The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01 APPEAL PRIV PAT'L PERMIT 10-03-94AGENDA NO. 1 10-3-94 Inter-Corn ' OATE: OCTOBER 3, 1994 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER CITY ATTORNEY AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPEAL OF LICENSE AND PERMIT BOARD DECISION DENYING NIGHT AND DAY A PRIVATE PATROL OPERATOR PERMIT RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the August 3, 1994, City of Tustin License and Permit Board decision denying a private patrol operator permit for Night and Day Security Patrol. FISCAL IMPACT No fiscal impact is anticipated from Council action on this item, ' BACKGROUND The City of Tustin has received an appeal of a License and Permit Board decision denying a private patrol operator permit to Night and Day Security Patrol, a business owned and operated by Mr. Raymond Flores. The vote was 2-1, with the Chamber of Commerce representative voting "no." This report is intended to provide the City Council with information related to the circumstances behind that License and Permit Board decision. The City of Tustin License and Permit Board is responsible for investigating and receiving licenses and permits and is empowered to make decisions either granting, denying, suspending or revoking permits related to City licensing of certain businesses. The License and Permit Board consists of three members including the City Manager, the Chief of Police, the President of the Chamber of Commerce or their designated alternates. In this case, designated alternates sat on the Board. Prior to permit issuance for a security patrol business with the City of Tustin, the License and Permit Board must hold a hearing. Any decision of the License and Permit Board can be appealed to the City Council. The matter in question is related to an earlier License and Permit Board decision regarding illegal business practices involving the operation of a tow truck service (Candice Towing) in the City of Tustin. A request for suspension/revocation was originally brought against Candice Towing to the License and City Council Report Appeal of License and Permit Board Night and Day Security Patrol October 3, 1994 Page 2 Permit Board by the Tustin Police Department. The License and Permit Board's decision to suspend Candice Towing's private property impound practice in the City was later appealed to the City Council in May 1994 but withdrawn by the applicant. CANDICE TOW/RAY FLORES PARKING CONTROL AFFILIATION The Licensing and Permit Board considered the relationship between Candice Tow and Ray Flores that was revealed in the City's Candice Tow investigation. The investigation and accumulation of significant evidence against Candice Towing was conducted by both the Tustin Police Department and the City Attorney's office (Exhibit A). To summarize, Candice Tow was found to be operating an illegal private property impound practioe whereby employees and other accomplices were found to be cruising Tustin neighborhoods, locating alleged improperly parked vehicles on private property and towing those vehicles without the private property owner's specific authorization per tow in direct violation of state and local laws. A key element of the evidence compiled against Candice Towing involved the use of a company called "Ray Flores Parking Control." To circumvent state law prohibiting "cruising" and towing without the property owner's permission, Candice Tow employed the services of Ray Flores Parking Control. Evidence was presented indicating that Ray Flores and his employees were either riding with Candice Towing employees or had prepared pre- signed authorization cards for Candice Tow employee's use. These pre-signed cards were used to circumvent state law requiring affected private property owner authorization to tow. The card implied that property owner authorization had been contractually assigned to Ray Flores Parking Control. However, Candice Tow drivers were caught by Tustin Police officers "utilizing these pre-signed cards independently and without the personal, on-site authorization intended by state law to prevent the illegal practice of cruising. In addition, Candice Tow presented evidence which indicated that a contractual relationship did, in fact, exist between Ray Flores Parking Control and several of the affected private property owners. However, the Deputy City Attorney's investigation of these "contracts" determined that most property managers/owners were not aware that they signed a contract with Ray Flores Parking Control to act as their agent, nor knew who Ray Flores was. City Council Report Appeal of License and Permit Board Night and Day Security Patrol October 3, 1994 Page 3 Lastly, testimony presented at the Candice Towing License and Permit Board hearing clearly established that Ray Flores Parking Control was an agent of Candice Towing with payment for their services provided by Candice and not by the contracted property owners. State law prohibits the direct delegation of an authorization to remove a vehicle to either a towing company or its affiliates. NIGHT AND DAY SECURITY PATROL Mr. Raymond (Ray) Flores' application to establish a new business (Night and Day Security Patrol) within the City of Tustin was considered in light of the evidence established in the Candice Tow matter. The Tustin City Code regulates security patrol businesses and requires License and Permit Board a~proval prior to the issuance of a new business license. (Tustin City Code Sections 3520-3527). Mr. Flores expressed to the License and Permit Board his desire to "start over"~with a security patrol business which would establish a contractual relationship with private property owners to provide security and parking control services. When asked about his intended relationship with Candice Tow, Ray Flores indicated that future required towing services would be requested of multiple tow companies by utilizing a rotation. T~e License and Permit Board held four hearings on the matter held between May 3 and August 2, 1994. The Board reviewed and considered Mr. Flores' past involvement with Candice Tow and considered Police Department testimony that Ray Flores or his employees had continued this illegal practice in Santa Ana. At one point, Mr. Flores denied being paid by Candice Towing for his services but when questioned by the Board, also admitted to not being paid by the affected private property owners. The Board questioned how Mr. Flores could have successfully operated a business without being paid by anyone. Mr. Flores' attorney challenged the Board's authority to deny the permit. He cited Business and professions Code Section 460. (See Exhibit B, page B-~). Upon ~review of that code section and other applicable law, the City Attorney's opinion was that under Business and Professions Code Section 7524(a) the city may deny a permit for a private security service on the basis of "bad moral character" (See Exhibit B, pages B-1 to B-3). The Board's decision to deny the security patrol permit rested largely on their perception that Mr. Flores' affiliation with Candice Tow exemplified "bad moral character." A denial letter was sent on August 3, 1994 Flores has appealed this decision claiming no merit. (See Exhibit D). (Exhibit C). Mr. it is unfair and has City Council Report Appeal of License anu .-ermit Board Night and Day Security Patrol October 3, 1994 Page 4 Nfqht a~d Day Securl=y Patrol License and Permit Board decisions. o~ra~f~- Paflure to co~ly will rms~ In i~dia~ rev~ation b~n~s in th~ city of Tuztin, Dupings pra==loe~ of Ray Flore~ Parkin~ control could and should Board found ~. do~ta~lon had been received by staff. It is recommended that ~he City Council uphold the Augu=t 2, 1994 operator ~ermit to Night and Day Security Patrol and denyin~ the apDeal ff~ed ~y the business owner. cJ.t¥ ~t~o rnG~ A~t~chm~nts: ~xhibit A E~hibit B Exhib!~ C EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT A ~Ay 2, 1994 Inter-Corn TO: FROM: SUBJECT: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MA/~AGER CO--UNITY DEVELOPME~£ DEPARTMENT APPEAL OF LICENSE AND PERMIT BOARD D~CISION REGARDING CANDICE TOWING RECOKMENDATION Staff recox~mends that the City Council uphold the March 7, 1994 City of Tustin License and Permit Board decision regarding Candice Towing Service and deny the appeal filed by the business owner. FISCAL IMPACT No fiscal impact is anticipated from Council action on this item. BACKGROUI~D The City of Tustin has received an appeal of a License and Permit Board decision related to the operation of a tow truck service. This report is intended to provide the City Council with background infol-mation related to the circumstances leading to the License and Permit Board decision. The City of Tustin License and PeI-mit Board acts as an appeals board on administrative decisions made concerning the granting, denial, suspension or revocation of permits related to City business licensing. The License and Per~it Board consists of three (3) members including the City Manager, the Chief of Police, the President of the Chamber of Commerce or their designated alternates. Prior to permit revocation or suspension, the License and Pernit Board must hold a hearing where evidence can be submitted, reviewed and considered. Any decision of the License and Permit Board can be appealed to the City Council. Candice Tow, Inc. currently operates a licensed tow truck business within the City of Tust~n. The business perfor~,s private property impounds (PPI's) through contracts with prJ.va~e property owners/managers and commercial impounds through contracts with large corporate commercial/industrial owners. Chapter 4, Part 3 of the Tustin City Code currently regulates tow truck operations within the City of Tustin. Tow trucks (as well as ambulances, taxicabs and ice cream vendors) are regulated by the City to protect the public's common interest by attempting to ensure their City Council Report Appeal of License and Per, it Board regarding Candice Towing May 2, 1994 Page 2 safety, reliability, honesty and integrity and the application of reasonable rates/charges. Licensing of tow truck operations fall generally under the purview of the Tustin Police Department. However, upon the reco~nendation of the Chief of Police, the City's License and Permit Board may revoke or suspend any license for any of the reasons identified within Section 3436a (Exhibit A). In September 1993, the Police Dep~rtment provided the Community Development Department with significant evidence indicating that Candice Towing, Inc., had violated numerous sections of the Tustin City Code. At the Community Development Department's request, the City Attorney reviewed said evidence and determined that grounds for revocation or suspension could exist and that a License and Permit Board Hearing should be set to review said evidence. The License and Permit Board met initially on October 29, 1993 and again on February 22, 1994 to review this matter. Candice Towing was represented by Attorney Steven Cuevas at both hearings. At the hearing of February 22, the City Attorney submitted a report detailing the evidence which the Board should consider (Exhibit B). Specifically, the City Attorney identified evidence which indicated that the business operator had caused the following violations: Substantial or recurring deviation from the schedule of rates (TCC Section 3436a(8)); 2 o Violation of any of the laws of the State of California or the City with respect to the operation of the business by any permit holder or repeated violations by operators or tenants of any vehicle covered by such license or per,nit (TCC Section 3436a(6)) . At the conclusion of the February 22, 1994 hearing, the License and Permit Board considered all evidence and testimony and voted to permit Candice Towing to continue operations as a permitted tow truck operator with certain conditions intended to rectify past violations and ensure that Candice Tow, Inc. would operate in compliance with the Code in ~be future (Exhibit C). On March 16, 1994, officially appealed (Exhibit D). Mr. Pat Tocher, owner cf Candice Towing, the decision cf thc License and Pel~it Board DISCUSSION The License and Permit Board decision relies upon the conclusion that Candice Towing has clearly violated the Tustin City Code and State law. Specifically, the City Attorney and the License and Permit Board made the following findings: city Council Report Appeal of License and Permit Board May 2, 1994 Page 3 regarding Candice Towing Candice Towing admitted to charging Tustin customers a $26.50 impound fee, informing them that the extra charge was a fee which Candice Towing was required to pay to the City of Tustin. No such charge exists in the City. The issue had been originally identified by the Police as a citizen complaint. According to Mr. Tccker, this overcharge occurred on eiqht occasions and was a result of a computer error, since Santa Ana has such a charge. However, when asked by the Board on October 29, 1993, to detail his efforts to refund the overcharge to affected Tustin customers, Mr. Tocher, Jr., indicated that Candice Tow had done nothing. Later, when asked the same question by the Board at their February 22, 1993 hearing, Mr. Tocher, Jr., responded that letters had been mailed to those affected but that there had been no response by anyone. Mr. Tocher also stated that all records associated with this attempt at reimbursement as well as all records identifying those persons impacted had been lost. There was also conflicting testimony from Tustin Police officer Paul Garaven who testified that he had repeatedly informed Mr. Tocher, Jr., of the need to immediately correct the violation, while Mr. Tocher, Jr., claimed that he had independently pursued the necessary corrective action. Morris Benoun, an employee of Candice Towing, was operating a tow truck and attempting to remove a vehicle in the city of Tustin without a required driver's permit issued by the City in violation of Section 3433 of the Tustin City Code. Mr. Tocher, Jr., indicated that the instance had occurred without Candice Tow's authorization or knowledge and that the location of the tow had confused the driver (the attempted tow occurred at a property where the Tustin/Santa Ana border is at the centerline of the street; Candice Tow is licensed to operate within the City of Santa Ana). Morris Benoun also attempted to remove a vehicle from private property without prior authorization from the property owner or an agent of the property owner being present at the time of the tow in violation of Vehicle Code Section 22658. Mr. Benoun had iD his possession an authorization card from an alleged agent of the property owner which had been pre-signed. This also violates Vehicle Code Section 22658. Vehicle Code Section 22658(1) (i) provides: City Council Report Appeal of License and May 2, 1994 Page 4 Permit Board regarding Candice Towing "A towing company shall not remove or commence the removal of a vehicle from private property without first obtaining a written authorization from the property ovner or lessee, or aR employee or agent thereof, who shall be present at the time of removal. General authorization to remcve or conscience removal of a vehicle at the towing company's discretion shall not be delegated to a towing company or its affiliates..." It is a crime for a towing company to tow cars without written authorization from the property owner or agent of the property owner, who must be present at the time of the tow. Candice Towing contends that Ray Flores Parking ContrOl is the "agent" of various private property owners in the City. However, Deputy City Attorney David De Berry learned in telephone calls to the property owners and managers that most were not aware that they had signed a contract with Ray Flores Parking Control to act as their agent, nor knew who Ray Flores was. Tustin Police Officer Ken Maddox testified that employees of Ray Flores Parking Control rode inside Candice Towing tow trucks cruising parking lots looking for potential tows. The signature on the pre-signed authorization card in the possession of Mr. Bemoun was that of Jerry Ruetz, whom Mr. Tocher, Jr., testified was an employee of Ray Flores Parking Control. In addition, Mr. Tocher, Jr., testified t_hat Ray Flores is compensated by Candice Towing, not the property owner. Also, it appears that Ray Flores Parking Control utilizes no .other tow .companies but is solely employed by Candice Tow, Inc. By letter dated February 12, 1993, Candice Towing was notified by the Tustin Police Department that it was illegal to utilize affiliates to authorize the towing of vehicles. By certified letter on February 26, 1993, Mr. Tocher was again tcld by the city's Police Department to cease utilization of illegal affiliates. However, according to Mr. Tocher, Jr.'s, own testimony this practice continued some weeks after the first Board hearing on October 29, 1993. The word "affiliate" is not defined in the Vehicle Code and as such, the law of statutory construction provides that it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning. Affiliate" is defined in part as follows: (1) to bring or receive into close connection as a men,her or branch; (2) to connect or associate oneself; (3) closely associated with another typically in a dependent or Board regarding Candice Towing city Council Report Appeal of License and Permit May 2, 1994 Page 5 subordinate position, Webster's New Colleqiate Dictionary (1977). By driving in the same vehicle and receiving compensation solely from Candice Towing, Ray Flores Parking Control is clearly an affiliate or agent of Candice Towing. The Board considered Mr. Tocher, Jr.'s, testimony that employee Benoun %~as terminated approximately 1% montks after being cited and was operating in a manner inconsistent wit Mr. Tocher, Jr.'s~ direction. The Board also considered Mr. Tocher, Jr.'s, controverted testimony concerning the overcharges and attempts to remedy the overcharges. However, Mr. Tocher, Jr., testified that none of the eight people he allegedly notified of the overcharges ever contacted him or received refunds. The Board found Mr. Tocher, Jr.'s, testimony to not be credible. Candice Towing employee Benoun's attempted tow was a violation of Vehicle Code Section 22658. Employee Benoun's operation without a permit violated Tustin City Code Section 3433. The overcharges were a violatign of Tustin City.Code Section 3436. The utilization of Ray Flores Parking Control constituted numerous violations of Vehicle Code Section 22658, which violations continued after Candice towing was told the practice was illegal, twice by letter and once, at the first Board hearing on October 29, 1993. Based upon the above, the License and Permit Board voted to allow Candice Tow, Inc. to continue operating with the conditions noted below. However, all actions/conditions have been stayed pending City Council determination on this appeal. Candice Towing shall not conduct any private property impounds (PPI's) for six months, effective March 7, 1994, through September 7, 1994. 2 o Candice Towing shall cease in its practice of compensating so-called "agents" of private property owners, such as Ray Flores Parking Control. 3. Ail records regarding private property impounds must be kept for three years. Reimburse all overcharges to individuals who were assessed the overcharge. If this is not possible, the amount of the overcharges shall be reimbursed in some other manner and proof thereof provided to the City by April 7, 1994. City Council Report Appeal of License and Permit May 2, 1994 Page 6 Board regarding Candice Towing 5o Candice Towing shall be on a one-year probation, meaning that a violation of any of the conditions set forth above, between March 7, i994 and March 7, 1995, shall constitute groumd$ for revocation. CONCLUSION Staff s~]pports the License' and Permit Board ccnclusions and decision in this matter and recommends that the City Council uphold the March 7, 1994 City of Tustin License and Permit Board decision regarding Candice Towing Sel-vice and deny the appeal filed by the business owner. If denied by Council, staff recommends that all deadlines established within the above referenced conditions be adjusted as follows: * Condition * Condition 1: effective May 3, 1994, through November' 3, 4: proof provided by June 3, 1994. 1994. * Condition 5: effective May 3, 1994 through May 3, 1995. Dana Ogdon Senior Planner DO: kd\CCREPORT\can, di ce. do Christine on Assistant cit~/Manager Attachments: Exhibit A - TCC 3436 Exhibit B - Memo from City Attorney to License and Permit Board E)~ibit C - License and Permit Board Detez-mination of March 7, 1994 Exhibit D - Candice Towing Appeal E~IT A: TCC 3436 3436 REVOCATION A/~D ;tPpEAL pROCEDURES a Grounds for Revocation Any permit ~ranted under the provisions of this part may b~ removed by the License & per.it Board either as a whole or as ~o ~ny person or vehicle described' therein, or as to the right to use any distinctive color, ~onogram, or insignia, after ten (10) days' written notice to the permit holder requiring him to appear at a certain ti~e and place to show cau_~e why the license or permit should not k~ revoked, for any of the followimg reasons: (1) ~hat the insurance coverage required by Sect/on 3432d hereof has been withdrawn or lapsed or is not in force for any reason. (2) Dissolution of business or bankruptcy- (3) For assigrnnent of an official Police Towing Service contract with the City of Tustin or any right or interest stated therein, without prior written consent of the Chief of Police. (4) For the nonpayment of any City business license or other fees of the City of Tustin. (5) Breach of any rules, regulations or conditionS set out in the Tustin City Code. (6) For the violation of any of the laws of t_he State of California or the City with resi~:t to the operation of the business by any permit holder or repeated violations by operators or attendants of a~y vehicle covered by such license or permit. (7) For failure to m~intain satisfactorY service to T_he public or for f~lure to keep a~y such vehicle in a safe condition and good repair or for failure to use the distinctive coloring, monogram, or insignia described in the applioation. (8) Subs~ntial Or recurring deviation from t--he schedule of rates. (9) For any cause which the License & Permit Board finds which ~akes it contrary to the ~ob!ic interest, convenience, necessitY or genera~ welfare for the license or permit to be continued. EXI-IIBIT B: MEMO FROM CITY ATTORNEY TO LICENSE AND PERMIT BOARD C DATE: January 13, 1994 Inter-Co TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LICENSE AlqD PER~IT CITY ATTOR/~EY CANDICE TOWING - PEP~MIT HEARING A hearing will be held to consider the revocation or suspension of a license granted by the City to Candice Towing to operate a towing business within the City limits. Pursuant to Tustin city Code Section 3436, the Board may revoke or suspend a license to operate a towing company on the following pertinent grounds: 1. Substantial or recurring deviation from the schedule of rates (TCC Section 3436(a) (8)). 2. For the violation of any of the laws of the State of California or the City with respect to the operation of the business by any permit holder or repeated violations by operators or tenants of any vehicle covered by such license or permit (TCC Section 3436(a) (6)). It is staff's position that based upon the following facts, grounds exist for the revocation or suspension of Candice Towing's license. 1. Substantial or Recurrinq Deviation From the Schedule of Rates. Officer Paul Garaven has informed staff that Candice Towing charged customers a $26.50 impound fee and informed customers that the extra charge was for a fee which Candice Towing was required to pay to the City of Tustin. Although the city of Santa .~a has such a charge, no such charge exists in the City. After notifying Candice To%=ing of the excessive fee, officer Garaven believes that this practice has now stopped. Staff is unaware of any efforts by Candice Toeing to reimburse customers charged the e~tra $26.50. 2. violation of city and State Laws. a. Section 3433 of the Tustin City Code makes it unlawful for any driver to operate a tow truck in the City without a valid permit issued by the City. Section 3433e of the.Tustin City Code Inter-Com to License and Page 2 January 13, 1994 Permit Board requires each licensed tow truck company to furnish to the Chief of Police, by the 10th day of each month, a list of its currently employed drivers. Attached as Exhibit "A" is a police report dated September 26, 1993, ~ritten by Officer }~addox of the Tus=in Police Department. Pursuant to that report, Officer Maddox witnessed a Candice Towing truck removin? a vehicle from Station Liquor~ located at 14802 Newport Avenue, ~stin. The driver of the tow truck was ~ Morris Benoun. Mr. Benoun stated that he did not possess a driver's permit reqn/ired by the T~stin City Code. In addition, according to Officer Garaven, not been supplying the City with a list of drivers. Candice Towing has currently employed b. California Vehicle Code Section 22658 provides in pertinent part: "A towing company shall not remove or commence the removal of a vehicle from private property without first obtaininq written authorization from the property owner or lessee, or an employee or aqent thereof, who shall be present at the time of the removal. General authorization to remove or commenc~ removal of a vehicle at the tow~nq company's discretion shall not be deleqated to th~ towinq company or its affiliates except in the case of a vehicle unlawfully parked within 15 feet of a fire hydrant or in a fire lane, or in a manner which interferes with any entrance to, or exit from, the private property. Any towing company which removes or commences removal of a vehicle from private property without first obtaining ~itten authorization from the property owe. er or lessee, or an employee or agent thereof, who was present at the time of removal or the conumencement of the removal, is liable to the owner of the vehicle for four times the amount of the towing and storage charges, in addition to any applicable criminal penalty." (Emphasis added.) Essentially Section 22658 makes it a crime for a towing Inter-Com to License and Permit Board Page 3 January 13, 1994 company to tow cars without written authorization from the property owner or agent of the property owner, who must be present at the time of the tow. Evidence gathered by staff indicates that Candice Towing violated vehicle code Section 22658 on the following (1) officer Garaven has informed staff that he had a conversation with a Virginia Ramsey, a fo~~-mer apartment manager of the Tustin Meadow apartment comp].ex- Ms. Ramsey informed officer G&raven that she was told by Pat Tocher, t_he andice Towing, that it was unnecessarY for owner of ~ign for each tow or to be present for each tow and Ramsey to that Candice Towing ,,would take care of everything"- If true, this representation by Mr. Tocher directly conflicts with state law. (2) officer Garaven also informed staff that Ms. R~msey informed him that she had spoken with a dispatcher at c~ndice Towing who informed her that there had been four impounds from 'her apartment complex-officer Garaven stated tl~at Ms. Ramsey told him that she had only called Candice Towing for private property impounds on two occasions- Of those two oalls, one of the impounds was completed and the other was not as the vehicle had left t-he complex. Ms. Ra~sey further informed officer Garawen that she did not sig~ for the completed private proper~y impound. (3) Attached as Exhibit "B" is a card signed by a J- Ruetz, allegedly authorizing candice Towing to remove vehicles. This card was presented to officer Maddox by d~iver Benoun of candice Towing on September 26, 1993. Under Section 22658, the agent must be present at the time of the re_moral of the vehicle. According to officer Maddox, J- Ruetz was not present at the time of the attempted removal by candice Towing, nor does J. Ruetz have a business license with the City of Tustin. (4) Attached as ~hib~t "C" is a tow report involving Candice Towing from ~ne Monterey Pines apartment complex located at 15545 Williams, T~stin- The report was taken by Tustin Police Clerk Theresa Skaff and was called in by Ray Flores P~rking Control. The tow was completed by Candice Towing. Attached as Exhibit "D" is a Declaration from Carolyn Tuber, General Manager of the Monterey Pines apartment complex. Pursuant to t_he Declaration, Ray Flores' Parking Control was not authorized to act as an agent for the impounding of vehicles from the Monterey Pines apartment Inter-Com to License and Permit Board Page 4 January 13, 1994 ~' '~ complex. 3. Other Factors. Section 22658 of ~he Vehicle Code has been the law of the State of California since January !, 1992. In addition, a letter was sent to Candice Tawing on February 12, 1993, and all other tow truck operators within the City, setting forth the requirements of Section 22658. A copy of that letter is attached as Ewhibit "E'~. A second letter was sent to Candice Towing on February 26, 1993, by Captain Foster. By this letter, Captain Foster informed Mr. Tocher that Candice Towing's operations were violating the State statute and that further use of the practice could result in a revocation of Candice Towing's license. A copy of that letter and a certified receipt from Candice Towing are attached as Exhibit "F". Despite these two letters, as evidenced by the exhibits and the information supplied by City staff, Candice Towing'appears to have continued to violate the provisions of Section 22658 of the Vehicle Code. R~OURKE CITY ATTORNEY t ~A~ID~./~ De ~E Y bEPUT~ CITY ~OR/~EY 03022. (#405) .~. // C -- E -- ofr~ce ~-s~m~ to peetal C<x~ .%ectk~ 1413(b), a c/~m of owne~.h/p of the ~>ove-i~ed P~0e~7 t~s be~l ~ ar~l is a~ ~°' ~ ~ ~ 413~3) yo~ h~ fi/teen (15-) day~ fm4-n the date o/sefv~e of th~ notre to a-~ml a c~ka ~o ~ ~ ~ ~-~$ [~ HCX_D FOR DISPOSIT, ION ~ RETAIN IN O~_~AJ:~'.tC~d4'l' r'-I ~YSIS ~ R~RN TO ~ER ~ PHOT~ g PA~S ONLY ~ ~RN TO FINDER ~ DISPOSAL 0 A~ON RECORDS E~ g NO:. -~CO OL MC PE TL OTHER INCIDEr~T ~' CALL TYPE: ~q ~D~3 PPI TO V~OMP~JqY: ~ ', TOW CO.~LP,A~Y AOOHESS: ]'1~ S£? 93 b[~ 23 'lOCi CO. PHOI~E # o,$.o coo~0 3 BE.AT: I (~ 3 4 IBU CV 2.D--tl:~SW Pt( Vl~ LL UT OTHER. WATCH C O/V~ A,~e*J',l.~ WATCH: 1 5 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 15 14 -- 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 24 26 27 28 DECLAR3%TION OF CAROLYN TUBER I, CAROLYN TUBER', declare: 1. I am the General Manager of the Monterey Pines Apartment Complex and have personal knowledge of the following facts. 2. At no time, and specifically not on September 14, 1R93, has the Monterey Pines Apartment Complex contracted with Ray Flores Property Parking Control to provide any security or towing services. Monterey Pines utilizes Cal-West Security as its agent for the impounding of vehicles. Candice Tow currently tows vehicles from Monterey Pines property. I declare, under penalty State of California, tha~ the Executed this l0~- day California. of perjury, under the laws of the foregoing is true and correct. of November, 1993, at Tustin, CARO~N TUBER Police Department Er February 12, 1993 City Of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustir~. CA. 92680 (714) 544-5424 FAX (714).730-5134 Candice Towing 2209 S. Lyon Santa Ana Ca 92701 Recently, we have been recieving numerous complaints in reference to Private Party Impounds. These complaints stem from citizens as well as our Records division. It seems many companies are still operating on what is co~only known as "cruise accounts." As I would hope all of you know, it is no longer legal to have a tow truck driver "cruising" complexes looking for unauthorized parked vehicles. This i~ clearly defined by crc 22658(L) and reads as follows. CVC 22658(L)(1) A towing company shall not remove a vehicle from private property without first obtaining written authorization from the property owner or lessee, or an employee or agent thereof, who shall be present at the time of removal. General authorization to remove vehicles at the towing company's discretion shall not be delegated to a towing company or its affiliates except in the case of a vehicle unlawfully parked with in 15 feet of a fire hydrant or in a fire lane, or in a manner which interferes with any entrance to, or exi% from, the private property. (2) If a towing company removes a vehicle without · %rritten authorization and that vehicle is unlawfully parked within 15 feet of a fire hydrant or in a fire lane, or in a manner which interferes to any entrance to, or exit from, the private property, the towing company shall take, prior to removal of that vehicle, a photograph of the vehicle which.clearly indicate that parking violation. The towing company shall keep one copy of the ~notograph taken pursuant to this paragraph, and shalI .present that photograph to the o~ner or agent of the owner, %Then that person claims the vehicle. (3) Any towing company, or any affiliate of a to~ing company, which removes a vehicle from private property without first obtaining ~ritten authorization from the property owner or lessee, or an employee or agent thereof, who is present at the time of removal, except as permitted by paragraph (1), is liable to the o~ner of the vehicle for four times the amount of the towing and storage charges, in addition to any applicable criminal penalty, for a violation of paragraph (1). Hopefully, this section will clear up any questions on the ' subject o.f cruise accounts.. If you should have any cfuestions, feel free to contact either officer Garaven or me at 573-3~16- Thanks in advance for your cooperation- Steve Foster, Captain Operations Division Commander SF:pg Police Depa .... February 26, 1993 · City Of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin. CA 92680 (714) 544-5424 FAX (714) 730-5134 Candice Towing 2209 S. Lyon Santa Ann, Ca 92701 ' Dear Mr. Tocher: It has been brought to my attention, that your company has been doing private-prope-~tY impounds that are not in accordance with current California Vehicle code regulations: Current law states, "General authorization toremowe vehicles at the towing company's discretion shall not be delegated to a towing company or its is crc affiliates. " am referring to is Ray Flores Parkiog Control. It is a violation of CVC 22658(1)(1) for an affiliate to ride with your' tow truck drivers for the purpose of "cruising" complexes to have the affiliate approve and sign for impounds. It is obvious that since you pay Ray Flores Parking Control that his is your affiliate. Further use of this practice will result in recommendation to the City of Tustin License an Permit Board that your business license be rescinded. '- If yOU should have any q~estions, feel free to contact Lt. Schoenkopf or officer Garaven at (714)573-3216. Thank You in advance for your cooperation. Steve Foster, Captain Operations Division Commander SF:pg SENDER: Form 381 1. O~ml~r 1991 ,~ u~.~.o. ,~-~'-~ DOMESTIC RETUI~N RECEIPT EXI-IIRIT C: LICENSE AND PERMIT BOARD DETERMINATION OF MARCH 7, 1994 Community Development Department March 7, 1994 City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 Mr. Patrick Tocher 2209 South Lyon Santa Ana, CA 92701 RE: CANDICE TOWING PERMIT HEARING Dear Mr. Tocher: Based upon the evidence submitted at the February 22, 1994, hearing before the City of Tustin's License and Permit Board, the Board has deter~ined to impose the following conditions on Candice Towing's continued operations as a permitted tow truck operator within the City: 1. Candice Towing shall not conduct~any private property impounds for six months, effective March 7, 1994, through September-7, 1994. 2. Candice Towing shall cease in its practice of compensating so-called "agents" of private property owners, such as Ray Flores Parking Control. Ail records regarding private property impounds must be kept for three years. Reimburse all overcharges to ~ndividuals who were assessed the overcharge. If this is not possible, the amount of the overcharges shall be reimbursed in some other manner and proof thereof provided tc the City by April 7, 1994. Candice Towing shall be on a one-year probation, meaning that a violation of any of the conditions set forth above, between March 7, 1994 and March 7, 1995, shall constitute grounds for revocation. .-.~ The above conditions are imposed based upon the following findings: Director (714) 573-3106 Planning & Zoning Info (714) 573-3140 Building (714) 573-3131 (714) 573-3132 Housing (7.14) 573-3117 Co~le Enforcemenl (714) 573-3134 Business License (714) 573-3144 Inspectio~ Requests (714) 573-3141 Graffiti Hot Line (714) 573-3111 FAX Machine (714) 573-3113 1. Candice Towing charged customers a $26.50 impound -- fee and informed customers that the extra charge Mr. Patrick Tocher Re: Can~ice Towing March 7, 1994 Page 2 Permit Hearing 4 o was a fee for which Candice Towing was required to pay to the City of Tustin. No such charge eximts in the City. According to Mr. Tocher, this occurred on eight occasions and was a result of a computer error. Morris Benoun, an employee of Candice Towing, was operating a tow truck and attempting to remove a vehicle in the City without a valid driver's permit issued by the City in violation of Section 3433 of the Tustin City Code. The Board took into consideration Mr. Tocher's representation that Mr. Benoun's employment with Candice Towing has been terminated in November of 1993. Morris Benoun attempted to remove a vehicle from private property without prior authorization from the property owner or an agent of the property owner being present at the time of the tow in violation of Vehicle Code Section 22658. Mr. Benoun had in his possession an authorization card from an alleged agent of the property owner which had been pre-signedl This also violates Vehicle Code Section 22658. The Board took into consideration Mr. Tocher's representation that Mr. Benoun has since been terminated and was operating in a manner inconsistent with the direction given him by Mr. Tocher. Vehicle Code Section 22658(1) (i) provides: "A towing company shall not remove or commence the removal of a vehicl~ from private property without first obtaining a written authorization from the property owner or lessee, or an employee or agent thereof, who shall be present at the time of removal~ General authorization to remove or commence removal of a vehicle at the towing company's discretion shall not be delegated to a towing company or its affiliates..." Candice Towing kas been u%ilizing Ray Flores Parking Control as %he "agent" of private property owners. However, in its contracts with the owners and managers of the private property, City staff ]earned t~at most were not aware that they bad signed a contract with Ray Flores Parking Control to act as their agent. In addition, Mr. Tocher testified ~hat Ray Flores Parking Control is compensated by Candice Towing and not the private property owners. As utilized by Candice Towing, Ray Flores Parking Control is merely an employee or affiliate of Candice Towing, a violation of Vehicle Code Section 22658(1) (i)~ By certified letter on Mr. Patrick Tocher Re: Candice Towing Permit Hearing March 7, 1994. Page 3 February 26, 1993, Mr. Tocher was told to cease this practice by the City's Police Department, but according to Mr. Tocher's own testimony, continued this practice up until the latter part of 1993. The License and Pe~it BoaYd reserves the right to impose additional conditions/penalties based on any new information which it receives concerning past violations or with respect to any future violations. Candice Towing would be provided the opportunity to respond in both cases. Pursuant to Section 1536 of the Tusitn City Code, you have the right to appeal the decision of the License and Permit Board by filing with the City Clerk, within 10 days of receipt of this notification of the Board's decision, a written statement stating that you have elected to appeal this decision to the City Council. Sincerely, Senior Planner D0: kd\candc~ow, l ~ r cc: william Huston Christine Shingleton David DeBerry Nena McNamara Bob Schoenkopf Tom Brennan George Cuevas, Esq. EXI4]BIT D: CANDICE TOWING APPEAL CANDICE TOWING SERVICE INC. ~. 2209 S. LYON SANTA ANA, CA. 92705 (714) 545-7702 (714) 966-0596 To: City Clerk Re: License and Permit Board Candice Towing Permit Hearing To It May Concern: Pursuant to section 1536 of the Tustin City Code. We at Candice Towing have Elected to appeal the boards decision, and would like to have a City Council Hearing. Pat Tocher CC: City Clerk Dana Ogdon City of Tustin Police "Bob Schoer&op? o£ G. Steven Cuevas Attorneys at Lava H. Stevcn Cuevo. s Hugh W. Gregg Dean I~ Li. opi 1002 North Ross Street, Santa Aha, California 92701. (714) 667~880 Fax (714) 667-0649 March 16, 1994 of Counsel John ,4. Marinedli, Jr. City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, Ca. 92680 Attention: Re: City Council Appeal of Candice Towing fi-om decision of License and Permit Board NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Candice Towing appeals from the decision dated March 7, 1994 of the Tustin's License and Permit Board to the full City Council A copy of the Decision is attached hereto as Fxtu'bit "A". Dated: March 16, 1994 I_AW OFFICES OF G. STE ~qEN CUEVAS BY: G. STEVEN CUEVAS Attorney for Candice Towing EXHIBIT "A" Community. Development Deparlment March 7, 1994 HAR 0 5 1994 City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin. CA 92680 Mr. Patrick Tocher 2209 South Lyon Santa Aha, CA 92703 RE: CANDICE TOWING PE~IT HEARING Dear Mr. Tocher: Based upon the evidence submitted at the February 22, 1994, hearing before the City of Tustin's License and Permit Board, the Board has determined to impose the following conditions on Candice Towing's continued operations as a permitted tow truck operator within the City: Candice Towing shall not conduct any private property impounds for six months, effective March 7, 1994, through September 7, 1994. Candice Towing shall cease in its practice of compensating s0~called "agents" of private property owners, such as Ray Flores Parking Control. (714} 573-3106 (714) 573-3140 (714) 573-3131 (714) 573-3132 Hou~ng (714) 573-3117 Code Enfo~emenl (714) 573-3134 Business License (714) 573-3144 Inspection Fleque$ls (714) .573-3141 Graffiti Hol Line (714) 573-3111 FAX Machine (714) 573-3113 Ail records regarding private property impounds must be kept for three years. Reimburse all overcharges to individuals who were assessed the overcharge. If this is not possible, the amount of the overcharges shall be reimbursed in some other manner and proof thereof provided to the City by April 7, 1994. Candice Towing shall be on a one-year probation, meaning that a violation of any of the conditions set forth above, between March 7, 1994 and March 7, 1995, shall constitute'' grounds for revocation. The above conditions are imposed based upon the following findings: 1. Candice Towing charged customers a $26.50 impound fee and informed customers that the extra charge Mr. Patrick Tocher Re: Candice Towing Permit Hearing March 7, 1994 Page 2 2o was a fee for which Candice Towing was required to pay to the City of Tustin. No such charge exists in the City. According to Mr. Tocher, this occurred on eight occasions and was a result of a computer error. Morris Benoun, an employee Of Candice Towing, w~s operating a tow truck and attempting to remove a vehicle in the City without a valid driver's permit issued by the City in violation of Section 3433 of the Tustin City Code. The Board took into consideration Mr. Tocher's representation that Mr. Benoun's employment with Candice Towing has been terminated in November of 1993. Morris Benoun attempted to remove a vehicle from 'private property Without prior authorization from the property owner or an agent of the property owner being present at the time of the tow in violation of Vehicle Code Section 22658. Mr. Benoun had in his possession an authorization card from an alleged agent of the property owner which had been pre-signed. This also violates Vehicle Code Section 22658. The Board took into consideration Mr. Tocher's representation that Mr. Bemoun has since been terminated and was operating in a manner inconsistent with the direction given him by Mr. Tocher. Vehicle Code Section 22658(1) (i) provides: "A towing company shall not remove or commence 'the removal of a vehicle from private property without first obtaining a written authorization from the property Owner or lessee, or an employee or agent thereof, who shall be present at the time of removal. General authorization to remove or commence removal of a vehicle at the towing company,s discretion shall not be delegated to a towing company or its affiliates...,, Candice Towing has been utilizing Ray Flores Parking Control as the "agent" of private property owners. However, in its contracts with the owners and managers of the private property, City staff learned that most were not aware that they had signed a contract with Ray Flores Parking Control to act as their agent. In addition, Mr. Tocher testified that Ray Flores Parking Control is compensated by Candice Towing and not the private property owners. As utilized by Candice Towing, Ray Flores Parking Control is merely an employee or affiliate of Candice Towing, a violation of Vehicle Code Section 22658(1) (i). By certified letter on Mr. Patrick Tocher Re: Candice Towing Permit Hearing March 7, 1994 Page3 February 26, 1993, Mr. Tocher was told to cease this practice by the City's Police Department, but according to Mr. Tocher,s own testimony, continued this practice up until the latter part of 1993. The License and Permit Board. reserves the right to impose additional conditions/penalties based on any new inf6rmation which it receives concerning past violations or with.respect to any future violations. Candice Towing would be provided the opportunity to respond in both cases. Pursuant to Section 1536 of the Tusitn City Code, you have the right to appeal the decision of the License and Permit BOard by filing with the City Clerk, within 10 days of receipt 'of this notification of the Board's decision, a written statement stating th~ you have elected to appeal this decision to the City Council. Sincerely, Senior Planner DO: kcl\car~ct ow. ~ t r cc: William Huston Christine Shingleton David DeBerry Nena McNamara Bob Schoenkopf Tom Brennan George Cuevas, Esq. EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT B In t e r-C o m DATE: August 2, 1994 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LICENSE ~ PERMIT BOARD CITY ATTORNEY APPLICATION BY R3~YMOArD FLORES At the License and Permit Board hearing on July 27, 1994, Mr. Flores' attorney stated that Business and Professions Code Section 460 prohibited the City from denying Mr. Flores' application for a private patrol permit. We have reviewed this matter and have concluded, based on our review of all the applicable law, that Mr. Flores' application may be denied on the grounds set forth in the letter dated June 29i 1994. Mr. Flores' participation in the illegal towing scheme is evidence of bad moral character. The City is authorized under Business and Professions Code Section 7524(a) to refuse a permit to a street patrol service where-such permit is sought by a person of bad moral character. Although Business and Professions Code Section 460 generally authorizes license holders to engage in their profession without local interference, Section 7524 specifically grants cities the power to refuse a license to perform private security service on the basis of "bad moral character." Since it is generally established that "particular expressions qualify those which are general" (Civil Code Section 3534), the particular code section 7524 supersedes the general Section 460 to the extent the issue deals with the regulation of private security patrols. In fact, a case decided under Section 460, Malo¥ v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles (1968), 266 Cal.App.2d 414, ruled that a particular statute very similar to Section 7524, which expressly permitted certain local regulatory licensing, was not repealed by Section 460, which the court termed a "general staEute." ' ~ ~l.y is ~pecifically authorized In summary, in this case ~h~ ~'~ by Business and Professions Code Section 7524 to reject the permit for street patrol service when the applicant is a person of bad moral character. This is notwithstanding the general code Section 460. Lois E. Jeff~e~ ~ ./j Enclosures cc: William A. Huston, City Manager "§ 7523 BUSI'N'ESS A.N'I) - '- wESSIONS CODE Acldi~ion of s § 7523 by § 6.6 of ~t~19.~. c. 916. f~ ~me o~ve ~d~ ~e p~o~ of ~ 13.6 of~at For o~e pm~on of S~l~, = 916, ~ ~ ~d~ t ~1~. 1~ ~!la~on ~e 1~ ~t ~ ~ (d) ~a~g ~ p~on dog o~ ~de of ~la~ons ~fe~nc~ ~doment of apph~go~, ~ 16 ~ ~e ~ ~1~. ' Law Review Comment.ttries Review of selected 19~2 C~lifornia legisl~on. L.J. 644 (1993). Librm-y References Detectives ~"3. C.J.S. Detectives § 3. § 7523.1. Repealed by St~ts.1983, c- 1196, § 1 § 752.3.5. Injunctions on restraining orders; regfitution; reimbursement; additional remedies (a) The super/or court for the county in which any person has engaged or/s about to engage in ~ny act which constitutes a violation of Section 7523 m~y, upon a petition h-led by the bureau with the approval of the director, issue an injunction or other appropriate order restral.lr, g such conduct. The proceedings under this section shall be governed by Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 523) of Title ? of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, except that no undertaking shall be required. (b) The superior court for the county in which any person ha~ engaged in any act which constitutes a violation of Section 7523 may, upon a petition filed by the bureau with the approval of the director, order such person to make restitution to persons injured as a result of the violatior~ (c) The court may order a person subject to an injunction or rase.mining order, provided for in subdMdon (a), or subject to an order requiring restitotion pursuant to subd/vision CoX to reimburse the buro~u for expenses incurred by the bureau in its investigation related to it~ petition. (d) The remedy provided for by this section shall be in addition to any other remedy provided for in this chapter. .{A3ded by Stats.1983, e. 1196, § 2.5.) Historical ~.nd Statutor7 Notes 1983 Legi$1atiov- Add/tion of a § 75~13 b)' § 611 of S:~L~.198~. c. 916, fai~ed to become oper~'e under *.he pm;~ions of § 13.6 · of Omt A~'~ § 75*.4. Local reg-ulatior, z For operative prmq~ion of $1At~.198~, C. 916, see note under § 7517. De2ir~tlon: Forme~ ~ 7521.6, ~u:Ided by Sta~s.19~, c. 91~, p. ~ 5. (a) The prm.isi~ns of this chapter shall not prevent the local author/ties of any ciD', counB', or ciE,' county, by ordinance and ~5thin the exercise of the po'lice power of such ciD', counD', or city and .county from importing local regulations upon any street patrol service or ~reet pawol special officer~ requiring registration ~th an agency to be designated by the e/ty, eounD', or city and counD', including in such regls~fion full/xdormation as to the identification and employment and subject to the fight of the ciD', c~unty, or city and county to allocate certain portions of the territory in such city, county, or ciD' and counD' aSthin which the ac~ifies of any such ~treet patrol service or pe~on shall be confined..~.ny city, · county, or city and count' reay refuse such registration to any person of bad merit character and may impose such reasonable additional requ/rements as ~_re necessary to meet loc~J needs and ~re not incons/zt~nt with the provisions of th/s chapter. (b) The provislor'~ of this chapter shall not prevent the locy. l author/ties of any ciD', county, or ciD' and emmtv, by ordinance and x~'ithin the exercise of the pol/ce power of such c/~-, counD', or ciDr and counD' BUSLN from im furnish, (c) Ti from copy of · charged (d) T: from ae~ordir (Added 1985 1 Forme (1974) 5 (Added u~der .~ C.J_~ § 75~ An: (a) ' (c) (¢) (e) appUc Jnstic inOud fi-om-imposing local reg-~L~tions u~'- , employees of a pr~'ato patrol ope~ .... ho are unable to fu:-n, ish evidence of cu:n-ent re~-i~m .rsuant to subdivision (f) of Section 7, (e) The ~U'°visions .of th. is' ehapt~~ 'sha]] not prevent the loeb] authoritias of any city, cou~t5', or city and count', by ordinance ~nd ~c~thin the exercise of the police power of such cky, county, or cit5' amd county from requiring privato patrol operators and their employees ' * ' to register their name and a flJe ' ' ' copy of their state identification' card ~fitb the citS', count3', or city and count..' ' · ' No f~e may be charged ~'ad no'application may be required by *the ~ts', County, or city and county for su-~h registration. 'Be p ions or e. nOt p event,.me aumo es city, counts:, aha ~:ounty, by ordinance and ~fithin the exercise of the police power of the city, county, or eits' and county from imposing reasonable additional requirementz necessa~' to regulate z. nd control protection dogs a~ca~'dlng to their local needs and not inconsistent with....the.provisions of this chapter. . .; . (Added by Sta~s.l~S3, e-~1196, § 2.8. Amended by Stats.1993, e_ 1264 (S.B.574), § 15.) ..' ' . : - :- ' ' ~ - ', , ':" :: - "Derivkfion:" Fsrmer § 75~' added b~ St~tS.1947, ~ 19~3 Leg~latior~ * Former § '/524 was repealed by St~t~19S3, ~ 1196, § 1. 1543, p. 3173, § 2, ~nended by St~1970, ~ 1467, pl 2890, § 4; St~t~lgT2,; 1282~ p. ~549. · Law Review Commentaries A legislative propos~ Pri~te police i~ California: (1974) $ C~lden Gate L.Rev. 115. · § 7525.' ApPlication for license; fee An application for a license under this chapter sha]l be'on.a form prescribed by the director and ~ccompan~ed by the application fee provided by th~ chapter. (Added by Stats.1983, c. 1196, § 2.5.) His rica · Former § ?525 w~s amended by Stat~lgS3, c. 916, § 7, and waz rzpe~ed by Stat~.1983, c. 1196, § 1. See, now, For operative provision of Stats.1983, ~ 916, see note ander § 751~. Detect,yes ~3. - C.J.S. Detecfive~ § 3. 'Derivation: Former § ?524, added by Stats.1947, c 1543, p. 3177, § 2, amended by Stets.1951, c. 1049, p. 2781, §1. ' . Librao' References § 752~.1. Verification of application; contents An application shall be verified and shall include: (a) T~e full nsme and business address of the applieant~. th) The name under which the applicant intends to do business. (c) A statement as ~o the general nature of t~.e business in which, the appE. cant intands to engage. (d) A statement as to the ~pe of license for wkich the applicant-is apn]yimg. (e) A verified statemeut of his or her experience qu~fie~ations. (~ If the applicant is an indi~,iduml, a qualified mamager, parmer of a pazmershJp or officer of a corporation designated in subdivision fi), one personal identification fon-n pro,dried by the bureau upon w'r~ch shall appear a photograph taken within one year immediately preceding the date of the flung of the application together with two legible setZ of fingerprints, on a form approved by the Department of Ouztiee, and a personal description of each such person, respectively. The identification form shall include residence addresses and employrnent history for the previons five years and be signed under penslty of perju:o,. (g) Im addition, ff the applicant for license is an individual, the application shall list ali other names known as or used during the past 10 years and shall stat. ~at the applicmmt is tO be' personaliv and Addiflona'or ehmn~ea indicated by:underline; deletions by asterisks ~ * ' .] con- CI-I^?T~.R '7 by gmt~ 1967 ch 1095 § I.] · § 460. Powers of local goyernment~l entlt;es No city or county sh-ll prohibit ~ ~n, autho~ze~ by on¢ o~ t~ ng~ci~ in the De~t o~ ~umer Aff~ by a Ii--se, ce~fl- rote, or other such m~ to ~ge in a pa~eular b~in~, from mgag~g in th~ bus~ o~pafion, or pmf~ion or any ~ion thor. No~g in t~; s~ion shall p~hibit any dry or ~unty or ally ~d comity from l~ylng a busin~ ii~nse ~x ~ldy for ~venue purlin nor any city or ~unW from le~g a license t~ soldy for '.thc pu~ose of ~vefing ~= ~st of re.lotion. Add~ Stats 1967 ~ 1~5 ~ 1; Amenfl~ S~ts 1971 ~ 716 ~ 24. 19,71 Am~ndme~e. [;u~lilul~t 'Consumer Aff~ir~" for "Profcuhmn! ~ud Vocational 'Cou.ty": § ~,7. "Cit~,": § IlL CellnlerM Re ference~ Ca! .1ur 3d ~usinc~s ~nd Oocuf~Uion IAccns~ § 2~. Community Development Department August 3, 1994 FACSIMILE VIA B. MICHAEL FOSTER, EXHIBIT C · City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way ESQ. Tustin, CA 92680 Raymond P. 1420 East Santa Aha, Flores Edinger Avenue ~107 California 92705 SUBJECT: LICENSE & PERMIT BOARD HEARING NITE & DAY SECURITY PATROL Dear Mr. Flores: On August 2, 1994, the City of Tustin's License and Permit Board held a hearing on the above-referenced application. After considering all the evidence presented, including the testimony of the applicant and his representative, the Board has determined to deny the private patrol permit. This determination is based on evidence of Mr. Flores' complicity with Candice Towing in a scheme to tow vehicles in violation of state law. Printed form contracts prepared by Ray Flores Property Parking Control were used by Candice Tow with Ray Flores' knowledge to tow vehicles in the City of Tustin and the City of Santa Ana without the written approval at the time of removal of the vehicles of the property owner or manager, in violation of state law. California Vehicle Code Section 22658 (L) . The applicant's willing and active participation in such a scheme strongly suggested that the applicant will not comply with the City of Tustin's City Code and state law in operating Nite and Day Security Patrol in the City of Tustin. Please be advised that when an application to the License & Permit Board has been denied, a written appeal may be ~iled with the City Clerk within ten {10) days of receipt of such denial. Upon receipt of such an appeal, the City Clerk shall set the matter for a hearing before the City Council within thirty (30) days of receipt of said notice; allowing at least five (5) days' written notice to the applicant or permittee. Unfortunately, I must advise you that Council approval of such an appeal is highly unlikely. Director (714) 573-3106 Planning & Zoning info. (714} 573-3140 Building (714) 573-313t (714) 573-3132 Housing (714) 573-3117 Code Enforcement (714) 573-3134 Business License (714) 573-3144 Inspection Requests (714) 573-3141 Graffiti Hot Line (714) 573-3111 FAX Machine (714) 573-3113 Ray Flores - Nite & Day Security Control August 4, 1994 Page 2 Should you have any questions related to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact Rita Westfield at (714) 573-3109. Sincerely, Dana Og/~bn, License & Permit Board member cc: William Huston Christine A. Shingleton Rita Westfield Lieutenant Bob Schoenkopf Tom mrennan B. Michael Foster, Esquire DO:rx~/nJ te&day.n~c EXHIBIT D /~, of~c~ EX.HIBIT D B. Michael Foster ":, ?, August 12, 1994 ~ 1002 North Ross.:Street, Santa .4ha, California 92701 (714) 543-9220 Far (714) 667-0649 Attention: Dana Ogdon LICENSE & PERMIT BOARD MEMBER CITY OF TUSTIN 300 Centennial way Tustin, CA 92680 RE: License & Permit board Hearing Nite & Day Security Patrol Dear Mr. Ogdon: My client, Ray Flores, does appeal your decision denying him a business license to do business in the City of Tustin. Your denial is unfair to mY client, Ray Flores and has no merit. Please set the hearing in front of the City Counsel so that the matter could be addressed. Very truly yours, B. IVlICHA_EI. FOSTER BMF/ab Fax: cc: City Clerk cc: Mr. Ray Flores EXHIBIT E Community Development Deparlment August 23, 1994 EXHIBIT E City of-Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tuslin. CA 92680 Mr. B. Michael Foster, Esq. Director 1002 North Ross Street (714)573-3106 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Planning & Zoning info. RE: APPEAL OF NITE & DAY SECURITY PATROL FROM DECISION (714)573-3:40 OF LICENSE AND PERMIT BOARD Building (714) 573-3131 Dear Mr. Foster: ~71~)573.3132 Please be informed that the City of Tustin is in receipt of your correspondence, formally appealing the August 2, 1994 License and Permit Board decision on Nite & Day Security Patrol. The appeal has been set to be heard by the City Council at 7:00 p.m., on Monday, September 19, 1994, in the Council Chambers at 300 Centennial Way, Tustin. You are further advised that any written arguments or documentation you or your client would like presented, as part of the staff report for the September 19 City Council hearing, must be presented to me by no later than noon on September 9, 1994. If I may be of assistance or if you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me at (714) 573-3116. (714) 573.3134 (714) 573-3144 (714) 573-314~ (714) 573-3111 (71a) 573-3113 Sincerely, Dana Ogdon Senior Planner cc: Ray Flores Lois Jeffrey Lt. Schoenkopf Nena McNamara Tom Brennen