BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1403
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 25, 2002
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Ellen M. Corbett, Chair
SB 1403 (Kuehl) - As Amended: June 12, 2002
As Proposed to Be Amended
SENATE VOTE : 21-14
SUBJECT : LANDLORD-TENANT
KEY ISSUES :
1)SHOULD LANDLORDS BE REQUIRED, UNTIL JANUARY 1, 2006, TO GIVE
60 DAYS NOTICE TO LONG-TERM TENANTS WHEN TERMINATING A
MONTH-TO-MONTH TENANCY IN ORDER TO PROVIDE TENANTS WITH
ADDITIONAL TIME TO FIND SUITABLE REPLACEMENT HOUSING?
2)SHOULD ADDITIONAL PROTECTIONS BE PUT INTO PLACE IN ORDER TO
CURB ABUSES OF THE ELLIS ACT WHEREBY UNSCRUPULOUS LANDLORDS
HAVE MISUSED THE LAW FOR THE PURPOSE OF EVADING LOCAL RENT
CONTROLS?
3)SHOULD LANDLORDS BE REQUIRED TO GIVE NOTICE OF THEIR INTENT TO
ENTER A DWELLING UNIT IN WRITING, EXCEPT IN SPECIFIED
CIRCUMSTANCES?
SYNOPSIS
This bill seeks to provide tenants who have been living in a
dwelling unit for one year or more with additional notice when
their periodic tenancy is terminated in an effort to help
address record-low vacancy rates. As proposed to be amended,
this bill requires a property owner to serve a 60-day notice to
terminate a month-to-month or other periodic hiring of
residential real property to a tenant who has resided in the
dwelling unit for more than one year. The bill provides that in
the case of a tenant who has resided in the dwelling unit for
less than one year, notice shall be given 30 days prior to the
proposed date of termination. In addition, an owner need only
provide 30 days notice where the owner is selling the unit and
certain conditions are met. Under the bill, all of the above
provisions sunset on January 1, 2006.
SB 1403
Page 2
As originally proposed, this bill would have permitted any city
or county that finds that its residential rental vacancy rate is
less than 10 percent to enact a local ordinance that requires a
landlord to give at least 60 days notice to tenants prior to
termination of a periodic tenancy without cause, essentially
permitting these communities to "opt-in" to last year's SB 985
(Kuehl) Chap. 729, Stats. of 2001.
In the Assembly Housing Committee, opposition groups argued that
the bill as originally proposed would lead to a patchwork of
different standards across the state as communities decided
whether or not to opt-in and require a 60-day notice instead of
a 30-day notice. Instead, these groups requested that the bill
be amended to apply statewide. The author agreed to this
amendment (as well as amendments relating to the Ellis Act
provisions in the bill, also requested by the opposition) and,
as a result, the following organizations indicated during the
Housing Committee hearing on the bill that they were no longer
opposed, as the bill was proposed to be amended: Apartment
Association of California Southern Cities, Apartment Association
of Greater Los Angeles, Apartment Association of Orange County,
Berkeley Property Owners Association, California Association of
Realtors, California Housing Council, Minority Apartment Owners
Association, San Diego County Apartment Association, and Santa
Barbara Rental Property Association. As noted below, the
California Apartment Association remains opposed.
In addition to the 60-day notice provisions, the bill, among
other things, also contains provisions requiring a landlord's
reasonable notice of his or her intent to enter the premises of
a dwelling to be in writing, except in an emergency or when the
tenant has abandoned or surrendered the premises and safeguards
to help curb reported abuses of the Ellis Act by landlords who
misuse the law for the purpose of evading local rent controls.
Proponents argue that the measure's 60-day notice is necessary
because a 30-day notice to move is simply not enough time for
most tenants to find replacement housing in a tight housing
market. If other considerations are involved, such as any
special needs of a senior or disabled member of the family, or
the schooling needs of a child, the ability to find suitable
replacement housing is even more difficult in a tight housing
market. Supporters also argue that the bill's provisions
concerning the Ellis Act are needed because some property owners
in rent controlled jurisdictions have evaded the local controls
SB 1403
Page 3
by using the Ellis Act to appear to "go out of business," only
to return the unit to the rental market two years later with a
sham tenancy that is soon vacated voluntarily, leaving the
property owner with a decontrolled unit that is re-rented at
market rate.
