AB 634: Real property: solar energy systems.
- Session Year: 2017-2018
- House: Assembly
- Latest Version Date: 2017-10-15
(1)Existing property law prohibits any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any deed, contract, security instrument, or other instrument affecting the transfer or sale of, or any interest in, and any provision of a governing document from effectively prohibiting or restricting the installation or use of a solar energy system.
Existing law also exempts from that prohibition provisions that impose reasonable restrictions on solar energy systems that do not significantly increase the cost of the system or significantly decrease its efficiency or specified performance. Existing law specifies that whenever approval is required for the installation or use of a solar energy system, the application for approval must be processed and approved by the appropriate approving entity in the same manner as an application for approval of an architectural modification to the property.
Existing property law permits an association to impose reasonable provisions that restrict the installation of solar energy systems installed in common areas, as defined, to those systems approved by the association.
This bill would prohibit an association from establishing a general policy prohibiting the installation or use of a rooftop solar energy system for household purposes on the roof of the building in which the owner resides, or a garage or carport adjacent to the building that has been assigned to the owner for exclusive use. The bill also would prohibit an association from requiring approval by a vote of members owning separate interests in the common interest development in those circumstances. Any action by an association that contravenes these provisions would be void and unenforceable. The bill would also make nonsubstantive and clarifying changes.
(2)The Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act defines and regulates common interest developments. The act requires an affirmative vote of members owning at least 67% of the separate interests in the common interest development before the board may grant exclusive use of a portion of the common interest development to a member, unless the governing documents specify a different percentage. Existing law exempts from this requirement certain actions, including, among others, a grant of exclusive use to eliminate or correct engineering errors in recorded documents, to accommodate a disability, and to install and use an electric vehicle charging station through a license granted by the association.
This bill also would exempt from that vote requirement an action to install and use a solar energy system on the common roof of a residence that meets specified requirements.
The bill would require an association, when reviewing a request to install a solar energy system on a multifamily common area roof shared by more than one homeowner, to require an applicant to notify each owner of a unit in the building on which the installation will be located of the application and to require each owner to maintain a homeowner liability coverage policy, as specified. The bill would permit an association, when reviewing this request, to impose additional reasonable requirements, including a requirement to submit a solar site survey showing the placement of the solar energy system, in accordance with specific criteria.
(1)Existing property law prohibits any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any deed, contract, security instrument, or other instrument affecting the transfer or sale of, or any interest in, and any provision of a governing document from effectively prohibiting or restricting the installation or use of a solar energy system.
Existing law also exempts from that prohibition provisions that impose reasonable restrictions on solar energy systems that do not significantly increase the cost of the system or significantly decrease its efficiency or specified performance. Existing law specifies that whenever approval is required for the installation or use of a solar energy system, the application for approval must be processed and approved by the appropriate approving entity in the same manner as an application for approval of an architectural modification to the property.
Existing property law permits an association to impose reasonable provisions that restrict the installation of solar energy systems installed in common areas, as defined, to those systems approved by the association.
This bill would prohibit an association from establishing a general policy prohibiting the installation or use of a rooftop solar energy system for household purposes on the roof of the building in which the owner resides, or a garage or carport adjacent to the building that has been assigned to the owner for exclusive use. The bill also would prohibit an association from requiring approval by a vote of members owning separate interests in the common interest development in those circumstances. Any action by an association that contravenes these provisions would be void and unenforceable. The bill would also make nonsubstantive and clarifying changes.
(2)The Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act defines and regulates common interest developments. The act requires an affirmative vote of members owning at least 67% of the separate interests in the common interest development before the board may grant exclusive use of a portion of the common interest development to a member, unless the governing documents specify a different percentage. Existing law exempts from this requirement certain actions, including, among others, a grant of exclusive use to eliminate or correct engineering errors in recorded documents, to accommodate a disability, and to install and use an electric vehicle charging station through a license granted by the association.
This bill also would exempt from that vote requirement an action to install and use a solar energy system on the common roof of a residence that meets specified requirements.
The bill would require an association, when reviewing a request to install a solar energy system on a multifamily common area roof shared by more than one homeowner, to require an applicant to notify each owner of a unit in the building on which the installation will be located of the application and to require each owner to maintain a homeowner liability coverage policy, as specified. The bill would permit an association, when reviewing this request, to impose additional reasonable requirements, including a requirement to submit a solar site survey showing the placement of the solar energy system, in accordance with specific criteria.
(1)Existing property law prohibits any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any deed, contract, security instrument, or other instrument affecting the transfer or sale of, or any interest in, and any provision of a governing document from effectively prohibiting or restricting the installation or use of a solar energy system.
Existing law also exempts from that prohibition provisions that impose reasonable restrictions on solar energy systems that do not significantly increase the cost of the system or significantly decrease its efficiency or specified performance. Existing law specifies that whenever approval is required for the installation or use of a solar energy system, the application for approval must be processed and approved by the appropriate approving entity in the same manner as an application for approval of an architectural modification to the property.
Existing property law permits an association to impose reasonable provisions that restrict the installation of solar energy systems installed in common areas, as defined, to those systems approved by the association.
This bill would prohibit an association from establishing a general policy prohibiting the installation or use of a rooftop solar energy system for household purposes on the roof of the building in which the owner resides, or a garage or carport adjacent to the building that has been assigned to the owner for exclusive use. The bill also would prohibit an association from requiring approval by a vote of members owning separate interests in the common interest development in those circumstances. Any action by an association that contravenes these provisions would be void and unenforceable. The bill would also make nonsubstantive and clarifying changes.
(2)The Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act defines and regulates common interest developments. The act requires an affirmative vote of members owning at least 67% of the separate interests in the common interest development before the board may grant exclusive use of a portion of the common interest development to a member, unless the governing documents specify a different percentage. Existing law exempts from this requirement certain actions, including, among others, a grant of exclusive use to eliminate or correct engineering errors in recorded documents, to accommodate a disability, and to install and use an electric vehicle charging station through a license granted by the association.
This bill also would exempt from that vote requirement an action to install and use a solar energy system on the common roof of a residence that meets specified requirements.
The bill would require an association, when reviewing a request to install a solar energy system on a multifamily common area roof shared by more than one homeowner, to require an applicant to notify each owner of a unit in the building on which the installation will be located of the application and to require each owner to maintain a homeowner liability coverage policy, as specified. The bill would permit an association, when reviewing this request request, to impose additional reasonable requirements, including a requirement to submit a solar site survey showing the placement of the solar energy system, in accordance with specific criteria.
(1)Existing property law prohibits any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any deed, contract, security instrument, or other instrument affecting the transfer or sale of, or any interest in, and any provision of a governing document from effectively prohibiting or restricting the installation or use of a solar energy system.
Existing law also exempts from that prohibition provisions that impose reasonable restrictions on solar energy systems that do not significantly increase the cost of the system or significantly decrease its efficiency or specified performance. Existing law specifies that whenever approval is required for the installation or use of a solar energy system, the application for approval must be processed and approved by the appropriate approving entity in the same manner as an application for approval of an architectural modification to the property.
Existing property law permits an association to impose reasonable provisions that restrict the installation of solar energy systems installed in common areas, as defined, to those systems approved by the association.
This bill would specify that prohibit an association may not establish from establishing a general policy prohibiting the installation or use of a rooftop solar energy system for household purposes on the roof of the building in which the owner resides, or a garage or carport adjacent to the building that has been assigned to the owner for exclusive use. The bill also would specify that prohibit an association may not require from requiring approval by a vote of members owning separate interests in the common interest development in those circumstances. The bill additionally would specify that any Any action by an association that contravenes these provisions is would be void and unenforceable, and unenforceable. The bill would also make nonsubstantive and clarifying changes.
(2)The Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act defines and regulates common interest developments. The act requires an affirmative vote of members owning at least 67% of the separate interests in the common interest development before the board may grant exclusive use of a portion of the common interest development to a member, unless the governing documents specify a different percentage. Existing law exempts from this requirement certain actions, including, among others, a grant of exclusive use to eliminate or correct engineering errors in recorded documents, to accommodate a disability, and to install and use an electric vehicle charging station through a license granted by the association.
This bill also would exempt from that vote requirement an action to install and use a solar energy system on the common roof of a residence that meets specified requirements.
The bill would require an association, when reviewing a request to install a solar energy system on a multifamily common area roof shared by more than one homeowner, to require an applicant to notify each owner of a unit in the building on which the installation will be located of the application to install the solar energy system. application and to require each owner to maintain a homeowner liability coverage policy, as specified. The bill would permit an association, when reviewing this request to impose additional reasonable requirements, including a requirement to submit a solar site survey showing the placement of the solar energy system, in accordance with specific criteria.
(1)Existing property law prohibits any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any deed, contract, security instrument, or other instrument affecting the transfer or sale of, or any interest in, and any provision of a governing document from effectively prohibiting or restricting the installation or use of a solar energy system.
Existing law also exempts from that prohibition provisions that impose reasonable restrictions on solar energy systems that do not significantly increase the cost of the system or significantly decrease its efficiency or specified performance. Existing law specifies that whenever approval is required for the installation or use of a solar energy system, the application for approval must be processed and approved by the appropriate approving entity in the same manner as an application for approval of an architectural modification to the property.
Existing property law permits an association to impose reasonable provisions that restrict the installation of solar energy systems installed in common areas, as defined, to those systems approved by the association.
This bill would specify that an association may not establish a general policy prohibiting the installation or use of a rooftop solar energy system for household purposes on the roof of the building in which the owner resides, or a garage or carport adjacent to the building that has been assigned to the owner for exclusive use. The bill also would specify that an association may not require approval by a vote of members owning separate interests in the common interest development in those circumstances. The bill additionally would specify that any action by an association that contravenes these provisions is void and unenforceable, and would make nonsubstantive and clarifying changes.
(2)The Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act defines and regulates common interest developments. The act requires an affirmative vote of members owning at least 67% of the separate interests in the common interest development before the board may grant exclusive use of a portion of the common interest development to a member, unless the governing documents specify a different percentage. Existing law exempts from this requirement certain actions, including, among others, a grant of exclusive use to eliminate or correct engineering errors in recorded documents, to accommodate a disability, and to install and use an electric vehicle charging station through a license granted by the association.
This bill also would exempt from that vote requirement an action to install and use a solar energy system on the common roof of a residence that meets specified requirements.
The bill would permit require an association, when reviewing a request to install a solar energy system on a multifamily common area roof shared by more than one homeowner, to impose additional reasonable provisions. These provisions would include requiring require an applicant to notify each owner of a unit in the building on which the installation will be located of the application to install the solar energy system and system. The bill would permit an association, when reviewing this request to impose additional reasonable requirements, including a requirement to submit a solar site survey showing the placement of the solar energy system, in accordance with specific criteria.
(1)Existing property law prohibits any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any deed, contract, security instrument, or other instrument affecting the transfer or sale of, or any interest in, and any provision of a governing document from effectively prohibiting or restricting the installation or use of a solar energy system.
Existing law also exempts from that prohibition provisions that impose reasonable restrictions on solar energy systems that do not significantly increase the cost of the system or significantly decrease its efficiency or specified performance. Existing law specifies that whenever approval is required for the installation or use of a solar energy system, the application for approval must be processed and approved by the appropriate approving entity in the same manner as an application for approval of an architectural modification to the property.
Existing property law permits an association to impose reasonable provisions that restrict the installation of solar energy systems installed in common areas, as defined, to those systems approved by the association.
This bill additionally would permit an association to impose reasonable provisions that require an applicant to notify each owner of a unit in the building on which a solar installation will be located of the application to install a solar energy system, to require the applicant to submit a solar suitability survey to determine usable solar roof area, and to require equitable allocation of usable solar space, as specified. The bill would specify that an association may not establish a general policy prohibiting the installation or use of a rooftop solar energy system for household purposes on the roof of the building in which the owner resides and resides, or a garage or carport adjacent to the building that has been assigned to the owner for exclusive use. The bill also would specify that an association may not require approval by a vote of members owning separate interests in the common interest development in those circumstances. The bill also additionally would specify that any action by an association that contravenes these provisions is void and unenforceable, and would make nonsubstantive and clarifying changes.
The(2)The Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act defines and regulates common interest developments. The act requires an affirmative vote of members owning at least 67% of the separate interests in the common interest development before the board may grant exclusive use of a portion of the common interest development to a member, unless the governing documents specify a different percentage. Existing law exempts from this requirement certain actions, including, among others, a grant of exclusive use to eliminate or correct engineering errors in recorded documents, to accommodate a disability, and to install and use an electric vehicle charging station through a license granted by the association.
This bill also would exempt from that vote requirement an action to install and use a solar energy system on the common roof of a residence that meets specified requirements.
The bill would permit an association, when reviewing a request to install a solar energy system on a multifamily common area roof shared by more than one homeowner, to impose additional reasonable provisions. These provisions would include requiring an applicant to notify each owner of a unit in the building on which the installation will be located of the application to install the solar energy system and to submit a solar site survey showing the placement of the solar energy system, in accordance with specific criteria.
Existing property law prohibits any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any deed, contract, security instrument, or other instrument affecting the transfer or sale of, or any interest in, and any provision of a governing document from effectively prohibiting or restricting the installation or use of a solar energy system.
Existing law also exempts from that prohibition provisions that impose reasonable restrictions on solar energy systems that do not significantly increase the cost of the system or significantly decrease its efficiency or specified performance. Existing law specifies that whenever approval is required for the installation or use of a solar energy system, the application for approval must be processed and approved by the appropriate approving entity in the same manner as an application for approval of an architectural modification to the property. If the approving entity is an association created for managing a common interest development, and is not a public entity, the approval or denial of an application must be in writing and if the application is not denied in writing within 45 days of its receipt, the application must be deemed approved, except in limited circumstances.
This bill would require the approval process for associations to include a requirement that an applicant notify each owner of units in the building on which the installation will be located of the application to install a solar energy system and to ensure equal allocation of usable solar space.Existing property law permits an association to impose reasonable provisions that restrict the installation of solar energy systems installed in common areas, as defined, to those systems approved by the association.
This bill additionally would permit an association to impose reasonable provisions that require an applicant to notify each owner of a unit in the building on which a solar installation will be located of the application to install a solar energy system, to require the applicant to submit a solar suitability survey to determine usable solar roof area, and to require equitable allocation of usable solar space, as specified. The bill would specify that an association may not prohibit establish a general policy prohibiting the installation or use of a rooftop solar energy system for household purposes on the roof of the building in which the owner resides and also may not require approval of the membership of the association by a vote of members owning separate interests in the common interest development in those circumstances. The bill also would specify that any action by an association that contravenes these provisions is void and unenforceable, and would make nonsubstantive and clarifying changes.
The Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act defines and regulates common interest developments. The act requires an affirmative vote of members owning at least 67% of the separate interests in the common interest development before the board may grant exclusive use of a portion of the common interest development to a member, unless the governing documents specify a different percentage. Existing law exempts from this requirement certain actions, including, among others, a grant of exclusive use to eliminate or correct engineering errors in recorded documents, to accommodate a disability, and to install and use an electric vehicle charging station through a license granted by the association.
This bill also would exempt from that vote requirement an action to install and use a solar energy system on the common roof of a residence that meets specified requirements.
Existing property law prohibits any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any deed, contract, security instrument, or other instrument affecting the transfer or sale of, or any interest in, and any provision of a governing document from effectively prohibiting or restricting the installation or use of a solar energy system.
Existing law also exempts from that prohibition provisions that impose reasonable restrictions on solar energy systems that do not significantly increase the cost of the system or significantly decrease its efficiency or specified performance. Existing law specifies that whenever approval is required for the installation or use of a solar energy system, the application for approval must be processed and approved by the appropriate approving entity in the same manner as an application for approval of an architectural modification to the property. If the approving entity is an association created for managing a common interest development, and is not a public entity, the approval or denial of an application must be in writing and if the application is not denied in writing within 45 days of its receipt, the application must be deemed approved, except in limited circumstances.
This bill would require the approval process for associations to include a requirement that an applicant notify each owner of units in the building on which the installation will be located of the application to install a solar energy system and to ensure equal allocation of usable solar space.
Existing property law permits an association to impose reasonable provisions that restrict the installation of solar energy systems installed in common areas, as defined, to those systems approved by the association.
This bill would specify that an association may not prohibit the installation or use of a rooftop solar energy system for household purposes on the roof of the building in which the owner resides and also may not require approval of the membership of the association in those circumstances. The bill also would specify that any action by an association that contravenes these provisions is void and unenforceable, and would make nonsubstantive and clarifying changes.
Existing law defines and regulates employment agencies. Existing law requires a regulated employment agency to maintain a bond, as specified, filed with the Secretary of State, of $3,000, or a deposit in lieu of a bond.This bill would make a nonsubstantive change to these provisions.Existing law defines and regulates employment agencies. Existing law requires a regulated employment agency to maintain a bond, as specified, filed with the Secretary of State, of $3,000, or a deposit in lieu of a bond.
This bill would make a nonsubstantive change to these provisions.
(a)Notwithstanding Section 714, an association may impose reasonable provisions that:
(1)Restrict the installation of solar energy systems in common areas to those systems approved by the association.
(2)Require the owner of a separate interest to obtain the approval of the association for the installation of a solar energy system in a separate interest owned by another.
(3)Provide for the maintenance, repair, or replacement of roofs or other building components.
(4)Require installers of solar energy systems to indemnify or reimburse the association or its members for loss or damage caused by the installation, maintenance, or use of the solar energy system.
(b)An association shall not:
(1)Establish a general policy prohibiting the installation or use of a rooftop solar energy system for household purposes on the roof of the building in which the owner resides, or a garage or carport adjacent to the building that has been assigned to the owner for exclusive use.
(2)Require approval by a vote of members owning separate interests in the common interest development, including that specified by Section 4600, for installation of a solar energy system for household purposes on the roof of the building in which the owner resides, or a garage or carport adjacent to the building that has been assigned to the owner for exclusive use.
An action by an association that contravenes paragraph (1) or (2) shall be void and unenforceable.
(c)For purposes of this section:
(1)Association has the same meaning as defined in Section 4080 or 6528.
