HomeMy WebLinkAbout_Code Enf Appeal LogLink to Folder Appeal Status Admin Citation No. Date of Citation Last Name First Name Date Appeal Received Narrative Summary from Appeal, Comments & Notes Other Name(s) Address of Violation
Code(s) Violated Reviewer In-person Hearing? Department of Record Citing Officer Date Notice of Voided Citation Mailed Date Rejection Mailed Date Corrected Appeal Received Date Notice
of Hearing/Review Mailed Hearing Officer Assigned Date of Hearing Decision Date Notice of Decision Mailed Turn Around Time Litigated? Year Closed Item Type
42721 Citation Voided by City 42721 46091 Monfort Jonathan 46105 Citation will be rescind and reissued. Appellant has been advised that his appeal fee can be credited toward future appeal
or assessed fines.Code Enf processed the request for director review and upheld the citation. we can process the appeal after CAO review. Appellant alleges that the property is incorrectly
identified in R1 zone , and is in R4. Additionally. the owner has has continuous use of the property since the original CUP was issued as defined by the City without any lapse in use
greater than 1 year. Appellant has also submitted a request for director review requesting review the provided evidence of continuous fraternal activity and reinstate the validity
of our existing CUP. DELTA SIGMA PHI FRATERNITY 244 California Blvd 17.10.020 - Zoning Violation Hearing Officer Yes CDD R.Salem -46105 No 2026 Item
42734 Citation Voided by City 42734 46040 Brown Henry 46104 City voided Citations on 3/17/26We have here 2 citations with the same reference number / Address / Violations. the first
one was issued on 1/18/26 and the second one was issued on 1/30/26.Appellant alleges that the citation provides only a conclusory statement of “unpermitted use” without identifying
any specific conduct, activity, or factual basis demonstrating that a prohibited use occurred on the date listed. Appellant claims that the City has not provided evidence describing
what activity allegedly took place, whether this evidence is conclusive, or how it was observed. Additionally, Appellant alleges that the property in question is residential in nature.
The Municipal Code permits residential occupancy and incidental social use, and the citations do not establish that any activity exceeded what is ordinarily allowed in a residential
setting. Appellant claims that to the extent the City relies on online event listings or promotional materials, such materials do not establish that any event actually occurred at the
cited location on the specified date. Events are frequently modified, relocated, or cancelled, and listings do not reflect actual on-site activity. The City must demonstrate what occurred
at each property on each cited date and how such activity constituted a prohibited land use, which has not been shown. Consequently, the order to “cease the activity” is vague and fails
to provide clear guidance as to what conduct is prohibited, making compliance difficult. The appellant requests that the citation be overturned Appellant paid one appeal fee for both
citations issued on different dates . 281 Albert Dr 17.10.020 - Zoning Violation Hearing Officer Yes CDD R.Salem -46104 No 2026 Item
42755 Decision Issued - Completed 42755 46074 Brown Henry 46104 We have here 2 citations with the same reference number / Address / Violations. the first one was issued on2/6/26 and
the second one was issued on 2/21/26.Appellant alleges that the citation provides only a conclusory statement of “unpermitted use” without identifying any specific conduct, activity,
or factual basis demonstrating that a prohibited use occurred on the date listed. Appellant claims that the City has not provided evidence describing what activity allegedly took place,
whether this evidence is conclusive, or how it was observed. Additionally, Appellant alleges that the property in question is residential in nature. The Municipal Code permits residential
occupancy and incidental social use, and the citations do not establish that any activity exceeded what is ordinarily allowed in a residential setting. Appellant claims that to the
extent the City relies on online event listings or promotional materials, such materials do not establish that any event actually occurred at the cited location on the specified date.
