HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12181984 - T2 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TO: Phil Batchelor DATE: December 18, 1984
County Administrator
FROM: Anthony A. Dehaes SUBJECT: Boundary Change between
Director of Planni Alameda County and
Contra Costa County
This is to supplement your December 10, 1984 report on the proposed County boundary
change.
Background
In 1977, during a review of the County General Plan in the Gateway Study Area of Orinda,
our office first outlined the need to amend the County boundary to transfer small parcels
from Contra Costa County to Oakland in Alameda County. That recommendation was
based on the orientation of these developed lands.
Our proposal lay dormant until 1983 when the Local Agency Formation Commission of
Alameda County considered a sphere of influence proposal for the City of Oakland. They
suggested the sphere which included small areas within Contra Costa; that proposal was in
large measure based on our 1977 report. The Oakland sphere of influence issue was
referred to me by the Board who subsequently adopted a report supportive of the concept
to change the boundary based on adequate discussion between the affected agencies and
to be accomplished in a manner that would not interfere with the programs of the East
Bay Regional Park District (copy attached). That County action was not specific as to the
property to be transferred.
The current proposal could implement part of that 1977 original recommendation if
modified.
Present Issues
The petition to change the County boundary includes basically parcels of land southerly of
Villanova Drive. Examination of the attached map indicates that those properties could
be better served by the City of Oakland in Alameda County. This is also true of the one
developed lot easterly of Villanova Drive (#273-212-001).
However, consideration of changing the County line northerly of Villanova Drive for
parcel #273-212-023 raises several questions as to whether its inclusion will create a
better County line. Land ownership in the area is presently a mixture of EBRPD lands and
private holdings. In our view discussions should be held with the City of Oakland,
Alameda County and the EBRPD to develop an appropriate boundary line in this area. A
case can be made.,.-.that some of the EBRPD lands presently within Oakland-Alameda
County should be transferred to Contra Costa County so that the County line would relate
directly to the westerly Huckleberry Botanic Preserve boundary. This is an example of
why more discussion is needed with Oakland, EBRPD and Alameda County to better
determine if and where a boundary change north of Villanova Drive would be best. It
should also be pointed out that several other areas exist in the general vicinity where
changes in the County boundary are warranted. It may be desirable to consider all such
changes at one time.
Phil Batchelor
page two
December 18, 1984
Recommendation
When one considers that the County line has been changed only once in the last century
and that this proposal is an effort to improve a poor boundary, I feel the Board has two
viable options, and they are:
o Deny the application without prejudice as proposed by your December 10th report
and allow more time for discussion with Alameda County, Oakland and EBRPD, or
o Approve this boundary change as modified to include only those parcels which
clearly could be better served by Alameda County. This, in our view, means to
approve the change except that parcel #273-212-023 north of Villanova Drive would
be deleted. Such an approval should be subject to the conditions indicated in your
report.
Either of these choices would be within the interests of all the affected jurisdictions.
AAD/mbL
Attachment
RECE V
MOV A 1-84
P!10.BATCHELOR
ERI:aL.,0 Oi 5,j .9/!S eft:
Stateof. 'California )
( ss.
County of Contra Costa )
I, JAMES R: OLSSON, County Clerk, County of Contra Costa,
State of California, do hereby certify that .I did examine the
petition entitled "PETITION- FOR MINOR ALTERATION TO THE BOUNDARY
LINE BETWEEN ALAMEDA COUNTY AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTY" and find
that said petition contains 23 valid signatures of registered
voters residing within the territory described in said petition.
WITNESS my hand and Official' Seal this. 26th day of Nov- _
ember, 1984.
JAMES R. OLSSON, County Clerk
(SEAL) -
B G B
Y
Deputy County Clerk
t
PETITION FOR MINOR ALTERATION TO THE
BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN
ALAMEDA COUNTY AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY:
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED qualified electors of Contra Costa
Cqunity pursuant to Title 3 , Division 1 ; Chapter 2 , Article 4 of
the-Government Code of the State of California, present this
Petition to alter the boundary line between Alameda County and
Contra Costa County and respectfully present the following
information:
(a) A particular description of the proposed new
boundary line as it will appear or exist if the existing bounding
line is altered as proposed herein is set forth on Exhibit A,
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
(b) The proposed new boundary line will not pass
within five miles of the county seat of the county from which
territory is taken.
