Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-15-2016 ARB - B2 - Rini AppealMeeting Date: 12/15/2016 Item: B2 2X ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: RINI APPEAL RECOMMENDATION FROM: Chief Deanna Cantrell, SLOPD BY: Christine Wallace, Neighborhood Outreach Manager BOARD’S PURVIEW The role of the Administrative Review Board is “to either uphold or revoke the administrative citation based upon a conclusion of whether the violation occurred. A decision must be supported by a majority of the applicable board.” (San Luis Obispo Municipal Code § 1.24.130) The administrative citation and any other documentation provided to the Board by city staff concerning a code violation “shall be accepted by the hearing officer or board as prima facie evidence of the code violation and of the facts stated in such documents.” (San Luis Obispo Municipal Code § 1.24.110(E)) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the citation issued to Christopher Rini on October 28, 2016 be upheld. SUMMARY In 1986, the City of San Luis Obispo adopted SLMC 9.20.050 Urination in public which states “No person shall urinate or defecate while on any city street, sidewalk, alley, roadway, parking lot, publicly maintained place or while in any other place, public or private, which is open to public view.” The violation of this law has a $350 fine for a first offense. The police department issues many public urination citations: in 2015, 320 citations were issued for public urination. From January 1 through October 31, 2016, 155 citations have been issued. The majority of these citations are issued to individuals in the Downtown area to individuals who have been patrons of the bars and nightclubs and make the choice to use public space as toilets instead of the bar/nightclub restrooms. As stated in the citations notes, Officer Hurni observed Mr. Rini urinating in public under the bridge adjacent to the public art “Globe”. The notes also state that Mr. Rini was apologetic which indicate he recognized that his actions were not legal. Staff recommends that the urination in public citation issued to Mr. Rini be upheld. 12-15-2016 ARB B2 - Staff Report B2 - Page 1 ALTERNATIVES Dismiss the citation. This is not recommended as the purpose of the citations and subsequent fines are to encourage a change in behavior. ATTACHMENTS 1. Notice of Hearing 2. Administrative Record 3. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code § 9.20.050 4. Draft Resolution Denying Appeal and Upholding Citation 5. Draft Resolution Granting Appeal and Dismissing Citation 12-15-2016 ARB B2 - Staff Report B2 - Page 2 12-15-2016 ARB B2 - Attach. #1: Notice of Hearing B2 - Page 3 12-15-2016 ARB B2 - Attach. #1: Notice of Hearing B2 - Page 4 RECENEQ NOV 0 7 2016 SLO CITY CLERK _ r..__ t rdation Appeal Form Wusi bs received by the CA 'J C19!,k veithi^ 10 days of data of Etat t:s) Jt ztwl('t .}il5 Ir 1. Appellant. N ame.Chr%lopheir George Rini Phone 562-296-3028 Address 133 Orange Drive, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Email 001-111 91'rail-com 2. Interest in Citation. (Place X in front of selection) . x A. Charged personally _B. Charged as owner of property 3. Administrative Citation. Date 10/2Bi2016 Number 198615 Address of property cited or location where an individual was cited: 670 Higuera Municipal code section(s) violated 9.20.050 Code viclation(s) being appealed 9.20.050 4. Reason for appeal. Give a brief statement why you are appealing, the relief or action sought, and why the notice of violation/administrative citation should be revoked, modified or otherwise set aside. The AMOUNT of the fine cannot be reduced in the appeal. Attach additional sheets as necessary. Any documents or photos you wish to submit in support of your appeal should be included with this form. (number of sheets attached 1 } See attached) 5. Election of Appeal Process. Nate: All citations for violation of Title 15 of the Municipal Code (building and related codes), even if other code violations are cited, will be automatically heard by the Construction Board of Appeals. No election is necessary. However, your check for $281 must accompany this appeal farm. For citations that do not charge a violation of Title 15, you must make a choice of an appeal process. At no charge, you may choose an expedited, less formal appeal process to a city hearing officer, whose final decision may be appealed directly to the superior court for de novo review pursuant to Government Code Section 53069.4. However, if you wish to retain your right to challenge the administrative citation, or any final city action related to the citation, in court by any writ action, you must appeal to the City Administrative Review Board for a more formal, comprehensive hearing to ensure preparation of an adequate administrative record, and pay an appeal fee of $281. To challenge that board's decision in court, you will need to file a petition for writ with the Superior Court, which may require the services of an attorney to prepare, and will require payment of the City's costs to prepare the administrative record (San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 1.24.140 C). Only one appeal process may be chosen, and once chosen, the election is final. Failure to request a hearing before the Administrative Review Board within the time for the filing of an appeal will result in the appeal being assigned to a hearing officer and will constitute a failure to exhaust administrative remedies for purposes of any subsequently filed writ action. I have read the above and choose: (Place X in front of selection) J A- Expedited appeal to hearing, afflcer (no writ to be sought) x B. More formal appeal to Administrative Heyigw-Beard (I may want to challenge appeal decision by writ). My check for 281 is enclosed. 