DENVER DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER
200 W. COLFAX AVENUE
DENVER, COLORADO 80204

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER
IN THE MATTER OF THE DENVER 420 RALLY
ADMINISTRATIVE CASE NO. DPR 2017-101
Pursuant to Denver Parks and Recreation Public Event Policy (Policy), Article I of
Chapter 39, Denver Revised Municipal Code (D.R.M.C.) § 39-1, Denver Parks and
Recreation Administrative Citation Rules and Regulations (Park Use R&R’s) § IV §§ AF and the request of the parties, this matter came to formal review following a Petition for
Review of Case No. DPR 2017-101 filed by the Petitioner, Miguel Lopez, The Denver
420 Rally (420 Rally), by his legal counsel Robert Corry of Corry & Associates. Mr.
Corry appears for and on behalf of the Petitioner, Mr. Lopez. Assistant City Attorney,
Renee A. Carmody, represents the Denver Department of Parks and Recreation, City and
County of Denver (Department or DPR) and Executive Director Allegra ‘Happy’ Haynes
(Director).
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS
This proceeding to review the Notice of Violation (NOV) arises under Policy Part I § 1.4,
§ 8.2.1, and § 8.4.6, D.R.M.C. § 39-1 et seq. and Park Use R&R’s § IV §§ A-F. Both
Policy at § 8.2.1 and § 8.4.6 and Park Use R&R’s § IV provide an opportunity for an
informal hearing at which the Applicant/Permittee entity may respond to the reasons for
the Department's NOV and imposition of penalties, and provide arguments as to why the
NOV and penalties should not be imposed. Pursuant to Park Use R&R’s §V §§ C in this
proceeding, the Hearing Officer has the authority to make a review of the matter. The
Administrative Hearing Officer's (AHO) decision will be made based solely on the
Appeal hearing held on September 19-20, 2017, review of the administrative record, and
all admitted Exhibits filed with the AHO for the Appeal.
In a proceeding, to review the NOV and impose the penalties noted in the NOV entered
by Ms. Haynes, Executive Director of Denver Department of Parks and Recreation, the
Department need only show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Department has
established the Responsible Party is guilty of the alleged violations and that the
administrative citation was lawfully issued - Park Use R&R’s at § V §§ G. The
Department's issuance of the NOV and penalties will be affirmed unless the AHO
determines, that the decision is unsupported by the evidentiary hearing, evidence in the
Record and Exhibits, or is inconsistent with the substantive or procedural provisions of
the Policy, D.R.M.C., or the Park Use R&R’s. Lastly, the AHO, in deciding the
Appellant’s case, is not to consider a challenge to enforceability, legality, or

 constitutionality of the Park Use R&R’s, Article I of Chapter 39 D.R.M.C. or Article XII
of Chapter 2 D.R.M.C.
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS
On May 19, 2017, the DPR notified the Appellant, Miguel Lopez and The Denver 420
Rally, of its intent to file a Notice of Violations and penalties the DPR is imposing as a
result of the NOV against Miguel Lopez and the Denver 420 Rally as Permittee. (PEP
§2.36 Permittee means an individual or a non-profit or for-profit entity who or which
makes Application to, and obtains, an Event Permit from the Permitting Office, for the
holding of an Event.) Specifically, the Department noted in the NOV, multiple
violations of the Code under the Policy, the Park Use R&R’s, and D.R.M.C. § 39-1 et
seq. Included in the NOV the following violations and Sections were noted:
● “Failed or refused to substantially comply with an approved security plan,
● Failed or refused to substantially comply with any applicable Requirements set
forth in Part VI or Part VII , by violating Section 6.1.3.1.1 of the Policy
concerning trash,
● Failed or refused to substantially comply with any applicable Requirements set
forth in Part VI or Part VII , by violating Section 6.4.6 f the Policy concerning
trash,
● Eight counts of failed or refused to substantially comply with Part VI and V II
Public Event Policy, by violating Section 6.16 concerning unlicensed food
vendors,
● Three counts of failed or refused to substantially comply with Part VI or Part VII
of the Public Event Policy, by violating Section 6.16. of the Policy concerning
Public Works street occupancy permit violations.” (Pg. 8 NOV)
Also listed in the NOV was the list of penalties to be imposed under the Policy found at
Section 8.4.4 as follows:
● “For the first violation within three consecutive years: A written warning
● For the second violation within three consecutive years: A fine of one hundred
dollars ($100) plus ten percent (10%) of the Fee applicable to the Event under the
Fee Ordinance
● For the third violation within three consecutive years: A fine of one hundred
dollars ($100) plus twenty percent (20%) of the Fee applicable to the Event under
the Fee Ordinance
● For the fourth violation within three consecutive years: A fine of one hundred
dollars ($100) plus thirty percent (20%) of the Fee applicable to the Event under
the Fee Ordinance. In addition, if the Event is a Priority Event or in the process of
qualifying to be a Priority Event, all claims to such status shall be deemed lost
● For the fifth violation within three consecutive years: The Permittee shall be
barred from being granted any Event permit for three (3) years. In addition, if the
Event is a Priority Event or in the process of qualifying to be a Priority Event, all
claims to such status shall be deemed lost.” (Pg. 9 NOV)
In conclusion, Ms. Haynes noted that the penalties are cumulative and because multiple
violations were found at this Event she imposed the following penalties:
● “First Violation: consider this letter your written warning

 ● Second violation: $100 plus 10% of $ 7975.00 permit fee = $897.50
● Third violation: $100 plus 20% of $ 7975.00 permit fee = $1695.00
● Fourth violation: $100 plus 30% of $ 7975.00 permit fee = $2492.50 and loss of
Priority Status
● Fifth violation: Barred from being granted any event permit for three (3) and loss
of Priority Event Status.” (Pg. 9 NOV)
Ms. Haynes indicated that, “The total penalty amount for violations by Permittee is
$5,085.00, plus loss of your Priority Event status, and you (both individually and as your
company) will not be ineligible [sic] to obtain any event permit for three years.” (Pg. 9
NOV)
The NOV dated May 19, 2017 also listed the violations and penalties for Permittee
Workers. (PEP § 2.37 Permittee Worker means any employee, worker, volunteer,
contractor, subcontractor, service provider, supplier, vendor, exhibitor, performer,
entertainer, athlete or similar person authorized or retained by the Permittee with respect
to the operation and function of an Event.) Ms. Haynes indicated that, “In additions to
the violations I find against you as Permittee, I also find fifteen violations by Permittee
Workers (8 unlicensed food vendors, and 7 imminent health violations), as noted above
regarding food vendor violations.” She noted the penalties provided in Section 8.4.5 are
as follows:
● “For the first violation within three consecutive years: A written warning
● For the second violation within three consecutive years: A fine of one hundred
dollars ($100) plus five percent (5%) of the Fee applicable to the Event under the
Fee Ordinance
● For the third violation within three consecutive years: A fine of one hundred
dollars ($100) plus ten percent (10%) of the Fee applicable to the Event under the
Fee Ordinance
● For the fourth violation within three consecutive years: A fine of one hundred
dollars ($100) plus fifteen percent (15%) of the Fee applicable to the Event under
the Fee Ordinance. In addition, if the Event is a Priority Event or in the process of
qualifying to be a Priority Event, all claims to such status shall be deemed lost
● For the fifth violation within three consecutive years: A fine of one hundred
dollars ($100) plus twenty percent (20%) of the fee applicable to the Event under
the Ordinance.
● For the sixth violation within three consecutive years: A fine of one hundred
dollars ($100) plus twenty percent (30%) of the fee applicable to the Event under
the Ordinance.” (Pgs. 9-10 NOV)
In conclusion, Ms. Haynes noted that the penalties are cumulative and because fifteen
(15) violations were found at this Event she imposed the following penalties:
● “First Violation: consider this letter your written warning
● Second violation: $100 plus 5% of $ 7975.00 permit fee = $498.75
● Third violation: $100 plus 10% of $ 7975.00 permit fee = $897.50
● Fourth violation: $100 plus 15 % of $ 7975.00 permit fee = $1296.25
● Fifth violation: $100. Plus 20% of $ 7975.00 permit fee = $1695
● Sixth violation: $100 plus 30% of $7,975.00 permit fee = $2,492.50
● The total penalty amount for violations by Permittee Workers is $6,880.” (Pg. 10)

 “In summary, I am imposing upon you a total monetary penalty in the amount of
$11,965, banning you from being granted any event permit for three years, and rescinding
your Priority Event status. Additionally, I am charging you for $190 in damages as
described in Attachment 9. Parks and Recreation is holding your deposit in the amount of
$2,831.25. I will subtract the penalty assessment and damages from your deposit, which
leaves a balance due by you of $9,323.75.” (Pg. 10 NOV)
The NOV stated that pursuant to Policy § 8.4.6, any citation or penalty assessed under §
8.4 is subject to an administrative Appeal under Park Use R&R’s, as amended and as
adopted by the DPR Executive Director. As noted in the Policy, the Appeal of this
determination is commenced by filing a written notice of Appeal, along with the required
$25.00 fee noted at Park Use R&R’s § IV §§ D, due fifteen (15) days from the date of
this determination.
Following issuance of the NOV on June 2, 2017, Appellant Attorney, Robert Corry,
entered his appearance for the Petitioner and requested a hearing, “…Pursuant to the
Denver Department of Parks and Recreation, Administrative Citations Rules and
Regulations, As Adopted 5-11-12 and As Amended and Restated 11-18-15, Section IV –
Filing an Appeal, this is the Permittee’s and Responsible Party’s formal appeal of the
May 19, 2017 Notice Letter from you finding violations and issues. (Your letter was
received Saturday, May 20, 2017 via electronic mail.)” Mr. Corry noted in his Appeal
letter, “The reasons Appellant is not guilty of the alleged violations of the Code or that
the administrative citation or penalty is objectionable, incorrect, or not lawful.”
Subsequent to the Petitioner’s request, Ms. Haynes sent an Order dated June 23, 2017,
appointing the below captioned AHO. This Order was resent to Mr. Corry and he was
given until July 7, 2017 to file any objections, revise or supplement his petition for
review.
On or about July 7, 2017, Mr. Corry submitted a Supplemental Appeal to the
Department’s NOV and assessment of penalties, which included documents from Miguel
Lopez: receipts, invoices, and plans from Santino Walter. Mr. Corry in his letter
indicates that seven separate documents were submitted to Ms. Haynes and the AHO. In
his Supplemental Appeal, Mr. Corry also indicated that a Colorado Opens Records Act
(CORA) request was submitted to the City related to the 420 Rally and based on that
request the Appeal may be further supplemented.
On or about July 11, 2017, the AHO received documents from the Department regarding
the case and was advised of the entry of Ms. Carmody and Mr. Jason Moore for the
Department and City and County of Denver. The Record of Appeal was sent on or about
July 25, 2017 by way of several documents including DVD discs and on August 9, 2017
HALO videos that contained the Department’s file. Subsequently, Notice on or about
July 26, 2017 was sent to all parties following a discussion with counsel for both sides;
this case was set for hearing on September 19, 2017. (City File Record of Appeal)

