decisions about the future of the park: "Conservation, preservation and restoration are overriding principles and within those principles, the ultimate aim is to allow uses in the park which will not conflict and which are appropriate to the setting."

[check] 3. Utilize citizen "focus groups."

The next step involved gathering citizen input about major park issues. The issues identified by the large citizen planning group were categorized into five major areas: traffic, management, trails, interpretation, and rock climbing. These five areas were scrutinized by citizen "focus groups," where approximately 30 citizens worked on solutions to specific problems within one focus area. For example, citizens who were most concerned about the traffic problems chose to work solely on this problem and to report back to the large group near the end of the two-hour meeting time. Focus group work continued for approximately two months. Citizens were able to attend any focus group meeting of their interest, and several citizens gave input to more than one focus area. Each focus group chose a citizen leader who reported back to the large group. At least one park staff member served as a part of each focus group, primarily to offer firsthand knowledge of the problems, answer questions and offer suggestions.

This is where the months of preplanning really paid off. Staff were prepared with data from recent surveys, photographs, maps, and videos to illuminate park problems. Since citizens had access to the same information as the park staff, solutions were easier to find and to agree

[check] 4. Reach consensus.

Consensus is defined as "opinion of all or most of the people consulted." Rather than deciding focus-group issues by majority vote, the facilitator asked each focus group to come to consensus, to come to decisions that each person could "live with." Once each focus group had come to consensus, they presented their focus issue and their proposed solutions.

The facilitator then asked the large group to embrace the work of the focus groups, to trust the findings of their fellow citizens and to reach consensus. This was NOT an easy task, but the citizens--who by this time had attended dozens of public meetings, forged positive working relationships with their fellow citizens and park staff, and who were truly dedicated to the guiding principle of "conservation, preservation and restoration" of Garden of the Gods--did reach consensus.

The large group agreed that they, over all, could support the proposed solutions of each focus group. Now it was time to go to the City Council.

[check] 5. Provide opportunity for citizens to express their support for the proposed master plan at the City Council.

Since changes to Garden of the Gods Park would be noticed by 95% of the Colorado Springs citizens (the percentage of local citizens who visit the park as determined by the community telephone survey), the Mayor asked that this master plan be approved not only by the Parks Advisory Board, but also by the City Council. Opposition was expressed, as expected, to some of the road changes, removal of buildings and. allowing rock climbing and mountain biking. However, instead of park staff "defending" the decisions for proposed changes, the citizen focus-group leaders knowledgeably presented the information. The City Council was impressed by the dedication of so many citizens and their ability to present clear reasons for each proposed change.

Outcome

Fourteen months after the first public planning meeting, the City Council approved the new Garden of the Gods master plan. In the interim, there were a total of 23 large group planning meetings, with more than 400 citizens attending at least one meeting. Each large group meeting was attended by 100-150 citizens. Counting the focus group and the City Council meetings, a total of 51 meetings were conducted on various aspects of the park.

It is probably impossible to conduct this type of public planning process without some controversy and even anger. But this process definitely reduced misunderstandings and fostered positive working relationships between citizens and staff. Thorough preparation, skilled facilitators and an experienced staff proved to be the foundation for success of the master plan process. And the trust given to citizens to be true partners in the planning process proved to be the winning strategy for mastering the master plan.