My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
4A Public Hearings 2016 1219
CityHall
>
City Clerk
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2016
>
Packet 2016 1219
>
4A Public Hearings 2016 1219
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/13/2016 3:00:38 PM
Creation date
12/13/2016 3:00:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CM City Clerk-City Council
CM City Clerk-City Council - Document Type
Agenda
Document Date (6)
12/19/2016
Retention
PERM
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
60
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Download electronic document
View images
View plain text
3 <br />public parking on the street and they have never suggested or mandated otherwise. We <br />surmise that BCDC’s current agreement with the City, which calls for the City to install <br />5-6 parking spaces in the roundabout, is the result of BCDC’s and the City’s recognition <br />that there currently exists no parking for the public, which is readily accessible to the <br />trails. <br /> <br />We ask the Council to also be aware that as of the present time, there is no public <br />vehicle access to the bay trails as there is no parking on Bayfront. At no time has BCDC <br />maintained or contended that the public has the right to park on Bayfront. However, as <br />part of the HOA’s application to BCDC we have discussed the installation of several <br />parking places on Bayfront to be used by the public during the hours the bay trails are <br />open. The residents of Heron Bay will not be allowed to use those designated parking <br />spaces during the hours they are reserved for the public visiting the trails. If finalized this <br />will represent a tremendous benefit to BCDC, the City and the public in general. Part of <br />the discussions with BCDC on the role of the attendant at the kiosk involve the attendant <br />directing those persons who intend to visit the trails to the available parking on Bayfront. <br />If the attendant cannot stop non-resident vehicles at the kiosk, then those visitors cannot <br />be advised of the available parking on Bayfront and they will not be given the <br />information regarding the trails, which is anticipated will be handed out by the attendant <br />during the brief stop. Virtually every national and state park and many county parks (for <br />example, Santa Clara County) have kiosks and attendants stopping, greeting visitors and <br />handing out useful park information. The Planning Commission’s thought that the stop at <br />the kiosk is a denial of public access is simply without merit, factually and legally. It is <br />particularly aggravating that the Commission even went so far as to deny the ability of <br />the kiosk attendant to stop non-resident vehicles during the night hours when the bay <br />trails are closed to the public. What would possibly be the City or BCDC’s interest in <br />denying stops to non-residents on private property when public access to the trails is not <br />even possible. Heron Bay contends that to prevent stops 24/7 is beyond logic and <br />constitutes an abuse of discretion as the restriction is without legal or logical justification. <br /> <br /> While Mr. Tepper has ably outlined the history and the current state of the <br />easements called out on the approved tract map for the project, we would offer the <br />following additional comments. At least one member of the Planning Commission has <br />repeatedly offered comments as to what she thought was the original intention of the City <br />and BCDC when the project was first approved. She claims that the parties discussed the <br />concept of parking in an area that we believe is now part of the trail. Notwithstanding the <br />fact that her recollection of what she was told was the intent of the parties and the fact <br />that this would be hearsay in a Court of Law, those “original intentions” are not relevant <br />to the present discussion. What is important is what easements are shown on the Tract <br />Map as approved by all jurisdictions with an interest in the development at the time the <br />maps were approved. These easements, and only these easements, are enforceable as <br />legally binding. <br /> <br /> Tract map 6810 dated July 1996 is the map under which this project was <br />constructed. The language on the map and the description of the easements, which was
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.