The California Apartment Association (CAA) remains opposed to
the bill, arguing that this bill is premature in light of last
year's SB 985, which requires a 60-day notice in the cities of
Los Angeles, Santa Monica, or West Hollywood. CAA further
argues that the bill will hurt good owners and tenants -
especially in low-income neighborhoods - by allowing problem
tenants to stay at the property twice as long as allowed under
current law. CAA also states that the bill adds more regulation
to an industry that should instead be encouraged to properly
manage their buildings in order to keep them free of nuisance
and crime. And, because current law offers no viable option for
removing problem tenants expediently, CAA argues the current
legal 30-day notice provision gives owners the only reasonable
way to remove tenants who create a nuisance.
SUMMARY : Seeks to provide tenants who have been living in a
dwelling unit for one year or more with additional notice when
their periodic tenancy is terminated in an effort to help
address record-low vacancy rates. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires a property owner to serve a 60-day notice to
terminate a month-to-month or other periodic hiring of
residential real property to a tenant who has resided in the
dwelling unit for more than one year.
2)Provides that, in the case of a tenant who has resided in the
dwelling unit for less than one year, notice shall be given 30
days prior to the proposed date of termination.
3)Provides that an owner need only provide 30 days notice if all
of the following conditions are met:
a) The dwelling or unit is alienable separate from the
title to any other dwelling unit;
b) The owner has contracted to sell the dwelling or unit to
a bona fide purchaser for value and has established an
escrow with a licensed escrow agent or a licensed real
estate broker;
SB 1403
Page 4
c) The purchaser is a natural person or persons;
d) Notice is given no more than 120 days after the escrow
has been established;
e) Notice was not previously given to the tenant pursuant
to this section; and
f) The purchaser in good faith intends to reside in the
property for at least one full year after the termination
of the tenancy.
4)Provides that the above notice provisions sunset on January 1,
2006.
5)Requires a landlord's reasonable notice of his or her intent
to enter the premises of a dwelling to be in writing, except
in an emergency or when the tenant has abandoned or
surrendered the premises and provides that the notice may be
personally delivered to the tenant at least 24 hours prior to
entry or mailed at least six days prior to the intended entry.
6)Provides that if the purpose of entry is to show the dwelling
unit to prospective or actual purchasers, the notice may be
given orally 24 hours prior to entry as long as the landlord
has notified the tenant in writing within 120 days of the oral
notice that the property is for sale and that the landlord may
contact the tenant orally to announce a showing of the
property.
7)Allows a court on its own motion or upon application of a
tenant, in case of hardship, to reinstate an evicted tenant to
a rental agreement (in addition to a lease as allowed under
existing law) provided that the tenant pays all rents due and
performs all required conditions and permits oral applications
by a person appearing in court without an attorney, as
specified.
8)Provides that, in a rent-controlled jurisdiction, a landlord
who files a notice of intent to withdraw a unit from the
market and later seeks to re-let that unit must re-let the
unit at the rent in effect at the time the notice of intent to
withdraw was filed, plus specified annual adjustments, for the
SB 1403
Page 5
following tenancies:
a) All tenancies commenced during the five-year period
after the notice of intent to withdraw the accommodations
is filed with the public entity, whether or not the notice
of intent is rescinded or the withdrawal of the
accommodations is completed pursuant to the notice of
intent; and
b) All tenancies commenced during the five-year period
after the accommodations are withdrawn.
9)Makes inoperative a provision of rent control law relating to
vacancy decontrol made obsolete by passage of the
Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires a 30-day written notice by either party to terminate
a periodic rental agreement, such as a month-to-month tenancy,
without stating a reason. (Civil Code section 1946. All
further statutory references are to this code unless otherwise
noted.)
