The CAI-CLAC legislative task force is hard at work reviewing bills introduced and the impacts on community associations. Here are our top priority bills.

AB 502 (Davies) – SUPPORT

• This bill will allow election by acclamation for all associations when the number of candidates is equal to or less than the number of open board seats.
• AB 502 makes reasonable changes to existing law that could result in significant savings for many associations. 
• SB 754 (Moorlach, 2019) allowed an Association of 6,000 or more units to elect board members without an election when the number of candidates is less than or equal to the number of available board seats. 

• SB 323 (Wieckowski, 2019) created additional requirements in the Davis- Stirling Act election process providing greater transparency and opportunities to participate in association elections. 

• AB 502 deletes the threshold created by SB 754 but makes no other changes to the process and transparency provided by SB 323. 

• AB 502 will save Associations and their members money

.
   

AB 1101 (Irwin) – SUPPORT

• This is a CLAC sponsored bill to clean up issued with our financial security bill (AB 2912).
• AB 1101 provides clarity on existing financial requirements and provides protection to homeowners of HOAs from fraudulent activities by those entrusted with managing the finances of HOAs. 
• AB 2912 (Irwin, 2018) requires HOAs to secure additional insurance and review documents on a more regular basis in order to curb fraudulent activities. 

• AB 1101 clarifies existing law in the following ways: 


   

  • Specifying the types of coverage an HOA must maintain to be in compliance.

  • Establishing a clear threshold before board approval is required for the transfer of funds.
  • Specifies that HOA funds shall be deposited into accounts insured by Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the National Credit Union Administration Insurance Fund.

SB 9 (Atkins) – OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED

• This bill would allow for lot splits in single-family residential communities.
• Local governments support the building of planned use developments (PUD) because the association is responsible for the upkeep of essential infrastructure, like roads, lights, water and sewage. 

• SB 9 will create a couple major issues for associations because these developments are designed to support the number of units provided for in the initial local government approved plans. 

• Allowing single-family lots to be split will force many associations to upgrade this infrastructure at a time when they can least afford it. 

• SB 9 will create a conflict with assessment allocation provisions in many association’s governing documents forcing them to amend these documents every time there is a subdivision of a lot. 

• Exempting Associations from the provision of SB 9 is appropriate in light of the unintended consequences the bill would create for those who now reside in these communities.
• SB 9 is silent as to the impact of pre-existing CC&R restrictions prohibiting such a subdivision. There are concerns that SB 9 could be construed as constituting public policy in favor permitting construction of duplexes in CIDs.  The author of the bill, Senator Atkins, represented during a policy committee hearing that the bill is not intended to invalidate CC&R restrictions.  CLAC is seeking amendments confirming the stated intent.

SB 10 (Wiener) – OPPOSE 

• This bill would authorize a city or county to pass an ordinance to zone any parcel for up to 10 units of residential density, if the parcel is located in a transit-rich area, jobs rich area or an urban infill.
• The bill also voids any language in a Community Association’s governing documents that restricts or prohibits an individual from any such development after an ordinance is adopted.

SB 391 (Min) – SUPPORT

• This bill will allow for common interest developments throughout California to conduct meetings via teleconference during a state of emergency. 
• Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-25-20, authorizing a local legislative body or state body to hold public meetings via teleconference or otherwise electronically during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

• No such authority was extended to community associations, which are required to provide a physical location for board and member meetings under Davis- Stirling Act. 

• SB 391 addresses this issue by allowing associations to conduct meetings via teleconference during a state of emergency and provide clear guidance to all associations during these uncertain times and in the future. 


Updated April 21, 2021

Make YOUR heard at the State Capitol. Visit our Current Campaigns Page to take action on bills currently scheduled for a committee hearing.

STAY CONNECTED