The regular meeting of the San Lorenzo Village Homes Association Board of Directors was held Thursday, June 20, 2002.

1.1 CALL TO ORDER -- President Kathie Ready called the meeting to order at 7:42 p.m.

1.2 SALUTE TO THE FLAG -- President Ready led the Board and the audience in the pledge of allegiance.

1.3 ROLL CALL -- Directors Kathie Ready, Jim Sherman, Pat Pebelier, and Enrique Barboza were present, Director Peggy Sheridan was absent.

2.O MINUTES FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING -- Director Sherman makes a motion to approve the minutes of the May 2002 Board meeting number 1066. Director Pebelier seconds the motion. The minutes were approved unanimously.

3.0 COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC AGENCIES

3.1 Alameda County Sheriff's Dept. -- Technician Langdon reported that the Sheriff's Department has been working on tobacco decoys in San Lorenzo and other unincorporated areas. She stated that most establishments have been in compliance with the laws and she would provide statistics on their findings at the next Board meeting. She also reported that the Cop Shop Flea Market and the Cop Shop Special Olympics fund-raisers were very successful. Langdon stated that upcoming events would be National Night Out at St. John's Church on August 8th and the Cop Shop BBQ at the Homes Association Community Hall on September 6th. She also reminded residents that they are still in need of volunteer for the San Lorenzo Community Clean up in October 2002.

3.2 CHP -- Officer John Doule reported the following statistics:

                  # of tickets for entire
Type of Ticket      unincorporated area       # in San Lorenzo

Parking Tickets             186                     93
Fix-It Tickets              N/A                    N/A
Moving violations           554                    165
Traffic Collisions          111                     20
DUI                         N/A                    N/A
Vehicle Towed or impounded   95                      9
Telephone Complaints         54                     18

CHP Officer Rob Tuazon reported that he has been working with county traffic engineer Bob Preston on basketball hoops that are left within the county's encroachment area (i.e., the sidewalk or street). Tuazon stated that once a hoop is reported Preston sends out a letter giving the homeowner so much time to remove it. The CHP also makes a visit to the residence letting owners know this is a violation. If the hoop is not removed, the county confiscates the hoops and has been donating them to local girls and boy's clubs. He also reported that his department has just finished training the last group of new CHP officers and that by July 1, 2002, they will have the amount of officers they need to patrol the areas they have been given.

The Administrator questioned why the CHP was only ticketing for street sweeping in the morning. Tuazon stated that the afternoon commute becomes a top priority and thus prevents them from ticketing at that time.

Director Ready asked whether the CHP had been reviewing what is happening with the Oakland Pallet company at the end of Grant Ave. She stated that the loads that are on the trucks going into this company are very tall and could become a hazard and/or cause an accident. Officer Tuazon stated that 14' 7" is the maximum height for truck loads. He stated that if the vehicle is getting from "point A" to "point B" safely and are within these limits there is not a lot that the CHP can do. They have been stopping some of these drivers to see if they have adequate classification licenses and have found several infractions. He stated that the CHP is currently investigating this pallet business at the end of Grant.

3.3 Supervisor Lai-Bitker -- Supervisor Lai Bitker's assistant, Nick Aragon, was unable to be present. The Administrator stated that there are two items that she will speak on later on in the agenda that are relevant to the Supervisor. One was the response to the specific plan and the other was the issue of the county's housing element.

3.4 Youth Advisory Commission -- Youth representative Francisco Guzman was not present. No report.

3.5 Public Comment -- None.

4.0 FINANCIAL REPORT

4.1 Approval of May 2002 Expenditures (including payroll) -- Director Sherman made a motion to accept the May 2002 expenditures (including payroll), Director Pebelier seconds, the motion carries unanimously.

4.2 Discussion of Significant Variances -- None.

5.0 LIEN AND VIOLATION REPORT -- The Administrator reported that there have been 22 liens released since the last Board meeting.

May 2002 Violation Report

Number              Violation            # of Letters

1/19  Inoperable Vehicles in driveway       19
2/22  Recreational veh/trailer in driveway  12
6     Lack of Gen Maintenance                2
10    Lawn Height                           18
11    Dead Trees                             0
12    Overgrown Vegetation                   2
13    Holiday Lights                        10
15    Building Exterior                      8
16    Dirt Accumulation                      9
17    Attractive Nuisances                   2
18    Lean/miss fence                        0
20/7  Unpaved parking                        5
21    Working on vehicles                    1
23    Dogs/Cats more than 2                  1
24    Barking dogs                           3
25    Prohibited animals                     2
26    Excess noise                           1
27    No Home Business                       0
28/99 Other comments                         3

Total                                       98

6.0 BUSINESS AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT(BCDC) REPORT -- No representative present --no report was given.

