<p><b>BORTEN v. SANTA MONICA RENT CONTROL BOARD</b></p> <br /> <p><b> </b></p> <br /> <p align="center"><b> </b></p> <br /> <h1>Filed 8/14/06</h1> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"><b>CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION</b></p> <br /> <p align="center"><b> </b></p> <br /> <p align="center"><b> </b></p> <br /> <p align="left"> </p> <br /> <p align="center">IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA</p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center">SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT</p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center">DIVISION ONE</p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p><br /> <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="319" valign="top"> <br /> <p>LISA BORTEN,</p> <br /> <p> Plaintiff and Appellant,</p> <br /> <p> v.</p> <br /> <p align="left">SANTA MONICA RENT CONTROL BOARD,</p> <br /> <p> Defendant and Respondent.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td width="319" valign="top"> <br /> <p> B181840</p> <br /> <p> (Los Angeles County</p> <br /> <p> Super. Ct. No. BC251780)</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> </table> <br /> <p> APPEAL from a judgment of the <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">Superior Court of Los Angeles County</a>, George H. Wu, Judge. Affirmed.</p> <br /> <p> Law Offices of Rosario Perry, Rosario Perry and Renay G. Rodriguez for Plaintiff and Appellant.</p> <br /> <p> Caldwell, Leslie, Newcombe & Pettit, David Pettit, Michael Roth, Stephanie Christensen; David Daniels and Michaelyn Jones for Defendant and Respondent.</p> <br /> <p align="center">_____________________________</p> <br /> <p> In <i>Bisno v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd. </i>(2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 816, we held that the <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">Santa Monica Rent Control Law</a> requires landlords to subsidize rent for those who reside principally in their rent controlled units, but not the rent of those who use their rental units for other purposes. We upheld the Santa Monica Rent Control Board's Regulation 3304, which permits a landlord to petition the Board for a determination that a tenant is not using a rental unit as his primary residence, which determination (if favorable to the landlord) entitles him to raise the rent to conform to the more lenient statewide rent control law. In the case before us on this appeal, we explain that <i>Bisno </i>necessarily defeats a Santa Monica landlord's constitutional challenge to the Board's involvement with a â€