HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 APPEAL PRIV PAT OPER'S PMT 09-19-94AGENDA.._
NO. 1
9-19-94
Inter-Com
DATE: SEPTEMBER 19, 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
September 19, 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City Council in May 1994 but withdrawn by the applicant.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
practice 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
September 19, 1994
Page 3
Lastly, testimony presented at the Candice Towing License and
Permit Board hearing clearly established that Ray Flores Pa~king
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 approval 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.
The 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 (Exhibit C). Mr.
Flores has appealed this decision claiming it is unfair and has
no merit. (See Exhibit D).
Night &~d Day Security Patrol
September 19, 1994
Night a~d Day security Patrol License a~d Permit ~oard ~oc£~ions.
In ~egards to Ca,ice To~, it was the ~nan~o~ decision of =he
o~=ati~- Pailure ~o comply will r~sul~ in l~dia~ rev~ation
ha~ e~lr~d ~nd ~e business ha~ been Closed.
Night and Day Security P~=rol~ ~aving not yet establi=hed a
bu~lneee in the city cf ~ustin, waz not viewed ~he same way. It
musings prac=l~e~ of Ray Flore~ Parking C~nt=ol could and should
~e Board ~ound Mr. Flores' testimony ~ not ba =rediblo.
Be~.au~e of ~ta~e Br~wn Act r~ements, Mr. FloF~ ~a~
throu~ him mtto~ey ~ Druids written a~en=~ or
do~~on supporting ~he appeal by not later than
1994, for ~nClUS~On in th~s s~ff repo~ (~hibi% E).
dobbS=ion had bean received by staff.
I~ is x~oommended ~hat the City 0ouncil uphold the Aug~s= 2, 1994
operator ~)e=mit to Night and Day Security Patrol and denying ~e
appeal filed ~y the business owner.
City At~corn~ U
Aszigtant C] ty~-Manmuer
Kxht~it A
Exhibit B
E~hibit C
~xhibit D
EXHIBIT A
DATE: MAY 2, Z994 Inter-Corn !
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY.MAI~AGER
COmMUnITY DEVELOPME~£ DEPARTMENT
APPEAL OF LICENSE AND PEP. MIT BOARD D~CISION REGARDING CANDICE
TOWING
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends 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.
BACKGROUND
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
information related to the circumstances leading to the License and
Permit Board decision.
The City of Tustin License and Permit 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 Permit 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 Permit 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 Tustin. The business performs private property
impounds (PPI's) through contracts with private 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 Permit 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 ].993, the Police Department 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));
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 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 the future (E×hibit C).
On March 16, 1994, Mr. Pat Tocher, owner of Candice Towing,
officially appealed the decision of the Licensa and Pel.-nit Board
(Exhibit D).
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:
regarding Candice Towing
City Council Report
Appeal of License and Permit Board
May 2, 1994
Page 3
Candice Towing admitted to charging Tustin customer~ 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. Tocher, this
overcharge occurred on eight occasions and was a result
of a computer error, since Santa Aha 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 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. Vehicle Code Section
22658(1) (i) provides:
city Council Report
Appeal of License and Permit Board regarding Candice Towing
May 2, 1994
Page 4
"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
remov~ or commence 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 Contr61 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. Benoun
was that of Jerry Ruetz, whom Mr. Tocher, Jr., testified was an
employee of Ray Flores Parking Control. In addition, Mr. Tocher,
Jr., testified that 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 told 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 member or branch; (2) to connect or associate oneself; (3)
closely associated with another typically in a dependent or
City Council Report
Appeal of License and Permit Board
May 2, 1994
Page 5
regarding Candice Towing
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 was terminated approximately 1% months 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 violation 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.
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 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 Board regarding
May 2, 1994
Page 6
Candice Towing
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 grouDds fo~ revocation.
~ONCLUS~ON
Staff supports 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 Service 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 1: effective May 3, 1994, through November'3, 1994.
* Condition 4: proof provided by June 3, 1994.
* Condition 5: effective May 3, 1994 through May 3, 1995.
