HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04061993 - H.6 - 1
H.6
The Board of Supervisors of Contra.Costa County, California
Adopted this Order on April 6, 1993 , by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Smith, Bishop, McPeak, Torlakson
NOES: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Powers
ABSTAIN: None
SUBJECT: Continued Hearing
The Board on February 23, 1993, continued the hearing on the appeal of Trail Users Coalition from
the decision of the Conra Costa County Planning Commission on whether a condition of approval for Minor
Subdivision 55-90(Deborah Gustin, applicant and owner) has been met. Minor Subdivision 55-90 in the
Martinez area was approved"October 29, 1990.
Good cause-appearing therefore, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the hearing on the aforesaid
appeal is CONTINUED to April 27, 1993, at 2 p.m.
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: _April 6,1993
PHIL BATCHELOR,Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors and County Administrator
By ' Deputy Clerk
CC: Community Development Director
County.Counsel
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS .�f o Contrc
Costa
FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON S Count
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: April 2, 1993sr� �oU-N
SUBJECT: Continued Hearing on Trail Users' Coalition Appeal of County Planning
Commission Determination of Compliance with Condition of Approval 114
for Minor Subdivision #55-90 - Access Road/Trail Design Requirements
(Gustin; Feeder Trail No. 1 - Franklin Canyon Area)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION'(S) 6 BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
• 1. Deny the appeal of Trail Users' Coalition from the County
Planning Commission decision relative to the applicant's
compliance with Condition #14.
2. Sustain the finding of the County Planning Commission that the
applicant has demonstrated that it would not be feasible to
relocate project access to a route other than the proposed use
of Dutra Road/Feeder Trail No. 1.
3. If the applicant agrees to the conditions contained in Exhibit
I, grant an exception to the Contra Costa County Ordinance
Code Section 98-4.002 requirement to pave the access road
based on the findings listed in Exhibit I. The exception
pertains to the required paving for portions of the Dutra
Road/Feeder Trail No. 1 access to the subdivision.
4. Direct the Community Development and Public Works Departments
to work with the Trail Users Coalition, East Bay Regional Park
District, City of Martinez, and interested owners of property
near Feeder Trail No. 1 to formulate a program for development
of an ultimate trail facility basically along the Feeder Trail
No. 1 alignment for Board adoption.
5. Direct the Public Works Director to defer vacation of County
public road use on Feeder Trail No. 1 until Board action on
the ultimate trail program described in Item #4 above is
completed. (Reference the previous Board Order on this matter
dated April 28, 1992.)
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: R YES SIGNATURE "�}�
_ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMAITFERE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact:Robert Drake - 646-2091
prig: Community Development Department ATTESTED
cc: Scott Sommers PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
Trail Users' Coalition THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Public Works Department AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
East Bay Regional Park District
County Counsel BY , DEPUTY
Recently, staff has become aware of new information about the
project that . casts a different light on the compatibility of
combining trail and automobile use on the right-of-way. Staff has
learned that the subdivision ordinance requires the applicant to
pave portions of the project's access road. In a memo dated
3/3/93, the Public Works Department explains the type of road
improvements that would-be-required:
Previously, staff had assumed that the "all weather" road surface
improvements referenced in Condition #15.F. of the approved permit
would be limited to gravel .improvements.
Equestrians are generally able to traverse gravel surfaces with
little difficulty. However, horses have a more difficult time on
any paved surface because of their steel shoes. Horses would have
a particularly difficult time with a paved surface on a grade. In
staff's judgement, a paved surface would introduce an unacceptable
hazard to equestrian trail users.
The project conditions of approval only provide for 2-foot
shoulders, too narrow for equestrian trail use.
Segment "B"
The right-of-way segment ("Segment B") east of the "switchback" is
generally acknowledged by all interested parties to have topography .
that would permit a compatible arrangement for accommodating the
required road improvements and ultimate trail facility.
Feasibility Study for Exclusive Trail Facility
The applicant and Public Works Department have studied the cost of
providing a trail facility and the required project access
improvements within the Feeder Trail No. 1 right-of-way. The
project access improvements alone for a key segment ("A") of Feeder
Trail No. 1 have been estimated by Public Works to cost $60,000.
For purposes of costing the trail improvements, various designs
were studied that provided a graded path for trail use within the
road shoulder for Segment "A". The shoulder Area would provide for
an exclusive trail facility that would not be paved. To accommo-
date a trail facility of this type would require more use of
retaining walls than are otherwise required by the conditions of
approval. The expense would therefore be greater. The results of
this study are contained in three documents: 1) 3/11/93 letter
from Leptien Cronin Cooper; 2) 3/26/93 memo from Public Works
Department; and '3) 4/2/93 memo from Public Works. Five different
' levels of trail improvements are studied by Public Works.
The least expensive design that would still provide for practical
,trail use would cost $155,000 beyond the cost of the road improve-
ment.
•.In staff's judgement, that would be an unreasonable economic burden
to impose on a project of this scale.
DISCUSSION
It would be unreasonable to expect the applicant to design and
build an'exclusive, graded trail along the required road improve-
ments because of the exhorbitant expense in order to satisfy
Condition .of Approval 114. At the same time, the County does not
wishia project to interfere with the equestrian users enjoyment of
the trail if possible.
Recognizing these limitations, staff recommends that the Board
consider granting an exception to the road paving code require-
ments. Instead of paving, the applicant should instead be allowed
to make gravel improvements.
-3-
To the best of but understanding, the Board direction was taken
without opportunity for input from staff. It would appear that the
motivation for taking this action might be to better protect trail
use along,the right-of-way.' However, such action might instead
hinder the development of an ultimate trail solution in this area.
Unless the Board were to grant the appeal, there is going to .be
additional vehicular traffic on Feeder Trail No. 1 anyway.
• Vacating the public road use would not interfere with the appli-
cant's right to use the road because they have a private access
easement that would not be affected by the road vacation.
On the other hand, a road vacation may confound the County's
ability to negotiate with Gerlack or Tompkins for a trail access
through their respective properties. Accordingly, the County
should refrain from proceeding with a road vacation until an
ultimate trail plan has been established.
r REVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
If the Board isnot content with the staff recommendation, several
decisions are possible on this . matter, though from staff's
perspective none would be desirable. The following discussion
reviews those alternative actions identified above.
Grant the Appeal - It is unclear what if any solution this action
would imply. The County has already approved the minor subdivision
..project. The applicant has conducted the necessary investigation
into a possible alternative (vehicular) access route and none has
been identified. Unless this action included identification of an
economically feasible access road for the project, the County would
probably risk a successful legal challenge from the applicant.
Sustain the planning Commission Action Without Road Improvement
Modifications - This action would force the applicant to install
road paving along the trail. Because of the hazard to trail users,
the trail would probably have to be closed. Such action would
conflict with the General Plan trail policy.
Require a Graded 5-Foot Trail Next to Entire Length of Segment "A"
Road - This improvement would avoid the granting of an exception to
the pavement requirement. However, the costs of providing this
facility would be approximately (Case III) $155,000. It would be
-unreasonable to impose these costs on the applicant (nearly $40,000
,per parcel) .
Require a Graded 5-Foot Trail Next to Paved Sections of Segment "A"
Road Only - This approach results in no substantial savings from
the above approach.
-5-
4 . Submit a private road maintenance agreement to the
Public.-Works Department for review and approval in a
form acceptable to County Counsel. The private road
maintenance agreement shall insure the maintenance of
the road surface- torovide a -safe--evenl
p y-maintained-- -
surface. The agreement shall identify the cost sharing
for each parcel in the subdivision and shall be
recorded against each subdivision parcel.
5. The applicant shall contribute $20, 000 ($5, 000 per
approved parcel) to a trust fund in the Community
Development Department. The purpose of the trust fund
shall be to fund a study to develop a program to
provide for an ultimate trail alignment as authorized
by the Board of Supervisors.
Findings Required Pursuant to Section 92-6. 002 of the
subdivision Ordinance
1. There are unusual circumstances and conditions
affecting the property.
Because approved development in this area has been
minimal, the affected section of the Dutra Road right-
of-way will be subject to very little traffic.
Therefore, the road will not be heavily impacted.
The County has already approved a tentative map for
this project. , The only feasible access to the property
involves a longstanding County trail. The normal
practice of requiring pavement of steeper road sections
would establish unsafe- trail conditions. Sections of
the proposed access have a grade .of up to 14%. With
steel shoes, horses often slip even on a level paved
surface. The problem would likely be more acute on a
steeper surface. Horses may have difficulty climbing
or descending such a surface, or safely reacting to
approaching vehicles.
The unpaved road shoulders (2-feet wide) would be too
narrow to accommodate equestrian trail use. The lack
of safe trail conditions might require the County to
consider closure of trail access along this route.
Such action might conflict with the hiking and riding
(equestrian) policies of the Open Space Element in the
General Plan 1990 - 2005.
