It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this chapter to supersede any holding or portion of any holding in Nash v. City of Santa Monica, 37 Cal.3d 97 to the extent that the holding, or portion of the holding, conflicts with this chapter, so as to permit landlords to go out of business. However, this act is not otherwise intended to do any of the following:
(a)Interfere with local governmental authority over land use, including regulation of the conversion of existing housing to
condominiums or other subdivided interests or to other nonresidential use following its withdrawal from rent or lease under this chapter.
(b)Preempt local or municipal environmental or land use regulations, procedures, or controls that govern the demolition and redevelopment of residential property.
(c)Override procedural protections designed to prevent abuse of the right to evict tenants.
(d)Permit an owner to do any of the following:
(1)Withdraw from rent or lease less than all of the accommodations, as defined by paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 7060.
(2)Decline to make a written rerental offer to any tenant or lessee who occupied a unit at the time when the owner gave the public entity notice of its intent to withdraw the accommodations, in the manner and within the timeframe specified in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b), or in subdivision (c), of Section 7060.2. But the requirements of this paragraph shall not apply to:
(A)A unit that was the principal place of residence of any owner or owner’s family member at the time of withdrawal, provided that it continues to be that person’s or those persons’ principal place of residence when accommodations are returned to the rental market as provided in this section.
(B)A unit that is the principal place of residence of an owner when the accommodations are returned to the rental
market, if it is the owners’ principal place of residence, at the time of return to the rental market, as provided in this section. If the owner vacates the unit within 10 years from the date of withdrawal, the owner shall, within 30 days, offer to rerent if required under this paragraph.
(e)Grant to any public entity any power which it does not possess independent of this chapter to control or establish a system of control on the price at which accommodations may be offered for rent or lease, or to diminish any such power which that public entity may possess, except as specifically provided in this chapter.
(f)Alter in any way either Section 65863.7 relating to the withdrawal of accommodations which comprise a mobilehome park from rent or lease or subdivision (f) of
Section 798.56 of the Civil Code relating to a change of use of a mobilehome park.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
20
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1988–2022 · leading case:
Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (Cal. 2003).
Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (Cal. 2003).
· cites it 14× “" (Gov.Code, § 7060.7.) Nash involved a section of the Santa Monica City Charter that prohibited landlords from withdrawing rental units from the market absent a removal permit from the Santa Monica Rent Control Board.”
San Francisco Apt. Ass'n v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 3 Cal. App. 5th 463 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 7× “In addition to the statement of legislative intent contained in the Act (Gov. Code, § 7060.7), the various legislative committee reports concerning the Act indicate the Act was intended to overrule the Nash decision so as to permit landlords the unfettered right to remove all…”
Daro v. Superior Court, 151 Cal. App. 4th 1079 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 6× “” (Gov. Code, § 7060.7.) In Nash , our Supreme Court rejected a due process challenge to a procedure requiring landlords to obtain a removal permit from the City of Santa Monica before they could withdraw rental units from the market.”
Coyne v. De Leo, 26 Cal. App. 5th 801 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 3× “( [ Gov. Code, § 7060.7 ], subd. (d).)" ( Drouet , at p.”
Lincoln Place Tenants Ass'n v. City of Los Angeles, 155 Cal. App. 4th 425 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 3× “” (Id. at p. 171.) Yarmark did recognize that “Act contains explicit boundaries, leaving areas for local control in a fashion consistent with its terms.”
City of Santa Monica v. Yarmark, 203 Cal. App. 3d 153 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 6× “2, shall, by statute, ordinance, or regulation, or by administrative action implementing any statute, ordinance or regulation, compel the owner of any residential real property to offer, or to continue to offer, accommodations in the property for rent or lease.”
L.A Lincoln Place Invr's, LTD. v. City of Los Angeles, 54 Cal. App. 4th 53 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 5× “In addition to the statement of legislative intent contained in the Act (Gov. Code, § 7060.7), the various legislative committee reports concerning the Act indicate the Act was intended to overrule the Nash decision so as to permit landlords the unfettered right to remove all…”
Apt. Ass'n v. City of Los Angeles, 136 Cal. App. 4th 119 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006).
“” (Gov. Code, § 7060.7.) Notwithstanding the Ellis Act, a provision of the Santa Monica City Charter required a landlord seeking to withdraw a controlled rental unit from the housing market to obtain a removal permit from the Santa Monica Rent Control Board prior to removal of…”
301 Ocean Avenue Corp. v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd., 228 Cal. App. 3d 1548 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991).
“” (Gov. Code, § 7060.7.) Because the Legislature has so clearly indicated that a landlord’s right to go out of business is a fundamental vested right, we are not bound by Nash’s discussion on standard of review.”
Keh v. Walters, 55 Cal. App. 4th 1522 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 2× “56, subdivision (g) and Government Code section 65863.7. (Gov. Code, § 7060.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.