►
From YouTube: Administrative Appeals Board | May 25 2022
Description
Regular meeting of the City of Palm Springs Administrative Appeals Board, held May 25th, 2022
A
B
C
D
C
A
D
F
G
E
E
C
As
time
is
set
aside
for
members
of
the
public
to
address
the
administrative
appeals
board
on
agenda
items,
the
items
and
items
of
general
interest
within
the
subject
jurisdiction
matter
of
this
board
pursuant
to
the
brown
act,
it
is
generally,
we
cannot
take
any
action
on
items
not
on
our
agenda.
Although
we
do
value
your
opinion,
testimony
for
the
hearings
will
be
taken
at
the
time
of
those
hearings.
A
A
C
A
C
Any
comments
on
a
particular
hearing
will
be
taken
at
the
time
of
that
hearing
all
right.
So
if
there's
no
registered
people
to
for
public
comment,
we're
going
to
move
on
to
item
number
five
on
the
agenda
and
for
the
record
Vice
chair,
Kane
will
be
recusing
herself
from
this
board
alternate
board.
Member
Hedrick
will
be
voting
on
this
case.
So
I'd
like
to
ask
the
staff
for
their
report.
I
Good
evening,
Council
organ
board,
the
matter
before
you
is
an
appeal
of
Palm
Springs,
Municipal,
Code,
5.55,
200,
A3
and
a21
of
the
Cannabis
related
business
code
regulations.
This
is
the
first
pill
regarding
a
cannabis
matter
before
you.
Therefore,
you
will
note
that
the
packet
before
you
is
rather
extensive
and
while
most
items
may
not
initially
appear
to
be
related
to
set
appeal,
they
are
all
related
and
relevant
to
what
is
before
you
this
evening.
I
We
have
provided,
for
you
an
extensive
background
of
the
Code
Compliance
implementation,
the
adoption
of
the
fee
schedule
and
the
extensive
Outreach
that
was
provided
to
all
cannabis
business
owners
and
stakeholders
to
ensure
that
they
were
aware
of
the
Code
Compliance
enforcement
that
would
be
initiated
once
Code
Compliance
was
hired
for
these
positions.
At
this
time,
I
would
like
to
turn
over
the
presentation
to
Deputy
City
Attorney
Patrick
Donegan,
who
will
be
going
over
the
legalities
of
this
matter.
Thank
you.
J
J
City,
never
told
us
that
couldn't
be
further
from
the
truth,
and
so
you
know
the
the
city's
patients
for
potential
violations
eventually
runs
out
and
that's
kind
of
what
we
have
here
today
tonight.
Excuse
me
when
you
know
the
Appellate
blatantly
and
repeatedly
ignored
City's
attempts
informal
to
resolve
this
continued
to
be
an
issue
continued
to
be
a
problem
and
thus
more
serious
enforcement
measures
had
to
occur
here.
J
That's
the
administrative
citation
that
is
being
appealed
before
you
tonight,
so
the
appellant
was
issued
a
citation
for
two
related
but
distinct
Palm
Springs
Municipal
Code
Provisions,
both
found
in
section
5.55
0.200
a
despite
the
appellant's
contention.
That
provision
does
lead
the
operative
kind
of
clause
States
throughout
the
term
of
the
adult
use
cannabis
permit.
Each
permit
T
shall
not
violate
this
chapter
and
now
shall
and
thou
shalt
comply
with
the
following.
J
It
then
kind
of
lists
a
rather
extensive
list
of
requirements
that
cannabis
permatease
must
must
follow,
and
in
this
instance,
the
appellant
was
cited
for
violating
two
of
those
subsections
A3
and
subsections
a21,
as
I
said,
while
they're
somewhat
related
in
that
they
address
kind
of
the
same
public
policy
goal
of
the
city
council,
their
distinct
and
separate
requirements.
Subsection
A3
requires
that
each
permittee
maintain
a
register
of
names
and
information
of
various
people
related
to
their
cannabis
operation,
including
employees
or
or
people
otherwise
engaged
by
the
Cannabis
business.
J
Subsection
821
requires
that
any
new
employee
submit
information,
including
fingerprints
and
a
Live
Scan
for
a
background
check
to
the
city
10
days
prior
to
commencing
employment
and
that
no
permittee
employ
or
allow
anyone
that
hasn't
followed.
That
step
to
basically,
you
know,
operate
and
and
work
for
their
business.
Now.
The
purpose
of
these
requirements
is
basically
the
city
wants
to
ensure
that
the
city's
cannabis
you
know,
program
and
cannabis
operations
are
filled
with
reputable
individuals.
J
Without
you
know
certain
criminal
backgrounds
to
ensure
there's
no
fraudulent,
nefarious
and
or
criminal
behavior,
and
that
the
the
the
permittee
maintaining
that
register
of
employees
or
people
otherwise
related.
Similarly,
for
there's
that
so
hey
the
city
can
or
or
law
enforcement,
or
basically
anyone
can
say,
hey
who
do
we
have
working
for
you
right
now?
Let's,
let's
go
ahead
and
and
take
a
look.
J
You
know
the
background
check
and
that
register
provides
a
vital
resource
for
any
subsequent
investigation
that
hey
if
something
goes
wrong.
Okay,
let's
take
a
look
at
who
was
employed,
who
we
have
all
their
information,
Etc
et
cetera-
and
these
are
these
are
simple:
straightforward
requirements
meant
to
ensure
that
the
Integrity
of
the
Cannabis
business
in
the
city
and
provide
these
kind
of
fail.
J
States
should
anything
go
wrong
and
in
this
instance,
which
the
the
city
code
enforcement
officer
is
is
online
today
that
he'll
speak
to
later
about
the
specifics
of
of
this,
but
that's
kind
of
what
we
have
here.
A
a
security
guard
was
employed
without
without
compliance
with
those
two
sections
and
despite
appellant's
contentions
appellent
has
complied
with
these
sections
for
its
other
employees.
J
Numerous
times,
this
kind
of
belies
the
claim
that
the
appellant
was
confused
or
you
know,
didn't
understand
the
language
in
the
in
the
municipal
code
and
hey
you
guys
really
just
you
know,
jamming
me
up
on
kind
of
this
minor
technicality.
That's
that's
simply
not
the
case.
These
are
very,
very
important
regulations
that
that
the
city
is
is
very.
J
On
top
of
this
is
not
the
first
time
there
was
an
issue
with
the
with
the
security
guard
and
whether
or
not
he
or
she
was
properly
registered
and
and
and
and
and
did
a
background
check.
So
this
is
kind
of
a
I,
don't
want
to
say
a
continued
pattern
in
practice,
but
to
say
that
this
is
kind
of
the
first
time
and
it's
coming
out
of
left
field.
You
know
simply
simply
isn't
the
case.
The
city
made
multiple
efforts
to
gain
compliance.
Trust
me.
J
We
want
nothing
more
than
to
reach
out
to
a
cannabis
operator,
say
hey.
We
found
something
wrong
them
to
respond.
Hey!
Thank
you
so
much.
It's
taken
care
of
won't
happen
again,
that's
kind
of
a
a
perfect
world,
but
when
those
you
know,
requests
and
and
warnings
go
go
un,
unheated
and,
and
they
kind
of
you
know,
decide
to
ignore
it.
The
city
really
has
no
choice
but
to
but
to
up
its
enforcement
activity.
J
Finally,
I
did
want
to
just
briefly
hit
on
the
fine
amount.
The
city
council
passes
the
fine
resolutions
which
set
the
the
the
the
dollar
amount
as
it
pertains
to
the
to
each
violation.
I
know
it
was
attached
in
your
staff
report,
and
you
know,
staff
and
the
city
council
kind
of
painstakingly
went
through
each
every
possible
violation
and
kind
of
allotted
it
under
a
certain
category.
J
You
know
that
that
that
A3,
which
deals
with
the
register
of
employees
was,
was
listed
as
a
serious
violation
in
the
fine
resolution.
Thus,
you
know
qualifying
it
for
a
five
thousand
dollar
administrative
citation,
fine
upon
the
first
violation.
City
staff
has
no
discretion
in
issuing
these
fines
in
that
City
staff
can't
say
Hey.
You
violated
that
but
I'm
going
to
take
it
easy
on
you,
I'm
gonna
take
a
break.
J
Here's
it
for
500,
you
know
et
cetera
Etc,
and
so,
while
you
know
I
do
recognize
that
there
was
an
unfortunate
typo
in
the
administrative
citation.
There
couldn't
really
be
any
true
confusion,
because
the
staff
had
no
no
discretion
kind
of
whatsoever
that
it
was
it
had
to
issue
the
citation
5000
if
it
was
going
to
issue
a
citation
it
did
and
that's
kind
of
what
we
what
we
have
today
before
you.
J
That
kind
of
concludes
my
portion
of
of
tonight's
presentation,
I'm,
of
course,
available
for
for
any
questions
and
I
know.
Director
goodheart
has
the
the
code
enforcement
staff
on.
If,
if,
if
the
board
has
any
questions
among
the
specifics
of
the
kind
of
you
know
the
citation
and
what
kind
of
went
back
and
forth
between
City
staff
and
and
the
appellant,
thank
you
very
much
chair.
Thank
you.
K
Thank
you
director,
goodheart
good
evening,
members
of
the
board,
City
staff
and
members
of
the
public
for
joining
us
for
tonight's
hearing.
My
name
is
Mitch
Navan
and
I'm,
a
co-compliance
officer
with
the
city
of
Palm
Springs
and
as
part
of
my
assigned
duties,
I
currently
serve
as
the
city's
primary
cannabis
compliance
officer.
The
events
leading
up
to
the
issuance
citation
ab6001
are
as
follows.
So
on
Wednesday,
April
20th
2022
I
visited
the
cannabis
dispensary
and
consumption
Lounge
OG
Arabian
Nights
to
conduct
a
proactive
cannabis.
K
Compliance
check
upon
arrival
was
noticed
that
the
business
did
not
have
any
on-site
security
personnel
as
required.
There's
no
there's.
No
security
guard
on
site
I
met
with
the
store
manager,
Ivette
Flores,
who
stated
that
their
security
guard
had
a
family
emergency
and
had
to
leave
to
tend
to
it.
She
stated
that
they
had
been
trying
to
get
into
contact
with
one
of
the
other
guards
to
come
in
to
cover,
but
did
not
have
an
estimate
of
when
security
Personnel
would
be
back
on
site.
K
I
reminded
Ivette
that,
under
both
city
and
state
regulations,
dispensaries
are
required
to
have
on-site
security
Personnel
at
all
times
during
hours
of
operation,
and
that
the
business
would
have
to
suspend
operations
and
remove
any
unauthorized
persons
from
the
business
premises
until
they
got
their
security.
Personnel
back
on
site
I
also
informed
a
vet
that
I
would
return
the
following
day
to
conduct
a
follow-up
and
review
the
surveillance
footage
to
gather
additional
details
related
to
those
observations,
then,
on
Thursday
April,
21st,
2022
I
returned
to
OG
Arabian
nights
and
met
with
the
store
manager.
K
K
Before
before
my
arrival,
while
reviewing
the
footage,
I
had
asked
I've
got
some
questions
about
their
security
personnel
and
she
had
mentioned
that
one
of
their
original
security
guards
who
I
was
more
familiar
with,
had
recently
resigned
and
that
they
had
recently
hired
two
new
security
guards.
So,
while
continuing
to
discuss
the
security
Personnel
event
did
provide
me
with
scanned
copies
via
emails,
leave,
those
are
included
in
staff
report
of
Antonio
and
Alan's
security
license
information.
K
At
that
time,
I
had
advised
that
I
would
review
the
information
received
with
the
Department
of
special
program
compliance
office
staff
and
then
I
would
reach
out
if
I
had
any
additional
questions.
So
I
immediately
returned
to
the
office
and
met
with
Michael
Milan,
who
serves
as
the
account
clerk
that
handles
most
of
the
administrative
side
for
the
city's
cannabis
applicants
and
licensees
to
discuss
my
findings
related
to
their
secure
personnel
and
review
the
most
recent
information
we
had
from
the
business
related
to
their
employee
roster.
K
It
was
at
that
time
that
it
was
found
that
we
had
not
received
any
notification
from
the
business
of
the
separation
of
one
of
their
existing
guards,
who
turned
out
to
be
Gina
and
the
addition
of
the
two
newer
guards,
Antonio
and
Alan.
So
I
then
drafted
the
email
requesting
the
information
which
is
included
in
the
staff
report.
I
believe
it's
attachment.
Nine!
K
So
this
deadline
was
not
met
and
when
I
returned
to
work
on
Monday
morning,
I
still
not
received
a
response
back
and
then
it
was
at
that
point
that
I
drafted
a
second
email
which
included
the
previous
request,
store
manager
and
addressed
it
to
the
business
owners,
Dr
Wen
and
Miss
Yang
advising
the
requirements
and
the
information
requested,
as
well
as
a
last
and
final
deadline
to
have
the
information
provided
to
me
by
the
end
of
business.
That
day
on
Wednesday
morning,
April
27th
when
I
came
into
work.
K
I
still
hadn't
received
the
information
as
requested,
and
it
was
determined
then
that
the
business
was
in
violation
of
the
city's
canvas
ordinance
via
the
mentioned
sections
and
citation
ab6001
was
issued
and
delivered
to
the
business.
That
day
should
be
noted
that
the
information
was
finally
received
in
this
requested
form
on
Thursday
April
28th
at
1,
11
pm
and
then
at
that
time.
K
After
reviewing
the
employee
roster,
it
was
found
that
the
two
most
recently
hired
security
guards,
Antonio
and
Allen,
had
not
had
their
Live
Scan
fingerprinting
results
returned
clear
with
the
police
department,
thus
making
them
ineligible
to
have
begun
working
at
all
at
the
dispensary
and
consumption
Lounge.
So
I
know
that
was
a
lot,
but
that's
that's!
All
I
have
to
present
I'll,
kick
it
back
over
to
director
goodheart
and
I'm
available.
If
the
board
has
any
additional
questions
or
follow-up.
Thank
you.
I
That
allows
our
compliance
to
issue
citations
without
issuing
a
pre-citation
warning
or
courtesy
notice.
The
intent
was
to
have
strict
enforcement
similar
to
Vacation
Rentals,
to
ensure
compliance
with
this
business
as
it
is
of
such
a
serious
nature
for
the
city.
At
this
time,
I
will
have
the
meeting
back
to
Monique
to
conduct.
G
C
L
C
K
C
K
So
the
my
initial
inspection
which
occurred
in
January
the
end
of
January
of
this
year,
I
had
at
the
bottom
there
in
addition
to
the
violations
that
we
had
identified,
that
needed
correction
I
had
put
that
I
needed
a
response
with
an
updated
employee
roster
that
wasn't
provided
to
me
until
March
4th,
so
that
was
in
excess
of
the
24
hours.
I've
I've
been
to
OG
Arabian
Nights.
K
K
C
K
And
that's
that's
part
of
the
reason
why
there
was
so
many
attachments
was
to
demonstrate
that
this
wasn't
this
wasn't
a
one-off
behavior
of
of
failure
to
respond
quickly.
It's
kind
of
been
demonstrated
that
we've
had
four
or
five
different
instances.
Where
you
know
information
getting
over
to
us
has
either
not
come
or,
as
has
come
greatly
delayed
from
when
we
requested
it.
C
C
F
N
N
Rest
of
that
letter
was
multi-fold.
It
mentions
that
the
staff
included
all
kinds
of
information
that
were
not
relevant
to
the
two
alleged
violations.
In
particular,
it
was
never
stated
that
the
Appellate
was
confused.
It
was
never
stated
that
there
was
any
misunderstanding
or
lack
of
of
information
provided
when.
N
N
In
particular,
let's
talk
about
those
two
alleged
violations,
oh
and
by
the
way,
before
we
get
into
that.
Oh
since,
when
does
staff
make
administrative
rulings
to
waive
courtesy
notices
that
sounds
like
a
function?
That's
Way
Beyond.
What
staff
ought
to
be
exercising
it's
either
a
city
policy
or
it's
not,
but
staff
I,
don't
think,
is
the
appropriate
time
or
place
to
to
make
those
kind
of
policies
regardless
the
two
alleged
violations
concerned.
N
Is
included
is
saying
any
new
supervisors,
employees
or
other
persons
engaged
in
the
operation
of
an
adult
use
cannabis
business
must
submit
their
information
to
the
city
manager.
Let's
stop
right
there.
This
is
a
requirement
for
the
employee
to
submit
information
to
the
city.
The
employer
is
not
mentioned
in
this
entire
paragraph
and
therefore
the
employer
can't
be
charged
with
violating
something
the
employee
is
supposed
to
be
doing
so
on
its
face.
I
think
that
this
particular
violation,
alleged
violation,
is
completely
invalid
and
I
just
will
read
the
the
sentence
again
with
emphasis.
N
N
B
N
Okay,
I'm
sorry,
I
heard
something
in
the
background.
This
section
says
that
the
permit
tea
shall
maintain
a
current
register
of
the
names
and
that
register
should
be
provided
as
city
manager
upon
a
reasonable
request.
Now,
I
want
to
emphasize
upon
a
reasonable
request,
the
appellant
offered
to
print
a
copy
of
that
register,
while
the
code
enforcement
officer
was
on
the
premises
but
was
told
that
was
not
necessary
later
that
same
day,
the
code
enforcement
officer
sends
an
email
saying:
hey
I've
got
to
have
this
by
the
end
of
the
day.
N
The
employee
responsible
for
responding
to
this
had
already
left
for
the
day
and
therefore
it
didn't
occur.
The
next
day,
which
was
his
alleged
deadline.
It
was
a
Friday,
the
city
wasn't
even
open,
so
how
in
the
world
you
know
was,
was
the
in
the
Talent
is
supposed
to
respond
to
an
employee
who
wasn't
there
and
and
wouldn't
be
there
for
three
days?
N
I
want
to
point
out
that
in
other
sections
of
this,
this
very
massive
information
dumped
in
the
city.
They
talk
about
a
24-hour
deadline
and
I.
Would
they
cite
paragraph
5.55
0.200,
paragraph
six,
and
this
is
cited
in
an
email
that
the
code
enforcement
officer
sent
to
the
appellant
the
paragraph
States,
that
each
adult
use
cannabis
business
should
allow
the
city
of
Palm
Springs
officials
to
have
access
to
the
businesses
books
records
accounts
for
the
purpose
of
conducting
an
audit
or
examination.
N
N
So,
once
again,
they
try
to
bring
up
a
whole
Deluge
of
information
from
prior
events,
which
is
incomplete
and
incoherent
to
befriend
that
the
appellant
was
you
know,
did
this
or
did
that
or
did
something
else,
we're
only
concerned
with
the
two
things
that
they
are
alleged
to
have
done
here
and,
as
I
pointed
out,
one
of
them
doesn't
apply
to
the
appellant
at
all,
and
the
other
one
applies
on
a
reasonable
request.
The
appellant
did
respond
in
a
reasonable
manner.
N
To
that
request,
I
think
that
the
fact
of
the
matter
is
they.
The
testimony
so
far
this
evening
indicates
that
the
Code
Compliance
officers
have
been
to
this
business
approximately.
If
I
added
up
the
numbers
correctly,
as
they
were
being
spoken
eight
times
eight
times
about
a
register,
I
would
call
this
harassment
to
be
blocked
and
they
are
known
throughout
the
city
for
other
cannabis
operators
to
be
very
persistent
in
their
inspections
of
work.
This
is
just
simply
not
done
for
any
other
kind
of
business.
N
N
The
summons
was
given
to
the
appellant,
has
two
different
fine
amounts,
and
that
was
just
dismissed
in
testimonies.
Oh
that's
a
typo!
Well,
it's
a
hell
of
a
typo.
When
you
give
someone
a
complaint
that
is
incorrect,
it
has
two
different
figures.
It
says
that
it's
per
account
when
there's
two
counts.
It's
clearly
he's
legally
insufficient
and
there's
no
question
that
that
kind
of
information
could
easily
be
misconstrued.
I'd
love
to
point
out
that
there
is
one
tiny
error
in
the
written
testimony.
N
I
provided
I
mentioned
that
all
three
of
the
accountants
or
employees
were
not
native
English
speakers
and
that's
actually
incorrect.
One
of
the
appellant
employees
is,
in
fact
a
native
English
speaker,
but
I
think
that
the
density
of
the
city
regulation
and
the
piling
on
dozens
of
pages
of
information
that
unfortunately
have
nothing
to
do
with
the
issue
at
hand,
creates
confusion
and
intimidates
the
appellant
I
would
be
happy
to
answer
any
specific
questions
that
the
that
either
staff
or
the
board
have
but
I
do
want
to
Simply.
N
N
I
think
that,
unfortunately,
it's
it's
gone
way
too
far
and
I
think
this
is
only
one
example
where
we're
seeing
it
again.
It's
73
Pages
because
they
didn't
produce
a
register
in
a
timely
fashion
and
they
didn't
do
something
that
the
employee
was
supposed
to
do.
This
is
nonsense.
This
is
not
how
Palm
Springs
is
supposed
to
operate.
C
P
N
And
that's
not
what
I
said.
I
said
what
the
what
the
employer
is
sided
with
is
a
requirement
for
the
employee
and
therefore
you
can't
cite
him
for
the
employee
not
doing
what
they're
supposed
to
it's.
Frankly,
this
is
poorly
awarded
because
the
requirement
should
be
on
the
employer,
but
it's
not
the
plain
language
says:
the
employee
must
do
this
and
they're
citing
Mr
Gwen
in
his
business,
continuing
to
do
what
an
employee
was
supposed
to
do
prior
to
employment.
Okay,
so
you
know
not
as
an
employee
but
prior
to
employment.
N
P
F
N
When
the
city
is
alleging
here
is
that
they
they,
the
city,
were
not
notified
in
a
timely
fashion.
Prior
to
the
beginning
of
employment
of
the
employee's
status,
that
status
was
never
in
question.
The
employee
was
live,
scammed
and
indeed
was
qualified
to
work.
He
also
possessed
a
state
guard
card
as
it's
commonly
called,
and
the
only
issue
is
they're
claiming
that
they
they
didn't,
provide
this
information
before
employment.
N
That's
not
what
the
paragraph
says,
and
even
if
we
interpret
that
paragraph
As
to
be
an
employer
responsibility,
it
says
the
information
will
be
provided
within
10
days
prior
to
the
new
employment
within
10
days
doesn't
mean
at
least
10
days
more
than
10
days.
In
fact,
quite
the
opposite.
It
means
that
you
can't
provide
that
information
until
10
days
before
employment
starts.
It
doesn't
set
a
deadline,
so
you
literally
could
have
provided
that
information
one
minute
before
employment
starts
and
you've
met
the
plain
language
of
the
code.
P
N
C
N
That
is
correct
and
if
you'll
note
that
the
appellant
is
not
charged
with
having
unqualified
employees,
there
are
only
charged
with
not
having
produced
a
register
of
their
employees
in
an
appropriate
amount
of
time.
According
to
the
code
enforcement
operator,
sorry
officer,
but
the
fact
of
the
matter
is
the
time
frame
to
these
sites
are
incorrect,
and
I've
pointed
this
out
in
my
in
my
written
testimony.
E
M
J
Sinclair,
no,
not
at
all
the
the
city's
interpretation
is
diametrically
opposite
to
what
Mr
Rosenberg
said
and
and
I
can
kind
of
point
to
the
code,
language
and
then
kind
of
give
some
some
backup
kind
of
reasoning
for
that.
So
as
an
initial
matter,
the
operative
provision
is
not
one
of
the
one
through.
Let
me
see
how
many
there
are
here:
27
requirements,
rather
it's
found
in
a
and
it
says
each
permit
T
shall
not
violate
this
chapter
and
shall
comply
with
all
of
the
following.
J
The
Perma
T
I.E
is
the
business
who
is
granted
or
request
and
applies
for
the
adult
use
cannabis
permit.
Now,
once
again,
going
back
to
the
language
of
the
specific
subsection
21,
it
says
it.
It
does
say
that
an
employee
or
other
person
engaged
they
must
submit
their
information
to
the
city
manager.
The
reason
being
for
that
is
that
the
city
determines
whether
or
not
someone
passes
a
background
check
whether
or
not
they're
qualified
to
operate
further.
J
J
It
doesn't
say
that
the
business
operator,
but
inherent
and
pregnant
in
that
is
saying
that
you
must
do
this
before
your
employment,
who,
who
does
the
employment?
If
not
the
employer,
you
know
I,
can't
I
can't
just
show
up
to
Mr
one's
shop
and
say
hey
I'm
here
to
work
I'm
I'm,
going
to
be
your
employee.
Now
that
that
strange
reading
of
section
21
is
is
not
something
that
the
at
the
city
staff
agrees
with
and
and
and
to
be
honest,
I
I
think
it
is
incorrect.
Sir.
K
So
previously
we
had
information
related
to
two
security
guards
that
was
conducted
on
follow-up
investigations
by
the
previous
code
officer,
that
was
handling
cannabis
compliance
matters
and
that
was
Miss,
Gina,
Ayala
and
Mr
limber
Estrada,
and
they
were
both
on
these.
They
were
both
listed
on
the
employee
roster
that
was
submitted
by
the
store
manager
I've
at
Flores
on
March
4th.
In
response
to
my
request
that
was
made
on
the
January
27th
of
this
year.
So.
K
Correct
so
the
the
general
process
with
most
operators
is
that,
if
there's
an
offer
of
employment,
they
then
provide
their
that
individual
with
the
with
the
Live
Scan
form
that
has
the
pre-filled
routing
on
there
that
directs
it
to
the
police
department
for
when
they,
if
they
do
it
outside,
if
they
get
fingerprinted
outside
of
the
police
department.
If
they
go
to
a
third
party
Live
Scan
facility,
that
sheet
is
generally
provided
by
the
employer
upon
conditional
offer
of
an
employment
pending
the
results
of
that.
So.
