Title
Review and Make a Recommendation on the Pathways Along Fernside Boulevard and Eastshore Drive.
Body
To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Recreation and Park Commission
From: Amy Wooldridge, Recreation and Parks Director
Re: Review and Make a Recommendation on the Pathways Along Fernside Boulevard and Eastshore Drive.
BACKGROUND
As part of the Tidal Canal transfer, the City, in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, transferred 84 lots of submerged land to the adjacent residents. At that time, City Council directed staff to conduct a feasibility study on the three public pathways along Fernside Blvd., as well as the three pathways on Eastshore Dr.
The Feasibility Study of Six Public Access Pathways on Fernside Blvd. and Eastshore Dr. (“Feasibility Study”) was issued in August 2018. A public input process was conducted in September and October of 2018, including two community meetings and an online survey. 44 people attended the meetings, primarily composed of East End residents (92%), and 494 people provided input through the survey, with more than half living on the East End (69%). Exhibit 3 is a summary report of the information compiled from the survey and community meetings. There was quite a lot of consistency in the responses and prioritization of options for each pathway.
As a result of a community request made during the input meetings, Alameda Police Department (“APD”) staff, who are certified in Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (“CPTED”), conducted a thorough assessment of all six pathways using the CPTED criteria and issued a report (Exhibit 4). This information helped inform the recommendations.
In response to questions raised by the public during the input process, the City Attorney’s office determined it was necessary to conduct further title analysis to clarify boundaries, ownership and other property rights related to the pathways. This title research and analysis was conducted throughout the later winter/early spring of 2019. Further analysis was conducted by the City’s Risk Manager in April 2019.
Concurrently, staff from the Planning Department, Recreation and Parks Department, Public Information Officer, and City Attorney’s office, met to review the CPTED report, property issues, and to formulate staff recommendations for each pathway.
DISCUSSION
For ease of reference, the pathways are referred to as A through F, with pathway A being the one closest to the High Street Bridge and the other five pathways proceeding down Fernside Blvd. and then down Eastshore Dr., with the last path nearest to Meyers Ave. being referred to as F.
OWNERSHIP AND EASEMENT INFORMATION
The additional title analysis undertaken by the City Attorney’s office provided the following information with respect to the six pathways.
Pathways A, B and C: Ownership of these pathways is held jointly by the adjacent property owners or a predecessor of an owner. The title information for each of these pathways shows that the area was designated as a “public thoroughfare” and that the paths were then dedicated to and accepted by the City on a 1912 map. The impact of this information is that the City holds an easement over both pathways that it may enforce in order to protect the rights of the public to safely access these paths in an unobstructed manner.
Pathway C: Ownership of this pathway is held jointly by a predecessor in interest of the current owner of the parcel on the left side of the path and the owner of the parcel on the right side of the path. The title information for each of these pathways shows that the area was designated as a “public thoroughfare” and that the paths were then dedicated to and accepted by the City on a 1912 map. The impact of this information is that the City holds an easement over both pathways that it may enforce, as described above.
Pathway D: Ownership of this entire pathway is held by the owners on only one side of the path. The title information for this pathway indicates that the City has an easement for street and incidental purposes; and that private parties who own other lots shown on the map also have easements for ingress and egress. Again, these easements give the City the right to enforce safe public access over the pathways, as described above.
Pathway E: Ownership of this pathway is held by the original developer. The title information for this pathway indicates that the public has an easement for street purposes and that private parties who own other lots shown on the map also have easements for ingress and egress. Again, these easements give the City right to enforce safe public access over the pathways.
Pathway F: Ownership of this pathway is held by a single person who presumably held the land when it was mapped. The title information for this pathway does not show that rights on or over this pathway were ever dedicated to the City or that any easements over it were dedicated to the City, the public, or any private parties. In other words, the City has no rights or legal interest in this pathway. As a result, the City does not have any rights that it may enforce in connection with this pathway and this pathway is owned by a private party who may use it as he elects in compliance with law.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Please see Exhibit 1 for a recap and additional information on the recommendations and Exhibit 2 for maps of each pathway with recommended borders shown.
Pathway A: This pathway is recommended to remain open in its current condition with minimal improvements. The pathway is narrow and winding and not currently in compliance with ADA standards. The first phase would include installing fencing and safety lighting along a cone shape that is 35 feet wide at the water’s edge and back 30 feet; enforcing encroachments outside of that area; and maintaining landscape to CPTED standards with bushes no taller than 3 feet and trees no lower than 3 feet. A second phase, if funded, would include significant grading and an ADA compliant level pathway, installing retaining walls, and new landscape. The estimated cost for this work is $750,000 and will bring it into compliance with ADA standards. Staff will include design of this pathway in the overall pathway detailed design project and will seek funding for this pathway construction through grants and other opportunities.
The remaining portions of the bulb-out will be sold by the City to the adjacent owners together with the sale of the submerged land. The price for the land side will be based on the market rate for non-developable land in Alameda.
All survey and meeting respondents chose to maintain this pathway as public access in its existing condition with minimal improvements. Interestingly, during the budget challenge portion of the survey, all respondents allocated the least amount of funds to this pathway.
Pathway B: This pathway is recommended to be improved as a viewing area of the water and widened at the water’s edge in a cone shape that is 35 feet wide and 30 feet back. The improvements will include new fencing, added landscaping and other amenities such as benches, trash/recycling receptacles, and other components to create a pleasant public viewing area of the water. The remaining portions of the bulb-out will be sold by the City to the adjacent owners together with the sale of the submerged land.
