Jump to content






Photo
- - - - -

Lake Natoma Waterfront & Trail Access


  • Please log in to reply
122 replies to this topic

#1 tony

tony

    Hall Of Famer

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

Posted 25 June 2013 - 11:24 AM

Yes they do, so what's the point of it here?  Avoiding the ten bucks, maybe.  Your pejoratively-decribed "ADA ramp" is actually a nice little walking trail with some scenic overlooks, which is nice, I'm sure people will enjoy it.  Like I said, I don't object to it.  But it's not really a path to the boat ramp, except in a roundabout way.  I suppose with a paddleboard or a kayak the steps would be all right, with a canoe on your shoulders it would be a real pain.

 

The plan shows a kayak/bike rack, that sounds like fun.  Anyone know where I can get a kayak/bike?

I think the idea of the kayak/bike rack is that those who launch elsewhere on the lake could lock up their bike/cayak/canoe at the landing and head up to the HD to eat (I know, it's a conspiracy by Karen to get as many boaters as cyclists!).  That said, for the kayak/canoe crowd who live in the HD, the new facilities will make is easier to launch without driving. I agree, the path is not very direct, and the stairs will be a pain, but the hardest part now is the last 10 feet getting to the water, and that will be much easier.



#2 tony

tony

    Hall Of Famer

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

Posted 25 June 2013 - 11:45 AM

My concern is the illegal nighttime use and the loss of natural setting.  There are river otters that live in that area (and don't have any other similar habitat on the lake) that are going to lose their home and that is another little loss for us all.  I also like the natural dirt path and think its important people have access to natural trails.  There is currently a bike trail that I believe provides ADA access from the lid to this same area, which is an okay area, but not that great.  There is nothing much down there to do once you get there, other than actually walk the trail.  This will make it easier to get down, certainly, and help clean up a lot of the erosion caused by the last set of wood stairs.  However, Lake Natoma is a state park and meant to be closed at night.  This will probably encourage more people to head on down there with some beers and smokes after dark into an unpatrolled area.  Not sure I like that idea.  May mean more litter, more graffiti, more crime. 

 

I am not sure how tourists are supposed to know about it and why they would want to go down there.  Seems like they could see the same and even better views by walking on bridge loop, which actually has seating areas for enjoying the view. 

Good point about the river otters, but is this project really affecting their habitat?

 

As for the natural path, there will still be about 3 miles of natural path on this side of Lake Natoma. This project will make a small part of the lakefront more inviting and accessible for those who might not venture onto the unpaved trails. As for illicit activity, legitimate use will chase out illegitimate use every time. The paved bike path on this side of Lake Natoma is one of the best examples. There was far more illicit activity down there (when the city was much smaller), from regular campfires left burning, to meth labs to off-road vehicles and large parties before the path was paved than there is now (although there may be more homeless campers since the recession). I anticipate less litter, less graffiti and less crimes after this project.

 

As  for the bridge loop, while I would never diminish the value of a good bridge walk, somehow, it's just not the same looking down at the river from 60 feet up, as being down there where you might get a closeup of the river otter, beaver, heron or one of those big trout that don't like to be caught. 

 

But, about that bridge walk...you bring up a good point (maybe not the one you intended), and that is that the "Three Bridges Walk/Ride" as we like to call it (walk across two bridges and look at the third one) is not nearly as intuitive or inviting (and is not ADA compliant) as it might be. Imagine if you could do that walk without crossing major streets or dropping down and then climbing back up from river level, or even if it were just signed so visitors would know it was an option? It's really a great 1.25 mile (+/-) scenic and historic walk, but you need to know about it to do it.



#3 RNGRDN

RNGRDN

    Netizen

  • Registered Members
  • Pip
  • 12 posts

Posted 25 June 2013 - 02:30 PM

Make no mistake about this project. The City of Folsom (developers) wants to take over Lake Natoma and change it from a natural setting to something that will blend with whatever development occurs near the shoreline. The current Lake Natoma waterfront project behind the Inn is using state ADA grant money. No disabled person will walk 700 yards and down 70 feet to a shoreline with no rest room. For the rest of us the stairway is more than adequate. The state park general plan calls for a wilderness experience in this area not pavement and a boat ramp at the base of a 40 foot cliff. This project is absurd! Here is a chance to walk on the earth through a natural setting. Don't destroy it for those who see dollar signs. Join Save the American Association and defend the American River Parkway Plan from develpers.