(2)Common area has the same meaning as defined in Section 4095 or 6532.
(3)Separate interest has the same meaning as defined in Section 4185 or 6564.
SEC. 2.Section 4600 of the Civil Code is amended to read:4600.(a)Unless the governing documents specify a different percentage, the affirmative vote of members owning at least 67 percent of the separate interests in the common interest development shall be required before the board may grant exclusive use of any portion of the common area to a member.
(b)Subdivision (a) does not apply to the following actions:
(1)A reconveyance of all or any portion of that common area to the subdivider to enable the continuation of development that is in substantial conformance with a detailed plan of phased development submitted to the Real Estate Commissioner with the application for a public report.
(2)Any grant of exclusive use that is in substantial conformance with a detailed plan of phased development submitted to the Real Estate Commissioner with the application for a public report or in accordance with the governing documents approved by the Real Estate Commissioner.
(3)Any grant of exclusive use that is for any of the following reasons:
(A)To eliminate or correct engineering errors in documents recorded with the county recorder or on file with a public agency or utility company.
(B)To eliminate or correct encroachments due to errors in construction of any improvements.
(C)To permit changes in the plan of development submitted to the Real Estate Commissioner in circumstances where the changes are the result of topography, obstruction, hardship, aesthetic considerations, or environmental conditions.
(D)To fulfill the requirement of a public agency.
(E)To transfer the burden of management and maintenance of any common area that is generally inaccessible and not of general use to the membership at large of the association.
(F)To accommodate a disability.
(G)To assign a parking space, storage unit, or other amenity, that is designated in the declaration for assignment, but is not assigned by the declaration to a specific separate interest.
(H)To install and use an electric vehicle charging station in an owners garage or a designated parking space that meets the requirements of Section 4745, where the installation or use of the charging station requires reasonable access through, or across, the common area for utility lines or meters.
(I)To install and use an electric vehicle charging station through a license granted by an association under Section 4745.
(J)To install and use a solar energy system on the common area roof of a residence that meets the requirements of Sections 714, 714.1, and, if applicable, Section 4746.
(K)To comply with governing law.
(c)Any measure placed before the members requesting that the board grant exclusive use of any portion of the common area shall specify whether the association will receive any monetary consideration for the grant and whether the association or the transferee will be responsible for providing any insurance coverage for exclusive use of the common area.
SEC. 3.Section 4746 is added to the Civil Code, to read:4746.(a)When reviewing a request to install a solar energy system on a multifamily common area roof shared by more than one homeowner pursuant to Sections 714 and 714.1, an association shall require both of the following:
(1)An applicant to notify each owner of a unit in the building on which the installation will be located of the application to install a solar energy system.
(2)The owner and each successive owner to maintain a homeowner liability coverage policy at all times and provide the association with the corresponding certificate of insurance within 14 days of approval of the application and annually thereafter.
(b)When reviewing a request to install a solar energy system on a multifamily common area roof shared by more than one homeowner pursuant to Sections 714 and 714.1, an association may impose additional reasonable provisions that:
(1)(A)Require the applicant to submit a solar site survey showing the placement of the solar energy system prepared by a licensed contractor or the contractors registered salesperson knowledgeable in the installation of solar energy systems to determine usable solar roof area. This survey or the costs to determine useable space shall not be deemed as part of the cost of the system as used in Section 714.
(B)The solar site survey shall also include a determination of an equitable allocation of the usable solar roof area among all owners sharing the same roof, garage, or carport.
(2)Require the owner and each successive owner of the solar energy system to be responsible for all of the following:
(A)Costs for damage to the common area, exclusive use common area, or separate interests resulting from the installation, maintenance, repair, removal, or replacement of the solar energy system.
(B)Costs for the maintenance, repair, and replacement of solar energy system until it has been removed and for the restoration of the common area, exclusive use common area, or separate interests after removal.
(C)Disclosing to prospective buyers the existence of any solar energy system of the owner and the related responsibilities of the owner under this section.
(c)For purposes of this section:
(1)Association has the same meaning as defined in Section 4080 or 6528.
(2)Common area has the same meaning as defined in Section 4095 or 6532.
(3)Separate interest has the same meaning as defined in Section 4185 or 6564.
(d)This section imposes additional requirements for any proposed installation of a solar energy system on a multifamily common area roof shared by more than one homeowner.
(e)This section does not diminish the authority of an association to impose reasonable provisions pursuant to Section 714.1.
(a)Notwithstanding Section 714, an association may impose reasonable provisions that:
(1)Restrict the installation of solar energy systems in common areas to those systems approved by the association.
(2)Require the owner of a separate interest to obtain the approval of the association for the installation of a solar energy system in a separate interest owned by another.
(3)Provide for the maintenance, repair, or replacement of roofs or other building components.
(4)Require installers of solar energy systems to indemnify or reimburse the association or its members for loss or damage caused by the installation, maintenance, or use of the solar energy system.
(b)An association shall not:
(1)Establish a general policy prohibiting the installation or use of a rooftop solar energy system for household purposes on the roof of the building in which the owner resides, or a garage or carport adjacent to the building that has been assigned to the owner for exclusive use.
(2)Require approval by a vote of members owning separate interests in the common interest development, including that specified by Section 4600, for installation of a solar energy system for household purposes on the roof of the building in which the owner resides, or a garage or carport adjacent to the building that has been assigned to the owner for exclusive use.
An action by an association that contravenes paragraph (1) or (2) shall be void and unenforceable.
(c)For purposes of this section:
(1)Association has the same meaning as defined in Section 4080 or 6528.
(2)Common area has the same meaning as defined in Section 4095 or 6532.
(3)Separate interest has the same meaning as defined in Section 4185 or 6564.
SEC. 2.Section 4600 of the Civil Code is amended to read:4600.(a)Unless the governing documents specify a different percentage, the affirmative vote of members owning at least 67 percent of the separate interests in the common interest development shall be required before the board may grant exclusive use of any portion of the common area to a member.
(b)Subdivision (a) does not apply to the following actions:
(1)A reconveyance of all or any portion of that common area to the subdivider to enable the continuation of development that is in substantial conformance with a detailed plan of phased development submitted to the Real Estate Commissioner with the application for a public report.
(2)Any grant of exclusive use that is in substantial conformance with a detailed plan of phased development submitted to the Real Estate Commissioner with the application for a public report or in accordance with the governing documents approved by the Real Estate Commissioner.
(3)Any grant of exclusive use that is for any of the following reasons:
(A)To eliminate or correct engineering errors in documents recorded with the county recorder or on file with a public agency or utility company.
(B)To eliminate or correct encroachments due to errors in construction of any improvements.
(C)To permit changes in the plan of development submitted to the Real Estate Commissioner in circumstances where the changes are the result of topography, obstruction, hardship, aesthetic considerations, or environmental conditions.
(D)To fulfill the requirement of a public agency.
(E)To transfer the burden of management and maintenance of any common area that is generally inaccessible and not of general use to the membership at large of the association.
(F)To accommodate a disability.
(G)To assign a parking space, storage unit, or other amenity, that is designated in the declaration for assignment, but is not assigned by the declaration to a specific separate interest.
(H)To install and use an electric vehicle charging station in an owners garage or a designated parking space that meets the requirements of Section 4745, where the installation or use of the charging station requires reasonable access through, or across, the common area for utility lines or meters.
(I)To install and use an electric vehicle charging station through a license granted by an association under Section 4745.
(J)To install and use a solar energy system on the common area roof of a residence that meets the requirements of Sections 714, 714.1, and, if applicable, Section 4746.
(K)To comply with governing law.
(c)Any measure placed before the members requesting that the board grant exclusive use of any portion of the common area shall specify whether the association will receive any monetary consideration for the grant and whether the association or the transferee will be responsible for providing any insurance coverage for exclusive use of the common area.
SEC. 3.Section 4746 is added to the Civil Code, to read:4746.(a)When reviewing a request to install a solar energy system on a multifamily common area roof shared by more than one homeowner pursuant to Sections 714 and 714.1, an association shall require both of the following:
(1)An applicant to notify each owner of a unit in the building on which the installation will be located of the application to install a solar energy system.
(2)The owner and each successive owner to maintain a homeowner liability coverage policy at all times and provide the association with the corresponding certificate of insurance within 14 days of approval of the application and annually thereafter.
(b)When reviewing a request to install a solar energy system on a multifamily common area roof shared by more than one homeowner pursuant to Sections 714 and 714.1, an association may impose additional reasonable provisions that:
(1)(A)Require the applicant to submit a solar site survey showing the placement of the solar energy system prepared by a licensed contractor or the contractors registered salesperson knowledgeable in the installation of solar energy systems to determine usable solar roof area. This survey or the costs to determine useable space shall not be deemed as part of the cost of the system as used in Section 714.
(B)The solar site survey shall also include a determination of an equitable allocation of the usable solar roof area among all owners sharing the same roof, garage, or carport.
(2)Require the owner and each successive owner of the solar energy system to be responsible for all of the following:
(A)Costs for damage to the common area, exclusive use common area, or separate interests resulting from the installation, maintenance, repair, removal, or replacement of the solar energy system.
(B)Costs for the maintenance, repair, and replacement of solar energy system until it has been removed and for the restoration of the common area, exclusive use common area, or separate interests after removal.
(C)Disclosing to prospective buyers the existence of any solar energy system of the owner and the related responsibilities of the owner under this section.
(c)For purposes of this section:
(1)Association has the same meaning as defined in Section 4080 or 6528.
(2)Common area has the same meaning as defined in Section 4095 or 6532.
(3)Separate interest has the same meaning as defined in Section 4185 or 6564.
(d)This section imposes additional requirements for any proposed installation of a solar energy system on a multifamily common area roof shared by more than one homeowner.
(e)This section does not diminish the authority of an association to impose reasonable provisions pursuant to Section 714.1.
(a)Notwithstanding Section 714, an association may impose reasonable provisions that:
(1)Restrict the installation of solar energy systems in common areas to those systems approved by the association.
(2)Require the owner of a separate interest to obtain the approval of the association for the installation of a solar energy system in a separate interest owned by another.
(3)Provide for the maintenance, repair, or replacement of roofs or other building components.
(4)Require installers of solar energy systems to indemnify or reimburse the association or its members for loss or damage caused by the installation, maintenance, or use of the solar energy system.
(b)An association shall not:
(1)Establish a general policy prohibiting the installation or use of a rooftop solar energy system for household purposes on the roof of the building in which the owner resides, or a garage or carport adjacent to the building that has been assigned to the owner for exclusive use.
(2)Require approval by a vote of members owning separate interests in the common interest development, including that specified by Section 4600, for installation of a solar energy system for household purposes on the roof of the building in which the owner resides, or a garage or carport adjacent to the building that has been assigned to the owner for exclusive use.
An action by an association that contravenes paragraph (1) or (2) shall be void and unenforceable.
(c)For purposes of this section:
(1)Association has the same meaning as defined in Section 4080 or 6528.
(2)Common area has the same meaning as defined in Section 4095 or 6532.
(3)Separate interest has the same meaning as defined in Section 4185 or 6564.
SEC. 2.Section 4600 of the Civil Code is amended to read:4600.(a)Unless the governing documents specify a different percentage, the affirmative vote of members owning at least 67 percent of the separate interests in the common interest development shall be required before the board may grant exclusive use of any portion of the common area to a member.
(b)Subdivision (a) does not apply to the following actions:
(1)A reconveyance of all or any portion of that common area to the subdivider to enable the continuation of development that is in substantial conformance with a detailed plan of phased development submitted to the Real Estate Commissioner with the application for a public report.
(2)Any grant of exclusive use that is in substantial conformance with a detailed plan of phased development submitted to the Real Estate Commissioner with the application for a public report or in accordance with the governing documents approved by the Real Estate Commissioner.
(3)Any grant of exclusive use that is for any of the following reasons:
(A)To eliminate or correct engineering errors in documents recorded with the county recorder or on file with a public agency or utility company.
(B)To eliminate or correct encroachments due to errors in construction of any improvements.
(C)To permit changes in the plan of development submitted to the Real Estate Commissioner in circumstances where the changes are the result of topography, obstruction, hardship, aesthetic considerations, or environmental conditions.
(D)To fulfill the requirement of a public agency.
(E)To transfer the burden of management and maintenance of any common area that is generally inaccessible and not of general use to the membership at large of the association.
(F)To accommodate a disability.
(G)To assign a parking space, storage unit, or other amenity, that is designated in the declaration for assignment, but is not assigned by the declaration to a specific separate interest.
(H)To install and use an electric vehicle charging station in an owners garage or a designated parking space that meets the requirements of Section 4745, where the installation or use of the charging station requires reasonable access through, or across, the common area for utility lines or meters.
(I)To install and use an electric vehicle charging station through a license granted by an association under Section 4745.
(J)To install and use a solar energy system on the common area roof of a residence that meets the requirements of Sections 714, 714.1, and, if applicable, Section 4746.
(K)To comply with governing law.
(c)Any measure placed before the members requesting that the board grant exclusive use of any portion of the common area shall specify whether the association will receive any monetary consideration for the grant and whether the association or the transferee will be responsible for providing any insurance coverage for exclusive use of the common area.
SEC. 3.Section 4746 is added to the Civil Code, to read:4746.(a)When reviewing a request to install a solar energy system on a multifamily common area roof shared by more than one homeowner pursuant to Sections 714 and 714.1, an association shall require both of the following:
(1)An applicant to notify each owner of a unit in the building on which the installation will be located of the application to install a solar energy system.
(2)The owner and each successive owner to maintain a homeowner liability coverage policy at all times and provide the association with the corresponding certificate of insurance annually. within 14 days of approval of the application and annually thereafter.
(b)When reviewing a request to install a solar energy system on a multifamily common area roof shared by more than one homeowner pursuant to Sections 714 and 714.1, an association may impose additional reasonable provisions that:
(1)(A)Require the applicant to submit a solar site survey showing the placement of the solar energy system prepared by a licensed contractor or the contractors registered salesperson knowledgeable in the installation of solar energy systems to determine usable solar roof area. This survey or the costs to determine useable space shall not be deemed as part of the cost of the system as used in Section 714.
(B)The solar site survey shall also include a determination of an equitable allocation of the usable solar roof area among all owners sharing the same roof, garage, or carport.
(2)Require the owner and each successive owner of the solar energy system to be responsible for all of the following:
(A)Costs for damage to the common area, exclusive use common area, or separate interests resulting from the installation, maintenance, repair, removal, or replacement of the solar energy system.
(B)Costs for the maintenance, repair, and replacement of solar energy system until it has been removed and for the restoration of the common area, exclusive use common area, or separate interests after removal.
(C)Disclosing to prospective buyers the existence of any solar energy system of the owner and the related responsibilities of the owner under this section.
(c)For purposes of this section:
(1)Association has the same meaning as defined in Section 4080 or 6528.
(2)Common area has the same meaning as defined in Section 4095 or 6532.
(3)Separate interest has the same meaning as defined in Section 4185 or 6564.
(d)This section imposes additional requirements for any proposed installation of a solar energy system on a multifamily common area roof shared by more than one homeowner.
(e)This section does not diminish the authority of an association to impose reasonable provisions pursuant to Section 714.1.
(a)Notwithstanding Section 714, an association may impose reasonable provisions that:
(1)Restrict the installation of solar energy systems in common areas to those systems approved by the association.
(2)Require the owner of a separate interest to obtain the approval of the association for the installation of a solar energy system in a separate interest owned by another.
(3)Provide for the maintenance, repair, or replacement of roofs or other building components.
(4)Require installers of solar energy systems to indemnify or reimburse the association or its members for loss or damage caused by the installation, maintenance, or use of the solar energy system.
(b)An association shall not:
(1)Establish a general policy prohibiting the installation or use of a rooftop solar energy system for household purposes on the roof of the building in which the owner resides, or a garage or carport adjacent to the building that has been assigned to the owner for exclusive use.
(2)Require approval by a vote of members owning separate interests in the common interest development, including that specified by Section 4600, for installation of a solar energy system for household purposes on the roof of the building in which the owner resides, or a garage or carport adjacent to the building that has been assigned to the owner for exclusive use.
An action by an association that contravenes paragraph (1) or (2) shall be void and unenforceable.
(c)For purposes of this section:
(1)Association has the same meaning as defined in Section 4080 or 6528.
(2)Common area has the same meaning as defined in Section 4095 or 6532.
(3)Separate interest has the same meaning as defined in Section 4185 or 6564.
SEC. 2.Section 4600 of the Civil Code is amended to read:4600.(a)Unless the governing documents specify a different percentage, the affirmative vote of members owning at least 67 percent of the separate interests in the common interest development shall be required before the board may grant exclusive use of any portion of the common area to a member.
(b)Subdivision (a) does not apply to the following actions:
(1)A reconveyance of all or any portion of that common area to the subdivider to enable the continuation of development that is in substantial conformance with a detailed plan of phased development submitted to the Real Estate Commissioner with the application for a public report.
(2)Any grant of exclusive use that is in substantial conformance with a detailed plan of phased development submitted to the Real Estate Commissioner with the application for a public report or in accordance with the governing documents approved by the Real Estate Commissioner.
(3)Any grant of exclusive use that is for any of the following reasons:
(A)To eliminate or correct engineering errors in documents recorded with the county recorder or on file with a public agency or utility company.
(B)To eliminate or correct encroachments due to errors in construction of any improvements.
(C)To permit changes in the plan of development submitted to the Real Estate Commissioner in circumstances where the changes are the result of topography, obstruction, hardship, aesthetic considerations, or environmental conditions.
(D)To fulfill the requirement of a public agency.
(E)To transfer the burden of management and maintenance of any common area that is generally inaccessible and not of general use to the membership at large of the association.
(F)To accommodate a disability.
(G)To assign a parking space, storage unit, or other amenity, that is designated in the declaration for assignment, but is not assigned by the declaration to a specific separate interest.
(H)To install and use an electric vehicle charging station in an owners garage or a designated parking space that meets the requirements of Section 4745, where the installation or use of the charging station requires reasonable access through, or across, the common area for utility lines or meters.
