| Scanned and reposted by San Lorenzo Express |
MINUTES
SAN LORENZO VILLAGE HOMES ASSOCIATION
MEETING NO. 1051
May 17, 2001
The regular meeting of the San Lorenzo Village Homes Association Board of Directors was held Thursday, May 17, 2001.
1.1 CALL TO ORDER - President Jim Sherman called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m.
1.2 SALUTE TO THE FLAG - President Sherman led the Board and the audience in the pledge of allegiance.
1.3 ROLL CALL - Directors Jim Sherman, Pat Pebelier, David Sloan, Enrique Barboza and Kathie Ready were present.
2.O MINUTES FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING Sloan moved to approve the minutes from the April 2001, meeting number 1050, Director Ready seconds the motion. The minutes are approved unanimously.
3.0 COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC AGENCIES - 3.1 Alameda County Sheriffs Dept. - Sheriff Technician Terry Langdon reported for Deputy Jukich who was unable to attend the meeting. The statistics for April 18-May 15th, 2001:
Stolen Vehicles 8 Recovered Stolen Vehicles 4 Armed Robberies (Commercial)* 2 Auto Burglaries 4 Petty Thefts 2 Grand Theft from Vehicles 2 Graffiti Reports 7 Residential Burglaries 2
Langdon stated that she has tagged several vehicles for tow within the past week for vehicles that have not been removed and are impeding street sweeping.
Barros asked if the sheriff's department had sited the person in a green chevy truck who is parking on the street and living in the trailer hitched to the truck for the past several months. Langdon stated that she would look into this. Barros noted that the last place he had seen this truck and trailer was on Hacienda Ave.
Langdon stated that the Washington Apartments across from Arroyo High School have been a target for Deputy Jukich and herself. They have been trying to get rid of some of the inoperative cars parked in that complex.
Resident Dorothy Partridge asked whether the sheriff's department is working on the increase in graffiti. Langdon stated that the sheriff's department is working with zoning to help abate graffiti. She stated that the county is looking into getting a graffiti buster program with redevelopment funds in the very near future. Barros questioned who residents should report graffiti to. Langdon stated that if you are the victim (property owner) report it to the Sheriff's Department. If you are a resident passing by, report it to zoning. The Administrator asked residents to also report any graffiti to the Homes Association because it is working with Zoning and Supervisor Steele to contact the owners and abate the graffiti as quickly as it gets put up.
3.3 CHP - Officer Plant from CHP provided the statistics for April 2001 as follows:
Type of Ticket # of tickets for entire # in San Lorenzo
unincorporated area
Parking Tickets 290 56
Fix-It Tickets 120 n/a
Moving violations 835 198
Traffic Collisions 132 21
DUI 105 n/a
Vehicle Towed or impounded 121 18
The Administrator asked how many street sweeping tickets were written last month. Plant stated that the parking tickets are not separated out between "street sweeping" and "other", thus he did not have those numbers. She indicated that apparently CHP was not ticketing on street sweeping days.
Resident Ann Marie Mrak asked what number residents call when they see a child that is not secured in a safety seat/belt. Plant stated that calling either 1-800-tellchp and or 911. Both numbers do have a time delay if there is not an officer in the area. He encouraged residents calling to keep track of the vehicle until CHP can get to the scene.
3.3 Supervisor Steele - The Administrator reported that the Supervisor had a conflict to the meeting and would not be in attendance. She stated that at the last Business and Community Development meeting the group had discussed the problem with graffiti in the area. What came out of that meeting was the Administrator's discussion with Tona Henninger from County Zoning and Supervisor Steele to have a staff person from the Homes Association pro-actively abate the graffiti as its reported. The county would pay for the abatement and the Association would get approval from the owner of the property.
Henninger reported that what eventually would happen is the county would hire a full-time "graffiti buster". This contractor would be responsible for business as well as residential property in the unincorporated area and would be funded through redevelopment. The RFP for this contractor is still weeks away, and thus the county is looking at other options in the mean time. One of these options was partnering with the Homes Association to abate the problems as they occur.
Ready asked whether the Cottage Square graffiti had been taken care of. The Administrator had stated that staff was in contact with their Association and was told that if the San Lorenzo Homes Association cleaned up the graffiti, they would reimburse for the cost.
