“Election Results”
The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. by VP Jayne Handley, the board vice president, who was running the meeting in the absence of President William Wesley. Prior to the open main meeting, an executive session was held where the board reviewed an appeal, approved executive meeting minutes, reviewed some contracts, and discussed the reserve study update.
The meeting agenda included an “Open Forum”, approval of meeting minutes from March 11th and April 10th, review and approval of financials for February, March, and April, discussion of the “delinquency report”, committee reports (Architectural and Social), and “unfinished business” (Adu guidance). No new business or emergency business was discussed. The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m.. Attendees were informed that an election inspector would be online at 6:00 p.m. for the ballot count related to the recall election.
“Primary Issues Discussed”
The primary issues that generated significant discussion, particularly from the members, were:
1. “Parking Restrictions and Red Painted Curbs”: Several members voiced strong opposition to proposed “no parking” restrictions or painting curbs red. They argued that it was unnecessary, would be unsightly, and could negatively impact property values and neighbor relationships. Concerns were also raised about how such restrictions would affect guest parking and deliveries (UPS, FedEx, DoorDash, lawn maintenance vehicles) and how enforcement would be handled. Cal Fire recommendations regarding street width (36ft standard, 32ft on Bridle Ridge Dr., 29ft on several cul-de-sacs like Oak Ridge, Bay Bridge, Post Oak, Ironstone, Autumn Rock) and turnaround requirements for dead-end streets (over 150ft long needing 200ft turnarounds) were mentioned by one speaker as potentially driving the need for parking changes. However, another speaker countered that emergency vehicles have not had issues in their cul-de-sacs in the past.
2. “Special Assessment for the Recall Election”: The timing and breakdown of the special assessment approved by the board to cover the costs of the recall election were questioned by members. The board had approved an assessment based on the cost of the last recall, and homeowners had already been charged. However, the final cost for the current recall was not yet known because the process was not complete. Members requested a breakdown of these costs and questioned why the assessment was levied before the final cost was determined. The board explained that the money was needed to pay people involved in the recall process and that if the final cost was less than assessed, the difference would be reimbursed. The breakdown from the last recall was mentioned as being available.
3. “Reserve Study Update”: Two members inquired about the reserve study update, which was discussed during the executive session. They questioned why this information was not public record. Speaker 4 noted that the reserve study was linked to a recent fee increase.
Other business discussed included:
– Approving March 11th and April 10th meeting minutes.
– Approving financials for February, March, and April.
– Reporting on CD investments, noting year-to-date interest earned on reserve funds.
– Approving sending a delinquency notice for unpaid regular assessments but tabling action on unpaid special assessments.
– Receiving the Architectural Committee report summary, which included approvals for landscape changes, paint color changes, tree removal, resubmitted landscape plans, pergola installation, garage door replacement, and a driveway expansion. One garage door replacement application was referred to the board under appeal.
– Noting that there was no report from the Social Committee.
– Tabling the discussion on ADU guidance until after the recall election results are known.
“Member Comments”
Several members participated in the Open Forum and spoke on various topics:
* “Priscilla Marin (The Management Company-facilitating Open Forum)”: Mentioned two people present in the room initially, then corrected to three, and noted three online with another logging in. Asked if speakers in the room should go first. Asked who spoke about “red curves” (identified as Carolyn). Managed the queue of online speakers.
* “(Nathan)”: Stated he only wanted to speak about the “growth of Covid” and “red curves” during the open forum.
* “ (Carolyn Goodall)”: Identified herself as the speaker about “red curves”.
* “ (Mr. Goodall)”:
* Discussed street widths in the neighborhood, noting the standard is 36ft, which allows parking on two sides and two lanes of traffic.
* Stated Bridle Ridge Dr. is 36ft, meeting Cal Fire recommendations, but narrows to 32ft near the back gate.
* Noted several cul-de-sacs (Oak Ridge, Bay Bridge, Post Oak, Ironstone, Autumn Rock) are only 29ft wide, making them candidates for parking on only one side.
