BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1525|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1525
Author: Longville (D)
Amended: 8/29/03 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE HOUSING & COMM. DEV. COMMITTEE : 5-3, 6/30/03
AYES: Ducheny, Alarcon, Cedillo, Dunn, Torlakson
NOES: Hollingsworth, Ackerman, Florez
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 5-0, 8/19/03
AYES: Escutia, Cedillo, Ducheny, Kuehl, Sher
NO VOTE RECORDED: Morrow, Ackerman
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 57-12, 5/27/03 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Common interest developments: signs
SOURCE : American Civil Liberties Union
DIGEST : This bill forbids the governing documents of a
common interest development (CIDs) from prohibiting the
posting or displaying of non-commercial signs on or in a
homeowner's separate interest, as specified.
Senate floor amendments of 8/29/03 make conforming changes
to amendments taken in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
They delete a finding relating to the award of attorney
fees that was inadvertently left in the bill.
ANALYSIS : A CID is a form of real estate where each
homeowner has an exclusive interest in a unit or lot and a
CONTINUED
AB 1525
Page
2
shared or undivided interest in common area property.
Condominiums, planned unit developments, stock
cooperatives, and community apartments all fall under the
umbrella of common interest developments. There were an
estimated six million residents living in approximately
30,000 CID's in California. In addition to the
requirements of the Davis-Stirling Act, each CID is
governed by a homeowners' association according to the
recorded declarations, bylaws, and operating rules of the
association.
In general, homeowners' associations have wide discretion
to regulate the appearance of individual interests and the
conduct of its members. However, over the years a number
of statutes have been enacted to prohibit various forms of
regulation. Last year, legislation was enacted that bars a
homeowners' association from prohibiting or limiting an
owner's ability to display the American flag.
This bill provides that the governing documents of a CID
may not prohibit the posting or display of noncommercial
signs, posters, banners or flags on or in an owner's
separate interest unless necessary to protect public health
or safety or because the posting violates local, state or
federal law.
The bill specifies that displays may be made of paper,
cardboard, cloth, plastic or fabric, and posted or
displayed from the yard, window, balcony or outside wall of
the separate interest. Displays but may not be made of
lights, roofing, siding, paving materials, flora, or
balloons, or any other similar building, landscaping, or
decorative component or include the painting of
architectural surfaces. The bill also allows associations
to impose reasonable size restrictions prohibiting signs or
posters of more than nine square feet in size, and flags or
banners of more than 15 square feet in size.
Comments
Purpose of the bill . According to the author, the goal of
this bill is to ensure that the free speech rights that are
enjoyed by homeowners outside of common interest
developments are equally protected for the homeowners
AB 1525
Page
3
within a development. With more and more homeowners living
within CIDs, it is essential that associations not abridge
a homeowner's right to free speech on or in his or her own
separate interest.
Unreasonable restrictions . Under current state law, the
declarations of an association are enforceable as equitable
servitudes "unless unreasonable." In Nahrstedt v.
Lakeside Village Condominium Association, Inc ., 8 Cal. 4th
361 (1994), the California Supreme Court opined that the
"unless unreasonable" standard means that "restrictions
should be enforced unless they are wholly arbitrary,
violate a public policy, or impose a burden on the use of
affected land that far outweighs any benefit." The right
to free expression of noncommercial speech has long been
granted under constitutional law. As a result, while no
statute explicitly says so, outright prohibitions by a
homeowners' association of noncommercial speech are most
likely already unenforceable. This bill simply makes it
explicit and builds on the protections for the display of
American flags written into law last year.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/25/03)
American Civil Liberties Union (source)
Congress of California Seniors
Gray Panthers California
Older Women's League of California
Numerous individual letters
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/25/03)
California Federation of Republican Women
Community Associations Institute, unless amended
Executive Council of Homeowners, unless amended
California Association of Community Managers
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : Proponents argue the bill
clarifies an important right and provides "commonsense
statutory protections for owners of private residential
property who wish to engage in a longstanding traditional
AB 1525
Page
4
means of expression."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Opponents argue the bill
unfairly infringes on the rights of private property owners
to contract with each other to use, or not use, their
property in a particular way.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Bates, Berg, Bermudez, Canciamilla, Chan, Chavez,
Chu, Cogdill, Cohn, Corbett, Cox, Daucher, Diaz, Dutra,
Dymally, Firebaugh, Frommer, Goldberg, Hancock, Harman,
Jerome Horton, Jackson, Kehoe, Koretz, La Malfa, Laird,
Leno, Levine, Lieber, Liu, Longville, Lowenthal, Maddox,
Maldonado, McCarthy, Mountjoy, Mullin, Nakano, Nation,
Negrete McLeod, Nunez, Oropeza, Plescia, Reyes, Richman,
Ridley-Thomas, Runner, Salinas, Samuelian, Simitian,
Steinberg, Strickland, Vargas, Wiggins, Wolk, Yee, Wesson
NOES: Aghazarian, Benoit, Dutton, Garcia, Haynes, Shirley
Horton, Houston, Keene, La Suer, Nakanishi, Spitzer,
Wyland
NC:sl 9/1/03 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****