(I)To install and use an electric vehicle charging station through a license granted by an association under Section 4745.
(J)To install and use a solar energy system on the common area roof of a residence that meets the requirements of Sections 714, 714.1, and, if applicable, Section 4746.
(K)To comply with governing law.
(c)Any measure placed before the members requesting that the board grant exclusive use of any portion of the common area shall specify whether the association will receive any monetary consideration for the grant and whether the association or the transferee will be responsible for providing any insurance coverage for exclusive use of the common area.
SEC. 3.Section 4746 is added to the Civil Code, to read:4746.(a)When reviewing a request to install a solar energy system on a multifamily common area roof shared by more than one homeowner pursuant to Sections 714 and 714.1, an association shall require an applicant to both of the following:
(1)An applicant to notify each owner of a unit in the building on which the installation will be located of the application to install a solar energy system.
(2)The owner and each successive owner to maintain a homeowner liability coverage policy at all times and provide the association with the corresponding certificate of insurance annually.
(b)When reviewing a request to install a solar energy system on a multifamily common area roof shared by more than one homeowner pursuant to Sections 714 and 714.1, an association may impose additional reasonable provisions that:
(1)(A)Require the applicant to submit a solar site survey showing the placement of the solar energy system prepared by a licensed contractor or the contractors registered salesperson knowledgeable in the installation of solar energy systems to determine usable solar roof area. This survey or the costs to determine useable space shall not be deemed as part of the cost of the system as used in Section 714.
(B)The solar site survey shall also include a determination of an equitable allocation of the usable solar roof area among all owners sharing the same roof, garage, or carport.
(2)Require the owner and each successive owner of the solar energy system to be responsible for all of the following:
(A)Costs for damage to the common area, exclusive use common area, or separate interests resulting from the installation, maintenance, repair, removal, or replacement of the solar energy system.
(B)Costs for the maintenance, repair, and replacement of solar energy system until it has been removed and for the restoration of the common area, exclusive use common area, or separate interests after removal.
(C)Disclosing to prospective buyers the existence of any solar energy system of the owner and the related responsibilities of the owner under this section.
(D)Maintaining a homeowner liability coverage policy naming the association as a named additional insured under the policy with a right of notice of cancellation, in the event of a legal dispute involving installation, maintenance, or use of a solar energy system.(c)For purposes of this section:
(1)Association has the same meaning as defined in Section 4080 or 6528.
(2)Common area has the same meaning as defined in Section 4095 or 6532.
(3)Separate interest has the same meaning as defined in Section 4185 or 6564.
(d)This section imposes additional requirements for any proposed installation of a solar energy system on a multifamily common area roof shared by more than one homeowner.
(e)This section does not diminish the authority of an association to impose reasonable provisions pursuant to Section 714.1.
(a)Notwithstanding Section 714, an association may impose reasonable provisions that:
(1)Restrict the installation of solar energy systems in common areas to those systems approved by the association.
(2)Require the owner of a separate interest to obtain the approval of the association for the installation of a solar energy system in a separate interest owned by another.
(3)Provide for the maintenance, repair, or replacement of roofs or other building components.
(4)Require installers of solar energy systems to indemnify or reimburse the association or its members for loss or damage caused by the installation, maintenance, or use of the solar energy system.
(b)An association shall not:
(1)Establish a general policy prohibiting the installation or use of a rooftop solar energy system for household purposes on the roof of the building in which the owner resides, or a garage or carport adjacent to the building that has been assigned to the owner for exclusive use.
(2)Require approval by a vote of members owning separate interests in the common interest development, including that specified by Section 4600, for installation of a solar energy system for household purposes on the roof of the building in which the owner resides, or a garage or carport adjacent to the building that has been assigned to the owner for exclusive use.
An action by an association that contravenes paragraph (1) or (2) shall be void and unenforceable.
(c)For purposes of this section:
(1)Association has the same meaning as defined in Section 4080 or 6528.
(2)Common area has the same meaning as defined in Section 4095 or 6532.
(3)Separate interest has the same meaning as defined in Section 4185 or 6564.
SEC. 2.Section 4600 of the Civil Code is amended to read:4600.(a)Unless the governing documents specify a different percentage, the affirmative vote of members owning at least 67 percent of the separate interests in the common interest development shall be required before the board may grant exclusive use of any portion of the common area to a member.
(b)Subdivision (a) does not apply to the following actions:
(1)A reconveyance of all or any portion of that common area to the subdivider to enable the continuation of development that is in substantial conformance with a detailed plan of phased development submitted to the Real Estate Commissioner with the application for a public report.
(2)Any grant of exclusive use that is in substantial conformance with a detailed plan of phased development submitted to the Real Estate Commissioner with the application for a public report or in accordance with the governing documents approved by the Real Estate Commissioner.
(3)Any grant of exclusive use that is for any of the following reasons:
(A)To eliminate or correct engineering errors in documents recorded with the county recorder or on file with a public agency or utility company.
(B)To eliminate or correct encroachments due to errors in construction of any improvements.
(C)To permit changes in the plan of development submitted to the Real Estate Commissioner in circumstances where the changes are the result of topography, obstruction, hardship, aesthetic considerations, or environmental conditions.
(D)To fulfill the requirement of a public agency.
(E)To transfer the burden of management and maintenance of any common area that is generally inaccessible and not of general use to the membership at large of the association.
(F)To accommodate a disability.
(G)To assign a parking space, storage unit, or other amenity, that is designated in the declaration for assignment, but is not assigned by the declaration to a specific separate interest.
(H)To install and use an electric vehicle charging station in an owners garage or a designated parking space that meets the requirements of Section 4745, where the installation or use of the charging station requires reasonable access through, or across, the common area for utility lines or meters.
(I)To install and use an electric vehicle charging station through a license granted by an association under Section 4745.
(J)To install and use a solar energy system on the common area roof of a residence that meets the requirements of Sections 714, 714.1, and, if applicable, Section 4746.
(K)To comply with governing law.
(c)Any measure placed before the members requesting that the board grant exclusive use of any portion of the common area shall specify whether the association will receive any monetary consideration for the grant and whether the association or the transferee will be responsible for providing any insurance coverage for exclusive use of the common area.
SEC. 3.Section 4746 is added to the Civil Code, to read:4746.(a)When reviewing a request to install a solar energy system on a multifamily common area roof shared by more than one homeowner pursuant to Sections 714 and 714.1, an association may impose additional reasonable provisions that:
(1)Require shall require an applicant to notify each owner of a unit in the building on which the installation will be located of the application to install a solar energy system.
(b)When reviewing a request to install a solar energy system on a multifamily common area roof shared by more than one homeowner pursuant to Sections 714 and 714.1, an association may impose additional reasonable provisions that:
(2)(1)(A)Require the applicant to submit a solar site survey showing the placement of the solar energy system prepared by a licensed contractor or the contractors registered salesperson knowledgeable in the installation of solar energy systems to determine usable solar roof area. This survey or the costs to determine useable space shall not be deemed as part of the cost of the system as used in Section 714.
(B)The solar site survey shall also include a determination of an equitable allocation of the usable solar roof area among all owners sharing the same roof, garage, or carport.
(3)(2)Require the owner and each successive owner of the solar energy system to be responsible for all of the following:
(A)Costs for damage to the common area, exclusive use common area, or separate interests resulting from the installation, maintenance, repair, removal removal, or replacement of the solar energy system.
(B)Costs for the maintenance, repair, and replacement of solar energy system until it has been removed and for the restoration of the common area, exclusive use common area, or separate interests after removal.
(C)Disclosing to prospective buyers the existence of any solar energy system of the owner and the related responsibilities of the owner under this section.
(D)Maintaining a homeowner liability coverage policy naming the association as a named additional insured under the policy with a right of notice of cancellation, in the event of a legal dispute involving installation, maintenance, or use of a solar energy system.
(b)(c)For purposes of this section:
(1)Association has the same meaning as defined in Section 4080 or 6528.
(2)Common area has the same meaning as defined in Section 4095 or 6532.
(3)Separate interest has the same meaning as defined in Section 4185 or 6564.
(c)(d)This section imposes additional requirements for any proposed installation of a solar energy system on a multifamily common area roof shared by more than one homeowner.
(d)(e)This section does not diminish the authority of an association to impose reasonable provisions pursuant to Section 714.1.
(a)Notwithstanding Section 714, an association may impose reasonable provisions that:
(1)Restrict the installation of solar energy systems in common areas to those systems approved by the association.
(2)Require the owner of a separate interest to obtain the approval of the association for the installation of a solar energy system in a separate interest owned by another.
(3)Provide for the maintenance, repair, or replacement of roofs or other building components.
(4)Require installers of solar energy systems to indemnify or reimburse the association or its members for loss or damage caused by the installation, maintenance, or use of the solar energy system.
(5)Require an applicant to notify each owner of a unit in the building on which the installation will be located of the application to install a solar energy system.(6)Require the applicant to submit to the association a solar suitability survey prepared by a licensed contractor knowledgeable in the installation of solar energy systems, for the association to determine usable solar roof area.(7)Require equitable allocation of the usable solar roof area among all owners sharing the same roof, if the association determines that the roof is suitable for solar installation pursuant to paragraph (6).(b)An association shall not:
(1)Establish a general policy prohibiting the installation or use of a rooftop solar energy system for household purposes on the roof of the building in which the owner resides. resides, or a garage or carport adjacent to the building that has been assigned to the owner for exclusive use.
(2)Require approval by a vote of members owning separate interests in the common interest development, including that specified by Section 4600, for installation of a solar energy system for household purposes on the roof of the building in which the owner resides. resides, or a garage or carport adjacent to the building that has been assigned to the owner for exclusive use.
An action by an association that contravenes paragraph (1) or (2) shall be void and unenforceable.
(c)For purposes of this section:
(1)Association has the same meaning as defined in Section 4080 or 6528.
(2)Common area has the same meaning as defined in Section 4095 or 6532.
(3)Separate interest has the same meaning as defined in Section 4185 or 6564.
SEC. 2.Section 4600 of the Civil Code is amended to read:4600.(a)Unless the governing documents specify a different percentage, the affirmative vote of members owning at least 67 percent of the separate interests in the common interest development shall be required before the board may grant exclusive use of any portion of the common area to a member.
(b)Subdivision (a) does not apply to the following actions:
(1)A reconveyance of all or any portion of that common area to the subdivider to enable the continuation of development that is in substantial conformance with a detailed plan of phased development submitted to the Real Estate Commissioner with the application for a public report.
(2)Any grant of exclusive use that is in substantial conformance with a detailed plan of phased development submitted to the Real Estate Commissioner with the application for a public report or in accordance with the governing documents approved by the Real Estate Commissioner.
(3)Any grant of exclusive use that is for any of the following reasons:
(A)To eliminate or correct engineering errors in documents recorded with the county recorder or on file with a public agency or utility company.
(B)To eliminate or correct encroachments due to errors in construction of any improvements.
(C)To permit changes in the plan of development submitted to the Real Estate Commissioner in circumstances where the changes are the result of topography, obstruction, hardship, aesthetic considerations, or environmental conditions.
(D)To fulfill the requirement of a public agency.
(E)To transfer the burden of management and maintenance of any common area that is generally inaccessible and not of general use to the membership at large of the association.
(F)To accommodate a disability.
(G)To assign a parking space, storage unit, or other amenity, that is designated in the declaration for assignment, but is not assigned by the declaration to a specific separate interest.
(H)To install and use an electric vehicle charging station in an owners garage or a designated parking space that meets the requirements of Section 4745, where the installation or use of the charging station requires reasonable access through, or across, the common area for utility lines or meters.
(I)To install and use an electric vehicle charging station through a license granted by an association under Section 4745.
(J)To install and use a solar energy system on the common area roof of a residence that meets the requirements of Section 714 and 714.1. Sections 714, 714.1, and, if applicable, Section 4746.
(K)To comply with governing law.
(c)Any measure placed before the members requesting that the board grant exclusive use of any portion of the common area shall specify whether the association will receive any monetary consideration for the grant and whether the association or the transferee will be responsible for providing any insurance coverage for exclusive use of the common area.
SEC. 3.Section 4746 is added to the Civil Code, to read:4746.(a)When reviewing a request to install a solar energy system on a multifamily common area roof shared by more than one homeowner pursuant to Sections 714 and 714.1, an association may impose additional reasonable provisions that:
(1)Require an applicant to notify each owner of a unit in the building on which the installation will be located of the application to install a solar energy system.
(2)(A)Require the applicant to submit a solar site survey showing the placement of the solar energy system prepared by a licensed contractor or the contractors registered salesperson knowledgeable in the installation of solar energy systems to determine usable solar roof area. This survey or the costs to determine useable space shall not be deemed as part of the cost of the system as used in Section 714.
(B)The solar site survey shall also include a determination of an equitable allocation of the usable solar roof area among all owners sharing the same roof, garage, or carport.
(3)Require the owner and each successive owner of the solar energy system to be responsible for all of the following:
(A)Costs for damage to the common area, exclusive use common area, or separate interests resulting from the installation, maintenance, repair, removal or replacement of the solar energy system.
(B)Costs for the maintenance, repair, and replacement of solar energy system until it has been removed and for the restoration of the common area, exclusive use common area, or separate interests after removal.
(C)Disclosing to prospective buyers the existence of any solar energy system of the owner and the related responsibilities of the owner under this section.
(D)Maintaining a homeowner liability coverage policy naming the association as a named additional insured under the policy with a right of notice of cancellation, in the event of a legal dispute involving installation, maintenance, or use of a solar energy system.
(b)For purposes of this section:
(1)Association has the same meaning as defined in Section 4080 or 6528.
(2)Common area has the same meaning as defined in Section 4095 or 6532.
(3)Separate interest has the same meaning as defined in Section 4185 or 6564.
(c)This section imposes additional requirements for any proposed installation of a solar energy system on a multifamily common area roof shared by more than one homeowner.
(d)This section does not diminish the authority of an association to impose reasonable provisions pursuant to Section 714.1.
(a)Notwithstanding Section 714, an association may impose reasonable provisions that:
(1)Restrict the installation of solar energy systems in common areas to those systems approved by the association.
(2)Require the owner of a separate interest to obtain the approval of the association for the installation of a solar energy system in a separate interest owned by another.
(3)Provide for the maintenance, repair, or replacement of roofs or other building components.
(4)Require installers of solar energy systems to indemnify or reimburse the association or its members for loss or damage caused by the installation, maintenance, or use of the solar energy system.
(5)Require an applicant to notify each owner of a unit in the building on which the installation will be located of the application to install a solar energy system.
(6)Require the applicant to submit to the association a solar suitability survey prepared by a licensed contractor knowledgeable in the installation of solar energy systems, for the association to determine usable solar roof area.
(7)Require equitable allocation of the usable solar roof area among all owners sharing the same roof, if the association determines that the roof is suitable for solar installation pursuant to paragraph (6).
(b)An association shall not:
(1)Prohibit Establish a general policy prohibiting the installation or use of a rooftop solar energy system for household purposes on the roof of the building in which the owner resides.
(2)Require approval of the membership of the association, by a vote of members owning separate interests in the common interest development, including that specified by Section 4600, for installation of a solar energy system for household purposes on the roof of the building in which the owner resides.
An action by an association that contravenes paragraph (1) or (2) shall be void and unenforceable.
(c)For purposes of this section:
(1)Association has the same meaning as defined in Section 4080 or 6528.
(2)Common area has the same meaning as defined in Section 4095 or 6532.
(3)Separate interest has the same meaning as defined in Section 4185 or 6564.
SEC. 2.Section 4600 of the Civil Code is amended to read:4600.(a)Unless the governing documents specify a different percentage, the affirmative vote of members owning at least 67 percent of the separate interests in the common interest development shall be required before the board may grant exclusive use of any portion of the common area to a member.
(b)Subdivision (a) does not apply to the following actions:
(1)A reconveyance of all or any portion of that common area to the subdivider to enable the continuation of development that is in substantial conformance with a detailed plan of phased development submitted to the Real Estate Commissioner with the application for a public report.
(2)Any grant of exclusive use that is in substantial conformance with a detailed plan of phased development submitted to the Real Estate Commissioner with the application for a public report or in accordance with the governing documents approved by the Real Estate Commissioner.
(3)Any grant of exclusive use that is for any of the following reasons:
(A)To eliminate or correct engineering errors in documents recorded with the county recorder or on file with a public agency or utility company.
(B)To eliminate or correct encroachments due to errors in construction of any improvements.
(C)To permit changes in the plan of development submitted to the Real Estate Commissioner in circumstances where the changes are the result of topography, obstruction, hardship, aesthetic considerations, or environmental conditions.
(D)To fulfill the requirement of a public agency.
(E)To transfer the burden of management and maintenance of any common area that is generally inaccessible and not of general use to the membership at large of the association.
(F)To accommodate a disability.
(G)To assign a parking space, storage unit, or other amenity, that is designated in the declaration for assignment, but is not assigned by the declaration to a specific separate interest.
(H)To install and use an electric vehicle charging station in an owners garage or a designated parking space that meets the requirements of Section 4745, where the installation or use of the charging station requires reasonable access through, or across, the common area for utility lines or meters.
(I)To install and use an electric vehicle charging station through a license granted by an association under Section 4745.
(J)To install and use a solar energy system on the common roof of a residence that meets the requirements of Section 714 and 714.1.
(J)(K)To comply with governing law.
(c)Any measure placed before the members requesting that the board grant exclusive use of any portion of the common area shall specify whether the association will receive any monetary consideration for the grant and whether the association or the transferee will be responsible for providing any insurance coverage for exclusive use of the common area.
(a)Any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any deed, contract, security instrument, or other instrument affecting the transfer or sale of, or any interest in, real property, and any provision of a governing document, as defined in Section 4150 or 6552, that which effectively prohibits or restricts the installation or use of a solar energy system is void and unenforceable.
(b)This section does not apply to provisions that impose reasonable restrictions on solar energy systems. However, it is the policy of the state to promote and encourage the use of solar energy systems and to remove obstacles thereto. Accordingly, reasonable restrictions on a solar energy system are those restrictions that do not significantly increase the cost of the system or significantly decrease its efficiency or specified performance, or that allow for an alternative system of comparable cost, efficiency, and energy conservation benefits.
