Existing law, the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, provides for the creation and regulation of common interest developments. Existing law requires that a declaration be recorded in order to create a common interest development.

Existing law authorizes the association, or any member, to petition the superior court of the county in which the common interest development is located for an order reducing the percentage of the affirmative votes necessary for an amendment, if in order to amend a declaration, the declaration requires members having more than 50 percent of the votes in the association, in a single class voting structure, to vote in favor of the amendment. Existing law authorizes a court to grant the petition if it finds, among other things, members having more than 50 percent of the votes, in a single class voting structure, voted in favor of the amendment.

This bill would lower the threshold to more than 37 percent of the votes if the court finds that the common interest development is a senior citizen housing development, as defined, the separate interests in the common interest development meet specified criteria, and the declaration has not been amended in at least 35 years.

Existing law, the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, provides for the creation and regulation of common interest developments. Existing law requires that a declaration be recorded in order to create a common interest development.

Existing law authorizes the association, or any member, to petition the superior court of the county in which the common interest development is located for an order reducing the percentage of the affirmative votes necessary for an amendment, if in order to amend a declaration, the declaration requires members having more than 50 percent of the votes in the association, in a single class voting structure, to vote in favor of the amendment. Existing law authorizes a court to grant the petition if it finds, among other things, members having more than 50 percent of the votes, in a single class voting structure, voted in favor of the amendment.

This bill would lower the threshold to more than 37 percent of the votes if the court finds that the common interest development is a senior citizen housing development, as defined, the separate interests in the common interest development meet specified criteria, and the declaration has not been amended in at least 35 years.

Existing law, the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, provides for the creation and regulation of common interest developments. Existing law requires that a declaration be recorded in order to create a common interest development.

Existing law authorizes the association, or any member, to petition the superior court of the county in which the common interest development is located for an order reducing the percentage of the affirmative votes necessary for an amendment, if in order to amend a declaration, the declaration requires members having more than 50 percent of the votes in the association, in a single class voting structure, to vote in favor of the amendment. Existing law authorizes a court to grant the petition if it finds, among other things, members having more than 50 percent of the votes, in a single class voting structure, voted in favor of the amendment.

This bill would lower the threshold to more than 37 percent of the votes if the court finds that the common interest development is a senior citizen housing development, as defined, the separate interests in the common interest development meet specified criteria, and the declaration has not been amended in at least 35 years.

Existing law, the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, provides for the creation and regulation of common interest developments. Existing law requires that a declaration be recorded in order to create a common interest development.

Existing law authorizes the association, or any member, to petition the superior court of the county in which the common interest development is located for an order reducing the percentage of the affirmative votes necessary for an amendment, if in order to amend a declaration, the declaration requires members having more than 50 percent of the votes in the association, in a single class voting structure, to vote in favor of the amendment. Existing law authorizes a court to grant the petition if it finds, among other things, members having more than 50 percent of the votes, in a single class voting structure, voted in favor of the amendment.

This bill would lower the threshold to more than 37 percent of the votes if the court finds that the common interest development is a senior citizen housing development, as defined, the separate interests in the common interest development meet specified criteria, and the declaration has not been amended in at least 35 years.

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 2035

Author: Dixon (R)

Amended: 4/22/26 in Assembly

Vote: 21

SENATE HOUSING COMMITTEE: 10-0, 6/10/26

AYES: Arreguín, Seyarto, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cortese, Durazo, Grayson, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Pérez

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 13-0, 6/30/26

AYES: Umberg, Niello, Allen, Ashby, Caballero, Durazo, Laird, Reyes, Stern, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 73-0, 5/4/26 (Consent) - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Common interest developments: declarations: amendments

SOURCE: Third Laguna Hills Mutual

DIGEST:

This bill allows a superior court to approve a change to the governing documents in a homeowner’s association (HOA), meeting specified criteria, if the change is approved by 37% of the owners, rather than 50%.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Provides that an HOA or a member of an HOA may petition the superior court of the county to reduce the percentage of affirmative votes required to amend a declaration when the declaration requires more than 50% approval of the membership, or members having more than 50% of the votes in more than one class in a voting structure with more than one class.
2. Establishes that the petition must include documentation such as the governing documents, the full amendment text, copies of any solicitation materials, an explanation of the reason for amendment, and vote results.
3. Provides that the court may approve the amendment if it finds that:
   1. Proper notice of the hearing was given to specified parties (at least 15 days);
   2. The balloting complied with governing documents and applicable law;
   3. A reasonably diligent effort was made to permit all eligible members to vote;
   4. More than 50% of the votes actually cast supported the amendment, including a majority of each required voting class; and,
   5. The amendment is reasonable and approval is not otherwise improper.
4. Authorizes the court to confirm the amendment as validly approved on the basis of affirmative votes actually received during the balloting period; after making the findings required in 3).
5. Provides that an amendment is not effective until it has been recorded in every county in which the HOA is located. Provides that amendment shall have the same force and effect as if the amendment were adopted in compliance with every requirement imposed by the governing documents.
6. Requires after recordation, the HOA deliver an individual notice to all members with a copy of the amendment.

This bill:

1. Adds an option for HOA members to approve amendments to their governing documents with 37% of the vote of the owners, rather than the standard 50% threshold, by petitioning a superior court, if all of the following are met:
   1. The HOA is a senior citizen housing development;
   2. The HOA has more than 6,000 separate interests (units);
   3. More than 25% of the separate interests are occupied by tenants; and,
   4. The declaration has not been amended in at least 35 years.

Background

Davis-Stirling Act (Act). The Act went into effect in 1986 and is the primary state law governing Common Interest Developments (CIDs) and HOAs in California. The Act provides the legal framework for the creation and management of HOAs, including rules related to governance, assessments, dispute resolution, maintenance responsibilities, and member rights. The law aims to balance the authority of HOAs with the rights of individual property owners, ensuring that communities are managed efficiently and fairly. Over time, the Act has been amended to address the evolving needs of CIDs and HOAs, including increased transparency, accountability, and consumer protections. Key provisions of the Act include requirements for open meetings, financial disclosures, election procedures, and architectural review processes. The Act also provides mechanisms for resolving disputes, including dispute resolutions before certain legal actions can proceed. As the majority of new housing construction in California is part of an HOA, the Act plays a critical role in shaping the environment and governance of these communities and the tens of millions of residents who reside in them.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). CC&Rs are the legally binding documents that establish the rules, restrictions, and rights that impact all HOA members, covering everything from architectural standards to pet policies to how the association itself is governed. Because CC&Rs are recorded against the property, they run with the land, binding current owners to the governing documents, as well as any future owners of a separate interest. CC&Rs often require amendments to address the changing needs of any given community. However, amending an HOA’s CC&Rs is intentionally difficult. Most declarations require approval from a supermajority of all members, often ranging from 50-75% of all HOA members, not just all voting members. In a large HOA development, this can mean thousands of individual owners must affirmatively cast ballots. This can present logistical challenges even under the best circumstances, as HOA voting rates tend to be low.

