CORRESPONDENCE_5/17/10-12/4/11 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e � Concern: Maw motorized boats and personal watercraft travel the river at unsafe speeds,and adding another river access point would only increase the potential for accidents and conflicts with kap canoes,and inner tube users. The new river access point,as currently envisioned,would be for non-motorized watercraft only. This would actually serve to help separate users of motor boats and personal watercraft from those traveling in kayaks and canoes, since motorized vehicles would still need to use Lodi Lake as the river entry point, while kayaks,canoes, and"floaters"could use a point much farther upstream. Other Considerations In addition to addressing concerns of residents in Mokelumne Village and other nearby subdivisions, I also want to mention some facts that should be given strong consideration by City of Lodi officials,Lodi residents,and other local public officials. As explained during the meeting by Lodi resident Jay Bell,the 1975 Subdivision Map Act(California Government Code, Division 2, Chapter 4, Article 3.5 Public Access to Public Resources)requires the subdivision planning process to ensure that public access to waterways is maintained. Section 66478.3 of this law states that,"The Legislature further finds and declares that it is essential to the health and well- being of all citizens of this state that public access to public natural resources be increased. It is the intent of the Legislature to increase public access to public natural resources." Section 66478.4(a)goes on to state,"No local agency shall approve either a tentative or a final map of any proposed subdivision to be fronted upon a public waterway river or stream which does not provide,or have available,reasonable public access by fee or easement from a public highway to that portion of the bank of the river or stream bordering or lying within the proposed subdivision." Sections 66478.5 and 66478.6 further elaborate on this requirement. The Mokelumne River is a public waterway;therefore,the developers of the Mokelumne Village, River Pointe, and Rivergate subdivisions and former City of Lodi officials were in violation of this legislation when they allowed homes to be built along the river without providing for public access. The City of Lodi is now vulnerable to lawsuits and subject to potential corrective actions; it would be a loss for everyone if the City was compelled to spend valuable and scare public funds on legal defense. The private riverside parks that now exist are no doubt a wonderful resource for those who live nearby,but the exclusivity of such facilities does not meet the statutory standard of access for all. Several people at the meeting advocated improving kayak and canoe access at Lodi Lake instead of constructing a new access point further east, stating that it's only one and a half miles away. However, a short and straight drive in a car traveling 35 to 40 miles per hour on Turner Road is very different from paddling a winding and convoluted river in a small boat at two to three miles per hour. The one-way on- river distance from the eastern edge of Lodi Lake upstream to the railroad crossing is 2.3 miles, and it's 3.0 miles from the lake to State Route 99. There isn't a single place with public shore access along that entire stretch,no place for recreational boaters without private river access to disembark for a rest. This is simply unsatisfactory. The river is a public resource and must be made more accessible to residents from throughout San Joaquin County and surrounding areas. I sincerely appreciate the time and effort spent by the following persons in organizing, presenting, and attending the public forum: Jeff Hood,City of Lodi Communications Specialist Wally Sandelin, City of Lodi Director of Public Works Jim Rodems, City of Lodi Director of Parks,Recreation, and Cultural Services Sergeant David Griffin, City of Lodi Police Department