7.0 ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT

7.1 Cal Trans Proposal for 880 entrance -- The Administrator reported that she, some of the Board members, as well as some of the BCDC members have been meeting with Cal Trans about the entrance to 880 near Black Angus . The concern was what could be done to beautify the area (of which Cal Trans is responsible for). She stated that Cal Trans responded positively to the group's requests and has agreed to plant greenery and flowers in that area in September 2002. Anyone interested in reviewing the vegetation that will be planted in that area can come into the Association office during normal office hours.

7.2 Miscellaneous items -- The Administrator reported that there were no other items.

8.0 OTHER BUSINESS

8.1 Alameda County Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance (NPO) -- Tona Henninger -- Henninger reported that she along with county staff, Laura Hogan and Damien Curry coordinated a group of residents and various department staff to review the County's Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance, NPO, for changes/revisions that would make it cleaner and stronger. The group began meeting in early September 2002 and held eight (8) meetings reviewing the NPO as well as the county's Junk Vehicle Ordinance. The group received input from the Sheriff's department, the fire department, the Supervisors' offices as well as staff from county zoning, public works and the county building department.

Henninger stated that the amendments to the ordinance dealt with West County only-not East County, focusing more on the urban areas that it covers. The amendments will go before the Castro Valley MAC-on Monday June 24th, 2002 and several other community groups after that. The idea is to get as much community input by the affected areas as possible. She stated that the the final document will go before the Board of Supervisors no later than September 2002.

Henninger stated that ten (10) other jurisdictions were reviewed for input into the Alameda County's NPO. Most of the language that was adopted for the proposed amendments came from Oakland's NPO, which really defined infractions and enforcement.

Henninger reported that there were three (3) major changes that were suggested. The first was to try and incorporate a building code into the NPO which would allow the county to deal with "dangerous and hazardous" issues related to buildings which would allow zoning to address health and safety issues. Zoning is currently working with the Sheriff's department on certain issues that are related to health and safety issues, by adopting this building code it would ensure the county could enforce these issues aggressively. This will also strengthen the county's ability to pursue back yards that are piled with debris.

The second major change was in adding the fire code to the NPO which will have the Board of Zoning Adjustments in charge of hearing appeals as well as put weed abatement in the control of county zoning.

The final major change deals with the citation/fine process. Henninger stated that the county currently relies on court citations for non-compliance of a violation. She stated that what county staff is finding is that the courts are not very supportive of these issues. Often the citations get thrown out or are reduced to nothing. The ordinance is now proposing a schedule of fines and fees which can be appealed before the Board of Supervisors. Henninger stated that it seems more appropriate for the Board to hear these issues. The procedure will be that upon receiving three (3) letters to abate there will be a fine imposed upon the resident(s) for non-compliance.

Henninger said that there were also amendments to the junk vehicle ordinance that incorporated other mobile equipment including jet skis, trailers, even lawn mowers that are in disrepair. She stated that the county sends out one letter which gives the resident(s) ten (10) days to respond. The vehicle now not only has to be able to be started, but must also be able to be moved and street ready.

Resident Keith Barros asked whether the Sheriff's Department and the CHP contact her pro-actively. Henninger said that currently zoning has a very good working relationship with the Sheriff's department, however they have not had an ongoing dialog with the CHP. CHP is now beginning to deal with some of the issues; prior to the NPO it was unclear what jurisdiction was related to what agency. The NPO deals with private property as well as business properties and there is now better clarification as to which agency is responsible for a certain jurisdiction.

8.2 Alameda County Specific Plan -- The Administrator reported on the Specific Plan as well as Civic Partners proposal for the area. She stated that there have been three (3) documents which have evolved from the planning process that began in September 1999. There was the "San Lorenzo Village Task Force Report", which came out in April 2000 and was compiled by the Task Force, the "San Lorenzo Village Center Specific Plan", which came out in January 2001 and was drafted by Alameda County in response to the Task Force report, and the specific developer plan for the Village Square, which was presented by the designated developer, Civic Partners in January 2002 in response to the Draft Specific Plan.