Dana Ogdon
Senior Planner
Christine ~. S~ngleton
Assistant Cit~/Manager
DO: kd\CCREPORT\candJ c~. do
Attachments:
Exhibit A - TCC 3436
Exhibit B - Memo from City Attorney to License and
Permit Board
Exhibit C - License and Permit Board Determination
of March 7, 1994
Exhibit D - Candice Towing Appeal
EXttlRIT A:
TCC 3436
3436 p~--VOCATION A/~ APPEAL pROCEDUP~ES
a Grounds for Revocation
.~ny ~ermit granted under the provisions of this part may be removed by the
License & permit Board either as a whole or as to ~-ny F~rson or vehicle
described' therein, or as to the right to use any distinctive color, ~nogram,
or insignia, after ten (10) days' w~itten notice to the permit holder requiring
him to appear at a certain time ~nd place to show ~au~e why the license or
permit shoUld not be revoked, for any of the following reasons:
(1) That the insurance coverage required by ~ect/on 3432d hereof has been
withdrawn or lapsed or is not in force for any reason. (2) Dissolution of business or bankruptcy.
(3) For assignment of an official Police Towing Service contract with the--.
City of Tustin or any right or interest stated therein, without prior w~itten
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 the State of California or the
City with respect to the operation of t_he business by any p~rmit holder or
repeated violations by operators Or attendants of any vehicle covered by such
license or permit.
(7) For failure to m~ntain satisfactorY service to the public or for
failure to keep any such vehicle in a safe condition and goo~ repair or for
failure to use the distinctive color~-ng, monogram, or insignia described in the
application.
(8) subs~ntial or recurring deviation from t.he schedule of rates.
(9) For any cause which the License & Permit Board finds which makes it
contrary to the I~ablic interest, conve~%iance, necessity or general welfare for
the license or permit to be continued.
EXI--IIBIT B:
MEMO FROM CITY ATTORNEY TO
LICENSE AND PERMIT BOARD
Inter-Com
DATE:
January 13, 1994
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECt
LICENSE ~ PERMIT BOARD
CITY ATTORlqEY
CANDICE TOWING - PERMIT 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 Aha has such
a charge, no such charge exists in the city. After notifying
Candice Towing of the excessive fee, Officer Garaven believes that
this practice has now stopped. Staff is unaware of any efforts by
Candice Towing to reimburse customers charged the extra $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 Permit
Page 2
January 13, 1994
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, written by Officer Maddox of the Tus~in Police Department.
Pursuant to that report, Officer ~addox witnessed a Candice Towing
truck removing a vehicle from Station Liquor~ located ~t 14802
Newport Avenue, T~stin. The driver of the tow truck was a Morris
Benoun. Mr. Benoun stated that he did not possess a driver's
permit required by the Tustin 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 obtaining written
authorization from the Dropert¥ owner or
lessee, or an emDloyee or agent thereof, who
shall be present at the time of the removal.
General authorization to remove or commencm
removal of a vehicle at the towing comDan¥'s
discretion shall not be delegated to thm
towing comDanV 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 written
authorization from the property owner or
lessee, or an employee or agent thereof, who
was present at the time of removal or the
commencement 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
Page 3
January 13, 1994
and Permit Board
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
occasions:
(1) officer Garaven has informed staff that he had a
conversation with a Virginia Ramsey, a fox--met apartment
manager of the Tustin Meadow apartment complex. Ms. Ramsey
informed officer Garaven that she was told by Pat Tocher, the
owner of Candice Towing, that it was unnecessary for Ms.
Ramsey to sign for each tow or to be present for each tow and
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. Ramsey
informed him that she had spoken with a dispatcher at candice
Towing who informed her t hat there had been four impounds from
'her apartment complex, officer Garaven stated that Ms. Ramsey
told him that she had only called Candice Towing for private
property impounds'on two occasions. Of those two calls, one
of the impounds was completed and the other was not as the
vehicle had left the complex. Ms. Ramsey further informed
Officer Garaven that she did not sign for the completed
private property 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 Maddoxbydriver
Benoun of Candice Towing on September 26, 1993. Under Section
22658, the agent must be present at the time of the removal 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 Ey~hibit "C" is a tow report involving
Candice Towing from the Monterey Pines apartment complex
located at 15545 Will~ams, Tustin. The report was taken by
Tustin Police Clerk Theresa Skaff and was called in by Ray
Flores Parking 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 the Declaration, Ray Flores' Parking
Control was not authorized to act as an agent for the
impounding of vehicles from the Monterey Pines apartment
Inter-C~m to License
Page 4
January 13, 1994
and Permit Board
complex.
3. Other Factors.
Section 22658 of ~he Vehicle Code has been the law of the
State of California since January !, 1992. In a~dition, a letter
was sent to Candice Towing on February 12, 1993, and all other tow
truck operators within the City, .~e. tting forth the requirements of
Section 22658. A copy of that letter is attached as Exhibit "E'~.
A second letter was sent to Candice Towing on February 26, 1993, by
Captain Foster. By this letter, Captain Foster informed bit. 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 ATTOR/~EY
.-' j -: :- .,
:
STIN POLICE DEPARTMENT. _
ITIHt~A~T.ION/PROPERTY REPORT '"' ' PAGE
/~lJ CA 0302~00 CO~P~TPO127P~ ,-J --
:"<0.0. -'Tn.~r-F(e. Fo~,.~e. tu'b "70 '-(P. AF-FtC.. ()~¢,~,(o~ ,
REPORT .----' ISTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT
-~q -~ qc~_ 7720
(1 nclucles Bicycles.
Sporing Goods.
TOT/d- VALUE
S~GNATURE DATE
HOLD FOR DISPOSrTION E] RET~JN IN OEPARTMENT [] ANN. YSI$
RETURN TO OVZNER [~ PHOTCX~RAPHS [] PAWNS ONLY
[-~ FL~TURN TO FINDER [] ENSPOSAL [] AUCTION
RECORDS
NAME/LOCATION:
Pl~J~
INCIDENT #
TOV,//-f.~. OMP Y:
TOW COMPANY
TIME RECEIVED;.
-I.'1~ SEP 93 O~ 23
CALL TypF'
PPI
TAKERS NAI~E/ID:. J RD
'iOW CO. PHONE
oms.o coo~ 03
BEAT: I (~ 3 4
REMARKS:
WATCH COMMAN./~ WATCH:
J E.~.j~ c~-rs:
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
14
1§
10
1'7
gO
21
22
23
27
25
DECLARATION 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, 1993,
has the Monterey Pines Apartment Complex contracted with Ray Flores
Parking Control to provide any security or towing
Monterey Pines utilizes Cal-West Security as its agent
currently tows
Property
services.
for the impounding of vehicles. Candice Tow
vehicles from Monterey Pines property.
I declare, under penalty of perjury, under
State of California,
Executed this
California.
the laws of the
that the foregoing is true and correct.
/~-- day of November, 1993, at Tustin,
CA. RO~N TUBER - .
Police Department
February 12, 1993
City
Of Tustin
300 Cenlennial Way
Tustin. CA 92680
(7'14) 544 -.,5424
FAX (714) 730-5134
Candice Towing
2509 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 commonly 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 is clearly defined by CVC 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 att-he 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
-written 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 photograph taken pursuant to this paragraph, and
shall present that photograph to the owner or agent of the ow"net,
when that person claims the vehicle.
(3) Any towing company, or any affiliate of a towing
company, which removes a vehicle from private property without
first obtaining written authorization from the property o~ner 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 owner 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 of cruise accounts. If you should have any c/uestions,
feel free to contact either officer Garaven or me at 573-3216-
Thanks in advance for your cooperation-
Steve Foster, Captain
Operations Division Commander
SF:pg
Police De, ,.,~n!
