Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - June 3, 1981 (60)COMPLAINT RECEIVED RE MOKELUMNE RIVER HAZARDS TO BOATERS IN AREA Council asked the City Clerk to respond to a letter which had been received from the River— gate Mokelumne Homeowners Association regarding hazards to boaters which exist on the Mokelumne River as it passes that subdivision. ..-RIVERGATE;NOKELUMME HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Post Office Box 751 Lodi. CA 95241 May 22, -1-981 City Council City of Lodi -221-- West Pine- Street Lodi, -C& -95240 Gent-Temen: It has come to our attention that hazards to boaters exist on- the -Yakelumne River as it passes our subdivision. Sub- merged logs.posea hazard to boats, boaters and skiers as they pass - -up and down the river. In turn, Targe, -hi speed boats with or without skiers pose a hazard- to smal-l-er boats and/or intertubes frequently operated by -children We -do not know who is responsible for posh -W.and -jai-nta-in- Ing speed limits in the River or Identifying submerged hazards. ,We are- therefore- askU4-you,the CIty, Count -i'#, for your help eliminating these hazards. As members of the community, we want the Mokelumne to be safe for all those people using It. Very truly yours, BOARD OF DIRECTORS W. H. Libbey Secretary -Treasurer WHL:daz MY WOW mr-Aftsuk JL Sam, We Sams 71 tbw et e NOW - 77777 YWAiM CW Cleft mr-Aftsuk JL Sam, We Sams tbw NOW - 77777 YWAiM CW Cleft ti ® am Ooe t.. " jn ' -..r._�..-s....,.+.r-..++�.�a-...,w�.......-.+.v�.wh.'![tW+M'u.-...urY.,a.. -... tr.....�..'..-.� ... _...moi!' ® am Ooe � i _�. .�. �, t: � _,. Y ._.. .. ..._..... _... ..- .... ..._... �_ "� T''4 s STYCOUNCIL RICHARD L HUGHES,. Mayou JAMES W. PINKERTON. Jr.. Mayor Pro T«w EZRA EHRHARDT WALTER KATNKH REN SCHAFFER CITY OF LODI Pla,inina ..Director City Ball Lodi, CA 95240 Dear Jim: CITY HALL. 221 \NEST PING STRERT LODI. CALIFORNIA 95240 ( 209) 368-0641 Octo'a:t_r 15, 1573 HENRY A. C4AVES, Jr. CityMmaqw MISS BESSIE BENNETT City Clerk R06ER7 H. AAULLEN City Attorewy You have asked my opinion regarding t1.c requirements of Pualic Resources Coda Section 1000, at seq. Division 10 containing Sections 10000, et seg, of the Public resources Code became effective '..arch 4, 1972. The preamble in this division recites the findings of the Legislature and their declaration that by reason of the fact that the public natural resources of the state are limited and the population is grimaing that it is necessary to increase the need for utilization of public natural resourcas, and in Section 10001 it is stated increase in population has also increased demand for private property adjacent to public natural resources through real estate subdivision developments WaicAh resulted in diminishing public access to public natural resources." Finally, the Legislature further finds that it is essential to the haalth and well being of t'cie citizens of the state that public access to public natural resources be increased. (Section 10002) You may recall Uiat there were decisions affecting property along the coast in Santa Cruz and in Mendocino County that prompted this legislation. These decisions recognized that in the factual situation of those cases, the public for many years had gained acc�!ss to the ocean over private proparty, and the courts held that an easement in the public had been obtained and would be preserved. Section 10020 staters that "iso city ... shall approve eitihar a tentative or a final r.iap of any proposed subdivision to be fronted upon a public waterway, rivar, or stream which does not provide or have available reasonable public access by fen or easement from a pu'alic highway to that portion of the bank of the river or stream bordering or lying within the proposed subklivision". U Ja..,res S-%hrocdsr OctoJer 15, 1;73 Pages .`.•7o -Liiis SsctioI. goE's on to sta'�, t`_,ar 2u.>lic acc(is i sion• �. � � • . a ; hall be o_ ,.cr,: i:•e... i�Y ..�L c_ ty .. :�r� .i :aa':i=;g tiiu dctorniinaiion of %-Kiat a::all I.r the city ,hall consider t',02 followina - 1. That the 3ccQss ray be ?iig.n:ay, foot, bikes, or horse trail or any other raaans of travel. 2. The size of the subdivision. 3. The type of river bank and the various appropriate recreational, educational, and scientific us3s including but not limited to swimming, diving, boating, fishing, water skiing, scientific collection and teaching. 4. The likelihood of trespass on private property and reasonable means of avoiding such trespasses." Section 10021 is identical with Section 10020 except that this section calls for the providing for the "dedication of a public easement along a portion of the bank. of the river or stream bordering or lying within the proposed subdivision". As you can sea, Section 10020 provides for the access through the subdivision and Section 10021 rrovides for an easement along the waterway. Section 10021 stresses that the extent and character of the easement referred to shall be "reasonably defined to achieve reasonable public use of the public waterway, river or stream consistent with public safety. The reasonable- ness and extent of the easement shall be determined by the city....". In determining what is reasonable, the following elements are to be considered: "l. That the easement may be for a foot, bike, or horse trail" (note these restrictions). 