Minutes of the Regular Board of Directors Meeting
March 30, 2011

Mr. Gold answered questions from the Board about the Financial Statement. After discussion, Mr. Gold made the motion to approve the February 2011 Financial Statement. The motion was seconded by Mr. Mintz and was unanimously approved by the Board. Copies of the Financial Statements are available to Association Members, upon request.

Review and Approval of Audited 2010 Year-End Financial Statement

The Board reviewed the audited 2010 Year-End Financial Statement (“Statement”), as prepared by the accounting firm of Hutchinson & Bloodgood (“H&B”), which was also reviewed by the Finance Committee at its March 24, 2011 meeting. After the Committee’s review, it unanimously recommended that the Board accept and approve the Statement, as well. After review and discussion, Mr. Gold made the motion for the Board to accept and approve the Statement. The motion was seconded by Mr. Tennen and was unanimously approved by the Board.

Review and Approval of 2010 Tax Returns
The Board reviewed the 2010 Tax Returns, as prepared by H&B, which was also reviewed by the Finance Committee at its March 24, 2011 meeting. After the Committee’s review, it unanimously recommended that the Board accept and approve the Tax Returns. After review and discussion, Mr. Tennen made the motion to accept and approve the Tax Returns. The motion was seconded by Mr. Mintz and was unanimously approved by the Board.

Fitness Committee Report
The Board reviewed the minutes of the Fitness Committee’s March 23, 2011 meeting, at which it discussed Fitness Center operations issues, as well as possibly coming up with a compromise with the group of homeowners who are not pleased with the Cardio Room TV Mute Rule.

Discuss Amending Fitness Center TV Mute Rule
Mr. Tenenbaum reported this matter has been tabled because the Fitness Committee and the group of homeowners who are not pleased with the Cardio Room TV Mule Rule are working on a possible amendment to the Rule that will be a compromise. It is hoped that the matter can be resolved by the next Board meeting.

DWP - Stone Canyon Committee Report
Committee Co-Chair Andre Stojka reported that o n March 14 the CPOR group was invited to a meeting at the DWP to hear the plans DWP is making for the various reservoir projects including Upper Stone Canyon.

The Bel Air Ridge (“BAR”) Board of Directors has taken an official position against public access to Stone Canyon because of the fire danger public access poses.  At the March 14 meeting with CPOR and the DWP, BAR representatives Andy Tenenbaum and Andre Stojka reiterated the BAR position.

Because discussions of a previous meeting were somehow leaked to the public, Mr. Tenenbaum and Mr. Stojka were criticized for making complete and accurate reports of CPOR meetings to the BAR Board. They explained that the Davis Sterling Act requires them to report to the BAR Board. Private meetings on public policy are illegal. Further, the operating rules of CPOR require all participants to report to their constituencies so that the DWP can have the understanding that CPOR members actually represent their communities.

Nevertheless Mr. Tenenbaum and Mr. Stojka were asked to leave the room while the other CPOR members debated their fate. They were eventually invited back into the meeting room and the meeting continued with them. They surmise that the mediator explained to other members that they were acting in accordance with the law in every way.

At the meeting the DWP spoke of plans of public access without presenting any indication of an infrastructure for fire control, security, restrooms or any of the things normal to a public facility. There was no acknowledgement of Bel Air Ridges' concern for fire safety.

In short, DWP and members of CPOR representing Bel Air, Roscomare Valley and Residents of Beverly Glen are completely ignoring the concerns of Bel Air Ridge, which is very discouraging and makes them question the integrity of the CPOR process.

Committee Co-Chairs Andre Stojka and Andrew Tenenbaum then discussed different strategies with the Board on achieving the objective of opposing/preventing public access to Stone Canyon after the Reservoir is covered. After discussion, Mr. Mintz made the motion to authorize Mr. Tenenbaum and Mr. Stojka to proceed to espouse the position of Bel Air Ridge to the other members of CPOR and the DWP in the best interest of our Association. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Brill and was unanimously approved by the Board.