(c)(1)A solar energy system shall meet applicable health and safety standards and requirements imposed by state and local permitting authorities, consistent with Section 65850.5 of the Government Code.
(2)Solar energy systems used for heating water in single family residences and solar collectors used for heating water in commercial or swimming pool applications shall be certified by an accredited listing agency as defined in the Plumbing and Mechanical Codes.
(3)A solar energy system for producing electricity shall also meet all applicable safety and performance standards established by the California Electrical Code, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, and accredited testing laboratories such as Underwriters Laboratories and, where applicable, rules of the Public Utilities Commission regarding safety and reliability.
(d)For the purposes of this section:
(1)(A)For solar domestic water heating systems or solar swimming pool heating systems that comply with state and federal law, significantly means an amount exceeding 10 percent of the cost of the system, but in no case more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or decreasing the efficiency of the solar energy system by an amount exceeding 10 percent, as originally specified and proposed.
(B)For photovoltaic systems that comply with state and federal law, significantly means an amount not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) over the system cost as originally specified and proposed, or a decrease in system efficiency of an amount exceeding 10 percent as originally specified and proposed.
(2)Solar energy system has the same meaning as defined in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 801.5.
(e)(1)Whenever approval is required for the installation or use of a solar energy system, the application for approval shall be processed and approved by the appropriate approving entity in the same manner as an application for approval of an architectural modification to the property, and shall not be willfully avoided or delayed.
(2)For an approving entity that is an association, as defined in Section 4080 or 6528, and that is not a public entity, both all of the following shall apply:
(A)The approval or denial of an application shall be in writing.
(B)If an application is not denied in writing within 45 days from the date of receipt of the application, the application shall be deemed approved, unless that delay is the result of a reasonable request for additional information.
(C)The approval procedures shall include the following:
(i)Require an applicant to notify each owner of units in the building on which the installation will be located of the application to install a solar energy system.
(ii)Ensure equal allocation of usable solar space.
(f)Any entity, other than a public entity, that willfully violates this section shall be liable to the applicant or other party for actual damages occasioned thereby, and shall pay a civil penalty to the applicant or other party in an amount not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000).
(g)In any action to enforce compliance with this section, the prevailing party shall be awarded reasonable attorneys fees.
(h)(1)A public entity that fails to comply with this section may not receive funds from a state-sponsored grant or loan program for solar energy. A public entity shall certify its compliance with the requirements of this section when applying for funds from a state-sponsored grant or loan program.
(2)A local public entity may not exempt residents in its jurisdiction from the requirements of this section.
SEC. 2.Section 714.1 of the Civil Code is amended to read:714.1.(a)Notwithstanding Section 714, any association, as defined in Section 4080 or 6528, an association may impose reasonable provisions which: that:
(a)(1)Restrict the installation of solar energy systems installed in common areas, as defined in Section 4095 or 6532, areas to those systems approved by the association.
(b)(2)Require the owner of a separate interest, as defined in Section 4185 or 6564, interest to obtain the approval of the association for the installation of a solar energy system in a separate interest owned by another.
(c)(3)Provide for the maintenance, repair, or replacement of roofs or other building components.
(d)(4)Require installers of solar energy systems to indemnify or reimburse the association or its members for loss or damage caused by the installation, maintenance, or use of the solar energy system.
(b)An association shall not:
(1)Prohibit the installation or use of a rooftop solar energy system for household purposes on the roof of the building in which the owner resides.
(2)Require approval of the membership of the association, including that specified by Section 4600, for installation of a solar energy system for household purposes on the roof of the building in which the owner resides.
An action by an association that contravenes paragraph (1) or (2) shall be void and unenforceable.
(c)For purposes of this section:
(1)Association has the same meaning as defined in Section 4080 or 6528.
(2)Common area has the same meaning as defined in Section 4095 or 6532.
(3)Separate interest has the same meaning as defined in Section 4185 or 6564.
SECTION 1.Section 1812.503 of the Civil Code is amended to read:1812.503.(a)An employment agency subject to this title shall maintain a bond issued by a surety company admitted to do business in this state. The principal sum of the bond shall be three thousand dollars ($3,000). A copy of the bond shall be filed with the Secretary of State.(b)The bond required by this section shall be in favor of, and payable to, the people of the State of California and shall be conditioned that the person obtaining the bond will comply with this title and will pay all sums due any individual or group of individuals when the person or his or her representative, agent, or employee has received those sums. The bond shall be for the benefit of any person or persons damaged by any violation of this title or by fraud, dishonesty, misstatement, misrepresentation, deceit, unlawful acts or omissions, or failure to provide the services of the employment agency in performance of the contract with the jobseeker, by the employment agency or its agents, representatives, or employees while acting within the scope of their employment.(c)(1)No employment agency shall conduct any business without having a current surety bond in the amount prescribed by this title and filing a copy of the bond with the Secretary of State.(2)Thirty days prior to the cancellation or termination of any surety bond required by this section, the surety shall send a written notice of that cancellation or termination to both the employment agency and the Secretary of State, identifying the bond and the date of cancellation or termination.(3)If any employment agency fails to obtain a new bond and file a copy of that bond with the Secretary of State by the effective date of the cancellation or termination of the former bond, the employment agency shall cease to conduct any business unless and until a new surety bond is obtained and a copy of that bond is filed with the Secretary of State.(d)When a deposit has been made in lieu of the bond pursuant to Section 995.710 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the person asserting a claim against the deposit shall, in lieu of Section 996.430 of the Code of Civil Procedure, establish the claim by furnishing evidence to the Secretary of State of a money judgment entered by a court together with evidence that the claimant is a person described in subdivision (b).(e)When a claimant has established the claim with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State shall review and approve the claim and enter the date of approval thereon. The claim shall be designated an approved claim.(f)When the first claim against a particular deposit has been approved, it shall not be paid until the expiration of a period of 240 days after the date of its approval by the Secretary of State. Subsequent claims that are approved by the Secretary of State within the same 240-day period shall similarly not be paid until the expiration of the 240-day period. Upon the expiration of the 240-day period, the Secretary of State shall pay all approved claims from that 240-day period in full unless the deposit is insufficient, in which case each approved claim shall be paid a pro rata share of the deposit.(g)When the Secretary of State approves the first claim against a particular deposit after the expiration of a 240-day period, the date of approval of that claim shall begin a new 240-day period to which subdivision (f) shall apply with respect to any amount remaining in the deposit.(h)After a deposit is exhausted, no further claims shall be paid by the Secretary of State. Claimants who have had their claims paid in full or in part pursuant to subdivision (f) or (g) shall not be required to return funds received from the deposit for the benefit of other claimants.(i)When a deposit has been made in lieu of a bond, the amount of the deposit shall not be subject to attachment, garnishment, or execution with respect to an action or judgment against the employment agency, other than as to an amount as no longer needed or required for the purpose of this title that would otherwise be returned to the employment agency by the Secretary of State.(j)The Secretary of State shall retain a cash deposit for two years from the date the Secretary of State receives written notification from the assignor of the deposit that the assignor has ceased to engage in the business of an employment agency or has filed a bond pursuant to subdivision (a), provided that there are no outstanding claims against the deposit. This written notice shall include all of the following: (1) name, address, and telephone number of the assignor; (2) name, address, and telephone number of the bank at which the deposit is located; (3) account number of the deposit; and (4) a statement whether the assignor is ceasing to engage in the business of an employment agency or has filed a bond with the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State shall forward an acknowledgment of receipt of the written notice to the assignor at the address indicated therein, specifying the date of receipt of the written notice and anticipated date of release of the deposit, provided there are no outstanding claims against the deposit.(k)A judge of a superior court may order the return of the deposit prior to the expiration of two years upon evidence satisfactory to the judge that there are no outstanding claims against the deposit or order the Secretary of State to retain the deposit for a sufficient period beyond the two years pursuant to subdivision (j) to resolve outstanding claims against the deposit account.(l)The Secretary of State shall charge a filing fee not to exceed the cost of filing the bond or deposit filed in lieu of a bond as set forth in Section 995.710 of the Code of Civil Procedure.(m)The Secretary of State shall enforce the provisions of this chapter that govern the filing and maintenance of bonds and deposits in lieu of bonds.(a)Every An employment agency subject to this title shall maintain a bond issued by a surety company admitted to do business in this state. The principal sum of the bond shall be three thousand dollars ($3,000). A copy of the bond shall be filed with the Secretary of State.
(b)The bond required by this section shall be in favor of, and payable to, the people of the State of California and shall be conditioned that the person obtaining the bond will comply with this title and will pay all sums due any individual or group of individuals when the person or his or her representative, agent, or employee has received those sums. The bond shall be for the benefit of any person or persons damaged by any violation of this title or by fraud, dishonesty, misstatement, misrepresentation, deceit, unlawful acts or omissions, or failure to provide the services of the employment agency in performance of the contract with the jobseeker, by the employment agency or its agents, representatives, or employees while acting within the scope of their employment.
(c)(1)No employment agency shall conduct any business without having a current surety bond in the amount prescribed by this title and filing a copy of the bond with the Secretary of State.
(2)Thirty days prior to the cancellation or termination of any surety bond required by this section, the surety shall send a written notice of that cancellation or termination to both the employment agency and the Secretary of State, identifying the bond and the date of cancellation or termination.
(3)If any employment agency fails to obtain a new bond and file a copy of that bond with the Secretary of State by the effective date of the cancellation or termination of the former bond, the employment agency shall cease to conduct any business unless and until a new surety bond is obtained and a copy of that bond is filed with the Secretary of State.
(d)When a deposit has been made in lieu of the bond pursuant to Section 995.710 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the person asserting a claim against the deposit shall, in lieu of Section 996.430 of the Code of Civil Procedure, establish the claim by furnishing evidence to the Secretary of State of a money judgment entered by a court together with evidence that the claimant is a person described in subdivision (b).
(e)When a claimant has established the claim with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State shall review and approve the claim and enter the date of approval thereon. The claim shall be designated an approved claim.
(f)When the first claim against a particular deposit has been approved, it shall not be paid until the expiration of a period of 240 days after the date of its approval by the Secretary of State. Subsequent claims that are approved by the Secretary of State within the same 240-day period shall similarly not be paid until the expiration of the 240-day period. Upon the expiration of the 240-day period, the Secretary of State shall pay all approved claims from that 240-day period in full unless the deposit is insufficient, in which case each approved claim shall be paid a pro rata share of the deposit.
(g)When the Secretary of State approves the first claim against a particular deposit after the expiration of a 240-day period, the date of approval of that claim shall begin a new 240-day period to which subdivision (f) shall apply with respect to any amount remaining in the deposit.
(h)After a deposit is exhausted, no further claims shall be paid by the Secretary of State. Claimants who have had their claims paid in full or in part pursuant to subdivision (f) or (g) shall not be required to return funds received from the deposit for the benefit of other claimants.
(i)When a deposit has been made in lieu of a bond, the amount of the deposit shall not be subject to attachment, garnishment, or execution with respect to an action or judgment against the employment agency, other than as to an amount as no longer needed or required for the purpose of this title that would otherwise be returned to the employment agency by the Secretary of State.
(j)The Secretary of State shall retain a cash deposit for two years from the date the Secretary of State receives written notification from the assignor of the deposit that the assignor has ceased to engage in the business of an employment agency or has filed a bond pursuant to subdivision (a), provided that there are no outstanding claims against the deposit. This written notice shall include all of the following: (1) name, address, and telephone number of the assignor; (2) name, address, and telephone number of the bank at which the deposit is located; (3) account number of the deposit; and (4) a statement whether the assignor is ceasing to engage in the business of an employment agency or has filed a bond with the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State shall forward an acknowledgment of receipt of the written notice to the assignor at the address indicated therein, specifying the date of receipt of the written notice and anticipated date of release of the deposit, provided there are no outstanding claims against the deposit.
(k)A judge of a superior court may order the return of the deposit prior to the expiration of two years upon evidence satisfactory to the judge that there are no outstanding claims against the deposit or order the Secretary of State to retain the deposit for a sufficient period beyond the two years pursuant to subdivision (j) to resolve outstanding claims against the deposit account.
(l)The Secretary of State shall charge a filing fee not to exceed the cost of filing the bond or deposit filed in lieu of a bond as set forth in Section 995.710 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(m)The Secretary of State shall enforce the provisions of this chapter that govern the filing and maintenance of bonds and deposits in lieu of bonds.
|
Date
|
Status
|
|---|---|
| Oct 15, 2017 | Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 818, Statutes of 2017. |
| Oct 15, 2017 | Approved by the Governor. |
| Sep 13, 2017 | Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4 p.m. |
| Sep 7, 2017 | Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. |
| Sep 5, 2017 | In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after September 7 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77. |
| Sep 5, 2017 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. |
| Aug 29, 2017 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| Aug 28, 2017 | Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading. |
| Aug 22, 2017 | Read second time and amended. Ordered to third reading. |
| Aug 21, 2017 | From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 6. Noes 0.) (July 18). |
| Jul 5, 2017 | Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD. |
| Jul 3, 2017 | From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 13. Noes 0.) (June 27). |
| Jun 19, 2017 | From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on T. & H. |
| May 24, 2017 | Referred to Coms. on T. & H. and JUD. |
| May 15, 2017 | In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. |
| May 15, 2017 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 78. Noes 0. Page 1528.) |
| May 8, 2017 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| May 4, 2017 | Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading. |
| May 3, 2017 | From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 11. Noes 0.) (May 2). |
| Mar 27, 2017 | Re-referred to Com. on JUD. |
| Mar 23, 2017 | From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on JUD. Read second time and amended. |
| Mar 23, 2017 | Referred to Com. on JUD. |
| Feb 15, 2017 | From printer. May be heard in committee March 17. |
| Feb 14, 2017 | Read first time. To print. |
|
Date
|
Description
|
Location
|
Votes
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 7, 2017 | AB 634 EGGMAN Concurrence in Senate Amendments | Assembly Floor |
Passed |
|
| Sep 5, 2017 | Assembly 3rd Reading AB634 Eggman By Hertzberg | Senate Floor |
Passed |
|
| Jul 18, 2017 | Do pass as amended | Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary |
Passed |
|
| Jun 27, 2017 | Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Judiciary] | Senate Standing Committee on Transportation and Housing |
Passed |
|
| May 15, 2017 | AB 634 EGGMAN Assembly Third Reading | Assembly Floor |
Passed |
|
| May 2, 2017 | Do pass as amended. | Assembly Standing Committee on Judiciary |
Passed |
This list shows positions taken on this bill by organizations on the date displayed, which is linked to the original source.
Positions by individuals are not included.
|
Organization
|
Position
|
Date
|
|---|---|---|
| All Electric & Solar | ** Support | Aug 30, 2017 |
| California Alliance For Retired Americans | ** Against | Aug 30, 2017 |
| California Solar Energy Industries Association | ** Support | Apr 30, 2017 |
| Center for California Homeowner Association Law | ** Against | Aug 30, 2017 |
| Center for Homeowners Association Law | * Against | Jun 27, 2017 |
| Community Associations Institute-California Legislative Action Committee | ** Against | Aug 30, 2017 |
| Seven Individuals | ** Support | Aug 30, 2017 |
| Six Individuals | ** Support | Jun 22, 2017 |
| Sustainable Rossmoor | ** Support | Aug 30, 2017 |
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
CSA1 Bill Id:AB 634
Author:(Eggman)
As Amended Ver:August 28, 2017
Majority vote
ASSEMBLY: | 78-0 | (May 15, 2017) | SENATE: | 34-6 | (September 5, 2017) |
Original Committee Reference: JUD.
SUMMARY: Prohibits homeowner's associations (HOAs) from requiring approval of the membership of the common interest development (CID) for installation of a solar energy system in specified locations, and clarifies provisions that allow the imposition of reasonable restrictions on solar energy systems. Specifically, this bill:
- Prohibits a homeowner's association from the following actions, which, if taken, shall be void and unenforceable:
- Establishing a general policy prohibiting the installation or use of a rooftop solar energy system for household purposes on the roof of the building in which the owner resides, or a garage or carport adjacent to the building that has been assigned to the owner for exclusive use.
- Requiring approval by a vote of members owning separate interests in the CID, including that specified by Civil Code Section 4600, for installation of a solar energy system for household purposes on the roof of the building in which the owner resides, or a garage or carport adjacent to the building that has been assigned to the owner for exclusive use.
- Provides that a board's grant of exclusive use of a portion of the common roof of a residence to a member in order for the member to install and use a solar energy system, if done in compliance with specified rules, does not require the affirmative vote of members owning at least 67% of the separate interests in the CID.
- Provides that when reviewing a request to install a solar energy system on a multifamily common area roof shared by more than one homeowner, the HOA shall do both of the following:
- Require an applicant to notify each owner of a unit in the building on which the installation will be located of the application to install a solar energy system.
- Require the owner and each successive owner to maintain a homeowner liability coverage policy at all times and provide the association with the corresponding certificate of insurance within 14 days of approval of the application and annually thereafter.
- Provides that when reviewing a request to install a solar energy system on a multifamily common area roof shared by more than one homeowner, the HOA may impose reasonable restrictions on solar energy systems that:
- Require the applicant to submit to the association, in order to determine usable solar roof area, a solar suitability survey prepared by a licensed contractor or his registered salesperson knowledgeable in the installation of solar energy systems that includes, among other things, a determination of equitable allocation of the usable solar roof area among all owners sharing the same roof, garage or carport.
- Require the owner and each successive owner to be responsible for disclosing to prospective buyers the existence of any solar energy system of the owner and related responsibilities, and to be responsible for specified costs of maintenance, repair or damage to common areas associated with the installation or removal of the system.
The Senate amendments:
- Clarify that the general prohibition of any HOA policy that bars installation of a rooftop solar system, or any HOA requirement for approval by a vote of members owning separate interests, also extends to installation on a garage or carport adjacent to the building that has been assigned to the owner for exclusive use.
