Staff asks board to narrow prehearing settlement conferences, add postponement rules and de novo safeguards

City staff and the board discussed a set of proposed procedural changes intended to make Pasadena's petition and appeal processes more predictable.

Stacy Harrow, the board's senior hearing officer, told the board staff is recommending that prehearing settlement conferences remain required for petitions for downward adjustment of rent but not be mandatory for petitions seeking upward adjustment (where hearing officers cannot lawfully facilitate agreements that would exceed the annual general adjustment). Harrow said the current use of settlement conferences for upward-adjustment petitions has frustrated landlords, consumed staff time and yielded no enforceable settlement because a hearing officer cannot approve an upward increase above AGA in that venue.

Staff also proposed codifying rules for postponement requests for board-level appeals (for example, requests for religious accommodations or translation), and adding a written time-waiver form to record party agreement when hearings are scheduled beyond the 60-day regulatory target.

Deputy City Attorney Martinez explained "de novo" review to the board and presented three options: adopt a standard (used by Santa Monica and West Hollywood) allowing de novo only for "egregious circumstances" that cause a manifest injustice and include a 14-day written notice if a de novo is continued to a later meeting (Option 1); adopt only the 14-day due-process notice but leave the standard undefined (Option 2); or keep the status quo (Option 3). Martinez emphasized that de novo hearings mean the board would act as the hearing officer and decide facts anew under a preponderance-of-evidence standard.

Board members and public commenters repeatedly stressed due-process protections. Several members favored Option 1'including adding a 14-day written notice period to give parties time to prepare'and asked staff to return with draft regulatory language. Members also asked staff for data about neighboring jurisdictions'how often those bodies hold de novo hearings and the operational cost of doing de novo review'so the board can decide how often it should exercise that power.

Staff recommended also aligning valuation guidelines with AB 628 and Civil Code section 1941.1 (which adds stove and refrigerator as habitability elements for leases created/changed on or after 01/01/2026), and asked whether the board wants prehearing settlement conferences renamed or recharacterized (they are useful for information exchange but misleading as "settlement" events for upward-adjustment petitions).

Board direction to staff: return with proposed amendment language that (a) limits mandatory prehearing settlement conferences to downward-adjustment petitions (or makes them optional for upward adjustments with clear notice), (b) defines postponement procedures and who decides them, (c) adds a party time-waiver form for hearings scheduled outside the 60-day frame, (d) updates valuation guidelines to reflect AB 628, and (e) provides draft de novo standards (staff suggested Option 1 with 14-day written notice). Staff said it would return with proposed language at the next board meeting.