HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04221969 - Roads 1967-1969 Diablo-Tassa,jara Road, Danville 1967
Lone Tree Way, Antioch-Btentwood 1968
San Ramon Valley Blvd. , Danville 1968
Pacheco Blvd, Vine Hill 1968
Port Chicago Highway, Port Chicago 1968
Canyon Road, Moraga 1968
Victory Highway, Antioch 1968
El Cerro Blvd . , Danville 1969
Canyon Road, Moraga 1969
Marsh Creek Road, Clayton-Morgan Territory 1969
� 1. Zoe+)
i
IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the clatter of Approving the ) April 22, 1969
Recommendations of the Planning )
Commission on the Proposed Adop-
tion of Precise Highway Setback )
Lines for a Segment of Marsh ) �
Creek Road (Road No. 3971-A) , }
Clayton-Morgan Territory Area . )
)
WHEREAS the Planning Commission of the County of Contra
Costa has filed with this Board its findings and recommendations
on the 14th day of February, 1969 for the adoption of a precise
section of the Streets and Highways Plan of the County of Contra
Costa; and
WHEREAS on March 25, 1969 the hearing on said matter was
closed and decision deferred to this date; and
9HEREAS the Board of Supervisors has considered the same
and is fully advised in the premises;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board of Super-
visors does hereby approve and adopt a precise section of the Streets
and Highways Plan of the County of Contra Costa, establishing precise
highway setback lines for Marsh Creek Road (Road No. 3971-A), for
that segment 3,500 feet south of the City of Clayton to Morgan Ter-
ritory Road, Clayton-Morgan Territory area, as recommended by the
Planning Commission. This more particularly appears by a map
attached to this resolution and marked "Exhibit A".
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this
resolution be recorded in the Office of the Recorder of the County
of Contra Costa for the purpose of giving due notice to all persons
who may be interested therein.
The foregoing resolution was adopted on the motion of
Supervisor E. A. Linscheid, seconded by Supervisor T. J. Coll, and
by the following vote of the Board:
AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, A. M. Dias, T. J. Coll,
E. A. Linscheid, J. E. Moriarty.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct
copy of a resolution entered on the minutes of said Board of Super-
visors on the date aforesaid.
Witness my hand and the Seal
of the Board of Supervisors -affixed
this 22nd day of April, 1969•
W. T. PAAS CH, CLERK
By
Dor thy L z arini, Deputy
cc: Recorder
Public Works
Planning Department
Building Inspector
F
[2
g
In the Board of Supervisors
of
Contra Costa County, State of California
ti
mnrrh 25 196
In the Matter of
Yy. Hearing on proposed plan to
establish setback lines for
future alignment for a seg-
ment of Marsh Creek Road
(Road No. 3971-A) , Clayton-
Morgan Territory Area.
4
41
This being the time fixed for hearing on the proposed plan
to establish setback lines for future alignment for a segment of
. Marsh Creek Road (Road No. 3971-A) , south of the City of Clayton
4 to Morgan Territory Road in the Clayton-Morgan Territory area,
the matter came regularly before the Board and the following
G persons were heard:
s -
Mr. Ben F. Hartinger, attorney representing
Mr, and Mrs . Joseph Galvin;
Mr. S. Sewell, 4949 Laurel Drive, Concord;
Mrs . Gertrude Petroska, who spoke in behalf
of Mr. Sewell;
{ Mrs . Libby Joaquin, Marsh Creek Road, Clayton;
and
The Board having considered all testimony and being desirous,
of time in which to further consider the proposal, on motion of
Supervisor A. M. Dias, seconded by Supervisor J . P . Kenny, IT IS BY
THE BOARD ORDERED that the hearing is closed, decision to be made
April 22, 1969 at 11: 30 a.m.
aA
L The foregoing order was passed by the following vote :
AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, A. M. Dias,
E. A. Linscheid, J . E. Moriarty.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Supervisor T. J. Coll.
`r
dt
9
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the
minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid.
n
cc : Planning Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of
u Public Works (2) Supervisors
}
z affixed this 2h day of Yjarrh , 196
N T. PAASCH, Clerk
Y
yA l Deputy Clerk
H 24-7/68-I OM
5
r
This spacsfor County Clerk's Filing Stomp
PROOF OF PUBLI ATION
(2015.5 C.C.P.)
. I LED
STATE OF CALIFORNIA I��4 10)- 4969
County of Contra Costa W. T. PAA�CLERK BOARD OF SUPEW.
RVISORS
OWrRA COSTA CO.
s By/._ Deputy
` 1 am a citizen of the United States and a resident of
` the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen
r. years, and not a party to or interested in the above-
entitled a 1 Book��e e e r
entitled matter. I am the ...__. r` ..........................�_.._ Proof of Publication of
K ...................... fro os e d Hi hv�a s�t ba ck Si ns
r P --... - - •-� - ._..._..� - ...........
v ` Concord Transcri t
of the ------------------------•----•--•-•----•-----_ . p- .................... ----
{Y
a newspaper of general circulation, printed and Paste Clipping
of Notice
' SECURELY,—,.,,,
published ..Na.Ch b�......19r 9.. ..
` MEN
CO iii(15S
-•-•-•-•--••-•--•-•--••-..............................................
...._. CO
' �"
Ida nut Creek i0 H s 'e�E
in the City of AO td0A,A r'_?
�s
BEFRl3HH(:`,; S�
J County of Contra Costa, and which newspaper has tip
r been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by
Ta WHOM fT%1A* Nt '
the Superior Court of the County of Contra Costa You and each of you are her
n d . ,3ptr,`ttta } L�,
Fe, r��► tea HR
_� r 6/18 2 m� Ur K rt3ounlY.19
ry
V. State or California, under the date of ---..._._, 19 . 5. GoI �s
with t►te-
f Af-: 8R
4
Case Number ..._.it Jr� _..; that the notice, s
1...93.............. a p- k
L of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not et{► ':
smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each
Road, NYt011L-�t�Nf�n�.
> > ]1 -
regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in Ya drill each„of you are cher
any supplement thereof on the following dotes, to-wit:
Crfi,foniyC, t ,
S4 r
.....................' 1 �x 19�.... ......-- -•....-•----.......
r, ..thou � h
all in the year 19.....
_____._-411i
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the nrjdrecirtlmertdat,mfs. w I
held
foregoing is true and correct. yfijoat 3�.:pr l I R
f .......... 'hlftZ t' Me rysSuggan{s e"eWirt.
c6 ',1. Reooaf(9
Executed at ._..qQ.iG.9X :... lif0? nia......... t
_
time all.<:Persons,(P
attend, pnpnF Attd
x California this day of 19._._9_ Cog-"
lip Wit,
s
10 yI .rch .•-•---. 6 S � t
� February:`
vb �r
T;T PAASCH, Corxltt/
Signature
3k”' , " x `
PROOF OF PUBLICATIO ` � , 4 FORM I-SO
Z.
AFFIDAVIT •OF MAILING
y
4,
in the Matter of Order for j
Hearing on Proposed Highway )
Setback for Future Alignment or
Portion of Marsh Creek Road )
(Road No- 3971-A), Clayton- ) ' E
Morgan Territory Area. )
j FEB 21 1959
W. T. PAASCH
CLERK GOA RD O SUPERVISORS
r t O T A STA.CO-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) By Deputy
SS.
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA }
Y4
Dorothy Lazzarini , being duly sworn, deposes
� t .
and says that she is now, and at all times herein mentioned was,
a citizen of the United States over the age of 21 years; that
a n
3
e y
,
he 2 st da of February 19
6 she deposited in
on t
_ y , , P
the United States Post Office in the City of Martinez, County of
h ! Contra Costa, State of California, a certified copy of
the above-captioned matter
F;
•
k;
to the following and that the postage thereon was fully prepaid;
All those listed on attachment .
viii i
0.L
`I
2
2
T:
.4
at
k
Subscribed and sworn to
before me this 21st day
Y of February `— `, 19 69
r
Y
Deputy Clerk
e
r
'F
,Y a
6-
ti
MARSH CREEK ROAD
Road No. 3971A �/ / r '
W. H. A Margaret A. Easley Kenneth Be & Bertha 149 Foster ; Venancio C• Azovedo
170 San Anselmo Avonue P. 0• Box 29 '` ' =� P. 0. Box 122
a San Francisco, California t Clayton. California 94517 C Clayton, California 94517 ,•;
94127 I !
` Harold Be Alexander John J. & Patricia Cleriei (� Alfred Schwartz
2125 Arizona Avenue 11200 1 8735 Marsh Creek Road • 1 P. 0. Box 213
k w Santa Monica, California ! � Clayton, California 94517 Clayton, California 94517
90404
Libby Joaquin � j �Alvert R• Broccoli
4 t
Sewood & Gladys M. Sewell Y
' y ; Marsh Creek Road 315 South Beverly Drive ��
4949 Laurel Drive . , y � e
Concord, California 94521 Clayton, California 94517 {; Suite 500
Beverley Hills, California f
90212
Vit. „r •. �,
Curtiss E. & Ann R. Kelley !6"t Ronald & Catherine R• Margaret H. Dewitt
i ` Knudtson c i
P. O• �Box 99 Q /o A. E. Howard & Company
S,Lji- 1
<; Clayton, California 94517 �,;� 1312 • Fifth Avenue 55 New Montgomery Street A-
_, i r. Concord, California San Francisco, California
y 94105
Gertrude E. Petroschka r Alf t/�d,/J. rol eel M. .'1 Robert J. Wileyv Inc.
1295 Railroad Avenue 169 S oy�ri r ; Marsh Creek Road �,+►
3= . ts a, Cali 0 Clayton, California 94517
Ai.tsburg, CaliforniaColifornie � � '
s` 94565
Althea M. Ellis ! C. F. Frank I City of Clayton
1. i ! t Russe l�nann Park P• 0. Box 266 �,1
_. P. 0. Box 954 .a
Ft. Concord, California. '94522 �'} Clayton, California 94517 l Clayton, California i •'
4
"4` Vis- � .� •; � _..._� �. .1}•
` � Martin A. & Phyllis 0• Easton
�- Antonio C & Kellie ALPiaentel�t � Marsh Crook Road f � Th 1 �
a P. 0• Box 225 i 22 onto Z and 1
Clayton, California 94517 �,�' Clayton, California
+ C con alif is *�
i 520 ��
z ''" i }'
Joe Be & Race C. Galvin
St. Anthony Claret Seminary rl fi •s
119 Westchester Place 9515 March Crook Road Mr. Alfred I. Roux
Los Angeles, California 90019 Cleyton, California 94517 ! Marsh Creek Rd.
Clayton, California 94517 �+
Ronald W. & Macy C. Henry iEverett J• & Dorothy L• ) Den 11.irtingcr, Attorney ��♦*'
8120 Marsh Creek Road
Galvin �• 200 Gregory Lane 'r
p Cleyton, California 94517 f P. 0. Box 163 , pleasant Hill,Witornia 94520 ;
- ! Clayton, California 94517
. ..Y H. ssell E izabe 0• �w Luzia C. AzavedeMr
' Gr fi f ? c/o Frank V. Visna • Mel Harron
3124 Grant Lane.
3182 H view Co rRFO #949S Lata tte, Calif. 94549 :*
ail f Clay n, California 94517 i I lh
Condo � li o is �• � � t
�r
l'
Ri. J C4.....
1
4
41 °
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
P . 0 Box 911
Martinez, California 94553
February 19, 1969
z
s ,
of record Transcript
P. 0. Box 308
Concord, California
Gentlemen:
Re : Pur c has a Order # 11934.
Enclosed is notice of hearing re proposed
z :1 -
highway setback for portion of Marsh Creek Road, Clayton
Morgan Territory area,
which we wish you to publish on
March 6a 1969
Please sign the enclosed card and return it to this
office
Immediately upon the expiration of publication,
t-
=f send us an affidavit of publication in order
that the Auditor may be authorized to pay your bill.
Very truly yours,
W. T . PAASCH CLERK
By. Dorothy Lazmrini
Deputy Clerk
s Enclosures
4s.
-3-8-750
Form #T7
c
F
,h
9
'.111
IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF
F CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
4
February 18, 1969
In the Patter of the Report of the }
Planning Commission on Proposed }
Highway Setback for Future Alignment )
of a Portion of the Marsh Creek Road )
(Road No. 3971-A), South of the City }
of Clayton to Morgan Territory Road, )
Clayton-Morgan Territory Area. }
WHEREAS on February 14, 1969 the Planning Commission
of the County of Contra Costa filed with this Board ita findings.
and recommendations in the above matter;
NOW, THEREFORE, in accordance with provisions of the
Government Code of the State of California, and on motion of
Supervisor T. J. Coll, seconded by Supervisor A. M. Dias, IT IS
BY THE BOARD ORDERED that a hearing be held on March 25, 1969s,
being a Tuesday, at 3 p.ma in the Chambers of the Board of
Supervisors, Room 107, Administration Building, Martinez,
California, at which time all persons interested may attend,,
appear, and be heard; and that the Clerk publish notice in the
"Concord Transcript's for the time and in the manner required by
F law.