#4 kcrides99

kcrides99

    Veteran

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 220 posts

Posted 27 June 2013 - 05:44 PM

Make no mistake about this project. The City of Folsom (developers) wants to take over Lake Natoma and change it from a natural setting to something that will blend with whatever development occurs near the shoreline. The current Lake Natoma waterfront project behind the Inn is using state ADA grant money. No disabled person will walk 700 yards and down 70 feet to a shoreline with no rest room. For the rest of us the stairway is more than adequate. The state park general plan calls for a wilderness experience in this area not pavement and a boat ramp at the base of a 40 foot cliff. This project is absurd! Here is a chance to walk on the earth through a natural setting. Don't destroy it for those who see dollar signs. Join Save the American Association and defend the American River Parkway Plan from develpers.

 

RNGRDN  you should really read more than the propaganda SARA is feeding you. First of all, the grant is from the California River Parkways Grant Program (actually that was easy to find on SARA's website). You try to couch this as a project that is soley for purposes of ADA and that it is ADA grant funded (nor have I ever heard of an ADA grant). This is not the case, get your facts straight before you spew misinformation.

 

Furthermore, who is to say that the only people who will use this asset will be disabled? What about those of us with children in strollers? Do those kids not deserve the right to visit this area? Do they not deserve a chance to touch the water like the rest of us able body folks?

 

Please also remember, this area is far from pristene wilderness. The area has a network of informal trails that are causing erosion and damaging plant life. This area has been disturbed several times since the gold rush (in which the hillside was completely bare). The area is far from a virgin "natural setting" that you describe... have you ever been down there? The general plan for this area does propose preserving what is worth preserving... simply paving the dirt paths to be safe an accessble is a far cry from destroying this "wilderness experience". The General Plan also calls for providing safe and appropriate access for all users, not just us able bodies. It is very important to strike a balance between these goals which this project does.

 

The improvements being proposed will eliminate erosion and make it so those of us with kids, the disabled, roller bladers, bikers, walkers, and all users will have an opportunity to visit this area. I would venture to say a polling of the SARA members and donation providers would find it absurd that SARA is opposing something of this nature.  SARA should be advocating for this type of project, fixing existng problems by providing solutions that improve access.



#5 RNGRDN

RNGRDN

    Netizen

  • Registered Members
  • Pip
  • 12 posts

Posted 27 June 2013 - 09:29 PM

SARA is not feeding me propoganda. The City of Folsom who applied for the grant is using the disabled to justify setting president for developing Lake Natoma. It is the city that is loudly claiming that this meets ADA standards. Are you really telling me that you would take a stroller for a walk that is 700 yards and down 70 feet to visit the area under Natoma Crossing bridge?

Actually the state park plan requires that this area: offer opportunities for more challenging and adventure based recreaton activities in a more natural setting. After the city received this grant these words were added to the plan: Improve access to Lake Natoma from the City of Folsom Historic District where appopriate and feasible.

Appropriate and feasible? A 700 yard walk and down 70 feet. That is absurd. The existing trail has been there for generations and is loved by all. Placing a double concrete wall that in one section is eight feet high and 1500 feet long will disturb the soil and root systems creating extensive erosion in the area. The cross trail for bikes in this plan would absolutely destroy a beautiful raparian zone. This area is a unique niche that would suffer dramatically from the proposed pavement. Yes the gold rush caused damage to the area, but this one section was not dredged and is a rare little treasure to behold. I frequent the area and have for years. If you want easy access to the lake for children and strollers please use Willow Creek or Negro Bar.

SARA is holding strong against those who would destroy the American River Parkway plan. Please don't buy into the gross distortions of this project. Eight million people use the parkway annually. They come to experience what little is left of the wild in this county. It deserves to be preserved and protected intact and undiminished.

#6 RNGRDN

RNGRDN

    Netizen

  • Registered Members
  • Pip
  • 12 posts

Posted 28 June 2013 - 01:27 AM

OOOOPs That's setting precedent, not setting president. Another homonym gone bad.

#7 chris v

chris v

    Living Legend

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

Posted 28 June 2013 - 04:53 AM

I totally agree. This area does not need to be managed. Why does everything have to be compliant these days. Why destroy the natural setting.

#8 4thgenFolsomite

4thgenFolsomite

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,946 posts

Posted 28 June 2013 - 06:04 AM

Tony, yes, the otters have a little den cut into that hillside where the trail is being widened and paved. 

 

for those that argue its just paving the existing trail, I would make this analogy.  its like taking a little dirt country lane and turning into a paved two-lane road.


Knowing the past helps deciphering the future.

#9 Steve Heard

Steve Heard

    Owner

  • Admin
  • 13,557 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 June 2013 - 10:49 AM

First, let me say that I love Lake Natoma! I jog, bike and walk the trails, canoe and kayak on the water, and have taken many visitors to the bridge for the view. 

