Jump to content






Photo
- - - - -

Lake Natoma Waterfront & Trail Access


  • Please log in to reply
122 replies to this topic

#31 ducky

ducky

    untitled

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

Posted 24 July 2013 - 10:07 AM

 

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.

 

I guess I should have expected the usual stereotyping of anyone that questions a project or isn't a cheerleader for the city.  You're labeled either a malcontent or a NIMBY if you question the size or scope of what the city is doing.  One old-timer's remark at a meeting doesn't speak for all of Folsom so I'm not sure why you put so much weight on that.

 

Yes, Folsom is a very desirable place to live, but I believe that the involvement of residents and their input can be valuable in keeping it that way.  I'm not even entirely opposed to the project, but  I just saw on the news the river otter exhibit they have in San Francisco at Aquarium of the Bay.  We already have canoe access to the area - at least two within the city - and we have great trails that already circle the entirety of Lake Natoma.  The otters don't have a choice to move elsewhere.  Let's leave what little is left of their habitat.    

 

Maybe they can't just take the money from one project and move it elsewhere.  I'm admittedly not an expert in that area.  It is a joint project with the state so I'm just not sure why that wasn't looked at in the first place instead of building new rather than maintaining or improving what already exists.  This trail won't even link the truss bridge, which would have made more sense.

 

 

I



#32 Steve Heard

Steve Heard

    Owner

  • Admin
  • 13,557 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 July 2013 - 12:00 PM

 

I guess I should have expected the usual stereotyping of anyone that questions a project or isn't a cheerleader for the city.  You're labeled either a malcontent or a NIMBY if you question the size or scope of what the city is doing.  One old-timer's remark at a meeting doesn't speak for all of Folsom so I'm not sure why you put so much weight on that.

 

Yes, Folsom is a very desirable place to live, but I believe that the involvement of residents and their input can be valuable in keeping it that way.  I'm not even entirely opposed to the project, but  I just saw on the news the river otter exhibit they have in San Francisco at Aquarium of the Bay.  We already have canoe access to the area - at least two within the city - and we have great trails that already circle the entirety of Lake Natoma.  The otters don't have a choice to move elsewhere.  Let's leave what little is left of their habitat.    

 

Maybe they can't just take the money from one project and move it elsewhere.  I'm admittedly not an expert in that area.  It is a joint project with the state so I'm just not sure why that wasn't looked at in the first place instead of building new rather than maintaining or improving what already exists.  This trail won't even link the truss bridge, which would have made more sense.

 

Hey Ducky, I apologize if my tone was offensive. I didn't mean it that way.

 

It has been my experience working as a volunteer for the City and the Chamber of Commerce, my experiences here on the forum and just in talking to people that change is not always welcome here, and that many are against change out of fears that don't become reality, as with the topics mentioned above.

 

The old-timer's comment was in response to a discussion about resistance to the proposed improvements to Sutter Street which occurred during the history presentation. 

 

As for citizen input, I am in 100% agreement that the city should listen to residents and they have. They've had public meetings about it, and based on citizen input,  they decided to scale back the plan and eliminated the promenade from consideration.

 

The problem is that not all citizens are going to agree, so you can't please all of them.

 

Part of the plan is to protect the area from erosion and from invasive plants. That is healthy for the area.


Steve Heard

Folsom Real Estate Specialist

Owner - MyFolsom.com

916 718 9577 


#33 ducky

ducky

    untitled

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

Posted 24 July 2013 - 12:12 PM

Thanks for the apology, Steve.  I should have known you didn't mean it that way.



#34 4thgenFolsomite

4thgenFolsomite

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,946 posts

Posted 24 July 2013 - 01:27 PM

 

I guess I should have expected the usual stereotyping of anyone that questions a project or isn't a cheerleader for the city.  You're labeled either a malcontent or a NIMBY if you question the size or scope of what the city is doing.  One old-timer's remark at a meeting doesn't speak for all of Folsom so I'm not sure why you put so much weight on that.

 

Yes, Folsom is a very desirable place to live, but I believe that the involvement of residents and their input can be valuable in keeping it that way.  I'm not even entirely opposed to the project, but  I just saw on the news the river otter exhibit they have in San Francisco at Aquarium of the Bay.  We already have canoe access to the area - at least two within the city - and we have great trails that already circle the entirety of Lake Natoma.  The otters don't have a choice to move elsewhere.  Let's leave what little is left of their habitat.    