2. The size of the subdivision. 3. The type of river bank and the various appropriate recreational, educational, and scientific uses, including but not limited to swimming, diving, boating, fishing, water skiing, scientific collection, and teaching. 4. The likelihood of trespass on private property and reasonable means of avoiding such trespasses. e Ja::i&;:s Schroeder "October 15, 1973 Pag,: Thrdr-- C� FLially, it should be noted that section 10022 states ti-iat the foregoing easements shall be shown on the final map and show the governmental entity to which the dedication is being offered. The governmental agency has three years within which to accept the offer, and unless accepted, the dedication shall be deemed abandoned. The first question is whether Sections 10020, et seq., of the Public Resources Code apply to the subdivision under consideration in view of the fact that a tentative map was filed and approved prior to March 4, 1972. By reason of the fact that the sections state that "no city .... shall approve either a tantative or a final ma of any proposed subdivision...", it would be my opi in on that the sections do apply to this particular development as no final map has been approved. It is to be borne in mind that the foregoing statute has been adopted for application statewide. The Legislature: must have realized that every factual situation could not be covered by the statute where a subdivision borders on a public waterway. I make this conclusion based on the use of the words in the statute in Section 10020(b) that "reasonable public access shall be deterruned" and guidelines are lien set forth. Again, in Section 10021(b) where the extent of the public easement "shall be reasonably defined to achieve reasonable public use...consisten� t with public safety. The reasonableness and extent shall be determined by the city...." It is therefore my opinion that it is up to the planning corunission and/or city council to ultimately determine whether "reasonable public access...." as well as a public casement can be "reasonably defined to achieve reasonable public use consistent with public safety" should be required in any subdivision bordering the Mokelumne river. In arriving at your decision, some of the items that come to mind for consideration are: Has the public used any portion of the particular subdivision for access to the prop3rty for a period of time as was the factual situation in the two cases above referred to. What should be the reasonable width of the access to the property. In my opinion, it should not be greater than 20 feet. Jamas Schroeder OcL-o3ar 15, 1973 Paye Four Should vehicular traffic he permitted, or only foot traffic? What uses aro to be made of the easement? The easements, if established, would be publicly owned with attendant cost of maintenance, upkeep, and liability to the city. What provisions will be macre for public parking for those persons using the easements? The easement contemplated by Section 10021 is limited to a foot, bike, or horse trail. Where would this begin and where would it end? RHM:lks CC: Carlyn F. Reid 0 Very truly yours, Romer, 'i.len City Attorney e. o Jamas Schroeder OcL-o3ar 15, 1973 Paye Four Should vehicular traffic he permitted, or only foot traffic? What uses aro to be made of the easement? The easements, if established, would be publicly owned with attendant cost of maintenance, upkeep, and liability to the city. What provisions will be macre for public parking for those persons using the easements? The easement contemplated by Section 10021 is limited to a foot, bike, or horse trail. Where would this begin and where would it end? RHM:lks CC: Carlyn F. Reid 0 Very truly yours, Romer, 'i.len City Attorney S!. RIVERGATE MOKELUMNE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Post Office Box 791 Lodi, CA 95241 May 22, 1981 City Council ° City of Lodi 221 West Pine Street Lodi, CA 95240 Gentlemen: It has come to our attention that hazards to boaters exist on the Mokelumne River as it passes our subdivision. Sub- merged logs pose a hazard to boats, boaters, and skiers as they pass up and down the river. In turn, large, high- speed boats with or without skiers pose a hazard to smaller boats and/or intertubes frequently operated by children. We do not know who is responsible for posting and maintain- ing speed limits in the River or identifying submerged hazards. We are therefore asking you, the City Council, for your help eliminating these hazards. As members of the community, we want the Mokelumne to be safe for all those people using it. Very truly yours, BOARD OF DIRECTORS W. H. Libbey Secretary -Treasurer WHL:daz i