 

I think a lot of folks, locals and visitors alike, would like a spot where they could walk down to the lake from the historic district, but right now, you've got to navigate the dirt, the slope and the poison ivy to do so. You can't even see it unless you go to the bridge.

 

Adding a ramp and observation area and some benches, in my humble opinion, would be a great asset to city.

 

Even able bodied folks don't want to navigate dirt paths in their Sunday best to get a view of the lake, and those who are less physically able should have the opportunity as well, and that includes elderly, handicapped, and kids. 


Steve Heard

Folsom Real Estate Specialist

Owner - MyFolsom.com

916 718 9577 


#10 kcrides99

kcrides99

    Veteran

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 220 posts

Posted 28 June 2013 - 12:15 PM

Steve you are quite correct. I personally cannot currently take my child in a stroller on the dirt trails. Fixing the EXISTING trails in a manner that makes it safe for us to take a stroller down there is a major win for the City.

 

RNGDN - Absolutly I will take a stroller down the PAVED trail. Dont speak for what a disabled person will or will not do until you walk (or wheelchair) a mile in their shoes. You are ignorant of the capabilities and desires of the disabled and please do not speak for them unless you are educated and informed about what they are willing to attempt.

 

Folsom is not promoting this as an ADA only trail, it is promoting it as a win for the entire area. Connecting to the waterfront, enhancing the environment, stopping erosion. Do the children and disabled not deserve the ability to enjoy the amenity that you claim to have enjoyed for years. Perhaps you should put yourself in someone elses shoes before eliminating their ability to enjoy this amenity.

 

Even if the State were to totally fence off the area, you would continue to see erosion, illegal use, people hopping the fence. Doing nothing is not the answer for this, fixing it with an improved trail for all users is the answer. The dirt paths are the problems, fixing those problems is the key.

 

Those of us who live in or near the Historic District moved there so we don't HAVE to drive to Negro Bar. Why would I want to haul my stroller in my car to walk to something clear across the river. We should be encouraging these improvements not hindering them.

 

I am not arguing that we should strip the land which was done in the gold rush, I am arguing that there is a balance between preservation of environment and access to that environment. Fencing off this area serves neither purpose. The plan is a modest improvement to the area that strikes a balance between preservation and access. This is a win for the Historic District and the Community.

 

You need to see the forrest thru the trees. Doing nothing in this area would be its continued demise... the river otter wont have a home when the hillside continues to erode into the lake.

 

And these words "Improve access to Lake Natoma from the City of Folsom Historic District where appopriate and feasible"  were added to the plan. In what other manner would you actually serve this goal? This is the best option to serve this goal with the minimal impact. The visitors and residents of the Historic District are not going to cross the trellis bridge to access the lake. It is simply too far for the average family or group strolling around the area. Either this gets fixed in a manner that serves this goal or you see continued illegal use from visitors and residents alike. Doing nothing creates more of a problem.



#11 Rich_T

Rich_T

    Hall Of Famer

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,723 posts

Posted 28 June 2013 - 04:10 PM

First of all, I think it's awesome that we actually have otters in Folsom.  I had no idea.  They're pretty much my favorite animal.

 

Be that as it may, I see no reason not to echo Steve's words.  The river is this mystery thing hidden from view from casual visitors to Sutter St.  With a signed and paved trail to the river from Old Town, many people will start enjoying the river.

 

I think the reason that ADA is always mentioned by the City is that they're scared as hell of lawsuits, with reason.



#12 RNGRDN

RNGRDN

    Netizen

  • Registered Members
  • Pip
  • 12 posts

Posted 28 June 2013 - 09:33 PM

Actually I observed two representatives from disabled groups, one in a wheelchair as they looked at the proposed disabled person access project for Lake Natoma.  Both agreed that the project would not achieve the goal of disabled access to the lake.  No place in the project area is approapriate and feasible for disabled access.  Stop this project that is based on fiction.

 

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.  .



#13 ducky

ducky

    untitled

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

Posted 29 June 2013 - 08:54 AM

I don't understand the comment about not having to "drive" to Negro Bar from the Historic District.  Why do you have to drive?  I live further away and I easily walk there using the truss bridge and existing trail.  In fact, just did so recently.  Saw lots of people with strollers going by.

 

What I also witnessed was teenagers hanging out on the rocks getting busted for drinking by a ranger.   There is graffiti on the rocks.  There was litter, including cardboard beer cases, a Hibachi grill, plastic bags, and articles of clothing in the water.  If anyone is looking for a tie-dyed tank top we left it on the rocks up by the parking for you.  Glass all over the sandbar.  Don't go in the water without your shoes!  Point is, this is what increased access does to an area.

