24
guarantee a landlord the right “to go out of business.” (§ 7060.7.)
A landlord who, like Hirschfield, replaces multi-unit dwellings
with a single-family dwelling for rent has not gone out of the
rental business.
Our reading of the Legislature’s intent is consistent with
the legislative history of the Costa-Hawkins Act, which “indicates
that the Legislature did not intend for Costa-Hawkins to affect
the rights of tenants who were already living in residential units
subject to rent control.” (Apartment Association, supra,
173 Cal.App.4th at p. 25, fn. 9; see Enrolled Bill Rep. on Assem.
Bill No. 1164 (1995–1996 Reg. Sess.) July 27, 1995, p. 5 [“[t]he
intent of the sponsor is to permit the operation of rent controls
that affect an existing tenant but to limit the ability of localities
to control rent setting when rental housing is vacated”]; Sen.
Rules Com., Off. of Sen. Floor Analyses, 3d reading analysis of
Assem. Bill No. 1164 (1995-1996 Reg. Sess.) as amended July 20,
1995, p. 3 [the bill would “[p]reempt local rent controls on the
rental of ‘single family’ dwellings, but preserves protections for
existing tenants”].) Thus, under section 1954.52, subdivision
(a)(3)(C), where a dwelling that is “alienable separate from the
title to any other dwelling unit” (including a single-family
dwelling) was subject to rent control as of January 1, 1995, the
landlord would only be entitled to establish a new rental rate (not
subject to rent control) for tenancies created on or after January
1, 1996 (§ 1954.52, subd. (a)(3)(C)(i)), or for tenancies that were in
effect on January 1, 1995 “where the tenant has voluntarily
vacated, abandoned, or been evicted pursuant to [the procedures