- Clarify the notification and homeowner liability insurance requirements, as specified, that an HOA shall impose when reviewing a request to install a solar energy system on a multifamily common area roof shared by more than one homeowner.
- Specify additional reasonable provisions that an HOA may impose when reviewing a request to install a solar energy system on a multifamily common area roof shared by more than one homeowner, including, for example, cost responsibilities for owners and successive owners and the submission of a site survey to determine equitable allocation of usable roof area.
- Clarify that this bill does not diminish the authority of an HOA to impose reasonable provisions pursuant to Civil Code Section 714.1 of the Solar Rights Act.
FISCAL EFFECT: None
COMMENTS: Existing law, the Solar Rights Act, establishes that it is state policy to promote and encourage the use of solar systems, and to that end, specifies that any provision of a CID's governing documents that effectively prohibits or restricts the installation or use of a solar energy system is void and unenforceable. At the same time, the Act allows HOAs to impose reasonable restrictions on solar energy systems, as long as they are "reasonable" and do not effectively prohibit or restrict the installation or use of solar energy systems. This bill, sponsored by advocates of solar energy who own homes in CIDs, seeks to establish further guidance on what "reasonable restrictions" can be imposed by HOAs upon residents of CIDs who wish to install solar energy systems for their homes, especially in light of California's strong policy commitment to solar energy.
Concern that owner approval requirements may effectively prohibit or restrict installation of solar systems. The bill is sponsored by Sustainable Rossmoor, an advocacy group organized by residents of Rossmoor, a senior community in Walnut Creek, to promote sound environmental practices by the governing boards of the Rossmoor community. According to the author, several HOA boards within Rossmoor have adopted new rules for installation of rooftop solar systems that add Civil Code Section 4600 requirements to their existing policies. Section 4600 requires the affirmative vote of members owning at least 67% of the separate interests in the CID before the board may grant exclusive use of any portion of the common area to a member, unless the governing documents specify a different percentage. Proponents of the bill contend that these new revised rules requiring 67% approval of the members effectively prohibit rooftop solar installations, especially in larger HOAs, and thus may violate the Solar Rights Act that prohibits a HOA's governing documents "from effectively prohibiting or restricting the installation or use" of a solar energy system. (Civil Code Section 714.) Proponents further contend that there is little reason to require approval of the entire HOA membership for the installation of a solar panel, particularly when the installation only involves the common roof area of a single building in which, for example, there may only four owners of separate interests (i.e. the applicant plus three other individuals.)
Data reported from an April 2016 election within one of the CIDs in Rossmoor is illustrative. According to Sustainable Rossmoor, the election involved a total of 172 units. Of the 117 owners who voted in the election, 95 owners (81% of those who voted) approved the solar project, and 22 disapproved of it. However, 55 of the 172 owners (32% of the total) did not vote in the election, and these non-votes counted as "no" votes because they were not "affirmative" votes to approve. In short, 115 of the 172 owners were needed to reach the 67% threshold, but only 95 owners affirmatively voted "yes", so the measure did not pass despite being supported by 81% of those who voted. According to the sponsor, the unfortunate result is that no one who lives in that HOA is currently allowed to install solar energy. For these reasons, proponents contend that HOAs that revise their policies to apply the 67% approval threshold requirement to solar decisions may be acting to effectively prohibit or restrict solar installation.
Exemption of solar energy systems from owner approval requirements. Under the Solar Rights Act, HOAs have long had authority to impose reasonable restrictions upon solar energy systems. The author and proponents of the bill wish to make certain that the authority to impose "reasonable restrictions" or "reasonable provisions" does not give HOAs the authority to impose blanket prohibitions on installing solar energy systems in a CID. Accordingly, the bill exempts the installation or use of solar energy systems from the owner approval requirements currently imposed by Civil Code Section 4600(a). The bill also prohibits an HOA from establishing a general policy prohibiting the installation or use of a rooftop solar energy system for household purposes, and from requiring approval by a vote of members owning separate interests in the common interest development, including that specified by Civil Code Section 4600, for such installation. In both cases, the rule applies to installation of a solar system on the roof of the building in which the owner resides, or upon a garage or carport adjacent to the building that has been assigned to the owner for exclusive use. The bill further declares that any action by an HOA that contravenes either of these two prohibitions shall be void and unenforceable.
Solar suitability and equitable allocation of usable solar roof space. Existing law, Section 714.1 in the Solar Rights Act, permits HOAs to impose reasonable provisions surrounding the installation and use of solar energy systems, including secondary concerns such as maintenance and liability. For example, Section 714.1 currently allows HOAs to impose reasonable provisions that provide for the maintenance, repair, or replacement of roofs or other building components, and that require installers of solar energy systems to indemnify or reimburse the association or its members for loss or damage caused by the installation, maintenance, or use of the solar energy system. Because the Solar Rights Act has already been in effect for several decades, many HOAs already have policies and procedures in place that address topics like installation requirements, safety issues, and resale or transfer of the solar energy system when the dwelling unit is sold.
According to the author, further guidance is needed to help HOAs develop "reasonable provisions" that fairly address the rights and responsibilities of the HOA, the owner seeking to install a solar system, and all other owners of separate interests who may be interested in later installing their own solar system. A balanced, guided approach is necessary to ensure a fair allocation of usable solar space among multiple owners of separate interests because the roof space that is usable for a solar energy system, or multiple systems, will vary from building to building, depending on location and environmental factors that cannot be adjusted, and only a certain portion of the roof may be usable or appropriate for installation of a solar system.
Senate amendments to the bill seek to provide such guidance and resolve issues regarding equitable allocation, notification, liability coverage, and responsibility for costs. First, the bill requires an HOA, when reviewing a request to install a solar energy system on a multifamily common area roof shared by more than one homeowner, to require owners to maintain a homeowner liability coverage policy at all times, and provide the HOA with a certificate of such coverage within 14 days of approval of an application and annually thereafter. In addition, the HOA must require an applicant to notify each owner in the building on which the installation will be located of the application to install the system.
In addition to the above requirements, the bill permits, but does not require, HOAs to impose additional reasonable provisions when reviewing such requests to install solar systems. Under this bill, the HOA may require the owner to be responsible for: 1) costs for damage to the common area or other separate interests resulting from the installation, maintenance or other work involving the solar system; 2) costs for the maintenance, repair and replacement of the solar system itself, and for restoration of the common area or any separate interest after its removal; and 3) disclosing to prospective buyers the existence of the solar system and the related responsibilities of the owner. Finally, the bill allows an HOA to require the applicant to submit to the association a solar suitability survey prepared by a licensed contractor (or the contractor's salesperson) knowledgeable in the installation of solar energy systems to determine usable solar roof area. This survey shall also include a determination of an equitable allocation of usable solar roof area among all owners sharing the same roof, garage, or carport. This is intended to ensure that a licensed contractor uses his or her professional expertise to evaluate the extent to which the roof is suitable for installation of a solar system, rather than having the HOA itself try to make that judgment.
Analysis Prepared by: Anthony Lew / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN: 0001529 FN:
Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 | AB |
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 634
:
SENATE TRANS. & HOUSING COMMITTEE: 13-0, 6/27/17
AYES: Beall, Cannella, Allen, Atkins, Bates, Gaines, McGuire, Mendoza, Morrell, Roth, Skinner, Wieckowski, Wiener
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 6-0, 7/18/17
AYES: Jackson, Anderson, Hertzberg, Monning, Stern, Wieckowski
NO VOTE RECORDED: Moorlach
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 5/15/17 - See last page for vote
DIGEST:
This bill prohibits homeowner's associations (HOAs) from requiring approval of the membership of the common interest development (CID) when an owner wishes to install a solar energy system on the roof of the building in which he resides. This bill also requires the owner to 1) notify each owner of a unit in the building on which the installation is located of the application to install a solar energy system, and 2) maintain a homeowner liability coverage policy at all times. The HOA may impose other specified conditions on the owner.
Senate Floor Amendments of 8/28/17 clarify that proof of the homeowner liability coverage must be provided within 14 days of the approval of the application and annually thereafter.
Existing law:
- Allows a CID to impose reasonable restrictions on the installation of solar energy systems, including requiring an owner to obtain the approval of the CID prior to installing a system in a common area, or in another owner's separate interest.
- Requires the affirmative vote of members owning at least 67 percent of the separate interests in the CID before the board may grant exclusive use of any portion of the common area to a member, unless the governing documents specify a different percentage.
- Permits reasonable restrictions on solar energy systems that do not significantly increase the cost of the system or significantly decrease its efficiency or specified performance, or that allow for an alternative system of comparable cost, efficiency, and energy conservation benefits.
- Defines "significantly" as used in 3), above, to mean an amount exceeding 10 percent of the cost of the solar energy system, but in no case more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or decreasing the efficiency of the solar energy system by an amount exceeding 10 percent, as originally specified and proposed.
This bill:
- Eliminates the requirement of a vote before a solar energy system can be installed on a common roof.
- Requires the owner to notify each owner of a unit in the building on which the installation is located of the application to install a solar energy system and to maintain a homeowner liability coverage policy at all times.
- Authorizes HOAs to impose additional conditions on a homeowner (applicant) wishing to install a solar energy system on a common roof shared by more than one homeowner:
- Development of a solar site survey showing the placement of the solar energy system, which shall include an equitable allocation of the usable solar roof area among all owners sharing the same room;
- Making the applicant responsible for any damage resulting from the installation, maintenance, repair, removal, or replacement of the solar energy system;
- Disclosing to prospective buyers the existence of any solar energy system of the owner and the related responsibilities of the owner under this law.
Comments
- Purpose. According to the author, this bill clarifies that while solar installations are subject to reasonable restrictions and an approval process by the HOA, a vote of the whole membership is not a part of that approval, and that associations shall not have blanket prohibitions against solar installations. This is consistent with exemptions of other installations, such as electric vehicle charging stations.
- What’s the Problem? Supporters of this bill argue that a requirement for 67% approval of an HOA before a homeowner is permitted to install a solar system is in effect a ban because many homeowners fail to vote. They note a specific example from the East Bay where 81% of the votes supported allowing the installation of rooftop solar systems, but because only 55% of the eligible homeowners voted the proposal did not pass.
- My Gain, Your Cost. A vote is required before installing a solar energy system in most HOA situations because the system is installed on the roof, which is owned by all HOA members. While a solar energy system may provide benefits to the HOA member who installs it, any damage to the roof from the installation, use, or removal of the solar energy system is the responsibility of all HOA members. And because rooftop solar systems require penetrating the roof to anchor the solar panels, the likelihood of water leakage or damage over the 10- or 20-year life of the system is significant.
- Solution: Protect the Innocent. The author guards against the inequity of shifting potential costs to others by establishing specific safeguards that put the responsibility for any damage resulting from the solar energy system onto the homeowner who installed the solar energy system. Specifically, instead of requiring a vote, this bill permits a homeowner to install a solar system on the roof of his unit, or proportionate share thereof, provided that the HOA can ensure that its members are held harmless for any costs associated with the installation or maintenance of that system. To that end, the bill requires the homeowner proposing to install the solar energy system to 1) notify the other owners in the building of his plans, and 2) maintain a homeowner liability coverage policy at all times for any damage resulting from the installation or maintenance of the solar system. Opponents contend that these protections are insufficient to protect the other HOA members.
- Precedent. There is precedent for the installation of equipment in common areas without a vote of the HOA: SB 209 (Corbett, Chapter 121, Statutes of 2011) allowed a homeowner to install an electric vehicle charging station with specified safeguards, including an insurance requirement, to protect the other homeowners.
- No Impact. This bill does not affect single family homes within HOAs as the roofs on those dwellings are not common area.
- Not Solar for All. While this bill will expand the potential market for rooftop solar energy installations, there will be many circumstances where such installations will still be infeasible, such as multi-story, multi-tenant condominiums. However, those homeowners can still purchase renewable energy from their utility or community choice aggregator.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:
All Electric & Solar
Sustainable Rossmoor
Seven individuals
OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/28/17)
California Alliance for Retired Americans
Community Associations Institute-California Legislative Action Committee
Center for California Homeowner Association Law
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 5/15/17
AYES: Acosta, Aguiar-Curry, Travis Allen, Arambula, Baker, Berman, Bigelow, Bloom, Bocanegra, Bonta, Brough, Burke, Caballero, Calderon, Cervantes, Chau, Chávez, Chen, Chiu, Choi, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Cunningham, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Eggman, Flora, Fong, Frazier, Friedman, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gomez, Gonzalez Fletcher, Gray, Grayson, Harper, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kiley, Lackey, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Patterson, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Reyes, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Voepel, Waldron, Weber, Wood, Rendon
NO VOTE RECORDED: Holden, Obernolte
8/30/17 17:17:43
**** END ****
Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 | AB |
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 634
:
SENATE TRANS. & HOUSING COMMITTEE: 13-0, 6/27/17
AYES: Beall, Cannella, Allen, Atkins, Bates, Gaines, McGuire, Mendoza, Morrell, Roth, Skinner, Wieckowski, Wiener
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 6-0, 7/18/17
AYES: Jackson, Anderson, Hertzberg, Monning, Stern, Wieckowski
NO VOTE RECORDED: Moorlach
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 5/15/17 - See last page for vote
DIGEST:
This bill prohibits homeowner's associations (HOAs) from requiring approval of the membership of the common interest development (CID) when an owner wishes to install a solar energy system on the roof of the building in which he resides. This bill also requires the owner to 1) notify each owner of a unit in the building on which the installation is located of the application to install a solar energy system, and 2) maintain a homeowner liability coverage policy at all times. The HOA may impose other specified conditions on the owner.
Existing law:
- Allows a CID to impose reasonable restrictions on the installation of solar energy systems, including requiring an owner to obtain the approval of the CID prior to installing a system in a common area, or in another owner's separate interest.
- Requires the affirmative vote of members owning at least 67 percent of the separate interests in the CID before the board may grant exclusive use of any portion of the common area to a member, unless the governing documents specify a different percentage.
- Permits reasonable restrictions on solar energy systems that do not significantly increase the cost of the system or significantly decrease its efficiency or specified performance, or that allow for an alternative system of comparable cost, efficiency, and energy conservation benefits.
- Defines "significantly" as used in 3), above, to mean an amount exceeding 10 percent of the cost of the solar energy system, but in no case more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or decreasing the efficiency of the solar energy system by an amount exceeding 10 percent, as originally specified and proposed.
This bill:
- Eliminates the requirement of a vote before a solar energy system can be installed on a common roof.
- Requires the owner to notify each owner of a unit in the building on which the installation is located of the application to install a solar energy system and to maintain a homeowner liability coverage policy at all times.
- Authorizes HOAs to impose additional conditions on a homeowner (applicant) wishing to install a solar energy system on a common roof shared by more than one homeowner:
- Development of a solar site survey showing the placement of the solar energy system, which shall include an equitable allocation of the usable solar roof area among all owners sharing the same room;
- Making the applicant responsible for any damage resulting from the installation, maintenance, repair, removal, or replacement of the solar energy system;
- Disclosing to prospective buyers the existence of any solar energy system of the owner and the related responsibilities of the owner under this law.
Comments
- Purpose. According to the author, this bill clarifies that while solar installations are subject to reasonable restrictions and an approval process by the HOA, a vote of the whole membership is not a part of that approval, and that associations shall not have blanket prohibitions against solar installations. This is consistent with exemptions of other installations, such as electric vehicle charging stations.
- What’s the Problem? Supporters of this bill argue that a requirement for 67% approval of an HOA before a homeowner is permitted to install a solar system is in effect a ban because many homeowners fail to vote. They note a specific example from the East Bay where 81% of the votes supported allowing the installation of rooftop solar systems, but because only 55% of the eligible homeowners voted the proposal did not pass.
- My Gain, Your Cost. A vote is required before installing a solar energy system in most HOA situations because the system is installed on the roof, which is owned by all HOA members. While a solar energy system may provide benefits to the HOA member who installs it, any damage to the roof from the installation, use, or removal of the solar energy system is the responsibility of all HOA members. And because rooftop solar systems require penetrating the roof to anchor the solar panels, the likelihood of water leakage or damage over the 10- or 20-year life of the system is significant.
- Solution: Protect the Innocent. The author guards against the inequity of shifting potential costs to others by establishing specific safeguards that put the responsibility for any damage resulting from the solar energy system onto the homeowner who installed the solar energy system. Specifically, instead of requiring a vote, this bill permits a homeowner to install a solar system on the roof of his unit, or proportionate share thereof, provided that the HOA can ensure that its members are held harmless for any costs associated with the installation or maintenance of that system. To that end, the bill requires the homeowner proposing to install the solar energy system to 1) notify the other owners in the building of his plans, and 2) maintain a homeowner liability coverage policy at all times for any damage resulting from the installation or maintenance of the solar system.
- Precedent. There is precedent for the installation of equipment in common areas without a vote of the HOA: SB 209 (Corbett, Chapter 121, Statutes of 2011) allowed a homeowner to install an electric vehicle charging station with specified safeguards, including an insurance requirement, to protect the other homeowners.
- No Impact. This bill does not affect single family homes within HOAs as the roofs on those dwellings are not common area.
- Not Solar for All. While this bill will expand the potential market for rooftop solar energy installations, there will be many circumstances where such installations will still be infeasible, such as multi-story, multi-tenant condominiums. However, those homeowners can still purchase renewable energy from their utility or community choice aggregator.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:
All Electric & Solar
Sustainable Rossmoor
Seven individuals
OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/22/17)
California Alliance for Retired Americans
Center for California Homeowner Association Law
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 5/15/17
AYES: Acosta, Aguiar-Curry, Travis Allen, Arambula, Baker, Berman, Bigelow, Bloom, Bocanegra, Bonta, Brough, Burke, Caballero, Calderon, Cervantes, Chau, Chávez, Chen, Chiu, Choi, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Cunningham, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Eggman, Flora, Fong, Frazier, Friedman, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gomez, Gonzalez Fletcher, Gray, Grayson, Harper, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kiley, Lackey, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Patterson, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Reyes,
Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Voepel, Waldron, Weber, Wood, Rendon
NO VOTE RECORDED: Holden, Obernolte
8/23/17 10:51:54
**** END ****
Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair
2017-2018 Regular Session
Bill No: AB 634 (Author:Eggman)
Version: July 5, 2017
Hearing Date: July 18, 2017
Fiscal: No
Urgency: No
Consultant: TSG
SUBJECT
Real property: solar energy systems
DESCRIPTION
This bill would modify the conditions that a homeowners association can impose on approval of the installation, by one homeowner, of solar panels on a roof shared by other homeowners in the common interest development governed by the association. Most significantly, the bill would prohibit the association from requiring a vote of the CID membership before granting approval of the installation.
