Comments for Niguel Shores Community Association http://www.niguelshores.org 33654 Niguel Shores Drive, Monarch Beach, CA 92629 - (949) 493 0122 Wed, 22 Feb 2012 01:00:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 Comment on Post a Web Comment by Steve Stewart http://www.niguelshores.org/2011/12/post-a-comment/#comment-902 Steve Stewart Wed, 22 Feb 2012 01:00:40 +0000 http://www.niguelshores.org/?p=1080#comment-902 There was an act of arson in the MPR area but the damage was relatively minor. The arson occurred at 3:45 AM on 2-7. Our Maintenance staff repaired most of the damage by 2-10. The Orange County Fire Department has an arson investigation underway and they have our closed circuit camera footage of the arsonist entering the pool area. It should allow them to identify the perpetrator. There are efforts being taken to prevent a recurrence by this individual and any prosecution would be up to the County. There was an act of arson in the MPR area but the damage was relatively minor. The arson occurred at 3:45 AM on 2-7. Our Maintenance staff repaired most of the damage by 2-10.
The Orange County Fire Department has an arson investigation underway and they have our closed circuit camera footage of the arsonist entering the pool area. It should allow them to identify the perpetrator. There are efforts being taken to prevent a recurrence by this individual and any prosecution would be up to the County.

]]> Comment on Post a Web Comment by Art Staudenbaur http://www.niguelshores.org/2011/12/post-a-comment/#comment-886 Art Staudenbaur Sat, 18 Feb 2012 16:38:16 +0000 http://www.niguelshores.org/?p=1080#comment-886 I understand there was a fire in our patio fireplace area recently (furniture and exterior of building burned) and it was caused by an arsonist. (related to a resident) What is happening with this, cost of repairs and our legal recourse? Thanks I understand there was a fire in our patio fireplace area recently (furniture and exterior of building burned) and it was caused by an arsonist. (related to a resident) What is happening with this, cost of repairs and our legal recourse?
Thanks

]]> Comment on Architecture Committee by Karen Decker, NSCA Community Manager http://www.niguelshores.org/2011/09/architecture-committee/#comment-821 Karen Decker, NSCA Community Manager Tue, 07 Feb 2012 19:47:04 +0000 http://www.niguelshores.org/community/?p=64#comment-821 The project on Perth Bay is under continued preliminary review with the Architectural Committee. A preliminary review is for commentary purpose only and will not result in the approval or disapproval of the project. Unlike a final application submittal, a preliminary review application has no deadline. Rule 3122 Neighbor Notification provides that a mock up of the proposed project will remain in place while the project is under review. The Architectural Committee is working with the owner of this property to find a compromise solution that will allow the owner to expand their property without creating an unreasonable impact on other properties. All previously notified parties will again be notified once a resolution has been obtained or the application is otherwise closed. The project on Perth Bay is under continued preliminary review with the Architectural Committee. A preliminary review is for commentary purpose only and will not result in the approval or disapproval of the project. Unlike a final application submittal, a preliminary review application has no deadline. Rule 3122 Neighbor Notification provides that a mock up of the proposed project will remain in place while the project is under review. The Architectural Committee is working with the owner of this property to find a compromise solution that will allow the owner to expand their property without creating an unreasonable impact on other properties. All previously notified parties will again be notified once a resolution has been obtained or the application is otherwise closed.

]]> Comment on Architecture Committee by Carole Daly http://www.niguelshores.org/2011/09/architecture-committee/#comment-820 Carole Daly Tue, 07 Feb 2012 19:08:05 +0000 http://www.niguelshores.org/community/?p=64#comment-820 I totally agree with Janet and Roy Dohner's comment on the Colima Bay and Perth Bay situation. The story poles on Perth Bay have been up for over six months. We home owners have attended meetings and were told that this item was not being discussed and there is no response to the most recent emails I have sent to the office. There are homes currently on the market and when a prospective buyer sees those poles the market value of the for sale home is being affected. How long must we wait before the homeowner in question presents plans to the Architectural Committee and how long will it take before the Board takes action? This has become a very stressful situation. I totally agree with Janet and Roy Dohner’s comment on the Colima Bay and Perth Bay situation. The story poles on Perth Bay have been up for over six months. We home owners have attended meetings and were told that this item was not being discussed and there is no response to the most recent emails I have sent to the office.

There are homes currently on the market and when a prospective buyer sees those poles the market value of the for sale home is being affected. How long must we wait before the homeowner in question presents plans to the Architectural Committee and how long will it take before the Board takes action?

This has become a very stressful situation.

