HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - September 4, 1991OF
CITY OF LCD I
o4�t �r
ICOUNCIL COMMUNICATION
t
AGENDA TITLE: Mokelumne River Access and Lodi Lake Park Patrol Staffing
MEETING DATE: September 4, 1991
PREPARED BY: Parks and Recreation Director
RECOMMENCED ACTION- None required. Information ONLY.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: I would refer to (Exhibit A), Council Meeting of
July 6, 1988. At that meeting, in addition to general
discussion about the lake and river, the Council took
action to allow access to the Mokelumne River by all
"non -powered" crafts. Currently, we are allowing non -power crafts use of the
ramp and access to the Mokelumne River through a side area next to our boat gate.
All other boats follow the boat use schedule included herein for day use of the
Lake. (Exhibit B).
Regarding park patrol staffing at Lodi Lake Park, I bring your attention to
(Exhibit C), Mr. Essin's memo to ne dated August 26, 1991. This memo will
explain our current staffing of rangers at Lodi Lake and whatever shortages
and/or concerns that might exist. Also included with this material is a
Park Ranger Schedule good through October, 1991. This memo was generated in
response to Nt Frank Alegre's correspondence of August 1, 1991, and the
Council's inquiry as to staffing at the Lake at the Council Meeting of
August 21, 1991.
Please be advised.
tc
RW: srb
Attachments
APPROVED:
Ron Williamson
Parks and Recreation Director
THOMAS A. PETERSON
City Manager
cc -1
is
Continued July 6, 1988
ways. The City will have a hard enough time keeping the
Park nice as Lodi grows without disenfranchising the people
who care about i t most.
One last thought in a less hostile tone. I and, I an sure,
any of the people who regularly canoe or kayak on the river
would welcome the opportunity to take any of you on a
wonderful evening of gliding along the river as the beaver
becoine active and the cottonwood trees rustle in the cool
breeze to help you understand what has Seen taken from us
if the current policy on boating continues.
Sincerely,
s/Patrick Coulston
1431 Lake Street
Lodi, CA 95242
369-6245"
Nt Coulston was in the audience and addressed the City
Council regarding the matter. A lengthy discussion
followed with question being directed to staff and to N1
Coulston.
Council Member Hinchman moved that this matter be referred
to the City Attorney and to the Parks and Recreation
Department for review and recorrnendation, asking that it be
brought back to the City Council at its Regular Meeting of
August 3, 1988. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro
Tempore Snider; however, failed to pass by the following
vote:
Ayes : Council Members - Hinchman
Noes: Council Members - Olson, Snider and I
Pinkerton (Mayor)
Absent: Council Members - Reid
Additional discussion followed.
Mayor Pro Tempore Snider then moved that it was never the
intent o` the City Council not to allow non -powered
crafts access to the river. The motion also directed that
the Parks and Recreation Department monitor the accessing
of non -powered crafts to the river from the todi Lake area,
for problems. The motion was seconded by Council Member
Hinchman and passed by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members - Olson, Snider, and
Pinkerton (Mayor)
Noes : Council Wembers - Hinchman
Absent: Council Members - Reid
AGENDA ITEM TO
CONSIDER RESOLUTION
PROHIBITING THROUGH
TRUCK TRAVEL ON
TURNiER ROAD CONTINUED
TC REGULAR CITY
COU'4CIL MEETiN6
OF JULY 20, 1988
10
I
16
Continued July 6, 1988
,Exhibit "A"
ACS OF NON -POWERED
BakTS TO THE MOKELUMNE
FAUZ City Clerk Reimche presented the following letter which had
been received from Patrick Coulston, 1431 Lake Street, Lodi,
CC -16 regarding access of non -power boats to the Mokeiumne River
CC-Z7(c) from Lodi Lake:
CC -4O
"To the members of the Lodi City Council:
Recently, a new set of regulations have been adopted by the
City relating to boat access to the Mokelumne River from
Lodi Lake and Park. These regulations have ad the
unfortunate, unwarranted, and I hope unintended effect of
preventing the legal use of the Mokelumne River as it flows
through Lodi for such wholesome and innocuous activities as
canoeing, rowing, and flat -water kayaking, except by those
few fortunate citizens able to own property adjacent to the
river. The primary purpose of this letter is to request
that the you include in the agenda of the next City Council
meeting (July 7, 1988), time to consider a revision of the
implementation of these new regulations. In addition, I
would like to use this letter as an opportunity to provide
for your consideration, prior to the upcoming City Counci?
meeting, my views on the existing regulatory situation and
bow it came about.
"You may not launch your canoe into the River from the Park
or launch in the Lake and paddle into the river, because if
you are run over by a powerboat the city may be held
liable". These words (approximately), recently spoken to
ne by a well meaning and competent member of the City's
Parks and Recreation staff, still ring irritatingly in
ears. This is apparently the "bottom line" regarding the
City's policy of not allc wing non -power craft access to
river from Lodi Lake Park, a conclusion I arrived at after
several lengthy phone calls to various members of the
City's P,-,rks and Recreation staff. What twisting peth has
led to this ironic policy? Please read on for my
interpretation.
93
L
in an area zoned R -C -P, Residential -Commercial
Professional. The Planning Commission would like
the applicant to return with additional information
on when the temporary office will be replaced with
a permanent facility.
b. The request of Joseph Canepa for a Use Permit to
operate a billiard and pool iounge at 400 East
Kettleman Lane in an area zoned C-2, General
Commercial.