(c) The distance at which the proposed boundary line
is located from the existing boundary line does not exceed five
(5) miles.
(d) The area of the territory proposed to be
transferred does not exceed more than one square mile nor more
than 5% of the area of the County of Contra Costa from which it
is taken.
(e) The change herein proposed will not reduce the
population of `Contra Costa County, the County affected, by more
than 3% .
(f) This Petition is accompanied by written consents
signed by not less than 50% of all the owners of land within the
territory proposed to be transferred.
(g) Attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated
herein by reference is a map showing the proposed new boundary
line and the location of the existing boundary line, and
indicating the territory proposed to be transferred.
WHEREFORE, Petitioners pray that the Board of
Supervisors of Contra Costa County fix a date for hearing the
proof of Petitioners. Such hearing date shall be not less than
twenty (20) nor more than forty (40) days subsequent to the
filing of this Petition.
Each of the undersigned for himself/herself states:
1 . That he/she is a qualified elector of Contra Costa
County, State of California.
2 . That his/her place of residence is as follows and
that his/her name is signed hereon in' the same manner as signed
in the greater register of voters.
Name Residence Address City Date/O�
- -7-31-0�
J2,
3 r z!w..
4 C'. lyqq WHITIF IPIC WAY WALNvi
h 9GI-� A101P Pr,- fn6 rI-A6:)q 119A .91% 7
�' 3
X3'6.2
-2-
i
Name Residence Address City Date n '
!
p e,es �
1-0Mou i,�.►, ula��vuT G2RttK�CAI.IP 8 -6-8
�/- S"97 F_ w,4,e.1,v? /MAI,( C,4 8— 6 —85/.
-� 9�LD
l y�;O C%-4wcx-r,(
/ /ia esi DR.
15 7 J �
CAI
r
�t
.3
/1 2 0 4`-Ill's'o
2 03v Com' wlc,
z �� CC)4
26
27
28
29
30
—3—
A,
NAMES OF REGISTERED VOTORS SIGNING
PETITION TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
V1 Edith E. Armstrong
�. Donald L. Thomas
Richard C. Madson
Wayne C. Reed
Robert T. Shanahan
6 . R. J. Wiborn
7. -J. P. Ewart
$l• M. J. Mecklenburg
n/ W. L. McKinnon
Brentwood L. Crosby
. P. T. Smith
1
T2Beth A. Bernard
Charlane D. Ellenwood
J. R. Grady
X2 .5 . Maxine M. Clause
16 . Judith E. Halden
7. James F. Vicknair
--� 8 . Dorothy. L. Golinick
19. Kathleen A. Gerhardt
i Margaret M. Spence
1 . Jay de L'Eau
2 ., Dale S. Cristol
3. Mary Ann Thomas
�4 . C. K. Maxfield
25. Richard H. James
tty
p
IV
hr � � � m J" � 1.•y '7
(D
+",17
w K p
rn
.s. !h `'e 5.ax,,} t? :xe a ..t7 "'^-..I`+'✓5. L7 {D ".Jv
;� 1T ."'nd- V t•, f.-•t �� .� y 1}.•si'r� '� J v� (D �
CD <+sT t
{ 4
' �_' �� �/\ �iJd �� h��_'z `I'-'"-i'.y F 'J''� c',}•o� '` '��af'z.�N�v+y s
! by S ..sj'� X, F. r x 3... � .,?Y,,,3 X�t)r,t ,x� :�3 ✓vy
.. ''_ .3�✓J..>J� ✓ ✓ 1,-n�'.� ,'4J'� /" k t� '�-Iy. � `� �'err� Y
G- � ✓ 10- � •.,,,5
. D� r�� ,4� J• sv�;_,is r.J�Y KY✓ y, .3' � � ?� ii rt✓ aa➢�..i,:r
tit�J.