 

Maybe they can't just take the money from one project and move it elsewhere.  I'm admittedly not an expert in that area.  It is a joint project with the state so I'm just not sure why that wasn't looked at in the first place instead of building new rather than maintaining or improving what already exists.  This trail won't even link the truss bridge, which would have made more sense.

 

 

I

as far as I know, this is not a joint project with the state. 


Knowing the past helps deciphering the future.

#35 ducky

ducky

    untitled

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

Posted 24 July 2013 - 01:40 PM

as far as I know, this is not a joint project with the state. 

 

as far as I know, this is not a joint project with the state. 

 

Maybe I'm stating it incorrectly as a joint project with the state, but isn't part of this on state property?  On the Sacramento Superior Court Caption it lists the California Department of Parks and Recreation and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation as Real Parties of Interest.



#36 tony

tony

    Hall Of Famer

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

Posted 24 July 2013 - 01:53 PM

 

 

Maybe I'm stating it incorrectly as a joint project with the state, but isn't part of this on state property?  On the Sacramento Superior Court Caption it lists the California Department of Parks and Recreation and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation as Real Parties of Interest.

It is a city-led project, but with state grant funding and, yes, most of the land involved belongs to the USBR and is managed by CA State Parks (CDPR) as part of the Folsom Lake State Recreation area, so it is correct to call it a joint project (the city cannot do it without agreement from the other two agencies).



#37 chris v

chris v

    Living Legend

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

Posted 25 July 2013 - 08:15 AM

Someone had mentioned that a more secluded area, like it is now, brings more riff raff and trouble when in fax it is quite the opposite. Case in point is the rainbow bridge. Ever seen howuch graffiti is on it? There is no control at all over the mess. And now they want to pave an area and build features and walls. I promise you it will be covered in graffiti within a couple months and then no one will want to go down there.

#38 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 25 July 2013 - 02:22 PM

I think the graffiti on the bridge adds needed character.  It's generally artless, but it's goofy teenager stuff.  No one has been able to put up a wall in the last sixty thousand years without some kid drawing on it.  (Google "pompeii graffiti" if you want a taste.)  Other city parks are generally well maintained when it comes to such things and I don't know why this one would be any worse than, say, Lembi, which is full of mischevious tweens.

 

Let us not forget that the lake itself is manmade and otherwise we'd be talking about preserving beaver habitat.


"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

#39 4thgenFolsomite

4thgenFolsomite

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,946 posts

Posted 25 July 2013 - 02:32 PM

I think the graffiti on the bridge adds needed character.  It's generally artless, but it's goofy teenager stuff.  No one has been able to put up a wall in the last sixty thousand years without some kid drawing on it.  (Google "pompeii graffiti" if you want a taste.)  Other city parks are generally well maintained when it comes to such things and I don't know why this one would be any worse than, say, Lembi, which is full of mischevious tweens.

 

Let us not forget that the lake itself is manmade and otherwise we'd be talking about preserving beaver habitat.

 

actually its a part of the American River.  It may be dammed, but its still a natural habitat with a regulating system that ensures year-round flow.  And there are biological resources that need to be protected, hence habitat is a concern for management of the area.  As far as the graffiti and vandalism goes, this area is directly below Sutter Street, which has a few bars, as I recall.  So it might be a little more active late at night than Lembi.  By the way, everyone, fun fact: Lembi Park is named for Dante Lembi.  He was a really nice man who had the job of selling off the extra lands of the Natomas Company when they finally pulled out of Folsom. 


Knowing the past helps deciphering the future.

#40 Lindke

Lindke

    Netizen

  • Registered Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 77 posts

Posted 25 July 2013 - 06:42 PM

I am for leaving the American River untouched for the critters.

 

 



#41 tony

tony

    Hall Of Famer

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

Posted 25 July 2013 - 07:10 PM

I think the graffiti on the bridge adds needed character.  It's generally artless, but it's goofy teenager stuff.  No one has been able to put up a wall in the last sixty thousand years without some kid drawing on it.  (Google "pompeii graffiti" if you want a taste.)  Other city parks are generally well maintained when it comes to such things and I don't know why this one would be any worse than, say, Lembi, which is full of mischevious tweens.

