Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Appeal Continuance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rental Housing Committee postpones tenant‑landlord appeal after illness; petitioner opposed delay
Summary
The Rental Housing Committee continued an appeal tied to petitions C23240057 and C23240058 to the January meeting after counsel advised that the appellant/respondent’s illness justified a postponement; the petitioner asked the panel to decide tonight, but the committee voted to continue.
The Mountain View Rental Housing Committee voted Dec. 12 to continue the appeal of hearing officer decisions in petitions C23240057 and C23240058 to its January meeting after staff and legal counsel told the body the appellant/respondent is ill and unable to present their case.
Legal counsel advised that illness can be a valid ground for postponement and that proceeding without a party raises due‑process concerns. Staff recommended continuing the quasi‑judicial hearing so both sides can be heard at the same time.
The petitioner, identified in the record as Miss Garcia, urged the panel not to postpone. “I do not wish to postpone the hearing or the appeal hearing. I’ve already been through 3 of these hearings, and my health is not well,” she said, describing stress, medical needs and a harassment restraining order she had filed against a neighbor.
A representative for the landlord, who identified herself as Pam, said the tenant no longer lives at the unit and opposed a continuance, noting the respondent had been released from the lease. Committee members asked about the usual documentation and procedures for emergency postponements and were told regulations allow requests for postponement, ordinarily with seven days’ notice but that an emergency situation may warrant shorter notice and documentation when feasible.
Member Cox moved to continue the appeal so both parties could attend; the motion was seconded and passed. The minutes record the motion passing with four yeas and one abstention. The committee noted the item will return to a future meeting where both parties can participate.
The committee took no other action on the case at the Dec. 12 meeting.