" ,41 't'.► ,.,o 4 � Vv 1`U �,� ;J a�-t:`: � v'`'r..�:, J� rv•}�+e-�59au},i1
t`.yT ���e.f b 1 r>j y e" t a! �7 r y3 r ✓. �� )� t t";]
CO
0)
! ••,, •� u ,J 7 �-
,✓;, •„`� c'4 CAI
co 7r,
t,
O •.1�. 1 /�y _ - _ - x .z.r r ✓ 0'.7.1
1 _ � •
(�j�
h x}11 tt "
N y S -J '., F o4 J� �'d�.y, c�ii'Xs'rt� JJI.n3�� ".r•`4 `,�•
�.. N Q j�✓ N to Y� z t.•s* 1 ✓j^.i �Jt+/ �y Wp''7�,&tY y,
CD
`� .1 ":"t .� 3''' J SJ O V .�✓:!4 'r :J:iF r'ys,;+ 'yS 1,S✓C o t�J t...v �.r
1 W � J � z .� >u":� �„ � ,,,,• 1 � v � •xo-,,,t° :tyy✓„l�}a+xJ ���+rY'1v'
LU,
} ,' t J' J J-•• 1hr f, "rt -u "� .: ''`TJ�N„x".JS1:5'i i.
+�✓ JF J J .ly }R�: tv.3 Jy JJJ: a1...af A...yY `'�'�,'u<' }v Ja
N 6 r'- J �, J J .J ✓ }•� .•t V Y1K„ti` M.si. .J t"trl
�"' C � 1 �: f J., J� r t J.J J x✓.�� pis r. ,Y,• ,r �''.sj'�,,,J,� a{Jx�
v, �N•q. fl/ ,tD )1 .cq\_C1 / ' > J Ju J .} .`' °` r i '' X i_ ✓uJ �. ''.r' k s ✓G ".!
_- v1 6� � � N ! ✓ d-.�,,. ,f M1.dJ J �ri* J vA,1 q�u7 �y.✓
^'�... � W `r.Y i� J. JJ 1 JJ JJ J � 1 t •1.1a'> },uh�y M✓'��t Y"tJ„J✓�Zk..Y „t✓_�.
. �`'� i-0 ` f� ) a✓1 7 3 -,:� _..r t � 4 `"�.r,.1 w . o �',T�.,""i?°fJ'A.,}'`,y -,:.':
•s C 6 V J N J y - SV ..T! , t
4 T. ..1� 1J ✓ � ) J J J J,.rt: J;�1f.J .TJ.z
CJ1 4 aLr aV "(� t y 3' J l ;T�3�] t�7 oL a� t* wYJ�r1 k�x
1 ) 'r•f"'x t vs ..;J �,,_�,"..y �, J� J-oJ .,.t}c, 'S t,- -4.JJj..1...;
! 3S�> � ..!''j ✓a � a.� *''+> - ,�� '�f',rC����� k"'zJ.J' � �'�l`T��wus'{d �� 1 �a"S.,iSs.."i��js�r.
Pu
Jam✓ �. k //�� b ' �. �- '�4 Y+ t.,;, 4 :i� ;v J J.'.
// `J J �'•ct� J IS
.. I. a7 "�"Ca - "4fj. 'v i ;�"�� � J j'� "".j7 '�~ ✓�j" ;s 3•J
C->
�`,•7' `S`-i� rrLa �"aw ."� `0r. 3 � �_ r: 7 A �-} r•
-.i� o:�, 'M ". 1 : J �z "_ 1� �., � '+.-a;.�Y j,"lta•,'t..., h'Jf�•r.1?'r
1i(U `�} ` ` /w� ✓✓ + ✓ 1. t J J.J{ 1 J ly dyf N'tsJ'
�,�gl v � ti ,/ '\ _• J' � �J, "L -J "t ". y'��Y _ 4JJ�. � .r-'Cq�� i
t y� �--- Il( t� Z N 1 ,vu': � "t+.•.TrE:,wv_ ja';,J
r 1.� '}�,' 7 S J V�.?•1_..
