SB 326
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS & THEIR RESIDENTS BY ROBERT WARD, ESQ.
A BALCONY BILL THAT I
n 2015, a tragedy in Berkeley re- sulting from a balcony collapse that killed six young people and injured seven more sparked much debate about the safety of elevated decks, walk- ways, and balconies in California multi- unit residential construction. A few years later, in 2018, Senator Jerry Hill drafted S.B. 721 as a direct response to the col- lapse, seeing a need for those responsible for maintaining these structures to take preventative action.
Tat bill imposed
rigorous destructive testing obligations on those charged with maintaining these elevated structures in multi-unit proj- ects, including apartment buildings and condominium or townhome develop- ments. Had it passed as drafted, com- munity association boards would have been required to perform costly invasive (or “destructive”) testing on balconies and other elevated structures every six years in at least 15% of the units with these components.
S.B. 721 was passed by the legislature and signed by Governor Brown in September of 2018; however, it was amended and community associations were ultimately excluded from that legislation.
While 12 the Voice | summer 2019 PROTECTS
the idea of promoting safety and preven- tative care in community association was noble, the obligations to HOAs, both financial and logistical, proved far too onerous for most associations. Te legis- lature agreed that any such requirements would need to also make sense in the common interest development world. So, HOA advocates like CAI’s Legisla- tive Action Committee worked tirelessly with Senator Hill towards drafting a new bill that would make sense not only for owners and visitors of these projects, but also the associations that are charged with budgeting for their maintenance.
In early 2019, Senator Hill introduced a newer, better version of the balcony bill. Senate Bill 326 was introduced with new language that serves a dual purpose: first, to promote the safety and welfare of community association residents and their guests; secondly, to protect con- sumer’s rights – namely, those of the associations who must budget to retain experts above and beyond they expected based on existing reserve studies.
Te proposed bill in its current form amends Sections 5551 and 5586 of the
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
