Sacramento Report

CAA Continues to Impact Pending State Legislation

by Monica Williamson

At the time of this writing, the California Legislature has just passed the first committee deadline in the 2006 legislative cycle. CAA is pleased to report some early victories.

Megan’s Law
As previously reported, existing law gives rental property owners a conflicting directive: they must protect tenants from a known risk, but they are effectively prohibited from using the Megan’s Law database in order to do so.

CAA is sponsoring Assembly Bill 2603 (Parra, D-Hanford) to bring clarity to this issue as it relates to rental housing. In its original form, the bill sought to clarify that sex offenders are not a protected class for discrimination purposes. The Assembly Judiciary, in a unanimous vote, agreed with CAA that this issue is a problem. What they have not agreed on, however, is how to fix it. The committee passed AB 2603 as a work in progress and committed to continue working with CAA to devise a solution to this perplexing conundrum.

In other related developments, the attorney general has issued a long awaited opinion on this matter. On April 5, 2006, his office opined on the following question, sent by CAA: “Does the prohibition against the unauthorized use of registered sex offender information obtained from the California Megan’s Law website qualify registered sex offenders as a protected class for purposes of housing discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act?”

The attorney general concluded that the prohibition against a housing provider’s use of registered sex offender information from the website does not in itself make registered sex offenders a protected class. However, he expressly left open the possibility that registered sex offenders could be a class entitled to the protections against arbitrary discrimination under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The opinion was issued in response to the above question, submitted by Assemblymember Nicole Parra and CAA in early 2005. While his answer indicates that the limitation on use of the database, by itself, does not qualify registered sex offenders as a protected class, the opinion leaves open the possibility that, under case law regarding arbitrary discrimination, it could be argued that registered sex offenders are a protected class.

Domestic Violence
As previously reported, Senate Bill 1745 (Kuehl, D-Santa Monica) sought to develop protections for victims of domestic violence in housing and employment. As introduced, SB 1745 would have required residential rental property owners to take a number of steps to protect victims—including changing locks, prematurely terminating a lease and returning any security deposits to a fleeing victim (regardless of whether any original tenants remained in the unit).

All of these provisions have been removed from the bill. It has been amended to declare the intent of the Legislature to develop legislation that would protect victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking in their housing, and from housing and employment discrimination. CAA will continue to work with the author to clarify the rights and duties of property owners under any newly developed legislation.

Jury Waivers
CAA-sponsored Senate Bill 1386 (Morrow, R-Oceanside) and Assembly Bill 2258 (Villines, R-Fresno) were heard in the Assembly and Senate Judiciary Committees on May 2, 2006.

These bills would have allowed rental property owners and tenants to contract to voluntarily agree not to demand a jury trial in any controversy arising under the contract. In the rental housing context, jury waivers have been used as a means to delay eviction. In eloquent testimony from Rental Housing Association of Northern Alameda County (RHA) President Wayne Rowland to the Senate Judiciary Committee, he shared the challenges that rental property owners face when an unscrupulous defense attorney requests a jury trial at the last possible moment, simply as a way to delay the eviction process and demand large attorneys’ fees. While the committees were not willing to pass legislation that gave owners and tenants the ability to agree to waive a jury trial prior to a dispute, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Joe Dunn (D-Garden Grove) invited CAA to work with him to find a solution to stop the eviction delay tactics shared by Rowland. In 2005, CAA opened an investigation into the eviction delay tactics of attorneys throughout California. CAA will share this work with the chairman in the coming weeks.

Ellis Act
As introduced, SB 1834 (Alarcon, D-San Fernando Valley) would have defined “to go out of business” for the purposes of the state’s Ellis Act. The existing Ellis Act establishes the right for rental property owners to remove units from the rental market and limits the ability of local jurisdictions to infringe on this right. CAA opposed SB 1834 in its original version. Thereafter, on April 19, the author amended the bill to require disabled and senior tenants who ask for an extension to stay at the property (after the owner has filed a notice of intent to withdraw the units from the market) to provide written documentation supporting that request. In a recent development, the author has reported that he no longer intends to pursue this legislation.

Lead in Plumbing
AB 1954 (Chan, D-Oakland) proposes to replace California’s existing plumbing lead standards with an unprecedented low-lead standard far more stringent than any other state or federal law. The effect of this legislation would be to prohibit many current plumbing devices, such as faucets and fixture fittings, including backflow preventers and valves that are on the market today. Many experts believe that no manufacturer could now or in the future meet these proposed standards. If signed into law, this standard would effectively bring construction, remodeling and rehabilitation to a halt in California. The bill has moved out of the Assembly Committee on Business and Professions and is currently pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

60-Day Notice
Assembly Bill 1169 (Torrico, D-Fremont) is still pending. This bill would reinstate the 60-day termination notice requirement that expired after last year’s unsuccessful legislative attempt by proponents to remove the sunset date, thereby attempting to keep the 60-day requirements in state law. As of this writing, the bill has not been set for a hearing. CAA representatives anticipate it will be brought up for hearing near the end of this session.

Last year, similar legislation failed in the Assembly on a final vote of 36 to 32. The legislation needs 41 votes to move out of the Assembly and on to the governor for consideration. CAA staff has already met with those members who voted no or abstained on last year’s legislation. To date, these same assemblymembers have promised to remain consistent in their votes against extension of the 60-day notice law. Of course, the discussions with these members must continue as the bill moves closer to the Assembly floor.

We want to hear from you with stories about the negative repercussions that the last 60-day notice law imposed upon your business, and specifically upon your other tenants. Please write your stories and send them to us via fax at 916-447-7903, email rbicker@caanet.org or send by mail to California Apartment Association, 980 Ninth St., Suite 200, Sacramento, CA 95814. Don’t delay. Legislators will again want to hear from you. Please include your name, telephone number and address.

As these and other bills move through the process or are amended, we will continue to keep you informed. For additional updates go to CAA’s website at www.caanet.org.

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