 

Let us not forget that the lake itself is manmade and otherwise we'd be talking about preserving beaver habitat.

...and salmon and steel-head.

 

As for the Rainbow Bridge graffiti, by now some of it's probably historic. For some reason, probably because city leaders jumped off the bridge as teens, the city has made no real effort to deter people from climbing on or jumping off of the bridge. The Lake Natoma Crossing, on the other hand, has 8' spiked fences to deter climbers, but there is nothing more than a sign to deter jumpers on Rainbow.



#42 RNGRDN

RNGRDN

    Netizen

  • Registered Members
  • Pip
  • 12 posts

Posted 28 July 2013 - 09:28 AM

When the justification for a political argument is weak, the conversation often drifts to personal attacks to obscure the truth.  There are postings on this forum that are from those who have close financial ties with the City of Folsom.  In any real estate discussion beware of those who have an ax to grind.

Here is a review of how the Lake Natoma grant was obtained:

The city parks department wrote a grant application to the CA Natural Resource Agency for the Lake Natoma Waterfront and Trail Access project.  The application was sent to then Superintendent of Gold Fields District State Parks, Scott Nakaji for review and comment.  He responded with a multi-page document. (Reviewed at the Save the American River Association web site)   His conclusion was that the project was “not consistent with the mission of the state park system . . . with the mischaracterizations contained in this grant application and the unresolved issues regarding the proposed project, I cannot support it at this time.”  The City of Folsom submitted their grant application with the statement, “The California Department of State Parks is one of the biggest supporters of the project.”

Once the grant application was received by the Resources Agency, one can only speculate at the political influence that caused the grant to be selected over 56 other worthy projects.  Even after the secretary of the agency was made aware of the deception in the grant application, he and all of his successors have refused to rescind the grant.

So after years of watching the distortions and false statements about the Lake Natoma project, am I now a malcontent?  A disgusted malcontent is a better characterization.



#43 TruthSeeker

TruthSeeker

    Superstar

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 960 posts

Posted 29 July 2013 - 08:32 AM

His conclusion was that the project was “not consistent with the mission of the state park system . . . with the mischaracterizations contained in this grant application and the unresolved issues regarding the proposed project, I cannot support it at this time.”  The City of Folsom submitted their grant application with the statement, “The California Department of State Parks is one of the biggest supporters of the project.”

Once the grant application was received by the Resources Agency, one can only speculate at the political influence that caused the grant to be selected over 56 other worthy projects.  Even after the secretary of the agency was made aware of the deception in the grant application, he and all of his successors have refused to rescind the grant.

So after years of watching the distortions and false statements about the Lake Natoma project, am I now a malcontent?  A disgusted malcontent is a better characterization.

 

Great, further proof that our city council are liars and sham artists doing underhanded things to destroy the future of our city. These people need to go, I really hate liars and cheats and it's unfortunate they are running our city.

 

It's pathetic however that the agency still granted this project even when they were made aware of the deception.  Our state has gone to the dogs, or should I say, the dogs are running our state...


Ri1NoWW.jpg


#44 Carl G

Carl G

    Hall Of Famer

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,674 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 July 2013 - 11:37 AM

I like the idea of having a nice trail down to the water.  I would not like the wholesale clearing of trees or the addition of a giant boat launch area similar to what is available across the river.  But a simple, paved trail granting access to us to view the beautiful river and enjoy that area would be nice.



#45 maestro

maestro

    Superstar

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 744 posts

Posted 29 July 2013 - 01:24 PM

 

Great, further proof that our city council are liars and sham artists doing underhanded things to destroy the future of our city. These people need to go, I really hate liars and cheats and it's unfortunate they are running our city.

 

It's pathetic however that the agency still granted this project even when they were made aware of the deception.  Our state has gone to the dogs, or should I say, the dogs are running our state...

 

 

I think they are Mis-running the city.      Wonder how many emails they get each day accusing them of illegal activity.

 

Scott Nakaji really characterized them correctly.    

 

Dogs running the state -----      that would be a vast improvement.    When did a dog ever lie, cheat or steal from you!






3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users