All respondents chose the option to keep this pathway for an overlook, or viewing area to the water.
Pathway C: The recommendation for this pathway is to vacate the City easement and sell the vacated easement to the adjacent property owners, along with the submerged land. Given that this pathway serves as a driveway for both homes on either side and is used by vehicles multiple times each day, there are safety concerns regarding the conflicting uses of vehicles and pedestrians on this pathway. In addition, vacating this easement is consistent with the City’s adopted Vision Zero plan to reduce the likelihood of pedestrian and bicyclist injuries and fatalities by 2030. The City’s easement would be released in a recorded document.
All respondents chose to keep this pathway for an overlook, viewing area. The option to close the pathway was the second choice for meeting respondents and last choice for the survey respondents.
Pathway D: The recommendation for this pathway is to expand the width by enforcing and removing encroachments, such as the tall hedge barrier and fencing, and to implement improvements such as picnic tables, benches, and low rock, log and other natural seating areas. The pathway will then be approximately 45 feet across with improvements also including removing the roughly poured concrete along the rock wall at the end of the pathway and creating a more natural, informal access to the water. This pathway is already informally used to launch watercraft and there are ways to make that informal water access easier.
A non-motorized boat launch was considered for this location and while it is feasible, staff recommends a formal non-motorized watercraft launch (canoes, kayaks, paddle boards) be located instead at Towata Park, which is less than ¾ of a mile from this pathway. Towata Park is at the base of the Bay Farm Bridge and is a more suitable location for a formal watercraft launch due to the existing parking, larger area for a boat launch and related amenities, and closer access to deep water. This idea was raised at the community meetings as a viable option for the launch location, so it was not originally included in the public input process.
All respondents selected the option for a water viewing area and kayak launch as their top choice.
Pathway E: This well-used pathway is recommended to remain as a public access to view the water and be improved with increased public amenities. There are no significant encroachments. The City will take over maintenance responsibility and will improve the pathway with amenities such as picnic tables, benches, trash/recycle receptacles.
Pathway F: This pathway is not owned by the City and the City holds no easement over it. Therefore the City has no rights to this pathway and it will subsequently remain closed.
OVERALL ELEMENTS FOR ALL RECOMMENDATIONS
Per the boundaries shown for each pathway on Exhibit 2, it is recommended that encroachments within those areas be enforced.
Where any easement area remains that is not recommended to be enforced as part of public pathway area, it is recommended that the City do the following:
• Survey the modified path (see Exhibit 2 for estimated boundaries) to create a new legal description.
• Sell unused easement area (such as the portions on either side of the 35’ wide cone shape at the water’s edge) to adjacent property owners, together with the sale of submerged land.
• Record replacement easement reflecting revised legal description and clear statement of obligations of parties with respect to the path, such as the City’s maintenance obligations.
Per CPTED guidelines, safety measures outlined below will be implemented at all public access pathways. This includes trimming and pruning bushes and trees, installing safety lighting that is directed toward the pathway and away from homes, creating clear entryways and installing signage, and possibly installing security cameras aimed at the pathway areas.
SAFETY MEASURES AT ALL PATHWAYS
CPTED provides design guidelines for public areas in order to create a safer environmental and reduce the incidence of crime. APD produced the CPTED Feasibility Study for the six pathways. The recommendations to increase safety include:
• For path areas that are further from the street and not as easily seen by an officer in a patrol car, install uniform lighting with shields or a lower height light (such as bollard lights) to avoid light bleed into neighbor windows.
• Install 6 foot fences along all boundaries between a pathway and an adjacent home.
• To increase visibility and reduce areas to hide, maintain and install landscape with bushes trimmed down to 3’ or lower and trees trimmed up to 3’ or higher.
• For pathways remaining open, improve signage so entries are more identifiable and create celebrated entryways.
• Consider fencing into the shore area for the two pathways on Eastshore Drive to discourage concealment along the estuary bank.
• Remove any items, such as moveable trash bins, that can be used as makeshift ladders into surrounding private properties.
• Fix irregularities in concrete/asphalt pathways to improve safety.
• Install surveillance cameras to discourage criminal behaviors.
NEXT STEPS
In September 2019, City Council will consider the Recreation and Parks Commission (“Commission) recommendations, hear public comment in open session, and make its final determination for each pathway.
After that determination is made, staff will engage an architect for design of each pathway, submit for regional and local permits, and ultimately construct the pathway improvements.
Concurrently, the City Attorney’s office will work on creating legal lots for each of the submerged lots behind the Fernside Blvd. homes and the legal descriptions for any remaining easement areas potentially being sold to owners. Once legal lots and descriptions are completed, the City will sell to the applicable owners, the submerged parcels and any remaining easement areas homeowners on Fernside Blvd. The lot lines for these submerged parcels are anticipated to be drawn around existing docks as was done for the other submerged land sales along Fernside Blvd. These docks do not block views to the water and are recommended as compatible with the viewing areas.
The City Attorney’s office will also work on encroachment enforcement in consultation with staff.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no immediate impact from making these recommendations. There is slightly less than $1 million available for design and construction for any recommended improvements.
RECOMMENDATION
To consider the staff recommendation and make a recommendation to City Council on each of the public pathways along Fernside Boulevard and Eastshore Drive.
Respectfully submitted,
Amy Wooldridge, Recreation and Parks Director
Exhibits:
1. Public Access Pathway Recommendation Summary Table
2. Recommendation Maps
3. Public Input Data Summary Report
4. CPTED Report