8
In all events, Regulation 1016 serves a valid purpose in specifying that the rental
rate of a new tenant may not exceed that of a former tenant who vacates pursuant to an
owner move-in termination notice, and creates a rational but rebuttable presumption that
simplifies the task of proof. The Maks argue that the regulation is preempted by the terms
of the Act that permit the owner to establish any rental rate for a new tenant but, as just
indicated, there is no inconsistency with or preemption by the statute since this
permission does not apply if the prior tenant vacates pursuant to a notice of termination.
Moreover, as also noted above, the Act expressly provides that it shall not “be
construed to affect the authority of a public entity that may otherwise exist to regulate or
monitor the grounds for eviction.” (§§ 1954.52, subd. (c), 1954.53, subd. (e).) The Maks
contend that this provision has no application to Regulation 1016, since unlike the rent
ordinance itself the regulation imposes no restrictions on the grounds for eviction and
merely limits the initial rent that may be charged to a new tenant. The Maks place heavy
reliance on the decision of this court in Bullard v. San Francisco Residential Rent
Stabilization Bd. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 488, which invalidated a provision in San
Francisco’s 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. The court rejected the argument that this mandate was authorized as a
means of regulating evictions because the provision applied “to landlords acting in good
faith as well as unscrupulous landlords” and was “contingent on the availability of
another unit, . . . provid[ing] only an occasional, weak deterrent.” (Id. at p. 491.) The
court’s rejection of “such a haphazard form of vacancy control” (id. at p. 492) provides
no basis for rejecting the measure here, which applies only if the owner has terminated
the prior tenancy based on a bad faith assertion of the intent to occupy the premises. We
agree with the trial court that Regulation 1016 “is a reasonable regulation of evictions, as
Berkeley can create an administrative deterrent to discourage landlords from serving less
than good faith owner move-in notices. As a means to deter owners from using a less
than good faith owner move-in notice under [Berkeley Municipal Code section]
13.76.130.A(9), Regulation 1016 is reasonably designed ‘to regulate or monitor the