February 26, 1993
City Of Tustin
300 Cenlennial Way
Tuslin. CA 92680
(714) 544-5424
FAX (714) 730-5134
Candice Towing
2209 S. Lyon
Santa Ana, Ca 92701
Dear Mr. Tother:
It has been brought to my attention, that your company has been
doing private-property impounds ~hat are not in accordance with
current California Vehicle Code regulations; Current law states,
"General authorization to remove vehicles at the towing company's
discretion shall not be delegated to a towing company or its
affiliates. " The section which refers to this is CVC
22658(1). T~e'a~f~liate I am referring to is Ray Flores Parking
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 questions, feel free to contact Lt.
$choenkopf or Officer Garaven at (714)573-3216.
Thank You in advance for your cooperation.
Steve Foster, Captain
Operations Division Commander
SF:pg
Exhibit F
SENDER:
EXIYlBIT C:
LICENSE AND PERMIT BOARD
DETERMINATION OF MARCH 7, 1994
Community Development Department
March 7, 1994
C
ity of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92680
Mr. Patrick Tocher
2209 South Lyon
Santa Aha, CA 92701
RE: CAi~DICE TOWING PERMIT ~EARING
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 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.
4 o
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 ~covided tc the City by April 7, 1994.
Candice Towing shall be on a one-year
probation, meaning that a vielatJon 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:
(7;4) 573-3106
(714) 573-3140
Building
(714) 573-3131
(714) 573-3132
Housing
(714) 573-3117
Co,de Enforcement
(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: Candice Towing Permit Hearing
March 7, 1994
Page 2
2 o
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, was operating a
tow truck and attempting to remove ~ 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. Benoun
has since been terminated and was operating in a manner
inconsistent with the direction given him by Mr. Tocher.
Vehicle Code Section 22655(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 kas been u%ilizing Ray Flores Parking Contrcl
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
Permit Hearing
Mr. Patrick Tocher
Re: Candice Towing
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 Pez~it Board reserves the right to impese
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
DO: kd\car~fictow. I. tr
cc:
William Huston
Christine Shingleton
David DeBerry
Nena McNamara
Bob Schoenkopf
Tom Brennan
George Cueva$, Esq.
EX!tlBI'r 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 Schoenkop?
of
G. Steven Cuevas
/tttorrteys at Law
G. Steven Cuevas
Hugh ~E. Gregg
Dean L. Lippi
1002 North Ross Street, Santa/ina, California 92701
(714) 667-0880
Fax (714) 667-0649
March 16, 1994
of Court, el
John/L Mannelli, Jr.
City of Tustin
300 Centerm/al Way
Tusti~, Ca. 92680
Attention:
City Council
Appeal of Candice Towing from 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 ~nd Permit Board to the full City Council.
A copy of the Decision is attached hereto a.s Extu'bit "A".
Dated: March 16, 1994
LAW OFFICES OF G. STEVEN CUEVAS
BY: G. STEVEN CUEVAS
Attorney for Candice Towing
Community Development Department
March 7, 1994
HAR 0 1994
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92680
Mr. Patrick Tocher
2209 South Lyon
Santa Ana, CA 9270]
RE: CANDICE TOWING PERMIT }{EARING
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 cont-~nued
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 sohcalled "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 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:
Candice Towing charged customers a $26.50 impound
fee and informed customers that the extra charge
(714) 573-3106
Plannlhg & Zoning Info,
(714) 573-3140
(714) 573-3t 32
(714) 573-3134
Business License
(714) 573-3144
tnspecllonRequest$
(714) 573-314'
Graffiti Hot Line
(734) 573-3131
FAX Machine
(714) 573-3113
Mr. Patrick Tocher
Re: Candice Towing Permit Hearing
March 7, 1994
Page 2
3 o
was a fee for which Candice Towing-was required ~o 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, 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-signed.
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 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 ~nd managers of th~ private
property, City staff learned that most were not awa~ 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 Tother
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 Perlnit Board 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,
Dana Ogd]gn
Senior Planner
cc:
William Huston
Christine Shingleton
David DeBerry
Nena McNamara
Bob Schoenkopf
Tom Brennan
George Cuevas, Esq.
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT
Inter-Oom
DATE:
August 2, 1994
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
LICENSE ~ PERMIT BOARD
CITY ATTORNEY
APPLICATION BY RAYMOND 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 29,
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 qenerall¥
authorizes license holders to engage in their profession without
local interference, Section 7524 sDecifically 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. MuniciDal Court of Los
Anqeles (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."
In summary, in this case the City is S~ecifically authorized
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.
460.
/~J:cas:D:08/02/94: (T67)
Enclosures
This is notwithstanding the genezat code Section
Lois E. Jeff~e~ ~ (j
cc: William A. Huston, City Manager
C
§ 7523
undez § 7517.
1992 L~gislat~on
The I992 amendment in.se~ sub~L (d) relating
protection dog opemtor~
BUSi~'ESS A_NT ' 'OFESSIONS CODE
Code of Regulations Reference~
Abandonment of applicat/on~, see 16 Cal. Code of Reg~
§ 601~. ' ~
Law Renew Commentaries
Review of selected 1992 C~llforz~ ]eg~lat.{on. 24 Par.
L~. 644 (1993).
Library References
Detectives ~3.
C.J.$. Detectives § 3.
§ 7523.1. Repealed by Stats.19S3, c. 1196, § 1
§ 7523.5. Injunctions on restraining orders; restitution; reimbursement; additional remedies
(a) The superior court for the county in which any person h~ engaged or ~ about to engage in any act
which constitutes a violation of Section 7523 may, upon a petition ~ed by the bureau with the approval of
the dire~or, issue an injunction or other appropriate order reztr~.ining such conduct- The proceedings
under this se~ion shall be governed by Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 525) of Title 7 of Part 2 of
the Code of Civ{l Procedure, except that no undertaking shall be require&
Co) The superior court for the county in wkich any person h~s engaged in any act which constitutes a
violation of Sect~en 7523 may, upon a petition filed by the bureau with the approve of the director, order
such per, on to make restitution to persons injured as a result of the violation.
(c) 'Fne court may order a person subject to aa injunction or restraining order, provided for in
subdivision (a), or subject to an order requir~g restitution pursuant to subdivision Co). to reimburse the
bureau for expenses incurred by the bureau in it~ investigation related to its petition.
(d) The remedy provided for by th/s section shall be in add/t/on to any other remedy provided for in
~ chapter.
· (Aztded by Stats.1983, c. 1195, § 2.5.)
Historical and StatuWo' Notes
19~3 Leg/datiom For operative provision of Sm~.19~3, c- 916, ~ee note
AdESun of · § 75--~.~ by § 65 of S:~ts.]9~, c 916, und~ § 7517.
fahed to }.~cme opera~'e unaer '.he pro'.i~ions of § 13.6 Dm-/vstion: Fond, er § 7521,6, ~ded by Eta~.]gS), c.
~f t.bat A~. 916, p. § 5.
§ 75YA. Lo~al regulations
(a) The provki~ns of this chapter shall not nrevent the lo~a} authorities of any ci~', count', or dr%' and
count)', by or&/nance and within the exerc~e ~f ~he po~ce power of such city, courtW, or city ~-nd county
from impos/ng locE reguhtions upon any street patrol se.~ice or street patrol spec/E officers requiring
regisU-aSon ~th ~n agency to be designated by the Et)', count)', or city and count', inc]uding in such
registration fu~ informer/on ~s to the identification and employment and subject to the ~ight of the city,
c~unt)', or dty ~nd county to a~o~te ce~.Ln portions of the t~tory in such dty, counW, or dty and
counw within which the a¢fivit/es of any suE.. street patrol se_~r/ce or person shall be confined. Any city,
count', or dty and county m~y re-h~e such regis~tien to any person of bad mor~l ch~ractm- and may
imnose such reasonable addifiona~ requirements ~ ere necessary to meet local need~ and ~re not
in~o~istent with the provision~ of ~_his chapte:.