Under the Act, there is a process through which HOA members can seek to address this difficulty in obtaining a majority of votes of all HOA members: if an amendment to the HOA’s CC&Rs falls short of the voting threshold required by the HOA documents, an HOA or member can petition a superior court to approve the amendment anyway, so long as the court finds the process was fair, the effort to reach members was diligent, and the amendment is reasonable. But even under the court petition process in existing law, at least 50% of members must have voted in favor of the proposed amendment. This bill reflects a unique situation in which, even under good faith attempts to meet the 50% voter threshold requirement, a large HOA has been unable to and cannot update their CC&Rs via this process.

Comments

Author’s statement. “AB 2035 provides a commonsense solution to allow large, senior citizen common interest developments to amend significantly out of date declarations when they are unable to reach quorum requirements established by their CC&Rs. Some HOAs, such as Third Laguna Hills Mutual, are unable to meet quorum requirements for amendments to their CC&Rs and the current statutory alternative to reduce quorum requirements to 50% is insufficient. AB 2035 creates an additional alternative to reduce quorum requirements to 37% when the common interest development meets specified conditions. Specifically, the common interest development is required to be a senior citizen housing development, must contain at least 6,000 separate interest, more than 25% of those interests are occupied by non-owner residents, and that the development’s declaration has not been amended in 35 years. This alternative will allow large, senior citizen developments to amend their CC&Rs when they are unable to meet quorum requirements while maintaining strong guardrails to ensure an equitable outcome. By maintaining the existing court petition process used for quorum reduction requests, AB 2035 ensures that this exception will only be used in specific, unique and necessary situations.”

A very narrow solution. The Third Laguna Hills Mutual HOA is the largest HOA within the broader Laguna Hills Village—a massive residential community for senior citizens in Orange County which comprises over 90% of the city of Laguna Hills. With over 6,000 units, many of which are owned by people living abroad and/or not within the community full-time, the community has faced major obstacles to updating its CC&Rs, and has been unable to do so since 1988, leaving many provisions of these governing documents out of compliance with changes in state HOA law. That inability is not for a lack of trying. The association has spent hundreds of hours and well over $100,000 trying to turn out the vote in two separate elections, with the hope of at least meeting the voter threshold to petition CC&R amends to the superior court. However, even with these extensive and costly efforts, the HOA has only managed to get approximately 40% of their membership to vote. This stalemate has left crucial governing documents out-of-date and unreflective of not only statutory changes, but also modern advances in HOAs, like the need to regulate the installation and operation of electric vehicle charging stations, as well as virtual mediums for delivering notices and conducting certain business.

While this bill’s allowance of sub-majority (37%) approval as eligible for a superior court petition could raise concerns about democratic governance, the bill seems well-tailored to only impact this specific community and enable its members to benefit from clearer, up-to-date governing documents. Given the high costs associated with the two election turnouts, it is worth considering how those costs may be passed onto the members, some of whom may be on fixed incomes due to their age and/or retirement status. Additionally, this bill does not mean amendments to the CC&Rs will automatically be granted upon meeting the lower threshold—the presiding Superior Court Judge will retain authority to ensure all processes were followed and that amendments proposed are reasonable and comply with all relevant statutes.

While exact data on the average membership size of age-restricted senior HOAs is difficult to obtain, the California Association of HOAs reports that the average size of an HOA in California is 276 residents.^[1] Taking that figure, compared to the more than 6,000 residents in the Third Laguna Hills Mutual HOA, it is not clear whether concerns about other communities seeking similar carveouts would bear out. Due to the unique size and ownership characteristics of this specific HOA, and the fact that essential governing documents have not been updated in more than three decades, there seems to be clear rationale as to why this targeted solution is a standalone one.

Opposition. The California Association of Realtors (CAR) wrote the following in opposition to the bill, “While senior communities often have high levels of engagement, proposed amendments can sometimes be legally problematic, creating governance and enforcement challenges. Additionally, creating a special exemption for one HOA sets a concerning precedent.”

Double-referral. This bill is also referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Related/Prior Legislation

AB 2692 (Irwin, 2026) — would allow an HOA whose CC&Rs expired prior to a natural disaster, as defined, to reinstate those CC&Rs with majority approval of the membership of the HOA. This bill is currently pending in the Assembly.

AB 1458 (Ta, Chapter 303, Statutes of 2023) — authorized a lower quorum requirement for HOA elections of directors under specified circumstances.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 7/22/26)

Third Laguna Hills Mutual (source)

OPPOSITION: (Verified 7/22/26)

California Association of Realtors

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: Supporters of the bill argue that it is a precise measure intended to empower a single HOA community that experiences unique challenges and has been unable to update its CC&Rs for nearly four decades.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: Opponents of the bill argue that it could set a concerning precedent from which many other HOAs would ask for lower thresholds to petition changes and depress homeowner involvement in decisions.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 73-0, 5/4/26

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Carrillo, Castillo, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Johnson, Kalra, Krell, Lackey, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Celeste Rodriguez, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Ward, Wicks, Zbur, Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Arambula, Bennett, Caloza, Chen, Flora, Wallis, Wilson

Prepared by: Ryan Hardmeyer / HOUSING / (916) 651-4124

7/30/26 14:49:23

**** END ****

1. The California Associations of Homeowners Associations. Our Objective HOA Data & Statistics. Accessible here: https://www.calassoc-hoa.com/about-us/our-objective-hoa-data-statistics/. ↑

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Thomas Umberg, Chair

2025-2026 Regular Session

Bill No: AB 2035 (Author:Dixon)

Version: April 22, 2026

Hearing Date: June 30, 2026

Fiscal: No

Urgency: No

Consultant: ID

SUBJECT

Common interest developments: declarations: amendments

DIGEST

This bill permits a court to approve a petition to reduce the percentage of member votes needed by a homeowner’s association to amend the community’s covenants, conditions, and restrictions to 37 percent, if certain criteria are met.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Common Interest Developments (CIDs) are self-governing housing developments comprised of individually-owned housing units and common space that all homeowners and residents of the CID can enjoy. CIDs are managed and governed by homeowner associations (HOAs), of which every owner within the CID is a member. The guiding framework and rules of the HOA and the CID are encompassed in the declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions (declaration, or CC&Rs) that are recorded with the county when the CID is established. The CC&Rs typically state the vote threshold of members required to amend the CC&Rs, but current law also provides a process by which an HOA or member may petition a court to reduce the vote threshold to 50 percent, if certain requirements are met and the court determines that the amendments are reasonable. AB 2035 permits a court to reduce the vote threshold to amend a CID’s CC&Rs to 37 percent, if the CID is a senior housing development, has more than 6,000 separate units, has more than 25 percent of its units occupied by tenants; and has not amended its CC&Rs in at least 35 years.

