Feb 6th Santiago Oaks Meeting:Please Attend

[JamR]

Originally Posted by g-dub

We'll get quickly shooed from the room if we go in trashing the report entirely. A little of the proposal has merit, a lot does not. The expensive stuff could go way down the priority list in the current budget environment. I'll be really curious to see how excited the county is about spending $.5 million on highly discretionary recreational trails right about now.

We'll need to understand the motivations behind the proposals. The $105,000 Chutes bridge may be something that Irvine Co. is pushing to support the Boy Scout camp (wild speculation on my part). Or it could be something to pad his bid that he could trade away to make the rest of the work look like a bargain.

"The trails are too steep" is a subjective opinion. We need to understand how he got to that opinion. My subjective opinion is that the trails are just right. He could put up a $50 "own risk" sign if it makes him feel better.

"an accident waiting to happen." I broke my clavicle at Peters, of all places. That accident actually did happen, it's not waiting for anyone. Shall we close Big Red? But really, this wording is put in to guarantee that the work gets done. Ambulance chasers will drool if they find those words and the trail isn't "fixed."

Good points!

However the Irvine Company has nothing to do with that trail, and the bridge is simply a requirement of allowing that trail to exist. The City of Irvine Space that I help manage will be installing anywhere from 4 to 6 bridges of varying sizes on the trails that were adopted into the system by the RRMP. The trails are currently ride-able without bridges, but it is simply a requirement that we have to follow.

And your comment about the trail safety is pretty accurate. While the potential for disaster may be greater on a very technical trail; from the anecdotal information many land managers have discussed in the past; many of these trails have less incidents simply because the people who use them tend to be more skilled or approach with more caution.

More people do seem to get hurt on even flat fire-roads or some moderate trails where less-skilled riders sometimes just let their guard down.

All my major injuries (airlift) occurred on easy trails or by my own bonehead actions; whereas I can't recall ever taking a serious dump at the Oaks, Steps, T&A, or Rattlesnake.

Something to think about

Thanks!

[Waldo]

I'll try to steer clear of the personal "debates" going on here, but I want to raise a coupe points/questions:

1) The public and responsible officials have an obligation to analyze and critique this process in a transparent fashion, exactly as we are doing here. I hope that county/park officials do read boards such as these so that they understand the concerns and passions of their constituents.

2) I agree that things should be kept as constructive as possible, but if a public official/servant can't handle a few critical words on a message board, they have no business holding that position.

3) I disagree with hiring anyone as a consultant who is also in the business of providing the services they are hired to analyze. That is simply a conflict of interests. The example of an auto shop giving an estimate is a poor one - just check the BBB listings for all the problems possible in that scenario. And even if the county is going to hire such a person or company, where's the second opinion? So far, methinks that's us!

4) I don't understand how the management of Santiago Oaks seems to have gone so abruptly from benign neglect of these trails (based on numerous observations here on STR) to scrapping the whole trail network and starting over? How about a study period during which traditional, proven trail maintenance techniques are applied, utilizing as much volunteer labor as possible? Then, after an appropriate amount of time (at least one year preferred, to experience dry/wet seasons), the trails are re-evaluated for sustainability, public safety, and cost of operation. Then the system could be re-evaluated to see if re-routes, closures, etc are truly needed, or if more proactive maintenance would allow for cost-effective continuation of historic routes.

5) I'm concerned that so much of the current evaluation & decision-making process seems to have happened under very unusual circumstances. If most of this has happened since the Windy Ridge fire, then they have decided on a long-term plan based on a period during which Santiago Oaks has burned, Oaks' trails have been widened and heavily trafficked by fire and maintenance vehicles, we have been under a severe drought, and then much of the surrounding wilderness area burned which directed more trail users to Oaks. This has hardly been a "normal" time which ought to be used as any sort of measurement of long-term sustainability.


6) Finally, I am baffled by what appears (from the perspective of an enthusiastic user of several parks) to be such dramatically different approaches to county park management from one location to the next. Are these not all operated by the same county, utilizing roughly the same resources and serving roughly the same population? Obviously there are location-specific variables (more or less traffic, horses, bikes, soil types, etc), but why do there seem to be such apparently systemic differences in the way one park deals with the demands on its resources, as compared to another facility overseen by the same county?


Sorry for the long post, but there are a lot of dynamic issues at play here, and I'm looking for a little clarity.

[Waldo]

Originally Posted by JamR

The City of Irvine Space that I help manage will be installing anwhere from 4 to 6 bridges of varying sizes on the trails that were adopted into the system by the RRMP. The trails are currently ride-able without bridges, but it is simply a requirement that we have to follow.

