Mak v. City of Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board, 240 Cal. App. 4th 60 (2015)

7
they argue is preempted by the Act.4 The Santa Monica Rent Control Board and the City
of West Hollywood have submitted an amicus curiae brief arguing that “under the facts
of this case, Regulation 1016 is beside the point” because the Rent Board’s order must be
sustained simply by virtue of the terms of the Act. There is no question “that general state
law does not preclude [a] city from imposing maximum limits on residential rents within
its territory or from restricting the grounds for evicting tenants for the purpose of
enforcing those limits insofar as such control of rents and evictions is a proper exercise of
the police power.” (Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley (1976) 17 Cal.3d 129, 153.) Under the
Act, adopted in 1995, property owners have the unrestricted right “to impose whatever
rent they choose at the commencement of a tenancy” (Action Apartment Assn., Inc. v.
City of Santa Monica, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 1237), but the statute does not preclude the
application of rent control limits if “[t]he previous tenancy has been terminated by the
owner by notice pursuant to Section 1946.1.” (§§ 1954.53, subd. (a)(1); 1954.52,
subd. (a)(B)(i).) Since the Rent Board found, based on evidence the sufficiency of which
is not challenged, that the Burns tenancy was terminated pursuant to such a notice, it
follows without more that its order establishing the maximum rental rate for the property
(not claimed to be confiscatory) is valid and enforceable. As the trial court observed, the
agreement between Burns and the Maks may provide some evidence as to whether Burns
vacated the premises pursuant to the notice, but it is not dispositive and certainly is not
binding on non-parties to the agreement, such as the Rent Board and the Ziems. (S. G.
Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341, 349
[“The label placed by the parties on their relationship is not dispositive, and subterfuges
are not countenanced.”].)