BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING Senator Jim Beall, Chair 2015 - 2016 Regular Bill No: AB 786 Hearing Date: 8/25/2015 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Author: |Levine | |----------+------------------------------------------------------| |Version: |8/19/2015 | ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Urgency: |Yes |Fiscal: |No | ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Consultant|Alison Dinmore | |: | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: Common interest developments: property use and maintenance DIGEST: This bill prohibits a homeowners association (HOA) from imposing a fine or assessment against a homeowner for reducing or eliminating the watering of vegetation or lawns during a drought, except where the HOA uses recycled water for all home or common area landscape irrigation. ANALYSIS: Existing law: 1)Requires local agencies to adopt water-efficient landscape ordinances, as specified. 2)Establishes rules and regulations governing the operation of common interest developments (CIDs) and the respective rights and duties of HOAs and their members. 3)Permits the governing board of an HOA to adopt operating rules that apply generally to the management and operation of the CID or the conduct of the business and affairs of the HOA, provided that the rule is within the authority of the board to make, does not conflict with the HOA's articles, bylaws, or governing law, and is reasonable. 4)Limits the authority of an HOA or the governing documents of a CID to regulate the use of a member's separate interest. AB 786 (Levine) Page 2 of ? 5)Renders void and unenforceable any provision of the governing documents or architectural or landscaping guidelines or policies of an HOA that does any of the following: a) Prohibits, or includes conditions that have the effect of prohibiting, the use of low-water-using plants as a group or as a replacement of existing turf; or b) Has the effect of prohibiting or restricting compliance with a water-efficient landscape ordinance or regulation or restriction on the use of water. 1)Provides that an HOA may apply landscaping rules established in its governing documents that do not conflict with other law, as specified. 2)Prohibits an HOA from imposing a fine or assessment against an owner of a separate interest for reducing or eliminating the watering of vegetation or lawns during any period for which the Governor has declared a state of emergency due to drought or a local government has declared a local emergency due to draught. This urgency bill: 1)Prohibits an HOA from imposing a fine or assessment against a homeowner for reducing or eliminating the watering of vegetation or lawns during a drought, except where the HOA uses recycled water for all home or common area landscape irrigation. 2)Voids, or makes unenforceable, any provision of a CID governing document or architectural or landscaping guidelines or policies that prohibit the use of artificial turf or any other synthetic surface that resembles grass. 3)Prohibits a CID from requiring a homeowner to reverse or remove water-efficient landscaping measures upon the conclusion of a state of emergency due to drought, that were installed during that state of emergency. COMMENTS: 1)Purpose. According to the author, the chronic drought has AB 786 (Levine) Page 3 of ? continued and California is now in its fourth year. On April 1, 2015, the Governor followed up on a proclamation of a drought state of emergency with Executive Order B-29-15. Among the provisions of the Executive Order was directive No. 2, stating that the State Water Resources Control Board shall impose restriction upon water suppliers to achieve a statewide 25% reduction in potable urban water usage through February 28, 2016. Restrictions in the amount of potable water used for outdoor landscaping are the primary tool. According to the author, despite these directives, some HOAs are interpreting language in existing law to allow them to fine homeowners for restricting the watering of outdoor landscaping. Those HOAs are stating that if they (the HOA) use recycled water on some part of the common areas, the HOA may fine homeowners who refuse to use potable water upon their outdoor landscaping and thus let the lawn turn brown. The author believes that homeowners who voluntarily seek to aid the emergency drought situation should not be penalized by HOAs using the recycled water loophole in an attempt to maintain lush lawns during a drought. 2)Example of the problem. According to the author, Irvine Ranch Water District is an example of a water agency struggling to meet the drought emergency by limiting outdoor landscaping. A homeowner in an HOA that receives water from that district informed the district that he would be fined by the HOA if he were to let his lawn go brown. That HOA interpreted existing law as allowing them to fine homeowners for non-watering if the HOA is using recycled water in common areas. This bill will restrict the ability for HOAs to impose a fine on a homeowner only in circumstances in which recycled water is used by both the HOA and the homeowner in common areas and in homes. 3)Artificial turf provisions. This bill also contains the same provisions contained within AB 349 (Gonzalez), which was heard in this committee on June 24, 2015. This language was included to avoid chaptering issues if both this bill and AB 349 were signed by the Governor. Therefore, this bill would prohibit an HOA from preventing a homeowner from installing artificial turf or synthetic grass. Existing law allows an HOA to apply landscaping rules that are included in the governing documents, so long as those rules do not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the use of low-water-using AB 786 (Levine) Page 4 of ? plants or prevent a homeowner from complying with a local water-efficient landscaping ordinance. This bill would extend those protections to artificial turf or grass. This means an HOA may establish reasonable restrictions about the type of artificial grass that a homeowner may use so long as those restrictions do not, in effect, prevent a homeowner from installing artificial grass. 4)Opposition. The Educational Community for Homeowners (ECHO) does not oppose the prohibition against an HOA imposing a fine or assessment against an owner of a home for reducing or eliminating the watering of vegetation or lawns during a drought, except where the HOA uses recycled water for all home or common area landscape irrigation. ECHO opposes the provisions that were contained with AB 349 (Gonzalez) that are incorporated into this bill, however, because decisions made regarding landscaping in CIDs is, and should continue to be, made by the community and their elected board of directors. ECHO therefore resists attempts by the state to legislate a "one-size-fits-all" approach to CID governance. ECHO also raises environmental and public health concerns related to the installation of artificial turf, including the "possible unknown health impacts that could be caused by synthetic turf," and "concerns that the end of the life of synthetic turf will be in landfills." Related Legislation: AB 349 (Gonzalez, 2015) - voids, or makes unenforceable, any provision of a CID governing document or architectural or landscaping guidelines or policies that prohibit the use of artificial turf or any other synthetic surface that resembles grass. This bill is currently on the Senate Floor. SB 759 (Lieu, 2011) - would have voided, or made unenforceable, any provision of a CID governing document or architectural or landscaping guidelines or policies that prohibit the use of artificial turf or any other synthetic surface that resembles grass. This bill was vetoed by Governor Brown. This is an excerpt from the veto message: The decision about choosing synthetic turf instead of natural vegetation should be left to individual homeowners associations, not mandated by state law. For this reason, I AB 786 (Levine) Page 5 of ? am returning this bill. AB 1793 (Saldana, 2010) - would have voided, or made unenforceable, any provision of a CID governing document or architectural or landscaping guidelines or policies that prohibit the use of artificial turf or any other synthetic surface that resembles grass. This bill was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger. This is an excerpt from the veto message: CIDs provide a system of self-governance through a community association, responsible for managing, maintaining, and repairing the common areas, and have the authority to enforce special rules. Decisions such as these regarding the use of artificial turf can be made by the homeowners and amended into their governing documents. FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Thursday, August 20, 2015.) SUPPORT: California Forward Action Fund Irvine Ranch Water District OPPOSITION: Educational Community for Homeowners -- END --