Laserfiche WebLink
thanks you for your reference to the proper filing materials. We will work with your <br />office and will have this resolved and filed long before the deadline dates that you have <br />established. However, as my client had no responsibility for this prior omission, we <br />would suggest that this future filing should not be cause for BCDC to object to the <br />pending gate application. We will complete the legal requirements for public access and <br />we would point out that the Tract Map 6810, which was prepared in 1996/1997 also <br />records the requirement for public access. The association has always recognized t6tis <br />obligation and has protected it on behalf of all members of the public. <br />This correspondence will also inform you that the Board of Directors met on June 11, <br />2014 and voted unanimously to amend their application to state that the pedestrian gate <br />will remain open 24/7. It will not be locked at any time and will be available for public <br />access at all times. As you stated in your earlier correspondence, the association will <br />apply for an amendment to the permit if they feel at a later time that the factual situation <br />would suggest that the gate be locked at night. However, the association has no intention <br />to do so at this time. The fact that the gate will now remain open at all times for public <br />access should alleviate your earlier concern. <br />We disagree that the placement of the gate, and the corresponding opening width of the <br />gate, violates the language of the permit. The Tract Map, which obviously incorporated <br />the requirements of the 1994 permit for public access, notwithstanding the fact that the <br />legal document BCDC requires was not completed by Citation, shows the public access <br />and the 8' wide and 12' wide spaces to which you refer to commence on the Westerly <br />portion of the existing circle (please recall that the land comprising the circle is actually <br />owned by the City of San Leandro). The gate allows full access to all width requirements <br />as soon as a member of the public passes through the gate onto Heron Bay property. <br />What public access could possibly be hampered by the presence of a 4' wide gate <br />opening? There is no bicycle, skateboard or, hopefully, person who could not easily pass <br />thorough a space of this size. We ask you to again recall that the permit did not call for <br />vehicular access and nothing on the permit speaks of vehicle access. In fact the Tract <br />map clearly states that vehicular access to the private streets, owned by Heron Bay <br />Homeowners Association, is subject to the permission of the owner. The streets that are <br />found on the westerly side of the proposed gate are private and do not provide public <br />access or provide for public parking. The association will and has always towed non- <br />resident vehicles that park in this area. Therefore; we fail to see how the BCDC can <br />logically raise the width of the gate as a legitimate objection to the application when said <br />gate obviously allows for full public access other than vehicular. <br />As stated above the installation of these gates are of great concern to the residents of <br />Heron Bay. Based on current events they literally fear for their lives on their own <br />property and this is truly a sad state of affairs. The association will continue to work with <br />BCDC to insure full public access as originally specified. The association has never <br />undertaken any action to deny full public access and they will continue to religiously <br />protect this right. They do not, however, feel that the installation of the proposed gates <br />will in any way affect legitimate public access. We ask the BCDC, in light of the above <br />concessions, to rethink its position and to inform the City of San Leandro and the <br />