Can someone tell me what this means?

So is it that you do not want people to park in their driveway or not? That is what it breaks down to. I do not have an issue with people parking in their driveway. However, if it says must park in garage then that is different. One must park there.

Some people have so much stuff in the garage can not park in it. Some people have multiple cars that not all can fit in it. Most people who seem to complain about cars in driveway is because their concerns about the garage being stuffed with stuff than cars.

The key word here is "notwithstanding" meaning any other rules are obsolete or menaingless. All the words after the "notwithstanding" become the new meaning.

If the number of cars exceed the capacity of the garage, then excess vehicles can be parked in the driveway, or possibly elsewhere, like the streets, if there are any.

I read it the way Pat & Max do. It is OK/permitted to park in the driveway IF the number of cars exceeds the capacity of the garage.

Despite the "not withstanding," please show us what the "foregoing" says, Marni.

Imo, the PM is wrong.

seems pretty clear to me.

no parking of the long list of vehicles at all unless they are inside a garage or screened.

if you happen to own more cars that garage space, then you are allowed to park them on the driveway.

No overnight street parking.

temporary 48hr grace period allowed.

--------------------------

I do think that the line about driveway vs garage is a poorly written and stupid line....who's going to police and check to see how many cars people own vs garage slots? This is a can of worms just begging to be abused....

Why do you need to know? Also if you all remember there was a story not long ago where owners had to leave their garage doors open during the day. They had "squatter" living in some of homes in the garage. The HOA decide everyone had to keep their garage doors up so they could inspect. They got in huge trouble over it all of course. There is a point where it's just over the line in policing.

Most of our documents are this way, they make no sense. Problem is that some CCR's are enforced and some are not, so when does this start to be "selective enforcement" of documents the HOA deems enforceable and others are not? As far as parking, our documents say you can't park in the street,the HOA sends out letters of violation, but the city owns the streets, so is that enforceable? Personally, I think the CCR is ridiculous, it's your driveway, so park on it. However, some in our community think that these documents are so unclear and get angry because only some are enforced while others are not.

Our community suffers from severe apathy, only 11 people even cared to vote in the last election. Problem is that the HOA is using zoom and will cut mics for those who want to speak so no one goes anymore. We did not even get a chance to interview or even know who was running,never got ballots, because supposedly there are no election "guidelines" so they did a live vote, with only 11 people. no one knew who was who, just voted blindly. This was the same 2 years ago,. the HOA can't get anyone to vote to change the documents and it requires 2/3 majority, so the docs stay the same. The HOA controls everything including who can post and converse on a Facebook page, so as I said due to all this, people just don't bother. The reason I was interested in this CCR is that I have a 3 car garage, and only one car. I park in the garage, but want to take my large garage area and make a gym. I will do nothing to it really, I will not take out the door, but will partition with drywall so I need a permit, but the HOA is saying no one can do that. People already have done that while the builder was still in control, now they want to tell people they can't do it, and cite the CCR's but I can't fine where it say's that and they will not point me to the CCR. I asked about the parking because in my mind, I am obeying the CCR, but now they are saying that is not what it says. Very frustrating.

With the parking rules and your wish to convert the gararge into a gym, I think the question becomes:

When is a garage no longer a garage?

Your conversion of the garage to a gym may very be lawful. But if I were on this Board, I think I might very well still call this a garage and require you to park in it. Why? Because next, owners are going to start storing stuff in the garage and calling it a "storage unit." Or building a separate space for their 27-year-old son and calling it an apartment (with special rates for relatives).

When you brought in an attorney, I might change my mind. Meanwhile, I am not going to make your proposed changes easy.

According to the courts, you bought the unit knowing about the parking rule. You bought knowing there might be a question about what happens with parking if you convert the garage. Bad on you.

Don't like it? Run for the board with a like-minded majority.

90% of people park in their driveway's. The reason is because they DO use their garages for storage, so what is the difference between storage or a gym? As long as you don't have to park in the garage and can use your driveway, who would care what I do with my garage as long as I don't rent it out?

I was the VP of my last HOA, and we never had issues like this, the rules were just enforced, the documents were clear and we had most of the community show up for meetings, I am not used to such apathy.

If this 90% have more cars than the (design) capacity of their garage, then they are complying with the covenants.

If you can find people parking in their driveways who have fewer cars than the design capacity of their garage, and the Board is not enforcing the covenant against them, while the Board enforces the covenant against you, then now you have a case of selective enforcement.

If you do not like the covenants, you can try to have them amended via vote of the owners. But until then, complaining about covenants that you knew in advance existed, and buying into the HOA despite seeing things you did not like in the covenants, is on you. "A deal is a deal."

You could always threaten suit and see if the Board caves, especially if selective enforcement is in fact going on.

I agree the parking covenant was not well thought out.

Apathy is the rule in these HOAs.

I am not surprised, since most of our documents do not even apply to our community. It's a mess.

I think the details of the more recent discussions will show that at least the long-term posters here know selective enforcement is bad ju ju bees; do not selectively enforce (where "selective enforcement" has the legal meaning).

I think what you are recollecting is discussions of situations where covenants have not been enforced for a long time, and some owners even have official approvals from the HOA to do xyz in violation of the covenants, but now the HOA wants to start enforcing the covenants? At times the counsel here is to grandfather those who violated the covenants.

I think some of the case law where the phrase "abandoned covenant" (or similar) comes up may show one of the parties using the argument above. But again, I think the details make it difficult to generalize.

I will say that I feel the so-called "catch all" phrase is far from foolproof in a court of law, maybe especially at the trial court level (duh?). Real life example:

Single family home HOA, 2000 homes, small-ish lots. Owner Cleaver complained that Owner Haskell encroached on Owner Cleaver's lot when Owner Haskell built a wall. Haskell had clearly violated a covenant concerning lot boundaries.

The HOA was in bad shape financially some fifteen years ago. No reserves. Wildly varying annual water bills in the hundreds of thousands. Thirty percent assessment delinquency rate. Outstanding assessments owed to HOA was on the order of $400,000 with an annual budget of $600,000. The Board (including yours truly; aagh) wrote Owner Cleaver that the HOA was broke and said it was exercising the catch-all clause about the HOA not being required to enforce the covenants. The Board told Cleaver she, all by herself, could bring suit against Haskell, pursuant to the covenants. Cleaver complained savagely for several years, demanding the HOA be the one to file suit. Owner Cleaver eventually lawyered up and sued both her neighbor (for violating the covenants) and the HOA (for failure to enforce). The HOA felt it was on good legal ground and dug into its position: The covenants' catch-all phrase meant the HOA did not have to enforce the covenant. Several months into the litigation, the state legislature passed a brand new HOA law. Uh oh (it turns out). The new HOA law said something about the HOA being obliged to enforce its covenants. Cleaver's attorney argued the new provision in the statute. Cleaver's attorney won a motion hearing yada on the point. Settlement talks began in earnest. Cleaver prevailed and had her attorney's fees paid along with an order (or court enforceable agreement?) for Haskell to remove the wall. The HOA paid up, using its insurance. (The HOA attorney was hired and paid for by the HOA's insurer.)

(Aside, regarding relations between owners and directors: With hindsight, I feel bad about how Cleaver was treated. Some of us made it up to her doing chores for her as volunteers. She wrote us sincere thank you's. I had been quite the ass--- to her.)

California statutes or case law say something about a HOA/COA being obliged to enforce its restrictive covenants (racist et cetera covenants excepted, of course). Any catch-all phrase in California now has no meaning in my opinion. If a California HOA/COA owner demands the HOA/COA enforce the covenant, then my layperson's advice to the Board is to do it.

LOL, I just sent that statement out to the HOA, My daughter has a parking problem in her development but she is gated with private streets so I will let her park in front of my home since she is not an owner. One major issue with the parking is that during a recent emergency, a fire truck and EMS could not get through because 2 cars were parked on a curve in the street. They had to back up to get to the victim. The HOA is sending out violations daily, but they never fine. One of my friends has received 40+ violations, she calls them "love letters" The HOA does not enforce pretty much anything, some lawns are just awful, but they never change, that has been like that for over a year, so obviously nothing is happening. Still they control anything anyone wants to say, and no one cares.