4A Public Hearing 2014 0902 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

amended permit, then the City has no right to demand a differing or more strict interpretation of public access. There is no law or facts supporting such a position and the City cannot simply impose a stricter requirement without hearings and legal support. The City should not deny the HOA's attempt to secure BCDC's permission for the gate based on a legal interpretation that is superseded by the BCDC's authority. The City should grant the conditional permit based on the above -stated reasons and allow the BCDC to make the appropriate decisions regarding public access. Let us now consider the mandates of Tract map 6810 under which this project was constructed. That map was dated July 1996 and the relevant Owners Statement, which language was approved by the City and presumably approved with full knowledge of the BCDC permit requirements of two years earlier, define the public access required. In the 3'a paragraph of the owners statement on map 6810 it is stated: "And said over (sic: owner) hereby dedicates to the public forever, an easement for public ingress and egress to access the public trails, wetland buffer areas, and public interpretive center over, upon, and across those certain strips of land designated as "P.A.E." (Public Access Easement) as delineated on this map." The HOA argues that all of these conditions stated in this statement have in fact been completed. Presumably the City inspected this project to insure that these conditions had been fulfilled. Nothing in the present application will affect guaranteed access. If the Council members will review Tract Map 6810, they will see that to the north of Bayfront on Sheet 4, a Public Access Easement (PAE) exists on the sidewalk and on Bayfront from the Circle to the public lands. These easements are currently covered by sidewalk and by the street. There is nothing in the proposed gate on Bayfront that would affect this easement. The pedestrian gate is 4 foot wide. Notwithstanding staff's comment to the contrary, it is hard to imagine any person or bicycle or skateboard that would not fit through a 4 -foot gate. After they pass through the gate, their access via street or sidewalk to the public lands is unrestricted. The required access before the proposed gate and the required access after the proposed gate is unchanged. The only relevant issue is access through the pedestrian gate itself which is sufficiently adequate to satisfy all of the requirements as established in Tract Map 6810. And again, BCDC will ultimately decide what access is required. But it is without controversy that the HOA cannot even get the matter to BCDC for consideration unless the City grants a conditional permit. IV. Unequal Protection. The City Staff, and subsequently the Planning Commission, has held that the controlled access gate system requested by Heron Bay constituted an undesirable precedent. This statement is inappropriate in that the City has approved gated communities in the past. More particularly, the City recently approved the application for gates for the Floresta Gardens Condominiums. Having approved said application, which community is subject to the same General Plan as is Heron Bay, the City should approve Heron Bay's conditional permit. It is disingenuous to cite Heron Bay's application as an undesirable precedent some thirty days after approving a similar gate scheme.