3.4 Youth Advisory Commission - No report the Administrator read the report that was supposed to be read for the April 2001 meeting. (see attached Item A)
3.5 Public Comment - None.
4.0 FINANCIAL REPORT
4.1 Approval of April 2001 Expenditures - Director Ready made a motion with a second by Director Sloan that the Board approve the expenditures for April 2001. The motion was passed unanimously.
4.2 Discussion of Significant Variances - The Administrator said that there was a problem with a the sewer line to the Association office/Community Hall. The line connecting to the street had broken and none of the toilets were working. The cost was $15,000.00 which included replacing the line from the sidewalk to the street.
Director Ready questioned what these "significant variances" were related to on a monthly basis. Did they include housing plans or were they related to budget. The Administrator stated that the variances she reports on are related to variances over or under the current year's budget.
5.0 LIEN AND VIOLATION REPORT - The Administrator reported that there were 14 liens released, and currently there are 385 cases open.
VIOLATION REPORT April 2001***
***The Administrator reported that due to the change in violation definitions and criteria, the report was not adequate and thus there would be no report for this past month. Should resident's want to see the numbers, they are available in our office. The Administrator stated that she did not expect the report to be fully accurate around July 2001.
The Administrator reported that the county is now providing the Association with a monthly report of the status of the open cases referred to the county. Each Board member would be getting a copy of this report in their respective Board packet.
6.0 Business Development Report - See attached Item B.
7.0 Administrators Report
7.1 Street Sweeping - The Administrator stated that she had no report. She stated that the sheriff's department indicated that it may hire staff to do parking enforcement in the near future. If the sheriff's department becomes involved along with the CHP, we should be able to be enforced in parking restrictions more effectively.
7.2 CC&R Update - The Administrator stated that the Association staff is doing a street by street sweep of the entire area to identify problems that the CC&R committee had highlighted and to note chain link fences, holiday lights and bright colored houses. Additional staff was hired to help with this process however he did not feel comfortable with inputing data into the computer. She is hoping to hire another person and will report on this at next month's meeting.
7.3 Other Informational items - The Administrator reported that she went to the county budget meeting this past week. The county is short 6.7 million dollars. This is the smallest amount they have been short in the past ten years. All the departments have agreed to cut their spending to make up for this shortage.
The Administrator reported that at the last LAVMA meeting it was discussed that there would be a detour from Lewelling onto Granada. There does not seem to be any alternative to this detour, although the group is asking LAVMA for alternatives. This detour would last for up to 4 months time. The next meeting would be on June 26, 2001.
The Administrator stated that Life Chiropractic College was rented to a private school called Challenger School. This is a primary school, grades preschool through the 8th grade. A total of 750 students would be allowed in this school. The lease would be for 8 years and the school will be going before the Zoning Administrator on July 25th. A representative of the school stated that he would like to make a presentation to the Homes Association on behalf of the school. The Administrator suggested that the item be presented to the BCDC and discussed at next month's Board meeting.
The Administrator asked Larry Leal, Director of the Lorenzo Theater Foundation, to report on the letter sent to him by new theater owner, Dr. Salwan. He stated that at the last public meeting of the foundation, the doctor indicated that he was very interested in seeing the theater open as a performance arts/theater. Salwan would like to see the facility run as a community based organization. Leal said that he called for a special meeting for the Theater Foundation Board and relayed this information to the Board members. At this meeting they expanded the number of directors from 9 (nine) to 13 (thirteen) adding 4 (four) new positions. They have extended these positions to be filled by one member from the San Lorenzo Homes Owners Association, one by the Bohannon Organization and one by the Supervisor Steele's office, and a fourth position to be filled by a volunteer or interested citizen. Leal stated that they are forming an advisory committee and hope to solicit other local businesses as members. Dr. Salwan will be on this committee and will help solicit members. Members will be solicited through June 11, 2001. Leal announced that there will be a theater fundraiser/crafts fair on June 16th where they will have tours of the theater for $5.00 per person.
Resident Keith Barros asked what the function of the advisory committee would be. Leal stated that the function of the committee is developmental. He said that there are business aspects that are important for fund-raising and outreach and that by including other businesses in the process will make it easier for the foundation to implement its plan.
