Bill Text: CA SB364 | 2015-2016 | Regular Session | Amended
Bill Title: Residential real property: withdrawal of accommodations.
Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Democrat 2-0)
Status: (Failed) 2016-02-01 - Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56. [SB364 Detail]
Download: California-2015-SB364-Amended.html
BILL NUMBER: SB 364 AMENDED
BILL TEXT
AMENDED IN SENATE JANUARY 4, 2016
INTRODUCED BY Senator Leno
(Principal coauthor: Assembly Member Chiu)
FEBRUARY 24, 2015
An act to add Section 7060.8 to the Government Code, relating to
residential real property.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 364, as amended, Leno. Residential real property: withdrawal of
accommodations.
Existing law, commonly known as the Ellis Act, generally prohibits
public entities from adopting any statute, ordinance, or regulation,
or taking any administrative action, to compel the owner of
residential real property to offer or to continue to offer
accommodations, as defined, in the property for rent or lease.
This bill would authorize the City and County of San Francisco to
prohibit an owner of accommodations from filing a notice of an intent
to withdraw accommodations or prosecuting an action to recover
possession of accommodations, or threatening these actions, unless
all the owners of the accommodations have been owners of record for 5
continuous years or more, except as specified, or from doing so
with respect to property that the owner acquired within 10
years after providing notice of an intent to withdraw accommodations
at a different property. The bill would also permit the city and
county to require an owner of accommodations notifying the city and
county of an intention to withdraw accommodations from rent or lease
to identify each person or entity with an ownership interest in the
accommodations , and to identify all persons or entities
with an ownership interest in an entity. This information would be
available for public inspection. The bill would provide specified,
nonexclusive remedies that the city and county would be authorized to
impose for a violation of these provisions.
This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to
the necessity of a special statute for the City and County of San
Francisco.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.
State-mandated local program: no.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 7060.8 is added to the Government Code, to
read:
7060.8. (a) This section shall apply only to a city that is also
a county.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the city
and county by ordinance or ballot measure may provide that:
(1) (A) An owner of accommodations shall not
file a notice with a public entity of an intent to withdraw
accommodations pursuant to this chapter, prosecute an action to
recover possession of accommodations pursuant to this chapter, or
threaten to do either of these things, unless all the owners of the
accommodations have been owners of record for five continuous years
or more. If an owner of record is not a natural person, then all
persons or entities with an ownership interest in that entity shall
have held that interest for five continuous years. The
For purposes of determining whether all the owners of
the accommodations have been owners of record for five continuous
years or more, a change in the owner of record shall not occur under
either of the following circumstances:
(i) When a revocable trust is created and the accommodations are
transferred to the trust.
(ii) When the accommodations are inherited by a spouse, child or
children, or grandchild or grandchildren.
(B) The five-year ownership
requirement in this paragraph shall not apply to an owner of
accommodations who is a natural person,
person or persons, who owns no more than two properties, and
who owns no more than a total of four residential units. For
purposes of this subparagraph, an owner of accommodations who is a
natural person or persons includes an owner of accommodations held by
a revocable trust in which the beneficiary or beneficiaries is a
natural person or persons.
(2) If an owner of accommodations files a notice of intent with
the public entity to withdraw accommodations under this chapter, and
the owner subsequently acquires a new property containing
accommodations within 10 years of that filing, the owner shall not
withdraw accommodations pursuant to this chapter, prosecute an action
to recover possession of accommodations pursuant to this chapter, or
threaten to do either of these things, with respect to the later
acquired property. For purposes of this paragraph, an owner of
accommodations includes any person or entity with an ownership
interest in an entity that owns the accommodations.
(3) An owner of accommodations, or any person or entity with an
ownership interest in an entity that owns the accommodations, shall
not act in concert with a coowner, successor owner, prospective
owner, agent, employee, or assignee, to circumvent the limitations of
paragraph (1) or (2).
(4) An owner of accommodations notifying the city and county of an
intention to withdraw accommodations from rent or lease shall
identify each person or entity with an ownership interest in the
accommodations, and if any entity is not a natural person, identify
all persons or entities with an ownership interest in that entity.
This information shall not be confidential and shall be available for
public inspection.
(c) The city and county may provide that a person or entity that
violates the provisions described in subdivision (b) is liable to the
tenant or lessee for actual damages, special damages of not less
than two thousand dollars ($2,000) for each violation, and reasonable
attorney fees and costs in an amount fixed by the court. The remedy
provided by this section is not exclusive and shall not preclude
either the tenant or lessee from pursuing any other remedy provided
by law.
SEC. 2. The Legislature finds and declares that a special law is
necessary and that a general law cannot be made applicable within the
meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California Constitution
because of the recent significant increase in the evictions under the
Ellis Act in the City and County of San Francisco and the consequent
displacement of long-time residents and severe reduction of
availability of affordable rental housing in San Francisco.
