LEWIS
312153013
BISGAARD
8: LLP

AHORNEVS Al 






THE CITY OF INDIAN WELLS, a California

 

 

 

T1 
,g Wt   
jets}

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD SMITH LLP
BRANT H. DVEIRIN, sea 130621 

E-Mail: SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
JOHN NELSON, SB 216613 COUNTY 

E-Mail: John.Nelson@lewisbrisboisleom JUN 1 3 2013 
SARA E. ATSBAHA, 310049 1 r33:

E?Mail: Sara.Atsbaha@lewisbrisboiscom a
633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000 Alvarade 
Los Angeles, California 90071 

Telephone: 213.250.1800
Facsimile: 213.250.7900

Attorneys for Petitioners,
MATTHEW and REBECCA PARSONS

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE. STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, RIVERSIDE HISTORIC COURTHOUSE 

MATTHEW PARSONS, an individual, and CASE NO. Rig 1 81 159-99

REBECCA PARSONS, an individual,

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF
MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR
vs. DECALARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF

Petitioners and Plaintiffs,

municipal corporation; DOES 1-25, inclusive, [Notice of Commencement of Action,
Request for Preparation of Record of
Proceedings, and Request for Hearing ?led

concurrently]

Trial Date:

Respondents and Defendants.

 

None Set

 

.PETITIONER AND PLAINTIFF, MATTHEW PARSONS and PETITIONER AND
PLAINTIFF, REBECCA PARSONS (coliectively, ?Petitioners? or ?The Parsons?) ?le this
Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive. Relief against the City
of Indian Wells (?City? or ?Indian Wells?) and alleges as follows:

INTRODIICTION
1. This Petition seeks relief from the City of Indian Wells? rushed and punitive adoption of
Ordinance No. 710, (the ?Ordinance? which severely and illegally bans short-term rentals
rentals of less than 29 days?of only certain residential properties within the

City. Petitioners bring this action, among other reasons, because the City in its haste to appease a
4831420169772 1

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECALARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 

 

 

 

LEWIS


emu?

mom Al' LAW






 

 

 

noisy minority of its residents did not comply with the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act, codi?ed at Public Resources Code sections 21000-211893
by failing to conduct any environmental analysis, despite receiving evidence of
signi?cant environmental impacts prior to adoption of the Ordinance from City staff, the
Petitioners, and other members of the public.

2. At the public hearings on the Ordinance, the City was presented with evidence in the form
of prior statements from the City?s own Community Development Director in charge of STR,
testimony, news articles, and copies of studies showing that an overly restrictive ordinance, like
Ordinance No. 710, that broadly bans STRs rentals of less than 29 days) would drive the
rental of STRs underground. As a result, the City?s code enforcement would become more
dif?cult and would increase impacts to noise, light, pollution and other conditions that the City
intended to combat with the Ordinance. Evidence provided to the City showed there was only one
noise complaint from a STR in all of 2017, despite robust enforcement by the City. The existing
regulations were working well, but perhaps to appease a new hotel development approved on the
very same day that includes competitive STRs, the City ignored this information in the record.

3. Instead of taking the time to address this evidence of potentially signi?cant environmental
impacts by studying them as required by CEQA, the City instead relied upon 
extraordinary exemption under 14 Cal Code Regulations 15061(b)(3 which states that this
exemption can only be used when ?it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the
activity in question may have a signi?cant effect on the environment.? The use of such an
exemption despite evidence in the record from the City? own staff showing a potentially
signi?cant increase in impacts is contrary to the purposes and requirements of CEQA.

4. Petitioners also ?le suit to enforce and clarify their vested property rights, and those of
others similarly situated, to continue to rent their residence in the City for a minimum seven?day
and seven-night booking under their City recognized and approved ?grandfathered? permits
(rather than the new requirement that all leases be for at least a month), despite the City?s new
Ordinance.


4831-7201?59772 2

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECALARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 

 

LEWIS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD


LAW

 





 

 

 

. I

5. The City, prior to the new Ordinance, had repeatedly and consistently stated in
communication to Petitioners and the general public that properties with permits granted before
July 4, 2015 would be granted the status of ?grandfathered? STRs within the City limits. Indeed,
the City speci?cally wrote to all City property owners, including Petitioners, in the run-up to a
?deadline? to grandfather properties as STR5 in 2015, and in this document entitled ?Rules
Guiding Short Term Rentals and What You Need to Know? stated:

?Ordinance Bill No. 689 that goes into effect on Saturday, July 4, 2015 and opens
the thirty (30) day grandfathering registration period for any property owner not
currently registered. The Ordinance allows grandfathered vacation rentals to rent
for a minimum of seven (7) days and seven (7) nights, year-round. The
grandfathering registration period ends Monday, August 3, 2015, close of business
at City Hall.?

6. Petitioners registered their property in accordance with the City?s instructions prior to the
June 4, 2015 deadline. In justi?able reliance upon this official communication, as well as a
contemporaneously documented phone call with an authorized City representative con?rming that
Petitioners would be permitted to continue to rent their STR property for a minimum of seven-
days and seven-nights under their grandfathered STR permit, the Parsons invested over
$1,000,000 into their property on the basis that they would be able to continue renting the property
as a STR under the terms of their vested and grandfathered STR permit.

7. Petitioners? vested rights to their STR permit and their continued ability to rent their
property as a STR are protected under both the California and United States Constitutions, and the
City?s ill-considered Ordinance 710 violates numerous provisions of each.

8. While the City did amend provisions of the Ordinance in partial response to many
complaints at the public hearings on it, the Ordinance still provides that only certain property
owners who are in newly constructed developments or who live within the City?s most exclusive
country clubs, or within HOAs that vote to allow short?term rentals contrary to the provisions of
the Davis-Sterling Act, Civil Code sections 4000 to 6150 and the Nonpro?t Mutual Bene?t

Corporation Law, and Corporations Code sections 7110 to 8910, are allowed to keep their
4331-7201-5977; 3

 

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECALARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 

 

 

 

LEWIS
BRISBOIS

81W 119

MTORNEW AT LAW

hi.




ND as NA

 

 

 

grandfathered permits. Those properties outside of the limited groups of new developments or

country clubs within the City, or those not in an HOA, or those in which a HOA doesn?t act by a

statutorily unauthorized vote to allow STRs regardless of the Covenants Codes and Restrictions
for the Property, will see their vested rights canceled pursuant to the Ordinance on
December 31, 2019.

9. For the reasons stated here and as further set forth below, the Ordinance should be set
aside, and the City should be permanently enjoined from enforcing the unconstitutional Ordinance
provisions.

PARTIES

10. The Parsons own property located at 76011 Fairway Drive, Indian Wells, CA, 92210 (the
?Property?). The Parsons own this Property, and have operated it as an STR within the City of
Indian Wells since before the present Ordinance was enacted. The City issued the Parsons an STR
permit for this property on July 17, 2015.. The Parsons have invested approximately $1.5 million
to acquire, maintain and improve their STR property. The ParSons? STR permit remains aetive
and has not been revoked by the City.

11. Defendant and Respondent, City of Indian Wells, is a municipal corporation organized and
existing as a charter city under the laws of the State of California, located in Riverside County.

12. The true names or capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise of the
Defendants and Respondents named herein as "Doe" are unknown to Petitioners, who therefore
sue those Defendants and Respondents by fictitious names. Petitioners will request leave to amend
this Petition to Show the true names or capacities of these Defendants and Respondents once they
have been ascertained.

VENUE

13. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to California Constitution Art. 6,
section 10; sections 1085,1060 and 187 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and sections 21167,
21167.5, and 21168.5 of the Public Resources Code. This Court also has concurrent jurisdiction

over claims brought under 42. U.-S .C. section 1983. An action under section 1983 may be heard in

4831420169772 4 

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECALARATORY AND
. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 

 

 

LEWIS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD
8t SMIH LIP

NTORNEYSAI 




agga?mNn?tewwquthh-?e

 

 

 

 

either state or federal court. See Martinez v. California (1980) 444 US. 277, 283, in 7; Williams v.
Harvth (1976) 16.Cal.3d 834; Kreutzer v. County of San Diego (1984) 153 Ca1.App.3d 62, 69.

14. Venue is proper in Riverside County Superior Court. The Ordinance regulates land use
regarding STRs within the City of Indian Wells. The City of Indian Wells is located in Riverside
County. Code of Civil Procedure section 394(a).

15. Code of Civil Procedure section 1060 allows an ordinance to be challenged in an action for
declaratory relief. See Alameda County Land Use Assn. v. City of Hayward (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th
1716, 1723. The parties havea a dispute regarding the validity of Ordinance No. 710, and
Petitioners are entitled to a judicial declaration setting forth their rights as related to their property.

16. Petitioners are notifying the City of the ?ling of this action by mail service of the Notice of
Commencement of Action, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21167.5. Petitioners are
also ?ling with this Petition the Request for Preparation of the Record. In that notice, Petitioners
are requesting that the City prepare a record of proceedings per Public Resources Code section
21 Copies of the Notice of Commencement of Action and Request for Preparation of
Record of Proceedings are being ?led concurrently herewith and served on all parties

17. Petitioners request a hearing pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21167.4. A Copy
of the Request for Hearing is ?led concurrently herewith and served on all parties.

18. Petitioners will serve a copy of this pleading and concurrently ?led notices and requests on
the California Attorney General Within 10 days of the commencement of this action, pursuant to
Public Resources Code section 21167.7 and Code of Civil Procedure section 388. A copy of the
Proof of Service on the Attorney General is filed concurrently herewith.

EXHAUSTION 0F REMEDIES

19. Petitioners have satisfied all requirements to exhaust their remedies necessary to bring this
proceeding. Government Code section 65009. Public Resources Code section 21177.

20. Petitioners? raised the issues pled in the following causes of action before the Indian Wells
City Council at City Council Meetings dated January 23, 2018 and February 15, 2018. Other

members of the public also spoke in opposition to the Ordinance.

4831-7201-59772 5

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECALARATORY AND
INJUNCTWE RELIEF

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LEWIS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD


mamas LAW

 






 

 

 

. 

21. Petitioners? Counsel, John Nelson, drafted letters to the City dated January 23, 2018 and
February 14, 2018 that raises these same issues. These letters will be part of the record of
proceedings in this action.

