BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1745|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 1745
Author: Burton (D)
Amended: 4/26/00
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 7-1, 5/2/00
AYES: Burton, Escutia, O'Connell, Peace, Sher, Wright,
Schiff
NOES: Haynes
NOT VOTING: Morrow
SUBJECT : Landlord-tenant: notice of rent increase
SOURCE : Western Center on Law and Poverty
DIGEST : This bill provides, until January 1, 2006, that
when the tenant is given less than 60 days notice of a rent
increase, that tenant is given an extra 30 days at the old
rent level if the tenant elects to, instead, terminate the
tenancy and so notifies the landlord.
ANALYSIS : Existing law generally requires 30-days notice
for a change in the terms of a month-to-month tenancy.
This bill will, until January 1, 2006, provide for the
following:
1.If a tenant receives less than 60-days notice for a rent
increase, the tenant may elect to terminate the tenancy
prior to the effective date of the proposed rate
increase. In that event, the termination would be
CONTINUED
SB 1745
Page
2
effective on the 30th date after the date of the proposed
rent increase and the rent would be the same for that
30-day period.
2.If the tenant holds over and does not vacate by the
termination date, the rent increase would be effective
retroactively to the date set forth n the rent increase
notice.
This bill exempts from its provisions certain dwellings
subsidized for the benefit of low-income tenants and
specified rental units subject to local rent controls.
Comments
According to the California Housing Law Project, as of the
beginning of 1997, there are 11,182,882 housing units in
California. Of those units, 5,773,943 are owner occupied,
and 4,607,263 units are renter occupied. The remainder,
3.8 percent, are vacant and are either being held out for
sale or rent.
The booming economy has lead to higher rents and lower
vacancy rates. Comment 2 in the Senate Judiciary Committee
analysis details recent new reports on shifts.
The author's office is discussing a possible compromise
proposal with the landlord groups. (See Comment 3 in the
Senate Judiciary Committee analysis.) There is no formal
opposition to this bill at this time.
Prior Legislation
This bill is similar to SB 682 (Sher), which was passed by
the Legislature, but was vetoed by then-Governor Wilson.
The veto message stated a concern that the bill would
"erode the venerable notion of the month-to-month tenancy."
It also stated Wilson's belief that there was no evidence
of a need for the bill since "[m]ost landlords will
accommodate a tenant who wishes to vacate rather than
engage in a costly eviction proceeding."
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
CONTINUED
SB 1745
Page
3
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/4/00)
Housing Authorities of the City of Santa Barbara and the
Counties of Kings and San Joaquin
Housing Departments of the Cities of Concord, Long Beach,
San Francisco (Mission), and Modesto
Housing Development Corporations of Burbank and Marin City
Fair Housing Councils of Marin, San Diego, and Riverside
Counties and Oakland
Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency
City of Salinas Planning Department
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO
California Legislative Council for Older Americans
Congress of California Seniors
Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition, Redwood City
Metropolitan Area Advisory Committee, National City
Los Angeles Housing Law Project
Southern California Association of Non-Profit Housing
Enterprise Foundation, Los Angeles
Corporation for Supportive Housing, Oakland
Friends Committee on Legislation
Council of Churches of Santa Clara County
Affordable Homes, Avila Beach
Foundation for Quality Housing Opportunities, North
Hollywood
California Community Reinvestment Committee, Glendale
West Hollywood Community Housing Corporation
SAMCO, San Jose
Shelter for the Homeless, Midway City
Sacramento Neighborhood Housing Services
Affordable Housing Foundation, San Francisco
New Directions, Inc., Los Angeles
Community Economics, Oakland
Thai Community Development Center, Los Angeles
Archdiocese of Los Angeles Peace and Justice Commission
Los Angeles Council of Society of St. Vincent de Paul
Los Angeles Housing Partnership, Inc.