�� N �'L.'Q Y• n O" t�.T 7 tt t,_.t{..} J X47 1;' y)7,
9p -'_"`_ a F tt ..+�sj 8 J J ��"'`. S7GJ �.T �* "�� J� ✓ 11 ti y y J�,�,n,Jlr
JR 16t LS ,,.... ,�. g�`XQ 4.:: `r r <F.,r. f >:.fir^f 4��`�"t t J ,J .,. :s 'T s v,lA�Jxti J ✓l wJ✓w:
r �, t .r: t, + _(' r r ♦fr {"'� y f 44 f L r "}a i +J_"...`rJ .• "J' ,JJ -J- J J,S o -t✓4,+ ..,�a „rJ b...�}�"t�
t_
c r".r r ,�-C` r ✓r i :-t wti. r3 a
�.l� '1''} t>. ", Y r ^'.s € �' � c r r .s r. ;f Fr•�". .� a J .N �,r c ,1 .:'J".
. "}�'} ,),'T) ) ,(�'C f "" ''fF r�'��f .(`�`t f't 1-:a rt - F r p.- ✓ j ,.rJ 1'.1 _ya✓ a J. ✓.✓
-`L -! fr r ry t r ![f' r- r' a C4rt't° :. �-:fr C'r i tY J`rJt:1J+' ✓ - t`a«f`rr' j I.,a ti,:JY}L .1 J 4
._� r t• C r✓- 'C' t ':{C r t.'i "..G; L t.fY/" f[ r .J .,i-
� t f,,._ � ; .�{:fk, �r�`%sC,t!,�4 F ry t r't u,, Cr r, �rf"�:��rLr 4t.'+�•}.r 'viS-J'j -��i+.� ,�.:i ..!",.�'!' ,5,,)'�.7 J° „ f>~ y.1"Kt i J'�i.
t�'�{ r s"' .nat�'�o{� rr � '^t �+, .z : ' .../J r `''�'" v✓ �; S?n v: -I.� � f .:tw •-:
s .r r F�x+�t r.r "F'-y J'w.r v:r"'�� i�:.,w, ✓s� .� 3 .,y...r�.j`.7:) .✓., r,,
• '` -t�`•r;-.r 6,:.��''Vitaµvy��s�l,f3'•
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TO: M. G. Wi ngett DATE: April 18, 1983
County Administrator
FROM: Anthony .A. Dehaesu SUBJECT: Alameda LAFCO Report on
Director of Planni Sphere of Influence
Boundary Amendment
The Board of Supervisors n .Ma ch 22, 1982 referred a report of the Local Agency
Formation Commission of ameda County proposing sphere of influence boundary
amendments for northern lameda County cities to you and me for a. report.
The Alameda LAFCO report points out that there are several small "pockets" of land
between the East Bay Regional Park District holding at Robert Sibley Volcanic 'Pre-
serve and Huckleberry Botanical Reserve and the County line which are in private
land holdings. It is proposed that these are to be placed within the Oakland city
sphere of influence.
Several of these holdings are actually crossed by the County line. Poor boundaries
such as these are difficult to administer for both counties and can be a hardship
to the property owner.
There are other small urban lots in Contra Costa County, west of Skyline Boulevard,
which were subdivided decades ago but which cannot be developed because sewers in
the area can only be provided by the City of Oakland. Oakland won't serve the area
because the lots are outside of the city and Alameda County. Consideration of the
change in the Alameda-Contra Costa County line and annexation to the City of Oakland
could resolve some of these issues.
While I am sympathetic to the thrust of the Alameda County LAFCO report which is to
place portions of our County into the sphere of influence of the City of Oakland,
care must be taken not to include lands which are inappropriate for urban develop-
ment or which are being negotiated for park expansion by EBRPD. Placement of those
lands within Oakland's sphere make those park acquisitions more difficult and lead
to inappropriate investment decisions.
It should also be pointed out that there may be portions of Alameda County which
may be beneficial to have transferred to Contra Costa County.
The Alameda County LAFCO report identifies the subject area in Contra Costa County
as an "area of concern" for the City of Oakland rather than being in their "sphere
of influence" . None of these designations are controlling because of their not
being within Alameda County.
Some of the Contra Costa County lands involved are being considered for acquisition
by the East Bay Regional Park District and, therefore, should not be identified by
the Alameda County LAFCO as having potential for urban development such as being
in a "sphere. of influence" or "area .of concern".
M. G. Wingett -2- April 18, 1983
Inasmuch as a Liaison Committee between the Boards of Supervisors of the two counties
has been established, I would suggest that this issue, which is really one of pos-
sible boundary changes, be referred to this Liaison Committee.
The Alameda County LAFCO report is scheduled for a hearing before their LAFCO on
April 21 , 1983. I would suggest that the Board advise the Alameda County LAFCO of
your action in this matter.
AAD/ral .
cc: Alameda County LAFCO
East Bay Regional Park District,
LAFCO Executive Officer
County Counsel
Public Works Director
Supervisor Fanden
•4• ,_ r.s r, ....:... _ ,.., �•�I/ -" l)i I�I I I 1 \ _ 1_: .:.<... �'..z ) "r� ;.ire n r
Q*XaMD SPucP* OF
E.B.M.U.D. MPO'SAL -
110
o y 'yM1sJaUQo� – � -- •
Galdecott Tunnel
sro1JF
• j"}I\, 6 c 1429 ' QC$5I• •\C I� ._—__-___--7�y--- __O__ \•.: '
ISJ.78 Ac"
n
Skyline Blvdo
E.B.R.P.D. ROU _
(lokc I,
u E.B.M.U.D. - -
M( UND TOP DOMINGO
E.B.R.P.D. 80 AC
(, U 24.7i AC
� I FREEW[
�\
16 Mollath PF
„ Sphereof Influence 'it < ro Se c
P v u
-
valtr.\ :! n 1
E.B.R.P.D. a
lira• �\ � � L .. ..
•r
r f.
LAW OFFICES OF
a TITCHELL, MALTZMAN, MARK, BASS, OHLEYER & MISHEL
HASKELL TITCHELL
OF COUNSEL A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
RICHARD D.MALTZMAN 29TH FLOOR - THE HARTFORD BUILDING TELECOPIER
MELVYN I.MARK 6SO CALIFORNIA STREET (415)981.5027
PHILIP B.BASS
MICHAEL L.OHLEYER SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108
R.DAVID MISHEL TELEX
STEVEN L.SWIG TELEPHONE 392-5600 - AREA CODE 415 278951 TMMB UR
STEPHEN G.GOULD
THOMAS M. BRUEN
ROBERT TED PARKER
PHILIP H.WELCH IV
CHARLES E.STEIDTMANN
THOMAS A.ACKLEY
KAY ELAINE RUSTAND
SUSAN M. DOYLE
GEOFFREY M. FAUST November 30 , 1984
STEVEN B.SACKS
LEMOINE SKINNER III
JANET RAE MONTGOMERY
JAMES S.MADOW RECEIVED
EDWARD G.LIEBERMAN
Clerk, Board of Supervisors !0
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street PHIL 0ATC!1E,,OR
CHI(BOA PI)Oi SUPER,/'!QT'S
Martinez, California 94553 aY c;�; ��� •: :.
�enu.i
Attn. '.- Jeanne Maglio
Re: Alteration of County Boundary
Gentlemen:
As a supplement to my previous letter to you dated
October 11 , 1984 , and the petition enclosed therewith, enclosed
is another copy of said petition that has been executed by
several additional registered voters in Contra Costa County.
Please call me if you have any questions.
Yours very truly,
i
Charles E. Steidtmann
CES:bah
Enclosure
I
I
l
PETITION FOR MINOR ALTERATION TO THE RECEIVED
BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN DEC Io 1984
CIF1K 80ANp pf SUPERv�SpeS
ALANiEDA COUNTY AND CONTRA COSTA COUNT NTa, osiAco.
a
. u�
TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY:
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED qualified electors of Contra Costa
County pursuant to Title 3 , Division 1 , Chapter 2, Article 4 of
the Government Code of the State of California, present this
Petition to alter the boundary line between Alameda County and
Contra Costa County and respectfully present the following
information:
(a) A particular description of the proposed new
boundary line as it will appear or exist if the existing bounding
line is altered as proposed herein is set forth on Exhibit A,
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
(b) The proposed new boundary line will not pass
within five miles of the county seat of the county from which
territory is taken.
(c) The distance at which the proposed boundary line
is located from the existing boundary line does not exceed five
(5) miles.
(d) The area of the territory proposed to be
transferred does not exceed more than one square mile nor more
than 5% of the area of the County of Contra Costa frem,which it
is taken.
(e) The change herein proposed will not reduce the
population of Contra Costa County, the County affected, by more
than 3%.
...... ... . ... . .. .. ._-rte., ..... ._-,_. ._.....,: .... .. . . . .. _.._. _ .,.. .. -, _. . . . _ .;';`= .
M This Petition is accompanied by written consents
signed by not less than 50% of all the owners of land within the
territory proposed to be transferred.
(g) Attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated
herein by reference is a map showing the proposed new boundary
line and the location of the existing boundary line, and
indicating the territory proposed to be transferred.
WHEREFORE, Petitioners pray that the Board of
Supervisors of Contra Costa County fix a date for hearing the
proof of. Petitioners. Such hearing date shall be not less than
twenty (20) nor more than forty (40) days subsequent to the
filing of this Petition.
Each of the undersigned for himself/herself states:
1 . That he/she is a qualified elector of Contra Costa
County, State of California.
2 . That his/her place of residence is as follows and
that his/her name is signed hereon in the same manner as signed
in the greater register of voters.
Name Residence Address 1 City Date
1 ��� �C_L-�,/l�>�Y,' �,t? �l_? �/�d. h•�i.0 r��l - �'l� %��,�� (/�,L�-fL,� 7-3�`��
2 Ll
3 �/c.C�v, ./� r�.Lt l;�latex_ -Z o e, -Paz- Qin'G o oc&
4 {. C'. 1 �S�y`� l,��r��C�tFr JAY &VAi-A)07- CR,66:g 5-3-gq
5 7� � 11 ���; � X44 J , P ,1 9n
�iii? y !/� J:_.r-�r Iq p .ci is-14'
6 7v10 Cr" - 5w
s '�� ,� •tis �s'�; �� G�i�:C� .�� ��1� �'-
-2—
Name Residence Address City Date
10 rt,t,„i(;u�ec� �jUnim Z4z`1 Lomo.,c t,+�, la�af.►�ur GfLR�K �CAl.1�. 16 -b-84
11�✓ -u � 5:�� F_1[f fi�iF/1� P/Z
12T i � (p/�Q .J�✓S T R T, /"/�2 la c/� C A k' L - ��
14 NttLeeu
15
16
� J
A /,` (. •/
,/ C
8/2 7
2 3% Z�Illetvl- OdL"-,, Y&jj,,-t- eA.��A
25 ,
26
27 fill Gi air . wb,ln•l�c.�eCk g
2s -
29
30
-3-
NAMES OF REGISTERED VOTORS SIGNING
PETITION TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
1 . Edith E. Armstrong
2. Donald L. Thomas
3 . Richard C. Madson
4. Wayne C. Reed
5. Robert T. Shanahan
6 . R. J. Wiborn
7. J. P. Ewart
8 . M. J. Mecklenburg
9. W. L. McKinnon
10 . Brentwood L. Crosby
11 . P. T. Smith
12 . Beth A. Bernard
13. Charlane D. Ellenwood
14 . J. R. Grady
15. Maxine M. Clause
16. Judith E. Halden
17. James F. Vicknair
18 . Dorothy L. Goldnick
19. Kathleen A. Gerhardt
20 . Margaret M. Spence
21 . Jay de L'Eau
22 . Dale S. Cristol
23. Mary Ann Thomas
24 . C. K. Maxfield
25. Richard H. James
M . Ja✓-es
f
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
ANNEXATION PARCEL
All that real property situated in the County of Contra
Costa , State of California described as follows :
Lots 1273 and 1323 and portions of Lots 1291 , 1292 , 1319 ,
1320 , 1321 , 1322 , 1324 and 1325 and a portion of Villanova
Drive and a portion of Villanova Lane as said Lots , Drive and
Lane are shown on the Map of Forestland Heights Extention
Filed December 7 , 1926 in Map Book 20 , pages 534 and 535 ,
Contra Costa County Records described as follows :
Beginning at a point on the eastern line of the afore-
mentioned Lot 1291 distant thereon North 16' 50' 20" East 187 . 28
feet from the northern line of the aforementioned Villanova