BACKGROUND
Common interest developments (CIDs) are self-governing groups of dwellings that share common spaces and amenities. They come in a wide variety of physical formats: condominium complexes, apartment buildings, and neighborhoods of detached, single-family residences, for example. The owners of the separate properties within the CID are the members of it. CID members are entitled to vote for the board of directors of the association that oversees operation of the CID. CID members are also subject to the covenants, conditions, and restrictions of the CID as well as annual assessments that pay for the communal expenses of the CID. There are over 50,220 CIDs in the state, comprising over 4.8 million housing units and making up approximately one quarter of the state’s overall housing stock. In California, CIDs are governed by the Davis-Stirling Act. (Civ. Code Secs. 4000-6150.)
Whereas the sole owner of separate property generally has the freedom to decide what to do with that property, complex legal and policy issues result when one member of a CID wants to make some particular use of the common areas of the CID that may impact the rights of other CID members. Such is the case when one homeowner within a CID wishes to install a solar energy generation system on a rooftop that several homeowners share in common. On the one hand, the homeowner wishing to install the unit is not proposing a trespass; after all, the homeowner is one of the owners of the roof. Moreover, it can be argued that everyone has a stake in the generation of more renewable energy. At the same time, any other homeowners under that same roof also have an interest in it, both in the legal sense that they share ownership of the roof and in the practical sense that they do not want the roof to leak or collapse.
AB 3250 (Levine, Ch. 1154, Stats. 1978) sought to thread this needle by creating the Solar Rights Act. (Civ. Code Sec. 714 et seq.) The resulting laws void any covenants, restrictions, or conditions that effectively prohibit the installation of solar energy systems. (Civ. Code Sec. 714(a).) They nonetheless permit homeowners associations to impose specified conditions on the installation of solar systems in CIDs, so long as the conditions are reasonable.
According to the author and sponsor of this bill, homeowners who want to install solar units still face considerable barriers at some CIDs. Relying on the language of Civil Code Section 4600(a), those CID associations have determined that, in order to approve a solar installation, they must hold an election and the installation must be supported by a 67 percent supermajority not just of the votes cast, but of all CID members. The author and sponsors assert that paying for the election can cost the homeowner who wants to install solar thousands of dollars. Moreover, the threshold for winning the vote is so high, they contend, it is practically impossible to obtain.
With these challenges in mind, this bill would make a series of modifications to the conditions that a CID association can put on approval of a solar unit installation, the most significant of which is the clarification that associations may not subject approval of the installation to a vote.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law, pursuant to the Solar Rights Act, provides that any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any deed, contract, or other instrument affecting the transfer or sale of real property, and any provision of a governing document of a CID that effectively prohibits or restricts the installation or use of a solar energy system is void and unenforceable. (Civ. Code Sec. 714(a).)
Existing law permits reasonable restrictions on solar energy systems that do not significantly increase the cost of the system or significantly decrease its efficiency or specified performance, or that allow for an alternative system of comparable cost, efficiency and energy conservation benefits. (Civ. Code Sec. 714(b).)
Existing law defines “significantly” for purposes of the Solar Rights Act to mean an amount exceeding 10 percent of the cost of the solar energy system, but in no case more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or decreasing the efficiency of the solar energy system by an amount exceeding 10 percent, as compared to the original specifications and proposal. (Civ. Code Sec. 714(d)(1).)
Existing law provides that whenever approval is required for the installation or use of a solar energy system, the application for approval shall be processed and approved by the appropriate approving entity in the same manner as an application for approval of an architectural modification to the property, and shall not be willfully avoided or delayed. (Civ. Code Sec. 714(e).)
Existing law allows a CID to impose reasonable restrictions on the installation of solar energy systems, including requiring an owner to obtain the approval of the CID prior to installing a system in a common area, or in another owner's separate interest. (Civ. Code Sec. 714.1.)
Existing law requires the affirmative vote of members owning at least 67 percent of the separate interests in the CID before the board may grant exclusive use of any portion of the common area to a member, unless the governing documents specify a different percentage. (Civ. Code Sec. 4600(a).)
Existing law enumerates a number of circumstances where a board may grant exclusive use of any portion of the common area without requiring a supermajority vote of at least 67 percent of the CID members. (Civ. Code Sec. 4600(b).)
This bill would prevent homeowners’ associations from requiring an election before an owner can install a solar energy system on the common roof of a building in which the owner resides, or a garage or carport adjacent to the building that has been assigned to the owner for exclusive use.
This bill would prohibit homeowners’ associations from establishing a general policy against the installation of a rooftop solar system on the roof of a building in which the owner resides, or a garage or carport adjacent to the building that has been assigned to the owner for exclusive use.
This bill would require homeowners’ associations to condition approval of a rooftop solar panel installation on prior notification to each owner of a unit in the building on which the solar system will be located.
This bill would permit a homeowners’ association to condition installation of a rooftop solar system on: (a) submission of a solar site survey by a knowledgeable licensed contractor or registered salesperson showing the placement of the solar energy system, which shall include an equitable allocation of the usable solar roof area among all owners sharing the same room; (b) making the applicant and each successive owner responsible for any damage resulting from the installation, maintenance, repair, removal, or replacement of the solar energy system, including requiring a liability coverage policy naming the homeowners’ association as an additional insured with a right of notice of cancellation.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
According to the author:
AB 634 addresses conflicts created in California’s Civil Code relating to the installation of rooftop solar systems in common interest developments. The bill clarifies that rooftop solar installations are exempt from the 67% vote requirement to make the application consistent with the intent of the Solar Rights Act. This bill would also provide protection to homeowners who share roof space with the homeowner applying for a rooftop solar system. As a state we have made renewable energy a priority, and enacted policies to expand the use of solar energy systems. AB 634 would help some who have been left out by unfair and misinterpreted requirements.
In support, All Electric and Solar writes:
For years, […] All Electric and Solar has been installing PV panels for Rossmoor homeowners. Recently, due to the policy change of certain HOA boards in Rossmoor, several of my customers’ applications for solar have been blocked because of the vote requirement that AB 634 addresses. Some of my potential customers have backed away entirely because they don’t want to deal with the stress of going through a membership election.
AB 634, if passed, would allow many seniors living in condo communities better access to solar power by clarifying an HOA’s authority in the approval of a homeowners’ application for installation of solar panels, thus removing the onerous obstacles from the approval process.
AB 634 not only protects the rights of homeowners to invest in solar energy, but also enhances California environmentally by increasing the use of renewable energy.
2. Expressed concerns with the bill
In opposition to the bill, the Center for California Homeowner Association Law writes:
To be clear: the Center for California Homeowner Association Law (CCHAL) is not opposed to solar projects per se. Our main concern is the unintended consequences of the bill, i.e. that it will provoke litigation, because it lets individual owners install solar panels on common areas that they own jointly with multiple owners without insuring or otherwise protecting against loss or damage either to the roof itself or to adjoining homes or their contents. Owners of homes sharing the same roof may have chosen not to participate in the solar project, yet they are forced to assume risk.
As we see it: AB634 is about risk and who is going to assume the potential costs of risk. The bill lets a single owner appropriate common areas for his own economic benefit, but doesn’t require insurance, performance standards by installers or warranties, escrow accounts, or other mechanisms to protect against loss. It doesn’t even require that solar projects go through an approval process when, by definition, they involve an alteration of the common area. We believe, therefore, that the bill will most certainly provoke litigation when damage does occur.
In further opposition to the bill, the California Alliance for Retired Americans (CARA) writes:
Seniors move into townhomes, co-ops, and condos managed by associations for four reasons (1) the physical demands of maintaining a home have become too great and they welcome the promise that “maintenance” will be done by the equivalent of a landlord, i.e. the association corporation; and (2) maintenance costs are shared and (3) maintenance itself is centralized and managed by the association (4) shared costs result in greater affordability for seniors.
CARA believes that – perhaps without intending to – AB 634 voids this principle of shared costs and centralized maintenance. To be clear: CARA is not opposed to solar projects in themselves; instead CARA objects to the fact that the legislation does not protect the association and its members from liability and economic harm. […]
Any mention of insurance in AB 634 is purely permissive, that is: an association MAY require insurance of the solar installer and/or the homeowner who has initiated the project. This permissive approach to insurance almost ensures that disputes over which party is responsible for maintenance and repair of the solar project and any consequent damage to the common areas – roof or exclusive use common areas (EUCAs) – will land in the courts.
3. Example of the problem this bill is intended to address
The sponsor of this bill is Sustainable Rossmoor, a group of residents in Rossmoor, a common interest development located in Walnut Creek. As the name suggests, Sustainable Rossmoor desires to see the community operate in a way more compatible with the long-term health of the environment. As part of this, the group wants to see more solar systems installed at Rossmoor.
Several of the homeowners’ associations that govern Rossmoor have adopted governing policies that ban installation of rooftop solar in condominium settings or require anyone hoping to install solar panel on a common rooftop to hold an election and obtain a vote in favor from 67 percent of all members of the CID. In other words, any member that does not cast a vote is considered a “no” vote. Sustainable Rossmoor members contend that, as a practical matter, this election requirement violates the Solar Rights Act, since it makes it effectively impossible to install a solar system on a common roof. The associations with these policies reply that they believe Civil Code Section 4600 obligates them to precondition approval on the election and the 67 percent threshold.
This bill would, in effect, decide this dispute in favor of Sustainable Rossmoor. It would clarify that applications to install rooftop solar systems are not subject to an election requirement and that blanket prohibitions on the installation of rooftop solar systems are impermissible. As a result, if enacted, the bill would likely lead to more rooftop solar panel installations in CIDs across California.
4. The consent and liability issue
The various stakeholders to this bill – homeowners, homeowners’ associations, and solar installation companies – are all in agreement that installing solar systems in CIDs is a good thing or, at least, that interested homeowners ought to have the option to do so. By and large, therefore, there is consensus that reducing barriers to solar installation would be positive. The point of contention is this bill’s effect on the other homeowners: those who share both the roof and responsibility for the roof with the installing homeowner.
By law, the homeowners’ association is responsible for the maintenance, repair, and replacement of any common roof. (Civ. Code Sec. 4775(a).) Thus, even if the actions of one homeowner are the cause of damage to the roof, all of the homeowners, collectively, may be on the hook to pay for the repairs. Put into the solar installation context, this means that if one homeowner elects to install solar panels on the roof and something goes wrong, the other homeowners may be left to pay for the roof damage.
Moreover, if the damage to the roof happens suddenly, or goes unnoticed for long periods, water could penetrate the units below, causing property damage within them. It is possible that someone else would pay for the resulting damage: the installing solar company, through a warranty; the homeowner’s insurance policy, maybe; or the installing homeowner herself, perhaps. None of these are guaranteed, however, and that means there is a risk that the other homeowners could wind up paying for the damage themselves.
One way to address the potential imposition of this risk is to put it to a vote. In that way, at least the other homeowners can be said to have consented, broadly speaking, to taking on the risk, through a democratic process. The primary impact of this bill, however, is to eliminate the need for such a vote, because it has turned out, in practice, to act as a barrier to solar installations. That leads to the central conundrum of this bill: if the installing homeowner does not necessarily need the consent of the neighbors, in the form of an election, to install solar panels on the common roof, should the installing homeowner have to do something else to eliminate, or at least further mitigate, the risk that damage will happen to the roof or units beneath it and the neighboring property owners will be left holding the bag? And, if so, what can be done to try to make sure that requirement does not itself become a significant barrier to the installation of solar energy generation systems in CIDs?
This is more of a practical conundrum than it is a philosophical difference between stakeholders, and all sides have put considerable time and thought into the effort to find a resolution. As the focus of the bill has narrowed to the insurance requirement, the insurance industry has also begun to weigh in. At the time this analysis is being written, several ideas have been floated, but none have managed to resolve the issue to the satisfaction of all parties. Absent such a solution, the question before the Committee is this: does the public policy served by removing barriers to the installation of rooftop solar panels in CIDs sufficiently justify leaving open the possibility that homeowners’ associations could permit the shifting of some risk onto the association and other homeowners who share that roof?
5. Comparison to law on installation of Electric Vehicle Charging Stations
There is precedent for what this bill seeks to accomplish. SB 209 (Corbett, Ch. 121, Stats. 2011) set out to facilitate the installation of electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS) in CIDs, much like this bill seeks to facilitate the installation of rooftop solar panels. To install an EVCS in a CID, the homeowner sometimes has to run electrical connections through CID common areas. In order to prevent an election requirement from standing in the way of a homeowner’s use of the common areas for this purpose, SB 209 explicitly exempted EVCS installation from the need for a 67 percent approval vote. (Civ. Code Sec. 4600(b)(I).) At the same time, however, before being enacted, SB 209 was amended to add in a requirement that makes a homeowner who installs an EVCS, and every subsequent homeowner, carry insurance coverage for the EVCS in the amount of at least $1 million. (Civ. Code Sec. 4745(f)(3).) In this way, SB 209 managed to remove the election barrier from the EVCS installation process while still ensuring that other homeowners were adequately covered in the event that the EVCS caused damage to other homeowners or to CID common areas.
This bill, like SB 209, would eliminate the election barrier to installation of solar panels. Unlike SB 209, however, this bill does not require associations to demand insurance coverage on the solar unit before approving the installation. Instead, this bill is permissive: associations may demand that a homeowner obtain liability coverage “naming the association as a named additional insured under the policy with a right of notice of cancellation” but they need not impose this requirement.
6. Amendments
In order to better ensure that the risks to other homeowners and the association are minimized, the author has agreed to make homeowner liability insurance coverage mandatory, rather than permissive. In other words, in order to approve the installation of a rooftop solar unit, a homeowners association will be obligated by law to require that the applicant, and each successive owner, carry homeowner liability insurance coverage.
The specific amendments are:
Amendment 1
On page 5, in line 16, strike out “an applicant to” and insert:
both of the following:
(1) An applicant shall
Amendment 2
On page 5, after line 18, insert:
(2) The owner and each successive owner shall maintain a homeowner liability coverage policy at all times, and provide the association with the corresponding certificate of insurance annually.
Since homeowner liability insurance policies generally only cover liability arising from sudden and accidental events, this requirement is unlikely to fully satisfy the opponents’ criticism regarding the shift in risk. Liability arising from the installation and maintenance of the solar panels is not typically covered by homeowners’ liability policies, so even if having a homeowner’s liability insurance policy is mandatory, the association and other homeowners under the shared roof would still be exposed to some risk.
Proponents of the bill point out that liability arising from installation and maintenance would ordinarily be covered by the installing contractor’s warranties. Under California law, those warranties cover all defects in workmanship for one year; all damage associated with defective installation for four years; and damage from all structural defects, including latent defects such as unstable building sites, foundation integrity, and roofing work, for ten years. (Bus. & Prof. Code Secs. 7091(a) and (b).) Critics of the bill respond that even if these warranties cover damage emanating from a rooftop solar installation, the warranties will lapse after 10 years, while the solar installation is likely to remain for twice that long or longer. Proponents of the bill concede that the warranties will expire, but note that warranties on other types of rooftop installations – such as an air conditioning or heating unit, say – would expire in the same time frame. Why, the proponents ask, should the installation of solar panels be treated any differently and require extra insurance, extended warranties, or other guarantees?
All of this means that while the amendments to be taken in Committee move the parties closer together, the amendments probably fall short of completely closely the gap between proponents and opponents of the bill. Even with the amendments, the installation of rooftop solar still involves shifting some risk onto the association as a whole and onto the other property owners who share the same roof. The question remains, therefore, whether the benefits of encouraging rooftop solar installation override the concerns about this shift in risk.
Support: All Electric & Solar; California Solar Energy Industries Association; Organizing for Action Contra Costa; Parents for a Safer Environment; 25 individuals
Opposition: California Alliance for Retired Americans; Center for California Homeowner Association Law; Community Associations Institute California Legislative Action Committee
HISTORY
Source: Sustainable Rossmoor
Related Pending Legislation: SB 522 (Glazer, 2017) would provide that if the approval of an architectural modification requires a vote of the membership of the association, then only the percentage of the votes submitted on the architectural modification shall be counted to determine this approval. SB 522 was withdrawn by the author from consideration before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Prior Legislation:
AB 2188 (Muratsuchi, Chapter 521, Statutes of 2014) defined the term “significantly” for purposes of the Solar Rights Act when considering how much reasonable restrictions can impact the cost or energy production of a solar system.
SB 209 (Corbett, Chapter 121, Statutes of 2011) provided that homeowners’ associations cannot impose conditions that effectively prohibit the installation or use of an electrical vehicle charging station, but permitted homeowners’ associations to impose other specified conditions, and required homeowners’ associations to condition approval on maintenance of an umbrella liability coverage policy of $1,000,000 that names the common interest development as an additional insured, among other things.
AB 2180 (Lieu, Chapter 539, Statutes of 2008) required that an approval or denial of an application to install a solar system be in writing and established that an application is deemed approved unless it has been denied in writing within 60 days.
AB 3250 (Levine, Chapter 1154, Statutes of 1978) established the Solar Rights Act declaring void and unenforceable covenants, conditions, and regulations that effectively preclude the installation of solar energy systems, but permitting the imposition of certain reasonable requirements on installation.
Prior Vote:
Senate Transportation and Housing Committee (Ayes 13, Noes 0)
Assembly Floor (Ayes 78, Noes 0)
Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 11, Noes 0)
**************
SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING
Senator Jim Beall, Chair
2017 - 2018 Regular
Bill No: AB 634 Hearing Date: 6/27/2017
Author: | Eggman | ||
Version: | 6/19/2017 Amended | ||
Urgency: | No | Fiscal: | No |
Consultant: | Randy Chinn | ||
SUBJECT: Real property: solar energy systems.
