The proposal does not replace the CC&Rs or independently create a new list of homeowner violations. It changes how ordinary enforcement is handled when the Association has discretion, adds clearer standards in several areas, provides more opportunity to correct issues, and creates additional procedures before fines.
A future rule, policy, standard, guideline, or similarly titled requirement that establishes or materially changes homeowner obligations remains possible when authorized. Before formal implementation through the proposal’s process, homeowners receive at least 14 days’ written notice, disclosure of the change and practical effect, a chance to comment, consideration at a properly noticed open Board meeting, a Board vote, and the resulting requirement afterward.
What that means for you: You get advance visibility and a chance to speak before a substantive new requirement is formally adopted, instead of first learning about it through a violation notice.
Read Proposal §6 →The current column summarizes the currently implemented one-page enforcement policy. The proposed column summarizes the latest 16-page proposal.
| Issue | Current system | Proposed policy |
|---|---|---|
| Source of homeowner violations | CC&Rs, other governing documents, and applicable law. | The same sources. The proposal does not independently create additional substantive violations or supersede the governing documents. |
| Future enforcement requirements | The current one-page enforcement policy does not state a comparable policy-specific process. | Authorized future requirements remain possible, but §6 applies to a rule, policy, standard, guideline, or similar requirement that establishes or materially changes homeowner obligations. |
| Notice before future changes | No comparable requirement appears in the current one-page enforcement policy. | At least 14 days’ written notice before the meeting, including the proposed text for an amendment or a sufficient summary and practical effect for another requirement. |
| Homeowner input on future changes | No comparable requirement appears in the current one-page enforcement policy. | A reasonable opportunity for public comment before formal action at a duly noticed open Board meeting, followed by a Board vote and distribution. |
| First ordinary notice | No fine; a stated correction or appeal period of 48 hours to 30 days. | Courtesy notice; no fine and ordinarily at least 30 days to correct. |
| Ordinary cure period before first fine | The first and second notices each allow 48 hours to 30 days; the third notice may impose a fine. | Ordinarily at least 30 days after the courtesy notice plus at least 30 additional days after the formal notice. |
| First monetary fine | $50 at the third notice. | $50 after the two ordinary notice-and-cure stages and all required procedures. |
| Fine escalation | $50, $100, $200, $400; after the sixth notice, an additional $100 per month. | $50, $50, $100; then $100 for each additional 30-day period. |
| Repeat violations | A repeat within 12 months is treated according to the previous notice count, with a fine where applicable. | The same corrected violation recurring within four months resumes at the next fine level after the most recent fine imposed; after more than four months it restarts at the First Notice. |
| Appeal opportunity | Written appeal to J&M within 48 hours; a Board representative responds within 14 days. | Notice must explain how to contest the allegation; relevant evidence must be fairly considered, and the owner receives an opportunity to be heard before a fine. |
| Written reasoning | The current policy says the appeal outcome is provided in writing. | A full or partial denial must summarize evidence, identify the provision relied upon, explain the reasons, and state remaining corrective steps and deadlines. |
| Landscaping standards | The one-page current policy supplies a notice/fine process but no comparable objective landscaping criteria. | Objective standards address turf, intentional alternatives, vegetation height, weeds, and material effects while preserving express governing-document requirements. |
| Minor / de minimis issues | No comparable restraint appears in the current one-page enforcement policy. | Genuinely minor, temporary, incidental, or inconsequential conditions ordinarily do not warrant enforcement by themselves, subject to stated exceptions. |
| Subjective enforcement discretion | The one-page current policy does not state a comparable least-restrictive interpretation standard. | Objective evidence and the least restrictive reasonable interpretation apply where genuine ambiguity or discretion exists. |
| Clear CC&R violations | Remain enforceable. | Remain enforceable. The proposal does not allow an express and unambiguous requirement to be disregarded. |
| Emergency enforcement | Existing authority and applicable law control. | Immediate authorized action remains available for an imminent safety threat, significant property damage, or another emergency condition. |
Each example assumes the cited documents apply and does not decide whether a particular property condition is a violation.
Today: The current one-page enforcement policy does not itself state a comparable notice-and-comment process for creating a future substantive homeowner requirement.
Under the proposed policy: Section 6 applies regardless of whether the requirement is called a rule, regulation, policy, standard, guideline, or something similar. If it establishes or materially changes homeowner obligations, the proposal requires this process:
What That Means for You: Homeowners get advance notice and an opportunity to speak before substantive new enforcement requirements are formally adopted, rather than learning about them for the first time through a violation notice.
Proposal §6 →The current one-page policy supplies the notice, appeal, and fine sequence, but it does not give a turf-height threshold.
Traditional turf is encouraged to remain around six inches or less. Height-based enforcement ordinarily begins only when unmanaged grass, weeds, or vegetation exceeds eight inches on average, while material safety, nuisance, access, or express governing-document concerns may still justify action.
