Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Section 1805

Citation
Section 1805
Parent Document
Santa Monica Properties v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 203 Cal. App. 4th 739 (2012)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
2012-02-16

Other Sections in This Document (60)

Full Text

990 chars
The administrative record demonstrates that the RGB hearing examiner recognized these principles. The hearing examiner’s decision granting the rent *754reduction petitions included a finding of fact and conclusion of law that the amounts of $45 as to tenant Salvatore10 and $25 as to tenant Rosskam were “reasonable decreases to accomplish the purposes of the [RCL], including providing owners no more than a fair return on their properties . . . .” The problem with the hearing examiner’s finding regarding the purposes of the RCL is that there is no corresponding evidence in the administrative record to support the findings. We see no evidence in the administrative record to support the conclusion that SMP’s return increased $25 per month, or in any amount, or that Salvatore’s or Rosskam’s rent became excessive. Indeed, we see no evidence at all on the issues of whether the tenants’ rent or the landlord’s return was unreasonable after the change in the hot tub and sauna settings.