Co) The prm%ions of th~ chapter shall not prevent the inca] authorities of any ciD', county, or Et)' and
emmW. by ord/nance and x~Sthin the exercise of the pohce power of such Et)', count)', or ciD' and count)'
BUSLN
(c) T)
from
cop)' of
(d) T:
from in
accordir
(Added
19~3 1
For'mc
(1974)
accom[
(Added
7525:
For ,
Dete~
C.J~
§ 7525
An:
(a) '
CO)
(c) .
(~)
(e)
(f)
cerpo
appki~
Just.k
inc.]ui
pen~
tmow
L-am 'imposing local regula~ons , any employees of a pm-ate patrol ope ' who are urmble t,o
flzrni~h evidence of cra-rent regist. .1 pursuant tn subdLk-ision (O of Section :
lc) The,urmSsions of this' chapter shall not pr~event the 1°cal authorities of any c/ty, coanty, or ~it)' and
count)', by ordinance and ~'ithin the exercise of the police power of such c/ty, county, or c/ty and county
from requirLng pr/vate pau'ol operators and their employees ' ' ' t.o register their name and a ~e '
copy of their state identification card with the city, count)', or cit)' and county. ' ' ' No f~e may be
~d ~nd no'application may be required by the c~t),, county, or cit), and county for such registration.
i id) The pro~dsions of this chapter shall not prevent the local'authorities in a~.y cit),, count)', or city and
Count)', by orai=~=ce and within the exercise of the police power of the c/t)', county, or c/t)' and county
from imposing reasonable additional requirements necessary to regulate and control protection dogs
according to their local needs and not inconsistent witl{.~he.provisions of this chapter. ..
(Added by Stats.1983, c.:119(i, § 2.5. Amended by Stets.1993, c. 1264 (S.B.574), § 15.) . ~ :
:' 1983 Leg~lat/or~'~ ' '" : ' Der/vat/on: F~rmer § 7523' ~dded b~ Sta~.1947,
Former § 7f~ was repea~ed by Stats.1983, c. 1196, § 1. 154~, p. 31T~, § 2, amended by Stat~.1970, c. 1467, p~
See, ~ow, § 75~5. § 4; Stmt~1972, m 1282, p. 7.549.
· Law Review Commentaries
Private police in Caliform/~ A }eg/slatJve proposal
(1974) 5 Golden Gate L. Rev. 115.
§ 7525.' ApPiication for license; fee :
An application for a license under this chapter shall be 'on a form prescr/bed by the director and
accompanied by the application fee provided by tl~ chapter.
(Added by Stats.1983, c~ 1196, § 2.5.)
Historical and Statutory Notes
Former § 7~,5 w~s amended by Stat.~19~, c. 916, § 7, Derivation: Former § 75Z4, added by State.1947,
amd w~s repealed by Stats.19g~, c. 1196, § 1. See, now, 154.t, p. 31T7, § 2, amended by Stats.1951, ~ 1049, p. 2781,
§ 7aZS& § 1. ·
For operative provi~en of Sta~.1983, c. 916, see note
under § 7517. . :. ' ......
.Library References
Detec~vem
C.J.S. Detec~dve~ § 3.
§ 7525.1. Verification of application; 'contents
An application shall be verified and sha?d include:
(a) The full name and business address of the applicant.
(b) The name under which the applicant intends to do business.
(c) A statem, ent as [o ~..he general nature of the business in which the appli:ant in~nds to engage.
(d) A statement as to the ~Te of license for which the applicani.-is applying.
(e) A verified statement of his or her experience qualifications.
(f). If the applicant is an individuzl, a qualilied manager, partner of a parmersl-dp or officer of a
corporation designated in subdMsion (i), one personal identification Imm proxdded by the bureau upon
which shall appear a photograph taken within one year immediately preceding the date of the filing of the
application together with t~'o legible sets of fingerprints, on a form approved by the Department of
Justice, and a personal description of each such person, respectively. The identification form shall
include residence addresses and employrnent history for the prexSous five years and be signed under
penat~, of perjury.
