Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Road Vacation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board schedules hearing on vacating last 1,000 feet of Morrison Canyon Road after contested public comments
Summary
The Alameda County Board of Supervisors voted to adopt a notice and resolution to schedule a hearing on vacating roughly the final 1,000 feet of Morrison Canyon Road, setting the hearing for October 9. Supporters said the change would improve public-safety response; opponents argued the road is public and cited prior county maintenance.
The Alameda County Board of Supervisors voted to adopt a notice and resolution of intent to schedule a hearing on a request to vacate the terminal 1,000 feet of Morrison Canyon Road, placing the hearing on the board calendar for October 9.
County staff and counsel framed the item as a procedural scheduling decision: the board was being asked only to set a hearing and give public notice, not to decide the merits of the road vacation. Staff noted the request came from Public Works and recommended scheduling so the board could later consider the matter together with a related code-enforcement proceeding.
The motion to continue the matter to a future hearing was seconded and carried on a roll-call vote with supervisors recorded as voting "Aye." After hearing public comment, the board formally adopted the resolution of intent and the notice to schedule the hearing.
Public comment included competing factual claims and sharply divergent appeals to public safety and access rights. Chris George, the applicant, said San Francisco Public Utilities Commission confirmed it holds no easement on the property, that his family has shouldered maintenance since 2004, and that vacating the portion would clarify ownership, reduce liability and improve emergency access. Adam George and other family members and supporters described repeated safety incidents on the road, difficulty turning around, and long-standing harassment they say has targeted the family; several speakers urged the board to schedule the hearing so a fuller record and possible abatement can follow.
Representing the Mission Peak Conservancy, William Nuregui opposed abandonment and argued the road is owned and maintained by the city and county, citing county expenditures (about $157,000 over five years, per his remarks) to maintain the roadway. Nuregui also raised concerns about public access, safety tied to private events on the property and prior litigation and settlement history that he said demonstrated the road’s substandard condition.
A neighbor and appellant, Chuck Meadows, described filing his first complaint in May 2020 and urged resolution and abatement when the appeal returns to the board. Other community members supporting the George family emphasized emergency-response concerns and reiterated that vacating the segment would align responsibility for the turnaround area.
County counsel advised that continuation or scheduling to a November date could be appropriate based on noticing and related-board timetables; the board elected to place the hearing on October 9. The board did not resolve the competing factual claims on whether the segment is currently maintained or owned by the county, nor did it decide whether to vacate the roadway — those determinations will be addressed at the noticed hearing.
The board recessed briefly and reconvened to continue other agenda items. The scheduled October 9 hearing will be the next procedural step for parties seeking formal disposition or abatement.
