Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Aug.30. 2004 5:59PM <br /> <br />No.9309 P.4/8 <br /> <br />1 pr-ocessing and issuing of special event pennits. Some of his statements are also incorporated in <br /> <br /> <br />2 the background portion of this decision. He avers that the special events pennit process is used <br /> <br />3 ''to insure a safe event and to prevent conflicts with other special events." Officer McCoy <br /> <br /> <br />4 affirmed that Appellant. subsequent to the initial denial of its pennit, did attempt to rectify SOme <br /> <br />5 of the deficiencies in its application. <br /> <br />6 <br />7 <br /> <br />In a letter dated July 2, 2004, by Ms. Gomez to the City Manager, prior to the latter's <br /> <br />denial of the permit, Ms. Gomez stated, as pertinent: <br />As you know the association has had contact with AU Access <br />Entertainment and the Comite Fiestas Patrias de Orange County the other <br />two applicants for the same event. A verbal agreement was reached with <br />both entities. Comite FiestasPatrias is to amend it's (sic] permit request <br />ana not include a festiva1. The. association will make accoÍnmodations to <br />Comite Fiestas Patrias de Oræ1ge County in the Fiestas de las Americas <br />event. In regards to All Access Entertairunent, the association will grant a <br />license agreement for this year's event to All Access Entertainment to <br />produce the event. <br /> <br />8 <br />9 <br /> <br />10 <br />11 <br /> <br />12 <br />13 <br /> <br />14 <br />15 <br /> <br />Despite the assertions of an oral agreement between Appellant and the other similar <br /> <br /> <br />groups, there was no written declaration nOr any testimony by representatives of the other <br /> <br />groups to corroborate Appellant's assertions. <br /> <br />16 <br />17 <br /> <br />* <br /> <br />ARGUMENTS <br /> <br />... <br /> <br />18 <br />19 <br /> <br />In its pre~hearing brief, Appellant argues that the City Manager "failed to exercise sound <br /> <br /> <br />reasonable and legal decision-making skills in the handling of LACeS A's application for a <br /> <br />20 <br />21 <br /> <br />Special Event Permit." In that regard, it contends that it should have been informed of <br />deficiencies in its application and given the time to rectify the problem; that, since Respondent <br /> <br />22 <br />23 <br /> <br />has not issued any permit for the event prior to accepting Appellant's application, the latter has a <br />legal right to apply and have its applica.tion processed; and that Appellant is entitled to a fair <br /> <br />24 <br /> <br />process. It also argues that Respondent has abused its discretion and "has placed itself in a <br /> <br /> <br />conflict of interest" situation. In its Appeal dated July 27, 2004, AppeUànt also contends that <br /> <br /> <br />the denial of its requested pennit application was not within the required IS-day time period as <br /> <br />set forth in Section 10-22.7 of the Code. <br /> <br />25 <br />26 <br /> <br />27 <br />28 <br /> <br />Conversely, Respondent contends that its decision to deny Appellanfs permit <br /> <br />application must be upheld since the City is hosting the Fiestas event on the same days and in <br />4 <br /> <br />1Ĺ’PORT A.""ID PRo18MI0N OF HEhR1NG OFFICER <br />.......--..-- a_""e<."1& ... .....-- <br />