Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - April 2, 1997 (63)of CITY OF LODI AGENDA TITLE: Reject Cal -Boating Grant Offer MEETING DATE: April 2, 1997 PREPARED BY: Parks and Recreation Director COUNCIL COMMUNICATION RECOMMENDED ACTION: That City Council accept the recommendation of the Parks and Recreation Commission to reject the Cal -Boating Grant offer for the Lodi Lake Boat Launching Facility. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On February 18, 1997, the Parks and Recreation Commission held a public forum to gather input from the community in relationship to the Cal -Boating Grant to build a new boat ramp and support facilities in the west side undeveloped 13 acres of Lodi Lake Park. The overwhelming consensus at the public meeting was in opposition of the city going forward with the project and to turn the project down, thereby declining the state grant. Issues and concerns that came forward from the public audience included the following: • The increased boat traffic would add to an already unsafe carrying capacity of the river to accommodate water craft. • The increase boat traffic would add to the erosion of shorelines due to increase in boating activity. • Building the boat ramp would significantly alter the aesthetics of the lake and in particular, the west side. • A 5 MPH speed limit and enforcement of same should be implemented in the river regardless of whether the boat ramp is built or not. At the March 4, 1997 regular meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission, Commission voted 4-1 in favor of rejecting the grant and forwarding this recommendation to the City Council. FUNDING: No city funding is effected by th' re ommend ion. Loss of a $412,000 grant to begin development of the wes side a a ' Ron Williamson Parks and Recreation Director Prepared by Dwight Dauber, Parks Superintendent APPROVED: N FL recycled paper H. 61X& City Manager CC -1 E:-17 April 1, 1997 Mayor Phil Pennino Lodi City Council Members Dear Sirs: This is a quick note to once again state my outlook regarding the ongoing "Lodi Lake 13 Acre/Boat Ramp" proposal. Attached are the details of my viewpoint which have been presented at the Parks & Recreation Commission meetings on the matter. They took public input (numerous times) and voted to return the State of California's Gasoline Tax grant money because the idea was not good for the Lake and its surrounding environment. I urge you to please vote to do the same on April 2, 1997. Also, a new "idea" is being circulated about a Plan `B", along with a 5 MPH restriction on the river. Del Smith is floating this idea and will ask you to postpone the vote to return the State's grant. While Mr. Smith states in his brochure, "The intentions of this effort are straightforward and genuine", they are anything but. His overall idea, late as it is, is to have a boat ramp put in, get all other boats off the river and put a Paddle Wheel on the river to make money... straightforward and genuine. Don't be distracted from what has already been discussed and needs to be voted on April 2nd. In closing, please review my words and carry forward what the citizens of Lodi asked for at multiple meetings and what the Parks & Recreation Commission has recommended --VOTE TO RETURN THE GRANT MONEY TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you for your time, VDDonati Secretary/Treasurer Willow Glen Property Owners Association 1217 Ldgewood Dr. Lodi, CA 95240 Attachment September 13, 1995 Ron Williamson/Lodi Parks and Recreation Commission 125 N. Stockton St. Lodi, CA 95240 Mr. Williamson and Commissioners: This letter is in regards to the Lodi Lake Park Land Use Master Plan and the open forum scheduled for Sept. 19, 1995 regarding the 13 -acre development. Unfortunately, I am scheduled to be away on business that evening, but I would like to express my thoughts on the subject. The Land Use Master Plan (1975) does not show a new location for a larger boat ramp. Specifically, it mentions power boating on the Lake should be eliminated due to its relatively small size and configuration. It also mentions "all three units should be developed together as a `unified' whole - each area supporting the other areas." The Lodi Lake Park Master Plan (1987) was done by Richard A. Bigler. In his "Preface to the Design" he states, "I only have one reservation in my mind about the park's future development. That is the potential for overuse of the natural area. This can not be allowed to happen. I mention this now, in the hope