Sacramento Report

2005-2006 Legislative Session Comes to a Close

by Monica Williamson

As we come to the end of the 2005-2006 legislative session, the California Apartment Association has learned much about Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s inclination on housing bills. This year was the first year that we saw specific landlord-tenant legislation and general housing legislation move to his desk. He signed some of these bills and vetoed others. Industry experts could not have predicted his actions given his limited political and policy actions. Below is a recap of the priority bills on which the governor took action.

Governor Signs 60-Day Notice Legislation
Just hours before the state-mandated deadline, Governor Schwarzenegger signed AB 1169 (Torrico, D-Fremont), the 60-day notice legislation. In an attempt to mitigate opposition from the rental housing industry, language was added to the bill that blunts the effect of the law for landlords. The two most important changes are the long-term tenancy requirement (the 60-day notice requirement applies to tenancies of one year or longer) and, more importantly, a mandate to restart the one-year residency clock if a new tenant (presumably a new roommate) is added to the lease.

In his signing message, the governor expressed sympathy for disadvantaged tenants. “Being asked to move involuntarily is never easy, and moving is especially difficult for the elderly and persons with disabilities,” he commented. He further stated that AB 1169, “will help soften the blow by giving tenants time to deal with the financial pressures of moving.” In California’s tight housing market, arguments by proponents that invoked sympathy for displaced tenants clearly resonated.

Effective on January 1, 2007, rental property owners who wish to terminate a tenancy will be required to give a 60-day notice in lieu of a 30-day notice to any of their residents who have lived in a unit for one year or longer. If any resident has resided in the unit for less than one year, the historical 30-day notice provision is required. The law does not change any of the existing requirements that allow an owner to serve a 3-day notice for failure to pay rent or for failure to abide by the terms of the lease.

This law is scheduled to expire January 1, 2010, unless legislation is passed to modify this provision prior to that date. This means the industry will have another opportunity to provide hard evidence about the impacts of the 60-day notice. CAA urges rental property owners to begin submitting examples to your local representative, with as much detail as possible (such as specific damages that result from the 60-day notice).

Governor Signs Bills of Interest to the Industry

The governor also signed AB 2210 (Goldberg, D-Los Angeles). This bill creates a more efficient system for removing illegally parked vehicles from residential rental property. AB 2210 strikes a delicate balance between the rights of the vehicle owner, the property owner and the tenant with a right to the parking space at the property.

AB 2210 imposes necessary regulations for the towing of vehicles from private property and provides clarification for rental property owners and tenants who seek to remove improperly parked vehicles from the property. In addition, it addresses the privacy concerns of property owners and tenants by allowing a tow company to redact information from a written authorization to tow. The information to be redacted will help preserve the anonymity of the person authorizing the tow, thereby reducing the potential for any retaliation.

The bill also clarifies prior confusion in the law by clearly stating that the person authorizing the tow need not be physically present at the precise location of the tow (but must be on the property). Owners who have properties with fewer than 16 units need not be present at the property in order to authorize a tow. They must, however, provide a written authorization to the tow company within 48 hours of the time the vehicle is removed from the property.

The governor also signed AB 2865 (Torrico). This bill requires property owners/managers (or their authorized agents) who personally apply pesticides within a specified area to notify tenants who operate a day care facility on the rental property. This requirement is in addition to existing laws that require pest control companies to provide a notice prior to application, and mandates that owners who contract for periodic pest control provide a copy of the company’s notice to all new tenants.

Although the legislation was not intentionally targeted toward the rental housing industry, it expanded the definition of “school site” within the existing Healthy Schools Act to include all “child care facilities, including family day-care homes” operated by tenants on residential rental property. As a result, its provisions are applicable in rental property where a family day-care facility is operating. CAA has developed an “Issue Insight” that covers the notification requirements of the pesticide laws. Go to the “Resource Center” of CAA’s website for your copy.

Governor Vetoes Host of Bills
The governor vetoed SB 540 (Kehoe, D-San Diego), which would have allowed residents to post political signs or banners inside the rental unit. In his veto message, which provides guidance for future legislation, the governor wrote, “Freedom of speech is integral to a democratic society, as are private property rights. This bill protects neither and infringes on both. This bill would prevent a landlord from prohibiting the posting or displaying of campaign signs by a tenant on rented property. However, the bill would limit a tenant’s right to post campaign signs to those that meet certain size limitations and for a limited time immediately before an election. If the proponents of this measure believe that tenants have a right to express their political beliefs by posting signs on their rental property, why would they not have the right to express those beliefs whenever they choose? Do people lose their right to freedom of speech simply because they rent their property? Similarly, the bill seeks to offer a balance between the rights of tenants and the rights of property owners, but offers no clarity on the rights of property owners to control the appearance of their property and protect the environment for other tenants.”

In response to CAA’s opposition to AB 2712 (Leno, D-San Francisco), Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill, which promised to provide liability protection to property owners who may rent to registered sex offenders, but would have likely done no such thing. In his veto message to the Legislature, the governor wrote, “I sympathize with property owners who are faced with the problems presented by registered sex offenders. I cannot support legislation that may compromise the safety of families and children. Protection of our children from sexual predators should be the top priority and I encourage the Legislature to revisit this dilemma in more depth next session to develop a solution that protects both families and property owners.” CAA opposed this legislation because it would have made it easier for sex offenders to move into rental housing. Despite the author’s contention that it helped the rental housing industry by providing “liability protection” to a property owner if a sex offender harmed a tenant in the building, legal experts argued that the bill was seriously flawed.

SB 1745 (Kuehl, D-Los Angeles) provided that it was contrary to the public policy of the State of California to discriminate against a person in employment because he or she is a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking. In his veto message, the governor pointed out that although he supported the intent to ensure victims of these crimes have adequate protections, “this bill is too flawed to enact. California employers are currently required to take reasonable steps to provide a safe and secure workplace for all employees, including a duty to adequately address the potential for workplace violence. Because the precise employee rights and employer obligations under this bill are not defined, the combination of existing law and this bill would place employers in an untenable position. However well intentioned or worthy of consideration, this bill would create conditions that can only be resolved through the courts at great expense to employers and employees alike.” This bill initially included language that would have prohibited discrimination against domestic violence victims within the rental housing industry. Due to CAA’s concerns, that language was removed from the bill.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of SFAA or SF Apartment Magazine. Monica Williamson is CAA’s vice president of public affairs. Copyright © 2006 by SF Apartment Magazine. All rights reserved.