Exclusive use of gravel road improvements in lieu of
pavement along the Segment "A" section of Dutra
Road/Feeder Trail No. l right-of-way would not
-2-
rye f.� i ,=�^i�.rr�'"�l��`��i�t'�' ��.� 4✓�� `�- Q ►Tr..'-�-1� % ��
J r/ rK •.�:^ ,. - - Qom. `��i,,�����/ �`
SRI
'hili, �—�`\��+�( � ����`'�r�(`���.'.'�'��:t "`��,� ,•����,,���r':' '7/ �:���r I�%;' �i,�!
r
��. M�►� ��3�3 ,f, .� ,jam'- 7 rl/// 1� � y� l/7//fr
� All
f I +,..: .��Jt V " \ --IRA • it .�, .. i:;'r�'� •. 4 lMR lV,�l�t�/
.�. � v �;� �� �I}.�.•"`..'rel/;.;�;^' �.�`��'}i. �1.. f r, —.-. "Z '�� � ,!
,,r.� v
re
MIN
ti 1. :F°,' ��1V��IIV//// �i t�frrj ,.�✓ \ y,
4 I(�.,,�/4�� It•.,►r� ,lir� , �,��•KtIN ST
.=vi'
065.-� f1� ���-�� ���,,,' (f�/ '�•sl ���, ..�,
lP -.---; � 7
66 � � f � • �.1:,�.;�,�-`:'a1,�, �� a �r(
FIT
I ON
\ � ��, � � • ��i � �Z�\, err=✓�
Resolution No. 54-1992
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA
COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATING FINDINGS AS TO WHETHER OR
NOT CONDITION #14 OF MS 55-90, A -REQUEST BY - DEBORAH GUSTIN
(APPLICANT & OWNER) , HAS BEEN MET. FRANKLIN CANYON/MARTINEZ AREA.
WHEREAS, a request by Deborah Gustin (Applicant & Owner) , for MS
55-90, requesting:. approval to subdivide approximately 80-acres into
four (4) parcels and a remainder, was received by the, Community De-
velopment Department on April 27, 1990; and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance for
MS 55-90 was posted on September 7, 1990; and
WHEREAS, on October 29, 1990, the County Zoning Administrator
approved MS 55-90 for three (3) parcels with a remainder, with con-
ditions, including Condition #14, which requires that an attempt be
made to find access
ss away from Contra Costa County Feeder Trail #1
and existing Dutra Road. If the access cannot be provided
elsewhere, the Dutra Road access shall be reviewed in a public
hearing; and
WHEREAS, on March 4, 1992, the applicant submitted information
regarding Condition #14 indicating that access could not be gained
away from Feeder - Trail #1; and that access would utilize Dutra
Road; and
WHEREAS, in conformance with Condition #14,' after notice thereof
having been lawfully given, a public hearing was scheduled before
the County Zoning, Administrator for May 18, 1992, and because of
substantial interest, the project was referred to the County Plann-
ing commission for hearing and determination; and
WHEREAS, after notice thereof having been lawfully given, a public
hearing was scheduled before the County Planning Commission for
June 30, 1992 and was then continued to July 14, 1992, at which
time the hearing was closed for decision on August 25, 1992; and
NOW, THEREFORE; BE IT RESOLVED that the County Planning commission
approves the use of Dutra Road for both trail and road access and
'finds that Condition #14' of MS 55-90 HAS BEEN MET; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the reasons for this recommendation are
as follows:
1. That the letters submitted by the applicant stating that
no alternative access is attainable, substantiates that
the applicant tried to gain alternative access; and
2 . That the access road easement known as "Dutra Road" for
Minor Subdivision 55-90, being synonymous with Feeder
Trail #1, shall accommodate both vehicular and trail
use so long as the applicant design and install a sign-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION 55-90
1 The request to subdivide the 80 acre parcel-is approved for three (3) parcels with a
remainder subject to the Tentative Map dated received by the Community Development
Department on April 27, 1990.-
2. The applicant/owner shall provide for an Agricultural Conservation Easement to Contra
Costa County on all of the 60 acres of the project site. The 20 acre remainder is not
included. Building site areas shall be permitted and not exceed 2 acres. Leach field
sites.approve.d by the Health Department shall be identified in each parcel. This
easement shall not prevent the erection of agricultural related buildings or structures
anywhere on-the site, subject to the related setbacks. Easement shall be shown on
the.,Parcel Map, and shall indicate that a 2 acre building site is permitted, as well as
referenced in.:deed description.
3. Prior to the. issuance of building or grading permits, the applicant shall submit plans
including tentative building envelopes all within the 2 acre envelope as stipulated in
Condition of Approval #2, a grading plan, and an erosion control plan for the review
and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Future modification of the building envelope
must be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator. The maximum grade for
the proposed:private roads shall be identified and shall not exceed 20 percent.
4. At least 30 days prior to the issuance of building permits, development plans for each
I
building site shall be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator. Homes and
other large structures shall be designed and placed to minimize the visual impact on
adjoining properties.
5. The erection of structures, to include (but not limited to) buildings, obscure fences,
swimming pools, tennis courts, and sports courts, is prohibited in scenic areas.
6. The following.statement shall be recorded at the County Recorder's Office for each
parcel to notify future owners of the parcels that they own property in an agricultural
area:
"This document shall serve as notification that you have purchased land in an
agricultural area where you may regularly find farm equipment using local roads; farm
equipment_causing Oust; crop dusting and spraying occurring regularly; burning
associated with'h agricultural activities;noise associated with farm equipment and aerial
crop dusting and certain animals and flies may exist on surrounding properties. This
statement is, again, notification that this is part of the agricultural way of life in East
Contra Costa County and you should be fully aware of this at the time of purchase."
7. Should archaeological materials be uncovered during grading,trenching or other on-site
excavation(s),,earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until a
professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society for California Archaeology
(SCA) and/or the Society of Professional Archaeologist(SOPA) has had an opportunity
to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s), if deemed
necessary.
5
3.
conditional approval statement. Conformance with the Ordinance includes the following
requirements: - -
1) Constructing a paved turnaround at the end of the proposed private
road. The applicant shall be permitted to construct the turnaround as
an all-weather road due to the large parcel size and agricultural nature
of the area.
2) Conveying all storm waters entering or originating within the subject
r property, without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage
facility, to a natural watercourse having definable bed and banks or to
an existing adequate storm drainage facility which conveys the storm
waters to a natural watercourse.
As these parcels are large and agricultural in nature, additional run-off
resulting from this subdivision will be negligible. Therefore, an
exception from this requirement is granted provided the applicant
maintains the existing drainage pattern and does not dispose
concentrated storm water run-off adjacent property.
3) Relinquishing "development rights" over that portion of the site that is
within.the structure setback area of the natural watercourse traversing
the property. The structure setback area shall be determined by using
the criteria outlined in Chapter 914-14, "Rights of Way and Setbacks",
of the Subdivision Ordinance.
4) Submitting improvement plans prepare by a registered civil engineer,
:.payment of review and inspection fees, and security for all
improvements required by the Ordinance Code or the conditions of
approval for this subdivision.
5) Submitting a Parcel Map prepared by a registered civil engineer or
.licensed land surveyor.
B. On site, construct a 16-ft., all weather surfaced private roadway to County
private road standards,within a 25-ft., access easement to serve all parcels in
this proposed subdivision. Portions of the onsite"access road which will exceed
a 10% grade shall be paved.
As an alternate, the applicant shall grade the access to a 20-ft., width within
a 25-ft., easement and pave portions of the onsite access roads which exceed
a 10% grade prior to filing of the Parcel Map: and, construct the above all
weather road improvements prior to issuance of a Building Permit.
C.. Furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division,
that legal access to the property is available from the County maintained
portion of Dutra Road.
- N
N
1 HIV 1111
GA-18 VUBWdN
11
s
wn
40
Z ►
a -- s3
Z w m " ul t
� s
N VIT 1 _
c
N
Q
FIGURE IV
POTENTIAL RE-ALIGNMENT OF KEY SEGMENT
OF FEEDER TRAIL NO, I
•, ---."�4�� --. . ter;,f�... __ � ... ,�_ ��� � � .✓--�r-nr=;�.!�i/;,,..�'j`�, \\I111 �•�;
t
Switchback r
I •� ,' `4t}j int r �j =
off
It
LEGEND
! :/i;:f; 1 � 1 ` -/� � �'.��,.+•� �iA1ti��a .�"�1'`�..,...l�i•-__••-'�'`�_ ll�'i tkC
ODE DESCRIPTION
•^ i
_Dutra.Road/Feeder Trail No. 1
Segment A
�)� )�,... ,� > •��.,,,`� ..�-•- .t, l, ,r� 1� ,?� � Gerlack Route
�„J 'S .J 1�; �i�� '�-' ;-����it �� j�•1�}if
,;` --��' �``' J;'-''�---�t • • . • • • Tompkins/Johnson Route
--•.--J � '�\�;��= >�:f;% � A. �i 1;tom;f•=-��._..•; 1� t��11`� L`...�---�
it 1 `' `� ��r' ci'�\" j �F % •� .r' /:�>j .I L/may y/
"''"` LEPTIEN - CRONIN - COOPER, INC.
Civil Engineering-Land Surveying
9 Rand
of h
W.L.e en
Frank J.Cronin
Jasper Cooper
March 11 , 1993 rMAR
a v
2 1991,
ENGINEERING SERVICES
Mitch Avalon PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. �
Contra Costa County
Public Works Department
255 Glacier Drive`
Martinez, CA 94553
Re: Access to MS 55-90, Gustin
Dear Mitch,
I am enclosing a 1"=100' scale plan showing cross sections and
profile grades at selected locations along the first one' third
. (the steepest section) of the access roadto MS 55-90. The cross
sections are very rough and are not intended to be used for
design purposes. They are indicated only to provide a conceptual
design for a combined roadway and mixed use trail .
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The following observations with, regard to the condition of the
initial section of the access road are based on field measure-
ments taken 3/2/93 and upon the 1"=100' topographic map prepared
for the adjacent minor subdivision, MS 97-89 (Thompkins) .
1 . The length of the roadway from the end of the 'paved portion
of Dutra Road to the switchback at the top of the grade
(west line of Thompkins) is 4200 lineal feet ( If) . The road
climbs along the side of a ravine from elevation 230 to
elevation 700.
2. Approximately 1800 lineal feet is over 10% in grade. , Of the
amount steeper than 10% two thirds is 11 .4% or less. The
remaining 700 feet or so is approximately 13-14%.
3 . The majority of the existing dirt roadway is approximately
25 feet wide. The narrowest point in the existing roadway is
18 feet, the widest, 27 feet.
IMPROVEMENTS
The enclosed plan shows an example of divided road/trail con-
struction. The improvements in the example consist of a 16 foot
paved surface with 2 foot rock (AB) shoulders on each side, a 4
foot dirt separation and a 10 foot dirt trail . Retaining walls
3855 Alhambra Avenue
91017 MargnM California 94553-3881
510 228-4218 FAX 510 228-4638
iT'
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTM>~IfiTI'1``
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY93ApR -2 AM T 45
DATE: March 26, 1993
TO: b ra e;Project Planner, Community Development
FROM: Mitch Avalon, Senior Civil Engineer, Engineering Services Division
SUBJECT: MS 55-90 Feeder Trail #1
t
Attached is a letter from Leptien - Cronin - Cooper, dated March 11, 1993, regarding the
access road to the above subdivision on Feeder Trail #l.-
Leptien
1:Leptien - Cronin - Cooper analyzed Feeder Trail#1 from Dutra Road up to the switchback
at the Tomkins (MS 97-89) boundary, a distance of approximately 4200 feet. This portion
of the access road represents the steeper part of Feeder Trail #1 and was analyzed for two
things, (1) the width and grade of the existing dirt road and (2) the cost to improve the
existing dirt road to provide a separate vehicular access and trail use.
I have reviewed the information provided and agree with the conclusions and information
supplied. The unit costs appear reasonable. My quantity take offs on the retaining wall was
more than indicated in the letter, which would make the roadway costs for a separate road
and trail even more expensive.
It appears that a separate road and trail on the current Feeder Trail #1 alignment is not
economically feasible. This would leave the following issues to be resolved:
a) Location and funding of an alternate trail if trail use and vehicular use is to
be separated, and the existing Feeder Trail is to be used for vehicular use.
b) Type of road surface (gravel or paved), especially in those areas over 10%
grade, and maintenance of the road surface if Feeder Trail #1 is to be used
for unseparated vehicular and trail use.
If the current alignment of Feeder Trail #1 is used for both vehicular and trail use, .there
are several options that might be considered.
I. Provide a 16 foot wide road surface and a 10 foot wide trail with a 4 foot
separation between the road and the trail. This results in a 34 foot wide
graded width, and is the scenario analyzed by Leptien - Cronin - Cooper
(LCC). As discussed above, this option is economically unfeasible.
. gyp' 4` 10'
TRA
/6! 2.
IL ��FENCF
WALL
NALL
AC.
AB.
