New "No Trespassing" Signs at the South End of Ladera Ranch

They most likely will not pay much attention until a lawyer is involved. If someone on the site is a lawyer and wants to help great if not maybe a donation site or fund raiser to hire a attorney is in order.

How about and bike parts sale and/or used bike part website with all the sales going to hire a attorney. I have hundreds of dollars worth of bike parts in my garage I will donate to the cause.

Dean

 

I just read that Christmas lights are illegal in Ladera Ranch. It is from KCBS news. It seems the OC authorities feel the decorations are excessive, and the homeowners did not have a permit. People even ran extension cords across walkways (Oh the horror! Somebody make it stop!)

We don't have Christmas light regulations, it is lawlessness, we are a danger to ourselves and others.
Happy Christmas light free trails

 

Ladera is the new Irvine......

 

SO...I am one of the streets that they covered for their news channels. I must have had 30 calls from the media about the lights. And yes it is f**king rediculous. $550 for a permit, and a million dollar insurance waiver LMAO. Plus our piece of shit HOA wont man up and take care of it. It seems that the county has probl;ems with ladera doing anything that does not fit into their little world. I think they see us as a bucket of money that they can dip into whenever their coffers run low. Or just let someone take land that was purposely set aside for what we use it for. We must all obey rules, but its getting to a boiling point.

 

Sorry to hijack the thread, but I am so glad I don't live in South OC. My former boss does and he is your typical "go along with the program" Chinese-American that lives in Irvine and drives a E300. I am a Chinese-American myself but polar opposite, driving a crappy Toyota truck and living in Eagle Rock of all places.

PS--If the Ladera thing happened if I lived there, they'd probably throw me in jail.
Back to the thread, just my 2c

 

Its not as bad as it sounds. It only applies to people stringing lights across county streets and in county property. You can still decorate as much as you want on private property.

 

LOL I wasnt talking about the xmas lights, those stupid signs. Geez! If I have to see another section of 4 bedroom trac homes with 3 car garages, pools, loads of fake tile blue or orange roofs, slapped together kitchens with black speckled counter tops, homes complete with flimsy sheet rock walls--I'm gonna barf. Those are the same kinds of homes slapped together in Henderson. Save the trails!

 

The next LARMAC open session meeting is Wednesday, Feb 11, at 6 p.m. at the Oak Knoll clubhouse. I've never attended one of these meetings before, so I'm not sure what to expect. However, I'll attempt to get to this meeting to ask about all that signage.

I, too, am disappointed/frustrated with all the recent trail closures within our own "backyard."

 

So you don't like:

1) South Orange County
2) Asians who drive nice cars
3) Ladera Ranch homes

Is that correct?

 

I'll try to make it also. If we get enough interest maybe we should meet beforehand and come up with a strategy.

 

1) South Orange County riders that don't try to defend open space
2) Asians who drive nice cars--like my ex boss who is a YES man
3) Ladera Ranch homes--that look like tracs in Henerson NV

 

It could be worse. It could be that the trails are being closed to bikers, but not equestrians.

 

I'd like to invite everyone who'd like to see the trail access restored to come to the next public meeting of the Civic Council. It's happening Monday, January 19th at 7pm. The meeting takes place at the SMWD building on Antonio Parkway. During the meeting there is time for public comments and this would be a great time to voice your concerns and help get this issue on the Councils radar.

 

Thanks for that info. It's on my calendar.

For those unfamiliar with the area, what are our essential concerns as MTBers?

 

Here are the essential concerns:

1. Listed trails in official publications are closed. Establishment and maintenance of these public access trails were part of the overall development and approval to develop this area. Elimination of these approved trails without establishment of equivalent access through re-routes or comparable trails in nearby areas to mitigate negative environmental issues is contrary to the governmental approvals granted.

2. Access roads and easements that are open to the public, and have been from the inception of Ladera Ranch, and in some cases prior to the development, are now noted as closed to public access.

3. The original development approvals outlined methodology for the continued creation of additional trails and maintenance of existing trails through the use of the various $$'s paid by each of the local and master associations. Access to this open space was a requirement in exchange for reduced "passive" park areas that would not be sports-fields. This open space access was also in exchange for increased density in certain areas within the overall Ladera Ranch Development.

4. With continued population pressures affecting the existing trails, a reduction in trail mileage increase the # of people per mile of trail, increases the number of conflicts, increases the number of "non-official" trails, and increases environmental damage. Why has no new trail development occurred to help alleviate these pressure since the inception of Ladera Ranch, whereas every other component within comparable open-space areas (O.C. Parks, San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano open spaces, Dana Point open spaces, Cleveland National Forest) have enhanced trails, alleviated environmental concerns through re-routes, and establishment of new trails to mitigate overcrowding, conflict, and promote a positive outdoor experience for all users.

Note...I have no specific history with the creation of the Ladera Ranch Development, only that I worked in an office with a competing proposal that eventually lost out at the time of approval. The open-space access was a key requirement for approval in that they did not want the situation that Irvine finds itself in over the past 30-years, with a "look-but-don't-touch unless you're with an escort" approach to public open space with maintenance funded by OC Parks.

 

MDan, thanks for that helpful distillation.

 

Thanks MnMnDan. Could we argue that this is a prescriptive easement since everyone has been allowed to use said trails for the past 12+ years without any issues? I am not a real estate attorney so I am not sure if this applies or not.

 

One of the arguments I'm sure RMV will use is the creation of new trails such as the "Sendero Loop." I rode it the other day, and you have to be one strong rider to ride up those trails. I went down Sendero East and up Sendero West, and had to HAB a bit coming back up. Strava says Sendero West has an average grade of 16 percent. I'm guessing the portion that I HAB'd was close to 30 percent. And the East trail looks like they put a Bobcat in neutral and let it roll down the hill, calling the result a "trail."

It's almost as if they created trails they knew no one would use, so they could claim they tried and eventually declare that protected habitat as well. Sendero West is already beginning to grow over.

Thanks for the heads up Scotty. I'm going to try to be there Monday.

 

There is some legal language that allows for continued public access if an established easement/access road has been used by the public for an extended period of time, and no enforcement or signage that says it isn't public has been present, that the public is entitled to continue to use that path, especially on public land or if it is the only path of access through a private parcel to a landlocked piece of public land. It's most often used with coastal access or for national forest access through private land. It's why

I'm not familiar with the Sendero Loop, but if it's as steep as you say, then it doesn't seem to be created according to the guidelines, which might be ok, maybe not. If it's meant to replace a flatter, flowing trail, then no. If it's just a steep fire-break turned into a trail, then no. If it's a truly built trail with those grades, then maybe. Too often a firebreak is given a name and called a trail. That doesn't cut it in my book. That's not trail building or adding to a network.

Edit: just looked up the Sendero trails. It looks like both connect to the fire road that rings Covenant hills, and are the perfect width and construction to permit fire access if necessary. It appears that they are dual-use Fire access and trail connections that were part of the conditions of approval for Sendero, and have nothing to do with Ladera. They are also horse-accessible.

 

If the Sendero loop is intended to be fire road access, I'd really like to see a fire truck get up the hill. As previously stated, the trail is flipping steep.

Looking forward to to seeing some of you on Monday. I'm tired of having our trails taken away from us, without warning, without justification.