AB 2035 is sponsored by the Laguna Hills Third Mutual HOA. The Committee has received no other letters of support or opposition. AB 2035 previously passed out of the Senate Housing Committee by a vote of 10 to 0.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAW

Existing law:

1. Establishes the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, providing rules and regulations governing the establishment and operation of residential common interest developments (CIDs) and the rights and responsibilities of a CID’s homeowner association (HOA) and its members. (Civ. Code §§ 4000 et seq.)
2. Specifies that a CID is created whenever a separate interest coupled with an interest in a common area or membership in an association is conveyed, provided that a declaration, condominium plan, if any, and a final map or parcel map are recorded. (Civ. Code § 4200.)
3. Requires the declaration to contain a legal description of the CID, a statement that the CID is a community apartment project, condominium project, planned development, stock cooperative, or a combination thereof, and set forth the name of the HOA and the restrictions on the use or enjoyment of any portion of the CID that are intended to be enforceable equitable servitudes. (Civ. Code § 4250.)
4. Permits the declaration of a CID that specifies a termination date but does not contain provisions for an extension of the termination date, before its termination date, to be extended by the approval of the members by the percentage required by the declaration for an amendment to the declaration, or by a majority of all members if no percentage is specified in the declaration, the certification of this approval, and the recordation of the amendment in each county in which a portion of the CID is located, as specified. (Civ. Code §§ 4265, 4270.)
5. Permits the declaration of a CID to be amended pursuant to the declaration or statute, except where an alternative process for amending the declaration is provided in specified sections of law, and makes the amendment effective after:
   1. the amendment has been approved by the percentage of members required by the declaration and any other person whose approval is required by the declaration, or by a majority of members if a percentage is not specified in the declaration;
   2. the approval has been certified in a writing executed and acknowledged by the officer designated in the declaration, or by the President of the HOA if none is designated; and
   3. the amendment is recorded in each county in which a portion of the CID is located. (Civ. Code § 4270.)
6. Specifies that, if the CID’s declaration requires members with more than 50 percent of the votes of the HOA to approve an amendment to the declaration, the HOA or any member may petition the county superior court for an order reducing the percentage of votes necessary for an amendment, and requires the petition to describe the effort that has been made to solicit approval of the members in the manner provided by the declaration, the number of affirmative and negative votes actually received, the number or percentage of affirmative votes required under the existing declaration, and other matters the petitioner considers relevant to the court’s determination, as well as copies of specified documents.
   1. Permits the court to grant the petition if it finds that the petitioner has given at least 15 days written notice of the court hearing to all members, to the mortgagee or beneficiary of a deed of trust entitled to notice under the declaration, and to the city, county, or city and county; balloting was conducted in accordance with the governing documents; a reasonably diligent effort was made to permit all eligible members to vote; members with more than 50 percent of the votes voted in favor of the amendment; the amendment is reasonable; and granting the petition is not improper for any specified reason. (Civ. Code § 4275.)

This bill:

1. Permits the court to grant a petition reducing the percentage of affirmative votes needed to amend a CID’s CC&Rs to 37%, following the procedures described in (6), above, when:
   1. the CID is a senior citizen housing development, as defined in Civil Code section 51.3(b)(4);
   2. the CID has more than 6,000 separate interests;
   3. more than 25 percent of the separate interests in the CID are occupied by tenants; and
   4. the CC&Rs have not been amended in at least 35 years.

COMMENTS

1. Author’s statement

According to the author:

AB 2035 provides a commonsense solution to allow large, senior citizen common interest developments to amend significantly out of date declarations when they are unable to reach quorum requirements established by their CC&Rs.

Some HOAs, such as Third Laguna Hills Mutual, are unable to meet quorum requirements for amendments to their CC&Rs and the current statutory alternative to reduce quorum requirements to 50% is insufficient. AB 2035 creates an additional alternative to reduce quorum requirements to 37% when the common interest development meets specified conditions. Specifically, the common interest development is required to be a senior citizen housing development, must contain at least 6,000 separate interest, more than 25% of those interests are occupied by non-owner residents, and that the development’s declaration has not been amended in 35 years.

This alternative will allow large, senior citizen developments to amend their CC&Rs when they are unable to meet quorum requirements while maintaining strong guardrails to ensure an equitable outcome. By maintaining the existing court petition process used for quorum reduction requests, AB 2035 ensures that this exception will only be used in specific, unique and necessary situations.

1. Common Interest Developments in California

Common Interest Developments (CIDs) are self-governing housing developments comprised of individually-owned housing units and common space that all homeowners and residents of the CID can enjoy. Arrangements of CIDs can vary widely, from condominiums, townhouses, and detached single-family homes, to apartment-like high rises. They may be comprised of only a few housing units, or thousands. CIDs are commonly referred to as homeowner associations, or HOAs, for the body that provides for the CID’s self-governance. There are an estimated 51,700 CIDs in the state, housing an estimated 14,489,00 Californians.^[1]

The laws that regulate CIDs are encompassed in the Davis-Sterling Common Interest Development Act (Civ. Code §§ 4000 et seq.). Many of the rules and structural elements of a CID are determined by the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that are filed with the county recorder when the CID is established by the developer. These CC&Rs are the guiding rules of the CID and outline the CID’s common area, the HOA’s responsibilities, the obligation of the HOA to collect assessments from homeowners to cover the HOA’s expenses, and a variety of other topics. The CC&Rs of the CID run with the land, as in they apply to each homeowner’s property and remain on the land after a sale or transfer, encumbering future owners of the land.

All homeowners in the CID are members of the HOA, which is often incorporated as a mutual benefit corporation upon the formation of the CID. The HOA manages the CID and maintains its common space. To do so, the HOA elects a board of directors (board), and passes bylaws outlining the governance rules of the HOA and its board of directors. The board has a number of duties and powers for the management of the community, including setting the regular, monthly assessments that members must pay in order to cover communal expenses. When a homeowner in the CID does not pay their assessments, the HOA board has the authority to impose a lien and foreclose on the individual’s property. (Civ. Code §§ 5660, 5700.) The HOA may also impose fines on individual members for violations of the rules of the HOA.

An HOA board also can establish rules governing a broad variety of topics relating to the CID and what members can and cannot do with their individual units and in the common areas. The HOA exists as essentially its own, self-governing municipal government for the development, “regulating many aspects of [the homeowners’] daily lives.” (Villa Milano Homeowners Ass’n v. Il Davorge (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 819, 836.)

1. Current law allows HOA CC&Rs to be amended with a majority vote of members

As the CC&Rs bind current and future property owners and are the guiding documents of the CID, they are typically designed to be difficult to change. They often include language specifying how they may be amended, including the vote threshold of the HOA required to pass amendments. If the CC&Rs do not include provisions for their amendment, they may be amended by approval of a majority of all HOA members and the recording of the amendment. (Civ. Code § 4270.) Amendments to the CID’s CC&Rs are applied retroactively to every member regardless of when they purchased their unit. (Villa de las Palmas Homeowners Assn. v. Terifaj (2004) 33 Cal. 4th 73, 79.)