DIGEST: This bill prohibits homeowner's associations (HOAs) from requiring approval of the membership of the common interest development (CID) for installation of a solar energy system on the roof of the building in which the owner resides, and clarifies provisions that impose reasonable restrictions on solar energy systems.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
- Allows a CID to impose reasonable restrictions on the installation of solar energy systems, including requiring an owner to obtain the approval of the CID prior to installing a system in a common area, or in another owner's separate interest.
- Requires the affirmative vote of members owning at least 67 percent of the separate interests in the CID before the board may grant exclusive use of any portion of the common area to a member, unless the governing documents specify a different percentage.
- Permits reasonable restrictions on solar energy systems that do not significantly increase the cost of the system or significantly decrease its efficiency or specified performance, or that allow for an alternative system of comparable cost, efficiency, and energy conservation benefits.
- Defines "significantly" as used in 3), above, to mean an amount exceeding 10 percent of the cost of the solar energy system, but in no case more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or decreasing the efficiency of the solar energy system by an amount exceeding 10 percent, as originally specified and proposed.
This bill:
- Eliminates the requirement of a vote before a solar energy system can be installed on a common roof.
- Authorizes HOAs to impose conditions on a homeowner (applicant) wishing to install a solar energy system on a common roof shared by more than one homeowner:
- Notification by the applicant to each owner of a unit in the building on which the solar installation will be located;
- Development of a solar site survey showing the placement of the solar energy system, which shall include an equitable allocation of the usable solar roof area among all owners sharing the same room;
- Making the applicant responsible for any damage resulting from the installation, maintenance, repair, removal, or replacement of the solar energy system, including requiring a liability coverage policy naming the HOA as an additional insured with a right of notice of cancellation.
COMMENTS:
- Purpose. According to the author, this bill clarifies that while solar installations are subject to reasonable restrictions and an approval process by the HOA, a vote of the whole membership is not a part of that approval, and that associations shall not have blanket prohibitions against solar installations. This is consistent with exemptions of other installations, such as electric vehicle charging stations.
- What’s the Problem? Supporters of this bill argue that a requirement for 67% approval of an HOA before a homeowner is permitted to install a solar system is in effect a ban because many homeowners fail to vote. They note a specific example from the East Bay where 81% of the votes supported allowing the installation of rooftop solar systems, but because only 55% of the eligible homeowners voted the proposal did not pass.
- My Gain, Your Cost. A vote is required before installing a solar energy system in most HOA situations because the system is installed on the roof, which is owned by all HOA members. While a solar energy system may provide benefits to the HOA member who installs it, any damage to the roof from the installation, use, or removal of the solar energy system is the responsibility of all HOA members. And because rooftop solar systems require penetrating the roof to anchor the solar panels, the likelihood of water leakage or damage over the 10- or 20-year life of the system is significant.
- Solution: Protect the Innocent. The author guards against the inequity of shifting potential costs to others by establishing specific safeguards that put the responsibility for any damage resulting from the solar energy system onto the homeowner who installed the solar energy system. Specifically, instead of requiring a vote, this bill permits a homeowner to install a solar system on the roof of his unit, or proportionate share thereof, provided that all other HOA members are held harmless for any costs associated with the installation or maintenance of that system. To that end, the bill authorizes HOAs to require: 1) the homeowner proposing to install the solar energy system to notify the other owners in the building of his plans; 2) the development of a solar site survey which identifies the roof area of the building which is suitable for a solar energy system (e.g. unshaded, south- or west-facing, uninterrupted clear space, etc.) and which allocates that space between all the owners under that same roof; and 3) the homeowner proposing to install the solar energy system must be responsible for any damage resulting from the installation, maintenance, repair, removal, or replacement of the solar energy system, including requiring a liability coverage policy naming the HOA as an additional insured with a right of notice of cancellation.
While these safeguards appear reasonable and adequate, there is still some debate. Some homeowner interests view the provisions as not sufficiently protective while some solar energy interests are concerned that the cost of the liability coverage may be prohibitive. This bill is double-referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee where this conversation will doubtless continue.
One improvement to these protections would be to make the notification to other homeowners sharing the same roof mandatory, rather than at the discretion of the HOA. This would ensure that neighbors are informed even if the homeowner wanting to install the solar energy system were an HOA officer wanting to avoid detection. The author has agreed to this amendment.
- Precedent. There is precedent for the installation of equipment in common areas without a vote of the HOA: SB 209 (Corbett; Chapter 121 of the Statutes of 2011) allows a homeowner to install an electric vehicle charging station with specified safeguards, including an insurance requirement, to protect the other homeowners.
- Can I Buy Yours? There may be circumstances where a homeowner’s proportionate share of the solar-suitable roof area is inadequate for a properly sized solar energy system, but if that homeowner could also use his neighbor’s roof area the area would be sufficient. It isn’t clear that such arrangements are authorized under this bill.
- No Impact. This bill does not affect single family homes within HOAs as the roofs on those dwellings are not common area.
- Not Solar for All. While this bill will expand the potential market for rooftop solar energy installations, there will be many circumstances where such installations will still be infeasible, such as multi-story, multi-tenant condominiums. However, those homeowners can still purchase renewable energy from their utility or community choice aggregator.
- Double Referral. This bill has been doubled referred to the Senate Judiciary committee.
Related Legislation:
SB 71 (Wiener, 2017) — Authorizes the California Energy Commission to require the installation of solar energy systems on new residential buildings as part of the building standards if the system is cost effective and affordable. This bill is pending in the Assembly Housing and Community Development committee.
Assembly votes:
Floor: 78-0
Judiciary: 11-0
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Wednesday,
June 21, 2017.)
SUPPORT:
All Electric & Solar
Sustainable Rossmoor
Six individuals
OPPOSITION:
None received.
-- END --
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
ATR Bill Id:AB 634
Author:(Eggman)
As Amended Ver:May 4, 2017
Majority vote
Committee | Votes | Ayes | Noes |
Judiciary | 11-0 | Mark Stone, Cunningham, Chau, Chiu, Cristina Garcia, Holden, Kalra, Kiley, Maienschein, Reyes, Ting |
|
SUMMARY: Prohibits homeowner's associations (HOAs) from requiring approval of the membership of the common interest development (CID) for installation of a solar energy system on the roof of the building in which the owner resides, and clarifies provisions that impose reasonable restrictions on solar energy systems. Specifically, this bill:
- Authorizes a homeowner's association to impose reasonable restrictions on solar energy systems that:
- Require an applicant to notify each owner of a unit in the building on which the installation will be located of the application to install a solar energy system.
- Require the applicant to submit to the association a solar suitability survey prepared by a licensed contractor knowledgeable in the installation of solar energy systems, for the association to determine usable solar roof area.
- Require equitable allocation of the usable solar roof area among all owners sharing the same roof, if the association determines that the roof is suitable for solar installation pursuant to 1b), above.
- Prohibits a homeowner's association from the following actions, which, if taken, shall be void and unenforceable:
- Establishing a general policy prohibiting the installation or use of a rooftop solar energy system for household purposes on the roof of the building in which the owner resides.
- Requiring approval by vote of members owning separate interests in the common interest development, including that specified by Civil Code Section 4600, for installation of a solar energy system for household purposes on the roof of the building in which the owner resides.
- Provides that a board's grant of exclusive use of a portion of the common roof of a residence to a member in order for the member to install and use a solar energy system, if done in compliance with specified rules, does not require the affirmative vote of members owning at least 67% of the separate interests in the common interest development.
FISCAL EFFECT: None
COMMENTS: Existing law, the Solar Rights Act, establishes that it is state policy to promote and encourage the use of solar systems, and to that end, specifies that any provision of a CID's governing documents that effectively prohibits or restricts the installation or use of a solar energy system is void and unenforceable. At the same time, the Act allows HOAs to impose reasonable restrictions on solar energy systems, as long as they are "reasonable" and do not effectively prohibit or restrict the installation or use of solar energy systems. This bill, sponsored by advocates of solar energy who own homes in CIDs, seeks to establish further guidance on what "reasonable restrictions" can be imposed by HOAs upon residents of CIDs who wish to install solar energy systems for their homes, especially in light of California's strong policy commitment to solar energy.
Concern that owner approval requirements may effectively prohibit or restrict installation of solar systems. The bill is sponsored by Sustainable Rossmoor, an advocacy group organized by residents of Rossmoor, a senior community in Walnut Creek, to promote sound environmental practices by the governing boards of the Rossmoor community. According to the author, several HOA boards within Rossmoor have adopted new rules for installation of rooftop solar systems that add Civil Code Section 4600 requirements to their existing policies. Section 4600 requires the affirmative vote of members owning at least 67% of the separate interests in the CID before the board may grant exclusive use of any portion of the common area to a member, unless the governing documents specify a different percentage. Proponents of the bill contend that these new revised rules requiring 67% approval of the members effectively prohibit rooftop solar installations, especially in larger HOAs, and thus may violate the Solar Rights Act that prohibits a HOA's governing documents "from effectively prohibiting or restricting the installation or use" of a solar energy system. (Civil Code Section 714.) They explain:
We live in a project of 130 units. It doesn't matter that our building is shared by only four homes, we will need 87 approval votes out of 130 units before the HOA board would consider our application for a rooftop solar system. . . . Practically speaking, it is extremely difficult to secure 67% approval, because a non-vote is counted as a "No" vote, and the vote is a secret ballot. Many Rossmoor residents are in their 80's and 90's and are not likely to vote. Also at any given time, many units are vacant and for sale.
Proponents contend that there is little good reason to require approval of the entire HOA membership for the installation of a solar panel, particularly when the installation only involves the common roof area of a single building in which, for example, there may only four owners of separate interests (i.e. the applicant plus three other individuals.) Because of the way the voter approval requirement is structured, the difficulty in getting 67% approval of the members of the HOA may effectively prevent the installation of rooftop solar systems—even in cases where evidence shows that a majority of HOA members support such systems.
Data reported from an April 2016 election within one of the CIDs in Rossmoor is illustrative. According to Sustainable Rossmoor, the election involved a total of 172 units. Of the 117 owners who voted in the election, 95 owners (81% of those who voted) approved the solar project, and 22 disapproved of it. However, 55 of the 172 owners (32% of the total) did not vote in the election, and these non-votes counted as "no" votes because they were not "affirmative" votes to approve. In short, 115 of the 172 owners were needed to reach the 67% threshold, but only 95 owners affirmatively voted "yes", so the measure did not pass despite being supported by 81% of those who voted. According to the sponsor, the unfortunate result is that no one who lives in that HOA is currently allowed to install solar energy. For these reasons, proponents contend that HOAs that revise their policies to apply the 67% approval threshold requirement to solar decisions may be acting to effectively prohibit or restrict solar installation.
At the time of this analysis, there are no formal letters of opposition to the bill, although representatives of HOA boards and CID managers have actively been engaged in stakeholder negotiations with the author and sponsors of the bill. The argument has been made, however, that HOA boards not only have the authority to impose the 67% approval requirement upon solar installation, but that absent any statutory exemption, they may even be compelled to enforce that requirement under Section 4600(a), which states: "Unless the governing documents specify a different percentage, the affirmative vote of members owning at least 67% of the separate interests in the common interest development shall be required before the board may grant exclusive use of any portion of the common area to a member" (emphasis added.) Subdivision (b) of Section 4600 provides a number of exceptions from the owner approval requirements imposed by subdivision (a), including one for installation of an electric vehicle charging station. Because no exception exists for solar energy systems, it could be argued under Section 4600(a) that 67% owner approval is required before the HOA board can grant exclusive use to a portion of the common roof to a member to install a solar system.
In addition, HOA boards have long made the argument, generally, that HOA members always have the ability to change rules they don't like through the process specified by the association's governing documents, including changes to the governing documents themselves. They have contended that when a separate interest in a common interest development is purchased, the buyer agrees to abide by the governing documents of the HOA, and those governing documents can be amended by a vote of the association. On past legislative matters, HOA boards have also previously argued that if members feel the 67% owner approval threshold is too high for some proposed type of exclusive use, they could instead undertake steps to amend the governing documents to specify a different percentage, as contemplated by Section 4600(a), without bypassing the ability of other member owners to exercise their vote on these matters.
Exemption of solar energy systems from owner approval requirements. Under the Solar Rights Act, HOAs have long had authority to impose reasonable restrictions upon solar energy systems. The author and proponents of the bill wish to make certain that the authority to impose "reasonable restrictions" or "reasonable provisions" does not give HOAs the authority to impose blanket prohibitions on installing solar energy systems in a CID. Recent amendments to the bill exempt the installation or use of solar energy systems from the owner approval requirements imposed by Section 4600 (a). The exemption applies to a solar energy system on the common roof of a residence, and specifically, one that meets the requirements of Sections 714 and 714.1 in the Solar Rights Act. The bill also prohibits an HOA from doing either of the following: 1) establishing a general policy prohibiting the installation or use of a rooftop solar energy system for household purposes on the roof of the building in which the owner resides; or 2) requiring approval by a vote of members owning separate interests in the common interest development, including that specified by Civil Code Section 4600, for installation of a solar energy system for household purposes on the roof of the building in which the owner resides. The bill further declares that any action by an HOA that contravenes either of these two prohibitions shall be void and unenforceable.
Solar suitability and equitable allocation of usable solar roof space. Existing law, Section 714.1 in the Solar Rights Act, permits HOAs to impose reasonable provisions surrounding the installation and use of solar energy systems, including secondary concerns such as maintenance and liability. For example, Section 714.1 currently allows HOAs to impose reasonable provisions that provide for the maintenance, repair, or replacement of roofs or other building components, and that require installers of solar energy systems to indemnify or reimburse the association or its members for loss or damage caused by the installation, maintenance, or use of the solar energy system. Because the Solar Rights Act has already been in effect for several decades, many HOAs already have policies and procedures in place that address topics like installation requirements, safety issues, and resale or transfer of the solar energy system when the dwelling unit is sold.
According to the author, however, further guidance is needed to help HOAs develop "reasonable provisions" that fairly address the rights and responsibilities of the HOA, the owner seeking to install a solar system, and all other owners of separate interests who may be interested in later installing their own solar system. A balanced, guided approach is necessary because the roof space that is usable for a solar energy system, or multiple systems, will vary from building to building depending on location and environmental factors that cannot be adjusted. For example, the suitability of a rooftop solar system on any roof will depend on factors like the direction that the slope of the roof faces; how much sunlight it receives during the day; whether there are trees or other buildings that provide too much shade; and whether there are other conditions or physical limitations of the roof that allow a solar system to be installed on a particular spot where it may operate most productively. It may be that only a certain portion of the roof is usable or appropriate for installation of a solar system ("usable area"), and the rest of the roof surface is not. Furthermore, in a common interest development where multiple owners share a common roof, usable solar area is a limited resource that may be put in dispute when one or more of the owners wish to install a solar system, unless there is an equitable allocation of the usable space.
Accordingly, the bill takes a two-prong approach, seeking to ensure a fair allocation of usable solar space among multiple owners of separate interests. First, the HOA may impose reasonable provisions to require the applicant to submit to the association a solar suitability survey prepared by a licensed contractor knowledgeable in the installation of solar energy systems, for the association to determine its usable solar roof area. This ensures that a licensed contractor uses professional judgment and expertise to evaluate the extent to which the roof is suitable or unsuitable for installation of a solar system, and conveys that evaluation to the association, rather than having the HOA itself try to make a judgment over whether rooftop conditions are solar-suitable or not. Second, after usable solar roof space (if any) has been estimated, the bill allows the HOA to impose reasonable provisions that require the equitable allocation of the usable solar roof area among all owners sharing the same roof. This ensures that the first owner who applies to install a solar system does not monopolize or take more than his or her fair share of the usable solar roof area, and thus preclude later owners from also having the opportunity to install solar energy systems. The bill also allows the HOA to impose additional reasonable provisions that require an applicant to notify each owner of a unit in the building on which the installation will be located of the application to install a solar energy system.
Analysis Prepared by: Anthony Lew / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN: 0000281
Date of Hearing: May 2, 2017
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mark Stone, Chair
ABPCA Bill Id:AB 634
Author:(Eggman) – As Amended Ver:March 23, 2017
As Proposed to be Amended
SUBJECT: COMMON INTEREST DEVELOPMENTS: SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS
KEY ISSUE: should HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATIONS BE PROHIBITED FROM REQUIRING APPROVAL BY TWO-THIRDS VOTE OF THE OWNERS OF THE cOMMUNITY INTEREST DEVELOPMENT AS A PRECONDITION TO APPROVING AN INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNER'S APPLICATION TO INSTALL A SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM ON THE ROOF OF THE BUILDING IN WHICH HE OR SHE RESIDES?
SYNOPSIS
Existing law, the Solar Rights Act, establishes that it is state policy to promote and encourage the use of solar systems, and to that end, specifies that any provision of a community interest development's (CID) governing documents that effectively prohibits or restricts the installation or use of a solar energy system is void and unenforceable. At the same time, the Act allows homeowner associations (HOAs) to impose reasonable restrictions on solar energy systems, as long as they are "reasonable" and do not effectively prohibit or restrict the installation or use of solar energy systems.
According to the author, some HOA boards in California have adopted rules for installation of rooftop solar systems that add Civil Code Section 4600 requirements to their existing policies. Section 4600 requires the affirmative vote of members owning at least 67 percent of the separate interests in the CID before the board may grant exclusive use of any portion of the common area to a member, unless the governing documents specify a different percentage. Proponents of the bill, including solar advocates and many current residents of CIDs, contend that there is little good reason to require approval by a vote of the entire HOA membership for an individual solar installation, particularly when the proposed installation only involves the common roof area of a single building in which, for example, there are only four homeowners. Because of the way the voter approval requirement is structured, they contend, the difficulty in getting 67% approval of the members of the HOA effectively prevents the installation of rooftop solar systems—even in cases where evidence shows that a majority of HOA members support such systems.