* Pointed out that these narrow cul-de-sacs also do not comply with Cal Fire turnaround requirements, as they are over 150ft long but lack the required 200ft turnarounds, except for Donald Ridge on radius.
* Questioned how changing parking designations for current homeowners, who purchased without such restrictions, would affect property values.
* Stated that not all streets needing signs currently have them.
* Asked where overnight guests should park if no parking is allowed in front of the homeowner’s house.
* Asked how fines would be assessed if an unauthorized vehicle parks in front of a neighbor’s house where there are no restrictions.
* Questioned how parking restrictions, especially red curbs, would affect deliveries from UPS, FedEx, DoorDash, and lawn maintenance vehicles.
* Inquired who would enforce these rules besides neighbor watch, as mentioned in a letter.
* Questioned why the reserve study update was discussed in executive session and not public record, asking why residents would not want to know about updates.
* “Speaker 3 (Mr. Hogan)”:
* Expressed frustration that the “red curve stuff” was scheduled after the open forum instead of being the first topic.
* Argued that no “no parking” signs or red curbs are needed because the CC&Rs state no homeowner should park on the street, and streets are virtually empty at night except for occasional guests.
* Stated that this means there should be no hindrance to emergency vehicles and noted two emergency vehicles had no problems in his cul-de-sac.
* Called painting curbs red “ridiculous” and “unsightly”.
* Observed that other nearby neighborhoods have virtually no red painted curbs or painted “no parking” lanes.
* Believed painting curbs red is a “pointless thing” that doesn’t need to be done and would negatively affect property values.
* Reiterated that the board should make sure residents know and have input before painting curbs red, as they had not done so.
* “ (Kirby Shields)”:
* Had the same question as Jim Goodall about the reserve study, believing it was related to the recent fee increase and hoping the information could be shared with the community.
* Stated they would not prefer to have curbs painted red.
* Questioned the breakdown of the special assessment cost, noting they had asked previously but hadn’t seen it.
* Suggested that the lack of a clear cost breakdown might be why some homeowners haven’t paid the assessment.
* Believed residents “deserve to know” what the breakdown looks like.
* Expressed a lack of understanding about what the special assessment fee entails, speaking for themselves as they were not part of the last recall.
* “ (Deb Storm)”:
* Echoed the sentiments of others regarding red curbs and parking changes.
* Stressed the importance of letting the community participate in major decisions that affect property values and neighbor relationships.
* Questioned the need for the restrictions, noting Oak Ridge has an exit and entrance and doesn’t require turnarounds. Suggested that one-way traffic could be implemented during an emergency if needed.
* Expressed complete opposition to painting curbs red or implementing parking changes.
* Brought up the issue of neighbors having large dead trees or vegetation, noting her reluctance to report it but the necessity due to insurance inspections.
* Stated that dead trees negatively impact the assessment of a home’s insurability by companies like State Farm.
* Suggested that the board should mandate the removal of large dead trees.
* “Speaker 3 (Dennis)”:
* Commented that it seemed “ridiculous” that November meeting minutes were only available just before the May meeting, and January minutes hadn’t been sent out.
* Argued that minutes should be distributed in a timely fashion (within a week or two) so people can review them and decide if they need to attend the next meeting.
The discussion briefly returned to the special assessment timing, with a speaker in the room questioning why the assessment was made before the final cost was known, especially since there are reserve funds. The board president reiterated that the money was needed to pay people involved in the recall. The meeting facilitator then attempted to move forward, noting the open forum was concluding.
Election Results:
Recall Votes=For Recall Entire Board of Directors-29 votes, Opposed to Recall-10 votes
Selection of Directors Voting Results
Carolyn Goodall – 25 votes (Two Year Term winner)
Liz Grisham – 15 votes
Jayne Handley – 15 votes
William Wesley – 23 votes (One Year Term winner)
Eddie Williams – 29 votes (Two Year Term winner)