 

The view across the river at the trees and vegetation along the shoreline is very pretty and unspoiled.  It's always been one of my favorite views coming back into town, especially in the fall.  I hope the "invasive species" they are talking about removing won't affect that.  The concrete wall that is proposed that is also being claimed to help stop erosion sounds like a prime graffiti target.  If they can't keep the graffiti off the Rainbow Bridge or the rocks on the other side, how will they control it here?

 

On the flipside, I've seen wedding parties that are guests of Lake Natoma Inn having to practically carry grandma back from the trail after going down there for pictures so it's not an easy walk to get to the picture spot, apparently, so I understand how it could be hard for those with disabilities to get down there.  Will they still want to take pictures though if it's just turned into a sterile bike trail atmosphere next to the water after they've removed all the "invasive species"?  I've also seen carloads of young people, who I'm sure all have medicinal prescriptions, toking in their cars before heading down the trail; so, trail or no trail, young people like to hang out away from adults and it's happening on both sides of the river. (Dining outdoors on the  Q'Bole balcony provides its own form of entertainment sometimes)   

 

I guess I'm ambivalent about this project not that it matters what I think.  Once it's in the city newsletter it's a foregone conclusion.



#14 folsom500

folsom500

    Folsom Gardner

  • Moderator
  • 6,551 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 09 July 2013 - 11:07 AM

Just split this off from Odds and Ends around town


Another great  day in the adventure of exploration and sight.

 

 

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has"
-Margaret Mead-


#15 monstermovie

monstermovie

    Netizen

  • Registered Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 63 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 03:57 PM

I wrote Robert Goss, head of Parks and Rec regarding more info about the trail. I've not seen maps, drawings or any of that. Here's his prompt reply: 

 

Thank you for getting in touch with me.  We do have additional materials about the project, but I have to say, they are voluminous.  Even the graphics are that way, particularly because the trail is about ½ mile long and is very hard to depict clearly in a reduced format pdf.  That said, I have attached a file of the City Council-approved alternative.  This original graphic is about 30” wide and about 7 or 8 feet long.  I’m happy to say that through the design and engineering process, we have already reduced many of the impacts of the trail route depicted on this document and analyzed in both the CEQA and NEPA documents…i.e. lower quantity of retaining walls, etc.

 

I have also attached a photo of our “beta” test trail to demonstrate our concept of the concrete, ADA accessible trail.  Earlier this year, we “improved” an existing path between a bike trail and a picnic gazebo that had been worn into the landscape.  Our concept for the Lake Natoma Trail is a concrete trail (so we can maintain it feasibly for decades to come) that is minimally 4 feet wide and maximally 6 feet wide (average 5 feet), with irregular edges (like a path), and colored (like dirt or decomposed granite).  We tested this idea on about a 50 foot section as shown in the photo (Lexington Hills area along Willow Creek).  We consider the test a complete success, but will work to refine the color of the stain used on the concrete…it’s a little bright, but will likely fade in time.  It is indeed ADA compliant (we had a State compliance officer inspect it); it is indeed concrete with steel internal to keep it together over time; it is indeed a meandering path, not a city sidewalk; and, it will not be “sidewalk white.”  The last thing we want is something like a city sidewalk constructed through a natural area.  On the lake front trail where the steepest slopes and retaining walls occur, the walk edges will be more refined and parallel vs. meandering…the necessities of engineering in this case, but that should be the only place.  The thoughts of one or our critics about “…feeling the earth under your feet on a walk in the woods” are not lost on city staff.  We appreciate that sentiment and experience.  Our goal is that it will be the only part of the experience/environment lost as a result of the project.  Conversely, we hope the hundreds and thousands more people that have the opportunity to easily enjoy all the other beautiful aspects of this area far outweigh this small loss.

 

I quickly read the thread on MyFolsom.com.  It appears the advocates for the project have their facts generally correct and are not over-stating the attributes of the project.  Unfortunately, some of the critics are relying on old or incorrect information.  I don’t begrudge anyone for not liking the project, but critical assessments should include the facts.  Unfortunately, it is not feasible to connect this trail with the Historic Truss Bridge.  There is a substantial ravine/riparian area and steep slope on the west side of the Powerhouse that make a direct connection infeasible.  While many things have engineering solutions, the cost feasibility is another issue.  The Parks and Recreation Department is working on a separate solution for connecting the Leidesdorff Street area with the Truss Bridge.  I would anticipate construction on that project to begin in mid 2014.  We’ll start some preliminary work on the Lake Natoma Trail this fall, bid the construction over the winter, and begin construction as soon as spring 2014 allows.

 

Attached image is of the trail type they're going to use. The .pdf of the trail plan is big: 2MB. Too big to upload here...

Attached Files






2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users