6. Truth of Appeal. I declare under penalty of perjury that all of the facts stated in this appeal are true and that this appeal form was signed on 1110412016 (date) Ott seal Beach (city), California (state). If different from the address in Paragraph 1, the official mailing address to receive further notices from City relating to the appeal is: Street City Signature of Appell nt Chnstopher Rini Print name of Appellant State Zip Rev. 7/1/16 12-15-2016 ARB B2 - Attach. #1: Notice of Hearing B2 - Page 5 I am appealing this administrative citation because I do not deserve this citation, and having this on my record could unjustly preclude me from obtaining gainful employment working for the government. This, in turn, would also deprive the government of my engineering knowledge and derail my professional life, and for unjust reasons and ones not even related to my engineering or professional capacities. I am seeking for an agreement to be reached which will satisfy the accusers while still keeping this violation off of my record; I am seeking for the charges to be dropped. I am willing to work with the prosecution in order to accomplish this. In order to achieve this dropping of charges, I am willing to participate in some form of the Deferred Entry of Judgment (DEJ) Program, wherein when I successfully complete all of the terms and conditions of the program within the allotted time, the charges will be dropped and the case will be dismissed. The notice of administrative citation should be revoked because I am innocent until proven guilty and I do not believe that there is any evidence that I was guilty of the infraction that I stand accused of. I feel that having such an administrative violation on my record will unfairly affect my ability to be a productive member of society, and I am willing to work with the prosecution in order to achieve keeping these charges off of my record and to reach a mutually beneficial agreement that will benefit both sides. 12-15-2016 ARB B2 - Attach. #1: Notice of Hearing B2 - Page 6 DUPLICATE RECEIPT CITY OF SAN LUIS 05ISPO RECVD BY: FINANCE CASHIER 01000407545 PAYOR; STEVEN DALLE7.OTTE TODAY'S GATE: 11/07/16 REGISTER GATE: 11/07/16 TIME: 13:54 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CUST ID:APPEAL TO HEARING BOARD MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE $281.00 TOTAL DUE: $281.00 TENDERED: $281.00 CHANGE- $.00 CHECK $281.00 REF NUM: 199 12-15-2016 ARB B2 - Attach. #1: Notice of Hearing B2 - Page 7 12-15-2016 ARB B2 - Attach. #1: Notice of Hearing B2 - Page 8 12-15-2016 ARB B2 - Attach. #1: Notice of Hearing B2 - Page 9 12-15-2016 ARB B2 - Attach. #1: Notice of Hearing B2 - Page 10 12-15-2016 ARB B2 - Attach. #1: Notice of Hearing B2 - Page 11 RECENEQ NOV 0 7 2016 SLO CITY CLERK _ r..__ t rdation Appeal Form Wusi bs received by the CA 'J C19!,k veithi^ 10 days of data of Etat t:s) Jt ztwl('t .}il5 Ir 1. Appellant. N ame.Chr%lopheir George Rini Phone 562-296-3028 Address 133 Orange Drive, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Email 001-111 91'rail-com 2. Interest in Citation. (Place X in front of selection) . x A. Charged personally _B. Charged as owner of property 3. Administrative Citation. Date 10/2Bi2016 Number 198615 Address of property cited or location where an individual was cited: 670 Higuera Municipal code section(s) violated 9.20.050 Code viclation(s) being appealed 9.20.050 4. Reason for appeal. Give a brief statement why you are appealing, the relief or action sought, and why the notice of violation/administrative citation should be revoked, modified or otherwise set aside. The AMOUNT of the fine cannot be reduced in the appeal. Attach additional sheets as necessary. Any documents or photos you wish to submit in support of your appeal should be included with this form. (number of sheets attached 1 } See attached) 5. Election of Appeal Process. Nate: All citations for violation of Title 15 of the Municipal Code (building and related codes), even if other code violations are cited, will be automatically heard by the Construction Board of Appeals. No election is necessary. However, your check for $281 must accompany this appeal farm. For citations that do not charge a violation of Title 15, you must make a choice of an appeal process. At no charge, you may choose an expedited, less formal appeal process to a city hearing officer, whose final decision may be appealed directly to the superior court for de novo review pursuant to Government Code Section 53069.4. However, if you wish to retain your right to challenge the administrative citation, or any final city action related to the citation, in court by any writ action, you must appeal to the City Administrative Review Board for a more formal, comprehensive hearing to ensure preparation of an adequate administrative record, and pay an appeal fee of $281. To challenge that board's decision in court, you will need to file a petition for writ with the Superior Court, which may require the services of an attorney to prepare, and will require payment of the City's costs to prepare the administrative record (San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 1.24.140 C). Only one appeal process may be chosen, and once chosen, the election is final. Failure to request a hearing before the Administrative Review Board within the time for the filing of an appeal will result in the appeal being assigned to a hearing officer and will constitute a failure to exhaust administrative remedies for purposes of any subsequently filed writ action. I have read the above and choose: (Place X in front of selection) J A- Expedited appeal to hearing, afflcer (no writ to be sought) x B. More formal appeal to Administrative Heyigw-Beard (I may want to challenge appeal decision by writ). My check for 281 is enclosed. 