ELECTION OF
OFFICERS
The following Planning Commission Officers were elected to
serve during the 1988-89 term:
Planning Commission Chairman Craig Rasmussen
Planning Commission Vice Chairman Larry Mindt
(CITY CLERK)
CLAM
On motion of Council Member Hinchman, Olson second, the City
Council denied the following claims and referred them back
CC -4(c)
to the City's Contract Administrator, ADJUSIM.
a) Starla Hertel, DOL 3/13/88
b) Andrew Enzi, DOL 2/22/88
ACS OF NON -POWERED
BakTS TO THE MOKELUMNE
FAUZ City Clerk Reimche presented the following letter which had
been received from Patrick Coulston, 1431 Lake Street, Lodi,
CC -16 regarding access of non -power boats to the Mokeiumne River
CC-Z7(c) from Lodi Lake:
CC -4O
"To the members of the Lodi City Council:
Recently, a new set of regulations have been adopted by the
City relating to boat access to the Mokelumne River from
Lodi Lake and Park. These regulations have ad the
unfortunate, unwarranted, and I hope unintended effect of
preventing the legal use of the Mokelumne River as it flows
through Lodi for such wholesome and innocuous activities as
canoeing, rowing, and flat -water kayaking, except by those
few fortunate citizens able to own property adjacent to the
river. The primary purpose of this letter is to request
that the you include in the agenda of the next City Council
meeting (July 7, 1988), time to consider a revision of the
implementation of these new regulations. In addition, I
would like to use this letter as an opportunity to provide
for your consideration, prior to the upcoming City Counci?
meeting, my views on the existing regulatory situation and
bow it came about.
"You may not launch your canoe into the River from the Park
or launch in the Lake and paddle into the river, because if
you are run over by a powerboat the city may be held
liable". These words (approximately), recently spoken to
ne by a well meaning and competent member of the City's
Parks and Recreation staff, still ring irritatingly in
ears. This is apparently the "bottom line" regarding the
City's policy of not allc wing non -power craft access to
river from Lodi Lake Park, a conclusion I arrived at after
several lengthy phone calls to various members of the
City's P,-,rks and Recreation staff. What twisting peth has
led to this ironic policy? Please read on for my
interpretation.
93
L
17
Continued July 6, 1983
Sometime last year the city commissioned a study by a park
design consultant to provide a plan for the future of Lodi
Lake Park. ,among his many recommendations were that the
City do what it can to prevent the use of power boats on
the Mokelumne River adjacent to the Park because: 1) it
was causing severe bank erosion, contributing to loss of
soils and trees along the banks. 2) high speed power
boating (joy riding or water skiing) is fundamentally
dangerous because of the narrowness of the river and the
presence of snags and shoals, and 3) power boating (at
least by large and powerful boats) is inconsistent with the
desired future plans for the wilderness area, which is to
emphasize its wildlife habitat and nature study potential.
Cue to jurisdictional constraints the City is unable to
regulate boating on the river, so logically, it did what it
could to discourage these inappropriate activities, which
was to place booms and fences between the River and Lake
and restrict power boating on the Lake to specific times
and days. I believe these actions have had much of their
desired effect as it is my observation that there is
considerably less power boating on the river this year.
So, what's the problem?
The problem, to use a tired cliche, is that the baby has
been thrown out with the bathwater. The
"baby" in this
case is the legitimate use of the river
by people like
myself, some of which you will have the
opportunity to
console at the next council meeting, who
appreciate the
values of the Park, actively support its
protection, and
enjoy very much experiencing its beauty
by canoeing or
kayaking. Activities, which like hiking
do nothing to
damage the Park or disturb the use of the
Park by other
citizens. Through, to my mind, some narrow
bureaucratic
thinking, the City staff has decided
that the only
important consideration involved here is
the limiting to
zero of the City's liability by "protecting" rre from the
few power boaters left on the river.
Please examine this last conclusion from my perspective.
The very few power boats now encountered on the river
usually operated (sometimes responsibly and sometimes not)
by teenage members of families living along the river are
preventing rye from engaging in a wholesome family activity
consistent with the natural surrounding afforded by the
River. In actual fact on any given evening I an in effect
not able to use the river because of maybe one teenage kid
who wants to kneeboard or jet-ski. I hope you will
understand how nard it is to swallow that because I will
never be able to afford a $300,00 house on the river, I
will never again be able to take my family canoeing on the
river which flows only a few blacks from our home.
Please be clear on this. i am not asking that anyone else
be kicked off the river. In fact, qiven the economic and
political clout of those living along the river, I doubt
that the county could ever adopt restrictions on power
boating. Rather, I ask only that my ability to use the
river be restored. If the City would only get beyond this
overly paranoid concern about liability we could begin
working on the other, relatively minor concerns about where
canoes could launch on the river or get past the new gates.
test the City think there
is no downside risk
to continuing
its current policy on
boating,
I think
they should
seriously consider whose
use of
the Park
they should
encourage. It seems to ne the City
ought to
do as little
as possible to discourage
the use of
the Park
by the people
who care about it most and
wish to
use it in
appropriate
16
Continued July 6, 1988 .Exhibit "A'
ELECTIOM OF
OFFICERS
oamN [ N[C'ATIM
(CITY CLERK)
CLAIMS
CC -4(c)
in an area zoned R -C -P, Residential -Commercial
Professicnal. The Planning Commission wculd like
the applicant to return with additional information
on when the temporary office will be replaced with
a permanent facility.
b. The request of Joseph Canepa for a Use Pemiit to
operate a billiard and pool lounge at 400 East
Kettleman Lane in an area zoned C-2, General
Cominercial .
