LCWP TnA Trail

None of the below is directly instructive, but might be interesting (if you're a masochist).

Wrong park, but the link below may be of interest to some here (specifically pp. 2-8 - 2-9):

http://scc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf...09_Aliso_Wood_Canyons_Wilderness_Park_Ex5.pdf

A biological resources study on Laguna Canyon from 1993:

http://www.occnps.org/files/Laguna_Canyon_Biological_Resources_Karlin_Marsh.pdf

Some Newport Coast nitty gritty, from 1996:

http://www.newportbeachca.gov/PLN/MAP_DOCUMENTS/PC_TEXT/PC_52_Newport_Coast.pdf
 
All,

The folks at LCF and Trail Mix are trying to set up a small meeting with me on 2-28 in Laguna in the late afternoon. That time is TERRIBLE for me as I usually get home between 7 and 7:30, but I will make it work. The main purpose of the meeting is to understand what is in store for trail "maintenance" for 2017 and beyond, and how we can make our voices heard on trail and access issues as passionate users of the Aliso, LCWP trail system. If the opportunity arises, I will certainly inquire a bit into how the decisions for TnA occurred and who was involved, but it will be a meeting to increase understanding, not a meeting for brow beating.

No more docs yet from OC Parks.

PM me if you are interested in attending. I am trying to keep this small and @herzalot the conflict resolution king is slated to attend as well. VIP: I am not trying to keep this small because I think that I am a big deal, or because I am trying to be "in control." I just want to make the meeting productive, efficient and quick. Trust me, I don't want to be in control of anything except my crazy roller coaster of a life! :)

Thanks,

Tim
 
StrandLeper said:
All,

The folks at LCF and Trail Mix are trying to set up a small meeting with me on 2-28 in Laguna in the late afternoon. That time is TERRIBLE for me as I usually get home between 7 and 7:30, but I will make it work. The main purpose of the meeting is to understand what is in store for trail "maintenance" for 2017 and beyond, and how we can make our voices heard on trail and access issues as passionate users of the Aliso, LCWP trail system. If the opportunity arises, I will certainly inquire a bit into how the decisions for TnA occurred and who was involved, but it will be a meeting to increase understanding, not a meeting for brow beating.

No more docs yet from OC Parks.

PM me if you are interested in attending. I am trying to keep this small and @herzalot the conflict resolution king is slated to attend as well. VIP: I am not trying to keep this small because I think that I am a big deal, or because I am trying to be "in control." I just want to make the meeting productive, efficient and quick. Trust me, I don't want to be in control of anything except my crazy roller coaster of a life! :)

Thanks,

Tim
Click to expand...
The 28th!?!?
A Tuesday. I was going to attend but was hoping for a Saturday to combine discussion, ride, brew, and fish tacos, so a 3 to 4 hour round trip had additional substance. You want Law and order negotiating at a meeting you would want me there.
Keep a cool head take some demographics on the folks that oppose this trail maintenance line of thinking.
 
@Mikie nothing's open now anyway. Let's do an OC - Aliso-LCWP blowout extravaganza sometime in March or April. 5-Oaks, Stair Steps, Lizard, Rattlesnake, T and A (we can plant a memorial at the top), Car Wreck, Telonics, Meadows - you name it!

If @StrandLeper is involved, he will probably want us to sample some off-menu items on his new snowplow - er, Mixer. Beware of this man. Like @mtnbikej, he has no limits.
 
Mikie said:
The 28th!?!?
A Tuesday. I was going to attend but was hoping for a Saturday to combine discussion, ride, brew, and fish tacos, so a 3 to 4 hour round trip had additional substance. You want Law and order negotiating at a meeting you would want me there.
Keep a cool head take some demographics on the folks that oppose this trail maintenance line of thinking.
Click to expand...
I am not excited about it happening on a weekday either but that was the date and time that she threw out. I DO want you there but know that Tuesday is likely a non-starter. I don't want to put off the meet as I want to find out what is up. This first meet is purely information exchange and we can even face time you in so that you can get a temperature of the room and participate. If you don't have face time, we can video conf with my MAC.
 
StrandLeper said:
Hmmmmm. So, an e-mail from 2015 about coming to look at the trail, a report on the whole trail system from 2015, and this letter invoking the deliberative process privilege. I know how to play this game. I kind of do it for a living.
Click to expand...
Stating the more obvious... based on the letter, why would they even consider trains in wilderness parks? ...based on what I read. :whistling:
 
OCParks and Tim......

hqdefault.jpg


scratch-pants-scratch-jacket-scratch-suit-dog-in-action.jpg
 
StrandLeper said:
E-mailed and sent via certified mail today,
Click to expand...
Thanks Tim for taking the time to do this. Can you bill yourself?

And thanks to whomever is attending the meeting with LCF. Still would be nice to have OCParks too, since they should be the ones that sign off on the work, if not ask LCF to do it.

Would be funny if there is no documents for the work approval. With all the EIR requirements in CA, I can't imagine they could do that much work without some impact report or approval in writing, but who knows.
 
Well, it happened. 3 LCF including Hallie met with a few hooligans from this website to discuss past and future trail "improvements." The meeting had its moments of tension and its moments of kumbaya. At the end of it all, I got away without paying for my beer, so that's a win! (Thanks @StrandLeper )

Of substance -
  • There is no work planned at the moment on Stairs, Car Wreck or Meadows that LCF knows about. (Rock stockpile at top of Meadows?)
  • 5-Oaks is a live target. They want to save the tree at the bottom. Strand likes to boost the roots.
  • OC Parks does its own thing and does not answer to LCF.
  • The bobcat work on Coyote Run was a surprise to LCF.
  • The new person at OCParks (Stacy?) is sympathetic to MtBers.
  • LCF/Hallie gets clobbered day in and day out for being "traitors" who support mt bikers. 90% of riders might be courteous and friendly, but the other 10% startle other trail users. It only takes one douchebag to undo the goodwill and manners of 100 riders.
  • LCF is interested in the trail steward idea proposed by @kioti. (A designated steward for each trail).
  • They will host more frequent trail user "summit" meetings - I suggested quarterly is enough.
  • Hallie will e-mail me when there is something in the works.
  • LCF is doing a trail assessment right now, regarding current damage and condition.
  • Tim is scary to LCF. (I mean that in the kindest possible way).
  • I am afraid that rattling chains will end up backfiring - sort of a "bite the hand that feeds" undoing of good will. We don't want to become Marin or San Diego.
  • We talked about the distinction between sustainable and maintainable. Steep trails may not be self-sustaining, but they can be maintainable.
I thought the meeting covered some important ground. LCF understands our passion and has committed to proactive communication.

Others who were present can chime in.
 
I agree with Chris.

Here are some more details and my take

They are looking at rerouting five Oaks, because of the tree roots that you ride over towards the bottom might be killing one of the old oak trees. For some reason, my idea of ripping out the oak tree and renaming the trail four Oaks, instead of a reroute didn't go over so well. :)

One of the representatives of LCF was clearly bothered by the backhoe destroying the TnA ridge drop. He was very diplomatic in expressing his opinion, and did not outwardly express his opinion. You could tell from his body language, however that he hoped that the ridge drop would stay.

I will claim responsibility for the tension. A little tension is good in a relationship, or so I hear. When I informed them that I was going to press the county for the records related to the destruction of the TNA Ridge, to the point of suing if necessary, they became exceedingly uncomfortable. I tried to explain that I was just a citizen trying to find out why my government did something, and that I am entitled to the records related to that decision. I think they are afraid of blowback because of my request. When I directly asked them, "why don't you want to know how the County of Orange arrived at the decision to rip out TnA ridge?" They refused to answer the question, and became very uncomfortable with my presence. At that point, I (essentially) offered to leave, as it appeared in my presence might've been hindering the meeting. They Encouraged me to stay, but stated that they simply could not talk about that issue.

I completely understand that an organization without power cannot push against power. I just do not understand how a citizen unconnected with Laguna Canyon Foundation asking for records related to the process of how the Laguna Ridge Trail was destroyed with the backhoe is a bad thing.

All in all, I thought it was a very positive meeting. But I think the positivity of the meeting was in part because of the directness and honesty of all of the participants in the meeting. In my opinion, no punches were pulled, everyone was professional, and more information was exchanged because of it.

On a side note, an attorney for the county got back to me this afternoon letting me know that the county would work with me on my public records request.

Thanks everyone for coming and giving your perspectives.

Kioti, Mattb, Herz, and Andy!

Tim
 
Last edited:
herzalot said:
Others who were present can chime in.
Click to expand...

RRRRiiiinnnng!

I read up on the documents posted above (thanks @littlewave!), wrote some notes and went to the meeting. There were a number of topics discussed, some clarity on goals and intentions, and common ground found. Thank you Tim, Chris, Matt, Andy, Richard, Mark and Hallie for making the time and having a good discussion.

Overall I feel the meeting was a success and hope it leads to better communication and engagement in protection of existing trail alignments, when possible and in agreement with Park management and environmental concerns.

It's clear we as outdoor recreationalists need to be involved, both physically and conceptually, if we like the trails in Aliso and Laguna Coast. The more involved we are, the more we can help with actual or perceived problems. Occasional interactions with Park management will not cut it for being a user group the County can count on when problems occur. We need to find time to handle problems as or before they develop.

The primary establishment of these parks was for habitat protection. We're very fortunate to be able to enjoy these wild spaces and unique trails, that's thanks to those that went before us. Now it's our turn to carry their work forward.