Neighborhood Council Report
Association Neighborhood Council representative Andre Stojka reported that i nformation was presented by a developer on a project at 9933-9941 Tower Grove Place between Tower and Benedict Canyon. This project covers five (5) acres and will have a 42,881 square foot main house; a 4,416 square foot guesthouse; a 27,317 square foot "Son's Villa"; staff quarters of 5,327 square feet and a 2,716 square foot guardhouse. The project, larger than Hearst Castle, is directed from London, England.  No one knows for certain who is the owner.

A large number of residents from the Benedict Canyon Association appeared to protest the project, the scope of which is inconsistent with the neighborhood.

The Neighborhood Council took the position that the scope of this project was so large that an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) should be required by the City before any earth was moved or constriction begins.

The Neighborhood Council expressed its support for State Assembly Bill 52, which would require that health plans, and insurers obtain approval from State regulators before increasing California's health insurance rates.

Emergency Preparedness Advisory Committee (“EPAC”) Report
The Board reviewed the minutes of EPAC’s March 14, 2011 meeting, at which it continued to plan and prepare for its CPR/CERT event scheduled for Sunday, April 10, 2011.

Tennis Committee Report
The Board reviewed the minutes of the Tennis Committee’s March 8, 2011 meeting, at which it discussed tennis court maintenance issues, planned its upcoming “Play with the Pros” social tournament scheduled for March 27th, and continued to discuss ideas on how to increase tennis participation in the community.

Discuss Proposed Improvement to Community Tennis Program
Mr. Weingart reported that things are going well and that the Tennis Committee is enthusiastic about coming up with ways to improve the community’s tennis program. The Committee and Mr. Weingart continue to brainstorm to come up with ideas. The first idea, having an online tennis court reservation system, is being researched by Mr. Weingart. Such a system could also be used to make reservations at the Fitness Center. Mr. Weingart reported that should the Tennis Committee approve it, he hopes to be able to make a recommendation to the Board next month.

Capital Improvement Construction (“CIC”) Committee Report
Committee Chair Miles Gibbons and Mr. Avila gave status reports on the two (2) pending projects; the Clubhouse First Floor Reconfiguration Project and the Claray Pool Area Project.

Status of Clubhouse First Floor Reconfiguration Project
Mr. Gibbons reported that after receiving City approval on the Construction Documents the Project was put out to bid and three (3) bids were obtained. The bids range from $264,268 to $296,231. The Committee discussed the bids and discussed that, even though negotiations with the contractors have yet to commence, it is apparent that it will not be possible to get the Project cost down to the $200,000 budget that had been discussed previously without significantly narrowing the scope of work to a level that would result in a less than aesthetically satisfactory result, which the Committee unanimously concluded should not be done. The Committee is happy with the direction of the Project, which consists of the least expensive design option that was considered, and it feels it is the best utilization of the space. As a result, the Project budget will have to be increased. However, the Committee has yet to determine a new budget amount. After negotiations begin with the contractors, and additional Project expenses (i.e., temporary mobile office for Management Office staff, temporary storage, new Game Room furnishings) are determined, an amount can be presented to the Board.

Mr. Gibbons also reported that the timelines given by the bidding contractors were 8 to 14 weeks to complete the Project. Based upon this, and since the summer peak season is approaching, the anticipated start date for the Project is in the Fall, after Labor Day.

Status of Claray Pool Area Project
Mr. Avila reported that the completion of the Project was delayed due to rain. However, work is scheduled to resume on Friday with the prep work necessary before the deck coating is applied.

The Committee has also selected the light fixtures, which have been ordered.

Architectural & Landscaping Committee (“ALC”) Report
The Board reviewed the minutes of the ALC’s February 23, 2011 and March 21, 2011 meetings, at which it approved one of four and four of five property improvement requests, respectively.

Pool Committee Report
The Board reviewed the minutes of the Pool Committee’s February 25, 2011 meeting, at which it gathered more information from Committee Board liaison John Siegler on the research being conducted on the possibility of installing solar heating panels at the Claray Pool.

Security Committee Report
Mr. Avila reported on the security incidents that took place in the community from February 14, 2011 to March 20, 2011: 19 false burglar alarms, 62 unattended open garage doors, 3 suspicious person / vehicle / activity calls, 11 resident assistance calls, 2 vehicle collisions, 2 LAPD activity incidents, 1 theft from motor vehicle, 1 medical emergency, 1 stray dog, 1 lost dog, 1 snake sighting, and 1 fallen tree.

Finance Committee Report
Committee Chair Ed Gold reported on the Committee’s March 24, 2011 meeting, at which it reviewed the draft audited 2010 Year-End Financial Statement and the 2010 Tax Returns, which was addressed earlier in the meeting.

Discuss How the Reserve CD Investments Should Be Selected
At the Board’s request, the Committee also discussed whether the Committee or a Committee member should select the Reserve Fund CD investments in an effort to try to locate CD’s with higher interest rates, or should the Merrill Lynch broker continue to do so. The Committee expressed its feeling that the amount of time and paperwork that would be involved in having someone other than a broker locate CD’s would not be worth the perhaps ½ percent higher interest rate that might be located. The Committee also noted that many CD’s with slightly higher interest rates are only made available to individual persons, and not to companies, and the Association is a corporation. The Committee unanimously recommended that the Board continue to use the Merrill Lynch broker, and that when a large dollar amount CD matures, Merrill Lynch’s CD offerings be competitively compared to others available on the market. After the Board discussed the matter, Mr. Gold made the motion to accept and approve the Committee’s recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Tennen and was unanimously approved by the Board.

Discuss Investment Vehicle Recommended by Merrill Lynch Broker
The Committee also discussed an investment vehicle that was recommended by the Merrill Lynch broker. Merrill Lynch offers an “FDIC insured bank deposit called a preferred deposit (MLPDB) that pays 50 bps = .5% and is liquid. You must buy at least 100K worth of it and can’t sell out of it more than 6 times a month. This rate is nearly 10X better than the current bank deposit rate you have at 6 bps.” Considering there is approximately $210,000 in the Reserve Fund cash account (as of February 28, 2011), the Committee unanimously recommended that the Board put $150,000 from the cash account into an MLPDB. After the Board discussed the matter, Mr. Gold made the motion to accept and approve the Committee’s recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Mintz and was unanimously approved by the Board.

Discuss ACS Security Request to Increase Service Rate
The Board reviewed a request from ACS Security to increase its monthly service rate for security patrol services by 4% ($660), effective June 1, 2011. After a lengthy discussion, Mr. Weingart made the motion to approve the request. The motion was seconded by Mr. Tennen and was unanimously approved by the Board.

Discuss New Format of Association Newsletter
The Board had continued discussions about the new format of the Association’s newsletter, including how to get more articles for content. Mr. Avila explained that Assistant Manager Debbie Schwartz tries to get people to write articles but it has been difficult. Ms. Schwartz recently asked for volunteers to write articles using the community Chat Group. During the discussion, Board members said they would volunteer to write articles that residents might enjoy reading. After further discussion, the Board said it would first focus on improving the content before discussing other ways to improve the newsletter.

Discuss Changing Management Office Cable Internet Service to a Commercial Account
Mr. Avila reported that recently the Management Office’s cable Internet service went down, and since the account is a Residential account, it took two (2) days for the service to be restored. Mr. Avila reported feeling that since the Management Office is the Association’s main operations center, all of its communications systems, including Internet, should be operational as much as possible and if it goes down, it should be restored as soon as possible. Mr. Avila reported that changing the account to a Commercial account would provide same-day service for Internet outages, would only cost an additional $65 per month, and asked the Board to approve the change/expense. Although the Board agreed with the importance of having service restored as soon as possible, it was decided to have the Technology Committee look into the matter to see if it can identify a less expensive option for achieving the objective.

Discuss Re-Inspecting Angelo Drive Hillside Repair Site
Mr. Avila reported that the homeowner at 2512 Angelo Drive recently reported seeing cracks in her backyard concrete deck and parts of the Common Driveway near her property, and that she thinks there may be something wrong with the Common Area hillside that was repaired behind her property a little over ten (10) years ago. When Mr. Avila advised her that he would have the soils engineering firm of Subsurface Design, Inc. (“SDI”), which was the firm that worked on the repair project, investigate the situation, she suggested that a second opinion be obtained from a different soils engineering firm. Mr. Avila reported that SDI has already started its investigation, and asked the Board if a second opinion should be obtained, noting that the Association’s attorney said it should be obtained. After discussion, Mr. Mintz made the motion to engage a second soils engineer to investigate the situation for a price not to exceed $5,000. The motion was seconded by Mr. Tennen and was unanimously approved by the Board.