The foregoing order was passed by the following vote.
of the Board:
ai Y
AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, A. M. Dias,
T. J. Coll, E. A, Linscheid,
ht' J. E. Moriarty.
x :
NOES: None..
g
ABSENT: None.
4
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and
correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board
of Supervisors on the date aforesaid.
Witness my hand and the Seal of
the Board of Supervisors affixed this
18th day of February, 1969.
W. T. PAA`SCH,, CLERK
By G
Dorot Lazzar n , Deputy Clerk
cc: All those listed
t' on Affidavit of Mailing
Planning
.L
y
M
i
t
SII .
NOTICE OF HEARING OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
I° OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA FOR PROPOSED HIGHWAY SETBACK LINES
FOR FUTURE ALIGNMENT OF A PORTION OF THE PJARSH MIEME R
NO. 3971-A) . CLAYTON-MORGAN TERRITORY AREA.
BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA,
ON MARCH 25 196 .
Y
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
You and each of you are hereby notified that on the
# ` - ljtth day of February , 196 , the Planning Commission of
the County of Contra Costa, State of California, filed with
the Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa, a reso-
lution incorporating findings and recommendations for proposed
highway setback lines for i segaent of Marsh Creek Road fro_m a
point 3500 feet south of the City of Clayton to Morgan Territory
Road, Clayton-Morgan Territory area.
s,
You and each of you are further notified that, pursuant
to the Government Code of the State of California, the Board of
{ Supervisors proposes to adopt a highway setback ordinance for
'K
future_ Alignment for a segment of the Marsh Creek Road snuth of
the City of Clayton to Xorgga Territorg Ronde
and that public hearing on said proposed ordinance and resolution
of the Planning Commission, incorporating findings and recommenda-
tions, will be held onrch 2� 1969,r, being
4 a Tu�=Y , at _3 n-m_ in the Chambers of the
Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa, State of
California, at which time all persons interested may attend, appear
and be heard.
BY ORDER of the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Contra Costa, dated this 18th day of Fah�y ,
196 .
s > W. T. PAASCH, County Clerk and
ex-officio Clerk of the Board
of Supervisors of the County of
t Contra Costa, State of California
By W- W
_5
Deputy Clerk
y (Seal)
{
67-4-200
Form 25.8
f
T.F
a-
FRECEIVE -
r
F L r j
{
W. T. PAASC,; i-i
" CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
c vTnA COSTA co. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BY _ Deputy
INTER-OFFICE MEMO
fi TO: G. Russell - CZerk of the Board DATE: 13 February 1969
r
FROM Anthony A. Dehaesus - Director of anning SUBJECT: Highway setback,Plan,
s ,
By: H. Russell Griffith Marsh Creek Road (Road #3971-A)
Principal Planner
Attached is the resolution adopted by the Planning Commission in regard to the
above entitled matter.
The Board of Supervisors must set a date for public hearing and give notice for
same by legal publication, a copy of the legal notice of publication being
.1
attached.
The following people should be notified of your Board's hearing date and time:
See attached list for names and persons to notify of your public hearing.
V
HRG/v
Attachments
cc: File - Marsh Creek Road Setback
Supervisor E.A.Linschied, District V
Public Works Department, Highway Planning
1
1
..fir
IV
MARSH CREEK ROAD
' Road No. 3971A
F�
` - I W. H. & Margaret A. Easley Kenneth Be & Bertha M. Foster ; Venancio C. Azovedo ! '
170 San Anselmo Avenue P. 0. Box 29 '• ' r P. 0. Box 122 }
San Francisco, California Clayton, California 94517 1 Clayton, California 94517
94127 i
Harold Be Alexander John J. & Patricia Clerics i ; Alfred Schwartz s
2125 Arizona Avenue 11200 8735 Marsh Creek Road • i P. Q. Box 213
Santa Monica, CaliforniaClayton, California 94517 Clayton, California 94517 ?;
90404 : . •_
' Sewood & Gladys Me Sewell Libby Joaquin Alvert R. Broccoli
-' 4949 Laurel Drive ,i Marsh Creek Road 315 South Beverly Drive �?
` Concord, California 94521 �' Clayton. California 94517 r,.ti Suite 500
Beverley Hills, California
r 90212
Curtiss E. & Ann R. Kelley " Ronald & Catherine R. i Margaret H. Dewitt
P. 0- 'Box 99 w Knudtson % A. E. Howard & Company 1
Clayton, California 94517 1312 - Fifth Avenue 55 New Montgomery Street
A
Concord, California San Francisco, California
x 94105 ».
Gertrude E. Petroschka ` Alfred, I.�&. 1ce; i. Rou Robert J. Miley, Inc*
1295 Railroad Avenue 169 Shiny Drive i ;�1 Marsh Creek Road
,.: I
Pittsburg, California Mora a, Califon j Clayton, California 94517 y
: 94565 l ` L/
i
` Althea M. Ellis ?Y`' C. F. Frank ► City of Clayton
! P. 0• Box 954 Russalmann Park ! i P. 0. Box 268 r�
' COnCOrd, California '94522 i'i Clayton, California 94517 (•�
Clayton, California
_4
Antonia C & Nellie M.Pimental " Martin A. & Phyllis D. Easton I
j. IQ
P. 0• Box 225 ; Marsh Creek Road Thomas Coll
i Clayton, California ; 2204 Concord -Boulevard t
\
Clayton, California 94517 'A' Concord, California
94520 !�
t' E Joe Be & Rose Ce Calvin
St. Anthony Claret Seminary rl , r
9515 Marsh Creak Road Mr. Alfred I. Roux r
y 119 Westchester Place i
los Angeles, California 90019 Clayton, California 94517 ; Marsh Creek Rd. !
:u `? if Clayton, California 94517lid
Ronald W. & Mary C. Henry } '? Everett J. & Dorothy L. {! Ben ilartinger, Attorney
Galvin
j 8120 Marsh Creek Road �,; 200 Gregory Lane t`
163 Box.0
P.P
. : ; pleasant Ni11,California 94520'.-
Clayton, California •94517
211
I Clayton, California 94517 til `
H. Russell & Elizabeth D. Luzia Co Azaveda
Mr. Mel Barron
Griffith f• ; % Frank V. Viera <�
3124 Grant Lane-
3182 Hillview Court RFD ,#9495 !
i Concord, California 94520 ; Clayton, California 94517Lafayette, Calif. 94549 ,moi
hry
-
F
Resolution No. 11-1969.
KC:SOLUTION OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE
,. OF CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A SPECIFIC PLAN TO ESTABLISH SETBACK LINE
FOR FUTURE ALIGNMENT FOR A SETGMENT OF THE MARSH CREEK ROAD (ROAD NO.3971-A) ,
�OUTH OF THE CITY OF CLAYTON TO MORGAN TERRITORY ROAD, IN THE CLAYTON-MORGAN
.P
�ERRITORY AREA OF SAID COUNTY.
-: WHEREAS, after due notice having been given in the manner provided by
saw, the Contra Costa County Planning Commission conducted public hearings on
r k:ctober 15, 1968, December 17, 1968, January 28, 1969 and February 4, 1969, to
,consider setback lines for a portion of the Marsh Creek Road (Road No. 3971-A) ,as
Jprovided by Title 7, Sections 7175 through 7181, of the County Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the proposed highway setback Map,"Exhibit A" was presented to
." he Planning Commission together with a Staff Report describing the proposal, a
ry: copy of the report being attached to this resolution marked "Exhibit B"; and
f� WHEREAS, interested persons appeared and spoke on this matter and were
heard by the Planning Commission as indicated on "Exhibit C", which is attached;
land
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on Friday, January 24, 1969, visited
ti }the subject area; and
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Comission having considered the
irecommendations of the Staff, does hereby recommend APPROVAL of a SpecificPlan
t Setback of Alignment for Marsh Creek Road (Road No. 3971-A) , for that segwent
yam. s�
X3,500-feet south of the City of Clayton to Morgan Territory Road, as indicated i
!Exhibit A; and
I
�j BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairman and Secretary of this Planning
_ ;- Commission shall respectively sign and attest the certified copy of this resolu-
3t.
4
tion and deliver the same to the Board of Supervisors all in accordance with the
{provisions of the Planning Law of the State of California.
An instruction by the Planning Commission to prepare this resolution
!incorporating the above was given at a regular meeting on Tuesday, February 4,
1969, by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES: Commissioners Milano, Goyak, Andrew Young, Arthur Youngs
Lynch, Jeha.
NOES: Commissioners Arthur M. Shelton, Jr.
i ABSENT: Commissioners None.
ABSTAIN: Commissioners None.
s= 1:
Ills I A RON—a" to
`9y
�:��_.1r��C LTi +`:��... ,.. .,;.._ .o..• ,. ..:-.._.. ,c_...:. ...,. .. _ ,.._ ., .- ,. .. _ .. _... _.. -. ...., ... ..... ... .. ...
S'.
A
- A,
F : Resolution,No.. 11-1%
I, Richard J. Jeha, Chairman of the County Planning Commission,of:-the
bounty of Contra. Costa, State of California, hereby certify that the foregoing
as duly called and held in accordance with the law on Tuesday, February 11,, 1969
y the following vote of the commission:
N
AYES: Commissioners Milano, Goyak, Andrew Young; 'Shelton,
�:.
Arthur W. -Young,'''Jeha..:
NOES: Commissioners None.
ABSENT: Comwissioners,Timothy J. .Lynch.
ABSTAIN: Commissioners None.
;44
i Chairman of:` anninq Commission of- the'
- ! County, of Contr .Costa, State of California.
ATTEST:
R
secretary of
the'P1 'ng C scion of the
County of Contra Costa,: State of California. '
r m
i
ft
NOTICE OF FL.7p {C gyA .G. ING, Bp. O.RE. THE
;
} CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMISSION
,s
s, -
r}
1 4J NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN-that on Tuesday. October:'15, 1968, at..'s
2 7:30 p.m., -in'Room 107, County Administration Buildii ,' corner of Pine and
3 ;IEscobar .Streets, Martinez, California, the Contra Costa: County. Flanniug i
4 r Commission will conduct a public hearing to reviewa.,specific plan of future ,
g alignment ,a�td setbaci� lines for a; segment of MALRSH`CREEK ROAD from a`.point'
6 3500 Feet South of the City of Clayton to Mdrgan Territory Road,
7 Information concerning this matter maybe obtained by contacting
8 f either Mr. 'Vernon L. Cline, Department of Public librki or Mr. Charles Zahn,
.r 9 '; County Planning Department, Administration Building, Martinez, California.
10 Arthux _W. Youngdhaf.rmian T
f a Contra Costa tountr !
I l
Planning.Commission
I2 �{
13 T# Publish once Sari the Concord Traaascript, Frida�r,. Oct. 49 1.968.
r `s
i
14
15 3
x 16
1s ;
19 t s
20 '
21 {{
22 ti
£: 23F ]
24
25 i
26 # s
27 €
28
29 �
u
30 1
{
31 �! }
- pp
v
i
V : C
r O
' ty I �' .$^FL a �+ A � �• �
p
`2
2
G
II
IL
N
1.0
v
T4cl
{'A
0 CI
KQ' � 4 Wo G N
M=o E 12 p
r
N ti
=: N
tR
2 i +
!Ir L i
iz
NO.
c.
� c
a� '
., .n�xT,:i�.. :3-si--s <.�1 .... •:..�z,..s�r"'.....�-,o.... -.. ra: y.,wpkL_�.�_ ,�... !E , ..fN,.... .° ., ,.a��, �' .,- :r . -ee•„
1 "
w
�f -
"4f
z}
b / /
u wjru y
pp
235.00 NOT
`• �F I a �; I � 11J• a cr ec
a I
w y y
ib
' ow' 4 i r tt b 1 11
r'40
oo
a 1_
14 o _
({J to °., .a ,� �+ i; trh fid. y,•�.. �Z
� •` Vc +�ts
m�U
n
az 3i z
t
i
a Ip__ °' �k e `" � )a•, 247+7�a
t h �� G
> ' A ��
], w 1 N w
�1 Iv^, - I 1 NL•t7.9/t9EC
�� x � /.1"fit/Nh I`<'. �c1.L,'� ^ `'6•F.'tt?SEC y �? 4I sll� � ��,p�
—
s< k2'u_
AL.-. it 55' JS h ti 1u 5 - QI
3 / �Idbl I L l
i3 I Nld }
a
v)
I in � Ili
G
ry N U
1 I ti
{ j7l
Iu
` $-�lO `'�'lld _233,-•G019 B�-- - G , 1� ,
G
I41011 N.
