HomeMy WebLinkAbout4-17-2024 Item 3a, AmbergCity of San Luis Obispo, City Attorney’s Office, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401-3249, 805.781.7140, slocity.org
April 15, 2024
TO: Administrative Review Board
FROM: Mark Amberg, Assistant City Attorney and Advisor to the Board
SUBJECT: Draft Resolution for the April 17, 2024, Special Meeting of the
Administrative Review Board, Agenda Item 3a
Per the direction of the Board at its meeting on March 27, 2024, the attached resolution has
been drafted to memorialize the Board’s decision to uphold City Citation No. 00034623,
issued February 2, 2024, and to deny the appeal of property owner, Alex McLachlan. The
resolution states the Board’s decision, including a summary of the evidence the Board relied
on in making its decision and written findings of fact and law, and includes all other
components required under Municipal Code Section 1.24.130. The draft resolution is being
brought before the Board for further discussion and refinement or adoption at the public
hearing on April 17, 2024.
Board members are reminded and advised not to discuss between or among themselves, in
any manner or format, the draft resolution or any aspect of the Board’s decision, outside of
the public hearing to be held on April 17, 2024.
Any questions in advance of the April 17, 2024, meeting should be directed to Assistant City
Attorney Mark Amberg.
RESOLUTION NO. ARB-XX-24
A RESOLUTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD OF THE
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL OF
ALEX MCLACLHAN, OWNER OF 657 HOWARD STREET, AND
UPHOLDING ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION NO. 00034623.
WHEREAS, the Administrative Review Board (“Board”) of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a public hearing in Council Conference Room, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, commencing at 3:30 p.m. on March 27, 2024, on the appeal of Alex McLaclhan
(“Appellant”) of Administrative Citation No. 00034623 issued to Appellant on February 2, 2024
(“Administrative Citation”), for violation of structure set back requirements of San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code Section 17.18.020B at property owned by Appellant which is located at 657
Howard Street, San Luis Obispo, California (the “Subject Property”); and
WHEREAS, notice of said public hearing was made at the time and in the manner required
by law; and
WHEREAS, Section 1.24.100 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code establishes a right
to appeal an administrative citation issued by the director; and
WHEREAS, the Board duly reviewed and considered all documents and information
presented, including the Administrative Citation; the City’s staff report and accompanying
exhibits; the Appellant’s written appeal and accompanying documents, the oral presentations and
responses to questions at hearing by City staff and Appellant, all written or other information
submitted; and the evaluations and recommendations by staff presented at hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Administrative Review Board of the
City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The Board finds:
1.The above statements are true and correct.
2.Board members present:
a.Alex Karlin, Chair
b.Linda Mielke, Vice-Chair
c.Myles Couch, Member
3.The names of all individuals participating in the hearing and their capacity:
a.Appellant: Alex McLachlan
b.City staff: Nick Buckley, Code Enforcement Officer; John Mezzapesa, Code
Enforcement Supervisor; Sadie Symens, Assistant City Attorney and legal advisor
to City Code Enforcement staff; Mark Amberg, Assistant City Attorney and legal
Resolution No. ARB-XX-24 Page 2
advisor to the Board; Kelly White, City Analyst and staff liaison to the Board; and
Sarah Zion, Legal Assistant and administrative assistant to the Board
c. Additional Witnesses (either for or against Appellant): None.
4. The hearing was recorded by simultaneous audio and video recording, and such
recordings are in the custody of the City Clerk.
5. The Appellant was present for the public hearing.
6. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 1.24.110(E), the Board received the Administrative
Citation and supporting information (documents, photographs, exhibits, or materials
prepared by City staff) concerning the Appellant’s violation of Municipal Code Section
17.18.020B as prima facie evidence of the Appellant’s code violation and of the facts
stated in such documents.
7. The following items were submitted to the record, including, but not limited to,
photographs, drawings, and documents:
a. Appellant’s Administrative Citation Appeal, received February 8, 2024, including
accompanying Statement of Reasons for Appeal and accompanying photographs;
b. City staff report, posted to the City’s website on March 20, 2024, and
accompanying Attachments A through T.
8. The Board has decided to uphold the Administrative Citation 00034623, issued to
Appellant on February 2, 2024, for violation of the structure setback requirements of
Municipal Code Section 17.18.020B at the Subject Property, and to deny Appellant’s
appeal of that Citation.
9. Although Appellant’s appeal also notes three previous citations issued by the City, which
were a citation issued on July 11, 2023, a citation issued on August 2, 2023, and a
citation issued on October 31, 2023, no appeal of those citations was filed within the ten-
day period required by City code. Any attempted appeal of those citations was untimely,
so those citations were deemed final and they are not the subject of this appeal. The only
citation timely appealed is Administrative Citation 00034623, which is the only citation
considered by the Board.
