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 --