The following Planning Commission Officers were elected to
serve during the 1988-89 term:
Planning Commission Chairman Craig Rasmussen
Planning Commission Vice Chairman Larry Mindt
Cm motion of Council Meiiber Hinchman, Olson second, the City
Council denied the following claims and referred them back
to the City's Contract Administrator, ADJUSTCO:
a) Staria Hertel, DOL 3/13/88
b) Andrew Enzi, DOL 2/22/88
ACCESS OF NON -POWERED
BOATS TO THE MCKELUMNE
RIVER City Clerk Reimche presented the following ietter which had
been received from Patrick Coulston. 1431 Lake Street. Lodi,
CS -16 regarding access of non -power boats to the Mokelumne, River
CC -27(c) from Lodi Lake:
CC -40
"To the members of the Lodi City Council:
Recently. a new set of regulations have been adopted by the
City relating to boat access to the Mokelunne River from
Lodi Lake and Park. These regulations have ad the
unfortunate, unwarrsnted, and I hope unintended effect of
preventing the legal use of the Mokelumne River as i t flows
through Lodi for such wholesome and innocuous activities as
canoeing, rowing, and flat -water kayaking, except by those
few fortunate citizens able to vvm property adjacent to the
river. The primary purpose of this letter is to request
that the you include in the agenda of the next City Council
meeting (July 7, 1988), time to consider a revision of the
implementation of these new regulations. In addition. I
would like to use this letter as an opportunity to provide
for your consideration, prior to the upcoming City Council
meeting. my views on the existing regulatory situation and
how it carne about.
"You may not launch your canoe into the River from the Park
or launch in the Lake and paddle into the river. because if
you are run over by a powerboat the city may be held
liable". These words (approximately), recently spoken to
rre by a well meaning and competent member of the City's
Parks and Recreation staff. still ring irritatingly in
ears. This is apparently the "bottom line" regarding the
City's policy of not allowing nun -power craft access to
river from Lodi Lake Park, a conclusion I arrived at after
several lengthy phone calls to various members of the
City's Parks and Recreation staff. What twisting path has
led to this ironic policy? Please read on for my
interpretation.
17
Continued July 6, 1958
Sometime iast year the city commissioned a study by a park
design consultant to provide a plan for the future of Lodi
Lake Park. Among his many recommendations were that the
City do what i t can to prevent the use of power boats on
the Mokelumne River adjacent to the Park because: I) it
was causing severe bank erosion, contributing to loss of
soils and trees along the banks. 2) high speed power
boating (joy ridiny or water skiing) is fundamentally
dangerous because of the narrowness of the river and the
n presence of snags and shoals, and 3) power boating (at
least by large and powerful boats) is inconsistent with the
desired future plans for the wilderness area, which is to
emphasize its wildlife habitat and nature study potential.
Due to jurisdictional constraints the City is unable to
regulate boating on the river, so logically, it did what it
could to discourage these inappropriate activities, which
was to place booms and fences between the River and Lake
and restrict power boating on the Lake to specific times
and days. I believe these actions have had much of their
desired effect as it is my observation that there is
considerably less power boating on the river this year.
So, what's the problem?
The problem, to use a tired cliche, is that the baby has
been thrown out with the bathwater. The "baby" in this
case is the legitimate use o f the river by people like
myself, some of which you will have the opportunity to
console at the next council meeting, who appreciate the
values of the Park, actively support its protection, and
enjoy very much experiencing its beauty by canoeing or
keyaking. Activities, which like hiking do nothing to
damage the Park or disturb the use of the Park by other
citizens. Through, to ny mind, smw narrow bureaucratic
thinking, the City staff has decided that the only
important consideration involved here is the limiting to
zero of the City's liability by "protecting" ire from the
few power boaters left on the river.
Please examine this last conclusion from my perspective.
The very few power boats now encountered on the river
usually operated (sometimes responsibly and sometimes not)
by teenage members of families living along the river are
preventing nx from engaging in a wholesome family activity
consistent with the• natural surrounding afforded by the
River. In actual fact on any given evening I an in effect
not able to use the river because of maybe one teenage kid
who wants to kneeboard or jet-ski. I hope you will
understand how hard i t is to swallow that because I will
never be able to afford a 5300.00 house on the river, 1
will never again be able to take my family canoeing on the
river which flows only a few blocks from our home.
Please be clesr on. this. I an not asking that anyone else
be kicked off the river. In fact, given the economic and
political clout of those Jiving along the river, I doubt
that the county could ever adopt restrictions on power
boating. Rather, I ask only that my ability to use the
I river be restored. If the City would only get beyond this
overly paranoid concern about liability vie could begin
I— working on the other. relatively minor concerns about where
canoes could launch on the river or get past the row gates.
Lest the City think there is no downside risk to continuing
its current policy on boating, I think they should
seriously consider whose use of the Park they should
encotirage. It seems to nr the City ought to do as little
as possible to discourage the use of the Park by the people
who care about it most and wish to use it in appropriate
W
Continued July 6. 1988
ways. The City will have a hard enough tine keeping the
Park nice as Lodi grows without disenfranchising the people
who care about it most.
One last thought in a less hostile tone. I and, I an sure,
any of the people who regularly canoe or kayak on the river
would welcome the opportunity to take any of you on a
wonderful evening of gliding along the river as the beaver
become active and the cottonwood trees rustle in the cool
breeze to help you understand what has been taken from us
if the current policy on boating continues.
Sincerely,
s/Patrick Coulston
1431 Lake Street
Lodi, CA 95242
369-6245"
It Coulston was in the audience and addressed the City
Counc i 1 regarding the matter. A lengthy discussion
followed with question being directed" to staff and to Nt
Coulston.
