Pulido’s lawyer gets dragged into the Santiago Creek bike trail melee

View Comments

• Who put out that proposed bike trail map?
  I count at least 17 homes whose land would need to be taken by eminent domain on that map.
  Are Bruce Bauer, Shirley Grindle and Mark Lindsey willing to go on record saying a dirt "path" is what they have proposed?
  Why can't they provide us with the DETAILS of their plan?
  People need to remember that the creek between Main and Flower is all embankment, it is all on a 45 degree angle, in order to create a safe, paved bike trail there, the entire embankment will have to be graded and then built up. This means chainsaws, bulldozers and dumptrucks full of dirt and the destruction of the creek bed as it is now.

• Hi Anonster,
  There is no "offical plan" as the City has to first approve to add it to their Master Bike Plan before detailed planning proceeds.

  However due to requests from creek homeowners through their Lawyer, the City has instead spent resources doing a feasability study to fence off this section creek to keep all of the Public out even though the city/public owns portions of it. Why? Rest of the creek going east for 9 miles is now open to the Public. Why create a divide?

  As you know, there is already an unoffical dirt foot path that has been in this section of the creek for decades that many local residents try to use along with rest of the public. We basically want a safe path that those on foot and bike can travel on. Design exceptions can be made to Class 1 trails and this does not necessariy need to be Class 1 but needs to be a multi use trail (hike & bike).

  Take a look at Santiago Park's trail on the other side of Main. It is not a 15 ft concrete path. It is not wide and meandors around trees and bushes. We trust that through "environmental design" as Sheriff Hutchens stated we can develop a win-win solution.

  Take a look at other creek trails in the County. Some look great, some do not. We trust that this can be made to look great as there is lots of interest in this with many folks like you, myself, and others. We need to pull together and collaborate.

  This would be better than its current condition or fencing off this creek to all of the public for the exclusive use of a few.

  The City of Orange did the right thing. It was not easy but now the public is enjoying it and planting is currently going on in sections that did not have plants.

  Lets make a good trail great.

• Mark, as always, thanks for the information. Direct question: are you lobbying for a paved path or dirt path? From prior conversations, I thought it was paved, but now maybe dirt per Shari and the website.

  I first must be concerned with private property rights. If private property must be confiscated, I probably have an issue with it unless those property owners are in favor of it.

  Second is the concern for the neighborhood. The added cyclists who are going to the SA bicycle highway seemingly will be going through our neighborhood. This does not seem to be adding much to our neighborhood. Along with countless car who feel it is worthwhile to cut through the neighborhood, now we will be adding others to the equation too. It seems that this will add quite a bit of traffic...crossing two public parks and along neighborhood streets. There is an advantage of more people which should mean less crime...however, there are other alternatives such as a nature trail.

  A distant third is probably a concern for other neighbors who despite their best efforts will likely be bringing a lot more bike traffic yet enjoying it.

  I think that I would feel more in favor of it if you were able to tell me that it will be a dirt path, no private property will be confiscated through gov't powers, and that the neighbors along the path are in favor of it. The money is also a concern- no matter where it comes from (i.e. city, county, state, feds), one must ask is it worth the money? How many millions and how many people will use it? Divide it out and you get a dollar per user- is that reasonable?

• There may be no "official" plan, but are there parameters in order to qualify for funding, WHAT ARE THEY? When I attended one of your informational meetings, I was led to believe that in order to get funding the bike trail needed to be 10 ft wide and paved, is that true?
  Is the above proposed bike trail from your group? If not, you certainly must have some idea where the proposed bike trail must go, why not SHOW the rest of us?

  Homeowners along the creek are concerned about folks from your group coming down in the creek bed and cutting down the trees (it's been happening), it is making them nervous and now they may want to fence the creek. For years anyone could use that foot path, you are forcing the homeowners to act by threatening to take their property, not really surprising.

  The Santiago Park bike trail has no relation to this stretch, for one thing it was flat with plenty of space on both sides of the actual creek bed, secondly, nobody's property had to be TAKEN by eminent domain and nobody's retaining walls, fences and privacy would be impacted. That stretch and this are in no way comparable.

• I will try to answer both TJLocalSA and Anonster's questions but please remember that it is the City who decides and all of us (that includes you) have a voice.

  1. The Parcel Map of the Creek with the shown proposed trail did not come from us. It appears to be part of the info the City provided in response to ours and the media's Freedom of Information Act request. It possibly is one of many proposed versions of a trail. I bet the city also has proposed versions of how to fence it all off also. Either way, it is up to the City to facilitate the planning and approval.

  2. We are not trail construction experts. Thus, we are not specifying what materials it should be made out of but it should be done with the environment and users in mind. Let the City and their contracted professionals figure that out and I am sure they will solicit input. Both Orange and Santa Ana have done great jobs on the existing official trails.