2)Requires an owner of property in the cities of Los Angeles,
Santa Monica, or West Hollywood, until January 1, 2005, to
serve a 60-day notice to terminate a month-to-month or other
periodic hiring of residential real property to tenants who
have been living in a residential dwelling for at least one
year. (Section 1946.1.)
3)Permits a landlord to enter a rental unit for purposes of
inspection or repair, upon giving reasonable notice of an
intent to enter. This notice is not required in cases of an
emergency, when the tenant has abandoned or surrendered the
premises, or when impracticable. (Section 1954.)
4)Permits the court to relieve a tenant against a forfeiture of
the lease in cases of hardship and to restore the tenant to
the former estate, upon an application made within 30 days
after a forfeiture of a lease is declared by the court.
(Section 1179.)
5)Provides, under the "Ellis Act", that an owner of residential
real property in a rent-controlled jurisdiction cannot be
SB 1403
Page 6
compelled to offer or to continue to offer rental property for
rent or lease. However, any rental unit that is withdrawn
from rent or lease and that is again offered for rent or lease
for residential purposes within two years of the date that the
unit was withdrawn may be subjected again to local rent
controls, including re-imposition of the rent level applicable
when the unit was withdrawn and the owner may be subject to
civil suit brought by either or both, the former tenant and
the local public entity. (Government Code section 7060 et
seq.)
6)Requires any local jurisdiction that has a system of rent
control that does not allow for vacancy decontrol to permit
reasonable expenses, fees, and other costs for professional
services incurred in the course of successfully pursuing the
property owner's rights, including a fair rate of return, to
be included in any calculation of net operating income and
operating expenses used to determine a fair return to the
owner of the property. (Section 1947.15.)
FISCAL EFFECT : The bill as currently in print is keyed
non-fiscal.
COMMENTS : This bill, which seeks to provide tenants who have
been living in a dwelling unit for one year or more with
additional notice when their periodic tenancy is terminated in
an effort to help address record-low vacancy rates, was approved
by the Assembly Housing Committee on June 19, 2002 by a vote of
6-3. As noted below, most of the opposition has been removed by
the proposed amendments. In support of the measure, the author
notes:
This bill was introduced doing 5 things to help
tenants. As you remember last year, I carried SB 985
to provide tenants, evicted on no-fault of their own,
extra notice so they would have time to find safe,
affordable housing. In this committee, I limited that
bill's notice requirements to 3 of my cities last
year: LA, Santa Monica, and West Hollywood. After
this committee last year, several members requested
that their cities-faced with tight rental markets-also
be included in that bill. I gave them my word that
this year I would carry a bill to provide their cities
the option to adopt such an ordinance. In the
Assembly Housing Committee, in order to appease
SB 1403
Page 7
concerns of realtors and apartment owners who had been
in opposition to this bill, I amended the bill to
provide for a mandatory 60 day notice statewide. I am
happy to say that with this and a few other
amendments, the California Association of Realtors and
most of the state apartment associations have removed
opposition to this bill. Clearly, we have all finally
realized what Californians have known for years: it is
impossible to move your family, belongings, and find
safe affordable housing within 30 days.
Background: SB 985 (Kuehl). Last year, the Legislature enacted
SB 985 (Kuehl) to require landlords to give 60-days notice to
terminate a month-to-month rental agreement. As the author
notes above, as introduced, the measure applied statewide and
was intended to give tenants throughout the state additional
time to find replacement housing. In the Assembly, however, the
measure was pared back to only apply to three jurisdictions, Los
Angeles, West Hollywood, and Santa Monica, and only to tenants
who had resided in the unit for more than one year.
Furthermore, amendments were taken to include a sunset date of
January 1, 2005 and provide that the additional notice
requirement would not apply in a jurisdiction in which the local
rent board found that the vacancy rate in that jurisdiction
exceeded 10 percent.
