Laserfiche WebLink
Page 3 <br />November 3, 2016 <br /> <br />extension of the trail access easement along Bayfront Drive to include vehicles is without any legal <br />authority. <br /> <br />- As Bayfront Drive is a private street with no general public vehicle easement, the HOA is within its <br />authority as property owner to control non-resident vehicular access onto the property subject to <br />easements of record (i.e.: service vehicles, emergency vehicles). To extend the pedestrian/bicyclist Bay <br />Trail access easement over Bayfront Drive to include all motor vehicles at all times of the day and night <br />makes no sense in light of the finding of fact that the presence of the Attendant has had a positive <br />impact on reducing crime being committed within the neighborhood by non-residents. Further, to <br />argue that the Bay Trail access easement includes all non-resident motor vehicles not only flies in the <br />face of the facts, but it amounts to an encroachment of the private property rights of the 629 <br />homeowners who each own an undivided fractional interest in the HOA common area property that <br />includes Bayfront Drive. <br /> <br />- The BCDC has consistently asserted jurisdiction over the Bay Trail access easement and is the proper <br />party to enforce the access easement of record. I suggest that the City is exercising authority it does not <br />have when it comes to controlling non-resident vehicular access to private property not otherwise <br />expressly permitted by easement. <br /> <br />- As you know, our ongoing negotiations with BCDC contemplate some sort of non-resident motor vehicle <br />parking accommodation in favor of Bay Trail users arriving by car. A Bay Trail user arriving for the first <br />time would not intuitively know that parking was available nor where it is located. For the attendant to <br />inquire into the reason the non-resident is coming onto the property and, once learning the reason, <br />then assist the vehicle driver locate the appropriate space requires that the Attendant interact with the <br />driver. Having the vehicle stop to engage the driver in conversation for that purpose would appear to <br />”violate” the condition of approval. Such provision is inconsistent and illogical and in direct <br />contradiction to the proper assertion of private property rights by the HOA. <br /> <br />- The inclusion of non-resident parking accommodations along Bayfront Drive is properly a revision of the <br />BCDC public-access permit and is part of ongoing discussion with BCDC and will be, and can only be, <br />resolved once the Kiosk proposal approval becomes final with the City. <br /> <br />- For these reasons, the HOA respectfully requests that the recommended restrictive condition on <br />stopping non-resident vehicles entering Bayfront Drive should be deleted from the approved conditional <br />permit thereby acknowledging BCDC’s recognized statutory enforcement jurisdiction over Bay Trail <br />access. In other words, let BCDC do its job. <br /> <br />Wayfinding signage on the Kiosk <br /> <br />- The City approved Permit Amendment should not include a wayfinding signage condition on the Kiosk <br />itself because BCDC has established uniform signage guidelines for the entire Bay Trail System as can be <br />found in their circular entitled: “Shoreline Signs, Public Access Signage Guidelines”. This publication can <br />be found on BCDC web site at http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/planning/SSSG.pdf. Graphic templates can be <br />found at http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/publications/signage/getSigns.php