New Architectural Guidelines

***The 2026 Architectural Guidelines were adopted at the July meeting by a 3–1 Board vote.***

None of the concerns brought to the Board during the review period were considered nor adopted.

There was no discussion amongst the board regarding the numerous changes to the ARC Guidelines.  Despite concerns brought forward that portions of the Guidelines may conflict with our CC&Rs, the Board majority chose not to have the Association's attorney review the document before adopting it as a governing document.

It's time to restore professionalism, accountability, and responsible stewardship of HOA resources. If you believe Association funds should be spent governing the community—not targeting individual homeowners—I encourage you to run for the Board this fall.

The Three Primary Concerns 

1. The proposed Guidelines appear to conflict with portions of the CC&Rs and have not been reviewed by Legal Counsel.

The CC&Rs are the Association's controlling governing document. Architectural Guidelines are intended to implement the CC&Rs—not create different approval standards.

Examples include:

• Expanding projects that may proceed without an Architectural Application even though the CC&Rs require approval for  exterior improvements.

• Reducing review of backyard improvements even though the CC&Rs repeatedly address the entire Lot and impacts to surrounding property.

• Language regarding window air conditioners that appears less restrictive than the existing CC&Rs.

If homeowners receive one direction from the ARC Guidelines while the Compliance Officer and Board must enforce another under the CC&Rs, confusion and inconsistent enforcement become almost inevitable. This can possibly lead to Selective Enforcement.  Davis -Stirling Act states:  Associations have a duty to enforce their governing documents for the benefit of all property owners. To ensure enforcement is not considered selective or arbitrary, an association must demonstrate that its procedures are fair, reasonable, and applied uniformly to all members. 

2. The proposed Guidelines replace objective standards with considerably more subjective interpretation.

The 2024 Guidelines contained objective standards while still allowing the Architectural Committee discretion to approve reasonable alternatives.

The proposed Guidelines expand exemptions for projects considered "maintenance" or "like-for-like" replacements, yet the term "like-for-like" is not defined.

That creates uncertainty.

For example:

• Is replacing fencing with a different material "like-for-like?"

• Must replacement fencing still match the community's approved style and color?

• If decorative shutters are removed, has the home simply been maintained, or has its architectural character changed?

Reasonable people may answer those questions differently.

Architectural Guidelines should reduce those disagreements—not create them. Clear standards help homeowners know what is expected before money is spent.

3. Important homeowner protections are being removed.

The most significant example is the removal of the detailed ADU standards adopted in 2024.

Those standards were developed after SDRLC experienced disputes involving ADU placement and side-yard setbacks. In at least two cases, the adopted Guidelines resulted in redesigned projects that better respected neighboring properties than would have been required under City regulations alone. (ADUs have more relaxed code requirements that are different than main structures.)

Likewise, reducing review of backyard improvements may affect neighboring homeowners. Many SDRLC homes overlook one, two, or even three adjacent backyards. Architectural review exists not only to evaluate an individual project but also to balance the interests of neighboring property owners before disputes occur.

Most homeowners do not pay much attention to Architectural Guidelines until a project next door affects them personally. By then, the guidelines are already in place.

Comparison of the CC&Rs and Proposed Guidelines