The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 12181984 - T.5 (2) T.5 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on December 18, 1984 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, Schroder, McPeak, Torlakson NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: Boundary Line Change Between Contra Costa and Alameda Counties The Board on December 11, 1984, continued to this day the hearing on the petition for a boundary line alteration between Contra Costa County and Alameda County(Oakland Hills area). The Board reviewed the supplement to the Decembe 10, 1984, report on the proposed County boundary change presented by Anthony A. Dehaesus, Director of Planning, Director of Planning. Copies of the report are attached and included as a part of this document. The following persons spoke: Susan Watson, 86 Ardor Drive, Orinda; Charles Steidtmann, 650 California Street, #299, San Francisco; and R. H. James, 1118 Glongarry Drive, Walnut Creek. All persons desiring to speak were heard. The Board discussed the issues presented at the hearing and the recommendations of staff on this matter. There was concerns expressed relative to issues that need to be addressed, but that the time factor relative to this petition requires that a decision be rendered this day. It was noted that one recommendation of staff was for the Board to deny this petition without prejudice for submission at a later date. Therefore, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the petition for a boundary line change between Contra Costa and Alameda Counties is DENIED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is REFERRED to the Liaison Committee with instructions to return to the Board in four to six month with a report and recommendations. 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: /��y� s PHIL BATCHELOR,Clerk of the Board j of Supervisors and County Administrator B S Y Deputy ` a cc: County Counsel l LAFCO T Planning Charles E. Steidtmann County Administrator S .ti i 'r. t F i; 4 �s r To: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: Phil Batchelor. County Administrator Contra Costa DATE: December 10, 1984 County SUBJECT: Boundary Line Alteration Between Contra Costa and ,Alameda Counties (Oakland Hills Area) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION Recommendation: Deny the petition for boundary line alteration, without prejudice, for resubmittal at a later time to allow for further exploration of any CEQUA implications and for coordination of actions with Alameda County, issues about which the Planning Department has expressed concern. Background: The issue of a minor boundary change between Contra Costa and Alameda Counties. is schedul---dfor hearing by your Board again on December 11, 1984 . The matter was set for hearing as a result of a petition submitted by Mr. Charles E. Steidtmann, one of .the property owners of the area that would be transferred to Alameda County as a result of the proposed boundary alteration. The territory proposed for transfer involves 14 .parcels that are either totally or partially within Contra Costa County and a portion of Villanova Drive, as shown on the attached Assessor' s parcel map. (For locational purposes there is also attached a copy of a street map which shows the area in relation to Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. ) The assessed value of the subject territory is approximately $85 ,000;.thus the property tax accruing to the County and the various districts is not consequential, approximately $850. ` The Government Code Sections pertaining to this issue require that both. Contra Costa and Alameda Counties must make certain determinations regarding the petition for boundary alteration and must approve the proposal in order for the boundary alteration to occur. It appears that the peti- tioner has met the requirements of the appropriate code sections with respect to Contra Costa County. The Government Code also provides for the withdrawal of the subject territory from districts as approved by both counties. Accordingly, :if your Board. approves the boundary alteration, it is recommended that the approval be conditional upon Alameda County adopting a concurrent resolution authorizing the district withdrawal. With the exception of multi-county districts such as Bay' Area Rapid Transit and East Bay Regional. Parks , it is proposed that all districts be involved in the withdrawal of territory. This would involve all county districts as well as the Contra Costa Resource -Conservation-District, the Contra. Costa Mosquito .Abatement District and various school districts,. All .of these .non-county districts have been notified regarding this proposal and have tentatively concurred in being included in the withdrawal.' Approval should also be C61SITINU ON ATT,CHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: PWIR MMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED �A_S�RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) 1 HE CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AYES: NOES: D CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN ABSENT: ABSTAIN: AND TERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPER ORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. CC: County Counse ATTESTED LAFCO J.R. OLSSON, CO TY CLERK P1ariri g AND EX OFFICIO CLER THE BOARD rles E. Steidtmann 82/7-68 BY DEPUTY December 10, 1984 Page 2 made subject to the condition that the petitioner bear any direct cost that the County might incur as a. result of this boundary alteration. In view of the fact that the current county line in this area results in the division of 12 parcels between Contra Costa and Alameda, the feasibility of the .provision of services by Oakland .and/or Alameda County as opposed to Contra Costa County and the relatively small amount of property tax loss .that would result from the boundary adjustment, this office does not find the transfer objectionable. It should perhaps be noted that the terrain in the Villanova Drive area is such - that development and service from Contra Costa County. is impracticable; the implications of this will undoubtedly be a factor in Alameda County deliberations with respect to concurring action on this boundary adjustment. The Government Code requires. that your Board act on this matter no later than December 11, 1984 .. . The alternatives before your -Board at this time are either approve or deny the .proposal on its merits or deny it without prejudice, for resubmission at a later time. a E � SEE MAP FOR CONTINUATION °r t C r`tawar Rivo r-•- t "\`1 1 a�O � a ..�-•- `"� � t � � � r�5{^?�X.,-,� Ras _-�;, GELST EEMyS� 7 o Pi Q4N ,;502. C yrj� mo i ♦ '�I�i/tt C0 i R i O¢J¢i0A T.*(HMOOR a O PSP rI J/ ..t ��"PP / .,.r•.. �� X00.a oP P e Oqw°$r. Io F Ra ^i 1J?= s ( . 500. H4 z ,.+ o" 0�P e U m '� ' .`"i aAyiR�D `_ \•�\ Y P�'•CR WESyz VJ Rv Ve 4 fW i KENTJ P�Ra t7 PQ RD.W W 10, 11UN 0 !M1p,= ,t°p<4L K.Y� o<. `„•.;::..+'.Y'" .M'.t jr° r:F�. ' j vo- .>T•�AEOIOtl FQt }:., w a A98, "¢ E fCq/(! O¢ :1 Z Q p 2+ a 0PLS4 o¢a �9f REFS SIR,EE 2 "YT- ..A0 ,,•.oARK t O .( � y � �y � :.(l Sn,\�:N � 'c?Q'c 'l--" 4 w }�tif •`._'..'i.'.. O. T ,.e` .... �:,.';.':` �' // '^+_-,-' "'� Q Q J+ HA`Ni' (tF DR -iF O CAEDECOTT i.n t40 C,k m i 496, i•; ARMSL•\ , r o- .3 a a C}t 9P V Ey �C'E DR 4] � f . d•. RPS P _ $LA � M T RNpn�C}O �\yQ { ' \l w5Y � P RIOQE wAy j,OAK OV ,y RES , 4 W z r STA +,ka� t y .Q'S�a ° CROW (� W00 � •� � 4 P -' p4 gOTFN C i O Ff111`' '. b .zi <t ~r3Q Y4 O c va v' r„i \. O /y $ DO T nK MOpp O �i S �p' VNR �•.. V � .m \n° >, � �, v. RILS � bR�H MER R, F cP5 '� RNHtIt•`D - ,y F a"� 1-�.�e _ g(VQ Sf KV E cc TE RACFP Aga, AD 5+. A4D SyRO !FO a 4y*� OqA MILORN-�x''A 4 9`+v 4 ° � O °( f •�aP G,„w AYE."'°o° r e 0 ¢ 3 a' o ,,. RD.:, 4"5t GZ b 5 „ti, °P� R h �:c q q,G,y< 3 � s o �,: " , s O� Rb r`� r o o: vN ,e• � ',ter wHtcE v _�,..'k'•' w 3 w Cf.S OC �'y 99 `U C4 IRS PV a .�� ?p r UL01N re O z C• (. 8 fi }� qQ O,P , o-O� Ct v 92 -•� !''..:iF;:i 1 `:" oL^y GD a`°r x J ¢n. 4 t ¢ n• P` µfEN M-�:`:.),.-vn,::,, � •°a°`Cka r r � O OA, 4•(. ,1, � 'yl, ,Rf A S.Yz'`1 ¢ \. (r✓ S } h�� S•" G f. r• '��ts 1 "`�. ;^r-� 4y y i P h• q Teo y l-. 4tNq .. Pp .�- � PS ^C•< ° 2 P + YtHEx Rl to NEARTWO ,,n � OK' ��u00PE°PQ A :`l:.•.,' S•+'•r ITD� D o s Y-'�VQ.@tN\NG R. O Q ,•.. A92 p �A E >,a aR fs p fq 6!" De 2 op"rG °.s° oQ 4� EN ood @ HO p.�0 9`" �'�. T R y ,ra j,Q 0 Q- .` o't,? � � edW ekDo �° '� /o °ca°e '� � o Oo '� � y � oq w. o-� gq�BpA �P c�er o ,,r Bt P t�• .: ¢�\ \ �� f � � a°� P ._.. PAro c�� G'n 't"g A R��Ity"{`', QO ;:Y,�P �6`PR .�...-•- . � RL �8 v OR c '••..� r,G2 O O v� .O Kf 'La 4. �,'�.�Q .`b tE tvN P �.,.. � . '.P¢D\'�v--'�O.o 3 0ns �e��OHN57' q��`"��'yi Q 9 9 �t5 N TAMYP � t�Q�. .A,"5 ,x•e,°c '4 seu Y .o jQ� �"_:. C3 E b @U1L4,9 4901 PC> @ Al" T O.p •�S9R�f >4?~C 4y1 5C ty\y,m p RAn At„A• C�'. y' R�` P�.=•. uta AR 64 N rAIX7N 1 509, SEE MNr �R.CONt 506. 150'3 1 500, O POO_ IL u o d � O � v w o lQz P- N 01�^ N a N N N v) NVlB0 Q V . Q go . � a CD pn 0 Q O N N ~• Q ✓ h:� ® O CY CY Lo - m e M f-- a r\ • n In 1~ N° p• .q t Q 46 co UJ o l^` • O N ' cc �, O W LLJ c� a LL- ODCD CY goFn q � J 7