Council Member Hinchman moved that this matter be referred
to the City Attcrney and to the Parks and Recreation
Department for review and recommendation, asking that i t be
brought back to the City Council at its Regular Meeting of
August 3, 1988. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro
Tempore Snider; however, failed to pass by the following
vote:
Ayes: Council Members - Hinchman
Noes : Council Members - Olson, Snider and
Pinkerton (Mayor)
Absent: Ccuncil Members - Reid
Additional discussion followed.
Mayor Pro Tempore Snider then moved that it was never the
intent of the City Council not to allow non -powered
crafts access to the river. The motion also directed that
the Parks and Recreation Department monitor the accessing
of non -powered crafts to the river from the Lodi Lake area,
for problems. The motion was seconded by Council Member
Hinchman and passed by the following vote:
Ayes : Council Members - Olson, Snider, and
Pinkerton (Mayor)
Noes = Ccuncil Members - Hinchman
Absent: Council Members - Reid
REGULAR CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM TO
OCNSM RESOLUTION
PROHIBITING THROUGH
THGCK TRAVEL ON
TURNER ROAD C10Nl qLM
TO REGULAR. CITY
COUNCIL MEETING
OF JULY 20, 1988
10
EXHIBIT B
City of Lodi
Lodi Lake Park
Boating Schedule
and
Rules and Regulations
-fodl I(Patki and
�sc�a.Eon L���a.zEmFnt
125 North Stockton Street
Cosh, California 95240
333-6742
BOATING SCHEDULE
. MONDAY' WEDNESDAY - hit1DAY
Power beats - 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. to dusk.
Power boats will not be allowed on the lake while the City's boat rental
concession is in cperatirn.
(Northern California Power Boat Association races Sunday, 10:00 a.m. to
4:00 p.m., 6129-30).
TUESDAY- THURSDAY - SATURDAY
Non -power boats - 8:00 a.m. to dusk (canoes, kayaks) .
BOAT RENTALS - 12:00 Noon to 6:00 p.m. daily.
BOAT RENTALFEEs
2 Em PacK Boats
$2 per 'k hour
4 -Man Pacbl Boats
$3per 'A hour
Kayaks
$1.50 per V2 hour
Fun Kayaks
$2 per 1h hour
Paddle Boards
$1 per 'A hour
Aqua -cycles
$4.75 per 'f2 hour
BOAT LAUNCH FEE - $4 per boat
Lodi Lake Park and the boat launch close at dusk.
IN CASE OF EMERGENCY OR NEED FOR ASSISTANCE, PLEASE CONTACT ME
PPM< PATROL VESICLE IN THE PARK OR TGE FRONT GATE ADMISSIONS
AIIENDANr.
Rev. 6112/91
LODI LAKE PARK BOATING REGULATIONS ? ;'
1. All California Boating Laws will be enforced unless local boating
regulations supersede same herein.
2. All boaters cost adhere to the City of Lodi/Lodi Lake Park
day/time/craft schedule.
3. All boats must be launched at launch area only.
4. Jet skis, wet -bikes, or motor -powered surfboards are allowed on -ate E
lake on designated days.
5. No swimming, inner -tubes, or air mattresses allowed on the lake
except in desigmtedswimming areas.
6. Boat docking only at boat dock area.
7. Only three (3) power boats/motorized craft at one time on lake. V -
drives, in -board jets, and in -board drives are not allowed.
8. No boats are allowed in the beach area.
9. No boating is allowed after dark.
a
10. Life jachets must be tai by mirrxs (under 18 years of�_:).
lnviduals 18 years of age or older must have Coast Gard approved
flotation devices in the boat or craft.
11. All power boats must operate in a counter -clockwise direction.
12. Park RangemBoat House Attendants will be monitoring all boating
activities,,nd shall be under the Parkc and Recreation Department's
authority and direction for control and safety of the Lodi Lake area.
EXHIBIT C
Pg. I of 3
Lodi Parks and Recreation Department
125 N. Stockton Street
Lodi, California 95240
Parks 369-1251 Recreation 333-6742
MEMORANDUM
To: Ron Williamson, Director Parks and Recreation
From: Scott Frssin, Parks Superintendent
Date: August 26, 1991
sd)*c : Frank C. Alegre Letter of August 1, 1991
Mr. Alegre addresses several issues regarding the Lodi Lake Nature area as follows:
Condition of the levies - As you know, we recently toured the Nature Area and I pointed
out to the City Council the need to protect the Ievies. It is as Mr. Alegre states. Trees are
falling in the river and the bank needs some treatment whether it be rip rap or other to prevent
further erosion.
Patrollinz of the Nature Area - With us trying to cover 25 parks and 275 acres of land,
we're doing what we reasonably can vkh the staff we have and have been allocated. I'd like
to see one ranger at Lake and one patrolling other parks during prime time uses. We have
provided as much daytime patrol as I would consider reasonable. However, after 11:00 P.M.,
we do not have the manpower to patrol Lodi Lake or any other park. As you will remember,
we requested additionalrangers this year and Council was unable to fund thesepositions because
of our current finaneialcondition. (See attached budget requests for additional park rangers plus
the park patrol schedule €orJune through October 1991).
Qs request to the County to establish a San 7pagyin Counly Regional Park on Highway
99 - Since the river is currently the responsibility of the County Sheriff for patrol purposes, the
additionalpark would have provided a good reason for the County to patrol the river on a more
frequent basis.
Illf,�gai`ca=fire is - I spoke to Lloyd gums on the illegal campfire issue and he
informs me he did respond to find a small hibachi going in the Nature Area. The ranger asked
the people to move their picnic into the main park area.
I will be contacting Duke Foster to see if there are funds available for protecting the levy
in the Nature Area. This is a major problem. Should a major storm happen, we could lose our
levee at Pig's Lake.
