— La Quinta City Council, June 20, 2023

WRITTEN
PUBLIC

COMMENT

CITY COUNCIL

MEETING
JUNE 20, 2023
1 From: Claudia Snyder <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 8:19 AM
To: Monika Radeva
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: WRITTEN COMMENTS - Special Residential Events Permits - Claudia Snyder Attachments: 062023 Analysis - Special Residential Events - Dupont Estate.pdf; Exhibits A - M to Analysis - SREs - Dupont Estate.pdf
** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. ** In a December 2016 article titled "La Quinta tightens events regulations, toughens penalties", then‐Desert Sun reporter, Sherry Barkas (currently a Management Specialist at the City of La Quinta) reported on the changes that the City was making to its Special Events regulations. In short, Ms. Barkas reported that the City was adding more steps to the permit process and penalties, including a 1‐year moratorium on properties with repeat violations. I'd like to provide a follow‐up to that article.

First, a little context: per a statement by the City Clerk in a recent City Council meeting, there are only 2 Special Residential Events permits applicants in the City. One of these is the so‐called "Dupont Estate" located in the middle of the Highland Palms neighborhood, which appears to have been the driving force for the initiative to regulate the program, given City Council discussions starting in April 2016 (see attached Exhibit M).

In her article, Ms. Barkas quoted "Dupont Estate" homeowner, Lynne Daniels, as stating "We will insure [sic] that proper permits will be in order and that we will oversee events..." adding that Mrs. Daniels vowed to work closely with the City to ensure that events were in compliance with regulations.

Fast forward to the Fall of 2022, and records prove that this promise was broken ‐ e.g., Mrs. Daniels did not comply with the City's Conditional Approval terms required to lawfully conduct a 10/12/22 Mayoral Fundraiser nor 11/05/22 Celebrity Wedding event. Even more shocking, however, is that the City failed to provide any oversight for major steps in the process after the issuance of its Conditional Approval which provides the terms an applicant must comply with to be able to proceed with an event. The "requirement of notification" championed by Mayor Evans in a 12/20/26 City Council meeting (Ex. M) is not only riddled with caveats (e.g., no notification required for events w/ less than 50 attendees), but has, also, never been enforced (despite flimsy "evidence" provided by the City).

This matter is no longer limited to a discussion about event violations at the Dupont Estate, but rather systemic negligence and corruption within the context of the program. The attached analysis consists of facts and documentation obtained from the City. A mindful attempt was made to avoid subjective interpretation in the interest of creating a solid argument that stands up to punctilious scrutiny.

In Ms. Barkas's article, former Mayor and current Councilmember Pena was quoted, "We're going to try to do what is reasonable for people involved on either side." I would argue‐ how is a Conditional Approval which allows for up to 200 guests for a 1‐day wedding and 400 guests for parties up to 3‐days in the middle of a small residential neighborhood such as Highland Palms reasonable? These types of events might work at the Merv Griffin Estate (the other Special Residential Events Permits applicant) which sits on 40 acres of land, but is NOT reasonable in Highland Palms where the "Dupont Estate" sits in the middle of a small neighborhood surrounded by homes located just across the street.

You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 20, 2023 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT CLAUDIA SNYDER

MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA - DUPONT ESTATE AND SPECIAL EVENTS PERMITS 2 I'll venture to say that there aren't many neighbors who would consider holding such large events on a private level, so it makes no sense that these large commercial events would be allowed in a small residential neighborhood for one set of homeowners who have decided to monetize their property to generate a second income (see attached Ex. M, City Council Mtg 09/20/16). Why do the commercial interests of one homeowner supercede the right to quiet enjoyment of the rest of the neighborhood? Let's please not lose sight of the important fact that Highland Palms is a small residential neighborhood.

In a 12/06/16 City Council meeting, former Councilmember Radi stated that it was the City's goal to have as many events as possible because they generate revenue and jobs. What happened‐ as the Mayor argued in the subsequent 12/12/26 City Council meeting (see attached Exhibit M)‐ to balancing personal property rights ‐ and, therefore, defining program parameters‐ to ensure the quiet enjoyment of the other side? In our research, we have seen no further arguments in support of the other side's right to peaceful and quiet enjoyment of our homes (except, of course, from neighbors who have been aggrieved by the "Dupont Estate's" activities). Surely, the Mayor's mission of making La Quinta a "resort destination" does not imply that La Quinta is to become one large commercial zone in which residential neighborhoods are marginalized. We may not contribute to the City's TOT coffers, but we pay taxes, too! In Ms. Barkas' article, former Councilmember Radi was also quoted as saying that, "The reality is, when you have sensible regulations in place, people are likely to follow them." Okay, but, what happens when the City itself fails to oversee and apply program rules? ... And flat‐out refuses to do so when confronted with evidence of violations? What we have witnessed is the City's attempt to cover‐up for its negligence. With that, a complete erosion of any confidence or trust in the City... and, also fear because, as the saying goes, Where there is no justice, it is dangerous to be right.

