Section 1805

Citation: Section 1805
Parent Document: Ocean Park Associates v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 8 Cal. Rptr. 3d 421 (2004)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2004-01-07
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2295617/ocean-park-associates-v-santa-m... ↗

Full Text

1,398 chars

Counsel for the Board described the power granted by Regulation 4400 to initiate construction petitions as a mere “procedural device,” implying that construction petitions filed by the Board would inevitably have been the subject of tenant complaints. The facts in the present case demonstrate the artificiality of that line of reasoning. Despite being solicited by the Board and the tenants who filed the original four petitions, only three additional residents of the building came forward to file formal complaints. The hearing officer theorized that others felt intimidated or feared retaliation, but there was no evidence to support that conjecture. On the other hand, the petitions that were filed emphasized issues such as noise, dust, vibrations, and fumes— types of problems whose severity is dependant on the location of the apartment. The tenants who filed petitions described severe problems in these areas in their testimony at the hearing. The nonpetitioning tenants who testified had moderate or zero complaints about such matters. It is possible that the other tenants did not feel the impact of the construction as much as the tenants who filed petitions. The rationale behind the rule allowing Board-filed joint petitions—that tenants in the same building suffer the same deleterious effects from construction activities—is simply not borne out by the administrative record. *1066

Other Sections in This Document (140)

Full Text