 It was Ordered by the AHO that pursuant to Park Use R&R’s § V §§ A, the parties were
to submit Pre-Hearing Statements outlining the criteria found at that section by
September 12, 2017. On or about September 12, 2017, the parties through their
respective counsel submitted the ordered Pre-Hearing statements and those statement are
included in this record and were considered in the same manner as the testimony and
Exhibits. Prior to the hearing on September 15, 2017, Mr. Corry submitted a request for
Subpoena, requesting the appearance and testimony of Maurice Lucky, of JCJ Executive
Protection, no objection was filed by the City and the subpoena was granted.
At the Appeal hearing, Mr. Corry appearing for Miguel Lopez presented an opening
statement on behalf of his client. Ms. Carmody, presented an opening statement on
behalf of the Denver Department of Parks and Recreation. Ms. Carmody in her opening
statement indicated that the violation allegation concerning noise was withdrawn and not
part of the NOV evidence presented for hearing. She did indicate that in total 29
violation were being alleged; however, for purposes of the Public Event Policy provision
they would be organized into five (5) overall categories. Mr. Corry stated that the City is
bound to the five violations noted in the NOV and 29 violations were never filed in the
NOV prior to hearing. It is noted that both parties had submitted Pre-Hearing statements
on September 12, 2017, they were read and made part of the Record.
ARGUMENTS
A. The Respondent, DPR, through its brief and documents from the Record notes
the following facts and argument:
The Respondent, DPR, through Ms. Carmody, notes in her brief, Exhibits and the Record
the following five violations the city is proceeding with and for which penalties are
imposed:
1. “Department of Environmental Health (DEH) code violations and lack of
required food permits – these violations fall under Section 6.16 of the Policy
and Section 10-13 (A-C) Environmental Health’s Food Rules and
Regulations;
2. Security and Safety – this violation fall under Sections 8.4.4 and 6.16 of the
Policy;
3. Failure to follow the trash plan – this violation falls under Section 6.4.6 of the
Policy;
4. Failure to clean the park during the Event – this violation fall under Section
6.1.3.11 of the Policy;
5. Public Works permit violations for obstruction of the street, right-of-way, and
sidewalks – these violations fall under Sections 6.16, 3.12.1, 3.12.1, 3.12.2.1
of the Policy and Section II and III of Denver Department Public Works Rules
and Regulations Pertaining to the Issuance of Permits”.
She states that the DPR should prevail in this Appeal because:
1. “Ms. Allegra “Happy” Haynes, as the Executive Director of Parks, did not
overstep her authority in finding these violations, and assessing penalties as
directed by the Policy.

 2. The facts presented in the Notice of Violation, the Record, the Pre-Hearing
Statements, and the evidence presented at the Hearing support Ms. Haynes
decision.
3. There are no applicable defenses that mitigate Lopez’s failure to follow the
Policy.”
Ms. Carmody argues for the City that from the evidence presented by the Petitioner,
Miguel Lopez received the Public Event Policy and was required to follow the Policy.
She notes that the Exhibits, testimony of Kris Ryan, and the admissions of Mr. Lopez
establish his knowledge and requirements of the Policy. She argues that Mr. Lopez failed
to follow or substantially comply with the Policy’s requirements concerning Food Safety,
Public Safety, Trash, and Right-of-Way; therefore, is in violation of the Policy regarding
those provisions. She states that Section 8.1 of the Policy is applicable, “…there is no
dispute that Lopez was the Permittee for the Event. As the Permittee, Lopez is ultimately
accountable for all violations that occurred in connection with the Event. Part VIII,
Section 8.1 Permittee’s Responsibilities and Liabilities states:
The Permittee holding any Event Permit shall be responsible and liable for failure
to perform in accordance with the Event Permit, this Public Event Policy and
Applicable Law. The City reserves the right to hold the Permittee fully
accountable for any violation of the Event Permit, this Policy and Applicable
Law.”
Ms. Carmody continues that, “Section 8.4.4 of the Policy requires Lopez and his
employees to substantially comply with: (1) his approved plans; (2) any Special Rules
contained within his permit; (3) permits and licenses from other City Agencies; and, (4)
all other applicable requirements in the Policy. Mr. Lopez failed to do so. As such, Mr.
Lopez, as the Permittee, should be found responsible and liable for all the violations
assessed, including those committed by Mr. Lopez’s employees, contractors,
subcontractors, and workers regardless of whether he was personally involved in causing
the violation.”
1. Department of Health Violations: Policy § 6.16
Ms. Carmody states, “Lopez was assessed eight DEH Health Code Violations, and
permittee workers were assessed 15 DEH violations.” (Exhibits Tab H). She notes the
testimony of Ms. Sally Born, Public Health Investigator II, employed by DEH establishes
that Mr. Lopez as Permittee was aware of the DEH and Policy requirements. “The
Permittee is required to comply with all rules and regulations, requirements, restrictions,
permits, licenses, approvals required or imposed by any other City Agency. Section 6.16
of the Policy.” Ms. Borne testified that her department outreaches to Permittees, and on
February 9, 2017, she sent Mr. Lopez, “an email with all the requirements for food
vendors at the Event, this included a link to Environmental Health’s Food Rules and
Regulations.” Ms. Carmody states that at the hearing, Lopez admitted to receiving the
email and reading the Food Rules and Regulations, including the regulation concerning
those of the Event coordinator. “Event Coordinator means the individual or entity
responsible for permitting, obtaining approvals, and maintaining compliance with the
applicable Codes for a Temporary Event” (Environmental Health’s Food Rules and
Regulations at p. 4). She argues that the evidence established that Mr. Lopez was the

 only Permit holder for this Event; therefore, responsible for maintaining compliance with
the applicable rules for temporary events. She quotes the DEH Food Rules and
Regulations which state:
A. “Event Coordinators shall verify that regulated Temporary Retail Food
Establishments hold a Temporary Retail Food Establishment License that is
valid during the event(s) they organize.
B. Event Coordinators shall verify that regulated Mobile Retail Food
Establishments hold a Mobile Retail Food Establishment License that is valid
during the event(s) they organize.
C. Event Coordinator shall not allow unlicensed vendors who sell regulated Food
products to participate in the event.”
Ms. Born testified that, “…DEH found eight food vendors not properly licensed - The
Ginger Pig, Tacos Y Tortas La Reyna Azteca, and Frozen Matter did not hold the
required Denver mobile retail food establishment license; World of Weed CBD, Sacred
Body CBD, Saint Raphael of the Hills CBD, Icon Investments, and Box Studios - all
were operating without the required Denver temporary retail food establishment license.”
(Exhibits Tab H Food Inspection Reports). Similarly, Section 8.4.5 of the Policy,
requires Mr. Lopez’s Permittee Workers (i.e. contractors, vendors, subcontractors,
workers, etc.) to follow these requirements as well, and they failed to do so.
Ms. Carmody stated that Ms. Born also testified concerning imminent health hazards of
food vendors, which are critical violations of DEH’s Food Rules and Regulations. Per
the testimony of Ms. Born, she spoke to Mr. Lopez concerning several unlicensed food
vendors who were contacted and on the morning of the Event, many of these unlicensed
vendors sold food to customers with imminent health hazards (i.e. no hand washing
station, commissary, no hot water – Exhibit E). Additionally, she notes that Ms. Born
spoke to Mr. Santino Walter, about these issues, who later testified that subsequent to Ms.
Born’s discovery, he contacted these vendors and asked them to leave and immediately
fired the 420 Event staff person in charge of handling the food vendors.
From the record, Ms. Carmody states, “…23 counts of food violations were filed against
Mr. Lopez by Ms. Haynes; including eight counts of DEH Health violations for
unlicensed food vendors and fifteen violations against food vendors, for their lack of
licensure and having several imminent health hazards.” Ms. Carmody argues that, “…the
failure to comply with DEH Rules constitutes the violation under Section 6.16 of the
Policy and not whether someone is injured as argued by Mr. Lopez.” She also argues
that Mr. Lopez had no way of knowing whether anyone contracted a food illness because
he never checked the EMT logs or spoke to all the people who attended the 420 Event.
According to Ms. Born, it may take up to 50 days for foodborne illness symptoms to
show up. Ms. Carmody concludes by noting, “…actual injury is irrelevant to this
analysis, Lopez has no basis to say and cannot establish that no one was injured as a
result of the at least 23 food violations.”
2. Safety and Security Violation Policy § 8.4.4 and § 8.4.5

 Regarding this violation, Ms. Carmody alleges that Mr. Lopez failed to follow his safety
and security plan, and that Sections 8.4.4 and 8.4.5 of the Policy require Mr. Lopez and
his Permittee Workers to, “substantially comply with his approved plans.” (Exhibits Tab
A). She notes that Mr. Lopez and Mr. Walter hired Mr. Maurice Luck’s company, JCJ,
and he testified that they believed JCJ exactly followed the plan. From the evidence, she
notes that, “…the security plan required four security entrances opening at 10 am. There
was a delay in the fourth gate opening, due to lack of tables and needing a tool to break
the gate chains”. Ms. Carmody alleges that this delay was a violation of the Safety and
Security Plan which lead to long lines and aggravated patrons at the Event. She notes
that, “Mr. Lucky testified that the fourth gate opening was delayed by at least an hour.”
However, Denver Police Department’s Commander Phelan testified that, “…his Event
log for that day showed that the fourth gate was not opened until after noon.”
The ultimate consequences of the delayed gate opening and long lines was the breach of
the fencing by hundreds of Event patrons who entered the park without security
screening. According to Ms. Carmody, “Mr. Lucky testified that at one gate alone, he
saw and still had a box in his office containing over 160 knives, butane canisters,
flammable fluids, and other dangerous items.” Mr. Lucky admitted that, “…the
individuals who broke through the fence were not wanded and checked and therefore
likely brought weapons and flammable items into the park.” Ms. Carmody argues that
Mr. Lopez is solely responsible for the Security Plan, which according to the testimony
was insufficient for this event and less than the security needed for the 2016 Rally at the
same location.
She concludes by noting that, “the breach in the fence, and delay in opening of the gate
entrances constituted a violation as assessed by Ms. Haynes and resulted in several
substantial safety risks”. She continued, “…Commander Phelan testified that there were
several arrests that day and a shooting that occurred outside the event by a patron of the
event.” She conclude, “…it is no defense to argue as in the food violations ‘no one was
hurt’ and does not refute the violation of the Permit.”
3. Trash Management Violations Failure to follow trash plan - § 8.4.4, and § 6.4.6
Ms. Carmody and the Department allege that Mr. Lopez failed to comply with two
separate trash requirements that are part of his Permit plan and the Policy. One violation
was the failure to comply with the trash plan and provide the required number of trash
receptacles and illegally allowing city trash containers to be used. Secondly, Mr. Lopez
failed to dispose of trash throughout the day of the event. The City references that §
8.4.4, § 6.4.6, and § 6.1.3.11 of the Policy apply and Mr. Lopez failed to comply with
these provisions. As quoted from NOV:
“Further, Section 6.4.6 of the Policy states:
All trash and waste, including but not limited to grease, sewage, plates, cups, utensils,
and food waste shall be disposed of in dumpsters, trash receptacles, and recycling
containers supplied by the Permittee. Permittee is responsible for providing the proper
and prompt removal and disposal of trash and waste products. Existing trash containers

