SB 434 California Senate · 2025-2026 Regular Session

Residential care facilities for the elderly: housing protections.

Summary
Existing law provides for the licensure and regulation of residential care facilities for the elderly (RCFEs) by the State Department of Social Services. Under existing law, a licensee of an RCFE that sends a notice of eviction to a resident is required to include in that notice specified information, including the effective date of the eviction and resources available to assist the resident in identifying alternative housing. Under existing law, the RCFE is also required to notify, or mail a copy of the notice to quit to, the resident's responsible person. Existing law requires that a licensee of an RCFE provide a resident with a 30-day notice of eviction, except where the department has approved the RCFE to provide a 3-day notice. Under existing law, a violation of those provisions is generally a misdemeanor. This bill would extend the length of notice that a licensee is required to provide to a resident to 30, 60, or 90 days, depending on the length of the resident's residency in the RCFE, among other factors relating to nonpayment of the rate for basic services within 10 days of the due date. The bill would additionally require a licensee of an RCFE to include in a notice of eviction documentation of the licensee's reasonable efforts to create a safe discharge plan, and would require the plan to include a list of the resident's posteviction needs, goals, and preferences, and a list of discharge locations that meet specified criteria, such as being financially practicable for the resident. The bill would require that a copy of the notice be provided to the local long-term care ombudsman. The bill would prohibit an RCFE from refusing entry to a resident or prohibit a resident from residing in the facility until the notice period has elapsed and the eviction process has concluded. The bill would make refusal of entry in violation of these provisions subject to civil and criminal penalties. Because the bill would create a new crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Bill status failed 1 of 4 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2025
Committee Review
Floor Vote
Governor
Introduced Feb 18, 2025 Last action Feb 2, 2026
Maddy AI version diff · 3 comparisons

What changed between versions

03/24/25 - Amended Senate 04/01/25 - Amended Senate · 5 edits · Apr 1, 2025
MODERATE
The April 1 amendment to SB 434 makes three substantive policy changes: it adds a nonpayment exception that allows facilities to give only 30 days notice when evicting for nonpayment within 10 days of the due date, it clarifies the residency tiers for the 60-day and 90-day notice periods, and it doubles the acceptable radius for discharge locations from 30 to 60 miles. These changes make the bill somewhat more workable for facilities while maintaining expanded tenant protections.
ELIGIBILITY

A new exception was added to Section 1569.684(a): residents being evicted for nonpayment of the rate for basic services within 10 days of the due date are eligible for only 30 days notice, regardless of how long they have lived in the facility.

REQUIREMENT

The 60-day notice tier in Section 1569.684(b) was clarified to apply to residents who have resided for one year or more but less than two years (previously it said only 'one year,' which was ambiguous).

The 90-day notice tier in Section 1569.684(c) was clarified to apply to residents who have resided for two years or more (previously it said only 'two years').

The maximum distance for acceptable discharge locations was increased from 30 miles to 60 miles from the resident's preferred city, giving facilities a wider pool of potential placement options.

ENFORCEMENT

The penalty provision in the digest was narrowed from 'a violation of these provisions' to specifically 'a refusal of entry in violation of these provisions,' clarifying that civil and criminal penalties apply only to refusal-of-entry violations, not all violations of the section.

Floor votes

How they voted

No floor votes recorded yet.
Full legislative history

Actions timeline

Total actions
14
Key actions
5
Committee
4
Amendments
2
May 23, 2025
Upper · Passed
May 23 hearing: Held in committee and under submission.
upper
Apr 23, 2025
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 11. Noes 2. Page 834.) (April 22). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
upper
Apr 8, 2025
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 4. Noes 1. Page 682.) (April 7). Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
upper
Apr 1, 2025
Upper · Passed
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on HUMAN S.
upper
Mar 24, 2025
Upper · Passed
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on HUMAN S.
upper
Feb 26, 2025
Committee
Referred to Coms. on HUMAN S. and JUD.
upper
Feb 18, 2025
Introduced
Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
upper
1 primary · 1 co-sponsor

Sponsors