guidelines that contain objective design standards, rather than merely relying on the reviewing body’s application of subjective aesthetic criteria under the CC&Rs. If there are no “objective design standards” in effect at the time a residence is destroyed, an application to rebuild may be deemed “substantially similar reconstruction” based on permits, size, height, and location alone, without consideration of external design or aesthetic impacts.
The new law defi nes “objective design standard” to mean “a standard that involves no personal or subjective judgment and is uniformly verifi able by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the applicant and the association before submittal.” In the event of a disaster, reconstruction of residences will be controlled by those objective design standards in place at the time of the disaster, and subjective judgments that confl ict with such standards, or with the Civil Code size, height and location allowances, will not be permitted. By minimizing the role of subjective aesthetic judgments in the architectural review process to reconstruct homes following a disaster, SB 625 targets disaster recovery by ensuring that displaced homeowners can reconstruct swiftly despite association architectural control.
Associations should review their current architectural guidelines to ensure that vague or subjective language is replaced with objective design standards. This will not only raise the bar for qualifying a project as “substantially similar reconstruction” following a disaster, but will also assist in architectural enforcement generally, as vague language can result in challenges to architectural decisions.
Having objective design standards is also important when it comes to approval of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs), where state law has also sought to eliminate subjective judgments from the application review process to facilitate the creation of new housing. It is notable that the defi nition of “objective design standard” in Civil Code section 4752 mirrors the language used in provisions of the Government Code regulating approval of ADUs and JADUs by local agencies. The California Department of Housing and Community Development has, in certain publications, taken the position that imposing restrictions that are not objective on association approval of ADUs or JADUs may violate state law. This is yet another way associations will benefi t from the adoption of objective design standards.
While it is hoped that no community will be impacted by a disaster, every community can benefi t from being prepared. In planned developments with architectural control, preparation includes planning for reconstruction. Putting effective guidelines in place today will help ensure that homeowners impacted by disaster can rebuild effi ciently while protecting the aesthetics and harmony of the community.
—Jacqueline Pagano, Esq. is a partner of Roseman Law, APC, a full-service law fi rm specializing in the representation of California common interest developments for 30 years. Email:
info@roseman.law.
Senate Bill 770 – A Minor Change Regarding EV Charging Station Insurance
Kelly G. Richardson, Esq. CCAL, Richardson|Ober, LLP
Since the passage and enactment of Senate Bill 209 in 2011, California has protected the right of homeowners in common interest developments to install and use charging stations for electric vehicles. The statute, Civil Code section 4745, bars associations from completely prohibiting the installation of charging stations, but subparts (b) through (f) allow the association to impose reasonable restrictions. Associations may require that the installation be accomplished by a licensed contractor, and that the cost of the installation and electricity be paid by the homeowner. The homeowner may also be required to provide the association with a certifi cate of liability insurance covering the installation. In the original law, that insurance could be required to name the association as an additional named insured.
Some homeowners reported diffi culty in obtaining insurance covering their EV charging stations due to the requirement that the association be listed as a named insured along with the homeowner. Senate Bill 770 (2025) helps resolve this issue by dropping the requirement that the association be listed as a named insured on the homeowner’s policy covering the EV charging station.
If listed as a named insured, the association would receive notice if the homeowner’s insurance policy was canceled or ended. Now, with Civil Code section 4745(f)(1)(c) modifi ed to drop that requirement of additional named insured status, associations will need to more carefully monitor whether homeowners are complying with section 4745(f)(3), which requires that the homeowner annually provide the association with a certifi cate of insurance proving that the EV charging station is insured. As a result, boards and managers should conduct an annual check of all EV charging station records to ensure installations are properly insured in the event of injury to a user, tenant, or other individual.
www.caioc.org
29
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36
