The regular meeting of the San Lorenzo Village Homes Association Board of Directors was held Thursday, October 18,2001.

1.1 CALL TO ORDER - President Jim Sherman called the meeting to order at 7:35 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, Enrique Barboza and Kathie Ready were present, Director Sloan was out of town and absent.

President Jim Sherman announced that the county will be reporting on the Specific Plan at 8:00 p.m., the agenda would go forth as scheduled, until 8 p.m., when it would defer to the Specific Plan item (8.1).

2.O MINUTES FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING

Director Ready moved to approve the minutes from the September 20, 2001, meeting number 1055, Director Pebelier seconds the motion. The minutes are approved unanimously.

3.0 COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC AGENCIES

3.1 Alameda County Sheriffs Dept. - Deputy Jukich reported that he was being transferred out of the Community Policing Unit to the Oakland Airport for a temporary six week assignment. He was not certain who the interim Deputy will be for the unit. Jukich reported that the San Lorenzo street sweeping tickets would be issued starting Monday, October 29th. He handed out a warning flyer that the sheriffs had given to residents in Monday's street sweeping area. Jukich reported that the next Community Policing Meeting would be held at Bay School Elementary on Thursday, November 8th. The topic would be home security. Jukich stated that the crime statistics for the month were unavailable tonight but would be delivered to the Association office tomorrow. He said that San Lorenzo did have two armed robberies this past month, but both of the suspects responsible were apprehended.

3.2 CHP - Officer Plant reported the quarterly statistics for July 2001 through the present as follows:

CHP Traffic Statistics for July-Sept 2001

Type of Ticket            # tickets for entire
                          unincorporated area    # in San Lorenzo
Parking Tickets                 n/a                     58
Fix-It Tickets                  n/a                     n/a
Moving violations               n/a                     652
Traffic Collisions              n/a                     60
DUI                             n/a                     n/a
Vehicle Towed or impounded      n/a                     41
Stolen recoveries               n/a                     2 

Director Sherman asked that the Administrator forward a letter from the Association to the Sheriffs department asking that Deputy Jukich's assignment be only a temporary one. There were no objections to draft such a letter from other Board members.

3.3 Supervisor Alice Lai-Bitker - Supervisor Lai-Bitker announced that she is securing a district office in San Lorenzo. Staff will be moving in the first week in November. The location is next to S&N Video on Hesperian Blvd. She also announced that flu shots would be given at the Community Hall next to the Homes Association office on Tuesday, November 13th and that she is sponsoring a Senior Forum on Tuesday, October 23rd which will address issues related to Medicare and health insurance options for seniors. There will be free diabetes screening and blood pressure checks at this meeting.

The Administrator stated that staff in Lai-Bitker's office has been very instrumental in helping the Association with its Youth Resource group and the upcoming Youth Forum that it is coordinating.. This forum will help identify what resources are available for youth in the community in terms of after school, recreational, and other programs.

3.4 Public Comment - Items not on the Agenda

Larry Leal spoke on behalf of the Lorenzo Theater Foundation. Leal announced that Dr. Salwan cancelled the negotiated, publically signed agreement with the Lorenzo Theater Foundation to help with the purchase of the theater on September 27, 2001. This cancelled the purchase agreement with Dr. Salwan and the Foundation which had been in negotiation for months. Leal stated that Dr. Salwan had agreed to donate funds to help the Foundation purchase the theater if it would agree to put Salwan's parent's names in lights on the building.. Leal stated that the donation offer was put on the table in July 2001. This agreement changed the negotiations from a long term lease to the actual purchase of the building. He noted that the Foundation had made it clear that without this donation it would be unable to consider purchasing the building due to its own lack of funds. The Foundation would never have agreed to sign a purchase agreement without this donation offer. Leal stated that the Foundation would have accepted a minimum, ( 30 year) long term lease agreement with a purchase option, however the owner did not offer this, but instead asked the Foundation how much it could contribute to purchase of the building. Leal pointed out that if the owner wanted the funds he was donating to go towards repairs for the building, he would have stated this clearly in the original agreement he and the Foundation signed.

Leal said the owner's counter offer, that the Foundation purchase the theater and use his donation money only for building repairs is unacceptable. He emphasized that if the Foundation could not use some of the donated money for start up funds, it would not be in a financial position to purchase the building. Leal pointed out that Dr. Salwan has been a real estate investor for a long period of time. He said that he and the owner went over the agreement paragraph by paragraph prior to signing it. The donation agreement never changed prior to both parties signing the agreement. At the press conference Leal had announced the actual funds the owner had agreed to purchase towards the theater, and at no time during the signing did the owner refute the amount or use of these funds. (See attachment A letters from owner and from Lorenzo Foundation).

