Skip to main content
INTERNAL PROTOTYPE — NOT LEGAL ADVICE — DO NOT SEND

Section 1808

Citation
Section 1808 (2b)
Parent Document
McHugh v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 777 P.2d 91 (1989)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
1989-08-17

Other Sections in This Document (387)

Full Text

1,314 chars
(2b) As noted above, the Board held hearings, heard testimony, and determined that plaintiff charged excess rents of $1,068 to tenant Plevka, and $600.50 to tenant Smith.[37] We conclude that such actions, although judicial in nature, are both authorized by the Charter Amendment and reasonably necessary to accomplish the administrative agency's primary, legitimate regulatory purposes, i.e., setting and regulating maximum rents in the local housing market. The Board's legitimate regulatory authority, and hence its incidental remedial authority, is circumscribed. It may not, and does not, hear and adjudicate all manner of disputes between landlords and tenants. Its authority is derived from the local police powers (Fisher v. City of Berkeley (1984) 37 Cal.3d 644, 655 [209 Cal. Rptr. 682, 693 P.2d 261]; Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley (1976) 17 Cal.3d 129, 140-142 [130 Cal. Rptr. 465, 550 P.2d 1001]), and extends only so far as necessary to set and regulate rents. Incidental to that legitimate primary purpose — and "in order to produce an efficient and effective administrative enforcement of the public interest" (Opinion of the Justices, supra, 179 A. 344, 346), the Board may review the rents actually charged, and order necessary adjustments to assure compliance with its price control regulations.