BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 853|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 853
Author: Kehoe (D)
Amended: 4/7/05
Vote: 21
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSINGCOMMITTEE : 11-2, 4/5/05
AYES: Torlakson, McClintock, Cedillo, Ducheny, Kehoe,
Lowenthal,
Machado, Maldonado, Murray, Simitian, Soto
NOES: Ashburn, Runner
NO VOTE RECORDED: Margett
SUBJECT : Common interest developments: architectural
review
SOURCE : California Law Revision Commission
DIGEST : This bill (1) clarifies that any decision of an
architectural review entity within a common interest
development may not violate any state laws, including
building codes or other applicable laws governing land use
or public safety, and (2) updates references to obsolete
code sections.
ANALYSIS : The Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development
Act defines and regulates common interest developments
(CID). Existing law requires that when a common interest
development association's governing documents require
association approval before an owner may make a physical
change to the owner's separate interest or to the common
CONTINUED
SB 853
Page
2
area, the association must satisfy specified provisions.
Among these provisions is a requirement that a decision on
a proposed change be consistent with any governing
provision of law, including the Fair Employment and Housing
Act.
Existing law provides that a common interest development
association has standing to institute, defend, settle, or
intervene in specified civil proceedings in its own name,
and addresses the reduction of damages for comparative
fault in this context.
In general, homeowner associations have wide discretion to
regulate the appearance of individual interests and the
conduct of its member. Under current law, the declarations
of an association are enforceable as equitable servitudes
"unless unreasonable." In Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village
Condominium Association, Incorporated , 8 Cal. 4th 361
(1994), the California Supreme Court opined that the
"unless unreasonable" standard means that "restrictions
should be enforced unless they are wholly arbitrary,
violate a public policy, or impose a burden on the use of
affected land that far outweighs any benefit."
When reviewing architectural review matters, a homeowners
association must provide a fair, reasonable and expeditious
procedure and make decisions, in good faith. In addition,
decisions must be consistent with "any governing provision
of law," including the accessibility requirements of fair
housing laws.
This bill clarifies that the architectural review decisions
of a CID must not violate any governing provision of law,
notwithstanding contrary provisions of the CID's own
governing documents. The bill will further clarify that
such decisions must be consistent with laws governing
building codes, land use, or public safety.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 4/19/05)
The California Law Revision Commission (source)
CONTINUED
SB 853
Page
3
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT :
According to the Senate Transportation and Housing
Committee, "the California Law Revision Commission has
sponsored SB 853 in order to avoid disputes and uncertainty
that can result when an association's architectural
restrictions conflict with land use or public safety law.
For example, fire safety law may require that vegetation be
cleared within a certain distance of structures in
fire-prone areas. This requirement might conflict with an
association landscaping restriction. In such a case, the
association may be unsure whether its restriction is
preempted and may feel duty-bound to enforce its
restriction until a court rules on the enforceability of
the restriction. This uncertainty can lead to unnecessary
litigation and expense and may result in perpetuation of an
unlawful and unsafe condition. According to the
commission, an association architectural restriction should
be preempted by governing land use and public safety law as
a matter of policy."
JJA:do 4/20/05 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED