Long Beach City Council
August 23, 2022

CITY OF
LONG
August23,2022

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
City of Long Beach
California
RECOMMENDATION:

Department of Financial Management
411 West Ocean Boulevard, 6th Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802
(562) 570-6425
H-15
Receive the supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing and reject the hearing officer's recommendation to reverse the denial of the business license application for JP23 Hospitality Company, located at 110 East Broadway, and to not issue a business license. (District 1)

DISCUSSION
City Council previously referred to a hearing officer the appeal of the Financial Management Department's denial of a business license application by JP23 Hospitality Company, located at 110 East Broadway for a restaurant and ready to eat foods with alcohol license. Attached for your review is Hearing Officer Jonathan C. Navarro, Esq.'s written report (Attachment A).

Below is a chronological list of events leading up to the hearing officer's decision:
• On March 14, 2022, the Department of Financial Management denied the business license application for JP23 Hospitality Company to operate a restaurant with alcohol establishment at 110 East Broadway Avenue (Attachment B) due to failure to comply with applicable laws and regulations pursuant to the Long Beach Municipal Code (LBMC) Sections 1.32.040,

3.80.210, 5.06.020 5.72.110(A) and 5.72.130.
• Pursuant to LBMC Section 3.80.421.6, an applicant can appeal the denial of a business license application to the City Council. On March 24, 2022, the applicant submitted a written request for an appeal (Attachment C).
• On April 12, 2022, the City Council referred to a hearing officer the applicant's appeal of the business license application denial. The hearing officer randomly assigned by the City Clerk's Office was Jonathan C. Navarro, Esq.
• On May 10, 2022, the appeal hearing commenced. It was continued to May 25, 2022, and subsequently continued as needed for additional testimony. The attorneys submitted evidence (Attachments D and E) and conducted the examination of witnesses. On June 8, 2022, the appeal hearing concluded.
• On June 22, 2022, as requested by the Hearing Officer, the applicant and the City both submitted written closing briefs (Attachment F).

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
August 23, 2022

• On July 15, 2022, the hearing officer recommended that the denial of the business license application for JP23 Hospitality Company be reversed, and the applicant's business license be issued, based on LBMC Section 3.80.421.5.

LBMC Section 2.93.050(A) requires that the City Council set a time for a hearing to review and consider the hearing officer's report and recommendation. After review of the hearing officer's report, the City Council may adopt, reject or modify the recommended decision An independent legal review of the hearing officer's recommendations was conducted by Best, Best and Krieger, LLP (BB&K). Based on the analysis provided by BB&K (Attachment G), the Financial Management Department recommends that the City Council reject the hearing officer's recommendation and deny the appeal by JP23 Hospitality Company.

This matter was reviewed by Deputy City Attorney Arturo D. Sanchez and Director of Financial Management Kevin Riper on August 9, 2022.

TIMING CONSIDERATIONS
The hearing date of August 23, 2022 has been posted at the business location, and the property owner has been notified by mail.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this item. This recommendation has no staffing impact beyond the normal budgeted scope of duties and is consistent with existing City Council priorities. If the business no longer operates, the immediate impact will be the loss of 30 to 70 local jobs.

SUGGESTED ACTION:

Approve recommendation.

Respectfully submitted,
/~4

KEVIN RIPER

DIRECTOR

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
ATTACHMENTS: A- HEARING OFFICER'S REPORT

B - DENIAL LETTER FROM THE CITY

C -APPEAL LETTER FROM BUSINESS OWNER

D - HEARING EXHIBITS - DOCUMENTS

E - HEARING EXHIBITS -VIDEOS

F -ATTORNEYS' CLOSING BRIEFS

G - BEST, BEST AND KRIEGER REPORT
APPROVED:

THOMAS B. MODICA

CITY MANAGER

HEARING OFFICER’S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
- 1 -
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

JONATHAN C. NAVARRO, ESQ., CSB #198310

ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER
TEL.: (714) 647-9361
FAX: (714) 647-9362
EMAIL: [email protected]

CITY OF LONG BEACH

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL HEARING

PER LONG BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER

3.80.421.6

JP23 HOSPITALITY COMPANY, d/b/a/
JP23,

Appellant,
vs.

CITY OF LONG BEACH,

Respondent/Licensing
Authority

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
HEARING OFFICER’S FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION

I. INTRODUCTION
This appeal of a business license denial came on regularly for hearing before Administrative Hearing Officer Jonathan C. Navarro commencing on May 25, 2022 at 9:00 AM via WebEx virtual hearing and continued on the following dates—May 31, 2022, June 1, 2022, June 6, 2022, June 7, 2022, and June 8, 2022. The WebEx hearing was administered by Marla Camerino with the Business License Division of the City of Long Beach’s Department of Financial Management. The Appellant, JP23 HOSPITALITY COMPANY, d/b/a/ JP23 (“Appellant” or “JP23”) appeared and was represented by Ethan Reimers, Esq. with MESSNER REEVES LLP and Jennifer N. Harris, Esq. with the Law Office of Jennifer N. Harris, P.C. The following witnesses also appeared and provided testimony in chronological order: Tara

ATTACHMENT A

HEARING OFFICER’S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
- 2 -
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

Mortensen, Bureau Manager of Recovery and Business Services, Department of Financial Management; Derek Ernest, Sergeant, Long Beach Police Department; Christopher Brammer, Detective, Long Beach Police Department; Brian Wiedman, Deputy Fire Marshal, Long Beach Fire Department; Ray Woolhether, Principal Building Inspector, Department of Development Services; Gene Rodriguez, Business License Inspector II, Department of Financial Management; Lori Voss, Business License Inspector II, Department of Financial Management; Tasha Day, Special Events and Filming, City Manager’s Office; Jonathan Iniesta, Planner III, Department of Development Services; Kevin Riper, Director, Department of Financial Management; Linda Tatum, Assistant City Manager, City Manager’s Office; Jacob Poozhikala, CEO, JP23 Hospitality Company; and Niral Patel, Attorney, JP23 Hospitality Company.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
On or about September 16, 2021, JP23 Hospitality dba JP23 (“JP23”) submitted an application for a business license (“Application”) in order to operate its restaurant and bar in Long Beach. Governed by Chapter 3.80
.420.1 of the Long Beach Municipal Code (“LBMC”),
the Application required approval by the City of Long Beach’s (“City”) Planning, Building & Safety, Environmental Health, and Fire Departments through an investigative process.

Prior to JP23’s submission of the Application, the City of Long Beach (“City”) noted on the record several incidents concerning JP23 Hospitality Company and its owner Jacob Poozhikala (“Poozhikala”). On or about August 31, 2021, the City of Long Beach Business License Division (“Business License”) became aware of an advertisement regarding a planned event by Appellant for September 3rd & September 4th 2021 at 110 E. Broadway with live performances by various artist. Consequently, Business License investigators reached out to Poozhikala to inform him that he was not allowed to have the event on September 3rd and

HEARING OFFICER’S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
- 3 -
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

September 4th, 2021, because Appellant did not have a business license or an entertainment permit, both of which were required prior to the opening of or operating Appellant’s business.

Nonetheless, despite not having a business license, Appellant allegedly held a private event at the 110 E. Broadway location on September 4, 2021. On or about 4:00 a.m. on September 5, 2021, the Long Beach Fire Department (“Fire”) responded to an issue with the fire alarm at the premises. On or about September 17, 2021, Building & Safety Inspector Ray Woolhether (“Woolhether”) inspected JP23 and issued a Notice of Inspection, which detailed the items that JP23 needed to correct in order to obtain a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (“TCO”).

Woolhether informed Poozhikala that a TCO is invalid when operating a business without a current business license, which was written on the last page of the Notice of Inspection. On or about October 13, 2021, the City issued JP23 a TCO, and JP23 opened up to the public the next day on or about October 14, 2021 without a business license as the Application had not yet been approved. As a consequence, the City issued misdemeanor citations to Appellant for conducting business in the City without first obtaining a business license. These citations were issued on October 14, 2021, October 15, 2021, October 16, 2021, October 20, 2021, and October 21, 2021.

After multiple attempts in the latter part of October 2021 to follow up with Business License regarding its business license application and receiving no answer, Appellant hired legal counsel to get a response from the City. On or about November 3, 2021, the City held a meeting with Appellant in which Bureau Manager for the City’s Department of Financial Management Tara Mortensen (“Mortensen”) and Business Services Officer Brian Tuliau were in attendance.

Following this meeting, Business License issued a Conditional Business License (“CBL”) retroactive to the date of JP23’s application on September 16, 2021 up until March 15, 2022 while the investigative process continued. In the accompanying letter to the CBL, the

HEARING OFFICER’S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
- 4 -
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

Department of Financial Management stated that it was issuing the CBL as an act of good faith to allow Appellant to legally operate “while the investigation required to issue a permanent Business License is ongoing” The letter further stated that the CBL subjected JP23 to three conditions: (1) complete all action/corrections as requested within the TCO; (2) comply with all applicable laws and regulations, including, but not limited to, LBMC Chapters 3, 5, and 21; and (3) resolve each of the Misdemeanor Citations Issued to Applicant. Meanwhile, by October 1, 2021, the Application had been approved by the Planning, Building & Safety, Environmental Health, and Fire Departments, although the Department of Environmental Health’s approval had not shown in the City’s internal review system, INFOR, until October 19, 2021. Upon approval by all concerned departments, the only remaining item for action was the approval from Business License. On October 19, 2021, Business License manager Tara Mortenson instructed License Inspector Gene Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”) to not release the business license. However, with the Conditional Business License issued by the City on November 3, 2021, Appellant continued to operate its restaurant side of the business but kept its lounge side closed.

On or about December 29, 2021, Business License informed Appellant that they were in violation of the CBL by having entertainment activities at their location without an entertainment permit. Appellant was duly notified via a letter from Business License reminding them of condition number 2 of the CBL which required them to comply with all applicable laws and regulations, including but not limited to Chapters 3, 5 and 21 of the LBMC. Despite the written warning from Business License, on January 23, 2022, Appellant was observed by Sergeant Ernest having entertainment activity in violation of LBMC Chapter 5.72.110(A).

On or about January 11, 2022, Appellant followed up on the status of the Application in anticipation of Super Bowl weekend on February 10-12, 2022. A virtual meeting was held on

HEARING OFFICER’S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
- 5 -
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

January 25, 2022 during which Finance Director and CFO of the City’s Department of Financial Management Kevin Riper (“Riper”), Long Beach’s Deputy City Attorney Arturo Sanchez, Mortensen, Poozhikala, and Niral Patel were in attendance. During this meeting, JP23 discovered issues of incompletion with its Application for the nonpayment of the business license allegedly sent out on December 17, 2021. JP23 claimed such invoices were not received until Mortenson emailed them two days after their meeting on January 27, 2022. During this meeting, JP23 took offense to comments made by Riper that seemed to be directed at owner Poozhikala and legal counsel Niral Patel’s ethnic background. Appellant addressed its suspicion on the record as to whether Riper could fairly process and make determinations on JP23’s applications.

On or about January 26, 2022, Business License met with Appellant to discuss their entertainment permit application, as well as the process for obtaining an occasional event permit from Special Events & Filming until their entertainment permit application review was completed. During said meeting, Appellant was specifically informed that an occasional event permit could only be issued for one day events and not multiple days. On or about February 4, 2022, Business License became aware of advertisements for live performances by various artists at Appellant’s location on February 10th, 11th & 12th. Consequently, Business License notified Appellant by letter dated February 9, 2022 that the live performances were not allowed at their location without an entertainment permit or an occasional event permit and that these live performances would create a public safety risk and be considered a public nuisance. Despite the written notice from Business License, Appellants went forward with the live performances on February 10th, 11th & 12th as advertised.

Meanwhile, in a separate incident, on August 2, 2021, a woman filed a report with the Fullerton Police Department regarding Appellant’s other location in Fullerton. The woman

HEARING OFFICER’S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
- 6 -
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

alleged in the report that she was “roofied” (dosed with a date rape drug such as Rohypnol or a similar drug) and later sexually assaulted in a nearby parking garage. The report became public in local media as well as in the internet’s social media. Appellant contends that the woman’s allegations devolved and snowballed into untrue and unfounded rumors, including that she was raped inside Appellant’s bar in the Fullerton location, that Appellant’s staff members and owners were themselves rapists, and that Appellant condoned rape culture. There is sufficient evidence on the record that the rumors culminated into social media campaigns and demonstrations outside of both Appellant’s locations in Fullerton and Long Beach. Poozhikala also testified that threats were made against him. The Democratic Socialists of America (“DSA”) instituted a campaign against Appellant, to ensure, among other things, that Appellant is not allowed to open its Long Beach location. The record shows that DSA reached out to Long Beach Second District City Councilwoman Cindy Allen as early as September 3, 2021 regarding the Appellant’s planned operation in the City of Long Beach. The evidence also shows that various departments within the City of Long Beach were aware of the Fullerton incident even before Appellant applied for a business license with the City. In addition, testimony from Linda Tatum shows that the City Manager’s office kept an open line of communication with Business License regarding the Application and also kept Councilwoman Cindy Allen’s office “in the loop.” On March 14, 2022, Director of Financial Management (“Director”) Kevin Riper denied Appellant’s business license pursuant to provisions of LBMC Chapters 3.80.421.5 and 5.04.030 because of Appellant’s repeated failure to comply with applicable laws and regulations of the following Chapters of the LBMC: 1.32.040 Failure to obtain or exceeding limits of license or permit; 3.80.210 License & Tax Payment Required; 5.06.020 Suspension/Revocation/Denial;

5.72.110(A) Permit Required & Prohibited Uses; 5.72.130 Permits for Occasional events. On

HEARING OFFICER’S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
- 7 -
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

March 24, 2022, Appellant filed an appeal for the business license application denial pursuant to LBMC Section 3.80.421.6.

III. LEGAL AUTHORITY FOR APPEAL
LBMC 3.80.421.6 (Appeals) provides …

1. Any applicant for a business license whose application for such license has been denied by the Director of Financial Management may, within ten (10) days after such denial, appeal therefrom to th e City Council by filing with the Director a notice of such appeal setting forth the decision and the grounds upon which he deems himself aggrieved thereby. The applicant shall pay to the Director at the time of filing the notice of appeal the fee set by resolution to the City for appeals hereunder. The Director shall thereupon make a written report to the City Council reflecting such determination denying the business license. The City Council at its next regular meeting following the filing of said appeal , or within ten (10) days following the filing thereof, shall set said appeal for hearing may for good cause be continued by the order of the City Council. Upon the hearing of the appeal the City Council may overrule or modify the decision of the Director appealed from and enter such order or orders as are in harmony with this Title and such disposition of the appeal shall be final.

IV. STATEMENT OF ISSUES OF APPEAL BEFORE THE HEARING OFFICER By letter dated March 23, 2022, Appellant expressed its strong opposition to the denial of the business license due to noncompliance. In support, Appellant cites to the language of LBMC

3.80.421.5 to point out the misplaced reliance of the City for the authority to deny its application.

Appellant claims that this chapter does not furnish the Director with the authority to deny JP23’s application as the language “will not so comply with applicable laws and ordinances” is forward- looking, not backward-looking. By citing this LBMC 3.80.421.5, Appellant contends that the Director based the denial on past instances of alleged noncompliance, which are not valid grounds to do so.

In addition, Appellant cited LBMC 5.040.060 as inapplicable to a business license application submitted under LBMC 3.80.420.1. Moreover, the language is similar to that of

HEARING OFFICER’S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
- 8 -
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

3.80.421.5 as the language “will not comply with applicable laws and ordinances” is forward looking. Thus, Appellant contends, past noncompliance cannot reasonably be used as grounds to deny Appellant’s application.

Appellant also addressed LBMC 3.80.421.1B as authority that the Director failed to cite.

While the language of chapters 3.80.420.1 and 5.040.060 are forward looking, 3.80.421.1B provides: “the applicant may be rejected for failure to comply with applicable laws and regulations at any time.” Had the Director cited this chapter instead, h
e could have used it to
support his discretion to deny any application for prior instances of noncompliance. Still, Appellant contends that doing so would still have been an abuse of discretion because of the facts surrounding the alleged instances of noncompliance. Appellant claims that the Director’s own alleged delays and misinformation upon which JP23 relied to its detriment impacted what should have been the ministerial process of approving the business license.

Upon receipt of Appellant’s
letter, the Long Beach City Clerk’s office then scheduled a formal hearing with regard to Appellant’s objections.

V. SUMMARY OF RELEVANT EVIDENCE INTRODUCED BY PARTIES

1. City’s Initial Submission Package and Appeal Letter from Appellant During the initial WebEx virtual hearing on May 25, 2022, this hearing officer explained to all both parties the guidelines for the hearing. These include examination of witnesses and presentation of evidence. It was stated on the record that the hearing officer received the City’s initial submission package1 in advance of the hearing. The package was received in electronic

1 The City’s initial submission package included: a) letter from the Director to the Mayor and Cit
y Council to refer this matter to a Hearing Officer dated April 12, 2022; b) letter from the Director to Appellant providing notice of the business license application denial dated March 14, 2022; and c) Appellants’ Notice of Appeal dated March 23, 2022.

HEARING OFFICER’S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
- 9 -
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

format that was transmitted to the email addresses of the hearing officer and the Applicant’s representatives. During the hearing, all parties acknowledged receipt of the City’s initial submission package.

2. Appellant’s Evidence
In advance of the hearing, Appellant submitted the following evidence in support of its appeal:
 110 Broadway Advertisement for Lease (Appellant’s Exhibit 1)  October 12, 2021 Temporary Certificate of Occupancy and receipt of payment (Appellant’s Exhibit 2)
 July 19, 2019 JP23’s Invoice History (Appellant’s Exhibit 3)  Letters from Long Beach residents to the City Clerk concerning their opposition to JP23 being given a business license (Appellant’s Exhibit 4)  JP23’s application for ABC license and approval for it by the police department (Appellant’s Exhibit 5)
 March 15, 2018 Predevelopment Meeting Request (Appellant’s Exhibit 6)  October 21, 2021 Emails concerning the Entertainment Application Process and Appellant asking if his application had been received (Appellant’s Exhibit 7)  Emails concerning Appellant asking for the status of his entertainment permit in anticipation of Super Bowl weekend (February 10-12) (Appellant’s Exhibit 8)  September 30, 2021 Official Inspection Reports from Department of Health and Human Services (Appellant’s Exhibit 9)

HEARING OFFICER’S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
- 10 -
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

 October 13, 2021 Notice of Inspection with instructions of what needs to be completed in order to gain business license (Appellant’s Exhibit 10)  October 13, 2021 Email from Appellant asking what needs to be done in order to proceed (Appellant’s Exhibit 11)
 October 15, 2021 JP23’s Business License Bill Notice (Appellant’s Exhibit 12)  October 18, 2021 JP23’s Proof of Payment of Business License (Appellant’s Exhibit 13)
 October 21, 2021 Emails regarding Appellant questioning the citations issued by the police department and the status of the entertainment permit and business license (Appellant’s Exhibit 14)
 October 22, 2021 Emails from JP23’s previous counsel Niral Patel asking what is needed in order for JP23 to obtain the business license (Appellant’s Exhibit 15)  October 26, 2021 Emails advertising protests due to the allegations at the Fullerton’s JP23 location (Appellant’s Exhibit 16)
 Building Plans and Models for JP23 location (Appellant’s Exhibit 17-20)  Pictures of unfinished and finished JP23 location (Appellant’s Exhibit 21-22)  Emails concerning payment of entertainment permit application fee and business license tax and also inquiring about the status of the entertainment permit in anticipation of Super Bowl week (February 10-13) (Appellant’s Exhibit 23)  September 17, 2021 Email with completed application for Entertainment Permit from Appellant (Appellant’s Exhibit 24)
 October 13, 2021 Email concerning status/issuance of business license to JP23 (Appellant’s Exhibit 25)

HEARING OFFICER’S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
- 11 -
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

 Emails concerning operation of JP23 and their status on the business license and entertainment permit (Appellant’s Exhibit 26)
 Emails concerning JP23’s anticipated opening on September 23, 2021 (Appellant’s Exhibit 27)
 September 15, 2021 JP23’s Agenda (Appellant’s Exhibit 28)  September 17, 2021 Email with second part of entertainment permit application with approved building plans (Appellant’s Exhibit 29)
 September 16, 2021 Fire Inspection Report listing violation by the Appellant for hosting a small private gathering on September 4, 2021 (Appellant’s Exhibit 30)  September 14, 2021 Emails concerning status of JP23 construction, business license, ABC license, and negative media surrounding the Fullerton location (Appellant’s Exhibit 31)
 September 15, 2021 Email asking about protocol for what to do about business operating without a business license and entertainment permit (Appellant’s Exhibit 32)
 September 4, 2021 Emails concerning event JP23 hosted on September 4th that resulted in the fire alarm being wrongfully pulled (Appellant’s Exhibit 33-34)  September 15, 2021 Email updating Special Events staff that JP23 still should not be in operation yet (Appellant’s Exhibit 35)
 Emails concerning course of action with JP23 since Appellant was notified about citations of operation without proper permits but still proceeded (Appellant’s Exhibit 36)

HEARING OFFICER’S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
- 12 -
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

 September 17, 2021 Notices of Inspection of JP23 which includes instructions for JP23 to follow in order to be able to be in compliance with the City (Appellant’s Exhibit 37)
 Emails about having JP23’s violations be documented in a case file to be used when considering applications for business license and entertainment permit (Appellant’s Exhibit 38)
 October 25, 2021 Emails concerning meaning of nightclub (Appellant’s Exhibit 39)  Emails concerning calls made by residents to Councilwoman Cindy Allen’s (“Councilwoman”) office about concerns of JP23 opening (Appellant’s Exhibit 40)  Emails concerning relationship between business license and entertainment permit and concerns about JP23 operating without these permits (Appellant’s Exhibit 41)  Emails discussing that all departments had signed off and were just waiting on Mortensen’s approval for the business license and also Councilwoman’s concern about JP23’s opening (Appellant’s Exhibit 42)
 October 20, 2021 Email concerning Business License Police Department Review (Appellant’s Exhibit 43)
 October 20, 2021 Emails concerning Appellant inquiring about status of business license and asking about the requirements for Temporary Entertainment Permit (Appellant’s Exhibit 44)
 October 21, 2021 Emails regarding Appellant questioning the citations issued by the police department and the status of the entertainment permit and business license (Appellant’s Exhibit 45)

HEARING OFFICER’S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
- 13 -
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

 October 27, 2021 Emails asking if there was police activity in connection with JP23 (Appellant’s Exhibit 46)
 October 21, 2021 Emails regarding the issuing of citations to JP23 for operating without a business license (Appellant’s Exhibit 47)
 Emails asking Police Department if they are okay with JP23 being issued a conditional business license with certain conditions (Appellant’s Exhibit 48)  November 10, 2021 Emails discussing that Mortensen did not want the conditional license to be treated as fix it tickets (Appellant’s Exhibit 49)  Emails concerning the details of the Conditional Business License given to JP23 (Appellant’s Exhibit 50)
 Emails concerning the anticipated meeting with JP23 to discuss the Conditional Business License (Appellant’s Exhibit 51-53)
 November 15, 2022 Email from Mortensen informing all other departments of the issuance of the Conditional Business License and to be aware of any compliance issues (Appellant’s Exhibit 54)
 December 28, 2021 Emails concerning timeline of JP23’s applications and licenses and their non-complaint activity (Appellant’s Exhibit 55)  Emails concerning completeness of JP23’s application for the Entertainment Permit (Appellant’s Exhibit 56)
 Emails reflecting on the meeting with Appellant and his counsel (Appellant’s Exhibit 57-58)
 Emails asking if there was any police enforcement for New Year’s weekend at JP23 (Appellant’s Exhibit 59)

HEARING OFFICER’S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
- 14 -
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

 February 3, 2022 Emails concerning setting up a meeting with all relevant departments about next steps with JP23 (Appellant’s Exhibit 60)  February 7, 2022 Email about concerns with JP23’s noncompliant activity (Appellant’s Exhibit 61)
 February 28, 2022 Email discussing intention of City to deny the Business License (Appellant’s Exhibit 62)
 February 6, 2021 Email containing link discussing issues with JP23’s Fullerton location (Appellant’s Exhibit 63)
 September 16, 2021 Libel and Slander Complaint for JP23 v. Samantha Velasquez and Justine Flores (Appellant’s Exhibit 64)
 March 30, 2022 Samantha Velasquez’s responses to JP23’s Requests for Admission (Appellant’s Exhibit 65)
 September 1, 2021 Emails concerning negative media about JP23’s Fullerton location, likely approval of health permit, and request for meeting by Fire Department to discuss safety (Appellant’s Exhibit 66)
 September 7, 2021 Emails discussing wanting advice and insight from Art Sanchez (Appellant’s Exhibit 67)
 September 8, 2021 Emails stating that JP23 can be recommended to be put in the strictest tier for entertainment conditions since they are located in downtown (Appellant’s Exhibit 68)
 September 16, 2021 Emails discussing wanting to foster a relationship for future enforcement activities (Appellant’s Exhibit 69)
 Emails concerning JP23 status for permits (Appellant’s Exhibit 70-71)

HEARING OFFICER’S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
- 15 -
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

 October 8, 2021 Emails concerning steps that need to be taken in order for Fire to be able to give its approval (Appellant’s Exhibit 72)
 October 21, 2021 Email requesting a JP23 meeting with Linda Tatum (Appellant’s Exhibit 73)
 October 21, 2021 Appellant’s email to elected officials that was forwarded to Kevin Riper (Appellant’s Exhibit 74)
 October 19, 2021 Email from Mortensen saying to not approve the Business License even though all other departments approved (Appellant’s Exhibit 75)  Pictures inside JP23 (Appellant’s Exhibit 76)
 Protest advertisements (Appellant’s Exhibit 77)
 Additional Emails (Appellant’s Exhibit 78)

3. The City’s Evidence
In advance of the hearing, the City submitted the following evidence in support of its opposition to the appeal:
 Long Beach Municipal Code Chapter References (Respondent’s Exhibits 1-8)  Approved Building Plans for JP23’s Banquet Hall (Respondent’s Exhibit 9)  September 16, 2021 Fire Inspection Report re: violation by the Appellant for hosting a small private gathering on September 4, 2021 (Respondent’s Exhibit 10)  Email re: Instagram advertisements for events on September 3rd and 4th at JP23 and the subsequent postponing of the event (Respondent’s Exhibit 11-12)  September 16, 2021 Emails re: requirements for a business license and entertainment license (Respondent’s Exhibit 13)

HEARING OFFICER’S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
- 16 -
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

 June 18, 2019 Petition for Conditional ABC License , JP23’s Valid ABC License effective from June 1, 2021-June 30, 2022, September 7, 2021 JP23’s Business License Application, and September 14, 2021 JP23’s Seller’s Permit (Respondent’s Exhibit 14)
 September 17, 2021 Notice of Inspection of JP23 (Respondent’s Exhibit 15)  September 17, 2021 Temporary Certificate of Occupancy Application and October 12, 2021 approval (Respondent’s Exhibit 16)
 October 7, 2021 Email from Rodriguez to Mortensen (Respondent’s Exhibit 17)  October 13, 2021 Notice of Inspection (Respondent’s Exhibit 18)  October 14, 2021 Email from Senior Building Inspector Forest Johnson to Appellant re: Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (Respondent’s Exhibit 19)  Long Beach Police Reports re: JP23’s operation without a Business License (Respondent’s Exhibit 20-21)
 October 20, 2021 Emails re: status of business license and asking about the requirements for Temporary Entertainment Permit (Respondent’s Exhibit 22)  October 21, 2021 Emails re: listing requirements for the Temporary Entertainment Permit (Respondent’s Exhibit 23)
 October 24, 2021 Long Beach Police Report re: the arrest of a man displaying disorderly conduct who had been drinking earlier at JP23 (Respondent’s Exhibit 24)
 September 15, 2021 JP23’s Business License Application (Respondent’s Exhibit 25)
 October 25, 2021 Bill for Business License (Respondent’s Exhibit 26)

HEARING OFFICER’S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
- 17 -
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

 November 2, 2021 Instagram Advertisement for JP23 (Respondent’s Exhibit 27)  November 3, 2021 Conditional Business License (Respondent’s Exhibit 28)  Emails between Appellant and Mortensen re: approval of the Conditional Business License and allegations made against JP23’s Fullerton location (Respondent’s Exhibit 29)
 November 14, 2021 Long Beach Police Report (Respondent’s Exhibit 30)  November 22, 2021 Long Beach Police Report (Respondent’s Exhibit 31)  November 26, 2021 Police call log (Respondent’s Exhibit 32)  December 9, 2021 Long Beach Police Report (Respondent’s Exhibit 33)  December 13, 2021 Long Beach Police Report (Respondent’s Exhibit 34)  December 28, 2021 Emails re: status of the Fire Department’s approval of the business license (Respondent’s Exhibit 35)
 January 19, 2022 Emails between Appellant and Mortensen re: Conditional Business License (Respondent’s Exhibit 36)
 January 23, 2022 Long Beach Police Report (Respondent’s Exhibit 37)  January 27, 2022 Email re: JP23’s business license (Respondent’s Exhibit 38)  January 27, 2022 Emails between Appellant and Mortensen re: payment of the Entertainment Permit Application Fee and the Business License Tax (Respondent’s Exhibit 39-40)
 January 31, 2022 Email from Business License Inspector Lori Voss re:
recommendations on JP23’s Entertainment Permit Application (Respondent’s Exhibit 41)

HEARING OFFICER’S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
- 18 -
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

 January 14, 2022, January 14, 2022, January 31, 2022 Police call logs (Respondent’s Exhibit 42)
 February 18, 2022 Amended Complaint re: misdemeanors relating to JP23 (Respondent’s Exhibit 43)
 February 7, 2022 Complaint re: misdemeanors relating to JP23 (Respondent’s Exhibit 44)
 February 9, 2022 Notice to Appellant re: Unpermitted Live Entertainment at 110 East Broadway (Respondent’s Exhibit 45)
 Advertisements for JP23’s Super Bowl Event on February 10-12 (Respondent’s Exhibit 46)
 Pictures and proof of Instagram posts from the Super Bowl Event on February 10- 12 at JP23 (Respondent’s Exhibit 47)
 Long Beach Police Reports re: operation without an Entertainment Permit (Respondent’s Exhibit 48-49)
 February 9, 2022 Emails re: Occasional Event Permit (Respondent’s Exhibit 50)  February 9, 2022 Emails re: Appellant’s Super Bowl weekend events (Respondent’s Exhibit 51)
 March 14, 2022 Denial of JP23’s Business License Application, November 3, 2021 Letter re: Conditional Business License and its conditions, list of misdemeanor citations, and referenced Long Beach Municipal Code (Respondent’s Exhibit 52)

HEARING OFFICER’S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
- 19 -
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

 March 22, 2022 Memorandum from Chief of Police Wally Hebeish (“Hebeish”) to Deputy Chief Robert Smith re: denial of Entertainment Permit for JP23 (Respondent’s Exhibit 53)
 March 22, 2022 Memorandum from Hebeish to Mortensen re: Long Beach Police Departments Entertainment Permit recommendation (Respondent’s Exhibit 54)  March 23, 2022 Notice of Appeal for the Denial of the Business License (Respondent’s Exhibit 55)
 Letters to residents of Long Beach re: noise complaints (Respondent’s Exhibit 56)  April 5, 2022 Emails re: entitlement processing history of JP23 (Respondent’s Exhibit 57)
 Grand Prix Weekend (April 8-10) advertisements (Respondent’s Exhibit 58)  April 9, 2022 Emails re: Police Department calls received relating to JP23 (Respondent’s Exhibit 59)
 Instagram advertisements for Easter Sunday Brunch (April 17, 2022) (Respondent’s Exhibit 60)
 Noise Complaint Summary, Forms sent in from residents, letters notifying residents that JP23 had been notified, and letters notifying Appellant of the complaints (Respondent’s Exhibit 61-62)
 April 20, 2022 Letter notifying Appellant of hearing date for the appeal (Respondent’s Exhibit 63)
 April 28, 2022 Long Beach Fire Inspection Report re: compliance instructions (Respondent’s Exhibit 64)

HEARING OFFICER’S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
- 20 -
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

 April 28, 2022 Email to Appellant re: unpermitted work complaint to the City (Respondent’s Exhibit 65)
 April 28, 2022 Email containing pictures of JP23 (Respondent’s Exhibit 66-68)  Notice of Public Hearing for JP23’s appeal for denial of business license (Respondent’s Exhibit 69)
 Business License Application Instructions (Respondent’s Exhibit 70)  List of Entertainment Permit Fees (Respondent’s Exhibit 71)  Various departments’ reviews for JP23’s business license (Respondent’s Exhibit 72)
City’s Video Exhibits
 Police Body Cam videos including issuing of citations; videos of music disturbances from JP23; video of Instagram stories from JP23; video of Instagram live posts by JP23; and a video of an intoxicated male (Respondent’s Video Exhibit 1-41)

3. Supplemental Issues Closing Arguments
At the conclusion of the evidentiary portion of the hearing, both Parties submitted their closing arguments on the record. In addition, both Parties previously agreed to submit their closing arguments in brief format sometime after the hearing has concluded. It was noted on the record that nothing in the municipal code precludes the Hearing Officer from considering new legal arguments in the Parties’ closing briefs that are based on facts and evidence that are already on the record. However, in order to maintain fairness in the process, novel legal arguments that are based on new facts not on the record may not be presented in the briefs. Therefore, any new facts and/or evidence stated in the closing arguments, however relevant they may be, will not be considered by this Hearing Officer. Consequently, both parties were provided a deadline of June

HEARING OFFICER’S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
- 21 -
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

22, 2022 to submit their respective closing briefs. On June 23, 2022, the City Clerk’s office forwarded the Parties’ closing briefs to the Hearing Officer.

VI. DISCUSSION
The sole issue on this appeal is whether the City complied with its own ordinance(s) in denying the Appellant’s Business License Application. More specifically, LBMC 3.80.421.5 provides:
“In the event that a particular department of the City rejects an application for the reason that such business or the location at which it is proposed to conduct the same will not so comply with applicable laws and ordinances, the Director of Financial Management shall not issue such license.”

In its closing brief, the City submits the following arguments. First, by operating without a business license, Appellant’s Application must be denied. The City contends that by hosting an event on September 4, 2021, without a business license, entertainment permit or a certificate of occupancy, and operating without a business license on October 14, 15, 16, 20, & 21st, 2021, Appellant failed to bring their business into compliance, thereby violating the relevant provisions of LBMC § 3.80.210. Despite those violations, Business License still provided Appellant with a CBL to provide them with ample opportunity to come into compliance. However, during a four- (4) month period, Appellants still failed to bring their business into compliance.

Second, the City argues that Appellant has consistently refused to comply with LBMC §

5.72.110(A) by continuing to provide live entertainment, amplified music, disc jockeys and dancing without an entertainment permit or an occasional event permit beginning with Appellant’s event on September 4, 2021. While Appellant did attempt to apply for Occasional Event Permits with the City’s Special Events & Filming Department on a few occasions, Appellant never obtained one after it learned that they were only available for one day events.

HEARING OFFICER’S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
- 22 -
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

Third, the City contends that pursuant to the provisions of LBMC Chapter 3.80.4102 and as a result of Appellant’s consistent failure to abide by the city ordinances regarding business licenses and entertainment permits, Kevin Riper, as the City’s Director of Financial Management, had a duty to take action and deny Appellant’s Business License Application The City further argues that the actions of The City’s Business License Division were both reasonable and measured in addressing Appellant’s business and entertainment related activities. The City pointed out that Appellant was given numerous opportunities to bring its business into compliance with the City’s rules, regulations and ordinances. Despite opening its business prior to receiving its business license and being cited for misdemeanor violations on several occasions for operating without a business license, Appellant was still issued a CBL so that it could come into compliance with the City’s ordinances. However, Appellants still failed to bring their business into compliance.

The City’s arguments, however, are unpersuasive. The City fails to address its authority to issue or deny a business license application under the plain meaning of the LBMC §

3.80.421.5. In its closing brief, Appellant pointed out the fact that the position of the Financial Management department within the City is to carry out ministerial duties rather than regulatory ones. Appellant points to LMBC 3.80.110 for reference which states: “this Chapter is enacted solely for the purpose of raising revenue for the general municipal purposes and for the usual current expenses of the City. It is not intended to be regulatory.” Appellant argues that upon

2 LBMC § 3.80.410 provides: “It shall be the duty of the Director of Financial Management, and he is hereby directed, to administer and enforce each and all of the provisions of this Chapter, and the Chief of Police shall render such assistance in the enforcement of this Chapter as may from time to time be required by the Director of Financial Management.”

HEARING OFFICER’S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
- 23 -
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

receipt of an application for a business license, the Department of Financial Management is obligated to “refer such application to the appropriate departments of the City in order that it may be ascertained whether the business proposed to be conducted or the premises in which it is proposed to locate such business will comply with applicable fire, building safety, zoning, health and other laws and regulations.” (LBMC § 3.80.421.1). Once those departments complete their investigation and determine that an applicant’s business “will comply” with applicable laws and regulations, Financial Management has the ministerial3 duty to issue the license. This Hearing Officer agrees. In this case, Financial Management’s role pursuant to Chapter 3.80 of the Municipal Code is ministerial, and not regulatory in nature. Upon approval by all concerned departments of the Application as reflected in INFOR on October 19, 2021, Financial Management had a ministerial duty to issue the business license to Applicant. In addition, the plain language of the ordinance provides that Financial Management must deny an application where one of the relevant departments finds “that such business or the location at which it is proposed to conduct the same will not so comply with applicable laws and ordinances.” (LBMC § 3.80.421.5). This Hearing Officer agrees with Appellant in that the plain meaning of the Code is forward-looking, not backward looking. Although there is no dispute that the record shows that Appellant has committed several violations on various occasions, nothing on the record indicates that Appellant will not so comply with applicable laws and ordinances. The only basis for Business License’ denial of the Application was violations that occurred prior to the denial of the Application. Without more, this Hearing Officer will not speculate whether those past violations determine that Appellant will not so

3 That which is done under the authority of a superior; opposed to judicial: that which involves obedience to instructions, but demands no special discretion, judgment, or skill. Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed.

HEARING OFFICER’S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
- 24 -
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

comply with applicable laws and ordinances. While this hearing officer is not ignorant of the fact that numerous past violations and citations were attendant in the decision by Business License to deny the Application, the plain language of LBMC § 3.80.421.5 simply does not contemplate those past violations and citations be considered in the denial or approval of the Application.

VII. RECOMMENDATION
The record is replete with evidence of Appellant’s various violations of City ordinances. Despite being provided ample opportunities to come into compliance with the City’s ordinances, Appellant has failed to do so. While this Hearing Officer is cognizant of Appellant’s apparent ignorance or arrogance in flouting the City’s ordinances, the plain meaning of LBMC § 3.8

0.421.5 simply does not provide that those violations and Appellant’s failure to come into compliance with the City’s ordinances be taken into consideration when issuing or denying a business license. Based on the foregoing, this Hearing Officer hereby recommends that the denial of Appellant’s business license application be reversed and the business license be issued in accordance with the LBMC.4 Dated this 15th day of July 2022

/s/ JONATHAN C. NAVARRO, ESQ.

Administrative Hearing Officer

4 This Hearing Officer’s recommendation is limited to the sole issue regarding the denial of Appellant’s Business License Application and outside the scope regarding the issue of the City’s enforcement and police powers regarding Appellant’s violations and citations.

ATTACHMENT B

CITY OF

LONG BEACH
November 3, 2021
Mr. Jacob Poozhikala
Chief Operating Officer
JP23 Hospitality Company
110 East Broadway
Long Beach, CA 90802
Dear Mr. Poozihikala:

Department of Financial Management
411 West Ocean Boulevard, 6'" Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802
(562) 570 6425
Please find enclosed a Conditional Business License, effective immediately, and effective up to March 15, 2022, which is no longer than 180 days, as prescribed in the Long Beach Municipal Code (LBMC) from the date your business license application was received by the Business Services Bureau complete, which was September 16, 2021.

As per the LBMC, it is the duty of the Director of Financial Management to ensure a business "will comply with applicable fire, building safety, zoning, health and other laws and regulations," when considering issuance of a Business License, as per Sections 3.80.410 and 3.80.421.1. It has come to the Director's attention that there have already been numerous instances of non-compliance (see list below) of the City's regulations prior to the issuance of a Business License to JP23 Hospitality Company dba JP23. We have reviewed the initial evidence gathered in the investigation required in the business licensing process, and have determined that a more thorough investigation of the appropriateness of issuing a permanent Business License is prudent.

The following is a list of violations issued to date by City staff. Prior to violations being issued City staff from multiple departments had numerous communications with JP23, both verbally and in writing, to go over the regulations. There were also attempts by JP23 to conduct large events without appropriate Occupancy Permits, and without a Business License application having been submitted- let alone a Business License issued, -- even after being advised by staff not to conduct such events.

1. Notice of Violation of Long Beach Building Standards Code, issued on Friday, 9/17/21.

Issued for noncompliance with LBMC Section 18.08.010 by allowing public occupancy prior to receiving a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO).

LONG BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTERS REFERENCED

1.32.040 Failure to obtain or exceeding limits of license or permit-Grounds for suspension, revocation or denial.

A. Whenever this Code requires that a permit or license be obtained before an activity may be commenced or conducted, any person who commences or conducts such activity without first obtaining the required and appropriate license or permit shall be deemed in violation of the provisions of this Code. Such violation may constitute a ground for denial of an application for a license or permit governing that specific activity. The use of premises, amusement machines, games or devices licensed or permitted pursuant to this Code for other than their intended use or not in compliance with the license or permit issued shall constitute grounds for revocation or suspension of the license.

B. No person, whether as principal, agent, clerk, employee, partner or otherwise, either for himself or herself or any other person, or for any body corporate, or as an officer of any corporation, or otherwise, shall commence or carry on any business, trade, calling, profession or occupation for which a license is required by this Code without first having procured such license; and such person shall comply with all of the applicable requirements or provisions of this Code.

C. Any person engaged in a business or activity in an unincorporated territory or in another incorporated area which is annexed to the City shall obtain a City business or other license, if required by this Code, within thirty (30) days after the effective date of annexation.
(Ord. C-5525 § 2, 1979: prior code§ 1200.3)

3.80.210 License and tax payment required.

There are hereby imposed upon the businesses, trades, professions, callings and occupations specified in this Chapter license taxes in the amounts hereinafter prescribed. It shall be unlawful for any person to transact and carry on any business, trade, profession, calling or occupation in the City without first having procured a license from said City to do so and paying the tax hereinafter prescribed and without complying with any and all applicable provisions of this Code, and every person conducting any such business in the City shall be required to obtain a business license hereunder.

This Section shall not be construed to require any person to obtain a license prior to doing business within the City if such requirement conflicts with applicable statutes of the United States or of the State of California.

Any person who engages in any business for which a business license is required, shall be liable for the amount of all taxes and penalties applicable from the date of commencement of the business, whether or not such person would have qualified for such business license; however, such payment shall not create any right for the person to remain in business.

All payments of business license tax received by the City, irrespective of any designation to the contrary by the taxpayer, shall be credited and applied first to any penalties and tax due for prior years in which the tax was due but unpaid. (Ord. C-7783 § 2, 2002: Ord: C-6259 § 1 (part), 1986)

3.80.410 Duties of Director of Financial Management and Chief of Police.

It shall be the duty of the Director of Financial Management, and he is hereby directed, to administer and enforce each and all of the provisions of this Chapter, and the Chief of Police shall render such assistance in the enforcement of this Chapter as may from time to time be required by the Director of Financial Management. (Ord. C-6259 § 1 (part), 1986)

3.80.421.1 Application-Investigation.

A. The Director shall refer such application to the appropriate departments of the City in order that it may be ascertained whether the business proposed to be conducted or the premises in which it is proposed to locate such business will comply with applicable fire, building safety, zoning, health and other laws and regulations.

B. The Director may issue a conditional license under this Chapter for the applicant to conduct business during the investigation period if: all necessary applications have been completed by the applicant, the business tax and application fees have been paid, no department has declared the building or structure "unsafe" as defined in Section 102 of the current edition of the California Uniform Building Code, and the business has not had an application denied pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter within the past year. A conditional license shall not be valid for a period longer than one hundred eighty (180) days from the date of application. During such period, based upon review by the appropriate departments of the City, the applicant may be rejected for failure to comply with applicable laws and regulations at any time. Within one hundred eighty (180) days, if no departments have rejected the applicant or requested an extension of the time to review same, the Director shall issue the license.

C. The Director, at his sole discretion, may issue a notice of nonoperation during the investigation·period when a department determines the building or structure unsafe and corrections are required prior to the safe operation and continuation of the business. Following completion and City approval of any City mandated corrections, a conditional license or a business license may be issued.
(Ord. C-7849 § 1, 2003: Ord. C-6259 § 1 (part), 1986)

3.80.421.5 Application-Rejection.

In the event that a particular department of the City rejects an application for the reason that such business or the location at which it is proposed to conduct the same will not so comply with applicable laws and ordinances, the Director Of Financial Management shall not issue such license.
(Ord. C-6259 § 1 (part), 1986)

3.80.421.6 Appeals.

Any applicant for a business license whose application for such license has been denied by the Director of Financial Management may, within ten (10) days after such denial, appeal therefrom to the City Council by filing with the Director a notice of such appeal setting forth the decision and the grounds upon which he deems himself aggrieved thereby. The applicant shall pay to the Director at the time of filing the notice of appeal the fee set by resolution of the City Council for appeals hereunder. The Director shall thereupon make a written report to the City Council reflecting such determination denying the business license. The City Council at its next regular meeting following the filing of said appeal, or within ten (10) days following the filing thereof, shall set said appeal for hearing to be held not less than ten (10) days nor more than thirty (30) days thereafter and such hearing may for good cause be continued by the order of the City Council. Upon the hearing of the appeal the City Council may overrule or modify the decision of the Director appealed from and enter any such order or orders as are in harmony with this Title and such disposition of the appeal shall be final. (Ord. C-6325 § 8, 1986: Ord. C-6259 § 1 (part), 1986)

5.04.030 Application-Rejection.

In the event that a particular department of the City rejects an application for the reason that such business or the location at which it is proposed to be conducted will not comply with applicable laws and ordinances, no permit shall be issued, and the application shall be denied.
(Ord. C-7461 § 10, 1997)

5.06.020 Suspension/Revocation/Denial.

A. Any permit to do business in the City issued pursuant to this Title 5 may be suspended, revoked or denied in the manner provided in this Section upon the following grounds:

1. The permittee or any other person authorized by the permittee has been convicted of violation of any provision of this Code, State or Federal law arising out of or in connection with the practice and/or operation of the business for which the permit has been granted. A plea or verdict of guilty, or a conviction following a plea of nolo contendere is deemed to be a conviction within the meaning of this Section. The City Council may order a permit suspended or revoked, following such conviction, when the time for appeal has elapsed, or the judgment of conviction has been affirmed on appeal, or an order granting probation is made suspending the imposition of sentence, irrespective of a subsequent order under the provisions of Section 1203.4 of the California Penal Code allowing such a person to withdraw his/her plea of guilty and to enter a plea of not guilty, or setting aside the verdict of guilty, or dismissing the accusation, information or indictment;

2. For any grounds that would warrant the denial of the issuance of such permit if application therefore was being made;

3. The permittee or any other person under his/her control or supervision has maintained a nuisance as defined in Section 21.15.1870 of the Long Beach Municipal Code which was caused by acts committed on the permitted premises or the area underthe control of the permittee;

4. The permittee, his/her employee, agent or any person connected or associated with permittee as partner, director, officer, stockholder or manager has knowingly made any false, misleading or fraudulent statement of material fact in the application for the permit required under the provisions of this Code;

5. The permittee has failed to comply with any condition which may have been imposed as a condition of operation or for the issuance of the permit required under the provisions of this Code;

6. The permittee has failed to pay any permit fees that are provided for under the provisions of this Code within sixty (60) days of when the fees are due.

B. U pan receipt of satisfactory evidence that any of the above grounds for suspension or revocation of said permit exist, the permittee shall be notified in writing that a hearing on suspension or revocation shall be held before the City Council, the grounds of suspension or revocation, the place where the hearing will be held, and the date and time thereof which shall not be sooner than ten (10) days after service of such notice of hearing.

C. All notices provided for in this Section shall be personally served upon the permittee or left at the place of business or residence of such permittee with some person over the age of eighteen (18) years having some suitable relationship to the permittee. In the event service cannot be made in the foregoing manner, then a copy of such notice shall be mailed, postage fully prepaid, addressed to the last known address of such permittee at his/her place of business or residence at least ten (10) days prior to the date of such hearing.

D. Whenever a business permit has been revoked/or denied under the provisions of this Section, no other application by such permittee for a business permit to conduct a business or operate in the City shall be considered for a period of one (1) year from the date of such revocation or denial. (Ord. C-7423 § 14, 1996: Ord. C-6325 § 13 (part), 1986: Ord. C-6260 § 1 (part), ,1986)

5.72.110 Permit required and prohibited uses.

A. No person shall carry on, maintain or conduct any entertainment activity in the City without first obtaining a permit therefor from the City.

B. Entertainment provided at a private residence for the monetary gain of any person is prohibited. However, this prohibition is in no way intended to infringe on the rights of private persons to engage in the activities regulated by this Chapter at their residence for private, as opposed to commercial, purposes. (Ord. C-7423 § 26, 1996)

5.72.130 Permits for occasional events.

A. Unless a permit has been approved and issued by the City Council or Director of Financial Management as outlined above, any entertainment activity as defined within this Chapter requires an occasional event permit, issued by the Director of Financial Management or his/her designee pursuant to the provisions of this Section.

B. An occasional event permit shall not be issued for any premises or location more than twenty four (24) times within any twelve (12) month period, and events for which occasional event permits are issued must be at least ten (10) days a part. This prohibition shall not apply to any parks and recreation or other City operated facility.

C. Applications for occasional event permits will be accepted for consideration only if the following requirements have been met. Failure to meet any of these requirements will render the application incomplete/void. Incomplete or void applications will not be processed:

1. The application shall be submitted no more than thirty (30) business days and no less than ten (10) business days prior to the event.

2. The applicant shall pay the filing fee, as established by resolution of the City Council, at the time the application is filed with the City.

3. All parties to the application must be at least eighteen (18) years of age.

4. The application must be accompanied by lease/rental agreements, security contracts, and any other supporting documentation as required by the Director of Financial Management.

D. An occasional event permit shall be issued by the Director of Financial Management only after he/she has determined the following:

1. The peace and quiet of the neighborhood will not be disturbed.

2. Adequate security, as determined by the Director of Financial Management, has been afforded. a. Where professional security services have been required, a written contract must be obtained and submitted to the Director of Financial Management no less than five (5) days prior to the scheduled event.
b. The contract must contain such information as the Director of Financial Management may require, including, but not limited to:
(i) The event location;
(ii) The date and specific hours of the event;
(iii) The number of guards assigned; and
(iv) A statement that the guards will be uniformed or non uniformed and armed or unarmed. c. The security contract must be signed by the permit applicant and by a duly authorized representative of a private patrol operator, as licensed by the State of California Department of Consumer Affairs, who is in possession of a Long Beach City business license, issued pursuant to Chapter 3.80 of the Long Beach Municipal Code.

3. That all prerequisite requirements of other agencies or departments have been met.

4. In making a determination of whether or not to issue an occasional event permit, the Director of Financial Management may inspect the premises and site at which the event is to take place. The Director of Financial Management may also consider prior complaints, police service calls and other relevant information related to prior events on the premises.

E. An occasional event permit for a nonprofit fund raising event shall not be approved unless and until a charitable solicitation permit has been obtained pursuant to Chapter 5.28 of the Long Beach Municipal Code.

F. Where a promoter has been engaged to market, advertise or conduct the event, said promoter must obtain a City business license prior to approval of the occasional event permit. If the event is a charitable event, then the promoter must also comply with all applicable requirements of Chapter 5.28 of the Long Beach Municipal Code.

G. As a condition of occasional event permit issuance, the permittee agrees to reimburse the City:

1. Whenever excessive police services, as determined by the Director of Financial Management, are required as the result of any incident or nuisance arising out of or in connection with the permitted event; and

2. For costs associated with the removal of signs posted in connection with the event, whether or not the signs had been permitted by any City department, as outlined in Chapter 21.44 of the Long Beach Municipal Code.

H. In no event shall the issuance of an occasional event permit by the Director of Financial Management be construed as permission to disturb the peace. Permits may be denied or revoked by the City if it is determined that the event sponsor or any agent, employee or associate of any such event organizer has willfully made any false or misleading statement in an application or has not fully complied with the requirements of this Chapter or has violated any of the provisions of this Chapter or the provisions of any other applicable law, rule or regulation. ( ORD-12-0018 (Emerg.), § 4, 2012; ORD-10-0016, § 1, 2010; Ord. C-7423 § 26, 1996) List of Violations Issued to the Applicant
■ Notice of Violation of Long Beach Building Standards Code, Issued on Friday, 9/17 /21.

Issued for noncompliance with LBMC Section 18.08.010 by allowing public occupancy prior to receiving a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO)
• Notice of Violation {FIR#65251) of California Fire Code, issued on Saturday, 9/18/21.

Issued for noncompliance with California Fire Code Section 105.3.3 and allowing occupancy prior to receiving a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO).
• Misdemeanor Citation Issued on Thursday, 10/14/2021.

Issued for noncompliance with LBMC Section 3.80.210 for conducting business in the City of Long Beach without first obtaining a Business License.
• Misdemeanor Citation Issued on Friday, 10/15/21.

Issued for noncompliance with LBMC Section 3.80.210 for operating a business without a Business License.
• Misdemeanor Citation issued on Saturday, 10/16/21.

Issued for noncompliance with LBMC Section 3.80.210 for conducting business in the City of Long Beach without first obtaining a Business License.
• Misdemeanor Citation Issued on Wednesday, 10/20/21.

Issued for noncompliance with the LBMC Section 3.80.210 for conducting business in the City of Long Beach without first obtaining a Business License.
• Misdemeanor Citation issued on Thursday, 10/21/21.

Issued for noncompliance with the LBMC Section 3.80.210 for conducting business in the City of Long Beach without first obtaining a Business License.
• Misdemeanor Citation issued on Thursday, 12/9/21
Issued for Non-compliance with LBMC 5. 72.ll0(A) for operating without an entertainment permit. • Misdemeanor Citation issued on 12/23/21
Issued for Non compliance with LBMC 5. 72.110(A) for operating without an entertainment permit. • Misdemeanor Citation issued on 1/13/22
Issued for Non-compliance with LBMC 5.72.ll0(A) for operating without an entertainment permit. • Misdemeanor Citation issued on 1/28/22
Issued for Non-compliance with LBMC 5.72.llO(A) for operating without an entertainment permit.

March 23, 2022

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL AND FEDEX
City of Long Beach Business License Division
Attn: Marla Camerino
411 W. Ocean Blvd., 6th Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802
E-Mail: [email protected]
Re: JP23 Hospitality Company, Inc. Notice of Appeal - Denial of Business License Application BU22114159
Dear Ms. C
amerino:

This firm is counsel for JP23 Hospitality Company, Inc. (hereinafter, “JP23”). JP23, located at 110 East Broadway Avenue, is a full service restaurant and bar. JP23 employs over 70 people and offers residents and visitors premium dining and nighttime entertainment in an upscale, contemporary space in Long Beach’s vibrant downtown district. This letter will serve as JP23’s Notice of Appeal, pursuant to Long Beach Municipal Code (“LBMC”) Chapter 3.80.421.6, with regard to the City of Long Beach Director of Financial Management Kevin Riper’s (the “Director”) denial of JP23’s Business License Application BU22114159.

The Director’s decision threatens to shut down a thriving and profitable business and put over 70 people out of work. The Director cites a number of alleged permitting violations as grounds for denial of the license. But the Director’s denial fails on two fronts: (1) neither LBMC 3.80.421 nor 5.040.060, which the Director cited for authority to deny JP23’s application, is applicable under these circumstances; and (2) any discretion the Director may have to deny the application is outweighed by the facts favoring issuance of the busine ss license; i.e., the Director’s own unreasonable and unwarranted delays in processing and issuing the applicable permits, JP23’s good faith efforts to cooperate with the Director, and the substantial time and resources JP23 has poured into the business. The denial should be reversed and the business license should be issued.

I. Brief Summary of Facts
JP23’s endeavor to give the City of Long Beach an exceptional establishment dates back to 2018. The City approved the transfer of an Alcoholic Beverage Control (“ABC”) license to JP23. JP23 met with City officials in a predevelopment meeting to discuss the substantial improvements JP23 planned for the premises; including an accessory entertainment space, decks, a commercial kitchen and mezzanine. Further discussed in the predevelopment meeting were JP23’s plans for both dining and entertainment and the proper permitting for each side of the

ATTACHMENT C
busine
ss. JP23 was specifically told that it could operate under a temporary entertainment permit once the buildout was completed, pending issuance of the permanent entertainment permit. In September 2019, plans for the improvements were approved and construction commenced. In March 2020, in the middle of construction, the COVID-19 pandemic brought JP23’s buildout to a sudden halt for nearly a year. However, JP23 persisted through the difficulties and resubmitted new plans for the buildout, which were approved in February 2021. Construction recommenced in March 2021.

On September 16, 2021, JP23 submitted complete applications for a Business License and an Entertainment Permit. All necessary departments signed off on JP23’s temporary certificate of occupancy, and it was issued on October 13, 2021. In anticipation of opening JP23’s restaurant on October 14, 2021, nearly a month after submitting the application, JP23 contacted the Business License Division and was told that an invoice had finally been created for the business license tax.

JP23 logged onto the payment portal as instructed; but was unable to pay using the “E -Account” number provided. After multiple follow ups to the Business License Division, JP23 was finally able to pay the invoice, which posted on October 19, 2021. Meanwhile, despite believing in good faith that JP23 was in compliance, JP23 was cited for operating without a license. JP23 attempted to follow up by telephone multiple times on October 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 in a good faith effort to get direction from the Business License Division. Not until JP23 was forced to get legal counsel involved did the Business License Division finally respond and agree to set up a meeting for November 3, 2021 (still well over six weeks after the applications were submitted).

At the November 3, 2021 meeting, City officials were unable to give satisfactory explanations about why the business license had not been issued; nor why the application process had been delayed so significantly. Further, JP23 requested a temporary entertainment permit, but inexplicably, the City represented that JP23 did not qualify for one. After the meeting on November 3, 2021. the Business License Division agreed to issue a conditional business license retroactive to the date of JP23’s application, September 16, 2021.

JP23 continued to operate the restaurant side of the business, keeping the lounge side closed pending issuance of the entertainment permit. On January 11, 2022, nearly four months after JP23 submitted the application , JP23 followed up on its application. JP23 emphasized the fact that the Los Angeles area would see an enormous influx of visitors for the Super Bowl on February 13, and JP23 requested assistance via e-mail to the Business License Division in getting the permit approved before then. On January 17, nearly a week later and over four months after JP23 submitted its application, Ms. Tara Mortenson responded simply to say she needed to “check on a few things” and promised to get back to JP23. On January 19, JP23 again followed up via e-mail.

Ms. Mortensen responded simply by saying a meeting would be set.

On January 25, 2022 JP23 attended a meeting via videoconference with City officials. To JP23’s surprise, the City claimed, for the first time , that JP23’s application for a n entertainment permit was “incomplete” due to (1) nonpayment of an invoice for application fees allegedly sent out on October 25, 2021; and (2) nonpayment of an invoice for a business license for allegedly sent
out on December 17, 2021. Neither invoice was received until Ms. Mortenson sent them via e-mail on January 27, 2022.

Worse still, at the January 25, 2022 meeting, the Director made certain comments to which JP23 took offense. The comments appeared to be directed at JP23’s principal, Jacob Poozhikala, and legal counsel’s, Niral Patel, ethnic background. Enclosed herewith is the declaration of Niral Patel, setting forth the Director’s comments. The comments caused JP23 to question whether the Director could fairly process and make determinations on JP23’s applications.

Regardless, JP23, in further good faith efforts, requested guidance on having entertainment for Super Bowl weekend in light of the City’s position that the application was “incomplete.” Ms.

Mortenson suggested a solution wherein JP23 could apply for a “special events permit.” Ms.

Mortenson specifically told that JP23 could have a 3-day event under the special events permit. In reliance on this information from Ms. Mortenson , JP23 moved forward with applying for the special events permit and booking an artist for Super Bowl weekend, including remitting down payments.

On March 14, 2022, the Director sent a letter to JP23 denying its business license application, “pursuant to the provisions of LBMC Chapters 3.80.421.5 and 5.04.030 . . . because of the Applicant’s repeated failure to comply with applicable laws and ordinances of the City.” Specifically, the Director alleges two instances of noncompliance on 9/17/21 and 9/18/21 for allowing occupancy prior to obtaining a temporary certificate of occupancy (despite the citations being issued weeks before JP23 opened to the public); five from 10/14/21 to 10/21/21 for conducting business without a business license (despite JP23’s business license application being submitted on 9/16/21 and the Director issuing a conditional business license retroactive to that date); and seven from 12/9/21 to 2/12/22 for operating without an entertainment permit (despite the Director failing to issue an entertainment permit within 60 days of JP23’s application as he was required to do).

II. Neither LBMC 3.80.421 Nor 5.040.060 Furnishes the Director With Authority to Deny a Business License Application Under These Circumstances
As set forth in the denial letter, the Director relies on LBMC Chapters 3.80.421.5 and

5.04.030 for authority to deny JP23’s application. However, the Director’s reliance on those chapters is misplaced. Neither chapter furnishes the Director with authority to deny JP23’s application.

LBMC 3.80.421.5 provides as follows:

In the event that a particular department of the City rejects an application for the reason that such business or the location at which it i
s proposed to conduct the same will not so comply with applicable laws and ordinances, the Director Of Financial Management shall not issue such license.

LBMC 3.80.421.5 m
andates the Director not to issue a license under one condition: that a department rejects an application because the business or the location of the business “will not so comply with applicable laws and ordinances.” (Emphasis Added.) The language of LBMC

3.80.421.5 is forward-looking, not backward-looking. Under LBMC 3.80.421.5, the Director may only deny the application where JP23’s business will not comply with some provision of law. For example, in the event a City department found that JP23’s business was incompatible with its zoning district (i.e., if JP23 tried to open in a residential -only district) , the Director may be authorized to deny JP23’s application under LBMC 3.80.421.5 But neither the Director, nor any other department, made such a finding. Instead, the Director cited past instances of alleged noncompliance as grounds to deny JP23’s application.

In ci
ting LBMC 3.80.421, the Director is necessarily making the finding that past instances of alleged noncompliance means that JP23 “will not comply with applicable laws and ordinances.” The Director’s position is absurd, particularly given JP23’s applications on file and good faith efforts to comply:
• Wit
h regard to the alleged noncompliance for allowing occupancy prior to obtaining a temporary certificate of occupancy, JP23 obtained a temporary certificate of occupancy on October 13, 2021.
• With regard to the alleged noncompliance for conducting business prior to obtaining a business license, JP23 applied for a business license on or about September 16, 2021, paid the business license tax after multiple good faith efforts, and obtained a conditional business license retroactive to September 16, 2021. • With regard to the alleged noncompliance for operating without an entertainment permit, JP23 applied for an entertainment permit on or about September 16, 2021, followed up multiple times about approval of the entertainment permit, and, due to the Director’s delays and reticence, inquired about alternative means of compliance via a temporary entertainment permit and a special events permit.

JP23’
s applications for the proper permitting and licensure, as well as its extensive good faith efforts to work with the City, cannot be discounted. The alleged past noncompliance cannot reasonably be used as grounds for a finding that JP23 “ will not so comply with applicable laws and ordinances.” Even if JP23 conceded its noncompliance in the alleged instances the Director cites, it does not follow that JP23 will not comply in the future.

JP23 will comply with all applicable laws and ordinances once its business license is issued. LBMC 3.80.421.5 is inapplicable and does not furnish the director with authority to deny JP23’s application.

LBM
C 5.04.030 provides as follows:

In t
he event that a particular department of the City rejects an application for the reason that such business or the location at which it is proposed to be conducted will not comply with applicable laws and ordinances, no permit shall be issued, and the application shall be denied.

LBMC 5.04.030 applies to applications for a permit under Title 5 of the LBMC; e.g., an entertainment permit application. 5.04.030 is inapplicable to a business license application submitted under LBMC 3.80.420.1. However, even if 5.04.030 had any application to a business license, the language of 5.04.030 is substantially similar to that of LBMC 3.80.421 and functions identically. LBMC 5.04.030 is similarly forward looking in that past noncompliance cannot reasonably be used as grounds for a finding that JP23 “will not so comply with applicable laws and ordinances.” LBMC 5.04.030 is inapplicable and does not furnish the director wit h authority to deny JP23’s application.

III. The Director Did NOT Cite LBMC 3.80.421.1B as Authority to Deny the Application
LBMC 3.80.421.1B provides that during the 180 -day conditional business license period, “the applicant may be rejected for failure to comply with applicable laws and regulations at any time.” Arguably, the Director could have cited 3.80.421.1B for the proposition that the Director has discretion to deny an application for prior instances of noncompliance. But the Director failed to do so.

Even if the Director had cited 3.80.421.1B for authority to deny JP23’s application, it would have been a complete abuse of discretion. It would have ignored the facts surrounding the alleged instances of noncompliance (including the Director’s own delays and misinformation upon which JP23 relied to its detriment); it would have ignored the substantial time and resources JP23 poured into the business; and it would have ignored JP23’s substantial good faith efforts to cooperate with the Director’s office and enjoy a healthy, mutually beneficial relationship with the City of Long Beach.

First, JP23 did not open to the public until October 14, 2021, after issuance its temporary certificate of occupancy on October 13, 2021. On September 17 and 18, 2021 JP23’s doors were closed to the public. At no point before the temporary certificate of occupancy was issued did JP23 allow public occupancy of its premises. There is no factual basis to support the City’s citations for public occupancy prior to a TCO being issued.

Se
cond, JP23 submitted its application for a business license on or about September 16, 2021. Nearly a month later, the Director’s office finally generated an invoice for the business license tax, which JP23 timely paid. The Director subsequently issued a conditional business license for the period of September 16, 2021 (the date of JP23’s application) to March 15, 2022.

Effectively, JP23 was retroactively approved to operate dating back to September 16, 2021.

Accordingly, the citations for operating without a business license from October 14, 2021 to October 21, 2021 are void and the Director may not reasonably rely on those citations to now deny JP23’s application.

Third, JP23 submitted a complete application for an entertainment permit on or about September 16, 2021. The Director, pursuant to LBMC 5.72.120G, was required to “refer it to all concerned City departments for investigation.” Within 60 days , each department was to file their respective reports and recommendations and the Director was to then transmit the application with the reports and recommendations to the City Council. But instead of following his obligations under the Code, the Director unreasonably and unlawfully delayed processing JP23’s application.

Despite JP23’s multiple good faith follow- ups, JP23 did not learn that the Director deemed the application “incomplete” due to nonpayment of invoices until January 25, 2022, over four months after JP23 submitted its application. However, nonpayment of invoices (which JP23 did not receive until January 27, 2022) is not grounds to fail to process the application under LMBC 5.72.120D.

Indeed, among the enumerated items constituting a complete application in LMBC 5.72.120A, payment of any fees is not one of them. Additionally, the Director’s office’s misinformation with regard to the special events permit, upon which JP23 reasonably relied and booked entertainment to JP23’s detriment, directly resulted in the alleged noncompliance over Super Bowl weekend. It is inexplicable why the Director’s office gave JP23 apparently false information and then refused to make an exception based thereon. Moreover, it is puzzling, at best, why the Director’s office represented to JP23 that it did not qualify for a temporary entertainment permit. JP23 can find no good reason why it would not qualify for a temporary permit under LMBC 5.72.125. Indeed, the Director would have been required under LMBC 5.72.125 to issue a temporary permit and the alleged noncompliance for operating without an entertainment permit would have been avoided entirely.

In sum, JP23 has worked exhaustively to cooperate with the City of Long Beach and the Director’s office over the course of four years, even weathering and persisting through the devastation of t he COVID- 19 pandemic. JP23 has poured millions of dollars into creating an attractive and desirable establishment for the residents and visitors of Long Beach. JP23 has employed over 70 people. The alleged instances of “noncompliance” cited by the Director are either not factually supported or directly resulted from the Director’s own delays, conduct, and representations. The Director’s decision to deny JP23’s business license threatens to result in a complete waste of four years and millions of dollars while putting over 70 people out of work.

Had the Director cited 3.80.421.1B as authority for the Director’s discretion to deny JP23’s application, it would be an unequivocal abuse of that discretion.

IV. Conclusion
Pursuant to the foregoing, JP23 respectfully requests the City Council overrule and/or modify the Director’s decision in accordance with the Council’s authority under LBMC

3.80.421.6. Further, JP23 respectfully requests that the City set the hearing on this appeal concurrently with a hearing on JP23’s application for an entertainment permit pursuant to LBMC

5.72.120 and approve issuance of said entertainment permit.

This correspondence is intended to give notice of JP23’s appeal and generally set forth the “the decision and the grounds upon which [JP23] deems himself aggrieved thereby” in accordance with LBMC 3.80.421.6. This correspondence shall not be intended to be an exhaustive account of every fact, argument, and/or claim upon which JP23 may rely at the time of the hearing on this appeal. JP23 specifically reserves the right to provide additional facts, evidence, and details in support of its appeal as appropriate.

Respectfully,

MESSNER REEVES LLP

Ethan Reimers

Encl.: Chk #113370 in the amount of $1,398.00 for filing fee.

Declaration of Niral Patel
cc: Kevin Riper via E-mail ([email protected])
Tara Mortenson via E-mail ([email protected]) Art Sanchez via E-mail ([email protected])
Jennifer Harris via E-mail ([email protected]) Niral Patel via E-mail ([email protected]) Client via E-mail

DECLARATION OF NIRAL PATEL

I, NIRAL PATEL, declare and state as follows:

1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before all courts in the State of California, and principal of NIRAL PATEL INJURY LAW, former attorney(s) of record of JP23 Hospitality Company for the purpose of obtaining a business license from the City of Long Beach.

2. On January 25, 2022, I attended a meeting with the Department of Financial Management of the City of Long Beach in my capacity as legal representative of JP23 Hospitality Company.

3. In attendance at the meeting were Jacob Poozhikala, owner of JP23 Hospitality Company, Tara Mortenson, Bureau Manager, Kevin Riper, Director of Long Beach Financial Management Department, and Art Sanchez, Deputy City Attorney.

4. During the meeting, Kevin Riper, who was visibly frustrated, commented about how things are done in this country, implying that my self and Jacob Poozhikala were not.

5. I was offended by the statement and felt it had negative racial undertones.

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

Executed on this 23rd day of March 2022, at the City of Newport Beach, California.

__________________________
Niral Patel

AUGUST 23, 2022

ATTACHMENT D
HEARING EXHIBITS – DOCUMENTS

A SCANNED IMAGE OF THE AGENDA ITEM

ATTACHMENTS ARE AVAILABLE ONLINE AT
https://www.longbeach.gov/finance/business-info/business-licenses/business-license- appeals/

OR

PLEASE CONTACT

MARLA CAMERINO AT
(562) 570-6162
[email protected]

August 23, 2022

ATTACHMENT E

HEARING EXHIBITS - VIDEOS

A SCANNED IMAGE OF THE AGENDA ITEM

ATTACHMENTS ARE AVAILABLE ONLINE AT
https://www.longbeach.gov/finance/business-info/business-licenses/business-license- appeals/

OR

PLEASE CONTACT

MARLA CAMERINO AT
(562) 570-6162
[email protected]

1 LEGAL BRIEF SUBMITTED BY CITY OF LONG BEACH IN SUPPORT OF ITS DENIAL OF BUSINESS LICENSE APPLICATION NO. BU22114159 SUBMITTED BY APPELLANT JP23 HOSPITALITY COMPANY 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
CHARLES PARKIN, City Attorney
411 West Ocean Boulevard, 9th Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802-4511
CHARLES PARKIN, City Attorney
ARTURO D. SANCHEZ, Deputy City Attorney
State Bar No. 170530
411 West Ocean Boulevard, 9th Floor
Long Beach, California 90802-4511
Telephone: (562) 570-2200
Facsimile: (562) 436-1579

Attorneys for CITY OF LONG BEACH

BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER

FOR THE CITY OF LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA

ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING TO SHOW

CAUSE WHY BUSINESS LICENSE
APPLICATION NO. BU22114159
SUBMITTED BY APPELLANT JP23

HOSPITALITY COMPANY, LOCATED AT
110 E. BROADWAY, LONG BEACH,

CALIFORNIA, SHOULD NOT BE DENIED
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 3.80.421.6 OF THE

LONG BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE

LEGAL BRIEF SUBMITTED BY CITY

OF LONG BEACH IN SUPPORT OF ITS

DENIAL OF BUSINESS LICENSE
APPLICATION NO. BU22114159
SUBMITTED BY APPELLANT JP23

HOSPITALITY COMPANY

Hearing
Commencement Date: May 25, 2022
Time: 9:00 AM

ELECTRONIC HEARING CONDUCTED

VIA WEBEX

Hearing Officer: Jonathan Navarro

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
The City of Long Beach Business License Division (hereinafter “Business License”) first became aware of Appellant JP23 Hospitality Company, Inc. (hereinafter “Appellant”) when it was notified by the Long Beach City Manager’s Office about a citizen complaint regarding Appellant’s plans to open its business on Broadway Avenue & Pine Street, during the general public comment portion of the Long Beach City Council meeting on August 3, 2021. [Testimony of Business License Manager Tara Mortensen (hereinafter “Mortensen Testimony,”) Day 1.] Business License gathered information regarding Appellant in order to appropriately respond to any further

ATTACHMENT F

2 LEGAL BRIEF SUBMITTED BY CITY OF LONG BEACH IN SUPPORT OF ITS DENIAL OF BUSINESS LICENSE APPLICATION NO. BU22114159 SUBMITTED BY APPELLANT JP23 HOSPITALITY COMPANY 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
CHARLES PARKIN, City Attorney
411 West Ocean Boulevard, 9th Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802-4511
complaints and determined that their proposed business was being planned for a location at the corner of Pine Avenue and Broadway. ( Mortensen Testimony; Day 1.) At that time, Appellant did not have a business license application on file with Business License. ( Mortensen Testimony; Day 1.)
On or about August 31, 2021, Business License became aware of an advertisement regarding a planned event by Appellant for September 3rd & September 4th 2021 at 110 E. Broadway with live performances by XZIBIT, The Dogg Pound, Ohgeesy & DJ Carisma. Business License had one of its investigators visit the premises. (See City’s Exhibit 11, PP. COLB_091-_092.) Business License investigators took photos of 110 E. Broadway which showed the business location was still under construction. (Mortensen Testimony; Day 1.) Business License investigators then reached out to the business owner, Jacob Poozhikala, to inform him that he was not allowed to have the Grand Opening event on September 3rd and September 4th, 2021, because Appellant did not have a business license or an entertainment permit, both of which were required prior to the opening of Appellant’s business. [Testimony of Gene Rodriguez (hereinafter “ Rodriguez Testimony”); Day

3.] Appellant was selling tickets online for these live events on both September 3rd & September 4th. (City’s Exhibit 11, PP. COLB _091-_092).

Business License confirmed with the City’s Building & Safety Department that Appellant did not have a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for 110 E. Broadway. [Mortensen Testimony, Day 1; Testimony of Raymond J. Woolhether (hereinafter “ Woolhether Testimony ”), Day 3.], which meant that no members of the public were allowed to be on the premises except for licensed contractors who were working on the interior or exterior build-out of the location. ( Woolhether Testimony, Day 3.)
Business License then organized a meeting between each of the City Departments which would be involved in the eventual review of a business license application for 110 E. Broadway, which departments included, Planning, Building & Safety, Environmental Health, and Fire, in addition to the Police Department. ( Mortensen Testimony ; Day 1.) The meeting involved a discussion of what action to take against the Appellant in order to prevent the unpermitted and unlicensed event from occurring and to gain Appellant’s compliance with the City’s rules,

3 LEGAL BRIEF SUBMITTED BY CITY OF LONG BEACH IN SUPPORT OF ITS DENIAL OF BUSINESS LICENSE APPLICATION NO. BU22114159 SUBMITTED BY APPELLANT JP23 HOSPITALITY COMPANY 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
CHARLES PARKIN, City Attorney
411 West Ocean Boulevard, 9th Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802-4511
regulations and ordinances. ( Mortensen Testimony ; Day 1.) Business License was also very concerned for the safety of the public in having such an event move forward without any oversight or approvals from the City. (Mortensen Testimony, Day 1.) Despite not having a business license, entertainment permit or any certificate of occupancy issued by the City for 110 E. Broadway, Appellant went forward and hosted an event on September 4, 2021. [Testimony of Long Beach Police Officer Derek Ernest (hereinafter “Ernest Testimony”), Day 2.]
A few days prior to September 3, 2021, officers from the Long Beach Police Department’s Downtown Vice Unit contacted Appellant’s principal, Jacob Poozhikala, by telephone to inform him that they were aware of the advertised live events and that the events were unpermitted. The officers asked Mr. Poozhikala not to have the events if he did not obtain the required permits. (Ernest Testimony, Day 2.) On the night of September 4, 2021, Sergeant Derek Ernest visited Appellant’s business location and observed approximately forty-(40) people inside of the business.

Sergeant Ernest had a conversation with Appellant’s principal, Jacob Poozhikala, who informed him that it was a private event and that he was allowed to hold a private event, without the required business license, entertainment permit or certificate of occupancy. ( Ernest Testimony , Day 2.) Sergeant Ernest later confirmed that Mr. Poozhikala’s representations regarding a private event were untrue, once he observed patrons entering the location from a rear entrance near the back alley of the 110 E. Broadway. (Ernest Testimony; Day 2.)
On or about 4:00 a.m. on September 5, 2021, the Long Beach Fire Department (hereinafter “Fire”) responded to a fire alarm at 110 E. Broadway and determined that someone attending the event at 110 E. Broadway had intentionally pulled the fire alarm when there was no emergency occurring at the location. [Testimony of Brian Weidman (hereinafter “Weidman Testimony”), Day

2.] Fire was unable to reset the fire alarm after it was activated due to the fact that the entire fire system had not yet been inspected and approved by Fire as part of the approved plans for the location. (Weidman Testimony ; Day 2.) Appellant was cited for the Fire Code violations on or about September 16, 2021. (See City’s Exhibit “10“, P. COLB _090.) On September 16, 2021, Appellant submitted a complete application for a business license

4 LEGAL BRIEF SUBMITTED BY CITY OF LONG BEACH IN SUPPORT OF ITS DENIAL OF BUSINESS LICENSE APPLICATION NO. BU22114159 SUBMITTED BY APPELLANT JP23 HOSPITALITY COMPANY 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
CHARLES PARKIN, City Attorney
411 West Ocean Boulevard, 9th Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802-4511
with Business License for its business location at 110 E. Broadway. ( Mortensen Testimony, Day 1; City’s Exhibit “14”, PP. COLB_098-_101.) Appellant’s business license application was submitted through the investigative process which subjects it to review by the City’s Planning, Building & Safety, Environmental Health, and Fire Departments pursuant to their respective duties under the Long Beach Municipal Code. ( Mortensen Testimony, Day 1; City’s Exhibit “4”, PP.

COLB _016-_018.) Once the investigative process for Appellant’s business license application was completed the application came back to Business License for their final review, however Appellant had already been cited for operating its business without a business license and Business License determined it would not be appropriate to issue a business license at that time because the Applicant was not operating in compliance with the Long Municipal Code. (Mortensen Testimony, Day 1.) On or about September 17, 2021, Building & Safety Inspector Ray Woolhether inspected 110 E. Broadway and issued a Notice of Inspection which details all of the items that Appellant needed to correct in order to obtain a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the location. (See City’s Exhibit “15”, PP. COLB _106-_107.) The Notice of Inspection noted a violation of Long Beach Municipal Code (hereinafter “LBMC”) Chapter 18.08.010 by having public occupancy without approvals and specifically described 110 E. Broadway as an, “active construction site with no occupancy approvals granted.” (City’s Exhibit “15” COLB, P. _106; See City’s Exhibit 7, P.

COLB _045.) On the last page of the Notice of Inspection dated September 17, 2021, it specifically states, “Do Not Occupy Until TCO is approved.” (City’s Exhibit “15” COLB, P. _106; Woolhether Testimony, Day 3,) On or about September 17, 2021, Mr. Woolhether went over all of the requirements to obtain a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy with Jacob Poozhikala and specifically informed him that a current business license is required prior to operating otherwise your Temporary Certificate of Occupancy is invalid. (Woolhether Testimony, Day 2; See also City’s Exhibit 19, P. COLB_114.) On or about October 13, 2021, a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy was issued to Appellant by the City’s Building & Safety Division. (See City’s Exhibit 18, P. COLB_113.)
On October 14, 2021, Appellant was open for business and had over fifty-(50) people at the location. [See Testimony of Detective Christopher Brammer, hereinafter “Brammer

5 LEGAL BRIEF SUBMITTED BY CITY OF LONG BEACH IN SUPPORT OF ITS DENIAL OF BUSINESS LICENSE APPLICATION NO. BU22114159 SUBMITTED BY APPELLANT JP23 HOSPITALITY COMPANY 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
CHARLES PARKIN, City Attorney
411 West Ocean Boulevard, 9th Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802-4511
Testimony.”), Day 2; Ernest Testimony, Day 2; City’s Exhibit 20, COLB PP. _115-117; City’s Video Exhibit 01.] Appellant was observed serving alcoholic beverages and food to the patrons of the business, despite not having a business license with the City. (Brammer Testimony, Day 2.) Appellant’s general manager Sami Marzougui was issued a citation by Sergeant Derek Ernest for operating a business without a business license in violation of LBMC Chapter 3.80.210. (Ernest Testimony, Day 2; City’s Exhibit 20, COLB PP. _115-_117.) On October 15, 2021, Appellant was again open for business and undercover officers ordered and were served alcoholic beverages by one of Appellant’s employees. Appellant’s manager, Sami Marzougui, was cited again for Appellant’s operation of its business without a business license with the City. (Brammer Testimony, Day 2.) A citation was issued for a violation of LBMC Chapter 3.80.210 . (Brammer Testimony, Day 2; City’s Exhibit 21, PP.

COLB_118-_119.) Appellant was cited for the same violations on October 16, 2021, October 20, 2021 and October 21, 2021, respectively. (Ernest Testimony, Day 2; City’s Exhibit “43”, PP.

COLB _170-_172.)
After conducting research on the issue and in order to provide Appellant with another opportunity to come into compliance, Business License decided to issue a Conditional Business License to Appellant pursuant to LBMC Chapter 3.80.421.1 (A). (Mortensen Testimony, Day 1; City’s Exhibit “4”, PP. COLB_017-_018.) During a meeting on November 3, 2021, Appellant and its attorney were provided with a copy of a conditional business license along with a cover letter which was read to them word for word and as well as the contents of the conditional business license. (Mortensen Testimony, Day 1; City’s Exhibit “28”, P. COLB _132.) There were three conditions of operation: (1) Complete all actions required to obtain a certificate of occupancy, (2) Comply with all applicable laws and regulations, including but not limited to, LBMC Chapters 3, 5 and 21, (3) Resolution of the Misdemeanor Citations that have been issued to date. (City’s Exhibit “28”, P. COLB _132.)
During this November 3, 2021 meeting, the entertainment permit process and the conditions for obtaining an entertainment permit were all explained to Appellant, including the basic requirement that no entertainment activities can occur at the business until an entertainment

6 LEGAL BRIEF SUBMITTED BY CITY OF LONG BEACH IN SUPPORT OF ITS DENIAL OF BUSINESS LICENSE APPLICATION NO. BU22114159 SUBMITTED BY APPELLANT JP23 HOSPITALITY COMPANY 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
CHARLES PARKIN, City Attorney
411 West Ocean Boulevard, 9th Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802-4511
permit is issued by the City or an occasional event permit is obtained from the City’s Special Events and Filming Department. (Mortensen Testimony, Day 1; City’s Exhibit “6”, PP.

COLB_025-_028, _033-_034.) The explanation of the entertainment application process was necessary because Appellant had already begun having entertainment activities at 110 E.

Broadway, despite not having an entertainment permit issued to them by Business License. (Mortensen Testimony, Day 1.) Appellant has had a disc jockey, amplified music and dancing most nights since opening its business in or about October 13, 2021, primarily during the weekends. (Ernest Testimony, Day 2.)
On December 29, 2021, Business License contacted Appellant and informed them that they were operating in violation of their Conditional Business License by having entertainment activities at their location without an entertainment permit. (Mortensen Testimony, Day 1; City’s Exhibit “52”, P. COLB _235.) Business License prepared and sent this letter to Appellant to ensure that they were aware that Business License was aware of their violations and to remind them of condition number 2 of their Conditional Business License which required them to comply with all applicable laws and regulations, including but not limited to Chapters 3, 5 and 21 of the Long Beach Municipal Code. (Mortensen Testimony, Day 1; City’s Exhibit “52”, P. COLB _235.)
Despite this warning letter, on January 23, 2022, Appellant was observed having a disc jockey, live amplified music and dancing at their business location. (Ernest Testimony, Day 2.) The entertainment activity observed by Sergeant Ernest was in violation of LBMC Chapter

5.72.110(A). (City’s Exhibit 37, PP. COLB _151-_152.) On or about January 26, 2022, Business License again met with Appellant to discuss their business operations, to inform them that their entertainment permit application was complete and would be sent out for review, and to go over the process for obtaining an occasional event permit from Special Events & Filming until their entertainment permit application investigation and review was completed. (Mortensen Testimony, Day 1.) Appellant was specifically informed that an occasional event permit could only be issued for one day and not multiple days. (Mortensen Testimony, Day 1; City’s Exhibit “6“, PP. COLB_033-034.)

7 LEGAL BRIEF SUBMITTED BY CITY OF LONG BEACH IN SUPPORT OF ITS DENIAL OF BUSINESS LICENSE APPLICATION NO. BU22114159 SUBMITTED BY APPELLANT JP23 HOSPITALITY COMPANY 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
CHARLES PARKIN, City Attorney
411 West Ocean Boulevard, 9th Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802-4511
On or about February 4, 2022, Business License became aware of advertisements for live performances by artists Buster Rhymes, Nelly & T-Pain at Appellant’s business on July 10th, 11th & 12th. (Mortensen Testimony, Day 1; City’s Exhibit “52”, P. COLB _238; City’s Exhibit “46,” PP. COLB _204-_208.). As a result of this discovery, Business License prepared a letter to Appellant dated February 9, 2022, informing them that the live performances were not allowed at the location without an entertainment permit or an occasional event permit and that moving forward with these live performances would create a public safety risk and be considered a public nuisance. [Testimony of Kevin Riper (hereinafter “Riper Testimony”), Day 4; Mortensen Testimony, Day 1; City’s Exhibit “52, PP. COLB _236-_238.) Despite their receipt of this letter, Appellants went forward with the live performances on February 10th, 11th & 12th as advertised. (Brammer Testimony, Day 2; City’s Video Exhibits “32”, “37” & “40.”) Based upon Appellant’s history of violations, their consistent refusal to abide by the same set of rules and regulations and ordinances that every business in the City of Long Beach must abide by in order to ensure, in part, the health and safety of the public, Business License sent a letter dated March 14, 2022, denying Appellant’s business license application. (Riper Testimony, Day 4; City’s Exhibit “52”, PP. COLB_222-_238.) Business License arrived at the decision to deny Appellant’s business license application after carefully consulting with the Director of Financial Management and the Assistant City Manager. [Mortensen Testimony, Day 1; Riper Testimony, Day 4; Testimony of Linda Tatum (hereinafter “Tatum Testimony”), Day 5.]

II. LEGAL AUTHORITY AND ARGUMENT
A. Long Beach Municipal Code Chapter 3.80.421.5 Provides the Authority to Deny Business License Application No. BU22114159.

1. Operating Without a Business License.

LBMC Chapter 3.80.421.5 states as follows:
“In the event that a particular department of the City rejects an application for the reason that such business or the location at which it is proposed to conduct the same will not so comply with applicable laws and ordinances, the Director Of Financial Management shall not

8 LEGAL BRIEF SUBMITTED BY CITY OF LONG BEACH IN SUPPORT OF ITS DENIAL OF BUSINESS LICENSE APPLICATION NO. BU22114159 SUBMITTED BY APPELLANT JP23 HOSPITALITY COMPANY 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
CHARLES PARKIN, City Attorney
411 West Ocean Boulevard, 9th Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802-4511
issue such license.”
The facts and evidence presented above by the City during this hearing regarding Appellant’s business operations at 110 E. Broadway, Long Beach, California 90802 are undisputed. Appellant did not offer any evidence or testimony in opposition to either the City’s evidence regarding Appellant’s operation of its business without a business license or to the City’s evidence regarding the entertainment activities that have been offered at their location since September 4, 2021, without an entertainment permit.

Pursuant to the relevant provisions of LBMC Chapter 3.80.210 which state in part, . . .“It shall be unlawful for any person to transact and carry on any business, trade, profession, calling or occupation with the City without first having procured a license from said City to do so and paying the tax hereinafter prescribed and without complying with any and all applicable provisions of this Code, and any such business in the City shall be required to obtain a business license hereunder.” . . .(emphasis added.) (City’s Exhibit “52”, P. _COLB _229.) Appellants hosted an event on September 4, 2021, without a business license, entertainment permit or a certificate of occupancy. Appellants operated without a business license on October 14, 15, 16, 20, & 21st, 2021. The criminal prosecution involving those violations is still in pending in the Long Beach Superior Court. (City’s Exhibit “43”, PP. COLB_170-_177.) Despite those violations, Business License still provided Appellant with a Conditional Business License to provide them with an opportunity to come into compliance. During a four-(4) month period, Appellants failed to bring their business into compliance.

2. Providing Entertainment Activities Without an Entertainment Permit.

LBMC Chapter 5.72.110(A) , states as follows, “No person shall carry on, maintain or conduct any entertainment activity in the City without first obtaining a permit therefor from the City.”
Entertainment Activity is defined in LBMC Chapter 5.72.115(A) as “any activity conducted for the primary purpose of diverting or entertaining a clientele in a premises open to the general public. Such activity shall include, but shall not be limited to, dancing, whether by performers or patrons of the establishment, live musical performances, instrumental or vocal,

9 LEGAL BRIEF SUBMITTED BY CITY OF LONG BEACH IN SUPPORT OF ITS DENIAL OF BUSINESS LICENSE APPLICATION NO. BU22114159 SUBMITTED BY APPELLANT JP23 HOSPITALITY COMPANY 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
CHARLES PARKIN, City Attorney
411 West Ocean Boulevard, 9th Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802-4511
when carried on by more than two (2) persons or whenever amplified; musical entertainment provided by a disc jockey or karaoke, or any similar entertainment activity involving amplified, reproduced music.”
Appellant has consistently refused to comply with LBMC Chapter 5.72.110(A), by continuing to provide live entertainment, amplified music, disc jockeys and dancing without an entertainment permit or an occasional event permit since its event on September 4, 2021. While Appellant did attempt to apply for Occasional Event Permits with the City’s Special Events & Filming Department on a few occasions, Appellant never obtained one after it learned that they were only available for one day events. [Testimony of Tasha Day (hereinafter “Day Testimony”), Day 4.] As a result, Appellant never did come into compliance, even after a Conditional Business License was issued to them by Business License.

3. Director of Financial Management’s Duty
Pursuant to the provisions of LBMC Chapter 3.80.410, “It shall be the duty of the Director of Financial Management, and he is hereby directed, to administer and enforce each and all of the provisions of this Chapter, and the Chief of Police shall render such assistance in the enforcement of this Chapter as may from time to time be required by the Director of Financial Management.” As a result of Appellant’s consistent failure to abide by the ordinances identified above regarding business licenses and entertainment permits, Kevin Riper, as the City’s Director of Financial Management, had a duty to take action and deny Appellant’s business license application based upon Appellant’s repeated failures to come into compliance.

B. Claims In Support of Appellant’s Appeal Which Are Based Upon Preliminary Facts, Cannot be Considered by the Hearing Officer Until Appellant Satisfies It’s Burden of Establishing the Existence of the Preliminary Facts.

California Evidence Code Section 403 (a) states as follows:

The proponent of the proffered evidence has the burden of producing evidence as to the existence of the preliminary fact, and the proffered evidence is inadmissible unless the court finds that there is evidence sufficient to sustain a finding of the existence of the preliminary fact, when:
(1) The relevance of the proffered evidence depends on the existence of the preliminary

10 LEGAL BRIEF SUBMITTED BY CITY OF LONG BEACH IN SUPPORT OF ITS DENIAL OF BUSINESS LICENSE APPLICATION NO. BU22114159 SUBMITTED BY APPELLANT JP23 HOSPITALITY COMPANY 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
CHARLES PARKIN, City Attorney
411 West Ocean Boulevard, 9th Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802-4511
fact;
(2) The preliminary fact is the personal knowledge of a witness concerning the subject matter of his testimony;
(3) The preliminary fact is the authenticity of a writing; or (4) The proffered evidence is of a statement or other conduct of a particular person and the preliminary fact is whether that person made the statement or so conducted himself.” During the cross-examination of the City’s witnesses and during the direct testimony of witnesses called as part of Appellant’s presentation of evidence, a number of questions were posed to witnesses without any foundation. Specifically, “Were you aware that (Councilwoman) Cindy Allen conducted her own investigation of the allegations against Appellant’s Fullerton location to uncover the truth?” (Testimony of Linda Tatum, Day 5.) Or the implication that (Councilwoman) Cindy Allen was somehow involved in the posting of false allegations and/or public comments involving Appellant’s business? (Testimony of Niral Patel, Day 6.) A number of different theories and inferences were made by Appellant during the course of this hearing which lacked any evidentiary support, let alone the establishment of the preliminary fact which supports them.

Any arguments submitted by Appellant in support of their appeal to the City’s denial of their business license application which rely on preliminary facts should be excluded on relevance grounds should Appellant fail to carry its burden of submitting evidence which establishes those preliminary facts as is required by the provisions of California Evidence Code Section 403.

C. The Actions of The City’s Business License Division Were Both Reasonable And Measured in Addressing Appellant’s Business and Entertainment Related Activities.

Appellant was given numerous opportunities to bring its business into compliance with the City’s rules, regulations and ordinances. Despite knowingly opening its business prior to receiving its business license and being cited for misdemeanor violations on several occasions for operating without a business license, the City’s Business License Division still gave Appellant another opportunity to come into compliance with the City’s ordinances by issuing them a conditional business license on November 3, 2021.

Appellant was then given an additional four-(4) months to come into compliance with the

11 LEGAL BRIEF SUBMITTED BY CITY OF LONG BEACH IN SUPPORT OF ITS DENIAL OF BUSINESS LICENSE APPLICATION NO. BU22114159 SUBMITTED BY APPELLANT JP23 HOSPITALITY COMPANY 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
CHARLES PARKIN, City Attorney
411 West Ocean Boulevard, 9th Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802-4511
City’s ordinances involving entertainment permits. Rather than placing a hold on the entertainment activities they were conducting at their business location and applying for and obtaining an Occasional Event Permit from the City’s Special Events & Filming Department until the review of their entertainment permit was completed by the City’s Busines License Division, they have continued with the entertainment activities that they had conducted at their business since September 4, 2021.

Even after Appellant willfully refused to adhere to the City’s Letter Dated February 9, 2022, wherein it requested that Appellant not move forward with the live performances on February 10, 11th, & 12th, the City waited an additional 30 days before taking action and denying Appellant’s busines license application.

III. CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing facts and evidence, the City of Long Beach Business License Division’s decision to deny Appellant JP23 Hospitality Company’s Business License Application No. BU22114159 for 110 E. Broadway should be upheld and confirmed and the Appeal of Appellant JP23 Hospitality Company should be denied.

DATED: June 22, 2022
CHARLES PARKIN, City Attorney

ARTURO D. SANCHEZ
Deputy City Attorney
Attorneys for CITY OF LONG BEACH

MESSNER REEVES LLP
Ethan Reimers (SBN 311020)
650 Town Center Drive, Suite 700
Costa Mesa, California 92626
Telephone: (949) 612-9128
Facsimile: (949) 438-2304
Email: [email protected]

Jennifer N. Harris, SBN: 256009
Law Office of Jennifer N. Harris, PC.
170 E. Yorba Linda Blvd. #311
Placentia, CA 92870
Telephone No.: (714) 770-1067
Facsimile No.: (714) 459-7206
Email: Jennifer @jenniferharrislaw.com

Attorneys for Petitioner JP23 Hospitality Company, Inc. and Jacob Poozhikala

BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

FOR THE CITY OF LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA

ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING ON
HOSPITALITY COMPANY, INC. AND
JACOB POOZHIKALA’S APPEAL OF
BUSINESS LICENSE APPLICATION NO.

BU22114159

JP23 HOSPITALITY COMPANY, INC.

AND JACOB POOZHIKALA’S CLOSING
BRIEF

Date: May 25, 2022
Time: 9:00 am

This is a case about the City of Long Beach playing judge, jury, and executioner without due process of law. The City went out of its way to deny JP23 Hospitality Company (“JP23”) a business license on unfounded allegations and hearsay. In doing so, the City turned what is supposed to be a fair and objective process into a political hit job. More to the point, the City overstepped the bounds of the Long Beach Municipal Code in processing JP23’s application.

Specifically, the Department of Financial Management had the ministerial function to (1) receive the application; (2) process the application; (3) receive the business license tax; and (4) issue the license. This functio n was routinely automated, generally free from the oversight of upper management within Financial Management or the political entanglements of City Council. The process was simple: Financial Management would enter the application into their computer system for other departments’ review; the other departments would either approve or reject the application; and if all departments approved the application, Financial Management was to issue the license. But an objective, fair, and ministerial process was not what happened with JP23’s application. Financial Management had no intention of being objective, fair, or ministerial.

Instead, the powers that be in the City of Long Beach heard about the allegations, rumors, and hearsay surrounding JP23’s Fullerton location . They heard about the protests, demonstrations, and social media campaigns angrily declaring JP23 to be a haven of sexual assault, an establishment that condones rape culture. Undoubtedly, it was politically unpopular to be seen supporti ng JP23.

So instead of allowing JP23’s application to be processed in the fair, objective, and ministerial manner in which it was supposed to be, the City decided to form a task force to observe and document alleged violations in order to eventually deny JP23 its license.

But the City ran into a problem: JP23’s application had been process ed through and completed Financial Management’s normal workflow. JP23 had paid its business license tax, provided the necessary documentation, and its application had been reviewed and approved by the departments of planning, building, health, and fire. So, in a flagrant violation of the Long Beach Municipal Code, Financial Management STOPPED issuance of the license. Financial Management targeted JP23’s license and waylaid it from its normal workflow. They needed a way to delay issuance of the license, in order to build their case to eventually deny the license.

What they came up with was issuing a temporary “conditional business license.” The City will presumably contend it was completely within their authority to issue a conditional business license. But the Long Beach Municipal Code does not permit the City to issue a conditional business license AFTER the relevant city departments have already completed their review and approval.

The Long Beach Municipal Code permits the City to issue a conditional business license so a business can legally operate DURING the departments’ review. But that’s not how the City used the Conditional Business License. They used the Conditional Business License as a means to further DELAY issuance of the permanent business license in furtherance of their scheme to eventually deny JP23’s application.

The City wants to make this denial solely about the alleged permitting violations. They want to argue that their task force to bring JP23 down worked. They want to argue that the decision should be upheld because they caught JP23 operating without the appropriate permitting. Of course, this argument completely ignores that Financial Management delayed and misled JP23 in processing their applications. It ignores that the business license was to be issued when all the city departments approved JP23’s application. Moreover, the City wants the hearing officer to believe that the reason they organized the task force in the first place , back in September 2021, was because of an advertised event that did not go forward.

But the weight of the evidence shows that in fact, the City, including City Councilwoman Cindy Allen and the City Manager’s office, was fully aware early on of the allegations surrounding JP23 Fullerton. The weight of the evidence shows that Financial Management was fully aware early on that the situation with JP23 could get “political and messy.” The weight of the evidence shows that at all relevant times, there was an open line of communication from Financial Management, to the City Manager’s office, to the office of City Councilwoman Cindy Allen. And the weight of the evidence certainly shows that Financial Management treated JP23’s application differently from any other business’s application.

The City’s decision is also blind to the fact that JP23 Long Beach was the culmination of years of planning, construction, and resources into the business . Jacob Poozhikala, JP23’s owner and CEO, spent nearly 4 years and millions of dollars to build JP23 L ong Beach into his dream business. Mr. Poozhikala endured through the disastrous COVID-19 pandemic, continuing to incur costs but still unable to open. He endured through protests, demonstrations, and defamatory social media campaigns based on a lie. But endure he did, and JP23 Long Beach was finally ready to open in the latter half of 2021. Instead of realizing his dream and leading JP23 Long Beach to its full potential, he faced delays and a City that had already adjudged guilt before he ever submitted his application for a business license. Unfortunately, it is not just Mr. Poozhikala who is facing the consequences of an unjust guilty verdict. It is also the dozens of employees who rely on JP23 for their livelihoods.
///
Accordingly, pursuant to the evidence presented at the hearing and the Long Be ach Municipal Code, JP23 respectfully requests that the appeal be granted. JP23 respectfully requests the hearing officer do what Financial Management should have done back in October 2021, according to its own internal procedures and the Long Beach Municipal Code, and issue the business license.

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The standard of the hearing officer’s review is de novo; i.e., no presumption or deference should be given to the Department of Financial Management’s decision. The City concedes that it has the burden to produce evidence of the grounds upon which Financial Management chose to deny JP23’s application. Indeed, that no presumption or deference is given to Financial Management’s decision is reflected in the Long Beach Municipal Code section governing this appeal process. The hearing officer, sitting in place of the City Council, “may overrule or modify the decision of the Director appealed from and enter any such order or orders as are in harmony with this Title . . . .” (LBMC 3.80.421.6).

II. THE BU SINESS LICENSE APPLICATION PROCEDURE IS INTENDED TO BE

MINISTERIAL, NOT REGULATORY
Upon receipt of an application for a business license, the Department of Financial Management is obligated to “refer such application to the appropriate departments of the C ity in order that it may be ascertained whether the business proposed to be conducted or the premises in which it is proposed to locate such business will comply with applicable fire, building safety, zoning, health and other laws and regulations.” (LBMC 3.80.421.1). In JP23’s case, the relevant departments reviewing the application were the departments of planning, building, fire, and health. Once those departments complete their investigation and determine that an applicant’s business “will comply” with applicable laws and regulations, Financial Management has the ministerial duty to issue the license. Indeed, Financial Management’s role pursuant to Chapter 3.80 of the Municipal Code is explicitly not intended to be regulatory in nature. Instead, Chapter 3 .80 is “enacted solely for the purpose of raising revenue for general municipal purposes and for the usual current expenses of the City. It is not intended to be regulatory.” (LBMC 3.80.110) (Emphasis Added).

The notion that the business license procedure is not intended to be regulatory is further reflected in the language of the Code providing the circumstances under which Financial Management denies an application. Financial Management must deny an application where one of the relevant departments finds “that such business or the location at which it is proposed to conduct the same will not so comply with applicable laws and ordinances.” (LBMC 3.80.421.5) (Emphasis Added). The language of the Code is forward -looking, not backward looking. The Code contemplates denial of a business license where, for example, a business is not compatible with its proposed zoning district. The Code does not contemplate denial of a business license merely for past permitting violations that can be readily corrected and cured. Yet mere permitting violations (permits which Financial Management itself has deliberately delayed and/or denied) are precisely the grounds upon which Financial Management denied JP23’s application.

Financial Management is further authorized to issue a conditional business license “for the applicant to conduct business during the investigation period.” (LBMC 3.80.42.1) (Emphasis Added). However, there is no authority for Financial Management to issue the conditional business license after the investigation period is completed. Plainly, the intent of the conditional business license is to permit a business to operate while the departments of planning, building, fire, and health complete their review. Once those departments complete their review, the permanent business license is to be issued. There is no authority to issue the conditional business license after the permanent business license has already been approved.

III. THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED PROVES THAT FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

UNLAWFULLY FAILED TO ISSUE THE PERMANENT BUSINESS LICENSE The evidence shows that Financial Management, unduly prejudiced against JP23 by unfounded hearsay allegations surrounding its Fullerton location, far overstepped their ministerial role and unlawfully failed to issue a permanent business license. Instead, Financial Management unlawfully issued a conditional business license after the investigation period was over. Moreover, the evidence shows that Financial Management consistently acted in bad faith with JP23, including misleading JP23 about temporary entertainment licensure. To the extent that Financial Management has any discretion over the issuance of a business license, Financ ial Management abused that discretion with their own bad faith conduct; as well as in light of the time and resources poured into JP23 Long Beach along with the dozens of people they employ.

A. JP23 Background and Development
JP23 is a restaurant and lounge owned and operated by Jacob Poozhikala . It is also the culmination of Mr. Poozhikala’s (a Canadian immigrant of South Asian descent) American dream.

The concept is to provide upscale contemporary American dining as well as nighttime entertainment. JP23’s first location in Fullerton was established nearly 10 years ago in 2013. (J.

Poozhikala, Video Timestamp 2022-06-07 13:33:58 – 13:36:20). JP23 quickly became a fixture in downtown Fullerton and a cornerstone of the Fullerton business community. (J. Poozhikala, Video Timestamp 2022-06-07 13:36:40 – 13:37:55).

After several years of success in downtown Fullerton, Mr. Poozhikala wanted to take the JP23 concept to a second location and develop it on a grander scale. (J. Poozhikala, Video Timestamp 2022-06-07 13:35:31 – 13:36:17). He decided on opening a location in Long Beach, a city where he had fond childhood memories. He was presented with an opportunity to lease a space in the vibrant Downtown Dining and Entertainment District in Long Beach. Though t he space had long been neglected and needed extensive renovation for his vision to come to fruition, Mr.

Poozhikala was undeterred. (J. Poozhikala, Video Timestamp 2022-06- 07 13:43:19 – 13:43: 45) (JP23 Exhibits 1, 21, 22, 76). He signed a 25-year lease in September 2017, agreeing to an initial monthly rent of $20,000 with periodic increases chained to an inflation index. (J. Poozhikala, Video Timestamp 2022-06-07 13:43:48 – 13:44:41).

Mr. Poozhikala engaged the City in predevelopment meetings, showing City officials his initial plans and renderings for the space. (JP23 Exhibits 6, 17, 18, 19, 20) After months of having his design professionals revise the plans to meet the City’s needs without compromising Mr.

Poozhikala’s vision, the City’s planning department finally approved a set of plans for the first time in September 2019. (J. Poozhikala, Video Timestamp 2022-06-07 14:00:41 – 14:03:47). The buildout commenced soon thereafter. (J. Poozhikala, Video Timestamp 2022-06-07 14:04:04 – 14:04:26).

Unfortunately, the COVID -19 pandemic forced construction to stop for approximately a year. (J. Poozhikala, Video Timestamp 2022-06-07 14:05:40 – 14:06:28). JP23 Long Beach’s opening had to be put on hold for even longer. Meanwhile, the government shut down indoor dining for months, devastating the restaurant industry, including JP23. (J. Poozhikala, Video Timestamp 2022-06-07 14:07:04 – 14:09:07).

Once city government was able to return to a semblance of normal workflow, JP23 was finally able to get revised plans approved by Long Beach Planning, and JP23 recommenced the buildout in early 2021. (J. Poozhikala, Video Timestamp 2022-06- 07 14:09:28 – 14:10:46). Mr.

Poozhikala, having spent years developing the space and just having survived the COVID -19 pandemic, wanted to make JP23 Long Beach’s opening an event. JP23 targeted opening for Labor Day weekend with a hip hop concert . (J. Poozhikala, Video Timestamp 2022-06-07 14:11:25– 14:12:06; City Exhibit 11.) As the targeted weekend in September 2021 approached, Mr. Poozhikala worked tirelessly to get the space ready for a grand opening. Unfortunately, however, Mr.

Poozhikala soon realized that JP23 would not be ready in time to host the concert and thus canceled it. (City Exhibit 11; T. Mortensen, Video Timestamp 2022-05-25 09:47:59 – 09:48:05).

B. The Allegations Surrounding JP23 Fullerton Impeded the City’s Ability to Process the Applications Fairly
Meanwhile, on August 2, 2021, a young lady, Samantha Velasquez , reported to police that she was “roofied” inside JP23 Fullerton and later sexually assaulted in a nearby parking garage. (J.

Poozhikala, Video Timestamp 2022-06-07 14:23:20 – 14:24:36). According to Derek Ernest, he heard of the allegations surrounding JP23 Fullerton on the same day , even before the allegations were reported by local media, meaning someone with inside knowledge in Fullerton wanted to make sure the powers that be in Long Beach, where JP23 would soon be opening, knew about the allegations. (D. Ernest, Video Timestamp 2022-05-31 14:01:20 – 14:03:00).

Ms. Velasquez’ allegations devolved and snowballed into untrue and unfounded rumors , including that Ms. Velasquez was raped inside the bar, that JP23’s staff members and owners were themselves rapists, and that JP23 condoned rape culture. (J. Poozhikala, Video Timestamp 2022- 06-07 14:24:51 – 14:26:30). The rumors culminated into social media campaigns and demonstrations outside of both JP23 Fullerton and JP23 Long Beach, and even threats against the owner. (J. Poozhikala, Video Timestamp 2022-06-07 14:27:03 – 14:31:07) ; JP23 Exhibit 77).

Litigation ensued, and discovery revealed that Ms. Velasquez n ever had any unknown drugs in her system after the alleged incident. (JP23 Exhibits 64, 65). However, JP23 and Mr. Poozhikala had already been adjudged guilty by the court of public opinion, and the City was all too happy to oblige.

The campaign against JP23 was organized, at least in part, by the Democratic Socialists of America, who wanted to ensure that the powers that be never allow JP23 open in Long Beach (JP23 Exhibits 4, 79, 80) (N. Patel, Video Timestamp 09:30:18 – 09:35:45). The evidence shows that they reached out to Cindy Allen as early as September 3, 2021:

There is no doubt that the allegations inhibited the City’s ability to treat JP23’s business license application fairly. Multiple city officials testified that the first time they heard of JP23 was with regard to a complaint about JP23 opening in the midst of the allegations and protests. The evidence shows that City Councilwoman Cindy Allen’s office was fully aware of the allegations.

Councilwoman Allen, an elected official, could not be seen supporting a business that supposedly condoned rape culture. The evidence shows that Financial Management was acutely aware of the Fullerton allegations and distributed it to all other departments as early as September 1, 2022. (JP23 Exhibit 66-002) As early as September 14, before JP23 even applied for a business license, the City Manager’s office, who would be reporting to Cindy Allen’s office, became involved in what was expected to be a “political and messy” process (JP23 Exhibit 31). ///
///
///
///
///
///

Indeed, Financial Management kept an open line of communication with the City Manager’s office (and specifically Linda Tatum) for their feedback and recommendations. Ms.

Tatum, in turn, kept Cindy Allen’s office “in the loop.” (JP23 Exhibits 52, 53, 55, 60; L. Tatum, Video Timestamp 2022-06-07 09:26:40 – 09:31:52; 09:38:23 – 09:39:38, 09:41:52 – 09:43:04, 09:49:57 – 09:52:03).

The City will presumably claim that the nature of the open line of communication between Financial Management, the City Manager’s office, and Councilwoman Allen’s office was due to constituent complaints regarding noise from JP23. But Councilwoman Allen was “looped in” at least as early as September 15, well before JP23 even opened its doors to the public. The City Manager’s office is simply not involved in business license decision, except in the case in of JP23.

The bottom line is, the City never intended to issue a business license to JP23 because they knew that they would be attracting a political firestorm if they did. The City wants the hearing officer to believe that they put together a task force to build a case against JP23 because of a canceled event in early September. This is pure pretext. The allegations in Fullerton are the reason why Cindy Allen got involved in a business license application. The allegations in Fullerton are the reason why the City Manager’s office got involved in a business license application. The allegations in Fullerton are the reason why the Director of Financial Management and the Bureau Manager got involved.

The allegations in Fullerton are the reason why the Bureau Manager involved her husband in charge of vice in downtown Long Beach. The allegations in Fullerton are the reason why the Bureau Manager coordinated a task force to observe and document alleged vi olations on the part of the applicant. The allegations in Fullerton are the reason why the Bureau Manager stopped issuance of the business license after all departments approved the application and instead issued a conditional business license. The allegations in Fullerton are the reason why the City Manager’s office and Councilwoman Allen’s office were kept “in the loop.” And ultimately, the allegations in Fullerton are the reason why Financial Management denied the application.

C. Long Beach Departments of Planning, Health, Building, and Fire Approve JP23’s Business License Application but Financial Management Fails to Issue the License
JP23 submitted and completed its application for a business license by September 16, 2021. (G. Rodriguez, Video Timestamp 2022-06-01 10:30:18 – 10:30:59; 11:23:43 – 11:24:51). From there, the normal workflow (as well as the Long Beach Municipal Code) dictates that the application is submitted to departments of planning, building, fire and health. (G. Rodriguez, Video Timestamp 2022-06-01 11:21:28 – 11:22:12). Once the departments complete their review and approve the license, Financial Management then is to issue the license. Here, however, Financial Management put a “hold” on JP23’s application, and kept it there, despite the fact that JP23 was not open to the public or conducting any entertainment activi ty as of September 16. (G. Rodriguez, Video Timestamp 2022-06-01 11:25:58 – 11:28:07.)
In processing and issuing business licenses, Financial Management is sitting in the shoes of a ministerial, as opposed to regulatory, agency. Indeed, this is stated explicitly in the Long Beach Municipal Code:

This Chapter is enacted solely for the purpose of raising revenue for general municipal purposes and for the usual current expenses of the City. It is not intended to be regulatory.
(LMBC 3.80.110) (Emphasis Added.)
Financial Management’s purpose is to receive the application, send the application out to the relevant city departments for review, collect the business license tax, and ( assuming the city departments approve the license), issue the license. What Financial Management is not allowed to do is step into the shoes of a regulatory body. What they are not allowed to do is organize a task force to observe an applicant and document violations in order to build a case against them . What they are not allowed to do is coordinate and report to the City Manager’s office and City Councilmembers, who are beholden to political interests and political pressure . What they are not allowed to do is target an applicant and decide not to issue a license before the applicant ever has a chance.

Yet that is precisely what happened here. Days after JP23 submitted its application, the City was on the case and coordinating to build a case against JP23. ///
///
///
///
///
///

In fact, Business Services Bureau Manager Tara Mortensen enlisted the help of her husband, Sgt. Keith Mortensen, who was the administrative sergeant in charge of the downtown vice division of the Long Beach Police Department, as early as September 15. Sgt. Mortensen, was, in fact, in charge of maintaining the database used by the police department to determine which businesses had valid business licenses and entertainment permit. (C. Brammer, Video Timestamp 2022-05-31 15:55:16 – 15:57:32.) Effectively, via Ms. Mortensen’s marriage, Financial Management had its own enforcement division within the Long Beach Police Department (JP23 Exhibit 21-001):

By October 15, the City’s internal review system, INFOR, showed that the departments of planning, building, and fire had completed their reviews and approved JP23’s application. The department of health had approved the application on October 1, 2021, but the approval did not show in INFOR until October 19 (JP23 Exhibit 27-001, G. Rodriguez, Video Timestamp 2022-06- 01 11:34:58 – 11:35:24). Indeed, the “only thing holding up the license” was Ms. Mortensen’s “ok,” though Ms. Mortensen’s involvement in the business license process was atypical . (G. Rodriguez, Video Timestamp 2022-06-01 11:48:47 – 11:50:48). But instead of performing Financial Management’s ministerial duty, Ms. Mortensen said NO and instructed her staff member Gene Rodriguez not to issue the license. (JP23 Exhibit 75):
///
///
///

D. Financial Management Unlawfully Schemes to Delay Issuance of the Permanent Business License
After Ms. Mortensen unlawfully stopped issuance of the business license, she needed to figure out a way to delay the license in order to eventually deny the application. The same day she stopped issuance of the license, she informed her boss, Financial Management Director Kevin Riper,

that she would “put together a plan and recommendation to give [him] by the end of the day on Thursday.” (JP23 Exhibit 42-001):

The first idea Ms. Mortensen came up with was reaching out to the police department to see if they would recommend denying the application, even though the police department was not normally involved in reviewing business license applications. Indeed, after her staff informed her that the application had completed its workflow, the very next day, Ms. Mortensen reached out to the police department, requesting whether they “would support FM in its review for a potential denial of the business license”:
///
///
///
///

Apparently, this method was not feasible, because Ms. Mortensen set up meetings with the City Manager’s office in order to discuss the “approach” for delaying and denying the application (all the while keeping JP23 in the dark about the status of its license, JP23 being forced to retain counsel to get the City to respond):

The next idea Ms. Mortensen came up with was pursuing whether or not food servi ce was subordinate to alcohol service, and therefore attacking JP23 as a “nightclub” in violation of the zoning ordinance (JP23 Exhibit 39):

By October 27, Ms. Mortensen decided on a “conditional business license,” approved the City Manager’s office by October 29, to be issued the following week (and indeed, the conditional business license was issued on November 3) (JP23 Exhibits 53, 48):
///
///
///
///

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The evidence shows that Ms. Mortensen believed that the conditional business license was a proper means to delay issuance of the business license so she could continue to build a case against JP23. Soon after Financial Management issued the conditional bus iness license, Ms. Mortensen reached out to her contacts in other departments, advising, “There isn’t an automated workflow for this License like you are used to seeing, this one relies on us communicating together as a team outside of the system.” As multiple City witnesses testified, multi-departmental coordination on this level was highly unusual for simply processing a business license. But Ms. Mortensen spearheaded the effort for JP23.

Ms. Mortensen asked that each department’s respective staffs document and report “compliance issues” to her staff in order to build a case and justify denying JP23’s application at the end of the conditional license period (and indeed, Financial Management denied the license on

March 14, 2022, resulting in this appeal). (JP23 Exhibit 54).

But the Long Beach Municipal Code does not permit Financial Management to act as a regulatory agency in processing and issuing business licenses. The Long Beach Municipal explicitly states that the purpose of the business license is to collect the business license tax: “This Chapter is enacted solely for the purpose of raising revenue for general municipal purposes and for the usual current expenses of the City. It is not intended to be regulatory .” (LBMC 3.80.110) (Emphasis Added). Accordingly, Financial Management had the ministerial duty to issue the

licenses once the departments of planning, building, fire, and health completed their review and approved the application. Planning, building, fire, and health determined that JP23’s business “will comply” with applicable codes and regulations. Once those departments determined that JP23’s business “will comply” with applicable codes and regulations, Financial Management was to issue the license. But that is not what happened here.

Presumably, the City will argue that Financial Management was permitted to issue a conditional business license under LBMC 3.80.421.1B. They will argue that Financial Management is itself an “appropriate department” which is to conduct its own investigation and determine “whether the business proposed to be conducted or the premises in which it is proposed to locate such business will comply with applicable fire, building safety, zoning, health and other laws and regulations.” And thus, the “investigation period” was still open at the time the City issued the conditional business license on November 3, irrespective of the fact that the departments of planning, building, fire, and health had conducted their investigation and approved the application at least as early as October 19.

The City’s argument is fatally flawed. The premise that the Financ ial Management may conduct their own investigation is in direct conflict with the Long Beach Municipal’s mandate that the business license application process is not regulatory. The Department of Financial Management is the finance arm of the City. They are bean counters. Their role in the business license application process is to receive the application, send it the relevant departments for review, collect the business license tax, and once the departments approve, perform the ministerial function of issuing the license. Moreover, the language of the Code is forward-looking – i.e., the relevant departments determined that JP23 “will comply” with the applicable laws and regulations. The language of the Code is not backward-looking – i.e., Financial Management may not deny the license based on past violations that can be corrected and cured (such as mere permitting violations). Such an interpretation of the Code effectively puts Financial Management into a regulatory role, which the Code explicitly prohibits.

The conditional business license procedure under LBMC 3.80.421.1B permits Financial Management to issue a conditional license “during the investigation period”; i.e., during the time all other departments are performing their respective reviews. The conditional business license provision exists so that applicants can legally operate while the relevant City departments review their applications. The conditional business license provision does not exist to allow Financial Management to delay issuance of the permanent business license while the City builds up a case against the application. Yet, that is precisely what happened here.

There is no dispute that planning, building, fire, and health completed their review and approved JP23’s application. There is no dispute that JP23 paid its business license tax. There is no dispute that, in contravention of Financial Management’s own customary procedures and practices, Ms. Mortensen stopped issuance of JP23’s application. There is no dispute that Financial Management issued a conditional business license after JP23 had already received approvals from all necessary departments, under the pretext that Financial Management could conduct its own investigation. There is not even a dispute that Financial Management tr eated JP23’s application differently than every other application. Financial Management simply unlawfully failed to perform its ministerial duty, and for improper reasons. The business license must be issued.

E. The City’s Pattern of Bad Faith Dealings with JP23
In line with the City’s bad faith failure to issue the permanent business license in October 2021, the City continually engaged in bad faith conduct with JP23, simply because they wanted to make it as difficult as possible for JP23 to do business in Long Beach.

1. Financial Management Misled JP23 Regarding Eligibility for a Temporary Entertainment Permit
In addition to improperly stopping and delaying issuance of the permanent business license, Financial Management also misled JP23 into believing they were not eligible for a temporary entertainment permit. According to Financial Management, JP23 is ineligible for a temporary entertainment permit because no business h ad had an entertainment permit at the premises in the prior 12 months. This is requirement is nowhere to be found in the Long Beach Municipal Code. In fact, Lori Voss, the person in charge of processing JP23’ s entertainment permit, admitted that this provision is not found in the Code . (L.Voss, Video Timestamp 2022-06-06, 12:29:20 – 12:30:40, 12:58:15 – 13:00:16). The Municipal Code provision on point reads as follows:

The Director of Financial Management shall issue a temporary entertainment permit for no more than ninety (90) days to a new business or an existing business with new ownership where the previous owner had a valid entertainment permit, not involving adult entertainment as defined in Title 21 of the Long Beach Municipal Code, if he or she finds:

1. The applicant is an individual or lawfully created business entity having a valid ownership interest in the business;

2. No suspensions, denials or revocations of an
entertainment permit have occurred at the location in the past twelve (12) months before the application date;

3. The applicant has also applied for a regular entertainment permit for the same location;

4. The owner of the property on which the enterta inment is to be conducted has consented in writing to the application for the temporary permit.

(LBMC 5.72.125A) (Emphasis Added).

Ms. Voss claimed that the requirement came from an internal Financial Management policy – yet no such policy was produced. In any event, such a policy, if it exists, would not be permitted under the Municipal Code because it mandates Financial Management (i.e., “shall issue”) issue the temporary entertainment permit so long as the applicant is eligible. JP23 is a new business a nd would have met the four enumerated requirements under the code. JP23 would have been issued the temporary entertainment permit had Financial Management not misinformed Mr.

Poozhikala.

The more likely explanation for the misrepresentation is that Financial Management attempted to stretch the meaning of the Municipal Code, because they did not want JP23 to have entertainment. They wanted to build a case against JP23 and issuing a temporary entertainment permit would be counterproductive to that goal.

The fact is, JP23 is and always has been eligible for a temporary entertainment permit, and the fact that Financial Management misled JP23 to believe otherwise is another facet in the bad faith way Financial Management processed JP23’s applications.

2. JP23 Was Forced to Retain Counsel Simply to Get the City to Respond After multiple follow-ups with Financial Management and no response, JP23 was forced to retain counsel in order to get Financial Management to respond. (N. Patel, Video Timestamp 2022- 06-08 09:10:34 – 09:10:58; JP23 Exhibit 15).

No business should be forced to retain counsel just to get some transparency from the City.

JP23 received no clarity on the status of the business license until a meeting on November 3, 2021, at which point JP23 was issued the unlawful conditional business license. In fact, we now know that the reason the City’s communication had stalled was because Ms. Mortensen was buying time to come up with a plan to deny the license, even though the application had already been approved by all relevant departments (JP23 Exhibit 45):
///
///
///
///
///

3. The Unlawfully -Issued Conditional Business License Imposed Conditions That Could Not Reasonably Be Timely Met Due to the City’s Own Conduct
As previously discussed, the City unlawfully issued a conditional business license on November 3, 2021. One of the conditions of the conditional business license was “Resolution of the misdemeanor citations that have been issued to date.” Yet as late as January 27, 2022, the City Prosecutor had not even bothe red to file the misdemeanor charges ( N. Patel, Video Timestamp 2022-06-08 09:21:31 – 09:22:40; JP23 Exhibit 23):
///
///

In other words, the City set a condition which they then made it nearly impossible for JP23 to meet. Consistent with their dealings with JP23, they set JP23 up to fail.

4. Tara Mortensen Tried to Leverage Other Branches of Government to Press JP23, Including Alcoholic Beverage Control and the City Prosecutor
Ms. Mortensen, apparently wanted to leverage her Alcoholic Beverage Control connections in order to press JP23, as early as September 8. (Exhibit 38- 008). Ms. Mortensen also inappropriately tried to influence City Prosecutor to prosecute JP23 more strictly, beyond a “fix it ticket.” (JP23 Exhibit 49; L. Voss , Video Timestamp 2022-06-06 12:51:30 – 12:52:17). This conduct is in line with Ms. Mortensen’s pattern and practice to make doing business in Long Beach as difficult as possible for JP23.

5. The Director of Financial Management Made Racially Insensitive Remarks
On January 25, 2022, Mr. Poozhikala and his counsel, Niral Patel, attended a meeting set by Financial Management. Also in attendance were Kevin Riper, the Director of Financial Management and Ms. Mortensen. During the meeting, Mr. Riper was visibly frustrated and stated that “in this country,” people follow rules – the implication being, of course, that Mr. Poozhikala and Mr. Patel, who are both of South Asian descent, are not from “this country.” (N. Patel, Video Timestamp 2022- 06-08 09:29:01 – 09:29:28.) Mr. Riper’s completely inappropriate remark is a window into the mindset of Financial Management in their dealings with JP23 . If the intent behind the remark was to make JP23 feel unwelcome, then Mr. Riper certainly succeeded in that endeavor.

F. The Hearing Officer Should Not Consider Hearsay Evidence of Any Violations; Nor Should the Hearing Officer Consider Evidence of Alleged Post -Notice Violations
The City denied JP23’s application due to the alleged failure to “comply with applicable laws and regulations” on March 14, 2022; i.e., permitting violations (City Exhibit 52). As set forth above, Financial Management was obliged to perform its ministerial duty to issue the permanent license in October 2021 in any event. The City has other means to hold JP23 account able for any alleged violations, other than eliminating the dozens of jobs JP23 has brought to the city. Indeed, the City is doing so via misdemeanor charges arising out of the same alleged permitting violations (City Exhibit 43).

However, to the extent that the hearing officer wishes to consider any evidence of the alleged violations, JP23 requests that the hearing officer not consider and moves to strike any hearsay evidence of the alleged violations in accordance with the Long Beach Municipal Code 2.93.030 (stating, in relevant part, “Hearsay evidence may be used for the purpose of supplementing or explaining other evidence but shall not be sufficient in itself to support a finding unless it would be admissible over objection in civil actions.”) The City has not met their burden to the extent the only evidence of a specific violation is an out -of-hearing statement or unauthenticated and unverified documents.

Additionally, the City attempted to present evidence of alleged post-notice violations related to noise complaints and the building of a stage in the premises’ lounge area. JP23 respectfully requests that the hearing officer not consider and moves to strike such evidence as irrelevant, in accordance with Long Beach Municipal Code 2.93.030 (stating “ir relevant and unduly repetitious evidence shall be excluded.”) The issues on appeal are defined by the March 14, 2022 notice, which also served as the report presented to the City Council pursuant to Long Beach Municipal Code

3.80.421.6 (stating, “The Direc tor shall thereupon make a written report to the City Council reflecting such determination denying the business license.”). The City made no attempt to amend or augment the March 14, 2022 notice to include such alleged violations as grounds to deny the application. It is simply unjust to JP23 to permit the City to present evidence of alleged violations for which JP23 had no notice would be issues on appeal. Accordingly, any evidence of such alleged violations should be excluded.

IV. CONCLUSION
The City, in its zeal to keep JP23 out of Long Beach, blatantly exceeded its authority under its own Municipal Code . The City heard about the rumors in Fullerton and knew it would be politically unpopular to support JP23. The City decided right then and there that they were going to go out of their way to kill a flourishing business. Spearheaded by Tara Mortensen, the City put together a task force to build a case against JP23 in order to eventually deny its business license.

JP23 respectfully requests the hearing office r not permit Financial Management to exceed its own authority. JP23 respectfully requests the hearing officer consider Financial Management’s bad faith dealings with JP23. JP23 respectfully requests that the hearing officer consider the years of planning and effort poured into this business. JP23 respectfully requests that the hearing officer consider the tumult of the COVID-19 pandemic, and JP23’s perseverance through uncertainty. JP23 requests that the hearing officer consider the dozens of employees who will be out of work should Financial Management’s decision stand. Ultimately, JP23 requests the hear ing officer recommend entering an order compellin JP Financial Management to (1) issue a permanent business license, retroactive to October 15, 2021; and (2) accept JP23’s temporary entertainment permit application, as Financial Management should have done back in October 2021.

DATED: June 22, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

MESSNER REEVES LLP

/S/ Ethan Reimers
__________________________
Ethan Reimers
Attorneys for Petitioner
JP23 Hospitality Company, Inc.

PROOF OF SERVICE
JP23 v. CITY OF LONG BEACH

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE
At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. My business address is 650 Town Center Drive, Suite 700, Costa Mesa, CA 92626.

On June 22, 2022, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as JP23 HOSPITALITY COMPANY, INC. AND JACOB POOZHIKALA’S CLOSING BRIEF on the interested parties in this action as follows:

SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: I caused a copy of the document(s) to be sent from e-mail address [email protected] to the persons at the e-mail addresses listed in the Service List. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.

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

Executed on June 22, 2022, at Costa Mesa, California.
/S/ Claudia Scherz
Claudia Scherz

SERVICE LIST
JP23 APPEAL OF BUSINESS LICENSE APPLICATION DENIAL

Art Sanchez

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Departmental Counsel Division
411 W. Ocean Blvd., 9
th Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802
EMAIL: [email protected]

Marla Camerino

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
Business Services Bureau
411 W. Ocean Blvd., 6
th Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802
EMAIL: [email protected]

Hearing Officer Jonathan C. Navarro
C/O Alma Valenzuela

OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
411 W. Ocean Blvd., 11
th Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802
EMAIL: [email protected]

Jennifer Harris
EMAIL: [email protected]

Niral Patel

NIRAL PATEL INJURY LAW
EMAIL: [email protected]

ATTACHMENT G