]]> Comment on Master Landscape Program Update by Suzanne Enis http://www.niguelshores.org/2012/01/master-landscape-program-2012/#comment-815 Suzanne Enis Mon, 06 Feb 2012 19:46:40 +0000 http://www.niguelshores.org/?p=1727#comment-815 The Mariner entrance was NOT “dated looking” when we had the beautiful new plantings by the monuments that Harvest was allowed to remove and trash when they came onboard. Talk about wasting money!! The Mariner entrance was NOT “dated looking” when we had the beautiful new plantings by the monuments that Harvest was allowed to remove and trash when they came onboard. Talk about wasting money!!

]]> Comment on Master Landscape Program Update by Steve Stewart, NSCA Board President http://www.niguelshores.org/2012/01/master-landscape-program-2012/#comment-816 Steve Stewart, NSCA Board President Sat, 04 Feb 2012 00:42:35 +0000 http://www.niguelshores.org/?p=1727#comment-816 1. Due to what was learned from the slope projects completed in 2011, the Board changed direction on projects fo 2012. It was determined that Sunset Park and a partial renovation of the Nauticus slope will be the principle Master Landscape projects for 2012. For those projects we are in the process of finalizing design and plant selections. We will then request bids from landscape contractors for each project. We are hoping to complete both projects for less than the $350,000 amount allocated in the 2012 budget. 2. The 2011 fiscal year financials show a $286,000 surplus from operations. That surplus will be transferred to reserves. At 12-31-2010 the Reserves were 68% funded. Because of this year end transfer and the ordinary reserve transfers made in 2011, Reserves will be 72% funded at 12-31-2011. We estimate they will be 80% funded at 12-31-2015. We do not presently see any circumstance that would cause us to need a special assessment for Reserve purposes. 1. Due to what was learned from the slope projects completed in 2011, the Board changed direction on projects fo 2012. It was determined that Sunset Park and a partial renovation of the Nauticus slope will be the principle Master Landscape projects for 2012. For those projects we are in the process of finalizing design and plant selections. We will then request bids from landscape contractors for each project. We are hoping to complete both projects for less than the $350,000 amount allocated in the 2012 budget.

2. The 2011 fiscal year financials show a $286,000 surplus from operations. That surplus will be transferred to reserves. At 12-31-2010 the Reserves were 68% funded. Because of this year end transfer and the ordinary reserve transfers made in 2011, Reserves will be 72% funded at 12-31-2011. We estimate they will be 80% funded at 12-31-2015. We do not presently see any circumstance that would cause us to need a special assessment for Reserve purposes.

]]> Comment on Architecture Committee by Roy and Janet Dohner http://www.niguelshores.org/2011/09/architecture-committee/#comment-818 Roy and Janet Dohner Fri, 03 Feb 2012 21:10:04 +0000 http://www.niguelshores.org/community/?p=64#comment-818 Our AC rules must be changed as soon as possible. We need the Board to approve a simple paragraph, “No changes are permitted, to the envelope of any existing or proposed structure, that would reduce existing privacy, or views including open sky space”. The second story underconstruction on a single story Garden Home on Colima Bay is an unfortunate legal compromise that should have never happened. Now it seems another unfortunate mistake may be in the works on Perth Bay. . Flags/Story Poles have been in place, for months, they extend well above the existing roof line. If the Perth Bay roofline goes up to the indicated height it will signficantly reduce ocean views for many. In fact, the flags alone could bring down property values of any houses currently on the market. We urge the Board to please take action to get those flags down as soon as possible and to eliminate future reductions of privacy, views and open sky space. Our AC rules must be changed as soon as possible. We need the Board to approve a simple paragraph, “No changes are permitted, to the envelope of any existing or proposed structure, that would reduce existing privacy, or views including open sky space”. The second story underconstruction on a single story Garden Home on Colima Bay is an unfortunate legal compromise that should have never happened. Now it seems another unfortunate mistake may be in the works on Perth Bay. . Flags/Story Poles have been in place, for months, they extend well above the existing roof line. If the Perth Bay roofline goes up to the indicated height it will signficantly reduce ocean views for many. In fact, the flags alone could bring down property values of any houses currently on the market. We urge the Board to please take action to get those flags down as soon as possible and to eliminate future reductions of privacy, views and open sky space.

]]> Comment on CC&R Ballot Amendment Results by Gary Tinnes http://www.niguelshores.org/2012/01/ccr-ballot-amendment-results/#comment-822 Gary Tinnes Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:41:11 +0000 http://www.niguelshores.org/?p=1688#comment-822 Experience gained from my recent 2 years tenure as an NSCA director informs my personal opinion: The problem with the Town Meeting method to disseminate information about the importance of this critical amendment ... is apathy. Two requests have been mailed to all NSCA members in the last 10 months regarding this issue. The first was with the Annual Ballot for new directors in April 2011. Although a quorum was reached and voters clearly stated their preference in electing 2 new directors, most voters failed to mark their vote for or against the amendment, except for quorum purpose. As well, although there are 960 homes in Niguel Shores, there are rarely more than 3 dozen people who attend formal Open Session board meetings in the multi-purpose room of our community center, and many times there are fewer. (And usually, a majority of those attending are the same interested 2 dozen or so people who would be there most of the time.) Likely the reason for this is the vast majority of association member homeowners are for the most part pleased with life in The Shores. The landscaping is attended to, the streets are clean, traffic flows smoothly, association dues are maintained at a reasonably low rate compared to other local associations, etc. The board's understanding, and the understandin of your neighbors who have voted for the amendment, informed by our association's attorneys, is the need for this amendment is to close what is perceived by certain litigants as a "loophole" in the original CC&Rs drafted 4 decades ago by AVCO, the original developer. The only tract built at the outset when the CC&Rs were drafted was the Broadmoor tract. The original CC&Rs are specific to that tract. However, there were 8 additional tracts built subsequently. Berkus homes, Garden homes, Villas, Custom homes, Breakers Isle, Townhomes and such. Some of these other tracts have seen remodeling that pushes (and even crashes through) the surrounding envelope, intruding on what many residents have come to expect, over 4 decades, is their right to privacy, sunlight, and quiet enjoyment of their surroundings. These are your neighbors who seek your positive vote for this amendment, to close the loophole that weakens ALL the rules you have come to expect will maintain your individual property rights. I welcome your replies. Experience gained from my recent 2 years tenure as an NSCA director informs my personal opinion: The problem with the Town Meeting method to disseminate information about the importance of this critical amendment … is apathy. Two requests have been mailed to all NSCA members in the last 10 months regarding this issue. The first was with the Annual Ballot for new directors in April 2011. Although a quorum was reached and voters clearly stated their preference in electing 2 new directors, most voters failed to mark their vote for or against the amendment, except for quorum purpose. As well, although there are 960 homes in Niguel Shores, there are rarely more than 3 dozen people who attend formal Open Session board meetings in the multi-purpose room of our community center, and many times there are fewer. (And usually, a majority of those attending are the same interested 2 dozen or so people who would be there most of the time.) Likely the reason for this is the vast majority of association member homeowners are for the most part pleased with life in The Shores. The landscaping is attended to, the streets are clean, traffic flows smoothly, association dues are maintained at a reasonably low rate compared to other local associations, etc. The board’s understanding, and the understandin of your neighbors who have voted for the amendment, informed by our association’s attorneys, is the need for this amendment is to close what is perceived by certain litigants as a “loophole” in the original CC&Rs drafted 4 decades ago by AVCO, the original developer. The only tract built at the outset when the CC&Rs were drafted was the Broadmoor tract. The original CC&Rs are specific to that tract. However, there were 8 additional tracts built subsequently. Berkus homes, Garden homes, Villas, Custom homes, Breakers Isle, Townhomes and such. Some of these other tracts have seen remodeling that pushes (and even crashes through) the surrounding envelope, intruding on what many residents have come to expect, over 4 decades, is their right to privacy, sunlight, and quiet enjoyment of their surroundings. These are your neighbors who seek your positive vote for this amendment, to close the loophole that weakens ALL the rules you have come to expect will maintain your individual property rights. I welcome your replies.

]]> Comment on CC&R Ballot Amendment Results by Al Glatt http://www.niguelshores.org/2012/01/ccr-ballot-amendment-results/#comment-825 Al Glatt Thu, 02 Feb 2012 22:02:47 +0000 http://www.niguelshores.org/?p=1688#comment-825 I'm guessing the reason people are not voting yes or not at all is because most do not have a good understanding of why the change is needed and it's real effect, me included. I suggest having several meetings explaining the issues. I’m guessing the reason people are not voting yes or not at all is because most do not have a good understanding of why the change is needed and it’s real effect, me included. I suggest having several meetings explaining the issues.

]]> Comment on CC&R Ballot Amendment Results by Irene Fascher http://www.niguelshores.org/2012/01/ccr-ballot-amendment-results/#comment-823 Irene Fascher Thu, 02 Feb 2012 21:22:21 +0000 http://www.niguelshores.org/?p=1688#comment-823 Several meetings to explain the "Amendment Issue" is much better than a "door to door" volunteer committee campaign providing explanations and effects of the Amendment. A discussion for all to be heard in the Clubhouse such as a "Town Meeting" style would be more desirable and less invasive for homeowners, since we don't want solicitation at our doorways of services or issues of the community. Several meetings to explain the “Amendment Issue” is much better than a “door to door” volunteer committee campaign providing explanations and effects of the Amendment. A discussion for all to be heard in the Clubhouse such as a “Town Meeting” style would be more desirable and less invasive for homeowners, since we don’t want solicitation at our doorways of services or issues of the community.

]]>