Board affirms parking reduction for tenant at 532 E. Mountain St., remands rent-increase question to hearing officer

The Pasadena Rental Housing Board on July 16 affirmed a hearing officer's decision that tenants at 532 East Mountain Street should receive a downward adjustment in rent to account for the temporary loss of two on-site parking spaces, and sent the broader question about earlier rent increases back to the hearing officer for revision.

The board's action followed arguments from the property owner and the tenant at a public appellate hearing. The appellant, Sunshine Properties, told the board the parking restriction is temporary and authorized by a city permit for construction of an accessory dwelling unit, and that petitioners retain access to the spaces for most hours. Sunshine Properties said a proportional calculation of restricted hours would lead to a smaller monthly parking reduction than the hearing officer ordered.

Rosa Sanchez, who lives at 532 East Mountain Street and testified she has resided in the unit for nearly 30 years, described the practical burden. "It's been over a year now with the parking situation," her son Angel Sanchez told the board, and the family said the lack of a clear timeline and inconsistent construction hours have caused hardship, especially given Rosa Sanchez's health needs.

In deliberations board members emphasized duration and tenant inconvenience when deciding remedy. "The tenants are now paying for a service they don't have anymore," Board member Bell said during debate, urging the board to treat long-running loss of an amenity as a substantive reduction in housing services.

The motion on the floor instructed staff to affirm the hearing officer's finding on the decrease in housing services (parking) and to remand the decision to the hearing officer to amend the order with respect to alleged unlawful rent increases and to verify calculations. The board also confirmed that, when on-site services are restored, landlords must provide at least 30 days' written notice to affected tenants before restoring rent to pre-reduction levels, and that a compliance process is available if the restoration does not occur as represented.

The board took the action after public testimony and briefing from both sides; the transcript records robust questioning about how the charter's rent-rollback baseline (05/17/2021) and the annual general adjustment should be applied to past increases. Counsel and members discussed technical differences between a later-voided increase and a rolled-back increase under the charter.

The board passed the motion by roll call. The board directed the hearing officer to amend the order consistent with the board's ruling and to correct any mathematical errors in the prior decision.

Sunshine Properties had asked the board to revisit the hearing officer's calculation and to consider the temporary nature of the restriction, while the tenants urged a remedy reflecting the year-plus disruption. The board resolved the immediate service reduction in the tenants' favor and returned the remaining legal and accounting questions to the hearing officer for precise recalculation and drafting of a corrected order.

A separate remand means the parties may see a revised hearing-officer order rather than further appellate proceedings at the board. The board concluded the appeal hearing and then proceeded with the evening's agenda.