Accordingly, as proposed to be amended, this bill would specifically exempt the installation or use of solar energy systems from the owner approval requirements imposed by Section 4600 (a). The proposed amendments also prohibit an HOA from: (1) establishing a general policy prohibiting the installation or use of a rooftop solar energy system for household purposes on the roof of the building in which the owner resides; and (2) requiring approval by a vote of members owning separate interests in the common interest development, including that specified by Civil Code Section 4600, for installation of a solar energy system on the roof of the building in which the owner resides. Finally, the proposed amendments also allow the HOA to impose reasonable provisions for the following: 1) the initial determination of solar suitability and usable roof area; 2) the subsequent allocation of usable solar area if installation is found to be suitable; and 3) notice to other owners of separate interests in the affected building. At the time of this analysis, there is no registered opposition to the bill, although representatives of HOA boards and CID managers have been actively engaged in negotiations with the author and sponsors of the bill about, among other things, possible ways that the HOA should address situations where there may not be enough usable solar roof space for all owners in the CID interested in installing a solar system, such as in a tall high-rise condominium.
SUMMARY: Prohibits homeowner's associations (HOAs) from requiring approval of the membership of the common interest development (CID) for installation of a solar energy system on the roof of the building in which the owner resides, and clarifies provisions that impose reasonable restrictions on solar energy systems. Specifically, this bill:
- Authorizes a homeowner's association to impose reasonable restrictions on solar energy systems that:
- Require an applicant to notify each owner of units in the building on which the installation will be located of the application to install a solar energy system.
- Require the applicant to submit to the association a solar suitability survey prepared by a licensed contractor knowledgeable in the installation of solar energy systems, for the association to determine usable solar roof area.
- Require equitable allocation of the usable solar roof area among all owners sharing the same roof, if the association determines that the roof is suitable for solar installation pursuant to 1b), above.
- Prohibits a homeowner's association from the following actions, which, if taken, shall be void and unenforceable:
- Establishing a general policy prohibiting the installation or use of a rooftop solar energy system for household purposes on the roof of the building in which the owner resides.
- Requiring approval of the membership of the common interest development for installation of a solar energy system for household purposes on the roof of the building in which the owner resides.
- Provides that a board's grant of exclusive use of a portion of the common roof of a residence to a member in order for the member to install and use a solar energy system, if done in compliance with specified rules, does not require the affirmative vote of members owning at least 67 percent of the separate interests in the common interest development.
EXISTING LAW:
- Provides that any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any deed, contract, or other instrument affecting the transfer or sale of real property, and any provision of a governing document of a CID that effectively prohibits or restricts the installation or use of a solar energy system is void and unenforceable. (Civil Code Section 714 (a). All further references are to this code unless otherwise stated.)
- Notwithstanding 1) above, permits reasonable restrictions on solar energy systems that do not significantly increase the cost of the system or significantly decrease its efficiency or specified performance, or that allow for an alternative system of comparable cost, efficiency and energy conservation benefits. (Section 714 (b).)
- Defines "significantly" as used in 2), above, to mean an amount exceeding 10 percent of the cost of the solar energy system, but in no case more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or decreasing the efficiency of the solar energy system by an amount exceeding 10 percent, as originally specified and proposed. (Section 714 (d)(1).)
- Provides that whenever approval is required for the installation or use of a solar energy system, the application for approval shall be processed and approved by the appropriate approving entity in the same manner as an application for approval of an architectural modification to the property, and shall not be willfully avoided or delayed. (Section 714 (e).)
- Allows a CID to impose reasonable restrictions on the installation of solar energy systems, including requiring an owner to obtain the approval of the CID prior to installing a system in a common area, or in another owner's separate interest. (Section 714.1.)
- Requires the affirmative vote of members owning at least 67 percent of the separate interests in the CID before the board may grant exclusive use of any portion of the common area to a member, unless the governing documents specify a different percentage. (Section 4600 (a).)
- Enumerates a number of circumstances where a grant by the board of exclusive use of any portion of the common area is specifically exempted from the 67 percent voting threshold described in 6), above. (Section 4600 (b).)
FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed non-fiscal.
COMMENTS: Existing law, the Solar Rights Act, establishes that it is state policy to promote and encourage the use of solar systems, and to that end, specifies that any provision of a CID's governing documents that effectively prohibits or restricts the installation or use of a solar energy system is void and unenforceable. At the same time, the Act allows HOAs to impose reasonable restrictions on solar energy systems, as long as they are "reasonable" and do not effectively prohibit or restrict the installation or use of solar energy systems. This bill, sponsored by advocates of solar energy who own homes in CIDs, seeks to establish further guidance on what "reasonable restrictions" can be imposed by HOAs upon residents of CIDs who wish to install solar energy systems for their homes, especially in light of California's strong policy commitment to solar energy.
According to the author:
The Solar Rights Act (Civil Code Sections 714-714.1) attempted to reduce the authority of Homeowner’s Associations (HOAs) in limiting the installation of solar energy systems. While those protections have been clarified over time, the installation is still subject to a required supermajority (67%) vote by the HOA membership, according to Civil Code (CC) Section 4600, unless another vote requirement is specified within the governing documents. Some homeowners are experiencing blanket restriction on installations based on HOAs' and their attorneys' misinterpretation of "reasonable restrictions" provided by Section 714.1, in contrast with the spirit of the Solar Rights Act, which deems other restrictions “void and unenforceable.”
AB 634 seeks to address the conflict that arises out of HOAs' misinterpretation of Section 714.1 as allowing blanket restrictions against solar installations, which are protected by Section 714. It also addresses the conflict between the Solar Rights Act and the Davis-Stirling Act (CIV 4600). This bill clarifies that while solar installations are still subject to reasonable restrictions and an approval process by the HOA, a vote by the whole membership is not a part of that approval.
Background on common interest developments. CIDs are multi-unit communities characterized by the following: (1) separate ownership of individual residential units coupled with an undivided interest in common property; (2) covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) that limit the use of both separate interests and common property; and (3) management of common property and enforcement of restrictions by a homeowner's association (HOA). An increasing proportion of Californians now live in CID's—by some accounts between one-fourth and one-third of all Californians—and it is likely CIDs represent the majority of new housing being built in the state.
Under the Davis-Stirling Act, which sets forth general rules governing common interest developments, each individual CID is subject to rules and regulations set forth by the HOA’s “governing documents." These governing documents include the recorded declaration and any other documents, such as bylaws, operating rules of the association, or articles of incorporation that govern the operation of the association. The governing documents of CIDs typically contain many restrictions over aspects of use, appearance, and transferability of interest of the property.
CIDs are governed by volunteer boards of directors who are elected by the members of the HOA and who are responsible for interpreting the governing documents and state law. Except when CIDs are first developed, no state agency provides ongoing oversight to these communities. In order to amend the governing documents, an HOA must follow the procedure outlined in their governing documents, or if the governing documents are silent, the process provided in state law. State law and most governing documents require that a majority of members vote to approve an amendment to the governing documents.
Concern that owner approval requirements may effectively prohibit or restrict installation of solar systems. The bill is sponsored by Sustainable Rossmoor, an advocacy group organized by residents of Rossmoor, a senior community in Walnut Creek, to promote sound environmental practices by the governing boards of the Rossmoor community. Rossmoor consists of 6,700 co-ops, condominiums, and single-family homes, and has a population of more than 10,000 people. According to the sponsor, there are perhaps two dozen different projects and HOA's governed under the Rossmoor community, many having their own covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&R's).
According to the author, several HOA boards within Rossmoor have adopted new rules for installation of rooftop solar systems that add Civil Code Section 4600 requirements to their existing policies. Section 4600 requires the affirmative vote of members owning at least 67 percent of the separate interests in the CID before the board may grant exclusive use of any portion of the common area to a member, unless the governing documents specify a different percentage. Proponents of the bill contend that these new revised rules requiring 67 percent approval of the members effectively prohibit rooftop solar installations, especially in larger HOAs, and thus may violate the Solar Rights Act that prohibits a HOA's governing documents "from effectively prohibiting or restricting the installation or use" of a solar energy system. (Civil Code Section 714.) They explain:
We live in a project of 130 units. It doesn't matter that our building is shared by only four homes, we will need 87 approval votes out of 130 units before the HOA board would consider our application for a rooftop solar system. . . . Practically speaking, it is extremely difficult to secure 67% approval, because a non-vote is counted as a "No" vote, and the vote is a secret ballot. Many Rossmoor residents are in their 80's and 90's and are not likely to vote. Also at any given time, many units are vacant and for sale.
Proponents contend that there is little good reason to require approval of the entire HOA membership for the installation of a solar panel, particularly when the installation only involves the common roof area of a single building in which, for example, there may only four owners of separate interests (i.e. the applicant plus three other individuals.) Because of the way the voter approval requirement is structured, the difficulty in getting 67 percent approval of the members of the HOA may effectively prevent the installation of rooftop solar systems—even in cases where evidence shows that a majority of HOA members support such systems.
Data reported from an April 2016 election within one of the CIDs in Rossmoor is illustrative. According to Sustainable Rossmoor, the election involved a total of 172 units. Of the 117 owners who voted in the election, 95 owners (81% of those who voted) approved the solar project, and 22 disapproved of it. However, 55 of the 172 owners (32% of the total) did not vote in the election, and these non-votes counted as "no" votes because they were not "affirmative" votes to approve. In short, 115 of the 172 owners were needed to reach the 67 percent threshold, but only 95 owners affirmatively voted "yes", so the measure did not pass despite being supported by 81percent of those who voted. According to the sponsor, the unfortunate result is that no one who lives in that HOA is currently allowed to install solar energy. For these reasons, proponents contend that HOAs that revise their policies to apply the 67 percent approval threshold requirement to solar decisions may be acting to effectively prohibit or restrict solar installation.
At the time of this analysis, the Committee had not received any formal letters of opposition to the bill, although representatives of HOA boards and CID managers have actively been engaged in stakeholder negotiations with the author and sponsors of the bill. The argument can be made, however, that HOA boards not only have the authority to impose the 67% approval requirement upon solar installation, but that absent any statutory exemption, they may even be compelled to enforce that requirement under Section 4600(a), which states: "Unless the governing documents specify a different percentage, the affirmative vote of members owning at least 67 percent of the separate interests in the common interest development shall be required before the board may grant exclusive use of any portion of the common area to a member" (emphasis added.) Subdivision (b) of Section 4600 provides a number of exceptions from the owner approval requirements imposed by subdivision (a), including one for installation of an electric vehicle charging station. Because no exception exists for solar energy systems, it could be argued under Section 4600(a) that 67 percent owner approval is required before the HOA board can grant exclusive use to a portion of the common roof to a member to install a solar system.
In addition, HOA boards have previously argued in this Committee, with respect to past legislation, that members of the HOA have the ability to change rules they don't like through the process specified by the HOA's governing documents, including changes to the governing documents themselves. They have contended that when a separate interest in a common interest development is purchased, the buyer agrees to abide by the governing documents of the HOA, and those governing documents can be amended by a vote of the association. On past legislative matters, HOA boards have also previously argued that if members feel the 67 percent owner approval threshold is too high for some proposed type of exclusive use, they could instead undertake steps to amend the governing documents to specify a different percentage, as contemplated by Section 4600 (a), without bypassing the ability of other member owners to exercise their vote on these matters.
The Committee notes that, notwithstanding the authority for self-governance provided to HOAs by statute, the Legislature over the years also has seen fit to modify or limit that authority when appropriate to further other public policy goals. For example, the Legislature approved and the Governor signed SB 209 (Corbett), Ch. 121. Stats. 2011, to promote the ownership of electric vehicles and to reduce air pollution. Specifically, SB 209 rendered void and unenforceable any provision of an HOA's governing documents that effectively prohibits or restricts the installation or use of an electrical vehicle charging station by an individual owner, as specified. (See also Civil Code restrictions upon HOA authority to prohibit installation of satellite dishes or antennas (Section 4725), ownership of pets (Section 4715), and rental of the property to tenants (Section 4740), among others.)
Proposed author's amendments to exempt solar energy systems from owner approval requirements. Under the Solar Rights Act, HOAs have long had authority to impose reasonable restrictions upon solar energy systems. The author and proponents of the bill wish to make certain that the authority to impose "reasonable restrictions" or "reasonable provisions" does not give HOAs the authority to impose blanket prohibitions on installing solar energy systems in a CID.
Accordingly, as proposed to be amended, this bill would further modify HOA authority by exempting the installation or use of solar energy systems from the owner approval requirements imposed by Section 4600 (a). The exemption applies to a solar energy system on the common roof of a residence, and specifically, one that meets the requirements of Sections 714 and 714.1 in the Solar Rights Act. The proposed author's amendments also amend Section 714.1 to prohibit an HOA from doing either of the following: (1) establishing a general policy prohibiting the installation or use of a rooftop solar energy system for household purposes on the roof of the building in which the owner resides; or (2) requiring approval by a vote of members owning separate interests in the common interest development, including that specified by Civil Code Section 4600, for installation of a solar energy system for household purposes on the roof of the building in which the owner resides. The bill further declares that any action by an HOA that contravenes either of these two prohibitions shall be void and unenforceable.
Solar suitability and equitable allocation of usable solar roof space. Existing law, Section 714.1 in the Solar Rights Act, permits HOAs to impose reasonable provisions surrounding the installation and use of solar energy systems, including secondary concerns such as maintenance and liability. For example, Section 714.1 currently allows HOAs to impose reasonable provisions that provide for the maintenance, repair, or replacement of roofs or other building components, and that require installers of solar energy systems to indemnify or reimburse the association or its members for loss or damage caused by the installation, maintenance, or use of the solar energy system. Because the Solar Rights Act has already been in effect for several decades, many HOAs already have policies and procedures in place that address topics like installation requirements, safety issues, and resale or transfer of the solar energy system when the dwelling unit is sold.
According to the author, however, further guidance is needed to help HOAs develop "reasonable provisions" that fairly address the rights and responsibilities of the HOA, the owner seeking to install a solar system, and all other owners of separate interests who may be interested in later installing their own solar system. A balanced, guided approach is necessary because the roof space that is usable for a solar energy system, or multiple systems, will vary from building to building depending on location and environmental factors that cannot be adjusted. For example, the suitability of a rooftop solar system on any roof will depend on factors like the direction that the slope of the roof faces; how much sunlight it receives during the day; whether there are trees or other buildings that provide too much shade; and whether there are other conditions or physical limitations of the roof that allow a solar system to be installed on a particular spot where it may operate most productively. It may be that only a certain portion of the roof is usable or appropriate for installation of a solar system ("usable area"), and the rest of the roof surface is not. Furthermore, in a common interest development where multiple owners share a common roof, usable solar area is a limited resource that may be put in dispute when one or more of the owners wish to install a solar system, unless there is a fair and equitable allocation of the usable space.
Accordingly, proposed amendments to the bill take a two-prong approach, seeking to ensure a fair allocation of usable solar space among multiple owners of separate interests. First, the HOA may impose reasonable provisions to require the applicant to submit to the association a solar suitability survey prepared by a licensed contractor knowledgeable in the installation of solar energy systems, for the association to determine its usable solar roof area. This ensures that a licensed contractor uses professional judgment and expertise to evaluate the extent to which the roof is suitable or unsuitable for installation of a solar system, and conveys that evaluation to the association, rather than having the HOA itself try to make a judgment over whether rooftop conditions are solar-suitable or not. Second, after usable solar roof space (if any) has been estimated, the bill allows the HOA to impose reasonable provisions that require the equitable allocation of the usable solar roof area among all owners sharing the same roof. This ensures that the first owner who applies to install a solar system does not monopolize or take more than his or her fair share of the usable solar roof area, and thus preclude later owners from also having the opportunity to install solar energy systems.
Proposed author's amendments. As proposed to be amended, this bill also allows the HOA to impose additional reasonable provisions around the following: 1) notice to other owners of separate interests in the affected building; 2) the initial determination of solar suitability and usable roof area; and 3) the subsequent allocation of usable solar area if installation is found to be suitable. The amendments are:
On page 5, line 8, insert the following:
(5) Require an applicant to notify each owner of units in the building on which the installation will be located of the application to install a solar energy system.
(6) Require the applicant to submit to the association a solar suitability survey prepared by a licensed contractor knowledgeable in the installation of solar energy systems, for the association to determine usable solar roof area.
(7) Require equitable allocation of the usable solar roof area among all owners sharing the same roof, if the association determines that the roof is suitable for solar installation pursuant to paragraph (6).
Further issues of dialogue among stakeholders. Because buildings come in all shapes and sizes, the author and stakeholders have been discussing how to address situations where there may not be enough usable solar roof space for all owners in the CID who are interested in installing a solar system to do so. For example, how would this bill apply to a high-rise condominium that has dozens of owners of separate interests, but a relatively small roof area with insufficient usable solar space for multiple systems? Does the HOA have a further role to play if a solar suitability survey has been completed and a plan for equitable allocation of the usable solar roof space has been made—even if the result is that each separate owner is allotted 2 square feet of usable solar space (i.e. an amount of space that is completely insufficient for any owner to proceed with installation)? From a policy perspective, might this approach still be preferable to attempting to carve out different categories of buildings based on presumptions about whether there will ever be enough usable solar space for multiple owners seeking to install solar systems? At the time of this analysis, the author and various stakeholders reported being committed to further discussing these issues to ensure that a fair process for determining suitability and allocation of usable space is carried out, even if the end result is that solar installation proves to be infeasible or impossible.
Related pending legislation. SB 522 (Glazer) declares that the existing approval process within a CID for the approval of architectural modifications is a burden to entry for rooftop solar installation, and seeks to modify election rules for that approval process. Specifically, the bill provides that if the approval of an architectural modification requires a vote of the membership of the association, then only the percentage of the votes submitted on the architectural modification shall be counted to determine this approval. SB 522 is pending hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Sustainable Rossmoor (sponsor)
All Electric & Solar
California Solar Energy Industries Association (CALSEIA)
Numerous individuals and owners of separate interests in CIDs
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by: Anthony Lew / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
Bill Author
Bill Co-Author(s):