6. Truth of Appeal. I declare under penalty of perjury that all of the facts stated in this appeal are true and that this appeal form was signed on 1110412016 (date) Ott seal Beach (city), California (state). If different from the address in Paragraph 1, the official mailing address to receive further notices from City relating to the appeal is: Street City Signature of Appell nt Chnstopher Rini Print name of Appellant State Zip Rev. 7/1/16 12-15-2016 ARB B2 - Attach. #2: Administrative Record B2 - Page 12 I am appealing this administrative citation because I do not deserve this citation, and having this on my record could unjustly preclude me from obtaining gainful employment working for the government. This, in turn, would also deprive the government of my engineering knowledge and derail my professional life, and for unjust reasons and ones not even related to my engineering or professional capacities. I am seeking for an agreement to be reached which will satisfy the accusers while still keeping this violation off of my record; I am seeking for the charges to be dropped. I am willing to work with the prosecution in order to accomplish this. In order to achieve this dropping of charges, I am willing to participate in some form of the Deferred Entry of Judgment (DEJ) Program, wherein when I successfully complete all of the terms and conditions of the program within the allotted time, the charges will be dropped and the case will be dismissed. The notice of administrative citation should be revoked because I am innocent until proven guilty and I do not believe that there is any evidence that I was guilty of the infraction that I stand accused of. I feel that having such an administrative violation on my record will unfairly affect my ability to be a productive member of society, and I am willing to work with the prosecution in order to achieve keeping these charges off of my record and to reach a mutually beneficial agreement that will benefit both sides. 12-15-2016 ARB B2 - Attach. #2: Administrative Record B2 - Page 13 DUPLICATE RECEIPT CITY OF SAN LUIS 05ISPO RECVD BY: FINANCE CASHIER 01000407545 PAYOR; STEVEN DALLE7.OTTE TODAY'S GATE: 11/07/16 REGISTER GATE: 11/07/16 TIME: 13:54 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CUST ID:APPEAL TO HEARING BOARD MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE $281.00 TOTAL DUE: $281.00 TENDERED: $281.00 CHANGE- $.00 CHECK $281.00 REF NUM: 199 12-15-2016 ARB B2 - Attach. #2: Administrative Record B2 - Page 14 12-15-2016 ARB B2 - Attach. #2: Administrative Record B2 - Page 15 12-15-2016 ARB B2 - Attach. #2: Administrative Record B2 - Page 16 12-15-2016 ARB B2 - Attach. #2: Administrative Record B2 - Page 17 9.20.050 Urination in public. No person shall urinate or defecate while on any city street, sidewalk, alley, roadway, parking lot, publicly maintained place or while in any other place, public or private, which is open to public view. (Ord. 1083 § 1, 1986) 12-15-2016 ARB B2 - Attach. #3: SLMC 9.02.050 B2 - Page 18 RESOLUTION NO. ARB-____ -16 A RESOLUTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL OF CHRISTOPHER RINI AND UPHOLDING ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION NO. 19866 WHEREAS, the Administrative Review Board of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California at 11:00 AM on December 15, 2016, on the appeal of Christopher Rini of Administrative Citation No. 19866 issued to him on October 28,2016, for violation of Municipal Code Section 9.20.050 Urination in Public (“Administrative Citation”); and WHEREAS, notice of said public hearing was made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Administrative Review Board of the City of San Luis Obispo duly considered all evidence, including the City’s Administrative Citation, the City’s supporting file and report, testimony of the appellant, interested parties, all written or other evidence, and evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at such hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Administrative Review Board of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The Administrative Review Board finds: 1. The above statements are true. 2. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 1.24.110 E, the Administrative Citation and supporting information, (police officer’s notes, other documents, exhibits, reports or other materials prepared by city staff) relating to the code violation, were received and admitted as prima fascia evidence of the appellant’s violation of Municipal Code section 9.20.050, Urination in Public, and prima fascia evidence of the facts stated in such documents. 3. The names of all people participating in the hearing and their capacity: a. Appellant: Christopher Rini b. Representative of appellant: ________________________________________ c. City staff: ______________________________________________________ d. Witnesses (indicate either FOR or AGAINST appellant: _________________ ________________________________________________________________ 4. The hearing was recorded by audio recorder; which recording is in the custody of the city clerk; 12-15-2016 ARB B2 - Attach. #4: Draft Reso - Deny Appeal B2 - Page 19 5. The appellant or designated representative was present. (or failed to appear). 