Ms. Barkas references regulations that require permit applications to be filed 45 days prior to an event. This was not done in the Fall of 2022 by the "Dupont Estate", but also never enforced by the City for either the Mayoral Fundraiser nor Celebrity Wedding events.

In an April 19, 2016 City Council meeting which appears to be contain the first public comments regarding the "Dupont Estate's" events, Councilmember Pena stated: If they don't comply, it's a public nuisance... We can deny future permits. The Mayor added that if it was necessary to shut them down, the City would. I would argue it's time to take action and hold rule‐breakers accountable before we start amending rules to the Special Residential Events permits program.

The damage done to the Highland Palms neighbors who reside closest to the "Dupont Estate" is extensive and ongoing. If a lack of oversight, cover‐ups, and continuous harassment by Code Enforcement on behalf of the "Dupont Estate" were not enough, we have also been threatened with permanent bans for making "impertinent" remarks or becoming "boisterous" while addressing the council at City Council meetings. Naturally, I am personally concerned as my tone is, inevitably, one of outrage when addressing the City given the injustice I have witnessed. Can an individual's tone be considered "boisterous"? What is an "impertinent" comment? I know the definition of impertinent, but do not know how the City intends to apply this given its broad discretion coupled with the fact that we are at odds. Alas, I have asked the City for clarification and am still awaiting its reply.

Aside from the stress that has resulted in pulmonary embolisms, suicide attempts, restraining orders, and incessant bullying, we have also been publicly undermined for speaking up against the City. We have been publicly undermined and falsely accused of violence by both the owners of the "Dupont Estate" and Mayor Evans:
 "Mrs. Kravitz" ‐ Mrs. Daniels in 05/03/16 City Council Mtg;

 "The one who complains excessively" ‐ Mayor Evans in 04/20/21 City Council Mtg;  Condescending remark about neighbors not native to California ‐ "... neighbors from Montana + Missouri" ‐ Mrs.

Daniels in 4/19/22 City Council Mtg

 Slander: "Mrs. Snyder physically assaulted me days after the [Mayoral] reception." ‐ Mrs. Daniels in 04/04/23 City Council Mtg
CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 20, 2023 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT CLAUDIA SNYDER

MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA - DUPONT ESTATE AND SPECIAL EVENTS PERMITS 3 Indeed, the aforementioned may seem petty, but my goal in sharing is to give the full scope of the matter regarding our dispute with the City regarding the Special Residential Events activities associated with the "Dupont Estate".

We have no choice but to continue to speak‐up until we obtain accountability from the City of La Quinta.

Please help us.

Respectfully,
Claudia Snyder
CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 20, 2023 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT CLAUDIA SNYDER

MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA - DUPONT ESTATE AND SPECIAL EVENTS PERMITS CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 20, 2023 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT CLAUDIA SNYDER

MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA - DUPONT ESTATE AND SPECIAL EVENTS PERMITS Special Residential Events Permits Program – Overview with Major Steps Design + Dev/ Planning Depts Applicant ≥ 45 days prior to event Conditional Approval ≥ 30 days prior to event ≥ 14 days prior to event ≥ 7 days prior to event Post Planning Files Application
Reviews Application Permit Issued?
Yes
Applicant Receives
Conditional
Approval
w/ Terms
No
Event Specific
Info Sent to City?
No
Event May Not
Proceed
Yes
Proof of
Notification to
Neighbors?
No
Event May Not
Proceed
Proof of
Notification to
City?
Yes
Event May Not
Proceed
No
Licensed
Security
Personnel
Yes
No

VIOLATION
Yes All Other
Terms Met?
No

VIOLATION
Yes COMPLIANT
EVENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 20, 2023 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT CLAUDIA SNYDER

MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA - DUPONT ESTATE AND SPECIAL EVENTS PERMITS Special Residential Event at Dupont Estate – Mayoral Fundraiser 10/12/22 ≥ 45 days prior to event Conditional Approval ≥ 30 days prior to event ≥ 14 days prior to event ≥ 7 days prior to event Post Planning Files Application
Reviews Application Permit Issued? Yes
Conditional
Approval (CA)
SEP 2021-0005
No
Event Specific
Info Sent to City?
No
Event Should Not
Have Been Allowed
to Proceed
Yes Notification to
Neighbors?
No
Event Should Not
Have Been Allowed
to Proceed
Proof of
Notification to
City?
Yes
Event Should Not
Have Been Allowed
to Proceed
No
Licensed
Security
Personnel
Yes
No

VIOLATION
Yes All Other
Terms Met?
No

VIOLATION
Yes COMPLIANT
EVENT
CE Report CE-22-1585 (EX. B): “Property Owner has
not made City aware that the event was occurring.”
CE Report CE-22-1585 (EX. B): PLANNING
retroactively decides event to be covered under
permit. Problem w/ that is:

(a) Permit NOT applied for ≥ 45 days prior to
event;
(b) Specific Event info NOT provided to City
(c ) NO mention whatsoever of Mayoral Event
in Application/ Conditional Approval (EX. A);
(d) NO documentation indicating that
event would be part of SEP 2021-0005 (aside
from extemporaneous decision made by
Planning upon neighbors’ complaints on day
of event)
Mayor claims event is both Permitted (“She’s
following the rules”) and also a “gathering of
friends” (“Get Friends” Video) (EX. C)
Mayor also claims in 12/06/22 City Council meeting
that event was permitted (EX. M), though there is
NO mention nor documentation whatsoever of
event in Application/ Conditional Approval (EX. A);
Same-day email Invitation (10/12/22) to
City Staff from L Daniels (EX. D)
CE Report CE-22-1585
(EX. B):

PLANNING retroactively
decides that event to be
covered under permit and
notification not triggered
due to ≤ 50 planned
attendees. How would City
know given there is no
Specific Event info? … Nor
any mention of event in
CA packet/ application?
CE Report CE-22-1585 (EX. B): “Mrs. Daniels stated she did have security onsite, but not her usual (false)… and did not confirm whether licensed in CA… did not understand that confirming licensing was her responsibility.”
Email dated 04/04/23 from Code Enforcement Supervisor to City Clerk effectively confirming that Private Security Personnel were not licensed (EX. I)
Private security guards M. Melgar + A. Collins (*) NOT licensed per CA Dept of Consumer Affairs (EX. J)
* As of 04/10/23, Andrew Collins is licensed as Private Security offering “Temporary Family Support” (EX. J, p.3)
M. Melgar has been employed by Daniels since 2017 (per
L. Daniels stmt attached to Conditional Permit SEP 2021-0005) (Ex. A)
M. Melgar is well-known to Daniels: he was a witness to Amendment to J. Hendriks Last Will + Testament… which
transferred real estate property from Hendriks to Daniels and for which Daniels are currently being sued (Financial Elder Abuse Case PRIN2200459) (EX. K)
Neighbors
adamantly
maintain there was
no notification and
communicated this
to City (EX. E)
CE Report CE-22-1585
(EX. B):

PLANNING retroactively
decides that event to be
covered under permit and
notification not triggered
due to ≤ 50 planned
attendees. How would City
know given there is no
Specific Event info? … Nor
any mention of event in
Conditional Approval?
CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 20, 2023 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT CLAUDIA SNYDER

MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA - DUPONT ESTATE AND SPECIAL EVENTS PERMITS Special Residential Event at Dupont Estate – Celebrity Wedding 11/05/22 ≥ 45 days prior to event Conditional Approval ≥ 30 days prior to event ≥ 14 days prior to event ≥ 7 days prior to event Post Planning Files Application
Reviews Application Permit Issued? Yes
Conditional
Approval (CA)
SEP 2021-0005
No
Event Specific
Info Sent to City?
No
Event Should Not
Have Been Allowed
to Proceed
Yes
Proof of
Notification to
Neighbors?
No
Event Should Not
Have Been Allowed
to Proceed
Proof of
Notification to
City?
Yes
Event Should Not
Have Been Allowed
to Proceed
No
Licensed
Security
Personnel
Yes
No

VIOLATION
Yes All Other
Terms Met?
No

VIOLATION
Yes COMPLIANT
EVENT
Permit NOT applied for ≥ 45 days
prior to event;
NO City documentation as to why
exception was made to rule.