 in a Park may not be used to supplement or replace the trash containers and trash removal
service required for the Event. (Emphasis added)”
Ms. Carmody notes that pursuant to the permit and trash removal plan, Mr. Lopez was to
include an invoice, purchase order, or contract. According to the plan, Mr. Lopez was to
provide a proposal from JM Production’s, LLC to deliver: “3- 30-yard rolls offs; 80- 45gallon plastic trash can drums; 160 trash can liners, be delivered and placed in the park
by the time the Event started at 10 a.m.” The testimony of Ms. Karlee Bobzien, Parks
Staff Event Coordinator, indicated that she was at the Event from 7 a.m. through 8 p.m.
and noticed that, “…the trash boxes were not in the park, and by late morning the trash
accumulated and overflowed.” Similarly, she cites the testimony of Park Ranger Samuel
Gannon who took pictures of the City trash cans overflowing and garbage strewn all over
the park. (See Ex. C and Ex. E of the City’s hearing exhibits; See also, the HALO videos
in the record showing the trash during and after the Event.)
4. Trash Management Violation - Failure to dispose of trash during the event §
6.1.3.11
Correspondingly, Section 6.1.3.11 of the Policy states:
The Permittee is responsible, during the Event and Load-In and Load-Out, for the timely
and effective cleaning and sanitizing of all areas of the Event Site and, if required, any
other City-owned property used or impacted by the Event. This obligation shall include
the removal and proper disposal of trash and waste and the removal of any markings or
any graffiti on the property that occurred during or related to the Event.”
Ms. Carmody notes that the testimony of Ms. Bobzien, Mr. Walter, and Mr. Lopez
establishes that the trash containers did not arrive at 11 a.m. and another company was
hired to deliver trash containers. Both Mr. Lopez and Mr. Walter confirmed at the
hearing that the trash boxes were missing and not placed in the park as required. The
witnesses, Mr. Walter and Ms. Bobzien, further testified that, “The trash boxes were not
present and did not arrive until sometime in the afternoon either at 1:30 p.m. or 3 p.m.”
Ms. Carmody argues the net effect of not having trash containers, “…was to allow
patrons of the Event to use the City trash containers (prohibited under the Policy), which
led to overflowing trash containers all morning and allowing trash to accumulate on the
ground throughout the Event. Citing Section 6.1.3.11.” Ms. Carmody states this Section
is applicable and a distinct different violation from Section 6.4.6 and the failure of Mr.
Lopez to clean up trash during the event led to a violation of this section. She argues
that, “…not having the requisite trash containers in place and available at the appropriate
time is one violation, but not timely and effectively cleaning and sanitizing throughout
day-long event is separate substantial Policy violation.” Ms. Carmody continues that.
“…this Policy violation cited by Ms. Haynes is appropriate and to argue the trash was
ultimately cleaned up by April 21, 2017 is a ‘red herring’.” In conclusion she argues that,
“…as in the other above violations of the Policy, the act of violating the Policy is an
offense, to argue the violations were not substantial or injurious is not factually or legally
correct.”

 5. Public Works permit and Right of Way Violations. Policy § 3.12.1, § 3.12.2.1,
and § 3.12.2
Citing Policy § 3.1.2.1 Permit Compliance, § 3.12.2.1 Right of Way or other City
Property, and § 3.12.2 Public Right of Way, Ms. Carmody argues that, “…the testimony
of Ms. Kelly Colvin, Public Work Supervisor, establish that Mr. Lopez violated several
sections of the Policy and his Public Works Permit.” Taking the testimony of Ms. Colvin
she lists the Public Works and Right of Way violations including: (Exhibit G)
a. Vehicles in the lanes of travel,
b. Vehicles on the sidewalk,
c. and in sidewalk areas,
d. Barricades in traveled lanes were prematurely removed,
e. Port-a-Lets left in open traffic lanes with no barricades,
f. Cars parked on the sidewalk,
g. Detour signs knocked down, and
h. Pedestrians walking on the sidewalk due to downed security fences
Ms. Carmody argues that, “…all the violations noted above amounted to 3 substantial
violations of the Policy and violated Mr. Lopez Street Occupancy Permit (Exhibit J, Halo
Camera), which did not allow for occupying sidewalks (Public Works Rules and
Regulations Sections III (3); Section II (2).”
6. The Parks Manager under the City Charter (§ 2.4.4 (A)) has the authority to
assess the consequences under the Policy for the NOV against Mr. Lopez
Ms. Carmody argues that Ms. Haynes under the City Charter and the Policy, “has the
exclusive authority to determine the consequences for Mr. Lopez’s violations” which
occurred at the 420 Rally (Policy 1.2, 1.2.4, and 1.4.1). Ms. Carmody states that, “…it is
Lopez’s burden to demonstrate that she was acting outside the course of her authority.”
(Park Use R&R’s § V §§ G). She notes the testimony of Ms. Haynes, Parks and
Recreation staff, Public Works staff, Denver Police Department, and DEH witnessed
during and after the event, and her conclusion is that, “Ms. Haynes has the “purview and
authority” to assess all penalties under the Policy for the violations against Lopez, up to
and including the consequence of barring Mr. Lopez from any event permit for three
years. McLauthlin v. City and County of Denver, 280 P.2d 1103, 1106 (Colo. 1955) (The
“Denver Charter grants the Manager of Parks broad discretion in determining the uses to
which a particular park area may be put.”). When government agencies and officials act
in the course of their statutory duties, their actions are presumed to be valid. Public
Utilities Com’n v. District Court, 431 P.2d 773, 776-77 (Colo. 1967).”
7. Legal Arguments and Defenses of Mr. Lopez
In summary, Ms. Carmody argues that Mr. Corry on behalf of his client, Mr. Lopez,
presents three rationale for his client’s defense:
1. ”He did not commit the violations personally or intentionally, instead it was
the people he hired who failed meet their contractual obligations and
committed these violations;
2. No one was injured by these violations and there was no lasting damage;
therefore, the violations are not substantial; and

 3. His constitutional rights were violated because the 420 Rally Event was not
treated similarly to other events”.
She argues that these defenses are wrong and deficient given the evidence and the
authority under the Charter, Policy and Parks Use R&R’s. Ms. Carmody notes that Mr.
Lopez is incorrect in arguing that, “…the number of violations and the resulting penalties
are in any way erroneous.” In listing the violations, she concludes that, “…29 violations
were always assessed against Lopez and Parks has been consistent fair and accurate in
articulating the number of violations.” In summary she concludes that, “The allegations
raised by Lopez are not supported in the record and constitutional argument is false and
irrelevant. The penalties assessed are fair and consistent with the Policy and should be
sustained in this appeal.”
B. The Petitioner through Counsel Robert Corry in his brief and documents from
the Record notes the following facts and argument:
Mr. Lopez through counsel, Robert Corry, initially argues that the City carries the Burden
of Proof (BOP) under this administrative proceeding pursuant to Parks R& R Section V.
G (Park R&R) and the Parks Public Event Policy (Policy). He recognizes that, “…the
Appellant can present countervailing testimony or evidence to show lack of guilt on the
facts, or based on the law that the citation or penalty is objectionable, incorrect or not
lawful.” He then notes that, “…the Administrative Hearing Officer (AHO) in his ruling
has the discretion under the Park R&R to (1) uphold the violation and penalty; (2) uphold
the violation but find mitigation of circumstances and reduce the penalty; or (3) dismiss
the violation as unproven. See Denver Department of Parks and Recreation,
Administrative Citations Rules and Regulations, as adopted 5-11-12, Section VI (B).”
Mr. Corry argues that, “…his client is not waiving his right to raise challenges to
enforceability, legality or constitutionality of the Park R&R’s (Park R&R Section V.
G.).”
Mr. Corry, argues that, “…violations committed by Permittee Workers, as defined in the
Policy, are subject to fines and not loss of Priority Status and assumedly their status is not
considered for purposes of this appeal.” He agrees that the September 19, 2017
evidentiary hearing and Post Hearing Briefs relate to those evidentiary matters raised in
the City’s NOV. Regarding the NOV and evidentiary hearing he agrees that, “…there are
at a minimum five (5) allegations filed against his client, Mr. Lopez. There is
disagreement with the city and how the violation are categorized, that is, 29 violations in
5 categories (City) or simply 5 violations in total.”
Those agreed upon violations according to Mr. Corry are:
1. Safety and Security
2. Trash 1
3. Trash 2
4. Food Vendors
5. Other City Violations

 He concludes that, “…if the city prevails on all four of the above listed allegations Mr.
Lopez cannot be penalized with a three-year ban from holding a permit because that ban
only applies to a fifth violation in three (3) years.”
1. Safety and Security
Mr. Corry in his brief argues that the security violation consists of four (4) agreed upon
facts. Those include:
1. ”A delay in opening of one of four (4) Ingress points,
2. Not enough security personnel,
3. Unspecified numbers of instances of attendees pulling down a section of
fencing which was replaced by security personnel, and
4. Long lines of people waiting to attend the event.”
Arguably, he notes that the delay was brief, the number of fence breakdown is unknown,
the number of security guards was agreed upon, and the event is popular.
Regarding the allegations Mr. Corry argues that, “…the violations were primarily the
fault of Permittee Workers not Mr. Lopez and at worst the allegations are not substantial.
Specifically, he notes the delayed gate opening was the fault of Wright Group the fence
contractor, the fences taken down were the fault of attendees and quickly repaired, given
the magnitude of this event ‘unforeseen and reasonable variables occur’, and all problems
were quickly corrected and are standard for this type of event.” He alleges, “…the
response of Mr. Lopez was reasonable and within the bounds of industry standards given
similar circumstances.” (Pg. 4 Corry’s Post Hearing Brief)
2. Trash 1
It is argued that this category of Trash relates to the timing of the trash pick-up, and an
alleged violation of Section 6.1.3.11 of the Policy. Mr. Corry argues that the Permit
required Mr. Lopez to clean up Civic Center Park by Friday, April 21, 2017 and this was
accomplished by 5:00 p.m. that day. He alleges that, “…the violation was manufactured
and enhanced by the media in an effort to condemn the Rally.” Mr. Corry argues that,
“…the City approved the Permit and Run of Show regarding Trash, and the violation is
not proven given the cleanup by 5:00 p.m., regardless of the trash delay and accumulation
the day of the Rally.”
3. Trash 2
Mr. Corry, similar to the above noted violation, dismisses the City’s allegation as an
attempt by the City to fabricate a violation. He alleges that, “…the delivery and delay of
trash receptacles is not a substantial violation and is not different in kind than managing
trash.” Similar to Trash 1, he states that, “…the violation is the fault of Permittee
Workers, the violation was quickly corrected and was fabricated by the media on behalf
of the City.”
4. Food Vendors
Mr. Corry alleges that, “…the food vendor health violations are duplicitous and again the
primary fault of the Permittee Workers (Food Vendors).” He continues, “…even if the
food vendors were unlicensed the mitigation exists in that the unlicensed vendors were
removed with no adverse effects.” He notes in conclusion that, “…given the Permittee

 Workers fault, Mr. Lopez cannot be penalized given the language of the Policy and the
NOV fine assessment.”
5. Other City Violations
This violation concerns street closure permit violation as noted by the NOV and
arguments of the City. Mr. Corry alleges that, “…these violations: media truck on
sidewalk, side walk sign down, fencing being down blocking sidewalks, barricades in
place, and long lines were previously cited in the Public Works section and are therefore
not a distinct violation.” As noted in the above sections, Mr. Corry alleges that,
“…vendors/ Permittee Workers are at fault for the violations, and Mr. Lopez fulfilled his
requirements under the respective permits.”
Mitigation
In arguing mitigation Mr. Corry references the 2018 Rally and steps to be taken to
compensate for the 2017 issues. He also repeats that, “...the Permittee Workers are also
faulted and penalized and therefore to penalize Mr. Lopez with loss of Priority Status is
unnecessary.” In closing he argues, “…the City has failed to prove any allegation in the
NOV are the fault of Mr. Lopez, but the result of the Permittee Workers.” Lastly, in
closing he argues that, “…the City has not demonstrated that the violations were
substantial or any injury or harm to the public health, safety and welfare. No harm, no
foul.” He request that, “the violations should be dismissed, or in the alternative,
mitigation should be found, and the loss of Priority Status and prohibition on allying
should be rescinded, and for other relief proper in the premises.”
FINDINGS OF FACTS
1. The Denver Department of Parks and Recreation Department File, the testimonial
evidence, and documentary evidence establishes by a preponderance of the evidence
that Miguel Lopez and The Denver 420 Rally, are guilty of all the violations cited in
the Notice of Violation issued May 19, 2017, by Allegra “Happy” Haynes, Executive
Director of the Denver Department of Parks and Recreation (Parks Use R&R’s § V
§§G). It is also found that Mr. Lopez did not by countervailing testimony and
evidence meet its burden of demonstrating that he and the 420 Rally are not guilty of
the violation cited in the NOV. In addition, it is found that Mr. Lopez and the 420
Rally has not met its burden to show that the “NOV and penalty is objectionable,
incorrect and not enforceable. (Parks Use R&R’s § V §§G) It is found that city
through Executive Director, Ms. Haynes met the requirements of the Public Event
Policy and the Administrative Citation Rules & Regulation and D.R.M.C. ordinances
and has proven that the decision of the DPR was supported by substantial evidence in
the Record.
2. Preponderance of the evidence is a standard of proof in which the “party bearing the
burden of proof must present evidence which is more credible and convincing than
that presented by the other party or which shows that the fact to be proven is more
probable than not.” C.R.S. Section 13-25-127 (1) (4)

 3. The decision on this Appeal request is based on the DPR Record, the evidentiary
hearing, and documentary evidence. Parks Use R&R’s § V §§ G. and D.R.M.C. § 2833 (c).
4. The decision of the DPR’s NOV is affirmed unless the Hearing Officer determines,
based on the entire Record, that the decision was unsupported by substantial evidence
or inconsistent with the substantive or procedural provisions of the applicable
ordinances or regulations of the DPR Policy and Parks Use R&R’s. The inquiry is
whether there exists, in the Record, any competent evidence rising to the level of the
preponderance of the evidence supporting the decision of the Department.
5. Title II Article XII Chapter 2 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code, state the
Standard for Review in Section 2-291 § (a) Administrative enforcement order:
“The decision of the AHO shall be entitled ‘administrative enforcement order’
and shall be issued in accordance with the rules and regulations of the department
issuing the administrative citation. b) As part of the administrative enforcement
order, the AHO shall issue a final decision regarding the violations alleged in and
penalties assessed by the administrative citation. The order shall:
1. Uphold the administrative citation and penalties as to any violation
proven by the city;
2. Dismiss the administrative citation and penalties as to any violation
not proven by the city; and
3. Require payment of any outstanding assessed penalties and costs by a
specified date.”
Parks Uses R&R’s § VI §§ B (as amended November 18, 2015) is applicable and
similar language:
“B) …the AHO shall issue a final decision, regarding the violations alleged in the
penalties assessed by the administrative citation. The order shall:
1. Uphold the administrative citation and penalties as to any violation
proven by the city;
2. Dismiss the administrative citation and penalties as to any violation
not proven by the city;
3. In addition to the actions specified in 1) or 2) above, enter such other
reasonable order to the Responsible Party that will help assure future
compliance with the Park Use R&R’s commensurate to the nature and
extent of the violation(s) which is the subject of the AEO; or
4. Require payment of any outstanding assessed penalties and costs by a
specified date.”
This section of the Parks Uses R&R’s will be used in the decision of this Appeal.
6. As noted above, this matter arose from the June 2, 2017 Appeal filed by the Appellant
Miguel Lopez and the Denver 420 Rally in response to the May 19, 2017 Notice Of
Violation filed by the Executive Director of Parks and Recreation, Allegra “Happy”
Haynes.
7. The Appellant filed for an Appeal hearing on or about June 2, 2017 and the AHO was
appointed by the Executive Director on July 23, 2017.
8. This administrative Appeal hearing was heard on September 19, 2017; at the hearing
the parties stipulated to and objected to evidentiary matter and the Parks

 Administrative file. The record and following exhibits were admitted by the AHO at
the conclusion of the hearing on September 20, 2017. The record and evidence
admitted and taken under consideration by the AHO included the following:
a. The testimony from the September 19, 2017 through September 20, 2017
evidentiary hearing,
b. Stipulated Testimony of Kris Ryan,
c. City Attorney Exhibit Book Exhibits A through J,
d. Record of Appeal , July 24, 2017,
e. Halo Camera Tapes 1 through 5, and
f. CORA documents 981 pages as requested by Robert Corry:
Including all City permits, Permit Logs, Run of Show, and Parks Permit file
9. Following the administrative Appeal hearing the parties were advised that the
recorded transcript would be available immediately and that Post Hearing Briefs are
Ordered and due October 12, 2017. The AHO advised the parties that upon receipt of
the briefs a decision would be rendered by November 19, 2017 pursuant to Parks Use
R&R’s § VI §§ A-B. Both parties submitted post hearing briefs on or about October
12, 2017 and were received by the AHO by first class mail and email.
10. The Denver Parks and Recreation Department and City of Denver’s NOV of May 19,
2017 sent and responded to by the Appellant initially sets forth the issues raised by
the Parks concerning violations at the 420 Rally of Mr. Lopez. Subsequently, in prehearing briefs and the administrative Appeal hearing the City listed the violations and
presented facts in which it was proceeding against Miguel Lopez and the 420 Rally.
Mr. Corry filed a request for hearing and general denial regarding the NOV
allegations (File July 7, 2017 and June 2, 2017); however, no written objection was
filed regarding the issues presented at the evidentiary hearing.
11. Ms. Carmody, Assistant City Attorney, presented the testimony of seven witnesses to
prove the Allegations contained in the NOV and Pre-Hearing Brief. Kris Ryan, Parks
Permit Administrator, testimony stipulated in writing, given a recording error, Karlee
Bobzien, Event Facilitator Denver Parks, Sam Gannon, Denver Senior Parks Ranger,
Allegra “Happy” Haynes, Executive Director, Parks and Recreation, Patrick Phelan,
Incident Commander Denver Police Department, Sally Born, Investigator II Denver
Public Health, and Kelly Colvin, Project Manager II, Denver Public Works. Their
respective testimony will be noted in the Findings and Order.
12. Mr. Corry, Counsel for Mr. Lopez and 420 Rally in his Pre Hearing statement
proposed to call thirteen witnesses; however, during the course of the hearing he
offered the testimony of three (3) witnesses: Miguel Lopez, Director of 420 Rally and
Permit Holder; Santino Walter, 420 Event Coordinator; Maurice Lucky, Owner JCJ
Security, Security Director 420 Rally. Their respective testimony will be noted in the
Findings and Order.
13. The Record and Findings establishes that Miguel Lopez was the Permittee for the 420
Rally held on April 19, 2017 at Civic Center Park, in the City and County of Denver,
Colorado. (City Exhibit Permits, § 2.36 Policy) Mr. Lopez sought and received
Permits from the Denver Department of Public Works for ROW Street Occupancy,
and Right-of- Way Occupancy and Use. (City Exhibits J).
14. Pursuant to the NOV, Pre-Trial statement (Parks Use R&R’s § V §§ B) and the
evidentiary hearing the following violations were alleged by Ms. Haynes:

 a. Trash. Pursuant to Section 8.4.4 of the Policy, “I find that as the Permittee,
you failed or substantially refused to comply with Sections 6.1.3.11 by failing
to timely and effectively clean the Event site.” “I also find that as the
Permittee you failed or substantially refused to comply with Section 6.4.6 of
the Policy by failing to provide trash receptacles.”
b. Safety and Security. Pursuant to Section 8.4.4 of the Policy, as Permittee, “I
find that you have failed or refused to substantially comply with the approved
safety and security plan, under Section 8.4.4 of the Policy.”
c. Health Violations. Section 6.16 of the Event Policy states that you, as the
Permittee, are required to comply with all rules and regulations, requirements,
restrictions, permits, licenses, approvals required or imposed by any other
City Agency.
d. “As the Permittee, you are also responsible for the violations caused by
Permittee Workers. Section 8.4.5 of the Policy. This constitutes 15 separate
violations by Permittee Workers.”
e. Other City Agency Violations. “Finally, I am advised by Public Works that
you also violated certain street closure permit requirements. First, you
permitted vehicles to be on the sidewalk during the Event. Section II (2) of the
Public Works Rules and Regulations Pertaining to the Issuance of Permits by
the City Traffic Engineer (Public Works Rules) requires a Street Occupancy
Permit for any vehicle that is occupying the “traveled lanes, sidewalk, and
sidewalk area”. Your Street Occupancy Permit did not include occupying
sidewalks.
Violations by Permittee:
Based on my evaluation, I find that you have violated the following provisions
under Section 8.4.4 of the Policy:
• Failed or refused to substantially comply with an approved plan (security
plan);
• Failed or refused to substantially comply with any applicable
Requirements set forth in Part VI or Part VII of the Public Event Policy,
by violating Section 6.1.3.11 of the Policy (trash);
• Failed or refused to substantially comply with any applicable
Requirements set forth in Part VI or Part VII of the Public Event Policy,
by violating Section 6.4.6 of the Policy (trash);
• Eight counts of failed or refused to substantially comply with Part VI or
Part VII of the Public Event Policy, by violating Section 6.16 of the Policy
(unlicensed food vendors);
• Three counts of failed or refused to substantially comply with Part VI or
Part VII of the Public Event Policy, by violating Section 6.16 of the Policy
(Public Works street occupancy permit violations).”
15. Following the violations allegations of the Policy, Ms. Haynes imposed the penalties
pursuant to Section 8.4.4 of the Policy noting the following penalties: “Since I find
multiple violations from this Event, I am imposing the following penalties: Please note
that the penalties listed above are cumulative.
• First violation: consider this letter your written warning

 •
•
•
•
•

Second violation: $100 plus 10% of $7,975.00 permit fee = $897.50
Third violation: $100 plus 20% of $7,975.00 permit fee = $1,695.00
Fourth violation: $100 plus 30% of $7,975.00 permit fee = $2,492.50 and loss of
Priority Event status
Fifth violation: Barred from being granted any event permit for three (3) years and
loss of Priority Event Status.
The total penalty amount for violations by Permittee is $5,085.00, plus the loss of
your Priority Event status, and you (both individually and as your company) will
not be eligible to obtain any event permit for three years.”

16. The Denver Parks and Recreation Public Event Policy, adopted October 25, 2016 is
applicable and the following sections are noted:
“1.2 Section 2.4.4(A) of the Denver City Charter (“Charter”) delegates to
the Department of Parks and Recreation (“DPR”) the duty and power to
manage, operate and control all facilities located within and without the
boundaries of the City and County of Denver and owned by the City for
park and recreational purposes. This authority includes the power to
permit and regulate outdoor public events of various sorts in Denver parks,
as provided for in this Public Event Policy. The authority of DPR to issue
permits and regulate public events as provided in this Public Event Policy
is affirmed in Article II (Scheduled Events) of Chapter 39 (Parks and
Recreation) of the Denver Revised Municipal Code (“Parks Permitting
Ordinance”).
1.2.3 Charter Section 2.4.4 (A) also delegates authority to DPR to
establish rules and regulations, such as are set forth in this Public Event
Policy, and to enforce such rules and regulations subject to ordinance
approval. Enforcement is provided for in the Parks Permitting Ordinance
and by other means set forth in Article I of Chapter 39 (Parks and
Recreation) of the Denver Revised Municipal Code.
1.2.4 Additional authority is granted in the Parks Permitting Ordinance for
DPR to adopt rules and regulations for the use of administrative citations
in accordance with Article XII of Chapter 2, D.R.M.C. DPR has exercised
this authority by adopting a separate set of rules and regulations for
administrative citations and establishing an administrative system for,
among other things, issuing citations, collecting civil fines, and conducting
appeals. This administrative system is set forth in the Administrative
Citations Rules & Regulations adopted 5-11-12 and as subsequently
amended.
1.4.1 Penalties: The Parks Permitting Ordinance makes it unlawful for any
person to violate any procedures, requirements, restrictions, conditions or
rules and regulations adopted by the DPR Executive Director in this
Public Event Policy or the terms and conditions of any permit issued under
this Public Event Policy and provides for the enforcement of the Public

 Event Policy and the Parks Permitting Ordinance through penalties
imposed by the courts and through administrative citations. DPR has
exercised its administrative enforcement authority by through the
Administrative Citations Rules & Regulations adopted 5-11-12 and as
subsequently amended and by establishing an administrative system for
issuing administrative citations, collecting fines, and conducting appeals.
2.36 Permittee means an individual or a non-profit or for-profit entity
who or which makes Application to, and obtains, an Event Permit
from the Permitting Office, for the holding of an Event.
2.37 Permittee Worker means any employee, worker, volunteer,
contractor, subcontractor, service provider, supplier, vendor,
exhibitor, performer, entertainer, athlete or similar person
authorized or retained by the Permittee with respect to the
operation and function of an Event.”
3.1.2

The issuance of an Event Permit is subject to the general provisions
and review criteria set forth in this Part III of this Public Event
Policy and on the condition that there is compliance with the
Requirements in Parts IV, V, and VI of this Public Event Policy.

17. The City presented evidence regarding the allegations in the NOV to establish that
on April 20, 2017 Miguel Lopez, Permittee, failed to comply with the requirements
of the Policy. The evidence (Record, testimony, and Exhibits) establishes by a
preponderance of the evidence that Miguel Lopez and the Denver 420 Rally
violated the following Policy sections.
a. Trash Failure to follow trash plan Policy § 6.4.6
b. Trash Failure to clean park during event Policy § 6.1.3.11
c. Safety and Security Policy §8.4.4 and 6.16
d. Public Health: DEH code violations § 10-13 (A-C), Policy§ 6.16 (15
Violations)
e. Public Right of Way Policy § 6.16, 3.12.1,3.12.2, 3.12.2.1 (3
Violations)
It is noted that contained within each of the five (5) violation categories, 29
separate and distinct Permittee and Permittee Worker violations were committed
during this event on April 20, 2017 at Civic Center Park.
18. The evidence for the Trash violation concerning failure to follow the trash plan
includes the testimony of Karlee Bobzien, Parks Event Coordinator and Sam
Gannon, Senior Parks Ranger and photographs found in Exhibit C. Ms. Bobzien
testified that she attended the event throughout the day, took photographs, and
spoke to Mr. Walter and Mr. Lopez about the lack of trash containers and trash
accumulation. She testified that the Policy requires the trash containers to be in
place prior to the event (10:00 a.m.) and in this case, the containers required under
the plan did not arrive until the afternoon. Additionally, the Policy does not allow
City trash containers to be used, according to her testimony and that of Ranger
Gannon and photographs, the lack of Event trash containers forced people to use

 the City trash container to the point of spilling over and onto the ground (Exhibit
C- E). Mr. Walters and Mr. Lopez confirmed that the trash container noted in the
plan were late in arriving, approximately 11:30 a.m., and not in place at the start of
the Event, resulting in City trash containers to be used. Both dismissed the
violation as not substantial, testifying that, “…it was the fault of the trash company
(SB Porta Bowl) and ultimately the containers were in place.” The untimely
delivery of trash containers by SB Porta Bowl, even if correct does not relieve the
Permittee from complying with the Policy, the plan and ensuring the ‘prompt
removal and disposal of trash and waste products. And not using existing City
trash containers’. Section 6.4.6 of the Policy states:
“Trash and waste: All trash and waste, including but not limited to
grease, sewage, plates, cups, utensils, and food waste shall be disposed
of in dumpsters, trash receptacles, and recycling containers supplied by
the Permittee. Permittee is responsible for providing the proper and
prompt removal and disposal of trash and waste products. Existing trash
containers in a Park may not be used to supplement or replace the trash
containers and trash removal service required for the Event.”
Even, if viewed in the best light, the Permittee failed to have trash containers delivered in
a timely fashion resulting in city trash containers to be used, in clear violation of the
Policy. It is no defense to argue that the trash company was at fault or there was no
substantial harm, the use of one city trash container is a violation and as noted by Mr.
Bobzien and Ranger Gannon the city trash containers were overflowing resulting in
widespread trash accumulation. Section 6.1.3.6 places the burden on the Permittee, Mr.
Lopez, for contracting with, and supervising all Permittee Workers and assuring faithful
performance of the contracted duties. Mr. Lopez is responsible for the ultimate
performance of the Trash Plan and the Permittee Workers obligated to perform their
duties under the contracts, this clearly was not accomplished.
19. The second trash violation is the ‘timely and effective disposal of trash throughout
the course of the event’. Clearly, this is distinguishable from the violation of the trash
plan and violates the trash pick-up plan and § 6.1.3.11 of the Policy. This section states
in part:
“The Permittee is responsible, during the Event and Load-In and Load-Out, for
the timely and effective cleaning and sanitizing of all areas of the Event Site and,
if required, any other City-owned property used or impacted by the Event. This
obligation shall include the removal and proper disposal of trash and waste and
the removal of any markings or any graffiti on property that occurred during or
related to the Event.”
The testimony of Ms. Bobzien and Ranger Gannon is illustrative of the on-going problem
of the disposal and accumulation of trash during this event. The Exhibits (Exhibit C and
E Photographs) are evidence of the on-going issue throughout April 20, 2017, when
initially trash containers were not delivered or at best, delivered late, and the failure of
the Permittee to develop a plan to ensure timely picked up debris and trash. The
testimony of both Mr. Lopez and Mr. Walter indicate that no attempt was made to timely