Proposed Amendments Remove Most of the Opposition. As noted by
the author above, the proposed amendments remove most of the
opposition. As originally proposed, this bill would have
permitted any city or county that finds that its residential
rental vacancy rate is less than 10 percent to enact a local
ordinance that requires a landlord to give at least 60 days
notice to tenants prior to termination of a periodic tenancy
without cause. Like SB 985, the additional notice applied only
to tenants who had been living in a unit for more than one year.
In addition, the bill contained provisions amending the Ellis
Act which the opposition found objectionable.
In the Assembly Housing Committee, the opposition argued that
this "opt-in" approach would lead to a patchwork of different
standards for evictions across the state as communities decided
whether or not to opt-in and require a 60-day notice instead of
a 30-day notice. The groups indicated that most of them would
remove their opposition and go to a neutral position on the bill
if it was amended to apply statewide and if their concerns
SB 1403
Page 8
regarding the bill's Ellis Act provisions were addressed. In
response, the author agreed to amend her bill to incorporate
these approaches.
When the Assembly Housing Committee heard the measure on June
19, 2002, the following organizations indicated that they were
no longer opposed to the bill, as proposed to be amended:
Apartment Association of California Southern Cities, Apartment
Association of Greater Los Angeles, Apartment Association of
Orange County, Berkeley Property Owners Association, California
Association of Realtors, California Housing Council, Minority
Apartment Owners Association, San Diego County Apartment
Association, and Santa Barbara Rental Property Association. As
noted below, the California Apartment Association remains
opposed.
60-day Notice for Long-Term Tenants. This bill requires a
property owner to serve a 60-day notice to terminate a
month-to-month or other periodic hiring of residential real
property to a tenant who has resided in the dwelling unit for
more than one year. The bill provides that in the case of a
tenant who has resided in the dwelling unit for less than one
year, notice shall be given 30 days prior to the proposed date
of termination and an owner need only provide 30 days notice
where the owner is selling the unit and certain conditions are
met. Under the bill, all of the above provisions sunset on
January 1, 2006.
According to proponents, a 30-day notice to move is simply not
enough time for most tenants to find replacement housing in a
tight housing market. If other considerations are involved,
such as any special needs of a senior or disabled member of the
family, or the schooling needs of a child, the ability to find
suitable replacement housing is even more difficult in a tight
housing market.
Removal of Rental Units in Rent Control Jurisdictions (Ellis
Act). This bill provides that, in a rent-controlled
jurisdiction, all tenancies commenced during the five-year
period after the notice of intent to withdraw the accommodations
is filed with the public entity, whether or not the notice of
intent is rescinded or the withdrawal of the accommodations is
completed pursuant to the notice of intent and all tenancies
commenced during the five-year period after the accommodations
are withdrawn must be re-rented at the rent in effect at the
SB 1403
Page 9
time the notice of intent to withdraw was filed, plus specified
annual adjustments.
Under the Ellis Act, any withdrawn unit that is returned to the
rental market must be rented at the same rent level in effect
when the unit was withdrawn. However, when the first re-rental
tenant voluntarily vacates the unit, the unit is "decontrolled"
and the property owner may raise the rent for that unit to the
market rate. This vacancy decontrol is mandated by the
Costa-Hawkins Act. In addition, landlords who return a unit to
the market within two years of the date it was withdrawn are
liable for actual and exemplary damages to any tenant who was
displaced and subject to civil proceedings and damages by a
public entity.
According to the sponsor, this bill's provisions concerning the
Ellis Act are needed because some landlord attorneys have openly
advocated methods by which property owners in rent controlled
jurisdictions can evade the local controls by using the Ellis
Act to appear to "go out of business," only to return the unit
to the rental market two years later with a sham tenancy that is
soon vacated voluntarily, leaving the property owner with a
decontrolled unit that is re-rented at market rate. This
scheme, argue the proponents, is a misuse of the Ellis Act which
was intended to allow property owners to evict tenants without
cause in a rent controlled jurisdiction when the property owner
simply wanted to get out of the rental business.
Proponents assert that some property owners have "gamed" the law
by creating sham tenancies for the re-rental of the returned
unit. When the sham tenant leaves in a "voluntary vacancy"
after a short rental period, the rental rate for that unit is
decontrolled and the property owner gets to raise the rents for
that unit. Thus, when a property owner calculates that total
amount of increased rents will exceed the cost of taking the
unit off the market under the Ellis Act, it becomes a business
decision for the property owner. In the process, long-term
tenants are evicted from controlled units and must pay higher
costs for replacement housing.
The measure's provisions will also address another scheme being
used to evade local controls where a property owner files an
intent to withdraw the rental units from the market but works
out a deal with the tenant to voluntarily vacate, usually by
offering increased moving incentives, rather than going through
SB 1403
Page 10
the eviction process. Once the property owner has persuaded a
tenant to voluntarily vacate, the property owner may rescind the
withdrawal notice and return the unit to the rental market. In
that situation, since the prior tenant voluntarily vacated and
since the unit was never actually withdrawn, the owner is able
to charge a decontrolled market rent when that unit is
re-rented. Proponents assert, the property owner is also gaming
the system by making a business decision to fake an Ellis Act
withdrawal when a property owner calculates that the amount of
increased rents from a decontrolled unit will exceed the cost of
persuading a tenant to "voluntarily" move instead of waiting to
be evicted.
Reinstatement of Tenancy. This bill allows a court on its own
motion or upon application of a tenant, in case of hardship, to
reinstate an evicted tenant to a rental agreement (in addition
to a lease allowed under existing law) provided that the tenant
pays all rents due and performs all required conditions and
permits oral applications by person appearing in court without
an attorney, as specified.
According to the sponsor, this provision is necessary because
the Code of Civil Procedure allows a court to "relieve a tenant
against a forfeiture of a 'lease', and restore a tenant to his
former estate, in case of hardship." The issue in question is
the definition of the word "lease." The sponsors state that a
recent decision in which the court interpreted the word "lease"
literally and found that an elderly month-to-month tenant could
not seek reinstatement raises the need for the provision.
Service of Written Notice of Entry. This bill requires a
landlord's reasonable notice of his or her intent to enter the
premises of a dwelling to be in writing, except in an emergency
or when the tenant has abandoned or surrendered the premises.
The notice may be personally delivered to the tenant at least 24
hours prior to entry or mailed at least six days prior to the
intended entry. In addition, the notice may be oral, provided
specified conditions are met.
The sponsor argues that this provision is necessary because they
are aware of grievances filed by tenants complaining of abuses
of the landlord's right of entry. A complaint by female tenants
is that they are often surprised in their bedrooms or bathrooms
by a landlord or agent of the landlord entering the apartment
without notice, with the landlord or agent claiming that entry
SB 1403
Page 11
was necessary for inspection or maintenance purposes and it was
impracticable to give the notice.
This bill would address that problem by requiring a landlord to
serve written notice of the landlord's intent to enter the
premises. As with existing law, 24 hours would be presumed to
be reasonable notice in absence of evidence to the contrary.
Written notice would not be required in cases of emergency or
when the tenant has abandoned or surrendered the property.
Costa Hawkins Conformity. This bill makes inoperative a
provision of rent control law relating to vacancy decontrol made
obsolete by passage of the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act.
This is a technical clarifying amendment to a section of law
relating to former rent control rules which have not been
applicable since Costa-Hawkins has been in effect. According
the sponsors, this provision clarifies that the section of law
regarding recovery of fees in rent control administrative
proceedings is not operative unless the Costa-Hawkins Act is
repealed.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : Western Center on Law and Poverty, the
sponsor of the measures, states:
SB 1403 requires 60 days' notice for a "no-fault"
termination of a tenancy. SB 1403 gives tenants more
time when they are forced to move through no fault of
their own, such as when an owner wants to upgrade a
building, sell the property, or move in a relative.
