1041 20th Street v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd. (2019)

Citation: 1041 20th Street v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd. (2019)
Parent Document: 1041 20th Street v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd. (2019)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2019-07-30
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4644132/1041-20th-street-v-santa-monica... ↗

Full Text

1,868 chars

25
landlords a fair return. (§ 1800.) To accomplish this purpose, the
Board is empowered to adjust the rent ceiling and set rents at
fair and equitable levels. (§ 1803(f)(4), (5).) Section 1805(c)
allows a landlord to petition for an increase to the maximum
allowable rent. Section 1805(e) provides that the Board may
consider all relevant factors in determining its fair return
formula, including: “increases or decreases in operating and
maintenance expenses,” “necessary and reasonable capital
improvement of the controlled rental unit as distinguished from
normal repair, replacement and maintenance,” “substantial
deterioration of the controlled rental unit other than as a result
of . . . wear and tear,” “the landlord’s rate of return on
investment, the landlord’s current and base date Net Operating
Income, and any other factor deemed relevant by the Board in
providing the landlord a fair return.” Thus, the Rent Control
Law as written does not deprive 20th Street Owner of receiving a
constitutionally fair return. Furthermore, as City of Berkeley,
supra, 27 Cal.App.4th 951 held, any rent setting power “[is]
expanded by the constitutional requirement that the Board
provide landlords with a just and reasonable return on
investment.” (Id. at p. 962.) Because 20th Street Owner has not
petitioned for an increase to the maximum allowable rent, any
argument it will not receive a constitutionally fair return is not
ripe for review. (See Pacific Legal Foundation v. California
Coastal Com. (1982) 33 Cal.3d 158, 169 [“a basic prerequisite to
judicial review of administrative acts is the existence of a ripe
controversy”].) Accordingly, 20th Street Owner’s argument that
the Board’s, and this court’s, interpretation of section 1803(t) will
prevent it from receiving a constitutionally fair return is
unavailing. 26
                        IV. DISPOSITION

Other Sections in This Document (69)

Full Text