Under CA Civil Code 1950.5(l), are legitimate security deposits deducted before or after damages are calculated?

I have a question about CA Civil Code `1950.5(l) - treble damages/penalty for bad faith retention of security; applies to all residential rentals in CA. Pursuant to CA CC 1950.5(l) if landlord is found to have unlawfully withheld tenant's security deposit (SD), but a judge also finds that something should be deducted from SD (i.e. for cleaning not covered under normal wear and tear), then would that amount would be deducted from the treble/triple damages? (For argument's sake, let's say judge allows $100 for cleaning) For example, if your SD was $1,000, and the landlord didn't follow the requirements of CC 1950.5 and/or did not return any of your security, and a judge found in the tenant's favor that the security deposit was unlawfully withheld, would the judge start making deductions from $3,000, since the penalty for unlawfully held security deposit is treble damages ($1,000 x 3 - $100 = $2,900 net judgement to tenant), or would then $100 be deducted from the $1,000, and then the remainder used to calculate the triple damages (($1,000 - $100) x 3 = $2,700)? CA Supreme Crt -Granburry v. Islay - if landlord hasn't complied w/ requirements of CA CC 1950.5 in 21 days, and fails to return tenant's security deposit, it's sufficient to show bad faith on landlord's part, so as to entitle tenant to the treble/triple damages stated in Civil Code 1950.5(l), although, "proving" bad faith by landlord is not an element of CC 1950.5. Also, CC 1950.5 states that landlord's failure to comply with CC 1950.5 can "subject landlord..to statutory damages of up to twice the amount of the security, in addition to actual damages". The accurate calculation for punitive damages pursuant to CC 1950.5, is double the amount of deposit plus damages suffered by tenant {so if deposit was $1000 and landlord wrongfully kept $500, judge should award tenant $2,500).