 and effectively pick up the trash, except to wait for the delivery of trash containers, which
occurred at 11:30 a.m. The burden and responsibility of prompt and proper removal and
disposal of trash and waste products falls on the shoulders of the Permittee, Mr. Lopez.
As noted above it is no defense to argue that the Permittee Workers are at fault, no
injury/harm, or the park was ultimately cleaned. Section 6.1.3.11 requires the timely and
effective cleaning and sanitizing of the event area, ‘timely and effective’ does not include
the next day.
20. Safety and Security Policy § 8.4.4, § 8.4.5 and § 6.16
The NOV alleges and the City argues that Mr. Lopez violated § 8.4.4 and § 8.4.5 of the
Policy, which required Mr. Lopez and his Permittee Workers to substantially comply
with his approved plans (City Exhibit A: 420 Security Plan). Mr. Lopez submitted and
received approval for his Safety and Security Plan for the Event (See Exhibit A). In the
evidentiary hearing Mr. Lopez, Mr. Walter, and Mr. Maurice Lucky testified that the
Event had security staff hired by Mr. Lucky, and thought they followed the plan exactly.
However, the testimony and Exhibits (See Exhibit E and F) presented established that the
security plan required four security entrances opening at 10 a.m.; however, there was a
delay of at least 2 hours before opening the fourth gate. According to Mr. Lopez this was
due to lack of tables and needing a tool to break open the chains on the 4th gate. Mr.
Lucky testified that he thought, “…the fourth gate opening was delayed by at least an
hour before the appropriate tool was located.” Commander Phelan, Denver Police
Department, testified that from his Event log of April 20, 2017, that the fourth gate was
not opened until after noon. The testimonial evidence (Gannon, Phelan, and Lucky)
shows that the failure of this gate opening exacerbated the long lines, caused disruption
of security, and, more importantly, breached the Safety and Security plan. The City and
Commander Phelan also state that the Plan also required the entire circumference of
Civic Center Park would be fenced in, which did not occur (Appellant # 7 and Exhibit A).
Ranger Gannon noted from his report and the admitted photographs (Exhibit F) and
through the HALO videos shown at the hearing, various security perimeter fences were
broken. He testified that at least seven (7) times, “…fences were broken for prolonged
periods of time near 4:20 p.m. with Police Officers and not 420 Rally staff re-erecting the
fences.” Commander Phelan testified that the gates at 14th and Bannock, as well as, at
Colfax and Broadway were down numerous times, and not timely erected by 420 Rally
staff. (Halo Camera April 20, 2017)
Additionally, the testimony of Commander Phelan, Mr. Lucky, Mr. Walter, and Mr.
Lopez, indicate that numerous fences were breached and hundreds of Event participants
broke through the fence and entered the park without passing through security checkpoint
and having their bags checked for weapons. Mr. Lucky testified he observed, “…a box in
his office containing over 160 knives, butane canisters, flammable fluids, and other
dangerous items taken from one (1) gate.” And, he noted that, “…the persons who broke
through the fence were not wanded and checked.” Mr. Lucky concluded that, “…the
security plan in place was not sufficient given the anticipated number of people who
attended, more security staff and more entrances were needed to manage the flow.” In
conclusion he noted that, “…in addition to more staff and gates, other aggravating factors

 include the entertainment, time of day and week, and the lack of a security director.” He
added that, “…the security plan, security director and event itself were at the discretion of
the Permittee.”
The failure to follow the security plan and numerous plan malfunctions created a
very troubling and potentially dangerous setting, where thousands of people were
mingling with less than adequate security measures. Commander Phelan testified
that, “…numerous people were arrested that day for criminal offenses and there was
one shooting at or near the Event.” He also testified that throughout the day the
gates were not fully manned, having 2 to 4 security guards and not the 6 security
guards as the plan stated. To argue that there was ‘no harm or no injury’ per Mr.
Lopez testimony is incorrect and minimizes a potentially dangerous circumstance,
and more troubling is to blame the contracted permittee workers or the crowd.
Sections 8.4.4 and 8.4.5 are also applicable and state:
“Section 8.4.4. “Event Enforcement for Violations Caused by the
Permittee: Upon issuance of the Event Permit and during the Event and
Load-In and Load-Out, if the Permittee or any employees of the
Permittee should do any of the following: Fails or refuses to
substantially comply with approved plans;” The permittee is subject to
the penalties in Sec. 8.4.4, the Permittee may be subject to the
administrative citations as provided in Sec. 8.4.1.”
Section 8.4.5. “Event Enforcement for Violations Caused by Permittee
Workers: Upon issuance of the Event Permit and during the Event and
Load-In and Load-Out, if the Permittee Workers, other than employees
of the Permittee, should do any of the following: Fail or refuse to
substantially comply with approved plans.”
Whether or not Mr. Lopez argues the Permittee Workers are at fault and not himself,
the Policy makes it clear the Permittee, Mr. Lopez, is liable under the Policy and
subject to the penalties of the Policy including those listed in the NOV.
21. DEH Health and Food violations. Policy Section 6.16
As noted in the NOV, Section 6.16 of the Policy is applicable and states the Permittee,
“… is required to comply with all rules and regulations, requirements, restrictions,
permits, licenses, approvals required or imposed by any other City Agency.” Ms. Sally
Born, Public Health Investigator II, The Department of Environmental Health, testified
that, “Mr. Lopez was advised on multiple occasions before the Event that food vendors
were required to be properly licensed to sell food at an event.” She noted that, “…on the
day of the event in a routine inspection conducted by at least four Health Inspectors, the
Department of Health, discovered that of the 35 food vendors, eight of the food vendors
on the event site were not properly licensed.” Ms. Born testified that, “…specifically,
three (3) of the food vendors (The Ginger Pig, Tacos Y Tortas La Reyna Azteca, and
Frozen Matter) did not hold the required Denver mobile retail food establishment license
and five (5) food vendors (World of Weed CBD, Sacred Body CBD, Saint Raphael of the
Hills CBD, Icon Investments, and Box Studios) were operating without the required
Denver temporary retail food establishment license.” Ms. Born testified that, “…Rule

 10-13 (C) (Denver Rules and Regulations Governing Food Establishments), that requires
event coordinators to allow only licensed vendors who sell regulated food products to
participate in an event.” She indicated that, “…the inspections occurred in the morning
before and during the event, and occurred on the event site with some vendors serving
food before they were shut down by the inspectors for Critical Health Code Violations
(§23-4-7 DEH).”
In addition to the unlicensed violations, Ms. Born testified that, “…14 other critical
health code violations were also reported, those that create an imminent health hazard,
those included violations of: no sink, no hot water, no water or soap, or commissary
affiliation. (See Exhibit H).” She indicated, “…the inspections are part of the normal
health department process for city events and are done to ensure a safe process and
presentation of food to prevent foodborne illnesses.” According to Ms. Born, “…emails
and discussions occurred with Mr. Lopez and Mr. Walters months in advance, including
an email in February, sent to the 420 Event to ensure compliance and safe distribution of
food.” On the day of the event Ms. Born did speak to Mr. Walter of the violations, he
later testified that, “…he did remove the unlicensed vendors he was aware of or took
other appropriate action.” She also testified that, “…the health code violations were
reported to Ms. Haynes and reported to the health Department as part of their inspection
process. (Exhibit H - 7 reports).”
As noted above, the Permittee, is responsible for the violations caused by Permittee
Workers. Section 8.4.5 of the Policy provides that, “…if any of your Permittee Workers
(defined as “employee, worker, volunteer, contractor, subcontractor, service provider,
supplier, vendor, exhibitor, performer, entertainer, athlete or similar person authorized or
retained by the Permittee”) fails or refuses to substantially comply with required permits
or licenses from other City agencies, then you are subject to certain penalties.” Policy,
Section 2.3 provides that the rules and regulation of the DEH are applicable to the Event
and Mr. Lopez, Permittee, the evidence establishes that he was advised months in
advance of the DEH food regulations regarding food vendors, mobile food vendors, and
the licensing requirements involved. According to Ms. Born, the food regulations
applicable include those of the Event Coordinator (DEH food regulations at Page 4),
“Event Coordinator means the individual or entity responsible for permitting, obtaining
approvals, and maintaining compliance with the applicable Codes for a Temporary
Event.”
It is no defense by Mr. Lopez that the Permittee Workers (Food Vendors) are responsible,
and the City double counted the violations. Clearly, the City code (DEH, Policy) places
the burden on Mr. Lopez to comply with and assure compliance with the applicable rules
and regulations and Policy. To argue otherwise is incorrect, legally and factually, and
contrary to what the Policy clearly expected of a Permittee or Event Coordinator. Section
6.16 is clear, “The Permittee is required to comply with all rules and regulations,
requirements, restrictions, permits, licenses…. by any other City Agency”. There is no
intent required; policy requires compliance, the evidence establishes that given the
number of health food violations, Mr. Lopez is at fault and placed may people at risk as
noted by Ms. Born, “Foodborne illnesses are not readily apparent and can occur 50 days

 later, in this case there is no way of knowing if people ingested food contained foodborne
issues.”
22. Public Work violations – Obstruction of Right-of-Way. Policy 3.12.1
§§ 3.12.2., 3.12.2.1 and Denver Department Public Works Rules and Regulations Section
III (3):
Ҥ 3.12.1 General: As a condition of obtaining and retaining an Event Permit
under this Public Event Policy, the Applicant must obtain and comply with all
permits, licenses, authorizations and other approvals required from City
Agencies with regulatory jurisdiction over various aspects of the Event and
with operational jurisdiction over City-owned or –controlled property which
may be impacted or used by an Event. If a business license or other permit or
approval are required from the Denver Department of Excise & Licenses for
the Event, the Permittee shall obtain, pay for, and keep in effect any such
license.
Public Works Rules and Regulations Section III (3)
The location of all signs, pavement markings and barricades as specified on
the permit will be strictly adhered to at all times by the Permittee. All of part
of the same shall be removed from the street when not in use or as directed by
the City Traffic Engineer or designee. When a lane is being utilized as the
permit specifies, all barricades and signage shall be in place. Where the City
Traffic Engineer or his designee deems it necessary to modify a permit for the
improvement of traffic flow, the Permittee shall comply with the
modifications.”
Mr. Corry argues that this violation is used by Ms. Haynes as a catch-all for the street and
sidewalk closures and barricade issues. The above noted Policy sections place the burden
on the Permittee to obtain and comply with all licenses and requirements of other City
agencies including Public Works. Ms. Kelly Colvin, Project Manager II, Public Works,
testified that, “Mr. Lopez did obtain Permits from Public Works Department (City
Exhibit J), but failed to comply with the regulations applicable from Public Works.” She
testified that from her report, which included photographs, as part of her review of the
Event that, “…several violations occurred including: several vehicles were in lanes of
travel; the sidewalk and sidewalk areas; and a truck, vehicle, camper and port-a-lets was
in a lane of travel on April 20; and finally traffic barricades were removed prematurely
on the 20th as well.” (City Exhibit G). Ms. Colvin testified specifically that, “…the
Event did not have permission to block sidewalks which occurred due to fences being
down, barricades down or people standing in long lines waiting to enter the Event. The
result of blocked sidewalks was the inability of pedestrians and the handicapped from
navigating the sidewalk and having to enter the lanes of travel, including Broadway, from
14th to Colfax, which was not permitted and was not lawfully closed.” (City Exhibit G).
Although Mr. Lopez argued he wanted to close Broadway, Ms. Colvin testified that,
“…the request was not made of the City.” She also showed photographs of ‘active
traffic’ traveling on Bannock which was prematurely opened as port-a-lets are being
removed. She noted that as per Mr. Lopez’s permit, “…street barricades were to be

