Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 APPEAL CANDICE TOWING 05-02-94AGENDA NO. 2 5-2-94 Inter-Com ~TE: MAY 2, 1994 TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY .MANAGER FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. DEPARTMENT SUBJECT'. APPEAL OF LICENSE AND PERMIT BOARD DECISION 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 recommendation 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 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 .~nitially 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: le Substantial or recurring deviation from the schedule of rates (TCC Section 3436a(8)); e 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 (Exhibit C). On March 16, 1994, Mr. Pat Tocher, owner of Candice Towing, officially appealed the decision of the License and Permit 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: City Council Report Appeal of License and Permit Board regarding Candice Towing May 2, 1994 Page 3 le · · 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 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 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 remove 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 Control is the "~gent" 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 regarding Candice Towing 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 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. le 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 Candice Towing May 2, 1994 Page 6 Se 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. CONCLUSION Staff supports the License and Permit Board conclusions 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 n Assistant Cit~/Manager DO: kd~CCP, EPORT \cand i ce. 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 EXmBIT A: TCC 3436 3436 REV~TION AND APPEAL PROCEDURES a Grounds for Revocation Any ~ermit granted under the provisions of this Part may be removed by the License & Permit Board either as a whole or as to any person or vehicle .described' therein, or as to the right to use any .distinctive Color, monogram, or insignia, after ten (10) days' written notice to the permit holder requiring him-to appear at a certain time and place to show cause why the license or permit should not be revoked, for any of the following reasons: (1) That the insurance coverage required by Section 3432d hereof has bccn 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 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 the State of California or the City with respect to the operatio.,n of the business by any ~ermit holder or . repeated violations by operators or attendants of any vehicle covered by such license or permit. (7) For failure to maintain satisfactory service to the public or for failure to keep any such vehicle in a safe condition and good repair or for failure to Use the distinctive coloring, monogram, or insignia described in the application. (8) Substantial or recurring deviation from the schedule of rates. (9) For any cause which the License & Permit Board finds which makes it contrary to the ~ablic interest, convenience, necessity or general welfare, for the license or permit to be continued. EXHIBIT B: MEMO FROM CITY ATTORNEY TO LICENSE AND PERMIT BOARD f · DATE: January 13, 1994 Inter-Com TO: LICENSE AND PERMIT BOARD FROM: CITY ATTORNEY SUBJECT: 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. . Substantial or Recurring 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 Ana 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 Board Page 2 January 13, 1994 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 Tustin Police Department. Pursuant to that report, officer Maddox witnessed a Candice Towing truck removing a vehicle from Station Liquor, located at 14802 Newport Avenue, Tustin. The driver of the tow truck was a Morris Benoun. Mr. Benoun stated that he did not possess a driver's permit requiredbytheTustin City Code. In addition, according to officer Garaven, Candice Towing has not been supplying the city with a list of currently employed drivers. 