Most of the existing trails in Aliso and Laguna Coast are outside or beyond the category of "sustainability," but that's what makes them challenging or fun. The way to keep them viable from a management standpoint is to maintain them in a manner that balances user enjoyment with habitat protection. On the other hand, if we let them go, they will become problems and will be rerouted or sanitized by non-riders.

One of the best points made at the meeting was raised by Matt. He stated that hand-built trail solutions are preferable to work done by machine, aka backhoe or tractor, because they feel more natural and have a narrower footprint. I wholeheartedly agree with this philosophy. We're not talking bike park here. In many case, we're dealing with game trails that have evolved into single track. Picks and shovels are sufficient for most trail maintenance, but they require willing and experienced participants. Lacking that, we'll get more Coyote Run, Meadows Connector, and TnA solutions to problems that could've been managed by hand, and are not reversible.

Volunteer.
 
Last edited:
It's great that you guys made the time and effort to engage the group. Thanks for representing many.

I'm dumbfounded as to why the threat of litigation would be a part of the discussion, though. (I know, armchair critic here.) First meeting, yowzers. @StrandLeper, thanks for all you've done and do trail-wise, but handing the face time off to the other guys would be the right thing to do IMO.
 
mike said:
It's great that you guys made the time and effort to engage the group. Thanks for representing many.

I'm dumbfounded as to why the threat of litigation would be a part of the discussion, though. (I know, armchair critic here.) First meeting, yowzers. @StrandLeper, thanks for all you've done and do trail-wise, but handing the face time off to the other guys would be the right thing to do IMO.
Click to expand...

I have no problem removing myself from the equation. But to clarify, I did not want Hallie and LCF to find out from a third party (OC Parks) that I was demanding records under threat of litigation. It would have been dishonest of me not to inform them. I am lot of things, but I am not dishonest.

Why threaten litigation to get the records? Because Orange County refused my request to provide the documents related to the TnA destruction citing "the deliberative process privilege." Sorry, that is BS (as I stated in my letter to OC sent yesterday). The next step in a records request is to call the public agency's bluff and threaten to sue for the records. Counties are staffed by people. People can be lazy. Counties often falsely invoke the "deliberative process privilege" to avoid producing records (see lazy people above). Most of the time they do this simply because gathering the records is a pain in the ass (see lazy people above), not because they are hiding something nefarious. This is what you HAVE to do to get the records. In fact, the county has ALREADY (yesterday afternoon) reached out to me to work cooperatively to get me the records.

I think that it is important that we understand the process as to how TnA was destroyed by a backhoe? That can only be accomplished by seeing the documents that led to that destruction. Those documents can only be seen with a public records request, which if refused (which it was) must be met with a litigation threat (which I did). And now, because of that lit threat, I am getting the records. Sorry, that is just how the world works.

I guess that I either should not have sought the records once Orange County told me "No", or should have kept hidden from Hallie and LCF that I was continuing to seek the records (they would have found out from OC Parks FOR CERTAIN). That is just not how I operate, and it is probably best that if that method doesn't comport with current strategy, that I bow out of the IMTB/LCF situation.

I sincerely appreciate the honest input that @mike and everyone else provides. This is about honesty and clarity of purpose and if my methodology inhibits our purpose, I should not be participating.
 
Read the "Trail Management Plan" carefully re: Laguna Ridge. It appears that LCF is advocating a reroute around the big rock before you enter the bottom rock garden. It also appears that LCF recommended closing and revegetating the fall line drop that was ripped apart by a backhoe (though they did not recommend use of the backhoe to do so from what we have seen thus far).
 
I went out immediately after the meeting and didn't get home until late, and then I was out early again this morning for a while. Its given me time to mull over what was said at the meeting, and having read what Chris, Jim and Tim have put, at the moment I don't really have anything more constructive to add, as Chris essentially nails the major points... Having said that, I'd like to emphasize a few things. The meeting itself was well worth having. I felt the first half(ish) of the meeting was kinda drifting here and there, which isn't too surprising as none of us (as a group) had sat down before. I feel it took Tim's "L(awsuit)-bomb" to finally bring us all into focus, and even if there were some subjects that were off the table, it meant we could then concentrate on the things we could work on. And at that point, things seemed to pick up pace, with some solid suggestions put forward.

Having done trail work at some OC Parks (LCWP, Aliso, Oaks...), a lot of what I've done has been for CCSP - a State Park - and it seems whether its state, or county, the "problems" are essentially the same. But, I think we're really approaching a crossroads, where if we continue to be a force for good (and change) we might really be able to influence, even if its in a small way, the powers that be and our voice/wants/concerns will be taken seriously. Its been said that organizing MTBers is like herding cats, but we need to police ourselves, not be jerks on the trails (even if "provoked"), and continue to remember how well organized folks like the Sierra Club are.

The LCF is not our "enemy", we need them on our side, but they've said they're willing to listen to us. We have to remember they also have to deal with OC Parks, and for the most part they donate their time - a lot of it, and put in a tremendous effort (even behind the scenes) to keep trail access open.

It was good to meet Tim, Matt, Chris and Jim from here. As most of you weren't there, you can rest assured that the imtbtrails forum (and MTBers in general) were presented in an eloquent, helpful, concerned and conscientious light. Even with Tim's comment (sorry Tim!! :whistling: )
 
Last edited:
StrandLeper said:
Read the "Trail Management Plan" carefully re: Laguna Ridge. It appears that LCF is advocating a reroute around the big rock before you enter the bottom rock garden. It also appears that LCF recommended closing and revegetating the fall line drop that was ripped apart by a backhoe (though they did not recommend use of the backhoe to do so from what we have seen thus far).
Click to expand...

Looks like it's my turn to chime in after reading the great recaps from the others who were there, as well as the documents Strand was able to get. Everyone else has covered the key topics and take-aways from the meeting, so I won't rehash it, but I'll share the couple of things that have my attention at this point.

LCF is advocating for mountain bikers (and all trail users), and believes we are best served as a united front, which I agree with. They seemed genuinely interested in improving the feedback loop for trail users like us to have a seat at the table before important decisions are made. They committed to getting us involved going forward when they know a big decision is going to be made.

That said, I still have some open questions about the trail design philosophy of LCF and/or OC Parks in Laguna (Aliso and LCWP). This is based on a combination of the descriptions on their trail maintenance Facebook postings, trail work I've seen first-hand, word of mouth from people who have worked with some of their trail folks, and the LCF/OC Parks Trail Management Plan that Strand attached. I'm concerned with what appears to be a philosophy of eliminating any steep trails or steep/challenging sections of a trail. As Strand mentioned above, there appears to be a plan to reroute Laguna Ridge around the big rock drop towards the bottom of the trail. Reading through the management plan, it seems anything with a steep grade is planned to be "armored" (does this mean more pavers?) or rerouted. From my perspective, this dilutes the nature experience, whether it is the challenge of a technical mountain bike trail or even hiking on steep, uneven terrain. This is where I hope that our future involvement can steer LCF/OC Parks away from this philosophy. As Kioti mentioned, trying to keep steep, challenging trails will require more than just our voices, we will need to volunteer to help more to maintain these trails and show that they can be effectively maintained while keeping their current, more challenging, "natural" character.

5 Oaks is a trail that was discussed a bit, specifically regarding protecting the roots of the oak tree at the bottom and possible reroute to deal with that. The current and near term work was not discussed, however many of us have seen the pavers piled up and I've seen recent Facebook posts by LCF showing pavers reinforcing a berm on 5 Oaks. I haven't ridden it myself since any of their recent work, so I'm interested in hearing from others to know what you think. I know pavers can have a place, but given recent events I get nervous when I see them being used on 5 Oaks. I feel that trail maintenance on these more challenging trails should be done with a light hand to retain their character. Hopefully my anxiety here is misplaced and the trail will be as challenging as ever.

I made the statement at the meeting last night that I get excited when I see (or participate in) trail maintenance being done by SHARE, Non-Dot, Warrior's Society, etc., but unfortunately I get very nervous when I hear about trail work being done by TrailMix (LCF). From my experience, the former take a subtle or "less is more" approach to maintenance and I trust their judgement based on the work I've seen, while the latter seems to be taming the trails or disrupting them with excessive, less subtle water management (they need to learn from Kioti:thumbsup:). I don't say this out of any ill will. I don't want to be nervous when I hear that they're going to work on a trail, I want to be excited and feel good about volunteering to help.

This is why I think it's so important that we get involved and have a seat at the table to try to steer the philosophy. I'm hopeful that last night's meeting is the first step in that direction. Thanks to everyone else who attended, and especially to LCF for meeting with us and listening to us.
 
The pavers on the long left turn on 5-oaks ride really, really well and help reinforce an area that has been troublesome. I am not a fan of pavers, but if it helps keep the trail narrow and rideable, and they are used sparingly and only when needed, I can deal with that. I'd rather see shale slab/natural rock armoring, but I am sure that is far more costly and harder to obtain, transport and place.
 
herzalot said:
The pavers on the long left turn on 5-oaks ride really, really well and help reinforce an area that has been troublesome. I am not a fan of pavers, but if it helps keep the trail narrow and rideable, and they are used sparingly and only when needed, I can deal with that. I'd rather see shale slab/natural rock armoring, but I am sure that is far more costly and harder to obtain, transport and place.
Click to expand...

That's great to hear!:thumbsup: Hopefully they continue to use them responsibly ... or are done with them. :) My confidence is building already ... I can be optimistic. :whistling:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top