For the sake of clarification (and with apologies if I missed these points earlier):

What is the RRMP?

Is that bridge requirement based on environmental regs, safety regs, or some other consideration, and what is the source (fed, state, county, city, or??). I find that one fascinating, since a permanent structure certainly alters a sand wash environment more than a few tracks/footprints. Obviously, a standing water location would be different but I don't understand the need in a spot like the end of Chutes where water only flows at times when we're not riding/hiking it anyway.

Gracias

[Cowgirl]

I recieved a kind response in the form of a phone call from Mark Denny (Assistant director for OC Parks) regarding my letter that was sent to Supervisor Bill Campbell.

We discussed the planned meeting on Feb. 6th and the processes that are going to follow. The County is going to have Rober Bell at the meeting to go over his proposal and discuss the re-routes and why. There is also going to be a third party from the National Parks there to work as a mediator between the users and the County. Then there is going to be maps for the users to review and discuss. We are going to be able to voice our opinions good or bad regarding the proposal. There is also going to be comment cards for us to fill out to give our reaction to the report and it's findings. The County is also going to set up a way for us to email them our comments as well and we will recieve that at the meeting.

The County wants the users of the park to be present at the meeting to give their reactions. Mr. Denny mentioned that he would like comments written and that letters are very helpful in this process. We have say in what happens in our park !!!!

I will keep you updated as to anything I hear so you are all up to date before we head into the meeting on Feb. 6th.

[JamR]

Originally Posted by Waldo

For the sake of clarification (and with apologies if I missed these points earlier):

What is the RRMP?

Is that bridge requirement based on environmental regs, safety regs, or some other consideration, and what is the source (fed, state, county, city, or??). I find that one fascinating, since a permanent structure certainly alters a sand wash environment more than a few tracks/footprints. Obviously, a standing water location would be different but I don't understand the need in a spot like the end of Chutes where water only flows at times when we're not riding/hiking it anyway.

Gracias

Hi Waldo,

Parts of the answers can get really complicated, but I'll try to give a short version.

A RRMP is a Recreation and Resource Management Plan. Basically it is a document that formalizes a managed area (a green park, wilderness park, open-space, etc...). Basically it is a plan that outlines and documents the entire area (geology, biology, uses, restrictions, trails, etc...)

There are other similar plans like a GDP (General Design Plan) and others, but all pretty much follow a similar course.

The RRMP or the GDP pretty much becomes the guideline for the areas facilities and operations as their baseline; or as in many locations, it becomes the document that the management is required to set up and follow in order to be in compliance if their area is signatory to another set of standards like the Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP)...which is the case in the City of Irvine Spaces.

Part of the RRMP process includes something similar to what you see happening at the Oaks, where there is an inventory taken of the existing trails, and recommendations are made along with public input to get the trails formalized into the system.

The meeting on the 6th is something that is very typical all over where the public views a current and proposed map, and is given the opportunity to comment verbally and by filling out cards with their trail suggestions.

It's really a first step process which is why there was no real need for such anger with the rolling out of this first-draft, since the meeting for public comment was already set in place.

As far as bridges; there are a lot of varying agencies that have involvement and jurisdiction over water-shed and natural drainage. Most RRMP's clearly indicate that trails crossing creeks (wet or dry) need to be done in a manner that does not interrupt the creek, which usually falls in the form of bridges or puncheon structures. But even that can get complicated because sometimes the act of putting in a bridge in some sensitive areas can add a shading area to the creek bed that would not normally occur, and therefore the agencies sometimes won't allow the bridge or the trail. These agencies can include the Army Corp of Engineers, DFG, USFW, etc....

I don't personally know the exact requirements for the crossing at the bottom of Chutes, but the bridge came as no surprise, especially with the steepness of the banks entering and exiting the creek.

The bridge itself usually would not add any impact to the creek since typically trail bridges locally are not allowed to have any center supports in the creek bed, therefore the only impact is away from the creek banks on the trail surface itself.

Like I said.....there are so many factors to take into consideration, that people need to remember that the managers have to follow these requirements.

I hope this helps a little, and I hope people realize that the county is following procedures that are pretty much the norm, and like stated in the above post....the County does want public input....but public input that is to be taken seriously needs to be constructive.

Thanks

[Cowgirl]

Keep in mind that fires ravaged Whiting Ranch as well and many of the same issues that have come up since the fires at Santiago Oaks will be happening at Whiting Ranch in the near future.....the outcome at Santiago Oaks can set a precedent that may help with the re-building of Whiting Ranch. So if your a user of Whiting Ranch....attend this meeting as well.