Drive said point also being on the - Alameda - Contra Costa County
line as said line is shown on the aforementioned map; thence
from said point of beginning South 160 50 ' 20" West along said
eastern line of Lot 1291 , 187 . 28 feet to the aforementioned
northern line of Villanova Drive ; thence from a . tangent which
bears South 62° 16 ' 07 " East easterly along said northern line-
of Villanova Drive , 50 foot wide , along a curve to the right
having a radius of 200 feet , an arc length of 99 . 84 feet to a
point. of reversed curvature ; thence along a curve to the left
having a radius of 175 feet , an arc length of 131 . 97 feet; thence
South 76° 52 ' 30" East , 133 . 94 feet; thence along a curve to the
right , tangent to the last named line , having a radius of, 200
feet , an arc length of 241 .06 feet; thence along the northern
line of a 12 foot path designated as Plot J , as shown on the
aforementioned map, along a" curve to the rig'h't having a radius
of 306 feet, from a tangent which bears South 62.* 55 ' East , and
arc length of 121 .06. feet to a point of compound curvature ;
thence from a tangent which bears South 400 15 ' East along a
curve to the right having a radius of 71 feet , an arc length of
85.47 feet to the existing Alameda - Contra Costa County line ;
thence along the last named line the following courses and
distances ; North 73' O1 ' 05" West 48 . 00 feet , North 54' 14 ' 15"
:,.est 411 . 66 feet , North 42° 21 ' 15 " West 361 . 14 feet and North
360 55 ' East 187 . 68 feet to the point of beginning .
AFFIDAVIT OF CIRCULATOR OF PETITION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
The undersigned, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
1 . the undersigned has personally circulated the
foregoing Petition consisting of 2 pages with signatures and
exhibits attached thereto.
2 . The undersigned has read the foregoing Petition,
and knows the contents thereof, and believes it to be true.
3 . The foregoing Petition is signed by at least
twenty-five (25) qualified electors within Contra Costa County,
State of California, wherein said Petition was circulated and
filed.
4 . The undersigned saw each person sign his/her
signature to the Petition.
5 . To the best of the undersigned' s knowledge,
information, and belief, each signature is genuine, and each
person who signed such petition was, at the date of signing, a
qualified elector of Contra Costa County, wherein this Petition Y
was circulated and filed.
Cr
10
Date $ $�
t
-4-
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
,. , PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY
399 Elmhurst Street G Hayward, CA 94544-1395 ' ECEIVED
(415) 881-6470
�esources
November 29, 1984 NOV 301984
PHIL BATCHELOR
C/C RX BOARD OF SU?E3VI5Crz
Den 'yy
To: William Mehrwein, Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Subject: Alteration of County Boundary Vicinity Villanova Drive
The map and description of the subject proposal , .referred to
• this office by a copy of your letter dated October 26, 1984, has been
deemed accurate as proposed.
. According to County Planning staff., this proposal is also
categorically exempt under Class 19 of C.E.Q.A. guidelines.
RONALD F. SORENSEN
CHIEF; ROAD DEPARTMENT
RFS:CM:jp
cc: ,.-Clerk, Board of Supervisors, Contra Costa County
Contra Costa County Assessor
City Manager, Oakland.
LAFCO (Bruce Kern)
Registrar of Voters
Ben Zuppan, County Counsel
Charles E. Steindtmann, Esq. . .
Law Offices of Titchell , Maltzman, et al
OISTR E13110 d
Board)WmbeTs
County AdminisirafiQtf
Health SeEvioes
Planning
k