The opinion
ROTHSCHILD, J., Concurring.
I write separately because my reasons for rejecting Borten’s arguments differ from the majority’s. In my view, Borten’s due process challenge fails because the application of the anti-eviction provisions to nonresident renters is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose.
First, Borten errs when she assumes that in order to survive due process review, the anti-eviction provisions must be rationally related to the stated purpose of the rent control law (i.e., providing affordable housing for residents). Under rational basis review, all that is required is a rational relationship to some legitimate government purpose, not to the actual or stated purpose. (See, e.g., FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc. (1993) 508 U.S. 307, 314-315 [ 124 L.Ed.2d 211 , 113 S.Ct. 2096 ].)
Second, application of the anti-eviction provisions to nonresidents is rationally related to the stated purpose of the rent control law. The Supreme Court has found that eviction controls are “a reasonable means of assuring compliance with maximum rent limits,” so application of the anti-eviction provisions to residents is not open to serious challenge. (Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley (1976) 17 Cal.3d 129, 152 [ 130 Cal.Rptr. 465 , 550 P.2d 1001 ].) But if nonresidents could be evicted without cause while residents could not, then landlords would have an incentive to rent to nonresidents rather than residents, because renting to nonresidents would give landlords greater control over the rented properties. It is rational for the city to deny that incentive to landlords in order to ameliorate the shortage of affordable housing for residents.
It might be objected that the city has already given landlords an incentive to rent to nonresidents instead of residents by allowing landlords to raise rent to market rates for nonresidents but not for residents. But the fact that the city has given landlords one incentive to rent to nonresidents does not mean that it is irrational for the city to refuse to give them other incentives as well. Rather, it is rational for the city to promote the availability of affordable housing for residents by refusing to give landlords additional incentives to rent to nonresidents instead of residents. Thus, given the undisputed legitimacy of the anti-eviction provisions for residents, application of those same provisions to nonresidents is rationally related to the purpose of providing *1492 affordable housing for residents—it denies landlords an incentive to rent to nonresidents rather than residents.
Finally, in addition to her due process challenge, Borten argues that the board’s application of the anti-eviction provisions to nonresidents exceeds the board’s authority under the rent control law. In support of this argument, Borten asserts that under our decision in Bisno v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 816 [ 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 441 ], the purpose of the rent control law is to provide affordable housing for residents, not for nonresidents, so the board does not have the power to extend the protections of the rent control law to nonresidents. Borten’s argument fails because, for the reasons I have already stated, the board’s application of the anti-eviction provisions to nonresidents is a reasonable means of providing affordable housing for residents.
A petition for a rehearing was denied August 28, 2006, and appellant’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied November 15, 2006, S146869.