Leal stated that the Foundation is willing to move forward with the agreement that was signed on September 27, 2001. Director Ready questioned how long the lease agreement was with Dr. Salwan and the Foundation at this time. Leal stated that the lease agreement is open-ended. The lease agreement states that as long as the Foundation and the owner are negotiating a long term lease, they have a lease. Both parties have the option to write to each other to state that the negotiations have broken down, after which time the Foundation would have two months to vacate the property.

Director Ready asked who is responsible for the repairs to the building in the meantime. Leal stated that the owner is still responsible for the repairs and did note that he forwarded a letter to the owner yesterday noting some structural repairs that may endanger pedestrians.

Director Ready asked what is happening with the historic plan for the theater. Leal stated that the application for the HP district has not changed, that is all within the Specific Plan. Sorenson pointed out that the owner has not requested an HP district for the property. Leal noted that the Alameda County Parks and Historical Commission did request HP district for the property. Sorenson noted that the Commission is not the owner of the property.

Resident Jim Spears stated that at the back end of the Association property in the alleyway, there is a large accumulation of olive pits from the trees. These pits are dangerous to pedestrians. He asked that the branches be trimmed back. He wanted to know whether the Supervisor could identify the owner and get them to take care of the debris. The Administrator stated that she thought that the property was owned by Bohannon. Scott Bohannon from the Bohannon Organization stated that he would look into to it, however he thought the trees on the library side are the Association's property. The Administrator said she would walk with Spears around the property and help to get the problem taken care of.

4.0 FINANCIAL REPORT

4.1 Approval of September 2001 Expenditures - Director Ready moved with a second by Director Pebelier that the Board approve the expenditures for September 2001. The motion was passed unanimously.

4.2 Discussion of Significant Variances - The Administrator said that there were no significant variances to report for this past month.

5.0 LIEN AND VIOLATION REPORT - The Administrator reported that there have been no liens released this past month, and currently there are 592 cases open.

September 2001 Violation Report

Number Violation                         # of Letters
1/19   Inoperable Vehicles in driveway         72
2/22   Recreational veh/trailer in driveway    31
6      Lack of Gen Maintenance                 1
10     Lawn Height                             12
11     Dead Trees                              1
12     Overgrown Vegetation                    6
13     Holiday Lights                          15
15     Building Exterior                       12
16     Dirt Accumulation                       14
17     Attractive Nuisances                    21
18     Lean/miss fence                         6
20     Unpaved parking                         2
21     Working on vehicles                     1
23     Dogs/Cats more than 2                   0
24     Barking dogs                            1
25     Prohibited animals                      2
26     Excess noise                            2
28/99  Other comments                          11
       Total                                   210

6.1 Business Development Committee Recommendations - None.

7.0 ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT

7.1 Street Sweeping Program - The Administrator reported that as of 10/29/01 the Sheriff's department will be ticketing in Mondays area as posted. She also announced that the Association received its new street sweeper today. With this new sweeper, the county sweepers and running the old sweeper (when needed), the Association hopes to complete the areas in a more timely fashion.

7.2 Grant & Washington Proposal - The Administrator reported that on December 12th the owner would be resubmitting new plans for his development to county zoning. The new plans will be heard at the next BCDC meeting on October 4th and the Administrator would report on these plans at the next Association Board meeting.

7.3 Hayward Airport - The Administrator stated that the Hayward Airport manager was unable to attend the Board meeting due to a conflict of meetings, however she did speak with him. He stated that the airport has basically not changed their procedures since September 11. The air space, via FAA, has been more restricted, particularly since we fly under San Francisco airport air space. They have had more complaints this month due to an increase in the "touch and go" landings. The manager stated that the airport is hoping to get the restrictions on the airport released soon. He stated that if residents had specific questions they could call him directly or relay them to the Administrator so that he could address them. The Administrator said that when she questioned him about the restrictions of the smaller airports, he stated that smaller airports restrictions are not under the same restrictions that the larger airports are under. The Administrator tried to get a representative from FAA to come and speak at the Board meeting, but they declined due a very full schedule.

