S.F. Apartment Assn. v. City & County of S.F. (2022)

7
landlords from serving less than good faith owner move-in notices’ ” and that
“ ‘[v]iewed as a sanction for the misuse of owner move-in notices, [the
regulation] does not regulate “the initial rate for a dwelling unit” (. . .
§ 1954.53(a)) and is a permissible regulation of “the grounds for eviction” (. . .
§1954.53(e)).’ ” (Mak, supra, 240 Cal.App.4th at p. 69.) 6 Similarly, the city’s
amendment of its rent ordinance to deter landlords from using pretextual
rent increases to avoid local eviction regulations does not regulate “the initial
and all subsequent rental rates” for exempt units (§ 1954.52, subd. (a)) and is
a permissible regulation of “the grounds for eviction” (§ 1954.52, subd. (e)).
      Plaintiffs’ reliance on Bullard v. San Francisco Residential Rent
Stabilization Bd. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 488 is misplaced. In Bullard, the
plaintiff challenged a rent-control ordinance requiring a landlord who evicts a
tenant in order to move into the tenant’s unit to offer the tenant another unit
at comparable rent if another unit is available. (Id. at p. 489.) The court held
that the requirement that the landlord offer another unit at comparable rent
was preempted by the vacancy decontrol provision of Costa Hawkins. (Id. at
pp. 491–492.) The court rejected the respondent’s argument that the rent
restriction was not preempted because it was a regulation of evictions within
the meaning of Civil Code section 1954.53, subdivision (e) because the rent
restriction had “no logical connection to the basis for an owner move-in