Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01211992 - H.4 A `. 4/ TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS '{ = Contra FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON S Costa DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUC / �.•' .yam DATE: January 14, 1992 SUBJECT: Villanova Drive Boundary Reorganization SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Adopt the boundary change as outlined in the resolution attached to this report from the Director of Community Development. 2 . Direct County Counsel's Office to prepare the final ordinance authorizing the boundary change. 3 . Authorize County staff to file or process any additional paperwork necessary to complete this boundary change. FISCAL IMPACT None. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The initial information on this proposal was described in the SAINEdOW October 22 , 1991 staff report. After completion of the December 17, 1991 public hearing the Board continued the public hearing on this matter until January 21, 1992 and directed staff to meet with property owners that addressed the Board on December 17, 1991 to get a better understanding of their concerns. Staff has met with the affected property owners, has contacted the City of Oakland and the East Bay Regional Park District and the following information has been exposed. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNAT RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMVAIUNTION OVIbARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON ,Tarns=r 2.1 , 1992. APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED �_ OTHER The Board heard the staff report; County Counsel and Mr. R. H. James, Petitioner, who urged approval; Mr. .H. J. Beavers who also wished to be annexed to Oakland; and Charles Steidtmann, owner of Parcel A on the attached map, opposed the annexation of Alameda County land into Contra Costa County. The Board approved the above recommendations, and. suggested that the other property owners process their own petitions for annexation. ' VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A X 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. Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED January 21, . 1992 cc: County Administrator Office PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Public Works THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County Counsel AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Alameda County & Alameda LAFCO City of Oakland Planning Department City of Oakland Manager's Office BY , DEPUTY East Bay Regional Park District Acquisition Program The East Bay Regional Park District has undertaken a program to acquire additional vacant properties in the area to round out the boundaries of Huckleberry Botanic Preserve. Map 1 attached shows the existing parklands, the parklands under condemnation by EBRPD and the various property owners that might be affected by this county boundary change. In January of 1991 need and necessity to condemn all or portions of 5 of the 7 outstanding property ownerships adjacent to that park was taken by the EBRPD Board. Those parcels are designated on. Map 1 by letter code. One of the parcels (D) was acquired last month and presumably is no longer an issue. Much of the current dispute is tied into the property owners disagreement with EBRPD on their land condemnation efforts. Staff informed the property owners that that was not a Dart of this boundary line petition, but they requested that staff include reference to their issues in this report. Trial dates on these condemnation efforts will be in the near future. Property Owners Concerns A. Charles Steidemann (Parcel A) His position is not opposed to the shifts in the Villanova Drive proposal by Mr. James to allow the area shown on the proposal to go t Alameda County, but he . is opposed to the transferral of EBRPD land from Alameda County into Contra Costa County because he feels it will make the potential shift of the County boundary for his property far less likely. He proposes that park district land be deleted from the boundary change. He would like to be included within a County boundary change. Mr. Steidemann's property is unique because there is no condemnation against the property due to a previous court settlement with him on other properties in the general area. B. Beavers (Parcel B) and Beals (C) The owners have 3 main positions. The are: 1. They are dissatisfied with the EBRPD appraisal of their property. 2 . They would like their parcel to be included within a boundary change to Alameda County. 3 . They would like EBRPD to trade their parcel for a buildable lot elsewhere and then they have no concern on the boundary change. As previously indicated, condemnation efforts are underway on these properties by the EBRPD. C. Doug Lee (Parcel D) This site was acquired by the EBRPD since the Board's December 17, 1991 hearing on this matter and may no longer be an issue. D. George Lee (Parcels E. F, G, and I) Mr. Lee owns several lots in the area. Parcels E and F are under condemnation by EBRPD; Parcel G has his home on it; Parcel I is undeveloped. Mr. Lee would like that area to be traded for a buildable lot elsewhere; however, he prefers to stay in Contra Costa County. The boundary change is not an issue for him. E. McNeil (Parcel H) Mr. McNeil lives in Salt Lake City and rents his home out; he has not indicated an opinion either for or against this boundary change. city of Oakland Position The issue of the appropriate County boundary has also been before Oakland on several occasions dealing with similar issues to that being presented to the Board of Supervisors. As quoted from the attached Oakland March 19, 1991 staff report: "This annexation and its many variations have been before the City of Oakland Planning Commission and the City Council on several occasions over the years. In an effort to expedite this proposal the City Council on March 13, 1990 directed staff to review the annexation only in terms of Mr. James' original proposal (with one alteration, upon staff recommendation) . That alteration called for lots 1268 and 1269 to be deleted from the proposal. " (These are lots H and I) City staff have further indicated that they may have concerns on the potential expansion of the boundary change beyond the City Council direction. Those concerns might further delay any proposed boundary changes. Summa Since this item is before the Board by citizen petition, the Board does not have the potential to modify this proceeding to expand the boundaries. That would require the whole process to begin again. Staff continues to feel this boundary should be approved as submitted, as worked out with Alameda County and as officially approved by the Oakland City Council. If adjacent property owners wish to submit separate petitions, that is their right. 1-jwc/ml/villnova.bos ' ca d ..1�► N ,nth?x:r ��••,�r•'•�.�r-.' ^ _ �j to (� �-•., r r"r' ' f`- ��`r`' ,C:Y"i�- "!'S-(r{. � ��.��,f.t r i fY f��. I♦ /�i 'C = C `J 1 f C�fj-'r.,,(`,"-;ti..CfR.�rf�rtf`�ri�`rJ�t '" ffr�:.'.�.r..4 r� r/� � r• Jt ^�© rt.��';rf�r�lr r•`;- �! r.•!��'`.S�:ii�(' ;':E prr i�=j1+��r e ,y, n �,. Y r..r[r_`�- e'.rr.Jfry l:-r ' !%-i(1S�':,° '„/ i%fir' qr''r/:F r.• � } �?C trTr :(�' ,i.4.r .C..•,- tnrN r%r_ '` "- Ar .y„S'le+ r N''!'"• Jt•• r��. .� •c'i- r. t �1- .•,fc,� ��t�s.^ Ir^ t_t *' p r!r'r!`r. ...•..-' r S r.`T"'�T`i r J f: rf'•,C'y`l�l'�'.('• •.to �•r" x/�`'it�1�1��1�;� t�f:''CJ;i`'-^;r/, /-+! .:.•J -'{.�j;j: %'.'-{•.:'-''F t t ... if�_t�.t`•-rf�' +'4 x^ i ��'. i,r�J t •. �. /� �'�J. � •i ••!-r�ll,=rt`-% " ;,.t..:�.-•'. � c� �' 3 ,f{y� �,'.x +`1`-`r'C._ -1 tr:l- r^' � C.t•'(��l-,^.�• -f- ' �••.•.•• r'.' .f_•, l.. r �'ry r 1_,j..r. .S�.t.f^(::�"- "-.!•if�f:frf`�'.t'slrrf..`a.tj`r 3.i:' r r' .�r:'r.t'.�.:":f•��..y=_ i•;.., `.! � ..._.... .,,._ .+�►. `L + l�rr...i(..�.,.,.fY .r.!:ls�`.r..�/�f•i.{�f,*.1;�^- :",,,,u rr-'! •• �' 'r'� �.••rC�f� ♦+. '� } '+ N tCl J���+ r:t�. e��,: � �.^��.fl.� :f'. ,�' :r ,;! - •'�7}�y�' ';a+f-'.- t '> ,. _.,.-_.r.• •f r, • ^1r p-�.^ :°aCQ '�A: :C>� '/C�: +:.r'r�f<':f :.:' 't+% .?�' p t.:'� C.i`•_r:,;. 'r Q7 �;.�;'� r C•t„ .rr�r�f ,�` CS1C..r�t' rr;l f,.,i'�.r r,_ W GJ.• _��..� ,�_ . ,�'r• N \L t ...--- :_^ ^JJ r jrr �' '4•'": � 'r-t-:.N;.rc.-�r: r: - '•�-p -";' - '�'"r"-• •. '`T�- t= r-a -r• � `I `1`�J~ .(';: .t'."r (.�•�•' =f" •rF ,oa 0- :r-,•` ..J•:sr,'i-r''rc ..:.. r•Lt, '- :��`•^. :I '-' I'r r i' f.i.•:. (� !tir':'.7-"• ._. `(:. .," j,' u�7+ .,,J� '^ - [4•(�• „' .:fa-C f-fit j{�r -f:,%.r.�: C�`'•� GAS ! ' ' t• r.�:irf'• � -•♦•. ? ♦`f/� ^! _ r `11^t'`,? r' `S7. :� �f'.r. ._,,y.�r:-(-1 w ,.,,,w,r...: C ,,.�•:p'• � p�� + �•� ^,rtr. r x,;�x ter` t t r^� :t',�t ,...[`r��rf,f,;..r-.nF�e".sf�t� .i�^C•'r�-"�t";"r ;;,,:;;/ r ;,7 � � "J t-+-.. A• - .j„ � 1 J l t ?•y a Cil'.._;.^'., f,J.;r/,y::f; O r 'r, !�-if... �••}� t� �t':.�-.r`'��'i' f„ i.✓.: �i�. "%f-�. ..^;fes-•r�,- � ..• � j�: .��� ' .��.r„'y`r.��t'..r•.t i 1„" ••. .•;. C`.:•,'.•.. .,r_.,:.;:✓'rcrr;r,;.._�'- �.;1 rr�j�r:r'"-' so.: � ..\•• •pa ro FFf�:..;a t•.'*Yrz, 2t;�? :,` .. .r c.'f,:•c;''•:. �•�i'-Y.`'f�• •:E,Cr'•.. q �\,,,,/..• .tsr .f r 'f r �t�1 ' t .. ,f rs�.af1'ti'r�:.r;r'r:•,.t'`:.,;�i,:�.f R p• e • ':.f� r,� i r',f s r ' r .:r:;•;..�:r.;•.'•_CCrr„{-r.: Ore"r if,;,-i:r� '%'r:rt' �:a. 1 '1 c'I;�Q `:t'f {•'� ,�',",r1„ •Y�,lflS�.�c� �-1 it,�`<:. CEr'g- k , c"' t n .r•f Ci;;..rrry�',;}:r..,, of ,.-;l'=-orf �� .{•'�-� �• r �F.rr� � 'w',:-.,.w �..4' t'\'.'�)t�J'��f�j'�..=�'�=riC.,�.-�.•:.t'. r•.�i.t;F��.J'r'^r•''•/�.:f:�fY +'-. _ N a s.. n �L :� - .'t,�,,i_c� , r.i ':iarir;L:."•%:,=. :."c..,r.r. �' �. `=' +i C=:^C;:�, G• vrr'";, �'r' ..' �yl"`i. f^i ,r,,;..;., •�;t;>n.°_'?h'.r.f.�c.rr- .f.:• .`... t :n tt�ri. r / 'i( t rY�'-' f 7 { irrr:. �•n p' i J to .��j• 11 �%. iY,�'e :+e..• `1r..L� ��'''L'f, f.rf �•,-Q~.�l'.:r...:t,S� .f;:f �f•� i`+. r t• � f�>�✓. r{{11,::r .f£S:�^�::::tY C•'.r'.' r:�:.,r-P°r. q J . .�+`t��-] `�n` CYC i�f �•���-.i'.,,::Ct` ,:/,`�...•ti„?".,.�ff..'`Y'r..1f:�::t:a�''r'-j•.. .r.rs•ii 4'f. �£f:r" f•rr'��r'.'1 .}. }J.1'-1 +S f•,,,ao`•1 y..vl vyx hi..s2J .� 1 L'a =`I•-�'! r^^Pr ,���%ftJixJ^'Y Q y ! to �.�:• i`ir-{: t J t S I� �-:r:SSS f,fif rf!�� ,"''r` F;r�;i o.. '•�'r-- ^'Jt x' ,r ..-� c r:.�"•"r:.,�-�G �. a `r ,,.fr� ���, f':.•S. r .:C,:.. i•! \ ice. � `r f,, � ::C•'^.'.'�j{;� 9� j '+'?ter"..' f () '("Ci LLS r't�� x et r' � � .ei..t.•�:.' � • r,.. ... i,�, J .y 0. vu fr r i rt , .r r r.} ♦ 61 C .f'YJ Mrr.ri�. St 'Iv • ••��C; ..�,- f4`+ "(��(.`t.:-•..`•�y`�.::�'�r�r .r. 0 0 J,.p f`i (, T '•Q, '•f:=r'moi :. -'1 ,r• rj .. � t"'..., •r'`�.�- f s� .�� �. C .t:-. 1 ,.;.r-• ,+.r. G . .•1.�r!`P"•:._Zf r•1� ,!r g � /••'.. ! f6 •C � p 4. C O ar rC rf7. x. .Yrrrr, f"* ~ c �. } ✓ C) O CD tti �'.�'.C �r t •3 C r;fyt' � � �N � •j 'rte� 0 'C 'Y T �` Cl =rfj�3y f f{; i t: r r' 'O t) Z •p �}• < . a.r` p .rJ` r. r r C O U N C J p CL `.-�- .f �f, ," �� _�`?' -°-r••.SLY�.'.�_ o q v p p Fd Ll 0 •f C~. '.'rf� ��.. t/'`•�'t•'r .:r': .,• �:.•�' -r� L. ly1 � 0 ..r,•r• � 0. � ` "",'0•!'tCc ,:-c..r� . t`n.; _c_rf' •"! ,r ♦ -` � � CD !/ :.ter ..rt_, •. i�� 7� s CITY OF OAKLAND Interoffice Letter T0: Chiy Attention: DatQ: March 19, 1991 From: Ditwt W of City Plawdrmj Subject: VILIANM PF4Q3HCT BACKGROUND: The Villanova Annexation project has a long and complicated history. Most recently, Mr. Richard James petitioned the counties of Alameda and Contra Costa and the City of Oakland to change the two county border along Villanova Drive and Villanova Lane. This procedure is quite complex because it necessitates a County to County boundary change and also a County to City border change. Mr. James' original proposal would have resulted in the annexation of ton parcels into the City of Oakland and the detachment of four lots from the City of Oakland and the County of Alameda which would be annexed to Contra Costa County. After the original proposal was presented to the City Council following a hearing before the Planning Commission, other Contra Costa County property owners asked to be included in this boundary/annexation proposal. This annexation and its many variations have been before the City of Oakland planning Commission and the City Council on several occasions over the years. In an effort to expedite this proposal the City Council on March 13 , 1990 directed staff to review the annexation only in terms of Mr. James' original proposal (with one alteration, upon staff recommendation) . That alteration called for lots 1268 and 1269 to be deleted from the proposal. The proposal now is to annex two complete lots - 48 Villanova Lane and lot no. 1273 which is north of 200 Villanova Drive - both of which are vacant, and also to annex portions of six other lots - 30,34 , 38,44 and 53 Villanova Lane and 195 Villanova Drive. All of the six lots have street frontage in the City of Oakland and all contain single family dwellings, except for one lot which has a communications tower on it. This proposal also provides for the detachment of one entire lot - lot 1293 - and portions of three other lots - lots 1284, 1291 and 1292 - from the City of Oakland/County of Alameda and for their annexation to Contra Costa County. This results in a gain of 1.46 acres to the city of Oakland/County of Alameda and the loss of 0.82 acres to Contra Costa County. 