Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I can understand the nature of people to get upset and then get behind a big snowball effort and (possibly) overreact to this situation. I did just that when I signed the petition that was started without digging a little deeper.

I was at state parks today (on a totally unrelated issue) and in casual conversation, the issue of the guard rail project was brought up by the parks person I was talking with.

They are extremely irritated about the situation right now, mainly because they feel that the FACTS are not being properly represented. They are aware of the original thread and other online blogs on this issue and in their words is "making the MT biker user group look pretty bad".

What they said is that this project has ZERO do with revenue collection or they would just put in a self pay ticket booth, designated parking spaces and make it a pay access point.

The real issue has already been stated by the first few people who responded to the original thread: Noise, trash, urination, over parking into the street etc. It is the locals in that area that have been pushing for this (for years), writing letters to public officials etc. This is not an initiative by State Parks.

This is not a revenue issue anyway (from the States perspective)... It is only a revenue issue for those who use that area specifically to avoid paying the parking fee.

In the meantime, I plan to re-new my park pass, use the park and continue riding.
 

·
Kiss my Grits!
Joined
·
115 Posts
I understand, but ...

I don't like people parking in front of my house. I don't like the occasional empty Maroborro pack or soda/beer can on the lawn or in the gutter, but I assume that public streets are for the public. I doubt that the residents in this neighborhood paid for the paving of their street or will be paying for the construction of the guardrail.

Once again though, our refusal to self-govern has brought the pendulum sweeping across.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,438 Posts
Sam, from reading the other thread...

I think the reason mtb community is ticked is because the reasoning; traffic, trash, litter, jumps etc. were all directed at a single user group (mtb). Is this true or not, that's based on your side of the argument, obviously it has become more popular with mtbrs.... But it drips with the exact same approach used in the past (as others have mentioned) on the trails on the Southside of Folsom State Park area by a very very small group of home owners who blamed everything, I mean everything on the mtb community.

And generally if you're irritating someone, it means you are making your case...and forcing the issue to be reviewed/reconsidered. For the parks folks, as public service staff...they are on the frontline of hearing what I'm sure are plenty of different type complaints from people of numerous interests all of which each person considers to be Priority 1.

Not to take it off topic, but I'm waiting for all of the illegal trails built in Hidden Falls Park to be blamed on Mtbrs by other user groups. When in fact, they all have been created by the equestrians (I've witnessed it first hand by the way).

My point, mtbrs have been and are an easy target for other user groups to get what they want. Seems this small parking lot issue on Twin Rocks has sparked a pretty large outrcry.

Man the above is kind of rambling, I blame it on drinking decaf this morning. :D
 

·
The Bubble Wrap Hysteria
Joined
·
3,795 Posts
Roger___ said:
I think the reason mtb community is ticked is because the reasoning; traffic, trash, litter, jumps etc. were all directed at a single user group (mtb). Is this true or not, that's based on your side of the argument, obviously it has become more popular with mtbrs.... But it drips with the exact same approach used in the past (as others have mentioned) on the trails on the Southside of Folsom State Park area by a very very small group of home owners who blamed everything, I mean everything on the mtb community.

And generally if you're irritating someone, it means you are making your case...and forcing the issue to be reviewed/reconsidered. For the parks folks, as public service staff...they are on the frontline of hearing what I'm sure are plenty of different type complaints from people of numerous interests all of which each person considers to be Priority 1.

Not to take it off topic, but I'm waiting for all of the illegal trails built in Hidden Falls Park to be blamed on Mtbrs by other user groups. When in fact, they all have been created by the equestrians (I've witnessed it first hand by the way).

My point, mtbrs have been and are an easy target for other user groups to get what they want. Seems this small parking lot issue on Twin Rocks has sparked a pretty large outrcry.

Man the above is kind of rambling, I blame it on drinking decaf this morning. :D
Very well stated. It's easy to blame a user group when the information (facts) are slanted in the accusers favor because the State officials refuse to open a public forum. So it's entirely based on opinion and agenda bias. This is about the HOA just flippantly blaming mtn bikers when they clearly have an agenda. My question is did any of the home owners call the police (park rangers) to report excessive noise after hours? If they do not have a third party (law enforcement) witness this then the State "over-reacted" to a case of he-said she-said.