6. If no one appeared on behalf of appellant, the appellant submitted written or other evidence (or failed to appear and failed to submit any evidence). 7. The following physical evidence, including, but not limited to photographs, maps, drawings, and documents, was submitted: __________________________________ 8. The board has decided to uphold the Administrative Citation. 9. The board found the following evidence credible in support of the decision: a. The notes on the Administrative Citation, admitted as prima fascia evidence under Paragraph 2 above, demonstrate that the citing officer,Officer Dinsmore, personally observed Appellant Rini commit the violation, and that Appellant Rini admitted the violation to Officer Dinsmore, b. Appellant failed to submit any credible evidence that the violation did not occur. 10. The due date for payment of the fine shall be ______________ (not less than ten days nor more than thirty days after the date the decision is mailed). SECTION 2. Action: Based on the above findings and evidence submitted in support thereof, the Administrative Review Board does hereby deny the appeal of Christopher Rini and upholds the Administrative Citation. 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, 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 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 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 a proof of service showing a copy of the appeal or petition for writ was served upon the city clerk. The petitioner must pay to the superior court the appropriate court filing fee when the appeal or petition is filed. Upon motion of Commissioner _______________________, seconded by Commissioner_______________________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 12-15-2016 ARB B2 - Attach. #4: Draft Reso - Deny Appeal B2 - Page 20 The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2016. ____________________________________ Chairperson Date of Signature 12-15-2016 ARB B2 - Attach. #4: Draft Reso - Deny Appeal B2 - Page 21 RESOLUTION NO. ARB-___________-16 A RESOLUTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING THE APPEAL OF CHRISTOPHER RINI AND DISMISSING ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION NO. 19866 WHEREAS, the Administrative Review Board of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California at 11:00 AM on December 15, 2016, on the appeal of Christopher Rini of Administrative Citation No. 19866 issued to him on October 28,2016, by the San Luis Obispo Police Department, for violation of Municipal Code Section 9.20.050, Urination in Public (“Administrative Citation”); and WHEREAS, notice of said public hearing was made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Administrative Review Board of the City of San Luis Obispo duly considered all evidence, including the City’s Administrative Citation, the City’s supporting file and report, testimony of the appellant, interested parties, all written or other evidence, and evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at such hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Administrative Review Board of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The Administrative Review Board finds: 1. The above statements are true. 2. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 1.24.110 E, the Administrative Citation and supporting information, (police officer’s notes, other documents, exhibits, reports or other materials prepared by city staff) relating to the code violation, were received and admitted as prima fascia evidence of the appellant’s violation of Municipal Code section 9.20.050, Urination in Public, and prima fascia evidence of the facts stated in such documents. 3. The names of all people participating in the hearing and their capacity: a. Appellant: Christopher Rini b. Representative of appellant: ________________________________________ c. City staff: ______________________________________________________ d. Witnesses (indicate either FOR or AGAINST appellant): _________________ ________________________________________________________________ 4. The hearing was recorded by audio recorder; which recording is in the custody of the city clerk; 12-15-2016 ARB B2 - Attach. #5: Draft Reso - Grant Appeal B2 - Page 22 5. The appellant or designated representative was present. (or failed to appear). 6. If no one appeared on behalf of appellant, the appellant submitted written or other evidence. 7. The following physical evidence, including, but not limited to photographs, maps, drawings, and documents, was submitted: 8. The board has decided to dismiss the Administrative Citation. 9. The board found the appellant presented credible evidence that the violation did not occur. SECTION 2. Action: Based on the above findings and evidence submitted in support thereof, the Administrative Review Board does hereby grant the appeal of Christopher Rini and dismiss the Administrative Citation. The fine is cancelled. Upon motion of Commissioner _______________________, seconded by Commissioner_______________________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________, 2016. ____________________________________ Chairperson Date of Signature 12-15-2016 ARB B2 - Attach. #5: Draft Reso - Grant Appeal B2 - Page 23