This need for more time was dramatically illustrated
by the plight of the hundreds of tenants who recently
received "no fault" termination notices in Sacramento
and Santa Rosa, so that the owner could sell the
units. Media attention, proposed legislation (SB 617,
Ortiz), and lawsuits persuaded the landlord to
eventually give these tenants 90 days to vacate.
But the same scenario of no fault terminations is
repeated daily over and over in California, just not
on the same scale and without the media attention.
Legal services offices throughout the state are
reporting record numbers of clients coming to their
offices who have received 30-day notices and asking
what can be done. (About 1/4th of the clients who come
to seek help at Legal Services offices receive 30-day
SB 1403
Page 12
notices.) In most cases, the answer is clear --
nothing can be done. Current law generally requires
30 days' notice. Legislation enacted last year (SB
985, Kuehl) established a 60-day requirement in three
cities. The longer notice only applies to tenants who
have been in place for one year. Landlords have a year
to determine whether to evict a tenant on 30 days'
notice who may be causing problems.
As introduced, SB 1403 would have allowed cities to
opt-in to the 60-day requirement. Landlord groups who
opposed SB 985 and sought in this committee to reduce
that measure to a district bill now say that would
prefer a uniform, statewide application, rather than a
patchwork that might be created through opt-ins.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The California Apartment Association
(CAA) opposes this bill's provisions concerning 60-day notice
prior to terminating a tenancy, whether "opt-in," as originally
proposed, or statewide, as being considered by the Committee
today. CAA states:
A pilot program was initiated last year through SB 985
on this very subject in the cities of Los Angeles,
West Hollywood, and Santa Monica, and we believe that
the introduction of SB 1403 this year is premature.
Notwithstanding this pilot program, our objections
remain the same as last year. SB 1403 will hurt good
owners and tenants - especially in low-income
neighborhoods - by allowing problem tenants to stay at
the property twice as long as allowed under current
law. CAA members have a keen interest in ensuring the
peace and enjoyment of their existing customers -
their tenants - and SB 1403 will make this objective
more difficult to achieve.
At a time when the multi-family housing industry faces
much opposition from neighborhood groups that resent
apartments in their neighborhoods, SB 1403 allows more
regulation to an industry that should instead be
encouraged to properly manage their buildings in order
to keep them free of nuisance and crime. Because
current law offers no viable option for removing
problem tenants expediently, the current legal 30-day
notice provision gives owners the only reasonable way
SB 1403
Page 13
to remove tenants who create a nuisance.
Pending Related Legislation. SB 617 (Ortiz), which would
require a 90-day notice to terminate a tenancy when 50 or more
tenants are served by a single property owner within a 30-day
timeframe, a response to concerns that tenants affected by a
mass eviction would find it more difficult to find suitable
replacement housing, particularly in a tight rental market, is
awaiting a vote on the Assembly Floor.
Prior Related Legislation. SB 985 (Kuehl), Chap. 729, Stats. of
2001, requires an owner of property in the cities of Los
Angeles, Santa Monica, or West Hollywood, until January 1, 2005,
to serve a 60-day notice to terminate a month-to-month or other
periodic hiring of residential real property to tenants who have
been living in a residential dwelling for at least one year.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Western Center on Law and Poverty (sponsor)
ACORN
Advanced Development and Investment, Los Angeles
Affordable Housing Associates, Berkeley
Agora Group, Goleta
Alliance for Retired Americans
Allied Housing, Hayward
Barbara Sanders Associates, Oakland
Beacon Housing, Los Angeles
Bonita House, Oakland
Bridge Housing Corporation, San Diego
Bruce Reed Goodmiller Law Firm