 removed only after existing elements are removed, which clearly did not occur,
endangering the traveling public.” According to Ms. Colvin, the removal or picking up
of signs and barricades is the responsibility of the Permit holder, Mr. Lopez, and there is
no exception.
According to Mr. Corry, the vehicle shown in a photograph belonged to a local News
stations; however, it is noted that Mr. Walter and Mr. Lopez were conducting an
interview with the News crew at that time. It was argued that signs or barricades were
down due to the wind; however, Ms. Colvin, as noted above, indicated, “…the Permit
Holder has an absolute duty under the Permit, to raise the signs regardless of the problem
and not allow the opening of traffic lanes if ‘existing elements’ are in traffic lanes.” No
evidence was presented that the violations listed in this section or the others, were the
fault of third parties beyond the control and supervision of Mr. Lopez. To continually
argue, “No harm no foul” misses the focus of the Policy and other City code provisions, a
violation of the sections with or without intent is a violation, and as noted by Ms. Born
and the other evidence, there was harm to the public. As with the other listed violations,
Mr. Corry argues the ‘Permittee Worker’ is at fault; therefore, the Permittee is not
responsible, which again misses the focus of the Policy. The Permit Holder, is the party
at fault, regardless of whom he contracts or retains to do the specific work. In part,
Section 3.12.2 and 3.12.2.1 state clearly what is required:
3.12.2 Right of Way or other City Property: “… The Permittee must comply with
all requirements, procedures and rules and regulations as set forth in this Public
Event Policy in addition to established standards, practices, guidelines,
requirements, rules and regulations and/or fee requirements of the City Agencies
related to right of way or other City property. 3.12.2.1 Public Right of Way: The
Applicant for an Event Permit shall make application and obtain any street
occupancy permit and any other permit or license required by the Denver
Department of Public Works (“Public Works”) for the closure and use of any
right of way under the jurisdiction of Public Works. This closure and use includes
parking, traffic control and Load-In and Load-Out. All permit requirements
imposed by Public Works shall be complied with and all fees and charges
required by Public Works shall be paid for, in addition to the requirements and
Fees of DPR under this Public Event Policy.”
The language of the Policy is mandatory it is not permissive, these are the conditions
under which Mr. Lopez obtained the Event Permit and other City permits, including
Parks and Public Works.
PENALTIES – Policy §§ 8.4.1- 8.4.4
Ms. Haynes, Executive Director of the Department of Parks and Recreation in her
‘Conclusion of the Notice of Violation’ found the following five (5) violations and
assessed the following penalties pursuant to §8.4.4.
Violations by Permittee: “Based on my evaluation, I find that you have violated the
following provisions under Section 8.4.4 of the Policy:

 ● Failed or refused to substantially comply with an approved plan (security plan);
● Failed or refused to substantially comply with any applicable Requirements set
forth in Part VI or Part VII of the Public Event Policy, by violating Section
6.1.3.11 of the Policy (trash);
● Failed or refused to substantially comply with any applicable Requirements set
forth in Part VI or Part VII of the Public Event Policy, by violating Section 6.4.6
of the Policy (trash);
● Eight counts of failed or refused to substantially comply with Part VI or Part VII
of the Public Event Policy, by violating Section 6.16 of the Policy (unlicensed
food vendors);
● Three counts of failed or refused to substantially comply with Part VI or Part VII
of the Public Event Policy, by violating Section 6.16 of the Policy (Public Works
street occupancy permit violations).”
Regarding the Permittee violation, she imposed the following penalties and stated,
“Please note that the penalties listed above are cumulative. Since I find multiple
violations from this Event, I am imposing the following penalties:
● First violation: consider this letter your written warning
● Second violation: $100 plus 10% of $7,975.00 permit fee = $897.50
● Third violation: $100 plus 20% of $7,975.00 permit fee = $1,695.00
● Fourth violation: $100 plus 30% of $7,975.00 permit fee = $2,492.50 and
loss of Priority Event status
● Fifth violation: Barred from being granted any event permit for three (3)
years and loss of Priority Event Status.
The total penalty amount for violations by Permittee is $5,085.00, plus the loss of your
Priority Event status, and you (both individually and as your company) will not be
eligible to obtain any event permit for three years.”
She indicated in the NOV at the conclusion that the penalties are based on Policy § 8.4.4
which details the fine schedule for Permittee violations.
Permittee Worker Violations and Penalties are found in the Policy § 8.4.5, and Ms.
Haynes stated: “In addition to the violations I find against you as Permittee, I also find
fifteen violations by Permittee Workers (8 unlicensed food vendors, and 7 imminent
health violations), as noted above regarding food vendor violations.
Please note that the penalties listed above are cumulative. Since I find fifteen violations
by Permittee Workers, I am imposing the following penalties:
● First violation: consider this letter your written warning
● Second violation: $100 plus 5% of $7,975.00 permit fee = $498.75
● Third violation: $100 plus 10% of $7,975.00 permit fee = $897.50
● Fourth violation: $100 plus 15% of $7,975.00 permit fee = $1,296.25
● Fifth violation: $100 plus 20% of $7,975.00 permit fee = $1,695
● Sixth violation: $100 plus 30% of $7,975.00 permit fee = $2,492.50
The total penalty amount for violations by Permittee Workers is $6,880.”

 As referenced in the NOV, Ms. Haynes stated that the violations and penalties assessed
against the Permittee or Permittee Workers is based on the following Policy Sections §
8.4.4, and § 8.4.5, including her authority under the City Charter and relevant case law.
(McLauthlin v. City and County of Denver, 280 P.2d 1103, 1106 Colo. 1955 case Law
(Denver City Charter 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.4.4 (A))
“Section 8.4.1 In General: If Permittee or the Permittee Workers fail to
adhere to or violate the Requirements of this Public Event Policy, the terms
or conditions in the Event Permit, the terms and conditions of any permit or
license issued by a City Agency, or Applicable Law, the DPR Executive
Director reserves the right and discretion:
• to suspend or revoke the Event Permit at any time and not to refund
Fees paid by Permittee or the security deposit submitted under section
5.3.2; or, in the alternative,
• to impose restrictions or conditions on the current Event Permit,
commensurate with the nature and extent of any violation and appropriate to
rectify the violation or to assure no repeat violation, as the DPR Executive
Director deems appropriate under the circumstances; and/or
• to have DPR Park Rangers issue administrative citation(s) to the Permittee or
the Permittee Workers under the Parks Permitting Ordinance, the Park Use
Rules & Regulations, and/or this Public Event Policy and in accordance with
the Administrative Citations Rules & Regulations adopted by the DPR
Executive Director. Also see Part VII of this Public Event Policy.
Section 8.4.4 Event Enforcement for Violations Caused by the Permittee: Upon
issuance of the Event Permit and during the Event and Load-In and Load-Out, if
the Permittee or any employees of the Permittee should do any of the following:
• Fails or refuses to substantially comply with approved plans;
• Fails or refuses to substantially comply with any Special Rules or
other terms and conditions contained in the Event Permit (not
otherwise addressed in section 8.4.3);
• Fails or refuses to substantially comply with required permits or
licenses from other City Agencies; or
• Fails or refuses to substantially comply with any applicable Requirements
set forth in Part VI or Part VII of the Public Event Policy.
In addition, the penalties set forth in this section 8.4.4, the Permittee may be
subject to administrative citations as provided in section 8.4.1.”
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. If the Hearing Officer determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, after
reviewing the entire administrative Record that the Responsible Party is guilty of the
alleged violations and that the administrative citation was lawfully given; the DPR’s
decision is supported by substantial evidence and consistent with the substantive or
procedural provisions of applicable ordinances or regulations; then the Hearing

 Officer will affirm the DPR’s decision and the burden shifts to the Appellant. (Park
Use R&R’s § V §§ G)
2. The Appellant has to establish by countervailing evidence or testimony that there is
factual or legal grounds for showing the Appellant is not guilt or the administrative
citation or penalty is objectionable, incorrect or not lawful. (Park Use R&R’s § V §§
G)
3. As noted above, Park Use R&R’s § VI §§ B (See also Title II, Chapter 2, Article XII
§ 2-291) concerns the content of the decision and states in part, the Administrative
Hearing Officer shall issue a final decision regarding the violations and penalties
assess. The section gives the AHO discretion to Order one of the following:
a. Uphold the administrative citation and penalties,
b. Uphold the citation and penalties and find mitigation, or
c. In addition to the actions specified in 1) or 2) above, enter such other
reasonable order to the Responsible Party that will help assure future
compliance with the Park Use R&R’s commensurate to the nature and extent
of the violation(s) which is the subject of the AEO; or
d. Dismiss the administrative citation as to any violation not proven.
4. The Hearing Officer will provide written notice of its decision to the appellant
requesting an administrative review hearing, including the language found at Park
Use R&R’s § VI §§ A.
5. The Record in this case established that on May 19, 2017, the City submitted to the
Appellant the NOV regarding the Denver 420 Rally held at Civic Center Park in
Denver, Colorado (Policy § 1.4.1 and D.R.M.C. Title II Chapter 2 Article 12 § 2-285).
6. The Appellant pursuant to Park Use R&R’s § IV §§ A, requested an Appeal of the
NOV and the matter was set for administrative hearing and heard on September 19-20,
2017. As noted above the administrative hearing was heard pursuant to the Park Use
R&R’s § V §§ A-F.
7. Pursuant to the sections noted above Pre-Hearing briefs were submitted and made part
of the record. At the hearing, testimony was taken from eleven (11) witnesses from
the City and Appellant. All Exhibits were marked and admitted and those Exhibits are
noted in the record and Exhibit list.
8. According to the Record on October 7, 2016, Mr. Lopez submitted an application to
Denver Parks for a Permit for the 420 Rally to be held on April 20, 2017. The
Department approved the application on April 7, 2017 with the conditions and
requirements noted on the approval and accompanying documents (City Exhibit A).
9. On or about March 24, 2017, Mr. Lopez received a Street Occupancy Permit from the
Denver Department of Public Works to stage the 420 Rally at 1437 Bannock, the
occupancy conditions were noted on the permit and accompanying documents (City
Exhibit J).
10. Following the hearing on September 19 and 20, 2017, the parties were ordered to
submit written Post Hearing briefs, which were received by the AHO on or about
October 12, 2017 and made part of the record. Ms. Carmody submitted a “Motion
Objecting to the Post Hearing Brief, New Exhibits and Affidavits of Appellant Miguel
Lopez” on October 11, 2017. Initially, Mr. Corry did not submit a responsive brief or
motion and the City’s Motion was granted on October 13, 2017. It is noted on
November 13, 2017 the AHO received from Ms. Abbey Moffitt (Corry & Associates),