If the vote threshold in the CC&Rs proves too burdensome, the law also allows a court to lower the threshold to a majority in certain circumstances. (Civ. Code § 4275.) It permits the HOA, or any member of the HOA, to petition the superior court to reduce the percentage required to amend the CC&Rs to 50 percent plus one. In order to do so, the petition must describe: the effort that has been made to solicit approval of the HOA members; the number of affirmative and negative votes actually received; the number or percentage of affirmative votes required to affect the amendment under the CC&Rs; and any other matters that may be relevant, with specified exhibits. (Civ. Code § 4275(a).)

The court is permitted to grant this petition, in its discretion, if it finds that: the petitioner has given at least 15 days written notice of the court hearing to all members, to any mortgagee, and to the city, county, or city and county; balloting on the proposed amendment was conducted in accordance with the governing documents and applicable law; a reasonably diligent effort was made to permit all eligible members to vote on the proposed amendment; members of more than 50 percent of the votes voted in favor of the amendment; and the amendment is reasonable and not improper. (Civ. Code § 4275(c).) However, the court may not approve amendments through this process that may eliminate any special rights for the developer without the developer’s consent, or that would impair the security interest of a mortgagee or beneficiary of a deed of trust.

1. The Laguna Hills Mutual HOA

The sponsor of this measure is an HOA to which this measure will apply, the Laguna Hills Mutual HOA in Laguna Hills. According to the author and sponsor, the Laguna Hills Mutual HOA has been unfortunately unable to muster enough votes of its membership to meet neither the vote threshold contained in its CC&Rs or the bare majority threshold permitted under Civil Code section 4275; the HOA has not amended its CC&Rs since 1988. The Laguna Hills Third Mutual HOA is a senior community made up of 6,102 homeowners. More than a quarter of its units are rented out by their owners. Apparently, the HOA has tried and failed twice to amend their CC&Rs within the past seven years, spending over $140,000 to do so. Apparently, 85 percent of the members who did vote supported the proposed CC&R amendments.

AB 2035 would permit a very narrow category of HOAs to petition the court to amend their CC&Rs by a vote threshold of 37 percent. Specifically, the CID must be a senior citizen housing development with more than 6,000 separate interests, of which more than 25 percent are occupied by tenants, and must have not amended its CC&Rs in at least 35 years. Under these requirements, it appears that the Laguna Hills Third Mutual HOA would qualify, though it is unclear how many other HOAs, if any, would qualify.

There are a number of significant concerns with this proposal. First is simply the fact that it permits the enactment of changes to an HOA’s guiding documents by less than a majority of the HOA members who will be affected by those changes. Such a lowered threshold raises questions of whether such a vote is truly democratic or truly represents the desires of a majority of the members of the HOA. In fact, by its very language, AB 2035 permits CC&R amendments that are not supported by the majority of the HOA. There is nothing within the bill that suggests that the permissible vote cannot include a majority of members voting no, as long as the affirmative votes reach 37 percent.

In addition, nothing in AB 2035 limits what the amendments to an HOA’s CC&Rs can contain. While an HOA that has not updated its CC&Rs in 35 years undoubtedly has plenty of changes to make to modernize its CC&Rs, the HOA could also make any number of other amendments. It could, for example, ban short-term rentals within the HOA, or could attempt to remove its status as a senior housing development. While the judge has the ultimate say regarding approving the CC&R amendments and must find that the changes are reasonable, that is no guarantee that amendments may be enacted through AB 2035’s process that are nonetheless actually unpopular or controversial among a majority of the HOA’s members. To add another level of concern, AB 2035’s requirement that the HOA not have amended its CC&Rs within 35 years means that an HOA utilizing its process can essentially only do so once. After the CC&Rs are amended, AB 2035’s process is foreclosed from the HOA for another 35 years. These are important considerations when considering a measure designed for one particular HOA.

1. Arguments in support

According to the Laguna Hills Third Mutual HOA, which is the sponsor of this bill:

Third Mutual's 67% quorum requirement would be a high bar for many HOAs and has proven impossible for us to meet. But because of Third Mutual's unique circumstances, even reaching the 50% affirmative vote of the full membership required for judicial certification has proven impossible for us, as well. As a result, our bylaws have not been updated since 1988!

The problem is that with over 6,000 units, more than a quarter of which are rented out by owners typically uninterested in governance issues, and many part time residents, we just cannot get people to vote. We've tried twice just within the last seven years and, despite hundreds of hours of volunteer time and over $ 140,000 spent conducting the elections and trying to turn out the vote, the best we've been able to muster is a 47% turnout. Approximately 85% of the members who voted were in favor of amending the CC&Rs, but clearly, if less than half the membership votes, it is mathematically impossible to reach the 50% affirmative vote of the full membership required to petition the court for judicial approval. […]

In addition to updating Third Mutual's CC&Rs to reflect statutory changes to the Davis-Stirling Act over the last 38 years, we wish to update our CC&Rs to reflect current circumstances reflective of modern technology and policy changes that have occurred over the decades, such as the introduction and use of electrical vehicles and the correlating need for EV chargers.

AB 2035 is a fair and common-sense solution for Third Mutual of Laguna Hills to provide our homeowners with the ability to approve updated rules, and to provide the necessary and the appropriate clarity and accountability with respect to our oversight and governance.

SUPPORT

Third Mutual of Laguna Hills (sponsor)

OPPOSITION

None received

RELATED LEGISLATION

Pending Legislation:

AB 2692 (Irwin, 2026) permits the CC&Rs of a CID that have terminated to be reinstated by approval of the owners of the development’s separate interests, as specified, limits the applicability of its provisions to the County of Los Angeles, and repeals its provisions on January 1, 2028. AB 2692 is currently pending on the floor of the Senate.

AB 1184 (Patterson, 2025) excludes a vote for an amendment of an HOA’s operating rules from the requirement that the vote be held by secret ballot by the procedures required by the Davis-Sterling Act, among other things. AB 1184 is currently pending before this Committee and will be heard on the same day as this bill.

Prior Legislation:

AB 805 (Torres, Ch. 180, Stats. 2012) comprehensively reorganized and recodified the Davis-Sterling Common Interest Development Act into its current code sections and Civil Code sections 4000 et seq., and made a number of substantive changes to the Act.

(Sterling, Ch. 874, Stats. 1985) established the Davis-Sterling Common Interest Development Act.