60ai0 LAND Us E: Over the years most of the lots in the. subdivision that lie partially within Alameda County and partially within Contra Costa County have been developed with mingle family dwellings. Most of the development in this area has been in the City of oakland/Alameda County (which has coterminus boundaries) and has been provided with well developed public facilities and services. The lots located entirely in Contra Costa County in general have not been developed and cannot be developed because sewer service is not available. Contra Costa County will not allow septic tank systems to be used in this area, and the nearest sewer connection is miles away. The City of Oakland will not allow sewer connections unless the lot is within the City of Oakland. Otherwise, the City would be providing services without the benefit of property taxes and other fees to cover such services. Ail utilities, services, roads, police and fire protection to the land proposed to be included/annexed to the City of Oakland/County of Alameda come from the city of Oakland. The City of Oakland sewer main is in the street within 100 feet from the land proposed to be annexed by Mr. James. The existing county boundary has prevented owners of the vacant contra Costa properties from developing their property. The remainder of the land holdings between Winding Way (a paper street) and Villanova Drive in Contra Costa County consists of undeveloped property. over the last decade, the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) has been expanding its land holdings in this area and presently has title to much of this area. The EBRPD lands were acquired for additions to the Huckleberry Regional Preserve. The EBRPD may ultimately ask Contra Costa County to vacate its interest in Winding Way and the path connection between Winding Way and Villanova Drive for additions to their park. Winding way no longer exists due to a landslide of years ago. The EBRPD parking lot already exists on the winding Way right of way at Skyline Boulevard. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: The areas proposed for incorporation/annexation into Oakland are not included in the Oakland General Plan because they are in Contra Costa County. Thus, a General Plan Amendment is necessary to provide for land use and development standards which best serve the public interest. Jamesf proposal would allow development of two lots that are easily developable in that the lots are not very steep and are gentle upsloping. The Illustrative Future Land Use Map of the Oakland Compprahensive Plan shows the adjacent property cis "Low Density Residentiall, (5000-9999 square feet of land per unit) . This would appear to be an appropriate land use General plan designation for the Jamesf proposal because the two vacant lots are very similiar property within Contra Costa County consists of the backyards of existing homes within the City of Oakland. There is little doubt that these properties belong in Alameda County/City of Oakland. The addition of two buildable lots would not be significant. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council should act on the follovings (1) Approve the ordinance Prezoning the parcels involved in the proposed annexation to fit-30/5-11 as described earlier in this report and the Resolution effectuating a General Plan amendment as recommended by the City Planning Co=ission at its meeting of February 10, 198e. (2) Approve the Resolutions of Tax Allocation and Application to the County LAPCO. (3) Approve the annexation proposal as outlined above (4) submit the proposal to the Alameda Local Agency Formation Commission ALVIN D. J S APPROVED AND FORWARDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL OEM-* of e City Manager Attachments: May showing areas to be annexed. Common Name Call Description of area to be annexed. Exhibit B 0 1 $ 9 4 nw HuwenRot or►tiT� nMf1Mf Ira + y�•. ._Existing City of cos<r• Oakland & Alameda crA' County Boundary uN ..s Proposed City of Oakland & Alameda Y+�• �, County Boundary +*'~ Oakland gains i these properties «.