EXHIBIT C
Pg. 2 of 3
Subject: Memo to Ron Williamson - Page 2
Subject: Frark;Alegre Letter of August 1, 1991
An issue not addressed by Frank Alegre's letter has to do with our current radio sys6an
used by the rangers. Attached is a memo sent to me by Marilyn Field Mich describes her
absolute frustration with our current radio systErn and our park rangers. She is unable to get
through ID them when she needs them. Based on this memo and my own problems on contacting
the rangers at tsnas, I included a budget qu e s t for new radios that would solve the rangers'
problems and also problems we are experiencing in the Parks Division. Because of our budget
situatin, the entire request was thrown out and no funds were allocated to solve our inability
to contact park rangers. (See attached letter and budget request.)
There seems to be a continued demand by the public for park ranger services. The
Nature Area is adjacent to private residences who expect services beyond what v e can provide.
The Nature Area Advisory Committee has recommended fencing in the Nature Ara3 in order
to provide secuirity and to allow us to close the pmk during certain hours. This option is one
provided for in the Lodi Lake Master Plan; however, we currently do not have the funds to
install such a fence.
Another option would be to organize volunteer groups to walk the lake area with radios
only. This program has been proposed but is dependent upon hiring the interpretive ranger
requested in this year's budget. This solution assumes that radios could be provided to the
volunteers who would walk the Nature Area and other parks. Depending upon the extent of the
program and number of radios required, we would again be looking at additional funds to
purchase these radios. Each radio costs approximately $2,000.00 apiece -
SE srb
Attachments
-8a
9a
10a
Ila
12p
1p
2F
3g
—4r
5F
61
7;
91
101
22�
12i
1z
2z
3i
Lodi Par' and Recreation Department EXHIBIT C
Pa_xs Ranger Schedule
June through October 3.991 Pg. 3 of 3
B- Barbara
L- Lloyd
R- Roger
Rev. 6/19/Si
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
B
B
Mr
m
B
B
B
M_
M;
R
R
R
ai
1
M
L
L
L
R
R
L
L
mf
`
i
m�f
IM
IM
IM
«i
:m
;
+
LM
M
1!
r
Ln'�
B- Barbara
L- Lloyd
R- Roger
Rev. 6/19/Si
EXHIBIT B
City of Lodi
Lodi Lake Park
Boating Schedule
and
Rules and Regulations
ZodL .(Pa&i and
,:Rzc-a t on L���iaztrn�nt
125 North l Street
Lodi,a! 95240
333-6742
CITY OF LODI
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
BOATING SCIIEDULE LODI LAKE PARI{ BOATING REGULATIONS
'AONDAY - WEDNESDAY - FRIDAY
1.
All California Boating Laws will be enforced unless local boating
?ower boars - 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. to dusk.
regulations supersede same herein.
?ower boats will not be allowed on the lake while the City's boat cental
z.
All boaters must adhere to the City of Lodi/Lodi Lake Park
=cession is in .
day/timelcraft schedule.
3.
All boats must be launched at launch amen only.
Northern California Power Boat Association racesSunday, 10:00 a.m. to
t:00 p.m., 6/29-30).
4.
Jet skis, Wiles, or motor -powered surfboards are allowed on the
lake on designated days.
TUESDAY - THURSDAY - SATURDAY
$•
No swimming, inner -tubes, or air mattresses allowed on the lake
Von -power boats - 8:00 a.m. to dusk (canoes, kayaks) .
except in deslgnated swimming areas.
6.
Boat docking only at boat dock area.
BOAT RENTALS - 12:00 Noon to 6:00 p.m. daily.
7.
Oniy three (3) power boats/motorized craft at one time on ]alae. V -
BOAT RENTAL FEES
drives, in -board jets, and in -board drives are not allowed.
2 -Man Pedal Boats $2 per 'h hour
8.
No boars are allowed in the beach area.
4 -Man Pedal Boats S3 per'h hour
Kayaks $1.50 per V2 hoer
9.
No boat -.ng is allowed after dark
Fun Kayaks S2 per th hour
Paddle Boards SI per 1h hour
10.
Life jackets must be worn by minors (under 18 ),,-ars of age).
Aqua -cycles $4.75 per 'fi hour
Inviduals 18 years of age or older must have Coast Guard approved
flotation devices in the boat or craft.
BOAT LAUNCH FEE - $4 per boat
11.
All power boat,, must operate in a counter-clo,:kwise direction.
Lodi Lake Park and the boat launch close at dusk.
12.
Park RangetslBoat House Attendants will be monitoring all boating
activities and shall be under the Parks and Recreation Department's
IN CASE OFEMERGENCY OR NEED FOR ASSISTANCE, PLEASE CONTACTTRE
authority and direction for control and safety of the Lodi Lake area.
PARK PATROL VEHICLE IN THE PARK OR THE FRONT GATE ADMISSIONS
4TTENDANT.
Rev. 6/12/91
4 September 1991
Lodi City Council:
I have several comments regarding public access to the
Mokelumne River -that I would like you to consider in your
deliberations on this important topic. The Mokelurnne River is,
by far, our city's most significant public., natunal scenic and
recreational resource. As such, matters relating to the River's
conservation and use are among the most important under the
purview of the Council. I emphasize the word "public" to point
out that the river does not belong to the citizens that live
along it, and that the city simply must take into account the
desires and rights of the 48,000 citizens living south of Turner
Road when making decisions about the River.
Previous decisions by the City Council, some of them made
quietly and perhaps illegally, have led to the situation where
public access to the River has become severly restricted. To my
knowlege, through a combination of the abandoment of public owned
easements along the river and very restrictive regulations in
Lodi bake Park, it is now essentually against the law for a
citizen of Lodi who does not own property along the River to even
wade in its waters.