����
y O h c. �U.� 1 Iii
q� I _ `N h °w
('�
A h ie n
v S
All
aY m r
r s S I I I w
C � ry1c1 � Ip
c
po
4q I n 1
Y 2
-4C �t y - SS'
I6J.,M.f7QC -
.79--1 c 11 SSS
3
l
• 3
mitt :,
�¢ ey
$ 441 41
/
1
It
rc j
Cik
qt
i
o
•s••.,� � !a ! � � �SO` ..10 .!__. _ ..-__......_._._.__._Z87.ZI J78C
gig. �,{• I �
LA
` 55,
rN
Li
oil
4
.-
M
k g 793•X9716G_.� .� � �� �lt V kyr.
4 h ` (l O y ` i w� QIw
11111 � a 4l`
� V $ c1 �.�u +�
4�2a�aj -'�4c Orf
a:
t
�4
r_
k -
6
c.
� v _
I I~
1 �
a
i ^Qi r'< ti.•V.V �m tti v O • a•v ;0 � DiU
1}^C P
V b
Zt
cl
41
s i E G ti la
w 'z Q � I� ,� I •� a,,ri � I
8'
/
2
\ 41
4 t.
'{ .y ^118 ;rr�I •� '1 10
1 � b
cl
y
C �= a
Y P Q 4 til• l
ti z ,
IL
fa
••tz le 1\ v I
�..>>v ;.-�': ¢:.:-.' r..: r..,.'!t.rvn.,,`�..:.:w-.�. rl'h. �'�.^4nt•' .,M?:v -"x�. .-.T,�!",i4 xu-.- ., ..'(;..,' ,7Ct � 7 �y� p
F� Y
z. •
h
�s
J54,1d7 cc 15 53' r'
` g`i� � __ 1 ♦6 � �s.CSo
4 11
v \
V-
QS
�,• 1 t� Y��U t A _
I ^ h
cb
it
t�
' 14'K • G Q f'' :.�r i /! � to � ! !.' 61 . �? -'1' �K' �2
�o ^o g c X � y "• �Y C
V C 1
h
Ic
RO
MCC
our
Al
41
-
t: C:
m tin � ��o x 1 i' z � �•��$ 'k �
ahao �
§r - V
F"'
i,
r.
M
14
IV/ Ick
iL O O
Ory
l<
r
Q"
6 y1u p'X; F'
i r tl N s
4i ti
t �
Y i $iii s`
th N
W �
r :4 ftp
"a
R
O a•G '
ZI
y
a
n .+4
i+
z `a
rt
MARSH CREEK AD - R 397 ' "
- K RO AQ RO NUMBER IA ,
(1.37 mile southeast of the City of
Clayton to Morgan Territory Road)
' Contra Costa County, California
r
Prepared for the Contra Costa County Planning Agency
by the Contra Costs County Departments of Public Works and planning
Io Pulse of Hearing
:s
The purpose of this hearing is to consider a plan for the future
} widening and realignment of March Creak Road from 1.37 mile southeast
of the City of Clayton to Morgan Territory Road, a total distance of
3.03 miles. Construction of this section of road to the proposed width
Is not planned at this time. It to anticipated that portions of the
widening will be accomplished as a part of the development of the
adjacent properties# with overall widening to be done when required by
anticipated traffic.
II. land Use
Generally, the land in the area is owned in large parcels, with
cattle grazing the principal agricultural use. Other than agricultural
use, the existing development along the road consists of St. Anthony
Claret Seminary and about 20 homeso
The was surrounding the road, confined by the high ridges on
the north and south, contains about 5600 acres. One-half of this area
is extremely steep and will be sparsely developed while the moderately
ti atssp to relatively flat areas will probably have minimum lot size of
f one acre.
When fully developed the 5600-acre area could contain about 4000
Y' housing units with a population of approximately 14.000 people.
h = Domestic rater has been installed from Clayton southerly, and
will encourage the subdividing of the large screage parcels. In the
pest three years 20 minor subdivisions have been approved in the
b Marsh Creek Road-Morgen Territory Road areaso
w-
� r
III. Tr�S
f' ftrsh Creek Abad is s federal Aid Secondary fbute and is a part of
the City-County Thoroughfare System. It is a main arterial from the
Concord-Walnut Crests area to the eastern part of the County. The road
also serves as the only access from the central County area to Morgan
Territory Road, which serves me an arterial to a large undeveloped arae
In the southern portion of the County.
1
t
The present aware" daily traffic is 1800 vehicles. When the 5600
acres is developed, the area will generate an estimated 400,000 daily
vehicle trips which must use Marsh Creak Rood. This increase plus
through traffic, which will increase substantially as the eastern portion
of the County develops, will create the need for a divided four•lsne road.
IV. The &xistl_N Road
r .
The existing road has a pavement width of 22 to 24 feet and has poor
horizontal alignment and fair vertical alignment. It has many short
radius curves and crests with poor sight distances.
C
Vo Reoao nandations for, Improvements
The recommended route generally followe the existing road and will
have minimum radius curves of 1000 feet with maximum grades of a percent.
It is recommended that the future right of way be 110 feet plus
slope areas to provide a minimum section as followas
4 - 12-toot traffic lanes
1 - 22•-foot median strip
2 - 10-foot shoulders
2 • l0•foot sidewalk end. utility borders
_ a
' 15 October 1968 Tuesday
Planning`Co aission Meeting
item #1 on the Agenda.
x
.r.
i€JQ=Y SETBACK: PUBLIC HZARING:
MAwH RmD (Road No. 3971-A): Proposed PISA Of setbacks:and',
aligrr-
ments for Marsh Creek Road fres 30500-ft., south of the City of Clayton:to,
"morgan Territory Road.
mR. z"N: This proposed. setbm* plan c overs a aat of Marsh::Creek;Rd.,
fr(W a point Just so"h of the Cite of Clayton to the harsh Creek inter-
k section with the Morgan Territory Road. Marsh Crook Road, of cxxwrse, is
oseof the major roads on the County General Plan..
This road lies in the valley in the midst of approximately,5,600 acre
s area. Right now, the devtlopsent consists of the Ssm#nary and about 20
haaes. Basically, there is a lot of agricultural dowlopreet. The area-_
age daily traffic is about 1,800 vehicles per day. zj
if this area is developed, as per the densities indicated era the General _
Plans for this area, one could expect to have, about 4,000 hoe i about
v.
14"000 people and'w=eld;generate. about 40,000 vehicle trips per.day and.,
would indicate.the need for = four-lane road.
At present, the right of tray for the woad is variable. . The pavement is
rather narrow--22 to 24-ft.s. and aliq�as t in sce sportsr rY P te:
we are proposing that setbacks be established to percale this road to be
z widened to 130-ft., in the future, which is Federal acid secondary st�ad-
.�
arils.
w
Sea,..✓,r..-«c.=. . . A -
rye:`
fi,
15 October 1968
Hi,
hwa
�etbadc
Plan - marsh Creak Road:
f
Al on the setback proposal, the existiag right of way is shown in yellow.
The proposed right of Way additions cis shown in
osipu90 aWrd the oraay�
hatched area indicates slope easements, which taaay b ' rtedgaad with approp
riate land grading In the future.
The setback plans show how much of the property would be affected. Public
'4
works aepairtraest has developed two alternative plans for the first 3/5 of
this setback.
The preferred alternate "A"`, would call for equal widening of the existing
right of way from either side of the existing right of way. Alternate B,
which was developed to determine if there were a better allgrAmmt available,
and proposes that the major portion of the widening by far came from. the
Jr- southern portion of the road.
The costs for either of these two alternates would be approximately igwl.
However, it would seem that Alternate A would be loss disruptive generally
} to the property owners of the area and those effected.
Last week, we bad a meeting with the people of this area and there was
son* indication at that sweeting that some of the people of the arca would
like mora time to re-consider this plan. The Staff has no Objections to
this procedure.
MR. CLINE: I would like to amplify a little on what Mr. Zahn has said,
particularly with regard to the portion an which we have worked up Alter-
nates A-and-B.
As you know normally it's considered xost equitable to widen uniformly
if it'"s feasible and that is the basis on which Alternate A is worked out.
.FL It so happens that on this particular section of Marsh Creak Road, the
- road is very closely oriented against the toe of the hills on the north
" aide so the uniform widening results in substantially more, grading than
one would leave on Alternate B, which is the season for its being aW mitted
for your consideration.
You will notice that with Alternate B, there is considerably less cross
,^ hatched area, consequently considerably less grading. For the people o0
-3 the south aids of the road, of course, there's considerably mare right of
way involved and from that standpoint, it is not as equitable as a uniform
widening would be.
At the neighborhood mating last wreak, we, were asked if we had mad~ sono
cost estinates on this and at that tial, we baud not. So, in order to
respond to that question, we did make acne ugh sstieratos during the past
meek and our estimates are that the Alternate H waeld oast upptaodmstelY,
witiifn those limits, approximately $30,400 less---sowuehat S*A less than
Alternate A.
•rhe right of way csoxte would be greaterl but, the grading costs would be
cg, substat:dally less because of the height of the cot can the north side.
I'm sure save of the property owners on the north side are going to
cameat cc this because we have received some letters to that effect*
]mother question that was asked :ea"for which we have some tafoarertioo,
41 concerns the Galvin hme, (wench was indicated OR the ataps hr Mr. Zahn)
1'.
91
,f
i
T
15 October 1968
Highway Setback Plan - Marsh Csrit •mads
T
The Galvin: built that home just a few years ago and at that time, they
checked with us but unfortunately, at that time, we did not hays this plan
Prepared. They built their inose and this proposal Mould Arun right through
that hone.
L
We were asked why this vas necessary. You will mote there's a waxy rugged
hill iwnediately to the south on the road at that location. we have soft
an estimate of moving over into that hill and find that it would be about
$60,000 to $70,000 stare expensive to wow into that hill far eaoagh to mist
s>
that home. In short, it would be wmch better for the County to purchase
;2 the hone than to go into that hill and have to pay a8ditlow 1. shy for the
4 - earth vork--appeosimately 100,000 yards of additional axoanratias.
-- - We have given each Commissioner an 8% x 21 stmt sharing a print of the
quadrangle sheet of this area with the road thvvgh the area. The second
sheet is a copy of the quadrangle of the Orinda area. We aid this to show
the similarity of the two areas in terrain and the orinda sheet shows the
residential developh*nts in black dots.
The Orinda quadrangle was 1959 and the homes .sbown Frere as they existed
at that time. There are considerably more develoysents now.
I have nothing further to say unless the CanudAslowors have Questions
' (No questions were directed to Pyr. Cline or the Planning Staff at this
time).
} Cat+lMZ5SIONER LYNCH. I watild lite to cvsmset, mr, cbairaan, that it is
<, pretty safe to say that we won't make a decision twAght our► this matter.
I for one, would like to hear the comments frm the people of the arse,
r on the plans presented with the fall undsrstamdinq and knowledge that-
t
there will be at least nae more hearing on this. All this means is that
I don't think that all persons coaoerned Should feel that they bWFW to
call all their shots tonight on this matter.
w comIS910WR SMMTON: When Mould it be liktey that the right of way Mould
;. be acquired?
NR. CLINE: I would expect that this road would probably be developed iia
: two stages. it would be wry desirable to aoestrtict.the initial 0degn0t6
h, two-lane road to replace the very 1-1, ftandma rod th"no today with the
i; gradings done for the ultimate roadway and than coast nWt the wid*"W of
?_ the actual pavement at some future date when the trattia requires it.
in addition to the 4,000 irelling units %&Ich have bow mostiowd, there
ars other traffic generators on either end. This is an east-vast County
uk road and it is the only east-west Country road going all the way thsmgh
from the Central County to EastsraContra Costa Co., other than the state
Highway neat the waterfront.
Y�
COl1MISSIom SHELTQN: My reason for asking that question is that the
awAgmt expended for this might be considerably ditiesewce in 1973-74
,, than your current estimate.
41
mR. CLINE: This is true.
COM!lISSIO= SP3ELTOii: Do you have an estimate as tothe date?
MR. OLIVE: Pio, we do not. We have no way of knowing how rapidly the land
s .L.L l t
74
G+y: 3,,
15 October 1968
- ;
Highway Setback - Marsh Crook Read:
is going to develop. We do know that there have been twenty (20) minor
subdivisions in this general vicinity very recently--mostly art in the
Morgan Territory Road area.
14R. SEMM SEVU.L, 5919 Laurel Drive, Concord, Calif., appeared. It is
apparent* that a lot of planning has been dove on this matter; but, I
>,
have known about this for just five (5) days--psshaps soma of my surround-
Ing neighbors haw known it for seven (7) dayel but, I don't feel that we
., have had enough time to look into this as to what we can may, do or what
we have in the way of opposition to this plan.
f We have heard that the State has the right of eondewnationt but, we would
like to see this law.
r
MR. CLINE: Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Sewell is concerned over discussions
=` that took place at the area meeting about dedication. on some of the
-y :minor subdivisions that have taken place in this area, some of the Property
owners have been asked to dedicate and this is what they are taro d"about.
