Assembly housing committee advances bill to lower rent cap, extend protections to single‑family rentals

At a hearing of the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee, members voted to advance AB 11 57, known in the hearing as the Affordable Rent Act, sending the measure to the Assembly Judiciary Committee by a 7‑5 vote.

The bill would lower the current statewide annual rent‑increase cap to “CPI plus 2% or 5%, whichever is lower,” remove an existing exemption that excludes many single‑family home rentals from tenant protections and eliminate the law’s scheduled sunset date, according to the bill’s author and witnesses who testified in support.

The provisions aim to expand tenant protections to roughly 2 million households that live in single‑family rentals and to reduce year‑to‑year rent volatility, supporters said. “When we first moved into our home, our rent was $14.25 a month. It's now $27.80. That's a 95% increase,” renter Tammy Alvarado told the committee during public comment, describing repeated annual increases on a single‑family rental in San Diego County. Leonor Godinez, who said she owns and manages a duplex in Oakland, told the committee she supports the bill: “I manage my property, ensuring I have the necessary funds to address any unforeseen expenses.”

Opponents, including landlord and development interests, said the bill would discourage housing production and would remove carefully negotiated protections for small owners. “In the words of the legislative analyst's office, rent control discourages new housing,” Deborah Carlson of the California Apartment Association told the committee. Kareem Griese, representing the California Building Industry Association, said the bill “seeks to eliminate that exemption. We find that extremely problematic,” arguing the single‑family exemption was intended to support small owners and generational wealth in communities of color.

Committee members debated competing priorities during the hearing. Some members said the bill addresses an urgent affordability and displacement problem that has worsened since 2019; others said reducing the cap could chill housing production and that the Legislature should weigh the measure against data on long‑term housing supply. Members asked the author and witnesses to continue bargaining‑table and technical discussions, including with the University Legislative Analyst and local government groups, if the bill moves forward.

The committee record shows extensive public comment: supporters included tenant advocacy and community groups who said renters are being priced out of long‑term homes; industry groups including apartment associations and small property owner groups urged a no vote, citing financing and production concerns.

Next steps: AB 11 57 was referred to the Assembly Judiciary Committee. The bill’s author and committee members said they expect further amendments and stakeholder negotiations ahead of subsequent hearings.

Context: The committee hearing drew large public turnout and dozens of on‑record comments that the committee clerk included in the official record. The bill’s sponsor and supporters framed the measure as an immediate tool to stabilize rents while the state continues to pursue longer‑term housing production and financing strategies.