Beckman stated that this information was not accurate. There are still heavy restrictions on the flights in airports located in and around the San Francisco airport airspace. The traffic at the Hayward airport is down considerably and there has been no change in "touch and go" flights.

Brichacek stated that she has noted no increase in the "touch and go" flights at the airport. However, her concern is with the pattern of these flights. They have not been keeping to the pattern that they are suppose to with respect to landing and taking off. She questioned what she could do to get this problem taken care of. The Administrator stated that she would help draft a letter outlining this problem to the airport with Brichacek.

Beckman stated that he had asked the airport manager some time ago to consider initiating a letter of agreement with the FAA that would require the aircraft controllers to actively participate in turning aircrafts away from San Lorenzo. This has not been responded to. Beckman emailed the manager asking if he could help draft a document for the airport. He has still had no response. Beckman stated that this shows that the airport does not want to do anything about the issue. He said he would go to the Hayward City council and address the issue with them.

Beckman stated that the public has received nothing with respect to the issue of security at the Hayward Airport. Director Sherman asked the Board whether it would join Beckman in a letter asking the Hayward City Council to respond to the lack of security/public information on security at the Hayward Airport.

The consensus of the Board was to write a letter which would ask the Hayward City Council to address the issue of the lack of security/public information on security at the Hayward Airport.

7.4 Other Informational Items - The Administrator reported that there would be a hearing before the County Planning Commission on November 5th which would consider a moratorium on Grant Ave developments prior to a zoning study being conducted. She encouraged all residents to attend and stated that the Association office would be distributing notice to residents in the area prior to the meeting. Sorenson stated that the first process would be to agree to initiate a study for the area. The second issue would be whether or not there would be a moratorium on development while this study is underway. The other issue would be whether they consider the moratorium to include the rebar plant whose application is currently under review with the county planning department.

The Administrator noted that there are three hearings which are scheduled for November related to companies at the end of Grant Ave. The first is the rebar plant hearing, the second is an application for a wood recycling plant and lastly THARCO is applying for a conditional use hearing.

The Administrator also announced that she received notice that Hacienda Plaza is asking for less parking spaces in that shopping center in order to make room for a couple of handicap spaces. She stated that she has the plans in her office should any Board member or resident want to review them.

Sorenson announced that the county is requesting a proposal from contractors to bid on doing a study related to airport flight patterns and zoning and land use around airports. This study would be done with the Airport Land/Use Commission plan and there would be opportunity for community members to speak out about their concerns.

8.0 OTHER BUSINESS

8.1 Specific Plan Completion - James Sorenson, Alameda Co. Planning Director. The Administrator gave background information about the project. She stated that the Association has been trying to get a Specific Plan for this area for quite some time. The county agreed to work with the community to develop such a plan and in September of 1999 the county, the Association, community members and a panel of experts began to have community meetings to discuss what the vision for the community was. The meetings went until April 2000. The purpose of the plan was to guide future public and private actions within the plan area. Since that time there have been two or three meetings held to try and resolve loose ends.

One of the problems is the issue of the height of the buildings. Originally the community agreed to a 50 foot maximum height for the buildings. When the item went before the Planning Commission it was indicated that it would be a 50 foot average height, and that the architect wanted the flexibility to draft something that would be 60-70 feet in one area and drop down to 30 feet in another area of the development.

The other concern was with the change from home ownership to rental units for the area. The original plan showed mix-use with retail stores on the bottom, and senior housing or condominiums on top. The Association members thought that this would be ownership housing, however at another meeting the developer stated that it may be rental housing due to the fact that there may not be a market for ownership housing. The Association was told it would get back a drawing for the plan by mid September, however, since then it has heard nothing from the developer or architect. The Administrator then asked county Planning Director Jim Sorenson to speak to the Association to find out what it can do to move forward with the Specific Plan and/or with the developer.

Jim Sorenson stated that in the Spring of this past year the county realized it could have a general plan for the area or a more defined plan from a developer for the area. At this time Supervisor Steele had brought in the architectural firm, MVE into the process, introducing the firm to the area and the property owner. MVE showed some designs and ideas that captured what he thought was representative to the vision the Specific Task Force committee had developed in its meetings. MVE also brought along a developer, Civic Partners into the process who was willing to work with the Bohannon Organization to develop the area.

In June of this year the task force held a community meeting where Civic Partners and MVE heard what the community did and did not like about their proposal for development of the area. Sorenson stated that in a letter to him which he shared with the Association, Task Force members and the Planning Commission, they expressed an interest for developing a master plan for the area. This was going to serve a number of purposes; one, to give the community a concrete idea about what a realistic and financially feasible development might look like as opposed to a plan of guideline and ideas.