  3. We know of multiple instances when the public has travelled along the unofficial dirt path that they have been sternly or worse talked to by neighbors that they are trespassing. This has confused people as they look at a homeowner who is peering over their fence and telling them to get out of "their" creek bed. Plus, this trail is not maintained. When you look at the Parcel Map, people wonder how homeowners actually purchased portions of the creek bed though the city did keep a 15 ft wide section though you can only figure it out if you have a parcel map.

  4. We are lobbying for a safe effective path for all the key stakeholders to enjoy. That should include those who walk, mothers pushing strollers, joggers, bicyclists, etc. Personally, I would not consider this as creating congestion in the neighborhood as it is good for people to be outdoors without having to drive a car.

  5. More families are going to want to travel east up this creek when the Discovery Science Center expansion is completed plus to visit Main Place and the activities at the Lawn Bowling facility. Why should they have to continue to drive in their cars to do this? Those that already live east of this (i.e. Santiago Park and Orange) are able to access these areas on foot and bike but not able to access your neighboorhoods west of the 5 Fwy to visit friends, family, or pass through without having to travel on surface streets most likely via a car as the detour is up to 2 miles.

  6. The Santiago Creek Greenway Alliance (www.santiagogreenway.org) has been instrumental working with neighboorhoods and levels of government to help realize the vision established by the County in 1971 (40 years ago). Check the website and it shows the history. Basically each time a segment of the creek trail was done, this area of the creek did not want to be included. There has also been horticulture planted by the Cities and Volunteers with trail construction and afterwards (we need more volunteers). We are now at the point where all of the trail segments are basically done or approved except for this missing 0.25 mile link which is critical. The detours around it are approx 2 miles on busy streets.

  7. There is over 100 miles of trails on creeks in OC alone. LA and other counties throughout the USA has many miles of creek trails. We are confident the constraints can be figured out on this 0.25 mile stretch as they are not unique and can be collaborated on (that is what a democratic society does). Possibly, if some homeowners will not allow the existing trail to be improved, then the city may have to use more of the city owned portion of the creek to construct a trail which could result in removal of trees. The homeowners can not have it both ways as a stalemate.

  8. What is important is we collectively ask the City to facilitate the planning and construction of a trail for families to enjoy. If available funds already earmarked to support projects like this is not used here, it will continue to be used elsewhere in OC, CA, and the USA. The amount that would be spent on this last segment is small compared to what has been spent on rest of the creek yet the recreational value would be tremendously improved.

  9. Why wait another 10+ years before Santa Ana updates its Bike plan again? Why revert back to erecting fences/barriers in our open spaces so the public can not enjoy it due to fear? Better to be part of the Light of the World to drive out the Darkness. What Legacy do we want to create and leave behind? Lets make Santa Ana and Orange into better communities along this creek and serve as a good example for others.

  Note: I am willing to discuss this in public forums as compared to these lengthy texts.

• So in other words, you want to tell people it "could" be a dirt path, but the reality will be what was done in Orange, where everything was scraped off and paved over. In order to qualify for funds there HAS to be certain criteria and that means PAVEMENT.

  If any one wonders what our creek will look like after this project just go to Tustin Blvd. and look in either direction on the bike trail. It's a flat, artificially built up 15 ft wide road, backed up directly behind people's homes, a mish mash of fencing and a dry barren looking embankment below, there are trees planted but ten years in they look stunted and the area is not planted with "natives".
  In short it is ugly and unnatural the complete opposite of what we have now.

  Mark, you are "selling" an idyllic natural path, but people will be "buying" an intrusive ugly road for speeding bikers.

  There is a reason you folks are so sketchy on the details because if people understood what this bike road really entailed they would reject it.

• Mark- will try to get back on your other items later, but specifically on #4- don't you see that if you put in bikes from out of the neighborhood that this will add additional people and hence congestion? This is added volume and NOT just people on the neighborhood enjoying it. The creek trail would be a feeder to streets which connect to the SA bike highway.

  Not sure if you specifically answered the direct question: are you in favor of a dirt path? Additionally, would you be willing to take a paved path off the table?

  Seems simple enough to answer.

• Seems to me that it's time to flood the city council meetings with supporters. Santa Ana doesn't really need any more bad press.

• Supporters of what?
  What exactly are you supporting, an improved dirt path, a paved bike trail, a bike road that is taking 17 homeowners' backyards through eminent domain (look at the map)?
  It's DUMB to support an "idea" without knowing what it entails.

• I agree with anonster with his comment to Sean... I would love to know the details. Supporting an idea is much different than supporting the detailed plan of end result and implementation. I understand that maybe additional work has to be put in until the details can be released.

  I do find it interesting that now it seems that the Alliance is supporting a dirt path (correct,?). I always thought that they wanted a paved path so that bikes could move to the SA bike highway, which I don't think I really would support.

  concerns: 1st- ppty rights, 2nd- impact on the immediate neighborhood, 3rd- the surrounding community outside the neighborhood.

  Looking forward to Mark's response if he supports a safe dirt path?