2006 Letter from Owens and Board to Caltrans

The first letter below is from Caltrans to the Nevada County Board of Supervisors after we informed Caltrans that we suspected Ted Owens was about to abandon the old state highway.

Notice that Caltrans calls this road a "highway" in this letter.

Just 5 days after receiving this letter from Caltrans, Owens placed on the Board's agenda his motion to formally ask Caltrans to allow the county to abandon our historic road. His motion was set for February 14, 2006. Owens also sent a letter to the other 4 Board members asking them to support his motion. That letter was filled with the same lies as the letter he sent to Caltrans below. The other 4 Board members rubber-stamped Owens's motion to send a letter to Caltrans.

The second letter below is that letter from the Nevada County Board of Supervisors, written by Ted Owens, and sent to Caltrans asking for their permission to abandon the historic trail and state highway.

This is the same road that Owens was also saying was private property, was not County property, and could not be located!

Yet, for some reason, he needed Caltrans' permission--Oh that's right--it's still a state highway!

Below is the letter sent by the Board of Supervisors to Caltrans, dated the same day as the hearing in Nevada City.

In accordance with Section 105 of the California Streets and Highways Code, the Nevada County Board of Supervisors is requesting permission to vacate the portion of the Highway 37 Stock Trail Easement on the property of Mr. Frank Cadjew (APNs 17-060-03, 17-060-11, and 17-080-01) accepted from the state by Nevada County in 1956.

Approval of this request will resolve long-standing issues regarding public access to the stock trail as it crosses the property of Mr. Frank Cadjew, acknowledge the private property rights of the owner, and help the local community establish a key link in the Eastern Sierra trail network.

The “issues” are a result of illegal actions on the part of the Cadjews and their accomplice, Ted Owens.

The “link” in the trail network was established in the 1800s—it doesn’t need to be established again.

As you know, Highway 37 was removed from the State highway system and designated as a stock trail following completion of Highway 40 over Donner Summit in the 1920s. In 1956 the County accepted the relinquishment by the State of its rights to approximately 18.3 miles of old Highway 37 in Nevada County, including the section of the trail crossing the property in question.

There was an unknown amount of public use of the stock trail from 1956 until at least 1992 when the present property owner, Mr. Frank Cadjew, placed a barricade of rocks and boulders across the trail, denying public access to his property.

There was continual and regular public use until 1989 when the Cadjews blocked the road, enough public use to have it labeled “Jeep Trail” on USGS maps during those years.

Mr. Cadjew maintained, and still contends, an easement across his property does not legally exist as there is no legal description of the road alignment.

According to the last sentence, the Cadjews' excuse—that “there is no legal description of the road alignment” is no excuse, since the official state survey of the road in this section was discovered in 2005 and presented to the Board meeting during the hearings, earlier the same day that this letter went out from the Board! The entire Board knowingly lied to Caltrans!

The County has been involved off-and-on since 1992 in responding to citizen complaints regarding the blocked access and has received numerous requests to take legal action to require the property owner to remove the trail obstructions and declare the stock trail easement open for general public use. To date, the County has maintained the easement is strictly for a stock trail and is not under any legal obligation to expand that access beyond a strict definition of that allowed use.

Another blatant lie. The 1991 Board of Supervisors wrote to the Cadjews telling them that they had no legal right to keep the public off the road and to remove their barricade and signs. Owens and the current Board knew about this past action and had copies of the minutes and letter from 1991.

Also, where is there any documented “strict definition of that allowed use?” They have none.

The County has also not been legally challenged on this position nor are we aware of any other legal precedent regarding the use of stock trails by the public.

Isn’t it interesting that the current Board would only support the public if they were “legally challenged” on their position.

Not "aware of any other legal precedent"?! We gave the Board copies of 1930s Caltrans documents that clearly establish the "legal precedent” that the public used stock trails for decades for access and recreation. Even the current director of Caltrans stated such in 2006 letter!

In an attempt to remove the impasse that has existed for many years between the property owner, trail enthusiasts, and others who recognize that old Highway 37 is an important part of California's history, District 5 Supervisor Owens has been working with everyone involved to see if a compromise solution could be reached that would respect Mr. Cadjew's private property rights, add an important link in the eastern county trail network, and maintain the historical trail as a part of California's legacy for future generations.

Mr. Cadjew has now tentatively agreed to offer a trail easement at a different location on his property in return for a vacation of the historical alignment that passes close to his house and accessory buildings.

Notice it’s “tentatively.” Owens and the Board are basing their request on a tentative agreement from the Cadjews—who know that they have been able to get away with ignoring laws for 18 years and surely won't be held to honor some silly agreement.

Notice it would be “in return for” the transfer of the land under the road to the Cadjews. The Cadjews would OWN the land under the road. Yet Owens is claiming that the location of the road is not known, and that the County doesn’t own it!

Notice that the proximity of the road to the Cadjews’ untaxed, uninhabitable tiny shed is now of great concern to the Board members!

He has also tentatively agreed to allow guided hikes along the original alignment once a year under supervision of the Truckee Trails Foundation or other appropriate trail organizations or historical societies. Although many details still need to be resolved before a formal agreement can be signed, there seems to be a consensus by almost everyone involved that this is a reasonable solution to a difficult issue.

How long would it be before the Cadjews made a request before the Board of Supervisors to dissolve the “once a year hike” agreement due to insurance costs (since they would then own the road), or simply because they didn’t want people on their new property?!

“Under the supervision of…” So some third party could pick the “invitees” for a hike on what would then be a private historical road. Those members of the public who aren't in the third party’s esteemed group will be required to “use the other drinking fountain”--AKA the “Alternate Trail.”

And how would such a “right” of a once a year hike be even written up in a deed? Total BS.