PRIOR VOTES:

Senate Housing Committee (Ayes 10, Noes 0)

Assembly Floor (Ayes 73, Noes 0)

Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 12, Noes 0)

Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee (Ayes 12, Noes 0)

**************

1. Foundation for Community Association Research, Community Association Fact Book 2025: 2025 U.S. National and State Statistical Review (2025). ↑

SENATE COMMITTEE ON HOUSING

Senator Jesse Arreguín, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: AB 2035 Hearing Date: 6/10/2026

SUBJECT: Common interest developments: declarations: amendments

DIGEST: This bill allows a superior court to approve a change to the governing documents in a homeowner’s association (HOA), meeting specified criteria, if the change is approved by 37% of the owners, rather than 50%.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Provides that an HOA or a member of an HOA may petition the superior court of the county to reduce the percentage of affirmative votes required to amend a declaration when the declaration requires more than 50% approval of the membership, or members having more than 50% of the votes in more than one class in a voting structure with more than one class.
2. Establishes that the petition must include documentation such as the governing documents, the full amendment text, copies of any solicitation materials, an explanation of the reason for amendment, and vote results.
3. Provides that the court may approve the amendment if it finds that:
   1. Proper notice of the hearing was given to specified parties (at least 15 days);
   2. The balloting complied with governing documents and applicable law;
   3. A reasonably diligent effort was made to permit all eligible members to vote;
   4. More than 50% of the votes actually cast supported the amendment, including a majority of each required voting class; and,
   5. The amendment is reasonable and approval is not otherwise improper.
4. After making the findings required in 3), authorizes the court to confirm the amendment as validly approved on the basis of affirmative votes actually received during the balloting period.
5. Provides that an amendment is not effective until it has been recorded in every county in which the HOA is located. Provides that amendment shall have the same force and effect as if the amendment were adopted in compliance with every requirement imposed by the governing documents.
6. Requires after recordation, the HOA deliver an individual notice to all members with a copy of the amendment.

This bill:

1. Adds an option for HOA members to approve amendments to their governing documents with 37% of the vote of the owners, rather than the standard 50% threshold, by petitioning a superior court, if all of the following are met:
   1. The HOA is a senior citizen housing development;
   2. The HOA has more than 6,000 separate interests (units);
   3. More than 25% of the separate interests are occupied by tenants; and,
   4. The declaration has not been amended in at least 35 years.

Background

Davis-Stirling Act. The Act went into effect in 1986 and is the primary state law governing Common Interest Developments (CIDs) and HOAs in California. The Act provides the legal framework for the creation and management of HOAs, including rules related to governance, assessments, dispute resolution, maintenance responsibilities, and member rights. The law aims to balance the authority of HOAs with the rights of individual property owners, ensuring that communities are managed efficiently and fairly. Over time, the Act has been amended to address the evolving needs of CIDs and HOAs, including increased transparency, accountability, and consumer protections. Key provisions of the Act include requirements for open meetings, financial disclosures, election procedures, and architectural review processes. The Act also provides mechanisms for resolving disputes, including dispute resolutions before certain legal actions can proceed. As the majority of new housing construction in California is part of an HOA, the Act plays a critical role in shaping the environment and governance of these communities and the tens of millions of residents who reside in them.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). CC&Rs are the legally binding documents that establish the rules, restrictions, and rights that impact all HOA members, covering everything from architectural standards to pet policies to how the association itself is governed. Because CC&Rs are recorded against the property, they run with the land, binding current owners to the governing documents, as well as any future owners of a separate interest. CC&Rs often require amendments to address the changing needs of any given community. However, amending an HOA’s CC&Rs is intentionally difficult. Most declarations require approval from a supermajority of all members, often ranging from 50-75% of all HOA members, not just all voting members. In a large HOA development, this can mean thousands of individual owners must affirmatively cast ballots. This can present logistical challenges even under the best circumstances, as HOA voting rates tend to be low.

Under the Act, there is a process through which HOA members can seek to address this difficulty in obtaining a majority of votes of all HOA members: if an amendment to the HOA’s CC&Rs falls short of the voting threshold required by the HOA documents, an HOA or member can petition a superior court to approve the amendment anyway, so long as the court finds the process was fair, the effort to reach members was diligent, and the amendment is reasonable. But even under the court petition process in existing law, at least 50% of members must have voted in favor of the proposed amendment. This bill reflects a unique situation in which, even under good faith attempts to meet the 50% voter threshold requirement, a large HOA has been unable to and cannot update their CC&Rs via this process.

Comments

1. Author’s statement. “AB 2035 provides a commonsense solution to allow large, senior citizen common interest developments to amend significantly out of date declarations when they are unable to reach quorum requirements established by their CC&Rs. Some HOAs, such as Third Laguna Hills Mutual, are unable to meet quorum requirements for amendments to their CC&Rs and the current statutory alternative to reduce quorum requirements to 50% is insufficient. AB 2035 creates an additional alternative to reduce quorum requirements to 37% when the common interest development meets specified conditions. Specifically, the common interest development is required to be a senior citizen housing development, must contain at least 6,000 separate interest, more than 25% of those interests are occupied by non-owner residents, and that the development’s declaration has not been amended in 35 years. This alternative will allow large, senior citizen developments to amend their CC&Rs when they are unable to meet quorum requirements while maintaining strong guardrails to ensure an equitable outcome. By maintaining the existing court petition process used for quorum reduction requests, AB 2035 ensures that this exception will only be used in specific, unique and necessary situations.”
2. A very narrow solution. The Third Laguna Hills Mutual HOA is the largest HOA within the broader Laguna Hills Village—a massive residential community for senior citizens in Orange County which comprises over 90% of the city of Laguna Hills. With over 6,000 units, many of which are owned by people living abroad and/or not within the community full-time, the community has faced major obstacles to updating its CC&Rs, and has been unable to do so since 1988, leaving many provisions of these governing documents out of compliance with changes in state HOA law. That inability is not for a lack of trying. The association has spent hundreds of hours and well over $100,000 trying to turn out the vote in two separate elections, with the hope of at least meeting the voter threshold to petition CC&R amends to the superior court. However, even with these extensive and costly efforts, the HOA has only managed to get approximately 40% of their membership to vote. This stalemate has left crucial governing documents out-of-date and unreflective of not only statutory changes, but also modern advances in HOAs, like the need to regulate the installation and operation of electric vehicle charging stations, as well as virtual mediums for delivering notices and conducting certain business.

While this bill’s allowance of sub-majority (37%) approval as eligible for a superior court petition could raise concerns about democratic governance, the bill seems well-tailored to only impact this specific community and enable its members to benefit from clearer, up-to-date governing documents. Given the high costs associated with the two election turnouts, it is worth considering how those costs may be passed onto the members, some of whom may be on fixed incomes due to their age and/or retirement status. Additionally, this bill does not mean amendments to the CC&Rs will automatically be granted upon meeting the lower threshold—the presiding Superior Court Judge will retain authority to ensure all processes were followed and that amendments proposed are reasonable and comply with all relevant statutes.

While exact data on the average membership size of age-restricted senior HOAs is difficult to obtain, the California Association of HOAs reports that the average size of an HOA in California is 276 residents.^[1] Taking that figure, compared to the more than 6,000 residents in the Third Laguna Hills Mutual HOA, it is not clear whether concerns about other communities seeking similar carveouts would bear out. Due to the unique size and ownership characteristics of this specific HOA, and the fact that essential governing documents have not been updated in more than three decades, there seems to be clear rationale as to why this targeted solution is a standalone one.