22. Alternatively, Petitioners are excused from exhausting available administrative remedies
because the City failed to provide notice as required by Government Code 65009 The
failure to provide such notice constitutes a waiver of the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies. See
Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hartford (1990) 221 Cal. App. 3d 692, 740.

23. Any attempt by Petitioners to seek a variance or special exception from the facial terms of
the Ordinance would be futile. Under California law, changes of use cannot lawfully be
implemented through the variance process. Government Code 65906. In addition, the ordinances
and resolution in this case were adopted despite the City's issuance of contradictory STR permits
to Petitioners, in contemplation of Petitioners' current Operation of STR properties, and for the
express purpose of burdening and eliminating Petitioners? use. In such a situation, ?lrther
applications or attempts to circumvent the ordinances and resolution through administrative action
are not required, as they would be futile. Palazzolo v. Rhode Island (2001) 533 U.S. 606; Hoene v.
County of San Benito (9th Cir. 1989) 870 F.2d 529. Petitioners thus have no administrative
remedy available to them and have performed all steps required on their part to be performed prior
to initiating this action.

STANDING AND RIPENESS

24. Petitioners bring this action to protect their ?mdamental vested and constitutional rights as
STR permit holders, and to ensure that the City adequately performs its environmental review and
analysis obligations in accordance with CEQA. As owners of property within the City, Petitioners
have a direct interest in ensuring that the City?s land use decisions are informed decisions, based
on suf?cient environmental review and analysis of potential environmental impacts. Petitioners
therefore have standing.

25. Petitioners further bring this action to advocate for the continued vitality of STR land uses
and operations, to guard against the decay, degradation or displacement of the City's STR uses and

neighborhoods, and to ensure that the City engages in responsible, informed and lawful decision-
483l-7201-59772 6

 

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECALARATORY AND
INIUNCTIVE RELIEF

 

 

LEWIS


aavrm up

AT LAW






 

 

 




making. Petitioners? interests including protecting the City from environmental impacts that have
not been analyzed and mitigated in accordance with CEQA. As owners of a STR in the City,
Petitioners have a direct interest in the proper enforcement and execution of laws affecting the
quality of life in the City, in the City's duty to prepare an environmental impact report prior to
exercising its discretion in a manner that negatively impacts the local environment, and in
protecting their community from noise, lighting impacts, minimizing and ameliorating traf?c, and
ensuring that the City?s recent success in reducing impacts from STRs is not reversed by an overly
aggressive ban that will drive rentals underground. Petitioners are directly, adversely, and
irreparany affected and prejudiced by the Ordinance.

26. Petitioners? claims are ripe for adjudication, as Petitioners will suffer immediate and
irreparable harm as a result of the City?s violations of CEQA, and the United States and California
Constitutions. Furthermore, facial challenges to regulations are ripe upon enactment of the
regulation. Venture: Mobilehome Communities Owners Ass ?n v. City of San Buenaventura (9th Cir.
2004) 371 F.3d 1046, 1052. Petitioners bring this action to challenge the validity of Ordinance
No. 710, which was enacted by the City of Indian Wells on March 15, 2018.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

27. Petitioner refers to and hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in
paragraphs 1 through 26, above, of this Petition.

28. On July 17, 2015, pursuant to the STR regulations at the time, Petitioners obtained a
permit from the City to rent the property as a ?grandfathered Short Term Rental.? In relevant part,
the permit states that it grants the Petitioners the right to rent the property as an STR and it does
not state either that the permit cannot be renewed or that the permit is subject to an automatic
sunset clause. The City of Indian Wells adopted Ordinance No. 689 on June 3, 2015. The
ordinance provided for a 30-day registration period to ?grandfather in? existing STRs for a seven?
day minimum stay requirement, applicable year round. A copy of Ordinance No. 689 is attached
as Exhibit A. The Ordinance provides that STR registered after the 30-day period will by subject

to a much longer 29-day minimum stay requirement.

4831-7201-5977} 7

 

 

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECALARATORY AND
INIUNCTIVE RELIEF

 

 

LEWIS
BRISBOIS

sat/um up

ATIORNEYS July 4, 2015, the City mailed a notice to its residents titled ?Last Chance: Rules
Guiding Short-Term Rentals and What You Need to Know? (the ?Last Chance Notice?). A copy
of. the Last Chance Notice is attached as Exhibit B. The Notice reiterates the registration
requirements to grandfather existing STRs for the seven-day minimum stay requirement described
in Ordinance No. 689,. There is no mention of any sunset or ending provision in the notice.

30. On June 5, 2015, the Desert Sun, published an article reiterating the minimum stay
language, and registration deadline for a property to be a grandfathered property and that
properties within an HOA are not subject to any limitations. The article is attached as Exhibit C.

31. On July 14, 2015, Petitioner Matthew Parsons spoke with a City staff member named Jill
Moon, who is with the City?s Code Enforcement Department. Ms. Moon stated that the City
would not enforce minimum stay limits for properties within an HOA. A copy of Mr. Parson?s
handwritten notes documenting this conversation is attached as Exhibit D.

32. From July 2015 through July 2017, Petitioners invested approximately $1.5mi11ion into
their STR property to build and plan their business in reliance on the terms of Petitioner?s STR
permit from the City, the Last Chance Notice, the Desert Sun article, and Matthew Parson?s
conversation with City staff. 

33. However, on October 19, 2017, the City implied that the then proposed Draft Ordinance
No. 710 would be revised to address some of the concerns voiced by citizens of Indian Wells, and
was scheduled to be discussed at the April 19,. 2018 City Council Meeting. Instead, the City
Council moved the discussion of the Draft Ordinance to January, rather than April, 2018.

34. On January 22, 2018, at 9:00 the City?s website regarding Council Meeting Agendas
incorrectly stated that the discussion about Draft Ordinance No. 710 was ?tentative.? This error
made it dif?cult for interested parties to participate in the discussion.

35. Ordinance No. 710 was introduced in the City Council On February 15, 2018. At the
hearing, several-citizens voiced concern about the excessive restrictions on STRs.

36. Ordinance No. 710 was adopted after a second reading on March 15, 2018.

37. The Parsons do not live in a new housing development or within one of the City?s

exclusive country clubs, and the limited purpose HOA in which their property has been located
4331-7201?59772 8

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECALARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 

 

 

 

LEWIS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD
asmrHuP

AI LAW

NOOD-JGNUI-BOJNH



 

 

 

has not voted to allow STR rentals. Moreover, Petitioners? provide generally for the
rental of property. A true copy of the is attached as Exhibit E. Furthermore, the
Ordinance provides an express sunset provision that allows for ?grandfathered? permits such as
the Parsons? permit to only remain valid until December 31, 2019, which is rapidly approaching,
so any right Petitioners have to use their property as a STR will expire at the end of 2019.

38. At the February 15, 2018 hearing, City Councilman Ty Peabody asked one of the Parsons?
neighbors for that neighbor?s address, presumany so he, Mr. Peabody, could pinpoint the address
of supporters of short term rentals in the City, for what exact purposes Petitioners do not know,
Since that meeting, however, the Parsons have been subjected to harassment by Mr. Peabody who
Petitioners are informed and believe has encouraged neighbors to ?le complaints against the
Parsons. Shortly after approval of the Ordinance that Mr. Parsons spoke against, the Parsons
received two violations of the City?s STR ordinance based upon a specious argument that Mr.
Parsons should be able to control generic langUage on the websites from VRBO and Homeaway
regarding the language of their listing. Mr. Parsons has contested both of these citations. True
copies of the citations are attached as Exhibit F. Prior to the time that Mr. Parsons spoke out
against the proposed Ordinance, Mr. Parsons had never received a violation from the City for his
STR.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION



39. Petitioners incorporate by reference all allegations in paragraphs 1 through 38 above, of
this Petition.

40. The California Environmental Quality Act requires discretionary government
actions to be reviewed for potential impacts on the environment. Public Resources Code section
21000, et seq. The CEQA Guidelines govern implementation of this review, and are codi?ed in
Title 14, Chapter 3, sections 15000, et seq., of the California Code of Regulations. First, the lead
agency must conduct a preliminary review to determine whether CEQA applies to the proposed
project, or if there is an applicable exemption or exception. Tomlinson v. County of Alameda,
(2012) 1. Cal.App.4th 281, 286. If CEQA applies, the lead agency must prepare an initial study to

4831-1201-59772 9

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECALARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 

 

 

 

 

LEWIS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD
8: SMTH LIP

ATIORNEYS AT LAW



Ni 
a?anam??a?emqamauuna

 

 

 

determine whether it may adopt a negative declaration, or if a full environmean impact report is
required. Id.

41. The City failed to comply with CEQA on multiple grounds. First, there is no evidence that
the City conducted any meaninng preliminary review of the Ordinance before adopting it in
March of this year. Instead, the City claims that CEQA does not apply to the Ordinance, because
the Ordinance ?doesnot commit the City to any action that may have a signi?cant effect on the
environment . . . (Ordinance, Section 2.) However, the City ignored its own staff in drawing this
conclusion.

42. Secdnd, City staff provided substantial evidence that the Ordinance would cause
environmental impacts relating to noise, lighting, traf?c, parking, and other issues stemming from

over-regulation of STRs. With this evidence of environmental impacts, the City became obligated

to either: (I) identify an applicable CEQA exemption or exception, or (2) analyze potential

environmental impacts in a negative declaration or' in an environmental impact report. Rominger v.
County of Colusa, (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 690, 703. The City has not taken any of these steps.
One of the purposes of CEQA is to promote informed governmental decision-making regarding
potential environmental impacts of proposed projects. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, 15002.) Failure
to conduct the preliminary analysis undermines goals of facilitating informed
governmental decision-making, and fails to meet the City?s environmental review obligations
under the Public Resources Code and the California Code of Regulations. The Ordinance should
therefore be set aside until the City complies with CEQA requirements.

43. Third, the City?s use of extraordinary exemption under 14 Cal Code Regulations

15061(b)(3), which states that this exemptioncan only be used when ?it can be seen with certainty

that there is no possibility- that the activity in question may have a signi?cant effect on the

environmen was unlawful. The use of such an exemption despite evidence in the record from the
City?s own staff showing a potentially signi?cant increase in impacts is contrary to the purposes

and requirements of CEQA.





