California 2017-2018 Regular Session Status: Passed Assembly

AB 2364 — Rental control: withdraw from accommodation.

Last action — Read third time. Refused passage. (Ayes 25. Noes 36. Page 5663.).

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Assembly
  4. 4
    Passed Senate
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2017-2018 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Assembly” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

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. Existing law qualifies this prohibition by, among other things, permitting a public entity for which rent control is in effect to require an owner who offers accommodations for rent or lease again within 10 years after they are withdrawn to first offer them to a tenant or lessee displaced by that withdrawal if that tenant or lessee makes a request in writing within 30 days after the owner has notified the public entity of an intention to offer the accommodations again. Existing law, for tenancies commenced during either the 5-year period after any notice of intent to withdraw accommodations is filed or within the 5-year period after the accommodations are withdrawn, requires accommodations to be offered and rented or leased at the lawful rent in effect at the time any notice of intent to withdraw the accommodations is filed, plus annual adjustments, as specified. Existing law sets forth various provisions that govern an owner who offers an accommodation for rent or lease again within 2 years of the date the accommodations were withdrawn from rent or lease. An owner who fails to comply with these requirements is liable for punitive damages not to exceed an amount equal to 6 months of rent. This bill would revise the circumstances under which an owner may be required to offer accommodations to displaced tenants and lessees to eliminate the requirement that the request be made in writing within 30 days of notification, as described above, and would instead make the offer contingent on the tenant or lessee advising the owner of a desire to consider an offer. The bill also would require that the rental agreement or lease to be offered be the same as that in effect at the time of the displacement. The bill would extend the time period during which the various provisions govern an owner who offers an accommodation for rent or lease again after the accommodations were withdrawn from rent or lease from 2 years to 5 years, and would reduce the time that an action may be brought under these provisions to one year from 3 years of the date when the withdrawn accommodations are offered again for rent or lease. The bill would eliminate the limit on punitive damages. Existing law declares the intent of the Legislature, in enacting the Ellis Act, to supersede any holding or portion of any holding in Nash v. City of Santa Monica (37 Cal.3d 97) to the extent that the holding, or a portion of the holding, conflicts with the act by permitting landlords to go out of business, but provides specified instances where its provisions are not intended to apply, including not allowing an owner to withdraw from rent or lease less than all of the accommodations, as specified. This bill would additionally include permitting an owner to return less than all of the accommodations to the rental market within the items these provisions are not intended to allow.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Read third time. Refused passage. (Ayes 25. Noes 36. Page 5663.).

  2. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  3. Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading.

  4. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 7. Noes 3.) (May 8).

  5. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  6. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on JUD. Read second time and amended.

  7. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  8. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on JUD. Read second time and amended.

  9. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (April 25). Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  10. In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

  11. Re-referred to Com. on H. & C.D.

  12. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on H. & C.D. Read second time and amended.

  13. Referred to Coms. on H. & C.D. and JUD.

  14. From printer. May be heard in committee March 17.

  15. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

  • Bloom · Primary
  • Chiu · Cosponsor

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 1 co-sponsors · 120 not signed on · 10 voted No

Sponsors (1)

  • Bloom

Co-sponsors (1)

  • Chiu

Not signed on (120)

120 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 120 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