that some future citizen will read this, and speak out." Well sirs, I'm doing that in this letter. Mr. Bigler also recommended, "Disallowing the use of large power boats. Wakes from boats are breaking down the banks, silting the river and destroying major trees." In the conclusion of his plan he says, "Man is only in the use of the area as long as he does not threaten or destroy the Natural Element. The natural areas are the first destroyed by overuse... if we are to preserve the natural forces, and enhance them, controls of man's use will have to be included in the design." In 1992, your own commission tried to put some of these controls Mr. Bigler talked about in place when Lodi Lake's dock was re -opened to the public. The City Council rejected your recommendation for a 5 mph speed limit along City of Lodi properties. You also recommended "the City of Lodi take the lead on enforcement of the river, working in conjunction with S.J. County Sheriff's Dept." The boat ramp has been open for 3 years now and nothing has been done by the City to enforce the laws on the river. I applaud you for trying to install some controls. Some citizens of Lodi say they want access to the river. What is the definition of access. There are 58 acres of wilderness area bordered by the river. The main park's picnic areas are bordered by the river and the Lake. The City provides a supervised swim area in the Lake. This seems like a lot of access already. Who says the City has to provide "motorized watercraft" access to the river? If "all three units are to be developed together", then how can the 13 -acre unit be allowed to unleash a parade of up to 27 boats, their noise and their occupants on the other two units and the rest of the river's neighbors? This is the overuse that will destroy the Natural Element that Mr. Bigler cautioned about. The Mokelumne River is a mature, meandering, highly vegetated river. The proposed 27 boat parking capacity, along with two ramps and floating docks is unconscionable.. The River and its environment cannot sustain these proposals. There are over 20 greater -than -90 turns and a railroad trestle in the appx. 2 miles between Hwy. 99 and the Woodbridge Dam. There are also numerous docks and designated swimming areas along the river, all 5 mph by law, but with no one to enforce it. The Delta with its long, straight, barren waterways is only 20 minutes away. Camanche and New Hogan dams with their wide open, oval shaped bodies of water are only 30 minutes away. Watercraft has changed in the last 5-7 years. Now the vehicle of choice is the jet ski or personal watercraft. These vehicle's usage is different than boats and needs to be considered. They are used to dart left and right, in and out, jumping wakes. They chum in a small area rather than pass by like a boat. They cause greater erosion and their noise dissolves the park's and river's ambiance immediately. Safety is also a concern as their maneuvers are done at a high rate of speed by people of all ages and questionable ability. The Delta and local dams are areas that were built to sustain motorized watercraft and their specific needs. As the 1975 Master Plan recommended to eliminate power boats in the Lake, so too should access to the river be eliminated due to its "relatively small size and configuration" in comparison to other locally available boating choices. As the boat launch area was not part of the 1975 or 1987 Master Plans, it appears the new, very large launch idea came about because of possible grant moneys available in 1991. These moneys are from gas taxes and require an improvement that includes "gas powered" vehicles. I feel it is inappropriate for the Commission to now include a before -unplanned -for launch just to obtain "free" money to complete the project. Remember the Plan: all units developed together as a unified whole, and include controls of man's use in the design. Neither was done in your haste to obtain the money. Lastly is the issue of maintenance expenses. In the City meetings I have attended, layoffs of maintenance personnel and inability to maintain what we currently have were discussed. While it might be nice to get the initial seed money, do we need more space at Lodi Lake and how can we afford to maintain more parks as the revenues are not there to maintain what we have today? In closing, I am dead set against the proposed boat launch. I feel the commission is (in the words of Commissioner Bob Johnson) prostituting itself to obtain the grant, but at the expense of the "natural element" of the Mokelumne River and everyone else who uses the park and the river. Also, I am not in favor of a year `round Lake. Part of the beauty of Lodi is its seasonality and the draining of the Lake is part of its ambiance. I would like to see the Lodi Lake Park Master Plan revisited and discussed in a public forum in order to update it to current thoughts. Sincerely, John D. Donati 1217 Edgewood Dr. Lodi, CA 95240 cc: Mayor Steve Mann/Lodi City Council Senator Pat Johnston A STATEMENT FROM FRIENDS OF LODI LAKE, INC. µ r The Friends of Lodi Lake, Inc.,is not opposed to the acceptance$ of.. -grant +, i a , r' money for the development of the west side of Lodi Lake-P.rli; se. We agree that such development, well thought out and compatible with the rest of the park, is desirable and necessary. We also feel that the use of small, quiet, slow-moving tourboats on the Mokelumne River could prove to be a positive addition to the use of this waterway. In effect, this could emulate the San Antonio.= River project without the commercial setting. However, we remain unalterably opposed to the proposed boatramp. Such a ramp will introduce boat traffic which will over -impact an already fragile waterway, causing erosion, unnecessary noise, and unsafe conditions, particu- larly with regard to the mix of watercraft using the river. Friends of Lodi Lake, Inc., will be glad to help the City of lodi procure other types of grants for further'Lodi Lake Park enhancement. We are fortunate to have an experienced grant writer on our board of directors. Tom Shock 1 ] 37 Edgewood Drive, Lodi LE April 02, 1997 Lodi City Councilman City Hall Lodi, Calif. Dear City Councilman, I have read the front page story in todays' newspaper regarding Plan B for the Lodi Lake boat ramp proposal. I would like you to seriously consider it. As a Lodi resident with river access through the Willow Glen Homeowners Association (Mason Beach) access, I am privileged to use the river more than most Lodi residents. In spite of the fact that I am a Jet Ski and power boat owner, I feel that the river really should be a 5 mile/hr. zone, or max. 10 hp. limitation or something to that effect. Much of my enjoyment of the river will be impacted if I cannot use my jet ski and the like, but I feel this is a reasonable concession to make for improved Lake facilities and public access to the river. Its a gorgeous river as you know, and perhaps a capital improvement such as described re: Plan B should be investigated thoroughly before it is scrapped. As Bob Johnson stated in the newspaper, river access should be readily available to all Lodi citizens, and not selfishly hoarded by the river access property owners, of which I am one. Sincerely, Tom Shock t LI )I V., The Friends of Lodi Lake are concerned that the negative declaration, which was the foundation on which this grant was obtained, contains inaccurate statements. 1. The 90 by 30 foot concrete structure is, in a word, ugly. It is neither aesthetically pleasing or congruent with the natural surroundings. 2. Lowering of the berm in one area and tree removal adjacent to the ramp was scheduled as part of this grant and this contradicts the statement that natural topography will not be altered. Additionally there could be flood related impacts which have not been considered. 3. Erosion from use of power boats was substantiated in the 1986 Bigler report by infrared films. The problem of erosion from power boats is also mentioned in the most recent Draggoo plan. The negative declaration states erosion will not be influenced by additional power boats, contradicting Parks and Recreation commission documents on this matter. 4. The statement that the habitat of any species of fish, wildlife, or plant life will not be impacted is not accurate because increased noise levels and human activity will impact the the San Joaquin kit fox, rabbits and deer in the area. If the trees are removed from the river as has been suggested, the fish habitat will also be impacted. 5. The statement that ambient noise in adjacent areas will have no impact is not true, as birdwatching and quiet enjoyment of the area will be influenced by the noise of powerboats. 6. The statement that individuals or property will not be impacted and no additional traffic hazards will occur is blatantly inaccurate. We have heard about farmers having had their cows taken, and private homes being vandalized from the waterways. People have been stranded because of a boat breaking down, and water skiing mishaps are not unusual. 