10

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECALARATORY AND
RELIEF

 

 

 

LEWIS

BISGAARD
a up

AT LAW





 

 

 

SECOND CAUSE: OF ACTION

Writ of Mandate to Set Aside the Ordinance Based on uitable Esta e1

 

44. Petitioners incorporate by this reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 though 43 above,
of this Petition.

45. The California Doctrine of Equitable Estoppel prevents injury to an acting party when the
acting party was induced to act by a second party. See City of Long Beach v. Manse?, (1970) 3
'Cal.3d 462.

46. This doctrine is ?equently applied in the context of municipal land use decisions in
California. Congregation ET Chaim v. City of Los Angeles, (2004) 371 F.2d 1122. For example,
California courts have held that when a property owner incurs signi?cant expenses as a result of a
reasonable, good faith reliance on a government act, the principle of estoppel prohibits ?irther
government acts to prohibit the land use. Toigo v. Town of Ross (1998) 70 Cal.App.4th 309.

47. The City is equitably estopped from enforcing Ordinance No. ,710, because it induced
many residents and real estate investors, including the Parsons, to plan their property purchases
based on seven-day minimum stay requirements, relying on consistent messages from City
publications, communications from City staff, and newspaper quotations of City staff.

48. Critically, on July 4, 2015, the City circulated a the ?Last Chance Notice? to residents of
Indian Wells. A copy of the Last Chance Notice is attached as Exhibit B. The notice advises local
residents of a 30-day registration window to grandfather in existing STRs to the seven-day
minimum stay requirement by registering with the City before August 3, 2015.

49. A June 5, 2015 Desert Sun article reiterated the  stay language, noting in relevant
part: ?Anyone who wants to grandfather their home in to qualify for the seven-day minimum stay,
must register with the city no later than August 3i2015].? The same article quotes David
Gassaway, city staff member, as follows: ?After that registration period, owners can still get a
license, but cannot operate for a period less than 29 days.? A copy of the Desert Sim article is
attached as Exhibit C,

50. On July 14, 2015, Petititmer Matthew Parsons was similarly informed by City code

enforcement of?cial Jill Moon that the City would not enforce minimum stay limits for properties

 

4831-7201-59772 1 1
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR. DECALARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 

 

LEWIS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD
est/rm up

ATTORNEWATLAW






 

 

 

within an HOA. A copy of Mr. Parson?s handwritten notes about this conversation is attached as
Exhibit D.

51. As a result of these communications, the Parsons invested a signi?cant sum in their
properties, totaling approximately $1.5 million, on the assumption that their rights as to the
minimum stay were grandfathered in per the ?Last Chance Notice,? Mr. Parsons? communications
with City staff, and consistent reports from a regional newspaper quoting City staff. Together,
these sources created a reasonable assumption and belief that the City?s subsequent STR
regulations would be consistent with this message.

52. However, approximately three years later, the City adopted Ordinance No. 710, which
restricts all STRs that are not within an HOA or certain of the City?s most exclusive country clubs
to minimum stay requirements of 29 days, with limited exception. As drafted, the ordinance is
overly broad, and represents a signi?cant departure from previous City messages. If enforced,
Ordinance No. 710 will signi?cantly devalue the Parsons? property investments within the City,
and dramatically decrease the operating revenue from their existing STR.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Writ of Mandate for Deprivation of Fundamental Vested Rights under US. and California
Constitutions

53. Petitioners incorporate by this reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 though 52 above,
of this Petition

54. Mirroring the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the California
Constitution prohibits depriving any person of ?life, liberty or property without cine process of
law.? Cal. Const. art I 7.

55. The California Constitution states that ?Private property may be taken or damaged for a
public use and only when just compensation  has ?rst been paid to  the owner.? Cal. Const.
art. I 19. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution has a similar provision.

56. 42 U.S.C. 1983 states that any person who is deprived of any ?rights, privileges, or
immunities secured by the Constitution and by virtue of an ordinance may seek redress

for any injuries sustained.
483t-7201-59772 12

 

 

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECALARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 

 

 

LEWIS
BRISBOIS

8t SWIH LLP

MORNEYS 

\quchI-SthI-d

NN 


 

 

 

57. Both California and the United States extend these constitutionally protected rights to
rights granted by permit in cases where the permit holder performed substantial work or incurred
substantial liabilities in good faith reliance on the terms of the permit. See Avco Community
Developers v. South Coast Regional Commission, (1976) 17 Cal.3d 785; Dobbins v. City of Los
Angeles, (1904) 195 US. 233.

58. The Parsons own an STR within the City of Indian Wells. Pursuant to the STR regulations
at the time, the Parsons registered this preperty with the City to obtain an ST permit. The
Parsons relied on the permit language allowing seven?day minimum stay when they invested
approximately $1.5 million into their STR property. The Parsons? reliance on the permit language
was reasonable because the seven-day minimum stay was preserved for grandfathered permits, per
the Last Chance Notice, and communications from the City. The Parsons? right to operate the STR
as set forth in the permit therefore became a vested right.

5 9. Ordinance No. 710 requires HOAs and country clubs to either be subject to the City?s 29-
day minimum stay requirements, or indicate their intent by an ill-de?ned process to opt out of the
ban and allow STRs. The Ordinance exempts new developments. There are no protections for
existing permit holders who have been grandfathered in, but do not live in a HOA or a Country
Club, or for those grandfathered permit holders whose HOA does not follow the procedure
identi?ed by the Ordinance. The Parsons?s limited purpose HOA has not yet voted to allow STRs,
and even if it did, the vote as prescribed by the City would not change the for the Parsons
HOA which have speci?cally allowed rentals of property for nearly 70 years. See Petitioner?s CC
Rs attached as Exhibit 

60. As drafted, the Ordinance violates the Parsons? vested right to operate their STR3 in
accordance with the terms of his permits, in turn, violating the California Constitution, the United
States Constitution, and 42 U.S.C. section 1983.

61. 42. U.S.C 1988 allows prevailing parties in Section 1983 actions to recover reasonable
attorneys? fees. To the extent that Petitioners are deemed to be the prevailing parties on this cause

of action, they are entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys? fees.

4831-7201-59772 1 3

 

 

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECALARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 

 

LEWIS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD
asmm up

AHCRNEYS AT LAW






 

 

 

.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Declaratorv Relief for Takin Without Just Com ensation

 

62. Petitioners incorporate by this reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 though 61 above,
of this Petition

63. 42 U.S.C. 1983 states that any person who is deprived of any ?rights, privileges, or
immunities secured by the Constitution and ?by virtue of an ordinance may seek redress
for any injuries sustained.

64. The California Constitution states that ?Private property may be taken or damaged for a
public use and only when just compensation  has ?rst been paid to  the owner.? Cal. Const.
art. I 19. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution has a similar provision
requiring just compensation for private property that is taken for a public use.

65. Regulations or ordinances depriving a property owner of all or substantially all of the
economic use or bene?t of real property are regulatory takings, subject to the takings provisions in
the United States Constitution and the California Constitution. See Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rem?
Control Bot, (19.97) 16 Cal.4th.76 1., 774; Agim v. City of Titanium, (1979) 24 Cal. 3d 266, 277.
Regulatory Takings are evaluated by: [t]he economic impact of the regulation on the
claimant?; (2) ?the extent to which the regulation has interfered with distinct investment-backed
expectations?; and (3) ?thc character of the governmental action. Allegrerti Co. v. County of
heparin], (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1261, 1277 citing Perm Cent. Tramp. Co. v. New York City,
(1978) 438 US. 104, 124.

66. Ordinance No. 710 has a sunset provision for grandfathered permits beginning January 1,
2020 (?Sunset Provision?) that, if enforced, functions as a regulatory taking. (Ordinance section
5.20.230.) The Sunset Provision converts all grandfathered STR properties from the seven?day
minimum stay requirement to the 29-day minimum stay requirement, with a brief exception for the
duration of the annual professional tennis tournament at the Indian Wells Tennis Garden, effective
January 1, 2020. (Ordinance section 5.20.220.)

67. As drafted, the Ordinance requires STR owners to abide by the 29-day minimum stay for

11 months out of the calendar year?effectively removing STRs from the City except during the
4831-7201-59772 14

 

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATB AND COMPLAINT FOR DECALARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 

 

 

LEWIS
312133015
BISGAARD
8r LIP

AWOWNEYS LAW



i?ll?tl?tl?Il?ti?Il?I?tl?trtennis tournament. If enforced, this provision will cause all STR owners within the City of Indian
Wells to incur signi?cant economic losses, including a loss of all or substantially all revenue from
their STR operations, and depriving them of the use and bene?t of these properties beginning
January 1, 2020.

68. Although the City may offer just compensation, or in the alternative, provide for a
reasonable amortization period in lieu of compensation, the Ordinance does not provide STR
owners a meaningful opportunity to recover their investments, as required by California law. See
Metromedia Inc. v. City of San Diego, (1980) 26 Cal. 848. (Amortization periods must be
commensurate with the investment involved). By comparison, most adequate amortization periods
allow ?ve or more years, depending on the investment involved.

69. The Parsons invested approximately $1.5 million in their STR based on the language in the
permit, and communications from the City of Indian Wells about the minimum-stay duration.
However, the Ordinance Sunset Provision violates the terms of the permit and con?icts with
communications from the City by terminating the favorable minimum-stay terms in January, 2020.

70. For this reason, the Ordinance is a regulatory taking without just compensation, in
violation of the Parsons? civil rights under 42 U.S.C. 1983. To the extent that the Parsons are
deemed the prevailing parties on this cause of action, they are entitled to an award of reasonable
attorneys? fees under 42. U.S.C 1988.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Declaratory Relief for Violation of the Right to me Process Under them

71. Petitioners incorporate by this reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 70 above,
of this Petition

72. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that: ?no state shall
make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United

States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of

law.?

4831420169772 15

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECALARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 

 

 

LEWIS
BRISBOIS
Bremen


AHORNEVS AT LAW

WOOQGNUI-B-MNH


73. The California Constitution provides the same protection for due process of law: ?a person
may not be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law Cal. Const. art. 1,
7.

74. Improper government interference with property rights and irrational, arbitrary actions by
decision-makers are deemed violations of constitutional due process protections. County of
Sacramento v. Lewis, (1998) 523 US. 833, 846; Dodd v. Hood River County (9th Cir. 1995) 59
F.3d 852, 864.

