Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Thanks for your comments

Comments on proposed parking rules are always welcomed and are posted in full when the commenter includes some ID.

For those following the comments, please look under all current blog postings for comments.  I noticed that a recent comment was posted to an older blog, so be sure to check them all.

Regarding the comments so far:
1. The rules would only be enforced at night, when the parking problem is the greatest and the patrol people are on duty.  There are essentially no restrictions on daytime parking - number of guests, etc.
2. These proposed rules are really quite similar to existing rules, with the exception, of course, that the proposed rules actually provide an objective means of determining which vehicles should be in a garage at night.
3. Please look closely at the means of monitoring parking.  The only vehicles that would be subject to fine and/or towing are those that are unregistered or should be in a garage and are parked overnight for three nights out of seven.  If your significant other stays overnight three or more times per week, good for you, but all you have to do is put his/her car in your garage one of those nights.  It's not rocket science.
4. The regulations under which Copper Hill was built require 2.25 parking spaces per unit.  With a 2-car garage, the two spaces are in the garage; with a 1-car garage, one space is inside and one is outside.  That's such a straightforward concept.  The proposed policy obeys the city's regulations and is completely logical. 
5. Fines are large because they get people's attention and maybe even make people think twice about willful violations.  I would be thrilled if we never had to levy a fine - it would mean everyone recognizes the CCRs and all are using their garages as intended.  Fines are not fundraisers.
6. According to the patrol company, the current rules are unenforceable.  They cannot tell who should be parked outside overnight and who should not be.  The proposed rules provide a completely objective means of making this determination.  No neighborly snitches, no false accusations, no intrusive and illegal garage inspections.  Please, post an alternative that is objective and thorough and easily enforced.  I assure you it will be carefully considered.

Keep those comments coming, please.

3 comments:

  1. Hi,

    While I understand the 2.25 parking ratio very clearly, based on the size of the units, can we get clarification on the 3rd vehicle for people who own a two unit garage who already uses their garage for two vehicles? I read in the rules, "Residents in a unit are the owners of three or more vehicles" when it refers to granting an exception. However, in is stated in the "Garage Policy" section of the document that no registered vehicle of a two car unit may park registered vehicles outside overnight. This seems somewhat contradictory unless we are only required to register up to the units allowed by our garage size.

    I'm just trying to clarify what happens to the 3rd vehicle in 1 garage units and the 3rd vehicle in a 2 garage unit.

    Thanks again.

    36-1606

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am vehemently opposed to the idea of yet more parking restrictions. I believe I have some very good reasons which I will try my best to explain clearly in the hope that my fellow home owners and even the Board of Directors would agree and stop this proposal where it stands.

    About me: I am a Copper Hill home owner since the beginning of the development. I own a unit with a one car garage. Since buying the Copper Hill unit, my family has grown enough to encourage a move to a bigger place. On the other hand, my unit's property value has decreased way beyond the point to sell without enduring a huge financial loss. Due to this conflict, my wife and I decided to start renting our home in Copper Hill and moved from there.

    ALL of my tenants over the years have had "run-ins" with the parking authorities.

    Tenant #1: This tenant downsized from a house to my unit - he put his extra furniture and belongings in the garage and parked his car outside. One day, he received a letter from the HOA for not using his space in the garage to park his car. I immediately sent an email to the HOA asking them to stop "harassing" my tenant and explained the situation. They obliged and everyone went their ways.

    The new GARAGE POLICY would make this case worse - unless big brother gave us permission to use the car for a purpose other than parking a car. I feel that a GARAGE is our personal space and that it should not be dictated what we can and can not do with it.

    Furthermore, if each unit was designed to have 2.25 parking spaces (accdg. to posting above), then the amount of spaces in the community should suffice and balance between guests, those of us who simply can not use the garage for parking, and the rest of us who use the garage for its intended purpose.

    Tenant #2: This particular tenant owned two cars, one that he housed in the garage and the other a commuter car that was parked outside. His commuter was towed when he was travelling for work for more than 7 days under our current Copper Hill parking policy. The tenant became rightfully upset! I explained to him that it was his responsibility to pay the fines and retrieve his car since he did not notify me or the HOA that he was leaving town for more than 7 days.

    What happens when one of us forgets to notify the HOA? We simply have too much on our minds to then come back from vacation and find our car missing. This is not San Francisco where parking is scarce. There is plenty of it to go around - 2.25 spots per unit to be exact! Before towing under such situations, I say that more than one attempt should be made to more than one party (a second person designated by the Copper Hill resident) before a parking violation results in a tow.

    Tenant #3: This particular tenant also has two cars, one issued by his company and the other for personal use. One car is parked in the garage, and the other outside.

    This tenant had several notes left on the windshield by the parking patrol stating that his car had not been moved whereas the car had indeed been moved. I asked my tenant to contact Tony Khani at the HOA directly to resolve the issue and I sent the HOA a letter myself expressing my disappointment. In turn, Tony from the HOA contacted Bay Area Patrol to resolve the issue. This was due to mistakes made by the parking authority and not by my tenant.

    In my opinion, the parking rules are already strict enough and we should not waste any more man power, money, and time on this issue. I feel that this is a waste of our resources when there are bigger issues such as the neglect to maintenance and it's relation to the law suit against Ryland.

    I say that if someone is clearly disobeying the rules and taking advantage of the parking situation, we take every action to correct the offense. But to impose yet more these heavy handed restrictions should not be an option. We don't want to make our lives more complicated than they already are.

    ReplyDelete
  3. i think it is sad the the board is trying to change the parking rules, leave the rules as there where or let the members vote. on this not just the elect board member,we are the member that put them in office, rethink this plan and come with other plan thank you 036-1906

    ReplyDelete