K
B
C
C
H
C
C
A
C
D
Q
Unmute
on
his
phone,
he
was
a
little
technically
challenged,
but
I'm
pretty
sure
that
the
answer
to
your
question
would
have
been
at
the
latter
of
the
two
that
you
had
asked
that
he
is
just
thinking
that
this
was
the
just
paperwork
dispute
and
and
not
more
I,
don't
believe
it
was
beyond
that.
Okay
and
also
just
because
I
helped
Philip
Dr
Wen
get
his
permit.
Q
I
can
tell
you
that
I
don't
help.
People
get
permits
and
I
don't
operate
with
people
in
this
town
unless
they
follow
the
rules
and
do
the
right
thing.
So,
as
a
reference
on
my
behalf
as
someone
who
has
helped
get
many
permatees
licensed
in
the
city
of
Palm,
Springs
I
find
that
OG
Arabian
Nights
is
doing
a
really
good
job
and
I'm
not
going
to
get
into
whether
or
not
they
broke.
The
rules.
I
think
Mr
Rosenberg
set
the
case
up
for
them.
Q
A
C
R
Good
afternoon
this
is
Eva
Flores,
so
I'm
not
sure
who
this
question
would
go
for,
but
there
was
brought
up
about
the
Life
Scan.
So
an
employee
has
to
take
a
Life
Scan
10
days
before
they
are
hired,
but
I
have
gotten
Live
Scan
emails
like
a
month
to
two
months
after
that
the
employee
was
approved.
So
if
the
employee
isn't
approved
in
the
timely
manner
on
your
end,
do
we
just
stop
operations.
I
Our
code
is
clear
that
every
employee
must
undergo
a
Live
Scan
and
those
results
must
be
received
prior
to
commencement
of
their
employment.
If
a
business
has
multiple
employees,
they
need
to
ensure
that
all
of
them
are
cleared
prior
to
the
commence
operations.
Unfortunately,
we
have
a
very
large
striving
cannabis
industry
that
at
times
does
cause
a
backlog
in
your
review
and
approval
of
these
live
scams,
but
we
cannot
waive
that
requirement.
We've
had
applicants
who
were
disqualified
based
on
felony
charges
where
they
were
not
eligible
to
work
at
a
cannabis
business.
I
This
is
for
the
protection
of
the
business
and
the
public.
So
whether
or
not
a
business
has
to
Halt
their
operations
is
on.
You
know,
a
determination
has
to
be
made
by
them.
This
is
also
you
know.
They
had
more
than
one
security
officer.
So
if
they
had
more
than
one
security
officer,
they
could
have,
alternatively,
used
the
other,
while
the
background
was
pending
or
they
could
have
hired
a
contractor
to
come
in
and
provide
temporary
services
to
maintain
their
operations.
This
is
nothing
new
for
this
business.
I
In
June
of
2021,
we
determined
that
they
had
no
security
officer
present
and
had
been
operating
since
November
2020.
It
is
both
state
and
local
law
that
they
have
to
have
a
security
officer
present
during
operations.
They
should
have
been
communicated
to
them
by
their
Consultants
I
mean
it's
a
pretty
standard
requirement.
R
Yes,
sorry
I
also
have
one
more
thing
to
mention
that
the
day
that
Mitchell
naban
did
come
into
the
store
and
I
sent
him.
The
two
guards
I
also
offered
him
the
employee
roster,
and
he
says
it's:
okay,
until
I
received
that
email
a
few
hours
later
asking
him
asking
me
to
give
him
the
employee
roster,
so
it
was
offered
in
person
as
well,
but
unfortunately,
I
was
already
clocked
out
by
the
time
he
needed
it.
C
R
A
A
Would
you
like
me
to
read
it
for
you?
Please
just
says
I
wanted
to
provide
the
following
feedback.
This
is
a
matter
of
public
safety
as
a
resident
of
Palm
Springs
I
want
to
know
that
when
I
visit,
my
local
dispensary
proper
protocol
is
being
followed
to
ensure
a
safe
and
reliable
experience
for
the
public,
with
recent
burglaries
and
vandalism
occurring
across
multiple
dispensaries
in
Palm
Springs
and
greater
violence
across
the
country.
A
This
violation
by
Arabian
Nights
in
effect,
have
put
the
public
in
danger
not
having
a
properly
vetted
security
guard
on
premises
who
is
in
charge
of
public
and
business.
Safety
is
unacceptable
if
the
board
does
not
uphold
the
violation.
Why
even
have
regulations
in
place
if
they
are
not
going
to
be
enforced?
I
urge
the
board
members
to
uphold
this
fine
against
Arabian
Nights,
where
both
violations
of
code,
5.55.283
and
5.55.221.
E
C
P
M
Well,
you
know
it
just
falls
back
on
I
Heard,
the
discussion
that
it
was
being
pushed
on
the
employee
to
be
responsible
for
submitting
documentation
to
the
city
and
and
I
feel
that
we've
gone
through
this
with
other
avenues
of
of
discussion
with
short-term
rentals
and
stuff
and
ultimately,
I
feel
that
it's
the
employer
who's
responsible
for
making
sure
that
his
employee
follows
all
regulations
and
rules
in
order
to
be
compliant
with
the
laws
of
of
the
city.
So
that's
just
my
comment.
B
C
C
I
would
agree
with
Mr
basily
that
that
I
think
the
onus
is
on
the
business
owner
to
make
sure
they're
in
compliance
and
to
push
that
off
on
the
employees.
I
think
is
completely
inappropriate
and
also
I
would
add.
From
my
perspective
is
that
this
is
not
like
any
other
business.
This
is
a
highly
regulated
business,
both
at
the
state
and
the
local
level.
G
C
S
S
The
advertisement
number
is
three:
two:
five
five
four
zero
four
eight
and
was
located
on
Airbnb.
The
advertisement
is
titled
vacation,
getaway
close
to
downtown
and
restaurants.
It
lists
the
property
as
a
one-bedroom
condominium,
with
two
beds
and
sleeps
four
guests.
This
is
item
3-24
in
your
packet.
S
The
property
has
62
reviews
from
guests
on
October
6
2021
at
7
38
a.m.
I
sent
a
booking
request
to
the
property
host
Harvey
asking.
If
the
property
was
available,
November
November,
17th
to
November
21st,
a
personalized
response
was
received
from
the
property
host
Carvey
at
11
15
PM
that
same
day
stating
hello
Dave.
The
date
you
requested
are
available.
I
will
also
provide
you
with
check-in
details
before
your
arrival.
Harvey
then
sent
an
automated
booking
invitation.
This
is
item-3-3-4
in
your
packet.
S
U
U
C
You
I
guess
I,
don't
have
any
questions
either
all
right,
so
we
will
now
move
to
the
public
hearing
portion
of
this
any
the
appellant
will
have
10
minutes
to
speak.
If
any
member
of
the
public
wishes
to
testify,
they
will
have
two
minutes
and
then
the
the
appellant
will
have
a
chance,
a
two-minute
chance
to
rebut
any
public
testimony.
So
the
appellant
your
10
minutes
starts
now
foreign.
C
U
U
The
thing
is
where
we
they
live
in
Laguna,
Hills
and
I
have
one
question:
as
far
as
a
I
know,
we've
received
their
first
mail
in
the
letter
saying
that
we
receive
usually
all
the
letters
to
the
2822
North
Auburn
Court,
but
we
hardly
checked
the
Maldives.
But
this
melt
was
like
a
surprise
to
us
when
we
first
received,
but
on
the
first
citation.
U
Is
it
usually
five
thousand
dollars
when
you
receive
it
or
do
they
give
you
like
a
warning
and
then
or
is
I'm
just
trying
to
say,
is
that
their
first,
the
first
Bible
you
should
get?
Is
it
five
thousand
dollars
for
short-term
rentals
or
normally
do
they
give
you
like
a
couple
notices
in
mail
and
then,
if
you
don't
cooperate,
then
they
violate
you
Patrick.
U
Okay,
so
my
other
question
is
like
you
know
when,
when
we
didn't
know
too
much
about
short-term
rentals,
because
we're
doing
long
terms
I
know
over
28
days
is
considered
normally
the
long-term
rental
right,
you
don't
need
a
tot
or
I
guess
it's
a
permit
I'm
not
too
familiar
with
these
things,
but
anyhow
when
we
got
the
we're
doing
short
terms
and
through
airbr
platform,
they
have
like
this
tax
that
you're
supposed
to
report.
It's
like
a
W9
or
a
1099k.
U
We
thought
that
that's
the
tax
we're
supposed
to
have-
or
you
know,
to
report
in
other
words,
but
I
I,
don't
know
really
anything
about
the
tot.
Until
I
did
more
research
and
then
I
realized,
you
know,
I
deliver
guys,
also
I.
Guess
we
had
to
go
through
the
HOA.
That's
another
thing
right:
the
HOAs
usually
don't
allow
you
to
either
do
more
than
like
28
days
or
30
days.
U
U
So
I
don't
know,
I
mean
I
mean
we
would
love
to
like.
