Laserfiche WebLink
residents. The HOA has never proposed that public access to the protected areas be <br />limited or eliminated. In fact, it would not even be in the power of the City to do so <br />should they be so inclined. The issue of public access to the protected areas has been <br />seriously twisted by City Staff. The following represents the HOA's argument that the <br />required public access will not be affected by the proposed gates. The Council members <br />should also note that all questions regarding public access apply only to the Bayfront <br />gate. The gates on Anchorage and the gate to the existing private park have nothing to do <br />with access to the protected areas. <br />Early on the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) <br />has been involved in this application. In fact, the HOA contends that the BCDC is the <br />agency charged with protecting the public access to the areas in question. The City is <br />only peripherally involved as will be discussed later. When the plans for the subject <br />gates were first submitted, Ms. Ande Bennett of BCDC contacted the HOA and reminded <br />them that a permit granted and recorded on July 6, 1994 between Citation Homes and <br />BCDC guaranteed public access to the protected areas. Ms. Bennett was initially <br />concerned because that permit detailed the requirements for public access. She was <br />concerned that the 4 -foot wide pedestrian gate to be placed in the Bayfront gate was to be <br />locked from Sunset to Sunrise every day which was the position taken by the HOA in the <br />original application. The HOA board of directors immediately met on June 11, 2014 and <br />voted to have the pedestrian gate remain open 24/7. This would presumably eliminate <br />the original objection to the proposal from BCDC. Counsel for the HOA wrote BCDC <br />and advised Ms. Bennett of that modification. A true copy of that letter is marked as <br />Exhibit D to the Tepper memorandum, Exhibit 1 to this appeal. As an aside it was also <br />pointed out by BCDC that Citation had never formalized an agreement to guarantee <br />public access and that one needed to be completed. The HOA, although they had no <br />responsibility in this original oversight, has agreed to complete whatever applications <br />need to be made in the near future. It should also be noted that BCDC advises that the <br />City similarly failed to provide a written agreement and that they also have been given a <br />deadline for completion. <br />On June 19, 2014, the day of the Commission hearing, the HOA received another letter <br />from BCDC stating that they may have an issue with the width of the existing public <br />access on Bayfront. The HOA has pledged to resolve these issues with BCDC but this <br />late comment has nothing to do with the presence of the gates. The most important fact <br />to be taken from the BCDC conversations is that BCDC has jurisdiction over the public <br />access, a fact admitted by City Staff at the hearing, and that there is no requirement for <br />vehicular access established by BCDC. The permit does not require vehicular access <br />and nothing in any of their communications require vehicular access. The staff s <br />efforts to inject this argument into the permit consideration is without legal support. The <br />HOA has pledged that they will work with and resolve the issues of public access with <br />BCDC. However, the Catch 22 in the discussion is the fact that BCDC will not <br />discuss the matter of the proposed gates and public access with the HOA unless and <br />until the City grants a conditional permit. It is incumbent upon the City to grant the <br />permit conditionally upon BCDC approval. If BCDC does not grant approval or an <br />amended permit, then the gates will not be built. If BCDC does grant approval or an <br />