HomeMy WebLinkAboutARB-03-18A RESOLUTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD OF
THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE
APPEAL OF TY SAFRENO AND UPHOLDING ADMINISTRATIVE
CITATION NO. 13404
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 3:00 PM on August 14, 2018, on the appeal of TY SAFRENO of Administrative
Citation No. 13404 issued to Santa Fe Technology, LLC, Attn: Trudie Safreno on June 21, 2018
for violation of Municipal Code Section 17.22.01 O(A) (unpermitted vehicle
storage) ("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 facie evidence of
the appellant's violation of Municipal Code section 17.22.01 O(A) (unpermitted
vehicle storage), and prima facie evidence of the facts stated in such documents.
3. The names of all people participating in the hearing and their capacity:
a. Appellant: TY SAFRENO
b. Representatives of appellant: Shannon Jones, attorney; Mike Cole, business
partner
c. City staff.- Roy Hanley, Deputy City Attorney, legal advisor to the Board; Kelly
White, staff liaison to the Board; City Clerk Teresa Purrington; Code
Enforcement Officer John Mezzapesa
d. Witnesses (indicate either FOR or AGAINST appellant): none
Resolution No. ARB-03-18
Page 2
4. The hearing was recorded by audio recorder; which recording is in the custody of the
city clerk;
5. The appellant or designated representative was present.
6. The following physical evidence, including, but not limited to photographs, maps,
drawings, and documents, was submitted: _City staff report including attachments 1-
10; Appellant's exhibits Al-A6.
7. The board has decided to uphold the Administrative Citation.
8. The board found the following evidence credible in support of the decision:
a. The Administrative Citation together with the attachments contained in the
staff report, admitted as prima facie evidence under Paragraph 2 above,
demonstrate that the citing code enforcement officer, personally observed
the violation.
b. Appellant failed to submit any credible evidence that the violation did not
occur and failed to submit credible evidence that there is a defense to the
citation.
10. The due date for payment of the fine shall be thirty (30) 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 TY SAFRENO and upholds
the Administrative Citation.
Resolution No. ARB-03-18 Page 3
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 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 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 Board Member Karlin, seconded by Chair Conaway, and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
Board Member Karlin, Vice Chair Pazdan, and Chair Conaway
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
None
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 10' day of August 2018.
l
Earl Conaway,<�Chairperson Date of Signature