As you may know, AB 3182 is on the Governor’s desk, pending his signature or veto.  AB 3182, if passed, would effectively prohibit (with only a couple of exceptions) rental bans, to allow owners to rent out their homes or attached/detached accessory and junior accessory dwelling units. Your advocacy efforts are needed to urge Governor Newsom to veto AB 3182.

Rental restrictions, and the broad discretion the board is given to adopt and enforce them, are intended to preserve the residential character of the community by promoting stability, minimizing increases in insurance premiums, maintaining property values and avoiding transient tenancy. Assembly Bill 3182 (“AB 3182”), if passed, would limit this discretion and prohibit certain types of rental restrictions.

Wildfires are currently starting to rage throughout the state, forcing thousands to evacuate their homes. In fact, as of the date of this publication and only since August 15th, over a million acres have been burned in Northern California. Read more . . .

BT form partners, Jeffery A. Beaumont and Lisa A. Tashjian discuss successful rule enforcement during challenging times on The HOA Show, hosted by: Ryan Gesell, CIRMS, CMCA.

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN

Rental restrictions have long been a hot button issue and source of debate, from the state/legislative level, down to the rules in your unique community’s governing documents. California law currently allows homeowners’ associations to adopt reasonable rental restrictions, such as minimum lease terms, occupancy requirements prior to leasing and caps on the total number of homes in the community that can be rented at a given time. Generally speaking, as long as the restrictions and limitations the board chooses to adopt are reasonable and consistent across the governing documents, a court would uphold them.

Rental restrictions, and the broad discretion the board is given to adopt and enforce them, are intended to preserve the residential character of the community by promoting stability, minimizing increases in insurance premiums, maintaining property values and avoiding transient tenancy. Assembly Bill 3182 (“AB 3182”), if chaptered in its current form, would limit this discretion and prohibit certain types of rental restrictions.
Read more . . .

As of July 13, 2020, California Governor Gavin Newsom announced that all counties must close their indoor operations in the following sectors:

• Dine-in restaurants;

• Wineries and tasting rooms;

• Movie theaters;

• Family entertainment centers (e.g., bowling alleys, miniature golf, batting cages and arcades);

• Zoos and museums; and

• Cardrooms. 

Bars and pubs across all counties must also close, whether or not they are indoors or outdoors. What is more, counties on the State’s “County Monitoring List”, which include, among others, Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Barbara, Riverside and Ventura, must close the following facilities, unless they can be modified to operate outside:

• Fitness centers;

• Worship services;

• Protests;

• Offices for non-essential sectors;

• Personal care services, like nail salons, body waxing and tattoo parlors;

• Hair salons and barbershops; and

• Malls. 

As the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic remains very much a part of our lives at the time of this publication, community association leaders are undoubtedly straining to maintain a sense of normalcy while transitioning to virtual meetings, new common area rules and restrictions, sanitization and other health/safety protocols, etc. Complicating matters further, state and local health officials seem to be revising their pandemic guidelines, recommendations and/or mandates weekly (if not daily). Government orders are regularly either tightened or relaxed, depending on the rise and fall of the infection rate. These reactive responses are difficult to keep track of for community association boards and managers (and attorneys!). 

While the infection rate and government responses to the statistics are unpredictable, what can be controlled is the association’s preparedness for all scenarios.
Read more . . .

In recent years, the laws governing homeowners’ installation of Solar Energy Systems, or “SES” have been updated in order to address evolving technology and the increasing popularity of solar panels.  Under California Civil Code Section 714(a), owners’ associations are barred from adopting any regulations, restrictions or covenants that effectively prohibit the installation or use of a SES.  Any such restrictions are deemed “void and unenforceable” as a matter of law.

However, this does not mean that associations are unable to regulate the installation of SES in their community. Civil Code Section 714(b) allows associations to impose “reasonable” restrictions on the installation of SES.  “Reasonable” restrictions are those defined as “restrictions that do not significantly increase the cost of the system or significantly decrease its efficiency or specified performance, or that allow for an alternative system of comparable cost, efficiency, and energy conservation benefits.”

With SES installations come a variety of concerns. These concerns can include risk of property damage, as well as roof access, workmanship, conformity with legal requirements, protecting existing building improvements, protecting existing roof warranties and effecting repairs – especially with respect to an association’s ability to repair common area roofs and building components that may be covered by SES installations.