Loading...
CD 17 Paul Drive; Code EnforcementRecord Without Fee,, Per GC 27383 and When recorded mail to: RECORDING REQUESTED, AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: LINDSAY LARA, Interim City Clerk City of San Rafael P.O. Box 151560 San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 -nn1111111111111l'i*Tyyl ll)]lllillllllfllilf +f - L)-0�L 01 tl 4 tiL Recorded Officiel Records Count} of M5nn RICHARD W. BENSID l Assessor -Recorder County ❑erk 09:Zeft--i 15-lan-M!S NOTICE OF CODE ENFORCEMENT ASSESSMENT LIEN BY CITY OF SAN RAFAEL Property Subject to Lien: 17 Paul Drive, San Rafael, CA 94903 Assessor Parcel No. 155-161-28 Legal Description: See attached Exhibit "A" Record Property Owner: Robert C. Fenton 17 Paul Drive San Rafael, CA 94903 REC FEE 03.Q0 CONFORMED COPY 0.0-10 Psgc i Of -L NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of San Rafael (herein referred to as "City"), claims a lien in the amount of $21,589.03 against the property located at 17 Paul Drive, San Rafael, CA 94903, also known as Assessor's Parcel No. 155-161-28 (herein referred to as "Property"). On October 6, 2017, following a duly noticed hearing at which evidence was presented pursuant to San Rafael Municipal Code Chapter 1.46, the Administrative Hearing Officer issued a Decision finding violations of the San Rafael Municipal Code, directing abatement of the violations, and ordering payment of the City's administrative costs in the amount of $7,489.03, (to include hearing officer and court reporter costs for the hearing) and civil penalties in the amount of $14,100.00 (see Invoice 1158 and pages 12-13 of the 10/6/17 Decision attached hereto as Exhibit "B") within 90 days of the date of the Decision. Payment of the foregoing administrative costs and civil penalties having not been made, the City now claims a Code Enforcement Assessment Lien against the Property, pursuant to San Rafael Municipal Code Section 1.46.160. DATED: January I�_, 2018 J M CHUTZ,y Manager Ci of San Rafael LIAo - 1-30 ACKNOWLEDGMENT A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. State of California County of Marin ) On 1 qT1 Q, before me, Lindsay Faye Lara, Notary Public (insert name and title of the officer) personally appeared Aim SC.h o fii , who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(sr) whose name(g) is/afe subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/shefthe"xecuted the same in his/heffthsir authorized capacity(ies}; and that by his/hem,zhei -signatures) on the instrument the person(.ar,or the entity upon behalf of which the persons- acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature Gam_ LINDSAY FAYE LARA r COMM. *2182818 z z Notary Public • Callfamla Marin County o (Seal) Cortwn, irn Fab• 10 2021 Exhibit A Exhibit A Legal Description APN: 155-161-28 The land referred to is situated in the County of Marin, City of San Rafael, State of California, and is described as follows: Being Lot 20 and a portion of Lot 19 as shown on that certain "Map of Northgate Industrial Park in the City of San Rafael, California", recorded on August 8, 1963 in Book 12 of Maps at Page 11, Marin County Records, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the most Westerly corner of Lot 20, as shown on Sheet 4 of the "Map of Northgate Industrial Park in the City of San Rafael, California", recorded August 8, 1963 in Book 12 of Maps at Page 11, Marin County Records; thence along the exterior boundary of said Lot 20 the following courses and distances: South 10° 13' 36" East 93.275 feet; thence North 79° 52' 00" East 242.875 feet; thence Northerly along a curve concave to the East, whose center bears North 79° 42' 00" East, having a radius of 80.00 feet through a central angle of 350 39' 33" for a distance of 49.79 feet to a point of reverse curvature, and thence Northerly along a curve concave to the West, whose center bears North 64° 38'27" West, having a radius of 80.00 feet through a central angle of 35° 39' 33" for a distance of 49.79 feet to the most Westerly corner of Lot 19, as shown on said Map (12 Maps 11); thence leaving the boundary of said Lot 20 and continuing along the Easterly boundary of said Lot 19, North 100 18'00" West 21.825 feet; thence leaving said boundary South 79° 42'00" West 272.727 feet to a point on the Westerly boundary of said Lot 19; thence along said Westerly boundary, South 10° 13' 36" East 21.825 feet to the point of beginning. Exhibit B City of San Rafael tJ RAP 1400 Fifth Avenue C7 F! San Rafael, CA 94901 US ��� 0 lY WITH BILL TO Robert C Fenton Marn European Motors, Inc Marin European Motors, Inc 17 Paul Drive San Rafael, CA 94903 Administrative Costs 1 2,787.94 2,787.94 Staff Reports 1 237.49 237.49 Hearing Officer Costs 1 4,263.60 4,263.60 Court Reporter Costs 1 200.00 200.00 Administrative Penalties 1 14,100.00 14,100.00 Administrative Hearing Decision and Order Nuisance Abatement Case No CE16-570 1400 FIFTH AVENUE SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901 W W W.CITYOFSANRAFAEL.ORG INVOICE October 20, 2017 Eric T. Davis, Deputy City Attorney If Institute for Office of the City Attorney Administrative Justice City of San Rafael P.O. Box 151560 San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 3200 Fifth Avenue UNIVERSITY OF THE Sacramento, CA 95817 Invoice Number: 2007-2 www.mcgeorge.edu Tel 916.739.7049 Invoice for conducting the administrative appeal hearing for Robert C. Fenton dba Fax 916-669.3005 Marin European Motors, Inc., and the City of San Rafael, which was held on September 13, 2017 by Hearing Officer Kimberly Buchholz. Type of Service _ Hours_ Review file/prepare for hearing _ 1.50 Conduct hearing 1.88 Write decision 16.00_ Total Hours 19.38 19.38 Hours x $220.00/hour = $4,263.60 Please make your check in the amount of $4,263.60 payable to University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law and mail it to: Pacific McGeorge School of Law Attention: Neil Glick 3200 5th Avenue Sacramento, CA 95817 F(I -aftfo,'„1a i>po�•n»g Bill To 229 Napa St. Rodeo, CA 94572 510-313-0610 City of San Rafael Laraine Gittens Office of the City Attorney San Rafael, CA 94901 Invoice Due Date Invoice Date Invoice # 10/20/2017 1 10112/2017 5831 Ship To City of San Rafael Laraine Gittens Office of the City Attorney San Rafael, CA 94901 Reporter Contract # Case Name - Number KA 9 13 Job Date Item Description Quantity Price Amount 9113/2017 Appeararux fce Half day 20000 20000 Marin European Motors Payment due upon receipt. 0.25% is due and applicable if not paid within 45 days. California Prompt Payment Act - Government Code, Section 027. Total $200.00 Small Business No. 12537 MSA 5-12-99-01 Tax ID 03-0595979 INSTITUTE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE Property address: UNIVERSITY OF THE PACIFIC 17 Paul Drive MCGEORGE SCHOOL OF LAW San Rafael, CA 94903 3200 Fifth Avenue APN: 155-161-28 Sacramento, CA 95817 Telephone: 916-739-7049 CITY OF SAN RAFAEL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION In the matter of: Robert C. Fenton (Property Owners) dba Marin European Motors, Inc. and Notice and Order issued by City of San Rafael ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING DECISION AND ORDER: Nuisance Abatement Case No.: CE 16-570 1. INTRODUCTION This matter was heard on September 13, 2017, in San Rafael, California, before Kimberly Buchholz, Hearing Officer for the Institute for Administrative Justice, University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law.2 The purpose of the hearing was to determine the following: whether to uphold the April 3, 2017, Notice and Order (Exhibit 1), issued by the City of San Rafael (City), stating that conditions on the property at 17 Paul Drive, San Rafael, California (Property), violate the San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC), Conditions of Use Permit 10-046 (UP 10-046), and the California Fire Code (CFC); whether the necessary corrective actions were completed within the time period required in the Notice and Order; and whether the administrative costs and administrative penalties sought by the City should be granted. II. APPEARANCES Lauren Monson, Deputy City Attorney, Larry Salvisberg, Senior Code Enforcement Officer, Luis Rodriguez, Code Enforcement Officer II, and Robert Sinnott, City of San Rafael Deputy Fire Chief, appeared on behalf of the City. Robert Fenton, Property Owner, also appeared. Julie Link, court reporter, was present. The City offered Exhibits 1-28, all of which 1 Robert C. Fenton is both the Property Owner and Business Owner of Pianos Export Corporation, Inc., dba Marin European Motors, Inc. '- Pursuant to Chapter 1.46 of the SRMC, the hearing on the Notice and Order may be heard by an Administrative Hearing Officer (Exhibit 25). Per SRMC section 1.46.110, "[tlhe administrative hearing officer shall assess administrative costs against the record property owner or other responsible person when such officer finds that a violation and/or public nuisance has occurred and that compliance has not been achieved by the compliance date specified in the notice and order." were admitted as evidence. The Hearing Officer received testimony from Officer Rodriguez, Chief Sinnott, and the Property Owner. The record was closed and the matter submitted for decision. III. JURISDICTION The Community Development Department, Code Enforcement Division (Department), has found that conditions on the Property constitute ongoing code violations of the SRMC. Those findings resulted in the April 3, 2017, Notice and Order issued by the Department pursuant to SRMC section 1.46.030 (Exhibit 1), and subsequent July 24, 2017, Notice and Order and August 22, 2017, Amended Notice of Hearing on Administrative Order' (Exhibit 19), advising the Property Owner to appear at a hearing to determine the existence of code violations, to what extent the necessary corrective actions were completed within the time period required in the Notice and Order, and an adoption of an administrative order, including imposition of civil penalties and administrative costs, if a code violation occurred and was not corrected within the required timeframe (SRMC section 1.46.060, SRMC section 1.46.080). Section 1.46.030(A) of the SRMC provides that whenever a code enforcement official has determined that a premises is in violation of the SRMC, including any codes adopted by reference, the code enforcement official may issue a written notice and order to the person(s) responsible for the code violation. The written notice shall include the following: the date and location of the violation; a description of the violation; the code section violated; the corrective actions required; the date compliance shall be achieved; a statement stating that if compliance is not achieved by the compliance date, that administrative civil penalties and administrative costs, as well as the costs of actual abatement by the city, may be imposed on the responsible person, and collected judicially or by special assessment or tax collection; a copy of SRMC Chapter 1.46 or an explanation of the consequences of noncompliance; and a description of the hearing procedure and appeal process (SRMC section 1.46.030). In the present case, the Department asserts that the Property conditions specified on the April 3, 2017, Notice and Order violate SRMC sections 4.08.020 and 14.22.070, UP 10-046, Conditions 5 and 10, and CFC section 503.1.1. The Notice and Order specified those conditions on the Property violating SRMC section 4.08.020 and CFC 503.1. t as "[f]ailure to provide minimum 20' access width along north side and rear of building." The Notice and Order specified those conditions on the Property violating SRMC section 14.22.070 and UPI 0-046, Condition 10 as "[v]ehicles blocking drive aisles." The Notice and Order specified those conditions on the Property violating SRMC section 14.22.070 and UP 10-046, Condition 5 as "[o]utdoor storage of non-operable vehicles." The Notice and Order listed the actions needed to correct the violations as "[p]rovide a minimum 20' access fire lane along the north side of the building in the main driveway that extends around the rear of the structure along the west side of the structure," "[r]emove vehicles to not block the drive aisles and to provide safe access to emergency and non -emergency vehicles," and "[r]emove non-operable vehicles." The Notice and Order also listed the following: the re -inspection date, scheduduled on or about June 5, 2017; the ' The July 24, 2017, Notice of Hearing on Administrative Order contained a typo, so the Department issued an Amended Notice of Hearing on Administrative Order on August 22, 2017. 2 location of the violation; the compliance date of June 2, 2017`; and a statement that uncorrected violations are subject to the issuance of administrative citations, or daily civil penalties up to $500 per day, per violation, and associated administrative costs. The Notice and Order included a Code Enforcement Explanation of Administrative Penalties for Non -Compliance and Extension Request Procedure document, which listed the following: a statement that if compliance was not achieved by the compliance date, the costs of actual abatement by the City may be imposed; a statement that if administrative penalties, administrative costs, or costs of actual abatement are imposed, the City may collect these amounts by civil action or by special assessment or tax collection; a statement explaining the consequences of noncompliance; and a description of the hearing procedure and appeal process. The Property Owner acknowledged he received the Notice and Order and was present at the hearing. The Property Owner made no objections regarding notice or jurisdiction. The Hearing Officer concludes that the efforts made by the City to notify the Property Owner of the alleged violations on the Property in the Notice and Order were adequate. IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW In code violation hearings held under the provisions of SRMC section 1.46.080, the City has the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that a code violation has occurred and that the code violation was not corrected within the time period specified in the notice and order (SRMC section 1.46.080(D)). The decision of the hearing officer shall be in writing and shall contain factual findings and determinations referenced by supporting evidence regarding the existence of each code violation described in the notice and order; and the failure of the responsible person and/or record property owner to take corrective action within the time period required in the notice and order (SRMC section 1.46.080(C)). V. ISSUES 1. Do conditions on the Property as identified in the Notice and Order constitute violations of SRMC sections 4.08.020, 14.22.070, CFC section 503.1.1, and UP10- 046, Conditions 5 and 10? 2. If so, were the necessary corrective actions completed within the required compliance date listed in the Notice and Order? 3. If conditions on the Property constitute violations of SRMC sections 4.08.020, 14.22.070, CFC section 503.1.1, and UP10-046, Conditions 5 and 10, what action must be taken to correct the violation(s)? 'During the hearing, Officer Rodriguez testified that on June 5, 2017, he verbally granted to Mr. Fenton an extension of the compliance date to June 9, 2017. 4. If conditions on the Property constitute violations of SRMC sections 4.08.020, 14.22.070, CFC section 503.1.1, and UP10-046, Conditions 5 and 10, should the administrative costs and administrative penalties sought by the City be granted? Vl. BACKGROUND According to the Staff Report (Exhibit 25) and Officer Rodriguez's testimony, the Department received a complaint from a citizen in December 2016 concerning an excessive number of vehicles parked or stored on the Property. On December 7, 2016, Officer Rodriguez conducted an inspection and observed many vehicles, including non-operable vehicles, parked on the Property in non -designated areas, including the fire lane access and drive aisles. The next day, Officer Rodriguez issued a Pre -Citation Notice to the Property Owner, listing violations of UPI 0-046, Conditions 10 and 14,5 imposed under the authority of SRMC section 14.22.070 (Exhibit 6). Condition 10 states in part, "[i]n no event shall any vehicles or equipment be placed in a manner that would block required drive aisles" (Exhibit 5, p. 36). The Pre -Citation Notice listed a correction date of December 23, 2016 (Exhibit 6). Officer Rodriguez re -inspected the Property on January 4, 2017. He observed that many parked or stored vehicles continued to block the required drive aisles in violation of UPI 0-046, Condition 10; subsequently, he issued Administrative Citation #8142 on January 10, 2017, for the violation (Exhibit 7). Officer Rodriguez re -inspected the Property on February 8, 2017. He observed the violation had not been abated. Administrative Citation #8207 was issued to the Property Owner on February 15, 2017, for violating UPI 0-046, Condition 10, blocking the drive aisles (Exhibit 8). Officer Rodriguez re -inspected the Property on March 15, 2017, and observed a continuing violation of UP 10-046, Condition 10. Administrative Citation #8218 was issued to the Property Owner on May 15, 2017 (Exhibit 9). On March 27, 2017, city staff discussed the violations remaining at the Property. Chief Sinnott noted that the vehicles parked and/or stored in the drive aisles on the Property failed to provide a minimum of 20 -foot access fire lane in violation of CFC section 503.2.1, adopted in SRMC section 4.08.020 by reference (Exhibit 25). At that same meeting, staff determined to issue a Notice and Order for violations of both the CFC and the SRMC violation of UP 10-046, Condition 10. On April 3, 2017, Officer Rodriguez re -inspected the Property and determined that the conditions on the Property remained in violation of the CFC and UP 10-46, Condition 10. He also observed non-operable vehicles being repaired or stored outdoors on the Property in violation of UP 10-046, Condition 5 (Exhibits 5, 12). A Notice and Order dated April 3, 2017, was issued to the Property Owner for violations of SRMC sections 4.08.020, 14.22.070, CFC section 503. 1.1, and UPI 0-046, Conditions 5 and 10. The Notice and Order set the compliance date for correction of the violations as June 2, 2017 (Exhibit 1). On June 5, 2017, Officer Rodriguez verbally s Conditions on the Property were later determined to be in compliance with Condition 14 of the Use Permit, as long as a I5 -foot setback was maintained (Exhibit 25). extended the compliance date to June 9, 2017, after speaking with the Property Owner (Exhibit 25). On June 9, 2017, Officer Rodriguez re -inspected the Property. He observed that a few cars had been removed, but the drive aisle was blocked by numerous vehicles, many inoperable vehicles remained stored outdoors, and no clear path had been cleared to provide Fire Department access (Exhibit 13). A Notice of Inspection was mailed to the Property Owner on July 6, 2017, stating code enforcement would re -inspect the Property on July 17, 2017 (Exhibit 14). During the July 17, 2017, inspection, Officer Rodriguez, Officer Salvisberg, and Chief Sinnott observed that all violations listed on the April 3, 2017, Notice and Order remained. They noted that many of the vehicles obstructing the drive aisles were inoperable vehicles, as they had no license plates or were damaged, and could not be legally operated on a city street (Exhibit 15). On July 24, 2017, Officer Rodriguez issued a Notice of Hearing on Administrative Order to the Property Owner, notifying him of a hearing scheduled for September 13, 2017 (Exhibit 16). During re -inspections conducted on August 8, 2017, and August 15, 2017, Officer Rodriguez observed that all violations listed on the Notice and Order remained on the Property (Exhibits 17, 18). On August 22, 2017, Officer Rodriguez issued an Amended Notice of Hearing on Administrative Order to the Property Owner due to a typographical error on the initial Notice of Hearing on Administrative Order. The Amended Notice listed the same hearing date of September 13, 2017 (Exhibit 19). VII. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ISSUE 1: Do conditions on the Property as identified in the Notice and Order constitute violations of SRMC sections 4.08.020, 14.22.070, CFC section 503.1.1, and UP10-046, Conditions 5 and 10? SRMC section 4.08.020 and CFC 503.1.1, fire apparatus access roads Section 4.08.020 of the SRMC adopts the California Fire Code, "which contain building standards and fire safety standards." Section 503. 1.1 of the CFC states, "[a]pproved fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access road shall comply with the requirements of this section and shall extend to within 150 feet (45 720 mm) of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility." Section 503.2.1 goes on to state, "[fJire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet (6096 mm), exclusive of shoulders, except for approved security gates in accordance with Section 503.6, and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches (4115 mm)." The city submitted photographs taken on December 7, 2016 (Exhibit 6), January 4, 2017 (Exhibit 7), February 8, 2017 (Exhibit 8), March 13, 2017 (Exhibit 9), April 3, 2017 (Exhibit 12), June 9, 2017 (Exhibit 13), July 17, 2017 (Exhibit 15), August 8, 2017 (Exhibit 17), and August 15, 2017 (Exhibit 18), of multiple vehicles being parked and stored in the area reserved for fire lane access. The photographs also show multiple vehicles parked and stored in the rear of the structure on the Property, failing to provide a 20 -foot fire access lane. Officer Rodriguez testified that during all of his inspections, including his most recent visit to the Property on September 11, 2017, multiple vehicles remained parked or stored on the Property without leaving a 20 -foot fire lane access. Chief Sinnott testified that he had been in regular contact with the Property Owner since August 2016 about the blocked fire lane access. Chief Sinnott testified that the Property Owner told him that he would remove the vehicles, and was in the process of either selling the business or shutting it down. Chief Sinnott expressed concern that, if there was a fire on the Property, a fire engine could not access the Property, nor could firefighters safely get on the Property. Chief Sinnott further testified that the vehicles also constituted a hazard for the Property's building occupants, as well as a hazard to adjacent properties. The Property Owner did not dispute that the Property lacked a 20 -foot fire lane access. He testified that he has an overabundance of cars from prior businesses, and that he is constantly making efforts to remove cars. The Property Owner stated that removing the cars is a slow process and that he is not purchasing additional cars. He testified that he cleared an approximately 14 -foot wide lane as shown in the July 17, 2017, photographs (Exhibit 15, pages 87,88). Officer Rodriguez and Chief Sinnott's testimony, and photographic evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property does not contain a 20 -foot fire apparatus access road as required by CFC section 503.1.1. Accordingly, the City has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that conditions on the Property violated SRMC section 14.08.020 and CFC section 503.1.1. SRMC section 14.22.070 and UP10-046, Condition 5, outdoor storage of inoperable vehicles Section 14.22.070 of the SRMC states, "[i]n approving a use permit the zoning administrator or planning commission may impose reasonable conditions." Condition 5 of UP 10- 046 states, "[n]o outdoor repair or storage of non-operable vehicles shall be allowed (onsite or offsite). Vehicles awaiting repair or pickup may be parked in the customer parking spaces for no more than 72 hours. It is assumed that no more than 4 customer vehicles would need to be parked on-site while awaiting repair or pickup at any given time" (Exhibit 5, p. 35). The City submitted photographs taken on December 7, 2016 (Exhibit 6), January 4, 2017 (Exhibit 7), February 8, 2017 (Exhibit 8), March 13, 2017 (Exhibit 9), April 3, 2017 (Exhibit l2), June 9, 2017 (Exhibit 13), July 17, 2017 (Exhibit 15), August 8, 2017 (Exhibit 17), and August 15, 2017 (Exhibit 18), showing multiple vehicles stored and parked outdoors on the Property, as well as various car parts stored on the Property. Officer Rodriguez testified that many of the vehicles are non-operable as they do not have license plates. The photographs depict far more than four vehicles parked outdoors on the Property. Officer Rodriguez further testified that, during his July 17, 2017, inspection, the Property appeared to be a junkyard. Additionally, Chief Sinnott testified that many of the cars he observed were in disrepair. The Property Owner did not dispute the violation of UPI 0-046, Condition 5. He testified that he collects, restores, and sells classic Mercedes-Benz cars; however, as there are not enough Mercedes-Benz mechanics, he cannot restore the vehicles as quickly as the City would like. The Property Owner further testified that he has an overabundance of vehicles from prior businesses, he is not purchasing any more vehicles, and that he is attempting to locate parking lots and other places to store his vehicles. Chief Sinnott and Officer Rodriguez's testimony and Officer Rodriguez's photographic evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that more than four non-operable vehicles are being stored or repaired outdoors on the Property in violation of UP 10-046, Condition 5. Accordingly, the City has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that conditions on the Property violated SRMC section 14.22.070 and UP10-046, Condition 5. SRMC section 14.22.070 and UP10-046, Condition 10, drive aisles blocked Section 14.22.070 of the SRMC states, "[i]n approving a use permit the zoning administrator or planning commission may impose reasonable conditions." Condition 10 of UPI 0-046 states, "[w]ithin six months of project approval, by Wednesday July 6, 2011 the applicant/owner shall remove any remaining vehicles, part or equipment being stored outdoors (i.e., within the required parking spaces or drive aisles). In no event shall any vehicles or equipment be placed in a manner that would block required drive aisles. After the six month deadline, all remaining storage shall be located within the approved building storage areas" [emphasis in the original] (Exhibit 5, p. 36). The City submitted photographs taken on December 7, 2016 (Exhibit 6), January 4, 2017 (Exhibit 7), February 8, 2017 (Exhibit 8), March I3, 2017 (Exhibit 9), April 3, 2017 (Exhibit 12), June 9, 2017 (Exhibit 13), July 17, 2017 (Exhibit 15), August 8, 2017 (Exhibit 17), and August 15, 2017 (Exhibit 18), showing multiple vehicles being parked and stored in a manner that blocks drive aisles on the side and rear of the Property. The photographs also show multiple vehicles parked and stored on the Property that fails to provide a drive aisle (Exhibit 11). The Property Owner did not dispute that vehicles on the Property blocked drive aisles. He testified that there have been improvements made to the number of vehicles parked on the Property since the initial inspections. The Property Owner noted that, during the inspection on July 17, 2017, there was a drive aisle along Paul Drive (Exhibit 15). However, the Hearing Officer notes that the drive aisle eventually is blocked by a gray Mercedes without a license plate. Officer Rodriguez's testimony and photographic evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that vehicles on the Property are parked or stored in a manner that blocks required drive aisles in violation of UP 10-046, Condition 10. Accordingly, the City has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that conditions on the Property violated SRMC section 14.22.070 and UP] 0-046, Condition 10. ISSUE 2: If so, were the necessary corrective actions completed within the required compliance date listed in the Notice and Order? The April 3, 2017, Notice and Order listed a compliance date of June 2, 2017. Officer Rodriguez extended the compliance date to June 9, 2017 (Exhibits 1, 25). The December 7, 2016, Pre -Citation Notice listed a compliance date of December 23, 2016 (Exhibit 6). In all of Officer Rodriguez's subsequent inspections dated January 4, 2017, February 8, 2017, March 13, 2017, April 3, 2017, June 9, 2017, July 17, 2017, August 8, 2017, August 15, 2017, and September 11, 2017, the violations listed on the Notice and Order remained. Vehicles blocked drive aisles, there was no 20 -foot access fire lane, and there was outdoor storage of non-operable vehicles. Accordingly, the City has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the necessary corrective actions were not completed by June 2, 2017, and subsequently extended to June 9, 2017, as required in the Notice and Order. ISSUE 3: If conditions on the Property constitute violations of SRMC sections 4.08.020, 14.22.070, CFC section 503.1.1, and UP10-046, Conditions 5 and 10, what action must be taken to correct the violation(s)? The April 3, 2017, Notice and Order listed the actions needed to correct the violations as '[p]rovide a minimum 20' access fire lane along the north side of the building in the main driveway that extends around the rear of the structure along the west side of the structure," "[r]emove vehicles to not block the drive aisles and to provide safe access to emergency and non -emergency vehicles," and "[r]emove non-operable vehicles." At the hearing, the City requested that the Property Owner be given until November 13, 2017, to complete the required corrective actions (Exhibits 25, 26). The Property Owner requested until December 31, 2017, to complete the required corrective actions. The Property Owner will be ordered to complete the required corrective actions listed above by December 1, 2017. ISSUE 4: If conditions on the Property constitute violations of SRMC sections 4.08.020, 14.22.070, CFC section 503.1.1, and UP10-046, Conditions 5 and 10, should the administrative costs and administrative penalties sought by the City be granted? Administrative Costs Section 1.46.110(A) of the SRMC states, "[t]he administrative hearing officer shall assess administrative costs against the record property owner or other responsible person when such officer finds that a violation and/or public nuisance has occurred and that compliance has not been achieved by the compliance date specified in the notice and order." Section 1.46.110(B) of the SRMC states, "[t]he administrative costs may include any and all costs incurred by the city in connection with the matter before the administrative hearing officer including, but not limited to, the costs for the administrative hearing officer's services, costs of investigation, staffing costs incurred in preparation for the hearing and for the hearing itself, costs for all re -inspections necessary to enforce the notice and order, and the costs of actual abatement if undertaken by the city." Section 1.46.110(C) of the SRMC states, "[a]dministrative costs assessed by the administrative hearing officer shall be due by the date specified in the administrative order, which shall be no later than ninety (90) days from the date of such administrative order." The City requested the Property Owner be ordered to pay administrative costs in the amount of $2,956.70 (Exhibit 27), plus $474.98 for Staff Report reproduction costs (Exhibit 28), hearing officer costs, and court reporter costs. Per SRMC sections 1.43.150 and 1.46.110, the city may collect administrative costs when an administrative hearing officer finds a violation and/or public nuisance has occurred and compliance has not been achieved by the ordered compliance date specified in the Notice in the Order. Section 1.46.110(B), states, "[t]he administrative costs may include any and all costs incurred by the city in connection with the matter before the administrative hearing officer, including but not limited to, the costs for the administrative hearing officer's services, costs of investigation, staffing costs incurred in preparation for the hearing and for the hearing itself, costs for all re -inspections necessary to enforce the notice and order, and the costs of abatement if undertaken by the city." The City provided evidence to support the costs they incurred for the violations found herein with the exception of Officer Rodriguez's site visit on December 8, 2016, for a cost of $67.51. Additionally, Officer Rodriguez noted in his Staff Report that he unsuccessfully attempted to contact the Property Owner via phone on June 15, 2017, twice on June 22, 2017, and again on July 6, 2017. For each attempted call, the phone call went unanswered or Officer Rodriguez was not able to leave a voice message because the voice mailbox was full. For each of these attempted calls, the City listed costs of $33.75 per call; however, $135.00 is excessive for four unanswered phone calls. Accordingly, costs for the four unanswered phone calls made on June 15, 2017, June 22, 2017, and July 6, 2017, will be allowed in the amount of $33.75. The City also incurred costs for eight copies of the Staff Report totaling $474.98; however, they did not specify who those reports were distributed to. It is reasonable that staff reports would be given to the Property Owner, Ms. Monson, the hearing officer, and other parties in interest; however, the City did not provide any evidence that eight copies were required, so the copying costs will be reduced to $237.49, or half. Pursuant to SRMC section 1.46.110, the Hearing Officer shall order the Property Owner to pay administrative costs in the amount of $2,787.94, and $237.49 for Staff Report reproduction costs, for a total of $3,025.43. The Property Owner shall also pay costs for the hearing officer and court reporter. Administrative Penalties Section 1.46.100(A) of the SRMC states, "[t]he administrative hearing officer may impose administrative civil penalties for the violation of any provision of this code, or the existence of a public nuisance, in an amount not to exceed a maximum of five hundred dollars ($500.00) per day for each ongoing code violation, or other public nuisance, except that the total administrative penalty shall not exceed one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00), exclusive of administrative costs, interest and restitution for compliance re -inspections, for any related series of violations or conditions constituting a public nuisance." Section 1.46.100(B) of the SRMC states: In determining the amount of the administrative penalty, the administrative hearing officer may take any or all of the following factors into consideration: 1. The duration of the code violation and/or the public nuisance; 2. The frequency, recurrence and number of code violations, and/or public nuisance conditions related or unrelated, by the same record property owner or other responsible person; 3. The seriousness of the violation; 4. The good faith efforts of the record property owner or other responsible person to come into compliance; 5. The economic impact of the penalty on the record property owner or other responsible person; 6. The impact of the code violation on the community and/or general public; 7. Such other factors as justice may require. Section 1.46.100(C) of the SRMC states, "[a]dministrative civil penalties imposed by the administrative hearing officer shall accrue from the date specified in the notice and order and shall cease to accrue on the date the violation and/or other public nuisance is corrected as determined by the code enforcement official or the administrative hearing officer." Section 1.46,100(D) of the SRMC states, "[t]he administrative hearing officer may suspend the imposition of applicable administrative civil penalties for any period of time during which: 1. The record property owner or other responsible person has filed for necessary permits; 2. Such permits are required to achieve compliance; 3. Such permit applications are actively pending before the city, state or other appropriate governmental agency." Section 1.46.100(E) of the SRMC states, "[a]dministrative civil penalties assessed by the administrative hearing officer shall be due by the date specified in the administrative order, which shall be no later than ninety (90) days from the date of such administrative order." Section 1.46.100(F) of the SRMC states, "[a]dministrative civil penalties assessed by the administrative hearing officer are a debt owed to the city and, in addition to all other means of enforcement, if the code violation and/or other public nuisance is located on real property, may be enforced by means of a lien against the real property on which the violation occurred." Section 1.46.100(G) of the SRMC states, "[i]f the code violation or other public nuisance is not corrected as specified in the administrative hearing officer's administrative order, administrative penalties shall continue to accrue on a daily basis until the violation and/or other public nuisance is corrected, subject to the maximum amount set forth in subsection A of this section." The City requested the Property Owner pay administrative penalties in the amount of $14,400.00, measured at $50.00 per day, per violation from June 9, 2017, to September 13, 2017 (Exhibit 24), plus continuing administrative penalties in the amount of $100.00 per day, per violation if compliance is not achieved by the compliance date set in this decision (Exhibit 26). Chief Sinnott testified that, since August 2016, he had been in informal contact on a near weekly basis with the Property Owner about the vehicles parked or stored on the Property preventing fire engine and firefighter access. Chief Sinnott underscored the seriousness of the violations as they could endanger the lives of Property occupants, neighboring properties, and firefighters. He further testified that, despite the Property Owner's assurances that he would 10 remove the vehicles, Chief Sinnott observed that vehicles were only being replaced, and that the Property resembled a junkyard. Officer Rodriguez testified that, over the course of his 10 visits to the Property since December 7, 2016, he observed no improvement to the condition of the Property. Instead, Officer Rodriguez testified that he observed that conditions were worse on August 15, 2017, as there were additional cars blocking the sidewalk at that time. This demonstrates a lack of good faith effort of Property Owner to come into compliance. The Hearing Officer finds the City's request for administrative penalties incurred reasonable; however, the time period will be from June 9, 2017, to September 11, 2017, the date of Officer Rodriguez's last re -inspection. Section 1.46.100(A) of the SRMC allows the hearing officer to impose administrative penalties up to $500.00 per day, per violation; here, the City is requesting $50 per day, per violation. Officer Rodriquez testified that each improperly parked vehicle could be a separate violation, but that the City was lumping all of the vehicles under one violation. The City has proven that the Property Owner was given ample notice and time to abate the violations. The violations are serious as they present a public safety hazard by blocking entrance by emergency vehicles. Additionally, the Property Owner has not provided any evidence that he has attempted any good faith effort to abate the violations. Accordingly, the Property Owner will be assessed administrative penalties in the amount of $14,100.00. Pursuant to SRMC section 1.46,100(G), if the violations are not corrected as specified in this Order, penalties shall continue to accrue on a daily basis. The City has requested that if the Property Owner fails to correct the violations as ordered herein that he be assessed administrative penalties at $100.00 per day/per violation, up to the maximum allowed by the SRMC, which is $100,000. The City's request is reasonable. Pursuant to SRMC section 1.46.120, "[gollowing issuance of an administrative hearing officer's decision and administrative order, the code enforcement official may schedule a supplemental hearing before the same or another administrative hearing officer for the purpose of obtaining a supplemental decision and administrative order, which may include the confirmation or imposition of administrative civil penalties or administrative costs applicable to continuation of the code violation or public nuisance following the date of the original hearing with respect to a notice and order. The supplemental hearing date, notice of supplemental hearing, supplemental hearing procedures, and the contents, submission and service of the supplemental decision and administrative order shall be consistent with the provisions of Sections 1.46.040, 1.46.060, 1.46.070, 1.46.080, 1.46.090, 1.46, 100 and 1.46.110." Per SRMC section 1.46.100, administrative penalties are due within 90 days of the issuance of this Order; likewise, pursuant to SRMC section 1.46.110, administrative costs are due no later than 90 days from the Order date. Pursuant to SRMC section 1.46.100(F), administrative penalties are a debt owed to the city and may be enforced by means of a lien against the Property. Pursuant to SRMC section 1.46.130, failure to pay administrative costs and or administrative penalties may be enforced as a personal obligation and/or a code enforcement assessment lien against real property. VIII. ORDERS 1. The Department's Notice and Order dated April 3, 2017, is upheld. 2. This decision shall become final when submitted to the city clerk, and a copy served on the record property owner or other responsible party as provided in Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6(b). (SRMC section 1.46.080(E)). The Property Owner is ordered to correct the code violations by providing a minimum 20 -foot access fire lane along the north side of the building in the main driveway that extends around the rear of the structure along the west side of the structure; remove all vehicles from the drive aisles; and removing all but four (4) non-operable vehicles from the Property. Compliance shall be achieved by December 1, 2017 (SRMC section 1.46.090(A)). 4. If the code violations are not corrected by December 1, 2017, a code enforcement official is authorized to correct the code violations by use of City employees or a City contractor, and to enter upon the private property where such violation exists, for purposes of correcting and abating the same (SRMC section 1.46.090(B)). 5. The Property Owner shall pay administrative costs in the amount of $2,787.94 and $237.49 for Staff Report reproduction costs, plus hearing officer and court reporter costs, which shall be invoiced by the City. Payment of costs is due to the City within 90 days of service of this Order (SRMC section 1.46.110). 6. The Property Owner shall pay administrative penalties in the amount of $14,100 within 90 days of service of this decision. Payment is to be made to the Finance Department, City of San Rafael, P.O. Box 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915, or by delivering a check to the cashier on the third floor of City Hall, 1400 Fifth Avenue, San Rafael, California. Pursuant to SRMC section 1.46.100(F), these administrative penalties may be enforced by means of a lien against the Property. Pursuant to SRMC section 1.46.100(F), these administrative penalties may be enforced by means of a lien against the Property. Payment is to be made to the Finance Department, City of San Rafael, P.O. Box 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915, or by delivering a check to the cashier on the third floor of City Hall, 1400 Fifth Avenue, San Rafael, California. 7. The Property Owner shall be liable for continuing administrative penalties in the amount of $100.00 per day, per violation, if compliance is not achieved by December 1, 2017. Pursuant to SRMC section 1.46.120, "[gollowing issuance of an administrative hearing officer's decision and administrative order, the code enforcement official may schedule a supplemental hearing before the same or another administrative hearing officer for the purpose of obtaining a supplemental decision and administrative order, which may include the confirmation or imposition of administrative civil penalties or administrative costs applicable to continuation of the code violation or public nuisance following the date of the original hearing with respect to a notice and order. The supplemental hearing date, notice of supplemental hearing, supplemental hearing procedures, and the contents, submission and service of the supplemental decision and administrative order shall be 12 consistent with the provisions of Sections 1.46.040, 1.46.060, 1.46.070, 1.46.080, 1.46.090, 1.46. 100 and 1.46.110." 8. Should the Property Owner fail to pay the penalties and costs as ordered herein, the city clerk is authorized to record a code enforcement assessment lien upon the real property against the Property for the penalties and costs pursuant to SRMC sections 1.46.130, 1.46.150, and 1.46.160. 9. This decision is subject to judicial review according to the provisions and time limits set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6. Dated: October 6, 2017 _ __ Kimbe Buchholz, Hearing Of" e Institu a or Administrative Jus ice University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law 13 California Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.6. Judicial review; decisions of local agencies; petition; filing; time; record; decision and party defined; ordinance or resolution (a) Judicial review of any decision of a local agency, other than school district, as the term local agency is defined in Section 54951 of the Government Code, or of any commission, board, officer or agent thereof, may be had pursuant to Section 1094.5 of this code only if the petition for writ of mandate pursuant to such section is filed within the time limits specified in this section. (b) Any such petition shall be filed not later than the 90th day following the date on which the decision becomes final. If there is no provision for reconsideration of the decision, or for a written decision or written findings supporting the decision, in any applicable provision of any statute, charter, or rule, for the purposes of this section, the decision is final on the date it is announced. If the decision is not announced at the close of the hearing, the date, time, and place of the announcement of the decision shall be announced at the hearing. If there is a provision for reconsideration, the decision is final for purposes of this section upon the expiration of the period during which such reconsideration can be sought; provided, that if reconsideration is sought pursuant to any such provision the decision is final for the purposes of this section on the date that reconsideration is rejected. If there is a provision for a written decision or written findings, the decision is final for purposes of this section upon the date it is mailed by first-class mail, postage prepaid, including a copy of the affidavit or certificate of mailing, to the party seeking the writ. Subdivision (a) of Section 1013 does not apply to extend the time, following deposit in the mail of the decision or findings, within which a petition shall be filed. (c) The complete record of the proceedings shall be prepared by the local agency or its commission, board, officer, or agent which made the decision and shall be delivered to the petitioner within 190 days after he has filed a written request therefor. The local agency may recover from the petitioner its actual costs for transcribing or otherwise preparing the record. Such record shall include the transcript of the proceedings, all pleadings, all notices and orders, any proposed decision by a hearing officer, the final decision, all admitted exhibits, all rejected exhibits in the possession of the local agency or its commission, board, officer, or agent, all written evidence, and any other papers in the case. (d) If the petitioner files a request for the record as specified in subdivision (c) within 10 days after the date the decision becomes final as provided in subdivision (b), the time within which a petition pursuant to Section 1094.5 may be filed shall be extended to not later than the 30th day following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the petitioner or his attorney of record, if he has one. (e) As used in this section, decision means a decision subject to review pursuant to Section 1094.5, suspending, demoting, or dismissing an officer or employee, revoking, denying an application for a permit, license, or other entitlement, imposing a civil or administrative penalty, fine, charge, or cost, or denying an application for any retirement benefit or allowance. (f) In making a final decision as defined in subdivision (e), the local agency shall provide notice to the party that the time within which judicial review must be sought is governed by this section. As used in this subdivision, "party" means an officer or employee who has been suspended, demoted or dismissed; a person whose permit, license, or other entitlement has been revoked or suspended, or whose application for a permit, license, or other entitlement has been denied; or a person whose application for a retirement benefit or allowance has been denied. (g) This section shall prevail over any conflicting provision in any otherwise applicable law relating to the subject matter, unless the conflicting provision is a state or federal law which provides a shorter statute of limitations, in which case the shorter statute of limitations shall apply. PROOF OF SERVICE VIA EMAIL & U.S. MAIL I, Lynette McPherson, declare as follows: I am employed in the County of Sacramento, California, the county where the mailing took place; I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action. My business address is 3200 Fifth Avenue, Sacramento, California 95817. I am readily familiar with my employer's business practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. On October 6, 2017, I served a copy of the following document: ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING DECISION AND ORDER Nuisance Abatement Robert C. Fenton, dba Marin European Motors, Inc. Case No.: CE16-570 Property Address: 17 Paul Drive, San Rafael, CA 94903 on the person named below by following ordinary business practice, placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope for collection and mailing with the United States Postal Service where it would be deposited for first class delivery, postage fully prepaid, that same day in the ordinary course of business, addressed as follows: Esther Beirne Office of the City Clerk, Room 209 City of San Rafael P.O. Box 151560 San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 Laraine K. Gittens Legal Assistant II Office of the City Attorney City of San Rafael P.O. Box 151560 San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 And via email addressed as follows: Robert C. Fenton Marin European Motors, Inc. 17 Paul Drive San Rafael, CA 94903 city.clerkAcityofsanrafael.ore laraine.eittens(a,cityofsanrafael.ore 1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on October 6, 2017, in Sacramento, California. Lynet c herson, Paralegal Institute for Administrative Justice McGeorge School of Law 14 Record Without Fee, Per GC 27383 and When recorded mail to: RECORDING REQUESTED, AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: LINDSAY LARA, City Clerk City of San Rafael P.O. Box 151560 San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 2018-00291273 Recorded Official Records County of Marin RICHARD N. BENSON Assessor -Recorder County Clerk 10:23AM 17 -Aug -2018 NOTICE OF CODE ENFORCEMENT ASSESSMENT LIEN BY CITY OF SAN RAFAEL Property Subject to Lien: 17 Paul Drive, San Rafael, CA 94903 Assessor Parcel No. 155-161-28 Legal Description: See attached Exhibit "A" Record Property Owner: Robert C. Fenton 17 Paul Drive San Rafael, CA 94903 REC FEE 0.00 CONFORMED COPY 0.00 a Page 1 of 14 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of San Rafael (herein referred to as "City"), claims a lien in the amount of $15,000.00 against the property located at 17 Paul Drive, San Rafael, CA 94903, also known as Assessor's Parcel No. 155-161-28 (herein referred to as "Property"). On May 9, 2018, at a duly noticed supplemental hearing at which evidence was presented by the City pursuant to San Rafael Municipal Code Chapter 1.46, and the Property Owner having made no objection thereto, the City and the Property Owner entered into a stipulated agreement. The Hearing Officer memorialized the parties' agreement in the Stipulation for Entry of Supplemental Administrative Order and Supplemental Administrative Order Thereon dated May 17, 2018 ("Supplemental Administrative Order" attached hereto as Exhibit "B"), finding continuing violations of the San Rafael Municipal Code, directing abatement of the violations, and ordering payment of the City's administrative costs in the amount of $2,651.85, (to include hearing officer and court reporter late cancellation fees and time costs for the Senior Code Enforcement Officer and Fire Chief) and administrative penalties in the amount of $12,348.15 (see Invoice 1172, document entitled "Community Development Department Code Enforcement Division Administrative Costs 17 Paul Drive", and page 3 of the May 17, 2018 Supplemental Administrative Order attached hereto as Exhibit "B") within 30 days of the date of the Decision. Payment of the foregoing administrative costs and civil penalties having not been made, the City now claims a Code Enforcement Assessment Lien against the Property, pursuant to San Rafael Municipal Code Section 1.46.160. DATED: August 1 b . 2018 JI S -HUTZ, Ci M nager y Citof San Rafael �rl(k,A 1 i c(, 1' mics. CcdQ, cQ,)d two I�Vi�CQS U�nGi GLC{�'1►1'115'�ct�� ���I�S. ACKNOWLEDGMENT A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. State of California County of Marin On 310 before me, Lindsay Faye Lara, Notary Public (insert name and title of the officer) personally appeared 31tM 5chul-L who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(o) whose name($) is/aF,6 subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/sb6/they executed the same in his/hj6r/therir authorized capacity(iog), and that by his/Vr/thir signature(4 on the instrument the person(p), or the entity upon behalf of which the personM acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature V LINDSAY FAME URA COMM. #2182818 z Notary Public • California o cz (Seal) Marin aCounty Cam. Feb. 10 2021 a Exhibit A Exhibit A Legal Description APN: 155-161-28 The land referred to is situated in the County of Marin, City of San Rafael, State of California, and is described as follows: Being Lot 20 and a portion of Lot 19 as shown on that certain "Map of Northgate Industrial Park in the City of San Rafael, California", recorded on August 8, 1963 in Book 12 of Maps at Page 11, Marin County Records, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the most Westerly corner of Lot 20, as shown on Sheet 4 of the "Map of Northgate Industrial Park in the City of San Rafael, California", recorded August 8, 1963 in Book 12 of Maps at Page 11, Marin County Records; thence along the exterior boundary of said Lot 20 the following courses and distances: South 10° 13' 36" East 93.275 feet; thence North 79° 52' 00" East 242.875 feet; thence Northerly along a curve concave to the East, whose center bears North 79° 42' 00" East, having a radius of 80.00 feet through a central angle of 35° 39' 33" for a distance of 49.79 feet to a point of reverse curvature, and thence Northerly along a curve concave to the West, whose center bears North 64° 38'27" West, having a radius of 80.00 feet through a central angle of 35° 39' 33" for a distance of 49.79 feet to the most Westerly corner of Lot 19, as shown on said Map (12 Maps 11); thence leaving the boundary of said Lot 20 and continuing along the Easterly boundary of said Lot 19, North 10° 18' 00" West 21.825 feet; thence leaving said boundary South 79° 42'00" West 272.727 feet to a point on the Westerly boundary of said Lot 19; thence along said Westerly boundary, South 10° 13' 36" East 21.825 feet to the point of beginning. Exhibit B INSTITUTE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE Property address: UNIVERSITY OF THE PACIFIC 17 Paul Drive MCGEORGE SCHOOL OF LAW San Rafael, CA 94903 3200 Fifth Avenue Sacramento, CA 95817 Telephone: 916-739-7049 CITY OF SAN RAFAEL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION In the matter of: Robert C. Fenton (Property Owner) APN: 155-161-28 and Notice and Order issued by City of San Rafael STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF SUPPLEMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER AND SUPPLEMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER W131 RX110 Case No.: CE16-570 I. INTRODUCTION This matter was heard on May 9, 2018, before Jacquelyn Larson, Hearing Officer at the Institute for Administrative Justice, University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law, duly appointed in the capacity of City Hearing Officer (Hearing Officer).' The purpose of the hearing was to determine whether compliance has been achieved with the October 6, 2017, Administrative Hearing Decision and Order (Order) previously issued in this case; whether conditions on the property at 17 Paul Drive, San Rafael, California (Property), continued to violate the San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC), Conditions of Use Permit 10-046 (UP 10-046), and the California Fire Code (CFC); and, whether the supplemental administrative costs and administrative penalties sought by the City should be granted. H. APPEARANCES Lauren Monson, Deputy City Attorney, and Larry Salvisberg, Senior City Code Enforcement Officer, appeared on behalf of the City of San Rafael (City). Robert Fenton (Property Owner) appeared, represented by attorney David Chapman. 1 Pursuant to Chapter 1.46 of the SRMC, a supplemental hearing may be scheduled before the same or another administrative hearing officer. Per SRMC section 1.46.120, the hearing officer may issue "a supplemental decision and administrative order, which may include the confirmation or imposition of administrative civil penalties or administrative costs applicable to continuation of the code violation of public nuisance following the date of the original hearing with respect to a notice and order." III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND At the hearing, the City and the Property Owner entered into a stipulated agreement, memorialized in this Stipulation for Entry of Supplemental Administrative Order and Supplemental Administrative Order Thereon (Stipulated Agreement), regarding an order they desired the Hearing Officer to enter in the record. The City offered Exhibits 1-7, which were admitted into evidence as the bases for the stipulation; the Property Owner made no objection. IV. ORDER The Property Owner is ordered to abide by the terms and conditions as stated in this Stipulated Agreement as follows: WHEREAS, the San Rafael Enforcing Officer commenced a nuisance abatement action pursuant to San Rafael Municipal Code section 1.46.030 to remedy violations existing on the Property located at 17 Paul Drive, San Rafael, California, APN: 155-161-28 (Property); WHEREAS, Robert C. Fenton is the Property Owner; WHEREAS, an order was previously issued in this case, dated October 6, 2017; and WHEREAS, the parties desire to resolve this matter without further administrative proceedings; Pursuant to the Stipulated Agreement communicated by the parties to this action, IT IS HEREBY FOUND THAT, the acts or conditions specified in the City of San Rafael's Notice to Abate dated April 3, 2017, continue to exist as follows: Violation No. 1 SRMC section 4.08.020 and CFC section 503.1.1.1, failure to provide a minimum 20 -foot wide fire access lane along the north side and rear of the building. Violation No. 2 SRMC section 14.22.070 and UP 10-046, Condition 5, outdoor storage of inoperable vehicles. Violation No. 3 SRMC section 14.22.070 and UPI 0-046, Condition 10, drive aisles blocked. Based on the stipulated facts and findings contained herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: The Property Owner shall correct the code violations found to exist on the Property as ordered in the October 6, 2017, Order, and comply with all of the conditions stated in this Stipulation for Entry of Supplemental Administrative Order and Supplemental Administrative 2 Order Thereon (Supplemental Order) within the timelines set forth below. Specifically, the Property Owner shall: 1. Provide a minimum 20 -foot wide access fire lane along the north side of the building in the main driveway that extends around the rear of the structure along the west side of the structure within thirty (30) days from the issuance of this Supplemental Order. 2. Remove all vehicles from the drive aisles within thirty (30) days from the issuance of this Supplemental Order. 3. Remove all but a maximum of four (4) non-operable vehicles from the Property within thirty (30) days from the issuance of this Supplemental Order. 4. If any of the code violations listed above are not corrected within thirty (30) days from the issuance of this Supplemental Order, a code enforcement official is authorized to correct those code violations by use of City employees or a City contractor, and to enter upon the private property where such violation exists, for purposes of correcting and abating the same (SRMC section 1.46.090(B)). 5. In addition to costs and penalties previously ordered in the October 6, 2017, Order, the Property Owner shall pay administrative costs and penalties in the amount of $15,000 within thirty (30) days from the issuance of this Supplemental Order. Of this amount, $2,651.85 shall be paid to the City as administrative costs; the balance of this amount, or $12,348.15, is to be paid to the City as administrative penalties. 6. Should the Property Owner fail to pay the penalties and costs as ordered herein, the city clerk is authorized to record a code enforcement assessment lien upon the Property for the penalties and costs pursuant to SRMC sections 1.46.130, 1.46.150, and 1.46.160. 7. This Supplemental Order is subject to judicial review according to the provisions and time limits set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6. (SRMC section 1.46.140). n Dated: May 17, 2018 L � -Jaa quely'n Itarson, eanng Officer Irstitute for Administrative Justice University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law California Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.6. Judicial review; decisions of local agencies; petition; filing; time; record; decision and party defined; ordinance or resolution (a) Judicial review of any decision of a local agency, other than school district, as the term local agency is defined in Section 54951 of the Government Code, or of any commission, board, officer or agent thereof, may be had pursuant to Section 1094.5 of this code only if the petition for writ of mandate pursuant to such section is filed within the time limits specified in this section. (b) Any such petition shall be filed not later than the 90th day following the date on which the decision becomes final. If there is no provision for reconsideration of the decision, or for a written decision or written findings supporting the decision, in any applicable provision of any statute, charter, or rule, for the purposes of this section, the decision is final on the date it is announced. If the decision is not announced at the close of the hearing, the date, time, and place of the announcement of the decision shall be announced at the hearing. If there is a provision for reconsideration, the decision is final for purposes of this section upon the expiration of the period during which such reconsideration can be sought; provided, that if reconsideration is sought pursuant to any such provision the decision is final for the purposes of this section on the date that reconsideration is rejected. If there is a provision for a written decision or written findings, the decision is final for purposes of this section upon the date it is mailed by first-class mail, postage prepaid, including a copy of the affidavit or certificate of mailing, to the party seeking the writ. Subdivision (a) of Section 1013 does not apply to extend the time, following deposit in the mail of the decision or findings, within which a petition shall be filed. (c) The complete record of the proceedings shall be prepared by the local agency or its commission, board, officer, or agent which made the decision and shall be delivered to the petitioner within 190 days after he has filed a written request therefor. The local agency may recover from the petitioner its actual costs for transcribing or otherwise preparing the record. Such record shall include the transcript of the proceedings, all pleadings, all notices and orders, any proposed decision by a hearing officer, the final decision, all admitted exhibits, all rejected exhibits in the possession of the local agency or its commission, board, officer, or agent, all written evidence, and any other papers in the case. (d) If the petitioner files a request for the record as specified in subdivision (c) within 10 days after the date the decision becomes final as provided in subdivision (b), the time within which a petition pursuant to Section 1094.5 may be filed shall be extended to not later than the 30th day following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the petitioner or his attorney of record, if he has one. (e) As used in this section, decision means a decision subject to review pursuant to Section 1094.5, suspending, demoting, or dismissing an officer or employee, revoking, denying an application for a permit, license, or other entitlement, imposing a civil or administrative penalty, fine, charge, or cost, or denying an application for any retirement benefit or allowance. (f) In making a final decision as defined in subdivision (e), the local agency shall provide notice to the party that the time within which judicial review must be sought is governed by this section. As used in this subdivision, "party" means an officer or employee who has been suspended, demoted or dismissed; a person whose permit, license, or other entitlement has been revoked or suspended, or whose application for a permit, license, or other entitlement has been denied; or a person whose application for a retirement benefit or allowance has been denied. (g) This section shall prevail over any conflicting provision in any otherwise applicable law relating to the subject matter, unless the conflicting provision is a state or federal law which provides a shorter statute of limitations, in which case the shorter statute of limitations shall apply. PROOF OF SERVICE VIA EMAIL & U.S. MAIL I, Lynette McPherson, declare as follows: I am employed in the County of Sacramento, California, the county where the mailing took place; I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action. My business address is 3200 Fifth Avenue, Sacramento, California 95817. I am readily familiar with my employer's business practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. On May 17, 2018, I served a copy of the following document: STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF SUPPLEMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER AND SUPPLEMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER THEREON Nuisance Abatement Robert C. Fenton, dba Marin European Motors, Inc. Case No.: CE16-570 Property Address: 17 Paul Drive, San Rafael, CA 94903 on the person named below by following ordinary business practice, placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope for collection and mailing with the United States Postal Service where it would be deposited for first class delivery, postage fully prepaid, that same day in the ordinary course of business, addressed as follows: Lindsay Lara Office of the City Clerk, Room 209 City of San Rafael P.O. Box 151560 San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 Laraine K. Gittens Legal Assistant II Office of the City Attorney City of San Rafael P.O. Box 151560 San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 And via email addressed as follows: Robert C. Fenton Marin European Motors, Inc. 17 Paul Drive San Rafael, CA 94903 Law Office of David T. Chapman 950 Northgate Dr., Ste. 307 San Rafael, CA 94903-3436 city. clerk(acityofsanrafael.orS laraine.sittensna,cityofsanrafael.org I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on May 17, 2018, in Sacramento, California. �yne�NP�herson, Paralegal Institute for Administrative Justice McGeorge School of Law City of San Rafael 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901 US RAF,��` h C'rY k' I T H P' BILL TO ® :. Robert C Fenton Marin European Motors, Inc �--- —_..............._....._...._.._..........._......_ _ ...... Marin European Motors, Inc' 17 Paul Drive San Rafael, CA 94903 ACTIVITY Ir C Late Cancellation Costs for Hearing 1 440.00 440.00 Officer from University of the Pacific - Institute for Administrative Justice and Court Reporter from California Reporting, LLC for the Continued 2/14/18 Supplemental Hearing on Administrative Order Subject Property: 17 Paul Drive (APN 155-161- 28) CE16-570 2/16/18 California Reporting Invoice 5977 1 200.00 200.00 – Cancellation fee – late cancellation TOTAL DUE $64Q,0Q 1400 FIFTH AVENUE SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901 WWW.CITYOFSANRAFAEL.ORG INVOICE March 1, 2018 LIhIVLf251"I l" OF THF PACI FIC Type of Service Hours Review file/prepare for hearing 2.00 Conduct hearing 0 Write decision 0 Total Hours 2.00 2.00 Hours x $220.00/hour = $440.00 Please make your check in the amount of $440.00 payable to University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law and mail it to: Pacific McGeorge School of Law Attention: Neil Glick 3200 Sth Avenue Sacramento, CA 95817 Lauren M. Monson, Deputy City Attorney If Institute for Office of the City Attorney Administrative Justice City of San Rafael P.O. Box 151560 San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 3200 fifth Avenue Sacramento, CA 95817 Invoice Number: 2018-1 www.mcgeorge.edu Tel 916.739.7049 Invoice for hearing officer preparation work for a supplemental hearing in the matter Fax 916.669.3005 of Robert Fenton (17 Paul Drive, APN: 155-161-28) and the City of San Rafael, which was scheduled for February 14, 2018. Type of Service Hours Review file/prepare for hearing 2.00 Conduct hearing 0 Write decision 0 Total Hours 2.00 2.00 Hours x $220.00/hour = $440.00 Please make your check in the amount of $440.00 payable to University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law and mail it to: Pacific McGeorge School of Law Attention: Neil Glick 3200 Sth Avenue Sacramento, CA 95817 'aliforwia eporting 'A* Bill To 229 Napa St. Rodeo, CA 94572 510-313-0610 Cityof'San Ralhel Laraine Gittens Office of the City Attorney San Rafael, CA 9=4901 Invoice Due Date Invoice Date Invoice # 3:30.;2018 2 W2018 5977 Ship To City of San Rafael Laraine Gittens Office of'the City Attorney San Rafael, CA 94901 Reporter Contract # Case Name - Number KA 2 14 Job Date Item Description Quantity Price Amount 2 142018 Appearance fce Cancellation lee - late cancellation 20000 200.00 Marin European Motors I'ayment due upon receipt. UP,, is due and applicable ifnot paid within 45 days. California Prompt Payment Act - G�„erm„ent Cede, Section 027. Total $200.00 Small 13usiness No. 12537 MSA 5-12-99-01 Tax It) 03-0595979 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS 17 Paul Drive Date Employee Description of Work Hours CAFBR* 12/04/16 SCEO Salvisberg Site Visit 0.50 $ 67.51 12/11/16 SCEO Salvisberg Site Visit 0.50 $ 67.51 12/18/17 SCEO Salvisberg Site Visit 0.50 $ 67.51 12/26/17 SCEO Salvisberg Site Visit 0.50 $ 67.51 1/17/18 SCEO Salvisberg Meeting 1.0 $135.02 1/18/18 SCEO Salvisberg Set hearing 0.50 $ 67.51 1/29/18 SCEO Salvisberg Staff Report 1.0 $135.02 1/30/18 SCEO Salvisberg Staff Report 1.0 $135.02 2/12/18 SCEO Salvisberg Hearing Prep 0.50 $ 67.51 2/14/18 SCEO Salvisberg Re-Sched Hearing 0.50 $ 67.51 4/10/18 SCEO Salvisberg Re-Sched Hearing 0.50 $ 67.51 5/01/18 SCEO Salvisberg Post Property 0.50 $ 67.51 5/02/18 SCEO Salvisberg Site Visit 0.50 $ 67.51 5/07/18 SCEO Salvisberg Site Visit 0.50 $ 67.51 5/08/18 SCEO Salvisberg Hearing Prep 0.50 $ 67.51 Total $1,215.18 *Cost at Fully Burdened Rate for Code Enforcement Officer 12/04/17 Fire Chief Sinnott Site Visit 0.50 $113.81 12/11/17 Fire Chief Sinnott Site Visit 0.50 $113.81 12/18/17 Fire Chief Sinnott Site Visit 0.50 $113.81 12/26/17 Fire Chief Sinnott Site Visit 0.50 $113.81 2/12/18 Fire Chief Sinnott Hearing Prep 0.50 $113.81 5/02/18 Fire Chief Sinnott Site Visit 0.50 $113.81 5/08/18 Fire Chief Sinnott Hearing Prep 0.50 $113.81 Total $796.67 Grand Total $2,011.85