What That Means for You: Six inches is the ordinary maintenance guide; eight inches on average is the proposal’s general height-based enforcement threshold for unmanaged vegetation—not a universal rule for every plant.
Proposal §3.1 →The current one-page enforcement policy does not contain comparable standards distinguishing cultivated alternatives from conventional turf.
Intentional, maintained nontraditional landscaping is not unmanaged or a nuisance solely because it differs from conventional turf or exceeds eight inches. Express approval, visibility, access, easement, setback, nuisance, or other requirements still apply.
What That Means for You: A cultivated alternative is evaluated by its condition and effects, not rejected merely because it does not look like turf.
Proposal §3 →The current one-page policy does not set an objective weed-coverage threshold.
Isolated weeds or small patches ordinarily do not warrant enforcement. A substantial condition may when weeds exceed 25% of the visible lawn or landscaped area, interfere with maintained landscaping, threaten neighboring property, or materially spread invasive or nuisance weeds.
What That Means for You: The proposal separates scattered weeds from a measurable or materially harmful weed problem.
Proposal §3.5 →The current one-page enforcement policy does not state a comparable de minimis standard.
Minor, temporary, incidental, or inconsequential conditions associated with ordinary residential life ordinarily do not justify enforcement by themselves, unless an express prohibition, nuisance, safety issue, material interference, or other legitimate need for action applies.
What That Means for You: A harmless, short-lived condition is treated differently from a meaningful or expressly prohibited violation.
Proposal §§1–2 →The Association may enforce an applicable clear governing-document restriction through the current notice and fine process.
The restriction remains enforceable according to its terms. Objective and least-restrictive standards cannot be used to disregard an express and unambiguous requirement.
What That Means for You: The proposal adds enforcement standards and protections; it does not erase clear CC&R restrictions.
Proposal §5 →The first notice carries no fine and allows a correction or appeal period stated as 48 hours to 30 days. A second no-fine notice uses the same range; the third notice may carry a $50 fine.
The courtesy notice ordinarily gives at least 30 days to cure. If unresolved, a formal notice ordinarily gives at least 30 additional days before the first fine, along with the applicable notice, evidence, response, and opportunity-to-be-heard procedures.
What That Means for You: For an ordinary first-time matter, the proposal establishes two minimum cure stages before a monetary fine.
Proposal §§4 & 8 →The current policy permits the notices and fines to progress through $50, $100, $200, and $400, followed by an additional $100 per month after the sixth notice.
Progressive enforcement still applies after proper notice and cure opportunities: $50, another $50, then $100, followed by $100 for each additional 30-day period while the violation continues.
What That Means for You: The proposal protects the opportunity to correct; it does not eliminate consequences for a legitimate unresolved violation.
Proposal §8 →If the same violation recurs within 12 months, the current policy treats it according to the previous notice count, including a fine where that count calls for one.
If the same documented corrected or resolved violation recurs within four months, enforcement resumes at the next fine level after the most recent fine actually imposed. Earlier notices alone do not automatically set a prior fine amount. After more than four months, the matter restarts at the First Notice.
What That Means for You: The proposal shortens the recurrence window and ties escalation to the most recent fine imposed, while preserving consequences for a prompt recurrence.
Proposal §8 →A written appeal must be sent to J&M within 48 hours. The policy says a Board representative will respond within 14 days and the outcome will be provided in writing.
The notice must explain how to contest the allegation. Photographs, measurements, explanations, and other relevant evidence must be fully and fairly considered, and the homeowner receives an opportunity to be heard before a fine, which may be provided in writing rather than through a formal hearing.
What That Means for You: The proposal adds a defined evidence and reasoning process and does not state the current policy’s 48-hour appeal deadline.
Proposal §4 →The current policy promises a written outcome but does not list the contents of the explanation.
A full or partial denial must summarize the evidence considered, identify the governing-document or policy provision relied upon, briefly explain the reasons, and state the remaining corrective action and deadline.
What That Means for You: You receive enough written information to understand the basis for the decision and what must happen next.
Proposal §4 →Existing authority and applicable law govern urgent action; the current one-page policy does not describe a separate emergency procedure.
The ordinary cure process does not require delay when immediate authorized action is reasonably necessary for an imminent safety threat, significant property damage, or another emergency condition.
What That Means for You: Ordinary safeguards remain the norm, but the Association does not have to ignore a genuine emergency.
Proposal §§1, 4.4 & 4.6 →The current policy directs homeowners to J&M for appeals and uses management in the enforcement process.
The Association may delegate routine inspections, notices, and enforcement administration to J&M or another managing agent acting for and subject to the Association and the policy.
What That Means for You: Routine matters do not all wait for a full Board meeting; delegated management work continues within the proposal’s standards.
Proposal §4.1 →These amounts show the fine imposed at each stage. The current schedule stops doubling after $400; later charges are an additional $100 per month.