Review and Discuss Bids to Refinish Clubhouse Deck
Mr. Avila reported obtaining three (3) bids to refinish and reseal the Claray Clubhouse deck (top surface and underneath) and redwood caps on top of the handrails. The bids ranged from $18,900 to $49,750. Mr. Avila recommended that the Board accept and approve Preferred Commercial Painting’s bid to complete the work for $22,785. After discussion, Mr. Mintz made the motion to accept and approve Mr. Avila’s recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weingart and was unanimously approved by the Board.

 Discuss How / Whether to Proceed with CC&R Project
Mr. Mintz opened the discussion by saying he fears that no matter what is done, getting an entirely new CC&Rs document adopted may be difficult, based upon past attempts, and that perhaps only amending certain sections in the existing document would be a better course of action. Mr. Mintz suggested, and the Board agreed, that he work with Arthur Bernstein, who served on the CC&R Committee with him last year, and the Association’s attorney to identify only certain sections to amend in the existing document.

Discuss Status of Ravenwood Court Common Driveway Parking Issue
It was reported that Mr. Avila had the requested conference call with the Association’s attorney and the Rosenblatts’ insurance agent, Tom Nunez. The result of the call was that it did not change the attorney’s prior opinion that allowing parking on the side of the Common Driveway would expose the Association to potential liability.

Mr. Tenenbaum then pointed out that the Fire Code that Mrs. Rosenblatt provided, which was provided to her by Captain Lee at Fire Station 99, states that no parking is allowed on either side of the driveway if it is 20 feet or less in width. It was reported that the Common Driveway was measured by Mr. Avila and the Association’s attorney and is 18 and 20 feet wide at different locations on the Driveway. Therefore, pursuant to the Fire Code, parking is not permitted on either side. Other sections in the Fire Code were discussed and related to the Common Driveway.

The Rosenblatts continued to try to convince the Board to allow them to continue allowing their family members, guests, and invitees to park on the shoulder of the Common Driveway. The Board continued to stress to the Rosenblatts that it could not take action contrary to legal opinion. It was noted that the Association’s attorney suggested to the Rosenblatts that they obtain a formal letter from the Fire Department stating they feel it is acceptable for parking to be permitted on the side of the Driveway. However, such a letter was not obtained.

After a lengthy discussion, Mr. Tennen said he would contact the Fire Department to see if he could help obtain something in writing, to determine whether the Common Driveway is considered a fire lane, and to see if maybe the Driveway can be “grand-fathered” to allow parking on the side.

Delegate Trash Can Enclosure on Common Area Issue to ALC
The Board then discussed the issue of the Rosenblatts using a lattice enclosure that is visible and situated on Common Area at the bottom of the Common Driveway that leads to their house to store their trashcans. The Rosenblatts said that the enclosure was built by the prior owner of their property and that he (the prior owner) said it was approved by the Association. Mr. Avila reported not finding anything in the Association’s files showing that permission was sought nor that approval was given to build the lattice structure on Common Area. The Rosenblatts were advised to submit a request to the ALC to see if it will approve the structure to remain.

 Adjournment
The regular Board of Directors meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. An Executive Session of

the Board of Directors followed to discuss the following matters:

Executive Session – General Notes

The Executive Session was called to order at 9:35 p.m.

The Board approved the minutes of the February 22, 2011 Executive Session.

The Board had continued discussions regarding its foreclosure efforts against the property legally described as Tract 31315, Lot 12, Unit 2 (APN #4382-029-088) for delinquent assessments.

The Board had continued discussions regarding the status of its collection of an attorney’s fees Court award judgment from an Association Member. The Association incurred attorney’s fees and Court costs in filing a lawsuit in order to gain the Member’s compliance with the CC&Rs.

The Board had continued discussions regarding its foreclosure efforts against the property legally described as Tract 32229, Lot 6, Unit 8 (APN #4379-035-088) for delinquent assessments.

The Board closed a matter regarding the renegotiations of a contract with a third party.

The Executive Session was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.

 

Return to Minutes