Post by 29Mossdale on Jan 23, 2006 23:42:23 GMT -8
I received in the mail the proposed changes to our rules and regulations (R&R’s), and I encourage everyone to attend our next association meeting on 2/14, as our board will vote to implement the changes.
The changes were proposed and set for voting last year, and enough residences appeared at that meeting, to voice their comments, that the board did postponed implementing the changes last year, plus the board also asked for resident input.
I do appreciate the board hearing the residents and making changes to the proposals. In particular, I think the board did an outstanding effort with the proposed no overnight parking. I also endorse the changes for boats & RV’s. Plus, I like how the board added disabled parking spaces next to the Lodge.
But I’m still opposed to the proposal to restrict Lodge parking, because I think it’s a change that benefits a minority, and it permanently removes a privilege the rest of the residents had when our community was first built.
I’m also opposed to including motorized scooters in the proposed list of motorized vehicles to ban, because I believe it goes against our California Vehicle Code (21220, 21221, & 21230) that allows motorized scooters on streets and bicycle trails.
First, allow me to explain my opposition to restricting the Lodge parking. Our CC&R’s state that (4.2.7.c) “Rules and Regulations must apply uniformly to all Owners”. I think this change benefits primarily the residents across from the Lodge, or about 6 out of 321 homes in our community. They directly benefit by having no vehicles parked on their street. The rest of us lose out, because, when we use the lodge, our guests cannot park next to the lodge.
My second concern with the Lodge parking is that the R&R’s were “established to maintain and enhance the property values within our gated community”. Restricting Lodge parking does not maintain or enhance our property value. It’s an enforcement proposal for the benefit of the residents on Wildflower Way. This proposal is being implemented counter to the spirit and intent of our R&R’s.
My third concern is the excessive fines imposed (“residents who do not comply with this rule will loose all or a portion of their deposit”), for not parking (including guests) on Mountain Laurel Way. Our R&R’s have a section (Enforcement Procedures) that covers violations of the R&R’s; however, this change ignores our established enforcement procedures and policy.
Our streets and curb parking is for public usage, and all our streets and curbs should be opened for public usage, without restrictions for either the residents or guests, and that’s why I still oppose the changes to the Lodge Use section.
Not proposed last year is the ban on motorized vehicles. Specifically, the proposal does not permit motorized vehicles (such as skateboards, scooters, and bicycles) on our roads, sidewalks, and common areas. I’m surprised that mini choppers (also known as pocket bikes) are not on the banned list, unless it’s covered under the “motorized vehicles” portion of the change.
If I’m interpreting “motorized” incorrectly, then my apologies, but I’m interpreting motorized to mean either gas or electrically powered, so one can make a case this change also ban’s items like Fisher Price’s Power Wheels electric vehicles for kids age 1 to 6 years.
But my concern is the proposed ban on motorized scooters, which the DMV (21220.5 & 407.5) defines as powered by an electric motor, like the razor models. The DMV allows a motorized scooter on streets, as long as the person has a valid training permit or license. Can our R&R’s have a rule and regulation that goes against California vehicle code?
Also, motorized scooters are allowed on a bicycle path, trail, or bikeway, unless prohibited by a local ordinance. I would hope that our board modifies the proposed traffic restriction by allowing motorized scooters on our walking paths, which also allows an easy way for the scooter to gain access to the bicycle trail next to San Gabriel Canyon Road.
The changes were proposed and set for voting last year, and enough residences appeared at that meeting, to voice their comments, that the board did postponed implementing the changes last year, plus the board also asked for resident input.
I do appreciate the board hearing the residents and making changes to the proposals. In particular, I think the board did an outstanding effort with the proposed no overnight parking. I also endorse the changes for boats & RV’s. Plus, I like how the board added disabled parking spaces next to the Lodge.
But I’m still opposed to the proposal to restrict Lodge parking, because I think it’s a change that benefits a minority, and it permanently removes a privilege the rest of the residents had when our community was first built.
I’m also opposed to including motorized scooters in the proposed list of motorized vehicles to ban, because I believe it goes against our California Vehicle Code (21220, 21221, & 21230) that allows motorized scooters on streets and bicycle trails.
First, allow me to explain my opposition to restricting the Lodge parking. Our CC&R’s state that (4.2.7.c) “Rules and Regulations must apply uniformly to all Owners”. I think this change benefits primarily the residents across from the Lodge, or about 6 out of 321 homes in our community. They directly benefit by having no vehicles parked on their street. The rest of us lose out, because, when we use the lodge, our guests cannot park next to the lodge.
My second concern with the Lodge parking is that the R&R’s were “established to maintain and enhance the property values within our gated community”. Restricting Lodge parking does not maintain or enhance our property value. It’s an enforcement proposal for the benefit of the residents on Wildflower Way. This proposal is being implemented counter to the spirit and intent of our R&R’s.
My third concern is the excessive fines imposed (“residents who do not comply with this rule will loose all or a portion of their deposit”), for not parking (including guests) on Mountain Laurel Way. Our R&R’s have a section (Enforcement Procedures) that covers violations of the R&R’s; however, this change ignores our established enforcement procedures and policy.
Our streets and curb parking is for public usage, and all our streets and curbs should be opened for public usage, without restrictions for either the residents or guests, and that’s why I still oppose the changes to the Lodge Use section.
Not proposed last year is the ban on motorized vehicles. Specifically, the proposal does not permit motorized vehicles (such as skateboards, scooters, and bicycles) on our roads, sidewalks, and common areas. I’m surprised that mini choppers (also known as pocket bikes) are not on the banned list, unless it’s covered under the “motorized vehicles” portion of the change.
If I’m interpreting “motorized” incorrectly, then my apologies, but I’m interpreting motorized to mean either gas or electrically powered, so one can make a case this change also ban’s items like Fisher Price’s Power Wheels electric vehicles for kids age 1 to 6 years.
But my concern is the proposed ban on motorized scooters, which the DMV (21220.5 & 407.5) defines as powered by an electric motor, like the razor models. The DMV allows a motorized scooter on streets, as long as the person has a valid training permit or license. Can our R&R’s have a rule and regulation that goes against California vehicle code?
Also, motorized scooters are allowed on a bicycle path, trail, or bikeway, unless prohibited by a local ordinance. I would hope that our board modifies the proposed traffic restriction by allowing motorized scooters on our walking paths, which also allows an easy way for the scooter to gain access to the bicycle trail next to San Gabriel Canyon Road.