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 emDlovee or aqent thereof, who shal~ be present, at-the time of the removal,. General authorization to remove or commence removal of a vehicle at the towinq company's discretion shall not be delegated to the 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 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 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 occasions: (1) Officer Garaven has informed staff that he had a conversation with a Virginia Ramsey, a former apartment manager of the Tustin Meadow apartment complex. Ms. Ramsey informed Officer Garaventhat she was told byPat 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 thatthere 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 Maddox by driver 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 ELhibit "C" is a tow report involving Candice Towing from the Monterey Pines apartment complex located at 15545 Williams, 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 and Permit Board Page 4 January 13, 1994 ./ complex. 3. Other Factors. Section 22658 of the Vehicle Code has been the law of the State of California since January 1, 1992. In addition, a letter was sent to Candice Towing 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 Exhibit #E#. A second letter was sent to Candice Towing on February26, 1993, by Captain Foster. By this letter, Captain Foster informed Mr. Tother 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 Towifig-appears to have Continued to violate the provisions of Section 22658 of the Vehicle Code. ~ME~ ~. ' ROURKE CITY /~TTORNEY DAD:¢j · W. Husio~ c. ~m~ (w/~) .ON$0LIOATION REPORT T'J--Q' ' pf-'ll I('.F DEPARTMENT -.-- -'~' EIO ,,r,~"* - -" ___ /' ( ., ]CEN'"-~EN~--t,,IIAL-W_AY ?'( Iii ~ 1'I'~ ET~L, C)I'Y t,,,4~-rf... K~t.. AI~TKL~ k~,k~ SE~RIAI. l, lt,f~4l~R, t,445f_.~Lt, A~lE. O4JS O~'SOK41rl'tO4'l J. . ' - / :- i IOPE~TY REPORT ..[-- ~TIN POLICE DEPARTMENT ,-~' . ~ ilClCll CA 03022 (//405) " _ ~ I~. (~ -- E~PROPERTY lOSS _ []DISPOSAL . ,_jSAFEKEEPING ~RECOVERED ,-,--/ -co v-v,cr, M S-SUS.ECT H---.DE" ils$rou~ ~ ~ F -- TV/Radio/Cameras . ' .. A -- ~es G -- F'~earms K -- Miscellaneous B- Jew~3~eei(x~ M~als H --Household Goods (Includes Bicycles. c--ctoetalg~s ! --Coasumable Goods Sporting Goods, Auto Parts. Tools. etc.) TOTAL VALUE ~ Purstm~ to Penal Code ~ 1413(b:). a claim el ownm'shiP of the above-asted property has bee~ received and is attached hereto. Pursuant to Section 1413(o) you have rdteet (15') days lmm the date asa'vice ol INs notice to asset 8 claim tothe above listed property. Such'noUce shall be in ~'fltlag and derwered to the Tustln Pol;.,ce Departme~, Propen7 ;m3 Evidence Ofrmer, 300 Centennial Way, Tusfia. Ca.qfomia -°'2680. If no s~ch cleim is received within time period, the ;x'operty will be deliver'ed to E'~e perso~ claiming (~mtership. · DATE S~GHATURFF- ~ HOLD FOR DISPOSITION [~] RETURN TO OWNER ['-] RETURN TO FINDER O RETAIN IN OEPARTIvlENT L-'J PHOTOGRAPHS [~] DISPOSAL [~ ANo~.YSI$ F1 PAWNS ONLY ~ ^uc'noN 29 AFFIDAVIT OF FINDER ON FILE: [~]YES J~ NO "~.. PAWN .~"IOP NAME: ~ / J El 31 PA~NNEO ~Y: NAME/A~ORESS / ~[32 I J:). USEO: DATE RECEIVED [ 37 PICK-UP OFFICER: OFFICEF~.O. NO. APPROVED 6Y/I.D. NO. RECORDS -o ~1: IUSINESS NAME/LOCATION: .I~r. NSE: ,"rATE: XPIRE: YPE: ~:~'CO DL MC PE TL OTHER 3LOR: BU CV 2D-40"'SW PK VN LL UT OTHER D 11~ lo/go INCIDENT TOW COMPANY ADDRESS: TIME RECEIV~u: 6~ 23 REMARKS: CALL. TYPE: PPI TAKERS NAME/ID: J RD IRTED BY: CO. PHONE DISPO CODE: BEAT: I (~) 3 03 IN CLETS: 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 15 14 ~--- 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 25 ~4 25 26 27 28 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, hast he 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 of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, tha~ the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this /~~- day of November, 1993, at Tustin, California. CARO~ TUBER _. Police Department : --- City February 12, 1993 Of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, 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 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 obtainingwritten 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 vehiclesatthe 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 pr°petty'(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 thc photograph taken pursuant to this paragraph, and shall present"'that photograph to the owner or agent of the owner, 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 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 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). .o HoPefully, this section will clear up any questions on the subject of cruise accounts. If you should have any questions, 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 