7. The statement that there will be no increased demand for police protection in the area is highly doubtful. The rule of thumb is "the more people in a secluded area, the more problems." There is already a need for a police patrol of the river and yet funding does not allow this. 8. The statement that there will be no change in traffic safety or transportation patterns is inaccurate. One of the proposed entrances is in a high accident area and a second entrance is planned near the narrow area beside the cemetery and the railroad track. A STATEMENT FROM FRIENDS OF LODI LAKE, INC. The Friends of Lodi Lake, Inc.,is not opposed to the acceptance of grant money for the development of the west side of Lodi Lake Park per se. We agree that such development, well thought out and compatible with the rest of the park, is desirable and necessary. We also feel that the use of small, quiet, slow-moving tourboats on the Mokelumne River could prove to be a positive addition to the use of this waterway. In effect, this could emulate the San Antonio.; River project without the commercial setting. However, we remain unalterably opposed to the proposed boatramp. Such a ramp will introduce boat traffic which will over -impact an already fragile waterway, causing erosion, unnecessary noise, and unsafe conditions, particu- larly with regard to the mix of watercraft using the river. Friends of Lodi Lake, Inc., will be glad to help the City of lodi procure other types of grants for further Lodi Lake Park enhancement. We are fortunate to have an experienced grant writer on our board of directors. APR -02-1997 16:05 46 A CAMW14 OF. ODI PIM ST CA 95242 i Hays-. am aware, a.boat ramp ,wm. an the cot ��ft issue of 6.vkist of Loc Ibelieve thy -r restr MY of Lodi. T ay-agencics ar Tinnily, I be should- 1 tff: City COUIX items wixich i Aittg the Mo FRANK C ALEGRE TRUCKING Frank C Alegre, Sr. 5100 W. State Highway 12 Lodi, California 95252 .34-2112 333-M07 April -2,1997 1 2013 367 0571 Telefacsimik. (209) 367-0572 at tonight's city council will consider a grant proposal related to".. t Lodi Lake. .1 am also aware that there are citizens who believe 4;et ent calendar will give them the OPPOrtunitY to discuss, request ano aposing a speed limit along the Mok-6lume River, both to the east":: Lake. the City Council should provide notice that issues related to a spied tions, upon the Mokelunw River= not within the juriActi6n.o-V ese issues should be addressed to the appropriate San Joaquin not the Lodi City Council. cvc.that the issue of the boat rainp =4 the related gmt am the oWy aperty be discussed at this evening's ineedng. Therefore, I believO i should advise the public to limit their comments and discussion i io pear on the consent calendar and not to other, non -noticed issues, ,IUMO River. Sincerely, FRANK C. ALEGRE, Sr RPR -02-1997 17:09 1 209 367 0572 AS.! a T 46 A CAMW14 OF. ODI PIM ST CA 95242 i Hays-. am aware, a.boat ramp ,wm. an the cot ��ft issue of 6.vkist of Loc Ibelieve thy -r restr MY of Lodi. T ay-agencics ar Tinnily, I be should- 1 tff: City COUIX items wixich i Aittg the Mo FRANK C ALEGRE TRUCKING Frank C Alegre, Sr. 5100 W. State Highway 12 Lodi, California 95252 .34-2112 333-M07 April -2,1997 1 2013 367 0571 Telefacsimik. (209) 367-0572 at tonight's city council will consider a grant proposal related to".. t Lodi Lake. .1 am also aware that there are citizens who believe 4;et ent calendar will give them the OPPOrtunitY to discuss, request ano aposing a speed limit along the Mok-6lume River, both to the east":: Lake. the City Council should provide notice that issues related to a spied tions, upon the Mokelunw River= not within the juriActi6n.o-V ese issues should be addressed to the appropriate San Joaquin not the Lodi City Council. cvc.that the issue of the boat rainp =4 the related gmt am the oWy aperty be discussed at this evening's ineedng. Therefore, I believO i should advise the public to limit their comments and discussion i io pear on the consent calendar and not to other, non -noticed issues, ,IUMO River. Sincerely, FRANK C. ALEGRE, Sr RPR -02-1997 17:09 1 209 367 0572 TO' d OT9ZV22GOZ 90:ST 2.66T-9Z-El3J Z ZIS e7 A l ,0004,.Ar PLEASE DELIVER THE FOLLOWING PAGES AS SOON AS POSSIBLE Tol ..J kyr �2-94 ....... ..... DATE: ....... .. ....... I ....... �-177 .... . COMPANY: ...... - .. .................................... -.1 ........ TOTAL NO. OF PAGES: le .. ....... ............. .................... FROM: 3;�-;3-6507 .... ........... . ....................... RECIPIENT FAX 8: ................ .... ........... 11 .... ... ... .... . MESSAGE- -tie ef- ,w,we . ....... ... . . .................... ..................... .. ..... ... .... .... . ......... ......... ........ . ...... ......... . ........ .... ... ........ . .............. .. ... ..... .......ex .......... .9 *. i. ......... . .............ro.. ..... ........ . . .. ... . . .... . ......... ....... ... ... �o . . . .. ......... ... . ..... ...... - ----- .. . . ........ * ....... ... ..... IF,, le!s A. w .�pl--ii ......... p 5e o,)7 . .... . ........... ...... /.......... Jnr _.. ....... (�_ ..... . ....... ................ ..... . .............. ....... .... . .... .. ........ ....................... .. ........ ................ S ... .... . . ............ ................... . . . ................... ................................. I ................ I .... .. ... ............ I ................ .......... I.--.- ........... . - ... ........ .. . ....... LUSIRG-CAL rQAMWPLAYE CIDMr4DIMAY10N 7 P.O. SOX 430Perko Wvtsian `J Loudl, CA 95a41-0430 P.o- flax 444 .......... (209) 334-0263 Hd*14SbW9, CA 964U FAX 3342610 1707) 433-3483 ... ... FAX 433-M3 z0'd 0T9�160 90:ST L66T-9Z-33d 4MK , WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, ARE OPPOSED TO BUILDING A NEW BOAT RAMP_ WE SUPPORT THE MASTER PLAN OF 1986-87, WHICH OPPOSES ALLOWING POWER BOATS IN THE LODI LAKE PARK AREA. WE ARE OPPOSED TO POWER BOATS BECAUSE THEY CAUSE EROSION, BENEFIT ONLY A SU£CT FEW, CONTRIBUTE TO NOISE LEVELS WHICH INTERFERE WITH WILDLIFE HABITATS AND HUMAN TRANQUILITY; AND NEGATIVELY IMPACT ENDANGERED SPECIES. THERE ARE NO FUNDS TO PAY FOR A LAKE/RIVER PATROL TO POLICE ACTIVITIES OF BOATERS. UNSAFE SITUATIONS COULD EASILY ARISE FROM ADDITIONAL, UNSUPERVISED BOATING ACTIVITIES. NAME 2) 3 ADDRESS TELEPHONE a)-_- ----- — 7)----- -- ——--_— —-- g)__ --_-------- — ---__------- ------------------------------------------------------------- There is a meeting of City CourvJA on Wednesday March 5 - 7:00 -call Bob or Bonnie Raingruber for petition pick-up 368-9807 0 ®'d 0I9�b££f�9� 1tl� 3?�1Sfl-t Wd .tI:46 Q3M tEs-9�-83d Apr -04-97 09:OOA GEWEKE PROPERTIES .s z r . a,bF, a ... �,yq: •r DEVELOPMENT, CONSTRUCTION, MANAGEMENT April 3, 1997 209 334-1829 SENT via FAX only 333-6710 To: Mayor & Council Members Lodi City Council c/o Ms. Jennifer Perrin, City Clerk RE: Proposed Lodi Lake Boat Ramp & 5 MPH Speed Limit on the Mokelumne River Dear Mayor & Council Members: On behalf of Daryl Geweke, Thank You for your vote last nite to not increase watercraft traffic on the Mokelumne River. Your confirmation of the Parks & Recreation Commission's recommendation will result in the Mokelumne River being a safer recreation area. I would appreciate the City's consideration of the previously discussed 5 MPH speed limit on the river, as this would further increase the safety of water recreation as well as slowing the erosion of the banks, which has greatly increased on my property with the popularity of personal watercraft use. Thank you again. Your efforts on this issue as well as others is greatly appreciated Sincerely Yours, Dale N. Gillespie cc: Daryl Geweke DNG/sf P.O. BOX 1210 - 920 S. CHEROKEE LANE, SUITE A - LODI, CA 95241 (209) 333-4565 - FAX (209) 334-1929 April 3, 1997 Senator Patrick Johnston State Capitol, Room 5066 Sacramento, Ca Dear Pat: By now you have heard that the Lodi City Council recently rejected the Cal. Boating Grant for the new launch facility at Lodi Lake. While I am personally disappointed in their decision, the Council has voted and we must now move on to other areas of concern. As Chairman of the Parks and Recreation Commission, I would like to thank you for the effort you extended on behalf of Lodi in obtaining the Grant. I am confident that our application was enhanced significantly by your support. In this era of tentative financing for Parks, Recreation and Leisure Services on both the state and local level, I am certain that we will be calling on you for help with future endeavors. Hopefully this setback won't negatively influence your continued strong support of our efforts on behalf of the citizens of Lodi. Thanks again for your help! Very truly yours, Robert . ohnson, Chairman Lodi P and Recreation Commission cc: City Council Parks/Rec Commission Duncan, Duncan & Associates, Inc. Real Estate Appraisals & Sales 18826 N. Dower Sacramento Road, Suite E, P.O. Box 1066, Woodbridge, California 95258-1066 Lodi: (209) 3346717 Stockton: (209) 957-1088 Fax: (209) 334-2521