75. 42 U.S.C. 1983 states that any person who is deprived of any ?rights, privileges, or
immunities secured by the Constitution and laws. . . by virtue of an ordinance may seek redress
for any injuries sustained.

76. 42. U.S.C 1988 allows prevailing parties in Section 1983 actions to recover reasonable
attorneys? fees. To the extent that Petitioners are deemed to be the prevailing parties on this cause
of action, they are entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys? fees.

77. The Ordinance, and particularly, the Sunset Provision, deprives the Parsons of their
property rights without substantive due process of law, in violation of both the United States
Constitution and the California Constitution.

78. The claimed purpose of Ordinance No. 710 is to ?enhance and maintain the residential
character of [the City?s] residential zones.? (Ordinance recitals.) However, the City arbitrarily
terminated the Parsons? property rights by adopting an ordinance with a sunset provision, after the
City issued communications and publications suggesting that subsequent minimum stay provisions
would not apply to grandfathered STR permits. The Ordinance also con?icts with the terms of the
City~issued STR permit to the Parsons. As drafted, the Ordinance imposes substantial economic
harm on the Parsons and other STR owners in the City by severely restricting STRs, including
those grandfathered into less restrictive minimum stay requirements. There is no discernable
connection between the Ordinance?s claimed public purpose, and terminating the grandfathered
STRs.

79. By contrast, existing City STR regulations established by Ordinance No. 689 have proven

effective in preserving the residential character of the City?s neighborhoods. For example, the
4331-7201-59772 1 6

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECALARATORY AND
INIUNCTIVE RELIEF

 

 

 

LEWIS
seasons



AIIORNEYS Al LRW





 

 

 

nuisance abatement provisions in Ordinance No. 689 reduced the number of nuisance Notice

. Violations from seven (2014 through 2015) to only one (2016 through 2017). As evidenced by the

lack of nuisance Notice Violations, additional regulations are unnecessary for protecting the

character of Indian Wells? neighborhoods. The City?s arbitrary termination of the grandfathered

permits is therefore a violation of Petitioners? due process rights.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Declaratog Relief for Violation of ?nal Protection of the Laws

80. Petitioners incorporate by this reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 79 above,
of this Petition

81. The Fo?rteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that no state shall
?deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.? Similarly, the
California Constitution provides that ?a person may not be  denied equal protection of the laws
. . . Cal. Const. art I, 7. The Equal Protection Clause is violated where a government body
exposes a person or group to arbitrary discrimination by treating them differently than others
similarly situated, without a rational basis for such treatment. Village of Willowbrook v. Olech,
(2000) 528 US. 562, 564. Under both federal and state laws, persons who are similarly situated
with respect to the legitimate purpose of a law must be treated alike Under the law. Clebume v.
Clebume Living Center, Inc. (1985) 473 US. 432, 439; Cooley v. Superior Court (2002) 29
Ca1.App.4th, 228, 253. 

.82. 42 1983 states that any person who is deprived of any ?rights, privileges, or
immunities secured by the Constitution and by virtue of an ordinance may seek redress
for any injuries sustained.

83. 42. U.S.C 1988 allows prevailing parties in Section 1983 actions to recover reasonable

I attorneys? fees. To the extent that Petitioners are deemed the prevailing parties on this cause of

action, they are entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys? fees.
84. The Ordinance violates the equal protection clauses of the California and United States
Constitutions by inexplicably treating owners of STR3 in new developments, and owners of STRs

within HOAs or Country Clubs differently than other owners of STRs. As the stated purpose of
4831-720169772 17

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECALARATORY AND
INIUNCTIVE RELIEF 

 

 

 

 

LEWIS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD
UP

AUORNEYS AI LAW

MN 


\Dmd??UIJini-?

 

 

 

the Ordinance is to preserve residential characteristics and accurately calculate and collect
Temporary Occupancy Taxes, there is no rational basis for treating these groups differently from
Petitioners. 

85. However, the Ordinance allows property owners within HOAs and Country Clubs to
determine their own STR regulations, including minimum stay requirements, subject to speci?c
voting requirements. (Ordinance sections 5.20.190; 5.20.210). Property owners outside of HOAs
and Country Clubs do not enjoy this discretion. This suggests that the residential characteristics of
neighborhoods in HOAs or Country Clubs are in no way threatened by existing minimum stay
requirements. However, the City applies a different standard to properties that are not within an
HOA or Country Club, without a rational basis for doing so.

86. Because the Ordinance signi?cantly restricts property rights for some STR owners under
the guise of protecting neighborhood characteristics, while arbitrarily allowing for self regulation

of STRS in Certain neighborhoods, the Ordinance violates Petitioners? right to equal protection of

the law, under both state and federal theories.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Iniunetion Against Enforcement of Ordinance No. 710

87. Petitioners incorporate by this reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 86 above,
of this Petition.

88. The City violated mandatory CEQA procedures by adopting Ordinance No. 710? without
meaninng review of potential impacts on the environment. If enforced, the Ordinance will
violate the United States and California Constitutions, depriving the citizens of Indian Wells of
fundamental vested rights, fundamental due process and equal protection rights. For all of these
reasons, and the reasons set forth above, the Ordinance is void, and the City?s enforcement of the
Ordinance must be permanently enjoined.

RELIEF RE UESTED
WHEREFORE, Petitioners respectfully requests this Court to grant the following relief:

1. A Writ of Mandate setting aside the Ordinance for failure to comply with

CEQA, coupled with an order that no action be taken to enforce the Ordinance.
4831420169712 1 8

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECALARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 

 

 

 

 

LEWIS


awn?

LAW

NHMr?i?Ip?tr?si?Ii-ti?IH
 



 

 

 

I .

2. A Writ of Mandate to set aside the Ordinance based on equitable estoppel.

3. A Writ of Mandate setting aside the Ordinance for deprivation of fundamental
vested rights under the United States and California Constitutions.

4. A judicial declaration that the Ordinance violates Petitioners? rights under the
United States and California constitutions as alleged herein.

5. A permanent injection barring the City from enforcing the Ordinance.

6. Damages in an amount that exceeds $1,000,000 and to be proven at trial to
compensate for the City?s taking of the Parsons?s property.

7. An award of attorneys? fees under the Civil Rights Attorneys? Fee Award Act
of 1976, 42 U.S.C. 1988.

DATED: June 13, 2018 BRANT H. DVEIRIN
JOHN NELSON
SARA E. ATSBAHA

IS BISGAABD SMITH LLP

   
   

. x"

 

. 
JB?rant H. Dveirin
Attorneys for Petitioners, Matthew and Rebecca
Parsons

4831420159772 1 9

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECALARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 

 



??lcn?l




ecqmmamwwewoeqmmowNI-?c

 

 

 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

A I have read the foregoing VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND
COMPLAINT FOR AND INJUNCTNE RELIEF and know its contents.

IE I am a party to this action. The matters stated in the foregoing document are true of my
own knowledge except as to those matters which are stated on infomaticn and belief, and as to
those matters I believe them to be true.

I am an owner of the managing member of a party to this action, and am authorized to
make this Veri?cation for and on its behalf, and I make this veri?cation for that reason.

I am informed and believe and on that ground allege that the matters stated in the
foregoing document are true.

El The matters stated in the foregoing document are true of my own knowledge except
as to those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those
matters I believe them to be true.

I, am one of the attorneys for a party to this action.
Such partyis absent from the county where such attorneys have their of?ces, and Imake this
veri?cation for and on behalf of that party for that mason. I am informed and believe and on that
ground allege that the matters stated in the foregoing document, are true.

declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregomg is true and correct.

Executed on June 12, 2018, at year mirth" "7

 

California.

 

 

Matthew Parsons 
Print Name of Signatory Signature 
4822-7364-0553] 1

 

 

 

TDIF A ?1??an FAD Cf?) iim?l'T' (111? 'l I #11? A A (??lmy A cf?)

 

 

 

EEWI

unlennl






 

 

VERIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

I have read the foregoing VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF and know contents.

I am a party to. this action. The matters stated. in the foregoing document are true of my
own knowledge except as to those matters which are stated on information and behef, and as to
those matters I believe them to be true.

I am an comer of the managing member of a party to this action, and am authorized to
make this veri?cation for and on its behalf, and I make this veri?cation for that reason.

I am informed and believe and on that ground allege that the matters stated in the
foregoing document are true.

El The matters stated in the foregoing document are true of my own knowledge except
as to those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those
matters I believe them to be true.

I am one of the attorneys for a party to this action.
Such party is absent from, the county where such attorneys have their of?ces, and I make this
veri?cation for and on behalf of that party for that reason. I am informed and believe and on that
ground allege that the matters stated in the foregoing document are true.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct. 

Executed on June 12, 2013, at California.

 

. . . 

 

 

 

Rebecca Parsons (Mi
Print Name of Sianat? orv Signature
4822-7364-0551! 2

 

A ??11-?17 can 1.1m IT nr: llAl?l?nA Alf? A nf?r' DAD

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit A

 

 

 

 

 

ORDINANCE NO. 589

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF INDIAN WELLS,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 5.20 (TITLE 5 BUSINESS LICENSES
AND REGULATIONS) OF THE INDIAN MUNICIPAL CODE,
RELATING TO SHORT-TERM RESIDENTIAL RENTALS

WHEREAS, the City of Indian Wells (?City?) has the authority under Article 11, Section 5
of the California Constitution and the City Charter to make and enforce all ordinances and
regulations with respect to municipal affairs; and

WHEREAS, the City has the authority to regulate land uses and businesses operating
within the City; and

WHEREAS, short-term rentals of private residences within the City are business ventures
subject to the City's business licensing ordinance; and

WHEREAS, the City has authorized use of private residences for short?term rentals as a
bueiness consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code; and

WHEREAS, short-term occupancies of private residences within the City are subject to
the City?s transient occupancy tax; and

WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City Council that the moratorium set forth in Urgency
Ordinance No. 688 be terminated by amendments to Chapter ?5.20 of the Indian Wells Municipal
Code speci?cally set forth in Ordinance No.? 685 and this Ordinance; and

WHEREAS, the City wishes to enhance and maintain the residential character of its
residential zones; and 

WHEREAS, the City desires and intends to amend the Indian Wells Municipal Code to
tighten and clarify provisions concerning short-term residential rentals, promote accurate
collection of the transient occupancy tax, and enhance. and maintain the residential character. of
its residential zones by providing regulations for short-term residential rentals within the City.

NOW, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF INDIAN WELLS DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

 

 

 

 

i

City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. 689
Page 2

SECTIOE 1. The table of contents of Chapter 5.20 of Title 5 of the Indian Wells
Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:

?Chapter 5.20
SHORT-TERM RESIDENTIAL RENTALS
Sections:
5.20.010 Violation; nuisance; applicability.
5.20.020 Short-term residential rental, de?nitions.
5.20.030 Conditions of operation.
5.20.040 Business license.
5.20.050 Registration.
5.20.060 Personal availability.
5.20.070 Notice to occupants.
5.20.080 Transient occupancy tax.
5.20.090 Statement of occuparicies.
5.20.100 Signs] Advertisement.
5.20.110 Noise.
5.20.120 Occupancy.
5.20.130 Maintenance of residential character.
5.20.140 Minimum duration of occupancy.
5.20.150 Parking.
5.20.160 Revocation of Short?term Vacation Rental Permit and
business license.
5.20.170 Administrative citation.
5.20.180 Limited Registration Period.
5.20.190 Tennis Tournament Exception.
5.20.200 Ordinance Sunset?

SECTION Soction 5.20.010 of the Indian Wells Municipal Code is amended to read as
follows:

?5.20.010 Violation; nuisance; 

It is unlawful and a violation of this Chapter, and is hereby declared a public nuisance, for
any person or entity owning, renting, leasing, occupying, or having charge, control or possession
of any real or improved property within the City of Indian Wells to cause, permit, maintain or
allow any violation of this Chapter to exist thereon. Any violation of this Chapter is punishable as
a misdemeanor and/or as otherwise permitted by this Code. Each and every violation of this
Chapter that exists constitutes a separate and distinct violation as does each and every day, or
portion thereof that any violation exists.

Notwithstanding any provision in this Chapter to the contrary, Section 5.20.140 shall not
be applicable to any common interest development unless the board of the common interest
development takes formal action to request that the City apply and enforce Section 5.20.140 with
respect to the common interest development and submits to the City written notice of the
foregoing action of the board. Upon receipt of such written notice by the City, Section 5.20.140
shall be applicable to such common interest development.

 

Page 3

City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. 689

 



Notwithstanding any provision of this Chapter to the contrary, this Chapter shall not be
applicable to any timeshare, as de?ned in Section 21.08.462 of this Code, that exists as of July

4,2015?

a. Section 5.20.020 of the Indian Wells Municipal Code is amended to read as

follows:

?5.20.020 Short-term residential rental, de?nitions.

?Local Contact Person" means the person designated by the Owner, or Owner's authorized
agent, who shall be available twenty-four (24) hours per day, seven (7) days per week for the
purpose of: (1) responding within one (1) hour to complaints regarding the condition, operation,
or conduct of occupants of the Short?Tenn Residential Rental unit; and (2) taking any remedial
action necessary to resolve any such complaints."

SECTION Q. Section 5.20.050 of the Indian Wells Municipai Code is amended to read as

follows:

?5.20.050 Registration.

On a written form prepared by the Community Development Director of the City, the
Owner shall register with the City as the point of contact for the Short?term Residential Rental
Premises and shall be responsible for all requirements of this Chapter. However, such registration
is deemed satis?ed if accomplished by a Managing Agency or Agent on behalf of the Owner. The
Owner of the Premises shall retain primary responsibility for all requirements of this Code related
to Short-term Residential Rentals, notwithstanding registration by a Managing Agency or Agent.
There shall be no subleasing of any Premises for short-term rental purposes; instead, only a rental
agreement executed by the Owner shall be permitted for any Premises when used for Short-term
Residential Rentals. A fee may be established by resolution of the City Council to cover costs of
processing the registration. Either the Owner of the Premises or a Managing Agency or Agent
shall provide all of the following information to the City at the time of registration, and shall
upon change of any such information update such information to maintain accuracy:

(8)


(C)


(0


(0
0)



Full legal name of the Owner of the Premises and if a business entity or trust,
the individual who has responsibility to oversee its ownership of the Premises;
and

Street and mailing addresses of the Owner of the Premises; and

Telephone number of the Owner of the Premises; and

Email address of the Owner of the Premises; and

Full legal name or business name of a Managing Agency or Agent, if any; and
Street and addresses of a Managing Agency or Agent, if any; and
Telephone number of a Managing Agency or Agent, if any; and

Street and mailing addresses of the Short-term Residentiai Rental Premises; and
Telephone number of the Short-term Residential Rental Premises; and

List of all online websites used to advertise Premises for Short-term-Vacation 
Rental along with ail listing numbers; and
Full name and telephone number of 24 hour emergency Local Contact Person; 
and 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6

City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. 689
Page 4

Submit a Transit Occupancy Tax (TOT) registration fee as set by Resolution of
the Indian Wells City Council; and
Submit a Short-term rental registration fee as set by Resolution of the Indian
Wells City Council; and
Any other contact information the City may reasonably require.

During the ongoing operation of the Short-term Residential Rental, the Owner or
Managing Agency or Agent shall register the name and contact information for all responsible
persons (as lessees) renting their Premises, through a City run oniine database, along with dates
of stay, no later than forty-eight (48) hours prior to occupant arrival. The City shall have the
authority to conduct random inepections of Premises to ensure compliance with provisions of this
Chapter.

A current business license, TOT registration and Good Neighbor Brochure shall be hung
and/or placed in a conspicuous location within the Premises at all times of the Short?term
Residential Rental business operation. In addition, each Responsible Person for the Premises
shall be provided with a copy of the City's Good Neighbor Brochure by the Owner or Managing
Agency or Agent.

The Owner or Managing Agency or Agent shall provide language in their rental agreement
allowing for immediate termination of the rental contract, and immediate eviction upon any
violation of the Municipal Code by any occupant. The Responsible Person shall acknowledge
understanding of all Indian Wells Short-term Residential Rental rules and their liability for any
?nes incurred by occupants.?

SECTION 5. Section 5.20.060 of the Indian Wells Municipal Code is amended to read in
it its entirety as follows:

?5.20.060 Persona! availability.

For each Short-term Residential Rental, 3 Local Contact Person shall be available
by telephone on a seven (7) day per week, twenty?four (24) hour per day basis to respond to
public safety calls, nuisances, or other complaints regarding the use, condition, operation, or
conduct of occupants on the Premises. The Local Contact Person shall respond within one (1)
hour to satisfactorily correct any aileged nuisance or violation of this Chapter by occupants
occurring at the Premises. If the Local Contact Person does not respond within one (1) hour or
does not satisfactorily correct the aiieged nuisance or violation pertaining to the call, the Owner
shall be subject to citation pursuant to Section 5.20.170 of this Code.

Local Contact Person shall be physically present within the geographical limits of
the City during the term of the Short-term Residential Rental or be otherwise physically available
to respond by visiting the Premises in person, at the request of the City or the City?s police
authority, within one (1) hour of contact concerning any alleged nuisance or violation of this
Chapter."

Section 5.20.080 of the Indian Wells Municipal Code is amended to read in
its entirety as follows:

?5.20.080 Transient occupancy Tax.

 

 

 

 

 

. 

City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No?. 639
Page 5

All short?term Residential Rentals shall be subject to the City?s Transient Octupancy Tax
(TOT) as required by Chapter 3.12 of this Code. The Owner or Managing Agency or Agent shall
remit TOT to the City, once per quarter, on or before the 30th day following the dates of March
31, June 30, September 30, and December 31 of each year, on a form prepared by the City or in
a manner otherwise acceptable to the City. Any 0wner(s), or Managing Agency or Agent on behalf
of Owner(s), who fail to remit TOT, concerning a Premises with a registered Operating permit,
subject to Section 5.20.040 of this Code, within three (3.) days of written noti?cation of
delinquency from the City, will have their operating permit for the subject Premises revoked. Such
written noti?cation will be mailed by Certi?ed 0.5. Mail to the address(es) provided to the City
pursuant to Section 5.20.050 of this Code.

SECTION 1. Section 5.20.120 of the Indian Wells Municipal Code is amended to read in
its entireb/ as. follows:

?5.20.120 Occupancy.

The maximum overnight occupancy on the Premises of the Short-term Residential Rental,
from the hours of 11:00 pm. through 5:00 am. on the following morning, shall not exceed two
(2) persons per bedroom with an exception for-children under the age of six who may additionally
occupy the Premises, and no additional occ0pants shall be permitted on the Premises during such
hours. In any advertising concerning the premises for Short-term Residential Rental, the Owner
or Managing Agency or Agent shall advertise the maximum number of overnight occupants
allowed as set forth above.

SECTION g. Section 5.20.140 of the Indian Wells Municipal Code is amended to read in
its entirety as follows:

?5.20.140 Minimum duration of rental.

The duration of any lease or rental of Premises as a Short-term Residential Rental 
registered pursuant to Section. 5.20.180(a) of this Code shall be for a minimum of seven
consecutive (7) nights and seven (7) consecutive days during which time there shall be no
overlapping leases or rental of the Premises. In any advertising concerning the availability of the
Premises for Short-tent: Residential Rental, the Owner or Managing Agency or Agent shall
advertise the minimum number of rental nights and days set forth in this Section 

The duration of any lease or rental of Premises as a Short-term Residential Rental
registered pursuant to Section 5.20.180(b) of this Code shall be for a minimum of 
consecutive nights (28'consecutive nights if the rental covers the month of February during
a non-leap year) during which time there shall be no overlapping leases or rental of the Premises.
In any advertising. concerning the availability of the Premises for Short?term Residential Rental,
the Owner or Managing Agency or Agent shall advertise the minimum number of rental nights
and days set forth in this Section 5.20.140lb).? -

 

 

 

 

 

City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. 689
Page 6

a. Section 5.20.170 of the Indian Wells Municipal Code is amended to read in
its entirety as follows:

?5.20.170 Administrative citation.

The City, or the City's police authority as that term is de?ned by Section 11.08.06!)
of this Code, may issue an administrative citation to any occupant, invitee, renter, lessee or Owner
of the Premises, or Managing Agency or Agent, for a violation of any provision of this Chapter.