Depa,;_ February 26, 1993 'City Of Tustin 300 Cenlennial Way Tustin. CA 92680 (714) 544-5424 FAX (714) 730-5134 Candice Towing 2209 S. Lyon Santa Aha, Ca 92701 Dear Mr. Tocher: It has been brought to my attention, that your company has been doing private-property impounds that 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). TAe affiliate I am referring to is Ray Flores ParkiDg 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. Schoenkopf or officer Garaven at (714)573-3216. Thank You in advance for your cooperation. Steve Foster, Captain Operations Division Commander SF: pg ..... ' ..... ' ......... ' ..... '1 ~ ° Complete item~ 3. and 4~ & b. ' foIIowir~] services (for an extra ~ ~ ~m to ~. 1. ~ A~dre~ee's Address ':' ~ - A~~f~~f~tof~~'~~ ~a ~ d~ ~t ~ ' ' . . ~ ~ ~t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w~ ~ ~ ~ C~lt ~s~aster f~ f~. o 3. A~icle Addr~s~ to: I ~. A~ N~ber _ ~ "'" ---' = i~'~~~ ~,=~.- 6. ~.)lgnature 6e~lent! -- I ~ ps Form 3811. December lg'1 * u~cd'-c~:'e~'a°'~3° EXHIBIT 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 Aha, 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 determined to impose the following conditions on Ca,dice Towing's continued operations as a permitted tow truck operator within the City: 1. e 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 Candice Towing shall not conduct any private Inspection Requests property impounds for six months, effective (714) 573-3141 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. Graffiti Hot Line (714) 573-3111 FAX Machine (714) 573-3113 o 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 tc the City by April 7, 1994. e 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 ~ e e 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 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 thedirection 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 has been utilizing Ray Flores Parking Contrel 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· 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 Permit 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 Ogden Senior Planner 00: kd\candctow. [tr cc: William Huston Christine Shingleton David DeBerry Nena McNamara Bob Schoenkopf Tom Brennan George Cuevas, Esq. EXHIBIT 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 &eision, and would like to have a City Council Hearing. Pat Tocher ,. CC: City Clerk Dana Ogdon City of Tustin Police "Bob Schoenkopf' G. Steven Cuevas Attorneys at Law G. Steven Cuevas Hugh gE. Gregg Dean I.. Lippi 1002 North Ross Street, Santa Aha, California 92701 (714) 667-0880 Fax (714) 667-0649 March 16, 1994 of Counse/ John A. Marinelli, Jr. City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, Ca. 92680 Attention: Re: 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 and Permit Board to the full City Council. A copy of the Decision is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". Dated: March 16, 1994 L__ ~.AW OFFICES OF G. STEVEN CUEVAS BY: G. STEVEN CUEVAS Attorney for Candice Towing Community Development Department March 7, 1994 14AE 0 199 City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin. CA 92680 . · Mr. Patrick Tocher 2209 South Lyon Santa Ana, CA 92701 RE: CANDICE TOWING PERMIT HEARING Director (714) 573-3106 Planning & Zoning Info. (714) 573-3140 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: me · Building (714) 573-3131 (714) 573-3132 Housing (714) 573-3117 Code Enforcement (714) 573-3134 Business License (714) 573-3144 Candice Towing shall not conduct any private inspection Requests property impounds for six months, effective (714) 573-3141 March 7, 1994, through.September 7, 1994. ,. Candice Towing shall cease in its practice of compensating s°~called "agents" of private property owners, such as'Ray Flores Parking Control. Graffiti Hot 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: · 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 · · · 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 a vehicl~ 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 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 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 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 that you have elected to appeal this decision to the City Council. Sincerely, Dana Ogden Senior Planner DO: kd\candctou. [tr cc: William Huston Christine Shingleton DaVid DeBerry Nena McNamara Bob Schoenkopf Tom Brennan George Cuevas, Esq.