Section: 6.3
Line Number: 390
Homeowner Comment: Clearly define what it means "to be heard."
Suggested Revision: Clearly define what it means "to be heard."
Reason/Explanation: This phrase is vague.
Submitted by: Jeff Vanderpol
Administrator Response: Section 6.3 has been revised as follows:
The Association will enforce the Rules and Regulations and, after providing written notice of the alleged violation and a reasonable opportunity for the affected Owner to be heard—either in writing or at a hearing before the Board or its designated committee— impose and collect reasonable fines for violations of the governing documents in accordance with a previously established schedule of fines adopted by the board of directors and furnished to the owners pursuant to the requirements for notice as described in Section 6.1.
Date Approved: 2025-12-21 15:53:04
Section: 6.3
Line Number: 390
Homeowner Comment: Replace “Rules and Regulations” with “Community Rules and Regulations.”
Suggested Revision: Replace “Rules and Regulations” with “Community Rules and Regulations.”
Reason/Explanation: The latter is a defined term, the former is not.
Submitted by: Jeff Vanderpol
Administrator Response: Your suggested change is accepted
Date Approved: 2025-12-01 11:50:27
Section: 6.2
Line Number: 353
Homeowner Comment: Either add definition for "Resident" back or amend this paragraph appropriately.
Suggested Revision: Either add definition for "Resident" back or amend this paragraph appropriately.
Reason/Explanation: Definition of term “Resident” was stricken in Section 1
Submitted by: Jeff Vanderpol
Administrator Response: The following definition will be ADDED:
“Resident” shall mean any person who is a Unit Owner or the lessee of a Unit, together with members of his or her immediate family, provided that a person shall be a “Resident” only during periods in which he or she is occupying the Unit on a full-time basis.
Date Approved: 2025-12-08 15:32:36
Section: 6.1
Line Number:
Homeowner Comment: Add a statement that the comment period for unit owners shall be no less than 30 days.
Suggested Revision: Add a statement that the comment period for unit owners shall be no less than 30 days.
Reason/Explanation: Theoretically, a rogue board could institute a rule change with one day notice. This is obviously not the intent, but the agreement should make that clear.
Submitted by: Jeff Vanderpol
Administrator Response: The wording in Section 6.1 will be CHANGED as follows:
Before adopting, amending, or repealing any rule, the Board must give all unit owners at least 30 days’ notice of:
Date Approved: 2025-12-08 15:30:38
Section: Appendix A
Line Number: 798/799
Homeowner Comment: Add the URL for the plat maps.
Suggested Revision: Add the URL for the plat maps.
Reason/Explanation: These plat maps are part of the document and should be available for review.
Submitted by: Chris Winkley
Administrator Response: Pending
Date Approved: 2025-11-30 18:56:10
Section: Section 7.8.3
Line Number: Line 381
Homeowner Comment: Change $100/year to $1,000/year.
Suggested Revision: Change $100/year to $1,000/year.
Reason/Explanation: This is a good opportunity to put some teeth in the liens. An additional assessment of $100/year isn't going to move the needle for people with a $500K+ home. I recommend $1,000/year.
Submitted by: Chris Winkley
Administrator Response: Your suggested revision has been accepted.
Date Approved: 2025-12-21 14:23:18
Section: 7.1
Line Number:
Homeowner Comment: With a maximum 10% increase cap per year
Suggested Revision: With a maximum 10% increase cap per year
Reason/Explanation: This is how it was written and more clearly defines a reasonable increase for yearly dues than WA state’s expectation that HOA dues can’t increase “unreasonably” from year to year.
Submitted by: Lacy Simmonds
Administrator Response: According to our legal review, the owner-vote requirement in Section 7.1 for annual assessment increases above 10% directly conflicts with WUCIOA (RCW 64.90.525), effective July 1, 2018 (SB 6175). A 10% cap is not legally valid and cannot be enforced. See the letter below from our attorney.
Condominium Law Group
www.condolaw.net
1833 N. 105th St, Suite 201,
Seattle, WA 98133
Phone 206-633-1520 Fax 206-633-1521
December 20, 2025
To: The Board and Owners at Canyon Lakes
From: Ken Harer, Condominium Law Group, PLLC
Re: Why Owner votes to increase annual dues are not required or allowed
I have been asked to give a legal opinion regarding the deletion of the requirement to obtain owner approval for increases in dues larger than 10% per year as provided for in Section 7.1 of the 2009 Restated CC&Rs.
In 2018, the State Legislature adopted a new law, called the Washington Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act. At the time, few provisions applied to existing communities like yours. But a couple of provisions did apply to your community, including the one about budgets and assessments, RCW 64.90.525.
In addition, the legislature specifically declared that for all existing communities (like yours) that any restriction in the CC&Rs that required a vote to increase dues was void, and was replaced with the provisions for adoption and ratification of budgets (and assessments with them) as provided for in RCW 64.90.525.
Your existing section 7.1 of the CC&Rs is (and has been since 2018) superseded (completely replaced by) the budget and assessment process that provides the Board creates a budget and presents it at a meeting for ratification by the owners (as provided in RCW 64.90.525). Unless rejected by a majority of the owners in the community (not just those attending) it is ratified and legally enforceable. Statutes are copied below.
RCW 64.90.365
Common interest communities—Exceptions.
(1) Except for a plat community or miscellaneous community described in RCW 64.90.360(4) and a nonresidential or mixed-use common interest community described in RCW 64.90.100, the following sections apply to a common interest community created before July 1, 2018, and any inconsistent provisions of *chapter 58.19, 64.32, 64.34, or 64.38 RCW do not apply:
(a) RCW 64.90.370;
(b) RCW 64.90.405(1) (b) and (c);
(c) RCW 64.90.445;
(d) RCW 64.90.480(10);
(e) RCW 64.90.502;
(f) RCW 64.90.513;
(g) RCW 64.90.525;
(h) RCW 64.90.545;
(i) RCW 64.90.580; and
(j) RCW 64.90.010, to the extent necessary to construe this subsection.
(2) Except to the extent provided in this subsection, the sections listed in subsection (1) of this section apply only to events and circumstances occurring on or after July 1, 2018, and do not invalidate existing provisions of the governing documents of those common interest communities existing on July 1, 2018. To protect the public interest, RCW ** 64.90.370 and 64.90.525 supersede existing provisions of the governing documents of all plat communities and miscellaneous communities previously subject to *chapter 64.38 RCW.
RCW 64.90.525
Budgets—Assessments—Special assessments.
(1)(a) Within thirty days after adoption of any proposed budget for the common interest community, the board must provide a copy of the budget to all the unit owners and set a date for a meeting of the unit owners to consider ratification of the budget not less than fourteen nor more than fifty days after providing the budget. Unless at that meeting the unit owners of units to which a majority of the votes in the association are allocated or any larger percentage specified in the declaration reject the budget, the budget and the assessments against the units included in the budget are ratified, whether or not a quorum is present.
(b) If the proposed budget is rejected or the required notice is not given, the periodic budget last ratified by the unit owners continues until the unit owners ratify a subsequent budget proposed by the board.
Provision 7.1 of your existing CC&Rs is not enforceable, and if it were included in your revised CC&Rs would also not be enforceable.
Please contact your Board with any questions. While my client is the Association, I take direction from, and give advice to the Board.
Sincerely,
Ken Harer
Managing Attorney
Date Approved: 2025-12-21 13:56:47
Section: 6.2
Line Number: 198
Homeowner Comment:
Tree Maintenance and View Preservation Covenant
1. Purpose
To maintain neighborhood appearance, property values, and reasonable view protection.
2. Tree and Vegetation Care
Owners must keep all trees and vegetation on their property healthy, trimmed, and safe. Dead, diseased, or overgrown trees must be removed or maintained at the Owner’s expense.
3. View Obstruction
No Owner may plant or allow any tree or vegetation to grow in a way that unreasonably blocks another Owner’s established view. “Unreasonable” means more than minor or natural obstruction, as determined by the HOA Board.
4. New Plantings
Owners must obtain HOA approval before planting any tree expected to exceed fifteen (15) feet in height at maturity. The HOA may deny approval if the tree would likely block a neighbor’s view.
5. Enforcement
If a violation occurs, the HOA may require trimming or removal. If the Owner fails to comply, the HOA may perform the work and assess costs to the Owner.
Suggested Revision:
Tree Maintenance and View Preservation Covenant
1. Purpose
To maintain neighborhood appearance, property values, and reasonable view protection.
2. Tree and Vegetation Care
Owners must keep all trees and vegetation on their property healthy, trimmed, and safe. Dead, diseased, or overgrown trees must be removed or maintained at the Owner’s expense.
3. View Obstruction
No Owner may plant or allow any tree or vegetation to grow in a way that unreasonably blocks another Owner’s established view. “Unreasonable” means more than minor or natural obstruction, as determined by the HOA Board.
4. New Plantings
Owners must obtain HOA approval before planting any tree expected to exceed fifteen (15) feet in height at maturity. The HOA may deny approval if the tree would likely block a neighbor’s view.
5. Enforcement
If a violation occurs, the HOA may require trimming or removal. If the Owner fails to comply, the HOA may perform the work and assess costs to the Owner.
Reason/Explanation: Most HOAs include a view-obstruction clause, especially in subdivisions with high-dollar premium view lots. Please consider this example clause.
Submitted by: Michelle Kiesecker
Administrator Response: Pending
Date Approved: 2025-11-10 13:56:17
Page 3 of 3
1
2
3