Los Angeles Community Design Center
People's Self-Help Housing Corporation, San Luis Obispo
Sacramento Mutual Housing Association
Lake County Alliance for the Mentally Ill
East LA Community Corporation
CONTINUED
SB 1745
Page
4
Los Angeles County Mental Health Association
Nevada County Housing and Community Services, Grass Valley
Venice Community Housing Corporation
Sonoma County Mobilehome Owners Association
Saint Joseph Health System, Orange
Skid Row Housing Trust, Los Angeles
Homes for Life Foundation, Los Angeles
Public Law Center, Santa Ana
Vision Los Angeles
Council of Community Housing Organizations, San Francisco
Orange County Community Housing Corporation, Santa Ana
Marin Continuum of Housing and Services, San Rafael
Rural Communities Housing Corporation, Ukiah
Santa Rosa Planning for Elders in the Central City
San Leandro Shelter for Women and Children
Agora Group, Goleta
H&L Properties, Long Beach;
Rural Community Assistance Corporation, Sacramento
Santa Monica Commission on Older Americans
Inquilinos Unidos, Los Angeles
West Contra Costa Conservation League, El Cerrito
Sober Living Network, Santa Monica
Santa Barbara County Legal Aid Foundation
Eden Housing, Inc., Hayward
Resources for Community Development, Berkeley
Shelter Partnership, Inc., Los Angeles
Local Initiatives Support Corporation, San Francisco
Interpersonal Developmental Facilitators, Inc., Pasadena
LINC Housing, Long Beach
Penny Lane, North Hills
Family Assistance Program, Los Angeles
East Palo Alto Council of Tenants
Common Ground Communities, Nevada City
Sentinel Neighborhood Housing Services of Orange County;
Bakersfield Homeless Center;
Coachella Valley Housing Coalition, Indio
Charter House Home Ownership Program
San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth
California Affordable Housing Law Project, Oakland
Low-Income Housing Fund, Los Angeles
Asian Law Alliance, San Jose
Community Housing Opportunities Corporation, Davis
Napa Valley Community Housing
Community Resource Associates, Clayton
CONTINUED
SB 1745
Page
5
Shelter, Inc., Concord
Chicano Federation of San Diego County
Sacramento Loaves and Fishes
Emergency Housing Consortium, San Jose
Berkeley Gray Panthers
Santa Monica Rent Control Board
Sisters of the Holy Names California Province, Los Gatos
Conference of Social Justice Coordinators of So.
California, Los Angeles
Sisters of St Joseph, Los Angeles
Sonoma County Housing Advocacy Group
Palo Alto First Presbyterian Church Society Committee
Urban Futures, Orange
Filipino American Service Group, Inc., Los Angeles
St. Francis Center, Los Angeles
Protection and Advocacy
St. Mary's Center, Oakland
Mercy Charities Housing California, Orange
WNC, Inc., Costa Mesa
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : Proponents contend that 30 days
notice is too short a notice period, particularly when the
tenant cannot afford the increase and must find a new home.
The problem is particularly acute in the San Francisco Bay
Area where rents have risen dramatically as the economy has
improved.
Western Center on Law and Poverty, sponsor of this bill,
asserts that low-income tenants, who are already paying
50-80% of their income for housing, need more time than 30
days to find replacement housing that is more affordable,
or to find more hours to work or more roommates to absorb
the additional cost, when they receive a rent increase.
Western Center asserts that vacancy rates, already at
historic lows, are even lower at the more affordable end of
the scale. Renters can no longer find new units in 30
days. Subsidized housing is no answer - waiting lists
exceed 10,000 families in most metro counties in the state.
The waiting time for a change to get a voucher, which may
or may not result in finding housing, is ten years in Santa
Clara County, eight to ten years in San Mateo County, and
three to six years in Monterey County, for example. (See
San Jose Mercury News, April 23, 2000.)
CONTINUED
SB 1745
Page
6
Proponents assert that an extended 60-day notice will at
least give tenants more time to find new housing or to
adjust their expenses to meet the new rental obligation.
For low and fixed income tenants, Western Center contends,
the extra time will also help those who live on tight
budgets with no elasticity. "It would seem that landlords
- aware of their expenses and budgets - would not be harmed
by providing tenants with more advance notice."
NC:cm 5/4/00 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED