California 20252026 Regular Session Status: Introduced 1 D cosponsors

AB 2579 — Common interest developments: discipline.

Last action — Ordered to inactive file at the request of Assembly Member Petrie-Norris.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. 1
    Introduced
  2. 2
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Assembly
  4. 4
    Passed Senate
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill has been introduced in the Assembly. Introduced February 20, 2026. It must pass committee before a floor vote.

Next likely step: a committee referral and hearing.

Prognosis

Stalled 28% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

Low

How often bills like it became law.

  • Introduced

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 1 sponsor

    1 primary, 0 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Single-party support

    Sponsorship is currently within one party (1 D).

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 3 recorded votes so far.

Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.

In plain language

This bill updates rules for imposing penalties on members of common interest developments.

AB 2579 modifies the penalties that can be imposed on association members for violating governing documents. It requires a list of offenses allowing higher penalties to be published, focusing on significant health and safety risks.

Summary

Existing law, the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, governs the formation and operation of common interest developments. Existing law requires that a common interest development be managed by an association. Existing law requires the board of an association, if the association adopts or has adopted a policy imposing any monetary penalty on any association member for a violation of the governing documents, to adopt and distribute to each member a schedule of the monetary penalties that may be assessed for those violations, as provided. Existing law prohibits a monetary penalty for a violation of the governing documents from exceeding the lesser of the amount stated in the schedule that is in effect at the time of the violation or $100 per violation, except if the violation might result in an adverse health or safety impact on the common area or another association member's property, as specified. This bill would also except if the violation is contained in a specified list developed and published by the Department of Real Estate. In this regard, the bill would require the department, on or before January 1, 2028, to develop and publish a list of specified violations for which an association may impose a monetary penalty that is greater than $100, as specified. The bill would require the list to be limited to violations that are clearly defined and address significant risks to health, safety, or the integrity of the common interest development. The bill would require the department, in developing the list, to identify categories of violations that pose heightened risks to health, safety, or the integrity of the common interest development, including violations that create a risk of fire or other life safety hazards, as specified, and before finalizing the list, to conduct a stakeholder engagement process to solicit input from a broad range of interested parties, as specified. The bill would require the department to release a draft list of violations for public comment and to consider comments before finalizing the list of violations, as prescribed. The bill would require the department to publish the final list of violations on the department's internet website. Existing law requires the board to notify a member in writing at least 10 days before a meeting to consider or impose discipline or a monetary charge on a member, as specified. Existing law requires the board to give a member the opportunity to cure a violation prior to the meeting, and prohibits the board from imposing discipline if the member cures the violation prior to the meeting or, if curing the violation would take longer than the time between the notice provided and the meeting, the member provides financial commitment to cure the violation. This bill would specify that a member engaged in habitual, repeated, or continuing violations is not deemed to have cured a violation simply because the violation is not occurring at the time of the hearing.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Ordered to inactive file at the request of Assembly Member Petrie-Norris.

  2. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  3. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 15. Noes 0.) (May 14).

  4. Joint Rule 62(a), file notice suspended. (Page 5030.)

  5. In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.

  6. Re-referred to Com. on APPR. pursuant to Joint Rule 10.5.

  7. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  8. Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading.

  9. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 12. Noes 0.) (April 28).

  10. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 12. Noes 0.) (April 22). Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  11. Re-referred to Com. on H. & C.D.

  12. Referred to Coms. on H. & C.D. and JUD.

  13. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on H. & C.D. Read second time and amended.

  14. From printer. May be heard in committee March 23.

  15. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

Do pass.

Passed 15 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Republican 4000
Democratic 11000
Total 15000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (15)
Member Party Vote
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Caloza, Jessica Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
González, Mark Democratic Yea
Krell, Maggy Democratic Yea
Pacheco, Blanca Democratic Yea
Pellerin, Gail Democratic Yea
Sharp-Collins, LaShae Democratic Yea
Solache, Jr., José Luis Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Dixon, Diane Republican Yea
Hoover, Josh Republican Yea
Ta, Tri Republican Yea
Tangipa, David J. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended.

Passed 12 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 9000
Republican 3000
Total 12000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (12)
Member Party Vote
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Yea
Bryan, Isaac G. Democratic Yea
Connolly, Damon Democratic Yea
Harabedian, John Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Lee, Alex Democratic Yea
Pacheco, Blanca Democratic Yea
Papan, Diane Democratic Yea
Zbur, Rick Chavez Democratic Yea
Dixon, Diane Republican Yea
Johnson, Natasha Republican Yea
Sanchez, Kate Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Judiciary]

Passed 12 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 8000
Republican 3000
Unaffiliated 1000
Total 12000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (12)
Member Party Vote
Ávila Farías — Yea
Caloza, Jessica Democratic Yea
Garcia, Robert Democratic Yea
Haney, Matt Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Lee, Alex Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Wilson, Lori D. Democratic Yea
Patterson, Joe Republican Yea
Ta, Tri Republican Yea
Tangipa, David J. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety housing civil-rights
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does AB 2579 do?
Existing law, the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, governs the formation and operation of common interest developments. Existing law requires that a common interest development be managed by an association. Existing law requires the board of an association, if the association adopts or has adopted a policy imposing any monetary penalty on any association member for a violation of the governing documents, to adopt and distribute to each member a schedule of the monetary penalties that may be assessed for those violations, as provided. Existing law prohibits a monetary penalty for a violation of the governing documents from exceeding the lesser of the amount stated in the schedule that is in effect at the time of the violation or $100 per violation, except if the violation might result in an adverse health or safety impact on the common area or another association member's property, as specified. This bill would also except if the violation is contained in a specified list developed and published by the Department of Real Estate. In this regard, the bill would require the department, on or before January 1, 2028, to develop and publish a list of specified violations for which an association may impose a monetary penalty that is greater than $100, as specified. The bill would require the list to be limited to violations that are clearly defined and address significant risks to health, safety, or the integrity of the common interest development. The bill would require the department, in developing the list, to identify categories of violations that pose heightened risks to health, safety, or the integrity of the common interest development, including violations that create a risk of fire or other life safety hazards, as specified, and before finalizing the list, to conduct a stakeholder engagement process to solicit input from a broad range of interested parties, as specified. The bill would require the department to release a draft list of violations for public comment and to consider comments before finalizing the list of violations, as prescribed. The bill would require the department to publish the final list of violations on the department's internet website. Existing law requires the board to notify a member in writing at least 10 days before a meeting to consider or impose discipline or a monetary charge on a member, as specified. Existing law requires the board to give a member the opportunity to cure a violation prior to the meeting, and prohibits the board from imposing discipline if the member cures the violation prior to the meeting or, if curing the violation would take longer than the time between the notice provided and the meeting, the member provides financial commitment to cure the violation. This bill would specify that a member engaged in habitual, repeated, or continuing violations is not deemed to have cured a violation simply because the violation is not occurring at the time of the hearing.
Who sponsors AB 2579?
AB 2579 is sponsored by Petrie-Norris, Cottie (Democratic).
What is the current status of AB 2579?
This bill has been introduced in the Assembly. Introduced February 20, 2026. It must pass committee before a floor vote.
Where can I track AB 2579?
Track AB 2579 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 2579

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of AB 2579

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →