An act to amend Section 4745 of the Civil Code, relating to common interest developments.
Summary
SB 770 amends Section 4745 of the Civil Code, which governs electric vehicle charging stations in common interest developments under the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act. The bill preserves the existing rule that homeowners associations may not unreasonably prohibit or restrict EV charging stations in owners’ units or designated parking spaces, and it keeps the framework requiring associations to process applications promptly, in writing, and generally within 60 days. It also retains the owner-responsibility structure for installation, maintenance, electricity costs, and disclosure to future buyers when a charging station is placed in a common area or exclusive-use common area.
The principal substantive change is to remove the requirement that the owner’s liability insurance policy name the homeowners association as an additional insured. Instead, the owner must still maintain liability coverage and provide a certificate of insurance, but the association is no longer required to be listed as an additional insured party. The bill also corrects an erroneous cross-reference concerning the amount of required insurance. The measure continues to allow associations to impose reasonable restrictions that do not significantly increase cost or reduce performance, and it leaves intact penalties and attorney’s fees for willful violations and enforcement actions.
Impact
SB 770 updates the Civil Code provisions that regulate EV charging stations in common interest developments, narrowing the insurance-related obligations imposed on homeowners while leaving the broader pro-EV access rules in place. It affects homeowners associations, condominium and planned development governing documents, and individual owners seeking to install charging equipment in private or shared parking areas. By deleting the additional-insured requirement and fixing the insurance cross-reference, the bill reduces a specific administrative and insurance burden on owners and aligns the statute with the revised coverage requirement.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been generally favorable and noncontroversial overall, as reflected by repeated majority support in committee and floor votes and its eventual chaptering. The vote margins suggest broad agreement with the bill’s technical and homeowner-relief purpose, especially given that it does not alter the core policy favoring EV charging access in common interest developments. The absence of committee transcript material limits insight into detailed debate, but the voting history indicates the measure moved with solid support rather than significant opposition.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the insurance requirement: whether owners installing EV chargers in common areas should be required to name the association as an additional insured, or whether maintaining liability coverage and providing proof of insurance is sufficient. That issue pits homeowner advocates and EV-access proponents, who may view the additional-insured requirement as unnecessary or burdensome, against associations and insurers, who may prefer stronger risk-transfer protections. The bill’s correction of an insurance cross-reference is technical and appears less controversial than the substantive removal of the additional-insured mandate.