For those, like myself and many of my friends and family,
who enjoy canoeing and kayaking on the river there is a tenuous
access point at Lodi Lake Park's boat ramp. I say tenuous
because of two personal experiences. The first of these occured,
I think, about 3 years ago when a Lodi Lake Park ranger told me
as I enter --d the Park that I could not paddle from the Lake to
the River. This was apparently a misunderstanding that was
cleared up when I called the City. An even more disturbing event
oeeuned last suruner. on this occassion I lauched my canoe at the
1
Lodi Lake Park boat ramp to take my 10 year-old son and a friend
of his fishing. As we were fishing from our boat along the tule
beds downstream from the Park the manager or owner of a trailer
park belligerently, but very sincerely, informed us that we were
"trespassing on private property" and demanded to know where we
had launched. when I told him he said "I have an agreement with
the city that they will not allow people in boats to leave the
Lake." After some strenuous debate and my refusal to leave he
took down ny "CF°f numbers and called the police. W went about
our buisness and were not contacted by the police, but the
encounter left rye wondering whether, in the cities eyes, i was
allowed to access the River as I had. Although I am disturbed by
the City's generally atrocious record in providing public access
to the River, I would feel much better if the City would affirm
that non -motorized craft can be launched at Lodi Lake Lake Park
and taken from there into the River.
I think the City Council's approach on dealing with public
access to the river, has created a monster. The monster I am
refering to are the few privileged citizens living on the River
who have, in recent newspaper interviews, made statements like
..if they want access to the river they should buy it.. ." and
"...greater public access should not be allowed because I would
be exposed to more crime..". These statements are patently
absurd and the City Council should, on behalf of the 93% of Lodi
citizens whose access to the River is being illegally restricted,
denounce these statements and begin the job of providing public
access that is consistant with public safety and conservation of
the River. Given the City's past actions it is not surprising
that the few citizens who now have essentually exclusive private
use of what. is, in fact, public property would feel violated by
talk of expanded access. Although the City is right to consider
their concerns, more weight than has previously keen given must
be given in the future to the broader public interest and the
law. I was very happy to see the City Attorney recently
2
acknowleqe that the City is, by law, supposed to provide public
access in association with development. In a conversation I had
with him a few years ago he disagreed with me about this and was
making statements like we can't tell developers what to do
with their property.. ." .
To the riparian landowner who says I should pay for access,
I say - YESS!! I should, and am willing, to pay entrance fees,
some othex user fee, or part of my taxes to support the
maintenance and patrol of a public access point. To the riparian
landowner that says that their security or peace would be
violated by additicnal access, I say their concerns should be
addressed in planning the access but they have no more right to
prevent me from using the River than I have to prevent them from
driving down the street in front of my house.
I am going to conclude this letter by saying that I do not
pretend to know exactly how the City Council should address the
subject of public access to the River. It is a complicated
subject and deserves careful consideration. Perhaps the
following would be a reasonable approach:
I ) Affirm the right of public access to the river from
Lodi Lake Park.
2) Take steps to maintain and recover whatever public
access options the City has let slip away in recent
residential developments. By this I do not mean that
immediate access should be provided at these points but
rather that the options be maintained until an overall
access plan has been devised.
3) Create a xepresentative citizen's committee committed
to the establishment of reasonable public access
consistent with reasonable concerns about puplic
3
safety and conservation of the Rlver.
4) Implement the recommendations of the aforementioned
committee.
cc: Robert McNatt
Ron Williamson
i
sincexly,
Patrick Coulston
1431 Lake St.
Lodi, CA 95242
(2f 369-6245
4
M E M O R A N D U M
-------------------
-------------------
TO: The Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
FROM : City Attorney
DATE : September 4, 1991
SUBJ : Mokelumne River Access Through Rivergate
The topic of public access along the Mokelumne River has been discussed at
length recently and the Council has previously been advised of some of the
circumstances surrounding the City's relinquishment of access through the
Rivergate Subdivision. Some of tri original suspicions were confirmed by
further search of City's records.
Attached are copies of the map for the Rivergate Subdivision, a tram from
City Attorney Ron Stein dated March 19, 1980, and minutes of the City
Council meeting of April 2, 1980. These indicate the public access was
originally a condition on the subdivision nrp dated January 1980 (and
possibly earlier maps). The 20 -foot wide easement extended from Rivergate
Drive through tot 72 and along the riverbank.
The easement abandonment was sought not because of lack of public use (as I
originally believed) but because it was not deemed necessary. On April 2,
1980, the City Council made findings that access via Lodi Lake Park and
through the Scenic Overlook, (site of the former City landfill), was
adequate and so removed the Rivergate map condition requiring access.
Respectfully submitted,
2W WC
Bob McNatt
City Attorney
BMN :br
Attachments
CCCOM308JTXTA.07A
10`Z
April 1�,198C continued
Mayor Pro Tempore Katnich then moved for introduction
f Ordinance No. 1196 - adopting the "Uniform Tire
C de", 1979 Edition. The motion was seconded by
Co ncilman Pinkerton and carried by unanimous vote.
ORD. 1:0. 1136,
Mayo Pro Tempore Katnich then moved for introduction
1197, 1198, 1199,
of 0. inance No. 1197 - adopt?ng the "Llniform Building
1200, 1201
Code", 1979 Edition with the aforementioned amend -
INTRODUCTION
ment wh reby the City Council is designatedto _
sit as a Board of Appeals. TYe motion was seconded
by Counc- man Pinkerton and carried by unanimous
vote.