 a Response to the City’s Objection; however, as noted above the Motion by Ms.
Carmody was granted on October 15, 2015 and sent to all parties.
11. The Record indicates that Mr. Lopez was issued permits by Department of Parks and
Recreation and the Department of Public Works and was under a legal obligation to
comply with the requirements of those permits and the statutory language under which
they are governed; including but not limited to Policy § 1.2.1, § 3.1.2 and § 8.1; Park
Use R&R’s § I §§ B.
12. The Record, Exhibits, and testimony of all witnesses including that of Ms. Haynes
establish by a Preponderance of the Evidence that Miguel Lopez is guilty of the
violations noted in the NOV letter of May 19, 2017, and the Permits under which he
was allowed to hold the 420 Rally. Those violations include:
● Failed or refused to substantially comply with an approved security plan, by
violating Section 6.16 and 8.4.4
● Failed or refused to substantially comply with any applicable Requirements set
forth in Part VI or Part VII of the Public Event Policy, by violating Section
6.1.3.11 of the Policy (trash);
● Failed or refused to substantially comply with any applicable Requirements set
forth in Part VI or Part VII of the Public Event Policy, by violating Section 6.4.6
of the Policy (trash);
● Eight counts of failed or refused to substantially comply with Part VI or Part VII
of the Department of Environmental Health, by violating Section 6.16 of the
Policy (unlicensed food vendors);
● Three counts of failed or refused to substantially comply with Part VI or Part VII
of the Policy, by violating Section 6.16, 3.12.1, 3.12.2, 3.12.2.1. (Public Works
street occupancy permit violations).
13. Clearly, the language of the Policy, City Code § 39-1 et seq., and Park Use R&R’s,
should be controlling, otherwise the terms of the Policy and regulations have no
value. Without timely and appropriate enforcement of the DPR under which Ms.
Haynes has authority, the public health, safety, and welfare is at risk. (City Charter
§2.4.1 §2.4.2§2.4. 4. (A)). In this case, from the Record and testimony, Ms. Haynes
found that Mr. Lopez “does not deserve to put on an event”.
14. Mr. Corry argues that Miguel Lopez is not at fault for a variety of reasons including,
Permittee Workers are at fault, and the violations are minor, ‘No harm no foul’,
violations are not substantial, and the City approved the plans. However, the City
notes that the Policy places directly on Mr. Lopez the responsibility to manage and
effectively run this event (Policy § 8.1). Even if Mr. Lopez did not individually
commit all noted violations, the Record viewed as a whole establishes that he as
Permittee under the Policy and the relevant law, is the Responsible Party and subject
to the penalties imposed by Ms. Haynes.
15. Mr. Corry raised the issue of a constitutional violation, there was no evidence
presented by Mr. Corry to show the Department violated the Constitutional rights of
the 420 Rally or Mr. Lopez, individually. He failed to present any countervailing
evidence to demonstrate factually or legally that Mr. Lopez is not guilty of the
violations or the penalty is objectionable, incorrect, or not lawful. Mr. Corry offers a
brief list of factors that argue that the incidents that occurred are common industry

 practices; they were expected or were corrected during the event; however, no
evidence was presented to establish any of these arguments.
16. The five violations and penalties listed by the City in the NOV are authorized under
the Policy § 8.4.4 and § 8.4.5; the Policy was sent to Mr. Lopez after he applied for
the Park Permit in December 2016, the DEH Regulations were sent to Mr. Lopez in
February prior to the 420 Rally. Mr. Lopez drafted the Run of Show, entered into the
respective contractual agreements (Safety, Fencing, Food Vendors, and Trash) the
City did not enter into these agreements or draft the documents.
17. The City argues that Ms. Haynes has the authority under the City Charter and Policy
to set the penalties for the five (5) violations charged against 420 Rally and,
specifically, Miguel Lopez and those penalties are authorized under § 8.1, § 8.4.4,
and § 8.4.5. Ms. Carmody alleges and the Record confirms that Mr. Lopez was and is
the Permittee and solely responsible for the violations and liable for the penalties and
his arguments are questionable at best. “Permittee holding any Event Permit shall be
responsible and liable for failure to perform in accordance with the Event Permit, this
Public Event Policy and Applicable Law” (Policy § 8.1). The intent is clear, if you
fail to provide and perform in accordance with the Permit in a responsible manner,
you will be deemed to be held accountable under the Permit and law.
18. Mr. Corry argues that the lack of intent and efforts to correct violations is sufficient
given de minimis violations. Mr. Corry notes that the experience of the 2016 Rally
should have allowed Mr. Lopez to put in place conditions he was concerned about;
however, nothing in the testimony or record show that he was limited or prevented in
exercising his discretion. All evidence in the Record suggest that the City agencies
simply responded to his plans or requests before the 420 Rally. There is no evidence
concerning independence, management, and control that Mr. Lopez was prevented
from organizing and planning the 420 Rally.
19. A review of the Record indicates that Mr. Lopez and the Denver 420 Rally has not
established by a preponderance of the evidence or has the Appellant established by
countervailing evidence or testimony that there is factual or legal grounds for
showing the Appellant is not guilty of the administrative citation or the penalty is
objectionable, incorrect, or not lawful (Park Use R&R’s § V §§ G). The findings
found in the NOV will not be disturbed.
20. It is clear that Mr. Lopez and the 420 Rally is guilty of the violations in the NOV as
presented at the evidentiary hearing. As the Record established:
a. Mr. Lopez obtained a Parks Permit to run the 420 Rally on April 20, 2017 and
also obtained the Public Works permit to run the 420 Rally.
b. That in advance of the Rally, he was provided information concerning the
regulations applicable for his compliance, including the Policy, Parks Permit,
Public Right of Way, and DEH food guidelines. The Run of Show and
contracts related to the 420 Rally were drafted and secured by Mr. Lopez.
The equipment, vehicles, and food vendors were contracted with or purchased
by Mr. Lopez, including the Safety and Security Agreement with Mr. Lucky.
Mr. Lopez is listed as the owner, operator, and Permittee, he was assumed to
have expertise in this field; he was given permission by the City to hold the
420 Rally; and Mr. Lopez agreed to comply with all the terms and conditions
under which that permission was given. Whereas the Permittee Workers were

 retained by him to manage various aspects of the 420 Rally, this includes Mr.
Santino Walter.
c. The evidence found in the Record establishes that by a preponderance of the
evidence Miguel Lopez and the 420 Rally failed to comply with the terms and
conditions of the City Permits and violated the rules and regulations of the
Policy and Applicable law § 8.1, § 8.4.4, and § 8.4.5, respectively, and Park
Use R&R’s § V §§ G, and D.R.M.C. § 2.282. The findings by the DPR
regarding the NOV on May 19, 2017 are upheld; the finding is correct and
valid.
21. Although Mr. Corry argued the decision by DPR was not correct, it is found that the
decision was not arbitrary and capricious; it is found that the decision is supported by
substantial evidence and is consistent with the substantive and procedural provisions
of the Code, Policy, and D.R.M.C. Title I Chapter 2 , Article XII, § 2-281, § 2-291
and, § 2-282.
22. Ms. Allegra “Happy” Haynes, the Executive Director, Denver Department of Parks
and Recreation had an affirmative duty by the City Charter and ordinance to make a
finding that the Appellant, Mr. Lopez, has failed to comply with the Permit and Parks
Rules and Regulation. He has an affirmative duty to demonstrate that he has a right
to retain the ability to obtain a city parks permit in the future. Pursuant to D.R.M.C. §
28-205 (c) (1) or the D.R.M.C. § 28-205(c) (3). Clearly, from the Record it is found
that the decision of Ms. Haynes was not arbitrary and capricious and not an abuse of
discretion. In this case, the evidence in the Record establishes supports the decision
to impose the penalties arising from the NOV, loss of Priority Event Status and ban
Miguel Lopez individually and The Denver 420 Rally from obtaining any Event
Permit for three (3) years. The evidence and the law do not support the
Administrative Review requested by Miguel Lopez and The Denver 420 Rally. The
Appeal of Mr. Corry on behalf of Miquel Lopez and The Denver 420 Rally is denied.
It is ORDERED:
1. The Administrative Review of the Notice of Violation requested by The Denver 420
Rally and Miguel Lopez Case No. DPR 2017-101 is not granted pursuant to
D.R.M.C. Title I Chapter 2 , Article XII, § 2-281 - § 2-291; Denver Parks and
Recreation Administrative Citations Rules and Regulations § VI §§ A-B; Public
Event Policy, Adopted October 25, 2016, § 8.2.1,§ 8.4.6
2. The Penalties imposed by Ms. Haynes pursuant to Policy § 8.4.3, § 8.4.4 and § 8.4.5
are sustained, there is no finding of Mitigation.
3. All other requests of Mr. Corry are denied
4. The findings of Denver Parks and Recreation Executive Director Allegra “Happy”
Haynes are upheld.
ORDERED this 17th day of November, 2017
/David E. Ramirez/ (signature on file)
David E. Ramirez

 Administrative Hearing Officer

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER was sent via U.S. Postal Service mail and/or
emailed to the following parties this 17th day of November, 2017:
Allegra “Happy” Haynes
Executive Director Parks and Recreation
City and County of Denver
201 West Colfax Avenue, Department 601
Denver, CO 80202
Renee Carmody
Assistant City Attorney
City and County of Denver
201 West Colfax Avenue, Department 1207
Denver, CO 80202
renee.carmody@denvergov.org
Robert Corry
Corry & Associates
473 West Colfax Avenue
Suite 300
Denver, CO 80202
rob@robcorry.com
MAILED this 17th day of November, 2017
/David E. Ramirez/ (signature on file)
David E. Ramirez
Administrative Hearing Officer