22
same property and offered for rent or lease within five years, the
newly constructed accommodations would be subject to rent
control, “notwithstanding any exemption from such a system of
controls for newly constructed accommodations, including any
such exemption enacted by Assembly Bill No. 483 of the 1985-86
Regular Session of the Legislature, if enacted.” (Sen. Bill 505
(1985-1986 Reg. Sess.) as amended May 15, 1985, § 1, p. 5, italics
added.) This and other references to Assembly Bill 483 were
removed by an August 28, 1985 amendment after Assembly Bill
483 failed, but the final version of Assembly Bill 505 retained the
phrase “notwithstanding any exemption from such a system of
controls for newly constructed accommodations.” (Stats. 1985,
ch. 1509, § 1, p. 5563; Sen. Bill 505 (1985-1986 Reg. Sess.) as
amended May 15, 1985, § 1)
We conclude based on the May 15, 1985 amendments to
Senate Bill 505 to address opponents’ concerns that landlords
might engage in fraudulent withdrawals of rental units to
circumvent rent control, as well as the later amendments to
Senate Bill 505 to address concerns that Assembly Bill 483 (the
former version of the Costa-Hawkins Act) could be construed to
supersede recontrol protections, that the Legislature intended the
specific recontrol provisions in section 7060.2(d) to prevail over
general decontrol provisions, such as those found in the later-
enacted Costa-Hawkins Act. We also note that section 7060.2(d)
of the Ellis Act was amended in a nonsubstantive manner in 2002
(Stat. 2002, ch. 301 (Sen. Bill No. 1403 (2002-2003 Reg. Sess.)
§ 5)), which as the court in Apartment Association, supra, 173
Cal.App.4th at page 29 observed, “shows that after Costa-
Hawkins was enacted, the Legislature continued to regard
section 7060.2, subdivision (d) as the law of this state.”