10. The Board made the following associated legal findings to uphold the Administrative
Citation and deny the appeal:
a. Administrative Citation 00034623 was issued to Appellant for violation of
Municipal Code Section 17.18.020B for maintaining a structure (a shed) within
the five-foot set back distance from the side and rear property lines of Appellant’s
property prescribed by Municipal Code Section 17.18.020B, without any
Resolution No. ARB-XX-24 Page 3
exception listed in City Code or any exception that was requested or granted.
b. Although it appears Appellant has had significant disputes with his neighbor,
which may have included the removal of Appellant’s mailbox by his neighbor for
a period of time, and that Appellant may have been gone on vacation for a period
of time when Notices of Violation and Citations were mailed to Appellant and
posted on the Subject Property, City provided, and Appellant received, statutorily
required and sufficient notice of the Notices of Violation and the Administrative
Citation.
11. The following witnesses testified at the hearing: City Code Enforcement Officer Nick
Buckley, City Code Enforcement Supervisor John Mezzapesa, and Appellant Alex
McLachlan. The Board found the testimony of each witness to be credible. The following
summarizes the relevant testimony the Board finds most credible in support of its
decision:
a. Nick Buckley testified that he inspected/observed conditions on the Subject
Property on numerous occasions between December 2022 and the date
Administrative Citation that is the subject of this appeal was issued. These
inspections/observation of conditions were made from the yard of neighboring
property located at 667 Howard Street, to which code enforcement had access
with the permission of the property owner of 667 Howard Street, and from the
public right of way. From these inspections/observations, Mr. Buckley saw and
determined that a shed on the Subject Property was located within five feet of the
Subject Property’s side and rear property lines, in violation of the applicable five-
foot set back requirement of City Municipal Code section 17.18.020B. Mr.
Buckley further testified that he issued Notices of Violation and citations to
Appellant for the violation, including Administrative Citation 00034623, by
mailing the notices and citations to Appellant at the address of the Subject
Property and by posting the notices and citations on the door of the Subject
Property.
b. John Mezzepasa testified that, from a review of the City’s Community
Development Department files for the Subject Property, no requests were made
by Appellant for any exception to the five-foot set back requirement for the shed
in question on the Subject Property and no such exception was granted or
applicable.
c. Alex McLachlan testified that, although he disputes receiving one or more the
prior Notices of Violation and citations, he received and filed an appeal for
Administrative Citation 00034623. Mr. McLachlan also did not dispute that the
shed in question is located within five feet from the side and rear property lines of
Resolution No. ARB-XX-24 Page 4
the Subject Property.
12. The Board also finds the following physical evidence to be credible in support of its
decision to uphold the Administrative Citation and deny the appeal:
a. Multiple photographs showing the location of the shed in question next to or up
against the side and rear property lines of the Subject Property.
SECTION 2. Action: Based on the above findings, documentation, and information
submitted in support thereof, the Administrative Review Board hereby denies the appeal of Alex
McLachlan related to property he owns located at 657 Howard Street, San Luis Obispo, California,
and upholds Administrative Citation No. 00034623 issued February 2, 2024, for violation of the
setback requirements of City Municipal code section 17.18.020B. The due date for payment of the
fine, which is in the amount of fifteen thousand and no/100 dollars ($15,000.00), shall be thirty
(30) days after the date this resolution is mailed.
SECTION 3. Appeal or Review by Writ. This Resolution is the City of San Luis
Obispo’s final administrative decision, under Municipal Code Section 1.24.140(A), on the
Administrative Citation. A person contesting this decision may do so in either of two ways. First,
pursuant to California Government Code Section 53069.4(b)(1), within 20 days after the service
of this Resolution, a person contesting this decision may seek review by filing an appeal to be
heard by the Superior Court of the County of San Luis Obispo. Alternatively, a person contesting
this decision may file a petition for writ with the Superior Court of the County of San Luis Obispo.
The time within which the petition must be filed, and the applicable requirements are governed by
the California Code of Civil Procedure. Either the appeal or the petition for writ filed with the
court must contain proof of service showing a copy of the appeal or petition for writ was served
upon the city clerk. The petitioner must pay the superior court the appropriate court filing fee when
the appeal or petition is filed.
Upon motion of XX, seconded by XX, and on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Board Member Couch, Chair Karlin
NOES: Vice-chair Mielke
ABSENT: None
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 17th day of April 2024.
________________________________________________________________
Alex Karlin, Chairperson Date of Signature