1. Opposition. The California Association of Realtors (CAR) wrote the following in opposition to the bill, “While senior communities often have high levels of engagement, proposed amendments can sometimes be legally problematic, creating governance and enforcement challenges. Additionally, creating a special exemption for one HOA sets a concerning precedent.”
2. Double-referral. This bill is also referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Related/Prior Legislation

AB 2692 (Irwin, 2026) — would allow an HOA whose CC&Rs expired prior to a natural disaster, as defined, to reinstate those CC&Rs with majority approval of the membership of the HOA.

AB 1458 (Ta, Chapter 303, Statutes of 2023) — authorized a lower quorum requirement for HOA elections of directors under specified circumstances.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Wednesday, June 3^rd, 2026)

SUPPORT:

None Received.

OPPOSITION:

California Association of Realtors

-- END --

1. The California Associations of Homeowners Associations. Our Objective HOA Data & Statistics. Accessible here: https://www.calassoc-hoa.com/about-us/our-objective-hoa-data-statistics/. ↑

Date of Hearing: April 28, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Ash Kalra, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2035

Author:(Dixon) – As Amended Ver:April 22, 2026

proposed consent

SUBJECT: Common interest developments: declarations: amendments

KEY ISSUE: should homeowner assocations that are age-restricted for seniors be permitted to seek judicial approval to amend their Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions with a vote of thirty-SEVEN percent of the association’s membership?

SYNOPSIS

Homeowner associations, the governing arm of common interest developments, are required to hold elections to name members to the board that govern the day-to-day functions of the association. While many homeowner associations enjoy robust participation from association members, too frequently, homeowner associations suffer from a lack of participation in association affairs by the development’s residents. In these instances, a homeowner association may fail to obtain a quorum of members voting during a board election. Until 2023, in these instances, the association was forced to repeatedly hold elections in the hopes of achieving a quorum and being authorized to replace the board. However, in 2023 the Legislature enacted AB 1458 (Ta) Chap. 303, Stats. 2023, to establish a process whereby an association can hold an election with a 20 percent quorum requirement if the association properly noticed an initial election and failed to reach a quorum.

While that bill addressed the issue of board elections, it did not change quorum requirements for amending an association’s core governing documents, the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The author notes that one senior development in her district has been unable to amend its CC&Rs since 1988, due to a lack of quorum or support for the proposal. Accordingly, this bill would authorize large, age-restricted homeowner associations to seek judicial approval for CC&R modifications so long as at least 37 percent of the votes support the change. Based on a review of the criteria, this bill likely only applies to the association within the author’s district and maintains the existing law’s requirements for judicial oversight and approval of any changes.

This bill is sponsored by the above-mentioned homeowner association, Third Laguna Hills Mutual. The sponsors contend they have spent significant sums of money on voter outreach and get-out-the-vote efforts but have been unable to achieve a quorum. This bill has no formal opposition but the California Association of Realtors expresses concern that the bill may impact home values, however, they offer no amendments to remedy these concerns. This bill was previously approved by the Committee on Housing and Community Development unanimously.

SUMMARY: Authorizes homeowner associations that are age designated for seniors to amend the association’s Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions with a 37 percent quorum vote. Specifically, this bill:

1. Permits the members of a homeowner association to approve amendments to their governing documents with 37% of the vote of the owners, rather than the standard 50% threshold, if the following criteria is met:
   1. The association is a senior citizen housing development;
   2. The association contains more than 6,000 separate interests;
   3. More than 25 percent of the separate interests in the common interest development are occupied by tenants; and
   4. The declaration has not been amended in at least 35 years.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act and provides for the rules and regulations governing the operation of a residential common interest development and the respective rights and duties of the homeowner association and its members. (Civil Code Section 4000 et seq.)
2. Requires, annually, an owner of a separate interest within a homeowner association, to provide written notice to the association of all of the following:
   1. The address or addresses to which notices from the association are to be delivered;
   2. An alternate or secondary address to which notices from the association are to be delivered;
   3. The name and address of the owner’s legal representative, if any, including any person with power of attorney or other person who can be contacted in the event of the owner’s extended absence from the separate interest; and
   4. Whether the separate interest is owner-occupied, is rented out, if the parcel is developed but vacant, or if the parcel is undeveloped land. (Civil Code Section 4041.)
3. Requires homeowner association election ballots and two preaddressed envelopes with instructions on how to return ballots to be mailed by first-class mail or delivered by the association to every member no less than 30 days prior to the deadline for voting, and requires associations to use procedures used by California counties for ensuring confidentiality of vote by mail ballots, as specified. (Civil Code 5115 (c).)
4. For incorporated associations, requires a quorum at a meeting of members to be one-third of the voting power, represented in person or by proxy. Authorizes corporation bylaws to set a different quorum subject to specified restrictions. (Corporations Code 7512.)
5. Authorizes a homeowner association or member may petition the superior court to reduce the percentage of affirmative votes required to amend the declaration when the declaration requires more than 50% approval of the membership (or of multiple voting classes). (Civil Code 4275 (a).)
6. Establishes that the petition must include documentation such as the governing documents, the full amendment text, solicitation materials, vote results, and an explanation of the amendment. (Ibid.)
7. Provides that the court may approve the amendment if it finds that:
   1. Proper notice of the hearing was given;
   2. The balloting complied with governing documents and applicable law;
   3. The HOA made a reasonably diligent effort to obtain votes;
   4. More than 50% of the votes actually cast supported the amendment, including a majority of each required voting class; and
   5. The amendment is reasonable and approval is not otherwise improper;
   6. Authorizes the court to confirm the amendment as valid based on the votes actually received and to waive quorum or higher voting thresholds required by the governing documents. (Civil Code Section 4275 (c).)
8. Requires that after recordation, the HOA must deliver a copy of the amendment to all members with notice that it has been recorded. (Civil Code Section 4275 (g).)

FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed non-fiscal.

COMMENTS: Residents living within a common interest development are governed by the rules adopted by the homeowner association board and by the terms of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) adopted when the association was formed. Unlike governing rules, which may be amended by the board, the CC&Rs may be amended only by a majority vote of the association. If even a bare majority of the association does not participate, an association may petition the court to lower the threshold. Among the factors that must be demonstrated to a court is a declaration that 50 percent of the members voting in the election supported the change. However, the author notes that obtaining even that level of participation and agreement is difficult for some senior communities, especially those in which the actual residents of the development rent the property from the owners. This bill would adopt a narrow exception to the existing law authorizing an age restricted homeowner association for seniors to seek court approval for changes to the CC&Rs if 37 percent of the members support such a change. In support of the bill the author states:

AB 2035 provides a commonsense solution to allow large, senior citizen common interest developments to amend significantly out of date declarations when they are unable to reach quorum requirements established by their CC&Rs.

