13
clear the Legislature’s intent that a landlord has an absolute
right “to go out of business.” However, the Act affirms public
entities’ authority to regulate a landlord’s withdrawal from the
rental housing market. Among other things, public entities may
impose notice requirements and withdrawal procedures
(§ 7060.4); they retain the power to make and enforce laws and
regulations “to mitigate any adverse impact on persons displaced
by reason of the withdrawal” (§ 7060.1, subd. (c)); and they may
“grant or deny any entitlement to the use of real property,
including, but not limited to, planning, zoning, and subdivision
map approvals” (id., subd. (b)). Section 7060.7 further provides
the Ellis Act is not intended to “[i]nterfere with local
governmental authority over land use,” “[p]reempt local . . . land
use regulations, procedures, or controls that govern the
demolition and redevelopment of residential property,” or
“[o]verride procedural protections designed to prevent abuse of
the right to evict tenants.” (§ 7060.7, subds. (a)-(c).) “Considered
in its entirety, ‘the Ellis Act does not prohibit local governments
from providing procedural protections designed to prevent abuse
of the right to evict tenants (§ 7060.7, subd. (c)), [but] it
“completely occupies the field of substantive eviction controls over
landlords who wish to withdraw” all units from the residential
rental market.’” (San Francisco Apartment Assn. v. City and
County of San Francisco (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 463, 478.)
Section 7060.2 establishes the circumstances under which
property withdrawn from the rental market under the Ellis Act
can become subject again to rent control, commonly referred to as