This was never about revenue.....if fact I suggested the State should make the parking lot bigger and put a self-pay system there like Salmon Falls Trail.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
SingleTrackSam said:
I can understand the nature of people to get upset and then get behind a big snowball effort and (possibly) overreact to this situation. I did just that when I signed the petition that was started without digging a little deeper.

I was at state parks today (on a totally unrelated issue) and in casual conversation, the issue of the guard rail project was brought up by the parks person I was talking with.

They are extremely irritated about the situation right now, mainly because they feel that the FACTS are not being properly represented. They are aware of the original thread and other online blogs on this issue and in their words is "making the MT biker user group look pretty bad".

What they said is that this project has ZERO do with revenue collection or they would just put in a self pay ticket booth, designated parking spaces and make it a pay access point.

The real issue has already been stated by the first few people who responded to the original thread: Noise, trash, urination, over parking into the street etc. It is the locals in that area that have been pushing for this (for years), writing letters to public officials etc. This is not an initiative by State Parks.

This is not a revenue issue anyway (from the States perspective)... It is only a revenue issue for those who use that area specifically to avoid paying the parking fee.

In the meantime, I plan to re-new my park pass, use the park and continue riding.
I'm glad that you are renewing your park pass. That money will likely go directly into their benefit packages. Did the parks person that gave you the "facts" explain why only now after years of complaints by the neighbors did they decide to spend the 20 thousand dollars on a barricade when No Parking Signs would have done the job?

Beside the one complaint of public urination by one person on that Street a good number of people that live in that HOA have been driving to the very same spot that they now want to close off.

Don't look now but I have speeders on my street and a fair amount of garbage and noise. Have you heard of public domain? That parking area has been used for 30 years that I know of. All but a very few of those home owners knew about the situation before they purchased homes near our State Park.

I also talked to every Park Supervisor that would take my call and it was clear to me that since Prop 21 failed two years ago revenue is about the only thing on their minds. They are closing every possible spot that they can to encourage the purchase of Poppy Passes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,082 Posts
As a dyed in the wool NIMBY, I appreciate the neighborhoods (or some subset) desire to shut down the parking there. I've been parking there for the last ~7 years, and it has gotten progressively busier, especially in the spring/summer/fall afternoons (and add one truck with horse trailer parked parallel to the road, and cars park well beyond the gate). Public domain or not, when it becomes a nuisance, people have a right to complain and effect a change.

For speeding/litter/noise complaints, you should contact your city/county councilman/supervisor. I hear the last thing you want in front of your house is a speed bump though. Me, I picked a gated community with private streets and a hard-ass HOA and couldn't be happier.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
52 Posts
Its like this, I buy a house next to an airport, I get older and now the airport is starting to become an issue.
Or you buy a house next to a city park, your kids love that park, next the kids are gone and now the park is all noise.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,126 Posts
Larry_flint said:
Its like this, I buy a house next to an airport, I get older and now the airport is starting to become an issue.
Or you buy a house next to a city park, your kids love that park, next the kids are gone and now the park is all noise.
I don't think so; not the same situation from what I read. If it were, I'd agree with you.

My impression is that this has never been a formal parking lot, and that nuisance issues related to informal parking have mushroomed in recent years. I suggested in another thread that State Parks might also solve this issue by installing an "Iron Ranger" to collect parking fees. But that would require service, as well as probably also requiring installation and maintenance of trash cans, grading, patrol, and other operational expenses that make eliminating the problem the more cost effective solution.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
165 Posts
HarryCallahan said:
I don't think so; not the same situation from what I read. If it were, I'd agree with you.

My impression is that this has never been a formal parking lot, and that nuisance issues related to informal parking have mushroomed in recent years. I suggested in another thread that State Parks might also solve this issue by installing an "Iron Ranger" to collect parking fees. But that would require service, as well as probably also requiring installation and maintenance of trash cans, grading, patrol, and other operational expenses that make eliminating the problem the more cost effective solution.
They didn't seem to have a problem staffing Saturday. Most cars I've ever seen there. I counted, 35. I don't think it would have been possible to get another car parked there. By my math, 35 is still alot less than 70. Wait, 70 is a familiar #, why is that, oh yeah, that was the # a resident claimed parking there. So, if a resident is willing to lie or exagerate about this, what else do you think they are capable of making up. Maybe things like, speeding, noise, trash, public urination, building jumps in the park, etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
52 Posts
I just got an email from Mr Jackson

Mr.XXXXX

Thank you for your thoughtful and well written email. I appreciate the tone and message.