[g-dub]

So will the bridge be considered mandatory to keeping Chutes (oops, sorry, "SORP 1A") open? If so, I'd be inclined to support it. It'll easily cost twice the estimate, and thus drain the budget for all the other "improvements."

Mr. Bell seems open to reopening "SORP 8" (I forget the real name). Gonna have to see what's holding him back from fully endorsing the idea. And the way I'm reading this, he's cool with opening the upper half of Bobcat, but not the bottom?

[JamR]

Originally Posted by g-dub

So will the bridge be considered mandatory to keeping Chutes (oops, sorry, "SORP 1A") open? If so, I'd be inclined to support it. It'll easily cost twice the estimate, and thus drain the budget for all the other "improvements."

Mr. Bell seems open to reopening "SORP 8" (I forget the real name). Gonna have to see what's holding him back from fully endorsing the idea. And the way I'm reading this, he's cool with opening the upper half of Bobcat, but not the bottom?

I don't know the particular requirements for Chutes so I can't speak with any certainty except to say that a bridge on a location like that would be completely expected.

I do know however in the areas I help manage, the bridges are a requirement on these types of trails so when everything gets weighed in, there are basically two choices that affect four single-track trails in my area...........either four trails with bridges crossing the natural drainages, or no trails. I think the choice is obvious.

A bridge at the bottom of Chutes should not be a big controversy and the cost is pretty much in line with the pre-engineered bridges of this nature. Also I believe the price in his proposal is for 2 bridges.....one at Chutes and one up by the water tank near the end of the Weir Canyon Trail.

Definitely not scout project bridges.

[Cowgirl]

Bring all these questions to the meeting...if you can't make the meeting send me a list of all your questions and I will ask them.

[KeepsWhatHappens]

What can people do to have a say if they simply cannot make the Feb 6th meeting?

KeepsWhatHappens

[JamR]

Originally Posted by KeepsWhatHappens

What can people do to have a say if they simply cannot make the Feb 6th meeting?

KeepsWhatHappens

If the County website is set up like the Aliso-Woods RRMP site, they probably have an option for e-mail comments on the plan.

[Waldo]

Originally Posted by Cowgirl

Keep in mind that fires ravaged Whiting Ranch as well and many of the same issues that have come up since the fires at Santiago Oaks will be happening at Whiting Ranch in the near future.....the outcome at Santiago Oaks can set a precedent that may help with the re-building of Whiting Ranch. So if your a user of Whiting Ranch....attend this meeting as well.

Great point! All the more reason to consider volunteering at Whiting/Limestone through the Adopt-a-Park program.
These volunteers may be among the first, and therefore the most influential, of the general public into the parks.

[Cowgirl]

Originally Posted by KeepsWhatHappens

What can people do to have a say if they simply cannot make the Feb 6th meeting?

KeepsWhatHappens

Make sure you read the report fully and go over the map...then put your comments, questions, opinions in a letter and email them to sherry.hart.bikes@sbcglobal and I will print them and hand them to the appropriate person at the meeting....

[Cowgirl]

OK...so this past Saturday I decided to be an upstanding individual in my OPA Community and go to the Annual Meeting with the Board of Directors and vote and become even more involved......so to my surprise standing there talking amongst the people...it's Supervisor Bill Campbell!!! What an opportunity for me!!! So I went over and introduced myself (he knew who I was the minute I mentioned my name...gee I wonder why). He was very nice and mentioned that he has much the same vision for the park as we all do...he would like to see signs designating trail difficulty just like on the ski slopes (to help with County liability)...he mentioned this to the community at the meeting as well... and that he is not for closures in the park...I apologized for going to him so many times with my letter's and he mentioned that because of the many letters he has been recieving from everyone that he has been checking into the beurocracy that has been going on with Santiago Oaks and that things need to be looked at. So there you have it....timing is everything!!!

Look forward to seeing you all on Feb. 6th!!!

[Vickie]

Originally Posted by Cowgirl

I recieved a kind response in the form of a phone call from Mark Denny (Assistant director for OC Parks) regarding my letter that was sent to Supervisor Bill Campbell.

The County wants the users of the park to be present at the meeting to give their reactions. Mr. Denny mentioned that he would like comments written and that letters are very helpful in this process. We have say in what happens in our park !!!!

I will keep you updated as to anything I hear so you are all up to date before we head into the meeting on Feb. 6th.

Sherry, THANK YOU for EVERYTHING you do to keep us informed with the status of Santiago Oaks. This will be a HUGE IMPACT meeting !!!! We need A LOT more people to show their support.....come on guys and girls....RSVP to this meeting - !!

[Schecky]

Is anybody thinking of riding to the event?