All complaints against a Short-term Residential Rental for any violation of this Code
may be handled by the City?s police authority on a 24-hour basis. Any police report where the
City?s police authority has concluded that a violation of this Chapter has occurred, may be
submitted to the City's Code Enforcement Department for review, processing and issuance of an
administrative citation. Each and every day, or portion thereof, that a violation of this Chapter
exists constitutes a separate and distinct violation for which an administrative citation may be
issued. Such an administrative citation shall be issued, notice given, and any appeals heard by
the processes and in the manner prescribed by Sections 8.08.040 through 8.08.190 of this Code,
as amended from time to time.

In addition or in the alternative, any violation of this Chapter may constitute a
misdemeanor which may be subject to the maximum punishment therefor as allowed by law.

Responsible Person (Renter):

The City may issue and the Responsible Person for each Short?term Vacation Rentals may
receive an administrative citation for any violation of the short~term rental ordinance, including
without limitation violation of the City?s noise ordinance, as follows:

1. ?rst offense Warning by City?s police authority;

2. Second Voffense within any sixty (60) day period - $500 fine;

3. Third and subsequent offenses within sixty (60) day period a $1,000 ?ne.
Owner:

The City may issue and die Owner may receive an administrative Citation for any violation
of the Municipal Code, including without limitation the City?s noise ordinance, by the Owner or
Short Term Vacation Rental occupant as follows:

4. First offense - Warning by City's police authority;

5. Second offense within any twelve (12) month period - $1,000 ?ne;

6. Third and subsequent offences within any twelve (12) month period - $1,500
?ne and revocation of their license to operate pursuant to Chapter 5.20.160

of this Code; 

7. Any offense occurring during any permit revocation period - $2,500 fine.?

 

 

 

 

 



City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. 689
Page 7

SEQEQN Lg. Chapter 5.20 of the Indian Wells Municipal Code is amended by adding
Section 5.20.180 to read as follows:

?5.20.180 Limited Registration Period.

Owner(s), or Managing Agency or Agent on behalf of Owner(s), may register their
Premises for operation as a Short-term Residential Rental, pursuant to requirements of Section
5.20.050, between the dates of July 6, 2015 and August 3, 2015 (the ?Limited Registration
Period?). The Owner of a particular Premises, or the Managing Agency or Agent of that Owner
for that Premises, who registers the Premises as described above during the Limited Registration
Period, may rent the Premises for the minimum stay duration set forth in Section 
and the same Owner of such Premises (or such Owner's Managing Agency or Agent thereof) shall
be grandfathered into future renewals for registration of such Premises annually.

Owner(s), or Managing Agency or Agent on behalf of Owner(s), may register their
Premises for operation as a Short?term Residential Rental, pursuant to requirements of Section
5.20.050 after August 3, 2015, and shall then be subject to the minimum stay duration set forth
in Section 

g. Chapter 5.20 of the Indian Wells Municipal Code is amended by adding
Section 5.20.190 to read as follows:

?5.20.190 Tennis Tournament Exception.

Owner(s), or Managing Agency or Agent on behalf of Owner(s), who register their
Premises for operation as a Short?term Residential Rental pursuant to Chapter 5.20.180(b) may
rent their property for a period of no less than seven 7) consecutive nights and seven (7) days
in accordance with Section during the period commencing one week preceding and
ending three (3) days after conclusion of the annual professional tennis tournament held each
March at the Indian Welis Tennis Garden 

SE TION 1.3, Chapter 5.20 of the Indian Wells Municipal Code is amended by adding
Section 5.20.200 to read as follows:

?5.20.200 Ordinance Sunset.

Notwithstanding any provisions in this Code to the contrary, beginning July 5, 2018, all
Short-term Residential Rentals subject to this Chapter 5.20 shall no longer be permitted for less
than twenty-nine (29) consecutive nights (28 consecutive nights if the rental covers the month
of February during a non?leap year).

Urgengy Ordinance 683; Ordinance No. 688, and any ordinance
extending all or part of the moratorium set forth therein, is hereby terminated in its entirety and
superseded by amendments to Chapter 5.20 of the Code specifically set forth in Ordinance No.
685 and this Ordinance.

EEQIIQN ?13: QEQA. This Ordinance does not commit the City to any action that may
have a signi?cant effect on the environment. As a result, such action does not constitute a project
subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.

 

 

City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. 689
Page 8

15, If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this
Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall be held invalid, such
invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Ordinance, which can be given effect without
the invalid provision 0r application and, to- this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby
declared to be severable. This Ordinance amends, adds to and deletes (as applicable) sections of
the Indian Wells Municipal Code.

EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force 30
days after passage.

SECTION 3.1: PUBLICATION. The City Clerk is directed to publish this Ordinance within
the manner and in the time prescribed by law.

PASSED APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Indian Wells,
California, at a _special meeting held on the 3rd day of June, 2015.

    

 

ween. ov'?
 . 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 55.
CITY OF INDIAN WELLS 

CERTIFICATION FOR ORDINANCE NO. 689

I, Wade G. McKinney, City Clerk of. the City Council of the City of Indian Wells, California, DO
HEREBY CERTIFY that Ordinance No. 689, having been regularly introduced at the meeting of
May 21, 2015 was again introduced, the reading in full thereafter unanimously waived, and duly

passed and adopted at a special meeting of the City Council held on this day of June, 2015
and said Ordinance was passed and adopted by the following stated vote, to wit:

AYES: Balocco, Hanson, Martens, Peabody, Reed
NOES: None

and was thereafter on said day signed by the Mayor of said City of Indian Wells,

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

  

   

Exhale- G. P. DEITSCH
cm' manna .ny-crrv CLERK cm A'rronnev

 

 

 

Exhibit 

 

 

 

 

 

32mm 9:0:sz $02.46;: nmim?
mag 33% 2me 8 5.08

 

 

 

 

 

Dear indian Wells Resident.

The City of indian .Weits adopted" Ordinance  i
that 9095' into-e??ect-0n  

the thirty (30) day-{ grandfathering 'registra'tiOn period
for any. property owner not currently registered.~ The
Ordinance-allows grandfathered vacatiions rentals to rent
for a minimum stay-ofseven: (7) days and seven-(7) nights.
year-round. The grandfathering registration period-?ends
Monday. August 3. 2015. close of busineSS at City Hall.

The City requires that all property owners. obtain a
business License and permit. register every rentalcontract
executed online form. and submit a
transient occupancy tax (TOT) form quarterly, even if?it is
a zero balance;

For more information call 760.346.2489 or visit
rentals to obtain ?ling
instructions and the retated application forms.

 

To report issues with a vacation rental in your neighborhood:
Vacation Rental Hotline: 760-883?1822

 

 

 

 

PARSONS
ST . .
NEWPORT COAST 



 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit 

 

 

 

oils has vacation rcntai. ortiir?ianoo  finally 

indian Y7 Page i of},
Per
Month?
THAT SUMMER FEELING Subscribe 
GET THE LATEST lN SUMMER news. SPORTS AND EVENTS 

s- .



[e >4
Rent Condos By The Month

 trippingcom/?l -M onth

VISIT SITE

 

Indian Wells has vacation rental ordinance  finally

Sherry Barkas, The Desert Sun Published 5341 p,m. PT June 4. 2015

After more than a year of discussion and public hearings. the city of lndian Wells has a new short-term
rentals ordinance that allows for minimum stays of seven days for anyone who registers their property with the
city within a 30-day period.

?After a long and torturous journey. we unanimously adopted a compromise plan which recognizes both the
city's financial dependence on tourism and the need to protect our residents? right to enjoy their homes in
quiet.? Mayor Pro Tern Dana Read said Thursday.

 

(Photo: Desert Sun ?re photo)

The ordinance goes into effect July 4. when a 14-month moratorium on vacation rentals will be lifted. At that
point. anyone who wants to grandfather their home in to qualify for the seven-day minimum stay. must register with the city no later than Aug. 3.

?After that registration period. owners can still get a license. but cannot operate for a period less than 29 days, except for the tennis tournament. when
they can rent for a seven?day minimum.? said David Gassaway. assistant to the city manager.


 

 

On July 4. 2018. the seven-day minimum expires and vacation rentals under 29 days will no longer be allowed in tndian Wells. except. again. during the
BNP Paribas Open.

The ordinance doesn?t affect HOAs. which can set their own policies.
"i think that. for the time being. it's a very good compromise." Councilman Ted Martens said.

The struggle fora new ordinance started in May 2014. following complaints of loud parties at a couple of homes during the annuai music festivals and
other major events.

story/ news/ local/ 201 .. 6/ 12/2018

 

 

 

 

Indian Wells has vacation rental ordinance  ?nally Page 2 of 2

the issue nas proved tne mosr olvisrve that?s come oerore tne council In many years, mm a seemingly equal gm ponents and opponents in me
community. Every meeting on the subiect ?lled the council chambers and brought public hearings (lstoggesgsl  
home-short-term-re RniFErELINGether and thos Rona ored them. There were also

ta

 

. Subscribe
contentious debates 

GET THE LATEST IN 5 MME Ews, SPORTS AN 0 EVENTS 
On Wednesday only one person spoke and that was for clarification of wording in the ordinance. 

exchange&utm_campaign 

Jon Romer, who has owned his home since 2007. told the council on May 21, when they did the ?rst vote on the ordinance that it seemed iike the city
was trying to eliminate short-term rentals.

'We are a resort community. We should be doing everything possible to attract visitors. TOT is mother?s milk of ?scal sanity in this city,? he said. ?if others
want a more provincial view, so be it. But that seems totally contradictory to the grandfather provision.

"Grandfather is someone who is there in perpetuity. not a window in time. People who play inside the rules generate revenue for the community.?

Many who favor the vacation homes are those who bought property in indian Wells as a second home to one day retire to. in the meantime, they hoped
to subsidize the cost forthe home through short-term rentals.

The ordinance gives them three years to decide what they want to do with their property long term, Martens said.
"We'll also have the opportunity to see if the expected occupancy transient tax pans out.? he said.
The city is estimating $75,000 to $150,000 per year TOT revenue from the short-term rentals.