Cabrillo Economic Development Corp, Saticoy
California Conference of Carpenters
California HIV Advocacy Coalition, S Ca Region
California Labor Federation
California Legislative Council for Older Americans
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
Center for Community Advocacy, Salinas
Century Housing, Culver City
Chicano Consortium, Sacramento
Children Now
CHISPA, Salinas
Citizen's for Responsible Growth, Vallejo
SB 1403
Page 14
Civic Center Barrio Housing Corporation, Santa Ana
Coachella Valley Housing Coalition, Indio
Coalition for Economic Survival
Community Housing Improvement Program, Chico
Community Interfaith Services, Carlsbad
Community of Friends, Los Angeles
Community Resource Associates, Clayton
Congress of California Seniors
Consumers in Action for Personal Assistance, San Francisco
Council of Churches of Santa Clara County
Council of Community Housing Organizations, San Francisco
Creative Support Alternative
Davis and Company, Los Angeles
East Bay Asian Local Development Corp, Oakland
East Bay Community Law Center, Berkeley
Enterprise Foundation, Los Angeles
Esperanza Community Housing Corp, Los Angeles
Fair Housing Council of San Diego
Fair Housing Council of the San Fernando Valley
Fair Housing Foundation, Long Beach
Faith Housing Corporation, Los Angeles
First Community Housing, San Jose
Fremont Fair Housing, Fremont
Friends Committee on Legislation
Gray Panthers of California
Great Northern Corporation, Weed
Hermandad Mexicana Nacional, Los Angeles
Hillview Mental Health Center, Lake View Terrace
Hollywood Community Housing Corporation
Homes for Life Foundation, Los Angeles
Homeward Bound of Marin
Housing Policy Network
Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco
Human Rights/Fair Housing Commission of the City and County of
Sacramento
Humana Economic Development Group, Los Angeles
Inglewood Neighborhood Housing Services
Jamboree Housing Corporation, Irvine
Kennedy Commission, Lake Forest
La Raza Centro Legal, San Francisco
Latin American Civic Assn Housing Dept, San Fernando
Los Angeles Coalition to End Hunger and Homelessness
Los Angeles Housing Law Project
Los Angeles Housing Partnership
Low Income Housing Fund, San Francisco
SB 1403
Page 15
Lutheran Social Services, S California
Many Mansions, Thousand Oaks
Marin Housing Council
Mercy Housing Corporation, San Francisco
Nancy Lewis Associates, Los Angeles
Naphtali Knox & Associates, Palo Alto
Neighborhood House Association, San Diego
Neighborhood Unitarian Universalist Church, Pasadena
New Economics for Women, Los Angeles
New Faze Development, Sacramento
O.N.E. Company, Los Angeles
Office of Social Concerns, Diocese of San Bernardino
Orange County Community Housing Corp, Santa Ana
Pacific Housing Development, Los Angeles
People's Self-Help Housing, San Luis Obispo
Planning for Elders in the Central City, San Francisco
Protection and Advocacy, Inc
Ralph Me Chur Architects, Santa Monica
Rural Communities Housing Development Corp
Sacramento City Councilmember David Jones
Sacramento Housing Alliance
Sacramento Loaves and Fishes
Sacramento Mutual Housing
Sacramento Neighborhood Housing Services
Santa Cruz Community Counseling, Santa Cruz
Santa Monicans for Renters Rights, Santa Monica
Second Somoan Congregational Church, Long Beach
Self Help Enterprises, Visalia
Senior Action Network, San Francisco
Service Employees International Union, State Council
Shelter Network, Burlingame
Shelter Partnership, Inc., Los Angeles
Skid Row Housing Trust, Los Angeles
Sober Living Network, Santa Monica
Society of St Vincent de Paul, Council of Los Angeles
South County Housing, Gilroy
Southern California Association of Non-Profit Housing
Squier Properties, Los Angeles
Sun Country Builders, Vista
Tenderloin Housing Clinic, San Francisco
Union Gospel Outreach, Los Angles
Vallejo Neighborhood Housing Services
Venice Community Housing Corporation
Vietnam Veterans of Ca, Sacramento Branch
West Hollywood Community Housing Corporation
SB 1403
Page 16
Westside Fair Housing, Los Angeles
Westside Regional Center, Culver City
WIN Project, El Segundo
Opposition
California Apartment Association
Analysis Prepared by : Saskia Kim / JUD. / (916) 319-2334