CULVERTS @ 500'
RAP @ CULVERT
4C. 40,
CASE I /b ' WtnF ROAD WtT4 A /0 ` WtzDE SEPA�AT&?7 -��ki
23
ti
V
CASE IT ; 16 r WIDE !ROAD Wt7Ff A s r WIDE SWOULDEP,
P,F-- tAIMIc WALLS AS ',F-4u/ ''ED I"0 MAIV'rAI,V A
2:3 ' MINtMUt4 6RADEa WIZ)'rH
2(
�i
CASE -S kME / s G.A5E IL E.xCEPT /4 0uLT)eR is
REDuc,ED TQ 3 � IN Th`o56 AtiR.FA-S wf't 4
ADEQUATE 5161147- xD15TAA10E.
AA C
U+
` t
Y
• J ♦L
U+
X.•. ,o
00
Ir
C r u:
OQ U }
_ UU'00. N 6
y
��' .2.� 'F �\�"• � •' ..i. ..� 7.L 1+5 W tel' •�t
t
a
�i
0
Z
"z
w
x
4
t,t_
N ,v l
t(N '.o Y O m
r
S v
.r Jt .::1 � �4;. i`;ti�.• '.; t. •tY !n�, i4%i r e.
,-�.. t�C�_'^+."1l;.� � •+' _ :�,. s: � "fit ���'t\'' � SNp3�
`.r
00
ff
ji
12
CL
r
1 '
t �..
--'fes,,,,,.-•--1\� �^_�� �. ``��a.�,, , ' � . . � �
`"`�\• \ �' '' ,\�,,,,` ��`5'4, iti
per!"'\ �--. \ \\ .� \;� \��;, t•t,.N .,,�ti. r. ., ;.+k�y.
it
............... .,,3� 'tis•,��,5
';T:'�,'' )•:.' W \� / ,
Y.•��,
+ , , \ Ji'�' _ �.: -,i• ;�\": - ?'fit•°r:i.'�';, � ' ! -'`S'� ry (�
10,
t; jbd
wl
' l � •AC','. 'i , 'is ,.,t;4: t1'� �[,�J�..j��.J(tkj;�_" � 'y4 4N��
,. .. .. \,1. ;`.'', :1•:�,�,' ,.1 ��:{..'.��,_'.. // N .'1� S6ll .
i
r.
23
\
r \
r
♦
CASE ly _' 16 ` WIDE RQA'D wlrH A z' WIDE. 0UL-n9'P\S
RErA1NIAI1 WAt-1+S AS REau/xED 7`D MAtAirAlAl A
23 ' 01RAT3EII W Ip T 14 W/4F-RE T14C e-7XA27E. E.KCEED5
/07D DR Sll HT 7115VA NCY-
♦ 2O
\
♦
CA .�, /b ' WIDE ROAD WITY 2 ` Wil]F- SHOULDF-95,
BIZ I T
April 11 1993
GUARD OF DIRE(,"fpRS
Jocelyn Combe,Protidenr
Ted Reake,Wce Presrdont
Oliver Holm as,rreesursr
Susan Smartt,Socrerary
Supervisors John O'Donnell
Board of Su
p oUu(Jloe Sidon
Contra Costa County Jean Sin
Pot O'Brion.
651 Pine St. 4th Floor, N wing GeneralM,noger
Martinez , CA 94553
RE: County Feeder Trail
MS55-90
Dear Chairman Tom Torlakson:
The East Bay Regional Park District requests a continuance of the
M855•-90 agenda, item scheduled to be heard at the April 6 Board of
Supervisors meeting.
The date and time conflict with the District's Board meeting,
therefore key staff are not able to attend the Supervisors'
meeting. The continuance would also give the District adequate
time to review and complete field evaluations and cost 'estimates
for trail alternatives suggested by County staff on March 29, as
none of the parties involved have reached a consensus for
resolution of this important matter. It would be unfortunate to
bring this matter to your Board at this time without any consensus
being reached. Additionally, this matter is on the April. 8 Contra
Costa County/EBRPD liaison meeting agenda for discussion between
our Board members: It would be helpful to discuss alternatives
being considered and their legal implications prior to a Board
decision.
Please contact me as soon as possible at 635-0135, extension 2501
to discuss this continuance request,
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ro ert E. D yle
Assistant neral Manager
Advanced anning and Land Acquisition --..-
RED:ns
cc: Pat O'Brien
EBRPD Board
Bob Drake
Ted Radosevich
2950 PeraRa Oaks Court P.Q.Box 5381•Oakland CA 94605-0381 •510-635-035 •Fax 510.5694319