Mayor Pro T Tpore Katnich then -moved for intro-
duction of 0 dinance No. 1198 - adopting the "Uniforni
Plumbing Code . 1979 Edition. The notion was
seconded by Co ncilman Pinkerton and carried by
unanimous vote.
Mayor Pro Tempore Katnich mo%ed for introduction
Ordinance No. 1199 - adopting the "Uniform Mechanical
Code", 1979 Edition The motion was seconded by
Councilman Pinkerton and carried by unanimous vote.
Mayor Pro Tempore Kat "ch moved for introduction of
Ordinance No. 1200 - a pting the "Uniform Housing
Code", 1979 Edition. T motion was seconded by
Councilman Pinkerton and arried by unanimous vote.
Mayor Pro Tempore Katnich ved for introduction of
Ordinance No. 1201 - adopti tie "Uniform Code
for the'Abatement of Dangero 's Buildings", 1979
Edition. The motion was sato dad by Councilman
ote.
Pinkerton and carried by unani\ne
HOLLY DRIVE
jt!
Notice thereof having been maithe property
STREET LIGHTING
owners and also published and in accordance
DISTRICT ASSESS-
with law, affidavits of which file in the
HENT
office of the City Clerk, Mayoakian called
for the DUblic hearing on the ent for the
CONFIRMED
Holly Drive Street Lighting Dt.RES.
NO. 80-53
The matter was introduced by Cni r Glaves
and City Clerk Reimche and botCit Manager
and City Clerk responded to qus re rding
the subject as were posed by ty Cou il.
There were no persons in the audience wishi to
address the Council on the matter, and the D blit
portion of the hearing was closed.
Following discussion, on motion of Mayor Fro
utlA�t "t�m&zliha `au*L U e 9aFr6.9+ffiC'<„ �.O�lLt1.C.+1.1 a4cpLsd,
Resolution No. 80-53 confirming the assessment on
the Holly Drive Street Lighting District. The
motion carried by unanimous vote.
Notice thereof having been published in accordance
MOKELUMNE
with law and affidavit of publication being on
file in the office of the City Clerk, Mayor
—�
Katzakian called for the Public Hearing to consider
ACCESS
the appeal of George Zofcir, of John C. Cope
Company Properties incorporated of a conditi.in
specified in the approval of the Tentative Map
of Rivergate - 14.86 acre, 69 unit, zero lot lint?
single-family development proposed for the north
side of `Nest Turner Road, east and west of River -
gate Drive in an ares zoned P -D (S), Planned
Development District "lo. 5; naaely, ,
April 2, 1980 continued
103
"That public access be provided to
the Mokelumne River along the west an:!
north sides of Lot ?2, Rivergate as was
originally required in the approval
of the Rivergate Mokelumne Subdivision".
The matter was introduced by Community i)evelopment
Director Schroeder who presented a diagram of the
subject area for Council's perusal.
Speaking on behalf of the appeal were:
a. Mr. George Zo_`cin of John C. Cope Compnay
Properties, Inc., 555 West Benjamin Holt Drive, Suite
316, Stockton, California.
b. Mr. John Kindseth, speaking on behalf of the
Rivergate Homeowners Association.
Mr. Robert Murphy, 746 Palm Avenue, Lodi asked if
the subject area was contiguous to the City's Scenic
Overlook area. Community Development Director
Schroeder responded that it was no;.
There being nc other persons in the audience wishing
to speak on the matter, the public portion of the
hearing was closed.
"Pursuant to Government Code Section
66478.6, the City Council of the City
of Lodi determined that adequate public
access to the Mokelumne River exists at
Lodi Lake Park and therefore removed
the requirement for such public access
in the Rivergate Subdivision"
The heretofore stated findings will appear on both
the Tentative and Subdivision Haps of Rivergate
Subdivision.
The motion was seconded by Councilman Hughes and
carried by the following vote:
Ayes : Councilmen - Hughes, Katnich, Pinkerton,
i and Katzakian
Noes : Councilmen McCarty
Absent: Councilmen - None
Notice thereof having been published in accordance
with law and affidavit of publication being on file
in the office of the City Clerk, Mayor Katzakian
called for the Publc Hearing to consider the
appeal of Mc Vernon Ekstrom regarding the following
conditions set forth in the approval for a Tentative
Parcel Map to divide the existing 1.69 acre Lot at
490 East Kettleman Lane, Lodi into three parcels:
MIE
Following Council discussion, with questions being
APPEAL RE
posed to Staff, on motion of Councilman Pinkerton,
PROVISION TfiAT
Council approved the appeal of George Zofcin of John
PUBLIC ACCESS BE
C. Cope Company Properties, Inc. of a condition
PROVIDED ALONG
specified in the approval of the Tentative Map of
AREA OF RIVERSATE
Rivergate - a 111.86 acre, 69 unit, zero lot- line
SUBDIVISION
single-family development proposed for the north
side of West Turner Road, east and west of Rivergate
APPROVED
Drive in an area zoned P D (5) that public access be
provided to the Mokelumne River along the west and
�y
north sides of Lot 72, Rivergate, as was originally
"
required in the approval of the Rivergate Mokelumne
Subdivision with the following findings :
"Pursuant to Government Code Section
66478.6, the City Council of the City
of Lodi determined that adequate public
access to the Mokelumne River exists at
Lodi Lake Park and therefore removed
the requirement for such public access
in the Rivergate Subdivision"
The heretofore stated findings will appear on both
the Tentative and Subdivision Haps of Rivergate
Subdivision.