•* }� sf��,�1� Oakland loses these properties itir XXHIBIT "A" DESCRIPTION OF AFFECTED TERRITORY Common Name Call Annexing to the City of Oakland and the County of Alameda, and detaching from the County of Contra costa, all of the following described land: All of Lots 1323 and 1773 , together with those portions of Lots 1319, 1320, 1321, 1322 , 1324 , and 1325, together with those portions of Villanova Drive, Plot J (a 12 foot wide path) , Plot X (a Z0 foot wide driveway) , and Plot Z (a 10 foot wide path) , lying northerly of the boundary line of the Counties of Alameda and Contra Costa, as said Lots, Drive, Plots, and boundary line are shown on the map of Forastland Heights, recorded July 9, 1926, in Book 10 of Maps, at Pages 81 through 84, Alameda County Records, Annexing to the County of Contra Costa, and detaching from the City of oakl.and and the County of Alameda, all of the following described land: All of Lot 1293, together with thoseportions of Lots 1289 12911 and 1292, lying westerly of the boundary line of the Counties of Alameda and Contra Costa, as said lots and boundary line are shown on the map of Forestland Heights, recorded July 91 1926, in Hook 10 of Maps, at Pages 81 through 84, Alameda county Records. • Cormon name call description to be replaced by required metes and bounds description prior to the Completion of Proceedings and recorded of the boundary change with County and' state offices (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties) : N•y IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of Resolution of ) RESOLUTION NO. 92,lc_ Application to LAFCO for re- ) organization to accommodate ) (Government Code Section 56652, Villanova Drive County Boundary ) 56700, 56800) Change ) The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVES THAT: 1. The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County served as the hearing body for the Villanova Drive County Boundary Change, initiated by citizen petition, with Alameda County for a minor Countyline boundary adjustment. 2. This Board has concurred in modifying the Alameda-Contra Costa Boundary to detach approximately 2 acres from Contra Costa County, as described in Exhibit A hereto, and to annex less than 1 acre to Contra County, as described in Exhibit B hereto. 3. County of Contra Costa requests that the Local Agency Formation Commission initiate proceedings pursuant to the Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985, commencing with Section 56000 of the California Government Code for the following boundary changes: a. Detachment of the territory of Exhibit A from the following: Moraga Fire Protection District County Service Area P-6 Contra Costa Resource Conservation District Contra Costa Mosquito Abatement District 1 County Service Area EMS-1 Zone B Contra Costa County Community College District Contra Costa County Flood Control District b. Annexation of the territory of Exhibit B to the following: Moraga Fire Protection District County Service Area P-6 Contra Costa Resource Conservation District Contra Costa Mosquito Abatement District 1 County Service Area EMS-1 Zone B Contra Cost County Community College District Contra Costa County Flood Control District 4. The reason for this Reorganization is to insure that the territory added to this County has the same services and obligations as similarly situated territory in the same area and to insure that the territory deleted from this County not continue to be a part of local agencies providing services only in this County. J b. The territories proposed to be detached and annexed are legally uninhabited, and a description of the boundaries of the territories is set forth in Exhibits A and 8 respectively, attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein; and 6. This proposal is consistent with the spheres of influence of all affected agencies. 7. The proposed boundary adjustments should be subject to the following terms and conditions: a. The territory becoming a part of Contra Costa County and being annexed to the foregoing agencies is to become subject to the bonded indebtedness of all agencies to which the territory will be annexed. b. The territory becoming a part of Alameda County and being detached from the foregoing agencies is to be relieved of all bonded indebtedness of agencies from which it is detached. B. The effective date of this reorganization should be May 1, 1992, which is also the affective date of the eforenoted County Boundary Change. S. The Negative Declaration prepared for this project shall be sufficient for CEQA purposes. 