122 replies to this topic

[4thgenFolsomite]

I hope they have conducted all the appropriate cultural resources work in that area.  Also, sorry to see the river otter den going away. 

[chris v]

This whole idea is stupid.

[Tyto Alba]

When we eat dinner at Sudwerk, our new view will be a hotel parking lot.

 

https://youtu.be/94bdMSCdw20

[maestro]

Isn't everyone sick & tired of city  lies, lies, lies?       Ask Reclamation to prove YOUR WATER and land and forest are protected, and if you are injured due to the city's fault, the city DOES HAVE a real outside Insurance Policy to protect you.

 

 

 

have continually made formal Public Record Requests for

 

1.   Certified Engineered Plans proving how much damage city intends to do by removing large trees, building huge concrete constructions, building "retaining walls", entering & altering the water of the American River;   PROOF the "ramp" is ADA Compliant, not just hype &/or lies.

 

RESULT:    the city provided zippo, zero, nada in the form of complete, approved plans.   they did cite a 5 minute Youtube amateur video showing concrete on bare soil at the riverside.

 

 

2.    PROOF of INSURANCE, especially the mandatory $5 Million PER claim, which the city claims it has.      Reclamation's CAAO manager is not my favorite:  he signed off 12 23 2014, on the city's bogus claims --   without checking to see if the city is really insured.

 

RESULT:   city clerk provided 2 documents the city parks guy gave as Proof of Insurance covering CA State Parks, Reclamation, and the city against all claims, errors, omissions, and dangers created by the city.

     Item one is an old fireworks coverage given to the old defunct Redevelopment Agency and a very limited Workers Comp deal.

    Item two  is a claim the city is an active, insured participant in an insurance pool.    Too bad that is NOT TRUE.    The city is NOT part of the pool.   Look for yourself:

http://www.cjprma.or...er-listing.html

 

 

 

 

.

[RNGRDN]

This project is still under appeal and yet to be decided in court.  The city has decided to go ahead anyway.  700 yards and down 70 feet is disabled access?  This is for boating access?  What the city wants is to make the shoreline a commercial amenity for historic district merchants.  This project sets precedence for future development in the Parkway.  The American River Parkway is loved by 6 million visitors annually, not for pavement, but for a treasured piece of wilderness in the heart of a city.  Let's save it for all generations.  If you need to access the shoreline in this area, use the existing steps.  This is not an appropriate location for disabled access.  Negro Bar, Willow Creek, and Nimbus Flat have easy ADA compliant access and rest rooms.

[maestro]

This project is still under appeal and yet to be decided in court.  The city has decided to go ahead anyway.  700 yards and down 70 feet is disabled access?  This is for boating access?  What the city wants is to make the shoreline a commercial amenity for historic district merchants.  This project sets precedence for future development in the Parkway.  The American River Parkway is loved by 6 million visitors annually, not for pavement, but for a treasured piece of wilderness in the heart of a city.  Let's save it for all generations.  If you need to access the shoreline in this area, use the existing steps.  This is not an appropriate location for disabled access.  Negro Bar, Willow Creek, and Nimbus Flat have easy ADA compliant access and rest rooms.

 

 

 

Way to go Initial person!!   who loves the American River Parkway and LAR.

 

 

We just sent a "protest note"  to the CA State Parks Counsel and Director -- so they are reminded the city council four are trying to set records for laws and decency ignored.       What is with the state government?     

 

 

BTW, handicapped persons provided testimony against this project.     It is inherently ADA Dangerous because the city has NO SAFETY EQUIPMENT ACCESS.         Maybe that's why city refuses to provide Engineering and Plans and ADA Certifications.

 

 

 

.

[New Girl]

Pleased to hear this is finally going ahead. I love cities with rivers and ours has been so under utilised.

[tony]

This project is still under appeal and yet to be decided in court.  The city has decided to go ahead anyway.  700 yards and down 70 feet is disabled access?  This is for boating access?  What the city wants is to make the shoreline a commercial amenity for historic district merchants.  This project sets precedence for future development in the Parkway.  The American River Parkway is loved by 6 million visitors annually, not for pavement, but for a treasured piece of wilderness in the heart of a city.  Let's save it for all generations.  If you need to access the shoreline in this area, use the existing steps.  This is not an appropriate location for disabled access.  Negro Bar, Willow Creek, and Nimbus Flat have easy ADA compliant access and rest rooms.

 

This is a little misleading. The SARA lawsuit was rejected by a judge in May 2014. If SARA has appealed, I can find no evidence of it on their web site. So, what is yet to be decided in court?

 

I'm looking forward to seeing this project completed. It is a small impact on an area that is already highly impacted (there is a 120' wide bridge over the most intensive part of the proposed project, a hotel, restaurant and 30,000 cars a day overhead), has been carefully designed to blend in as much as possible, and will provide ADA and much-improved kayak/canoe access from the HD side of the lake. And BTW, I was one of the many volunteers who helped improve the existing hiking trail along the lake over 20 years ago. 

[RNGRDN]

SARA is appealing the court decision of May 2014.  Oral arguments will be given Oct 27.

 

The project will cut down trees, pave over the beautiful dirt path along the shoreline that has been there since Nimbus Dam was filled.  Vegetation along the shoreline will be cut and paved over.  The diagonal path that is the new direction for bikes will be created next to a 40 foot cliff.  How much fill will that take through the dense vegetation.

[kcrides99]

Cannot wait til this is open!

 

SARA needs to get a life! You lost, get over it! The amount of money the City will have to spend to defend against your BS suit could be put to much better uses.

 

For the record it is not JUST the disabled who want/deserve access to the water! Those of use with young kids who require strollers are amongst those who will benefit!

 

RNGRDN a few trees will come out but the path will become accessible for all people. This is NOT virgin land. The dirt path was never engineered - it was made by people visiting the area trying to get to the water. The trail erodes causing impacts to water quality and the environment. Engineering a trail that is properly designed will cut back on that - a win-win in my book.

[kcrides99]

Maestro - Who will you sue/report to now if you fall down on one of the trails that exist? The trail will be designed to accommodate people safely. Are you an engineer? Can you read plans? The Plans are available online (or were) when the project went out to bid for construction... To take one of your tactics... It's there but if you want them you will go have to find them yourself.

[2 Aces]

Funny that so many of you have all this faith in our City Council to make good decisions and spend money properly and in a smart way.

Have you people NOT been paying attention to some of the dumb#$% decisions they've made lately ??

Come on, people. Wake up.

[tony]

SARA is appealing the court decision of May 2014.  Oral arguments will be given Oct 27.

 

The project will cut down trees, pave over the beautiful dirt path along the shoreline that has been there since Nimbus Dam was filled.  Vegetation along the shoreline will be cut and paved over.  The diagonal path that is the new direction for bikes will be created next to a 40 foot cliff.  How much fill will that take through the dense vegetation.

Thanks for the update Ranger D.  Is there a link with more information on the appeal somewhere?

[kcrides99]

2 aces - While I agree with you on south of 50 being a bad decision - I see no downside into making an existing path accessible to all people.

[RNGRDN]

tony.  No information on the appeal.  Both sides don't disclose or discuss court issues in public.