HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem B2 - Draft Resolution Denying Appeal and Upholding CitationR ______
RESOLUTION NO. ARB-____ -18
A RESOLUTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD OF THE
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL OF
ROGER ZANETTI 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 1:30 PM onMay 29, 2018, on the appeal of ROGER ZANETTI of Administrative
Citation No.12358 issued to Lorin E. Zanetti on March 5,2018 for violation of Municipal Code
Section 17.17.055 (front yard parking)(“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, (code enforcement officer’s notes, other documents, exhibits,
reports or other materials prepared by city staff or part of the administrative record)
relating to the code violation, were received and admitted as prima fascia evidence of
the appellant’s violation of Municipal Code section 17.17.055 (front yard parking), 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: ROGER ZANETTI
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;
Administrative Review Board Meeting of May 29, 2018
Item B2 - Administrative Citation Appeal
Resolution No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 2
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 photograph on the Administrative Citation, admitted as prima fascia
evidence under Paragraph 2 above, demonstrate that the citing code
enforcement officer, Dan Liddell , personally observed the violation.
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 ROGER ZANETTI 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 ______________________, seconded by _______________________, and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Administrative Review Board Meeting of May 29, 2018
Item B2 - Administrative Citation Appeal
Resolution No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 3
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2018.
____________________________________
Chairperson Date of Signature
Administrative Review Board Meeting of May 29, 2018
Item B2 - Administrative Citation Appeal