AlOng with a noise ordinance. ?nes for public disturbance violations and a maximum occupancy of two people per bedroom that the council approved in
January, Martens said he believes the city will have a good handle on short-term rentals.

The new ordinance takes into account suggestions by resident Michael Andelson that require advertisements for the vacation homes to state the
maximum two-person per bedroom occupancy and seven-day minimum stay mandates.

"The ordinance's objective is supposed to minimize enforcement from city." Andelson told councii members at the May 21 meeting.
Desert Sun reponer Jesse Marx contributed to this report.

Read or Share this story: 

PRODUCT INFORMATION I:
LEARN Cologuard is for peopze so and 
5. u, dderataveragenskfor
e. we
0 RE   
.A see?, Capers-?n Cologuard rs not for everyone. 

i. hm sew-?t . (maven-cl  (5m:  Tim 
rhino-lard I: 

.. 6/12/2018

 

 

 

 

Exhibit 



4? \v
I



1


4?3





.

.v?vr\\s  

-  

sag;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit 

 

 

 

 

0 [vi

DECLARATION OF ESTABLISHMENT OF
CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS

Tract 2027

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

That El Dorado Palms, Inc., a California corporation, owner of the
real property described as follows:

Lots 1 to 23 both inclusive of TRACT NO 2027 as shown
By map on ?le in Book 40, pages 46, and 47 of Maps, Records
of Riverside County, California

hereinafter referred to as ?said subdivision?, hereby certify and declare that
it has established and do hereby establish a general plan for the protection,
maintenance, development and improvement of said property designed for
the mutual bene?t of Lots 1 to 23 both inclusive of said subdivision, and do
hereby af?x the protective provisions, covenants, conditions and restrictions
(hereinafter referred to as ?conditions?) upon any subject to which these
shall be improved, held, leased, sold and! or conveyed by the owner, its
successors or assigns as such owner, each and all of which is and are for the
mutual bene?t of the lots in said subdivision and of one owner thereof, and
shall run with the land and shall inure to and pass with said lots, and shall
apply to and bind the respective successors in interest thereto, and are and
each thereof is imposed upon each of said lots as a mutual, equitable
servitude in favor of such lots in said subdivision as the dominant tenement
or tenements, as follows:

1. Each of the covenants and agreements made by the purchaser and
each and all of these conditions, shall be binding upon the heirs,
assigns and successors of the purchaser and shall inure to the
bene?t of the successors or assigns of the seller.

2. That not more than one residence, with customary private garage,
pool, dressing rooms and guest houses shall ever be built,
constructed, placed or maintained on Lots 1 to 23 inclusive herein

Declaration of Establishment of
Conditions and Restrictions
Tract 2027

 

 

designated as residential lots, nor shall the residence be constructed
to accommodate more than one family and guest houses shall not
be rented separately from the residence.

. That no residence shall be erected or placed on Lots 1-23 inclusive,

which shall have less than 1600 square feet of ?oor space
exclusive of garage, carport, or guest house.

Building and lot plan for all structures, including but not limited to
garages, guest houses and dressing rooms, erected, altered, placed,
assembled, or permitted to remain on said lots in said subdivision
after such plans have been submitted to it (accompanied by written
application for such approval) or if not built to enjoin the erection
of each structure has been commenced prior to the completion
thereof, then such approval, provided all other requirements
contained therein are complied with, shall not be required.

(This paragraph was left blank)

. That no residential building or guest house, exclusive of the front

steps, shall be located on any lot nearer than 20 feet to the front
line thereof, nor nearer than 15 feet to any said street line; no
building shall be located nearer than 7 V2 feet on the ground or 3 1/:a
feet overhang to any side lot line, unless otherwise determined by a
majority of said architectural committee.

. That no tents, shacks or temporary building of any nature, or

outside toilets (except temporary buildings to be used during the
construction of permanent buildings) shall ever be constructed,
maintained, moved on or placed on any of the lots in the
subdivision.

That no trailer, basement, tent, shack, garage, ham, or other out-
buildings erected in the tract shall at any time be used as a
residence temporarily or permanently, nor shall any structure of a
temporary character he used as a residence nor shall any signs be

Declaration of Establishment of
Conditions
Tract 2027

and Restrictions

 

 

25.

26.

27.

IN

Conditions
Tract 2027

 



declarant or of any lot owner, or of any other person entitled to
enforce any of these restrictions to enforce the same shall in no
event be deemed a waiver of the right of such person or of any
other person entitled to enforce these restrictions to enforce the
same thereafter.

That the violation of any of the said conditions shall not defeat or
render invalid the lien of any mortgage or deed of trust made in
good faith and for value upon said land, but such conditions shall
be binding and effective against any owner of said premises whose
title is acquired by foreclosure, trustee?s sale, or otherwise.

Violation of any of these restrictions may be enjoined abated,
restrained or otherwise remedied by appropriate legal or equitable
proceedings. Proceedings to restrain violation of these restrictions
may be brought at any time that such violation appears reasonably
likely to occur in the future. The party or parties bringing such
proceedings to enforce or restrain violation of any of these
restrictions or to determine the rights or duties of any person
hereunder, may recover a reasonable attomeys? fee to be ?xed by
the court, in addition to court costs and any other relief awarded by
the mint in such proceedings.

Invalidation of any of the aforementioned conditions by judgment
or decree of court shall in no way affect any other covenant, and
condition or restriction contained herein which covenants,
conditions or restrictions shall remain in full force and effect.

WITNESS WHEREOF, this 219*1 day of June, 1960.

EL DORADO PALMS, INC.
A California corporation.

By T.C. McMillan, President
Margaret Huelsbusch,
Assistant Secretary

Declaration of Establishment of

and Restrictions

 

 

.

Administrative Cimtion

CITY 01? INDIAN WELLS

No: 1 8 0 3

 

 

mlum? . '4  7 (REM: n, newly
9413;}? ti)me? x527

 

  
 

M311: 7- mn in,

 

11.51;, @511;

 

 

 

 

Yuu an: being ismmd an Administrative Cimian far this violation. Addiliunn! vioInlions
may 1125qu in Crl'minaf and/or additional Administmlivr l'mts.

 

IWMC 3.08.010
if.) new urDiwastd

Offense T?cnuhy

E: [St 
2nd $200.00?
3rd 

IWMC 8.08.0 
fix'crgmum Weed;

Penalty

[st moaned
In 
[3 3rd $500.00?

IWMC 8.08.0?!
(P) l?u?uwd Wulcr

()??cnsc Penalty

[3 Is! SIOUDOM
[21 2nd mommy?
3rd ssoa.oo__

 

8.20.100

(M l'nui?vcm
Sniping Dm'l

Dims: Penalty

[3 Isl 31mm)?

2nd :9me

IWMC 2 

11m farting Ruhlnu L11
?nding mwum?iirui}

Offense Pcm?ly

is: sann.w_
Cl 2nd szmum_~
3rd ammunw

6.44 .050

thImu} Dug [taking fur mum
Ihm 15 Hindu

Offense Penalty

Isl 
2nd 
[3 3rd 

 

IWMC 8.08.010iYXi)

l?uim ?l'teu:

 

Offense J?cnuily

C: 1s: smaoo__
2nd $290.00?
El 3rd 

 

O??cnsE Penalty

1! 1 st 
2nd 
l3 3rd $500.00?

 

. Z01 


OfTensc Penan

[1 Is: 
2nd 
8 3rd. 

 

 

 

Total amount of ?nc(s) 

Signature 

 

 

Unnurumv-

A

 

Iun' 

 

IEZW

 

122/


1' tw?mam mum PLEASE SEE BACK.

I?ll- 

CANARY-PROCESSOR



 

 

 

mpom'mr? READ CAREFULLY
THE LAW mums

Citation .
Indinn Wfll?Mmicipnl. Codsswuu 8.03 prividcg. foi-  of
adm?n?int'rn?vni??minnq for Mmiaipnl?Cadc ?damn-Whats are mice
-- that?clin-hn For 
vio?imions. Fines ?imnulnuvc wen :15:th
violation . 
To Apneat'nm Citation 7- 5 
1. main '15 493; arm's  swam-ma; (p
Ils? citation. Write your simian number on your niriucn
.. . appeal. Plea; include the annual. 

~ln?clmlen urdcr??at life?qu imam! af?x; ?ne.
?Wrilc?nyour rclminn' number 65 your Appeals?rc'ccivcd
witlnoul_1hc full deposit calm?. in: acceptcd. If is
?Ewan invaqu 15ml; . 

3. Mail the ubumilenulo: - - --
.TheCily of Indian Waits Admimslriliv?e Cimio'n 

A . . 

9.0. Box 7275 . 
Newpnn Beach. CA 92658-7275
How to Pay Blue
The amount of the ?ne It indicated on the from of ibis. administrative
cimlion. i?rinr to m?ccivlng u} invoicn from ljic Revqnuc you
my pay by Mail, in me prpvidcd of to address Ham] 'lbnw.
Paymem should? be inadc by panama check. 'usj?cr?s check. or money
order payable to: City of lnzlim' Ficus: write m; Citation
on your check nr?ma?by order. DO NOT SEND CASH. To pay
the clln?on by credit card, go to: 


If lhc?clmlicm is not paid within tha statuldry time, fun
will man-iv: an hwoicc from 1h: City's Revcnuc collector. Fleas: folidw
the instructions cn-lhc inyolga JD mam: proper of your
payment. Payumnl?ut? an: fun: gimanul?nxcusc [ha failure intend! the
violation an: aunt inhuman-creator?ch action by [ha City of Indian
Wcih. 

Consequences offnnurc to Pay .

The failure or. any ,gers'qn -.lD pay 41:; ?ne by an
Adminisu'auva Citntian within the mm ah (ha simian at on the
invoke {mm the Revenue may result in Noti?cation to 1m: snug
Franchise the City pursuing any. legal ?mncdih: to m?cct
[Itc'civll ?nds. ?l'thCu'y? may also mama: uncover its 'c?olicc?on? cos-Ar
according m?prool?g?aadx gird dis)- mum; of tln: Municipal Code
or npph?c'abie State law exfsis unusdzulws' separate and (?lling! name
and shall be subject to citation. Another Adm?nzistmtivc Citation may he
iss?uix! you for the-nun: viutnlinzlis) for 1113- mm: or nu immnsed
'nnmun; if Ilw? violation?) an: not corrected. 1: crimiaul cium'nn may be
issued or nuismcc my be taken ugainsl'?u.

[Lynn need ?mhernlari?cmiun abggl paying the dim plan; call .
Manama" 1 - 5  3

ifyou need furihcf'int?ommtlon aba?t'hg??a c?'mply, cizu'ilw
o??ioer designated on the front.

 

 

 





CITY OF INDIAN WELLS
Cltallon ion NnYou are being issued an Adminislmuw Citation foe IN: violulion. Additionul violations
may mutt in Criminaf andIar nddiliun?l Adminislmivc 

 

8.08.010 NVMC 8.08.010 IWMC 8.08.0?)
(ti: Dead uchued Wed: (P) l'olhuedem

Offense Penalty O??cnsc OlTensc Penalty

is: Simon? [1 Isl E: $100.09?
2nd $200.on__ El 2nd $200.00? 2nd $200.00?
3rd $500.00? a 3rd ssw.oo_ 3rd $500.00?

 

3.20.700 2  .IUOIJZH IWMC 6.44.050
(A) Fugitive u! 2-1 Hunt l'mL?hng Maitlmul minimal Dug linking an mm:
Sulpng Dun Packing 15 Minna-t

055158 Offense Pcnuhy Punally
!sl 5:00.00? [1 154 swam?
2nd 521mm?w Em! 3200mm
Cl 3m SSIELGUW 3rd $00.me

:wmc :wmc



Eng-ens: Penalty I?cnn'hy
1st $100.00? is! smn.uo__ [3 Is! swome
C) 2nd 2nd szmumm [32nd smuou??
3rd 3500.00? 9? 3rd  3rd 
?em-w

Tom! amount of 

 

 

 
 
 

Penalty

 

 

 

 

Signature 

 

 

Cnnuncnu

. Mn 
I 1 I  l'rH Sq? n} 1mm" 
@1714?! {73/
mum INFORMATION mum: SEE BACK.

CANARY-PROCESSOR PINK-VIOLATUR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IMPORTANT- READ CAREFULLY
me uiw REQUIRES

Clt?ll?ll 

. lndiap Wells Municipal Conic Section 8.08 provich for isijuanpc: 91"
admligisuntl?? hilatlous' for Municipal 
that issu?d for
 Violations. Final; arc cumulativeyn?d citations-may  i?ilicd each dzgy'llic

viulgtio'u ?cxisls. . 
To Appeal This Cllallan .  - I
1. Within 15 days oftbc game ofcizaljo?n, syrnu amazed mpl?st to
cimtlim. Write yourfcitzilion number on your w'rillbn
. .. . appeal; Pleas: your mucus) forum . 3
2. Exclude: ?ch.01 monpy ordcr. to: that ?full mnpilnt cum Tine:
Write ?burcilalion number on you: chuck; kppc?als' receival
willioul'lhc full deposil cannot be If your appeal is
'it' will be refunded in flill'. . 
1. Mail the above item: tor
The City or Indian Wells Administrative Citation
P.G. Box 7275 
Ncwpon Bach. CA 92658;?275
?ow to Pay a Fine A 
Tm: amount-of the line 15 indiqalcd 0n the from :pfaiais adminiszra?vp
citation. Prior to receiving an i?'voicc from (he Reven'uc yhu
may pay by mail, in We ciwglopc provided aria-1112 address 

Payment should be made by pcrs?nal almigmsl?d?s check, or money
order payable lb: The City or lndinn Wells. Please will: the Citation
number bu your check or money order. DO NOT SEND CASH. To pay
the citation by credit card. go to: 


if the citation is not pnidm appealed within the statutozjy time. you
will recelvc'un lamina Llic'Cily?s Romano collector. Plano follow
[he insiguctidns on the invoice to ensure groper pmessing your
payment. Paymcm?of the ?nulzall? not excuse the [hilurc to correct the
violation nor it b'nF by the City of?lndiim
Wells. 4 1 

Consequences of Fail'ii?rc t6 Pay-m6 Find . I 
The. failurc of any person to my lit; ?ne by the
Mininislmiivc (Simian within the time on me citation or {in me
Ellwoicc??'om?mc RevenucCollccior my mum Noli?culinn Io ruac'Sunic
Franchis: Tax Board". or' the City. mimiing any legal re'medics to 1:011th
the civil? lines: The City may? also move to in tasks
awarding to proof. Each and every day violnlion ol?thc Municipal Code
(23' applic'nbic Stai??lnw commute: a sepamlc and ?lming! offense
and shall be subject to Cilalioa. Anotht?r Administmivc Ciimizin may be
issued to you {or the same violation?z) far the same or amincr?easud
mmunt if vialution?) are not corrected. a criminal citation may be
issucdor action may be 13km ?gains! you. b- - -

4
- 

.1: ya; need mane: clari?cation ab??iu paying lhacitatinn, 9195:2311
1-809-969-6158ngin'ced furilier information aboht lioi'v to ?omply, gil'ca?g Eat! the
officer designated on the from.

[12391212  -

  

 

 

 

    

 

tag .  ctr-010

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ATTORNEY 0R PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, FOR COURT USE ONLY
Brant H. Dveirin, Esq., SBN 130621lJohn Nelson, Esq., SBN 216613
Sara Atsbaha, Esq., SBN 310049
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard at Smith LLP
633 W. 5uh Street, Suite 4000, Los Angeles, CA 90071
TELEPHONE 213-250?1800 FAX No.- 213-250-7900
ATTORNEY Petitioners, Matthew and Rebecca Parsons
SUPERIOR COURT or CALIFORNIA, couurv or Riverside
sraesrwoness: 4050 Main Street
MAILING 4050 Main Street
mo ZIP CODE: Riverside. CA 92501
BRANCH NAME: Riverside Historic Courthouse - Riverside Court
CASE NAME: Matthew Parsons, an individual and Rebecca Parson, an individual
v. The City of Indian Wells, a California municipal corporation
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designation ?0.5 NUMBER:
l2! Unlimited [3 Limited Counter Joinder (Amount (Amount JUDGE.
demanded demanded is Filed with ?rst appearance by defendant
exceeds $25,000) $25,000 or less) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402) DEPT:
items 1-6 below must be completed Isee instructions on page 2).
1. Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case:
Auto Tort Contract Provisionalty Complex Civil Litigation
Auto (22) Breach of contractlwarranty (06) (831- miles 0f court. ""95 3-400?3-403)
Uninsured motorist (46) Rule 3.740 coliections (09) Ci regulation (03)
Other PIIPDIWD (Personal Injuwleperty Other comedians (09) Construction defect (10)
new? insurance coverage (18) El Mass to? {40)
Asbestos (04) 0m, comma (37) Securities litigation (28)
El Product liability (24) Rea. property El Environmentall'l?omc tort (30)
Medical malpractice (45) Eminent ?main/inverse Insurance coverage claims arising from the
Other (23) condemnation {14) above listed provisionally complex case
(Other) Tort Wrongful eviction (33) types (41)
Business tortlunfair business practice (07) Other real property (26) enforcement Of Jumth
rights (08) Unlawful new?, El Enforcement ofjudgment (20)
Defamation (13) Commercial (31) Miscellaneous Civii Complaint
Ci Fraud (16) El Residential (32) (27) I I
intellectual property (19) Ci Drugs (38)  other inf?? Spams" am?) (42)
Professional negligence (25) Judicial Review Miscellaneous Civul Petition
Other tort (35) El Asset fo?eiture (05) Partnership and corporate governance (21)
Emmoyment Petition re: arbitration award (11) Other 99mm? Wm? above} (43)
El Wrongful termination (36) Writ of mandate (02)
Other employment (15) Other judicial review (39)

 

2. This case is is not complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court. if the case is complex, mark the
factors requiring exceptional judicial management:
a. El Large number of separater represented parties d. Large number of witnesses
b. Extensive motion practice raising dif?cult or novel a. Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts
issues that will be timemnsuming to resolve in other counties. states, or countries, or in a federal court
c. CI Substantial amount of documentary evidence f. Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision

 

 

 

3. Remedies sought (check all that apply): a. IE monetary b. nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief c. punitive
4. Number of causes of action (specify): 7
5. This case is is not a class action suit.
6. If there are any known related cases. ?le and serve a notice of related case. do a
Date: June 13, 2018
Brant Dveirin, Esq., SBN 130621 
(TYPE on PRINT 4/ (SIGNATURW on ATTORNEY FOR PARTY)
NOTICE

0 Plaintiff must file this cover sheet with the ?rst paper ?led in the action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases filed
under the Probate Code, Family Code. or Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.220.) Failure to ?le may result
in sanctions.

- File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule.

a if this case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. of the California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all
other parties to the action or proceeding.

0 Unless this is a collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheet wilt be used for statistical purposes only. 10?
age

 

 

 

 

Form Adapted for Mandatory Use Cal. les of urt, LI 230. 3 220, 3.4004403. 3.740;
Judicial Ocuncil of California CIVIL    Cal. Signdarrdsegt Judicial Acministration. std. 3.10
July 1, 20071

mcourtinfooa 90v
ARA DARA 0-2907 1

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
4050 Main Street
Riverside, CA 92501


NOTICE OF DEPARTMENT ASSIGNMENT

890586005
Cler 040 Nit/m Walls

TO:

 

 

This case has been assigned to the HONORABLE Judge Randall Stamen in Department 07 for all purposes.
Department 5 and 10 is located at 4050 Main Street, Riverside, CA 92501.

Any disqualification pursuant to CCP section 170.6 shall be filed in accordance with that section.

The filing party shall serve a copy of this notice on all parties.

Requests for accommodations can be made by submitting Judicial Council form MC-41O no fewer than five court
days before the hearing. See California Rules of Court, rule 1.100.

 

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

I certify that I am currently employed by the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, and that I am not a
party to this action or proceeding. In my capacity, I am familiar with the practices and procedures used in
connection with the mailing of correspondence. Such correspondence is deposited in the outgoing mail of the
Superior Court. Outgoing mail is delivered to and mailed by the United States Postal Service, postage prepaid,
the same day in the ordinary course of business. I certify that I served a copy of the foregoing NOTICE on this
date, by depositing said copy as stated above.

 

 

Date: 06/13/18 
VANESSA ALW. Deputy Clerk

CCADWM
12/11/14