You
know
one
of
the
one
of
our
questions.
We
don't
know
if
we
were
allowed
to
do
short-term
rental
in
the
Villa
2
community
and
two
is,
if
you
even
with
a
permit.
Of
course
you
guys
are
saying
without
the
permit.
You
cannot
operate
a
short-term
rental,
but
with
a
permit
we
don't
know
if
even
the
HOA
allows
it
or
not,
but
you
know
I.
U
C
U
Yeah,
okay,
perfect,
so
see,
that's
that's
what
I
didn't
know
and
that's
what
we're
doing
now.
We
didn't
do
anymore,
we're
not
doing
any
more
short
terms
right
now,
but
everybody's
more
than
28
days,
and
but
the
the
other
question
is:
if
we're
allowed
to,
you
know,
get
the
permit,
I
mean.
Obviously
it
says
we're
banned
from
it
now.
Obviously,
because
we
got
this
violation,
do
we
have
to
get
permission
through
the
HOA?
Is
that
how
the
process
works?
I?
Don't
really
know
how
the.
U
U
P
C
C
A
C
C
M
M
Is
he
not
getting
permits
for
those
rentals
as
well?
I
can't
imagine
any
Town,
that's
allowing
short-term
rentals
they're
not
requiring
people
to
get
permits
in
order
to
operate
them.
The
other
thing
is,
is
if
they've
been
operating
and
he's
relying
on
Airbnb,
as
he
mentioned,
to
pay
a
tax,
then
he's
not
paying
the
city
tax
for
having
the
opportunity
to
rent
this
property
short
term.
So
I
heard
the
whole
story
and
it's
very
clear
and
it's
a
situation
that
we've
gone
over
and
we've
heard
many
times
over
and
over
again.
B
T
T
C
Maybe
some
of
those
don't
meet
the
definition
or
term,
but
it
certainly
was
rented
quite
a
bit
and
when
the
HOA
doesn't
allow
for
short
terms.
In
my
mind,
that
is
kind
of
a
pretty
significant
negligence
on
the
part
of
the
homeowner,
regardless
of
of
which
one
of
the
family
members
was
was
managing.
It
is
one
of
the
board
members
wanna,
oh,
go
ahead:
Mr
Hedrick,
I'd.
U
No,
we
don't
that's
the
only
one
and
also
I
replied
to
another
question
to
answer
that
what
other
I'm
wrong?
Who
said
this?
By
that?
We
will
be
reporting
the
1099
and
the
the
10
it's
a
1099w
night.
We
will
be
reporting
it
I
know.
He
said
that
we
were
not
going
to
be
reporting
it,
but
we
are
for
we're,
definitely
going
to
be
reporting
it,
how
much
income
we
made.
C
U
G
A
C
Thank
you
again,
thank
you,
everybody
for
your
effort
on
this
to
the
Appellate.
What
this
means
is
is
that
you
are
permanently
banned
from
getting
a
short-term
rental
permit
in
the
city
of
Palm
Springs.
You
are
able
to
rent
long
term,
but
short-term
rentals
are
now
prohibited
for
you,
and
the
city
will
be
reaching
out
to
you
in
a
more
official
capacity
about
the
fine
and
the
band.
Thank.
C
We
are
going
to
move
on
to
our
last
case,
which
is
number
four
on
the
agenda.
That
is
the
appeal
of
the
administrative
decision
that
Kimberly
keys
and
Kenneth
Rosenfeld
are
permanently
ineligible
to
operate
a
vacation
rental
in
the
city
of
Palm
Springs
and
the
administrative
fine
of
five
thousand
dollars
for
operating
an
unregistered
vacation
rental
property
located
at
2965
East
Avery
Drive,
Unit
F
in
Palm,
Springs,
California
city
clerk.
Can
you
please
ensure
that
the
city
staff
and
the
appellant
understand
that
their
testimony
is
under
oath.
A
City
staff,
appellants
and
any
other
individual
who
desires
to
testify
under
disappeal
hearing
under
the
laws
of
perjury.
If
you
choose
to
speak,
you
hereby
accept
and
acknowledge
that
your
testimony
shall
be
the
truth,
the
whole
truth
and
nothing
but
the
truth.
Please
begin
your
testimony
by
stating
your
name.
T
Yes,
good
evening,
chair,
Vice,
chair
board
members,
City
staff
residents
on
the
call
this
evening.
My
name
is
Patrick
Clifford
with
the
Department
of
special
program
compliance
and
where
we
oversee
the
vacation
rental
program
here
in
the
city
of
Palm
Springs
before
you
this
evening
is
a
staff
report
regarding
the
property
located
at
2965
East
Avery,
Drive,
Unit
F.
T
Here
in
Palm
Springs,
it
was
determined
that
the
owners
have
without
a
registration
certificate
advertised
and
operated
the
property
located
at
2965
East
Avery
Drive,
Unit
f,
as
a
vacation
rental
from
the
elements
that
are
shown
in
the
staff
report,
page
two
and
investigated
by
the
code,
compliance
officer
with
that.
With
the
findings
from
the
code,
compliance
officer,
a
citation,
it
was
issued,
January
13
2022.,
the
code
officer
that
did
conduct
the
investigation
is
on
the
call
this
evening
and
I
would
like
to
invite
officer
Williams
to
further
provide
testimony.
Thank
you.
S
A
link
to
the
advertisement
was
also
included
on
the
online
Complaint
Form.
The
advertisement
number
is
530-688-98,
that
is
item
4-53
in
your
packet.
The
advertisement
lists
the
property
as
an
entire
condo
townhouse
with
two
bedrooms
and
accommodates
up
to
four
guests.
It
offers
self-check-in
through
keyless
entry
pad
the
property,
had
one
review
and
is
hosted
by
tea
time
and
co-hosted
by
Victoria
on
December
22nd
2021
I
sent
a
booking
inquiry
to
the
host
at
12
43
PM.
S
In
the
request,
I
wrote,
hi
I
wanted
to
see
if
your
home
is
available,
January
6th
through
January
10
2022,
my
husband
and
I,
will
be
heading
to
Palm
Springs
to
visit
family.
Please,
let
me
know,
and
I
will
book
it
on
December
23
2021
at
7
19
a.m.
The
host
sent
a
personalized
response.
Yes,
these
dates
are
available,
feel
free
to
book
and
let
us
know
if
you
need
anything
else
that
is
item
4-3-6
in
your
packet.
S
C
C
S
C
It
yes
all
right!
Thank
you
very
much
all
right.
Thank
you.
We
will
now
open
the
public
portion
of
this
hearing
for
the
appellant
to
address
this,
and
if
there's
any
members
of
the
public,
the
Appellate
will
have
10
minutes
to
speak.
If
a
member
of
the
public
chooses
to
testify,
the
Appellate
will
be
given
an
additional
two
minutes
to
respond
at
this
time.
The
appellants
can
go
ahead
and
start
good.
O
Evening,
chair
good
evening,
members
good
evening,
City
staff,
my
name-
is
attorney
Ron
Irwin,
with
the
Irwin
firm
I
represent
Kenneth,
Rosenfeld
and
Kimberly
keys
in
this
matter
before
you
this
evening.
Appreciate
you
taking
the
time
and
I'd
also
like
to
take
just
a
couple
seconds
of
my
time
to
compliment
and
and
thank
the
staff
that
had
worked
with
me
and
helping
me
prepare
for
this
meeting
this
evening.
O
They
were
very
professional,
very
kind,
and
very
forthright
I
also
want
to
make
it
very
clear
that
the
owners
of
this
property,
Kimberly
keys
and
Kenneth
Rosenfeld
did
not
at
any
point
in
time
contemplate
or
operate
a
vacation
rental
in
the
city
of
Palm
Springs.
It
was
never
their
desire,
it
was
never.
In
fact,
it
was
their
explicit
instructions
when
trying
to
determine
what
else
they
can
do
with
the
property
when
they
weren't
occupying
it.
O
It
was
very
clear
that
it
would
not
be
used
for
short
Terminals,
and
this
is
not
just
because
of
the
operational
concerns
or
the
the
concerns
with
the
ordinance.
It's
because
it's
their
home,
they
didn't
want
strangers
tramping
through
it.
They
didn't
want
to
have
to
take
care
of
the
maintenance
and
organizations
because
their
HOA
didn't
allow
it
it's,
because
it
was
not
what
it
was
purchased
for.
O
You
have
before
you
and
your
package
tonight,
a
declaration
from
Mr
Akash
law,
who
is
the
owner
of
Tea
Time
Properties
in
Sacramento
Kosh
law,
is
also
a
friend
and
neighbor
of
Mr
Rosenfeld
and
Miss
keys
in
discussing
the
purchase
of
property
in
Palm
Springs
Mr,
Rosenfeld
and
Miss
Keys
asked
him
as
a
professional
property
manager.
What
could
we
possibly
do
down
the
road
in
long-term
rentals?
If
and
for
those
periods
of
time,
when
we're
not
down
there?
Using
the
property,
Mr
call
Mr
law
said
he
would
look
into
it.
O
O
But
when
I
look
at
this,
you
know
I
believe
it
was
Mr
bacelli
that
says:
we've
heard
this
before
about
employee
employer
relationships,
there's
not
an
employee
employer
relationship.
This
is
a
vendor
contract
relationship
and
it
was
violated.
It
was
broken
and
my
clients
were
so
far
attenuated
from
that
decision
of
that
employee,
that
it
is
unforeseeable
for
them
to
believe
that
their
actions
or
that
their
orders
are
in
their
explicit
instructions,
would
not
have
been
carried
out.
O
This
statue
excuse
me
the
ordinance
States
any
person,
not
the
homeowners,
any
person
in
sub
D
of
your
of
your
code,
who
operates
a
vacation
rental
without
vacation
registration
certificate,
she'll
be
liable.
That
would
be
Mr,
Law's,
employee
or
Mr
law
on.
If
you
want
to
apply
or
respond
to
yacht
Superior
Theory.
O
Apparently
the
one
review
was
posted
in
in
January.
The
Outreach
was
in
December
code
enforcement
officer,
didn't
say
anything
about
how
he
went
to
verify
whether
or
not
that
was
an
actual
stay
or
a
review
code
enforcement
officer
didn't
indicate
how
he
verified
that
the
posting
on
Airbnb
had
any
relation
to
the
property
owners
or
who
T
time
was
or
what
their
business
was.
O
O
O
Talk
about
how
the
city
tries
to
be
reasonable,
not
being
Draconian
the
city,
staff
or
compliance
officer
in
the
in
the
first
case
tonight
was
talking
about
pre-citation,
courtesy,
notices
and,
and
that
you
know
the
city
tries
to
give
leniency
in
issues,
and
these
are
issues
is
that
one
public
member
brought
up
of
Public
Safety
when
we're
talking
about
about
cannabis
operations
and
security,
and
yet
in
your
special
programs
it
was
decided
there
would
be
no
courtesy
warnings
and
clearly
not
enough
investigation
to
really
place
this.
Upon.
O
It's
a
it's
a
setup
that
allows
for
traveling
nurses,
and
this
fits
what
they
want
to
do,
because
they
know
when
they're,
going
to
use
their
property
and
they're
looking
the
rest
of
the
time
to
be
able
to
use
it
to
do
better
things
in
the
community.
Look
Mr,
Rosen,
called
Miss
keys
are
very
vibrant
members
of
communities
across
the
state
they
give
they're
important
members
of
their
Community
up
in
Sacramento.
O
E
C
L
W
I
sent
in
a
letter
today
outlining
my
observations:
I
lived
adjacent
to
the
unit
in
question
and
I
sent
in
a
letter
with
my
observations
when
I
realized
that
there
were
people
coming
in
and
out
of
that
unit
on
a
regular
basis
and
I
documented
I
I
sent
it
into
I.
Think
I
got
a
a
response
from
was
it
Miss
Kane
or
was
it
I'm?
Sorry,
probably.
W
W
I
also
want
to
say
that
per
the
homeowners
associations
ccrs
their
their
guidelines.
It
specifically
says
that
short-term
rentals
are
prohibited
and
there's
a
there's.
A
long
list
of
people
coming
in
and
out
I
I
happen
to
have
I.
Don't
want
to
think
that
I'm
spying
on
people
but
but
I
have
a
ring,
doorbell
and
I'm
able
to
when
I.
W
When
I
was
made
aware
of
this
situation
and
when
I
noticed
it
myself,
I
started
looking
at
the
ring
doorbell
to
see
you
know
what
was
what
was
the
motion?
Were
the
people
outside
of
my
garage
or
were
the
people
coming
in
and
out
and
I've
noticed
at
different
times
of
the
day
or
night
that
there
were
different
people
coming
in
and
out
and
opening
the
garage
through
there
through
the
code?
L
O
First
of
all,
he
showed
up
on
this
as
SB
I
have
no
idea
who
he
is
all
I
have
is
the
claim
that
he's
a
neighbor,
a
neighbor
who
stated
that
he
is
violating
my
clients,
quiet,
enjoyment,
rights
by
tracking
and
documenting
who
comes
in
and
out,
there's
a
humongous
difference
between
somebody
that
comes
in
or
out
of
the
building
and
somebody
that
is
violating
either
the
HOA
or
the
city's
rules
regarding
short-term
rental
and
vacation
okay.
Secondly,
this
committee
has
no
jurisdiction
over
the
HOA
or
their
crcs.
O
My
clients
have
been
called
before
the
HOA
board.
They
have
tried
to
answer
that
board.
There
was
a
shift
in
man,
management
and
I
can
tell
you
that
the
discussions
that
had
taken
place
regarding
their
desire
to
do
long-term
placement
that
he
identified
and
mischaracterized
as
being
untrue,
were
had
with
me
with
their
management
company
and
who
they
hired
to
attend
to
and
deal
with
these
types
of
issues,
and
it
it
just
seems
to
be
a
really
misplaced
idea,
certainly
not
something
that
we
would
be
discussing
with
the
neighbors
as
far
as
traveling
nurses.
O
As
far
as
people
coming
in
and
out
again,
the
place
was
built,
it
was
bought
for
for
my
clients
and
their
family
and
their
friends,
and
it
is
not
used
as
a
short-term
rental.
There
is
no
ad
that
I
am
aware
of
on
BRBO
or
VRBO
or
whatever
it
was
that
Mr
Burger
said
there
is
no
evidence
in
this
record.
That
indicates
that
there
is
anything
up
on
VRBO
or
VRBO.
O
My
best
knowledge
and
understanding
there
isn't,
and
if
there
is,
it
would
be
taken
down
immediately
as
well,
because
it
wouldn't
have
been
placed
by
my
clients
and
that's
another
thing
as
well.
There
is
especially
in
what
raises
a
concern
with
me,
and
it
is
a
reasonable
concern.
Is
that
you
have
somebody
that
doesn't
like
a
neighbor.
There
is
nothing
that
stops
them
from
getting
online
and
putting
up
an
ad
and
saying
oh,
look
at
this
I'm,
not
suggesting
and
I'm,
certainly
not
accusing
Mr
Burger
of
doing
that.
O
But
what
I'm
saying
is
is
that
this
is
why,
in
most
tribunal
situations,
you
have
evidence
you
conduct
evidence.
You
investigate
the
situation,
so
I
would
ask
that
the
entire
committee
disregard
Mr,
Burger's
testimonial
comments
is
just
not
being
relevant
or
supported
by
any
fact
or
evidence
in
this
proceeding.
C
C
O
Is
their
condo,
but
if
I
may
finish,
they
had
no
knowledge
that
it
was
posted.
They
gave
explicit
instructions
not
to
post
it.
They
gave
them
explicit
instructions
that
they
should
not
be
posting.
Anything
on
short-term
rentals,
Mr
Rosenfeld
is
an
attorney
and,
as
you
can
imagine,
the
the
if
I
can
speak
with
pure
Candor,
sir,
the
five
thousand
dollars
is
not
going
to
drive
them
into
bankruptcy.
O
O
The
second
case
you
had
tonight
the
difference
between
the
mother
and
father,
that
own
the
property
and
the
son
that
works
for
them,
managing
the
property
and
a
vendor
contract
or
vendor
customer
relationship
and
I
believe
that
was
extraordinarily
set
forth.
I
think
it's
very
clear
in
the
plain
language
of
your
ordinance
that
the
city
that
wrote,
New
York
the
city
members
that
wrote
the
ordinance
improve
the
ordinance
saw
that
too,
which
is
why
they
said
by
any
person
not
by
the
owners
But
to
answer
your
question:
yes,
that
I
believe
I've.
O
C
The
other
question
I
have
is
you
had
said
that
the
review
was
after
the
citation
the
citation
was
in
December.
The
review
was
posted
in
November,
I
use,
Airbnb
I'm
quite
familiar
with
it.
You
cannot
post
a
review
unless
you've
had
a
reservation
that
has
been
filled,
which
means
this
person
had
to
have
stayed
there
to
write
this
review.
Sure.
O
C
O
I,
don't
know
that
that's
necessarily
true,
because
I
am
not
privy
to
nor
nor
do
I
know
that
they
had
received
any
income.
Nor
is
there
any
evidence
that
they
had
had
Mr
law
through
tea
time
publish
that
ad.
Yes,
there
would
have
been
a
transaction.
Presumably,
however,
I
will
also
say
that
there
wasn't
a
transaction
between
the
city
code
enforcement
officer
and
Mr
law
or
Veronica
or
Victoria,
or
whatever
her
name
was
or
the
employee
that
actually
posted
the
ad
who's
no
longer
with
tea
time.