Some HOAs, such as Third Laguna Hills Mutual, are unable to meet quorum requirements for amendments to their CC&Rs and the current statutory alternative to reduce quorum requirements to 50% is insufficient. AB 2035 creates an additional alternative to reduce quorum requirements to 37% when the common interest development meets specified conditions. Specifically, the common interest development is required to be a senior citizen housing development, must contain at least 6,000 separate interest, more than 25% of those interests are occupied by non-owner residents, and that the development’s declaration has not been amended in 35 years.

This alternative will allow large, senior citizen developments to amend their CC&Rs when they are unable to meet quorum requirements while maintaining strong guardrails to ensure an equitable outcome. By maintaining the existing court petition process used for quorum reduction requests, AB 2035 ensures that this exception will only be used in specific, unique and necessary situations.

Background on homeowner association governance. There are approximately 50,000 common interest developments in California. They vary in size and structure, but generally are characterized by the following: (1) separate ownership of individual residential units coupled with an undivided interest in common property; (2) 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 association.

Governance of these developments and the homeowner associations that make up their governing bodies is regulated under the Davis-Stirling Act (Civil Code Section 1350 et seq.), which sets forth general rules governing common interest developments. Beyond the overarching state law, each individual association is also subject to specific rules and regulations set forth by the association’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. Homeowner associations are governed by volunteer boards of directors who are elected by the members of the association and who are responsible for interpreting the governing documents and state law.

CC&Rs are the foundation of homeowner association governance, and thus it is difficult to change these documents. While homeowner association boards set the day-to-day guidelines governing the association, the CC&Rs are the bedrock rules for the association. The CC&Rs are originally established by an association’s developer and essentially function as the “constitution” for a common interest development. Accordingly, CC&Rs are designed to be difficult to amend. Because CC&Rs are recorded against the property, they run with the land, binding future owners to the governing documents as well as the current owners. CC&Rs often require amendments to address the changing needs of any given community that must be approved by at least a majority of all association members, not just those choosing to vote.

Recognizing that some CC&R changes may be necessary, and that getting a majority of members to vote much less vote yes may be nearly impossible, if an amendment to the association’s CC&Rs falls short of the voting threshold required by the CCR itself, an association or member can petition a superior court to approve the amendment anyway, so long as the court finds the process was fair, the effort to reach members was diligent, and the amendment is reasonable. As a part of the court’s review, it must be demonstrated that at least 50 percent of those bothering to vote did support the change.

No quorum, no problem? Not for one senior-only homeowner association, where it has been a 40-year struggle to update its CC&Rs. For one homeowner association in the author’s district attempting to update their CCRs has turned into a decades-long struggle. The Third Mutual of Laguna Hills, a senior-only development that is the largest homeowner association in Laguna Woods, California, has not updated its CC&Rs since 1988. Part of the problem appears to lie in the fact that many of the residents rent units from the actual owners who may be difficult for the association to reach and engage. The author notes that the association’s managers have spent over one hundred thousand dollars on voter outreach, education, and get-out-the-vote efforts to no avail. It appears the multiple votes to update the CC&Rs have failed to achieve the 50 percent of the association quorum to meet the state standard, and that the association has struggled to win support of the 50 percent of the association’s owners, as opposed to residents, needed to seek judicial review of the change.

This bill adopts a narrow pathway for senior-only homeowner associations to update CC&Rs. Seeking to assist the Third Mutual of Laguna Hills, this bill crafts a narrow exception to the rules permitting a homeowner association to seek judicial approval of the association’s proposed reforms to the CC&Rs. This bill would require only 37 percent of an association’s voters to approve a CC&R update before the court would be able to review the proposal. The bill also conditions the 37 percent vote requirement to trigger judicial review so long as the association is for seniors only, contains 6,000 units, and 25 percent of those units are rented. Essentially, these conditions ensure that this bill would only apply to Third Mutual of Laguna Hills due to its large size and unique resident demographics. It should be noted that while the bill lowers the vote threshold below a majority, it does not eliminate the judicial review requirements or any of the findings that the reviewing judicial officer must make. Accordingly, if the CC&R reforms are struggling because they are truly unpopular, unsensible, or unreasonable, a neutral judge retains full discretion to reject the changes.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: This bill is sponsored by the one homeowner association it appears to assist, Third Mutual of Laguna Hills. In support of the measure they write:

Third Mutual's 67% quorum requirement would be a high bar for many HOAs and has proven impossible for us to meet. But because of Third Mutual's unique circumstances, even reaching the 50% affirmative vote of the full membership required for judicial certification has proven impossible for us, as well. As a result, our bylaws have not been updated since 1988!

The problem is that with over 6,000 units, more than a quarter of which are rented out by owners typically uninterested in governance issues, and many part time residents, we just cannot get people to vote. We've tried twice just within the last seven years and, despite hundreds of hours of volunteer time and over $ 140,000 spent conducting the elections and trying to turn out the vote, the best we've been able to muster is a 47% turnout. Approximately 85% of the members who voted were in favor of amending the CC&Rs, but clearly, if less than half the membership votes, it is mathematically impossible to reach the 50% affirmative vote of the full membership required to petition the court for judicial approval.

AB 2035 offers a very precise approach designed to provide Third Mutual the opportunity to update our 38-year-old CC&Rs. It does so by lowering to 37% the affirmative vote required to petition the court for approval of the CC&R amendments.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Third Mutual of Laguna Hills

Opposition

None on file

Concerns

California Association of Realtors

Analysis Prepared by: Nicholas Liedtke / JUD. / (916) 319-2334

Date of Hearing: March 25, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Matt Haney, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2035 (

Author:Dixon) – As Introduced Ver:February 17, 2026

SUBJECT: Common interest developments: declarations: amendments

SUMMARY: Allows a court to approve a change to the governing documents (CC&Rs) in a homeowners association (HOA), meeting specified criteria, if the change is approved by 37% of the owners, rather than 50%. Specifically, this bill:

1. Adds an option for HOA members to approve amendments to their governing documents with 37% of the vote of the owners, rather than the standard 50% threshold, by petitioning a superior court, but only for HOAs that meet all of the following criteria:
   1. They are a senior citizen housing development;
   2. They contain more than 6,000 separate interests (units);
   3. More than 25% of the units are occupied by owners for less than 6 months in a year;
   4. More than 25% of the units are tenant occupied; and
   5. The declaration has not been amended in at least 35 years.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Provides that an HOA or member may petition the superior court to reduce the percentage of affirmative votes required to amend the declaration when the declaration requires more than 50% approval of the membership (or of multiple voting classes). (Civil Code (CIV) 4275).
2. Establishes that the petition must include documentation such as the governing documents, the full amendment text, solicitation materials, vote results, and an explanation of the amendment. (CIV 4275)
3. Provides that the court may approve the amendment if it finds that:
   1. Proper notice of the hearing was given (at least 15 days);
   2. The balloting complied with governing documents and applicable law;
   3. The HOA made a reasonably diligent effort to obtain votes;
   4. More than 50% of the votes actually cast supported the amendment, including a majority of each required voting class; and
   5. The amendment is reasonable and approval is not otherwise improper. (CIV 4275)
4. Authorizes the court to confirm the amendment as valid based on the votes actually received and to waive quorum or higher voting thresholds required by the governing documents. (CIV 4275)
5. Requires that after recordation, the HOA must deliver a copy of the amendment to all members with notice that it has been recorded. (CIV 4275)

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.

