## Facts

- Santa Monica’s Rent Control Charter Amendment created the Santa Monica Rent Control Board and authorized it to set rent ceilings, adjust ceilings, and set rents at fair and equitable levels to carry out rent-control purposes.
- The Board adopted Regulation 3304, permitting a landlord to petition for a rent increase if a tenant does not occupy the controlled unit as the tenant’s principal residence.
- Robert Bisno and his wife rented a rent-controlled apartment in Santa Monica beginning in 1996.
- After Regulation 3304 took effect, Bisno’s landlord petitioned for a rent increase on the ground that Bisno did not use the unit as his principal residence.
- Following an evidentiary hearing, a hearing officer approved a substantial rent increase (from roughly $1,111 to about $4,295 per month), later adjusted on administrative appeal within the Board to about $4,045 per month.
- Bisno sued for declaratory relief, contending Regulation 3304 exceeded the Board’s authority and conflicted with the Charter and other law.
- The superior court upheld Regulation 3304 and entered judgment for the Board; Bisno appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Rent Control Board exceeded its charter-based authority by adopting Regulation 3304’s principal-residence-based rent-increase mechanism.
2. Whether Regulation 3304 conflicts with the Rent Control Law, including the Charter’s definition of “tenant,” or improperly amends the Charter by regulation.
3. Whether Regulation 3304 is invalid because it frustrates rent-control purposes or suffers from constitutional or other legal defects.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment upholding Regulation 3304.
- The court held the Board acted within its delegated authority to adjust rent ceilings and set fair and equitable rents to fulfill rent-control purposes.
- The court concluded Regulation 3304 did not improperly redefine “tenant” or remove units from rent control; it provided a permissible basis for rent adjustments in a defined circumstance.
- The court rejected remaining challenges, finding no other defect rendering the regulation void.

## Legal Principles

- A rent-control board with broad charter authority to set and adjust rent ceilings may adopt regulations reasonably related to the enabling law’s stated purposes.
- A rule conditioning the level of rent-control protection on principal-residence occupancy can be a permissible method of targeting limited rent-controlled benefits to actual residents and discouraging nonresidential or speculative use.
- A regulation may adjust rent based on occupancy facts without amending a charter definition of “tenant,” so long as the regulation operates as an authorized rent-adjustment mechanism rather than a categorical exemption from coverage.
- Regulatory classifications tied to principal residence may satisfy constitutional review when rationally related to legitimate governmental objectives in addressing housing shortages, tenant protection, and fair-return concerns.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Santa Monica Rent Control Board Regulation 3304 as a valid exercise of delegated authority, permitting rent increases for controlled units not occupied as the tenant’s principal residence and rejecting claims that the rule conflicted with the Charter or was otherwise unlawful.


Bisno v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd., 130 Cal. App. 4th 816 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)