The Administrator said that in looking at these plans and in particular the plan presented by civic partners there were a number of concerns that were raised by Association Board members, members of the Specific Plan Task Force as well as members of the community. The main concerns were with the density of the housing, the amount of parking for the houses and retail in the plan (i.e.: the post office now provides 60 spaces for customers and employees-the plan only provides for 16 parking spaces).

The Association Board wrote a letter to the developer regarding its concerns about the proposed plan. The response from the developer was that they were willing to discuss these issues with the Board. In the meantime the county's housing element came into play which tied in directly with the developers plan and the amount of housing it had planned for the development. Another letter went out from the Board to James Sorenson from county planning related to the specific plan and the housing element outlining additional concerns it had. It was at this time that Supervisor Lai Bitker agreed to host a community meeting related to the developers plan to get further input from the community. This meeting would be held on Wednesday, July 17th in the Community Hall at 7 pm. The Administrator encouraged all residents to attend. It was also decided that information about the proposed development would be published in the upcoming newsletter as well as information will be provided at a booth at the upcoming Flower and Wine Festival on July 13th and 14th at Mervyn Morris Park. All plans and documents will be available for review at this Festival.

Director Ready stated that the Board would like to see development for the area. She said that the plan is a good plan, however the Board is concerned that the density of the housing is too high. She pointed out that the county is putting in 24% of what it needs to comply with it housing element in San Lorenzo and this is wrong. This is a very small part of unincorporated Alameda County. The housing element also needs to include market rate housing. Ready also stated that the amount of retail space included in the plan is no more than it is now. She said that there are "live-to-work" spaces on Hesperian Blvd where a restaurant was suggested. Ready stated that the Board wants to hear from the entire community as to what it thinks about this plan. She stated that the County has already hired someone to do an environmental impact report. She is also bothered by the fact that the housing element was written into the Specific Plan and that many of the Task Force members did not understand that this was being done.

The Administrator stated that there are several things to be aware of when you review the documents related to San Lorenzo and the Village Square area:

1) The recommendation that the Task Force came up with are considerably different from what is in the draft Specific Plan. In the plan some housing was agreed to but never was four-story housing proposed or agreed to.

2) There are some amenities missing in the developers proposed plan, namely the Fire Department, the playground, and the Girl Scout Cabin. Also the parking in and around the proposed "town hall" accommodates only 18 cars, where we now have over 100 parking spaces which are filled on days the seniors use the Community Hall.

3) The proposal calls for seven (7) buildings where we are now have retail which will be four stories high with retail on the bottom and living space on the top.

Director Ready noted that there are 139 town homes proposed where the old Mervyns was located with no playground or open space area. There would also be only 1.5 parking spaces for each of these units. The developer stated that the overflow parking would be shared by the library, the town hall and the businesses surrounding the area. This may create problems for all of these areas. Ready said that 50% of the housing in the area would be rental units according to the plan. She said that this is of concern due to the fact that many of the tenants would not be vested in the community. She stated it would make more sense to have affordable housing where persons could buy a home and live in the community for some time.

Resident Betty Moose asked who requested the 50% rental for the plan. Director Ready stated that the developer requested it in the plan. The Administrator pointed out that it is easier to get loans when developing rental property.

Resident Keith Barros stated that he is concerned with the plan that the Task Force signed off on. He said that most of the members were not aware of the language which was included in the final draft. The density and actual number of housing units allowed for the area was never made clear to the Task Force members, nor was the idea of the county's "housing element", even though it was eventually included in the plan. Barros noted that it was deceptive of the county to include the housing element in the Specific Plan allowing a developer to increase the population of San Lorenzo by 14% in one intersection alone.

Resident Pat Hoke stated that she would like to see the letter from the developer in response to the Board's concerns about the plan. The Administrator stated that she has the letter in the Association office for anyone who wants to review it. Hoke questioned whether the developer indicated in the letter that it would be willing to work with the Board and community regarding their concerns about the plan. The Administrator stated that the developer indicated he was willing to work with the Board.