The motion was seconded by Councilman Hughes and
carried by the following vote:
Ayes : Councilmen - Hughes, Katnich, Pinkerton,
i and Katzakian
Noes : Councilmen McCarty
Absent: Councilmen - None
Notice thereof having been published in accordance
with law and affidavit of publication being on file
in the office of the City Clerk, Mayor Katzakian
called for the Publc Hearing to consider the
appeal of Mc Vernon Ekstrom regarding the following
conditions set forth in the approval for a Tentative
Parcel Map to divide the existing 1.69 acre Lot at
490 East Kettleman Lane, Lodi into three parcels:
MIE
ig"a No 1RAND vK
nt
�W.W.
•�' �''
4a:
Henry A. Glows, City Mawwager
James B. Schroeder, ammunity Developmefit
Director
Props
Manald K. Stein, City Attareiey
VXz
- Public Access to Public Resources and
Surplus Unimproved Land
Datez
parch 19, 1980
Recently, the question came up regarding the salo of the
Scenic overlook property as well as the. access to the diver
within the Rivergate Subdivision (Cope properties project).
Attached hersto for your review are two recent 'California
Statutes regarding public access to public resources and
surplus unimproved laced sales.
Article 3.5 - Public Access to Public Resources Code pe.ovidss
that the Legislature, when approving a tentative or final SW
_wrr there is property adjacent to a public waterway, most,
In order to approve a map, make a fin! -'-%g that there is access
to the public waterway. Said access must be sham on the
tentative and final map.
The legislative body can find that there is reasonable access
available within a reasonable distance from the subdivision
and, therefore, that the awneatioe on the mop need not be us".
noeeevor, said :.:coding. mut be not forth ern the face of the
tentative or final map.
As to the issue of the sale of surplus property. Article 8 at
Section 54220 et seq. has been added to the Government bode to
vwp re that prior to the solo of surplus property ;E would
assume Beanie overlook would fall within this category), the
City most offer the land for park and recreation purposes, aad
&leo to any housing authority within which the 'and is situated
(E don•t believe San Joaquin County Housing Authority would be
involved .here) . Said of got!" would be to .pecu t the U.". of
au
the ld for paries, recreation or for housing for: low ore�odibr-
ate income persons. I would assume that we would, tbma tvoeive
a letter back fr-1 both agencies or one agency saying that
tbay do not need the land for those purposes and we Mould
keep same on file before offering said land to the publics
for sale.
In the cane of the sale of Scenic Overlock, since said prop -
arty will eventually be subdivided, I would assume that
either a parcel map or a tentative asp would have to be
filed and the Legislature Mould have to asks some .datez"na-
tion at that time au to whether there was a public access or
wbather there was other public access nearby. It has been
suggested by the tbam mity Development Department that perhaps
we can get Songuinetti and Arnais to dedicate a public access
at the other end of the property is return for the access at
Scenic overlook.
upon review of the attached Sections, please call upon so to
discuss sane.
5 TS
TSIN
CITY ATTOPIM
RM zvc
attachments
5': �f' i;i: `4,..r 'Y' 4°46i•.�o* [ .'7 � .. - .. ... .� - y'R.+. � w�+�-.+!-c <
w �VC.
RAWr sK
0 a
``� s
PEMAT7 AP r
J!�
Ajilm Aft~ A AV
a! t/,rrw P s
sr
Aedribdr
r . wrri�s *"i
f s ssN AWN&,, a saes nr
I7 r Ar i Awe AM f!
tp P.dtKlt Y' _
9 LAMIAAI /6 r -S �
AWWW AM
r ddr4A/W�W ~ Ilw— wA i
4waW AW
v .eYau Q
J
Aw
r.
.e�wr nor « I t ♦ t ! ` + ANW w i .ad+AW Aor-- � AM {
-dW%W wr r
..+� �..
.� o s
...i
goo.. .� r I - g..• � r ; � (] '�►+� IMni- - � 1IaI
14r Imo' � a
+� '°
-
I 1 ♦ ; y Ar x x Ar n p n 0010 A AAI dW 4 OrA!
T!/RNER ROAO
rt
i a
`F.
NOTICE OF MSLIC
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY COUNCIL Or THE
CM OF LODI TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL OF GEORGE ZOrCIN
OF JOHN C. COPE COMPANY PROPERTY INCORPORATED OF A
CONDITION SPECIFIER IN THE APPROVAL Or TRE TENTATIVE
MAP Or RMRGATE A 14.86 ACRE, 69 UNIT, ZERO LOT LIKE
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPHENT PROPOSED FOR THE mORM SID!:
OF WEST TURNER ROAD, EAST AND WEST Or RIVERQATE DRjvE
ij IN AN AREA ZOWED P -D (S). PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
NO. -5
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, April 15, 1980, at the
hour of 8:00 p,m, or as soon thereafter as the matter nay be
heard, the Lodi City Council will conduct a public hearing in
the Council Chambers, City Hall, 221 West Pine Street, Lodi,
California to consider the appeal of George Zofcin of John C.
Cope Company Property Incorporated of a condition specified in
the approval of the Tentative Hap of Rivergate a IS.86 acre, 69 -
unit, zero lot line, single-family development proposed for the
north side of West Turner Road, east and west of Rivergate Drive
in an area zoned P -D (5), Planned Development District No. 5.
as follows.
That public access be provided to the Mokelumne River
along the west and north sides of Lot 72, Rivergate a6 was orig-
inally reqttried in the approval of the Rivergate Mokelumne Sub-
division.
Information regarding this item may be obtained in the
office of the Community Development Director at 221 W. Pine Street,
Lodi, California. All interest�_,d persons are invited to present
their views either for or against the above proposal. Written
statements may be filed with the City Clerk at any time prior to
the hearing secheduled herein and oral statements may be aade at
said hearing.
Dates April 2, 1980
by Order of the City Council
ALICE N. 3E
wtv'wo 0-V X-ftv