Housing Board Revises Appeal Procedures After Potential Brown Act Violations Foreseen

With its first three appeals now in the pipeline, the Pasadena Rental Housing Board voted Thursday to revise its hearing procedures after city staff cautioned that the board’s existing “tentative decision” mechanism could require member coordination outside a public meeting—raising potential Brown Act violation concerns. 

The revision establishes a process under which a city staff report and recommendation would be issued 10 days before an appeal hearing, as the board works to schedule hearings—to the extent practicable—within 60 days after an appeal is determined to be complete. 

The board adopted a resolution amending its Chapter 6 hearing procedures at its Jan. 15 meeting at Pasadena City Hall. The changes are intended to eliminate a process that city staff said could force board members to “communicate, meet, or otherwise convene outside of a regularly scheduled board meeting to discuss and draft” a tentative decision before an appeal is heard.

Senior Hearing Officer Stacey Haro told the board that city staff identified the risk while reviewing appeal procedures after receiving “our first three board appeal requests.” 

In the agenda report, city staff similarly wrote that the hearings division “recently received three requests for Board appeals” and concluded the tentative-decision option “may result in a potential Brown Act violation.” 

Under the adopted approach, rent stabilization staff will provide the board with a city staff report and recommendation 10 calendar days before the scheduled appeal hearing. 

The report will include city staff’s recommendation on whether the hearing officer’s decision should be “affirmed, reversed, modified, or remanded,” and it will be provided to the appeal parties, who may submit supplemental written material at least five days before the hearing date. 

City staff said the revised timing would also give board members a defined window to review the entire petition hearing record ahead of the public hearing, something the existing regulations do not expressly specify. 

The board adopted the resolution on a roll-call vote. 

Board members discussed the procedural implications of shifting from a board-generated tentative decision to a city staff recommendation, including concerns that appeal hearings could extend for an hour or more during regular meetings and questions about whether a written city staff recommendation could be perceived as influencing the board’s independence.

Henry said the board retains full authority to make its own determination on appeal. 

“We do have the latitude to disregard entirely the staff recommendation,” she said. 

Deputy City Attorney Allysa Martinez, responding to questions about timing, pointed to the appeal scheduling requirements discussed during the meeting and said delaying action would likely push the pending cases back. 

“Any delay tonight would prevent those from coming forward as planned,” Martinez said.