Specific Event info
NOT provided to City
CE Report CE-22-1585: “Mrs. Daniels stated she did have security onsite, but not her usual (false)… and did not confirm whether
licensed in CA… did not understand that confirming licensing was her responsibility.”
Email dated 04/04/23 from Code Enforcement Supervisor to City Clerk effectively confirming that Prive Security Personnel were not licensed (EX. I)
Private security guards M. Melgar + A. Collins (*) NOT licensed per CA Dept of Consumer Affairs (EX. J)
* As of 04/10/23, Andrew Collins is licensed as Private Security Guard offering “Temporary Family Support” (EX. J, p.3)
M. Melgar has been employed by Daniels since 2017 (per L. Daniels stmt attached to Conditional Permit SEP 2021-0005) (Ex. A)
M. Melgar is well-known to Daniels: he was a witness to Amendment to Hendriks Last Will + Testament… which transferred real estate property from Hendriks to Daniels and for which Daniels are currently being sued (Financial Elder Abuse - Case PRIN2200459) (EX. K)
City replies (Ex. F) with
makeshift “evidence” of
notification (Ex. G),
evidently received on day
of neighbors’ complaint
and contrary to CA terms
which state that City is to
be in possession of this ≥7
days prior to an event
“Notification” is
meaningless as it provides
no indication as to who it
was delivered; a mere
document that could have
been created
extemporaneosly to satisfy
City’s attempted cover-up.

Neighbors
adamantly
maintain there was
no notification and
communicated this
to City (Ex. E)
CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 20, 2023 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT CLAUDIA SNYDER

MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA - DUPONT ESTATE AND SPECIAL EVENTS PERMITS •
Special Residential Events Permits Program – Findings, Conclusions & Suggestions •
Special Residential Events Permits Program – Findings, Conclusions & Suggestions FINDINGS - The City has failed neighbors of the “Dupont Estate” in its oversight of the program. • Permits are issued at less than the required 45 days per program rules with no documentation re any exceptions that may have been made by the City.
• Once a Conditional Approval is issued to an Applicant, there is no City oversight for the terms of the Conditional Approval:
- NO City Request for Specific Event Info from Applicant (≥ 30 days prior to event) - NO Applicant Notification of Event to Neighbors (≥ 14 days prior to event) - NO City Request for Applicant’s Proof of Notification to Neighbors (≥ 7 days prior to event) - NO City Request for Applicable Permits – e.g., licenses for Private Security Personnel • To compound the matter, it appears the City has made a concerted effort to cover-up for its lack of oversight to program rules.
• It also appears there is a conflict of interest between the “Dupont Estate” and the City, which is fairly welldocumented.

CONCLUSIONS - The program does not work; the current Administration has clearly failed to provide ANY oversight of the program beyond issuance of a Conditional Approval.

SUGGESTIONS - Given our experience with the ”Dupont Estate’s” events this past Fall, and in order to preserve the integrity of the program going forward, we respectfully suggest that our community leaders include the following points in their discussions with the City regarding upcoming Amendments to the program:
• An independent body is required to oversee the program given the City’s negligence and documented cover-up of the numerous violations. Those of us closest to this matter have lost confidence and trust in the City based on our numerous interactions with staff ranging from Code Enforcement officers to the City Manager who are clearly biased in favor of the “Dupont Estate” homeowners (evidence of Code Enforcement’s harassment of some of us has been requested from the City and will be shared upon receipt). To that effect, it is also imperative to address conflicts of interest given the Daniels’ Mayoral event invite to City staff, City “heads-ups” to the Daniels re complaints and requests for information (e.g., Notifications to Neighbors and Private Security Guard licensing), and uncorroborated anecdotes about pay-offs to City Staff. • The “Dupont Estate” must be held accountable for all violations. The events unambiguously equate to a PUBLIC NUISANCE per LQMC 9.60.170 and, yet, the City has never issued a violation for any of the numerous infractions.

The program’s integrity is at risk until there is accountability. • Granted, given its negligence, the City must be held accountable, as well, as the violations COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED, had there been oversight and unbiased enforcement of the rules. • We feel it is necessary to revise the number of permitted event attendees at properties such as the “Dupont Estate” which, unlike The Merv Griffin Estate, are located in the middle of residential neighborhoods. It is UNREASONABLE to allow for up to 200 guests for a 1-day wedding and 400 guests for 3-day parties in a small residential neighborhood such as Highland Palms (see Ex. A).
• We feel it is imperative to discuss the value of anonymous complaints. We have been aggrieved by the City’s disclosure of our complaints to the “Dupont Estate” in the form of incessant retaliation with the latter’s use of City resources (evidence of Code Enforcement’s harassment is forthcoming) and frivolous legal action. As such, it seems plausible that other members of the community would be reluctant to file complaints given common-knowledge of the real threat of retaliation. To achieve anonymity, however, we would first need have to an independent body as discussed earlier. At this point, the issue raised by neighbors in a Nov 2022 City Council meeting re “The fox guarding the henhouse” is real.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 20, 2023 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT CLAUDIA SNYDER

MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA - DUPONT ESTATE AND SPECIAL EVENTS PERMITS

La Quinta City CouncilJune 20, 2023

La Quinta City Council
June 20, 2023