Resident Howard Beckman commented on the CC&R process. He stated that he felt that there should have been more discussion on the consolidation/articulation of the enforcement of the CC&Rs. He asked the board to include his recent letter to them in the Board minutes. He is concerned with the approval of variances of two story additions and fences in the Village and how these approvals are linked with CC&R enforcement. He asked that questions that he addressed in his letter to the Board be discussed at the next Board meeting. Beckman said at the last Board meeting, the Board accepted a recommendation from the CC&R committee to create a policy for car port approval, with the existing car ports being grand fathered in. How long they would be grand fathered was not clear and he wanted some clarification. Beckman questioned how many cases have been referred to the attorney for CC&R violations this year. The Administrator stated that she would need to research this and would provide the documentation at the next meeting.
Beckman stated that he was also confused about some issues related to the enforcement of CC&Rs. The CC&R's state that there should be no storage of trailers, boats, campers etc. cannot be stored for more than 32 hours. Beckman was told that if a motor home is moved then it is allowed to stay in the driveway. He questioned why motor homes are allowed to do this. The Administrator stated that there is a difference between trailers, boats and campers and RVs. She stated that trailers, boats and campers cannot be stored for more than 36 hours, RVs are not in this same category. Beckman stated that this is a matter of interpretation and should be discussed by the Board. He said that when an RV is parked in a driveway, it creates parking problems/issues for the whole neighborhood.
Beckman was also concerned about the Association's policy on lawns. He said that he was told that if a homeowner has torn up their lawn, the Association cannot make them plant a new one. This needs to be discussed and made clear as to why the Association cannot do this.
Director Sherman stated that his understanding with the distinction between RVs and trailers/boats is that an RV is a self propelled vehicle versus a trailer and/or boat which is not. Sherman said that the CC&R committee was developed to look into these distinctions in order to better enforce them.
Beckman said that he thought that the standards for construction and CC&R policies would be reviewed by the committee. He did not understand how a resident could be asked to cut down shrubbery to three (3) feet on the one hand when another resident can have a huge hulking RV in their driveway. Director Ready stated that there was nothing in the CC&R's preventing someone from having an RV. She stated that when these regulations were written, there were no RVs. Ready stated that the CC&R committee had public meetings which were open to the public and much was discussed and researched about the Board's past policies and determinations on enforcement and variances.
Resident Keith Barros questioned whether the CC&R's say "RVs". The Administrator stated that the CC&R's state no "trailers" on the property for more than 36 hours. Barros asked what authority states that if a vehicle is licensed and self propelled it cannot be in violation when it is technically being "stored". The Administrator stated that the Association took this issue to court several years ago. There was a neighbor who was willing to testify that the RV had never been moved. The owner brought in documentation proving that in fact he did move it occasionally and the judge ruled that if the owner moved it even once a year, and it was currently registered, it was considered an operating vehicle and not in violation of any CC&Rs.
Barros further questioned whether the CC&R's could force someone to plant a lawn or not. Director Ready stated that the CC&R committee addressed this and many other subjects in conjunction with what the county versus the Association could enforce. The issue is to try and resolve the problem without expending a large of court costs. The NPO can address issues of lawns, and thus this house could be referred to zoning. The Administrator noted that the Association has spoken with this property owner and he stated that he is in the process of replanting a lawn. She noted that there is nothing in the CC&R's that states you have to have a lawn on your property.
The consensus of the Board was to include Beckman's recent letter in the May meeting minutes. (See attached Item C).
Director Sherman stated that the Board had discussed the letter from the Theater Foundation and the consensus would recommend a member from the BCDC to represent the Board on the Lorenzo Theater Foundation's Advisory Committee.
8.0 OTHER BUSINESS
8.1 EBMUD Groundwater Project - Resident John Partridge updated the committee on the status of the meetings with EBMUD on the project. He stated that there have been two additional meetings on the issue. The meetings are not presenting any new information, however the comment period on the draft EIR has been extended for 60 days until July 6th. This will allow residents to comment and digest the EIR for a longer period of time. There has been a lot of input from residents of the Heron Bay Homeowners Association. The three main concerns of the San Lorenzo Association have been narrowed to air quality concerns with the chloroform and radon releases outlined in the project, the issue of subsidence due to over pumping, and whether the project will only be utilized for drought purposes.
The Administrator stated that Heron Bay wanted to hire an outside consultant to review the EIR due to the fact that the EIR was written by staff from EBMUD. Heron Bay suggested a firm which is located outside of Sacramento. This firm has never contracted with EBMUD and it has already reviewed the EIR, so the cost would be lower than another firm. The firm had quoted $10,000 to do the report. Heron Bay had asked for some financial assistance from the San Lorenzo Homes Association for this report. The Administrator had spoken with John Partridge and other Board members and would recommend contributing $1,000 from the Association.