Okay,
but
what.
O
G
X
C
Know
that
it
didn't
I,
don't
know
they
would
have
accepted
it.
Thank
you,
I
understand
that,
and
just
so
we're
clear,
the
ordinance
does
not
say
money
has
to
change
hands.
Sure
the
ordinance
is
pretty
clear
that
accepting
a
inquiry
or
reservation
is
the
same.
The
city
says
that
is
the
same
as
operating
Patrick.
If
you
want
to
fill
in
any
detail
there,
please
do.
O
Well,
if
I
may
again,
I
think
that
there's
a
big
difference
between
that
on
somebody
where
you
know
the
only
evidence
is,
is
that
there
was
possibly
one
other
prior
stayer
and
the
person
with
62
reviews
and
again
when
it
was
found
that
this
was
being
done.
My
clients
took
quick
and
Swift
action
to
put
an
end
to
it,
because
it
was
nothing
that
they
ever
contemplated
to
begin
with
and
again,
I
think
we're
overlooking
the
the
obvious
on
the
the
the
importance
here
that
doesn't
require
it
to
be
the
owners.
O
C
O
Not
that
I
have
seen
to
this
point,
nor
was
it
requested,
so
I
didn't
dig
into
it.
I
think
it
was
again
through
the
chair,
Mr
Hedrick
I
appreciate
the
question.
I
I
think
that
again
this
was
supposed
to
be
a
due
diligence
deal
in
that
tea
time
was
supposed
to
do
a
marketing
review
of
it.
Take
a
look
at
what
the
long-term
rental
operations
would
be.
This
is
a
long-term
friend
and
neighbor
of
Mr
Rosenfeld
and
miss
and
miss
keys.
O
I,
don't
believe
that
it
had
gotten
to
the
point
of
a
contract
at
this
point
other
than
for
him
to
look
into
it,
and
then
his
employee
took
a
unilateral
step
on
their
own.
So
as
far
as
I
know,
there
was
no
agreement
because
there
wasn't
nothing.
There
wasn't
anything
in
place
at
that
point,
other
than
go
see
what
our
options
are
for
for
long-term
rental.
O
Exactly
what
I'm,
alleging
I'd
fraud
fraud
is
illegal?
Pardon
me
through
the
chair,
Mr
Hedrick
fraud
is
a
legal
conclusion.
It's
a
legal
standard,
I,
don't
know
if
it
meets
the
legal
elements
of
fraud.
What
I'm
saying
is
that
it
was.
It
was
posted
that
ad
was
posted
and
any
reservation
taken
was
done
so
without
the
knowledge
or
consent
and
in
violation
of
the
explicit
desires
and
wishes
and
goals
of
the
owners.
O
I'd
have
to
ask:
how
am
I
doing.
Forgive
me.
You
know
that
would
be
something
that
would
be
probably
not
something
within
the
desires
of
my
clients
again
we're
talking
about
their
neighbor,
we're
talking
about
a
long-term
friend
and
again
we're
talking
about
an
employee
that
had
worked
and
operated
outside
the
instructions
of
the
owner
of
tea
time.
That
my
understanding
is
that
employee
is
no
longer
employed.
I,
don't
know
that
for
a
fact,
it's
what
I
understand
it's.
What
I
hear
I
didn't
ask
about
their
employment
operations.
O
I!
Don't
know
that,
there's
enough
there
that
the
D.A
would
want
to
get
involved.
I,
don't
know
what
D.A
you
would
look
at.
Would
that
be
the
D.A
in
Sacramento?
Would
it
be
the
D.A
in
Palm,
Springs
and
again,
I?
Don't
necessarily
know
that
that
would
be
that
this
is
a
situation
where
that
would
be
fraud.
Is
the
making
a
a
statement
of
material
fact
that
they
know
to
be.
O
You
know,
or
should
know
to
be
untrue
for
the
purpose
of
inducing
a
party
to
do
one
thing
or
not
do
another
for
which
they
have
a
legal
right
and
do
so
to
their
damages,
and
you
know
other
than
this
proceeding
the
the
damages
are
are
between.
It
would
be
a
civil
issue
between
Mr
law
and
Mr
Rosenfeld
and
Miss
keys,
I.
Hope
that
answered
your
question.
E
B
M
G
M
Have
been
a
mistake,
but
it's
just
it.
It
seems
illogical
to
me
that
if
I
was
told
not
to
do
something
to
turn
around
and
do
the
opposite,
so
it's
just
a
comment
I
just
it
it
just
it's
sitting
with
me
and
it
doesn't
sit
right.
It's
just.
It
sounds
rather
strange
that
someone
would
totally
against
the
request
of
of
someone
else,
do
something
and
in
in
some
case,
cause
some
sort
of
harm,
which
is
what
we're
discussing
right
now.
So
it's
just
it
just
seems
kind
of
illogical
that
someone
would
do
that.
O
The
chair,
Mr
basilia,
if
I
may
address
you
kind
of
I,
think
it's
a
fair
comment.
I
think
it's
a
fair
point
and
I'd
address
it
this
way
and
and
Mr
Moses.
You
can
jump
in
if
you
wanna,
you
wanna
correct
me,
because
I
haven't
been
doing
this
very
long,
but
what
I
would
say
to
that
is
that
that
is
why,
in
tort
at
least
unlawful
acts
are
unforeseeable
because
they
don't
make
sense
and
again
we're
not
talking
about
we're
not
talking
and
and
by
the
way,
I.
O
Don't
think
that
there
was
necessarily
any
malicious
intent
by
the
young
man
that
posted
it
sure
I
think
that
he
got
you
know
this
is
the
business
that
Mr
law
does
and
I
and
again
I,
don't
know
enough
about
his
business,
Mr,
baselli
and
I
apologize,
you
know,
but
what
I?
What
I?
You
know
you
get
five
properties
in
that
you're
you're.
You
know
you
just
brought
on
that
you're
going
to
be
managing
right.
You
package
them
up.
O
There
is
plenty
in
this
world
that
we
can
scratch
our
heads
over,
but
I
think
that
what
the
evidence
is
before
you,
which
is
what
I'm,
hoping
and
I
believe
and
expect
that
the
fairness
of
this
board
will
look
at
states
that
the
owners
of
this
property
made
it
very
clear.
These
are
our
desires
and
Mr
law,
the
person
who's
in
charge
of
making
sure
that
those
wishes
were
taken.
Care
of
is
where
that
fell
apart,
and
he
admits
that
those
were
in
fact
his
instructions.
M
Right
and-
and
let
me
just
comment-
let
me
make
a
comment
to
your
comment,
and
that
is:
is
that
you're
telling
us
this,
but
we
have
no
proof
that
a
letter
was
generated
explicitly
giving
that
person
instructions
not
to
list
this
property,
so
we're
just
going
off.
Of
of
someone
else
is
saying
that
this
is
what
was
done
so
it.
You
know.
You
you're
asking
us
to
make
a
decision,
but
you're
also
giving
us
information,
and
you
know
as
an
attorney,
you
need
to
give
facts,
and
so
we
don't
have
a
letter.
M
O
M
O
O
Nine
well,
if
I'm,
if
I
may,
just
to
read
it
into
the
record
paragraph
eight
and
nine,
once
he
bought
the
property
at
2965
Avery
drive.
He
asked
me
what
kind
of
opportunity
there
was
to
derive
some
rental
income
for
time
when
the
property
would
not
be
used
for
extended
periods
of
time.
Ken
told
me.
He
and
Kimberly
were
only
interested
in
rentals
of
30
days
or
more.
They
did
not
wish
to
deal
with
the
complications
associated
with
short-term
rentals
complications.
O
He
cited
include
problems
relating
to
maintenance
and
operation,
short-term,
renting
scheduling,
complications
in
regard
to
their
personal
use
and
Regulatory
complications
both
with
the
city
and
the
HOA
paragraph.
Nine
I
agreed
to
market
the
property
with
adherence
to
the
owners,
explicit
instructions
not
to
Market
to
or
accept
short-term
renters
I
assigned
the
property
to
an
employee
who
same
who,
who,
with
those
same
explicit
instructions,
the
employee
failed
to
follow
those
instructions
and
the
property
went
up
on
Airbnb
short-term
page
rather
than
on
the
long-term
sites
of
30
days
or
longer,
as
instructed.
C
V
He
will
okay.
Well
then,
the
question
to
the
City
attorney,
who
now
went
off
camera-
oh
there
she
is
is,
is
I
mean
we've
never
seen
this
before
I
think
this
is
really
intriguing:
I
I
it
it's
been
stated
that
there's
no
written
agreement
between
the
operator
as
it
were,
the
manager
of
the
property
and
the
owners,
but
I
feel
like
I,
feel,
like
the
the
legislation,
the
ordinance
that
we're
under
isn't
Camp
isn't
that
illegal
proceeding.