Sorenson stated that his staff met with the developer yesterday to go over where they are with the process of developing this plan. They had initially indicated to the county that they would start with a full community process by September of this year. The intention was to have some sort of plan to show to the community, but they are not there yet. He was encouraged as to what progress they have made. They are still working on some concepts raised by the community, i.e.: height and residential spacing. The elements that were built into the plan originally, the mixed use elements, pedestrian orientation and a public plaza were in their plan. Sorenson noted that the one area they were having difficulty in was making the plan financially feasible. There is a new Resolution that is making its way through State law which could affect whether the developer would be able to get the assistance from redevelopment funds that they were hoping for.

Sorenson stated that he was encouraged with what plans they had to show him in terms of open area, retail space, and height being kept at 50 feet maximum. They indicated to Sorenson that they would like to host a field trip and invite the Association Board as well as a few community members to look at developments in the area that would be similar to their plan. Sorenson stated that either he or the property owner, Bohannon could let the developer know whether the Board and community would like to do this. The timing for this field trip would be sometime in December of this year or January 2002.

Sorenson stated that the county had been hopeful that it could develop a general plan for the area by now, however they felt there was a distinctive disadvantage at developing a plan without a real developer involved. When Civic Partners and the Bohannon Organization got together the county was hopeful that it could have a much stronger, concrete plan in place. Sorenson stated that the county could go back to developing a plan with guidelines and sketches but the community currently has the opportunity with Civic Partners input, to create a plan that can actually be built, rather than one that is only conceptualized. He noted that if the county moves forward with the plan now, it still has to do an EIR. This is more difficult when there is not a development plan in place. Sorenson also stated that they have not identified funding in the county's planning department budget to do the EIR. The agreement with the Civic Partners was that once it developed its plan it would fund the EIR on that planned development.

Resident Howard Beckman said that if the county was serious about achieving a Specific Plan for San Lorenzo then the EIR would have been in the budget. He stated that the developer typically pays for an EIR anyway. The community has sat around for years and it now has a consensus of what it wants for the area. Beckman said that all the community wants now is a policy document, this is not the time to be quarreling over a developer's master plan. He said it makes him angry that the developer has an expectation of redevelopment funds prior to any community input/recommendations into how redevelopment funds are used in the area. He reminded the audience that the redevelopment district went hand in hand with the Specific Plan development.

Director Sherman stated that the community has waited for some time for the development of a plan. He has always been concerned about Civic Partners plan as it has been displayed to the community. The height and density of the units has changed since the original plan was brought to the community. As well as the issue of home ownership versus rental units in the plan. Sherman stated he would like to see an outline of the plan no later than January 2002 and does not understand why the community has had to wait so long to get something before it.

Director Ready is concerned that the Specific Plan has not been finalized after this long period of time. She is also concerned with the developer being so concerned about how much money it will make. All San Lorenzo wants is something that will add to a community atmosphere. She is concerned at how the plan has changed from home ownership units to rental units. Rental units would not be able to be monitored by the Homes Association and she is concerned with who the owner would be once Civic Partners sells the development after it has completed its phases for the area.

Sorenson stated that he understands the frustration of the community but noted that just adopting a plan does not give the community what it wants. A developed plan will give the community a real development. The county has spent a lot of time and effort on this project and the county is not turning its back on the community. A decision was made back in April 2001 that it would be better to develop the plan with a developer rather than to go off and adopt a plan that had community input, but was a plan that no developer would adopt. Sorenson stated that the community wants to see change for the area, something built. San Lorenzo will not get anything built without a partnership with a developer. The plan has to be financially feasible for the developer. The community needs to take this into account and to work with the property owner Bohannon and the developer. Sorenson stated that county wants to work with the community and felt that the best route would be to work with Civic Partners in developing an actual concrete plan for the area, however, if the community wants the county to move forward with a paper plan it can do that.

