Jump to content






Photo
- - - - -

Lake Natoma Waterfront & Trail Access


  • Please log in to reply
122 replies to this topic

#16 tessieca

tessieca

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,292 posts

Posted 10 July 2013 - 02:23 PM

 

Also, stop thinking in terms of what this means to the City of Folsom.  Lake Natoma is a state park, think of the mission of the state park system to preserve and protect.  It is for all the people of California, not those with local desires.

 

By the way,  we don't have poison ivy in California.  State parks offer an opportunity to walk on the earth, not concrete.  You can easily access the lake now, take the stairs.  You might see and learn a native plant of California, poison oak.  Stop this mindset of developing the lake, you will end up with a city park with no natural features.  .

 

Most state parks have upgrades such as trails, roadways, restrooms, drinking fountains, etc.  These facilities allow for the enjoyment of state lands for a majority of the public.  They shouldn't be limiting parks to a few people who have the physical ability to access them but want to keep it to themselves.  Park land does not necessarily mean open space. 

 

My 80-something mom loves to go to lakes, trails and natural features when she's visiting.  These days, though, she has great trouble with stairs.  She would need several rest stops to climb up to the bridge.  She does far better on a graded surface.  I'm sure there are lots of other California parks owners (residents) who are like her and want the state to make its parks accessible.

 

As a runner/hiker/biker I would absolutely love to have the lake ring connected without having to divert to city streets!


"Sometimes on purpose and sometimes by accident, teachers' unions have a long history of working against the interests of children in the name of job security for adults. And Democrats in particular have a history of facilitating this obstructionism in exchange for campaign donations and votes." . . .Amanda Ripley re "Waiting for Superman" movie.

#17 tony

tony

    Hall Of Famer

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,396 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Historic District

Posted 17 July 2013 - 05:52 PM

 

Most state parks have upgrades such as trails, roadways, restrooms, drinking fountains, etc.  These facilities allow for the enjoyment of state lands for a majority of the public.  They shouldn't be limiting parks to a few people who have the physical ability to access them but want to keep it to themselves.  Park land does not necessarily mean open space. 

 

My 80-something mom loves to go to lakes, trails and natural features when she's visiting.  These days, though, she has great trouble with stairs.  She would need several rest stops to climb up to the bridge.  She does far better on a graded surface.  I'm sure there are lots of other California parks owners (residents) who are like her and want the state to make its parks accessible.

 

As a runner/hiker/biker I would absolutely love to have the lake ring connected without having to divert to city streets!

Interesting point, especially since Lake Natoma is actually a part of a State Recreation Area, not a State Park. And while the 2009 General Plan for the FLSRA designates the area of interest as a "conservation area", the limited development proposed (paved trails) does seem to be consistent with how the plan describes acceptable uses of these areas. http://www.parks.ca.... 3 the plan.pdf



#18 kcrides99

kcrides99

    Veteran

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 220 posts

Posted 22 July 2013 - 11:58 AM

Looks like SARA is a sore loser...http://www.folsom.ca...sp?BlobID=19888 . They are suing the City. Can't wait to see how much this frivalous law suit is going to cost the City.

 

SARA do you REALLY think this area is better off with a fence surrounding it so NONE of us can enjoy it? Do your members realize that you are wasting their money AND the City's money on this BS? You should be ashamed for limiting access to only able bodied persons.

 

Instead of making your lawyer rich, how bout you spend your money on cleaning up trash along the parkway, or maintaining the existing trees, or cleaning up after the rafters down river? You make me sick.



#19 TruthSeeker

TruthSeeker

    Superstar

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 960 posts

Posted 22 July 2013 - 12:17 PM

I'm with SARA. Stop paving over paradise already and turning everything into ADA accessible Disneyland.

If your 80 year old grandmother never bothered visiting the lake in her prior 79 years then too bad.

Ri1NoWW.jpg


#20 RNGRDN

RNGRDN

    Netizen

  • Registered Members
  • Pip
  • 12 posts

Posted 22 July 2013 - 01:03 PM

It is sad to watch the disabled being used to justify this project.  Yes, inside the park the trail will meet ADA slope standards, but from where you must park, half the distance you must walk to reach the shoreline, it is not.  That section is outside the park and some distance is on private property.

 

The disabled person would need to travel 700 yards ( 7 football fields) and down 70 feet ( 7 stories) to reach the shoreline.  This is not an appropriate location for a  disabled access project.  To make a 40 foot cliff inside the park into a 1500 foot ramp is absurd.

 

Look at the disabled access facilities at Willow Creek and Negro Bar.  Drive up access, ADA compliant rest rooms.

 

Stop using the disabled to justify the City of Folsom's plan to pave over and develop the shoreline of Lake Natoma.  If this project goes forward, the next plan is to develop the whole section of shorelne below the city corp yard in tandem with the construction of a conference center at the corp yard.