I think that where there is uniform widening on either side, we generally
R- ask for dedication where the size of the property is sufficient to justify
Vit. where it's a lopsided widening as in Alternate R, this wouldn't be
V
equitable. We might ask for a dedication equivalent to what would be asked
for in a uniform widening.
a
MR. &ENBLL: I would Like to ask officially now that this matter be post:
froa tonight's mem
�< pound q ting to another date. Thank you.
MR. MIKE OLIVER, 200 Gregory Lane, Pleasant Hill, Calif., appeared. I an
representing tor. a Ctrs. Everett Galvin. "
' mr. Cline has already indicated their basic problem. Their property is a
rather unusual conformation in that there was a formas road therm--it's
sort of tear-drop in shape and the proposal of the County to take S6-ft.,
H would create a situation whore there wasn't anything left to the property.
This would create quite a hardship on the Galvin both in the way of waking
future plans for living in the residence and at the one time where it weld
r, be unsalable to anyone else for a reasonable amount of money.
I wonder if Mr. Cline can give us sows kind of basis for the quotation of
$70,000 for the removal of the hill across the street on the other side
r of the road. That seems a little high; but, we would be interested in
knowing.
!4R. CLINE: There's a difference of 100,000 yards.
mR. OLIVER: I think the Galvins would be content to have this group know
:. : that their circumstances are peculiar in this matter since they are nae
5 of the few houses located so near to the road and due to the particular
topography of this area, they did build so close to the road. i don't
know what other objections there will be; but, this will put a tremendous
stress on the Galvin and we would has that this Commission would keep
'. their situation in mind on whatever reooeweadstion yen sake to the Hoard,
especially sines they did check with the County before building and it
would seem to us that the County has a special obligation in this matter
to see that the Galvins are put in a position so they can re-locate or
i
15 October 1968
S�
fiighwiY Setback - Marsh Creek Roads
s-
" *1se remain in the sawn
..�, ; dwelling noun though there is something of an
.v
additional cost to the County.
CHAIRMAN J=h: Mr. Cline, what kind of assurances did you give the
*=r -
Galvin*?
C ,
r MR. CLIME: I talked with Mrs. Galvin at the meeting and explained that
the setback ordinance has a hardship clause in it whereby if the Galxime
;n have a hardship situation--incidentally, there art no othw haomse iarolved
in this other than theirs--they can once the plan is an adopted plan, re-
quest that the Hoard acquire their property under the hardship prevision.
it'a up to the Board to make a decision on that; but, they very definitely
z are in the middle of the road and I'm sura their house would be unsalable
with the adoption of the plan.
z MR. OLMR: Yea. This is what we refer to . Mr. Galvin has indicated
't to sats also that there may be sacs other problow s In panel" directly
Y over the land where the house is located with the water, oil lines and
the P.G. a E. , which might contribute to additional costs and aight be
_ 1 taken into cowsideratiou that there might be a wore adegrurato mite fsao
the standpoint of the equities.
z MR. A. C. PIMDMZL, 8625 ,Marsh Crede Road. Clayton, Calif., appeared.
i live on !Marsh Creek Road and in studying this plan after the neighbor-
4i hood meeting, I think the planners horn ase being penny prise and dollar
foolish in this situation *I=* there is a proposed dela to be built, In
the Clayton Area which is sapppsed to be used for recreational puspoess.
These is also a recreational, proposal for Kellogg Dan and when those
thing do go in, this road will not be adequate and if they pat a d lane
road through an unpopulated area so they have plenty of rooms to build in
the future, I think they would be doing a better service to the County.
rata Right now, what ezvotes that traffic on this road is the 84 families
3 living in a trailer court wear heycad us. There art mon trailer court
people than there am residents on Nersh Creek Road and this le creating
• the traffic problem. If the road two anted through the hills to that
trailer court and then on out, the other reads can tit Into that and it
would be a ;such better situation for the Cautty. That way, people could
build along that road and you would get tax monies fsam this building
rather than leave it sit vacant for the next SO Years. Thank you.
e CO�3MISSIOMR LYnCH: I haven't driven this road for quite seer* timet but,
s I would be willing to any that most of the traffic an this road is created
by those motorists who are looking for a short out to Stockton, an than
anything else. I can't see the traffic there now being created by the
people who live there or those living is the tawiler court.
_= tut. amns5 E. XZLLEY, JR., 8385 harsh Creek Road, Clayton, Calif.. appeared.
when I was given p+asmission to build my home to this areas I was required
to have my hawse not back as-ft., from that property lines now, this:proposed
setback would put sy home much higher with respect to the dsivtwY by the
widening of the road. I will haves steep driveway. If I have to abango
the cut of the driveway, then 1'11 be below the garage.
a This is a beautiful area with wonderful country-type living and I feel
that with this plan, they will just wreck the area--they will widen the
yy
e y
z� 3
z
Y
~ 15 October 1968
F
Hi�,hw►sY Setback - Harsh Creek and
ro#A and at the and, it still won't be widen
enough. ?bank, fou.
MR. MEL HNMN, 3124 Grant Lame, Lafayette, CaUf., appeared. I as beta
this evening on a different itesl but, I thought I wisuld c�t oa this
matter.
Like Cmmissioner Lynch has stated, I take this rano as a racer attt to
Stockton and have dons so many times. Ift a pleasant drive even %bough
y it's not a short cut; but, I really fool that if this road is viasamd,
it will cut a little time off for the trip to Stockton and it's goiiq
to carry quite a bit of traffic and it's not going to be )jig enough to.
handle all the traffic. I'm going to use this rood every time I have to
go to Stockton. I think that while the County has decided to widen this
r" road, it should be dome properly and widened to handle all the traffic
that's going to go through this area. Thank yon.
MRS. CZMUUE PETROSCMM, 1295 Railroad Are., Pfttsbnrq. Calif., appeated.
. I own a mall acres" in this area and Z would be:another that would be
hurt if that one plan is taken since Hy land is as a hillsWe and it watld
out into my property at least SO-feet which would create quits an at awlr-
k went. I doubt that I could erect et into
9 el► PeeDerty tinea.
COMMISSIONER LYWH-- weren't you before us a short time ago with a 2aisd
use permit application at stint subdivision aspplioatios? 2 tout :I swcau.
that at that time, we gave you every assurance an this at that ties.
Life many of the other speakers before so, I feel that this emtitce C
Y is entirely too aaca^ar to ever put a fats-lams UgNay tbtonk it. I
think it's not. the right route for a four-lame. blobv 7i ?hawk mac.
No one else appeared to speak on this mattes.
'Ct3AIRKhNy JZUA: I would like to have public Works-7 — indicate on
the plan all those houses that vouW be effected "neatly by this WAsebo.
Not only the Galvin boast, with would be talo,aft1rely but tioerE'bosses
which would be quite close to the right of Mal.
This would be for our second hesriag os We 00*W. Is t1W ussrt#as, all
the people of this are: we urged to get is aortaot with lrblia Wades
t�a7,>ss erect and review this plan with tbm and hwe it oonplstal7 supLiatsd
just what it will 80 for and to this area.
S^
Upon motion of Gsnmissionsr Lynch, seconded by 0076k, it mss
moved that the hearing on the Highway Setback plait fol 111aash Creek coed,
taoad into. 3971-Q,be continued to December 170 19id.
A roil call vote was taken; following is the Gastaiasim'i recorded vats:
y.,
AYx6: Commissioners Lywh, Goyak, A. W. Vona a fibeltas,
xilano, Mods"► no rovag, Jobs.
NOW: Commissioners i8osos.
Asim: Ca losiomwe sone.
s a8STLIN: t�ce>,ti siasecs 31ass.
Moties for cost#aisa oaaeriod.
s
-40
;A
5
r
17 December 1968 - Tuesday -
Planning Commission Meeting.
Item fl on the Agenda
HIGHWAY SETBACK: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
HARSIL CREEK ROAD (Road No. 3971-A)z
This is a public hearing to consider the adoption of a Setback:Plan;for
r the future improvements of Marsh Crook Road from 3,500-ft. , south of the
City of Clayton to Morgan Territory Road Clayton-Horgan Territory. Area.
f MR. DEHAESUS: Mr. Zahn of the Planning Staff will present this proposal
and Mr. Cline of Public Works DepartpmntV--as hereto describe the dolens.
MR. ZAHN: This proposal is to establish setback Afton for a segment of
jV
Marsh Creek Road between approximately 1.73 miles southeast of the City
�. of Clayton to the intersection of Marsh Creek. Road and Morgan Territory
e' Road.- This is a segment of about 3903 miles.
x :
The western terminous of this plan would be associated with the- north
Clayton Area Circulation Plan which the Commission adopted last-:a
The present road is approximately 60-ft., wide. It has very poor align-
ment in places and carries about 1,800 vehicles per day.at 'the present
time. In the future when the territory surrounding. N rsh-;Creek Road" is
fully developed, which amounts to about 5,600 acres, we would expect
the traffic generated by this growth, according to General Plan doosities,
to reach.approximately 40,000 vehicles
per day and the-...proposed ietback -'' -
plan in to accommodate that type*of increase as well as possible increases
io
� a
r
17 December 1968
Marsh Creek (toad Setback Plan:
in through traffic. The proposal is, to provide for a fire risbt of Vey
of 110feet, which is Federal aid secoodwy standards. This would allay'
for four (i) vowl ; levies, a 22-ft., median strip allowlft cLamnelisatio
of traffic at intersections probably with shoulders ud utility borderer
: The plan before you tonight shows the madstlag right of way is the, yellow
color, the proposed widening color in orange and the cense-hatehad aseat
are the slope easeeaents.
There are two alternates before you tonight, as ware presested at the
first hearing. These involve the first 2/3 of the road from Clayton
easterly.
The first, Alternate A, would generally provide for owes widening on
both aides of the road. In this case, possibly 25--ft., of videm et an
.each side.
Alternate A would require that the widening be taken off of the somtb
dale of the road for most of this land. The reason we have these two
alternates is that Alternate A would have the road ,loin the slope areas
and would maks development somewhat more difficult on the north side;
but, on the other hand, Alternate 8 would primarily take flat lauds and
It would leave nor* land on both aid" of the road for-development.
In assessing the costs of the two proposals, they vire very similar.
Alternate E perhaps would be a little lege in cost for the riot of way
but .would require sore in the way of cat-and-fill than on Alternate A.
In viewing these two proposals, the Staff still prefers Alternate A as
sawing more flatter lands in this area for devolopmaat.
We were asked at the previous hearing to look into the matter of as
alternative in a ridge route to supercede this read 'dire to the topography
of the area. It was our conclusion that it would be extremely difficult
to provide the ridge route to the north of Harsh Creek Rod---the traffic
demand would not justify that kind of further review.
we are still recommending Alternate A. The bearing was continued from
the October 15, 1968, hearing to allow the residents of the area more
time to look at the plans in Public Works Department.
In the interim, letters have been received from Mr. Griffith and approx-
imately three other property owners---Sawell, h',ally and letrosehka.
Again, the Staff recommends approval of Alternate A.
ME. VUNON CLINE; I night point out that biter"ton-M A and S apply only,
to the first mile which is the portion shown on the material presented
to the Commission. From there on, there's ter alternativre, plea. It's
the same plan before you.
One additional item which the Commission had requested was the location
of the buildings that waist along the road and their distance from the;
road "der the pleas. We have those shown on the map, should you soled
this specific information as the bearing continues.
(upon Commission request. Mr. Zahn pointed these properties out on the
setback plan map).
e
p � ■ .r of a a. � �... .
17 December 1968
Marsh Creek Road Setback Plan:
The Kelley property (indicating on plan) would have a alai* easement of
45-feet under Alternate A, from the building and Under B, 3t would be
as it presently is, 85-ft.
The Clerici property (indicating), the structure would be 85-ft., from
the slope easement and Under Plan A. Under Plan B. it would be 100-ft.
The Joaquin property (indicating on plan), the distance between the
structure and the new setback Plan would be 38-ft., as opposed to 37
feet.
MR. CLINE: One house on sheit f3, near the yellow triangle, those
people Were here at the previous meeting, and it is the only house
which would be directly effected to the extent of being within the
path of this proposed widening.
CHAIRMAN JEHA: Do these people have enough land to re-locate their
house on the property?
MR. CLIME: The family owns all of that area to the north of the road.
The feasibility of re-locating the house has not been investigated.
CHAIRMAN JEHA: Well, at least they have the land there.
COMMISSIONER GOTAK: It has been stated that the Staff favors Alternate
A over B and that Alternate would take equal amounts of property from
both sides of the existing road but in doing that, it mould make the
land more difficult to develop and/or to get into.
From the standpoint of land purchase, it would seem to this person that
severcnce damages would be greater in Alternate A vs. B, even though it
takes most of the property on the one side. Sas that been considered,
the severance damages?
HIR. CLINE: The property along the north side is quite steep, averaging
something like 1-4 of existing, native natural slope. When the .County
widens the road, it will be necessary that many of the existing drive-
ways will have to be reconstructed by the County and access properly
restored.
COMMISSIONER GOYAK: Under those situations, do you still feel that
Alternate A would be less expensive than B?
MR. CLINE: Alternate A will be more costly to construct; but, because
of the land values in the flatter areas, we expect that the right of way
costs will approximately off-set the additional construction costa. At
today's land values, Alternate A is slightly more expansive; but, at
tomorrow's land values, the reverse night be true.
CHAIRMAN JEHA: If they're going to cost about the same, figuring that
you will have higher land values on one side, why does the Staff prefer
Alternate A--because it goes down the middle or is it disrupting less
people as Alternate B appears to be doing to me.
MR. CLINE: This is the reason we studied the two alternatives. It's not
that decisive, one alternative over the other. We think Flan A, which
' more or less splits down the middle equally is more equitable overall
and perhaps leaves the more choice portions of land less effected by this.
_ J
,res: :. £-t�lf�°,- °5.... ° ,a P,ys"'�.iT..::. 6 ;. .-1a.'3 .... .�-1•._. .. .. .re e. ._ c'3. -_ .,.. ,.. .. ..
k
az
17 December 1968 '
4. !" Marsh Creek Road Setback Plan:
Z
But, certainly there are arguments either way and that's why we studied
:Y the two alternates.
CONHISSIONER GOYAK: I think I can understand that since it is generally
easier to understand and explain taking property from both sides of the
'u existing road than just taking it all from one side.
In view of the difficulty of the contour of this land, maybe a field
z trip review of this area should be entertained by the Commission.
CHAIRMAN JEHA: On the south side,. of the right of way, is most of that
`L land fairly deep or shallow?
Int. CLINE: There's a creek that runs basically parallel with the road.
The properties are not real shallow; but, they are somewhat limited in
z depth.
s y COMMISSIONER GOYAK: Mr. Chairman, I think it should be pointed out to
r_
those property owners who are here this evening that this to a hearing
for a setback plan; but, the construction of this proposed road widen-
ing might be what, +ir. C1ineY
. CLINE: More than 10 years away, I would say, at the present rate
x -' development.
4
CCIVISSIONER LYNCH: The year 2,000, give or take 20 years!
BEN HARTIMER, Attorney, 200 Gregory Lane, Pleasant dill, California,
appeared. I an representing the Galvins, who have the problem of being
wiped out by the setback. (Property was indicated on the Setback Plan
map by Staff member).
The Galvins own a little less than 111 acres. Someone asked earlier if
these existing homes could be re-located on the land. In this case, it
; `• can't be since there is a creek just behind the Galvin house. There is
quite a bit of land there; but, because of the contour of the land, we
u do not think this house could be re-located from it's present location.
The proposed setback line as indicated on that map would completely
consume the Galvin property. You may note that there is other land
Indicated on the plan wap marked with the name "Galvin". That is not
my client's property. It is part of the family property; but, my
client does not own any of that other than where his house is located.
.• 4 The Galvin have been aware of this proposal for quite some time and
just a few yeaas ago, they built this house and now they would be sort
of wiped out.
We do not argue with the underlying principles of setback planning and
I have explained this principle to my clients; but, as an alternative,
instead of having the road make that loop at my client's location, we
tr would be quite happy to have the line straightened out somewhat and
my client then would be left alone. This would be the preferred way
J; r, to do it from our point of view.
_. ` ,. We understand that Public Works Department has made some rough studies
on this point and the economic factor of cost of moving the dirt corse
♦ 4j
Y _
NJ
sip
10 December 1968
4j Marsh Creek Road Setback Plans
ter_
F
Into the picture. It would cost more to move the dirt than it would to
f `• wove Mr. Galvin out; which some they feel this is the preferred route.
We further feel that if you people want this new setback Use tend wa
can't convince you otherwise, then the least you ought to do is take it
now rather than make his wait five or more years sitting there waiting
for the County to finally come along and mase him out. He has been plan
ning on building a barn on his land for load time and that would have
to be forgotten in the five or ten years that he would have to wit for
the widening to actually go into effect. We have discussed this point
with Mr. Cline and he informed us that there are means of doing thisp .
'- but, we feel that it should be a little more firm. than that.
We feel that any setback on this road, any setback line adopted by this
4,' commission, should be upon contingent u n some solution of Mr. Galvin's
g
�'.
problem---
CHAIRMAN JEHA: What you're trying to say is, don't take him or if you
<" are going to take his land, buy him out now?
MR. HARTINGER: Yes, buy him out now. Give him soime piece of wind. Thank
you
: COMMISSIONER MILANO: Why can't we consider adopting Plan A up to a point
and then go into Plan Bt
MR. CLINE: The Galvin hose would--Plans A and B effect the first one (1)
mile which is basically the sort open part of the valley and; from the point
_ Mr. Zahn has now indicated, Marsh Creek Road goes up the grade
COMMISSIONERMILANO: Then, the road would be the same under A or B for
the Galvins?
HIR. CLINZ: Right. We did look into the suggestion of straightening the
curve out and move over into the hill, or mountain. Our estimated cost
l in the difference is $98,000. This is not fancy. This is real and we
will furnish Mr. Galvin's engineer all the data to make his own estimates
if he prefers to do so. This is a real difference in costs. There's a
difference in excavation of about 112,000 yards of dirt.
MR. SEHOOD SEWELL, 4949 Laurel Dr., Concord, Calif., appeared. We have
heard quite a bit about Alternates A and B. How about so alternate at
g all? Is there any possibility of this? I'm serious, really.
CHAIRMSAN JEHA: Hardly. Our Staff people feel that the.future needs of
` > this area will need this widened road in at least 10 years. As a Comaiss-
x ion, we have to assume that the fact is established that in 10 years, that
road has to be improved. Secondly, no other route appears to be reason
- able except the two which have been presented.
Also, assuming that the need will be there is 10 years, provisions have
to be made for it now rather than at the time it is needed because at
that time, the costs would be prohibitive Inasmuch as not only property
would have to be taken; but, may homes would have to be purchased and
f moved out of the way.
COMMISSIONER GOTAY: Also, such of the used for widening +x111 mese about } : -
by the owners of this land causing it by development of their leads.
ry f
• ,.;.: .$,. ,.Y-mac k
,m
L:
�• r
v 17 December 1968 �
s_
Marsh Creek Road Setback Plan:
ez s CHAIRMAN JEHA: Also, if our planners' projections turn out to be wrong,
then no road will be widened since there would have been no development
>; a of the land adjacent to the roads.
D .
MR. SEWELL: Then, I gather that any road widening will be brought about
by the needs of the people of the area and not because of through traffic
like trucking, etc?
I don't view this as being detrimental to the people living in the area.
*y` But, what I see is that when the road is straightened and widened, trucks
will be travelling this road extensively. Now, they don't do that.
This widening would take all of my property on the west and of it and
50% of it about half iday ant? a good portion at the remaining end; s3, as
I see this, if Plan A is adopted, then the only thing for we to do is
T.
r.
get all the way out of the area. Thank you.
MR. CURTISS E. KELLEY, JR. , 8385 Marsh Creek Road, appeared to speak.
How from the front of sy home is the present road?
-4
MR. ZAHN: It is 85-feet now and 45-ft., to the slope easement on Alter-
nate A.
MR. KELLEY: What would be therade from
B my driveway to the bot0on of
`b the slope easement, if this is taken?
MR. CLINE: We haven't gotten into the details of driveway grades and
design detail at this point. We don't know the answer to that quest-
f . ion. This ewes during the design stage. At this stage of the hearing,
we don't get into that such detail. But, as I mentioned earlier, it is
out expectation at this point that a frontage road, nose or less, would
have to be constructed to provide access to your property and sore of
the others along that side of the road.
MBS. GERTRUDE PBTROSCHKA, 1295 Railroad Ave., Pittsburg, Calif., appeared.
I have the property adjoining Mr. K"ley's. It seems to se that this
whole thing boils down to just about one thing—we three people own that
hillside, the sloping side of the hill. On the other side of the road,
there is a good deal of depth which we do not have. There's only three
.; of us property owners who would be so affeceed; so, your Staff is reeoosiend
ing Route A even though it is costlier than Route B simply for the fact
21
that you can get a few sore lots out of the land on the other side of
`. the road. But, you're not taking into consideration the people who have
bought on the hilly side and who have held it all these years.
CUAIRMAN JEHA: Yes, we are taking that into consideration. That's the
reason for this
hearing---MS. PETROSCiiICA: I know, but your Staff is still recosmanding Route A
over Route B even though it will cost sore. It doesn't Sam quite fair
to me.
fill
CHAIRMAN JEHA: The Staff has made its recommendation purely on a technical
basis and it's up to us to listen to you and the other owners----
Y=. MRS. PE"TROSCHKA: As far as ny place is concerned, I think it w6uld be
worthless if Route A is followed. ,
rr
m
. •tom
-got TV
K .v
x Il
17 December 1968
I
Narsh Creek Road Setback plan:
i
CHAIRMAN JEiiA: How far from the proposed easement could this lady's
house be?
" k l MR. ZAHN: There's no hose indicated on the property.
u(
CHAIL14AN JEW Why would the mall amount of land that would be taken
x fraw_thetfrout of your land make your land worthless?
MRS. PETROSCHKA: Because it's steep.
Y i COMMISSIONER SLIELTON: Mrs. Petroschka, the southern most portion of
your property nearest the road is the only
Past that could economically
_ be developed as hoaesites?
MRS. PETROSCIWA: No. I wouldn't say that; but, it is the better portion
I would say.
CHAIR14AN JEHA: Why, in your opinion would this sake your property worth
y
less? I think your answer could held us in our decision.
MRS. PETROSCHKA: Well, it's taking so such of the land and the remainder
goes u the hill very steeply.
6 F rl'
of I don't know if you're interested in this; but, I am assessed SM per
'4. year on less than S acres of land and to chop; an 30-te" of sy fsa~;
F-
that's money.
CHAIRMAN JLHiA: No one would take your propefty volmw &hoy reimbursed
you for it, I assume.
MRS. PETROSCHKA: They would what? They would pay for it? I've heard �'� •
that they wouldn't pay for it. I have been told that they would expect
r. us to dedicate the land.
MR. CLINE: I think it all depends on the situation. If it's reasonable
k torr"uest dedication as part of a subdivision, we will so recommend, as
YOU know.
: In this case, the land is very steep and the widening is definitely not.
enhancing this property; so, it probably would not be equitable in this
a instance. I think you have to evaluate each one as it cones up.
CHAIRMAN JEBA: Then, what you're saying is that on those property where
the County feels there might be damage, there might be an attempt to
sake compensation to these land owners.
MR. CLINE: Yes. I think, though, that you will have to look at each case
F as it copes up and evaluate it at that time.
- MR. SMLL re-appeared. Should you view this area and if you view my
property, I will he happy to furnish you with information shoving a pipe
line eaaameat on the back of my property. I knew it was there when I
V.
bought the land. But, if Plan A is adopted, the consideration them would
have to be that I can't use the back portion of my land where this ease-
meat is located and it should be considered as another detriment to the
`F use of the back of my land. I can furnish this information to you.
k Think you.
Y 17 December1068
t
Harsh Creek Read Setback Plan: -
No one else appeared to s
_ paak on this matter..
CHAISIIAH JENA: Well, it would appear to ne. frcm this haisiag
._j.. . the Ca■mh
ission would like to view this-psoparty.ia the field.
F
COWISSIONBR LYNCH: I would: suggest, too, I that- the field .trip datesaV ,
for this should be devoted to that area entirely.
Upon notion of Commissioner Goyak, aeeosdod by Commissioner Lynch, t was
awed that the hearing on the Highway Setback for Marsh Creek;Road,; be..
continued for field trip review on January 17, 1969. and continued hags- :
Ing on January 28, 1969.
AYES: Commissioners, Goyak, L9, ch, Shelton, Arthur Young,i
Milano, Apdrev"YounJtba.
NOES: Coemdissionars Kane.
` ABSENT: Comissioness .Nons.
r ABSTAIN: Comissioaars None.
Motion carried.
2
fi
r
.2
F planning Commission teetiszg
28 January 1969 - Tuesday
Item #2 on the Agenda
t HIGHi7AY SS'THACK= CONTINUED 'PUBLIC HEA I=t
lin_2�satJ to
K ROAD (ROaD ii0. 3971-A) _ is a contiau pub-
This of Mrsh
a MARSH CH plan for tntu�n, �P t
considsr the aduPtioA of a sotbacK of CiaYt� to' Territory
3 500-ft., south of the City
Creek Road from ' sA Territ,6ry Areas.
Road Clayton-Mrncg oz h�asin4s• It %as con-
NIt. t3S; This matter bas toad there (3) I gave had:and
y icy, Janua=Y
.240 ,1969):, which YM
4 tinned for a fie18 tzip
4
t
r
'-:}
28 January 1969
Bighwray Setback Plan - *Qwc.h Creek Road:
ter:
tonight is the fourth public hearing on this proposal .
nit. 2AHN then briefly explained the proposal again to the Comission.
An the Staff has explained before, we prefer Alternate A, which provides
for the right of way widening caning from both sides of the existing road.
T Vkerhas, alternative B, would have it all cming off of the south side of
tine road.
41 Unless the Commission has questions, I don't think I have anything further
to add to the presentation. (No questions were directed to the Staff by the
= Comt3ission) .
MR. CURTISS E. KELLEY, JR., 8385 Harsh Creek Road, Concord, Calif. , appeared.
' I would like to know what comments the Commission has after having reviewed
this area on field trip.
' COMMISSIONER aUMREW YOU?IG-. "r. Chairman, I would say that sy thought was,
after seeing the properties involved, it would be better to split the widen-
ing from both the north and the south sides and not to take it entirely from
the south side as sahowm on Alternate B.
n CHAIMAN JELA: ter. Cline and I rode in the same car and there was one piece
of property which is like a steep hill all by itself. 4n properties like
that, I thits3: they are going to have to have special frontage roads to be
K able to make them accessible for future bode sites. Mr. Cline and I dis-
cussed this while on the trip end I think Mr. Cline said they would come up
` with something on that.
14R. CLINE. Yes, as a result of your request, I asked our people to look in-
to this and they have worked up and determined that such a frontage road is
feasible.
fir; .yy CHAIRMAN JM: Yes, where the land is so steep. That property right now is
almost inaccessible. The road widening would make it worse; but, it's still
a' bad right now. Actually, that property would be better off with the widening
and a now frontage road for it.
x, You, Mr. Kelley, have the house that sits back frow the road and I don't know
what to tell you other than what we've told you at the prior hearings. You
just might have a road closer to your house than it is now.
There were same properties on the south side of the road where there is a
creek not too far back from the frontages of those lands and it would appear
that if the widening were to come entirely from that side, a few of those
r lots would be rendered completely useless. I think this could be widened
on the south side by your home, Mr. Kelley; but, I don't think it could be
V" done further on down the road.
Mtn. KELLEY: On the south side of the road, there is an oil pipe lino so
far back on the lard and it appears to me that one could not build on that
, _ land between the pipe line and the now road: so, wouldn't it bs just as easy
to take more of that land? As Kir. Goyak stated at previous hearings, if there
X"
is no development on som of the lands now, this would be the best time to
j take that land for the widening so that you wouldn't be hurting those who
have already developed their property . I would still like to know on the
x top proposal, what land would be urine after you take the 25-feet plus tLe slops
SS.J.
�i
t .r
Cyt...
sl<,
,h-
J
.VF
Y.
28 January 1969
g2Lnay Setback Plan - Marsh Creek Road.-
AS
oad:as to how much land you're taking?
w MR. CLINE: This is the western line of Mr. Kelley's property (Indicating on
setbacklan). The widening nq or the basis right of way would be ZS-tMt. The
additional width for the slope would be 16-feet at the +asst and and a but
33--feet at the east mad.
COMMISSIONER MYAK: Then, what in the difference between the slope easement
--- and the house?
: J-3t. CLINE: At the nearest point, it's about 45-feet.
COMISSIONER GOYAX: All right. Then, the property aes+oss the street fro,
this is low property. what is your reasoning then for not moving slightly
over to the south side?
r " ! MR. CLINE: It can be done. Thant why we have the altornative plan before
you. I don't gee any particular overall benefit, frankly, for doing that.
This, actually, is 50-50 take fr— both sides of the land with an infinite
` number of varieties inbetween.
4m Cf3xIRMAN JIM. Mr. Kelley, you feel that 40-.feet is too close to your house?
C' r
MR. KELLEY: Right. If you will notice, the 40-feet that is left to as will
z "' have a very steep slope to get into it, like this (indicating with his hands
=` the amount of slope).
COMISSIONER GOYAK: I think there is some merit to his request. I think
�a
that where there is an existing home and the land across the street is not
41 developed, I would think that the vacant land should bear the burden of the
greater take. I think that in this come, Mr. Kelley's property should be
left as more accessible Property since there could be meverence damages to
the existing home, etc. I t-hink this could be solved with a slight movement
to the south side without rendering the land to the south unuseable.
t CiiAZit>4AU ,JEHA: I think ore should use the -plan
. : up above= but, modify the take
-' in front of 14r. Kelley's property. Do you think you could do that, SKr. Clime?
a MR.. CLINE: Certainly. As I said, we can gone up with an infinite number of
.' plans between the two presented.
I think though that if the Comtaission can give us some idea of what they have
x< in mind, somewhere between these two plans, we can work it out. There`s no
engineering reason why that can't be done.
crar SAA JEHA: All right, then this change could be made to alleviate Mr.
YA*ley'a proplems. of getting in and out of his property.
tett. KELLEY: If this plan is going to be changed to show what one have just
agreed to, is this plan going to be so set up before it is approved?
_. Katt. DEBAESUS: As long as it is understood specifically as to why the change
' should be made and also if it doesn't effect any other portions of the Align-
went. As I understand it, all we're really concerned about at this time is
the alignment along +'.r. Kelley's frontage.
MR. CLI-NE: It would hams to extend beyond Hr. Kelley's property in order to
make a onooth---
r
n�+•��� .i Y. S�`x yC..- •F K:.i',Aki'n4 t'J;L%TY ..: lTy 'Td ,F�. �H _ ,r.{'F._
" f
� 1
a;.
28 January 1969
' Highway Setback Plan - Marsh Creek Roads
CHAIRMAN JEHA: Then, it would appear that we would have to continue this hear-
Ing.
MR. A. C. PIlXNTEL, 6825 V.arsh Creek Road, Clayton, California, appeared. I
would like to know what the legality is for the adjacent property to not
' owned by .Mr. Foster, who subdivided the land, built another hoar on it and
whenn he started to get his permit for building, it was necessary that he
change the culvert, improve the road because it was going to take care of
more than one home. Then, all of a sudden, the gun was pulled away becamm
he gave 25-feet from the front of his property and he got the permit and did
Y,
f not have to do any of these insnrovenents. What's the legality of this?
h CHAIRMAIJ JENA: I don't know any of the background or details of what you're
asking. undoubtedly. that was a Board of Adjustment matter and they may have
felt that he didn't have to go ahead with all of the frontagents.
'
We do this at times.
F SSR. PIMEt�a'TEL: Well, I don't understand that. He divided his land and it is
now taking care of two homes and possibly three in the future and he didn't
have to do any of these things because he gave the 25-feet of fs+ootage.
n
Now, if yodls:e asking for a setback today from the rest of the property owners
what you're roally trying to do is put a gun at our backs to take away this
land in the future as soon as we want to sell it or develop it. These are
two different things. Establishing a setback is a wonderful thing because I
r have seen duplexes Wilt within two or three years, the taxpayers have to
pay for thew because they are taken out to make way for a widened road; ao,
I believe in setbacks to alleviate this situation; but, I don't believe in
setbacks if it's put there for the purpose of shaaling the land fz+osa people
just to make them do what you want them to do.
cnAIRHAH JEuA: I don't believe in that either and under no stretch of the
imagination has this Coseaission or this County tried to do that. All we are
trying to do is establish a setback line. What happened with Nr. Poster is
not known to me and I can't give you a detailed answer here. Maybe Mr. Cline
could shed some light on this property.
MR. CLINE: I believe this is one of several minor subdivisions slang this
particular stretch of Marsh Creek Road and as than Comaission knows, it's not
, r at all unusual to rocomwad and, for you to require dsdicatioas of wide-tog as
this land beaks up in subdivisions. This is why the widening of the road is
being planned.
CCMKISSIONER GoyAr,: Medication such as you speak of is almost a stasdard thing
for both major and minor subdivisions. This is not unusual or out of the ord-
r,
inary.
mhlrMAN JEHA: I don't believe that there was the exchange that you Imply
give us the 25-feet and you won't have to make certain frontage improvements.
V I just don't believe that it happened that way. He probably didn't have to
E-1 put in the improvements for seae reason; but, as fat as the dedication is the
development of his property, this has becossse standard.
KR. PltaMnZL: So, this means that frcas now on, everyone along harsh Creek
Road can look forward to dedicating 25-feet as soon as they want to do any
'4
= s v
Y
�a
3? ,
28 January 1969
a
x; Hig!nU& setback plan - marsh Crook Road:
improvements?
CHAIRMAN JEHA: Improvements or developraont? There's a differenlee there. If
=' I were on a Board of Adjustment and you came before me with the request to
have a minor subdivision, I would vote to have you delicate the land. if you
want to build your own hone, it might be differont.
SRR. JOHN SEWELL, 4949 Laurel Drive, Concord, California, appeared. With rof-
erence to previous statements and discussions na to this evening, I would state
' that as for my property along this road, I would probably be better off with
the discussed frontage road.
As far as the property is at this time, I can still negotiate the steepness
to get onto tho property along the fence line. But, if you approve this set-
}.? baclk plan and you take 90-feet of gay land as planned, the first 675-fat of
that quarter-mile frontage, on the east end, would be taken to the exteAt of
`u- 494 of the land for the road and slope easement setback. That's half of the
land and there's over 2 acres involved, that's taking about 2 acres of land
from me. Also, with the pipe line easement at the back of the land, that
leaves me very little for developtent purposes.
` t+oiw, it was pointed out that the land on the south side of the road could
have four houses to the acre development and mine couldn't. I grant this
} .x point--I could never build 4 houses to the acre on my property; but, I do
5 feel that it is useable in one or 1?& acre divisions and I have 6-1/2 across;
T' y so, to me, it may someday represent a good deal of my worth. Right now, my
: .
: only plan could be to live there and use the land.
r.
Also, the two
proposals before you should--well, they mbar you going down
the midile and the other to the right side. I haven't hoard anyone in opposit-
ion to taking land from the south side. That land on the south aids has the
depth that it can accept the extra footage required to pat this road in by
going over there. I grant that no one likes to give their land away; but, it
t isn't just dedication an our side or my side. It's the land plus the slope
. limit, plus the marrowing of cry property that really does wake it a hardship.
who is against this on the south side? May I ask that question?
CHAIRMAN JEHA: I don't know if there's been any protest from the owners on
the south slide of the road.
MR. SEWELL: Why can't do this, then?: Y Y�
COMMISSIONER GOYAK: He have a letter of protest from one of the owners. I
don't know if there are any others.
y 4R. SEWELL. I have spent a good deal of time going over your maps and I figure
?` that it takes over 1011
. gross land to take the land from the north sine thaw
from the south. The land on my side of the road is supposed to be not as val-
uable; but, I've talked with the County .Assessor about this and he assnrsd no
4F_ n
that my land is at least 504 as valuable as the flat land on the south side
and he as a result raised my taxes 3284. It's better land than you think it
is. without real opposition from the owners on the south side of the road,
I really can't understand the damage being created on the north side vs. the
south side.
rCfiAr&4Am 1EHA: This land is right next to Mr. Kelley's lards so, possiblg qtr.
J,
f
of
k
e • .r.^
x "ax
-' Y
Vr 28 Januar 1969
2�
High air Setback Plan - i.arsh Creek Road:
Cline could swing it around to avoid Mr. Kelley s land, if titers's a way to
owing around to avoid the Count having to build a frontage road there, could
.i �J Y n9 9
you check into that too? You're going to have to swing it, aim it away a
A little bit before the Kelley's, could you find out if it's possible to do
;< that?
±, M. R. CZINE: You're suggesting, Air. Jeha, that from mr. Sewell's west line to
approximately Mrs. Petroahka's east line, that we look for some coeaearomisse
solution---
Ct3AIRMAW JEK.A: Yes. That seems to be where the hardship could came in and
F if it's possible to do that, the one Protest we've had on the other alter-
nate, I think, isn't in that area. Am I correat.7
MR. CLINE: No. The Galvin property, the other protestor, is right where
Hr. Zahn; is pointing on the plan.
MMIRHAN JFXA: What about the Griffith property? It/* in that general area.
Cot*IISSIONER GOYAK: It's right across from Mr. Sewell's property.
'= MR. SEWELL: May I ask what the Griffith protest was?
C,HAIMN JEHA: Well, he doesn't want all the land taken frees his side either,
the same as you.
MR. Sk .b: Vlap I ask why?
CHAIPVMN Jif A. They same reason you don't want it all taken from your land!
14R. SEWELL.- No. I don't think so, sir. I stated in a letter which I Will
give to you that I would be like an other good citisen and let then have
g Y Y g my
land too if the depth of my land could stand the take and if it didn't take
the only access i have to it. Certainly the property on the south side can
stand that difference of 30 or 40-feet---
COM-IISSI014ER GOYAK: qtr. Sworell, I don't think that you can argue soxeone
else's case. I think you can argue your case; but, you certainly can't argue
T.
that if I were to have it all taken from my property that this is equitable?
MR. SEWELL: No. I think you misunderstand me.
a
N.- CommissIONEA GOYAK: No. we understand that you feel that you're going to be
hurt; so, don't argue someone else's side of it.
CHAIRMAN JE11A: I think :fir. Sewall meant that he feels the damage to his:
µ > property would be snore extensive than it would be to the other side; but,
a" that's a matter of opinion at this point.
GERTRUDE PETROSCIM, 1295 Railroad Avenue, Pittsburg, California, apptoared. I
-'
have land to the right of *4r. Kelley's land. I'm the person mentioned by some-
one who felt that my property right now is inaccessible. Well, I don't think
Y it is right now since I have had a road put in and the man who did the grad-
ing told as it wasn't steep at that point.
I listened to what you told Mr. Kelley about curving the road out in front
of his land. VAtat would that do in my case where I am adjacent to him? Wouldn't
that leave he nutresse3d back in up against the hill?
Gi=LMAN JMLA: We asked Mr. Cline to redesign at that location and we can't
• Fy.1..
may'
as +14:i��? �. ^r .._�: ¢ c......:q.. .,. ., .. ... ➢,. ?'t'S. .a. .. .ur.. ..._._ ...- . <,. ..�:z„ .. . < +..r,.. ...,x-. ... ... - . ..: ...
�rn wr,
i'
:r
8f
t
a :t
t,
28 January 1969
Highwa�_setback Plan -- Marsb Creels Road:
give you an answer until this is docs. 1111 i can say teov is that the Comfy
_•- `;< rill attempt to scoaesmodata all of pons but, 3t will reach a point where some-
one is going to feel that they are being hurt emoessivsly.
tiht,S. PETROSCHKK: Well, that's fief. I Understand that. But, You talk abowite
a tarok back there (math side of the road). lbat creak suet be 400-feat
back from the road and right opposite us, as Xr. Kelley said, there is a pipe
line that cuts down on the useable area that will be left and it canIt be used
' for anything anyway. We don't have a pipe lime we our side.
OMMISSIONER SMLTON: I think your original grsstion +sae whether or sot
the redesigned curve we asked far would be ohWply lopped. In any event,
=Y it would be a smooth curve. we told Nr. Kelley we would try to awroid hit
s
i land. If we can do that, weresutaaatieally avoid your land, too.
BEN HARTINGER, Attorney, 200 GSroi Lane, Pleasant Hill, Calif., appeared.
I an representing Mr. Galvin. We have the reverse problem. You will be
y,
taking everything from our side of the road and the Galvin house would be
= ' taken out completely.
N we have explained before that when Hr. Galvin fault his house, he chocked with
Public works Department and tboy had no cowamt to the effect that this wideo-
img vas planned at that tires. Also, many years ago, Mrs. Galvin talkdd with
y= the County about not putting the existing rood in the hills--that they should
pat it in the flat lands. The -Cmaty stated at that t3se that it was proper
to gut the road up in the hills. Raw, we ase swul9sating that perhaps you
ti maintain that policy and put this proposed road further
up in the hills and
:void the Galvin hawse
completely.
I, think that you will agree after having meow this area that the hill is
.' esrr+�ely steep and a lot of dila would have to be moved were the road to
be put up onn the hill. The ase thing about this is that when, you're
dgmting the cost Of Moving the dirt on that hill vs. the cost of the house
,
c the other side. You have to comgnise that that's not all of the equation.
,
You also have the problems of all waf the drainage.
Z
But, as you recall, the existing lomme is completely within the setback area
and that means we would be out of hwiness. i've talked with Mr. Cline about
t anis sad there's no question that the Galvin will have to continue living
{ y theme.. Tbey can't sell their home* since who would want to buy it not know-
ing bows Ivag they could live th,.r+e. Obviously, this would effect the cost of
the hvacsa.
The other thing is that this house 3s oompasative new-less than 3 years
old. in sant, we understand that wbon Public storks started on this plan,
they were very startled to loom that this house was there so obiously, there
was to prxlem with Public Works wbwe it was built.
Y' +' This is a ala+ movinq plan in total utilisation of the property and what are
the Galvimas going to do all this-tin until the house is actually taken away
for videxi purpossi
` So, we are saying that moving the dirt on the hill for the road vs. the cost
of the bmwe and the property, this is not all of the costs involved. Also,
. you put .as ix, an untenable poaitics of not knowing what to do, where to go.
mr. Cline ,bas talked about a hardship fund; but, I think that when you do this,
1
.E`
:µ
'g
_ t
Ei
mW
28 January 1969
M%hway Setback Man - Marsh Creek Road:
you almost have to be prepared to buy us out. actually, we are trapped in
" - this situation.
MR. CLINE: tar. Hartinger is suggesting that it Mould suit their purposes
if we moved the setback line to the hills on the other side of the road.
s
You will recall that we gave you cemslaetrtive of about a $98,000 difference
is coats, mainly due to the moving of the dirt.
:x MR. HAR'TZetGER: The only thing I'm saying is that we don't feel that they
have taken into consideration the entire package of costs since they have
At to install the drainage system so there would be additional costs involved.
MR. HARTINGER: Well, of course, the preferred route to us would be for you
to leave the house where it is and move the setback line. The only other
b:
thing I'm suggesting is that if you are going to go this way, then you have
1 $'
to provide something remedial to these people--at least, offer the alternative
to this. I don't feel that you can tell then that you are almost going to
destroy the sales value of their house, since you would be taking away one
of their rights and they can't utilize the property the way they want to
k utilise it--build a barn and other farming facilities; so, in short, you are
doing a hares to thea regardless of your good motives.., Along with your mo-
tives are or should be some redress that these people are entitled to.
CO MISSIONF-R GOYAK: Your argument is someth that
gums irg you should be presenting
r to the Board of Supervisors and when and if the Galvin chose to novo or had
to move, this would be the alternative--that the County would have to do lame-
thing .for thews--their complaint would be justifiable. As you pointed out,
there is a fund for this kind of action by the Board. I don't know what your
argument really is as long as the Galvins are treated fairly when and if this
presents itself.
MR. HARTINGER: Yes; but, as long as the reason exists as to why we are here
,TMr x (1) though you will recommend going this way, it certainly needs sotsate consider-
ation and we are making the point that you can go the other way, too.
-0' ChiAIitMAN JM: Public Works sent over that other way you mention and their
estimates were that it would be too costly= that it would be less expensive
It to take the house.
.;i
COMMISSIONER GOYAK: That's asking theta to have the mountain ire towards
k> ' you vs. your walking to the mountain. It is ridiculous to expect that the
mountain can be cut there in view of the costs involved. As for the drain
e4
A. age point, I won't argue with you= but, I don't think it can match the costs
that it would take to cut down that mountain.
CHAIRMAN JEHA: I don't mean to be short with you; but, yo*e talking about
w something that has the appearances of precluding much zoom for variation. On
the other property owners we've been talking with, if there is a chavem to
vary, I think we should make an endeavor to do so; but, that mountain just
=_ isn't good to strove.
COMMISSIONER ARTHUR YOUNG: One of the plans that has been presented will be
adopted by this Commission and it will have widening of varying degrees on
one side or both sides of the roads but, what's our future policy going to
f be if we are to assume that the widening is going to be 80-feet on any given
piece of property and before the road is ever widened or construction, wor
#{ starts, this particular property cams before us for a minor subdivision. what
9
y _
Lra
28 Januar{ 1969
�= II.ighway setback Plan - Marsh Creek Awad:
411
dedication will we ask on that minor subdivision? would we ask for an 80-ft.,
dedication?
a4it. CLINE: If that question is directed to me, I would say that asking that
such dedication would be unreasonable. we have determined that in a case like
this, it's reasonable to ask for a 25-foot dedication. I would think that if
we shifted to a widening entirely on one side, that you certainly couldn't
# expect more than half of the widening, you might say. It would certainly be—
of course, one of the purposes of the setback plan is to get new structures
get back out of that arca even though you don't get dedidcations for the
entire area.
COMMISSIONER GOYAK: I would certainly subscribe to the idea that at no time
mould we over reeosezend for more than half of the right-of-way--like W-ft.
with 20-feet expected from each aide of the road--that we would expect the
V :} 20-feet but certainly not the remaining am umt. That should be purchased
by the County since this is in excess of the average sal we're dealing with
equities within some reason and certainly not to take all fs+os one aids of
the road.
MR. XELLEY Reappeared. I think we have a very Pi�eA narrow-minded situation here.
It would seem to me that if the Count s ahead with the fellt�
� q Y � 94�<i�roject,
the dam in Clayton, you're going to need a six (6) lases highway and you're
not going to take out the tank that supplies the water for some of the area;
so, you're eventually doing to have to remove the hill by the Galvin property.
It seems to we that this Comission and the County is not looking to the futur*
and this is what you have told us you are going to do with this proposed set-
baa. You're dealing for today and not really thinking about the future. You
won't be: here and I won't be here when they finally get around to planning
'. for a six (6) lane highway. I think that if you're looking for the future,
,t t
you abould be planning for the six lane highway today.
ClihMMA:� JMM.- Thahk you. I would like to hear a ration for continuance.
' upon motion of Commissioner Hilano, seconded by Comissioner Shelton, it was
:coved that the public bearing on the harsh Creek Road setback be continued to
February 2, 1969.
ik
AYES: Comseissioners Milano, Shelton, Arthur Young,
' Lynch, Goyak, Andrew Young, Jiha.
sit NOES: Commissioners None.
ABSENT- Commissioners gone.
ABSTAIN% Comfasioners .None.
Motion carried.
s
S:
l
4 February 1969
HIGHWAY SETBACK - CQ4?IbV1 W PUBLIC HzaianG:
IMWR CR= RDAD (ROAD N0.3971-A) - This is a public hearing to consider
the adoptionof a setback plan for the future iapr+aves+snts of harsh Creek
Road freta 3,540-ft. , south of the City of Clayton to Morgan Territory Road;
Clayton-morgan Territory Areas.
CHAIRHA14 JEHA: Before we get into this hearing, I note that most of the
sate people are here again tonight on this matter. I will speak for the
rest of the Coawission in stating that we don't care to get into long dig
cussions with each of you on your individual properties. we have all heard
your complaints and views.
We hope on having further information from our Public works representative
tonightt then, if you have consents, make them. But, please, don't go
over your arguments again.
COMMISSIONM ARTEUR YOUNG: It seems to me that there are only three items
to cover tonight on this plan.
MR. ZAHN: Since the problems from the last hearing concerned primarily the
Sewell, Kelley and Petrosehka properties, we have put up only the first two
segments of the plan tonight.
As you recall, the first three segments of the plan have Alternates A and B
and the last two were common to the 5 segmients. Alternate A calls for
approximate equal widening on each side of the road whereas Alternate B fof
this area indicated that the widening would comre from the south sider,of the
road.
The Staff's preference was that Alternate B be followed; however, a number
of property owners objected because of the effect of the slops easements
plus the widening which would make their properties slope down to the road
rather steeply.
As a result of list week's meeting, the Public Works Department staff has
worked out an alternative which we might regard as a modification to plan
A in which the road section was dropped to the south.
The yellow, again, represents the existing right of ways the or~* color
the proposed widening and the cross hatched area is the slope easement.
under Alternative A, the slope easement fell in this location (indicating
on plan) . The proposed widening line was at this location (indicating on
the plan). To the south side of the road, then, the proposed widening
followed this lint's (indicating) and the proposed slope easement line in
this manner (indicating).
Following this alternative, the right of way line on the Petrasahka prop-
; arty would be as it is now or about 00-feet in back of the proposed slope
area indicated on the first alternative. On the Kelley property, 70-ft.=
the Kelley-Sewell property, 44-ft., to 38-ft., and this would require on
the south side of the road that from the former right of way line, the
road would be dropped approximately 55-it., of which 16-ft., would be
slope easement in the center or maximum devi"ion location.
At the Roux property, the slope easement would be moved southward appeou-
imately 39-ft.
4 February 1969
Highway Setback - Marsh Creak Ibad:
MR. CLIVE: Mr. Chairman, many of these property owners are not aware of
this revised plan. The ink is just about dry on that plan before you. As
far as I know though, most of those on the south side of the road have rot
been present at the previous hearings.
CHAIRMAN JEHA: sow much more is taken from the Griffith property on this
revision?
MR. ZMM: There Mould be a very mull difference. The former slope ease-
ment line was in this location (indicating) and the easement is now just
a very small distance----
• CHAIIMN JEHA: It's not visibly effected, then, by this change?
MR. ZAHN: No. Actually, this change requires less land net--the addit-
ional requirement on the south side is less than is eliminated on the north
side and it does substantially reduce the grading so it would actually be
less net cost because of the slope.
(ho further questions were directed to the Staff .4 mbers by the Commission).
: AIR. JOHN SEWELL, 4949 Laurel Drive, Concord, Calif., appeared. I own the
property that has just been discussed.