Before proceeding with consideration of a vacation of the stock trail easement however, the County, as required by the Section 105 of the California Streets and Highways Code, is requesting Caltrans grant permission for Nevada County to vacate that portion of the stock trail across Mr. Cadjew's property. This vacation would be contingent upon satisfactory resolution of issues related to the siting of an alternative public trail easement across the property and approval of a binding agreement regarding the dedication of a public trail easement and provisions for annual guided hikes along the historical trail alignment.

Is any of that even in the first stages of planning? Or budgeting? Who would pay for a new trail?!

And why should taxpayers pay one dollar so that they would no longer use their old highway while a private party receives a giant gift from the taxpayers?! A gift that would enable the Cadjews to subdivide their property without having to deal with the problem of the old road, and allow valuable lots to back up to Summit Creek. Far-fetched? Consider that the land just to the east of the Cadjews' land has recently been subdivided into $400,000 lots. It's called Creekside Woods. Consider that the Cadjews recently sold an easement to their land north of old highway 40 "for subdivision purposes" and have their land north of 40 currently for sale. Consider that Ted Owens is a homebuilder of expensive homes. Consider that fellow Nevada County Board of Supervisors member John Spencer is a surveyor and did the survey work for Creekside Woods.

In summary, a public hearing will allow us to make determinations and findings to support resolution of the following points:

• The original purpose for which this easement was granted is no longer relevant.

The “purpose” was an additional use—it was never the only use of the road.

2. No legal description of the stock trail across Mr. Cadjew's property presently exists

• Costly surveying and litigation may be needed to determine the actual trail alignment and establish public rights of access.

3. Vacation of the easement including any other actual or potential rights to the historical trail alignment by Nevada County will help clarify the property owner's property rights.

• The vague legal status of a stock trail easement could restrict the private property rights of the owner without providing a corresponding general public benefit.

4. The historical trail on the property is not readily discernable in some places due to its use and modification over the last 150 years as a wagon road, an unpaved state highway, and an un-maintained stock trail.

• There is no consensus or historical documentation of the exact trail alignment on Mr. Cadjew's property. This has led to confusion over the actual alignment, resulting in unrestricted public access to the property and trespassing in close vicinity to Mr. Cadjew's
house and accessory buildings.

5. The uncertainty about the historical alignment of the trail across the property and unresolved questions of public access threaten the historical integrity of the remaining identifiable trail segments.

• Mr. Cadjew is under no legal obligation to maintain the historical integrity of the trail under its present designation as a stock trail. An agreement with him to realign the existing trail alignment to another location on his property for public use would allow for further
research and mapping of the original trail for historical preservation and cultural evaluation.

All four of the above claims are worthless since there is a state survey and Owens and the Board were made aware of it. The exact location of the old road is indisputable.

6. Vacation of this portion of the stock trail will facilitate an agreement to realign the trail to provide unrestricted public access along a deeded public trail easement.

• The property owner, trail organizations, and other interested groups are ready to move forward with an agreement to develop an alternative trail alignment following vacation by the County of the stock trail easement and any other rights associated with the historical
trail alignment.

7. Realignment of the trail across Mr. Cadjew's property will include connectivity with the stock trail as it enters and leaves his property (see attached map)

• Although all stock trail segments outside the property are not presently developed as public trails, the realigned trail will connect at both ends of the property with the existing stock trail alignment as it can be best determined.

8. Annual guided hikes for serious trail enthusiasts and others along the historical trail alignment will be permitted under an agreement with the property owner.

• Provisions and conditions of these hikes will be included in a comprehensive agreement between the Truckee Trails Foundation and the property owner.

9. Opening of a trail across the property will provide an important link in the Eastern Sierra Trail network.

• Pending development of a public trail along the stock trail alignment across USFS property and other lands adjoining Mr. Cadjew's property, the public will ultimately have access to a recreational trail between Donner Lake and Donner Summit.

There is already a public trail for this purpose! It's called Highway 37/Dutch Flat Donner Lake Wagon Road and it's been there since 1863.

10. The Town of Truckee, other area community groups, and most members of the public support the plan to develop an alternative trail at a new location across Mr. Cadjew's property while retaining annual guided access to the historical trail alignment.

• Supervisor Owens made a presentation to the Truckee Town Council and received their unanimous support for the proposal.

Owens brought in the Cadjews as props for his spiel to the Town Council—without notifying us or Milan Wight for our input on the matter.

When questioned by Supervisor Beason at the Board meeting earlier this day, Owens admitted that the Truckee Town Council didn't actually take a vote on the matter, and that Owens only received “a sense” of "unanimous support" from the Town Council. That should do it.

“Most members of the public support the alternate trail”?! Who? Name one! We had just presented 250 signed petitions from Donner Lake property owners opposing the abandonment of the old road. Owens and the Board ignored them.

The Nevada County Board of Supervisors believes permission to vacate the stock trail easement on Mr. Cadjew's property will allow full and open discussion of the proposal for a new public trail easement and supervised annual hikes along the historical alignment and to determine the best interests of the property owner, recreational trail users, and the citizens of Nevada County and all Californians.

Imagine the “full and open discussion” that would take place if Caltrans had approved the vacating. It would have been just like the meeting this day, February 14, 2006, when Owens wouldn’t even look at the speakers opposing the letter being sent to Caltrans while he fiddled around with stuff on his desk. The vacating of the old road would have been rubber-stamped the same way this letter to Caltrans was rubber-stamped by the fellow Board members, who don't have the backbone the oppose a fellow board member. They're all buddies. Opposing another member just isn't polite. Just look at the record of votes of this Board of Supervisors--they're nearly all unanimous.

We thank you for your consideration and urge you to approve our request. In order to facilitate attendance by interested parties, we also request that if a Caltrans meeting is held to discuss this issue it be held in Nevada County.