Director Ready stated that due to the fact that the Specific Plan has never been finished, she is concerned that it is being written as time goes on adding new things as new ideas from the developer arise. Sorenson stated that the Specific Plan has been developed and a draft has been circulated, the only thing not complete is an EIR on the document. The Specific Plan is an outline of guidelines and concepts which the developer Civic Partners seems to be following. Any developer would be following these same guidelines in its proposals for the area. Sorenson reiterated that the county can move forward with the Specific Plan, but the community needs to understand the Plan does not outline what will necessarily be built in the area nor give a concrete plan for the community to accept or reject. Sorenson asked the Board to give him some direction as to where the community wants to go with this process so that he can take the recommendation to the Planning Commission. Sorenson stressed that what is going to get San Lorenzo a downtown is a developed plan and not necessarily an outline of a plan. He stated that he understood that at some point the community would get tired of waiting for a concrete plan and move forward with the Specific Plan, however he wanted the Board to direct him as to whether the community has reached that point or wants to give Civic Partners some more time.

Director Ready asked why the Bohannon Organization cannot just put houses in the area. Sorenson stated that this could have been the outcome of the Task Force work but it wasn't. The Task Force wanted to have a downtown center, a commercial area. Bohannon stated that when Rite Aid was proposed this is where the development was headed with Rite Aid on one side and residential homes around it. He said that if the community scraps the present proposal that it has worked on, it would be a detriment to the area and to development. Bohannon stated that the community is very close to getting a new downtown. It will not be like the old San Lorenzo, however it will be a downtown area that many San Lorenzo residents have requested. Bohannon stated that the developer is "tip toeing" around due to the fact that it is not sure what everyone really wants. He questioned how much money a developer would spend without knowing that its plan would be accepted by the community.

The Administrator stated that the community has been very clear on what it wants and she stated that there are very few things the community disagrees with the developer on. What precipitated the delay to the plan was the issue on the height of the buildings. The community did not want more than 50 foot buildings, however they were willing to work with the developer. Bohannon stated that the developer is trying to the put these concerns into its plan, however it needs to make money. It is therefore looking into all avenues of revenue for the project including redevelopment funds. He stated that he is very encouraged at what Civic Partners is doing. The partnership between Bohannon and Civic Partners would be ongoing for 10 years or more until all phases of the development are complete. He encouraged the community to work with Civic Partners so that it can get a down town built. He stated that having the Specific Plan finalized now is not going to create a developed area, what will develop the area is when all parties come together to develop a concrete plan for a downtown area. A resident stated that the Board and the community have been very flexible about the height limit. He was under the impression that the developer was going to bring back a drawing of how the plan would look in the area. He stated that he was confused as to why the community needed to go on a field trip to other places, when all it wanted was a drawing of how the buildings would look in the area where the development was planned. He understands that a developer needs to make money, however there is a point where if the community can not get some of what it wants for the area, then it is not worth it to pursue the development.

Sorenson stated that he senses that the developer does not want to come back before the community until it knows the alternatives for the plan are actually feasible for its business.

Bohannon suggested that the community give the developer a couple more months to develop a plan for the area. Sorenson noted that the process to develop the Specific Plan for the community has come a long way and has been very beneficial to the community. The county has a plan for the area and has a developer interested due to this process. The community now needs to decide whether it wants to continue with this developer and its plan or to finalize the Specific Plan without a developer involved.

Resident Ann Brichacek asked whether Civic Partners is still in the process or is contemplating pulling out due to the downturn in the economy. Bohannon stated that Civic Partners is still very committed and is spending money without knowing if its plan will be accepted. They are still changing the plan as it relates to density and height with the community's concerns in mind. Brichacek questioned when the developer will be breaking ground on the plan. Bohannon stated that the developer is still looking into the financial feasibility. They are still waiting to see if redevelopment funds will be available and looking at which properties will be in the first and second phases. There is no specific time line for the development. Brichacek said that it is important that the community have some idea as to what the time line looks like so it can decide as to whether it is willing to wait. Sorenson suggested that the community give the developer until the end of the year or beginning of the year and reevaluate the plan to see where they are with the process. If at that time Civic Partners is still not ready, then the community can decide whether to continue with them or develop the Specific Plan, conduct the EIR and try to get another developer interested.

Supervisor Lai Bitker stated that she understands how the community would feel anxious about the process. She suggested that the community give the developer an opportunity to report on its progress and not necessarily give a final plan but to see where it is in the process. Bohannon stated that the developer is apprehensive to show the community anything because it is unsure whether its existing plan is financially feasible. Director Pebelier questioned what is going to happen if the Board lets the developer go ahead with its plans and then four years go by and they suddenly state they cannot go forward with the plan. She did not understand why Civic Partners did not come back to the Board as promised months ago to give a progress report as to where it was with its plan. This may have prevented some of the frustration the community is now feeling about the process.