Y
Y
C
Y
Y
So
we've
seen
other
cases,
you
know
where
there's
an
agency
relationship
and,
ultimately
the
city,
the
city's
interpretation
of
the
ordinance
is
that
the
owner
is
ultimately
responsible
for
violations,
including
the
operation
without
a
vacation
rental.
Permit.
The
city
expects
all
the
owners
of
properties
in
in
the
city
of
Palm
Springs.
Y
If
they're
operating
short
term
they
have
to
be,
they
obviously
have
to
get
this
permit
prior
to
operation,
if
they're,
renting
long
term
they're
responsible
to
know
when
they
have
different
tenants
coming
in-
and
you
know
just
be
aware
of,
what's
going
on
at
their
property,
that's
within
the
city.
So
if
there's
an
owner-
and
they
you
know-
don't
seem,
we
had
testimony
on
one
side
saying
that
there
hasn't
been
short-term
rentals.
There's
testimony
also
that
there
have
been
so.
V
D
O
Chair
absolutely
again,
there
is
a
conflict
in
your
statute
because
he
says
any
person
who
operates
a
vacation
rental
does
not
apply
the
the
owners.
Secondly,
you
don't
have
any
evidence,
you
have
implication.
You
have
thoughts.
You
have
Mr
trembly's
learned
opinion,
which
I
think
is
important,
but
you
have
no
evidence
that
refutes
or
rebuts
what
I'm
saying,
which
is.
There
was
no
agency
contract
here
there
was
a
hey
check
this
out
for
what
our
opportunities
are
long
term.
Do
your
marketing
research-
and
it's
great-
that
you
guys
are-
are
speculating
that
oh
well.
O
Maybe
it
means
this.
Maybe
it
means
that,
but
whether
it
be
an
administrative
case
or
whether
it
be
a
Supreme
Court
case
all
law
we're
a
state
actor
State
entity
which
a
city
is
has
to
arrive
as
arises
its
Authority
from
the
Constitution.
The
Constitution
says
that
where
the
state
is
looking
to
deprive
a
party
of
Liberty
or
property,
they
are
entitled
to
Due
Process
rights.
O
I
understand
this
isn't
a
legal
proceeding,
which
is
why
I
hadn't
been
objecting
left
and
right
throughout
the
entire
process,
but
there
is
still
a
burden
of
proof
and
that
burden
of
proof
has
got
to
be
based
on
evidence.
There
is
no
evidence
that
you're
that
you're
you're
code
enforcer
had
made
any
linkage
to
my
my
clients,
the
owners
of
this
property.
There
is
no
evidence
that
there
is
an
agency
contract
in
place
here.
O
P
O
P
O
Violated
the
instructions
I
think
I
think
what
this
shows
is
is
that
this
was
an
honest
and
misguided
statement
by
him.
There
was
no
agreement.
The
agreement
was
to
identify
the
market
opportunities
and
if
he
miswrote
it,
it
was
a
scrivener's
error
but
again
I
think
we're
trying
to
find
out
how
do
we
shape
and
form
and
sand
this
square
peg
down.
So
it
fits
into
the
round
hole
and
and
with
due
respect
with
due
respect.
C
C
All
right,
I'm
happy
to
start.
You
know
I,
think
we've
heard
a
lot
on
both
sides,
I
think,
based
on
the
letter
from
Mr
law.
There
was
whether
verbal
or
written
there
was
some
sort
of
an
agreement
between
these
two
and
Mr
law,
whether
took
it
upon
himself
or
a
staff.
Member
of
his
chose
to
list
it
as
a
short
term.
Now,
I
think
you
know.
We
have
been
through
many
many
cases
like
this,
and
it
is
without
dispute
that
the
onus
falls
on
the
owner.
C
We
don't
have
testimony
that
they
got
some
Revenue
out
of
this,
but
we
don't
have
testimony
that
they
didn't
I,
find
it
not
very
plausible
that
this
person,
who
apparently
manages
other
units
would
have
taken
revenue
and
not
given
it
to
the
owners.
So
the
owner
should
have,
in
my
mind,
done
a
little
bit
of
due
diligence,
say
where's
this
Revenue
coming
from.
We
told
you
not
to
rent
it,
then
also
when
the
compliance
officer
reached
out
about
a
short
term,
and
that
was
responded
to
in
an
affirmative.
C
That's
we
have
been
through
this
over
and
over
again.
That
is,
from
the
city's
perspective.
The
way
the
ordinance
is
written,
that's
all
it
takes.
So
that
is
my
perspective.
I
think
the
owners
you
know
may
have
a
case
against
Mr
law
and
his
former
employee,
but
that's
between
them
that
doesn't
involve
us.
C
B
Was
just
gonna
say:
I
agree
with
Stephen
I
mean
Mr
Mull's
declaration
and
you
know
I
practiced
a
lot
for
42
years,
so
I
know
a
little
bit
about
it.
I
agree
to
market
the
property,
so
I
assigned
the
property
to
an
employee.
So
there
was
obviously
an
agency
created
and
perhaps
Mr
law.
If
we
do
uphold
the
fine,
maybe
he's
willing
to
pay
this
I
don't
know,
but
we've
been
through
this
so
many
times
with
someone
else
doing
the
rental
without
the
knowledge
of
the
owner
and
so
I.
V
I'm,
following
along
just
fine
I
think
everyone
is
I,
mean
I.
I
think
I
understand
this.
Yes,
we
have
been
through
this
in
a
certain
way.
That's
similar
I've,
never
personally
heard
somebody
say,
I
didn't
know.
Someone
else
was
doing
this
rental,
but
regardless
I
agree
with
what
I've
heard
thus
far.
That's
all
I
got
to
say.
C
C
B
G
G
A
O
C
Will
be
communicated
to
the
owners
of
the
property
from
the
city
clerk,
how
they
want
to
wish
to
pay
the
fine,
and
they
are
only
about
making
terms
so
also
they
are
not.
They
are
not
prohibited
from
renting
it
long
term.
They
are
permanently
ineligible
to
rent
it
short
term.
They
are
not
prohibited
from
renting
long
term
again,
I'd
like
to
thank
everybody
for
their
effort
on
this
case,
and
we
will
move
on
on
the
agenda
now.
Thank
you,
ladies
and
gentlemen.
Thank.
E
G
C
P
C
L
C
C
C
C
P
C
Y
Y
I
I
just
have
a
few
notes
on
it:
I
guess
there
was
some
conversation
about
kind
of
tightening
up
the
concept
of
vacation
rentals
being
incidental
uses,
as
opposed
to
people
buying
them
for
the
sole
purpose
of
just
renting
them
out,
and
there
was
also
some
talk
about
like
secondary
impacts.
The
noise
parking
that
kind
of
thing,
but
that's
all
the
information
that
I
got
on
that.
C
T
T
The
conversations
that
we're
talk,
we're
talk
were
just
simply
conversations.
There
was
no
policy
driven
points
to
do
this,
or
do
that
you
know
we
are
looking
to
from
the
points
that
Council
you
know
talked
about
with
you
know
from
my
notes
was
regarding
ancillary
uses
density
stuff,
like
that
we
are
looking
to
create
Focus
work
groups
with
everyone
in
the
community
to
start
that
conversation
to
then
later
at
some
time,
maybe
provide
policy
recommendations
to
council
to
make
decisions
on.
T
But
right
now
we're
now
it's
just
discussion
and
we're
we're
at
the
point
where
we're
creating
the
groups
or
trying
to
design
a
process
to
how
to
get
that
started.
And
that's
where
we're
at
right
now
as
far
as
creating
work,
groups
and
stuff
is
just
getting
the
implementation
started
and
then
really
looking
to,
hopefully
have
it
all
wrapped
up
by
the
maybe
the
end
of
the
year.
T
I
do
know
we
were
going
to
communicate
that
you
know
one
from
our
office
regarding
sending
out
to
everybody
that
signed
up
on
our
stakeholder
mailing
list.
You'll
see
communication.
There
I
believe
our
neighborhoods
departments
also
going
to
be
communicating
such
out
to
everyone
too,
because
the
entire
goal
is,
if
we're
going
to
present
any
kind
of
you
know,
recommendations
we
want
to
have
input
from
everyone,
so
we
do
first
want
to
make
sure
to
communicate
this
process
to
everybody.
A
C
A
We
are
in
a
process
of
reviewing
boards
and
commissions
and
streamlining
the
functionality
and
Communications
between
staff
and
our
boards
and
commissions.
There
will
be
a
joint
city
council
meeting
on
June
21st,
which
is
a
scheduled
for
boards
and
commissions
who
have
priorities
aligning
with
the
city
council's
strategic
plan
I.
It
is
not
clear
to
me
yet
whether
the
aab
will
be
invited
to
participate
in
that
specific
meeting,
but
we
will
be
reaching
out
to
board
members
within
the
coming
weeks
for
input
on
different
aspects
of
that
review.