## Facts

- Berkeley voters adopted an initiative charter amendment establishing residential rent control.
- The amendment created a rent control board, imposed maximum rents, and set procedures for rent adjustments.
- The amendment required landlords to obtain a “certificate of eviction” from the board before seeking to recover possession of a controlled unit.
- Landlords filed a class action challenging the amendment’s validity.
- The superior court declared the amendment void and enjoined enforcement, reasoning that rent control required a serious public emergency and that Berkeley lacked such an emergency; it also found defects in the eviction-certificate requirement.
- The City of Berkeley and tenant-aligned interveners appealed to the California Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether residential rent control is valid only upon proof of a serious public emergency.
2. Whether state law preempts local regulation establishing maximum residential rents.
3. Whether an initiative charter amendment is a permissible method for adopting municipal rent control.
4. Whether the amendment’s procedures (including rent-adjustment mechanisms and the certificate-of-eviction requirement) exceeded constitutional limits of the police power by imposing unreasonable burdens on landlords.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part.
- The court held that rent control does not require proof of a serious public emergency to be a valid exercise of the police power.
- The court held that state law did not preempt the field of residential rent ceilings and thus did not invalidate local rent control on that ground.
- The court held that rent control could be adopted by initiative charter amendment.
- The court nevertheless invalidated substantial procedural components of Berkeley’s charter amendment because they imposed heavy, unjustified burdens on landlords, including procedures likely to cause unreasonable delays in rent adjustments and provisions tied to eviction control.
- The matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the court’s holdings.

## Legal Principles

- Economic regulation, including rent control, is constitutionally permissible when reasonably related to a legitimate governmental purpose; no special “emergency” prerequisite applies.
- A charter city may exercise broad municipal police power over local housing conditions, including rent ceilings, unless state law preempts the field or a direct conflict exists.
- State landlord-tenant law does not, by itself, occupy the field of residential rent ceilings so as to bar all local rent-control measures.
- Voters may enact rent control through an initiative charter amendment; the measure is not invalid merely because it bypasses city-council enactment.
- Rent control must include workable, timely adjustment procedures to avoid confiscatory operation; a scheme that predictably produces unreasonable delay in obtaining nonconfiscatory rents exceeds permissible police-power limits.
- Local eviction-related controls may be limited where they conflict with, or improperly intrude upon, state unlawful detainer procedures.

## Conclusion

The court recognized municipal authority to adopt rent control without an emergency finding and without categorical state preemption, and it approved the initiative-charter vehicle, but it struck down Berkeley’s specific amendment because its procedural structure—including rent-adjustment delays and eviction-certificate features—imposed unreasonable, potentially confiscatory burdens on landlords.


Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley, 17 Cal. 3d 129, 550 P.2d 1001 (Cal. 1976)