I am not sure to what you are referring when you ask is it a wise use of limited state park funds to put up barriers and patrol remote trails? If by barriers you are referring to the project to install guard rails to prevent the off-street (dirt area) parking that occurs at Twin Rocks Road and Boulder Road, then respectfully, I would disagree with your characterization of the problem at this location.

The issue of people parking their vehicles at this intersection has been around for many years. With the advent of the internet and information sharing, the use of this area for parking in order to access the trails within the State Recreation Area has increased dramatically over the years. On any given day or evening it is not uncommon to find thirty or more vehicles using the shoulder of the road and dirt turn-out for parking. The area in question was never intended to be a free parking and staging area for the park and there are no facilities located in this area to support the increased level of activity and use. This increased use has resulted in impacts to neighbors in this area as well as State Park staff in the form of vehicles speeding down the roadway, increased litter and trash left at this location, noise, alcohol consumption and other associated problems. Another problem with the informal parking in this area is that parked vehicles occasionally block access to the pole gate at this location which is used by both State Parks and other agencies as emergency ingress and egress to this portion of the Granite Bay day use area.

There is plenty of nearby parking within the park unit to serve the people who are using the free informal parking outside the park. This includes parking at the Granite Bay Main Beach parking lot, the Granite Bay Equestrian Staging Area, parking along Old County Road within the park and the Beeks Bight parking lot. Obviously the fact that many frequent Folsom Lake park users are using the Twin Rocks and Boulder area in order to park for free has a significant negative impact on the park's revenue, which further exacerbates our budget problem since revenue from fees is now an essential contributor to the Department's operations budget.

Just to be clear, the purpose of this project is not to prevent any user group from accessing the trails on the Hoffman Property or any other trails within Folsom Lake SRA, nor to prevent any illegal trail building. The purpose of the project is to address the problems occurring at the informal parking location.

As to your concerns about rangers patrolling the trails more frequently, yours is the first complaint I have heard that considers that a bad or negative thing. Patrolling the trails, as operational priorities and circumstances warrant and allow, is what we would consider good stewardship of the park and its resources. There are many more reasons for having our rangers performing this service than simply to "…appease a small minority of equestrian riders and the local HOA."

Your observations about providing more opportunities for mountain bikers within Folsom Lake State Recreation Area are something with which we are very familiar. With the assistance of the Department's Facilities Services and Planning Divisions, the Gold Fields District is moving forward with a Road and Trail Plan for Folsom Lake SRA. This plan will assess new trail opportunities and routes and will consider changes in use to existing trails. The planning team has had an initial meeting and is developing the planning tasks, timeline and completing the necessary preliminary data gathering for the plan. There will be opportunities for public input in this road and trail planning process, including the opportunity to request evaluation of changes in use of existing trails. Addressing the designation and management of the existing trails on the Hoffman property (and other user created trails within the park unit) will be part of the planning process.

Regards,

Ted

Ted Jackson
Folsom Sector Superintendent
Gold Fields District
California State Parks
(916) 988-0205
[email protected]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,767 Posts
Larry_flint said:
I just got an email from Mr Jackson

Mr.XXXXX

Thank you for your thoughtful and well written email. I appreciate the tone and message.

Blah, blah, blah...............

There is plenty of nearby parking within the park unit to serve the people who are using the free informal parking outside the park........................... Obviously the fact that many frequent Folsom Lake park users are using the Twin Rocks and Boulder area in order to park for free has a significant negative impact on the park's revenue, which further exacerbates our budget problem since revenue from fees is now an essential contributor to the Department's operations budget.

Blah, blah, blah...............

Ted
So it is a money thing, just like many of us expected:skep:
So, I renew my thought from the previous thread regarding what will they close down next?
Access from Cavitt Jr High?
Access from Beales Point?
Are they going to patrol the parking lot at the liquor store making sure nobody parks there and then enters the park?

If this guard rail project costs $20,000, it will require 2000 vehicles, at $10 each, to park inside the park, to see an increase in revenue.
Considering that many of the cars that park at Twin Rocks are mtn bikers that can enter from other points, without paying to park, it will be a long time to see a meaningful increase in revenue from this project.
 

·
mtb'er
Joined
·
4,257 Posts
I don't get why there needs to be a $20K guardrail vs. No Parking signs.

Funny how the equestrians haven't banded together to question this expense:

http://www.parkwatchreport.org/article.html?pub=alert&query=&art=1945

UPDATE 2/15/2011:

Over the past few weeks, a few trail users have started petitions to halt the erection of the new barrier at Twin Rocks and Boulder Roads. One has been started by mt. bike forum users, another by a runners group.

It is understandable they are upset. This area has been used as an increasingly popular, informal (and free) staging area by runners, mt. bikers and equestrians. But it is this very popularity that caused the impacts that forced the Park into responsible action.
.... but equestrians are not upset :skep: I'm guessing at least one of the homeowners is a horsey lady.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,126 Posts
Brewtality said:
So it is a money thing, just like many of us expected:skep:
So, I renew my thought from the previous thread regarding what will they close down next?
Access from Cavitt Jr High?
Access from Beales Point?
Are they going to patrol the parking lot at the liquor store making sure nobody parks there and then enters the park?

If this guard rail project costs $20,000, it will require 2000 vehicles, at $10 each, to park inside the park, to see an increase in revenue.
Considering that many of the cars that park at Twin Rocks are mtn bikers that can enter from other points, without paying to park, it will be a long time to see a meaningful increase in revenue from this project.
It's not just revenue, it's ongoing operational costs, nuisance mitigation, and safety access as well.

"The issue of people parking their vehicles at this intersection has been around for many years. With the advent of the internet and information sharing, the use of this area for parking in order to access the trails within the State Recreation Area has increased dramatically over the years. On any given day or evening it is not uncommon to find thirty or more vehicles using the shoulder of the road and dirt turn-out for parking. The area in question was never intended to be a free parking and staging area for the park and there are no facilities located in this area to support the increased level of activity and use. This increased use has resulted in impacts to neighbors in this area as well as State Park staff in the form of vehicles speeding down the roadway, increased litter and trash left at this location, noise, alcohol consumption and other associated problems. Another problem with the informal parking in this area is that parked vehicles occasionally block access to the pole gate at this location which is used by both State Parks and other agencies as emergency ingress and egress to this portion of the Granite Bay day use area."​
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,089 Posts
Once again... STATE PARKS IF YOU ARE LISTENING, OPEN UP EXISTING LOCAL TRAIL SYSTEMS FOR LEGAL MULTI-USE ACCESS TO TAKE PRESSURE OFF GRANITE BAY AND HELP REDUSE OVERUSE/CONGESTION PROBLEMS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Official Statement

This was made available to me - looks like an official statement made for the general public and/or press:

California State Parks - Gold Fields District
Folsom Lake State Recreation Area

Trail Access at Twin Rocks Road and Boulder Road
2/10/11

The Problem and BackgroundAn informal access to the trails within Folsom Lake SRA has existed at the corner of Twin rocks and Boulder Roads within the community of Granite Bay, Placer County for many years. This access point, the unimproved dirt shoulder of the roadway, is used by equestrians (horse trailers), mountain bikes and pedestrians. These trail users are accessing the Pioneer Express Trail, the Middle Trail and the Granite Bay Multi-use Trail - all within Folsom Lake SRA. The informal access is not actually within the Folsom Lake SRA boundary. There are adequate parking and trail access facilities within the park unit, including the Granite Bay Equestrian Staging Area (horse assembly area) and parking available at Old County Road, Beeks Bight and Dotons Point.

Nonetheless an increasing number of trail users are electing to use the informal trail access outside of the park unit. This informal trail access parking along Twin Rocks and Boulder Roads has increased dramatically over the past several years. During peak use time the parking can extend more than 1,000 feet north along Boulder Road beyond the area where vehicles can be safely parked away from the edge of pavement. Residents of this neighborhood have complained regularly to Stare Parks and Placer County over the past several years about the impacts of this informal trail parking at this location. Problems cited by residents include noise, congestion and trash. The parking and congestion can also prevent State Park peace officer ingress/egress to the gate into the park unit at this corner for emergency access.

State Parks has met with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (both Reclamation and the State own fee title lands in the area) and Placer County regarding this situation. Placer County staff have indicated that their responsibility at the corner of Twin Rocks and Boulder, and north from this corner along Boulder Road, only extends to the edge of the pavement on the south side of Twin Rocks and the east side of Boulder Roads. The County indicates that they do not have responsibility for the shoulder of the roadways where this informal parking is occurring. As such, the County has declined to take the lead in addressing this problem.

Proposed SolutionState Parks recognizes the problems the neighbors are facing with the increasing informal trail access and parking at this location. State Parks believes that adequate formal parking and trail access is already provided within the park unit. Some users accessing the park unit at this informal access point are just avoiding paying the park use fees. State Parks is willing to take the lead in addressing this problem. The State's proposed solution would be to install a steel guard rail approximately three to four feet off of the edge of the pavement at the corner of Twin Rocks and Boulder Roads and extending approximately 1,000 feet north along Boulder Road (see attached map) and 200 feet west along Twin rocks Road. No parking signs would be posted along the shoulder of these roads in this area as well. The existing pole gate which provides emergency and administrative access to the park unit at this corner would be moved and incorporated into the new guard rail. An existing walk-through in the park unit boundary fence just north of the corner would also be accommodated in the guard rail. The guard rail would prevent roadside parking in this area.

Additional Information
Supporters of the project:
• Bureau of Reclamation
• Placer County Department of Public Works
• Placer County Supervisor Kirk Uhler
• South Placer Fire District
• Lakeview Hills Homeowners Association
• Folsom Lake Mounted Assistance Trail Patrol
• Loomis Basin Horseman's Association
• Folsom-Auburn Trail Riders Action Coalition (FATRAC) has taken a neutral position

Over the past month, State Parks has met individually with key stakeholder groups to explain the project and seek support. Most have been supportive of the project.

CostIt is anticipated the project will cost approximately $20,000. The Lakeview Hills Homeowners Association has agreed to provide $5,000 in support of the project. State Parks is also working with Placer County Department of Public Works to see if they may be able to support the project by providing some of the materials. Given the Homeowners Association contribution and the possibility of getting materials from Placer County, the project cost to State Parks may be less than $10,000.

ScheduleState Parks plans on beginning construction in March or April 2011. The project should take about a week to complete.

ContactsFor questions, please contact Ted Jackson, Folsom Sector Superintendent or Jim Micheaels, Gold Fields District
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
Apparently the locals are real fed up with it... chipping in $5k of there own $$

So they say it will really cost about $10,000. So... 20 cars a day buying a day pass... it would take 50 days to pay for the project.

What EmptyBeer said: They could do away with a lot of the guard railing and put up a bunch of no parking signs... that would save a lot of money. Maybe just re-do the gate area.

Just go buy a park pass.
 

·
Air Pirate
Joined
·
2,037 Posts
So per the information from Singletracksam, Placer County does not claim jurisdiction of the dirt parking area in question. From all the maps I have seen, it appears State Parks jurisdiction extends only to the existing fenceline, leaving the dirt shoulder and parking area in a "no-man's land" status. As far as State Parks enforcing the blocking of the existing firegate in this area, they can rely on the easement condition of such an access gate to cite offending vehicles. But I do not think their easement extends beyond that function.

So, who officially "owns" the dirt area the vehicles park in? Who has jurisdiction? I originally thought it was under enforcement of Placer County, but if they claim no jurisdiction then who?

Is it even legal for the entities involved so far to construct such a barrier?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
Bokchoicowboy said:
So per the information from Singletracksam, Placer County does not claim jurisdiction of the dirt parking area in question. From all the maps I have seen, it appears State Parks jurisdiction extends only to the existing fenceline, leaving the dirt shoulder and parking area in a "no-man's land" status. As far as State Parks enforcing the blocking of the existing firegate in this area, they can rely on the easement condition of such an access gate to cite offending vehicles. But I do not think their easement extends beyond that function.

So, who officially "owns" the dirt area the vehicles park in? Who has jurisdiction? I originally thought it was under enforcement of Placer County, but if they claim no jurisdiction then who?

Is it even legal for the entities involved so far to construct such a barrier?
On Twin Rocks Road and Boulder Road, all abutting parcels (residential lots and State Park Parcels) own up to the centerline of the roadway. Placer County has a roadway easement that extends approximately the edge of pavement on both sides of the street. The existing dirt parking area is clearly on State Park property and is the jurisdiction of the Park. Hopefully this clears up your questions.
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Top