(g) In addition, if the applicant for license is an individual, the application shall list all other names
known es or used during the past 10 years and shall state that the applicant is to be personally and
Additions' or changes Indicated by'underline; deletions by asterisks * * *
~ c~. coo, ~no. ~ ~.~.-~ 271
con-
CllAPTER ?
[.r~vi~.im~ 1. Dep~rtmcall o{' Conlumr., Affair~---O~ap~cr 7. L,ce.~e~: Chapter ~dt~l
by St#la 1967 ch 1095 § 1.]
~ ~. Fowcr~ of I00~$ govcrnmcnlal c~lit|ca
§ 461. ^r. klnl~ applic~:t ~, rcvr~l arrest record proh;bke.~t
§ 460. Powers of local governmental entit;es
No city or county shall prohibit a person, m,thorizcd by one of thc
agencies in the Department of Consumer Aff',d~ by a ligense, cea'riB-
ate, or other such m~ans to engage in a particular buainezc~ from
engaging in that busine~;% oe~-upation, or prof~ion or any portion
thereof. Nothing in this l;~.tion shall prohibit any city or county or
city and county from levying a business license tax solely for r~vcnu¢
purposes nor any city or county from levyh~g a license t~x solely for
the purpose of covering thc cost of rcgukttion.
Add~ Stats 19~7 cb 1095 } l; Amended St~ls 197l c~: 716 § 24.
1971 Amrntmeme. Sub*lltUt~ "Consumer Affair~" for "l'roft.~i,m~t ~d ~donal
'~u.ty": } 17.
"Cit~": ~ I~
~1 Jut 3d Busin~ and ~i~ ~n= ~ 2~.
NOTF~C; OF D£CISION.q
R=g4% 714 573 3113 07-27-9~ 10:3gAM POOP
EXHIBIT C
Community Development Department
EXHIBIT C
August 3, 1994
City of Tustin
FACSIMILE VIA 300 Centennial Way
B. MICHAEL FOSTER, ESQ. Tustin, CA92680
Raymond P. Flores
1420 East Edinger Avenue ¢107
Santa Ana, California 92705
SUBJECT: LICENSE & PER_MIT 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 ]nay be
~iled with the City Clerk within ten (10) ~ays of receipt
of such denial. Upon receipt of such an anneal, the City
Clerk shall set the matter for a hearing ~fore 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) 573-3131
(714) 573-3132
Housing
(714) 573-3117
Code Enforcement
(714) 573-3134
Business License
(714) 573-3144
Inspection Requesls
(714} 573-3141
Graffiti Hot Line
(714) 573-3111
FAX Mac~ine
(714) 573-3113
Ray Flores Nite
August 4, 1994
Page 2
& Day Security Control
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 Brennan
B. Michael Foster, Esquire
DO: nm/hi te&dey, ntc
EXHIBIT D
EX?I~-B IT D
Law Office
of
B. Mictmel Foster
Attorney at Law
August 12, 1994 1002 North Ross Street, Santa Aha, Cahform~ 92701
(714) 543-9220
Fax (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. MICHAEl. FOSTER
BMF/ab
Fax: cc: City Clerk
cc: Mr. Ray Flores
EXHIBIT E
Community Development Depadment
August 23, 1994
City
EXHIBIT E
of Tustin
300 Cenlennial Way
TusHn, CA 92680
Mr. B. Michael Foster,
1002 North Ross Street
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Esq.
RE: APPEAL OF NITE & DAY SECURITY PATROL FROM DECISION
OF LICENSE AND PERMIT BOARD
Dear Mr. Foster:
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.
Sincerely,
Dana Ogdon
Senior Planner
cc: Ray Flores
Lois Jeffrey
Lt. Schoenkopf
Nena McNamara
Tom Brennen
(714} 573-3106
Planning & Zoning Info
(714) 573-3140
Building
(7141573-3131
i7141 573-3~32
Housing
!7141 573 3117
(714) 573-3134
(714) 573-3144
(714) 573-3141
Graffiti Hot Line
(714} 573-3111
' FAX Machine
(714) 573-3113