Events are frequently modified, relocated, or cancelled, and listings do not reflect actual on-site activity. The City must demonstrate what occurred at each property on each cited date
and how such activity constituted a prohibited land use, which has not been shown. Consequently, the order to “cease the activity” is vague and fails to provide clear guidance as to
what conduct is prohibited, making compliance difficult. The appellant requests that the citation be overturned Appellant paid one appeal fee for both citations issued on different
dates . 388 Chaplin In 17.10.020 - Zoning Violation Hearing Officer Yes CDD R.Salem 46135 Whitney 46149 Citation Upheld 46160 45 No 2026 Item
42756 Decision Issued - Completed 42756 46094 Alonso Dominic 46101 Appellant alleges that the citations 2 and 3 are from the same day and they were not given notice regarding the second
citation before receiving the third one which did not give them a chance to correct the violations before getting another citation. Appellant alleges that section 1.24.050 (d) states
that each day may constitute an additional violation and section 17.10.020 does not make exception to that rule. KCB Rental Holdings LLC 501 Kentucky Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
17.10.020 - Zoning Violation Hearing Officer Yes CDD R.Salem 46135 Whitney 46149.625 Citation Upheld 46160 48.625 No 2026 Item
42617 Decision Issued - Completed 42617 46079 Hutchinson Russel 46086 Appellant alleges that they received a notice to correct that references inconsistent dates for the underlying event.
In addition, appellant claims thatthe simultaneous stacking of multiple citation tiers without intermediate enforcement steps appears inconsistent with the principle of progressive
enforcement.Appellant request that the higher-tier citation levels be set aside or otherwise modified to reflect a proportional and procedurally consistent application of the City's
administrative citation process. 385 Albert Dr, San Luis Obispo, 93405 17.10.020 - Zoning Violation Hearing Officer No CDD R.Salem Whitney 46141 Citation Upheld 46154 55 No 2026 Item
42584 Decision Issued - Completed 42584 46077 Zankich Kim 46085 The appellant alleges that the lease for her tenants expressly mentions that the residence can not be used for Fraternity
activities. Hillview Carson City LLC 1218 Bond street, San Luis Obispo 17.10.020 - Zoning Violation Hearing Officer Yes CDD R.Salem 46090 46092 Whitney 46141.5625 Citation Upheld 46153
56.5625 No 2026 Item
42007 Decision Issued - Completed 42007 46014 Ortega Anette 46038 Appellant alleges that the initial Notice to Correct dated in June 2025 is prior to their occupancy and does not pertain
to their operations at the site as their tenancy started in August 2025That since receiving notice of the September 9, 2025 citation, the House Board submitted a Conditional Use Permit
application for Parcel 052-071-008 (including the 1238 E Foothill address), which is currently under review. That with respect to the activity cited in September 2025, they acknowledge
that members utilized the residence to stage photographs that were later shared on the chapter’s official social media account. This activity was limited in scope and did not involve
a social event. The chapter is not hosting social events, recruitment activities, initiations, meetings, or fraternity-sponsored gatherings at the residence. Appellant requests reconsideration
of the violation determination and dismissal or reduction of the associated administrative citations. SLO RIDE 1225 LLC; Eta Rho House Board Corporation of Kappa Kappa Gamma Fraternity
1238 E. Foothill Blvd, San Luis Obispo, CA 17.10.020 Hearing Officer Yes CDD R.Salem 46058 Karlin 46077.5833333333 Upheld in Part - Dismissed in Part 46090 39.5833333333358 No 2026 Item
42012 Citation Voided by City 42012 46014 Adams Peter 46028 Appellant claims that citation should be voided as the notice of violation was sent to the wrong address and never knew that
there was a violation until they received the citationCode Enforcement reviewed the process of issuing the citation and decided to void the citation. 281 California Blvd , 93405 San
Luis Obispo, CA 17.10.020 Hearing Officer Yes CDD R.Salem -46028 No 2026 Item
42008 Decision Issued - Completed 42008 46014 Scarry David 46027 Appellant alleges that the property owner who did not host or participate in any event at this address and that the city
has not provided any actual lawful evidences that there is a fraternity operating at 1229 Fredrick. 1229 Fredericks San Luis Obispo 17.10.020 - Zoning Violation Hearing Officer No CDD
R.Salem 46030 46034 46058 Karlin 46077 Citation Dismissed - Appeal Granted 46090 50 No 2026 Item