Bohannon said he believed there was a misunderstanding as to what the developer meant in its letter about coming back in September. Sorenson read from the developer's letter which stated "commencement of the master plan with full community input would be expected to begin in mid-September". He stated that in the developer's view they "expected" but did not state they would necessarily be back in September. Bohannon stated that by questioning the developer is not going to speed the process. He stated that Civic Partners has been the only developer to have a plan for the area. No other developer has had the type of been interested. Resident Beckman said he is frustrated by the political process that has been hijacked by private interest. He stated that there are certain advantages to the developer and property owner having a development plan adopted by the Board of Supervisors as an amendment to the county's general plan. He stated that this information should be put on the table. Beckman would like to see a document that articulates the community's interest in the future. He disagrees with Bohannon as to what this process is all about, it is not about sitting down with a calculator and figuring out the profits of homes or properties for the area. It is about strengthening the community and taking into consideration the communities vision for what will make the area viable in the long term future. Rebuilding a commercial center was what the community felt would maintain a viable future for the area. He urged residents to look at what the legal consequences are involved when the Board of Supervisors adopts a private developers master plan. Beckman said that when a developer creates a master plan for an area, the community does not really have the privilege of "thumbs up or thumbs down" as to what is in the plan.

The Administrator pointed out that any developer needs to know what the community wants or does not want. This is one of the reasons she tried to get Civic Partners ideas for its plans before the community prior to it being developed. If the Specific Plan could be finished, then at least a developer would know what the community does or does not want. She stated that the community was almost there six months ago prior to the issue of the building height becoming a problem, but now it is six months later and the community still does not have a plan. She stated that the developer could produce sketches of the development for the area without expending a lot of money. The Administrator said that if the community decides to go ahead and adopt a Specific Plan, this may get other developers interested. She said that to wait indefinitely is a mistake and unfair to the community.

The Administrator stated that the last issue that needs to be addressed is the element of rental housing. The area to be developed is down town San Lorenzo. It is suppose to mean a lot to the community. If the plan contains a lot of rental housing then the developer needs to know that the community will not necessarily embrace this type of housing for the area, when its original understanding was to create "home ownership" in the area.

8.2 Approval of audit for FY 2000-2001 - The Administrator suggested to table this item until the next meeting for review since the community would be mailed a copy within the week. There were no objections to the tabling of this item until the November 2001 meeting.

8.3 Approval of election schedule - The Administrator stated that the election schedule would be as follows:

10/15/01- Nomination papers available to homeowners who wish to run for the Board.

11/5/01- Nomination Papers must be signed and submitted to SLVHA office by 5 PM

11/12/01- Candidate newsletter flyer to be submitted to SLVHA office by 5 pm

11/15/01- Board of Directors certify candidates and appoint "election board" 1st week of December- Ballots mailed out to all homeowners with their assessments

12/1/01-2/1/02 Ballots must be returned to SLVHA office

1st week of Feb 2002- Election Committee to tabulate ballots

The Administrator reminded the Board that there is one seat up for election this year. The consensus of the Board was to accept the election schedule for 2002.

9.0 PUBLIC COMMENT - None.

10.0 COMMITTEE REPORTS

10.1 Council on the Prevention of Drinking and Driving - Director Spears reported that at the last meeting the Administrator of MADD reported that each county had its own chapter with the exception of Contra Costa County and Alameda County. Alameda county is just putting its chapter together. He also showed the statistics for DUIs in the last few years, showing that each year there is an increase in the number of DUIs.

11.0 COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS - Director Ready thanked residents for attending.

12.0 ADJOURNMENT - President Jim Sherman adjourned the meeting at 9:43 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

Pat Pebelier
Secretary-Treasurer

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

October 18, 2001 board work session, variances from CC&Rs:

17393 Via Magdalena - Chain link fence- approved with conditions.
1753 Keller - 6'8" side fence - requested because of hot tub --approved.
17269 Via Chiquita and 1311 Via Coralla side yard step fences - approved.
16057 Via Olinda front yard existing pavement (put in 7 years ago) exceeding 50% of yard - approved with conditions and time line for changing pavement to rock.
17475 Via Estrella - Front yard step fence - approved.
908 Via Honda - 6 foot front yard stone fence and 7 foot wooden backyard fence - 6 foot front yard stone fence denied at a setback of 10 ft, however, approved at current location.
1585 Via Amigos - Front yard fence - 4 ft dividing property line - approved.