Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administrative Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pasadena board adopts new time‑waiver and de novo hearing rules, excludes 'new evidence' provision
Summary
By majority vote the board approved Chapter 6 amendments to codify postponement/time‑waiver procedures, valuation guidance referencing Civil Code 1941.1, and a de novo hearing standard limited to 'egregious circumstances' with a minimum 14‑day notice; the board explicitly excluded a provision allowing routine introduction of new evidence on appeal.
The Pasadena Rental Housing Board adopted amendments to Chapter 6 on Aug. 6 that formalize postponement and time‑waiver procedures, update valuation guidance to reference state habitability law, and set a high standard for conducting a board de novo hearing.
Senior hearing officer Stacy Horrow explained that staff's package adds codified procedures for board appeal postponements (staff will make determinations in many routine cases), requires a written time‑waiver form when hearings will be scheduled outside the regulatory 60‑day window (signed by both parties), and clarifies valuation guidance by directing hearing officers to consider conditions listed in California Civil Code 1941.1. "We included language for egregious circumstances as well as due‑process notice requirements," Horrow said of the proposed de novo‑hearing standard, adding staff's recommendation for a 14‑day notice to preserve fairness.
Board members raised procedural and substantive questions, especially whether the board should allow appeals to reopen the record and accept new evidence. After discussion the body adopted Option 1 from staff but moved and passed a substitute motion explicitly excluding the West Hollywood–style provision that would permit introducing new evidence at a regular appeal. The chair recorded the motion as passing by majority.
The resolution directs staff to publish the revised Chapter 6 text and to prepare a time‑waiver form and related templates for board use. Several members asked staff to bring back a separate, more robust discussion if the board later wants to consider rules about receiving new evidence in appeal hearings.