10. Because of the unique circumstances of this Reorganization, this Board respectfully requests that LAFCO waive it's application/processing fees. Passed and adopted by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors at a regular meeting there of held on Tuesday January 21, 1991 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, Schroder, Torlakson and McPeak NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 1 hereby certify that this Is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of supervis the date shown. ATTESTED: .? >4 / 9 9 PHIL BA HELOR.Cie&of the Board f of Supervisors and County Administrator By .Deputy Orap. Dept.: Community Development Department CC: 1AFC0 County Counsel County Administrator Mr. James, Petitioner JWCanl i;rshwrsrrrwrLM RESOLUTION NO. 92/45 . BATES AND BAILEY EXHIBIT "A' LAND SURVEYORS 15 SHATTUCK SQUARE • BERKELEY,CA 94704 TELEPHONE (415)843.2007 P.O.BOX 592 BERKELEY,CA 94701-0592 . FEBRUARY 20, 1991 LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL TO BE ANNEXED TO CITY OF OAKLAND , ALAMEDA COUNTY , FROM CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 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 1319 , 1320 , 1321 , 1322 , 1324 AND -1325 AND PORTIONS OF VILLANOVA DRIVE , VILLANOVA LANE AND A 12 FOOT WIDE PATH AS SAID LOTS , STREET AND PATH ARE SHOWN ON THE MAP OF FORESTLAND HRIGHTS EXTENSION , 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 NORTHERN LINE OF SAID VILLANOVA DRIVE , 6 .49 FEET WESTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHERN LINE FROM THE SOUTH— WEST CORNER OF LOT 1291 , AS SAID LOT IS SHOWN ON SAID MAP ; THENCE FROM A TANGENT WHICH BEARS SOUTH 770 01 ' 13" EAST EASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHERN LINE OF VILLANOVA DRIVE , 50 FEET WIDE , ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 200 FEET , AN ARC LENGTH OF 151 .33 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 TO THE NORTH— WEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1268 SAID CORNER ALSO BEING ON THE NORTH— EASTERN LINE OF THE AFOREMENTIONED 12 FOOT PATH ; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERN LINE FROM A TANGENT WHICH BEARS SOUTH 620 55 ' EAST ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 306 FEET AN 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 NORTH 730 01 ' 05" WEST 48 . 00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 540 14 ' 15" WEST 411 .66 FEET; THENCE NORTH 420 21 ' 15" WEST 345 .80 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING . Robert W. Wilson ' No. 3833 OF CAllE4��\P RESOLUTIO14 NO. 92/45 EXHIBIT "B LEGAL DESCRIPTION AREA TO BE DETACHED FROM ALAMEDA COUNTY AND THE CITY OF OAKLAND AND CONCURRENTLY ANNEXED TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY All that real property situated in the County of Alameda, State of California, described as follows: Lot 1293 and portions of Lots 1289, 1291 and 1292 as shown on the Map of Forestland Heights Extension, filed June 9, 1926, in Map Book 10, Pages 81 to 84, of Alameda County Records described as follows: Beginning at a point on the northern line of Villanova Drive, at the southwest corner of said Lot 1293; thence from said point of beginning along the western line of said Lot 1293, North 02013'40" East, 238.97 feet to a point on the southern line of Skyline Boulevard; thence along said southern line, easterly along the arc of a curve to the right with a radius of 330.0 feet, the center of which bears South 05016128" East, through a central angle of 16022153", an arc length of 94.35 feet; thence South 78053'35" East, 105.65 feet; thence along a tangent curve to the left with a radius of 90.0 feet, through a central angle of 14053122" , an arc length of 23.39 feet; thence leaving the southern line of Skyline Boulevard, South 36055100" West, 253.86 feet and South 42021115" East, 15.35 feet, to the northern line of Villanova Drive; thence along said northern line westerly along the arc of a curve to the left with a radius of 200.0 feet, the center of which bears South 12058'45" West, through a central angle of 1705314711, an arc length of 62.47 feet; thence South 85005'00" West, 26.04 feet to the point of beginning. Containing .796 acres more or less. RESOLUTION NO. 92/45