Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wildfire Mitigation Hoas topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel advances bill letting homeowners opt out of HOA rules that raise wildfire risk
Summary
A committee advanced House Bill 220 to allow homeowners to mitigate wildfire risk despite restrictive homeowners’ association covenants, prompting discussion about prospective application and enforcement limits.
The House Judiciary Committee advanced House Bill 220, a measure intended to let property owners mitigate wildfire risk even when homeowners’ association covenants mandate combustible materials, landscaping or fencing that increase ignition risk.
Sponsor Representative Luhan described the bill as a response to covenant language that can require combustible fencing or vegetation in high‑risk areas. Melissa Robertson, property and casualty bureau chief at the Office of Superintendent of Insurance, and Elizabeth Johnson, associate general counsel for OSI, told the committee HOAs sometimes require wood fences, drought‑resistant evergreen screening and planting densities that the insurance industry and wildfire mitigation experts consider combustible. Robertson summarized restrictive covenant language she reviewed and said HOAs’ rules can “mandate essentially constituents to put trees next to their houses, put up wood fences that are extremely combustible.”
Supporters included fire chiefs and the State Fire Marshal’s office. Miguel Tippman, speaking for firefighters, told lawmakers covenants should not “limit our ability to keep our properties and our houses fire safe.” Anthony Laba, deputy chief for the State Fire Marshal, and several metro chiefs also testified in favor.
Committee members probed whether the bill is retroactive, how it would interact with preexisting contracts, and whether it effectively requires HOAs to change previously adopted covenants. Sponsors said the measure is prospective for HOA enforcement and would not force homeowners to remove existing fences or landscaping; rather, it would prevent an HOA from enforcing covenant language that would block fire‑mitigation actions going forward. Several members sought clarity about enforcement mechanics and suggested the bill mostly affects HOAs’ ability to compel residents to retain specific combustible features moving forward.
After discussion the committee recorded a do‑pass recommendation for HB 220.
