18
family dwellings. Accordingly, we turn to the legislative history
and relevant extrinsic evidence to determine legislative intent.
(McHugh, supra, 12 Cal.5th at p. 227; Mendoza v. Fonseca
McElroy Grinding Co., Inc., supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 1125.)
The Legislature adopted the Ellis Act in direct response to
Nash v. City of Santa Monica (1984) 37 Cal.3d 97, in which the
Supreme Court upheld a Santa Monica ordinance requiring
property owners to obtain Board approval before demolishing
rental housing or converting it to condominiums. (See § 7060.7
[“It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this chapter to
supersede any holding or portion of any holding in [Nash] 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”]; see
also Apartment Association, supra, 173 Cal.App.4th at pp. 22-23
[“The purpose of the Ellis Act ‘is to allow landlords who comply
with its terms to go out of the residential rental business by
evicting their tenants and withdrawing all units from the
market’”].)
Senate Bill No. 505 (Senate Bill 505), which enacted the
Ellis Act, did not initially include section 7060.2. (Sen. Bill 505
(1985-1986 Reg. Sess.) § 1, as introduced Feb. 20, 1985.)
However, opponents of Senate Bill 505 argued the proposed law
would undermine local rent control ordinances and state laws
protecting tenants. As the Senate Judiciary Committee report
explained, “Opponents assert that the bill would ‘back-door’ local
rent control ordinances by limiting the effectiveness of eviction
standards and measures to preserve housing. They allege that
this bill could permit property owners to take a unit off the
market and evict the tenant under the pretext of going out
business, then relet the property as a new rental 6 months later.