 

SARA has a strong case against the City of Folsom.  State Parks is being forced into this project by the Natural Resources Agency that is not willing to rescind its grant.  The general plan for Folsom Lake SRA (this area designated conservation/low intensity) and the American River Parkway plan are both violated by this project.



#21 camay2327

camay2327

    GO NAVY

  • Moderator
  • 11,299 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 22 July 2013 - 04:30 PM

I agree with RNGRDN on this. Anyone, including the disabled,  can go over to Negro Bar area and get right down to the water.

 

I also agree that this is all about getting more people to Old town. Leave it alone.


A VETERAN Whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve - is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a blank check made payable to "The United States of America" for an amount "up to and including their life". That is HONOR, and there are way too many people in this country who no longer understand it. -Author unknown-

#22 chris v

chris v

    Living Legend

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broadstone

Posted 22 July 2013 - 06:54 PM

Looks like SARA is a sore loser...http://www.folsom.ca...sp?BlobID=19888 . They are suing the City. Can't wait to see how much this frivalous law suit is going to cost the City.
 
SARA do you REALLY think this area is better off with a fence surrounding it so NONE of us can enjoy it? Do your members realize that you are wasting their money AND the City's money on this BS? You should be ashamed for limiting access to only able bodied persons.
 
Instead of making your lawyer rich, how bout you spend your money on cleaning up trash along the parkway, or maintaining the existing trees, or cleaning up after the rafters down river? You make me sick.


Yeah, and really where does it stop. There are certain things that disabled people just have to come to terms with that they can't do. This is the gateway to making places like Half Dome and Mt Whitney ADA compliant. I'm sorry, you are sooo wrong.

#23 kcrides99

kcrides99

    Veteran

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 220 posts

Posted 23 July 2013 - 11:36 AM

I agree that ADA should not be required for every place on the planet - Yosemite should not suddenly pave the back country for the benefit of wheelchairs, you have to be realistic.

 

I do think  in the case of this site, however, safe access helps to resolve the ongoing issues. The site has excessive erosion that will continue until some sort of work is done to solve it. Even if you fenced off the property you would continue to see this erosion. Fixing the trail in a manner that is accessible helps eliminate erosion as well as acts as creates a place where more people can visit. The ongoing use of the site by vandals, teens causing trouble, homeless, etc. is further degrading the environment and deters visitors.

 

By improving this area you will begin to see more and more legitimate users. The more we can introduce these legitimate users opposed to the trouble makers the better is is for the park, for the environment, for the City, and for the lake. The alternative is to leave it exactly how it is, continue to see riff raff, continue to see erosion, continue to have issues down by the water. That doesnt seem like anyone wins.



#24 4thgenFolsomite

4thgenFolsomite

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,938 posts

Posted 23 July 2013 - 11:55 AM

I agree that ADA should not be required for every place on the planet - Yosemite should not suddenly pave the back country for the benefit of wheelchairs, you have to be realistic.

 

I do think  in the case of this site, however, safe access helps to resolve the ongoing issues. The site has excessive erosion that will continue until some sort of work is done to solve it. Even if you fenced off the property you would continue to see this erosion. Fixing the trail in a manner that is accessible helps eliminate erosion as well as acts as creates a place where more people can visit. The ongoing use of the site by vandals, teens causing trouble, homeless, etc. is further degrading the environment and deters visitors.

 

By improving this area you will begin to see more and more legitimate users. The more we can introduce these legitimate users opposed to the trouble makers the better is is for the park, for the environment, for the City, and for the lake. The alternative is to leave it exactly how it is, continue to see riff raff, continue to see erosion, continue to have issues down by the water. That doesnt seem like anyone wins.

I want to believe.  however, paving will bring more down at night, when legitimate users are off somewhere else.  there are plenty of legitimate people on this area now during the daylight hours.  I think most of the problems happen after dark.


Knowing the past helps deciphering the future.

#25 Steve Heard

Steve Heard

    Owner

  • Admin
  • 13,539 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 July 2013 - 04:42 PM

I agree that ADA should not be required for every place on the planet - Yosemite should not suddenly pave the back country for the benefit of wheelchairs, you have to be realistic.

 

I do think  in the case of this site, however, safe access helps to resolve the ongoing issues. The site has excessive erosion that will continue until some sort of work is done to solve it. Even if you fenced off the property you would continue to see this erosion. Fixing the trail in a manner that is accessible helps eliminate erosion as well as acts as creates a place where more people can visit. The ongoing use of the site by vandals, teens causing trouble, homeless, etc. is further degrading the environment and deters visitors.

 

By improving this area you will begin to see more and more legitimate users. The more we can introduce these legitimate users opposed to the trouble makers the better is is for the park, for the environment, for the City, and for the lake. The alternative is to leave it exactly how it is, continue to see riff raff, continue to see erosion, continue to have issues down by the water. That doesnt seem like anyone wins.

 

I agree.

 

If there is means for making the area more accessible without destroying it, I am all for it. I am able-bodied and pretty fit, but I don't want to climb down a dirty hill, nor do my wife and daughters.

 

I'd love it if there was a place to sit or stand and look out on the water, access the water, take photos, etc. from the Historic District.

 

Tourism is becoming increasingly important to this little city and doing something like this will enhance the visitor experience. 

 

As for fears of riff raff, I think they are more attracted to secluded places with limited access where they can do their riff-raffery undisturbed than they would be to a clean, easily accessible spot open to public view and visitation.


Steve Heard

Folsom Real Estate Specialist

Owner - MyFolsom.com

916 718 9577 


#26 4thgenFolsomite

4thgenFolsomite

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,938 posts

Posted 23 July 2013 - 05:11 PM

 

I agree.

 

If there is means for making the area more accessible without destroying it, I am all for it. I am able-bodied and pretty fit, but I don't want to climb down a dirty hill, nor do my wife and daughters.

 

I'd love it if there was a place to sit or stand and look out on the water, access the water, take photos, etc. from the Historic District.

 

Tourism is becoming increasingly important to this little city and doing something like this will enhance the visitor experience. 

 

As for fears of riff raff, I think they are more attracted to secluded places with limited access where they can do their riff-raffery undisturbed than they would be to a clean, easily accessible spot open to public view and visitation.

by access the water, what do you mean?  by the way, there is a good trail to get down there right now.  the area could use some erosion control work.  I wonder how folks will keep the homeless from sleeping under the bridge?  right now some go down there, but my guess is more will in the future.  That doesn't feel safe.


Knowing the past helps deciphering the future.

#27 Steve Heard

Steve Heard

    Owner

  • Admin
  • 13,539 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 July 2013 - 05:31 PM

by access the water, what do you mean?  by the way, there is a good trail to get down there right now.  the area could use some erosion control work.  I wonder how folks will keep the homeless from sleeping under the bridge?  right now some go down there, but my guess is more will in the future.  That doesn't feel safe.

 

By 'access', I mean the ability to walk closer to the water without the fear of getting dirty, slipping down the hill, getting poison oak, etc. 

 

Perhaps a spot to sit and watch the world go by. 

 

A place I can take family and friends after patronizing one of the Historic District's many fine restaurants and shops.

 


 


Steve Heard

Folsom Real Estate Specialist

Owner - MyFolsom.com

916 718 9577 


#28 ducky

ducky

    untitled

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,115 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 23 July 2013 - 10:01 PM

Maybe it's just me, but it seems more financially responsible to gussy up the section of Negro Bar that is already accessible via the truss bridge and existing parking that we've already paid for rather than disturbing wildlife.  Erosion control doesn't need a bike path to be accomplished.  Who will be responsible to respond to crime the new paths create?  With all the drinking going on at the Sutter St. establishments it is just asking for trouble, not to mention making it more comfortable for transients.  If it were simply a trail that leads to a small overlook to the water and nothing more it would make it easier to patrol and maintain.  Of course, that wouldn't fit in if there are indeed plans for development of the old corp yard.  Perhaps this is the problem.  It's the city's way or the highway instead of trying to find compromise with SARA.

 

It just seems what is being proposed is more extensive than it needs to be if it's just meant to allow people access to the water.  I'll repeat that I think the view from the other side towards Folsom is best so I don't mind heading towards the truss bridge rather than accessing the trails behind Lake Natoma Inn.



#29 Darth Lefty

Darth Lefty

    Disco Infiltrator

  • No Politics!
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,578 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The OV
  • Interests:Volunteer with a service club like Active 20-30, and you CAN make a difference!

Posted 24 July 2013 - 07:29 AM

Agreed with Ducky that Negro Bar park is badly in need of remodeling, especially when compared to Nimbus.  That giant empty parking lot is especially weird.


"I enjoy a bit of cooking, and this has always worried me. But it's OK. I only like it because it allows me to play with knives." - James May

Genesis 49:16-17
http://www.active2030folsom.org

#30 Steve Heard

Steve Heard

    Owner

  • Admin
  • 13,539 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 July 2013 - 09:34 AM

Maybe it's just me, but it seems more financially responsible to gussy up the section of Negro Bar that is already accessible via the truss bridge and existing parking that we've already paid for rather than disturbing wildlife.  Erosion control doesn't need a bike path to be accomplished.  Who will be responsible to respond to crime the new paths create?  With all the drinking going on at the Sutter St. establishments it is just asking for trouble, not to mention making it more comfortable for transients.  If it were simply a trail that leads to a small overlook to the water and nothing more it would make it easier to patrol and maintain.  Of course, that wouldn't fit in if there are indeed plans for development of the old corp yard.  Perhaps this is the problem.  It's the city's way or the highway instead of trying to find compromise with SARA.

 

It just seems what is being proposed is more extensive than it needs to be if it's just meant to allow people access to the water.  I'll repeat that I think the view from the other side towards Folsom is best so I don't mind heading towards the truss bridge rather than accessing the trails behind Lake Natoma Inn.

 

Excerpts from the published Environmental Assessment/Initial Study on the project:

 

"In 2008, the City received funding from the State of California Resources Agency under the Proposition 50 California Ri

vers Parkway Grant Program to extend the BikeTrail and complete an ADA compliant trail loop along the shoreline of Lake Natoma in the vicinity of the Lake Natoma Crossing Bridge."

 

I'm no expert on the matter, but I think they have to use the money for its intended purpose. I don't think they can legally take that money redirect it to another project. So, while Negro Bar may not be perfect (I've never noticed anything bad about it), that is another subject/project to tackle.

 

Also...

 

"The original project proposal included the extensive development of a boating dock and lighting to support the development of a promenade type trail.

 

On November 8, 2011, after a thorough analysis of the alternatives including an assessment of potential environmental constraints and review of public input, the Folsom City Council identified a significantly scaled back plan that eliminated the promenade features and reduced the boat ramp feature to the development of an accessible path to the water that would double as a water landing for canoes and kayaks on Lake Natoma, as the preferred project design.

 

Currently, there is no ADA access to the Lake Natoma Waterfront from the Folsom Historic District. While the Folsom Historic District provides a variety of entertainment options for the public, including ADA accessible facilities, pedestrian access to the Lake Natoma Waterfront is limited to unpaved trails with steep slopes originating from the East Lake Natoma Bike Trail. This results in non-ADA compliant pedestrian access and co-mingling between bicyclists and pedestrians. The purpose of the Proposed Project is to meet the following objectives:

 

Provide a safe pedestrian recreational trail system that incorporates ADA Standards for Accessible Design consistent with 28 CFR Part 36 while maintaining/enhancing connectivity between the Lake Natoma waterfront and the Folsom Historic District for pedestrians.Improve environmental conditions of the Lake Natoma waterfront through removal of invasive species, planting of native plant/tree species, and stabilization of banks along the existing trail.'

 

I think it is a great idea, and long overdue. It seems that every proposal for development, pavement or improvement any kind is opposed, often by people enjoying the previously completed development and improvements, and it's usually over the fears of crime and change, occasionally with environmental issues thrown in.

 

There's opposition to housing developments (by people who actually live in housing developments), opposition to new trails and access (often by people who use the existing trails). 

 

I've mentioned before that when I was at a presentation on Folsom's history, one old-timer said that Folsomite's have always feared change, and outsiders. He said that back in the 40's, the residents were upset about the proposed new Folsom Dam, not just because the dam itself, but because they feared the construction workers would cause trouble.

 

Do you remember the uproar over the opening of the tattoo parlor and the kind of people it would attract and the trouble they would cause? Has there been any trouble from them all these years later?

 

How about the community mobilization against the opening of a lingerie shop which also featured 'marital aids' on Sutter Street? I recall one writer who said it would attract child molesters. - No molesters were ever reported or caught buying vibrators or pasties there, to my knowledge.

 

There were so many posts about how crime would soar in Folsom once light rail was built. One wrote that there were gangs just waiting for it to be completed so they could come and 'wreak havoc'. Another feared that burglars would use it haul away their loot. We know that bad guys can take light rail as easily as good guys can, and we know that shoplifters have come in on light rail and stolen from the outlets, and I have seen some rather worn out looking guys on Sutter every now and then, but overall, light rail has been a blessing rather than a curse, taking cars off the roads, enabling good people to get around more efficiently, as intended.

 

Remember the protests about removing they dying trees, broken sidewalks, and rotting shed roofs on Sutter? I was there the night two women fell into the streets, smashing their heads on the pavement in front of the Folsom Hotel because the wood they sat on was rotten, there was no railing and the curb was high. People were frequently tripping and falling over high curbs and uneven pavement. Still, there was opposition to any changes.

 

They said the plan was to make Sutter look like Disneyland (I'm sure some fee it does). 

 

Now we have people opposed to the waterfront access plan over fears of homeless, drunks and trouble makers.

 

I love this town, and a lot of the people in it. It is beautiful, clean, safe, has lots of recreational opportunities, and has a growing list of arts and entertainment amenities. It remains a desirable place to live with higher property values than most communities in the region.

 

I think we can grow and improve the city in a smart way and still maintain our great quality of life.


Steve Heard

Folsom Real Estate Specialist

Owner - MyFolsom.com

916 718 9577 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users