COMMENTS:

Author’s Statement: According to the author, “AB 2035 provides a commonsense solution to allow large, senior citizen common interest developments to amend significantly out of date declarations when they are unable to reach quorum requirements established by their CC&Rs.

Some HOAs, such as Third Laguna Hills Mutual, are unable to meet quorum requirements for amendments to their CC&Rs and the current statutory alternative to reduce quorum requirements to 50% is insufficient. AB 2035 creates an additional alternative to reduce quorum requirements to 37% when the common interest development meets specified conditions. Specifically, the common interest development is required to be a senior citizen housing development, must contain at least 6,000 separate interest, more than 25% of those interests are occupied by non-owner residents, and that the development’s declaration has not been amended in 35 years.

This alternative will allow large, senior citizen developments to amend their CC&Rs when they are unable to meet quorum requirements while maintaining strong guardrails to ensure an equitable outcome. By maintaining the existing court petition process used for quorum reduction requests, AB 2035 ensures that this exception will only be used in specific, unique and necessary situations.”

Common Interest Developments: There are over 50,000 CIDs in the state that range in size from three to 27,000 units, with the average CID having 286 residents. CIDs make up roughly 4.7 million housing units, and 36% of Californians (over 14 million Californians) live in a CID. These rates are even higher for homeowners, with approximately 65% of homeowners living in a CID. CIDs include condominiums, community apartment projects, housing cooperatives, and planned unit developments. They are characterized by a separate ownership of dwelling space coupled with an undivided interest in a common property, restricted by covenants and conditions that limit the use of common area, and the separate ownership interests and the management of common property and enforcement of restrictions by an HOA. CIDs are governed by the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act (the Act) as well as the governing documents of the association (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions, or CC&Rs), including bylaws, declaration, and operating rules.

Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act: The Davis-Stirling Act (Act) went into effect in 1986 and is the primary body of law governing CIDs in California. The Act provides the legal framework for the creation and management of HOAs, including rules related to governance, assessments, dispute resolution, maintenance responsibilities, and member rights. The law aims to balance the authority of HOAs with the rights of individual property owners, ensuring that communities are managed efficiently and fairly.

Over time, the Davis-Stirling Act has been amended to address the evolving needs of CIDs and to increase transparency, accountability, and consumer protections. Key provisions include requirements for open meetings, financial disclosures, election procedures, and architectural review processes. The Act also provides mechanisms for resolving disputes, including internal dispute resolution and alternative dispute resolution before certain legal actions can proceed. As CIDs continue to represent a significant portion of California’s housing stock, the Davis-Stirling Act plays a critical role in shaping the living environment and governance of millions of residents across the state.

CC&Rs: CC&Rs are essentially the constitution of any given HOA community. They establish the rules, restrictions, and rights that bind all owners, covering everything from architectural standards to pet policies to how the association itself is governed. Because CC&Rs are recorded against the property, they run with the land, binding future owners to the governing documents as well as the current owners. CC&Rs often require amendments to address the changing needs of any given community. However, amending an HOA’s CC&Rs is intentionally difficult. Most declarations require approval from a supermajority of all members, often ranging from 50-75% of all HOA members, not just all voting members. In a large HOA development, this can mean thousands of individual owners must affirmatively cast ballots. This can present logistical challenges even under the best circumstances, as HOA voting rates tend to be low.

Under the Act, there is an existing process through which HOA members can seek to address this difficulty in obtaining a majority of votes of all HOA members: if an amendment to the HOA’s CC&Rs falls short of the voting threshold required by the HOA documents, an HOA or member can petition a superior court to approve the amendment anyway, so long as the court finds the process was fair, the effort to reach members was diligent, and the amendment is reasonable. But even under the court petition process in existing law, at least 50% of members must have voted in favor of the proposed amendment.

This bill adds a new pathway for a narrow category of developments where achieving even 50% of the HOA members voting in favor of an amendment may be infeasible. This bill would provide large senior communities with more than 6,000 homes, where a significant share of owners are part-time residents or have rented out their units, and who have not updated their CC&Rs in the past 35 years, with an alternative pathway to amending their governing documents. For those communities, a court could approve an amendment with as little as 37% approval from the HOA membership. This could provide them with a mechanism to modernize CC&Rs that have not been amended in over three decades.

One such community that this bill would apply to is the Third Mutual of Laguna Hills, the largest HOA in Laguna Woods, California. This HOA has been unable to amend its CC&Rs since 1988. Under its CC&Rs, it would need to achieve a 67% affirmative vote from all households to update its CC&Rs, and it is subject to the same 50% threshold as all HOAs in the state in order to petition a superior court to approve the amendment anyway. According to the author, this HOA has spent hundreds of staff hours and over $100,000 to try to turn out voters in order to meet this requirement. However, to date, the highest turnout percentage the HOA has achieved in these types of elections was about 40% of their membership. This has left the HOA and its residents in a situation where their CC&Rs are not reflective of modern governance practices and the current requirements of the Act. This bill would lower the threshold for the superior court to approve amendments to the CC&Rs for Third Mutual of Laguna Hills to 37%, rather than the statewide 50%.

Arguments in Support: The Third Mutual of Laguna Hills writes in support: “AB 2035 offers a very precise approach designed to provide Third Mutual the opportunity to update our 38-year-old CC&Rs. It does so by lowering to 37% the affirmative vote required to petition the court for approval of the CC&R amendments. The bill sets the following criteria for an HOA to qualify for this provision:

• The development must be a senior citizen housing development
• There must be more than 6,000 separate homeowner interests
• More than 25% of the separate interests must be occupied by non-owner tenants
• The development’s CC&R declarations cannot have been amended in at least 35 years

In addition to updating Third Mutual’s CC&Rs to reflect statutory changes to the Davis-Stirling Act over the last 38 years, we wish to update our CC&Rs to reflect current circumstances reflective of modern technology and policy changes that have occurred over the decades, such as the introduction and use of electric vehicles and the correlating need for EV chargers.

AB 2035 is a fair and common-sense solution for Third Mutual of Laguna Hills to provide our homeowners with the ability to approve updated rules, and to provide the necessary and appropriate clarity and accountability with respect to our oversight and governance.”

Arguments in Opposition: None on file.

Double-Referred: This bill was also referred to the Assembly Committee on Judiciary where it will be heard should it pass out of this Committee.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Third Laguna Woods Mutual

Opposition

None on file.

Analysis Prepared by: Dori Ganetsos / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085