I wrote a letter to the Commission on this originally and I still feel that
this letter pertains even with the change now presented. I Mould like to
read this letter. (Letter is dated February 4, 1969, signed by John Sewall.
It was presented for the files after having been read and it is on file with
a the subject highway setback). (This letter urges the Commission to adopt
Alternate B).
COMMISSIOKER LYNCH: Mr. Sewall is still basing his arguments on Alternate
A and B and we now have a new addition for that area. I know they haven't
had a chance to see it; but, I think we should have his oommments on the
revised plan rather than the old ones.
MR. SEWELL: I was speaking on my area of the west two acres and that's
where my property would be totally damaged since this now addition to the
plan is virtually unchanged in that area.
MRS. GERTRUDE PETROSCHRA, 1295 Railroad Avenue, Pittsburg, Calif. , appeared.
She then read a letter as follows:
"With reference to the widening as proposed by Alternate A--that's the one
that took so much from us--specifically to the properties of Sewell, Kelley
and Petaroschka, this is the hillside of the road. The terrain is gradual
to very steep and widening from this side would necessitate deep cut backs
and loss of property values. The land on the other side of the road in flat
and has greater depth. There are no hence built along this side of the road.
It is understood that an oil company pipe line right of way went through on
this opposite side of the road for the full lengtham5:aur property last stasmsr.
This would indicate that the width of the right of way could not be used to
build on anyway and just would not represent any loss to the people on the
other side. We are told that Alternate A would take equal fsontage from
both sides: but, this is not true because 25-ft., to start with on our side
would eventually mean muse like 50 or-55-ft. and that would take more than
i 25-ft., overall from my frontage and would not be acceptable to me. we under-
{
A February 1969
i:ihway Setback - :Marsh Creek Road:
' stand that Alternate A would cost about $30,000 more and would take equal
amounts from botYi sides of the road; but, this is not trus. The original
25-ft. , as proposed on that mute is only a start with the slope easement
doubling it and it would crake it almost impossible to get into.
I feel like Mr. Sewell does about that. On the other side of the road is
the right of way that vent in last sumer. I don't know how wide it is,
25-30-ft., so what have the people on the ocher side got to lose?
CHAIRMAN JErRA: %'hat's your comment on this altered plan? Wdre here to-
night to get comments on the revision?
MRS. PErROSCHKA: That isn't too bad, but, I had written this letter before
I had seen that plan.
CHAIRMAN JEKA: Speak to the plan and not your letter.
COMMISSIONER GOYAK: Yes, we're taking only a sliver on the right side of
your property and I doubt that it does any danage at all to your property
so why don't you speak on that?
MRS. PETROSChKA: Well, I had written this letter and I can feel for Mr.
Sewell because I know the position he's in. I happen to have sold him that
land and I think it's kind of unfair that this sort of thing would cacao up.
I didn't know this was going to happen when I sold it to him.
MR. CLINE: Mr. Chairman, both Mrs. Petroschka and Mr. Sewell have mentioned
this pipe line right of way on the south side, so, If it would help any, I
can advise you that the pipe line they're talking about is located within
the orange color or widening area along the south side on anyone of the plans
you adopt. It makes no difference.
COMMISSIONER ARTHUR YOUNG: I have a question. Mr. Zahn mentioned the neg-
lioible difference on the Griffith property. If this is so, how does it help
the people on the north side whom- we've open trying to help?
*MR. ZAHN- The griffith property is in this location (indicating on plan) and
the primary impact of this change is to the east of the intersection of Pine
Road at this point (indicating on plan) . It primarily affects this stretch
of road (indicating) rather than this area here (indicating).
COMMISSIONER GOYAK: What is Public Works or Right Of Way or whoever the people
in the County who studied the contours here. what is their feeling on the
Sewell property as to the use of the property if you were to completely elim-
inate the encroachment from; that sector?
I had the impression from. our trip out there that that portion of his prop-
erty is unauildable whether or not we stay away from it or encroacb on it?
MR. CLINE: TheSWell property at the westerly end is such steeper than the
property on the opposite side of the road. You can ase this frac the contour
spacing on that contour map and, therefore, this partly accounts for the ex-
tensive cubs khat are required--because of that very steepness. It also
accounts for the fact that the land is less valuable land than on the other
side.
CHAIRMA2t JERA: Well, as Sir. Goyak asked--if there wax no property taken from
Mr. Sewell's property, would any of that land on the westerly end be useable?
jg.
r
WV .
y
4 February 1969
?` '> Highway Sethack - Flarsh Creek Pioad:
MR. CLINE: I imagine he oouldF but, he world have to have a larger area for
a site, certainly.
=' COMMISSIONER ARTHUR YOUNG: But, does this invalidate ?% acres, as he said?
MR. CLINE: The mount of the cut on the west end is quite substantial, as
-_` you can see from the drawing and there is a substantial--there`s just a little
` sliver lett in the north of the cut at the west end.
tea;:
COMMISSIONER GOYAK: The land is so steep there that I doubt very mach that
f 'r there is a useability of that part of the property.
Ff MR. CLINE: The cut slope actually isn't much steeper than the natural slop:
k` ran of that land--actually, we weld be just Chasing the cut right up on the
natural slope of the land at that point.
f The cut slope and the ground slope are almost paralleling.; one another at
that point.
-J01 A
COMMISSIONER GOYAK: As far as I'm concerned, I think we need someone to
tell us that this land is useable or not. I think you can build anything
on any kind of ground if you're willing to spend the kind of mosey for ele-
vators or other things that sight be necessary; but, for practical purpoets,
k' 4 I think this portion of the property is not accessible.
COMMISSIONER SHELTON. I asked Mr. Cline this question the first tine this
•Ky
,- came before us--what's the difference in estimated costs in Alternate A and
KR. CLINE: I don`t have those figures at hand right naw. I bad then up
until this weeting!
s` CO MISSIOHER SHELTOz The figure a of $90•000 soma to $tic). with me. Does
that sound like it?
mR. CLINE: No. That figure is the additional cost of zroving the hill oppoe-
ite the Galvin home. On this, I think the figure was ;30,000 as being the
y` estimated difference--being higher on Alternate A because of the additiaaal
4 grading. But, it was pointed out that if the right of way values increase,
Alternate B could make that up in a hurry.
This alternate you have before you now, I think bars a slightly less cost
y than either of the other two alternates.
' COPWISSIONER ARTHUR YOUNG: Does Public Works Department and our Staff still
favor alternate---
f
MR. CLINE: bio, I think the alternate that you asked us to work out and wbich
`'. is before you tonight for the first time is the best plan. I think it solves
the problem for Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Petrosehka. It helps the problem for Mr.
_- Sewell but it doesn't eliminate it.
41,_
CHAIRKRN JEHA: And, it doesn't take an awful lot of land from the south side
as Alternate B did.
MR. CLINE: Fright. The additional is lona on the south side than the savings
on the north side.
COl,4ISSIONER SHELTON: If it weren't for the difference and the imposed burden
:r
HEM
4 February 1969
Highway Setback Plan Marsh Crook Road:
on take in Alternate B, that would be the more logical plan of construction,
would it not?
MR. CLINE: Yes. Alternate B, would be the easier of the two to build from
the standpoint that there's lose grading and this is where you have the pot-
4. ential for earth stability problems, etc.
COMMISSIONER SHELTONt It has been my impression since the first hearing
that Alternate B was acceptable to Public Works Departcent and It seemed
to me to be more logical in design. Frankly, I have heard nothing to dis-
suade me from that view I initially held.
MR. CLINE: Ile submitted both plans because we feel that either one of then
is certainly feasible and they're not that much apart as far as the overall
scheme.
.4 COMISSIONER GOYAKi Having along ft Mr. Shelton's point, if you Were to
eliminate Sewell completely from taking of his land, we're talking about
shifting the road half of it, only 6-feet, and the other half, something
to make in t
of double that size, well, 14-feet--the point I'm tryingthat
Vie have one property owner who doesn't want any of his land taken and then
the owner on the south side, Mr. Griffith, who doesn't appreciate having
to give the whole amount on his side of the road. I'm inclined to agree
with the Griffiths on this. I would think that if it is at all possible,
this "take" should be shared equally. This would have some validity on
y. my way of thinking.
On the other hand, I think 14r. Sewell is the only registered objector to this
ra
revined.plan. I think mrs.Patroschka in objecting for Mr. Sewell mare than
A
for herself. Vx. Kelley has been completely eliminated. So, we have narrowed
it down to mr. Sewell and I don't know that it's really worth arguing about.
Actually, we can go either way. we would be paying more for land in one
area and paying for more construction in the area.
COWUSSIONER smmm. r would point out just this one thing. it is that if
it weren't for this principle to try and take the land equally from both
k
sides, we would have only Alternate B to contend with.
vs
The construction of this road is 10 years off and thsre's a great deal were
construction work- in terms or grading on Alternate A; so, Alternate A is
I% going to wind up being substantially more costly to the taxpayers of the
County than Alternate B and that's why I'm in favor of Alternate 8, not be-
4
campe of the protests of any one property owner.
COMISSIONER ARTHUR youw*.. Before we had this third alternate tonil#ht, I
understood your very favorite route was Alternate A, is that right? fts
that because it was $30,000 less in cost and because it took equally on
both sides of the road, was that the doctrine?
m. CLINE: Basically becOuss it took equally on both sides and it seemed to
be more equitable for that reason.
I think this slope easement on the Sewall property is misleading. It's not
an extensive cut, it's just a long sliver.
commissionER Goym: It has to be because you're only taking 6-feet.
IR
s. . N . 61% ms 9
.fy
4 February 1969
r
_¢ Highway Setback - Marsh Creek Road:
> COMMISSIONER MILANO: I think we've worked out most of the objections with
most of the property owners. I can't agree that we should take all of the
setback necessary from the owners on the south side of the road. That's
just not fair and we've never done that before.
MR. SEWELL: Mr. Chairwan, I've had real estate people look at this land
w and they have told me it is buildable and saleable. In their opinion, these
two acres of land are worth $10,000 to me. I fail to see that this is equal
='
damage.
Also, I have approached Mr. Griffith and offered to buy the 25-feet from
hies at a reasonable price and give it to the County because of the gross
difference in da=ges.
°F I now retract that offer because I just can't believe this Commission can't
xi
see the difference in monetary damage on that 600-feet of land. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER GOYAT.: Mr. SwAll, I, too, an in real estate and construction.
Your statement would carry more weight with me if it had come from.an engin-
eer who had studied the contours of the land, the accessibility of the site,
the buildability of the site and if it is economically feasible to build on
y. '} this land.
f Just telling us that real estate people have told you this doesn't tell see
=' the Whole story.
R MR. SEWELL: when I purchased this land I check with the County and all I
^- could find out what wae=wronq was that there alight be a slide area at one
„r, h
end or the other. But, I have walked that property and driven over it many
..
times and as far as I'm concerned, it is buildable. I'm sure of that.
41 r COMMISSIOVER SHELTON: Mr. Chairman, to get this hearing moving and to gat
u
Uzi, y} a vote on this, I'm ready to make a motion.
Upon motion of Comcuissioner Shelton, it was moved that the Planning Staff
Al" be instructed to prepare findings recommending approval of Alternate B of
>�. the Setback Plan for Marsh Creek Road (Road No. 3971-1+), since the mount
of take on each side of the road does not have any application where the
JI properties are not improved.
CHAIRMAN JEHA: Is there a second to the notion? There being no second to
Mr. Shelton's motion, the motion in lost. The Chair will entertain another
motion.
Upon motion of Commissioner Milano, seconded by Commissioner Goyak, it
was moved that the Planning Staff be instructed to prepare findings
recormtending to the Board of Supervisors approval of. Alternate A as amended
for the Highway Setobck Plan for Marsh Creek Road (Road No. 3971-A).
FSR. SEWELL: Mr. Chairman, %vul.d you give me time to get an engineer's
opinion on this thing?
CHAIRMAN JMiA: This matter will come up again before the Board of Super-
r visors for final disposition and you can present that information to thew.
wdre an advisory body and the Board will have final say in this matter. If
Y you plan to present engineering material., it should be presented to tom.
We have a notion And a second to the motion, call the roll, please.
92
a
Rs
,
G.
4 '
$:S
o-
4 Febru
ary 1969
liiqhway Setback Blah - Mash C�rsek lioad i
A roll call vote was taken: following is the Condusion's recorded.vote.-
AYES:
ote:AYES: Co=issioners Milano, Goyak,
]lndrsv Young, 10.nahUr ;W.
z . Younq, Lynch, 'Jeha.'
k - _
NOES: Coaaissionsrs Arthur H. Shelton, Jr.*
ASSN: Cowni.ssioners pion.
ABSTAIN: COMMissionelcs 'Nona.
*COMM. SMLTON.- I will vote "Noe". I wish to explain, ho"wer,.that I
consider the motion preferable to adopdDn over the original'Alternate A.
Motion carried.