Director Ready stated that the draft that the Task Force signed off on was a very good report. Unfortunately at some point the county added the housing element into the plan without the knowledge of the members. This fight is not with the developer, it is with the addition of this element in the plan which allowed for the housing as it is proposed in the development. Originally the members of the Task Force did not want any housing in the plan. However, in speaking with the county and Supervisor Steele the members agreed to some housing, preferably Senior housing. However it did not know the housing would be as dense as it is proposed. Ready stated that the Board does not want the developer to drop its plans for the area, however there are many concerns about the lack of open space within the plan. Resident Hoke asked whether the developer is required to have open space with the amount of units he is proposing. The Administrator pointed out that there is no space in the current plan to incorporate the open space unless they remove some of the housing. The developer stated that he could not make the proposal work financially unless he had this amount of housing. The Administrator stated that there needs to be a study done to see exactly how many housing units are needed to make this plan feasible for the developer.

8.3 Alameda County Housing Element Policy -- Director Ready stated that she was very concerned about the housing element and how it was brought up at the Unincorporated Services Meeting. After the meeting she researched the housing element on the internet and found that this element allows a developer to build at a higher density without the normal parking, landscaping or other requirements needed for a "normal" housing development. The element also reduces the conditional use permits for homeless shelters and speeds up the building process for a developer by creating a "right to build" where the developer is not required to go through the normal permit process for his or her development. Ready stated that it is important that the community understands what the county is doing with respect to this housing element. The housing element goes before the Board of Supervisors in the Fall as a revision to the General Plan.

Ready stated that she has been to the Planning Commission on several occasions and the Planning Commission appears to be in support of the county housing element. She suggested that the same group of individuals who reviewed the NPO be reconvened to review the county's proposed housing element to see how it will affect the community. She noted that currently the way the housing element is written it would allow 850 units on 29 acres in San Lorenzo in comparison to 400 senior housing units on 140 acres in Pleasanton.

Resident Keith Barros stated that he is upset by the county allowing such high density housing in the area without first getting public input.

8.4 Appointments to Committees

(A) County Sidewalk - The Administrator stated that at the last Board meeting it was suggested that the Board appoint a member to the sidewalk advisory committee. Director Ready volunteered to be this representative.

(B) Airport Committee -- The Administrator contacted resident Howard Beckman, per the Board's request, however Mr. Beckman declined. She stated that if there were no objections that she would represent the Board at these meetings until it found someone. She would also publish an announcement in the next newsletter asking interested residents to apply.

9.0 PUBLIC COMMENT -- Resident Keith Barros read an editorial published in the Daily Review in October 9, 2000. The editorial dealt with how public officials should make public what they are doing when they are doing it.

10.0 COMMITTEE REPORTS

10.1 Airport Committees -- None.

10.2 Council on the Prevention of Drinking and Driving -- No report. Director Ready asked whether it was true that San Lorenzo High opted out of the Sober Graduation Program put on by the Council due to the students being too "unruly". San Lorenzo Unified Board representative Betty Moose stated that San Lorenzo High had one of the highest G.P.A.s and would look into this to see why they did not participate.

10.3 Youth Resources -- Dorothy Partridge, Chair of the Committee -- The Administrator announced that the group has reorganized and that Dorothy Partridge had stepped down from the group as its President. Both Supervisor Miley and Supervisor Lai-Bitker had offered to help reorganize the group and it seems to be moving in a positive direction.

11.0 COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS -- Director Ready thanked all those who attended and asked them to pass the word on to their neighbors that there would be a town hall meeting in the San Lorenzo Community Hall on July 18th at 7pm regarding the plan for the Village Square area. She also encouraged residents to fill out the questionnaire that was related to this plan which would be out in the upcoming newsletter.

12.0 ADJOURNMENT -- President Ready adjourned the meeting at 9:54 pm.

Respectfully Submitted,

Pat Pebelier Secretary-Treasurer

Recorded & Transcribed By: Kathleen Harrigan, Sr. Admin. Assistant
Reviewed By: Nancy Van Huffel, Administrator, Kathie Ready, Board President

Variances from CC&Rs considered at board workshop meeting 6/20:

Site Visit -- 16161 Hesperian Blvd. -- Room addition. Approval postponed until re-submission of plans.
(a) 17371 Via Magdalena -- 3 ft front yard fence (brick with wrought iron) to enclose front yard, 10 ft set back from street. Denied.
(b) 15741 Hesperian Blvd -- Property line (redwood) fence off leading edge of house, 4 ft decreasing to 3 ft, with 17 foot set back from street. Approved.
(c) 15950 Via Descanso -- Family room/bathroom addition with 3 ft set back from side yard. Denied.
(d) 15724 Paseo Del Campo -- Second story addition. Approved.