Personal Notes, HOA Meeting 02-19-2020

HOA Meeting Notes 02-19-2020.

 Directors Present: Scott Kiefner, Dave Quinsey, Chris Andre, Ed Wenz, Tom Wright

 FirstService Residential, Richard Ford, Senior Community Manager; and Chelsey Chapman

  HOMEOWNER FORUM

 Homeowner asked:

What is the plan to maintain the fuel modification zone (FMZ) on the slope by our house?

--HOA refused to respond.

When will the irrigation be resumed on the slope by our house?

-- HOA refused to respond.

Since the landscape contract includes maintenance for the slope, is there any reason that they don’t work on the slope?

-- HOA refused to respond.

Is Northstar or Sky Ranch responsible for the prohibited pepper tree in FMZ area by Calico?

-- HOA refused to respond.

Homeowner said he sent email to FirstService asking about citations/fines paid by the HOA to the City but received no response despite the legal obligation of the HOA to provide financial information. 

Homeowner showed information that he received from the City that said that the HOA has been fined at least two more times.  They failed to respond to the first notice of violation, so a second fine was issued.

 Homeowner asked who is responsible for failing to respond to the City.  Is it the HOA or FirstService?

--HOA refused to answer the question.

Homeowner said that the HOA doesn’t communicate with homeowners and doesn’t communicate with the City, and it costs us.

Homeowner read from the City notice of violation which included comments about the condition of landscape in the drainage basin.  Homeowner recommended that the HOA advise the community members who are recreating in the drainage basins and damaging the landscape.

Notice of Violation and fines to the HOA by the City (pdf).

END HOMEOWNER FORUM

 No discussion of consent calendar items.

 Fence maintenance correspondence.  Discussed it immediately before the meeting.  Had to use the solid color stain rather than the more transparent look.  Samples on Cala Lily and Claret.  Using transparent stain results in more inconsistent view given weathering, sun etc.  Revised proposal total $13,533.  Approved unanimously.

 Cost sharing:  NorthStar (condos) has further questions.  Scott has a meeting with them March 5.

 No variance requests.

 Homeowner correspondence: 

-Request on status of fence project.  No discussion.

 Vendor correspondence:

-Request for additional Lantana

-Additional color and vegetation on Bella Vista & Claret

-Agave on Mariposa

-More color at the monument

All approved unanimously except the monument which was tabled

 They are currently removing some irrigation at the end of Ocotillo and replacing it with drip

 AMS 2020 Price Change Implementation

Intent to lien and other price increases.

Increased cost approved unanimously

 California Consumer Privacy Act:  apparently a statement within the director’s documents about how FirstService is complying and not overly sharing information.

 Security Camera discussion.

 <HOA asked that some information such as cost and camera capability be redacted to avoid harming contract negotiations, therefore some information below has been redacted. If you would like that information, please contact me directly.>

 $xx,000 - $xx,000 for cameras, vendor California Gate

 A new company Flock Safety is providing stand alone cameras, using solar and cell technology, rather than wired.  $x000 per year per camera and pole.  They require a 2 year contract.  $xx00 per 6 ft poles, 14 ft poles cost $xx0 extra install fee.    Two poles, ingress and egress, might be sufficient.  They will photograph the entire car including make, model, color, license plate number.  FirstService asked if they could guarantee that they capture plates.  Chris said they are xxxxp resolution and will capture plates.  Vandalism coverage is included for the camera, but Chris will confirm.  It stores data up to 30 days.  They would need to determine who gets access to the imagery.  It can be arranged so that the vender directly supplies the information to the police.  FirstService recommends that the HOA create a camera policy if they were to get cameras.  Scott prefers one camera rather than two.  Tom asked, for example, if there was a break-in would they look at every car in a time period.  Scott pointed out that homeowners have cameras, and Chris said homeowners might be able to supply the make or color of the car.

Scott’s opposition is privacy.  Tom says the rules could change under another board.

Chapman mentions the importance of the HOA being able to confirm that the system is working.   Chris agreed, he said for example, they didn’t know that the irrigation smart controllers weren’t working.  Ed agreed that verification is needed.  Verification is not part of the FirstService contract.

Tom asked what we are trying to prevent?  What are we trying to accomplish?  Scott mentioned the porch pirate issues.  Tom said it is a homeowner issue.  Scott says homeowners cameras don’t capture plates.  Tom says his cameras capture plates.  Dave asked their evidentiary value.  Scott said that law enforcement personnel say that they are very helpful.  Tom said the plate capture is like big brother.  Chris mentioned the prevalence of cameras.  Chris said homeowner camera resolutions are too low.  Tom said it would be an attempt to resolve a problem that the homeowners can address.  Richard said SDPD won’t pursue if it is less than a felony, though Sheriff may be different.  Chelsea said they need to tell homeowners that cameras aren’t a guarantee of safety. 

 Ed, asked about the neighborhood watch?  Chris said that it hasn’t worked.  Ed says the technology is changing fast so maybe move slowly.

 Scott said a short contract is attractive.

 Tabled the camera issue until the next meeting.  Chris will provide additional information for the board packet.

 No prospective date and location for the next meeting.