Assembly Bill 3182
In a desire to open up rental housing and provide home owners with more “use” choices for their property, AB 3182 is currently moving through the California Assembly. Authored by Assembly member Philip Ting of (D) San Francisco Assembly Bill 3182; which (if passed) restricts the ability of homeowners in any HOA to prohibit or limit rentals (with just 2 minor exceptions). Ting represents the state's 19th District, which includes the west side of San Francisco, in addition to Broadmoor, Colma, Daly City, and South San Francisco. Ting, is currently the Chair of the Assembly Committee on Budget.
The bill proposes to make several amendments to current Davis-Stirling Act and Civil Code Section 474 —which was enacted in 2012 to exempt current owners from enacting prohibitions on leasing of HOA residences.
The bill would remove the current “grandfathering” and make several other changes regarding rentals in HOAs. Rental bans or limits are normally imposed by HOAs after they are voted on by the homeowners within the community.
AB 3182 would make rental bans illegal, regardless of how the owners vote to operate their association. However, AB 3182 would leave in effect two restrictions:
1) Short-term / "vacay" rentals (30 days or less) could still be banned
2) HOAs are permitted to have a rental limit of 25% of the total units
Note: In a real-life scenario this 2nd restriction appears to be unenforceable for several reasons.
If a 100-unit complex has 24 units (24%) currently rented, then 2 homeowners put up “for rent” signs; which of the 2 will be allowed to actually rent out the unit?
1) The one who advertised first?
2) Or, the first whose tenant actually signed a lease?
3) Or the first with a renter to put down a deposit?
4) Do 2nd homes count as rentals in this scenario? Or not?
5) How about relatives living in the unit but not paying rent? Is that unit considered a rental? Or owner “occupied”? Etc. Etc. Etc. ad nauseum!!!!!!!! Who watches the Watchers?
Most HOAs lack “capable leadership” for a host of reasons. Many residents are to busy to serve, not qualified, just not interested in serving for a number of reasons.
So (as with the aforementioned example) who would be specifically designated to enforce the 2nd restriction? And whomever it is, they will be a “very popular” person (pariah) indeed. Oh btw: since few communities are built in EXACTLY round numbers does the HOA allow 25.1% or must it be 24.99999% or less. And who does the math on THIS issue? See where I’m going with this? So, scratch restriction 2.