AB 2364 BLOOM Assembly Third Reading

Failed 25 Yea · 36 Nay · 17 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 202809
Democratic 5208
Republican 0600
Total 2536017
% of votes cast 32%46%0%22%
How each member voted (78)
Member Party Vote
Acosta — Nay
Bigelow — Nay
Bloom — Yea
Brough — Nay
Kiley — Nay
Maienschein — Nay
Mathis — Nay
Medina — Not Voting
Obernolte — Nay
Rodriguez — Not Voting
Santiago — Not Voting
Ting — Yea
Waldron — Nay
Weber — Not Voting
Eggman — Yea
Chiu — Yea
Gloria — Yea
Gonzalez Fletcher — Yea
Holden — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Fong — Nay
Salas — Nay
Levine — Nay
Low — Yea
Gray — Nay
Mayes — Nay
McCarty — Yea
Chau — Yea
Chu — Yea
Cooley — Nay
Cooper — Nay
Melendez — Nay
Mullin — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Quirk — Nay
Rendon — Yea
Thurmond — Yea
Voepel — Nay
Wood — Yea
Burke — Not Voting
Rubio — Not Voting
Harper — Nay
Kamlager-Dove — Not Voting
Baker — Nay
Chávez — Nay
O'Donnell — Nay
Steinorth — Nay
Cunningham — Nay
Daly — Nay
Frazier — Nay
Friedman — Yea
Cristina Garcia — Not Voting
Eduardo Garcia — Not Voting
Jim Patterson — Nay
Mark Stone — Yea
Travis Allen — Nay
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Not Voting
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Not Voting
Berman, Marc Democratic Not Voting
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Not Voting
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Not Voting
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Not Voting
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Nay
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Nay
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Limón, Monique Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Not Voting
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Not Voting
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Chen, Phillip Republican Nay
Choi, Steven S. Republican Nay
Dahle, Megan Republican Nay
Flora, Heath Republican Nay
Gallagher, James Republican Nay
Lackey, Tom Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended.

Passed 7 Yea · 3 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 5300
Democratic 2000
Total 7300
% of votes cast 70%30%0%0%
How each member voted (10)
Member Party Vote
Holden — Yea
Maienschein — Nay
Chau — Yea
Chiu — Yea
Kiley — Nay
Gonzalez Fletcher — Yea
Cunningham — Nay
Mark Stone — Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

housing
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does AB 2364 do?
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. Existing law qualifies this prohibition by, among other things, permitting a public entity for which rent control is in effect to require an owner who offers accommodations for rent or lease again within 10 years after they are withdrawn to first offer them to a tenant or lessee displaced by that withdrawal if that tenant or lessee makes a request in writing within 30 days after the owner has notified the public entity of an intention to offer the accommodations again. Existing law, for tenancies commenced during either the 5-year period after any notice of intent to withdraw accommodations is filed or within the 5-year period after the accommodations are withdrawn, requires accommodations to be offered and rented or leased at the lawful rent in effect at the time any notice of intent to withdraw the accommodations is filed, plus annual adjustments, as specified. Existing law sets forth various provisions that govern an owner who offers an accommodation for rent or lease again within 2 years of the date the accommodations were withdrawn from rent or lease. An owner who fails to comply with these requirements is liable for punitive damages not to exceed an amount equal to 6 months of rent. This bill would revise the circumstances under which an owner may be required to offer accommodations to displaced tenants and lessees to eliminate the requirement that the request be made in writing within 30 days of notification, as described above, and would instead make the offer contingent on the tenant or lessee advising the owner of a desire to consider an offer. The bill also would require that the rental agreement or lease to be offered be the same as that in effect at the time of the displacement. The bill would extend the time period during which the various provisions govern an owner who offers an accommodation for rent or lease again after the accommodations were withdrawn from rent or lease from 2 years to 5 years, and would reduce the time that an action may be brought under these provisions to one year from 3 years of the date when the withdrawn accommodations are offered again for rent or lease. The bill would eliminate the limit on punitive damages. Existing law declares the intent of the Legislature, in enacting the Ellis Act, to supersede any holding or portion of any holding in Nash v. City of Santa Monica (37 Cal.3d 97) to the extent that the holding, or a portion of the holding, conflicts with the act by permitting landlords to go out of business, but provides specified instances where its provisions are not intended to apply, including not allowing an owner to withdraw from rent or lease less than all of the accommodations, as specified. This bill would additionally include permitting an owner to return less than all of the accommodations to the rental market within the items these provisions are not intended to allow.
Who sponsors AB 2364?
AB 2364 is sponsored by Bloom and Chiu.
What is the current status of AB 2364?
This bill died with 2017-2018 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Assembly” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track AB 2364?
Track AB 2364 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 2364

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of AB 2364

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →