Date: May 12, 2026
To: The Honorable Lake County Board of Supervisors
From: Mireya G. Turner, Community Development Director
Prepared by: Marcus Beltramo, Code Enforcement Manager
Subject: 10:00 AM - Consideration of Request for Hearing before the Board of Supervisors for: 16360 State Hwy 175, Cobb, CA / APN#013-056-010 / Property Owner: SoloMarco, LLC / Requestor: Marco Garcia Hollman
Executive Summary:
Marcos Garcia Hollman (Hollman) made a request for a hearing in front of the Board of Supervisors regarding the issuance of a “Notice of Nuisance and Order to Abate” (NONOTA) and “Notice of Violation” issued against the subject property. (Attachment A - Appeal)
On January 30, 2026, Lake County Code Enforcement (CE) issued a NONOTA and NOV against the property located at 16360 State Hwy 175, Cobb, CA for violation(s) of the Lake County Code (LCC) pertaining to: use of land, buildings, and premises operated, maintained, or contrary to the Lake County Zoning Ordinance (unallowed residential use) and failure to obtain zoning clearances for a cargo container and dog kennel. (Attachment B)
The hearing request is being made pursuant to LCC Chapter 13, Article I, Section 13-7.1 - A hearing before the Board of Supervisors regarding a Notice of Nuisance and Order to Abate may be requested by filing a written request for a hearing with the Lake County Community Development Department within twenty-one (21) days of service of the Notice of Nuisance and Order to Abate. When a hearing is requested as provided for in the Notice of Nuisance and Order to Abate, the Board shall proceed to hear the testimony of the Enforcement Official, his/her assistants or deputies, the testimony of the owner or his/her representatives, and the testimony of other competent persons concerning the conditions constituting such nuisance, the estimated cost of abatement, and other matters which the Board may deem pertinent. Any person affected may be present at such hearing, may be represented by counsel, may present testimony, and may cross-examine the Enforcement Official, and other witnesses. The hearing may be continued from time to time.
Purpose of Hearing of Request as stated by Marco Garcia Hollman:
The purpose of this appeal is to request a stay (pause) of Code Enforcement actions and penalties while the County processes an active Planning Cure application that was submitted in good faith to the address the alleged violation identified in the NOV. (Attachment A - Appeal)
Basis for Hearing Request as stated by Marco Garcia Hollman:
A Planning cure application has been submitted and the required fees have been paid. Planning
Application No. PL-26-39 (Major Use Permit under Article 59.5(b) is currently under administrative review and is intended to cure the alleged violation identified in the Notice of Violation. The application proposes no expansion, new construction, or physical changes. I respectfully request that Code Enforcement actions and penalties be stayed while the Planning Department completes its review of the active cure application. (Attachment A - Appeal)
Property / Background Information: The property is an improved lot with a structure approximately 2,650 sq ft. (Attachment C - Site photos)
Ownership Information as reflected by County Records: On 12/17/2025 the interest in the subject property was granted from “No Mystic Corporation” which reflects Marco Garcia Hollman as the general manager to SoloMarco, LLC which reflects Marco Garcia Hollman as the general manager.
Zoning Designation: “C2” Community Commercial District. The purpose is to provide a full range of commercial retail and service establishments to communities.
Current Use: The property is currently being used to operate a digital marketing, consulting, and search engine optimization business and for residential purposes.
Planning Major Use Permit Information: An application has been received from Marco Garcia Hollman is currently under review with the Planning Division. The application provided the following description:
The project consists solely of permitting the continued use of an existing residential unit (Unit C) located within an existing structure at 16360 State Highway 175, Cobb, California. No expansion of the residential use area is proposed, and no new residential units or additional uses are being initiated. The project involves no new construction, grading, or physical changes and is submitted pursuant to Article 59.5(b) of the Lake County Zoning Ordinance as a Major Use Permit.
Investigation / Fact(s):
Code Enforcement (CE) received several complaints alleging an individual was residing in a commercial property; erected a tall fence; painted the Caltrans curb red to designate it as a fire zone; and is preventing, through verbal harassment, members of the public parking on the shoulder of the state highway. CE opened a case and started an investigation. CE compiled evidence by conducting an inspection of the property; making physical observations; obtained statements from Hollman; and research of Department records and other public agency information.
Use of land, buildings, or premises established, operated, or maintained contrary to the provisions of the Lake County Zoning Ordinance
Hollman stated he is using the property for (1) to operate his digital marketing, consulting, and search engine optimization business; and (2) for residential purposes to reside in Unit #C. Hollman claims unit #C has been used as an apartment or residential dwelling prior to him owning the property. Hollman stated his business operation is not open to the public.
Section 19.3 of the zoning ordinance lists the uses that are allowed for the “C2” zoning designation (Attachment D - Uses Permitted). Further, the listed community commercial uses are allowed when conducted within a completely enclosed building; when open to the public between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m.
(1) It is the CDD’s position that Hollman’s business use or operation is inconsistent with and contrary to the zoning ordinance and does not meet the criteria for the permitted uses as listed in Section 19.3 and is not open to the public, and therefore is not allowed.
Hollman believes his business use meets the criteria of Section 19.3 (f) - Professional offices and services such as dispatching, blueprinting, duplicating, printing, drafting, engineering, surveying, planning, and architectural services. The determination if Hollman’s business use is consistent with Section 19.3 (f) is at the discretion of the Director of the Department / Head of the Planning Division.
To meet the criteria for public hours, Hollman stated he would open the business for one (1) hour a day to meet the criteria for public hours stated in Section 19.3. CDD does not support Hollman’s operation hours and believes it to be inconsistent with Section 19.3.
(2) It is CDD’s position that Hollman’s residential use of the land and/or premises is contrary to the zoning ordinance and is not allowed.
Hollman stated he currently resides in Unit #C of the building. Accessory residential uses are allowed per the “C2” zoning designation, if the primary purpose of the “C2” zoning designation has been met. It is the position of CDD that Hollman’s current use is contrary or inconsistent with the allowed uses as stated in Section 19.3 and until the primary purpose of the “C2” zoning designation has been met, the residential use cannot occur.
Holloman stated the building has been used for residential purposes in the past, but has not provided any evidence to date to support this claim. Hollman filed an application with this Department to obtain the issuance of a use permit to allow his residential use pursuant to Section 59.5 (b) of the zoning ordinance - Alterations: (b) A legal non-conforming use of land may be enclosed by a building upon obtaining a major use permit in each case, provided that the use area of the non-conforming use is not expanded, and additional uses are not initiated. The Review Authority shall make the following additional findings in each case.
The code requires the issuance of a zoning permit to allow the residential use. CDD has asked Hollman to provide information that substantiates the building was used for residential purposes in the past. To qualify as being legal-non-conforming, the building had to be permitted for residential uses and be determined to be a legal structure at the time it was constructed to allow residential use at some point in the past. Hollman has not provided information to CDD to substantiate that a residential use had been established prior to the enactment of Section 27.3 (a).
Per the records of the County Assessor’s Office the building is being assessed as an office.
Failure to obtain a zoning clearance for a Cargo Container / Dog Kennel
Observed on the property is a cargo container and a dog kennel. Both structures and/or uses require the issuance of a zoning clearance prior to being situated or erected on the property. Failure to obtain a zoning clearance is contrary to the provisions of the zoning ordinance. A search of CDD records could not locate any zoning clearance(s) having been issued. (Attachment C)
County Witness(es):
Marcus Beltramo, Code Enforcement Manager
Christopher Colen, Code Enforcement Program Coordinator (lead Code Enforcement Officer)
Mireya Turner, Director of the Community Development Department / Planning Director
Pable Guerrero, Assistant Planner
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors uphold the Notice of Violation and Notice of Nuisance and Order to Abate and direct the property owner to voluntarily cease residential occupancy of the structure; cease the current business use within thirty (30) days and to authorize staff to abate the nuisance if it is not voluntarily abated and that all associated costs of the abatement become a charge against the property and placed on the tax rolls as a special assessment.