Articles Posted in Legislative Developments

By David Swedelson, Partner, SwedelsonGottlieb, Community Association Attorneys

Growing up, there was a home in our neighborhood that had a massive radio antenna, much like the one in the photograph that is part of this blog post. As a kid, I was fascinated by the antenna. It was so big. Actually, I was captivated by the thought that I could talk to people around the world via a ham radio.

As an adult, while I may still be enamored by the prospect of communicating with people around the world, these days I do that via email, twitter and the telephone. While I have no problem with others wanting to be ham radio operators, I would not want to see one of these radio antennas on the roof of a home at my community association. And I know that many of you feel the same way about not allowing radio antennas, like the one in the photograph, at the associations you live in, manage or work with.

Who said you can’t trust lawyers? You can certainly trust SwedelsonGottlieb, as we are actively opposing proposed new legislation that would make us more money, AB 1738. This bill concerning internal dispute resolution (IDR) in common interest developments (Civil Code Sections 5900-5920) was recently passed by the the California State Assembly and the Senate unopposed. It’s clear that the legislators do not understand the implications of what may happen if this legislation is signed into law by the Governor. If signed into law, this new law will most certainly make more work for us community association attorneys, as owners will be bringing their attorneys to IDR meetings, and many boards will opt to do the same.

Review the proposed revised language to Civil Code Sections 5910 and 5915 by following this link. On its face, the revised language is pretty innocuous. However, those with real-world experience with IDR in community associations (such as board members, managers and the attorneys that guide them) realize that AB 1738 will end up costing community associations more money for legal fees if this bill becomes law. Why? Because, as CAI’s California Legislative Action Committee (CAI-CLAC) suggested in its Call To Action on this Bill, “AB 1738 encourages members to bring attorneys and others to their first meeting with a single board member who has volunteered to help work out the member’s problem or concern. These simple ‘meet-and-confer’ conversations over coffee most often resolve an issue. When they occasionally don’t, either party may pursue a more formal Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process that does involve lawyers. Nothing in law prevents lawyers from attending IDR right now, but AB 1738 actually promotes having them present to argue the issue(s). This will invariably make the discussion adversarial.”
Continue reading

The National Chapter of Community Associations Institute (CAI) recently sent out the following urgent message, which we are reproducing here in its entirety. If you want to preserve the right for homeowner associations to be able to restrict the installation of radio towers and antennas, you need to read and act on this important information:

Last month, U.S. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) introduced H.R. 4969, legislation that may invalidate community association rules and architectural standards that govern the installation and use of amateur radio towers and antennas.

If H.R. 4969 becomes law, homeowners who want to install a radio tower or antenna for amateur radio use would not have to go through the architectural review process or follow existing community guidelines.

Assembly Bill 1360, which provides optional (opt-in) electronic voting in HOAs, will be heard in the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 24th. We are asking you to contact the California State Senators referenced below with a message urging them to vote YES on AB 1360. We previously posted an article about this legislation that will allow electronic voting by members of California community associations. Follow this link to read the bill as currently amended.

While this legislation will not make electronic voting mandatory and will require that owners “opt-in” to vote electronically (because some owners may not have access to a computer to vote electronically), it is important that we support this legislation, as it will undoubtedly encourage owners to vote and may result in a smoother, less expensive voting process for California associations. At least this is the hope.

Your support is appreciated. Here is a suggested message:

By: Cyrus Koochek, Esq., SwedelsonGottlieb, Community Association Attorneys

In recent years, California has been faced with drought conditions, reduced water supplies and a consistently growing population. One step the California legislature has taken to address these issues was the adoption of Assembly Bill 1881, the Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (the “Act”), which establishes goals for the efficiency and reduction of water usage in California. The Act has been codified in the following California statutory provisions: Section 4735 of the Civil Code; Article 10.8 (commencing with Section 65591) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code; Section 25401.9 of the Public Resources Code; and Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 535) to Chapter 8 of Division 1 of the Water Code, relating to water conservation.
Continue reading

By David Swedelson, SwedelsonGottlieb, Community Association Attorneys

Is your condo association exclusively a commercial or industrial development? Surprise — as of January 1, 2014, the Davis-Stirling Act no longer applies to your association. Your association is now regulated by the new Commercial and Industrial Common Interest Development Act (CICIDA), Civil Code Sections 6500-6876.

Previously, managers and directors of commercial and industrial developments only had to be aware of the provisions of the Davis-Stirling Act that did not apply to commercial and industrial developments. Now, there is an entire new body of law specifically applicable to these kinds of developments. While some requirements remain unchanged, there are some substantive changes that will generally allow for more flexibility when governing a commercial or industrial development. Simply stated, the legislature has not included in the CICIDA many of the requirements of the Davis-Stirling Act that now apply solely to residential associations, including secret elections, budgets, disclosures, and the list goes on. Follow this link to read our comprehensive article.

By David Swedelson, Partner at SwedelsonGottlieb, Community Association Attorneys

In 2012, many managers were concerned when the California legislature enacted AB 2237, amending Business and Professions (B&P) Code Section 7026.1 relating to contractors, which became effective at the beginning of this year. The amendments to AB 2237 mandated required “consultants” overseeing some construction projects to be licensed “contractors”. This caused some managers to be concerned as to whether they were considered “consultants” and therefore required to be licensed contractors when performing management services for condo and homeowner associations. Specifically, there was concern that doing typical management functions such as bid solicitation, bid management and/or oversight of common area maintenance projects would require a contractor’s license.

The legislative intent behind AB 2237, which was sponsored by the Contractors State License Board (CSLB), is to serve as a “valuable consumer protection measure,” meant to address situations where “people who don’t have a state contractor license call themselves construction consultants and encourage property owners to take on home improvement projects as the owner-builder. The so-called consultant collects a fee and many times leaves the homeowners with all of the project responsibility and liability… [AB 2237] will clearly define when someone is a contractor and discourage unscrupulous individuals from working under a fraudulently obtained owner-builder permit.” (CSLB Press Release – 12/31/12)
Continue reading