Resident Keith Barros questioned how many homes are in Heron Bay and why is the Association contributing so little, since the project will affect San Lorenzo residents as well as Heron Bay. The Administrator stated that there are about 200 homes in Heron Bay.
Director Ready makes a motion for the San Lorenzo Homes Association to contribulte $1000 to Heron Bay Homes Association for the purpose of contributing to an outside consultant to review the EBMUD Groundwater Project's EIR. Director Sloan seconds the motion. The motion passes unanimously.
The Administrator suggested that the Board and the residents monitor how and when this water will be used. Currently they have stated that they will use this water in case of a drought. This does not ensure that the water will be used for other development in the future. She recommended that the Homes Association work with the other groups in hiring an attorney to draft a document which would indicate that EBMUD use the water only as it states it would use it now. She supports the formation of an oversight committee to monitor the project as long as it is in use. Heron Bay Homes Association has agreed to help the San Lorenzo Homes Association with the cost of hiring this attorney. A meeting would be scheduled between the two Associations to discuss their common goals and interests. Resident Howard Beckman recommended that Stewart Fleshman , who used to be on the EBMUD Board, be considered as an attorney for this project.
The consensus of the Board is to get an attorney to review the interests of both the Heron Bay Homes Association and the San Lorenzo community and to draft a document intent on these interests as related to the project.
8.2 Specific Plan Update - The Administrator reported that last month the Association was advised four days prior to the Planning Commission meeting that an architecht would be presenting some drawings for Village Square development to the commission. The Administrator asked the architect to present something to our Association and he met with some of the Board Members, BCDC members and other residents. The architect indicated that the proposed development would be a four stories above retail which could be up to 60 to 70 feet in height. Not everything would be four stories above retail there would be different roof lines with the tallest of the buildings being four stories above retail.
Scott Bohannon stated that the Board and residents need to see slides of similar businesses in order to make a decision about height. The developer has stated that the only way the development would be feasible would be to have at least four stories over retail. He cautioned the community that in limiting the height, the developer may be unable to build a profitable center and may not want to develop in the area. The Administrator pointed out that the developer had mentioned that you could have fewer stories above retail, however this would bring in lower quality retail stores.
Director Ready stated that the community needs to see what the area will look like with these plans. It will not do residents any good to see slides of other areas, a model or sketch needs to be done for the Village area specifically. She stated that she is concerned with the height and that many residents will not be aware of how high this development could actually be.
Resident Barros stated that he has two concerns. The first is with the sunlight to the area with such a tall structure and the second is in putting too many restrictions on the height of the building, ultimately limiting and hindering development of the area. He stated that as long as there are no large buildings next to the residential houses, he did not think that the height would be a problem. He stated that some safe guards could be written into the Specific Plan to prevent problems. Bohannon pointed out that you county zoning would not allow a high wall up against residences. He stated that if his organization was to put residential units in that area then height would not be an issue. Resident Howard Beckman encouraged residents to look at the developer's web page to see what other projects they have done. as had in the area for some time. The Specific Plan is a land use plan with guidelines.
Consensus of the Board to was to keep an open mind and look into other alternatives to the height and development proposal of Civic Partners.
Bohannon reminded the Board that if a lower height limit is recommended there would be much more residential than retail in the development and the retail would be of a different quality.
8.3 Zoning Board - The Administrator reported that the BCDC came up with a recommendation that a Zoning Board be created to hear county zoning issues as compared to the current zoning enforcement officer. She was provided an 8 page paper from County Planning of recommendations related to this recommendation. She stated that next week there would be 2 public meetings by the county regarding these recommendations. The Administrator recommended to the Board that more information needs to be heard on this issue before it makes a decision. She stated that in the 13 years she has been Administrator, only two zoning hearings went against the San Lorenzo Homes Association recommendations. Both were appealed and the Association's recommendation stood.
Resident Barros stated that the taco truck issue was the "straw that broke the camel's back" he stated that other communities have been upset by the Zoning Officers decisions. He as well as others in the community believe the system needs to be changed and he would strongly recommend that the board approve the BCDC's recommendation.
Resident Beckman said that the community should consider the options of a zoning adjustment board. He stated that the Planning Commission seems generally supportive of this idea. A zoning Board would give the community more input into the process of approving and/or denying variances.
Director Ready makes a motion to accept the BCDC's recommendation that the county consider accepting a Zoning Board of Adjustments in place of the current Zoning Officer. Director Sloan seconds the motion.
Roll Call Vote: AYES Pebelier, Ready, Sloan, and Barboza. Sherman-abstaining stating he did not have enough information.
9.0 PUBLIC COMMENT - Resident Keith Barros asked county staff to make sure that the specific plan wording be changed from "similar to c-1 zoning" to "c-1 zoning"-and to clearly specify uses in the plan.
10.0 COMMITTEE REPORTS
10.1 Airport Committees - No report. Resident Howard Beckman stated that the Hayward Airport has a private company that has a proposal to have 43 jet aircraft hangers at the airport. He wanted residents to know that this proposal will be going before a Hayward City Council Subcommittee in the very near future.
10.2 Council on the Prevention of Drinking and Driving - Director Sloan reported that there was a discussion on grad night and drinking and driving at the last meeting. The group is also looking at ways to streamline its meetings so that they can be shorter, but still accomplish a lot.
11.0 COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS - None. 11.0 ADJOURNMENT - Ready makes motion to adjourn. Pebelier seconds the motion which carries unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:37 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Pat Pebelier
Secretary-Treasurer
Recorded & Transcribed By: Kathleen Harrigan, Sr. Admin. Assistant
Reviewed By: Nancy Van Huffel, Administrator
Attachment B (omitted)
Attachment C
April 2, 2001
Jim Sherman, President
San Lorenzo Village Homes Association
777 Paseo Grande
San Lorenzo, CA 94580
Dear Jim,
Prior to the March meeting of the association I asked Nancy Van Huffle to place on
the agenda the question of how the association approves variances from the CC&R's. This
question arose recently when I was informed that "the association" had approved a brilliant
yellow color for a house.
I am greatly disturbed by Nancy's response, namely that because "paint colors are
currently being discussed by the CC&R committee" the question would be appropriate for a
later association meeting. I have had several conversations with Nancy during the past few
years about the procedure for approving variances. There has been one excuse after another
for not providing me with information on the association's putative approval of specific
variances. The key questions in each case have been whether (1) the variance came to the
attention because of a complaint or because of a voluntary application from a homeowner,
and (2) whether approval was given by Nancy or by the board. In addition, I have been
frustrated in efforts to obtain summary information about variances granted in the past.
The issues of variances and enforcement of CC&Rs are intimately connected because,
sadly, the degree of homeowner compliance with the CC&Rs is a function of the
association's level of enforcement and the scrutiny of the association of requests for
variances.
It is clear to me that the formation of the CC&R committee has seriously delayed
dealing with some substantial issues. The committee was formed to research the
association's records in order to describe what property conditions were actually being
tolerated and what were being abated, and to recommend changes if any. I do not
understand why the question of who presently approves variances and under what
circumstances cannot be answered, or why records of decisions to approve or disapprove a
variance are not available.
The president's report for last year explains that formal warnings on CC&R violations
were down by almost a third because of "staff turnover, an increase in workload, and the
Administrator's undergoing major surgeries this year." The fact is that the number of
warning letters has declined steadily since 1996, when the association reaffirmed its primary
role as enforcing the CC&Rs.
No. of Refer to
Year letters attorney
1993 772 15
1994 688 20
1995 903 26
1996 1,650 29
1997 792 20
1998 742 13
1999 867 17
2000 601 NA
I am therefore asking that the agenda of the April meeting of the association include a
discussion of procedures for enforcing the CC&Rs and that the discussion be strictly
controlled to avoid comments on the substantive policy being enforced. Procedural issues
would include:
(1) Length of time it takes the association to respond to a complaint of possible
violation of CC&Rs. How long before a property is inspected? Would signed
complaints avoid initial staff inspection?.
(2) How the decision is made to refer a violation to an attorney.
(3) Whether the board has authority to act on a request for variance at a "work
meeting."
(4) Advance notice to association members of applications for variance.
(5) Education of homeowners on CC&Rs.
(6) Publicizing intransigent violators.
These issues are relevant to the proposal to add a part-time employee to enforce
CC&Rs, but should be addressed outside the context of the budget.
Sincerely,
Howard Perry Beckman
1261 via Dolorosa
San Lorenzo, California 94580
cc: Nancy van Huffle